History of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey


Part One - PREHISTORIC MASONRY


CHAPTER I

TRADITION AND HISTORY IN MASONRY

IN the study of Freemasonry there are two kinds of statements
which are presented to the mind of the inquiring scholar, which
are sometimes concurrent, but much oftener conflicting, in their
character.

These are the historical and the traditional, each of which
appertains to Freemasonry as we may consider it in a different
aspect.

The historical statement relates to the Institution as we look at
it from an exoteric or public point of view; the traditional
refers only to its esoteric or secret character.

So long as its traditional legends are confined to the ritual of
the Order, they are not appropriate subjects of historical
inquiry. They have been invented by the makers of the rituals
for symbolic purposes connected with the forms of initiation.
Out of these myths of Speculative Masonry its philosophy has been
developed; and, as they are really to be considered as merely the
expansion of a philosophic or speculative idea, they can not
properly be posited in the category of historical narratives.

But in the published works of those who have written on the
origin and progress of Masonry, from its beginning to the present
time, the legendary or traditional has too much been mingled with
the historical element. The effect of this course has been, on
adversely prejudiced minds, to weaken all claims of the
Institution to an historical existence. The doctrine of "false
in one thing, false in all," has been rigidly applied, and those
statements of the Masonic historian which are really authentic
have been doubted or rejected, because in other portions of his
narrative he has been too credulous.

Borrowing the technical language of archoeology, I should say
that the history of Masonry (1) may be divided into two periods -
prehistoric and the historic. The former is traditional, the
latter documentary. Each of these divisions must, in any
historical inquiry, be clearly defined. There is also another
division, into esoteric and exoteric history. The first is
exclusively within the arcana of the Order, and can not, as I
have said, be the subject of historical investigation. The
second properly comes within the sphere of historical study, and
is subjected to all the laws of historical criticism.

When we are treating of Freemasonry as one of the social
organizations of the world - as one of those institutions which
are the results of civilization, and which have sprung up in the
progress of society; and, finally, when we are considering what
are the influences that the varying conditions of that society
have produced upon it, and what influences it has reciprocally
produced upon these varying conditions - we are then engaged in
the solution of a historical problem, and we must pursue the
inquiry in a historical method and not otherwise. We must
discard all speculation, because history deals only with facts.

If we were treating the history of a nation, we should assert
nothing of it as historical that could not be traced to and be
verified by its written records. All that is conjectured of the
events that may have occurred in the earlier period of such a
nation, of which there is no record in contemporaneous or
immediately subsequent times, is properly thrown into the dim era
of the prehistoric ago It forms no part of the authentic history
of the nation, and can be dignified, at its highest value, with
the title of historical speculation only, which claims no other
credence than that which its plausibility or its probability
commands.

Now, the possibility or the probability that a certain event may
have occurred in the early days of a nation's existence, but of
which event there is no record, will be great or little, as
dependent on certain other events which bear upon it, and which
come within the era of its records. The event may have been
possible, but not probable, and then but very little or no
importance would be im-

(1) in the progress of this work I shall use the terms Masonry
and Freemasonry without discrimination, except on special, and at
the time specified, occasions.


puted to it, and it would at once be relegated to the category of
myths. Or it may have been both possible and highly probable,
and we may be then permitted to speculate upon it as something
that had exerted an influence upon the primitive character or the
subsequent progress of the nation. But, even then, it would not
altogether lose its mythical character. Whatever we might
predicate of it would only be a plausible speculation. It would
not be history, for that deals not in what may have been, but
only in that which actually has been.

The progress in these latter days of what are called the exact
sciences has led, by the force of example and analogy, to a more
critical examination of the facts, or, rather, the so-called
facts, of history.

Voltaire said, in his Life of Charles XII of Sweden that
"incredulity is the foundation of history." Years passed before
the axiom in all its force was accepted by the learned. But at
length it has been adopted as the rule of all historical
criticism. To be credulous is now to be unphilosophical, and
scholars accept nothing as history that can not be demonstrated
with almost mathematical certainty.

Niebuhr began by shattering all faith in the story of Rhea
Sylvia, of Romulus and Remus, and of the maternal wolf, which,
with many other incidents of the early Roman annals, were
consigned by him to the region of the mythical.

In later times, the patriotic heart of Switzerland has been made
to mourn by the discovery that the story of William Tell, and of
the apple which he shot from the head of his son, is nothing but
a medioeval fable which was to be found in a great many other
countries, and the circumstances of which, everywhere varying in
details, still point to a common origin in some early symbolic
myth.

It is thus that many narratives, once accepted as veracious, have
been, by careful criticism, eliminated from the domain of
history; and such works as Goldsmith's Histories of Greece ana
Rome are no longer deemed fitting text-books for schools, where
nothing but truth should be taught.

The same rules of critical analysis which are pursued in the
separation of what is true from what is false in the history of a
nation should be applied to the determination of the character of
all statements in Masonic history. This course, however, has,
unhappily, not been generally pursued. Many of its legends are
unquestionably founded, as I shall endeavor hereafter to show, on
a historical basis; but quite as many, if not more, are made up
out of a mixture of truth and fiction, the distinctive boundaries
of which it is difficult to define; while a still greater number
are altogether mythical, with no appreciable element of truth in
their composition. And yet for nearly two centuries, all of these
three classes of Masonic legendary lore have been accepted by the
great body of the Fraternity, without any discrimination, as
faithful narratives of undoubted truthfulness.

It is this liberal acceptation of the false for the true, and
this ready recognition of fables as authentic nauatives whereby
imaginative writers have been encouraged to plunge into the
realms of absurdity instead of confining themselves to the domain
of legitimate history, that have cast an air of romance over all
that has hitherto been written about Freemasonry. Unjustly, but
very naturally, scholars have been inclined to reject all our
legends in every part as fabulous, because they found in some the
elements of fiction.

But, on the other hand, the absurdities of legend-makers, and the
credulity of legend-readers, have, by a healthy reaction, given
rise to a school of iconoclasts (to whom there will soon be
occasion to refer), which sprang up from a laudable desire to
conform the principles of criticism which are to govern all
investigations into Masonic history to the rules which control
profane writers in the examination of the history of nations.

As examples of the legends of Masonry which have tempted the
credulity of many and excited the skepticism of others, those
almost universally accepted legends may be cited which attribute
the organization of Freemasonry in its present form to the era of
King Solomon's temple - the story of Prince Edwin and the Grand
Lodge congregated by him at the city of York in the 10th century
- and the theory that the three symbolic degrees were instituted
as Masonic grades at a period very long anterior to the beginning
of the 18th century.

These statements, still believed in by all Masons who have not
made the history of the Order an especial study, were, until
recently, received by prominent scholars as veracious narratives.
Even Dr. Oliver, one of the most learned as well as the most
prolific of Masonic authors, has, in his numerous works,
recognized them as historic truths without a word of protest or a
sign of doubt, except, perhaps, with reference to the third
legend above mentioned, of which he says, with a cautious
qualification, that he has "some doubts whether the Master's
degree, as now given, can be traced three centuries backwards."
(1)

But now comes a new school of Masonic students, to whom,
borrowing a word formerly used in the history of religious
strifes, has been given the name of "iconoclasts." The word is a
good one. The old iconoclasts, or image-breakers of the 8th
century, demolished the images and defaced the pictures which
they found in the churches, induced by erroneous but
conscientious views, because they thought that the people were
mistaking the shadow for the substance, and were worshipping the
image or the picture instead of the Divine Being whom it
represented.

And so these Masonic iconoclasts, with better views, are
proceeding to destroy, by hard, incisive criticism, the
intellectual images which the old, unlettered Masons had
constructed for their veneration. They are pulling to pieces the
myths and legends, whose fallacies and absurdities had so long
cast a cloud upon what ought to be the clear sky of Masonic
history. But they have tempered their zeal with a knowledge and a
moderation that were unknown to the iconoclasts of religion.
These shattered the images and scattered the fragments to the
four winds of heaven, or they burnt the picture so that not even
a remnant of the canvas was left. Whatever there was of beauty
in the work of the sculptor or painter was forever destroyed.
Every sentiment of zesthetic art was overcome by the virulence of
religious fanaticism. Had the destructive labors of these
iconoclasts been universal and long continued, no foundation
would have been left for building that science of Christian
symbolism, which in this day has been so interesting and so
instructive to the archoeologist. (2)

Not so have the Masonic iconoclasts performed their task of
critical reformation. They have shattered nothing; they have
destroyed nothing. When in the course of their investigations
into true Masonic history, they encounter a myth or a legend,
replete, ap-

(1) "Dissertation on the State of Masonry in the Eighteenth
Century."
(2) Thus the Emperor Leo, the Isaurian, caused all images and
pictures to be removed from the churches and publicly burnt - an
act of vandalism not surpassed by that Saracen despot who (if the
story be true) ruthlessly committed the books of the Alexandrian
library to the flames as fuel for the public baths.


parently, with absurdities or contradictions, they do not consign
it to oblivion as something unworthy of consideration, but they
dissect it into its various parts; they analyze it with critical
acumen; they separate the chaff from the wheat; they accept the
portion that is confirmed by other and collateral testimony as a
legitimate contribution to history; what is undoubtedly
fictitious they receive as a myth, and either reject it
altogether as an unmeaning addition to a legend, or give it an
interpretation as the expression of some symbolic idea which is
itself of value in a historical point of view.

That lamented archaeologist, Mr. George Smith, late of the
British Museum, in speaking of the cuneiform inscriptions
excavated in Mesopotamia, and the legends which they have
preserved of the old Babylonian empire, said: (1) "With regard to
the supernatural element introduced into the story, it is similar
in nature to many such additions to historical narratives,
especially in the East; but I would not reject those events which
may have happened, because, in order to illustrate a current
belief, or add to the romance of the story, the writer has
introduced the supernatural."

It is on this very principle that the iconoclastic Masonic
writers, such as Hughan and Woodford, are pursuing their
researches into the early history of Freemasonry. They do not
reject those events related in the old legends, which have
certainly happened, because in them they find also mythical
narratives. They do not yield to the tendency which George Smith
says is now too general, "to repudiate the earlier part of
history, because of its evident inaccuracies and the marvelous
element generally combined with it." (2) It is in this way, and
in this way only, that early Masonic history can be rightly
written. Made up, as it has been for centuries past, of a
commingled tissue of historical narrative and legendary
invention, it has been heretofore read without judicious
discrimination. Either the traditional account has been wholly
accepted as historical, or it has been wholly rejected as
fabulous, and thus, in either case, numerous errors have been the
consequence.

As an example of the error which inevitably results from pursuing
either of these methods of interpretation, one of which may be
distinguished as the school of gross credulity, and the other as
that of great skepticism, let us take the legend of the Temple
origin of


(1) Chaldean Account of Genesis," p. 302.
(2) Ibidem.

Masonry - that is to say, the legend which places the
organization of the Institution at the time of the building of
the temple at Jerusalem.

Now, the former of these schools implicitly receives the whole
legend as true in all its details, and recognizes King Solomon as
the first Grand Master, with Hiram of Tyre and Hiram as his
Wardens, who, with him, presided over the Craft, divided into
three degrees, the initiation into which was the same as that
practiced in the lodges of the present day, or at least not very
unlike it.

Thus Dr. Anderson, who was the first to publicly promulgate this
legend and the theory founded on it, says, in the second edition
of his "Constitutions," that Hiram Abif, "in Solomon's absence,
filled the chair as Deputy Grand Master, and, in his presence,
was the Senior Grand Warden"; (1) and, again, that "Solomon
partitioned the Fellow Crafts into certain lodges, with a Master
and Wardens in each"; (2) and, lastly, that "Solomon was Grand
Master of all Masons at Jerusalem. King Hiram was Grand Master
at Tyre, and Hiram Abif had been Master of Work." (3) The modern
rituals have made some change in these details, but we evidently
see here the original source of the legend as it is now generally
believed by the Fraternity.

Indeed, so firmly convinced of its truth are the believers in
this legend, that the brand of heterodoxy is placed by them on
all who deny or doubt it.

On the contrary, the disciples of the latter school, whose
skepticism is as excessive as is the credulity of the former,
reject as fabulous everything that tends to connect Freemasonry
with the Solomonic temple. To the King of Israel they refuse all
honor, and they contemptuously repudiate the theory that he was a
Masonic dignitary, or even a Freemason at all. One of these
Pyrrhonists has gone so far as to defile the memorpy of the
Jewish monarch with unnecessary and unmerited abuse.

Between these two parties, each of which is misdirected by an
intemperate zeal, come the iconoclasts - impartial inquirers, who
calmly and dispassionately seek for truth only. These disavow,
it is true, the authenticity of the Temple legend in its present
form. They deny that there is any proof which a historian could,
by applying the just canons of criticism, admit as competent
evidence, that Freemasonry was organized at the building of the
temple of Solomon,

(1) Anderson, "Constitutions," 2d ed., chap. iii., p. 12.
(2) Ibid., p. 13
(3) Ibid., p. 15


and hence they look for its origin at some other period and under
different circumstances.

But they do not reject the myth connected with the temple as
being wholly unworthy of consideration. On the contrary, they
respect this legend as having a symbolic significance, whose
value can not be overestimated. They trace its rise in the Old
Constitutions; they find it plainly alluded to in the Legend of
the Craft; and they follow it in its full development in the
modern rituals. They thus recognize the influence that the story
of the temple and its builders has exerted on the internal
construction of the Order, and hence they feel no disposition to
treat it, notwithstanding its historical inaccuracy, with
contumely.

Knowing what an important part the legends and symbols of
Freemasonry have performed in the progress of the Institution,
and how much its philosophic system is indebted to them for all
that is peculiar to itself, they devote their literary energies,
not to the expurgation of this or any other myth or legend, but
to the investigation of the questions how and when it arose, and
what is its real significance as a symbol, or what foundation as
a narrative it may have in history. And thus they are enabled to
add important items to the mass of true Masonic history which
they have been accumulating.

In short, the theory of the iconoclastic school is that truth and
authenticity must always, and in the first place, be sought; that
nothing must be accepted as historical which has not the internal
and external evidences of historical verity, and that in treating
the legends of Masonry - of almost every one of which it may be
said, "Se non vero, e ben trovato" - if it is not true, it is
well invented - we are not to reject them as altogether fabulous,
but as having some hidden and occult meaning, which, as in the
case of all other symbols, we must diligently scek to discover.
But if it be found that the legend has no symbolic significance,
but is simply the distortion of a historical fact, we must
carefully eliminate the fabulous increment, and leave the body of
truth to which it had been added, to have its just value.

Such was the method pursued by the philosophers of antiquity; and
Plato, Anaxagoras, and Cicero explained the absurdities of the
ancient mythologists by an allegorical mode of interpretation.

To this school I have for years been strongly attached, and in
the composition of this work I shall adopt its principles. I do
not fear that the claims of Freemasonry to a time-honored
existence will be injured by any historical criticism, although
the era in which it had its birth may not be admitted to be as
remote as that assigned to it by Anderson or Oliver.

Iconoclastic criticism can not depreciate, but will rather
elevate, the character of the Institution. It will relieve it of
absurdities, will often explain the cause of anachronisms, will
purify the fabulous element, and confine it within the strict
domain of history.

It was a comnmon reproach against the great Niebuhr that he had
overthrown the whole fabric of early Roman history, and yet Dr.
Arnold, the most competent of critics, has said of him that he
had built up much more than he had destroyed, and fixed much that
modern skepticism had rejected as fabulous on firmer historic
grounds.

Following such a method as that pursued by the most learned of
modern historians, it will be necessary, for a faithful and
comprehensible investigation of the history of Masonry, to
discriminate between the two periods into which it is naturally
divided,

The PREHISTORIC and
The HISTORIC.

The HISTORIC embraces the period within which we have authentic
documents in reference to the existence of the Order, and will be
considered in the second part of this book.

The PREHISTORIC embraces the period within which we have no
authentic memorials, and when we have to depend wholly on legends
and traditions.

The legendary history of Masonry will, therefore, be commenced in
the next chapter.

CHAPTER II

THE LEGENDARY HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY


IN the history of every ancient nation there is a prehistoric and
a historic period.

The prehistoric period is that which has no records to prove the
truth of the events that have been attributed to it. It is made
up of myths and legends, founded - some of them, in all
probability - on a distortion of historical facts, and some of
them indebted entirely to imagination for their invention.

The historic period is that which begins with the narration of
events which are supported by documents, either contemporary with
the events or so recently posterior to them as to have nearly all
the validity of contemporary evidence.

Just such a division of periods as this we find in the history of
Freemasonry.

The prehistoric period, more commonly styled the legendary
history, embraces the supposed history of the rise and progress
of the Institution in remote times, and details events said to
have occurred, but which have no proof of their occurrence other
than that of oral tradition, unsupported by that sort of
documentary evidence which is essentially necessary to give a
reliable character to an historical statement.

The historic period of Freemasonry commences with the time when
written or printed records furnish the necessary testimony that
the events narrated did actually occur.

In treating of the history of nations, scholars have found great
difficulty in precisely defining the point of separation between
the prehistoric and the historic periods. As in natural history,
it is almost impossible to define the exact line of demarkation
between any two consecutive classes of the kingdoms of nature so
as to distinguish the highest species of a vegetable from the
lowest of an animal organization, so in political history it is
difficult to tell when the prehistoric period ends and the
historic begins.

In Freemasonry we meet with the same embarrassment, and this
embarrassment is increased according; to the different
standpoints from which we view the institution.

If we adopt the theory (as has been done by a few writers too
iconoclastic in their views) that Speculative Masonry never was
anything but that which its present organization presents, with
Grand Lodges, Grand Masters, and a ritual of distinct degrees,
then we are compelled to place the commencement of the historic
era at that period which has been called the Revival in the
second decade of the 18th century.

If, with more liberal views, we entertain the opinion that
Speculative Masonry was founded on, and is the offspring of, the
Operative system of the Stonemasons, then we must extend our
researches to at least the Middle Ages, where we shall find
abundant documentary evidence of the existence and character of
the Operative parent to which the Freemasonry of the present day,
by a well-marked transition, has
succeeded.

Connecting the written history of the Operative Masons with that
of its speculative offshoot, we have an authentic and continuous
history that will carry us back to a period many centuries
anterior to the time of the so-called Revival in the year 1717.

If I were writing a history of Speculative Masonry merely, I
should find myself restricted to an era, somewhere in the 17th
century, when there is documentary evidence to show that the
transition period began, and when the speculative obtruded into
the Operative system.

But as I am really writing a history of Freemasonry, of which
the Operative and the Speculative systems are divisions,
intimately connected, I am constrained to go farther, and to
investigate the rise and the progress of the Operative art as the
precursor and the founder of the Speculative science.

The authentic details of the condition of Operative Masonry in
the Middle Ages, of its connection, if it had any, with other
organizations, and its transmutation at a later period into
Speculative Masonry, will constitute the historic narrative of
Freemasonry.

Its prehistoric narrative will be found in the myths and legends
which were, unfortunately, for a long time accepted by the great
body of the Craft as a true history, but which, though still
credited by many, are yet placed by most modern Masonic scholars
in their proper category.

These legends, some of which are preserved in the rituals, and
some are becoming almost obsolete, have a common foundation in
that traditional narrative which is known as the Legend of the
Craft, (1) and which must first be understood before we can with
satisfaction attempt to study the legendary history of the
Institution.

But this legend is of such length and of so much importance that
it demands for its consideration a separate and distinct chapter.

I, by no means, intend to advance the proposition that all the
myths and legends now taught in the Lodges, or preserved in the
works of Masonic writers, are to be found in the Legend of the
Craft, but only the most important - those that are still
recognized by the more credulous portion of the Fraternity as
genuine and authentic narratives - receive their first notice in
the Legend of the Craft, although they are indebted for their
present, fuller form, to a development or enlargement,
subsequently made in the course of the construction of the modern
ritual.

(1) The Rev. Bro. Woodford calls it the "Legend of the Guild."
But I prefer the title here used, because it does not lead to
embarrassing questions as to the relation of the mediaeval Guilds
to Freemasonry.






CHAPTER III

THE OLD MANUSCRIPTS



ANDERSON tells us, in the second edition of the Book of
Constitutions, that in the year 1719, "at some private Lodges
several very valuable manuscripts concerning the Fraternity,
their Lodges, Regulations, Charges, Secrets, and Usages, were too
hastily burnt by some scrupulous Brothers, that these papers
might not fall into strange hands." (1)

Fortunately, this destruction was not universal. The manuscripts
to which Anderson alludes were undoubtedly those Old
Constitutions of the Operative Masons, several copies of which,
that had escaped the holocaust described by him, have since been
discovered in the British Museum, in old libraries, or in the
archives of Lodges, and have been published by those who have
discovered them. (2)

These are the documents which have received the title of "Old
Records," "Old Charges," or "Old Constitutions." Their general
character is the same. Indeed, there is so much similarity, and
almost identity, in their contents as to warrant the presumption
that they are copies of some earlier document not yet recovered.

The earliest of these documents is a manuscript poem, entitled
the Constitutiones artis geometriae, secundum Eucleydem, which is
preserved in the British Museum, and which was published in 1840
by Mr. Halliwell, in his Early History of Freemasonry in England.
The date of this manuscript is supposed to be about the year
1390. A second and enlarged edition was published in 1844.

The next of the English manuscripts is that which was published

(1) Anderson's " Constitutions," 1738, P. 111
(2) Among these writers we must not omit to mention Bro. William
James Hughan, facile princeps of all Masonic antiquarians, who
made, in 1872, a valuable contribution to this literature, under
the title of "The Old Charges of the British Freemasons," the
value of which is enhanced by the learned Preface of Bro. A.F.A.
Woodford.

in 1861 by Bro. Matthew Cooke from the original in the British
Museum, and which was once the property of Mrs. Caroline Baker,
from whom it was purchased in 1859 by the Curators of the Museum.
The date of this manuscript is supposed to be about 1490.

All the English Masonic antiquarians concur in the opinion that
this manuscript is next in antiquity to the Halliwell poem,
though there is a difference of about one hundred years in their
respective dates. It is, however, mere guesswork to say that
there were not other manuscripts in the intervening period. But
as none have been discovered, they must be considered as
non-existent, and it is impossible even to conjecture, from any
groundwork on which we can stand, whether, if such manuscripts
did ever exist, they partook more of the features of the
Halliwell or of the Cooke document, or whether they presented the
form of a gradual transmission from the one to the other.

The Cooke MS. is far more elaborate in its arrangement and its
details than the Halliwell, and contains the Legend of the Craft
in a more extended form.

In the absence of any other earlier document of the same kind, it
must be considered as the matrix, as it were, in which that
Legend, in the form in which it appears in all the later
manuscripts, was moulded.

In the year 1815, Mr. James Dowland published, in the Gentleman's
Magazine, (1) the copy of an old manuscript which had lately come
into his possession, and which he described as being "written on
a long roll of parchment, in a very clear hand, apparently early
in the 17th century, and very probably is copied from a
manuscript of an earlier date." Although not as old as the
Halliwell and Cooke MSS., it is deemed of very great value,
because it comes next to them in date, and is apparently the
first of that series of later manuscripts, so many of which have,
within the past few years, been recovered. It is evidently based
on the Cooke MS., though not an exact copy of it. But the later
manuscripts comprising that series, at the head of which it
stands, so much resemble it in details, and even in phraseology,
that they must either have been copies made from it, or, what is
far more probable, copies of some older and common original, of
which it also is a copy.

(1) Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 85, P. 489, May, 1815.

The original manuscript which was used by Dowland for the
publication in the Gentleman's Magazine is lost, or can not now
be found. But Mr. Woodford and other competent authorities
ascribe the year 1550 as being about its date.

Several other manuscript Constitutions, whose dates vary from the
middle of the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century, have
since been discovered and published, principally by the
industrious labors of Brothers Hughan and Woodford in England,
and Brother Lyon in Scotland.

The following list gives the titles and conjectural dates of the
most important of these manuscripts: (1)

Halliwell MS............. supposed, 1390.
Cooke MS................. " 1490.
Dowland MS. ............. " 1500.
Landsdowne MS........…. " 1560.
York MS., No. 1.......... " 1600.
Harleian MS., NO. 2054... " 1625.
Grand Lodge MS........... " 1632.
Sloane MS., NO. 3848..... certain, 1646.
Sloane MS., NO. 3323..... " 1659.
Harleian MS., No. 1942... supposed, 1660.
Aitcheson-Haven MS. ..... certain, 1666.
Edinburgh-Kilwinning MS.. supposed, 1670.
York MS., No. 5 ......... " 1670.
York MS., No. 6.......... " 1680.
Lodge of Antiquity MS.... certain, 1686.
York MS., No. 2.......... " 1693.
Alnwick MS............... " 1701.
York MS., No. 4.......... " 1704.
Papworth MS.............. supposed, 1714.

All of these manuscripts begin, except the Halliwell poem, with
an invocation to the Trinity. Then follows a descant on the
seven liberal arts and sciences, of which the fifth, or Geometry,
is said to be Masonry. This is succeeded by a traditional history
of Masonry, from the days of Lamech to the reign of King
Athelstan of England. The manuscripts conclude with a series of
"charges," or regulations, for the government of the Craft while
they were of a purely operative character.
(1) I have relied on the excellent authority of Rev. A.F.A.
Woodford for the dates. See Hoghan's "Old Charges of the British
Freemasons," p. xii.


The traditional history which constitutes the first part of these
"Old Records" is replete with historical inaccuracies, with
anachronisms, and even with absurdities. And yet it is valuable,
because it forms the germ of that system of Masonic history which
was afterward developed by such writers as Anderson, Preston, and
Oliver, and from whose errors the iconoclasts of the present day
are successfully striving to free the Institution, so as to give
its history a more rational and methodic form.

This traditional history is presented to us in all the
manuscripts, in an identity of form, or, at least, with very
slight verbal differences. These differences are, indeed, so
slight that they suggest the strong probability of a common
source for all these documents, either in the oral teaching of
the older Masons, or in some earlier record that has not yet been
recovered. The tradition seems always to have secured the
unhesitating belief of the Fraternity as a true relation of the
origin and the progress of Masonry, and hence it has received the
title of the Legend of the Craft.

From the zealous care with which many manuscripts containing this
legend were destroyed in 1719 by "scrupulous brothers" who were
opposed to its publication, we might believe that it formed a
part of the esoteric instructions of the Guild of Operative
Masons. If so, it lost this secret character by the publication
of Roberts's edition of the "Constitutions" in 1722.

In the earlier German and French Masonic records, such as the
Ordenung dey Steinmetzen at Strasburg in 1462, and the Reglements
sur les Arts et Metiers at Paris in the 12th century, there is no
appearance of this legend. But it does not follow from this that
no such legend existed among the French and German Masons.
Indeed, as it is well known that early English Operative Masonry
was derived from the continent, it is natural to suppose that the
continental Masons brought the legend into England.

There is, besides, internal evidence in the English manuscripts
of both French and German interpolations. The reference in the
Legend to Charles Martel connects it with the French Masonry of
the 12th century, and the invocation to the "Four Crowned
Martyrs" (1) in the Halliwell MS. is undoubtedly of German
origin. (2)

(1) Die heiligen Vier gekronten, "Ordenung der Steinmetz, zu
Strasburg, 1459," and in all the other German Constitutions,
(2) Findel thinks that this invocation to the Four Crowned
Martyrs " must be regarded as a most decided proof of the
identity of the German and English Stonemasons, and of their
having one common parentage." ("Geschichte der Frei Maurerei."
Lyon's translation, p. 31.) Woodford does not concur with this
view, but I think without good reason.


The importance of this Legend in the influence that it exerted
for a long period on the Craft as the accredited history of the
Institution makes it indispensably necessary that it should form
a part of any work that professes to treat of the history of
Masonry.

For this purpose I have selected the Dowland MS., because it is
admitted to be the oldest of those that assumed that general form
which was followed in all the subsequent manuscripts, between
which and it there is no substantial difference.

CHAPTER IV

THE LEGEND OF THE CRAFT



THE might of the Father of Kings, (1) with the wisdome of his
glorious Son, through the grace of the goodness of the Holy
Ghost, there bene three persons in one Godheade, be with us at
our beginninge, and give us grace so to governe us here in this
mortall life liveinge, that we may come to his kingdome that
never shall have endinje. Amen.

"Good Bretheren and Followes: Our purpose is to tell you how and
in what manner this worthy science of Masonrye was begunne, and
afterwards how it was favoured by worthy Kings and Princes, and
by many other worshippfull men. And also to those that be
willings, wee will declare the charge that belongeth to any true
Mason to keepe for in good faith. And yee have good heede
thereto; it is well worthy to be well kept for a worthy craft and
a curious science.

"For there be Seaven liberall Sciences, of the which seaven it is
one of them. And the names of the Seaven Seyences bene these:
First is Grammere, and it teacheth man to speake truly and write
truly. And the second is Rhethoricke; and teacheth a man to
speake faire in subtill termes. And the third is Dialectyke; and
teacheth a man for to discern or know truth from false. And the
fourth is Arithmeticke; and that teacheth a man for to recken and
to accompte all manner of numbers. And the fifth is called
Geometrie; and that teacheth mett and measure of earth and of all
other things; of the which science is called Masonrye. And the
sixth science is called Musicke; and that teacheth a man of songe
and voice, of tongue and orgaine, harpe and trompe. And the
seaventh science is called Ashonomye; and that teacheth a man the
course of

(1) In the Landsdowne, and most of the other MSS., the formula is
"the Father of the Heavens," or "of Heaven."


the sunn, moone and starts. These be the Seaven liberall
Sciences, the which bene all founded by one Science, that is to
say Geometric. And this may a man prove, that the science of the
work is founded by Geometric, for Geometrie teacheth a man mett
and measure, ponderation and weight, of all manner of things on
earth, for there is no man that worketh any science, but he
worketh by some mett or measure, nor no man that buyeth or
selleth, but he buyeth or selleth by some measure or by some
weight, and all these is Geometric. And these use merchants and
all craftsmen, and all other of the Seaven Sciences, and in
especiall the plowman and tillers of all manner of grounds,
graynes, vynes, flowers and setters of other fruits; for Grammere
or Retricke, neither Astronomie nor none of all the other Seaven
Sciences can no manner find mett nor measure without Geometric.
Wherefore methinketh that the science of Geometrie is most
worthy, and that findeth (1) all other.

"How that these worthy Sciences were first begunne, I shall you
tell. Before Noye's flood, there was a man called Lameche, as it
is written in the Byble in the iiijth chapter of Genesis; and
this Lameche had two wives, and the one height Ada, and that
other height Sella; by his first wife Ada he gott two sons, and
that one Jabell and thother Tuball, and by that other wife Sella
he got a son and a daughter. And these four children founden the
beginning of all sciences in the world. And this elder son
Jabell found the science of Geometric, and he departed flocks of
sheep and lambs in the field, and first wrought house of stone
and tree, (2) as is noted in the chapter above said. And his
brother Tuball found the science of musicke, songe of tonge, harp
and orgaine. And the third brother, Tuball Cain, found
smithcraft of gold, silver, copper, iron and steele; and the
daughter found the craft of Weavinge. And these children knew
well that God would take vengeance for synn, either by fire or by
water; wherefore they writt their science that they had found in
two pillars of stone, that they might be found after Noye's
flood. And that one stone was marble, for that would not burn
with fire; and

(1) Used in its primitive Anglo-Saxon meaning of "to invent, to
devise." Geometry invented or devised all the other sciences.
(2) This is an instance of the inaccuracy of these old records in
historical lore. So far from Jabal being the first who "wrought
house of stone and tree," he was the originator of the nomadic
life, in which such buildings are never used. He invented tents,
made most probably of skins, to be the temporary residence of a
pastoral people, led by the exigency of a want of food to remove
their flocks from time to time to new pastures.


that other stone was clepped laterns, (1) and would not drown in
noe water.

"Our intent is to tell you trulie how and in what manner these
stones were found that these sciences were written in. The great
Hermarynes, that was Cuby's son, the which Cub was Sem's son,
that was Noy's son. This Hermarynes afterwards was called
Harmes, the father of wise men; he found one of the two pillars
of stone, and found the science written there, and he taught it
to other men. And at the making of the Tower of Babylon there
was Masonrye first made much of. And the Kinge of Babylon that
height Nemrothe, (2) was a mason himself; and loved well the
science, and it is said with masters of histories. And when the
City of Nyneve and other cities of the East should be made,
Nemrothe, the King of Babylon, sent thither three score Masons at
the rogation of the King of Nyneve, his cosen. And when he sent
them forth, he gave them a charge on this manner. That they
should be true each of them to other, and that they should love
truly together, and that they should serve their lord truly for
their pay; soe that the master may have worshipp and all that
long to him. And other moe charges he gave them. And this was
the first time that ever Masons had any charge of his science.

"Moreover when Abraham and Sara his wife went into Egipt, there
he taught the Seaven Sciences to the Egiptians; and he had a
worthy scoller that height Ewclyde, (3) and he learned right well
and was a master of all the vij Sciences liberall. And in his
days it befell that the lord and the estates of the realme had
soe many sonns that they had gotten, some by their wives and some
by other ladyes of the realme; for that land is a hott land and a
plentious of generacion. And they had not competent livelode to
find with their children, wherefor they made much care, and then
the king of the land made a great Counsell and a Parliament, to
witt, how they might find their children honestly as gentlemen;
and they could find no manner of good way. And then they did
crye through all the realme, if there were any man that informe
them, that he should come to them, and he should be soe rewarded
for his travail, that he should hold him pleased.

(1) This word is a corruption of the Latin "later," brick.
(2) Nimrod.
(3) Bro. Matthew Cooke, in his Notes to the MS. which he was the
first to publish, and which thence bears his name, protests
against being held responsible for the chronology which makes
Abraham and Euclid contemporaries. It will hereafter be seen
that this legend of Euclid is merely a symbol.


"After that this crye was made, then came this worthy clarke
Ewclyde and said to the king and all his great lords, 'If yee
will take me your children to governe, and to teach them one of
the Seaven Scyences, wherewith they may live honestly as
gentlemen should, under a condition, that yee will grant me and
them a commission that I may have power to rule them after the
manner that the science ought to be ruled.' And that the kinge
and all his Counsell granted to him anone and sealed their
commission. And then this worthy Doctor tooke to him these
lord's sonns, and taught theat the scyence of Geometrie in
practice, for to work in stones all manner of worthy worke that
belongeth to buildinge churches, temples, castells, towres, and
mannors, and all other manner of buildings; and he gave them a
charge in this manner.

"The first was that they should be true to the Kynge, and to the
Lord that they owe. And that they should love well together and
be true each one to other. And that they should call each other
his fellowe or else brother and not by servant nor his knave, nor
none other foul name. And that they should deserve their pale of
the lord or of the master that they serve. And that they should
ordaine the wisest of them to be master of the worke and nether
for love nor great lynneage, ne riches ne for no favour to lett
another that hath little conning for to be master of the lord's
worke, wherethrough the lord should be evill served and they
ashamed. And also that they should call their governors of the
worke, Master, in the time that they worke with him. And other
many moe charges that longe to tell. And to all these charges he
made them to sweare a great oath that men used in that time; and
ordayned them for reasonable wages, that they might live honestly
by. And also that they should come and semble together every
yeare once, how they might worke best to serve the lord for his
profitt and to their own worshipp; and to correct within
themselves him that had trespassed against the science. And thus
was the seyence grounded there; and that worthy Mr. Ewclyde gave
it the name of Geometrie. And now it is called through all this
land, Masonrys.

"Sythen longe after, (1) when the children of Israell were coming
into the land of Beheast, (2) that is now called amongst us, the
country of

(1) Since then long after-long after that time.
(2) The Land of Promise, or the Promised Land. "Beheste
Promissio," says the Promptorium Parvulorum.

Jhrlm. Kinge David began the Temple that they called Templum
D'ni, and it is named with us the Temple of Jerusalem. And the
same Kinge David loved Masons well and cherished them much, and
gave them good pale. And
he gave the charges and the manners as he had learned of Egipt
given by Ewclyde, and other charges moe that ye shall heare
afterward. And after the decease of Kinge David, Solomon, that
was David's sonn, performed out the Temple that his father
begonne; and sent after Masons into divers countries and of
divers lands; and gathered them together, so that he had
fourscore thousand workers of stone, and were all named Masons.
And he chose out of them three thousand that were ordayned to be
masters and governors of his worke. And furthermore there was a
Kinge of another region that men called Iram, (1) and he loved
well Kinge Solomon and he gave him tymber to his worke. And he
had a sonn that height Aynon, (2) and he was a Master of
Geometric, and was chief Master of all his Masons, and was Master
of all his gravings and carvinge, and of all manner of Masonrye
that longed to the Temple; and this is witnessed by the Bible, in
libro Regum, the third chapter. And this Solomon confirmed both
charges and the manners that his father had given to Masons. And
thus was that worthy Science of Masonrye confirmed in the country
of Jerusalem, and in many other kingdoms.

"Curious craftsmen walked about full wide into divers countryes,
some because of learning more craft and cunning, and some to
teach them that had but little cunnynge. And soe it befell that
there was one curious Mason that height Maymus Grecus,' that had
been at the making of Solomon's Temple, and he came into France,
and there he taught the science of Masonrye to men of France.
And there was one of the Regal line of France that height Charles
Martell; (4) and he was a man that loved well such a science, and
drew to this Maymus Grecus that is above-said, and learned of him
the science, and tooke upon him the charges and manners; and
afterwards by the

(1) It is scarcely necessary to explain that this is meant for
Hiram.
(2) The true origin and meaning of this name, for which some of
the modern Speculative Masons have substituted Hiram, Abiff, and
others Adoniram, will be hereafter discussed.
(3) This name has been a Sphinxian enigma which many a Masonic
CEdipos has failed to solve. I shall recur to it in a subsequent
page.
(4) The introduction of this monarch into the Legend leads us to
an inquiry into an interesting period of French Masonic history
that will be hereafter discussed.

grace of God, he was elect to be Kinge of Fraunce. And when he
was in his estate, he tooke Masons, and did helpe to make men
Masons that were none; and set them to worke, and gave them both
the charge and the manners and good pale, as he had learned of
other Masons; and confirmed them a charter from yeare to yeare,
to hold their semble when they would; and cherished them right
much; and thus came this science into Fraunce.

"England in all this season stood voyd, as for any charge of
Masonrye unto St Adbones (1) tyme. And in his days the King of
England that was a Pagan, he did wall the towne about, that is
called Sainct Albones. And Sainct Albones was a worthy Knight
and stewart with the Kinge of his household, and had governance
of the realme, and also of the makinge of the town walls; and
loved well Masons and cheished them much. And he made their paie
right good, standing as the realme did; for he gave them ij.s.
vjd. a weeke and iij.d. to their nonesynches. (2) And before that
time, through all this land, a Mason tooke but a penny a day and
his meate, till Sainct Albones amended it, and gave them a
chartour of the Kinge and his Counsell for to hold a general
councell, and gave it the name of Assemble; and thereat he was
himselfe, and helped to make Masons and gave them charges as you
shall heare afterward.

"Right soon after the decease of Sainct Albone, there came divers
wars into the realme of England of divers Nations soe that the
good rule of Masonrye was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge
Athelstone's days that was a worthy Kinge of England and brought
this land into good rest and peace; and builded many great works
of Abbyes and Toures, and other many divers buildings; and loved
well Masons. And he had a sonne that height Edwinne, and he
loved Masons much more than his father did. And he was a great
practiser in Geometric; and he drew him much to talke and to
commune with Masons, and to learn of them science; and afterwards
for love that he had to Masons, and to the science, he was made
Mason, and he gatt of the Kinge his father, a Chartour and
Commission to hold every yeare
(1) St. Alban, the protomartyr of England. Of his connection
with the Legend, more hereafter.
(2) A corruption of the old English word noonshun, from which
comes our modern luncheon. It meant the refreshment taken at
noon, when laborers desist from work to shun the heat. It may
here mean food or subsistence in general. St. Alban gave his
Masons two shillings a week and three pence for their daily food.
(See Nonesynches in ,Mackey's " Encyclopzedia of Freemasonry.")


once an Assemble, wher that ever they would, within the realme of
England; and to correct within themselves defaults and trespasses
that were done within the science. And he held himselfs an
Assemble at Yorke, (1) and these he made Masons, and gave them
charges, and taught them the manners, and commanded that rule to
be kept ever after, and tooke then the chartour and commission to
keepe, and made ordinance that it should be renewed from kinge to
kinge.

"And when the Assemble was gathered he made a cry that all old
Masons and young that had any writeinge or understanding of the
charges and the manners that were made before in this land, or in
any other, that they should show them forth. And when it was
proved, there were founden some in French, and some in Greek, and
some in English and some in other languages; and the intent of
them all was founden all one. And he did make a booke thereof,
and how the science was founded. And he himselfe bad and
commanded that it should be readd or tould, when that any Mason
should be made for to give him his charge. And fro that day into
this tyme manners of Masons have been kept in that form as well
as men might governe it. And furthermore divers Assembles have
beene put and ordayned certain charges by the best advice of
Masters and fellows."

Then follow the charges that are thus said to have been enacted
at York and at other General Assemblies, but which properly
constitute no part of the Legend, at least no part connected with
the legendary details of the rise and progress of the
Institution. The Legend ends with the account of the holding of
an Assembly at York, and other subsequent ones, for the purpose
of enacting laws for the government of the Order.

(1) This part of the Legend which refers to Prince Edwin and the
Assembly at York is so important that it demands and will receive
a future comprehensive examination.

CHAPTER V

THE HALLIWELL POEM AND THE LEGEND



THERE is one manuscript which differs so much from all the others
in its form and in its contents as to afford the strongest
internal evidence that it is derived from a source entirely
different from that which gave origin to the other and later
documents.

I allude to what is known to Masonic anti-quaries as the
Halliwell MS. As this is admitted to be the oldest Masonic
document extant, and as some very important conclusions in
respect to the early history of the Craft are about to be deduced
from it, a detailed account of it will not be deemed unnecessary.

This work was first published in 1840 by Mr. James Orchard
Halliwell, under the title of "A Poem on the Constitutions of
Masonry," (1) from the original manuscript in the King's Library
of the British Museum. Mr. Halliwell, who subsequently adopted
the name of Phillips, is not a member of the Brotherhood, and
Woodford appropriately remarks that "it is somewhat curious that
to Grandidier and Halliwell, both non-Masons, Freemasonry owes
the impetus given at separate epochs to the study of its
archaeology and history." (2)

Halliwell says that the manuscipt formerly belonged to Charles
Theyer, a well-known collector of the 17th century. It is
undoubtedly the oldest Masonic MS. extant. Messrs. Bond and
Egerton of the British Museum consider its date to be about the
middle of the 15th century. Kloss (3) thinks that it was written
between the years 1427 and 1445. Dr. Oliver (4) maintains that it
is a transcript of the Book of Constitutions adopted by the
General Assembly, held

(1) In a brochure entitled "The Early History of Freemasonry in
England." A later improved edition was published in 1844.
(2) In Kenning's "Encyclopeadia," voc. Halliwell.
(3) "Die Freimaur in ihrer wahren Bedentung." S. 12.
(4) American Quart. Rev. of Freemasonry, vol. i., p. 547.


in the year 926, at the City of York. Halliwell himself places
the date of the MS. at 1390. Woodford (1) concurs in this
opinion. I am inclined to think that this is the true date of
its transcription.

The manuscript is in rhymed verse, and consists of 794 lines. At
the head of the poem is the inscription: "Hic incipiunt
constitluciones artis gemetria, secundum Euclydem." The language
is more archaic than that of Wicliffe's version of the Bible,
which was written toward the end of the 14th century, but
approaches very nearly to that of the Chronicles of Robert of
Gloucester, the date of which was at the beginning of the same
century. Therefore, if we admit that the date of 1390, attributed
by Halliwell and Woodford to the transcription in the British
Museum, is correct, we may, I think, judging by the language,
safely assign to the original the date of about 1300. Further
back than this, philology will not permit us to go.

Lines 1-86 of this MS. contain the history of the origin of
geometry, or Masonry, and the story of Euclid is given at length,
much like that which is in the Legend of the Craft. But no other
parts of that Legend are referred to, except the portion which
records the introduction of Masonry into England. From the
narrative of the establishment of Masonry in Egypt by Euclid, the
poem passes immediately to the time when the "craft com unto
Englond." Here the legendary story of King Athelstan and the
Assembly called by him is given, with this variation from the
common Legend, that there is no mention of the city of York,
where the Assembly is said to have been held, nor of Prince
Edwin, who summoned it.

Lines 87 - 470 contain the regulations which were adopted at that
Assembly, divided into fifteen articles and the same number of
points. There is a very great resemblance, substantially, between
these regulations and the charges contained in the subsequent or
second set of Manuscript Constitutions. But the regulations in
the Halliwell poem are given at greater length, with more
particularity and generally accompanied with an explanation or
reason for the law.

After an interpolation, to be referred to hereafter, the poem
proceeds under the title of "Ars quatuor coronatorum," The Art of

(1) Preface to Hughan's "Old Charges," p. vii.


the Four Crowned Ones, a title never applied to Masonry in the
later and purely English manuscripts. We have first an
invocation to God and the Virgin, and then the Legend of the Four
Crowned Martyrs, which ends on line 534.

Now this Legend of the Four Crowned Martyrs (1) - die Vier
Gekronten - is found in none of the purely English manuscripts,
but is of German origin, and peculiar to the German Steinmetzen
or Stone Masons of the Middle Ages. Its introduction in this
manuscript is an evidence of the German origin of the document,
and, as Findel (2) says, "must be regarded as a most decided
proof of the identity of the German and English Stone Masons, and
of their having one common parentage."

The details of this Legend close at the 534th line, and the poem
then proceeds to give a small and imperfect portion of what is
known in our later manuscripts as the Legend of the Craft.

I am persuaded that all this part of the poem has been dislocated
from its proper place, and that in the original the lines from
535 to 576 formed a portion of the Legend of the Craft, as it
must have been inserted in the introductory part of the second
manuscript. I think so, first, because in all other manuscripts
the Legend forms the exordium and precedes the charges; secondly,
because it has no proper connection with or sequence to the
Legend of the Four Crowned Martyrs which precedes it, and which
terminates on the 354th line; and lastly, because it is evidently
an interruption of the religious instructions which are taken up
on line 577, and which naturally follow line 534. The writer
having extolled the Christian steadfastness and piety of the four
martyrs whose feast he tells us is on the eighth day after
Allhalloween, proceeds on line 576 to admonish his readers to
avoid pride and covetousness and to practice virtue. There is
here a regular and natural connection, which, however, would be
interrupted by the insertion between the two clauses of an
imperfect portion of a legend which has reference to the very
beginning of the history of Masonry. Hence I conclude that all
that part of the Legend which described the events that were
connected with Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel is an
interpolation, and belongs to another manuscript and to another
place.

(1) See the full details of this Legend in Mackey's
"Encyclopeadia of Freemasonry," art. Four Crowned Martyrs.
(2) "History of Freemasonry," Lyon's Trans., p. 31.

In fact, the copyist had two manuscripts before him, and he
transcribed sometimes from one and sometimes from the other,
apparently with but little judgment, or, rather, he copied the
whole of one and then interpolated it with extracts from the
other without respect to any congruity of subjects.

The rest of the poem is occupied with instructions as to behavior
when in church, when in the company of one's superiors, and when
present at the celebration of the mass. The whole ends with what
we find in no other manuscript, the now familiar Masonic formula,
"Amen, so mote it be."

Line 471 furnishes, I think, internal evidence that the poem was
originally composed of two distinct works, written, in all
probability, by two different persons, but in the copy which we
now have, combined in one by the compiler or copyist. Mr.
Woodford also is of the opinion that there are two distinct
poems, although the fact had not attracted the attention of
Halliwell. The former gentleman says that "it seems to be in
truth two legends, and not only one." This is evident, from the
fact that this second part is prefaced by the title, "Alia
ordinacio artis gemetriae," that is, "Another Constitution of the
art of geometry." This title would indicate that what followed
was a different Ordinacio or Constitution and taken from a
different manuscript. Besides, line 471, which is the beginning
of the other or second Constitution, does not fall into its
proper place in following line 470, but is appropriately a
continuation of line 74. To make this evident, I copy lines
70-74 from the poem, and follow them by lines 471-474, whence it
will be seen that the latter lines are an appropriate and natural
continuation of the former.


Line 70. He sende about ynto the londe
71. After alle the masonus of the crafte,
72. To come to hym ful evene stragfte
73. For to amende these defaultys alle
74. By good counsel gef it hyt mytgh falle.
............
471. They ordent ther a semble to be y-holde
472. Every yer, whersever they wolde
473. To amende the defautes, gef any where fonde
474. Amonge the craft withynne the londe.

The second manuscipt seems to have been copied from line 471, as
far as line 496. There, I suppose, the charges or regulations to
have followed, which having been given from the first manuscript
the copyist omitted, as a needless repetition, but went on
immediately with the "ars quatuor coronatorum." This ended at
line 534. It is now evident that he went back to a preceding
part of the second manuscript and copied the early account of
Masonry from line 535 to 576. The bare reading of these lines
will convince the reader that they are not in their proper place,
and must have formed a part of the beginning of the second poem.

Line 577 appropriately follows line 534, when the interpolation
is left out, and then the transcription is correctly made to the
end of the poem. The first manuscript was apparently copied
correctly, with the exception of the two interpolations from the
second MS. There is a doubt whether the Legend of the Crowned
Martyrs belonged to the first or to the second poem. If to the
first, then we have the whole of the first poem, and of the
second only the interpolations. This is, however, a mere
conjecture without positive proof. Yet it is very probable.

On the whole, the view I am inclined to take of this manuscript
is as follows:

1. There were two original manuscripts, out of which the copyist
made a careless admixture.

2. The first MS. began with line 1 and went on to the end at line
794. But this is only conjectural. It may have ended, or rather
the copying ceased, at line 470.

3. If the conjecture just advanced be correct, then from a second
MS. the copyist made interpolations, in the following way.

4. The beginning of the second MS. is lost. But from very near
the commencement, which probably described the antediluvian
tradition of Lamech, the copyist had selected a portion which
begins with line 535 and ends at line 576. He had previously
interpolated the lines from 471 to 496.

5. We have, then, the whole of the first manuscript, from the 1st
line to the 794th, with the addition of two interpolations from
the second, consisting only of 68 lines, namely: from line 471 to
496, and from line 535 to 576.

6. The first manuscript is deficient in any references to
antediluvian Masonry, but begins with the foundation of Masonry
in Egypt, as its title imports. This deficiency was, in part,
supplied by the second interpolation (535-596). This part begins
with the building of Babel. But it is evident from the words,
"many years after," that there was a preceding part to this
manuscript that has not been copied. The "many years after"
refer to some details that had been previously made. The account
of the Seven Sciences, found in all later manuscripts, is not
given in the first poem. It is inserted in this from the second.

7. So of the poem in the form we now have it, the parts copied
from the second MS. consist only of 68 lines, which have been
interpolated in two places into the first MS. - namely, lines 471
- 496, and lines 535-576; and these have been dislocated from
their proper places. All the rest of the poem constitutes the
original first manuscript. If I hesitate at all in coming to the
positive conclusion that the first and last parts of the poem
were composed by the same author, it is because the latter is
written in a slightly different metre. This, therefore, leaves
the question where the first poem ends and where the second
begins, still open to discussion.

The variations which exist between the Halliwell poem, or,
rather, poems, and other Masonic manuscripts of later date, are
very important, because they indicate a difference of origin,
and, by the points of difference, suggest several questions as to
the early progress of Masonry in England.

1. The form of the Halliwell MS. differs entirely from that of
the others. The latter are in prose, while the former is in
verse. The language, too, of the Halliwell MS. is far more
antiquated than that of the other manuscripts, showing that it
was written in an earlier stage of the English tongue. It
belongs to the Early English which succeeded the Anglo-Saxon.
The other manuscripts were written at a later period of the
language.

2. The Halliwell MS. is evidently a Roman Catholic production,
and was written when the religion of Rome prevailed in England.
The later manuscripts are all Protestant in their character, and
must have been written after the middle of the 16th century, at
least, when Protestantism was introduced into that country by
Edward VI. and by Queen Elizabeth. (1)

The different religious character of the two sets of manuscripts

(1) Edward VI. reigned from 1547-1553; Elizabeth reigned from
1558-1603; the interval was occupied by the Roman Catholic reign
of Mary. But the archaic style of the "Halliwell MS." forbids
any theory of its having been written during that intermediate
period.


is very patent. We see ecclesiastical influence very strongly
manifested in the Halliwell MS. So marked is this that Mr.
Halliwell supposes that it was written by a priest, which, I
think, is not impossible, although not for the reason he assigns,
which is founded on his incorrect translation of a single word.
(1)

But the Roman Catholic character of the poem is proven by lines
593-692, which are occupied in directions how the mass is to be
heard; and, so ample are these directions as to the ritual
observance of this part of the Roman Catholic worship, that it is
very probable that they were written by a priest.

In the subsequent manuscripts we find no such allusions.
Freemasonry, when these documents were written, was Christian in
its character, but it was Protestant Christianity. The
invocation with which each one begins is to the Trinity of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but no mention is made, as in the
Halliwell MS. of the Virgin and the saints. The only reference
to the Church is in the first charge, which is, "that you shall
be a true man to God and the holy Church, and that you use no
heresy nor error by your understanding or teaching of discreet
men" - a charge that would be eminently fitting for a Protestant
Christian brotherhood.

On referring to the first charge adopted after the revival in
1717 by the Grand Lodge of England, we find that then, for the
first time, the sectarian character was abandoned, and the
toleration of a universal religion adopted.


Thus it is said in that charge: "Though in ancient times Ma-

(1) A philological note may, here, be not uninteresting. Mr.
Halliwell, in support of his assertion that the writer of the
poem was a priest, quotes line 629: "And, when the Gospel me rede
schal" - where he evidently supposes that me was used instead
of I, and that the line was to be translated- "when I shall read
the Gospel." But in none of the old manuscripts is the flagrant
blunder committed of using the accusative me in place of the
nominative Y or I. The fact is, that the Anglo-Saxon man,
signifying one, or they, like the French on in "on dit," as "man
dyde," one or they did, or it was done, gave way in Early English
to me, used in the same sense. Examples of this may be found in
the writers who lived about the time of the composition of the
"Halliwell MS." A few may suffice. In the Ayenbite of Inwyt is
the following line: "Ine the ydele wordes me zeneyeth ine vif
maneres," that is, "In the idle word one sinneth in five ways."
Again, in Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle are these phrases "By
this tale me may yse," i.e.: "By this tale may be seen," Story of
Lear, line 183. And best me may to hem truste," i.e.: "And they
may be trustedliest," ib., 1. 184. "The stude that he was at
yslawe me cleputh yet Morgan," i.e.: "The place where he was
slain is called Morgan still," ib., 1. 213. And the line in the
Halliwell poem, which Mr. Halliwell supposed to mean, "And when I
shall read the Gospel," properly translated, is, " And when the
Gospel shall be read." It furnishes, therefore, no proof that the
writer was a priest.


sons were charged 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." (1)

Now, comparing the religious views expressed in the oldest
Masonic Constitution of the 14th century, with those set forth in
the later ones of the 16th and 17th, and again with those laid
down in the charge of 1717, we find an exact record of the
transitions which from time to time took place in the religious
aspect of Freemasonry in England and in some other countries.

At first it was Roman Catholic in its character, and under
ecclesiastical domination.

Then, after the Reformation, rejecting the doctrines of Rome and
the influence of the priesthood, it retained its Christian
character, but became Protestant in its peculiar views.

Lastly, at the time of the so-called Revival, in the beginning of
the 18th century, when Speculative Masonry assumed that form
which it has ever since retained, it abandoned its sectarian
character, and adopted a cosmopolitan and tolerant rule, which
required of its members, as a religious test, only a belief in
God.

(1) Anderson's " Constitutions," 1st ed, 1723, P. 50.

CHAPTER VI

THE ORIGIN OF THE HALLIWELL POEM


ALL these facts concerning the gradual changes in the religious
character of the Institution, which by a collation of the old
manuscripts we are enabled to derive from the Legend of the
Craft, are corroborated by contemporaneous historical documents,
as will be hereafter seen, and thus the "Legend," notwithstanding
the many absurdities and anachronisms which deface it, becomes
really valuable as an historical document.

But this is not all. In comparing the Halliwell poem with the
later manuscripts, we not only find unmistakable internal
evidence that they have a different origin, but we learn what
that origin is.

The Halliwell poem comes to us from the Stonemasons of Germany.
It is not, perhaps, an exact copy of any hitherto undiscovered
German document, but its author must have been greatly imbued
with the peculiar thoughts and principles of the German
"Steinmetzen" of the Middle Ages.

The proof of this is very palpable to any one who will carefully
read the Halliwell poem, and compare its idea of the rise and
progress of Geometry with that exhibited in the later manuscript
Constitutions.

These latter trace the science, as it is always called, from
Lamech to Nimrod, who "found" or invented the Craft of Masonry at
the building of the Tower of Babel, and then to Euclid, who
established it in Egypt, whence it was brought by the Israelites
into Judea, and there again established by David and Solomon, at
the building of the Temple. Thence, by a wonderful anachronism
it was brought into France by one Namus Grecus, who had been a
workman at the Temple, and who organized the Science in France
under the auspices of Charles Martel. From France it was carried
to England in the time of St. Alban. After a long interruption
in consequence of the Danish and Saxon wars, it finally took
permanent root at York, where Prince Edwin called an Assembly,
and gave the Masons their charges under the authority of a
Charter granted by King Athelstan.

It will be observed that nowhere in this later Legend is there
any reference to Germany as a country in which Masonry existed.
On the contrary, the Masonry of England is supposed to have been
derived from France, and due honor is paid to Charles Martel as
the founder of the Order in that kingdom.

Hence we may rationally conclude that the Legend of the Craft was
modified by the influence of the French Masons, who, as history
informs us, were brought over into England at an early period.

In this respect, authentic history and the Legend coincide, and
the one corroborates the other.

Different from all this is the Legend of the Halliwell poem, the
internal evidence clearly showing a Germanic origin, or at least
a Germanic influence. The Rev. Bro. Woodford objects to this
view, because, as he says, "the Legend was then common to both
countries." But with all due respect, I can not but look upon
this argument as a sort of petitio principi. The very question to
be determined is, whether this community of belief, if it existed
at that time, did not owe its origin to an importation from
Germany. It is certain that in none of the later English
manuscripts is there any allusion to the Four Crowned Martyrs,
who were the recognized patrons of German Operative Masonry.

The variations of the Halliwell poem from the later manuscripts
are as follows: It omits all reference to Lamech and his sons,
but passing rapidly over the events at the Tower of Babel, the
building of which it ascribes to Nebuchadnezzar, it begins (if we
except a few lines interpolated in the middle of the poem) with
the Legend of Euclid and the establishment of Masonry by him in
Egypt.

There is no mention of King Solomon's Temple, whereas the history
of the building of that edifice, as a Masonic labor, constitutes
an important part of all the later manuscripts.

The Legend of the Four Crowned Martyrs, concerning whom all the
later manuscripts are silent, is given at some length, and they
are described as "gode masonus as on erthe schul go." These were
the tutelar saints of the German Operative Masons of the Middle
Ages, but there is no evidence that they were ever adopted as
such by the English brotherhood.

There is no allusion in the Halliwell poem to Charles Martel, and
to the account of the introduction of Masonry into England from
France, during his reign, which forms a prominent part of all the
later manuscripts.

Neither is there any notice of the Masonry in England during the
time of St. Alban, but the poem attributes its entrance into that
country to King Athelstan.

Lastly, while the later manuscripts record the calling of the
Assembly at the city of York by Prince Edwin, the Halliwell makes
no mention of York as the place where the Assembly was called,
nor of Edwin as presiding over it. This fact demolishes the
theory of Dr. Oliver, that the Halliwell poem is a copy of the
so-called Old York Constitutions.

From all these considerations, I think that we are justified in
assigning to the Halliwell poem and to the other later
manuscripts two different sources. The former is of Germanic, and
the latter of French origin. They agree, however, in a general
resemblance, diversified only in the details. This suggests the
idea of a common belief, upon which, as a foundation, two
different structures have been erected.






CHAPTER VII

THE LEGEND, THE GERM OF HISTORY



THE Legend of the Craft, as it has been given in the fourth
chapter of this work from the exemplar in the Dowland MS.,
appears to have been accepted for centuries by the body of the
Fraternity as a truthful history. Even at the present day, this
Legend is exerting an influence in the formation of various parts
of the ritual. This influence has even been extended to the
adoption of historical views of the rise and progress of the
Institution, which have, in reality, no other foundation than the
statements which are contained in the Legend.

For these reasons, the Legend of the Craft is of great importance
and value to the student of Masonic history, notwithstanding the
absurdities, anachronisms, and unsupported theories in which it
abounds.

Accepting it simply as a document which for so long a period
claimed and received the implicit faith of the Fraternity whose
history it professed to give - a faith not yet altogether dead -
it is worthy of our consideration whether we can not, by a
careful examination of its general spirit and tenor, irrespective
of the bare narrative which it contains, discover some key to the
true origin and character of that old and extensive brotherhood
of which it is the earliest record.

I think that we shall find in it the germ of many truths, and the
interpretation of several historic facts concerning which it
makes important suggestions.

In the first place, it must be remarked that we have no way of
determining the precise period when this Legend was first
composed, nor when it was first accepted by the Craft as a
history of the Institution. The earliest written record that has
been discovered among English Masons bears a date which is
certainly not later than about the end of the 14th century. But
this by no means proves that no earlier exemplar ever existed, of
which the Constitutions, which have so far been brought to light,
may only be copies.

On the contrary, we have abundant reason to believe that all the
Old Records which have been published are, with the exception of
the Halliwell MS., in fact derived from some original text which
however, has hitherto escaped the indefatigable researches of the
investigators.
If, for instance, we take the Sloane MS., No. 3,848, the assumed
date of which is A.D. 1646, and the Harleian MS., NO. 2,054, the
date of which is supposed to be A.D. 1650, and if we carefully
collate the one with the other, we must come to the conclusion
either that the latter was copied from the former, or that both
were copied from some carlier record, for whose exhumation from
the shelves of the British Museum, or from the archives of some
old Lodge, we may still confidently hope.

The resemblances in language and ideas, and the similarity of
arrangement that are found in both documents, very clearly
indicate a common origin, while the occasional verbal
discrepancies can be safely attributed to the carelessness of an
inexpert copyist. Brother Hughan, (1) who is high authority,
styles the Harleian, from its close resemblance, "an indifferent
copy" of the Sloane. The Rev. A.F.A. Woodford, (2) who assigns
the earlier date of 1625 to the original Harleian, says it "is
nearly a verbatim copy of Dowland's form, slightly later, and
must have been transcribed either from an early, and almost
contemporary, copy of Dowland's, or it is really a copy of
Dowland's itself." These opinions by experts strengthen the view
I have advanced, that there was a common origin for all of these
manuscripts.

If we continue the collation of the manuscripts of later date, as
far, even, as the Papworth, which is supposed to have been
transcribed about the year 1714, the same family likeness will be
found in all. It is true, that in the transcription of the later
manuscripts - those, for example, that were copied toward the end
of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries - the
language has been improved, some few archaisms have been avoided,
and more recent words substituted for them. Scriptural names
have been sometimes spelt with a greater respect for correct
orthography, and a feeble

(1) "Old Charges of the Brit. Freemasons," p. 8.
(2) Preface to Hughan's "Old Charges," p. xi.

attempt has been made to give a modern complexion to the
document. But in all of them there is the same misspelling of
words, the same violations of the rules of grammar, the same
arrangement of the narrative, and a preservation and repetition
of all the statements, apocryphal and authentic, which are to b)e
found in the earliest exemplars.

I have said that the Legend of the Craft, as set forth in the
later manuscripts, was for centuries accepted by the Operative
Masons of England, with all its absurdities of anachronism, as a
veritable history of the rise and progress of Masonry from the
earliest times, and that the influence of this belief is still
felt among the Speculative Masons of the present day, and that it
has imbued the modern rituals with its views.

This fact gives to this Legend an importance and a value
irrespective of its character as a mere Legend. And its value
will be greatly enhanced if we are able to show that,
notwithstanding the myths with which it abounds, the Legend of
the Craft really contains the germ of historical truth. It is,
indeed, an historical myth - one of that species of myths so
common in the mythology of antiquity, which has a foundation in
historical truth, with the admixture of a certain amount of
fiction in the introduction of personages and circumstances, that
are either not historical, or are not historically treated.
Indeed, it may be considered as almost rising into the higher
class of historical myths, in which the historical and truthful
greatly predominate over the fictitious. (1)


In the contemplation of the Legend of the Mediaeval Masons from
this point of view, it would be well if we should govern
ourselves by the profound thought of Max Muller, (2) who says, in
writing on a cognate subject, that "everything is true, natural,
significant, if we enter with a reverent spirit into the meaning
of ancient art and ancient language. Everything becomes false,
miraculous, and unmeaning, if we interpret the deep and mighty
words of the seers of old in the shallow and feeble sense of
modern chroniclers."

Examined in the light of this sentiment, which teaches us to look
upon the language of the myth, or Legend, as containing a deeper
meaning than that which is expressed upon its face, we shall

(1) For a classification of myths into the historical myth and
the mythical history, see the author's treatise on the "Symbolism
of Freemasonry," P- 347.
(2) "Science of Language," 2d series, p. 578.


find in the Legend of the Craft many points of historical
reference, and, where not historical, then symbolical, which will
divest it of much of what has been called its absurdities.

It is to an examination of the Legend in this philosophic spirit
that I now invite the reader. Let it be understood that I direct
my attention to the Legend contained in the later manuscripts,
such as the Dowland, Harleian, Sloane, etc., of which a copy has
been given in preceding pages of this work, and that reference is
made only, as occasion may require to the Halliwell MS. for
comparison or explanation. This is done because the Legend of
the later manuscripts is undoubtedly the one which was adopted by
the English Masons, while that of the Halliwell MS. appears to
have been of exotic growth, which never took any extensive root
in the soil of English Masonry.

In the subsequent chapters devoted to this subject, which may be
viewed as Commentaries on the Legend of the Craft, I shall
investigate the signification of the various subordinate Legends
into which it is divided.





CHAPTER VIII

THE ORIGIN OF GEOMETRY



THE manuscript begins with an invocation to the Trinity. This
invocation is almost identical with that which prefaces the
Harleian, the Sloane, the Landsdowne, and, indeed, all the other
manuscripts, except the Halliwell and the Cooke. From this fact
we may justly infer that there was a common exemplar, an "editio
princeps," whence each of these manuscripts was copied. The very
slight verbal variations, such as "Father of Kings" in the
Dowland, which is "Father of Heaven" in the others, will not
affect this conclusion, for they may be fairly attributed to the
carelessness of copyists. The reference to the Trinity in all
these invocations is also a conclusive proof of the Christian
character of the building corporations of the Middle Ages - a
proof that is corroborated by historical evidences. As I have
already shown, in the German Constitutions of the Stone-masons,
the invocation is "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary, and also in honor
of the Four Crowned Martyrs " - an invocation that shows the
Roman Catholic spirit of the German Regulations; while the
omission of all reference to the Virgin and the Martyrs gives a
Protestant character to the English manuscripts.

Next follows a descant on the seven liberal arts and sciences,
the nature and intention of each of which is briefly described.
In all of the manuscripts, even in the earliest - the Halliwell -
will we find the same reference to them, and, almost literally,
the same description. It is not surprising that these sciences
should occupy so prominent a place in the Old Constitutions, as
making the very foundation of Masonry, when we reflect that an
equal prominence was given to them in the Middle Ages as
comprehending the whole body of human knowledge. Thus Mosheim
(1) tells us that in the 11th century they

(1) "Ecclesiast. Hist. XI. Cent.," part ii., chap. i.


were taught in the greatest part of the schools; and Holinshed,
who wrote in the 16th century, says that they composed a part of
the curriculum that was taught in the universities. Speculative
Masonry continues to this day to pay an homage to these seven
sciences, and has adopted them among its important symbols in the
second degree. The connection sought to be established in the old
manuscripts between them and Masonry, would seem to indicate the
existence of a laudable ambition among the Operative Masons of
the Middle Ages to elevate the character of their Craft above the
ordinary standard of workmen - an elevation that, history informs
us, was actually effected, the Freemasons of the Guild holding
themselves and being held by others as of higher rank and greater
acquirements than were the rough Masons who did not belong to the
corporation of builders.

The manuscript continues by a declaration that Geometry and
Masonry are idendcal. Thus, in enumerating and defining the seven
liberal arts and sciences, Geometry is placed as the fifth, "the
which science," says the Legend, "is called Masonrys." (1)

Now, this doctrine that Geometry and Masonry are identical
sciences, has been held from the time of the earliest records to
the present day by all the Operative Masons who preceded the 18th
century, as well as by the Speculative Masons after that period.

In the ritual of the Fellow Craft's degree used ever since, at
least from the middle of the last century, the candidate is
informed that "Masonry and Geometry are synonymous terms." The
Lodge-room, wherever Speculative Masonry has extended, shows, by
the presence of the hieroglyphic letter in the East, that the
doctrine is still maintained.

Gadicke, the author of a German Lexicon of Freemasonry, says,
that as Geometry is among the mathematical sciences the one which
has the most especial reference to architecture, we can,
therefore, under the name of Geometry, understand the whole art
of Freemasonry.

Hutchinson, speaking of the letter G, says that it denotes
Geometry, and declares that as a symbol it has always been used
by artificers - that is, architects - and by Masons. (2)

(1) Dowland MS. The Halliwell poem expresses the same idea in
different words:

"At these lordys prayers they counterfetyd gemetry,
And gaf hyt the name of Masonry." (Lines 23, 24.)

(2) "Spirit of Freemasonry," lect. Viii., P. 92, 2d edit.


The modern ritual maintains this legendary idea of the close
connection that exists between Geometry and Masonry, and tells us
that the former is the basis on which the latter, as a
superstructure, is erected. Hence we find that Masonry has
adopted mathematical figures, such as angles, squares, triangles,
circles, and especially the 47th proposition of Euclid, as
prominent symbols.

And this idea of the infusion of Geometry into Masonry as a
prevailing element - the idea that is suggested in the Legend -
was so thoroughly recognized, that in the 18th century a
Speculative Mason was designated as a "Geometrical Mason."

We have found this idea of Geometry as the fundamental science of
Masonry, set forth in the Legend of the Craft. It will be well
to see how it was developed in the Middle Ages, in the authentic
history of the Craft. Thus we shall have discovered another link
in the chain which unites the myths of the Legend with the true
history of the Institution.

The Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, who are said to have
derived the knowledge of their art as well as their organization
as a Guild of Builders from the Architects of Lombardy, who were
the first to assume the title of "Freemasons," were in the
possession of secrets which enabled them everywhere to construct
the edifices on which they were engaged according to the same
principles, and to keep up, even in the most distant countries, a
correspondence, so that every member was made acquainted with the
most minute improvement in the art which had been discovered by
any other. (1) One of these secrets was the knowledge of the
science of symbolism, (2) and the other was the application of
the principles of Geometry to the art of building.

"It is certain," says Mr. Paley, (3) "that Geometry lent its aid
in the planning and designing of buildings"; and he adds that
"probably the equilateral triangle was the basis of most
formations."

The geometrical symbols found in the ritual of modern Freemasonry
may be considered as the debris of the geometrical secrets of the
Mediaeval Masons, which are now admitted to be lost. (4) As

(1) Hope, " Historical Essay on Architecture."
(2) M. Maury ("Essai sur les Legendes Pieures du Moyen-Aye")
gives many instances of the application of symbolism by these
builders to the construction of churches.
(3) "Manual of Gothic Architecture," P. 78.
(4) Lord Lindsay, "Sketches of the History of Christian Art,"
ii., 14.


these founded their operative art on the knowledge of Geometry,
and as the secrets of which they boasted as distinguishing them
from the "rough Masons" of the same period consisted in an
application of the principles of that science to the construction
of edifices, it is not surprising that in their traditional
history they should have so identified architecture with
Geometry, and that with their own art of building, as to speak of
Geometry and Masonry as synonymous terms. "The fifth science,"
says the Dowland MS., is "called Geometry, . . . the which
science is called Masonrye." Remembering the tendency of all men
to aggrandize their own pursuits, it is not surprising that the
Mediaeval Masons should have believed and said that "there is no
handycraft that is wrought by man's hand but it is wrought by
Geometry."

In all this descant in the old manuscripts on the identity of
Geometry and Masonry, the Legend of the Craft expresses a
sentiment the existence of which is supported by the authentic
evidence of contemporaneous history.

CHAPTER IX

THE LEGEND OF LAMECH'S SONS AND THE PILLARS



THE traditional history of Masonry now begins, in the Legend of
the Craft, with an account of the three sons of Lamech, to whom
is attributed the discovery of all sciences. But the most
interesting part of the Legend is that in which the story is told
of two pillars erected by them, and on which they had inscribed
the discoveries they had made, so that after the impending
destruction of the world the knowledge which they had attained
might be communicated to the post-diluvian race.

This story is not mentioned in the Bible, but is first related by
Josephus in the following words:

"They also [the posterity of Seth] were the inventors of that
peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly
bodies and their order. And that their inventions might not be
lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction
that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of
fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water,
they made two pillars, the one of brick, the other of stone; they
inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar
of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone
might remain and exhibit those discoveies to mankind, and also
inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by
them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day." (1)

Although this traditional narrative has received scarcely any
estimation from scholars, and Josephus has been accused either of
incredible audacity or frivolous credulity," (2) still it has
formed the

(1) Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," B.I., ch. ii., Whiston's
trans.
(2) " Incredibili audacia aut futili credulitate usus est," is
the language of Hornius in his "Geographia Vetus." But Owen
("Theologomena," lib. iv., c. ii., 6), although inclined to
doubt the story, thinks it not impossible if we suppose
hieroglyphics like those of the Egyptians to have been used for
the inscriptions, instead of letters.


foundation on which the Masonic Legend of the pillars has been
erected. But in passing from the Jewish historian to the Legend-
maker of the Craft, the form of the story has been materially
altered. In Josephus the construction of the pillars is
attributed to the posterity of Seth; in the Legend, to the
children of Lamech. Whence was this important alteration derived
?

The Dowland and all subsequent manuscripts cite the fourth
chapter of Genesis as authority for the Legend. But in Genesis
no mention is made of these pillars. But in the Cooke MS., which
is of an earlier date, we can trace the true source of the Legend
in its Masonic form, which could not be done until that
manuscript was published.

To the Cooke MS. has been accorded the date of 1490. It differs
materially in form and substance from the Halliwell MS., which
preceded it by at least a century, and is the first of the Old
Constitutions in which anything like the present form of the
Legend appears.

The way in which the Legend of Lamech is treated by it, enables
us to dicover the true source whence this part of the Legend of
the Craft was derived.

It must be remarked, in the first place, that the Halliwell poem,
the earliest of the old manuscripts, the date of which is not
later than the close of the 14th century, contains no allusion to
this Legend of Lamech and his children. The Cooke MS. is the
first one in which we find the details. The Cooke MS. is
assigned, as has been before said, to the end of the 15th
century, about the year 1490. In it the Legend of the pillars is
given (from line 253 to 284) in the following words:

"And these iii brotheryn [the sons of Lamech] aforesayd, had
knowlyche that God wold take vengans for synne other by fyre or
watir, and they had greter care how they myght do to saue the
sciens that they founde, and they toke her [their] consell to
gedyr and by all her [their] witts they seyde that were ij manner
of stonn of suche virtu that the one wolde neuer brenne [burn]
and that stonn is called marbyll and that other stonn that woll
not synke in watir, and that stone is namyd laterus, (1) and so
they deuysyd to wryte all the sciens that they had Found (2) in
this ij stonys if that god wolde

(1) From the Latin "later," a brick.
(2) It is to be regretted that in nearly all the recent printed
copies of the old manuscripts, the editors have substituted the
double ff for the capital F which is in the original. The
scribes or amanuenses of the Middle Ages were fond of employing
capital letters often when there was really no use for them, but
they never indulged in the folly of unnecessarily doubling
initial letters. What the modern editors of the manuscripts have
mistaken for a double ff was really the ff or ff the capital F of
the scribes. This is not of much importance, but even in small
things it is well to be accurate. Bro. Hughan, in his edition of
the "Old Charges," is, as we might expect, generally correct in
this particular. But sometimes, perhaps inadvertently, he has
printed the double instead of the capital letter.-


take vengeans by fyre that the marbyll scholde not brenne. And
yf god sende vengeans by watir that the other scholde not droune,
and so they prayed her elder brother jobell that wold make ij
pillers of these ij stones, that is to sey of marbill and of
laterus, and that he wolde write in the ij pylers alle the sciens
and crafts that alle they had founde, and so he did."

Comparing this Legend with the passage that has been cited from
Josephus, it is evident that the Legend-maker had not derived his
story from the Jewish historian. The latter attributes the
building of the pillars to the children of Seth, while the former
assigns it to the children of Lamech. How are we to explain this
change in the form of the Legend ? We can only solve the problem
by reference to a work almost contemporary with the legendist.

Ranulph Higden, a Benedictine monk of St. Werburg's Abbey, in
Chester, who died in the latter half of the 14th century, wrote a
Universal history, completed to his own times, under the title of
Polychronicon.

The Polychronicon was written in the Latin language, but was
translated into English by Sir John Trevisa. This translation,
with several verbal alterations, was published in London by
William Caxton in 1482, about ten years before the date of the
Cooke MS. With this work, the compiler of the Legend in the
Cooke MS. appears to have been familiar. He cites it repeatedly
as authority for his statements.

Thus he says: "Ye schal understonde that amonge all the craftys
of the world of mannes crafte Masonry hath the most notabilite
and moste parte of this sciens Gemetry as his notid and seyd in
storiall as in the bybyll and in the master of stories. And in
policronico a cronycle prynted."

Now the Legend of Lamech's children is thus given in Caxton's
edition of the translation of Higden's Polychronicon: (1)

(1) Book 11., ch. v.


"Caym Adams fyrste sone begate Enoch, he gate Irad, he gate
Manayell, he gate Matusale, he gate Lameth. This Lameth toke
twey wyves, Ada and Sella, and gate tweyne sons on Ada. Iabeh
that was fader of them that woned in tentes and in pauylons. And
Tuball that was fader of organystre and of harpers. And Lameth
gate on Sella Tubal cayn that was a smith worchyng with hamer,
and his sister Noema, she found fyrst weuynge crafte.

"Josephus. Jabell ordayned fyrste flockes of beestes and marks
to know one from another. And departed kyddes from lam bes and
yonge from the olde. Peir s Tubalcayn founde fyrst smythes
crafte. Tuball had grete lykynge to here the hareers sowne. And
soo he vsed them moche in the accords of melodys, but he was not
finder of the instruments of musyke. For they were founde longe
afterwarde."

The reader will at once perceive whence the composer of the
Legend in the Cooke MS. derived his information about the family
of Lamech. And it will be equally plain that the subsequent
writers of the Old Constitutions took the general tone of their
Legend from this manuscript.

The Polychronicon, after attributing the discovery of music to
Pythagoras, proceeds to descant upon the wickedness of mankind
immediately after the time of Seth, and repeats the biblical
story of the intermarriage of the sons of God and the daughters
of men, which he explains as signifying the sons of Seth and the
daughters of Cain. Then follows the following passage

"Josephus. That tyme men wyste as Adam and sayde, that they
sholde be destroyed by fyre or elles by water. Therefore bookes
that they hadde made by grete trauaille and studys, he closed
them in two grete pylers made of marbill and of brent tyle. In a
pyler of marbill for water and in a pyler of tyle for fyre. For
it should be sauved by that maner to helpe of mankynde. Men
sayth that the pyler of stone escaped the floods, and yet is in
Syrya."

Here we find the origin of the story of the two pillars as
related in the Legend of the Craft. But how can we account for
the change of the constructors of these pillars from the children
of Seth, as stated in Josephus, and from him in the
Polychronicon, to the children of Lamech, as it is given in the
Legend ?

By the phrase "That tyme men wyste," or "at that time men knew,"
with which Trevisa begins his translation of that part of
Higden's work, he undoubtedly referred to the "tyme" contemporary
with the children of Seth, of whom he had immediately before been
speaking. But the writer of the Legend engaged in recounting the
narrative of the invention of the sciences by the children of
Lamech, and thus having his attention closely directed to the
doings of that family, inadvertently, as I suppose, passed over
or omitted to notice the passage concerning the descendants of
Seth, which had been interposed by the author of the
Polychronicon, and his eye, catching the account of the pillars a
little farther on, he applied the expression, "that tyme," not to
the descendants of Seth, but to the children of Lamech, and thus
gave the Masonic version of the Legend.

I have called this ascription of the pillars to the children of
Lamech a "Masonic version," because it is now contained only in
the Legend of the Craft, those who do not reject the story
altogether as a myth, preferring the account given by Josephus.

But, in fact, the error of misinterpreting Josephus occurred long
before the Legend of the Craft was written, and was committed by
one of the most learned men of his age.

St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, who died in the year 636, was the
author of many works in the Latin language, on theology,
philosophy, history, and philology. Among other books written by
him was a Chronicon, or Chronicle, in which the following passage
occurs, where he is treating of Lamech:

"In the year of the world 1642, Lamech being 190 years old, begat
Noah, who, in the five hundredth year of his age, is commanded by
the Divine oracle to build the Ark. In these times, as Josephus
relates, those men knowing that they would be destroyed either by
fire or water, inscribed their knowledge upon two columns made of
brick and of stone, so that the memory of those things which they
had wisely discovered might not be lost. Of these columns the
stone one is said to have escaped the Flood and to be still
remaining in Syria." (1)

It is very evident that in some way the learned Bishop of Seville
had misunderstood the passage of Josephus, and that to him the
sons of Lamech are indebted for the honor of being considered the
con-


(1) "Opera Isidori," ed. Matriti, 1778, tom. i., p. 125.


structors of the pillars. The phrase "his temporibus," in these
times, clearly refers to the times of Lamech.

It is doubtful whether the author of the Legend of the Craft was
acquainted with the works of Isidore, or had read this passage.
His Etymologies are repeatedly cited in the Cooke manuscript, but
it is through Higden, whose Polychronicon contains many
quotations from the Libri Etymologiarum of the Spanish Bishop and
Saint. But I prefer to assume that the Legend-maker got his ideas
from the Polychronicon in the method that I have described.

In the last century a new Legend was introduced into Masonry, in
which the building of these pillars was ascribed to Enoch. But
this Legend, which is supposed to have been the invention of the
Chevalier Ramsay, is altogether modern, and has no connection
with the Legend of the Craft.

In borrowing the story of the antediluvian pillars from Josephus,
through the Polychronicon, though they have made some confusion
in narrating the incidents, the Old Operative Masons were simply
incorporating into their Legend of the Craft a myth which had
been universal among the nations of antiquity, for all of them
had their memorial columns. Sesostris, the great Egyptian king
and conqueror, sometimes called Sethos, or Seth, and who, Whiston
think, has been confounded by Josephus with the Adamic Seth,
erected pillars in all the counties which he conquered as
monuments of his victories.

The Polychronicon, with which we see that the old Masons were
familiar, had told them that Zoroastres, King of Bactria, had
inscribed the seven liberal arts and sciences on fourteen
pillars, seven of brass and seven of brick. Hercules was said to
have placed at the Straits of Gades two pillars, to show to
posterity how far he had extended his conquests.

In conclusion, it should be observed that the story of the
pillars as inserted in the Legend of the Craft has exerted no
influence on the modern rituals of Freemasonry, and is never
referred to in any of the ceremonies of Ancient Craft Masonry.
The more recent Legend of the pillars of Enoch belongs
exclusively to the higher and more modern degrees. The only
pillars that are alluded to in the primitive degrees are those of
Solomon's temple. But these develop so important a portion of
the symbolism of the Institution as to demand our future
consideration in a subsequent part of this work.





CHAPTER X

THE LEGEND OF HERMES



THE next part of the Legend of the Craft which claims our
attention is that which relates to Hermes, who is said to have
discovered one of the pillars erected by the sons of Lamech, and
to have communicated the sciences inscribed on it to mankind.
This may, for distinction, be called "The Legend of Hermes."

The name has suffered cruel distortion from the hands of the
copyists in the different manuscripts. In the Dowland MS. it is
Hermarynes; in the Landsdowne, Herminerus; in the York,
Hermarines; in the Sloane, 3,848, Hermines and Hermenes, who "was
afterwards called Hermes"; and worst and most intolerable of all,
it is in the Harleian, Hermaxmes. But they all evidently refer
to the celebrated Hermes Trismegistus, or the thrice great
Hermes. The Cooke MS., from which the story in the later
manuscripts is derived, spells the name correctly, and adds, on
the authority of the Polychronicon, that while Hermes found one
of the pillars, Pythagoras discovered the other. Pythagoras is
not mentioned in any of the later manuscripts, and we first find
him referred to as a founder in Masonry in the questionable
manuscript of Leland, which fact will, perhaps, furnish another
argument against the genuineness of that document.

As to Hermes, the Legend is not altogether without some histoical
support ahhough the story is in the Legend mythical, but of that
character which pertains to the historical myth.

He was reputed to be the son of Taut or Thoth, whom the Egyptians
deified, and placed his image beside those of Osiris and Isis.
To him they attributed the invention of letters, as well as of
all the sciences, and they esteemed him as the founder of their
religious rites.

Hodges says, in a note on a passage of Sanchoniathon, (1) that
"Thoth was an Egyptian deity of the second order. The Graeco-
Roman mythology identified him with Hermes or Mercury. He was
reputed to be the inventor of writing, the patron deity of
learning, the scribe of the gods, in which capacity he is
represented signing the sentences on the souls of the dead." Some
recent writers have supposed that Hermes was the symbol of Divine
Intelligence and the primitive type of Plato's " Logos."
Manetho, the Egyptian priest, as quoted by Syncellus,
distinguishes three beings who were callcd Hermes by the
Egyptians. The first, or Hermes Trismegistus, had, before the
deluge, inscribed the history of all the sciences on pillars; the
second, the son of Agathodemon, translated the precepts of the
first; and the third, who is supposed to be synonymous with
Thoth, was the counsellor of Osiris and Isis. But these three
were in later ages confounded and fused into one, known as Hermes
Trismegistus. He was always understood by the philosophers to
symbolize the birth, the progress, and the perfection of human
sciences. He was thus considered as a type of the Supreme Being.
Through him man was elevated and put into communication with the
gods.

The Egyptians attributed to him the composition of 36,525 books
on all kinds of knowledge. (2) But this mythical fecundity of
authorship has been explained as referring to the whole
scientific and religious encyclopoedia collected by the Egyptian
priests and preserved in their temples.

Under the title of Hermetic books, several works falsely
attributed to Hermes, but written, most probably, by the
Neo-Platonists, are still extant, and were deemed to be of great
authority up to the 16th century. (3)

It was a tradition very generally accepted in former times that
this Hermes engraved his knowledge of the sciences on tables of
pillars of stone, which were afterward copied into books.

Manetho attributes to him the invention of stylae, or pillars, on
which were inscribed the principles of the sciences. And
Jamblichus

(1) Cory's "Ancient Fragments," edited by E. Richmond Hodges,
Lond., 1876, p. 3.
(2) Jamblichus, citing Selencos, "de Mysteries," segm. viii., c.
1.
(3) Rousse, Dictionnaire in voc. The principal of these is the
"Poemander," or of the Divine Power and Wisdom.


says that when Plato and Pythagoras had read the inscriptions on
these columns they formed their philosophy. (1)

Hermes was, in fact, an Egyptian legislator and priest. Thirty-
six books on philosophy and theology, and six on medicine, are
said to have been written by him, but they are all lost, if they
ever existed. The question, indeed, of his own existence has been
regarded by modern scholars as extremely mythical. The
Alchemists, however, adopted him as their patron. Hence Alchemy
is called the Hermetic science, and hence we get Hermetic Masonry
and Hermetic Rites.

At the time of the composition of the Legend of the Craft, the
opinion that Hermes was the inventor of all the sciences, and
among them, of course, Geometry and Architecture, was universally
accepted as true, even by the learned. It is not, therefore,
singular that the old Masons, who must have been familiar with
the Hermetic myth, received it as something worthy to be
incorporated into the early history of the Craft, nor that they
should have adopted him, as they did Euclid, as one of the
founders of the science of Masonry.

The idea must, however have sprung up in the 15th century, as it
is first broached in the Cook MS. And it was, in all
probability, of English origin, since there is no allusion to it
in the Halliwell poem.

The next important point that occurs in the Legend of the Craft
is its reference to the Tower of Babel, and this will, therefore,
be the subject of the next chapter.

(1) Juxta antiquas Mercurii columnas, quas Plato quondam, et
Pythagoras cum lectitas-sent, philosophism constituerunt.
Jamblichus, " de Mysteries," segm. i., c. 2.

CHAPTER XI

THE TOWER OF BABEL


UNLIKE the legend of Hermes, the story of the Tower of Babel
appears in the Halliwell poem, which shows, if my theory of the
origin of that poem be correct, that the Legend was not confined
at an early period to the English Masons. In the second of the
two poems, which I have heretofore said are united in one
manuscript, the legend of Babel, or Babylon, is thus given: (1)

"Ye mow hen as y do rede,
That many years after, for gret drede,
That Noee's flod was alle y-ronne, (2)
The tower of Bebyloine was begonne,
Also playne werk of lyme and ston,
As any mon schulde toke uppon,
Seven myle the heyghte shadweth the sonne.
King Nabugodonosor let hyt make
To gret strenthe for monus (3) sake
Thaygh such a flod agayne schulde come,
Over the werke hyt schulde not nome, (4)
For they hadde so hye pride, with strange bost,
Aile that werke therfore was y-lost ;
An angele smot hem so with dyvcres speechs,
That never won wyste what other schuld reche." (5)


The statements of this Halliwell Legend are very meagre, nor is
it possible to say with any certainty whence the writer derived
his details. From neither the Book of Genesis, nor Berosus, nor
Josephus could he have derived the information which has given
its peculiar form to the legend. The anachronism of making
Nebuchadnezzar, who lived about sixteen centuries after the
event, the builder of the


(1) Lines 535-550.
(2) Rain - Ang. -Sax. rinan, to rain - That Noah's flood would
still rain.
(3) Men's sake.
(4) Get - should not get over the work - cover it.
(5) Say


tower is worthy of notice. It would appear that the writer of
the poem had a general acquaintance with the well-known tradition
of Babel, and that in loosely giving an account of it, he had
confused the time and place of the erection and the supposed name
of the builder. At all events, the subsequent Masonic legendists
did not accept the Halliwell writer as authority, or, more
probably, were wholly unacquainted with his poem. It did not
exert any influence over the subsequent manuscripts.

The next time that the Babel legend appears is in the Cooke MS.,
written at least a century after the Halliwell. The legend, as
there given, is in the following words:

"Hit is writen in the bibull Genesis, Cap. I mo wo [how] that
Cam, Noe's sone, gate Nembrothe, and he wax a myghty man apon the
erthe, and he wax a stronge man, like a Gyant, and he was a grete
kyng, and the bygynyng of his kyngdom was [the] trew kyngdom of
Babilon and Arach and Archad and Calan (1) and the lond of
Sennare. And this same Cam (2) he gan the towre of babilon, and
he taught to his werkemen the craft of mesurie, (3) and he had
with him mony masonys mo than x1. thousand, and he louyd and
chereshed them well, and hit is wryten in Policronicon and in the
master of stories and in other stories rno, and this a part
wytnes [the] bybull in the same x. chapter where he seyth that
asure [Assur] was nye kynne to Nembrothe (4) gede [went] owt of
the londe of Senare, and he bylded the City Nunyve and Plateas
and other mo. Thus he seyeth, 'De terra illa et de Sennare
egressus est Asure et edifiiavit Nunyven et Plateas civitates et
Cale et Iesu quoque inter Nunyven et haec est Civitas Magna.'

"Reson wolde [requires] that we schold telle opunly how and in
what manner that the charges of masoncraft was fyrst foundyd and
ho gaf [who gave] fyrste the name to hit of masonri. And ye
schyll knaw well that hit [is] told and writen in Policronicon
and in Methodus episcopus and Martyrus that Asur that was a
worthy lord

(1) The names of cities.
(2) The word Nembroth had been first written in the manuscript,
then erased, and the "Cam" (for Ham) inserted. But this
correction is itself incorrect and incongruous with the rest of
the legend.
(3) Mesuri-measure. The author of the manuscript had previously
maintained that measure and geometry were identical. So here
"the craft of mesuri" means the craft of geometry, and geometry
was always supposed to be the same as Masonry.
(4) Cam originally written, then erased and Membrothe inserted.


of Sennare, sende to Nembroth the kyng to sende hym masons and
workemen of crafte that myght helpe hym to make his Cite that he
was in wyll to make. And Nembroth sende hym xxx C. (3,000) of
masons. And whan they scholde go and [he] sende hem forth he
callyd hem by for hym [before him] and seyd to hem, ye must go to
my cosyn Asure to helpe hym to bilde a cyte, but loke that ye be
well governyd, and I shall give you a charge profitable for you
and me. . .

"And they resceyved the charge of him that was here [their]
maister and here lordq, and went forth to Asure and bilde the
cite of Nunyve in the country of Plateas and other cites mo, that
men call Cale and lesen that is a gret cite bi twene Cale and
Nunyve. And in this manner the craft of masonry was fyrst
preferryd [brought forward] and chargyd for a sciens."

We next meet with the Legend in the later manuscripts, in a form
differing but little from that of the Cooke MS. The Dowland,
which is the earliest of these manuscript Constitutions, and the
date of which is supposed to be about the year 1550, has already
been printed in this work. But for the convenience of the
reader, in comparing the three forms of the Legend, so much of it
as refers to the Babel legend is again inserted. It is in these
words, which, it may be remarked, are very closely followed by
all the subsequent manuscipts up to the beginning of the 18th
century:

"At the makinge of the Tower of Babylon, there was Masonrye first
made much of. And the Kinge of Babylon that height Nemrothe was
a mason himselfe, and loved well the science as it is said with
masters of histories. And when the City of Ninyve and other
citties of the East should be made, Nemrothe the Kinge of Babylon
sent thither three score masons at the rogation of the Kinge of
Nyneve, his cosen. And when he sent them forth he gave them a
charge in this manner. . . . And this was the first tyme that
ever Masons had any charge of his science."

In comparing the three forms of the Babylonish legend, which have
here been cited, namely, as given in the Halliwell, the Cooke,
and the Dowland MSS., we shall readily detect that there was a
gradual growth of the details until the legend eventually took
the shape which for a long time was accepted by the Craft.

In the Halliwell poem the legend is very brief, and by its abrupt
termination would impress the opinion upon the reader that
Masonry had no part in the building of the Tower of Babel, the
only effect of which was to produce a confusion of languages and
the dispersion of mankind. It was only "many years after" that
the "craft of geometry," or Masonry, was taught by Euclid. In
fact, the whole tendency of the Halliwell legend is to trace the
origin of Masonry to Euclid and the Egyptians. In his account of
the Tower of Babel, the writer of the Halliwell poem seems to
have been indebted only to the Scriptural narrative, although he
has confounded Nebuchadnezzar, the repairer of Babylon, with
Nimrod, its original founder.

But the writer of the Cooke MS. took his details of the legend
from another source. Only a few years before the composition of
this manuscript, Caxton had published, and thus placed in the
hands of the English Masons, Trevisa's translation of Ranulph
Higden's Polychronicon, or Universal History. Of this book, rich
in materials for legendary composition the writer of the Cooke
MS. readily availed himself. This he honestly acknowledges in
several places. And although he quotes as other authorities
Herodotus, Josephus, and Methodius, it is very evident that he
knows nothing of these historians except from the citations from
them made by the monk Higden in the Polychronicon.

The English Masons were probably already acquainted with the
legend in the imperfect form in which it is given in the
Halliwell poem. But for the shape which it assumed from the time
of the composition of the Cooke MS., and which was adopted in the
Dowland and all the later manuscripts, the Craft were, I think,
undoubtedly indebted to the Polychronicon of the Monk of Chester,
through its translation by Trevisa and its publication by Caxton.

There are two other forms of the Babylonian legend, of later
date, which must be read before we can thoroughly understand the
growth of that legend.

In 1723 Anderson published, by authority of the Grand Lodge of
England, the Constitutions of the Free-Masons. Dr. Anderson was,
no doubt, in possession of, or had access to, many sources of
information in the way of old manuscripts which have sincc been
lost, and with these, assisted in some measure by his own
inventive genius, he has extended the brief Legend of the Craft
to 34 quarto pages. But as this work was of an official
character, and was written and published under the sanction of
the Grand Lodge, and freely distributed among the Lodges and
Masons of the time, the form of the Legend adopted by him was
accepted by the Fraternity for a very long period as authentic.
The Andersonian legend of the Tower of Babel molded, therefore,
the belief of the English Craft for at least the whole of the
18th century.

Before giving any citations from the Andersonian version of the
legend, it will be necessary to refer to another copy of the Old
Constitutions.

Dr. Krause, the author of a learned Masonic work, entitled The
Three Oldest Documents of the Brotherhood of Freemasons,
published in that work in 1810 a German translation of a document
which he calls the York Constitutions. (1)

Of this document Krause goves the following account. He says
that Bro. Schneider, of Altenberg, had written communication from
Bro. Bottger, who stated that in the year 1799 he had seen at
London a copy of the York Constitutions in a very old manuscript,
consisting of 107 leaves in large folio, almost one-third of
which he had been unable to read, because it was written in the
early English language, and hence he was forced to employ a
learned Englishman as an interpreter. Schneider made diligent
inquiries after this manuscript, and eventually received a
certified Latin translation, made in 1806, from which, in 1808,
he composed a German version.

This document Krause supposes to be a genuine exemplar of the
Constitutions enacted at York in 926. The original manuscript
has, however, never been found; it is not referred to in any of
the records of the old Grand Lodge of York, and seems to have
remained in mysterious obscurity until seen in 1799 by this Bro.
Bottger while on a visit to London.

For these reasons, Findel deems it a spurious document. Bro.
Woodford, than whom there is none more competent to judge of
questions of this kind, does not assent to this opinion, but,
having his doubts, thinks the matter should remain in abeyance
for the present. Bro. Hughan, another accomplished critic,
believes that it is probably a compilation of the early part of
the last century.

When the reader shall have collated the extracts about to be
given from Anderson's Constitutions and the Krause MS., he will,
I think, concur with me, that either Anderson had seen the latter

(1) "Die drei altesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurerbruderschaft,"
vol. iii., P. 5.


manuscript, or that the author of it had been familiar with the
work of Anderson. The general similarity of ideas, the
collocation of certain words, and the use of particular phrases,
must lead to the conclusion that one of the two writers was
acquainted with the production of the other. Which was the
earlier one is not easily determined, nor is it important, since
they were almost contemporaneous documents, and, therefore, they
both show what was the form assumed by the legend in the early
part of the 18th century. (1)

The Anderson version of the Babylon legend is as follows: (2)

"About 101 years after the Flood we find a vast number of 'em
[the offspring of the sons of Noah], if not the whole race of
Noah, in the vale of Shinar, employed in building a city and
large tower, in order to make themselves a name and to prevent
their dispersion. And tho' they carried on the work to a
monstrous height, and by their vanity provoked God to confound
their devices, by confounding their speech, which occasioned
their dispersion; yet their skill in Masonry is not the less to
be celebrated, having spent above 53 years in that prodigious
work, and upon their dispersion carried the mighty knowledge with
them into distant parts, where they found the good use of it in
the settlement of their kingdoms, commonwealths, and dynasties.
And tho' afterwards it was lost in most parts of the earth it was
especially preserved in Shinar and Assyria, where Nimrod, the
founder of that monarchy, after the dispersion built many
splendid cities, as Ereck, Accad and Calneh in Shinar, from
whence afterwards he went forth into Assyria and built Nineveh,
Rehoboth, Calch, and Rhesin.

"In these parts, upon the Tigris and the Euphrates, afterwards
flourished many learned Priests and Mathematicians, known by the
names of Chaldees and Magi, who preserved the good science,
Geometry, as the kings and great men encouraged the Royal Art."

The Krause MS., or the reputed York Constitutions, gives the
Babylonian legend as follows: (3)

(1) The oftener I read this document, and the more I reflect on
its internal evidence, the more I become convinced that it was
written after the first edition of Anderson's "Constitutions,"
and, perhaps, after the second. Indeed, I am almost prepared to
assign any part of the 18th century for the date of its
composition.
(2) "Constitutions," 1st edition, p. 3.
(3) See it in Hughan's "Old Charges of the British Freemasons,"
p.80. It must be remembered that it is there an English version
of the German which had been translated from a Latin translation
of the original old English - ut dicitur. I have corrected a few
errors in the translation in the "Old Charges" by a collation
with the German of Krause.


"Two generations after Noah, his descendants, proud of their
knowledge, built on a plain, in the land of Shinar, a great city
and a high tower of lime, stones, and wood, in order that they
might dwell together, under the laws which their ancestor, Noah,
had made known, and that the names of Noah's descendants might be
preserved for all time. This arrogance, however, did not please
the Lord in heaven, the lover of humility, therefore he caused a
confusion of their speech before the tower was finished, and
scattered them in many uninhabited lands, whither they brought
with them their laws and arts, and then founded kingdoms and
principalities, as the Holy Books often testify. Nimrod, in
particular, built a town of considerable size; but Noah's son,
Shem, remained in Ur, in the land of the Chaldeans, and
propagated a knowledge of all the arts and sciences abroad, and
taught also Peleg, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Abraham, the last of
whom knew all the sciences, and had knowledge, and continued to
instruct the sons of free-born men, whence afterwards the
numerous learned priests and mathematicians who have been known
under the name of the wise Chaldeans."

We have now five different documents presenting three different
forms of the Legend of the Tower of Babel:
1. The Halliwell poem. This Legend briefly recounts the facts of
the building of the tower and the subsequent interruption of the
work by the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of the
builders. By an anachronism, Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the
monarch who directed the construction. Not a word is said about
the Institution of Masonry at that time. In fact, the theory of
the Halliwell MS. seems rather to be that Masonry was, "many
years after," taught for the first time in Egypt by Euclid.

The form of the Legend was never accepted by the Operative Masons
of the Guild, certainly not after the end of the 15th century.

2. The Cooke and later manuscripts. This form of the Legend
ascribes the origin of Masonry to the era of the building of the
tower. Nimrod is made the Grand Master and makes the first
charge - that is, frames the first Constitution that the Masons
ever had. Asshur, the son of Shem, is also represented as a
great Mason, the builder of the city of Nineveh, and to whom
Nimrod sent workmen to assist him. From Babylon, Masonry was
carried next into Egypt.

This form of the Legend, first presented in the Cooke MS., and
followed almost literally in the Dowland and all the succeeding
manuscript Constitutions, seems to have embodied the prevailing
belief of the Fraternity until about the end of the 17th or the
beginning of the 18th century.

3. The Andersonian and the York Constitutions. In these the form
of the Legend is greatly improved. The idea that Masonry was
first established with appropriate laws at the Tower of Babel
under the supeintendence of Nimrod is still preserved. But
Asshur no longer appears as a builder of cities, assisted by "his
cosen," but is transformed, and correctly too, into the kingdom
of Assyria, where Nimrod himself built Nineveh and other cities.
And the next appearance of Masonry is said to be, not in Egypt,
as in the preceding manuscripts, but is said to have been
propagated after the dispersion by the Magi in the land of the
Chaldeans.

This form of the Legend prevailed during perhaps the whole of the
18th century. It became the settled conviction of the Masons of
that period that Masonry was instituted at the Tower of Babel by
Nimrod and thence propagated to the Chaldeans.

Thus, in Smith's Use and Abuse of Freemasonry, (1) published in
1783, it is said that after the Flood the Masons were first
called Noachidvae, and afterwords sages or wise men, Chaldeans,
etc. And Northouck, who, in 1784, by order of the Grand Lodge,
published an edition of the Constitutions far superior to that of
Anderson, says (2) that Nimrod founded the empire of Babylon, and
that "under him flourished those learned mathematicians whose
successors were styled Magi, or wise men."

But about the end of the last century, or, perhaps, still later,
about the beginning of the present, this legendary account of the
origin of Freemasonry began to be repudiated, and another one, in
contradiction of the old manuscripts, was substituted for it.

Masonry was no longer believed to have originated at the Tower of
Babel; the Temple of Jerusalem was considered as the place of its
birth; and Solomon and not Nimrod was called the "first Grand
Master."

Accepting this Legend, as we do the other Legends of Masonry,
which, in the language of Oliver, (3) "are entitled to
consideration, though their authenticity may be denied and their
aid rejected," we

(1) Op. Cit., P. 29.
(2) Op. Cii., p. 11.
(3) "Historical Landmarks," vol. i., lect. i., p. 53.


say that at the present day the Babylonish legend has assumed the
present form.

Before the Flood there was a system of religious instruction
which, from the resemblance of its legendary and symbolic
character to that of Freemasonry, has been called by some authors
"antediluvian Masonry." This system was preserved by Noah, and
after the deluge was communicated by him to his immediate
descendants. This system was lost at the time of the dispersion
of mankind, and corrupted by the pagans in their Mysteries. But
subsequently it was purified, and Freemasonry, as we now have it,
was organized by the King of Israel at the time of the building
of the temple.

This idea is well exemplified in the American ritual, which was,
we have every reason to believe, invented about the end of the
last century.

In this ritual, much of which is, however, being lost or becoming
obsolete, from the necessary imperfections of oral transmission,
the aspirant is supposed to represent one who is travelling from
the intellectual blindness of the profane world into the
brightness of Masonry, in whose arena he expects to find the
light and truth, the search for which is represented by his
initiation. This symbolic journey is supposed to begin at the
Tower of Babel, where, in the language of the ritual "language
was confounded and Masonry lost," and to terminate at the Temple
of Solomon, where "language was restored and Masonry found."

Hence, according to this latest form of the Legend, the Tower of
Babel is degraded from the prominent place which was given to it
in the older forms as the birth-place of Masonry, and becomes
simply the symbol of the darkness and ignorance of the profane
world as contradistinguished from the light and knowledge to be
derived from an initiation into the system of Speculative
Masonry.

But the old Masons who framed the Legend of the Craft were
conforming more than these modern ritualists to the truth of
history when they assigned to Babylon the glory of being the
original source of the sciences. So far from its being a place
of intellectual darkness, we learn from the cuneiform
inscriptions that the Ancient Babylonians and their copyists, the
Assyrians, were in possession of a wonderful literature. From
the ruins of Babylon, Nineveh, and other ancient cities of the
plain of Shinar tablets of terra cotta have been excavated,
inscribed with legends in cuneiform characters. The
interpretation of this once unknown alphabet and language has
yielded to the genius and the labors of such scholars as
Grotefend, Botta, Layard and Rawlinson.

From the fragments found at Kouyunjik, the modern Arabic name for
the site of Nineveh, the late Mr. George Smith conjectured that
there were in the Royal Library at Nineveh over ten thousand
inscribed tablets, including almost every subject in ancient
literature, all of which literature was borrowed by the Assyrians
from Babylonian sources. (1)

Speaking of this literature, Smith says that "at an early period
in Babylonian history a great literary development took place,
and numerous works were produced which embodied the prevailing
myths, religion, and science of that day. Written, many of them,
in a noble style of poetry, and appealing to the strongest
feelings of the people on one side, or registering the highest
efforts of their science on the other, these texts became the
standards for Babylonian literature, and later generations were
content to copy these writings instead of making new works for
themselves." (2)

We see, therefore, that the Masons of the present day are wrong
when they make Babel or Babylon the symbol of intellectual
darkness, and suppose that there the light of Masonry was for a
time extinguished, to be re-illumined only at the Temple of
Solomon.

And, again, the Legend of the Craft vindicates its character, and
correctly clothes an historical fact in symbolic language, when
it portrays Babylonia, which was undoubtedly the fountain of all
Semitic science and architecture, as also the birth-place of
Operative Masonry.


(1) "Chaldean Account of Genesis," P. 21.
(2) Ibid., P. 22.

CHAPTER XII

THE LEGEND OF NIMROD



THE universal sentiment of the Masons of the present day is to
confer upon Solomon, King of Israel, the honor of being their
"first Grand Master." But the Legend of the Craft had long
before, though there was a tradition of the temple extant,
bestowed, at least by implication, that title upon Nimrod, the
King of Babylonia and Assyria. It had attributed the first
organization of a fraternity of craftsmen to him, in saying that
he gave a charge to the workmen whom he sent to asist the King of
Nineveh in building his cities. That is to say, he framed for
them a Constitution, and, in the words of the Legend, "this was
the first tyme that ever Masons had any charge of his science."
It was the first time that the Craft were organized into a
fraternity working under a Constitution or body of laws; and as
Nimrod was the autocratic maker of these laws, it results as a
necessary consequence, that their first legislator, legislating
with dictatorial and unrestricted sovereign power, was also their
first Grand Master.

This view of the early history of Masonry, presented to us by the
Legend of the Craft, which differs so much from the modern
opinion, although it has almost become obsolete, is worthy of at
least a passing consideration.

Who was this Nimrod, who held so exalted a position in the eyes
of the old legendists, and why had they assigned to him a rank
and power which modern Craftsmen have thought to belong more
justly to the King of Israel?

The answers to these questions will be an appropriate commentary
on that part of the Legend of the Craft which contains the story
of this old Assyrian monarch.

The estimation of the character of Nimrod which has been almost
universally entertained by the ancients as well as the moderns,
obtains no support from the brief account of him contained in the
Book of Genesis.

Josephus portrays him as a tyrant in his government of his
people, vainglorious of his great power, a despiser and hater of
God, and instigated by this feeling, the builder of a tower
through which he would avenge himself on God for having destroyed
the world.

For this view of the character of Nimrod, Josephus was in an
probability indebted to the legends of the orientalists, which
had clustered around the name of Nimrod, just as in ancient times
legends always did cluster around great and mighty men.

Thus in the ancient chronicles he was represented as of gigantic
stature, ten or twelve cubits in height. To him was attributed
the invention of idolatry, and he is said to have returned to
Chaldea after the destruction of the Tower of Babel, and to have
persuaded the inhabitants to become fire-worshippers. He built a
large furnace and commanded that all who refused the idolatrous
worship should be cast into it. Among his victims were Abraham
or Abram, the patriarch, and his father Terah. The latter was
consumed, but the former by the interposition of a miracle came
out unhurt. It is hardly necessary to say that such legends are
altogether mythical and of no historical value.

The Scriptural account of Nimrod is a very brief and
unsatisfactory one. It is merely that:

"Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He
was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is said, Even
as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning
of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in
the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Ashur and
builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen
between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city." (1)

The most learned commentators have differed as regards the
translation of the 11th verse. The Septuagint, the Vulgate,
Luther's and our own recognized version say- "Out of that land
went forth Ashur, and builded Nineveh." Higden, in the
Polychronicon, which I have already said was the source of the
Masonic Legend, adopts the same version. And the Cooke and the
later manuscripts assign the building of Nineveh and the other
cities of Assyria to Ashur, the son of Shem, and the kinsman of
Nimrod, who assisted

(1) Genesis x. 8-12.


him with workmen. Such was the legend until the beginning of the
18th century.

But the best modern Hebrew scholars, such as Borhart, Le Clerc,
Gesenius, and a great many others, insist that Ashur is not the
name of a person, but of a country, and that the passage should
be rendered: "Out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth to Assyria
and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen,
between Nineveh and Calah." This is the form of the legend that
was adopted by Dr. Anderson and by the author of the Krause
document, and after the publication of Anderson's work it took
the place of the older form.

The Craft have in both forms of the legend recognized Nimrod as a
great Mason, nor have the vituperations of Josephus and the
scandalous legends of the orientalists had the slightest effect
on their apparent estimation of that mighty monarch, the founder
of nations and the builder of cities.

And now, in the latter part of the 19th century, comes a learned
scholar, (1) well acquainted with the language of the ancient
Babylonians and Assyrians, and with the complicated cuneiform
alphabet in which it is clothed, and visiting the remains of the
ruined cities which Nimrod had built, finds the fragments of
twelve tablets which contain the history of a Babylonian monarch
to whom he gave the provisional name of Izdubar and whom he
identified with Nimrod. If this identification be correct, and
there is certainly strong internal evidence in favor of it, we
have in these tablets a somewhat connected narrative of the
exploits of the proto-monarch of Babylon, which places his
character in a more favorable light than that which had hitherto
been received as the popular belief founded on the statement of
Josephus and the oriental traditions.

The Izdubar legends, as Mr. Smith has called the inscriptions on
these tablets, represent Nimrod as a mighty leader, a man of
great prowess in war and in hunting, and who by his ability and
valor had united many of the petty kingdoms into which the whole
of the valley of the Euphrates was at that time divided, and thus
established the first empire in Asia. (2) He was, in fact, the
hero of the ancient

(1) The late George Smith, of the British Museum, the author of
"Assyrian Discoveries," of the "Chaldean Account of Genesis," and
many other writings in which he has eNen the learned result of
his investigations of the cuneiform inscriptions.
(2) Smith, "Chaldean Account of Genesis," p. 174.


Babylonians, and therefore it was only natural that they should
consecrate the memory of him who as a powerful and beneficent
king had first given them that unity which secured their
prosperity as a nation. (1)

If we now refer to the Legend of the Craft, we shall find that
the old Masonic legendist, although of course he had never seen
nor heard of the discoveries contained in the cuneiform
inscriptions, had rejected the traditional estimate of Nimrod's
character, as well as the supposed results of the destruction of
the Tower of Babel, and had wisely selected Babylon as the first
seat and Nimrod (whoever may have been meant by that name) as the
founder of the sciences, and especially of architecture.

In this there is a conformity of the legendary account with the
facts of history, not usual with legendists.

"We must give," says Canon Rawlinson, "the Babylonians credit for
a genius and a grandeur of conception rarely surpassed, which led
them to employ the labor whereof they had the command, in works
of so imposing a character. With only 'brick for stone,' and at
first only 'slime for mortar,' they constructed edifices of so
vast a size that they still remain, at the present day, among the
most enormous ruins in the world, impressing the beholder at once
with awe and admiration."

The Legend of the Craft continually confounds Masonry, Geometry,
and Architecture, or rather uses them as synonymous and
convertible terms. It is not, therefore, surprising that it
should have selected Babylon as the birth-place, and Nimrod as
the founder of what they called "the science." The introduction
of his name into the Legend, may be attributed, says the Rev.
Bro. Woodford, (3) "to an old assumption that rulers were patrons
of the building sodalities." I rather imagine that the idea may
be traced to the fact that Nimrod was supposed to be a patron of
architecture and the buider of a great number of cities. The
mediaeval Operative Masons were always ready to accept any
distinguished architect or builder as a patron and member of the
Craft. Thus the history of Masonry compiled by Dr. Anderson, out
of the Old Records, is nothing but a history of architecture, and
almost every king, prelate, or nobleman who had erected a palace,
a church, or a castle, is called a distinguished Freemason and a
patron of the Institution.

(1) Smith, ib., p. 294.
(2) In Smith's "Dict. of the Bible," voce, Babel.
(3) Kenning's " Encyclopaedia," in voce Nimrod.






CHAPTER XIII

THE LEGEND OF EUCLID



HAING disposed of the establishment of Masonry in Babylon, the Legend
of the Craft next proceeds by a rapid transition to narrate the history of
its
introduction into Egypt. This Egyptian episode, which in reference to the
principal action in it has been called the "Legend of Euclid," is found in
all
the old manuscripts.

It forms the opening feature of the Halliwell poem, being in that document
the beginning of the history of Masonry; it is told with circumstantial
minuteness in the Cooke MS., and is apparently copied from that into all
the later manuscripts, where the important details are essentially the same,
although we find a few circumstances related in some which are omitted in
others.

Divesting the narrative of the archaic language of the manuscripts, the
legend may be given as follows:

Once on a time, to use the story-teller's style, Abraham and his wife went
to Egypt. Now Abraham was very learned in all the seven arts and
sciences, and was accompanied by Euclid, who was his scholar, and to
whom he had imparted his knowledge. At that time the lords or rich men
of Egypt were in sore distress, because having a very numerous
progeny of sons, for whom they could find no occupation, they knew not
how they could obtain for them a livelihood.

In this strait they held a council and made proclamation that if any one
could suggest a remedy, he should lay his plans before them, when he
should be suitably rewarded.

Upon this Euclid presented himself and offered to supply these sons
with an honest means of living, by teaching them the science of
Geometry, provided they should be placed by their fathers under his
exclusive control, so that he might have the power of ruling them
according to the laws of the Craft.

To this proposition the Egyptian nobles gladly consented, and granted
Euclid all the power that he had asked, and secured the grant to him by
a sealed commission.

Euclid then instructed them in the practical part of Geometry, and taught
them how to erect churches, castles, towers, and all other kinds of
buildings in stone. He also gave them a code of laws for their
government.

Thus did Euclid found in the land of Egypt the science which he named
Geometry, but which has ever since been called Masonry.

I have said that while all the manuscripts agree in the prominent
circumstances of this legend, there are in some of them a few
discrepancies as to some of the minor details.

Thus the Halliwell poem makes no allusion to Abraham, but imputes the
founding of Masonry to Euclid alone, and it will be remembered that the
title of that poem is, "The Constitutions of the art of Geometry according
to Euclid."

The Cooke MS. is far more full in details than either the Halliwell poem
or the manuscripts that succeeded it. It says that Abraham taught
Geometry to the Egyptians, and that Euclid was his scholar. But a few
lines after, quoting St. Isidore as its authority, it says that Euclid was
one
of the first founders of Geometry, and that in his time there was an
inundation of the Nile, and he taught them to make dykes and walls to
restrain the water, and measured the land by means of Geometry, and
divided it among the inhabitants, so that every man could enclose his
own property with ditches and walls. In consequence of this the land
became fertile, and the population increased to such a degree, that there
was found a difficulty in finding for all employment that would enable
them to live. Whereupon the nobles gave the government of their
children to Euclid, who taught them the art of Geometry, so called
because he had with its aid measured the land, (1) when he built the
walls and ditches to separate each one's possession.

The needles repetitions and confusion of details in the Cooke MS. show
that the author had derived the information on which he constructed his
legend from various sources - partly from the authority of St. Isidore, as
he is quoted in Higden's Polychronicon, and partly from the tradition of
the Craft.

(1) Geometry from the Greek ge land and metron measure.


The later manuscripts have copied the details of the Legend as
contained in the Cooke codex, but with many omissions, so as to give it
the form in which it was known to the Craft in the 16th and 17th
centuries.

Thus the Dowland MS., whose date is supposed to be about 1550, gives
the story almost exactly as it is in the Halliwell poem, except that it adds
Abraham and Sarah as dramatis persona, making it in this respect
coincide with the Cooke MS., and probably with the form of the original
Legend.

In this it is followed by the York, No. 1 (1600), the Grand Lodge (1632),
the Sloane (1646), the Lodge of Hope (1680), the Alnwick (1701), and
even the Papworth MS., as late as 1714.

The Landsdowne MS. (1560), and the Antiquity (1686), have the Legend
in a very imperfect form, and either did not copy or greatly curtailed the
Dowland MS., as they but slightly refer to Egypt and to Euclid, and not
at all to Abraham.

As to the reputation for great learning which the legendists have given to
Abraham, although the Bible dwells only on his piety, they found their
authority in Josephus, as well as in Isidore.

Josephus says that among the Egyptians he was esteemed as a very
wise man, and that besides reforming their customs, he taught them
arithmetic and astronomy.

It is evident, as has been already noticed, that the Legend of the Craft
has been indebted for much of its materials to the Antiquities of
Josephus, and the Etymologies of St. Isidore, and the Polychronicon of
Ranulph Higden - the first two at second hand, in all probability through
the citations of those works which are mdde in the third.

The Krause MS., which is said to have been translated from the English
into the Latin, and afterward into German, and published by Dr. Krause,
(1) gives the Legend in an entirely different form.

Notwithstanding that I have declared my belief that this document is
spurious with a date of not earlier than the second decade, or more
probably toward the middle of the 18th century, yet, as an indication of
the growth and the change of the Legend at that period, it will be worth
while to compare its form with that in the

(1) "Die drei altesten Kunsturkunden," iii., 59 - 113.


older manuscripts, at least so far as relates to the Egyptian episode,
which is in the following words:

"Abraham was skilled in all the sciences and continued to teach them to
the sons of the freeborn, whence afterwards came the many learned
priests and mathematicians who were known by the name of the
Chaldean Magi. Afterwards, Abraham continued to propagate these
sciences and arts when he came to Egypt, and found there, especially in
Hermes, so apt a scholar, that the latter was at length called the
Trismegistus of the sciences, for he was at the same time priest and
natural philosopher in Egypt; and through him and a scholar of his the
Egyptians received the first good laws and all the sciences in which
Abraham had instructed him. Afterwards Euclid collected the principal
sciences and called them Geometry. But the Greeks and Romans called
them altogether Architecture.

"But in consequence of the confusion of languages, the laws and arts
and sciences could not formerly be propagated until the people had
learned to make comprehensible by signs that which they could not
understand by words. Wherefore, Mizraim, the son of Cham, brought
the custom of making himself understood by signs with him into Egypt,
when he colonized a valley of the Nile. This art was afterwards extended
into all distant lands, but only the signs that are given by the hands have
remained in architecture; for the signs by figures are as yet known to but
few.

"In Egypt the overflowings of the Nile afforded an opportunity to use the
art of measurement, which had been introduced by Mizraim, and to build
bridges and walls as a protection against the water. They used burnt
stone and wood and earth for these purposes. Therefore when the
heathen kings had become acquainted with this, they were compelled to
prepare stone and lime and bricks and there-with to erect buildings, by
which, through God's will, however, they became only the more
expeienced artists and were so celebrated that their art spread as far as
Persia."

If the reader compares this legend of the Krause manuscript with that
which is given by Dr. Anderson in the first edition of his Constitutions, he
will be constrained to admit that both documents are derived from the
same source, or that one of them is an abridged or an expository copy
of the other. It is evident that the statement in Anderson is merely a
synopsis of that more detailed narrative contained in the Krause
Legend, or that it is an expansion of the statement in the first edition of
the Constitutions.

If the Krause MS. was written before Anderson compiled his history, it
could not have been long anterior, and must have been composed
between 1714, the date of the Papworth MS., which contains the Legend
in its mediaeval form, and 1723, when Anderson published his work.
Within this period the Masons sought to modify the old Legend of the
Craft, so as to deprive it of its apparent absurdities, and to omit its
anachronisms so as to give it the appearance of an authentic historical
narrative.

Instead, therefore, of having the date of 926, which has been ascribed to
it by Dr. Krause, his manuscript is, as Bro. Hughan thinks it, "a
compilation of the early part of the last century." It is, however,
important,
as I have said, because it shows how the old Legend was improved and
divested of its anachronisms.

It is certainly a very absurd anachronism to make Euclid the
contemporary of Abraham, who lived more than two thousand years
before him. Nor is it less absurd to suppose that Euclid invented
Masonry in Egypt, whence it was carried to India, and practiced by King
Solomon, since the great geometrician did not flourish until six centuries
and a half after the construction of the Temple.

Considered, then, as an historical narrative, the Legend of Euclid is a
failure. And yet it has its value as the symbolical development of certain
historical facts.

The prominent points in this Legend being, of course, those on which
the old believers of it most strenuously dwelt, are:
1. That Geometry is the groundwork of Masonry;
2. That Euclid was the most distinguished of all geometricians;
and,
3. That the esoteric method of teaching this as well as all the other
sciences which was pursued by the priests of Egypt, was very
analogous to that which was adopted by the Operative Masons of the
Middle Ages, in imparting to their disciples the geometric and
architectural secrets, which constituted what they called the Mystery of
the Craft.

The Legend, in fact, symbolizes the well-recognized fact, that in Egypt, in
early times - of which there is no historical objection to make Abraham
the contemporary - there was a very intimate connection between the
science of Geometry and the religious system of the Egyptians; that this
religious system embraced also all scientific instruction; that this
instruction was secret, and communicated only after an initiation, (1) and
that in that way there was a striking analogy between the Egyptian
system and that of the mediaeval Masons. And this fact of an analogy,
the latter sought to embody in the apparent form of an historical
narrative, but really in the spirit of a symbolic picture.

Thus considered, the Legend of the Craft, in its episode of Euclid and
his marvelous doings in the land of Egypt, is divested of its absurdity,
and it is brought somewhat nearer to the limits of historical verity than
the too literal reader would be disposed to admit.


(1) Kendrick confirms this statement in his Ancient Egypt," where he
says: "When we read of foreigners (in Egypt) being obliged to submit to
painful and tedious ceremonies of initiation, it was not that they might
learn the secret meaning of the rites of Osiris, or Isis, but that they
might partake of the knowledge of astronomy, physick, geometry, and
theology."-(Vol. i., p. 383.)

CHAPTER XIV

THE LEGEND OF THE TEMPLE



FROM this account of the exploits of Abraham and his scholar Euclid, and
of the invention of Geometry, or Masonry in Egypt, the Legend of the Craft
proceeds, by a rapid stride, to the narrative of the introduction of the art
into Judea, or as it is called in all of them, "the land of behest," or the
land
of promise.

Here it is said to have been principally used by King Solomon, in the
construction of the temple at Jerusalem. The general details connected
with the building of this edifice, and the assistance given to the King of
Israel, by Hiram, King of Tyre, are related with sufficient historical
accuracy,
and were probably derived either directly or at second hand, through the
Polychronicon, from the first Book of Kings, which, in fact, is referred to
in
all the manuscripts as a source of information. (1)

The assumption that Freemasonry, as it now exists, was organized at the
Temple of Solomon, although almost universally accepted by Masons who
have not made Masonry, a historical study but who derive their ideas of the
Institution from the mythical teachings of the ritual, has been utterly
rejected
by the greater part of the recent school of iconoclasts, who investigate the
history of Freemasonry by the same methods which they would pursue in
the examination of any other historical subject.

The fact, however, remains, that in the Legend of the Craft the Temple is
prominently and definitely referred to as a place where Masons
congregated in great numbers, and where Masonry was confirmed or
established, and whence it traveled into other countries. (2)

(1)"As it is said in the Bible, in the third book of Kings," are the words
of
the Cooke MS. In the canon of Scripture as then used, the two books of
Samuel were called the first and second of Kings. The third book of
Kings was then the first according to the present canon.
(2) "And thus was that worthy Science of Masonry confirmed in the
country of Jerusalem, and in many other kingdoms."-Dowland MS.


Considering the Legend of the Craft as merely a narrative of the rise and
progress of architecture in its connection with a peculiar architectural
association, it was natural that in such a narrative some reference should
be made to one of the most splendid specimens of ancient architectural
art that the ancient world had exhibited. And since this Temple was, by
its prominence in the ritual of Jewish worship, intimately connected with
both the Jewish and Christian religions, we shall be still less surprised
that an association not only so religious, but even ecclesiastical as
mediaeval Masonry was, should have considered this sacred edifice as
one of the cradles of its Institution.

Hence we find the Temple of Jerusalem occupying a place in the
Legend of the Craft which it has retained, with many enlargements, to
the present day.

But there is a difference in the aspect in which this subject of the Temple
is to be viewed, as we follow the progress of the Order in its transition
from an Operative to a Speculative Institution.

Originally referred to by the legendists as a purely historical fact, whose
details were derived from Scripture, and connected by a sort of esprit du
corps, with the progress of their own association, it was retained during
and after the development of the Order into a Speculative character,
because it seemed to be the very best foundation on which the religious
symbolism of that Order could be erected.

But notwithstanding that the masses of the Institution, learned as well as
unlearned, continue to accept the historical character of this part of the
Legend, the Temple is chiefly to be considered in a symbolic point of
view. It is in this aspect that we must regard it, and in so doing we shall
relieve the Legend of another charge of absurdity. It is true that we are
unable now to determine how much of true history and how much of
symbolism were contemplated by the authors of the Legend, when they
introduced the Temple of Jerusalem into that document as a part of their
traditional narrative. But there is a doubt, and we can not now positively
assert that the mediaeval Freemasons had not some impression of a
symbolic idea when they incorporated it into their history.

The Temple might, indeed, from its prominence in the ritual, be almost
called the characteristic symbol of Speculative Masonry. The whole
system of Masonic Symbolism is not only founded on the Temple of
Jerusalem, but the Temple idea so thoroughly permeates it that an
inseparable connection is firmly established, so that if the Temple
symbol were obliterated and eliminated from the system of Freemasonry
- if that system were purged of all the legends and myths that refer to
the building of the Solomonic Temple, and to the events that are
supposed to have then and there occurred, we should have nothing
remaining by which to recognize and identify Speculative Masonry, as
the successor of the Operative System of the Middle Ages. The history
of the Roman Empire with no account of Julius Caesar, or of Pompey, or
that of the French Revolution, with no allusion to Louis XVI., or to
Robespierre, would present just as mutilated a narrative as Freemasonry
would, were all reference to the Temple of Solomon omitted.

Seeing, then, the importance of this symbol, it is proper and will be
interesting to trace it back through the various exemplars of the Legend
of the Craft contained in the Old Constitutions, because it is to that
Legend that modern Freemasonry owes the suggestion at least, if not
the present arrangement and formulae of this important symbol.

In the oldest Constitution that we have, the one known as the Halliwell
MS., whose date is supposed not to be later than the end of the 14th
century, there is not the least allusion to the Temple of Solomon, which
is another reason why I ascribe to that document, as I have before said,
an origin different from that of the other and later manuscripts.

The word temple occurs but once in the entire poem, and then it is used
to designate a Christian church or place of worship. (1) But in the Cooke
MS., written, as it is estimated, about a century afterward, there are
ample references to the Solomonic Temple, and the statement made in
the Legend of the Craft is for the first time enunciated.

After this, there is not a Constitution written in which the same narrative
is not repeated. There does not appear in any of them, from the
Landsdowne MS. in 1560 to the Papworth in 1701, any enlargement of
the narrative or any development of new occur-


(1) "He made the bothe halle and eke bowre,
And hye temhuls of gret honoure,
To sport hym yn bothe day and nighth,
And to worschepe hys God with all hys myght."
(Lines 63-66).


rences. Each of them dilates, in almost the same words, upon the
Temple of Solomon as connected with Masonry in many words, and
gives elaborate details of the construction of the edifice, of the number
of Masons employed, how they were occupied in performing other works
of Masonry, and, finally, how one of them left Jerusalem and extended
the art into other countries. We thus see that up to the end of the 17th
century the Legend of the Craft in all its essential details continued to be
accepted as traditionary history.

In the beginning of the 18th century the Legend began to assume a
nearer resemblance to its present form. The document already referred
to as the Krause MS., and which Dr. Krause too hastily supposed was a
copy of the original York Constitutions of 926, is really, as I have
heretofore shown, a production of the early part of the 18th century. In
this document the Legend is given in the following words:

"Although, by architecture great and excellent buildings had already
been everywhere constructed, they all remained far behind the holy
Temple, which the wise King Solomon caused to be erected in
Jerusalem, to the honor of the true God, where he employed an
uncommonly large number of workmen, as we find in the Holy
Scriptures; and King Hiram of Tyre also added a number to them.
Among these assistants who were sent was King Hiram's most skilful
architect, a widow's son, whose name was Hiram Abif, and who
afterwards made the most exquisite arrangements and furnished the
most costly works, all of which are described in the Holy Scriptures. The
whole of these workmen were, with King Solomon's approval, divided
into certain classes, and thus at this great building was first founded a
worthy Society of Architects."

Whether the author of the Krause MS. had copied from Anderson, or
Anderson from him, or both from some other document which is no
longer extant, is a question that has already been discussed. But the
description of the Temple and its connection with the history of Masonry,
are given by Dr. Anderson with much of the features of the Krause form
of the Legend, except that the details are more copious. Now, what was
taught concerning the Temple by Anderson in his History contained in
the first edition of the Constitutions, although afterward polished and
perfected by Preston and other ritual makers, is substantially the same
as that which is taught at the present day in all the Lodges.

Therefore, notwithstanding that Dr. Krause asserts, (1) that "the Temple
of Solomon is no symbol, certainly not a prominent one of the English
system," I am constrained to believe that it was one of the prominent
symbols alluded to in the Mediaeval Legend, and that the symbol of the
Temple upon which so much of the symbolism of Modern Speculative
Masonry depends, was, in fact, suggested to the revivalists by the
narrative contained in the Legend of the Craft.

Whether the Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, who seem to have
accepted this Legend as authentic history, had also, underlying the
narrative, a symbolic interpretation of the Temple and of certain incidents
that are said to have occurred in the course of its erection, as referring
to this life and the resurrection to a future one, or whether that
interpretation was in existence at the time when the Legend of the Craft
was invented, and was subsequently lost sight of, only to be recovered
in the beginning of the 18th century, are questions that will be more
appropriately discussed in succeeding pages of this work, when the
subject of the myths and symbols of Freemasonry is under
consideration.

But it is evident that between the narrative in the Legend concerning the
Temple, with its three builders, the Kings of Israel and Tyre, and
Solomon's Master of the Works, and the symbolism of Modern
Speculative Masonry in allusion to the same building and the same
personages, there has been a close, consecutive connection.

Hence, again, we find that the Legend of the Craft is of value in
reference to the light which it throws on the progress of Masonic science
and symbolism, which otherwise it would not possess, if it were to be
considered as a mere mythical narrative without any influence on history.

Before concluding this subject, it will be necessary to refer to the name
of the chief builder of the Temple, and whose name has undergone that
corruption in all the manuscripts to which all proper names have been
subjected in those documents.

Of course, it is known, from the testimony of Scripture, that the real
name and title of this person, as used in reference to King Solomon and
himself, was Hiram Abif, that is, "his father Hiram." (2)

(1) "Die drei altesten Kunsturkunden," vol. i., p. 155, note 41.
(2) When the King of Tyre speaks of him, it is as Hiram Abi that is, "My
father Hiram," 2 Chron- ii. 13-



This Hebrew appellative is found for the first time in Masonic documents
in Anderson's Constitutions, and in the Krause MS., both being of the
date of the early part of the 18th century. Previous to that period we find
him variously called in all the Old Manuscripts, from the Dowland in 1550
to the Alnwick in 1701, Aman, Amon, Aynone, Aynon, Anon, and Ajuon.
Now, of what word are these a corruption? (1)

The Cooke MS. does not give any name, but only says, that "the King's
son of Tyre was Solomon's Master Mason." All the other and succeeding
manuscripts, without exception, admit this relation. Thus the Dowland,
in which it is followed by all the others, says that King Hiram "had a son
that was called AYNON, and he was a Master of Geometry, and was
chief Master of all Solomon's Masons."

The idea was thus established that this man was of royal dignity, the son
of a King, and that he was also a ruler of the Craft.

Now, the Hebrew word Adon denotes a lord, a prince, a ruler or master.
It is, in short, a title of dignity. In the Book of Kings we meet with
Adoniram, who was one of the principal officers of King Solomon, and
who during the construction of the Temple, performed an important part
as the chief or superintendent of the levy of thirty thousand laborers who
worked on Mount Lebanon.

The old Masons may have confounded this person with Hiram from the
similarity of the terminational syllables. The modern Continental Masons
committed the same error when they established the Rite of Adonhiram
or Adoniram, and gave to Hiram Abif the title of Adon Hiram, or the Lord
or Master Hiram. If the Old Masons did this, then it is evident that they
abbreviated the full namc and called him Adon.

But I am more inclined to believe that the author of the first or original
old manuscript, of which all the rest are copies, called the chief builder
of Solomon Adon, Lord and Master, in allusion to his supposed princely
rank and his high position as the chief builder or Master of the Works at
the Temple.

(1) The Papworth MS., whose supposed date is 1714, rejects all these
words and calls him Benaim, which is a misspelling of Bonaim, builders,
and that a grammatical error for Boneh, the Builder. The writer had
evidently got an inkling of the new form which the Legend was
beginning to assume. Anderson, it will be recollected, speaks of the "
Bonai, or builders in stone."


The corruption from Adon to Aynon, or Amon, or even Ajuon, is not
greater than what occurs in other names in these manuscripts, as where
Hermes is transmuted into Hermarines, and Euclid into Englet. Indeed
the copyists of these mediaeval documents appear to have had a Gallic
facility in corrupting the orthography of all foreign names, very often
almost totally destroying their identity.

As to the real meaning of Hiram Abif, either as a historic or symbolic
character, that topic will be thoroughly considered in another part of this
work, when the subject of Masonic Symbols comes to be considered.
The topic of the corruption of the name in the old manuscripts, and its
true signification, will again be treated when I come to investigate the "
Legend of Hiram Abif."

The Legend of the Temple could not be appropriately completed without
a reference to Solomon, King of Israel, and some inquiry as to how he
became indebted for the important place he has held in mediaeval
Freemasonry.

The popularity of King Solomon among the Eastern nations is a familiar
fact, known not only to Oriental scholars, but even to those whose
knowledge on the subject is confined to what they have learned from
their youthful reading of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments. Among the
Arabians and the Persians, the King of Israel was esteemed as a great
magician, whose power over the genii and other supernatural beings
was derived from his possession of the Omnific Name, by the use of
which he accomplished all his wonderful works, the said name being
inscribed on his signet ring.

It is not singular seeing the communication which took place before and
after the Crusades between the East and the West, that the wise son of
David should have enjoyed an equal popularity among the poets and
romancers of the Middle Ages.

"But among them the character that he sustains is not that of a great
magician, so much as that of a learned philosopher. Whenever a
Norman romancer or a Provencal minstrel composed a religious
morality, a pious declamation, or a popular proverb, it was the name of
Solomon that was often selected to "point the moral or adorn the tale."

Unlike the Orientalists, whose tendencies were always toward the
mystical, the mediaeval writers most probably derived their opinion of
the King of Israel, from the account of him and of his writings in the
Bible. Now, there he is peculiarly distinguished as a proverbialist.

Proverbs are the earliest outspoken thought of the people, and they
precede, in every nation, all other forms of literature. It was therefore
to
be expected, that at the awakening of learning in the Middle Ages, the
romancers would be fascinated by the proverbial philosophy of King
Solomon, rather than by his magical science, on which the Eastern
fabulists had more fondly dwelt.

Legrand D'Aussy, in his valuable work On the Fables and Romances of
the 12th and 13th Centuries, gives two interesting specimens from old
manuscripts, of the use made by their writers of the traditional reputation
of King Solomon.

The first of these is a romance called "The Judgment of Solomon." It is
something like the Jewish story of the two mothers. But here the
persons upon whom the judgment is to be passed are two sons of the
Prince of Soissons. The claim advanced was for a partition of the
property. To determine who was better entitled to be the heir, by the
reverence he might exhibit for the memory of his father, Solomon
required each to prove his knightly dexterity by transfixing a mark with
his lance, and that mark was to be the body of his dead father. The
elder readily complied with the odious condition. The younger
indignantly refused. To him Solomon decreed the heritage.

We see here how ready these romancers of the Middle Ages were to
invent a narrative and fit it into the life of their favorite Solomon. The
makers of the Masonic Legend of the Craft, who were their
contemporaries, promptly followed their example. There is in that
Legend, as we have seen, some anachronisms, but none more absurd
than that which makes a Prince of Soissons, who could not have been
earlier than the time of Clovis, in the 6th century, the contemporary of a
Jewish monarch who lived at least sixteen centuries before Soissons
was known as a kingdom.

But it shows us the spirit of the age and how Legends were fabricated.
We are thus prepared to form a judgment of the Masonic myths.

The Middle Ages also attributed to King Solomon a very familiar
acquaintance with the science of astrology. In so doing they by no
means borrowed the Oriental idea that he was a great magician; for
astrology formed no part of Eastern occult magic. The mediaeval
astrologer was deemed a man of learning, just as at this day is the
astronomer. Astrology was, in fact, the astronomy of the Middle Ages.
Solomon's astrological knowledge was therefore only a part of that great
learning for which he had the reputation.

In the collection of unpublished Fabliaux et Contes, edited by M. Meon,
is a poem entitled, "Le Lunaire que Salemon fist"; that is, "The Lunary
which Solomon made."

The lunary or lunarium was a table made by astrologers to indicate the
influence exerted by the moon on human affairs.

The poem, which consists of 910 lines, written in the old French or
Norman language, contains directions for the conduct of life, telling what
is to be done or what omitted on every day of the month. The
concluding lines assign, without hesitation, the authorship to Solomon,
while it pays the mediaeval tribute to his character:

"Here is ended the lesson
Made by the good King Solomon,
To whom in his life God gave
Riches and honor and learning,
More than to any other born
Or begotten of woman."


The canonical book of Proverbs gave the writers of the Middle Ages
occasion to have an exalted opinion of Solomon as a maker of those
pithy sayings - a characteristic of his genius of which the Orientals seem
to have been unmindful.

One of the most remarkable works of mediaeval literature is a poem by
the Comte de Bretagne, entitled "Proverbs of Marcol and Solomon."

This Marcol is represented as a commentator, or rather, perhaps, a rival
of King Solomon. The work is a poem divided into stanzas of six lines
each. The first three lines contain a proverb of Solomon; the next three
another proverb on the same subject, and in response, by Marcol.

There is another mediaeval poem in the collection of M. Meon, entitled
"Of Marco and Solomon." The responsive style is the same as that of the
Comte de Bretagne, but the one hundred and thirty-seven proverbs
which it contains are all new.

But still more apposite to the present inquiry is the fact that among the
medioeval writers Solomon bore the reputation of an artisan of
consummate skill. He was like the Volund or Wieland of the
Scandinavian and Teutonic myths - the traditional smith who fabricated
the decorations of chambers, the caparison of war-horses, and the
swords and lances of cavaliers. In the poems of the Middle Ages
whenever it becomes necessary to speak of any of these things as
having been made with exquisite and surpassing skill, it is said to be
"the work of Solomon" - l'uevre Salemon.

But enough has been said to show that King Solomon was as familiar to
the romancers of the Middle Ages as he was to the Jews of Palestine or
to the Orientalists of Arabia and Persia. Philip de Thuan, who, in the
12th century, wrote his Besliary, a sort of natural history spiritualized,
says that by Solomon was signified any wise man - Sacez par Salemuon
sage gent entendum.

Now, about the same time that these fable-makers and song-writers of
the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries were composing these stories about
King Solomon, the makers of the Masonic Legend of the Craft were
inventing their myths about the same monarch and the Temple which he
erected.

This is a concurrence of time which suggests that possibly the popularity
of King Solomon with the romancers of the Middle Ages made the
incorporation of his name in the Masonic Legend less difficult to those
who framed that mythical story.

We might, indeed, be led to suspect that the use of Solomon in their
Legends and traditions was first suggested to the Stonemasons and to
the cognate associations, such as the "Compagnons de la Tour" of
France, from the frequent references to it by the contemporary
romancers.

But the subsequent myths connected with Solomon as the head of the
association of Masons at the Temple were, at a much later period,
borrowed, in great part, from the Talmudists, and have no place among
the song-writers and fabulists of the Middle Ages.





CHAPTER XV

THE EXTENSION OF THE ART INTO OTHER COUNTRIES



THE Legend of The Craft next proceeds to narrate how Masonry was
extended "into divers countryes," some of the Masons traveling to increase
their knowledge of their art, and others to extend that which they already
possessed.

This subject is very briefly treated in the different manuscripts. The
Halliwell
poem says nothing of the progressive march of Masonry except that it
details almost as an episode the persecution of the "Four Crowned Martyrs"
as Christian Masons, in the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, and we
should almost be led to infer from the tenor of the poem that Masonry was
introduced directly into England from Egypt.

The Cooke MS. simply says that from Egypt Masonry "went from land to
land and from kingdom to kingdom," until it got to England.

The later manuscripts are a little more definite, although still brief.
They
merely tell us that skillful craftsmen largely traveled into various
countries,
some that they might acquire more knowledge and skill, and others to
teach those who had but little skill.

There is certainly nothing that is mythical or fabulous in this statement.
Every authentic history of architecture concurs in the statement that at
an early period the various counties of Europe were perambulated by
bodies of builders in search of employment in the construction of
religious and other edifices. The name, indeed, of "Travelling
Freemasons" which was bestowed upon them, is familiar in architectural
historical works. (1)

Indeed, as Mr. George Godwin says, "There are few points in the Middle
Ages more pleasing, to look back upon than the existence

(1) See Hope's " Historical Essay on Architecture."


of the associated Masons; they I are the bright spot in the general
darkness of that period, the patch of verdure when all around is barren."
(1)


But this interesting subject will be more fully discussed in another part of
this work, when we come to treat of the authentic history of Masonry.
This portion of the Legend can not be said to belong to the prehistoric
period.

It is sufficient, for the present, to have shown that in this part, as
elsewhere, the Legend of the Craft is not a merely fictitious narrative, but
that the general statement of the extension of Freemasonry throughout
Europe at an early period is confirmed by historical evidence.

On examining the Legend of the Craft, it will be found to trace the
extension of Masonry through its successive stages of progress from
Babylon and Assyria to Egypt, from Egypt to Judea, from Judea to
France, and from France to England. Accepting Masonry and the art of
building as synonymous terms, this line of progress will not be very
adverse, with some necessary modifications, to that assumed to be
correct by writers on architecture. But, as I have just said, the
consideration of this subject belongs not to the prehistoric, but to the
historic period of the Society.

(1) "The Builder," vol. ix., p. 463.

CHAPTER XVI

THE LEGEND OF CHARLES MARTEL AND NAMUS GRECUS



THE Legend, now approaching the domain of authentic history, but still
retaining its traditional character, proceeds to narrate, but in a very few
words, the entrance of Masonry into France.

This account is given in the following language in the Dowland manuscript.

"And soe it befell that there was one curious Mason that height MAYMUS
GRECUS, that had been at the making of Solomon's temple, and he came
into France, and there he taught the science of Masonrys to men of France.
And there was one of the Regal lyne of Fraunce, that height CHARLES
MARTELL; and he was a man that loved well such a science, and drew to
this MAYMUS GRECUS that is above said, and learned of him the science,
and tooke upon him the charges and manners; and afterwards, by the
grace of God, he was elect to be Kinge of France. And whan he was in his
estate, he tooke Masons and did helpe to make men Masons that were
none; and he set them to worke, and gave them both the charge and the
manners and good pale, as he had learned of other Masons; and
confirmed them a Charter from yeare to yeare, to holde their semble wher
they would; and cherished them right much; and thus came the science
into France."

This Legend is repeated, almost word for word, in all the later
manuscripts up to the year 1714.

It is not even alluded to in the earliest of all the manuscripts - the
Halliwell poem - which is another proof that that document is of German
origin.

The Cooke MS. has the Legend in the following words:

"Sumtyme ther was a worthye kyng in Frauns, that was clepyd Carolus
secundus that ys to sey Charlys the secunde. And this Charlys was
elyte [elected] kyng of Frauns by the grace of God and by lynage
[lineage] also. And sume men sey that he was elite [elected] by fortune
the whiche is fals as by cronycle he was of the kynges blode Royal.
And this same kyng Charlys was a mason bifor that he was kyng. And
after that he was kyng he lovyd masons and cherschid them and gaf
them chargys and mannerys at his devise the whiche sum ben yet used
in fraunce and he ordeynyd that they scholde have a semly [assembly]
onys in the yere and come and speke togedyr and for to be rculed by
masters and felows of thynges amysse." (1)

The absence of all allusion to Namus Grecus (a personage who will
directly occupy our attention) in the Cooke document is worthy of notice.

When Dr. Anderson was putting the Legend of the Craft into a modern
shape, he also omitted any reference to Namus Grecus but he preserved
the spirit of the Legend, so far as to say, that according to the old
records of Masons, Charles Martel "sent over several expert craftsmen
and learned architects into England at the desire of the Saxon kings." (2)

I think it will be proved, when in the course of this work the authentic
history of Masonry comes to be treated, that the statement in the Legend
of the Craft in relation to the condition of the art in France during the
administration of Charles Martel is simply a historical fact. In claiming
for
the "Hammerer" the title of King of France, while he assumed only the
humble rank of Duke of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, the
legendists have only committed a historical error of which more
experienced writers might be guilty.

The introduction of the name of Namus Grecus, an unknown Mason,
who is described as being the contemporary of both Solomon and of
Charles Martel, is certainly an apparent anachronism that requires
explanation.

This Namus Grecus has been a veritable sphinx to Masonic antiquaries,
and no CEdipus has yet appeared who could resolve the riddle. Without
assuming the sagacity of the ancient expounder of enigmas, I can only
offer a suggestion for what it may be considered worth.

I suppose Grecuis to be merely an appellative indicating the fact that this
personage was a Greek. Now, the knowledge of his exist-

(1) Cooke MS., lines 576 - 601.
(2) "Constitutions," ed. 1723, p. 30,.


ence at the court of Charles Martel was most probably derived by the
English legendist from a German or French source, because the Legend
of the Craft is candid in admitting that the English Masons had collected
the writings and charges from other countries. Prince Edwin is said to
have made a proclamation that any Masons who "had any writing or
understanding of the charges and the manners that were made before in
this land [England] or in any other, that they should shew them forth."
And there were found "some in French, some in Greek, some in English,
and some in other languages."

Now, if the account and the name of this Greek architect had been taken
from the German, the text would most probably have been "ein Maurer
Namens Grecus"; or, if from the French, it would have been "un Macon
nomme Grecus." The English legendist would, probably, mistake the
words Namens Grecus, or nomme Grecus, each of which means "he
was named Grecus," or, literally, "a Mason by the name of Grecus," for
the full name, and write him down as Namus Grecus. The Maymus in
the Dowland MS. is evidently a clerical error. In the other manuscripts it
is Namus. The corrected reading, then, would be - "there was a Mason
named (or called) a Greek."

It can not be scd that it is not probable that any legendist would have
fallen into such an error when we remember how many others as great,
if not greater, have been perpetrated in these Old Records. See, for
instance, in these manuscripts such orthographical mistakes as
Hermarines for Hermes, and Englet for Euclid; to say nothing of the
rather ridiculous blunder in the Leland MS., where Pythagore, the French
form of Pythagoras, has suffered transmutation into Peter Gower. So it
is not at all unlikely that Namens Grecus, or nomme Grecus, should be
changed into Namus Grecus.

The original Legend, in all probability meant to say merely that in the
time of Charles Martel, a Greek artist, who had been to Jerusalem,
introduced the principles of Byzantine architecture into France.

Now, history attests that in the 8th century there was an influx of Grecian
architects and artificers into Southern and Western Europe, in
consequence of persecutions that were inflicted on them by the
Byzantine Emperors. The Legend, therefore, indulges in no spirit of
fiction in referring to the advent in France, at that period, of one of
these
architects.

It is also a historical fact that Charles the Great of France was a liberal
encourager of the arts and sciences, and that he especially promoted
the cultivation of architecture on the Byzantine or Greek model in his
dominions.

Dr. Oliver, in the second edition of the Constitutions, repeats the Legend
with a slight variation. He says that "Ethelbert, King of Mercia, and
general monarch, sent to Charles Martel, the Right Worshipful Grand
Master of France (father of King Pippin), who had been educated by
Brother Nimus Graecus, he sent over from France (about A.D. 710)
some expert Masons to teach the Saxons those laws and usages of the
ancient fraternity, that had been happily preserved from the havock of
the Goths."

Pritchard, in his Masonry Dissected, gives, upon what authority I know
not, the Legend in the following form:


Euclid "communicated the art and mystery of Masonry to Hiram, the
Master Mason concerned in the building of Solomon's Temple in
Jerusalem, where was an excellent and curious Mason, whose name
was Mannon Grecus, who taught the art of Masonry to one Carolus
Marcil in France, who was afterwards elected King of Flance."

Upon this change of the name to Mannon Grecus, Krause suggests a
derivation as follows: In using this name he thinks that Pritchard
intended to refer to the celebrated scholastic philosopher Mannon, or
Nannon, who was probably celebrated in his time for his proficiency in
the language and literature of Greece. Nannon lived in the reign of
Charles the Bold, and was the successor of Erigena in the direction of
the schools of France.

I think the derivation of the name offered by Dr. Krause is wholly
untenable though ingenious, for it depends upon a name not found in
any of the old manuscripts, and besides, the philosopher did not live in
the time of Charles Martel, but long afterward.

Between his derivation and mine, the reader may select, and probably
will be inclined to reject both.

As far as the Legend regards Charles Martel as the patron of architecture
or Masonry in France, one observation remains to be made.

If there has been an error of the legendists in attributing to Charles
Martel the honor that really belonged to his successor, Charles the
Great, it is not surprising when we consider how great was the
ignorance of the science of chronology that prevaded in those days.
However, it must be remarked, that at the present day the French
Masonic writers speak of Charles Martel as the founder of Masonry in
France.

The error of making the Greek architect a contemporary both of
Solomon and of Charles Martel is one which may be explained, either as
the expression of a symbolic idea, alluding to the close connection that
had existed between Oriental and Byzantine architecture, or may be
excused as an instance of blundering chronology for which the spirit of
the age, more than the writer of the Legend, is to be blamed. This
objection will not, however, lie if we assume that Namus Grecus meant
simply a Greek architect.

But this whole subject is so closely connected with the authentic history
of Masonry, having really passed out of the prehistoric period, that it
claims a future and more elaborate consideration in its proper place.





CHAPTER XVII

THE LEGEND OF ST. ALBAN



THE Legend of the Craft now proceeds to narrate the history of the
introduction of Masonry into England, in the time of St. Alban, who lived in
the 3d century.

The Legend referring to the protomartyr of England is not mentioned in the
Halliwell poem, but is first found in the Cooke MS., in the following words:
"And sone after that come seynt Adhabell into Englond, and he convertyd
seynt Albon to cristendome. And seynt Albon lovyd well masons, and he
gaf hem fyrst her charges and maners fyrst in Englond. And he ordeyned
convenyent (1) to pay for their travayle." (2)

The later manuscripts say nothing of St. Adhabell, and it is not until we
get
to the Krause MS. in the beginning of the 18th century, that we find any
mention of St. Amphibalus, who is described in that document as having
been the teacher of St. Alban. But St. Amphibalus, of which the Adhabell
of the Cooke MS. is undoubtedly a corruption, is so apocryphal a
personage, that I am rejoiced that the later legendists have not thought
proper to follow the Cooke document and give him a place in the Legend.

In fact, amphibalum was the ecclesiastical name of a cloak, worn by priests
of the Romish Church over their other vestments. (3) It was a
vestment ecclesiastically transmuted into a saint, as the hand-

(1) Cooke translates this "convenient times," supplying the second word.
But a more correct word is suitable or proper, which is an old meaning
of convenient. "He ordained suitable pay for their labor," and this agrees
with the Iater manuscripts which impress the fact that St. Alban "made
their pay right good."
(2) Cooke MS., lines 602 - 611.
(3) It is significant that among the spurious relics sent, when fearing the
Danish invasion, in the reign of Edward the Confessor, by the Abbot of
St. Albans, to the monks of Ely, was a very rough, shagged old coat,
which it was said had been usually worn by St. Amphibalus.


kerchief on which Christ left the image of His face when, as it is said, it
was handed to Him on His way to Calvary, by a pious Jewess, became
from the Greco-Latin vera icon, "the true image," converted into St.
Veronica. The Masonic are not the only legendists who draw deeply on
our credulity.

Of St. Alban, ecclesiastical history furnishes only the following meager
details, and even of these some are apocryphal, or at least lack the
stamp of authenticity.

He was born (so runs the tradition) in the 3d century, in Hertfordshire,
England, near the town of Verulanium. Going to Rome, he served for
seven years as a soldier under the Emperor Diocletian. He then
returned with a companion and preceptor Amphibalus, to Britain, and
betook himself to Verulanium. When the persecutions of the Christians
commenced in Britain, Amphibalus was sought for, as one who had
apostatized to the new religion; but as he could not be found, St. Alban
voluntarily presented himself to the judge, and after undergoing torture
was imprisoned. Soon after this, the retreat of Amphibalus having been
discovered, both he and St. Alban suffered death for being Christians.
Four centuries after his martyrdom, Offa, King of the Mercians, erected a
monastery at Holmehurst, the hill where he was buried, and soon after
the town of St. Albans arose in its vicinity.

When the Christian religion became predominant in England, the Church
paid great honors to the memory of the protomartyr. A chapel was
erected over his grave which, according to the Venerable Bede, was of
admirable workmanship.

The Masonic Legend contains details which are not furnished by the
religious one. According to it, St. Alban was the steward of the
household of Carausius, he who had revolted from the Emperor
Maximilian, and usurped the sovereignty of England. Carausius
employed him in building the town walls. St. Alban, thus receiving the
superintendence of the Craft, treated them with great kindness,
increased their pay, and gave them a charter to hold a general
assembly. He assisted them in making Masons, and framed for them a
constitution - for such is the meaning of the phrase, "gave them
charges."

Now, there is sufficient historical evidence to show that architecture was
introduced into England by the Roman artificers, who followed, as was
their usage, the Roman legions, habilitated themselves in the conquered
colonies, and engaged in the construction not only of camps and
fortifications, but also when peace was restored in the building of
temples and even private edifices. Architectural ruins and Latin
inscriptions, which still remain in many parts of Britain, attest the labors
and the skill of these Roman artists, and sustain the statement of the
Legend, that Masonry, which, it must be remembered, is, in the Old
Records, only a synonym of architecture, was introduced into England
during the period of its Roman colonization.

As to the specific statement that St. Alban was the patron of Masons,
that he exercised the government of a chief over the Craft, and improved
their condition by augmenting their wages, we may explain this as the
expression of a symbolical idea, in which history is not altogether
falsified, but only its dates and personages confused.

Carausius, the Legend does not mention by name. It simply refers to
some King of England, of whose household St. Alban was the steward.
Carausius assumed the imperial purple in the year in which St. Alban
suffered martyrdom. The error of making him the patron of St. Alban is
not, therefore, to be attributed to the legendist, but to Dr. Anderson, who
first perpetrated this chronological blunder in the second edition of his
Constitutions. And though he states that "this is asserted by all the old
copies of the Constitutions," we fail to find it in any that are now extant.

This "Legend of St. Alban," as it has been called, is worthy of a farther
consideration.

The foundation of this symbolical narrative was first laid by the writer of
the Cooke MS., or, rather, copied by him from the tradition existing
among the Craft at that time. Its form was subsequently modified and
the details extended in the Dowland MS., for tradition always grows in
the progress of time. This form and these details were preserved in all
the succeeding manuscript Constitutions, until they were still further
altered and enlarged by Anderson, Preston, and other Masonic
historians of the last century.

With the gratuitous accretions of these later writers we have no concern
in any attempted explanation of the actual signification of the Legend.
Its true form and spirit are to be found only in the Dowland MS. of the
middle of the 16th century, and in those which

(1) Anderson, "Constitutions," 2d edit., p. 57.


were copied from it, up to the Papworth, at the beginning of the 18th.
To these, and not to anything written after the period of the Revival, we
must direct our attention.

Admitting that on the conquest of England by the Roman power, the
architects who had accompanied the victorious legions introduced into
the conquered colony their architectural skill, it is very likely that some
master workmen among them had been more celebrated than others for
their skill, and, indeed, it is naturally to be supposed that to such
skillful
builders the control of the Craft must have been confided. Whether
there were one or more of these chief architects, St. Alban, if not actually
one of them, was, by the lapse of time and the not unusual process by
which legendary or oral accretions are superimposed on a plain
historical fact, adopted by the legendists as their representative. Who
was the principal patron of the Architects or Masons during the time of
the colonization of England by the Romans, is not so material as is the
fact that architecture, with other branches of civilization, was introduced
at that era into the island by its conquerors.

This is an historical fact, and in this point the Legend of the Craft agrees
with authentic history.

But it is also an historical fact that when, by the pressure of the Northern
hordes of barbarians upon Rome, it was found necessary to withdraw all
the legions from the various colonies which they protected from exterior
enemies and restrained from interior insurrection, the arts and sciences,
and among them architecture, began to decline in England. The natives,
with the few Roman colonists who had permanently settled among them,
were left to defend themselves from the incursions of the Picts on the
north, and the Danish and Saxon pirates in the east and south. The arts
of civilization suffered a depression in the tumult of war. Science can
not flourish amid the clang and clash of arms. This depression and
suspension of all architectural progress in England, which continued for
some centuries, is thus expressed in the quaint language of the Legend:

"Right soone after the decease of Saint Albone, there came divers wars
into the realme of England of divers Nations, soe that the good rule of
Masonrye was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge Athelstone's days."

There is far more of history than of fiction in this part of the Legend.

The next point of the Legend of the Craft to which our attention is to be
directed, is that which relates to the organization of Masonry at the city
of York, in the 10th century. This part of the Legend is of far more
importance than any of those which have been considered. The
prehistoric here verges so closely upon the historic period, that the true
narrative of the rise and progress of Masonry can not be justly
understood until each of these prehistoric and historic elements has
been carefully relegated to its appropriate period. This will constitute
the subject matter of the next chapter.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE YORK LEGEND



THE suppression of all architectural art and enterprise having lasted for so
long a period in Britain, the Legend of the Craft next proceeds to account
for its revival in the 10th century and in the reign of Athelstan, whose son
Edwin called a meeting, or General Assembly, of the Masons at York in the
year 926, and there revived the Institution, giving to the Craft a new code
of laws.

Now, it is impossible to attach to this portion of the Legend, absolutely
and
without any reservation, the taint of fiction. The convocation of the Craft
of
England at the city of York, in the year 926, has been accepted by both the
Operative Masons who preceded the Revival, and by the Speculatives who
succeeded them, up to the present day, as a historical fact that did not
admit of dispute. The two classes of Legends - the one represented by the
Halliwell poem, and the other by the later manuscripts - concur in giving
the
same statement. The Cooke MS., which holds an intermediate place
between the two, also contains it. But the Halliwell and the Cooke MSS.,
which are of older date, give more fully the details of what may be called
this revival of English Masonry. Thoroughly to understand the subject, it
will be necessary to collate the three accounts given in the three different
sets of manuscripts.

The Halliwell poem, whose conjectural date is about 1390, contains the
account in the following words. I will first give it, relieved of its
archaisms, for the convenience of the reader inexpert in early English,
and then follow with a quotation of the original language:

"This craft came into England, as I tell you, in the time of good King
Athelstane's reign. He made them both hall and also chamber, and lofty
churches of great honour, to recreate him in both day and night and to
worship his God with all his strength. 'This good lord loved this craft
full
well, and purposed to strengthen it in every part, on account of several
defects which he discovered in the craft. He sent about into the land
after all the masons of the craft to come straight to him, to amend all
these defects by good counsel, if it could be done. Then he permitted
an assembly to be made of various lords according to their rank, dukes,
earls, and barons also, knights, squires, and many more, and the great
burgesses of that city, they were all there in their degree; these were
there, each one in every way to make laws for the society of these
masons. There they sought by their wisdom how they might govern it.
There they invented fifteen articles, and there they made fifteen points."
(1) The original is as follows:

"Thys craft com ynto England as y you say,
Yn tyme of good kynge Athelston's day;
He made the both halle and eke boure,
And hye templus of gret honoure,
To sportyn hym yn bothe day and nyghth,
And to worschepe his God with alle hys myghth.
Thys goode lorde loved thys craft ful wel,
And purposud to strenthyn hyt ever del,
For dyvers defautys that yn the craft he fonde;
He sende aboute ynto the londe
After alle the masonus of the crafte
To come to hym ful evene strayfte,
For to amende these defaultys alle
By good counsel gef hyt mygth falle.
A semble thenne he cowthe let make
Of dyvers lordis in here state
Dukys, erlys and barnes also,
Knygthys, sqwyers and mony mo,
And the grete burges of that syte,
They were ther alle yn here degre;
These were there uchon algate,
To ordeyne for these masonus estate,
Ther they sowgton ly here wytte
How they mygthyn governe hytte
Fyftene artyculus they there sowgton,
And fyftene poyntys ther they wrogton."

One hundred years afterward we find the Legend, in the Cooke MS., as
follows:

"And after that was a worthy kynge in Englond that was callyd

(1) Halliwell MS., lines 61-87.

Athelstone, and his yongest sone lovyd well the sciens of Gemetry, and
he vont well that handcraft had the practyke of Gemetry so well as
masons, wherefore he drew him to consell and lernyd [the] practyke of
that sciens to his speculatyfe. (1) For of speculatyfe he was a master,
and he lovyd well masonry and masons. And he bicome a mason
hymselfe. And he gaf hem [gave them] charges and names (2) as it is
now usyd in Englond and in other countries. And he ordeyned that they
schulde have resonabull pay. And purchesed [obtained] a fre patent of
the kyng that they schulde make a sembly when they saw resonably
tyme a [to] cume togedir to her [their] counsell of the whiche charges,
manors & semble as is write and taught in the boke of our charges
wherefor I leve it at this tyme." (3)

In a subsequent part of the manuscript, which appears to have been
taken from the aforesaid "boke of charges," with some additional details,
are the following words:

"After that, many yeris, in the tyme of Kyng Adhelstane, wiche was sum
tyme kynge of Englonde, bi his counsell and other gret loritys of the lond
by comyn [common] assent for grete defaut y-fennde [found] among
masons thei ordeyend a certayne reule amongys hem [them]. On [one]
tyme of the yere or in iii yere as nede were to the kyng and gret loritys of
the londe and all the comente [community], fro provynce to provynce
and fro countre to countre congregacions schulde be made by maisters,
of all maisters masons and felaus in the forsayd art. And so at such
congregacions, they that be made masters schold be examined of the
articuls after written & be ransacked [examined] whether they be abull
and kunnyng to the profyte of the loritys hem to serve [to serve them]
and to the honour of the forsayd art." (4)

Sixty years afterward we find this Legend repeated in the Dowland MS.,
but with some important variations. This Legend has already been given
in the Legend of the Craft, but for the convenience of immediate
comparison with the preceding documents it will be well to repeat it
here. It is in the following words:

"Right soone after the decease of Saint Albone there came divers

(1) Cooke calls particular attention to this word as of much significative
import. I think it simply means that the king added a practical
knowledge of Masonry or architecture to his former merely speculative or
theoretical acquaintance with the art.
(2) This is evidently an error of the pen for maners, i.e., usages.
(3) Cooke MS., lines 611-642.
(4) Cooke MS., lines 693-719.


warrs into the realme of England of divers Nations, soe that the good
rule of Masonrye was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge Athelstones
days that was a worthy Kinge of England, and brought this land into
good rest and peace and builded many great works of Abbyes and
Towres and other many divers buildings and loved well Masons. And he
had a Sonn that height Edwinne, and he loved Masons much more than
his father did. And he was a great practiser in Geometry, and he drew
him much to talke and to commune with Masons and to learne of them
science, and afterwards for love that he had to Masons and to the
science he was made Mason, (1) and he gatt of the Kinge his father a
Chartour and Commission to hold every yeare once an Assemble wher
that ever they would within the realme of England, and to correct within
themselves defaults and trespasses that were done within the science.
And he held himselfe an Assemble at Yorke, and there he made Masons
and gave them charges and taught them the manners, and commanded
that rule to be kept ever after. And tooke them the Chartour and
Commission to keepe and made ordinance that it should be renewed
from kinge to kinge.
"And when the Assemble was gathered he made a cry that all old
Masons and young, that had any writeings or understanding of the
charges and the manners that were made before in this land, or in any
other, that they should shew them forth. And when it was proved there
was founden some in Frenche and some in Greek and some in English
and some in other languages; and the intent of them all was founden all
one. And he did make a booke thereof, and how the science was
founded. And he himselfe bad and commanded that it should be readd
or tould, when that any Mason should be made, for to give him his
Charge. And fro that day into this tyme manners of Masons have beene
kept in that forme as well as men might governe it. And furthermore
divers Assembles have beene put and ordayned certain charges by the
best advice of Masters and Fellowes."

It will be remarked that in neither of the two oldest manuscripts,

(1) The next MS. in date, the Landsdowne, names the place where he
was made as Windsor. This statement is not found in any of the other
manuscripts except the Antiquity MS. It may here be observed that
nothing more clearly proves the great carelessness of the transcribers of
these manuscripts than the fact that although they must have all been
familiar with the name of Edwin, one of them spells it Ladrian, and
another Hoderine.


the Halliwell and the Cooke, is there any mention of Prince Edwin, or of
the city of York. For the omission I shall hereafter attempt to account.
As to that of the lauer I agree with Bro. Woodford, that as the fact of the
Assembly is stated in all the later traditions, and as a city is mentioned
whose burgesses were present, we may fairly, understand both of the
oldest manuscripts also to refer to York. (1) At all events, their silence
as
to the place affords no sufficient evidence that it was not York, as
opposed to the positive declaration of the later manuscripts that it was.

We see, then, that all the old Legends assert expressly, or by
implication, that York was the city where the first General Masonic
Assembly was held in England, and that it was summoned under the
authority of King Athelstan.

The next point in which all the later manuscripts, except the Harleian, (2)
agree is, that the Assembly was called by Prince Edwin, the King's son.

The Legend does not here most certainly agree with history, for there is
no record that Athelstan had any son. He had, however, a brother of
that name, who died two years before him.

Edward the Elder, the son of Alfred the Great, died in the year 925,
leaving several legitimate sons and one natural one, Athelstan. The
latter, who was the eldest of the sons of Edward, obtained the throne,
notwithstanding the stain on his birth, in consequence of his age, which
better fitted him to govern at a time when the kingdom was engaged in
foreign and domestic wars.

All historians concur in attributing to Athelstan the character of a just
and
wise sovereign, and of a sagacious statesman. It has been said of him
that he was the most able and active of the ancient princes of England.
What his grandfather, the great Alfred, commenced in his efforts to
consolidate the petty monarchies into which the land was divided, into
one powerful kingdom, Athelstan, by his energy, his political wisdom,
and his military prowess, was enabled to perfect, so that he has been
justly called the first monarch of all England.

Although engaged duhng his whole reign in numerous wars, he

(1) "On the Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in
England." By A.F. Woodford, A.M., in Hughan's " Masonic Sketches and
Reprints," p. 168.
(2) The Harleian MS makes no mention of Prince Edwin, but attributes
the organization of Masonry at York to King Athelstan himself.

did not neglect a cultivation of the employments of peace, and
encouraged by a liberal patronage the arts and especially architecture.

The only stain upon his character is the charge that having suspected
his brother Edwin of being engaged in a conspiracy against his throne,
he caused that prince to be drowned. Notwithstanding the efforts of
Preston to disprove this charge, the concurrent testimony of all the old
chroniclers afford no room to doubt its truth. But if anything could atone
for this cruel act of state policy, it would be the bitter anguish and
remorse of conscience which led the perpetrator to endure a severe
penance of seven years.

Of Edwin, the Saxon historians make no mention, except when they
speak of his untimely death. If we may judge of his character from this
silence, we must believe that he was not endued with any brilliant
qualities of mind, nor distinguished by the performance of any important
act.

Of all the half-brothers of Athelstan, the legitimate children of Edward the
Elder, Edmund seems to have been his favorite. He kept him by his
side on battle-fields, lived single for his sake, and when he died in 941,
left to him the succession to the throne.

But there is another Edwin of prominent character in the annals of Saxon
England, to whom attention has been directed in connection with this
Legend, as having the best claim to be called the founder or reviver of
English Masonry.

Of Edwin, King of Northumbria, it may be said, that in his narrow sphere,
as the monarch of a kingdom of narrow dimensions, he was but little
inferior in abilities or virtues to Athelstan.

At the time of his birth, in 590, Northumbria was divided into two
kingdoms, that of Bernicia, north of the Humber, and that of the Deira,
on the south of the same river. Of the former, Ethelfrith was King, and of
the latter, Ella, the father of Edwin.

Ella died in 593, and was succeeded by Edwin an infant of three years
of age.

Soon after, Ethelfrith invaded the possessions of Edwin, and attached
them by usurpation to his own domains.

Edwin was sent to Wales, whence when he grew older he was obliged to
flee, and passed many years in exile, principally at the Court of Redwald,
King of East Anglia. By the assistance of this monarch he was enabled
to make war upon his old enemy, Ethelfrith, who, having been slain in
battle, and his sons having fled into Scotland, Edwin not only regained
his own throne, but that of the usurper also, and in the year 617 became
the King of Northumbria, of which the city of York was made the capital.
Edwin was originally a pagan, but his mind was of a contemplative turn,
and this made him, says Turner, more intellectual than any of the Saxon
Kings who had preceded him. He was thus led to a rational
consideration of the doctrines of Christianity, which he finally accepted,
and was publicly baptized at York, on Easter day, in the year 627. The
ceremony was publicly performed in the Church of St. Peter the Apostle,
which he had caused to be hastily constructed of wood, for the
purposes of divine service, during the time that he was undergoing the
religious instructions preliminary to his receiving the sacrament.

But as soon as he was baptized, he built, says Bede, under the direction
of Paulinus, his religious instructor and bishop, in the same place, a
much larger and nobler church of stone.

During the reign of Edwin, and of his successors in the same century,
ecclesiastical architecture greatly flourished, and many large churches
were built. Edwin was slain in battle in 633, having reigned for
seventeen years.

The Venerable Bede gives us the best testimony we could desire as to
the character of Edwin as ruler, when he tells us that in all of his
dominions there was such perfect peace that a woman with a newborn
babe might walk from sea to sea without receiving any harm. Another
incident that he relates is significant of Edwin's care and consideration
for the comforts of his people. Where there were springs of water near
the highways, he caused posts to be fixed with drinking vessels attached
to them for the convenience of travelers. By such acts, and others of a
higher character, by his encouragement of the arts, and his strict
administration of justice, he secured the love of his subjects.

So much of history was necessary that the reader might understand the
argument in reference to the true meaning of the York Legend, now to
be discussed.

In the versions of the Legend given by Anderson and Preston, the honor
of organizing Masonry and calling a General Assembly is attributed to
Edwin the brother, and not to Edwin the son of Athelstan. These
versions are, however, of no value as historical documents, because
they are merely enlarged copies of the original Legend.

But in the Roberts Constitutions, printed in 1722, and which was claimed
to have been copied from a manuscript about five hundred years old,
but without any proof (as the original has never been recovered), the
name of Edwin is altogether omitted, and Athelstan himself is said to
have been the reviver of the institution. The language of this manuscript,
as published by J. Roberts, is as follows: (1)

"He [Athelstan] began to build many Abbies, Monasteries, and other
religious houses, as also Castles and divers Fortresses for defence of his
realm. He loved Masons more than his father; he greatly study'd
Geometry, and sent into many lands for men expert in the science. He
gave them a very large charter to hold a yearly assembly, and power to
correct offenders in the said science; and the king himself caused a
General Assembly of all Masons in his realm, at York, and there were
made many Masons, and gave them a deep charge for observation of all
such articles as belonged unto Masonry and delivered them the said
Charter to keep."

In the omission of all reference to Prince Edwin, the Harleian and
Roberts manuscripts agree with that of Halliwell.

There is a passage in the Harleian and Roberts MSS. that is worthy of
notice. All the recent manuscripts which speak of Edwin as the procurer
of the Charter, say that "he loved Masons much more than his father did"
- meaning Athelstan. But the Harleian and Roberts MSS., speaking of
King Athelstan, use the same language, but with a different reference,
and say of King Athelstan, that "he loved idasons more than his father " -
meaning King Edward, whose son Athelstan was.

Now, of the two statements, that of the Harleian and Roberts MSS. is
much more conformable to history than the other. Athelstan was a lover
of Masons, for he was a great patron of architecture, and many public
buildings were erected during his reign. But it is not recorded in history
that Prince Edwin exhibited any such attachment to Masonry or
Architecture as is attributed to him in the old records, certainly not an
attachment equal to that of Athelstan. On the contrary, Edward, the son
of Alfred and the father of Athelstan, was not distinguished during his
reign for any marked patronage of

(1) The book was republished by Spencer in 1870. The Roberts
"Constitutions" and the Harleian MS. No. 1942, are evidently copies from
the same original, if not one from the other. The story of Athelstan is, of
course, identical in both, and the citation might as well have been made
from either.


the arts, and especially of architecture; and it is, therefore, certain that
his son Athelstan exhibited a greater love to Masons or Architects than
he did.

Hence there arises a suspicion that the Legend was originally framed in
the form presented to us by the Halliwell poem, and copied apparently
by the writers of the Harleian and Roberts MSS., and that the insertion of
the name of Prince Edwin was an afterthought of the copiers of the more
recent manuscripts, and that this insertion of Edwin's name, and the
error of making him a son of Athelstan, arose from a confusion of the
mythical Edwin with a different personage, the earlier Edwin, who was
King of Northumbria.

It may also be added that the son of Athelstan is not called Edwin in all
of the recent manuscripts. In one Sloane MS. he is called Ladrian, in
another Hegme, and in the Lodge of Hope MS. Hoderine. This fact
might indicate that there was some confusion and disagreement in
putting the name of Prince Edwin into the Legend. But I will not press
this point, because I am rather inclined to attribute these discrepancies
to the proverbial carelessness of the transcribers of these manuscripts.


How, then, are we to account for this introduction of an apparently
mythical personage into the narrative, by which the plausibility of the
Legend is seriously affected ?

Anderson, and after him Preston, attempts to get out of the difficulty by
calling Edwin the brother, and not the son, of Athelstan. It is true that
Athelstan did have a younger brother named Edwin, whom some
historians have charged him with putting to death. And in so far the
Legend might not be considered as incompatible with history. But as all
the manuscripts which have to this day been recovered which speak of
Edwin call him the king's son and not his brother, notwithstanding the
contrary statement of Anderson, (1) I prefer another explanation,
although it involves the charge of anachronism.

The annals of English history record a royal Edwin, whose de

(1) Anderson says in the second edition of the "Book of Constitutions"
that in all the Old Constitutions it is written Prince Edwin, the king's
brother - a statement that is at once refuted by a reference to all the
manuscripts from the Dowland to the Papworth, where the word is
always son. So much for the authority of the old writers on Masonic
history.


votion to the arts and sciences, whose wise statesmanship, and whose
patronage of architecture, must have entitled him to the respect and the
affection of the early English Masons. Edwin, King of Northumbria, one
of the seven kingdoms into which England was divided during the
Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, died in 633, after a reign of sixteen years, which
was distinguished for the reforms which he accomplished, for the wise
laws which he enacted and enforced, for the introduction of Christianity
into his kingdom, and for the improvement which he emeacd in the
moral, social, and intellectual condition of his subjects. When be
ascended the throne the northern metropolis of the Anglican Church had
been placed at York, where it still remains. The king patronized
Paulinus, the bishop, and presented him with a residence and with other
possessions in that city. Much of this has already been said, but it will
bear repetition.

To this Edwin, and not to the brother of Athelstan, modern Masonic
archaeologists have supposed that the Legend of the Craft refers.

Yet this opinion is not altogether a new one. More than a century and a
half ago it seems to have prevailed as a tradition among the Masons of
the northern part of England. For in 1726, in an address delivered
before the Grand Lodge of York by its Junior Grand Warden, Francis
Drake, he speaks of it as being well known and recognized, in the
following words:

"You know we can boast that the first Grand Lodge ever held in England
was held in this city [York]; where Edwin, the first Christian King of the
Northumbers, about the six hundredth year after Christ, and who laid the
foundation of our Cathedral, (1) sat as Grand Master."

Bro. A.F.A. Woodford, a profound Masonic archaeologist, accepts this
explanation, and finds a confirmation in the facts that the town of
Derventio, now Auldby, six miles from York, the supposed seat of the
pseudo-Edwin, was also the chief seat and residence of Edwin, King of
Northumbria, and that the buildings, said in one of the manuscripts to
have been erected by the false Edwin, were really erected, as is known
from history, by the Northumbrian Edwim

I think that with these proofs, the inquirer will have little or no


(1) Bede (L. 2., C. 13) and Rapin (P. 246) both confirm this statement
that the foundations of the York Cathedral, or Minster, were laid in the
reign of Edwin.


hesitation in accepting this version of the Legend, and will recognize the
fact that the writers of the later manuscripts fell into an error in
substituting Edwin, the son (as they called him, but really the brother) of
Athelstan, for Edwin, the King of Northumbria.

It is true that the difference of dates presents a difficulty, there being
about three hundred years between the reigns of Edwin of Northumbria,
and Athelstan of England. But that difficulty, I think, may be overcome
by the following theory which I advance on the subject:


The earlier series of manuscripts, of which the Halliwell poem is an
exemplar, and, perhaps, also the Harleian and the Roberts MSS., (1)
make no mention of Edwin, but assign the revival of Masonry in the 10th
century to King Athelstan.

The more recent manuscripts, of which the Dowland is the earliest,
introduce Prince Edwin into the Legend and ascribe to him the honor of
having obtained from Athelstan a charter, and of having held an
Assembly at York.

There are, then, two forms of the Legend, which, for the sake of
distinction, may be designated as the older and the later. The older
Legend makes Athelstan the reviver of Masonry in England, and says
nothing at all of Edwin. The later takes this honor from Athelstan and
gives it to Prince Edwin, who is called his son.

The part about Edwin is, then, an addition to the older legend, and was
interpolated into it by the later legendists, as will be evidently seen if
the
following extract from the Dowland MS. be read, and all the words there
printed in italics be omitted. So read, the passage will conform very
substantially with the corresponding one in the Roberts MS., which was
undoubtedly a copy from some older manuscript which contained the
legend in its primitive form, wherein there is no mention of Prince Edwin.
Here is the extract to be amended by the omission of words in italics:

"The good rule of Masonry was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge
Athelstone dayes that was a worthy Kinge of England, and brought this
land into good rest and peace; and builded many great works of Abbyes
and Towres, and other many divers buildings and loved well Masons.
And he had a sonn that height Edwinne, and

(1) The fact that the Legend in the Roberts "Constitutions" agrees in this
respect with the older legend, and differs from that in all the recent
manuscripts, gives some color to the claim that it was copied from a
manuscript five hundred years old.


he loved Masons much more than his father did. And he was a great
practiser in Geometry; and he drew him much to talke and to commune
with Masons, and to learne of them science; and afterward for love that
he had to Masons and to the science he was made a Mason and he gatt
(1) [ie., he gave] of the Kinge his father a Charter and commission to
hold every year once an Assemble, wher that ever they would, within the
realme of England; and to correct within themselves defaults and
trespasses that were done within the science. And he held himselfe an
Assemble at Yorke, and there he made Masons, and gave them
charges, and taught them the manners, and commanded that rule to be
kept ever after, and tooke then the Chartour and Commission to keepe,
and made ordinance that it should be renewed from Kinge to Kinge."

The elimination of only thirteen words relieves us at once of all
difficulty,
and brings the Legend into precise accord with the tradition of the older
manuscripts.

Thus eliminated it asserts:

1. That King Athelstan was a great patron of the arts of civilization- "he
brought the land into rest and peace." This statement is sustained by the
facts of history.

2. He paid especial attention to architecture and the art of building, and
adorned his country with abbeys, towns (towers is a clerical error), and
many other edifices. History confirms this also.

3. He was more interested in, and gave a greater patronage to,
architecture than his father and predecessor, Edward - another historical
fact.

4. He gave to the Masons or Architects a charter as a guild, and called
an assembly of the Craft at York. This last statement is altogether
traditional. Historians are silent on the subject, just as they are on the
organization of a Grand Lodge in 1717. The mere silence of historians
as to the formation of a guild of craftsmen or a private society is no
proof that such guild or society was not formed. The truth of the
statement that King Athelstan caused an assembly of Masons to be held
in the year 926 at the city of York, depends


(1) This word is used in the sense of given or granted, in an undoubted
historical document, Athelstan's charter to the town of Beverly.

"Yat I, the Kynge Adelston,
Has gaten and given to St. John
Of Beverlae, etc."



solely on a tradition, which has, however, until recently, been accepted
by the whole Masonic world as an undoubted truth.

But that the city of York was the place where an assembly was
convened by Athelstan in the year 926 is rendered very improbable
when we refer to the concurrent events of history at that period of time.

In 925 Athelstan ascended the throne. At that time Sigtryg was the
reigning King of Northumbria, which formed no part of the dominions of
Athelstan. To Sigtryg, who had but very recently been converted from
Paganism to Christianity, Athelstan gave his sister in marriage. But the
Northumbrian king having apostatized, his brother-in-law resolved to
dethrone him, and prepared to invade his kingdom. Sigtryg having died
in the meantime, his sons fled, one into Ireland and the other into
Scotland, and Athelstan annexed Northumbria to his own dominions.

This occurred in the year 926, and it is not likely that while pursuing the
sons of Sigtryg, one of whom had escaped from his captors and taken
refuge in the city of York, whose citizens he vainly sought to enlist in his
favor, Athelstan would have selected that period of conflict, and a city
within his newly-acquired territory, instead of his own capital, for the
time
and place of holding an assembly of Masons.

It is highly improbable that he did, but yet it is not absolutely
impossible.
The tradition may be correct as to York, but, if so, then the time should
be advanced, by, a few years, to that happy period when Athelstan had
restored the land "into good rest and peace."

But the important question is, whether this tradition is mythical or
historical, whether it is a fiction or a truth. Conjectural criticism
applied
to the theory of probabilities alone can aid us in solving this problem.

I say, therefore, that there is nothing in the personal character of
Athelstan, nothing in the recorded history of his reign, nothing in the
well-known manner in which he exercised his royal authority and
governed his realm, that forbids the probability that the actions attributed
to him in the Legend of the Craft actually took place.

Taking his grandfather, the great Alfred, as his pattern, he was liberal in
all his ideas, patronized learning, erected many churches, monasteries,
and other edifices of importance throughout his dominions, encouraged
the translation of the Scriptures into Anglo-Saxon, and, what is of great
value to the present question, gave charters to many guilds or operative
companies as well as to several municipalities.
Especially is it known from historical records that in the reign of
Athelstan the frith-gildan, free guilds or sodalities, were incorporated by
law. From these subsequently arose the craft-guilds or associations for
the establishment of fraternal relations and mutual aid, into which, at the
present day, the trade companies of England are divided.

There would be nothing improbable in any narrative which should assert
that he extended his protection to the operative Masons, of whose art we
know that he availed himself in the construction of the numerous public
and religious edifices which he was engaged in erecting. It is even more
than plausible to suppose that the Masons were among the sodalities to
whom he granted charters or acts of incorporation.

Like the Rev. Bro. Woodford, whose opinion as a Masonic archaeologist
is of great value, I am disposed to accept a tradition venerable for its
antiquity and for so long a period believed in by the craft as an historical
record in so far as relates to the obtaining of a charter from Athelstan
and the holding of an assembly. "I see no reason, therefore," he says,
"to reject so old a tradition that under Athelstan the operative Masons
obtained his patronage and met in General Assembly." (1)

Admitting the fact of Athelstan's patronage and of the Assembly at some
place, we next encounter the difficulty of explaining the interpolation of
what may be called the episode of Prince Edwin.

I have already shown that there can be no doubt that the framers of the
later legend had confounded the brother, whom they, by a mistake, had
called the son of Athelstan, with a preceding king of the same name,
that is, with Edwin, King of Northumbria, who, in the 7th century, did
what the pseudo-Edwin is supposed to have done in the 10th. That is to
say, he patronized the Masons of his time, introduced the art of building
into his kingdom, and probably held an Assembly at York, which was his
capital city.

Now, I suppose that the earlier Masons of the south of England, who
framed the first Legend of ihe Crafl, such as is presented to

(1) "The Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in England,"
inserted in Hughan's " Unpublished Records of the Craft," p. 168.

us in the old poem, first published by Mr. Halliwell in 1840, and also in
the Harleian manuscript and in the one printed by Roberts in 1722, were
unacquainted with the legend of Edwin of Northumbria, although, if we
may believe Bro. Drake, it was a well-known tradition in the north of
England. The earlier legends of the south, therefore, gave the honor of
patronizing the Masons and holding an Assembly at York in 926 to
Athelstan alone. This was, therefore, the primitive Legend of the Craft
among the Masons of London and the southern part of the kingdom.

But in time these southern Masons became, in consequence of
increased intercourse, cognizant of the tradition that King Edwin of
Northumbria had also patronized the Masons of his kingdom, but at an
earlier period. The two traditions were, of course, at first kept distinct.
There was, perhaps, a reluctance among the Masons of the south to
diminish the claims of Athelstan as the first reviver, after St. Alban, of
Masonry in England, and to give the precedence to a monarch who lived
three hundred years before in the northern part of the island.

This reluctance, added to the confusion to which all oral tradition is
obnoxious, coupled with the fact that there was an Edwin, who was a
near relation of Athelson, resulted in the substitution of this later Edwin
for the true one.

It took years to do this - the reluctance continuing, the confusion of the
traditions increasing, until at last the southern Masons, altogether losing
sight of the Northumbrian tradition as distinct from that of Athelstan,
combined the two traditions into one, and, with the carelessness or
ignorance of chronology so common in that age, and especially among
uncultured craftsmen, substituted Edwin, the brother of Athelstan, (1) for
Edwin, the King of Northumbria, and thus formed a new Legend of the
Craft such as it was perpetuated by Anderson, and after him by Preston,
and which has lasted to the present day.

Therefore, eliminating from the narrative the story of Edwin, as it is told
in the recent Legend, and accepting it as referring to Edwin of
Northumbria, and as told in the tradition peculiar to the Masons of the
northern part of England, we reach the conclusion that there were
originally two traditions, one extant in the northern


(1) To the same carelessness or ignorance are we to attribute the
legendary error of making Edwin the son of Athelstan.


part of England and the other in the southern part. The former Legend
ascribed the revival of Masonry in England to Edwin, King of
Northumbria in the 7th century, and the latter to Athelstan, King of
England in the 10th. There being little communication in those days
between the two parts of the kingdom, the traditions remained distinct.
But at some subsequent period, not earlier than the middle of the 10th
century, or the era of the Reformation, (1) the southern Masons became
acquainted with the true Legend of the York Masons, and incorporated it
into their own Legend, confounding, however the two Edwins, either
from ignorance, or more probably, from a reluctance to surrender the
preeminence they had hitherto given to Athelstan as the first reviver of
Masonry in England.

We arrive, then, at the conclusion, that if there was an Assembly at York
it was convened by Edwin, King of Northumbria, who revived Masonry in
the northern part of England in the 7th century; and that its decayed
prosperity was restored by Athelstan in the 10th century, not by the
holding of an Assembly at the city of York, but by his general patronage
of the arts, and especially architecture, and by the charters of
incorporation which he freely granted to various guilds or sodalities of
workmen.

With these explanations, we are now prepared to review and to
summarize the Legend of the Craft, not in the light of a series of absurd
fictions, as too many have been inclined to consider it, but as an
historical narrative, related in quaint language, not always grammatical,
and containing several errors of chronology, misspelling of names, and
confusion of persons, such as were common and might be expected in
manuscripts written in that uncultured age, and by the uneducated
craftsmen to whom we owe these old manuscripts.

(1) I assign this era because the Halliwell poem, which is the exemplar of
the older Legend, is evidently Roman Catholic in character, while the
Dowland, and all subsequent manuscripts which contain the later
Legend, are Protestant, all allusions to the Virgin, the saints, and
crowned martyrs being omitted.





CHAPTER XIX

SUMMARY OF THE LEGEND OF THE CRAFT



THE Legend of ihe Craft, as it is presented to us in what I have called the
later manuscripts, that is to say, the Dowland and those that follow it up
to
the Papworth, begins with a descant on the seven liberal arts and sciences.
(1) I have already shown that among the schoolmen contemporary with the
legendists these seven arts and sciences were considered, in the
curriculum of education, not so much as the foundation, but as the finished
edifice of all human learning. The Legend naturally partook of the spirit
of
the age in which it was invented. But especially did the Masons refer to
these sciences, and make a description of them, the preface, as it were, to
the story that they were about to relate, because the principal of these
sciences was geometry, and this they held to be synonymous with
Masonry.

Now, the intimate connection between geometry and architecture, as
practiced by the Operative Freemasons of the Middle Ages, is well known,
since the secrets, of which these Freemasons were supposed to be in
possession, consisted almost solely in an application of the principles of
the science of geometry to the art of building.

The Legend next procccds to narrate certain circumstances connected
with the children of Lamech. These details are said in the Legend to
have been derived from the Book of Genesis but were probably taken at
second-hand from the Polychronicon, or universal history of the monk
Higden, of Chester. This part of the legend, which is not otherwise
connected with the Masonic narrative, appears to have been introduced
for the sake of an allusion to the pillars on which the sons of Lamech are
said to have inscribed an account of the sciences which they had
discovered, so that the

(1) The Halliwell poem, although it differs from the later manuscripts in
so many particulars, agrees with them in giving a descant on the arts
and sciences.


knowledge of them might not be lost in consequence of the destruction
of the world which they apprehended.

The story of the inscribed pillars was a tradition of every people,
narrated, with variations, by every historian and implicitly believed by the
multitude. The legendists of Masonry got the account from Josephus,
perhaps through Higden, but altered it to suit the spirit of their own
narrative.

We are next told that Hermes discovered one of these pillars and was,
from the information that it contained, enabled to restore the knomiedge
of the sciences, and especially of Masonry, to the post-diluvian world.
This was a tribute of the legendists to the universally accepted opinion of
the ancients, who venerated the "thrice great Hermes" as the mythical
founder of all science and philosophy. We are next told that Nimrod,
"the mighty hunter before the Lord," availed himself of the wisdom that
had been recovered by Hermes. He was distinguished for his
architectural works and first gave importance to the art of Masonry at the
building of the Tower of Babel. The Legend attributes to Nimrod the
creation of the Masons into an organized body and he was the first who
gave them a constitution or laws for their government. Masonry,
according to the legendary account, was founded in Babylon, whence it
passed over to the rest of the world.

In all this we find simply a recognition of the historical opinion that
Chaldea was the birthplace of knowledge and that the Chaldean sages
were the primitive teachers of Asia and Europe. The modern discoveries
of the cuneiform inscriptions show that the Masonic legendists had, at a
venture, obtained a more correct idea of the true character of Nimrod
than that which had been hitherto entertained, founded on the brief
allusion to him in Genesis and the disparaging account of him in the
Antiquities of Josephus.

The monastic legends had made Abraham a contemporary of Nimrod,
and the Book of Genesis had described the visit of the patriarch and his
wife to the land of Egypt. Combining these two statements, the idea
was suggested to the legendists that Abraham had carried into Egypt
the knowledge which he had acquired from the Chaldeans and taught it
to the inhabitants.

Thus it is stated that Egypt was, after Babylonia, the place where the arts
and sciences were first cultivated and thence disseminated to other
countries. Among these arts and sciences geometry, which we have
seen was always connected in the Masonic mind with architecture, held
a prominent place. He who taught it to the Egyptians was typically
represented by the name of Euclid, because the old Masons were
familiar with the fact that he was then esteemed, as he still is, as the
greatest of geometricians and almost the inventor of the science.

Accepting the allusion to Euclid, not as an historical anachronism, but
rather as the expression of a symbolic idea, we can scarcely class the
legendary statement of the condition of learning in Egypt as a pure and
unadulterated fiction. It is an undoubted fact that Egypt was the
primeval land whence science and learning flowed into Southern Europe
and Western Asia. Neither can it be disputed that civilization had there
ripened into maturity long before Greece or Rome were known. It is
moreover conceded that the ancient Mysteries whence Masonry has
derived, not its organization, but a portion of its science of symbolism,
received its birth in the land of the Nile, and that the Mysteries of Osiris
and Isis were the prototypes of all the mystical initiations which were
celebrated in Asia and in Southern Europe. They have even been
claimed, though I think incorrectly, as the origin of those in Gaul, in
Britain, and in Scandinavia. By a rapid transition, the Legend passes
from the establishment of Masonry or architecture (for it must be
remembered that in legendary acceptation the two words are
synonymous) to its appearance in judea, the "Land of Behest," where,
under the patronage and direction of King Solomon the Temple of
Jerusalem was constructed. All that is said in this portion of the Legend
purports to be taken from the scriptural account of the same transaction
and must have the same historical value.

As to the error committed in the name and designation of him who is
now familiarly known to Freemasons as Hiram Abif, a sufficient
explanation has been given in a preceding chapter.

We next have an account of the travels of these Masons or architects
who built the Temple into various countries, to acquire additional
knowledge and expeience, and to disseminate the principles of their art.
The carelessness of chronology, to which I have already adverted, so
peculiar to the general illiteracy of the age, has led the legendists to
connect this diffusion of architecture among the various civilized
countries of the world with the Tyrian and Jewish Masons; but the
wanderings of that body of builders known as the "Traveling
Freemasons" of the Middle Ages, through all the kingdoms of Europe,
and their labors in the construction of cathedrals, monasteries, and other
public edifices are matters of historical record. Thus the historical idea
is
well preserved in the Legend of a body of artists who wandered over
Europe, and were employed in the construction of cathedrals,
monasteries, and other public edifices.

The Legend next recounts the introduction of architecture into France,
and the influence exerted upon it by Grecian architects, who brought
with them into that kingdom the principles of Byzantine art. These are
facts which are sustained by history. The prominence given to France
above Spain or Italy or Germany is, I think, merely another proof that the
Legend was of French origin or was constructed under French influence.

The account of the condition of Masonry or architecture among the
Britains in the time of St. Alban, or the 4th century, is simply a legendary
version of the history of the introduction of the art of building into
England during the Roman domination by the "Collegia Artificum" or
Roman Colleges of Artificers, who accompanied the victorious legions
when they vanquished Hesperia, Gaul, and Britain, and colonized as
they vanquished them.

The decay of architecture in Britain after the Roman armies had
abandoned that country to protect the Empire from the incursions of the
northern hordes of barbarians, in consequence of which Britain was left
in an unprotected state, and was speedily involved in wars with the Picts,
the Danes, and other enemies, is next narrated in the Legend, and is its
version of an historical fact.

It is also historically true that in the 7th century peace was restored to
the northern parts of the island, and that Edwin, King of Northumbria, of
which the city of York was the capital, revived the arts of civilization,
gave his patronage to architecture, and caused many public buildings,
among others the Cathedral of York, to be built. All of this is told in the
Legend, although, by an error for which I have already accounted,
Edwin, the Northumbrian king, was in the later Legend confounded with
the brother of Athelstan.
The second decay of architecture in England, in consequence of the
invasions of the Danes, and the intestine as well as foreign wars which
desolated the kingdom until the reign of Athelstan, in the early part of
the 10th century, when entire peace was restored, is briefly alluded to in
the Legend, therein conforming to the history of that troublous period.

As a consequence of the restoration of peace, the Legend records the
revival of Masonry or architecture in the 10th century, under the reign of
Athelstan, who called the Craft together and gave them a charter. I have
already discussed this point and shown that the narrative of the Legend
presents nothing improbable or incredible but that it is easily to be
reconciled with the facts of contemporary history. We have only to
reconcile the two forms of the Legend by asserting that Edwin of
Northumbria revived Masonry in an Assembly convened by him at York,
and that Athelstan restored its decayed prosperity by his general
patronage, and by charters which he gave to the Guilds or corporations
of handicraftsmen.

Passing, in this summary method over the principal occuuences related
in this Legend of the Craft, we relieve it from the charge of gross
puerility, which has been urged against it, even by some Masonic writers
who have viewed it in a spirit of immature criticism. We find that its
statements are not the offspring of a fertile imagination or the crude
inventions of sheer ignorance, but that, on the contrary, they really have
a support in what was at the time accepted as authentic history, and
whose authenticity can not, even now, be disproved or denied.

Dissected as it has here been by the canons of philosophical criticism,
the Legend of the Craft is no longer to be deemed a fable or myth, but
an historical narrative related in the quaint language and in the quainter
spirit of the age in which it was written.

But after the revival of Freemasonry in the beginning of the 18th century,
this Legend, for the most part misunderstood, served as a fundamental
basis on which were erected, first by Anderson and then by other writers
who followed him, expanded narratives of the rise and progress of
Masonry, in which the symbolic ideas or the mythical suggestions of the
ancient "Legend" were often developed and enlarged into statements for
the most part entirely fabulous.

In this way, these writers, who were educated and even learned men,
have introduced not so much any new legends, but rather theories
founded on a legend, by which they have traced the origin and the
progress of the institution in narratives without historic authenticity and
sometimes contradictory to historic truth.

The mode in which these theories have been attempted to be supported
by the citation of assumed facts have caused them to take, to some
extent, the form of legends. But to distinguish them from the pure
Legends which existed before the 18th century, I have preferred to call
them theories.

Their chief tendency has been, by the use of unauthenticated
statements, to confuse the true history of the Order. And yet they have
secured so prominent a place in its literature and have exerted so much
influence on modern Masonic ideas, that they must be reviewed and
analyzed at length, in order that the reader may have a complete
understanding of the legendary history of the institution. For of that
legendary, history these theories, founded as they are on assumed
traditions, constitute a part.

As having priority in date, the theory of Dr. Anderson will be the first to
claim our attention.

CHAPTER XX

THE ANDERSONIAN THEORY



THE Legend or theory of Dr. Anderson is detailed first in the edition of the
Book of Constitutions which was edited by him and published in the year
1723, and was then more extensively developed in the subsequent edition
of the same work published in 1738.

Anderson was acquainted with the more recent Legend of the Craft, and
very fully cites it from a manuscript or Record of Freemasons, written in
the
reign of Edward IV, that is, toward the end of the 15th century. If
Anderson's quotations from this manuscript are correct, it must be one of
those that has been lost and not yet recovered. For among some other
events not mentioned in the manuscripts that are now extant, he states that
the charges and laws of the Freemasons had been seen and perused by
Henry VI. and his council, and had been approved by them.

He does not appear to have met with any of the earlier manuscripts, such
as those of Halliwell and Roberts, which contain the Legend in its older
form, for he makes no use of the Legend of Euclid, passing over the
services of that geometrician lightly, as the later manuscripts do, (1) and
not ascribing to him the origin of the Order in Egypt, which theory is the
peculiar characteristic of the older Legend.

But out of the later Legend and from whatever manuscripts containing it
to which he had access, Anderson has formed a Legend of his own. In
this he has added many things of his own creation and given a more
detailed narrative, if not a more correct one, than that contained in the
Legend of the Craft.

Anderson's Legend, or theory, of the rise and progress of Ma-


(1) In the slight mention that he makes of Euclid, Anderson has
observed the true chronology and placed him in the era of Ptolemy
Lagus, 300 years B.C.


sonry, as it is contained in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions,
was for a long time accepted by the Craft as a true history of the Order,
and it has exercised a very remarkable influence in the framing of other
theories on this subject which from time to time have been produced by
subsequent writers.

To the student, therefore, who is engaged in the investigation of the
legendary history of Masonry, this Andersonian Legend is of great
importance. While the Legend of the Craft in its pure form was very little
known to the great body of Masonic writers and students until the
manuscripts containing this Legend in its various forms were made
common to the Masonic public by the labors of Halliwell, Cooke, and,
above all, by Hughan and his earnest collaborators in Masonic
archoeology, the Legend of Anderson was accessible and familiar to all,
and for a century and a half was deemed an authentic history, and even
at the present day is accepted by some over-credulous and not
well-informed Masons as a real narrative of the rise and progress of
Masonry.

Anderson, in his history of the origin of Masonry, mindful of the French
proverb, to "commencer par la commencement," begins by attributing to
Adam a knowledge of Geometry as the foundation of Masonry and
Architecture, words which throughout his Legend he uses as
synonymous terms.

These arts he taught to his sons, and Cain especially practiced them by
building a city. Seth also was equally acquainted with them and taught
them to his offspring. Hence the antediluvian world was well acquainted
with Masonry, (1) and erected many curious works until the time of
Noah, who built the Ark by the principles of Geometry and the rules of
Masonry.

Noah and his three sons, who were all Masons, brought with them to the
new world the traditions and arts of the antediluvians. Noah is therefore
deemed the founder of Masonry in the post-diluvian world, and hence
Anderson called a Mason a "true Noachida" or Noachite, a term used to
the present day.

The descendants of Noah exercised their skill in Masonry in the
attempted erection of the Tower of Babel, but were confounded in their
speech and dispersed into various countries, whereby the


(1) Oliver has readily accepted this theory of an antediluvian Masonry
and written several very learned and indeed interesting works on the
subject.


knowledge of Masonry was lost. (1) It was however, preserved in Shinar
and Assyria, where Nimrod built many cities.

In those parts afterward flourished many priests and mathematicians
under the name of Chaldees and Magi, who preserved the science of
Geometry or Masonry, and thence the science and the art (2) were
transmitted to later ages and distant climes. Mitzraim, the second son of
Ham, carried Masonry into Egypt, where the overflowing of the banks of
the Nile caused an improvement in Geometry, and consequently brought
Masonry much into request.

Masonry was introduced into the Land of Canaan by the descendants of
the youngest son of Ham, and into Europe, as he supposes, by the
posterity of Japhet, although we know nothing of their works.

The posterity of Shem also cultivated the art of Masonry, and Abraham,
the head of one branch of that family, having thus obtained his
knowledge of Geometry and the kindred sciences, communicated that
knowledge to the Egyptians and transmitted it to his descendants, the
Israelites. When, therefore, they made their exodus from Egypt the
Israelites were "a whole kingdom of Masons," and while in the wilderness
were often assembled by their Grand Master Moses into "a regular and
general Lodge."

On taking possession of Canaan, the Israelites found the old inhabitants
were versed in Masonry, which, however, their conquerors greatly
improved, for the splendor of the finest structures in Tyre and Sidon was
greatly surpassed by the magnificence of the Temple erected by King
Solomon in Jerusalem. In the construction of this edifice, Solomon was
assisted by the Masons and carpenters of Hiram, King of Tyre, and
especially by the King of Tyre's namesake Hiram or Huram, to whom, in
a note, Anderson gives the name of Hiram Abif, which name he has ever
since retained among the Craft."


(1) This part of the Legend has been preserved in the American rituals,
wherein the candidate is said to come "from the lofty Tower of Babel,
where language was confounded and Masonry lost," and to be
proceeding "to the threshing-floor of Orneu the Jebusite (the Temple of
Solomon) where language was restored and Masonry found."
(2) By the science is meant geometry, and by the art architecture - a
distinction preserved in the Middle Ages; and the combination of them
into "Geometrical Masonry," constitute the Mystery of the Freemasons of
that period.
(3) In the first edition of this Legend, Anderson makes no allusion to the
death of Hiram Abif during the building of the Temple. He mentions,
however, in the second edition of the "Constitutions" published fifteen
years afterward. But this does not absolutely prove that he was at the
time unacquainted with the tradition, but he may have thought it too
esoteric for public record, for he says, in the very place where he should
have referred to it, that he has left " what must not and cannot be
communicated in writing."



Anderson gives in this Legend the first detailed account of the Temple of
Solomon that is to be found in any Masonic work. It is, however, only
an appropriation of that contained in the Books of Kings and Chronicles,
with some statements for which he was probably indebted to his own
invention. It has exerted a considerable influence upon other Legends
subsequently framed, and especially upon all the rituals, and indeed
upon all the modern ideas of speculative Masons. (1)

After the construction of the Temple, the Masons who had been
engaged in it dispersed into Syria, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Chaldea,
Babylonia, Media, Persia, Arabia, Africa, Lesser Asia, Greece, and other
parts of Europe, where they taught the art to many eminent persons, and
kings, princes, and potentates became Grand Masters, each in his own
territory.

The Legend then passes on to Nebuchadnezzar, whom it calls a Grand
Master, and asserts that he received much improvement in Masonry
from the Jewish captives whom he brought to Babylon after he had
destroyed that city and its Temple.

Afterward Cyrus constituted Zerubbabel the leader of the Jews, who,
being released from their captivity, returned to Jerusalem and built the
second Temple.

From Palestine, and after the erection of the Temple, Masonry was
carried into Greece, and arrived at its height during the Jewish captivity,
and in the time of Thales Milesius, the philosopher, and his pupil,
Pythagoras, who was the author of the 47th Proposition of Euclid, which
"is the foundation of all Masonry," Pythagoras traveled into Egypt and
Babylon, and acquired much knowledge from the priests and the Magi,
which he dispensed in Greece and Italy on his return. (2)

The Legend now speaks, parenthetically as it were, of the prog-

(1) The peculiar details of the doctrine of Anderson have not been
always respected. For instance, it is a very prevalent opinion among the
Craft at this day, that there was a Master Mason's Lodge at the Temple,
over which Solomon presided as Master and the two Hirams as
Wardens, a theory which is not supported by Anderson, who says that
King Solomon was Grand Master of the Lodge at Jerusalem, King Hiram
Grand Master of that at Tyre, and Hiram Abif Master of Work. Const., 1st
ed., P. 14.
(2) It was probably this part of the Andersonian Legend which gave rise
to a similar statement made in the spurious production known as the
Leland MS.


ress of Masonry in Asia Minor, and of the labors of Euclid in Egypt, in
the reign of Ptolemy Lagus, in the methodical digestion of Geometry into
a science.

It next dwells upon the great improvement of Masonry in Greece, whose
Masons arrived at the same degree of skill and magnificence as their
teachers the Asiatics and Egyptians.

From Sicily, from Greece, from Egypt and Asia, Masonry was introduced
into Rome, which soon became the center of learning, and disseminated
the knowledge of Masonry among the nations which it conquered.

The Emperor Augustus became the Grand Master of the Lodge at Rome,
and established the Augustan style of architecture. During the
prosperous condition of the Roman Empire, Masonry was carefully
propagated to the remotest regions of the world, and a Lodge erected in
almost every Roman garrison.

But upon the declension of the empire, when the Roman garrisons were
drawn away from Britain, the Angles and lower Saxons, who had been
invited by the ancient Britons to come over and help them against the
Scots and Picts, at length subdued the southern part of England, where
Masonry had been introduced by the Romans, and the art then fell into
decay.

When the Anglo-Saxons recovered their freedom in the 8th century
Masonry was revived, and at the desire of the Saxon kings, Charles
Martel, King of France, sent over several expert craftsmen, so that
Gothic, architecture was again encouraged during the Heptarchy.

The many invasions of the Danes caused the destruction of numerous
records, but did not, to any great extent, interrupt the work, although the
methods introduced by the Roman builders were lost.

But when war ceased and peace was proclaimed by the Norman
conquest, Gothic Masonry was restored and encouraged by William the
Conqueror and his son William Rufus, who built Westminster Hall. And
notwithstanding the wars that subsequently occurred, and the
contentions of the Barons, Masonry never ceased to maintain its position
in England. In the year 1362, Edward III. had an officer called the King's
Freemason, or General Surveyor of his buildings, whose name was
Henry Yvele, and who erected many public buildings.

Anderson now repeats the Legend of the Craft, with the story of
Athelstan and his son Edwin, taking it, with an evident modification of
the language, from a record of Freemasons, which he says was written
in the reign of Edward IV. This record adds, as he says, that the
charges and laws therein contained had been seen and approved by
Henry VI and the lords of his council, who must therefore, to enable
them to make such a review, have been incorporated with the
Freemasons. In consequence of this, the act passed by Parliament
when the King was in his infancy, forbidding the yearly congregations of
Masons in their General Assemblies, was never enforced after the King
had arrived at manhood, and had perused the regulations contained in
that old record.

The Kings of Scotland also encouraged Masonry from the earliest times
down to the union of the crowns, and granted to the Scottish Masons
the prerogative of having a fixed Grand Master and Grand Warden. (1)

Queen Elizabeth discouraged Masonry, and neglected it during her
whole reign. She sent a commission to York to break up the Annual
Assembly, but the members of the commission, having been admitted
into the Lodge, made so favorable a report to the Queen, of the
Fraternity, that she no longer opposed the Masons, but tolerated them,
altbough she gave them no encouragement.
Her successor, James I., was, however, a patron of Masonry, and greatly
revived the art and restored the Roman architecture, employing Inigo
Jones as his architect, under whom was Nicholas Stone as his Master
Mason.

Charles I. was also a Mason, and patronized the art whose successful
progress was unhappily diverted by the civil wars and the death of the
king.

But after the restoration of the royal family, Masonry was again revived
by Charles II., who was a great encourager of the craftsmen, and hence
is supposed to have been a Freemason.

In the reign of James II., Masonry not being duly cultivated, the London
Lodges "much dwindled into ignorance."

But on the accession of William, that monarch "who by most is reckoned
as a Freemason," greatly revived the art, and showed himself a patron of
Masonry.

(1) From this it appears that Anderson was acquainted with the claim of
the St. Clairs of Roslin to the hereditary Grand Mastership of Scotland, a
point that has recently been disputed.


His good example was followed by Queen Anne, who ordered fifty new
churches to be erected in London and its suburbs, and also by George
I., her successor.

With an allusion to the opinion that the religious and military Orders of
knighthood in the Middle Ages had borrowed many of their solemn
usages from the Freemasons, (1) the Legend here ends.

Upon a perusal of this Legend, it will be found that it is in fact, except
in
the latter portions, which are semi-historical, only a running commentary
on the later Legend of the Craft, embracing all that is said therein and
adding other statements, partly derived from history and partly, perhaps,
from the author's invention.

The second edition of the Constitutions goes more fully over the same
ground, but is written in the form rather of a history than of a legend,
and a review of it is not, therefore, necessary or appropriate in this part
of the present work which is solely devoted to the Legends of the Order.

In this second edition of Anderson's work, there are undoubtedly many
things which will be repudiated by the skeptical student of Masonic
history, and many which, if not at once denied, require proof to
substantiate them. But with all its errors, this work of Anderson is
replete
with facts that make it interesting and instructive, and it earns for the
author a grateful tribute for his labors in behalf of the literature of
Masonry at so early a period after its revival.


(1) It will be seen hereafter that the Chevalier Ramsay greatly developed
this brief allusion of Anderson, and out of it worked his theory of the
Templar origin of Freemasonry.

CHAPTER XXI

THE PRESTONIAN THEORY


THE Legend given by Preston in his Illustrations of Masonry, which details
the origin and early progress of the Institution, is more valuable and more
interesting than that of Anderson, because it is more succinct, and although
founded like it on the Legend of the Craft, it treats each detail with an
appearance of historical accuracy that almost removes from the narrative
the legendary character which, after all, really attaches to it.

In accepting the Legend of the Craft as the basis of his story, Preston
rejects, or at least omits to mention, all the earlier part of it, and
begins his
story with the supposed introduction of Masonry into England.

Commencing with a reference to the Druids, who, he says, it has been
suggested, derived their system of government from Pythagoras he thinks
that there is no doubt that the science of Masonry was not unknown to
them. Yet he does not say that there was an affinity between their rites
and
those of the Freemasons, which, as an open question, he leaves everyone
to determine for himself.

Masonry, according to this theory, was certainly first introduced into
England at the time of its conquest by Julius Caesar, who, with several of
the Roman generals that succeeded him, were patrons and protectors
of the Craft.

The fraternity were engaged in the creation of walls, forts, bridges,
cities,
temples, and other stately edifices, and their Lodges or Conventions
were regularly held.

Obstructed by the wars which broke out between the Romans and the
natives, Masonry was at length revived in the time of the Emperor
Carausius. He, having shaken off the Roman yoke, sought to improve
his country in the civil arts, and brought into his dominions the best
workmen and artificers from all parts. Among the first class of his
favourites he enroled the Masons, for whose tenets he professed the
highest veneration, and appointed his steward, Albanus, the
superintendent of their Assemblies. He gave them a charter, and
commanded Albanus to preside over them in person as Grand Master.
He assisted in the initiation of many persons into the mysteries of the
Order.

In 680 some expert brethren arrived from France and formed a Lodge
under the direction of Bennet, Abbot of Wirral, who was soon afterward
appointed by Kenred, King of Mercia, inspector of the Lodges and
general superintendent of the Masons.

Masonry was in a low state during the Heptarchy, but in 856 it was
revived under St. Swithin, who was employed by Ethelwolf, the Saxon
king, to repair some pious houses; and it gradually improved until the
reign of Alfred, who was its zealous protector and who maintained a
number of workmen in repairing the desolations of the Danes.

In the reign of Edward, his successor, the Masons continued to hold
their Lodges under the sanction of Ethred, his sister's husband, and
Ethelward, his brother.

Athelstan succeeded his father in 924 and appointed his brother Edwin,
patron of Masons. The latter procured a charter from Athelstan for the
Masons to meet annually in communication at York where the first Grand
Lodge of England was formed in 926, at which Edwin presided as Grand
Master. The Legend of the Craft, in reference to the collection of old
writings, is here repeated.

On the death of Edwin, Athelstan undertook in person the direction of
the Lodges, and under his sanction the art of Masonry was propagated
in peace and security.

On the death of Athelstan, the Masons dispersed and continued in a
very unsettled state until the reign of Edgar, in 960, when they were
again collected by St. Dunstan, but did not meet with permanent
encouragement.

For fifty years after Edgar's death Masonry remained in a low condition,
but was revived in 1041 under the patronage of Edward the Confessor,
who appointed Leofric, Earl of Coventry, to superintend the Craft,

William the Conqueror, who acquired the crown in 1066, appointed
Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, and Roger de Montgomery, Earl of
Shrewsbury, joint patrons of the Masons. The labours of the fraternity
were employed, during the reign of William Rufus, in the construction of
various edifices.

The Lodges continued to assemble under Henry I. and Stephen. In the
reign of the latter, Gilbert de Clare, Marquis of Pembroke, presided over
the Lodges.

In the reign of Henry II., the Grand Master of the Knights Templars
employed the Craft in 1135 in building their Temple. Masonry continued
under the patronage of this Order until 1199, when John succeeded to
the throne and Peter de Colechurch was appointed Grand Master. Peter
de Rupibus succeeded him, and Masonry continued to flourish during
this and the following reign.

Preston's traditionary narrative, or his theory founded on Legends, may
be considered as ending here.

The rest of his work assumes a purely historical form, although many of
his statements need for authenticity the support of other authorities.
These will be subjects of consideration when we come to the next part of
this work.
At present, before dismissing the theory of Preston, a few comments are
required which have been suggested by portions of the narrative.

As to the Legend of Carausius, to whom Preston ascribes the patronage
of the British craft in the latter part of the 3d century, it must be
remarked that it was first made known to the fraternity by Dr. Anderson
in the 2d edition of his Constitutions. He says that the tradition is
contained in all the old Constitutions and was firmly believed by the old
English Masons. But the fact is that it is to be found in none of the old
records that have as yet been discovered. They speak only of a king
who patronized St. Alban and who made him the steward of his
household and his Master of Works. Anderson designated this until then
unnamed king as Carausius, forgetting that the Saint was martyred in the
same year that the monarch assumed the throne. This was a strange
error to be committed by one who had made genealogy his special
study and had written a voluminous work on the subject of royal
successions.

From Anderson, Preston appears to have borrowed the Legend,
developing it into a minuter narrative, by the insertion of several
additional circumstances, a prerogative which the compilers of Masonic
as well as monastic Legends have always thought proper to exercise.

The advent of French Masons into England toward the end of the 7th
century, brought thither by the Abbot Bennet or Benedict, which is
recorded by Preston, is undoubtedly an historical fact. Lacroix says that
England from the 7th century had called to it the best workmen among
the French Masons, the Maitres de pierre.

The Venerable Bede, who was contemporary with that period, says that
the famous Abbot Benedictus Biscopius (the Bennet of Preston) went
over to France in 675 to engage workmen to build his church, and
brought them over to England for that purpose

Richard of Cirencester makes the same statement. He says that "Bennet
collected Masons (coementarios) and all kinds of industrious artisans
from Rome, Italy, France, and other countries where he could find them,
and, bringing them to England, employed them in his works."

Preston is, however, in error as to the reign in which this event occurred.
Kenred, or rather Coenred, did not succeed as King of Mercia until 704,
and the Abbot Benedict had died the year before. Our Masonic writers
of the last century, like their predecessors, the Legendists, when giving
the substance of a statement, were very apt to get confused in their
dates.

Of the Legend of the "weeping St. Swithin," to whom Preston ascribes
the revival of Masonry in the middle of the 9th century, it may be
remarked that as to the character of the Saint as a celebrated architect,
the Legend is supported by the testimony of the Anglo-Saxon
chroniclers.

Roger of Wendover, who is followed by Matthew of Westminster, records
his custom of personally superintending the workmen when engaged in
the construction of any building, "that his presence might stimulate them
to diligence in their labours."

But the consideration of the condition of Masonry at that period, in
England, belongs rather to the historical than to the legendary portion of
this work.

On the whole, it may be said of Preston that he has made a
considerable improvement on Anderson in his method of treating the
early progress of Masonry. Still his narrative contains so many
assumptions which are not proved to be facts, that his theory must, like
that of his predecessor, be still considered as founded on legends rather
than on authentic history.






CHAPTER XXII

THE HUTCHINSONIAN THEORY



THE theory advanced by Bro. William Hutchinson as to the origin and the
progress of Freemasonry, in his treatise, first published in the year 1775
and entitled The Spirit of Masonry, is so complicated and sometimes
apparently so contradictory in its statements, as to require, for a due
comprehension of his views, not only a careful perusal, but even an
exhaustive study of the work alluded to. After such a study I think that I
am
able to present to the reader a collect summary of the opinions on the rise
and progress of the Order which were entertained by this learned scholar.

Let it be said, by way of preface to this review, that however we may
dissent from the conclusions of Hutchinson, he is entitled to our utmost
respect for his scholarly attainments. To the study of the history and the
philosophy of Masonry he brought a fund of antiquarian research, in which
he had previously been engaged in the examination of the ecclesiastical
antiquities of the province of Durham. Of all the Masonic writers of the
18th
century, Hutchinson was undoubtedly the most learned. And yet the theory
that he has propounded as to the origin of the Masonic Institution is
altogether untenable and indeed, in many of its details, absurd.

Of all the opinions entertained by Hutchinson concerning the origin of
Freemasonry, the most heterodox is that which denies its descent from
and its connection, at any period, with an operative society. "It is our
opinion," he says, "that Masons in the present state of Masonry were
never a body of architects.... We ground a judgment of the nature of our
profession on our ceremonials and flatter ourselves every Mason will be
convinced that they have not relation to building and architecture, but
are emblematical and imply moral and spiritual and religious tenets." (1)

(1) Spirit of Masonry," lect. xiii., p. 131.


In another place, while admitting that there were in former times builders
of cities, towers, temples, and fortifications, he doubts "that the
artificers
were formed into bodies ruled by their own proper laws and knowing
mysteries and secrets which were kept from the world." (1)

Since he admits, as we will see hereafter, that Masonry existed at the
Temple of Solomon, that it was there organized in what he calls the
second stage of its progress, and that the builders of the edifice were
Masons, one would naturally imagine that Hutchinson would here
encounter an insuperable objection to his theory, which entirely
disconnects Masonry and architecture. But he attempts to obviate this
difficulty by supposing that the principles of Freemasonry had, before
the commencement of the undertaking, been communicated by King
Solomon to "the sages and religious men amongst his people," (2) and
that these "chosen ones of Solomon, as a pious and holy duty
conducted the work." Their labours as builders were simply incidental
and they were no more to be regarded by reason of this duty as
architects by profession, than were Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses,
and David by reason of the building of their altars, which were, like the
Temple, works of piety and devotion. (3)

This theory, in which all connection between operative and speculative
Masonry is completely dissevered, and in which, in fact, the former is
entirely ignored, is peculiar to Hutchinson. No other writer, no matter to
what source he may have attributed the original rise of speculative
Masonry, has denied that there was some period in the history of its
progress when it was more or less intimately connected with the
operative art. While, therefore, it is plain that the opinion of Hutchinson
is in opposition to that of all other Masonic writers, it is equally evident
that it contradicts all the well established facts of history.

But besides these opinions concerning the non-operative character of
the Institution, Hutchinson has been scarcely less peculiar in his other
views in respect to the rise and progress of Freemasonry and its
relations to other associations of antiquity.

(1) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. x., p. 107.
(2) Hutchinson's language is here somewhat confused, but it seems that
this is the only rational interpretation that can be given to it.
(3) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. x., p. 108.



The Hutchinsonian theory may indeed be regarded as especially and
exclusively his own. It is therefore worthy of consideration and review,
rather in reference to the novelty of his ideas than in respect to anything
of great value in the pseudo-historical statements that he has advanced.

The prominent thought of Hutchinson in developing his theory is that
Masonry in its progress from the earliest times of antiquity to the present
day has been divided into three stages, respectively represented by the
three ancient Craft degrees. (1)

He does not give a very lucid or satisfactory explanation of the reasons
which induced him to connect each of these "stages of progress" with
one of the symbolical degrees, and indeed the connection appears to be
based upon a rather fanciful hypothesis.

The three stages into which he divides the progress of Masonry from its
birth onwards to modern times are distinguished from each other, and
distinctively marked by the code of religious ethics professed and taught
by each. The first stage, which is represented by the Entered Apprentice
degree, commences with Adam and the Garden of Eden and extends to
the time of Moses.

The religious code taught in this first stage of Masonry was confined to a
"knowledge of the God of Nature and that acceptable service wherewith
He was well pleased." (2)

To Adam, while in a state of innocence, this knowledge was imparted, as
well as that of all the science and learning which existed in the earliest
ages of the world.

When our first parent fell, although he lost his innocence, he still
retained
the memory of all that he had been taught while in the Garden of Eden.
This very retention was, indeed, a portion of the punishment incurred for
his disobedience.

It, however, enabled him to communicate to his children the sciences
which he had comprehended in Eden, and the knowledge that he had
acquired of Nature and the God of Nature. By them these lessons were
transmitted to their descendants as the cornerstone and foundation of
Masonry, whose teachings at that early

(1) It is known to the world, but more particularly to the brethren, that
there are three degrees of Masons - Apprentices, Craftsmen, and
Masters; their initiation, and the several advancements from the order of
Apprentices, will necessarily lead us to observations in these distinct
channels" - "spirit of Masonry," lect. i., p. 6.
(2) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. i., p. 6.


period consisted of a belief in the God of Nature and a knowledge of the
sciences as they had been transmitted by Adam to his posterity. This
system appears to have been very nearly the same as that afterward
called by Dr. Oliver the "Pure Freemasonry of Antiquity."

All of the descendants of Adam did not, however, retain this purity and
simplicity of dogma. After the deluge, when mankind became
separated, the lessons which had been taught by the antediluvians fell
into confusion and oblivion and were corrupted by many peoples, so
that the service of the true God, which had been taught in the pure
Masonry of the first men, was defiled by idolatry. These seceders from
the pure Adamic Masonry formed institutions of their own, and
degenerated, as the first deviation from the simple worship of the God of
Nature, into the errors of Sabaism, or the adoration of the Sun, Moon,
and Stars. They adopted symbols and allegories with which to teach
esoterically their false doctrines. The earliest of these seceders were the
Egyptians, whose priests secreted the mysteries of their religion from the
multitude by symbols and hieroglyphics that were comprehensible to the
members of their own order only. A similar system was adopted by the
priests of Greece and Rome when they established their peculiar
Mysteries. These examples of conveying truth by symbolic methods of
teaching were wisely followed by the Masons for the purpose of
concealing their own mysteries.

From this we naturally make the deduction, although Hutchinson does
not expressly say so, that, according to his theory, Masonry was at that
early period merely a religious profession " whose principles, maxims,
language, learning, and religion were derived from Eden, from the
patriarchs, and from the sages of the East," and that the symbolism
which now forms so essential an element of the system was not an
original characteristic of it, but was borrowed, at a later period, from the
mystical and religious associations of the pagans. (1)

(1) Long after, Mr. Grote, in his "History of Greece," spoke of an
hypothesis of an ancient and highly instructed body of priests having
their origin either in Egypt or the East, who communicated to the rude
and barbarous Greeks religious, physical, and historical knowledge
under the veil of symbols. The same current of thought appears to have
been suggested to the Masonic writer and to the historian of Greece, but
each has directed it in a different way - one to the history of the Pagan
nations, the other to that of Masonry.

Such, according to the theory of Hutchinson, was the "first stage" in the
progress of Masonry represented by the Entered Apprentice degree, and
which consisted simply of a belief in and a worship of the true God as
the doctrine was taught by Adam and the patriarchs. It was a system of
religious principles, with few rites and ceremonies and fewer symbols.
The second stage in the progress of Masonry, which Hutchinson
supposes to be represented by the Fellow Craft degree, commences at
the era of Moses and extends through the whole period of the Jewish
history to the advent of Christianity. According to the theory of
Hutchinson, the Jewish lawgiver was, of course in possession of the
pure Masonry of the patriarchs which constituted the first stage of the
institution, but was enabled to extend its ethical and religious principles
in consequence of the instructions in relation to God and the duties of
man which he had himself received by an immediate revelation. In other
words, Masonry in its first stage was cosmopolitan in its religious
teachings, requiring only a belief in the God of Nature as he had been
revealed to Adam and his immediate descendants, but in the second
stage, as inaugurated by Moses, that universal belief was exchanged for
one in the Deity as He had made himself known on Mount Sinai. That is
to say, the second or Mosaic stage of Masonry became judaic in its
profession.

But in another respect Masonry in its second stage assumed a different
form from that which had marked its primitive state. Moses, from his
peculiar education, was well acquainted with the rites, the ceremonies,
the hieroglyphs, and the symbols used by the Egyptian priesthood.
Many of these he introduced into Masonry, and thus began that system
which, coming originally from the Egyptians and subsequently
augmented by derivations from the Druids, the Essenes, the
Pythagoreans, and other mystical associations, at last was developed
into that science of symbolism which now constitutes so important and
essential a characteristic of modern Freemasonry.

A third change in the form of Masonry, which took place in its Mosaic or
Judaic stage, was the introduction of the operative art of building among
its disciples. Instances of this occurred in the days of Moses, when
Aholiab, Bezaleel, and other Masons were engaged in the construction
of the Tabernacle, and subsequently in the time of Solomon, when that
monarch occupied his Masons in the erection of the Temple.

But, as has already been shown in a preceding part of this chapter,
Hutchinson does not conclude from these facts that Masonry was ever
connected in its origin with "builders, architects, or mechanics." The
occupation of these Masons as builders was entirely accidental, and did
not at all interfere with or supersede their character as members of a
purely speculative association.

But it may be as well to give, at this point, in his own words, his
explanation of the manner in which the Masons became, on certain
occasions, builders, and, whence arose in modern times the erroneous
idea that the Masonic profession consisted of architects. (1)

"I presume," he says, "that the name of Mason in this society doth not
denote that the rise or origin of such society was solely from builders,
architects, or mechanics; at the times in which Moses ordained the
setting up of the sanctuary, and when Solomon was about to build the
Temple at Jerusalem, they selected from out of the people those men
who were enlightened with the true faith, and, being full of wisdom and
religious fervour, were found proper to conduct these works of piety. It
was on those occasions that our predecessors appeared to the world as
architects and were formed into a body, under salutary rules, for the
government of those who were employed in these great works, since
which period builders have adopted the name of Masons, as an
honourary distinction and title to their profession. I am induced to
believe the name of Mason has its derivation front a language in which it
implies some indication or distinction of the nature of the society, and
that it has not its relation to architects." (2)

Masonry was not organized at the Temple of Solomon, as is believed by
those who adopt the Temple theory, but yet that building occupies,
according to the views of Hutchinson, an important place in the history
of the institution. It was erected during the second stage of the progress
of Masonry not, as we must infer from the language of our author, by the
heathen operatives of Tyre, but solely by Israelitish Masons; or, if
assisted by any, it was only by proselytes who on or before their
initiation had accepted the Jewish faith.

(1) In a subsequent lecture (xiii.) he attempts, in an historical argument,
to show that the guild of Masons incorporated in the reign of Henry V.,
and the laws concerning "congregations and confederacies of Masons,"
passed in the succeeding reign, had no reference whatever to the
speculative society.
(2) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. i., p. 2. In another place in this work the
etymological ideas of Hutchinson and other writers will be duly
investigated.


The language of Hutchinson is on this point somewhat obscure, yet I
think that it admits only of the interpretation which has been given He
says: "As the sons of Aaron alone were admitted to the holy office and to
the sacrificial rites, so none but devotees were admitted to this labour
(on the temple). On this stage we see those religious who had received
the truth and the light of understanding as possessed by the first men,
embodied as artificers and engaged in this holy work as architects." (1)

Still more explicit is the following statement, made in a subsequent part
of the work: "Solomon was truly the executor of that plan which was
revealed to him from above; he called forth the sages and religious men
amongst his people to perform the work; he classed them according to
their rank in their religious profession, as the priests of the Temple were
stationed in the solemn rites and ceremonies instituted there.... The
chosen ones of Solomon, as a pious and holy duty, conducted the
work." (2)

Solomon did not, therefore, organize, as has very commonly been
believed, a system of Masonry by the aid of his Tyrian workmen, and
especially Hiram Abif, who has always been designated by the Craft as
his "Chief Builder," but he practiced and transmitted to his descendants
the primitive Masonry derived from Adam and modified into its sectarian
Jewish form by Moses. The Masonry of Solomon, like that of the great
lawgiver of the Israelites, was essentially Judaic in its religious ethics.
It
was but a continuation of that second stage of Masonry which, as I have
already said, lasted, according to the Hutchinsonian theory, until the era
of Christianity.

But the wisdom and power of Solomon had attracted to him the
attention of the neighbouring nations, and the splendour of the edifice
which he had erected extended his fame and won the admiration of the
most distant parts of the world, so that his name and his artificers
became the wonder of mankind, and the works of the latter excited their
emulation. Hence the Masons of Solomon were dispersed from
Jerusalem into various lands, where they superintended the architectural
labours of other princes, converted infidels, initiated foreign brethren
into
their mysteries, and thus extended the order over the distant quarters of
the known world. (3)

(1) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. vii., p. 86.
(2) Ibid., lect. x., p. 108.
(3) I have employed in this paragraph the very language of Hutchinson.
However mythical the statements therein contained may be deemed by
the iconoclasts, there can be no doubt that they were accepted by the
learned author as undeniably historical.


Hence we see that, according to the theory of Hutchinson, King
Solomon, although not the founder of Masonry at the Temple and not
our first Grand Master, as he has been called, was the first to propagate
the association into foreign countries. Until his time, it had been
confined to the Jewish descendants of the patriarchs.

The next or third stage of the progress of Masonry, represented by the
Master's degree, commenced at the advent of Christianity. As
Hutchinson in his description of the two preceding progressive classes
of Masons had assigned to the first, as represented by the Apprentices,
only the knowledge of the God of Nature as it prevailed in the earliest
ages of the world, and to the second, as represented by the Fellow
Crafts, the further knowledge of God as revealed in the Mosaic Legation,
so to this third stage, as represented by Master Masons, he had
assigned the complete and perfect knowledge of God as revealed in the
Christian dispensation.

Masonry is thus made by him to assume in this third stage of its
progressive growth a purely Christian character.

The introduction of rites and ceremonies under the Jewish law, which
had been derived from the neighbouring heathen nations, had clouded
and obscured the service of God, and consequently corrupted the
second stage of Masonry as established by Moses and followed by
Solomon. God, perceiving the ruin which was overwhelming mankind
by this pollution of His ordinances and laws, devised a new scheme for
redeeming His creatures from the errors into which they had fallen. And
this scheme was typified in the Third or Master's stage in the progressive
course of Masonry.

Hence the Master's degree is, in this theory, exclusively a Christian
invention; the legend receives a purely Christian interpretation, and the
allegory of Hiram Abif is made to refer to the death or abolition of the
Jewish law and the establishment of the new dispensation under Jesus
Christ.

A few citations from the language of Hutchinson will place this theory
very clearly before the reader. (1)

The death and burial of the Master Builder, and the consequent loss of
the true Word, are thus applied to the Christian dispensation. "Piety,
which had planned the Temple at Jerusalem, was expunged. (2)


(1) They are taken from "Spirit of Masonry," lect. ix.
(2) The Master is slain.


The reverence and adoration due to the Divinity was buried in the filth
and rubbish of the world. (1) Persecution had dispersed the few who
retained their obedience, (2) and the name of the true God was almost
lost and forgotten among men. (3)

"In this situation it might well be said That the guide to Heaven was lost
and the Master of the works of righteousness was smitten.'" (4)

Again, "True religion was fled. 'Those who sought her through the
wisdom of the ancients were not able to raise her; she eluded the grasp,
and their polluted hands were stretched forth in vain for her restoration.'"
(5)

Finally he explains the allegory of the Third degree as directly referring
to
Christ, in the following words: "The great Father of All, commiserating the
miseries of the world, sent His only Son, who was innocence (6) itself, to
teach the doctrine of salvation, by whom man was raised from the death
of sin unto the life of righteousness; from the tomb of corruption unto the
chambers of hope; from the darkness of despair to the celestial beams
of faith." And finally, that there may be no doubt of his theory that the
third degree was altogether Christian in its origin and design, he
explicitly says: "Thus the Master Mason represents a man under the
Christian doctrine saved from the grave of iniquity and raised to the faith
of salvation. As the great testimonial that we are risen from the state of
corruption, we bear the emblem of the Holy Trinity as the insignia of our
vows and of the origin of the Master's order." (7)

The christianization of the Third or Master's degree, that is, the
interpretation of its symbols as referring to Christ and to Christian

(1) Burial and concealment in the rubbish of the Temple first, and then in
an obscure grave.
(2) The confusion and consternation of the Craft.
(3) The Master's word is lost.
(4) In the 18th century it was supposed, by an incorrect translation of the
Hebrew, that the substitute word signified "The Master is smitten." Dr.
Oliver adopted that interpretation.
(5) By "the wisdom of the ancients" is meant the two preceding stages of
Masonry represented, as we have seen, by the Apprentices and the
Fellow Craft. In the allegory of Hiram, the knowledge of each of these
degrees is unsuccessfully applied to effect the raising.
(6) Acacia. The Greek word akakia means innocence. Hence in the
succeeding paragraph he calls Masons "true Acacians."
(7) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. ix., p. 100.


dogmas, is not peculiar to nor original with Hutchinson. It was the
accepted doctrine of almost all his contemporaries, and several of the
rituals of the 18th century contain unmistakable traces of it. It was not,
indeed, until the revisal of the lectures by Dr. Hemming; in 1813, that all
references in them to Christianity were expunged. Even as late as the
middle of the 19th century, Dr. Oliver had explicitly declared that if he
had not been fully convinced that Freemasonry is a system of Christian
ethics - that it contributes its aid to point the way to the Grand Lodge
above, through the Cross of Christ - he should never have been found
among the number of its advocates. (1)

Notwithstanding that the Grand Lodge of England had authoritatively
declared, in the year 1723, that Masonry required a belief only in that
religion in which all men agree, (2) the tendency among all our early
writers after the revival of 1717 was to Christianize the institution.

The interpretation of the symbols of Freemasonry from a Christian point
of view was, therefore, at the period when Hutchinson advanced his
theory, neither novel to the Craft nor peculiar to him.

The peculiarity and novelty of his doctrine consisted not in its Christian
interpretation of the symbols, but in the view that he has taken of the
origin and historical value of the legend of the Third degree.

At least from the time of Anderson and Desaguliers, the legend of Hiram
Abif had been accepted by the Craft as an historical statement of an
event that had actually occurred. Even the most skeptical writers of the
present day receive it as a myth which possibly has been founded upon
events that have been distorted in their passage down the stream of
tradition.

Now, neither of these views appears to have been entertained by
Hutchinson. We look in vain throughout his work for any reference to
the legend as connected with Hiram Abif. In his lecture on "The Temple
at Jerusalem," in which he gives the details of the labors of Solomon in
the construction of that edifice, the name of Hiram does not once occur,
except in the extracts that he makes from the Book of Kings and the
Antiquities of Josephus. Indeed,

(1) "Antiquities of Masonry," chap. vi., p. i66, note.
(2) "Book of Constitutions," 1st ed., "Charges of a Freemason," I.


we must infer that he did not recognize Hiram Abif as a Mason, for he
expressly says that all the Masons at the Temple were Israelites and
believers in the Jewish faith.

In a subsequent lecture, on "The Secrecy of Masons," he, in fact,
undervalues Hiram Abif as an architect, and says that he does not doubt
that "Hiram's knowledge was in the business of a statuary and painter,
and that he made graven images of stone and wood and molten images
in metals," thus placing him in a subordinate position, and completely
ignoring the rank given to him in all the Masonic rituals, as the equal and
colleague of Solomon and the Master Builder of the Temple. (1)

There is nowhere to be found in the work of Hutchinson any reference,
however remote, to the circumstances of the death and raising of the
"Widow's Son." He must have been acquainted with the legend, since it
was preserved and taught in the lodges that he visited. But he speaks,
in the most general terms, of the third degree as symbolizing the
corruption and death of religion, and the moral resurrection of man in
the new or Christian doctrine.

If he believed in the truth of his own theory - and we are bound to
suppose that he did - then he could not but have looked upon the
details of the Master's legend as absolutely false, for the legend and the
theory can in no way be reconciled.

If I rightly understand the language of Hutchinson, which, it must be
admitted, is sometimes confused and the ideas are not plainly
expressed, he denies the existence of the third degree at the Temple.

That edifice was built, according to his theory, within the period of the
second stage of the progress of Masonry. Now, that stage, which was
inaugurated by Moses, was represented by the Fellow Craft's degree. It
was not until the coming of Christ that the Master's degree with its rites
and ceremonies came into existence, in the third stage of the progress
of Masonry, which was represented by that degree. Indeed, in the
following passage he explicitly makes that statement.

"The ceremonies now known to Masons prove that the testimonials and
insignia of the Master's order, in the present state of

(1) Hutchinson bas here ventured on a truth which, however, none of his
successors have accepted. See hereafter the chapter in this work on
"The Legend of Hiram Abif," in which I bave advanced and endeavored
to sustain the same view of the character of this celebrated artist.


Masonry, were devised within the ages of Christianity; and we are
confident there are not any records in being, in any nation or in any
language, which can show them to be pertinent to any other system or
give them greater antiquity." (1)

We can not explain this language with any respect for consistency and
for the meaning of the words except by adopting the following
explanation of the Hutchinsonian theory. At the building of the Temple,
the Masonry then prevailing, which was the second or Fellow Crafts
stage, was merely a system of religious ethics in which the doctrines of
the Jewish faith, as revealed to Moses, had been superimposed upon
the simple creed of the Patriarchs, which had constituted the first or
Apprentice's stage of the institution. There was at that time no
knowledge of the legend of Hiram Abif, which was a myth subsequently
introduced in the Third or Master's stage of the progress of the Order. It
was not until after the advent of Jesus Christ, "within the ages of
Christianity," that the death and raising of the Master Builder was devised
as a mythical symbol to constitute what Hutchinson calls "the
testimonials and insignia of the Master's order."

The myth or legend thus fabricated was to be used as a symbol of the
change which took place in the religious system of Masonry when the
third stage of its progress was inaugurated by the invention of the
Master's degree.

Here again Hutchinson differs from all the writers who preceded or who
have followed him. The orthodox doctrine of all those who have given a
Christian interpretation to the legend of the Third Degree is that it is the
narrative of events which actually occurred at the building of the Temple
of Solomon, and that it was afterward, on the advent of Christianity,
adopted as a symbol whereby the death and raising of Hiram Abif were
considered as a type of the sufferings and death, the resurrection and
ascension, of Christ.

No words of Hutchinson give expression to any such idea. With him the
legend of Hiram the Builder is simply an allegory, invented at a much
later period than that in which the events it details are supposed to have
occurred, for the purpose of symbolizing

(1) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. x., p. 1,062. It is "passing strange" that a
man of Hutchinson's learning should, in this passage, have appeared to
be oblivious of the mythical character of the ancient Mysteries.


the death and burial of the Jewish law with the Masonry which it had
corrupted, and the resurrection of this defunct Masonry in a new and
perfect form under the Christian dispensation.

Such is the Hutchinsonian theory of the origin and progress of Masonry.
It is sui generis - peculiar to Hutchinson - and has been advanced or
maintained by no other Masonic writer before or since. It may be
summarized in a very few words:

1. Masonry was first taught by Adam, after the fall, to his descendants,
and continued through the patriarchal age. It consisted of a simple code
of ethics, teaching only a belief in the God of Nature. It was the
Masonry of the Entered Apprentice.

2. It was enlarged by Moses and confirmed by Solomon, and thus lasted
until the era of Christ. To its expanded code of ethics was added a
number of symbols derived from the Egyptian priesthood. Its religion
consisted in a belief in God as he had been revealed to the Jewish
nation. It was the Masonry of the Fellow Craft.

3. The Masonry of this second stage becoming valueless in
consequence of the corruption of the Jewish law, it was therefore
abolished and the third stage was established in its place. This third
stage was formed by the teachings of Christ, and the religion it
inculcates is that which was revealed by Him. It is the Masonry of the
Master Mason.

4. Hence the three stages of Masonry present three forms of religion:
first, the Patriarchal; second, the Jewish; third, the Christian.

Masonry, having thus reached its ultimate stage of progress, has
continued in this last form to the present day. And now Hutchinson
proceeds to advance his theory as to its introduction and growth in
England. He had already accounted for its extension into other quarters
of the world in consequence of the dispersion and travels of King
Solomon's Masons, after the completion of the Temple. He thinks that
during the first stage of Masonry - the Patriarchal - its principles were
taught and practiced by the Druids. They received them from the
Phoenicians, who visited England for trading purposes in very remote
antiquity. The second stage - the Judaic - was with its ceremonials
introduced among them by the Masons of Solomon, after the building of
the Temple, but at what precise period he can not determine. The third
and perfect form, as developed in the third stage, must have been
adopted upon the conversion of the Druidical worshippers to Christianity,
having been introduced into England, as we should infer, by the
Christian missionaries who came from Rome into that country.

While Hutchinson denies that there was ever any connection between
the Operative and the Speculative Masons, he admits that among the
former there might have been a few of the latter. He accounts for this
fact in the following manner:

After Christianity had become the popular religion of England, the
ecclesiastics employed themselves in founding religious houses and in
building churches. From the duty of assisting in this pious work, no
man of whatever rank or profession was exempted. There were also a
set of men called "holy werk folk," to whom were assigned certain lands
which they held by the tenure of repairing, building, or defending
churches and sepulchers, for which labors they were released from all
feudal and military services. These men were stone-cutters and builders,
and might, he thinks, have been Speculative Masons, and were probably
selected from that body. "These men," he says, "come the nearest to a
similitude of Solomon's Masons, and the title of Free and Accepted
Masons, of any degree of architects we have gained any knowledge of."
But he professes his ignorance whether their initiation was attended with
peculiar ceremonies or by what laws they were regulated. That they had
any connection with the Speculative Order whose origin from Adam he
had been tracing, is denied.

Finally, he attributes the moral precepts of the Masonry of the present
day to the school of Pythagoras and to the Basilideans, a sect of
Christians who flourished in the 2d century. For this opinion, so far as
relates to Pythagoras, he is indebted to the celebrated Leland
manuscript, of whose genuineness he had not the slightest doubt.
These precepts and the Egyptian symbols introduced by Moses with
Jewish additions constitute the system of modern Masonry, which has,
however, been perfected by a Christian doctrine.

Such is the theory of Hutchinson as to the origin and progress of
Speculative Masonry. That it has been accepted as a whole by no other
writer, is not surprising, as it not only is not supported by the facts of
history, but is actually contradicted by every Masonic document that is
extant.

It is, indeed, a mere body of myths, which are not clad with the slightest
garment of probability.

And yet there are here and there some glimmerings of truth, such as the
appropriation of his real character to Hiram Abif, and the allusions to the
"holy werk folk," as showing a connection between Operative and
Speculative Masonry, which, though not pushed far enough by
Hutchinson, may afford valuable suggestions, if extended, to the
searcher after historic truth in Freemasonry.

CHAPTER XXIII

THE OLIVERIAN THEORY



In commendation of the Rev. Dr. Oliver as a learned and prolific writer on
Freemasonry, too much can not be said. His name must ever be clarum
et venerabile among the Craft. To the study of the history and the
philosophy of the Institution he brought a store of scholarly acquirements,
and a familiarity with ancient and modern literature which had been
possessed by no Masonic author who had preceded him. Even
Hutchinson, who certainly occupied the central and most elevated point in
the circle of Masonic students and investigators who flourished in the 18th
century must yield the palm for erudition to him whose knowledge of books
was encyclopedical.

In his numerous works on Freemasonry, of which it is difficult to specify
the
most important, the most learned, or the most interesting, Dr. Oliver has
raised the Institution of Masonry to a point of elevation which it had never
before reached, and to which its most ardent admirers had never aspired
to promote it.

He loved it for its social tendencies, for he was genial in his inclination
and
in his habits, and he cherished its principles of brotherly love, for his
heart
was as expanded as his mind. But he taught that within its chain of union
there was a fund of ethics and philosophy, and a beautiful
science of symbolism by which its ethics was developed to the initiated,
which awakened scholars to the contemplation of the fact never before
so completely demonstrated, that Speculative Masonry claimed and was
entitled to a prominent place among the systems of human philosophy.

No longer could men say that Freemasonry was merely a club of good
fellows. Oliver had proved that it was a school of inquirers after truth.
No longer could they charge that its only design was the cultivation of
kindly feelings and the enjoyment of good cheer. He had shown that it
was engaged in the communication to its disciples of abstruse doctrines
of religion and philosophy in a method by which it surpassed every other
human scheme for imparting such knowledge.

But, notwithstanding this eulogium, every word of which is merited by its
subject, and not one word of which would I erase, it must be confessed
that there were two defects in his character that materially affect the
value of his authority as an historian.

One was, that as a clergyman of the Church of England he was
controlled by that clerical espirit du corps which sought to make every
opinion subservient to his peculiar sectarian views. Thus, he gave to
every symbol, every myth, and every allegory the interpretation of a
theologian rather than of a philosopher.

The other defect, a far more important one, was the indulgence in an
excessive credulity, which led him to accept the errors of tradition as the
truths of history. In reading one of his narratives, it is often difficult
to
separate the two elements. He so glosses the sober facts of history with
the fanciful coloring of legendary lore, that the reader finds himself
involved in an inextricable web of authentic history intermixed with
unsupported tradition, where he finds it impossible to discern the true
from the fabulous.

The canon of criticism laid by Voltaire, that all historic certainty that
does
not amount to a mathematical demonstration is merely extreme
probability, is far too rigorous. There are many facts that depend only on
contemporaneous testimony to which no more precise demonstration is
applied, and which yet leave the strong impression of certainty on the
mind.
But here, as in all other things, there is a medium - a measure of
moderation - and it would have been well if Dr. Oliver had observed it.
But not having done so, his theory is founded not simply on the Legend
of the Craft, of which he takes but little account, but on obscure legends
and traditions derived by him, in the course of his multifarious reading,
sometimes from rabbinical and sometimes from unknown sources. (1)

(1) He divides the legends of Masonry into two classes, neither of which
embraces the incredible. He says that "many of them are founded in
fact, and capable of unquestionable proof, whilst others are based on
Jewish traditions, and consequently invested with probability, while they
equally inculcate and enforce the most solemn and important truths" -
"Historical Landmarks," vol. i., p. 399.


The theoretical views of Oliver as to the origin and progress of Masonry
from a legendary point of view are so scattered in his various works that
it is difficult to follow them in a chronological order. This is especially
the case with the legends that relate to the periods subsequent to the
building of the Temple at Jerusalem. Up to that era, the theory is
enunciated in his Antiquities of Freemasonry, upon which I shall
principally depend in this condensation. It was, it is true, written in the
earlier part of his life, and was his first contribution to the literature
of
Masonry, but he has not in any of his subsequent writings modified the
views he there entertained. This work may therefore be considered, as
far as it goes, as an authoritative exposition of his theory. His
Historical
Landmarks, the most learned and most interesting of his works, if we
except, perhaps, his History of Initiation, will furnish many commentaries
on what he has advanced in his Antiquities, but as it is principally
devoted to an inquiry into the origin and interpretation of the symbols
and allegories of Masonry, we can not obtain from its pages a
connected view of his theory.

Preston had introduced his history of Masonry by the assertion that its
foundations might be traced "from the commencement of the world." Dr.
Oliver is not content with so remote an origin, but claims, on the
authority of Masonic traditions, that the science "existed before the
creation of this globe, and was diffused amidst the numerous systems
with which the grand empyreum of universal space is furnished." (1)

But as he supposes that the globes constituting the universe were
inhabited long before the earth was peopled, and that these inhabitants
must have repossessed a system of ethics founded on the belief in God,
which he says is nothing else but Speculative Masonry, we may regard
this opinion as merely tantamount to the expression that truth is eternal.



Passing by this empyreal notion as a mere metaphysical idea, let us
begin with Oliver's theory of the mundane origin of the science of
Masonry.

While in the Garden of Eden, Adam was taught that science which is
now termed Masonry. (2) After his fall, he forfeited the gift of
inspiration,
but certainly retained a recollection of those degrees


(1) "Antiquities," Period I., ch. ii., P. 26.
(2) Oliver, " Antiquities," I., ii., 37.


of knowledge which are within the compass of human capacity, and
among them that speculative science now known as Freemasonry. (1)

These, in the course of time, he communicated to his children. Of these
children, Seth and his descendants preserved and cultivated the
principles of Masonry which had been received from Adam, but Cain
and his progeny perverted and finally abandoned it. However, before his
complete secession, the latter, with some of his descendants, reduced
the knowledge he had received from Adam to practice, and built a city
which he called Hanoch. The children of Lamech, the sixth in descent
from Cain, also retained some faint remains of Masonry, which they
exerted for the benefit of mankind.

It is in this way that Dr. Oliver attempts to reconcile the story of the
children of Lamech, as detailed in the Legend of the Craft, with his
theory, which really ousts Cain and all his descendants from the pale of
Masonry. The sons of Lamech were Masons, but their Masonry had
been greatly corrupted.

Dr. Oliver makes the usual division of Masonry into Operative and
Speculative. The former continued to be used by the Cainites after they
had lost all pretensions to the latter, and the first practical application
of
the art was by them in the building of the city of Hanoch, or, as it is
called in Genesis, Enoch.

Thus Masonry was divided, as to its history, into two distinct streams,
that of the Operative and that of the Speculative; the former cultivated by
the descendants of Cain, the latter by those of Seth. It does not,
however, appear that the Operative branch was altogether neglected by
the Sethites, but was only made subordinate to their Speculative
science, while the latter was entirely neglected by the Cainites, who
devoted themselves exclusively to the Operative art. Finally they
abandoned it and were lost in the corruptions of their race, which led to
their destruction in the flood.

The Speculative stream, however, flowed on uninterruptedly to the time
of Noah. Oliver does not hesitate to say that Seth, "associating himself
with the most virtuous men of his age, they formed lodges and
discussed the great principles of Masonry," and were called by their
contemporaries the "Sons of Light."

Seth continued to preside over the Craft until the time of

(1) Oliver, " Antiquities," I., ii., 40.


Enoch, when he appointed that patriarch as his successor and Grand
Superintendent. (1)

Enoch, as Grand Master, practiced Masonry with such effect that God
vouchsafed to reveal to him some peculiar mysteries, among which was
the sacred WORD, which continues to this day to form an important
portion of Masonic speculation, and for the preservation of which from
the impending destruction of the world he constructed a subterranean
edifice in which he concealed the sacred treasure. He also erected two
pillars, one of brass and one of stone, on which he engraved the
elements of the liberal sciences, including Masonry. (2) Enoch then
resigned the government of the Craft to Lamech, who afterward
surrendered it to Noah, in whose hands it remained until the occurrence
of the flood.

Such is Oliver's legendary narrative of the progress of Masonry from the
creation to the flood. The Craft were organized into lodges and were
governed during that long period by only five Grand Masters - Adam,
Seth, Enoch, Lamech, and Noah.

To the Institution existing at that time he gives the appropriate title of
"Antediluvian Masonry," and also that of "Primitive Masonry."

Of its character he says that it had but few symbols or ceremonies, and
was indeed nothing else but a system of morals or pure religion. Its
great object was to preserve and cherish the promise of a Messiah.

On the renewal of the world by the subsidence of the waters of the
deluge, it was found that though Enoch's pillar of brass had given way
before the torrent of destruction, the pillar of stone had been preserved,
and by this means the knowledge of the state of Masonry before the
flood was transmitted to posterity.

Of the sons of Noah, all of whom had been taught the pure system of
Masonry by their father, Shem and his descendants alone preserved it.
Harn and Japhet leaving; dispersed into Airica and Europe, their
descendants became idolaters and lost the true principles

(1) Anderson gives the direction of the Craft, after Seth, successively to
Enoch, Kainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared, whom Enoch succeeded. Const.
2d edit., p. 3.
(2) This legend of the vault of Enoch was not known to the mediaeval
Masons. It forms, therefore, no part of the ritual of Ancient Craft
Masonry. It is an invention of a later period, and is recognized only by
the more modern "high degrees." The form of the legend as known to
Anderson in 1722 was that he erected pillars on which the science of
Masonry was inscribed.


of Masonry, which consisted in the worship of the one true God. The
descendants of Japhet not only fell from the worship of God and
embraced the adoration of idols, but they corrupted the form of Masonry
by the establishment on its basis of a system of secret rites which are
known in history as the "Mysteries."

This secession of the children of Japhet from the true system which their
ancestor had received from Noah, has been called by Dr. Oliver
"Spurious Freemasonry," while that practiced by the descendants of
Shem he styles "Pure Freemasonry."

Of these two divisions the Spurious Freemasons were more
distinguished for their cultivation of the Operative art, while the Pure
Freemasons, although not entirely neglectful of Operative Masonry,
particularly devoted themselves to the preservation of the truths of the
Speculative science.

Shem communicated the secrets of Pure Freemasonry to Abraham,
through whose descendants they were transmitted to Moses, who had,
however, been previously initiated into the Spurious Masonry of the
Egyptians.

Masonry, which had suffered a decay during the captivity of the Israelites
in Egypt, was revived in the wilderness by Moses, who held a General
Assembly, and, as the first act of the reorganized Institution, erected the
Tabernacle.


From this time Masonry was almost exclusively confined to the Jewish
nation, and was propagated through its judges, priests, and kings to the
time of Solomon.

When Solomon was about to erect the Temple at Jerusalem, he called to
his assistance the artists of Tyre, who were disciples of the Spurious
Masonry and were skillful architects, as members of the Dionysiac
fraternity of artificers.

By this association of the Tyrian Masons of the spurious order with the
Jewish workmen who practiced the pure system, the two classes were
united, and King Solomon reorganized the system of Freemasonry as it
now exists.

For the subsequent extension of Masonry throughout the world and its
establishment in England, Dr. Oliver adopts the legendary histories of
both Anderson and Preston, accepting as genuine every mythical
narrative and every manuscript. From the Leland manuscript he quotes
as if he were citing an authority universally admitted to be authentic.
Receiving the narrative of the General Assembly which was called at
York by Prince Edwin as an event of whose occurrence there can be no
possible doubt, he claims that the Halliwell poem is a veritable copy of
the Constitutions enacted by that Assembly.

On the subject of the religious character of Freemasonry, Dr. Oliver in
the main agrees with Hutchinson, that it is a Christian Institution, and
that all its myths and symbols have a Christian interpretation. He differs
from Hutchinson in this, that instead of limiting the introduction of the
Christian element to the time of Christ, he supposes it to have existed in
it, from the earliest times. Even the Masonry of the patriarchs he
believes to have been based upon the doctrine of a promised Messiah.

But his views will be best expressed in his own language, in a passage
contained in the concluding pages of his Historical Landmarks: "The
conclusion is therefore obvious. If the lectures of Freemasonry refer only
to events which preceded the advent of Christ, and if those events
consist exclusively of admitted types of the Great Deliverer, who was
preordained to become a voluntary sacitce for the salvation of mankind,
it will clearly follow that the Order was originally instituted in
accordance
with the true principles of the Christian religion; and in all its
consecutive
steps bears an unerring testimony to the truth of the facts and of their
typical reference to the founder of our faith."

He has said, still more emphatically, in a preceding part of the same
work, that "Freemasonry contains scarcely a single ceremony, symbol,
or historical narration which does not apply to this glorious
consummation of the divine economy of the Creator towards his erring
creatures"; by which economy he, of course, means the Christian
dispensation and the Christian scheme of redemption.

If in the multifarious essays in which he has treated the subject Dr. Oliver
meant to announce the proposition that in the very earliest ages of the
world there prevailed certain religious truths of vast importance to the
welfare and happiness of mankind, which had been communicated
either by direct inspiration or in some other mode, and which have been
traditionally transmitted to the present day, which truths principally
consisted in an assertion of a belief in God and in a future life, such a
proposition will hardly meet with a denial.

But if he also meant to contend that the transmission of these truths to
posterity and to the present age was committed to and preserved by an
order of men, an association, or a society whose form and features have
been retained in the Freemasonry of the present day, it will, I imagine,
be admitted that such a proposition is wholly untenable. And yet this
appears to be the theory that was entertained by this learned but too
credulous scholar.






CHAPTER XXIV

THE TEMPLE LEGEND



THE Temple Legend is a name that I give to that legend or tradition which
traces the origin of Freemasonry as an organized institution to the Temple
of Solomon and to the builders, Jewish and Tyrian, who were employed in
the construction of that edifice.

This is the legend that is now almost universally accepted by the great
niass of the Masonic fraternity. Perhaps nine out of ten of the Freemasons
of the present day - that is to say, all those who receive tradition with
the
undoubting faith that should be given to history only - conscientiously
believe that Freemasonry, as we now see it, organized into lodges and
degrees, with Grand Masters, Masters, and Wardens, with the same ritual
observances, was first devised by Solomon, King of Israel, and assumed
its position as a secret society during the period when that monarch was
engaged in the construction of the Temple on Mount Moriah. (1)

This theory is not a new one. It was probably at first suggested by the
passage in the Legend of the Craft which briefly describes the building of
the Temple and the confirmation by Solomon of the charges which his
father David had given to the Masons.

There can be no doubt from this passage in the Legend that the Temple
of Solomon occupied a prominent place in the ideas of the mediaeval
Masons. How much use they made of it in their esoteric ceremonies we,
of course, are unable to learn. It is, however,

(1) In a sermon by the Rev. A.N. Keigwin, at the dedication of the
Masonic Temple in Philadelphia (1873), we find the following passage:
"Historically, Masonry dates from the building of the Temple of Solomon.
No one at the present day disputes this claim." I cite this out of hundreds
of similar passages in other writers, to show how universal among such
educated Masons is the belief in the Temple theory. It is, in fact, very
true that only those scholars who have made the history of the Order an
especial study have any doubts upon the subject.


significant coincidence, if nothing more, that there was a somewhat
similar legend among the "Compagnons de la Tour," those mystical
associations of workmen who sprang up in France about the 12th
century, and who are supposed to have been an offshoot of dissatisfied
journeymen from the body of oppressive Masters, who at that period
constituted the ruling power of the corporate guilds of operative Masons
and other crafts.

As the traditions of this society in reference to the Temple of Solomon
are calculated to throw much light on the ideas which prevailed among
the Masons in respect to the same subject, and as the Temple legends
of the "Compagnons" are better known to us than those of the mediaeval
operative Masons, and finally, as it is not at all unlikely that the ideas
of
the former were derived from those of the latter, it will not be inexpedient
to take a brief view of the Temple legend of the Compagnonage.

The Compagnons de la Tour have three different legends, each of which
traces the association back to the Temple of Solomon, through three
different founders, which causes the Compagnonage to be divided into
three distinct and, unfortunately, hostile associations. These are the
Children of Solomon, the Children of Maitre Jacques, and the Children of
Pere Soubise.

The Children of Solomon assert that they were associated into a
brotherhood by King Solomon himself at the building of the Temple.

The Children of Maitre Jacques and those of Pere Soubise declare that
both of these workmen were employed at the Temple, and after its
completion went together to Gaul, where they taught the arts which they
had learned at Jerusalem. (1)

The tradition of Maitre Jacques is particularly interesting. He is said to
have been the son of a celebrated architect named Jacquain, who was
one of the chief Masters of Solomon and a colleague of Hiram Abif.
From the age of fifteen he was employed as a stone-cutter. He traveled
through Greece, where he acquired a knowledge of architecture and
sculpture. He then went to Egypt and thence to Jerusalem, where,
being engaged in the construction of the Temple, he fabricated two
pillars with such consummate skill that he was at once received as a
Master of the Craft.


(1) The reader will remember the story in the "Legend of the Craft" of one
Namus Grecus, who came from Jerusalem and from the Temple in the
time of Charles Martel and propagated Masonry in France.


It is not necessary to pursue the legend of the French Compagnonage
any further. Sufficient has been told to show that they traced their origin
to the Temple of Solomon and that the legend referred, to events
connected with that edifice.

Now, as these traveling journeymen (for thus may we translate their
French title) are known to have separated themselves in the 12th century
from the corporations of Master Workmen in consequence of the narrow
and oppressive policy of these bodies, making what in modern times
would be called a " strike," it is reasonable to suppose that they carted
Nvkh them into their new and independent organization many of the
customs, ceremonies, and traditions which they had learned from the
main body or Master's guilds of which they were an offshoot. Therefore,
although we have not been able to find any legend or tradition of the
medioeval operative Masons which traced their origin to the Temple of
Solomon, yet as we find such a tradition prevailing among an
association of workmen who, as we know, were at one time identified
with the Operative Masons and seceded from them on a question of
policy, we have a reasonable right to believe that the legend of the
Compagnons de la Tour, or Traveling journeymen, which traced their
origin to the Temple of Solomon, was derived by them from the
Corporations of Masters or Guilds of Operative Masons, among whom it
was an accepted tradition.

And therefore we have in this way the foundation for a reasonable belief
that the Legend of the Temple origin of Masonry is older than the era of
the Revival in the beginning of the 18th century, and that it had been a
recognized doctrine among the operative Masons of the Middle Ages.

The absence of the Legend in any formal detail from all the old
manuscripts does not prove that there was no such Legend, for being of
an esoteric character, it may, from conscientious motives, or in
obedience to some regulation, never have been committed to writing.
This is, however, a mere supposition and can not in any way interfere
with deductions drawn from positive data in reference to the Legend of
the Third Degree. There may have been a Temple Legend, and yet the
details narrated in it may have been very incomplete and not have
included the events related in the former Legend.

The first reference in the old records to the Temple of Solomon as
connected with the origin of Freemasonry is to be found in the Cooke
MS. and is in the following words:

"What tyme that the children of isrl dwellid in Egypte they lernyd the craft
of masonry. And afterward they were driven, out of Egypte they come
into the lond of bihest (promise) and is now callyd Jerl'm (Jerusalem)
and it was ocupied and chsrgys yholde. And the makyng of Salomonis
tempull that kyng David began. Kyng David lovyd well masons and he
gaf hem rygt nye as thay be nowe. And at the makyng of the temple in
Salomonis tyme as hit is seyd in the bibull in the iij boke of Regum in
teicio Regum capito quinto (i Kings, Cap. 5) That Salomon had iiii score
thowsand masons at his werko. And the kyngis sone of Tyry was his
master mason, And (in) other cronyclos hit is seyd and in olde bokys of
masonry that Salomon confirmed the chargys that David his fadir had
geve to masons. And Salomon hymself taught hem here (their) maners
(customs) but lityll differans fro the maners that now ben usyd. And fro
thens this worthy sciens was brought into Fraunce and into many other
regions." (1)

The Dowland MS., whose supposed date is some fifty or sixty years later
than the Cooke, gives substantially the same Legend, but with the
additional circumstances, that David learned the charges that he gave,
from Egypt, where they had been made by Euclid; that he added other
charges to these; that Solomon sent into various countries for Masons,
whom he gathered together; that the name of the King of Tyre was Iram,
and that of his son, who was Solomon's chief Master, was Aynon; and
finally that he was a Master of Geometry and of carving and graving.

In this brief narrative, the first edition of which dates back as far as the
close of the 15th century, we see the germs of the fuller Legend which
prevails among the Craft at the present day. That there was an
organization of Masons with "Charges and Manners," that is, laws and
customs at the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, and that King
Solomon was assisted in the work by the King of Tyre and by a skillful
artist who had been sent to him by Hiram, are the two most important
points in the theory of the Temple origin of Masonry, and both are
explicitly stated in these early legends. We next find the Legend
repeated, but with more

(1) Cooke MS., lines 539-575.


elaborate details, most of which, however, are taken from the Book of
Kings as referred to in the Legend of the Craft by Anderson, in the first
edition of the Constitutions, and with a few additional particulars in the
second edition of the same work.

Preston, the next important Masonic writer after Anderson, does not
indeed relate or refer to the Legend in any part of his Illustrations of
Masonry, but the theory that Masonry found its origin at the Temple is to
be deduced from the historical traditions contained in the third lecture of
the Prestonian system, from which Webb derived it, and has perpetuated
it among American Masons to the present day.

Hutchinson, who followed Preston, although, as has been seen, he
inclined to a remoter origin of the Order, repeatedly refers in his spirit
of
Masonry, and especially in his Sixth Lecture, to the Temple of Solomon
as the place where "the true craftsmen were proved in their work," and
where Solomon distinguished them into different ranks, giving to each
appropriate signs and secret tokens, and organized them for the first
time into an association of builders, the predecessors of the Masons
being previous to that time sages who, though acquainted with the
principles of geometry and architecture, were engaged solely in
philosophical speculations. In this way Hutchinson gave the weight of
his influence in favor of the Legend which ascribed the origin of
operative and speculative Masonry to Solomon and to his Temple,
although his views on this subject differ from those of other writers.

Dr. Oliver, one of the latest and the most prolific of the legendary
writers,
although in his own theory he seeks to trace the origin of Freemasonry
to a much more remote antiquity, yet speaks so much in detail in most
of his works, but principally in his Antiquities and in his Historical
Landmarks, of the system which was for the first time organized at the
building of the Solomonic Temple, that most readers who do not closely
peruse his writings and carefully scan his views are under the impression
that he had fully adopted the Legend of the Temple origin, and hence
his authority has been lent to the popular belief.

Existing, as may be supposed from the analogy of a similar legend of
the Compagnons de la Tour, among the craftsmen of the Middle Ages;
transmitted to the Revival era of the beginning of the 18th century, and
since then taught in all the rituals and sustained by the best Masonic
writers up to a recent period, this Legend of the Temple origin of
Freemasonry, or, in plainer words, the theory that Freemasonry received
at the time of the building of the Temple of Jerusalem that form and
organization which it holds at the present day, has been and continues
to be a dogma of faith implicitly believed by the masses of the fraternity.

It is well, therefore, that we should now see what precisely is the form
and substance of this popular Legend. As received at the present day
by the body of the Craft, it may be stated as follows:

When Solomon was about to commence the building of his Temple, his
own people not being expert or experienced architects, he applied to his
friend Hiram, the monarch of the neighboring kingdom of Tyre, for
assistance. Hiram, in complying with his request, sent to him a
numerous body of workmen, and at their head a distinguished artist
called, as a mark of distinction, Hiram Abif, (1) equivalent to the title,
"Hiram his father," who is described as "a cunning man endued with
understanding."

King Solomon then proceeded to organize the institution into a form,
which has been adopted as the model of that which exists at the present
day in every country where Freemasonry exists. The Legend that
contains the classification of the workmen at the Temple, which has
been adopted in the rituals of modern Masonry, is delved partly from
Scipture and partly from tradition. An examination of it will not be
inappropriate.

There are two accounts, slightly conflicting, in the Scriptural narrative.
In
the Second Book of Chronicles, chapter ii., verses 17 and 18, are the
following words:

"And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel,
after the number wherewith David his father had numbered them, and
there were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and
six hundred.

"And he set three score and ten thousand of them to be bearers of
burdens and four score thousand to be hewers in the mountains and
three thousand six hundred overseers to set the people at work."

The same numerical details are given in the second verse of the

(1) Of Hiram Abif a more detailed account will be given when we come
to consider the legend connected with him.


same chapter. Again in the First Book of Kings, chapter v., verses 13
and 14, it is said:

"And King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty
thousand men.

"And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses; a
month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram
was over the levy."

In the Legend of the Craft this enumeration was not strictly adhered to.
The Cooke MS. says that there were "four score thousand masons at
work," out of whom three thousand were chosen as Masters of the work.
The Landsdowne MS. says that the number of Masons was twenty-four
thousand. But this number must have been a clerical error of the
copyist in which he is followed only by the Antiquity MS. All the other
manuscripts agree with the Dowland and make the number of Masons
eighty thousand, including the three thousand overseers or Masters of
the Work.

This statement does not accord with that which is in the Book of Kings
nor with that in Chronicles, and yet it is all that the Legend of the Craft
furnishes.

Dr. Anderson, who was the first author after the Revival who made an
enumeration and classification of the workmen at the Temple,
abandoned the Legend altogether and made up his account from the
Bible. This he published in the first edition of the Constitutions and
tempered it with some traditional information, whence derived I do not
know. But it is on this classification by Anderson that all the rituals
that
have been in use since his time are framed. Hence he may justly be
considered as the author of the Legend of the Workmen at the Temple;
for notwithstanding the historical element which it contains, derived from
Scripture, there are so many traditional interpolations that it properly
assumes a legendary character.

Anderson's account is that there were employed on the building three
thousand six hundred Master Masons, to conduct the work according to
Solomon's directions; eighty thousand hewers of stone in the mountains
who he says were Fellow Craftsmen, and seventy thousand laborers who
were not Masons, besides the levy of thirty thousand who worked under
the superintendence of Adoniram, making in all one hundred and
eighty-three thousand six hundred. For this great number, Anderson
says Solomon was "much obliged" to Hiram, King of Tyre, who sent his
Masons and carpenters to Jerusalem.

Over this immense number of builders and laborers, Anderson says that
King Solomon presided as Grand Master at Jerusalem, King Hiram in the
same capacity at Tyre, and Hiram Abif was the Master of Work.

Fifteen years afterward, Anderson, in the second edition of his
Constitutions somewhat modified these views and added certain other
particulars. He promotes Hiram Abif from the position of Magister Operis
or Master of the Work, to that of Deputy Grand Master in Solomon's
absence and to that of Senior Grand Warden in his presence. He also
says:

"Solomon partitioned the Fellow Crafts into certain Lodges with a Master
and Wardens in each; that they might receive commands in a regular
manner, might take care of their tools and jewels, might be paid every
week, and be duly fed and clothed, etc., and the Fellow Crafts took care
of their succession by educating Entered Apprentices." (1)

Anderson adds in a marginal note that his authority for this statement is
"the traditions of old Masons, who talk much of these things."

If such a tradition ever existed, it is now lost, for it can not be found in
any of the old manuscripts which are the record of the Masonic
traditions. It is admitted that similar usages were practiced by the
Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, but we have no historical
authority, nor even legendary, outside of Anderson's work, for tracing
them to the Temple of Jerusalem.

Out of these materials the ritualists have manufactured a Legend; which
exists in all the Masonic rituals and which must have been constructed in
London, at a very early period after the Revival, to have secured such an
universal acceptance among all the nations who derived their Masonry
from the Grand Lodge of England. The Legend of the Temple origin of
Masonry, as generally accepted by the Craft at the present day, is that
there were one hundred and fifty-three thousand, three hundred
workmen employed in the construction of the Temple. Three thousand
three hundred of these were overseers, who were among as well as over
the Craft, but who at


(1) Constitutions," 2d edit., p. 13.


the completion of the Temple were promoted to the rank of Master
Masons. The remaining workmen were divided into eighty thousand
Fellow Crafts and seventy thousand Entered Apprentices.

Three Grand Masters presided over the large number of workmen,
namely, Solomon, King of Israel; Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abif.
These were the only persons who at the building of the Temple were
Master Masons and in possession of the secrets of the Third Degree.

The statement in the ritual is that the workmen were divided into Lodges.
The Lodge of Master Masons, for there could be only one of that degree,
consisted of three members; the Lodges of Fellow Crafts, of which there
must have been sixteen thousand, was composed of five members
each; and the Lodges of Entered Apprentices, of which there must have
been ten thousand, was composed of seven each.

But as this statement has neither historical authority nor logical
possibility to support it, it must be considered, as it undoubtedly was
originally intended to be considered, merely as a reference to the
symbolic character of those sacred numbers in Masonry - three, five,
and seven. In the same spirit of symbolic reference the steps of the
winding stairs leading to the middle chamber were divided into a series
of three, five, and seven, with the addition in the English ritual of nine
and eleven. All of this is, therefore, to be rejected from the class of
legends and referred to that of symbols.

Viewing then this Legend or theory of the origin of Masonry at the
Temple, tracing it from the almost nude state in which it is presented in
the Legend of the Craft through the extraneous clothing which was
added by Anderson and I suppose by Desaguliers, to the state of tinsel
ornamentation in which it appears in the modern ritual, we will come to
the following conclusion:

In the Legend of ihe Craft we find only the following statement: That King
Solomon was assisted in the building of the Temple by the King of Tyre,
who sent him materials for the edifice and a skillful artist, on whose
name scarcely any two of them agree, and whom Solomon appointed as
his Master of the Work; that Solomon invited Masons from all lands and
having collected them together at Jerusalem, organized them into a
body by giving them a system of laws and customs for their government.
Now, most of these facts are sustained by the historical authority of the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, and those that are not have the support
of extreme probability.

That Solomon, King of Israel, built a Temple in Jerusalem is an historical
fact that can not be doubted or denied. Richard Carlile, it is true, says,
"My historical researches have taught me that that which has been called
Solomon's Temple never existed upon earth; that a nation of people
called Israelites never existed upon earth, and that the supposed history
of the Israelites and their Temple is nothing more than an allegory." (1)

But the measure of the moral and mental stature of Carlile has long been
taken, and even among the most skeptical critics he remains alone in his
irrational incredulity.

Doubtless there are Oriental exaggerations in respect to the amount of
money expended and the number of workmen employed on the
building, which have been overestimated. But the simple, naked fact
that King Solomon built a temple remains uncontradicted, and is as
historically true and undoubted as that of the construction of any other
public edifice in antiquity.

It is equally historical that the King of Tyre gave assistance to Solomon
in carrying out his design. However fiercely the skeptics may have
attacked certain portions of the Bible, the Books of Kings and Chronicles
have been placed upon the footing of other ancient historical records
and subjeated to the same canons of criticism.

Now we are distinctly told that Hiram, King of Tyre, "sent masons and
carpenters to David to build him a house; " (2) we learn subsequently
that the same Hiram (some say his son) was equally friendly with
Solomon, and although there is no distinct mention either in Kings or
Chronicles that he sent workmen to Jerusalem, (3) except his namesake,
the artificer, yet we may infer that he did so, from the friendship of the
two kings, from the need of Solomon for expert workmen, and from the
fact which we learn from the First Book of Kings, that the stones for the
edifice were hewn by " Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders and the
Giblim." The authorized version, on what authority I know not, translates
this word "Giblim" as "stone-squarers." They were, however, the
inhabitants

(1) Manual of Freemasons," Part I, p. 4.
(2) Chronicles, xiv., i.
(3) We are told in i Kings, v., and it is repeated in 2 Chron., ii., that
Hiram sent his workmen to Lebanon to cut down trees. The timber they
were to carry to Joppa, where Solomon was to receive it, and,
presumably, the workmen were to return to the forest.


of the city of Gebal, called by the Greeks, Byblos, which was the
principal seat of the worship and the mysteries of Adonis. The
inhabitants were celebrated for their skill in stone-carving and in
shipbuilding.

Thus we see that there were, according to the Scriptural account, three
classes of Masons engaged at the building of the Temple. First there
were the workmen of Solomon: these were of the "four score thousand
hewers in the mountains " (1) who were taken by Solomon from "the
strangers that were in the land of Israel" (2) - men whom Dr. Adam
Clarke supposes to have been not pure Israelites, but proselytes to the
Jewish religion so far as to renounce idolatry and to keep the precepts
of Noah. But we must believe that among these four score thounnd
snangers mtre to be enumerated the workmen who came from Tyre, or
there will be no place allotted to them in the distribution in the First
Book
of Kings. The three thousand three hundred who were "over the work,"
are said to have been chief officers of Solomon and therefore Israelites,
and the remaining seventy thousand were mere laborers or bearers of
burden - a class for whom Solomon need not have been indebted to the
King of Tyre.

Secondly, there were the workmen of Hiram, King of Tyre. These I have
already said were probably, and indeed necessarily, included in the
number of four score thousand strangers or foreigners. The words in
the original are amoshim gherim, men who are foreigners, for Gesenius
defines the word gherim, to be "sojourners, strangers, foreigners, men
living out of their country." (3)

Thirdly, we have the Giblim, the inhabitants of the city of Gebal in
Phoenicia, who came to Jerusalem, invited there by Solomon, to assist
in the construction of the Temple, and who must also be reckoned
among the four score thousand strangers.

Thus the Legend of the Craft is justified in saying; that Solomon "sent
after Masons into divers countries and of divers landes," and that he had
"four score workers of stone and were all named Masons." For these
were the foreigners or sojourners, whom he found in Jerusalem, many of
whom had probably come there on his invitation, and the Tyrians who
had been sent to him by King Hiram, and the Phoenicians, whom he
had called out of Gebal on account of their well-known skill in
stone-cutting. And all of these


(1) I Kings, v., 15.
(2) Chron. ii., 17.
(3) Lexicon, in voce.


amounted to eighty thousand, the number stated in the Books of Kings
and Chronicles, and just the number mentioned in the Legend of the
Craft.

It will be seen that the Legend of the Craft takes no notice of the levy of
thirty thousand who worked under Adoniram on Mount Lebanon, nor of
the seventy thousand who were employed as bearers of burdens. As
the former were merely wood-cutters and the latter common laborers,
the Legend does not class them among the Masons, any more than it
does the three thousand three hundred who were, according to the
Biblical account, officers of the court of Solomon, who were appointed
merely to overlook the Masons and to see that they worked faithfully;
perhaps also to pay them their wages, or to distribute their food, and to
supervise generally their conduct.

In all this, the Legend of the Craft differs entirely from the modern
rituals,
which have included all these classes, and therefore reckon that at the
building of the Temple there were one hundred and fifty-three thousand
three hundred Masons, instead of eighty-thousand. The Legend is
certainly more in accord with the authority of the Bible than are the
rituals.

The Legend of the Craft is also justified in saying that Solomon
organized these Masons into what might be called a guild, that is, a
society or corporation, (1) by giving them "charges and manners" - in
other words, a code of laws and regulations. On this question the Bible
account is silent, but it amounts to an extreme probability, the nearest
approximation to historical evidence, that there must bave been some
regulations enacted for the government of so large a number of
workmen. It is also equally probable that to avoid confusion these
workmen must have been divided into sections, or what, in modern
parlance, would be called "gangs," engaged in various parts of the
building and in different employments. There must have been a higher
and more skillful class occupied in directing the works of these several
sections; there must have been others less skillful and yet competent to
discharge the duties of stone-cutters and layers, and there must have
been another and still inferior class who were only acquiring the
rudiments of the profession.

Founded on these enident propositions, Anderson made his


(1) The Latin original of the Krause MS. calls it "Societas architedonica" -
an architectural society.


division of the workmen at the Temple into the three classes of Master
Masons, Fellow Crafts, and Entered Apprentices. But he abandoned the
Legend in calling the three thousand six hundred officers of King
Solomon Master Masons, and making the whole number, exclusive of
the seventy thousand laborers and the thirty thousand wood-cutters on
Mount Lebanon, eighty-three thousand, and afterward stating that there
were one hundred and eighty-three thousand Masons in all - a
contradiction of his own previous statement as well as of the Legend of
the Craft which states the whole number of Masons to have been eighty
thousand.

The modern ritual may, however, be considered as having adopted the
Temple of Jerusalem as a type of that abstruse symbol of a spiritual
temple, which forms, as will be hereafter seen, one of the most important
and most interesting symbolic lessons on which the philosophy of
Speculative Masonry depends. But viewing it as an historical statement,
it is devoid of all claims to credence. The facts stated in the ritual are
an
outgrowth of those contained in the Legend of the Craft which it has
greatly altered by unauthorized additions, and it is in entire contradiction
to those given in the Books of Kings and Chronicles.

The claim that Freemasonry took its origin at the building of the Temple
is without any historical authority. The Legend of the Craft, upon which,
to be consistent, all Masonic rituals should be founded, assigns its oigin
equally to two other periods - to that of the building of the Tower of
Babel, when Nimrod was Grand Master, and to Egypt under the
geometrician Euclid. Why the Temple of Solomon was exclusively
selected by the modern Masons as the incunabulum of their Order can
be only conjecturally accounted for.

I am not unwilling to believe, for reasons that have been already
assigned, that the Operative or Stone Masons of the Middle Ages had
some tradition or Legend of the origin of the Institution at the Temple of
Solomon. If so, I am inclined to attribute their selection of this in
preference to any other stately edifice of antiquity to these reasons.

The mediaeval Masons were, as an association of builders, most
intimately connected with the ecclesiastics of that age. Their principal
home at one time was in the monasteries, they worked under the
immediate patronage and supervision of bishops and abbots, and were
chiefly engaged in the construction of cathedrals and other religious
edifices. Private houses at that early period were mostly built of wood,
and the building of them was the business of carpenters. The
treow-wyr-hta, literally the tree-workman, in modern phrase the
carpenter, was one of the most important handicrafts of the early
Anglo-Saxons. He was the builder of their ships as well as of their
houses, and the trade is frequently spoken of in ancient Saxon
documents. He was constantly employed in the construction of vessels
for the carrying on of trade, or the erection of dwellings
for the residences of the people.

To the stone-masons was exclusively entrusted the nobler vocation of
building religious edifices.

Imbued, from their connection with the priests as well as from their
peculiar employment, with religious sentiments, they naturally looked for
the type of the great cathedrals which they were erecting, not to Pagan
temples, however splendid might be their architecture, but rather to that
Jewish cathedral which had been consecrated on Mount Moriah to the
worship of the true God. Hence the brief notice of that building in the
Legend of the Craft was either the suggestion of that esoteric Legend of
the Temple which has not, from its necessarily oral character, been
handed down to us, or if the written Legend was posterior in time to the
oral one, then it was a brief record of it.

But I do not believe that this lost Legend of the stone-masons was ever
intended to be historical. It was simply a symbol to illustrate the idea
that the Temple at Jerusalem was the type of all Christian cathedrals.

This symbolic Legend, which I suppose to have existed among the
stone-masons of the Middle Ages, was probably lost before the revival of
Masonry in the year 1717. Anderson therefore framed a new Legend out
of the Legend of the Craft, the Scriptural account, and his own invention.

Upon this Andersonian Legend, simple in the first edition of the
Constitutions, but considerably expanded in the second, the modern
ritualists have framed another Legend, which in many important details
differs from Anderson's, from the Legend of the Craft, and from the
account in the Bible.

This is the Legend now accepted and believed by the great body of the
Craft to be historically true. That it has no claim to historical credence
is
evident from the fact that it is, in its most important details,
unauthorized,
and in fact contradicted by the Scriptural account, which is the only
authentic memorial that we have of the transactions that took place at
the building of the Solomonic Temple.

And moreover, the long period that elapsed between the building of the
Temple, a thousand years before the Christian era, and the time, not
earlier than the 3d century after Christ, during which we have no traces
of the existence of such an architectural association connected with
Jewish Masons and transmitted from them to the Christian architects,
presents an extensive lacuna which must be filled by authentic records,
before we can be enabled, as scholars investigating truth, to consent to
the theory that the Freemasons of the present day are, by uninterrupted
successions, the representatives of the Masons who wrought at King
Solomon's Temple.

The Legend of the ritual is, in fact, a symbol - but a very important and a
very interesting one, and as such will be fully discussed when the
subject of Masonic symbols comes to be treated in a subsequent part of
this work.

CHAPTER XXV

LEGEND OF THE DIONYSIAC ARTIFICERS



WE now approach a very interesting topic in the legendary history of
Masonry. The reader has already seen in the last chapter that the Masons
of the kingdom of Tyre were invited to join with the Jewish builders in the
construction of the Temple. Who these Tyrian Masons were, what was their
character, whence they came, and what was the influence exerted by them
on the Jewish workmen with whom they were united in a common labor,
are questions which can only be solved by a reference to what may be
called the Legend of the Dionysiac Artificers.

This Legend was entirely unknown to the old Masons of the Middle Ages.
There is no reference to it in any of the manuscripts, The brief allusion to
the Dionysiacs of Asia Minor in Robison's anti-Masonic work does not
necessarily connect them with the Masons of King Solomon. (1)

The first writer who appears to have started the theory that the Masons sent
by King Hiram to the King of Israel were members of the Dionysiac
fraternity, is Sir David Brewster, who presented the Legend under the guise
of an historic statement in the History of Freemasonry, published in the
beginning of this century, and the authorship of which, although it was
actually written by him, has been falsely attributed to Alexander
Lawrie, the bookseller of Edinburgh and at the time the Grand Secretary
of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Brewster may therefore, I think, be
fairly considered as the original framer of the Legend.

The origin of the mystical and architectural society which Brew-


(1) "Proofs of a Conspiracy," P. 20.


ster closely connects with the Masons of the Temple may be given in
almost his own words: (1)

Between 1055 and 1044 years before Christ, or something more than
half a century anterior to the building of the Temple, the inhabitants of
Attica, complaining of the narrowness of their territory and the
unfruitfulness of the soil, went in quest of more extensive and fertile
settlements. Being joined by a number of the inhabitants of the
surrounding provinces of Greece, they sailed to Asia Minor and drove
out the inhabitants of that portion of the western coast from Phoccea in
the north to Miletus in the south. To this narrow strip of land they gave
the name of Ionia, because the greatest number of the adventurers were
natives of that Grecian state. After partly subduing and partly expelling
the original inhabitants, they built several towns, of which one of the
principal was Teos.


Prior to this emigration the Greeks had made considerable progress in
the arts and sciences, which the adventurers carried with them into their
new territory, and they introduced into Ionia the Mysteries of Pallas and
Dionysus, before they had become corrupted by the licentiousness of
the Athenians.

Especially popular, not only in Ioca but throughout Asia Minor, were the
Mysteries of Dionysus, the Roman Bacchus. In these, as in all the
religious Mysteries of antiquity, there was a funereal legend.

In the Dionysiac Mysteries the legend of initiation recounted or
represented the death of the demigod Dionysus, the search for and
discovery of his body, and his subsequent restoration to life.

In the initiations the candidate was made to represent in his own person,
the events connected with the slaying of the hero-god. After a variety of
preparatory ceremonies, intended to call forth all his fortitude and
courage, the aphanism or mystical death of Dionysus - torn to pieces by
the Titans - was presented in a dramatic form and followed by the
confinement or burial of the candidate, as the representative of Dionysus
in the pastos, couch, or coffin, all of which constituted the first part of
the
ceremony of initiation. Then began the search for the remains of
Dionysus, which was continued amid scenes of the greatest confusion
and tumult, until at last, the search having been successful, the morning
was turned to joy, light suc-


(1) Lawrie's "History of Freemasonry," 1st edit., P. 27.


ceeded to darkness, and the candidate was invested with the knowledge
of the secret doctrine of the Mysteries - the belief in the existence of one
God and a future and immortal state. (1)

Now these Mysteries of Dionysus were very intimately connected with a
society of architects. As this association, according to the Legend which
we are now considering, had much to do with the organization of
Masonry at the Solomonic Temple, it is necessary to take a brief notice
of its origin and character.

It is an historical fact that at the time of the building of the Temple at
Jerusalem, there existed at Tyre as well as in other peas of Asia Minor
an association known as the Dionysian Architects, because they joined
to the practice of operative architecture the observance of the religious
rites of the Dionysiac Mysteries.

It has been already stated that the priests of Dionysus had devoted
themselves to the study and the practice of architecture, and about one
thousand years before the Christian era, or at the time that King
Solomon began the construction of the Temple at Jerusalem, had
emigrated from Greece and established themselves as a society or
fraternity of builders in Asia Minor, and devoted themselves to the
construction of temples and other public edifices. (2)

Hiram, who then reigned over the kingdom of Tyre, and who from his
cultivation of the sciences has been styled the Augustus of his age, is
said to have patronized these religious builders, and to have employed
them in the magnificent works by which he adorned and strengthened
his capital.

The internal government and the usages of this association were very
similar to those exhibited by the Masonic society in the present day, and
which the legendary theory supposes to have prevailed among the
builders of the Solomonic Temple.

The fraternity was divided into communities called synoeciae, (3) having
houses or dwellings in common, which might well be com-
(1) Le meurtre de Bacchus mis a mort et dechire en pieces par les
Titans, et son retour a la vie, ont ete le sujet d'explications allegoriques
tout-a-fait analogues a celles que l'on a donnees de l'enlevement de
Proserpine et du meurtre d'Osiris. - Sylvestre de Tracy in Sainte-Croix's
"Recherches sur les Mysteres du Paganisme" T. ii., p. 86.
(2) Chandler says "the Dionysiasts were artificers or contractors for the
Asiatic theaters, and were incorporated and settled at Teos, under the
Kings of Pergamum." - "Travels in Asia Minor," vol. i., ch. xxviii., p. 123.
[This was at a later period than the era of the Temple]
(3) "Antiquitates Asiaticae Christianam Acram Antecedentes," p. 139.


pared to the Masonic Lodges of the present day. Their plans of meeting
were also called in Greek koina, which signifies communities, and each
received a distinctive name, just as our Lodges do. Thus Chishull
speaks in his account of the prechristian antiquities of Asia of a koinon
ton Attaliston, or a "community of the Attalistae," so called, most
probably in honor of King Attalus, who was their patron.(1)

There was an annual festival, like the General Assembly or Grand Lodge
of the Masons, which was held with great pomp and ceremony.
Chandler says (but he speaks of a later period, when they were settled
at Teos) that it was the custom of their synod to bold yearly a General
Assembly, at which they sacrificed to the gods and poured out libations
to their deceased benefactors. They likewise celebrated games in honor
of Bacchus, when the crowns which had been bestowed by any of the
communities as rewards of merit were announced by heralds, and the
wearers of them were applauded by the other members. These
meetings, he adds, were solemnized with great pomp and festivity. (2)

The same traveler mentions a long decree made by one of the
communities in honor of its magistrates, which he found inscribed on a
slab in a Turkish burying-ground. The thanks of the community with a
crown of olives are given as a recompense to these officers for their
great liberality and trouble while in office; and to perpetuate their
memory and to excite an emulation of their merit, it is besides enacted
that the decrees be engraved, but at their expense, "so desirable," says
Chandler, "was the testimony to the individuals and so frugal the usage
in bestowing it." (3)

Of course as an architectural association the Dionysiacs used many of
the implements employed by Operative Masons, and as a secret
brotherhood they had a system of signs and tokens by which any one of
the members could make himself known to the others. Professor
Robison, who may be accepted on this point as authority, admits that
they were "distinguished from the uninitiated or profane inhabitants by
the science which they possessed and by many private signs and
tokens by which they recognized each other. (4)

(1) Rollin's "Universal History" places Attalus in the rank of those princes
who loved and patronized letters and the arts.
(2) Chandler, "Travels in Asia Minor," vol. i., ch. xxx., P. 126.
(3) Ibid., vol. i., ch. xxviii., p. 124.
(4) "Proofs of a Conspiracy," p. 20.


Each of the koina or separate communities into which they were divided
was under the direction of officers corresponding to a Master and
Wardens. (1)

The Masonic principle of charity was practiced among them and the
opulent members were bound to provide for the wants and necessities
of their poorer brethren.

The Legend which connects these architects with the building of the
Temple at Jerusalem, assumes that Hiram Abif was a member of this
secret association. Although the Scriptural narrative is adverse to this
theory, since it states that he was simply a worker in metals and
precious stones, yet we may reconcile it with possibility by supposing
that such craftsmen were admitted into the association of the Dionysiacs
because their decorative art was necessary for the completion and
perfection of the temples and public buildings which they constructed.
This is, however, merely conjectural.

The Legend, now connecting itself in part with history, proceeds to state
that when Solomon was about to build a temple to Jehovah, he made
his intention known to his friend and ally, Hiram, King of Tyre, and
because he was well aware of the architectural skill of the Tyrian
Dionysiacs, he besought that monarch's assistance to enable him to
carry his pious design into execution. Hiram complied with his request
and sent him the necessary workmen, who by their skill and expeience
might supply the mechanical deficiencies and ignorance of the Israelites.

With the body of builders he sent this Hiram Abif, who as "a curious and
cunning workman," highly recommended by his patron, was entrusted
by King Solomon with the superintendence of the construction and
placed at the head of both the Tyrian and Jewish craftsmen as the chief
builder and principal conductor of the work.

To this distinguished artist, on account of the large influence which his
position gave him and the exalted personal virtues which are traditionally
supposed to have characterized him, is to be attributed, according to the
Legend, the intimate union of two peoples so dissimilar in manners and
so antagonized in religion as the Jews and the Tyrians, which resulted in
the organization of the Institution of Freemasonry.

Supposing Hiram Abif, as the Legend does, to have been con-


(1) Brewster in Lawrie's "History," P. 29.


nected with the Dionysiac fraternity, we may also suppose that he could
not have been a very humble or inconspicuous member, if we may
judge of his rank in the society, from the amount of talent which he is
said to have possessed, and from the elevated position that he held in
the alleabns and at the court of the King of Tyre.

He must therefore have been very familiar with all the ceremonial usages
of the Dionysiac artificers and must have enjoyed a long expeience of
the advantages derived from the government and discipline which they
practiced in the erection of the many sacred edifices which they had
constructed. A portion of these ceremonial usages and of this discipline
he would naturally be inclined to introduce among the workmen at
Jerusalem. He therefore united them in a society, similar in many
respects to that of the Dionysiac artificers. He inculcated lessons of
charity and brotherly love; he established a ceremony of initiation to test
experimentally the worth and fortitude of the candidate; adopted secret
methods of recognition; and impressed the obligations of duty and the
principles of morality by means of symbols and allegories.
Just at this point a difficulty must have arisen in reconciling the pagan
symbolic instruction of the Tyrians with the religious notions of the Jews,
which, however, the Legend ingeniously overcomes.

The most prominent symbol of Speculative Masonry, that, indeed, on
which the whole of the ethical instructions is founded, is contained in the
lesson of resurrection to a future life as developed in the allegorical
Legend of the Master's Degree.

In the Pagan Mysteries, of which the Dionysia were a part, this doctrine
was also illustrated by an allegorical legend. In the Mysteries of
Dionysus which were practiced by the Tyrian architects the legend
related to the death and subsequent resuscitation of Bacchus or
Dionysus.

But it would have been utterly impossible to have introduced such a
legend as the basis of any instructions to be communicated to Jewish
initiates. Any allusion to the mythological fables of their Gentile
neighbors would have been equally offensive to the taste and repugnant
to the religious prejudices of a nation educated from generation to
generation in the worship of a Divine Being, who, they had been taught,
was jealous of his prerogatives, and who had made himself known to
their ancestors as the JEHOVAH, the only God of time present, past, and
future.

The difficulty of obtaining a legend on which the dogma of the Third
Degree might be founded was obviated by substituting Hiram Abif, after
his death (at which time only the system could have been perfected), in
the place of Dionysus. The lesson taught in the Mysteries practiced by
the Dionysiac artificers was thus translated into the Masonic initiation,
the
form of the symbolism remaining the same, but the circumstances of the
legend necessarily varying.

By this union of the Dionysiacs with the Jewish workmen and the
introduction of their mystical organization, the Masonic Order assumed
at the building of the Temple that purely speculative form connected with
the operative which it has ever since retained.

From its Jewish element it derived its religious character as a pure
theism.
From its Tyrian element it borrowed its peculiar mystical character and
its system of symbolism, which so much assimilated it to the ancient
Pagan Mysteries, that a Legend has been framed (to be hereafter
considered) which traces its origin directly to those secret associations
of antiquity.

Upon the completion of the Temple, the workmen, invested with all the
secrets which had been promised in their initiation, and thus becoming
Master Masons, dispersed, that they might be enabled to extend their
knowledge and to renew their labors in other lands.

Such is the Legend which seeks to attribute the present form of
Freemasonry to the connection of the Dionysiac artisans of Tyre with the
Jewish workmen at the building of the Temple. So much of the Legend
as relates to the existence of a building sodality at Tyre (leaving out the
question whether they were or were not Dionysiacs), some of whose
members went to Jerusalem to assist in the construction of the
Solomonic Temple, may, I think, be accepted as indisputably historic.
What were the real influences exerted by them on the Jewish people, is
a question whose answer finds no place in the realm of history, but must
be relegated to the doubtful domain of conjecture. Brewster has
descibed the Dionyiacs as they existed in about the 3d century before
Christ, and after their incorporation by King Attalus, as if they maintained
the same condition in the reign of Hiram of Tyre seven hundred years
before. For this statement there is no warrant in any historical record.
The supposition that the Dionysiacs of Tyre and those of Teos were
identical in organization, is simply a theory based on a mere
assumption. It is, however, certain that they who adopt the legendary
theory that Freemasonry was fast organized at the Temple of Solomon,
will find much to sustain their theory in the Legend of the Dionysiac
Artificers.

It is equally certain that those who deny the Temple theory will have to
reject the Dionysic, for the two are too closely connected to be arbitrarily
dissevered.

But laying the subject of Freemasonry altogether aside, and considering
the connection of the Tyrians and the Jews at the Temple as a mere
historical question, it would present a very interesting study of history to
determine what were the results of that connection, if there were any way
of solving it except by mere conjecture.

The subsequent history of the association of Dionysiac Architects forms
no part of the Legend which has just been recited; but it may be
interesting to trace their progress. About seven hundred years after the
building of the Temple at Jerusalem, they are said to have been
incorporated by the King of Pergamum, an ancient province of Mysia, as
a society exclusively engaged in the erection of public buildings such as
theaters and temples. They settled at Teos, an Ionian city, on the coast
of Asia Minor, where, notwithstanding its intestine troubles, they
remained for several centuries. Among the works accomplished by
them were a magnificent theater and a splendid temple of Dionysus,
some ruins of which still remain.

But proving turbulent and seditious they were at length expelled from
Teos and removed to the city of Ephesus. Thence they were transferred
by King Attalus to the town of Myonessus. The Teians having sent an
embassy to Rome to request that the Myonessians should not be
permitted to fortify their city, the Dionysiacs removed to Lebedos, about
fifteen miles from Teos, where they were joyfully welcomed.

In the 5th century of the Christian era the Emperor Theodosius abolished
all mystical associations, but the Dionysiacs are said to have continued
their existence until the time of the Crusades, when they passed over
into Europe and were merged in the association of builders known as
the Travelling Freemasons of the Middle Ages. This latter part of the
narrative is, I think, merely legendary or traditional, and will find no
support in authentic history. It is however, an historical study to be
examined hereafter.

CHAPTER XXVI

FREEMASONRY AND THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES


THE theory which ascribes the origin of Freemasonry as a secret society
to the Pagan Mysteries of the ancient world, and which derives the most
important part of its ritual and the legend of its Third Degree from the
initiation practiced in these religious organizations, necessarily connects
itself with the Legend of the Temple origin of the Institution, because we
can only link the initiation in the Mysteries with that of Freemasonry by
supposing that the one was in some way engrafted on the other, at the
time of the building of the Temple and the union of the Jewish and Tyrian
workmen.

But before we can properly appreciate the theory which associates
Freemasonry with the Pagan Mysteries, we must make ourselves
acquainted with the nature and the design as well as with something of the
history of those mystical societies.

Among all the nations of antiquity in which refinement and culture had
given an elevated tone to the religious sentiment, there existed two
systerns
of worship, a public and a private one. "Each of the pagan Gods," says
Warburton, "had (besides the public and open) a secret worship paid unto
him, to which none were admitted but those who had
been selected by preparatory ceremonies, called INITIATION. This
secret worship was called the MYSTERIES." (1)

The public worship was founded on the superstitious polytheism whose
numerous gods and goddesses were debased in character and vicious
in conduct. Incentive to virtue could not be derived from their example,
which furnished rather excuses for vice. In the Eunuchus of Terenie,
when Choerea is meditating the seduction of the virgin Pamphila, he
refers to the similar act of Jupiter,

(1) "Divine Legation of Moses," B.I., sect. iv., p. 193.


who in a shower of gold had corrupted Danae, and he exclaims, "If a
god, who by his thunders shakes the whole universe, could commit this
crime, shall not I, a mere mortal, do so also?" (1) Plautus, Euripides and
other Greek and Roman dramatists and poets repeatedly used the same
argument in defense of the views of their heroes, so that it became a
settled principle of the ancient religion. The vicious example of the gods
thus became an insuperable obstacle to a life of purity and holiness. (2)

The assurance of a future life of compensation constituted no part of the
popular theology. The poets, it is true, indulged in romantic descriptions
of an Elysium and a Tartarus, but their views were uncertain and
unsatisfactory, as to any specific doctrine of immortality, and were
embodied in the saying of Ovid (3) that of the four elements which
constituted the human organization, "the earth covers the flesh; the
shade flits around the tomb; the spirit seeks the stars."

Thus did the poet express the prevalent idea that the composite man
returned after death to the various primordial elements of which he had
been originally composed. In such a dim and shadowy hypothesis there
was no incentive for life, no consolation in death. And hence Alger, to
whom the world has been indebted for a most exhaustive treatise on the
popular beliefs of all nations, ancient and modern, on the subject of the
future life, has after a full and critical examination of the question, come
to the following conclusion:

"To the ancient Greek in general, death was a sad doom. When he lost
a friend, he sighed a melancholy farewell after him to the faded shore of
ghosts. Summoned himself, he departed with a lingering look at the sun
and a tearful adieu to the bright day and the green earth. To the Roman
death was a grim reality. To meet it himself he girded up his loins with
artificial firmness. But at its ravages among his friends, he wailed in
anguished abandonment. To his dying vision there was indeed a future,
but shapes of distrust and shadow stood upon its disconsolate borders;
and

(1) At quem Deum, qui templa caeli summa sonitu concutit;
Ego homuncio boc non facerem ?
-Act iii, sc. 5
(2) Warburton, "Divine Legation," B. II., sect. iv.
(3) Terra tegit carnem; tumulum circumvolat umbra; orcus habet manes;
spiritus astra petit.


when the prospect had no horror, he still shrank from the poppied
gloom." (1)

Yet as each nation advanced in refinement and intellectual culture the
priests, the poets, and the philosophers (2) aspired to a higher thought
and cherished the longing for and inculcated the consoling doctrine of
an immortality, not to be spent in shadowy and inert forms of existence,
but in perpetual enjoyment, as a compensation for the ills of life.
The necessary result of the growth of such pure and elevated notions
must have been a contempt and condemnation of the absurditics of
polytheism. But as this was the popular religion it was readily perceived
that any open attempt to overthrow it and to advance, publicly, opinions
so antagonistic to it would be highly impolitic and dangerous. Whenever
any religion, whether true or false, becomes the religion of a people,
whoever opposes it, or ridicules it, or seeks to subvert it, is sure to be
denounced by popular fanaticism and to be punished by popular
intolerance.

Socrates was doomed to drink the poisoned bowl on the charge that he
taught the Athenian youth not to worship the gods who are worshipped
by the state, but new and unknown deities. Jesus was suspended from
the cross because he inculcated doctrines which, however pure, were
novel and obnoxious to the old religion of his Jewish countrymen.

The new religious truths among the Pagan peoples were therefore
concealed from common inspection and taught only in secret societies,
admission to which was obtained only through the ordeal of a painful
initiation, and the doctrines were further concealed under the veil of
symbols whose true meaning the initiated only could understand. "The
truth," says Clemens of Alexandria, "was taught involved in enigmas,
symbols, allegories, metaphors, and tropes and figures." (3)

The secret associations in which the principles of a new and

(1) "Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life," p. 196.
(2) Many of the philosophers were, however, skeptics. The Stoics, for
instance, and they were the leading sect, denied the survival of the soul
after the death of the body; or, if any of them conceded its survival, they
attributed to it only a temporary duration before it is dissolved and
absorbed into the universe. Seneca ("Troades," I., 397) says "there is
nothing after death, and death itself is nothing." Post mortem nihil, est
ipsague mors nihil.
(3) "Stromat.," lib. v., p. 658.



purer theology were taught have received in history the name of the
MYSTERIES.
Each country had its own Mysteries peculiar to itself. In Egypt were
those of Osiris and Isis; in Samothrace those of the Cabiri; in Greece
they celebrated at Eleusis, near Athens, the Mysteries of Demeter; in
Syria of Adonis; in Phoenicia of Dionysus; and in Persia those of Mithras,
which were the last to perish after the advent of Christianity and the
overthrow of polytheism.

These Mysteries, although they differed in name and in some of the
details of initiation, were essentially alike in general form and design.
"Their end as well as nature," says Warburton, "was the same in all: to
teach the doctrine of a future state." (1) Alger says: "The implications of
the indirect evidence, the leanings and guidings of all the incidental
clews now left us as to the real aim and purport of the Mysteries,
combine to assure us that their chief teaching was a doctrine of a future
life in which there should be rewards and punishments." (2)


Thomas Taylor, the Platonist, than whom no better modern authority on
this subject could be cited, says that "the initiated were instructed in the
doctrine of a state of future rewards and punishments," (3) and that the
greater Mysteries "obscurely intimated, by mystic and splendid visions,
the felicity of the soul both here and hereafter, when purified from the
defilements of a material nature and constantly elevated to the realities of
intellectual vision." (4)

All the ancient writers who were contemporary with these associations,
and must have been familiar with their character, concur in the opinion
that their design was to teach the doctrine of a future life of
compensation.

Pindar says, "Happy the man who descends beneath the hollow earth
having beheld these Mysteries. He knows the end, he knows the divine
origin of life."

Sophocles says that "they are thrice happy who descend to the shades
below, after having beheld these rites; for they alone have life in Hades,
while all others suffer there every kind of evil."

(1) "Divine Legation," B.I., sect. iv., p. 194.
(2) "Crit. Hist. of the Doctrine of a Future Life," p. 454.
(3) "Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries" apud
Pamphleteer, vol. viii, P. 40.
(4) Ibid., p. 53.


And lastly, Isocrates dcclares that "those who have been initiated in the
Mysteries of Ceres entertain better hopes both as to the end of life and
the whole of futurity."

It is then evident from all authorities that the great end and design of the
initiation into these Mysteries was to teach the aspirant the doctrine of a
future life - not that aimless, uncertain, and shadowy one portrayed by
the poas and doubtfully consented to by the people, but that pure and
rational state of immortal existence in which the soul is purified from the
dross of the body and elevated to eternal life. It was, in short, much the
same in its spirit as the Christian and Masonic doctrine of the
resurrection.

But this lesson was communicated in the Mysteries in a peculiar form,
which has in fact given rise to the theory we are now considering that
they were the antetype and original source of Speculative Masonry.
They were all dramatic in their ceremonies; each one exhibited in a
series of scenic representations the adventures of some god or hero; the
attacks upon him by his enemies; his death at their hands; his descent
into Hades or the grave, and his final resurrection to renewed life as a
mortal, or his apotheosis as a god.


The only important difference between these various Mysteries was, that
there was to each one a diffcrent and peculiar god or hero, whose death
and resurrection or apotheosis constituted the subject of the drama, and
gave to its scenes the changes which were dependent on the
adventures of him who was its main subject. Thus, in Samothrace,
where the Mysteries of the Cabiri were celebrated, it was Atys, the lover
of Cybele, who was slain and restored; in Egypt it was Osiris whose
death and resurrection were represented; in Greece it was Dionysus,
and in Persia Mithras.

But in all of these the material points of the plot and the religious design
of the sacred drama were identical. The dramatic form and the scenic
representation of the allegory were everywhere preserved.

This dramatic form of the initiatory rites in the Mysteries - this acted
allegory in which the doctrine of the resurrection was shadowed forth by
the visible representation of some fictitious event - was, as the learned
Dr. Dollinger (1) has justly observed, "eminently calculated to take a
powerful hold on the imagination and the heart,


(1) Jew and Gentile," I., p. 136, Darnell's Translation.



and to excite in the spectators alternately conflicting sentiments of terror
and calmness, of sorrow and fear and hope."

As the Mysteries were a secret society, whose members were separated
from the rest of the people by a ceremony of initiation, there resulted
from this form of organization, as a necessary means of defense and of
isolation, a solemn obligation of secrecy, with severe penalties for its
violation, and certain modes of recognition known only to those who had
been instructed in them.

There was what might be called a progressive order of degrees, for the
neophyte was not at once upon his initiation invested with a knowledge
of the deepest arcana of the religious system.

Thus the Mysteries were divided into two classes called the Lesser and
the Greater Mysteries, and in addition there was a preliminary ceremony,
which was only preparatory to the Mysteries proper. So that there was
in the process of reception a system of three steps, which those who are
fond of tracing analogies between the ancient and the modern initiations
are prone to call degrees.

A brief review of these three steps of progress in the Mysteries will give
the reader a very definite idea of the nature of this ancient system in
which so many writers have thought that they had found the
incunabulum of modern Freemasonry, and will enable him to appreciate
at their just value the analogies which these writers have found, as they
suppose, between the two systems. The first step was called the
Lusiration, or purification by water. When the neophyte was ready to be
received into any of the ancient Mysteries, he was carried into the temple
or other place appropriated to the ceremony of initiation, and there
underwent a thorough cleansing of the body by water. This was the
preparation for reception into the Lesser Mysteries and was symbolic of
that purification of the heart that was absolutely necessary to prepare the
aspirant for admission to a knowledge of and participation in the sacred
lessons which were to be subsequently communicated to him. It has
been sought to find in this preparatory ceremony an analogy to the first
degree of Masonry. Such an analogy certainly exists, as will here after
be shown, but the theory that the Apprentice's degree was derived from
and suggested by the ceremony of Lustration in the Mysteries is wholly
untenable, because this ceremony was not peculiar to the Mysteries.

An ablution, lustration, or cleansing by water, as a religious rite was
practiced among all the ancient nations. More especially was it
observed among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. With the Hebrews
the lustration was a preliminary ceremony to every act of expiation or
sin-offering. Hence the Jewish prophets continually refer to the ablution
of the body with water as a symbol of the purification of the heart.
Among the Greeks lustration was always connected with their sacrifices.
It consisted in the sprinkling of water by means of an olive or a laurel
branch. Among the Romans, the ceremony was more common than
among the Greeks. It was used not only to expiate crime, but also to
secure the blessing of the Gods. Thus, fields were lustrated before the
corn was put into the ground; colonies when they were first established,
and armies before they proceeded to battle. At the end of every fifth
year, the whole people were thus purified by a general lustration.
Everywhere the rite was connected with the performance of sacrifice and
with the idea of a moral purification.

The next step in the ceremonies of the ancient Mysteries was called the
Initiation. It was here that the dramatic allegory was performed and the
myth or fictitious history on which the peculiar Mystery was founded was
developed. The neophyte personated the supposed events of the life,
the sufferings, and the death of the god or hero to whom the Mystery
was dedicated, or he had them brought in vivid representation before
him. These ceremonies constituted a symbolic instruction in the initia -
the beginnings - of the religious system which it was the object of the
Mysteries to teach.
The ceremonies of initiation were performed partly in the Lesser, but
more especially and more fully in the Greater Mysteries, of which they
were the first part, and where only the allegory of death was enacted.
The Lesser Mysteries, which were introductory to the Greater, have been
supposed by the theorists who maintain the connection between the
Mysteries and Freemasonry to be analogous to the Fellow Craft's degree
of the latter Institution.

There may be some ground for this comparison in a rather inexact way,
for although the Lesser Mysteries were to some extent public, yet as
they were, as Clemens of Alexandria (1) says, a certain groundwork of
instruction and preparation for the things that were to follow, they might
perhaps be considered as analogous to the Fellow Craft's degree.

(1) "Stromat.," v., p. 424.


The third and last of the progressive steps or grades in the Mysteries
was Perfection. It was the ultimate object of the system. It was also
called the autopsy, from a Greek word which signifies seeing with one's
own eyes. It was the complete and finished communication to the
neophyte of the great secret of the Mysteries; the secret for the
preservation of which the system of initiation had been invented, and
which, during the whole course of that initiation, had been symbolically
shadowed forth.

The communication of this secret, which was in fact the explanation of
the secret doctrine, for the inculcation of which the Mysteries in every
country had been instituted, was made in the most sacred and private
place of the temple or place of initiation.

As the autopsy or Perfection of the Mysteries concluded the whole
system, the maintainers of the doctrine that Freemasonry finds its origin
in the Mysteries have compared this last step in the ancient initiation to
the Master's degree. But the analogy between the two as a
consummation of the secret doctrine is less patent in the third degree,
as it now exists, than it was before the disseverance from it of the Royal
Arch, accepting, however, the Master's degree as it was constituted in
the earlier part of the 18th century, the analogies between that and the
last stage of the Mysteries are certainly very interesting, although not
sufficient to prove the origin of the modern from the ancient systems.
But of this more hereafter.

This view of the organization of the Pagan Mysteries would not be
complete without some reference to the dramatized allegory which
constituted so important a part of the ceremony of initiation, and in
connection with which their relation to Freemasonry has been most
carnestly urged.

It has been already said that the Mysteries were originally invented for
the purpose of teaching two great religious truths, which were unknown
to, or at least not recognized, in the popular faith. These were the unity
of God and the immortality of the soul in a future life. The former,
although illustrated at every point by expressed symbols, such, for
instance, as the all-seeing eye, the eye of the universe, and the image of
the Deity, was not allegorized, but taught as an abstract doctrine at the
time of the autopsy or the close of the grade of Perfection. The other
truth, the dogma of a future life, and of a resurrection from death to
immortality, was communicated by an allegory which was dramatized in
much the same way in each of the Mysteries, although, of course, in
each nation the person and the events which made up the allegory were
different. The interpretation was, however, always the same.

As Egypt was the first country of antiquity to receive the germs of
civilization, it is there that the first Mysteries are supposed to have been
invented. (1) And although the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were
introduced into Greece long after the invention of the Osiriac in Egypt,
were more popular among the ancients, yet the Egyptian initiation
exhibits more purely and more expressively the symbolic idea which was
to be developed in the interpretation of its allegory. I shall therefore
select the Osiriac, which was the most important of the Egyptian
Mysteries, as the exemplar from which an idea may be obtained of the
character of all the other Mysteries of paganism.

All the writers of antiquity, such as Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and
Herodotus, state that the Egyptian Mysteries of Osiris, Isis, and Horus
were the model of all the other systems of initiation which were
subsequently established among the different peoples of the Old World.
Indeed, the ancients held that the Demeter of the Greeks was identical
with the Isis of the Egyptians, and Dionysus with Osiris. Their
adventures were certainly very similar.

The place of Osiris in Egyptian history is unknown to us. The fragments
of Sanchoniathon speak of Isiris, the brother of Chna or Canaan; in the
lists of Manetho, he is made the fifth king under the dynasty of the
demigods, being conjoined with Isis; but as the four preceding kings are
named as Hephoestus, Helios, Agathodomon and Kronos, the whole is
evidently a mere mythological fable, and we have as far to seek as ever.
Herodotus is not more satisfactory, for he says that Osiris and Isis were
two great deities of the Egyptians. Banier, however, in his Mythology
thinks that he was the same as Mizraim, the son of Clam, and grandson
of Noah. Bishop Cumberland concurs in this and adds that Cham was
the first king of Egypt, that Osiris was a title appropriated by him,
signifying Prince, and that Isis was simply Ishah, his wife. Lastly,
Diodorus Siculus says that he was Menes, the first King of Egypt. Some
later writers have sought to identify Osiris and Isis with the

(1) The first and original Mysteries of which we have any account were
those of Isis and Osiris in Egypt, from whence they were derived by the
Greeks. - Warburton, "Divine Legation," I., p. 194. Diodorus says the
same thing in the first book of his "History," I., xxxvii.



Iswara and Isi of India. There is certainly a great deal of etymological
plausibility in this last conjecture.

The ubiquitous character of Osiris as a personality among the ancients is
best shown in an epigram of Ausonius, wherein it is said that in Greece,
at Eleusis, he was called Bacchus; the Egyptians thought that he was
Osiris, the Mysians of Asia Minor named him Phanceus or Apollo; the
Indians supposed that he was Dionysus; the sacred rites of the Romans
called him Liber; and the Arabians, Adonis. (1)

But the only thing that is of any interest to us in this connection is that
Osiris was the hero of the earliest of the Mysteries, and that his death
and apotheosis - his change from a mortal king to an immortal God -
symbolized the doctrine of a future life.

His historical character was that of a mild and beneficent sovereign, who
had introduced the arts of civilization among his subjects, and had then
traveled for three years for the purpose of extending them into other
nations, leaving the government of his kingdom, during his absence, to
his wife Isis. According to the legend, his brother Typhon had been a
rival claimant for the throne, and his defeat had engendered a feeling of
ill-will. During the absence of Osiris, he, therefore, formed a secret
conspiracy with some of his adherents to usurp the throne.

On the return of Osiris from his travels he was invited by Typhon to a
banquet, ostensibly given in his honor, at which all the conspirators were
present. During the feast Typhon produced a chest, inlaid with gold,
and promised to present it to that person of the company, whose body,
upon trial, would be found most exactly to fit it. Osiris tried the
experiment, but as soon as he had laid himself in the chest, Typhon
closed and nailed down the lid.

The chest was then thrown into the river Nile, whence it floated into the
sea, and, after being for some time tossed upon the waves, it was finally
cast ashore at the town of Byblos, in Phoenicia, and left at the foot of a
Tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, over-


(1) Ogygia me Bacchum vacat;
Osisin Egyptus putat;
Mysi Phaiiacem nominant;
Dionuson Indi existimant
Romana sacra Liberum
Arabica gens Adoneum.
-Ausonius, Ep. 30.


whelmed with grief for the loss of lher husband, commenced a search
for the body, being accompanied by her son, Anubis, and his nurse,
Nepthe.

After many adventures Isis arrived on the shores of Phoenicia and in the
nethborhood of Byblos, where she at length discovered the body at the
foot of the Tamarisk tree. She returned with it to Egypt. It was received
by the people with great demonstrations of joy, and it was proclaimed
that Osiris had risen from the dead and had become a god.
The sufferings of Osiris, his death, his resurrection, and his subsequent
office as judge of the dead in a future state, constituted the fundamental
principles of the Egyptian religion. They taught the secret doctrine of a
future life, and initiation into the mysteries of Osiris was initiation into
the
rites of the religion of Egypt. These rites were conducted by the priests,
and into them many sages from other countries especially from Greece,
such as Herodotus, Plutarch, and Pythagoras, were initiated.

In this way it is supposed that the principles and general form of the
Mysteries were conveyed into other countries, although they everywhere
varied in the details. The most important of the Mysteries besides the
Egyptian were those of Mithras in Persia, of Atys or of the Cabiri in
Thrace, of Adonis in Syria, and of Dionysus in Greece. They extended
even beyond the then more civilized parts of the world into the northern
regions of Europe, where were practiced the Scandinavian rites of the
Norsemen and the Druidical Mysteries of Gaul and Britain, though these
were probably derived more directly from a primitive Aryan source.

But wherever they existed we find in them a remarkable unity of design
and a similarity of ceremonies from which we are compelled to deduce a
common origin, while the purity of the doctrines which they taught
evidently show that this common origin was not to be sought in the
popular theology.

In all of the Mysteries the ceremonies of initiation were of a funereal
character. They allegorized in a dramatic form the sufferings, the death,
and the resurrection of some god or hero. There was a death, most
generally by violence, (1) to symbolize, as certain


(1) Thus Clemens of Alexandria describes the legend or allegory of the
Cabiri Mysteries as the sacred mystery of a brother slain by his brethren,
"frater trucidatus a fratribus."


interpreters of the Mysteries have supposed, the strife of certain
antagonistic powers in nature, such as life and death, virtue and vice,
light and darkness, or summer and winter.

The person thus slain was represented in the allegorical drama by the
candidate. After the death followed the disappearance of the body,
called by the Greeks the aphanism, and the consequent search for it.
This search for the body, in which all the initiates joined, constituted
what Faber calls "the doleful part," and was succeeded by its discovery,
which was known as the heuresis. (1) This was accompanied by the
greatest demonstrations of joy. The candidate was afterward instructed
in the apporheta, or secret dogmas of the Mysteries.

In all of the Pagan Mysteries this dramatic form of an allegory was
preserved, and we may readily see in the groans and lamentations on
the death of the god or hero and the disappearance of the body a
symbol of the death of man, and in the subsequent rejoicings at his
discovery and restoration, a symbol of the restoration of the spirit to
eternal life.

In view of the purity of the lessons taught in the Mysteries and their
inculcation of the elevated dogmas of the unity of God and the
immortality of the soul, it is not surprising to read the encomiums passed
upon them by the philosophers of antiquity.

The reader, if he has carefully considercd the allegorical drama which
was represented in the ancient Mysteries, and compared it with the
drama which constitutes the principal portion of the initiation in
Freemasonry, will be at no loss to account for the reasons which have
led so many writers to attribute the origin of the Masonic system to these
mystical associations of antiquity.

It has been a favorite theory with several German, French, and British
scholars to trace the origin of Freemasonry to the Mysteries of
Paganism, while others, repudiating the idea that the modern association
should have sprung from them, still find analogies so remarkable
between the two systems as to lead them to suppose that the Mysteries
were an offshoot from the pure Freemasonry of the Patriarchs.

In my opinion there is not the slightest foundation in historical


(1) "Concerning Adonis, whom some call Osiris, there are two things
remarkable: aphanismos, the death or loss of Adonis; and heuresis, the
finding of him again." - Godevyn in "Moses and Aaron," lib. iV., C. 2.

evidence to support either theory, although I admit the existence of
many analogies between the two systems, which can, however, be easily
explained without admitting any connection in the way of origin and
descent between them.

Of the theory that the Mysteries were an offshoot or imitation of the pure
patriarchal Freemasonry, Hutchinson and Oliver are the most
distinguished supporters.


While Hutchinson strongly contends for the direct derivation of
Freemasonry from Adam, through the line of the patriarchs to Moses and
Solomon, he does not deny that it borrowed much from the initiations
and symbols of the Pagans.

Thus he unhesitatingly says, that "there is no doubt that our ceremonies
and Mysteries were derived from the rites, ceremonies, and institutions
of the ancients, and some of them from the remotest ages." (1)

But lest the purity of the genuine patriarchal Masonry should be polluted
by borrowing its ceremonies from such an impure source, he
subsequently describes, in that indefinite manner which was the
peculiarity of his style, the separation of a purer class from the
debasement of the popular religion, wherein he evidently alludes to the
Mysteries. Thus he says :

"In the corruption and ignorance of after ages, those hallowed places (2)
were polluted with idolatry; the unenlightened mind mistook the type for
the original, and could not discern the light from darkness; the sacred
groves and hills became the objects of enthusiastic bigotry and
superstition; the devotees bowed down to the oaken log and the graven
image as being divine. Some preserved themselves from the
corruptions of the times, and we find those sages and select men to
whom were committed, and who retained, the light of understanding and
truth, unpolluted with the sins of the world, under the denomination of
Magi among the Persians; wise men, soothsayers, and astrologers
among the Chaldeans; philosophers among the Greeks and Romans;
Brahmins among the Indians; Druids and bards among the Britons; and
with the people of God, Solomon shone forth in the fullness of human
wisdom." (3)

Dr. Oliver expresses almost the same views, but more explicitly.


(1) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. ii., p. 15.
(2) "The highest hills and lowest valleys."
(3) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. iv., p. 59.


He was, I think, the first to advance the theory that two systems of
Masonry had come down the course of time, both derived from a
common source, which he called the Pure and the Spurious
Freemasonry of antiquity - the former descending without interruption
from the Patriarchs, and especially from Noah, and which system was
the progenitor of that which is now practiced, and the latter, being a
schism, as it were, from the former, and impure and corrupted in its
principles, and preserved in the Pagan Mysteries. He admits, however,
that there were certain analogies between the two in their symbols and
allegories. His own language on this subject, which is as follows, leaves
no doubt of the nature of his views. In a note to his History of
Initiation,
an elaborate and learned work on certain of these Mysteries, he says:

"I have denominated the surreptitious initiations earth-born, in
contradistinction to the purity of Freemasonry, which was certainly
derived from above; and to those who contend that Masonry is nothing
more than a miserable relic of the idolatrous Mysteries (vide. Fab. Pag.
Idol., vol. iii., p. 190), I would reply, in the words of an inspired
apostle,
'Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree bear olive berries or a vine figs? So can no fountain both
yield salt water and fresh. The wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, full of mercy and good fruits' (James iii. 11, 12, 17). I
wish to be distinct and intelligible on this point, as some
misapprehensions are afloat respecting the immediate object of my
former volume of Signs and Symbols; and I have been told that the
arguments there used afford an indirect sanction to the opinion that
Masonry is derived from the Mysteries. In answer to this charge, if it
requires one, I only need reply to the general tenor of that volume, and
to declare explicitly my firm opinion, founded on intense study and
abstruse research, that the science which we now denominate
Speculative Masonry, was coeval, at least, with the creation of our globe,
and the far-famed Mysteries of idolatry were a subsequent institution
founded on similar principles, with the design of conveying unity and
permanence to the false worship, which it otherwise could never have
acquired." (1)

I do not know of any other prominent Masonic writer who en-


(1) "History of Initiation," lect. i., p. 13, notes.


tertains the theory of the common origin but diverse descent of the
Mysteries and Freemasonry, although there are many who, subscribing
with implicit faith to the teachings of Dr. Oliver as a Masonic historian,
necessarily give their assent to his opinion on this subject.

There is another class of Masonic scholars who have advanced the
theory that the Speculative Freemasonry of the present day is derived
directly from and is a legitimate successor of the Mysteries of antiquity.
They found this theory on the very many and striking analogies that are
to be found in the organization, the design, and the symbols of the two
systems, and which they claim can only be explained on the theory that
the one is an offshoot from the other.

The Abbe Robin was, perhaps, the first writer who advanced this idea in
a distinct form. In a work on the Ancient and Modern Initiations, (1)
published in 1780, he traces the origin of the ancient systems of initiation
to that early period when wicked men, urged by the terror of guilt,
sought among the virtuous for intercessors with the Deity. The latter, he
says, retired into solitary places to avoid the contagion of the growing
corruption, and devoted themselves to a life of contemplation and to the
cultivation of the arts and sciences. In order to associate with them in
their labors and functions only such as had sufficient merit and capacity,
they appointed strict courses of trial and examination. This, he thinks,
must have been the source of the initiations which distinguished the
celebrated Mysteries of antiquity. The Magi of Chaldea, the Brahmins
and Gymnosophists of India, the Priests of Egypt, and the Druids of Gaul
and Britain thus lived in sequestered places and obtained great
reputation by their discoveries in astronomy, chemistry, and mechanics,
by the purity of their morals, and by their knowledge of the science of
legislation.

It was in these schools, says the abbe, that the first sages and
legislators of antiquity were formed, where the doctrines taught were the
unity of God and the immortality of the soul, and it was from these
Mysteries that the exuberant fancy of the Greeks drew much of their
mythology. From these ancient initiations he deduces the orders of
Chivalry which sprang into existence in the Middle Ages,


(1) "Recherches sur les Initiations Anciennes et Modernes."


and certain branches of these, he thinks, produced the institution of
Freemasonry.

The theory of the Abbe Robin therefore traces the institution of Masonry
to the ancient Mysteries, but in an indirect way, through the orders of
Chivalry. He might therefore more correctly be classed among those
who maintain the doctrine of the Templar origin of Freemasonry.

But it is Alexander Lenoir, the French archaeologist, who has attempted
in the most explicit and comprehensive manner to establish the doctrine
of the direct descent of Freemasonry from the ancient Mysteries, and
especially from the Egyptian. In the year 1814 he published an
elaborate work on this subject. (1) In this he begins by affirming that we
cannot expect to find in the Egyptian and Greek initiations those modes
of recognition which are used by the Freemasons of the present day,
because these methods, which are only conventional and had been
orally communicated under the obligation of secrecy, can not be known
to us, for they could not have been transmitted through the lapse of
ages. Omitting, therefore, all reference to these as matters of no real
importance, he confines himself to a comparison of the Masonic with the
ancient rites of initiation. In this view he comes to the conclusion that
Freemasonry in all the points that it essentially comprehends is in direct
relation with the Mysteries of the ancient world, and that hence,
abstracting certain particular usages practiced by the modern
Freemasons, it is evident that Freemasonry in no respect differs from the
ancient initiations of the Egyptians and the Greeks.
This theory has been embraced by nearly all the French Masonic writers
except Rebold, who traces Masonry to the Roman Colleges of Artificers.

Unfortunately for the general acceptance of this theory, M. Lenoir has in
the first place drawn his comparisons from the system of ceremonies of
initiation which are practiced in the lodges of France, and especially
from the "proofs and trials" of the Entered Apprentice's degree. But the
tedious ceremonies and painful trials of the candidate as they are
practiced in the French Rite constitute no part of the original English
Masonry whence the French Masonry derives its existence, and were
adopted as a pure innovation

(1) "La Franche-Maconnerie rendue a sa veritable origins," etc. Par M.
Alexander Lenoir. Paris, 1814.


long after the establishment of the Order in France by the Grand Lodge
of England.

And agan, the Egyptian initiations, with which they have been compared
by Lenoir, were not those which were actually practiced by the priests of
Egypt, or at least we have no authentic proof of that fact, but were most
probably suggested by the imaginative details given by the Abbe
Terrasson in his romance entitled Sethas, in which he pretends to
portray the initiation of an Egyptian prince.

The truth is that Lenoir and those writers who have followed him and
adopted his theopt have not instituted a comparison between the
original ceremonies of Masonic initiation and those of the ancient
Mysteries, but merely a comparison between a recent system of
ceremonies, certainly not earlier than the middle of the last century, and
a fictitious system indebted for its birth to the inventive genius of a
French abbe, and first promulgated in a work published by him in the
year 1731.

As well might Mr. Turner or any other writer on Anglo-Saxon history have
cited, as authentic materials for his description of the customs of the
Anglo-Saxon, the romantic incidents given by Sir Walter Scott in his
novel of Ivanhoe.

Hence all the references of the voyages of an Entered Apprentice in a
French Lodge to the similar voyages of an Aspirant in the Mysteries of
Osiris or Isis become nothing more than "the baseless fabric of a vision,"
which must fade and dissolve like an "insubstantial pageant" when
submitted to the crucial test of authentic historical investigation. (1)

The Rev. Mr. King, the author of a very interesting treatise on the
Gnostics, (2) has advanced a theory much more plausible than either of
those to which I have adverted. He maintains that some of the Pagan
Mysteries, especially those of Mithras, which had been instituted in
Persia, extended beyond the period of the advent of Christianity, and
that their doctrines and usages were adopted by the secret societies
which existed at an early period in Europe and


(1) "Many of the explanations given as to the ceremonies used in
Egyptian initiations are modern inventions, abounding in absurdities and
purely imaginary." - Tho. Pryer, "On the study of Masonic Antiquities," in
Freemasons' Quarterly Review, 1847, p. 262. Wilkinson was of the same
opinion. See "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," vol. i.
(2) "The Gnostics and their Remains, Ancient and Mediaeval." By C.W.
King, M.A., London, 1865, p. 47 et seq.


which finally assumed the form of Freemasonry. I have said that this
theory is a plausible one. It is so because its salient points are
sustained by historical evidence.

It is, for instance, a fact that some of the Mysteries of Paganism were
practiced in Europe long after the commencement of the Christian era.
They afforded a constant topic of denunciation to the fathers of the
church, who feared and attacked what they supposed to be their
idolatrous tendencies. It was not until the middle of the 5th century that
they were proscribed by an edict of the Emperor Theodosius. But an
edict of proscription is not necessarily nor always followed by an
immediate abolition of the thing proscribed.

The public celebration of the Mysteries must, of course, have ceased at
once when such celebration had been declared unlawful. But a private
and secret observance of them may have continued, and probably did
continue, for an indefinite time, perhaps even to as late a period as the
end of the 5th or the beginning of the 6th century.

Mosheim tells us that in the 4th century, notwithstanding the zeal and
severity of the Christian emperors, there still remained in several places,
and especially in the remoter provinces, temples and religious rites
consecrated to the Pagan deities; that rites instituted in honor of them
were, in the 5th century, celebrated with the utmost freedom and
impunity in the western empire; and that even in the 6th century remains
of the Pagan worship were to be found among the learned and the
officers of state. (1)

During all this time it is known that secret associations, such as the
Roman Colleges of Artificers, existed in Europe, and that from them
ultimately sprang up the organizations of Builders, which, with Como in
Lombardy as their center, spread over Europe in the Middle Ages, and
whose members, under the recognized name of Traveling Freemasons,
were the founders of Gothic architecture.

There is no forced or unnatural succession from them to the Guilds of
Operative Masons, who undoubtedly gave rise, about the end of the
17th or the beginning of the 18th century, to the Speculative Order or
the Free and Accepted Masons, which is the organization that exists at
the present day.


(1) Mosheim, "Ecclesiast. History," Maelaine's Translation, vol. i., pp.
251,
332, 401.


There is, therefore, nothing absolutely untenable in the theory that the
Mithraic Mysteries which prevailed in Europe until the 5th or perhaps the
6th century may have impressed some influence on the ritual, form, and
character of the association of early Builders, and that this influence may
have extended to the Traveling Freemasons, the Operative Guilds, and
finally to the Free and Accepted Masons, since it can not be proved that
there was not an uninterrupted chain of succession between these
various organizations.

The theory of Mr. King can not, therefore, be summarily rejected. It may
not be altogether true, but it has so many elements of truth about it that
it claims our serious consideration.

But, after all, we may find a sufficient explanation of the analogy which
undoubtedly exists between the rites of the ancient Mysteries and those
of the modern Freemasons in the natural tendency of the human mind to
develop its ideas in the same way when these ideas are suggested by
the same or similar circumstances. The fact that both institutions have
taught the same lessons by the same method of instruction may be
attributed not to a direct and uninterrupted succession of organizations,
each one a link of a long chain leading consequentially to another but
rather to a natural and usual coincidence of human thought.

The believers in the lineal and direct descent of Freemasonry from the
ancient Mysteries have of course discovered, or thought that they had
discovered, the most striking and wonderful analogies between the
internal organizations of the two institutions. Hence the most credulous
of these theorists have not hesitated to compare the Hierophant, or the
Explainer of the sacred rites in the Mysteries, with the Worshipful Master
in a Masonic Lodge, nor to style the Dadouchos, or Torch-Bearer, and
the Hieroceryx, or Herald of the Mysteries, Wardens, nor to assign to the
Epibomos, or Altar-Server, the title and duties of a Deacon.

That there are analogies, and that many of them are very curious can
not be denied, but I shall attempt, before leaving; this subject, to explain
the reason of their existence in a more rational way than by tracing the
modern as a succession from the ancient system.

The analogies existing between the ancient Mysteries and Freemasonry,
upon which the theory of the descent of the one from the other has been
based, consist in the facts that both were secret societies, that both
taught the same doctrine of a future life, and that both made use of
symbols and allegories and a dramatic form of instruction. But these
analogies do not necessarily support the doctrine of descent, but may
be otherwise satisfactorily explained.

Whether the belief in a personal immortality was communicated to the
first man by a divine revelation, and subsequently lost as the intellectual
state of future generations declined into a degraded state of religious
conceptions; or whether the prehistoric man, created but little superior to
the wild beast with whom he daily contended for dominion with
insufficient weapons, was at first without any conception of his future,
until it had by chance dawned upon some more elevated intellect and by
him been communicated to his fellows as a consoling doctrine, afterward
to be lost, and then in the course of time to be again recovered, but not
to be universally accepted by grosser minds, are questions into which
we need not enter here.

It is sufficient to know that there has been no period in the world's
history, however dark, in which some rays of this doctrine have not been
thrown upon the general gloom. The belief in a future life and an
immortal destiny has always been so inseparably connected with
elevated notions of God that the deep and reverent thinkers in all ages
have necessarily subscribed to its truth. It has inspired the verses of
poets and tempered and directed the discussions of philosophers.

As both the Mysteries of the ancients and the Freemasonry of the
moderns were religious institutions, the conceptions of the true nature of
God which they taught to their disciples must of course have involved
the ideas of a future life, for the one doctrine is a necessary
consequence of the other. To seek, therefore, in this analogy the proof
of a descent of the modern from the ancient institution is to advance an
utterly fallacious argument.

As to the secret character of the two institutions, the argument is equally
untenable. Under the benighted rule of Pagan idolatry the doctrine of a
future life was not the popular belief. Yet there were also some who
aspired to a higher thought - philosophers like Socrates and Plato, who
nourished with earnest longing the hope of immortality. Now, it was by
such men that the Mysteries were originally organized, and it was for
instruction in such a doctrine that they were instituted. But opposed as
this doctrine was to the general current of popular thought, it became,
necessarily and defensively, esoteric and exclusive. And hence we
derive the reason for the secret character of the Mysteries. "They were
kept secret," says Warburton, "from a necessity of teaching the initiated
some things improper to be communicated to all." (1) The learned
bishop assigns another reason, which he sustains with the authority of
ancient writers, for this secrecy. "Nothing," he says, "excites our
curiosity
like that which retires from our observation, and seems to forbid our
search." (2)
Synesius, who lived in the 4th century, before the Mysteries were wholly
abolished, says that they owed the veneration in which they were held to
a popular ignorance of their nature. (3)

And Clemens of Alexandria, referring to the secrecy of the Mysteries,
accounts for it, among other reasons, because the truth seen through a
veil appears greater and more venerable. (4)

Freemasonry also teaches the doctrine of a future life. But although
there was no necessity, as in the Pagan Mysteries, to conceal this
doctrine from the populace; yet there is, for the reasons that have just
been assigned, a proneness in the human heart, which has always
existed, to clothe the most sacred subjects with the veil of mystery. It
was this spirit that caused Jesus to speak to the Jewish multitudes in
parables whose meaning his disciples, like initiates, were to
comprehend, but which would be unintelligible to the people, so that
"seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

The Mysteries and Freemasonry were both secret societies, not
necessarily because the one was the legitimate successor of the other,
but because both were human institutions and because both partook of
the same human tendency to conceal what was sacred from the
unhallowed eyes and cars of the profane. In this way may be explained
the andogy between the two institutions which arises from their secret
character and their esoteric method of instruction.

The symbolic form of imparting the doctrines is another analogy, which
may be readily explained. For when once the esoteric or secret system
was determined on, or involuntarily adopted by the force of those
tendencies to which I have referred, it was but natural that the secret
instruction should be communicated by a method of symbolism,
because in all ages symbols have been the cipher by which

(1) "Div. Legat.," I., p. 201.
(2) Ibid., I., P. 200.
(3) "De Providentia."
(4) "Stromat.," v., 419.


secret associations of every character have restricted the knowledge
which they imparted to their initiates only.

Again, in the Mysteries, the essential doctrine of a resurrection from
death to eternal life was always taught in a dramatic form. There was a
drama in which the aspirant or candidate for initiation represented, or
there was visibly pictured to him, the death by violence and then the
resuscitation or apotheosis - the resurrection to life and immortality of
some god or hero, in whose honor the peculiar mystery was founded.
Hence in all the Mysteries there were the thanatos, the death or slaying
of the victim; the aphanism, the concealment or burial of the body by the
slayers; and the heuresis, the finding of the body by the initiates. This
drama, from the character of the plot, began with mourning and ended
with joy.

The traditional "heureka," sometimes attributed to Pythagoras when he
discovered the forty-seventh problem, and sometimes to Archimedes
when he accidentally learned the principle of specific gravity, was nightly
repeated to the initiates when, at the termination of the drama of the
Mysteries, they had found the hidden body of the Master.

Now, the recognized fact that this mode of inculcating a religious or a
philosophical idea by a dramatic representation was constantly practiced
in the ancient world, for the purpose of more permanently impressing
the conception, would naturally lead to its adoption by all associations
wbere the same lesson was to be taught as that which was the subject
of the Mysteries. The tendency to dramatize an allegory is universal,
because the method of dramatization is the most expedient and has
been proved to be the most successful. The drama of the third or
Master's degree of Freemasonry is, as respects the subject and the
development of the plot and the conduct of the scenes, the same as the
drama of the apcient Mysteries. There is the same thanalos, or death;
the same aphanism, or concealment of the body, and the same
heuresis, or discovery of it. The drama of the Master's degree begins in
sorrow and ends in joy. Everything is so similar that we at once
recognize an analogy between Freemasonry and the ancient Mysteries;
but it has already been explained that this analogy is the result of natural
causes, and by no means infers a descent of the modern from the
ancient institution.

Another analogy between the Mysteries and Freemasonry is the division
of both into steps, classes, or degrees - call them what you may - which
is to be found in both. The arrangement of the Masonic system into
three degrees certainly bears a resemblance to the distribution of the
Mysteries into the three steps of Preparation, Initiation, and Perfection
which have been heretofore described.

But this analogy, remarkable as it may at first view appear, is really an
accidental one, which in no way shows an historical connection between
the two institutions.

In every system of instruction, whether open or secret, there must be a
gradual and not an immediate attainment of that which is intended to be
imparted. The ancient adage that "no one suddenly becomes wicked"
might with equal truth be read that "no one suddenly becomes learned."
There must be a series of gradual approaches to the ultimate point in
every pursuit of knowledge, like the advancing parallels of a besieging
army in its efforts to attain possession of a beleaguered city. Hence the
ladder, with its various steps, has from the earliest times been accepted
as a symbol of moral or intellectual progress from an inferior to a
superior sphere.

In this progress from the simplest to the most profound arena of initiation
- from the inception to the full accomplishment of the instruction whereby
the mind was to be gradually purged of many errors, by preparatory
steps, before it could bear the full blaze of truth - both the Mysteries and
Freemasonry have obeyed a common law of intellectual growth,
independently of any connection of the one with the other institution.

The fact that there existed in both institutions secret modes of
recognition presents another analogy. It is known that in the Mysteries,
as in Freemasonry, there was a solemn obligation of secrecy, with
penalties for its violation, which referred to certain methods of
recognition known only to the initiates. But this may safely be attributed
to the fact that such peculiarities are and always will be the necessary
adjuncts of any secret organization, whether religious, social, or
political.
In every secret society isolated from the rest of mankind, we must find,
as a natural outgrowth of its secrecy and as a necessary means of
defense and isolation, an obligation of secrecy and methods of
recognition. On such analogies it is, therefore, scarcely worth while to
dilate.
Thus, then, I have traced the analogies between the ancient Mysteries
and modern Freemasonry in the following points of resemblance.

1. The Preparation, which in the Mysteries was called the Lustration. It
was the first step in the Mysteries, and is the Entered Apprentice's
degree in Freemasonry. In both systems the candidate was purified for
the reception of truth by washing. In one it was a physical abultion; in
the other a moral cleansing; but in both the symbolic idea was the same.

2. The Iniliation, which in the ancient system was partly in the Lesser
Mysteries, but more especially in the Greater. In Masonry it is partly in
the Fellow Craft's, but more especially in the Master's degree.

3. The Perfection, which in the Mysteries was the communication to the
aspirant of the true dogma - the great secret symbolized by the fnitialion.
In Freemasonry it is the same. The dogma communicated in both is, in
fact, identical. This Perfection came in the Mysteries at the end of the
Greater Mysteries. In Masonry it is communicated at the close of the
Master's degree. In the Mysteries the communication was made in the
saceeum or holiest place. In Masonry it is made in the Master's Lodge,
which is said to represent the holy of holies of the Temple.

4. The secret character of both institutions.

5. The use of symbols.

6. The dramatic form of the initiation.

7. The division of both systems into degrees or steps.

8. And the adoption by both of secret methods of recognition.

These analogies, it must be admitted, are very striking, and, if
considered merely as coincidences, must be acknowledged to be very
singular.

It is not, therefore, surprising that scholars have found it difficult to
resolve the following problem:

Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the
ancient Mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic
initiations which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the
analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence
of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and
showing its development in symbolic forms?

For myself, I can only arrive at what I think is a logical conclusion; that if
both the Mysteries and Freemasonry have taught the same lessons by
the same method of instruction, this has arisen not from a succession of
organizations, each one a link of a long chain of historical sequences
leading directly to another, until Hiram is simply substituted for Osiris,
but rather from those usual and natural coincidences of human thought
which are to be found in every age and among all peoples.

It is, however, hardly to be denied that the founders of the Speculative
system of Masonry, in forming their ritual, especially of the third degree,
derived many suggestions as to the form and character of their funereal
legend from the rites of the ancient initiations.

But how long after Freemasonry had an organized existence this
funereal legend was devised, is a question that must hereafter be
entitled to mature consideration.

CHAPTER XXVII

DRUIDISM AND FREEMASONRY



MR. PRESTON, in commencing his history of Masonry in England, asserts
that there are convincing proofs that the science of Masonry was not
unknown to the early Britons even before the time of the invasion of the
Romans. Hence he suggests the probability that the Druids retained
among them many usages similar to those of Masons; but he candidly
admits that this is a mere conjecture. (1)

Hutchinson thinks it probable that many of the rites and institutions of the
Druids were retained in forming the ceremonies of the Masonic society. (2)

Paine, who knew, by the way, as little of Masonry as he did of the religion
of the Druids, dogmatically asserts that "Masonry is the remains of the
religion of the ancient Druids, who, like the Magi of Persia and the priests
of Heliopolis in Egypt, were priests of the sun." (3)

The learned Faber, a much more competent authority than Paine,
expresses the opinion that the Druidical Bards "are probably the real
founders of English Freemasonry." (4)

Godfrey Higgins, whose inventive genius, fertile imagination, and
excessive credulity render his great work, the Anacalypsis, altogether
unreliable, says that he has "no doubt that the Masons were Druids,
Culidei, or Chaldea, and Casideans." (5)

Dr. Oliver, it is true, denies that the Masons of the present day were
derived from the Druids. He thinks that the latter were a branch of what
he calls the Spurious Freemasonry, which was a secession from the
Pure Freemasonry of the Patriarchs. But he finds many analogies in the
rites and symbols of the two institu-

(1) "Illustrations of Masonry," B. IV., sec. i., p. 121, Oliver's ed.
(2) Spirit of Masonry," lect. iii., p. 41.
(3) "Essay on Freemasonry," p. 6.
(4) "Pagan Idolatry."
(5) "Anacalypsis," vol. i., p. 718.


tions which indicate their common origin from a primitive system,
namely, the ancient Mysteries of the Pagans.

The theory of those who find a connection either in analogy or by
succession between the Druids and the Freemasons accounts for this
connection by supposing that the Druids derived their system either from
Pythagoras or from the ancient Mysteries through the Phoenicians, who
visited Britain at an early period for commercial purposes.

But before we can profitably discuss the relations of Druidism to
Freemasonry, or be prepared to determine whether there were any
relations whatever between the two, it will be necessary to give a brief
sketch of the history and character of the former. This is a topic which,
irrespective of any Masonic reference, is not devoid of interest.
Of all the institutions of antiquity, there is none with which we are less
acquainted than that of the Druidism of Britain and Gaul. The
investigations of recent archaeologists have tended to cast much doubt
on the speculations of the antiquaries of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Stokely, for instance, one of the most learned of those who have sought
to establish out of the stone monuments of England a connected history
of Druidism, has been said by Ferguson, in his work on Rude Stone
Monuments, to have been indebted more to a prolific imagination than to
authentic facts for the theory which he has sought to establish.

The scepticism of Ferguson is, however, not less objectionable in a
critical inquiry than the credulity of Stokely. There is evidently a middle
way between them.

Ferguson can not deny the existence of Druids in Gaul and Britain, since
the fact is stated by Caesar. He supposes that there were two distinct
races in the island; the original inhabitants, who were of Turanian origin,
and, being more uncivilized, were driven by the other race, who were
Celts, into the fastnesses of the Welsh hills long before the Roman
invasion. Among the former he thinks that the religion of Druidism,
consisting of tree and serpent worship, may have been practiced. And
he accounts for the error of the classical writers in describing the priests
of the latter race as Druids by attributing it to the confounding of the two
races by the "uncritical Romans." (1)


(1) "Tree and Serpent Worship," P. 29.


Very recently a bold and very sceptical theory has been advanced by Dr.
Ignaz Goldziher, in his work on Mythology Among the Hebrews, (1)
which aims at a total annihilation of Druidism as a system of secret
initiation among the ancient Britons (whose Druidism was only a national
religion), and attributes its invention to the modern Welsh, who created it
for the purpose of elevating and strengthening their own nationality in
their rivalry with the English. He says:

"The Cymri of Wales, becoming alive to the opposition in nationality
between themselves and the English, felt the need of finding a
justification of this opposition in the oldest prehistoric times. It was
then
first suggested to them that they were descendants of the ancient,
renowned Celtic nation; and to keep alive this Celtic national pride they
introduced an institution of New Druids, a sort of secret society like the
Freemasons. The New Druids, like the old ones, taught a sort of
national religion, which, however, the people having long become
Christian and preserved no independent national traditions, they had
mostly to invent themselves. Thus arose the so-called Celtic mythology
of the god Hu and the goddess Ceridolu (Ceridwen), etc. - mere poetical
fictions which never lived in popular belief."

The questions involved in this difference of opinion are as yet not
critically decided, and I shall therefore content myself with giving the
views of the history and religion of the Druids as they have been
generally received and believed, without confusing the subject with the
contending speculations which have been fostered by the credulity or
the imagination of one side and impugned by the scepticism of the
other.

The Druids, which word signifies magicians, (2) were the priests of the
religion of the ancient Britons, among whom they exercised almost
unlimited influence and authority. They presided over and directed the
education of the youths; they decided without appeal all judicial
controversies; they were exempted from all taxes and legal impositions;
and whoever refused to submit to their decisions on any question was
subjected to excommunication, by which he was forbidden access to the
altars or the performance of religious

(1) Ably translated from the German by Mr. Russell Martineau, of the
British Museum, with valuable additions. For the passage quoted, see p
252.
(2) In Anglo-Saxon dry is a magician; and drycroft, magic.


rites, and was debarred from all intercourse with his relatives, his
friends,
or his countrymen. Hence no superstition was ever more terrible than
that of the priest-ridden Britons.

The Druids were under the chief authority of an Archdruid, which office
was for life, but originally elective. They were divided into three orders,
the highest being the Druids, below which were the Pro heis and the
Pates or Bards. They held an annual assembly, at which litigated
questions were decided and new laws were made or old ones
abrogated. They held also four quarterly meetings, on the days of the
equinoxes and the solstices.

They permitted none of their doctrines or ceremonies to be committed to
common writing, but used a cipher for their concealment. This, Caesar
says, consisted of the letters of the Greek alphabet; a statement by no
means probable, since it would infer a knowledge by them of the Greek
language, of which we have no evidence.

The opinion of Toland is more plausible - that the characters used were
those of the Irish Ogum alphabet. Sir James Ware, who wrote in Latin,
about the middle of the 17th century, a work on the Antiquities of
Ireland, says that "the ancient Irish, besides the vulgar characters, used
also various occult or artificial forms of writing, called Ogum, in which
they wrote their secrets;" and he adds that he himself was in possession
of an ancient book or parchment filled with these characters. (1)

Their places of worship were, according to the contemporaneous
authority of Caesar and Tacitus, in sacred groves. Stokely and other
antiquaries of his school suppose that the megalithic monuments found
in Britain, such as at Stonehenge and Avebury, were Druidical temples,
but Ferguson denies this, and asserts that "there is no passage in any
classical author which connects the Druids either directly or indirectly
with any stone temples or stones of any sort." (2) The question remains
unadjudicated, but the position taken by Ferguson seems to be
supported by better archaeological evidence.

Their worship, like that of the ancient Mysteries, was accompanied by a
secret initiation. Their doctrines were communicated only to the initiated,
who were strictly forbidden to expose them to the profane.

What were the precise forms of this initiation it is impossible to

(1) "Antiq. Hibern.," cap. 2.
(2) "Rude Stone Monuments," p. 206


say. The Druids themselves, wedded to their oral system of instruction,
have left no records. But Dr. Oliver, depending on inferences that he
has drawn from the Welsh triads, from the poem of the ancient bard
Taleisin, and some other Cambrian authorities, aided by the inventive
genius of his own imagination, has afforded us a very minute, if not
altogether accurate, detail of these initiatory ceremonies. The account is
entirely too long for reproduction, but a condensed view of it will not be
uninteresting. (1)

Previous to admission to the first degree, or that of the Vates, the
candidate was submitted to a careful preparation, which in especial
cases extended to the long period of twenty years.

The ceremony of initiation began by placing the candidate in the pastos,
chest or coffin, in which he remained enclosed for three days, to
represent death, and was liberated or restored to life on the third day. (2)

The sanctuary being now prepared for the business of initiation, the
Druids are duly arranged, being appropriately clothed and crowned with
ivy. The candidate, representing a blind man, is then introduced while a
hymn to the Sun is being chanted. He is placed under the care of an
officer whose duty it is to receive him in the land of rest, and he is
directed to kindle the fire under the cauldron of Ceridwen, the Druidical
goddess. A pageant is then formed, and the candidate makes a
circumambulation of nine times around the sanctuary, in circles from
east to west by the south. The procession is first slow and amid a
death-like silence; at length the pace is increased into a rapid and
furious motion, accompanied with the tumultuous clang of musical
instruments and the screams of harsh and dissonant voices reciting in
verse the praises of those heroes who were brave in war, courteous in
peace, and patrons of religion. (3)

This sacred ceremony was followed by the administration of an oath of
secrecy, violation of which could be expiated only by death.

Then succeeded a series of ceremonies in which, by means of masks,
the candidate was made to assume the character of various animals,
such as the dog, the deer, the mare, the cock, etc. (4)

This, according to Oliver, concluded the first part of the cere-

(1) "History of Initiation," lect. viii., p. 199 et seq.
(2) Ibid., p. 201. That this ceremony represented a death and
resurrection is altogether conjectural.
(3) Ibid., p. 204.
(4) Ibid., P. 205.


mony of initiation. The second part began with striking the candidate a
violent blow on the head with an oar, and a pitchy darkness immediately
ensued, which was soon changed into a blaze of light which illuminated
the whole area of the shrine.

This sudden transition from darkness to light was intended to shadow
forth the same transition which Noah experienced on emerging from the
gloom of the ark to the brightness of the renovated world. (1)

Thus it is contended that the Druids were Arkite worshippers - a
concession by Oliver to the theories of Faber and Bryant.

The light was then withdrawn and the candidate was again involved in
chaotic darkness. The most dismal howlings, shrieks, and lamentations
salute his astonished ear. Thus the figurative death of Noah, typified by
his confinement in the ark, was commemorated with every external mark
of sorrow. Alarmed at the discordant noises, the candidate naturally
sought to escape, but this was rendered impossible, for wherever he
turned he was opposed by dogs who pursued him. At length the
gigantic goddess Ceridwen seized him and bore him by main force to
the mythological sea which represented the flood of waters over which
Noah floated.


Here he is supposed to have remained for a year in the character of
Arawn, or Noah. (2) The same appalling sounds continued, until at
length, having emerged from the stream, the darkness was removed and
the candidate found himself surrounded by the most brilliant
coruscations of light. This change produced in the attendants
corresponding emotions, which were expressed by shouts and loud
paeans that testified their rejoicings at the resuscitation of their god.
(3)

The aspirant was then presented to the Archdruid, who explained to him
the design of the mysteries and imparted some portion of the secret
knowledge of Druidism, and recommended to him the practice of
fortitude, which was considered as one of the leading traits of perfection.

With the performance of these painful ceremonies, the first degree of
initiation into the Druidical Mysteries was concluded.

In the second degree, where the trials appear, from Oliver's


(1) "History of Initiation," p. 208.
(2) This detention of a year in the waters of the deluge was, I presume,
like the fourteen days of interment in the Master Mason's degree, which
period passes in the space of a few minutes - only a symbolic idea.
(3) "History of Initiation," p. 211


description, to have been of a less severe character, the candidate
underwent lustration, or a typical ablution, which was followed by his
enlightenment. He was now instructed in the morality of the order;
taught that souls are immortal and must live in a future state; solemnly
enjoined to the performance of divine worship and the practice of virtue;
and was invested with some of the badges of Druidism. Among these
was the crystal, the unequivocal test of his initiation. This crystal, or
talisman against danger, was manufactured exclusively by the Druids,
and its colour varied in the three degrees. In the first it was green, in
the
second blue, and in the third white. The one presented to the aspirant
was a combination of these colours. (1)

Beyond the second degree very few advanced. The third was conferred
only on persons of rank and consequence, and in it the aspirant passed
through still more arduous ceremonies of purification.

The candidate was committed to secluded solitude for a period of nine
months, which time was devoted to reflection and to the study of the
sciences, so that he might be prepared more fully to understand the
sacred truths in which he was about to be instructed. He was again
submitted to a symbolic death and regeneration, by ceremonies different
from those of the first degree. He was then supposed to represent a
new-born infant, and, being placed in a coracle or boat, was committed
to the mercy of the waters. The candidate, says Oliver, was actually set
adrift in the open sea, and was obliged to depend on his own address
and presence of mind to reach the opposite shore in safety. (2)

This was done at night, and this nocturnal expedition, which sometimes
cost the candidate his life, was the closing act of his initiation. Should
he refuse to undertake it, he was contemptuously rejected and
pronounced unworthy of a participation in the honours to which he
aspired and for which he was forever afterward ineligible. But if he
courageously entered on the voyage and landed safely, he was
triumphantly received by the Archdruid and his companions. He was
recognized as a Druid, and became eligible for any ecclesiastical, civil or
military dignity. "The whole circle of human science was open to his
investigation; the knowledge of divine things was communicated without
reserve; he was now en-


(1) "History of Initiation," p. 212.
(2) Ibid., p. 216.


abled to perform the mysterious rites of worship, and had his
understanding enriched with an elaborate system of morality." (1)

But little is known of the religion of the Druids, on which these
ceremonies are supposed to be founded, and concerning that little the
opinions of the learned greatly differ. "Among those institutions," says
Toland, "which are thought to be irrecoverably lost, one is that of the
Druids; of which the learned have hitherto known nothing but by some
fragments concerning them out of the Greek and Roman authors." (2)
Hence the views relating to their true worship have been almost as
various as the writers who have discussed them.

Caesar, who derived his knowledge of the Druids, imperfect as it was,
from the contemporary priests of Gaul, says that they worshipped as
their chief god Mercury, whom they considered as the inventor of all the
arts, and after him Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva. (3) But the
Romans had a habit of applying to all the gods or idols of foreign
nations the names and qualities of the deities of their own mythology.
Hence his statement will scarcely amount to more than that the Druids
worshipped a variety of gods.

Yet Davies, who, notwithstanding his national prejudices and
prepossessions, is, from his learning, an authority not to be contemned,
concurs in the view of Caesar so far as to say that "it is an historical
fact,
that the mythology and the rites of the Druids were the same, in
substance, with those of the Greeks and Romans and of other nations
which came under their observation." (4)

Dionysius the Geographer, another writer of the Augustan age, says that
the rites of Bacchus were celebrated in Britain, (5) and Strabo, on the
authority of Artemidorus, who wrote a century before Christ, asserts that
in an island close to Britain (probably the isle of Mona, where the Druids
held their principal seat) Ceres and Proserpine were venerated with rites
similar to those of Samothracia. (6)

Bryant, who traced all the ancient religions, principally on the basis of
etymology, to traditions of the deluge and the worship of

(1) Oliver, "History of Initiation," P. 217.
(2) "History of the Druids," in miscellaneous works, vol. i., p. 6.
(3) "De Bello Gallico."
(4) "Mythology and Rites of the British Druids," p. 89
(5) "Perieget," v., 565.
(6) Letter IV.


the patriarch Noah, conceived, of course, that Druidism was but a part of
this universal cult. (1)

Faber, who followed in the footsteps of his learned predecessor, adoled
the same hypothesis, and held the doctrine that the Druids were
addicted to what he denominated Arkite worship, or the worship of
Noah, and that all their religious rites referred to the deluge, death and
immortality being typified by the confinement of the patriarch in the ark
and his subsequent emergence from it into a new and renovated world,
the symbol of the future life. (2)

It will be evident from the description already given of the Druidical
initiations as portrayed by Dr. Oliver, that he concurred to a great extent
in the views of Bryant and Faber.

Stukely, one of the most learned of English antiquarians, believed that
the Druids were addicted to tree and serpent worship, and he adduces
as evidence of the truth of this theory the megalithic monuments of
Stonehenge and Avebury, in the arrangement of whose stones he
thought that he had traced a serpentine form.

On the contrary, Mr. Ferguson (3) scoffs, in language not always
temperate, at the views of Stokely, and not only denies the serpentine
form of the stone remains in England, as described by that antiquary,
but repudiates the hypothesis that the Druids ever erected or had any
connection with stone temples or monuments in any part of the world.
But as Ferguson adduces nothing but negative arguments in proof of his
assertion, and as he even casts some doubt upon the existence of
Druids at all in Britain, his views are by no means satisfactory. He has
sought to demolish a palace, but he has not attempted to build even a
hovel in its place. Repudiating all other theories, he has offered none of
his own.

If the Druids did not erect the stone monuments of Britain, who did?
Until the contrary is conclusively proved, we have but little hesitation in
attributing them to the Druids. But we need not enter into this
discussion, which pertains more properly to the province of archaeology
than of Freemasonry.

Some writers have held that the Druids were Sun-worshippers, and that
the adoration of the solar orb constituted the national religion of the
ancient Britons. Hence these theorists are inclined to


(1) "Analysis of Ancient Mythology." Drummond says of him: "Mr. Bryant
was a man possessed of much learning and talent, but his etymologies
are generally untenable." - "Origines," vol. iii., p. 191.
(2) "Pagan Idolatry."
(3) "Old Stone Monuments."


believe that Stonehenge and Avebury were really observatories, where
the worshippers of the Sun might behold his rising, his diurnal course,
and his setting.

Mr. Davies, in his Celtic Researches and in his Mythology and Rites of
the British Druids, maintains that there was among them a mutilated
tradition of the Noachic deluge, (1) as there was among all heathen
nations. The legend was similar to that of the flood of Deucalion, and
was derived from Samothrace and the East, having been brought by a
colony from one nation to another and preserved without interruption. (2)

Hu, the supreme god of the Druids, he therefore supposes to have been
identical with Noah, and he bestows upon him the various attributes that
were distributed among the different gods of the more prolific mythology
of the Greeks and Romans, all of which, with Bryant and Faber, he
considers were allusive to Sun-worship and to the catastrophe of the
deluge.

He therefore asserts that the Helio-Arkite god of the Britons, the great
Hu, was a Pantheon (a collection of deities), who under his several titles
and attributes comprehended the group of superior gods whom the
Greeks and other refined nations separated and arranged in distinct
personages. (3)

In propounding his theory that the Druids were of Eastern origin, and
that they had brought from that source their religion and their rites, Mr.
Davies has been sustained by the opinions of more recent scholars,
though they have traced the birthplace to a more distant region than the
island of Samothracia.

It is now very generally believed that the Druids were Buddhists, and that
they came into Britain with the great tide of emigration from Asia which
brought the Aryan race westward into Europe.

If this be true, the religion of India must have greatly degenerated in the
course of its migration. It is admitted that the Druids cultivated the art
of
magic and in their rites were accustomed to sacrifice human victims,
both of which practices were repugnant to the philosophic spirit of
Buddhism.

The fact is that, notwithstanding the authority of the Welsh Bards and the
scanty passages in Caesar, Tacitus, and a few other

(1) "British Druids," p. 95.
(2) Ibid., p. 99.
(3) Ibid., p. 126.


Roman writers, we are entirely at sea in reference to everything
connected with the religious system of Druidism. Almost all on this
mysterious subject is guesswork and conjecture - extravagant theories,
the only foundation of which is in the imaginations of their framers and
bold assertions for the truth of which no competent authority can be
given.

Much of the confusion of ideas in respect to the customs and manners
of the ancient Britons has arisen from the ignorance of the old writers in
supposing that the inhabitants of Britain, at the time of the Roman
invasion and long before, were a homogeneous race. The truth is that
the island was inhabited by two very distinct races. Those on the coast,
derived from the opposite shores of Gaul, Germany, and Scandinavia,
were a people who had made some progress in civilization. The interior
of the island was populated by the original natives, who were a very
uncivilized and even barbarous race, and it was among these that the
Druidical religion prevailed and its mystical and inhuman rites were
practiced.

Mr. Ferguson, in his elaborate work on Tree and Serpent Worship,
sustains this view. He says:

"From whatever point of view the subject is looked at, it seems almost
impossible to avoid the conclusion that there were two races in England
- an older and less civilized people, who in the time of the Romans had
already been driven by the Celts into the fastnesses of the Welsh hills,
and who may have been serpent-worshippers and sacrificers of human
victims, and that the ecumenical Romans confounded the two." (1)

He is, however, in error in supposing that the Romans were ignorant of
this fact, for Caesar distinctly alludes to it. He says in his Gallic War
that
"the interior part of Britain was inhabited by those who were natives of
the island," thus clearly distinguishing the inhabitants of the interior
from
those who dwelt on the coast and who, he states, "had passed over
from Belgium."

In another place he speaks of them as a rude and barbarous race, who
in one of their embassies to him describe themselves as a savage and
unpolished people wholly unacquainted with Roman customs.

In speaking of the ancient Gauls, M. Thierry, in his history of


(1) "Tree and Serpent Worship," p. 29.


that people, makes the following remarks, every one of which may be
equally attributed to the ancient Britons. He says:

"When we attentively examine the character of the facts concerning the
religious belief of the Gauls, we are enabled to recognize two systems of
ideas, two bodies of symbols and superstitions altogether distinct - in a
word, two religions. One of these is altogether sensible, derived from
the adoration of the phenomena of nature; and by its forms and by its
literal development it reminds us of the polytheism of the Greeks. The
other is founded upon a material pantheism, mysterious, metaphysical,
and sacerdotal, and presents the most astonishing conformity with the
religions of the East. This last has received the name of Druidism, from
the Druids who were its founders and priests." (1)

To the former religion M. Thierry gives the name of Gaulish polytheism.
A similar distinction must have existed in Britain, though our own writers
do not seem generally to have carefully observed it. In no other way
can we attempt, with any prospect of success, to reconcile the
contending traditions in relation to the religion of the ancient Britons.
The Roman writers have attributed a polytheistic form of religion to the
people of the coast, derived apparently from Greece, the gods having
only assumed different names. But this religion was very far removed in
its character from the bloody and mysterious rites of the Druids, who
seem to have brought the forms and objects, but not the spirit of their
sanguinary and mysterious worship from the far East.

The Masonic writers who have sought to trace some connection
between Druidism and Freemasonry have unfortunately too much
yielded their judgment to their imagination. Having adopted a theory,
they have, in their investigations, substituted speculation for
demonstration and assumptions for facts. By a sort of Procrustean
process of reasoning, they have fitted all sorts of legends and traditions
to the length required for their preconceived system.

Preston had said that "the Druids retained among them many usages
similar to those of the Masons," and hence he conjectured that there
might be an affinity between the rites of the two institutions, leaving his
readers, however, to determine the question for themselves.

Godfrey Higgins - of all writers not claiming to write fiction,

(1) "Histoire des Gaulois," tom. ii., P. 73.


the most imaginative and the most conjectural - goes a step further and
asserts that he has "no doubt that the Masons were Druids," and that
they may be "traced downward to Scotland and York." Of this he thinks
"the presumption is very strong." (1)

Hutchinson thinks it probable that some of the rites and institutions of
the Druids might be retained in forming the ceremonies of the Masonic
society. (2)

The theory of Dr. Oliver connected Druidism and Freemasonry in the
following way. The reader must be aware, from what has already been
said, that the Doctor held that there were two currents of Masonry that
came contemporaneously down the stream of time. These were the
Pure Freemasonry of the Patriarchs, that passed through the Jewish
people to King Solomon and thence onward to the present day, and a
schism from this pure system, fabricated by the Pagan nations and
developed in the ancient Mysteries, which impure system he called the
Spurious Freemasonry of antiquity. From this latter system he supposes
Druidism to have been derived.

Therefore, in support of this opinion, he collates in several of his works,
but especially in his History of Initiation, the rites and ceremonies of the
Druids with those of the Eleusinian, Dionysian, and other mysteries of
the Pagan nations, and attempts to show that the design of the initiation
was identical in all of them and the forms very similar.

But, true to his theory that the Spurious Freemasonry was an impure
secession or offshoot from the Pure or Patriarchal system, he denies that
modern Freemasonry has derived anything from Druidism, but admits
that similarity in the design and form of initiation in both which would
naturally arise from the origin of both from a common system in remote
antiquity.

We have therefore to consider two theories in reference to the
connection of Druidism and Masonry.

The first is that Freemasonry has derived its system from that of the
British Druids. The second is that, while any such descent or
succession of the one system from the other is disclaimed, yet that there
is a very great similarity in the character of both which points to some
common origin.

I shall venture, before concluding this essay, to advance a third

(1) "Anacalypsis," vol. i., p.- 769.
(2) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. iii., P. 41.


theory, which I think is far more reconcilable than either of the. others
with the true facts of history.

The second of these theories may be dismissed with the remark that it
depends for its support on the truth of the theory that there was any kind
of historical connection between the Mysteries of the Pagans and
Freemasonry. But I think it has been conclusively proved that any
similarity of form or design in these institutions is to be attributed not
to
any dependence or succession, but simply to the influences of that law
of human thought which makes men always pursue the same ends by
the same methods.

Dr. Oliver has gone so far in the attempt to sustain his theory of two
systems of Masonry existing at the same time as to assert that at the
time of the Roman invasion, and after the establishment of Christianity in
the island, the True and the Spurious Freemasonry - that is, the Masonic
system as now practiced and the impure Masonry of Druidism -
"flourished at the same period and were considered as distinct
institutions in Britain." (1)

Of the truth of this statement, there is not a scintilla of historical
testimony. Even if we were to accept the doctrine of Anderson, that all
great architects in past times were Freemasons, we could hardly dignify
the rude carpenters of the early Britons and Anglo-Saxons with the title
of Masonry.

The first of the theories to which I have alluded, which derives
Freemasonry, or at least its rites and ceremonies, from Druidism, will
require a more extended review.

In the first place, we must investigate the methods by which it is
supposed that the Greeks and Pythagoras communicated a knowledge
of their mysteries to the Druids in their secluded homes in uncivilized
Britain.

It is supposed that the principal seats of the British Druids were in
Cornwall, in the islands adjacent to its coast, in Wales, and in the island
of Mona; that is to say, on the southwestern shores of the island.

It is evident that in these localities they were accessible to any of the
navigators from Europe or Asia who should have penetrated to that
remote distance for the purpose of commerce. Now, just such


(1) "On Freemasonry, Evidences, Doctrines, and Traditions," No. 1, in
Freemason's Quarterly Review, 1840, p. 15.


a class of navigators was found in the Phoenicians, an adventurous
people who were distinguished for their spirit of maritime enterprise.

The testimony of the Greek and Roman writers is, that in their distant
voyages in search of traffic the Phoenicians had penetrated to the
southwestern shores of Britain, and that they loaded their vessels with
tin, which was found in great abundance in Cornwall and the Scilly
islands on its coast.
The theorists who suppose that the religious rites practiced by the
Phoenicians at home were introduced by them into Britain are required,
in proof of their theory, to show that the Phoenicians were missionaries
as well as merchants; that they remained long enough in Britain, at each
voyage, to implant their own religious rites in the island; that these
merchant-sailors, whose paramount object was evidently the collection
of a valuable and profitable cargo, would divert any portion of the time
appropriated to this object to the propagation among the barbarians,
whom they encountered in the way of business, of the dogmas of their
own mystical religion; that if they were so disposed, the Britons were
inclined during these necessarily brief visitations to exchange their
ancient religion, whatever it was, for the worship attempted to be
introduced by the newcomers; and, finally, that the fierce and sanguinary
superstition of the Druids, with its human sacrifices, bore any
resemblance to or could have possibly been derived from the purer and
more benign religion of the Phoenicians.

For not one of these points is there a single testimony of history, and
over every one of them there is cast an air of the greatest improbability.
History tells us only that the Phoenician merchants visited Britain for the
purpose of obtaining tin. On this the Masonic theorists have erected a
fanciful edifice of missionary enterprises successfully ending in the
implanting of a new religion.

Experience shows us how little in this way was ever accomplished or
even attempted by the modern navigators who visited the islands of the
Pacific and other unknown countries for the purposes of discovery. Nor
can we be ignorant of how little progress in the change of the religion of
any people has ever been effected by the efforts of professed
missionaries who have lived and laboured for, years among the people
whom they sought to convert. They have made, it is true, especial
converts, but in only a very few exceptional instances have they
succeeded in eradicating the old faith of a nation or a tribe and in
establishing their own in its place. It is not to be presumed that the
ancient Phoenician merchants could, with less means and less desires,
have been more successful than our modern missionaries.

For these reasons, I hold that the proposition that Druidism was
introduced from Greece and Asia into Britain by the Phoenicians is one
that is wholly untenable on any principle of historic evidence or of
probable conjecture.

It has also been asserted that Pythagoras visited Britain and instructed
the inhabitants especially in the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the
transmigration of souls.

There is, however, not the slightest historical evidence that the sage of
Samos ever penetrated in his travels as far as Britain. Nor is it certain
that the dogma of the transmigration as taught by him is of the same
character as that which was believed by the Druids. Besides, it is
contrary to all that we know of the course pursued by Pythagoras in his
visits to foreign countries. He went to learn the customs of the people
and to acquire a knowledge of whatever science they might possess.
Had he visited Britain, which, however, he never did, it would have been
to receive and not to impart instruction.

As to the further explanation offered by these theorists, of a connection
between Druidism and Masonry, that the former acquired a knowledge
of the Eleusinian and other rites in consequence of their communication
with the Greeks, during the celebrated invasion of the Celts, which
extended to Delphos, and during the intercourse of the Gauls with the
Grecian colony of Marseilles, it is sufficient to say that neither of these
events occurred until after the system of Druidism must have been well
established among the people of Britain and of Gaul.

But the great argument against any connection of Druidism and
Freemasonry is not only the dissimilarity of the two systems, but their
total repugnance to each other. The sanguinary superstition of the
Druids was developed in their sacrifice of human victims as a mode of
appeasing their offended deities, and their doctrine of a future life was
entirely irreconcilable with the pure belief in immortality which is taught
in
Freemasonry and developed in its symbols.

The third theory to which I have referred, and which I advanced in the
place of the two others which I have rejected, traces Druidism neither to
the Phoenicians, nor to Pythagoras, nor to the Greeks. It is that the
ancient inhabitants of Britain were a part of the Celtic division of that
great Cimmerian race who, springing from their Aryan origin in the
Caucasian mountains, first settled for a time in the region of Asia which
lies around the Euxine Sea, and then passed over into the north and
west of Europe. One detachment of them entered Gaul, and another,
crossing the German Ocean, made their home in Britain.

It is not at all improbable that these nomadic tribes carried with them
some memories of the religious faith which they had learned from the
original stock whence they sprung. But there is no fact more patent in
ethnology than that of the tendency of all nomadic races springing from
an agricultural one to degenerate in civilization.

It has been said that the Druids were Buddhists. This might be so, for
Brahmanism and its schism, Buddhism, were the religions of the early
Aryan stock whence the Druids descended. But it is very evident that in
the course of their migrations the faith of their fathers must have become
greatly corrupted. Between Buddhism and Druidism the only connecting
link is the dogma of the transmigration of souls. Between the rites of the
two sects there is no similarity.

I suppose, therefore, that the system of Druidism was the pure invention
of the Britons, just as the Mysteries of Osiris were the fabrication of
some Egyptian priest or body of priests. What assistance the Britons
had in the formation of their mystical system must have been derived
from dim recollections of the dogmas of their fatherland, which, however,
from the very dimness of those recollections, must have been greatly
perverted. I do not find any authentic proof or any reasonable
probability that they had obtained any suggestions in the fabrication or
the improvement of their system of religious rites from the Phoenicians,
from the Greeks, or from Pythagoras.

If, for the sake of argument, we accept for a time the theory that
Freemasonry and the Mysteries originated from a common source,
whence is derived a connection between the two, we can not fail to see,
on an examination of the doctrines and ceremonies of the Druids, that
they bore no relation to those of the Mysteries of Egypt or of Greece.
Hence the link is withdrawn which would connect Druidism with
Freemasonry through the initiations of the East.

But the fact is that there is not in Druidism the slightest resemblance to
Freemasonry except in the unimportant circumstance that both have
mystical ceremonies. The voyages of the candidate in Druidism, after a
period of long solitude and confinement, his pursuit by the angry
goddess Ceridwen and her accompanying dogs, his dangerous passage
in a coracle or small boat over the rough waters, and his final landing
and reception by the Archdruid, may have referred, as Dr. Oliver
thought, to the transmigration of the soul through different bodies, but
just as probably symbolized the sufferings and vicissitudes of human life
in the progress to intellectual and moral perfection. But they bear not
the slightest analogy to the mystical death in Freemasonry, which is the
symbol of a resurrection to a future and immortal life.

Hence the bold assertion of Payne, in his frivolous Essay on the Origin
of Freemasonry, that "it is derived from and is the remains of the religion
of the ancient Druids," simply shows that he was a mere sciolist in the
subject of what he presumptuously sought to treat. Equally untenable is
the proposition of the more learned Faber, when he says that "the Druids
are probably the real founders of English Freemasonry."

The conclusion to which I think we must arrive, from what we learn of
the two institutions from historical knowledge of one and personal
experience of the other, is that Freemasonry has no more relation or
reference or similitude to Druidism than the pure system of Christianity
has to the barbarous Fetichism of the tribes of Africa.

CHAPTER XXVIII

FREEMASONRY AND THE CRUSADES


IN all the legendary history of Freemasonry there is nothing more
interesting or more romantic than the stories which connect its origin with
the Crusades; nothing in which the judgment and reasoning powers have
been more completely surrendered to the imagination of the inventors of
the various theories on this subject or to the credulity of the believers.

Before proceeding to discuss the numerous phases which have been given
by different writers to the theory which traces the origin of Freemasonry to
the Crusades, to the chivalric orders of the Middle Ages, and especially to
the Knights Templars, it will be proper to take a very brief view of those
contests between the Christians and the Saracens which, under the name
of the Crusades, cost Europe so vast an amount of blood and treasure in
the unsuccessful attempt to secure and maintain possession of the Holy
Land. This view, or rather synopsis, need not be more than a brief one, for
the topic has been frequently and copiously treated by numerous
historians, from Joinville to Michaux and Mills, and must therefore be
familiar to most readers.

About twenty years after the Moslems had conquered Jerusalem, a recluse
of Picardy in France had paid a pious visit to the city. Indignant
at the oppressions to which the Christians were subjected in their pious
pilgrimages to the sepulchre of their Lord, and moved by the complaints
of the aged patriarch, Peter the Hermit - for such is the name that he
bears in history - resolved on his return to Europe to attempt to rouse
the religious sentiment and the military spirit of the sovereigns, the
nobles, and the populace of the West. Having first obtained the sanction
of the Roman pontiff, Peter the Hermit travelled through Italy and France,
and by fervent addresses in every place that he visited urged his
auditors to the sacred duty of rescuing Palestine from the hands of
infidels. The superstitious feelings of a priest-governed people and the
military spirit of knights accustomed to adventure were readily awakened
by the eloquence of a fanatical preacher. In every city and village, in the
churches and on the highways, his voice proclaimed the wrongs and the
sufferings of pious pilgrims, and his reproaches awoke the remorse of
his hearers for their past supineness and indifference to the cause of
their brethren, and stimulated their eagerness to rescue the sacred
shrines from the pollution of their Saracen possessors.

The spirit of enthusiasm which pervaded all classes of the people -
nobles and priests, princes and peasants - presented a wonderful scene,
which the history of the world had never before and has never since
recorded. With one voice war was declared by the nations of western
Europe against the sacrilegious Moslems. Tradesmen and mechanics
abandoned the pursuits by which they were accustomed to gain their
livelihood, to take up arms in a holy cause; peasants and husbandmen
left their fields, their flocks, and their herds; and barons alienated or
mortgaged their estates to find the means of joining the expedition.

The numerous conflicts that followed for the space of two hundred years
were called the Crusades, or, in French, Croisades, from the blood-red
cross worn by the warriors on the breast or shoulder, first bestowed at
the council of Clermont, by Pope Urban, on the Bishop of Puy, and ever
afterward worn by every Crusader as a badge of his profession.

The first detachment of the great army destined for a holy war issued, in
the year 1096, from the western frontiers. It consisted of nearly three
hundred thousand men, composed for the most part of the lowest
orders of society, and was headed by Peter the Hermit. It was, however,
a huge, undisciplined mob rather than an army, whose leader was
entirely without military capacity to govern it or to restrain its
turbulence.

The march, or rather the progress, of this immense rabble toward Asia
Minor was marked at every step by crime. They destroyed the towns
and plundered the inhabitants of every province through which they
roamed in undisciplined confusion. The outraged inhabitants opposed
their passage with arms. In many conflicts in Hungary and in Bulgaria
they were slaughtered by thousands. Peter the Hermit escaped to the
mountains, and of his deluded and debased followers but few reached
Constantinople, and still fewer the shores of Asia Minor. They were
speedily destroyed by the forces of the Sultan. The war of the Crusades
had not fairly begun before three hundred thousand lives were lost in the
advance guard of the army.

The first Crusade was undertaken in the same year, and speedily
followed the advanced body whose disastrous fate has just been
recorded. This body was composed of many of the most distinguished
barons and knights, who were accompanied by their feudal retainers.

At the head of this more disciplined army, consisting of a hundred
thousand knights and horsemen and five times that number of
foot-soldiers, was the renowned Godfrey of Bouillon, a nobleman
distinguished for his piety, his valor, and his military skill.

This army, although unwieldy from its vast numbers and scarcely
manageable from the diverse elements of different nations of which it
was composed, was, notwithstanding many reverses, more fortunate and
more successful than the rabble under Peter the Hermit which had
preceded it. It reached Palestine in safety, though not without a large
diminution of knights and soldiers. At length Jerusalem, after a siege of
five weeks, was conquered by the Christian warriors, in the year 1099,
and Godfrey was declared the first Christian King of Jerusalem. In a
pardonable excess of humility he refused to accept a crown of gems in
the place where his Lord and Master had worn a crown of thorns, and
contented himself with the titles of Duke and Defender of the Holy
Sepulchre.

In the course of the next twenty-five years Palestine had become the
home, or at least the dwelling-place, of much of the chivalry of Europe.
The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem had extended eastward from the shores
of the Mediterranean Sea to the deserts of Arabia, and southward from
the city of Beritus (now Beirut), in Syria, to the frontiers of Egypt,
besides
the country of Tripoli, which stretched north of Beritus to the borders of
the principality of Antioch.

The second Crusade, instigated by the preaching of the monk St.
Bernard, and promoted by Louis VII. of France, was undertaken in the
year 1147. The number of knights, soldiers, priests, women, and
camp-followers who were engaged in this second Crusade has been
estimated as approaching a million. At its head were the Emperor
Conrad III. of Germany and King Louis VII. of France. This effort to
relieve and to strengthen the decaying Christian power in Palestine was
not a successful one. After a futile and inglorious attempt to lake the
city
of Damascus, whose near vicinity to Jerusalem was considered
dangerous to the Latin kingdom, Louis returned home with the small
remnant of his army, in 1149, and was followed in the succeeding year
by the Emperor Conrad. Thus ended abortively, the second Crusade,
and the Christian cause in Palestine was left to be defended by the
feeble forces but invincible courage of the Christian inhabitants.

The next thirty-five or forty years is a sad and continuous record of the
reverses of the Christians. They had to contend with a new and
powerful adversary in the person of the renowned Saracen, Sal-
lah-ud-deen, better known as Saladin, who, after sixteen years of warfare
with the Christian knights, in which he was sometimes defeated but
oftener a victor, succeeded in taking Jerusalem, on the 2d of October, in
the year 1187.

Thus, after a possession by the Christians of eighty-eight years, the city
of Jerusalem and the holy shrine which it contained fell again into the
power of the Moslems.

When the tidings of its fall reached Europe, the greatest sorrow and
consternation prevailed. It was at once determined to make a vigorous
effort for its rescue from its infidel conquerors. The enthusiasm of the
people for its recovery was scarcely less than that which had preceded
the first and second Crusades under the eloquent appeals of Peter the
Hermit and St. Bernard. The principal sovereigns of Europe, Spain
alone excepted, which was engaged in its own struggles for the
extirpation of the Moors, resolved to lead the armies of their respective
nations to the reconquest of Jerusalem. Thus was inaugurated the third
Crusade.

In the year 1188, innumerable forces from England, France, Italy, and
other counties rushed with impetuous ardor to Palestine. In the year
1189 one hundred thousand Crusaders, under Guy de Lusignan, sat
down before the city of Acre. The siege lasted for two years, with a vast
consumption of lives on both sides. At length the city capitulated and
the Mussulmans surrendered to the victorious arms of Richard the
Lionhearted, King of England.

This third Crusade is remarkable for the number of European sovereigns
who were personally engaged in it. Richard of England, Philip Augustus
of France, Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, and the Dukes of Suabia
and of Burgundy, had all left their dominions to be governed by regents
in their absence and had joined in the pious struggle to redeem the Holy
Land from Mohammedan rule.

But, notwithstanding many victories over Saladin in hard-fought fields,
and the conquest of many important places, such as Acre, Ascalon,
Jaffa, and Caesarea, the Crusaders failed in their great design of
recovering Jerusalem, which still remained in the possession of Saladin,
who, however, having made a truce with King Richard, granted, as one
of the terms, free and undisturbed access to all pilgrims who should visit
the holy city.

Thus terminated the third Crusade. It can scarcely be called an absolute
failure, notwithstanding that Jerusalem still remained in the hands of the
infidels, but the total ruin with which, at its commencement, the Latin
kingdom had been threatened was averted; the conquering progress of
the Mussulmans had been seriously checked; the hitherto victorious
Saladin had been compelled to make a truce; the greater part of the
seacoast of Palestine, with all its fortresses and the cities of Acre,
Jaffa,
Antioch, and Tyre, remained in the possession of the Christians.

Saladin had survived the truce which he had made with Richard but a
few months, and on his death his dominions were divided between three
of his sons and his brother Saphadin. The last of these, to whom most
of the veterans who had fought under Saladin adhered, secured for
himself a sovereignty in Syria.

The death of their renowned and powerful foe had encouraged the
Christians of Palestine to make renewed efforts to recover Jerusalem as
soon as the truce had expired. To aid in this design, a new Crusade
was invoked in Europe. The appeal, heard with apathy in England and
France met with more favour in Germany. Three large armaments of
German chivalry arrived at Acre in 1195. The campaign lasted, however,
less than two years, and the troops, having effected no decisive results,
were recalled to Germany in consequence of the death of the Emperor
Henry VI. This, which has been dignified by some writers with the name
of a fourth Crusade, has, however, more generally been considered as a
mere episode in the history of the Holy Wars.

The fourth Crusade proper began in the year 1203, when a large
armament of knights and men-at-arms of France, Germany, Italy, and
Flanders sailed for Constantinople in transports furnished by the
Venetians and commanded by the blind Doge Dandolo. The throne of
the Byzantine Empire had been usurped by the elder Alexius, who had
imprisoned his brother, the legitimate monarch, after having caused his
eyes to be put out. The first object of the Crusaders was to dethrone
the usurper and to restore the government to Isaac and his son, the
younger Alexius, who had instigated the enterprise and accompanied the
expedition.

The siege and the conquest of Constantinople is told in the graphic
language of Gibbon; but it is so wholly unconnected with the subject of
our present inquiry as not to claim further attention. It is sufficient to
say
that by it the Crusaders were entirely diverted from the great object for
which they had left Europe. None ever reached or sought to reach the
land of Palestine, and the fourth Crusade terminated without a blow
having been struck for the recovery of Jerusalem and the deliverance of
the Holy Sepulchre from the pollution of its Paynim possessors.

The fifth Crusade commenced in the year 1217. In this war the
Crusaders attacked Egypt, believing that that country was the key to
Palestine. At first they were successful, and besieged and captured the
city of Damietta. But, influenced and directed by the cupidity and
ignorance of the papal legate, they refused the offer of the Saracens,
that if the Christians would evacuate Egypt they would cede Jerusalem
to them, they continued the campaign with most disastrous results, and,
finally abandoning the contest, the Crusaders returned to Europe in
1229, never having even seen the shores of the Holy Land.

A sixth Crusade was undertaken by the French in 1238. They were
subsequently joined by Richard, Earl of Cornwall, the nephew of Richard
the Lionhearted. The military capacity and prowess of this able leader
led to successful results, and in 1240 to the restoration of Jerusalem to
the Christians. The Crusade ended with the return of the Earl of
Cornwall to England in 1240.

The fortifications of Jerusalem were rebuilt by the Knights Templars, but
the necessary measures for defense had scarcely been completed when
the Christian kingdom was attacked by a new enemy. The descendants
of those barbaric tribes of Tartars who, under the name of Huns, had
centuries before overwhelmed the Roman Empire, now commenced their
ravages in Asia Minor. Twenty thousand Turcoman horsemen, under
Barbacan, their chief, assisted by Egyptian priests, were enabled in 1242
to wrest Jerusalem from the Christians, who never again recovered it.
The war continued with scarcely varying disasters to the Christians.
Palestine was overrun by the barbarous hordes of Turcomans. The
Moslems of Damascus, Aleppo, and Ems, forgetful of their ancient
hatred and religious conflicts, united with the Knights Templars to
oppose a common enemy.

But the effort to stay the progress of the Turcoman invasion was vain.
Every city of the Latin kingdom, such as Tiberias, Ascalon, Jaffa, and
others, were conquered. Acre alone remained to the Christian chivalry,
and the Holy Sepulchre was again in the possession of the infidels.

A seventh Crusade was commenced in 1245, to recover what had been
lost. It was undertaken by the chivalry of England and France. Louis IX.
commanded the French portion of the forces in person, and William
Longsword, who had distinguished himself in the fifth Crusade, with
many other English knights and nobles, vowed that they would serve
under his banner.

Egypt was again made the objective point of the expedition, and after an
unnecessary and imprudent delay of eight months at Cyprus, Louis
sailed, in 1248, for Egypt, with a force of fifty thousand men. The history
of this Crusade is but a narrative of the defeats of the Christians, by the
arms of their enemies, by famine, and by pestilence. At Mansora, in
1250, the Crusaders were totally routed; thirty thousand Christians were
slain, among them the flower of the French and English chivalry, and
King Louis himself was taken prisoner. He was only ransomed by the
surrender of Damietta to the Turks, the conquest of which city had been
almost the only successful trophy of the Christian arms. The king
proceeded to Acre, almost the only possession of the Christians in Syria,
and soon afterward returned to France, thus ending the seventh and
penultimate Crusade, in the year 1254.

For fourteen years Syria and Palestine were left to the inadequate
protection that could be afforded by the Knights Templars and
Hospitallers, two Orders who even in the face of their common foe could
not restrain their own bitter rivalry and dissensions. These feelings
culminated at length in a sanguinary battle between them, in which the
Templars were almost completely destroyed.

The Latin kingdom of Palestine being thus enfeebled by the intestine
broils of its defenders, city after city was surrendered to the Moslems,
until Acre alone remained in the hands of the Christians. In 1268 the
heaviest blow was inflicted by the fall of Antioch, the proud capital of
Syria. Forty thousand Christians were slain at the time of its surrender
and one hundred thousand were sold into slavery.

The fall of the Christian state of Antioch was a catastrophe that once
more aroused the military ardor and the pious spirit of Europe, and a
new Crusade was inaugurated - the eighth and last - for the recovery of
the Holy Land, the restoration of the Latin kingdom, and the extirpation
of the infidels from the sacred territory.

This Crusade was conducted entirely by Prince Edward, afterward
Edward I. of England. It is true that Louis IX. of France, undeterred by
the disasters which had previously befallen him, had with undiminished
ardor sought to renew his efforts for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre,
and sailed from France for that purpose in 1270. But he had stopped
short at Tunis, the king and people of which he had hoped to convert to
Christianity. But, although no decisive battles took place between the
Moors and the Christians, the army of the latter was soon destroyed by
the heat of the climate, by fatigue, by famine and pestilence, and the
king himself died but little more than a month after his arrival on the
shore of ancient Carthage. Prince Edward had joined the French army
at Tunis with a slender body of knights, but, after the death of the
French monarch and the abandonment of the enterprise, he had sailed
for Syria with an army of only one thousand knights and men-at-arms,
and landed at Acre in 1270. But the knights of the chivalry of Palestine
gathered eagerly around his standard and increased his force to seven
thousand. With this insignificant body of soldiery, weak in numbers but
strong in courage and in the capacity of their leader, Edward attacked
the immense horde of Moslems who had been besieging Acre, caused
them to retire, and, following them to Nazareth, captured that city, after a
battle in which the infidels were defeated with great slaughter.

But the reduction of Nazareth closed the military career of Edward in
Palestine. After narrowly escaping death from a poisoned wound
inflicted by a Moslem assassin, he returned to England, in 1271, having
first effected a truce of ten years with the Sultan of Egypt.

The defense of Palestine, or rather of Acre, the only point occupied by
the Christians, as the titular capital of the Latin kingdom, was left to the
knights of the three Orders of Chivalry, the Templars, the Hospitallers,
and the Teutonic knights. By them the truce was repeatedly violated
and peaceable Moslem traders often plundered. Redress for these
aggressions having been demanded in vain, the Sultan at length
determined to extirpate the "faithless Franks," and marched against Acre
with an army of two hundred thousand men.

After a siege of little more than a month, in which prodigies of valour
were performed by the knights of the three military orders, Acre was
taken, in 1271, by assault, at the cost of sixty thousand Christian lives.
The inhabitants who did not submit to the Moslem yoke escaped to
Cyprus with the remains of the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the
Teutonic knights who had survived the slaughter.

Thus, after a sanguinary contest of two hundred years, the possession of
the Holy Land was abandoned forever to the enemies of the Cross.

Thus ends the history of the Crusades. For fifty years afterward the
popes endeavoured to instigate new efforts for the recovery of the holy
places, but their appeals met with no response. The fanatical
enthusiasm which had inspired the kings, the nobles, and the knights of
Europe for two centuries had been dissolved, and the thirst for glory and
the love of arms were thenceforth to be directed in different channels.

It is not my intention to inquire into the influence exerted by the
Crusades on the state of religion, of education, of commerce, or of
society in Europe. The theme is an interesting one, but it is foreign to
the subject of our discussion, which is the possible connection that may
have existed between them and the origin of Freemasonry. But, in so far
as they may have favoured the growth of municipal freedom and the
perpetuation of the system of chivalry, it may be necessary in a future
part of this discussion that these points should demand some attention.

In the present point of view, the most important subject to attract our
attention is the organization during the Crusades of three military Orders
of Knighthood, the Knights Hospitallers, the Knights Templars, and the
Teutonic Knights. It is through these, but principally through the second,
that the attempt is made to find the origin of the Masonic institution in
the time of the Crusaders.

Whatever may have been the origin of the institution of chivalry, whether
from the equestrian order of the Romans, from the Scandinavians, the
Arabians, the Persians, or, what is far more probable, from the peculiar
influences of the feudal system, it is certain that form of knighthood
which was embodied in the organization of religious and military orders
took its rise in Palestine during the wars of the Crusades, and that before
that era no such organizations of knighthood were known in Europe.

The Knights Hospitallers of St. John, now better known as the Knights of
Malta, was the first of the military and religious Orders that was
established in Palestine. Its origin must be traced to the Hospitallers of
Jerusalem, a purely charitable institution established by certain
merchants of Amalfi, in the kingdom of Naples, who, trading in the East,
built hospitals in Jerusalem for the entertainment and relief of poor and
sick pilgrims, about the middle of the 11th century. After the first
Crusade had begun, many knights, laying aside their arms, united with
the Hospitallers in the pious task of attending the sick. At length Gerard,
the Rector of the Hospital, induced his brethren to assume the vows of
poverty, obedience, and chastity, and to adopt a peculiar costume
consisting of a black robe bearing; a white cross of eight points on the
left breast. This was in the year 1099. The knights, however, continued
their peaceful vocation of attending the sick until 1118, when Gerard,
having died, was succeeded by Raymond de Puy as Rector. The
military spirit of Raymond was averse to the monastic seclusion which
had been fostered by his predecessor. He therefore proposed a change
in the character of the society, by which it should become a military
order devoted to the protection of Palestine from the attacks of the
infidels. The members gladly acceded to this proposition, and, taking
new vows at the hands of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the military Order
of Knights of St. John of Jerusalem was established, in the year 1118.
The Order continued to reside in Palestine during its occupation by the
Christians of the Latin kingdom, taking an active part in all the wars of
the eight Crusades.

When the city of Acre fell beneath the victorious army of the Sultan of
Egypt, the Hospitallers, with the knights of the other two Orders, who
had escaped the slaughter which attended the siege and followed on the
surrender, fled to Cyprus. Thence they repaired to the island of Rhodes,
where they remained for two hundred years under the title of the Knights
of Rhodes, and afterward permanently established themselves at Malta,
where, with a change of name to that of the Knights of Malta, they
remained until the island was taken possession of by Napoleon, in the
year 1798. This was virtually the end of the career of these valiant
knights, although to this day the Order retains some remnant of its
existence in Italy.


The Order of Knights Templars was established in the year 1118 by
Hugh de Payens, Godfrey de St. Aldemar, and seven other knights
whose names history has not preserved. Uniting the characters of the
monk and the soldier, they took the vows of poverty, chastity, and
obedience in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem; Baldwin, the
King of Jerusalem, assigned them as a residence a part of his palace,
which stood near the site of the former Temple, and as a place for an
armory the street between the palace and the Temple, from which
circumstance they derived their name of Templars. The Templars took a
most active part in the defense of Palestine during the two centuries of
the Crusades. They had also established houses called Preceptories in
every country of Europe, where many of the knights resided. But the
head of the Order was always in Palestine. At the close of the contests
for the conquest of the Holy Land, when Acre fell and the Latin kingdom
was dissolved, the Templars made their escape to Europe and were
distributed among their various Preceptories.

But their wealth had excited the cupidity and their power the rivalry of
Philip the Fair, King of France, who, with the assistance of a corrupt and
weak Pope, Clement V., resolved to extirpate the Order. Charges of
religious heresy and of moral licentiousness were preferred against
them; proofs were not wanting when proofs were required by a King and
a Pontiff; and on the 11th of March, 1314, De Molay, the Grand Master,
with the three principal dignitaries of the Order, were publicly burnt at
the stake, fifty-four knights having suffered the same fate three years
before.

The Order was suppressed in every country of Europe. Its vast
possessions were partly appropriated by the different sovereigns to their
own use and partly bestowed upon the Knights of Malta, between whom
and the Templars there had always existed a rivalry, and who were not
unwilling to share the spoils of their ancient adversaries. In Portugal
alone they were permitted to continue their existence, under the name of
the Knights of Christ.

The Teutonic Knights, the last of the three Orders, was exclusively
German in its organization. Their humble origin is thus related: During
the Crusades, a wealthy gentleman of Germany, who resided at
Jerusalem, built a hospital for the relief and support of his countrymen
who were pilgrims. This charity was extended by other Germans coming
from Lubeck and Bremen, and finally, during the third Crusade, a
sumptuous hospital was erected at Acre, and an Order was formed
under the name of Teutonic Knights, or Brethren of the Hospital of our
Lady, of the Germans of Jerusalem. The rule adopted by the knights
closely resembled that of the Hospitallers or Templars, with the
exception that none but Germans could be admitted into the Order.

Like the knights of the other two Orders, they remained in Palestine until
the fall of Acre, when they returned to Europe. For many years they
were engaged in a crusade for the conversion of the Pagans of Prussia
and Poland, and afterward in territorial struggle with the Kings of Poland,
who had invaded their domains. After centuries of contests with various
powers, the Order was at length abolished by Emperor Napoleon, in
1809, although it still has a titular existence in Austria.

In an inquiry into any pretended connection of the Crusaders with
Freemasonry, we may dismiss the two Orders of the Knights of Malta
and the Teutonic Knights with the single remark that in their organization
they bore not the slightest resemblance to that of Freemasonry. They
had no arcana in their system, no secret form of initiation or admission,
and no methods of recognition. And besides this want of similarity,
which must at once preclude any idea of a connection between the
Masonic and these Chivalric Orders, we fail to find in history any record
of such a connection or the faintest allusion to it.

If Freemasonry owed its origin to the Crusades, as has been asserted by
some writers, or if any influence was exerted upon it by the Knights who
returned to Europe after or during these wars, and found Freemasonry
already existing as an organization, we must look for such connection or
such influence to the Templars only.

The probabilities of such a connection have been based upon the
following historic grounds. The Knights Templars were a secret society,
differing in this respect from the other two Orders. They had a secret
doctrine and a secret ceremony of initiation into their ranks. This secret
character of their ceremonies was made the subject of one of the
charges preferred against them by the pope. The words of this charge
are that "when they held their chapters, they shut all the doors of the
house or church in which they met so closely that no one could
approach near enough to see or hear what they were doing or saying." It
is further said, in the next charge, that when they held their secret
chapter "they placed a watchman on the roof of the house or church in
which they met, to foresee the approach of any one."

Again, it is supposed that the Templars had held frequent and intimate
communication with some of the secret societies which, during the
Crusades, existed in the East, and that from them they delved certain
doctrines which they incorporated into their own Order and introduced
into Europe on their return, making them the basis of a system which
resulted, if not in the creation of the entire Masonic institution, at least
in
the invention of the high degrees.

While it may not be possible to sustain this theory of the intercommunion
of the Templars and the secret societies of the East by any authentic
historical proof, it derives some feature of possibility, and perhaps even
of probability, from the admitted character of the Templar Knights during
the latter days of their residence in Palestine. They have not been
supposed to have observed with strictness their vows of chastity and
poverty. That they had lost that humility which made them at first call
themselves "poor fellow-soldiers of Christ" and adopt as a seal two
knights riding on one horse, is evident from the well-known anecdote of
Richard I. of England, who, being advised by a zealous preacher to get
rid of his three favourite daughters, pride, avarice, and voluptuousness,
replied: "You counsel well. I hereby dispose of the first to the Templars,
the second to the Benedictines, and the third to my bishops." In fact, the
Templars were accused by their contemporaries of laxity in morals and
of infidelity in religion. The Bois du Guilbert drawn by the graphic pen of
Walter Scott, although a fiction, had many a counterpart in history.
There was, in short, nothing in the austerity of manners or intolerance of
faith which would have prevented the Templars of the Crusades from
holding frequent communications with the infidel secret Societies around
them, The Druses, indeed, are said by some modern writers to have
Templar blood in them, from the illegal intercourse of their female
ancestors with the Knights.

Of these secret Societies three at least demand a brief attention, from
the supposed connection of the Templars with them. These are the
Essenes, the Druids, and the Assassins.

The Essenes were a Jewish sect which at the time of the Crusades were
dwelling principally on the shores of the Dead Sea. Of the three schools
of religion which were cultivated by the Jews in the time of our Saviour,
the Pharisees and the Sadducees were alone condemned for their vices
and their hypocrisy, while neither He nor any of the writers of the New
Testament have referred in words either of condemnation or of censure
to the Essenes. This complete silence concerning them has been
interpreted in their favour, as indicating that they had not by their
doctrines or their conduct incurred the displeasure of our Lord or of his
disciples. Some have even supposed that St. John the Baptist, as well
as some of the Evangelists and Apostles, were members of the sect - an
opinion that is at least not absurd; but we reject as altogether untenable
the hypothesis of De Quincey, that they were Christians.

Their ceremonies and their tenets are involved in great obscurity,
notwithstanding the laborious researches of the learned Ginsburg. From
him and from Josephus, who is the first of the ancient writers who has
mentioned them, as well as from Philo and some other authorities, we
get possession of the following facts.

The forms and ceremonies of the Essenes were, like those of the
Freemasons, eminently symbolical. They were all celibates, and hence it
became necessary to recruit their ranks, which death and other causes
decimated from time to time, by the admission of new converts. Hence
they had adopted a system of initiation which was divided into three
degrees. The first stage was preceded by a preparatory novitiate which
extended to three years. At the end of the first degree, the trials of
which continued for twelve months, he was presented with a spade, an
apron, and a white robe, the last being a symbol of purity. In the
second degree or stage he was called an approacher, which lasted for
two years, during which time be was permitted to join in some of the
ceremonies of the sect, but not admitted to be present at the common.
He was then accepted as an associate. If his conduct was approved, he
was finally advanced to the third degree and received into full
membership as a companion or disciple.


Brewster, in the work attributed to Lawrie, seeks to find a common origin
for the Freemasons and the Essenes, and supports his opinion by the
following facts, which, if they do not sustain the truth of his hypothesis,
are certainly confirmed by other authorities. He says: "When a candidate
was proposed for admission, the strictest scrutiny was made into his
character. If his life had hitherto been exemplary, and if he appeared
capable of curbing his passions and regulating his conduct according to
the virtuous though austere maxims of the Order, he was presented at
the expiration of his novitiate with a white garment as an emblem of the
regularity of his conduct and the purity of his heart. A solemn oath was
then administered to him, that he would never divulge the mysteries of
the Order, that he would make no innovations on the doctrines of the
society, and that he would continue in that honourable course of piety
and virtue which he had begun to pursue. Like Freemasonry they
instructed the young members in the knowledge which they derived from
their ancestors. They, admitted no women into their Order. They had
particular signs for recognizing each other, which have a strong
resemblance to those of Freemasons. They had colleges or places of
retirement, where they resorted to practice their rites and settle the
affairs
of the society; and after the performance of these duties they assembled
in a large hall, where an entertainment was provided for them by the
president or master of the college, who allotted a certain quantity of
provisions to every individual. They abolished all distinctions of rank,
and if preference was ever given, it was given to piety, liberality, and
virtue. Treasurers were appointed in every town to supply the wants of
indigent strangers." (1)

Josephus gives the Essenian oath more in extenso. He tells us that
before being admitted to the common meal, that is, before advancement
to full membership, the candidate takes an oath "that he will exercise
piety toward God and observe justice toward men; that he will injure no
one either of his own accord or by the com-

(1) Lawrie, "History of Freemasonry," ed. 1804, p. 34.


mand of others; that he will hate the wicked and aid the good; that he
will be faithful to all men, especially to those in authority; that if ever
placed in authority he will not abuse his power nor seek to surpass
those under him in the costliness of his garments or decorations; that he
will be a lover of truth and a reprover of falsehood; that he will keep his
hands clear from theft and his soul from unlawful gains; that he will
conceal nothing from the members of his own sect, nor reveal their
doctrines to others, even at the hazard of his life; nor will he
communicate those doctrines to any one otherwise than as he has
himself received them; and, finally, that he will preserve inviolate the
books of the sect and the names of the angels."

This last expression is supposed to refer to the secrets connected with
the Tetragrammaton or Four-lettered Name and the other names of God
and the angelical hierarchy which are comprised in the mysterious
theosophy taught by the Cabalists and accepted, it is said, by the
Essenes. The mystery of the name of God was then, as it is now, a
prominent feature in all Oriental philosophy and religion.

I am inclined to the opinion of Brunet, who says that the Essenes were
less a sect of religion than a kind of religious order or association of
zealous and pious men whom the desire of attaining an exalted state of
perfection had united together. (1) But whether they were one or the
other, any hypothesis which seeks to connect them with Freemasonry
through the Knights Templars is absolutely untenable.

At the time of the Crusades, and indeed long before, the Essenes had
ceased to hold a place in history. What little remained of them was to
be found in settlements about the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea.
They had decreased almost to a fraction in numbers, and had greatly
corrupted their doctrines and their manners, ceasing, for instance, to be
celibate and adopting the custom of marriage, while they had accepted
much of the philosophy of Plato, of Pythagoras, and of the school of
Alexandria.

They still retained, however, their Judaic faith and much of their primitive
austerity, and it is therefore improbable that there could have been any
congenial intercommunion between them and the

(1) Brunet, "Paralele des Religions," P. VI., sec. xliv.


Templars. Their poverty and insignificance would have supplied no
attraction to the Knights, and their austerity of manners and Judaism
would have repelled them.

As to the similarity of Essenism and Freemasonry in the establishment
by each of a brotherhood distinguished by love, charity, and a secret
initiation, we can draw no conclusion from these coincidences that there
was a connection of the two associations, since the same coincidences
will be found in all fraternities ancient and modern. They arise from no
spirit of imitation or fact of descent, but are the natural outgrowth of the
social condition of man, which is ever developing itself in such mystical
and fraternal association

But this subject will be treated more at length when, in a subsequent
chapter of this work, I come to treat of the theory which deduces
Freemasonry from Essenism by a direct descent, without the invocation
of a Christian chivalric medium. It has, however, become inevitable, in
considering the Secret Societies of the East at the period of the
Crusades, to anticipate to some extent what will have to be hereafter
said.

The Druses were another mystical religion with which the Templars are
said to have come in contact and from whom they are said to have
derived certain dogmas and usages which were transmitted to Europe
and incorporated into the system of Freemasonry.

Of the communication of the Templars with the Druses there is some
evidence, both traditional and historic, but what influence that
communication had upon either Templarism or Masonry is a problem
that admits only of a conjectural solution. The one proposed by King, in
his work on the Gnostics, will hereafter be referred to.

The Druses are a mystical sect who have always inhabited the southern
side of Mount Lebanon and the western side of Anti-Lebanon, extending
from Beirut in the north to Sur in the south, and from the shores of the
Mediterranean to the city of Damascus. They trace their origin to Hakim,
who was Sultan of Egypt in 926, but derive their name from Mohammed
Ben Israel Darasi, under whose leadership they fled from Egypt in the
10th century and settled in Syria, in that part around Lebanon which they
still inhabit.

Their religion appears to be a mixture of Judaism, Christianity, and
Mohammedanism, although what it precisely is it is impossible to tell,
since they keep their dogmas a secret, which is imparted only to those
of their tribe who have passed through a form of initiation.

Of this initiation, Churchill says that there is a probation of twelve
months
before the candidate can be admitted to full membership. In the second
year, the novitiate having been complete, the Druse is permitted to
assume the white turban as a badge of his profession, and is permitted
to participate in all the mysteries of his religion.

These mysteries refer altogether to dogma, for their religion is without
ceremonies of any kind, and even without prayer.

Their doctrines have been summarized as follows: There is one God,
unknown and unknowable, without personal form and of whom we can
only predicate an existence. Nine times he has appeared on earth in the
form of man. These were not incarnations, for God did not assume
flesh, but merely put on flesh as a man puts on a garment. There are
five invisible intelligences, called Ministers of Religion, and who have
been impersonated by five Druse teachers, of whom the first is Universal
Intelligence, personated by Hamsa, whose creation was the immediate
work of God. The second is the Universal Soul, personated by Ismael,
and is the female principal as to the first, as the Universal Intelligence
is
the male. From these two proceed the Word, which is personated by
Mohammed Wahab. The fourth is the Right Wing, or the Proceeding,
produced from the Word and the Universal Soul and personated by
Selama. The fifth is the Left Wing or the Following, produced in the same
way from the Proceeding and personated by Moctana Behoedeen.
These form the religious hierarchy of Drusism as the ten sephiroth make
the mystical tree of the Cabalists, from which it is probable that the
Druses borrowed the idea. But they are taken, as Dr. Jessup says, "in
some mysterious and incomprehensible sense which no Druse, man or
woman, ever understood or can understand." (1) Yet their sacred books
assert that none can possess the knowledge of Drusism except he
knows all these Ministers of Religion.

They have also seven precepts or commandments, obedience to

(1) "Syrian Home-Life," p. 183.


which is enjoined but very seldom observed by the modern Druses, and
never in their intercourse with unbelievers.

1. To speak the truth.
2. To render each other mutual assistance.
3. To renounce all error.
4. To separate from the ignorant and wicked.
5. To always assert the eternal unity of God.
6. To be submissive under trials and sufferings.
7. To be content in any condition, whether of joy or sorrow.
Of their outward forms and ceremonies we have no reliable information,
for their worship is a secret one. In their sacred edifices, which are
embowered among high trees or placed on the mountain summit, there
are no ornaments. They have no prescribed rites and do not offer
prayer, but in their worship sing hymns and read the sacred books.
Churchill gives evidence of the profound secrecy in which the Druses
envelop their religion. "Two objects," he says, "engrossed my attention -
the religion of the Druses and the past history of the races which now
occupy the mountain range of Lebanon. In vain I tried to make the
terms of extreme friendship and intimacy which existed between myself
and the Druses available for the purpose of informing myself on the first
of these points. Sheiks, akkals, and peasants alike baffled my inquiries,
either by jocose evasion or by direct negation." (1)

Finally, as if to complete their resemblance to a secret society, we are
told that to enable one Druse to recognize another a system of signs
and passwords is adopted, without an interchange of which no
communication in respect to their mysteries is imparted.

The Rev. Mr. King, in his work on the Gnostics, thinks that "the Druses of
Mount Lebanon, though claiming for their founder the Egyptian caliph
Hakim, are in all probability the remains of the numerous Gnostic sects
noticed by Procopius as flourishing there most extensively in his own
times," (2) which was in the 6th century. And he adds that "the popular
belief among their neighbours is that they, the Druses, adore an idol in
the form of a calf, and hold in their secret meetings orgies similar to
those laid to the charge of the Ophites in Roman times, of the Templars
in medieval, and of the


(1) "On the Druses and Maronites under Turkish Rule."
(2) King's "Gnostics," p. 183.



continental Freemasons in modern times." (1) This statement I have
found confirmed by other writers. But Mr. King thinks it an interesting
and significant point that "the Druses hold the residence of their
Supreme head to be in Scotland;" a tradition which, he says, has been
"evidently handed down from the times when the Templars were
all-powerful in their neighbourhood." This would prove, admitting the
statement to be true, rather that the Druses borrowed from the Templars
than that the Templars borrowed from the Druses; though it would even
then be very difficult to understand why the Templars should have traced
their head to Scotland, since the legend of Scottish Templarism is of
more recent growth.

We may, however, judge of the weight to be attached to Mr. King's
arguments from the fact that he deems it to be a "singular coincidence"
that our Freemasons are often spoken of by German writers as the
"Scottish Brethren." Not being a Mason, he was ignorant of the meaning
of the term, which refers to a particular rite of Masonry, and not to any
theory of its origin, and is therefore no coincidence at all. The hypothesis
of the supposed connection of the sect of Gnostics with Freemasonry
will be the subject of future consideration.

But there was another secret society, of greater importance than the
Druses, which flourished with vigour in Syria at the time of the
Crusaders, and whose connection with the Templars, as historically
proved, may have had some influence over that Order in moulding, or at
least in suggesting, some of its esoteric dogmas and ceremonies. This
was the sect of the Assassins.

The Ishmaeleeh, or, as they are more commonly called, the Assassins,
from their supposed use of the herb hashish to produce a temporary
frenzy, was during the Crusades one of the most powerful tribes of Syria,
although their population is now little more than a thousand. The sect
was founded about the end of the 11th century, in Persia, by Hassan
Sahab. From Persia, where they are supposed to have imbibed many of
the doctrines of the philosophical sect of the Sofis, they emigrated to
Asia Minor and settled in Syria, to the south of Mount Lebanon. Their
chief was called Sheikh-el-Jeber, literally translated "the Old Man of the
Mountain," a name familiar to the readers of the Voyages of Sindbad.
Higgins,


(1) King's "Gnostics," p. 183.

who, when he had a theory to sustain, became insane upon the subject
of etymology, translates it as "the sage of the Kabbala or Traditions," but
the plain Arabic words admit of no such interpretation.

The credulity and the ignorance of the Middle Ages had assigned to the
sect of the Assassins the character of habitual murderers, an historical
error that has been perpetuated in our language by the meaning given
to the word assassin. This calumny has been exploded by the
researches of modern scholars, who now class them as a philosophical
sect whose doctrines and instructions were secret. Of the Sofis, from
whom the Ishmaeleeh or Assassins derived their doctrine, it will be
necessary soon to speak.

Von Hammer, who wrote a history of the Assassins, (1) has sought to
trace a close connection between them and the Templars. He has
shown himself rather as a prejudiced opponent than as an impartial
critic, but the sophistry of his conclusions does not affect the accuracy
of his historical statements. Subsequent writers have therefore, in their
accounts of this sect, borrowed largely from the pages of Von Hammer.

The Assassins were a secret society having a religion and religious
instructions which they imparted only to those of their tribe who had
gone through a prescribed form of initiation. According to Von Hammer,
that system of initiation was divided into three degrees. They
administered oaths of secrecy and of passive obedience and had modes
of mutual recognition, thus resembling in many respects other secret
societies which have at all times existed. He says that they were
governed by a Grand Master and had regulations and a religious code,
in all of which he supposes that he has found a close resemblance to
the Templars. Their religious views he states to have been as follows :

"Externally they practice the duties of Islamism, although they internally
renounce them; they believe in the divinity of Ali, in uncreated light as
the principle of all created things, and in the Sheikh Ras-ed-dia, the
Grand Prior of the Order in Syria, and contemporary with the Grand
Master Hassan II., as the last representative of the Deity on earth." (2)

The Rev. Mr. Lyde, who travelled among the remains of the

(1) "Die Geschicte der Assassnen aus Morgenland-ischen Quellen,"
Tubingen, 1818.
(2) "Geschicte der Assassnen," Wood's Translation, P. 221.

sect in 1852, says that they professed to believe in all the prophets, but
had a chief respect for Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali, and he
speaks of their secret prayers and rites as being too disgusting to be
mentioned. (1)

During the Crusades, the Templars entered at various times into
amicable arrangements and treaty stipulations with the Assassins, in
whose territory several of the fortresses of the Knights were built, and we
may therefore readily believe that at those periods, when war was not
raging, there might have been a mutual interchange of courtesies, of
visits and of conferences.

Now, the Assassins were by no means incapable of communicating
some elements of knowledge to their knightly neighbours. The chivalry
of that age were not distinguished for leaning and knew, little more than
their profession of arms, while the Syrian infidels had brought from
Persia a large portion of the intellectual culture of the Sofis. Von
Hammer, whose testimony is given in the face of his adverse prejudices,
admits that they produced many treatises on mathematics and law, and
he confesses that Hassan, the founder of the sect, possessed a
profound knowledge of philosophy, and of the mathematical and
metaphysical sciences. We can not therefore deny the probability that in
the frequent communications with this intellectual as well as warlike tribe
the Templars may have derived some of those doctrines and secret
observances which characterized the Order on its return from Palestine,
and which, distorted and misinterpreted by their enemies, formed the
basis of those charges which led to the persecution and the eventual
extinction of Knight Templarism.

Godfrey Higgins, whose speculations are seldom controlled by a
discreet judgment, finds a close connection between the Freemasons
and the Assassins, through the Templars. "It is very certain," he says
"that the Ishmalians or Society of Assassins is a Mohammedan sect; that
it was at once both a military and religious association, like the Templars
and Teutonic Knights; and that, like the Jesuits, it had its members
scattered over extensive countries. It was a link that connected ancient
and modern Freemasonry." (2) And he subsequently asserts that "the
Templars were nothing but one branch of

(1) "The Ansyreeh and Ishmaeleeh: a visit to the secret societies of
Northern Syria," by Rev. Samuel Lyde, B.A., London, 1853, P. 238.
(2) "Anacalypsis," I., 700.



Masons." (1) And so he goes on speculating, that Templarism and
Ishmaelism were identical, and Freemasonry sprung from them both, or
rather from the latter through the former. But as Higgins has advanced
several other theories of the origin of Masonry, we may let the present
one pass.

We may be prepared, however, to admit that the Templars possibly
modified their secret doctrines under the influence of their friendly
conferences with the Assassins, without recognizing the further fact that
the Templars exercised a similar influence over the Freemasons.

I have said that the Assassins are supposed to have derived their
doctrines from the sect of the Sofis in Persia. Indeed, the Sofis appear
to have been the common origin of all the secret societies of Syria,
which will account for their general resemblance to each other. In any
inquiry, therefore, into the probable or possible connection of
Templarism with these societies, Sofism, or the doctrine of the Sofis, will
form an interesting element.

The sect of the Sofis originated in Persia, and was extended over other
countries of the East. The name is generally supposed to be derived
from the Greek Sophia, wisdom, and they bore also the name of
philosauph, which will easily suggest the word philosopher. Dr. Herbelot,
however, derived the name from the Persian sauf or sof, wool, because,
as he said, the ancient Sofis dressed in woolen garments. The former
derivation is, however, the most plausible.

Sir John Malcolm, who has given a very good account of them in his
History of Persia, says that among them may be counted some of the
wisest men of Persia and the East. The Mohammedan Sofis, he says,
have endeavoured to connect their mystic faith with the doctrine of the
prophet in a manner that will be better shown from Von Hammer. That
the Gnostic heresy was greatly infused in the system of Sofism is very
evident, and at the same time there appears to have been some
connection in ideas with the school of Pythagoras. The object of all
investigation is the attainment of truth, and the labours of the initiate
are
symbolically directed to its discovery.

In Sofism there is a system of initiation, which is divided into



(1) "Anacalypsis," I., 712.


four degrees. In the first or preparatory degree, the novice is required to
observe the rites of the popular religion in its ordinary meaning. In the
second degree, called the Pale of Sofism, he exchanges these exoteric
rites for a spiritual and secret worship. The third degree is called
Wisdom, and in this the initiate is supposed to be invested with
supernatural knowledge and to have become equal with the angels. The
fourth and last degree is called Truth, which the candidate is now
supposed to have attained, and to have become united with the Deity.

Sir William Jones has given a summary of their doctrines, so far as they
have been made known, as follows:

Nothing exists absolutely but God; the human soul is but an emanation
from His essence, and, though temporarily separated from its divine
source, will eventually be united with it. From this union the highest
happiness will result, and therefore that the chief good of man in this
world consists in as perfect a union with the Eternal Spirit as the
incumbrances of flesh will permit.

Von Hammer's history of the rise, the progress, and the character of
Sofism is more minute, more accurate, and therefore more interesting
than that of any other writer. In accepting it for the reader, I shall not
hesitate to use and to condense the language of Sloane, the author of
the New Curiosities of Literature.

The German historian of the Assassins says that a certain House of
Wisdom was formed in Cairo at the end of the 10th century by the
Sultan, which had thus arisen. Under Maimun, the seventh Abasside
Caliph, a certain Abdallah established a secret society, and divided his
doctrines into seven degrees, after the system of Pythagoras and the
Ionian schools. The last degree inculcated the vanity of all religion and
the indifference of actions, which are visited by neither future
recompense or punishment. He sent missionaries abroad to enlist
disciples and to initiate them in the different degrees, according to their
aptitude.

In a short time Karmath, one of his followers, improved this system. He
taught that the Koran was to be interpreted allegorically, and, by
adopting a system of symbolism, made arbitrary explanations of all the
precepts of that book. Prayer, for instance, meant only obedience to a
mysterious Imam, whom the Ishmaeleeh said that they were engaged in
seeking, and the injunction of alms-giving was explained as the duty of
paying him tithes. Fasting was only silence in respect to the secrets of
the sect.

The more violent followers of Karmath sought to subvert the throne and
the religion of Persia, and with this intent made war upon the Caliphs,
but were conquered and exterminated.

The more prudent portion, under the general name of Ishmaelites,
continued to work in secret, and finally succeeded in placing one of their
sect upon the throne. In process of time they erected a large building,
which they called the House of Wisdom, and furnished it with professors,
attendants, and books, and mathematical instruments. Men and women
were admitted to the enjoyment of these treasures, and scientific and
philosophical disputations were held. It was a public institution, but the
secret Order of the Sofis, under whose patronage it was maintained, had
their mysteries, which could only be attained by an initiation extending
through nine degrees. While Sofism has by most writers been believed
to be a religio-philosophical sect, Von Hammer thinks that it was
political, and that its principal object was to overthrow the House of
Abbas in favour of the Fatimites, which could only be effected by
undermining the national religion.

The government at length interfered, and the operations of the society
were suspended. But in about a year it resumed its functions and
established a new House of Wisdom. Extending its influences abroad,
many of the disciples of Sofism passed over into Syria about the close
of the 10th century, and there established those secret societies which in
the course of the Crusades came into contact, sometimes on the field of
battle and sometimes in friendly conferences during temporary truces
with the Crusaders, but especially with the Knights Templars.

The principal of these societies were the Ishmaeleeh or Assassins and
the Druses, both of whom have been described.

There were other societies in Syria, resembling these in doctrine and
ceremonies, who for some especial reasons not now known had
seceded from the main body, which appears to have been the
Assassins.

Such were the Ansyreeh, who were the followers of that Karmath of
whom I have just spoken, who had seceded at an early period from the
Sofis in Persia and had established his sect in Syria, on the coast, in the
plain of Laodicea, now Ladikeeh.

From them arose another sect, called the Nusairyeh, from the name of
their founder, Nusair. They settled to the north of Mount Lebanon, along
the low range of mountains extending from Antioch to Tripoli and from
the Mediterranean to Hums, where their ascendants, numbering about
two hundred thousand souls, still remain.

It is from their frequent communications with these various secret
societies, but especially with the Assassins, that Von Hammer and
Higgins, following Ramsay, have supposed that the Templars derived
their secret doctrines and, carrying them to Europe, communicated them
to the Freemasons. Rather, I should say, that Von Hammer and Higgins
believed these Syrian societies to be Masonic, and that they taught the
principles of the institution to the Templars, who were thus the founders
of Freemasonry in Europe.

Of such a theory there is not the slightest scintilla of historic evidence.
When we come to examine the authentic history of the origin of
Freemasonry, it will be seen how such an hypothesis is entirely without
support.

But that the Templars did have frequent communication with those
secret societies, that they acquired a knowledge of their doctrines, and
were considerably influenced in the lives of many of their members, and
perhaps in secret modifications of their Order, is an hypothesis that can
not be altogether denied or doubted, since there are abundant
evidences in history of such communications, and since we must admit
the plausibility of the theory that the Knights were to some extent
impressed with the profound doctrines of Sofism as practiced by these
sects.

Admitting, then, that the Templars derived some philosophical ideas
more liberal than their own from these Syrian secret philosophers who
were more learned than themselves, the next question will be as to what
influences the Templars exerted upon the people of Europe on their
return, and in what direction and to what ends this influence was
exerted; and to this we must now direct our attention.

But, before entering upon this subject, we may as well notice one
significant fact. Of the three Orders of Knighthood who displayed their
prowess in Palestine and Syria during the two centuries of the Crusades,
the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, and the Templars, it is admitted
that the Templars were more intimately acquainted with the Ishmaeleeh
or Assassins than either of the others. It is also known that while the
admission to membership in the Hospitaller and Teutonic Orders was
open and public, the Templars alone had a secret initiation, and held
their meetings in houses guarded from profane intrusion.

Now, at what time the Templars adopted this secret formula of initiation
is not known. The rule provided for their government by St. Bernard at
the period of their organization makes no allusion to it, and it is probable
that there was no such secret initiation practiced for many years after
their establishment as an order.

Now, this question naturally suggests itself: Did the Templars borrow the
idea and in part the form of their initiation from the Assassins, among
whom such a system existed, or, having obtained it from some other
source, was it subjected at a later period of their career, but long before
they, left Palestine, to certain modifications derived from their
intercourse
with the secret societies of Syria? This is a question that can not be
historically solved. We must rest for any answer on mere conjecture.
And yet the facts of the Templars being of the three Orders the only
secret one, and of their intercourse with the Assassins, who were also a
secret order, are very significant. Some light may be thrown upon this
subject by a consideration of the charges, mainly false but with certain
elements of truth, which were urged against the Order at the time of its
suppression.

Let us now proceed to an investigation of the theory that makes the
Templars the founders of the Order of Freemasonry, after the return of
the Knights to Europe. Rejecting this theory as wholly untenable, it will,
however, be necessary to inquire what were the real influences exerted
upon Europe by the Knights.

It must be remembered that if any influence at all was exercised upon
the people of Europe, the greater portion must be attributed to the
Templars. Of the three Orders, the Hospitallers, when they left Palestine,
repaired directly to the island of Rhodes, where they remained for two
hundred years, and then, removing to Malta, continued in that island
until the decadence of their Order at the close of the last century. The
Teutonic Knights betook themselves to the uncivilized parts of Germany,
and renewed their warlike vocation by crusades against the heathens of
that country. The Templars alone distributed themselves in the different
kingdoms and cities of the continent, and became familiar with the
people who lived around their preceptories. They alone came in contact
with the inhabitants, and they alone could have exercised any influence
upon the popular mind or taste.

It has been a generally received opinion of the most able architects that
the Templars exerted a healthy influence upon the architecture of the
Middle Ages. Thus Sir Christopher Wren says that "the Holy Wars gave
the Christians who had been there an idea of the Saracens' works,
which were afterward imitated by them in their churches, and they
refined upon it every day as they proceeded in building." (1)

But the most positive opinion of the influence of the Crusaders upon the
architecture of Europe was given in 1836 by Mr. Westmacott, a
distinguished artist of England. In the course of a series of lectures
before the Royal Academy, he thus spoke of the causes of the revival of
the arts.

There were, he said, two principal causes which tended materially to
assist the restoration of literature and the arts in England and in other
countries of Europe. These were the Crusades and the extension or the
establishment of the Freemason's institution in the north and west of
Europe. The adventurers who returned from the Holy Land brought
back some ideas of various improvements, particularly in architecture,
and along with these a strong desire to erect castellated, ecclesiastical,
and palatial edifices, to display the taste that they had acquitted; and in
less than a century from the first Crusade above six hundred buildings of
the above description had been erected in southern and western
Europe. This taste, he thinks, was spread into almost all countries by
the establishment of the Fraternity of Freemasons who, it appears, had,
under some peculiar form of Brotherhood, existed for an immemorial
period in Syria and other parts of the East, whence some bands of them
migrated to Europe, and after a time a great efflux of these men, Italian,
German, French, Spanish, etc., had spread themselves in communities
through all civilized Europe; and in all countries where they settled we
find the same style of architecture from that period, but differing in some
points of treatment as suited the climate.

The latter part of this statement requires confirmation. I do not


(1) Wren's "Parentalia."


think that there is any historical evidence of the ingress into Europe of
bands of the Syrian secret fraternities during or after the Crusades, nor is
there any probability that such an ingress could have occurred.

But the historical testimonies are very strong that the literature and arts
of Europe, and especially its architecture, were materially advanced by
the influence of the returning Crusaders, whose own knowledge had
been enlarged and their taste cultivated by their contact with the nations
of the East.

This topic appertains, however, to the historical rather than to the
legendary study of Masonry, and will at a future time in the course of this
work command our attention. At present we must restrict ourselves to
the consideration of the theory that traditionally connects the Crusaders,
and especially the Knights Templars, with the establishment of the
Masonic institution, through their intercourse with the secret societies of
Syria.
The inventor of the theory that Freemasonry was instituted in the Holy
Land by the Crusaders, and by them on their return introduced into
Europe, was the Chevalier Michael Ramsay, to whom Masonry is
indebted (whatever may be the value of the debt) for the system of high
degrees and the manufacture of Rites.

In the year 1740 Ramsay was the Grand Orator, and delivered a
discourse before the Grand Lodge of France, in which he thus traces the
origin of Freemasonry.

Rejecting as fabulous all hypotheses which trace the foundation of the
Order to the Patriarchs, to Enoch, Noah, or Solomon, he finds its origin
in the time of the Crusades.

"In the time," he says, "of the Holy Wars in Palestine, many princes,
nobles, and citizens associated themselves together and entered into
vows to re-establish Christian temples in the Holy Land, and engaged
themselves by an oath to employ their talents and their fortunes in
restoring architecture to its primitive condition. They adopted signs and
symbolic words, derived from religion, by which they might distinguish
themselves from the infidels and recognize each other in the midst of the
Saracens. They communicated these words only to those who had
previously sworn a solemn oath, often taken at the altar, that they would
not reveal them. Some time after, this Order was united with that of the
Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, for which reason in all countries our
Lodges are called Lodges of St. John. This union of the two Orders was
made in imitation of the conduct of the Israelites at the building of the
second Temple, when they held the trowel in one hand and the sword in
the other.

"Our Order must not, therefore, be regarded as a renewal of the
Bacchanalian orgies and as a source of senseless dissipation, of
unbridled libertinism and of scandalous intemperance, but as a moral
Order instituted by our ancestors in the Holy Land to recall the
recollection of the most sublime truths in the midst of the innocent
pleasures of society.

"The kings, princes, and nobles, when they returned from Palestine into
their native dominions, established Lodges. At the time of the last
Crusade several Lodges had already been erected in Germany, Italy,
Spain, France, and from the last in Scotland, in consequence of the
intimate relations which existed between those two countries.

"James Lord Steward of Scotland was the Grand Master of a Lodge
established at Kilwinning in the west of Scotland, in the year 1236, a
short time after the death of Alexander III., King of Scotland, and a year
before John Baliol ascended the throne. This Scottish Lord received the
Earls of Gloucester and Ulster, English and Irish noblemen, as Masons
into his Lodge.

"By degrees our Lodges, our festivals, and solemnities were neglected in
most of the countries in which they had been established. Hence the
silence of the historians of all nations, except Great Britain, on the
subject of our Order. It was preserved, however, in all its splendor by
the Scotch, to whom for several centuries the kings of France had
intrusted the guardianship of their person. (1)

"After the lamentable reverses of the Crusades, the destruction of the
Christian armies, and the triumph of Bendocdar, the Sultan of Egypt, in
1263, during the eighth and ninth Crusades, the great Prince Edward,
son of Henry III., King of England, seeing that there would be no security
for the brethren in the Holy Land when the Christians should have
retired, led them away, and thus a colony of the Fraternity was
established in England. As this prince was


(1) Ramsay here refers to the company of musketeers, composed
entirely of Scotchmen of noble birth, which constituted the body-guard of
the kings of France. The reader of the Waverley Novels will remember
that the renowned Balafre, in the story of "Quentin Durward," was a
member of this company.


endowed with all the qualities of mind and heart, which constitute the
hero, he loved the fine arts and declared himself the protector of our
Order. He granted it several privileges and franchises, and ever since
the members of the confraternity have assumed the name of
Freemasons. From this time Great Britain became the seat of our
sciences, the conservatrix of our laws, and the depository of our secrets.
The religious dissensions which so fatally pervaded and rent all Europe
during the 16th century caused our Order to degenerate from the
grandeur and nobility of its origin. Several of our rites and usages,
which were opposed to the prejudices of the times, were changed,
disguised, or retrenched. Thus it is that several of our brethren have,
like the ancient Jews, forgotten the spirit of our laws and preserved only
the letter and the outer covering. But from the British islands the ancient
science is now beginning to pass into France."

Such was the theory of Ramsay, the principal points of which he had
already incorporated into the Rite of six degrees which bears his name.
This Rite might be called the mother of all the Rites which followed it and
which in a few years covered the continent with a web of high degrees
and of Masonic systems, all based on the hypothesis that Freemasonry
was invented during the Crusades, and the great dogma of which, boldly
pronounced by the Baron Von Hund, in his Rite of Strict Observance,
was that every Freemason was a Templar.

It will be seen that Ramsay repudiates all the legends which ascribe
Masonry to the Patriarchs or to the ancient Mysteries, and that he rejects
all connection with an Operative association, looking to chivalry alone for
the legitimate source of the Fraternity.

Adopting the method of writing Masonic history which had been
previously pursued by Anderson, and which was unfortunately followed
by other writers of the 18th century, and which has not been altogether
abandoned at the present day, Ramsay makes his statements with
boldness, draws without stint upon his imagination, presents
assumptions in the place of facts, and cites no authority for anything that
he advances.

As Mossdorf says, since he cites no authority we are not bound to
believe him on his simple word.

Ramsay's influence, however, as a man of ability, had its weight, and the
theory of the origin of Freemasonry among the Crusaders continued to
be taught in some one form or another by subsequent writers, and it
was infused by the system-makers into most of the Rites that were
afterward established. Indeed, it may be said that of all the Rites now
existing, the English and American are the only ones in which some
feature of this Templar theory may not be found.
The theory of Hutchinson varied somewhat from that of Ramsay,
inasmuch as while recognizing the influence of the Crusades upon
Masonry he is inclined to suppose that it was carried there by the
Crusaders rather than that it was brought thence by them to Europe.

After alluding to the organization of the Crusades by Peter the Hermit,
and to the outpouring from Europe into Palestine of tens of thousands of
saints, devotees, and enthusiasts to waste their blood and treasure in a
barren and unprofitable adventure, he proceeds to say that "it was
deemed necessary that those who took up the sign of the Cross in this
enterprise should form themselves into such societies as might secure
them from spies and treacheries, and that each might know his
companion and fellow-laborer by dark as well as by day. As it was with
Jephtha's army at the passes of the Jordan, so also was it requisite in
these expeditions that certain signs, signals, watchwords, or passwords
should be known amongst them; for the armies consisted of various
nations and various languages."

"No project or device," he thinks, "could answer the purpose of the
Crusaders better than those of Masonry. The maxims and ceremonials
attending the Master's Order had been previously established and were
materially necessary on that expedition; for as the Mohammedans were
also worshippers of the Deity, and as the enterprisers were seeking a
country where the Masons were in the time of Solomon called into an
association, and where some remains would certainly be found of the
mysteries and wisdom of the ancients and of our predecessors, such
degrees of Masonry as extended only to their being servants of the God
of Nature would not have distinguished them from those they had to
encounter, had they not assumed the symbols of the Christian faith."

The hypothesis of Hutchinson is, then, that while there was some
Masonry in Palestine before the advent of the Crusaders, it was only that
earlier stage which he had already described as appertaining to the
Apprentice's degree, and which was what both he and Oliver have called
"Patriarchal Masonry." The higher stage represented by the Master's
degree was of course unknown to the Saracens, as it was of Christian
origin, and the possession of this degree only could form any distinctive
mark between the Crusaders and their Moslem foes. This degree,
therefore, he thinks, was introduced into Palestine as a war-measure to
supply the Christians with signs and words which would be to them a
means of protection. The full force of the language bears only this
interpretation, that Freemasonry was used by the Crusaders not for
purposes of peace, but for those of war, a sentiment so abhorrent to the
true spirit of the institution that nothing but a blind adhesion to a
preconceived theory could have led so good a Mason as Hutchinson to
adopt or to advance such an opinion.

Differing still more from Ramsay, who had attributed the origin of
Masonry to the Knights and nobles of the Crusades, Hutchinson assigns
the task of introducing it into Palestine to the religious and not the
military element of these expeditions.

"All the learning of Europe in those times," he continues, "was possessed
by the religious; they had acquired the wisdom of the ancients, and the
original knowledge which was in the beginning and now is the truth;
many of them had been initiated into the mysteries of Masonry, they
were the projectors of the Crusades, and, as Solomon in the building of
the Temple introduced orders and regulations for the conduct of the
work, which his wisdom had been enriched with from the sages of
antiquity, so that no confusion should happen during its progress, and
so that the rank and office of each fellow4aborer might be distinguished
and ascertained beyond the possibility of doubt; in like manner the
priests projecting the Crusades, being possessed of the mysteries of
Masonry, the knowledge of the ancients, and of the universal language
which survived the confusion of Shinar, revived the orders and
regulations of Solomon, and initiated the legions therein who followed
them to the Holy Land - hence that secrecy which attended the
Crusades."

Mr. Hutchinson concludes this collection of assumptions, cumulated one
upon another, without the slightest attempt to verify historically a single
statement, by asserting that "among other evidences which authorize us
in the conjecture that Masons went to the Holy Wars, is the doctrine of
that Order of Masons called the Higher Order," that is to say, the higher
degrees, which he says that he was induced to believe was of Scottish
origin. He obtained this idea probably from the theory of Ramsay. But
be that as it may, he thinks "it conclusively proved that the Masons were
Crusaders;" a conclusion that it would be difficult to infer from any
known rules of logic. The fact (if it be admitted) that these higher
degrees were invented in Scotland by no means proves that the Masons
who possessed them went to the Crusades. It is impossible, indeed, to
find any natural connection or sequence between the two circumstances.

But the legend which refers to the establishment in Scotland of a system
of Masonry at the time of the suppression of the Order and the
martyrdom of de Molay, belongs to another portion of the legendary
history of Freemasonry and will be treated in a distinct chapter.

Von Hammer shows to what shifts for arguments those are reduced who
pretend that the institution of Freemasonry was derived at the Crusades,
by the Knights Templars, from the secret societies of the East. He says,
as a proof of the truth of this hypothesis, which indeed he makes as a
charge against the Templars, that their secret maxims, particularly in so
far as relates to the renunciation of positive religion and the extension of
their power by the acquisition of castles and strong places, seem to
have been the same as those of the Order of Assassins. The similarity
also of the white dress and red fillet of the Assassins with the white
mantle and red cross of the Templars he thinks is certainly remarkable.
Hence he assumes that as the Assassins were a branch of the
Ishmaeleeh, whom he calls the "Illuminate of the East," and as the former
were a secret society of revolutionary principles, which is a characteristic
that he gratuitously bestows upon the Freemasons, he takes it for
granted that the Assassins supplied the Templars with those ideas of
organization and doctrine out of which they created the system of
Freemasonry that they afterward introduced into Europe.

A series of arguments like this is scarcely worthy of a serious refutation.
The statement that the Templars ever renounced the precepts of positive
religion, either at that early period of their career or at any subsequent
time, is a mere assumption, based on the charges made by the
malevolence of a wicked King and a still more wicked Pope. The
construction of fortresses and castles for their protection, by both the
Templars and the Assassins, arose from the military instinct which
teaches all armies to provide the means of defense when in the
presence of an enemy. And lastly, the argument drawn from the
similarity of the costumes of both Orders is so puerile as to require no
other answer than that as the mantle and cross of the Templars were
bestowed upon them, the former by Pope Honorius and the latter by
Pope Engenius, therefore they could not have been indebted to the
Assassins for either. The best refutation of the slanders of Von Hammer
is the fact that to sustain his views he was obliged to depend on such
poverty of argument.

Recognizing as historically true the fact that the Templars, or rather,
perhaps, the architects and builders, who accompanied them and were
engaged in the construction of their fortresses and castles in the Holy
Land, the remains of some of which still exist, brought with them to
Europe some new views of Saracenic architecture which they
communicated to the guilds of Freemasons already established in
Europe, we may dismiss the further consideration of that subject as
having nothing to do with the question of how much Freemasonry as a
secret society was indebted for its origin to Templarism.

On the subject of the direct connection of the Templars with
Freemasonry at the time of the Crusades, there are only two
propositions that have been maintained. One is that the Templars
carried Freemasonry with them to Palestine and there made use of it for
their protection from their enemies, the Saracens.

Of this theory there is not the slightest evidence. No contemporary
historian of the Crusades makes any mention of such a fact. Before we
can begin to even discuss it as something worthy of discussion, we
must find the proof, which we can not, that in the 11th and 12th
centuries Freemasonry was anything more than an Operative institution,
to which it was not likely that any Crusaders of influence, such as the
nobles and knights, were attached as members. As a mere conjecture it
wants every clement of probability. Hutchinson, the most prominent
writer who maintains the theory, has evidently confounded the Crusaders
of the 11th and 12th centuries, who fought in Palestine, with the
Templars, who are said to have fled to Scotland in the 14th century and
to have there invented certain high degrees. This manifest confusion of
dates gives a feature of absurdity to the argument of Hutchinson.

Another form has been given to this theory by a writer in the London
Freemasons Magazine, (1) which has the air of greater plausibility at
least. The theory that he has advanced will be best given in his own
language: "The traveling bodies of Freemasons (who existed in Europe
at the time of the Crusades) consisted of brethren well skilled in every
branch of knowledge; among their ranks were many learned
ecclesiastics, whose names survive to the present day in the magnificent
edifices which they assisted to erect. The Knights of the Temple,
themselves a body of military monks partaking both of the character of
soldiers and priests, preserved in their Order a rank exclusively clerical,
the individuals belonging to which took no part in warfare, who were
skilled in letters, and devoted themselves to the civil and religious
affairs
of the Order; they were the historians of the period, and we know that all
the learning of the time was in their keeping in common with the other
ecclesiastics of the time. From the best information we are possessed of
regarding the Order, we believe there can be little doubt that these
learned clerks introduced the whole fabric of Craft Masonry into the body
of the Templars, and that not only was the Speculative branch of the
science by them incorporated with the laws and organization of the
Knights, but to their Operative skill were the Templars indebted for their
triumphs in architecture and fortification. And it is worthy of remark that
in the records of the Order we find no mention of individual architects or
builders; we may therefore not unfairly draw the inference that the whole
body were made participators in the knowledge and mysteries of the
Craft."

To this theory there is the same objection that has been already made to
the other, that it is wholly unsupported by historical authority, and that
it
is a mere congeries of bold assumptions and fanciful conjectures. Very
strange, indeed, is the reasoning which draws the inference that all the
Templars were builders because there is no mention of such a class in
the records of the Order. Such a silence would rather seem to indicate
that there was no such class among the Knights. That they employed
architects and builders, who may have belonged to the guilds of
Traveling Freemasons before they went to Palestine, is by no means
improbable; but there is no evidence, and it is by no means likely, that
they would engage in anything more than the duties of their profession,
or that there


(1) Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror, vol. iv., p. 962, London,
1858, Part 1.


would be any disposition on the part of the Knights devoted to a warlike
vocation to take any share in their peaceful association.

The second theory is that the Templars derived their secret doctrines
and ceremonies from the sect of the Assassins, or from the Druses of
Mount Lebanon, and that on their return to Europe they organized the
Fraternity of Freemasons. This theory is the direct opposite of the
former, and, like it, has neither history to sustain its truth as a
statement
nor probability to support it as a conjecture.

It was the doctrine of a German writer, Adler, who advanced it in his
treatise, De Drusis Montis Libani, published in 1786 at Rome. But its
most prominent advocate was Von Hammer, an avowed and prejudiced
foe of both Templarism and Freemasonry, and who made it the basis of
his charges against both institutions. Notwithstanding this, it has been
accepted with his wonted credulity by Higgins in his ponderous work
entitled Anacalypsis.

Brewster, in the work attributed to Lawrie on the History of Freemasonry,
has adopted the same hypothesis. "As the Order of the Templars," he
says, "was originally formed in Syria, and existed there for a
considerable time, it would be no improbable supposition that they
received their Masonic knowledge from the Lodges in that quarter."

But as Brewster, or the author of the work called Lawrie's History, had
previously, with equal powers of sophistry and with a similar boldness of
conjecture, attributed the origin of Freemasonry to the ancient Mysteries,
to the Dionysiac Fraternity of Artificers, to the Essenes, the Druids, and
to Pythagoras, we may safely relegate his hypothesis of its Templar
origin to the profound abyss of what ought to be, and probably are,
exploded theories. All these various arguments tend only to show how
the prejudices of preconceived opinions may warp the judgment of the
most learned scholars.

On the whole, I think that we will be safe in concluding that, whatever
may have been the valiant deeds of the Crusaders, and especially of the
Templars, in their unsuccessful attempt to rescue the Holy Sepulcher
from the possession of the infidels, they could scarcely have diverted
their attention to the prosecution of an enterprise so uncongenial with
the martial spirit of their occupation as that of inventing or organizing a
peaceful association of builders. With the Crusades and the Crusaders,
Freemasonry had no connection that can be sustained by historical
proof or probable conjecture. As to the supposed subsequent
connection of Templarism with the Freemasonry of Scotland, that forms
another and an entirely different legend, the consideration of which will
enguge our attention in the following chapter.

CHAPTER XXIX

THE STORY OF THE SCOTTISH TEMPLARS



THE story which connects the Knights Templars with Freemasonry in
Scotland, after their return from the Crusades and after the suppression of
their Order, forms one of the most interesting and romantic legends
connected with the history of Freemasonry. In its incidents the elements
of history and tradition are so mingled that it is with difficulty that they
can
be satisfactorily separated. While there are some writers of reputation who
accept everything that has been said concerning the connection in the 14th
century of the Freemasons of Scotland with the Templars who were then
in that kingdom, or who escaped to it as an asylum from the persecutions
of the French monarch, as an authentic narrative of events which had
actually occurred, there are others who reject the whole as a myth or fable
which has no support in history.

Here, as in most other cases, the middle course appears to be the safest.
While there are some portions of the story which are corroborated by
historical records, there are others which certainly are without the benefit
of such evidence. In the present chapter I shall endeavour, by a careful
and impartial analysis, to separate the conflicting elements and to dissever
the historical from the legendary or purely
traditional portions of the relation.

But it will be necessary, in clearing the way for any faithful investigation
of the subject to glance briefly at the history of those events which were
connected with the suppression of the ancient Order of Knights
Templars in France in the beginning of the 14th century.

The Templars, on leaving the Holy Land, upon the disastrous termination
of the last Crusade and the fall of Acre, had taken temporary refuge in
the island of Cyprus. After some vain attempts to regain a footing in
Palestine and to renew their contests with the infidels, who were now in
complete possession of that country, the Knights had retired from
Cyprus and repaired to their different Commanderies in Europe, among
which those in France were the most wealthy and the most numerous.

At this period Philip IV., known in history by the soubriquet of Philip the
Fair, reigned on the French throne, and Clement V. was the Pontiff of the
Roman Church. Never before had the crown or the tiara been worn by a
more avaricious King or a more treacherous Pope.

Clement, when Bishop of Bordeaux, had secured the influence of the
French monarch toward his election to the papacy by engaging himself
by an oath on the sacrament to perform six conditions imposed upon
him by the king, the last of which was reserved as a secret until after his
coronation.

This last condition bound him to the extermination of the Templars, an
Order of whose power Philip was envious and for whose wealth he was
avaricious.

Pope Clement, who had removed his residence from Rome to Poictiers,
summoned the heads of the military Orders to appear before him for the
purpose, as he deceitfully pretended, of concerting measures for the
inauguration of a new Crusade.

James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Templars, accordingly,
repaired to the papal court. While there the King of France preferred a
series of charges against the Order, upon which he demanded its
suppression and the punishment of its leaders.

The events that subsequently occurred have been well called a black
page in the history of the Order. On the 13th of October, 1307, the
Grand Master and one hundred and thirty-nine Knights were arrested in
the palace of the Temple, at Paris, and similar arrests were on the same
day made in various parts of France. The arrested Templars were
thrown into prison and loaded with chains. They were not provided with
a sufficiency of food and were refused the consolations of religion.
Twenty-six princes and nobles of the court of France appeared as their
accusers; and before the judgment of their guilt had been determined by
the tribunals, the infamous Pope Clement launched a bull of
excommunication against all persons who should give the Templars aid
or comfort.

The trials which ensued were worse than a farce, only because of their
tragical termination. The rack and the torture were unsparingly applied.
Those who continued firm in a denial of guilt were condemned either to
perpetual imprisonment or to the stake. Addison says that one hundred
and thirteen were burnt in Paris and others in Lorraine, in Normandy, at
Carcassonne, and at Senlis.

The last scene of the tragedy was enacted on the 11th of March, 1314.
James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Order, after a close and
painful imprisonment of six years and a half, was publicly burnt in front
of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris.

The Order was thus totally suppressed in France and its possessions
confiscated. The other monarchs of Europe followed the example of the
King of France in abolishing the Order in their dominions; but, in a more
merciful spirit, they refrained from inflicting capital punishment upon the
Knights. Outside of France, in all the other kingdoms of Europe, not a
Templar was condemned to death.

The Order was, however, everywhere suppressed, and a spoil made of
its vast possessions, notwithstanding that in every country beyond the
influence of the Pope and the King of France its general innocence was
sustained. In Portugal it changed its name to that of the Knights of
Christ - everywhere else the Order ceased to exist

But there are writers who, like Burnes, (1) maintain that the persecution
of the Templars in the 14th century did not close the history of the
Order, but that there has been a succession of Knights Templars from
the 12th century down to these days. Dr. Burnes alluded to the Order of
the Temple and the pretended transmission of the powers of de Molay to
Larmenius.

With this question and with the authenticity of the so-called "Charter of
Transmission," the topic which we are now about to discuss has no
connection, and I shall therefore make no further allusion to it.

It is evident from the influence of natural causes, without the necessity of
any historical proof, that after the death of the Grand Master and the
sanguinary persecution and suppression of the Order in France, many of
the Knights must have sought safety by flight to other countries. It is to
their acts in Scotland that we are now to direct our attention.

(1) "Sketch of the History of the Knights Templars," by James Burnes,
LL.D., F.R.S., etc., London, 1840, p. 39.




There are two Legends in existence which relate to the connection of
Templarism with the Freemasonry of Scotland, each of which will require
our separate attention. The first may be called the Legend of Bruce, and
the other the Legend of d'Aumont.

In Scotland the possessions of the Order were very extensive. Their
Preceptories were scattered in various parts of the country. A papal
inquisition was held at Holyrood in 1309 to try and, of course, to
condemn the Templars. At this inquisition only two knights, Walter de
Clifton, Grand Preceptor of Scotland, and William de Middleton
appeared. The others absconded, and as Robert Bruce was then
marching to meet and repel the invasion of King Edward of England, the
Templars are said to have joined the army of the Scottish monarch.
Thus far the various versions of the Bruce Legend agree, but in the
subsequent details there are irreconcilable differences.

According to one version, the Templars distinguished themselves at the
battle of Bannockburn, which was fought on St. John the Baptist's Day,
1314, and after the battle a new Order was formed called the Royal
Order of Scotland, into which the Templars were admitted. But Oliver
thinks very justly that the two Orders were unconnected with each other.

Thory says that Robert Bruce, King of Scotland under the title of Robert
I., created on the 24th of June, 1314, after the battle of Bannockburn, the
Order of St. Andrew of the Thistle, to which was afterward added that of
Heredom, for the sake of the Scottish Masons, who had made a part of
the thirty thousand men who had fought with an hundred thousand
English soldiers. He reserved for himself and his successors the title of
Grand Master and founded at Kilwinning the Grand Lodge of the Royal
Order of Heredom. (1)
The Manual of the Order of the Temple says that the Templars, at the
instigation of Robert Bruce, ranged themselves under the banners of this
new Order, whose initiations were based on those of the Templars. For
this apostasy they were excommunicated by John Mark Larmenius, who
is claimed to have been the legitimate successor of de Molay. (2)

None of these statements are susceptible of historical proof


(1) "Acta Latomorum," tome i., p. 6.
(2) "Manuel des Chevaliers de l'Ordre du Temple," p. 8


The Order of Knights of St. Andrew or of the Thistle was not created by
Bruce in 1314, but by James II. in 1440.

There is no evidence that the Templars ever made a part of the Royal
Order of Heredom. At this day the two are entirely distinct. Nor is it now
considered as a fact that the Royal Order was established by Bruce after
the Battle of Bannockburn, although such is the esoteric legend.

On the contrary, it is supposed to have been the fabrication of Michael
Ramsay in the 18th century. On this subject the remarks of Bro. Lyon,
who has made the Masonry of Scotland his especial study, are well
worth citation.

"The ritual of the Royal Order of Scotland embraces," he says, "what may
be termed a spiritualization of the supposed symbols and ceremonies of
the Christian architects and builders of primitive times, and so closely
associates the sword with the trowel as to lead to the second degree
being denominated an order of Masonic knighthood, which its recipients
are asked to believe was first conferred on the field of Bannockburn, as
a reward for the valour that had been displayed by a body of Templars
who aided Bruce in that memorable victory; and that afterward a Grand
Lodge of the Order was established by the King at Kilwinning, with the
reservation of the office of Grand Master to him and his successors on
the Scottish throne. It is further asserted that the Royal Order and the
Masonic Fraternity of Kilwinning were governed by the same head. As
regards the claims to antiquity, and a royal origin that are advanced in
favour of this rite, it is proper to say that modern inquiries have shown
these to be purely fabulous. The credence that is given to that part of
the legend which associates the Order with the ancient Lodge of
Kilwinning is based on the assumed certainty that Lodge possessed in
former times a knowledge of other degrees of Masonry than those of St.
John. But such is not the case. The fraternity of Kilwinning never at any
period practiced or acknowledged other than the Craft degrees; neither
does there exist any tradition worthy of the name, local or national, nor
has any authentic document yet been discovered that can in the
remotest degree be held to identify Robert Bruce with the holding of
Masonic Courts, or the institution of a secret society at Kilwinning." (1)

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," by David Murray Lyon, chap.
xxxii., P. 307.


After such a statement made by a writer who from his position and
opportunities as a Scottish Mason was better enabled to discover proofs,
if there were any to be discovered, we may safely conclude that the
Bruce and Bannockburn Legend of Scottish Templarism is to be
deemed a pure myth, without the slightest historical clement to sustain it.

There is another Legend connecting the Templars in Scotland with
Freemasonry which demands our attention.

It is said in this Legend that in order to escape from the persecution that
followed the suppression of the Order by the King of France, a certain
Templar, named d'Aumont, accompanied by seven others, disguised as
mechanics or Operative Masons, fled into Scotland and there secretly
founded another Order; and to preserve as much as possible the ancient
name of Templars as well as to retain the remembrance of and to do
honour to the Masons in whose clothing they had disguised themselves
when they fled, they adopted the name of Masons in connection with the
word Franc, and called themselves Franc Masons. This they did
because the old Templars were for the most part Frenchmen, and as the
word Franc means both French and Free, when they established
themselves in England they called themselves Freemasons. As the
ancient Order had been originally established for the purpose of
rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem, the new Order maintained their
bond of union and preserved the memory and the design of their
predecessors by building symbolically spiritual Temples consecrated to
Virtue, Truth, and Light, and to the honour of the Grand Architect of the
Universe.

Such is the Legend as given by a writer in the Dutch Freemasons'
Almanac, from which it is cited in the London Freemasons' Quarterly
Review. (1)

Clavel, in his Picturesque History of Freemasonry, (2) gives it more in
detail, almost in the words of Von Hund.

After the execution of de Molay, Peter d'Aumont, the Provincial Grand
Master of Auvergne, with two Commanders and five Knights, fled for
safety and directed their course toward Scotland, concealing themselves
during their journey under the disguise of Operative Masons. Having
landed on the Scottish Island of Mull they

(1) See Freemasons' Quarterly Review, London, 1843, p. 501, where the
Legend is given in full, as above.
(2) "Histoire Pitioresque de la Franc Maconnerie, " p. 184.


there met the Grand Commander George Harris and several other
brethren, with whom they resolved to continue the Order. d'Aumont was
elected Grand Master in a Chapter held on St. John's Day, 1313. To
protect themselves from all chance of discovery and persecution they
adopted symbols taken from architecture and assumed the title of
Freemasons. In 1361 the Grand Master of the Temple transferred the
seat of the Order to the old city of Aberdeen, and from that time it
spread, under the guise of Freemasonry, through Italy, Germany,
France, Portugal, Spain, and other places.

It was on this Legend that the Baron Von Hund founded his Rite of Strict
Observance, and with spurious documents in his possession, he
attempted, but without success, to obtain the sanction of the Congress
of Wilhelmsbad to his dogma that every Freemason was a Templar.

This doctrine, though making but slow progress in Germany, was more
readily accepted in France, where already it had been promulgated by
the Chapter of Clermont, into whose Templar system Von Hund had
been initiated.

The Chevalier Ramsay was the real author of the doctrine of the Templar
origin of Freemasonry, and to him we are really indebted (if the debt
have any value) for the d'Aumont Legend. The source whence it sprang
is tolerably satisfactory evidence of its fictitious character. The
inventive,
genius of Ramsay, as exhibited in the fabrications of high degrees and
Masonic legends, is well known. Nor, unfortunately for his reputation,
can it be doubted that in the composition of his legends he cared but
little for the support of history. If his genius, his learning, and his zeal
had been consecrated, not to the formation of new Masonic systems,
but to a profound investigation of the true origin of the Institution,
viewed
only from an authentic historical point, it is impossible to say what
incalculable benefit would have been delved from his researches. The
unproductive desert which for three-fourths of a century spread over the
continent, bearing no fruit except fanciful theories, absurd systems, and
unnecessary degrees, would have been occupied in all probability by a
race of Masonic scholars whose researches would have been directed to
the creation of a genuine history, and much of the labours of our
modern iconoclasts would have been spared.

The Masonic scholars of that long period, which began with Ramsay and
has hardly yet wholly terminated, assumed for the most part rather the
role of poets than of historians. They did not remember the wise saying
of Cervantes, that the poet may say or sing, not as things have been,
but as they ought to have been, while the historian must write of them as
they really were, and not as he thinks they ought to have been. And
hence we have a mass of traditional rubbish, in which there is a great
deal of falsehood with very little truth.

Of this rubbish is the Legend of Peter d'Aumont and his resuscitation of
the Order of Knights Templars in Scotland. Without a particle of
historical evidence for its support, it has nevertheless exerted a powerful
influence on the Masonic organization of even the present day. We find
its effects looming out in the most important rites and giving a Templar
form to many of the high degrees. And it cannot be doubted that the
incorporation of Templarism into the modem Masonic system is mainly
to be attributed to ideas suggested by this d'Aumont Legend.

As there appears to be some difficulty in reconciling the supposed
heretical opinions of the Templars with the strictly Christian faith of the
Scottish Masons, to meet this objection a third Legend was invented, in
which it was stated that after the abolition of the Templars, the clerical
part of the Order - that is, the chaplains and priests - united in Scotland
to revive it and to transplant it into Freemasonry. But as this Legend has
not met with many supporters and was never strongly urged, it is
scarcely necessary to do more than thus briefly to allude to it.

Much as the Legend of d'Aumont has exerted an influence in mingling
together the elements of Templarism and Freemasonry, as we see at the
present day in Britain and in America, and in the high degrees formed
on the continent of Europe, the dogma of Ramsay, that every
Freemason is a Templar, has been utterly repudiated, and the
authenticity of the Legend has been rejected by nearly all of the best
Masonic scholars.

Dr. Burnes, who was a believer in the legitimacy of the French Order of
the Temple, as being directly derived from de Molay through Larmenius,
and who, therefore, subscribed unhesitatingly to the authenticity of the
"Charter of Transmission," does not hesitate to call Von Hund "an
adventurer" and his Legend of d'Aumont "a plausible tale."

Of that part of the Legend which relates to the transfer of the chief seat
of the Templars to Aberdeen in Scotland, he says that "the imposture
was soon detected, and it was even discovered that he had himself
enticed and initiated the ill-fated Pretender into his fabulous order of
chivalry. The delusions on this subject had taken such a hold in
Germany, that they were not altogether dispelled until a deputation had
actually visited Aberdeen and found amongst the worthy and astonished
brethren there no trace either of very ancient Templars or of
Freemasonry." (1)

In this last assertion, however, Burnes is in error, for it is alleged that
the
Lodge of Aberdeen was instituted in 1541, though, as its more ancient
minutes have been, as it is said, destroyed by fire, its present records go
no further back than 1670. Bro. Lyon concurs with Burnes in the
statement that the Aberdeenians were much surprised when first told
that their Lodge was an ancient center of the High Degrees. (2)

William Frederick Wilke, a German writer of great ability, has attacked the
credibility of this Scottish Legend with a closeness of reasoning and a
vigour of arguments that leave but little room for reply. (3) As he gives
the Legend in a slightly different form, it may be interesting to quote it,
as well as his course of argument.

"The Legend relates," he says, "that after the suppression of the Order
the head of the Templar clergy, Peter of Boulogne, fled from prison and
took refuge with the Commander Hugh, Wildgrave of Salm, and thence
escaped to Scotland with Sylvester von Grumbach. Thither the Grand
Commander Harris and Marshal d'Aumont had likewise betaken
themselves, and these three preserved the secrets of the Order of
Templars and transferred them to the Fraternity of Freemasons."

In commenting on this statement Wilke says it is true that Peter of
Boulogne fled from prison, but whither he went never has been known.
The Wildgrave of Salm never was in prison. But the legendist has
entangled himself in saying that Peter left the Wildgrave Hugh and went
to Scotland with Sylvester von Grumbach, for Hugh and Sylvester are
one and the same person. His

(1) Burnes, "Sketch of the History of the Knights Templars," p. 71.
(2) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 420.
(3) In his "Geschichte des Tempelherren's Orders." I have not been able
to obtain the work, but I have availed myself of an excellent analysis of it
in "Findel's History of Freemasonry," Lyon's Translation.


title was Count Sylvester Wildgrave, and Grumbach was the designation
of his Templar Commandery. Hugh of Salm, also Wildgrave and
Commander of Grumbach, never took refuge in Scotland, and after the
abolition of the Order was made Prebendary of the Cathedral of
Mayence.

Wilke thinks that the continuation of the Templar Order was attributed to
Scotland because the higher degrees of Freemasonry, having reference
in a political sense to the Pretender, Edward Stuart, were called Scotch.
Scotland is, therefore, the cradle of the higher degrees of Masonry. But
here I am inclined to differ from him and am disposed rather to refer the
explanation to the circumstance that Ramsay, who was the inventor of
the Legend and the first fabricator of the high degrees, was a native of
Scotland and was born in the neighbourhood of Kilwinning. To these
degrees he gave the name of Scottish Masonry, in a spirit of nationality,
and hence Scotland was supposed to be their birthplace. This is not,
however, material to the present argument.

Wilke says that Harris and d'Aumont are not mentioned in the real
history of the Templars and therefore, if they were Knights, they could
not have had any prominence in the Order, and neither would have been
likely to have been chosen by the fugitive Knights as their Grand Master.

He concludes by saying that of course some of the fugitive Templars
found their way to Scotland, and it may be believed that some of the
brethren were admitted into the building fraternities, but that is no reason
why either the Lodges of builders or the Knights of St. John should be
considered as a continuation of the Templar Order, because they both
received Templar fugitives, and the less so as the building guilds were
not, like the Templars, composed of chivalrous and free-thinking
worldlings, but of pious workmen who cherished the pure doctrines of
religion.

The anxiety of certain theorists to connect Templarism with
Freemasonry, has led to the invention of other fables, in which the
Hiramic Legend of the Master's degree is replaced by others referring to
events said to have occurred in the history of the knightly Order. The
most ingenious of these is the following:

Some time before the destruction of the Order of Templars, a certain
Sub-prior of Montfaucon, named Carolus de Monte Carmel was
murdered by three traitors. From the events that accompanied and
followed this murder, it is said that an important part of the ritual of
Freemasonry has been derived. The assassins of the Sub-prior of
Montfaucon concealed his body in a grave, and in order to designate
the spot, planted a young thorn-tree upon it. The Templars, in searching
for the body, had their attention drawn to the spot by the tree, and in
that way they discovered his remains. The Legend goes on to recite the
disinterring of the body and its removal to another grave, in striking
similarity with the same events narrated in the Legend of Hiram.

Another theory connects the martyrdom of James de Molay, the last
Grand Master of the Templars, with the Legend of the third degree, and
supposes that in that Legend, as now preserved in the Masonic ritual,
Hiram has been made to replace de Molay, that the fact of the Templar
fusion into Masonry might be concealed.

Thus the events which in the genuine Masonic Legend are referred to
Hiram Abif are, in the Templar Legend, made applicable to de Molay; the
three assassins are said to be Pope Clement V., Philip the Fair, King of
France, and a Templar named Naffodei, who betrayed the Order. They
have even attempted to explain the mystical search for the body by the
invention of a fable that on the night after de Molay had been burnt at
the stake, certain Knights diligently sought for his remains amongst the
ashes, but could find only some bones to which the flesh, though
scorched, still adhered, but which it left immediately upon their being
handled; and in this way they explain the origin of the substitute word,
according to the mistranslation too generally accepted.

Nothing could more clearly show the absurdity of the Legend than this
adoption of a popular interpretation of the meaning of this word, made
by someone utterly ignorant of the Hebrew language. The word, as is
now well known to all scholars, has a totally different signification.

But it is scarcely necessary to look to so unessential a part of the
narrative for proof that the whole Legend of the connection of
Templarism with Freemasonry is irreconcilable with the facts of history.

The Legend of Bruce and Bannockburn has already been disposed of.
The story has no historical foundation.

The other Legend, that makes d'Aumont and his companions founders
of the Masonic Order in Scotland by amalgamating the Knights with the
fraternity of builders, is equally devoid of an historical basis. But,
besides, there is a feature of improbability if not of impossibility about
it.
The Knights Templars were an aristocratic Order, composed of
high-born gentlemen who had embraced the soldier's life as their
vocation, and who were governed by the customs of chivalry. In those
days there was a much wider line of demarkation drawn between the
various casts of society than exists at the present day. The "belted
knight" was at the top of the social scale, the mechanic at the bottom.

It is therefore almost impossible to believe that because their Order had
been suppressed, these proud soldiers of the Cross, whose military life
had unfitted them for any other pursuit except that of arms, would have
thrown aside their swords and their spurs and assumed the trowel; with
the use of this implement and all the mysteries of the builder's craft they
were wholly unacquainted. To have become Operative Masons, they
must have at once abandoned all the prejudices of social life in which
they had been educated. That a Knight Templar would have gone into
some religious house as a retreat from the world whose usage of his
Order had disgusted him, or taken refuge in some other chivalric Order,
might reasonably happen, as was actually the case. But that these
Knights would have willingly transformed themselves into Stonemasons
and daily workmen is a supposition too absurd to extort belief even from
the most credulous.


We may then say that those legendists who have sought by their own
invented traditions to trace the origin of Freemasonry to Templarism, or
to establish any close connection between the two Institutions, have
failed in their object.

They have attempted to write a history, but they have scarcely
succeeded in composing a plausible romance.

CHAPTER XXX

FREEMASONRY AND THE HOUSE OF STUART


THE theory that connects the royal house of the, Stuarts with
Freemasonry, as an Institution to be cultivated, not on account of
its own intrinsic merit, but that it might serve as a political
engine to be wielded for the restoration of an exiled family to a
throne which the follies and even the crimes of its members had
forfeited, is so repugnant to all that has been supposed to be
congruous with the true spirit and character of Freemasonry, that
one would hardly believe that such a theory was ever seriously
entertained, were it not for many too conclusive proofs of the
fact.

The history of the family of Stuart, from the accession of James I.
to the throne of England to the death of the last of his
descendants, the young Pretender, is a narrative of follies and
sometimes of crimes. The reign of James was distinguished only by
arts which could gain for him no higher title with posterity than
that of a royal pedant. His son and successor Charles I. was
beheaded by an indignant people whose constitutional rights and
ideals he had sought to betray. His son Charles II., after a long
exile was finally restored to the throne, only to pass a life of
indolence and licentiousness. On his death he was succeeded by his
brother James II., a prince distinguished only for his bigotry. 
Zealously attached to the Roman Catholic religion, he sought to
restore its power and influence among his subjects, who were for
the most part Protestants. To save the Established Church and the
religion of the nation, his estranged subjects called to the throne
the Protestant Prince of Orange, and James, abdicating the crown,
fled to France, where he was hospitably received with his followers
by Louis XIV., who could, however, say nothing better of him than
that he had given three crowns for a mass. From 1688, the date of
his abdication and flight, until the year 1745 the exiled family
were engaged in repeated but unavailing attempts to recover the
throne.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that in these attempts the
partisans of the house of Stuart were not unwilling to accept the
influence of the Masonic Institution, as one of the most powerful
instruments whereby to effect their purpose.

It is true that in this, the Institution would have been diverted
from its true design, but the object of the Jacobites, as they were
called, or the adherents of King James was not to elevate the
character of Freemasonry but only to advance the cause of the
Pretender

It must however be understood that this theory which connects the
Stuarts with Masonry does not suppose that the third or Master's
degree was invented by them or their adherents, but only that there
were certain modifications in the application of its Legend. Thus,
the Temple was interpreted as alluding to the monarchy, the death
of its Builder to the execution of Charles I., or to the
destruction of the succession by the compulsory abdication of James
II., and the dogma of the resurrection to the restoration of the
Stuart family to the throne of England.

Thus, one of the earliest instances of this political
interpretation of the Master's legend was that made after the
expulsion of James II. from the throne and his retirement to
France. The mother of James was Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles
1. The Jacobites called her " the Widow," and the exiled James
became "the Widow's son," receiving thus the title applied in the
Masonic Legend to Hiram Abif, whose death they said symbolized the
loss of the throne and the expulsion of the Stuarts from England?

They carried this idea to such an extent as to invent a name,
substitute word for the Master's degree, in the place of the old
one, which was known to the English Masons at the time of the
Revival in 1717.

This new word was not, as the significant words of Masonry usually
are, of Hebrew origin, but was derived from the Gaelic. And this
seems to have been done in compliment to the Highlanders, most of
whom were loyal adherents of the Stuart cause.

The word Macbenac is derived from the Gaelic Mac, a son, and
benach, blessed, and literally means the " blessed son ; " and this
word was applied by the Jacobites to James, who was thus not
only a "widow's son" but "blessed" one, too. Masonry was here made
subservient to loyalty.

They also, to mark their political antipathy to the enemies of the
Stuart family, gave to the most prominent leaders of the republican
cause, the names in which old Masonry had been appropriated to the
assassins of the third degree. In the Stuart Masonry we find these
assassins designated by names, generally unintelligible, but, when
they can be explained, evidently referring to some well-known
opponent of the Stuart dynasty. Thus, Romvel is manifestly an
imperfect anagram of Cromwell, and Jubelum Guibbs doubtless was
intended as an infamous embalmment of the name of the Rev. Adam
Gib, an antiburgher clergyman, who, when the Pretender was in
Edinburgh in 1745, hurled anathemas, for five successive Sundays
against him.

But it was in the fabrication of the high degrees that the
partisans of the Stuarts made the most use of Freemasonry as a
political instrument.

The invention of these high degrees is to be attributed in the
first place to the Chevalier Ramsay. He was connected in the most
intimate relation with the exiled family, having been selected by
the titular James III., or, as he was commonly known in England,
the Old Pretender, as the tutor of his two sons, Charles Edward and
Henry, the former of whom afterward became the Young Pretender, and
the latter Cardinal York.

Ardently attached, to this relationship, by his nationality as a
Scotsman, and by his religion as a Roman Catholic, to the Stuarts
and their cause, he met with ready acquiescence the advances of
those who had already begun to give a political aspect to the
Masonic System, and also were seeking to enlist it in the
Pretender's cause. Ramsay therefore aided in the modification of
the old degrees or the fabrication of new ones, so that these views
might be incorporated in a peculiar system; and hence in many of
the high degrees invented either by Ramsay or by others of the same
school, we will find these traces of a political application to the
family of Stuart, which were better understood at that time than
they are now.

Thus, one of the high degrees -received the name of " Grand
Scottish Mason of James VI." Of this degree Tessier says that it is
the principal degree of the ancient Master's system, and was
revived and esteemed by James VI., King of Scotland and of Great
Britain, and that it is still preserved in Scotland more than in
any other kingdom. (1)

All of this is of course a mere fiction, but it shows that there
has been a sort of official acknowledgment of the interference with
Masonry by the Stuarts, who did not hesitate to give the name of
the first founder of their house on the English throne to one of
the degrees.

Another proof is found in the word Jekson, which is a significant
word in one of the high Scottish or Ramsay degrees. It is thus
spelled in the Calhiers or manuscript French rituals. There can be
no doubt that it is a corruption of Jacquesson, a mongrel word
compounded of the French Jacques and the English son, and denotes
the son of James, that is, of James II. This son was the Old
Pretender, or the Chevalier St. George, who after the death of his
father assumed the empty title of James Ill., and whose son, the
Young Pretender, was one of the pupils of the Chevalier Ramsay.

These, with many other similar instances, are very palpable proofs
that the adherents of the Stuarts sought to infuse a political
element into the spirit of Masonry, so as to make it a facile
instrument for the elevation of the exiled family and the
restoration of their head to the throne of England.

Of the truth of this fact, it is supposed that much support is to
be found in the narrative of the various efforts for restoration
made by the Stuarts.

When James II. made his flight from England he repaired to France,
where he was hospitably received by Louis XIV. He took up his
residence while in Paris at the Jesuitical College of Clermont. 
There, it is said, he first sought, with the assistance of the
Jesuits, to establish a system of Masonry which should be employed
by his partisans in their schemes for his restoration to the
throne, After an unsuccessful invasion of Ireland he returned to
France and repaired to St. Germain-en-Laye, a city about ten miles
northwest of Paris, where he lived until the time of his death in
1701. It is one of the Stuart myths that at the Chateau of St.
Germain some of the high degrees were fabricated by the adherents
of James II., assisted by the Jesuits.

The story is told by Robison, a professed enemy of Freemasonry, 
but who gives with correctness the general form of the Stuart
Legend as it was taught in the last century.

(1) "Manuel Generale de Maconnerie," p. 148

Robison says: " The revolution had taken place, and King James,
with many of his most zealous adherents, had taken refuge in
France.

But they took Freemasonry with them to the Continent, where it was
immediately received by the French, and cultivated with great zeal
in a manner suited to the taste and habits of that highly polished
people. The Lodges in France naturally became the rendezvous of
the adherents of the exiled king, and the means of carrying on a
correspondence with their friends in England." (1)

Robison says that at this time the Jesuits took an active part in
Freemasonry, and united with the English Lodges, with the view of
creating an influence in favor of the re-establishment of the Roman
Catholic religion in England. But the supposed connection of the
Jesuits with Freemasonry pertains to an independent proposition. to
be hereafter considered.

Robison further says that " it was in the Lodge held at St. Germain
that the degree of Chevalier Macon Ecossais was added to the three
symbolical degrees of English Masonry. The Constitution, as
imported, appeared too coarse for the refined taste of the French,
and they must make Masonry more like the occupation of a gentleman. 
Therefore the English degrees of Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and
Master were called symbolical, and the whole contrivance was
considered either as typical of something more elegant or as a
preparation for it. The degrees afterward superadded to this leave
us in doubt which of these views the French entertained of our
Masonry. But, at all events, this rank of Scotch Knight was called
the first degree of the Macon Parfait. There is a device belonging
to this Lodge which deserves notice. A lion wounded by an arrow,
and escaped from the stake to which he had been bound, with the
broken rope still about his neck, is represented lying at the mouth
of a cave, and occupied with mathematical instruments, which are
lying near him. A broken crown lies at the foot of the stake. 
There can be little doubt but that this emblem alludes to the
dethronement, the captivity, the escape, and the asylum of James
II, and his hopes of re-establishment by the help of the 

(1) "Proofs of a Conspiracy," p. 27

loyal Brethren. This emblem is worn as the gorget of the Scotch
Knight. It is not very certain, however, when this degree was
added, whether immediately after King James's abdication or about
the time of the attempt to set his son on the British throne. (1)

This extract from Robison presents a very fair specimen of the way
in which Masonic history was universally written in the last
century and is still written by a few in the present.

Although it cannot be denied that at a subsequent period the
primitive degrees were modified and changed ill their application
of the death of Hiram Abif to that of Charles I., or the
dethronement of James II, and that higher degrees were created with
still more definite allusion to the destinies of the family of
Stuart, yet it is very evident that no such measures could have
been taken during the lifetime of James II.

The two periods referred to by Robison, the time of the abdication
of James II, which was in 1688, and the attempt of James III, as
he was called, to regain the throne, which was in 1715, as being,
one or the other, the date of the fabrication of the degree of
Scottish Knight or Master, are both irreconcilable with the facts
of history. The symbolical degrees of Fellow Craft and Master had
not been invented before 1717, or rather a few years later, and it
is absurd to speak of higher degrees cumulated upon lower ones
which did not at that time exist.

James II. died in 1701. At that day we have no record of any sort
of Speculative Masonry except that of the one degree which was
common to Masons of all ranks. The titular King James Ill., his
son, succeeded to the claims and pretensions of his father, of
course, in that year, but made no attempt to enforce them until
1715, at which time he invaded England with a fleet and army
supplied by Louis XIV. But in 17I5, Masonry was in the same
condition that it had been in 1701. There was no Master's degree
to supply a Legend capable of alteration for a political purpose,
and the high degrees were altogether unknown. The Grand Lodge of
England, the mother of all Continental as well as English Masonry,
was not established, or as Anderson improperly calls it, "
revived," until 1717. The Institution was not introduced into
France until 1725, and there could, therefore, have been no
political Masonry practiced in a 

(1) "Proofs of a Conspiracy," p. 28

country where the pure Masonry of which it must have been a
corruption did not exist. Scottish or Stuart Masonry was a
superstructure built upon the foundation of the symbolic Masonry of
the three degrees. If in 1715 there was, as we know, no such
foundation, it follows, of course, that there could have been no
superstructure.

The theory, therefore, that Stuart Masonry, or the fabrication of
degrees and the change of the primitive rituals to establish a
system to be engaged in the support and the advancement of the
falling cause of the Stuarts, was commenced during the lifetime of
James II., and that the royal chateau of St. Germain-en-Laye was
the manufactory in which, between the years 1689 and 1701, these
degrees and rituals were fabricated, is a mere fable not only
improbable but absolutely impossible in all its details.

Rebold, however, gives another form to the Legend and traces the
rise of Stuart Masonry to a much earlier period. In his History of
the Three Grand Lodges he says that during the troubles which
distracted Great Britain about the middle of the 17th century and
after the decapitation of Charles I in 1649, the Masons of England,
and especially those of Scotland, labored secretly for the re-
establishment of the monarchy which had been overthrown by
Cromwell. For the accomplishment of this purpose they invented two
higher degrees and gave to Freemasonry an entirely political
character. The dissensions to which the country was a prey had
already produced a separation of the Operative and the Accepted
Masons-that is to say, of the builders by profession and those
honorary members who were not Masons. These latter were men of
power and high position, and it was through their influence that
Charles II., having been received as a Mason during his exile, was
enabled to recover the throne in 1660. This prince gratefully gave
to Masonry the title of the " Royal Art," because it was
Freemasonry that had principally contributed to the restoration of
royalty. (1)

Ragon, in his Masonic Orthodoxy, (2) is still more explicit and
presents some new details. He says that Ashmole and other Brethren
of the Rose Croix, seeing that the Speculative Masons were
surpassing in numbers the Operative, had renounced the simple
initiation of the latter and established new degrees founded on the 

(1) "Histoire de Trois Grandes Loges," p. 32
(2) Ragon, "Orthodoxie Maconnique," p. 29

Mysteries of Egypt and Greece. The Fellow Craft degree was
fabricated in 1648, and that of Master a short time afterward. But
the decapitation of King Charles I, and the part taken by Ashmole
in favor of the Stuarts produced great modifications in this third
and last degree, which had become of a Biblical character. The
same epoch gave birth to the degrees of Secret Master, Perfect
Master, and Irish Master, of which Charles I was the hero, under
the name of Hiram. These degrees, he says, were, however, not then
openly practiced, although they afterward became the ornament of
Ecossaism.

But the non-operative or " Accepted " members of the organization
secretly gave to the Institution, especially in Scotland, a
political tendency. The chiefs or protectors of the Craft in
Scotland worked, in the dark, for the re-establishment of the
throne. They made use of the seclusion of the Masonic Lodges as
places where they might hold their meetings and concert their plans
in safety. As the execution of Charles I. was to be avenged, his
partisans fabricated a Templar degree, in which the violent death
of James de Molay called for vengeance. Ashmole, who partook of
that political sentiment, then modified the degree of Master and
the Egyptian doctrine of which it was composed, and made it conform
to the two preceding degrees framing a Biblical allegory,
incomplete and in- consistent, so that the initials of the sacred
words of these three degrees should compose those of the name and
title of the Grand Master of the Templars.

Northouck, (1) who should have known better, gives countenance to
these supercheries of history by asserting that Charles II. was
made a Mason during his exile, although he carefully omits to tell
us when, where, how, or by whom the initiation was effected; but
seeks, with a flippancy that ought to provoke a smile, to prove
that Charles II. took a great interest in Masonry and architecture,
by citing the preamble to the charter of the Royal Society, an
association whose object was solely the cultivation of the
philosophical and mathematical sciences, especially astronomy and
chemistry, and whose members took no interest in the art of
building.

Dr. Oliver, whose unfortunate failing was to accept without careful
examination all the statements of preceding writers, however 

(1) "Constitutions," p. 141

absurd they might be, repeats substantially these apochryphal tales
about early Stuart Masonry.

He says that, about the close of the 17th century, the followers of
James II. who accompanied the unfortunate monarch in his exile
carried Freemasonry to France and laid the foundation of that
system of innovation which subsequently threw the Order into
confusion, by the establishment of a new degree, which they called
the Chevalier Naron Ecossais, and worked the details in the Lodge
at St. Germain. Hence, he adds, other degrees were invented in the
Continental Lodges which became the rendezvous of the partisans of
James, and by these means they held communication with their
friends in England. (1)

But as the high degrees were not fabricated until more than a third
of the 18th century had passed, and as James died in 1701, we are
struck with the confusion that prevails in this statement as to
dates and persons.

It is very painful and embarrassing to the scholar who is really in
search of truth to meet with such caricatures of history, in which
the boldest and broadest assumptions are offered in the place of
facts, the most absurd fables are presented as narratives of actual
occurrences, chronology is put at defiance, anachronisms are coolly
perpetrated, the events of the 18th century are transferred to the
17th, the third degree is said to have been modified in its ritual
during the Commonwealth, when we know that no third degree was in
existence until after 1717; and we are told that high degrees were
invented at the same time, although history records the fact that
the first of them was not fabricated until about the year 1728. 
Such writers, if they really believed what they had written, must
have adopted the axiom of the credulous Tertullian, who said, Credo
quia impossible est- " I believe because it is impossible." Better
would it be to remember the saying of Polybius, that if we
eliminate truth from history nothing will remain but an idea too.

We must, then, reject as altogether untenable the theory that there
was any connection between the Stuart family and Freemasonry during
the time of James II., for the simple reason that at that period
there was no system of Speculative Masonry existing 

(1) "Historical Landmarks, " II., p. 28

which could have been perverted by the partisans of that family
into a political instrument for its advancement. If there was any
connection at all, it must be looked for as developed at a
subsequent period.

The views of Findel on this subject, as given in his History of
Freemasonry, are worthy of attention, because they are divested of
that mystical element so conspicuous and so embarrassing in all the
statements which have been heretofore cited. His language is as
follows: 

"Ever since the banishment of the Stuarts from England in 1688,
secret alliances had been kept up between Rome and Scotland ; for
to the former place the Pretender James Stuart had retired in 1719
and his son Charles Edward born there in 1720; and these
communications became the more intimate the higher the hopes of the
Pretender rose. The Jesuits played a very important part in these
conferences. Regarding the reinstatement of the Stuarts and the
extension of the power of the Roman Church as identical, they
sought at that time to make the Society of Free- masons subservient
to their ends. But to make use of the Fraternity, to restore the
exiled family to the throne, could not have been contemplated, as
Freemasonry could hardly be said to exist in Scotland then. 
Perhaps in I 724, when Ramsay was a year in Rome, or in 1728, when
the Pretender in Parma kept up an intercourse with the restless
Duke of Wharton, a Past Grand Master, this idea was first
entertained, and then when it was apparent how difficult it would
be to corrupt the loyalty and fealty of Freemasonry in the Grand
Lodge of Scotland, founded in 1736, this scheme was set on foot of
assembling the faithful adherents of the banished royal family in
the High Degrees! The soil that was best adapted for this
innovation was France, where the low ebb to which Masonry had sunk
had paved the way for all kinds of new-fangled notions, and where
the Lodges were composed of Scotch conspirators and accomplices of
the Jesuits. When the path had thus been smoothed by the agency of
these secret propagandists, Ramsay, at that time Grand Orator (an
office unknown in England), by his speech completed the
preliminaries necessary for the introduction of the High Degrees ;
their further development was left to the instrumentality of
others, whose influence produced a result somewhat different from
that originally intended." (1)

(1) "Geschichte der Freimaurerei" - Translation of Lyon, p. 209

After the death of James II. his son, commonly called the Chevalier
St. George, does not appear to have actively prosecuted his claims
to the throne beyond the attempted invasion of England in 1715. He
afterward retired to Rome, where the remainder of his life was
passed in the quiet observation of religious duties. Nor is there
any satisfactory evidence that the was in any way connected with
Freemasonry.

In the meantime, his sons, who had been born at Rome, were
intrusted to the instructions of the Chevalier Michael Andrew
Ramsay, who was appointed their tutor. Ramsay was a man of
learning and genius-a Scotsman, a Jacobite, and a Roman Catholic-
but he was also an ardent Freemason.

As a Jacobite he was prepared to bend all his powers to accomplish
the restoration of the Stuarts to what he believed to be their
lawful rights. 

As a Freemason he saw in that Institution a means, if properly
directed, of affecting that purpose. Intimately acquainted with
the old Legends of Masonry, he resolved so to modify them as to
transfer their Biblical to political allusions. With this design
he commenced the fabrication of a series of High Degrees, under
whose symbolism he concealed a wholly political object.

These High Degrees had also a Scottish character, which is to be
attributed partly to the nationality of Ramsay and partly to a
desire to effect a political influence among the Masons of
Scotland, in which country the first attempts for the restoration
of the Stuarts were to be made. Hence we have to this day in
Masonry such terms as "Ecossaim," " Scottish Knights of St.
Andrew," " Scottish Master," "Scottish Architect," and the "
Scottish Rite," the use of which words is calculated to produce
upon readers not thoroughly versed in Masonic history the
impression that the High Degrees of Freemasonry originated in
Scotland-an impression which it was the object of Ramsay to make.

There is another word for which the language of Masonry has been
indebted to Ramsay. This is Heredom, indifferently spelled in the
old rituals, Herodem, Heroden and Heredon. Now the etymology of
this word is very obscure and various attempts have been made to
trace it to some sensible signification.

One writer (1) thinks that the word is derived from the Greek 

(1) London Freemasons' Magazine

hieros, - "holy," - and domos, "house," and that it means the holy
house, that is the Temple, is ingenious and it has been adopted by
some recent authorities.

Ragon, (1) however, offers a different etymology. He thinks that
it is a corrupted form of the mediaeval Latin haredum, which
signifies a heritage, and that it refers to the Chateau of St.
Germain, the residence for a long time of the exiled Stuarts and
the only heritage which was left to them. If we accept this
etymology I should rather be inclined to think that the heritage
referred to the throne of Great Britain, which they claimed as
their lawful possession, and of which, in the opinion of their
partisans, they had been unrighteously despoiled.

This derivation is equally as ingenious and just as plausible as
the former one, and if adopted will add another link to the chain
of evidence which tends to prove that the high degrees were
originally fabricated by Ramsay to advance the cause of the Stuart
dynasty.

Whatever may be the derivation of the word the rituals leave us in
no doubt as to what was its pretended meaning. In one of these
rituals, that of the Grand Architect, we meet with the following
questions and answers:

Q.Where was your first Lodge held?
A. Between three mountains, inaccessible to the profane, where cock
never crew, lion roared, nor woman chattered; in a profound valley.
Q.What are these three mountains named?
A.Mount Moriah, in the bosom of the land of Gabaon, Mount Sinai,
and the Mountain of Heredon.
Q.What is this Mountain of Heredon ?
A. A mountain situated between the West and the North of Scotland,
at the end of the sun's course, where the first Lodge of Masonry
was held; in that terrestrial part which has given name to Scottish
Masonry.
Q. What do you mean by a profound valley?
A. I mean the tranquillity of our Lodges.

From this catechism we learn that in inventing the word 
Heredon to designate a fabulous mountain, situated in some unknown
part of Scotland, Ramsay meant to select that kingdom as the 

(1) "Orthodoxie Maconnique," p. 91

birthplace of those Masonic degrees by whose instrumentality he
expected to raise a powerful support in the accomplishment of the
designs of the Jacobite party. The selection of this country was
a tribute to his own national prejudices and to those of his
countrymen.

Again: by the "profound valley," which denoted " the tranquillity
of the Lodges," Ramsay meant to inculcate the doctrine that in the
seclusion of these Masonic reunions, where none were to be
permitted to enter except "the well-tried, true, and trusty," the
plans of the conspirators to overthrow the Hanoverian usurpation
and to effect the restoration of the Stuarts could be best
conducted. Fortunately for the purity of the non-political
character of the Masonic Institution, this doctrine was not
generally accepted by the Masons of Scotland.

But there is something else concerning this word Heredon, in its
connection with Stuart Freemasonry, that is worth attention.

There is an Order of Freemasonry, at this day existing, almost
exclusively in Scotland. It is caged the Royal Order of Scotland,
and consists of two degrees, entitled " Heredon of Kilwinning," and
" Rosy Cross." The first is said, in the traditions of the Order,
to have originated in the reign of David I., in the 12th century,
and the second to have been instituted by Robert Bruce, who revived
the former and incorporated the two into one Order, of which the
King of Scotland was forever to be the head. This tradition is,
however, attacked by Bro. Lyon, in his History of the Lodge of
Edinburgh. He denies that the Lodge at Kilwinning ever at any
period practiced or acknowledged any other than the Craft degrees,
or that there exists any tradition, local or national, worthy of
the name, or any authentic document yet discovered that can in the
remotest degree be held to identify Robert Bruce with the holding
of Masonic courts or the institution of a secret society at
Kilwinning

" The paternity of the Royal Order," he says, " is now pretty
generally attributed to a Jacobite Knight named Andrew Ramsay, a
devoted follower of the Pretender, and famous as the fabricator of
certain rites, inaugurated in France about 1735-40, and through the
propagator of which it must hoped the fallen fortunes of the
Stuarts would be retrieved."' (1)

On September 24, 1745, soon after the commencement of his

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 307

invasion of Britain, Charles Edward, the son of the Old Pretender,
or Chevalier St. George, styled by his adherents James III., is
said to have been admitted into the Order of Knights Templars, and
to have been elected its Grand Master, a position which he held
until his death. Such is the tradition, but here again we are met
by the authentic statements of Bro. Lyon that Templarism was not
introduced into Scotland until the year 1798. (1) It was then
impossible that Charles Edward could have been made a Templar at
Edinburgh in 1745.

It is, however, probable that he was invested with official
supremacy over the high degrees which had been fabricated by Ramsay
in the interest of his family, and it is not unlikely, as has been
affirmed, that, resting his claim on the ritual provision that the
Kings of Scotland were the hereditary Grand Masters of the Royal
Order, he had assumed that title. Of this we have something like
an authentic proof, something which it is refreshing to get hold of
as art oasis of history in this arid desert of doubts and
conjectures and assumptions.

In the year 1747, more than twelve months after his return from his
disastrous invasion of Scotland and England Charles Edward issued
a charter for the formation at the town of Arras in France of what
is called in the instrument "a Sovereign Primordial Chapter of Rose
Croix under the distinctive title of Scottish Jacobite."

In 1853, the Count de Hamel, Prefect of the Department in which
Arrasis situated, discovered an authentic copy of the charter in
the Departmental archives..

In this document, the Young Pretender gives his Masonic titles in
the following words:

"We, Charles Edward, King of England, France, Scotland, and
Ireland, and as such Substitute Grand Master of the Chapter of H.,
known by the title of Knight of the Eagle and Pelican, and since
our sorrows and misfortunes by that of Rose Croix," etc.

The initial letter " H." undoubtedly designates the Scottish
Chapter of Heredon. Of this body, by its ritual regulation, his
father as King of Scotland, would have been the hereditary Grand
Master, and he, therefore, only assumes the subordinate one of
Substitute.

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 287

This charter, of the authenticity of which, as well as the
transaction which it records, there appears to be no doubt, settles
the question that it was of the Royal Order of Scotland and not of
the Knights Templars that Charles Edward was made Grand Master, or
himself assumed the Grand Mastership, during his visit in 1745 to
Edinburgh. As that Order and the other High Degrees were
fabricated by the Chevalier Ramsay to promote the interests of his
cause, his acceptance or assumption of the rank and functions of a
presiding officer was a recognition of the plan to use Masonry as
a political instrument, and is, in fact, the first and fundamental
point in the history of the hypothesis of Stuart Masonry. We here
for the first time get tangible evidence that there was an attempt
to connect the institution of Freemasonry with the fortunes and
political enterprises of the Stuarts.

The title given to this primordial charter at Arras is further
evidence that its design was really political; for the words Ecosse
Jacobite, or Scottish Jacobite, were at that period universally
accepted as a party name to designate a partisan of the Stuart
pretensions to the throne of England.

The charter also shows that the organization of this chapter was
intended only as the beginning of a plan to enlist other Masons in
the same political design, for the members of the chapter were
authorized " not only to make knights, but even to create a chapter
in whatever town they mightthink proper," which they actually did
in a few instances, among them one at Paris in 1780, which in 1801
,was united to the Grand Orient of France.

A year after the establishment of the Chapter at Arras, the Rite of
the Veille Bru, or the Faithful Scottish Masons, was created at
Toulouse in grateful remembrance of the reception given by the
Masons of that place to Sir Samuel Lockhart, the aide-de-camp of
the Pretender. Ragon says thatthe favorites who accompanied the
prince to France were accustomed to sell to certain speculators
charters for mother Lodges, patents for Chapters,etc. These titles
were their property and they did not fail to use them as a means of
livelihood.

It has been long held as a recognized fact in Masonic history, that
the first Lodge established in France by a warrant from the Grand
Lodge of England was held in the year 1725. There is no doubt that
a Lodge of Freemasons met in that year at the house of one Hure,
and that it was presided over by the titular Earl of Derwentwater. 
But the researches of Bro. Hughan have incontestably proved that
this was what we would now call a clandestine body, and that the
first French Lodge legally established by the Grand Lodge of
England was in 1732. Besides the fact that there is no record in
that Grand Lodge of England of any Lodge in France at the early
date of 1725, it is most improbable that a warrant would have been
granted to so conspicuous a Jacobite as Derwentwater. Political
reasons of the utmost gravity at that time would have forbidden any
such action.

Charles Radcliffe, with his brother the Earl of Derwentwater, had
been avenged in England for the part taken by them in the rebellion
of 1715 to place James III. on the throne. They were both
condemned to death and the earl was executed, but Radcliffe made
his escape to France, where he assumed the title which, as he
claimed, had devolved upon him by the death of his brother's son. 
In the subsequent rebellion of 1745, having attempted to join the
Young Pretender, the vessel in which he sailed was captured by an
English cruiser, and being carried to London, he was decapitated in
December, 1746.

The titular Earl of Derwentwater was therefore a zealous Jacobite,
an attainted rebel who had been sentenced to death for his treason,
a fugitive from the law, and a pensioner of the Old Pretend. er or
Chevalier St. George, who, by the order of Louis XIV., had been
proclaimed King of England under the title of James III.

It is absurd, therefore, to suppose that the Grand Lodge of England
would have granted to him and to his Jacobite associates a warrant
for the establishment of a Lodge. Its statutes had declared in
very unmistakable words that a rebel against the State was not to
be countenanced in his rebellion. But no greater countenance could
have been given than to make him the Master of a new Lodge.

Such, however, has until very recently been universally accepted as
apart of the authentic history of Masonry in France. In the words
of a modern feuilletonist, " the story was too ridiculous to be
believed, and so everybody believed it."

But it is an undeniable fact that in 1725 an English Lodge was
really opened and held in the house of an English confectionier
named Hure. It was however without regular or legal authority and
was probably organized, although we have no recorded evidence to
that effect, through the advice and instructions of Ramsay-and was
a Jacobite Lodge consisting solely of the adherents and partisans
of the Old Pretender.

This is the most explicit instance that we have of the connection
of the Stuarts with Freemasonry. It was an effort made by the
adherents of that house to enlist the Order as an instrument to
restore its fallen fortunes. The principal members of the Lodge
were Derwentwater, Maskelyne, and Heguertly or Heguety. Of
Derwentwater I have already spoken ; the second was evidently a
Scotsman, but the name of the third has been so corrupted in its
French orthography that we are unable to trace it to its source. 
It has been supposed that the real name was Haggerty; if so, he was
probably an Irishman. But they were all Jacobites.

The Rite of Strict Observance, which at one time in the last
century took so strong a hold upon the Masons of Germany, and whose
fundamental doctrine was that of Ramsay-that Freemasonry was only
a continuation of the Templar system-is said to have been
originally erected in the interests of the Stuarts, and the
Brotherhood was expected to contribute liberally to the enterprises
in favor of the Pretender.

Upon a review of all that has been written on this very intricate
subject-the theories oftentimes altogether hypothetical,
assumptions in plane of facts, conjectures altogether
problematical, and the grain of history in this vast amount of
traditional and mythical trash so small-we may, I think, be
considered safe in drawing a few conclusions.

In the first place it is not to be doubted that at one time the
political efforts of the adherents of the dethroned and exiled
family of the Stuarts did exercise a very considerable effect on
the outward form and the internal spirit of Masonry, as it
prevailed on the continent of Europe.

In the symbolic degrees of ancient Craft Masonry, the influence was
but slightly felt. It extended only to a political interpretation
of the Legend of the Master's degree, in which sometimes the
decapitation of Charles I., and sometimes the forced abdication and
exile of James II., was substituted for the fate of Hiram, and to
a change in the substitute word so as to give an application of the
phrase the " Widow's son " to the child of Henrietta Maria, the
consort of Charles I. The effect of these change, except that of
the word which still continues in some Rites, has long since
disappeared, but their memory still remains as a relict of the
incidents of Stuart Masonry.

But the principal influence of this policy was shown in the
fabrication of what are called the " High Degrees," the " Hautes
Grades" of the French. Until the year 1728 these accumulations to
the body of Masonry were unknown. The Chevalier Ramsay, the tutor
of the Pretender in his childhood, and subsequently his most
earnest friend and ardent supporter, was the first to fabricate
these degrees, although other inventors were not tardy in following
in his footsteps.

These degrees, at first created solely to institute a form of
Masonry which should be worked for the purpose of restoring the
Pretender to the throne of his ancestors, have most of them become
obsolete, and their names alone are preserved in the catalogues of
collectors; but their effect is to this day seen in such of them as
still remain and are practiced in existing Rites, which have been
derived indirectly from the system invented in the Chapter of
Clermont or the Chateau of St. Germain. The particular design has
paned away but the general features still remain, by which we are
enabled to recognize the relicts of Stuart Masonry.

As to the time when this system first began to be developed there
can be but little doubt.

We must reject the notion that James II had any connection with it.
However unfitted he may have been by his peculiar temperament from
entering into any such bold conspiracy, the question is set at rest
by the simple fact that up to the time of his death there was no
Masonic organization upon which he or his partisans could have used

His son the Chevalier St. George was almost in the same category. 
He is described in history as a prince-pious, pacific and without
talents, incapable of being made the prominent actor in such a
drama, and besides, Speculative Masonry had not assumed the
proportions necessary to make it available as a part of a
conspiracy until long after he had retired from active life to the
practice of religious and recluse habits in Rome.

But his son Charles Edward, the Young Pretender as he was called,
was of an ardent temperament; an active genius, a fair amount of
talent, and a spirit of enterprise which well fitted him to accept
the place assigned him by Ramsay. Freemasonry had then begun to
excite public attention, and was already an institution that was
rapidly gaining popularity.

Ramsay saw in it what he deemed a fitting lever to be used in
theelevation of his patron to the throne, and Prince Charles Edward
with eagerness met his propositions and united with him in the
futile effort.

To the Chevalier Ramsay we must attribute the invention of Stuart
Masonry, the foundations of which he began to lay early in the 18th
century, perhaps with the tacit approval of the Old Pretender. 
About 1725, when the first Lodge was organized in Paris, under some
illegitimate authority, he made the first public exposition of his
system in the Scottish High Degrees which he at that time brought
to light. And finally the workings of the system were fully
developed when the Young Pretender began his unsuccessful career in
search of a throne, which once lost was never to be recovered.

This conspiracy of Ramsay to connect Freemasonry with the fortunes
of the Stuarts was the first attempt to introduce politics into the
institution. To the credit of its character as a school of
speculative philosophy, the attempt proved a signal failure.







CHAPTER XXXI

THE JESUITS IN FREEMASONRY


The opinion has been entertained by several writers of eminence
that theCompany of Jesus, more briefly styled the Jesuits, sought,
about the endof the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, to
mingle with theFreemasons and to bend the objects of that
Institution to the ambitiousdesigns of their own Order. This view
has been denied by other writers of equal eminence, though it is
admitted that Roman Catholic, if not jesuitical, features are to be
found in some of the high degrees.

It is contended by one German writer that the object of the Jesuits
in seeking a control of the Masonic Institution was that they might
be thus assisted in their design of establishing an aristocracy
within themselves, and that they sought to accomplish this object
by securing not only the direction of the Masonic Lodges, but also
by obtaining a monopoly of the schools and churches, and all the
pursuits of science, and even of business.

But the more generally accepted reason for this attempted
interference with the Lodges is that they thus sought by their
influence and secret working to aid the Stuarts to regain the
throne, and then, as an expected result, to re-establish the Roman
Catholic religion in England.

The first of these explanations is certainly more satisfactory than
the second. While there is a great want of historical testimony to
prove that the jesuits ever mingled with Freemasonry--a question to
be hereafter decided-there is no doubt of the egotistical and
ambitious designs (Of the disciples of Loyola to secure a control
of the public and private affairs of every government where they
could obtain a foothold. It was a knowledge of these designs that
led to the unpopularity of the Order among even Catholic sovereigns
and caused its total suppression, in 1773, by Pope Clement XIV.,
from which it was not relieved until 1814, when their privileges
were renewed by Pope Pius VII.

But I think that we must concur with Gadeike in the conclusion to
which he had arrived, that it is proved by history to be a
falsehood that Freemasonry was ever concealed under the mask of
Jesuitism, or that it derived its existence from that source. (1)
It is, however, but fair that we should collate and compare the
arguments on both sides.

Robison, who, where Masonry was concerned, could find a specter in
every bush, is, of course, of very little authority as to facts ;
but he may supply us with a record of the opinions which were
prevalent at the time of his writing. He says that when James II
fled from England to France, which was in 1688, his adherents took
Freemasonry with them to the continent, where it was received and
cultivated by the French in a manner suited to the tastes and
habits of that people. But he adds that " at this time, also, the
Jesuits took a more active hand in Freemasonry than ever. They
insinuated themselves into the English Lodges, where they were
caressed by the Catholics, who panted after the re-establishment of
their faith, and tolerated by the Protestant royalists, who thought
no concession too great a compensation for their services. At this
time changes were made in some of the Masonic symbols, particularly
in the tracing of the Lodge, which bear evident marks of Jesuitical
interference. (2)

Speaking of the High Degrees, the fabrication of which, however, he
greatly antedates, he says that " in all this progressive mummery
we see much of the hand of the Jesuits, and it would seem that it
was encouraged by the church." (3) But he thinks that the Masons,
protected by their secrecy, ventured further than the clergy
approved in their philosophical interpretations of the symbols,
opposing at last some of " the ridiculous and oppressive
superstitions of the church," (4) and thus he accounts for the
persecution of Freemasonry at a later period by the priests, and
their attempts to suppress the Lodges.

The story, as thus narrated by Robison, is substantially that which
has been accepted by all writers who trace the origin of
Freemasonry 


(1) "Freimaurer Lexicon," art. "Jesuiten."
(2) "Proofs of a Conspiracy," p. 27
(3) Ibid., p. 30
(4) Ibid

to the Jesuits. They affirm, as we have seen, that it was
instituted about the time of the expulsion of James II. from
England, or that if it was not then fabricated as a secret society,
it was at Icast modified in all its features from that form which
it originally had in England, and was adapted as a political engine
to aid in the restoration of the exiled monarch and in the
establishment in his recovered kingdom of the Roman Catholic
religion.

These theorists have evidently confounded primitive Speculative
Masonry, consisting only of three degrees, with the supplementary
grades invented subsequently by Ramsay and the ritualists who
succeeded him. But even if we relieve the theory of the connsbn
and view it as affirming that the Jesuits at the College of
Clermont modified the third degree and invented others, such as the
Scottish Knight of St. Andrew, for the purpose of restoring James
II. to the throne, we shall find no scintilla of evidence in
history to support this view, but, on the contrary, obstacles in
the way of anachronisms which it will be impossible to overcome.

James II abdicated the throne in 1688, and, after an abortive
attempt to recover it by an unsuccessful invasion of Ireland, took
up his residence at the Chateau of St. Germain-en-Laye, in France,
where he died in 1701.

Between the two periods of 1688, when James abdicated, and 1701,
when he died, no one has been enabled to find either in England or
elsewhere any trace of a third degree. Indeed, I am very sure it
can be proved that this degree was not invented until 1721 or 1722. 
It is, therefore, absolutely impossible that any modification could
have been made in the latter part of the 17th century of that which
did not exist until the beginning of the 18th. And if there was no
Speculative Masonry, as distinguished from the Operative Art
practiced by the mediaeval guilds, during the lifetime of James, it
is equally absurd to contend that supplementary grades were
invented to illustrate and complete a superstructure whose
foundations had not yet been laid.

The theory that the Jesuits in the 17th century had invented
Freemasonry for the purpose of effecting one of their ambitious
projects, or that they had taken it as it then existed, changed it,
and added to it for the same purpose, is absolutely untenable.

Another theory has been advanced which accounts for the
establishment of what has been called " Jesuitic Masonry," at about
the middle of the 18th century. This theory is certainly free
from the absurd anachronisms which we encounter in the former,
although the proofs that there ever was such a Masonry are still
very unsatisfactory.

It has been maintained that this notion of the intrusion, as it may
well be called, of the Jesuits into the Masonic Order has been
attributed to the Illuminati, that secret society which was
established by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria about the year 1776.

The original object of this society was, as its founder declared,
to enable its members to attain the greatest possible amount of
virtue, and by the association of good men to oppose the progress
of moral evil. To give it influence it was connected with
Freemasonry, whose symbolic degrees formed the substratum of its
esoteric instructions. This has led it incorrectly to be deemed a
Masonic Rite; it could really lay no claim to that character,
except inasmuch as it required a previous initiation into the
symbolic degrees to entitle its disciples to further advancement.

The charges made against it, that it was a political organization,
and that one of its deigns was to undermine the Christian religion,
although strenuously maintained by Barruel, Robison, and a host of
other adversaries, have no foundation in truth. The principles of
the order were liberal and philosophical, but neither revolutionary
nor anti-Christian.

As the defender of free thought, it came of course into conflict
with the Roman Catholic Church and the Company of Jesus, whose
tendencies were altogether the other way. The priests, therefore,
became its most active enemies, and their opposition was so
successful that it was suppressed in 1784.

There was also between Illuminism and the many Masonic Rites, which
about the period of its popularity were constantly arising in
Germany and in France, a species of rivalry. With the natural
egotism of reformers, the Illuminati sought to prove the
superiority of their own system to that of their rivals.

With this view they proclaimed that all the Lodges of Free. masons
were secretly controlled by the Jesuits ; that their laws and their
mysteries were the inventions of the same Order, of whom every
Freemason was unconsciously the slave and the instrument. Hence
they concluded that he who desired to possess the genuine mysteries
of Masonry must seek them not among the degrees of Rose Croix or
the Scottish Knights, or still less among the English Masons and
the disciples of the Rite of Strict Observance in Germany, but only
in the Eclectic Lodges that had been instituted by the Illuminati.

Such, says Barruel, was the doctrine of the Illuminati, advanced
for the purpose of elevating the character and aims of their own
institution. The French abbe is not generally trustworthy on any
subject connected, with Freemasonry, of which he was the avowed and
implacable foe, but we must acknowledge that he was not far from
wrong in calling this story of Jesuitic Masonry " a ridiculous and
contemptible fable." For once we are disposed to agree with him,
when he says in his fervent declamation, " If prejudice did not
sometimes destroy the faculty of reasoning, we should be astonished
that the Freemasons could permit themselves to be ensnared in so
clumsy a trap. What is it, in fact, but to say to the Mother Lodge
of Edinburgh, to the Grand Lodges of London and York, to their
rulers, and to all their Grand Masters: You thought that you held
the reins of the Masonic world, and you looked upon yourselves as
the great depository of its secrets, the distributors of its
diplomas ; but you are not so, and, without even knowing it, are
merely puppets of which the Jesuits hold the leading-strings, and
which they move at their pleasure.'" (1)

I think that with a little trouble we may be able to solve this
apparently difficult problem of the Jesuitical interference with
Freemasonry.

The Jesuits appear to have taken the priests of Egypt for their
model. Like them, they sought to be the conservators and the
interpreters of religion. The vows which they took attached them
to their Order with bonds as indissoluble as those that united the
Egyptian priests in the sacred college of Memphis. Those who
sought admission into their company were compelled to pass through
trials of their fortitude and fidelity. Their ambition was as
indomitable as their cunning was astute. They strove to be the
confessors and the counsellors of kings, and to control the
education of youth, that by these means they might become of
importance in the state, and direct the policy of every government
where they 

(1) "Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire du Jacobanisme," T.N., p.
291

were admitted. And this policy was on all occasions to be made
subservient to the interests of the church.

At one time they had not less than an hundred schools or colleges
in France, the most important being that of Clermont, which, though
at one time suppressed, had received renewed letters patent from
Louis XIV.

It was this College of Clermont, where James II. was a frequent
guest, led there by his religious feelings, that is said to have
been the seat of that conspiracy of the Stuart faction which was to
terminate either in the invention or the adoption of Freemasonry as
a means of restoring the monarch to his throne, and of
resuscitating the Roman Catholic religion in heretical England.

Now we may readily admit that the Jesuits were exceedingly anxious
to accomplish both these objects, and that for that purpose they
would enter into any intrigue which would probably lead to success.

With this design there can be but little doubt that they united
with the adherents of the Stuarts. But this conspiracy could not
have had any reference to a Masonic organization, because
Freemasonry was during the life of James II. wholly unknown in
France, and known in England only as a guild of Operative Masons,
into which a few non-Masons had been admitted through courtesy. It
certainly had not yet assumed the form in which we are called upon
to recognize it as the political engine used by the Jesuits. The
Grand Lodge of England, the mother of all modern Speculative
Masonry, had no existence until 1717, or sixteen years after the
death of the king.

We are bound, therefore, if on the ground of an anachronism alone,
to repudiate any theory that connects the Jesuits with Freemasonry
during the life of James II., although we may be ready to admit
their political conspiracy in the interests of that dethroned
monarch.

During the life of his son and putative successor, the titular
James III., Speculative Masonry was established in England and
passed over into France.

The Lodge established in Paris in 1725 was, I have no doubt, an
organization of the adherents of the Stuart family, as has already
been shown. It is probable that most of the members were 
Catholics and under the influence of the Jesuits. But it is not
likely that those priests took an active part in the internal
organization of the Lodge. They could do their work better outside
of it than within it. In the Rose Croix and some other of the High
Degrees we find the influences of a Roman Catholic spirit in the
original rituals, but this might naturally arise from the religious
tendencies of their founders, and did not require the special aid
of Jesuitism.

After the year 1738 the bull of excommunication of Pope Clement
XII. must have precluded the Jesuits from all connection with
Freemasonry except as its denouncers and persecutors, parts which
up to the present day they have uninterruptedly played.

In conclusion we must, I think, refuse to accept the theory which
makes a friendly connection between Freemasonry and Jesuitism as
one of those mythical stories which, born in the imagination of its
inventors, has been fostered only by the credulity of its
believers.

At this day I doubt if there is a Masonic scholar who would accept
it as more it as a fable not even " cunningly devised," though
there was a time when it was received as a part of the authentic
history of Freemasonry. 





CHAPTER XXXII

OLIVER CROMWELL AND FREEMASONRY



Three fables have been invented to establish a connection between
Freemasonry and the dynasty of the Stuarts one which made it the
purpose of the adherents of James II. to use the Institution as a
means of restoring that monarch to the throne; a second in which
the Jesuits were to employ it for the same purpose, as well as for
the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in England; the
third and most preposterous of these fables is that which
attributes the invention of Freemasonry as a secret society to
Oliver Cromwell, who is supposed to have employed it as a political
engine to aid him in the dethronement of Charles I., in the
abolition of the monarchy, and in the foundation of a republic on
its ruins, with himself for its head. 

The first and second of these fables have already been discussed. 
The consideration of the third will be the subject of the present
chapter. 

The theory that Freemasonry was instituted by Oliver Cromwell was
not at first received like the other two by any large portion of
the fraternity. It was the invention of a single mind and was
first made public in the year 1746, by the Abbe Larudan, who
presented his views in a work entitled Les Franc-Macons ecrasses,
a book which Klass, the bibliographer, says is the armory from
which all the enemies of Masonry have since delved their weapons of
abuse.

The propositions of Larudan are distinguished for their absolute
independence of all historical authority and for the bold
assumptions which are presented to the reader in the place of
facts.

His strongest argument for the truth of his theory is that the
purposes of the Masonic Institution and of the political course of
Cromwell are identical, namely, to sustain the doctrines of liberty
and equality among mankind.

Rejecting all the claims to antiquity that have been urged in
behalf of the Institution, he thinks that it was in England where
the Order of Freemasonry first saw the light of day, and that it is
to Cromwell that it owes its origin. And this theory he claims
(with what truth we know not) to have received from a certain Grand
Master with whose astuteness and sincerity he was well acquainted. 
But even this authority, he says, would not have been sufficient to
secure his belief, had it not afterward been confirmed by his
reading of the history of the English Protector and his mature
reflections on the morals and the laws of the Order, where he
detected at every step the presence of Cromwell.

The object of Cromwell, as it has been already said, was by the
organization of a secret society, whose members would be bound by
the most solemn ties of fraternity, to reconcile the various
religions and political sects which prevailed in England in the
reign of Charles I to the prosecution of his views, which were
equally opposed to the supremacy of the king and to the power of
the Parliament, and as a consequence of the destruction of both, to
the elevation of himself to the headship of affairs. 

In the execution of this plan Cromwell proceeded with his usual
caution and address. He first submitted the outline to several of
his most intimate friends such as Algernon Sidney, Harrington,
Monk, and Fairfax, and he held with them several private meetings.
"But it was not until the year 1648 that he began to take the
necessary steps for bringing it to maturity.

In that year, at a dinner which he gave to a large number of his
friends, he opened his designs to the company. When his guests,
among whom were many members of Parliament, both Presbyterians and
Independents the two rival religious sects of the day, had been
well feasted, the host dexterously led the conversation to the
subject of the unhappy condition of England. He showed in a
pathetic manner how the unfortunate nation had suffered distracting
conflicts of politics and religion, and he declared that it was a
disgrace that men so intelligent as those who then heard him did
not make an exertion to put an end to these distracting contests of
party. 

Scarcely had Cromwell ceased to speak when Ireton, his son-in-law,
who had been prepared for the occasion, rose, and, seconding the
sentiments of his leader, proceeded to show the absolute necessity
for the public good of a conciliation and union of the many
discordant parties which were then dividing the country. He
exclaimed with fervor that he would not, himself, hesitate to
sacrifice his fortune and his life to remedy such calamities, and
to show to the people the road they ought to take, to relieve
themselves from the yoke which was oppressing them and to break
the iron scepter under which they were groaning. But to do this it
was first necessary, he insisted, to destroy every power and
influence which had betrayed the nation. Then, turning to
Cromwell, he conjured him to explain his views on this important
matter, and to suggest the cure for these evils.

Cromwell did not hesitate to accept the task which had, apparently
without his previous concurrence, been assigned to him. Addressing
his guests in that metaphorical style which he was accustomed to
use, and the object of which was to confuse their intellects and
make them more ready to receive his boldest propositions, he
explained the obligation of a worship of God, the necessity to
repel force by force, and to deliver mankind from oppression and
tyranny. He then concluded his speech, exciting the curiosity of
his auditors by telling them that he knew a method by which they
could succeed in this great enterprise, restore peace to England,
and rescue it from the depth of misery into which it was plunged.
This method, he added, if communicated to the world, would win the
gratitude of mankind and secure a glorious memory for its authors
to the latest posterity.

The discourse was well managed and well received. All of his
guests earnestly besought him to make this admirable expedient
known to them. But Cromwell would not yield at once to their
importunities, but modestly replying that so important an
enterprise was beyond the strength of any one man to accomplish,
and that he would rather continue to endure the evils of a bad
government than, in seeking to remove them by the efforts of his
friends, to subject them to dangers which they might be unwilling
to encounter. 

Cromwell well understood the character of every man who sat at the
table with him, and he knew that by this artful address he should
still further excite their curiosity and awaken their enthusiasm.

And so it was that, after a repetition of importunities, he finally
consented to develop his scheme, on the condition that all the
guests should take a solemn oath to reveal the plan to no one and
to consider it after it had been proposed with absolutely
unprejudiced mind. This was unanimously assented to, and, the oath
of secrecy having been taken, Cromwell threw himself on his knees
and, extending his hands toward heaven, called on God and all the
celestial powers to witness the innocence of his heart and the
purity of his intentions. All this the Abbe Larudan relates with
a minuteness of detail which we could expect only from an eye-
witness of the scene.

Having thus made a deep impression on his guests, Cromwell said
that the precise moment for disclosing the plan had not arrived,
and that an inspiration from heaven, which he had just received,
instructed him not to divulge it until four days had elapsed.

The companion though impatient to receive a knowledge of the
important secret, were compelled to restrain their desires and to
agree to meet again at the appointed time and at a place which was
designated.

On the fourth day all the guests repaired to a house in King
Street, where the meeting took place, and Cromwell proceeded to
develop his plan. (And here the Abbe Larudan becomes fervid and
diffuse in the minuteness with which he describes what must have
been a wholly imaginary scene.) 

He commenced by conducting the guests into a dark room, where he
prepared their minds for what was going to occur by a long prayer,
in the course of which he gave them to understand that he was in
communion with the spirits of the blessed. After this he told
them that his design was to found a society whose only objects
would be to render due worship to God and to restore to England the
peace for which it so ardently longed. But this project, he added,
requited consummate prudence and infinite address to secure its
success. Then taking a censer in his bands, be filled the
apartment with the most subtle fumes, so as to produce a favorable
dies position in the company to hear what he had further to say.

He informed them that at the reception of a new adherent it was
necessary that be should undergo a certain ceremony, to which all
of them, without exception, would have to submit. He asked them
whether they were willing to pass through this ceremony, to which
proposition unanimous consent was given. He then chose from the
company five assistants to occupy appropriate places and to perform
prescribed functions. These assistants were a Master, two Wardens,
a Secretary, and an Orator.

Having made these preparations, the visitors were removed to
another apartment, which had been prepared for the purpose, and in
which was a picture representing the ruins of King Solomon's
Temple. From this apartment they were transferred to another, and,
being blindfolded, were finally invested with the secrets of
initiation. Cromwell delivered a discourse on religion and
politics, the purport of which was to show to the contending sects
of Presbyterians and Independents, representatives of both being
present, the necessity, for the public good, of abandoning all
their frivolous disputes, of becoming reconciled, and of changing
the bitter hatred which then inspired them for a tender love and
charity toward each other.

The eloquence of their artful leader had the desired effect, and
both sects united with the army, in the establishment of a secret
association founded on the professed principles of love of God and
the maintenance of liberty and equality among men, but whose real
design was to advance the projects of Cromwell, by the abolition of
the monarchy and the establishment of a commonwealth of which he
should be the head.

It is unfortunate for the completed symmetry of this rather
interesting fable that the Abbe has refrained from indulging his
imagination by giving us the full details of the form of
initiation. He has, however, in various parts of his book alluded
to so much of it as to enable us to learn that the instructions
were of a symbolic character, and that the Temple of Solomon
constituted the most prominent symbol.

This Temple had been built by divine command to be the sanctuary of
religion and as a place peculiarly consecrated to the performance
of its august ceremonies. After several years of glory and
magnificence it had been destroyed by a formidable army, and the
people who had been there accustomed to worship were loaded with
chains and carried in captivity to Babylon. After years of
servitude, an idolatrous prince, chosen as the instrument of Divine
clemency, had permitted the captives to return to Jerusalem and to
rebuild the Temple in its primitive splendor. 

It was in this allegory, says the Abbe, that the Freemasons of
Cromwell found the exact analogy of their society. The Temple in
its first splendor is figurative of the primitive state of man. 
The religion and the ceremonies which were there practiced are
nothing else than that universal law engraved on every heart whose
principles are found in the ideas of equity and charity to which
all men are obliged. The destruction of this Temple, and the
captivity and slavery of its worshippers, symbolized the pride and
ambition which have produced political subjection among men. The
unpitying hosts of Assyrians who destroyed the Temple and led the
people into captivity are the kings, princes, and magistrates whose
power has overwhelmed oppressed nations with innumerable evils. 
And finally, the chosen people charged with the duty of rebuilding
the Temple are the Freemasons, who are to restore men to their
original dignity.

Cromwell had divided the Order which he founded into three classes
or degrees. The third or Master's degree was of course not without
its Hiramic legend, but the interpretation of its symbolism was
very different from that which is given at the present day.

The Abbe thus explains it. The disorder of the workmen and the
confusion at the Temple were intended to make a profound impression
upon the mind of the candidate and to show him that the loss of
liberty and equality, represented by the death of Hiram, is the
cause of all the evils which affect mankind. While men lived in
tranquillity in the asylum of the Temple of Liberty they enjoyed
perpetual happiness. But they have been surprised and attacked by
tyrants who have reduced them to a state of slavery. This is
symbolized by the destruction of the Temple, which it is the duty
of the Master Masons to rebuild; that is to say, to restore that
liberty and equality which had been lost.

Cromwell appointed missionaries or emissaries, says Larudan, who
propagated the Order, not only over all England, but even into
Scotland and Ireland, where many Lodges were established.

The members of the Order or Society were first called Freemasons;
afterward the name was repeatedly changed to suit the political
circumstances of the times, and they were called Levelers, then
Independents, afterward Fifth Monarchy Men, and finally resumed
their original title, which they have retained to the present day. 

Such is the fable of the Cromwellian origin of Freemasonry, which
we owe entirely to the inventive genius of the Abbe Larudan. And
yet it is not wholly a story of the imagination, but is really
founded on an extraordinary distortion of the facts of history.

Edmund Ludlow was an honest and honorable man who took at first a
prominent part in the civil war which ended in the decapitation of
Charles I., the dissolution of the monarchy, and the establishment
of the Commonwealth. He was throughout his whole life a consistent
and unswerving republican, and was as much opposed to the political
schemes of Cromwell for his own advancement to power as he was to
the usurpation of unconstitutional power by the King. In the
language of the editor of his memoirs, " He was an enemy to all
arbitrary government, though gilded over with the most specious
pretences ; and not only disapproved the usurpation of Cromwell,
but would have opposed him with as much vigor as he had done the
King, if all occasions of that nature had not been cut off by the
extraordinary jealousy or vigilance of the usurpers." (1)

Having unsuccessfully labored to counteract the influence of
Cromwell with the army, he abandoned public affairs and retired to
his home in Essex, where he remained in seclusion until the
restoration of Charles II., when he fled to Switzerland, where he
resided until his death.

During his exile, Ludlow occupied his leisure hours in the
composition of his Memoirs, a work of great value as a faithful
record of the troublous period in which he lived and of which he
was himself a great part. In these memoirs he has given a copious
narrative of the intrigues by which Cromwell secured the alliance
of the army and destroyed the influence of the Parliament. 

The work was published at Vevay, in Switzerland, under the title of
Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, Esq.- Lieutenant-General of the Tories in 
Ireland, One of the Council of State, and a Member of the
Parliament which began on November 3, 1640. It is in two volumes,
with a supplementary one containing copies of important papers. 
The edition from which I cite bears the date of 1698. There may
have been an earlier one. With these memoirs the Abbe Larudan
appears to have been well acquain ted. He had undoubtedly read
them carefully, for be has made many quotations and has repeatedly
referred to Ludlow as his authority.

But unfortunately for the Abbe's intelligence, or far more probably
for his honesty, he has always applied that Ludlow said of the
intrigues of Cromwell for the organization of a new party as if it
were meant to describe the formation of a new and secret society. 

Neither Ludlow nor any other writer refers to the existence of
Freemasonry as we now have it and as it is described by the Abbe 

(1) Ludlow's "Memoirs," Preface, p. iv.

Larudan in the time of the civil wars. Even the Operative Masons
were not at that period greatly encouraged, for, says Northouck,"
no regard to science and elegance was to be expected from the sour
minds of the puritanical masters of the nation between the fall of
Charles I and the restoration of his son." (1)

The Guild of Freemasons, the only form in which the Order was known
until the 18th century, was during the Commonwealth discouraged and
architecture was neglected. In the tumult of war the arts of peace
are silent. Cromwell was, it is true, engaged in many political
intrigues, but he had other and more effective means to accomplish
his ends than those cd Freemasonry of whose existence at that time,
except as a guild of workmen, we have no historical evidence, but
a great many historical facts to contradict its probability.

The theory, therefore, that Freemasonry owes its origin to Oliver
Cromwell, who invented it as a means of forwarding his designs
toward obtaining the supreme power of the state, is simply a fable,
the invention of a clerical adversary of the Institution, and
devised by him plainly to give to it a political character, by
which, like his successors Barruel and Robison, he sought to injure
it.

(1) Northouck's Constitutions," p. 141





CHAPTER XXXIII

THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND FREEMASONRY



The hypothesis that Freemasonry was instituted in the 17th century
and in the reign of Charles II., by a set of philosophers and
scientists who organized it under the title of the " Royal
Society," is the last of those theories which attempts to connect
the Masonic Order with the House of Stuart that we will have to
investigate.

The theory was first advanced by an anonymous writer in the German
Mercury, a Masonic journal published about the close of the last
century at Weimar, and edited by the celebrated Christopher Martin
Wieland.

In this article the writer says that Dr. John Wilkins one of the
most learned men of his time, and the brother-in-law of Oliver
Cromwell, becoming discontented with the administration of Richard
Cromwell, his son and successor, began to devise the means of re-
establishing the royal authority. With this view he suggested the
idea of organizing a society or club, in which, under the pretence
of cultivating the sciences the partisans of the king might meet
together with entire freedom. General Monk and several other
military men, who had scarcely more learning than would enable them
to write their names, were members of this academy. Their meetings
were always begun with a learned lecture, for the sake of form, 
but the conversation afterward turned upon politics and the
interests of the king. And this politico-philosophical club, which
subsequently assumed, after the Restoration, the title of the "
Royal Society of Sciences," he asserts to have been the origin of
the fraternity of Freemasons.

We have already had abundant reason to see, in the formation of
Masonic theories, what little respect has been paid by their fram
ers to the contradictory facts of history nor does the present
hypothesis afford any exception to the general rule of dogmatic
assumption and unfounded assertion. 

Christopher Frederick Nicolai, a learned bookseller of Berlin,
wrote and published, in 1783, an Essay on the Accusations made
against the Order of Knights Templar and their Mystery with an
appendix on the Origin of the Fraternity of Freemasons. (1)

In this work he vigorously attacks the theory of the anonymous
writer in Wieland's Mercury, and the reasons on which he grounds
his dissent are well chosen but they do not cover the whole ground. 
Unfortunately, Nicolai had a theory of his own to foster, which
also in a certain way connects Freemasonry with the real founders
of the Royal Society, and the impugnment of the hypothesis of
Wieland's contribution in its whole extent impugns also his own. 
Two negatives in most languages are equivalent to an affirmative,
but nowhere are two fictions resolvable into a truth. 

The arguments of Nicolai against the Wieland theory are, however,
worth citation, before we examine his own.

He says that Wilkins could scarcely have been discontented with the
government of Richard Cromwell, since it was equally as
advantageous to him as that of his father. He was (and he quotes
Wood in the Athena Oxonienses as his authority) much opposed to the
court, and was a zealous Puritan before the rebellion. 

In 1648 he was made the Master of Wadham College, in the place of
a royalist who had been removed. In 1649, after the decapitation
of Charles I, he joined the republican party and took the oath of
allegiance to the Commonwealth. In 1656 he married the sister of
Cromwell, and under Richard received the valuable appointment of
Master of Trinity College, which, however, he lost upon the
restoration of the monarchy in the following year.

"Is it credible," says Nicolai, "that this man could have
instituted a society for the purpose of advancing the restoration
of the king; a society all of whose members were of the opposite
party? The celebrated Dr. Goddard, who was one of the most
distinguished members, was the physician and favorite of Cromwell,
whom, after the death of the King, he attended in his campaigns in
Ireland and Scotland. It is an extraordinary assertion that a 

(1) "Versuch uber die Besschuldigungen, welche dem Tempelherrn
orden gemacht worden und uber dessen Geheimniss; nebst einem
Anhange uber das Enstehen der Freimaurergesellschaft," Berlin and
Stettin, 1783.

discontent with the administration of Richard Cromwell should have
given rise in 1658 to a society which was instituted in 1646. It
is not less extraordinary that this society should have held its
meetings in a tavern. It is very certain that in those days of
somber Puritanism the few taverns to be found in London could not
have been used as places of meeting for associations consisting of
men of all conditions, as is now the custom. There would have been
much imprudence in thus exposing secret deliberations on an affair
equally dangerous and important to the inspection of all the spies
who might be congregated in a tavern."

He asserts that the first meetings of the society were held at the
house of Dr. Goddard and of another member, and afterward at
Cheapside and at Gresham College. And these facts are proved by
the records of the society, as published by its annalists.

As to the statement that Monk was one of the members of the
society-a fact that would be important in strengthening the theory
that it was organized by the friends of the monarchy and with a
design of advancing its restoration-he shows the impossibility
that it could be correct, because Monk was a prisoner in the Tower
from 1643 until 1647, and after his release in that year spent only
a month in London, not again visiting that city till 1659, when he
returned at the head of an army and was engaged in the arrangement
of such delicate affairs and was so narrowly watched that it is not
possible to be behaved that with his well-known caution he would
have taken part in any sort of political society whatever, while
the society would have acted very inconsiderately in admitting into
its ranks military men who could scarcely write, and that too at a
time when distrust had risen to its height.

But a better proof than any advanced by Nicolai, that Monk had
nothing to do with the establishment of the Royal Society, whatever
may have been its object, is that his name does not appear upon
the list of original or early members, taken from the official
records and published by Dr. Thompson in his history of the
society.

Finally Nicolai asserts very truthfully that its subsequent history
has shown that this society was really engaged in scientific
pursuits, and that politics were altogether banished from its
conferences. But he also contends, but with less accuracy, that
the political principles of its members were opposed to the
restoration of the monarchy, for which statement there is no
positive authority.

Hence Nicolai concludes that " there is no truth in the statements
of the anonymous writer in Wieland's Mercury, except that the
restoration was opposed in secret by a certain society."

And now he advances his own theory, no less untenable than the one
he is opposing, that this society " was the Freemasons, who had
nothing in common with the other, except the date of foundation,
and whose views in literature as well as in politics were of an
entirely opposite character." This was the theory of Nicolai-not
that Freemasonry originated in the Royal Society, but that it was
established by certain learned men who sought to advance the
experimental philosophy which had just been introduced by Bacon. 
But the same idea was sought by the originators of the Royal
Society, and as many of the founders of this school were also among
the founders of the Royal Society, it seems difficult to separate
the two theories so as to make of each a distinct and independent
existence. But it will be better to let the Berlin bookseller
explain his doctrine in his own language, before an attempt is made
to apply to it the canons of criticism. 

He commences by asserting that one of the effects of the labors of
Andrea and the other Rosicrucians was the application of a
wholesome,criticism to the examination of philosophical and
scientific subjects. He thinks even that the Fama Fraternitatis,
the great work of Andrea, had first suggested to Bacon the notion
of his immortal work on The Advancement of Learning. At the same
time in which Bacon flourished and taught his inductive philosophy,
the Rosicrucians had introduced a system of philosophy which was
established on the phenomena of nature.

Lord Bacon had cultivated these views in his book De Augmentis
Scientiarum, except that he rejected the Rosicrucian method of
esoteric instruction. Everything that he taught was to be open and
exoteric. Therefore, as he had written his great work in the Latin
language, for the use of the learned, he now composed his New
Atlantis in English, that all classes might be able to read it.

In this work is contained his celebrated romance of the House of 
Solomon, which Nicolai thinks may have had its influence in
originating the society of Freemasons.

In this fictitious tale Bacon supposes that a vessel lands on an
unknown island, called Bensalem, over which in days of yore a
certain King Solomon reigned. This King had a large
establisliment, which was called the House of Solomon or the
College of the Six Days' Work, in allusion to the six days of the
Mosaic account of the creation. He afterward describes the immense
apparatus which was there employed in physical researches. There
were deep grottoes and tall bowers for the observation o f the
phenomena of nature ; artificial mineral-waters; huge buildings in
which meteors, the wind, rain and thunder and lightning were
imitated; extensive botanic gardens, and large fields in which all
kinds of animals were collected for the study of their instinct and
habits, and houses filled with all the wonders of nature and art.
There were also a great number of learned men, to whom the
direction of these things was intrusted. They made journeys into
foreign countries, and observations on what they saw. They wrote,
they collected, they determined results, and deliberated together
as to what was proper to be published.

This romance, says Nicolai, which was in accord with the prevailing
taste of the age, contributed far more to spread the views of Bacon
on the observation of nature than his more learned and profound
work had been able to do. The House of Solomon attracted the
attention of everybody. King Charles I was anxious to establish
something like it, but was prevented by the civil wars. 
Nevertheless this great idea, associated with that of the
Rosicrucians, continued to powerfully agitate the minds of the
learned men of that period, who now began to be persuaded of the
necessity of experimental knowledge.

Accordingly, in 1646, a society of learned men was established, all
of whom were of Bacon's opinion, that philosophy and the physical
sciences should be placed within the reach of all thinking minds. 
They held meetings at which--believing that instruction in physics
was to be sought by a mutual communication of ideas-they made many
scientific experiments in common. Among these men were John
Wallis, John Wilkins, Jonathan Goddard, Samuel Foster, Francis
Glisson, and many others, all of whom were, fourteen years
afterward, the founders of the Royal Society.

But proceedings like these were not congenial with the intellectual
condition of England at that period. A melancholy and somber
spirit had overshadowed religion, and a mystical theology, almost
Gnostic in its character had infected the best minds. Devotion had
passed into enthusiasm and that into fanaticism, and sanguinary
wars and revolutions were the result. It was then that such
skillful hypocrites as Cromwell and Breton took advantage of this
weakness for the purpose of concealing and advancing their own
designs.

The taint of this dark and sad character is met with in all the
science, the philosophy, and even in the oratory and poetry of the
period. Astrology and Theurgy were then in all their glory. 
Chemistry, which took the place of experimental science, was as
obscure as every other species of learning, and its facts were
enveloped in the allegories of the Alchemists and the Rosicrucians. 
A few learned men, disheartened by this obscuration of intellectual
light, had organized a society in 1646 ; but as they were still
imbued with a remnant of the popular prejudice, they were the
partisans of the esoteric method of instruction, and did not
believe that human knowledge should be exoterically taught so as to
become accessible to all. Hence their society became a secret one. 
The first members of this society were, says Nicolai, Elias
Ashmole, the celebrated antiquary; William Lilly, a famous
astrologer; Thomas Wharton, a physician; George Wharton; William
Oughtred, a mathematician; Dr. John Hewitt, and Dr. John Pearson,
both clergymen, and several others. The annual festival of the
Astrologers gave rise to this association. It had previously held
one meeting at Warrington, in Lancashire, but it was first firmly
established at London.

Its object was to build the House of Solomon in a literal sense but
the establishment was to remain as secret as the island of Bensalem
in Bacon's New Atlantis,- that is, they were to be engaged in the
study of nature, but the instructions were to remain within the
society in an esoteric form ; in other words, it was to be a secret
society. Allegories were used by these philosophers to express
their ideas. First were the ancient columns of Hermes, by which
Jamblichus pretended that he had enlightened all the doubts of
Porphyry. You then mounted, by several steps, to a checkered floor
divided into four regions, to denote the four superior sciences,
after which came the types of the six days, which expressed the
object of the society. All of which was intended to teach the
doctrines that God created the world and preserves it by fixed
principles, and that he who seeks to know these principles, by an
investigation of the interior of nature, approximates to God and
obtains from His grace the power of commanding nature. This, says
Nicolai, was the essence of the mystical and alchemical doctrine
of the age, so that we may conclude that the society which he has
been describingwas in reality an association of alchemists, or
rather of astrologers. 

In these allegories, for which Nicolai may have been indebted to
the alchemical writings of that period, to which he refers, or for
which he may have drawn on his own imagination-we are uncertain
which, as he sees no authorities-we may plainly detect Masonic
symbols, such as the pillars of the porch of the Temple, the
mystical ladder of steps, and the mosaic pavement, and thus it is
that he seems to find an analogy between Freemasonry and the secret
society that he has been describing.

He still further pursues the hypothesis of their identity in the
following remarks: 

"It is known," he say, " that all who have the right of citizenship
in London, whatever may be their rank or condition, must be
recognized as members of some company or corporation. But it is
always easy for a man of quality or of letters to gain admission
into one of these companies. Now, several members of the society
that has just been described were also members of the Company of
Masons. This was the reason of their holding their meetings at
Masons' Hall, in Masons' Alley, Basinghall Street. They all
entered the company and assumed the name of Free and Accepted
Masons, adopting, besides, all its external marks of distinction. 
Free is the title which every member of this body assumes in
England; the right or franchise is called Freedom,- the brethren
call themselves Freemen, Accepted means, in this place, that this
private society had been accepted or incorporated into that of the
Masons, and thus it was that chance gave birth to that denomination
of Freemasons which afterward became so famous, although it is
possible that some allusion may also have been intended to the
building of the House of Solomon, an allegory with which they were
also familiar."

Hence, according to the theory of Nicolai, two famous associations,
each of a character peculiar to itself, were at the same period
indebted to the same cause for their existence. These were the
Royal Society and the Freemasony " Both," he says, " had the same
object and the difference in their proceedings arose only from a
difference in some of the opinions of their members. The one
society had adopted as its maxim that the knowledge of nature and
of natural science should be indiscriminately communicated to all
classes of men, while the other contended that the secrets of
nature should be restricted to a small number of chosen recipients. 
The former body, which was the Royal Society, therefore held open
meetings; the latter, which was the Society of Freemasons,
enveloped its transactions in mystery." 

"In those days," says Nicolai, " the Freemasons were altogether
devoted to the King and opposed to the Parliament, and they soon
occupied themselves at their meetings in devising the means of
sustaining the royal cause. After the death of Charles I., in
1649, the Royalists becoming still more closely united, and,
fearing to be known as such, they joined the assemblies of the
Freemasons for the purpose of concealing their own identity, and
the good intentions of that society being well known many persons
of rank were admitted into it. But as the objects which occupied
their attention were no other than to diminish the number of the
partisans of Parliament, and to prepare the way for the restoration
of Charles II. to the throne, it would have been very imprudent to
communicate to all Freemasonry without exception, the measures
which they deemed it expedient to take, and which required an
inviolable secrecy. Accordingly they adopted the method of
selecting a certain number of their members, who met in secret, and
this committee, which had nothing at all to do with the House of
Solomon, selected allegories, which had no relation to the former
ones, but which were very appropriate to their design. These new
Masons took Death for their symbol. They lamented the death of
their master, Charles I ; they nursed the hope of vengeance on his
murderers; they sought to re-establish the Word, or his son,
Charles II., for they applied to him the word Logos, which, in its
theological sense, means both the Word and the Son; and the queen,
Henrietta Maria, the relict of Charles I., being thenceforth the
head of the party, they designated themselves the Widow's Sons. 

"They agreed also upon private signs and modes of recognition, by
which the friends of the royal cause might be able to distinguish
each other from their enemies. This precaution was of great
utility to those who traveled, and especially to those of them who
retired with the court to Holland, where, being surrounded by the
spies of the Commonwealth, it was necessary to be exceedingly
diligent in guarding their secret." 

Nicolai then proceeds to show how, after the death of Oliver
Cromwell and the abdication of his son Richard, the administration
of affairs fell into the hands of the chiefs of various parties,
whence resulted confusion and dissensions, which tended to render
the cause of the monarchy still more popular. The generals of the
army were, however, still opposed to any notion of a restoration
and the hopes of the royalis ts centered upon General Monk, who
commanded the army in Scotland, and who, it was known, had begun to
look favorably on propositions which he had received in 1659 from
the exiled King. 

It then became necessary to bind their secret committee still more
closely, that they might treat of Scottish affairs in reference to
the interests of the King. They selected new allegories, which
symbolized the critical state to which they were reduced, and the
virtues, such as prudence, pliancy, and courage, which were
necessary to success. They selected a new device and a new sign, 
and in their meetings spoke allegorically of taking care, in that
wavering and uncertain condition of falling, lest the arms should
be broken." It is probable that, in this last and otherwise
incomprehensible sentence, Nicolai refers to some of the changes
made in the High Degrees, fabricated about the middle of the 18th
century, but whose invention he incorrectly, but like most Masonic
historians of his day, attributes to an earlier date.

As some elucidation of what he says respecting the fact of failing
and the broken arm, we find Nicolai afterward quoting a small
dictionary which he says appeared about the beginning of the 18th
century, and in which we meet with the following definition :

"Mason's Wound, An imaginary wound above the elbow, to represent a
fracture of the arm occasioned by a fall from an elevated place." 


"This," says Nicolai, "is the authentic history of the origin of
the Society of Freemasons, and of the first changes that it
underwent, changes which transformed it from an esoteric society of
natural philosophers into an association of good patriots and loyal
subjects; and hence it was that it subsequently took the name of
the Royal Art as applied to Masonry." 

He concludes by affirming that the Society of Freemasons continued
to assemble after the Restoration, in 1660, and even made, in 1663,
several regulations for its preservation, but the zeal of its
members was diminished by the changes which science and manners
underwent during the reign of Charles II. Its political character
ceased by the advent of the king, and its esoteric method of
teaching the natural sciencess must have been greatly interrupted. 

The Royal Society, whose method had been exoteric and open, and
from whose conferences politics were excluded, although its members
were, in principle, opposed to the Restoration, had a more
successful progress, and was joined by many of the Freemasons, the
most prominent of whom was Elias Ashmole, who, Nicolai says,
changed his opinions and became a member of the Royal Society.

But, to prevent its dissolution, the Society of Freemasons made
several changes in its constitution, so as to give it a specific
design. This was undertaken and the symbols of the Society were
altered so as to substitute the Temple of Solomon in the place of
Bacon's House of Solomon, as a more appropriate allegory to express
the character of the new institution. Nicolai thinks that the
building of St. Paul's Church and the persecutions endured by Sir
Christopher Wren may have contributed to the selection of these new
symbols. But on this point he does not insist.

Such is the theory of Nicolai. Rejecting the idea that the origin
of the Order of Freemasonry is to be traced to the founders of the
Royal Society, he claims to have found it in a society of
contemporaneous philosophers who met at Masons' Hall, in Basinghall
Street, and assumed the name of Free and Accepted Masons, and who,
claiming, in opposition to the views of the members of the Royal
Society, that all s6ences should be communicated esoterically,
therefore held their meetings in secret, their real object therefor
being to nourish a political conspiracy for the advancement of the
cause of the monarchy and the restoration of the exiled King.

Nicolai does not expressly mention the Astrologers, but it is very
evident that he alludes to them as the so-called philosophers who
originated this secret society, and to them, therefore, he
attributes the invention of the Masonic system, as it now exists,
after the necessary changes which policy and the vicissitudes of
the times had induced.

Nicholas de Bonneville, the author of the essay entitled The
Jesuits chased out of Freemasonry, entertained a similar opinion.
He says that in 1646 a society of Rosicrucians was formed at
London, modeled on the ideas of the New Atlantis of Bacon. It
assembled in Masons' Hall, where Ashmole and other Rosicrucians
modified the formula of reception of the Operative Masons, which
had consisted only of a few ceremonies used by craftsmen, and
substituted a mode of initiation founded in part on the mysteries
of Ancient Egypt and Greece. They then fabricated the first degree
of Masonry as ive non, have it, and, to distinguish themselves from
common Masons, called themselves Freemasons. Thory cites this
without comment in his Acta Latomorum, and gives it as a part of
the authentic annals of the Order. 

But ingenious and plausible as are these views, both of Nicolai and
Bonneville, they unfortunately can not withstand the touchstone of
all truth, the proofs of authentic history. 

It will be seen that we have two hypotheses to investigate-first
that advanced by the contributor to Wieland's Mercury, that the
Society of Freemasons was originated by the founders of the Royal
Society, and that maintained by Nicolai and Bonneville, that it
owes its invention to the Astrologers who were contemporary with
these founders. Both hypotheses place the date of the invention in
the same year, 1646, and give London as the place of the invention.

We must first direct our attention to the theory which maintains
that the Royal Society was the origin of Freemasonry, and that the
founders of that academy were the establishers of the Society of
Freemasons.

This theory, first advanced, apparently, by the anonymous
contributor to Wieland's Mercury, was exploded by Nicolai, in the
arguments heretofore quoted, but something may be added to increase
the strength of what he has said.

We have the explicit testimony of all the historians of that
institution that it was not at all connected with the political
contests of the day, and that it was founded only as a means of
pursuing philosophical and scientific inquiries.

Dr. Thompson, who derives his information from the early records of
the society, says that " it was established for the express purpose
of advancing experimental philosophy, and that its foundation was
laid during the time of the civil wars and was owing to the
accidental association of several learned men who took no part in
the disturbances which agitated Great Britain." (1) 

He adds that "about the year 1645 several ingenious men who 

(1) "History of the Royal Society," by Thomas Thompson, M.D.,
F.R.S., LL.D. London, 1812, p. 1

resided in London and were interested in the progress of
mathematics and natural philosophy agreed to meet once a week to
discourse upon subjects connected with these sciences. These
meetings were suspended after the resignation of Richard Cromwell,
but revived in 1660, upon the Restoration."' (1)

They met at first in private rooms, but afterward in Gresham
College and then in Arundel House. Their earliest code of laws
shows that their conferences were not in secret, but open to
properly introduced visitors, as they still continue to be.

Weld, the librarian of the society, says that to it "attaches the
renown of having from its foundation applied itself with untiring
zeal and energy to the great objects of its institution." (2) He
states that, although the society was not chartered until 1660, "
there is no doubt that a society of learned men were in the habit
of assembling together to discuss scientific subjects for many
years previous to that time." (3)

Spratt, in his history of the society, says that in the gloomy
season of the civil wars they had selected natural philosophy as
their private diversion, and that at their rneetings " they chiefly
attended to some particular trials in Chemistry or Mechanics."

The testimony of Robert Boyle, Wallis, and Evelyn, contemporaries
of the founders, is to the same effect, that the society was simply
philosophical in its character and without any political design Dr.
Wallis, who was one of the original founders, makes this statement
concerning the origin and objects of the society in his Account of
some Passages in my own Life. (4)

" About the year 1645, while I lived in London (at a time when, by
our civil wars, academic studies were much interrupted in both our
Universities), besides the conversation of divers eminent divines,
as to matters theological, I had the opportunity of being
acquainted with divers worthy persons inquisitive into natural
philosophy and other paths of human learning, and 
particularly what has 

(1) "History of the Royal Society," by Thomas Thompson, M.D.,
F.R.S., LL.D., London, 1812, p.1
(2) "A History of the Royal Society," with Memoirs of its
Presidents, by Charles Richard Weld, Esq., 2 vols., London, 1848,
I. 27
(3) Ibid
(4) In Hearne's edition of Langsteff's chronicle.


been called the New Philosophy or Experimental Philosophy. We did,
by agreements, divers of us meet weekly in London on a certain day
to treat and discourse of such affairs." Wallis says that the
subjects pursued by them related to physics, astronomy, and natural
philosophy, such as the circulation of the blood, the Copernican
system, the Torricellian experiment, etc.

In all these authentic accounts of the object of the society there
is not the slightest allusion to it as a secret organization, nor
any mention of a form of initiation, but only a reception by the
unanimous vote of the members, which reception, as laid down in the
bylaws consisted merely in the president taking the newly elected
candidate by the found and saluting him as a member or fellow of
the society. 

The fact is that at that period many similar societies had been
instituted in different countries of Europe, such as the Academia
del Corriento at Florence and the Academy of Sciences at Paris,
whose members, like those of the Royal Society of London, devoted
themselves to the development of science.

This encouragement of scientific pursuits may be principally
attributed to many circumstances that followed the revival of
learning; the advent of Greeks into Western Europe, imbued with
(Grecian literature; Bacon's new system of philosophy, which alone
was enough to awaken the intellects of all thinking men ; and the
labors of Galileo and his disciples. All these had prepared many
minds for the pursuit of philosophy by experimental and inductive
methods, which took the place of the superstitious dogmas of
preceding ages.

It was through such influences as these, wholly unconnected with
any religious or political aspirations, that the founders of the
Royal Society were induced to hold their meetings and to cultivate
without the restraints of secrecy their philosophical labors, which
culminated in 1660 in the incorporation of an institution of
learned men which at this day holds the most honored and prominent
place among the learned societies of the world.

But it is in vain to look in this society, either in the mode of
its organization, in the character of its members, or in the nature
of their pursuits, for any connection with Freemasonry, an
institution entirely different in its construction and its
objects. The theory, therefore, that Freemasonry is indebted for
is origin to the Royal Society of London must be rejected as 
wholly without authenticity or even plausibility. But the theory
of Nicolai, which attributes its origin to another contemporaneous
society, whose members were evidently Astrologers, is somewhat more
plausible, although equally incorrect. Its consideration must,
however, be reserved as the subject of another chapter.

CHAPTER XXXIV

THE ASTROLOGERS AND THE FREEMASONS


We have seen, in the preceding chapter, that Nicolai had sought to
trace the origin of Freemasonry to a society organized in 1646 by
a sect of philosophers who were contemporary with, but entirely
distinct from, those who founded the Royal Society. Though he does
not explicitly state the fact, yet, from the names of the persons
to whom he refers, there can be no doubt that he alluded to the
Astrologers, who at that time were very popular in England. 

Judicial astrology, or the divination of the future by the stars,
was, of all the delusions to which the superstition of the Middle
Ages gave birth, the most popular. It prevailed over all Europe,
so that it was practiced by the most learned, and the predictions
of its professors were sought with avidity and believed with
confidence by the most wealthy and most powerful. Astrologers often
formed a part of the household of princes, who followed their
counsels in the most important matters relating to the future,
while men and women of every rank sought these charlatans that they
might have their nativities cast and secure the aid of their occult
art in the recovery of stolen goods or the prognostications of 
happy marriages or of successful journeys.

Astrology was called the Daughter of Astronomy, and the scholars
who devoted themselves to the study of the heavenly bodies for the
purposes of pure science were often called upon to use their
knowledge of the stars for the degrading purpose of astrological
predictions. Kepler, the greatest astronomer of that age, was
compelled against his will to pander to the popular superstition,
that he might thus gain a livelihood and be enabled to pursue his
nobler studies. In one of his works he complains that the scanty
reward of an astronomer would not provide him with bread, if men
did not entertain hopes of reading the future in the heavens. And
so he tampered with the science that he loved and adorned, and made
predictions for inquisitive consulters, although, at the same time,
he declared to his friends that "they were nothing but worthless
conjecture."

Cornelius Agrippa, though he cultivated alchemy, a delusion but
little more respectable than that of astrology, when commanded by
his patroness, the Queen mother of France, to practice the latter,
expressed his annoyance at the task. Of the Astrologers he said,
in his great work on the Vanity of the Arts and Sciences, "these
fortune tellers do find entertainment among princes and
magistrates, from whom they receive large salaries; but, indeed,
there is no class of men who are more pernicious to a commonwealth. 
For, as their skill lies in the adaptation of ambigu ous
predictions to events after they have happened, so it happens that
a man who lives by falsehood shall by one accidental truth obtain
more credit than he will lose by a hundred manifest errors."

The 16th and 17th centuries were the golden age of astrology in
England. We know all that is needed of this charlatanism and of the
character of its professors from the autobiography of William
Lilly, himself an English astrologer of no mean note; perhaps,
indeed, the best-educated and the most honest of those who
practiced this delusion in England in the 17th century, and who is
one of those to whom Nicolai ascribes the formation of that secret
society, in 1646, which invented Freemasonry.

It will be remembered that Nicolai says that of the society of
learned men who established Freemasonry, the first members were
Elias Ashmole, the skillful antiquary, who was also a student of
astrology, William Lilly, a famous astrologer, George Wharton,
likewise an astrologer, William Oughtred, a mathematician, and some
others. He also says that the annual festival of the Astrologers
gave rise to this association. "It had previously held ," says
Nicolai, "one meeting at Warrington, in Lancashire, but it was
first firmly established at London."

Their meetings, the same writer asserts, were held at Masons' Hall,
in Masons' Alley, Basinghall Street. Many of them were members of
the Masons' Company, and they all entered it and assumed the title
of Free and Accepted Masons, adopting, besides, all its external
marks of distinction.

Such is the theory which makes the Astrologers, incorporating 
themselves with the Operative Masons, who met at their Hall in
Basinghall Street, the founders of the Speculative Order of Free
and Accepted Masons as they exist at the present day.

It is surprising that in a question of history a man of letters of
the reputation of Nicolai should have indulged in such bold
assumptions and in statements so wholly bare of authority. But
unfortunately it is thus that Masonic history has always been
written.

I shall strive to eliminate the truth from the fiction in this
narrative. The task will be a laborious one, for, as Goethe has
well said in one of his maxims " It is much easier to perceive
error than to find truth. The former lies on the surface, so that
it is easily reached ; the latter lies in the depth, which it is
not every man's business to search for."

The Astrologers, to whose meeting in the Masons' Hall is ascribed
the origin of the Freemasons, were not a class of persons who would
have been likely to have united in such an attempt, which showed at
least a desire for some intellectual progress. Lilly, perhaps the
best-educated and the most honest of these charlatans, has in the
narrative of his life, written by himself, given us some notion of
the character of many of them who lived in London when he practiced
the art in that city. (1)

Of Evans, who was his first teacher, he tells us that he was a
clergyman - of Staffordshire, whence he " had been in a manner
enforced to fly for some offences very scandalous committed by him
" ; of another astrologer, Alexander Hart, he says " he was but a
cheat." Jeffry Neve he calls, a smatterer; William Poole was a
frequenter of taverns with lewd people and fled on one occasion
from London under the suspicion of complicity in theft; John
Booker, though honest was ignorant of his profession ; William
Hodges dealt with angels, but " his life answered not in holiness
and sanctity to what it should," for he was addicted to profanity;
and John A Windsor was given to debauchery.

Men of such habits of life were not likely to interest themselves
in the advancement of science or in the establishment of a society
of speculative philosophers. It is true that these charlatans
lived at an earlier period than that ascribed by Nicolai to the
organization 

(1) "The Life of William Lilly, Student in Astology, wrote by
himself in the 66th year of his Age, at Hersham, in the Parish of
Walton upon Thames, in the County of Surrey, Propria Manu."

of the society in Masons' Hall, but in the few years that elapsed
it is not probable that the disciples of astrology had much
improved in their moral or intellectual condition. 

Of certain of the men named by Nicolai as having organized the
Society of Freemasons in 1646, we have some knowledge. Elias
Ashmole, the celebrated antiquary, and founder of the Ashmolean
Museum in the University of Oxford, is an historical character. He
wrote his own life, in the form of a most minute diary, extending
from July 2, 1633, to October 9, 1687. In this diary, in which he
registers the most trivial as well as the most important events of
his life-recording even the cutting of his wisdom teeth, or the
taking of a sudorific-he does not make the slightest allusion to
the transaction referred to by Nicolai. The silence of so babbling
a chronicler as to such an important event is itself sufficient
proof that it did not occur. What Ashmole has said about
Freemasonry will be presently seen.

Lilly, another supposed actor in this scene, also wrote his life
with great minuteness. His complete silence on the subject is
equally suggestive. Nicolai says that the persons he cites were
either already members of the Company of Masons or at once became
so. Now, Lilly was a member of the Salter's Company, one of the
twelve great livery companies, and would not have left it to join
a minor company, which the Masons was.

Oughtred could not have been united with Ashmole in organizing a
society in 1646, for the latter, in a note to Lilly's life, traces
his acquaintance with him to the residence of both as neighbors in
Surrey. Now, Ashmole did not remove to Surrey until the year 1675,
twenty nine years after his supposed meeting with Oughtred at the
Masons Hall.

Between Wharton and Lilly, who were rival almanac-makers, there
was, in 1646, a bitter feud, which was not reconciled until years
afterward. In an almanac which Wharton published in 1645 he had
called Lilly " an impudent, senseless fellow, and by name William
Lilly." It is not likely that they would have been engaged in the
fraternal task of organizing a great society at that very time.

Dr. Pearson, another one of the supposed founders, is celebrated in
literary and theological history as the author of an Exposition of
the Creed. Of a man so prominent as to have been the 
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, and afterward Bishop of
Chester, Ashmole makes no mention in his diary. If he had ever met
him or been engaged with him in so important an affair, this
silence in so minute a journal of the transactions of his every-day
life would be inexplicable.

But enough has been said to show the improbability of any such
meeting as Nicolai records. Even Ashmole and Lilly, the two
leaders, were unknown to each other until the close of the year
1646. Ashmole says in his diary of that year: Mr. Jonas Moore
brought and acquainted me with Mr. William Lilly: it was on a
Friday night, and I think on the 20th Nov. (1646)."

That there was an association, or a club or society, of Astrologers
about that time in London is very probable. Pepys, in his memoirs,
says that in October, 166o, he went to Mr. Lilly's, "there being a
club that night among his friends." There he met Esquire Ashmole
and went home accompanied by Mr. Booker, who, he says, " did tell
me a great many fooleries, which may be done by nativities, and
blaming Mr. Lilly for writing to please his friends, and not
according to the rules of art, by which he could not well eue as he
had done" The club, we may well suppose, was that of the
Astrologers, held at the house of the chief member of the
profession. That it was not a secret society we conclude from the
fact that Pepys, who was no astrologer, was permitted to be
present. We know also from Ashmole's diary that the Astrologers
held an annual feast, generally in August, sometimes in March, 
July, or November, but never on a Masonic festival. Ashmole
regularly attended it from 1649 to 1658, when it was suspended, but
afterward revived, in 1682. In 1650 he was elected a steward for
the following year he mentions the place of meeting only three
times, twice at Painters' Hall, which was probably the usual place,
and once at the Three Cranes, in Chancery Lane. Had the Astrologers
and the Masons been connected, Masons' Hall, in Basinghall Street,
would certainly have been the place for holding their feast.

Again, it is said by Nicolai that the object of this secret society
which organized the Freemasons was to advance the restoration of
the King. But Lilly had made, in 1645, the year before the
meeting, this declaration: "Before that time, I was more Cavalier
than Roundbead, but after that I engaged body and soul the cause of
Parliament." He still expressed, it is true, his attachment to
monarchy; but his life during the Commonwealth showed his devotion
to Cromwell, of whom he was a particular favorite. After the
Restoration he had to sue out a pardon, which was obtained by the
influence of his friends, but which would hardly have been
necessary if he had been engaged in a secret society the object of
which was to restore Charles II to the throne.

But Charles I was not beheaded until 1649, so that a society could
not have been organized in 1646 for the restoration of his son. 
But it may be said that the Restoration alluded to was of the
monarchy, which at that time was virtually at an end. So this
objection may pass without further comment. 

But the fact is that the whole of this fiction of the organization,
1646, of a secret society by a set of philosophers or astrologers,
or both, which resulted in the establishment of Freemasonry, arose
out of a misconception or a misrepresentation-whether willful or
not, I will not say-of two passages in the diary of Elias Ashmole. 
Of these two passages, and they are the only ones in his minute
diary of fifty-four years in which there is any mention of
Freemasonry, the first is as follows :

"1646, Octob. 16- 4 Hor. 30 minutes post merid. I was made a Free-
Mason at Warrington in Lancashire, with Colonel Henry Mainwarring
of Karticham in Cheshire; the names of those that were then at the
lodge, Mr. Richard Penket Warden, Mr. James Collier, Mr. Richard
Sankey, Henry Littler, John Ellam, and Hugh Brewer."

And then, after an interval of thirty-five years, during which
there is no further allusion to Masonry, we find the following
memoranda: " 1682, Mar. 10. About 5 Hor. Post merid. I received
a summons to appear at a lodge to be held the next day at Masons
Hall, London.

II. Accordingly I went, and about noon was admitted into the
fellowship of Freemasons, by Sir William Wilson Knight, Captain
Richard Borthwick, Mr. William Wodman, Mr. William Grey, Mr. Samuel
Taylour, and Mr. William Wise. 

" I was the senior fellow among them (it being thirty-five years
since I was admitted) there was present besides myself, the fellows
after mentioned. Mr. Thomas Wise, Master of the Masons Company,
this present year; Mr. Thomas Shorthose, Mr. Thomas Shadbolt,
Wardsford, Esq; Mr. Nicholas Young, Mr. John Shorthose, Mr. William
Hamon, Mr. John Thompson, and Mr. William Stanton. We all dined at
the Half-Moon-Tavern, in Cheapside, at a noble dinner prepared at
the charge of the new accepted Masons." 

Without the slightest show of reason or semblance of authority,
Nicolai transmutes the Lodge at Warrington, in which Ashmole was
made a Freemason, into an annual feast of the Astrologers. The
Society of Astrologers, he says, "had previously held one meeting
at Warrington, in Lancashire, but it was first firmly established
at London." And he cites as His authority for this statement the
very passage from Ashinole's diary in which that antiquary records
his reception in a Masonic Lodge.

These events in the life of Ashmole, which connect him with the
Masonic fraternity, have given considerable embarrassment to
Masonic scholars who have been unable to comprehend the two
apparently conflicting statements that he was made a Freemason at
Warrington in 1646 and afterward received into the fellowship of
the Freemasons, in 1682, at London. The embarrassment and
misapprehension arose from the fact that we have unfortunately no
records of the meetings of the Operative Lodges of England in the
17th century, and nothing but traditional and generally mythical
accounts of their usages during that period.

The sister kingdom of Scotland has been more fortunate in this
respect, and the valuable work of Brother Lyon, on the History of
the Lodge of Edinborough, has supplied us with authentic records of
the Scottish Lodges at a much earlier date. These records will
furnish us with some information in respect to the contemporaneous
English Lodges which was have every reason to suppose were governed
by usages not very different from those of the Lodges in the
adjacent kingdom. Mr. Lyon has on this subject the following
remarks, which may be opportunely quoted on the present occasion.

" The earliest date at which non-professionals are known to have
been received into an English Lodge is 1646. The evidence of this
is derived from the diary of one of the persons so admitted ; but
the preceding minutes (1) afford authentic instances of Speculative
Masons having been admitted to the fellowship of the Lodge of 

(1) Minutes of the Lodge of Cannongate, Kilwinning, for 1635,
quoted by him in a precedding page.

Edinburgh twelve years prior to the reception of Colonel Main
warring and Elias Ashmole in the Lodge of Warrington and thirty-
eight years before the date at which the presence of Gentleman
Masons is first discernible in the Lodge of Kilwinning by the
election of Lord Cassillis to the deaconship. It is worthy of
remark that, with singularly few exceptions, the non-operatives who
were admitted to Masonic fellowship in the Lodges of Edinburgh and
Kilwinning, during the 17th century, were persons of quality, the
most distinguished of whom, as the natural result of its
metropolitan position, being made in the former Lodge. Their
admission to fellowship in an institution composed of Operative
Masons associated together for purposes of their Craft would in all
probability originate in a desire to elevate its position and
increase its influence, and once adopted, the system would further
recommend itself to the Fraternity by the opportunities which it
presented for cultivating the friendship and enjoying the society
of gentlemen to whom in ordinary circumstances there was little
chance of their ever being personally known. On the other hand,
non-professionals connecting themselves with the Lodge by the ties
of membership would, we believe, be actuated partly by a
disposition to reciprocate the feelings that had prompted the
bestowal of the fellowship partly by curiosity to penetrate the
arcana of the Craft, and partly by the novelty of the situation as
members of a secret society and participants in its ceremonies and
festivities. But whatever may have been the rnotives which
animated the parties on either side, the tie which united them was
a purely honorary one." (1) 

What is here said by Lyon of the Scottish Lodges may, I think, be
with equal propriety applied to those of England at the same
period. There was in 1646 a Lodge of Operative Masons at
Warrington, just as there was a similar one at Edinburgh. Into
this Lodge Colonel Mainwarring and Elias Ashmole, both non-
professional gentlemen, were admitted as honorary members, or, to
use the language of the latter, were " made Freemasons," a
technical term that has been preserved to the present day.

But thirty-five years afterward, being then a resident of London,
he was summoned to attend a meeting of the Company of Masons, to be
held at their hall in Masons' Alley, Basinghall Street, 

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 81

and there, according to His own account, he was " admitted into the
fellowship of Freemasons." How are we to explain this apparent
double or renewed admission ? But mark the difference of language. 
In 1646 he was "made a Freemason." In 1682 he was admitted into
the fellowship of Freemasons." The distinction is an important one.

The Masons' Company in 1682 constituted in London one of those many
city companies which embraced the various trades and handicrafts of
the metropolis. Stowe, in his Survey of London, says that " the
Masons, otherwise termed Freemasons, were a society of ancient
standing and good reckoning, by means of affable and kind meetings
divers time, and as a loving brotherhood should use to do, did
frequent their mutual assemblies in the time of King Henry IV, in
the 12th year of whose most gracious reign they were incorporated."

In Cheswell's New View of London, printed in 1708, it is said that
the Masons' Company "were incorporated about the year 1410, having
been called the Free Masons, a Fraternity of great account, ,who
have been honored by several Kings, and very many of the Nobility
and Gentry being of their Society. They are governed by a Master,
2 Wardens, 25 Assistants, and there are 65 on the Livery. "

Maitland, in his London and its Environs, says, speaking of the
Masons: "This company had their arms granted by Clarencieux, King-
at-Arms, in the year 1477, though the members were not incorporated
by letters patent till they obtained them from King Charles II. in
1677. They have a small convenient hall in Masons' Alley,
Basinghall Street."

There were then, in the time of Ashmole, two distinct bodies of men
practicing the Craft of Operative Masonry, namely, the Lodges which
were to be found in various parts of the country, and the Company
of Masons, whose seat was at London.

Into one of the Lodges, which was situated at Warrington, in
Lancashire, Ashmole had in 1646 received honorary membership,
which, in compliance with the technical language of that and of the
present day, he called being "made a Freemason." But this did not
constitute him a member of the Masons' Company of London, for this
was a distinct incorporated society, with its exclusive rules and
regulations, and admission into which could only be obtained by the
consent of the members. There were many Masons who were not
members of the Company. 

Ashmole, who had for thirty-five years been a Freemason, by virtue
of his making at Warrington, was in 1682 elected a member of this
Masons' Company, and this he styles being "admitted into the
fellowship of Freemasons "-that is, he was admitted to the
fellowship or membership of the Company and made " free " of it.

From all of which we may draw the following conclusions: First,
that in 1646, at the very date assigned by Nicolai for the
organization of the Freemasons as a secret political society, under
the leadership of Ashmole and Lilly, the former, being as yet
unacquainted with the latter, was at Warrington, in Lancashire,
where he found a Lodge of Masons already organized and with its
proper officers and its members, by whom he was admitted as an
honorary non-professional member of the Craft. And secondly, that
while in London be was admitted, being already a Freemason, to the
fellowship of the Masons' Company. And thirdly, that he was also
a member of the fraternity of Astrologers, having been admitted
probably in 1649, and regularly attended their annual feast from
that year to 1658, when the festival, and perhaps the fraternity,
was suspended until 1682, when it was again revived. But during
all this time it is evident from the memoranda of Ashmole that the
Freemasons and the Astrologers were two entirely distinct bodies. 
Lilly, who was the head of the Astrologers, was, we may say almost
with certainty, not a Freemason, else the spirit of minuteness with
which he has written his autobiography would not have permitted him
to omit what to his peculiar frame of maid would have been so
important a circumstance as connecting him still more closely with
his admired friend, Elias Ashmole, nor would the latter have
neglected to record it in his diary, written with even still
greater minuteness than Lilly's memoirs. 

Notwithstanding the clear historical testimony which shows that
Lodges of Freemasons had been organized long before the time of
Ashmok, and that he had actually been made a Freemason in one of
them, many writers, both Masonic and profane, have maintained the
erroneous doctrine that Ashmole was the founder of the Masonic
Society.

'Thus Chambers, in their Encyclopedia say that " Masonry was
founded by Ashmole some of his literary friends," and De Quincey
expressed the same opinion.

Mr. John Yarker, in his very readable Notes on the Scientific and 
Religious Mysteries of Antiquity, offers a modified view and a
compromise of the subject. He refers to the meeting of the
chemical adepts at Masons' Hall (a fact of which we have no
evidence), and then to the " Feast of the Astrologers " which
Ashmole attended. He follows Nicolai in asserting that their
allegories were founded on Bacon's House of Solomon, and says that
they used as emblems the sun, moon, square, triangle, etc. And he
concludes, " it is possible that Ashmole may have consolidated the
customs of the two associations, but there is no evidence that any
Lodge of this, his speculative rite, came under the Masonic
Constitution."' (1)

We may also say that it is possible that Ashmole may have invented
a speculative rite of some kind, but there is no evidence that he
did so. Many things are possible that are not probable, and many
probable that are not actual. History is made up of facts, and not
of possibilities or probabilities. 

Ashmole himself entertained a very different and much more correct
notion of the origin of Masonry than any of those who have striven
to claim him as its founder.

Dr. Knipe, of Christ Church, Oxford, in a letter to the publisher
of Ashmole's Life, says: " What from Mr. E. Ashmole's collections
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
illfounded. Such a bull there was, and these 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."

This settles the question. Ashmole could not have been the founder
of Freemasonry in London in 1646, since he himself expressed the
belief that the Institution had existed in England before the 13th
century.

There is no doubt, as I have already said, that he was very
intimately connected with the Astrologers. Dr. Krause, in his
Three Oldest Documents of the Masonic Brotherhood, quotes the
following passage from Lilly's History of my Life and Titles. (I
can not 

(1) "Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity,"
p. 106
(2) "Die drei altesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurerbruderschaft,"
IV., 286

find it in my own copy of that work, but the statements are
corroborated by Ashmole's diary.) " 

"The King's affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew
himself, after the surrender of the Garrison of Worcester, into
Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came
up to London, where he became acquainted with Master, afterwords
Sir Jonas Moore, Mr. William Lilly, and Mr. John Booker, esteemed
the greatest astrologers iii the world, by whom he was caressed,
instructed and received into their fraternity, which then made a
very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of
persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole
was afterwards elected Steward."

Ashmole left Worcester for Cheshire July 24, 1646, and moved from
Cheshire to London October 25, of the same year. In that interval
of three months he was made a Freemason, at Warrington. At that
time he was not acquainted with Lilly, Moore, or Booker, and knew
nothing of astrology or of the great astrologers.

This destroys the accuracy of Nicolai's assertion that the meeting
held at Masons' Hall, in 1682, by Ashmole, Lilly, and other
astrologers, when they founded the Society of Freemasons, was
preceded by a similar and initiatory one, in 1646, at Warrington.

A few words must now be said upon the subject of Bacon's House of
Solomon, which Nicolai and others supposed to have first given rise
to the Masonic allegory which was afterward changed to that of the
Temple of Solomon.

Bacon, in his fragmentary and unfinished romance of the New
Atlantis, had devised the fable of an island of Bensalem, in which
was an institution or college called the House of Solomon, the
fellows of which were to be students of philosophy and
investigators of science. He thus described their occupations :

"We have twelve that sail into foreign countries, who bring in the
books and patterns of experiments of all other parts ; these we
call merchants of light. We have three that collect the
experiments that are in all books; these are called depredators. 
We have three that collect experiments of all mechanical arts, and
also of liberal sciences, and also of practices which are not
brought into the arts; these we call mystery men. We have three
that try new experiments such as themselves think good; these we
call pioneers or miners. We have three that draw the experiments of
the former four into titles and tablets to give the better light
for the drawing of observations and axioms out of them; these we
call compilers. We have three that bind themselves looking into
the experiments of their fellows and cast about how to draw out of
them things of use and practice for man's life and knowledge as
well for iworks as for plain demonstrations and the easy and clear
discovering of the virtues and parts of bodies ; these we call
doing men and benefactors. Then after divers meetings and consults
of our whole number to consider of the former labors and
collections, we have three to take care out of them to direct new
experiments of higher light, more penetrating into nature than the
former; these we call lamps. We have three others that do execute
the experiments so directed and report them ; these we call
inoculators. Lastly we have three that raise the former
discoveries by experiments into greater observations, axioms and
aphorisms; these we call interpreters of nature." (1)

It is evident from this schedule of the occupations of the inmates
of the House of Solomon that it could not in the remotest degree
have been made the foundatiort of a Masonic allegory. In fact, the
suggestion of a Masonic connection could have been derived only
from a confused idea of the relation of the House to the Temple of
Solomon, a misapprehension which a reading of the New Atlantis
would readily remove.

As Plato had written his Republic and Sir Thomas More his Utopia to
give their ideas of a model commonwealth, so Lord Bacon commenced
his New Atlantis to furnish his idea of a model college to be
instituted for the study and interpretation of nature by
experimental methods. These views were first introduced in his
Advancement of Human Learning, and would have been perfected in his
New Atlantis had he ever completed it.

The new philosophy of Bacon had produced a great revolution in the
minds of thinking men, and that group of philosophers who in the
17th century, as Dr. Whewell says, "began to knock at the door
where truth was to be found " would very wisely seek the key in the
inductive and experimental method taught by Bacon.

To the learned men, therefore, who first met at the house of Dr.
Goddard and the other members, and whose meetings finally ended in
the formation of the Royal Society, the allegory of the House of 

(1) "New Atlantis," Works, vol. ii., p. 376

Solomon very probably furnished valuable hints for the pursuit of
their experimental studies. 

To Freemasons in any age the allegory would have been useless and
unprofitable, and could by no ingenious method have been twisted
into a foundation for their symbolic science The hypothesis that it
was adopted in 1646 by the founders of Freemasonry as a fitting
allegory for their esoteric system of instruction is evidently too
absurd to need further refutation. 

In conclusion, we may unhesitatingly concur with Bro. W. J.
Elughan in his opinion that the theory which assigns the foundation
of Freemasonry to Elias Ashmole and his friends the Astrologers "
is opposed to existing documents dating before and since his
initiation." It is equally opposed to the whole current of
authentic history, and is unsupported by the character of the
Institution and true nature of its symbolism.





CHAPTER XXXV

THE ROSICRUCIANS AND THE FREEMASONS



Of all the theories which have been advanced in relation to the
origin of Freemasonry from some one of the secret sects, either of
antiquity or of the Middle Ages, there is none more in. teresting
than that which seeks to connect it with the Hermetic philosophy,
because there is none which presents more plausible claims to our
consideration.

There can be no doubt that in some of what are called the High
Degrees there is a very palpable infusion of a Hermetic element. 
This can not be denied, because the evidence will be most apparent
to any one who examines their rituals, and some by their very
titles, in which the Hermetic language and a reference to Hermetic
principles are adopted, plainly admit
the connection and the influence.

There is, therefore, necessity to investigate the question whether
or not some of those High or Philosophic Degrees which were
fabricated about the middle of the last century are or are not of
a Hermetic character, because the time of their invention, when
Craft Masonry was already in a fixed condition, removes them
entirely out of the problem which relates to the origin of the
Masonic Institution. No matter when Freemasonry was established,
the High Degrees were an afterthought, and might very well be
tinctured with the principles of any philosophy which prevailed at
the period of their invention.

But it is a question of some interest to the Masonic scholar
whether at the time of the so-called Revival of Freemasonry, in the
early part of the 18th century, certain Hermetic degrees did not
exist which sought to connect themselves with the system of
Masonry. And it is a question of still greater interest whether
this attempt was successful so far, at least, as to impress upon
the features of that early Freemasonry a portion of the
characteristic tints of the Hermetic philosophy, some of the marks
of which may still remain in our modern system.

But as the Hermetic philosophy was that which was invented and
taught by the Rosicrucians, before we can attempt to resolve these
important and interesting questions, it will be necessary to take
a brief glance at the history and the character of Rosicrucianism. 
On the 17th of August, 1586, Johann Valentin Andred was born at
Herrenberg, a small market-town of what was afterward the kingdom
of Wurtemburg. After a studious youth, during which he became
possessed of a more than moderate share of learning, he departed in
1610 on a pilgrimage through Germany, Austria, Italy, and France,
supplied with but little money, but with an indomitable desire for
the acquisition of knowledge. Returning home, in 1614, he embraced
the clerical profession and was appointed a deacon in the town of
Vaihingen, and by subsequent promotions reached, in 1634, the
positions of Protestant prelate of the Abbey of Bebenhausen and
spiritual counsellor of the Duchy of Brunswick. He died on the
27th of June, 1654, at the ripe age of sixty-eight years.

On the moral character of Andred his biographers have lavished
their encomiums. A philanthropist from his earliest life, he
carried, or sought to carry, his plans of benevolence into active
operation. Wherever, says Vaughan, the church, the school, the
institute of charity have fallen into ruin or distress, there the
indefatigable Andred sought to restore them. He was, says another
writer, the guardian genius and the comforter of the suffering; he
was a practical helper as well as a theoretical adviser; in the
times of dearth and famine, many thousand poor were fed and clothed
by his exer- tions, and the town of Kalw, of which, in 1720, he was
appointed the superintendent, long enjoyed the benefit of many
charitable institutions which owed their origin to his
solicitations and zeal.

It is not surprising that a man indued with such benevolent
feelings and actuated by such a spirit of philanthropy should have
viewed with deep regret the corruptions of the times in which he
lived, and should have sought to devise some plan by which the
condition of his fellow-men might be ameliorated and the dry,
effete 

(1) Biographical Sketch by Wm. Bell, in Freemasons' Quarterly
Magazine, London, vol. ii., N.S., 1854, p. 27

theology of the church be converted into some more living, active,
humanizing system.

For the accomplishment of this purpose he could see no better
method than the establishment of a practical philanthropical
fraternity, one that did not at that time exist, but the formation
of which he resolved to suggest to such noble minds as might be
stimulated to the enterprise.

With this view he invoked the assistance of fiction, and hence
there appeared, in 1615, a work which he entitled the Report of the
Rosicrucian Brotherhood, or, in its original Latin, Fama
Fraternitatis Rose Crucis. An edition had been published the year
before with the title of Universal Reformation of the Whole World,
with a Report of the Worshipful Order of the Rosicrucian
Brotherhood, addressed to all the Learned Men and Nobility of
Europe. (1) There was another work, published in 1616, with the
title of Chemische Hochzeit, or Chemical Nuptials, by Christian
Rosencreutz.

All of these books were published anonymously, but they were
universally attributed to the pen of Andred, and were all intended
for one purpose, that of discovering by the character of their
reception who were the true lovers of wisdom and philanthropy, and
of inducing them to come forward to the perfection of the
enterprise, by transforming this fabulous society into a real and
active organization

The romantic story of Christian Rosencreutz, the supposed founder
of the Order, is thus told by Andrea. I have borrowed for the most
part the language of Mr. Sloane, (2) who, although his views and
deductions on the subject are for the most part erroneous, has yet
given us the best English epitome of the myth of Andred.

According to Andrea's tale, a certain Christian Rosencreutz, though
of good birth, found himself compelled from poverty to enter the
cloister at a very early period of life. He was only sixteen years
old when one of the monks purposed a pilgrimage to the Holy
Sepulcher, and Rosencreutz, as a special favor, was permitted to
accompany him. At Cyprus the monk is taken ill, but Rosencreutz
proceeds onward to Damascus with the intention of going on to 

(1) " Allgemeine und General Reformation der ganzen, weiten Welt.
Beneben der Fama Fraternitatis des Loblichen Ordens des
Rosencreutzes, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter Europae geschreiben,"
Cassel, 1614.
(2) "New Curiosities of Literature," vol. ii., p. 44

Jerusalem. While detained in the former city by the fatigues of
his journey, he hears of the wonders performed by the sages of
Damascus, and, his curiosity being excited, he places himself under
their direction.

Three years having been spent in the acquisition of their most
hidden mysteries, he sets sail from the Gulf of Arabia for Egypt. 
There he studies the nature of plants and animals and then repairs,
in obedience to the instructions of his Arabian masters, to Fez, in
Africa. In this city it was the custom of the Arab and African
sages to meet annually for the purpose of communicating to each
other the results of their experience and inquiries, and here he
passed two years in study. He then crossed over to Spain, but not
meeting there with a favorable reception, he returned to his native
country.

But as Germany was then filled with mystics of all kinds, his
proposals for a reformation in morals and science meets with so
little sympathy from the public that he resolves to establish a
society of his own.

With this view he selects three of his favorite companions from his
old convent. To them, under a solemn vow of secrecy, he
communicates the -knowledge which he had acquired during his
travels. He imposes on them the duty of committing it to writing
and of forming a magical vocabulary for the benefit of future
students.

But in addition to this task they also undertook to prescribe
gratuitously for all the sick who should ask their assistance, and
as in a short time the concourse of patients became so great as
materially to interfere with their other duties, and as a building
which Rosencreutz had been erecting, called the Temple of the Holy
Ghost, was now completed, he determines to increase the number of
the brotherhood, and accordingly initiates four new members.

When all is completed, and the eight brethren are instructed in the
mysteries of the Order, they separate, according to agreement, two
only staying with Father Christian. The other six, after traveling
for a year, are to return and communicate the results of their
experience. The two who had stayed at home are then to be relieved
by two of the travelers, so that the founder may never be alone,
and the six again divide and travel for a year.

The laws of the Order as they had been prescribed by Rosencreutz
were as follows:

1. That they should devote themselves to no other Occupation than
that of the gratuitous practice of physic.

2. That they were not to wear a particular habit, but were to
conform in this respect to the customs of the country in which they
might happen to be.

3. That each one was to present himself on a certain day in the
year at the Temple of the Holy Ghost, or send an excuse for his
absence.

4. That each one was to look out for a brother to succeed him in
the event of his death.

5. That the letters R. C. were to be their seal, watchword, and
title.

6. That the brotherhood was to be kept a secret for one hundred
years.

When one hundred years old, Christian Rosencreutz died, but the
place of his burial was unknown to any one but the two brothers who
were with him at the time of his death, and they carried the secret
with them to the grave.

The society, however, continued to exist unknown to the world,
always consisting of eight members only, until another hundred and
twenty years had elapsed, when, according to a tradition of the
Order, the grave of Father Rosencreutz was to be discovered, and
the brotherhood to be no longer a mystery to the world.

It was about this time that the brethren began to make some
alterations in their building, and thought of removing to another
and more fitting situation the memorial tablet, on which were
inscribed the names of their associates. The plate, which was of
brass, was affixed to the wall by means of a nail in its center,
and so firmly was it fastened that in tearing it away a portion of
the plaster of the wall became detached and exposed a concealed
door. Upon this door being still further cleansed from the
incrustation, there appeared above it in large letters the
following words: POST CXX ANNOS PATEBO-after one hundred and twenty
years I will be opened.

Although the brethren were greatly delighted at the discovery, they
so far restrained their curiosity as not to open the door until the
next morning, when they found themselves in a vault of seven sides
each side five feet wide and eight feet high. It was lighted by an
artificial sun in the center of the arched roof, while in the
middle of the floor, instead of a tomb, stood a round altar covered
with a small brass plate, on which was this inscription :

A. C. R. C. Hoc, universi compendium, vivus mihi sepulchrum feci-
while living, I made this epitome of the universe my sepulcher.

About the outer edge was:

Jesus mihi omnia-, Jesus is all things to me.

In the center were four figures, each enclosed in a circle, with
these words inscribed around them:

1.Nequaquam vacuus.
2.Legis Jugum.
3.Liberias Evangelii
4.Dei gloria intacia.

That is- 1. By no means void. 2. The yoke of the Law. 3. The
liberty of the Gospel. 4. The unsullied Glory of God.

On seeing all this, the brethren knelt down and returned thanks to
God for having made them so much wiser than the rest of the world. 
Then they divided the vault into three parts, the roof, the wall,
and the pavement. The first and the last were divided into seven
triangles, corresponding to the seven sides of the wall, each of
which formed the base of a triangle, while the apices met in the
center of the roof and of the pavement. Each side was divided into
ten squares, containing figures and sentences which were to be
explained to the new initiates. In each side there was also a door
opening upon a closet, wherein were stored up many rare articles,
such as the secret books of the Order, the vocabulary of
Paracelsus, and other things of. a similar nature. In one of the
closets they discovered the life of their founder; in others they
found curious mirrors, burning lamps, and a variety of objects
intended to aid in rebuilding the Order, which, after the lapse of
many centuries, was to fall into decay.

Pushing aside the altar, they came upon a strong brass plate, which
being removed, they beheld the corpse of Rosencreutz as freshly
preserved as on the day when it had been deposited, and under his
arm a volume of vellum with letters of gold, containing, among
other things, the names of the eight brethren who had founded the
Order.

Such is an outline of the story of Christian Rosencreutz and his
Rosicrucian Order as it is told in the Fama Fraternitatis. It is
very evident that Andrea composed this romance-for it is nothing
else not to record the existence of any actual society, but only
that it might serve as a suggestion to the learned and the
philanthropic to engage in the establishment of some such
benevolent association. " He hoped;" says Vaughan, " that the few
nobler minds whom he desired to organize would see through the veil
of fiction in which he had invested his proposal; that he might
communicate personally with some such, if they should appear, or
that his book might lead them to form among themselves a practical
philanthropic confederacy answering to the serious purpose he had
embodied in his fiction." (1) 

But his design was misunderstood then, as it has been since, and
everywhere his fable was accepted as a fact. Diligent search was
made by the credulous for the discovery of the Temple of the Holy
Ghost. Printed letters appeared continually, addressed to the
unknown brotherhood, seeking admission into the fraternity-a
fraternity that existed only in the pages of the Fama. But the
irresponsive silence to so many applications awoke the suspicions
of some, while the continued mystery strengthened the credulity of
others. The brotherhood, whose actual house " lay beneath the
Doctor's hat of Valentin Andred," was violently attacked and as
vigorously defended in numerous books and pamphlets which during
that period flooded the German press.

The learned men among the Germans did not give a favoring ear to
the philanthropic suggestions of Andred, but the mystical notions
contained in his fabulous history were seized with avidity by the
charlatans, who added to them the dreams of the alchemists and the
reveries of the astrologers, so that the post-Andrean
Rosicrucianism became a very different thing from that which had
been devised by its original author. It does not, however, appear
that the Rosicrucians, as an organized society, made any stand in
Germany. Descartes says that after strict search he could not find
a single lodge in that country. But it extended, as we will
presently see, into England, and there became identified as a
mystical association.

It is strange what misapprehension, either willful or mistaken, has
existed in respect to the relations of Andrea to Rosicrucianism. 
We have no more right or reason to attribute the detection of such 

(1) "Hours with the Mystics," vol. ii., p. 103

a sect to the German theologian than we have to ascribe the
discovery of the republic of Utopia to Sir Thomas More, or of the
island of Bensalem to Lord Bacon. In each of these instances a
fiction was invented on which the author might impose his
philosophical or political thoughts, with no dream that readers
would take that for fact which was merely intended for fiction.

And yet Rhigellini, in his Masonry Considered as the Result of the
Egyptian, Jewish, and Christian Religions, while declining to
express an opinion on the allegorical question, as if there might
be a doubt on the subject, respects the legend as it had been given
in the Fama, and asserting that on the return of Rosencreutz to
Germany " he instituted secret societies with an initiation that
resembled that of the early Christians." (1) He antedates the
Chemical Nuptials ials of Andred a century and a half, ascribes the
authorship of that work to Christian Rosencreutz, as if he were a
real personage, and thinks that he established, in 1459, the Rite
of the Theosophists, the earliest branch of the Rose Croix, or the
Rosicrucians; for the French make no distinction in the two words,
though in history they are entirely different. History written in
this way is worse than fable-it is an ignis fatuus which can only
lead astray. And yet this is the method in which Masonic history
has too often been treated.

Nicolai, although the deductions by which he connects Freemasonry
with Rosicrucianism are wholly untenable, is yet, in his treatment
of the latter, more honest or less ignorant. He adopts the correct
view when he says that the Fama Fraternitatis only announced a
general reformation and exhorted all wise men to unite in a
proposed society for the purpose of removing corruption and
restoring wisdom. He commends it as a charming vision, full of
poesy and imagination, but of a singular extravagance very common
in the writings of that age. And he notes the fact that while the
Alchemists have sought in that work for the secrets of their
mysteries, it really contains the gravest satire on their absurd
pretensions.

The Fama Fraternitatis had undoubtedly excited the curiosity of the
Mystics, who abounded in Germany at the time of its appear. ance,
of whom not the least prominent were the Alchemists. These, having
sought in vain for the invisible society of the Rosicrucians, as it
had been described in the romance of Andred, resolved to form 

(1) "La Maconnerie consideree comme le resultant des Religions
Egyptienne, Juive et Chretienne," L. iii., p. 108

such a society for themselves. But, to the disappointment and the
displeasure of the author of the Fama, they neglected or postponed
the moral reformation which he had sought, and substituted the
visionary schemes of the Alchemists, a body of quasi-philosophers
who assigned their origin as students of nature and seekers of the
philosophers stone and the elixir of immortality to a very remote
period.

Thus it is that I trace the origin of the Rosicrucians, not to
Valentin Andrea, nor to Christian Rosencreutz, who was only the
coinage of his brain, but to the influence exerted by him upon
certain Mystics and Alchemists who, whether they accepted the
legend of Rosencreutz as a fiction or as a verity, at least made
diligent use of it in the establishment of their new society.

I am not, therefore, disposed to doubt the statement of L. C.
Orvius, as cited by Nicolai, that in 1622 there was a society of
Alchemists at The Hague, who called themselves Rosicrucians and
claimed Rosencreutz as their founder.

Michael Maier, the physician of the Emperor Rudolf II., devoted
himself in the early part of the 17th century to the pursuits of
alchemy, and, having adopted the mystical views of the
Rosicrucians, is said to have introduced that society into England. 
Maier was the author of many works in Latin in defense and in
explanation of the Rosicrucian system. Among them was an epistle
addressed " To all lovers of true chemistry throughout Germany, and
especially to that Order which has hitherto lain concealed, but is
now probably made known by the Report of the Fraternity (Fama
Fraternitatis) and their admirable Confession." (1) In this work he
uses the following language:

"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. The Masters of the Order hold out the Rose as
a remote reward, but they impose the Cross on all who are entering. 
Like the Pythagoreans and the Egyptians, the Rosicrucians extract
vows of silence and secrecy. Ignorant men have treated the whole
as a fiction ; but this has arisen from the probation of five years
to which they subject even well qualified novices, 

(1) "Omnibus verae chymiae Amantibus per Germaniam, et precipere
illi Ordini adhue delitescenti, at Fama Fraternitatis et
confessione sua admiranda et probabile manifestato."

before they are admitted to the higher mysteries, and within that
period they are taught how to govern their own tongues!

Although Maier died in 1622, it appears that he had lived long
enough to take part in the organization of the Rosicrucian sect,
which had been formed out of the suggestions of Andred. His views
on this subject were, however, peculiar and different from those of
most of the new disciples. He denied that the Order had derived
either its origin or its name from the person called Rosencreutz. 
He says that the founder of the society, having given his disciples
the letters R. C. as a sign of their fraternity, they improperly
made out of them the words Rose and Cross. But these heterodox
opinions were not accepted by the Rosicrucians in general, who
still adhered to Andrea's legend as the source and the
signification of their Order.

At one time Maier went to England, where he became intimately
acquainted with Dr. Robert Fludd, the most famous as well as the
earliest of the English Rosicrucians.

Robert Fludd was a physician of London, who was born in 1574 and
died in 1637. He was a zealous student of alchemy, theosophy, and
every other branch of mysticism, and wrote in defense of
Rosicrucianism, of which sect he was an active member. Among his
earliest works is one published in 1616 under the title of A
Compendious Apology clearing the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross from
the stains of suspicion and infamy cast upon them.

There is much doubt whether Maier communicated the system of
Rosicrucianism to Fludd or whether Fludd had already received it
from Germany before the visit of Maier. The only authority for the
former statement is De Quincey (a most unreliable one), and the
date of Fludd's Apology militates against it.

Fludd's explanation of the name of the sect differs from that of
both Andrea and Maier. It is, he says, to be taken in a figurative
sense, and alludes to the cross dyed with the blood of Christ. In
this explanation he approaches very nearly to the idea entertained
by the members of the modern Rose Croix degree.

No matter who was the missionary that brought it over, it is very
certain that Rosicrucianism was introduced from Germany, its
birthplace, 

(1) "Apologia Compendiaria, Fraternitatem de Rosea Cruce
suspicionis et infamiae maculis aspersum abluens."

into England at a very early period of the 17th century, and it is
equally certain that after its introduction it flourished, though
an exotic, with more vigor than it ever had in its native soil.

That there were in that century, and even in the beginning of the
succeeding one, mystical initiations wholly unconnected with
Freemasonry, but openly professing a Hermetic or Rosicrucian
character and origin, may very readily be supposed from existing
documents. It is a misfortune that such authors as Buhle, Nicolai,
and Rhigellini, with many others, to say nothing of such nonmasonic
writers as Sloane and De Quincey, who were necessarily mere
sciolists in all Masonic studies, should have confounded the two
institutions, and, because both were mystical, and one appeared to
follow (although it really did not) the other in point of time,
should have proclaimed the theory (wholly untenable) that
Freemasonry is indebted for its origin to Rosicrucianism.

The writings of Lilly and Ashmole, both learned men for the age in
which they lived, prove the existance of a mystical philosophy in
England in the 17th century, in which each of them was a
participant. The Astrologers,who were deeply imbued with the
Hermetic philosophy, held their social meetings for mutual
instruction and their annual feasts, and Ashmole gives hints of his
initiation into what I suppose to have been alchemical or
Rosicrucian wisdom by one whom he reverently calls " Father
Backhouse."

But we have the clearest documentary testimony of the existence of
a Hermetic degree or system at the beginning of the 18th century,
and about the time of what is called the Revival of Masonry in
England, by the establishment of the Grand Lodge at London, and
which, from other undoubted testimony, we know were not Masonic. 
This testimony is found in a rare work, some portions of whose
contents, in reference to this subject, are well worthy of a
careful review.

In the year 1722 there was published in London a work in small
octave bearing the following title: (1)

"Long Livers: A curious History of such Persons of both Sexes who
have lived several Ages and grown Young again: With the rare Secret
of Rejuvenescency of Arnoldus de Villa Nova. And a 

(1) A copy of this work, and, most probably, the only one in this
country, is in the valuable library of Bro. Carson, of Cincinnati,
and to it I am indebted for the extracts that I have made.

great many approved and invaluable Rules to prolong Life: Also how
to prepare the Universal Medicine. Most humbly dedicated to the
Grand Master, Masters, Wardens, and Brethren of the Most Ancient
and Honorable Fraternity of the FREE MASONS of Great Britain and
Ireland. By Engenius Philaiethes, F. R. S., Author of the Treatise
of the Plague. Viri Fratres audite me. Act. xv. 13. Diligite
Fraternitatem timete Deum honorate Regem.1. Pet. ii. 17. LONDON. 
Printed for J. Holland, at the Bible and Ball, in St. Paul's Church
Yard, and L. Stokoe, at Charing Cross, 1722." pp. 64-199.

Engenius Philalethes was the pseudonym of Thomas Vaughn, a
celebrated Rosicrucian of the 17th century, who published, in 1659,
a translation of the Fama Fraternitatis into English. But, as he
was born in 1612, it is not to be supposed that he wrote the
present work. It is, however, not very important to identify this
second Philalethes. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that
it is a Hermetic treatise written by a Rosicrucian, of which the
title alone-the references to the renewal of youth, one of the
Rosicrucian secrets, to the recipe of the great Rosicrucian Villa
Nova, or Arnold de Villaneuve, and to the Universal Medicine, the
Rosicrucian Elixir Vitae-would be sufficient evidence. But the
only matter of interest in connection. with the present subject is
that this Hermetic work, written, or at least printed, in 1722, one
year before the publication of the first edition of Anderson's
constitutions, refers explicitly to the existence of a higher
initiation than that of the Craft degrees, which the author seeks
to interweave in the Masonic system.

This is evidently shown in portions of the dedication, which is
inscribed to - the Grand Master, Masters, Wardens, and Brethren of
the Most Ancient and Most Honorable Fraternity of the Free Masons
of Great Britain and Ireland"; and it is dedicated to them by their
" Brother Engenius Philalethes." This fraternal subscription shows
that he was a Freemason as well as a Rosicrucian, and therefore
must have been acquainted with both systems.

The important fact, in this dedication, is that the writer alludes,
in language that can not be mistaken, to a certain higher degree,
or to a more exalted initiation, to the attainment of which the
primitive degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry were preparatory. Thus
he says, addressing the Freemasons: " I present you with the
following sheets, as belonging more properly to you than any else. 
But 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 these shadows, somewhat truly great and noble and worthy the
serious attention of a genius the most elevated and sublime-the
spiritual, celestial cube, the only true, solid, and immovable
basis and foundation of all knowledge, peace, and happiness." (Page
iv.)

Another passage will show that the writer was not only thoroughly
acquainted with the religious, philosophical, and symbolic
character of the institution, but that he wrote evidently under the
impression (rather I should say the knowledge) that at that day
others besides himself had sought to connect Freemasonry with
Rosicrucianism. He says:

"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 a spiritual house, who believe and rely on the chief Lapis
Angularis, which the refractory and disobedient builders
disallowed; you are called from darkness to light; you are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood."

Here the symbolism is Masonic, but it is also Rosicrucian. The
Masons had derived their symbol of the STONE from the metaphor of
the Apostle, and like him had given it a spiritual signification. 
The Rosicrucians had also the Stone as their most important symbol. 
"Now," says one of them, "in this discourse will I manifest to thee
the natural condition of the Stone of the Philosophers, apparelled
with a triple garment, even this Stone of Riches and Charity, the
Stone of Relief from Languishment-in which is contained every
secret; being a Divine Mystery and Gift of God, than which there is
nothing more sublime."' (1)

It was natural that a Rosicrucian, iii addressing Freemasons,
should refer to a symbol common to both, though each derived its
interpretation through a different channel.

In another passage he refers to the seven liberal arts, of which he
calls
Astronomy "the grandest and most sublime." 

(1) Dialogue of Arislaus in the Alchemist's Enchiridion, 1672.
Quoted by Hitchcock in his "Alchemy and the Alchemists," p. 39

This was the Rosicrucian doctrine. In that of the Freemasons the
precedency is given to Geometry. Here we find a difference between
the two institutions which proves their separate and independent
existence. Still more important differences will be found in the
following passages, which, while they intimate a higher degree,
show that it was a Hermetic one, which, however, the Rosicrucian
writer was willing to ingraft on Freemasonry. He says: 

"And now, my Brethren, you of the higher class (note that he does
not call it a degree) 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 the most limpid water, than which no pure can be
purer, of such admirable mechanism, that makes even the greatest
philosopher gaze with wonder and astonishment, and is the subject
of the contemplation of the wisest men. 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 among the lilies; his eyes, two carbuncles, the
most brilliant, darting prolific never-dying fires; and his large,
flowing hair, blacker than the deepest black or plumage of the
long-lived crow; 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 basin of porphyrian
marble, receiving from the mouth of a large lion's head, to which
two bodies displayed on each side of it are conjoined, a greenish
fountain of liquid jasper. Ponder this well and consider. Haunt
no more the woods and forests; (I speak as a fool) haunt no more
the fleet; let the flying eagle fly unobserved; busy yourselves no
longer with the dancing idiot, swollen toads, and his own tail-
devouring dragon; leave these as elements to your Tyrones.

" The object of your wishes and desires (some of you may, perhaps
have attained it, I speak as a fool), is that admirable thing which
has a substance, neither too fiery nor altogether earthy, nor
simply watery; neither a quality the most acute or most obtuse, but
of a middle nature, and light to the touch, and in some manner
soft, at least not hard, not having asperity, but even in some sort
sweet to the taste, odorous to the smell, grateful to the sight,
agreeable and delectable to the hearing, and pleasant to the
thought; in short, that one only thing besides which there is no
other, and yet everywhere possible to be found, the blessed and
most sacred subject of the square of wise men, that is....... I 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 triumphant pyramid of purple
salt, more sparkling and radiant than the finest Orient ruby, in
the center of which reposes inaccessible light epitomized, 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 genius, whence
proceeds everything that is great and wise and happy.

" These things are deeply hidden from common view, and covered with
pavilions of thickest darkness, that what is sacred may not be
given to dogs or your pearls cast before swine, lest they trample
them under foot, and turn again and rend you."

All this is Rosicrucian thought and phraseology. Its counterpart
may be found in the writings of any of the Hermetic philosophers. 
But it is not Freemasonry and could be understood by no Freemason
relying for his comprehension only on the teaching he had received
in his own Order. It is the language of a Rosicrucian adept
addressed to other adepts, who like himself had united with the
Fraternity of Freemasons, that they might out of its select coterie
choose the most mystical and therefore the most suitable candidates
to elevate them to the higher mysteries of their own brotherhood.

That Philalethes and his brother Rosicrucians entertained an
opinion of the true character of Speculative Masonry very different
from that taught by its founders is evident from other passages of
this Dedication. Unlike Anderson, Desaguliers, and the writers
purely Masonic who succeeded them, the author of the Dedication
establishes no connection between Architecture and Freemasonry. 
Indeed it is somewhat singular that although he names both David
and Solomon in the course of his narrative, it is with little
respect, especially for the latter, and he does not refer, even by
a single word, to the Temple of Jerusalem. The Freemasonry of this
writer is not architectural, but altogether theosophic. It is
evident that as a Hermetic philosopher he sought to identify the
Freemasons with the disciples of the Rosicrucian sect rather than
with the Operative Masons of the Middle Ages. This is a point of
much interest in the discussion of the question of a connection
between the two associa- tions, considering that this work was
published only five years after the revival. It tends to show not
that Freemasonry was established by the Rosicrucians, but, on the
contrary, that at that early period the latter were seeking to
ingraft themselves upon the former, and that while they were
willing to use the simple degrees of Craft Masonry as a nucleus for
the growth of their own fraternity, they looked upon them only as
the medium of securing a higher initiation, altogether unmasonic in
its character and to which but few Masons ever attained.

Neither Anderson nor Desaguliers, our best because contemporary
authority for the state of Masonry in the beginning of the 18th
century, give the slightest indication that there was in their day
a higher Masonry than that described in the Book of Constitutions
of 1723. The Hermetic clement was evidently not introduced into
Speculative Masonry until the middle of the 18th century, when it
was infused in a fragmentary form into some of the High Degrees
which were at that time fabricated by certain of the Continental
manufacturers of Rites.

But if, as Engenius Philalethes plainly indicates, there were in
the year 1723 higher degrees, or at least a higher degree, attached
to the Masonic system and claimed to be a part of it, which
possessed mystical knowledge that was concealed from the great body
of the Craft, " who were not far illuminated, who stood in the
outward place and were not worthy to look behind the veil "-by
which it is clearly implied that there was another class of
initiates who were far illuminated, who stood within the inner
place and looked behind the veil-then the question forces itself
upon us, why is it that neither Anderson nor Desaguliers nor any of
the writers of that period, nor any of the rituals, make any
allusion to this higher and more illuminated system ?

The answer is readily at hand. It is because no such system of
initiation, so far as Freemasonry was concerned, existed. The
Master's degree was at that day the consummation and perfection of
Speculative Masonry There was nothing above or beyond it. The
Rosicrucians, who, especially in their astrological branch, were
then in full force in England, had, as we see from this book, their
own initiation into their Hermetic and theosophic system. 
Freemasonry then beginning to become popular and being also a
mystical society, these mystical brethren of the Rosy Cross were
ready to enter within its portals and to take advantage of its
organization. But they soon sought to discriminate between their
own perfect wisdom and the imperfect knowledge of their brother
Masons, and, Rosicrucian-like, spoke of an arcana which they only
possessed. There were some Rosicrucians who, like Philalethes,
became Freemasons, and some Freemasons, like Elias Ashmole, who
became Rosicrucians.

But there was no legitimate derivation of one from the other. 
There is no similarity between the two systems-their origin is
different; their symbols, though sometimes identical, have always
a different interpretation; and it would be an impossible task to
deduce the one historically from the other.

Yet there are not wanting scholars whose judgment on other matters
has not been deficient, who have not hesitated to trace Freemasonry
to a Rosicrucian source. Some of these, as Buhle, De Quincey, and
Sloane, were not Freemasons, and we can easily ascribe their
historical errors to their want of knowledge, but such writers as
Nicolai and Reghellini have no such excuse for the fallacy of which
they have been guilty.

Johann Gottlieb Buhle was among the first to advance the hypothesis
that Freemasonry was an off shoot of Rosicrucianism. This he did
in a work entitled On the Origin and the Principal a Events ,of the
Orders of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry (1) published in 1804. 
His theory was that Freemasonry was invented in the year 1629, by
John Valentin Andrea, and

(1) "Uber den Ursprung und die vornehmstem Schicksale des Ordens
der Rosenkreutzen und Freimauer."

hence that it sprang out of the Rosicrucian system or fiction which
was the fabrication of that writer. His fallacious views and
numerous inaccuracies met with many refutations at the time,
besides those of Nicolai, produced in the work which has been
heretofore cited. Even De Quincey himself, a bitter but flippant
adversary of Freemasonry, and who translated, or rather
paraphrased, the views of Buhle, does not hesitate to brand him as
illogical in his reasoning and confused in his arrangement.

Yet both Nicolai and De Quincey have advanced almost the same
hypothesis, though that of the former is considerably modified in
its conclusions.

The flippancy and egotism of De Quincey, with his complete
ignorance as a profane, of the true elements of the Masonic
institution, hardly entitle his arguments to a serious criticism. 
His theory and his self-styled facts may be epitomized as follows:

He thinks that the Rosicrucians where attracted to the Operative
Masons by the incidents, attributes and legends of the latter, and
that thus the two Orders were brought into some connection with
each other. The same building that was used by the guild of Masons
offered a desirable means for the secret assemblies of the early
Freemasons, who, of course, were Rosicrucians. An apparatus of
implements and utensils, such as was presented in the fabulous
sepulcher of Father Rosencreutz, was introduced, and the first
formal and solemn Lodge of Freemasons on which occasion the name of
Freemasons was publicly made known, was held in Masons' Hall,
Masons' Alley, Basinghall Street, London, in the year 1646. Into
this Lodge he tells us that Elias Ashmole was admitted. Private
meetings he says may have been held, and one at Warrington in
Lancashire, which is mentioned in Ashmole's Life, but the name of
a Freemasons' Lodge, with the insignia, attributes, and
circumstances of a Lodge, first, he assures us, came forward at the
date above mentioned.

All of this he tells us, is upon record, and thus refers to
historical testimony, though he does not tell us where it is to be
found. Now, all these statements we know, from authentic records,
to be false. Ashmole is our authority, and he is the very best
authority, because he was an eye-witness and a personal actor in
the occurrences which he records.

It has already been seen, by the extracts heretofore given from
Ashmole's diary, that there is no record of a Lodge held in 1646 at 
Masons' Hall; that the Lodge was held, with all ,the attributes and
circumstances of a Lodge," at Warrington; that Ashmole was then and
there initiated as a Freemason, and not at London; and finally,
that the record of the Lodge held at Masons' Hall, London, which is
made by the same Ashmole, was in 1683 and not in 1646, or thirty-
five years afterward.

An historian who thus falsifies records to sustain a theory is not
entitled to the respectful attention of a serious argument. And so
De Quincey may be dismissed for what he is worth. I do not concede
to him the excuse of ignorance for he evidently must have had
Ashmole's diary under his eyes, and his misquotations could only
have been made in bad faith.

Nicolai is more honorable in his mode of treating the question. He
does not attribute the use of Freemasonry directly and immediately
from the Rosicrucian brotherhood. But he thinks that its mystical
theosophy was the cause of the outspring of many other mystical
associations, such as the Theosophists, and that, passing over into
England, it met with the experimental philosophy of Bacon, as
developed especially in his New Atlantis, and that the combined
influence of the two, the esoteric principles of the one and the
experimental doctrines of the other, together with the existence of
certain political motives, led to a meeting of philosophers who
established the system of Freemasonry at Masons' Hall in 1646. He
does not explicitly say so, -but it is evident from the names that
he gives that these philosophers were Astrologers, who were only a
sect of the Rosicrucians devoted to a specialty.

The theory and the arguments of Nicolai have already been
considered in the preceding chapter of this work, and need no
further discussion here.

The views of Rhigellini are based on the book of Nicolai, and
differ from them only in being, from his Gallic ignorance of
English history, a little more inaccurate. The views of Rhigellini
have already been referred to on a preceding page.

And now, we meet with another theorist, who is scarcely more
respectful or less flippant than De Quincey, and who, not being a
Freemason, labors under the disadvantage of an incorrect knowledge
of the principles of the Order. Besides we can expect but little
accuracy from one who quotes as authentic history the spurious
Leland Manuscript.

Mr. George Sloane, in a very readable book published in London in
1849, under the title of New Curiosities of Literature, has a very
long article in his second volume on The Rosicrucians and
Freemasons. Adopting the theory that the latter are derived from
the former, he contends, from what he calls proofs, but which are
no proofs at all, that " the Freemasons are not anterior to the
Rosicrucians; and their principles, so far as they were avowed
about the middle of the 17th century, being identical, it is fair
to presume that the Freemasons were, in reality, the first
incorporated body of Rosicrucians or Sapientes."

As he admits that this is but a presumption, and as presumptions
are not facts, it is hardly necessary to occupy any time in its
discussion.

But he proceeds to confirm his presumption, in the following way.

" In the Fama of Andrea," he says, " we have the first sketch of a
constitution which bound by oath the members to mutual secrecy,
which proposed higher and lower grades, yet leveled all worldly
distinctions in the common bonds of brotherhood, and which opened
its privileges to all classes, making only purity of mind and
purpose the condition of reception."

This is not correct. Long before the publication of the Fama
Fraternitatis there were many secret associations in the Middle
Ages, to say nothing of the Mysteries of antiquity, in which such
constitutions prevailed, enjoining secrecy under the severest
penalties, dividing their system of esoteric instruction into
different grades, establishing a bond of brotherhood, and always
making purity of life and rectitude of conduct the indispensable
qualifications for admission. Freemasonry needed not to seek the
model of such a constitution from the Rosicrucians.

Another argument advanced by Mr. Sloane is this:

"The emblems of the two brotherhoods are the same in every respect-
the plummet, the level, the compasses, the cross, the rose, and all
the symbolic trumpery which the Rosicrucians named in their
writings as the insignia of their imaginary associations, and which
they also would have persuaded a credulous,,, world concealed
truths ineffable by mere language; both, too, derived their wisdom
from Adam, adopted the same myth of building, connected them.
selves in the same unintelligible way with Solomon's Temple,
affected to be seeking light from the East-in other words, the
Cabala-and accepted the heathen Pythagoras among their adepts."

In this long passage there are almost as many errors and mis-
statements as there are lines. The emblems of the two Orders were
not the same in any respect. The square and compasses were not
ordinary nor usual Rosicrucian emblems. In one instance, in a
plate in the Azoth Philosophorum of Basil Valentine, published in
the 17th century, we will, it is true, find these implements
forming part of a Rosicrucian figure but they are there evidently
used as phallic symbols, a meaning never attached to them in
Freemasonry, whose interpretation of them is derived from their
operative use. Besides, we know, from a relic discovered near
Limerick, in Ireland, that the square and the level were used by
the Operative Masons as emblems in the 16th or, perhaps, the 15th
century, with the same signification that is given to them by the
Freemasons of the present day. The Speculative Masons delved
nearly all of their symbols from the implements and the language of
the Operative art; the Rosicrucians took theirs from astronomical
and geometrical problems, and were connected in their
interpretations with a system of theosophy and not with the art of
building. The cross and the rose, referred to by Mr. Sloane, never
were at any time, not even at the present day, emblems recognized
in Craft Masonry, and were introduced into such of the High Degrees
fabricated about the middle of the 18th century as had in them a
Rosicrucian element. Again, the Rosicrucians had nothing to do
with the Temple of Solomon. Their " invisible house," or their
Temple, or " House of the Holy Ghost," was a religious and
philosophic idea, much more intimately connected with Lord Bacon's
House of Solomon in the Island of Bensalem than it was with the
Temple of Jerusalem. And, finally, the early Freemasons, like their
successors of the present day, in "seeking light from the East,"
intended no reference to the Cabala, which is never mentioned in
any of their primitive rituals, but alluded to the East as the
source of physical light-the place of sunrising, which they adopted
as a symbol of intellectual and moral light. It would, indeed, be
easier to prove from their symbols that the first Speculative
Masons were sun-worshippers than that they were Rosicrucians,
though neither hypothesis would be correct.

If any one will take the trouble of toiling through the three books
of Cornelius Agrippa's Occult Philosophy, which may be considered
as the text-book of the old Rosicrucian philosophy, he will see how
little there is in common between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. 
The one is a mystical system founded on the Cabala ; the other the
outgrowth of a very natural interpretation of symbols derived from
the usages and the implements of an operative art. The
Rosicrucians were theosophists, whose doctrines were of angels and
demons of the elements, of the heavenly bodies and their influence
on the affairs of men, and of the magical powers of numbers, of
suffumigations, and other sorceries.

The Alchemists, who have been called " physical Rosicrucians,"
adopted the metals and their transmutation, the elixir of life, and
their universal solvent, as symbols, if we may believe Hitchcock 
(1) by which they concealed the purest dogmas of a religious life.

But Freemasonry has not and never had anything of this kind in its
system. Its founders were, as we will see when we come to the
historical part of this work, builders, whose symbols, applied in
their architecture, were of a religious and Christian character;
and when their successors made this building fraternity a
speculative association, they borrowed the symbols by which they
sought to teach their philosophy, not from Rosicrucianism, not from
magic, nor from the Cabala, but from the art to which they owed
their origin. Every part of Speculative Masonry proves that it
could not have been derived from Rosicrucianism. The two Orders
had in common but one thing-they both had secrets which they
scrupulously preserved from the unhallowed gaze of the profane.

Andrea sought, it is true, in his Fama Fraternitatis, to elevate
Rosicrucianism to a more practical and useful character, and to
make it a vehicle for moral and intellectual reform. But even his
system, which was the only one that could have exerted any
influence on the English philosophers, is so thoroughly at variance
in its principles from that of the Freemasonry of the 17th century,
that a union of the two, or the derivation of one from the other,
must have been utterly impracticable.

It has been said that when Henry Cornelius Agrippa was in London,
in
the year 1510, he founded a secret society of Rosicrucians. This
is possible
although, during; his brief visit to London, Agrippa was the guest
of the
learned Dean Colet, and spent his time with his 

(1) "Remarks upon Alchemy and the Alchemists," passim.

host in the study of the works of the Apostle to the Gentiles. "
I labored hard," he says himself, " at the Epistles of St. Paul."
Still he may have found time to organize a society of Rosicrucians. 
In the beginning of the 16th century secret societies "chiefly
composed" says Mr. Morley, " of curious and learned youths had
become numerous, especially among the Germans, and towards the
close of that century these secret societies were developed into
the form of brotherhoods of Rosicrucians, each member of which
gloried in styling himself Physician, Theosophist, Chemist, and
now, by the mercy of God, Rosicrucian."' (1)

But to say of this society, established by Agrippa in England in
1510 (if one was actually established), as has been said by a
writer of the last century that " the practice of initiation, or
secret incorporation, thus and then first introduced has been
handed down to our own times, and hence, apparently, the mysterious
Eleusinian confederacies now known as the Lodges of Freemasonry,"
(2) is to make an assertion that is neither sustained by
historical testimony nor supported by any chain of reasoning or
probability.

I have said that while the hypothesis that Freemasonry was
originally derived from Rosicrucianism, and that its founders were
the English Rosicrucians in the 17th century, is wholly untenable,
there is no doubt that at a later period, a century after this, its
supposed origin, a Rosicrucian clement, was very largely diffused
in the Hautes Grades or High Degrees which were invented on the
continent of Europe about the middle of the 18th century.

This subject belongs more appropriately to the domain of history
than to that of legend, but its consideration will bring us so
closely into connection with the Rosicrucian or Hermetic philosophy
that I have thought that it would be more convenient not to
dissever the two topics, but to make it the subject of the next
chapter.

(1) "The Life of Henry Cornelius Agrippa von Netteshuri," by Henry
Morley, vol. i., p. 58
(2) Monthly Review, London, 1798 vol. xxv., p. 30





CHAPTER XXXVI

THE ROSICRUCIANISM OF THE HIGH DEGREES



The history of the High Degrees of Masonry begins with the
inventions of the Chevalier Michael Ramsay, who about the year 1728
fabricated three which he called Ecossais, Novice, and Knight
Templar. But the inventions of Ramsay had nothing in them of a
Rosicrucian character. They were intended by him to support his
hypothesis that Freemasonry originated in the Crusades, and that
the first Freemasons were Templars. His degrees were therefore not
philosophic but chivalric. The rite-manufacturers who succeeded
him, followed for the most part in his footsteps, and the degrees
that were subsequently invented partook of the chivalric and
military character, so that the title of " Chevalier " or "
Knight," unknown to the early Freemasons, became in time so common
as to form the designation in connection with another noun of most
of the new degrees. Thus we find in old and disused Rites, as well
as in those still existing, such titles as " Knight of the Sword,"
" Knight of the Eagle," " Knight of the Brazen Serpent," and so
many more that Ragon, in his Nomenclature, furnishes us with no
less than two hundred and ninety-two degrees of Masonic Knighthood,
without having exhausted the catalogue.

But it was not until long after the Masonic labors of Ramsay had
ceased that the element of Hermetic philosophy began to intrude
itself into still newer degrees.

Among the first to whom we are to ascribe the responsibility of
this novel infusion is a Frenchman named Antoine Joseph Pernelty,
who was born in 1716 and died in 1800, having passed, therefore,
the most active and rigorous portion of his life in the midst of
that flood of Masonic novelties which about the middle quarters of
the 18th century inundated the continent of Europe and more
especially the kingdom of France.

Pernelty was at first a Benedictine monk, but, having at the age of
forty-nine obtained a dispensation from his vows, he removed from
Paris to Berlin, where for a short time he served Frederick the
Great as his librarian. Returning to Paris, he studied and became
infected with the mystical doctrines of Swedenborg, and published
a translation of one of the most important of his works. He then
repaired to Avignon, where he established a new Rite, which, on its
transference to Montpellier, received the name of the " Academy of
True Masons." Into this Rite it may well be supposed that he
introduced much of the theosophic mysticism of the Swedish sage, in
parts of which there is a very strong analogy to Rosicrucianism, or
at least to the Hermetic Doctrines of the Rosicrucians. It will be
remembered that the late General Hitchcock, who was learned on
mystical topics, wrote a book to prove that Swedenborg was a
Hermetic philosopher; and the arguments that he advances are not
easily to be confuted.

But Pernelty was not a Swedenborgian only. He was a man of
multifarious reading and had devoted his studies, among other
branches of learning, to theology, philosophy, and the mathematical
sciences. The appetite for a mystical theology, which had led him
to the study and the adoption of the views of Swedenborg, would
scarcely permit him to escape the still more appetizing study of
the Hermetic philosophers.

Accordingly we find him inventing other degrees, and among them
one, the " Knight of the Sun," which is in its original ritual a
mere condensation of Rosicrucian doctrines, especially as developed
in the alchemical branch of Rosicrucianism.

There is not in the wide compass of Masonic degrees, one more
emphatically Rosicrucian than this. The reference in its ritual to
Sylphs, one of the four elementary spirits of the Rosicrucians ; to
the seven angels which formed a part of the Rosicrucian hierarchy
; the dialogue between Father Adam and Truth in which the doctrines
of Alchemy and the Cabala are discussed in the search of man for
theosophic truth, and the adoption as its principal word of
recognition of that which in the Rosicrucian system was deemed the
primal matter of all things, are all sufficient to prove the
Hermetic spirit which governed the founder of the degree in its
fabrication.

There have been many other degrees, most of which are now obsolete,
whose very names openly indicate their Hermetic origin. Such are
the " Hermetic Knight," the " Adept of the Eagle" (the word adept
being technically used to designate an expert Rosicrucian), the "
Grand Hermetic Chancellor," and the " Philosophic Cabalist." The
list might be increased by fifty more, at least, were time and
space convenient. There have been whole rites fabricated on the
basis of the Rosicrucian or Hermetic philosophy, such as the " Rite
of Philalethes" the " Hermetic Rite," and the " Rite of Illuminated
Theosophists," invented in 1767 by Benedict Chartanier, who united
in it the notions of the Hermetic philosophy and the reveries of
Swedenborg. Gadicke tells us also, in his Freimaurer-Lexicon, of
a so-called Masonic system which was introduced by the Marquis of
Lernais into Berlin in 1758, the objects of which were the Hermetic
arcana and the philosopher's stone.

But the Hermetic degree which to the present day has exercised the
greatest influence upon the higher grades of Masonry is that of the
Rose Croix. This name was given to it by the French, and it must
be noticed that in the French language no distinction has ever been
made between the Rosenkreutzer and Rose Croix; or, rather, the
French writers have always translated the Rosenkreutzer of the
German and the Rosacrucian of the English by their own words, Rose
Croix, and to this philological inaccuracy is to be traced an
historical error of some importance, to be soon adverted to.

The first that we hear in history of a Rosicrucian Masonry, under
that distinctive name, is about the middle of the 18th century.

The society to which I allude was known as the " Gold-und-
Rosenkreutzer," or the "Golden Rosicrucians." We first find this
title in a book published at Berlin, in 1714, by one Samuel
Richter, under the assumed name of Sincerus Renatus, and with the
title of A True and Complete Preparation of the Philosopher's Stone
by the Order of the Golden Rosicrucians. In it is contained the
laws of the brotherhood, which Findel thinks bear unmistakable
evidence of Jesuitical intervention.

The book of Richter describes a society which, if founded on the
old Rosicrucians, differed essentially from them in its principles. 
Findel speaks of these " Golden Rosicrucians " as if originally
formed on this work of Richter, and in the spirit of the Jesuits,
to repress liberty of thought and the healthy development of the
intellect. If formed at that early period, in the beginning of the
18th century, it could not possibly have had a connection with
Freemasonry.

But the Order, as an appendant to Masonry, was not really perfected
until about the middle of the 18th century. Findel says after
1756. The Order consisted of nine degrees, all having Latin names,
viz.: 1, Junior; 2, Theoreticus; 3, Practicus; 4, Philosophus; 5,
Minor; 6, Major; 7, Adeptus; 8, Magister; 9, Magus. It based
itself on the three primitive degrees of Freemasonry only as giving
a right to entrance ; it boasted of being descended from the
ancient Rosicrucians, and of possessing all their secrets, and of
being the only body that could give a true interpretation of the
Masonic symbols, and it claimed, therefore, to be the head of the
Order. There is no doubt that this brotherhood was a perfect
instance of the influence sought to be cast, about the middle of
the 18th century, upon Freemasonry by the doctrines of
Rosicrucianism. The effort, however, to make it a Hermetic system
failed. The Order of the Golden Rosicrucians, although for nearly
half a century popular in Germany, and calling into its ranks many
persons of high standing, at length began to decay, and finally
died out, about the end of the last century.

Since that period we hear no more of Rosicrucian Masonry, except
what is preserved in degrees like that of the Knight of the Sun and
a few others, which are still retained in the catalogue of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

I have said that the translation of the word Rosicrucian by Rose
Croix has been the source of an important historical error. This
is the confounding of the French degree of " Rose Croix," or "
Knight of the Eagle and Pelican," with Rosicrucianism, to which it
has not the slightest affinity. Thus Dr. Oliver, when speaking of
this degree, says that the earliest notice that he finds of it is
in the Fama Fraternitatis, evidently showing that he deemed it to
be of Rosicrucian origin.

The modern Rose Croix, which constitutes the summit of the French
Rite, and is the eighteenth of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite, besides being incorporated into several other Masonic
systems, has not in its construction the slightest tinge of
Rosicrucianism, nor is there in any part of its ritual, rightly
interpreted, the faintest allusion to the Hermetic philosophy.

I speak of it, of course, as it appears in its original form. This
has been somewhat changed in later days. The French Masons,
objecting to its sectarian character, substituted for it a
modification which they have called the " Philosophic Rose Croix."
In this they have given a Hermetic interpretation to the letters on
the cross, an example that has elsewhere been more recently
followed.

But the original Rose Croix, most probably first introduced to
notice by Prince (Charles Edward, the " young pretender," in the
Primordial chapter which he established in 1747, at Arras, in
France, was a purely Christian, if not a Catholic degree. Its most
prominent symbols, the rose, the cross, the eagle, and the pelican,
its ceremonies, and even its words and signs of recognition, bore
allusion to Jesus Christ, the expounder of the new law, which was
to take the place of the old law that had ceased to operate when "
the veil of the temple was rent."

The Rose Croix, as we find it in its pure and uncorrupted ritual,
was an attempt to apply the rites, symbols, and legends of the
primitive degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry to the last and greatest
dispensation; to add to the first temple of Solomon, and the second
of Zerubbabel, a third, which is the one to which Christ alluded
when he said, " Destroy this temple, and in three days will I raise
it up "an expression wholly incomprehensible by the ignorant
populace who stood around him at the time, but the meaning of which
is perfectly intelligible to the Rose Croix Mason who consults the
original ritual of his degree.

In all this there is nothing alchemical, Hermetic, or Rosicrucian
and it is a great error to suppose that there is anything but
Christian philosophy in the degree as originally invented.

The name of the degree has undoubtedly led to the confusion in its
history. But, in fact, the words " Rosa Crucis," common both to
the ancient Rosicrucian philosophers and to the modern Rose Croix
Masons, had in each a different meaning, and some have supposed a
different derivation. In the latter the title has by many writers
been thought to allude to the ros, or dew, which was deemed by the
alchemists to be a powerful solvent of gold, and to crux, the
cross, which was the chemical hieroglyphic of light. Mosheim says:

" The title of Rosicrucians evidently denotes the chemical
philosophers and those who blended the doctrines of religion with
the. secrets of chemistry. The denomination itself is drawn from
the science of chemistry ; and they only who are acquainted with
the peculiar language of the chemists can understand its true
signification and energy. It is not compounded, as many imagine,
of the two words rosa and crux, which signify rose and cross, but
of the latter of these words and the Latin word ros, which
signifies dew. Of all natural bodies dew is the most powerful
solvent of gold. The cross, in the chemical style, is equivalent
to light, because the figure of the cross exhibits at the same time
the three letters of which the word lux, i.e., light, is
compounded. Now, lux is called by this sect the seed or menstrum
of the red dragon,- or, in other words, that gross and corporeal,
when properly digested and modified, produces gold." (1)

Notwithstanding that this learned historian has declared that it
all other explications of this term are false and chimerical,"
others more learned perhaps than he, in this especial subject, have
differed from him in opinion, and trace the title to rosa, not to
ros.

There is certainly a controversy about the derivation of
Rosicrucian as applied to the Hermetic philosophers, but there is
none whatever in reference to that of the Masonic.Rose Croix. 
Everyone admits, because the admission is forced upon him by the
ritual and the spirit of the degree, that the title comes from rose
and cross, and that rose signifies Christ, and cross the instrument
of his passion. In the Masonic degree, Rose Croix signifies Christ
on the cross, a meaning that is carried out by the jewel, but one
which is never attached to the rose and now of the Rosicrucians,
where rose most probably was the symbol of silence and secrecy, and
the cross may have had either a Christian or a chemical
application, most probably the latter.

Again, we see in the four most important symbols of the Rose Croix
degree, as interpreted in the early rituals (at least in their
spirit), the same Christian interpretation, entirely free from all
taint of Rosicrucianism.

These symbols are the eagle, thelelican, the rose, and the cross,
all of which are combined to form the beautiful and expressive
jewel of the degree.

Thus the writer of the book of Exodus, in allusion to the belief
that the eagle assists its feeble 

(1) Mosheim "Ecclesiastical History," Maclane's Translation, cent.
xvii., sec. i., vol. iii., p. 436, note

younglings in their first flights by bearing them on its pinions,
represents Jehovah as saying, "Ye have seen what I did to the
Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagle's wings and brought you unto
myself." Hence, appropriating this idea, the Rose Croix Masons
selected the eagle as a symbol of Christ in his divine character,
bearing the children of his adoption in their upward course, and
teaching them with unequaled love and tenderness to poise their
fledgling wings, and soar from the dull corruptions of earth to a
higher and holier sphere. And hence the eagle in the jewel is
represented with expanded wings, as if ready for flight.

The pelican, "vulning herself and in her piety," as the heralds
call it, is, says Mr. Sloane Evans, " a sacred emblem of great
beauty and striking import, and the representation of it occurs not
unfrequently among the ornaments of churches. (1)" The allusion to
Christ as a Saviour, shedding his blood for the sins of the world,
is too evident to need explanation.

Of the rose and the cross I have already spoken. The rose is
applied as a figurative appellation of Christ in only one passage
of Scripture, where he is prophetically called the " rose of
Sharon," but the flower was always accepted in the iconography of
the church as one of his symbols. But the fact that in the jewel of
the Rose Croix the blood-red rose appears attached to the center of
the cross, as though crucified upon it, requires no profound
knowledge of the science of symbolism to discover its meaning.

The cross was, it is true, a very ancient symbol of eternal life.
especially among the "Egyptian, but since the crucifixion it has
been adopted by Christians as an emblem of him who suffered upon
it. " The cross," says Didron, " is more than a mere figure of
Christ ; it is, in iconography, either Christ himself or his
symbol." As such, it is used in the Masonry of the Rose Croix.

It is evident, from these explanations, that the Rose Croix was, in
its original conception, a purely Christian degree. There was no
intention of its founders to borrow for its construction anything
from occult philosophy, but simply to express in its symbolization
a purely Christian sentiment.

I have, in what I have said, endeavored to show that while
Rosicrucianism had no concern, as 

(1) "The Art of Blazon," p. 130

has been alleged, with the origination of Freemasonry in the 17th
century, yet that in the succeeding century, under various
influenced especially, perhaps, the diffusion of the mystical
doctrines of Swedenborg, a Hermetic or Rosicrucian element was
infused into some of the High Degrees then newly fabricated. But
the diffusion of that element went no farther ; it never affected
the pure Masonic system ; and, with the few exceptions which I have
mentioned, even these degrees have ceased to exist. Especially was
it not connected with one of the most important and most popular of
those degrees.

From the beginning of the 19th century Rosicrucianism has been dead
to Masonry, as its exponent the Hermetic philosophy, has been to
literature. It has no life now, and we preserve its relics only as
memorials of a past obscuration which the sunbeams of modern
learning have dispersed.

CHAPTER XXXVII

THE PYTHAGOREANS AND FREEMASONRY


The theory which ascribes, if not the actual origin of Freemasonry
to Pythagoras, at least its introduction into Europe by him,
through the school which he established at Crotona, in Italy, which
,was a favorite(oke one among our early writers, may very properly
be placed among the legends of the Order, since it wants all the
requisites of historical authority for its support.

The notion was most probably derived from what has been called the
Leland Manuscript, because it is said to have been found in the
Bodleian Library, in the handwriting of that celebrated antiquary. 
The author of the Life of Leland gives this account of the
manuscript :

"The original is said to be the handwriting of King Henry VI. and
copied by Leland by order of his highness, King Henry VIII. If the
authenticity of this ancient monument of literature remains
unquestioned, it demands particular notice in the present
publication, on account of the singularity of the subject, and no
less from a due regard to the royal writer and our author, his
transcriber, indefatigable in every part of literature. It will
also be admitted, acknowledgment is due to the learned Mr. Locke,
who, amidst the closest studies and the most strict attention to
human understanding, could unbend his mind in search of this
ancient treatise, which he first brought from obscurity in the year
1796."' (1)

This production was first brought to the attention of scholars by
being published in the Gentlemen's Magazine for September, 1753,
where it is stated to have been previously printed at Frankfort, in
Germany, in 1748, from a copy found in " the writing-desk of a
deceased brother."

(1) "Life of John Leland," p. 67


The title of it, as given in the magazine, is in the following
words:

Certeyne Questyons wyth Answeres to the same, concerynge the
Mystery of Maconrye ; wrytenne by the hande of Kynge Henrye the
Sixthe of the Name, and faythefullye copyed by me Johan Leylande,
Antiquarius, by the commaunde of His Highnesse."

The opinion of Masonic critics of the present day is that the
document is a forgery. It was most probably written about the time
and in the spirit in which Chatterton composed his imitations of
the Monk Rowley, and of Ireland with his impositions of
Shakespeare, and was fabricated as an unsuccessful attempt to
imitate the archaic language of the 15th century, and as a pious
fraud intended to elevate the character and sustain the pretensions
of the Masonic Fraternity by furnishing the evidence of its very
ancient origin.

Such were not, however, the views of the Masonic writers of the
last and beginning of the present century.

They accepted the manuscript, or rather the printed copy of it -for
the original codex has never been seen--with unhesitating, faith as
an authentic document. Hutchinson gave it as an appendix to his
Spirit of Masonry, Preston published in the second and enlarged
edition of his Illustrations, Calcott in his Candid Disquisition ,
Dermott in his Ahiman Rezon, and Krause in his Drei Altesten
Kunslurkunden. In none of these is there the faintest hint of its
being anything but an authentic document. Oliver said: " I
entertain no doubt of the genuineness and authenticity of this
valuable Manuscript." The same view has been entertained by
Reghellini among the French, and by Krause, Fessler, and Lenning
among the Germans.

Mr. Halliwell was perhaps the first of English scholars to express
a doubt of its genuineness. After a long and unsuccessful search
in the Bodleian Library for the original, he came, very naturally,
to the conclusion that it is a forgery. Hughan and Woodford, both
excellent judges, have arrived at the same conclusion, and it is
now a settled question that the Leland or Locke Manuscript (for it
is known by both titles) is a document of no historic character.

It is not, however, without its value. To its appearance about the
middle of the last century, and the unhesitating acceptance of its
truth by the Craft at the time, we can, in all probability, assign
the establishment of the doctrine that Freemasonry was of a
Pythagorean origin, though it had been long before adverted
to by Dr. Anderson. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the rise and progress of
this opinion, it will be proper to cite so much of the manuscript
as connects Pythagoras with Masonry. I do not quote the whole
document, though it is short, because it has so repeatedly been
printed, in even elementary Masonic works, as to be readily
accessible to the reader. In making my quotations I shall so far
defer to the artifice of the fabricator as to preserve unchanged
his poor attempt to imitate the orthography and style of the 15th
century, and interpolate in brackets, when necessary, an
explanation of the most unintelligible words.

The document purports to be answers by some Mason to questions
proposed by King Henry VI., who, it would seem, must have taken
some interest in the " Mystery of Masonry," and had sought to
obtain from competent authority a knowledge of its true character. 
The following are among the questions and answers:

Q.Where dyd ytt [Masonry] begynne ?
A.Ytt dyd begynne with the fyrst menne, yn the Este, which were
before the fyrste Manne of the Weste, and comyngc westlye, ytt
hathe broughte herwyth alle comfortes to the wylde and
comfortlesse.
Q. Who dyd brynge ytt Westye ?
A. The Venetians [Phoenicians] who beynge grate Merchandes comed
ffyrst ffrome the Este yn Venctia [Phoenicia] for the commodyte of
Merchaundysinge beithe [both] Este and Weste bey the redde and
Myddlelonde [Mediterranean] Sees.
Q. Howe comede ytt yn Englonde?
A. Peter Gower [Pythagoras] a Grecian journeyedde tor kunnynge yn
Egypt and in Syria and in everyche Londe whereat the Venetians
[Phoenicians] hadde plauntedde Maconrye and wynnynge Entraunce yn
all Lodges of Maconnes, he lerned muche, and retournedde and woned
[dwelt] yn Cirecia Magna wachsynge [growing] and becommynge a
myghtye wyseacre [philosopher] and gratelyche renouned and here he
framed a grate Lodge at Groton [Crotona] and maked many Maconnes,
some whereoffe dyd journeye yn Fraunce, and maked manye Maconnes
wherefromme, yn processe of Tyme, the Arte passed yn Engelonde."

I am convinced that there was a French original of this document,
from which language the fabricator translated it into archaic
English. The internal proofs of this are to be found in the
numerous preservations of French idioms. Thus we meet with Peter
Gower, evidently derived from Pythagore, pronounced Petagore, the
French for Pythagoras ; Maconrye and Maconnes, for Masonry and
Masons, the French c in the word being used instead of the English
s,- the phrase wynnynge the Facultye of Abrac, which is a pure
Gallic idiom, instead of acquiring the faculty, the word gayner
being indifferently used in French as signifying to win or to
acquire,- the word Freres for Brethren,- and the statement, in the
spirit of French nationality, that Masonry was brought into England
out of France.

None of these idiomatic phrases or national peculiarities would
have been likely to occur if the manuscript had been originally
written by an Englishman and in the English language.

But be this as it may, the document bad no sooner appeared than it
seemed to inspire contemporary Masonic writers with the idea that
Masonry and the school of Pythagoras, which he established at
Crotona, in Italy, about five centuries before Christ, were closely
connected-an idea which was very generally adopted by their
successors, so that it came at last to be a point of the orthodox
Masonic creed.

Thus Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry, when commenting on
the dialogue contained in this document, says that , the records of
the fraternity inform us that Pythagoras was regularly initiated
into Masonry; and being properly instructed in the mysteries of the
Art, he was much improved, and propagated the principles of the
Order in other countries into which he afterwards travelled."

Calcott, in his Candid Disquisition, speaks of the Leland
Manuscript as " an antique relation, from whence may be gathered
many of the original principles of the ancient society, on which
the institution of Freemasonry was ingrafted "-by the " ancient
society meaning the school of Pythagoras.

Hutchinson, in his Spirit of Masonry, quotes this " ancient Masonic
record," as he calls it, and says that " it brings us positive
evidence of the Pythagorean doctrine and Basilidian principles
making the foundation of our religious and moral duties." Two of
the lectures in his work are appropriated to a (discussion of the
doctrines of Pythagoras in connection with the Masonic system.

But this theory of the Pythagorean origin of Freemasonry does not
owe its existence to the writers of the middle of the 18th century. 
It had been advanced at an early period, and soon after the Revival
in 1717 by Dr. Anderson. In the first edition of the
Constitutions, published in 1723, he alludes to Pythagoras as
having borrowed great knowledge from the Chaldean Magi and the
Babylonish Jews, but he is more explicit in his Defense of Masonry,
published in 1730, wherein he says: " I am fully convinced that
Freemasonry is very nearly allied to the old Pythagorean
Discipline, from whence, I am persuaded, it may in some
circumstances very justly claim a descent."

Now, how are we to explain the way in which this tradition of the
connection of the Philosopher of Samos first acquired a place among
the legends of the Craft? The solution of the problem does not
appear to be very difficult. 

In none of the old manuscript constitutions which contain what has
been called the Legend of the Guild, or the Legend of the Craft, is
there, with a single exception, any allusion to the name of
Pythagoras. That exception is found in the Cooke MS., where the
legendist, after relating the story of the two pillars inscribed
with all the sciences, which had been erected by Jabal before the
Flood, adds, in lines 318-326, this statement :

" And after this flode many yeres as the cronyclc tellcth these ii
were founde and as the polycronicon seyeth that a grete clerke that
called putogaras [Pythagoras] fonde that one and hermes the
philisophre fonde that other, and thei tought forthe the sciens
that thei fonde therein ywritten."

Now, although the Cooke MS. is the earliest of the old records,
after the Halliwell poem, none of the subsequent constitutions have
followed it in this allusion to Pythagoras. This was because the
writer of the Cooke MS., being in possession of the Polychronicon
of the monk Ranulph Higden, an edition of which had been printed
during his time by William Caxton, he had liberally borrowed from
that historical work and incorporated parts of it into his Legend.

Of these interpolations, the story of the finding of one of the
pillars by Pythagoras is one. The writer acknowledges his
indebtedness for the statement to Higden's Polychronicon. But it
formed no part of the Legend of the Craft, and hence no notice is
taken of it in the subsequent manuscript copies of the Legend, In
none of them is Pythagoras even named.

It is evident, then, that in the 14th and following centuries, to
the beginning of the 18th, the theory of the Pythagorean origin of
Freemasonry, or of the connection of the Grecian philosopher with
it, was not recognized by the Craft as any part of the traditional
history of the Fraternity. There is no safer rule than that of the
old schoolmen, which teaches us that we must reason alike
concerning that which does not appear and that which does not
exist-" de non apparentibus et de non existentibus, eadem est
ratio." The old craftsmen who fabricated the Legend were workmen
and not scholars ; they were neither acquainted with the scholastic
nor the ancient philosophy; they said nothing about Pythagoras
because they knew nothing about him.

But about the beginning of the 18th century a change took place,
not only in the organization of the Masonic institution, but also
in the character and qualifications of the men who were engaged in
producing the modification, or we might more properly call it the
revolution.

Although in the 17th, and perhaps in the 16th century, many persons
were admitted into the Lodges of Operative Masons who were not
professional builders, it is, I think, evident that the society did
not assume a purely speculative form until the year 1717. The
Revival in that year, by the election of Anthony Sayer, "
Gentleman," as Grand Master; Jacob Lamball, a " Carpenter," and
Joseph Elliott, a " Captain," as Grand Wardens, proves that the
control of the society was to be taken out of the hands of the
Operative Masons.

Among those who were at about that time engaged in the recon-
struction of the Institution were James Anderson and Theophilus
Desaguliers. Anderson was a Master of Arts, and afterward a Doctor
of Divinity, the minister of a church in London, and an author;
Desaguliers was a Doctor of Laws, a fellow of the Royal Society,
and a teacher of Experimental Philosophy of no little reputation.

Both of these men, as scholars, were thoroughly conversant with the
system of Pythagoras, and they were not unwilling to take advantage
of his symbolic method of inculcating his doctrine, and to
introduce some of his symbols into the symbolism of the Order which
they were renovating.

Jamblichus, the biographer of Pythagoras, tells us that while the
sage was on his travels he caused himself to be initiated into all
the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre and those which were practiced in
many parts of Syria. But as these mysteries were originally
received by the Phoenicians from Egypt, he passed over into that
country, where he remained twenty-two years, occupying himself in
the study of geometry, astronomy, and all the initiations of the
gods, until he was carried a captive into Babylon by the soldiers
of Cambyses. There he freely associated with the Magi in their
religion ;and their studies, and, having obtained a thorough
knowledge of music, the science of numbers, and other arts, he
finally returned to Greece.(1)

The school of philosophy which Pythagoras afterward estalablished
at the city of Crotona, in Italy, differed from those of all the
other philosophers of Greece, in the austerities of initiation to
which his disciples were subject in the degrees of probation into
which they were divided, and in the method which lie adopted of
veiling his instructions under symbolic forms. In his various
travels he had imbibed the mystical notions prevalent among the
Egyptians and the Chaldeans, and had borrowed some of their modes
of initiation into their religious mysteries, which he adopted in
the method by which he communicated his own principles.

Grote, in his History of Greece, has very justly said that "
Pythagoras represents in part the scientific tendencies of his age,
in part also the spirit of mysticism and of special fraternities
for religious and ascetic observance which became diffused
throughout Greece in the 6th century before the Christian era."

Of the character of the philosophy of Pythagoras and of his method
of instruction, which certainly bore a very close resemblance to
that adopted by the founders of the speculative system, such
cultivated scholars as Anderson and Desaguliers certainly were not
ignorant. And if, among those who were engaged with them in the
construction of this new and improved school of speculative
Masonry, there were any whose limited scholastic attainments would
not enable them to consult the Greek biographics of Pythagoras by
Jamblichus and by Porphyry, they had at hand and readily accessible
an English translation of M. Dacier's life of the philosopher,
containing also an 

(1) "Jamblichus de Pythagorica Vita," c. iii., iv.

elaborate explication of his symbols, together with a translation
of the Commentaries of Hierodes on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,
all embraced in one volume and published in London in the year
1707, by the celebrated bibliopole Jacob Tonson.

There was abundant material and ready opportunity for the partially
unlearned as well as for the more erudite to obtain a familiarity
with the philosophy of Pythagoras, his method of initiation, and
his system of symbols.

It is not, therefore, surprising that these " Revivalists," as they
have been called, should have delighted, as Anderson has done in
his Defense of Masonry, to compare the two schools of the
Pythagoreans and the Freemasons ; that they should have dwelt on
their great similarity ; and in the development of their
speculative system should have adopted many symbols from the former
which do not appear to have been known to or used by the old
Operative Masons whom they succeeded.

Among the first Pythagorean symbols which were adopted by the
Speculative Masons was the symbolism of the science of numbers,
which appears in the earliest rituals extant, and of which Dr.
Oliver has justly said, in his posthumous work entitled The
Pythagorean Triangle, that " the Pythagoreans had so high an
opinion of it that they considered it to be the origin of all
things, and thought a knowledge of it to be equivalent to a
knowledge of God."

This symbolism of numbers, which was adopted into Speculative
Masonry at a very early period after the Revival, has been
developed and enlarged in successive revisions of the lectures,
until at the present day it constitutes one of the most important
and curious parts of the system of Freemasonry. But we have no
evidence that the same system of numerical symbolism, having the
Pythagorean and modern Masonic interpretation, prevailed among the
Craft anterior to the beginning of the 18th century. It was the
work of the Revivalists, who, as scholars familiar with the
mystical philosophy of Pythagoras, deemed it expedient to introduce
it into the equally mystical philosophy of Speculative Masonry

In fact, the Traveling Freemasons, Builders, or Operative Masons of
the Middle Ages, who were the real predecessors of the Speculative
Masons of the 18th century, did not, so far as we can learn from
their remains, practice any of the symbolism of Pythagoras. Their
symbol, such as the vesica piscis, the cross, the rose, or certain
mathematical figures, were derived either from the legends of the
church or from the principles of geometry applied to the art of
building. These skillful architects who, in the dark ages, when
few men could read or write, erected edifices surpassing the works
of ancient Greece or Rome, and which have never been equalled by
modern builders, were wonderful in their peculiar skill, but were
wholly ignorant of metaphysics or philosophy, and borrowed nothing
from Pythagoras.

Between the period of the Revival and the adoption of the
Prestonian system, in 1772, the lectures of Freemasonry underwent
at least seven revisions. In each of these, the fabricators of
which were such cultivated scholars as Dr. Desaguliers, Martin
Clare, a President of the Royal Society, Thomas Dunckerley, a man
of considerable literary attainments, and others of like character,
there was a gradual increment of Pythagorean symbols. Among these,
one of the most noted is the forty-seventh proposition of Euclid,
which is said to have been discovered by Pythagoras, and which the
introducer of it into the Masonic system, in his explanation of the
symbol, claims the sage to have been " an ancient brother."

For some time after the Revival, the symbols of Pythagoras, growing
into gradual use among the Craft, were referred to simply as an
evidence of the great similarity which existed between the two
systems-a theory which, so far as it respects modern Speculative
Masonry, may be accepted with but little hesitation.

The most liberal belief on this subject was that the two systems
were nearly allied, but, except in the modified statement of
Anderson, already quoted from his Defense ofmasonry, there was no
claim in the years immediately succeeding the Revival that the one
was in direct descent from the other.

In none of the speeches, lectures, or essays of the early part of
the last century, which have been preserved, is there any allusion
to this as a received theory of the Craft.

Drake, in his speech before the Grand Lodge of York, delivered in
1726 does indeed, speak of Pythagoras, not as the founder of
Masonry, but only in connection with Euclid and Archimedes as great
proficients in Geometry, whose works have been the basis " on which
the learned have built at different times so many noble
superstructures." And of Geometry, he calls it "that noble and
useful science which must have begun and goes hand in hand with
Masonry," an assertion which, to use the old chorus of the Masons,
nobody will deny."

But to say that Geometry is closely connected with Operative
Masonry, and that Pythagoras was a great geometrician, is very
different from saying that he was a Mason and propagated Masonry in
Europe.

Martin Clare, in his lecture on the Advantages Enjoyed by the
Fraternity, whose date is 1735, does not even mention the name of
Pythagoras, although, in one passage at least, when referring to
"those great and worthy spirits with whom we are intimately
related," he had a fair opportunity to refer to that illustrious
sage.

In a Discourse Upon Masonry, delivered before a Lodge of England
in 1742, now lying before me, in which the origin of the Order is
fully discussed, there is not one word of reference to Pythagoras.
The same silence is preserved in a Lecture on the Connection 
Between Freemasonry and Religion, by the Rev. C. Brockwell,
published in 1747.

But after the middle of the century the frequent references in the
lectures to the Pythagorean symbols, and especially to that
important one, in its Masonic as well as its geometrical value, the
forty-seventh proposition, began to lead the members of tile
society to give to Pythagoras the credit of a relationship to the
order to which historically he had no claim.

Thus, in A Search After Truth, delivered in the Lodge in 1752, the
author says that " Solon, Plato, and Pythagoras, and from them the
Grecian literati in general in a great measure, were obliged for
their learning to Masonry and the labors of some of our ancient
brethren."

And then, when this notion of the Pythagorean origin of Freemasonry
began to take root in the minds of the Craft, it was more firmly
established by the appearance in 1753, in the Gentleman's Magazine,
of that spurious document already quoted, in which, by a " pious
fraud," the fabricator of it sought to give the form of an
historical record to the statement that Pythagoras, learning his
Masonry of the Eastern Magi had brought it to Italy and established
a Lodge at Crotona, whence the institution was propagated
throughout Europe, and from France into England.

As to this statement in the Leland MS., it may be sufficient to say
that the sect of Pythagoras did not subsist longer than to the end
of the reign of Alexander the Great. So far from disseminating its
Lodges or schools after the Christian era, we may cite the
authority of the learned Dacier, who says that " in after ages
there were here and there some disciples of Pythagoras, but these
were only private persons who never established any society, nor
had the Pythagoreans any longer a public school."

And so the result of this investigation into the theory of the
Pythagorean origin of Freemasonry may be briefly epitomized thus:

The mediaeval Freemasons never entertained any such theory, nor in
their architectural labors did they adopt any of his symbols.

The writer of the Cooke MS., in 1490, having at hand Higden's
Polychronicon, in Trevisa's translation, a new edition of which had
just been printed by Caxton, incorporated into the Legend of the
Craft some of the historical statements (such as they were) of the
Monk of (Chester, but they were extraneous to and formed no part of
the original Legend. Therefore, in all the subsequent Old Records
these interpolations were rejected and the Legend of the Craft, as
accepted by the writers of the manuscripts which succeeded that of
the Cooke codex, from 1550 to 1701, contained no mention of
Pythagoras.

Upon the Revival, in 1717, which was really the beginning of
genuine Speculative Masonry, the scholars who fabricated the
scheme, finding the symbolic teaching of Pythagoras very apposite,
adopted some of its symbols, especially those relating to numbers
in the new Speculative system which they were forming.

By the continued additions of subsequent ritualists these symbols
were greatly increased, so that the name and the philosophy of
Pythagoras became familiar to the Craft, and finally, in 1753, a
forged document was published which claimed him as the founder and
propagator of Masonry.

In later days this theory has continued to be maintained by a few
writers, and the received rituals of the Order require it as a part
of the orthodox Masonic creed, that Pythagoras was a Mason and an
ancient brother and patron of the Order.

Neither early Masonic tradition nor any historical records exist
which support such a belief.





CHAPTER XXXVIII

FREEMASONRY AND THE GNOSTICS



The hypothesis which seeks to trace a connection between Gnosticism
and Freemasonry, and perhaps even an origin of the latter from the
former, has been repeatedly advanced, and is therefore worthy of
consideration.

The latest instance is in a work of Mr. C. W. King, published in
1864 under the title The Gnostics and their.Remains, Ancient and
Medieval.

Mr. King is not a Freemason, and, like all the writers non-Masonic,
such as Barnell, Robison, De Quincey, and a host of others, who
have attempted to discuss the history and character of Freemasonry,
he has shown a vast amount of ignorance. In fact, these
self-constituted critics, when treating of subjects with which they
are not and can not be familiar, remind one of the busybodies of
Plautus, of whom he has said that, while pretending to know
everything, they in fact know nothing-" Qui omnia se simulant scise
nec quicquam sciunt. "

Very justly has Mr. Hughan called this work of King's, so far as
its Masonic theories are concerned, one of an " unmasonic and
unhistoric character." But King, it must be admitted, was not the
first writer who sought to trace Freemasonry to a Gnostic origin.

In a pamphlet published in 1725, a copy of which has been preserved
in the Bodleian Library, among the manuscripts of Dn Rawlinson, and
which bears the title of Two Letters to a Friend. The First
concerning the Society of Free-masons. The second giving an Account
of the Most Ancient Order of Gormogons, etc., we find, in the first
letter, on the Freemasons, the following passage:

" But now, Sir, to draw towards a conclusion; and to give my
opinion seriously, concerning these prodigious Virtuosi ;-My belief
is, that if they fall under any denomination at all, or belong to
any sect of men, which has hitherto appeared in the world, they may
be ranked among the Gnostics, who took their original from Simon
Magus; these were a set of men, which ridiculed not only
Christianity, but even rational morality; teaching that they should
be saved by their capacious knowledge and understanding of no
mortal man could tell what. They babbled of an amazing
intelligence they had, from nobody knows whence. They amused and
puzzled the hair-brained, unwary crowd with superstitious
interpretations of extravagant talismanic characters and abstruse
significations of uncommon Cabalistic words; which exactly agrees
with the proceedings of our modern Freemasons."

Although the intrinsic value of this pamphlet was not such as to
have preserved it from the literary tomb which would have consigned
it to oblivion, had not the zeal of an antiquary preserved a single
copy as a relic, yet the notion of some relation of Freemasonry to
Gnosticism was not in later years altogether abandoned.

Hutchinson says that "under our present profession of Masonry, we
allege our morality was originally deduced from the school of
Pythagoras, and that the Basilidian system of religion furnished us
with some tenets, principles, and hieroglyphics." (1) Basilides,
the founder of the sect which bears his name, was the most eminent
of the Egyptian Gnostics.

About the time of the fabrication of the High Degrees on the
continent of Europe, a variety of opinions of the origin of Masonry
-many of them absurd-sprang up among Masonic scholars. Among these
theorists, there were not a few who traced the Order to the early
Christians, because they found it, as they supposed, among the
Gnostics, and especially its most important sect, the Basilidians.

Some German and French writers have also maintained the hypothesis
of a connection, more or less intimate, between the Gnostics and
the Masons.

I do not know that any German writer has positively asserted the
existence of this connection. But the doctrine has, at times, been
alluded to without any absolute disclaimer of a belief in its
truth.

Thus Carl Michaeler, the author of a Treatise on the Pheonician
Mysteries, has written some 

(1) "Spirit of Masonry," lect. x., p. 106

observations on the subject in an article published by him in 1784,
in the Vienna Journale fur Freimaurer, on the analogy between the
Christianity of the early times and Freemasonry. In this essay he
adverts to the theory of the Gnostic origin of Freemasonry. He is,
however, very guarded in his deductions, and says conditionally
that, if there is any connection between the two, it must be traced
to the Gnosticism of Clement of Alexandria, and on which simply as
a school of philosophy and history it may have been founded, while
the differences between the two now existing must be attributed to
changes of human conception in the intervening centuries.

But, in fact, the Gnosticism of Clement was something entirely
different from that of Basilides, to whom Hutchinson and King
attribute the origin of our symbols, and whom Clement vigorously
opposed in his works. It was what he himself calls it, "a true
Gnostic or Christian philosophy on the bads of faith." It was that
higher knowledge, or more perfect state of Christian faith, to
which St. Paul is supposed to allude when he says, in his First
Epistle to the Corinthians, that he made known to those who were
perfect a higher wisdom.

Reghellini speaks more positively, and says that the symbols and
doctrines of the Ophites, who were a Gnostic sect, passed over into
Europe, having been adapted by the Crusaders, the Rosicrucians, and
the Templars, and finally reached the Masons.' (1)

Finally, I may refer to the Leland MS., the author of which
distinctly brought this doctrine to the public view, by asserting
that the Masons were acquainted with the " facultys of Abrac," by
which expression he alludes to the most prominent and distinctive
of the Gnostic symbols. That the fabricator of this spurious
document should thus have intimated the existence of a connection
between Gnosticism and Freemasonry would lead us to infer that the
idea of such a connection was not wholly unfamiliar to the Masonic
mind at that period-an inference which will be strengthened by the
passage already quoted from the pamphlet in the Rawlinson
collection, which was published about a quarter of a century
before.

But before we can enter into a proper discussion of this 
important question, it will be expedient for the 

(1) "Maconnerie considereis comme re Resultat des Relig. Egypt.
Juive et Chretienne," tom., p. 291.

sake of the general reader that something should be said of the
Gnostics and of the philosophical and religious system which they
professed.

I propose, therefore, very briefly to reply to the questions, What
is Gnosticism, and Who were the Gnostics ?

Scarcely had the light of Christianity dawned upon the world before
a multitude of heresies sprang up to disturb the new religion. 
Among these Gnosticism holds the most important position. the title
of the sect is derived from the Greek word gnosis, "wisdom or
knowledge," and -was adopted in a spirit of ostentation, to
intimate that the disciples of the sect were in possession of a
higher degree of spiritual wisdom than was attainable by those who
had not been initiated into their mysteries.

At so early a period did the heresy of Gnosticism arise in the
Christian Church, that we find the Apostle Paul warning the
converts to the new faith of the innovations on the pure doctrine
of Christ, and telling his disciple Timothy to avoid "profane and
vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called." The
translators of the authorized version have so rendered the passage. 
But, in view of the greater light that has since their day been
thrown upon the religious history and spirit of the apostolic age,
and the real nature of the Gnostic element which disturbed it, we
may better preserve the true sense of the original Greek by
rendering it "oppositions of the false gnosis."

There were then two kinds of Gnosis, or Gnosticism-the true and the
false, a distinction which St. Paul himself makes in a passage in
his Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he speaks of the wisdom
which he communicated to the perfect, in contradistinction to the
wisdom of the world.

Of this true Gnosticism, Clement declared himself to be a follower. 
With it and Freemasonry there can be no connection, except that
rnodified one admitted by Michaeler, which relates only to the
investigation of philosophical and historical truth.

The false Gnosis to which the Apostle refers is the Gnosticism
which is the subject of our present inquiry.

When John the Baptist was preaching in the Wilderness, and for some
time before, there were many old philosophical and religious
systems which, emanating from the East, all partook of the mystical
character peculiar to the Oriental mind. These various systems
were, then, in consequence of the increased communication of
different nations which followed the conquests of Alexander of
Macedon, beginning to approximate each other. The disciples of
Plato were acquiring some of the doctrines of the Eastern Magi, and
these in turn were becoming more or less imbued with the philosophy
of Greece. The traditions of India, Persia, Egypt, Chaldea, Judea,
Greece, and Rome were commingling in one mass, and forming out of
the conglomeration a mystical philosophy and religion which partook
of the elements of all the ingredients out of which it was composed
and yet contained within its bosom a mysticism which was peculiar
to itself.

This new system was Gnosticism, which derived its leading doctrines
from Plato, from the Zend-Avesta, the Cabala, the Vedas, and the
hieroglyphs of Egypt. It taught as articles of fakth the existence
of a Supreme Being, invisible, inaccessible, and incomprehensible,
who was the creator of a spiritual world consisting of divine
intelligences called aeons, emanating from him, and of matter which
was eternal, the source of evil and the antagonist of the Supreme
Being.

One of these aeons, the lowest of all called the Demiurge, created
the world out of matter, which, though eternal, was inert and
formless.

The Supreme Father, or First Principle of all things, had dwelt
from all eternity in a pleroma or fullness of inaccessible light,
and hence he was called Bythos, or the Abyss, to denote the
unfathomable nature of his perfections. "This Being," says Dr.
Burton, in his able exposition of the Gnostic system, in the Bam o
Lectures ures, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon
himself, produced two other beings of different sexes, from whom by
a series of descents, more or less numerous according to different
schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, who were called
aeons, from the periods of their existance before time was, or
emanations from the mode of their production. These successive
aeons or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the
preceding; and their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic
scheme, that they might account for the creation of the world,
without making God the author of evil. These aeons lived through
countless ages with their first Father. But the system of
emanations seems to have resembled that of concentric circles, and
they gradually deteriorated as they approached nearer and nearer to
the extremity of the pleroma. Beyond this pleroma was matter, inert
and powerless, though co-eternal with the Supreme God, and like him
without beginning. At length one of the aeons (the Demiurge)
passed the limits of the pleroma, and, meeting with matter, created
the world after the form and model of an ideal world, which existed
in the plemora or the mind of the Supreme God."

It is not necessary to enter into a minute recapitulation of the
other points of doctrine which were evolved out of these three. It
is sufficient to say that the old Gnosticism was not an original
system, but was really a cosmogony, a religion and a philosophy
which was made up of portions of the older Grecian and Oriental
systems, including the Platonism of the Greeks, the Parsism of the
Persians, and the Cabala of the Jews.

The advent of Christianity found this old Gnosticism prevailing in
Asia and in Egypt. Some of its disciples became converts to the
new religion, but brought with them into its fold many of the
mystical views of their Gnostic philosophy and sought to apply them
to the pure and simple doctrines of the Gospel.

Thus it happened that the name of Gnosticism was applied to a great
variety of schools, differing from each other in their
interpretations of the Christian faith, and yet having one common
principle of unity-that they placed themselves in opposition to the
conceptions of Christianity as it was generally received by its
disciples. And this was because they deemed it insufficient to
afford any germs of absolute truth, and therefore they claimed for
themselves the possession of an amount of knowledge higher than
that of ordinary believers.

"They seldom pretended," says the Rev. Dr. Wing, "to demonstrate
the principles on which their systems were founded by historical
evidence or logical reasonings, since they rather boasted that
these were discovered by the intuitional powers of more highly
endowed minds, and that the materials thus obtained, whether
through faith or divine revelation, were then worked up into a
scientific form, according to each one's natural power and culture. 
Their aim was to construct, not merely a theory of redemption, but
of the universe-a cosmogony. No subject was beyond their
investigations. Whatever God could reveal to the finite intellect
they looked upon as within their range. What to others seemed only
speculative ideas, were by. them hypostatized or personified into
real beings or historical facts. It was in this way that they
constructed systems of speculation on subjects entirely beyond the
range of human knowledge, which startle us by their boldness and
their apparent consciousness of reality." (1)

Such was the Gnosticism whose various sects intruded with their
mystical notions and their allegorical interpretations into the
Church, before Christianity had been well established. Although
denounced by St. Paul as " vain babblers," they increased in
strength and gave rise to many heresies which lasted until the 4th
century.

The most important of these sects, and the one from which the
moderns have derived most of their views of what Christian
Gnosticism is, was established in the 2d century by Basilides, the
chief of the Egyptian Gnostics.

The doctrine of Basilides and the Basilidians was a further
development of the original Gnostic system. It was more
particularly distinguished by its adoption from Pythagoras of the
doctrine of numbers and its use and interpretation of the word
Abraxas-that word the meaning of which, according to the Leland
MS., so greatly puzzled the learned Mr. Locke.

In the system of Basilides the Supreme God was incomprehensible,
non-existent, and ineffable. Unfolded from his perfection were
seven attributes or personified powers, namely, Mind, Reason,
Thought, Wisdom, Power, Holiness, and Peace. Seven was a sacred
number, and these seven powers referred to the seven days of the
week. Basilides also supposed that there were seven similar beings
in every stage or region of the spiritual world, and that these
regions were three hundred and sixty-five in number, thus
corresponding to the days in the solar year. These three hundred
and sixty-five regions were so many heavenly mansions between the
earth and the empyrean, and be supposed the existence of an equal
number of angels. The number three hundred and sixty-five was in
the Basilidian system one of sacred import. Hence he fabricated
the word A B R A X A S, because the Greek letters of which it is
composed have the numerical value, when added together, of exactly
three hundred and sixty-five. The learned 

(1) Strong and McClintock's "Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological,
and Ecclesiastical Literature."

German theologian, Bellerman thinks that he has found the
derivation in the Captu, or old Egyptian language, where the words
abrah, signifying "word," and sadsch, signifying "blessed," "holy,"
or "adorable," and therefore abrahsadsch Hellenized into Abraxas,
would denote "the holy, blessed, or adorable Word," thus
approximating to the spirit of the Jewish Cabalists in their
similar use of a Holy Name.

Whether the word was thus derived or was invented by Basilides on
account of the numerical value of its letters, is uncertain. lie,
however, applied it in his system as the name of the Supreme God.

This word Abraxas, like the Tetragrammaton of the Jews, became one
of great importance to the sect of Basilidians. Their reverence
for it gave origin to what are called "abraxas gems."

These are gems, plates, or tablets of metal, which have been
discovered principally in Egypt, but have also been found in France
and Spain. They are inscribed with the word Abraxas and an image
supposed to designate the Basilidian god. Some of them have on
them Jewish words, such as Jehovah or Adonai, and others contain
Persian, Egyptian, or Grecian symbols.

Montfaucon, who has treated the subject of " abraxas gems "
elaborately, divides them into seven classes. 1. Those inscribed
with the head of a cock as a symbol of the sun. 2. Those having the
head of a lion, to denote the heat of the sun, and the word
Mithras. 3. Those having the image of the Egyptian god Sera is. 4.
Those having the images of sphinxes, apes, and other animals. 5.
Those having human figures with the words Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai,
etc. 6. Those having inscriptions without figures. 7. Those having
monstrous forms.

From these gems we have derived our knowledge of the Gnostic or
Basilidian symbols, which are said to have furnished ideas to the
builders of the Middle Ages in their decorative art, and which Mr.
King and some other writers have supposed to have been transmitted
to the Freemasons.

The principal of these Gnostic symbols is that of the Supreme God,
Abraxas. This is represented as a human figure with the head of a
cock, the legs being two serpents. He brandishes a sword in one
hand (sometimes a whip) and a shield in the other.

The serpent is also a very common symbol, having sometimes the head
of a cock and sometimes that of a lion or of a hawk.

Other symbols, known to be of a purely Gnostic or rather Basilidian
origin, from the accompanying inscription, Abraxas, or Iao, or
both, are Horus, or the Sun, seated on a lotus flower, which is
supported by a double lamp, composed of two phallic images
conjoined at their bases; the dog ; the raven ; the tancross
surmounted by a human head; the Egyptian god, Anubis, and Father
Nilus, in a bending posture and holding in his hand the double,
phallic lamp of Horus. This last symbol is curious because the
word Heilos, like Mithras, which is also a Gnostic symbol, and
Abraxas, expresses, in the value of the Greek letters of which it
is composed, the number three hundred and sixty-five.

All these symbols, it will be seen, make some reference to the sun,
ether as the representative of the Supreme God or as the source of
light, and it might lead to the supposition that in the later
Gnosticism, as in the Mithraic Mysteries, there was an allusion to
sunworship, which was one of the earliest and most extensively dill
used of the primitive religions. Evidently in both the Gnostic and
the Mithraic symbolism the sun plays a very important part.

While the architects or builders of the Middle Ages may have
borrowed and probably did borrow, some suggestions from the
Gnostics in carrying out the symbolism of their art, it is not
probable, from their ecclesiastical organization and their
religious character, that they would be more than mere suggestions. 
Certainly they would not have been accepted by these orthodox
Christians with anything of their real Gnostic interpretation.

We may apply to the use of Gnostic symbols by the mediaeval
architects the remarks made by Mr. Paley on the subject of the
adoption of certain Pagan symbols by the same builders. Their
Gnostic origin was a mere accident. They were employed not as the
symbolism of any Gnostic doctrine, but in the spirit of
Christianity, and " the Church, in perfecting their development,
stamped them with a purer and sublimer character." (1)

On a comparison of these Gnostic symbols with those of Ancient
Craft or Speculative Masonry, I fail to find any reason to
subscribe to the opinion of Hutchinson, that " the Basilidian
system of religion furnished Freemasonry with some tenets,
principles, and hieroglyphics." As Freemasons we will have to
repudiate the tenets and principles" of the sect

(1) "Manual of Gothic Architecture," p.4

which was condemned by Clement and by Irenaeus; and as to its "
hieroglyphics," by which is meant its symbols, we will look in vain
for their counterpart or any approximation to them in the system of
Speculative Masonry.

That the Masons at a very early period exhibited a tendency to the
doctrine of sacred numbers, which has since been largely developed
in the Masonry of the modern High Degrees, is true, but this
symbolism was derived directly from the teachings of Pythagoras,
with which the founders of the primitive rituals were familiar.

That the sun and the moon are briefly referred to in our rituals
and may
be deemed in some sort Masonic symbols, is also true, but the use
made
of this symbolism, and the interpretation of it, very clearly prove
that it has
not been derived from a Gnostic source.

The doctrine of the metempsychosis, which was. taught by the
Basilidians, is another marked point which would widely separate
Freemasonry from Gnosticism, the dogma of the resurrection being
almost the foundation-stone on which the whole religious philosophy
of the former is erected.

Mr. King, in his work on the Gnostics, to which allusion has
already been made, seeks to trace the connection between
Freemasonry and Gnosticism through a line of argument which only
goes to prove his absolute and perhaps his pardonable ignorance of
Masonic history. It requires a careful research, which must be
stimulated by a connection with the Order, to enable a scholar to
avoid the errors into which he has fallen.

"The foregoing considerations," he says, " seem to afford a
rational explanation of the manner in which the genuine Gnostic
symbols (whether still retaining any mystic meaning or kept as mere
lifeless forms, let the Order declare) have come down to these
times, still paraded as things holy and of deep significance. 
Treasured up amongst the dark sectaries of the Lebanon and the
Sofis of Persia, communicated to the Templars, and transmitted to
their heirs, the Brethren of the Rosy Cross, they have kept up an
unbroken existence." (1)

In the line of history which Mr. King has here pursued, he has
presented a mere jumble of non-consecutive events which it would be
impossible to disentangle. He has evidently confounded the old

(1) "The Gnostics and their Remains," p. 191.

Rosicrucians with the more modern Rose Croix, while the only
connection between the two is to be found in the apparent
similarity of name. If he meant the former, he has failed to show
a relation between them and the Freemasons; if the latter, he was
wholly ignorant that there is not a Gnostic symbol in their system,
which is .wholly constructed out of an ecclesiastical symbolism. 
Such inconsequential assertions need no refutation.

Finally he says that " Thus those symbols, in their origin,
embodying the highest mysteries of Indian theosophy, afterward
eagerly embraced by the subtle genius of the Alexandrian Greeks,
and combined by them with the hidden wisdom of Egypt, in whose
captivating and profound doctrines the few bright spirits of the
Middle Ages sought a refuge from the childish fables then
constituting orthodoxy, engendered by monkery upon the primal
Buddhistic stock; these sacred symbols exist even now, but serve
merely for the insignia of what at best is but a charitable,
probably nothing more in its present form than a convivial
institution."

These last lines indicate the precise amount of knowledge that he
possesses of the character and the design of Freemasonry. It is to
be regretted that he had not sought to explain the singular anomaly
that "what at best is but a charitable, and probably nothing more
than a convivial institution " has been made the depository of the
symbols of an abstruse theosophy. Benevolent societies and
convivial clubs do not, as a rule, meddle with matters of such high
import.

But to this uncritical essay there need be no reply. When anyone
shall distinctly point out and enumerate the Gnostic symbols that
made a part of the pure and simple symbolism of the primitive
Speculative Masons, it will be time enough to seek the way in which
they came there.

For the present we need not undergo the needless labor of searching
for that which we are sure can not be found.





CHAPTER XXXIX

THE SOCINIANS AND FREEMASONRY



While some of the adversaries of Freemasonry have pretended that
its origin is to be found in the efforts of the Jesuit who sought
to effect certain religious and political objects through the
influence of such a society, one, at least, has endeavored to trace
its first rise to the Socinians, who sprang up as a religious sect
in Italy about the middle of the 16th century.

This hypothesis is of so unhistorical a character that it merits a
passing notice in the legendary history of the Institution.

It was first promulgated (and I do not know that it has ever since
been repeated) by the Abbe Le Franc, the Superior of the House of
the Eudists, at Caen, in a book published by him in the year 1791,
under the title of Le Voile leve pour les curieux, ou le secret des
Revolutions, revele a l'aide de la Franc-Maconnerie, or "The Veil
lifted for the Inquisitive, or the Secret of Revolutions revealed
by the assistance of Freemasonry." This work was deemed of so much
importance that it was translated in the following year into
Italian.

In this essay Le Franc, as a loyal Catholic ecclesiastic, hating
both the Freemasons and the Socinians, readily seized the idea, or
at all events advanced it, that the former was derived from the
latter, whose origin he assigns to the year 1546.

He recapitulates, only to deny, all the other theories that have
been advanced on the subject, such as that the origin of the
Institution is to be sought in the fraternities of Operative Masons
of the Middle Ages, or in the assembly held at York underthe
auspices of King Athelstane, or in the builders of King Solomon's
Temple, or in the Ancient Mysteries of Egypt. Each of these
hypotheses he refuses to admit as true.

On the contrary, he says the order can not be traced beyond the 
famous meeting of Socinians, which was held at the City of Vicenza,
in Italy, in the year 1546, by Loclius Socinus, Ochirius, Gentilis,
and others, who there and then established the sect which
repudiated the doctrine of the Trinity, and whose successors, with
some modification of tenets, still exist under the name of
Unitarians, or Liberal Christians.

But it is to Faustus Socinus, the nephew of Loclius, he asserts,
that the real foundation of Freemasonry as a secret and symbolical
society is to be ascribed. This " artful and indefatigable
sectary," as he calls him, having beheld the burning of Servetus at
Geneva by Calvin, for maintaining only a part of the system that he
advocated, and finding that both Catholics and Protestants were
equally hostile to his views, is said to have concealed it under
symbols and mysterious ceremonies, accompanied by oaths of secrecy,
in order that, while it was publicly taught to the people in
countries where it was tolerated, it might be gradually and safely
insinuated into other states, where an open confession of it would
probably lead its preachers to the stake.

The propagation of this system, he further says, was veiled under
the enigmatical allegory of building a temple whose extent, in the
very words of Freemasonry, was to be " in length from the east to
the west, and in breadth from north to south." The professors of it
were therefore furnished, so as to carry out the allegory, with the
various implements used in building, such as the square, the
compasses, the level, and the plumb. And here it is that the Abbe
Le Franc has found the first form and beginning of the Masonic
Institution as it existed at the time of his writing.

I have said that, so far as I have been able to learn, Le Franc is
the sole author or inventor of this hypothesis. Reghellini
attributes it to three distinct writers, the author of the Voile
leve, Le Franc, and the Abbe Barruel. But in fact the first and
second of these are identical, and Barruel has not made any
allusion to it in his History of Jacobinism. He attributes the
origin of Freemasonry to the Manicheans, and makes a very elaborate
and learned collation of the usages and ceremonies of the two, to
show how much the one has taken from the other.

Reghellini, in commenting on this theory of the Abbe Le Franc, says
that all that is true in it is that there was at the same period,
about the middle of the 16th century, a learned society of
philosophers and literary men at Vicenza, who held conferences on
the theological questions which at that time divided Europe, and
particularly Germany.

The members of this celebrated academy, he says, looked upon all
these questions and difficulties concerning the mysteries of the
Christian religion as points of doctrine which pertained simply to
the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Christians and
had no relation whatever to the dogmas of faith. (1)

Considering that out of these meetings of the philosophers at
Vicenza issued a religious sect, whose views present a very
important modification of the orthodox creeds, we may well suppose
that Reghellini is as much in error in his commentary as Le Franc
has been in his text.

The society which met at Vicenza and at Venice, though it sought to
conceal its new and heterodox doctrines under a veil of secrecy,
soon became exposed to the observation of the Papal court, through
whose influence the members were expelled from the Venetian
republic, some of them seeking safety in Germany, but most of them
in Poland, where their doctrines were not only tolerated, but in
time became popular. In consequence, flourishing congregations
were established at Cracow, Lublin, and various other places in
Poland and in Lithuania.

Loelius Socinus had, soon after the immigration of his followers
into Poland, retired to Zurich, in Switzerland, where he died. He
was succeeded by his nephew, Faustus Socinus, who greatly modified
the doctrines of his uncle, and may be considered as the real
founder of the Socinian sect of Christians.

Now, authentic history furnishes us with these few simple facts.

In the 16th century secret societies were by no means uncommon in
various countries of Europe In Italy especially many were to be
found. Some of these coteries were established for the cultivation
of philosophical studies, some for the pursuit of alchemy, some for
theological discussions, and many were of a mere social character. 
In all of them, however, there was an exclusiveness which shut out
the vulgar, the illiterate, or the profane.

Thus there was founded at Florence a club which called itself the
Societa della Cucchiara, or the Society of the Trowel. The name
and the symbols it used, which were the trowel, the hammer, the
square, and 

(1) Reghellini, "La Maconnerie," tom., p. 60

the level, have led both Lenning and Reghellini to suppose that it
was a Masonic association. But the account given of it by Vasari,
in his Lives of the Painters and Sculptors, shows that it was
merely a social club of Florentine artists, and that it derived its
existence and its name from the accidental circumstance that
certain painters and sculptors dining together once upon a time, in
a certain garden, discovered, not far from their table, a heap of
mortar in which a trowel was sticking. In an exuberance of spirits
they began to throw the mortar on each other, and to call for the
trowel to scrape it off. In the same sportive humor they then and
there resolved to form an association which should annually
thereafter dine together, and to commemorate the ludicrous event
which had given rise to their association, they called it the
Society of the Trowel, and adopted as emblems certain tools
connected with the mystery of bricklaying.

Every city in Italy in which science was cultivated had its
academy, many of which, like the Platonic Academy, established at
Florence in 1540 held their sessions in secret, and admitted none
but members to participate in their mystical studies. In Germany
the secret societies of the Alchemists were abundant. These spread
also into France and England. To borrow the language of a modern
writer, mystical interpretation ran riot, everything was
symbolized, and metaphors were elaborated into allegories. (1)

It is a matter of historical record that in 1546 there was a
society of this kind, consisting of about forty persons, eminent
for their learning, who, in the words of Mosheim (2) "held secret
assemblies, at different times, in the territory of Venice, and
particularly at Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a
general reformation of the received systems of religion, and, in a
more especial manner, undertook to refute the peculiar doctrines
that were afterwards publicly rejected by the Socinians."

Mosheim, who was rigorous in the application of the canons of
criticism to all historical questions that came under his review,
says, in a note appended to this passage: " Many circumstances and
relations sufficiently

(1) Vaughan. "Hours with the Mystics," I., p. 119
(2) "Ecclesiast. Hist. XVI.," Part III., chap. iv.

prove that immediately after the reformation had taken place in
Germany, secret assemblies were held and measures proposed in
several provinces that were still under the jurisdiction of Rome,
with a view to combat the errors and superstitions of the times."

Such was the character of the secret society at Vicenza to which Le
Franc attributes the origin of Freemasonry. It was an assembly of
men of advanced thought, who were compelled to hold their meetings
in secret, because the intolerance of the church and the jealous
caution of the state forbade the free and open discussion of
opinions which militated against the common sentiments of the
period.

The further attempt to connect the doctrines of Socinus with those
of Freemasonry, because, when speaking of the new religion which he
was laboring to establish, he compared it to the building of a new
temple- in which his disciples were to be diligent workers, is
futile. The use of such expressions is to be attributed merely to
a metaphorical and allegorical spirit by no means uncommon in
writers of every ago The same metaphor is repeatedly employed by
St. Paul in his various Epistles, and it is not improbable that
from him Socinus borrowed the idea.

There is, therefore, as I conceive, no historical evidence whatever
to support the theory that Faustus Socinus and the Socinians were
the founders of Freemasonry. At the very time when he was
establishing the sect whose distinctive feature was its denial of
the dogma of the Trinity, the manuscript constitutions of the
Masons were beginning their Legend of the Craft, with an
in,vocation to " the Might of the Father, the Wisdom of the
Glorious Son, and the Goodness of the Holy Ghost, three Persons and
one God."

The idea of any such connection between two institutions whose
doctrines were so antagonistic was the dream-or rather the
malicious invention-of Le Franc, and has in subsequent times
received the amount of credit to which it is entitled.





CHAPTER XL

FREEMASONRY AND THE ESSENES



Lawrie or I should rather say Brewster - was the first to discover
a connection between the Freemasons and the Jewish sect of the
Essenes, a doctrine which is announced in his History of
Freemsonry. He does not indeed trace the origin of the Masonic
Institution to the Essenes, but only makes them the successors of
the Masons of the Temple, whose forms and tenets they transmitted
to Pythagoras and his school at Crotona, by whom the art was
disseminated throughout Europe.

Believing as he did in the theory that Freemasonry was first
organized at the Temple of Solomon by a union of the Jewish workmen
with the association of Dionysian Artificers-a theory which has
already been discussed in a preceding chapter-the editor of
Lawrie's History meets with a hiatus in the regular and
uninterrupted progress of the Order which requires to be filled up. 
The ingenious mode in which he accomplishes this task may be best
explained in his own words:

" To these opinions it may be objected, that if the Fraternity of
Freemasons flourished during the reign of Solomon, it would have
existed in Judea in after ages, and attracted the notice of sacred
or profane historians. Whether or not this objection is well
founded, we shall not pretend to determine; but if it can be shown
That there did exist, after the building of the temple, an
association of men resembling Freemasons, in the nature,
ceremonies, and object of their institution, the force of the
objection will not only be taken away, but additional strength will
be communicated to the opinion which we have been supporting. The
association here alluded to is that of the Essenes, whose origin
and sentiments have occasioned much discussion among ecclesiastical
historians. They are all, however, of one mind concerning the
constitution and observances of this religious order."' (1)

The peace making quality of " if " is here very apparent. " If it
can be shown " that there is a chronological sequence from the
builders of the Temple to the Essenes, and that there is a
resemblance of both to the Freemasons in " the nature, ceremonies,
and object of their institution," the conclusion to which Brewster
has arrived will be better sustained than it would be if these
premises are denied or not proved.

The course of argument must therefore be directed to these points.

In the first place we must inquire, who were the Essenes and what
was their history ? This subject has already been treated to some
extent in a previous portion of this work. But the integrity of
the present argument will require, and I trust excuse, the
necessity of a repetition.

The three sects into which the Jews were divided in the time of
Christ were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Of
these, while the Saviour makes repeated mention of the first two,
he never alludes in the remotest manner to the third. This
singular silence of Jesus has been explained by some imaginative
Masonic writers, such, for instance, as Clavel, by asserting that
he was probably an initiate of the sect. But scholars have been
divided on this subject, some supposing that it is to be attributed
to the fact (which, however, has not been established) that the
Essenes originated in Egypt at a later period; others that they
were not an independent sect, but only an order or subdivision of
Pharisaism. However, in connection with the present argument, the
settlement of this question is of no material importance.

The Essenes were an association of ascetic celibates whose numbers
were therefore recruited from the children of the Jewish community
in which they lived. These were carefully trained by proper
instructions for admission into the society. The admission into
the interior body of the society and to the possession of its
mystical doctrine was only attained after a long probation through
three stages or degrees, the last of which made the aspirant a
participant in the full fellowship of the community.

(1) Lawrie's "History of Freemasonry," p. 33

The history of the Essenes has been so often written by ancient and
modern authors, from Philo and Josephus to Ginsburg, that an
inquirer can be at no loss for a knowledge of the sect. The
Masonic student will find the subject discussed in the author's
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, and the ordinary reader may be
referred to the able article in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia
of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. I shall
content myself, in fairness to the theory, with quoting the brief
but compendious description given by the editor of Lawrie's
History. It is in the main correct and sustained by other
authorities, except a few deductions which must be attributed to
the natural inclination of every theorist to adapt facts to his
hypothesis. A few interpolations will be necessary to correct
manifest errors.

" When a candidate was proposed for admission, the strictest
scrutiny was made into his character. If his life had been
hitherto exemplary, and he appeared capable of curbing his passions
and regulating his conduct according to the virtuous though austere
maxims of their order, he was presented, at the expiration of his
novitiate, with a white garment, as an emblem of the regularity of
his conduct and the purity of his heart."

It was not at the termination, but at the beginning of the
novitiate, that the white garment or robe was presented, and it was
accompanied by the presentation of an apron and a spade.

" A solemn oath was then administered to him that he would never
divulge the mysteries of the Order that he would make no
innovations on the doctrines of the society and that he would
continue in that honorable course of piety and virtue which he had
begun to pursue."

This is a mere abstract of the oath, which is given at length by
Josephus. It was not, however, administered until the candidate had
passed through all the degrees or stages, and was ready to be
admitted into full fellowship.

" Like Freemasons, they instructed the young member in the
knowledge which they derived from their ancestors."

He might have said, like all other sects, in which the instruction
of the young member is an imperative duty.

"They admitted no women into their Order."

Though this is intended by the editor to show a point of identity
with Freemasonry, it does no such thing. It is the common rule of
all masculine associations. It distinguishes the Essenes from
other religious sects, but it by no means essentially likens them
to the Freemasons.

"They had particular signs for recognizing each other, which have
a strong resemblance to those of Freemasons."

This is a mere assumption. That they had signs for mutual
recognition is probable, because such has been in all ages the
custom of secret societies. We have classical authority that they
were employed in the ancient Pagan Mysteries. But there is no
authority for saying that these signs of the Essenes bore any
resemblance to those of the Freemasons. The only allusion to this
subject is in the treatise of Philo Judaeus, De Vita Contemplativa,
where that author says that - the Essenes meet together in an
assembly and the right hand is laid upon the part between the chin
and the breast, while the left hand hangs straight by the side."
But Philo does not say that it was used as a sign of recognition,
but rather speaks of it as an attitude or posture assumed in their
assemblies. Of the resemblance every Mason can judge for himself

"They had colleges, or places of retirement, where they resorted to
practice their rites, and settle the affairs of the society; and
after the performance of these duties, they assembled in a large
hall, where an entertainment was provided for them by the
president, or master, of the college, who allotted a certain
quantity of provisions to every individual."

This was the common meal, not partaken on set occasions and in a
particular place, as the writer intimates, but every day, in their
usual habitation and at the close of daily labor.

"They abolished all distinctions of rank and if preference was ever
given, it was given to piety, liberality, and virtue. Treasurers
were appointed in every town to supply the wants of indigent
strangers. The Essenes pretended to higher degrees of piety and
knowledge than the uneducated vulgar, and though their pretensions
were high, they were never questioned by their enemies. Austerity
of manners was one of the chief characteristics of the Essenian
Fraternity. They frequently assembled, however, in convivial
parties, and relieved for awhile the severity of those duties which
they were accustomed to perform."

In concluding this description of an ascetic religious sect, the
writer of Lawrie's History says that " this remarkable coincidence
between the chief features of the Masonic and Essenian Fraternities
can be accounted for only by referring them to the same origin."
Another, and, perhaps, a better reason to account for these
coincidences will be hereafter presented.

While admitting that there is a resemblance in some points of the
two institutions to each other, such as their secrecy, their
classification into different degrees, although there is no
evidence that the Essenian initiation had any form except that of
a mere passage from a lower to a higher grade and their cultivation
of fraternal love, which resemblances may be found in many other
secret associations, I fail to see the identity " in the nature,
the object, and the external forms of the two institutions " which
Brewster claims.

On the contrary, there is a total dissimilarity in each of these
points.

The nature of the Essenian institution was that of an ascetic and
a bigoted religious sect, and in so far has certainly no
resemblance to Freemasonry.

The object of the Essenes was to preserve in its most rigid
requirements the observance of the Mosaic law; that of Freemasonry
is to diffuse the tolerant principles of a universal religion,
which men of every sect and creed may approve.

As to the external form of the two institutions, what little we
know of those of the Essenes certainly does not exhibit any other
resemblance than that which is common to all secret associations,
whatever may be their nature and objects.

But the most fatal objection to the theory of a connection between
them, which is maintained by the author of Lawrie's History, has
been admitted with some candor by himself.

"There is one point, however," he says, "which may, at first sight,
seem to militate against this supposition. The Essenes appear in
no respects connected with architecture; nor addicted to those
sciences and pursuits which are subsidiary to the art of building."

This objection, I say, is fatal to the theory which makes the
Essenes the successors of the builders of Solomon's Temple and the
forerunners of the Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, out of whom
sprang the Speculative Masons of the 18th century. Admitting for
a moment the reality of the organization of Masonry at the building
of the Temple in Jerusalem, any chain which unites that body of
builders with the Freemasonry of the present day must show, in
every link, the presence and the continuance of pursuits and ideas
connected with the operative art of building. Even the Speculative
Masons of the present day have not disturbed that chain, because,
though the fraternity is not now composed, necessarily, of
architects and builders, yet the ideas and pursuits of those
professions are retained in the Speculative science, all of whose
symbolism founded on the operative art.

The Essenes were not even Speculative Masons. Their symbolism, if
they had any, was not founded on nor had any reference to the art
of building. The apron which they presented to their novice was
intended to be used, according to their practice, in baptism and in
bathing; and the spade had no symbolic meaning, but was simply
intended for practical purposes.

The defense made by the author of the History, that in modern times
there are " many associations of Freemasons where no architects are
members, and which have no connection with the art of building,"
hardly needs a reply. There never has been an association of
Freemasons, either Operative or Speculative, which did not have a
connection with the art of building, in the former case
practically, in the latter symbolically.

It is absurd to suppose the interpolation between these two classes
of an institution which neither practically nor symbolically
cultivated the art on which the very existence of Freemasonry in
either condition is based.

But another objection, equally as fatal to the theory which makes
the Essenes the uninterrupted successors of the Temple builders, is
to be found in the chronological sequence of the facts of history. 
If this succession is interrupted by any interval, the chain which
connects the two institutions is broken, and the theory falls to
the ground.

The Temple of Solomon was finished about a thousand years before
the Christian era, and, according to the Masonic legendary account,
the builders who were engaged in its construction immediately
dispersed and traveled into foreign countries to propagate the art
which they had there acquired. This, though merely a legend, is not
at all improbable. It is very likely that the Tyrian workmen, at
least (and they constituted the larger number of those employed in
the building), returned to their homes after the tasks for which
they had been sent to Solomon, by the King of Tyre, had been
accomplished. If there were any Jewish Masons at all, who were not
mere laborers, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would
seek employment elsewhere, in the art of building which they had
acquired from their Tyrian masters. This is a proper deduction
from the tradition, considered as such.

Who, then, were left to continue the due succession of the
fraternity? Brewster, in Lawrie's History, and Oliver, in his
Antiquities, affirm that it was the Essenes.

But we do not hear of this sect as an organized body until eight
centuries afterward. The apocryphal statement of Pliny, that they
had been in being for thousands of years-"pler seculorum millia
"has met with no reception from scholars. It is something which,
as he himself admits, is incredible; and Pliny is no authority in
Jewish affairs.

Josephus speaks of them, as existing in the days of Jonathan the
Maccabaean; but this was only 143 years before Christ. They are
never mentioned in any of the books of the Old Testament, written
subsequently to the building of the Temple, and the silence of the
Saviour and the Apostles concerning them has been attributed to the
fact that they were not even at that time an organized body, but
merely an order of the Pharisees. The Rabbi Nathan distinctly says
that "those Pharisees who live in a state of celibacy are Essenes;"
and McClintock collates from various authorities fourteen points of
resemblance, which are enumerated to show the identity in the most
important usages of the two institutions. At all events, we have
no historic evidence of the existence of the Essenes as a distinct
organization before the war of the Maccabees, and this would
separate them by eight centuries from the builders of Solomon's
Temple, of whom the theory under review erroneously supposes them
to be the direct descendants.

But Brewster (1) seeks to connect the Essenes and the builders of
Solomon through the Assideans, whom he also calls "an order of the
Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem who bound themselves to adorn
the porches of that magnificent structure and to preserve it from
injury 

(1) The unfairness of the author of Lawrie's History "History" is
apparent when he quotes the "Histoire des Juifs," by Basnage, as
authority for the existence of the Essenes three hundred years
before the Christian era. Basnage actually says that they existed
in the reign of Antigonus, but this was only 105 B.C.

and decay." He adds that "this association was composed of the
greatest men of Israel, who were distinguished for their charitable
and peaceful dispositions; and always signalized themselves by
their ardent zeal for the purity and preservation of the temple."
Hence he argues that "the Essenes were not only an ancient
fraternity, but that they originated from an association of
architects who were connected with the building of Solomon's
temple."

All this is very ingenious, but it is very untrue. It is, however,
the style, now nearly obsolete, it is to be hoped, in which Masonic
history has been written.

The fact is that the Assideans were not of older date than the
Essenes. They are not mentioned by the canonical writers of the
Scriptures, nor by Josephus, but the word first occurs in the book
of Maccabees, where it is applied, not, as Brewster calls them, to
men of " peaceful dispositions," but to a body of devoted and
warlike heroes and patriots who, as Kitto says, rose at the signal
for armed resistance given by Mattathias, the father of the
Maccabees, and who, under him and his successors, upheld with the
sword the great doctrine of the unity of God, and stemming the
advancing tide of Grecian manners and idolatries.

Hence the era of the Assideans, like that of the Essenes, is
removed eight centuries from the time of the building of the
Solomonic Temple.

Scaliger, who is cited in Lawrie's History as authority, only says
that the Assideans were a confraternity of Jews whose principal
devotion consisted in keeping up the edifices belonging to the
Temple; and who, not content with paying the common tribute of half
a shekel a head, appointed for Temple repairs, voluntarily imposed
upon themselves an additional tax.

But as they are not known to have come into existence until the
wars of the Maccabees, it is evident that the Temple to which they
devoted their care must have been the second one, which had been
built after the return of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. 
With the Temple of Solomon and with its builders the Assideans
could not have had any connection.

Prideaux says that the Jews were divided, after the captivity, into
two classes-the Zadikim or righteous, who observed only the written
law of Moses, and the Chasidim or pious, who superadded the
traditions of the elders. These latter, he says, were the
Assideans, the change of name resulting from a common alteration of
the sounds of the original Hebrew letters.

But if this division took place after the captivity, a period of
nearly five centuries had then elapsed since the building of
Solomon's Temple, and an uninterrupted chain of sequences between
that monarch's builders and the Essenes is not preserved.

After the establishment of the Christian religion we lose sight of
the Essenes. Some of them are said to have gone to Egypt, and
there to have founded the ascetic sect of Therapeutists. Others
are believed to have been among the first converts to Christianity,
but in a short time they faded out of all notice. I think, from
what has been said, that there can be no hesitation in pronouncing
the theory of the descent of Freemasonry to modern times through
the Assideans and the Essenes to be wholly untenable and
unsupported by historical testimony.

In relation to what has been called the " remarkable coincidences
" to be met with in the doctrines and usages of this Jewish sect
and the Freemasons, giving to them all the weight demanded, the
rational explanation appears to be such as I have elsewhere given,
and which I may repeat here.

The truth is that the Essenes and the Freemasons derive whatever
similarity or resemblance they may have from that spirit of
brotherhood which has prevailed in all ages of the civilized world,
the inherent principles of which, as the natural results of any
fraternization, where all the members are engaged in the same
pursuit and governed by one common bond of unity, are brotherly
love, charity, and generally that secrecy and exclusiveness which
secures to them an isolation, in the practice of their rites, from
the rest of the world. And hence, between all fraternities,
ancient and modern, these "remarkable coincidences" will be apt to
be found.





CHAPTER XLI

THE LEGEND OF ENOCH



Before concluding this series of essays, as they night be called,
on the legendary history of Freemasonry, it will be necessary, so
that a completion may be given to the subject, to refer to a few
Legends of a peculiar character, which have not yet been noticed.
These Legends form no part of the original Legend of the Craft. 
There are, however, brief allusions in that document to them; so
brief as almost to attract no especial observation, but which might
possibly indicate that some form, perhaps a very mutilated one, of
these Legends was familiar to the Mediaeval Masons, or, perhaps,
which is more probable, that they have suggested a foundation for
the fabrication of these legendary narratives at a later period by
the Speculative Freemasons of the 18th century.

Or it may be supposed that both those views are correct, and that
while the imperfect and fragmentary Legend was known to the
Freemasons of the Middle Ages, its completed form was thereby
suggested to the Fraternity at a later period, and after the era of
the revival.

Whichever of these views we may accept, it is at least certain that
at the present day, and in the present condition of the Order,
these Legends form an important part of the ritualism of the Order. 
They can not be rejected in their symbolic interpretation, unless
we are willing with them to reject the whole fabric of Freemasonry,
into which they have been closely interwoven.

Of these Legends and of some minor ones of the same class, Dr.
Oliver has spoken with great fairness in his Historical Landmarks,
in the following words:

"It is admitted that we are in possession of numerous legends which
are not found in holy writ, but being of very ancient date, are
entitled to consideration, although their authenticity may be 
questioned and their aid rejected. I shall not, however, in any
case, use their evidence as a prima facie means of proving any
doubtful proposition, but merely in corroboration of an argument
which might probably be complete without their aid. Our system of
typical or legendary tradition adds to the dignity of the
institution by its general reference to sublime truths, which were
considered necessary to its existence or its consistency, although
some of the facts, how pure soever at their first promulgation, may
have been distorted and perverted by passing through a multitude of
hands in their transmission down the stream of time, amidst the
fluctuation of the earth and the downfall of mighty states and
empires."

Without discussing the question of their great antiquity, or of
their original purity and subsequent distortion and perversion, I
propose to present these Legends to the Masonic reader, because
they are really not so much traditional narratives of events that
are supposed to have at some time occurred, but because they are to
be 'considered really as allegorical attempts to symbolize certain
ethical or religious ideas, the expression of which lies at the
very foundation of the Masonic system.

So considered, they must be deemed of great value. Their interest
will also be much enhanced by a comparison of the facts of history
that are interwoven with them, and to certain traditions of the
ancient Oriental nations which show the existence of the same
Legends among them. These may, indeed, have been the foundation on
which the Masonic ones have been built, the " distortion or
perversion " being simply those variations which were necessary to
connect the legendary statements more intimately and consistently
with the Masonic symbolic ideas.

The first of these to which our attention will be directed is the
Legend of Enoch, the seventh of the Patriarchs, of whom Milton has
said:

"him the Most High,
(Rapt in a balmy cloud with winged steeds)
Did, as thou seest, receive to walk with God
High in salvation and the claims of bliss,
Exempt from death."

I shall first present the reader with the Masonic Legend, and then
endeavor to trace out the idea which it was intended to convey. by
a comparison of it with historical occurrences, with Oriental 
traditions of a similar nature, and with the Masonic symbolism
which it seems to embody. The legend as accepted by the Craft, from
a time hereafter to be referred to, runs to the following effect.

Enoch, being inspired by the Most High, and in obedience to a
vision, constructed underground, in the bosom of Mount Moriah, an
edifice consisting of nine brick vaults situated perpendicularly
beneath each other and communicating by apertures left in the arch
of each vault.

He then caused a triangular plate of gold to be made, each side of
which was a cubit long; he enriched it with the most precious
stones and engraved upon it the ineffable name of God. He then
encrusted the plate upon a stone of agate of the same form, which
he placed upon a cubical stone of marble, and deposited the whole
within the ninth or innermost vault.

When this subterranean building was completed, Enoch made a slab or
door of stone, and, attaching to it a ring of iron, by which it
might, if necessary, be raised, he placed it over the aperture of
the uppermost arch, and so covered it overwith soil that the
opening could not easily be discovered. Enoch himself was not
permitted to enter it more than once a year, and on his death or
translation all knowledge of this building and of the sacred
treasure which it contained was lost until in succeeding ages it
was accidentally discovered while Solomon was engaged in building,
a temple above the spot, on the same mountain.

The Legend proceeds to inform us that after Enoch had finished the
construction of the nine vaults, fearing that the principles of the
arts and sciences which he had assiduously cultivated would be lost
in that universal deluge of which he bad received a prophetic
vision, he erected above-ground two pillars, one of marble, to
withstand the destructive influences of foe, and one of brass, to
resist the ac6on of water ()n the pillar of brass he engraved the
history of the creation, the principles of the arts and sciences,
and the doctrines of Speculative Masonry as they were then
practiced; and on the pillar of marble he inscribed in hieroglyphic
characters the information that near the spot where they stood a
precious treasure was deposited in a subterranean vault.

Such is the Legend of Enoch, which forms a very important part of
the legendary history of the High Degrees. As a traditional
narrative it has not the slightest support of authentic history,
and the events that it relates do not recommend themselves by an
air of probability. But, accepted as the expression of a symbolic
idea, it undoubtedly possesses some value.

That part of the Legend which refers to the two pillars is
undoubtedly a perversion of the old Craft Legend of Lamech's sons,
which has already been treated in this work. It will need no
further consideration. 


The germ of the Legend is the preservation through the efforts of
the Patriarch of the Ineffable Name. This is in fact the true
symbolism of the Legend, and it is thus connected with the whole
system of Freemasonry in its Speculative form.

There is no allusion to this story in the Legend of the Craft. 
None of the old manuscript Constitutions contain the name of Enoch,
nor does he appear to have been deemed by the Mediaeval Masons to
be one of the worthies of the Craft. The Enoch spoken of in the
Cooke MS. is the son of Cain, and not the seventh Patriarch. We
must conclude, therefore, that the Legend was a fabrication of a
later day, and in no way suggested by anything contained in the
original Craft Legend.

But that there were traditions outside of Masonry, which prevailed
in the Middle Age, in reference to subterranean caves in Mount
Moriah is evident from the writings of the old historians. Thus
there was a tradition of the Talmudists that when King Solomon was
building the Temple, foreseeing that at some future time the
edifice would be destroyed, he caused a dark and intricate vault to
be constructed underground, in which the ark might be concealed
whenever such a time of danger should arrive ; and that Josiah,
being warned by Huldah, the prophetess, of the approaching peril,
caused the ark to be hidden in the crypt which had been built by
Solomon. There was also in this vault, as in that of Enoch, a
cubical stone, on which the ark was placed.(1)

There is a tradition also, among the Arabians, of a sacred stone
found by Abraham beneath the earth, and made by him the stone of
foundation of the temple which Jehovah ordered him to erect a
temple the tradition of which is confined to the Mohammedans.

But the most curious story is one told by Nicephorus Callistus, a
Greek historian of the 14th century, in his Ecclesiastical
Histories.

(1) Lightfoot, "Prospect of the Temple," ch. xv.

When detailing the events that occurred while Julian the Apostate
was making his attempt to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, he
narrates the following fable, but of whose fabulous character the
too credulous monk has not the slightest notion.

"When the foundations were being laid, as has been said, one of the
stones attached to the lowest part of the foundation was removed
from its place and showed the mouth of a cavern which had been cut
out of the rock. But as the cave could not be distinctly seen,
those who had charge of the work, wishing to explore it, that they
might be better acquainted with the place, sent one of the workmen
down tied to a long rope. When he got to the bottom he found water
up to his legs. Searching the cavern on every side, he found by
touching with his hands that it was of a quadrangular form. When
he was returning to the mouth, he discovered a certain pillar
standing up scarcely above the water. Feeling with his hand, he
found a little book placed upon it, and wrapped up iii very fine
and clan linen Taking possession of it, he gave the signal with the
rope that those who had sent him down, should draw him up. Being
received above, as soon as the book was shown all were struck with
astonishment, especially as it appeared untouched and fresh
notwithstanding that it had been found in so dismal and dark a
place. But when the book was unfolded, not only the Jews but the
Greeks were astounded. For even at the beginning it declared in
large letters: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD WITH GOD, AND THE WORD
WAS GOD. To speak plainly, the writing embraced the whole Gospel
which was announced in the Divine tongue of the Virgin disciple."
(1)

It is true that Enoch has been supposed to have been identical with
Hermes, and Keriher says, in the OEdipus Egyptiacus, Idris among
the Hebrews, has been called Enoch, among the Egyptians Osiris and
Hermes, and he was the first who before the Flood had any knowledge
of astronomy and geometry. But the authors of the Legend of the
Craft were hardly likely to be acquainted with this piece of
archeology, and the Hermes to whom, with a very corrupt spelling,
they refer as the son of Cush, was the Hermes Trismegistus,
popularly known as the " Father of Wisdom."

Enoch is first introduced to the Craft as one of the founders of
Geometry and Masonry, by Anderson, in the year 1723, who, in the
Constitutions printed in that year, has the following passage :

(1) Nicephori Callisti "Ecclesiasticae Historiae," tom. ii., lib.
x., cap. xxxiii

"By some vestiges of antiquity we find one of them (the offspring
of Seth) prophesying of the final conflagration at the day of
Judgment, as St Jude tells and likewise of the general deluge for
the punishment of the world. Upon which he erected his two large
pillars (though some ascribe them to Seth), the one of stone and
the other of brick, whereon were engraven the liberal sciences,
etc. And that the stone pillar remained in Syria until the days of
Vespasian, the Emperor."' (1)

Fifteen years afterward, when he published the second edition of
the Constitutions, he repeated the Legend, with the additional
statement that Enoch was " expert and bright both in the science
and the art " of Geometry and Masonry, an abridgment of which he
placed on the pillars which he had erected. He adds that " the old
Masons firmly believed this tradition," but as there is no
appearance of any such tradition in the old records, of which since
his date a large number have been recovered (for in them the
building of the pillars is ascribed to the sons of Lamech), we
shall have to accept this assertion with many grains of allowance,
and attribute it to the general inaccuracy of Anderson when citing
legendary authority.

But as the first mention of Enoch as a Freemason is made by
Anderson, and as we not long afterward find him incorporated into
the legendary history of the Order, we may, I think, attribute to
him the suggestion of the Legend, which was, however, afterward
greatly developed.

It was not, however, adopted into the English system, since neither
Entick nor Northouck, who subsequently edited the Book of
Constitutions, say anything more of Enoch than had already been
said by Anderson. They, indeed, correct to some extent his
statement, by ascribing the pillars either to Seth or to Enoch,
leaning, therefore, to the authority of Josephus, but, equally with
Anderson, abandoning the real tradition of the old Legend, which
gave them to the children of Lamech.

It is, I think, very evident that the Legend of Enoch was of
Continental
origin, and I am inclined conjecturally to assign its invention to
the fertile
genius of the Chevalier Ramsay, the first fabricator of high
degrees, or to some of his immediate successors in the manufactory
of Masonic Rites.

(1) "Constitutions," 1723, p. 3, notes

Ramsay was too learned a man to be ignorant of the numerous
Oriental traditions, Arabic, Egyptian, and Rabbinical, concerning
Enoch, that had been long in existence. Of this we have evidence
in a very learned work on The Philosophical Principles of Natural
and Revealed Religion, published by him in 1749.

In this work (1) he refers to the tradition extant in all nations,
of a great man or legislator who was the first author of sacred
symbols and hieroglyphics, and who taught the people their sacred
mysteries and religious rites. This man, he says, was, among the
Phoenicians, Thaut; the Greeks, Hermes; the Arabians, Edris. But
he must have known that Thaut, Hermes, and Edris were all
synonymous of Enoch, for he admits that " all these lived some time
before the universal deluge, and they were all the same man, and
consequently some antediluvian patriarch."

And, finally, he adds that "some think that this antediluvian
patriarch was Enoch himself" And then he presents, in the following
language, those views which most probably supplied the suggestions
that were afterward developed by himself, or some of his followers,
in the full form of the Masonic legend of Enoch.

"Whatever be in these conjectures," says Ramsay, " it is certain,
from the principles laid down, that the antediluvian or Noevian
patriarches ought to have taken some surer measures for
transmitting the knowledge of divine truths to their posterity,
than by oral tradition, and, consequently, that they either
invented or made use of hieroglyphics or symbols to preserve the
memory of these sacred truths." And these he calls the Enochian
symbols.

He does not, indeed, make any allusion to a secret depository of
these symbols of Enoch, and supposes that they must have been
communicated to the sons of Noah and their descendants, though in
time they lost their true meaning. But the change made in the
Masonic Legend was necessary to adapt it to a peculiar system of
ritualism.

It is singular how Enoch ever became among the ancients a type of
the mysteries of religion. The book of Genesis devotes only three
short verses to an account of him, and 

(1) Vol. ii., p. 12 et seq.

nothing is there said of him, his deeds, or his character, except
an allusion to his piety.

The Oriental writers, however, abound in traditionary tales of the
learning of the Patriarch. One tradition states that God bestowed
upon him the gift of knowledge, and that he received thirty volumes
from Heaven, filled with all the secrets of the most mysterious
sciences. The Babylonians supposed him to have been intimately
acquainted with the nature of the stars, and they attribute to him
the invention of astrology.

The Jewish Rabbis maintained that he was taught by Adam how to
sacrifice and to worship the Deity aright. The Cabalistic book of
Raziel says that he received the divine mysteries through the
direct line of the preceding Patriarchs.

Bar Hebraeus, a Jewish writer, asserts that Enoch was the first who
invented books and writing; that he taught men the art of building
cities-thus evidently confounding him with another Enoch, the son
of Cain that he discovered the knowledge of the Zodiac and the
course of the stars; and that he inculcated the worship of God by
religious rites.

There is a coincidence in the sacred character thus bestowed upon
Enoch with his name and the age at which he died, and this may have
had something to do with the mystical attributes bestowed upon him
by the Orientalists.

The word Enoch signifies, in the Hebrew, initiated or consecrated,
and would seem, as all Hebrew names are significant, to have
authorized, or, perhaps, rather suggested the idea of his
connection with a system of initiation into sacred rites.

He lived, the Scriptures say, three hundred and sixty-five years. 
This, too, would readily be received as having a mystical meaning,
for 365 is the number of the days in a solar year and was,
therefore, deemed a sacred number. Thus we have seen that the
letters of the mystical word Abraxas, which was the Gnostic name of
the Supreme Deity, amounted, according to their numerical value in
the Greek alphabet, to 365, which was also the case with Mithras,
the god to whom the Mithraic mysteries were dedicated. And this
may account for the statement of Bar Hebraeus that Enoch appointed
festivals and sacrifices to the sun at the periods when that
luminary entered each of the zodiacal signs.

Goldziher, one of the latest of the German ethnologists, has
advanced a similar idea in his work on Mythology Among the Hebrews.
He says:

"The solar character of Enoch admits of no doubt. He is brought
into connection with the buildingof towns-a solar feature. He
lives exactly three hundred and sixty-five years, the number of
days of the solar year; which can not be accidental. And even then
he did not die, but Enoch walked with Elohim, and was no more (to
be seen), for Elohim took him away.' In the old times when the
figure of Enoch was imagined, this was doubtless called Enoch's
Ascension to heaven, as in the late traditional legends Ascensions
to heaven are generally acknowledged to be solar features."' (1)

These statements and speculations have been objected to, be. cause
they would tend to make Enoch an idolater and a sun-worshipper. 
This is a consequence by no means absolutely necessary, but, as the
whole is merely traditionary, we need waste no time in defending
the orthodox character of the Patriarch's religious views.

After all, it would appear that the Legend of Enoch, being wholly
unknown to the Fraternity in the Middle Ages, unrecognized in the
Legend of the Craft, and the name even, not mentioned in any of the
old records, was first introduced into the rituals of some of the
higher degrees which began to be fabricated toward the middle of
the 18th century; that it was invented by the Chevalier Ramsay, or
by some of those ritual-mongers who immediately succeeded him, and
that in its fabrication very copious suggestions were borrowed from
the Rabbinical and Oriental traditions on the same subject.

It is impossible then to assign to this Legend the slightest
historical character. It is made up altogether out of traditions
which were the inventions of Eastern imagination.

We must view it, therefore, as an allegory; but as one which has a
profound symbolic character. It was intended to teach the doctrine
of Divine Truth by the symbol of the Holy Name-the
Tetragrammaton-the Name most reverently consecrated iii the Jewish
system as well as in others, and which has always constituted one
of the most important and prominent symbols of Speculative Masonry.

In the Continental system of the High Degrees, this symbol is
presented in the form of the Legend of 

(1) Chap v., sect. viii., p. 127, Martineau's Translation.

Enoch. From the English system of Ancient Craft Masonry, that
Legend is rejected, or rather it never has been admitted into it. 
In its place, there is another esoteric Legend, which, differing
altogether in details, is identical in result and effects the same
symbolism. But this will be more appropriately discussed when the
symbolism of Freemasonry is treated. in a future part of this work.

CHAPTER XLII

NOAH AND THE NOACHITES


In reality, there is no Legend of Noah to be found in any of the
Masonic Rituals. There is no myth, like that of Enoch or Euclid,
which intimately connects him with the legendary history of the
institution. And yet the story of his life has exercised a very
important influence in the origin and the development of the
principles of Speculative Masonry.

Dr. Oliver has related a few traditions of Noah which, he says, are
Masonic, but they never had any general acceptance among the Craft,
as they are referred to by no other writer, and, if they ever
existed, are now happily obsolete.

The influence of Noah upon Masonic doctrine is to be traced to the
almost universal belief of men in the events of the deluge, and the
consequent establishment in many nations of a system of religion
known to ethnologists as the "Arkite worship." Of this a brief
notice must be taken before we can proceed to investigate the
connection of the name of Noah with Speculative Masonry.

The character and the actions of Noah are to be looked upon from a
twofold stand-point, the historic and the legendary.

The historic account of Noah is contained in portions of the sixth
and seventh chapters in the Book of Genesis, and are readily
accessible to every reader, with which, however, they must already
be very familiar.

The legendary account is to be found in the almost inexhaustible
store of traditions which are scattered among almost all the
nations of the world where some more or less dim memory of a
cataclysm has been preserved.

If we examine the ancient writers, we shall find ample evidence
that among all the pagan peoples there was a tradition of a deluge
which, at sonic remote period, had overwhelmed the earth. This
tradition was greatly distorted from the biblical source, and the
very name of the Patriarch -who was saved was forgotten and
replaced by some other, which varied in different countries. Thus,
in different places, he had received the names of Xisuthrus,
Prometheus, Deucalion, Ogyges, and many others, where the name has
been rendered very unlike itself by terminations and other
idiomatic changes. But everywhere the name was accompanied by a
tradition, which also varied in its details, of a deluge by which
mankind had been destroyed, and the race had, through the
instrumentality of this personage, been renewed.

It is to be supposed that so important an event as the deluge would
have been transmitted by the Patriarch to His posterity, and that
in after times, when, by reason of the oral transmission of the
history, the particular details of the event would be greatly
distorted from the truth, a veneration for this new founder of the
race of men would be retained. At length, when various systems of
idolatry began to be established, Noah, under whatever name he may
have been known, would have been among the first to whom divine
honors would be paid. Hence arose that system known to modert?
scholars as the "Arkite worship," in whose rites and mysteries,
which were eventually communicated to the other ancient religions,
there were always some allusions to the events of the Noachic flood
to the ark, as the womb of Nature, to the eight persons saved in
it, as the ogdoad or sacred number-and to the renovation of the
world, as symbolizing the passage from death to immortal life.

It is not, therefore, surprising that Noah should have become a
mystical personage, and that the modern Speculative Masons should
have sought to incorporate some reference to him in their symbolic
system, though no such idea appears to have been entertained by the
Operative Masons who preceded them.

On examining the old records of the Operative Masons it will be
found that no place is assigned to Noah, either as a Mason or as
one of the founders of the " science." He receives only the
briefest mention

In the Halliwell Poem his name and the flood are merely referred to
as denoting an era of time in the world's history. It is only a
statement that the tower of Babel was begun many years after "
Noees fled."

In the Cooke MS. the record is a little more extended, but still 
is but an historical narrative of the flood, in accordance with the
biblical details.

In the Dowland MS. and in all the other manuscripts of the Legend
of the Craft that succeeded it, the reference to Noah is
exceedingly meager, his name only being mentioned, and that of his
sons, from whom descended Hermes, who found one of the pillars and
taught the science thereon described to other men. So far, Noah
has had no part in Masonry.

Anderson, who, in the Book of Constitutions modified and enlarged
the old Craft Legends at his pleasure, calls Noah and his three
sons "all Masons true," and says that they brought over from the
flood the traditions and arts of the antediluvians and communicated
them to their growing offspring. And this was perhaps the first
time that the Patriarch was presented to the attention of the
Fraternity in a Masonic character.

Anderson semms to have cherished this idea, for in the second
edition of the Constitutions he still further develops it by saying
that the offspring of Noah, " as they journeyed from the East (the
plains of Mount Ararat, where the ark rested) towards the West,
they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there together
as NOACHIDAE, or sons of Noah." And, he adds, without the slightest
historical authority, that this word " Noachidae " was " the first
name of Masons, according to some old traditions." It would have
puzzled him to specify any such tradition.

Having thus invented and adopted the name as the distinctive
designation of a Mason, he repeats it in his second edition or
revision of the "Old Charges" appended to the Book of
Constitutions. The first of these charges, in the Constitutions
of 1723, contained this passage: " A Mason is obliged by his tenure
to obey the moral law." In the edition of 1738, Dr. Anderson has,
without authority, completed the sentence by adding the words " as
a true Noachida." This interpolation was reached by Entick, who
edited the third and fourth editions in 1756 and 1767, and by
Northouck, who published the fifth in 1784, both of whom restored
the old reading, which has ever since been preserved in all the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England.

Dermott, however, who closely followed the second edition of
Anderson, in the composition of his Ahiman Rezon of course adopted
the new term.

About that time, or a little later, a degree was fabricated on the
continent of Europe, bearing the name of " Patriarch Noachite," one
peculiar feature of which was that it represented the existence of
two classes or lines of Masons, the one descending from the Temple
of Solomon, and who were called Hiramites, and the other tracing
their origin to Noah, who were styled Noachites.

Neither Preston nor Hutchison, nor any other writer of the 18th
century, appear to have accepted the term. But it was a favorite
with Dr. Oliver, and under his example it has become of so common
use that -Noachida and Freemason have come to be considered as
synonymous terms.

What does this word really signify, and how came Anderson to adopt
it as a Masonic term ? The answers to these questions are by no
means difficult.

Noachida, or Noachides, from which we get the English Noachite, is
a gentilitial name, or a name designating the member of a family or
race, and is legitimately formed according to Greek usage, where
Atrides means a descendant of Atreus, or Heraclides a descendant of
Heracles. And so Noachides, or its synonyms Noachida or Noachites,
means a descendant of Noah.

But why, it may be asked, are the Freemasons called the descendants
of Noah ? Why has he been selected alone to represent the headship
of the Fraternity ? I have no doubt that Dr. Anderson was led to
the adoption of the word by the following reason.

After Noah's emergence from the ark, he is said to have promulgated
seven precepts for the government of the new race of men of whom he
was to be the progenitor.

These seven precepts are : 1, to do justice; 2, worship God; 3,
abstain from idolatry ; 4, preserve chastity ; 5, do not commit
murder; 6, do not steal ; 7, do not eat the blood.

These seven obligations, says the Rev. Dr. Raphall (1) are held
binding on all men, inasmuch as all are descendants of Noah, and
the Rabbis maintain that he who observes them, though he be not an
Israelite, has a share in the future life, and it is the duty of
every Jew to enforce their due observance whenever he has the power
to do so.

In consequence of this the Jewish religion was not confined during
its existence in Palestine to the Jewish nation only, but
proselytes of three kinds were freely admitted. One of these
classes was the 

(1) "Genesis, with Translation and Notes," by Rev. Morris J.
Raphall, p. 52

"proselytes of the gate." These were persons who, without
undergoimg the rite of circumcision or observing the ritual
prescribed by the law of Moses, engaged to worship the true God and
to observe the seven precepts of Noah, and these things they were
to do whether they resided in Judea or in foreign lands. They were
not, however, admitted to all the privileges of the Jewish
religion; marriage with Israelites was forbidden, and they were not
permitted to enter within the sacred inclosure of the temple. So
that, although they were Noachidoe, they were not considered equal
to the true children of Abraham.

Anderson, who was a theologian, was, of course, acquainted with
these facts, but, with a more tolerant spirit than the Jewish law,
which gave the converted Gentiles only a qualified reception, he
was disposed to admit into the full fellowship of Freemasonry all
the descendants of Noah who would observe the precepts of the
Patriarch; these being the only moral laws inculcated by Masonry.

In giving the history of the introduction of the word into Masonry,
I have not cited among the authorities the document known as the
Stonehouse MS., because it was verified by a person of that name,
but more usually the Krause MS., because it was first published in
a German translation by Dr. Krause in his Three Oldest Documents. 
It is alleged to be a copy of the York Constitutions, enacted in
926, but is generally admitted by scholars to be spurious. Yet, as
it is probable that it was originally written by a contemporary of
Anderson, and about the time of the publishing of the Constitutions
Of 1738, it may be accepted, so far as it supplies us with a
suggestion of the motive that induced Anderson to interpolate the
word " Noachida " into the " Old Charges."

In the Krause MS., under the head of " The Laws or Obligations laid
before his Brother Masons by Prince Edwin," we find the following
article. (I translate from the German of Krause, because the
original English document is nowhere to be found.)

" The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and
obey the laws of the Noachites, because they are divine laws, which
should be obeyed by all the world. Therefore, you must avoid all
heresies and not thereby sin against God."

The language of this document is more precise than that of
Anderson, though both have the same purpose. The meaning is that
the only religious laws which a Freemason is required to obey are
those which are contained in the code that has been attributed to
Noah. This sentiment is still further expressed toward the close
of the " Old Charges," where it is said that the Mason is obliged
only " to that religion in which all men agree," excluding,
therefore, atheism, and requiring the observance of such simple
laws of morality as are enjoined in the precepts of Noah.

Anderson had, however, a particular object in the use of the word
"Noachida." The Krause MS. says that the Mason "must obey the laws
of the Noachites ; " that is, that he is to observe the seven
precepts of Noah, without being required to observe any other
religious dogmas outside of these-a matter which is left to
himself.

But Anderson says he " must obey the moral law as a true Noachida,"
by which he intimates that that title is the proper designation of
a Mason. And he has shown that this was his meaning by telling us,
in a preceding part of his book, that , Noachidae was the first
name of Masons, according to some old traditions."

Now the object of Anderson in introducing this word into the second
edition of the Constitutions was to sustain his theory that Noah
was the founder of the science of Freemasonry after the flood. 
This was the theory taught by Dr. Oliver a century afterward, who
followed Anderson in the use of the word, with the same meaning and
the same object, and his example has been imitated by many recent
writers. But when Anderson speaks of a Noachida or a Noachite as
a word synonymous with Freemason, he is in error; for although all
Freemasons are necessarily the descendants of Noah, all the
descendants of Noah are not Freemasons.

And if by the use of the word he means to indicate that Noah was
the founder of post-diluvian Freemasonry, he is equally in error;
for that theory, it has heretofore been shown, can not be
sustained, and his statement that Noah and his three sons were "
all Masons true " is one for which there is no historical support,
and which greatly lacks an clement of probability.

It is better, therefore, when we speak or write historically of
Freemasonry, that this word Noachida, or Noachite, should be
avoided, since its use leads to a confusion of ideas, and possibly
to the promulgation of error.





CHAPTER XLIII

THE LEGEND OF HIRAM ABIF



This is the most important of all the legends of Freemasonry. It
will therefore be considered in respect to its origin, its history,
and its meaning;

Before, however, proceeding to the discussion of these important
subjects, and the investigation of the truly mythical character of
Hiram Abif, it will be proper to inquire into the meaning of his
name, or rather the meaning of the epithet that accompanies it.

In the places in Scripture in which he is mentioned he is called at
one time (in 2 Chronicles ii., 13), by the King of Tyre, in the
letter written by him to King Solomon, Churam Abi; in another place
(in 2 Chronicles iv., 16), where the writer of the narrative is
recording the work done by him for Solomon, Churam Abiv, or, as it
might be pronounced according to the sound of the Hebrew letters,
Abiu. But Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, adopted
the pronunciation Abif, exchanging the flat v for the sharp f. In
this he was followed by Anderson, who was the first to present the
full name of Hiram Abif to the Craft. This he did in the first
edition of the English book of Constitutions.

And since his time at least the appellation of Hiram Abif has been
adopted by and become familiar to the Craft as the name of the
cunning or skillful artist who was sent by Hiram, King of Tyre, to
assist King Solomon in the construction of the Temple. In
Chronicles and Kings we find Churam or Huram, as we may use the
initial letter as a guttural or an aspirate, and Chiram or Hiram,
the vowel u or i being indifferently used. But the Masonic usage
has universally adopted the word Hiram.

Now, the Abi and Abiv, used by the King of Tyre, in the book of
Chronicles form no part of the name, but are simply inflections of
the possessive pronouns my and his suffixed to the appellative Ab.

Ab in Hebrew means father, i is my, and in, iv, or if is his. Abi
is therefore my father, and so he is called by the King of Tyre
when he is describing him to Solomon, " Hiram my father;" Abif is
his father, and he is so spoken of by the historian when he
recounts the various kinds of work which were done for King Solomon
by " Hiram his father."

But the word Ab in Hebrew, though primarily signifying a male
parent, has other derivative significations. It is evident that in
none of the passages in which he is mentioned is it intended to
intimate that he held such relationship to either the King of Tyre
or the King of Israel.

The word " father " was applied by the Hebrews as a term of honor,
or to signify a station of preeminence. Buxtorf (1) says it
sometimes signifed Master, and he cites the fourth chapter of
Genesis, where Jabal is called the father of cattle and Jubal the
father of musicians.

Hiram Abif was most probably selected by the King of Tyre to be
sent to Solomon as a skillful artificer of preeminent skill that he
might execute the principal works in the interior of the Temple and
fabricate the various utensils intended for the sacred services. 
He was a master in his art or calling, and properly dignified with
a title which announced his distinguished character. The title of
Father, which was given to him, denotes, says Smith, (2) the
respect and esteem in which he was held, according to the similar
custom of the people of the East at the present day.

I am well pleased with the suggestion of Dr. McClintock that "Hiram
my father seems to mean Hiram my counsellor; that is to say,
foreman or master workman" (3)

Applying this meaning to the passages in Chronicles which refer to
this artist, we shall see how easily every difficulty is removed
and the Craftsman Hiram placed in his true light.

When King Hiram, wishing to aid the King of Israel in his
contemplated building, writes him a letter in which he promises to
comply with the request of Solomon to send him timber from Lebanon
and wood-cutters to hew it, as an additional mark of his friendship
and his desire to 

(1) "Lexicon Talmudicum."
(2) "Cylopaedia of Biblical Literature."
(3) "Cyclopeadia of Biblical, Theological, and Classical
Literature."

contribute his aid in building " a house for Jehovah," he gives
him the services of one of his most skillful artisans and announces
the gift in these words : "And now I have sent a skillful man,
endued with understanding, my master workman Hiram."

And when the historian who wrote the Chronicles of the kingdom had
recapitulated all the work that Hiram had accomplished, such as the
pillars of the porch, the lavers and the candlesticks, and the
sacred vessels, he concludes by saying that all these things were
made for King Solomon by his master-workman Hiram, in the Hebrew
gnasah Huram Abif Lammelech Schelomoh.

Hiram or Huram was his proper name. Ab, father of his trade or
master-workman, his title, and i or if, any or his, the possessive
pronominal suffix, used according to circumstances. The King of
Tyre calls him Hiram Abi, " my master-workman." When the chronicler
speaks of him in his relation to King Solomon, he calls him Hiram
Abif " his master-workman." And as all his Masonic relations are
with Solomon, this latter designation has been adopted, from
Anderson, by the Craft.

Having thus disposed of the name and title of the personage who
constitutes the main point in this Masonic Legend, I proceed to an
examination of the origin and progressive growth of the myth.

"The Legend of the Temple-Builder," as he is commonly but
improperly called, is so intimately connected in the ritual with
the symbolic history of the Temple, that we would very naturally be
led to suppose that the one has always been contemporary and
coexistent with the other. The evidence on this point is, however,
by no means conclusive or satisfactory, though a critical
examination of the old manuscripts would seem to show that the
writers of those documents, while compiling from traditional
sources the Legend of the Craft, were not altogether ignorant of
the rank and services that have been subsequently attributed by the
Speculative Masons of the present day to Hiram Abif. They
certainly had some notion that in the building of the Temple at
Jerusalem King Solomon had the assistance of a skillful artist who
had been supplied to him by the King of Tyre.

The origin of the Legend must be looked for in the Scriptural
account of the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, The story, as
told in the books of Kings and Chronicles, is to this effect.

On the death of King David, his son and successor, Solomon,
resolved to carry into execution his father's long-contemplated
design of erecting a Temple on Mount Moriah for the worship of
Jehovah. But the Jews were not a nation of artisans, but rather of
agriculturists, and had, even in the time of David, depended on the
aid of the Phoenicians in the construction of the house built for
that monarch at the beginning of his reign. Solomon, therefore,
applied to his ally, Hiram, King of Tyre, to furnish him with trees
from Lebanon and with hewers to prepare them, for, as he said in
his letter to the Tyrian King, "thou knowest that there is not any
among us that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians."

Hiram complied with his request, and exchanged the skilled workmen
of sterile Phoenicia for the oil and corn and wine of more fertile
Judea.

Among the artists who were sent by the King of Tyre to the King of
Israel, was one whose appearance at Jerusalem seems to have been in
response to the following application of Solomon, recorded in the
second book of Chronicles, the second chapter, seventh verse :

"Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold, and in
silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple and in crimson,
and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are
with me in Judah, and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did
provide."

In the epistle of King Hiram, responsive to this request, contained
in the same book and chapter, in the thirteenth and fourteenth
verses, are the following words:

"And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of
Huram my father's. The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and
his father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold and in
silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in
blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner
of graving, and to find out every device which shall be put to him,
with thy cunning men, and with the cunning men of my lord David,
thy father."

A further description of him is given in the seventh chapter of the
first book of Kings, in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, and
in these words

"And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a
widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali-and his father was a man of
Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and
understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass, and he came
to King Solomon and wrought all his work."

It is very evident that this was the origin of the Legend which was
incorporated into the Masonic system, and which, on the institution
of Speculative Freemasonry, was adopted as the most prominent
portion of the Third Degree.

The mediaeval Masons were acquainted with the fact that King
Solomon had an assistant in the works of the Temple, and that 
assistant had been sent to him by King Hiram. But there was
considerable confusion in their minds upon the subject, and an
ignorance of the scriptural name and attributes of the person.

In the Halliwell MS., the earliest known to us, the Legend is not
related. Either the writers of the two poems of which that
manuscript is composed were ignorant of it, or in the combination
of the two poems there has been a mutilation and the Hiramic Legend
has been omitted.

In the Cooke MS., which is a hundred years later, we meet with the
first allusion to it and the first error, which is repeated in
various forms in all the subsequent manuscript constitutions.

That manuscript says: "And at the makyng of the temple in Salamonis
tyme as lit is seyd in the bibull in the iii boke of Regum in
tertio Regum capitulo quinto, that Salomoii had iiii score thousand
masons at his werke. And the kyngis sone of Tyry was his master
mason."

The reference here made to the third book of Kings is according to
the old distribution of the Hebrew canon, where the two books of
Samuel are caged the mat and second books of Kings. According to
our present canon, the reference would be to the fifth chapter of
the first book of Kings. In that chapter nothing is said of Hiram
Abif, but it is recorded there that " Adoniram was over the levy."
Now the literal meaning of Adoniram is the lord Hiram. As the King
of Tyre had promised to send his workmen to Lebanon, and as it is
stated that Adoniram superintended the men who were there hewing
the trees, the old legendist, not taking into account that the levy
of thirty thousand, over whom Adoniram presided, were Israelites
and not Phoenicians, but supposing that they had been sent to
Lebanon by Hiram, King of Tyre, and that he had sent Adoniram with
them and viewing the word as meaning the lord Hiram, hastily came
to the conclusion that this Lord or Prince Hiram was the son of the
King. And hence he made the mistake of saying that the son of the
King of Tyre was the person sent to Solomon to be his, master-mason
or master-builder.

This error was repeated in nearly all the succeeding manuscripts,
for they are really only copies of each other, and the word Adon,
as meaning lord or prince, seems to have been always assumed in
some one or other corrupted form as the name of the workman sent by
King Hiram to King Solomon, and whom the Freemasons of the present
day know as Hiram Abif.

Thus in the Doweled MS., conjecturally dated at A.D. 1550, it is
said:

" And furthermore there was a Kinge of another region that men
called IRAM, and he loved well Kinge Solomon and he gave him tymber
to his worke. And he had a sonn that height (was called) AYNON,
and he was a Master of Geometrie and was chief Master of all his
Masons, and was Master of all his gravings and carvings and of all
manner of Masonrye that longed to the Temple."

There can be no doubt that Aynon is here a corruption of Adon. In
the Landsdowne MS., whose date is A.D. 1560, the language is
precisely the same, except that it says King Iram " had a sonne
that was called a man."

It seems almost certain that the initial letter a in this name has
been, by careless writing, dislocated from the remaining letters,
man, and that the true reading is Aman, which is itself an error,
instead of Amon, and this a manifest corruption of Adon. This is
confirmed by the York MS., Number 1 which is about forty years
later (A.D.1600), where the name is spelled Amon. This is also the
name in the Lodge of Hope MS., dated A.D. 1680.

In the Grand Lodge MS., date of A.D. 1632, he is again called the
son of the King of Tyre, but his name is given as Aynone, another
corrupted form of Adon. In the Sloane MS., Number 3,848, A.D.
1646, it is Aynon, the final e being omitted. In the Harleian MS.,
Number 1942, dated A.D. 1670, both the final e and the medial y are
omitted, and the name becoming Anon approximates still nearer to
the true Adon.

In the Alnwick MS., of A.D. 1701, the name is still further
corrupted into Ajuon. In all of these manuscripts the Legend
continues to call this artist the son of the King of Tyre, whose
name is said to be Hiram or more usually Iram; and hence the
corrupted orthography of Amon, Aynon, or Anon, being restored to
the true form of Adon, with which word the old Masons were
acquainted, as signifying Lord or Prince, we get, by prefixing it
to his father's name, Adon-Iram or Adoniram, the Lord or Prince
Hiram. And hence arose the mistake of confounding Hiram Abif with
Adoniram, the chief of the workmen on Mount Lebanon, who was a very
different person.

The Papworth MS., whose date is A. D. 1714, is too near the time of
the Revival and the real establishment of Speculative Masonry to be
of much value in this inquiry. It, however, retains the statement
from the Old Legend, that the artist was the son of King Hiram. 
But it changes his name to that of Benaim. This is probably an
incorrect inflection of the Hebrew word Boneh, a builder, and shows
that the writer, in an attempt to correct the error of the
preceding legendists who had corrupted Adon into Anon or Amon, or
Ajuon, had in his smattering of Hebrew committed a greater one.

The Krause MS. is utterly worthless as authority. It is a forgery,
written most probably, I think I may say certainly, after the
publication of the first edition of Anderson's Constitutions, and,
of course, takes the name from that work.

The name of Hiram Abif is first introduced to public notice by
Anderson in 1723 in the book of Constitutions printed in that year.

In this work he changes the statement made in the Legend of the
Craft, and says that the King of Tyre sent to King Solomon his
namesake Hiram Abif, the prince of architects."

Then quoting in the original Hebrew a passage from the second book
of Chronicles, where the name of Hiram Abif is to be found, he
excels it "by allowing the word Abif to be the surname of Hiram the
Mason;" furthermore he adds that in the passage where the King of
Tyre calls him " Huram of my father's," the meaning is that Huram
was "the chief Master Mason of my father, King Abibalus," a most
uncritical attempt, because he intermixes, as its foundation, the
Hebrew original and the English version. He had not discovered the
true explication, namely, that Hiram is the name, and Ab the title,
denoting, as I have before said, Master Workman, and that in, or
iv, or if, is a pronominal suffix, meaning his, so that when
speaking of him in his relation to King Solomon, he is called Hiram
Abif, that is Hiram, his or Solomon's Master Workman.

But Anderson introduced an entirely new element in the Legend when
he said, in the same book, that " the wise King Solomon was Grand
Master of the Lodge at Jerusalem, King Hiram was Grand Master of
the Lodge at Tyre, and the inspired Hiram Abif was Master of Work."

In the second or 1738 edition of the Constitutions, Anderson
considerably enlarged the Legend, for reasons that will be adverted
to when I come, in the next part of this work, to treat of the
origin of the Third Degree, but on which it is here unnecessary to
dwell.

In that second edition, he asserts that the tradition is that King
Hiram had been Grand Master of all Masons, but that when the Temple
was finished he surrendered the pre-eminence to King Solo. mon. No
such tradition, nor any allusion to it, is to be found in any of
the Old Records now extant, and it is, moreover, entirely opposed
by the current of opinion of all subsequent Masonic writers.

From these suggestions of Anderson, and from some others of a more
esoteric character, made, it is supposed, by him and by Dr.
Desaguliers about the time of the Revival, we derive that form of
the Legend of Hiram Abif which has been preserved to the present
day with singular uniformity by the Freemasons of all countries.

The substance of the Legend, so far as it is concerned in the
present investigation, is that at the building of the Temple there
were three Grand Masters-Solomon, King of Israel; Hiram, King of
Tyre, and Hiram Abif, and that the last was the architect or chief
builder of the edifice.

As what relates to the fate of Hiram Abif is to be explained in an
altogether allegorical or symbolical sense, it will more
appropriately come finder consideration when we are treating, in a
subsequent part of this work, of the Symbolism of Freemasonry.

Our present study will be the legendary character of Hiram Abif as
the chief Master Mason of the Temple, and our investigations will
be directed to the origin and meaning of the myth which has now, by
universal consent of the Craft, been adopted, whether correctly or
not we shall see hereafter.

The question before us, let it be understood, is not as to the
historic truth of the Hiramic legend, as set forth in the Third
Degree of the Masonic ritual-not as to whether this be the
narrative of an actual occurrence or merely an allegory accompanied
by a moral signification-not as to the truth or fallacy of the
theory which finds the origin of Freemasonry in the Temple of
Jerusalem-but how it has been that the Masons of the Middle Ages
should have incorporated into their Legend of the Craft the idea
that a worker in metal-in plain words, a smith-was the chief
builder at the Temple. This thought, and this thought alone, must
govern us in the whole course of our inquiry.

Of all the myths that have prevailed among the peoples of the
earth, hardly any has had a greater antiquity or a more extensive
existence than that of the Smith who worked in metals, and
fabricated shields and swords for warriors, or jewelry for queens
and noble ladies. Such a myth is to be found among the traditions
of the earliest religions, (1) and being handed down through ages
of popular transmission, it is preserved, with various i-natural
modifications, in the legends of the Middle Age, from Scandinavia
to the most southern limit of the Latin race. Long before this
period it was to be found in the mythology and the folk-lore of
Assyria, of India, of Greece, and of Rome.

Freemasonry, in its most recent form as well as in its older
Legend, while adopting the story of Hiram Abif, once called Adon
Hiram, has strangely distorted its true features, as exhibited in
the books of Kings and Chronicles; and it has, without any
historical authority, transformed the Scriptural idea of a skillful
smith into that of an architect and builder. Hence, in the Old
Legend he is styled a "Master of Geometry and of all Masonry," and
in the modern ritual of Speculative Masonry he is called " the
Builder," and to him, in both, is supposed to have been intrusted
the super- intendence of the Temple of Solomon, during its
construction, and the government and control of those workmen-the
stone squarers and masons-who were engaged in the labor of its
erection

To divest this Legend of its corrupt form, and to give to Hiram
Abif, who was actually an historic 

(1) "Vala, one of the names of Indra, in the Aryan mythology, is
traced," says Mr. Cox, "through the Teutonic lands until we reach
the cave of Wayland Smith, in Warwickshire." "Myhtology of the
Aryan Nations," vol., p. 326


personage, his true position among the workmen at the Temple, can
not affect, in the slightest degree, the symbolism of which he
forms so integral a part, while it will rationally account for the
importance that has been attributed to him in the old as well as in
the new Masonic system.

Whether we make Hiram Abif the chief Builder and the Operative
Grand Master of Solomon's Temple, or whether we assign that
position to Anon, Amon, or Ajuon, as it is in the Old Legend, or to
Adoniram, as it is done in some Masonic Rites, the symbolism will
remain unaffected, because the symbolic idea rests on the fact of
a Chief Builder having existed, and it is immaterial to the
development of the symbolism what was his true name. The
instruction intended to be conveyed in the legend of the Third
Degree must remain unchanged, no matter whom we may identify as its
hero; for he truly represents neither Hiram nor Anon nor Adoniram
nor any other individual person, but rather the idea of man in an
abstract sense,

It is, however, important to the truth of history that the real
facts should be eliminated out of the mythical statements which
envelop them. We must throw off the husk, that we may get at the
germ. And besides, it will add a new attraction to the system of
Masonic ritualism if we shall be able to trace in it any remnant of
that oldest and most interesting of the myths, the Legend of the
Smith, which, as I have said, has universally prevailed in the most
ancient forms of religious faith.

Before investigating this Legend of the Smith in its reference to
Freemasonry and to this particular Legend of Hiram Abif which we
are now considering, it will be proper to inquire into the
character of the Legend as it existed in the old religions and in
the mediaeval myths. We may then inquire how this Legend, adopted
in Freemasonry in its stricter ancient form of the Legend of Tubal
Cain, became afterward confounded with another legend of a Temple-
Builder.

If we go back to the oldest of all mythologies, that which is
taught in the Vedic hymns, we shall find the fire-god Agni, whose
flames are described as being luminous, powerful, fearful, and not
to be trusted."

The element of fire thus worshipped by the primeval Aryans, as an
instrument of good or of evil, was subsequently personified by the
Greeks: the Vedic hymns, referring to the continual renovation of
the flame, as it was fed by fuel, called it the fire-god Agni; also
Gavishtha, that is, the ever young. From this the Greeks got their
Hephaestus, the mighty workman, the immortal smith who forged the
weapons of the gods, and, at the prayer of Thetis, fabricated the
irresistible armor of Achilles. The Romans were indebted to their
Aryan ancestors for the same idea of the potency of fire, and
personified it in their Vulcan, a name which is evidently derived
from the Sanscrit Ulka, a firebrand, although a similarity of sound
has led many etymologists to deduce the Roman Vulcan from the
Semitic Tubal Cain. Indeed, until the modern discoveries in
comparative philology, this was the universal opinion of the
learned.

Among the Babylonians an important god was Bil-can. He was the
fire-god, and the name seems to be derived from Baal, or Bel, and
Cain, the god of smiths, or the master smith. George Smith, in his
Chaldaen Account of Genesis, thinks that there is possibly some
connection here with the Biblical Tubal Cain and the classical
Vulcan.

From the fragments of Sanchoniathon we learn that the Phoenicians
had a hero whom he calls Chrysor. He was worshipped after his
death, in consequence of the many inventions that he bestowed on
man, under the name of Diamichius; that is, the great inventor. To
him was ascribed the invention of all those arts which the Greeks
attributed to Hephaestus, and the Romans to Vulcan. Bishop
Cumberland derives the name of Chrysor from the Hebrew Charatz, or
the Sharbener, an appropriate designation of one who taught the use
of iron tools. The authorized version of Genesis, which calls
Tubal Cain " an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron,"
is better rendered in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as a sharpener
of every instrument in brass and iron."

Tubal Cain has been derived, in the English lectures of Dr.
Hemming, and, of course, by Dr. Oliver, from a generally received
etymology that Cain meant worldly possessions, and the true
symbolism of the name has been thus perverted. The true derivation
is from kin, which, says Gesenius, has the especial meaning to
forge iron, whence comes Kain, a spear or lance, an instrument of
iron that has been forged. In the cognate Arabic it is Kayin. "
This word," says Dr. Goldziher in his work on Mythology Among the
Hebrews" which with other synonymous names of trades occurs several
times on the so-called Nabatean Sinaitic inscriptions, signifies
Smith, maker of agricultural implements (1) and has preserved this
meaning in the Arabic Kayin and the Aramaic kinaya, whilst in the
later Hebrew it was lost altogether, being probably suppressed
through the Biblical attempt to derive the proper name Cain
etymologically from kana, " to gain." Here it is that Hemming and
Oliver got their false symbolism of "worldly possessions."

Goldziher attempts to identify mythologically Cain the fratricide
with the son of Lamech. Whether he be correct or not in his
theory, it is at least a curious coincidence that Cain, which I
have shown to mean a smith, should have been the first builder of
a city, and that the same name should have been assigned to the
first forger of metals, while the old Masonic Legend makes the
master smith, Hiram of Tyre, also the chief builder of Solomon.

It will, I think, be interesting to trace the progress of the myth
which has given in every age and every country this prominent
position among artisans to the smith.

Hephaestus, or Vulcan, kindling his forges in the isle of Lemnos,
and with his Cyclops journeymen beating out and shaping and welding
the red-hot iron into the forms of spears and javelins and helmets
and coats of mail, was the southern development of the Aryan fire-
god Agni. " Hephaestus, or Vulcan," says Diodorus Siculus, " was
the first founder in iron, brass, gold, silver, and all fusible
metals, and he taught the uses to which fire might be applied by
artificers." Hence he was called by the ancients the god of
blacksmiths.

The Scandinavians, or northern descendants of the Aryan race,
brought
with them, in their emigration from Caucasus, the same reverence
for fire
and for the working of metals by its potent use. They did not,
however,
bring with them such recollections of Agni as would invent a god of
fire
Eke the Hephaestus and Vulcan of the Greeks and Romans. They had,
indeed, Loki, who derived his name, it is said by some, from the
Icelandic
logi, or flame. 

(1) He confines the expression to "agricultural" to enforce a
particular theory then under consideration. He might correctly have
been more general and included all other kinds of implements,
warlike and mechanical as well as agricultural.

But he was an evil principle, and represented rather the
destructive than the creative powers of fire.

But the Scandinavians, interpolating, like all the northern
nations, their folk-lore into their mythology, invented their
legends of a skillful smith, beneath whose mighty blows upon the
yielding iron swords of marvelous keenness and strength were
forged, or by whose wonderful artistic skill diadems and bracelets
and jewels of surpassing beauty were constructed. Hence the myth
of a wonderfully cunning artist was found everywhere, and the
Legend of the Smith became the common property of all the
Scandinavian and Teutonic nations, and was of so impressive a
character that it continued to exist down to mediaeval times, and
traces of it have ex- tended to the superstitions of the present
day. May we not justly look to its influence for the prominence
given by the old Masonic legendists to the Master Smith of King
Hiram among the workmen of Solomon?

Among the Scandinavians we have the Legend of Volund, whose story
is recited in the Volunddarkvitha, or Lay of Volund, contained in
the Edda of Saemund. Volund (pronounced as if spelled Wayland) was
one of three brothers, sons of an Elf-king ; that is to say, of a
supernatural race. The three brothers emigrated to Ulfdal, where
they married three Valkyries, or choosers of the slain, maidens of
celestial origin, the attendants of Odin, and whose attributes were
similar to those of the Greek Parcae, or Fates. After seven years
the three wives fled away to pursue their allotted duty of visiting
battle-fields. Two of the brothers went in search of their errant
wives; but Volund remained in Ulfdal. He was a skillful workman at
the forge, and occupied his time in fabricating works in gold and
steel, while patiently awaiting the promised return of his beloved
spouse.

Niduth, the king of the country, having heard of the wonderful
skill of Volund as a forger of metals, visited his home during his
absence and surreptitiously got possession of some of the jewels
which he had made, and of the beautiful sword which the smith had
fabricated for himself

Volund, on his return, was seized by the warriors of Niduth and
conducted to the castle. There the queen, terrified at his fierce
looks, ordered him to be hamstrung. Thus, maimed and deprived of
the power of escape or resistance, he was confined to a small
island in the vicinity of the royal residence and compelled to
fabricate jewels for the queen and her daughter, and weapons of war
for the king. (1)

It were tedious to recount all the adventures of the smith while
confined in his island prison. It is sufficient to say that,
having constructed a pair of wings by which he was enabled to fly
(by which we are reminded of the Greek fable of Daedalus), he made
his escape, having by stratagem first dishonored the princess and
slain her two brothers.

This legend of " a curious and cunning workman " at the forge was
so popular in Scandinavia that it extended into other countries,
where the Legend of the Smith presents itself under various,
modifications

In the Icelandic legend Volund is described as a great artist in
the fabrication of iron, gold and silver. It does not, however,
connect him with supernatural beings, but attributes to him great
skill in his art, in which he is assisted by the power of magic.

The Germans had the same legend at a very early period. In the
German Legend the artificer is called Wieland, and he is
represented as the son of a giant named Wade. He acquires the art
of a smith from Minner, a skillful workman, and is perfected by the
Dwarfs in all his operations at the forge as an armorer and gold.
smith. He goes of his own accord to the king, who is here called
Nidung, where he finds another skillful smith, named Amilias, with
whom he contends in battle, and kills him with his sword, Mimung. 
For this offense he is maimed by the king, and then the rest of the
story proceeds very much like that of the Scandinavian legend.

Among the Anglo-Saxons the legend is found not varying much from
the original type. The story where the hero receives the name of
Weland
is contained in an ancient poem, of which fragments, unfortunately,
only
remain. The legend had become so familiar to the people that in
the
metrical romance of Beowulf the coat of mail of the hero is
described as
the work of Weland; and King Alfred in his translation of the
Consolation
of Philosophy by Boethius, where the author allude,, to the bones
of the
Consul Fabricius, in the passage " ubi sunt ossa Fabricie ? "
(where now
are the bones of Fabricius ?), thus paraphrases the question: Where
now 

(1) All these smiths of mythology and folk-lore are represented as
being lame, like Hephaestus, who broke his leg in falling from
heaven.

are the bones of the wise Weland, the goldsmith that was formerly
so famed ? " Geoffrey of Monmouth afterward, in a Latin poem,
speaks of the gold, and jewels, and cups that had been sculptured
by Weland, which name he Latinizes as Gueilandus.

In the old French chronicles we repeatedly encounter the legend of
the skillful smith, though, as might be expected, the name
undergoes many changes. Thus, in a poem of the 6th century,
entitled Gautier a la main forte, or Walter of the strong hand, it
is said that in a combat of Walter de Varkastein he was protected
from the lance of Randolf by a cuirass made by Wieland.

Another chronicle, of the 12th century, tells us that a Count of
Angouleme, in a battle with the Normans, cut the cuirass and the
body of the Norman King in twain at a single stroke, with his sword
Durissima, which had been made by the smith Walander. A chronicle
of the same period, written by the monk John of Marmontier,
describes the magnificent habiliments of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Duke
of Normandy, among which, says the author, was " a sword taken from
the royal treasury and long since renowned. Galannus, the most
skillful of armorers, had employed much labor and care in making
it." Galans, for Walans (the G being substituted for the W, as a
letter unknown in the French alphabet), is the name bestowed in
general on this skillful smith, and the romances of the Trouveres
and Troubadours of northern and southern France, in the 12th and
13th centuries, abound in references to swords of wondrous keenness
and strength that were forged by him for the knights and paladins.

Whether the name was given as Volund, or Wieland, or Weland, or
Galans, it found its common origin in the Icelandic Volund, which
signifies a smith. It is a generic term, from which the mythical
name has been derived. So the Greeks called the skillful workman,
the smith of their folk-lore, Daedalus, because there is a verb in
their language daidallo, which means to do skillful or ornamental
work.

Here it may not be irrelevant to notice the curious fact that
concurrently with these legends of a skillful smith there ran in
the Middle Ages others, of which King Solomon was the subject. In
many of these old romances and metrical tales, a skill was
attributed to him which makes him the rival of the subordinate
artisan. Indeed, the artistic reputation of Solomon was so
proverbial at the very time when these legends of the smith were
prevalent, that in the poems of those days we meet with repeated
uses of the expression " l'uevre Salemon," or "the work of
Solomon," to indicate any production of great artistic beauty.

So fully had the Scandinavian sagas the German chronicles, and the
French romances spoken of this mythical smith that the idea became
familiar to the common people, and was handed down in the popular
superstitions and the folk-lore, to a comparatively modern period. 
Two of these, one from Germany and one from England, will suffice
as examples, and show the general identity of the legends and the
probability of their common origin.(1)

Herman Harrys, in his Tales and Legends of Lower Saxony, tells the
story of a smith who dwelt in the village of Hagen, on the side of
a mountain, about two miles from Osnabruck. He was celebrated for
his skill in forging metals ; but, being discontented with his lot,
and murmuring against God, he was supernaturally carried into a
cavernous cleft of the mountain, where he was condemned to be a
metal king, and, resting by day, to labor at night at the forge for
the benefit of men, until the mine in the mountain should cease to
be productive.

In the coolness of the mine, says the legend, his good disposition
returned, and he labored with great assiduity, extracting ore from
its veins, and at first forging household and agricultural
implements. Afterward he confined himself to the shoeing of horses
for the neighboring; farmers. In front of the cavern was a stake
fixed iii the ground, to which the countryman fastened the horse
which he wished to have shod, and on a stone near by he laid the
necessary fee. He then retired. On returning in due time he would
find the task completed; but the smith, or, as he was called, the
Hiller, i.e., Hider, would never permit himself to be seen.

Similar to this is the English legend, which tells us that in a
vale of
Berkshire, at the foot of White Horse Hill, evidently, from the
stones which
lay scattered around, the site of a Druidic monument, formerly
dwelt a
person named Wayland Smith. It is easily understood that here the
handicraft title has been 

(1) For many of the details of these two legends, as well as for
much that has already been said of the mythological smith of the
Middle Ages, I have been indebted to the learned Dissertation of
M.M. Depping and Michel. It has been ably translated from the
French, with additions by Mr. S.W. Singer, London, 1847.

incorporated with the anglicized name, and that it is the same as
the mediaeval Weland the Smith. No one ever saw him, for the huge
stones afforded him a hiding-place. He, too, was a Hiller,- for
the word in the preceding legend does not mean "the man of the
hill," but is from the German hullen, to cover or conceal, and
denotes the man who conceals himself. In this studious concealment
of their persons by both of these smiths we detect the common
origin of the two legends. When his services were required to shoe
a horse, the animal was left among the stones and a piece of money
placed on one of them. The owner then retired, and after some time
had elapsed he returned, when he found that the horse was shod and
the money had disappeared. The English reader ought to be familiar
with this story from the use made of it by Sir Walter Scott in his
novel of Kenilworth.

It is very evident, from all that has been here said, that the
smith, as the fabricator of weapons for the battle-field and jewels
for the bourdoir, as well as implements of agriculture and
household use, was a most important personage in the earliest
times, deified by the ancients, and invested by the moderns with
supernatural gifts. It is equally evident that this respect for
the smith as an artificer was prevalent in the Middle Ages. But in
the very latest legends, by a customary process of degeneration in
all traditions, when the stream becomes muddled as it proceeds
onward, he descended in character from a forger of swords, his
earliest occupation, to be a shoer of horses, which was his last.

It must be borne in mind, also, that in the -Middle Ages the
respect for the smith as a " curious and cunning " workman began by
the introduction of a new clement, brought by the Crusaders and
pilgrims from the East to be shared with King Solomon, who was
supposed to be invested with equal skill.

It is not, therefore, strange that the idea should have been
incorporated into the rituals of the various secret societies of
the Middle ,Ages and adopted by the Freemasonry at first by the
Operative branch and afterward, in a more enlarged form, by the
Speculative Masons.

In all of the old manuscripts constitutions of the Operative Masons
we find the Legendof the Craft, and with it, except in one
instance, and that the earliest, a reference to Tubal Cain as the
one who " found [that is, invented] the Smith Craft of gold and
silver, iron and copper and steel."

Nothing but the universal prevalence of the mediaeval legend of the
smith, Volund or Weland, can, I think, account for this reference
to the Father of Smith Craft in a legend which should have been
exclusively appropriated to Stone Craft. There is no connection
between the forge and the trowel which authorized on any other
ground the honor paid by stone-masons to a forger of metals-an
honor so marked that in time the very name of Tubal Cain came to be
adopted as a significant and important word in the Masonic ritual,
and the highest place in the traditional labors of the Temple was
assigned to a worker in gold and brass and iron.

Afterward, when the Operative Art was superseded by the Speculative
Science, the latter supplemented to the simple Legend of the Craft
the more recondite Legend of the Temple. In this latter Legend, the
name of that Hiram whom the King of Tyre had sent with all honor to
the King of Israel, to give him aid in the construction of the
Temple, is first introduced under his biblical appellation. But
this is not the first time that this personage is made known to the
fraternity. In the older Legends he is mentioned, always with a
different name but always, also, as " King Solomon's Master Mason."

In the beginning of the 18th century, when what has been called the
Revival took place, there was a continuation of the general idea
that he was the chief Mason at the Temple; but the true name of
Hiram Abif is, as we have already said, then first found in a
written or printed record. Anderson speaks of his architectural
abilities in exaggerated terms. He calls him in one place "the
most accomplished Mason on earth," and in another "the prince of
architects." This character has adhered to him in all subsequent
times, and the unwritten Legend of the present day represents him
as the , Chief Builder of the Temple," the " Operative Grand
Master," and the " Skillful Architect " by whose elaborate designs
on his trestle-board the Craft were guided in their labors and the
edifice was constructed.

Now, it will be profitable in the investigation of historic truth
to compare these attributes assigned to Hiram Abif I)y the older
and more recent legendists with the biblical accounts of the same
person which have already been cited.

In the original Hebrew text of the passage in the book of 
Chronicles, the words which designate the profession of Hiram Abif
are Khoresh nekhoshet,- literally, a worker in brass. The Vulgate,
which was the popular version in those days and from which the old
legendists must have derived their knowledge of biblical history,
thus translates the letter of King Hiram to King Solomon: "
Therefore I have sent to thee a wise and most skillful man, Hiram
the workman or smith, my father "-Hiram fabrem Patrem meum.

Indeed, in the close of the verse in the Authorized Version he is
described as being " cunning to work all works in brass." And hence
Dr. Adam Clarke, in his,, Commentaries, calls him " a very
intelligent coppersmith."

The error into which the old legendists and the modern Masonic
writers have fallen, in supposing him to have been a stone-mason or
an architect, has arisen from the mistranslation in the Authorized
Version of the passage in Chronicles where he is said to have been
" skillful to work in gold and in silver, in brass, in iron, in
stone, and in timber." The words in the original are Baabanim
vebagnelsim, in stones and in woods,- that is, in. Precious stones
and in woods of various kinds. That is to say, besides being a
coppersmith he was a lapidary and a carver and gilder. The words
in the original Hebrew are in the plural, and therefore the
translation " in wood and in timber " is not correct. Gesenius
says-and there is no better authority for a Hebraism-that the word
eben is used by way of excellence, to denote a precious stone, and
its plural, abanim, means, therefore, precious stones. In the same
way gnetz, which in the singular signifies a tree, in the plural
denotes materials of wood, for any purpose.

The work that was done by Hiram Abif in the Temple is fully
recounted in the first book of Kings, the seventh chapter, from the
fifteenth to the fortieth verse, and is briefly recapitulated in
verses forty-one to fifty. It is also enumerated in the third and
fourth chapters of second Chronicles, and in both books care is
taken to say that when this work was done the task of Hiram Abif
was completed. In the first book of Kings (vii. 40) it is said: "
So Hiram made an end of dung all the work that he made King Solomon
for the house of the Lord." In the second book of Chronicles (iv.
2) the statement is repeated thus: " And Hiram finished the work
that he was to make for King Solomon for the house of God."

The same authority leaves us in no doubt as to what that work was
to which the skill of Hiram Abif had been devoted. "It was,"says 
the book of Chronicles, " the two pillars, and the pommels and the
chapiters which were on the top of the pillars ; and four hundred
pomegranates on the two wreaths; two rows of pomegranates on each
wreath, to cover the two pommels of the chapiters which were upon
the pillars. He made also bases, and lavers made he upon the
bases; one sea and twelve oxen under it. The pots also, and the
shovels and the flesh hooks and all their instruments, did Huram
his father (Hiram Abif) make to King Solomon, for the house of the
Lord, of bright brass."

Enough has been said to show that the labors of Hiram Abif in the
Temple were those of a worker in brass and in precious stones, in
carving and in gilding, and not those of a stonemason. He was the
decorator and not the builder of the Temple. He owes the position
which he holds in the legends and in the ritual of Freemasonry, not
to any connection which he had with the art of architecture, of
which there is not the slightest mention by the biblical
authorities, but, like Tubal Cain, to his skill in bringing the
potency of fire under his control and applying it to the forging of
metals.

The high honor paid to him is the result of the influence of that
Legend of the Smith, so universally spread in the Middle Ages,
which recounted the wondrous deeds of Volund, or Wieland, or
Wayland. The smith was, in the mediaeval traditions, in the sagas
of the north and in the romances of the south of Europe, the maker
of swords and coats of mail; in the Legends of Freemasonry he was
transmuted into the fabricator of holy vessels and sacred
implements.

But the idea that of all handicrafts smith-craft was the greatest
was unwittingly retained by the Masons when they elevated the
skillful smith of Tyre, the "cunning" worker in brass, to the
highest place as a builder in their Temple legend.

The spirit of critical iconoclasm, which strips the exterior husk
from the historic germ of all myths and legends, has been doing
much to divest the history of Freemasonry of all fabulous
assumptions. This attempt to give to Hiram Abif his true position,
and to define his real profession, is in the spirit of that
iconoclasm.

But the doctrine here advanced is not intended to affect in the
slightest degree the part assigned to Hiram Abif in the symbolism
of the Third Degree. Whatever may have been his profession, he
must have stood high in the confidence of the two kings, of him who
sent him and him who received him, as " a master workman; " and he
might well be supposed to be entitled in an allegory to the exalted
rank bestowed upon him in the Lege d of the Craft and in the modern
ritual.

Allegories are permitted to diverge at will from the facts of
history and the teachings of science. Trees may be made to speak,
as they do in the most ancient fable extant, and it is no
infringement of their character that a worker in brass may be
transmuted into a builder in stone to suit a symbolic purpose.

Hence this " celebrated artist," as he is fairly called, whether
smith or mason, is still the representative, in the symbolism of
Freemasonry, of the abstract idea of man laboring in the temple of
life, and the symbolic lesson of his tried integrity and his
unhappy fate is still the same.

As Freemasons, when we view the whole Legend as a myth intended to
give expression to a symbolic idea, we may be content to call him
an architect, the first of Masons, and the chief builder of the
Temple; but as students of history we can know nothing of him and
admit nothing concerning him that is not supported by authentic and
undisputed authority.

We must, therefore, look upon him as the ingenious artist, who
worked in metals and in precious stones, who carved in cedar and in
olive-wood, and thus made the ornaments of the Temple.

He is only the Volund or Wieland of the olden legend, changed, by
a mistaken but a natural process of transmuting traditions, from a
worker in brass to a worker in stone.





CHAPTER XLIV

THE LELAND MANUSCRIPT



The Leland Manuscript, so called because it is said to have been
discovered by the celebrated antiquary John Leland, and sometimes
called the Locke Manuscript in consequence of the suppositous
annotations appended to it by that metaphysician, has for more than
a century attracted the attention and more recently excited the
controversies of Masonic scholars.

After having been cited with approbation by such writers as
Preston, Hutchinson, Oliver, and Krause, it has suffered a reverse
under the crucial examination of later critics. It has by nearly
all of these been decided to be a forgery-a decision from which
very few at this day would dissent.

It is in fact one of those "pious frauds" intended to strengthen
the claim of the Order to a great antiquity and to connect it with
the mystical schools of the ancients. But as it proposes a theory
concerning the origin of the Institution, which was long accepted
as a legend of the Order, it is entitled to a place in the
legendary history of Freemasonry.

The story of this manuscript and the way in which it was introduced
to the notice of the Craft is a singular one.

In the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1753, the so called
manuscript was printed for the first time under the title of "
Certayne Questyons with Awnserers to the same, Concernynge the
Mystery of Maconrye, wrytenne by the Hande of Kynge Henrye the
Sixthe of the Name, and faythfullye copyed by me John Leylande
Antiquaries, by the Commaunde of His Highnesse." That is, King
Henry the Eighth, by whom Leland was employed to search for
antiquities in the libraries of cathedrals, abbeys, priories,
colleges and all places where any ancient records were to be found.

The article in the Gentleman's Magazine is prefaced with these
words:

"The following treatise is said to be printed at Franckfort,
Germany, 1748, under the following Title. Ein Brief Vondem
Beruchmten Herr Johann Locke, betreffend die Frey-Maureren. So auf
einem Schrieb-Tisch enines verstorbnen Bruders ist gefunden worden. 
That is, A Letter of the famous Mr. John Locke relating to
Freemasonry ; found in the Desk or Scritoir of a deceased Brother."

The claim, therefore, is that this document was first published at
Frankfort in 1748, five years before it appeared in England. But
this German original has never been produced, nor is there any
evidence before us that there ever was such a production. The
laborious learning of Krause would certainly have enabled him to
discover it had it ever been in existence. But, although he
accepts the so-called manuscript as authentic, he does not refer to
the Frankfort copy, but admits that, so far as he knows, it first
made its appearance in Germany in 1780, in J. G. L. Meyer's
translation of Preston's Illustrations.(1)

Kloss, it is true, in his Bibliography, gives the title in German,
with the imprint of "Frankfort, 12 pages." But he himself says that
the actuality of such a document is to be wholly doubted. (2)

Besides, it is not unusual with Kloss to give the titles of books
that he has never seen, and for whose existence he had no other
authority than the casual remark of some other writer. Thus he
gives the titles of the Short Analysis of the Unchanged.Rites and
Ceremonies of Freemasons, said to have been printed in 1676, and
the Short Charge, ascribed to 1698, two books which have never been
found. But he applies to them the epithet of " doubtful " as he
does to the Frankfort edition of the Leland Manuscript.

But before proceeding to an examination of the external and
internal evidence of the true character of this document, it will
be expedient to give a sketch of its contents. It has been
published in so many popular works of easy access that it is
unnecessary to present it here in full.

It is introduced by a letter from Mr. Locke (the celebrated author
of the Essay on the Human 

(1) "Kunsturkunden der Freimaurerei," I., 14
(2) "Bibliographie der Friemaurerei," No. 329

Understanding), said to be addressed to the Earl of Pembroke, under
date of May 6, 1696, in which he states that by the help of Mr. C-
ns he had obtained a copy of the MS. in the Bodleian Library, which
he therewith had sent to the Earl. It is accompanied by numerous
notes which were made the day before by Mr. Locke for the reading
of Lady Masham, who had become very fond of Masonry.

Mr. Locke says: "The manuscript of which this is a copy, appears to
be about 160 years old. Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the
title) it is itself a copy of one yet more ancient by about 100
years. For the original is said to have been the handwriting of K.
H. VI. Where the Prince had it is at present an uncertainty, 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 entered
himself, as 'tis said, when he came out of his minority, and
thenceforth put a stop to the persecution that had been raised
against them."

The " examination," for such it purports to be, as Mr. Locke
supposes, consists of twelve questions and answers. The style and
orthography is an attempted imitation of the language of the 15th
century. How far successful the attempt has been will be discussed
hereafter.

Masonry is described to be the skill of Nature, the understanding
of the might that is therein and its various operations, besides
the skill of numbers, weights and measures, and the true manner of
fashioning all things for the use of man, principally dwellings and
buildingd of all kinds and all other things that may be useful to
man.

Its origin is said to have been with the first men of the East, who
were before the Man of the West, by which Mr. Locke, (1) in his
note, says is meant Pre-Adamites, the " Man of the West " being
Adam. The Phoenicians, who first came from the East into
Phoenicia, are said to have brought it westwardly by the way of the
Red and Mediterranean seas.

It was brought into England by Pythagoras, who is called in the
document " Peter Gower," evidently from the French spelling of the
name, " Petagore," he having traveled in search of knowledge into
Egypt, Syria, and every other land 

(1) It will be seen that in this and other places I cite the name
of Mr. Locke as if he were really the author of the note, a theory
to which I by no means desire to commit myself. The reference in
this way is merely for convenience.

where the Phoenicians had planted Masonry. Having obtained a
knowledge of the art in the Lodges of Masons into which he gained
admission, on his return to Europe he settled in Magna Grecia (the
name given by the ancients to Southern Italy), and established a
Grand Lodge at Crotona, one of its principal cities, where he made
many Masons. Some of there traveled into France and made many
Masons, whence in process of time the art passed over into England.

Such is the history of the origin and progress of Masonry which is
given in the Leland Manuscipt. The remainder of the document is
engaged in giving the character and the objects of the Institution.

Thus it is said, in relation to secrecy, that Masons have at all
times communicated to mankind such of their secrets as might
generally be useful, and have kept back only those that might be
harmful in evil hands-those that could be of no use unless
accompanied by the teachings of the Lodge, and those which are
employed to bind the brethren more strongly together.

The arts taught by Masons to mankind are enumerated as being
Agriculture, Architecture, Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic ,Music,
Poetry, Chemistry, Government, and Religion.

Masons are said to be better teachers than other men, because the
first of them received from God the art of finding new arts, and of
teaching them, whereas the discoveries of other men have been but
few, and acquired only by chance. This art of discovery the Masons
conceal for their own profit. They also conceal the art of working
miracles, the art of foretelling future events, the art of changes
(which Mr. Locke is made in a note to interpret as signifying the
transmutation of metals), the method of acquiring the faculty of
Abrac, the power of becoming good and perfect without the aid of
fear and hope, and the universal language.

And lastly it is admitted that Masons do not know more than other
men, but onlyhave a better opportunity of knowing, in which many
fail for want of capacity and industry. And as to their virtue,
while it is acknowledged that some are not so good as other men,
yet it is believed that for the most part they are better than they
would be if they were not Masons. And it is claimed that Masons,
greatly love each other, because good and true men, knowing each
other to be such, always love the more the better they are.

" And here endethe the Questyonnes and Awnsweres."

There does not appear to be any great novelty or value in this
document The theory of the origin of Masonry had been advanced by
others before its appearance in public, and the characteristics of
Masonry had been previously defined in better language.

But no sooner is it printed in the Gentleman's Magazine for the
month of September, and year 1753, than it is seized as a bonne
bouche by printers and writers, so that being first received with
surprise, it was soon accepted as a genuine relic of the early age
of English Masonry and incorporated into its history, a position
that it has not yet lost, in the opinion of some. The forgeries of
Chatterton and of Ireland met a speedier literary death.

Of the genuine publications of this document, so much as this is
known.

It was first printed, as we have seen, in the Gentleman's Magazine,
in September, 1753. Kloss records a book as published in 1754,
with no place of publication, but probably it was London, with the
title of A Masonic Creed, with a curious letter by Mr. Locke. 
This, we can hardly doubt, was the Leland Manuscript .pt with a new
title. The republications in England pursued the following
succession. In 1756 it was printed in Entick's edition of the
Constitutions and in Dermott's Ahiman Rezon; in 1763 in the
Freemasons Pocket Companion, in 1769, in Wilkinson's Constitutions
of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and in Calcott's Candid
Disquisition; in 1772, in Huddesford's Life of Leland, and in
Preston's Illustrations of Masonry,- in 1775, in Hutchinson's
Spirit of Masonry and in 1784, in Northouck's edition of the
Constitutions.

In Germany it first appeared in 1776, says Krause, in G. L. Meyer's
translation of Preston; in 1780, in a translation of Hutchinson,
published at Berlin; in 1805, in the Magazinfiir Freimaurer of
Professor Seehass; in 1807, in the collected Masonic works of
Fessler; in 1810, by Dr. Krause in his Three Oldest Documents,and
in 1824, by Mossdorf in his edition of Lenning's Encyclopedie.

In France, Thory published a translation of it, with some comments
of his own, in 1815, in the Acta Latomorum.

In America it was, so far as I know, first published in 1783, in
Smith's Ahiman Rezon of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania; it was
also published in 1817, by Cole, in his Ahiman Rezon of Maryland,
and it has been copied into several other works.

In none of these republications, with one or two exceptions, is 
there an expression of the slightest doubt of the genuineness of
the document. It has on the contrary been, until recently, almost
everywhere accepted as authentic, and as the detail of an actual
examination of a Mason or a company of Masons, made by King Henry
VI., of England, or some of his ministers, in the 15th century.

Of all who have cited this pretended manuscript, Dr. Carl Christian
Friederich Krausse is perhaps the most learned, and the one who
from the possession of great learning, we should naturally expect
would have been most capable of detecting a literary forgery,
speaks of it, in his great work on The Three Oldest Documents Of
the Fraternity of Freemasons, as being a remarkable and instructive
document and as among the oldest that are known to us. In England,
he says, it is, so far as it is known to him, accepted as authentic
by the learned as well as by the whole body of the Craft, without
a dissenting voice. And he refers as evidence of this to the fact
that the Grand Lodge of England has formally admitted it into its
Book of Constitutions, while the Grand Lodge of Scotland has
approved the work of Lawrie, in which its authenticity is supported
by new proofs.

And Mossdorf, whose warm and intimate relations with Krause
influenced perhaps to some extent his views on this as well as they
did on other Masonic subjects, has expressed a like favorable
opinion of the Leland Manuscript. In his additions to the
Encyclopedie of Lenning, he calls it a remarkable document, which,
notwithstanding a singularity about it, and its impression of the
ancient time in which it originated, is instructive, and the oldest
catechism which we have on the origin, the nature, and the design
of Masonry.

The editor of Lawrie's History is equally satisfied of the genuine
character of this document, to which he confidently refers as
conclusive evidence that Dr. Plot was wrong in saying that Henry
VI. did not patronize Masonry.

Dr. Oliver is one of the most recent and, as might be expected from
his peculiar notions in respect to the early events of Masonry, one
of the most ardent defenders of the authenticity of the manuscript,
although he candidly admits " that there is some degree of mystery
about it, and doubts have been entertained whether it be not a
forgery."

But, considering its publicity at a time when Freemasonry was
beginning- to excite a considerable share of public attention, and
that the deception, if there was one, would have been publicly
exposed by the opponents of the Order, he thinks that their silence
is presumptive proof that the document is genuine.

"Being thus universally diffused," he says, " had it been a
suspected document, its exposure would have been certainly
attempted if a forgery, it would have been unable to have endured
the test of a critical examination. But no such attempt was made,
and the presumption is that-the document is authentic."

But, on the ther hand there are some writers who have as carefully
investigated the subject as those whom I have referred to, but the
result of whose investigations have led them irresistibly to the
conclusion that the document never had any existence until the
middle of the 18th century, and that the effort to place it in the
time of Henry VI. is, as Mounier calls it, " a Masonic fraud."

As early as 1787, while the English Masons were receiving it as a
document of approved truth, the French critics had begun to doubt
its genuineness. At a meeting of the Philalethes, a Rite of
Hermetic Masonry which had been instituted at Paris in 1775, the
Marquis de Chefdebien read a paper entitled Masonic -Researches for
the use of the Primitive Rite of Narbonne. (1) In this paper he
presented an unfavorable criticism of the Leland Manuscript. In
1801 M. Mounier published an essay On the Influence attributed to
the Philosophers, the Freemasons and the Illuminate in the French
Revolution, (2) in which he pronounces the document to be a forgery
and a Masonic fraud.

Lessing was the first of the German critics who attacked the
genuineness of the document. This he did in his Ernst und Falk,
the first edition of which was published in 1778. Others followed,
and the German unfavorable criticisms were closed by Findel, the
editor of the Bauhutte, and author of a History of Freemasonr ,
first published in 1865, and which was translated in 1869 by Bro. 
Lyon. He says : -'There is no reliance, whatever, to be placed on
any assertions based on this spurious document ; they all crumble
to dust. Not even in England does any well-informed Mason of the
present day, believe in the genuineness of this bungling
composition."

In England it is only recently that any doubts of its authenticity
have been expressed by Masonic 

(1) "Recheres Maconniques a l'usage des Freres du Regime Premitifde
Narbonne."
(2) "De l'Influence attribuee aux Philosophes, aux Franc-Macons et
aux Illumines sur la Revolution de France," per F.F. Mounier.

critics. The first attack upon it was made in 1849, by Mr. George
Sloane, in his New Curiosities of Literature. Sloane was not a
Freemason, and his criticism, vigorous as it is, seems to have been
inspired rather by a feeling of enmity to the Institution than by
an honest desire to seek the truth. His conclusions, however, as
to the character of the document are based on the most correct
canons of criticism. Bro. A. F. A. Woodford is more cautious in
the expression of his judgment, but admits that " we must give up
the actual claim of the document to be a manuscript of the time of
King Henry VI., or to have been written by him or copied by
Leland." Yet he thinks " it not unlikely that we have in it the
remains of a Lodge catechism conjoined with a Hermetic one." But
this is a mere supposition, and hardly a plausible one

But a recent writer, unfortunately anonymous, in the Masonic
Magazine, (1) of London, has given an able though brief review of
the arguments for and against the external evidence of
authenticity, and has come to the conclusion that the former has
utterly failed and that the question must fall to the ground.

Now, amid such conflicting views, an investigation must be
conducted with the greatest impartiality. the influence of great
names especially among the German writers, has been enlisted on
both sides, and the most careful judgment must be exercised in
determining which of these sides is right and which is wrong.

In the investigation of the genuineness of any document we must
have resort to two kinds of evidence, the external and the
internal. The former is usually more clear and precise, as well as
more easily handled, because it is superficial and readily
comprehended by the most unpracticed judgment. But when there is
no doubt about the interpretation, and there is a proper exercise
of skill, internal evidence is freer from doubt, and therefore the
most conclusive. It is, says a recent writer on the history of our
language, the pure reason of the case, speaking to us directly, by
which we can not be deceived, if we only rightly apprehend it. 
But, al- though we must sometimes dispense with external evidence,
because it may be unattainable, while the internal evidence is
always existent, yet the combination of the two will make the
conclusion to which we may arrive more infallible than it could be
by the application of either kind alone.

(1) Vol. vi., No. 64, October, 1878, p. 148

If it should be claimed that a particular document was written in
a certain century, the mention of it, or citations from it, by
contemporary authors would be the best external evidence of its
genuineness. It is thus that the received canon of the New
Testament has been strengthened in its authority, by the quotation
of numerous passages of the Gospels and the Epistles which are to
be found in the authentic writings of the early Fathers of the
Church. This is the external evidence.

If the language of the document under consideration, the peculiar
style, and the archaic words used in it should be those found in
other documents known to have been written in the same century, and
if the sentiments are those that we should look for in the author,
are in accord with the age in which he lived, this would be
internal evidence and would be entitled to great weight.

But this internal evidence is subject to one fatal defect. The
style and language of the period and the sentiments of the
pretended author and of the age in which he lived may be
successfully imitated by a skillful forger, and then the results of
internal evidence will be evaded. So the youthful Chatterton
palmed upon the world the supposititious productions of the monk
Rowley and Ireland forged pretended plays of Shakespeare. Each of
these made admirable imitations of the style of the authors whose
lost productions they pretended to have discovered.

But when the imitation has not been successful, or when there has
been no imitation attempted, the use of words which were unknown at
the date claimed for the document in dispute, or the reference to
events of which the writer must be ignorant, because they occurred
at a subsequent period, or when the sentiments are incongruous to
the age in which they are supposed to have been written, then the
internal evidence that it is a forgery, or at least a production of
a later date, will be almost invincible.

It is by these two classes of evidence that I shall seek to inquire
into the true character of the Leland Manuscript

If it can be shown that there is no evidence of the existence of
the document before the year 1753, and if it can also be shown that
neither the language of the document the sentiments expressed in
it, nor the character attributed to the chief actor, King Henry VI.
are in conformity with a document of the 15th century, we shall be
authorized in rejecting the theory that it belongs to such a period
as wholly untenable, and the question will admit of no more
discussion.

But in arriving at a fair conclusion, whatever it may be, the rule
of Ulpian must be obeyed, and the testimonies must be well
considered and not merely counted. It is not the number of the
whole but the weight of each that must control our judgment.

Those who defend the genuineness of the Leland Manuscript are
required to establish these points:

1. That the document was first printed at Frankfort, in Germany,
whence it was copied into the Gentleman's Magazine for September,
1753.

2. That the original manuscript was, by command of King Henry
VIII., copied by John Leland from an older document of the age of
Henry VI.

3. That this original manuscript of which Leland made a copy, was
written by King Henry VI.

4. That the manuscript of Leland was deposited in the Bodleian
Library.

5. That a copy of this manuscript of Leland was made by a Mr.C-ns,
which is said to mean Collins, and given by him to John Locke, the
celebrated metaphysician.

6. That Locke wrote notes or annotations on it in the year 1696,
which were published in Frankfort in 1748, and afterward in
England, in 1753.

The failure to establish by competent proof any one of these six
points will seriously affect the credibility of the whole story,
for each of them is a link of one continuous chain.

1.Now as to the first point, that the document was first printed at
Frankfort in the year 1748. The Frankfort copy has never yet been
seen, notwithstanding diligent search has been made for it by
German writers, who were the most capable of discovering it, if it
had ever existed. The negative evidence is strong that the
Frankfort copy may be justly considered as a mere myth. It follows
that the article in the Gentleman's Magazine is an original
document, and we have a right to suppose that it was written at the
time for some purpose, to be hereafter considered, for, as the
author of it has given a false reference, we may conclude that if
he had copied it at all he would have furnished us with the true
one. Kloss, it is true, has admitted the title into his catalogue,
but he has borrowed his description of it from the article in the
Gentleman's Magazine, and speaks of this Frankfort copy as being
doubtful. He evidently bad never seen it, though he was an
indefatigable searcher after Masonic books. Krause's account of it
in that it first was found worthy of Locke's notice in England ;
that thence it passed over into Germany-" how, he does not know "-
appeared in Frankfort, and then returned back to England, where it
was printed in 1753. But all this is mere hearsay, and taken by
Krause from the statement in the Gentleman's Magazine. He makes no
reference to the Frankfort copy in his copious notes in his
Kunsturkunden, and, like Kloss, had no personal knowledge of any
such publication. In short, there is no positive evidence at all
that any such document was printed at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but
abundant negative evidence that it was not. The first point must
therefore be abandoned.

2. The second point that requires to be proved is that the
Manuscript, was, by command of King Henry VIII., copied by John
Leland, from an older document of the age of Henry VI. Now, there
is not the slightest evidence that a manuscript copy of the
original document was taken by Leland, except what is afforded by
the printed article in the Gentleman's Magazine, the authenticity
of which is the very question in dispute, and it is a good maxim of
the law that no one ought to be a witness in his own cause. But
even this evidence is very insufficient. For, admitting that Locke
was really the author of the annotations (an assertion which also
needs proof), he does not say that he had seen the Leland copy, but
only a copy of it, which had been made for him by a friend. So
that even at that time the Leland Manuscript had not been brought
to sight and up to this has never been seen. Amid all the
laborious and indefatigable researches of Bro. Hughan in the
British Museum, in other libraries, and in the archives of lodges,
while he has discovered many valuable old records and Masonic
Constitutions which until then had lain hidden in these various
receptacles, he has failed to unearth the famous Leland Manuscript. 
The hope of ever finding it is very faint, and must be entirely
extinguished if other proofs can be adduced of its never having
existed.

Huddesford, in his Life of Leland, had, it is true, made the
following statement in reference to this manuscript: " It also
appears that an ancient manuscript of Leland's has long remained in
the Bodleian Library, unnoticed in any account of our author yet
published. This Tract is entitled Certayne Questyons with
Awnsweres to the same concernynge the mystery of Maconrye. The
original is said to be the handwriting of K. Henry VI., by order
of his highness K. Henry VIII. (1) And he then proceeds to dilate
upon the importance of this " ancient monument of
literature, if its authenticity remains unquestioned."

But it must be remembered that Huddesford wrote in 1772, nineteen
years after the appearance of the document in the Gentleman's
Magazine, which he quotes in his Appendix, and from which it is
evident that he derived all the knowledge that he had of the
pseudomanuscript. But the remarks on this subject of the anonymous
writer in the London Masonic Magazine, already referred to, are so
apposite and conclusive that they justify a quotation.

"Though Huddesford was keeper of the Ashmolean Library, in the
Bodleian, he does not seek to verify even the existence of the
manuscript, but contents himself with 'it also appears' that it is
from the Gentleman's Magazine of 1753. He surely ought not to have
put in here such a statement, that an ancient manuscript of Leland
has long remained in the Bodleian, without inquiry or collation. 
Either he knew the fact to be so, as he stated it, or he did not ;
but in either case his carelessness as an editor is to my mind,
utterly inexcusable. Nothing would have been easier for him than
to verify an alleged manuscript of Leland, being an officer in the
very collection in which it was said to exist. Still, if he did
not do so, either thebmanuscript did exist, and he knew it, but did
not think well, for some reason, to be more explicit about it, or
he knew nothing at all about it, and by an inexcusable neglect of
his editorial duty, took no pains to ascertain the truth, and
simply copied others, by his quasi recognition of a professed
manuscript of Leland.

But it is utterly incredible that Huddesford could have known and
yet concealed his knowledge of the existence of the manuscript. 
There is no conceivable motive that could be assigned for such
concealment and for the citation at the same time of other
authority for the fact. It is therefore a fair inference that his
only knowledge of the document was delved from the Gentleman's
Magazine. There is therefore, no proof whatever that Leland ever
copied any older manuscript.

(1) Huddesford's "Life of John Leland," p. 67


Referring to certain obvious mistakes in the printed copy, such as
Peter Gower for Pythagoras, it has been said that it is evident
that the document was not printed from Leland's original
transcript, but rather from a secondary copy of an unlearned. 
Huddesford adopts this view, but if he had ever seen the manuscript 
of Leland he could have better formed a judgment by a collation of
it with the printed copy than by a mere inference that a man of
Leland's learning could not have made such mistakes. As he did not
do so, it follows that he had never seen Leland's Manuscript. The
second point, therefore, falls to the ground.

3. The third point requiring proof is that the original manuscript
of which Leland made a copy, was written by King Henry VI. There
is a legal rule that when a deed or writing is not produced in
court, and the loss of it is not reasonably accounted for, it shall
be treated as if it were not existent. This is just the case of
the pretended manuscript in the handwriting of Henry VI. No one
has ever seen that manuscript, no one has ever had any knowledge of
it ; the fact of its ever having existed depends solely on the
statement made in the Gentleman's Magazine that it had been copied
by Leland. Of a document "in the clouds" as this is, whose very
existence is a mere presumption built on the very slightest
foundation, it is absurd to predicate an opinion of the
handwriting. Time enough when the manuscript is produced to
inquire who wrote it. The third point, therefore, fails to be
sustained.

4. The fourth point is that the manuscript of Leland was deposited
in the Bodleian Library. This has already been discussed in the
argument on the first and third point. It is sufficient now to say
that no such manuscript has been found in that library. The
writer in the London Masonic Magazine, whom I have before quoted,
says that he had had a communication with the authorities of the
Bodleian Library, and had been informed that nothing is known of it
in that collection. Among the additional manuscripts of the British
Museum are some that were once owned by one Essex, an architect,
who lived late in the last century. Among these is a copy of the
Leland Manuscript evidently a copy made by Essex from the
Gentleman's Magazine, or some one of the other works in which it
had been printed. I say evidently, because in the same collection
is a copy of the Grand Mystery, transcribed by him as he had
transcribed the Leland Manuscript, as a, to him perhaps, curious
relic. The original Leland Manuscript is nowhere to be found, and
there the attempt to prove the fourth point is unsuccessful.

5.The fifth point is that a copy of Leland's MS. was made by a Mr. 
C-ns, and given by him to Locke. The Pocket Companion printed the
name as " Collins," upon what authority I know not. There were
only two distinguished men of that name who were contemporaries of
Locke-John Collins, the mathematician, and Anthony Collins, the
celebrated skeptical writer. It could not have been the former who
took the copy from the Ashmolean Library in 1696, for he died in
1683. There is, however, a strong probability that the latter was
meant by the writer of the prefatory, since he was on such
relations with Locke as to have been appointed one of his
executors, (1) and it is an ingenious part of the forgery that he
should be selected to perform such an act of courtesy for his
friend as the transcription of an old manuscript. Yet there is an
uncertainty about it, and it is a puzzle to be resolved why Mr.
Locke should have unnecessarily used such a superabundance of
caution, and given only the initial and final letters of the name
of a friend who had been occupied in the harmless employment of
copying for him a manuscript in a public library. This is
mysterious, and mystery is always open to suspicion. For
uncertainty and indefiniteness the fifth point is incapable of
proof.

6. The sixth and last point is that the notes or annotations were
written by Mr. Locke in 1696, and fifty-two years afterward printed
in Frankfort-on-the-Main. We must add to this, because it is a
part of the story, that the English text, with the annotations of
Locke, said to have been translated into German, the question-was
it translated by the unknown brother in whose desk the document was
found after his death ?-and then retranslated into English for the
use of the Gentleman's Magazine.

It is admitted thar if we refuse to accept the document printed in
the magazine in 1753 as genuine, it must follow that the notes
supposed to have been written by 

(1) It is strange that the idea that the Collins mentioned in the
letter was Collins, the friend and executor of Locke, should not
have suggested itself to any of the defenders or oppugners of the
document. The writer in the "London Masonic Magazine" intimates
that he was "a book-collector, or dealer in MSS."

Locke are also spurious. The two questions are not necessarily
connected. Locke may have been deceived, and, believing that the
manuscript presented to him by C-ns, or Collins, if that was really
his name, did take the trouble, for the sake of Lady Masham, to
annotate it and to explain its difficulties.

But if we have shown that there is no sufficient proof, and, in
fact, no proof at all, that there ever was such a manuscript, and
therefore that Collins did not transcribe it, then it will
necessarily follow that the pretended notes of Locke are as
complete a forgery as the text to which they are appended. Now if
the annotations of Locke were genuine, why is it that after
diligent search this particular one has not been found? It is known
that Locke left several manuscripts behind him, some of which were
published after his death by his executors, King and Collins, and
several unpublished manuscripts went into the possession of Lord
King, who in 1829 published the Life and Correspondence of Locke. 
But nowhere has the notorious Leland Manuscript appeared. " If
John Locke's letter were authentic," says the writer already
repeatedly referred to, a copy of this manuscript would remain 
among Mr. Locke's papers, or at Wilton house and the original
manuscript probably in the hands of this Mr. Collins, whoever he
was, or in the Bodleian."

But there are other circumstances of great suspicion connected with
the letter and annotations of Locke, which amount to a condemnation
of their authenticity. In concluding his remarks on what he calls
" this old paper," Locke is made to say: " It has so raised 
curiosity as to induce me to enter myself into the fraternity;
which I am determined to do (if I may be admitted) the next time I
go to London, and that will be shortly."

Now, because it is known that at the date of the pseudo-letter, Mr.
Locke was actually residing at Oates, the seat of Sir Francis
Masham, forechose lady he says that the annotations were made, and
because it is also known that in the next year he made a visit to
London, Oliver says that there "he was initiated into Masonry."
Now, there is not the slightest proof of this initiation, nor is it
important to the question of authenticity whether he was initiated
or not, because if he was not it would only prove that be had
abandoned the intention he had expressed in the letter. But I cite
the unsupported remark of Dr. Oliver to show how Masonic history
has hitherto been written-always assumptions, and facts left to
take care of themselves.

But it is really most probable that Mr. Locke was not made a
Freemason in 1697 or at any other time, for if he had been, Dr.
Anderson, writing the history of Masonry only a few years
afterward, would not have failed to have entered this illustrious
name in the list of " learned scholars " who had patronized the
Fraternity.

It appears, from what is admitted in reference to this subject,
that the Leland Manuscript, having been obtained by Mr. Collins
from the Bodleian Library, was annotated by Mr. Locke, and a
letter, stating the fact, was sent with the manuscript and
annotations to a nobleman whose rank and title are designated by
stars (a needless mystery), but who has been subsequently supposed
to be the Earl of Pembroke. All this was in the year 1696. It then
appears to have been completely lost to sight until the year 1748,
when it is suddenly found hidden away in the desk of a deceased
brother in Germany. During these fifty-two years that it lay in
abeyance, we hear nothing of it. Anderson, the Masonic historian,
could not have heard of it, for he does not mention it in either
the edition of the Constitutions published in 1723, or in that more
copious one of 1738. If anyone could have known of it, if it was in
existence, it would have been Anderson, and if hc had ever seen or
heard of it he would most certainly have referred to it in his
history of Masonry during the reign of Henry VI.

He does say, indeed, that according to a record in the reign of
Edward IV. "the charges and laws of the Freemasons have been seen
and perused by our late Sovereign, King Henry VI., and by the Lords
of his most honourable Council, who have allowed them and declared
that they he right good, and reasonable to be holden as they have
been drawn out and collected from the records of ancient times,"
etc. (1)

But it is evident that this is no description of the Leland
Manuscript which does not consist of " charges and laws," but is
simply a history of the origin of Masonry, and a declaration of its
character and objects. And yet the fact that there is said to have
been something; submitted by the Masons

(1) Anderson's "Constitutions," edition of 1738, p. 75

to Henry VI. and his Council was enough to suggest to the ingenious
forger the idea of giving to his pseudo-manuscript a date
corresponding to the reign of that monarch. But he overleaped the
bounds of caution in giving the peculiar form to his forgery. Had
he fabricated a document similar to those ancient constitutions,
many genuine manuscripts of which are extant, the discovery of the
fraud would have been more difficult.

But to continue the narrative: The manuscript, having been found in
the desk of this unknown deceased brother, is forthwith published
at Frankfort, Germany, in a pamphlet of twelve pages and in the
German language.

Here again there are sundry questions to be asked, which can not be
answered. Had the tale been a true one, and the circumstances such
as always accompany the discovery of a lost document, and which are
always put upon record, the replies and explanations would have
been ready.

Was the letter of Locke, including of course the catechism of the
Leland Manuscript, which was found in the desk of the unknown
brother, the original document, or was it only a copy ? If the
latter, had it been copied in English by the brother, or translated
by him into German ? If not translated by trim, by whom was it
translated? Was the pamphlet printed in Frankfort merely a German
translation, or did it also contain, in parallel columns, the
English original, as Krause has printed the English documents in
his Kunsterkunden, and as, in fact, he has printed this very
document? These are questions of very great importance in
determining the value and authenticity of the Frankfort pamphlet,
And yet not one of them can be answered, simply because that
pamphlet has never been found, nor is it known that anyone has ever
seen it.

The pamphlet next makes its appearance five years afterward in
England, and in an English translation in the Gentleman's Magazine
for September, 1753. Nobody can tell, or at least nobody has told,
how it got there, who brought it over, who translated it from the
German, how it happened that the archaic language of the text and
the style of Locke have been preserved. These are facts absolutely
necessary to be known in any investigation of the question of
authenticity, and yet over them all a suspicious silence broods.

Until this silence is dissipated and these questions answered by
the acquisition of new knowledge in the premises, which it can
hardly now be expected will be obtained, the stain of an imposture
must remain upon the character of the document. The discoverer of
a genuine manuscript would have been more explicit in his details.

As to internal evidence, there is the most insuperable difficulty
in applying here the canons of criticism which would identify the
age of the manuscript by its style.

Throwing aside any consideration of the Frankfort pamphlet on
account of the impossibility of explaining the question of
translation, and admitting, for the time, that Mr. Locke did really
annotate a copy of a manuscript then in the Bodleian Library, which
copy was made for him by his friend Collins, how, with this
admission, will the case stand ?

In Mr. Locke's letter (accepting, it as such) he says: "The
manuscript, of which this is a copy, appears to be about 160 years
old." As the date of Locke's letter is 1696, this estimate would
bring us to 1536,or the thirty-first year of the reign of 
HenryVIII. Locke could have derived his knowledge of this fact
only in two ways: from the date given in the manuscript or from its
style and language as belonging, in his opinion, to that period.

But if he derived his knowledge from the date inserted at the head
of the manuscript, that knowledge would be of no value, because it
is the very question which is at issue. The writer of a forged
document would affix to it the date necessary to carry out his
imposture, which of course would be no proof of genuineness.

But if Locke judged from the style, then it must be said that,
though a great metaphysician and statesman, and no mean theologian,
he was not an archaeologist or antiquary, and never had any
reputation as an expert in the judgment of old records. Of this we
have a proof here, for the language of the Leland Manuscript is not
that of the period in which Leland lived. The investigator may
easily satisfy himself of this by a collation of Leland's genuine
works, or of the Cranmer Bible, which is of the same date.

But it may be said that Locke judged of the date, not by the style,
but by the date of the inanuscript itself. And this is probably
true, because he adds: " Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the
title) it is itself a copy of one yet more ancient by about 100
years: For the original is said to have been in the handwriting of
K. H. VI."

Locke then judged only by the title-a very insufficient proof as I
have already said, of authenticity. So Locke seems to have
thought, for he limits the positiveness of the assertion by the
qualifying phrase " it is said." If we accept this for what it is
worth, the claim will be that the original manuscript was written
in the reign of Henry VI., or about the middle of the I5th century. 
But here again the language is not of that period. The new English,
as it is called, was then beginning to take that purer form which
a century and a half afterward culminated in the classical and
vigorous style of Cowley. We find no such archaisms as those
perpetrated in this document in the Repressor of over-much Blaming
of the Clergy, written in the same reign, about 1450, by Bishop
Pecock, nor in the Earl of Warwick's petition to Duke Humphrey,
written in 1432, nor in any other of the writings of that period. 
It is not surprising, therefore, that the glossary or list of
archaic words used in the document, by which from internal evidence
we could be enabled to fix its date, has, according to Mr.
Woodford, " always been looked upon with much suspicion by
experts."

If I may advance an hypotheses upon the subject I should say that
the style is a rather clumsy imitation of that of Sir John
Mandeville, whose Voiage and Travails was written in 1356, about a
century before the pretended date of the Leland Manuscript.

An edition of this book was published at London in 1725. It was,
therefore, accessible to the writer of the Leland document. He
being aware of the necessity of giving an air of antiquity to his
forgery, and yet not a sufficiently skillful philologist to know
the rapid strides that had taken place in the progress of the
language between the time of Mandeville and the middle of the reign
of Henry VI., adopted, to the best of his poor ability, the
phraseology of that most credulous of all travelers, supposing that
it would well fit into the period that he had selected for the date
of his fraudulent manuscript. His ignorance of philology has thus
led to his detection. I am constrained, from all these
considerations, to endorse the opinion of Mr. Halliwell Phillips,
that " it is but a clumsy attempt at deception, and quite a
parallel to the recently discovered one of the first Englishe
Mercurie."

But the strangest thing in this whole affair is that so many men of
learning should have permitted themselves to become the dupes of so
bungling an impostor.