Chapter XIII., for whUst, on the one hand, it is essential that old and obsolete theories should

be decently interred and put out of sight, on the other hand we must be especially careful, lest
in our haste some of the ancient beliefs are buried alive.^ At the outset of this history, the use of
metaphorical analogies, from the contrasts of outward nature, such as the opposition of light
to darkness, warmth to cold, life to death, was pointed out as a necessary characteristic of all
secret fraternities, who are obliged to express in symbolical language that relation of contrast
to the uninitiated on which their constitution depends." It is important, however, to recollect
that in Freemasonry, we have literate, symbolical, and oral traditions, or in other words, our
comprehension of the history and arcana of the Craft is assisted by letters, by symbols, and by
memory. The comparative trustworthiness of the three sets of traditions becomes very material.
Where their testimonies conflict, all cannot be believed, and yet to which of the three shall we
award the palm ? The point we have now reached is an appropriate one from which to
consider the varied forms in which our Masonic traditions are presented to us.

Documentary evidence, craft symbolism, and oral relations, alike take us back to Egypt
and the East.

In his " Contribution to the History of the Lost Word," Dr Garrison observes,—" The

> Ante, p. 229. In the Monthly Review, vol. xxv., 179S, p. 501, it is statetl, on the authority of Paciaudi (Anti-
quitates Christianic, Roma;, 1755), tliat certain churches of the Templars in Lombardy bore the epithet " de la mason:'

' The Christian Kemerahrancer, vol. xiv., 1847, pp. 5, 17, 18. In the opinion of Dr Armstrong, the Freemasons
" possess the relics and cast-off clothes of some deceased Fraternity." He says, " They did not invent all the symbolism
they possess. It came from others. They themselves have equipped themselves in the ancient garb as they best could,
but with evident ignorance of the original mode of investiture, and we cannot but smile at the many labyrinthine folds
in which they have entangled themselves. They suggest to us the perplexity into which some simple Hottentot would
fall, if the full-dress regimentals and equipments of the 10th Hussars wore laid at his feet, and he were to induct himself,
without instruction, into the mystic and confnsing habiliments" {Ibid., p. 12).

3 Ante, p. 63. •• IhifJ., p. 71 d scri. " Cf. Chap. I., p. 10. '' Udd., pp. 11, 12.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 233

tenets of the Essenes, and the doctrines of Pythagoras and the CabbaLa are especially suggestive.
Studied, as they all should be, in their relations to the Bible as the written Word of God, and
the traditions and teachings of the lodge, they will, I am sure, furnish matter of continually
increasing interest and instruction to every thoughtful student of the Fraternity, who may
really desire more light." ^

This view is supported by the authority of many writers of reputation, to whose works I have
incidentally alluded in the course of this history, and it may be remarked that the vitality of
Masonic theories is dependent not altogether upon books, but derives much of its force from
the opinions expressed by eminent members of the Fraternity. Now, one of the most
learned of English Masons, in recent times, according to popular repute, was the late Dr
Leeson, who, in a lecture delivered at Portsmouth on July 25, 1862, states that Egypt
was the cradle of Masonry. The mystic knowledge became known to the Essenes, hence
arose the Jewish Cabbala, and in due process of transmission. Masonry became the in-
heritance of those philosophers of the Middle Ages who were known as Eosicrucians.- So
far back as 1794, Mr Clinch remarked, "it is now grown into a popular demonstration
in controversy, to show a thing derived from heathenism." ^ It would be difficult, even in
these days, to point out a single ancient custom for which a pagan origin could not at least be
plausibly assigned. The Egyptians were the first to establish a civilised society, and all the
sciences must necessarily have been derived from this source.

According to Jewish tradition, the Cabbala passed from Adam over to Xoah, and then to
Abraham, the friend of God, who emigrated with it to Egypt, where the patriarch allowed a
portion of this mysterious doctrine to ooze out.* It was in this way that the Egyptians
obtained some knowledge of it, which has probably served as the foundation of authority upon
which the passage in the " Old Charges," relating to Abraham, was originally inserted.^ The
mystical philosophy of the Jews is thus referred to in an essay bound up with, and forming
part of, the "Book of Constitutions," 1738: "The Cabalists, another Sect, dealt in hidden
and mysterious Ceremonies. The Jews had a great Ptegard for this Science, and thought they
made uncommon Discoveries by means of it. They divided their Knowledge into Speculative
and Operative. David and Solomon, they say, were exquisitely skiU'd in it ; and no body at

' Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, appendix A., p. 474.

2 Lecture delivered by Dr Leeson, Most Puissant Sov. Gr. Com. 33°, before the Royal Naval Chapter of Sovereign
Princes of Eose Croix (Freemasons' Magazine, Aug. 2, 1862). Besides the statements in the text, the Doctor told his
hearers a great many things which should have severely tested their credulity ; inter alia, that under the Grand Lodge
of 1722 it was decreed and enacted, that all craft lodges were to receive every 30° Mason with the highest honours, and
in the words of the report, " he concluded a very learned and elaborate address, by stating that from the facts he had
told them, everyone would see that the ISth or Kose Croix degree had been practised so far back as the year A. D.
1400"! (Ibid.).

^Anthologia Hibernica, vol. iii., 1794, p. 423. "I shall show that the terms of Egyptian mystery have not
merely Ijecn adopted in latter times, that they are coeval -svith Christianity, as their ceremonies have been imitated
in all nations " (Ibid., p. 424).

■* Dr Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, 1865, p. 84 ; ante, p. 64.

=> " Moreover, wlipn Abraham and Sara his wife went into Egypt and tlicrc taught the vij Sciences unto the
Egyptians, and he had a woorthy scholler, that height Ewcled, and he learned right well, and was a Mr- of all the vij
Sciences " (No. 4 — Grand Lodge MS. ).

VOL. XL 2 G

234 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

first presumed to commit it to Writincj : But (what seems most to the present Purpose) the
perfection of their Skill consisted in what the Dissector ^ calls Lettering of it^ or by ordering
the Letters of a "Word in a particular Manner." ^

In order to estimate the comparative trustworthiness of literate, symbolical, and oral
traditions, when in either case their aid is sought in lifting the veil of darkness which obscures
the remote past of our Society, it will be necessary to pass in review the opinions of some
•writers, by whom the inferences deducible from symbols are held to outnumber and out-
weigh those handed down by letters or by memory. Thus, in the judgment of the historian,
from whose interesting and instructive work on the " Secret Societies of All Ages and
Countries " I have already quoted : " From the first appearance of man on the earth, there
was a highly favoured and civilised race, possessing a full knowledge of the laws and pro-
perties of nature, and which knowledge was embodied in mystical figures and schemes,
such as were deemed appropriate emblems for its preservation and propagation. These
figures and schemes are preserved in Masonry, though their meaning is no longer under-
stood by the fraternity. The aim of all secret societies, except of those which were purely
political, was to preserve such knowledge as still survived, or to recover what had been
lost. Freemasonry, being the resumi of the teachings of all these societies, possesses dogmas
in accordance with some which were taught in the Ancient Mysteries and other associa-
tions, though it is impossible to attribute its origin to any specific society preceding it."
Finally, according to this writer, Freemasonry is— or rather ought to be— the compendium
of all primitive and accumulated human knowledge.*

From this flattering description I turn to one from the competent hand of the author
of " The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry," ^ but shall first of all seize the
opportunity of saying a few prefatory words explanatory of the estimation in which 1
regard both the work referred to, and also its talented author. To slightly paraphrase the
words of Sir F. Palgrave : « Whoever now composes the early history of Freemasonry has to
contend against great disadvantages. All the freshness of the subject is lost, whilst many
of the perplexities remain to be solved. Upon first consideration, it seems almost super-
fluous to multiply details of things popularly or vulgarly known, and equally objectionable
to pass them over. Yet the historian will often find himself compelled to abridge what

^ I.e., Samuel Prichard. Cf. ante, pp. 9, 47.

s The Cabbala is divided into two kinds, the Practical and the Theoretical. The latter is again divided into the
Dogmatic and the Literal. The Literal Cabbala teaches a mystical mode of explaining sacred things by a peculiar use
of the letters of words, and a reference to their value. This is further subdivided into three species, Gematria— evidently
a rabbinical corruption of the Greek 7eu-/icT/)(a— Notaricon, and Tcmura (Ginsburg, The Kabbalah).

s Constitutions, 1738, appendix, p. 221. Although the subject is headed "A Defence of Masonry, publish'd A.D.
1730. Occasion'd by a Pamphlet call'd Masonry Dissected " {Ibid., p. 216). I am aware of no copy of earlier date than
1738. Dr Anderson is said to have been tlie autlior, but, besides being unlike any piece of composition known to be his,
the thanks which are offered him at p. 226 of the Constitutions " tor printing the Clever Defence," by a member of liis
own lodge— the "Horn," now Royal Somerset House and Inverness No. 4— who signs himself "Euclid," militate
strongly against such a conclusion.

* Heckethorn, op. cit., vol. i., pp. 248, 249.

' By G. F. Fort, 4th edit., Philadelphia (Bradley & Co.), 1881.

8 History of Normandy and of England, vol. i., p. 94.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 235

others have considered leading passages of history, and at the same time to invest with
apparently disproportionate importance the topics which his predecessors have disregarded.
If an edifice has one principal fa9ade, the views taken by different artists will be pretty
nearly the same ; but this is not the case where there are diversified and irregular
portions, presenting many fronts, each claiming attention for their use, ornament, singu-
larity, or grandeur. The aspect selected in one picture will be seen only in rapid
perspective in another, and in a third quite cast into the shade.

The artist cannot change his position whilst he is working, or represent the same thing
under two aspects at a time. No persons can see the same object in the same way.

Therefore, instead of quarrelling with a writer because his mode of treating history differs
from that which we should have preferred, we should rather thank him for affording us the
opportunity of contemplating the Masonic Edifice from a position which we cannot reach, or
in which we should not like to place ourselves. Historians can never supersede each other. No
one historian can give all we wish, or teach all we ought to learn ; neither can comparisons
fairly be instituted between them, for no two are identical in their views, no two possess the
same idiosyncrasies, the same opportunities, the same opinions, the same intentions, the
same mind. History cannot be read off-hand ; it must be studied — studied by investigation
and comparison — otherwise it profits no more, perhaps less, than Palmeriu of England or
Amadis of Gaul.

Fort has succeeded, where all his predecessors have failed — that is in rendering the study
of our antiquities an attractive task. This, of itself, is no slight merit, but the value of his
work is by no means confined to its literary execution. The old-world libraries appear to
have been ransacked to some purpose by the author, during his occasional visits to Europe,
and we are the more disposed to admire the lucidity of the text, from the copious extracts and
references to authorities, which, in the notes, attest, so to speak, the prodigality of his research.
In chapter xxv. of his history, the symbolical traditions, which have come down to us, are
closely examined, and compared with the cognate symbolism, and the metaphorical analogies
of Gothic origin.

Thus he demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt, that many usages now in vogue
among Masons had their counterparts, if not their originals, in the Middle Ages, but in two
respects, as it appears to me, the analogy requires fortifying, if it is to sustain the natural
inference which will be drawn from it by the generality of readers. Fort's " History " is one
of those captivating works which are read by many who, though well informed on other
subjects, are wholly unacquainted with the "Antiquities of Freemasonry," and are not really
studying, or particularly curious, with respect to them. They do, however, almost uncon-
sciously, or at least unintentionally, form an opinion respecting that subject " from broad general
statements and little detached facts," one being very commonly given as if it were a suflScient

voucher for the other, and both coming in quite incidentally as matters perfectly notorious as

matters so far from wanting proof themselves, that they are only brought in to prove other
things.^

Now I am far from suggesting that at any portion of his history. Fort has witlihcld

' Cf. Dr Maitland's Observations on Dr Warton's History of English Poetry (The Daik Jigcs, 2d edit., note B.).

236 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

information from his readers, that in his judgment might have modified the condusions at
which they are asked to arrive on the authority of his personal statement. On tlie contrary,
the positions advanced by this writer are frequently so fortified by references as to be con-
clusive beyond what the mind altogether wishes, but in the present instance, and in the
exercise of an undoubted discretion— to which I have previously alluded, as the special
province of the historian— having clearly established in his own mind certain facts, these
appeared so incontrovertible as to justify the exclusion of the details by which they were
supported. But no one, I am sure, would more heartily concur in the golden rule of criticism,
that Truth is the great object to be sought, and not the maintenance of an opinion, because it
was once expressed. Evidence must always modify critical opinions, when that evidence affects
the data on which such opinions were formed; it must be so at least on the part of those who
really desire to be guided on any definite principles.^

The parallelism which has been drawn between the symbolism of Freemasonry and that of
institutions which flourished in the Middle Ages, is wanting in completeness. In the first
place, and if we begin with the proceedings or usages of the latter upon which the analogy has
been built up, I see no reason why any pause should be made in our inquiry when we reach
the Middle Ages. That era, no doubt, as well as the societies or associations coeval with it, is
interesting to the archaeologist, if it fixes either a date or a channel, calculated to elucidate the
transmission of Masonic science from the more remote past. Yet as the greater number, not
to go further, of the analogies or similarities, which are so much dwelt upon, have their
exemplars in the Mysteries— to the extent that they are identical— we might with as much
justice claim Egypt as the land of Masonic origin,^ as limit our pretensions to a derivation from
the Vehmic Tribunals of Westphalia. In the Mysteries we meet with dialogue, ritual, dark-
ness, light, death, and reproduction,' aU of which reappear in the Benedictine ceremony of
which a description has been given. It admits of no doubt that the rites and theological ex-
pressions of the Egyptians were of universal acceptation. Indeed, we are expressly told by
Warburton- after remarking that the Fathers of the Church bore a secret grudge to the
Mysteries for their injudicious treatment of Christianity on its first appearance in the world :
— " But here comes in the surprising part of the story- that, after this, they sliould so studiously
and affectedly transfer the Tervis, Phrases, Rites, Ceremonies, and Discipline of these odious
Mysteries into our holy Eeligion ; and thereby, very early violate and deprave, what a Pagan
Writer (Marcellinus) could see and acknowledge, was absoluta & simplex, [perfect and pure]
as it came out of the Hands of its divine Author." *

The objection I have hitherto raised to the theory which has been based upon the
symbolical traditions of the Freemasons, is one rather of form than of substance, but the
ground on which I shall next venture to impeach its value, goes to the root of the whole
matter, and, unless my judgment is wholly at fault, clearly proves that the parallel sought

' Of- Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, p. 43.

^This was, in effect, maintained by Mr Clinch, whose comparison of the ceremonies of the Pythagoreans
and the Freemasons, where he instances no less than fifteen points of similarity, is prefaced by tlic words—
" The Pythagoreans introduced their mystic rites from Egypt" (Anthologia Hibernica, vol. iii., 1794, pp 183 184 • a7Uc
Chap. I., p. 8). - ' ' '

' Chap. I., pp. 12, 15, 19. ■• Divine Legation, vol. i., 173S, p. 172. Cf. ante, Chap. I., p. 16.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 237

to be established, is unsupported by the only evidence which could invest it with
authority.

If, indeed, many of the rites, symbols, and beliefs, noio prevalent among Masons, correspond
with, or are analogous to, those supposed to have been common to the members of earlier and
distinct societies,^ to what extent is this material in our consideration of the Freemasonry
of Ashmole's time, and the Masonic " customs " referred to by Dr Plot ?

De Quincey, in the volume of his general works, to which I have so frequently
referred, very justly observes — "We must not forget that the Eosicrucian and Masonic orders
were not originally at all points what they now are: they have passed through many
changes, and no inconsiderable part of their symbols, etc., has been the product of successive
generations." '^

Without further referring to the Eosicrucian fraternity, than to direct attention^ to
where the Brethren of the Eosy Cross are stated to have been one of the intermediaries in
passing on the mysterious learning of Egypt to our present-day Freemasons, it may be
remarked, that the position taken by De Quincey is a sound one, and commends itself to our
common sense.

On this principle, therefore, we might expect to find the speculative Masonry of our own
time characterised by many features which were wholly absent from the earlier system. Yet
if we accept the conclusions of writers who have carefully studied the comparative symbolism
of past ages, it is clear, either that Masonry in its later growth, instead of changing in some
degree its original character, has, on the contrary, gone back pretty nearly to the same point from
which it is said to have first started, or that our speculative science was transformed into what
it now is by the antiquaries and philosophers who were affiliated to the craft in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries.*

A passage from the "Defence of Masonry," first printed in 1730, and so highly esteemed
by the compiler of the official " Book of Constitutions," as to have been incorporated by him
in the second edition of that work, will be of service at this portion of our inquiry. The
author of the brochure referred to, after stating that Freemasonry had been represented as
being " an unintelligible Heap of Stuff and Jargon, without common Sense or Connection,"
thus proceeds : " I confess I am of another Opinion ; tho' the Scheme of 3Iasonry, as reveal'd
by the Dissector,^ seems liable to Exceptions : Nor is it so clear to me as to be fully under-
stood at first View, by attending only to the literal Construction of the Words : And for
aught I know, the System, as taught in the regular Lodges, may have some Eedundancies or
Defects, occasion'd by the Ignorance or Indolence of the old Members. And indeed, con-
sidering throirgh what Obscurity and Darkness the Mysterrj has been deliver'd down; the
many Centuries it has survived ; the many Countries and Languages, and Sects and Parties it
has run through ; we are rather to wonder it ever arriv'd to tlie present Age, without more
Imperfection. In short, I am apt to think that Masonry (as it is now explain'd) has in some

• Ante, pp. 61, 62.

2 Vol. xvi. (Suspiria de Profundis), p. 366. ' Chaps. I., p. 25 ; XIII., j'assim.

< Chaps, I., p. 13; XII., p. 19 ; XIII., pp. 60, 111, 114-116, 136-138 ; XVI., sub anno 1717.

' I.e., Samuel Pricliaiil.

238 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

Circumstances declined from its oricjlnal Purity ! It has run long in muddy Streams, and as
it were, under Ground : But notwithstanding the great Rust it may have contracted, and the
forbidding Light it is placed in by the Dissector, there is (if I judge right) much of the
old Fahrick still remaining ; the essential Pillars of the Building may be discover'd through
the Eubbish, tho' the Superstructure be over-run with Moss and Ivy, and the Stones, by
Length of Time, be disjointed. And therefore, as the Bust of an old Hero is of great
Value among the Curious, tho' it has lost an Eye, the Nose, or the Eight Hand ; so
Masonry with aU its Blemishes and Misfortunes, instead of appearing ridiculous, ought (in
my humble Opinion) to be receiv'd with some Candour and Esteem, from a Veneration to
its Antiquity!' ^

The preceding extract lends no colour to the supposition, that the Masonry known to the
founders of the Grand Lodge of England retained what they believed to have been its pristine
excellences. On the contrary, indeed, it is e\'ident that in their opinion the ancient " Fabrick "
had sustained such ravages at the hands of time and neglect, as to raise doubts as to Iwiu much
of it was " still remaining."

The character of the Freemasonry, which existed after the era of Grand Lodges, will be
examined in the next chapter, but the reference which I have just made to it will be sufficient
for my present purpose, which is, to show the futility of all speculations with regard to a
direct Masonic ancestry or descent, which attempt to link together two sets of circumstances
peculiar to distinct bodies and eras, without some definite guiding clue which leads directly
upirards or backwards, the one from the other.

It is perfectly clear, that how much soever we may rely upon what is termed " a
chain of evidence," everything will depend upon the connection and quality of its links, and
if, so to speak, several of the latter are missing, our chain will be, after all, only an
imaginary one, whilst the parts can only be separately used, and to the extent that the
links are united.

Whatever conformity of usage, therefore, may be found in the proceedings of Lodges and
of the old Gothic tribunals, it will be expedient to test the weight of the analogy by consider-
ing how far the former may be held to represent the Masonic customs of times remote from
our own.

Among the ancient customs so graphically depicted by Fort, and which he compares with
those of the Freemasons, there are three to which I shall briefly allude. These are — the
formal opening of a court of justice with a colloquy ; ^ the Frisian oath — " I swear the secrets
to conceal (Jiclcn), hold, and not reveal;"^ and the "gait" or procession about their realms
made by the Northern Kings at their accession, imitated in the Scandinavian laws, under
which, at the sale of land, the transfer of possession was incomplete until a circuit had been
made around the property.*

1 Dr Anderson, The Now Book of Constitutions, 1738, p. 219.

' Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonr}', p. 268.

^ " Schwur das heiligc gelieimuiss zu helen, hiiteu u. verwahren, vor mann, vor weib, vor dorf, vor trael, vor
stole, vor stein, vor grasz, vor klein, auch vor qucck" {Ibid., p. 318, citing Grimm, Deutsche Rechts Alterthiimer, pp.
52, 53). " Whoever will collate the foregoing triplets with the oath administered in the Entered Apprentice's Degree,
cannot fail to avow that both have emanated from a high antiquity, if not from an identical source " (Fort, loc. oil.).

* Fort, oj). cil., p. 321.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 239

To take the last custom first, Fort, after citing it, institutes the following parallel :

" During the installation ceremonies of the IMaster of a Masonic lodge, a procession of all
the craftsmen march around the room before the Master, to whom an appropriate salute is
tendered. This circuit is designed to signify that the new incumbent reduces the lodge to his
possession in this symbolic manner." ^

In all these ceremonies vestiges appear of the rite of circumambulation, or worship of the
sun, to which I briefly alluded in my concluding observations on the Companionage.^ It
prevailed extensively in Britain. The old Welsh names for the cardinal points of the sky —
the north being the left hand and the south the right — are signs of an ancient practice of
turning to the rising sun.^ When Martin visited the Hebrides, he saw the islanders marching
in procession three times from east to west round their crops and their cattle. If a boat put
out to sea, it began the voyage by making these three turns. If a welcome stranger visited
one of the islands, the inhabitants passed three times round their guest. A flaming brand was
carried three times round the child daily until it was christened.* It wiU be seen that, for the
existence of a custom upon which a portion of the installation ceremony may have been
modelled, we need not look beyond the British Isles, where the usage may be traced back to
very ancient times. Indeed, an accurate writer observes : " The survival in remote districts
of the habit of moving ' sun-wise ' from east to west, may indicate the nature of the processions
in which the British women walked, ' with their bodies stained by woad to an Ethiopian
colour.' " ^

But after all, this adoration of the sun which is unconsciously imitated by the Freemasons
in their lodges, establishes an historical conclusion w^hich is more curious than important.
There is no evidence to show that the degree of Installed Master was invented before the second
half of the eighteenth century, and at this day the Masters of Scottish Lodges are under no
obligation to receive it.^

The remaining points of resemblance which await examination, between the proceedings of
lodges and those of the old Gothic Tribunals, are the formal opening of both with a colloquy,
and the oath or obligation administered by their authority.

To what extent, these, or any other portions of the existing lodge ceremonial, are survivals of
more ancient customs, cannot be very accurately determined, but the evidence, such as it is, will

1 Fort, op. cit., p. 321. = Chap. V., p. 250.

'J. Rhys, Lectures on Welsh Philology, 1877, p. 10 ; Revue Celtique, toI. ii, p. 103.

* M. Martin, Account of the Western Islands of Scotland, 1716, pp. 113, 116, 140, 211, 277 ; Elton, Origins of
English History, 1S82, p. 293.

^ Elton, loc. cit., quoting Pliny, Hist. Nat., .xxii. 2.

' Laws and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, 1879, pp. 2, 3. In the edition of these Constitutions in
vogue in 1852, it is laid down — "The Installation of the whole of the office-bearers of a Lodge, including the Master,
shall be held in a just and perfect lodge, opened in the Apjnentice Degree, whereat, at least, three Masters, two Fellow-
crafts, and two Apprentices must be present ; or failing Craftsmen and Apprentices, the same number of Masters, who,
for the time being, shall be held of the inferior degree" (Chap, xxi.. Rule XXL).

The postscript to the general Regulations in Dr Anderson's " Book of Constitutions," 1723, alludes to the Master of
a new lodge being taken from among the Fellow-crafts, and installed by " certain significant Ceremonies and ancient
Us.-iges ; " after which he installs his wardens. Tliis is very vague, but as it bears in the direction of the third or Master
Mason's degree, having been conferred on tlio actual Master of Lodges, I give it a place in this note. The point will
again come before us.

240 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

by no means justify the belief, that the derivation of any part is to be found in the sources
which are thus pointed out to us.

The mode of opening the proceedings of a court, or society, by a dialogue between the
officials, may be traced back to a very remote era ; but it will be sufBcient for my purpose to
remark, that as the Vehmic ceremonies, of which this was one, were of " Old Saxon" derivation,^
they must have been known in Anglo-Saxon England long before the time of Charlemagne.
Vestiges of their former existence were recorded, as we have seen, by Sir F. Palgrave, as
existing so late as 1832.^

The Frisian Oath, with which Fort has compared the obligation of the Apprentice in Free-
masonry, may be further contrasted with the last clause or article of Sloane ]\IS. 3848 (13),
of which the concluding words are :

" These Charges that we have rehearsed & all other yt belongeth to Masonrie you shall
keepe ; to y"" vttermost of yo'' knowledge ; Soe helpe you god & by the Contents of this
booke." ^

That the extract just given, places before us the precise words to which Ashmole signified
his assent, on being made a Free Mason at Warrington on October 16, 1G46, cannot of course
be positively affirmed, but it is fairly inferential that it does. The copy of the " Old Charges,"
from which it is taken, was transcribed on the same day — presumably for use — by Edward
Sankey, the son, it is to be supposed, of Eichard Sankey, one of the Freemasons present in the
lodge.* But without going this length, we may assume with confidence, that the final clause
of the Sloane MS. (13) gives the form of oath, which, at the date of its transcription, was
ordinarily administered to the candidates for Freemasonry. This, indeed, derives confirmation
from the collective testimony of the other versions of our manuscript " Constitutions," to
which, and in connection with the same subject — the admission of Ashmole — I shall again
refer.

Fort has carefully reviewed the circumstances which led, in his judgment, to " the
perpetuation of Pagan formularies used in the Gothic courts, and the continuation of
mythological rites and ceremonies in mediaeval guilds ; " and these, he considers, have " con-
jointly furnished to J'reemasonry the skeleton of Norse customs, upon which Judaistic
ritualism was strung." ^

The passages in which his arguments are given are too long for quotation, and would lose
much of their force by being summarised. I shall therefore content myself with presenting
the following short extract from his work, in which will be found the general conclusions at
which he has arrived :

' Ante, p. 229 rt seq. ' Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealtli, Part II., p. civi. ; ante, p. 230.

* See, however, the forms of oath given in Chajis. II., p. 100 ; VIII., p. 423 ; XIV., p. 183 ; and Hughan's "Old
Charges" (11), p. 57. " liode, a learned German, maintains that it [Freemasonry] is of English origin. He proves
this from the form of oath in which the perjured are threatened with the punishment determined by the English laws
for those guilty of High Treason — that of having their entrails torn out and burnt ; and in which it is said besides, that
he shall be thrown into the sea, a cable's length, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in tweiity-four hours " (J. J.
Mounier, On the Influence attributed to the Philosophers, the Freemasons, and the llluminati upon the French
Revolution, translated by J. Walker, 1801, p. 133).

* Chap. XIV., p. 142. " Fort, The Early History and Auticiuitius of Freemasonry, p. 388.

EA RL Y BRITISH PRE EM A SONR Y— ENGL A ND. 24 1

" Old Teutonic courts were a counterpart of such heathen symbols and ceremonies as the
priesthood manipulated in the celebration of religious services.^ When, therefore, the junction
occurred which united the Gothic and Jewish elements of Freemasonry, by the merging of
the Byzantine art corporations into the Germanic guilds in Italy, the Norsemen contributed
the name and orientation, oaths, dedication of the lodge, opening and closing colloquies.
Master's maUet and columns, and the lights and installation ceremonies. On the other hand,'
Judaistic admixture is equally well defined. From this source Masonry received the onuiific
word, or the faculty of Abrac - and ritualism, including the Hiramic legend." ^

The legend of Hiram, which has crept into our oral traditions, will demand very careful
consideration, but it is first necessary that we should resume our examination of the " Old
Charges." I shall therefore bring this dissertation to a close by presenting a final quotation
from the essay of Dr Armstrong, which, while somewhat humorously enlarging upon a
portion of the traditionary history of the Craft, open to deserved censure from the uncritical
treatment it had met with up to the date of the Bishop's observations, will, so to speak, take
us back to the "Legend of Masonry," at the exact point where our study of it must
recommence.

The Doctor observes : " There are minds which seem to rejoice in the misty regions of
doubt, which see best in the dark, which have a sensation of being handcuffed when they
are tied to proofs and documents ; they despise those stubborn facts, the mules of history,
on which safe historians are content to ride down the crags and precipices of olden times,
'Inveniam viam, aut faciam;' I will find my facts, or make them; so say the masonic
writers. They have the same contempt for plain plodding historians which we can con-
ceive a stoker of the Great Western dashing out of Paddington would feel for an ancient
couple, could such be seen jogging leisurely out of town in pillion-fashion on their old
sober mare, with the prospect of a week's journey to Bath. They drive the ' Express
trains ' of history. While we are groping and floundering amid the fens and bogs of the
seventh, and eighth, and ninth centuries, they look upon such times as the mere suburbs
of the present age— 'the easy distance from town." They dash past centuries, as railroad
trains whisk by milestones. For ourselves we see nothing of Freemasons before the seventh
century ; we cannot even scent the breath of a reasonable rumour. But if we put ourselves
under the charge of the most sober and matter-of-fact of Masonic historians, away we are
skurried from the seventh century to the sixth, from the sixth to the fifth, from the fifth to
the fourth, to the third, to the second, till with dizzy heads, and our breath gone, we find
ourselves put down by the Temple of Solomon." *

The preceding remarks having taken us back to one of the leading features of the legendary
as well as of the traditional history of the Craft, the thread of our main inquiry may be here
resumed.

According to the evidence of the " Old Charges," King Solomon was a great protector of

1 See pp. 226-229, 23G. A colloriuy ensued, at the " Profession " of a Benc.lictine, between the abbot and the
candidate (Fosbroke, British Monachism, 1843, p. 179).

= Acconling to the same authority, "the Wey of Wynnynge the Facultye of Abrac," when properly understood,
" signifies the means by whicli the lost word may be recovered, or, at least, substitute<l." See chapter xxxvi. of the
work quoted from above, pn-ssim ; Gould, The Four Old Lodges, p. 42, note 3 ; and ante, Chap. XI., p. 488.

' Fort, The Early History and Antifiuities of Freemasonry, p. 406.
Ancient and Modern Freemasonry, Christian Remembrancer, vol. xiv., 1S47, pp. 18 lf>

VOL. n. 2 H

242 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

the Masons, and from this monarch it was that Naymus Grecus — whose protracted and adven-
turous career might have suggested the fable of the Wandering Jew — acquired the knowledge
of Masonry, which, some eighteen centuries later, he successfully passed on to Charles
Martel.

In a work of great pretension, and which I am informed still retains its hold of the
popular judgment, it is laid down — " After the union of speculative and operative Masonry
and when the Temple of Solomon was completed, a legend of sublime and symbolical meaning
was introduced into the system, which is still retained, and consequently known to all Master
Masons." ^

At a later portion of his life, however, Oliver seems to have shaken off a good deal of the
learned credulity which deforms his earlier writings, as wiU. appear from the following extracts,
which I take from his " Freemason's Treasury"^: — " Freemasonry is confessedly an allegory, and
as an allegory it must be supported, for its tradition at history admits of no palliation."

" One unexplained tradition is the origin of Masonic degrees, which is placed at a thousand
years before the Christian era, viz., at the building of King Solomon's Temple, and that they
were brought into existence by three distinguished individuals." ^

The Doctor then states at some length his reasons for considering that the Third is a
modern degree. If found to be puerile or erroneous, he asks that they may be rejected ; but
if sound, as he believes them to be, they may tend, he thinks, " to restore the primitive dignity
of Masonry, at the risk of dissipating many a pleasing illusion — as the child who is in the
seventh heaven of delight at reading an interesting fairy tale, becomes vexed and annoyed
when he discovers that it is only a senseless fable." *

The title of Master Mason, which may or may not, at its original establishment, have been
dignified with the rank of a separate degree, in the opinion of the Doctor — and his conclusions
are corroborated by the " Ancient Charges " — " was strictly confined to a Master in the chair." ^
" It was known only as the Masters Part, and comprised within such narrow limits," that he is
disposed to think " the ceremony and legend together would not be of five minutes' duration." ®
His final judgment is, that " our present Third Degree is not architectural, but traditionary,
historical, and legendary ; its traditions being unfortunately hyperbolical, its history apocryphal,
and its legends fabulous." "^

Dr Oliver next informs us that " the name of the individual who attached the aphorism of
H. A. B. to Freemasonry has never been clearly ascertained ; although it may be fairly pre-
sumed that Brothers Desaguliers and Anderson were prominent parties to it, as the legend
was evidently borrowed from certain idle tales taken out of the Jewish Targums, which were
published in London a.d. 1715, from a manuscript in the University Library at Cambridge;
and these two Brothers were publicly accused by their seceding contemporaries of manu-
facturing the degree, which they never denied." ^

The italics are those of Dr Oliver, but it may be observed, that as both Anderson and
Desaguliers had been many years in their graves, when the earliest publication of the seceding

' Dr G. Oliver, The Historical Landmarks of Freemasonry, 1846, vol. ii., p. 169.

' 1863, p. 290. ' Oliver, Freemason's Treasury, 1863, p. 217. * Ibid., p. 220.

" " In ancient times no Brother, however skilled in the Craft, was called a Master Mason until he had been elected
into the chair of a Lodge " (Ancient Charges, Book of Constitutions, London, 1873, pp. 7, 8).

' Ibid., p. 288. ' Ihid., pp. 222, 223. * Ibid., p. 288.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 243

or " Atholl " Masons saw the light, their silence, even under the severe strictures passed by
Laurence Dermott in the successive editions of his work, upon all who took part in the early
proceedings of the first Grand Lodge of England, is not to be wondered at. This statement
of Oliver's has been, however, so frequently copied in later Masonic works, that it requires to be
noticed, though I shall only add to the remarks already made, that the entire story is unattested,
and therefore unworthy of any further consideration.

The point, indeed, as to whe,n the Hiramic Legend was introduced into Freemasonry is
a material one, and its determination must rest largely upon conjecture, though I shall
do my best to narrow the debatable period within which it became an integral part of our oral
traditions.

In the first place, the story or legend derives little, if any confirmation from the language
of the " Old Charges," and here the comparative trustworthiness of the traditions preserved by
letters and by memory becomes a consideration of great importance. Our written traditions
remain what they were ^ rather more than three centuries ago, but the same cannot be
positively af&rmed with regard to our oral traditions. Putting aside, however, the operation
of natural causes, upon which alone the relative infidelity of the latter might be allowed
to rest, let us see if there is distinct evidence that will strengthen this conclusion.

As a preliminary, it will be desirable to ascertain what the manuscript Constitutions
actually say with regard to Hiram and the legend of the Temple.

The judgment I have myself formed of the community of tradition which we find in the
legendary histories of Freemasonry and the Companionage, I shall at once express, though,
for obvious reasons, the grounds upon which it is based will be more conveniently stated,
when in the next chapter I deal with the system of Masonry dating from 1717.

Shortly stated, then, I am of opinion that, whatever difficulties may appear to exist
in tracing the Hiramic Legend in the Companionage to an earlier date than 1717, the
inference that it can be so carried back, problematical as it may be, affords perhaps the
only — and certainly the best — ^justification for the belief, that in Freemasonry, the legend
of Hiram the builder, ante-dates the era of Grand Lodges.

Hiram is not mentioned in either the Halliwell (1) or the Cooke (2) MSS., though he
is doubtless alluded to in the latter, where the " King's son, of Tyre," is said to have
been Solomon's " Master masen." The Lansdowne MS. (3) has the following, in which the
remaining Constitutions for the most part substantially agree : " And he [Irani] had a Sonne
that was called Aman, that was Master of Geometry, and was chiefe Master of all his
Masonrie, & of all his Graving, Carving, and all other Masonry that belonged to the Temple."

The name, however, appears in varied forms and spellings, e.g. : Amon, Aymon, Anon,
Aynone, Ajuon, Dyan, and Benaim. Generally, the Book of Kings is cited as the source of
authority whence the information is derived ; but in none of the documents is there any
special prominence given to the personage thus described. The fullest account is con-
tained in the Inigo Jones MS. (8), which runs :

' It has, however, been maintained by Laplace, that the diminution in the value of testimony, which is produced
by oral repetition through a series of persons, extends to the tradition of written testimony, through a series of genera-
tions (Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilites, B™* ^dit., p. 15). See, however, the counter remarks of Daunou,
Cours d'Etudes Historiques, torn, i., pp. 20-26 ; and of Sir P. Lewis, On the Methods of Observation and Reasoning iu
Politics, vol. i. , p. 199.

244 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY—ENGLAND.

"And HIRAM, King of Tyre, sent his servants unto SOLOMON, fur he was ever a
Lover of King David; and he sent Solomon Timber and workmen to help
forward the Building of the Temple ; And he sent one that was Named HIRAM * * ^^'''"' of Kings,
ABIF, a widow's Son, of the Line of Nephtali; He was a Master of Geometry,
and was [the head] of all his Masons, Carvers, Ingravers, and workmen, and Casters of Brass
and all other Metalls that were used about the Temple."

With this single exception, the " Old Charges " do not make any approach towards a full
quotation from the Scriptural account of Hiram, nor, if their orthography can be relied upon
as a criterion, could the various scribes, in the generality of instances, have been aware of
the identity of the " Master of Geometry " whose personality they veiled under such uncouth
titles, with the widow's son of Tyre.

The silence of the old records of the Craft, with respect to Hiram having figured as a
prominent actor in proceedings which were thought worthy of commemoration in the Masonic
ceremonial, will suffice to show that at the time they were originally compiled, the legend or
fable with which his name has now become associated, was unknown.

There are circumstances, however, apart from the testimony of the " Old Charges," which
will enable us to form, in some measure, an independent judgment with regard to the antiquity
of this tradition.

First of all, there is the opinion of Sir William Dugdale, and the statement in the
"Antiquities of Berkshire"^ that the Society took its origin in the reign of Henry III., which
must at least recoi-d a popular Masonic belief. Next, it will be convenient, if we consider
the character of the Freemasonry iiito which Ashmole and Randle Holme were admitted, as,
should the result of the inquiry show us what it really ivas, we at the same time may learn
what it could not have been.

In so doing, however, I shall limit our investigation to an examination of the facts which
are already in evidence. A faint outline of the Freemasonry of the seventeenth century is all
that I shall attempt to draw.

It is quite possible that between the era of the Chester Lodge (1665), of which Randle
Holme was a member, and that of the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, many
evolutionary changes may have occurred. The proceedings, however, of the few lodges that
can be traced between the date of Dr Plot's remarks on the Freemasons of Staffordshire ^
(1686) and the establishment of a governing body of the Craft in 1717, do not come witliin
the purview of the current chapter, and will be hereafter examined with some detail. A com-
parison of the Masonry of Scotland with that of England will in like manner be postponed
until a later stage of this history.

The method of treating the general subject which I am about to adopt, will, I trust, meet
with approval. The characteristic features of the systems of Freemasonry which are found to
have prevailed in the two kingdoms are slightly dissimilar; and tliough I entertain no doubt
whatever as to their both having a common origin, this fact, if it be one, will find readier
acceptation by my presenting the Scottish and the English evidence in separate divisions,
prior to combining the entire body of facts as a whole, and judging of their mutual
relation.s.

Ante, lip. 6, 17. - Ante, \. 163.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 245

In England none of the speculative or non-operative members of the Craft, of whose
admission in the seventeenth century there is any evidence, were received as apprentices.
All appear, at least so far as an opinion can be formed, to have been simply nuuU Masons or
Freemasons. The question, therefore, of grades or degrees in rank does not crop up ; though
it may be incidentally mentioned that, in the Halliwell MS. (1), it is required of the
apprentice that —

" The prevystye of the chaniljer telle he uo luoii,
Ny yii the logge whatsever they done :
Whatsever thou heryst, or syste hem do,
Telle hyt no luon, whersever thou go." '

Aud in the same poem it is distinctly laid down that at the Assembly —

" And alh schul sioere the same ogtii
Of the masonus, ben they luf, ben they luglit,
To alle these poyntes hyr byfore
That liath ben ordeynt by ful good lore." *

In Scotland the practice, though not of a uniform character, was slightly different, as I have
in part shown, and shall more fully explain in the next chapter.

Ashmole, it may be confidently assumed, was made a Mason in the form prescribed by the
" Old Charges," a roll or scroll, containing the Legend of the Craft, or, as I have suggested, the
copy made by Edward Sankey (13) must have been read over to him,^ and his assent to the
" Charges of a Freemason " were doubtless signified in the customary manner.

Up to this point there is no difficulty, but the question next arises, what secrets were com-
municated to him ? On this point I shall again quote from Dr Oliver, but rather from the
singularity of his having cited the. Sloane MS. (13) in connection with some remarks on
Ashmole's initiation, than for any actual value which the allusion possesses. To a certain
extent, however, it corroborates the view I have expressed with regard to the comparative
silence of the " Old Charges " respecting Hiram. After misquoting the diary of the antiquary,
and making the members of the Warrington Lodge " Fellow-Crafts," he argues that " there
could not have been a Master's degree in existence," and adds, "this truth is fully corroborated
in a MS. dated 1646, in the British Museum,* which, though expressing to explain the entire
Masonie ritual,^ does not contain a single word about the legend of Hiram or the Master's
degree." **

The evidence from which we can alone form an estimate, of the secrets communicated to
Masonic initiates in the seveuteenth century, is of a very meagre character. For the time being,

> Hilliwell M.S., lines 279--282. Prevystye, priuilies ; logge, locljc ; heryst, hcarcst ; syste, sccst.

^ Ibid., lines 437-410. Schul, sluM ; oglit, oath; luf, wUliny ; loght, loath.

^ "These be all the Charges ami CoveuLiuts that ought to be had read at the makoing of a Mason or Masons."
"The Almighty God who have you and nie in his keeping. Amen" (Laiisdowno MS., No. 3, conclmion). Of. atUe,
pp. 239, 240, and Chap. II., Nos. 18, 30, and pp. 92, 98.

■* Identified by the Doctor as Sloane MS. 3848 (13).

' It is almost unnecessary to say, that it does no sucli thing, but the Doctor ia rarely so imprudent as to uame the
" old manuscripts " he quotes from.

'' Tlie Freemason's Treasury, p. 284.

246 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

and for the reasons already stated, I exclude from consideration the history of the Scottish
Craft. As regards the Freemasonry of South Britain, the only founts from which we can draw,
are Plot's "Natural History of Staffordshire," ^ Aubrey's " Natural History of Wiltshire," ^ and
Harleian MS. 2054 (12).^ These concur in the statement that the Freemasons made use
of "signs" and from the two last named we learn that the signs were accompanied by

words.

Here I pass for the present from the question of degrees, a subject I cannot further discuss
without transgressing the limits I have prescribed to myself, and which will be treated with
some fulness hereafter. For the same reasons, and until the same occasion, my observations
on the inferences to be drawn from the similarities between our Masonic customs and those
peculiar to the Steinmetzen and the Companionage, will also be postponed.

Some other features, however, of our own Masonic records still await examination.

In his notes on IMS. 2, the late Mr Cooke observes, with regard to Unes 621-624, " This is
to the free and accepted, or speculative. Mason, the most important testimony. It asserts that
the youngest son of King Athelstan learned practical Masonry in addition to speculative
Masonry, "for of that he was a master. No book or writing so early as the present has yet
been discovered in which speculative Masonry is mentioned, and certainly none has gone so
far as to acknowledge a master of such Craft. If it is only for these lines, the value of this
little book to Freemasons is incalculable." *

Upon this, it has been forcibly remarked, " The context explains the word ' speculative.'—
And after that was a worthy king in England that was caUed Athlestan, and his youngest
son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist weU that hand-craft had the science of
geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that
science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master." " The practice of that science,"
says the commentator, whose words I reproduce, " what science ? clearly, geometry ? This
' speculative • was a knowledge of geometry, and the word 'no' should be inserted to make
sense before hand-craft. ' He wist weU that [no] hand-craft had the practice of the science of
geometry so well as masons. It also appears that the writer of the book {i.e., Addl. MS.
23,198] did not consider speculative knowledge as making the possessor a Mason, for he writes,
' and became a Mason himself,' i.e., when he had added the practice of that science to his
speculative. He was, clearly, not a Mason when only in possession of the speculative
science." ^ The conclusion arrived at by this writer is, that " Masonry was an art and science,
and like all other working bodies, had its apprentices and free members, and also its peculiar
regulations; that speculative Masonry implied merely an acquaintance with the science; that
circumstances rendered it a convenient excuse for secret meetings ; and that its professors have
availed themselves of every source to throw a mystery around their ritual, and to make it of
as much importance as they can." « ^ , • ,

As bearing upon the use of the word "Speculative," an expression, the import of which
has been but ''imperfectly grasped by members of the Craft, the following quotations may not
be uninteresting. Lord Bacon observes :

1 AnU, p. 163. = Ibid., p. 6. » Ante, p. 183 ; Chap. II., p. 64.

* History and Articles of Masonry, p. 151, note k. ' Freemasous' Magazine, Jan. 31, 1863, p. 84.

•yjid., p. 8r>.

EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 247

" These be the two parts of natural philosophy — the Inquisition of Causes, and the produc-
tion of Effects ; Speculative, and Operative ; Natural Science, and Natural Prudence. . ■ .
Both these knowledges, Speculative and Operative, have a great connexion between themselves." ^

Worsop, speaking of M [aster] Thomas Digges, says — " All Surveiors are greatly beholding
unto him, because he is a lanthorne unto them, aswel in the speculation, as the practise."

And of another — " He understandeth Aiithmetike, Geometric, and perspectiue, both
speculatiuely and practically singularly wel." -

John Dee in his " Mathematical Preface to BiQingsley's Elements of Geometry," ^vrites :
" A Mechanicien, or a Mechanicall workman is he, whose skill is, without knowledge of
Mathematicall demonstration, perfectly to work and finishe any sensible worke, by the
Mathematicien principall or deriuatiue, demonstrated or demonstrable. Full well I know,
that he which inuenteth, or maketh these demonstrations, is generally called A Specidatiue
Mechanicien: which differreth nothyug from a Mcchanicall Mathematicien."^

In the " Lexicon Technicorum " of John Harris, we find — " Geometry is usually divided
into Specidafive and Practical; the former of which contemplates and treats of the Pro-
perties of continued Quantity abstractedly; and the latter applies these Speculations and
Theorems to Use and Practice, and to the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind." *

The early Masons possessed the science, and practised the art of building. The traditionary
or mythical Edwin " lernyd " practical Masonry, in addition to speculative Masonry, of which
he was already a Master. By this we must understand that he had studied geometry, and
comprehended the theory, so far as his mathematical knowledge could lead him — but wished
to add the practice of the art to the knowledge of its principles.

The " Edwin " tradition has been rationalised by Woodford, who believes that " it points
to Edwin, or Edivin, King of Northumbria, whose rendezvous once was at Auldby, near York,
and who in 627 aided in the building of a stone church at York after his baptism there, with
the Roman workmen." ^ The clue to this solution, is indeed to be found, as Woodford states,
in the famous "speech" delivered by the historian of York on December 27, 1726, wherein
he says, " yet you know we can boast that the first Grand Lodge ever held in Eivjland was
held in this city, where Edwin, the first Christian King of the Northumhers, about the Si.x
Hundredth year after Christ, and who laid the Foundation of our Cathedral, sat as Grand
Master." ^ The preceding statements have been closely examined by Fort, who is of opinion
that from the evidence, but one conclusion can be drawn, namely, "that in the year 627
King Edwin coidd not have been Grand Master of a body of skilled Craftsmen, because there

' The Works of Francis Bacon, edited by James Spedding, 1857, vol. iii., p. 351.

= A Discoverie of sundrie errours and faults daily committed by Lande Meaters. Lond., 1582, fol. K.

' London, 1570, a. iii. verso.

* Second edit., mdcciv., s.v. Geometry. See further Jacques Aleaume, La perspective speculative et Pratique,
Paris, 1643; T. Bradwardinus, Geometria Speculativa, Parisiis, 1530; J. de Muris, Arithmeticrc Speculativa;,
Moguntia;, 1538 ; E. Phillips, The New World of English Words, 1658 ; Batty Laugley, The Builders' Compleat
Assistant, 1738 ; John Nisbet, System of Heraldry, Speculative and Practical ; and ante, Chap. II., No. 50.

» Preface to the " Old Charges," p. xiv. "Tradition sometimes gets confused after the lapse of time, but I believe
the tradition is in itself true, which links Masonry to the Church building at York by the Operative Brotherhood under
Edwin in 627, and to a guild charter under Athelstan in 927 " (Ibid. ).

« Speech delivered at a Grand Lodge in the City of York, Dec. 27, 1726, by the Junior Grand Warden [Francis
Drake]. This oration has been reprinted by Hughan in his " History of Freemasonry at York," Appcndi.x C.

248 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.

was at that time no such assembly around the walls of his rude edifice of stone and mortar at
York, and for the additional reason that an uncivilised ruler had no recognition as the head
of artificers wliose science represented centuries of exalted periods of civilisation." ^

Not, however, to pursue to any greater length the purely architectural portion of this
tradition, which, so carefully scrutinised by Fort, has been further dealt with by Eylands - in a
series of articles to which it will be sufficient to refer, I may shortly state, that I cannot agree
with the former as' regards the period of origin whicli he assigns to the legend.^

Before terminating this chapter, it may not be out of place if I mention that heraldry
has its myths as well as Masonry, and in tlie opinion of its earlier votaries, has been
presumed to exist, not merely in the first ages of the world, but at a period —

" Ere Nature \!m, or Adam's dust
Was fashioned to a man ! "

We are gravely assured by a writer of the fifteenth century, that " heraldic ensigns were
primarily borne by the hierarchy of the skies." •*

The gentility of the great ancestor of our race is stoutly maintained, and by an
enthusiastic armorist of the seventeenth century, two coats of arms were assigned to him.
One as borne in Eden, and another suitable to his condition after the fall.^

This antediluvian heraldry is expatiated upon by Sir John Feme, in a manner far too
prolix for us to follow him through all his grave statements and learned proofs. I shall
therefore only observe en passant, that arms are assigned to the following personages, all
of whom we meet with in the legend of the Craft, viz., Jabal, the inventor of tents, vert,
a tent argent (a white tent in a green field) ; Jubal, the primeval musician, aziire, a Imrp,
or, on a chief argent three rests gules; Tubal-Cain, sable, a hammer argent, crowned or;
and Naamah, his sister, the inventress of weaving, In a lozenge gxdes, a carding-conih
argent.'^

" A knight was made before any cote armour, whereof Olihion was the first that ever
was. Asteriall his Father, came of the line of that woorthie gentleman lajihcth, and sawe
the people multiplie hauing no gouernor, and that the cursed people of Sem warred against
them. Olihion being a mightie man and strong, the people cryed on him to be their
gouernor. A thousand men were then mustered of lai^hetes line. Asteriall made to his
Sonne a garland of nine diuerse precious stones in token of Cheualrie, to bee tlie Gouernor
of a thousand men. Olihion kneeled to Asteriall his Father, and asked his blessing:
Asteriall tooke laphetes Fauchen [Falchion] that Tubal made before the fludde, and smote
flatling nine times upon the right shoulder of Olihion, in token of the nine vertues of the fore-
said precious stones, with a charge to keepe the nine Vertues of Cheualrie." '

' Fort, The Early History and Antinuities of Freemasonry, p. 443.

' The Legend of the Introduction of Masons into England (Masonic Magazine, April 1882 ; Masonic Monthly, Angnst,
November, and December 1882).

3 AnU, p. 219. Cf. Chap. XII., pp. 57, 59 ; and Woodford, Tho connection of York with the History of Free-
masonry in England (Hughan, Masonic Sketches and Reprints, Part ii., Appendix A).

■* Cited by M. A. Lower, Tlic Curiosities of Heraldry, 1845, p. 2.

'Ibid., citing Morgan, Adam's Sliield, p. 99.

" Feme, Blazon of Centric, l.'JSG. ' Gerard Leigh, Accedence of Armorie, 1597, pp. 23, 24.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

HS Gould, Robert Freke

/+03 The history of freemasonry

G67

1882

V.3