
Note: The following material is a
scanned-in research resource; it is NOT intended as an exact
reproduction of the original volume. Due to computer display variances, page
numbers are approximate. Scanned at Phoenixmasonry June 2007.
The History Of Freemasonry
By
Albert G. Mackey 33°
VOLUME ONE
PART I. - PREHISTORIC MASONRY
CHAPTER
PAGE
[Original
Volumes / This Copy]
Dr.
Mackey's Preface ..................................... iv. to xi.
/
12
Introduction ………………………………………….. ?? /
17
1. -
Tradition and History in Masonry.......................... 1
/
21
2. -
The Legendary History of Freemasonry. .................... 10
/
28
3. -
The Old Manuscripts ..................................... 13
/
30
4. -
The Legend of the Craft.................................. 18
/
37
5. -
The Halliwell Poem and the Legend........................ 25
/
43
6. -
The Origin of the Halliwell Poem.......................... 33 /
53
7. -
The Legend, the Germ of History........................... 36 /
52
8. -
The Origin of Geometry................................... 40 /
55
9. -
The Legend of Lamech's Sons and the Pillars................ 44
/
58
10. -
The Legend of Hermes.................................... 50
/
63
11. -
The Tower of Babel....................................... 53
/
66
I2. -
The Legend of Nimrod.................................... 63
/
74
13. -
The Legend of Euclid..................................... 67
/
79
14. -
The Legend of the Temple................................. 73
/
84
15. -
The Extension of the Art into Other Countries............... 83
/
93
16. -
The Legend of Charles Martel and Namus Grecus........... 85
/
95
17. -
The Legend of St. Alban.................................. 90 /
99
18. -
The York Legend......................................... 95 /
103
19. -
Summary of the Legend of the Craft........................ 111 /
118
20. -
The Andersonian Theory .................................. 117 /
123
21. -
The Prestonian Theory.................................... 124 /
129
22. -
The Hutchinsonian Theory................................ 128 /
133
23. -
The Oliverian Theory..................................... 143 /
147
24. -
The Temple Legend....................................... 151 /
151
25. -
The Legend of the Dionysiac Artificers...................... 166 /
165
26. -
Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries..................... 174 /
174
27. -
Druidism and Freemasonry ................................ 99 /
201
28. -
Freemasonry and the Crusades............................. 217 /
220
29. - The
Story of the Scottish Templars......................... 255
/
257
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
VOLUME ONE
PAGE
Dr.
Albert Gallatin Mackey................................ Frontispiece
The
Inner Chamber..................................... Vignette Title
Fellow
Craft before King Solomon.............................. 28 / 35
Operative Masons of the Tenth Century......................... 60 / 79
Anthony Sayer ............................................... 108 / 105
The
Passes of the Jordan....................................... 140 / 134
Monument of the Third Degree................................. 172 / 162
Daniel
Coxe ................................................. 204 / 194
The
Meeting on the Coast of Joppa............................. 236 / 228
Strasburg Cathedral .......................................... 252 / 259





THE
HISTORY
OF
FREEMASONRY
ITS LEGENDS AND TRADITIONS
ITS CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
BY ALBERT GALLATIN MACKEY, M.D., 33°
THE HISTORY OF THE
SYMBOLISM OF FREEMASONRY
THE
ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE
AND THE
ROYAL ORDER OF SCOTLAND
BY WILLIAM R. SINGLETON, 33°
WITH AN
ADDENDA
BY WILLIAM JAMES HUGHAN
P\S\G\
D\
OF G\
L\OF
ENGLAND - P\S\G\W\
OF EGYPT, ETC.
VOLUME ONE
PUBLISHED BY
THE MASONIC HISTORY COMPANY
NEW YORK AND LONDON
PREFACE
SO
comprehensive a title as the one selected for the present work would be a vain
assumption if the author's object was not really to embrace in a series of
studies the whole cycle of Masonic history and science. Anything short of this
would not entitle the work to be called THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
Freemasonry as a society of long standing, has of course its history, and the
age of the institution has necessarily led to the mixing in this history of
authentic facts and of mere traditions or legends.
We are
thus led in the very beginning of our labors to divide our historical studies
into two classes. The one embraces the Legendary History of Freemasonry, and
the other its authentic annals.
The
Legendary History of Freemasonry will constitute the subject of the first of
the five parts into which this work is divided. It embraces all that narrative
of the rise and progress of the institution, which beginning with the
connection with it of the antediluvian patriarchs, ends in ascribing its
modern condition to the patronage of Prince Edwin and the assembly at York.
This
narrative, which in the I5th and up to the end of the I7th century, claimed
and received the implicit faith of the Craft, which in the I8th century was
repeated and emendated by the leading writers of the institution, and which
even in the 19th century has had its advocates among the learned and its
credence among the unlearned of the Craft, has only recently and by a new
school been placed in its true position of an apocryphal story.
And
yet though apocryphal, this traditionary story of Freemasonry which has been
called the Legend of the Craft, or by some the Legend of the Guild, is not to
be rejected as an idle fable. On the contrary, the object of the present work
has been to show that these Masonic legends contain the germs of an
historical, mingled often with a symbolic, idea, and that divested of certain
evanescences in the shape of anachronisms, or of unauthenticated statements,
these Masonic legends often, nay almost always, present in their simple form a
true philosophic spirit.
To
establish this principle in the literature of Freemasonry, to divest the
legends of the Craft of the false value given to them as portions of authentic
history by blind credulity, and to protect them from the equally false
estimate that has been bestowed upon them by the excessive incredulity of
unphilosophic sceptics, who view them only as idle fables without more meaning
than what they attach to monkish legends-in one word, to place the Legendary
History of Freemasonry in the just position which it should occupy but has
never yet occupied, is the object of the labors expended in the composition of
the first part of this work.
The
second part of the work will pass out of the field of myth and legend and be
devoted to the authentic or recorded history of Freemasonry.
Rejecting as wholly untenable and unsupported by historical evidence, the
various hypotheses of the origin of the institution in the Pagan mysteries, in
the Temple of Solomon, or in the Crusades, an attempt has been made to trace
its birth to the Roman Colleges of Artificers, which present us with an almost
identical organization of builders and architects. Following the progress of
the Roman Masons of the Colleges, through their visits to the different
provinces of the Empire, where they went, accompanying the legions in their
victorious excursions, we will find that the art of building was communicated
by them to the Italians, the Spaniards, the Gauls, and the Britons.
In
this way the knowledge of Operative Masonry and its practice in guilds,
sodalities, and confraternities was preserved by these peoples after the
extinction of the Roman Empire.
We
next find this sodality emerging in the 10th century from Lombardy, and under
the name of "Traveling Freemasons,” perambulating all Europe and
re-establishing confraternities of Stonemasons in Germany, France, England,
Scotland, and other countries.
The
narrative of the progress of this fraternity of builders from Como, which was
evidently an outshoot from the ancient Roman Colleges, is treated with great
particularity, because without the aid of any mythical or legendary
instrumentality we are thus enabled to connect it continuously with the modern
system of Operative Masonry.
The
merging of Operative into Speculative Masonry in the beginning of the 18th
century is an historical incident based on the most authentic records. Its
details, derived from records of whose genuineness there never has been a
doubt, will complete and perfect the history of Freemasonry from its rise to
its present condition.
Thus
we may imagine the growth of that magnificent tree, beneath whose
wide-spreading branches the fraternity now recline. In the far remote reign of
Numa, the philosophic and religious king of Rome (or if his personality be
doubted by the disciples of Niebuhr), in the times represented by his name, we
find the germ of the institution in those organized confraternities of
craftsmen, whom history records as flourishing with varying success and
popularity through the times of the Kingdom, the Republic, and the Empire of
Rome.
The
seeds of a co-operative association of builders, based on the principles of
fraternity, were carried with the legions of Rome into the various provinces
that had been conquered by the soldiers of the Empire, and as colonies of
Romans were there established, the Latin language, the manners and customs of
the Roman people and their skill in the arts were introduced among the
natives.
Of
these arts, the most important was that of architecture, and by means of
monuments still remaining, as well as other historical evidences, we are
enabled to follow the gradual growth of the operative societies out of the
Roman guilds and then that of the speculative institution out of the operative
societies.
The
hypothesis sought to be sustained in investigating the history of Freemasonry,
in the present work, may be succinctly stated as follows:
Operative Masonry is the basis on which Speculative Freemasonry is
founded-that is to say, the lodges of Freemasons of the present day are the
successors of the lodges of Operative Masons which existed all over Europe
during the Middle Ages and up to the beginning of the 18th century.
But
the Operative Masonry that gave birth to the modern speculative order was not
the mere craft or trade or art of building. The men who practiced it were not
mere cutters and layers of stone. There were large numbers of workmen who
belonged to a lower class of the trade or profession, who were never looked
upon with any respect, with whom companionship was denied, and who were
employed only in subordinate positions. These men were called cowans, rough
layers, foreigners or similar titles intimating degradation of class and
inferiority of skill.
No
relation can be traced between the Operative Masons of this class and the
Speculative Masons, who have represented Freemasonry since the beginning of
the 18th century. The Operative Masons, between whom and the modern Freemasons
there is a relation of succession, were a higher class of artists. They were
possessed of secrets connected with peculiar skill in their craft. But above
all, they were distinguished for the adoption of what might, in our modern
phrase, be called the co-operative principle in the practice of their Craft.
Perhaps it may more properly be called, a principle of sodality. It was shown
in the formation of a company, a society, a guild, a corporation, or a
confraternity, call it by what name you please, in which there was an
association of skill, of labor, and of interests. This principle has been
called the guild spirit, and it is this spirit which constitutes the essential
characteristic of the Masonic institution.
If we
propose to establish a chain of historical continuity, which shall extend from
the first appearance of any association in which the origin of modern
Freemasonry is sought to be found, to the present day, when the institution
has assumed its well-recognized form, there are two elements which must be
well marked in every link of the chain.
In the
first place, there must be an operative element. Freemasonry can be traced
only to an association of builders or architects. Every ceremony in the
ritual, every symbol in the philosophy of Speculative Freemasonry,
indicates-nay, positively proves - that it has been derived from and is
closely connected with the art of building. The first Freemasons were
builders, they could have been nothing else. To seek for them in a mystical,
religious association as the ancient pagan Mysteries, or in an institution of
chivalry as in the Knights of the Crusades would be a vain and unprofitable
task. As well might one look for the birthplace of the eagle in the egg of the
crow as to attempt to trace the origin of Freemasonry to anything other than
an association of builders.
In the
second place there must be a guild spirit. The builders who have come together
must not have associated temporarily for the mere purpose of accomplishing a
certain task, each man wholly independent of the others, and arbitrarily
exercising only his own skill. There must be a permanent organization, a
community of interest, a division of labor, a spirit of fraternity, an
organization looking beyond the present moment. A certain number of Masons,
brought together to construct an edifice, who after its construction would be
ready to disperse, each Mason on his own footing to seek fresh employment
under new masters and with new companions, could never, under such
circumstances, be concentrated into such organizations as would, in the lapse
of time, give rise to the lodges of modern Speculative Freemasons.
The
hypothesis, then, which is advanced in the present work and on which its
authentic historical part is constructed, is that there was from the earliest
days of Rome an organization of workmen under the name of the Collegium
Arlificum, or Collegium Fabrorum, that is, the College of Artificers, or the
College of Workmen. That this college consisted of builders and architects,
that it was regularly organized into an association, which was marked with all
the peculiarities that afterward distinguished the guilds or incorporations of
the Middle Ages. That this college, flourishing greatly under the later
empire, sent its members, imbued with the skill in architecture and the spirit
of confraternity which they had acquired in the home organization, into the
various provinces which the Roman legions penetrated and conquered. And,
finally, that in all these provinces, but principally in Northern Italy, in
Gaul, and in Britain, they established similar colleges or associations, in
which they imparted to the natives their knowledge of the art of building and
impressed them with their spirit of fraternal co-operation in labor.
From
these colleges of workmen sprang in the course of time, and after the fall of
the empire and the transition of the provinces into independent and sovereign
states, organizations of builders, of masons and architects, who in Italy
assumed the name and title of Traveling Freemasons, in Gaul that of the
Mestrice des Masons, in Germany that of the Steinmetzen, in England that of
the Guilds and Companies, and in Scotland that of the Lodges and
Incorporations. All these were associations of builders and architects, who
were bound together by regulations which were very similar to and evidently
derived from those by which the Roman Colleges had been governed, with others
suggested by change of conditions and circumstances.
The
associations, though mainly made up of professional work men, sometimes
admitted, as the Roman Colleges had done, nonprofessionals, men of wealth,
distinction, or learning into their ranks as honorary members.
About
the close of the 17th century the number of these nonprofessional members was
greatly increased, which fact must have produced a gradual and growing
influence on the organizations.
Finally, during the second decade of the 18th century, these non-professional
members completely changed the character of the Masonic organizations known at
that time under the name of Lodges. The operative element was entirely
eliminated from them, and the Lodges became no longer companies of builders,
but fraternities of speculative philosophers.
The
new institution of Speculative Freemasonry retained no other connection with
or relation to the operative organization, than the memory of its descent, and
the preservation of the technical language and the tools of the art, all of
which were, however, subjected to new and symbolic interpretations.
This
transition of the operative into the speculative organizations occurred in
London in the year 1717, at which time the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted
Masons was established.
From
England the change passed over into other countries and Lodges were everywhere
instituted under the authority of the Grand Lodge of London. The history of
Freemasonry from that time is to be found in the recorded annals of the
various Lodges and Grand Lodges which sprung up in the course of time from the
parent stem, the common mother of all the speculative Lodges of the world.
Scotland might seem at first to be an exception to this cosmopolitan
maternity, but though the growth of the speculative out of the operative
element was there apparently an independent act of transition, yet it cannot
be denied that the influence of the English society was deeply felt in the
sister kingdom and exhibited especially in the adoption of the three degrees,
in the organization of the Grand Lodge on a similar model, and in the
establishment of the office of Grand Master, a title of entirely modern and
English origin.
Such
is the plan of the history that has been pursued in the present work, a plan
which materially and essentially differs from that of any preceding writer.
Iconoclasts have composed monographs in which they have attacked particular
fallacies and denounced special forgeries, but the history of Masonry as a
whole has not before been written with the same spirit of candor that has been
or should always be exercised in the composition of history.
Doubtless the well-settled and carefully nourished prejudices of some will be
shocked by any attempt to expose the fallacies and falsehoods which have too
long tarnished the annals of Freemasonry. But such an attempt cannot, if it be
successfully pursued, but command the approval of all who believe with Cicero
that history is "the witness of time, the light of truth, and the life of
memory."
ALBERT G. MACKEY, M.D.
INTRODUCTION
Of all
the institutions which have been established for the purpose of improving the
condition of mankind, Freemasonry stands preeminent in usefulness as it is in
age. Its origin is lost in the abyss of unexplored antiquity. No historical
records, no traditionary accounts, can with certainty point out the precise
time, the place, or the particular manner of its commencement. While some have
endeavored to discover its footsteps amongst the master builders and artists
engaged in the construction of the first Jewish temple, others have attempted
to trace it to the Eleusinian mysteries, which are said to have taught the
immortality of the soul and the other sublime truths of natural religion. Some
again have ascribed its rise to the sainted heroes of the Crusades; while
others have endeavored to penetrate the mysteries of the Druids, and to
discover its origin amongst the wise men of that institution.
-De Witt Clinton
THE
fraternal order of Free and Accepted Masons, or the Freemasons, is a secret
society, yet its influence and effect on Western society have been great. Many
of the Founding Fathers of the United States-George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and Paul Revere-were Masons. Simon
Bolivar, the great freedom fighter of South America, and Giuseppe Garibaldi,
Italy's distinguished patriot, were also members, as were the great writers
Voltaire and Goethe, and the composers Franz Joseph Haydn and Amadeus Mozart.
However, the order's ultimate purpose has always been shrouded in the
self-imposed mystery that surrounds the organization as well as the wild
conjecture about it that arose from the fear of the ignorant. Accusations that
the Freemasons have cultivated the occult sciences-particularly alchemy,
astrology, and ceremonial magic-have pursued the order throughout its history.
While, without a doubt, some branches of the organization have endeavored to
explore the realms of esotericism, it was merely a means to an end, not an end
in itself.
Order
out of chaos is the famous motto of the Freemasons. It means the occasion of
rising beyond one's aimless animal nature and attaining a higher plane of
existence. To learn the way to that plane, to follow the proper paths, and to
continue the journey and complete the wondrous voyage to a higher self and the
unity of the whole, are the ultimate goals of a Freemason.
The
mythology and symbolism of Freemasonry is very rich and complex. As the age of
the society is unknown, its history blends facts with traditions and legends.
Until the end of the seventeenth century, these apocryphal stories of
Freemasonry-called the Legend of the Craft, or the Legend of the Guild-were
believed with implicit faith by its members. The object of this book, Albert
Gallatin Mackey's The History of Freemasonry: Its Legendary Origins, is to
present a complete survey of the mythical and allegorical narratives of
Freemasonry and to show that these Masonic legends contain the germs of
historical truth often mingled with a symbolic idea, and almost always reflect
in their unadorned form the true philosophic spirit of the Order.
Most
scholars today believe the origins of modern Freemasonry can be traced to
ancient Rome, where an organization of workmen formed under the name of the
Collegium Artificum, or Collegium Fabrorum-the College of Artificers, or the
College of Workmen. This brotherhood consisted of builders and architects and
was the prototype of the guilds and incorporations of the Middle Ages. The
college flourished under the Roman empire, which sent its members, endowed
with skill in architecture and the spirit of confraternity, to the various
provinces that the Romans had conquered. In all these provinces, but
principally in Northern Italy, Gaul, and Britain, they established similar
colleges or associations, in which they transmitted to the native inhabitants
their knowledge of the art of building and impressed them with their spirit of
fraternal cooperation in labor.
After
the fall of the empire and the transition of the provinces into independent
and sovereign states, these colleges of workmen evolved into organizations of
builders-masons and architects-who in Italy assumed the name of Traveling
Freemasons, in Gaul that of the Mestrice des Marons, in Germany that of the
Steinmetzen, in England that of the Guilds and Companies, and in Scotland that
of the Lodges and Incorporations. These associations of builders and
architects were bound together by regulations very similar to and evidently
derived from those that governed the Roman Colleges, with other rules
suggested by change of conditions and circumstances.
The
associations, though mainly made up of professional workmen, sometimes
admitted nonprofessionals-men of wealth, distinction, or learning-into their
ranks as honorary members. At the end of the seventeenth century the number of
these nonprofessional members greatly increased, and by the early eighteenth
century they had completely changed the character of the Masonic
organizations, known at that time as Lodges. The operative element-the
practical application of the rules of architecture to the construction of
public and private edifices-was entirely eliminated, and the Lodges were no
longer companies of builders, but fraternities of speculative philosophers.
The new institution of Speculative Freemasonry retained no relation to the
practical purposes of operative Freemasonry other than the memory of its
descent and the retention of its technical language and the tools of the art.
These, however, were subjected to new and symbolic interpretations, adapted to
the worship of God as the Grand Architect of the universe.
This
transition from the operative to the speculative form of Masonry was complete
by the year 1717, when the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons was
established in London. From England the change passed over to other Lodges as
Freemasonry spread to the United States, South America, and throughout the
rest of the world. In The History of Freemasonry: Its Legendary Origins you
will find the lore and mythology that is the philosophical and ritual
foundation upon which Freemasonry is built and from which its three great
principles-brotherly love, charity, and truth-have evolved. Albert Gallatin
Mackey is an excellent guide through this compelling exploration of the
Masonic tradition. Included are excerpts from many rare and hard-to-find
original manuscripts sacred to the Masons-including the Halliwell Poem, the
oldest Masonic document in existence, dating from the late fourteenth to the
middle fifteenth century-and a learned discussion of the origin, significance,
and meaning of these works. Mackey recounts the various stories that explore
Freemasonry's origins, ranging from its beginnings with Abraham, the Old
Testament patriarch, to the builders of the Tower of Babel, to King Solomon
and the builders of the Temple of Jerusalem. He also explores the possible
associations of the Freemasons with the Knights Templars of the Crusades, the
Druids, the Rosicrucians, and the Assassins-a secret Muslim sect. Throughout,
this erudite and illuminating book investigates the subject with detail and
completeness.
Albert
Gallatin Mackey was born on March 12, 1807, in Charleston, South Carolina. He
was the youngest son of Dr. John Mackey, a physician, editor, and teacher, who
also published the periodical The Investigator from 1812 to 1817. After
teaching for a time, Albert Mackey followed in his father's footsteps and
attended the South Carolina Medical College, Charleston, from which he
graduated in 1832. He practiced medicine in Charleston and became a teacher at
the Medical College, but in 1854 his growing interest in Freemasonry impelled
him to give up his practice and devote his energies to his Masonic activities.
Mackey
eventually became the grand secretary of the Grand Lodge, grand high priest of
the Grand Chapter, grand master of the Grand Council, and general grand high
priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. The last decade of
his life was spent in Washington, D.C., where he devoted himself to the
continuance of his work as secretary general of the Supreme Council of the
33rd Degree. He died on June 20, 1881, at Old Point Comfort, Virginia.
While
Mackey attained high official positions in the Masonic order, he is remembered
today for his writings on Freemasonry. In 1849 he established The Southern and
Western Masonic Miscellany, a weekly magazine, and in 1858-60 he published
"Quarterly," which he dedicated to the same interests. He was also the author
of many books on Freemasonry. His first book was A Lexicon of Freemasonry
(1845), followed by The Mystic Tie (1849), The Ahiman Rezon, or Book
of Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina (1852),
Principles of Masonic Law (1856), The Book of the Chapter (1858),
A Text Book of Masonic Jurisprudence (1859), History of Freemasonry in
South Carolina (1861), Manual of the Lodge (1862), Cryptic Masonry
(1867), Mackey's Masonic Ritualist (1869), The Symbolism of Freemasonry
(1869), Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (1874), and Masonic
Parliamentary Law ( 1875). He was working on the present volume, The
History of Freemasonry, when he died. Many of Mackey's books, particularly
the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, are considered among the most authoritative
and definitive works on the subject.
PART
ONE
PREHISTORIC MASONRY
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 memory 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 seek 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 common 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.
P. 9
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.
P. 12
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
.........