, mcs c'v R V '/rV Vffrti 1 V. ;.•// -=^ ; J 1 ' ■ >•*»*•* •* t ’• i * *• **» .•?* \mtm CALLED FROM LABOR A.D.18 AL58_® AGED___YEARS. ■**' — i — THIS -r— > ^ Shows that our Worthy •Pa§ t Master fL E* Master. Royal Arch Kmh / '$$!&: r 1 ;? Issi . 'Aif/Tj/fff/f fn ffjE tfnrizFi/s j/jrf ffn/ji RoyAl Master, Select Master. SOper, E, Master. WM&M II ¥■ ’L ma& i <’-i 6oa/jc// /fe F_ * F.M. Recorder. \ AL Jf 3©@® If - (S) (R r Past Senior Grand Deacon of Dngland, and Author of The History of Treemaso-naiy. NS. Its Mticjiuties, ,§yn\bots, institutions, <£uston\s, etc., Derived from Official Records throughout the World. ]llustr&f^A ® PORTRAITS OF MASONIC CELEBRITIES SUPERBLY ENGRAVED ® Expressly for l-hts work. ® • Also ENGRAVINGS of * . ^so«.<= &*$&«$&*■*** John Q. YoF^sfoN & Qo., publ^herj. THE HISTORY FREEMASONRY ITS jStnfiquifirs, $gtnfiols, (Jonsfifufions, (Jusfoms, ETC. DBrivefl. from Official Soirees tlronilont tie World. BY ROBERT FREKE GOULD, - Past Senior Grand Deacon of England. yy. J. HUGHAN, - Past Senior Grand Deacon of the Grand Lodge of England, and Masonic Historian. RL\ « A. F. A. WOODFORD, Past Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge of England, and Masonic Historian. DAVID MURRAY LYON, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge, and Masonic Historiographer of Scotland . ENOCH T. CARSON, Deputy of Northern Supreme Council if for Ohio , and Past Grand Com: .K: .T: .of Ohio. JOSIAH H. DRUMMOND, P.\ G:. M:. of Maine, and P.\ G:. Com:. Northern Supreme Council of the U. S. T. S. PARYIN, - P:. G.\ M. \ of Lowa, and Grand Recorder , G. \ E:. K:. T:. of the United States. AND OTHERS. VOLUME I. JOHN C. YORSTON & CO., PUBLISHERS, NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, and CHICAGO. TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOLUME I CHAPTER. PAGE. I. The Antiquities of Freemasonry, The Ancient Mysteries, The Essenes, The Roman Collegia, The Culdees, ..... 1 II. The Old Charges of British Freemasons, .... 56 III. The Stonemasons (Steinmetzen) of Germany, . . . 109 IV. The Craft Guilds (Corps d’Etat) of France, .... 179 V. The Companionage, or Les Compagnons Du Tour De France, 212 VI. Medieval Operative Masonry, ....... 253 VII. The Statutes Relating to the Freemasons, .... 327 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. VOLUME I. Portrait of Robert Freke Gould, Past Senior Grand Deacon of England, and Author of The History of Freemasonry, . . . Frontispiece. Masonic Emblematic Title Page in Colors, ... To face do. Portrait of Enoch T. Carson, 33° Past Grand Commander of Ohio, Deputy Inspector-General of Ohio, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, etc., . , .... 8 Engraving of Lux e Tenebris (Light from Darkness), from the Rare Original Allegorical Picture of the Religions of the World, by Moreau, Paris, 1790, 22 IV ILLUSTRATIONS. Engraving of The Religions of the World, from the Rare Allegorical Engraving, by Bernard Picart, Paris, 1727, .... Portrait of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, K. G., Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, Eac-simile of a Portion of the Edinburgh Kilwinning MS. Charges, 1675-78, from the Original in the Lodge of Edinburgh, Scotland, Fac-simile Pages from the Original MS. of the Ancient Constitutions of Free and Accepted Masons, A. D., 1726, in the possession of Enoch T. Carson, of Cincinnati, 0., ..... Fac-simile Pages from the Original MS. of the Ancient Constitutions of Free and Accepted Masons, A. D., 1726, in the possession of Enoch T. Carson, of Cincinnati, 0., Portrait of Right Honorable the Earl of Carnarvon, Pro Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, Portrait of His Excellency, General George Washington, Initiated an Entered Apprentice, Nov. 4, 1752; Passed to Fellow Craft, March 8, 1753; Raised to Master Mason, August 4, 1753, in Fredericksburg Lodge, Ya., . . .... . . • Portrait of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, initiated a Freemason at Brunswick, August 14, 1738, ....... Engraving of Cologne Cathedral, begun in 1248 and finished in 1828- 1884; Mediaeval Architecture in Germany, .... Engraving of Strasburg Cathedral; Mediaeval Architecture in Germany. (For tradition connected with this building, and of interest to all Master Masons, see Appendix to this work), .... Portrait of General R. E. Withers, of Wythe ville, Va., Past Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States, . Portrait of Sir Michael R. Shaw-Stewart, Baronet, R. W. Past Grand Master Mason of Scotland, ........ Portrait of General Albert Pike, of Washington, D. C.. Grand Com- mander Supreme Council of 33°, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, Engraving of St. Stephen’s Cathedral, Vienna; Mediaeval Architecture of Eastern Europe, , . Engraving of Rheims Cathedral; Mediaeval Architecture in France, Engraving of the Cathedral, Baptistry and Leaning Tower of Pisa; Italian Gothic Architecture, 1266-1435, ..... Engraving of York Cathedral; Mediaeval Cathedral Architecture in England, . Engraving of Notre Dame Cathedral; Mediaeval Cathedral Architecture in France, ........... Engraving of Milan Cathedral, begun in 1385, finished about 1800; Italian Gothic Architecture of Advanced Period, Portrait of Hon. Josiah H. Drummond, of Portland, Me., Past Grand Commander Supreme Council of 33°, Northern Jurisdiction of the United States, . 30 . 48 . 64 . 72 . 78 . 96 104 . 144 172 176 . 200 . 224 . 244 . 254 . 266 . 268 . 278 . 318 . 322 . 344 THE History and Antiquities oe Freemasonry. CHAPTER I. THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES — THE ESSENES— THE ROMAN COLLEGIA— THE CULDEES. U P to a comparatively recent period, the History and Antiquities of Freemasonry have been involved in a cloud of darkness and uncertainty. Treated as a rule with a thinly veiled contempt by men of letters, the subject has been, for the most part, abandoned to writers with whom enthusiasm has supplied the place of learn- ing, and whose sole qualification for their task has been membership of the fraternity. On the other hand, however, it must be fairly stated that the few literati who have taken up this uncongenial theme, evince an amount of credulity which, to say the least, is com- mensurate with their learning, and by laying their imaginations under contribution for the facts which are essential to the theories they advance, have confirmed the pre-existing belief that all Masonic history is untrue. 1 The vagaries of this latter class have been pleas- antly characterized as “the sprightly and vivacious accounts of the modern Masonic annal- ists, who display in their histories a haughty independence of facts, and make up for the scarcity of evidence by a surprising fecundity of invention. ‘ Speculative Masonry/ as they call it, seems to have favored them with a large portion of her airy materials, and with ladders, scatfolding, and bricks of air, they have run up their historical structures with wonderful ease.” 2 The critical reader is indeed apt to lament that leaders of the creationist school have not followed the example of Aristotle, whose “ wisdom and integrity ” Lord Bacon commends, in having “ cast all prodigious narrations which he thought worthy the recording into one book, that such whereupon observation and rule was to be built, should not be mingled or weakened with matter of doubtful credit.” 3 1 “ The curious subject of Freemasonry has unfortunately been treated of only by panegyrists or calumniators, both equally mendacious ” (Hallam’s Middle Ages, 1856, vol. iii, p. 359). 2 Dr. Armstrong (afterward Bishop of Grahamstown) in the Christian Remembrancer, No. Ivii.. July, 1847, p. 18. 3 The Advancement of Learning (Spedding’s Bacon, 1857), vol. iii., p. 288. In this connection a unique feature of the late Mr. Pitt Taylor’s original edition of Professor Greenieaf s Law ol Evidence may be cited. The various Law Reports (U.S.A.) quoted in this work are lettered A, B, C, D, ac- cording to the relative estimation in which they were held by the profession. Some classification of this kind would be a great assistance to the student of Masonic antiquities. 2 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. A new and more critical school has, however, at length arisen, which, while doing' much to place the subject on a sound historical basis, has yet left something to be desired. The publication of a General History of Freemasonry, by Herr Findel (of Leipsic) in 18GI, marks a distinct era in the progress of Masonic literature. Ho universal history of the Masonic craft (at all worthy of the name) had previously been compiled, and the dictum of the Chevalier de Bonneville was generally acquiesced in, “ That the span of ten men’s lives was too short a period for the execution of so formidable an undertaking.” 1 Findel’s work is a highly meritorious compilation, and reflects great credit upon his industry. The writings of all previous Masonic authors appear to have been consulted, but the value of his history would have been much enhanced by a more frequent reference to authorities. He seems, indeed, to labor under a complete incapacity to distinguish between the relative degrees of value of the authorities he is attempting to analyze; 2 but putting all demerits on one side, his “ History of Freemasonry” forms a very solid contribution to our stock of Masonic facts, and from his faculty of lucid condensation, has brought, for the first time within popular comprehension, the entire subject to the elucidation of which its scope is directed. Prehistoric Masonry is dealt with very briefly, but this branch of archaeological research has been taken up by Mr. G. F. Fort, who, in an interesting volume of 481 pages, devoted entirely to the “Antiquities” of the society, discusses very ably and clearly the legendary or traditionary history of the fraternity. 3 The design of the present work is to embody in a single publication the legendary and the authentic histories of the craft. The introductory portion will cover the ground already occupied by Fort, and I shall then proceed to traverse the field of research over which Findel has preceded me. Dissenting as I do very materially from these writers, both as regard the facts they accept and the inferences they have drawn, my record of occur- rences will necessarily vary somewhat from theirs, whilst my general conclusions will be as novel as I trust they may prove to be well founded. At the outset I may remark that the actual History of Freemasonry can only, in strict- ness, be deemed to commence from the period when the chaos of mythical traditions is succeeded by the era of lodge records. This epoch cannot be very readily determined. The circumstances of the lodges, even in North and South Britain, were dissimilar. In Scotland the veritable proceedings of lodges for the year 1599, as entered at the time in their minute-books, are still extant. In England we have no lodge minutes ranging back even into the seventeenth century, and the records of but a single lodge (Alnwick) between 1700 and the date of formation of the first Grand Lodge (1717). For the sake ol con- venience, therefore, the mythico historical period ol Freemasonry will be held to have extended to 1717, and the special circumstances which distinguish the early Masonry ol Scotland from that of its sister kingdom will, to the extent that may be requisite, be further considered when the histories of our British Grand Lodges are separately treated. The period therefore, antedating the era of Grand Lodges (1717), will be examined in the introductory part of this work. In dealing with what Fort has happily styled “Antiquities of Freemasonry,” whilst din- cussing, at some point or other, all or nearly all the subjects this writer has so dexteiously 1 J. G. Findel, Geschichte der Freimaurerei, Leipsic, 1861, Preface to 1st edition. Future quota- tions from this work will be made from the 2d English edition, London, 1869. 2 The justification of this remark will appear in Chapter iii. 3 G. F. Fort, Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, 1876. THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. 3 handled, the method of treatment I shall adopt will nevertheless vary verv much from the system he has followed. In the progress of our inquiry it will be necessary to examine the leading theories with regard to the origin of Freemasonry that have seemed tenable to the learned. These I shall subdivide into two classes, the one being properly introductory to the general bulk of evidence that will be adduced in the chapters which next follow ; and the other claiming attention at a later stage, just before we part company with the “Antiquities,” and emerge from the cloud-land of legend and tradition into the domain of authentic history. The sources to which the mysteries of Freemasonry have been ascribed by individual theorists are too numerous to be particularized, although some’ of the more curious will be briefly reviewed. Two theories or hypotheses stand out in bold relief — the conjectural origin of Free- masonry as disclosed in the pages of the “ Parentalia,” 1 and its more recent derivation from the customs of the German Steinmetzen. 2 Each of these speculations has had its day. From 1750 until the publication of FindePs history (1861), the theory of “travelling Masons” — ascribed to Wren — held possession of our encyclopaedias. The German suppo- sition has since prevailed, but I shall attempt to show that it rests upon no more solid foundation of fact than the hypothesis it displaced. In successive chapters, I shall separately discuss the various matters or subjects germane to the general inquiry, whilst in a final examination the relation of one topic to another, and the conclusions that, in my opinion, we may rightly draw from the scope and tenor of the entire evidence, will be duly presented. It has been well said, “ that we must despair of ever being able to reach the fountain- head of streams which have been running and increasing from the beginning of time. All that we can aspire to do is only to trace their course backward, as far as possible, on these charts that now remain of the distant countries whence they were first perceived to flow.” 3 It has also to be borne in mind that as all trustworthy history must necessarily be a work of compuation, the imagination of the writer must be held in subjection. He can but use and shape his materials, and these unavoidably will take a somewhat fragmentary form. Past events leave relics behind them more certainly than future events cast shadows before them. From the records that have come down to us, it will be my endeavor to present, as far as possible, the leading features of the real Antiquities of Freemasonry, that every reader may test the soundness of my general conclusions by an examination of the evidence upon Giich they are based. It must be ever recollected that “a large pro- portion of the general opinions of mankind are derived merely from authority, and are entertained without any distinct understanding of the evidence on which they rest, or the argumentative grounds by which they are supported. ” 4 From this reproach, it will not be contended that the Freemasons of our own day merit an exemption, but the stigma, if such it be, under which they rest, must assuredly be deemed to attach with even greater 1 Parentalia; or, Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens (1750), p. 306. 2 Fallou, Winzer, Findel, Steinbrenner, and Fort. The works of these authors are minutely criticised in Chapter iii. 3 Brand’s Popular Antiquities, edit. 1849, vol. i. , p. ix. 4 On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion (Sir G. C. Lewis,) p. 7. Lord Arundell of Wardour says: “Indeed, knowledge in many departments is becoming more and more the traditions of experts, and must be taken by the outside world on faith ” (Tradition, principally with reference to Mythology and the Law of Nations, 1873, p. 139). 4 THE A NTIQ U I TIES OF FREE M A SO NR Y. force, to the inaccurate historians by whom they have been misled. It is true, no doubt, that the historian has no rules as to exclusion of evidence or incompetency of witnesses. In his court every document may be read, every statement may be lieai d. But in pio- portion as lie admits all evidence indiscriminately, he must exercise discrimination in judg- ing of its effect . 1 There is, indeed, no doubt that long habit, combined with a happy talent, may enable a person to discern the truth where it is invisible to ordinary minds, possessing no special advantages. In order, however, that the truth so perceived should recommend itself to the convictions of others, it is a necessary condition that it should admit of proof which they can understand . 2 Much of the early history of Freemasonry is so interspersed with fable and romance, that however anxious we may be to deal with long-cherished legends and traditions, some at least of these familiar superstitions — unless we choose to violate every canon of historical criticism — must be allowed to pass quietly into oblivion. In dealing with this subject, it is difficult — indeed, I might almost say impossible — to lay down any fixed rules for our guidance. All the authorities seem hopelessly at variance. Gibbon states, “ the Germans, in the days of Tacitus, were unacquainted with the use of letters. . . . M ithout that artificial help, the human memory ever dissipates or corrupts the ideas entrusted to her charge. ” 4 “To this,” says Lord Arundell, “ I reply, that although records are valuable for the attestation, they are not guarantees for the fidelity of tradition. When mankind trust mainly to tradition, the faculties by which it is sustained will be more strongly de- veloped, and the adaptation of society for its transmission more exactly conformed. ” 5 Yet if we turn to one of the greatest masters of historical criticism, the comforting assurance of Lord Arundell is seriously assailed. “A tradition,” says Sir George Lewis, “ should be proved by authentic evidence to be not of subsequent growth, but to be founded on a con- temporary recollection of the fact recorded. A historical event may be handed down by oral tradition, as well as by a contemporary written record; but in that case satisfactory proof must be given that the tradition is derived from contemporary witnesses .” 6 The principle just enunciated is, however, demurred to by another high authority, whose words have a special bearing upon the point under consideration. The learned author of “ The Language and Literature of Ancient Greece” observes: “We have without hesitation repudiated the hypercritical doctrine of a modern school of classical antiquaries, that in no case whatever is the reality of any event or person to be admitted unless it can be authenticated by contemporaneous written evidence. If this dogmatical rule be valid at all, it must be valid to the extent of a condemnation of nearly the whole primitive annals 1 Lewis, Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i., p. 196. 2 Lewis, An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, vol. i., p. 14. 3 The following mode of determining the authenticity of the Legends of the Saints, without dis- honoring the authority of the Church or disturbing the faith of her children, suggests indeed one way out of the difficulty: “ Les legendes sont dans For dre historique ce que les reliques des saints sont dans le culte. II y a des reliques authentiques et des legendes certaines, des reliques evidem- ment fausses et des legendes evidemment fabuleuses, enfin des reliques douteuses et des legendes seulement probables et vraisemblables. Pour les legendes comme pour les reliques l’Eglise consacre ce qui est certain, proscrit le fableux et permet le douteux sans le consacrer” (Cours. d’Hist. Eccl., par l’Abbe Blanc, p. 552). 4 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. i., p. 3o3 3 Arundell, Tradition, principally with reference to Mythology and the Law of Nations, 1872, pp. 120 , 121 . 6 Lewis, On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion, p. 90. THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. 5 of Greece down to the first rise of authentic history about the epoch of the Persian War. The more rational principle of research is, that the historical critic is entitled to test the truth or falsehood of national tradition by the standard of speculative historical probability. The general grounds of such speculative argument in favor of an element of truth in oral tradition admit of being ranged under the following heads: First, The comparative recency of the age in which the event transmitted is supposed to have taken place, and the propor- tionally limited number of stages through which the tradition has passed. Secondly, The inherent probability of the event, and, more especially, the existence of any such close connection in the ratio of cause and effect between it and some other more recent and better attested event, as might warrant the inference, even apart from the tradition on the subject, that the one was the consequence of the other. Thirdly, The presumption that, although the event itself may not have enjoyed the benefit of written transmission, the art of writing was, at the period from which the tradition dates, sufficiently prevalent to check, in regard to the more prominent vicissitudes of national history, that license in which the popular organs of tradition in a totally illiterate age are apt to indulge.” 1 The principle to be observed in inquiries of this character appears, indeed, up to a cer- tain point, to have been best laid down by Dr. Taylor, who says: “A notion may weigh against a notion, or one hypothesis maybe left to contend with another; hut an hypothesis can never be permitted, even in the slightest degree, to counterbalance either actual facts, or direct inferences from such facts. This preference of facts and of direct inductions to hypotheses, however ingenious or specious they may he, is the great law of modern science, which none but dreamers attempt to violate. Now, the rules of criticism and the laws of historical evidence are as much matters of science as any other rules or laws derived by careful induction from a mass of facts .” 2 In the main, however, whilst carefully discarding the plainly fabulous narrations with which our Masonic system is encumbered, I am of opinion that the view to which Schlegel has given expression is the one that we shall do well to adopt. He says: “I have laid it down as an invariable maxim to follow historical tradition, and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and almost inexplicable, or at least enigmatical; for as soon as, in the investigations of ancient history, we let slip that thread of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful theories and the chaos of clashing opinions. ” 3 “ The origin and source whence first sprang the institution of Freemasonry,” says Dr. Mackey, “has given rise to more difference of opinion and discussion among Masonic scholars than any other topic in the literature of the institution. ” Indeed, were the books collected in which separate theories have been advanced, the dimensions of an ordinary library would be insufficient for their reception. For the most part, it may be stated that each commentator (as observed by Horace Walpole in the case of Stonehenge) has attri- buted to his theme that kind of antiquity of which he himself was most fond. Of Stone- henge it has been asserted “that nearly every prominent historical personage from the 1 W. Mure, A Critical History of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece, 1853, vol. iv. pp. 317, 318. 2 Isaac Taylor, The Process of Historical Proof, 1828, p. 3. In another part of this work (p. 262) the author says: “Our part is to scrutinize as carefully as we can the validity of the proofs; not to weigh the probability of the facts — a task to which we can scarcely ever be competent.” The last branch of this definition carries us a little farther than we can safely go. 3 F. von Schlegel, Philosophy of History (tr. by J. B. Robertson, 1835), vol. i., p. 29. 6 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. Devil to the Druids have at one time or another been credited with its erection — the latter, however, enjoying the suffrages of the archaeologists.” Both the Devil and the Druids have had a large share ascribed to them in the institution of Freemasonry. In India, even at the present day, the Masonic Hall, or other place of meeting for the lodges, is familiarly known as the “Shaitan” Bungalow, or Devihs house, whilst the Druidical theory of Masonic ancestry, although long since abandoned as untenable, was devoutly believed in by a largo number of Masonic writers, whose works are even yet in demand. 1 The most fanciful representative of this school appears to have been Cleland, though Godfrey Higgins treads closely at his heels. The former, writing in 1766, presents a sin- gular argument, which slightly abridged is as follows: “ Considering that the May (May- pole) was eminently the great sign of Druidism, as the Cross was of Christianity, is there anything forced or far-fetched in the conjecture that the adherents to Druidism should take the name of Man of the May or May’s-sons ?” 2 This is by no means an unfair specimen of the conjectural etymology which has been lavishly resorted to in searching for the derivation of the word Mason! All known lan- guages appear to have been consulted, with the natural result of enveloping the Avhole matter in confusion, the speculations of the learned (amongst whom figures Lessing, one of the first literary characters of his age) being honorably distinguished by their greater freedom of exposition. It is generally assumed that in the ancient oriental tongues the few primitive words must needs bear many different significations, and the numerous deriva- tives be infinitely equivocal. Hence anything may be made of names, by turning them to oriental sounds, so as to suit every system past, present, and to come. “And when any one is at a loss,” says Warburton, “in this game of crambo, which can never happen but by being duller than ordinary, the kindred dialects of the Chaldee and Arabic lie always ready to make up their deficiencies.” 4 The connection of the Druids with the Freemasons has, like many other learned hypothe- ses, both history and antiquity obstinately bent against it; but not more so, however, than its supporters are against history and antiquity, as from the researches of recent writers may be readily demonstrated. Although the literature of Druidism is of an extensive character, we really know very little of this obscure subject. It has been lately pointed out that our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently derived from a time when Christianity had long oeen established. 5 “The Roman writers have left us little definite information on the subject: they seem to have felt a natural contempt for the superstitions of their barbarous See Hutchinson, Spirit of Masonry (1775); Smith, Use and Abuse; Borlase, Antiquities of Corn- wall, pp. 53-146; Godfrey Higgins, Analalypsis, pp. 715-718; Higgins, The Celtic Druids, passim; and Fort, p. 296. 2 Cleland, Essay on the Real Secret of the Freemasons, 1766, p. 120. Both the Maypole and the German Cliristbaum have a Pagan origin, the type of each being the ash, Yggdrasill (Mallet, Northern Antiquities, p. 493). 3 Dr. Mackey, after citing many derivations of this word, proceeds: “But all of these fanciful etymologies, which would have terrified Bopp, Grimm, or Muller, or any other student of linguistic relations, forcibly remind us of the French epigrammist, who admitted that alphina came from equus, but that in so coming it had very considerably changed its route ” (Encyclopaedia of Free- masonry, p. 489). 4 Divine Legation, vol. ii. , p. 220. “I have heard of an old humorist, and a great dealer in ety- mologies, who boasted that he not only knew whence words came, but whither they were going'’ {Ibid.). 6 C. Elton, the Origins of English History, 1882, Chapter x. THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. 7 neighbors. Cicero, for example, was a friend of the Druid Divitiacus, yet he did not think it necessary to record the result of their curious discussions. Julius Caesar was himself a pontiff, and published a book upon divination, but he noticed the foreign religions only so far as they were connected with public policy, and does not mention the British religion at all .” 1 “The history of the Celtic religions,” says Mr. Elton, “ has been obscured by many false theories, which need not be discussed in detail. The traces of revealed religion were discovered by the Benedictine historians in the doctrines attributed to the Druids: if the Gauls adored the oak-tree, it could only be a remembrance of the plains of Mamre; if they slew a prisoner on a block of unhewn stone, it must have been in deference to a precept of Moses. A school pretending to a deeper philosophy invented for the Druids the mission of preserving monotheism in the west. In the teaching of another school the Druids are credited with the learning of Phoenicia and Egypt. The mysteries of the ‘Thr ice-great Hermes’ were transplanted to the northern oak-forests, and every difficulty was solved as it rose by a reference to Baal or Moloch. Yet the insular Druids, to which our traditions refer, are represented as being little better than conjurors, with their dignity (at the period when we first acquire any positive information respecting them) as much diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. These Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors, who pretend to call down the storms and the snow, and frighten the people with 1 the fluttering wisp ’ and other childish charms. They are like the Red Indian medicine-men, or the < Angekoks’ of the Eskimo, dressed up in bull’s-hide coats and bird-caps with waving wings. The chief Druid of Tara is shown to us as a leaping juggler, with ear-clasps of gold and a speckled cloak; he tosses swords and balls in the air, ‘and like the buzzing of bees on a beautiful day is the motion of each passing the other.’ ” 2 “Their doctrine seems to have belonged to that common class of superstitions in which the magician pretends to have secret communication with the spirits; and in such cases it is almost inevitable that the mediator should judge and rule the nation.” In times of disaster and pestilence, and on all occasions of trouble or anxiety, it was their custom to propitiate the gods with a human victim. A survival of this practice is related in the memorials of St. Columba. In the fabulous story of the building of the church at Iona, the saint addresses his followers in words which obviously point to a human sacrifice; “It is good for us that our roots should go under earth here: it is permitted that one of you should go under the clay of this island to hallow it.” Odran rises and offers himself to his master. “ If thou shouldst take me,” he said, “I am ready.” The saint readily accepted the offer, and we are told that thereupon “ Odran went to heaven.” 3 The story of this burial is, however, somewhat differently related in Pennant’s “Voyage to the Hebrides .” 4 We are there informed that St. Oran (who I assume to have been identical with St. Odran) was a friend and follower of St. Columba, and was buried in Icolmkill (Iona). According to the legend, he consented to be buried alive in order to propitiate certain demons of the soil who obstructed the attempts of St. Columba to build a chapel. After three days had elapsed, Columba had the curiosity to take a farewell look at his old friend, and caused the earth to be removed. To the surprise of all beholders, Oran started up, and began to reveal the secrets of his prison-house, and particularly declared that all that had been said of hell was a mere joke. This dangerous impiety so shocked Columba, that, with great policy, he instantly ordered the earth to be flung in 1 See, however, Caesar, de Bello Gallico, bk. vi. , ch. xiii. 2 Elton, p. 268, citing O’Curry, Lectures, 9, 10; Cormac’s Glossary, 94; Revue Celtique, i., 261; Skene, Celtic Scotland, ii., 114. 3 Elton, p. 274. 4 Tour in Scotland, vol. ii., p. 237. 8 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. again, crying, “Earth! earth! on the mouth of Oran, that he may blab no more.” Tlncse words have passed into a proverb against blabbers. It is not essential to inquire minutely into the secrets of the Druidical doctrine. “ The laws which they administered are forgotten; their boasted knowledge of ethics only provokes a smile. We are told that they concerned themselves with astronomy, the nature of the world and its proportion to the rest of the universe, and the attributes and pow with the system of Pythagoras, and for the. purpose of comparison, cites no less < ■ . particular features or points of resemblance which are to be found, he says, in the and in the modern institutions. “ Let the Freemasons,” he continues, “if they call Hiram, King of Tyre, an architect, and tell each other, in bad rhymes, that, they an urn descendants of those who constructed the temple of Solomon. To me, however, the opinion which seems decisive is, that the sect has penetrated into Europe by means of the gyp*" > The learned author of •“ Ernst und Falk ” and “ Nathan dor Weise. ” G< A tvfr : • Lessing, was of opinion that the Masonic institution had its origin m a ? -i - of Templars., long existent in London, and which was shaped into its present form b\ < '])!'!!■;' Wrr-n. Tim! Lie sock s in ome way or mb or a coniimiaf.io!' oi tb:»t of the Templars has been widely credited. The Abbe Barruel supported this, theory , 4 which has endured to the present day/ and very recently found an eloquent exponent in Mr. E. T. Carson, of Cincinnati, U.S.A. Notwithstanding the entire absence of historical corrob - ration, it has been adopted by many writers of ability, and has exercised no inconsiderate- influence in the fabrication of what are termed “High Degrees,” and in the m /eni ^’ of Continental Rites.* i Elton, p, 274 * Ibid'., p. 275, citing Valerius Maximus (ii., c. 6). 8 Essay on the Origin of Freemasonry, Anthologia Hiberniea, vol. iii., pp. 34, 178, 279, and : . i. “But what proves beyond all doubt that the gypsies have been the original propagators .of the- doc- trine in the west is this, that Freemasonry has been reformed in Germany, in France, and in rrussia, bv a man confessedly a gypsy ” {Ibid. , p. 281). Mr, Clinch here refers to J oseph Balsaruo, better know n perhaps as Count Cagiiostro, the remarkable Masonic charlatan of the eighteenth century. Mr. W. Simson, In his History of the Gypsies, 1865, pp. 456, 457, says: “Not only have they had a language peculiar to themselves, but signs as exclusively theirs as are those of the Freemasons. The distinc- tion consists in this people having blood, language , a cast of mind, and signs,- peculiar to itself/’ 4 Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, by the Abbe Barruel, translated by the Hon. Robert Clifford, 2d edit., 1798. Edmund Burke wrote to Barruel, May 1, 1797, on the publication of his first volume, expressing an admiration of the work which posterity has failed to i atify. He s.e. “The whole of the wonderful narrative is supported by documents and proofs (?) with the w juridical regularity and exactness.” 6 Frost, Secret Societies of the European Revolution, 1876, vol. i., p. 22. 6 Although the Knights Templars are several times referred to in this chapter, my examination of the theory which connects them with the Freemasons will be reserved for a later part of this work. vy or Past Grand. Commander of Ohio, Deputy Inspector-General of Ohio Ancient and Accepted Scottish Pate, etc. '-‘iG/syp] 9 THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY. Nicholai, a learned bookseller of Berlin, advanced, in 1782, a singular hypothesis. 1 His belief was, that Lord Bacon, influenced by the writings of Andrea, 2 the alleged founder of the Rosicrucians, and of his English disciple, Robert Fludd, gave to the world his “Hew Atlantis,” a beautiful apologue in which are to be found many ideas of a Masonic char- acter. A ship which had been detained at Peru for one whole year, sails for China and Japan by the South Sea. In stress of weather the weary mariners gladly make the haven of a port of a fair city, which they find inhabited by Christians. They are brought to the strangers’ house, the revenue of which is abundant; thirty-seven years having elapsed since the arrival of similar visitors. The governor informs them “of the erection and institution, 1900 years ago, of an order or society by King Solamena, the noblest foundation that ever was upon the earth, and the lanthorn of the kingdom.” It was dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God, and appears to have been indifferently de- scribed as “Solomon’s House,” or “The College of the Six Days’ Works.” During the stay of the visitors at this city (in the Island of Bensalem), one of the fathers of £ ‘ Solomon’s House ” came there, and the historiographer of the party had the honor of an interview, to whom the patriarch, in the Spanish tongue, gave a full relation of the state of the “ College.” “ Firstly,” he said, “ I will set forth unto you the end of our foundation; secondly, the preparation or instruments we have for our works; thirdly, the several employments and functions whereto our fellows are assigned; and fourthly, the ordinances and rites which we observe. ” The society was formed of fellows or brethren, and novices or apprentices. All took an oath of secrecy, “for the concealing of those things which we think fit to keep secret; though some of those we do reveal sometimes to the State, and some not. ” 3 The narrative breaks off abruptly with the words, “The rest was not perfected.” According to the latest of Baconian commentators, Mr. Spedding, “ The story of Solo- mon’s House is nothing more than a vision of the practical results, which Lord Bacon anti- cipated from the study of natural history, diligently and systematically carried on through successive generations.” It will be seen from the foregoing abstract, in which I have included every detail that can possibly interest the Masonic reader, that the theory advanced by Nicholai rests upon a very slender, not to say forced, analogy. A better argument, if, indeed, one inconclu- sive chain of reasoning can be termed better or worse than another whose links are alike defective, might be fashioned on the same lines, in favor of a Templar origin of Free- masonry. The view I am about to present seems to have escaped the research of Dr. Mackey, ; Versuch fiber die Besschuldigungen. French and English translations respectively of the ap- pendix to this work (which contains Nicliolai's Essay on the Origin of Freemasonry) will be found in Thory’s Acta Latomorum, and in the Freemasons’ Quarterly Review, 1853, p. 649. 2 John Valentine Andrea, born 1586, died 1654. The most important of his works (or of those ascribed to his pen) are the “Fama Fraternitatis ” and the “Chemical Marriage,” (Chemische Hoch- zeit), published circa 1614 and 1616 respectively. It has been stated “that Fludd must be considered as the immediate father of Freemasonry, as Andrea was its remote father!” (Freemasons’ Maga- zine, April, 1858). 3 The New Atlantis (Spedding’s Bacon), vol. iii. , p. 129. Tbe New Atlantis seems to have been written in 1624, and was first published in 1627 (Preface, p. 121). IO 7 HE A NTIQ U I TIES OF FREEMA SO NR Y. whose admirable Encyclopaedia, so far as I can form an opinion, contains the substance of nearly everything of a Masonic character that has yet been printed. For this reason, and also because it has been favorably regarded by Dr. Armstrong, who otherwise has a very poor opinion of all possible claims that can be urged in support of Masonic antiquity, the hypothesis will fit in very well with the observations that have preceded it, and with it I shall terminate the “short studies” on the origin of our society, into which I have digressed. I will now give the theory in the Bishop’s own words, which are always inter- esting, if at times a little uncomplimentary. Dr. Armstrong says, “The order of the Temple was called The knighthood of the Temple of Solomon ,’ not in allusion to the first temple built by Solomon, but to their hospital or residence at Jerusalem, which was so called to distinguish it from the temple erected on the site of that destroyed by Titus. Now, when we find a body said to be derived from the Templars, leaving amongst the plumage with which the modern society has clumsily adorned itself, so much mention of the Temple of Solomon, there seems some sort of a ground for believing in the supposed connection! The Hospitallers of St. John, once the rivals, became the successors of the Templars, and absorbed a large portion of their reve- nues at the time of their suppression. This would account for the connection between the Freemasons and the order of St. John.” 1 Passing from the fanciful speculations which at different times have exercised the minds of individual theorists, or have long since been given up as untenable, I shall proceed to examine those derivations which have been accepted by our more trustworthy Masonic teachers, and by their long-sustained vitality, claim at least our respectful con- sideration. By this, however, I do not wish to imply that those beliefs which have retained the greatest number of adherents are necessarily the most worthy of acceptance. In historical inquiry finality can have no place, and there is no greater error than to con- clude “that of former opinions, after variety and examination, the best hath still prevailed and suppressed the rest.” “As if the multitude,” says Lord Bacon, “or the wisest for the multitude’s sake, were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular and super- ficial than to that which is substantial and profound; for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh and drownetli that which is weighty and solid.” 2 Before, however, commencing my analysis, a few general observations will not be out of place. “When we find in any nation or age social efforts resembling in aim and organization those of the Freemasons, we are by no means justified in tracing any closer connection between them than such as human nature everywhere, and in all ages, is known to have in common, unless it can be historically proved that an actual relationship exists.” 3 “A small number of nations far distant from each other,” says Von Humboldt, “the 1 The Christian Remembrancer, No. lvii., (July 1847), pp. 15-17. The authorities mainly relied upon by Dr. Armstrong are William of Tyre, and James of Vitry (Bishop of Acre): “Est prseterea,’’ says the latter, “ Hierosolymis Templum aliud immensae quantitatis, et amplitudinis a quo fratres militia Templi, Templarii nominantur, quod Templum Salomonis nuncupator, forsitan ad distinc- tionem alterius quod specialiter Templum Domini appellatur” (cited in Addison’s History of the Knights Templars, 1842, p. 10). 2 Advancement of Learning. This idea seems to have been happily paraphrased by Elias Ash- mole in his “Theatrum Chcmicum Britannicum,” 1052, (Proleg.). 3 Krause, Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden. THE A NTIQ U I TIES OF FREEMA SO NR V. 1 1 Etruscans, the Egyptians, the people of Thibet, and the Aztecs, exhibit striking analogies in their buildings, their religious institutions, their division of time, their cycles of regen- eration, and their mystic notions. It is the duty of the historian to point out these analo- gies, which are as difficult to explain as the relations that exist between the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the languages of German origin; but in attempting to generalize ideas, we should learn to stop at the point where precise data are wanting.” 1 The explanation, however, which Yon Humboldt withheld, had long previously been suggested by Warburton, who dwells with characteristic force upon “the old inveterate error that a similitude of customs and manners amongst the various tribes of mankind most remote from one another, must needs arise from some communication, whereas human nature, without any other help, will, in the same circumstances, always exhibit the same appearance;” and in another passage of his famous work, he speaks “of the general con- formity which is commonly ascribed to imitation, when, in truth, its source is in our own common nature, and the similar circumstances in which the partakers of it are generally found.” 2 Even in cases where an historical connection is capable of demonstration, we must bear in mind that it may assume a Protean form. It is one thing when an institution flourishes through being constantly renewed by the addition of new r members, its sphere of action and regulations undergoing at the same time repeated changes; and another thing when, from a pre-existing institution, an entirely new one takes its rise. It is also different when a newly-formed institution takes for its model the views, sphere of action, and the social forms of one which has long since come to an end. “The difference,” says Krause, “between these three kinds of historical connection must everywhere be most clearly defined. In the history of Freemasonry the third is of chief importance, as it is generally to be found, although to those unversed in the subject, it appears as if there actually existed historical connection of the first and second kinds.” 3 That contemporary and successive secret societies, must have had some influence on each other can hardly be doubted. The ceremonies of probation and initiation would be, in most cases, mere imitations of older originals, and the forms of expression perhaps identical. Still it would be wrong to assume “that, because certain fraternities, existing at different epochs, have made use of similar or cognate metaphors in order to describe their secret proceedings, that therefore these proceedings are identical.” Similar circum- stances are constantly producing similar results; and “as all secret fraternities are, in respect of their secrecy, in the same situation, they are all obliged to express in their sym- bolical language that relation of contrast to the uninitiated on which their constitution de- pends. To denote this contrast metaphorical analogies will be employed, and these analo- gies will be sought in the contrasts of outward nature, as in the opposition of light to dark- ness, warmth to cold, life to death. The operations of the ordinary passions of our nature will also require the occasional use of metaphors; and as the prominent objects of the material universe are always at hand, the same comparisons may sometimes be employed by persons who have never dreamt of initiatory rites and secret associations.” 4 Each of the following systems or sects has been regarded as a lineal ancestor of the Masonic fraternity: 1 Humboldt, Researches (London, 1844), vol. i., p. 11. 2 Divine Legation (edit. 1887), vol. ii. , pp. 203, 221. 3 Krause, Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden. 4 A. P. Marras, The Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages (Arnold Prize Essay), pp. 8, 9. 12 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. I. The Anciext Mysteries ; II. The Essenes ; III. The Eomah Collegia ; and IV. The Culdees. These I shall now consider in their order, reserving for separate treatment at the con- clusion of the evidence (to be presented in the chapters which next follow), those theories or derivations which have their origin in a period of time less remote from our own. It fortunately happens that we possess Masonic constitutions and regulations of un- doubted authority, ranging back in the case of Britain and Germany to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries respectively, whilst of French documents referring to the Mason’s craft, some are yet extant of a still earlier period. The best mode of procedure will therefore he, in the first instance, to summarize in a brief compass what is actually known of the systems or sects above enumerated, in order that, by a careful comparison with the authentic records of the Mediaeval Masons, we may determine how nearly or how remotely the usages and customs of the “Ancient” and the “ Modern” organizations correspond, and ascertain what grounds exist for attributing to the Masonic institution any higher antiquity than is attested by its own documents; for however flattering to our pride may be the assumption of a long pedigree, it by no means follows that it will bear the test of a strict genealogical investigation. I. THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. To adequately discuss, within the limit of a few pages, the vast subject of the Ancient Mythology, would be a task hardly less difficult than that of carving upon the surface of a cherry-stone the whole of the intricate designs of the shield of Achilles. The actual evi- dence from which alone any certain information is derivable, lies scattered over the whole surface of classic literature. For a combination of these disjointed passages, I have dili- gently searched the works of recent commentators who have attempted any general description of the Mysteries; and being therefore under the necessity of condensing into a small space the matter of many bulky volumes, must refer any reader who is desirous of examining the subject at greater length, to the original works, where will be found more than enough to satisfy the most ardent curiosity. In the following remarks those features only of the Ancient Mysteries will be noticed which may tend to cast light upon the history of Freemasonry. It will be evident that the main point of the inquiry we are about to pursue is not how a mythological system may be explained, but in what manner it was actually explained or understood by the most enlight- ened of the community professing to believe in its doctrines. For the purposes of our investigation the Mysteries must be viewed in a double aspect. 1st, The Mysteries properly so called, that is, those in which no one was allowed to partake unless he had undergone formal initiation, as distinguished from the mystic ceremonies of certain festivals, the performance of which, though confined to particular classes of persons, or to a particular sex, yet did not require a regular initiation. 2d, The later or corrupted Mysteries, which continued until the fourth or fifth centuries of the Christian era. As regards all secret societies of the Middle Ages, the mysteries of the ancient world are important, as presenting the first examples of such associations, and from having been the model of all later imitations. If, then, we regard Freemasonry (in its existing torm) as a mere assimilation of the Mysteries, our attention should be chiefly directed to the bewitching dreams of the Grecian mythologists, which, enhanced by the attractions of THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 13 poetry and romance, would naturally influence the minds of those “ men of letters,” 1 who, it is asserted, “ in the year 1646 ” rearranged the forms for the reception of Masonic candi- dates, in preference to the degenerate or corrupted mysteries of a subsequent era. On the other hand, if Masonry is regarded as the direct descendant, or as a survival of the mysteries, the peculiarities of the Mithraic worship — the latest form of paganism which lingered amidst the disjecta membra of the old Roman Empire — will mainly claim our notice. It is almost certain, therefore, that if a set of philosophers in the seventeenth century ransacked antiquity in order to discover a model for their newly-born Freemasonry, the “Mysteries properly so called” furnished them with the object of their search. Also, that if without break of continuity the forms of the Mysteries are now possessed by the Free- masons, their origin must he looked for in the rites of Mithraism. The first and original mysteries appear to have been those of Isis and Osiris in Egypt, and it has been conjectured that they were established in Greece somewhere about 1400 B.c., during the sovereignty of Erectheus. The allegorical history of Osiris the Egyptians deemed the most solemn mystery of their religion. Herodotus always mentions it with great caution. It was the record of the misfortunes which had happened to one whose name he never ventures to utter; and his cautious behavior with regard to everything connected with Osiris shows that he had been initiated into the mysteries, and was fearful of divulging any of the secrets he had solemnly bound himself to keep. Of the ceremonies performed at the initiation into the Egyptian mysteries, we must ever remain ignorant, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson expressly states “ that our only means of forming any opinions respecting them are to be derived from our imperfect acquaintance with those of Greece, which were doubtless imitative of the rites practised in Egypt.” 2 The most celebrated were the Orphic, the Bacchic or Dionysiac, the Eleusinian, the Samothracian, the Cabiric, and the Mithraic. 3 The names by which they were designated in Greece are pvffTppia, reXstai , and opyia. The name opyia (from Copy a) originally signified sacrifices only, accompanied by certain ceremonies; but it was afterward applied especially to the ceremonies observed in the worship of Dionysius, and at a still later period to mysteries in general. 4 The Eleusinian were probably a part of the old Pelasgian religion, and also those of the Cabiri, celebrated more especially in Thrace. All nations of antiquity appear to have been desirous of concealing some parts of their religious worship 5 from the multitude, in order to render them the more venerated, and in the present case an additional motive was, to veil its celebration from the gaze of their Hellenic conquerors, as the Walpurgis Nights were adopted by the Saxons in Germany in order to hide their pagan ceremonies from their Christian masters. Subsequently new elements were introduced from Egypt and the East. The Eleusinian were the holiest in Greece, and throughout every particular of those forms in which its mysteries were concealed, may be discerned the evidences that they were 1 This belief has arisen from the admittance into a lodge at Warrington in 1646 of Elias Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring. See Sandy’s Short View of the History of Freemasonry, 1829, p. 52. 2 Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, 1878, vol. iii., p. 380, 387 ; Herodo- tus, ii., 171. “In all the legends of Freemasonry the line of ascent leads with unerring accuracy through Grecian corporations, back to the Orient” (Fort, Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 183) ; vide Article vii. of the Buchanan MS. , No. 15 of the “ Old Charges,” in Chapter H. , post. ■i q^e Orphic and Dionysiac Mysteries seem to have designed a reformation of the popular religion. 4 C. A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus, tome i., p. 305. 5 Porphyry de Abst., lib. v.. c. 5. H THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. the emblems, or rather the machinery, of a great system — a system at Once mystical, phil- osophical, and ethical. They were supposed to have been founded by Demeter, Eumol- pus, Musseus, or Erectheus, the last named of whom is said to have brought them from Egypt. The story of Demeter is related by Diodorus Siculus, and is also referred to by Isocrates. This version of their foundation was the one generally accepted by the ancients. All accounts, however, concur in stating that they originated when Athens was beginning to make progress in agriculture. When Eleusis was conquered by Athens, the inhabitants of the former district surrendered everything but the privilege of conducting the Mysteries. The lesser Eleusinia were a prior step to the greater Mysteries of the same name, and were held every year in the month of Anthesterion (according to some accounts) in honor of Persephone alone. Those who were initiated in them bore the name of Myste ( pvffrai ), and had to wait at least another year before they could be admitted to the great Mysteries. The Mystae had also to take an oath of secrecy, which was administered to them by the Mystagogue, also called kpoepavrys or Ttpocpyrys-, they received some kind of preparatory instruction, which enabled them afterward to understand the mysteries which were revealed to them in the great Eleusinia; they were not admitted into the sanc- tuary of Demeter, but remained during the solemnities in the vestibule. The greater mysteries, commonly termed “ The Mysteries,” simply, occupied nine days in celebration: they commenced on the 15th of Boedromion or September, and terminated on the 23d inclusively. On the evening of the sixth day the mystae who had served the probationary period of twelve months were initiated into the last mysteries (s7ro7tTsla). Those who were neither epoptse nor mystae were dismissed by a herald. Before the ceremonies were permitted to begin, the labor of selection was entered upon by the officers appointed for that duty. Those alone were allowed to advance within the holier precincts who were properly qualified, and in the case of the mystae, having twelve months previously, assisted at the Lesser Mysteries performed at Agree, a village situated on the borders of the Illissus. This im- portant examination of the credentials of the different applicants appears to have been conducted by four curators, or Epimeletai, presided over by one of the nine Archons, royally entitled Basileus. The mystae now repeated the oath of secrecy, and holy mysteries were read to them out of a sacred book called petroma, because it consisted of two stones closely joined together. Then the priest who initiated them (hierophant), proposed certain questions to which they returned answers in a set form. This part of the ceremony having been duly observed, the Aspirants were admitted into the mystic ay nos or Enclosure, where they underwent a new purification, and were further prepared by partaking of a cup “ craftily qualified,” being an imitation of the celebrated “ Miscellaneous Potion ” given to Demeter on her visit to Eleusis. They were then led by the mystagogue in the darkness of night into the interior of the lighted sanctuary ( cpooTaycoyicx ), and were allowed to see (avroipia) what none but the epoptae ever beheld. 1 The autopsia was a kind of beatific vision, of which we have no clear account, and which seems to have been accompanied by a prescribed discourse (ritual) from the hierophant, 1 Ampler details of the ceremonies observed at Eleusis, will be found collected in, A Glimpse into the Eleusinian Mysteries (Blackwood’s Magazine, February, 1853) ; R. Brown, The Great Dyonisiak Myth, vol. i., pp. 292-298 ; T. Taylor, A Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, Pam- phleteer, vol. viii., p. 467 ; Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Eleusinia). THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 15 and then the assembly was dismissed with the mystic formula, noyC, ojATcaB,,' repeated by the audience. A w r ell known Masonic writer, now gone to his rest, 2 in a careful examination of the analogies between the Ancient Mysteries and Modern Freemasonry, dwells with much force upon the identity of design and method in the two systems, as illustrated by the division— into steps, classes, or degrees — to which both were subjected, viz., lustration (purification or preparation), initiation, and perfection. At the conclusion of his essay he asks — “ Is Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the Ancient Mysteries— the succession handed down through the Mysteries of Mithras, which existed in the fifth and sixth centuries, or is the fact of these analogies to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all human minds, and showing its outgrowth in symbolic forms ? " It will be well to keep this question in mind during the process of our inquiry, which will embrace a brief examination of the doctrines or principles, the rites or ceremonies, and the emblems or symbols, usual in the Mysteries, and will conclude with an outline of Mithraism. As to the real object of the Mysteries, nothing certain is known. Of the discrepant theories that have been advanced, one of the most rational is, that these scenic represen- tations were the remains of a worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and its attendant rites, and that they were grounded on a view of nature less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken philosophical thought and religious feeling. 3 Of the instruction communicated in the inner mysteries, no record whatever has come down to us. That the ancient philosophers, deriving, it may be assumed, their ideas from Egypt and the East, had some notion, more or less vague and ill defined, of one supreme Deity, and even of a Trinity, is, I think, abundantly proved (whatever we may think of some of his arguments and conclusions), by Cudworth, in his great work, the “ Intellectual System/’ wherein all the learning on this subject is set forth at length. There are also scattered passages in the writings of the fathers of the Church, e.g., Clemens Alexandrinus, which point to the same conclusion. Assuming, then, these opinions to have existed, the question is, how far they were taught in the Mysteries. The writers who speak of them, and who were apparently initiated, are always very reticent, and merely refer to such and such things which are known to the initiated, but of course are not revealed. It, then, no contemporary work on Freemasonry by an uninitiated writer is of any value, as will be generally admitted, how can ive expect to understand the arcana of a similar, or somewhat similar, institution, which perished nearly 2000 years ago ? 4 How little is really known of the secret teachings of the Mysteries will readily appear by the following resume. Selden 6 believed that they taught the unity of God, Esclienbachius 6 that the Eleusinian Mysteries disclosed the nature and origin of human life, as well as the means of preserving it, and foreshadowed also the hopes and fears of the life to come. The famous “ Divine > Captain Wilforcl, in the Asiatic Researches, 1798, vol. v., p. 300, says, “that the real words are Cdnschd Om Pacsha ; that they are pure Sanscrit ; and are used to this day by the Brahmens at the conclusion of their religious rites.” Lobeck, however, in his Aglaophamus (p. 775) denies, not only that such words were used in the Eleusinian Mysteries, but the very existence of the words them- selves. 2 Dr. Mackey, Voice of Masonry, U. S. A., Nov., 1876. 3 Dr. Thirwall, History of Greece, vol. ii. , p. 140. 4 It is almost unnecessary to say that the Mysteries of Greece are specially referred to. 5 Opera Omnia, 1726, vol. ii., pt. ii. (De Diis Syris). 6 De Scribis Veterum Romanorum. i6 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES . Legation” of Warburton is characterized by all his learning, hardihood, and love of para- dox. According to him, Moses was the only great legislator who did not proclaim the future state, and that this alone is a proof of his inspiration. Following this up, he states that the (Greek) Mysteries, in which the true religion was disclosed, was an invention of the Egyptian priests for their own ends, though why, if found efficacious, they confined its teaching to a select few, he does not explain. Nothing daunts him, he speaks of the ancient legislators as if they were personal acquaintances, gives at length the sermon de- livered to the initiated and the hymn which they sang, the sermon being the celebrated fragment attributed to Sanchoniatho, or rather to Philo, and the hymn, the Orphic canticle, attributed to the Jew Aristobulus. He even understands, with Le Clerc, the famous part- ing benediction KoyC, oyna^, which, according to him, means “ Watch, and abstain from evil. ” The worship of the phallus, which, we are told by Eissner, formed the essence of the Mysteries, is stated by Warburton to have been only its corruption . 1 Warburton was attacked first of all in England by Leland, but his ablest antagonist was Villoison . 2 The entire contest, however, only proves the utter futility of all such specu- lations, for while Warburton maintains that the system disclosed by the Mysteries was Deism, Villoison holds it to have been Pantheism. Warburton asserts that they taught the doctrine of retribution in the life to come — Villoison that of palingenesis, or new birth — and both agree only in making them the direct opposite of the popular faiths. Villoison gives the programme of the studies or lectures pursued at Eleusis, consisting of theology, cosmogony, tlieogony, cosmology, physiology, anthropology, and metaphysics, a statement which would doubtless have afforded much amusement to the worthy hierophants if they could only have seen it. Creuzer 3 believed that the Egyptian priests transplanted their theology into Hellas, which the Greeks varnished over with the fictions of their own poets, and that finally, when Christianity menaced Paganism with ruin, the then philosophers determined to un- lock the secrets of their religion, and in Neo-platonism to lay it bare to mankind, as a rival source of religion, showing plainly what had long been hidden under the cloak of the Mysteries of Eleusis and Samothrace. Baur 4 declares that the fundamental principle is that of a Deity who suffers and dies, and who afterward triumphs over death, and has a glorious resurrection. The Mysteries, according to this writer, were schools of virtue and philanthropy. Schelling 5 thought that the doctrine taught in them was in the directest opposition to the public religion, that this doctrine included a pure monotheism, and that Christianity is only the publication of their secret! Mitford considers that the Mysteries had their origin in the efforts of the Egyptian nobles who had migrated into Greece to maintain their pre-eminence; and that, to attract certain sections of the people to their fortunes, they initiated them into rites having for 1 De Quincey (more suo) says : “ None but a man of extraordinary talents can write first-rate non- sense ; perhaps the prince of all men ever formed by nature and education for writing superior non- sense was Warburton” (Secret Societies, edit. 1863, p. 259). But although many of Warburton’s conclusions will not stand the test of nineteenth century criticism, the scattered passages in classic literature relating to the Ancient Mysteries, collected in his famous work, are a noble memorial of his learning and industry. 2 De Triplia Theologia Mysteriisque Commentatio. 3 Symbolik und Mythologie. 4 Symbolik und Myth., tome iii. , p. 159. 5 Philosophie und Religion, p. 75. THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 1 7 their object the teaching of the unity of God . 1 Chandler 3 and De Pauw treat the subject rather irreverently, the latter considering the Eleusinian Mysteries as a kind of prototype of the Papal traffic in indulgences. Bernhardy 3 contents himself with saying that the gamothracian Mysteries, if really made known to us, would not come up to our expec- tations! Lastly come Lobeck and Limburg- Brouwer , 4 whose conclusions very nearly coincide, as they also do with common sense. They consider that the Mysteries could not have originated either with savages or with a people in an advanced state of civilization, and that they must therefore have taken their rise in the intermediate state in which we may picture the Pelasgi to have been, and their raison d’etre was the desire to augment the respect due to religion. There is scarcely any ancient people in which some sanctuary might not be found either occasionally or wholly closed to the multitude, nor any among whom some secret and nocturnal rites were not celebrated . 6 It will be observed that the various theories presented above are of a very contradic- tory character, which may be explained by the natural inference, “ that they have their origin in the imagined necessity of finding something worthy in modern conception, of concealment in the Ancient Mysteries, and derive their support and plausibility from an uncritical confusion of times and authorities. 77 8 Still it is tolerably clear, that however much the Mysteries may have degenerated in the course of time, or have become obscured by popular tradition or fanciful allegory, they were established in very early and semi-civilized times, and that they contained the germs of those great moral truths — possibly, indeed, the relics of a primitive religion — but which we find implanted in the heart of man (except in a state of savagery) in all ages and coun- tries. They seem to have been mimic representations of mythological incidents, joined with the giving of amulets as preservatives against future danger, but as all ancient and all false religions are corruptions of one great idea inherent in the human race, and possibly forming originally one primitive creed, in these ceremonies men must have seen or have thought they saw, traces of the teachings of a higher, purer, and more ancient faith. According to Clemens Alexandrinus, the verbal explanations had reference to the myths represented, and this verbal instruction was an obvious moral deduction from the mytho- logical and allegorical stories represented, e. g . , those of Eleusis showed the benefits derived from agriculture, and this was further explained in words, the verbal expositions, no doubt, varying from time to time. Yet we should do well to remember that whatever the phil- osophers may have made of the popular divinities, the priests 7 and hierophants 7 idea of them must have always remained, to a certain extent at least, the same. Hence, a good many of the opinions and explanations of the classic writers ought to be received with a modicum of caution. Something, however, was clearly taught or implied, for Plutarch, writing to his wife, says, “ That men retain the sense of pain and pleasure after death , 77 7 and we are fur- ther told, “ That the Mystagogues menaced the wicked with eternal punishment . 77 8 Upon 1 History of Greece, 1784, chapter i. 2 Travels in Greece. 3 Grundriss der Greichischen Literatur. 4 Aglaophamus ; and Hist, de la Civilisation Mor. et Relig. des Grecs. 6 These high authorities differ, however, on one important point. Lobeck (Aglaophamus, tome i . , Elusin, p. 228) insists that the religious ceremonies performed at Eleusis were of native origin; whilst Limburg-Brouwer (Hist, de la Civilisation, etc., tome ii., p. 298) says positively, “ Je crois q’au moins pour les ceremonies d’Eleusis il faut en revenir a l’Egypte.” 7 Consol, ad Uxorem. 6 Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eleusinia). 8 Celsus apud Originem, viii., 48. i8 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. the whole, it seems fairly certain that the Mysteries tended to open np a comforting pros- pect in the life to come, hut the question then arises, was this to be effected by means of a holier and purer religion, or were the Mysteries mere ceremonies, giving an introduction to the society of the gods, that is, conferring, as it were, the right of entree into a higher sphere. All we know of Pagan religions generally, and of that of the Greeks in particular, seems to favor the latter supposition. Taken as a whole, the effect was probably good, as awakening and keeping alive a sense of reverence and immortality, yet the Mysteries were not without their unfavorable points, for example, in substituting a ceremonial for that moral probation, the utility of which was inculcated by all philosophers worthy of the name, whilst the miscellaneous assemblies of both sexes in secrecy and darkness could not fail to have had a prejudicial effect. Even the assemblage of one sex alone was mischiev- ous, for all experience proves that, within proper bounds, the presence of one acts as a restraint upon the other, and so notorious a debauchee as Clodius would scarcely have chosen the festival of the Bona Dea to compass his object, had he not felt pretty certain that the occasion would lend itself to facilitate his purpose. The rites and ceremonies will now be considered. An outline of those observed at Eleusis has been already given, and I shall proceed to supplement that sketch by some general remarks. The leading feature of initiation was the dramatic symbolism which described the revivification of the earth after the death of winter. This symbolism assumed forms which would explain their meaning even to the uninitiated. But the revival of na- ture would be inseparably associated with the thought of the life into which a human soul passes through the gateway of death; and in a festival where everything was dramatic, the one truth or fact would be expressed by signs not less than the other. The Eleusinian legend represented Dionysus or Bacchus as the son of Demeter, and in the great Diony- siac festival at Athens the phallus was solemnly carried in procession, as in like state the veiled ship or boat of Athene was borne to the Acropolis. — This ship or boat was represented by the mystic cists or chests, carried by the pilgrims to Eleusis, and answers to the yoni, as the phallus corresponds to the lingam of the Hindu. ] The Mysteries, indeed, by the name of whatever god they might be called, were inva- riably of a mixed nature, beginning in sorrow and ending in joy. They sometimes de- scribed the allegorical death and subsequent revivification of the Deity in whose honor they were celebrated, whilst at others they represented the wanderings of a person in great distress on account of the loss either of a husband, a lover, a son, or a daughter . 1 2 It admits of very little doubt that the Mysteries, by whatever name they were called, were all in substance the same. We are informed by Julius Firmicus , 3 that in the nocturnal celebration of the Bacchic 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1878, Eleusinia, Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, Bart.). There is no reason for supposing that the Eleusinian Mysteries involved any more than this symbolical teaching which centres in the two ideas of death and reproduction. There is no valid ground for supposing that it involved less (Ibid.). « Faber, Mysteries of the Cabiri, vol. ii., p. 337. Mr. Faber says : “As the Egyptian Osiris was primarily Noah, and secondarily tire sun, such also was the case with Adonis, Dionysus or Bacchus, Attis, Horus, Vulcan, Pan, Serapis, Pluto, Jupiter, Mars, Belus or Baal, Mercury, Thammuz, Apis, Anubis, Zoroaster, Esculapius, Hercules, Mithras, Apollo, Buddha, Budsdo, Fohi, Odin, Hermes, ’ etc., etc., vol. i., p. 154. s De Errore Profan. Relig., p. 20. Faber, Mysteries of the Cabiri, vol. ii., pp. 353-356. A curious Greek MS. of Psellus, on “ Demons,” quoted by Mr. Taylor, records a slight variation in the macnm- THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 19 rites a statue was laid out upon a couch, as if dead, and bewailed with the bitterest lam- entations. When a sufficient space of time had been consumed in all the mock solemnity of woe, lights were introduced, and the hierophant having anointed the aspirants, slowly chanted the following distich: Qappeire pvarai tov dsov ffsffcoffpsvov ’Effrai yap ppiv sn novoov ffoorr/pia. Courage, ye Mystse, lo, our God is safe, And all our troubles speedily shall end. And the epoptce now passed from the darkness of Tartarus to the divine splendor of Elysium . 1 Lucius, describing his initiation into the Mysteries of Isis, says: — “Perhaps, inquisitive reader, you will very anxiously ask me what was then said and done ? I would tell you if it could be lawfully told. I approached to the confines of death, and having trod on the threshold of Proserpine, at midnight I saw the sun shining with a splendid light.” He then goes on to say, “that his head was decorously encircled with a crown, the shining leaves of the palm tree projecting from it like rays of light, and that he celebrated the most joyful day of his initiation by delightful, pleasant, and facetious banquets .” 2 In the Samothracian mysteries the initiated received a purple ribbon, which was intended to guarantee them against perils by sea. Prom numerous passages of ancient writers, we may infer that immunity from shipwreck was the leading benefit held out by this religious system, and its votaries were probably taught certain prayers, and received amulets, much in the same fashion as we now find images of the saints given away in the more superstitious of Roman Catholic countries. The purifications were also formal, and, so to speak, mechanical purifications, that is, from some imaginary defilement such as touching impure persons or things, and not the true purification and elevation of the soul. The Scholiast on Aristophanes, says, “They appear to be righteous.” 3 The periods of probation between the successive ceremonies, as well as the number and development of the latter, are not very clearly defined. Warburton says — (i Four years was the usual time of probation for the greater mysteries in which the secrets were de- posited,” but, as we have already seen, one year was considered sufficient at Eleusis. Of the gradation of the Mysteries, Taylor informs us that “The whole business of initi- ation was distributed into five parts,” 4 but this system may have corresponded with the nine days’ programme of the Eleusinians. Yet if Yonnus may be relied on, the proba- tionary labors to be undergone in the Mithraic rites far transcended those of all rival systems. “There were eighty degrees,” he says, “of these labors, from less to greater , 5 ery of the Eleusinian Mysteries. According to this writer, “those who are initiated sing, ‘I have ate out of the drum, I have drank out of the cymbal, I have borne the mystic cup, I have entered into the bed ’ ” (Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, Pamphleteer, vol. viii. , p. 484). 1 Divine Legation, vol. i., p. 215. 2 Taylor, Apuleius, pp. 283, 284. The custom of “ crowning” the initiates was common to all the Mysteries. In those of Dionysus or Bacchus, the mystce, at the celebration of the Anthesteria, wore myrtle wreaths, instead of ivy, which was used in the “Dionysia,” strictly so called. This practice, along with the banquets, may have descended from them to our city companies? See Herbert, Com- panies of London, vol. i., p. 84 ; vol. ii. , p. 591. 3 Pax., 1. 276. 4 Pamphleteer, vol. viii., p. 52. 5 Divine Legation, vol. i. , p. 272. Even in the lowest types of mankind there exist degrees or 20 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. and when the aspirant has gone through them all, he is initiated. These labors are -to pass through fire, to endure cold, hunger, and thirst, to undergo much journeyings, and, in a word, every toil of this nature.” Amongst the Pythagoreans there were similar gradations. It was an old maxim of this sect, that everything w r as not to he told to everybody. It is said that they had common meals, resembling the Spartan syssitia, at which they met in companies of ten, and by some authorities they were divided into three classes, “Acustici, Mathematici, and I hysici. It also appears that they had some secret conventional symbols, by which members of the fraternity could recognize each other, even if they had never met before. That, in all the Mysteries, the initiated possessed secret signs of recognition, is free from doubt. In the “Golden Ass” of Apuleius, Lucius, the hero of the story, after many vicissitudes, regains his human shape, and is initiated into the Mysteries of Isis; lie finds, however, that it is expected of him to be also instructed in those “of the great God, and supreme father of the gods, the invincible Osiris.” In a dream he perceives one of the officiating priests, of whom he thus speaks: “He also walked gently with a limping step, the ankle bone of his left foot being a little bent, in order that ho might afford me some sign by which I might know him.” 2 In another work ( Apologia ) the author of the “Metamorphosis” says: “If any one happens to be present who has been initiated into the same rites as myself, if he will give me the sign, he shall then be at liberty to hear what it is that I keep with so much care.” Plautus, too, alludes to this custom in one of his plays {Miles Gloriosus, iv. 2), when he says: “ Cedo Signum, harunc si es Baccharum.” 3 Signs, however, must always, from the nature of things, have been a common feature of all secret associations. It was, moreover, the general custom of antiquity, in personal conferences, to instruct by actions instead of words; a custom begun out of necessity, but continued out of choice, from the superior advantages it enjoys in making an impres- sion. 4 “Motion,” says Warburton, “ naturally significative, which enters at the eye, hath a much stronger effect than articulate sound, only arbitrarily significative, which enters at the ear. Language, as appears from the records of history, and from the remains of the most ancient languages yet remaining, was at first extremely rude, narrow, and equivo- cal; so that men would be perpetually at a loss, on any new conception, or uncommon acci- dent, to explain themselves intelligibly to one another. The art of enlarging language by a scientific analogy being a late invention, this would necessarily set them upon supplying the deficiencies of speech by apt and significant signs. 6 Accordingly, in the first ages of probations. Sir J. Lubbock says: “Amongst the Aborigines of Australia, in the South Adelaide district, according to Mr. Moorliouse, there are five distinct stages of initiation before the native is admitted to all the privileges of a man” (Prehistoric Times, 3d ed., 1872, p. 447). 1 Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography (Pythagoras). 9 Taylor, Apuleius, 1822, book xi., p. 287. 3 Give me the sign, if you are one of these votaries ; literally one of the Bacchse or votaries of Bacchus. These had a sign or password — symbolum or viemoraculum — by which they recognized , , , 4 Divine Legation, vol. ii. , p. 476. each other. ° ’ , 6 Thus the Jesuit, Lafitau, describing the Iroquois tribe of North American Indians, observes : “Ils parlent autant du geste que de la voix, et ils represented les choses si naturallement, qu’elles semblent se passer sous les yeux des Auditeurs” (Moeursdes Sauvages, 1724, tome i., p. 482). THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 21 the world, mutual converse was upheld by a mixed discourse of words and actions; hence came the eastern phrase of the voice of the sign ; and use and custom, as in most other affairs of life, improving what had arisen out of necessity into ornament, this practice subsisted iong after the necessity was over.” 1 It is evident that in the cultivation of this system of pantomimic gesture it would become necessary to intermix with the gestures naturally significative, other gestures made significative by institution, that is, brought by arbitrary use, to have as determined and positive a meaning as the others. Of this mode of speaking by action the writings of the Ancients afford numerous examples. The early oracles in particular frequently employed it, as we learn from an old saying of Heraclitus, “That the king, whose oracle is at Delphi, neither speaks nor keeps silent, but reveals by signs.” * Emblems, symbols, types, all have this in common; they are the representatives of something else for which they stand . 3 “The first learning of the world,” says Dr. Stuke- ley, “consisted chiefly of symbols. The wisdom of the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Jews, of Zoroaster, Sanchoniatho, Pherecydes, Syrus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, of all the Ancients that is come to our hand, is symbolic.” Of this truth, the twenty-eighth of the Pythagorean symbols affords a familiar illustration — “Offer not your right hand easily to every one” 1 — which is thus explained by Iamblicus: “The meaning of this symbol is, do not draw up, nor endeavor to raise, by extending your right hand, the unadopted and uninitiated. It also signifies that the right hand is not to be given easily even to those who have for a long time proved themselves worthy of it, through disciplines, and doctrines, and the participation of continence, the quinquennial silence , 4 * and other probationary trials.” 6 It has been maintained, that the intermediaries in passing on the “Masonic Grip” from the Ancients to the Moderns, were the followers of the Gnosis, amongst whom symbols and tokens for mutual recognition were well known. At least, so we are informed by Epiphanius, whose early experiences as a Manichean (before his elevation to the episco- pate), specially qualify him to enlighten us on this point. On the arrival of any stranger, he says, belonging to the same belief, they have a sign given by the man to the woman, and vice versa. In holding out the hand, under pretence of saluting each other, they feel it and tickle it in a particular manner underneath the palm, and so discover if the new comer belongs to the same sect . 6 The preferable opinion, however, would seem to be that recognition or salutation by means of a “grip” or “hand-shaking” is a common feature of many religious and social systems, and is especially prevalent amongst the Eastern people. To this day the Parsees of Western India, after prayers on Pappati or New Year’s Day, visit their friends and relations, when the Hamma-i-jour or “joining of hands” is per- formed . 7 A symbolic language appears to have existed in the old monasteries, the signs not being optional, but transmitted from antiquity, and taught like the alphabet . 8 A 1 Divine Legation, vol. ii. , p. 34. 2 Cited by Warburton in his Divine Legation, vol. ii., p. 36. 3 Dr. Barlow, Symbolism in Reference to Art ; Proceedings Royal Instit. Brit. Arch., vol. ii. (Ses- sion 1859-60), p. 97. 4 This alludes to the silence of five years imposed by Pythagoras on a great part of his auditors. 6 W. Bridgman, The Pythagorean Symbols, with the Explanation of Iamblicus, 1804, p. 106. 6 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 121. “A pair of clasped hands — symbols of concord —were usually sent from one nation or army to another” (Ibid.). 1 Dosabhoy Framjee, The Parsees; their History, .Manners, Customs, and Religion, 1858, p. 60. 8 T. D. Fosbroke, British Monachism, 1802, vol. ii., p. 5. “ Signa scire studeant omnes necessa- ria” (Let us all endeavor to learn the necessary signs), ibid, citing Matthew Paris, 403. 22 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. similar custom prevailed in the great religious orders. “Louis XLV. of France, the Royal Jesuit, received/’ says the Due de St. Simon, “the vows and sacred signs at his initiation, and the proper formulary of prayers and absolution, on giving the almost imperceptible sign of the order, from the hands of Le Tellier.” 1 It has been alleged, hut on very insufficient authority, that the Dionysian architects, also said to have been a fraternity of priests and lay architects of Dionysus or Bacchus, present in their internal as well as external procedure the most perfect resemblance to the Society of Freemasons. 2 They seem, says Woodford, to have granted honorary member- ship, and admitted speculative members, as we term them; and it has been asserted that they had grades and secret signs of recognition. 3 Our chief interest in their history, how- ever, arises from the claim that has been advanced for their having employed in their ceremonial observances many of the implements which are now used by the Freemasons for a similar purpose. But it would test the learning even of Cardinal Mezzofanti himself, were that great linguist still alive, and fully conversant with the literature belonging to each of the languages he spoke so fluently— to identify any period or place illumined t>y the faintest glimmer of philosophic science — with the invention of architectural symbolism. In support of this position, I will merely adduce the philosophical teaching of one ancient people, but it will suffice, I think, to establish its correctness. In the oldest of the Chinese classics, which embraces a period reaching from the twenty-fourth to the seventh century before Christ, we meet with distinct allusions to the symbolism of the mason’s art. 4 * But “even if we begin,” says Mr. Giles, “where the ‘Book of History’ ends, we find curious masonic expressions to have been in use — at any rate in the written language — more than seven hundred years before the Christian era; that is to say, only about a couple of hundred years after the death of King Solomon himself. But inasmuch as there are no grounds whatever for impugning the authentic character of that work as connected with periods much more remote, this would give to speculative Masonry a far higher antiquity than lias ever yet been claimed.” In a famous canonical work, called the “Great Learning.” which Dr. Legge says may be safely referred to the fifth century before our era, 6 we reed that a man should abstain from doing unto others what he would not they should do unlo him; “and this,” adds the writer, “is called the principle of acting on the square.” 6 Mr. Giles also quotes from Confucius, b.c. 481, and from his great follower, Mencius, wl.o flourished nearly two hundred years later. In the writings of the last-named philosopher it is taught that men should apply the square and compasses figuratively to their lives, and the level and the marking-line besides, if they would walk in the straight and evea paths of wisdom, and keep themselves within the bounds of honor and virtue. In Boor YI. of his philosophy we find these words: 1 Memoires du M. le Due de St. Simon (Supplement, tome i., p. 8). 2 Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, p. 31 ; Prof. Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1797, p. 2$. 3 Kenning’s Cyclopaedia, p. 163. See also H. J. da Costa, The Dionysian Artificers, 1820, p. 46. 4 “Ye officers of Government, apply the compasses” (Book of History). H. A. Giles, Freema- sonry in China, p. 4. So far as I am aware, Mr. (now Sir Walter) Medhurst first drew Masonic atten- tion to the Chinese terms for “compasses” and “square,” representing “order, regularity, and pro- priety.” An interesting letter, which he addressed to the “Northern Lodge of China,” was sent ty me from Shanghai to the Freemason’s Magazine, and published in that journal. June 6. 1863, p. 45^. 6 The Chinese Classics, vol . i. , Proleg. , p. 27. | 6 Giles, Freemasonry in China, p. 8. Legge, Chinese Classics, vol. i. (The Great Learning, pp 219-245). 22 . THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. similar custom prevailed in the great religious orders. “'Louis X IV. of France, the Royal Jesuit, received," says the Due de St. Simon, “the vows and sacred signs at his initiation, and the proper formulary of prayers and absolution, on giving the almost imperceptible sign of the order, from the hands of Le Tellier. " 1 It has been alleged, but on very insufficient authority, that the Dionysian architects, also said to have been a fraternity of priests and lay architects of Dionysus or Bacchus, present in their internal as well as external procedure the most perfect resemblance to the Society of Freemasons. 4 They seem, says Woodford, to have granted honorary member- ship, and admitted speculative members, as we term them ; and it has been asserted that they had grades and secret signs of recognition. 1 Our chief interest in their history, how- ever, arises from the claim that has been advanced for their having employed in their ceremonial observances many of the implements which are now r e-d by the Freemason* for a similar purpose. But it would test the learning even of Omf i-.J Mezaoiariti him were that great linguist still' alive, and fully conversant with the literaturo beiongin each of the languages he spoke so fluently to' identify any period or. place diamine: the faintest glimmer of philosophic science — with the invention •,/ ardiiteoturai y. mi >• In support of this position, I will merely adduce the philosophical teach imr ancient people, but it will suffice, I think, to establish its correctness. In the oldest <>{ the Chinese classics, which embraces a period reaching from the. twenty-fourth to the seventh century before Christ, wo meet with distinct allusions to the symbolism of the mason’s art/ But “even if we begin," says Mr. Giles, “where the ‘Book of History ends, wo find carious masonic expressions to have been in use— »-at any rate in the written language- more t ban seven hundred years before the Christian era; that is to say, only about a couple of hundred years after the death of King Solomon himself. But inasmuch as there are no grounds whatever for impugning the authentic character of that work as connected with periods much more remote, this would give to speculative Masonry a far higher antiquity than Inis, ever yet been claimed." In a famous canonical work, called the “Great Learning," which Dr. Legge says may be safely referred to the fifth century before our era, 6 we read that a man should abstain from doing unto others what he would net they should do unto him: “and this," adds the writer, “is called the principle of acting cn the square." 6 Mr. Giles also quotes from Confucius, b.c. 481, and from his great follower, Mencius, who flourished nearly two hundred years later. In the writings of the last-named philosopher, it is taught that men should apply the square and compasses figuratively to their livesj and the level and the marking-line besides, if they would walk .in he straight and even paths of wisdom, and keep themselves within the bounds of honor rad virtue. In Book VI. of his philosophy we find these words: 1 Memoires du M. le I)uc de St. Simon {Supplement, tome i. , p. 8). 3 Lawrie, History of Freemasonry, 1804, p. 31 ; Prof. Robison, Proofs of i * ^ 1 , p. 20. 3 Kenning’s Cyclopaedia, p. 163. See also H: J. da Costa, The Dionysian A- : . •/', y. ;>l 4 “ Ye officers of Government, apply the compasses ” (Book of History : ma- tion to the Chinese terms for “compasses” and “square,” representing “ore * ; .md pro- priety.” An interesting letter, which he addressed to the “Northern Lodge ;v e by me from Shanghai to the Freemason’s Magazine, and published in that joun *" m b 6 The Chinese Classics, vol. i., Proleg., p. 27. J 6 Giles, Freemasonry in China, p. 8. Legge, Chinese Classics, vol. i. (T . f p. 219-245). Slavx> e FROM THE RARE AND ORIGINAL ALLEGORICAL PICTURE OF THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. BY MOREAU. PARIS. I7QO. THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. 23 “ A master mason, in teaching his apprentices, makes use of the compasses and the square. Ye who are engaged in the pursuit of wisdom must also make use of the compasses and the square.” 1 The worship of Mithras, its origin, rites, and meaning, are extremely obscure. The authorities differ as to the exact period of its introduction into Rome, Yon Hammer placing it at B.c. 68," whilst by other historians a later date has been assigned. It speedily, how- ever, became so popular as, with the earlier-imported Serapis worship, to have entirely usurped the place of the ancient Hellenic and Italian deities. In fact, during the second and third centuries of the Empire, Serapis and Mithras may be said to have become the sole objects of worship, even in the remotest corners of the Roman world." “There is very good reason to believe/’ says Mr. King, “that as in the East the worship of Serapis was at first combined with Christianity, and gradually merged into it with an entire change of name, not substance, carrying with it many of its ancient notions and rites; so in the West a similar influence was exerted by the Mithraic religion. 4 There is no record of their final overthrow, and many have supposed that the faith in “Median Mithras” survived into comparatively modern times in heretical and semi-pagan forms of Gnosticism; although, as Mr. Elton points out, we must assume that its authority was destroyed or confined to the country districts when the pagan worships were finally forbidden by law.' 5 The cult of Mithras, says Yon Hammer, ought to be considered at two different epochs — 1st, at its origin in the time of the ancient Persian monarchy; and next, with the modi- fications that it assumed in the first four centuries of the Christian era. 6 The Mithraism of the Zend-Avesta, or of the sacred writings of the Persians, attributed to Zoroaster, the great reformer of the Persian religion, and that of the period to which the Roman Mithraic monuments belong, seems to have had more of a mythological than of an astronomical character; relating to the origin of evil, the two principles, and to the generation, the spiritual renovation, and the future destiny of man. 7 In the Zend-Avesta, Mithras is the chief of the Izeds, under Ormuzd, who is his creator, iind in whose wars against Ahriman he is the presiding agent. Subsequently, however, on the Mithraic religion spreading from Persia into Asia Minor, and thence to Alexandria and Rome, the original Persian idea was altered. Mithras was confounded with the sun and the supreme Deity, and practices were adopted quite inconsistent with the Persian worship, including some of the ideas connected with other religious systems, such as those of the Alexandrian Serapis, 8 the Syrian Baal, and the Greek Apollo. The god is generally represented as a handsome youth, wearing the Phrygian cap and attire, and kneeling (or sitting) on a bull, which he is pressing down, or into which he is plunging the sacrificial knife. The bull is at the same time attacked by a dog, a serpent, and a scorpion. Nothing is certain concerning the significance of this scene. 1 Giles, Freemasonry in China, p. 6. Dr. Legge says : “ The year of Mencius’s birth was probably the fourth of the Emperor Lee, B.C. 371. He lived to the age of eighty-four, dying in the year B.c. 288. The first twenty-three years of his life thus synchronized with the last twenty-three of Plato. Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, Demosthenes, and other great men of the West, were also his contempo- raries” (Chinese Classics, vol. ii. , Proleg., p. 17). 7 C. Wellbeloved, Eburacum, 1842, p. 82. 2 Yon Hammer, Mithraica, 1833, p. 21. 3 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 47. 4 Ibid., p. 48. 6 Origins of English History, p. 351. 6 Yon Hammer, Mithraica, p. 57. 8 An Egyptian divinity, the worship of which was introduced into Greece in the time of the Ptol- emies. Apollodorus states that Serapis was the name given to Apis, after his death and deification. Hume records, as among the best attested miracles in all profane history, the cure of blind and lame men by Vesposian in obedience to a vision of Serapis (Essays, 1777, vol. ii., p. 130). 24 THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES. The fundamental dogma of the Mithraic doctrine, was the transmigration of souls under the influence of the seven planets, over whose operations Mithras presided. The initiated were divided into seven 1 classes or grades, which were named successively, soldiers, lions, hyaenas, etc., after animals sacred to Mithras. After passing victoriously through the several ordeals, the neophyte was presented with an engraved stone or amulet, as a token of his admission into the brotherhood, and with the object of supplying a means of recog- nition by its members. He was also offered a crown, which, however, he was instructed to refuse, saying, “My only crown is Mithras .” 2 The followers of Mithras, differing from the initiated of other systems, never wore wreaths; and when “tried and proved” as to their having been duly admitted to a participation in this mystery, threw down the offered wreath, saying, “My crown is in my God.” The candidate, moreover, on the successful conclusion of his probation, was marked in some indelible manner, the exact nature of which cannot now be ascertained. Mr. King is of opinion that this mark was not burned in, but incised or tatooed, but he need hardly have suggested that the members of a secret society did not receive the mark of membership on any conspicuous part of the body . 3 We learn from sculptured tablets and from inscriptions and symbols on tombs, that Mithraism prevailed extensively in this country 4 as well as in Germany and Gaul, 5 in each case, no doubt, having been introduced by the Roman Legions. By those authors who attempt to prove that all secret fraternities form but the succes- sive links of one unbroken chain, it is alleged that the esoteric doctrines which in Egypt, in Persia, and in Greece, preserved the speculations of the wise from the ears and tongues of an illiterate multitude, passed with slight modifications into the possession of the early Christian heretics; from the Gnostic schools of Syria and Egypt to their successors the Manicheans; and that from these through the Paulicians, Albigenses, and Templars, they have been bequeathed to the modern Freemasons . 6 Into the abyss of Gnosticism it is not my intention to plunge, but the following sum- mary may be of assistance in our general inquiry. Gnosticism was the earliest attempt to construct a philosophical system of faith. It was a speculative system, and exercised little influence upon the masses of the people. ' 1 Yon Hammer, Mithraica, p. 50. Suidas says twelve, and Nonnus eighty. The exact number, however, is immaterial. That these Mysteries were regarded as involving a greater trial of a can- didate’s fortitude than any of the others is indisputable. Von Hammer says that, the first founder of secret societies in the heart of Islam, Abdollah Maimun, established seven degrees, for which reason, as well as their opinions concerning the seven Imams, his disciples obtained the name of Seveners. This appellation was afterward transferred to the Assassins, whose founder, Hassan, not only re- stored the grades to their original number, seven, but also added a particular line of conduct, consist- ing of seven points (History of the Assassins, p. 59). The original of the Mithraic system must, how- ever, be looked for in the Brahminical doctrine of the seven lower and seven upper worlds, or in the seven gates and the descent into Hades, which were features of the Egyptian Mysteries. 2 Von Hammer, Mithraica, p. 59. 3 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 62. Mr. King cites this practice as evidencing that “ the origin of all such sectarian personal marks must be placed in India, the true fount, either directly or indirectly, of all the ideas and practices of Gnosticism ” (Ibid.). By Godfrey Higgins the “char- acteristic mark'" of the initiated in all Mysteries, is declared to have been circumcision (Anacalypsis, voi. i., p. 304). 4 Elton, Origins of English History, p. 351 ; Wellbeloved, Eburacum, pp. 79-86. 5 Creuzer, Symbolik und Myth, Bd. i. , p. 277. 6 Marras, Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages, p. 8. 1 M. Jacques Matter says, “ That the Gnostics communicated by means of emblems and symbols. THE A NCI ENT M YS TERIES. 25 TTlie Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects, of whom tiie most celebrated appear to have been the Basil id cans, the V alentinians, the Marcionites, amd in a still later period the Manicheans . 1 All the minor theories of the purpose and miotives of Gnosticism can be comprehended in the three principal theories enunciated by Baur, Neander, and Mohler respectively. Baur treats it as a philosophy of religion, resulting from the comparison of various religious systems; Neander, as a fusion of Chris- tian ideas and Oriental theosophy, caused by the prevalence of sensuous ideas within the (Church; and Mohler, as an intense and exaggerated Christian zeal, seeking some practical 'solution of the problems of sin and evil . 2 These agree in the general definition, that (Gnosticism was an attempt to solve the great problems of theology by combining the ele- nnents of pagan mysticism with the Jewish and Christian traditions. From the fact that many genuine Gnostic symbols have come down to us, or reappear iin speculative Masonry, if has been contended, that whereas the Gnosis, in its last and greatest manifestation, the composite religion of Manes , 3 absorbed within itself the relics cof the Mithraic faith, so in turn the Manichean talismans and amulets have kept an un- Ibroken existence through the Sectaries of the Lebanon, the Soofees 4 of Persia, the Tem- plars, and the Brethren of the Rosy Cross . 5 Yon Hammer lends the weight of his authority iin support of the Templar link; which, however, he believes to have been forged at a very tearly period of the Gnostic heresy/ and that it connected the Soldiers of the Cross with Ithe Ophites, and r.ot the Manicheans, their far later successors. “The prevalence of Gnostic symbols,” says Dr. Mackey — “such as lions, serpents, and Ithe like — in the decorations of churches of the Middle Ages, have led some writers to con- clude that the Knights Templars exercised an influence over the architects, and that by Ithem the Gnostic and Ophite symbols were introduced into Europe. ” 7 But Stieglitz (denies the correctness of this conclusion, and, whilst admitting that many Gnostic tenets, Itogether with its Oriental and Platonic philosophy, were ultimately absorbed by Christi- ;anity, thinks that whatever Gnostic doctrines were accepted by the builders or architects, (derived their sanction from the love of mysticism so predominant in the earlier periods of ithe Middle Ages. But he considers we should go too far were we to deduce a connection 'between the Templars and the Freemasons, on the ground that the former were Gnostics — an assumption which he pronounces to be as unwarranted as the alleged connection is untrue . 8 ;and that they imitated the rites and the ordeals (epreuves) of the Mysteries of Eleusis ” (Hist. Critique (du Gnosticisme, 1843, vol. ii., p. 369). 1 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 163. 2 Baur, Die Christliche Gnosis, oder die Christliche Religions-Philosophie in ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwickelung (Tubingen), 1835; Neander, Genetische Entwickelung- der Vornehmsten Gnostischen ‘Systeme (Berlin), 1818 ; Mohler, Ursprung des Gnosticismus (Tubingen), 1835. 3 Manes, or Manichteus, but whose original name St. Epiphanius states to have been Cubricus, was a native of Persia, the birthplace of Mithraism. The “ethical vagaries” (as they have been termed) of the Manicheans appear to have been merely the revival of the dreams of the Greek mythologists; and the views of Maniclneus were identical with those long before propounded by the congenial fancy of Aristocles. 4 Sir John Malcolm, History of Persia, 1829, vol. ii., pp. 267-300; Disquisition on the Essenes, post. 6 King, The Gnostics and their remains, p. 191. “Some traces of Gnosticism probably yet survive amongst the mysterious sects of Mount Lebanon, the Druses, and the Ansayreh” (Ibid., p. 120). It is somewhat singular that, without attributing to these sects a Gnostic origin, their possession of a secret mode of recognition, and a secret religion, has been constantly referred to by travellers. 6 Von Hammer, Mines d’Orient exploiters, vol. vi. ; Mysteries of Baphomet Revealed. 1 Mackey, Encyclopaedia, p. 746. 8 C. L. Stieglitz, Gcscliichte der Baukunst, 1827, pp. 334, 335. 20 THE ESSENES. According to Mackey, an instance of the transmutation of Gnostic talismans into Masonic symbols, by a gradual transmission through alchemy, Rosicrucianism, and mediae- val architecture, is afforded by a plate in the Azoth Philo sophorum of Basil Valentine, the Hermetic philosopher, who flourished in the seventeenth century. This plate, which is hermetic in its design, but is full of Masonic symbolism, represents a winged globe inscribed with a triangle within a square, and on it reposes a dragon. On the latter stands a human figure of two hands and two heads surrounded by the sun, the moon, and five stars, rep- resenting the seven planets. One of the heads is that of a male, the other of a female. The hand attached to the male part of the figure holds the compasses, that to the female a square. The square and compasses thus distributed appear to have convinced Dr. Mackey that originally a phallic meaning was attached to these symbols, as there was to the point within the circle, which in this plate also appears in the centre of the globe. “The com- passes held by the male figure would represent the male generative principle, and the square held by the female, the female productive principle. The subsequent interpretation given to the combined square and compasses was the transmutation from the hermetic talisman to the Masonic symbol.” 1 II. THE ESSENES. “The problem of the Essenes,” says De Quincey, “is the most important, and, from its mysteriousness, the most interesting, but the most difficult of all known historic problems.” 2 The current information upon this remarkable sect, to be found in ecclesiastical his- tories and Encyclopaedias, is derived from the short notices of Philo, Pliny, Josephus, Solinus, Porphyry, Eusebius, and Epiphanius. Of these seven witnesses, the first and third were Jewish philosophers; the second, fourth and fifth, heathen writers; and the last two, Christian church historians. 3 The cardinal doctrines and practices of the sect were as follows: They regarded the inspired Law of God with the utmost veneration. The highest aim of their life was to become the temples of the Holy Ghost, when they could prophesy, perform miraculous cures, and, like Elias, be the forerunners of the Messiah. This they regarded as the last stage of perfection, which could only be reached by gradual growth in holiness through strict observance of the law. They abstained from using oaths, because they regarded the invocation, in swearing, of anything which represents Gods glory, as a desecration. According to tradition, 4 there were four degrees of purity: 1. The ordinary purity required of every worshiper in the temple; 2. The higher degree of purity necessary for eating of the heave-offering; 3. The still higher degree requisite for partaking of the sacrifices; and 4. The degree of purity required of those who sprinkle the water absolving 1 Mackey, Encyclopedia (Talisman). 2 De Quincey, Essays (Secret Societies, and others), edit. 1863, Preface, p. 1. 3 C. D. Ginsburg, The Essenes: their History and Doctrines. 1864. In this Essay, of which the pre- liminary outline given in the text is a little more than an abridgment, the author not only presents the entire evidence, which is scattered over the works of the seven “stereotyped” witnesses, enumerated above, but also summarizes in chronological order the modern literature on Essenism; the works of twenty-one modern writers being carefully reviewed, from De Rossi, 1513-77, down to Milman, 1862. 4 1.e., Jewish tradition. Dr. Ginsburg takes the identity of the Essenes with the Chassidim as proved, and explains the classification of the former accordingly. THE ESSENES. 27 from sin. The first degree was obligatory upon every one — the other grades were volun- tary.' The strictness of their ceremonial law, thus rendered still more rigid by traditional explanations, ultimately led to their forming a separate community. They practised celi- bacy, although ‘‘weak brethren” were allowed to take wives, 2 which, however, debarred them from advancement to the highest orders of the brotherhood. There were no distinctions amongst them, and they had all things in common. They were governed by a president, who was elected by the whole body. Trials were conducted by juries, composed of at least a hundred members, who had to be unanimous in their verdict. They always got up before the sun rose, and never talked about any worldly matters until they had assembled and prayed together with their faces turned toward the sun. 8 Some occupied themselves with healing the sick, some in instructing the young; but all of them devoted certain hours to studying the mysteries of nature and revelation, and of the celestial hierarchy. At the fifth hour (or eleven o’clock a.m.) the labor of the forenoon terminated, and they partook of their common meal, each member taking his seat according to age. In the interval between labor and refreshment, they all assembled together, had a baptism in cold water, put on their white garments, the symbol of purity, and then made their way to the refectory, which they entered with as much solemnity as if it were the temple. During the meal a mysterious silence was observed, and at its close the members resumed their working clothes and their several employments until supper-time. Although everything was done under the directions of overseers, and the Essenes had even to receive their presents through the stewards, yet they might relieve the distressed, though they were not of the brotherhood, with as much money as they thought proper. The Sabbath was rigorously observed. Ten persons constituted a complete and legal number for divine worship; and in the presence of such an assembly an Essene would never spit, nor would he at any time spit to his right hand. They had no ordained min- isters, and the distinctive ordinances of the brotherhood, as well as the mysteries connected with the Tetragrammaton and the angelic worlds, were the prominent topics of Sabbatic instruction. Celibacy being the rule of Essenism, recruits were obtained from the Jewish commu- nity at large. Every grown-up candidate had to pass through a novitiate of two stages, which extended over three years, before he could be finally accepted. In the first, which lasted twelve months, he had to cast all his possessions into the common treasury, and 1 Hirschfeld, in his work on the Hagadic Exegesis (1847) affirms that “ some Neo-Platonic, Pytha- gorean, and Persian ideas found tiieir way among the Essenes, and brought with them some prac- tices and institutions which this brotherhood mixed up with the Jewish views of religion, and amongst which are to be classed their extension of the laws of purification ” (Gmsburg, p. 81). 2 This statement rests on the authority of Josephus, who, in his Jewish War (Book ii, chap, viii., § 18), says, that one set of Essenes allowed marriage, “trying their spouses for three years before marrying them.” But as in another work (Antiquities, Book xvii., chap. 1., § 5) he observes, “they never marry wives,” his evidence is hardly to be relied on, especially since all the other ancient writers who discuss the subject (Eusebius, Pliny, and Solinus) pronounce the Essenes to have been a celibate brotherhood. 3 “ There seems to have been grounded in this theosophy (of the Essenes; a certain veneration for the sun, which we have to explain from the intermingling of Parsee rather than of Platonic doc- trines” (Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church — Trans, by J. Torrey — 1831-58, vol. i., p. 58). 28 THE ESSENES. received a copy of the ordinances, as well as a spade / an apron, used at the lustrations, and a white robe, to put on at meals, being the symbols of purity. After this probation, lie was admitted into the second stage, which lasted two years, and was called an approaches. During this period he was admitted to a closer fellowship, and shared in the lustral rites, but could not hold any office or sit down at the common table. On passing through the second stage of probation, the approacher became an associate, or a full member of the society, when he was received into the brotherhood, and partook of the common meal. Before, however, he was made a homiletes, or finally admitted into close fellowship, he had to bind himself by a most solemn oath (this being the only occasion on which the Essenes used an oath), to observe three things: 1. Love to God ; 2. Merciful justice toward all men — to be faithful to every man, and especially to rulers; 2 and 3. Purity of character, which implied inter alia strict secresy toward outsiders, so as not to divulge the secret doctrines 3 (lavffrr/pia) to any one, and perfect openness with the members of the order. The three sections, consisting of candidate, approacher, and associate, were subdivided into four orders, distinguished from each other by superior holiness. From the beginning of the novitiate to the achievement of the highest spiritual state, there were eight different stages which marked the gradual growth in holiness. At the sixth of these the aspirant became the temple of the Holy Spirit, and could prophesy. Thence, again, he advanced (seven) to that stage in which he was enabled to perform miraculous cures and raise the dead. And finally, he attained (eight) to the position of Elias, the forerunner of the Messiah. It may fairly be questioned whether any religious system has ever produced such a community of saints; and it is therefore no wonder that Jews (of different sects), Greeks and Romans, Christian Church historians, and heathen writers have been alike constrained to lavish the most unqualified praise on this holy brotherhood. The assertion of Josephus that they “live the same kind of life ns do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans,” 4 has led some writers to believe that Essenism is the offspring of Pytliagorism. This view has been ably presented by Zeller in his celebrated “History of Philosophy,” but the points of resemblance he adduces are disposed of seriatim by Dr. Ginsburg, who proves that some did not exist, or, at least, rest upon very doubtful author- ity, e.g., that the Essenes worshipped the sun, believed in intermediate beings between the Deity and the world, and devoted themselves to magic arts (outside the boundaries of their miraculous cures) ; whilst others, such as the community of goods, the secresy about their institutions , 5 the symbolic representation of their doctrines, and allegorical interpretation of 1 See Dent, xxiii., 12-14. 2 Neander lays great stress on this inculcation, saying “they were particularly distinguished on account of their fidelity, so different from the seditious spirit of the Jews, in rendering fidelity to the magistrates” (General History cf the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 62). 3 “ Their whole secret lore can hardly be imagined to have consisted simply of ethical elements, but we are here forced to the supposition of a peculiar theosophy and pneumatology ” (Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 64). 4 Antiquities of the Jews, Book xv., chap, x., § 4. 5 We further learn from Josephus, that amongst the Essenes, before final acceptance and con- sequent admission to the common meal, a candidate was required to swear to forfeit his life rather than disclose the secrets of the brotherhood (Jewish War, Book ii., chap, viii., § 7); from Porphyry, that, “though meeting for the first time, the members of this sect at once salute each other as in- timate friends;” and from Philo, “that they philosophize on most things in symbols” (Essay, Every Virtuous Man is Free). THE ESSENES. 29 ancient traditions, he argues, were the natural result of their manner of life, and such as will naturally develop themselves among any number of enlightened men who devote themselves almost exclusively to a contemplative religious life. Dr. Ginsburg then proceeds to enumerate ten vital differences between the two brother- hoods, of which I give a few specimens. 1. The Pythagoreans were essentially polytheists; the Essenes were monotheistic Jews. 2. The Pythagoreans believed in the doctrine of metempsychosis — Pythagoras is said to halve interceded in behalf of a dog that was being beaten, because he recognized in its cries the voice of a departed friend — the Essenes believed in no such thing. 3. Pythagorism taiught that man can control his fortune; Essenism maintained that fate governs all tilings. 1 4. The Pythagoreans were an aristocratic and exclusive club, and excited an amount of jealousy and hatred which led to its destruction; the Essenes were meek and lowly, and so much beloved by those belonging to other sects that all joined in bestowing the highest praise upon them. In doctrine, as well as practice, the Essenes and the Pharisees were nearly alike. In both systems there were four classes of Levitical purity, a novitiate of twelve months, an apron was bestowed in the first year, and the mysteries of the cosmogony and cosmology were only revealed to members of the society. Stewards supplied the needy strangers of either order with clothing and food. Both regarded office as coming from God, and their meal as a sacrament. Both bathed before meals, and wore symbolic garments on the lower part of the body whilst so doing. Each meal began and ended with prayer. Both regarded ten persons as constituting a complete number for Divine worship, and none would spit to the right hand in the presence of such an assembly. Oaths were forbidden in both sects, though it is true that the Essenes alone uniformly observed the injunction as a sacred principle. The points of difference were the following:— The Essenes formed an isolated order, were celibates, did not frequent the temple or offer sacrifices, and, though believing in the immortality of the soul, they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. The identity of many of the precepts and practices of Essenism and Christianity is pointed out by Dr. Ginsburg, which, after all, we might naturally expect would be the case, when it is remembered that the former was founded on the Divine law of the Old Testament; but when he goes on to argue from the fact that Christ, with the exception of once, was not heard of in public till his thirtieth year; and though he frequently rebuked the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, he never denounced the Essenes — that he lived in seclusion as a member of this fraternity, — the inference he draws is one which the actual facts do not substantiate. Our Saviour remained with His parents, and was obedient in all things, until His public ministration. 2 The precise date when this order of Judaism first developed itself has not yet been ascertained, nor from the nature of things is it likely that it ever will. In looking through the accounts of this sect, which are given by ancient writers, three only, says Dr. Ginsburg, are independent ones, namely — Philo’s, Josephus’s, and Pliny’s. This is no 1 Here again the evidence of Josephus is very contradictory. He says, in his Antiquities, Book xiii., chap. v. : “ The sect of the Essenes affirm that fate governs all things;” and in Book xviii., chap. i. : “ The doctrine of the Essenes is this — that all things are best ascribed to God.” ■ Graetz maintains that Jesus simply appropriated to himself the essential features of Essenism, and that primitive Christianity was nothing but an offshoot from Essenism (Geschiclite der Juden, 1S63, vol. iii., pp. 216-253). 30 THE ESSENES. doubt correct as regards the appearance of the Essenes on the field of history, but not, as I shall show later on, with respect to their disappearance. To deal first of all with their antiquity; according to Philo, the “fellowship” was insti- tuted by Moses; but we need concern ourselves very little with this estimate, since, in the first place, the treatise from which it is quoted (“Apology for the Jews”), as Graetz has shown, is evidently one of the many apocryphal writings fathered upon the J ewish- Alexan- drian philosopher ; 1 and in the second, it would seem that the tracing of this brotherhood to the Jewish lawgiver, is in accordance with the practice among the Jews, of ascribing the origin of every law, mystical doctrine or system, which ever came into vogue, either to Ezra, Moses, Noah, or Adam . 2 Pliny informs us — “Toward the west (of the Dead Sea) are the Essenes. They are a hermitical society, marvellous beyond all others throughout the whole earth. They live without any women, without money, and in the company of palm trees. Their ranks are daily made up by multitudes of new comers who resort to them, and who, being weary of life, and driven by the surges of ill-fortune, adopt their manner of life . 3 Thus it is that, through thousands of ages (per sceculorum millia), incredible to relate, this people prolongs its existence without any one being born among them, so fruitful to them are tie weary lives of others. ” 4 Josephus expresses himself in very general terms, saying that they existed “ever since the ancient time of the fathers,” 6 although, as he claims to have been himself successively a Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene, more precise information might have been expected from him . 6 It will be seen that all the preceding statements conform to the universal custom of ascribing a time-honored antiquity to every religious or philosophical system. Their actual existence, however, under the name of Essenes, is sufficiently attested by Josephus 7 (if his testimony can be relied on) as to render it quite clear that they were in 1 Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 1863, p. 464. 2 Ginsburg, The Essenes: their History and Doctrines, p. 36. The Carmelites, who were really founded in the beginning of the thirteenth century, on Mount Carmel, claim, however, to have originated with Elijah, and to have continued, through the Sons cf the Prophets, Rechabites, and tie Essenes, to the present time. Together with the extravagant pretensions of many other sects, tais has been effectually demolished by Papebrochius. 3 Much of Pliny’s description would apply, mutatis mutandis, to a noted secret society in Japan, r.ow extinct or in abeyance, viz., that of the Komoso. This fraternity served as a refuge to any per- son who had committed a deed of bloodshed, or otherwise offended, so as to render it necessary for 1 im to leave his own district. After due examination, if it appeared that this crime was not of a disgraceful nature (adultery, burglary, or theft), he was received into the society, and bound by oath rot to reveal its rites and ceremonies. No women were admitted, and travelling Komoso challenged cue another by signs. (From an article in the Japan Weekly Mail, August 30, 1879, by Mr. T. M. IFLatchie.) 4 Natural History, Book v., chap. xvii. 5 Antiquities, Book xviii, chap, i., § 2. 6 “ When I was about sixteen years old I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were smongst us. These sects are three— the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; for I thought lhat by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all” (Autobiography, Whiston’s Josephus, p. i.). 1 Antiquities, Book xiii., chaps, v., viii., xi., § 2; Jewish War, Book i., chap, iii., § 5. Apart from the contradictions into which he stumbles with regard to the Essenes, can any reader lay down the 30 THE ESSENES. doubt correct as regards the appearance of the Essenes on the field of history, but not, sm I shall show later on, with respect to their disappearance. To deal first of all with their antiquity; according to Philo, the “fellowship” was inst, tuted by Moses; but we need concern ourselves very little with this estimate, since, in tl first place, the treatise from which it is quoted (“Apology for the Jews”), as Graetz ha . shown, is evidently one of the many apocryphal writings fathered upon the Jewish- A loxar drian philosopher ; 1 and in the second, it would seem that: the* tracing of this brotherhood v the Jewish lawgiver, is in accordance with the practice among the Jews, of ascribing tl. origin of every law, mystical doctrine or system, which ever came into vogue, either fi*» Ezra, Moses, Noah, or Adam." Pliny informs us — “Toward the west (of the Dead Sea) are the Essenes. They- are a hermitical society, marvellous beyond all others throughout the whole earth. They liv * without any women, without money, and in the company of palm trees. Their ran . ,, ar daily made up by multitudes of new comers who resort to 'them, and who, being ;ar of life, and driven by the surges of ill-fortune, adopt their manner of life.' Thu,, it • that, through thousands of ages (per smulorum miUia), incredible to relui , - people prolongs its existence without anyone being born among them, so fruitful : ■ 1 m a ire the weary lives of others .” 4 Josephus expresses himself in very general terms, saying -that they existed 'ever the ancient time of the fathers,” 6 although, as he claims to have been himself success a Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene, more precise information might have been » . from him . 8 It will be seen that all the preceding statements conform to the universal custon A ascribing a time-honored antiquity to every religious or philosophical system. Their actual existence, however, under the name of Essence, is sufficiently attested by Josephus 7 (if his testimony can be relied on) as to render it quite clear that they -were in 1 Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 1863, p. 464. a Ginsburg, The Essenes: their History and Doctrines, p. 36. The Carmelites, who were really founded in the beginning of the thirteenth century, on Mount Carmel, claim, however, to have originated with Elijah, land to have continued, through the Sons of the Prophets, Re«-habites, and the Essenes, to the present time.. Together with the extravagant pretensions of many other sects, this has been effectually demolished by Papebrochius. 3 Much of Pliny’s description would apply, mutatis mutandis , to a noted secret society in Japan, now extinct or in abeyance, viz., that of the Komoso. This fraternity served as a refuge to any per- son who had committed a deed of bloodshed, or otherwise offended, so as to render it necessary for him to leave his own district. A filer due examination, if it appeared that this crime was not of a • not to reveal its rites and ceremonies. No wbrnen were admitted, and travelling Komosd challenged one another by signs. (From an article in the Japan Weekly Mail, August 30, 1879, by Mr. T. M. M'Latchie.) 4 Natural History, Book v., chap. xvii. * Antiquities, Book xviii, chap. i. , § 2. « “ When I was about sixteen years old I had a mind to make trial Of the several sect s, that were amongst us. These sects are three — the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes; for I thong; that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I center * m yself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all” (Autobiography, Whiston’s Josephus, p. i.). 7 Antiquities, Book xiii., chaps, v., vim, xi., § 2; Jewish War. Book i., chap, iii., § 5. Apart from the contradictions into which he stumbles with regard to the Essenes, can any reader lay down the THE ESSENES. 3i being at least two centuries before the Christian era, and that they at first lived amongst the Jewish community at large. Their residence at Jerusalem is also evident from the fact that there was a gate named after them. “When they ultimately withdrew,” says Dr. Ginsburg, “from the rest of the Jewish nation, a majority of them settled on the north- west shore of the Dead Sea, and the rest lived in scattered communities throughout Palestine and Syria. Both Philo and Josephus estimated their number at above four thousand. This must have been exclusive of women and children. We hear very little of them after this period (i.e., 40 a. d .); 1 and there can hardly be any doubt that, owing to the great similarity which existed between their precepts and practices and those of the primitive Christians, the Essenes, as a body, must have embraced Christianity The derivation of the name, Essenes, was not known to Philo and Josephus, and there is hardly an expression the etymology of which has evoked such a diversity of opinion. The G-reek and the Hebrew, the Syriac and the Chaldee, names of persons and names of places, have successively been tortured to confess the secret connected with this appella- tion. Twenty different explanations of it are quoted by Dr. Ginsburg, from which I extract the following: Epiphanius calls the sect Ossenes , the stout or strong race; Jesseans ; and Simseans, probably from the Hebrew Shemesh, Sun , i.e., Sun-worsliippers. By De Rossi, Herzfeld, and Bellarman, they are considered identical with the Baithusians. Salmasius derives the name from Essa, a. town beyond the Jordan. A very large number of writers adopt the description of the contemplative Essenes or Therapeutce, ascribed to Philo, which, however, has nothing whatever to do with the real Palestinian Essenes. The hr east -plate of the Jewish High Priest (Essen) is suggested by others as having fur- nished the etymon availed of by Josephus. But the difficulty which perplexed Christian writers, arising from the fact that the Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, did not affect Jewish scholars. Assum- ing this appellation to be a corruption of an Aramaic word, they searched the Talmud and Midrashim, chiefly written in Aramaic. Rappaport, styled by Dr. Ginsburg the “Cory- pheus of Jewish critics,” readily discovered that what Philo and Josephus describe as peculiarities of the Essenes, tallies with what the Mishna, the Talmud, and the Midrashim record of the Chassidim, and that they are most probably the so-called old believers, who are also described in the Talmud as the holy community in Jerusalem J This idea was followed up in 1846 by Frankel, who contends that the Essenes are frequently mentioned in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrashim as the original Assideans , i.e., Chassidim, the associates, those who have enfeebled their bodies through much study, the retired ones, the holy congregation in Jerusalem, and hemerobaptists . 3 The Chassidim constituted one of the three chief Jewish sects, of which the other two works of Josephus without being painfully reminded by the concluding sentence of his “Wars of the Jews” of a similar asseveration of veracity, by the famous Baron Munchausen? 1 This and the next following statement are hardly characterized by Dr. Ginsburg’s usual accu- racy. The historian Josephus, upon whom he chiefly relies, was not born until 37 a.d. His books of the Jewish War were published about a.d. 75, and the Antiquities about eighteen years later — viz., a.d. 93. The ultimate dispersion of the Essenes will be presently discussed, though it may be here stated that they still existed as a sect in the days of Epiphanius, who died a.d. 403. 2 Hebrew An n ual ( Bikure Ha-Ittim), Vienna, 1829, vol. x., p. 118; Ginsburg, The Essenes: their History and Doctrines, p. 70. 4 Frankel, Zeitschrift fur die religiosen Intercssen des Judenthums, vol. viii., pp. 441—461. 32 THE ESSENES. were the Hellenists and Maccabeans. Jewish writers 1 have concluded that when the multitude grew lax in the observance of the law, and when the religion of their fathers w r as in imminent danger, it was natural that those who feared the Lord should separate themselves more visibly from their Ilellenizing brethren, unite together by special ties to keep the ordinances, and hedge themselves in more securely by the voluntary imposition of works of supererogation, thus becoming an organized sect characterized by the special name Chassidim , in a peculiar and sectarian sense. That this old sect should first come before us so late as the time of Judas Maccabasus, and unite themselves with him, they consider is owing to the fact that they found in him an earnest defender of the ancient faith. In process of time their principles became too narrow, and they split up into two divi- sions, the Essenes 2 who insisted upon the rigid observance of the old laws and customs, and devoted themselves to a contemplative life, whilst the moderate party retained the name of Chassidim. Having proceeded so far, mainly under the guidance of Dr. Ginsburg, three leading points appear worthy of our further examination. 1. The first appearance of the Essenes on the field of history. 2. Their disappearance. And 3. Their origin or derivation. These will be considered in their order. 1. Philo, Pliny, and Josephus all agree in ascribing to the sect what by Masonic writers would be termed a “time-immemorial” antiquity, and its ancestry, therefore, will only be subject to historic curtailment, in the event of satisfactory proof being forthcoming, of its identity with the Chassidim. This question we shall approach a little later, and I shall now proceed with some general remarks bearing upon the distinctive usages of the brotherhood. According to Creuzer, The Colleges of Essenes and Megabyzse at Ephesus, the Orphics of Thrace, and the Curetes of Crete are all branches of one antique and common religion, and that originally Asiatic. 3 Mr. King says, “the priests of the Ephesian Diana ivere called Essenes, or Hessenes — from the Arabic Hassan, pure — in virtue of the strict chastity they were sworn to observe during the twelvemonth they held that office. Such asceticism is entirely an Indian institution, and was developed fully in the sect flourishing undei the same name around the Dead Sea, and springing from the same root as the mysterious reli- gion at Ephesus.” 4 This writer discerns the evidence of Buddhistic origin in the doctrines of the “Ophites, or serpent worshippers, a Gnostic sect which assumed a definite existence about the middle of the second century. The promulgation of these Indian tenets from a source so remote —an apparently insurmountable objection— is thus explained: “The Essenes, or Hessenes, Buddhist monks in every particular, were established on the shores of the Dead Sea for thousands of ages’ before Pliny’s times.” 6 Mr. King then cites the habits of the priests of 1 Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, 3d edit., 1862, p. 475 (C. L. Ginsburg). 2 The distinction is thus alluded to in the Babylonian Talmud: “He who gives away all his prop- erty to benevolent purposes, and thereby reduces himself to beggary, is a foolish Chasid ” (Ibid.). J 3 Symbolik, vol iv., p. 433. Matter concurs in this view except as to the Asiatic origin of the doctrine (Hist. Crit. Du Gnost., vol i., p. 134). 4 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, pp. 1-3, 171. 3 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 22. Against this view may be brought forward the greater authority of Neander, who says: “It would lead to the greatest mistakes if, from the resem- blance of religious phenomena where relationship can be traced to the common ground of origin in the essence of the human mind itself, we should be ready to infer their outward derivation one from THE ESSENES. 33 Diana, who “ were forbidden to enter the baths,” and observes, “ that in all religions ema- nating from the East, personal dirtiness has ever been the recognized outward and visible sign of inward purity; fully exemplified in fakirs, dor vises, and mediaeval saints.” 1 Although bathing was a leading feature of J ewisli Essenism, in some other respects the habits of members of this sect, if we may credit Josephus and Porphyry, conformed very strictly with the condition of body common to the Oriental religionists. The former of these writers assures us, and the latter copies him, “ that they change neither garments nor shoes till they are worn out, or made unfit by time. ” 2 Leaving undecided the question of origin, it may, however, be fairly assumed that Essenism having once made its appearance, received into itself many foreign elements, and the opinion of Neander, “ that it adopted the old Oriental, Parsee, and Chaldean notions,” has been very generally accepted. 3 2. What ultimately became of the Essenes is pure matter of conjecture, and in the attempted solution of this problem the speculations which connect them with other and biter systems have their source. They are to be traced down to about a. d. 400, after which they fade away into obscurity. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia and metropolitan of Cyprus, who was born in Palestine early in the fourth century and died a. d. 402, alludes several times to them in his celebrated work, “ Against the Heretics.” The first notice is as follows: “The Essenes continue in their first position, and have not altered at all. According to them there have been some dissensions among the Gor- thenes, in consequence of some difference of opinion which has taken place among them — I mean among the Sebuens, Essenes, and Gorthenes. 4 Epiphanius again speaks of them under the title, against the Ossenes, viz.: “Next follow the Essenes, who were cAsely connected with the former sect. They, too, are Jews, hypocrites in their demeanor, and peculiar people in their conceits. They originated, according to the traditions which I received, in the regions of Nabatea, Itruria, Moabitis, and Antilis. The name Ossenes, according to its etymology, signifies the stout race. A certain person named Elxai joined them at the time of the Emperor Trajan, who was a false prophet. He had a brother named Jeeus who . . . did not live according to the Mosaic law, but introduced quite different things, and misled his own sect. . . . He joined the sect of the Ossenes, of which some remnants are still to be found in the same regions of Nabatea and Perea, toward Moabitis. These people are now called Simseans .” In a foot-note, Dr. Ginsburg explains that “this name (Simseans) may be derived from the Hebrew Shemesh (sun), and was most probably given to the Essenes because of the erroneous notion that they worshipped the Sun.” b the other. How much that is alike may not be found in comparing the phenomena of Brahminism and of Buddhism, with those of the sect of Baghards, in the Middle Ages, when the impossibility of any such derivation is apparent to everybody” (Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 59). 1 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 24. 2 Josephus, Jewish War, Book ii., chap, viii., § 4. It is possible that the purifications of the Es- senes were to a considerable extent mechanical ? 3 Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i., p. 58. 4 Epiphanii, Opera Omnia (Colon), 1862, vol. i., ord. x., p. 28, and ord. xix., p. 39; Ginsburg, The Essenes: their History and Doctrines, pp. 56-58. 6 This suggestion— virtually accepting the fact deposed to by Epiphanius— is quite irreconcilable with his previous observation, implying that shortly after 400 a.d. the Essenes must have embraced Christianity. 34 THE ESSENES. 3. Conjectural etymology rarely attains to actual demonstration. In tlie present instance the very learned and sagacious derivations which Rappaport and Frenkel have supplied, although supported by internal evidence of a weighty character, are, nevertheless, suffi- ciently dependent upon so large an array of etymons, homonyms, and synonyms, as to excite our admiration at their skilful arrangement, without entirely satisfying our judgment that, in investigating backward through the corruptions of many thousand years, the primary forms have been discerned which lay buried beneath them. 1 Our doubts gain strength when we consider that, in Eastern countries, the perfection of language outstripped tlie refinement of manners; and that “the speech of Arabia could diversify the fourscore names of honey, the two hundred of a serpent, the five hundred of a lion, the thousand of a sword, at a time when this copious dictionary was entrusted to the memory of an illiterate people. ” 2 Krause finds in the earliest Masonic ritual, which he dates at a.d. 936 (from being mentioned in the “York Constitutions” 3 of that year), evidence of customs “obviously taken from the usages of the Roman Colleges and other sources, that individually agree with the customs and doctrines of the Essenes, Stoics, and the Soofees of Persia.” 4 This writer draws especial attention to the “ agreement of the brotherhood of the Essenes, with the chief doctrines which the Culdees associated with the three great lights of the Lodge.” 5 lie then observes “that though coincidences, without any actual connection, are of little value, yet, if it can be historically proved that the one society knew of the other, the case is altered.” Having, then, clearly established (at least to his own satisfaction) that the Culdees were the authors of the 936 constitutions, he next argues that they knew of and copied in many respects the Essenes and TherapeutaB; after which he cites Philo in order to establish that the three fundamental doctrines of the Essenes were Love of God, Love of Virtue, and Love of Mankind. These he compares with the phases of moral conduct, symbolized in our lodges by the Bible, square, and compasses; and, as he assumes that the “Three Great Lights” have always been the same, and argues all through his book that Freemasonry has inherited its tenets or philosophy from the Culdees, the doctrinal parallel which he has drawn of the two religious systems becomes, from his point of view, of the highest interest. Connecting in turn the Essenes with the Soofees of Persia, Krause still further lengthens the Masonic pedigree. Although the Soofee tenets are involved in mystery, they had secrets and mysteries for every gradation, which were never revealed to the profane. 0 But there seems reason to believe that their doctrine “involved the grand idea of one universal creed which could be secretly held under any profession of an outward faith; and, in fact, took virtually the same view of religious systems as that in which the ancient philosophers had regarded such matters.” 7 1 As a complete knowledge of Rabbinical Hebrew is possessed by comparatively few, the conclu- sions of Rappaport and Frenkel must be regarded as ‘ ‘ the traditions of experts, to be taken by the outside world on faith,” unless we go to the other extreme, and accept the dictum of Professor Seeley (History and Politics, Macmillan’s Magazine, August 1879), that, in the study of history, “we should hold very cheap these conjectural combinations, and steadfastly bear in mind that we are concerned with facts, and not with possibilities.” 2 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ix., p. 240. 3 Krause, Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden, Book i., part i., p. 117. 4 See next chapter (No. 51). 6 Ibid., Book i., part ii., p. 358. 6 Malcolm, History of Persia, 1829, vol. ii., p. 281. 7 King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 185. “In our day the admission of an universal THE ESSENES. 35 “Traces of the Soofee doctrine/’ says Sir John Malcolm, “exist, in some shape or other, in every region of the world. It is to be found in the most splendid theories of the ancient schools of Greece, and of the modern philosophers of Europe. It is the dream of the most ignorant and of the most learned. ” 1 It remains to be noticed that, by one writer, the introduction of Essenism into Britain has been actually described, and the argumentative grounds on which this speculation is based, afford, perhaps, not an unfair specimen of the ordinary reasoning which has linked the principles of this ancient sect with those of more modern institutions. Mr. Herbert contends , 2 that St. Germanus, on his visits to England, for the purpose of extirpating the Pelagian heresy, found that the doctrines which Pelagius had imbibed from the Origenists, were, as far as they went, agreeable to those Britons among whom the notions of Druidism still lingered, or were beginning to revive; but they had been framed by him in the form and character of a Christian sect, and did not include the heathenish portion of Origenism, though the latter were so far identical with Druidism, that both were modifications of Pythagorism . 3 Germanus reproved the "Pelagians, and prevailed upon them to give an apparent assent to principles, which, equally with themselves, he had opposed. While, by a secret organi- zation, he enabled them to carry to its ultimate conclusion a system of which mere exoteric Pelagianism had barely uttered the first preluding notes. By a fusion of the various heathen mysteries, with the language, names, and forms of Christianity, one great mundane empire, Romano-Scythic, might be constructed politically, and animated morally. Thus Britain became the capital seat and centre of this great u crasis ” or “ syncretismus,” of the great union, of the great secret of secrets; and through the channels of secret knowledge, became known to the very ends of the earth as such. In this attempted “ crasis,” Judaism was an important ingredient. Those Jews, whose Prophets joined with Julian in Pagan rites, could only be the Essenes. The jealous perse- cution which Valens carried on in Syria against all the mystics and magicians whom Julian had patronized, must probably have ruined the affairs of that sect, and dislodged them from their ancient coenobium at Engaddi 4 by Zoar. The knowledge of their subsequent movements, Mr. Herbert frankly admits to be a desideratum, but goes on to say that Attila, who he identifies with King Arthur of Britain , 5 in his kingly style, after enumera- religion by the Freemasons, expressed by their requisition from the candidate of nothing more than an acknowledgment of the belief in one God, is regarded with pious horror by the bigots of every variety in the Christian scheme” (Ibid.). 1 Malcolm, History of Persia, vol. ii., p. 267. 2 Algernon Herbert, Britannia after the Romans, 1836, vol. i., pp. 120-125; vol. ii., pp. 75-92. 3 The description of the Essenes given in Laurie’s History of Freemasonry, 1804 (pp. 33-89), has been followed for the most part in later Masonic works. It was based mainly on Basnage’s History of tiie Jews, Book ii. Of this last writer Dr. Ginsburg says, he mistook the character of the Essenes, and confounds the brotherhood with the Therapeutas, hence asserting that, “they borrowed several superstitions from the Egyptians, among whom they retired” (p. 66). “Pliny states, “Below this people (the Essenes), was formerly the town of Engadda (Engedi)."— Natural History, Book v., chap. xvii. 5 “Is it credible that two miraculous sword-bearers should have thought, or even feigned, to spring up, conquer Europe, successively assail and shake the Roman Empire, return home, and perish, under circumstances so similar, and with so close a synchronism ? ” (Herbert, Britannia after the Romans, vol. l. , p. 120). Mr. Herbert adds: “I do not believe that two beings so similar and consistent as the Hunn and the pretended Briton were thus brought into juxtaposition without the idea of identifying them ” (Ibid. , p. 125). THE ROMAN COLLEGIA. 3 6 ting various nations over whom he reigneu, averred himself to he “ descended from Nimrod the Great, and nursed in Engaddi.” As his original nurture had been among people exceeding the other barbarians in rude- ness and ferocity, equally unacquainted with the huntsman King of Babel, and with the Pythagoreans of Palestine, the only possible meaning his words can bear is, according to Mr. Herbert, “ that he was instructed in the mysteries of the Essenians, and valued them upon a par with his highest titles of sovereignty. When the Arthurian, that is Attilane, island received the crown and sceptre of David, the magic wand of Moses, etc., we are clearly to understand that it became the new Engaddi, and the residence of the chief Essene lodge .” 1 III. THE ROMAN COLLEGIA . 2 The question as to how far the laws and institutions of mediaeval Europe have been founded upon and modified by those of Imperial Rome, is a subject which has been long debated with vast learning and ability, but which has never yet been satisfactorily netci- mined, nor, from the nature of things, is it probable that it ever will. It will be sufficient in this place to observe that for several hundred years before the Teutonic invasion of the Empire, the territorial area overspread by the barbarians was, to a great extent, conter- minous with the imperial frontiers. The line of demarcation separating the two races was of the most shadowy character. Of necessity there was much intercourse between them, and it is therefore fairly deducible that as the Goths and other neighboring peoples o-radually acquired some of the characteristics of civilization, Roman laws and customs must, in some qualified form, have been introduced among them. Consequently, when they appeared on Roman soil as conquerors, they possessed many institutions which, though apparently original, Avere in reality only modified and imperfect reproductions of the old usages of the Empire. To this it must bo added, that the Roman influence over Germany was much more extensive than has been generally supposed. The defeat of Varus by Arminius by no means excluded the Romans from the right bank of the Rhino, and dur- ino- the most flourishing period of the Empire, its dominion extended not only OA r ei the greater part of what is now the Austrian realm, but reached with more or less vigor and nerfection from the Rhine to the Elbe , 3 and, in point of fact, comprehended neaily the whole of Germany proper . 4 1 Mr. Herbert observes: “The result proved is, that the Neo-Diuids, oi Appol inai es Mystici, sought the alliance of the great barbarian, during the life and nominal reign of Gwrtheyrn, secietly acknowledged the mysteries of his daemon sword; and beheld in him a re-incarnation of Hen-Valen, or Belenus the Ancient, of Mithras the robber and Huntsman, the spirit of the sun (Britannia after the Romans, vol. i., p. 124). 2 The leading authorities upon whom I have relied in the following sketch are: Heineccius, De Collegiis et Corporibvs Opificvm, Opera omnia, Geneva, 1766, vol. ii. , pp. 368-418; J. F. Massman, Libellus Aurarius, Leipsic, 1840, pp. 74-85; Smith, Diet, of Antiquities, titles, Collegium, So- cietas,” “ Universitas;” H. C. Coote, The Romans of Britain, 1878, pp. 383-413. The precision ob- served by Massman is very remarkable — no less than forty-five foot-notes appealing on a single page (78). 3 Frederick the Great in his “ Histoire de Mon Temps,” vol. i., mentions numerous Roman coins having been found near Berlin, and concludes that the site where these were discovered must have formed an advanced post of the Roman forces stationed west of the Elbe. 4 “At the end of the fourth century, the Roman Empire still kept, in name at least, its old position. THE ROMAN COLLEGIA. 37 It admits, indeed, of no doubt that throughout Italy, Spain, and France the invaders gradually adopted the language and the religion of the conquered, and that they respected the laws and arts of Rome . 1 Rut it has been alleged that the Roman occupation of Britain was very superficial, and had not brought about so complete a Romanization of the country as had taken place in Gaul and Spain . 2 Yet this point is of minor importance if we believe, with Mr. Freeman, that the barbarians made a tabula rasa of Roman Britain, leaving therein neither the Romans nor their coloni. This, until lately, has been, with but slight variation, the concurrent opinion of our antiquaries. Dr. Lingard says, — “By the conquest of the Saxons the island was plunged into that state of barbarism from which it had been extricated by the Romans .” 3 Ilallam expresses himself in almost identical terms, viz., “No one travelling through England would discover that any people had ever inhabited it before the Saxons, save so far as mighty Rome has left traces of her empire in some enduring walls. ” 4 By a recent writer, however, it has been ably contended that the “ Romans of Britain survived all the barbarian conquests, and that they retained their own law, with its pro- cedure and police; their own lands, with the tenures and obligations appertaining to them; their own cities and municipal government; their Christianity and private Colleges.” B “ All Roman cities,” says Mr. Coote, “were the foster-mothers of those especially Roman institutions— the Colleges. The Anglo-Saxons found these institutions in full play when they came over here; and, with the cities in which they flourished, they left them to the Romans to make such use of them as they pleased; possibly ignoring them, certainly not interfering in their practice, nor controlling their principles. These Colleges were very dear to the Romans. They were native to the great mother city. They were nearly as old as municipality itself, and it was as easy to imagine a Roman without a city as to conceive his existence without a college. The two made up that part of his disengaged life which was not claimed by home and the domestic avocations. No sooner was the Roman conquest of Britain begun, and a modicum of territory was obtained, than we find a collegium in our own civitas Regnorum—a collegium fa br or uml And this was while Claudius was still emperor. The colleges of course multiplied and spread throughout • • Egypt was a Roman province at one end; Britain was a Roman province at the other ”(E. A. Freeman in Macmillan’s Magazine, April 1870). 1 Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, 1867, vol. i., p. 11. 2 Ibid., p. 19. 3 Dr. J. Lingard, History of England, 1849, vol. i. , p. 84. 4 Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, 1856, vol. ii., p. 870. Lappenberg, however, speaking of the Roman corporations, says,— “This form of social unions, as well as the hereditary obligation under which the trades were conducted, was propagated in Britain, and was the original germ of those guilds which became so influential in Europe some centuries after the cessation of the Roman dominion.”— History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (trans. by B. Thorpe, 1845), vol. i. p. 86. 6 H. C. Coote, The Romans of Britain, 1878, p. 440. Mr. Coote’s theory, amplified in the work just cited, was first published in the Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, vol. iv. (Jan. 1871), p. 21. 6 Coote, The Romans of Britain, 1878, pp. 383, 396. According to Dallaway, “ the first notice that occurs of an associated body of artificers, Romans, who had established themselves in Britain, is a votive inscription, in which the college of Masons dedicate a temple to Neptune and Minerva, and the safety of the family of Claudius Caesar” (Historical Account of Master and Freemason, 1833, p. 401). See, however, Horsfield, Llistory of Sussex, vol. i., p. 41, which gives the inscription in its existing state; Horsley, Britannia Romana, p. 332, for the restoration by Roger Gale, which has been adopted by Dallaway; Coote, p. 396, note 1; and pp. 41 (note 2) ante, and 44, post. 38 THE ROMAN COLLEGIA . our island, remaining during the whole of the imperial rule, and surviving, with onr provincial ancestors, the various barbarian conquests.” “When these conquests were completed, the Anglo-Saxons, who, unlike their brethren of Germany, did not interfere with the habits of the vanquished, left their new subjects to the possession and enjoyment of this most powerful means of self-protection. As the German conquerors of Gaul and Italy, who feared and hated the colleges, prohibited their very existence under the harshest penalties, because they knew them to be seminaries of free Roman thought ,' we must suppose that this leniency of the Anglo-Saxon arose either out of ignorance of their tendency, or contempt of their effect. But whatever was the ground of this toleration, it is quite clear that the colleges, though under another name, con- tinued to exist and maintain themselves. “They are masqued, it is true, under the barbarous name of gild when our historic notices begin to tell us of them. This trivial word, due to the contributions upon which the colleges had from all time subsisted, betrays their constitution; and we find them also where we ought to expect them— in the Roman cities of Britain. ” 2 The view just presented — characterized by the learned author of the “ Norman Conquest of England” as “ very ingenious but very fallacious” 3 — has been further examined by Mr. Freeman in some slighter historical sketches published in 1870. 4 Contrasting the English settlement in Britain with the Teutonic settlements which took place in the continental provinces of Rome; “ elsewhere,” he says, “the conquerors and the conquered mingled; the fabric of Roman society was not wholly overthrown; the laws, the speech, the religion of the elder time went on, modified, doubtless, but never utterly destroyed. In Britain a great gulf divides us from everything before our own coming. Our laws and language have in later times been greatly modified, but they were modified, not at the hands of the con- quered Britons, but at the hands of the conquering Normans. Elsewhere, in a word, the old heritage, the old traditions of Rome, still survive; here they are things of the dead past, objects only of antiquarian curiosity.” 5 Any opinion expressed by so renowned a historian as Mr. Freeman must carry with it great weight, yet, if we disregard authority and content ourselves with an examination of the arguments by which this writer and Mr. Coote have supported their respective posi- tions, many unsatisfied doubts will obtrude themselves, as we incline to the reception of either one or the other of the theories which these champions have advanced. The conclusions at which Mr. Coote arrives are, indeed, to some extent at least, sup- ported by the authority of Mr. Toulmin Smith and Dr. Brentano, who have placed on record their belief that “English gilds are of English origin,” 0 although it must be admitted that by neither of these writers has the origin of guilds been traced to the Romano-Britons. Still, it is difficult to believe that institutions so closely resembling the later associations as did the colleges of the empire, exercised no influence whatever upon the laws and civilization of our Saxon or English conquerors. 7 1 It will be observed that this argument is designed to prove the greater probability of a direct descent from colleges to guilds — in Britain than elsewhere. 2 Coote, the Romans in Britain, pp. 396, 397. 3 Vol. v., p. 887. 4 Freeman, The Origin of the English Nation, Macmillan’s Magazine, 1870, vol. xxi., pp. 415, 509. 5 Ibid., p. 536. 6 English Gilds, p. 25; History and Development of Gilds, 1870 (additional notes), p. ix. 7 Coote, p. 411; B. Thorpe, Diplomatarium Anglicum, 1865, Preface, p. xvi. ; and J. M. Kemble, The Saxons in England. 1849. vol, i., p. 238. THE ROMAN COLLEGIA . 39 From one point of view, indeed, it is immaterial whether if the guilds are a continu- ation of the colleges, they came to us direct or were imported from Germany or Gaul. By the majority of translators or commentators we find the Roman associations described as guilds or companies, and the former appellation is used in marginal notes by both Sir F. Palgrave and Mr. Spence in connection with disquisitions on the collegia appearing in the texts of their respective works . 1 Yet before passing from the special to the general subject, a few remarks on the early civilization of Britain appear necessary. It has been argued that the laws, customs, and institutions of this country, whose similarity with those of Rome prior to the Norman Conquest has hardly been denied, were resemblances only; and however much they had cost the Roman mind in a long and painful exercise, they were in this instance, and so far as England is concerned, the philosophical outcome, the unaided development of a few generations of outer barbarians, who, from the absolute non-intercourse between the empire and themselves, could only have imported into Britain Germanic usages, for they had nothing else to bring with them . 2 This theory has derived its main support from the belief (already referred to) that the Romano-Britons were entirely destroyed or exterminated by the bands of pirates which, in the fifth and sixth centuries, came hither from the North Sea and the Baltic; that all forms of government, all laws and customs, all arts and civilization, traceable in this country subsequently to these invasions, were the direct importation of the invaders, or were developed out of such importation . 3 I shall hardly be expected to debate the whole problem of the origin of guilds, but it is nevertheless desirable to further consider whether this popular belief is one to which we should be justified in giving in our adhesion . 4 * Mr. Coote thinks that “the populations of the eastern and middle parts of Britain were Teu- tonic at the epoch of the imperial conquests, and that after the barbarian invasions, the public and private law , 6 the usages and civilization of the lost empire, sheltered in the ark of the cities , 0 preserved their vital and active forces. ” Upon the point we are now considering, Mr. Pike has established a good claim to be accepted as an authority. By this conscientious historian, it has been observed, “that the priority of any of the three forms of guild becomes a mere matter of conjecture, and the source of the whole system must necessarily remain doubtful. Regarded from one point of view, the guild has a strong resemblance to the family tie of the Teutonic and other barbarous tribes; regarded from another, it is a species of bail, which involves a prin- ciple too universally applied to be considered characteristic of any one people; regarded from a third, it is strikingly like that institution of colleges or companies which was always familiar to the Romans, and which we know from inscriptions to have existed in Britain 1 F. Palgrave, Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, vol. i., p. 331; G. Spence, An Inquiry into the Origin of the Laws and Political Institutions of Modern Europe, 1826, p. 21. 2 Coote, The Romans in Britain, pp. 441, 447. 3 Ibid, p. 2. 4 See The Romans in Britain, passim. 6 Selden, one of the most profound writers on the history of mediaeval law, says, however, that the Roman Law disappeared from England, until re-introduced in the twelfth century by the influ- ence of the School of Bologna (Dissertatio ad Fletam, c. 7). 6 Kemble says,— •“ In the third century, Marcianus reckons, unfortunately without naming them, fifty-nine celebrated cities in Britain” (The Saxons in England, vol. ii., p. 268). Cf. Gildas, Nennius and Beda. 40 THE ROMAN COLLEGIA. during the Roma^ occupation, both in the form of the religious guild and in the form of the craft guild.” “It would be possible, indeed, to elaborate a very plausible argument for the develop- ment of the whole guild system out of Roman institutions rather than out of the family tie of the Germans. This, indeed, might have come to pass by two wholly distinct processes — either through a tradition handed down by the ancient Roman townsmen, or through a new introduction at the time when Roman missionaries came to restore Christianity in that part of Britain which had become pagan England. The second process would fully account for the existence of guilds in parts of Germany never conquered by the Romans. Human nature, however, whether civilized or barbarous — Greek, or Roman, or Teutonic — has every- where some kind of social instinct ; and the common historical blunder of attributing to a race, or a country, or a language, that which belongs to humanity, shall, in this place at least, not be repeated. The truth is, that the guild system existed before and after the Norman Conquest, but that there is no historical evidence of its beginning. It is, how- ever, a fact of too much importance to be forgotten, that the guilds afterward became, for a time, in one form at least, the vital principle of the towns.” “There is, however, one point upon which those who regard the Teutonic wave as a deluge may agree with those who regard it as a wave and nothing more. Even if it be supposed that the invaders, after putting the inhabitants to death, left not one stone upon another in any town which they found in the island, it must, nevertheless, be admitted that the towns were sooner or later rebuilt. One of three possible cases must be accepted as fact: new towns were built with the ancient name on or near the ancient site; or new inhabitants occupied the towns, of which the former possessors were slaughtered, wholly or in part; or the original possessors retained their hold after the new comers had settled round about them. These are the limits of conjecture; history gives but one fact to aid it — towns bearing their Roman names existed when Bede, the first historian, began to write, nearly three hundred years after the date which has commonly been assigned to the mythical voyage of Hengist and Horsa. Every one may imagine the events of the inter- vening period according to his own wishes or prejudices, for it may be shown that the his- tory of our towns begins at the same point, whether we accept the Roman or the Teuton as the founder.” 1 In now proceeding with the inquiry into the early history of the Collegia, it will suffice, I think, as regards their extreme antiquity, to state that, whilst their institution has been commonly ascribed to Numa, this figure of speech is most probably only another way of expressing that their existence was coeval with that of Rome itself. It will be convenient to consider: I. The diversified form in which the Collegia appear according to the ancient writers; II. Their general or common features; and III. Their character when disseminated throughout the empire. I. The Roman “colleges” were designated by the name either of collegium or corpus, between which there was no legal distinction, and corporations were as frequently described by one title as by the other. A classification of these bodies will the better enable us in our subsequent investigation to consider the features which they possessed in common. They may be grouped in four leading divisions: A. Religious bodies, such as the Colleges of Priests, and of the Vestal Virgins. 1 L. O. Pike, History of Crime, 1873, vol. i., pp. 65, 69, 70. Compare, however, Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. i., p. 229, and vol. ii. , pp. 309-311. THE ROMAN COLLEGIA. 4 1 * B. Associations of official persons, sucli as those who were employed in administration, e.g., the body of Scribes , 1 who were employed in all branches of administration. C. Corporations for trade and commerce, as Fabric Pistores (bakers), Naviculcirii, etc., the members of which had a common profession, trade, or craft upon which their union was based, although every man worked on his own account. D. Associations, called Sodalitates, Sodalitia, Collegia Sodalitia, which resembled modern clubs. In their origin they were friendly leagues or unions for feasting together, but in course of time many of them became political associations; but from this we must not conclude that their true nature really varied. They were associations not included in any other class that has been enumerated, and they differed in their character according to the times. In periods of commotion they became the central points of political fac- tions. Sometimes the public places were crowded by the Sodalitia and Decuriati, and the Senate was at last compelled to propose a lex which should subject to the penalties of Vis 3 those who would not disperse. This was followed by a general dissolution of collegia, according to some writers, but the dissolution only extended to mischievous associations. There were also in the Imperial period the Collegia tenuiorum, or associations of poor people, but they were allowed to meet only once a month, and they paid monthly contri- butions. A man could only belong to one of them. Slaves could belong to such a colle- gium, with the permission of their masters. “ Sometimes colleges were constituted for burial and parentation only, — ‘funerum causa,’ as it was said. These colleges, having no professional character to sustain, no aims in trade to promote, called themselves only worshippers of some god or goddess whom they had selected out of the well-stocked Pantheon of Europe and Asia. In such a case they designated themselves Cultores Jovis, Cultores Herculis, and the like. ” 4 5 There was no special connection between the deity selected and the “ cultores” themselves. The vicinity of a temple determined the choice: At Lambesis, in Numidia, the veterans of the third legion formed a college, under the style of “ Cultores Jovis optimi maximi.” In the list of its members are two flamens . 6 II. The following were their general characteristics: l. G The collegium (or societas ), which corresponded with the iraipia , 7 of the Greeks, 1 Scriba, a scribe, secretary, a town-clerk; Scriba Publicus, a public notary (Cicero in Vertem, 8, 79). * Workmen, properly in iron or other hard materials. The term clearly includes blacksmiths, carpenters, and coppersmiths, but from no passage in the works of ancient writers can we identify its being unequivocally employed in connection with the masons. See, however, pp. 38, ante, and 44, post. 3 The penalties of this lex were the loss of a third part of the offender’s property ; and he was also declared to be incapable of being a senator or decurio, or a j udex. By a Senatus Consultum, the name of which is not given, he was incapacitated from enjoying any honour, quasi inf amis (Smith, Diet. , p. 1209, tit. Vis). 4 Coote, The Romans m Britain, p. 384. See M. Boissier, Etudes sur quelques Colleges funeraires Romains; Les “ Cultores Deorum,” Revue Archeologique, vol. xxiii., N. S., p. 81. 5 Coote, p. 385 ; Renier, Inscriptions de l’Algerie, 100. According to Heineccius, soldiers could not hold collegia in camp, although they might be members of such associations ; nor could any individual belong to more than one college, that is to say, a dual membership was regarded with disfavor by the Roman Law. In early times, English Freemasons were restricted to one lodge, and this is still the rule in Germany and in the United States of America. 6 Numbered for facility of reference. 1 The Jurisconsult Gaius says : Associates ( Sodales ) are those who belong to the same college, 42 THE ROMAN COLLEGIA. was composed of colleges or sodales (companions). The term originally expressed tlie notion of several persons being voluntarily bound together for some common office or purpose, but ultimately came to signify a body of persons and the tie uniting them. 2. A lawfully constituted “ college” was leyitimum, — an unlawful one, illicltum. The distinction is not clearly laid down. Some of these institutions were established by especial laws, and others, no doubt, were formed by the voluntary association of individuals under the provisions of some general legal authority. 3. No college could consist of less than three members. So indispensable was this rule that the expression tres faciunt collegium — “three make a college” — became a maxim of the civil law. 4. In its constitution the college was divided into decuria} and centuries — bodies of ten and a hundred men; and it was presided over by a magister and by decuriones — a master and wardens. 5. Amongst other officers there were a treasurer, sub-treasurer, secretary, and archivist. 6. In their corporate capacity the sodales could hold property. They had a common chest, a common cult, a meeting-house, and a common table. 7. To each candidate on his admission was administered an oath 1 peculiar to the col- lege. When a new member was received, he was said — co-optari, and the old members were said, with respect to him, recipere in collegium . 2 8. Dues and subscriptions were imposed to meet the expenses of the college. 9. The sodales supported tlieir poor, and buried their deceased brethren. The latter were publicly interred in a common sepulchre or columbarium, all the survivors being present. Members were not liable for tlie debts of tlieir college, but the property of the college itself could be seized. They could sue or be sued by their syndicus or actor. 10. Each college celebrated its natal day — a day called cares cognationis — and two other days, called severally dies violarum and dies roses. 3 11. The sodales called and regarded themselves as fratresl “For amongst them,” says Mr. Coote, “existed the dear bond of relationship which, though artificial, was that close alliance which a common sentiment can make. This it was which, in defiance of blood, which in Greek is called eraip'ia. The law gives to them the power of making a pact with one another, provided that they do nothing contrary to public policy. But this seems to be a law of Solon’s” (Dig. 47, tit. 22). 1 Peculiar religious rites were also practised, perhaps with a veil of secrecy ; and those forms of worshipping constituted an additional bond of union (Palgrave, Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, vol i., p. 332). 2 The fanciful ingenuity of Masonic etymologists has connected these expressions with Greek ett6tttd ^ “ cella,” a cell, or the interior of a temple (va6c, ctik6q), whence with an Irish inflexion, “ceie. The most amusing derivation of all is given by Bishop Bramhall (1635), who says the name s ;a compound of “ Gallus” and “Deus,” and, citing the “ Cclideans,” adds, “ or, as the Irisli^call tlumi, ‘ Gallideans,’ or God's cockes, in Armagh.” 4 Skene, Celtic Scotland, vol. n., pp. 2ol-2,>4. 3 Reeves, The Culdees of the British Islands, as they appear in History, pp. 1, 2. 6 Twenty-four years before the foundation of Tamlacht, in which church Aengus succeeded Sfc. 4& THE CULDEES. celebrity, which it was supposed had been effectually demolished by Mr. h. ' K ii 1829, who contended that from his etymology of the name “ Cuidees,” Mac-phcr-. n would be incapable of translating the genuine poems of Ossian if he, had them In hoe. Those who assign the name a Celtic original are nearly all of opinion that it k a com- pound of the words Cele and Be, “ God;” hut they differ as to whether (Tie should be understood in its primary sense of “husband” or “companion,” or in its secondary sen*' of “ servant.” ■ On the mother side, writers, such as Giraldus, Hector Boece, George Buchanan, Jot Oolgan, in his “ Trias Thaumaturga,” and, more recently, Mr. Skene, agree in assigning the term a Latin derivation. According to these authorities it is merely an abbreviat form of coU-dei, from the' Latin colo; they understand it as the equivalent of the wor >; Deicolm or Caalicolw, and take it to mean “ worshippers of God. ” a >ts the interpretation of the term C61e-De proposed by O’Donovan some lexicographers, and refers its origin to the prevalence, through Latin Christum of the expression Servus Dei , in its limited and technical sense; whilst by Inland, O' Hr ' and Curry the Celtic term has beep understood in its more obvious and general sens “ spouse.” But Dr. Reeves considers there is an incongruity in the expression “ spotn Clod,” and does not think that the nature of the compound word requires such . i pretatibn. 3 The conclusion thus arrived at by one eminent antiquary 1 :• t»» > m.d»-!y by another. The learned author of “ Celtic Scotland,” 4 observes that, in his a ' . ' h ary meaning of the Celtic term, arid taking it to be merely the Irish equivalent Dei, the' ordinary expression for a monk, Dr. Reeves “ starts with the assumption Cei,le Do wore simply monks. This rendering appears objectionable- -first, be- .-u > example can be produced in which the term Servus Dei appears translated by C o secondly, that the term Celle Do is applied to a distinct class,- who were not 1 * Cry nunie- in Ireland, , while the term' Servus Dei is a general expression, applicable to religions of 1 classes, and included the ■ secular canons as well as the monks. These Cede Be-, howm , show precisely the same characteristics which belonged to the Dei Cola of the Contiiu . • like the Dei Cola, they were Anchorites, for we find that when the name of Cele appears as a personal title, it is borne by one who had lived as a solitary in a desert, or " ; o is termed an Anchorite. Thus Angus the Hagiologist, who founded a desert eal his name Disert Aengus, now Disert Enos; is well known ‘as Aengus Cek Do. 1 Transactions Royal Irish Academy, vol xvL * The word Culdee has been traced {inter alia) to the followings* or * servant of God; “culla ,”\aemol, whence “ Culdee,” the black wml; espoused to God ( or, according to O’Brien, Lanigan, and Reeves, sem r , 1 -j of seclusion; “ kyldees,” from “cylle,” a cell whence by the addition oi ' «« kyldee,” a house of cells; “ cede,” together, and “dae,” a man. won living in community . Latin— “ cul tores Dei,” “Deioolse,” or “ cella,” a cell, or the interior of a temple (va6g, •- . ” V- •> sepa rated , r , o' . ci lil dieh,” n " a ” dee,” ct hoe* ', -vile- Dae,*’ a m n yh > OC-’-S of G • ' ■ - i, “cei- - v f:h> name i- - • . ii-; It . si call iii. - 1, . ■; v 251-354. THE CULDEES. 49 “After a.d. 666 we find the nomenclature of the Continental anchorites begins to appear in an Irish form, attached to the eremitical class in the Irish Church. In lieu of the term Deicolce, we find these Irish anchorites having the term of Ceile De applied to them. These terms, though not etymologically equivalent, may be considered as correla- tive, and intended to represent the same class; and as Christicola becomes in Irish Cele- christ , so Deicola 1 assumes in Irish the form of Ceile Be.” As we have already seen, Northern Britain was not the original, any more than it was the only seat of the Culdees; there were ecclesiastics so named in England, in Wales, and in Ireland. The canons of York were styled Culdees in the reign of Athelstan, and the secular clergy of the cathedrals seem generally to have been distinguished by the same title. 2 Giraldus Cambrensis says that there were Culdees in the island of Bardsey — the holy island of Wales— unmarried, and living a most religious life. In Ireland the Culdees had numerous establishments, and retained their name at Armagh down to the time of Archbishop Usher. 3 The history of the Culdees begins only when far advanced in their decline, and is of a very fragmentary character. All we can do is, by aid of extracts gathered from musty char- teis and annals, and ecclesiastical records, to survey them at different places between the eighth century and the sixteenth, and mark how they are engaged. From the time when, in the eighth century, they conformed to the Roman practices as to order and ritual, their individuality was virtually at an end, and their usefulness as well. 4 I hat the class of persons denoted by the term Cele De were not supposed by the Irish to be peculiar to their own island, we learn, not only from a passage in Tirechan’s Life of St. Patrick, a work written in the first half of the eighth century, “ but also from two very curious entries in the 4 Annals of the Four Masters,’ though the source whence they were derived is uncertain.” “At a.d. 806, which is 811 of the common era, they relate that — ‘ in this year the Ceile-de came across the sea with dry feet, without a vessel.’ Again, in the year 919, they state that ‘ Maenach, a Cele-de came across the sea westward to establish laws in Ireland.’ ” 6 Maelruain, an order of canons, Fratres Dominici, afterward Canonici, was founded by Chrodegang at Metz. An intermediate class, between monks and secular priests, having the discipline without the vows of the former, and discharging the office of ministers in churches (Reeves, The Culdees of the British Islands, as they appear in history, p. 9). 1 Mr. Herbert says: “Of the word [CuldeeJ, Keledeus imitates the sound, and Colideus, besides imitating the sound (for else it would be deicola) gives a sense or interpretation. The word of which the sound is closely followed in the former, and the sense in the latter, is ceile-De, ‘servant of God.’ To suppose that these words are formed from cuil-deach, ‘ having a sequestered habitation,’ is a speculation not unworthy of etymologists, being false in sound, and also false in sense” (British Maga- zine, 1844, vol. xxvi., p. 2). 2 Grab, Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 229. Dr. Lingard, after quoting a charter of Ethelred II., says: “In the charter the prebendaries are termed Cultores clerici, a singular expres- sion, which seems to intimate that the collegiate clergy were even then styled Culdees — cultores Dei in the south as well as the north of England” (History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 1845, vol. ii., p. 294). 3 Usher, British Ecclesiastical Antiquities, 1639, vol. vi., p. 174; Sir J. Ware, The History and Antiquities of Ireland (translated by W. Harris), 1764, vol. ii., p. 236; Grub, Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 230. 4 British Quarterly Review, No. cxlix. 6 Reeves, The Culdees of the British Islands, as they appear in History, p. 6. 4 5o THE CULDEES. “ The close of the eighth century/' says Dr. Reeves, “ if we may credit certain Irish •records, presents to us the term Cele-de in a definite sense, and in local connection with a religious class or institution. St. Maelruain, founder, abbot, and bishop of the church of Tamhlacht, now Tallaght, near Dublin, gathered round him a fraternity. A religious rule, ascribed to him, is preserved in manuscript in the Leabhar Breac, entitled the Rule of the Cele-nde, from the poem which Maelruain composed.” St. Maelruain died a.d. 792, and was succeeded by Aengus, who obtained great celeb- rity by his writings, especially his metrical calendar or Felire, and is generally referred to as “ Aengus the Culdee.” The Colidei or Cele-de remained in Armagh, as a capitular body, down to at least A. d. 1628, in which year a deed was executed by the “ prior of the cathedral chui cli, on behalf of the vicars choral and Colideans of the same, and this corporation and their endowments existed, though under another name, until the Disestablishment Act.” 2 At Devenisli, an island on Loch Erne, they are heard of so late as 1630. Passing over to Scotland, whither the term had been imported with the language and institutions of the Scotic immigrants/ we learn from documentary evidence that Biude, son of Dergard, the last king of the Piets, gave Loch Leven to Cod and St. Serf, and the Culdee hermits there. 4 The date of the original entry cannot be determined. It was, doubtless, much posterior to the grant itself, but the Gaelic record, m which it was con- tained, was evidently of unknown antiquity when the Augustinian priory was formed in the twelfth century. Another document, preserved among the archives of the same priory, mentions that Constantine, son of Aodh, when he resigned the kingdom, became abbot of the Culdees of St. Andrews. 5 The writers of these passages may possibly have anticipated the use of the name m be- stowing on the monks of Loch Leven and St. Andrews the appellation which was familiar to themselves in their own day, but it is more probable that the Culdees were really known in Scotland by that title from the ninth century. 6 In Joceline’s life of Kentigern (or St. Mungo), written in the twelfth century— but which describes the miracles of a man who lived in the sixth— we find what Dr. Reeves calls the earliest Scottish record of the name and the discipline of the Cele-de or Calledei. In this biography, Joceline tells us that he derived his information from an ancient life of the saint, existing in the cathedral church of Glasgow, of which he states that it was written in a barbarous language, and that on the face of it were statements adverse to sound doctrine, and opposed to the Catholic faith. “ Here we find another testimony to the fact, so generally detailed by medieval writers, that the early Church differed in point of doctrine from the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. Joceline undertakes in his work to improve the style of his predecessor, and to improve his doctrine too!” 7 1 The copy of this monastic rule still existing is known, from its spelling and grammatical struct- ure, to have been penned in the twelfth century, but Dr. Reeves considers it may be fairly regarded as a modernized version of a much earlier document. _ 2 Reeves, The Culdees of the British Islands, as they appear in History, p. 18. 3 J- bid., p. 2. 4 Regist. Priorat. S. Andrese, p. 118; Grub, Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 2^9. 6 Innes, Critical Essay, p. 803. According to Dr. M’Lauchlan, “ in the case of Loch Leven we have the clearest insight into the real character of the ancient Culdees ” (The Early Scottish Church, p. 4.j6). e Reeves the Culdees of the British Islands, as they appear in History, p. 53; Grub, Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 229. . 7 M’Lauchlan, The Early Scottish Church, p. 107. THE CULDEES. 5i The disciples of this saint were very numerous, and we are further informed by Joce- lin'i Red, find at other times not, from records, for the moM part written, it is supposed, be for-: 1600. The Holmes of Chester were evidently enthusiastic students of herald n . a-.-.d u orations were represented in the persons of the grandfather, father, a<< i -■ the Christian name of “ Randle ” — at the Herald’s Office, as deputy to i k- t >;•-> fo: Cheshire and other counties. The first Randle Holme died p>’< t- 1649, and the third in 1699-1700 (born 1627). The Second Holme • ‘ - a.d. 1659, but, according to Mr. W. II. Hylands, 1 his death occurred In !; ■ • « ; .< u.a e - 1 L, Li., computing the reign from the death of Charles I.). Now, it .No. i in the hand- . writing of the third Randle Holme, clearly a.d. 1650 is quite early enough for the tran- scription, as it is believed to have been copied by that diligent antiquary. The original, however, from which it was taken, was' evidently much older; hut having classified the MBS. according to the periods of their transcription, rather than the presumed age of the original texts, in strictness this document should be numbered after No. 13, though, f< the sake of convenience, I have coupled the “Harleian” (11 aud 12) with the “Sloan* MSS. (13 and 14). No. 12 is written on four leaves of paper, containing six and a half pages of clot- writing in a very cramped hand. The “ water-mark ” is indistinct and undated. After the recital of the “ Old Charges,” entitled the “ Freemasons’ Orders and Constitutions,” is a, copy of a remarkable obligation to “ keep secret” certain “ words and signes of a fret; mason,” etc,, and likewise a register of the fens paid (varying from five shillings to twenty) “for to be a free mason,” by twenty-seven persons whose names appear. We have here the earliest known mention of word* and signes ,* a circumstance to which I shall again call attention. As Hughan states, they are apparently not connected with the “ Old Charges,” as forming an integral part of this version, though they were most probably used by one and the same body. 13. “ Sloane, 3848,” a.d. 1646. British Museum. Published in the “Old Charges” (also “Masonic Magazine,” 1873), and named by Hughan as jhe probable text 12 and 14. This may have been the case as regards tin 1 Masonic Magazine, January 1883. 9 Masonic Sketches, part 2, p. 46 ; Freemasonry in the Seventeenth Century, Chester, 1 650-170'' (W. H. Ry lands), Masonic Magazine, January and February 1882. or i^» cJOt$ ((\ — £&* 1 ((oi.fr **o rco ^fOihtMs u,'j£&’ o(&a^t- VCLcfe Vimnit *i$t tJfadr- $$' ^T&UatV %»'M?(ur*X. f^2i" »mu wC.*T* ({km (^fotA-rzS^S w2i n&tyUCLS rrt cte tCi-eu^ 97 la$hw~S) jr€$jy& yj^cd& conr _& 4v ^00*0%. d&-Jrls£ i literary venture — the “ Constitutions of the Freemasons." Dr. Kioss is incot lect in class- ing this version with No. 45. 1 48. (MSS. 8 & 32) “Dodd.” * 17th Century. Mr. Spencer 8 thinks that from one or two differences “and minor alterations in por tions of the text, the printer, or editor, had never seen Cole’s book;’’ but Hughan is of opinion that the one is a reproduction of the other, with simply a. few fanciful ‘changes, for which an example had been set by Masonic historians of the period. Mr, Caison, for whom it was purchased, at -the “ Spencer-Sale, ’ concurs in this view, and adds-- it appears to me that Cole’s Editions, 1728-31-51, etc., aiid the-Speueei manuH. Hpt > -) v\ in my collection, and the present reprint, are substantially, though not identically, one a.' 1 a. the same Constitutions.” 0 Two copies are known to be in the United States, viz., the or herein described, and another 'owned by Mr. R. F. Bower. Mr. Spencer knew of three all. Tt has been faithfully reproduced by Mr. E. T. Carson (1876) for the first time, V original being a small quarto of twenty pages. The title is “ The Beginning and first Fou dation of the most worthy Craft of Masonry, with the Charges thereunto belonging, _ ar it is said to be “ By a Deceas’d Brother, for the Benefit of his Widow” ! It was “ Print-- for Mrs. Dodd, at the Peacock without Temple Bar, mdccxxxix (I rice Six-pence). i statement is made as to its origin or age, but as already expressed, 1 have no doubt of < Freemason, April 5, 1873 ' * Masonic Ma ^ ine ’ 187fi ’.f ‘ m 3 The second edition was dedicated in 1731 to Lord Level, the Grand Master. Benjamin; U was the engraver of the Grand Lodge Lists, 1745-1766 ( vide Four Old-Lodges, p. .16). 4 Bibliographic, der Freimaurer, p. 125. As previously noticed, it is this MS. that was printed the Freemasons’ Magazine for 1794 ; not No. 8. 6 The Publisher to the Subscribers of the Old Constitutions, p. xxv. • Introduction to ‘ ' ical Society of Cincinnati, 1876 ^ac-»imUe fro,M. t&e ©rigiwaf 9It. S. of tfv* ©Mci^t Sovistitwtiows of SFree. aw6 dcce-ptcb Seasons, <3. <3>„ 1726 In the possession of Mr. Enoch T. Carson, of Cincinnati, Ohio THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS . 79 being a copy of Nos. 8 or 32, or a reprint of No. 47, engraved edition, the original of the two last being a seventeenth century version. 49. Harris. The “Bedford” Lodge, London. From the minutes of the “ Bedford” Lodge, No. 157, we learn that in January 1809, its then secretary, “ Bro. Harris,” was thanked “for his present of ancient manuscripts, in parchment, containing the original Charges and part of the lectures on Craft Masonry.” 1 50. “ Batty Langley. ” 18th Century. Published in the “Builder’s Compleat Assistant,” 3rd edition, 1738. Batty Langley, a prolific writer, published his “ Practical Geometry” in 1726, which he dedicated to Lord Paisley, as “ the Head of a most Ancient and Honourable Society,” and subscribed himself “your most devoted servant.” In 1736 appeared his “ Ancient Masonry, Both in the Theory and Practice,” dedicated to Francis, Duke of Lorraine, and forty British noblemen; also “to all others the Right Hon. and Right Worshipful Masters of Masonry, by their humble servant and affectionate brother, B. Langley.” I cite these words, in order to es- tablish the fact that the “ Builder’s Compleat Assistant,” of which only the third edition is available in the library of the British Museum, must have originally appeared after 1726, when Langley was not a freemason, and to found an inference that it was published some few years at least before the second edition of the “Book of Constitutions.” The Masonic legend, which is given with some fulness, is called “ The Introduction of Geometry,” and amongst famous “Geometers” are named “Nimrod, Abraham, Euclid, Hiram, Grecus,” etc. The sources of information open to Langley at the time of w r riting, were MSS. 44, 45, and 47 in this series, and Anderson’s Constitutions of a.d. 1723. As Edwin is styled the son of Athelstan, No. 47, which calls him brother, could not have been referred to. No. 44 recites the Edwin legend, but leaves out his name; whilst No. 45 uses the word son, but spells the name in such a manner as to defy identification. On the whole, it is fairly clear that Langley must have followed Dr. Anderson (1723), who plainly designates Edwin as the son of Athelstan. It may be added, that the two legends are in general agree- ment. Without being of any special value, per se, the fact of the legendary history of the craft being given at such length by a practical architect and builder, taken into considera- tion with the dedication of his work on “Ancient Masonry” to a number of “ Freemasons” of exalted rank, afford additional evidence, if such be required, of the close and intimate connection which continued to exist between operative and speculative Masonry for many years after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England. 51. “Krause.” * 18th Century. The so-called “York MS. of a.d. 926” has been invested with much more importance and antiquity than it deserves, for it is quite possible that even the eighteenth century is too early a date to assign for its compilation. It first saw the light, that is to say, it was first announced in 1808, through a German version having been issued by Herr Schneider, of Altenburg, from a Latin translation said to be certified by “ Stonehouse, York, January 4, 1806” (of whom no trace can be found); and in 1810 this German re-translation was printed by Dr. Krause in “ Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurer Briiders- schaft.” An English version was presented to IJughan by Woodford for insertion in the “Old Charges of British Freemasons;” but neither of these “experts” believe it to be of any real antiquity. Dr. George Kloss denied its genuineness, “ and contended that the Latin translation, which was certified by Stonehouse, had been prepared before 1806, and 1 Rosicrucian, London, January, 1876. 8o THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. that in preparing it an ancient manuscript had been remodelled on the same basis as the 1738 edition of Anderson’s Constitutions, because the term ‘ Noacliida’ is employed in both, but is found nowhere else.” Eindel visited England, by desire of the “German Union of Freemasons,” to thoroughly investigate the matter; the historian, however, failed to find aught to confirm its claims to antiquity, and returned to Germany with a stronger belief than ever as to its being neither a York Charter, nor of the year 92G; and, in fact, he “brings it down to a much more modern date.” 1 The character and history of this MS. will be considered in a separate chapter. I omit from the foregoing list mere partial reprints of any one of the MSS. There are many of these, acknowledged or otherwise, and each takes its text from one or more of the versions herein described. Then, again, there are numerous regulations of the craft, from an early date, which in many respects, contain points of agreement with the MS. Constitutions, particularly those of Scottish origin. These will be duly considered in their regular order, but as the “Legend of the Guild” does not appear, they cannot fairly be classed with the “Old Charges,” though one document of the year 1658 2 very nearly reaches the necessary crite- rion, giving, as it does, a historical preamble, and a curious recital of the “ Kilwinning Legend.” I do not believe, however, that this remarkable declaration and agreement, or mutual contract, ever superseded the copy of the “ Old Charges,” which was most prob- ably used by the “ Maisters, Freemen, and fellow crafts, measones resident within the Burgh off Perth,” and as the same may be said of the “ Schaw Statutes” of 1598-99, and others, I must reserve their examination for a later chapter. Strictly speaking, the two seniors in the foregoing series are not forms of the “ Old Charges,” although they doubtless represent a certain class of Masonic documents circu- lating in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries of which we have otherwise no contem- porary record whatsoever. The first was in part a Roman Catholic manual of devotion, 3 the versifier, who was almost certainly a priest, 4 having had access to documents in “ olde tyme wry ten,” respecting “ Tliys onest craft of good masonry;” and the second distinctly gives, as a personal narra- tive, what the chronicler found “ write and taught in ye boke of our charges,” and often alludes to “the olde bokys of masonry” as the source of his statements. His member- ship, honorary or otherwise, may be assumed from scattered references, such as, 4 ‘Elders yt wer bi for us of masons had these Charges wryten to hem as we have now in owr chargys. ’ It is well to keep this fact in mind, because some writers have woven very fine-spun theo- ries, based upon the absence of certain passages from these two versions, whereas the only safe method to pursue, under the circumstances, is to deal with what they actually make known. At all events, the legends of the craft were accepted as ancient, at the period of 1 History of Freemasonry, p. 89. 2 By-Laws of the Scone and Perth Lodge (Perth, 1866) ; also Masonic Magazine, October 1878. 8 “ Besides being brotherhoods for the care of the temporal welfare of the members, the craft guilds were, like the rest of the guilds, at the same time religious fraternities. ... In this respect the craft guilds of all countries are alike ; and in reading their statutes one might fancy sometimes that the old craftsmen cared only for the well-being of their souls. All had particular saints for patrons, after whom the society was frequently called ” (Lujo Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 69 ; Smith’s Guilds, p. cxxxiii). Fees were paid by the guild mem- bers to their chaplains, and many are the quaint provisions made for their religious welfare, and their rites of burial, etc. 4 “And when the Gospel me rede schal ” (line 629). See also Ilalliwell, p. 41. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 81 the compilation of these two documents, which thereby confers a very respectable antiquity, to say the least, on the Masonic traditions, and proves, that whether authentic or apocryphal, the Old Charges of the British Freemasons cannot he characterized, as modern inventions. As my chief object is to examine closely the several versions or forms of these Old Writings, and as far as possible to determine their relative value and character, I shall have to classify them according to their general or special texts, the variations in their legends, peculiarities in the ordinances, and other points which will naturally claim our considera- tion. The task before me is a sufficiently onerous one, so many manuscript “constitu- tions ” having been recently discovered. Happily, indeed, in number they do not quite equal the traditions of the Mohammedan oral law, when the latter were first arranged and codified. According to Gibbon, 1 “ At the end of two hundred years the Sonna or oral law was fixed and consecrated by the labours of A1 Bochari, who discriminated seven thousand two hundred and seventy-five genuine traditions, from a mass of three hundred thousand reports of a more doubtful or spurious character!” After this feat, the present examina- tion ought not to be regarded as in any sense laborious. That in some degree the details may appear dry and uninteresting I fear is quite possible, although there is authority for the belief that the scrutiny of old documents is regarded by many persons as a pleasurable occupation. Indeed, a writer in the “ Spectator” asserts: “I have heard one of the great- est geniuses this age has produced, who had been trained up in all the polite studies of Antiquity, assure me, upon his being obliged to search into several rolls and records, that, notwithstanding such an employment was at first very dry and irksome to him, he at last took an incredible pleasure in it, and preferred it even to the reading of Virgil or Cicero.” 2 * I cannot flatter myself that such a result will follow from a perusal of these pages, but I can at least avow an increasing love for the inquiry, and a growing interest in the details as they are successively brought forward for analysis. If we now group the “Old Charges” according to their texts (their several dates of compilation having been already considered), we shall find that some five divisions will be all the classification that is requisite. (D) “HALLIWELL” MS. (Ho. 1). As this MS. dates shortly after the order of Richard II. 3 for returns from the guilds (1st November 1388), and also those of the crafts (or “ Mysteries ”) I am strongly of opinion, not that it was, perhaps, copied from a return made in obedience to such an ordinance (as I once thought probable), 4 but that as the charters and letters patent were required to be produced before the king and his council, by all in possession of such documents, under the penalty of their being disannulled if not so exhibited; a thorough examination had to be made of the effects of the various guilds, crafts, and brotherhoods, and thus a quantity of material was brought to light in the form of returns and miscellaneous records, which, in the instance of the masons, were utilized by this priest-poet, 5 6 who, in the exercise of liis 1 Decline and Fall, vol. ix., p. 272. 2 Spectator, No. 447. 3 Vide Copy of Writs, English Guilds, 1870, pp. 127-130. 4 “ The Four Old Lodges,” p. 25. 6 Goguet, Origine des Lois, vol. i., p. 29, says : “ The first laws of all nations were composed in verse, and sung.” Aldheim, Bishop of Sherborae, could find no mode of commanding the attention of his townsmen so efficacious as that of standing on the bridge and singing a ballad which he had composed. “ The harp was handed round at their festivals ; and he who could not join in the glee 6 82 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. spiritual functions, added sundry instructions for the guidance of the fraternity in their religious observances and general behavior. As to its exact age, the point is immaterial, as ten, twenty, or a few more years after 1388 will accord with the judgments passed upon its caligraphy; whilst, even if we accept the estimate of Dr. Kloss (1427-35), it will still remain the oldest representative of the “ Charges” peculiar to the Freemasons. 1 The prose constitutions we can well understand being read to, and subscribed by, those desiring admission into the fellowship or mystery, but our single metrical version presents difficulties, viewed by the light of its more prosaic brethren, which must have rendered it unsuitable for the purposes of initiation. It displays rather the features of an epic poem than of a simple ethical code adapted to the genius and requirements of illiterate builders, and when we reflect that in all probability the recital of these old legends and rules, to- gether with the communication of the “ Mason Word and Sign,” constituted the entire ceremony of admission into the fraternity, it is all the more evident that the form of the historical introduction and the arrangement of the laws must not be looked for in the Halliwell MS. , but rather in the style or manner of its less pretentious juniors. Again, I greatly question if the knowledge and general intelligence of the operatives of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were such as to qualify them to be in any way in- structed or edified by the oral communication of such a poem as the one under considera- tion. Fort styles this unique composition “a gossiping poem.” This is fairly correct, but I think the writer “ gossips” to much purpose, for he evidently had access to old Ma- sonic documents, the contents of which his quaint verses have partially rescued from oblivion. In allowing his lucubrations to assume a rhythmical form, the priestly versifier was doubtless influenced by considerations closely analogous to those so quaintly expressed by Elias Ashmole: “Nor did the Ancients wrap up their Chief est Mysteries, any where else, then in the Parabolical and Allusive part of Poetry, as the most Sacred, and Venerable in their Esteeme, and the Securest from Prophane and Vulgar Wits.” 2 It is also reasonable to suppose that the compiler omitted from his poem portions of the old documents he was familiar with, but which, from his point of view, were objectionable, such, for instance, as the allusions to “ Charles Martel” and others, and the legend of the preservation of the history of the craft, in the two stones which withstood the ravages of the Flood. The ab- sence of any allusion to Charles Martel, as I pointed out some years ago in the “Free- mason,” 3 may be accounted for by the fact of his extreme unpopularity with the clergy, and, as we have seen, the Halliwell MS. was the production of one of that order. “ It might have been expected,” says Gibbon, “that the Saviour of Christendom would have been canonized, or at least applauded, by the gratitude of the clergy, who are indebted to was considered as unfit for respectable company” (Palgrave’s History of the Anglo-Saxons, ed. 1867, p, 128). 1 Those who are anxious to have an earlier date ascribed to this MS. should consult a lecture delivered by the Rev. Dr. George Oliver in the Witham Lodge, Lincoln, in 1863. That voluminous Masonic author declares that it was “ drawn up in the tenth century, and attached to the York Constitution. It was translated from the Saxon for the use of the York Grand Lodge, and the MS. of that date is now in the British Museum .” Also that it was the means, “ 800 years ago, of establishing a series of landmarks .” It was not convenient apparently at the time to produce any authority for such startling assertions, and neither has it been so since ! The criticism of Kloss on the age of this MS. will be examined when the English Statutes pass under review. *Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652), Pt'oleg, p. 3. 3 November 15, 1879. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 83 his sword for their present existence. But in the public distress, the Mayor of the Palace had been compelled to apply the riches, or at least the revenues, of the bishops and abbots to the relief of the State and the reward of the soldiers. His merits were forgotten, his sacri- lege alone was remembered, and, in an epistle to a Carlovingian prince, a Gallic synod pre- sumes to declare that his ancestor was damned; that on the opening of his tomb the spectators were aff righted by a smell of lire and the aspect of a horrid dragon; and that a saint of the times was indulged with a pleasant vision of the soul and body of Charles Martel burning to all eternity in the abyss of hell!” 1 The author of what we now know as the Halliwell MS. or poem, would naturally give prominence to those events which were the best calculated to advance the ends he had in view, by the compilation of his history, whilst on the other hand he would as naturally reject whatever might tend to unduly exalt the memory of any patron of the masons, how- ever illustrious, whose conduct had been regarded with disfavor by the highest authorities of the Church. It cannot, therefore, be maintained that the legendary history preserved by the Freemasons of the sixteenth century and later, contained many statements not to be found in those of an earlier period, simply on the ground of their omission in the Halliwell 2 and Cooke MSS. Not that I deprecate criticism of these two MSS., but I think it has been shown that our attention should be principally directed to what is, rather than what is not said, the more especially since it is quite evident that, although what I venture to term the “ Old Charges” proper — i.e., the forms of which the “Buchanan” (15) pre- sents a typical illustration — are of more modern transcription, they represent, in the opinion of experts, originals of higher antiquity than can be claimed for either of the two senior versions or adaptations of the Masonic constitutions. The poem begins without an invo- cation to the Deity, though, as already stated, it is not deficient in religious sentiment. It commences the legendary history with an account of Euclid’s notable expedient for the utilization of a superabundant population, and then by a rapid transition, declares “ Thys craft com ynto Englond . . . Yn tyme of good Kynge Adelstonus day,” 3 who “ loved thys craft ful wel,” and sought to correct divers faults by holding an assembly of dukes, earls, barons, knights, squires, etc., “ alle yn here degre,” but it is far from being as complete in its traditions as the “ Constitutions” of a later period. Of King Athelstan we are told that — ‘ ‘ He sende aboute ynto the londe After alle the masonus of the crafte, A semble thenne he cowthe 4 let. make Of dyvers lordis, yn here state, Dukys, ei’lys, and barnes also, Knychthys, sqwyers, and mony mo, And the grete burges of that syte, They were ther alle yn here degre ; 1 Decline and Fall, vol. x. , p. 27. 2 It is the “ Halliwell ” MS., and not the Harleian, as cited by Fort (p. 170), which contains the instructions now accepted as a groundwork for the title ‘ ‘ W orshipful ” as applied to Masters (lines 45, 46), and it also acknowledges the grade or rank of Master-Mason ( Mayster Mason). 3 “ Geometry is found in the Anglo-Saxon lists of sciences. . . . Tradition, in after times, gave to the reign of King Athelstan the honour of the first introduction of Euclid’s Elements ” (Essay on the State of Literature and Learning under the Anglo-Saxons, by Thomas Wright, M. A., F.S. A., p. 83, London, 1839). 4 Cowthe, could, was able. 84 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. Fyftene artyculus they tlier sowchton, And fyftene poyntys ther they wrochton.” After the recital of these thirty rules comes the “ Ars quatuor coronatorum,” and the injunction, “ Pray we now to God almyght, and to hys moder Mary bryght; a departure from the ordinary invocations which introduces one of the specialties of this Mb. “ That we mo we keep these artyculus here, An d these poynts wel al y-fere, As dede these holy martyres fowre, That yn thys craft were of great honoured’ 1 On concluding the history of these holy martyrs, the compiler again returns to the exor- dium which is found substantially in all the “ Old Charges,” and alludes to Noees flood, the “tower of Babloyne,” under the care of “ Kyng Nabogodonosor,” and the valuable services of “ the good clerk Euclyde,” who “ Throchgh hye grace of Crist yn heven, He commensed yn the syens 2 seven.” The instructions are very precise (many being most amusing in their simplicity and exactitude) as to attendance at the church, the use of “ holy water,” kneeling on both knees, keeping the “ commandementes ten,” and refraining from the “ synnes seven.” The priest exhibits his pastoral care over his flock by condescending even to notice possible substitutes for the toothpick and the pocket-handkerchief, and the poem, which combines the features of a Masonic history, of a code of morals, and of a manual of etiquette, comes to an end with the words— “Amen! Amen! so mot hyt be! Say we so alle per chary te.” The following epitome of the various articles and points will serve to illustrate the stamp of laws in operation during the fourteenth century. Their general similarity to those of later periods cannot fail to strike the most casual reader. Fifteen Articles for the “Mayster Mason.” 1. He must be “ stedefast, trusty, and trwe,” and upright as a judge. 2. “ Most ben at the generale congregacyon,” to know where it “ schal be holde.” 3. Take apprentices for seven years “Hys craft to lurne, that ys profytable. 4. “ No bondemon prentys make . . . Chef yn the logge 3 he were y-take.” 5. “ The prentes be of lawful blod,” and “ have hys lymes hole.” 6. “To take of the Lord for hyse prentyse, also muche as hys felows.” 7. “ Schal no thef ” accept, “lest hyt wolde turne the craft to schame.” 8. ‘ ‘ Any mon of crafte, be not also perfy t, he may hym change. 9. “No werke he undurtake, but he conne bothe hyt ende and make.” 10. “ Ther schal no mayster supplante other, but be as systur and brother. 11. He ought to be “bothe fayr and fre,” and “ techyt by hys mychth.” 1 The legend of the “ Holy Martyres Foure” will be fully given in a later portion of this work. 2 $ c'lg'yiCGS* 3 Mr. Halliwell says: “It is curious to observe that the same term lodge is still in universal use among the Masons ” (History of Freemasonry in England, 1844, p. 17). THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 85 12. “ Schal not hys felows werk deprave,” but “ hyt amende.” 18. His apprentyce “he hym teche,” in all the requisite particulars. 14. So “ that he, withynne hys terme, of hym dyvers poyntes may lurne.” 15. Finally, do nothing that “ wolde turne the craft to schame.” 1 Fifteen Points for the Craftsmen. 1. “ Most love wel God, and holy churche, and his mayster and felows.” 2. Work truly for “ huyres apon werk and halydays.” 3. Apprentices to keep “their mayster conwsel” in chamber and “ yn logge. 4. “No mon to hys craft be false,” and apprentices to “ have the same lawe.” 5. Masons to accept their pay meekly from the master, and not to strive, 6. But to seek in all ways “that they stond wel yn Goddes lawe.” 7. Respect the chastity of his master’s wife, and “his felows concubyne.” 8. Be a true mediator “ To his mayster and felows fre, and act fairly to all. 9. As steward to pay well, and truly “ To mon or to wommon, whether he be.” 10. Disobedient masons dealt with by the Assembly, the Law, and forswear the craft. 11. Masons to help one another by instructing those deficient in knowledge and skill. 12. The decisions of the Assembly to be respected, or imprisonment may follow. 13. “ He schal swere never to be no thef,” and never to succour any of “ fals craft.” 14. Be true “ to hys lyge Lord theKynge,” and be sworn to keep all these points. 2 15. And obey the Assembly on pain of having to forsake the craft, and be imprisoned. There is no mention whatever of the City of York; the place for the holding of the assemblies being evidently left to the decision of the members in attendance at the annual meetings, one reason given why “ every Mayster, most ben at the generate congregacyon,” being that he may know where the next “sembla schal he holde. ” Prominence is given to the power of the Sheriff to “ putte yn duppe prison,” contumacious members, and “take here goodes and here cattelle;” that officer for the county, also “the Meyr of that syte, where the assembly is convened, and knights, squires, and other aldermen,” having the privilege to attend, as well as the master and fellows more immediately concerned. (E) “ COOKE ” MS. (No. 2). The expression of thankfulness to “ Cod our Glorious Fader,” which introduces the historical narration in No. 2, differs somewhat from the extract which is given by Halli- well, as Mr. Norton 3 has pointed out, so much so, indeed, as to lead some readers to sup- 1 Many of these articles or points were not confined to the Masons, and would naturally be com- mon to all the mysteries or trades whose members were as desirous as the Masonic craftsmen to pro- vide for the term of apprenticeship, the employment of lawful journeymen, the avoidance of unfair interference with the rights of workmen, and particularly the objection to labor in company with “ cowans.” Some of these customs and practices prevail even at the present day. Such ordinances or by-laws were anciently called Pointz (Herbert’s Companies of London, vol. i., p. 45). 2 “ And alle schul swere. the same ogth Of the Masonus, ben they luf, ben they loght, To alle these poyntes hyr byfore, That hath ben ordeynt by ful good lore.” -Lines 437-440. 3 “ * God alone is gracious and powerful ! Thanks be to our gracious God, Father of heaven and of earth, and of all things that in them are, that he has vouchsafed to give power unto men.’ . . . So commences one of the ancient constitutions of Masonry ” (Halliwell, p. 7 ; vide Free- mason, May 21, 1881). 86 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. pose that tne excerpt was taken from an entirely distinct MS. As the phraseology of No. 2, however, more closely resembles it than that of any other existing version, and as it is scarcely possible that any MS. Constitution has “ disappeared ” since the publication of the first edition of Mr. Halliwell’s work in 1840, we may fairly assume that the quotation is given by that well-known antiquary without the exercise of his usual care and exactitude. We shall see as we proceed that No. 2 is much more like the ordinary MSS. than its senior, and hence will he found 1 to contain nearly all the legend of the usual “ Charges,” as in No. 15, though not always in quite such an orderly fashion, for at line 644 the historical introduction is begun anew respecting Euclid and other celebrities. 2 The MS. begins, as already observed, with an Invocation 3 to “ God our Glorious Fadir ” (but not to the Trinity as in the ordinary forms, neither is its tone of so intensely religious a character as that of No. 1), and then proceeds to narrate the main features of the usual versions, “ the whiche thingis” (to use the compiler’s words) “if I scholde reherse him hit were to longe to telle and to wryte.” First of all comes the science of geometry and how it was founded, a claim being set up of its being ‘ ‘ the causer of all the other sciences enumerated (as in No. 15), the reasons urged in support of this distinction being so numer- ous, that we shall do well to take them for granted and to admit that, “ Crafte Masonry hath the moste notabilite and moste p’te of ye sciens, Gemetry as hit is noti’d and seyd in storiall.” Adam, Noah, Lamech, and their children are all brought into requi- sition, and for the first time, the legend of the preservation of the science from the ravages of the Flood, is given in a Masonic MS. The “ two stones” were subsequently discovered by Pythagoras and Hermes. We are then informed of the “ makyng of the toure of babi- lon,” the strength of Nembrothe (who taught his workmen the craft of masonry), also of his interest in the craft, and his charge to the masons; of the wisdom of Abraham, his masonic instructions to his clerk, Euclid, and to the Egyptians; at which period masonry was first named Geometry. This “ worthi clerke Euclide ” taught “hem to make gret 1 “ This copy seems also to be written by an ecclesiastic, or rather transcribed by some learned member of the order, from an older MS.” (Woodford’s Preface to the “ Old Charges ). 2 According to the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford : “ In the second legend the name Engletis found, but who clearly is not the Euclid of the first legend, but answers more nearly to the personage named Mamus Grcecus ” (Freemason, November 8, 1879). On this point I cannot agree with Mi. Woodford, and am clearly of opinion that what he styles the second legend is simply a recapitula- tion of the first. 3 Considering that the chaplains had so much influence in the early guilds, it would have been strange had the ordinances commenced without the recognition of Divine aid in the dedicatory introduction, and so we find that other crafts and guilds were like those of the Masons in their Invocations to the Deity, preparatory to a recital of the laws e.g., the ordinances of the “ Fraternyte of Crafte of Taylorys of the Cyte of Exceter” (fourteenth century) commence:— “ To the worship of God, and of oure Lady Seynte Marye, and of Seynt John the Baptyste, and of Alle Halowys ” (Smith’s Guilds, p. 312). “Ye Gylde of ye Seynt Clement” (Cambridge, 1431) begins In ye worchippe and reuerence of ye blyssful trinite, fadir and sone and Holy Goste, and of ye glorious pope aud martyr seynt Clement, and of all ye holy companye yt is in heuene (Ibid., p. 274). Another, of the “ Bretherhode of Barbres,” is dedicated to “ye worschip of God and ys moder and Seynt Johan the Babtis” (City of Norwich); and the Guild of Carpenters of 137o is somewhat similar to the ordinary Masonic MSS. as respects its Invocation, In ye name of 3 e fader and sone and holy gost, and of oure Ladi seinte marie cristes moder;” but as none of our Masonic Charges, except the “Halliwell,” are tinged with Mariolatry, and that version being exceptional in many ways, the “ Constitutions ” proper attest the influence exeited bj Protestant principles on the laws and regulations of the operative masons. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 87 Tally s and diclies ” to counteract the overflowing of the Nile, also to provide for an abnor- mal increase of population by teaching their children the science of masonry, for which purpose certain charges were agreed to, and by which means “ cities and tounys, castelis, and templis, and lordis placies were wrought.” King Solomon’s Temple is mentioned in due course, and the important services of that monarch, as well as those of his father, are duly chronicled, but not as entitled to any special prominence, whilst the “ Kyngis’ sone of Tyry ” is scarcely noticed. Coming down to more modern times, we are introduced to “ Carolus S’cdus yt ys to sey Charlys ye secunde ” 1 of Trance (of whom “ sume men sey f he was elite by fortune ”) who was “ of ye Kynges hlode Royal,” and was not only a mason, but also “ louyd and cherschid” other masons. He also gave them charges, or- dained an annual assembly to regulate the trade, “and sone aftyr come Seynt Ad habell in to England and he con’tyd Seynt Albon to Cristendane.” This is the only reference to St. Amphibalus in the MS. “ Constitutions,” although Dr. Plot in 1686, glancing at the subject, after a perusal of the “ parchment volum ” referred to in his work, 2 3 suggests that Amphibalus was thought rather to be the cloak than the master of St. Alban. According to Woodford, “ Amphibalus ” is mentioned in the Dowland MS.,' but I have been unable to trace this reference. It seems, however, clear that the craft legend of St. Alban must be relegated to the region of fable and romance. All accounts concur in representing St. Amphibalus as a priest or missionary from Rome, who, arriving at Verulamium during the Diocletian persecution, was generously sheltered by St. Alban, then a pagan, a man of Roman origin and of high rank, and that the almost immediate conversion of Alban by his guest was followed by equally rapid detection and the martyrdom of the two saints, along with numerous other Christians and “ new proselytes.” To suppose that St. Amphibalus was merely the cloak of St. Alban, though the latter certainly did try to conceal him by covering him with his own rich official garment, is the ridiculous assumption of self-opinionated critics. Such individuals quite forget that the habit of applying nicknames was one for which the Romans were notorious, and that hardly a great name in their history can be cited which does not fall within this description. For ex- ample, Caius Caesar is always called “Caligula” (a shoe), and Antoninus Bassianus, “ Caracalla” (a short Gaulish cloak). Literally translated, “Amphibalus” would signify a long, ample garment, such as a pilgrim might naturally carry with him. The first men- tion of these saints — Alban and Amphibalus — occurs in the life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by his friend and companion Constantius, who relates how the former, after having con- futed the Pelagians, and vanquished the Piets at Maes-garmon (the “ Halleluia victory”), held a solemn assembly at the spot where the two saints lay buried, and which he seems to have selected for that purpose from the sanctity in which it was held. This was about 120 years after the martyrdom. They are next alluded to by Gildas, 4 circa a.d. 570, and later by Bede, but we find nothing beyond a reference to the story already given, and there is no hint or suggestion of anything at all resembling the Masonic tradition. No trace of the familiar legend appears in the life of Alban given by the Bollandists, which is said to have been translated, by order of the Abbot Simon, from a Saxon (or British ?) 1 Whether by this is meant the “Charles Martel” of the later Constitutions will be duly examined further on. 2 Natural History of Staffordshire, chap, viii., p. 316. 3 Freemason, November 8, 1879. 4 Epistola de Excidio Britanniae. 88 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. original written a.l>. 590. 1 The saints are not even mentioned by Jacob a Yoragine in his “ Golden Legend.” We find no corroboration of the narrative of the “ Old Charges” in the writings of Capgrave, an indiscriminate collector of legends, or in the rhyming life of “ St. Albon,” by John Lydgate, the monk-poet of Bury. As Capgrave and Lydgate wrote at about the time when the legend first comes into notice, their silence respecting it is the more remarkable. The tradition experienced a similar neglect at the hands of Harps- field, Archdeacon of Canterbury, 2 of Alford the Jesuit, whose learned history of the Church of England (from the Roman Catholic point of view) appeared in the seventeenth century, and who, for his elaborate notice of St. Alban, has drawn upon the stores of every other available chronicler. Nor do we find it in Usher, 3 whose learning, albeit cumbrous and ill-digested, evinces a greater knowledge of English MSS. than that of perhaps any other writer. I will not, however, be so rash as to affirm that some such story does not lie hidden in the eighty-three MSS. relating to St. Alban, enumerated by Sir T. D. Hardy in his catalogue; but as those in print are all in accord, and as such narratives are ordi- narily copied (more or less) one from another, the preservation of a legend, analogous to that of the Freemasons, in a manuscript form, is highly improbable. It is possible that the Abbey Church, having been built in early Norman times, almost entirely with Roman bricks from Verulamium, plastered over, and bearing, as may be seen at the present day, in the plain round arches, square columns, and flat pilasters, a very curious resemblance to the old Roman style of architecture, certain mediaeval writers may have concluded that St. Alban actually built the existing church, and that he was therefore a great mason or patron of masons. By a similar course of reasoning the erection of the White Tower was attributed to Julius Caesar. He had been in England; Londinium was a colony, and the Romans had a castellum on or near the site of the Tower! There were, however, two other St. Albans, with whose histories that of the British proto-martyr may have become en- tangled. A St. Alban of Mentz founded a monastery there A. d. 804, and Papebrochius 4 informs us of another, whose relics were honorably buried at Burano near Venice. The latter being an Italian, and connected (it is said) with Burano, now, and from time imme- morial reputed for the excellence of its church mosaic, may have been prominently associ- ated with church building and architecture, but I am not aware of anything being known of either, beyond what I have already stated. The “ Edwin legend” is not very clearly presented, as it is mixed up with the account of “ Kyng Atlielstane and his yongest sone,” the latter not being distinguished by a name. However, this son, whoever he may have been, “ lernyd practyke of y fc sciens to his specu- \atyf. For of speculatyfe he was a mast, and he lovyd well masonry and masons. And he became a mason hymselfe. And ye yaf hem chargis and names as hit is now usyd in Englond.” The congregations of the masons were to be held annually or triennially “as nede were,” for the examination of masters respecting their knowledge of the art, and their obedience to the laws. The articles and points are in each case numbered from one to nine, many being almost verbally identical with those of the earlier version. Following these are additional regulations and the declaration — 1 If this be true, it may have been a translation of a biography, compiled on the occasion of the foundation of the monastery by King Offa, from still earlier sources. 2 Author of “ Historia Anglicana Ecelesiastica,” and other works. It is said “that his zeal for Popery deprived him of all his preferments.’ 3 British Ecclesiastical Antiquities. 4 Acta Sanctorum, Die 21 Junii, vol. iv., p. 92 (MDCCVII.). THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 89 “ Whan the mast and y e felawes be for warned ben y come to such co’gregacons if nede be y e schereffe of y e countre or the Mayer of y e Cyte or Alderman of y e towne in wyche the co’gregacons ys holde schall be felaw and sociat to y e Mast, of the co’gregacion in helpe of h’y ayenst rebelles and upberyng y° rygt of the reme.” The numerous instructions for “ new men/’ who had not been “ charged ” before, to some extent complete the code of laws to be found in later versions, which are not in the eighteen clauses herein noted, and provision is made for the jurisdiction of the sheriff over malcontents, so that “ the lowist as the hiest schuld be well and trewely y seruyd in his art biforesayd thorowowt all the kyngdom of Englond. Amen so mote hit be.” In confirmation of the statements respecting the origin and progress of masonry, abun- dant testimony is offered, such as “y e bybill and in othur stories,” in the “ stories y* is named Beda and Isodor,” 1 and especially the “ Policronico, a cronycle p’nyd” (penned). It is desirable to look closely into this legend of the “ two stones,” which is ordinarily to be met with in the MSS. following No. 2. The “Polychronicon ” was one of the most popular histories during the fourteenth and the two following centuries. 2 Both Latin and English versions were widely circulated long prior to the first printed edition by the father of English typography in 1482 (“ emprynted and sette in form by me William Caxton and a lytel embelyshed ”). This work is very scarce, few perfect copies being known. It will be evident, therefore, that the mere reference to the “ Policronico,” as the chief source from which some of the particulars were obtained by the writer of No. 2, is no proof that Caxton’s edition was the one quoted from, seeing that there were many manuscript versions of a far earlier date. Trevisa’s translation of 1387 reads — “closede hem in tweie greet pileres i-made of marbyl and of brend tyle. In a piler of marbyl for water, and in a pyler of tyle for fuyre.” ? Another translation says: “ did write artes whom thei hade geten by labore in ij pillers of diverse ston, that hit scholde not peresche from memory, oon ston was of marbole, agenye the fioenge of water, that other was of tyle ston, ageyne the brennenge of fyre.” 4 The “Cooke” MS. gives a still more elaborate account, and states that “ ii man of ston of suche wtu y* y e one wolde newbreune and y 4 ston 6 iscallyd marbyll, and y t oy ston 0 y t well not synke in wat, y 4 stone is namyd lacus ” 5 (later, a brick). The edition of Caxton 0 styles the two stones “marbel and brent tile,” so it will be seen that, 1 Isidore, a Spanish Christian of the seventh century, who wrote a manual of science under the title of “ De Naturis Rerum ; ” also a larger work, “ Etymologise,” or “ Origines.” 2 To well-informed readers of the fourteenth aud fifteenth centuries Higden’s “ Polychronicon ” was the standard work on general History (Introduction to Babington’s Iligden, p. xlii.). Mr. Babington considers that the first edition, or version, of the “ Polychronicon ” appeared a.d. 1342. 3 Babington’s Higden, vol. ii., p. 233. 4 Harleian MS., 2261, fol. 84. This translation is “ different from that made by John de Trevisa, and continued to the year 1401.” 6 Josephus also alludes to the legend : “ The world was to be destroyed at one time by force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water ; they made two pillars, the one of brick, the other of stone ; they inscribed their discoveries on them both,” etc. (Antiquities, 1841, Book I, chap. ii.). Dr. James Anderson selects this account in the 1723 edition of the Constitutions, and acknowledges its source in that of 1738. In its description of the second stone (with which those of the later MSS. in this series are in general agreement), No. 2 differs, it will be seen, materially from the other authorities cited in the text. 6 At the Caxton Exhibition, 1877, there were four copies of the “Polychronicon” exhibited, one of which, lent by St. John’s College, Cambridge, has the autograph of “Tho. Baker, Col. Jo. Socius ejectus,” and the suggestive statement, “So scarce and dear that it cost me what I am ashamed to own ” (Official Catalogue, u. 14), 90 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. on this point, No. 2 is not in exact agreement with any one of the translations. 1 At first sight still another test might be applied to settle the period of composition of this MS., viz., the reference to “ye dertlie of Korne and vytayl in ye contry,” but as there were several famines from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, it is not possible to decide which is cited, e.g., one in 1315, “ so dreadful that the people devoured the flesh of horses, dogs, cats, and vermin,” and others in 1335 and 1353, as well as many later, especially one in the year 14-38. 2 However, not to waste time by further criticising the antiquity of this ancient document, we may dismiss the point by adopting the estimate of Sir Francis Pal grave, who says: “From the language of these Charges, they are, in the existing texts, at least as old as the early part of the fifteenth century,” 3 which opinion was evidently formed prior to the publication (or discovery) of the two oldest MSS. which we now possess (Nos. 1 and 2). (F) MSS. 11, 19, 20, 25, 30, & 37. The “ Harleian 1942 ” (11 in this series) might well claim a separate examination, con- taining, as it does, the “New Articles,” in the possession of which it stands alone; but in order to avoid a numerous classification, six MSS. are now selected for criticism, which present, as a common feature, what is known as the “Apprentice Charges,” or additional rules for the apprentices, not in the ordinary clauses, as set out in No. 15. The “New Articles” are undated , and run as follows: “Hakleian MS.,” No. 1942 (ll). 4 * 26. “ Noe person (of what degree soever) bee accepted a free mason, unless hee shall have a lodge of five free masons; at least, whereof one to bee a master, or warden, of that limitt, or devision, wherein such Lodge shalbee kept, and another of the trade of Free Masonry.” 27. “ That no p’son shal bee accepted a Free Mason, but such as are of able body, honest parentage, good reputacon, and observers of the Laws of the Land.” 28. “ That noe p’son hereafter bee accepted free mason, nor shalbee admitted into any Lodge or assembly untill hee hath brought a certificate of the time of adoption from the Lodge f accepted him, unto the Master of that Limit, and devision, where such Lodge was kept, which sayd Master shall enrole the same in parchm’t in a role to bee kept for that purpose, to give an acc* of all such acceptions at every General Assembly.” 6 29. “ That every person whoe now is Free Mason, shall bring to the Master a note of the time of his acception to the end the same may bee enroll’d in such priority of place of the p’son shall deserve, and to y e end the whole company and fellows may the better know each other.” 30. “ That for the future the sayd Society, Company, and fraternity of Free Masons, 1 Cronica Randulphi (the book named “ Proloconyson ”). W. Caxton’s, anno 1482, reads: “ Therfor bookes that they had made by greet trauayl and studye he closed hem in two grete pilers made of marble and of brente tile. In a pyler of marble for water, and in a pyler of tyle for fyre. For it shold be saued by that maner to helpe of mankynde, me seth that the piler of stone escaped the flode and yetis in Siria” (Liber Secundus, cap. v., line 65). 2 Haydn’s Dates, 1873, p. 258. 8 Edinburgh Review, April 1839. 4 Figures within brackets refer to the numbers prefixed to the titles of the MSS. 5 The nearest approach to the term “Grand Lodge” which is to be met with in the old MSS. Ordinarily the assembly is referred to without the adjective being prefixed. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 9i shalbee regulated and governed by one Master, and Assembly, and Wardens, as y° said Company shall think fit to chose, at every yearely generall assembly.” 31. “That noe p’son shalbee accepted a Free Mason, or know the secrets of the said Society, untill hee hath first taken the oath of secrecy hereafter following: £ I, A. B., Doe in the presence of Almighty God, and my Fell owes, and Brethren here present, promise and declare, that I will not at any time hereafter, by any Act or circumstance whatsoever. Directly or Indirectly, publish, discover, reveale, or make knowne any of the secrets, privi- ledges, or Counsells, of the Fraternity or Fellowship of Free Masonry, which at this time, or anytime hereafter, shalbee made knowne unto mee soe helpe mee God, and the holy contents of this booke.’ ” The additional regulations already noted are variously entitled the “ Apprentices’ Orders” (30), the “ Future Charges” (37), and the “ Apprentice Charge” (20 and 25), but are not distinguished by any title in No. 11, simply succeeding the “New Articles,” and are numbered 1 to 10, the fifth rule being absent. I have selected the text of the “ York No. 4 ” (25) to contribute this section of the laws. “ The Apprentice Charge ” (25). 1. ' “ That he shall be true to God and the holy Church, the prince his M r and dame whome he shall serve.” 2. “ And that he shall not steale nor peke away his M r or dames goods, nor absent liimselfe from their service, nor goe from them about his own pleasure by day or by night without their Licence.” 3. “ And that he do not commit adultry or fornication in his Master’s house with his wife, daughter, or servant, or any other.” 4. “And that he shall keepe councell in all things spoken in Lodg or Chamber by any Masons, fellows, or fremasons.” 5. “And that he shall not hold any disobedient argument against any fremason, nor disclose any secret whereby any difference may arise amongst any Masons, or fellowes, or apprentices, but Reverently to behave himselfe to all fremasons being sworne brethren to his MV’ 6. “And not to use any carding, diceing, or any other unlawfull games.” 7. “ Nor haunt Taverns or alehouses there to waste any mans goods, without Licence of his said M r or some other fremason. ” 8. “And that he shall not commit adultry in any mans house where he shall worke or be tabled.” 9. “And that he shall not purloyn nor steale the goods of any p’son, nor willingly suffer harme or shame or consent thereto, during his said apprentisshyp either to his M r or dame, or any other fremason. But to withstand the same to the utmost of his power, and thereof to informe his said M r or some other fremason, with all convenient speed that may bee.” 2 The extra rules of the following MS. differ so materially from those we ordinarily find in documents of a like class, that a brief summary of these regulations becomes essential. “Melrose MS.” (19). 1. A “Frie Masone” not to take more than three apprentices in his lifetime. 1 Not numbered in the original. 2 The 9th of MS. 11 is, “You shall not marry or contract yourselfe to any woeman during youre apprenticeshipp. 92 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 2. To obtain consent of “ ye set Lodge,” of “ all his masters and Fellows.” 3. Apprentices (“ lawfully taken ”), after serving their time, “ ought not to be named losses,” but “ to be named frie men, if they have their M rs Discharge.” 4. “All others not lawfully taken are to be nainit loses.” 5. Apprentices to furnish essays to prove their skill, before being made “ frie masons.” 1 C. Masters and Fellows only to engage “ Losses” when regular Masons cannot be had. 7. blot to let “Losses” know “ye priviledge of y e compass, square, levell, and ye plumb rule. ” a 8. “ Humming ” to be set “ Losses,” and “ let them work between ym w rt a lyne.” 9. “ Frie Masons” on coming to labour ought to displace such “ Losses” (or cowans ). 10. If lawful members cannot be given work, they must be furnished with money. 11. If apprentices “ doe run away and are found,” their lawful M r must be informed. 12. “We do swear, so God us helpe, and holy dome, and by the contents of this book,” etc. This MS. (19) is the oldest, virtually, of the four Scottish versions (16 to 19 inclusive), of which all but the “Atcheson Haven” (17) contain the important clause “treu to ye King of England,” as in the second of the “ General Charges ” of our English copies. This is the more noticeable, if we bear in mind that the Melrose version is clearly a transcript of one of a.d. 1581, or earlier; also that No. 17, whilst it omits “England,” has still the clause “true to the king,” the addendum either being purposely omitted, or simply left out through non-existence in the text copied from, some even of the English versions not containing the complete sentence. It would not, I think, be possible to have more con- vincing proof of the English origin of these Scottish versions of our “ Old Charges.” a The historian of the Lodge of Edinburgh, D. Murray Lyon, commenting upon the “ Kilwin- ning” MS. (16), says emphatically, “that it was a production of the sister kingdom is evident from its containing a charge in which ‘ every man that is a Mason/ is taken bound to be ‘ liedgeman to the king of England/ and also from that part of the legend which refers to the introduction and spread of Masonry in Britain being confined to the rehearsal of the patronage extended to the craft by English kings. ” 4 It may, indeed, be positively affirmed that every form or version of the Masonic documents, which it is the design of this chapter to classify and describe, had its origin in South Britain. Another peculiarity of the “Melrose” text is its addition to the third of the special charges, viz., “Also that no M r nor fellow supplant on other of his mark,” which clause 1 The Regulations of the old Scottish Lodges generally provide for such Essays being exhibited as tests of skill, to be submitted to a committee appointed by the members, prior to being passed as fellow crafts. “ In England also masterpieces were sometimes required; see, for instance, the by- laws of the Company of Framework Knitters” (Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxvi., pp. 790-794 ; Smith’s Guilds, p. cli.). 2 In a paper read before the Eboracum Lodge, No. 1611, York, by Mr. W. W. Whytehead, the author observes: “It has often been a matter of speculation among - Masonic students as to what were the real secrets of the mediaeval masons. ... I am inclined to submit that the science rediscovered by Monge, and called by him descriptive geometry, constituted the real secret of our ancient brethren, and that it was this knowledge which they so carefully concealed from the profane ” (Masonic Magazine, August 1881). 3 Still another illustration of English influence is seen in the attestation of 1581, during the minority of James VI., to the Melrose MS. : “I, John Wincester, his Master Me mason, have subscrib it my name and sett my mark in the Year of our Lord 1581, and in the raing of our most Soveraing Lady Elizabeth the (22) Year.” 4 History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 108. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 93 is not to be found elsewhere (though quite in accordance with the “ Schaw Statutes” of a.d. 1598), and as I have already intimated, it varies so much from the other Scottish forms, that as a version it should not be classed with them, save as respects locality and common features of agreement. In Scotland it is as notably sui generis as No. 8 (includ- ing 32 and copies) is in England, both being curious examples of departure from what might fairly be termed the accepted text. I have noticed the androgynous clause in the “ York No. 4 ” (25), and will now proceed with its further examination. The oldest of the York MSS. (No. 5 of this series) reads “ teneat Librum ut ille veil Mi,” etc., but in No. 25 a translation is given of the customary Latin instructions, in which “ ille veil Mi” appears as “ hee or sliee;” Mi (they), having through error or design been set aside for ilia (she). Taking the testimony of all the other MSS., the translation should read he or they, but as a matter of fact, in No. 25 it reads he or she. Mackey, Hughan, and Lyon, believe the latter is a faulty translation, and nothing more; but there are others (including the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford) who accept this document as evidence of the admission of females into Masonic fellowship, especially as so many of the old guilds were composed of women as well as men. 1 Not one out of a hundred but recruited their ranks from both sexes; and even in guilds under the man- agement of priests, such as the Brotherhood of “ Corpus Christi”of York, begun 1408, lay members were allowed (of some honest craft), without regard to sex, if “ of good fame and conversation,” the payments and privileges being the same for the “ bretheren and sis- teren.” 2 Women “ were sworne upon a book ” in the same manner as the men. In 1348 the general assembly of the Grocers ’ Company, held at “Ringed Hall,” Thames Street, agreed to certain “ new points,” one being in favour of the admission of female members. 3 It may, indeed, be suggested, that women were admitted into craft guilds in cases where such membership was not obviously unfit or unsuitable; but the masons’ handicraft, being so ill-adapted for female exercise, the balance of probability leans strongly against their ever having been admitted to full membership in the masonic body. To this it may be replied, that the trade of a carpenter was not more favorable to the employment of women than that of a mason. Yet in the carpenters’ guild of Norwich, founded a.d. 1375, “ In the name of y e fader and sone and holi gost, and of oure ladi seinte marie, cristes moder, and al y e holi cumpayne of heuene” the ordinances were agreed to for “ y e bretlierin and sistrin.” 4 The charter of the Carpenters’ Company of London describes the company to consist of “the brethren and sisters of freemen of the said mystery,” and the records of this fraternity attest that “on the 5th August 1679, Rebecca Gyles, spinster, sometime servant to Rebecca Cooper, a free servant of the company, was admitted to the freedome, haveing served her said Mistres faithfully a terme of seaven years.” 5 The “ Gild of the Peltyers” (Furriers), of a.d. 1376, also made provision for female membership, and the 1 Introduction to Smith’s Guilds, p. xxx. 2 Rules and Regulations for the Fraternity of the Holy Trinity of St. Michael’s, Helston 1517, “ Yn ye name of God, Amen,” provide for the management of “The Fraternyte of the trynyte,” consisting of qualified “Bryderyn and Systyrn.” This was a Shoemakers’ Guild, “ ynye Church of St. Michael.” 3 Herbert’s Companies of London, vol. i. , p. 306. “ Amongst the ordinances of the Drapers’ Com- pany, 1505, is recognized the right of Sisters, freed in the fellowship, to take apprentices, and the fee specified” (Ibid., p. 423). In the Fishmongers’ Company the Sisters wore liveries, and walked in the election procession (Ibid., vol. ii. , pp. 44, 682). 4 Smith’s Guilds, p. 37. 6 E. B. Jupp, History of the Carpenters’ Company, 1848, p. 161. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 94 records of craft guilds in numerous cities might, he cited in corroboration of this usage. Still, there is no direct testimony as to the admission of females into masonic lodges or as- semblies at any time, though they were sometimes allowed to partially reap the benefit, as widows, of a deceased husband's business, if they had a Freemason to help them. The records of “ Mary’s Chapel” Lodge, under date of 17th April 1683, furnish an instance of the legality of a female occupying the position of “ dame, ” or “ mistress, ” in a masonic sense, but from the minute of the lodge it will be observed that it was only to a very limited extent that the widows of master masons could benefit by the privilege. 1 On this point Mr. Lyon observes: “ In the case of female members of Scottish Incorporations, ‘the freedom of craft’ carried with it no right to a voice in the administration of affairs.' 2 3 Neither was their presence required at enrolment, although their entry-money was double that of members’ sons.” I quite think with Mr. Lyon that the reference in certain clauses of the MS. of 1693 3 (25) “ to an entered apprentice’s obligation to protect the interests of his ‘ master or dame,’ i.e., mistress, clearly indicates that at that time it was lawful for females, in the capacity of employers, to execute mason- work.” On the whole, I suppose we must accept the clause in question, either as an error or fancy of the translator or copyist; but it is certainly very singular that there is no record of females having belonged to masonic guilds or companies, though they were connected with those of other crafts, such as the saddlers and spurriers, carpenters, peltyers (furriers), calendrers, and tailors. (0) “ INIGO JONES” & “ SPENCER” (8 & 32. Also Eeproductions). I have already expressed my opinion of the value of this text, not only from internal evidence, but because it obviously formed the basis, in part, of Dr. Anderson’s “ Constitu- tions,” of which more anon. Its chief importance is derived from the additional clauses in the legendary history, rather than from any changes in the language of that part which is to be found in the ordinary versions. Mere arbitrary alterations of the copyist only demand our notice as possible means of identification in tracing families of MSS. 4 Of these many examples are found in copies not otherwise of any importance whatever, whilst some are so plainly errors of transcription, that any arguments based upon them are of little, if indeed of any value, e.g., in No. 8, the conclusion runs, “So Help you God, and the 1 Lyon’s History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 122. 2 The city of Litchfield was anciently governed by a Guild and Guild-Master. King Henry II. and Anne his Queen, Henry VH. and his queen, and many other illustrious names, were enrolled as members, the Guild comprising brothers and sisters, but the rules provided for the Brothers only, choosing the Master and Wardens annually (Rev. T. Harwood, F.S.A., History of Litchfield, 1806, p. 319. 3 “I confess that the earliest form, to my mind, of all the MS. Constitutions (not excepting any but the Masonic poem) is the York MS. of 1693 — that is to say, that it represents in its traditions a very old form indeed, probably even anterior to 1490, and coeval with the Guild of Masons mentioned in the York Fabric Rolls. I allude to that peculiar passage in it which recognizes female member- ship” (Woodford’s Preface to the “ Old Charges,” p. xiii.). 4 Among the merely nominal departures from the usual text, that of the third clause in the “General Charges” may be cited (which has been already pointed out by the possessor of this MS.), instead of mentioning the paragraph respecting the king, as in Rule 2 of) No. 15, No. 8 reads — “That yea be not disloyall; nor confederates in treasonable plotts; But if yea hear of any treachery against the Government, you ought to discover it, if yea cannot otherwise prevent it.” Nos. 1 and 2 of these rules in the Inigo Jones’ MS. are united in No. 15, and appear as one clause only. 95 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. Itallidom,” for “your holy-dorm.” 1 Fort has some interesting observations upon the usual finale of the “ Old Charges,” and thinks that the word “ holy-dome” is evidently derived from the old form of administering an oath upon the shrine in which the sacred relics of some martyred saint were enclosed, the receptacle of the bones being ordinarily constructed in the form of a house ( domus ), so that the elision was easy from “ holi-domus ” to “ holy- dome.” 5 Without impugning the correctness of this view in reference to a very early period of guild life, its applicability to the “ Old Charges” from the fifteenth century must be strongly contested, for the form in which the concluding charge is generally given, suggests only the solemnity of the obligation about to be taken, “ So healpe you God and your halydome, and by this booke in yo r hands unto yr. power” (4). On the admission of the masonic apprentices, according to the direct or indirect testimony of the several versions, and of the prevailing custom in later times, they were “ sworn” on the Bible, not “ on the holidom,” as were those of the Tailors’ Guild of Norwich (fourteenth century), and there is nothing resembling the ordinance of the “ Smiths ” of Chesterfield (of the same era) in the Masonic Constitutions, the former requiring all the brethren to be bound “by touch of relics” as a pledge of their fidelity. 3 That a change was effected in the manner of administering the obligation, may be inferred from a reference to “ The Oaths to be Taken,” by the “ Fraternyte of Synt John the Babtyste of Taylors” (Exeter), for the words “ holy dome, and by this boke,” have been crossed out by a later hand, and the “ holy contentes of this boke,” substituted, which corre- sponds with MS. 11 and others. 4 It is in the text of No. 8, 5 the prototype of No. 32 and its reproductions, that Prince Edwin is spoken of as “ Brother to King Althelstane,” all the other ’forms either describing him as a son, or maintaining a discreet silence as to the relationship. The historical narrative is also chronologically arranged, and the years of many of the events are inserted, which is unusual in these documents. The omission of the name of Charles Martel is noteworthy, also that of “Naymus Grecus,” but otherwise the text, as I have said, is more remarkable for the additions to, rather than the deviations from, the ordinary versions. Under these circumstances I cordially endorse the opinion of the Rev. A. E. A. Woodford as to its “special verbiage” and peculiarly interesting character. (H) ORDINARY VERSIONS. 6 Under this description may be ranged all the MSS. not included in the four divisions preceding (D to G), excepting only such as are merely reproduct ions, which naturally belong 1 “ Halidom [Sax., i. e., holy judgment], whence in old times By my Halidom was a solemn oath among country people ” (Bailey). ^ Antiquities of Freemasonry, pp. 171, 292, 404. 3 Smith’s Guilds, p. 170 ^ Curious as they are, room is not available to present even a summary of these oaths of the “Crafte of Talors ” (Exeter), their officers, and others. The first occupies more than a page of Smith’s Guilds (p. 316-318); and there are also the obligations taken by “the Master of the occupacion;” that of the “ Free Brotherys;” the oath of the new members to the Master and Wardens; and, finally, that of the Beadle to the Master and Company, who had to promise— “ Such counceile as shalbe disclosed before you ye shall kepe in secrete, and not disclose to any man,” etc. e St. Alban is styled the “Proto-Martyr” in Nos. 8, 11, and 31. « T his classification leaves out of consideration the value of MSS. on the grounds of their antiquity, or of being transcripts of important versions, now unhappily missing, such as the Dowland MS. (39) and others; but I apprehend the chief point to aim at is, what they really say, rather than to waste time in the mere study of their antiquity, which can only interest paleographers. 9 6 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. to the same class as their original s, whether or not the connection has been noted. This division includes a majority of the transcripts, which are thus grouped together, because whilst each MS. contains some peculiarity of its own, there is a substantial agreement between them all. The recital of the legend is, generally speaking, similar; also the various <£ Charges,” whilst the differences being nominal are virtually referable to the transform- ing influences of time and circumstances. In all, the ‘ ‘Apprentice Charge ” and the “New Articles ” are wanting, whilst they contain none of those clauses which, in the previous division (G), confer a special value on the text for purposes of comparison with the early editions of the Grand Lodge Constitutions. Attention having been already directed to the special differences in the MSS. of other types (D to G), the reproduction of an “ ordi- nary version” will give the general reader a fair conception of the prevailing characteristics of the different “Old Charges.” For this purpose I have selected the text of the follow- ing Roll, with the consent of Mr. Buchanan, as previously stated. The prose Constitution, which will now be given in its entirety, is a. fair specimen of the others; all these scrolls being much alike, and, indeed, differing only in minor details. In making a selection for purposes of illustration and reference, I have chosen a document of the seventeenth century, which combines the chief points of agreement between the “ Old Charges,” and has not hitherto been printed. 1 THE “BUCHANAN MS.” (15). I. ’— 0 Lord God Father of Heaven with the wisdom of the glorious Sonn through the grace and goodness of the Holy Ghost three persons in one Godhead Bee with us att our begining And give us grace soe to governe us in our Lives here that wee may come to his heavenly bliss that never shall have ending Amen. II. Good Brethren and Fellowes our purppose is to tell you how and in what manner this worthy craft of Masonry was begun And afterwards how it was upholden maynetained by many worthy Kings and Princes and other worthy men And also to them that bee here wo shall declare the charges that belongeth to every Free Mason to Keppe for it is a science that is worthy to be kept for a worthy craft and vertuous science for it is one of the seven Liberall Sciences: And these be the names of them. The First is Grammar: that teacheth a man to speake truly and to write truly: The Second is Rhethorick and that teacheth a man to speake faire and in subtill termes: The third is Dialectica that teacheth a man to decerne and know truth from falsehood: The fourth is Arrithmetike And it teacheth a man to reckon and count all numbers: The fifth is Geometrye and it teacheth a man to mete and measure the Earth and all other things of which is masonry: The sixth is musicke and it teacheth the Crafte of Songe and voice of tongue orggann harpe and Trumpett. The Seventh is Astronomye and teacheth a man to know the course of the Sunne Moone and Stars: These be the seven sciences which are all found by one science which is Geometrye. III. Thus may you prove that all the sciences of the world were found by this science of geometrye and grounded thereon for it teacheth mete and measure ponderation and 1 The Buchanan MS. No. 15. This Constitution has been transcribed by Mr. W. J. Hug-ban, from Mi\ Buchanan’s copy, and I have also collated the text with the original, in the library of Grand Lodge. To facilitate reference, this sample of the “Old Charges” is divided into thirty-four para- graphs, with a marginal numeration. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. p'- same class as their originals, whether, or not, the connection has 1>.- -•» note*! Th; ,-i -n includes a majority of the transcripts, which are thus grouped toother,. becaa»» M~ each MS. contains some peculiarity of its own, there is a substantial agreement p'-rfin them all. The recital of the legend is, generally speaking, similar; also th- ■ ‘.:uh a, ages/’ whilst the differences being nominal are virtually referable to the train for - ; duences of time and circumstances. In all, the “Apprentice Charge ”and the * New ” are wanting, whilst they contain tame of those clauses which, in the previou r ‘ : ('■' /•> conn a specie, valu* or; t; l •;»< i .r purposes of- comparison with the earl v -'U ?.cut ion having been already directed to A) to C), the reproduction of an “ ordi- ■ option of the p' ov ailing characteristic*! { . umc.- it .-.-.ted the text of the follow- ■ n -c:' ''Otiivi v. is a fair specimen of •-ah in minor dt ; a . i ; I ' ; - chosen a document . i- iit bet - eu the nr no our ‘ ,o his TMknner :G Gained ' - here ■ ico • : : sseth .. man •th a i . an to .* u sicke a pett. oone :h is . ;cnce %m - from Tig & " ' strand para- _____ ■i . RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF CARNARVON. PRO GRAND MASTER OF THE UNITED GRAND DODGE OF ENGLAND THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 97 weight of all manner of kind of the earth for there is noe man that worketh in any craft but hee worketh by some mete or measure nor any man that buyeth or selleth but he may use mete measure or weight and belongeth to Geometrye and these Marchants and Craft of Geometrye doe find all other of the six sciences Especially the plowemen and tiller of the ground for all manerof corne and graynevynes plants and setters of other fruits For Gram- mar nor Musicke neither Astronomye nor any of the other six sciences can find mete measure or weight without Geometrye wherefore that science may well be called the most worthy est of all sciences which findeth mete and measure to all the Best: IV. If you aske how this Science began I shall you tell: before the flood of Noah there was a man called Lamech: as you may find in the fourth Chapter of Genisis, whoe had two wives, the name of the one was Adah: and the name of the other was Zillah: by his first wife Adah hee had two sonnes the name of the Elder was Jaball: and the other was called Juball: and by his other wife Zillah hee had a sonne called Tuball and a daughter called Naamah : These foure children found the begining of all the Crafts in the world: And the eldest sonne Jaball found the Craft of Geometrye and hee parted flocks of sheepe and lands in the field and first built a house of stoone and timber as is noted in the Chapter aforesaid: and his brother Juball found the Craft of Musicke songe of tongue harpe organn and Trumpett: And the third brother Tuball found the Smith’s Craft to worke in Gold Silver Brasse Copper Iron and Steele and the Daughter Naamah found the Craft of Weaveing: and these children knew that God would take vengance for sinns either by fire, water, wherefore they did write the sciences they had found in two pillars of stone that they might be found after God had taken vengance for sine the one was Marble and would not burne with fire: the other was Laterus and it would not droune in water. V. There resteth more to tell you how the stones were found that the Sciences were written in after the said flood the great Hermarynes that was Tusses his Sonne the which was the sonne of Sem the sonne of Noah the same Hermarynes was afterwards called Hermes the father of wise men: he found one of the two pillars of stone and hee found the sciences written therin and he taught them to other men. VI. And at the makeing of the Tower of Babilon there masonrye was much made of: the Kinge of Babilon that height Nemorth and Nemorth himself was a Mason: and loved Well the Craft as is said with Masters of Histories and when the Citie of Neneve and other Cities of the East Asia should- bee made this Nemorth Kinge of Babilon sent thither 60 Masons att the desire of the Kinge of Neneve his cousin and when they went forth hee gave them a charge in this manner that they should be true each of them to other and that they should love truly together soe that hee might have worshipp for his sending of them to his cousin the Kinge of Neneve And further liee gave them two charges as con- cerning their science And they were the first charge that ever any Mason had of his worke or Crafte. VII. Moreover vdien Abraham and Sarah his wife went into Egypt hee taught the seven sciences to the Egyptians And hee had a worthy scholler whose name was Euclid which learned very well and became Master of all the seven sciences And in his Dais it befell that Lords and Great men of those quarters and Dominions had soe many sonnes some by their wives and some by other women for those Countries bee hott of Generation and they had not competent goods and hands to maintayne their children which made 9 8 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. much caro And the Kinge of that Land considering theire poverty called his cou.nsell together and caused a Parliment to he houlden the greatest of his intent was to know liow they should maintayne theire children and they could not find any way unlesse it were Ly cunning and good science whereupon he let a proclamation bee made through his Eealme if there were any that could teach and informe them in any good Cuning art or science hee should come unto them and bee very well contented for his paynes and travell: after this proclamation made came this worthy Clarke Eclid and said unto the Kinge and his Nobles if you will betake your children unto my government I will teach the seven Liberall Sciences whereby they may live honestly and like gentlemen upon this condition that you will grant mee a Comisson to have rule and power over them according as science ought to be ruled and upon this Covenant I shall take care and charge of them: the Kinge and his counsel granted the same and sealled the Comisson and then this worthy Docter tooke to him those Lordes sonnes and taught them the science of Geometric in practise for to worke all manner of worthy workes that should bellong to building of Temples Churches Castles mannors Towers houses and all manner of buildings And he gave them a charge. VIII. The First was that they should bee true to the Kinge and Lords they served. IX. And that they should love well together And be true each one to other. X. And to call each other his fellowe or else his brother And not servant nor knave nor any other foule name. XI. And that they should deserve theire pay of the Lord or Master they should serve: XII. And that they should ordaine the wisest of them to bee the Master of theire Lords worke And that neither Lord nor man of Great Linage or Riches or for favour should make and ordaine such a one to beare Rule and be governour of theire worke that hath but small knowledge or understanding in the science whereby the owner of the worke should bee evill served and you ashamed of your worke-manshipp. XIII. And alsoe that they should call the governour of the w r orke master wildest they wrought with him. XIV. And many other charges that are to long to tell: and to all the charges hee made them to sweare the . . . great oath which men used in that time: XV. And hee ordered for them reasonable wages that they might live with honesty. XVI. And alsoe that they should come and assemble themselves together once every yeare That they might take advice and councell together how they might worke best to serve theire Lord and Master for his proffitt an theire owne creditt and honestie And to Correct amongst themselves him or them that erred and trespassed And thus was the Craft or science of Geometrie grounded there: XVII. And this w r orthy Master gave it the name of Geometrie And now it is called Masonrie. XVIII. Sith the time when the children of Israeli were come into the land of behest that is now called amongst us the land of Cannaan the countrie of Jerusalem, Kinge David THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS . 99 began the Temple which is called Templum Dominum and is now called with ns the Tem- ple of Jerusalem and the same Kinge David loved Masons well and cherished them and gave good paiement unto them and gave them charges in manner as hee had in Egipt by Euclid and other charges more as you shall heare afterwards And after the Decease of Kinge David Solomon sonne unto the said King finnished the Temple that his father had begunn and hee sent after Masons of divers towns and countries and gathered them together soe that he had 24,000 Masons and 1000 of them were ordayned Masters and governours of his worke. XIX. And there was another Kinge of another Land which was called Huram and hee loved Kinge Solomon well and hee gave him timber for his worke and hee had a son.n named Aymon and hee was master of Geometrie and the chiefest master of all his masons and Governour of all his graven and carved worke and of all manner of other masonrie that belonge unto the Temple and all this witnesseth the Fourth booke of the Kings in the Bible: XX. And this same Kinge Solomon confirmed both charges and manners that his father had given to masons and soe was this worthy craft or science of Masonrie confirmed in the Countrie of Jerusalem and in many other Countries and Kingdoms glorious Craftsmen about full wide into divers countries some because of learning more knowledge and skill in the Craft and some to teach others and soe it befell that there was a curious mason whose name was Mamon [ Naymus ] 1 Grecus that had been att the building of Solomon’s Temple And hee came into France and there he taught the Craft of Masonrie to men in France. XXI. And there was a man in France named Carolus Martill came to this Mamon Grecus aforesaid and learned of him the craft of Masonrie well hee tooke upon the charges And afterwards by the grace of God hee was elected Kinge of France and where hee was- in his estate hee tooke many Masons and helpe to make men masons that were none before an sett them on worke and gave them good wages and confirmed to them a Charter to hould theire Assemblie from yeare to yeare where the would and cherished the much and thus came the Craft of Masonrie into France. XXII. England stood att that time void from any charge of Masonrie untill the time of Saint Albons and in his time the Kinge of England being a pajan walled the Towne about that is now called Saint Albons and Saint Albons was a worthy Knight and chiefe steward with the King and the governance of the Bealme and alsoe of the making of the Towne walls and hee loved Masons well and cherrished them right much and hee made theire pay right good standing as the Realme did then for he gave them two shillings and sixpence a weeke and three-pence for thiere nonesynches and before that time throughout this Land A Mason took but a pennie a day and his meate until Saint Albons did amend it and hee gave to them a charter which hee obtained of the Kinge and his Councill for to hold a general councell and hee gave it the name of an Assemblie And hee being a Mason himself thereat hee was hee helped to make Masons and gave to them the charges as you shall heare Afterwards. XXIII. Right soone after the decease of Saint Albons there came men of divers nations 1 Naymus Grecus (4, 5, and 9); Grecus (6, 7, and 16). Variations occur in Nos. 17, 19, 20, 25, 29, and 31. IOO THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. to warr against the Realme of England soe that the Rule of good Masonrie was destroyed untill the Time of King Athelston in his dayes hee was a worthy Kinge in England and brought this Land to rest and peace and builded many great buildings of Abbey’s and castles and divers other great buildings And hee loved masons well. XXIV. And hee had a sonn named Edwin and hee loved masons much more then his father did and he was a great practizer in Geometrie and came himself e to comune and talke much with masons and to learn of them the Craft and afterwards for the love hee had to Masons and to the craft hee was made a mason himselfe. XXV. And hee obtained of his father the Kinge a Charter and a Comission to hould every year once an Assembly where they would within the Realme of England that they might correct faults errors and trespasses if that any there were comitted and done con- cerning the craft of Masonrie. XXVI. And hee with other Masons held an Assemblie at Yorke and there hee made Masons and gave them a Charge and comanded that rule to be houlden and kept ever after and hee made an ordinance, that it should be renewed from Kinge to Kinge. XXVII. And when the assemblie were gathered together hee caused a crie to be made after this manner that all old Masons and younge that had any writeings or understandings of the charges and manners that were made before in this Land or in any other that they should show them forth and there were found some in Greeke some in Latine and some in French and some in English and some in other Languages and the meaning of them were all one. XXVIII. And hee caused a booke to be made thereof: And how the Craft was found and hee comanded that it should be read or told when any free mason should bee made for to give him his charge. And from that day untill this time Masonrie hath bene much made on and kept and that from time to time as well as men might governe it. XXIX. And furthermore att divers Assemblies there hath bene put and ordained cer- taine charges by the best advised Masters and Fellowes. XXX. The manner of taking an oath att the making of free Masons Tunc unus ex Seniorebus teneat librum ut illi vel ille ponant vel ponat manus supra librum tunc precepta debeant legi. XXXI. Every man that is a Mason take heed right wisely to these charges if you find yourselves guiltie of any of these that you may amend of your errors against god and principally they that be charged for it is a great perrill to forsweare themselves upon a booke. {General Charges .) 1 XXXII. (I.) 2 The charges are that you shall bee true men to God and his holy church: that you use noe lieresie nor errors in your understanding to distract mens teaclieings. (2.) And Alsoe that you bee true men to the Kinge without any treason or falshood and that you shall know noe treason or falshood but you shall amend it or else give notice thereof to the Kinge and Councell or other officers thereof. 2 The figures — 1 to 9 — refer to this MS. only. 1 Title added. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. IOE (3.) And alsoe you shall be true each one to other that is to say to every Master and Fellow of the Craft of Masonrie that he free masons allowed and doe you to them as you would that they should doe to you. (4.) And Alsoe that every free Mason Keepe councill truly of the secret and of the Craft and all otlior Councell that ought to bee Kept by way of Masonrie. (5.) And Alsoe that noe Mason shall be a Theife or accesary to a theife as farr forth as you shall know. (G.) And Alsoe you shall be true men to the Lord and Master you serve and truly see to his profitt and advantage. (7.) And Alsoe you shall call Masons your fellowes or brethren and noe other foule name nor take your fellowes wife violently nor desire his daughter ungodly nor his ser- vant in villanie. (8. ) And Alsoe that you truly pay for your table and for your meate and drinke where you goe to table. (9.) And Alsoe you shall doe noe villanie in the house in which you table whereby you may he ashamed. These are the Charges in generall that belong to all free masons to keepe both Masters and Fellows. XXXIII. These bee the Charges singular for every Master and Feliowe as followeth: (Special Charges .) 1 (1.) 2 First that noe Mason take upon him noe Lord’s worke nor other mens worke unlcsse hee know himselfe able and skilfull to performe it soe as the Craft have noe slander nor disworshipp but that the Lord and owner of the worke may bee well and truly served. (2.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow take noe worke but that hee take it rea- sonably soe that the Lord may bee truly served with his owne goods and the Master may live honestly and pay his fellowes truly as manners aske of the Craft. (3.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow shall suplant any other man of his worke that is to say if hee have taken of a Lord or Master that you put him not out unlesse hee bee unable in knowledge to finish that worke. (4.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow take any Apprentice to bee allowed to bee his Apprentice any longer then seven years and the apprentice to bee able of birth and limbs as hee ought to bee: (5.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow shall take any allowance to hee allowed to make any Free Mason without the consent of Sixe or Five att the least of his Fellowes and that they bee free borne and of Good Kindred and not a bondman and that hee have his right limbs as a man ought to have. (6.) And Alsoe that noe Master nor Fellow put any Lordes woke to taske that is wont to goe journey. (7.) And Alsoe that noe Master shall give noe pay to his Fellowes but as hee may deserve soe as they may not bee Deceived by false workmen. (8.) And Alsoe that noe Fellow slander another behind, his backe whereby hee may loose his good name and his worldly goods. 1 Title added. 2 The figures — 1 to 18 — refer to this MS. only. 102 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. (9.) And Alsoe that noe fellow within the Lodge or without the Lodge missweare one another ungodly without any just cause. (10.) And Alsoe that every one reverence his fellow elder and put him to worshipp. (11.) And Alsoe that noe Mason play att Cards or Dice or any other game whereby they should be slandered. (12.) And Alsoe noe Mason shall bee a Comon Ribald in Lecliary to make the Craft slandered. (13.) And Alsoe that noe fellow shall goe into the towne in the night thereas is a Lodge of Fellowes without some Fellowes that may beare him witnesse that liee was in a honest place. (14.) And Alsoe that every Master and Fellow shall come to the Assembly if it be within seven miles about him if liee have warning or else to stand to the award of Master and Fellowes. (15.) And Alsoe every Master and Fellow if hee have trespassed shall stand att the award of the Masters and Fellowes to make the accord if hee may, and if hee may not accord then to goe to the Comonn Law. (16.) And Alsoe that noe mason make mould nor square nor noe Rule to any Iyer within the Lodge nor without the Lodge how to mould stones without noe mould of his own making. (17.) And Alsoe that every Mason shall receive and cherrish every strange Mason when they come to theire Country and set them to worke as the manner is that is to say if hee have mould stones in the place he shall sett them or him a fornight at least on worke and give him his pay and if hee have noe stones for him hee shall refresh him with money to the next Lodge. (18.) And Alsoe you shall every mason serve truly the Lord for his pay and truly finish his worke bee it Taske or Journey if you may have your pay as you ought to have. XXXIV. These charges that you have received you shall well and truly keepe not dis- closeing the secresy of our Lodge to man woman nor child: Sticke nor stone: thing move- able nor immovable soe God you helpe and his holy Doome, Amen. . . . Finis. The Introductory Prayer or Invocation ! of the “ Buchanan MS.” differs from the gen- erality of these supplications, but is after the manner of Xo. 17, although in other respects the MSS. are not identical. It is curious, however, that as regards the radius within which attendance at the assembly was obligatory, this is the only version which specifies “seven miles,” three others having five (12, 20, and 29), two having ten (11 and 31), one alone forty (19), and the remainder fifty miles. 2 The distinctive feature of No. 15 is its obligation, which, if a fair representation of the pledge given by the newly admitted 1 The “Invocations” or “Dedications” of the Masonic MSS. do not partake of the character of those in many of the Guild Charters, as shown to us by Mr. Toulmin Smith. In speaking of one similar to the ordinary Masonic “Charges,” he says: “ The form of what may be called the dedica- tion of this Guild differs very strikingly from that of most other Guilds. In almost every other case God the Father Almighty would seem to have been forgotten. No doubt what must strike every reader as so strange an oversight was not intentionally so, but grew out of the habit and form of prayers of intercession” (Guilds, p. 172'. 2 Excepting the Aberdeen MS. (18), which is silent on the subject of distance. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 103 brethren, is certainly destructive of any theories in favor of female membership, which are based upon No. 25. There are many copies of the oaths imposed by craft guilds, but few of those in use among the masons are of an entirely trustworthy character. Assuming those appended to the “ Old Charges” to be fairly correct, there would seem to have been no particular set form for the purpose, the three samples extant not agreeing with one another as to the verbiage, albeit the intention is clear enough throughout the whole. 1 The titles of the MSS. vary, some being very suggestive, e. g . , “The Freemasons Orders and Constitutions” (12); “Here Beginethtlie True Order of Masonrie ” (3); “Adiscourse: hade : before : A : meeting : of Meassones” (18); “The Booke of Constitutions” (6), — besides others already recorded. It would be difficult to decide what wages were paid to the craftsmen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, if those fixed in the “ Old Charges ” on the authority of St. Alban were accepted as the standard, for they vary con- siderably; there are, however, a majority in favor of 2s. 6d. a week, and “three pence to their cheer,” though some have 3s. 6d. for the same period, and others much less; whilst not a few contain “ iijs vjcl. to there double wages,” an expression which I record, without venturing to explain. The “Wood MS.” has “three shillings and five pence a weeke for their duable wages.” 2 The “ Antiquity ” Boll is responsible for the statement that “ Edwine was made Mason at Winsoeur,” so that the prominence enjoyed by York as the first city wherein the assemblies of King Atlielstan were held, should be shared by the “ Eoyal Town” in which Edwin was initiated; for if York was the premier city of the annual assemblies, Windsor was also highly privileged as being the town where that Prince was “ accepted,” who, according to the old traditions, obtained from the King authority to hold the annual assemblies of the craft. The claim, however, of Windsor to any Masonic importance has hitherto been neglected, whilst that of York has been unduly magnified. Other omissions or differences in the ordinary MSS. are more easily pointed out than in- terpreted, such as the silence observed as to the “Wardens,” save in No. 14, 3 and the uniform reticence of all the versions excepting the two earliest (1 and 2), in regard to the authority of the Law in the settlement of disputes. This refreshing “ touch of nature ” is amusing, and, as I have said, the supremacy of the Law is never alluded to respectfully by these MSS., any possible difficulties beyond the power of the master and fellows to adjust being dismissed by the brief sentence “goe to the common law” (39). The resort to aid from external sources was obviously (then as now) viewed with extreme displeasure by the craft, neither did the masons of those days care to threaten possible malcontents “ with imprisonment as by Law provided.” The distinctly religious or Christian character of all the MSS. is indicated in many 1 Compare the Obligation of MS. 11 with No. 12 (Additional Folios) and 15. 2 No. 9 has some additions peculiar to itself, but not sufficient for a distinct classification. It mentions the “11 specall Charges, or Rules, or Orders which every Mason ought justly and truly to observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe;” and then, “ Here followeth Divers other Charges, Rules, or Orders, to be observed, performed, fulfilled, and kept by the Masters, Governors, and Apprentices of the Science of Masonry ” (Masonic Mag'azine, June 1881). 3 “ That no fellow shall take upon him to call a lodge to make any fellow or fellows w th out the consent of master or wardens, if they be w th in fifteen miles” — Rule 18, Sloane MS., 3323 (14); Hughan’s Masonic Sketches, part ii. , p. 49. Mr. Toulmin Smith, in his “English Gilds,” gives a long list of titles borne by the chief officers of those social and craft organizations— e.g., the Rector, Alderman, Stewards, Dean and Clerk, the Master Rector and Stewards, an Elder Father, Graceman, and Wardens; Ferthingmen, Master, and Wardens, Dean of the Guild, and Chaplain, etc., etc. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. rays. One (22) displays this feature in a manner wholly its own; another styles the cition “ a prayer before the meeting” (18), and two of the York MSS. state it was “ye holy Scripture,” on which the new members were sworn, whilst others were charged t» be obligated by “ Gods grace,” or “ Divine grace” (31), and not to imperil their souls' eernal welfare (11) by swearing falsely; the “Atcheson Haven MS.” (17) even particular- ises the method to be observed in taking the obligation, viz., “by one or more laying his hind on the book and swear by one command and oath. ” 1 Another subject that has firnished matter for diversity of treatment is the name of the second stone, which survived tie ravages of the flood. Undoubtedly the word intended to be transcribed was later (a trick), but the orthographical difficulties which faced the copyists appear to have been t»o much for these ancient scribes, and the “changes are rung” on Latroos, Lternes, littresse, Latirnes, Laterus, Laternus, and other variations, 2 only three MSS. agreeing as to either of the numerous forms; the first, or “marble” stone, however, was easily mustered, and passed muster fairly well, though the “Antiquity” roll has “ Carystius.” Ve will assume this to be a superior kind of marble! I apprehend that a careful perusal of these “ Old Charges,” if we also bear in mind the priod of their use amongst the lodges, will result in the conviction that they were not accepted as anything more than the repertories of time-honored traditions by the freemasons the seventeenth, or of any other earlier century. They furnished valuable suggestions SB to the spirit in which all the operative laws should be made; they gave to the society the jrestige of a respectable ancestry and remote antiquity, and their recital to unlettered apprentices, on crossing the threshold of so venerable a society, was calculated to favorably inpress them with the moral and religious character of the fraternity, the duties they oved to their fellows, and the solemnity of their obligations. Place the oldest of these documents by the side of the youngest, and their common origin and purpose is jflainly visible. 2 The ethical code (common to all versions) — whether aicient or comparatively modern — was respected and considered binding by the fraternity, whilst the purely legislative enactments were tacitly ignored for more recent regulations, tiough they were not expunged from the “ Old Charges,” the veneration in which these veie held being so great, that whether they were or were not in all respects suited to the tmes mattered little, their predecessors used them, and so to the modern craftsmen they vere still “talismans;” being in use, as we have seen, even far on in the last century by a 1'dge which accepted a warrant from the Grand Lodge of England, in all probability its jmior as an organization. These facts are of value, because they prove that the laws for the guidance of the craft n King Athelstan’s reign, or later, were not intended to be final, but alterable according t» the necessities of the craft, provided always that the spirit of the society was preserved, lance the regulations which enacted that the candidates for Masonry must be “free born” 1 The Melrose MS. (19) describes the usefulness of geometry to “Merchants and all other Clirys- tan men.” Mi. M. Cooke in his reproduction of MS. 2 has overlooked the contraction over the word he gives a lacus, which should read “ lacerus,” evidently intended for Latres (bricks). 3 1 cannot quite fall in with the view propounded by the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, that “the Constitutions seem, in fact, to be clearly derived from the Masonic Poem, though naturally altered i. theii piose form (Preface to “ Old Charges”), because No. 1 is evidently not a bond fide copy of he “Old Charges,” but a poem founded on the contents of a version known to the composer. I freely aimit, however, that the “ Halliwell ” MS., and all the others, have a common origin. THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. One (22) displays this feature in a manner wholly its own; anbth- • styh S< ripture,'' on which the new members were sworn, whilst others wert - ■tth/’ 1 Another subjec • : ' - " ’’ *»i > vf md stone, win- • * ! u transcribed wa# • : the copyists appear to hatv* hm* b -a am rung "on Latroos, U.em<*'..- - ■ om only throe MSS. agree -n*' ■■■• “'-tone, however, was easily ' -i-y.ju'y ' roll has “ CarystiusH . 'O bear in mind the ■ ; tK.it they were not by the freemasons >] ■ suggest? -in* s' : to Si ll ; : ■ •' ! to favor. : ;y iuties they common whether ■ itemity, ; filiations, h these l to the ■in tl • y ary b air si;, ... Initiated NovI4 t A l 17. r i2; Passed. March 1753; Raised lo Master Mason Aug' KV 1 .!? 1753.. iu Fiedt’rieksburg Lodge. Va . THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. 105 and have their “ limbs whole ” were no more absolute and unalterable than were those which required an apprentice to serve seven years, which rendered attendance at annual assemblies compulsory, if within a certain number of miles, or which secured a monopoly of the trade to freemasons. The distinction must be drawn, as I have said, between the ethical and the legislative portions of these old Rolls, and then it will be palpable that whereas the former never “grows old with time,” and is always to be followed, the latter is now preserved as a mere “ survival ” of the rules prevailing in periods wholly different to the present, which to follow strictly in the nineteenth century would be as great a folly as the acceptance of many of the absurd notions still rife as to the antiquity of the society. Having now fully considered (though not more so than has been requisite) both the character and divergencies of the “ Old Charges,” we will proceed with an examination of the remarks and extracts by Dr. Anderson and others, referring to our manuscript Consti- tutions, with a view to determining the sources whence these were derived. The earliest known extracts or references to the “ Old Charges” are to be found in Dr. Plot's “ History of Staffordshire,” a.d. 1G8G (40), and “ The Constitutions of the Freemasons,” by the Rev. James Anderson, M.A. (afterward D.D.), of a.d. 1723. The first complete typographical reproduction of a copy of these “Old Charges” w r as “ Printed and sold by J. Roberts in Warwick Lane, mdccxxii.” (44). This handsome little tract was evidently edited by one who was either a Freemason or favorably disposed toward the society, as the preface is laudatory of the aims of the fraternity, and is the first distinctly Masonic work known that was issued for general sale. The pamphlet (which was never authorized) appeared one year earlier than the premier “ Book of Constitutions.” The resolution to empower “ Bro. James Anderson, A.M., to digest the old Gothic Constitutions, in a new and better method,” was agreed to by the Grand Lodge, held 29th September 1721, and on the 27th December following “ 14 learned Brothers ” were appointed to examine the manuscript, who reported favorably on 25th March 1722, when the Grand Master was desired “to order it to be printed.” 1 The “New Book of Constitutions” was submitted in print to the members, 17 tli January 1723 (§), and again approved, with the addition of “the ancient manner of Constituting a Lodge,” from which we may infer that the work could not have appeared before 1723 (the year stated on the title-page) as the additional matter is to be found in the copies extant, paged consecutively with the former portion, and fol- lowed by some twenty more pages. 2 I have already expressed my belief that the “ Roberts’ ” version (44) was based upon the text of No. 11, so that if the latter was not known to Dr. Anderson, early last century, he was doubtless familiar with the former, but whether before or after the preparation of his work cannot now be determined. The first extract is said to be made from “ a cer- tain Record of Freemasons written in the Reign of King Edward IV.” (about a.d. 1475), and is in exact conformity with no MS. extant, 3 though in some respects it resembles the 1 From the 2d edition (1738), pp. 113-115. 2 The “ General Regulations” inserted in this work were first compiled by Mr. George Payne in 1720, and approved in 1721. They were also subjected to revision by Dr. Anderson, but I apprehend it was the historical introduction and the arrangement of the “ Charges of a Freemason,” for which the latter was mainly responsible. 3 Although Preston wrote so much later than Anderson, he quotes from this edition of the Con- stitutions (1723) in preference to those of 1738 and 1756, and faithfully follows the extract relative to the legend of King Athelstan and Prince Edwin. He gives a different version of its origin, never- theless, ascribing it to “ a record of the Society, . . . said lo have been in the possession of the io6 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS . quotation (previously noted) of Hargrove (41) and others, as it alludes to Ring Athelstan and his youngest son, Prince Edwin; so far, many MSS. confirm this excerpt. Rone, however, sanction the statement that the Prince summoned the masons at York in ‘ ' a General Lodge of which he was Grand Master” (p. 33), neither do they recite aught about the “ Laws of the Freemasons having been seen and perused by our late sovereign King Henry VI.” Possibly the latter information was obtained from Dr. Plot (chap. VIII.), but the former is well known to have been an unwarrantable and pernicious interpolation. The second extract is almost word for word with the concluding sentences of Ro. 2, except that the verbiage is modernized, and as w r e know that such a version was exhibited to the Grand Lodge in 1721, by Grand Master Payne, there need be no hesitation in accepting the “ Cooke ” MS. as the document from which Dr. Anderson quoted. 1 It is not so easy to de- cide as to the first excerpt, especially as far as it seems to be actually taken from some old MS., for such particulars are to be found in the majority of the scrolls. Passing, however, to the second edition of the “ Constitutions” (1738), which has been denominated by many writers “ the basis of Masonic History,” I must ask my readers to follow me a little farther before relieving the learned doctor and his Masonic history from our criticism. The subject was new to Dr. Anderson in 1721-3, but in 1738 there were many sources available from which a rational history and resume of the ancient Kegulations might have been compiled, and he had special facilities for acquiring the facts upon which such a history ought to have been founded. The result of Dr. Anderson’s researches, as seen in the 1738 edition, is very far from satisfactory, and tests the credulity of his readers even more than the previous one of 1723. Since the publication of the latter, various reproductions of MS. Constitu- tions had appeared, and, including the one before alluded to (which may not have been known to Dr. Anderson before 1723), there were in circulation the following: “ Roberts” (44), “ Briscoe ” (45), and “ Cole ” (47), 2 virtually representing the text of Ros. 11, 12, and 8 in this series respectively. It is quite clear to me that Dr. Anderson had more MSS. before him in the preparation of the 1738, than he had for that of the 1723 edition, and there is so much to confirm this view that it only requires examination to be adopted. The historical introduction is much fuller in the former, and varies considerably from the earlier issue; e.g., the “ Edwin legend ” is altered, and reads that he was the King’s brother (not son), a variation only to be found in what I term the “ Inigo Jones” text (8), and which was engraved in the “ Cole MS.” (47). His imagination developing (1738), the word general w r as altered before Lodge for “Grand” by the Rev. Editor, and the year added, which has led the so-called “ York Constitution ” to be dated a. d. 926. 3 The concluding paragraph of famous Elias Ashmole, founder of the Museum at Oxford, and unfortunately destroyed, with other papers on the subject of masonry, at the Revolution” (Illustrations of Masonry, edit. 1788, p. 182). Though the original was destroyed, it seems that a copy was made in good time, otherwise it would be difficult to understand how Preston became acquainted with its contents. 'Preston gives this extract exactly as the text of the 1723 “Constitutions;” only lie adds: “ The following particulars are also contained in a very old MS., of which a copy is said to have been in the possession of the late George Payne, Esq., Grand Master in 1718,” edit. 1788, p. 193. Other editions of Preston’s work (from 1775) contain these quotations; but that of 1788 is selected, as the most comprehensive of the series. 2 No. 48 of the present series was not published until the year after the issue of the 2d Constitu- tions (viz., 1739); but if it had appeared before 1738, the conclusion drawn would not be affected, as it follows either the “ Spencer ” or the “ Cole ” MSS. (32 and 47). 3 “Prince Edwin . . . form’d the Grand Lodge, under him as their Grand Master, a.d. 926” (Constitutions, 1738, p. 64), the text of No. 8 having “ Anno Domini, 932.” ' r HE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. io 7 the 1723 edition is separated from the “ Edwin legend ” in the 1738 issue, and, after a few minor changes, is added to the second extract already noticed, which we know was from quite a distinct MS., as Dr. Anderson himself declares, accompanied at page 71 by the declara- tion — “ The Constitutions were now meliorated, for an old record imports, ‘ that in the glorious reign of King Edward III./” etc., about which the first publication is silent. Moreover, the reproduction of this second 'extract is but partial, as a portion is omitted, and other sentences are so altered as to make them read like modern Constitutions, the title ‘ ‘Grand Master ” being interpolated, and the qualification, “ if a brother,” inserted respecting the attendance “ of the Sheriff, or the Mayor, or the Alderman,” also the word “Congrega- tion” is turned into “Chapter ” ! Two extracts are printed, which are not in the earlier publi- cation; the one preceding, and the other following, those before mentioned. The first agrees with the “ Cole MS.” and recites the St. Alban legend, both terming that Saint “ the Proto- Martyr,” only the value of the quotation is seriously diminished by Dr. Anderson again adding the modern title of “ Grand” Master! The last citation from the old MSS. is to be found at p. 101, and is based upon No. 11, or its typographical representative the “ Roberts MS.” (44). The “ Additional Orders ” are those selected for insertion in the second edition of the Grand Lodge Constitutions (1738), which are undated in the original text (11); but are said in No. 44 to have been agreed to “ at a General Assembly, held at ... on the Eighth Day of December 1 663.” Dr. Anderson was evidently not so careful in his statements as “ Roberts,” for he supplies the names of the Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and Grand Wardens, present on the occasion ( offices , by the way, then unknown ), and alters the day to the Feast of St. John the Evangelist 1663, doubtless to bring it into conformity with modern usage. The text of No. 11 should be consulted at page 56 and compared with that supplied by Dr. Anderson, when it will be readily seen that the learned Divine has changed the 5th Rule (No. 30 in MS. 11) so as to read “ one Grand Master,” in lieu of “one Master,” and has appropriated the 6th Rule of the “Roberts MS.” {not in No. 11), though he has discreetly omitted the 7th, and the Obligation. Preston follows in Anderson’s footsteps, and is therefore entitled to no greater credence than the authority upon whom he relies. As many may be aware, a modern arrangement entitled “ The CHARGES of a FREE- MASON, extracted from the ancient RECORDS of LODGES beyond sea, and of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the use of the Lodges in London: To be read at the making of NEW BRETHREN, or when the MASTER shall order it,” prefaces “ The General Regulations,” printed a.d. 1723. Although Dr. Anderson presented an “im- proved” (?) version in 1738, it was not liked, and in subsequent editions that of 1723 wa« reverted to, and indeed is substantially the same as those “ Charges” which have been cir- culated with the “Regulations for the Government of the Craft” of the “United Grand Lodge of England,” from 1815 to the present date. Additional confirmation of the “ Inigo Jones” text having been adopted in part by Dr. Anderson, or at least that of the “ Cole” MS. (which is virtually the same), will be found by comparing the 1738 Constitutions with either of those MSS., so far as respects “The History of Masonry from the Creation throughout the Known Earth.” Of what has been 1 Preston’s quotation is much more accurate — in fact, almost verbatim et literatim with No. 8,— it states that the particulars were taken from “an old MS., which was destroyed with many others in 1720, said to have been in possession of Nicholas Stone, a curious sculptor under Inigo Jones ” (edit. 1788, p. 174). If we believe this statement, and if No. 8 actually belonged to Inigo Jones, the MS. of the workman may ha ve been copied from that of the architect ’r io8 THE OLD CHARGES OF BRITISH FREEMASONS. termed in late years “ learned credulity/* tlie labors of Dr. Anderson afford an excellent illus- tration. Of the creationist school of Masonic historians/ he is the facile princeps, and if imitation may be regarded as the sincerest form of flattery., the late Dr. George Oliver has been, beyond all comparison, his most appreciative disciple. The subject of the “ Old Charges/’ in relation to Freemasonry at York, will be dealt with in another chapter, and I think that the evidence I shall adduce will demonstrate the utter groundlessness of the statement “that Grand Lodges had been regularly held in York, and only in that City, from the year 92G until the reign of Queen Elizabeth. These meetings of the Craft were dignified by the title of ‘ Assembles/ which were, to all intents and purposes, ‘ Grand Lodges/ and there is every reason to believe that they were held in York long antecedent to their being held in London.” 2 My reasons for questioning the validity of this claim will be expressed in due course, when I shall attempt to show that all the proofs tend to precisely an opposite conclusion, and fortify the position I take up, viz., that Grand Lodges are modern institutions, and that the several versions of the “ Old Charges” supply no evidence from which we can reasonably infer that more than one “ Assembly” was ever held in the city of York; unless, indeed, the reckless assertions of Masonic historians of an older school are to pass unchallenged. That Dr. Bell’s statement rests on authority of a certain kind may be freely admitted. Also that many names may be cited in support of the view he has advanced. Yet an opinion may be held by a large number of persons, who have all been misled by some erroneous authority, and have all mechanically followed the same blind guide; so that their number has, in fact, no weight, and they are no more entitled to reckon as independent voices, “ than the successive compilers who transcribe an historical error are entitled to reckon as independent wit- nesses.” 3 Supplementary Note. 49. “ Harris.” Ante, p. 45. Whilst these pages were passing through the press, the above MS. was published in the “ Freemasons’ Chronicle,” 4 through the good offices of Mr. John Constable (London). I have no hesitation in pronouncing it to be the junior of the “ MS. versions of the Old Charges:” its proper place, therefore, on the roll of documents examined in this chapter would be 31a. I do not consider the text of any value, because it contains so many modern interpolations (possibly designed to render it more serviceable in the “ Bedford Lodge,” prior to its join- ing the Grand Lodge of England a.d. 176G). The transcription was probably made after 1738, though undoubtedly from an old MS., as we know that the lodge was active 5 from the year 1739, and several clauses of the “ Prince Edwin’s Charge ” cannot well be assigned an earlier date. The peculiar headings to the twenty-five paragraphs into which it has been divided by the scribe constitute its only distinctive feature. 1 Vide Halliwell, 2d edit. , p. 48. 2 Speech by Dr. John P. Bell, Deputy Provincial Grand Master, North and East Yorkshire (Report by Mr. T. B. Whytehead, Reception at York to Masonic Members of the British Association, 5th September 1881). 3 SirG. C. Lewis, On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion (p. 170). Woodford (in his excellent preface to the “ Old Charges,” which merits the careful study of all students of free- masonry) observes: “ 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.” 4 Freemason’s Chronicle, April 22 and 29, 1882. 6 Rosicrucian, 1876, p. 35. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 109 CHAPTEE III. THE STONEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY. T MIE ceaseless progress of the building art, throughout the strife and turmoil of the Middle Ages, is a remarkable phenomenon which at once arrests our attention, and challenges our research. Prince and Bishop, Kaiser and Free City, wage their eternal feuds; nations rise, fall, amalgamate, or dissolve. All Europe is in a ferment; and yet throughout the greater part of it the mason quietly and unceasingly plies his trade. By the margin of the peaceful lake, in the gloom of the primeval forest, arise the monastery and the convent; on the summit of each lofty crag is reared the castle of the feudal chief- tain; by the rnshing tide of every noble stream and on the primitive highways of com- merce spring into existence countless walled cities; and within their safe enclosure, with never-tiring perseverance, the busy masons pile stone on stone, till the majestic tower or graceful steeple of the cathedral almost scales the skies. A bare list of the monuments of architecture erected from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries would cover many pages; and in no country is this movement more emphatically marked than throughout the length and breadth of Germany. Scarcely had the Teutonic hordes obtained the mastery over the fast decaying Roman Empire, and the wandering tribes become somewhat fixed in their newly acquired territories, than the work began. Devout men from the British Isles, chiefly from Ireland, crossed over to the mainland, and penetrating into the depths of the German forests, carried the pure doctrines of primitive Christianity to the German tribes. Wherever they came, they raised churches and dwellings for their priests, cleared the forests, tilled the virgin soil, and instructed the heathen in the first principles of civiliza- tion. Fallou 1 gives a long list of convents and churches erected by these and other holy men from the sixth to the ninth centuries. Then came Charlemagne and taught the Ger- man tribes to build cities and palaces (Aix-la-Chapelle, Ingelslieim). Each city soon became the seat of a Roman Bishop; hence arose the cathedrals; and in many other cases the bishop’s seat gave rise to the town. Later on the cities prospered and grew rich, and the necessity for sumptuous town halls arose, and thus by degrees the face of the land became dotted with those monuments of architectural skill, the very ruins of which testify' to the cunning of the builders. And who were these builders? What manner of men were they? Whence came they? They were the Steinmetzen. They were a class of simple workmen, bound together by strong ties of brotherhood, but containing in their midst master builders whose minds were stored with all the mathematical knowledge of those days, and who contentedly 1 F. A, Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, 2d edit., p. 177, I IO THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. worked for a lifetime at an edifice, satisfied to know that although they might never see its completion, their successors would carry on the work to a glorious conclusion, and raise one more temple to the worship of the Most High. Before proceeding to inquire into their origin, it may be as well to form a clear idea of the significance of their name. Stein undoubtedly means stone; and it has very generally been assumed that metzen is derived from the same Teutonic root as Messer, a knife, and Meitzel, a chisel; hence Steinbrenner, p. 46, calls them, and Fort constantly refers to them as stonecutters. 1 The probable root of the word is, however, messen, to measure; hence the literal English translation would be stone-measurers — identical in all points with our own term stonemason. As to their origin, this is a question which will always be most difficult to satisfactorily determine. The G-erman writers are many who have written of the craft guilds of the Middle Ages, and have therefore necessarily touched on the German stonemasons; but they have been content with describing them as revealed by their own and contemporary documents, without instituting any inquiry into their origin. They take up their history when they were already in the high tide of their prosperity, and therefore afford us little information to the point. The writers on architecture and art incidentally mention them, but always in the same manner, and have mainly derived the few particulars with Avhich they favor us from the preceding class. Early Masonic writers have merely compared their institutions with those of the English Freemasons (Vogel, Krause, Kloss, Heldmann, etc.), and the first of this class to attempt to unravel their early history is Fallou, in his “ Mysterien der Freimaurer” (1848). 2 In many points this author is untrustworthy, as he lias sacrificed every other consideration to his grand aim of proving that our present system of Freemasonry is directly attributable to the German stonemasons. In hardly any one case of importance is his testimony strengthened by a reference to an authority, and many of his statements are, to say the least, so startling, that without such reference they must be very charily used. Winzer 3 has walked in his footsteps with even greater hardihood of assertion; and Findel, Steinbrenner, and Fort, have more or less placidly followed their lead without any attempt at verification. Never- theless, to Fallou must be assigned the credit of having first shown where the Steinmetzen probably originated, and in what manner they developed, although some of his deductions are undoubtedly wrong. That the first seeds of architecture in Germany were planted by the Christian mission- aries is indisputable. We need not assume that the German tribes in their wanderings had purposely destroyed every sign of Roman civilization, including their massive stone edifices. They would hardly have taken the trouble to pull down Roman masonry, but probably what the fire had spared, the hand of neglect and time finally ruined; and the tribes being a distinctively warlike race, not given to the arts of peace, it is very doubtful whether in the sixth century even the dwellings of their chiefs were more than rude huts, decorated with the spoils of combat. But the first missionaries, whether British or Roman, were acquainted with the rudiments of architecture; they had examples in their own countries to guide them; and were accustomed to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. On establishing a mission in a German forest, we may be sure that their first care after con- verting a few heathen, was to establish some kind of a church, however humble. This 1 G. F. Fort, The early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 145. 2 The first edition of this work appeared in 1848, but all quotations are made from that of 1859. 3 J. Winzer, Die Deutschen Bruderschaften. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 1 1 would be, in the first instance, a mere log hut, composed of the trees of the surrounding forest. The ground thus cleared was afterward tilled and cultivated; the natives were taught to assist in the labor; a storehouse became necessary for the produce of the soil, and so another log hut was erected; perhaps afterward a shelter for the monks and their converts; more natives were attracted to the spot, and the desire arose to enlarge the church. This time, perhaps, it was placed on stone foundations, and the first principles of the mason’s art were acquired. In process of time the wooden structure fell a prey to the flames, and the inhabitants would consequently undertake the task of erecting a stone edifice; rude no doubt, but still requiring a further advance in the art of stone-working. By the repetition of this process in many isolated spots, we can easily understand how the workmen gradually advanced in technical skill, and that little by little the first missions became convents and monasteries of no slight pretensions. The larger and more famous the convent grew, the more necessary would it be to keep constantly at hand a body of experienced masons, as it is scarcely probable that the monks themselves would suffice for the work. We may therefore conclude, that although at first monk and layman turned their hands indiscriminately to any toil that came uppermost, either building or agriculture, yet in course of time those who showed themselves most expert at any particular work devoted themselves exclusively thereto, and that a class of builders by profession arose amongst the laity in the neighborhood of the monastery, the direction of whom was probably entrusted to some more than usually skilful monk. For those in the south of Germany means were at hand in Northern Italy to improve their art by communication with the artists there resident. Their cousins the Longobards, a tribe first mentioned in history as living to the east of the Elbe adjoining the coasts of the Baltic, had overrun Italy and established themselves there as early as a.d. 568, and in course of time advanced to a comparatively high state of civilization. W e need not inquire with Fort, whether after a.d. 692 the Byzantine artists took refuge in Lombardy; nor is it even necessary to admit that the Longobards were masters of an advanced style of architecture. The ancient monuments in Italy were quite sufficient to furnish models for the German monks on their travels; so that we are not thrown upon the necessity of supposing that these Byzantine artists migrated to Germany to teach the builders their art. But if they did join the German convent builders, which is quite possible, we have no warrant whatever for con- cluding that on their arrival in Southern Europe they were “quickly” affiliated with the corporations of builders, as stated by Fort, 1 for it is scarcely conceivable that at that time the peasants who helped the German monks were already incorporated. The competition of trade, the oppression of the feudal lords, were yet in the future; and as the trades had therefore no necessity for incorporation it is highly improbable that it existed. Dr. J os. Schauberg 2 maintains that the monks directing these operations owed much of their success to the remnants of the Roman colleges, which were never thoroughly sup- pressed in Gaul, and, passing through Britain and Scandinavia, 3 ultimately laid the foun- dations of the craft guild system in Germany. But I am quite unable to agree with him, for the simple reason that at the time of these early convent builders we have no sign of the least approach to a craft guild in Germany; nor indeed can we imagine such an insti- tution until the cities had made considerable progress toward opulence. Whatever con- 1 Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 40. 2 Dr. Jos. Schauberg, Vergleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik der Freimaurerei, vol. iii., p. 223. 8 Schauberg, Vergleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik der Freimaurerei, vol. iii., p. 249. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. iiection may possibly be traceable between tbe Roman colleges and the formation of craft guilds can have had no influence on the earliest builders in the forests and by the streams of Germany. Their gradual perfection in the art of masonry must be considered as self- evolved, and the result of constant practice, and endeavors to excel. Or if it be absolutely necessary to presuppose a higher knowledge of art and architecture in their leaders, we need go no further than the British monks. Britain at that time, although distracted by war, and invasions innumerable, was by no means destitute of architectural productions. It would be difficult to decide what pretensions to art the celebrated monasteries of the Ouldees in Mona, Iona, and Bangor possessed; but we have Anglo-Saxon churches still in existence, or at least parts of them — such as Tickencote, near Stamford, in Lincolnshire; part of St. Peter’s, at Oxford; part of St. Alban’s Abbey; the southern porch at Shireburn Minster; the towers of Earl’s Barton church, Northamptonshire; and of Sompting, in Sussex; and numerous others. 1 Our earliest cathedrals were also begun in the seventh century, although in many cases no part of the original structure now remains; for instance, Can- terbury a.d. COO, Rochester 602, St. Paul’s 604, Westminster 005. The influx of British monks, both papal and non-papal, continued until a very late period; and we are told that Iso, the most learned Englishman of the ninth century, lived in the convent at St. Gall. 2 St. Columbanus, who in a.d. G02 crossed over to Burgundy and Germany, and founded several convents, 3 ' either by himself or by his disciples, was renowned throughout Europe as the most accomplished man of his time; and St. Boniface in the reign of King Pepin built a monastery at Fulda. 1 Indeed Heideloff, a German architect, writing in 1844, does not scruple to declare, “ during the time of the Anglo-Saxons building operations continued, and the monuments of architecture in England are the finest examples of the state of building during those ages. They also introduced the science into Germany, as the greater number of the German apostles were British and understood building, erecting everywhere convents.” 5 Nor is it to be supposed that the Romish missionaries of a some- what later date were less skilled in architecture; on the contrary, the Benedictines wherever they appeared were noted for the magnificence of their monasteries; and many of the later British missionaries to Germany were of the order of St. Benedict. Fallon ascribes the whole origin of the stonemasons as they subsequently existed to the Benedictine Monks, and chiefly to their abbot Wilhelm of Hirschau. The first intimation of the importance of this Abbot Wilhelm I find in Heideloff’s often quoted work, page 6, where he says, “It was Abbot William who introduced the institution of lay brothers into Germany,” and on the same page he says, “he was formerly at the head of the lodge ( Bauhiitte ) of St. Emmeran at Regensburg ” (Ratisbon). Fallou 6 asserts that in the eleventh century the monks in Germany first copied their brethren in Gaul by instituting lay brotherhoods attached to the convent, and that the Abbot Marquardt of Corvey made use of this institution to procure builders for his new convent. Schauberg, however, refers to Springer (“ De Artificibus Monachis,” Bonn, 1861) as proving that throughout the Middle Ages the chief artificers were laymen not 1 W. H. S. Aubrey, History of England, vol. i., p.79. 2 Carl Ileideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 4. The scholarship of this worthy appears to have been unknown in the land of his birth. The reference, however, clearly points to a native of the British Isles. 3 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 175. 4 Aubrey, History of England, p. 97. 6 Heideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 10. 6 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 157. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 13 lay brothers of che convent, — and that even at Oorvey the great majority of the artists were laymen. 1 I can, indeed, see no proof that these lay brotherhoods were builders; on the contrary, they more probably consisted of nobles, knights, and rich burghers, as is clearly pointed out by a further assertion of Fallon’s, on the same page, that in the year 1140 the Cistercians of Walkenried (in Brunswick, at the foot of the Hartz Mountains, on the Wieda) instituted such a fraternity, and boasted that they could travel thence to Rome, and dine each day with one lay brother, and sup and sleep with another. This most cer- tainly discloses the nature of these fraternities, and it is impossible to connect them in any way with the building craft: they were not lay brothers in the ordinary sense, and evidently did not reside in the convent. On page 188, however, he is inclined to attribute the insti- tution of a lay brotherhood to a still earlier date — sayA.D. 1080 — when William, Count Pala- tine of Scheuren, was elected Abbot of Hirschau (on the Nagold, in the Black Forest, Wur- temberg), and of whom it was reported that he was so famous that crowds flocked to his convent, praying for admission. These petitioners were all admitted as lay brothers, and speedily taught the various manipulations of masonry, etc. ; so that in 1082 he was enabled to undertake the reconstruction of the monastery. At that time no fewer than -three hundred monks and laymen dwelt in the convent under his orders. He instituted a rule for them, partitioned out their hours of labor, rest, worship, and refreshment, inculcated above all things brotherly love, and enjoined strict silence at work, unless desirous of com- municating with the master. His school of art rapidly acquired such extended fame that he was overwhelmed by entreaties from all parts of Europe to furnish architects and artists for building operations. Nevertheless, in spite of his best workmen being constantly drafted oft: elsewhere, he was enabled to see his convent completed before his death, a. d. 1091. Thus far Fallou. As he unfortunately omits to quote his authorities, we can only assume that he has drawn his facts from some monkish chronicle. That Abbot Wilhelm was a great man in his day is indisputable. St. Anselm, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, visited him in 1084; 2 and the ruins of his splendid monastery are still in evidence. But the above account scarcely justifies the deduction that he was the originator of the craft of stonemasons. It is perfectly evident — (1.) That the lanse of time was totally insufficient to create a large class of skilled artificers; and (2.) We have no trace here of divisions into grades, snch as apprentice, fellow, and master. As regards the first point. In 1080 he succeeded to his post, and in 1082 he was enabled to commence reconstruction. It is therefore evident that many of the laymen who are reported to have joined him were already skilled masons (two years being wholly insufficient for the instruction of such a largo body of men) ; nor would the ensuing nine years have sufficed to raise such a superstruc- ture by means of only half-trained workmen. In fact, a passage further on in Fallon 3 distinctly states that according to the chronicle of Walkenried, Abbot Henry III. admitted into his convent “ 21 skilled laymen, chiefly stonemasons” as lay brothers. It is important to distinguish between a layman and a lay brother — that is, between a citizen of the world and a semi-member of the Church. Fallou would almost seem to have purposely con- founded them. I have shown that a large amount of skill must have been already acquired under the monks during the preceding five centuries; and shall show further on, that by this time (eleventh century) many experienced workmen must have been resident in the 1 Schauberg, Vergleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik der Freimaurerei, p. 274. ‘ l Heideloif, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 5. 3 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 201. 1 14 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. fast-growing cities. As to any organization of tlie workmen, tlie idea is untenable. If any such existed, it was doubtless amongst the free artisans of the town, who may have entered into the pay of the monks; but the lay brothers in all cases became the servants of the convent, dependent on them for food, lodging, and raiment; and the necessity for a term of apprenticeship is entirely absent. The title of magister, or master, was doubtless in use, and may have denoted the monk directing the operations. The distinctive feature of ap- prenticeship, is the obligation to serve a certain master for a fixed time at a reduced rate of payment or even gratis, as the case may bo. But a lay brothei of a monastery would be under the same rule as the monk himself — allowed to possess no private property — and hence could receive no pay beyond his sustenance; so that if grades of workmen existed at the building of these monasteries, they w r ere either craft masons in the pay of the abbot, or something totally dissimilar to any association subsequently known to us. Speaking of Fallow’s assertions as above, Winzer 1 says: “ But these fraternities cannot interest us, being organizations of serfs;” and probably he is right — the workmen, or laborers, with the exception of a certain proportion of craft masons, being most likely the serfs, vassals, and villeins of the convent. Fort, 2 3 however, distinctly maintains that the Freemasons at a very early age appropriated the several degrees then existing in the monasteries. On page 46 we find his reasons for this statement, which are wholly unsatisfactory: “Lacroix asserts, in a chronicle of the time of Dagobert (x.d. 628-9) that Saint Eloi reorganized the jewellers, whom he selected from different monasteries, into a society comprising three degrees of laborers — masters, fellows, and apprentices.” We have no proof that these monks were clerics; in the early ages monks could enter or leave a monastery as they chose; vows of chastity, etc., were unknown; in fact the life of a monk was a purely voluntary one; and in the quotation we are told that they left their different monasteries, and were organized into a society. Lacroix himself says: “ Already was the jeweller’s trade organ- ized into a corps d’etat ,” s i.e., a trade association, — which is far from proving Fort’s asser- tion; and, indeed, more naturally suggests the usual features of an ordinary craft guild. It should be added, that Fallou had previously maintained the same theory, and even went further, in endeavoring to show that the ceremonies of the Steinmetzen were an adaptation of those used at the reception of a Benedictine novice, thereby implying that Freemasonry, as (according to this author) we now have it, was directly due to the inspira- tion or influence of the Abbot Wilhelm. Unfortunately for this theory, the Benedicline ceremonies, relied upon by Fallou, appear to have had no existence outside the pages of his work, and, indeed, his statements on this head are positively contradicted by more than one writer of authority. 4 We thus see that from the sixth (perhaps fifth) century onward up to the twelfth, when most of the monasteries were completed, they afforded the means of acquiring still in the manipulation of building materials, and may thus be looked upon in Germany as the earliest school of masonry and the cradle of architecture, furnishing large numbers of cunning artificers and experienced master builders, but not contributing in any way toward the organization of the stonemasons. For the origin of this sodality we must look to the trade guilds; which, beginning in the towns as early as the tenth century, or even earlier, 1 Winzer, Die Deutschen Bruderschaften, p. 47. 2 Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 73. 3 Lacroix, Les Arts au Moyen age, p. 160. 4 Gurlitt, Geschichte des Benedictiner Ordens; and Aubrey, History of England, vol. i., p. 98. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. ii5 had meanwhile been acquiring increasing importance and extent; until, in the twelfth, Ave find them fully developed throughout Germany. A very short sketch of the rise of the craft guilds will be sufficient for our purpose. When the German tribes first appear on the pages of history, we find them consisting of perfectly free and independent members only; subject in matters of external policy and war to a chief of their own election, who is described generally as their king, but whose office was not hereditary — those cases in which the dignity descended from father to son, arising solely from the superiority of the son to the other members of the tribe. Even the great Attila’s kingdom fell to pieces on his death. The great bond of society was the patriarchal; every member of a family owed allegiance and support to its head, and assistance to every other member of the family. In course of time as the families grew larger and extended over a wider territory, their bond of union was loosened, and voluntary associations of neighbors, having a community of in- terests, took its place. When Charlemagne established his supremacy in the ninth century he introduced the feudal system, and from this time we find German society divided into feudal lords — feudal retainers — smaller freeholders and serfs. About this time, also, cities first began to arise, probably from various causes. In some cases fortified places were necessary for protection against the still savage and predatory tribes of the North, or of Hungary. Charlemagne was himself the founder of a city, by establishing a court there, as at Aix-la-Chapelle. In others, the increasing population round a bishop’s seat frequently developed into a town. In the earlier ages every man manufactured for his own use what he required. As civilization progressed it is probable that a system of mutual exchange arose. Later on still, the freemen scorned any and every occupation but that of the chase or the combat, whilst the richer classes caused their dependants and serfs to provide all their requirements; but still we have no sign of any one prosecuting manual labor on his own account and for a. remuneration in coin. Not until the cities had attained a certain development could this take place. The original inhabitants of the towns consisted of three classes — the Bishop, Burgrave, or other Lord paramount; the small freeholders of the neighborhood, some perhaps absolutely free, others free but feudatories of the lord; and the lord’s serfs and villeins, also possibly some villeins of the smaller freeholders. Some of these freeholders we may imagine to have dissipated their patrimony, which was acquired by the others; and in many cases the family would so increase that the original possession could no longer supply their wants. Hence would arise two classes of freemen, some rich, some poor. To secure themselves against the ever-increasing power of the bishops, association became necessary, and we see the old guilds for mutual protection and support taking a new form, and appearing as Burgher Guilds; and ultimately wresting one privilege after another from the bishop until the entire government of the city remains in their hands. The original qualification for membership was, no doubt, territorial possession . 1 Many of the members may have carried on trade; some of the poorer, perhaps, were handicraftsmen . 2 Mean- while, the unfree or bond population would continually increase, both by natural propagation, by refugees from neighboring tyrants, claiming the protection of the Church, and by grants of serfs from feudal chieftains to the bishops . 3 Those serfs who exercised handi- crafts would then obtain permission to devote their surplus time to their own profit, and 1 Lujo Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 29. 2 Ibid. 3 Many instances of the latter may be found amongst the copies of documents in the first volume of Lacomblet, Urkundenbruch. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 16 obtain a shadow of independence. Freemen also would be attracted to the growing towns from one cause or another, and devote themselves to trades and crafts. Not the least amongst the causes which governed the rapid increase in the populations of the towns, may have been the fact that a serf or bondsman taking refuge in a town, and remaining unclaimed for a year and a day, became a y'/'ee-man. r lhis custom became ac- knowledged law in the course of the twelfth century, 1 and may have been copied from England, where this law w r as ordained in the eleventh century by William the Conqueror. - These, however, were not admissible to the burgher guilds, not being possessed of the ter- ritorial qualification. They would naturally band themselves into trade guilds for mutual defence. Following their example, the serfs would obtain from i heir lord the permission to form guilds for the regulation of their trades. If one trade were not numerous enough several would form one guild. In course of time they would wrest or purchase one privi- lege after another from their superior, until at last they were wholly beyond his authority, and then would be acknowledged by the other free guilds as one of themselves. As labor became more and more subdivided, the number of different guilds in a town would increase. Examples are numerous of all these facts. For instance, on the 14th November 1260, Bishop Berchtold of Bale, in a document under his hand, recites, “ Inasmuch as almost every class of men in this our town who carry on a mechanical pursuit, by our grace and by that of our predecessors do possess brotherhoods, commonly called guilds, the tailors alone excepted,” — and he then permits the tailors to enjoy equal privileges, including that of choosing their own master, and grants them a constitution, defining their right and duties, and fixing the amount of fines for offences. 3 This not only proves that other guilds previously existed which had been formed “ of the grace of the bishop,” showing that they were, therefore, not freemen (who required no such permission), but also that the tailors at once gained a large amount of freedom, inas- much as they were allowed to elect their own officers. This was not always the case; for in a charter to the butchers of Bale, 4tli June 1248, Bishop Lutold II., he reserves to himself the right of appointing a master. 4 And, again, the same restriction occurs in the grant to the guild of Spinnewetters. This is an instance, also, of several small crafts uniting to form one guild. This guild comprehended the masons, plasterers, carpenters, coopers, and cartmakers. 5 It is, there- fore, evident that serfs or bondsmen could and did form craft guilds," and it is not con- sistent with truth when German masonic writers claim that none but the freeborn could join a guild of any sort, and more especially the stonemasons. That later on, such a rule ex- isted and was rigidly enforced will presently appear, as well as many other restrictions; but it did not primarily exist, as the above instance of the Spinnewetters, which included the building trades, is alone sufficient to substantiate. The above charter to the butcher, a.d. 1248, is the eleventh charter in Bale, showing that ten others already existed. 7 When the earliest craft guild in Germany was formed is of course difficult to ascertain; but there were others nearly two centuries earlier, of 1 Dr. W. Arnold, Das Aufkommen ties Handwerlters, p. 23. 2 Aubrey History of England, vol. i., p. 183; Glanville, lib. v., c. 5. 3 H. A. Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. ii. , pp. 18, 19. 4 Ibid., vol. v., pp. 17, 18. 6 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. v., pp. 18, 19. 6 Arnold, Das Aufkommen des'Handwerkers, p. 28. 1 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 50. THE STONEMASONS OE GERMANY. ii 7 which we have certain information. The earliest of these charters (in Germany) is that of the twenty-three fishers in Worms, sanctioned by Bishop Adelbert 1106. 1 And we hear of another to the clothmakers of Quedlimburg by King Lothair 1134, 2 but it is highly probable that many guilds existed de facto before they considered it necessary to obtain a legal sanction to their constitution; and that this was only sought for when they desired to impose their rules and regulations upon recalcitrant members or new-comers, and there- fore required a valid authority for their proceedings. But although these appear to be the eailiest cliaiteis that have come down to us, we have evidence much earlier of the existence of these guilds, or at least of a particular trade acting in unison, whence we may infer that a guild existed. For instance, the weavers are mentioned in Mayence as early as 1099, and it is then stated that the Church of St. Stephen had been built chiefly by their sub- scriptions . 3 Of the standing of the wool-weavers in Worms a document of Henry V., a.d. 1114, bears witness ; 4 and the charter of the Cologne weavers, confirmed in 1149, speaks of their having existed for a long time . 5 Berlepsch thinks that we may take the thirteenth century as the period when the movement of creating craft guilds had fully developed throughout Germany ; 0 and Bretano , 7 basing himself upon Arnold, says — “The time of the origin of the craft guilds in general may be said to extend from the beginning of the eleventh to the middle of the thirteenth century.” That already in the beginning of the thirteenth century the crafts had obtained great power and extension, may be deduced from the fact that, at the Diet of Worms 1231, so many complaints were made, chiefly by the bishops, against the trade guilds of the towns and their masters, that King Henry found himself under the necessity of totally dissolving all guilds, without any exception, then existing in the G erman cities; and this decree was confirmed by the Emperor Frederick II. in April 1232. The principal passage of this decree runs, — “ And equally do we dissolve and declare suppressed all and every craft, brotherhood, or guild, whatsoever name it may bear .” 8 The guilds were, however, far too strong to be thus summarily suppressed, and the decree never had any success, although again confirmed by the Emperor Rudolf of Ilabs- burg in 1275. Shortly afterward he reinstated all guilds in their former privileges. 9 We thus find in the German towns of the Middle Ages, two distinct classes. First, the original freeholders, in whom resided the whole government of the town, represented by the burghers 7 guild. This guild underwent various denominations in the different cities: it was called the old guild, the high guild, the guild, the patrician guild, etc. In some cases, where it monopolized the chief trade (not craft), it was otherwise styled — for instance, the weavers’ guild. But under whatever denomination, it had grown exclusive; it no longer admitted all free burghers, not even if they possessed the territorial qualification; demanding, in all cases, that the claimant to the honor should have forsworn his craft for a year and a day; and that none “ with dirty hands,” or “with blue nails,” or who “ hawked his wares in the street,” should be admitted . 10 Thus a distinct class had been formed — the patrician class, the rights and emoluments of which were hereditary, and acquired with ’Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 50. * Ibid. 3 Arnold, Verfassungs Geschichte, vol. i., p. 254. 4 Ibid., p. 255. b Ibid., p. 253. 6 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 50. ‘ Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 54. 8 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 71. 9 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 73. 10 Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 43. 1 1.8 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. great difficulty by strangers; and whose members reserved to those among themselves who were not thoroughly independent of all labor, the most lucrative and considerable trades, such as the goldsmiths,^ the bankers, the general merchants, etc. They had also grown proud, domineering, and aggressive; so that no sooner did the second class, the craft guilds, feel themselves strong on their legs, than in one city after another bloody feuds ensued; the final result of which was the dethronement of the patricians from their supremacy, and in some cases the breaking-up of the high guild. Generally, however, the conquerors, with rare magnanimity, still allowed the patrician guild to contribute its delegates to the municipal council, and in some cases even granted them a casting vote in consideration of their past services. 1 Brentano 2 fixes the time of the final victory of the craft guilds as toward the end of the fourteenth century, although in some cities the consummation had been arrived at much earlier. The craft guilds having thus acquired a high position, we now find another movement initiated by the masters— who in their turn became proud — viz., that of gradually exclud- ing the workmen from their meetings. This took place in all guilds, the stonemasons only excepted, as will presently appear; and even with it, the same evolution must have occurred, only much later — probably not till the end of the seventeenth century. The workmen (journeymen) therefore formed guilds or fraternities of their own; in some cases electing officers of their own body; in others, from amongst the masters. The literature treating of these societies is extensive, and in many cases their customs and usages may enable us to form some idea of the customs of the stonemasons, who were a craft guild resembling in many things the other craft guilds, and in some matters, wherever the exi- gencies of their trade required it, differing from all. This fraternity of builders, wffiose first authentic charter is the one already quoted of the thirteenth century, had doubtless been in existence much earlier, as a contract has been preserved to us made in 1133 between the Bishop of Wurzburg, Embricho, and the lay master mason Enzelin; 3 and to them must we look for the organization of the society, which, as I have shown, was not to be found amongst the convent builders. It is probable that in the twelfth century or there- abouts, the skilled masons of the convent builders left the employ of their masters, the monks, now grown opulent, fat, lazy, and vicious, and unable to provide them with further work, and amalgamated with the craft builders in the towns, and that the two together formed the society afterward known throughout Germany as the Steinvietzen. Many other causes may also have contributed to this end — such as the munificence of the prince bishops, desirous of surpassing in their cathedrals the sumptuous edifices of the abbots and priors; also the increasing importance and wealth of the towns, rendering work more certain and pay more liberal; the feasibility, in such places, of the workman becoming an inde- pendent master, and acquiring a competence; and possibly the disgust felt by the indus- trious workman at the vices of the degenerate monks, although lam inclined to think that undue stress has been laid on this reason by German authors. All German writers place the exodus from the convents at about this date, but they generally ascribe the trade organization also to the convent builders, and therefore are able to dispense with any previously existing stonemasons’ guilds, quietly ignoring them altogether. Passing this by, in the twelfth century we certainly do hear of the stone- masons as a distinct fraternity, occupied in the construction of large edifices, chiefly 1 Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 47. 4 Ibid. 3 Dr. Ang'. Reichensperger, Die Bauhutte des Mittelalters, p. 12. Cologne, 1879. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 119 cathedrals and churches; and they must have had their origin either in the convents or the cities, and as I have attempted to show, probably in both simultaneously. And precisely as we find all trades inclined to subdivide themselves, so did the Spinne- wetter, who at first included all the building trades, resolve themselves into component parts; but the particular branch of this union, denominated masons, further divided itself into other ramifications; and we find these subdivisions taking the names of Steinmetzen (stonemasons), Steinhauer (stonehewers), and Maurer (masons, rough masons, bricklayers, etc.). It is with the first of these, the stonemasons, that we have principally to deal, and whose subsequent history, as elucidated by their documents, it will next be our business to investigate. All documents anterior to a.d. 1459 relating to the Stonemasons of Germany, which have hitherto been made known, throw very little light upon the subject, being either charters similar to the one previously quoted, or contracts for quarrying stone, 1 erecting buildings, etc. We have also one of 1257, being the grant of a plot of building land by the dean and chapter of Cologne Cathedral to the Master Steinmetz Gerard, for the erection of a dwelling-house for himself. 2 But none of these are capable of disclosing the inner life and organization of the fraternity. Heldmann, however, anxious to trace a code of Steinmetz laws of which he had heard, and which is still religiously preserved under triple lock at Strassburg, 3 made fruitless endeavors to inspect it in 1817, but was fortunate enough later on to find a true copy in the possession of Herr Osterrieth, which he first published to the world in 1819/ in the original old German dialect. These laws or ordi- nances are commonly distinguished as the “ Constitutions ” (or code) of 1459. Having been so frequently reprinted, it will be unnecessary to include them with the series of ordinances which illustrate this chapter — those of 1563 and 1462 — as the interested reader can readily refer to them in one of the several publications below noted. 5 In the introduction we are informed, that for the greater advantage of their employers, as also of their own members, and to avoid disputes, the masters and fellows had held meetings (literally chapters, in German Kapittelsweise ) at Speyer, Strassburg, and Ratisbon (Regensburg), and had agreed and sworn to, the following rules and regulations. These ordinances conclude by stating, that at Ratisbon in the year of our Lord 1459, on the festival of St. Mark, Jost Dotzinger of Worms, Master of the buildings at Strassburg Cathedral (and his successors for ever), was acknowledged as chief judge ( oberster Rychter) of the fraternity; which regulation had been previously made at Speyer and Strassburg, and was once more confirmed at Speyer in the year 1464, on the 9th April. The very next paragraph, however, somewhat places the whole matter once more in confusion, as it states that at Ratisbon in 1459, and at Speyer in 1463, the workmasters of Strassburg, Cologne, and Vienna were acknowledged as being chief judges — “ These three are the highest judges and lodges of the craft; these shall not be displaced without just cause.” Apart from the confusion thus created, it is therefore evident that Heldmann’s copy is not a transcript of the 1459 code, but of one whose earliest date is 1464; but the fact remains that a set of laws was drawn up in 1459, and was doubtless identical with the present; and we have OsterrietlTs affidavit 6 that it is a 1 Lacomblet, Urkunden fur Geschichte der Nieder Rheins, vol. ii., p. 381. i Ibid., vol. ii., p. 242. 3 F. Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. 201 4 Ibid. , p. 203. 6 Findel, p. 660; Steinbrenner, p. 84; Masonic Eclectic (New York, 1865), vol. i., p. 85; and Ken- ning’s Cyclopedia, p. 529 ( Ordnungen der Steinmetzen). 6 Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. 241. 120 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. true copy of the MS. which he saw in the lodge at Strassburg during the revolution. Following this appointment of three chief lodges, we have a definition of the province attaching to each,- and a fourth province inserted, namely, that of Bern, comprising the whole of the Swiss Confederation. Next come a few more regulations, and a paragraph stating that on the 9th April 1464, it was agreed that the Master of the Strassburg Lodge, Jost Dotzinger, should call a meeting “ after the manner of a chapter,” and take to himself three or four masters, and whatever should be decided by the majority of those then assembled in chapter, either to render the articles more severe or more mild, that should be held of all the craft; and the day of such meeting was then. fixed to be St. George’s Day 1469. So far as we know, the meeting was never held; at least Ave have no record of it. Then follow the names of those Avho agreed to these laws on the 9tli April 1464, succeeded by those who signed “ four weeks after Easter ” 1459. The number is not large, being six in the first case and twenty-one in the second. Additions are afterward made of fresh names as late as the year of our Lord “ 1472, on the Sunday before the 12th day of Christmas.” The above code of laws or ordinances gives us a very good idea of the organization of the stonemasons as they then existed, and as they had probably existed for some centuries previously; the introduction expressly stating that they are drawn up according to ancient custom, and lays down in broad outline a comprehensive picture of their trade usages and customs. But we find one new feature that doubtless dates from 1459, — that of the bond embracing all Germany and Switzerland, — that is, the inner fraternity and the supreme authority. We can have no doubt, that previous and constant intercommunication had reduced the various guilds of stonemasons scattered throughout Germany to one general uniformity, except in some small matters (the length of apprenticeship, for instance), and that, like all other trades, a journeyman free to work in one place was acceptable in another. Yet differences, tending to positive strife, were by no means impossible under such cir- cumstances; but in 1459 we find this rendered excessively difficult by the institution of a universal guild or fraternity, and four chief lodges, to which all disputes must be referred. Of the latter, in spite of some obscurity in the wording, the lodge at Strassburg was the supreme head. It is even more than likely that this assembly in 1459, and the rules then laid doAvn, were the direct result of some quarrel which had threatened to become preju- dicial to the trade; or they may have taken their rise from a feeling in the craft that the days of their highest prosperity and power were slipping away from them, and that some mighty effort Avas necessary to consolidate their associations and combine their interests; or they may, on the other hand, have been simply the outcome of a desire to obtain royal authority for their future proceedings, as we find that immediately afterward these statutes Avere laid before the Emperor for confirmation. These Ordinances apparently remained in full force till 1563, Avith possibly some slight alterations of individual sections; a proceeding perfectly alloAvable according to the laws themselves. Heldmann indeed supposes that such did take place, at the assemblies held (as he avers) in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries at Strassburg, Cologne, Bale, and other places, although he does not cite his authority for this statement. 1 It is, liOAvever, quite obvious that the Ordinances of 1459 are given in a very confused manner, without any attempt at natural sequence or order; and for this, as Avell possibly as for other reasons, it became highly desirable that they should undergo a general revision, which accordingly 1 Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Gescliichtlichen Denkmale, p. 52. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 2 I took place in 1563 at two meetings, held respectively on the festivals of St. Bartholomew and St. Michael. These revised laws were printed in folio, and a copy distributed to every lodge of importance, the master of which was willing to join the fraternity; and the follow- ing is a translation, in which will be presented as literal a rendering as possible, of the antiquated, rugged German, at the sacrifice of all pretension to elegance of diction. 1 In the numeration I have followed Kloss, and Roman figures are used, in order to distinguish the separate articles from those of the 1462 code (to be given hereafter), to which attention will be called by ordinary figures. THE BROTHER-BOOK OF 1563. The Ordinances and Articles of the Fraternity of Stonemasons renewed at the Chief Lodge at Strassburg on St. Michael’s Day MDLXI1I. His imperial Roman Majesty, our most gracious Lord, having in this one thousand five hundred and sixty-third year most graciously renewed, confirmed, and approved to the general fellowship and brotherhood of the Stonemasons in German Lands their regu- lations and duties; and whereas for some time past many irregularities and bad habits have arisen and obtained in the craft of Masonry, therefore have many masters and fellows of aforesaid craft and fraternity, as they are named hereafter, met together in the aforesaid sixty-third year at Bale on St. Bartholomew’s, and at Strassburg on St. Michael’s Day, in order to elucidate and better aforesaid Ordinances and Articles of the Craft and Brother- hood, and the aforesaid have elucidated and bettered said Ordinances, and settled that they shall be held as hereafter follows; and no one who is of this guild shall do or act contrary thereto. The first Article of these Ordinances. I. That if any Article in this book be too hard or heavy, or any be too light, then may those who are of our guild, being in a majority, alter, lessen, or increase such Articles, according to the times, the necessities of the land, and the course of affairs. And when there is a general summons they shall meet together in chapter form, according to the con- tents of this book; and that [their resolutions] shall be kept on the oath which each one has taken. Of the Duties of those who are of this Guild. II. Whoso comes into this guild of his own good will, as hereafter stands written in this book, he shall promise to keep every point and article if he be of our craft of Masonry. Those shall be masters who can erect costly edifices and such like work, for the which they are authorized, and serve no other craft unless they choose so to do. And be it masters or fellows they shall and must conduct themselves honorably, and none shall be wronged by them; therefore have we taken power in these Ordinances to punish them on the occasion of every such act. Such works as are journey work shall be allowed to so remain. III. Whatever regular buildings are now under journey work, such as Strassburg, Cologne, 1 No English translation of these ordinances has hitherto appeared. They were first published as the Secret Book ( Gelieimbucli ) of the Stonemasons, in folio, with imprint 1563, and the imperial eagle on the title-page, and from this copy were republished by Heldmann, Krause, and Ileideloff. 122 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. Vienna, and such like works, and in the lodges thereto belonging, as according to custom have hitherto been completed by journey work, such buildings and work shall remain under journey work, and in no wise shall a contract be made, in order that the work, so far as possible, be not cut short by reason of the contract. Who may aspire to a building. IV. If any craftsman who has a regular work should die, then any craftsman or master who understands masonry, and is sufficient and able for the work, may well aspire to and apply for the work, so that the Lords who have such work in hand and direct it may again be supplied according to the necessities of masonry. So likewise may any fellow who understands masonry. Work shall be given in journey work. V. Whatever master it may behove, beyond his own work, to undertake a work abroad, or any other master whom it may behove, though he have no such aforesaid work in hand, such master shall, as he best can or may, in good faith set and continue such work or building by journey pay, so that there be no danger of the work being cut short, according to the right and usages of masonry. And if a master do not make use of this [method of pay- ment, understood ] for the persons who cause the work to be done, and it be found out on trustworthy information, then shall the said master be taken to task of the craft, corrected and punished after it be proved against him. But if the Lords will not do it so, then may he act according to the Lord’s desire. When a Master dies during a Building. VI. If a master who has possessed and had such a work and building in hand should die, and another master come and find hewn stonework, be it set or unset, such master shall not pull down the set stonework, nor shall he in any way cast away the unset hewn stonework, without the counsel or agreement of other craftsmen, so that the Lords and other honorable persons who caused such building to be raised be not put to unjust expense, and that the master who left such work after his death be not defamed. But if the Lords wish such work to be removed, then may he allow it to be done, provided he seek no dis- honest advantage thereby. How Stonelmving and Building is to be conducted. VII. And every master who has practised masonry his five years with a stonemason, shall be permitted and have power to hew stones and build by contract or journey work, without fear if it so please him, nevertheless without trespassing against the articles written herebefore, or hereafter. When a Master gives a Plan for a Work. VIII. If any one contracts for a work, and gives a plan for it how it shall be; the work shall not be cut short of anything in the design, but he shall execute it according to the plan which he has shown to the Lords, cities, or people, so that nothing be altered on the building. Unless it be that the Lords will it so, then may he alter it according to the Lords’ wishes, but without seeking undue advantage. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 123 What sort of Work two Masters may have in common. IX. And no two masters shall have one building or work in common, unless it be a small building that may be brought to an end in the space of one year; such may he well have in common with him who is a fellow-citizen. If a Work requ ire Masons . 1 X. A master may grant employment as follows: — Should it be that masons are required, say for foundations, or to build a wall, for which they are capable, the master may well give them employment, that the Lords be not de- layed on their works; and they that are employed shall not be subject to these Ordinances; but they shall not be further set to hew stones, because they have not served according to our Ordinances. / Who thrusts another from out a Work. XI. Whoever it be, either master or fellow, who shall oust from his work another master who is of this guild of craftsmen, or shall apply, be it in secret or openly, without his knowledge and consent, for the work that he possesses, be it large or small, the same shall be brought to task; and no master or fellow shall have any communion with him. And no fellow who is of this guild shall enter into his employ so long as he possesses the work which he has dishonorably obtained; nor until he shall have made restitution and given satisfaction to him who was thus dispossessed of the work; and also until he shall have been punished by the masters who are enjoined so to do by the guild. Who shall accept Carved or Planned Stonework. XII. Should there be one who would undertake carved or designed stonework, not knowing how to execute it from the ground plan, not having served his time to a craftsman or been employed in a lodge, ho shall in no wise undertake the work. But should he so venture, then shall no fellow stand by him, or enter his employment, in order that the Lords be not put to unseemly expense by such a foolish master. Who may he taught to execute Work from the Ground Plan or other Carved Work. XIII. And no craftsman, warden, or fellow shall teach any one, whoever he be, that is not of our craft, to make extracts from the ground plan or other usages of masonry, who has not practised masonry in his day, or not served long enough with a stonemason accord- ing to our craft, customs, and ordinances. No Master shall teach a Fellow anything for Money. XIV. And no craftsman or master shall take money from a fellow for showing or teaching him anything touching masonry. In like manner no warden or fellow shall show or instruct any one for money in carving as aforesaid. Should, however, one wish to in- struct or teach another, he may well do it, one piece for the other, or for fellowship sake, or to serve their master thereby. How many Apprentices a Master may have. XV. A master who has only one building or work may have three apprentices, two 1 Wall builders, or rough masons- 124 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. rough and one art apprentice, that he may also employ fellows in the same lodge, that is, if his superiors permit. If he have more than one building he shall not have more than two apprentices on the first works and buildings, so that he have not more than five apprentices on all his buildings. Nevertheless, so that each may serve his five years on that building and work on which he serves. Who openly lives in Concubinage. XVI. No craftsman or master of masonry shall live openly in adultery. If, however, such a one will not desist therefrom, no travelling fellow nor stonemason shall stand in his employ, or have communion with him. Who lives not as a Christian, and goes not yearly to the Holy Sacrament. XVII. No craftsman or master shall be received into the guild who goes not yearly to Holy Sacrament, or keeps not Christian discipline, and squanders his substance in play. But should any one be inadvertently accepted into the guild who does these things as afore- said, no master shall keep company with him, nor shall any fellow stand by him until lie shall have ceased so to do, and been punished by those of this guild. If a fellow work for a Master who has not been advanced in this Guild. XVIII. If a fellow take work of a master who has not been advanced in this guild of craftsmen, he shall not be punished therefor. In like manner, if a fellow go to a city master, and there obtain employment, that may he well do, so that every fellow may find work. But nevertheless, the fellow shall keep the Ordinances as hereinbefore and hereafter written. And what it behoves him to give to the guild that shall be done by him, although he stand not in one of the guild lodges, or with his fellow brothers. But if a fellow would take unto himself a lawful wife, and not being employed in a lodge would establish himself in a city, he shall on every Ember-week pay four pennies, so long as he be not employed in one of the lodges. How Complaints are to be heard, judged, and conducted. XIX. And if a master have a complaint against another master for having violated the regulations of the craftsmen, or in the same way a master against a fellow, or a fellow against another fellow, whatever master or fellow is concerned therein shall give notice thereof to the masters who hold these books of the regulations. And the masters who are informed thereof shall hear both parties, and set a day when they will hear the cause. And meanwhile, before the fixed or appointed day no fellow shall avoid the master, nor master the fellow, but render services mutually until the hour when the master is to be heard and settled. And this shall all be done according to the judgment of the crafts- men, and what is adjudged shall be observed accordingly. And, moreover, where the case arose there shall it be tried, by the nearest masters who hold the book of these regulations,, and in whose district it occurred. Concerning driving away. XX. It is also further decided as regards the driving away: if it happen that anything be reported of a Master or Fellow, a matter of hearsay, repeated from one to the other, so long as it not certain, and the aforesaid not righteously convicted thereof, he shall be THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 125 avoided of or driven away by no one, but pursue liis work until such time as it shall really be brought home to him, and he be righteously convicted. Unless it be that he will not yield obedience to the laws of the craft, such a one shall go idle according to our aforesaid Ordinances. Not to Appeal. XXI. It is also decided, where a matter begins and takes its rise, there shall it be settled, or in the nearest lodge where a book lies. And neither party shall appeal until plaint and answer take place and are heard, nor carry the matter further than aforesaid, unless it be rejected there. What Master has po wer to hear Complaints. XXII. Every workmaster who has employment in his lodge, and to whom this writing of the Ordinances and power shall be entrusted, shall have power and might in that district to hear and to punish all complaints and causes that affect masonry. And all masters, wardens, and fellows shall be obedient unto him herein. Every Master shall conduct himself, and be guided by these Ordinances. XXIII. On the day at Strassburg anno 15 G3 is also decided: that every Master who has in hand a building that is permanent and not momentary, be it in princedoms, lands, cities, institutes, or cloisters, shall hold and judge according to our ordinances; for thereby their advantage shall be greatly advanced, who have to build, and harm avoided. Therefore each one shall have a book, and be acknowledged as superior of his circuit and district by all the masters and fellows of that province. He shall also have perfect power, which is given to each at this assembly, and enjoined upon him, conjointly with his fellow masters, by virtue of their superiority, to firmly rule this craft, to punish his subjects, accept brothers, help the sick, to call a general assembly of his neighborhood, nevertheless in such wise that nothing be cut short of the Ordinances. Where a Booh is, there shall be the Collection for the Poor and Sich Brothers. XXIV. And all those to whom books of the ordinances are given, shall faithfully collect the weekly penny from the fellows; and if a fellow become sick, shall assist him. Likewise, where such a superior has a master under him, having employment and fellows, he shall order him to collect the weekly pennies in *a box, and give him a box for that purpose, which box shall be emptied by and accounted for to each superior of a district every year, and be employed for the assistance of the poor and sick of our craft who are under him. And every master w 7 ho has a box, and has received account every year of his neighbors of their boxes, shall send a bohemian 1 every year at Michaelmas to the chief lodge at Strassburg, with a ticket whence it conies, as a sign of obedience and brotherly love; that it may be known that all things as aforesaid have been carried out. The Places which, having Boohs, are subject to the Chief Lodge at Strassburg. XXV. Speyer, Zurich, Augspurg, Franckfurt, Ulm, Heilbrunn, Blassenburg, Dressden, Nuremberg, Saltzburg, Mentz, Stutgarten, Heidelberg, Freiburg, Basel, Hagnaw, Sclilet- statt, Regenspurg, Meysenheim, Miinchen, A.nspach, Costenz. 1 A coin of very trifling value. 126 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. Of a Fellow who wishes to serve a Master for a time. XXVI. If a fellow has travelled and served the craft, and is also previously of this guild, and wishes to serve a craftsman for a time, the said master and workman shall not accept each other for less than one year or thereabouts. Of a Master or Fellow who should disobey these Ordinances. XXVII. All those, be they master or fellows, Avho are of this guild, shall hold in obedi- ence all points and articles, as stand both before and hereafter written. But if any one should perchance break one of the points and become punishable, if afterward he be obe- dient to the regulations by sufficing to that which lie has been ordered as amends, he shall have done sufficient, and be released from his vow as regards the article wherefor he has been punished. How the Masters of this Guild shall preserve the Booh. XXVIII. The master who has charge of the book shall, on his oath to the guild, have a care that the same be not copied either by himself, or by any other person, or lent; so that the books remain in full force, as resolved by the craftsmen. But should any one be in need of one or two articles more or less, that may any master give him in writing. And every master shall cause these Ordinances to be read every year to the fellows in the lodge. Concerning Punishments that may entail expulsion from the Craft. XXIX. If a complaint be laid before a master, such as would entail the greater punish- ment; for instance, if any one is to be forbidden the craft, that shall the master of a dis- trict not hear or judge of alone, but call to his aid the two nearest masters, who also possess a book and power according to these ordinances, that there may be three of them,- and also the fellows that are in the employ where the complaint arose, and that which these three, together with the fellows, unanimously or by a majority, shall then decide on their oath and to the best of their judgment, that shall thereafter be maintained by the whole body of craftsmen. When Quarrels arise, not concerning Masonry. XXX. Should it be that two or more masters who are of this guild be at variance or discord about matters which do not concern masonry, they shall not on account of this difference summon one another anywhere but before the craft and brotherhood; and they shall judge and reconcile them to the best of their ability, but so that the matter be settled without prejudice to the rights of those Lords or cities where the matter arose. What each Master or Fellow shall Contribute to this Guild. XXXI. Now in order that these ordinances may the more honestly be kept with sendee to God and other necessary and seemly things, every master who has lodge employment, and practises masonry, and belongs to this guild, shall first, on his admission, pay one florin, and every year thereafter two bohemians or blapperts into the craft box, and a fellow five bohemians, and an apprentice also the like amount when he has served his time. Of what Masters shall have Boxes, and what is to be given thereto. XXXII. All masters and craftsmen who are of this guild, and have lodge employment, shall each possess a box, and every fellow shall pay thereto every week one penny, and every master shall faithfully collect such money and whatever else may be due, and THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 127 annually account for it to the guild Avhere the nearest book lies, that the poor may be relieved, and the necessities of our guild provided for. When a Master does not do his duty to a Fellow who is an Art Apprentice. XXXIII. Should an apprentice consider that his master does not, in whatsoever respect it be, perform his full duty toward him, as he has engaged to do, the apprentice may bring the matter before the craftsmen and masters, who are resident in the neighborhood, in order that his instruction may be completed, and his travels take place according to cir- cumstance. Should any he sick in this Brotherhood, what is then to he done. XXXIV. Should a master or fellow fall sick, or a fellow of this guild who has in his time lived uprightly in masonry, and lay so long sick that it fail him in sustenance and the necessities of existence, the master who has the box of the guild in his charge shall help and assist him with a loan from the box, if he otherwise can, until he recover from his sickness; and he shall vow and promise to restitute the money lent into the box. But if he die in his days of sickness, then shall so much be retained from what he leaves after death, be it clothing or otherwise, till that is again made good which had been lent him, if so much there be. Should any one defray anything on account of the Brotherhood. XXXV. Should it be that a master or fellow be put to expense, or defray anything on account of the guild, and notice be given how the same occurred, such expenses, be they large or small, shall be returned to such master or fellow out of the guild box. And also if any one come to grief with justice or other things touching this guild, then shall every one, be he master or fellow, be helpful to the other, and lend him assistance on his oath to the guild. Nevertheless, no one shall of his own accord, without the advice of other masters and fellows, put the Brotherhood to any expense. Ho to a disobedient one shall he punished. XXXVI. Whatever master, warden, or apprentice shall offend against these or the hereafter-written points and articles, and not keep them, either collectively or any one in particular, and it be discovered on honorable information, he or they shall be for such offence called before the craft, and questioned thereon. And the punishment and penalty that may be adjudged to them, that shall they be obedient to, on the oath and vows that each one has taken to the guild. But should any one slight the punishment or summons without righteous cause, and appear not, whatever shall be then adjudged to him as a pun- ishment for his disobedience that shall he give, although he be not present. And if he will not do it, then shall he be allowed to go idle, and no stonemason shall stand by him till he become obedient. Who shall he superior Judges in this Craft. XXXVII. Marx Schan, workmaster of the high foundation of our dear Lady at Strass- burg, and all his successors. This district belongs to Strasshurg. XXXVIII. All the country above the Moselle, and Franconia as far as the Thuringian Forest, and Babenberg as far as the Bishopric of Eichstatten, and from Eichstatten to 128 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. Ulm, from IJlm to Augsburg including Augsburg, from Augsburg to the Adelberg, and as far as Italy, the Lands of Misnia, Hesse, and Swabia, these shall be obedient to these Ordinances. This district belongs to Vienna. XXXIX. To the workmaster of the building of St. Stephen at Vienna belongs — - Lampach, Styria, Werkhausen, Hungary, and the Danube downward. This district belongs to Cologne. XL. To the workmaster of the foundation at Cologne and to all his successors, to him shall be obedient in a like manner and belong — the remaining territory downward, what- ever work and lodges there be in it, who are of this guild, or may hereafter join it. This district belongs to Zurich. XLI. Bern, Bale, Lucern, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, etc., and all work at this time in the Confederacy, or hereafter to arise, shall be obedient to the master at Zurich. Ordinances of the Wardens and Fellows of the Stonemasons’ Craft. XLII. Every warden shall hold his master in honor, be willing and obedient unto him, according to the rule of masonry, and obey him with undivided fidelity, as is meet and of ancient usage. And a fellow shall also do likewise. If any wish to travel, how he shall take his leave. XLIIL And when it behoves a fellow to travel farther, he shall part from his master lodge and hostelrie in such wise as to remain indebted to no one, and that no man have any grievance against him, as is meet. How the Fellows shall be obedient unto the Masters and Wardens. XLIV. A travelling fellow, in whatever lodge he may be employed, shall be obedient to his master and warden, according to the rule and ancient usage of masonry, and shall also keep all the regulations and privileges which are of ancient usage in the said lodge. No Fellow shall revile his Master’s Work. XLV. And a fellow shall not revile his master’s work, either secretly or openly, in any wise; unless it be that the master infringe or act contrary to these Ordinances; that may any one say of another. No Fellow to be employed who lives in adultery. XLVI. Xo master or craftsman shall employ any fellow who consorts with a woman in adultery, or who openly lives a dishonorable life with women, or who goes not to the holy communion according to Christian discipline, or one who is so foolish as to game away his clothing. If a Fellow wantonly takes leave. XLVII. If any fellow should wantonly take leave from a head lodge, or from any other lodge, the master and fellows of the said lodge shall not let him depart unpunished. Not to discharge except on a pay evening. XLVIII. Should it be that a craftsman or workmaster have a travelling fellow in his THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 129 employment, and wish to discharge him, he shall not discharge him except of a Saturday or pay evening, that he may know how to travel on the morrow; unless he have given cause of offence. The same shall also he done by a fellow, if he demand his discharge. To ask none for employment except the Master or Warden. XLIX. And no fellow shall ask any one else in the lodge for employment, except the master on the work or the warden: neither secretly nor openly, without their consent. To make no League. L. Likewise the fellows shall in the future make no more mutinies or conspiracies to leave any employ collectively, and thus delay a building; for up to the present the profits of our brotherhood have come from the Lords and cities almost entirely; but should a master behave otherwise than right in any case, he shall be summoned before the craft, and submit to its judgment. And in case of a pending judgment no such master shall be avoided of his fellows until the matter be adjudged, unless it be that such a one be dis- obedient to the judgment; in that case he may well be left to go idle. Not to leave the Lodge without permission. LI. No fellow shall go out from the lodge without leave, or if he go to his broth or any other meal, remain out without leave; nor shall any make Holy Monday. If any one do so, he shall stand to punishment by the master and fellows, and the master shall have power to discharge him in the week when he will. No more Beatings. LII. And in future, in no lodge, no matter for what cause, shall any one be beaten without the knowledge and consent of the workmaster. And there shall not in any em- ployment or elsewhere, anything be judged or heard by either masters or fellows, without the superior workmaster’s knowledge and consent in the judgment of the penalty. Not to run together in the Lodge. LIII. And in the future the fellows shall wait in the lodge at their piece of stone, and no longer run together to chatter, so that the Lords be not hindered in their work. What an Apprentice shall vow to the Craft when he has served his time and is declared free. LIV. In the first place, overy apprentice when he has served his time, and is declared free, shall promise the craft, on his truth and honor, in lieu of oath, under pain of losing his right to practise masonry, that he will disclose or communicate the mason’s greeting and grip to no one, except to him to whom he may justly communicate it; and also that he will write nothing thereof. Secondly, He shall promise as aforesaid, to be obedient to the craft of masonry, in all things concerning the craft, and if he should be sentenced by the craft he shall conform wholly to such sentence, and yield obedience thereto. Thirdly, He shall promise not to weaken but to strengthen the craft, so far as his means may extend. Fourthly, No one shall stand by another to hew stones who is not honestly of the craft; and no master shall employ any one to hew stones who is not a true stonemason, unless it be previously permitted to him of a whole craft, 1 1 This curious expression probably means, “ Of all the members of the craft in his neighborhood.” 130 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. LV. And no one shall alter of his own will and power his mark which has been granted and lent him by a craft ; 1 but if he ever desire to alter it he shall only do it with the knowl- edge, will, and approval of a whole craft. LVI. And every master, having aforesaid apprentices, shall earnestly enjoin and invite each one when he has thus completed the above-written five years to become a brother, by the oath which each one has taken to the craft and is offered to each. No Apprentice to be made a Warden. LVII. No craftsman or master shall appoint as warden any one of his apprentices whom he has taken from his rough state, who is still in his years of apprenticeship. LVIII. And no craftsman or master shall appoint as warden any apprentice whom he has taken from his rough state to apprentice, even if he have served his years of appren- ticeship, unless he have also travelled for one year. Ordinances of the Apprentices. LIX. Whosoever, henceforth, shall accept an apprentice, shall not accept him for a less security than twenty florins, and he shall lodge at least such security with one who is a resident of such place, in order that if the master die before the apprentice has served his time, the apprentice may serve the craft with some other true master, and complete the full term of five years. But if he complete them not he shall forfeit the twenty florins to a craft for the craft’s expenses and loss, in the same manner as he would be indebted to the master if he left him without cause during his apprenticeship; in order that the apprentices may the more readily remain and become true stonemasons. LX. And no craftsman shall knowingly accept an apprentice of illegitimate birth, but shall have made earnest inquiries before accepting him, and shall ask the apprentice on his truth whether his father and mother have lived together in wedlock. LXI. And it is also decreed that no craftsman shall accept an apprentice in the rough otherwise than for five years, and henceforth none shall pay any money for the time which he has not served, but shall completely serve his five years. Nevertheless, what has here- tofore been done, that shall so remain, but in the future it shall only be done as aforesaid. LXII. And a father, being himself a mason, shall have pow T er to bind one or more of his sons for five years and to complete their instruction, but only in the presence of other stonemasons; and such an apprentice shall not be under fourteen years of age. TiX TTT. If any one has served for any time a mason who is not a stonemason, that time shall not count, or be deducted from any apprentice’s five years; but for five years shall he serve a stonemason, as aforesaid. LXIV. And henceforth no master shall accept a rough apprentice or declare him free, except in the presence of a craft, and the fellows who are at that time employed in the lodge, in order that if variances arise they may the more easily be arranged. LXY. And every apprentice shall promise the craft, on his truth and honor, to hold his master, during the five years that he is bound to him, in all due obedience, leal service, 1 This evidently means by a meeting of the craft. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. Iu truths and faith, to further his advantage and avert his loss, so far as ho may or can, without any exception or reservation. LX\ I. And the master, on his part, shall give his apprentice, during said five years, according to ancient usage and custom of the craft, ten florins, namely, every year two florins, as his wages, besides his keep and maintenance. LX VII. He shall also promise to he true and obedient to a worthy craft in all things concerning the craft, and if he should fall into variance or discord with his master or any other stonemason, or craft apprentice, to lay all matters connected therewith before a craft to l ie adjudged and reconciled, that in all things, for good or ill, he may obtain justice and judgment according to craft usage, and not to appeal against the sentence thus pro- nounced, but to strictly submit himself thereto. III. Furthei more, nothing shall he withheld from any one who has been accepted and pronounced free, but whatever ought to be told or read to him, that shall he be told and communicated, in order that none may excuse himself, or complain that, had he pre- viously known thereof, he would not have joined the craft. LXIX. And in every case two carved tickets [a system of “ tally ”] of a like import shall be prepared, of which one shall be deposited with the lodge, the other with the security, in order that each side may know how to demean himself. LXX. And every master who accepts an apprentice shall pay to the craft not more than five bohemians or blapperts. In like manner, an apprentice, when he has been declared [literally “knocked”] free, shall be indebted to the craft one florin, and shall not be re- quired to give more. And that maybe expended [literally consumed, “spent in drink,” etc. ], in witness thereof, by those who are present at the giving of the freedom. LXXI. And no master shall extend the [preliminary] trial of a rough apprentice, who is old enough according to the articles, for a longer space than fourteen days, unless he be his son, or the master have a righteous cause for delay, on account of the security, for in- stance, and seek nothing wrong thereby. When any one leaves during his Apprenticeship. LXXII. And should it happen that an apprentice leave- his master during his years of apprenticeship, without righteous cause, and serve him not his full time, no master shall employ such apprentice. And none shall stand by him, or have fellowship with him in any wise, until he shall have served his years honorably with the master whom he left, and have made full atonement, and bring information thereof from his master as is aforesaid. And no apprentice shall ransom himself from his master unless he enter into wedlock with his master’s consent, or have other righteous cause that compels him or his master thereto, and it shall take place with the knowledge of the brotherhood, according to the judgment of the stonemasons. Not to entice away an Apprentice. LXXIII. And no master or fellow, whatever his name, shall entice or lead away any apprentice from him who has bound him, or received him from elsewhere into his employ- ment, unless he \the apprentice ] have previously complied with his master’s wish, in order ! 3 2 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. that lie may leave him without any complaint. But should such occur, he shall be sum- moned before the craft and punished. These are the Names of the Masters and Fellows who , at Strassburg and Basle, unani- mously helped to Establish, Order, Renew, and Confirm, the af ^rewritten Ordi- nances and Articles. Marx Schan, workmaster of the High Foundation, Strassburg; Ilans Frewler, city workmaster of the same place; Jacob Noggi, city master at Zurich; Georg Luthener, city master at Spiers; Hans Lorner, city master at Frankfort; Simon Zwiezol, city master at Augs- burg; Nicholas of Lindau, on the part of Frederick, city master at Him; Conrad Herman, city master at Leipzig; Master Stephen Ziegler, master builder at Scliletstatt; Hans Ll- berger, city master at Scliletstatt; Balthasar Wolff, workmaster at Heilbronn; Wolff- gang Loscher, city master at Nurnberg; Gilg Grassenberger, city master at Begensburg; Hans Bernhart, city master at Colmar; Nicolas Stattner, city master at Heidelberg; George Kanpff, city master on the foundation at Freyburg; Hans Lacher, city master at Basle; Peter Hildebrandt, city master at Lindau; Blesy Berwart, workmaster at Stuttgart; Master Martin Berwart of Brackenheim; Master Jacob Dieter of Landau; Master Conrad Heckner of Weissenburg; Master Lorenz Klein of Ilanau; Master Werner Biannci of Scnnen, Master Michael Ulrich of Colmar; Master Mathew Gasser of Werde; Master Mathew Gerber of Basle; Master Sebastian Keiiffer of Stuttgart; Hans Han of Brunnenfelz, delegate from Mayence; Wolff Biseneck, delegate from Blassenburg; Master Christopher Stromeyer of Saarbriicken; Master Rudolph Knatsclier of Frankfort; Master Hans Meyer of Beine, Master Frederic Kessler of Weil burg; Pangratz Seyle of Landau; Thomas Fideler of Dresden, from Weyer; Master Caspar Erles, at Etl ingen; Master Nicholas Hensslerof Stein; Master Wolff Vbgle of St. Gall; Master Jacob Alther of Roschach; Master Hans Weyss- kopff of Merseburg; Master Hans Ortlin of Zell; Master Melchior Schertzinger of Scliaff- hausen; Master George Maurer of Constance; Master Michael Wummen of Biel; Master Y el tin Gcssler of Basle; Master Albrecht Geyss of Bruck; Master Hans Rucli of Freibuig; Master Hans Schwerter of Zurich; Master Mathew Lang of Weltkirch; Master Hans Ziptle; Master Laurence Degen; Master Daniel Ileintz; Master Hans Dagsperger; Master Henry Entzberger; Conrad Giirtler; Jacob of Andlau; Hans of Piitengen; 1 Lux Kienlieim; Wolff Wildermeier; Hans Hertz; Wolff of Ipfflioffen; 2 Claus Nasser; Lux Furnkorn, Henry of Heidelburg; Hans Beck of Mayence; Adam Zwick; Hans of Ingolstadt; Hans Kien; Hans Buchs of Ilanau; Conrad Krauss. The Fellows. Andrew of Biim; Wolff Geiger of Schaffhausen; Nicholas of Biseneck; Heinrich o i Cassel ; George of Siiissen; George Suterof Langenargen; Jacob Werckwiler of Offenbnrg; Hans Rudolff of Rotenburg; Lenhart Frumm of Halle, in Suabia; Peter Liitzel of Siburg [probably Siegenburg in Bavaria]-, Balthasar Koller of Grossen Bodmen; Lawrence Stem- herger of Neuburg; Peter Brack of Geneva; Jost Hussler of Landau; Mathew Muss of Ilanau; Hans Isenman of Bressmel; Roland Miinch of Sesserich; Jacob of Burn; Nicholas Hussler 1 Lux, probably Lucas or Luke. 2 Claus, short for Nicholas. The Christian names are mainly represented above by their English equivalents; but Ilans, short for Johan (John), is so characteristically German that it has been left untranslated. Jacob may either mean James or Jacob, as in Germany they have only one name for our two. The names of towns have been as far as possible modernized. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 133 of Arlen; George of Landsperg; Jacob Hiltebrand of Rotenburg; Jacob of Rappoldsweiler; Yelten Donnecker of Strassburg; Hans Decker of Netzerbolchen; Frederick Baltz of Wachenheim; Michael of Bisantz; Michael Extlin of Strassburg; Thomas Weybel of Strassburg; Hans Blum of Strassburg; Claude Jackome of Lausanne. At the request of Mr. Heldmann of Berlin, I testify that, as far as I can judge, after an examination of the statutes of the stonemason brotherhood at Strassburg of the year 1563, placed before me by Professor Heldmann, this copy is a literal transcript of the printed book presented to me. 6th March 1819. [Signed] Eggimaist, Notary, Member of Lodge zur Hoffnung, in Berne. These Statutes and Ordinances are in a great measure a repetition of those of 1459:; differing merely in orthography, as might be expected, from the interval of time that sepa- rates the two codes, and here and there in some slight shade of expression. They are, however, arranged with a greater regard to order, and omit all references to religious ob- servances of a denominational character, merely insisting on a due observance of Christian discipline. The Reformation will naturally account for this. The paragraphs I. to XIX., XXII., XXVI. to XXXV., XXXVII. to XLIX., LVIIL, LX., LXI., LXIII., LXXII. are all to be found in the 1459 code at various places. Of these, however, VII. and VIII. allow the master rather more latitude than the original; and the concluding sentence of X. is a new proviso. Nos. XII., XIII., XIV. are identical in both codes, but have hitherto been wrongly translated, and misunderstood, even by German writers, as will be shown further on. In XXVI. the term of engagement has been reduced from two years to one year. In XXXI. the masters’ contribution has been reduced from four to two blapparts, but that of the fellows raised from four to five blapparts. In No. XXXV. the concluding sentence is new. In XXXVI. the penalty for persistent contumacy is deprivation of work; but in the code of 1459 it is provided, “ that he may be brought before the ecclesiastical or civil courts. ” In paragraph XXXVIII. of the new code, the district belonging to Strassburg no longer includes Thuringia, Saxony, Frankfort; whence we may probably infer that these lands constituted a fifth district under a new chief lodge, possibly Dresden, although the fact is nowhere noted; but as will appear later on, precisely these districts held a meet- ing on their own account in 1462. In XLI. we find the Swiss chief lodge transferred from Berne to Zurich. In XLVII. the penalty for non-compliance was originally “ not to seek employment in the said lodge for a year to come;” in 1563 the masons content themselves with providing that “ he shall not depart unpunished.” In the original of LXI. we merely find it decreed that the term of apprenticeship shall be five years; but from the law being made non-retrospective, it is evident that meanwhile it had been violated. In the original of LXIII. it was provided that a youth who had learned of a common mason, might acquire the rights of a stonemason by serving an extra three years only. As this concession is withdrawn in 1563 it is probable that it had acted unfavorably to the trade interests of the stonemasons. Paragraphs XX., XXL, XXIII., XXIV., XXV., XXXVI., L. to EVIL, LIX., LXII. are all new in 1563. Also from LXIV. to the end, with the exception of LXXII. We also find that a few paragraphs of the 1459 Ordinances are totally omitted in 1563. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY, 134 These principally provide for divine worship, the singing of masses for the departed, and the return of the hook and box to Strassburg, should a master’s building be completed, and he have no further employment for his fellows. One of the omitted Ordinances is, however, curious; and to render our review complete I now insert it here: — “ Item. Whoever desires to enter this fraternity shall promise ever to keep steadfastly all these articles hereinbefore and hereafter written in this book; except our gracious lord the Emperor or the king, princes, lords, or any other nobles, by force or right should bo opposed to his belonging to the fraternity; that shall be a sufficient excuse; so that there be no harm therein. But for what he is indebted to the fraternity, he shall come to an agreement thereon with the craftsmen who are in the fraternity.” This is rather suggestive of a practice not uncommon at the present day— of masters preferring to employ non-union men. The 1563 code of Ordinances is the latest relating to the German stonemasons that has come to light; it was supplied in printed folio form to all large works, and denominated Brother-book. We may fairly presume that it continued to legis- late their trade until quite recent times, with the exception of the supremacy of the Strassburg lodge; of which more anon. It hardly, however, suffices to fill up the details in the picture of the Steinmetzen which it is our purpose to draw; a careful study will show that it only treats of the subject in broad outline. We still require something in the nature of a copy of by-laws, in order to penetrate into the mysteries of mediaeval lodge life, and this we happily find in a code of Ordinances drawn up in 1462. Stieglitz 1 discovered this code in manuscript form, in the stonemasons’ lodge at Eochlitz (in Saxony, on the Mulde), and published it in 1829. It has since been republished in German as an appendix to Fort’s work, but no English translation has yet appeared. The invocation to the Trin- ity and the four crowned martyrs, in the introduction, resembles the 1459 Ordinances, and we gather from the preamble, that the Strassburg masters had sent a copy of their Statutes to the masons’ lodges in North Germany, in view of confirmation. The list of signatures in 1459, shows that these were not represented at Ratisbon and Strassburg, although their territory was made directly dependent on Strassburg. The North German masters expressly declare their adhesion to this code, and complete the work by enlarging on the various paragraphs in a separate document, for the use of their separate lodges, in order that the original book may remain intact and well preserved. And they expressly declare that these articles (which are not new or in opposition to the 1459 Ordinances, but merely elucidatory thereof) are drawn up from the ancient landmarks attributable to the holy martyrs. How, therefore, Fort could have fallen into the error of calling the masters and fellows, who met at Torgau (in Saxony, on the Elbe), dissenters and protesters, is perfectly incompre- hensible. He not only does so, but implies that the 1459 Ordinances departed from the old landmarks, and states that the masters at Torgau indignantly protested, and even cites passages of the preamble in confirmation; which, however, prove quite the contrary. 2 Indeed we have documentary proof 3 that as late as 1725 the lodge at Eochlitz acknowledged the supremacy of the Strassburg lodge (although this was contrary to the laws of the realm), by paying a trifling yearly tribute, and received from Strassburg a copy of the Brother-book 1 C. L. Stieglitz, Uber die Kirche der Heiligen Kunigunde zu Eochlitz. 2 Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, pp. 147-177. Fallou first launches this theory, p. 210, and Steinbrenner follows him, p. 66. 3 Stieglitz, Uber die Kirche der Heiligen Kunigunde zu Rochlitz, pp. 20, 23, 24. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 135 (1563). It is true — between Rochlitz and Strassburg — there was an intermediate chief lodge, that of Dresden — but this does not affect the question. As already remarked, the articles of the 1462 code, in which Stieglitz’s plan of numeration has been adopted, will be referred to under the ordinary figures, in contradistinction to those of the 1563 code which are distinguished by Roman numerals. THE TORGAU ORDINANCES OF 1462. Concerning the worshipful Masters of Stonemasons of the Craft, the Wardens and the Fellows of the Craft. All Articles and Statutes as they are written in the Book; how each and every one in his conduct and station in the craft shall demean himself, both here in Zwickau and else- where in all lands; as in the Book, so stands hereafter written, each article separately. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in the name of the blessed Virgin Mary, and in honor of the four crowned martyrs, we workmasters of the stonemasons make known: To all princes and lords, cities and burgers, and also peasants, of whatsoever rank they be, of the Church or of the world, that the several workmasters in the Oberland have assembled on two days at Regenspurgk and at Strasburgk, and have beheld such great evil and disorders in the work, and failings done in all lands of master, wardens, and fellows, therefore have they carefully sent into this land a book of the Ordi- nances and rules, and do exhort us therein, by the holy oath which we have sworn unto ma- sonry, to accept and confirm these Ordinances in this land according to usage, as this Book clearly points out. This have we done, workmasters in all these lands of Meydeburgk _.nd Halberstat, Hildeszheim and Mullburgk and Merseburgk, and at Meihssen, Voitlandt, Dur- ingen, Hartzlandt, the majority of us being present together, or our wardens on our part having full power, on the two days of St. Bartholomew and St. Michael at Torgau; as is usually written, after the birth of our dear Lord Christ, and in the one thousand four hundred and sixty-second year, have we confirmed the regulations of the Book and the contents thereof, and are at one therewith, and thereto have sworn by the saints. These Articles are to be maintained in all lands, far and wide, be they of the Church or of the world, and we have enjoined upon all judges and overmasters to rule by such and to hold it in high esteem according to the usages and necessities of the land, and to keep watch over all that concerns masonry and buildings, and concerns not states nor cities; and to adjudge penalties in all matters relating to masonry; and it shall be done with consent of the lords who are the inheritors of the land, and to help the right. Therefore have we drawn up divers articles from the Book for the general good, and the Book shall remain in high honor in such places as we shall deposit it every year; and there will we hear once a year if any offence have been committed against master builders or fellows, that such be adjudged and atoned, and also if the lords of states, be they spiritual or temporal, have any cause of complaint as regards their buildings; and they shall submit them to such crafts- men as are chosen to be chief masters [literally Overmaster ] in writing or by speech, and they shall be heard according to builders’ usage. Therefore shall the overmasters that are there, and have taken the oath and have summoned them on the yearly day, whenever it be, give them hearing as is customary, for the sake of the building; and if the lords suffer any loss, make good such loss according to the judgment of the masters; but if he come THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 136 not and answer not for himself, so shall he he proscribed and lay down all rule oyer his fellows, and none shall esteem or hold him true, nor shall he be true man. And we before-mentioned masters, wardens, and fellows have taken and drawn up from the Book for brevity, divers Ordinances that are obligatory on all workmasters in authority and fellows; that the real Book remain intact, and be only read there when we hold our yearly assembly. And when the lords will not have it so, then shall it not be so; and what the lords will not have, that shall be left undone of all such articles as are not of necessity, and the masters in such lands are not bound to enforce, according to their oath, such articles as contents of the Book of the craft; to declare what shall be done for the service of God, and also for sustenance, this is not of necessity to write now; every master knows this well who has formerly heard it. And all these articles have been drawn up from the letter of the ancient lodge rights, that were instituted by the holy worthy crowned martyrs, by name Claudius, and Chris- torius, and Significamus, to the honor and praise of the Holy Trinity and Mary the Queen of Heaven. 1. Therefore have we made divers rules and statutes with the help of God. And every master shall on all acknowledged fasts cause four masses to be said. And on St. Peter’s Day, when he was raised at Antioch, shall he also cause four masses to be said. And the first mass of the Holy Trinity, the other of our dear Lady, the third of the four crowned martyrs, the fourth for all who have died in the guild, and for all who help our craft and labor therein. 2. And the other masters shall also cause four masses to be said every feast of our Lady, one for each of the aforesaid souls, and the money wherewith he pays for the mass, the same money shall he take from the box, and the remainder shall he give to the craft box. And for God’s service shall every master of a work, be it great or small, give on each fast of our Lady one old groat. And every fellow shall give every week to the box one penny for God’s service. 3. And furthermore, no master shall undertake a work unless he have proved himself such to the craft, that the craftsmen be protected. 4. And should there appear a master that has not previously worked as master, then shall he have twain proven masters to speak for him, that he may be placed at the head of the work, and thus shall he be accepted. 5. And where it is intended to raise new and stately buildings, then shall the lords of the work choose them a master whomsoever they will, and are enjoined to take two or four workmasters, and shall inquire of them on their oath which they have sworn to the guild whether the master be truly able to undertake the work. 6. For, if lords or cities appoint one who has not formerly undertaken such work, for stately buildings and take not craftsmen, and loss occur thereby, thereof shall nor master nor fellows judge, neither punish. 7. And no master shall undertake a work unless he be able to accomplish it; and should it be that he fail herein, it is for the lords of the work to restrain him, and also for us craftsmen. And that must he rue with one and twenty pounds of wax, and to the lord must he make good the loss. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 37 8. And every one shall keep his time according to the ancient traditionary usages of the land; if he do that he is free, and even if he do it not with counsel, according to the usages of the land and the craft. 9. And no master shall diminish or reduce the pay. 10. And every master shall he upright in all things. He shall incite neither warden nor fellow nor apprentice to evil, nor to aught whence harm may arise. 11. And every master shall keep his lodge free of all strife, yea, his lodge shall he keep pure as the seat of justice. 12. And no master shall bear false witness in his lodge, neither shall he defile it in any manner. 13. Therefore shall no master allow a harlot to enter his lodge, but if any one have aught to commune with her he shall depart from the place of labor so far as one may cast a gavel. 14. If other masters learn thereof, they shall fine him for each offence in five pounds of wax. 15. Hatheless, it is not for the fellows to fine any master, but they are to withdraw from him and forbid other craftsmen his lodge, so that none consort with him, until he shall have been fined. 16. Whatsoever master shall rob any place, or take aught from any place of labor whereby any one suffer loss, or if he be murderer or outlaw, him shall ye altogether thrust from out the guild of the craft and suffer him in naught. 17. Whatsoever master shall summon another master before the law, or suffer him to be so done by, or do him evil or speak ill of him, he is empty of all honor, and fit for neither fellow nor master. 18. A master shall appoint his warden, master and warden being both present; and he shall appoint no warden unless he be able thereto, so that the craftsmen and he be supplied. He shall ijnpress him with the wardenship, and receive his oath to the saints on square and gauge to prevent harm to the building or the master. 19. So shall neither master nor his wardens be illegally set over the fellows. 20. When a master has set a warden, the fellows shall swear to be obedient unto him as unto the master, and the warden shall pledge master and fellows 21. And no master shall accept any fee from a warden or fellow on account of his re- quirements, nor any offering; for if he be not able to earn his wages then shall he be dis- charged on the Saturday. 22. Ho master shall out of goodwill accept any apprentice before he have served his time and won his right; that is not in the master’s power to the extent of one week. 23. And the master shall appoint each week a treasurer, who shall make all payments, and account each week to the new treasurer, and shall be answerable to him [the master ] for the contents of the box. 24. And the master has power, if he so will, to rest in the lodge at vesper tide. 25. And if a master or fellow come free of the craft or trade, and demand a mark of a workmaster, to him shall he grant his wish, and he shall give for the service of God that which shall be adjudged of master and fellows. And to master and fellows shall he pledge the mark doubly. 26. Ho master shall withhold his mark from his apprentice for a further space than xiiij. 138 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. days, unless it be that the apprentice lias wasted his master’s time, lie shall then hrst do hia behest before that and the feast. 27. And no master shall show any reluctance to pledge his apprentice’s mark, and the several clericals whom he may bid thereto, with a penny wheaten bread of xv. gr., a loaf of xv. gr., meat, and two stonps of wine; and the apprentice shall not bid more than x. fellows, and if he bid more then shall he buy more, that the master suffer not thereby. 28. The master shall knock with three blows, the warden with two consecutively? and one for announcements at morning, noon, and eve, as is the old usage of the land. 29. The master may appoint an apprentice who serves for knowledge to the office of warden, if he be able to maintain it, in order that the building suffer not. 30. The master may lend his apprentice a mark to travel during his apprenticeship, if the master have no employment, and must let him travel. 31. No master shall allow his apprentice to pledge his mark, unless he have served his time. 32. No master shall lay snares for another and entice away his apprentice, so reads the letter, 33. No master shall employ any one who has brought himself to shame or dishonor either by word or deed; he is worse than a hound; him shall the master set down as void of honor, likewise also the fellows. 34. And no master or warden shall be held of good report who borrows and remains owing and is unwilling to pay. If this be brought homo to him, he shall be warned and told to make it good by a certain time, and if he do this not, and do it not with the ap- proval of him to whom he is indebted, then shall he be debarred from all employment until he comply with the wish of his creditor. 35. Also no master shall defraud or beslander the other, nor compete for his work unless it be that he have deserted it, or given it up, or permitted or prayed him so to do; so may he do it without fear. But should he do as aforesaid, the other masters shall cast him out. 3G. Shame or dishonor one master the other by word or deed, and bring it not homo to him, he shall be cast from out the craft. 37. Whatsoever master shall slight another’s work, and is himself not able thereto, him shall ye proscribe. 38. And no master shall employ any fellow who has slandered another or doeth evil, and consorts with public women, and who in the hostelries or houses where they work, speaketli unchastely with maids or matrons, or is incontinent therein, who goeth not to confession oi doeth that which is wrong; he shall be proscribed and held an evil-doer. 39. And a master may hold a general court in his lodge over his own fellows, and he shall judge righteously by his oath, and not of hatred, or of friendship, or of enmity. 40. And furthermore, no master shall judge alone of that which touches honor or good repute; but there shall be together three masters who shall then judge such matters. 41. And further, every master shall inquire of his fellows every quarter, on their oath, if any hatred or envy be amongst them that might disadvantage the building; such shall he judge and put aside, and whatsoever fellow fail to comply herein, him shall he discharge, that no strife be found amongst them; and even though it please not the lords or the master builder, yet shall the master do right and avoid w r rong, that he may keep his oath. 42. And he shall every quarter-day hold a hearing of lords and craftsmen, whether any offence were, whether they have wasted their time, lived riotously, gamed or otherwise THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. *39 acted disorderly, whence harm might come to wardens or master, that shall they make known to the master that he may punish therefor as is meet; and if the lords declare it not to the master and forgive it the fellows, then shall the master not punish on account thereof; and if a lord of the building know thereof and the master punish not, then doth he not fulfil his oath. 43. Is aught to be judged amongst masters concerning good report, or which might drive away work, or cause a false state of affairs, whence injury might arise, concerning year work, or large buildings, that shall be judged where the Book of Ordinances is de- posited, and the masters assemble every year on the day as is aforesaid; then shall the masters elect them an over-judge, and the wardens and fellows shall elect sheriffs to the judge, aud they shall judge by plaint and answer on the oath as administered; and if they in anything disagree, they shall take to themselves arbiters, and take counsel together that justice be done to all men. 44. And masters and fellows shall punish each other amongst themselves, righteously for the best, that the lords may not interfere through their perjury. 45. Should the masters have one amongst them, be he master or fellow, and will not be in obedience, and set himself up against these ordinances, we pray all lords that none take his part or defend him on his petition; should he nevertheless, against all usage, be de- fended against us, we know well, according to the Ordinances, how we shall then demean ourselves. 46. Should there be a master or fellow who would defend himself contrary to usage, ye are to call upon all cities and lords, and lay the matter before them, and enjoin them to help us maintain our right; for to him who shall help us to our right will we also be obedient when they require our services. 47. And thus shall be the wardens, and maintain thus the old traditionary lodge rights, according to ancient usage and the Book, and the Ordinances of the oath. 48. Every warden shall preserve his lodge, and all that he has sworn to, and all that is entrusted to him of the place of work, that shall he keep and maintain for the good of the building. 49. The warden shall show goodwill to the fellows, and show them, without anger and of goodwill, what they shall ask of him. He shall use no more than right with any fellow or apprentice, he shall always prove level and plumb-rule, and all that pertains thereto, that no faults be therein, and if the master himself prove not or prepare such, then is it the warden’s part; and should the master at any time learn thereof that he have neglected these articles, he thereby incurs a penalty of xij. kr. to the master. 50. The warden shall willingly choose and mark out stones for the fellows and appren- tices, and inspect and see that they be well and truly made of the fellows; and if he do not so, and the master discover errors that anything be untrue, then shall he forfeit to the master viij. kr. and the fellow vj. kr. 51. And if a warden mark a stone because it is of no use, then shall he \tJie workman \ lose his wages that he had otherwise earned on that stone, unless it be made of use. 52. Whatsoever warden shall levy a fine on account of negligence, or other offence, and shall not acknowledge and announce the same, he shall forfeit twice the fine that has been incurred. 53. Ho warden shall deprive his master of his building by word or deed; he shall not injure him behind his back with false words; as oft as he so does, shall he be declared worth- 140 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. less and of bad report, and shall no master, neither the fellows, suffer him, but whosoever shall stand by him shall like him be worthless. 54. A warden shall knock at the right time, and shall delay it on no one’s account. 55. Is a master not on the works, or absent therefrom, then has the warden full power to do or leave undone that which is right in the master’s absence. 56. And the warden shall mark the under side of the stones of fellows and apprentices, should the fellows and apprentices fail to answer the knocks, and not appear to the right time at breakfast; and if he take not the fines so shall he pay them himself. 57. The warden shall not quarrel himself, or incite any thereto, either at meals or at work; he shall always comport himself right amicably and justly; he shall keep the fellows to their stones or work, be it what it may, that no harm may ensue to buildings or masters; and the master shall decide the fine, according to the loss he suffers thereby. 58. And no warden shall allow meals in the lodge during working hours, but only at the vesper rest. 59. Nor shall he suffer that more be spent at the vesper meal, but only one penny, unless there be a pledge feast, or that a travelling fellow be arrived; then is the warden empowered to cease work one hour earlier. 60. A warden has power to further a travelling fellow to the nearest work, also power to discharge on the pay-evening, even if he be not a builder or master. 61. He has power to allow every fellow or apprentice a reasonable time without loss. 62. And every warden shall be the first in the lodge of a morning, and after dinner at the opening; and the last to leave, be it at noon or at eventide, that all fellows may follow his example, and come to labor all the sooner. Should he fail herein, and the master come to hear thereof, whatsoever loss is thereby incurred, such loss shall the warden pay. 63. The warden shall help preserve all privileges of the lodges and places of labor. 64. And the warden shall make no overcharge on workshop fines, but according to the traditionary usages of the pay shall he levy them; and if he do otherwise, so is he unworthy. 65. And he shall maintain all things appertaining to the place of labor, and keep them to use, even as the master. Of the Ordinances of the Fellows, how they shall comport themselves. 66. Whatsoever fellow shall offer his services to another master before he shall have taken his discharge from the master with whom he serves, such fellow shall forfeit one pound of wax and be discharged. 67. Whatsoever fellow shall carry tales or create scandal between the master or other craftsmen, he shall forfeit one-half his week’s wages. 68. Whoever takes another’s tools without leave shall forfeit ij. kr. 69. Whatsoever fellow shall falsely apply his templet, or put it by before he have proved his work, and that without leave or before the master or warden shall have inspected his work, or shall leave his square hanging on the stone, or allow the level to lie about and not hang it up though it be furnished with a hole thereto, or lets his stone fall from the bench, or forces the pick iron from off the handle, or leaves his gauge otherwise than in the place appointed therefor, or closes not the window near his bench, — whoever shall do anything of the aforementioned articles, he shall forfeit iij. kr. for every such offence. 70. Whatsoever fellow shall speak the other ill, or call him liar in ill-will or earnest, or is foul-mouthed in the place of labor, he shall pay xij. kr. to forfeit. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 141 71. Whatsoever fellow shall laugh another to scorn, or jeer at him, or call him by a nickname, he shall pay 15 kr. to forfeit.. 72. Whatsoever fellow shall not offer assistance to turn his stone this way or that, to fetch it or to turn it over when necessary, or places his mark thereon as if it were truly made, and that before it shall have been proven, so that it be passed unproven to the store, or improperly finishes his work, he shall stand to forfeit one half pound of wax. 73. Whatsoever fellow shall drink or eat to excess, so that it become known, he shall forfeit one week’s wages and j. pound of wax. 74. Whatsoever fellow shall use force in places of labor or of refreshment, or shall consort with or treat notorious females in the presence of godly women, he shall be dis- charged, and the week’s pay that he has earned that same week shall be retained and given to the box. 75. Whatsoever fellow shall squander lodge moneys, or pilfer, or murder, or steal, or commit any other crime, or disports himself in the land with ungodly women, and goeth not to confession and doeth not God’s will, he shall be cast out from the craft and pro- scribed for ever. 76. Whosoever shall slander another and spread evil report of him, and justifieth it not, he shall make atonement to the satisfaction of masters and fellows. 77. Who shall accuse another and bring it not home to him, him shall ye severely punish, that he be careful of his speech another time; but if he prove it to the satisfaction of the fellows, according as the offence is shall ye judge, and no fellow shall ye judge out of malice. 78. And no fellow shall lord it over an apprentice, but he shall lay his plaint before the master, wherein the apprentice have offended him, and he shall punish him therefor. 79. And no warden, nor fellow, nor apprentice shall be his own judge, for if they do that, which of right belongs to the master, then are they deserving of a fine; and the master shall be judge and none other. 80. And the fellows shall not fine each other without the knowledge of masters and wardens. 81. And no felloAV shall hew stones with a proscribed fellow, unless it be that he have made amends on that day of the year, when the masters do assemble. 82. And no fellow shall lead a woman of evil report into the lodges or places of labor, neither shall he take her where masters are together; who so doeth shall pay iiij. pounds of wax. 83. Whatsoever fellow shall make unto himself holy days in the week when he should be at labor, they are not holy, and he shall not be instructed. 84. And whatsoever fellow is absent when he should be at work, even after the break- fast is eaten, I10 shall not be paid for his time till noon; and if he remain absent all day and come to supper, then shall he not be paid for the whole day. 85. Whatsoever fellow shall not, for his master’s honor, accompany him to church on Sundays and the greater fasts at high mass, but remains without, and without leave, he shall pay iiij. kr. to God’s service. 86. Whatsoever warden or fellow be not with his master at the stroke of one on the Monday afternoon, and keep with him the vesper rest, and hear what he shall do on that Monday, lie shall pay the supper bill; if he set himself up against this he shall be discharged 142 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. that Monday for disobedience, but if he pray excuse at his entrance, so shall he pay nothing and is free. 87. And every master may discharge a fellow from the building without causing anger, if it seem right to him. 88. And every fellow may take his discharge any pay evening if it please him, for none is hound to the other. 89. Whatsoever fellow takes service of a master for the winter, he shall be with him till St. John’s Day, when the crown is hung up,- unless it be that the fellow have aught serious against the master, whereby the work may sustain injury, then may he justly leave him. And if the fellow know aught to the master’s dishonor, and keep silent, and hold his peace winter and summer, and denies it, that fellow keepeth not good faith, and is meet for no fellow. 90. And no fellow shall give master or warden any offering for the sake of work; with him shall no fellow work until he have been fined. 91. And no fellow shall do another’s work for money, hut he shall do one piece for another, or do it for him to his honor. 92. No fellow shall speak against either warden or master. 93. And no fellow shall carry about with him any knife or other weapon other than one knife of half an ell in length, he it at work or refreshment; if it he longer, then shall he pay vij. kr. as fine, and also lay it aside. 94. If a fellow have not served his time, or have bought his mark and not honestly earned it, or if a hired servant or help establishes himself and teaches to work in stone, with him shall no man take service. 95. And no fellow shall speak ill of his master or w r arden unless he wish to make it known to those who stand in that master’s service. 96. And no fellow shall fleece or maltreat the master builders, but they shall willingly do as the master builders instruct them if the master or warden be not on the works; but if they be there, so shall they tell the master or warden what is necessary to he said. 97. And no fellow shall complain of another fellow to the master builder, but to the workmaster. 98. And no master builder shall correct any strife amongst the fellows unless he be de- sired to do so of the master. 99. And no fellow shall take service with those who employ a master builder without the master’s consent. 100. Whatsoever fellow shall be treated by the master builder, with him shall no fellow consort. 101. Whatsoever offence the master builder commit, either against warden or fellow, that shall they lay before the master, and have strife with none. 102. And no warden or fellow shall secretly take pay without the master’s knowledge; and though the master builder should wish to punish, it is for the master only to decide how he will arrange with his fellows. 103. And no fellow shall go with another to the closet, but one after the other, that the place of labor stand not empty; or one shall bear the other into the lodge, or pay ij. kr. 104. And no fellow shall do aught, or take stone for aught, or go out from the lodge, without the master’s leave; and the master shall decide what he shall pay. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY , . *43 105. And when a fellow travels, then when he comes to a new lodge shall he leave his master in friendship, and not in anger. 106. And if a travelling fellow come before work is knocked off, he shall earn his day’s wages. And every travelling fellow, when he has received the donation, shall go from one to the other and shall thank him therefor. 107. And this is the greeting wherewith every fellow shall greet; when he first goeth into the lodge, thus shall he say: “ God greet ye, God guide ye, God reward ye, ye honorable overmaster, warden, and trusty fellows;” and the master or warden shall thank him, that he may know who is the superior in the lodge. Then shall the fellow address himself to the same, and say: ‘‘The master” (naming him) “bids me greet you worthily;” and he shall go to the fellows from one to the other and greet each in a friendly manner, even as he greeted the superior. And then shall they all, master, and Avardens, and fellows, pledge him as is the custojn, and as is already written of the greeting and pledge; but not to him Avhom they hold for no true man, he shall be fined one pound of \\ r ax, xxiiij. kr. 108. And every fellow when he returns thanks, if he wish for employment, shall ask of the master, and the master shall employ him till the next pay day, and deny him not, that the fellow may earn his living; and should the master have no more work than he can perform alone, the master shall help him find Avork. 109. And every travelling felloAV shall ask first for a pick, thereafter for a piece of stone, and furthermore for tools, and that shall be lent to him of goodAvill. 110. And every felloAV shall pray the other felloAvs, and they shall not turn a deaf ear; they shall all help; “help me that God may help ye;” and when they have helped him he shall doff his hat, and shall say, “ God thank the master, and warden, and worthy fellows.” 111. And if any fellow be in need on accoimt of sickness, and have not wherewithal to live because he lieth sick, he shall be assisted from the box, and if he recover he shall pay it. 112. And if any fellow shall make a journey for the guild in that that concerns the craft his expenses also shall be paid him out of the box. A careful comparison of these documents Avill clearly demonstrate that in one small particular only, do they clash. The Ordinances of 1459 and 1563 provide (Art. LVIII.) that an apprentice shall not be appointed warden; whereas those of 1462 (Art. 29) permit the master to appoint an apprentice to the office of Avarden, “ if he be able to maintain it;” that is, if he be sufficiently instructed and capable, in order that no harm may thereby ensue. In all other points, the Torgau Ordinances are merely complemental to those of 1459. As far as regards mere trade regulations, all these Ordinances are probably only con- firmations of previously existing customs, the preamble of 1459 stating clearly enough that the “ masters and fellows at Spires, Strassburg, and Ratisbon renewed and revised these ancient usages;” but the f raternity was quite a new departure, which is plainly expressed by the words “kindly and affably agreed upon these statutes and fraternity.” 1 The “ fraternity ” Avas agreed upon as something new; the usages, being ancient, Avere confirmed. Further proof is afforded in Art. XVII., “No craftsman or master shall be received into the guild,” which was reneAved in 1563; so that we may presume that, even after more than 1 See translation in Steinbrenner, Origin and Early History, etc., p. 86. 144 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. a century, not every master had joined the fraternity; which is further confirmed by the first clause of Art. XVIII., also hy Art. XXVII., and others. Again, we find that the Torgau masters drew up a special code, containing divers Ordi- nances that were obligatory on all workmasters and fellows; that is, even such as were not of the fraternity. And in effect, throughout the 1462 Ordinances, the brotherhood or fraternity is not once mentioned or taken into account, and the word “ guild ” is only men- tioned in the very last paragraph, the word “ craft ” being always substituted. Kloss 1 very cogently insists on the previous absence of this fraternity, and strengthens his proofs hy quotations from the correspondence carried on in 1518-1521 between Annaberg and Strass- burg; from which it is undeniably evident, that the Saxon masters had not then all joined the fraternity, and were only induced to do so after strong persuasion on the part of Strassburg. Why subsequent writers have chosen to ignore Kloss’s very logical proofs it is not our purpose to inquire, although their reasons are perhaps not far to seek. The stonemasons were divided, like all other crafts whatsoever, into three classes, ■ masters, fellows, and apprentices. The apprentices, however, though of the craft, were not admitted to the brotherhood; in this respect an analogy existing with the other craft guilds. But with the stonemasons, as their laws reveal, the master remained a member of the brotherhood, and owed his position in the fraternity as presiding judge, solely to his qualification of workmaster; whereas in other crafts the masters had formed fraternities of their own, and the journeymen also; and the journeymen fraternities were presided over in some instances, by one of the masters of the locality, and in others by one or more of the journeymen themselves, who then took the title of “ Old-fellow ” ( Alt-gesell ). In both cases, however, the officer was elected by the votes of the members; and in the former the master was admitted more as a representative of the masters than as a president, the pro- ceedings being always conducted by the “ Old-fellow,” the master sitting as a sort of co- adjutor. 2 But if we assume that this distinction was intentional, and that the stonemasons consciously differed in this respect from other craft guilds, we shall commit an error of judgment. A very little reflection will show that in each case the known result was natural, nay, almost unavoidable. In a large town there would be many master bakers, master weavers, master butchers, etc., and each one would have one or more journeymen in his employ; but in very few cases would the number in any one workshop be sufficient to form a separate fraternity, or the efforts of one establishment of any avail in influencing the policy of the trade. All the shops of one class, in one city or district, would conse- quently form one guild, at first including both masters and men. But as the masters grew richer, more refined, and of more influence in the government of the city, and the more their interests clashed wtli those of the workmen, the greater would be the tendency of the two classes to separate,— the workmen formed their own fraternity, either entirely exclud- ing the masters, or allowing one or more of them to hold elective office; and the masters would refuse the fellows admittance to their guild meetings. And thus we arrive, on the one hand, at the trade guild practically consisting of the masters only, but nominally of the workmen also, — a fact which the municipality did not forget when it came to the ne- cessity of ranging their military forces (that is, all citizens and burgers) under their respec- 1 G. Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, pp. 240-250. 2 Berlepscli, Chronilt der Gewerbe. See vol. i. for general observations covering the above statements. 144 ■ ' . ■' ; i . . - ; ■ -4 mi'lCe,- ti ■ ' ; l •:* Were Ti-'i 4 of thf iV v. *-> • ‘ - »t aerhood » "rater re; n :-'•■■■■■■ - a . -o. .mo ■ •• ft' is only me i < - • iotU’d ! ’ . ti--. ' ■ T i-T ■ / ■ i - i’H OT '-d. KlOfiS V<: Vy cogent v o ; i urn? f r ,u = .n - • • and sr.iT-ngtbeus Ins proofs <’>y ,:! > ir. f.;.( ill ;s( IW-."- burg; from which i: is undeniably ev -d ; . that the Saturn mast ; • had no! then all joined the fraternity, and v - r<- >nh induced !•> do iso af'-n : strong persuasion on the part of Strasshurg. V\ hy sob* eo.ont writers Inn e chosen to ignore Kiosk’s very logical proofs it not our purpose to inquire, a It ho ti gh ti; -in reasons are perl taps not far to seek. The- stonemasons - • r< oivnled. like all other crafts whatsoever, into three classes, masters, fellow-', and apprentices. The apprentices, however, though of the craft, we; - guilds. But with the stonemasons, as their laws reveal, the master remained a member the brotherhood, and owed his position in the fraternity as presiding judge, solely : qualification of worknmster; whereas in other crafts the masters had formed frite of their own, and the journeymen also; and the journeymen fraternities were pr- in some instances, by one of the masters of the locality, and 'in others 'by otic — '.he journeymen themselves, who then took the title; of ‘‘Old-fellow” (AU-ge.s< 11). U; cases, however, the officer was elected by the votes of the members; and in the former c master was admitted more as a -representative of the masters- -than as a president, the pro - ceedings being always conducted by the “ Old-fellow,” the master sitting as a sort of co- adjutor. * But if we assume that this distinction was intentional, and that the stonemason, consciously differed in this respect from other craft guilds, we shall commit an error of judgment. A very little reflection will show that in each case the known result was natural, nay, almost unavoidable. In a large town there would be many master bakers, master weavers,, master butchers, etc., and each one would have one or more journeymen in his employ; but in very few cases would tlic number in any one workshop be sufficient to form a separate fraternity, or the efforts of one establishment of any avail in. influencing the policy of the trade. All the shops of one class, in one city or district, would conse- quently form one guild, at first including both masters and men. But as the masters grew richer, more refined, and of more influence in the government of the city, — and the more their interests clashed wth those of the workmen, the greater would be the tendency of the two classes to separate,— the workmen formed their own fraternity, either- entirely exclud- ing: the masters, or allowing one of more of them to hold elective office; ami the masters © > , would refuse the fellows admittance to their guild meetings. And thus we arrive, on the one .hand, at the trade guild practically consisting of the masters only, but nominally of the workmen also,— a fact which the municipality did not forget when it came to the ne- cessity of ranging their military forces (that is, all citizens and burgers) under their respec- 1 G. Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in hirer wahren Bedeutuugy pp. 240-250. * Berlepseh, Chvonik der Gewerbe. See vol i. for general observations covering the above statements. gF zvbez-icfa I'iae Qvecit, e Kiny o| fwdM a INITIATED A FREEMASON AT BRUNSWICK, AUGUST 1 4, I 738 This portrait is from the original by Menzel. and considered the.finest likeness of him extant. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 145 tive banners; and, on the other hand, the workmen fraternities, who very soon, on account of their greater numbers, ruled the trade, and by means of constant intercommunication, through travelling journeymen, acquired a great uniformity of system in all parts of Ger- many. The guilds of masters interests us but little, but the journeymen fraternities may materially help us to fill up any blanks in our account of the stonemasons. With these the matter was quite different. In any one town there might easily be many rough masons, and these would follow the example of the other trades, but there would be comparatively few stonemason masters. In all probability only two, one at the head of the cathedral building operations, and one permanently engaged by the municipality to look after their town halls and other sumptuous edifices. They would each employ a large staff of fellows, which would be insufficient for the formation of two bodies, even if we admit that one or two small masters also worked independently in the cities, furnishing any stone carved work that the richer citizens might require for the embellishment of their houses. There may also have been one or two fellow crafts in each city, working on small jobs at their special trade for a like purpose, in the employ of non-craft masters, for we see by Art. XVIII. that this was quite permissible. Master and workmen would therefore be forced to remain together, and each master would naturally preside over the proceedings of his own workshop or lodge. His office, therefore, never became elective; but uniformity of usage was also, in this case, soon acquired by the intercommunication of lodges, and prob- ably the fraternities of the stonemasons are barely to be distinguished from the other craft fraternities except by this test. We shall soon convince ourselves that all their regulations and institutions were very similar. The first condition, preliminary to binding an apprentice, was that he should prove his legitimate birth (Art. LX.). In addition to this, all German writers have insisted on the further qualification of honorable birth. Honorable, in this sense, would embrace many requisites; for instance, that his progenitors had been freemen for at least two generations, and that they had not followed any trade which was, in the eyes of this particular trade, degrading. It may be well to state that there is not an atom of proof that such qualifica- tion was deemed necessary, and I am unwilling to assert it as an undoubted fact; but as we do find this requirement exacted by other craft guilds, it is quite open to us to assume its being demanded by the stonemasons. Stipulations of this kind controlled the influx of workmen, and in many cases were very whimsical. Trades which were usually considered dishonorable by the others were those of 1 bath attendant, barber, gravedigger, trumpeter, herdsman, watchman, headsman, etc., and in some cities the weavers were thus classed; although in others they formed the most honorable craft. In the cities of pure German origin, lads of Slav nationality were considered dishonorable. 2 One of the most curious restrictions is to be found in the constitution of the Bremen shoemakers, a.d. 1300 — “No one shall instruct in this craft the sons of weavers, porters, or of such women as are wont to harbor vermin.” 3 The term of indenture was five years, and to ensure the apprentice completing his time he was required to deposit a guarantee of twenty florins (Art. LIX.), which possibly became the master’s at the expiration thereof. The master did not receive the money at once, but it was deposited with a citizen, in order that if the master died the premium might be transferred with the apprentice to some other master. The master, on his part, was bound to perform his duty (Art. XXXIII.), and to ensure due accomplishment, 1 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. i., p. 60. * Ibid. 3 Ibid., vol. iv., p. 33. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 146 a contract in duplicate carved on wood was entered into and deposited in a safe place (Art. LXIX.); and further to obviate all disputes the apprentices’ inden- tures were entered into and cancelled in the presence of the whole lodge as witnesses (Art. LXIY.). The apprentice received two florins yearly as pocket money (Art. LX VI.), and was required to promise truth, obedience, and loyalty to his master (Art. LXV.), as well as submission to the craft and its decisions (Art. LXVII.). The apprentice was required to complete his full term, or he w r as debarred from ex- ercising the craft (Art. LXXII.), besides forfeiting the deposited twenty florins (Art. LXIV.), unless, indeed, he wished to enter into w'edlock, when he might compromise matters with his master (Art. LXXII.). In Art. 22 this is most emphatically laid down— “ Not to the extent of one w 7 eek ” could any one shorten the five years of servitude. This term of five years, however, was not previously, nor subsequently, universal; in some districts four years appear to have been sufficient. We find an acknowledgment of this in the confirmation of the 1563 Statutes by the Emperor Ferdinand II., 16th September 1621, in which, summarizing the principal Ordinances of the Brother-book, he confirms the term of five years, hut also provides that one who has only served about four years shall not he received into the Brotherhood, unless he pays two florins to God’s service, in lieu of the one year. 1 In the sixteenth century also, there arose a lively quarrel between the lodges of Strassburg and Annaberg (in Saxony), owing to the persistence of the latter in receiving apprentices for four years. 2 And, finally, all this is implied in Art. LXI., and curiously enough, although past offences are condoned, yet the Ordinances distinctly forbid in 1563, what is as distinctly permitted by the Emperor in 1621. One point in the Ordinances is somewhat misty. A distinction is made in Art. XV. between a rough and an art ap- prentice, and the curious term “ art apprentice” (. Kunst diener ) is more than once made use of, hut what the distinction was it is impossible to say. Even writers “ who scornfully assume the air of knowing and understanding all things better than any one else,” 3 have passed this over in silence, and I can only point to the distinction without professing to explain it. Another problem occurs in Art. 30, where provision is made, under certain circumstances, for the apprentice commencing his travels before the expiry of five years, instead of completing his term under another master, as already directed (Art. LIX.). The care with which every point, even the most minute, is considered, appears in Art. LXXI., whence it is evident that before binding an apprentice the master was allowed to test his capabilities and fitness, but was not to extend this trial over a fortnight. And, again, in Art. LXII., wdiere the usual safeguards are insisted on, even between a master and his own sons. Having completed his apprenticeship a new life now awaits the young workman. He is declared free of the craft and obtains rank as a fellow craft ( gesell ); but does not neces- sarily thereby enter the fraternity. This act is solemnly performed before the assembled lodge (Art. LXIV.), and was doubtless accompanied by some formalities, of which the leading features are pointed out. We know that he had to take a solemn obligation “ on his truth and honor in lieu of oath,” under the penalty of being expelled the craft, that he would be a true, loyal, and obedient mason, that he would maintain the craft as far as in him lay, that he would not of his own initiative alter or change his distinctive mark, and 1 Heideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 91. 2 Ibid p. 21. 3 This cutting expression is applied by W. Keller (Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland, p. 46) to Fallou, and some later writers whom he does not name. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 147 that he would not disclose the greeting ( gruss ) or grip ( schenck ) to any non-mason; and even that he would not commit any part thereof to writing (Arts. LIY. and LVI.). These methods of recognition were then imparted to him, and the ceremony concluded with a jovial feast, which was partly at the master's expense (Art. 26), and partly at his own (Art. LXX.). To this feast sundry guests were invited, probably the clergy attached to the building then in course of erection; and even the bill of fare is provided for (Art. 26). The master is strictly enjoined not to delay this action for a longer period then fourteen days, except on good and valid grounds (Art. 26); and it is expressly stipulated that hence- forth nothing shall be unjustly withheld, in order that no excuse may be pleaded in after- times (Art. LXVIII.); hence we may assume that amongst other masters the Ordinances were read to him. This was called pledging his mark, toasting it, or drinking good luck to it; and so important was the occasion considered, that the stipulated rules of frugality were suspended, and the warden was empowered to cease work one hour sooner (Art. 59). This mark henceforth became his distinctive property, and was used by him as a species of signature; and he was required to engrave it on all his work upon completion, and severely punished if he did so before the work had been proved and passed (Art. 72). What the grip was we are not told; but at the beginning of this century, Herr Osterrieth, an archi- tect, who had been professionally educated at Strassburg, where he joined a survival of the Stonemasons, on being admitted to Freemasonry by Heldmann at Aarau (in the province of Aargau, Switzerland), expressed his astonishment at recognizing in the entered appren- tice grip the token of the Strassburg Stonemasons. 1 Unless we think fit to doubt this as- sertion, the masonic reader will know what the Stonemasons’ grip was; and if we believe it, the curious question remains, is the resemblance a mere coincidence, or a proof of a connecting link between the German and English Stonemasons of the Middle Ages ? On Osterrieth’s own showing, he must have violated his promise of secrecy to his Strassburg brethren, and therefore cannot be regarded as a witness of scrupulous veracity. He places himself in the awkward dilemma, either of having deceived the Freemasons of Aarau by a falsehood, or of having perjured himself, so that we shall be justified in receiving his dis- closure with caution. It is also to be noted, that although all writers claim a grip for the stonemasons, the only evidence by which this claim can be supported, is the one word quoted in Art. LIV., viz., Schenck. This word is derived from schencken, to give; hence handschencken, to give or shake hands; and in this case we must suppose that the word Hand is omitted and understood, as Schenck alone would not import the fuller meaning. The word schenck occurs very frequently in the Ordinances, and in other clauses always refers to the pledge feast; ausschencken or ver schencken is to pour out, a libation, a toast, pledge, etc. , and as these toasts were always drunk in other handicrafts, with a prescribed movement of hand and cup, accompanied by a fixed form of words, it may be assumed that the stonemasons also had their pledge-ritual. It is therefore just possible that in Art. LIY., the word alludes to the pledge, and that the article forbids the fellow craft to divulge to the non-mason this peculiar ceremonial. Inasmuch, however, as all German writers agree in attributing the possession of a certain grip to the present descendants of the stonemasons, and taking into consideration that the word is used conjointly with “ greeting ” (Gruss), it may reasonably be concluded, that the existence of a grip has been fairly demonstrated. Heldmann also states (p. 250) that the Steinmetzen had a series of prescribed steps, 1 Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. 250. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 148 identical with those of the Freemasons, hut he cites no authority, not even his friend Os- terrieth; so that it remains more than questionable whether the former has not given a very loose rein to his imagination. Fallou more than once describes these steps, asserting, but always without authority, that they were usual on various specified occasions; and Winzer (p. 67) copies him. According to Heinsch, they reappeared amongst the Stone-liewers, and are described as three equal steps forward and backward, in which, however, there is noth- ing suggestive of Masonic identity. But the new craftsman was also charged not to reveal the greeting. Findle, Fort, Steinbrenner, and others, translate this word by “ salute,” a term I avoid as conveying a sense which I am inclined to think is unauthorized. A salute combines the idea of a greeting by word of mouth and a greeting by action; in fact, a sign and a speech. Now I am unable to find any mention in an authentic document of a sign. Fallou writes throughout, in such a manner as to leave the impression, that the salute was accompanied by a sign; and Fort (p. 215) expressly declares that a wandering journeyman on entering a lodge “advanced by three upright measured steps, and gave the salute, Grass, or hailing sign.” It is impossible to restrain a feeling of impatience, when w r riters, whose works would be otherwise valuable, destroy the confidence of a critical reader by such baseless assertions. In no trade of the Middle Ages, not even amongst the Steinmetzen, is it possible to find the slightest trace of a sign or of anything approaching thereto. If such indications exist, they have escaped my researches, and neither Fallou nor Fort give the least authority for their statements. It would not, however, be fair to leave unnoticed the remark, that sculptured images may still be seen in existing mediaeval churches, whose attitudes bear a close resemblance to certain of our masonic positions. Indeed, Fort positively asserts, “that in one of the churches at Florence there are life-size figures in masonic attitudes.” 1 The idea thus suggested, is further supported by a pictorial representation of the entrance to the cathedral in the same city, which he gives as a frontispiece to his well-known work. In this sketch we find portrayed (exclusive of minor figures) the forms of five ecclesiastics in reverential attitudes. The postures they assume, will remind those conversant with the services of the Bo man Church, of the attitude of the officiating priest, and beyond the strong family likeness which must always exist, between supplicatory and reverential posi- tions of all kinds and in all countries, assumed in invocation of Divine aid, I do not see that there is anything to merit our attention in the similitude upon which Fort has laid so much stress. It may be added, that to what has been happily termed by Mr„ Hyde Clarke, “ the doctrine of chance coincidences,” are due all the “ traveller’s tales ” of later years, wherein as a common feature, appear either the manifestation or the recognition of masonic signs, by Arabs of the desert, native Australians, Bushmen, Afghans, etc., etc. Upon the whole, I think, we may safely infer that whatever resemblances may appear to exist between the masonic ceremonial and the attitudes to which Fort has alluded, are as much the product of chance as the “supposititious masonry” of our own times, which has evoked the excellent definition of Mr. Clarke. 2 As for the greeting itself, we are distinctly told what it was in Art. 107, also the words in which a fellow was to claim assistance (Art. 110), and how he was to return thanks for the help tendered. It may seem strange, that what was considered a secret should have been committed to writing; and in fact, Fallou asserts 3 that it was never in use, and that 1 Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 89. 2 Freemason’s Magazine, Nov. 26, 1864. 3 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer,, p. 353, THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 149 the Torgau Ordinances were of no authority, being merely a private sketch of a proposed new ordinance and rule; and he elsewhere states that they never received confirmation. The latter statement is correct, and, moreover, they were never meant to be confirmed, being entirely subsidiary to, and elucidatory of, the 1459 Ordinances; but as to the former, it is so palpably erroneous, as shown in another place, and by the preamble itself, that we need waste no words about it here. Fallou prefers to this documentary evidence, the statements of a Steinmetz of the present day; the greeting, however, as told by him is so similar, that it may well have arisen from the old original — all except the three upright steps, against which I have already protested. When we take into account, however, the fact that the Torgau Ordinances were never printed, or intended to be, and were probably only entrusted to well-known masters, as may be presumed from the fact that up to the present time only one copy has come to light; when we consider how important it was that this greeting should be given with great exactitude, in order to distinguish a bond ficle craftsman, we can no longer wonder at the Saxon masters ensuring its accurate preserva- tion. But if so, why was not the grip similarly preserved ? Because it was so simple in its very nature, that once learned, it could not be forgotten or perverted. We have thus been able to trace many of the events in the career of a “’prentice” stonemason, more so than is possible in any other craft guild. The reason is obvious, if we bear in mind, that the craft guilds consisted of two distinct fraternities, that of the masters and that of the journeymen, neither of whom have thought it worth while to lay down in writing any rules for their conduct in respect to apprentices. We know, however, that all trades insisted on an apprenticeship, varying in its terms; that certain stipulations, as already noticed, were in force respecting their birth; and we further know that at the completion of his time the apprentice was presented by his master at a “ Master’s Meeting,” wnere it was certified that he had completed the specified term and given satisfaction. He was then declared by the board free of his trade, and became ipso facto a journeyman. We find no trace of greeting and grip at this simple ceremony, but we shall at least find the former of these appearing at another stage. In some trades the apprentice was required to substantiate his knowledge of the craft, failing which he was placed under another master, in order to complete his education before being declared free. 1 As regards the mark, although we have no evidence that this custom was a general one, and indeed in many trades its observance would have been well nigh impo sible, yet in a few the members were required to chose a mark, and place it on all their work; for instance, the cutlers of Nuremberg 2 and the joiners. 3 We thus find the mark appearing in shops where the number of workmen employed was considerable, and where it might become necessary to distinguish one man’s work from another’s; and we can easily understand that with the or- dinary tradesman, such as the baker, butcher, shoemaker, it was not necessary, and therefore not in use. The mason’s mark thus loses (in Germany) much of the recondite symbolism which enthusiasm writers have attributed to it, and becomes reduced to a mere trade regu- lation arising out of the exigencies of the handicraft. Whether or not it afterward received any mystic interpretation, need not now be discussed, as it is fully treated of elsewhere. Our young journeyman is now ready to commence his travels, which, in different trades, extended over a longer or shorter space, as the case might be. The rationale of this 1 Berlepsch, Chromk der Gewerbe, vol. iv., p. 65. _ 2 Ibid., vol. vii., p. 123. 3 Stock, Grundzi'ige der Verfassung, p. 28. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 150 pilgrimage is readily explained. It kept down the number of masters by prolonging the novitiate, it served to bring all the different and independent guilds of a trade into a close harmony of usage, and it helped to propagate the improvements, which, in any particular locality, had been engrafted on the specialties of a handicraft. This, in an age of slow locomotion and gradual dispersion of news, -was highly beneficial; but above all, it served to widen each craftsman’s ideas and judgment, to complete his trade education, and to rub off any local prejudices. But in order that a journeyman 1 might be able to travel, especial institutions were necessary. In the earliest times, the craftsman, on entering a new town, applied at the first shop of his trade that he came to, for work for eight or fourteen days, and if the master was able to employ him he did so, if not he recommended him to another master. Failing to find work in any shop, the craftsman received a night’s lodging, supper, and breakfast, in the house of the master whose turn it was to receive, and at his departure next morning a small sum of money sufficient to carry him to the next town. Later on, the masters arranged with some tavern keeper to afford the necessary board at their expense. This tavern was then the house of call for a particular trade, where the journeyman could at once obtain information if woi’k were procurable, and where the masters could leave notice if they required any extra assistance. The landlord and his wife were styled father and mother, their children and domestics, male and female, brothers and sisters. Later on still, when the journeymen established their own frater- nities, these houses became their places of meeting, and some one, either a journeyman or a master, was deputed to call there every day at noon, in order to welcome, and provide work for, new arrivals, or if such was not possible, to attend to their bodily comfort by partaking with them of a stoup of liquor. The supper and bed were furnished at the ex- pense of the fraternity, to whose treasury, however, the masters also contributed. The new comer, unless work were found for him, usually received a small sum of money to carry him forward. This was called the Gesclienk — the donation or present. We thus see that a journeyman could travel from one end of Germany to the other, without exercising fore- thought as to his expenses, and yet without feeling that he was in any way subsisting on charity. But in order to avail himself of this privilege, it was required that he should be a member of the fraternity, which he therefore joined at the place of his apprenticeship; and in the body of this fraternity he found that ceremonious greeting which, as we have already seen, the stonemason received from his craft on being admitted to its freedom. These greetings appear to have been distinguished by a strong family likeness. The fol- lowing may be taken as a common formula: “ The Worshipful Master X and the trusty fellows of the craft of . . . at Y city, bid me greet the worshipful master, trusty fellows, and craft at Z city.” The other then returns thanks, much in the same way, and next follows a species of dialogue between the two, the exact rendering of which substan- tiated the fact that the applicant was a true brother . 2 I can scarcely think it possible, that in the very early times any craft furnished its members with a certificate or diploma; although this appears to have been the case in some few trades later on (and is now almost universal), as we find all German writers making a distinction between Grussmaurer (salute- 1 It is scarcely necessary to explain, that the term “ journeyman” is not derived from the “ trav- elling,” but from the French word journee, a day; because he was paid by the day. '■> For examples of these and the other points stated above, compare Berlepsch, Chronik der Go- werbe; and Stock, Grundzuge der Verfassung- THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 151 mason) and Briefmaurer (letter-mason), the former of whom legitimized himself by the greeting, aiid the latter by documentary evidence. We shall, however, again touch this point at a later period. Now, although the stonemason was free to exercise liis craft without entering the fra- ternity, as is abundantly evident from the statutes already quoted, and was provided with the means of travelling, inasmuch as he possessed the greeting and grip, yet it is quite clear that his interest lay in joining the brotherhood. Of course no one could he forced to join a society composed of free-men, exercising their free will; but a little reflection will show, that indirect pressure could easily be brought to bear; and that future comfort was greatly dependent on absorption within the fraternity ; just as at the present time, many a workman is compelled against his will to join a trade-union. It has been already men- tioned, that this “fraternity” existed amongst the stonemasons, and that it differed only from those of other crafts in comprising the masters amongst its members. Throughout the 1563 Ordinances the guild or fraternity , and the craft, are distinguished; the German for the guild being in all cases Ordnung, and for the craft or trade, Stemwerck, Iland- werck. ' One great advantage that the non-affiliated mason would miss is shown in Art. XXXIV., which provides for the sustenance of a sick brother of the guild, but makes no provision for one of the craft only. Every master is expressly enjoined (Art. LVI.), upon the oath which he has taken to the craft (viz., that he will strengthen and maintain it), to use his influence to induce his former apprentices to join the brotherhood. We may, therefore, fairly assume that every “fellow,” before commencing his travels, did join the fraternity; and it may also be reasonably concluded that in course of time his affiliation took place with a ceremony of some kind. And this brings us to the most difficult point of our research; and the one upon which the most loose and unfounded assertions have been made. To begin with, Winzer 1 2 states justly enough, that before joining he was only a free stonemason (free of his craft,) and that after joining he became a brother also. But he is quite unjustified in deducing the conclusion that he was thenceforth a “ free and ac- cepted mason” ( freier und angenommener Maurer), as such a term ay “accepted brother” {angenommener Trader) occurs nowhere in German documents prior to 1717, and even “ free” ( frei ) is never applied to the completed apprentice, who was always called losgesagt or losgeschlagen, i.e., declared or “knocked” loose. It is evident that Winzer, in his zeal to prove that our present masonic system is of German origin, has adopted a now current phrase, although he ascribes its derivation to a German source. But the greatest perverter of history in this respect is Fallon. A careful glance at the Ordinances will convince us that no single clue of the remotest kind is afforded as to the nature of the affiliation cere- mony; we are not even told that a ceremony existed, nor is it probable that it did in 1459, although one may have become usual in after years. We are not informed that there were any secrets to be communicated, or mysteries to be concealed, or any further instruction to be acquired; nay, we are directly assured that there were none; because, as already pointed out, the perfect apprentice was no longer to have aught concealed from him (Art. LX VIII.) ; that is to say, that everything necessary to the due prosecution of his profession became his by right, whether or not he joined the fraternity. Fort, 3 in his description (which is 1 The 1462 Ordinances never mention the fraternity. 2 Winzer, Die Deutschen Bruderscliaften, p. 65. » Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 211. 152 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. chiefly copied from Fallon), evidently confuses the distinct occasions of passing to the journeyman’s degree and of entering the fraternity, which mistake, however, Fallon has avoided. Findel 1 also, following the same lead, has not only fallen into a similar error, but contrives to entangle with both these incidents some of the preliminaries of indenture. Steinbrenner 2 has gone even further astray, placing the conferring of the mark last of all. Their great authority Fallou 3 presents a graphic description of this ceremony, but it will be sufficient in this place to glance at its leading features. He avers that the candidate was blindfolded, half unclothed, slipshod, deprived of weapons and metals (a cord about his neck), led three times round the lodge; that he then advanced by three upright steps to the master, undertook an obligation on the Scriptures, square, mid compasses, was restored to sight, shown the three great lights, invested with a white apron and gloves, etc., etc. Now, I think it may be positively affirmed, that if Fallou could have fortified these asser- tions by the merest color of authority, he would have done so; also that if subsequent writers had been able to discover any confirmatory evidence, they would have given it. My endeavors to trace any foundation of authority have proved lamentable failures, and com- bining this experience with the above considerations, I do not scruple to pronounce that the entire ceremony has been invented by Fallou. The account is in itself improbable. Why should the fellow craft be blindfolded ? There was no concealed light to be revealed to him as far as operative masonry was concerned, and of a speculative science there is no trace in the annals of the Steinmetzen. It should be recollected, moreover, that Fallou places before us the details of an affiliation, and not of an initiation. Beyond a doubt, the novice would be “ deprived of weapons;” these were never at any time allowed in lodge (Art. 93); and possibly he may have been partially unclothed in token of humility, and to remind him of his distressed brethren. But wherefore the cord “ about his neck ” and the rest of the ceremony? The whole account is palpably absurd. It may at once be frankly avowed that no record exists of the ceremony of affiliation amongst the stone- masons, and even, according to Fallou, their present descendants have preserved none of any kind. It is therefore in the highest degree improbable that we shall ever know whether one existed ; but we have means at hand, if we concede its possible existence, of forming an imperfect idea of its nature, in the recorded ceremonies of other journeyman fraternities. Some of these usages certainly survived until the early part of this century, and may perhaps even now be more or less practiced. We find, then, that the first thing necessary to render a meeting of the fraternities legal was the opened chest of the society. This contained their documents, minute-books, regis- ters, and treasury, and was usually secured by three locks and keys, which keys were in pos- session of three different officials; hence their joint presence must also have been necessary. The presiding officer then knocked with some symbol of authority (usually a staff or ham- mer), to procure silence. The periodical contributions of the members were then collected. Complaints were next heard and strife adjusted. The locksmiths 4 (and possibly other crafts) closed their meetings by three formal inquiries, whether anything for the good of the craft or of the fraternity offered itself. All ceremonial operations were conducted in 1 Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 65. 2 Steinbrenner, Origin and Early History of Freemasonry, p. 71. 3 Fallou Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 241. 4 Berlepsch, Cbronik der Gewerbe, vol. vii., pp. 173-176; also Stock (p. 87), from whom he has probably copied. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 153 the form of a dialogue between the officials. Now let us note the ceremony of affiliating a journeyman joiner . 1 He was ushered into the assembly, and placed before the president in an upright position, his heels joined, and his feet at right angles, which was insured by the square being placed between them. His posture was proved by the level, and he was required to stand erect, elbows on his hips, and hands spread out sideways, so as to repre- sent an equilateral triangle, of which his head was the apex. He was denominated through- out ‘ ’ rough wood. ” He was then directed to listen to a lecture. The first part of this lecture treats of the origin of the joiner’s art, and includes remarks on architecture in general, couched in rude verse, the phraseology of which (according to Stock) denotes an early eighteenth century origin, and much of it is based upon Vitruvius. In the generality of crafts he underwent a rude symbolical ceremony called hameln* that is, handling or manipulation. I11 the case of the joiners this consisted of being stretched on a bench, and rather roughly planed and shaped with various tools, in fact treated as rough wood under the joiner’s hands. The locksmiths turned a key round three times in the mouth of the candidate . 3 After this ceremony the joiner was called in future “ smooth wood,” and the proceedings being ended was once more placed under the level. We then are treated to a reminiscence of knightly installations; for the master having asked his name and received for an answer, say “ Martin,” exhorts him thus — “Until now you were Martin under the bench, now you are Martin above the bench;” he then slaps his face, and continues, “ Suffer this, this once from me, henceforth from no man .” 4 The joiners’ ceremony has been selected for quotation, being the most symbolic that I have met with, and therefore the least inimical to the theory of there being at this period any species of speculative masonry; and because, as might be expected from their intimacy with the masons, it shows traces of a connection with architecture. Stock does not give the lecture in full, but as a good example of the “oration” common on such occasions, I now transcribe that of the smiths , 5 also formerly in close union with the masons, as would naturally occur. It con- tains excellent rules for conduct, and some lessons in morality (to which occasional at- tention will be directed in parentheses). Although couched in rude language, it is brim- ming over with the rather ponderous wit of our German cousins. Berlepsch admits that some of the allusions point to a rather recent date, but, on the other hand, states that many are undoubtedly of very ancient derivation. The lecture also conveys a very complete idea of the usages and customs of a travelling smith, the various ceremonial greetings and set speeches being repeated at several places. THE SMITH’S LECTURE. My son, 8 — I am to tell you much about craft usages, and even though you have for- gotten more than I can tell, yet will I tell you what I know. I will tell you that it is pleasant to wander, between Easter and Whitsuntide, when it is nice and warm, when the purse is well filled, and the hose Avell darned, and the hair sticks up through the crown of the hat, then is it pleasant to wander. My son, if to-day or to-morrow you wish to wander, take a fine farewell of your master on Sunday afternoon, after meals and prayer, and not 'Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 24. 2 Berlepsch, vol. iv., p. 66; vol. vi., p. 118. 3 Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 29. 4 Ibid., p. 28. 6 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. vii., pp. 50-61. 6 Literally godson. 154 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. of a week day, for it is not craft usage to cease work during the week. And if you have served your time with him, speak thus: “ I give you thanks for having helped me to an honorable craft; it stands to be repaid at the disposal of any of yours. ” Say not, your disposal; for who has once been master is not accustomed willingly to resumo his wander- ings. But if you have only served him for weekly pay, then say: “ Master, I thank you that you have been pleased to employ me so long; it stands to be repaid to any of yours to- day or to-morrow.” Then go to your mistress and say: “ Mistress, I thank you that you have kept me in washing so long; it stands to be repaid at the disposal of any of yours to-day or to-morrow.” If you do not wish to carry your bundle to the tavern (house of call), but desire to leave it at your master’s house, then speak to the master, and say thus: “ Master, I wish to beg you to harbor my bundle for one night more.” My son, if to-day or to-morrow you wish to travel, go not alone out of the gates, but ac- quire a good name with the fellows; first stand a can of beer or wine; you may also ask the pipers and several fellows to accompany you beyond the gates to give you good convoy ; and being come out before the gates, take three feathers in your right hand and blow them from you, one will fly to the right, the other to the left, the third straight ahead. Which one will you follow ? If you follow the one to the right, it will perhaps fly over the wall back into the town, because you have a sweetheart there. But some masons are bad fellows, they do not fasten the stones well, you might perchance fall down, and perhaps break your neck, and thus you would lose your young life, we our godson, and your father and mother their son — that would be bad for all three of us. No, my son! do not so. I he other feather on the left will fly over a large sheet of water: if you follow it you may find prob- ably a bohemian cheese, or, as we say in German, a millstone; roll that into the water, if it swims across you can also follow, but if it falls to the bottom stay you behind, for it is, perchance, deep, and you might fall in and be drowned; and thus you would lose your young life, we our godson, and your parents their son, and that would be bad for all three of us. Therefore, my son, do not this also. The third feather will fly straight ahead, so fine and crisp, follow you that ( a lesson in prudence and perseverance). Thus you will arrive at a pond, and sitting around it you will see a crowd of green men, who will cry, “ Croak, croak, croak,” But you will say, “ why should I croak? I have not had much to croak over in my apprentice years;” therefore bother yourself not about it but proceed straight on ( courage and perseverance). You will then come to a mill, it will repeat always, “ turn again, turn again.” But you will reflect, Shall I turn again? "Why, I have only just set out! Do that not, but go right into the mill, and you will see the mill wife. Speak thus to her : “Good? day, dame mother, how goes your cow, has the calf fodder? How is your dog, and is the cat still well ? How go your hens, do they still lay fine eggs ? How are your daughters, have they still many swains ?” Then the mill wflfe will consider, that is a polite son; he asks after all my small cattle, what will he not do for the great? Then she will come quickly and fetch a ladder and mount to the pantry shelf and reach you down a sausage. But let her not mount herself, but you mount for her and hand her down a string of them. But be not so rude as to seize the largest and cram it into your pocket, but wait till she give it you. Having received one, thank her kindly and proceed bravely on your way. A mill axe might be lying about, and you might be tempted to ex- amine it and think, if only I could also make such an axe; but the miller might be led to think you wished to steal it; therefore, do it not, and look not long about thee, for some millers are loose cards, and have, perhaps, behind the door an earwig, that is, a balance THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 155 beam, and might lay it about your back. Therefore be careful and go straight forward {a lesson in politeness and to avoid impertinent curiosity). You will then come to a field, and the shepherd will watch the sheep, and the young ones will spring round about the old ones. Ah, you will think, if I were with my mother I would also spring about; but ponder not thereon, only keep straight ahead, and you will come to a high hill, and you will think : Almighty Lord, how shall I get my bundle up to the top of so high a hill. But be not afraid, and help yourself. You will probably have a string or piece of whipcord about you; the smiths have ever been fond of carrying a piece of whipcord, take it and tie it to your bundle, and drag it behind you to the top. But let it not be too long, for in such high mountains there may be robbers w T ho might perhaps cut the bundle off, and you would thus lose your bundle. Having come to the top, you will not know how to get down the other side. Dear Lord, you will say, up it is, if it were only down again; and you may perhaps take your bundle and roll it down the hill. But do that not, for there might be some one there to take the bundle, and you would lose your things. Better keep it between your shoulders, and then no one can take it up hill or down hill. Having got to the bottom of the hill you will be thirsty, and you will come to a spring and wish to drink; lay your bundle down and keep it not on your back, for the bundle might take a swing and carry you with it, and you would fall in and be drowned, and thus you would lose your young life, we our godson, and your parents their son, and that were bad for all three of us. That do not, but put your bundle down before you drink, yet place it not too far off lest one come and take it, and you thus lose your bundle {prudence, forethought). Having drunk your fill behave honorably; post no sentinel in the neighborhood, lest some honest man come to the same place and wish to drink; he would say, what a common fellow has been here and left his true sign ( Wahrzeichen ) everywhere. Do it not {decency of beha- vior), but having drunk go straight on and you will come to a green wood, where the birds sing, young and old, and your young heart will be pleased, and you will also commence to sing. And probably a rich merchant in a scarlet velvet cloak will come riding past and say, “ Good luck to ye! why so jolly, youngster ?” Then say, “ And why should I not be jolly? I have all my father's goods with me.” He will then think you have a few thousand ducats on you, and propose an exchange, his red fox fur against your tattered coat. But exchange not at once, hesitate a little, and he will once more offer you the exchange. But do it not yet; but if he offer it a third time exchange with him, but not too fast, nor give him your coat first, but let him first give you his fox skin. For if you give him yours first he might up and away, for he has four legs and you only two, so you could not follow him. But if he gives you his red fox skin throw him your tattered coat, and make yourself scarce with the fox fur, nor look about you too much, for when he shall have searched the torn coat and found no ducats, he might come back, take back his furs, and cut your neck in two {a lesson in worldly prudence, at the expense of strict morality). Having proceeded some distance further you will see a gallows tree. TV ill you be pleased cr sorry at the sight ? My son, you shall not be pleased thereat, neither shall you mourn as though you were fated to hang on it, but you shall rejoice, inasmuch as you are then in the neighborhood of a town. For if you go further you will see it, and hear the hammers clang and the smiths sing, and your heart will rejoice that you are able to earn your bread. And it is customary that before some cities sentinels are placed, and when you are come unto the town and the sentry cries, “ whence come you,” do not give him the name of a place forty or fifty miles off, but the next town or the village where you passed the night. 155 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. And they will ash you what craft you are of, and you may answer that you are a smith. They will then say, that you are to bring a sign from a master in the town, and if you wish to enter the town say, “ Sirs, I pray you, keep my bundle for me, whilst I fetch a token from a master in the city . ” And yon will be obliged to leave your bundle in the gate; give it to a sub-officer. And when you go into the city, go into the first smith’s shop that you see, and pass no master by, and say, “ Good day, and good luck; God honor the craft, master and fellows;” and they will thank you and say, “ Welcome, smith.” And some- times it is an old fellow who stands by the bellows and a young master by the hearth. Go you to him who stands by the bellows, and say, “ By your leave, let me ask, is that the master who stands by the hearth,” and he will put you right. After that speak to the master, “ Master, I would beg you to give me a token, that I may pass my bundle through the gates.” And the father (1. e . , master) will give you a token— a hammer, or a horseshoe, or a ring. Take the token and go to the gates, and show it and say “ Will that do ?’’ and they will say, “ Give it here;” but give it not, as they might plague you to give them a drink. But speak thus — “ I would willingly stand you something, but have nothing my- self. ” So take your bundle and go straight back to the master, and you may perhaps meet a small white animal, with a fine bushy tail — I call it a dog; and you will think, what a fine feather that would make for my hat, and you might take the token and throw it at the dog; but do not, for in these large towns are many deep wells and cellars; the token might fall into one, and the master say, “ Who shall lend you a token if you bring it not back?” Therefore go to the house and say, “ By leave, that I may enter; good day and good luck; God honor the craft, master and fellows. Master, I would speak to you in the name of the craft, if you would let me lay my bundle dowm here, that I may go further with honor and God;” that is, if you do not wish to spend the night there. But if you desire to rest there the night, then say, “ Master, I would speak to you in the name of the craft, if you would harbor me and my bundle, that I may go further with God and honor;” and he will say, “ Put it down.” And you will already have the bundle hanging on one shoulder only; but carry it not into the room and hang it on the w 7 all where the peasants hang their baskets, or the other lads may think you have many pence therein; and they may chaff you and say, “ Smith, you must have lots of bread and bacon in your bundle that you are afraid to put it down on the ground.” But place it readily under the bellows or the hammer bench (humility and confidence) ; if the father loses not his hammer, you will not lose your bundle. Having laid it down, if the brothers are at work, strike once or twice with them and say, “ By your leave, smith, let me ask, what is the custom here; do you go round in search of work, or do you go on the donation?” And if he says, “It is usage here to go round in search of work,” then go to the master and say, “ Master, I would speak to you in the name of the craft, if you would be pleased to let your man go with me in search of work;” and he will say, “ Yes.” Then go to the fellow and say, “ By your leave, smith, I would speak to you in the name of the craft, whether you will search me out w T ork for eight or fourteen days according to craft usage.” But if it be the custom to go on the donation, then go between eight and eleven and from one till four o’clock, and when you go for the donation, go not at once into the first shop, but go first to the farthest, and when you enter say, “ Good day, and good luck; God honor the craft, master and fellows.” And they will thank you, and ask, “ From what part of the country, smith, by your leave, that I may ask ?” And you shall say, “ Leave sufficient! from there and there,” where you spent the night, the nearest town or village, and do not name a place forty or THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 157 fifty miles off, otherwise they may laugh at you and say, “ Smith, you have certainly flown here on a cloak.” And if you are on the donation, and a piece of work lie about the house, he careful and tread not on it or spit thereon, or the smiths may say, “Ah! who knows whether he himself could make it half as well.” Meanwhile they may perhaps send out and invite you to drink; hut you ask him to drink first who stands at the forge. And if they have a heat, take a hammer and strike also; and having drunk twice, thank them and say, “ With your leave, lads, I return thanks for your pledge; if to-day or to-morrow one or the other come to me, where I am at work, I will pledge them in turn, in a can of beer or wine, as far as my means will allow, according to craft custom and usage.” If the master is in the shop, say, “ Master, I thank you for your goodwill; it remains at your dis- posal to be returned to you and yours to-day or to-morrow.” Then return to the house, and when you get there the other fellows will ask you, “ Have they pledged you bravely?” and you will answer, “Yes,” even if you have not tasted a single drop; and meanwhile they will also send out, and perhaps you may also have a piece left in order to stand a can of beer. And then it will be soon evening, when they go to sup. And be you ready and seat yourself at the door of the room. And if the father say, “ Smith, come hither and partake,” go not at once. But if he say again, “ Smith, come hither and partake,” then go in and eat with them; but take not your seat directly at the top of the board, but seat yourself beside the stroke master , 1 and when they begin, cut yourself a lump of bread, so that they can hardly see you behind it; and having eaten that, cut small pieces at a time, so that you may have finished at the same time as the others; for if the others were satis- fied, and you had still a large piece of bread before you, the master would say, “Where have you learnt that; with the boors?” But if you are satisfied, put not up your knife before the others have finished, or they might say, “ That is a small-eating smith; evidently wishes to shame us by eating so little.” And if the father drink to you, you may also drink. If there is much in the cup you may drink deeply, but if there be only little you must drink very little. But if you have much coin you may drink it all up and say, “ Can one have a messenger? I wish to pay for a can of beer.” And having eaten they will go to rest; but say not to the dame mother or maid sister , 2 “ Where shall I sleep?” but wait, and she will surely conduct you to your chamber. Then untie one shoestring and retie the other; and if she go not then from thee take a wisp of straw and point to the door; and if she will not even then, why, take her to thee, cast her on the bed before thee, and kiss her twenty-fourfold . 3 And when morning breaks and the other fellows rise, do not you rise first, nor even with them, for they might think yon wished to put them to shame, but remain in bed for another half-hour; but not too long, for if the master come intending to give thee work, and you were yet asleep, he might say, “ That must be a lazy smith, he likes to sleep late. I can do that myself, and need no smith to help me.” And being risen, go not at once to the kitchen and chat with the cook, but go first to the workshop and wash yourself, and take up a hammer and work bravely with the others. And if no hammer be there, take an axe; and if no axe, seize the crowbar and work away, and the master will 1 The smith who, with a small hammer, directs the other smiths where to plant their blows. 2 Not necessarily a daughter, possibly a maid servant (?). 3 A glance at the Ordinances of 1462 and 1563 will show that the masons did not enjoin strict and consistent chastity; they merely prohibited open and public indecency, and strove to protect modest women from unseemly conduct. We find this also in the above case; if the maiden will not take the hint, which is broad enough, the journeyman recovers his liberty of action. i 5 8 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. think, “ that is surely a trusty smith, him will I give work.” And it will then be break- fast time, and they will take you with them. Therefore go in and partake; and having eaten, go to the master and return thanks, and say, “ Master, I thank you that you have harbored me and my bundle, and for your food, and drink, and goodwill; it remains owing to be repaid to any of yours to-day or to-morrow.” Say not “ To you,” for who has once been master does not willingly resume his wanderings. Afterward go to the lads and say, “ By leave, my lads, I thank you for your donation and pledge; if to-day or to-morrow one or other comes to me where I am at work, I will pledge him in a can of beer or wine, as may be within my means, according to craft custom and usage. ” Then resume your journey. If the sentinel ask you, “ Whither away ?” answer him, “ Who knows where the wind may carry me when I get outside.” Therefore peg ahead and run a hole into the world, so large that a haystack would not fill it. In the preceding ceremonies and lectures, there appears a certain measure of rude and witty allegory, and a large amount of crude symbolism, which ultimately degenerated into such rough horse-play as to call for the interference of the State. From these materials let us endeavor to construct a probable ceremony for the stonemasons, and one more in accordance with the usages and culture of the age than the “ Masonic fiction” with which Fallou has presented us. But let it be distinctly understood that it is by no means certain that a ceremony existed, and that it is quite possible that a mason’s signature to the Brother-book, and his weekly subscription, were all-sufficient. We will suppose that the day’s work is over, the lodge (or workshop) cleaned and tidied, the brethren assembled, in the east the master, facing him his warden, in the south the treasurer (see Art. 23). The master and warden are each armed with a gavel, as symbols of their authority. A short dialogue ensues between these two, and the master declares the lodge open, in the name of the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, and the four crowned martyrs. He then gives three blows with his gavel (Art. 28), and the warden answers with two. The treasurer then gives an account of his stewardship, and a fresh treasurer is appointed (Art. 23). Sub- scriptions are next collected (Art. XXXII.), and the warden hands over all fines levied during the preceding week. All causes of complaint are judicially settled by the master, with the assistance of the fellows, and cases of a grave nature are reserved for a higher court. The candidate is then announced. He is introduced by a friend, and led before the master, having been beforehand partly denuded as a token of humility, and perhaps deprived of his small store of money, in order to remind him of his poorer brethren. He then listens to a lecture, which recites the traditionary origin of the masonic handicraft, and the innate nobility of labor. He is impressed with the necessity of rendering him- self an honor to the craft and fraternity, and is admonished to forswear the errors of his immature youth. He is probably addressed throughout as ‘Tough ashlar;” and now, sud- denly seized and manipulated, one brother figuratively applies the pick, another the gavel and chisel, and a third the rule. If he is slightly hurt, so much the better. At last he is once more placed before the master; the warden applies a square to his feet, a level to his arms, a plumb-rule to his body, and he is declared a true and perfect ashlar. The master then continues his discourse, inculcating steady and moral conduct, in much the same strain as the lecture of the smiths previously quoted, and the ceremony ends by his being formally hailed as a brother. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 159 The question naturally arises, was this all ? Did he receive no token by which he could prove himself a brother ? In the very nature of things we might expect that he did, — a sign, a word, a grip. But not the faintest trace of these exists. The Statutes do not even enjoin secrecy, but merely that ‘die shall keep every point and article” (Art. II.). And I am by no means inclined to think that any token of recognition was devised; the mere greeting, grip, and mark would prove him a fellow craft, although not always, as in certain cases an apprentice might be in possession of them (Art. BO). 1 And his fellows would only be too anxious to acknowledge him as a brother, if he stated that he was one and kept up his subscriptions. The meeting was then probably once more called to order, whilst the master or warden made three several inquiries as to whether anything remained to be done, and a short dia- logue, no doubt, closed the proceedings. The tables were next produced, also the beer, bread, and wine, and the fellows spent a jovial evening. The health of the new brother was dru nk with all formality, and it is just possible that the secret means of recognition (if secret signs there were) consisted in the proper manner of drinking the pledge, as we know that this was always a peculiar ceremony with all crafts. Winzer, as if determined to cap all Fallou’s wonderful statements, asserts that at this banquet the master addressed a series of questions to the fellows, which they answered in rotation, thus gradually in- structing the new brother in the mysteries. 2 With equal truth he might at once have stated that they worked the fifteen sections, and completed the entire curriculum sanctioned by the respectable authority of the “Emulation” or the “Stability” Lodges of Instruction! 3 Our young craftsman now pursues his travels, on which we need not further remark, than to state that Arts. XLIII., XLIV., XLVIII., XLIX., 105 to 110, all directly refer to a “fellow” on his journeyings. Having completed his travels, generally fixed by German writers at two years, he is now at liberty to take up a permanent residence where he will; and it is provided he shall no longer accept work for a few days or weeks, but for a year, or thereabouts (Art. XXVI.). In the Torgau Ordinances (Art. 89) this is somewhat differently expressed. He now enters on his preparation for the mastership; but it is not to be presumed that the majority, or even any large number of the fellows, ever attained this rank. It required an extended acquaintance with the sciences of mathematics and construction, 4 as understood in those days; and it is hardly possible that many “fellows” were endowed with the capacity to attain this knowledge. The rank, we may conjecture, was only attainable by the pro- duction of a masterpiece, consisting, in all likelihood, of plans and models for a church, or of its component parts. When the institution of a masterpiece first arose in this craft is very problematical; it is not directly mentioned in the Ordinances, but may be inferred from their general wording. Heideloff possessed some manuscripts, found in the lodge at Nuremberg, making mention of masterpieces, the earliest entry referring to them, quoted by him, being — “24th July 1585, Hans von Nordlingen’s masterpiece has been shown.” 4 1 But he ultimately had to pay for this unusual privilege. In Art. 25 it is enacted, “ that if a fellow come free of the trade and demand a mark” — this can only refer to an apprentice who has completed his term by traveling under a borrowed mark and now claims one of his own. Ke re- ceives it on certain conditions, one of which is, that he treat the lodge to a pledge feast of double the usual cost. 2 Winzer, Die Deutschen Bruderschaften, p. 68. 3 The oldest and most famous of our metropolitan “Lodges of Instruction.” 4 Heideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 33. i6o THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. But it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a masterpiece was requisite at a very early date; and we find it in all trades, without exception. In fact, as the number and the opu- lence of the masters in a town increased, efforts were constantly directed to keep the admissions as few as possible, and the preliminaries were rendered more onerous. But the difficulty then lay less in the execution of the masterpiece than in the expense, which often became prohibitive to the poor craftsman; so that ultimately a mastership could only be attained by excessive patience and outlay, except for a master’s son, in whose case his father’s position and wealth were of material assistance. A short cut for a few favored craftsmen, however, was open to them, by marrying a deceased master’s widow or his daughter. 1 To such an extent did this evil grow, that in the seventeenth century the State issued an edict to suppress it. 2 It is possible that the admission to master’s rank amongst the stonemasons was attended by some ceremony, of which, however, we have not the least hint; but it is almost certain that it was followed by a pledge feast. The alacrity with which the Steinmelzen of old availed themselves of any pretext for a convivial assem- bly, is very evident. Some reference to the mastership will be found in the Ordinances. Art. II. recites, “those only shall be masters who can erect costly edifices, for the which they are authorized” (see also Art. IV.). Again, in Art. XXXI., we are told that, on his admission to the mastership, he shall pay an entrance fee of one florin to the craft; prov- ing that there was an admission, and that his mastership did not arise from the mere fact of his receiving a building order. In Art. 3 we have still stronger confirmation of a previous proof tendered; and from Art. 4 it becomes apparent that such proof must have been submitted to a board of at least two masters, so that they may thenceforth be able to certify to his possession of the necessary qualifications. If he had already, however, worked as a master, the fact was patent, and he required no sponsors. No restraint is used as toward the employers; they may contract with any one, but the whole responsi- bility is thenceforth thrown on their shoulders (Arts. 5 to 7), although the craft is ready to grant them the necessary advice, and even urges them to make use of it. From the above, it is probable that no secrets attached to the master’s degree as a means of recogni- tion; he was simply vouched for by those who knew him, and had passed his masterpiece. And this accords in the main with what we know of other crafts, excepting that we have no information of any abuse of the institution. Indeed, in spite of the assertions of Fallou (p. 125), even the privileges of a master’s son did not exist among the stonemasons, as will appear from Art. LXII. In Art. LXXI. the master’s son is even put at a slight disad- vantage (for further proof vide Art. 22). Nowhere does there occur any hint that he experienced any exceptional treatment. Having attained his master’s degree, or more correctly rank, it by no means follows that the craftsman immediately received an order, or st night to obtain one. Some few may have retired to the smaller towns, and undertaken job work on their own account; whilst others, with wider views, continued to work under a master as journeymen, until a favorable opportunity arose for being placed at the head of a large building. This appears to be confirmed by Art. 2, where (the masters having been previously alluded to in Art. 1) it says, “and other masters.” But the Torgau Ordi- nances also speak of a third class of masters. The two former are denominated master ( meister ) and workmaster (werckmeister) ; that is, one at the head of a lodge. There was also a master builder ( baumeister ), who appears to have occupied much the same position 1 Lujo Brenta.no, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 87; also Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. ii. , p. 239. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 161 as an architect 1 of the present time. This may have been usual in large edifices only, and suggests the possibility of there being several lodges at every such building, each presided over by its own master, and all obeying the instructions of the master builder. However this may have been, the statutes attest the jealousy which was evoked by any interference on the part of the master builder with lodge work or conduct; in all cases the workmaster remained the chief authority and supreme judge of the matters relating to his own lodge (Arts. 96 to 102). We have now traced the youthful workman from his indentures up to the summit of his ambition — the post of master builder; but there were two other offices open to him — those of treasurer, and warden. Of the treasurer (Art. 23) I have already spoken, and will merely add that the office in some form or other existed in all guilds. The warden’s office, however, so far as we know, does not appear in other guilds; nevertheless, it may have existed in workshops where a large body of men were employed; in others it was unneces- sary. The reason why we know nothing of it is evident. The warden is the prototype of the overseer of our days, and as such, necessarily appointed directly by each master. But in all other trades, the association of which we know the most was the journeymen’s fra- ternity, and of course we must not expect to find a warden there, the offices being elective. With the stonemasons the lodge and the fraternity were one and the same thing, and we consequently find very full information as regards the warden and his duties. In his in- stallation we find traces of another solemn ceremony. He was to be personally appointed, and not by a message or a third party, master and warden being both present (Art. 18), and no doubt the whole lodge'; the master then addressed him on the importance of his office and its duties (“ he shall impress him with the wardenship ”), and the warden made oath to the saints (the four crowned martyrs), on the square and gauge, to perform his duties to the best of his ability. The fellows then hailed him as warden, and swore obedi- ence to him as the master’s representative (Art. 20), the whole of course concluding with a feast at the warden’s expense (Art. 20). As to his duties, they were manifold. The 1563 Ordinances merely state generally, that he is to be true, trusty, and obedient (Art. XLII), but those of Torgau are much more minute. We are told that his signal was two knocks, but whenever an announcement was made, such as to begin or to cease work, command attention, etc., one knock only (Art. 28). He was to preserve the order, the privileges, the tools and appliances of the lodge (Arts. 48, 63, and 65), and to see that all instruments of precision, square, gauge, etc., were maintained in full accuracy (Art. 49) . He was to act as general instructor to the fellows and apprentices (Arts. 49 and 50) , and prepare, prove, and pass their work for them, to reject spoilt work (Art. 51), and to levy all fines for negligence or otherwise (Art. 62). He was to call the breth- ren to labor at the proper time, without fear or favor (Art. 54), and to fine those who did not make their appearance (Art. 56); in this latter respect his attention being forcibly directed to the influence of a good example (Art. 62). Whilst true and faithful to his master, and ever on the alert to safeguard his interests, he was to be con- ciliatory and kind to the fellows (Art. 49), and ever ready to help them, of a peaceable dis- position, to avoid giving cause of strife (Art. 57), and on no account to act with greater severity than the usages of the craft permitted (Art. 64). He was to preside at their or- dinary vesper meal, and to enforce a becoming frugality (Art. 59); he had power to assist a traveller, and to engage and dismiss workmen (Art. 60), and in the master’s absence 1 The German for architect is to this day the same word, baumeister. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 162 succeeded to all his authority (Art. 55), even to the extent of reducing the hours of labor (Art. 59). His name is differently given. The Strassburg Ordinances always call him parlierer. According to Fallou and others this word would signify “the speaker,” from the French parler , to speak; and in fact, he was undoubtedly, to a certain extent, the mouthpiece of the master. But a glance at the original language of the Statutes will show that no other word there used indicates a French origin, and the custom, since so prevalent with a certain class of German writers and speakers, of Teu- tonizing French words, to the great detriment of their fine old mother tongue, had not yet arisen. Fort gives a far more probable derivation. 1 The Torgau Ordinances spell the word pallirer-, and he states that, in former times amongst the Germans, all places of worship, justice, etc., were fenced around with a row of stakes, in modern German pfahl, formerly pal ; the guardian or warden of the enclosure would thence take his name, pfahlirer or pallirer, and when the real meaning of the word was forgotten, and the present office of the holder only remembered, it might easily have become corrupted into parlierer. If v/e accept this derivation, the conclusion is inevitable, that warden, parlierer, and pallirer are identical in their signification. We have thus a clear picture of the lodge as it existed in the fifteenth century, and probably for many centuries previously, consisting of appren- tices, resident fellows, travelling fellows, warden, perhaps journeyman masters, and the master. Let us noAv inquire into the nature of the bond which united the individual lodges into one comprehensive system, which bond was urst forged in 1459. It may be described as a system of jurisdictions, independent of each other, but subordinate to a district lodge; sev- eral district lodges owing obedience to a provincial lodge, and all culminating in the chief lodge of Strassburg; the whole being united by the tie of brotherhood. The court of first instance, as it were, was that of the master of every lodge. In Art. 11 the lodge is recog- nized as the seat of justice, and ordered to be kept pure accordingly; and Art. 39 expressly grants the master power to hold a general court over his own fellows; and it is evident from the whole tenor of the Statutes, over them only. These courts were probably held whenever required, but it is stipulated that one shall be held at least every three months (Art. 42). His jurisdiction is also limited as to extent, for if the offence be serious he is to call to his aid two other masters of the neighborhood (Art. 40). From this and Arts. 41 and 42, we may conclude that he exercised summary justice in all matters of lodge discipline, bad work, quarrels and bickerings amongst his workmen, and that as far as he was able he settled all differences between employers and workmen, and only when he did not succeed in so doing was the case reserved for a higher court. The master, in cases, which merely entailed a pecuniary loss upon himself, appears to have been a competent judge, and decided the amount of the fine on his own responsibility (Arts. 57, 62, and 104). For offences that were self-evident and required no proof, and the fine for which was legally fixed this would appear to have been also the case (Arts. 50, 51, 69 to 72, 85, and 93). In the latter instance it may be supposed that no formalities were observed, but that the fine was levied then and there, and to a great extent the warden would appear to have exercised the privileges of the master (Arts. 51, 52, 56, and 64). But whenever a disputed case arose, it is quite clear, that although the master presided and proclaimed the verdict, yet he was assisted in his deliberations by the whole body of fellows; a custom which was so inherent in the G erman nationalities that we cannot expect to find it absent 1 Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 267. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 163 here; and indeed, it is very fairly indicated in Arts. 43, 44, 76, and 77. But under no circumstance could punishment be inflicted, except with the concurrence of the master; not even by mutual consent amongst the fellows (Arts. 78 to 80). Nor were they allowed to punish the master in any way; this was reserved for a higher court, but they might leave his employment — in fact — strike (Art. 15); and even this was not permissible until after the master had been convicted (Art. XIX.). Besides the master’s jurisdiction over his fellows, he was also the treasurer of the craft funds. He was the keeper of a box in which the fellows placed their weekly contributions, and such other fines as were not levied for the use of their particular lodge, or of the master, but for the benefit of the guild. He was, however, in no sense the almoner of the guild; this duty was reserved for his immediate superior (Art. XXXII.), to whom he had to account annually. It is, nevertheless, perfectly evident that he had power to disburse some part of these funds in furthering a travelling brother to the next works. Ascending in rank, we find the district court presided over by a master to whom was entrusted a Brother-book. Art. XXIII. defines those who are entitled to “a book;” they are the masters at the head of any large building likely to be many years in progress, such as a cathedral. They were to be the presiding judges in their districts, and in conjunction with neighboring masters were to rule and govern the craft in their immediate neighbor- hoods (See also Arts. XXI. and XXII.). All offences involving a limitation of the right to exercise the craft, variously described as reviling, casting out, proscribing, holding for no true man, etc., could only be tried before this master and two others of a like degree; that is to say, three book masters (Art. XXIX.); and any complaint against a master was also to be tried in the district court. Courts were held annually on an appointed day; the presence of the fellows, or their representatives, was evidently necessary to complete the tribunal; and in case of disagreement provision is made for the election of an arbitrator (Art. 43). Even if the cause of dispute between two craftsmen did not affect masonry, they were still enjoined to refer it to this court, before appealing to the tribunals of the state (Art. XXX.). Only when differences could not be adjusted by the high court were appeals allowed (Art. XXI.). Complaints of the civil authorities against the craft were also to be heard by a chief master (preamble to the 1462 code). The book-master dispensed the charities of the guild, and administered relief to the sick and distressed (Art. XXIV.). To him the lower masters handed their boxes annually and rendered their accounts. This arrangement was a salutary one. If the individual masters had been allowed to afford relief, a class of professional mendicants might have arisen, as one master would have been ignorant of the doings of the others. But the district master could exercise greater caution and control; and as the districts were not very large, no special hardship was inflicted on the really needy and deserving in requiring them to travel a short distance in order to communicate their wants. The Brother-book thus became a symbol of higher authority. It was carefully and jealously guarded and preserved from harm, and the contents rehearsed once a year (Art. XXVIII.). Of the functions of the provincial masters there is no record. Appeals were doubtless made from the decisions of the district masters. Who they were, we learn from the Statutes. They were the masters of the cathedrals of Strass- burg, Cologne, Vienna, and Zurich, whose jurisdictions are defined in Arts. XXXVIII. to XLI. To these, as I have already shown, must probably be added Dresden. The highest court of appeal, and the head of the whole union, was Strassburg (Art. XXXVII.). Thus, throughout the entire organization of the stonemasons, we find a curious rule ex- THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 164 tending, which is, that all the officers and superiors owed their positions in the fraternity, not to the suffrages of their fellows as in other handicrafts, not to the principles of birth and inheritance as in some guilds and associations, but to the appointment of those who were strangers to their body, viz., the employers of architectural labor, who placed their buildings under the direction of masters of their own choice. This was the necessary consequence of the craft never having split up into two separate fraternities; and in this particular only, as I have attempted to show, did it differ from other craft guilds. "Not even in their union, extending throughout Germany, or in their creation of a chief lodge did the Steinmetzen strike out for themselves a new path ; they were neither the first nor the last to avail themselves of these institutions. For instance, as early as 1361 — a whole century before the Ratisbon meeting of stonemasons— the tailors' guilds of twenty-six towns in Silesia had formed owe huge guild. 1 Toward the middle of the fourteenth century there existed in the Holy Roman Empire four brotherhoods who judicially determined all disputes in the cutlers’ guilds, and whose authority was unimpeachable. These fraternities were at Augsburg, Munich, Heidelberg, and Bale. 2 The bakers of Brunswick, Ilildes- heim, Goslar, and Helmstadt had also formed a union in the fourteenth century. 3 We find the same tie amongst the locksmiths, sword-cutlers, combmakers, filecutters, brush- makers, coppersmiths, etc., and in many of the unions the central society, or, as it were, the chief lodge, was situated at Nuremberg, although the branches extended as far as Cour- land and Livonia. 4 And the Imperial Edict of 1731 recites that, 44 Whereas it has become general in many trades to erect a so-called extra guild, similar to the chief lodge of the masons,” etc. Masonic writers all combine in placing vividly before us the importance and the dig- nity of the chief master at Strassburg; and scarcely one of them omits to mention that ho was invested with a sword, and sat enthroned under a canopy of baldachin. If, however, this assertion is carefully traced from one authority to another up to the fountain-head, we find that it originates in the work of a non-mason, viz., Stock (p. 85), who says he has been informed 44 that such was the case.” It, therefore, rests simply on hearsay. 5 With- out being a matter of importance either way, it affords, nevertheless, a good example of the manner in which masonic history has been written. But without importing into the case any extravagant conclusions, no doubt need be entertained that the overjudge at Strassburg wielded an immense influence, 6 although, looking at the whole spirit of the Ordinances before us, it is hardly conceivable that his judicial decisions were promulgated on his own sole and undivided authority. Like the district masters, he had probably to avail himself of the assistance of neighboring, or perhaps provincial masters, and of the fellows of the craft in general. Reverting once more to the Ordinances, we become powerfully impressed with the high tone of their morality; the prohibition of open adultery, gambling, intemperance, unseemly conduct of all kinds, and opprobrious language is constant; also the evidence of a scrupu- lous regard for the interests of the employers. Not that such regulations are wanting in 1 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. ii. , p. 230. , 2 Ibid., vol. vii., p. 123. 3 Ibid., vol. vi., p. 125. 4 Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 71. 5 Fallou (p. 72) ascribes the origin of this report to Grandidier, but questions his accuracy. 6 In 1461 the Town Council of Strassburg formally made over to him the adjudication of all dis- putes amongst the citizens relating to their buildings, and he was provided with an assistant versed in the law. But as he misused this power, it was withdrawn in 1620. See “Alsatia Illustrata,” by Shopflin, quoted by Krause, 2d edit., vol. ii., part iv., p. 245. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 165 other trades; no Ordinance or charter omits to provide for the maintenance of good morals in the gnild or fraternity; and even the respective clauses of the different charters hear a strong resemblance. Even their rules of personal etiquette were minute. The shoemakers considered as a high offence to take off their shoes in the presence of the landlord or land- lady; to pass three houses in the street without shoes, collar, or hat; to eat in the open air. They also prohibited obscene swearing, blasphemy, larceny, open profligacy, gaming, dicing, etc. 1 The articles against bribery are noteworthy (XLIX., 21, 90, 100, and 102); also some others, which point to evils not unknown to workmen of the present day, namely, unpunc- tuality (Art. 56 and 86), rattening (Art. 68), Blue Monday (Arts. 83, 84, and LI.), and, finally, strikes (Arts. XX. and L.). The question has been often asked — what was the particular handicraft of which the stonemasons claimed a monopoly, and to forbid a participation therein by others their Ordi- nances were compiled ? The answer has always been — ashlar — that is, squared stonework. When we, however, reflect that this was requisite in buildings without pretension to archi- tectural merit, and that it is a work which could not demand a five years’ apprenticeship to learn, the answer is unsatisfactory. It was work which the stonehewer {Steinhauer, as distinguished from Steinmetz ) was allowed to practice, although, of course, the stonemason did the same, just as he considered himself entitled to build with rough ashlar, or brick, for his sodality was the head of the building trade, and he deemed himself empowered to pursue all its branches. The correct and sensible answer is given in Arts. XII. and XIII., but these clauses in the antiquated German dialect have always been wrongly construed. The original German is “ Masswerh oder Auszuge aus dem Grand.” Heldmann, unable to com- prehend it, jumped to the conclusion that Masswerh meant work in large masses, and that, therefore, Auszuge must be work in detail, and every writer without exception has fol- lowed his lead, wholly regardless of the fact, that, massen in such a sense, is not German but French, and (even viewing this as immaterial) the interpretation can be only made to apply by omitting as senseless the qualification “ aus dem Grund ” in both articles, and by suppressing Masswerh entirely in Art. XIV. For many reasons it might well have been conjectured that the terms were purely technical, which on close examination they prove to be. A reference to a technical dictionary at once disclosed that Masswerh in architectural phraseology denotes carving, carved work, tracery, or literally, “ proportioned work,” from messen to measure; and finally, after persistent researches, it became manifest that “Ein Ausszug aus dem Grunde nehnien” means, to take or extract an elevation or design from a given ground-plan {Grund riss). The signification now becomes clear. The stonemason’s special handicraft was the elaborate carving of stone; and this peculiar knowledge was the preparation of the plans, designs, etc., for such work, in fact the principles of archi- tectural drawing; and this is the art which he was forbidden to communicate (Art. XIII.) except to a properly indentured stonemason’s apprentice; or to put in practice (Art. XII.) unless free of the craft; but which he was required to impart gratuitously to every properly qualified stonemason (Art. XIV.).' 2 1 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. iv., pp. 67-72. 2 German students will find indications of this meaning in the confirmation of the Emperor Ferdinand, 16th September, 1621, where he speaks of “ Aus dem Grund ausgezogen Steinwerckli”— “oder maszen,” given by Heideloff, in his “ Bauhutte des Mittelaters,” p. 91; and confirmation strong in the interesting reprint at the end of the work of an old German manual of operative geometry , the concluding chapters of which give instructions for drawing the ground-plan and elevation of a finiul THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 66 One more article (LII. ) and we may leave the Ordinances. “No more beatings ” has been presented as a heading, hut briltchen in the original German is not easily translated. The modern form Pritsche signifies a wand, something like a harlequin’s sword, a flat lath, a bat, etc. ; and Heldmann 1 gives a description of the remarkable and humorous ceremony, which it was the object of this article to suppress. If a fellow or apprentice had utterly spoilt and ren- dered unfit for use a piece of stone, it was hoisted on a litter, and carried in solemn procession to the refuse heap, called the Beinhcius, i.e., bonehouse, charnel house, ossuary. As chief mourner followed the unlucky workman, and behind him all his comrades. The ceremony- over, the procession returned to the lodge, and the delinquent was thoroughly birched with the flat plumb-rules . 2 Here again we meet with the humorous symbolism of the medkeval craftsmen, and any number of illustrations might be given of their ability to bring into play the full resources of metaphor and allegory. The glassmakers were required to abstain from working under a non-guild master; they were to “ avoid him as far as they could see a white horse in a field .” 3 In all trades the journeymen fraternities affected an appearance of poverty, so that although the traveller was well received and hospitably pledged, yet when the receiving brother placed the pledge cup before him, he was wont comically to borrow this expression from the cloister — “ The convent is poor, the brothers are many, and the abbot himself is fond of a drink ” 4 — as an excuse for any possible short- comings. Not even in the presence of their superiors could the craftsmen restrain their jovial mood. The proper official of the fraternity having found work for a traveller, intro- duced him to his future master, in many trades, with some such formula as the following: “ Now, master, behold your journeyman; he likes to sleep late, sup early, work short hours, receive high pay; I wish you joy of your industrious man ! ” 6 The stonemasons have left ample evidence of their grim humor carved in the imperishable stone of the sacred edifices which they helped to rear. We find portrayed — a nun in the embraces of a monk, a pope descending to hell at the last judgment, a fox in priest’s robes preaching to a congregation of geese, an ass performing high mass, etc. Almost every writer on the subject has given numerous examples, and by the Germans they are styled Wahr- zeichen, true signs of a mason, and are quoted as indicative of the high morality, non-papal tendencies, and indignant protests of the stonemasons against the abuses of the clergy. It seems, however, quite clear that had such been the case, this pictorial imagery would not have been allowed in the first instance, and all surreptitious manifestations of the idea would have been long since effaced. The Church was far too powerful to be thus bearded in its own den. These signs are always found in some secluded spot, behind an ornament, beneath the hinged seat of a stall, etc., and merely afford additional evidence of the jocularity of showing all the various stages, and finally presenting us with a complete ground-plan and elevation side by side, and it concludes with the words, “Darnach so haist dj figur ain rechte fiale aus gezogn ausz dem grunt Des ain exempel zu negst neben der geschrift stet d. grut un der auszug.” The finial in those days was not only the small cluster at the top of a pyramidal formation, but the whole pyramid itself (Ogilvie’s “ Dictionary ”), as shown in the drawings mentioned; so that the impor- tance to the Craftsmen of this knowledge is apparent, more especially when we consider the peculiarities of the Gothic style of architecture. 1 Heldmann, Die drei Aeltesten Geschichtlichen Denkmale, p. 280, note. 2 1 fancy something of a similar nature, called “ goosing,” is not unknown amongst our modern tailors? s Ch. L. Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 11. 4 Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 48, 5 Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 69. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 167 the early craftsmen, winked at because not too glaringly obtruded, and also, because the reverend fathers were quite in harmony with the jovial artists. A striking corroboration of this view has been recently afforded. On the 4th December, 1881, at the sale of a portion of the great Sunderland Library, Mr. Quaritcli became the possessor of a manuscript, “ Koman du Roi Art us,” etc., beautifully illuminated. This manuscript dates back to the fourteenth century, and is therefore a monkish composition. On the first leaf is a richly illuminated border, and this border contains a veritable Wahrzeichen, viz., a nun suckling an ape. 1 Here we have, therefore, a cleric indulging in the same comic vein as the stonemasons, and on this rock, any attempt to elevate the German stonemasons above the level of their sur- roundings, must infallibly suffer shipwreck. We have thus seen that the journeymen of all trades were highly poetical, and that their feeling found vent in grim satire, rough horseplay, and coarse allegory. They were of the people, and the people in all ages and climes have been possessed of a rude poetic temperament, which even our present civilization has been unable to subdue. Any one even partially acquainted with the language of our lower orders must have observed this. Even the chaff of a London costermonger or cabdriver is, in spite of its coarseness, redolent of humor. 2 But have we any sign of something higher amongst the stonemasons? Any traces of a speculative science ? In spite of the assertions of German writers, I am afraid not. If Eallou’s initiation ceremony were capable of being made even probable, then we might infer that the heathen mysteries had descended to the stonemasons of Germany; but I have already shown that his statements are unworthy of belief. That they symbol- ized their tools to a certain extent is probable, nay, almost certain; but this proves nothing. The soldier and sailor made their flag the emblem of .victory and obedience; the knight took the oath on his sword; the clergy on the cross; the mason’s warden on the square and gauge. The Highland clans assembled at the sign of the fiery cross; in like manner the smiths sent a hammer or a nail from one shop to another before holding their meetings, 3 and the shoemakers the key of their treasury. 4 In all this we find no trace of mysticism or of philosophy, and I will now mention the only remaining evidence from which the existence of a speculative science, at this remote era, has been inferred. In the Cathedral of Wurzburg two pillars stand within the building, which at some period formed a part of the original porch. They are of peculiar construction. Their names, Jachin and Boaz, suggest a derivation from the celebrated pillars at the entrance of King Solomon's Temple, with which, however, their architectural form in no way cor- responds. Jachin is composed of two series of eight columns; the eight springing from the capital extend to the centre, and are there curved and joined two and two, so as to form in reality only four U-shaped columns; the same applies to the four whose eight open ends rest on the base. At the bends of the opposing U’s, the pillar is completed by an inter- laced fillet or band. Boaz consists of two U’s at the top and two at the base, and these are joined by two O’s of equal length, so that this pillar consists of apparently three series of four columns each. The names are engraved on the capitals. A sketch of these will be found in Steinbrenner, p. 7G. A counterpart of Jachin is to be found in Bamberg Cathe- dral, and one of Boaz in the New Market Church of Merseburg; and various ornamental forms in other buildings resemble these columns in one or more respects. 6 It is obvious 1 Daily Telegraph, December 5, 1881. 2 Compare the Slang Dictionary (Chatto& Wiiulus). 8 Stock, Grundziige der Verfassung, p. 8. 4 Ibid. 5 Steinbrenner, Origin and Early History of Freemasonry, p. 79. 1 68 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. that these curious monuments are suggestive of many mystical interpretations; they may be intended to represent man (body and soul), the Trinity (three in one), or, in fact, almost anything a little ingenuity will discover numberless hidden meanings— or they may simply be the result of the inventive fancy of some skilful workman. Their names merely prove that the masons were acquainted with that part of the Old Testament most interesting to them as architects, which in itself may have suggested the idea of constructing something unusual. Of Church symbolism, Stieglitz observes, “ and because the Apostles were con- sideied the pillars of the Church, the columns at the side of the porch were referred to them; although the pillars in front of King Solomon’s Temple were thereby more espe- cially brought to mind.” 1 But admitting that the ancient builders attached a hidden sym- bolical meaning to these pillars, the fact is insufficient to sustain the theory that a specu- lative system of philosophy or of theology was nurtured in the masons’ lodges. One point, however, demands attention before we pass from this subject. According to Schauberg, 2 on each side of the Meister tafel (master’s tablet) at Bale is a sculptured representation of one of the four martyrs, with the addition of a couplet in rude rhyme. Identical verses, in slightly modernized phraseology, are also engraved on the treasury chest of the Hamburg lodge of masons, which reverted to Vienna, together with the Brother- book, aftei the death of the last Steinmetz, Wittgreff. These verses run as follows: I. “ The square possesses science enough, But use it always with propriety. II. “ The level teaches the true faith; Therefore is it to be treasured. III. “ Justice and the compass’ science — It boots naught to establish them. IV. “ The gauge is fine and scientific, And is used by great and small.” The versifiers, in the second and third rhymes more especially, clearly show us that they grasped the idea of an ethical symbolization of the implements of their handicraft; yet the question arises, whether this ought not rather to be taken as a proof of philosophical reflection on the pbrt of some individual members, than as indicative of a system of speculative philosophy having been co-existent with mediaeval stonemasonry ? 3 If such a system existed, why has it not survived ? and why are there no traces of it in the still existing lodges of the stonemasons ? Why, when Freemasonry was introduced from Eng- land, did no recognition take place of its previous existence in Germany? The reason is obvious. Stonemasonry, purely operative, had existed in Germany— Freemasonry, that is, 1 Stieglitz, Geschichte der Baukunst, p. 448. Schauberg, Veigleichendes Handbuch der Symbolik der Freimaurerei, vol. ii., p. 583. 3 K has been alread y shown that the masons enjoyed no monopoly of the symbolism of their trade. Mr. H. A. Giles (Freemasonry in China, p. 8) observes: “From time immemorial we find the square and compass used by Chinese writers to symbolize exactly the same phases of moral conduct as in our own system of Freemasonry.” THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 169 a speculative science — never ! The Steinmetzen may have claimed a few thoughtful, speculative members, and so, for that matter, might a society of coalhcavers; but it never concealed within the bosom of its operative fraternity any society which consciously and systematically practiced a speculative science. In view of the assertions so often made, that the stonemasons were in the habit of admitting into their fraternity the most learned men of the age, it is somewhat surprising to find no provision for this contingency in the Ordinances. Albertus Argentinus and Albertus Magnus are both claimed as masons. To the former is attributed the design for the towers of Strassburg Cathedral, and to the latter the plan of Cologne Cathedral, although some writers are inclined to consider them as one and the same person. This is the opinion of, amongst others, Heidelolf, who says, “the masons’ traditions connect Albertus Argen- tinus with the Cathedral of Strassburg, but he is probably Albertus Magnus, born 1193 or 1206, living in 1330 as a Benedictine monk in Strassburg, teacher of theology, philosophy, physics, and metaphysics.” 1 * If he really designed the plan of Cologne Cathedral, we can scarcely wonder at the masons desiring to claim him as a brother, but proof is, in such a case, of course, hardly to be expected. The Emperor, Frederick III. (1440-1493), is said to have been admitted to the fraternity, as shown in his WeiskunigS All this is not impossible, but there is nowhere any proof of, nor provision made for it. Nevertheless, we know that other crafts admitted honorary members; indeed, when the town government was divided amongst the craft guilds, it became necessary that every citizen should belong pro forma to one of them, and provision is very early made for this. In the charter, granted in 1260 by the Bishop of Bale to the tailors as already mentioned, we find this clause: “ The same conditions shall be submitted to by those who are not of this craft, and wish to join the society or brotherhood.” 3 We have thus examined the history of the stonemasons as revealed by their own docu- ments. M e have learned what they desired to be, what they claimed as their exclusive rights and privileges. We have seen that amongst other matters they asserted the right to vest in their own body the settlement of all disputes concerning Masonry, and evidently strove to render themselves totally independent of the laws of the realm or of the muni- cipalities where they resided. They intended, in fact, to form an imperium in imperio. But did they succeed? Emphatically No ! In troublous times they may have approached more or less closely to their ideal, but no sooner did the municipalities develop a strong executive government than they had to conform to the laws which affected the whole body of citizens. It may, however, be safely laid down that the actual status of the Steinmetzen has not yet been subjected to the test of historical criticism. Every writer up to the present time has been satisfied with the perusal of their own documents, and has sought no further. It is evident that the Ordinances already quoted tr'eat only of the duties of the mason as a member of the fraternity. If high morality is enjoined, it is only because it was conducive to their well-being; the State is not considered except in its power of aiding their purposes, and in Art. 45 it is very palpably threatened. But the mason was a dual personage — he was a stonemason, but he was also a citizen; and what does the State say of or to him ? The archives of the city of Cologne supply us with an answer. In 1862 was 1 Heideloff, Die Bauhutte des Mittelalters, p. 15. ■Ibid., p. 22. I have not been able to verify this, but Kloss (Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, p. 250) admits that the passages may bear this construction, although they do not prove it. 3 Berlepsch, Chronik der Gewerbe, vol. ii. , pp. 18, 19. i;o THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. published to the world 1 an account of a series of manuscripts relating to the Stemmetzen, dating from 1396 to the seventeenth century. In 1396, the patrician guild of Cologne was finally vanquished by the trade guilds, who then erected a complete municipality consist- ing 0 f their own delegates. 2 * * This was fully a hundred years later than in most cities. 1 lie resident stonemasons of course formed part of this municipality; but we find them clubbed together into one guild with the carpenters, tilers, boxmakers, crossbow-makers, and others. But we must not conclude from this that these crafts or fraternities amalgamated. It was only in their political aspect that they formed one guild. The twenty-two guilds chose thirty-six common councilmen, of which four belonged to the weavers, two each to the next eleven guilds, one of which was the Steinmetzen, and to the remaining ten one each. Already the municipality, i.e., the patricians, had fixed their rate of wages and levied fines upon them; and from henceforth although a part of the municipality, we find they were obliged to submit many of their proceedings to the judgment of the council. What, then, becomes of their boasted independence of all control ? a fact on which Fallou, Winzer, and others rely to such a wearisome extent. For instance, an undated Ordinance, which was confirmed on 6th July 1478, and, therefore, must have been drawn up still earlier, after forbidding certain offences, orders that in case of their being committed the mason should make good the fault at his own cost, spend fourteen days in one of the town towers (prisons), and be fined eighteen marks, one-third of which went to the common council, one-third to the treasurer of the exchequer, and one-tliird to the judge. Later on, the fine was divided into four parts and the master of the guild (not lodge) obtained his share. But, in or before 1483, their subjection to the municipality becomes still more glaringly evident; they are forbidden to erect any buildings for the clergy except with the consent of the coun- cil. 5 They are, therefore, no longer even at liberty to choose their own employers. And the document concludes, “ And that shall be sworn to every half-year, or at such other time as they take their oaths, equally with the other points of their oath.” On the 9th March 1491, it was agreed “ that the masons should keep to their craft and the painters to theirs, and neither encroach on the other, but it shall be allowed to be free of both crafts. ” 0 This is against the whole spirit of the Ordinances, and could only legally take place, according to stonemason’s law, if the individual had served his apprenticeship to both crafts, which would be taking a good slice out of his life. It is a most remarkable fact that throughout this roll of documents, no mention is made of the four martyrs, but that the guild of stonemasons and carpenters, who were always cited together, is repeatedly called the Fraternity of St. John the Baptist. This arose from their having originally held their headquarters at the Chapel of St. John m the cathedral square; but it also points to the possibility of their having only formed one fraternity. In 1561 (two years before the Strassburg Ordinances of 1563), the burgomaster and council of Cologne issued a charter of constitution to the stonemasons and carpenters, con- taining eighteen clauses, some of which were in direct conflict with the 1459 and 1563 Ordinances. Even if we admit that the craft first drew up the Ordinances and the council then confirmed them, as was probably the case, the importance of these contradictions is 1 Latomia, Quarterly Magazine (Leipsic, 1862), p. 193, etc. 2 Ibid., p. 196. The original charter constituting this municipality, with the seals of the guilds attached mav be seen in the British Museum. It is enclosed in a glass frame, and hangs on the inner wall of the King’s Library. p. 196 > liid V . m » Latomia, Quarterly Magazine (Leipsic, 1862), p. 203. I6td ” p. -07. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 171 none the less. Either way, it implies that the municipality was able to impose terms on the masons within its walls, subversive of the formally recognized Ordinances of the craft, which ordinances had even been approved and confirmed by the Emperor. Art. 1 fixes fourteen years as the age at which an apprentice may be bound, and he is to serve four years. The Ordinances require five. It also fixes his rate of pay, which the master is to charge to the employer. If he charges more, the master loses his “ Brother- hood ” but many recover it by a fine of 2 florins, half to the municipality, half to the mas- ter of the guild. So that the municipality even asserts its right to exclude a craftsman and to forbid him his craft. Art. 2 forbids a master to keep more than one apprentice, but at the expiration of half his term he may bind a second. The Ordinances allow three or five, as the case may be. Art. 4 provides for the exhibition of the masterpiece. Art. 5 and G determine the hours of labor and the rate of pay, differing in winter and summer, and also according to whether the fellow is working at his employer’s board or at his own. Art. 12 provides a fine for every day that the master is absent from his work, half to the craft, half to the municipality. The Ordinances, on the contrary, clearly enjoin that the employers shall cause him to be judged before the district master, and recognize the council’s authority in no way. From Art. 13, it is clear that strange masters and fellows were only to be employed when no citizens were to be had. This is a terrible blow at the universality of the fra- ternity ! Art. 14, besides placing great hindrances in the way of a craftsman who had learned his trade elsewhere and wished to exercise it at Cologne, makes the curious provision that no mason shall use oil color, which is to be left for the painters to employ. Art. 15 provides that if a master or fellow execute a work in such a manner as to raise discord amongst the workmen, he shall sit in the tower for one month, eat bread and water, and be heavily fined. According to the Ordinances, such a case ought to be tried and punished by the craft, and would be almost important enough to be carried to Strassburg itself; they certainly do not contemplate having it decided by the Town Council. Art. 1G is very strong. If the Town Council require to erect a building, and summon thereto any master or fellows, they are at once to comply, “ because we, the council, are the chief authority which grants all trade charters, and we shall even be allowed, if we think fit, to employ strange masters and fellows ” (that is, non-citizens — a privilege which was not granted to a resident master). And, finally, Art. 18 provides that the masters shall swear to observe this code once a year before the burgomaster and council, and to cause it to be read to and observed by their craftsmen. On the 12th September 1G08, these Articles were confirmed, but the rate of pay of masters, fellows, and apprentices was raised. The perfect apprentice was also required to remain with his former master as journeyman for two years, unless he wished to travel. This code of rules was in force till at the least 1760; it having been cited as late as that year in the various magisterial proceedings. 1 It was therefore drawn up between the first Ordinances of 1459 and the latter of 1563, and regulated the trade of the stonemasons, carpenters, etc., up to a very recent period. 1 Latomia, Quarterly Magazine (Leipsic, 1863), p. 319. 172 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. What conclusion is to be drawn from these conflicting laws ? It is evident that in Cologne, at least as early as 1478, the regulations of the craft were subordinate to those of the council; and we may assume that this was the case even earlier in other cities, as Cologne was one of the latest to wrest its complete independence from the patrician guild. The stonemasons themselves acknowledge their limited power in the preamble of the 14G2 Ordi- nances — “ And when the Lords will not have it so, then shall it not be so; ” and in Art. I. (1563), — “ Then may those who are of our craft, being in a majority, alter such Articles according to the times and the necessities of the land, and the course of affairs. ” The Ordinances therefore assume a new form to our eyes; they are no longer the picture of what was universal, hut of what to the stonemasons was desirable. They already felt their power, importance, and independence as a corporation slipping away from them, with the increase of order and civilization, and strove to prop the edifice by forging extra bonds of union; and in the hope of success obtained confirmations of their Ordinances from the Emperors, thus opposing the imperial to the local authority. But the free towns of Ger- many, although willing enough to support the Emperor against the clergy or nobility, were too strong to be overawed by any imperial edict, where it clashed with their own interests. These confirmations were numerous. The first, apparently, was that of Frederick III. at Ratisbon, a.d. 1459; reconfirmed by all his successors. Maximilian I., . . . Strassburg, . . 3d October 1498. Charles V., . . Barcelona, . . 15th April 1538. Ferdinand I., . . . Innspruck, . . 15tli March 1563. Maximilian II., . . . Prague, . . . 18th April 1570. Rudolph II., . . Pressburg, . . 3d March 1578. Matthew, . . Ratisbon, 1613. Ferdinand II., . . . Vienna, . , . 16th September 1621- Ferdinand III., . . Ebersdorf, . . 30th July 1644. Leopold, . . , Pressburg, . . 1st September 1662. Joseph, . . Vienna, . . 12th October 1708. Charles VI., . . Vienna, . . . 13th October 1713. 1 The confirmation of Frederick III. in 1459 I have been unable to verify, but Heideloff and other writers give either the full text or extracts from many of the others. They bear a strong family likeness, and generally recite that having been requested by the masters and fellows of the stonemasons to confirm their Ordinances, and having perused the Brother- book, which provides as follows, . \ . \ “ we do confirm,” etc. But the curious fact is, that the recital of the Brother-book contained in the confirmations does not agree with the Brother-book itself, inasmuch as only the articles referring to the service of God, and a few referring to trade, are quoted; those showing an intention of exerting a trade union coercion, or which attempt to replace the laws of the land by the tribunal of the masters, are omitted. And this is the support upon which the stonemasons relied, and which they obtained. Kloss, indeed, who points this out, 2 does not scruple to declare that the Emperor Maximilian confirmed something quite different to what was written in the Brother-book, and that he was probably under an impression that the fraternity was only formed for pious purposes, and certainly not for the exercise of a system of trade compulsion. 1 This list is from Heideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 21. 2 Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, p. 259, etc. 172 THE STONEMASONS OE GERMANY. What conclusion is to be drawn from these conflicting laws? It is evident that :v Cologne, at least as early as 1478, the regulations of the craft were subordinate to those of the council; and we may assume that this was the case even earlier in other cities, as Cologne was one of the latest to wrest, its complete independence from the patrician guild. 4 I- stonemasons themselves acknowledge their limited power in the preamble of the 1402 Ord- nances — “ And when the Lords will not have it so, then shall it not be so ; and m Art. T. (1563), — Then may those who are of our craft, being in a majority, alter such Articles according to the times and the necessities of the land, and the course of affairs.” The, Ordinances therefore assume a new form to our eyes; they arc no longer Mu- picture of wha; was universal, hut of what to the stonemasons was desirable. They already felt then- power, importance, and independence as a corporation slipping away from idem, with the increase of order and civilization, and strove to prop the edifice by forging •. ra bonds < • union; and in the hope of success obtained confirmations of their Ordinances from the Emperors, thus opposing the imperial to the local authority. But- the free towns of Ger- many, although willing enough to support, the Emperor again a the :i« ! gy or m nlity, were too strong to he overawed by any imperial edict, where it clii.--.-i ■ bn »r own in to re -1 s. These confirmations wore numerous. The first, apparently, w is p-m •. : ; • -or cl ! O .-o.. Ratisbon; a.d. 1459; reconfirmed' by all bis successors. Maximilian I.', . . . Strassburg, Charles' Y. , . . Barcelona, Ferdinand I. , . . . Innspruck, Maximilian XL, . . . Prague, . . -• h April 1570. Rudolph II., . . Pressburg, . . 3d March 1578. Matthew, . . llatisbon. 16 3. Ferdinand II., . . . Vienna, . . . 16th September 1621- Ferdinand III., , . Ebersdorf, . . 30th July 1644. Leopold, . . Pressburg, . . 1st September 1662. Joseph, : . . Vienna, .. . . 12th October 1708. Charles VI., . . Vienna, . h'-th 'October 1713/ The confirmation of Frederick TIL in 1459 I have been unable to verify, but Heideloff and other writers give either the full text or extracts from many of the others. They bear a strong family likeness, and generally recite that having been requested by the masters and fellows of the stonemasons to confirm their Ordinances, and having perused tho brother- book, which provides as follows, . \ . \ “ we do confirm,” etc. But the curiousTact is, that -the recital of .the Brother-book contained in the confirmations does not agree with the Brother-book itself, inasmuch as only the articles referring to the service of God, and. a few referring to trade, are quoted; those showing an intention of exerting a trade union coercion, or which attempt to replace the laws of the land by the tribunal of the masters, are omitted. And this is the support upon which the stonemasons relied, and which they obtained. Kloss, indeed, who points this out, 3 does not scruple' to declare that the Emperor Maximilian confirmed something quite different to what was written in the Brother-book, and that he was probably under an impression that the fraternity was only formed for pious purposes, and certainly not for the exercise of a system of tra'de compulsion. ••This list is from Heideloff, Die Bauhutle dos Mittelalters, p. 21. . * Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wuhreu Bedeutung, p. 250, etc. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 173 We may therefore conclude, that the chief lodge, the fraternity, and the Ordinances were all the direct result of the decline of the craft, which decline may he attributable to the fact that the chief cathedrals were already finished, and that those in course of con- struction were being slowly prosecuted, and in some cases temporarily abandoned. Many are even yet incomplete, and the grandest of all, that of Cologne, has only been perfected within the last few years. Work was becoming scarce, ordinary masons were acquiring the technical skill of the Steinmetzen and had gradually usurped many of their functions; whilst to crown their ill-luck came the Reformation and the Thirty Years war. the all- embracing bond so lately forged became of little avail, because in few places could a lodge be formed, and in these only a small one. The masons were thrown upon civil employ- ment, that is, the adornment of the private houses of rich citizens; their work became subordinate and supplementary to that of the ordinary builder. Under these circum- stances the number of small masters established on their own account, and employing each a few journeymen, would sensibly increase. The highest class of workmen, no longer employed in carving images for the niches of the cathedrals, would develop into artist sculptors, who, if they belonged to any guild, would join one of which we now begin to hear for the first time— that of the statue makers; and thus, the fraternity being more and more subdivided and bereft of its most skilful members, gradually assumed a form closely resembling that of the other craft guilds. We may perhaps legitimately assume that the masters, finding themselves in an inconvenient majority, adopted a common precedent, and gradually withdrew from the meetings of the craftsmen. If we also take into consid- eration the invention of printing, and the resulting increase of knowledge, enabling an architect to study elsewhere than in the lodge, all the materials are present for a practical dissolution of the fraternity as we have learned to know it. The scattered remnants of the stonemasons found themselves insufficient to maintain a separate existence, and amalgamated in general with cognate crafts, such as the masons and bricklayers, the carpenters, the smiths, etc. These joint fraternities had meetings in common, and a common treasury; but maintained, possibly, separate ceremonies of affilia- tion and legitimation. At this period must have arisen the two descriptions of masons now or lately existing in the Fatherland, viz. , Grussinccurer or salute-masons, and Briefmaurer or letter-masons; the former probably the descendants of the stonemasons, who on their travels still make use of a variation of the old greeting in order to legitimize themselves; whilst the latter, the descendants of the rough masons, merely produce as credentials their demit pass or diploma. It is impossible to fix the precise moment at which the fusions commenced, without a more protracted search than the importance of the matter would warrant; but they began very shortly after the publication of the Brother-book in 1563. For instance, in 1602, we find the masons and stonemasons amalgamating in Dresden, and obtaining a code of Ordinances from their prince, 1 and a like occurred at Vienna in 163 *. We have already seen that to some extent this had taken place much earlier in C ologne, where indeed the operations at the cathedral were carried on very fitfully. As an example of the ultimate degradation of the stonemasons, a statute of the kingdom of Wurtemberg may be usefully quoted — “ No stonemason, joiner, or other craftsman shall carve gravestones, coats of arms, faces, stagheads, and such like image-makers’ work; nevertheless the joiners may execute carvings for their own work, and the stonemasons may smooth tombstones, 1 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 343. 2 Heideloff, Die Bauhiitte des Mittelalters, p. 86. 174 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. together with the inscriptions thereon.” 1 Yet regular lodges undoubtedly continued to exist in various parts of Germany, chiefly in the neighborhood of the cathedrals, which furnished constant employment for small numbers, and of the quarries, for instance, at Rochlitz. But the greatest blow of all to the German fraternity was the capture of Strass- burg by the French a.d. 1681. In consequence of this event it became a matter of policy witli the German Emperors to break the dependence on Strassburg of the German lodges, and measures were taken for that purpose. A decade previously, viz. on the 12th August 1671, the Diet had passed a resolution that the supreme authority of Strassburg over the stonemasons of Germany was injudicious, and should not be allowed; 2 and subsequent events induced the Emperor to give effect to this resolution on 16th March 1707 at Ra- tisbon, when the supremacy of Strassburg was finally abolished. This statute was again confirmed on the 13th May 1727. 3 Nevertheless, in 1725, the Rochlitz lodge still acknowl- edged the authority of Strassburg, by requesting a copy of the Brother-book and by paying its annual tribute; and as late as 1760 Strassburg claimed this tribute, as is proved by letters found in the Rochlitz chest, but with what success is not known. 4 It may well have been that this gave rise to the demand of the Saxon government for a revision of the Rochlitz mason’s code in 1766. 6 Again, the entries of the Frankfort lodge, at the end of the 1563 Brother-book, extend to 29th October 1804; so that well into this century the fraternity maintained many of its forms and usages, although nearly a century before the very existence of a craft guild was in itself an illegality. We have seen that the Ordinances were designed to ensure a control over all trade matters; and to such an extent had this been carried, that the fraternities had become a serious annoyance to the State. Their restric- tions as regards birth were monstrous; their practice of taking a holiday on Mondays was, to say the least, inconvenient; if a traveller made a small verbal error in delivering the greeting, he was sent back to his former residence to learn better; and strikes for any or for no reason had become an everyday occurrence. Some of these strikes were not con- fined to one town, but extended to large tracts of country; and the celebrated strike of the Augsburg shoemakers even led to bloodshed, the journeymen retiring in a body to a neighboring village and reviling the masters throughout Germany. 6 This strike, in con- junction with the before-quoted abuses, was the immediate cause of the Edict of 16th August 1731. This Imperial Edict prohibited all affiliation ceremonies, all restrictions as to birth, all carrying of weapons or swords, Blue Mondays, and greetings. No difference was in future to be made between the salute and the letter mason, all brotherhoods of journeymen were forbidden, and lastly, all oaths of secrecy were not only forbidden, but existing vows were cancelled. 7 Thus the very existence of a craft brotherhood became illegal; but in view of the persistency with which the lower classes maintain their customs, we need feel no surprise if these usages continued in practice for more than a century after- ward. This last decree had already been proposed in 1671, and was once more confirmed on the 30th April 1772. 8 That some of these fraternities existed within the memory of the present generation is 1 Jos. Fr. Ch. Weisser, Das Recht der Handwerker, p. 279. 2 Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ilirer wahren Bedeutung, p. 256. 3 Kloss (pp. 265-267) gives full extracts from these documents. 4 Stieglitz, Ueber die Kirche der Heilige Kunigunde, p. 24. 5 Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, p. 257. 6 Berlepsch, Chronilc der Gewerbe, vol. iv., pp. 142-153. ''Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, pp. 267-269. 8 Ibid., p. 256. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 175 vouched for by Kloss 1 and others. It is probable that at the present day they are not utterly extinct, and in some cases they may even have formed the foundation of the existing trades unions of Germany; but we need not inquire into this matter, as it is foreign to our purpose, and although interesting, would require very patient research. It is, however, obvious that the Ordinances contain the germ of every regulation of the trades unions of to-day. One or two traditions of the craft remain to be noticed. At p. 146 of Steinbrenner’s work, 2 we find an examination of a travelling salute-mason. Fallon seems to have been the first to attach any great importance to this catechism, which he declares to be still in use on the seaboard of North Germany; and he professes to find in it a great resemblance to the examination of an entered apprentice free mason, and a clear proof of the early ex- istence in Germany of speculative masonry. Steinbrenner goes even further, and claims that it was used by the stonemasons of the Middle Ages. Here he is clearly in error, as no other writer, not even Fallou, claims for it any great antiquity, but all cite the catechism as tending to prove the former existence of something more to the purpose. Fallou no donbt got it from Krause or Stock; but it seems to have been first published in 1S03 by Schneider in his “ Book of Constitutions for the lodge at Altenburg,” from which Stock owns to having copied it; so that its very existence is not above suspicion, at least in this exact form, as Schneider says, “ he has discovered the secrets of these masons with great difficulty,” and he may not have obtained a veritable transcription of their “ examination.” Beyond the fact that it consists of question and answer, there is very little that I need comment upon in this chapter, the more especially as this so-called “ examination” will be again discussed at a later period. I shall now proceed to give a few extracts: “ What was the name of the first mason? “ Anton Hieronymus [Adon-Hiram?], and the working tool was invented by Walkan” [Tubal Cain?]. In regard to these expressions, the two pillars previously referred to sufficiently attest that the masons were conversant with the architectural details of the Holy Writings; and there is nothing to excite our surprise in their claiming Adon-Hiram as a brother, or in their affirming that the first artificer in metals designed the implements of their handi- craft. Fallou lays great stress on the following: Q. What dost thou carry under thy hat? A. A laudable wisdom. Q. What dost thou carry under thy tongue? A. A praiseworthy truth. Q. What is the strength of the craft? A. That which fire and water cannot destroy. And he explains the substitution of truth for beauty, by the fact (sic) that beauty is no longer a part of a mason’s art. 3 But even if we were to concede this (which I am far from doing), we should only arrive at the simple conclusion which has already been forced upon us, that the stonemasons, like all other guild-members, were fond of symbolism and allegory. The most interesting part of this catechism is the tradition contained in the following dialogue: “ Where was the worshipful craft of masons first instituted in Germany?” 1 Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in Hirer wahren Bedeutung, p. 257. 2 Also Findel, p. 660. 3 Fallou, Mysterien der Freimaurer, p. 366. 176 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. ‘‘At the Cathedral of Magdeburg, under the Emperor Charles II., in the year 876.” From this we may reasonably conclude, that the tradition amongst the stonemasons ran to the effect that their craft guild took its rise at the building of Magdeburg Cathedral. The inner fraternity, as we know, only originated in 1459. But the earlier date (876) is undoubtedly an anachronism. The first cathedral was built in the tenth century, its suc- cessor in the twelfth, whilst Charles (the second of Germany, the third of France, surnamed Le Gros ) was deposed in the year 887! Putting the Emperor’s name on one side, the date first in order of time (876) will coincide fairly well with the incipience of the German craft guilds, and the second with that of the culminating point in their history. The whole matter is, of course, merely legendary, and of no great importance in an historical study. Another tradition, which is constantly cited, appears to have been first published in 1617 by Schadeus in his description of Strassburg Cathedral. 1 It runs to the effect that the cathedral, being completed in 1275, the tower was begun in 1277 by the famous architect Erwin of Steinbach, and that his daughter Sabina, being a skilful mason, carved the porch. "Why Fort (p. 81) speaks of the “ undoubted authenticity” of this tale it is difficult to con- jecture. Assertion does not merge into demonstration by the mere fact of constant repeti- tion. YV ithout caring, however, to deny its possibility, I certainly should not like to main- tain its probability. Stieglitz’s “ argument that women were admitted to membership in the majority of the mediaeval guilds is quite valueless. Membership of a guild did not carry with it the right of being apprenticed, although it implied that a female member might share in all its benefits, pious and pecuniary, and in the event of her husband’s death (he being a master) might carry on his trade. But this was easily done with the help of a man- aging journeymen, and we know that provision was made for his promptly acquiring the master’s right by marrying such a widow. From the records that are accessible, we find no evidence that the stonemasons ever contemplated the contingency of female membership. Apprenticeship and travel were essentials, and of these ordeals, though the fortitude of a determined woman might have sustained her throughout the labors of the former, it is scarcely to be conceived that a member of the gentler sex could have endured the perils and privations of the latter. 3 A remarkable tradition appears to have been prevalent, from the earliest times, viz., that the stonemasons had obtained extensive privileges from the popes. Heideloff gives, amongst the confirmations of the Emperors already cited, two papal bulls, viz., from Pope Alexander VI., Rome, 16tli September 1502. Pope Leo X., pridie calendarium Januarii 1517. lie also says, 4 that they received an indulgence from Pope Nicholas III., which was re- newed by all his successors up to Benedict XII., covering the period from 1277 to 1334. He confesses, however, that he could never obtain one of these documents for perusal. The Strassburg lodge in its quarrel with the Annaberg lodge (1518-1521), besides relying upon the confirmations of the Emperors, also alludes to the authority granted it by the 1 K. C. F. Krause, Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden der Freimaurer Bruderschaft, 2d edit., vol. ii., part ii., p. 241. 2 Stieglitz, Geschicbte der Baukimst, p. 573. °lt should be stated, however, that in London a woman was admitted to the “ freedome ” of the Carpenters’ Company in 1679, “haveing served her Mistres a terme of seaven years.” In another portion of this work (“ Old Charges of British Freemasons,” No. 25) the subject of female member- ship is treated more fully. 4 Heideloff, Die Bauhutte des Mittelalters, p. 23. i/6 , THE STONEMASONS OF GERMAN Y. \U. the Cathedral of Magdeburg, under the Einperor Charles XL, in the year 876.” From this we may reasonably conclude, that the tradition amongst the stonemasons n-,\ to the effect that their craft guild took its rise at the building of Magdeburg Cathedr al.. The inner fraternity, as we know, only originated in 1459. But the earlier daie (876- i- undoubtedly an anachronism. The first cathedral was built in the tenth eoatuiy, its sue cessor in the twelfth, whilst Charles (the second of Germany, the third of France, surname'. Le G ros) was deposed in the year 887!' Putting the Emperor*- name on one side, the date first, in order of time (876) will coincide fairly well with the i, .< ipience of the Germse craft guilds, and the second with that of the culminating point in their history. The who]* matter is, of course, merely legendary, and of no great importance in an historical study. Another tradition, which is constantly cited, appears to have been first public lied '>*.■ 1617 by Schadeus in his description of Strassburg Cathedral. 1 It- runs to the * H \ bat th< cathedra], being completed in 1275, the tower was begun in 1277 bv the far * ■ FT : Erwin of Steinbach, and that his daughter Sabina, being a skilful - me per- . A\ r hy Fort (p. 81) speaks of the “ undoubted authenticity” of this Cl; . fit to jecture. Assertion does not merge into demonstration by the nv nan!: < tion. Without caring, however^ to deny its possibility, I certainly sb >uivi nut like fc • tain its probability. Stieglitz’s 2 argument that women were admitted to membr majority of -the mediaeval guilds is quite valueless. Membership of a guild dr with it the right of being apprenticed, although it implied that a female mer share in all its benefits, pious and ' pecuniary, and in the event of her husband - ; being a master) might carry on his trade. But this was easily done with the help of a : aging journeymen, and we know that provision was made for his promptly acquiring : , master’s right by marrying such a widow. From the records that are accessible, we find " > evidence that the stonemasons ever contemplated tbe contingency of female members! i Apprenticeship and travel were essentials, and of these ordeals*- though the fortitude oi determined woman might have sustained her throughout the labors of the former, it i scarcely to be conceived that a member of the gentler sex Could have endured the perils and privations of the Latter.- 3 A remarkable tradition appears to have been prevalent, from the earliest times, viz., that the stonemasons had obtained extensive privileges from the popes. Heideloff gives, amongst the confirmations of the Emperors already cited, two papal bulls, viz., from Pope Alexander VI., Rome, 16th September 1502. Pope Leo X., pridie calendar! um Januarii 1517. lie also says, 4 that they received an indulgence from Pope^ .Nicholas III., which was re- newed by all Lis successors up to Benedict XT!., covering the period from 1277 to 1334. lie confesses, however, that he could never btain one of these documents for perusal. The Strassburg lodge in its quarrel With the Annaberg lodge (1518-1521), besides relying upon the confirmations of the Emperors, also alludes to the authority granted it by the 1 K. C. F. Krause, Die drei Aeltesten Kunsturkunden del* Freimaurer Bruderschaft, 2d edit., voi. ii. , part ii. , p. 241. * Stieglitz, Gesehichte der Baukunst, p. 573. 3 It should be stated, however, that in London a woman was admitted to the “freedome” of the Carpenters Company in 1679, “ haveing- served her Mistres a terme of Heaven years,” In another portion of ibis work (“ Old Charges oi British Freemasons,” No. 25) the sub ject of female member- ship. is treated more fully. * Heideloff, Die Bauhutte des Mittelalters, p. 23. MEDIAEVAL ARCHITECTURE IN GERMANY. For tradition connected with this building, and of interest to all Master Masons,- see Appendix to this work. THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 1 77 papal bulls, so that we find this tradition (if such it be) in force very early. Kloss and Krause have both made strenuous efforts to discover these bulls. It is well known that Gov- ernor Pownall, in 1773, was allowed to make a careful search in the archives of the Vatican, which was fruitless in its result, although he was rendered every possible assistance by the pope himself. 1 Krause searched the Bullarium Magnum Romae in vain; and Kl oss, the Bullarium Magnum Luxemburgi 2 with a similar want of sucesss. But whether or not the tradition rests on any solid foundation, it is certain that the Church, by holding out from time to time special inducements, sought to attract both funds and labor for the erection of its splendid cathedrals; and some of these tempting offers were not quite consistent with strict morality. For instance, there is a document which Lacomblet states was signed on the 1st April 1279 by Archbishop Sifrid of Cologne, promising full absolution to all who shall, for the furthering of the cathedral building operations, present to him any wrong- fully acquired goods. 3 Pope Innocent IV., on the 21st May 1248, issued a bull promising indulgence to all “ who shall contribute to the restoration of the Cathedral at Cologne, re- cently destroyed by fire.” 4 This does not quite amount to granting privileges to the stone- masons, but comes somewhat near it. It is, however, only fair to add, that of this latter document no original appears to be extant, the only copy of it being in Gelenas manuscript, de admir. magnit. Colonise, p. 231. 6 The general conclusions to which we are led by the foregoing inquiry may be thus briefly summarized: 1. The cradle of German architectural skill is to be found in the convents, and not in the organization of the Steinmetz guild. 2. This organization had its origin in the craft guilds of the cities. 3. About the twelfth century the convent and the craft builders imperceptibly amalga- mated and formed the guilds of the Steinmetzen. 4. These guilds differed only from other guilds in never having split into separate fraternities for masters and journeymen. 5. In 1459, they constituted themselves into one all-embracing fraternity, with its perpetual head at Strassburg. 6. The Steinmetzen were not singular in possessing a general bond of union, although their system of centralization has received greater notice than those of other fraternities. 7. As in all other guilds there was in use a secret method of communication, consisting of a form of greeting. 8. It is possible that there was a grip, in the possession of which the Steinmetzen may have differed slightly from the other crafts. 9. There is not the slightest proof or indication of a word, and the existence of a sign is very doubtful. 10. There was no initiation ceremony. 11. There was possibly, but not probably, a ceremony at affiliation. 12. The symbolism did not go further than that of other craft guilds. 13. There is not the least trace of a speculative science. 14. The admission of honorary members is very doubtful. 1 Archaeologie, vol. ix., p. 125. 2 Kloss, Die Freimauerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung, p. 236. 3 Lacomblet, Urkundenbuch fur Geschichte des Nieder Rheins, vol. ii., p. 429. 4 Ibid., vol. ii. , p. 173. 5 Ibid. , vol. ii., p. xviii. 178 THE STONEMASONS OF GERMANY. 15. The independence of State control was attempted but never established. 16. The Ordinances of the Steinmetzen, and their institution of a fraternity , were de- signed to prolong their corporate existence by bringing into play a machinery analogous to that of a modern trades union. 17. The confirmations of the Emperors were fraudulently obtained. 18. Whether privileges were granted by the popes remains undecided. 19. Although the Steinmetzen preserved a continuous existence until within living memory. Freemasonry, on its introduction into Germany from England in the last century, was not recognized as having any connection with them, although in outward forms there were many points of resemblance between the usages of the German Stonemasons and of the English Freemasons . 1 ■ The Abbe Grandidier (a non-mason) in 1778, or the following year, first broached the theory of there being' an historical connection between the “Freemasons” and the “Steinmetzen,” although Freemasonry in its present form had penetrated into Germany from England nearly half a century previously. THE CRAFT GUILDS OF FRANCE. 179 CHAPTER IV. THE CRAFT GUILDS ( COBPS HE TAT) OF FRANCE. I T is somewhat remarkable that French Masonic writers have not been tempted to seek the origin of the institution in their own past history, and in the traditions and usages of their own land. German authors, from Fallou onwards, have seized upon every trifling circumstance, every chance coincidence, tending to show a German origin of Freemasonry, and when a link was wanting in the chain of evidence, have not scrupled either to forge one, even to the extent of inventing ceremonies, 1 or to placidly accept, without inquiry, the audacious inventions of their predecessors. And yet, by judicious combination of the French trade guilds with that of the Companionage," 1 a much better case might he made out than the Steinmetz theory, requiring for its complete establishment no deliberate falsification of history, as in the former instances, but only a slight amount of faith in some very plausible conclusions, and natural deductions from undoubted facts. A glimmering of this possi- bility does occasionally manifest itself. An anonymous pamphlet of 1848 casually remarks, — “ Let us point out the community of origin which unites the societies of the Companion- age with that of the Freemasons.” 3 Another writer says, — “ The moment we begin to re- flect, we are quickly led in studying the facts to the conclusion that the Companionage and Freemasonry have one common origin.” 4 Many other French writers, and one English one, 5 make similar allusions, but without attaching any importance to the subject, or pro- ceeding any further with it; treating, in fact, the journeymen societies of France as a species of poor relations of the Freemasons — as somewhat disreputable hangers-on to the skirts of Freemasonry. Two French authors are more explicit. Tliory, writing many years before those quoted above, gives a very slight sketch of the Companionage, and re- marks, “ some authors have maintained that the coteries of working masons gave rise to the order of Freemasons.” 6 Unfortunately, he affords no clue to the identity of these authors, and I have been unable to trace them. Besuchet 7 observes that in 1729 the prevailing opinion in France was, that “ England only restored to her what she had already borrowed, 1 Ante, p. 151. 2 Compagnonnage. This word has no English equivalent, and I have therefore coined one. See next chapter. 3 Les Compagnons du Devoir, p. 7. 4 C. G. Simon Etude Historique et Morale sur le Compagnonage. 5 C. W. Heckethorn, The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries, vol. ii., p. 63. 6 C. A. Thory, Acta Latomorum, p. 301. 1 J. C. Besuchet, Precis Historique de l’Ordre de la Franc-magonnerie, p. 5. i Bo THE CRAFT GUILDS OF FRANCE . inasmuch, as it is probable, according to a mass of authorities and traditions, that Free- masonry, in its three first or symbolic degrees, is of French origin/' Besuchet then also lets the matter drop; and nowhere have I met with any serious attempt to examine the craft guilds of France from a Masonic point of view. Although French historians could undoubtedly have made out a good and plausible case if they had wished to do so, it is not by any means probable that their theory would have been unassailable. The object of this and the next chapters is to place the known facts fairly before the reader; to trace the craft guilds of France (as nearly as may be) from their infancy to their final abolition by the States General during the first Revolution; and to record all that I have been able to learn with reference to the Companionage. In any attempt to follow the rise and progress of the craft guilds of France it is con- stantly necessary to bear in mind that, until comparatively recent times, France never was a homogeneous state, and that a theory relating to one portion of that country might re- quire many modifications before being applicable to another. Cassar certainly found it divided into three very distinct nationalities, which he distinguished as Gallia Belgica, Gallia Aquitania, and Gallia Propria or Celtica. The Aquitani, it is supposed, were of African origin, and came from Spain; the Belgae were Teutons, and their language and customs were Gothic; and the Celts (called by the Romans Galli) were the original inhabi- tants, whose descendants are now found in Galicia and Brittany. There can be no donbt that the manners and customs of these races were very distinct, and even Roman civiliza- tion failed to affect them all alike. Later on we find the Celts themselves divided into three classes: Galli Comati, because they wore long hair; Galli Braccati, because they donned breeches; and Galli Togati, because they had adopted the Roman toga. But that Roman civilization did obtain a very deep and lasting hold on all classes, is evident from the fact, that in spite of the ultimate subjugation of the country by the German tribes, all the dialects and languages which were at different times and places known and used have merged into a derivative of the Latin tongue, and that few traces of them remain except in Brittany. Nor is this of recent date: a few Gothic chronicles exist of the time of the Carlovingian dynasty; but even then the idiom of the people must have been Roman, as immediately afterward we find the Gothic vernacular has disappeared, and see France broadly divided into Langue d’ Oc and Langue d’ Oni, both being corruptions of the Latin — the one bearing a greater affinity to the Spanish, and the other to the French of the present day. Although the Langue d’Oui ultimately conquered, as is natural, seeing that it was the idiom of Paris and the court, yet the distinction was maintained till well within the sixteenth century, and municipal documents of the previous century were in the south of France still written in the Provencal tongue. The colonies of the Greeks on the Mediterranean coast, for instance, Marseilles, 600 B.C., cannot be quite excluded from consideration in viewing the subsequent influence of political events on the institutions of Gaul. Roman civilization had obtained a firm footing throughout the country for ages before the first invasions of the barbarians. Constantine the Great (306-336) divided it into sev- enteen provinces, six of which were consular, and eleven under presidents who resided in the capital cities. Many districts were then and previously celebrated for the very products which now constitute their staple industries; and at the present day splendid ruins still testify to the opulence of their citizens. During the latter part of the fourth century the invasion of Gallic territory by the THE CRAFT GUILDS OF FRANCE. 1 8 1 Germans became of constant occurrence; but the tribes did not succeed in effecting at any- time a permanent footing. On the last day of the year 405, however, the Rhine was crossed by a host of barbarians — Alans, Suevians, Vandals, and Burgundians — who never retraced their steps, but passing through the country like an avalanche, dispersed in Spain. Many of their warriors remained behind in France, chiefly in the southern parts, and settled in the country districts, having pillaged the cities en route, but by no means destroyed them. These barbarians soon became the allies of the Romans, and, from preserving their own usages and customs, including their dislike to a town life, only added one more ingredient to the complex materials of the Gallic structure. In 428 the Franks penetrated as far as the Somme, but were repulsed by Aetius. They ultimately settled in the country, chiefly in the north central provinces. The Visigoths also effected a settlement; but like all the others, submitted to a faint coating of civilization, and became the allies of the Romans. So much was this the case, that in 451 we find all these tribes, and more especially the Visigoths under Theodoric, uniting with the Gauls and Romans under Aetius, to confront the dread Attila at Orleans: they obliged him to raise the siege of that city, and on the plains of Ohalons-sur- Marne inflicted upon him the only check which the “ Scourge of God” ever received. From that date France proper suffered no fresh invasion of barbarians, except some additions of Franks to their brethren already domiciled in Gaul, and the subsequent incursions and partial conquests of the Normans some centuries later. The Franks who had thus become a part of the Gallic nation gradually grew in strength as the Roman Empire tottered to its fall, and declaring war upon the Roman governors of the soil, finally vanquished them. In 486 Chlodowig, King of the Salien Franks, defeated at Soissons, Siagrius, the last Roman governor of Gaul. Thus perished the Roman domination in France, but not necessarily the Roman civilization. 1 The conquerors had for three generations been neighbors and allies of Rome, although they had probably not conformed to any great extent with the Roman customs. They already looked upon the country as their home; many warriors must have been natives of it, and there would be no desire to utterly devastate it. The war was not one of ruthless extermination. The legions were driven out, but the cities remained. They were repeatedly pillaged by the victors, but they were not destroyed; the citizens were harassed, and doubtless many of them killed, but the basis of civilized life was untouched: the Teutons, true to their nature, retired to the country districts, leaving the cities to recover from their losses, and to accumulate fresh hoards which might serve as the spoil of some future foray. Having defeated the Romans, the Merovingian dynasty, or race of Clovis, proceeded to impose its authority on all the other tribes settled in Gaul ; and before the death of Childeric III., the last of the line, in 752 Gaul had become practically the kingdom of the Franks, or France; although, as must be evident, the inhabitants were by no means mainly Franks, but composed of representatives of all the tribes that had ever effected a settlement. In the cities the inhabitants had probably changed very little, and preserved their manners, customs, and language. If this were not so, at the present day the language of France would be some Teutonic dialect. The German conquerors avoided the towns. Even Paris, which became the capital of the Merovingian (and all succeeding) kings, was seldom in- 1 Dr. Chepmell says: “The barbarians commonly allowed their conquered subjects to retain the Roman or civil law; but they themselves were only hound by their own unwritten customs, which grew up into what was called the common law” (A Short Course of History, 2d series, 1857, vol. i., p. 156). 182 THE CRAFT GUILDS OF FRANCE. habited by them, which is evident from a perusal of the monkish chronicles of the Lime, so ably reproduced by Aug. Thierry. 1 These chronicles contain the account of the kings and nobles of the first race, their wives and concubines, their wars and treaties; and the kings are constantly represented as living on their large farms. The cities thus left to themselves appear, on the departure of their Roman governors, to have immediately formed a species of republican government. The materials were all there, and only required re-arrangement. A large part of the police of the provinces had always been entrusted by the Romans to the citizens, although everything remained subservient to the governor. On his disappearance, it was simply necessary to place the executive authority in the hands of those who already exercised it as his lieutenants. The priests and bishops naturally took a prominent part in this new system, which was probably based upon the trade organization of the Romans. Those colleges, which consisted of more than one trade, appear to have split up into their several component parts, and their elected officers to have formed, together with the heads of the clergy, a municipal council. As they already exercised the petty police of the towns, they now added to their duties magis- terial functions, and the imperial prerogative of levying taxes. It is evident, from all documents that have come down to us, that the cities of France, up to the time of Char- lemagne, were veritable republics; and also that the divisions into craft guilds existed from very early times. To reproduce all the testimony on this point would be an endless labor: a few quotations from careful writers and authentic documents must therefore suffice. “ In 406 the Alans, Suevians, Vandals, and Burgundians overran Gaul from north to south, yet in 437 Amiens had quite recovered, and was a considerable town.” 2 “ It was more especially in the south and in the cities that the traditions of the past w r ere perpetuated. The country districts had been invaded by the men and usages of Germany, but the cities, a sojourn in which was avoided by the barbarians, preserved their Roman populations, and even a portion of their ancient civil and political institutions. In 462 the games in the circus were still celebrated at Arles.” 3 “ In the fifth century the history of the holy hermit Ampelius, who lived at Cimeez, mentions the consul or chief of the locksmiths. ” 4 “ Alaric II., in 506, gave a code of laws for his Gallo-Roman subjects of Aquitain and Narbonne (Breviarum Alaricianum).” 6 “ In the year 585 Gontran visited Orleans; all the inhabitants came out to meet him, bearing their flags and banners.” 6 “ In 629 Dagobert established a fair in Paris for the merchants, foreigners as well as natives. It took place yearly on the 9th October, and lasted four weeks.” 7 “ The bakers are mentioned in the ordinances of Dagobert, 630.” 8 1 Aug. Thierry, Recits des Temps Merovingiens, 1840. 2 Aug. Thierry, Recueil des Monuments inedits de l’Histoire du Tiers Etat, 1850, p. iii. ; 'M, E. Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres en France, vol. i., p. 122. 4 Lacroix et Sere, Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance, vol. iii., Article “A. A. Monteil, Corporation des Metiers,” p. 4. 6 A. Thierry, Recits des Merovingiens, p. 241. Alaric II., King of the West Goths (484-507), waa a contemporary of Clovis, King of the Franks, by whom he was defeated and slain near Poitiers. 6 Levasseur, vol. i., p. 124. 7 Ibid., p. 153. 8 Lacroix et Sere, loc. cit. THE CRA FT G UILDS OF FRA NCE. \ 83 . of his blood, in commemoration of which they wear white ia curio its one. Literally it means one who devours, so that cm .. , , o , animals to which the Companions liken themselves, the u-. enough. But it is more than probable that this is an afi.t r. r ... - . suggests, the word was orginally devoirants, i.e., membe’ - . - , ,„**>» : Sons of Soubise also rejoiced in the name of devorants, but b t all the others in animal nomenclature. With them the appi becomes an abject slave, takes the significant title of rabbit (// .< , • v,,v . : dignified by being termed. a 'fox (renard), something. more valor. a sneaking, cowardly disposition. His superior, the Compan master in the craft, an apt) (singe), alluding, of course, to h • •• ... ' cunning, but also combining with this homage a large amour; m », ' apt to be engendered in rude minds when wisdom takes the pk< >• Consistent in a measure with their assumed types in the ana; : , .* ; which has obtained in some crafts of howling. This howling < maiiy instances, a part of their ceremonies, and to consist of an h n " l v • „ noise. Perdiguier says they also call it chanting, because they u • i& t words in such a manner that they themselves only can understate vl . ' W ally not go far astray if we assunie that these words formed on J . s y recognition. Of the primitive corps, the carpenters alone give n the stonemasons and then* immediate successors the joiners and kwk; ;* ' > - p- it. P»nt all the comparatively new corps — that is, those admitted *>• i....- • dheques and Soubise, howl without exception. It is possible that ' • , rl is custom as that winch produced the corruption of devoir an 1 .. nuv be a survival of an ancient observance wh ich will be present!} • ' • < Another peculiarity is, that the Companions, like the Freeman • ■- ' ■ : -he \-sm prefix “ Mr.” They do not, however, style each other “ Brother, . m ms* except the bare name they are a veritable fraternity; but substitute > hi p-,i ■ a or pays (country), adding by preference the Companion's nickname ■ : ^ pollution. The stonemasons of both families use the former, all •: - Hvsit Thus a stonemason, in addressing a fellow, would say, “ Coterie i. '■ i •• k k*- a joiner of Maitre Jacques, “Pays Pierre le Marseillais.” If the .• > know his fellow's name, coterie ox pays is used alone. One of the most curious, 'and certainly the most pernicious ■ . ..= u’ their customs, was the topcige. The original of the word tope, top!" A v. i- w wnd: . eided by historians -of the Companionage, hut Larousse, in h • - ’ . 1 ■ suggests that it is akin, to the. Spanish Topar* and he is no doubt -••• ; .1, ?<:n • of to-day the verb toper is seldom or never used; formerly it mean profess to record it, I do not remember to have 1 'met with the particular ^ \ • i text. 1 ‘‘ Ape ” is a common expression of dislike in the Latin countries. 1 in and. mono viejo, Le., “old ape,” represent, in France and Spain, the equivaw- - < .< . as employee) in England. . *Edw. K. Bensley’s Span. -Eng. Die. : Topdr — to run or strike against • - - -• -I in- to butt or strike with tin: head; to accept a bet at cards. The latter is tin y, . ui-/ •• • of the word; but the three former are quite reconcilable with the Companion : . , -r i t - r proof of the southern origin of this peculiar institution. SIR MICHAEL R. S HAW -STEW ART. BARONET. R. W: PAST GRAND MASTER MASON OF SCOTLAND. — THE COMPANION A GE. 225 acquire. Almost its sole use at the present time is to signify acceptance of a wager or propo- sition; thus je tope is equivalent to our “ done.” But the Companions use the word as a chal- lenge to mortal combat, and the custom of challenging takes the name of topage. All the different crafts “ tope,” with the exception of the Sons of Solomon, and even the stonemasons of this division occasionally tope with those of Jacques, but with none other. We will suppose two journeymen meeting on the highroad, and armed as usual with their long canes. As soon as they are within a few yards of each other they halt, take up a firm and defiant attitude, and the following colloquy ensues: “ Tope!” “ Tope!” “ Eh ! le pays ! Compagnon f ” “Yes; le pays. And you?” “ Companion also. What vocation ?” “ Carpenter, le pays. And you ?” “ Cord wain er! clear the road, stinking beast!” (passe au large, sale puant !) “You’re another!” (puant toi-meme !) They then fall to with hearty good will, and continue the combat till one or the other is powerless to impede the triumphal progress of his rival, who carries off his cane as a trophy of victory. When we consider with what formidable weapons they are armed, it is not surprising that these encounters often terminated fatally. These fights sometimes assume the proportions of pitched battles, inasmuch as large numbers are occasionally ranged on each side by mutual agreement. If the challenge should result in the two travellers declaring themselves of the same or of friendly crafts, they would then rush into each other’s arms, although they had never previously met, as if they were brothers long separated, giving reciprocally the guilbrette, 1 and otherwise expressing unbounded joy at the meeting. One would then turn back and accompany the other to the nearest tavern, and several hours would probably be consumed, and much liquor also. Some of the various causes of feud have already been noticed. The shoemakers especially were at enmity with all crafts, possibly on account of the lingering memory of their apostasy in 1645. The bakers also were not considered worthy of bearing the square and compasses. The stonemasons of the two devoirs were sworn foes — if they, by accident, worked at the same bridge, it was necessary to confine them to opposite sides of the river, which did not prevent their fighting as soon as they could join hands, unless one corps was withdrawn before the bridge was completed. In Paris, however, they con- trive to agree tolerably well. The carpenters who seceded from Soubise, and now claim to belong to Solomon, work in Paris solely on the left bank of the Seine, and their former brothers on the right. The weavers date only from 1775. Unable to obtain a charge, they ultimately found a joiner who had quarrelled with his society, and who, under the influence of good wine, sold them his devoir. Therefore, weavers and joiners are at open enmity. The silk weavers formed themselves into a Companionage in 1832, but without a properly conferred charge from any established society. They claim to belong to the sons of Maitre J acques, but, of course, unsuccessfully, and to their great personal discom- fort whenever they happen to be in a minority. Several other crafts also live in a complete state of isolation. It was the evil of the Companionage that Perdiguier tried to combat in his remarkable 15 1 A peculiar embrace, which will be explained further on. 226 THE CO MPA Nl ON A GE. Look, by showing the folly of these eternal feuds, and by substituting for the revolting and bloodthirsty songs then in vogue, others of a higher and purer tendency. A previous effort in the same direction, but on different lines, had already been attempted. In 1823, at Bordeaux, some aspirants of the joiners and locksmiths, 1 being disgusted at the tyranny to which they were subject, revolted, and instituted a new society, which should only con- sist of one degree, admit members of all crafts indiscriminately, and thus do away with all jealousies. They called it the Societe cV union, or “ Independents,” and, as others joined it, they were not without a certain influence. Perdiguier, whilst admitting their good intentions, nevertheless manifests the not unnatural regret of an old “ Companion” at the obliteration of the ancient landmarks or customs. He says, “they have no mystery, no initiation, no distinctions.” The houses of resort for the Companions were also their quarters on their travels. The Avliole society was to a certain extent responsible to the Mere for the expenses of any par- ticular member. It was here that the new comer received his welcome, and applied for work; it was here that on his departure he took a solemn yet jovial farewell of his fellows; it was here that he first was admitted to join the society; here that he entered into the serious questions of trade policy, or joined in the excitement of an annual dance. General assemblies of the craft were usually held on the first Sunday of every month; and other assemblies, as occasion might require, such as the departure of a brother. 1 At the banquets each member paid an equal sum, irrespective of the amount of his own con- sumption. The advantages to which a member was entitled were manifold. Upon his arrival in a city he was directed where to find employment. If destitute of funds, he obtained credit at his “mother’s.” If important matters called him away, and he had no money, the society would help him from town to town, until he arrived at his own village or destina- tion. In the event of sickness, each member would take it in turn to visit him, and to provide for his wants. In some societies, he is granted a sum of 10 sous per diem during the time he is in hospital, which amount is presented in a lump sum on his leaving. If he should be cast into prison for any offence not entailing disgrace, ho is assisted in every possible way, and if he dies the society pays for his funeral, and honors his memory by a special service a year afterwards. If a branch society falls into financial difficulties, the sister societies of neighboring cities assist it. In every society a fresh Rouleur is appointed every week. The duties of this official are very generous. lie welcomes the new arrivals, finds them work, and on their desiring to leave the town, sees that all their old scores are cleared off, and accompanies them to the gates of the town. lie also convokes the assemblies. With the Sons of Solomon, the embaucliage or manner of providing them with work is as follows: — The Rouleur introduces the journeyman to his new master, who advances 5 francs toward his future wages. This sum the Rouleur retains, expressing a hope that the journeyman will be careful to earn it. The master remains ignorant whether his work- man is a Companion or an aspirant. When several have been thus engaged, the Rouleur calls a meeting of the new arrivals, returns the money to each, with which they pay for a banquet, the Rouleur’s share being divided amongst them. If he prefers it, instead of one grand banquet, he may exact a light repast from each in turn. 1 Of the system of Maitre Jacques. 2 This word is occasionally used by Perdiguier. THE COMPANIONA GE. 227 'W ith the Sons of Maitres J acques and Soubise, the proceedings are somewhat different. The master advances 5 francs on the wages of a Companion, but only 3 on those of an aspirant. If the new arrival is a Companion, the Rouleur places 1 franc in the craft box; if an aspirant, he hands this franc back to him, as the aspirants have no share in the pecuni- ary benefits of the society. The remaining 4 francs are employed as above. Some crafts require an aspirant to pay 6 francs to the box the first time he is embauche in any town, but nothing on any future occasion. In these societies the aspirant also pays a monthly sub- scription to the fraternity, and he then becomes entitled to relief, although he is still debarred from joining the assemblies of the Companions. The Rouleur is bound to be present at all partings between master and man, and to take caie that their accounts are adjusted. lie then calls a special meeting, when the accounts between the society and the journeyman are likewise settled, also any obligations towards his fellow-workmen. On arriving at a fresh town, the society there always inquires of the branch at the last city in which he worked, whether the member had cleared off all scores. A master must not employ in one shop the members of two different societies. If he desires extra help, he applies to the 'premier Compagnon, who instructs his officer, the Rou- leur, to procure him the number of workmen required. 1 If he is dissatisfied with the members of one great division, he may discharge them all, and send in his request to the chiefs of another family. This, of course, can only apply to those trades in which allegiance is divided, viz., the stonemasons, joiners, locksmiths, and carpenters; and even then the master s option is very much reduced by the fact that if a society is once firmly established in a town, its rivals usually leave it a clear field, and refrain from setting up a fraternity of their own. If a master seriously offends the society, his shop is placed under interdict until he renders satisfaction; if his fellow masters support him, the whole town is banned. It is scarcely necessary to add that the journeymen usually carry the day. The earliest strikes I have met with are those of the bakers in 1579, for a rise in tvages, 2 and of the linen weavers of Rouen in 1091, against a reduction. 3 A still earlier one of the masons of Mont- pellier in 1493 has been mentioned in the preceding chapter. A Companion about to leave a city to resume his travels was honored with a convoy beyond the gates. I he leave-taking with his master was usually on a Saturday afternoon. The special assembly took place in the evening. On Sunday morning he treated his friends, and the convoy then started. All the members who are anxious to assist, decorate them- selves in full Companionage colors, and a band, or at least a fiddler, is commonly engaged, h ir st starts the Rouleur, carrying the knapsack or bundle of the traveller, then the premier Companion and the departing brother arm in arm, the others follow two and two, all of course armed with their long canes. Thus they pass through the gates, singing their Com- panionage songs, and having arrived at some distance from the town in a wood or other quiet place, “ a ceremony takes place, which differs according to the society.” Perdiguier is far too conscientious to describe this ceremony, but he adds, “they howl or not, as the case may be, but in all cases they drink ! ” In some London trades this system is still in force; for instance, with the matmakers. If a master is dissatisfied with a workman, he discharges him and applies to the Matmaker’s Union for a fresh hand, which they at once send him. If the discharged workman, however, can show his Union that he has been badly used, the master must trust to chance for fresh labor, as he will not receive any assistance from the society. Lacioix et here, Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance (1848-50), vol. iii. , Article, “ Monteil, Corpo- rations de Metiers, p. 20. a Ouin-Lacroix, Histoire des Anciennes Corporations, etc., p. 15. 228 THE COMPANIONAGE. Tliis is the regular convoy or Conduite en regie, but it sometimes gives rise to a false convoy ( fausse conduite). A hostile society, hearing that a convoy is about to take place, organizes a fictitious one. Following their antagonists, they so arrange as to meet them beyond the city on their return. A regular topage then ensues, and the subsequent pro- ceedings become somewhat lively. This way of spending a Sunday afternoon cannot be very highly commended. The Grenoble convoy ( Conduite de Grenoble ) is called into requisition when a Com- panion has disgraced himself or his society. In full assembly he is forced on his knees, the fellows standing round and drinking to his “eternal damnation in flowing cups. Meanwhile he is compelled to drink water until nature rebels and he is unable to imbibe any more, when it is poured over him in torrents. I he glass which he uses is bioken into fragments, his colors are torn from him and burned; the Rouleur then leads him by the hand round the room, each Companion bestowing a buffet, less to hurt him than as a sign of contempt, and the door being opened, he is finally led towards it. The concluding scene can only be decorously hinted at by comparing it with a verse of the “ Lay of St. Nicholas* ” 1 — “ And out of the doorway he flew like a shot, For a foot flew up with a terrible thwack, And caught the fovd demon about the spot Where his tail joins on to the small of his back.” Once a year each craft holds high festival. The proceedings commence with a special Mass, after which there is a grand assembly. Officers are elected foi the ensuing yeai, and the whole concludes with a banquet, followed by a dance, to which the Companions invite their sweethearts and friends. The members of friendly crafts are also invited. But the same distinctions are made as on ordinary occasions. The Companions hold their festivities apart, and suffer no intrusion from the aspirants. The aspirants have their own jollifica- tion, but are unable to exclude the Companions if any are inclined to take part. With the Sons of Solomon, however, the case is different. AVe have already seen that they only form one fraternity and hold joint meetings. Each society has its festival on the day of its patron saint, who is always supposed to have exercised that particular craft. Thus the carpenters celebrate St. Joseph, the joiners St. Anne, the locksmiths St. letci, the farriers the summer festival of St. Eloy, the smiths the winter St. Eloy, and the shoe- makers St. Crispin. The Stonemasons seem to form an exception, as they celebrated the Ascension. On the day following, a second dance is usually given, to which the masters and their families are invited. Their funeral ceremonies are peculiar. If a Companion dies his society undertakes all the expenses of his interment. The deceased is carried by four or six of his fellows, who change from time to time. On the coffin are placed two canes crossed, a square and com- passes interlaced, and the colors of the society. Each Companion wears a black crepe on his left arm and on his cane, and sports his colors. They march to the church, and thence to the cemetery in two lines, place the coffin on the edge of the giave, and form around it the “ living circle.” One of the Companions next addresses the mourners; all then kneel on one knee and offer a prayer to the Supreme Being. The coffin is lowered, and the accolade or guilbrette follows. 1 The Ingoldsby Legends. THE COMPANIONAGE. 229 The accolade or guilbrette consists of the following ceremony: — Two canes are placed on the ground near the grave so as to form a cross. Two Companions take their places, each within one of the quarters so formed, turn half round on the left foot, carrying the right foot forward so as to face each other, and occupy with their feet all four quarters of the cross, then taking each other by the right hand, they whisper in one another’s ear and embrace . 1 All perform the guilbrette in turn, kneel once more on the edge of the grave, offer np a prayer, throw three pellets of earth 011 the coffin, and retire. In a few crafts the concluding portion of the ceremony is slightly varied. The address to the mourners is di- versified by lamentable cries of which the public can understand nothing. This is evidently a further instance of “ howling.” Perdiguier does not clearly indicate whether the accolade takes place or not. When the coffin has been lowered, a Companion descends and places himself beside it; a cloth is stretched over the mouth of the grave, and lamentations arise from below, to which the Companions above reply. If this ceremony takes place for a Companion carpenter of Soubise, “something occurs at this moment, of which I am not permitted to speak.” I am inclined, to think that Perdiguier has here forgotten his usual caution and says too much: there can be little doubt that the concealed Companion gives the guilbrette, or some modification thereof, to the deceased. Scarcely anything further relating to their ceremonies remains to he gleaned from Perdiguier, although one or two very curious customs demand notice. Amongst these nothing strikes us as more peculiar and enlightened for their age than the remarkable fact, that in every town of the Tour de France technical schools w T ore established and maintained by the stonemasons, joiners, and locksmiths. The other crafts do not appear to have shared in this highly beneficial institution. In these schools, which w T ere open in the evening, the workman was taught architectural and lineal drawing, designing, model- ling, carving, and the elements of all sciences connected with his profession. Perdiguier gives us no data by which we may judge of the age of this institution, but he speaks of it as already old in 1841. This illustration of provident thought in a body of simple journey- men is as astonishing in one sense as their idiotic feuds are in another. We have seen that four crafts— the stonemasons, locksmiths, joiners, and carpenters— owed a divided allegiance, and that, when one family was well established in a city, the rival fraternity refrained, as a rule, from intruding. But this supremacy was sometimes, nay, often, obtained in a remarkable manner, viz., by a contest of skill ( concours ). A specified object being named, each society selected its champion, who was locked in a room with the necessary appliances, and strictly guarded by his rivals until the end of the ap- pointed time. The two masterpieces w'ere then compared, and their respective merits pro- nounced. To the victors accrued a high glory, to the vanquished a deep mortification and lasting shame, and an obligation to quit the city. The masterpiece was thenceforth held in great honor, jealously preserved, and on festivals drawn or carried through the town in solemn yet joyful procession. These contests were sometimes entered upon for less important stakes, such as a chal- lenge of skill for a sum of money. In 1726 the city of Lyons was thus contested between the rival stonemasons. The Sons of Jacques lost the day, and retired from the town for one hundred years. At the end of this period they deemed themselves entitled to return, but the Sons of Solomon thought otherwise. In the battle that ensued the new-comers were worsted and retired to Tournus, 1 The Companions clo not merely kiss, but remain for a moment clasped in each other s arms. 230 THE C0MPANI0NAGE. the quarries near Lyons. But the Sons of Solomon -were not content with this partial victory, and endeavored to drive their competitors still further away. Another great battle was fought, resulting in a large number of killed and wounded. This was only fifteen years before Perdiguier wrote, but, curiously enough, he omits to mention who were the victors in the second encounter. In 1808 the locksmiths contested Marseilles. The Sons of Jacques placed their cause in the hands of a Dauphine; those of Solomon entrusted their reputation to a Lyonnais . They were locked up as usual in separate rooms, guarded by their rivals, who passed them nothing but food and necessary materials, but allowed of no counsel or advice. The understanding always was that each champion “ should have all his talent in his head, and his execution at his fingers’ ends.” After many months the competitors were released, and their work carried before the judges. The Daupliine’s lock was beautiful, the key still more so. The unlucky Lyonnais had given all his time and labor to complete the beautiful tools which were to assist him in fashioning a most complicated lock. Each tool was in itself a masterpiece, but the lock was not even commenced. Ilis indignant and crestfallen fellows accused him of base treachery; he left the town and has never since been heard of. The most memorable of all battles appears to have been that of 1730, on the plains of La Crau, between Arles and Salon, in Provence. The combatants were the Sons of Solo- mon on the one part, and those of Jacques and Soubise on the other. The provocation is unknown, but the original parties to the quarrel were the stonemasons, joiners and lock- smiths only. These exchanged a formal cartel, and appointed a rendezvous. Volunteers from all the different corps affiliated to Jacques and Soubise, joined their fellows against the common foe, and the Sons of Solomon trooped in from all the towns in the neighbor- hood. The weapons even comprised fire-arms, and the battle was most determined and sanguinary. The list of killed was very large, and it was with the utmost difficulty that the military were able to restore order. I must not forget to mention that the enfants de Salomon admit workmen of all religious denominations to the Companionage, whilst those of Jacques and Soubise restrict their membership to Roman Catholics. Few workmen on their tour forget to make a pilgrimage to the grotto of St. Beaume, in Provence. Mention has already been made of this hill as the starting-point of the original Companions. Tradition records that the Magdalene retired here to end her days after the death of our Saviour; and in the neighborhood is a wood in which, according to popular belief, no living being is ever seen (excepting of course the Companion who visits it). The pilgrims here purchase relics in the shape of silk ribbons, etc., as mementoes of their visit to the sacred spot. A workman having completed his tour, on settling down as master, generally thanks his society and resigns his Companionage. A general assembly is usually held for the purpose, at which he is granted a demit pass, or certificate of honorable conduct during his membership. Although severed from his society, he seldom ceases to take an especial interest in it, and to prefer as workmen its Companions to that of any other society. The Sons of Solomon, however, differ, inasmuch as they never resign their membership. If, as most writers maintain, the Sons of Solomon are the descendants of the ecclesiastical as opposed to the secular masons, this habit would agree perfectly with that of the German stonemasons, in which body the masters remained an integral part of the fraternity, in con- tradistinction to the usage of other crafts. Such was the Companionage in 1841 as de- THE CO MPA A' IONA GE. 231 scribed by Perdiguier, then in the prime of its existence, and showing no signs of decay. On the contrary, he remarks, “ Some corps have ceased to exist; others are now forming.” It might be interesting to determine what effect the Revolution of 1848, and the introduc- tion of railways have had on the organization; but it would riot serve any useful purpose with regard to the elucidation of Freemasonry. Our task lies in the opposite direction, viz., to trace it backward as far as our scanty materials will allow. Between 1841 and 1651 our knowledge of the Companions appears to be restricted to the criminal prosecutions entailed by their perpetual quarrels. Between 1648 and 1651, however, we obtain a further insight into their secrets, and are enabled to form some idea of the ceremonies of the societies of Maitre Jacques, through the apostasy of the shoe- makers. It will be seen that the leading idea is still that of a betrayal, death, and resuirec- tion, although the hero is not a semi- fictitious personage like Hiram, but no one less than our Saviour Himself. That much of an indefensible nature took place cannot be denied, but it is possible that the information afforded is prejudiced and one-sided. A Companion shoemaker of a highly religious turn of mind seems to have been the first to take offence at the questionable practices of his fellows, and to have abjured them. He even went further: he instituted a body of lay brothers composed of journeyman shoemakers, adopted a peculiar dress, and established a rule enjoining them to enter the various shops of the craft, and, by instruction and good example, to reform the manners of their fellows. They took the name of Brothers of St. Crispin, and obtained ecclesiastical authority for tlieir proceedings. In consequence of these measures and the revelations made by him, and those of his way of thinking, the municipality of Paris interdicted the assemblies in 1648. The societies of the Companionage took refuge in the Temple, which was under a separate jurisdiction. The clergy also took the alarm, and used all the terrors of the ecclesiastical law to forbid the ceremonies and institutions. Some of their Mysteries were printed and revealed in 1651, and in consequence of renewed thunders from the pulpit, more revelations succeeded. At length the Companions were foolish enough to cause a riot in the precincts of the Temple, the Bailli was worked upon by the bishops, and eventually the Companions were sentenced and expelled by him on the 11th September 1651. 1 The cordwainers (shoemakers) were the first to disclose their secret ceremonies, 23d March 1651, and on the 16th May following, together with their masters, solemnly forswore them; but many of the societies refused to follow their example, and continued to meet. Others, however, also divulged their secrets, and ad- dressed a string of questions to the doctors of the Sorbonne respecting their practices. 2 But from the very wording of these questions and revelations, it is abundantly evident that they were drawn up by a prejudiced and probably priestly hand, so as to make the replies a foregone conclusion. The greater part of these proceedings, ceremonies, and the views of the Church on the question, are very succinctly told in three documents attached to an agreement made the 21st September 1571 between the shoemakers and cobblers of Rheims. 3 These documents are of course of much more recent date than the agreement. Of the long tirade against the Companionage contained in the third document, I have only given a portion. It will be observed with some amusement, that not the least crime of the Companions, in the 1 Thory, Annales Originis Magni Galliarum Orientis (1812), pp. 329, 330. 2 Ibid., p. 331. 3 Collection de Documents inedits sur l’Histoire de France; Archives Legislatives de la Ville de Reims, by Pierre Varin, pt. ii., tome ii. , p. 249. For the date of these documents, see p. 236. 232 THE COMPANIONA GE. estimation of the theological faculty, was the fact that these ceremonies were actually practised by Roman Catholics in the presence of heretics! and vice versd. It is also curious, that although the charcoal-makers and others likewise divulged their rites, 1 these are not referred to in the documents of which I now present a translation. REVELATIONS, Etc. No. 1.— SUMMARY OF THE IMPIOUS, SACRILEGIOUS, AND SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES WHICH TAKE PLACE AMONGST THE COMPANIONS — SADDLERS, SHOEMAKERS, TAILORS, Cutlers, and Hatters, when they admit one, a Companion oe the Charge (du devoir) as they call it. This pretended charge of a Companion consists of three precepts — Honor to God, preser- vation of the master’s welfare, and maintenance of the Companions. But, on the contrary, the Companions dishonor God greatly by profaning all the mysteries of our religion, ruin the masters by emptying their shops of assistants whenever any one of their cabal com- plains of having received insult ( bravado ), and ruin themselves by the offences against the charge which they make one another pay for — the fines being employed in procuring drink; besides which the Companionage is of no service for attaining the mastership. They have amongst themselves a jurisdiction; elect officers, a provost, a lieutenant, a secretary ( greffier ), and a sergeant; maintain correspondence in all towns, and possess a watchword {mot de guet), by which they recognize each other, and which they keep secret; 2 and form everywhere an offensive league against the apprentices of their trade who are not of their cabal, beating and maltreating them, and soliciting them to enter into their society. The impieties and sacrileges which they commit in passing them vary according to the different trades. They have, nevertheless, much in common: in the first place, to cause him who is about to be received to swear on the Gospels that he will not reveal to father nor mother, wife nor children, priest nor clerk, not even in confession, that which he is about to do and witness; and for this purpose they choose a tavern, which they call “ The Mother,” because there it is that they usually assemble as if at their common mother’s, in which they choose two rooms conveniently placed for going from one into the other, one serving for their abominations, and the other for the banquet. They close carefully the doors and windows in order not to be seen or surprised by any means. Secondly, they cause the candidate to elect sponsors {un parain et une mar mine 3 ) ; give him a new name, such as they may decide on; baptize him derisively [par derision)-, and perform the other accursed cere- monies of reception peculiar to the crafts, according to their diabolical traditions. 1 Thory, Annales Originis Magni Galliarum Orientis, p. 331. 2 Curiously enough this password is not even now revealed; and if known by the learned doctors, was deemed of too little importance for them to take any notice of it. 3 Literally, a godfather and godmother; but of course the godmother was not of the gentler sex. THE COMPANION/! GE. 233 The Saddlers. The Companion saddlers place three caroli, which make thirty pence, within the hook of the Gospels; and after the oath has been taken bareheaded on the Gospel and the thirty pence for which our Saviour was betrayed, three or four men enter the room, and one demands an altar, another an altar cloth, trappings, curtains, a cane, a napkin, and other things to fit up an altar; an alb, belt, stole, chasuble, all the ornaments of a priest perform- ing the mass; taper, candlesticks, censer, ewers, chalice, and salt-cellar, salt, a loaf pure and simple, wine pure and simple; and having lent him a cloth (which he folds in three, rep- resenting the three altar cloths, having the border below), and a cup or glass instead of chalice, a penny loaf (pain d’un sol), a cross of virgin wax, the book, the thirty pence, two lighted candles, and in lieu of ewers two pots or bottles, the one full of wine, the other of water, and some salt in a cellar; all these things being thus prepared, and the room well closed, they all kneel down bareheaded, when he who has asked for all these things neces- sary for the holy mass, kneeling, his hands joined before this stool where are arranged all these things, declares to him or to them who are about to be received Companions, — “ This bread which you see, represents the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ who was on the tree of the cross for our sins;” and (mumbling some words) he continues, — “This wine which yon see represents the pure blood of our Lord, which was shed on the cross for our sins.” After which he takes a piece of bread the size of a pea, places it in the pretended chalice, and says,— 1 “ The peace of God be unto ye,” places some salt in this glass, and spills from a candle three drops of wax, saying, “ In the name of the Father, and oi the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” and quenches the candle in this pretended chalice. There- after he says to him or to them who are destined to become Companions, that they are to elect a sponsor, and, being all on their knees, he baptizes them in joke (pour raillerie), profaning the holy baptism as well as the holy mass; and gives, to all who are in the room, of the bread to eat, and of this mixed wine to drink; after which they perform another act, taking thereto a handkerchief, four glasses full of wine to signify the four Evangelists, and at the foot of each glass four small pieces of bread having also a signification, and the cloth on which they have gluttonized ( soullez ) the shroud of our Lord, the table repre- senting the holy sepulchre, the four legs of the table the four doctors of the Church; and they do all these things, and many other heretical things. The Huguenots are received Companions by the Catholics, and the Catholics by the Huguenots. The Shoemakers. The Companion shoemakers take bread, wine, salt, and water, which they call the four aliments \i.e., alimentary substances: possibly a play upon the four elements], put them upon a table, and having placed him whom they wish to receive as a companion before this, make him swear on these four things, by his faith, his hope of paradise, his God, his chrism, and his baptism; they then tell him that he must take a new name, and be baptized; and having made him say what name he wishes to take, one of the Com- panions, who is placed behind him, pours over his head a glassful of water, saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The sponsor and subsponsor (soubs-parain) then undertake to instruct him in all things apper- taining - to the charge (devoir). 234 THE CO MPA N ION A GE. The Tailors. The Companion tailors prepare a table in one of the two chambers; a cloth inside out, a loaf, a salt-cellar, a cup on three feet, half full, three great king’s whites, [blancs de roy, a species of silver coin, of which there was a greater and a lesser], and three needles, and after having caused him whom they receive to swear on the gospels, and to choose a sponsor, they teach him the story of the first three Companions, which is full of impurity, and to which is referred the signification of what is in this chamber and on this table. The mysteiy of the Holy Trinity is also profaned several times. The Cutlers. The Companion cutlers kneel before an altar, and after having caused him who is about to be received to swear on the gospels, the sponsor takes the crumb of a loaf with a quan- tity of salt, which he mixes together, and gives it to the young journeyman to eat; who having some difficulty in swallowing it, they give him two or three glassfuls of wine, announcing that he is passed a Companion (de le passer compagnon). Some time after, they take him quietly to the country, and show him the rights of a passed Companion (droits du passe compagnon),' make him take off one shoe, and all take several turns on a cloak which they have spread in circular form on the earth, in such manner that the shoe- less foot remains on the cloak and the other on the ground. They place a napkin o?i this cloak, with bread and wine in several different glasses, which signify the blood of our Lord, His five wounds, His cross and the nails; the bread signifies the body of Jesus; the water, baptism; the fire, the angel; the air signifies time; the heavens, the throne of Gfod; the earth, His footstool; the wind, Hod’s anger; the knife which is on the table represents the sword which cut off the ear of Malchus; the napkin, the holy shroud of our Lord; the border of the napkin, the cords by which our Saviour was bound. They fold the napkin in three plaits, place three stones thereon, and say that it signifies the three wounds and nails of our Lord. The spout of the pot of wine signifies the cross; the two handies, the two thieves; the pot itself, the tower of Babylon [probably meaning Babel]; the top and the bottom of it, heaven and earth; the twelve sticks of the wheel which serves to carry the “ rneule ,” 2 the twelve apostles; the four elements signify the four evangelists. They inter- rogate on all these points the new Companion and the others, and levy fines according to their jurisdiction. The Hatters. The hatters arrange a table in the most convenient of the two rooms, on which is rep- resented the death and passion of our Lord. There is a cross, a crown made of a napkin twisted into the shape of a crown, and placed on the cross-bars of the cross. They place on the two arms of the cross two plates, two candlesticks, and two lighted candles, which represent the sun and the moon; the three nails are represented by three knives, placed on the two arms and at the base of the cross; the lance, by a piece of wood; the scourges, 1 Heckethorn (a non-Mason) translates Compagnon “ Fellowcraft.” The phrase would thus liter- ally read a passed fellowcraft. In technical Masonic phraseology, an apprentice is always passed to the degree of a fellowcraft. 2 This may either mean a grindstone or a haystack. As the word is used at a meeting of cutlers in the country , and the matter is not in any way led up to, I am unable to decide upon the proper interpretation. THE COMPANIONAGE. 235 by cords at the end of a piece of wood; the sponge, by a knife and a piece of bread; the pincers, by a folded napkin; the lantern, by a glass, turned top uppermost; the pillar to which our Saviour was attached, by a salt-cellar full of salt; under this cellar they place the value of thirty pence in money, for which sum our Saviour was sold; the salt of the salt- cellar represents the holy chrism. They place at the foot of the cross a basin and ewer, together with a glass of wine and water, to represent the blood and water which our Lord sweated in the Garden of Olives. They place on the same table two glasses, one full of vinegar and the other of gall, acock, dice; in fact, everything that was used at the passion. If there is in the said chamber a chest, it represents Noah’s ark; the sideboard, Jacob’s tabernacle; the bed, the manger; a chair under the mantelshelf, the baptismal font; a fagot, the sacrifice of Abraham; and the opening in the chimney marks the gulf of hell; the provost represents Pilate, who seats himself in the most conspicuous place in the room; the lieutenant represents Annas, and places himself near the provost; the secretary, Caia- phas, and is placed lower down. The provost holds in his hands a cane, which represents Aaron’s rod, at the end of which there are three ribbons, one white, which represents the innocence of our Lord; one red, His blood; one blue, the bruises of His body; the four legs of the table, the four evangelists; underneath the table, the holy sepulchre; the napkin, the holy shroud; the cross-bars of the windows, the cross; the two lower shutters repre- sent the Holy Virgin on one side and Saint John on the other; the two shutters above, if closed, the sun and the moon; if open, the angels’ salutation, on account of the light which appeared; the joists of the floor signify the twelve apostles; the ceiling of the chamber, our Lord. They cause him whom they are about to receive to make three steps and to say at the same time — “ Honor to God, honor to the table, honor to my provost;” and approach- ing the latter he kisses him and says, “ God forbid that this kiss should resemble that of Judas.” The provost interrogates him on all the above, and the other Companions are made to enter the room for his instruction; knocking the first time they reply, benedicite, the second dominus, and the third consumatum est ; they are asked, “ What seek you here?” They reply, “ God and the apostles.” At length, in order to represent our Saviour, who was sent from one judge to another, he who is received appears with his two feet crossed ( pieds croisez), his breast all uncovered ( debraille ), and ungartered ( desjartele ), before the provost, who asks him, “ Whom do you represent ? ” He replies, “ God forbid that I should represent our Lord.” They then make him take a seat on the hearth, in a chair to rep- resent the font. The sponsors {par a in et marraine) whom he chose take him each on one side by a napkin, which they tie round his neck, place in his mouth bread and salt, and, throwing water over his head, make him give three knocks against the chimney, and bur- lesquing the baptism, he takes a new name and says thereafter, “ I never ate so salt a morsel nor drank so bitter a cup; thrice my sponsors make me knock the chimney, by the which I recognize that I am a good passed Companion” {bon compagnon passe). After which they take a loaf from the bed and carry it on to the sideboard, to represent how the devil transported our Lord to the mountain. When a Companion leaves a town the sack he carries signifies Isaac’s fagot; if it be on his back, the burthen of St. Christopher; the straps of the sack, the legs of our Saviour. They place his sword crosswise over the scabbard, and call it the cross of St. Andrew; the scabbard, the skin of St. Bartholomew; the hilt signifies the protection of God ; 1 the scabbard chape {bouttolle), the lantern of Judas; the point, the lance. Afterwards they seek a cross road, hang a glass to represent the death of 1 A play upon the words “protection” and “hilt,” both being garde in French. . 236 THE COMPANIONAGE . St. Stephen, and all those of the company throw one stone at the glass, excepting the Companion about to leave, who says, “ My Companions, I take leave of you as did the apostles of our Saviour when He sent them out into all lands to preach the gospel; give me your blessing, I give you mine.” These Companionages entail many disorders. 1st. Many of the Companions often offend against the oath which they have taken, to keep faith with their masters, not work- ing according to their requirements, and .often ruining them by their practices. 2d. They insult and cruelly persecute the poor journeymen of the craft who are not of their cabal. 3d. They employ themselves in many debauches, impurities, and drunkennesses, etc., and ruin themselves, their wives, and their children by the excessive expenses which they incur in these Companionages at various assemblies, because they prefer to spend the little they possess with their Companions rather than 011 their families. 4th. They profane the days consecrated to God’s service, because some of them, like the tailors, meet together every Sunday and go to the tavern, where they pass a great part of the day in debauchery. Therefore, because the above Companions believe that their practices are good and holy, and the oath not to reveal them, righteous and obligatory, Messieurs the doctors are sup- plicated, for the good of the consciences of the Companions of these trades, and others who might be in a similar case, to give their opinion on the following and to sign it: — 1st. What crime do they commit in causing themselves to be received Companions in the foregoing manner ? 2d. Is the oath which they have taken not to reveal these practices even at con- fession, good and valid? 3d. Whether they are not bound in conscience to proceed and declare them to those who could apply a remedy, such as the judges ecclesiastic and secular ? 4. Whether they may use the watchword in order to recognize themselves as Companions ? 5. Whether those who are of this Companionage are in surety of conscience, and what they should do ? 6th. Whether the journeymen who are not yet of this Companionage may enter it without guilt ? Ho. II.— RESOLUTIONS OF THE DOCTORS ON THE ABOVE QUESTIONS. We, the undersigned doctors in the sacred faculty of theology at Paris, are of opinion - — 1st. That these practices combine the sins of sacrilege, impurity, and blasphemy against the mysteries of our religion. 2d. That the oath which they take not to reveal these practices, even in confession, is neither good nor valid, and is not obligatory on them; on the contrary, they are bound to accuse themselves of these crimes, and of this oath at con- fession. 3d. I 11 case this evil continues, and they are not otherwise able to remedy it, they are bound in conscience to declare these practices to the ecclesiastical judges, and even, if need be, to the secular, Avho will be able to remedy it. 4th. That the Companions who cause themselves to be received in the above form may not, without mortal sin, use the watchword in order to recognize each other as Companions, and engage in the evil practices of this Companionage. 5th. That those who are of the Companionage are not in surety of conscience so long as they are desirous of continuing these bad practices which they ought to renounce. 6th. That the journeymen who are not of the Companionage cannot enter it without mortal sin. — Deliberated at Paris the 14th day of March 1655. Signed, I. Charton, Morel, N. Cornet, J. Quoquerel, M. Grandin, C renet, C. Gobinet, I. Peron, Cliamillard, M. Chamillard. THE COMPANIONAGE. 237 No. III.— OBSERVATIONS ON THE ABOVE PRACTICES AND RESOLUTIONS. The fearful impieties which are practiced in the crafts of the cordwainers, hatters, tailors, and saddlers, in passing the Companions of the charge, having been lately revealed by a special Providence, some zealous persons, in order to annihilate these damnable practices, and full of zeal for the glory of God and the good of their neighbors, after having assembled the doctors and taken their opinion on this subject, have believed that they could no longer defer (without an evident danger of the loss of several souls engaged in these disorders), giving to the public the knowledge of a matter so important to their well-being, in order that the confessors, pastors, masters, and all those who have power, should be on tlieii guard. Hardly could one believe that our century, corrupt though it be, had produced monstrosities of this nature, and if the matter had not been already seen, examined into, and condemned by justice, one could not possibly persuade himself that such a thing could enter into the minds of Christians. The malign spirit, who never does his business to better advantage than in secrecy and obscurity, and who well know that to publish his practices is to decry them, had kept them hidden as long as possible; but at last God, always merciful, and who does not wish that man should perish, has willed that then- wickedness should be revealed. O 11 the 21st September 1645, the doctors of the faculty of theology at Paris, being consulted on the ceremonies which took place at the reception of the Companion cordwainers, who practised nearly the same things as the other Com- panions, as above, replied in regard to the place of meeting, the sponsors, the profanation of baptism, and concerning the oath which they took on their faith, their hopes of paradise, their chrism, and their baptism, to never reveal to any one what they did or saw done. 1. That this oath was full of irreverence against religion, and that it was not by any means obligatory on those who took it. 2. That the said Companions were not in surety of con- science if they contemplated continuing these evil practices, which they were bound to renounce. 3. That the journeymen who were not of this Companionage could not enter it after due warning without sin. These practices having oozed out, were condemned by the judgment of Monsieur V official de Paris as regards the cordwainers on the 30tli May 1648, and by another sentence of the Bailly du Temple on the 11th September 1651, and the same year forbidden under penalty of excommunication by Monseigneur the Arch- bishop of Toulouse, informed as he was of the impious practices and ceremonies of their oath by the Companions themselves, and by the declaration which they gave thereof in writing, 23d March 1651, which was signed by all the master cordwainers in formal as- sembly, 1st May 1651, under promise never to use in future similar ceremonies, as being very impious, highly sacrilegious, insulting to God, contrary to good conduct, and scanda- lous in the eyes of religion and justice. About the same time was printed a sheet showing the abominable ceremonies against the holy sacrifice of the mass practised by many of the saddlers when a journeyman is received Companion, as has already been stated abo\e in the declaration of the doctors. What had been revealed in these two crafts has opened the eyes of several Companions, who have recognized that the oath which they made not to betray themselves, was only an artifice of the dumb spirit of the Gospel who closes the mouths of those whom he possesses, and have therefore made known many impieties which took place in some other crafts, as in the reception of the Companion tailors and hatters. The abominable oaths, the impious superstitions, and the sacrilegious profanations of our 238 THE COMPANIONA GE. mysteries, which are there enacted, are so horrible that it has been necessary in the pre- amble of this resolution only to mention the minor portion. But the quality of this evil is sufficiently known by the names by which the doctors qualify it when they call the practices superstitions, sacrilegious, full of impurity and blasphemy against the mysteries of our re- ligion. In effect, what more enormous sacrilege than to sport with the mysteries of religion, than to counterfeit the ceremonies of baptism, than to abuse the sacred words? 1 Whence should come this unhappy imitation but from him who has always been the ape of God? Why shut the windows and the door of their chamber where they conduct their ceremonies, if not to show that it is a work of the prince of darkness? Why swear not to disclose it if the thing be good in itself? Why not even tell it to their confessor who has his mouth closed, and who would rather endure death than reveal what he hears at the tribunal of the con- fessional? Certes — it is evident from all this that there is evil in their practices, since they so fear being surprised, perceived, or recognized, even by those most familiar with them, and since they exact a promise under such solemn oaths never to reveal it to whomsoever it be. Is it not sufficient, these taverns to which these impious men retire to conduct their superstitions as in the temples of the demon, where they sacrifice to the idol of their bellies, and reduce themselves to the condition of beasts by their drunkenness and orgies, undermining their health by their excesses, and impoverishing their families by their excessive expenses ? Must there be beyond all this, public schools of indecency, as it appears the tailors openly profess? But above all, must Jesus Christ, dead once for our sins, be crucified afresh by the sacrilegious hands and execrable actions of these miserable beings who repre- sent His passion in the midst of pots and pint measures? Can we persuade ourselves, that amongst Christians who ought to esteem themselves unworthy to touch anything destined to the worship of God, some actually use sacred and holy ornaments, bread, wine, etc., in order to burlesque what passes at the most holy and terrible of our mysteries? Patience with idolaters who, having no knowledge whatever of religion, turn to ridicule all that we hold most sacred. But for Christians, regenerated in Jesus Christ, by the sacrament of baptism, bought with the price of His adorable blood, and instructed in the mysteries of our holy faith to employ the most holy matters of our religion, in order to execute their accursed practices, and what is worse still, that such should be done in the presence of heretics! What a scandal! It merits no less than temporal fire whilst awaiting the fire eternal, which they shall surely not avoid if they persist in this unhappy state. . \ . •. 2 Thory, in his history of the Grand Orient, reproduces the material portions of the pre- ceding revelations, and declares that his extracts are taken from old works, but without affording any clue to their identification. 3 When, however, he maintains that the customs of the Companionage and of Freemasonry present no features of resemblance, we can only suppose that he must have resolutely closed his eyes to the surprising similarities which exist in the two systems. The parallelism, indeed, though claiming our attention, may of course be only fortuitous, and without further evidence will by no means establish the 'Possibly by using them as “passwords?” ‘ 2 Although this extract could be prolonged, further details would throw no additional light upon the actual subject of our present investigation. 3 He has probably relied on some of the writings of Pere Pierre Lebrun (1700-1750), as these are referred to by Simon in connection with the same subject. THE CGMPANIONAGE. 239 connection of one institution with the other. From the same source we derive further information concerning the tailors and the ceremonies of the charcoal burners. 1 2 As regards the tailors, Thory states that the second or banquet chamber was decorated with a painting of the gallantries of the first three Companion tailors, and that before the banquet a lecture was given, consisting of the explanation of these obscene adventures. The charcoal burners met in a forest, and called themselves cousins. Thory and all other writers look upon the word as signifying a cousin by blood, and maintain that Francis I. was himself admitted a Companion, and that he subsequently introduced the fashion amongst royal personages of calling each other “cousin.” But when we remember the fondness of the Companions for the animal kingdom, and take into account that the can- didate amongst the charcoal burners was called a “ wasp,” is it not just possible that cousin is applied in its other meaning, viz., a gnat, which would be a most appropriate name for these denizens of the forest. At their initiation a white cloth was spread on the ground, on which was placed a full salt-cellar, a goblet of water, a wax candle, and a cross. The candidate took the oath lying prostrate on the cloth, and with his hands, one on the salt, the other on the goblet. He was then raised, and after some “mystification” given the password, which would prove him a true and good “ cousin” in all forests. The master afterwards explained the symbols; the cloth represents the shroud; the salt, the three theological virtues; the fire, our funeral torches; the water, that which will be sprinkled over our grave; the cross, that which will be borne before our coffin. The candidate was then taught that the true cross was of holly, that it had seventy-two thorns, that St. Theobald was the first charcoal burner, St. Joseph the first carpenter, St. Balthasar the first mason, etc. All writers on secret societies seem to be of opinion that the Carbonari were the direct offspring of this society. On this point I am unconvinced, nor is it material to our present inquiry, but any one who has travelled much in the forests of France and Germany must be aware that the secret societies of the charcoal burners still exist, and receive amongst them honorary members, principally huntsmen, gamekeepers, lumbermen, etc. Heckethorn, without quoting his authority, has given us a charcoal burner’s examination, which is ab- solutely unsurpassed for pathetic resignation to a very unenviable lot. 3 “Whence come you, cousin of the oak? — From the forest. — Where is your Father? — Raise your eyes to Heaven. — Where is your mother?— Cast your eyes on the earth. — What worship do you render your Father? — Homage and respect. — What do you bestow on your mother?- — My care during life, and my body hereafter. — If I want help, what will you give me? — I will share with you my day’s earnings and my bread of sorrow; you shall rest in my hut, and warm yourself at my fire.” Between 1648 and 1400 we almost lose sight of the Companions, for the glimpse that we obtain of them during this period is a very slight one. Yet it is valuable, as showing that the shoemakers had added to the recognized legends of their patron saints an un- authorized version of the recovery of their bodies, thus bringing the legend once more into harmony with the heathen mysteries and the familiar traditions which have come to us from antiquity. The following passage is from Migne’s Encyclopaedia: 3 1 Thory, Annales Originis Magni Galliarum Orientis (1812). pp. 333-335. 2 Heckethorn, The Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries (1875), vol. ii., p. 70. 3 Migne, Nouvelle Encyclopedic Theologique, Dictionnaire des Mysteres, tom. xliii. , p. 274. 240 THE CO MPA N ION A GE. “Many manuscripts of the mystery of St. Crispin and St. Crepinian are in existence. . . •. One is in the Archives of the Empire . . •. published in print 1836, by Messieurs Chabailles & Dessales . •. . •. date, commencement of the fifteenth century [it took four days to represent]. The first three days follow the legend pretty closely; in the fourth the authors have allowed their imaginations much license. The subject thereof is the in- vention or discovery of the bodies of the two masters. . \ . \ Messieurs Chabailles & Dessales also say, the mystery of St. Crispin and St. Crepinian was singular in this respect, that instead of being acted by the brotherhood of the Passion like most of the other mysteries, it was represented by a special troop, a society of workmen who every year as- sembled to celebrate the glory of their patron saints. Such was in effect the usage of the Fraternity of Cordwainers of Paris.” This is the earliest indication of the Companionage I have been able to trace, but it must not be supposed that I admit the impossibility of finding still earlier and more im- portant references, or of filling many of the blanks which my imperfect researches have unavoidably left. No study of the Compagnonnage at all worthy of the name has yet been made. Perdiguier attempted nothing of the kind; he merely stated what was usual in his own time. Simon’s etude historique is not what its title implies; he is content with the in- formation supplied by Thory and Perdiguier, and the foregoing pages barely do more than touch the fringe of a vast subject. The origin of the institution cannot be determined with precision. Its antiquity, if we believe Thory, is “ time immemorial,” whilst, if we turn to Perdiguier, “it has existed for ages.” Simon, and those who follow him, date its origin in the twelfth century, but give no reasons for their assertion. Having regard to these discrepancies, let us proceed to examine whether the facts in evidence admit of our forming an independent opinion. We find: I. That in 1841(Perdiguier’s time) the Companionage consisted solely of journeymen. II. That, according to the revelations which called forth the opinion of the doctors of the Sorbonno (14th March 1655), such w r as then also the case. III. That the previous revelations, and the renunciation of 1st May 1651, indicate that the masters at that date took part in the ceremonies, and therefore in the Companionage. IV. That according to A. Monteil, distinct indications of a similar ceremony are evident in the reception of a master millstone-maker, 1 a branch of the stonemasons, in the fifteenth century. Ah AVe must guard ourselves from confusing in any way the religious fraternities of either the masters or the journeymen (as described in the last chapter) with the Companionge. The fraternities were acknowledged by the state, and ruled by codes of laws under govern- mental sanction: the Companionage statutes have never to this day been revealed. In France we have to do with the following distinct bodies: the craft guilds, the masters’ fraternities, the journeymen’s fraternities, and the Companionage, all working into each other like the cogs of a train of wheels, but all distinct pieces of mechanism. VI. AVe may add to the preceding, the great probability, as shown in the last chapter, that the French trade guilds were direct descendants of the Roman colleges, without serious break of continuity; and VII. That no theory can be tenable which does not reconcile all the facts of the case. Upon these postulates I shall hazard some conjectures, which may or may not meet 1 Ante p. 191. THE COMPANIONAGE. 241 ■with general acceptance, viz. : — That the trade guilds at their earliest stage preserved a modification of the ancient Mysteries, which may also have been previously celebrated by the Colleges. That part of these ceremonies, such as the second baptism, etc., were prac- tised at the end of a workman’s apprenticeship, and the tragic portion at the reception of a new master. That when the State began to interfere with the republican liberty of the cities and trades (and possibly the Church, with the independence of any survivals of pagan- ism), these ceremonies continued to be practised in secret, the masterpiece and the ban- quet only being allowed to become known to the outside world. That after the first reve- lations and denunciation of the Mysteries by the doctors on the 21st September 1645, the judgment of the Official de Paris, 30th May 1648, of the Bailly du Temple, 11th September 1651, and the excommunication by the Archbishop of Toulouse in the same year, the mas- ters abandoned forever any participation in the Companionage; thus following the example set by the shoemakers in 1651. That the Companions, however, who, from their wander- ing life and lack of worldly goods, had much less to fear, persevered in their ancient usages, with the exception of those whose revelations appear in the first of the three documents above cited. Perdiguier shows that some of these have only recently been readmitted, and the shoemakers were universally despised, probably on account of this very renunciation. That, finding themselves deserted by the masters, the Companions divided their class into two degrees — aspirant and companion — and apportioned between them the two ceremonies previously allotted to the companions and the masters respectively. It would be absurd to pretend that this theory is unassailable, and none that we could form in our present state of knowledge would be so; but it at least possesses the merit of agreeing with the few facts that have come down to us. The age of the Companionage, there- fore depends upon the meaning which we attach to the term. If we allude to the period when Companions alone took part in the ceremony, we cannot go further back than 1655; if to the time when it first became of service to the travelling journeyman, we must fix upon the eleventh or twelfth centuries; but if to the time of the first usage of these ceremonies by the craft guilds, we must date it from the overthrow of the Romans, and the modifica- tions which then took place. One point of absorbing interest to us is of course the age of the Hiramic Legend: did it, or did it not, exist previously to the Masonic revival of a.d. 1717? And here, on the very threshold of our inquiry, we are met with Perdiguier’s assertion that it is derived di- rectly from Freemasonry. He says, in answer to a letter of Beau Desir le Gascon , 1 — “ As to this history of Hiram’s, I regard it as a mere fable, ingenious enough, but of which the consequences are horrible; for it tends to separate those who take it seriously. The Bible — the only book of any real authority concerning the constructors of Solomon’s Temple — says nothing about Hiram’s murder; and for my part, I do not believe it. The Compagnons Strangers and those of Liberty have no authentic details of this fable, which is quite new to them, and I fancy that the Companions of the other societies are not more advanced: I look upon it, therefore, in the light of a masonic invention introduced into the Companionage by persons initiated into both of these secret societies. Freemasonry, according to the most zealous historians — and M. Bazot is of the number — was only introduced into France in 1715. The Companionage is indisputably anterior; nevertheless, from the day it was in- troduced into this country our Companions frequented it, and found in its bosom useful truths, but also numerous errors.” 1 Perdiguier, Le Livre du Compagnonnage, vol. ii. , p. 80. 242 THE COM PAN I ON A GE. After having given such complete credence to Perdiguier hitherto, it may be thought surprising if we now reject his evidence. But let us consider impartially who and what the man was. He was a simple journeyman joiner, of enlightened views and great intelligence, but of limited education. He apologizes for his own songs by explaining that he was igno- rant of the art of versification, owing to a poor education, until, for the better carrying out of his purposes, he endeavored to obtain some slight insight into its rules. That, according to his lights, he was scrupulously exact in all his works, every word in them testifies. We may therefore blindly follow him when he describes the usages of his own day and implicitly accept, as then existent, the traditions which he hands down; 1 but in matters of history we must sift his evidence. It will be observed that he fixes the introduction of Freemasonry into France at 1715! The fact imbedded in the above quotation was not within his personal knowledge, nor, to judge from his own words, was it even a tradition current amongst the Companions. It is submitted, therefore, that we are quite at liberty to reject some of his conclusions or inferences without thereby invalidating his testimony in other matters. But it may be argued, why then accept his account of the battle at Lacrau in 1730, and the contests of skill at Lyons in 1726, and Marseilles in 1808, these also being matters of history, on which important conclusions are founded ? Because they are traditions of the society, given with such minuteness, that each is doubtless based upon a substratum of fact. He gives them with equal impartiality, although one tells against his own society; and the Com- panionage songs commemorate both. On the other hand, although legendary, the traditions date from so recent a period, that if fabulous, some protest against their reception would have been recorded. I venture to suggest,therefore, that as regards the Iliramic Legend, Perdiguier has jumped at an illogical conclusion, and that the Legend of Hiram the builder is not only anterior to 1726 — the date of the introduction of Freemasonry into France — but probably coeval with the Companionage itself. The reasons are obvious. We may fairly assume that the two societies of Solomon and Jacques existed separately previously to 1726. I think this is evident from the battle of Lacrau, 1730; the contest at Lyons, 1726; and from an inscription on the top of the Tour St. Gilles in Languedoc. Perdiguier there found the following names hewn in the stone: “ Joli Coeur de Landun, 1640;” “ LTnvention de Nancy, 1646; ” “ L’Esperance le Berichon, 1655;” “ La Verdure le Picard, 1556” — the conjunctions showing that the first two are Sons of Solomon, the two latter of Jacques. Accompanying the names are carvings of masons’ picks, compasses, squares, levels, and other stonemasons’ tools. 2 But all the crafts and societies agree in this, that the Sons of Solomon were anterior to those of Jacques, whose legend follows the lines of the Hiramic myth. The revelations to the doctors of the Sorbonne were those of shoemakers, hatters, etc., — all crafts owing allegiance to the charge of Maitre Jacques. Earlier still, in 1400, we find the shoemakers acting a mystery: they were Sons of Jacques, as we know, yet if tradition is at all to be relied on (and I shall presently show that in this particular instance it is supported by common sense) the shoemakers were of later origin than the Stonemasons of Jacques, and these than the Stone- masons of Solomon. And yet we hear of the shoemakers at that early date making unau- 1 “ In the case of customs, and of laws dependent on usage, there is more security against alter- ation than in the repetition of a story by one person to another, because there is the agreement of many persons in its observances” (Lewis, Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i., p. 190). 2 perdiguier, Le Livre du Compagnonnage, vol. ii. , p. 85. THE COMPANIONA GE. 243 thorized additions to the history of St. Crispin, which bring it into harmony with those of Jacques, of Hiram, of Isis and Osiris, of Bacchus, and of that Grand Mystery, an irreverent representation of which ultimately called down upon the Companionage the wrath of the Church. The Sons of Jacques, therefore, possessed and acted a legend from a very early date; and if the Sons of Solomon did not then cherish the Hiramic Legend, what preceded it? From the very nature of the society, some traditionary tragedy was necessary. What was it? It could not refer to Solomon; the Companions possess no legend relating to him, beyond the fact that he granted them a charge. We have no trace of any other personage — no hint of any other legend. We are driven to the conclusion that the Sons of Solomon either possessed the Hiramic myth, or none at all; and the latter supposition is hardly con- ceivable. But as we have seen that the Sons of Solomon, as opposed to the Sons of Jacques, certainly existed as early as 1640, and inferentially before a.d. 1400, I think we may at least safely conclude that their distinctive legend is of prior date to the introduction of modern Freemasonry into France. Another curious point of research is that of the fondness of the Companions for nick- names derived from the animal kingdom. If we assume that the Companions who formed the first corps took the name of wolves for some obscure reason, we may legitimately con- clude that the other societies adopted theirs on the same grounds, or in rivalry or emulation. Our task is, therefore, reduced to tracing the origin of the title “wolves.” In connection with this word, another curious subject arises. In England, the son of a freemason is termed a Lewis. Technically, a Lewis is an instrument consisting of two side pieces of iron in the shape of a wedge, or right-angled triangle. These are placed within a dovetailed excavation in a large stone, so that the slanting sides fit the walls of the perforation, leaving space to insert, between the two wedges, a flat piece of iron which fits the two upright sides of the others, and forces them well into the corner, all three projecting above the surface of the stone. A hole exists through all three, into which a ring is passed, and we have thus inside the stone a dovetail of iron which cannot be withdrawn, and by means of which the heavier stones are raised by ropes or chains. We are told that as the Lewis supports the burden of the stone, so should the Lewis or mason’s son support the burthen of his father’s declining days. The analogy is completed by the fact that the mason is termed a perfect ashlar, i.e., a truly squared stone. But the Companions possess this analogy more completely still. With them the aggregate of pieces forming the Lewis is a Louve, or female wolf, and the two wedge-shaped side pieces are Louveteaux, or sucking wolves. A Companion is a wolf, all Companion’s sons are called Louveteaux, or little wolves, and it is probable that the same reasoning is applied, although we are not directly told so. 1 But why the title wolf at all? Are we to believe that this is a distinct relic of the Roman traditions (possibly a survival of the Bacchic Mysteries), and does it furnish another link to the chain of evidence con- necting the Companions with the Collegia f Amongst the various symbols which served as military ensigns with the Roman armies was the wolf. 2 The Lupercalia were celebrated in many of the cities of Gaul, and were not abolished till a.d. 496 by Pope Gelasius I. 3 The reference to a wolf is frequent in the French language, and seems to be interwoven with the national life. A strong iron holdfast is called a Dent de Louve, a wolf’s tooth. Even 1 It is possible that our word “ Lewis ” is a corruption of Louve ? 2 Encyclopedie Methodique, Antiquites, vol. iii. , . . . Loup. 3 Encyclopaedia Brit. , 8th edit. ; Encyclo. Metropolitana (1843) — Lupercalia. 244 THE CO MPA NI ON A GE. their royal palaces were called Lupara, wolves* lairs, and later Louvres.' The ancient palace of the Louvre in Paris still retains the name. And within the present century a festival strongly suggesting the Lupercalia, w T as annually held at Jumieges. The hero was elected by his Companions, and called the Loupvert, green wolf. On the morning of the 23d of June, the eve of St. John the Baptist, lie was conducted round the place in procession attended mass, etc. At a certain moment he gave, by running a-muck and striking every one with his fists, a signal for the commencement of coarse amusements, in which all the troop took part. Young men and maidens joined in the revels, which continued through- out the ensuing day, and ended with a banquet. 2 If this was a survival of the Lupercalia, the transposition of its date from the feast of St. Valentine to that of St. John is curious and perhaps significant. Migne 3 also mentions the games of Saint Loup as amongst the most important and ancient of France. Saint Loup was a Burgundian saint and bishop of Sens, and took the part of the Burgundians against Clothair in the seventh century. 4 Clavel and Ileckethorn both derive the name of wolf from the mysteries of Isis. Ileckethorn says: “In the mysteries of Isis the candidate was made to wear the mask of a wolf’s head. Hence a wolf and a candidate in these mysteries were synonymous. Macrobius, in his ‘ Saturnalia,’ says that the ancients perceived a relationship between the sun, the great symbol of these mys- teries, and a wolf, for, as the flocks of sheep and cattle disperse at the sight of the wolf, so the flocks of stars disappear at the approach of the sun’s light. And in Greek, Xvhos means both the sun and a wolf. There is a family of fellow crafts that still derive their name from that idea.” 5 But as it is “a far cry” to Egypt, something nearer home may content us. The name alone of the Lupercal games is suggestive, but we are met with the fact that no mention of masks is found connected therewith. A French writer has, however, endeavored to get over this circumstance in the following words: “There is to be seen on a chalcedony in the collection of Stosch, a naked figure, erect, clothed with a sort of large girdle of some animal around his loins; a robust man, who having a thyrsus reclining against his shoulder, is in the act of using both hands to put on a mask. The figure doubtless rep- resents one of the Luperci, or priests of Pan, who ran naked in the streets, etc. The rites of the festivals of Pan did not differ much from those of Bacchus; these were celebrated by plays in the theatre; the festivals of Pan were perhaps also distinguished by spectacular performances, to which the mask would allude. It is true we do not read that the Luperci ran about masked, but the silence of the ancients does not render this supposition im- possible.” R But has not the writer made a mistake ? Does not the thyrsus prove that the figure represents an actor in the Dionysia ? All things considered, it is to the Bacchic mys- teries, which were derived from those of Egypt, that I am inclined to attribute the wolves, foxes and dogs of the Companions. 7 This supposition derives extra force from the name of Maitre Soubise. Perdiguier can only feebly suggest that there was perhaps a Pere Soubise, a Benedictine monk, a personage I have been unable to trace, but Clavel thinks it not impossible that the name of Soubise is derived from Sabazius, one of the many 1 Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire U niversal — Louvre. 2 Langlois, Les Enerves de Jumieges (1838), p. 17. 8 Nouvelle Encyclopedie Theologique, Dictionnaire des Mysteres, tom. xliii., p. 498. 4 Migne, Troisieme Encyclopedie Theologiqne, Dictionnaire des Legendes, tom. xiv., p. 790. 5 Clavel, p. 39: Heckethorn, vol. i., p. 257. Cf. smith. Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog., s.v. Isis. 6 Encyclopedie Methodique, Antiquites, tom. iii. — Luperces. 1 Cf. Limburg-Brouwer, t. ii. , pp. 392-400; and Sainte-Croix, Mysteres du Paganisme, t. ii., pp. 72-98. 244 THE COM PAN ION A GE. their royal palaces were called Lupara, wolves’ lairs, and later Louvres. ‘ The an palace of the Louvre in Paris still retains the name. And within the present century a fee strongly suggesting the Lupercalia, was annually held at Jumieges. The hero was el - * bv-his Companions, and called the loupvert, green wolf. On the morning of the 2-> ; June, the eve of St. John the Baptist, he was conducted round the place in procc attended mass, etc. At a certain moment he gave, by running a-muek and striking < one with his fists, a signal for the commencement of coarse amusements, in which al •' troop took part. Young men and maidens' joined in the revels, which continued there out i he ensuing day, and ended with a banquet. 3 If this was a survival of the Lupercalia n o transposition of its date from the feast of St.Valentine to that of St. John is curious -h-- perhaps* significant. Migne 3 also mentions the games of Saint Loup as amongst the important and ancient of France. Saint Loup was a Burgundian saint and bishop of :■ ■ and took the part of the Burgundians against Clothair in the seventh century. 4 Clave ■ Heckethorn both derive the name of wolf from the mysteries of Isis. Heckethorn says: the mysteries of Isis the candidate was made to wear the mask of a wolf's head. Hence a * > and a candidate in these mysteries were synonymous. Macrobius, in his 4 Saturnalia, a that the ancients perceived a relationship between the sun, the great symbol o r ■>■■■■ ; teries, and a wolf, for, as the flocks of sheep and cattle disperse at the sigh- so the. flocks of stars disappear at the approach of the sun’s light. And m'-. means both the sun and a wolf. There is a family of fellow crafts that stbi • ^ name from that idea.” 5 But as it is “a far cry” to Egypt, something near- i bourn •• . content us. The name alone of the Lupercal games is suggestive, but we are met wit:* - fact that no mention of masks is found connected therewith. A French writer has, how endeavored to get over this circumstance in the following words: “There is to he seen chalcedony in the collection of Stosch , a naked figure, erect, clothed with a sort of large f ■■ of some animal around his loins: a robust man, who having a thyrsus reclining again shoulder, is in the act of using both hands to put on a mask. The figure doubtless resents one of the Luperci, or priests of Pan, who ran naked in the streets, etc. rites of the festivals of Pan 'did not differ much from those of Bacchus; these were celeb 1 by plays in the theatre; the -festivals of Pan were perhaps also distinguished by specta performances, to which the mask would allude. It is true we do not read that the Ln ran about masked, but the silence of the ancients docs not render this supposition possible. ” R But has not the writer made a mistake ? Does not the thyrsus prove tl.u< figure represents an actor in the Dionysia? All things considered, it is to the Bacchic teries, which were derived from those of Egypt, that I am inclined to attribute the w foxes and dogs of the Companions. 7 This supposition derives extra force from tL of Maitre Soubise. Perdiguier can only feebly suggest that there was perhaps « ? ' Soubise, a Benedictine monk, a personage I have been unable to trace, bin rLvv > .• • it not impossible that the name of Soubise is derived from Sabazius, <>: A -v 1 Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universal — Louvre. 5 Langlois, Les ^nerves de Jumieges (1338), p. 17. 8 Nouvelle Encyclopedic Theologique, Dictionnaire des Mysteres, tom. xliii., p •*> 4 Migne, Troisit^me Encyclopedic Theologiqne, Dictionnaire des Legendes, turn ’ 6 Clavel, p. 39: Heckethorn, vol. i., p. 257. Of. smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. r %. 1 Encyclopedic Methodique, Antiquites, tom. iii. — Luperces. 1 Of. Limburg-Brouwer, t. ii. , pp. 392-400; and Sainte-Croix, Mysteres da I’m 73-98. THE COMPANIONAGE. 245 epithets applied to Bacchus. 1 If we accept this view, we shall perhaps he able to unravel the mystery of the “ howling/’ something very similar having taken place at the Dionysia. ‘‘According to the mythologists,” says Mr. Brown, “whose views are noticed by Diodorus Sikelos, Sabazios was a very ancient Dionysos, son of Zeus and Persephone, whose cult was performed at night, and who was homed. lie was also called Sabos, and Ploutarclios remarks ‘ that many even now call the Bakchik votaries Sabboi, and utter this word when they celebrate orgies to the god.’ Sabot was one of the sacred names shouted at the Bakchik, and Phrygian celebrations in honor of Dionysos. . . . As already explained, Sabazios is the Phoenician god Sbat, the seventh planet, or Saturnus who presides over the seventh or Sabbath day.” 2 And again, have we not a reminiscence of the Bacchic legends in the obscene love adventures of the three primitive tailor Companions, as hinted at in the revelations of 1655? As regards Maitre Jacques, Perdiguier says that, in the earliest ages, the Sons of Solomon were the only society; that there arose a schism in the bosom of this fraternity, and that the seceders placed themselves under the protection of Jacques Molay, the last grand master of the Templars. In the legend we find, as if in corroboration of this, an allusion to the “ de- struction of the Temples. ” There is much in the legend to bear out this construction of their origin. We have the name of Jacques, the residence in the Holy Land, and the canes, which might be taken to represent the knightly lance. Soubise might figure for the pope, who was a friend and protector of the Templars previous to Molay’s return to France, and the traitor would stand for the king of France. The traitor’s kiss might he looked upon as the symbol of the christening when Molay stood sponsor to the king’s child, prior to his arrest, and the large fire which the Companions built over his grave might be the type of Molay’s awful death. But apart from the fact that all this similitude is somewhat forced, it is evident that the Legend of Maitre Jacques bears much more resemblance to the passion of our Lord. The traitor was one of Jacques’ own disciples, he betrayed him with a kiss, his clothes were divided amongst his followers, his betrayer committed suicide, and the wounds inflicted by the daggers of the assassins were five in number, corresponding with the punctured hands, feet, and side of our Saviour. Again, it is almost impossible to believe that Molay ever had the opportunity of becoming the protector of such a body. A schism of this kind is not accomplished and crowned in one day. The pope’s letter inviting Molay to return from Cyprus and confer with him was dated June 1306, and the Grand Master arrived in France at the commencement of 1307. On the 13th of October of the same year he was imprisoned, and never regained his liberty; and in the interval, after depositing the treasure of the order in the Temple at Paris, he had visited Poictiers to have an interview with the pope. 3 What time had he to place himself at the head of the dissenting Com- panions? But if we reject this theory, what shall we substitute for it? In the first place, is it absolutely certain that the masons of Jacques were seceders from those of Solomon? That they are of later formation, I think is evident, inasmuch as the Hiramic Legend shows no traces of Christianity, whereas that of the Maitre Jacques does. Let us reflect one moment upon the position of the building trade in Gaul after the expulsion of the Romans. It must have languished. The barbarians wanted no stone 1 Clavel, p. 366. 2 Robert Brown, The Great Dionysiak Myth (1877-78), vol. ii., p. 31. Cf. Diod. Sic., iv., 4; Cic. de Nat. Deorum, iii., 23, De Leg., ii., 15; and Hesych, s. v. Sabazius 3 C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars (1852), pp. 239-241. 246 THE CO MPA NIONA GE. villas or castles. But by degrees the Church would find employment for the craftsmen, and in the first few centuries we may suppose them wholly employed in erecting ecclesiastical monuments. These must have been the Children of Solomon. In course of time a less- finished and ruder masonry would be required in the cities; at first chiefly for fortifications, as the dwellings were still of wood. The builders of these wooden dwellings were probably the Sons of Soubise, and if so, we here find in all likelihood the earliest of the three societies or families. This branch may have derived an unbroken succession from the colleges or companies of the Empire — a supposition by no means improbable, and to which color is lent by the etymological parallel already drawn, between Sabazius and Soubise. But, as in Germany, where we have seen a rivalry grow up between the stonemasons and stone- hewers, so also in France we might expect that the more skillful church builders would look down upon the civic masons. The latter, however, would endeavor to imitate the former, and to construct their own Companionage. A legend becomes necessary, and they invent one. The Sons of Solomon, being in the immediate service of the Church, had probably substituted the legend of Hiram for its Bacchic counterpart. Whether they invented or borrowed it, and if the latter, from what source, it is now impossible to decide. The Hiramic myth is imperfectly known to the Sous of Jacques, and therefore imperfectly copied. The Sons of Soubise, who in spite of Perdiguier, I am inclined to think older than those of Jacques, are also introduced, and the new legend everywhere shows traces of its Christian origin. This theory is entirely unsupported by recorded facts, but seems inherently probable. Jf, as we have supposed, Bacchus is represented by Soubise, the legend, whatever it be, must be older than that of Jacques; and it is only natural to suppose that carpenters existed in the Frankish cities before masons. If this theory and ri dairy are admitted, everything becomes tolerably clear. We can understand how it occurs that Jacques is a Frenchman of the time of Solomon, and the son of Jachin. Such anachronisms are more characteristic of the Middle Ages than of that earlier period when the myths of Hiram and Soubise were probably invented.. We understand why he constructed the two pillars of Solomon’s porch in direct contradiction to the Bible, which says they were fashioned by Hiram: here the spirit of rivalry peeps out. They possibly knew something, but not much, about the murder of Hiram and the sprig of acacia, hence they falsely make the reeds emblematical of a life pre- served instead of a life sacrificed ; and in the murder, turn to the passion of our Lord for a prototype. So much was this the case, that the few ceremonies which have been partially revealed seem to lose sight of Jacques entirely and to substitute our Lord, the crafts cited all belonging nevertheless to the company of Jacques. Again we find that the Sons of Jacques have welcomed all the other civic crafts, their natural neighbors if our theory is correct, whereas the Sons of Solomon and Soubise strictly confine themselves to the building trades. Or we may go a step further, and suppose that the craftsmen who ultimately became tie Sons of Jacques frankly accepted, in the first instance, the mystery of the Bedemption; and that Maitre Jacques was not imported into their legendary history until after the Com- panionage was condemned by the Church, when it was done with the object of evading the imputation of blasphemy, to which some of the Companions had rendered themselves liable. In this case, the legend of Jacques would be of comparatively recent origin, for which reason alone I am inclined to reject the supposition. But the theory we have been previously con- sidering overlooks one point, which is of great importance, viz., the tradition as reported by Perdiguier, that the Sons of Soubise are third in order of formation. Yet, after allowing this dictum its due weight, it seems highly improbable, if the legend of Jacques already THE COMPANIONA GE. 247 existed in which Soubise is denounced as a traitor, that any body of workmen would de- liberately place themselves under his protection, and incur the consequent odium. It is much more likely that the city masons made him a traitor out of sheer malevolence. The nicknames show this plainly. The Sons of Solomon and Soubise are wolves and foxes, for which we have shown a possible origin; those of Jacques appear to have had no traditionary cause for their name of were-wolves (a Teutonic, not a Roman superstition) beyond the desire to outdo their rivals. But whence the name of Jacques ? If we could only settle the date of this tradition our task would be lightened. There was a Jacques Cceur, born a simple furrier’s son, whose life and adventures were well calculated to arrest the attention of the journeymen of France. He became a master of the mint at Bourges under Charles VII., was wrongfully accused of fraud, and afterwards devoted himself to commerce. His affairs prospered, and he deter- mined to rival the V enetians. He visited Syria and Egypt, and opened up relations through- out the East. He had over 300 factors, some even in Babylon and Barbary; he covered the Mediterranean with his fleets, and made such a rapid fortune, that he was supposed to be possessed of the philosopher’s stone. He had offices at Montpellier, Marseilles, Tours, Paris, and Bourges, and is said to have spent six million francs on his palace at the last named city. He owned more than thirty estates, one at Saint Eargeau comprising twenty-two parishes, and mines of silver, lead, and copper, in the Lyonnais. Pie made a noble use of his opulence, and contributed largely to the war fund against the English. Charles placed him at the head of the Paris mint, and ennobled him in 1440. Agnes Sorel was his great friend and patroness, and appointed him her executor. Plis generous loans to the courtiers and nobility enabled them to maintain their extravagant outlay. But on the death of Agnes Sorel his persecutors saw their opportunity. In 1451 he was accused of poisoning her, and during his imprisonment his goods were largely confiscated. He was finally acquitted, but on being a second time falsely accused, his life was only spared at the intercession of the pope. He escaped from prison, having lost all his possessions in France, but found some honest debtors abroad, which saved him from indigence. Entering the service of the pope as captain-general of the Church, he died in command of its fleet against the Turks at the island of Chio, 1456. 1 Such a character, risen from the very ranks, might easily become the subject of a workman’s legend, and his first prosecution and acquittal might develop into an unsuccessful attempt at assassination, his second trial and condemnation into an accomplished murder. But the date appears to me too recent; we have indications of the Sons of Jacques in the mystery of St. Crispin as early as 1400. The same reason would probably preclude our seeing any connection between Jacques and the Jacquerie or insurrection of a. d. 1358. There was also a St. Jacques, a hermit of Greek origin, who died in 866. He threw up the occupation of a soldier to become a monk, and settled in Gaul, living near Bourges and Vierzon, and finally in a hermitage, since known as the Chapelle d’ Angillon. 2 In liis favor there is Greek origin and residence in Gaul. St. James the Apostle, known as St. Jacques de Compostelle ( St . Jago de Com- postella), also claims attention. One of his distinguishing marks is the pilgrim’s staff, with- out which he is seldom represented. Other saints are also occasionally portrayed with this emblem, but not invariably, as in the case of St. James. He was reputed to be the converter '• Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universel; and Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres en France, voi. i., p. 554. * Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universel. 248 THE COMPANIOVAGE. of Spain. A tale is told of a trial of strength between this saint and a sorcerer, the latter being aided by his demons. Having vanquished and convinced the sorcerer, he lent him his staff to preserve him from his own demons. He was decapitated under Herod. His dis- ciples, afraid to bury him, placed his remains on board ship. The vessel stranded in Galicia. The Countess de Lupa caused his body to be taken out and exposed on a stone, which immedi- ately closed around him and formed a sarcophagus. After many warnings, the Countess at length so far relented as to grant permission to use the wild bulls on her estate for the pur- poses of the funeral procession. These became instantly tame, and of their own accord drew the body into the courtyard of the palace of Lupa, the owner of which, becoming converted, built a magnificent church, etc . 1 The pilgrimages to his tomb at Compostella began long before the tenth century . 2 From frescoes in the church of St. Anthony at Padua picturing all these incidents, we also glean that his disciples were cast into prison and delivered by an angel, and that their persecutors drowned themselves . 3 Some writers transform the Countess de Lupa into Queen Louve. In favor of St. James as the prototype of Maitre Jacques, we have his pilgrimage to Spain from the East, his staff, the misadventures of the funeral rites, the curious title of wolf applied to the Queen or Countess, and the suicide of his enemies, all more or less ■ecalling the legend of Maitre Jacques as given by Perdiguier. The date also would appear appropriate enough, for if my theory of the origin of the civic masons is accepted, the tenth century would probably be about the time of their earliest organization. Another question suggests itself on studying the legend of Maitre Jacques. Is the hero the “ Naymus Grecus ” 4 mentioned in our English Constitutions “as having been at the building of Solomon’s Temple, whence he came into France, and taught the science of masonry to Charles Martel?” We have seen in the last chapter that the Paris masons claimed Charles Martel as a brother, and if we concede that the English masons borrowed this idea from France, it is quite within the limits of possibility that the legends of the Companionage were also known. But perhaps FTaymus Grecus may be M. Soubise. If Soubise is a corruption of Sabazius, we may imagine that at a very early date it more nearly approached the original pronunciation. Being a familiar term to the half Roman Gaul, it would excite no comment; but the Anglo-Saxon workman, on first hearing the name, might naturally ask for an explanation^ and receive for reply that it was a Greek name. From “ Greek name ” to “ Naymus Grecus, ” or “ Naymus the Grecian ” is no great step. Furthermore, in English masonry the name of Pythagoras has long been highly venerated. The legend of Jacques mentions a Greek philosopher, but omits his name, probably because it was a password or otherwise connected with the Companionage secrets. It is just possible that this name was that of Pythagoras; but of course it may have been the title of any other prominent personage of a bygone era. The legend, as given by Perdiguier, possesses many other points of interest, based rather on his omissions than upon his revelations. If we only had the text of his last words, and of “ the act of faith,” a full description of the burial rites, and the words used in howling, our conclusions on the whole subject could be far more clearly drawn; but even without these details the evidence already presented shows that in the Companionage and 1 Migne, Troiseme Encyclopedie Theologique, Dictionnaire des Legendes, tom. xiv., p. 663. 2 Ibid ., p. 1322. 3 Larousse, Grand Dictionnaire Universel. 4 See ante , Chap. II. (The Buchanan MS., No. 15, § xxi.); and Fort, p. 118. THE COMPANIONA GE. 249 in English Freemasonry are numerous coincidences, which occur too frequently, and are too strongly marked to be purely accidental. Let us shortly review these points of agreement, and in so doing glean indiscriminately from the usages of all three families. If, indeed, Freemasonry owes anything to the Com- panionage, it is probably to the Sons of Solomon more especially; but concerning these we possess very little information. Nevertheless, all three divisions have been shown to be so intimately connected, even to the extent of being cognizant of each other’s legends, that we can hardly doubt they reciprocally influenced one another; that there was little material difference between them; and that, in fact, they formed practically one institution. The following coincidences are worthy of our attention: — 1. “ Sons of Solomon ” certainly reminds us in general terms of our own fraternity. 2. Companions cle Liberie, free companions, of freemasons. 3. Devoir is a literal translation of our English Charge, and the documents appear to be very similar in form. 4. “ General Assembly” is a term common to both societies. 5. Accepted Companion and Initiated Com- panion sound strangely familiar. 6. Passed Companion presents a remarkable coincidence with our own expression. 7. The identity of idea and application between the Lewis and the Louveteau can scarcely be a mere chance correspondence. The above are similarities of expression and phraseology; let us now pass on to those of procedure preparatory to initiation. In both societies we find — 8. A previous inquiry into the candidate’s character. 9. An absence of compulsion, and a perfect freedom of choice. 10. A preliminary exposition of the general tendency of the society. 11. Perfect liberty to withdraw up to the last possible moment. 12. Sponsors, represented in Freemasonry by the proposer and seconder. As regards the government of the societies, it will have been observed that — 13. Each particular society was thoroughly independent, but welded into uniformity with the other societies by the various charges. Previous to 1717 this was generally the status of Freemasonry. 14. Each society exercised the powers of petty justice over its own members. 1 15. Punishments took the form of fines, and, in grave cases, of expulsion. 2 16. Amongst the Sons of Solomon there was a perfect equality of membership. 17. All the members took part in the election of officers. 18. Every Companion was eligible for office. 19. The officers were a president, elders, and secretary. If we regard the president as master, and the elders as wardens, the exact counterpart is met with in the three principal officers of a Freemason’s Lodge. The Steinmetzen had only one warden, the Companions evidently had more. 3 1 Compare Brentano (Gilds), 1870, pp. 54, 63; and Fort, p. 132. 2 The “ Halliwell” poem is very explicit as to the punishment of disobedient masons. The 10th Punctus (ante, p. 83) requires, that if “the mason lyve amyse, and yn hys werk be false, he sclial tlienne be chasted after the la we.” 3 “ In different rites, the positions of these officers [wardens] vary. In the York and American rites, the senior warden sits in the west and the junior in the south. In the French and Scottish rites, both wardens are in the west — the senior in the northwest and the junior in the southwest” (Mackey’s Encyclopaedia). 250 THE CO MPA NION A GE. The acknowledged principles of the two institutions — the Companionage and Free- masonry — rest upon a common foundation: 20. The Companions profess Honor to God, the desire of preserving their master’s interests, and of yielding to one another mutual support and assistance. The second of these protestations may well be paraphrased as their bounden duty. How, honor to the Almighty, the pursuit of our duty here below, and brotherly relief, are cardinal points of a Freemason’s profession. The Companion, on entering his lodge, is asked, “ What seek you here?” and answers, “God and the apostles.” To arrive at the knowledge of God, and of His truth, is the leading precept imparted in our Masonic Lodges. 1 The ceremonies of the Companionage present many singular features, some of which have their analogues in Freemasonry, and in the usages of the Steinmetzen ; whilst of others, the types are found in the proceedings of the Vehm Gerichte, or Vehmic tribunals of Westphalia, in the ceremonial of the Mysteries, and even in the Israelitish customs re- corded in the Holy Writings. Amongst these may be briefly noticed: 21. The sequence of degrees. 22. The costume and posture of a candidate. Describing the procedure of the Holy Vehme, Sir F. Palgrave says: “Bareheaded and ungirt, the candidate is conducted before the dread tribunal. He is interrogated as to his qualifications, or rather as to the absence of any disqualification. He must be free born and a Teuton. If the answers are satis- factory, he then takes the oath, swearing by the Holy Law. The new Freisschopfi was then entrusted with the secrets. He received the pass-word, by which he was to know his fellows, and the grip or sign by which they recognized each other in silence. If he discloses the secrets, he is to expect that he will be suddenly seized by the ministers of vengeance. His eyes are bound, he is cast down on the soil, his tongue is torn out through the back of his neck.” 2 According to Grimm, a cord about the neck was used symbolically, in criminal courts, to denote that the accused submitted his life to the judgment of the court. When used upon the person of a freeman, it signified a slight degree of subjection or ser- vitude. 3 23. Prescribed steps during a ceremony. 24. Conventional knocks. 25. Progression from one officer to another. 26. An examination on previously imparted instruction (p. 14). 27. Circumamb ulation . This rite is probably a relic of Sun-worship. In ancient Greece, when the priests were engaged in the rite of sacrifice, they and the people always walked three times round the altar while singing a sacred hymn. In making this pro- cession, great care was taken to move in imitation of the sun. 4 1 “As a Freemason, let me recommend to your most serious contemplation the volume of the Sacred Law. Therein you will be taught the important duties you owe to God, to your neighbor, and to yourself. To God, by never mentioning His name but with that awe and reverence, which are due from the creature to his Creator; by imploring His aid on all our lawful undertakings, and by look- ing up to Him in every emergency for comfort and support ” (Charge at Initiation). 2 Palgrave, The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, vol. i., pp. 149, 150. 3 Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Rechts-Alterth timer, 1828, pp. 184, 714. 4 At the ancient Symposia, the cups were always carried round from right to left, and the same order was observed in the conversation, and in everything that took place in the entertainment (Smith. Diet, of Greek and Roman Antiq.). Cf. Fort, p. 321; Oliver, Hist. Landmarks (1846), vol. i., p. 311; Asiatic Researches (1798), vol. v., p. 357; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxii. 2; Elton, Origins, etc., p. 293; and ante, p. 42, note 6. THE CO MPA NIONA GE. 2$i 28. Discalceation. In the Israelitish, as well as in the Germanic nationalities, this rite, in its widest signification, was symbolized to mean a total relinquishing of personal claim, and complete humiliation and subjection. 1 Dr. Adam Clarke thinks that the custom of worshipping the Deity barefooted was so general among all nations of antiquity, that he assigns it as one of his thirteen proofs that the whole human race have been derived from one family. 2 29. The living circle. 30. The two lighted candles, representing the sun and moon. 31. The oath of secrecy. 32. The avoidance of a conventional method of salutation. 33. The banquet following the ceremony. 34. The use of two separate rooms. (The Steinmetzen only used one, their workshop.) 35. The Guilbrette. This evidence of membership may be held to correspond with the signs of antiquity. It will be remembered that no trace of a sign was discoverable amongst the Steinmetzen. 36. The watch or pass word. This also was unknown in Ger- many. The Companions probably made use of Biblical words. 37. The use of the square and compasses. 38. The custom of holding monthly meetings generally on the first Sunday. Free- masons also meet on the first, second, third, etc., Monday, Tuesday, or as the case may be; that is to say, both societies as a rule avoid appointing for their assemblies a fixed day of the month, but arrange to meet on a certain day of the week. 39. The custom of holding a yearly festival, accompanied by a religious service and followed by a grand banquet. 40. The habit of converting fines into liquor for the general benefit. The by-laws of our old lodges prove the existence of this custom among the Free- masons. As accidental coincidences, which cannot influence our conclusions, may be mentioned the enmity of the Roman Church towards both Freemasonry and the Companionage, the admission of candidates of all religions, and the blue sash edged with gold. But the most striking factors in our final judgment must be — 41. The mutual possession of an Hiramic Legend; and, as I have endeavored to show, its probable existence amongst the Companions from a very remote period. Candor, how- ever, demands the acknowledgment, that in Freemasonry we meet with but sparing allu- sions to Hiram, until the early part of the last century. Many of the above characteristics are only what must arise in every secret society, and those in which may be possibly discerned the germs of our existing Freemasonry, if viewed singly, would be of very slight value. Taken conjointly, their weight materially increases. It is necessary, however, to call attention to the possible absence amongst the Companions of one of the leading features of Freemasonry. Nowhere do I find any distinct mention of a grip. The guilbrette may include one; it appears more than probable, but Perdiguier does not hint or declare that the giving of hands in this ceremony is performed in any special manner. 1 Fort, p. 320. 2 Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1836 (Exodus). 252 THE COMPANIONAGE. As we ponder over the evidence which has been unfolded, the question naturally arises. If this striking similitude to English Freemasonry existed in E ranee as late as 1841 tnat is, for more than a century after the first lodge in France was warranted by the Grand Lodge of England — why did the two societies never intermingle? Why should Frenchmen have accepted warrants at English hands, when they might as well have applied to the Enfants de Salomon? The difficulty is, I believe, more apparent than real. Whatever may have been the pri- mary object of the Companionage, it must be evident that it had long ceased to possess any speculative character. The ceremonies were still worked and preserved with that obstinacy which characterizes all popular usages, and of which many remarkable instances might be cited. They served their purpose in fostering amongst the workmen an esprit de corps, they had become part and parcel of a system of mutual assistance. In England, however, they had attained, or perhaps retained, a higher significance; and, though alike in outward form, were wide as the poles asunder in moral tendency. The supporters of Freemasonry, in France at least, were chosen from amongst the higher classes; those of the Companionage from the lower. If we admit, with Perdiguier, that Companions were received into Free- masonry, we need not be surprised at their failing to recognize in our beautiful morality and ritual anything more than a chance resemblance to their own ancient institution. An illiterate journeyman would scarcely look for any connection between a society that strove to reconcile all mankind and one that taught him that llis first duty was to hate and com- bat his fellows of another and rival fraternity; between a society that upheld the moral equality of all men, combined with a cheerful submission to authority, and one whose chief endeavor was to counteract the power of the masters and employers. Even such an en- lightened man as Perdiguier, when struck with certain resemblances, is rather inclined to account for them by presuming that his fraternity has copied the Freemasons, than by imagining a common origin. The failure on the part of the ignorant workman to recognize the relationship is not extraordinary. Yet what can be said of the French Freemasons? Their blindness may be accounted for by ignorance, pride, and ambition — ignorance of the ways and usages, history and traditions of the Companionage; pride in their own posi- tion, which would have declined such humble relations; ambition to be thought descendants of the Templars, Rosicrucians, Magi, etc., etc.? Have we not seen, although nothing can be more indisputably evident than the descent of English, and consequently of all Free- masons, from the mediaeval builders, that this descent was largely denied, or only grudg- ingly admitted, as a convenient cloak in whose ample folds the haughty Templars deigned to masquerade? And if Freemasons scorned as parents the glorious architects of the Middle Ages, how could we expect them to acknowledge brotherhood or seek affinity with a set of ignorant present-day workmen, who were only known to them by means of the police re- ports continually detailing their revolting battles, and of whose inner constitution absolutely nothing was known to the general public previously to 1841 ? MEDIALVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 2 = 3 CHAPTER VI. MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. F EW subjects of equal extent and importance have been the cause of so much contro- versy as the rise, progress, and decline of the architecture of the Early and Middle Ages of Western Europe. Even the very name is deceptive, for the last of the Gothic kingdoms was destroyed' in Spain some five centuries at least before what we call Gothic was introduced. In the early dissertations on this subject, as into many others of a corresponding period, was imported no slight amount of misplaced learning and ingenuity, accompanied by a reckless profusion of paradox and assertion. Besides the Gothic origin, which is after all a mere name, Gothic being taken in contradistinction to classical, and, passing over minor absurdities, we have that of Horace W alpole, who, in his lettei to the Rev. W. Cole, considers it as having been derived from imitating the metal work of shrines and reliquaries; others, as Milner , 1 point with more plausibility to the round intersecting arches, of which numerous examples may be met with at St. Cross, W inchester, and else- where. Whitaker, in his “History of the Cathedral of Cornwall ” 2 (which county possessed neither a cathedral nor a history), refers it to the time of Trajan, while the still more fantastic Ledwich, in his “Antiquities of Ireland,” assigns its origin to the Egyptians, and its introduction into England to the Normans; and Payne Knight, in his “Principles of Taste,” supposes it to be the product of the classical architecture of Greece and Rome, corrupted by that of the Saracens and the Moors. Kerrich 3 says that it is derived from a figure called the Vesica Piscis (an oval figure pointed at both ends) used on ecclesiastical seals, being herein slightly more absurd than Walpole ; while Lascelles, in his Heraldic Oiigin 1 Dr. J. Milner, Ecclesiastical Architecture, pp. 78-83; Essays on Gothic Architecture, pp. 131-133. 2 The Ancient Cathedral of Cornwall Historically Surveyed (1804), vol. i., p. 85. In the British Museum copyof this work appears the following note, in the handwriting of the well-known antiquary Francis Douce: “ Descartes’ remark on the writings of Lully may be well applied to all that Whitaker has written — ‘ Copiose et sine judicio de iis quse nescimus garriendum.’ ” 3 ArchEeologia, vol. xvi., p. 292; vol. xix.. p. 353. “As the Greek word for a fish, lx% c„ contained the initials of 'Ifio gvg Xpigrog Qeov T log Zurtfp, even the inhabitants of the deep were made to represent Christ: and the rough outline of the fish, formed of two curves, meeting in a point at their extremi- ties, was made to enclose, under the name of Vesica Piscis, the figure of our Saviour in His glorified state; or of the Madonna; or of the patron saint ” (T. Hope, Essay on Architecture, 1835, p. 183). Mr. Kin- S ays: “ It is astonishing how much of the Egyptian and the second-hand Indian symbolism passed over into the usuages of following times. The erect oval, the most expressive symbol of passive nature, became the Vesica Piscis and a frame for divine things ” (The Gnostics and their Remains, pp. 72. 229). MEDIAL VAL OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 2 54 of Gothic (18 l 0), fail ly surpasses all competitors by deriving pointed arches from the sections of the ark, and thereupon claims for it the very highest antiquity, as being Hebrew. Stukeley, in his “Itinerary,” 1 and also in the “ Archseologia, ” says that pointed architecture was originally brought from Arabia, where it was derived from the imitation of groves of trees (which groves doubtless flourished in Arabia Peteea); and Warburton, who was nothing if not paradoxical, borrowed this wonderful theory without acknowledgment, and improved it in his notes to “Pope’s Essays,” by saying that the Goths invented the style with the assistance of the Saracens 2 — who destroyed the last Gothic kingdom something like five hundred years before the rise of Gothic architecture! After this it is not surprising that some few writers should have dragged in the Druids, for there is no possible antiquarian confusion into which this terrible sect is not introduced, and have asserted that they in- vented Gothic in imitation of their groves of oak, though no one has ever yet ventured to assert, much as they pretend to know about them, that the Druids’ groves were planted in regular allies, like the grounds of a French chateau, or that 'the branches of oaks planted in that order would suggest the idea of a Gothic avenue. One or two writers, however, seem to have had an inkling of the truth. For instance, the learned and highly talented Gray, 3 in a letter to Warton, denies that Gothic architecture came from the East; and the practical Essex, 4 in his “Observations on Southwell Minster,” asserts that it arose from vaulting upon “ bows,” and from sometimes covering irregular spaces with such vaults. Cei tain thcoiics, howevei, from the celebrity they have obtained and the greatness of the names by which they are supported, deserve a slightly more detailed examination. In the 1 aientalia, Sii Christopher When is made to say that Gothic architecture is derived from the Saracenic, or is the Saracenic in a Christianized form. Now, assuming that Wren really said what is imputed to him — a point upon which some remarks will be offered at a later stage— yet we must remember that no man, however great his attainments, and those of A ren were undoubtedly immense, is infallible, and that Wren was neither a profound antiquary nor a great traveller, hence he could only judge of Oriental buildings by the light of such rude drawings and perhaps still vaguer descriptions as might have chanced to fall in his way, and he must have been totally unable to correct the ideas so formed by any ac- curate comparison, which indeed would be nearly impossible at the present time; hence all he had to go by was the fact of there having been pointed arches existent in the East from an early period, and that, simultaneously with the West, having been (thrown upon the East by the Crusades, the pointed superseded the round style in the former countries. The conclusion, though false, was certainly natural and justifiable. Next we have the theory of Governor Pownall, 5 that Gothic was derived from an imitation of timber construction, a 1 Itinerarium Curiosum, vol. ii. , p. 71; Archteologia, vol. i., p. 40. 5 The Rev. J. Spence, in his “Anecdotes of Pope,” relates a conversation to prove that he sug- gested the original idea to Warburton (Anecdotes, etc., of Books and Men, 1820, p. 12). Authoi of the Elegy. Although Gray published little besides his poems, he was a man of extensive acquirements in natural history and the study of ancient architecture. 4 James Essex, a Cambridge architect, author of “ A Collection of Essays on Gothic Architecture,” and of a disquisition on Freemasonry, to be found in Addit. MSS., British Museum, 6760. 6 Archajologia, vol. ix., 1788, p. 110. “ Thomas Pownall, having been Governor of South Carolina and other American colonies, was always distinguished from a brother of his (John, also an antiqua- rian) by the title of Governor Pownall ” (Stephen Jones, Biographical Dictionary, 1811, p. 380). By a recent American writer (Junius Identified, Boston, 1856) this worthy antiquary is stated to have been the “ Great Unknown,” whose personality has hitherto baffled conjecture on this side of the Atlantic. 2 54 ' MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONR Y. of Gothic” (182Q), fairly surpasses all competitors by deriving jx , p or , p c sections of the ark, and thereupon claims for it the very higiiesc . u ,- ; p u „. Hebrew. Stukeley, in his “Itinerary," 1 and also in the ‘‘Archseolopia. * )0 j,. K J architecture was originally brought from Arabia, where it was derived -mitutic- groves of trees (whicli groves doubtless flourished in Arabia Petrsea); a ' tun. p f . was nothing if not paradoxical, borrowed this wonderful theoiy wit-lmr.; - edgn ni and improved it in his notes to “Pope’s Essays,” by saying that the Got -• the ym with the assistance of the Saracens "-—who destroyed the last Goth;;" A: : - somek n- like five hundred years before the rise of Gothic architecture ! Aftrr t A - • . .»■ - >?uror ; y •,.*> that some few writers should have dragged in the Druids, for there is no , confusion into which this terrible sect is not introduced, and have as*-, vented Gothic in imitation of their groves of oak. though no one liar to assert, much as they pretend to know about them, that the Druids’ gr in regu lar allies, like the grounds of a French chateau, or that dhe brand \ in that order would suggest the idea of a Gothic avenue. One or tw. seem to have had an inkling of the truth. For instance, the learned a n (tray,' in a letter to "Wart-on, denies that Gothic architecture ca practical Essex, 4 in his “Observations on Southwell Minster,” asserts t vaulting upon “ bows,” and from sometimes covering irregular spaces wit Certain theories, however, from tho celebrity they have obtained and • Tit h * < intiqua taut the) yet ventu y. ire plat : -nks plan era, ho we’ ghly taler d i: and _ it arose ft 4ch vaults, rrcatnes- a. i -■■■■ i the names by which they are supported, deserve a slightly more detailed «* vamination. the “Parentalia,” Sir Christopher Wren is made to say that Gothic archil -ordure is derh ■ from the Saracenic, or is the Saracenic in a Christianized form, Now, assuming that \W- t really .Saul, what is imputed to him— a point upon which some remarks will he 'offered' tv; h kfter stage— yet we must remember that no man, however great his attab i u nh , and th ■ --- of Wren were undoubtedly immense, is infallible, and that Wren was n-b -r a prof on m antiquary nor a great traveller, lienee he could only judge of Oriental bud Wuirs by the lie -h? of such rude drawings and perhaps still' vaguer descriptions as might have chanced to W in his way, and he must have been totally unable, to correct the ideas so E, mod by any am- curate comparison, which indeed would be nearly impossible -at the presen ; time; hence mi; he had to go by was the fact of there having been pointed arches existent in the East from* an early period, and that, simultaneously with the West, having been, thrown upon Pin East by the Crusades, the pointed superseded the round style in the former . ou ntries. Tdw conclusion, though false, was certainly natural and justifiable. Next we iuive the tliemrv of Governor Pownall/’ that Gothic was derived from an imitation of timbei oonstructioi ■ Itinerarium ( uriosum, vol. ii., p. 71; Arehaeologia, vol. i., p, 40. • The Rev. >. Spence, in his “Anecdotes of Pope,” relates a. conversation to ; v. that he - . , - gested the original idea to Warburton (Anecdotes, etc., of Books and Men, 1820, p. 13). 3 Author of the “Elegy.” Although Gray published little besides his poem - . -a- was a man extensive acquirements in natural history and the study of ancient architecture. 4 James Essex, a Cambridge architect-, author of “ A Collection of .Essays on G - t Vrvldtectuw and of a disquisition on Freemasonry, to be found in Audit. MSS., British Musenn w m. 4 Archseologia, vol. ix., 1788, p. 110. “ Thomas Pownall, having been Governs. : xh Caro and other American colonies, was always distinguished from a brother of his (Job t: m so a: ■ ant !• -rian) by the title of Governor Pownall ” (Stephen Jones, Biographical Dictionary v - p. 3S0>. 'l!v a, recent American writer (Junius Identified. Boston, this worthy antique v >.t u f , -.1 t-> vV>. been the “ Great Unknown,” whose personality has hi Mierto baffled conjecture - . - i- -ul.- . Ik Atlantic. St. Ste'plW'H 1 £> GatJae&t-ct/l, 6 Pienna. MEDIAEVAL ARCHITECTURE OF EASTERN EUROPE. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SOAR Y. 255 theory which has been repeated without acknowledgment by some of the later writers of the “Histoire Litteraire de la France.” Sir James Hall, in an essay in the “ Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Edinburgh (1809),” 1 says that pointed architecture was a secret of the Freemasons, and began by an imitation of wicker work, being practised earlier in Scotland than in England. The last was an obvious corollary, for the Scots used wattle, like most other barbarians. I can only wonder that so fine a chance of bringing in the Druids was here let slip, for they are said to have made use, in their religious rites, of very large wicker images, which they filled with living victims and then set on fire. Hope, in bis famous essay, published after his death, attributes the rise of Gothic architecture to the practice of employing interlacing ribs, and filling in the interstices with stone or brick, a theory which comes tolerably near the truth. 2 The researches of later and better-informed writers, however, have made it clear that the Gothic was no imitation or importation, but an indigenous style, which arose gradually but almost simultaneously in various parts of Western Europe. In the words of the latest and ablest of these writers, the late Sir Gilbert Scott: “ In the gradually increasing predominance of the vertical over the horizontal, the increase of the height of the pillars and jambs demanding a pro- portionate addition to the arch, the necessities of groined vaulting over oblong spaces, and a hundred other evidences, proved the pointed arch to be the inevitable result of the already attained developments and after it had almost unconsciously appeared in intersecting arcades.” Again: “ It is possible that France was the more rapid in making use of these developments, and it is certain that Germany was the most tardy.” 3 To this I may add, here also following Sir G. Scott, that it is essentially the architecture of the Germanic races. The cradle, as far as can be ascertained, was the north-east corner of France, the centre of the Frankish empire. These Franks were the greatest of the purely Teutonic races, and they founded an empire which for a time was no unworthy successor of that of Home herself. It spread over the whole of north France to the Loire, the country of the Langue d’Oil, and the Pays Coutumier, as distinguished from the Pays Latin, the country of the Langue d’Oc, the feudal and Teutonic, as contrasted with the Latin portion of the country. From thence it overspread and became indigenous in Eng- land, Scotland, and Germany; but made its appearance in Italy as a foreign importation, 4 5 generally the work of German architects, as at Milan, and is usually spoken of by native writers as a German production, while it scarcely spread even then beyond the portion of the country which was in the earlier stages of its development under German influence, the three hundred and twenty examples enumerated by Willis 6 being almost exclusively found there. In Spain, also, where a strong Teutonic element must have existed in the Visigothic remnant, it seems to have been in great measure the work of German or French architects. The Slavs never built, and no buildings worthy of the name will be found east of a line drawn from the Elbe to the head of the Adriatic, which marks the line between the two races, and the lofty and magnificent steeple of St. Stephen’s, Vienna, might suggest to 1 Published as a separate work in 1813. 2 Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture, 1835, p. 338. 3 Scott, Lectures on Mediaeval Architecture, 1879. 4 “In Italy, pointed architecture and scholasticism were ‘exotics,’ never thoroughly acclimated ” jj. Stoughton, Ages of Christendom before the Reformation, 1855, p. 335. See Dean Milman, History of Latin Christianity, 1854-55, vol. vi., p. 587). 5 R. Willis, Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages, especially of Italy, 1835. 256 MEDIAL VAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. fanciful minds the image of a watch-tower overlooking the waste beyond. Whal Gothic buildings exist in Pomerania were erected by the Teutonic settlers and conqueror^, while Scandinavia, though inhabited by a kindred race, was probably too poor and remote to par- ticipate in the general movement. Gothic is not only the last link in the chain of genuine and original style, the architecture of the modern as distinguished from the ancient world, but it was also the product of a peculiar romantic temperament developed at that particular period, which was totally unlike anything that has been seen either before or since, even among the same nations, and which showed itself, not only in architecture but literature, and even in politics, notably in the great movement of the Crusades. Having thus discussed the origin of Gothic architecture, I pass on to those who practised it. A prevalent theory was, that all Gothic churches were erected by a body of travelling Freemasons acting in concert, and being apparently a kind of lay brethren, guided entirely by the “monks” — a very convenient term indeed for Protestant writers — and always working as one man, were assumedly under the control of one supreme chief, as the Franciscans and Jesuits of later times by a “ general.” Coupled with this is ordinarily found a belief that the Gothic architecture practised by these monks and masons was, in its origin, an em- anation from Byzantium, 1 thus forming a link by which to connect the Masonic bodies and their architecture with the East, and so on up to the Temple, and further still, if necessary, ad infinitum. Another and more scientific, though equally baseless hypothesis, places the origin of Gothic architecture in Germany, and makes the Germans its apostles, sometimes, indeed, going so far as to deny the natives of other countries even the poor merit of im- itation — their churches being supposed to have been built for them by Germans 2 — while a third scheme contents itself with simply ridiculing in toto the pretensions of the Free- masons. 3 At this stage, however, it becomes essential to examine more closely the passage quoted from the “ Parentalia,” and to duly consider the elaborate arguments by which Gov- ernor Pownall, Sir James Hall, and Mr. Hope have supported their respective contentions, in order that we may form a correct estimate of the influence these have exercised in shaping or fashioning the theory of Masonic origin, believed in by encyclopaedists between 1750 and 1861. It is true that Hawkins's “ History of Gothic Architecture,” 1813, is honorably dis- tinguished from all similar works published after the disclosure of Sir J. Hall's hypothesis, 1803, by the absence of the word Freemasons from both index and letterpress; 4 but, with this solitary exception, all writers (after Hall) who selected architecture as their theme have associated the Freemasons with the Gothic, or pointed style — a theory which reached its fullest development in the well-known essay of Mr. Hope. 6 Wren — if we accord him the credit of the outline of Masonic history given in the “Par- entalia” — blended conjecture with tradition. Hall, as we shall see, found in the statement ascribed to Sir Christopher, the principle of authority, and looked no further. The greatest architect of his age, and the “Grand Master of the Freemasons,” could not possibly 1 Cf . Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture, chap. xxi. ; Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 33, and ante, p. 45. 2 Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 76. 3 See Street, Gothic Architecture in Spain, 1865, p. 464; Gwilt, Encyclopaedia of Architecture (Wyatt Papworth, 1876), pp. 128, 130; and Dallaway, Discourses upon Architecture, 1833, pp. 405-407. 4 J. S. Hawkins, History of the Origin and Establishment of Gothic Architecture, 1813. 6 Published, I believe, originally in 1831, but the only editon I have been able to consult is the 2d, 1836. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. 257 err in coupling the profession he adorned with the society over which he ruled. 1 Dallaway in 1833 published his “Discourses upon Architecture/’ the last of which he entitled “Col- lections for an Historical Account of Master and Freemasons/’ and from this fount Masonic writers have largely drawn. 2 Mr. Hope’s essay has been alluded to in a previous chapter. 3 This writer quotes no authorities, and though, at the present day, many people might think that the verdict formerly passed upon his “Anastasius” (1819) would now apply to his history of the Freemasons — viz., “ a romance which holds a distinguished rank among modern works of fiction ” — it was at one time so much in request, as a professional text book, that an analytical Index 4 * to its contents, consisting of eiglity-nine pages and with twelve illustrations in wood, had a very extended sale. According to the editors of the “Parentalia,” 6 “he [Wren] was of opinion (as has been mentioned in another Place) that what we now vulgarly call Gothick ought properly and truly to be named the Saracenick Architecture refined by the Christians, which first of all began in the East, after the Fall of the Greek Empire, by the prodigious Success of those People that adhered to Mahomet’s Doctrine, who, out of Zeal to their Religion built Mosques, Caravansaras, and Sepulchres wherever they came. “ These they contrived of a round Form, because they would not imitate the Christian Figure of a Cross, nor the old Greek Manner, which they thought to be idolatrous, and for that Reason all Sculpture became offensive to them. “ They then fell into a new Mode of their own Invention, tho’ it might have been ex- pected with better Sense, considering the Arabians wanted not Geometricians in that Age, nor the Moors, who translated many of the most useful old Greek Books. As they propa- gated their Religion with great Diligence, so they built Mosques in all their conquered Cities in haste. The Quarries of great Marble, by which the vanquished Nations of Syria, Egyjot, and all the East had been supplied, for Columns, Architraves, and great Stones, were now deserted; the Saracens, therefore, were necessitated to accommodate their Architecture to such Materials, whether Marble or Free-stone, as every Country readily afforded. They thought Columns and heavy Cornices impertinent and might be omitted; and affecting the round Form for Mosques, they elevated Cupolas, in some Instances with Grace enough. The Holy War gave the Christians, who had been there, an Idea of the Saracen Works, which were afterwards by them imitated in the West; and they refined upon it every Day 1 Wren was never “ Grand Master,” nor has it been proved that he was a Freemason at all. In a later chapter I shall attempt to show that the extract from the “ Parentalia,” which follows in the text, was penned by the real editor, Joseph Ames. 2 Dallaway cities approvingly “that the incorporation of masons, in the thirteenth century, may have finally brought the pointed arch to that consistency and perfection to which it had not then attained” (R. Smirke, in the Archaeologia, vol. xxiii.j. The denomination of Free-masons in Eng- land, he deemed to be merely a vernacular corruption of the Freres-Magous established in France.” (Discourses, etc., pp. 407, 434). 3 Ante, p. 45. 4 By Edward Cresy, F.S.A., 1836. Dean Milman remarks : “All the documentary evidence ad- duced by Mr. Hope amounts to a Papal privilege to certain builders or masons, or a guild of builders, at Como, published by Muratori, and a charter to certain painters by our Henry VI. Schnaase (Ge- schiekte der Bildende Kunst, iv., c. 5) examines and rejects the theory ’’ (History of Latin Christianity, vol. vi., p. 587). 6 Parentalia, or Memoirs of the family of the Wrens; but chiefly of Sir Christopher Wren. Com- piled by his son Christopher. Now published by his grandson, Stephen Wren Esq., with the care of Joseph Ames, F.R.S. London, mdccl., p. 306. 258 MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. as they proceeded in building Churches. The Italians (among which were yet some Greek Refugees), and with them French, German , and Flemings, joined into a Fraternity of Architects, procuring Papal Bulls 1 for their Encouragement and particular Privileges; they stiled themselves Freemasons, and ranged from one Nation to another as they found Churches to be built (for very many in those Ages were everywhere in Building, through Piety or Emulation). Their Government was regular, and where they fixed near the Building in Hand, they made a Camp of Huts. A Surveyor govern’d in chief; every tenth Man was called a Warden, and overlooked each nine . 2 The Gentlemen of the Neighborhood, either out of Charity or Commutation of Pennance, gave the Materials and Carriage. Those who have seen the exact Accounts in Records of the Charge of the Fabricks of some of our Cathedrals near four hundred Years old, cannot but have a great Esteem for their (Economy, and admire how soon they erected such lofty Structures.” Governor Pownall 3 believed that “the collegium or corporation of Freemasons were the first formers of Gothick Architecture into a regular and scientific order, by applying the models and proportions of timber frame-work to building in stone;” and was further of opinion that this method “came into use and application about the close of the twelfth or commencement of the thirteenth century.” “The times,” he continues, “of the building the Gothick neiv-works coincide with this ana. A fact which coincides with this period offers itself to me— that, the churches throughout all the northern parts of Europe being in a ruinous state, the Pope created several corporations of Roman or Italian architects and artists, with corporate powers and exclusive privileges, particularly with a power of setting by themselves the prices of their own work and labor, independent of the municipal laws of the country wherein they worked, according as Hiram had done by the corporations of architects and mechanics which he sent to Solomon . 4 * The Pope not only thus formed them into such a corporation, hut is scad to have sent them (as exclusively appropriated ) to repair and rebuild these churches and other religious edifices. 5 This body had a power of taking apprentices, and of admitting or accepting into their corporation approved masons. The common and usual appellation of this corporation in England was that of The Free and Accepted Masons.” Governor Pownall then goes on to say that, “claiming to hold primarily and exclusively of the Pope, they assumed a right, as iYee-masons, of being exempt from the regulations of the statutes of laborers, to which they constantly refused obedience. One might collect historical proofs of this, but as the fact stands upon record in our statute laws, I shall rest on that. ” 6 Our author next fixes the establishment of the Freemasons in England about the early part of the reign of Henry III., at which period “the Gothic 1 The statement that Papal bulls were granted to the early Freemasons is one of the most puzzling that we meet with in the study of Masonic history. The subject will be duly examined at a later period, in connection with the dicta of Sir William Dugdale and John Aubrey. See Halliwell, Early History of Freemasomy in England, 1844, p. 46; ante, p. 176. 2 Cf., Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th and 9th editions (Freemasonry); Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture, p. 287; and ante, p. 8. 3 Observations on the Origin and Progress of Gothic Architecture, and on the Corporation of Free- masons; supposed to be the establishes of it as a regular Order (Arcliaeologia, 1788, vol. ix., pp. 110-126). 4 1 Kings v. , 6. 6 Throughout this excerpt from the Arcliaeologia, the italics are those of Governor Pownall. “The Statute 8 Henry VI., c. i., is here referred to, which will be examined fully in the next chapter. MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 259 architecture came forward into practice as a regular established order and suggests as irre- sistible — the inference that the invention and introduction of this bold and very highly scientific order of architecture must be referred to these chosen and selected artists. 1 “Having shown,” concludes Pownall, “ from incontrovertible record that there was in England a corporation of architects and masons, instituted by a foreign power, and that this foreign jurisdiction, from which they derived and under which they claimed, was the Pope, who created them by bull, diploma, or charter, about the close of the twelfth or commencement of the thirteenth century, I was very solicitous to have inquiry and search made amongst the archives at Rome, whether it was not possible to find the record of this curious transaction and institution. The librarian of the Vatican was, in 1773, on my behalf, applied to. He examined the archives deposited there, and after a long search, said, ‘he could not find the least traces of any such record.’ The head keeper of the archives was next applied to, and his answer was the same. The Pope himself, in consequence of a conversation which the inquiries in my letter led to, interested himself in the inquiry, and with the utmost politeness ordered the most minute research to be made but no dis- covery arose from it. I cannot, however, yet be persuaded but that some record or copy of the diploma must be somewhere buried at Rome, amidst some forgotten and unknown bundles or rolls. ” 2 Of Gothic architecture Sir James Hall says: “During the three centuries in which it prevailed exclusively over the greater part of Europe, its principles remained fixed and unchanged, in passing through a multitude of hands, eager to outdo their predecessors and their rivals by the novelty as well as by the elegance of their compositions. Such a conformity cannot be accounted for but by supposing that the artists were guided in their work by some principle known to them all, and handed down from one generation to another. But that no such principle has reached our knowledge, is proved by the various unsuccessful attempts which have been made of late to explain the forms of Gothic architecture, and to reconcile them to each other. We must, therefore, conclude that if there had been any such principle, it was known to the artists only, and concealed by them from the rest of the world. In order to determine this point, it is necessary to inquire by whom the art was practised. In that view, I shall refer, in the first place, to Sir Christopher Wren, an authority of great weight.” This writer then transfers to his pages the extract already given from the “Parentalia,” 3 adding, after the words “he [Wren] was of opinion,” “says his son, Mr. Wren,” and continues: — “The architecture here pointed out as practiced by the Freemasons in contradistinction to the Romans, being decidedly what we call Gothic, it is quite obvious that Sir Chris- topher Wren considered Gothic architecture as belonging to the Freemasons exclusively. Sir Christopher, who was surveyor-general of the works of architecture carried on in the 1 Without going so far as to agree with Governor Pownall that the Freemasons invented Gothic, it may be reasonably contended that without them it could not have been brought to perfection, and without Gothic they would not have stood in the peculiar and prominent position that they did; that there was mutual indebtedness, and while without Freemasons there would have been no Gothic, but a different, and I think an inferior, kind of architecture— without Gothic the Freemasons would have formed but a very ordinary community of trades unionists. 2 Mr. Tytler says: “I have in vain looked for the original authority upon which Sir Christopher Wren and Governor Pownall have founded their description of the travelling corporations of Roman architects” (History of Scotland, 1845, vol. ii., p. 278. 8 P. 306. He also cites p. 356 of the same work. 26 o MEDIAL VA L OPERA TI VE MA SO NR Y. kingdom, and, at the same time, a man of learning and curiosity, was led to examine the old records, to which he had free access. Being, likewise, for many years, the leading man among the Freemasons, and their Grand Master, we may consider his testimony in this question as the strongest that the subject will admit of.” 1 Ke viewing the condition of architecture towards the end of the 10th century, Mr. Hope says: — “It may be supposed that, among the arts exercised and improved in Lombardy, that of building held a pre-eminent rank and, in fact, we find in Muratori, that already, under the Lombard kings, the inhabitants of Como were so superior as masons and brick- layers that the appellation of Magistri Comacini, or Masters from Como, became generic to all those of the profession. We cannot, then, wonder that, at a period when artificers and artists of every class formed themselves into exclusive corporations, architects should, above all others, have associated themselves into similar bodies, which, in conformity to the general style of such corporations, assumed that of free and accepted masons, and was composed of those members who, after a regular passage through the different fixed stages of apprenticeship, were received as masters, and entitled to exercise the profession on their own account.” In the view of the same writer, “Lombardy itself soon became nearly saturated with the requisite edifices,” and unable to give the Freemasons “a longer continuance of suffi- cient custom, or to render the further maintenance of their exclusive privileges of great benefit to them at home.” The Italian corporations of builders, therefore, began to look abroad for that employ- ment which they no longer found at home, and a certain number united, and formed them- selves into a single greater association or fraternity — seeking a monopoly, as it were, over the whole face of Christendom. “ They were fraught with Papal bulls, or diplomas, granting to them the right of holding directly and solely under the Pope alone; they acquired the power, not only them- selves to fix the price of their labor, but to regulate whatever else might appertain to their own internal government, exclusively in their own general chapters prohibiting all native artists not admitted into their society from entering with it into any sort of competition.” That an art so peculiarly connected with every branch of religion and hierarchy as that of church architecture, should become, in every country, a favorite occupation with its ecclesiastics, need not, Mr. Hope thinks, excite our surprise. Lest, however, such as belonged not to their communities should benefit surreptitiously by the arrangements for its advantage, the Freemasons ‘ ‘ framed signs of mutual recogni- tion, as carefully concealed from the knowledge of the uninitiated as the mysteries of their art themselves.” “ Wherever they came, they appeared headed by a chief surveyor, who governed the whole troop, and named one man out of every ten, under the name of warden, to overlook the nine others. ” 2 “ The architects of all the sacred edifices of the Latin Church, Avherever such arose — 1 Hall, Essay on Gothic Architecture, 1813, pp. 2, 112. It is fairly inferential than in the view thus expressed Sir James Hall was largely influenced by a belief in the actual testimony of a Grand Master of the Freemasons. See ante, p. 257, note 1. 2 This statement is evidently copied from the “ Parentalia; ” and a careful collation of Mr. Hope’s work with the three previously cited, will prove, I think, that his remarks on the Freemasons are mainly, if not entirely, borrowed without the slighest acknowledgment from the “ Memoirs of the Wrens,” and the Essays of Governor Pownaff and Sir James Hall. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 261 north, south, east, or west — thus derived their science from the same central school; obeyed in their designs the dictates of the same hierarchy, and rendered every minute in- provement the property of the whole body.” “ The downfall of the Freemasons,” says Mr. Hope,— “of that body composed of so many lesser societies dispersed and united all over Europe, which, throughout all Europe, w r as alone initiated in all the secrets of the pressure and the counter-pressure of the most complicated arches, so essential to the achievement of constructions after the pointed fashion, and so intricate, that even a Wren confessed his inability to understand all their mysteries; the passage of the whole art of building from the hands of these able masters into those of mere tyros, not bred in the schools of Freemasonry, and not qualified to hazard its bold designs, forced architecture immediately backwards from that highly complex and scien- tific system into one more simple in its principles and more easy in its execution. It will excite no surprise that a treatise so highly esteemed by those who studied archi- tecture as a profession, and elevated, for the time being, by the general voice, into the character of a standard work, should have impressed with even greater force the some- what careless writers by whom Masonic history has been compiled. Traces, however, of Mr. Hope’s influence upon succeeding writers are to be found in many works of high rep- utation, and these, as would naturally happen, still further disseminated and popularized the views of which an outline has been given, until, in the resuit, a natural reaction took place, and what Sir Gilbert Scott calls the “fables of the Freemasons” have so far extended their sway, that, as long since pointed out, the historians of the craft, by supporting what is false, have prevented thinking men from believing what is true. Even the judicious Hallam has been carried along with the current, and remarks: “Some have ascribed the principal ecclesiastical structures to the fraternity of Freemasons, de- positaries of a concealed and traditionary science. There is probably some ground for this opinion; and the earlier archives of that mysterious association, if they existed, might illus- trate the progress of Gothic architecture, and perhaps reveal its origin.” 2 In the following pages it will be my endeavor to show, as clearly and succinctly as I can, that inasmuch as Western Europe has always, as has been well said, formed a kind of federal republic of states, so there has always been throughout a certain similarity between the fashions and institutions of the different nations, to which architecture has proved no exception — that at one time a great new fashion arose in architecture, as in the whole char- acter of the nations, but that each nation in all time pursued its own individuality, untram- melled by that of its neighbors; and that hence, as no spontaneous movement was possible, so the overspreading of Europe by one Germanic fashion is equally mythical. Both these propositions can easily be proved by an appeal to the buildings themselves- — a far safer method of procedure than that of trusting to printed statements, the authority of which is not always exactly apparent. But inasmuch as the differences between these structures can only be 1 Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture, 1835, pp. 228-238, 527. 2 Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. 1853, vol. iii., p. 358. Originally published 1832, the year after Mr. Hope’s death. Cf. F. A. Paley, Manual of Gothic Architecture, 1846, p. 211; and G. A. Poole, History of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England, 1848, pp. 116, 119. Rosengarten says: “The fraternities or guilds of masons, from whom the Freemasons derive their origin, may have contributed greatly to the completion of the pointed arch. These fraternities were probably formed as early as the period of transition between the Romanesque and Pointed styles, in order to afford a counterpoise to the organizations of the priesthood” (a Handbook of Architectural Styles, trans. by W. Collett-Sanders, 1878, p. 289). 262 MEDIA1 VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. really ascertained by actual examination, or by the careful inspection of an almost endless series of good drawings — a study which even then would require a trained eye — I must ask my readeres for at least as much good faith as to believe that I am acting in good faith towards them. The third point — namely, what share the operative masons had in the construction of these buildings — will be reserved for the latter part of the chapter, wherein, though quoting somewhat more from books, I shall still rely mainly on the structures them- selves. The first theory— that of an universal brotherhood — is contradicted by the absolute silence of all history, no less than by the very strong negative evidence on the other side, and that on evidence afforded not merely by history, but by the appearance of the actual edifices; the idea of an ancient universal brotherhood linked with the past in a manner to which I need not further refer, supposes, amongst other things, that the Catholic Church in all her branches, at the very time that she was combating, both within and without, the Gnosticism and Manicheism of the East transplanted into the West, called in those very powers to her assistance, and that these same Gnostics and Manicheans, at a period of deadly hostility and persecution, should have devoted themselves — as they have not done since — to the erection of temples of the Catholic faith. 1 Moreover, no great art was ever practised by roving bodies moving from country to country; still less could it have been so, when, as in the Middle Ages, the means of locomotion were so few, and especially was it impossibl’e to transfer large bodies of skilled laborers from one country to the other; e.g. the Norman churches in England were never vaulted (there is only one instance — the little chapel of St. John in the White Tower or Keep of the Tower of London), though many coeval vaultings remain in Normandy, while masonry is, more frequently than not, bad. This obviously arises from the clumsiness of the Saxon workmen whom the Norman builders were forced to employ. Sir Francis Palgrave says: 2 “Those who have hitherto attributed Gothic architecture to the Freemasons, have considered the style as ‘the offsprings of a congregated body;’ and, deeming the members of the fraternity to have acted in concert, have attempted to show them working and calculating as a fraternity, for the purpose of arriving at the definite re- sults which they afterwards so gloriously attained— an hypothesis which will become perfectly credible when any scientific society shall have discovered a system of gravitation, any literary academy shall have composed a ‘Paradise Lost/ or any academy of the fine arts shall have painted a ‘Transfiguration/ But we believe that the fraternity of Freemasons just performed the very useful and important duties properly belonging to the society or the academy. They assisted in the spread of knowledge, and in bestowing upon -talent the countenance and protection of station and established power.” An art will originate, more or less, in one country, and thence spread to others, in which case the possessors of it in the parent state will design the first works in other lands, until superseded by the natives, but they will very rarely be able to employ handicraftsmen from their own country; and this is precisely what has taken place in engineering in our 1 Mrs. H. Beecher Stowe, in her “Sunny Memories of Foreign Lands,” 1854, p. 239, observes of Lord Macaulay: “ He said that all the cathedrals of Europe were undoubtedly the result of one or two minds; that they rose into existence very nearly contemporaneously, and were built by travel- ling companies of masons, under the direction of some systematic organization.” A year later, Ma- caulay writes: “ A mighty foolish, impertinent book this of Mrs. Stowe. She put into my mouth a great deal of stuff that I never uttered, particularly about cathedrals ” (G. O. Trevelyan, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, 1878, vol. ii. , p. 367). 2 Edinburgh Review, April 1839, pp. 102, 103. ME DIAL VA L OPERA TI VE MA S ONE Y. 263 own times. “English William/’ who succeeded at Canterbury to his master, William of Sens, more than a hundred years after the Conquest, is supposed to have been the first English architect; and this is consonant with the above analogy, but it does not follow that English architects may not have existed before. The Norman buildings in England offer marked characteristics in opposition to those on the Continent; and if William de Carileplio brought his design for Durham from thence, all that I can say is, that it is different in character from anything now to be seen there. It must also be very clear that the Sar- acenic effect was but small. It was scarcely likely that the Crusaders would have carried back a style of building little in accordance with their own darker and more gloomy climate, and that a style cultivated by their enemies. Next, though, owing to the difficulty of deciding the exact date of the majority of the earlier Oriental buildings, we cannot tell whether, as far as mere dates are concerned, the Crusaders copied from the Saracens or the Saracens from the Crusaders, yet we can be quite sure that the styles are totally different. I am not here considering the mere form of the arch alone; that may be seen in Egypt, Assyria, India, Mvcenas, in countless places, and inter alia in the Lycian tombs in the British Museum. I am speaking of the entire aspect and construction of the buildings, especially of the vaultings. Even in Spain, to judge by engravings, the churches are peculiarly massive and the light arabesque appears only— when it does appear— in detail. But Sir G. Scott is probably right when he says that the last hints, as it were, came from the East. There- fore, when we hear the Saracenic origin of Gothic mentioned, we must bear in mind, as we should always do, that a substratum of truth almost universally underlies even the ap- parently grossest popular errors; and that when a theory begins by contemptuously rejecting all preconceived notions, we may take it as an evidence that that theory is in itself enone- ous. Hence it is reasonable to assume that architecture arose and spread gradually with civ- ilization itself; that, to repeat somewhat, as all the nations of Western Europe bore a con- siderable resemblance to one another in origin, and that they formed then as always a fraternity or republic of nations, so we should find a somewhat similar style or styles of architecture prevailing at the same time, but greatly modified, not only in the different countries but in the different localities, and these by no means extensive or distantly removed from one another, and that hence no general consensus was probable, or even possible, i.e., there was not, and could not have been, any general movement emanating from a common fountain head, and carried out with undeviating regularity by an organized body of men and their subordinates. It may also be assumed that mediaeval architecture, like most other things, was mainly dependent on the law of supply and demand, and that not only the buildings, but the style in which they were erected, were the result of cir- cumstances, and were modified accordingly. It will be safe to assume, also, that the declamation about the zeal and fervent piety of the Middle Ages is the merest romance, and that all the glamour and the halo of the past, that, seen through a mist of fine writing, has been evolved, may safely be relegated to the class of popular myths having, like all similar things, some foundation in truth. Our mediaeval ancestors were indeed an intensely practical, vigorous, and hard-working race, tinged, however, with the very peculiar shade of romance above alluded to; and when the barbarian invasions finally ceased with the curbing of the Huns and Normans, somewhere about the year 1000 a.d. (for the oft-quoted notion^of the end of the world could have had but very little practical influence), it must be obvious that a very large number of churches and other buildings must have been required. 264 MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. not only to supply the place of those that had been either destroyed or had fallen into decay, but to furnish edifices for a settled and increasing population. The tendency of the civ- ilization of that age to advance by the foundation of monasteries, as we do by schools and institutes, must have still further assisted the ecclesiastical development of architecture — as distinguished from the development of ecclesiastical architecture, and have increased the connection of the ecclesiastical orders (not necessarily monks) with the builders — hence the popular notion. These buildings all commenced at about the same period, and had certain general characteristics running through the whole, yet were distinguished by strongly-marked local features. Almost imperceptibly the architecture, by a kind of in- herent necessity, changed from the round to the pointed style, sprouting — for such a term can alone express its growth — somewhat earlier in some localities than in others, and always bearing the impress of strong local features, which features became, as time went on, more and more divergent, until, of two neighboring countries. Flamboyant sat supreme in France and Perpendicular in England. Going further back, if we care to examine the matter, we shall find, when we come to the point, that the connection, whether in peace or war, with France has after the first Norman period produced only Westminster Abbey — a “beautiful French thought expressed in excellent English,” to use a happy expression— which was never imitated in England, in spite of the facilities of a royal abbey for setting the fashion. The four domes of the nave of Fontevrault, under whose shadow repose our early Angsvin kings, has found no imitator, unless it be Sir C. Wren in the nave of St. Paul’s; the un- aisled apse of Lichfield, with its lofty windows, reaching almost to the ground, though an ap- proximation to, is still widely different from, the usual apses of Germany, and it is the only example of its kind. The intimate connection between England and Flanders led only to the tower of Irthlingborough Church, Northants, a miniature imitation of the Belfry of Bruges, and possibly some resemblance between the church at Winchelsea and the far inferior edifice of Damme. We shall find that Scottish Gothic was very different from English, French from German, and both from Flemish, where the natural heaviness of the people seems transmitted to the architecture; while Spanish and Italian, though indebted to a great extent to Germany, are yet essentially distinct. We shall even find, if we go lower, that in so small and comparatively homogeneous a country as England, almost every district had its distinct style. Against these facts it is useless to urge a few quotations culled from ancient authorities, who were often by no means particular as to the exact significance of the words they employed — quotations, the meaning of which has often at the first been but imperfectly comprehended, and though copied without inquiry by succeeding authors, even when taken at their best, prove little or nothing. Nor can a few isolated statements re- specting foreign builders and foreign assistance, together with some general remarks, often by no means warranted by the passages on which they are supposed to be founded, be al- lowed to weigh against the silent but unanswerable testimony of the buildings themselves, supported as it is by every argument of reason and common sense, and by every analogy with which our own experience and knowledge of history can furnish us. The fall of Rome, or, to speak more correctly, the destruction of the Western portion of the Empire, left four countries free to follow a new path under new masters. These were Italy, Spain, Gaul, and Britain, — with Germany, which still, and for long after, re- mained barbarous — and they constituted the ultimate field of Gothic or Pointed archi- tecture. Of these, Spain was after no long period overwhelmed by the Moors, and there are no traces, so far as I am aware, of Visigothic architecture, and it may, therefore, be MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 265 omitted in considering the origin of mediaeval architecture. Gaul, which extended to the Rhine, was, after the final extinction of the old civilization, of whom the poet exile Venan- tius Fortunatus may be considered as the latest exponent, in a deplorable state of barba- rism, and, the northern portion at least, the favorite resort of Irish and, subsequently, of Anglo-Saxon missionaries. The barbarous chronicles of Fredegarius and his continuators, w'ho alone transmitted a feeble torch after the death of St. Gregory of Tours, at once shows how deep was the state of barbarism, and how little we have lost by the neglect of litera- ture. Yet churches and convents must have multiplied exceedingly, for the Gallic church was exceedingly wealthy, and so much so as to tempt Charles Martel to a great measure of dis- endowment though not of disestablishment, and the records of Councils and the lives of the Saints teem — the one with enactments concerning ^ the church, the other with the chronicles of church building. To mention only two instances— St. Boniface, in those wonderful epistles wherein he shows that, like St. Paul, he had “the care of all the churches” from the Elbe to the Atlantic, and from the Garonne to the Grampians, repeatedly gives minute directions as to the building of monasteries,' while St. Rombauld the Irishman, who founded Mechlin, and where the cathedral is still dedicated to him, was martyred there, because, having employed some natives to build him a church, he refused to pay six days’ wages for four days’ work which they claimed, and was thereupon put to death, a proceeding em- inently Belgian, and which shows also that natives, however uncivilized, were employed on local works. Still these edifices could not have been of any great size or magnificence, and probably depended for their splendor on their internal decorations, often of the most costly materials. It is significant that St. Eloi, who is sometimes considered as a great architect, or, at least, church builder, was the king’s goldsmith, and the Basse oeuvre at Beauvais, a building of this date, certainly does not give a very high idea of the archi- tectural magnificence of those times. The buildings of the Early Anglo-Saxon Church, the favorite daughter of Pome, were possibly more splendid, inasmuch as the earliest of them were derived directly from Italy, but the greater portion must have perished in the Danish wars; and the restorations by Alfred, although he too relied much on foreign aid, could scarcely have been extensive. In Italy, not to mention the vast basilicas at Rome, which were the last efforts of the expiring empire, St. Giovanni Laterani covered 60,000 square feet; and St. Paolo fuori delle mura, destroyed by fire about fifty years ago, even more, while Old St. Peter’s sur- passed every Gothic cathedral, covering no less than 127,000 square feet. We find un- doubted Byzantine work at Ravenna, which, however, seems to have had no influence beyond the confined and ever narrowing limits of the exarchate, and not much in that, at least to judge by remains, while Sir G. Scott and others of the best judges greatly doubt whether there are really any remains of the so-called Lombard architecture, unless it be the tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna, before the formation of the exarchate, built by his daughter Amalasontha, and covered by a dome formed of a single block of stone 34 feet in diameter and 2 feet thick, and which seems to have been swung bodily into its place, for the loops cut in the stone are still visible, — perhaps the greatest recorded feat of sheer muscle. St. Mark’s is a Byzantine building of the eleventh century, and its influence does not seem to have extended further than that of its prototypes at Ravenna, and there are a few churches which may possibly be attributed to some period between the two. Still Italy undoubtedly possessed considerable remains of the ancient civilization, and some of her builders under the (perhaps generic) name of “ Magistri Comacini” acquired considerable 266 MllDI/E VAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. reputation, according to Muratori in one of his Dissertations, although he does not add any particulars nor even give an approximate date. Hence we may conclude, 1 st, that no archi- tecture. worthy of the name existed in Western Europe up to the time of Charlemagne; and 2d, that when any building of more than ordinary pretensions was in contemplation it was usual, at least among the Anglo-Saxons, to have recourse to Rome. Nor is it very certain that even Charlemagne introduced any great improvement in architecture; the famous porch of the Lorsch still remains an undoubted monument of the great emperor; and there are one or more examples, especially in Switzerland, while to this period must be referred the celebrated plan of the Monastery of St. Gall, drawn in the eighth century, and first published by Mabillon. However this may be, there can, I think, be little doubt but that the seeds of architecture, as well as those of civilization generally, were laid at this period, and which, obscured for a time by the barbarian incursions and the dis- solution of the Carlovingian empire, emerged in happier times never again to be oppressed. This more peaceful period began, as I have before said, somewhere about the year 1000, although it might probably be traced still earlier in districts like Switzerland and Provence, remote from war or favored by nature, and from this period one style of architecture ex- tended over the whole of the vast countries which had formed part of the Carlovingian empire. The Germanic portion is said by Scott to have been principally due to the influence of the Chancellor Bern ward, and the French are stated by Viollet le Due (both assertions being perhaps made without sufficient foundation) to have been due to the influence of Clugny. The true Komanesque is that which belongs to Germany and its dependencies including Clugny, which was by far the noblest church of this era, and one of the finest of the whole mediaeval series. It boasted two naves, one before the other, double transepts, double aisles throughout, and twin western towers, extending over a total length of 580 feet, and covering a superficies of 72,000 square feet. It was totally destroyed at the Devolution. After these come the great Rhine series, the churches at Cologne, and the cathedrals of Worms, Spires, and Mayence. France during this period being divided into several provinces almost, if not quite, independent of one another, boasted nearly as many distinct styles. That of Provence, which was perhaps the earliest, very closely resembles the old classical models, either from ancient reminiscences or its proximity to Italy, or from both combined. Aquitaine had a style of its own, of which the principal characteristics were the smallness of the windows, the long barrel-shaped vaulting, and the comparatively insignificant size of the buildings. The work of the Angevin or Aquitaine country, with its domical vaulting as at Fontevrault, seems a kind of cross between the German Romanesque and the Aquitanian barrel- vaulted or cavernous architecture. To the north of the Loire in the western portion, the Normans, a people of original genius, founded a style of their own very shortly after the commencement of this period, while the eastern half, the country between Normandy and the Flemish, a German frontier, lay to all appearance fallow, as if waiting for the mightier growth that was shortly to succeed. From Normandy this Norman crossed*, as is well known, into England, where it superseded what there was of ancient architecture, which was probably not so very different from, though possibly inferior to, the ancient buildings subsisting on the other side of the Channel. The new style was not long in appearing. In 1135 its first decisive effort was made at St. Denis, and it continued for two hundred years in uninterrupted flow down to the time of the invasion of France by Edward III., after which the land became the prey of civil and foreign war for upwards of a century; until France finally shook off the foreign yoke, in the reign " ■ MEDIAL VAL OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 267 of Charles VII. , in the middle of the fifteenth century. But by this time the medifeval spirit was dead throughout Europe, and although new marvels were occasionally erected in the Flamboyant, as with us in the Perpendicular, style, there could be no longer any possibility of such typical buildings as Rheims, Chartres, Bourges, Amiens, Rouen, Notre Dame, and St. Ouen, which form the glory of the earlier era, coinciding with the splendor of the early French monarchy, which had been raised amongst others by Philip Augustus, to fall at Cre 9 y and at Poitiers. From France the style passed over into England, if it did not almost spontaneously germinate there, for Kirkstall, Fountains, Darlington church, Llantony, the entrance to the chapter-house of St. Mary’s York, and portions of the still perfect Abbey Church of Selby, are scarcely antedated by anything in France — all ranging, according to the best authorities, from 1150 to 1190. Germany comes certainly very considerably later. The earliest authentic specimen of Gothic is St. Elizabeth of Marburg (1235), and the mighty Cologne is somewhat later still, and is, moreover, in respect to window tracing, a very palpable copy of Amiens, while the west front, in spite of the perfection of its gigantic proportions, would perhaps suffer, except in size, from a comparison with that of Rheims, had the spires of the latter been completed. The famous west front of Strassburg, according to Fergusson, was intended to be a mere square block, the spire having been added long afterwards, as an after-thought when not only Erwin von Steinbach, but his son, were in their graves. It was commenced by Erwin in 1277, and continued by him until 1318, when his son carried it on until 13G5. The spire, 468 feet in height, was not finished until 1439. Now it is perfectly true that the existing spire formed no part of the original design, for the style is so different, but that such a termination was intended is clear enough. The fa 9 ade is simply the commencement of a new and more gigantic church, as may be seen by looking at it from the east, when the point to which the nave of the new edifice was intended to rise may be easily discerned. Had it been otherwise there would have been no need of the square mass — the omission of the upper central portion would have provided two western towers of good average height; but spires having been intended, this connection, which may be remotely likened to the webbing in a duck’s foot, was necessary to prevent the lofty spires from appearing dis- proportionately high, even when connected with a loftier cathedral, an error into which the architect of Antwerp undoubtedly fell, as will be obvious to anybody who may take the trouble to imagine double spires to that edifice. 1 The vast church of Uhn would have boasted the loftiest pure tower in the world had it been completed, rising, as it would have done, to the height of 480 feet. As it is, it boasts of the lightest construction, the proportion of supports to areas being only 1 to 15. Beyond these I need only mention Ratisbon; unfinished Vienna, with the loveliest, and very nearly the loftiest, spire in the world; and Fribourg, in Brisgau, also celebrated for its spire, although very inferior to the former. The great churches of Belgium partake of the characteristics of both France and Germany, as might have been expected. Antwerp is famous for its size, it being the only church that possesses triple aisles throughout, and its spire, which owes perhaps some of its 1 What the whole cathedral would have been like we have no means of knowing, though it is not impossible that the plans may still exist, but the front would have been of that square high- shouldered type not unco mm on in Germany, and inferior in grace and majesty of proportion to Cologne. 268 MEDIAL VAL OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. fame lo its position. Napoleon indeed said that it resembled Mechlin lace, and deserved to be placed under a glass case. But, then, I am not aware that Napoleon was a judge either of architecture or lace, or that lace was meant to be put under a glass case. St. Gudule, at Brussels, is good, but not first-rate. There are fine churches at Bruges and Ghent, and a later and finer at Ypres. St. Rombauld, at Malines, would have had a single erect spire, equalling the twin giants at Cologne, but still wanting one-third of its height; while St. Waudru, at Mons, was intended to have been adorned with a spire much like that at Malines, reaching to the stupendous altitude of 634 feet, the design of this — which was of course easy to sketch — still remains; but the tower, from the double failure, I believe, both of foundations and money — certainly the latter — never advanced beyond the first story. A still more ambitious design was entertained by the citizens at Louvain, who projected a cathedral with three spires, the central one of 535 feet, the two western 430 feet each. The design and a model, but no more, still exist in that city. 1 The finest, taken altogether, and certainly the most interesting, of the Belgian churches is undoubtedly Tournay. The nave is Romanesque, of the year 1066, the transepts 1 146, and the choir comparatively early Gothic 1213, As it stands, it covers 62,000 square feet, and had it been completed, like the choir, would have possessed few rivals, either in size or beauty. There is comparatively little worthy of notice in Holland. Willis 2 says that there is no genuine specimen of Gothic in Italy, because the nation, emboldened by their art supremacy, attempted a style of their own, which was to combine the two, and met with the usual fate of those who occupy two stools. The original features, moreover, have been much “classicized.” Italian Gothic comes principally from the school of Pisa, and hence the best specimens are in Tuscany, but there are good examples of real Gothic in South Italy, built under the Angevin dynasty, 1266-1435. The Pisan school began with the Duomo or cathedral, its foundations having been laid as early as 1069. The Baptistry was built 1153, and the Campanile or Leaning Tower 1180. The architects of this early Pisan school were Boschetto; Bonanni; William the German, or Tedesco; Nicola da Pisa; his son, Giovanni, and their descendants, Andrea and Tommaso, to the fourteenth century. St. Andrea Veroelli was commenced a.d. 1219, and finished in three years, and is said to have been the work of an English architect, one Brigwithe, and indeed it much re- sembles Buildwas, Kirkstall, and other buildings of the same age in England, in plan, for all else is Italian. The external form is interesting, as having been expanded two centuries later by a German architect at Milan. Asti dates from 1229-1266, and St. Francis Assizi (where a German and Italian architect are said to have worked conjointly) from 1228-1253. St. Antonio at Padua, 1231-1307, is an Italian endeavor to unite the forms of English and German architecture Avitli the dome of St. Marks. Sienna was begun 1243 and Orvieto 1290. The great cathedral at Florence Avas begun 1290, under Arnolplio da Lapo (for Ave somehoAV knoAV the names of all the architects in Italy). The mass Avas finished in the first twenty years of the fourteenth century, but the great octagon remained open until 1420, when Brunelleschi commenced the present dome, which Avas completed in all its 'Another and more dangerous mode of self-glorification was occasionally practised, as at Tirle- mont, where the burghers amused themselves and their neighbors with throwing up ramparts of about twice the length that they could conveniently man. 4 Willis, Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages, especially of Italy. According to Mil- man, “ Rome is the city in which Gothic architecture has never found its place; even in Italy it has at no time been more than a half-naturalized stranger ” (History of Latin Christianity, vol. vi., p. 587). l::v\ < © ..•«»••> :-vS?c- ' i- « < » ■ < i,. Builti W'iig, I' • : a ' .* *rman architect at Milan. A si ; . •' •' \ ■ ' how know the names of all the arch ii in i : : • v '-twenty years of the fourteenth century, hut the cr*« - - W’-<- when Brunelleschi commenced the present dome, Another and more dangerous mode of self-glorification w.w. «: *- toy, where the burghers amused themselves and iiieir neighbors •of M. twice the length that t hey could conveniently man. Willis, Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages, ♦•sped i . “ Rome is the city in which Gothic architecture has never i »«»«t .< v i time been more than a half-naturalized stranger ” (History of 1.;; •< • xm M s . c V 3»Q i:\r . U >9. 'I > f; *d itc.i 9 •>' ' . ’ •. o Uh u irt • o y oil f’8, u> a i -t mm v- •, hi u Inn, f- ■ d' t (v ■ a i igiir ■ • •• f f«> i ITALIAN GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. 1266-1425. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 269 essential parts before his death in 1444. The nave consists of four huge bays with single aisles, and the total superficies is 84,802 square feet. The octagon was originally in- temded to have been surmounted by a spire built in receding stories, rising to the height of 500 feet, and surrounded by four lesser spires, each 400 feet high. The Florentines had instructed their architect to erect a cathedral that should surpass everything that human industry or human power had conceived of the great and beautiful, and had their in- structions and his designs been carried out we should have seen what a great Gothic dome was really like. In 1390 the Bolognese determined to erect a monster cathedral, 800 feet long by 525 across the transepts; the width of the nave and transepts, with double aisles, was to have been 183 feet, and the total superficial area would have been no less than 21:2,000 feet, including a dome at the intersection, 130 feet in diameter, or only 6 feet less than that of Florence. Of this gigantic design, the nave only was completed; yet even this fragment forms one of the largest churches in the world, covering no less than 74,000 square feet. To say the least, the effect does not come up to the intention, and the great object of the architect — as, indeed, may be observed in many other Italian buildings — seems to have been to minimize the area occupied by the supports. Milan was com- menced 1385, by order of Gian Galeazo, first Duke of Milan, and was consecrated in 1418, when it was apparently finished, though the spire was completed by Brunelleschi 1440, and the fatjade, commenced 1470, was only terminated at the beginning of the present century. The architect was Henry Arlez, of Gemunden, or— as the Italians prefer to call him— Da Gamodia. This wonderful building is far too well known to require any detailed account; suffice it to say, that, leaving hypercriticism aside — for the details are far from pure, — it must probably be considered as the most beautiful of all the Gothic edifices — wanting, it is true, a west front. It is not known whether a proper west front with spires was ever de- signed intended, as at Cologne; but here again, as in almost every other building of the class I have had occasion to mention, the general character is not German, although it cannot be called Italian; so that we have no ground on which to base our conjectures. This most lovely creation is sui generis, and is no less striking by its originality than by its beauty. Besides, there may be mentioned, amongst many others, the beautiful Duomo at Como, that of Ferrara, and the church of St. Francesco at Brescia. The south of Italy is almost a terra incognita to antiquaries, although, as has been said above, some specimens of Gothic are known to exist; and Sicilian Gothic, gorgeous with marble and mosaic, is a mixture of Greek, Boman, and Saracenic. The Gothic of Spain, though in the south it may have been tinged with Moorish art, is principally an exotic coming from the south of France and Germany, with perhaps some English influence in portions of Valencia. The greater part of this province, however, with Catalonia, Aragon, and Navarre, followed the architecture of Southern France. Leon and Gallicia had a style of their own, and so had the Castilles. How far the true French Gothic of the north was transplanted into Spain is doubtful. Street assigns a French origin not only to Toledo, but also to Burgos and Leon, the latter of which failed like Beauvais, but not so conspicuously. Still, numerous German artists were undoubtedly employed in Spain (coming probably through Lombardy), and notably at Burgos, where the west front is a kind of clumsy imitation of Cologne, and he certainly admits some German influence. These foreigners, however, were, I imagine, employed principally on the greater works, for Street enumerates a large number of native architects or artificers, and the style is un- doubtedly peculiar, niore or less, to the country. It is the same everywhere else, even 270 MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. where Lhe imitation is palpable, and foreign assistance is positively asserted. Possibly, indeed, these aliens acted in every case as “ consulting engineers/’ giving the benefit of their advice, knowledge, and experience, but, perhaps necessarily, leaving the great bulk of the work to be carried out by the natives in their own way. One or two of the churches about Orvieto are said to be of the ninth century, and there may exist others in the Asturian valley. At Zamora there is a cathedral of the eleventh century, and the Templars had a round church at Segovia in 1204. During the whole of this period the round style prevailed, while the Moors were using pointed arches, but in truth, as Dr. Whewell has well observed, the actual points of resemblance between the Moorish and Gothic style is, when examined in reality, of the most trifling and superficial kind. The first Pointed cathedral is that of Leon circa 1217, which, however, is as I have said before, most probably of French origin. The three great typical cathedrals are Burgos, Seville, and Toledo. The former was begun 1221, and was finished, as far at least as the bulk of the building is concerned, in the same century. The west front was erected two centuries later by two Cologne masons (or architects) John and Simon, and is a clumsy reminiscence of the west front of that cathedral. Toledo, inferior externally to Burgos, is of greater dimensions, being 350 by 174 feet, or upward of 100,000 square feet, and 120 feet in interior height. It is chiefly remarkable, however, for the gorgeousness of its interior decoration and “furniture.” Nowhere has the Spanish taste, severe and massive with respect to the buildings themselves, but lavish of this kind of decoration, displayed greater prodigality or more exuberant fancy, thus forming with its size an ensemble quite without parallel in any other building in Europe. Seville was built, probably by a German, on the foundations of a mosque. The famous Giralda is, as we all know, of Moorish origin. It was commenced 1401, and completed 1519. As the transepts do not project, its general plan is that of a rectangle, and the external aspect is heavy and lumpish. It is, however, remarkable for its immense size. Possessed not only of double aisles, but also of side chapels, it is 370 feet long by 270 wide, covering a space of not less than 100,000 square feet, being thus very considerably larger than Cologne or St. Maria at Florence, and ex- ceeded by Milan alone among mediaeval edifices. Portugal possesses some rather fine churches at Belem and probably elsewhere, for the interior of the country is almost un- known. There cannot, however, be many, the great earthquake, and the rage for rebuild- ing which followed the French invasion, having destroyed in all probability the greater portion. It possesses a gem, however, in Batallia, erected by John of Portugal in conse- quence of a vow made before battle in 1385, with his namesake of Spain (hence the name). Its size is small, being 2C4 feet by 72. To the right of the entrance is the tombhouse of its founder and his wife Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt; but the most beautiful portion, the sepulchre at the east end, commenced by Emmanuel the Fortunate, was, un- fortunately, left unfinished. It is, or was to have been, 65 feet in diameter. Murphy, in his scientific monograph, gives the name of the architect of the church itself as one David Ilackett, an Irishman. 1 If so, he must have belonged to the Pale. The credit of having designed this structure has also been given to Stephen Stephenson, an Englishman, but in any case, the architecture is neither English, Spanish, and certainly not Irish (though a slight resemblance can be traced between the architecture of Ireland and those of the Peninsula). The other great church is that of Alcobaqa, 1148-1222, a grand simple Cis- 1 J. C. Murphy, Batallia. This “Racket” (or “Stephenson”) may have been a consulting- en- gineer as suggested above (see Dallaway, Discourses upon Architecture, p. 109). MEDIAL VAL OPERA FIVE MA SOAR Y. 271 tercian edifice, 360 feet long by 64 liigb. The nave comprises fourteen bays, surpassing by one any that I can remember elsewhere, and the whole terminates in an apse with seven chapels. The style is nearly Norman, and coincides with the period when the French ad- venturers, under one of the Bourbons, first founded the Portuguese kingdom. England I have reserved to the last. Though it has often been asserted that the Romans were peculiarly partial to architectural magnificence in Britain, and, in spite of the evidence of Eumenius, in one of his panegyrics, that Constantius, the father of Con- stantine the Great, rebuilt Autun, 276, by the aid of artificers from Britain, which was then renowned for its skilful workmen; of the words of Gibbon — who never misquoted liis authorities, — to the effect that Carausius effected much in the way of architecture in the country; or even of Malmsbury and others, who speak with admiration of the Roman remains still existing in their time — and they were conversant with stately buildings, — I must be allowed to state my belief that the architectural efforts of Rome were in Britain, comparatively inferior. Here, again, the buildings must be my witnesses. Camps we have in plenty, also the remains of many walled cities and military roads; but the efforts of luxury and refinement are few and far between, although, in the solitary instance of Wood- chester, a villa has been found whose dimensions almost equalled the Laurentine one de- scribed by Pliny. Indeed, it can scarcely be supposed that the Romans would care much to make any permanent residence in so remote a dependency, and the long and desperate struggle of the emancipated colonists, against their Anglo-Saxon invaders (Britain was the oidy province that did struggle), shows how little hold the civilization, enervating at the end, of Rome had obtained over the country. 1 The Celts, or whatever we may choose to designate the indigenous tribes, were no builders. Their greatest efforts — Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, Maiden Castle, and the Herefordshire Beacon — supposing them to have preceded or succeeded the period of Roman domination — were but the efforts of the muscle of sheer numbers; and in Ireland, which has sometimes boasted a superior civiliza- tion — for Ireland has always arrogated to herself what no other nation has been willing on calm reflection to allow her — the utmost efforts of Celtic art, aided often by Norman skill, has been the round tower or belfry, seldom exceeding 100 feet in height, and chapels, 20, 40, and 60 feet in extreme length, which served as shrines in which the priest officiated before the multitude assembled in the open air. When magnificence was required, several chapels were congregated in one place, as at Cashel, Glendalough, and elsewhere. These chapels were remarkable for more than one peculiarity — they had solid stone roofs, 2 were never more than 60 feet in length, which seems to have been de regie among the Celts, as it was the length of the primitive church of Glastonbury, and like it they were very often made of wattle. This wicker method of building went among the older chroniclers by the name of Mas Scotorum, Mos Britcmnorum (though the church of St. Ninian at Whitherne, in Galloway, was apparently of stone whitewashed, hence the name Candida Casa, the White House, alias Whitherne), and they never terminated in an apse, which was indeed abhorrent to the Celts, probably because adopted at that time by all the other nations — the Irish Church, like the Irish people, was always at enmity with every other, because the Irish, as the purest of the Celtic race, were, and always have been, totally at variance with 1 See, however, Coote, The Romans in Britain, passim and ante, pp. 36-46 (The Roman Collegia). 2 A curious example of how things repeat themselves may be seen in Lord Digby’s mortuary chapel at the cemetery of Sherborne, Dorset, which is almost an exact counterpart, save for its apsi- dal termination. 272 MEDIAL V A L OPERATIVE MASONRY. all of the succeeding waves of population. As the Celts were, so they remained — un- touched by the long domination of Rome; for Gildas, writing somewhere about the end of British independence, circa 570, says that in his time the towns and cities laid waste during former invasions of the barbarians “still lay waste.” We may assume, therefore, with tolerable safety, that the Romans taught but little of their art to the provincials, that, therefore, the oft-quoted example of the Chichester inscription is little to the point, and that the collegia could not have survived the devastating wars and revolutionary changes, which, lasting during two centuries, followed the withdrawal of the legions, more especially as it has been by no means clearly proved that the Chichester inscription refers to the building trades. 1 The Saxons when they arrived were mere barbarians, and had, of course, no architec- ture — properly so-called — of their own. Gregory, in his letters to Augustine, recommends him indeed to make use as far as possible of the pagan temples, but he could not have known accurately what these temples were; still his letter not only displays political wisdom, but allows a wide latitude in applying it. Yet Augustine and his followers, amongst whom there may have been some knowledge of the building art, were enabled, together with certain of the natives, probably Roinano-Britons, to construct various churches, one or two of which were dignified by the name of cathedrals. St. Martin’s, at Canterbury, already ex- isted (possibly, too, the church within the castle at Dover, which has a very Roman-looking chancel arch), and there was another on the site of the present St. Alphage, dedicated to the Quatuor Coronati, who, without referring to their connection with the building trades were at this time very fashionable saints, though, as usually happens with fashion, without any particular reason. 2 When Christianity and civilization had become firmly established a better class of edifices arose, especially in the North, which, in the earliest and best times, was the main seat of Anglo-Saxon genius. The founders of these churches, nota- bly Benedict Biscop and Wilfrid, drew largely on Rome. Descriptions remain of the cathedral at York in the poem by Alcuin ( De Pontificibus ); of that of Winchester in the life of St. Swithin by Lantfrid. 3 Descriptions of churches occur in Bede and the “ Historia Ramsiensis,” and in Eddius’ “ Life of Wilfrid,” of Ripon and Hexham, which latter accounts are borne out by William of Malmsbury in his work “De Gestis Pontijicum Anglorum,” as well as, as regards Hexham in the description left by Richard of Hexham in the twelfth century, who describes the edifice as still standing, having curiously enough escaped the Danish ravages. Moreover, the appearance of the Saxon Canterbury is preserved in Gervasius, copying Eadmer, who wrote while the building was still standing; it was pulled down by Lanfranc. From these various descriptions we may gather that the Anglo-Saxon edifices were little if at all inferior to those then existing on the Continent, and were very similar to them; they usually had a double apse as at Can- terbury, i. e. , one at each end, and where this arrangement did not exist, there was a central tower and a single one at the west end, an arrangement not uncommon in later 1 See ante, chap, i., p. 38, note 1. 2 It is not quite clear whether the church of the “ Four Crowned Martyrs ” was in existence at the period of Augustine's arrival in Britain (see W. H. Ireland, History of the County of Kent, 1828, vol. i., pp. 178, 179). The subject of the “Quatuor Coronati” will be hereafter considered. 3 It is gravely recorded that the bishop, watching the progress of the tower, and seeing a work- man fall from the summit, arrested his downward progress in mid-air until help arrived. It does not seem to have struck the worthy hagiographer that it would have been quite as easy, as well as much more soothing to the poor man’s nerves, to have brought him safely to earth ! MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 273 edifices. The rapid rise of Anglo-Saxon civilization,, as compared with the barbarism in which Gaul was then steeped, and its close intercourse with Rome, will be a guarantee of what has been advanced, even if it were not corroborated by the magnitude of existing remains in comparatively secluded districts, such as Brixworth, a dependency of Peter- borough. But here, as abroad, magnificence was displayed rather in furniture and decora- tion, principally in the precious metals, than in architecture. Malmsbury, in his “ An- tiquities of Glastonbury ” 1 — and Malmsbury was a monk of Glastonbury — says that Ina, of Wessex (ob. 727), built a chapel there on which he lavished no less than 2835 lbs. of silver, and 332 lbs. of gold, an almost incredible sum when we consider the purchasing power of the precious metals in those times. The chapel seems to have been literally plated with silver, weighing 2648 lbs. , 2 recalling the first Temple on a small scale. This period of Anglo-Saxon prosperity lasted, however, only for a time. Already, at the termination of the Heptarchy, the Danish storm began to rise, and Alcuin, the peaceful man of letters, had scarcely time to make good his retreat to the wealth and security of the court of Charle- magne, whence he indited consolatory epistles to his fellow countrymen, before its full fury burst on Northumbria, his native land, as being the nearest of access. A. dreary period of 100 years followed, until a partial revival took place under the Great Alfred, but by this time the genius of the Anglo-Saxons had disappeared, and the country gradually decayed, awaiting the arrival of a superior race. Still the efforts of this last century are by no means to be despised either in literature or architecture, although certainly the former, and probably the latter, are more distinguished by painstaking than genius. Most of the 120 specimens — many probably conjectural — of enumerated Anglo-Saxon remains still ex- isting, belong to this period. A portion, at least, of the crypt at Hexham is supposed to be the undoubted work of Wilfred, but the recently unearthed, or rather, unsctnded church, at Perranzabuloe in Cornwall (pounced upon by the Protestant section most animated in its hatred towards Rome, as a specimen of the primitive church undefiled), is clearly of the twelfth century, owing its supposed simplicity to the remoteness and poverty of the district, and the intractable nature of the material. Ordericus Vitalis says that Dunstan, Oswald, and Ethelwold, the great restorers of monastic discipline, founded together 26 monasteries out of the 100 or so existing before the Conquest, but the word monasterium with the Anglo-Saxons sometimes means a church with three or four priests attached to it. Alfred did all in his power, and Edgar, prompted by St. Dunstan, restored or founded 48, which, I presume, are not reckoned in the above. With this we may compare the statement of Malmsbury, who speaks of the repairs effected by Odo and Athelstane, which may be the origin of the legend of the York Freemasons, but the latter could have effected but little in his short and troubled reign. 3 I may mention here a curious miracle related in all good faith by one of the three contemporary biographers of St. Ethelwold. Finding but little scope for his talents in England, he was on the point of leaving the country, when the king, to retain his services, gave him the decayed monastery of Abingdon as a sphere for his energies. He set vigorously to work, and having rebuilt and refilled his establishment, he 1 De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiee. 2 Witness also the gift in precious metal which Harold, who must have been comparatively a poor man, lavished on Waltham. The Anglo-Saxons were decidedly luxurious at home, much more so than the Normans, and our home comforts were probably derived from them. Something of this luxury doubtless found its way into the churches. 3 See ante, chap. i. ( The Culdees), p. 52, note 3; and chap. ii. , pp. 81, 86, 97 (§ xxiii.), and 101. 18 2;4 MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. prepared a great feast for the consecration, to which various bishops, abbots, eaorldamen^ and the king himself were invited. As the feast went on the beer ran short, whereupon the saint imitated the miracle of Cana on certain tubs of water, to such an extent that the whole party finished the entertainment in a recumbent position on the floor! The Anglo- Saxons — even the monks — were great lovers of beer, and we may compare with the above the story of the two young monks who went to see St. Guthlac, the hermit of Croyland, and who brought a jar of beer with them to refresh on the way. Having done so, they took the precaution to hide the jar in the sedge some distance from the hermitage, but, unfortunately, having approached the saint too closely during the act of confession, they were literally convicted out of their own mouths, which Felix, the friend and biographer of St. Guthlac, cites as another miracle! As to the living hands which wrought at these edifices we have naturally not much in- formation. Wilfrid, according to Malmsbury, personally superintended his buildings, 1 which, considering the rudeness of the bulk of his laborers, he was probably obliged to do. The same may be seen in many other examples in these early times, and which, after all, is not so very different from what we continually read of in the missionary records of our own time. The “ Historia Ramsiensis,” c. xv., contains an account of Ailwyn’s foundation of Ramsey, in which he was assisted by Oswald, and from which it appears that his architect was one TEdnothus, of Worcester, who is distinctly said to have been a skilful architect. 2 The foundations were beaten down with the beetle and not laid on piles, owing to which slovenly and very characteristic Anglo-Saxon mode of proceeding the tower fell shortly after it was erected. The church Avas cruciform, and had one tower in the centre and another at the west end — a form which long survived. 3 It appears that a large staff of Avorkmen, builders, and others, Avere employed; and the same was the case at Worcester, as we learn from Eadmer, 4 who relates a story of a black demon who during the building of the cathe- dral came and sat on a stone, and so defied the efforts of eighty men to raise it until ex- orcised by the saint. Croyland was built of stone, and in a more painstaking and scientific manner by Ethelbald, 716 (the bright period of Saxon genius). The foundations rested on piles, Avhich, indeed, in such a locality, was the only way that a church, unless built of wattles, would have stood at all. “ At cum tam mollis, tam lubrica, tam male constans, Fundamenta palus non feret saxea, palos Prsecidit infigi quercino robore casos Leucarumque novem spatio rate fertur arena.” 6 There is, or was, a curious inscription on a stone in Kirkdale churchyard. West York- shire, 7 feet 5 inches by 1 foot 10 inches, built into the wall over the south porch. The inscription ran as follows: — “ Orin Gamel’s son bought St. Gregory’s minster. Then it was all broken and fallen. Chelittle and others made it neAV from the ground, to Christ and St. 1 De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, Lib. iii., 1171, Rolls Series, p. 225. 2 Besides AMnothus, TElfric, abbot of Malmsbury, is said to have been cedificandi gnarus (Whar- ton, Anglia Sacra, 1681, vol. ii., p. 83). Cf. Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, Lib. v., 253, Rolls Series, p. 405. 3 See also the poem of “Ethelwalt de Abbatius Lindisfarniensis,” one of the latest productions of Northumbrian literature. 4 Yita S. Oswalda, 6 Metrical Life of St. Guthlac [Felix], quoted in Camden. The MS. is in the British Museum. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 27 5 Gregory. In the days of Eadward the King (Confessor) and in the days of Earl Tosti. And Howard me wrought, and Brand the priest.” This seems to show that in those primitive times there was not much distinction between callings, and that the priest often assisted, and, indeed, was obliged to assist in building his own church, which, however, from the general simplicity of construction, he had not much difficulty in doing . 1 A good deal has been made of the word getymbrian, to construct with timber, being synonymous with “to build,” and it has been inferred that the majority of the Saxon buildings were made of wood, which is, I think, an unfair generalization . 2 Bede speaks of ccementarii, who would seem, at least at first, to have been rough masons working with coarse rubble, which was afterward plastered over. This process was very common in early times; it was adopted as late as the Norman Abbey of St. Albans, and the church and town of Whitherne, in Galloway, derived their names, as we have seen, from the same style. On the whole, we may, I think, fairly conclude that the Anglo-Saxon was but little different from that of the neighboring Continent, probably superior in the first and inferior in the latter half of. the period when England suffered more from barbarian ravages than the Con- tinent, and which, as being the more remote, was naturally the last to receive the impulse of the “ novum asdificandi genus,” which was equally new on the Continent half a century before it became so in England. For it must not be forgotten that when the Normans took possession of England an increased magnificence in architecture, based on advancing civilization, had been everywhere prevalent for more than half a century, and it had even made its influence felt in England, where the Confessor — at least half a Norman — had erected Westminster Abbey after a design which is made tolerably clear by the rude sketch in the Bayeux Tapestry, and one of whose arches (there represented) still remains in the exterior of the south transept, and is very conspicuous from the cloisters. It was evidently the central portion of the fac^ade of that transept. A similar but later example may be seen in the magnificent Norman arch composing the main portion of the west front of Tewkes- bury, and it may be even the remote prototype of Peterborough itself. However, the impulse was vastly quickened with the arrival of the Normans, who, though doubtless with great cruelty and oppression, infused new life and vigor into the decaying Anglo-Saxon realm. They not only rebuilt the churches, but in some cases even removed the Sees. Thus, Selsey migrated to Chichester, Dorchester to Lincoln, and Thetford to Norwich. Fourteen of our cathedrals retain considerable portions of Norman architecture, and several of them — such as Norwich, Durham, and Peterborough — are principally of this date, of which, and the ensuing traditional periods, are the nave, transepts, and west front of Ely. These churches are of great size, the three mentioned above being over 400 feet in length, while Winchester, St. Albans, and the totally ruined abbey of St. Edmund’s Bury exceeded 500. The latter was remarkable for the singular arrangement of a great extent of its west front. The nave aisles were flanked by two apsidal chapels, and these again by two octagon towers, the whole extending to no less than 240 feet. Beading Abbey Church, founded by King Henry I., 1 “In the monasteries the monks practised the different mechanical arts. By a law published kn the reign of Edgar, but probably transcribed from a more ancient regulation, every priest was commanded to learn some handicraft in order to increase knowledge” (Lingard’s History of England, vol. i., p. 266). 2 In iElfric’s Colloquies, a kind of school-book, written in the form of a dialogue, toward the commencement of the eleventh century, a carpenter is made to say that he makes houses and carves bowls; but the same may be said of many a village carpenter of the present day. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 276 was 420 feet. The greatest, however, was Old St. Paul's, with its Early English eastern termination; it extended GOO feet east and west, and 300 feet north and south iu the tran- septs. The height of this nave was 102 feet, which was one or two feet higher than West- minster — our loftiest remaining example; and the spire subsequently added was the highest in the world (534 feet). The nave, choir, and transepts were 100 feet broad, so that the total superficies was 80,000 square feet, forming the largest cathedral then existing, and only subsequently surpassed by three (in the Middle Ages) — Seville, Milan, Florence; and it has sometimes been gravely stated that this cathedral covered 31 acres, 1-| roods, and 6 perches, which comes to exactly 170,272 square feet. Similarly the choir is always said to have been 188 feet high. Any one looking at Hollar’s Views, less rude than usual, in “ Dugdale,” will see that the line of roof was exactly level with that of the nave, but underneath the choir came the crypt or chapel of St. Faith, and the choir was approached by a double flight of steps, as shown in one of Hollar’s engravings, exactly like Canterbury, the real internal height was, of course, 88, and the “ 1 ” added was a misprint, which no one has ever noticed or troubled to correct. Similarly, it is always said that Hampton Court Palace was a great deal larger before the alterations by Wren than it is now. No one has ever been at the trouble to remark that the original front— as shown by Hollar, not a very scarce engraving — is the same length as the present, and that the only place where buildings could have existed is in the small gardens between the south side of the palace, and the vinery and river, which has, as far as I know, never been asserted by any one. I mention these instances somewhat at detail, as showing how utterly unreliable statements are, as a rule, unless backed up with proofs drawn from the buildings themselves. Winchester and St. Albans were the subjects of a strange transformation. The process in the nave of the former by Edynton and Wykeham, has been most admirably described by Willis — that in the latter case being arrested as it were midway, is more able to speak for itself. The singular resemblance in shape, and general ground plan, especially in the immense length, the somewhat peculiar cast ends, the altar screens, the Norman work of the central tower, and transepts being in both cases left untouched, and even in such purely accidental coin- cidences as the deliberate destruction of the Norman faqade in the case of Winchester, and the demolition of that of St. Albans with the intention of rebuilding it— an intention which was never carried out — is very extraordinary, more especially as there seems no way of ac- counting for it. Gloucester nave was also transformed at a later date, but after a different fashion. Besides the above may be mentioned Battle and St. Augustines, of the churches of which there are now no trace, though the latter was certainly small. The magnificent Abbey of Malmsbury — the nave of which is still standing, the ruins of Castle Rising, one of the finest specimens of this age, the mutilated churches of St. John’s, Chester, Waltham and St. Bartholomew’s Priory, London, together with the Norman portions of the still perfect edifices of Roinsey, St. Cross, and Christ Church — all monastic — further attest the activity of this period. Parish churches, or at least the parts which are Norman, are, as in the ensuing epoch, still tolerably numerous, witness the beautiful little churches of Iffley, near Oxford, and Barfreston in Kent; the fine church, formerly a priory, of St. Germans, Cornwall, with its massive west front; and what remains — after a restoration — of Old St. Pancras, London. The Normans were very good builders — when they chose — as may be seen by the ashlar work grouted in, i. e. , loose flints thrown between two walls of freestone or ashlar, and then filled in with strong liquid mortar poured on in a hot state, which walls have acquired the MEDIAE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. 2 77 consistency of rock. This mode was generally used in castles and sometimes in churches; the remains of the west front of Bury, denuded as it is of its ashlar, look like natural cliffs; but very often they did not so choose, and then the walling is made of the worst rubble, merely plastered with ashlar, and with bad foundations, inasmuch as a Norman tower, at least, in the centre was rarely intended to rise much above the roof. This bad habit was continued by their successors, and has been the cause of the fall of many towers, and of several ingenious contrivances — as at Wells and Salisbury, in the central arches — in the Middle Ages, and of not a little anxiety in modern times. None of the Norman buildings were vaulted or were intended to be so, and all vaulting on Norman piers and walls is sub- sequent. This, as well as the badness of the masonry, which was partly its cause, must have originated in the clumsiness of the Saxon workmen they were forced to employ. Almost all the churches had apsidal terminations toward the east, but just as there were exceptions to the universal apse in France, e.g. at Laon, so there were a few in England, as at Old Sarurn, Romsey, and St. Cross, Winchester. Their doorways are remarkably rich, much more so than in the subsequent period, when they became rather distinguished for their plainness; and it would almost seem as if these gorgeous portals, such as Barfreston and Malmsbury, were a reminiscence of the elaborate wooden carvings which still decorate the entrances of the churches of Norway. One reason why the true Gothic sprang up almost simultaneously in France and England was, that at that peculiar time the frontiers of the two kingdoms were almost conterminous from one end of France to the other, while the divergence of French and Germans, as distinguished from the close intercourse between France and England, will sufficiently explain why the Gothic was so tardy in traversing the geographically imperceptible Teutonic frontier. The common comparison of Amiens with Salisbury is little to the purpose. The greater size of Amiens does not necessitate a greater perfection in architecture; if it did, Amiens would in its turn have to yield to Old St. Paul’s, nor does the greater elaboration of certain portions prove more. French archi- tecture was, in certain features, always more elaborate than English; in others, the case was reversed, and both these examples show the proficiency of the respective nations in their respective styles. Passing over some instances I have already alluded to, we come to the choir of Canter- bury, commenced by William of Sens as architect 1173, and continued when he was forced, 1179, to resign his post owing to injuries received in his profession, by his pupil William the Englishman, who has been supposed by some to have been the same as William of Coventry, whose praises as an architect are recorded by Malmsbury. The general idea of this portion of the cathedral has often been said to have been taken from that of Sens, as is not unlikely, and the Frenchman is also credited with having been the first to introduce stone roof vaulting into this country, which may also be admitted. The Englishman, however, has much improved upon his predecessor and his example. The central mass of Lincoln, the east transept, choir, part of west transept, and the chapter-house, were the work of Hugh of Grenoble, or the Burgundian, between the years 1186-1200. This was probably one of the last churches in England built with an apse. The foundations were discovered beneath the high altar when relaying the pavement in the last century. Pro- fessor Willis somewhere calls the architect Alex, de Noyes “a crazy Frenchman,” in reality he was a member of a Norman family long settled in Lincolnshire. 1 The finest of these 1 M. de Lassus so far improved upon the idea as to say that he reproduced at Lincoln the church of Blois, of which he was a native. The ensemble of Lincoln, coupled with its unrivalled position, 278 MEDIAE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. very Early English edifices is, however, the nave and west front of Wells, built by 2 Joscelin Trotman, bishop of Wells, brother of Hugh of Wells (who must not be confused with the Burgundian bishop of Lincoln, who built the west front and nave of that cathedral at the same time). The sculptures of the faqade of Wells are a truly national monument, num- bering 300 in all (the fa 9 ade is 147 feet in width), of which 140 are either life size or colossal. They were finished 1242, two years after the birth of Cimabue, who restored painting in Italy. They were in progress while Nicolo Pisano was restoring Italian sculp- ture, and were finished forty-six years before the perpetually-quoted Amiens, and thirty-six years before Orvieto was ever begun. They are English in design, and Avholly different from the contemporary works executed in Edward the Confessor’s chapel, Westminster, by Benvenuto and Torell — who has been supposed by some to have been an Englishman, though probably without sufficient reason. “ There are many compositions of the Almighty creating Eve by Giotto, Buon Amigo, Buffaimaceo Ghiberti, and Michael Angelo, but this at Wells is certainly not inferior to any of the others.” These are the words of the late Professor Cockerell in his “ Iconography of Wells,” and they carry not a little weight as coming from one so distinguished, not only for the purity of his taste, but for his devotion to classical and Italian forms. He says, further, that they surpass the works of John of Pisa, a contemporary, and those of even a greater man, John Flaxman. There is every evidence that the building of the nave is of the same date, and is, like the front, the work of a local school of masons whose influence can be traced to a very considerable extent in the neighboring district. Salisbury was commenced under Bishop Poore 1220, and finished, all but the tower and spire, 1258, by Bishop Giles, having cost 40,000 marks, or £6666, 13s. 4d„, besides the gift of Alicia de Bruere, who gave all the stone for twelve years. The cloisters and chapter- house were built somewhat later (1263-84), and the tower and spire by Bishop Robert de Wyville 1330-75. Westminster was begun by Henry III., and completed by his son, all but the towers, which are by Wren, and which display great knowledge of the form but little of the detail of true Gothic. This is probably owing, in some manner, to the want of technical skill among the masons. Almost the whole of the church, especially the mag- nificent north transept, was refaced by Wren, as may be seen by the masons’ marks on the stones as they are removed, and the whole is now in gradual process of restoration. West- minster is clearly an imitation from the French, but an imitation which bears an English impress on every line. It is inferior in height to the great French examples, it has single and not double aisles; its apse is comparatively simple, not to say clumsy, its two rose windows, though certainly fine, are inferior to many French examples; its pilasters of (formerly) polished marble are, I believe, comparatively unknown across the Channel; the great doorways, though huge and cavernous, especially those of the northern transept, as in France, have yet a character of their own, and, except in size, resemble those of the west front of Lichfield, and the Presbytery of Lincoln. I mention these points in detail, as showing the essential difference between the two styles, and how little the one could have influenced the other. Similarly, the mosaic work of the shrine of the Confessor and the tomb of the founder, though in an admirable position for setting the fashion, found no orignated the old proverb referring to an envious man, “ He looks like the devil over Lincoln.” If York be the king, Lincoln is the queen of English cathedrals. The rose window in the south-west transept is the most beautiful in England. 2 In saying “ built by,” I refer to the bishop during whose episcopate the structure was erected. 1 ; u. all but the ; , i> „ 13s. 4d., be > • . ■ Th< -cloisters and . . . r ; -pire by Bishop l> ■ *. ; i:rv { : T. , and completed by his - v r> l uApk y groat knowledge of tile f ■. ug. in some manner, to t i.i’j '■>, V 4 ! i At i muster '•vo-*'S, tp* liipv*. .nji by V. re a.. < detail of a iu- Gothic. Tir » probably si rkiU am-, tug the masons. A A .met the whole of the church., especially the mag- i' north transopy. was retimed by IVveu, a.- may be seen by the masons’ marks on tl Ls they are removed, ami the whole is now in gradual process of restoration. W< if clearly an imitation from the French, but an imitation which bears an Eriglis on every line. It is inferior in height to the great French examples, it has single •: double aisles; its apse is comparatively simple, not to say clumsy, its two rose |s, though certainly fine, are inferior to many French examples; its pilasters of Aiy) polished marble are, I believe, comparatively unknown across the Channel; the piborways, though huge and cavernous, especially those of the northern transept, as I Ace, have- yet a character of their own, and, except in size, resemble those of the >nt of Lichfield, and the Presbytery of Lincoln. I mention these points in detail, • frig the essential difference between the two styles, and how little the one could have wed the other. Similarly, the mosaic work of the shrine of the Confessor and the >#f the founder, though in an admirable position for setting the fashion, loom! no |j|d the old proverb referring to an envious man, “ He looks like the devil -over Lincoln.'’ If I the king, Lincoln is the queen of English cathedrals. The rose window iii the south-west is the most' beautiful in England. saving “ built by,*’ I refer to the bishop during whose episcopa te the structure was erected. Slfoih Qathcbzai. MEDIEVAL CATHEDRAL ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONARY 279 iimitators. Our practical ancestors knew that they seldom had sufficient light to set off mosaic, and therefore adapted their building for stained glass, for which they had sun (enough; we, who work by patterns and drawings, merely first put up mosaics in churches maturaily too dark for them, and then proceed to darken them still more by the introduction et s6 2- 3 “ The guild of masons differed in no essential particulars from those of the shoemakers or hatters, the tailors or vinters — all had their masters and past-masters, their wardens and othei officers. Bin though their organization was the same, the nature of their pursuits forced one very essential dis- tinction upon the masons, for, inasmuch as all the usual trades were local, and the exercise of them confined to the locality where the tradesman resided, the builders were, on the contrary, forced to go wherever any great work was to be executed” (James Fergusson, History of. Architecture in all Countries, I860, vol. i., pp. 477, 478). Mr. Street, however, believed the masons of Spain to have been stationary rather than nomadic (Gothic Architecture in Spain, p. 464). 4 A manuscript note, penned some 125 years ago, on the margin of a copy of the 1723 Constitu- MEDIA? VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 301 their chief characteristics. There was a strange vein of imagination in the mediaeval char- acter, witness the style of architecture, indigenous and utterly unlike anything either before or since — the institution, of chivalry, the crusades, the romances, strange tales, legends, and travesties of history. Witness the legends of St. Alban, of “ Ewclyde,” King Pharaoh, of Virgil as a magician, and the stories of King Lnd, Brutus, Troynovant, and others, for all of which no kind of foundation, or excuse for a foundation, exists. 1 Yet we should greatly err if we imagine that the building fraternities, even at that early period, were invariably under the control of their employers. Hugh de Goldcliffe, who so grievously imposed upon the ambitious but unbusinesslike Abbot of St. Albans, was evi- dently a contractor, and we may assert generally, that then as now, there were different modes of employing them. In some cases there was a regular contract, in others, the work was more or less done, all at one time, under the direction and control of the society or individuals who supplied the funds, while, in other cases, chiefly cathedrals, and perhaps some of the greater abbeys, a regular staff was kept, where employment sometimes con- tinued from generation to generation (as is the case with those employed in the great Gov- ernment powder magazines), and which bodies were increased by additional gangs or hands being taken on as occasion required. The great fundamental error, I may observe once for all, in most investigations of this nature, and which leads to countless others and to endless confusion, is too hasty a generalization from imperfect premises, and it is by care- fully avoiding this source of error that we shall be able to trace out a path for ourselves in the intricacies with which we are surrounded. The building fraternities or trades of the Middle Ages, must have been in many respects like those of the present day, or rather like those of the Companionage — which seem to be their legitimate descendants, i. e . , as a trade society or union, and must have been essentially different from the guilds, although a masons’ guild certainly existed, and still exists, in London. 2 But, at whatever period the masonic bodies first took form, the ceremonies and customs by which they were distinguished, are at least of much earlier origin than our oldest con- stitutions. The fabric rolls of York Minster, which have been published at length by Canon Raine for the Surtees Society, show that in 1355 “ Orders for the Masons and Work- men ” were issued. “ The first and second masons who are called masters of the same, and the carpenters, shall make oath that they cause the ancient customs underwritten to be faithfully observed. In summer they are to begin to work immediately after sunrise until the ringing of the bell of the Virgin Mary, then to breakfast in the fabric lodge, then one of the masters shall knock upon the door of the lodge, and forthwith all are to return tions, preserved in the library of the Grand Lodge of England, has the following: “Witness the story of Meron [Naymus] Grecus, who was at ye building of Solomon’s Temple, in the year of the world 2933, and after came into France to Charles Martel, their king, who began to reign in the year of ye world 4660. So the man was 1727 years old !” (see ante, pp. 97, 248). 1 It may be observed, however, that the ancient Irish manuscripts undoubtedly conceal ethnic traditions pointing to an Eastern origin. Cf. The Irish version of “ Nennius,” edited by Todd and Herbert, Irish Archaeological Society, 1848. 2 The remarks which next follow are mainly based upon papers, “On the Superintendents of English Buildings in the Middle Ages,” read at the Royal Institute of British Architects, January 23, 1860, and December 2, 1861, by Mr. Wyatt Papworth, to which gentleman I am further indebted for many valuable references (Transactions Royal Institute of British Architects, 1859-60, pp. 38-51, and 1861-62, pp. 37-60). The authorities for the statements contained in these two papers will be found in the “Dictionary of Architecture,” issued by the Architectural Publication Society. 302 MEDIAE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. to week until noon. Between April and August, after dinner they shall sleep in the lodge, then work until the first bell for vespers, then sit to drink to the end of the third bell, and return to work so long as they can see by daylight. It was usual for this church to find tunics (probably gowns), aprons, gloves, and clogs, and to give occasional potations and re- muneration for extra work. Gloves were also given to the carpenters.” Strikes, boycot- ting, and rattening were, even in those remote times, not wholly unknown, for there is an account of a conspiracy £ ‘ that certain stonecutters or masons, being moved by a most wicked spirit of envy, wickedly conspiring for the death and ultimate destruction which does credit to their ingenuity — “ of Magister William Colchester, assigned to us and to the fabric of our church by our most dread lord the king, by his letters patent (Colchester had been master mason of Westminster Abbey) for the government of the said fabric, and specially received under the protection of the same, treacherously assaulting the said illiam, did grievously wound him, and did so injure another person, his assistant, that his life is considered in serious danger.” In 1433 two “ setters” had £1, 6s. 8d. given to them as remuneration, also two skins for aprons, according to custom, which cost 12d., and ten pair of gloves, given at the time of setting the stones, costing 18d. A nearly similar entry occurs in the following year. In 1472 William Hyndely, warden of the lodge of masons, was paid at the rate of 3s. 4d. a week for twenty-eight weeks, for working in the office of the master of the masons, and had 13s. 4d. for a reward. He became master mason, and, two years later, was working with two apprentices and three laborers; and, five years after that, with eleven masons and two apprentices. The bridge at Catterick, 1412, was contracted for by three masons at a lump sum, with a gown to each, “ according to their degree.” The building of Walberswick steeple, 1426, was undertaken for 40s., with a cade of herrings and a gown 1 of “ lenore ones,” which is not very clear — possibly leuere once, or “ Uvery once,” each time of working. A parish in Suffolk, 1430, was to provide every Freemason with a pair of white leather gloves and a white apron during the works. So the mason, contractor for rebuilding the hell tower of Bury St. Edmunds, 1435, was to have £10 a year, board for himself in the convent hall as a gentleman, and for his servant as a yeoman, also two robes, one for himself of gentleman’s livery, that of the servant to he a yeoman’s livery. Livery at that time was not a badge of servitude or menial office as at present, but of subservience, and was worn by young gentlemen of high rank when in at- tendance on some great lord, which was a part of their education. “ Wearing the Queen’s livery” is an undoubted survival of these ideas, which I mention to show that the builders were not the masters hut the employes (not exactly the servants) of those who paid them. 2 Hence I do not wish further to encumber these pages with examples of gowns, aprons, and gloves, nor of the various accounts, rates of wages, etc., which, after all, prove but little. A “ house ” seems to have very commonly been part of the salary of the master mason, as in the agreement between the Prior of Durham and John Bell “ latimus,” 1488, and in many other and earlier instances. The said John Bell had also an apprentice for whom he 1 A garment of some sort was frequently stipulated for. Thus, from an MS. cited by Sir John Fenn, in the “ Fasten Letters,” ii., p. 16, we learn that, in 1464, a labourer covenanted to serve twelve months, with a gown and diet, for £1, 6s. 2 The first donation of a livery to the king’s clerk of the works yet ascertained was in 1391. Tunics, aprons, gloves (1355), and clogs and shoes, appear to have been the necessaries found for those of the secondary and lower classes. Rymundo de Monforte de Lamos St. Lugo, 1127,' stipulated for a cloak of office (see also Street, Gothic Architecture in Spain). MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 303 was to be paid by the sacristan. In 1610 “ a Freemason, who can draw his plot, work, and set accordingly, having charge over others,” is considered as worth 12d. a day before Michaelmas, and lOd. after it. A rough mason who can take charge over others, was, at that time, worth lOd. and 8d. according to the same seasons. I instance this as showing that the old customs subsisted, occasionally at least, until very late times. One of the earliest intimations of the “lodge” 1 occurs in 1200, when a tabulatum domicialem was the shed erected in front of St. Albans Abbey — by Hugh Goldclilfe afore- said, and, in 1321, is an entry of 2s. 6d. for straw to cover the masons’ lodge at Carnarvon Castle. At the chapel of St. Stephen, Westminster, a man was paid, in 1320, to clean out the lodge, amongst other work. In 1399, there occurs at York a list of the stores at the “ loge ” in the cemetery. I 11 1395, at the additions to Westminster Hall, the king engaged to find “ herbergage ” (harborage) for the masons and their companions (journeymen); and, in the same year, is noticed the fact of two carpenters working upon the new house for the masons of Westminster Abbey, and another house in Tothill Street; and of 15s. 6d. being paid to the “ dauber” for the lodge for the masons and the house in that street. The earliest of the Masonic “ Constitutions” or “ Charges,” the Halliwell, circa 1400 {ante, p. 60), has — “ If in the logge the apprentice were taken,” and also — “ The prevystye of the chamber telle he no mon, Ny yn the logge whatsever they done;” which is styled by Mr. Pap worth “a satisfactory instance of the attempt at concealment of trade mysteries.” In 1421, at Cattorick church, a “ luge” of four rooms is specified as having to be made for the masons. In 1426, the masons engaged to build Walberswick steeple were to be provided with a “ hows” to eat, drink, and sleep in, and to “ make mete in,” i. e. , fitting or convenient. As I have shown, these lodges were formerly thatched, but one properly “tiled” was to be provided at the expense of some parishioners in Suffolk. In 1432, a “luge” was erected in the cemetery at Durham. And, in 1541, Thomas Phillips, freemason, and John Pettit, covenanted “to set up and fully finish”* the Coventry Cross, and, at their own charge, “ to prepare, find, and make a house or lodge for masons to work in during the time of making the same cross.” 2 Various customs of trade are mentioned in the manuscript constitutions of later date. As regards the origin of masonic guilds there are two traditions, besides the alleged charter of Atlielstan, and the familiar legend of St. Alban, namely, one making Godfrey de Lucy bishop of Winchester, who first rebuilt the eastern portion of his cathedral, the founder of a confraternity, 1202, which is accepted by Milner as the origin of the society of Freemasons; the second, that advanced by Anderson, 1738, but never authenticated, who assigns the honor to William Molart, prior of Canterbury cathedral, 1429, under the patronage of Archbishop Chichele. 3 Neither of these are really worth discussing. Even 'Loge, Anglo-Norman; a lodge, habitation, lodging (Wright’s Glossary to Chaucer’s Poems), Cf. Dictionary of Architecture, s.v., where twenty-four instances of the “lodge,” being referred to, between 1200 and 1523, in England, and four, between 1483 and 1527, in Scotland, are given. a T. WWhitley, The Coventry Cross, 1880, pp. 8, 9. “It has been thought that ‘Thomas Phil- lips, freemason,’ was the real contractor and builder, whilst Pettit was the quarry owner, and found the stone. Of this, however, we have no real evidence” (Ibid., p. 11). 3 “Among the Tanner MSS., Bodleian Library, Oxford, the Register of Christ Church, Canter- bury, and of William Molash, not Molart, is extant. It contains no mention of a lodge being held under Cbichely, but it states that the ‘ Lathomi ’ received livery. . . . This is no doubt the same MEDIAL VA L OPERATIVE MASONRY , . 304 supposing that such societies were founded, it is quite clear from the whole documentary evidence that they must have been short-lived, and, during that short life, never extended their influence. There was, however, undoubtedly a guild of masons in London in 1375, when the right of election to the civic dignities, including those of parlimentary representa- tives, were transferred from the wards to the trading companies. In the next year a list was drawn up in French of the number of persons chosen for common councihnen by the trades. This list comprises 148 members, of whom the masons sent 4, and the Freemasons 2. It is believed that the latter afterward merged in the former, and this amalgamation probably occurred prior to 142 1-2, 1 9 Henry V., for a document in possession of the Brewers’ Company of that year gives the masons as 29th on a list of 112 companies, but omits all mention of the Freemasons. Halliwell instances a single statement to the effect that “a company of under masons was formed in London, 12 Edward IV., 1473, while the incorporation of the masons is sometimes referred to as having taken place in 1677 or 1678, by erroneously taking the renewal of their charter by Charles II. as the original. The date, 1411, is recorded in the usual subscription to the coat of arms. It is worth remark- ing that Stowe says that the masons were formerly called Freemasons. 2 There is also a notice of a guild of ccementarii, 1422-3. Mr. Papworth considers it as a curious coincidence that the handwriting of the earliest constitutions is about contemporary with the date 1375, but that this is much too vague to support any argument or theory whatever. He further says that this date coincides with that of the supposed formation of a wonderful secret society of masons who banded themselves together to escape the oppressive measures of Edward III., who “ pressed ” men to serve on his numerous buildings. As Mr. Papworth very justly observes, there is probability about much of this, but no authority. The earliest, or one of the earliest, enactments 3 regulating the price of wages, was directed more or less against trades unions in general, and not those of the building trades in particular. That the trades continued to resist these enactments was only natural, and that they did so is proved by the various statutes prom^gated from time to time; from these it is clear that fellowships and guilds of the building trades existed from the middle of the fourteenth century as might have been expected, but there is no proof that any supreme guild existed, but rather the reverse. Also, it does not seem clear whether the building trades generally had any connection with the Masons’ Company of London; 4 and I should be inclined to think that the building trades associations were mere trades union societies differing from the guilds, which partook more of a corporate character; and which, hence, more closely resembled the Collegia, if they did not actually descend from them. Speaking of this supposed descent, I may mention here, incidentally, that I should be much more inclined entry alluded to by Preston [Illustrations of Masonry], but he has founded more on it than it will bear” (Kenning’s Cyclopaedia, Chichely). 1 See W. Herbert, History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London, 1837, vol. i., p. 33. * Seymour, Stowe, vol. ii. The company of “ marblers” appears to have been also absorbed by that of the “masons” (Herbert, vol. i. ,p . 33; Strype, p. 215; and Seymour, pp. 381, 392). In 1501-2, however, the masons’ company only comprised eleven members (Papworth). 3 The statutes relating to the building trades will be fully examined in a subsequent chapter. 4 The following entry, however, will be found in the “Calendar State Papers,” Domestic Series, vol. ccxiv., p. 408: “ 1667 — Aug. 22 — The King to the Lord mayor, — There being great want of masons and bricklayers to carry on the important works at Sheerness, he is to summon the masters and wardens of those companies, and order as many able workmen to be sent as shall perfect the work before the season of the year prevents.” MEDIAE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 305 to look for tlieir traces in France, especially in tlie south among the Confreries, not in the Companionage, which is, and was, a collection of trades unions; or in Italy among the workmen fraternities of the Middle Ages, than in England or Germany. 1 As regards the grips and signs attributed to the early builders, the masons’ marks, the secrets, the lewd and profane symbols, and the numerous figures indicative of a dislike of and contempt for the clergy, very few words are necessary, the more especially as the “ signs and tokens,” and the ,l masons’ marks,” will he referred to in subsequent chapters. That artisans of an especial trade should have peculiar modes of recognizing each other when travelling in search of work, is nothing but what might have been expected — such practices exist in the Companionage, and may in England, for all we know to the contrary — although I believe they did not arise, or at least traces of them have not been found, until comparatively recent times. Moreover, a secret society has certain .political, religious, or social — some may call them anti-social — objects. These they would ill serve, by devoting their time to the practice of working stonemasonry, and would serve it still less by con- tributing to the advancement and glorification of the Church, which has always considered the repression of such societies and such aspirations as being among her chiefest duties. Furthermore, all documentary and trustworthy evidence, all the dictates of sound common sense, tend to discourage, and even ridicule, such a notion as being the mere chimera of visionaries and enthusiasts. So the marks are nothing but the ordinary marks similar to those made and chosen by each individual mason at the present day, whereby, in case of necessity, each man’s work is ascertained. They are, apart from immediate trade purposes, useful and interesting to the antiquary, as showing the numbers who worked on any par- ticular building, as well as whether the same masons worked on any other edifice, and if so, where; but how any one but a theorist, who prefers dreaming in his study to acquiring wholesome practical knowledge, could imagine that — when used by the masons— they re- ferred to any esoteric doctrines, certainly surpasses my comprehension. That our mediaeval ancestors were superstitious and fond of alchemy, believing in certain signs, etc., is un- doubtedly true, and that workmen may have occasionally chosen such figures for their marks, partly from superstition and partly from caprice, is likely enough, but one can scarcely imagine any man foolish enough to waste his time and trouble in inscribing some mysterious secret on that side of a stone which was to be immediately covered up, there to remain for centuries, if it was ever destined to see the light at all. The only parallel that I can discover to such a proceeding is the famous classic story of the worthy, who, op- pressed by the greatness of his secret, told it to the reeds, and what that was, all knew when the wind forced the reeds to divulge it. As to their secrets, all trades have their own, important or otherwise, to the present day, and the mediaeval masons must have been more likely to have possessed theirs, when we consider the extreme height and comparative fragility of their buildings, the thinness of the walls and vaulting, and the smallness of the stone employed. Both Wren and Soufflot, the builders of St. Paul’s and of St. Genevieve (Pantheon) and certainly the two most scientific architects of their respective countries, con- ceived the highest opinion of the skill of their mediaeval predecessors, and we must re- member that books in our sense of the word scarcely existed, and that the great bulk of the teaching w T as oral, whilst books of practical geometry did not exist at all. Out of the thousands of names of authors and their works collected by the laborious compilers of the 1 One of the best and fullest works on this subject is “ Gayes Carteggio di document]' inediti,” from the Florentine archives. 20 3 o6 MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. famous “ Histoire Litteraire de la France/’ I do not recollect any that treat upon inis subject. “ It may be conceived/’ says Poole, “ that the great secret of the Society resided in the practical way in which many principles, after which we are now feeling in vain, and many rules of construction which each man now learns to employ by a mathematical process, were reduced to what is vulgarly, but expressively, called the rule of thumb. “ Perhaps,” he continues, “John Wasted, the master mason of King’s College Chapel, followed with the utmost assurance a rule of which he could not give a philosophical account, but which he was ready to apply again and again to works of every magnitude.” There was a double motive with these men for keeping their trade secrets close, for besides the mystery which mankind are so prone to affect, they really had something both to learn and to conceal. As for the various symbols, lewd, profane, or merely caricatures, it should never be forgotten that the mediaeval nations were extremely coarse, and in their way extremely witty. A very slight acquaintance with mediaeval literature will cause us to feel no surprise when we meet with stone caricatures equal in strength and coarseness to those of Row- landson and Gillray, nor need we be astonished to find a good deal turn upon the clergy, as do a great number of those of our English draughtsmen, especially in the matter of tithe; and these, together with indecencies which are, after all, not quite unknown in more re- fined ages, were probably the amusements of carnally-minded workmen when they thought they could indulge in them without risk of discovery . 2 3 But a strong anti-religious and anti- social sub-current certainly existed throughout the Middle Ages, and these figures may possi- bly be the expressions of the feelings and opinions of individuals among the masons, though that any large body of men should combine to erect a magnificent edifice for the furtherance of a diametrically opposite creed, in order to put somewhere out of sight a little figure or sym- bol indicating their own, is an absurdity that I do not suppose the secret societies with all their inconsistencies— and they have committed many and striking ones— could be capable of . 1 As to the symbols found, or at least said to be found in churches connected with the Templars, these open up a new subject upon which neither time nor space will permit me to dwell, and it possesses but a very shadowy connection with our general inquiry. Lastly, — having to some degree, it is hoped, cleared away the mythical and mystical cloud that hangs around the subject, and having attempted to show that in both builders and buildings there is nothing to be discovered other than may be suggested by the dictates of reason and the light of common sense — comes the most curious, the most im- portant, and at the same time the most obscure question of all, Who were the actual archi- tects and designers of the mediaeval edifices? and were they operative masons or at least men belonging to that body? Various theories have been advanced on this most interesting 1 G. A. Poole, History of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England, 1848, p. 118. Mr. R. P. Knight says: “If we ask what is meant by pure Gothic, we receive no satisfactory reply; there are no rules, no proportions, and consequently no definitions.” And in another part of his work he asserts, that the Gothic architects recognized no rules, but worked merely for effect (Analytic Inquiry into the Prin- ciples of Taste, 2d edit., pp. 162, 175). It is but right to say that the validity of Mr. Knight’s conclu- sion was strongly contested by Hawkins (Gothic Architecture, p. 182) in 1813, and that a recent author (Fort, p. 199 (also scouts the idea of the “ rule of thumb ” adopted in the text. 2 See Findel, p. 68, and ante, p. 166. 3 The only instance at all comparable to such a feat that I know of is that of a nonconformist minister, who went to the trouble and expense of editing Hooker that he might confute him in foot- notes in the proportion of about three lines to four pages. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 307 subject, — the monks, the master masons, the regular — i. e. , regular according to our ideas — the modern architect, the freemason, while some have gone so far as to say that the reason why so few names are known is, that the mediaeval architects concealed their names from an excess of piety, a suggestion which is about on a par with the supposition that in British journalism the writers of leading articles are actuated by a like feeling of modesty and self-denial. Where so many different ideas have been advanced, and have been, some of them at least, so ably championed, I have a right to advance my own, which I shall do briefly and to the best of my ability, but it will be first advisable to see what are the various designations used for masons in the Middle Ages. “ Csementarius,” says Mr. Papworth, “is naturally the earliest, 1077, and is the term most constantly used. ‘ Artifices ’ were collected at Canterbury to a consultation, from which William of Sens came out the ‘ Magister/ a term also applied to his successor — William, the Englishman; but it is not clear whether ‘master of the work’ or ‘master mason 5 is to be applied to these two. In 1217, a popular educational writer noted the word ‘ cementarii,’ together with the old French synonym ‘ maszun/ leaving little hesitation for our accepting the one for the other. The ‘ London Assize/ of 1212, besides ‘ cementarii’ has ‘sculptores lapidum liberorum/ words of very exceptional use. 1 At the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries, the terms ‘ magister cementarii/ with his ‘ sociis ’ or fellows, are obtained. ‘ Marmorarius ’ has been noted; also a new word ‘latomus/ which is, after that period, found written in all manner of spellings. 2 A ‘ masoune/ in old French, is to erect a house, ‘ de pere fraunche’; and of somewhat later date is found a ‘ mestre mason de franche pere; ’ while still later, 1360, a mason ‘ de fraunche pere ou de grosse pere ’ appears in the statutes. In a writ of 1415 are the words ‘ petras vocatas ragge calces et liberas petras. ’ 3 During the fourteenth century ‘ lathomus ’ is con- stantly found, and it would appear to be applied as often to the mason who was to execute cut-work, as to the mason who was required for rougher work, or to labor at the quarry. Under the date of 1396, the contractors for the works at Westminster Hall were ‘ citiens et masons de Londres;’ and of the same year is the passage ‘ lathomos vocatos ffre Maceons / and ‘lathomos vocatos ligiers / 4 or, as we should translate the words, masons called free (stone) masons, and masons (the same term is used for both) called layers or setters. ” 6 “ Cementarius,” or “ Simentarius,” before, and “ f remason ” after, 1396, are found in the Fabric Rolls of Exeter Cathedral. In the Roll for 1426 (the 5th year of Henry VI'.), which is composed of parchment sheets joined continuously, about 15 feet in length, and 11 in breadth, occurs the following entry: 6 — 1 The cementarii above mentioned had 8d. and their food per day, or 4qd. without food; the sculp- tores had 2d. and 4d. per day. 2 Latomus was used in an inscription in Paris as early as 1257. 3 As fraunche pere, or free stone, appears to mean stone that cut freely, the substitution of liber for fraunche (unless merely a literal translation) points to some connection between the freemason and the freedom of a trade. 4 Mr. W. H. Rylands, in “ The Freemason” of November 26, 1881, and the “Masonic Magazine” of February 1882, has printed the deed, dated 14th June, 19 Richard II., or a.d. 1896, from the copy of the original document preserved in the Sloane MSS. (No. 4595, p. 50). He describes the entry in Rymer’s “ Fcedera” (vol. xvii., edit. 1717), cited by Mr. Papworth in the “Dictionary of Architecture,” s.v. “ Freemason,” as occurring in a syllabus of manuscript Acts, not published, at the end of the volume, after the index, p. 55. 6 Transactions Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62, pp. 37-60. 6 For this reference I am indebted to Mr. James Jerman, of Exeter. This gentleman and the 3°8 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. Jolii Harry f remason opanti ibim p septiam . . 3s. Jolii Umfray fremason p banc septiam . . . nl. q, liic recessit. As already observed “ Lathomus” is appended to William de Wynneford’s portrait at Winchester college; and, somewhat later, amongst the “ latimi ” at Durham, one is especially called a “ ffremason. ” “Thereafter,” continues Mr. Papworth, “mason and freemason are terms in constant use down to the present time. 1 From these details three facts are obtained, — the first, that the earliest use of the English term Freemason was in 139G, without any previous Latin word. The second is, that the word freestone, or its equivalent Latin term, had been em- ployed from the beginning of the previous century, i.e., 1212; and the third fact, if that word be permitted me, is, that the term Freemason 2 itself is clearly derived from a mason who worked freestone, in contradistinction to the mason who was employed in rough work. ” The terms architect, ingeniator, supervisor, surveyor, overseer, keeper of the works, keeper of the fabric, director, clerk of the works, and devizor, are all of comparatively recent date, at least in their general use and application. That these mediaeval terms are not yet clearly comprehended may be gathered from an amusing quotation in the case of Richard of Wolveston, cited as a “ prudens architectus ” in a register of the period of Bishop Pudsey of Durham, early in the twelfth century. In a charter relating to an ex- change of lands, this Richard is styled “ingeniator,” and the translator, commenting upon the term, writes, “ Dick the Snarer, then, doubtless, a title of honor; a gin is still technically called an engine or ingene;” though, as Mr. Papworth observes, such a sobriquet would now, however applicable, be deemed the reverse of complimentary, if bestowed on the gamekeeper of a bishop. It has been urged, however, that this surname (ingeniator) was not uncommon in the North of England at the period, and was applied to any person who manifested genius in his vocation. 3 Many interesting papers have been read before the Institute of British Architects, fol- lowed by discussion and debate, the object of which was to clear up the mystery attending the real architects of the great mediaeval buildings, in which three principal theories were maintained, 4 — one being the old popular notion that the architects were the monks them- selves; another, that they were the master masons; and the third, that there existed, as at Rev. H. Reynolds (the chapter librarian) vainly searched the Fabric Roll of 1396 for the name of “ William Foundyng, freemason,” mentioned by Britton in his “Exeter Cathedral,” 1827, p. 96. 1 Mr. Papworth cites William Horwode, Freemason, Fotheringay, 1435. John Wode, mason, who contracted to build the tower of the Abbey Church of St. Edmundsbury, “ In all mannere of tliinges that longe to free masonry,” 1435: John Stowell, ffremason, Wells, 1470; William Este, fremason, Oxford, 1494; John Hylmer and William Vertue, freemasons, Windsor, 1507. In the sixteenth cent- ury the term freemason becomes more common. The word cementarius and latomus are repeatedly found in the two volumes of V ocabularies, dating from the tenth to the sixteenth century, edited by the late Thomas Wright, and privately printed, 1857 and 1873. Many extracts from this work were given by Mr. W. H. Rylands, in the “ Freemason” of September 3, 1881. Mr. Papworth says, “that the terms ‘ magister lapicida ’ and ‘ liberi muratores ’ are nowhere to be met with in documents re- lating to England, and thus there is no sufficient authority for that constant use of them observable in wi-iters of former years.” 2 The derivation of this word will again claim our attention. 3 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62. 4 See Transactions, 1856-60, pp. 38-51; 1861-62, pp. 37-60; and 1863-64, 130-146. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 309 present, a regular order of architects who worked in precisely the same way as men in the profession do now; but, in spite of a great deal of argument and learning, the “grand crux,” as Mr. Digby Wyatt observed at the close of one discussion, “remains unsolved.” It seems to me, however, that the difficulty encountered at this point of our research arises, (1.) from the fact of different words being used at different times to signify the same thing, a fact which is too often disregarded; (2.) from not sufficiently contrasting the modes in which trades and professions were carried on at periods of time remote from our own; and (3.), from too hasty a generalization upon imperfect data, without pausing to reflect that customs and ideas have been influenced both by nationality and locality, and that because one set or description of men were numerously employed, this by no means precluded the employment on other occasions of a very different class, and that the former — although, even in this instance, often with exceptions — may have been more constantly in requisition in one time and place than in another. Let me take England first. It is, doubtless, true that missionary priests and small bands of monks, on first settling on the site of the future monastery, may have been forced to instruct the barbarous natives, and even to work with their own hands; and, in this view, it is probable that some of their number were skilled artificers, or had been so, before they took the vows, although, in such rude buildings, no great skill was required. It may be true, also, that Wilfred labored with his own hands on his churches, but this proves very little. 1 2 Bishop Hackett — appointed to Lichfield at the Restoration — began, the morn- ing after his arrival, to clear away the rubbish with which the fall of the great spire during the siege had encumbered the nave of the cathedral, with his own hands and with the aid of his servants and coacli-liorses; and Isaac Barrow, master of Trinity, after his scheme for a university library at Cambridge had been rejected by the senate, went straight back to Trinity and began to measure out the plot of ground on which the magnificent library now stands — one of the masterpieces of Wren — with the aid of his coachman and a ball of twine. Benedict Biscop brought over cementarii, not monachi, from Gaul; and Offa employed also foreign workmen. On the other hand, a monk appears to have been the actual architect of Ramsey, and a priest would seem to have had a share in the little Yorkshire church above mentioned. Omitting mere masons and artificers, whose names are legion, we begin, shortly after the Conquest, with Robertus Cementarius, who presided over the building of St. Albans, and was said to have been the most skilful mason of his time; 3 the oft-referred-to Hugh de Goldcliffe — who, about 1200 A.R., so swindled the ambitious but unbusinesslike Abbot Paul of St. Albans out of his money, and was the cause of the west front still lacking its towers, which the original Norman structure possessed — w T as clearly a contractor, although only a cementarius. Mr. Papworth calls him a designer, although without proof, as far as I can see, unless by the expression he means a designing man. He also was highly praised for his talent, but not for his integrity. A little before comes William of Sens at Canter- bury — who is supposed to have introduced into this country the true Gothic, as well as the practice of vaulting in stone,— then his successor, Gulielmus Anglus, or William the 1 December 2, 1861. Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62, p. 60. 2 St. Dunstan is reported to have been an excellent blacksmith; and Bede, in his “ Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow,” remarks that the Abbot of Wearmouth assisted his monks in their agricultural labors, by guiding the plough, and by making various implements of husbandry. a Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1881-62. 3 io MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. Englishman, who is supposed to have been identical with one William of Coventry, and is, I believe, celebrated by Malmsbury, and is credited with the original Norman abbey at Gloucester. It is worthy of remark that both at St. Albans, under Abbot Paul, and at Canterbury, before the commencement of the works by William of Sens, conferences of eminent cementarii were held, at which Goldclitfe and William of Sens respectively carried off the palm. Were open competitions and committees not unknown even in those early days? The same thing occurred before the commencment of Westminster, but nothing further is, I believe, known on the subject. About the same time, also, flourished Alex- ander de Noyes, of Lincoln celebrity, and here I am inclined to think that the known list of great English cementarii terminates, unless we believe that Richard de Farleigh, 1334, was the architect of the tower and spire of Salisbury. He made an agreement, the story of which — but, unfortunately, not the exact words — are given in Dodswortli’s history of the cathedral. The endorsement, however, is “ Conventiae Richardi de Farleigh, Lathomi,” and in the body he is called “ Richardi Davy de Farleigh, cementarii ” thus — if we follow Mr. Papworth — proving him to be the master mason and designer. It stipulates that he should be entrusted with the custody of the fabric, to order and to do ail necessary work in the same, and to superintend, direct, and appoint useful and faithful masons and plas- terers; with regard to himself, that he should perform useful and faithful work, and use circumspect diligence, as well as provident discretion with regard to the artificers under him, that he should repair thither and make such stay as the necessity or nature of the fabric shall require, and that, notwithstanding his prior obligations at Bath and Reading, he should not neglect or delay the works of the church. Afterwards, when settlements ap- peared in the tower arches in consequence of these works, an agreement was made with Nicholas de Portland, mason, conceived in the same general terms as those already cited; and when further repairs were contemplated, 1415, a similar agreement was made with Robert Wayte, mason. The above agreement with Farleigh, always supposing it to have represented the original correctly, would seem to be rather with an architect or superinten- dent of buildings, wflio covenants to see the thing properly done, than with a contractor, in our sense of the word, i. e. , one who undertakes the cost for a consideration, although there is nothing said about the design. After this, or even from an earlier period, there exist numerous covenants with masons, some of whom were actual contractors, though ap- parently not on a large scale, i. e. , taking piece v r ork instead of working by the day, they are all called, apparently indiscriminately, cementarii, latomi, masounes, and towards the end, freemasons — whether merely a new term, or designating men belonging to a new or- ganization, I cannot determine — and they, as well as their employers, seem uncommonly well able to take care of themselves. It should be stated, that of the names that have come down to us but few betray a foreign origin, the great majority being those of persons who, apparently, were natives of the districts in which the edifices were reared, w r ith which their names are connected. This will account, in a great measure, for the local peculiarities such as are constantly met with, and which seem to indicate the existence of local schools. 1 Towards the end of the time the contracts seem to become larger, as in the case of Horwood, the freemason, for the chapel of Fotheringhay; and Semark and Wasted, for the roof of 1 “Of the Churches of the early Middle Ages,” Mr. G. E. Street, in a paper read before the mem- bers or St. Paul’s Ecclesiological Society, May 21, 1879, says: “ I could have told you how they may be classified into groups, speaking to us of the skill and genius of individual architects, each in his own district or diocese” (The Building News, May 30, 1879, vol. xxxvi., p. 598; see ante, p. 282). MEDIsE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. 3i i King’s College Chapel. I may remark, by the way, that the records of the three great perpendicular chapels are very fully preserved, and in a great part published, and afford very full information of the modus operandi at that particular period. I now turn to the list of ecclesiastical architects, real or supposed. Gundulf will occur to all. His claim has been strenuously advocated and as strenuously denied, and that by very eminent men; and I can neither weary my readers with the argu- ments pro. and con., nor undertake to decide ex cathedra. Flambard, the “vizier” of Rufus, is an instance, amongst many, of a man obtaining credit for what he did not do, and failing to obtain credit for that which he did. There is not, as far as I know, the slightest proof of his having had any skill in architecture; but he was a lawyer, and wrote the earliest book on English law— still in MS. Paulinus, the sacrist, built Frindsbury, in Kent, 1137, where some of the earliest pointed arches in England, exactly contemporary with those of St. Cross, Winchester, are yet to be seen. Arnold, a lay brother of Croyland, under Odo the prior, a.d. 1113, is said to have been cementaria artis artificiossisimus magister, and to have executed work there. 1 Will Stowe is said to have erected a new steeple to the abbey at Evesham, 1319, where there was also a tombstone with the inscription “ Hoc anno (1319), obiit Henricus Latomus, qui s,ub Johanne Abbate de Evesham aulam abbathige artificiose composuit.” 2 It is usually* said of the subject of this epitaph that the fact of his having been a monk is distinctly ex- pressed, and according to Rudge he was sacrist of the abbey. 3 There were also Richard de Gainsborough and Robert de Gloucester, both called cementariusO According to Dallaway, formerly a great authority, Hugh the Burgundian, Bishop of Lincoln, Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, and some others are clearly proved to have been great architects, but this statement seems destitute of any foundation in fact. Robert Tulley (afterward Bishop of St. David’s) built the tower of Gloucester Cathedral, while a monk, under Abbot Sebroke; he was also patronized by Waynflete. Over the dividing arch of the nave and choir is, or was, written 6 “ Hoc quod digestum specularis opusque politum Tullii ex onere Sebroke abbate jubente.” The author of a paper read before the Society of British Architects, April 18th, 1864, after saying that the great multitude of our churches are built by men utterly unknown, proceeds to give some exceptions to this general rule, one being in the case of Yale Crucis Abbey, near Llangollen, “ where across the gable of the west front is inserted the fact— ‘Adam us Abbas fecit hoc opus in pace quiescat, Amen.’” Passing from this statement, Ihe value of which I do not rate very highly, we find that Elias de Derham, or Berham, canon of Salisbury, directed the building operations, though Leland speaks of “ Robertus, cementarius,” who ruled the works there for twenty- five years. There were also under him Henry of Cerue, mason, and Alan de Hereford, carpenter. Nicholas Cloos, Bishop of Lichfield, and son of a Dutchman, may possibly have had • Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland (the continuation by Peter of Blois). 2 Leland’ s Collectanea; Dallaway, Discourses on Architecture, p. 51. 8 History of Evesham, p. 28. 4 Walpole's Anecdotes (Wornum), vol. i., p. 125. 6 Dallaway, Discourses on Architecture, p. 178. 312 MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. something to do with the original design of King’s College Chapel, which was begun shortly before his death in 1453, but which certainly became a far more elaborate and magnificent building than its founder or original designer — whoever he may have been — had ever in- tended it to be. This is the utmost extent of the much-talked-of German influence in England that I have been able to trace. William Bolton, prior of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, is usually considered to possess the best title to the honor of having designed and built the chapel of Henry VII. at West- minster. 1 I now come to the two greatest names of all. Wykeham’s claims to architectural eminence have been still more fiercely disputed than even those of Gundulf. One eminent authority, whose name out of respect I will not mention, is distinctly at variance with himself, saying one thing in a discussion on one of Mr. Papworth’s papers, and another in a work published at about the same time. I repeat here what I have above said about Gundulf, save that the balance of probability is a good deal in favor of Wykeham. At any rate, which is a point of importance, he had under him three eminent artificers. With regard to Alan de Walsingham, the case happily is far more explicit, and as the “ Historia Eliensis” goes into considerable detail, and thereby throws a flood of light upon the architectural transactions — at least in England — during the Middle Ages, I shall now draw upon these stores, first premising that it has been constantly stated that he is there styled “ vir venerabilis, et artificiosus f rater,” a phrase that really occurs in Leland’s “ Col- lectanea. ” 2 After stating that he w T as first of all sub-prior, and then sacrist, and having described the fall of the central tower, the record continues: — “ The aforesaid sacrist, Alan de Walsingham, was greatly grieved and overwhelmed by this lamentable and overpowering calamity, so that he scarcely knew which way to turn, or what to do to remedy the effects of so great a ruin. At length, trusting to the help of God, and of Mary His most holy mother, and in the merits of the virgin Ethelreda, he set vigorously to work, and, to com- mence with, had, as quickly as possible, all the stones which had fallen inside the church cleared out, and the place cleansed of the great quantity of dust which had collected; then the place in which the new campanile was to be built was, by means of architectural skill, divided into eight parts in which might be erected eight columns of stone supporting the wdiole superstructure, and beyond which was to be built the choir wfitli its stalls; and these parts he caused to be dug down into, and well examined, until he arrived at a solid place where the foundations of the work might be securely laid. 3 These eight places having been firmly examined, as has been stated above, and further rammed down with stones and sand, he at length began the eight columns, together with their stone superstructure, which was finished as far as the upper cornice in six years, a. d. 1328. Then was imme- diately commenced, on the top of the aforesaid stonework, that scientific structure of wood, belonging to the new campanile, which is reckoned as one of the highest and most won- derful efforts of the human mind. The cost was very great and burdensome, especially 1 Thoresby may have had a great deal to do with the choir of York, and Oliver King, Bishop of Bath and Wells, is said to have designed the Abbey Church at Bath. To Bishop Quivil, Dallaway accords the credit having designed Exeter Cathedral (Discourses, etc., pp. 53, 153). • Ed. 1774, ii., 604. 3 The excavation for the foundations of the dome of St. Paul’s, itself an imitation of Ely, is de- scribed in similar, if not identical, terms. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. 313 for the great beams of the said building, which were naturally obliged to be of a size, and which had to be sought far and wide, and having been at length discovered and prepared with the greatest difficulty, were brought to Ely by land and water carriage, and, having been shaped and carved by able workmen (per ingeniosos artifices ) were scientifically fitted together in the work itself; and thus, by the Divine aid, was obtained the glorious and much-wished-for result. The cost (costus?) of the new campanile for twenty years, under brother Alan de Walsingham, amounted to £2400, Gs. lid., of which £260, Is. came from gifts. ” 1 Walsingham had as coadjutor John de Wisbeach, and under him was John Altgryne, generally described as a bricklayer, but who must clearly have been a stonemason, inasmuch as there is not a brick in the building. I may add that portions of Walsinghanf’s expenses were published by Governor Pownall, but they refer only to such things as the use of silicate in tempering colors, etc., the most important being omitted. These notices are all that I have been able to gather; and I am conscious that, few as they are, they are not altogether satisfactory as they stand. The fabric rolls of several cathedrals, however, still exist in MSS. ; possibly, also, many MSS. relating to abbeys lie hidden in the recesses of our great public libraries. Could these be published or investi- gated, and could some one be found who possessed a courage and a patience sufficient to enable him to go through, even with the help of the indexes, the printed chronicles and documents relating to our medieval England — I will not speak of the materials still existing in MSS., which amount to, I think, between two or three thousand volumes, according to Sir Thomas Hardy's catalogue — could, I say, such a man be found, he would, doubtless, clear up much which is obscure in the history of our Gothic architecture; till then all that can be done is to collect in as short a compass as possible all known facts, and then to comment upon them according to the light of reason and common sense. 2 From the above list we gather the names of seven cementarii, who evidently were more than mere workmen, or even master masons, in our sense of that term; and we have also the names of thirteen clerics, including one lay brother (Arnold, of Croyland), who are supposed, with more or less appearance of truth, to have been — and some, at least, who certainly were — architects. We should also have seen, had the space permitted, that the cementarii were of all ranks and classes, from one capable of superintending or contracting for such a building as St. Albans, or even of designing it — such as William of Sens, English William, and perhaps Farleigh at Salisbury — to the humble individual who undertook a tomb, a portion of a dormitory (as at Durham), or a village spire. These men, therefore, were not, by any means, all the mere workers raised but little above the class of journey- men that professional jealousy would sometimes have us believe. Next, we have the great clerical trio (I omit Gundulf) Derham, Wykeham, Walsingham, more especially the latter, since the account of his work is so clear and ample. It is quite evident from these three, backed and confirmed as they are by the positive accounts in the “ ITistoria Eliensis,” that there existed, at least here and there, ecclesiastics who were quite capable of taking the superintendence, perhaps even the execution, of a building into their own hands, provided they had competent master workmen under them. There was yet a third mode of pro- 1 Historia Eliensis, apud Wharton, Anglia sacra, vol. L, 623. 2 Essex, Wharton, and Willis, all collected materials for a general history of Gothic architecture. No one was more competent than the “admirable Willis,” but what has become of those materials? It is but a few years since he died, and his nearest relatives are still, I believe, in the land of the living. MEDIAL VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 314 ceeding — that adopted at York, where, and most probably in other cathedrals, there was always maintained a competent staff of workmen, which in time of need could be augmented from without. These were in general under the treasurer or the sacrist, and John le Romaine was the treasurer under whom the transepts were erected. Ample details as to York may be seen in the “ Fabric Rolls,” edited for the Surtees Society by Canon Raine, to which I must, once for all, refer the reader. 1 Gloucester seems to have been a regular school of masons — a kind of architectural college — in which theory was very properly mingled with practice, and from which, according to the best authorities, fan vaulting took its rise. 2 There was also, probably, another but earlier school at Wells. Hence we have three methods or modes of procedure adopted by our English mediaeval builders: (1.) Where the work was done by the cementarius or latomus; (2.) Where the real head was a cleric; (3.) Where there was a kind of school, in which the clerics — or at least, some of them — together with their master masons, “ hammered out” the designs between them. Here, as we do not generalize hastily from a few instances, and have thus arrived at this conclusion, so we shall find that by not judging of past times by our own, we shall arrive approximately at the reason why our ancestors could dispense with the class of men whom we call professional architects. In the first place, architecture was at that time a living art, and as this art found its principal expression and employment in the erection of churches, it is not surprising that the ecclesiastical profession should have produced eminent men in that line, more especially wdieu we remember the very varied, and even out-of-the-way callings in which both priests and monks frequently distinguished themselves, and that there is, after all, a good deal of truth in the popular belief that the “ monasteries” (for which read “ the clerical profession generally”) were the great depositories of learning. 3 Next, as regards the masons them- selves. It must not be assumed because an ordinary master mason, or clerk of the works, at the present day is incapable of executing any building of architectural pretension — though I can point to one eminent architect who was originally a working stonemason — that such was always the case, or, rather, that there was in the Middle Ages any such wide and impassable gulf between what are, after all, but two ends of the same trade, as we see at present. The comparative simplicity of the Middle Ages, and all analogy drawn from their social history, forbids such a supposition. Architect and mason were all integral parts of one body, whether corporate or not; and as a proof, the same words cementarius, etc., are used to designate them, whatever work, be it great or small, is alluded to; and though it by no means follows that the working mason often attained the highest rank, or that tho 1 The Fabric Rolls of York Minster (vol. xxxv. of the publications of the Surtees Society). Sir Gilbert Scott says: “ The point of the necessity of gangs of skilled workmen accustomed to work to- gether has not been sufficiently attended to. The fables of the Freemasons have produced a natural reaction, and the degree of truth which there is in these traditions has consequently been overlooked. Each of our great cathedrals had a gang of workmen attached to it in regular pay.” Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, 1861). 2 Fan vaulting may have been brought to perfection at Gloucester, but it really sprang from the gradually increased width of the aisles and bays, and the flattening of the clerestory vaulting, as any one can see for himself who contemplates a Gothic vault; or it may be said that the prevails ing form gave rise to the opportunity which the Gloucester artists — I use the word for want of a better — seized. 3 So that we cannot judge them by modern clerical or university standards, although some of our best theoretical books have been written by clergymen. The great services of the clergy in bridge building must not be forgotten. MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 3i5 architect often began from a much humbler position than that to which he subsequently- attained, yet there was a much easier gradation between the two ranks — a gradation not the less easy because it may seldom have been climbed, like the mythical baton in the French conscript’s knapsack, as compared with the strongly drawn line which separates the British private from his officer. The next question that arises is, How many buildings owe their origin to each of the three divisions I have above alluded to? The cathedrals with their regular sums, though possibly small, set apart for the fabric, and the perpetual power of drawing on the purses of the ambitious, the artistic, or the pious throughout the diocese and perhaps beyond it, could always maintain a body of workmen, and in general depend upon some member of the capitular body who was capable of directing them. When this was not so, the building stagnated. But with the abbeys the case was different, their churches were almost all built at the foundation of the houses. 1 These buildings, then, must have had in the first instance some guiding mind to whom they owe their beauties. It can scarcely be thought likely that every foundation should have had its origin a member capable of such things whether he found himself there by accident or design, and it is, therefore, most probable that the cementarii carried out the works in the now ruined abbeys, aided occasionally by members of the fra- ternity as in the case of Arnold of Croyland, which, by the way, was an ancient foundation, and, therefore, one where brothers may have been trained. But if this was the case with the abbeys, it must have held, in a far greater degree, with the parish churches. It cannot be possible that the vast multitude of beautiful churches which dot our landscapes can owe their design to their respective parish priests, still less that the dignified cathedral clergy should have made tours (like an archidiaconal visitation) to plan and superintend the various edifices that may have been in progress of construction. Hence, the bulk of these magnificent buildings, as many of them undoubtedly are, may be referred to the skill of the masons alone, e.g., at Wigtoft, in Lincolnshire, 1485-99 (a late example), twelvepence “ earnest money ” was given to a workman on condition that “ he shall take no other work till we (the churchwardens) have done, without our leave and consents.” 2 In this case the workman would almost seem to have been a designer. Hence, in England, the masonic body may very fairly be credited with a very large portion of mediaeval, not to say other church architecture, and must have very materially contributed to that in which the clerics had really the chief share. As regards continental Europe, let us, in the first place, examine the theory of Viollet le Due, 3 who considers Clugny to have been the centre and even controller of civilization in the eleventh century, quoting to that end one Hugues de Farfa, who sent one of his dis- ciples (John) to examine a report upon that famous Benedictine house, and whose MSS. is still in the Vatican. 4 And he supposes, further, that the dependence of the opera- tives upon the monks lasted until the revolt of Vezelay, 1119, when the commune shook themselves free of the monks in the quarrel between Huges, Count de Nevus, and the abbey, and, because they were well paid, sided with the count. Even Thierry cannot 1 So far as I am aware, there are only sixteen whose progress, like that of the cathedrals, has been gradual. 2 Transactions of Royal Institute of British Architects (1861-62). In the same paper Mr. Papworth records an opinion “ that it is to the master mason, asa general rule, that we may turn for the actual designer of all the well-known erections of the Middle Ages.” 3 Dictionnaire Raisonne de 1’ Architecture Frangaise. 4 MS. 6808. MEDIAL val opera tive ma so nr y. 316 conceal this. I need only say that this very beautiful theory, which has been reproduced in English, 1 is worthy of a Frenchman, and has but slight foundation in fact. There is another theory that Bern ward, chancellor of the Emperor Otho III, and who seems to have been a kind of aesthetic Bismarck, was the originator of the Romanesque style, and this, too, may be relegated of the realm of improbabilities. Passing by these theories, I will, as before, present to my readers the facts connected with foreign builders, as I have been able to discover them. We find at Toulouse, Mcclxxii., magister Aymericus canonicus cancellarius et operarius (canon, chancellor, and architect) ecdesice Tolosance, and the name of Bernard de Sacco, priest, canon, and operarius of St. Sernin, ob. 1261. 2 In France the usual term was master of the works, and is found on tombs at Chalons, 1257, St. Ouen, 1440, Amiens, and Notre Dame. The maitre de V oeuvre became architect in the sixteenth century. M. Verneil notices the working drawings traced on the granite slabs of the roof of Limoges, forming exactly the lines of the great piers of the crossing. 3 There is a curious document at Gerona concerning the rebuilding of the cathedral, 1312. Two Frenchmen, called operarii (obreros), Raymond de Vitorie and Arnaud de Montredon, were first employed. In 1316, Henri de Narbonne was the architect (but Street, from whom I copy, does not give the exact words), and after him came Jacques de Favarius, who was engaged to come to Gerona from Narbonne six times a year. 4 He also refers to Mat- thceus, master of "the work at Santiago, 1168-1188. The first Spanish architect, according to Street, whose name is preserved, is Petrus de Deo, in an inscription in San Isidoro, at Leon; next comes Rymundo of Montforte de l^o mos, 1127, and it may be worthy of remark that, as in England in somewhat later times, he stipulated for a cloak of office. In 1175, a contract was entered into with one Ray- mundo, a Lambardo, for works done in the cathedral of Ergel. He was to employ four Lambardos, 5 6 and, if necessary, cementarii or wallers. Here we find a superior class, i.e., the better class of cementarrii had a distinct name from the Lombards, or rather the inhabitants of North Italy, for the kingdom and separate race of Lombards had long been extinct. These northern Italians, being more civilized, must have produced skilled masons, — a speculation which is suggestive of the Magistri Comacini, or masters of Como, whose pre-eminence as builders has been dwelt upon by Mr. Hope. In 1203 Pedro de Camba, at Lcrida, was called magister et fabricator operis — which seems to imply a real architect. So, in France, eg git Robert de Coucy, maistre de Notre Dame, et de St. Nicaise qui trepassa Van, 1311. Also at Rouen, Walter de St. Hilaire, cementarius and magister operis, and Alexandre de Bernevel, maistre des oeuvres de Massonerie au buillage de Rouen et de cette eglise, mccccxl. His tomb in the abbey of St. Ouen, shows a young man in a lay habit with compasses. In Italy the same expression was commonly used, as in the baptistry of Pisa, where we find Deoti Salvi magister hujus operis. The above are taken from Street’s “Notes on Gothic Architecture in Spain,” and the 1 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects. 2 His tomb, or rather its slab, is to be seen in the Museum at Toulouse. 8 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects (Wyatt Papworth), January 1860. 4 It would be curious to know the exact style of architecture in the cathedral of Gerona, so as to compare it with any existing remains at Narbonne or the vicinity. 6 This term may imply either natives of Lombardy or skilled artificers? Sec ante, p. 260. ME DIEE V A L OPERA TI VE MA S O NR V. 3 1 7 oonclusion that he comes to is, that there is no trace of what is usually known as free- masonry, but that the men whose names are mentioned above were like modern architects, except that they were occasionally employed as contractors for the buildings, besides being paid by the day or year for the superintendence of the same. But this statement, with however great respect it may deserve to be received as emanating from so high an authority, leaves two things untouched : it says nothing as to how or by whom the churches were designed, for the evidence to be deducible from the above is not conclusive, and ignores the irresistible tendency of bodies of men, employed in similar pursuits and with common in- terests, to form bodies for mutual protection and advantage. Street also denies the exist- ence of clerical architects, such as Gundulf, Flambard, and Wykeham, although in a dis- cussion on one of Mr. Papworth’s papers, about the same time, he reasserts Wykeliam’s claims, and even denies those of Walsingham. Out of the 127 names in his list, he can find but three who were clerics. Frater Bernardus, of Tarragona, 1256; the monk El Parral, who restored the Roman aqueduct at Segovia — we have already seen that for some unexplained reason the civil engineers of that era were usually monks or priests; and an abbot — though he hardly comes within the scope of the argument — who in the eighth or ninth century rebuilt Leon cathedral; but many of these can scarcely by any stretch be called architects — some were workers in iron, etc. Peter de Corbie, the friend of Wilars de Honcort, built several churches in Picardy. The architect of Notre Dame de Brou was Maistre Loys van Bogliem, and the sculptor Meister Conrad, but this building came very late, having been built by Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Low Countries — whence the architect— and daughter of the Emperor Max- imilian, and aunt of Charles Y. The sketch-book of Wilars de Honcort has been published by MM. Lassus and Willis, and is a most interesting record of the architectural science of this period. 1\ ilars was a native of the Cambresis, and was born in the thirteenth century. His sketch-book shows great power of drawing, both as regards figures, animals, and architecture, though examples of the latter are, unfortunately, in a minority, and these consist mostly of studies, especially from his favorite, Laon. There is scarcely anything of his own, save the very curious design for the east end of a church, inscribed, “Here is a church with a square termination, designed for the Cistercian ritual;’" also another, an apse, with nine chapels radiating from it, alternately square and semi-circular, which, according to the inscription, was worked out by Wilars and his friend De Corbie in a friendly discussion. But both seem to have been ideal, or, at least, never to have been carried out. Under another is inscribed, “This shows the elevations of the chapels of the church of Rheims. Like them will be those of Cambrai, if they be built. Elsewhere he says, “I have been in many lands;” and to one of the sketches of windows at Rheims, he says, “I drew this when I was under orders to go into the land of Hungary.” Libergier designed the very perfect church of St. Nicaise, Rheims, which was destroyed at the French Revolution; but his tombstone was removed to the cathedral, and we learn from it that he was a layman, and married, as was Pierre de Corbie, who is known to have designed or built several churches in Picardy, and may have been the architect of the apse at Rheims. Jean de Chelles, 1257, built the gables of the transept and some of the chapels of the choir of Notre Dame at Paris. On the basement of the southern doorway the following inscription is carved in relief: — ■ 3 1 8 MEDIEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. “ AKN0 • DOMINI . MCCLVII. . MEUSE . FEBRUARIO . IDUS . SECUNDO . HOC . FUIT . INCEPTUM . CHRISTI . GENITRICIS . HONORS . KALLENSI . LATHOMO . YIYENTE . JOHANNE . MAGISTRO. ” 1 Etienne Bonneuil, a Parisian, designed and built the cathedral of Upsala, Sweden, after Eotre Dame, at Paris; as any one, by a comparison of the drawings, can see for himself. AYas he a designer, or rather a mere contractor, with the power of drawing, or at least of paying some one who could? A brass plate in the floor of Amiens Cathedral, destroyed during the French Revolution, gave Robert de Lugarches, Thomas de Cormont, and his son Regnault as maistre de V oeuvre. Pierre de Montereau was the builder of the Sainte Chapelle, and Jean Texier of the beau- tiful south-western steeple of Chartres, beginning of the sixteenth century. The figures of the maisters de V oeuvre ( magistri operum, etc.) are often represented abroad, and always m lay habits and square and compass, e.g., the stalls at Poictiers and the bases in the vaulting at Semur in Auxerrois. 2 It is said that real architects— in our present sense of that term— appear very early in the Italian records, and this claim will be presently considered. In Germany, besides the statement of a master mason having been granted a house by the chapter, 3 and some notices connected with quarrying, we find no satisfactory documentary evidence before 1459. In the Strassurg constitutions of that year we find:— If any master accepts a work in contract, and matces a design for the same, how it shall be budded, then he shall not cut anything short of the design, but shall execute it according to the plan which he has shown to the lords, cities, or people, so that nothing be altered.” 4 5 An American translation of this code refers to the words italicised, in the following language : “Some of these plans are still preserved in Germany, as, for example, the original plan of the cathedral of Strassburg, designed by the architect himself, Erwin von Steinbach.” 6 The nationality of this worthy has been questioned by Daruty, who speaks of the origin of Freemasonry having been ascribed to the architects and workmen convoked in 1275, by a Fiench architect, Ilerve de Pierrefonds, “ of whom the Germans have made Erwin von Steinbach; ” 6 but this suggestion is hardly consistent with the evidence of an inscription above the grand entrance to the cathedral of Strassburg, which, after the lapse of so many centuries, can still be deciphered 7 — 1 YioJlet le Due, Dictionnaire Raisonne de l’Architecture Frangaise ( Architecte ). Gf. A miniature which appears in a “Life of King Offa,” written by Matthew Paris (Cottonian MSS., British Museum, Nero, D.I.). In this, King Offa is depicted as giving instructions to the master mason, (or architect) employed in the erection of St. Alban’s Cathedral. The master mason, who by his attire is evidently a layman, has the square and compasses in his left hand. Two masons are at work knocking off the superfluous corners from the stones; one is placing a stone in its proper position; another is adjusting a perpendicular arch on its proper basis by the plumb rule; and two are hoisting up stones by a windlass. 3 Lacomblet, Urkunden, etc., vol. ii. , p. 242. 4 See ante, p. 117, note 5, and p. 121, art. viii. 5 Masonic Eclectic, New York, 1865, vol. i., p. 51. In Sabina, the daughter of Erwin, Fort appears to think that we must look for the earliest Freemason of the gentler sex (The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 81). J. E. Daruty, Recherches sur le Rite ecossais ancien accepte (Paris, 1879, p. 82). 7 Viollet le Due, Dictionnaire Raisonne de 1’ Architecture, s. v. Architecte. 318 MED IJE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. “ ASS0 • . MOCLVII. . MEUSE . FEBRDARIO . IDUS . SEC UN DO . HOC . FUIT . INCEPTUM . CHRISTI . GENITRICIS . HONORE . KALLENSI . LATHOMO , YIVE.NTE . JGHANNE . MAGISTRO . ” 1 * * * * Etienne Bonneuil, a Parisian, designed and built the cathedral of Upsala, Swedei, At er Notre. Dame, at Paris; as any one, by a comparison of the drawings, can see for him,. If. Wis he a designer, or rather a mere contractor, with the power of drawing, or at am of paying some one who could? A brass plate in the floor of Amiens Cathedral, destroyed during the French Revdutn n. p.i u; liobei t de Lugarches, Thomas de Cormont, and his son Regnault as mats,’ re de Vxv re. Pi :rre de Montereau was the builder of the Sainte Chapelle, and Jean Texier of the be Al- t' 1 * 11 south-western steeple of Chartres, beginning of the sixteenth century. The figirc of the noisier s de V oeuvre ( magistri operwn, etc.) are often represented abroad, and always in jay habits and square and compass, e.g., the stalls at Poictiers and the bases in : he vaulting at Semur in AuxerroisJ It is said that real architects — in our present sense of that term — appear very eirl v f rhe Italian records, and this claim will be presently considered. In German . v - statement of a master mason having been granted a house by the chapter , 9 a - i connected with quarrying, we find no satisfactory documentary evidence be aw- •* the Strassurg constitutions of that year we find: — ts any master accepts a work in contract, and makes a design for the same, how i s - ■ )e duilded, then he shall not cut anything short of the design, but shall execute it aceirc to he plan which he has shown to the lords, cities, or people, so that nothing be altcm ' * An American translation of this code refers to the- words italicised, in the follow 'ng language: “Some of these plans are still preserved in Germany, as, for example, he original plan of the cathedral of Strassburg, designed by the architect himself, Erwn >n Steinbach.” 6 * * I he nationality of this worthy has been questioned by Daruty, who speaks of the or in of Freemasonry having been ascribed to the architects and workmen convoked in 1275,. »y a French architect, Ilerve de Pierrefonds, “ of whom the Germans have made Erwn von Stein bach; but this suggestion is hardly consistent with the evidence of an inscription above the grand entrance to the cathedra] of Strassburg, which, after the lapse of so many centuries, can still he deciphered’ — 1 ^ toilet le Due, Dictionnaire Raisonne de 1’ Architecture Franyaise ( Architects ). - Of. A -miniature which appears in a “Life of King Offa,” written by Matthew Paris (Cofcom&n 3.8s., British Museum, Nero, n.i.). In this, King Offa is depicted as giving instructions to the naat >■ mason, (or architect) employed in the erection of St. Alban’s Cathedral. The master mason, vhc s, his attire is evidently a layman, lias the square and compasses in his left hand. Two masons ar^' won. knocking off the superfluous corners from the stones; one is placing a stone in its mw* position; another is adjusting a perpendicular arch on its proper basis by the plumb rule; aid t are aoisting up stones by a windlass. i Lacomblet, Urkunden, etc.., vol. ii., p. 242. ‘bee ante, p. 117, note .7, and p. 121, art. viii. Masonic Eclectic, New York, 1S65. vol. i., p. 51. In Sabina, the daughter of Erwin, Fort apt* t<> t s ink that we must look for the earliest Freemason of the gentler sex (The Early History .j. Antquities of Freemasonry, p. 81). ‘ J. E. Daruty, Recherches sur le Rite ecossais ancien aeeepte (Paris, 1879, p. 82). \ iollet le Due, Dictionnaire Raisonne de 1’ Architecture, & v. Architect©. £)C ot'&e c Dawe t. MEDIEVAL CATHEDRAL ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE. MEDIAL VAL OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. 3i9 “ ANNO . DOMINI . MCCLXXVII. . IN . DIE . BEATI . URBANI . HOC . GLORIOSUM . OPUS . INCOIIAYIT . MAGISTER . ERYINUS . DE . STEINBACII. ” Yet the “design” named in the German ordinances may, after all, refer to a mere specification. The only name which can with any certainty he ascribed to the architect of Cologne is Meister Johann, which seems to indicate a plebeian origin. Still, whoever he was, he imi- tated both Rheims and Amiens, and far surpassed his originals, or rather he improved upon them; so that, after all, the old familiar legend of the devil mocking the architect, while designing, with unconsciously copying the above and other churches, may have, as is often the case, some foundation in fact. The true secret of the surpassing beauty of Cologne, over and above its size and unity, is the construction or design, the piling pyramid upon pyramid, so that, viewed from whatever quarter, the whole draws the eye up to a point or apex. After all, it would not very much surprise me to find that the architect of Cologne, if his true parentage ever came to be ascertained, were not at least half a Frenchman. The whole design is very different from the square-shouldered faqade of Strassburg, which is certainly true German. The west front is not very unlike, save in size, a German adapta- tion of Rheims (if the latter had its spires) — more massive, indeed, but not therefore less graceful. Milan is true Gothic engrafted on Italian Romanesque; and this, with many other instances in Spain, and that of Hackett, at Batalha, shows that the architect or de- signer could have exercised but very little influence, beyond a general superintendence or giving a general idea, over the local school which carried out the buildings. From all that has been said above, we may feel tolerably certain that the great ecclesi- astical edifices abroad were, like those in England, the product partly of lay and partly of clerical architects; the single example of Dunes, in Belgium, which was entirely erected by the monks of that foundation (240 in number) in the first half of the thirteenth century, being obviously so great an exception as to be almost a lusus natures. Tet the laymen seem to predominate; whether from the fact of the art being more exclusively in the hands of laymen, or because it has merely happened that more of their names have been pre- served, — may be doubtful. It is, indeed, contended that the tombstones almost invariably show a man in a lay dress; but this is not conclusive, for there is nothing to prove that these men were the actual designers, or even superintendents. The attempts made to show that the magistri operum, etc., were a distinct class fail to meet with success, inasmuch as the word “magister” often occurs in England, where we know that no such pre-eminence is implied; and in so obscure a subject we should be especially on our guard against forced . interpretations and fanciful distinctions. It is, however, probable that the majority of them were laymen. The great cathedrals abroad, with their far loftier elevation, the width and boldness of their vaulting— invariably of stone, the complicated nature of the apses with their double rows of chapels, and the vast and scientific series of flying buttresses and counterpoises which are so highly artificial, required in all probability more scientific skill than could well be expected from any class of men not absolutely in the profession. 1 Indeed, this may well have been the masonic secret, if secret there were, of the mediaeval masons. All trades, even to the present day, have their secrets, and the very word 1 Moreover, the great foreign churches were usually erected after one design, which was not the case in England, except as regards the Norman buildings, which required but little constructive skill. 320 MEDIAL VA L OPERATIVE MASONRY. “ mystery /’ 1 so often used, indicates the jealousy with which each craft guarded the arcana of its trade. This must have been still more the case with the masons, who required great scientific skill — and that skill could then only be obtained by oral teaching, actual practice, and rule of thumb. In all the names of writers and their works — some thousands — -col- lected by the laborious authors of the great “ Histoire Litteraire de la France,” I am not aware of any treatise on practical geometry 2 or mechanics, nor do I know of any classical treatise whatever, on the subject of mathematics, having been widely known, save that of Euclid, which will account for the masonic legend concerning him. The committees of architects in Spain, on which Street lays weight, are paralleled by those of cement aril at St. Albans, Canterbury, and Westminster; and the only real proof we have, out of Italy, of anything like the modern system is the statement of Wilars de Honcort, attached to one drawing, that he sketched it before proceeding, as he was ordered, to Hungary, and the Frenchmen who were under agreement to proceed to Gferona, as given above. In Italy the case was somewhat different; we seem to know the names of almost all the builders or de- signers in that country; and “ Gf aye’s Carteggio di documenti inediti,” — being excerpts from the Florentine archives, and which contain most interesting information on the medi- aeval working classes in Italy, — shows pretty clearly that there really existed what we should call architects in that country, but, then, Italy was their native home. On the whole, I should be inclined to conclude, generally, that out of Italy and during the Middle Ages the class whom we call architects did not — save, perhaps, with very rare exceptions — exist; and that all the buildings we so much admire were the combined work of certain priests and monks educated specially for the work, in conjunction with their master mason, usually attached to the building, as at York — and more often by the master mason alone; but that, when the latter was the case, the master mason was an independent individual; the arrange- ment last mentioned being more common abroad than in the British Islands. My reasons for this, apart from the data furnished above, I shall proceed to lay before the reader in as condensed a form as possible, only remarking, first, that the Middle Ages were as re- markable for the beauty of their sculpture as for the archaic barbarity of their pictures and coloring, as may be seen by the sculptures at Welles, the exquisite fragments preserved in the Chapter-House at Westminster, and in the engravings of M. Viollet le Due . 3 Secondly, as somewhat corroborating what I have advanced above as to the “ hatching up” of many of our buildings by superintending priests and their master masons, either permanently or temporarily employed, I may point to the numerous perfect and elaborate designs still existing abroad, of which I need only mention (not to speak of the very ancient plan of St. Gall, first reproduced by Mabillon ) 4 Cologne, Malines, Ulm, Strassburg, St. 1 Derived by Madox (Firma Burgi) from the French mestiere [or metier ]; the original of which Mr. Riley finds in ministerium, “ a serving to” (Memorials of London, preface, p. 1). Herbert, how- ever, observes, “ The preserving of their trade secrets was a primary ordination of all the fraterni- ties, whence arose the name of mysteries and trades” (Companies of London, vol. i., pp. 44, 45, and 423). - Lacomblet specifies “ descriptive geometry ” as one of the great secrets of early Freemasonry (see ante, p. 89, note 3). 3 There were, however, two Italian sculptors in England, Pietro Cavillini and Torel, though they had nothing to do with our great clief -di oeuvre at Wells, which was earlier. They have been claimed for England — the former under the name of Peter Cavel, which is about equivalent to the famous derivation of Garibaldi, from an Irishman, one Garret Baldwin, who settled at Genoa, and was known by the name of Garry Baldy ! Torel was found at Rome, along with Odorico, by Abbot Ware, 1260, 4 Acta Sanct. Ord. St. Bened. MEDIAL V A L OPERATIVE MASONRY. 321 Waudru at Mons, and Louvaine. Of the latter there exists even a model, although I am unable to say whether it is of an early date; and MM. Varin and Didron found a design for the west front of a cathedral, partially effaced by a list of deceased canons, at Rheims, the last entry being 1270. This design, which is somewhat poor, would seem never to have been properly worked out, and possibly the designer may have grown out of conceit with his sketch before it was finished. In England the most careful researches have only brought to light — (1.) a Norman drawing of the conventual buildings of Canterbury, reproduced by Willis, 1 2 3 * * * which, after all, is a drawing of what actually existed, and not a design; (2.) a section of the mouldings of a door at St. Stephen’s, Bristol, in Will of Worcester’s “Itin- erary, ” which is also a drawing; (3.) an actual design for a very rich tomb for Henry VI., first published in the “Vetusta Monumenta;” and (4.) two drawings of King’s College chapel 8 — the first of which, a view showing the elevation of the east and north sides, can scarcely be a design, inasmuch as it shows in the north-east corner a wretched little edifice, with a clock in it, which no human being would have thought of designing alone, still less of causing it to form part and parcel of a magnificent whole. The second, for a tower, must be a design, inasmuch as it was never executed. We may gather also from the wills of Henry VI., and of Richard, Duke of York, that plans of these intended colleges had been laid before them for approbation, though the drawings themselves have either been lost or have perished. It may indeed be said that the Reformation destroyed these early drawings; but the Reformation struggles, the French Revolution, and the numerous wars to which the Continent has been a prey, must have been at least as destructive; and we may hence conclude that drawings are wanting now in England because they have always been so. That there was no special class of architects is obvious from several considerations. In the first place, no such minute subdivision existed in the trades and professions of the Middle Ages. It is easy for architects now to point to working men and to say that they are incapable of producing any really good work ; though I could instance at least one very eminent architect who has risen from the ranks — but this is begging the question. Archi- tects, contractors, and stonemasons formed one corps, of which some, probably with greater facilities and a better start, reached the summit, while the greater portion, as is always the case, spent their lives laboriously toiling at the base. It is the question of the purchase system, and the supposed marshal’s baton in every French soldier’s knapsack, over again. I am not advocating either system; I am only pointing out the difference. It is certainly very strange that, while the names of benefactors, paymasters, treasurers, sacrists, master masons, etc., have been preserved, those of the architects should have been every- where omitted. The name of the architect appears late, according to Viollet le Due, who says it is not used to designate a builder until the sixteenth century, before which he was called maistre de V oeuvre. This may be so; but “architect,” as w r ell as the various words depending on it, are — if I may venture to differ from so high an authority — used earlier than is generally supposed, e.g., ars architectonica is used to describe Walsingham’s work at Ely in the “Historia Eliensis;” 8 but this does not by any means necessarily imply that 1 Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral. 2 Brit. Mus., Cotton Collection, Aug. I., vol. i., pp. 2, 3. 3 “We account architects in everything more honourable than the manual labourers . — Xeiportxvuv (Architect apxirexTuv), because they understand the reason of what is done, whereas the other, as some inanimate things only do, not knowing what they do — the difference between them being only 21 322 MEDIAE VA L OPERA TIVE MA SO NR V. the maistre dc V oeuvre was a personage entirely distinct, as a modern architect would he, from the rest of the building fraternity. Moreover, the actual architect in many cases went under names somewhat corresponding to the mediaeval designations until a very late period. Sir C. Wren, as we all know, was surveyor-general. Until Wyatville at Windsor and Bunning in the City, their predecessors were always clerks of the works, and so to the last were the architects of the East India Company. B. W. Mylne, 1 master mason, can he traced in Scotland from the beginning of the fifteenth century. John Aitoun was master mason by royal patent, 1525, and was succeeded by John Brownhill. So at Dundee, a master mason was appointed 1536. But W\e principal master mason was a greater man than the master mason, thus showing a gradation only in the hierarchy and not a distinct class; he was appointed for life, with certain fees and payments, together with liveries. These principals were especially employed about royal residences, and were often men of rank. John Bitchie was master mason of the new Parliament House, Edinburgh, 1633; but the city accounts have the payment of £1000 {Scots?) to Sir James Murray, the king’s master of the works, for drawing up a “modell.” William Wallace, first master mason to Ileriot’s Hospital, was called Latomus , also “Carver,” and this designation was frequently used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Cementarius does not occur in the early Scotch documents. Some of the early masters were French (as might have been expected both from the poverty of the country and its connection with France)— Mogine Martyne, 1536; Nidi. Kay, John Boztell, 1556. The office of master mason under letters patent still exists. It will be observed that these Scotch examples are of comparatively modern date. Mr. Kerr in the same discussion 2 said that the working masons of Scotland at the present day have a sort of freemasonry among themselves, almost identical, as he was in- formed, with that of the English fraternity. They had their signs, symbols, and cere- monies, and were, in every sense of the word, “free and accepted masons” among them- selves, as working men; and the Scottish trades union thus constituted was, in everything but numbers, more formidable than that of England. The opinion has been already expressed, that the mediaeval builders and designers — whether called magistri, maestri, maistres ; whether priests or laymen; or whether a com- bination of both, i.e., of the highly-cultured and more or less practical amateur and the more or less refined and enlightened master workman, were evidently of a class very different from those whom we are now accustomed to style architects — mitres temps, antres mceurs - the clergy, or at least some of that body, instead of being mere dilettanti , were earnest students and workers; the architects were very closely connected with, and, indeed, often sprang from, the ranks of their workmen. It must never be forgotten that in the Middle Ages, and more especially in the earlier portion of them, matters were not as they are now. for two things are especially characteristic of social progress — one the continued subdivision of labor, the other the increasing power of capital; hence, while at the one end of the scale, the operative was not so very different from the master, so, at the other, the architect was not so very distinct from the artificer. The fact must not be lost sight of that the primary meaning of architect is “master workman;” and it would appear that architects were formerly such in the original sense of the word, i.e., the artificers arranged their materials according to their needs, giving the this, that inanimate things act by a certain habit of nature in them, but the manual labourer by habit,” (Aristotle, Ethics, lib. i., c. i.). 1 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, December 2, 1861. 2 Ibid. 322 MEDIALVAL OPERA. TIVE M A SO NR Y. the maistre de Vmuvre was a personage entirely distinct, as a modern architect wont from the rest of the building fraternity. Moreover, the actual architect in many , >s went- under names somewhat corresponding to the mediaeval designations until a ver roe period. Sir 0. M'ren, as we all know, was surveyor-general. Until WyalviUe at Wi , r and Banning in the City, their predecessors were always clerks of the works, and so t the last were the architects of the East India Company. R. W. Mylne, 1 rnasov masor no be traced in Scotland from the beginning of the fifteenth century, Join? Aifour .\.u$ master mason by royal patent, 1525, and was succeeded by John Brownhiil. So m !)n a master mason was appointed 1530. But th e principal master -mason was a v:t--nur : than the master mason, thus showing a gradation only in the hierarchy and class; he was appointed- for life, with certain fees and payments, together w-t» Uv • - . These principals were especially employed about royal residences, and were oil- ; m rank. John Ritchie was master mason of the new Parliament House, Edinbuigh, •; but the city accounts' have the payment of £1000 (Scots?) to Sir .femes Murray, the 1 s master of the works, for drawing up a “modell.” William Wallace, first master rr.as > Her lot's Hospital, was called Latomus, also “Carver,” and this designation was free used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Cement arius does not occur h\ U Scotch documents. Some of the early masters were French -(as might have bo.-.-: both from the poverty of the country and its connection with France) — Mogim 1536; Nich. Kay, John Roztell, 1556. The office of master mason under letter stiil exists. It will be observed that these Scotch examples are of comparatively se - date. Mr. Kerr in the same discussion 2 said that the working masons of Scotland a present day have a sort of freemasonry among themselves, almost identical, as he wa formed, with that of the English fraternity. They had their signs, symbols, and monies, and were, in every sense of the word, “free and accepted masons” among U selves, as working men; and the Scottish trades union thus constituted was, in every! ; g but numbers, more formidable than that of England. The opinion has been already expressed, that the mediaeval builders and design whether called magistri , maestri, moist-res; whether priests or laymen; or whether a e - bination of both, i.e., of the high! y-cultured and more or less practical amateur and -he more or less refined and enlightened master workman, were evidently of a class very dill - m: from those whom we are now accustomed to style architects -autres temps, ant res ,n ■ —the clergy, or at least some of that body, instead of being mere dilettanti , were students and workers; the architects were very closely connected with, and. indeed. f t ?& sprang from, the ranks of their workmen. It must never be forgotten that in the b - In; Ages, and more especially in the. earlier portion of them, matters wen* m 1 as they an* for two things are especially characteristic of social progress — one the - »i, hnuod subd : < t of labor, the other the increasing power of capital; hence, while at tin .•?,.<,,. . .,,.y habit,'’ (Aristotle, Ethics, lib. i., c. i.). 1 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, December 2, Its# ; ; Begun in 13S5; finished about 1800. ITALIAN GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE OF ADVANCFE) PFRlo MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. 323 •forms into which they cast them such beauty, and adding such embellishments as lay in their power. Hence architects embodied as a rule the particular tendencies of their race and age. The Greek architects of the best period were sculptors, and their art was, more or less, plastic; those of the Romans, when they were not Greek architects, in the modern and received sense of the term ( rhetoricians in stone), were, I strongly suspect, civil engi- neers; and those of the Middle Ages were probably a combination of priest or monk and mechanic, or, to speak more accurately, a partnership between the two, worked for a common end. At the Renaissance, however, Italian or modern architecture took its rise, and in Italy architects seem to have been, at least many of the greatest of their number, painters. Hence arose the school of designers, as opposed to that of constructors, i.e., men who sketch out a building on a drawing-board as they would the outline of a picture on a canvas, instead of constructing it, i.e., putting it together, piece by piece, in the most beautiful form, as necessity required. The two methods are totally different, and the latter will, I venture to say, be found very much simpler and easier, besides being very much more effective, than the former. 1 One of the most eminent classical scholars in England expressed the opinion that the only way to write Latin well was to think in Latin, which is, doubtless, true; and the reason is clear. If you think in your own language, the words that flow from your pen are a tra7islation — an excellent translation, it may be — but a trans- lation for all that, and all translations are bad. The mediaeval builders, then, thought in stone, and the result is obvious, inasmuch as most, if not all, modern buildings betray their origin, i.e., having been conceived on paper or a flat surface, and then translated into solid material. This does not necessarily imply that skill in drawing which is sup- posed to be essential to the modern architect, nor does it by any means always require pro- fessional training. Inigo Jones was an artist and a designer of Masques; I may add, en parenthese, that his w r orks betray his scenic taste and training, especially the kind of cloister under Lincoln’s Inn Chapel; Wren may be best qualified as an F.R.S., though he had certainly travelled and studied in France; Perrault, the designer of the magnificent eastern colonnade of the Louvre, was a physician; Vanburgh was at least as much a play writer as an architect; and both Lord Burlington and Aldridge, dean of Christchurch, w T ere in the last century competent to erect beautiful buildings by their own unaided talents. To turn to the kindred profession of engineering, Rudgerd and Winstanley, the builders of the first two Eddystones, were both silk mercers; Brindley was a blacksmith; Smeaton, a watch and mathematical instrument maker; Telford, a mason; and Stephenson, as we all know, rose from the lowest ranks. To Horne Tooke belongs the original credit of the great cast-iron bridge over the Wear, at Sunderland, a single span, at great height, of 238 feet. The only one of the great early engineers I am able to cite, who was an engineer from his youth up, was Rennie, and he taught himself; he certainly, as far at least as I am informed, could not draw; his son, Sir John Rennie, very little, and yet they designed the finest series of bridges ever imagined or erected; and the Victualling Yard at Plymouth, 'Many architects are equally pattern designers — e.g., Matthew Wyatt has designed carpets for an eminent firm, and one of the greatest of our modern architects, if not the greatest, used to design lace and embroidery patterns for the late Duchess of Sutherland and her daughters. But the great truth should never be forgotten, that true architecture is decorated construction, as opposed to con- structed decoration. This is the real secret and keystone of the whole matter. Mediaeval architect- ure was the first, modern architecture the second — hence the difference, and the comparative failure of the latter. 324 MEDIAEVAL OPERATIVE MASONRY. the combined work of Sir John and his brother, is a building which, for simple grandeur and appropriateness, leaves far behind the works of most professional architects. Taking, again, the extreme end of the scale, we find that it is by no means necessary for a lady to be able to draw patterns and costumes, to have exquisite taste in dress, which she carries out by the aid of milliners and lady’s maids, which is something like the relationship of the master mind — whether priest or layman — to his subordinates. Very often this master mind was thoroughly practical,- very often, too, the best dressed ladies can make their own dresses; in which case they will, in all probability, direct their subordinates infinitely better and with infinitely better results. It has often been lamented that the names of so many of these mediaeval builders should have perished; and, as before remarked, it has been asserted that they were content to merge their identity from a pious humility which forbade them to exalt their own in- dividuality, and made them content with the furtherance of the divine glory. But a moment’s reflection will convince us that, for some reason or another, the names of both architects and engineers are, and always have been, doomed to popular oblivion. The Greek artists are infinitely better known by their sculptures than by their temples, though the evidences of the latter are far more manifest than those of the former. Only one Roman architect, Vitruvius, is really famous, and he owes his celebrity to the fact that, having apparently failed in his profession, he consoled himself, like many more of his brotherhood, by writing a book. Their successors, the great architects of Italy, are, like the Greeks in sculpture, known more for their paintings than their buildings; and even Michael Angelo is more associated with the Sistine Chapel than with St. Peter’s. Palladio is the only pure Italian architect whose “name is in everybody’s mouth.” So it is with France and Germany. In England, beyond Inigo Jones and Wren, Chambers and Barry are the solo popular names. Vanburgh is remembered more for his comedies than for the magnificent palaces of Blenheim and Castle Howard; while if a man can enumerate any of the works of Hawksmoor and Gibbs, of Soane, of Smirke, and of Wyatt, he passes for more than or- dinarily instructed in the history of English art. But of all the works with which our country is covered, how few perpetuate their designers’ names, and how difficult it is to recover them, except by a search in obscure guide books and country histories! So it is with engineering. The profession has tended more than any other to make England what she is; it is her constant boast; the country teems with evidences of their skill and energy on every side; and, as a profession, it is little more than a hundred years old, yet how few names readily occur to the ordinary mind! The great Thames bridges are a kind of typical structures which will probably serve to perpetuate the names of their engineers, while the Eddystone is indissolubly connected with Smeaton; but I should think it most probable that in remote ages to come, the designer of the old structure will, in process of time, usurp the credit due to the nameless engineer of the Trinity House, from whose plans the new and larger edifice has been erected. Lord Melville will probably enjoy the distinction of having designed the Plymouth Breakwater, until some learned antiquary awards, justly as he thinks, the palm to Mr. Wliidbey, the resident engineer; while I am pretty certain that George Stephenson will be honored with the Britannia Bridge; and that the typical New Zealander on his return home, will write a critical essay, conclusively proving that Telford was his subordinate, and that, therefore, the lesser work, the Suspen- sion Bridge, has been falsely attributed to him instead of to his master. It is the same, too, with military engineering. With all the great works of the last three centuries. ME DIAS VA L OPERA TI VE MA SO NR Y. 325 the names of only two great men— Vauban and Cohorn, and of a few system-mongers— are known even to professionals. In truth, ordinary history troubles itself but little, if at all, with such matters, and is content with mentioning the names of illustrious patrons whenever it condescends even to so much detail. After these examples, we cannot be sui- prised that the names of the mediaeval builders should have been so completely forgotten it would have been far more a matter of surprise if it had been otherwise. But that they did not purposely conceal themselves is obvious from the great number of names which even the very imperfect search hitherto made has proved sufficient to rescue from oblivion. Still, if the theory be true that the greater part of our own buildings were devised by the master mason, in consultation with some clerical employer, it will be obviously im- possible, especially considering the wreck of monastic documents at the Reformation, to rescue the designer’s name in the vast majority of instances, for the simple and manifest reason that no regular design by an architect, in our sense of the word, was ever made. But with regard to the Continent it may be otherwise. As far as I can gather, the “ upper ten, ” so to speak, among the building trades gathered themselves together in more regular and elaborately constituted bodies about the close of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries in both Germany and England, and at the same time began, in the latter country, to be called Freemasons, though from what that name is derived, and how far the new name was connected with the new organization, we shall be in a better position to determine when the statutes relating to the building trades, and the circumstances immediately preceding what, in masonic annals, is termed the “ Revival ” (1717), have passed under review. Masons’ work seems to have become more scientific, as we see from the fan vaulting in England: and Fergusson asserts that the manipulation of stone by the German Freemasons is marvellous, and he inveighs— but with what truth I know not— against the ill effects produced upon art by the supremacy of this body, like the injurious influence which academies have been often asserted to have had upon literature. 1 Mr. Digby Wyatt has expressed an opinion that working masons for- merly wandered about in search of work, depending upon the protection which their lodges, grips, and passwords afforded them, and that this custom, after having decayed, was revived again under a somewhat different form by the Freemasons in the fifteenth century; and in this Fergusson agrees with him. 2 The functions of the maistre de V oeuvres in the thirteenth century are difficult to define. There is no document before the fourteenth century, and here “l’architecte n’est appele que comme un homme de l’art que l’on indemnise de son travail personnel.” Materials, labor, etc., were found by those at whose expense the work was done, i. e . , he was not a contractor, which, in England, at least, I suspect he often was. “ After the fourteenth century, ” Viollet le Due continues, “ the architect lost his im- portance, and every kind of tradesman was called in to do his share, without one con- trolling head; hence deterioration followed as a matter of course.” 1 J. Fergusson, Hfstory of Architecture in all Countries, 1865, vol. i., p. 480. 2 Cf. The Companionage customs, detailed in chapter v., ante; and Viollet le Due — who says that no certain account of the personality of architects exists before the thirteenth century, and thinks that there must have been schools, and pupils taught by apprenticeship (Diet. Raissonne, tit. Architecte). 326 MEDlJE VAL OPERA TIVE MA SO NR Y. The mediaeval architecture fell from natural causes, like the fall of monasticism and all things mediaeval, and the one followed suit on the other. No more churches were built, and hence the builders died out; and with them, to a great extent, I believe, died the skill in arch and vault building which was, perhaps the great characteristic of the builders of the Middle Ages. I scarcely think that a single stone vault was constructed in the long period between the Reformation and Wren; those of Lincoln’s Inn Chapel are plaster, and I am not sure whether the beautiful fan vaulting of the great staircase of Christchurch, Oxford, is not of the same material. The ceiling of the great gallery of Lanhydroek, near Bodmin, in Cornwall, is a plaster vault, with elaborate plaster pendants in the centre. Add to this the great influx of foreign architects, in the modern sense of the word — and, it may be, of foreign masons as well, also the possibility, as I believe, that the Reformation was a much greater revolution than people are aware of— and I have said enough, I trust, to account for the complete and rapid disappearance of mediaeval operative masonry, at least in England. Gothic, however, never quite died out; there was an attempt at revival, temp James I. and Charles I., especially at Oxford, and it still lingered in remote country districts till the dawn of the revival under Walpole and Batty Langley. Besides Wren’s professedly Gothic imitations at Westminster Abbey, St. Michael’s, Cornhill, and St. Dunstan’s in the West, there are traces of Gothic mullions in the tower windows of St. Clement Danes. It is curious that the art which fell in England with the fall of Roman Catholicism should have, after lingering with it here and there, commenced to revive almost simultaneously with the dawn of toleration, and have proceeded since pari passu — though I am not so foolish as to suppose any real connection. My review of mediaeval operative masonry here terminates. I have carried out to the best of my ability an examination of the whole subject by the buildings themselves, rather than by an exclusive dependence upon books, which, as the literature of Freemasonry mav well remind us, is in every way unreliable. I have sought to show the fallacy of the uni- versal masonic theory; the errors — more learned and therefore, perhaps, less blameworthy though equally misleading— of the German school; and, finally, to that the operative mason had a much larger share in the construction of these buildings than is usually supposed, inasmuch as they were to a very large extent the actual designers of the edifices on which they worked, and not the mere servants of the ecclesiastics. Some isolated unions of these men, in their later development, which, from causes we cannot trace, contrived to escape the great cataclysm of the Reformation, may have survived in the “Four Old Lodges, ” the parents of modern Freemasonry; and if this supposition is well founded, their descent from the mediaeval builders being legitimate, their pride is equally so. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 327 CHAPTER VII. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. T HE only evidence we possess of the existence of Freemasonry in England before the initiation or admission of Elias Ashmole in 1646, lies scattered in the “ Old Charges,” or “ Constitutions,” the records of the building trades, and the statutes of the realm. In preceding chapters I have examined all the manuscripts with which Freemasons have any direct concern, and have sought to trace — but with what success it is for others to determine — the actual designers of those marvels of operative masonry that have come down to us, by means of the mute yet eloquent testimony of the structures themselves, which amply attest the ingenuity, if not in all cases the individuality, of the skilled work- men by whom they were designed. Since the year 1686, when Dr. Plot, in his “History of Staffordshire,” cited the stat. 3 Henry VI., c.i., no masonic work which has appeared is without this reference. Yet there is scarcely an instance of the research having extended beyond this particular statute, even to those relating to the same subject matter. The law of 1425 was one of the long series familiarly known as the Statutes of Laborers which, originating with the Plan- tagenets, continued in operation until the present century. The great plague of 1348, and the consequent depopulation, gave origin to the Ordi- nance of Laborers, a.d. 1349, afterwards by stat. 3 Rich. II., st. I., c. viii., made an Act of Parliament or statute, and described as stat. 23 Edw. III. In the twenty-fifth year of the king, the commons complained in parliament that the above ordinance was not observed; wherefore a statute was made ordaining further reg- ulations on the subject. These two enactments will shortly be presented in detail, but before doing so, some observations upon the circumstances which induced the course of legislation it is proposed to review, are requisite. It has been asserted that the laws we are considering were passed in punishment of the contumacious masons at Windsor Castle, assembled there by Edward III. under the direc- tion of William of Wykeham, the comptroller of the royal works, who refused their wages, and withdrew from their engagements. 1 The king’s method of conducting the work has been referred to by an eminent writer, as a specimen of the condition of the people in that * Dallaway, Discourses upon Architecture, p. 425. 328 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. age . 1 Instead of engaging workmen by contracts and wages, lie assessed every county in England to send him a certain number of masons, tilers, and carpenters, as if he had been levying an army . 2 There were, however, many influences combining to bring into play the full machinery of the legislation it is our purpose to examine. Between the Conquest and the reign of Edward III. there had sprung up a middle class of men, who, although they did not immediately acquire the full power of selling their labor to the best bidder, nevertheless were exempt from the imperious caprices of a master, and the unconditional services of personal bondage . 3 From a dialogue, written by Thynne, Lancaster herald, and dedicated to James I., in which the point is discussed, whether the king can confer knight- hood on a villein, in would appear that some few of these bondmen still continued after the reign of Queen Elizabeth . 4 Still the process of manumission had been very general from the twelfth year of Edward III., whose long wars in France obliged him to confer freedom upon many of his villeins, in order to recruit his exhausted armies, and as we have seen, if a bondman could escape the pursuit of his lord for a year, he became free for ever . 5 With the liberation of the bond handicraftsmen from bondage proper, many of the companies into which they had been ranged passed gradually over into the number of free craft guilds. The freemen of rank and large possessions, who felt themselves powerful enough to secure their own protection, found, as the strong are ever wont to do, their in- terest to be more in a system of mutual feuds, that is, of free competition among them- selves, than in associations and mutual pledges. But the less powerful, the small freemen, sought, as the weak always do, protection for themselves in confederating into close unions and formed the guilds for that purpose . 6 The struggle between the rising craft-guilds of London and the body of the citizens has been carefully narrated by Brentano, by whom the triumph of the former over the latter is stated to have been fully achieved in the reign of Edward III. “The privileges which they had till then exercised only on sufferance, or on payment of their fermes (dues), were now for the first time generally confirmed to them by a charter of Edward III. The authorities of the city of London, who had in former times contended with all their might against the craft-guilds, now approved of their statutes; and in the fourteenth century a large majority of the trades appeared before the mayor and aldermen to get their ordinances enrolled. At the same time they adopted a particular livery, and were hence called Livery Companies. Edward III. himself actually became a member of one of them — that of the Linen-armorers — and his example found numerous imitators amongst his successors and the nobility of the kingdom. ” 7 The visitation of the “ Black death,” a dreadful pestilence which first appeared in Asia, and from thence spread throughout the world, brought the opposition between the in- terests of the working-class and the employers for the first time on a large scale to a crisis. Of the three or four millions who then formed the population of England, more than one- 1 Hume, History of England, 1822, vol. ii. , p. 472. 2 Ashmole, History of the Garter, p. 129. Richard III., in 1484, issued a commission to Thomas Daniel, surveyor of his works, “ to take and seize for use within this realm as many masons, brick- layers, and other workmen, as should be thought necessary for the hasty expedition of the king’s works within the Tower of London and Palace of Westminster” (Stow’s London, 1720, vol. i., p. 79). 3 Eden, State of the Poor, 1797, vol. i., p. 12. “* Dames Barrington, Observations on the more Ancient Statutes, 1796, p. 309. s Ante, p. 114. 6 Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 53. 'Ibid., p. 58. Cf. Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i., pp. 28, 29. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 3 2 9 half were swept away. The whole organization of labor was thrown out of gear. There was a great rise of wages; and the farmers of the country, as well as the wealthier crafts- men of the towns, saw themselves threatened with ruin by what seemed to their age the extravagant demands of the labor class. But sterner measures were soon found to be nec- essary. Not only was the price of labor fixed by the Parliament of 1350, but the labor class was once more tied to the soil. 1 Even before the reign of Edward I. , says Sir F. Eden, “ the condition of villeins was greatly meliorated. He was indeed bound to perform certain stipulated work for his lord, generally at sowing time and harvest; but at other times of the year he was at liberty to exercise his industry for his own benefit. As early as the year 1257, a servile tenant, if employed before midsummer, received wages; and in Edward IPs reign he was permitted, instead of working himself, to provide a laborer for the lord; from which it is obvious that he must have sometimes possessed the means of hiring one; and it is natural to suppose that the laborers so hired were not pure villeins, but rather tenants by villeinage, who could assist their neighbors on their spare days, or free laborers, who existed — although, perhaps, not in great numbers — long before the parliamentary notice taken of them in the Statute of Laborers, passed in 1350. ” 2 We thus see, that already fully occupied with foreign conquest and Scottish incursions, the depopulation of the country from the ravages of the “ Black death,” cast upon Edward the attempted solution of many problems, at once social and political, which it is no dis- paragement to that great monarch to say that he utterly failed in comprehending. The regulation of wages has been very generally viewed as a device confessedly framed by the nobility, a?id if not intended, certainly tending to cramp the exertions of industry. 3 Sir Fortunatus Dwarris aptly remarks — “ It was easier to enact than to enforce such laws; ” and he stigmatizes, in terms of much severity, “the machinery employed, to carry into effect an obnoxious, unjust, and impossible law.” 4 * On the other hand, however, Brentano maintains, “ It has become the fashion to represent these wage-regulations as a policy con- trived for the oppression of the laborer. To give such a character to these statutes is, however, in my judgment, a complete misrepresentation of the real state of the case. These regulations of wages were but the expression of the general policy of the Middle Ages, which considered that the first duty of the State was to protect the weak against the strong, which not only knew of rights, but also of duties of the individual toward society, and condemned as usury every attempt to take unseemly advantage of the temporary distress of one’s neighbor. ” 3 The Cottarii, or Coterelli, according to Spelman, appear to have been much on the same footing with villeins regardant, being employed in the trades of smith, carpenter, and other handicraft arts necessary in the country, in which they had been instructed at the expense of their masters, and for whose benefit they pursued their several occupations. 6 It is reasonable to conclude that the new system of working for hire, being more pro- fitable to the great proprietors than the labor of slaves, had, to a great extent, superseded 1 J. R. Green, History of the English People, 1877, pp. 429-431. 2 Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., pp. 12-15. " Cf. Ibid., vol. i. , p. 41: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, vol. ii. , p. 27; and Hume, History of England, vol. ii., p. 479. 4 Sir Fortunatus Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, pp. 866, 867. 6 Brentano, On the History and Development of Guilds, p. 78. 6 Glossarium Archseologicum. 330 THE STATUTES RE LA TEN G TO THE FREEMASONS. the absolute dependence of workmen upon their employers, at about the period which fol- lowed the Great Plague. Yet it is doubted by Eden, whether the owners of the soil fully comprehended the beneficial effects of this important revolution, and he considers it not unnatural that they should have striven to preserve some affinity between the new class of laborers and the old class of villeins, by limiting their earnings, as they had before con- trolled their persons. 1 Evasions of the statutes were very numerous, as indeed might be expected, for, had the wages fixed by law been adhered to, the pay of a laborer or artificer must have been the same from 1350 to 1370; yet, in the course of that period, the price of wheat per quarter varied from 2s. to £1, 6s. 8d. “In spite of fines, imprisonment, and the pillory,” says Mr. Green, “the ingenuity and avarice of the laborers contrived to elude the provisions of the proclamation; during the harvest the most exorbitant wages were demanded and given.” 2 The statutes from which I shall proceed to quote appear in the first version of these enactments, published by the authority of Parliament, of which volume I., extending to stab. 50, Edw. III., was printed in 1810. Amongst the numerous difficulties which are encountered in a study of our statute law, its prodigious and increasing development first arrests our attention. “ There is such an accumulation of statutes,” complains Lord Bacon, “ concerning one matter, and they so cross and intricate, that the certainty is lost in the heap.” Yet when this complaint was uttered the whole of the statutes of the realm occupied less than three volumes, within which compass it would now be difficult to compress the enormous bulk of legislation which has, in the present day, collected round many special departments of our law. 3 Happily, indeed, with the legislation of comparatively recent times we are only indirectly concerned, but the more ancient statutes present some peculiar features of their own, in which, though differing widely from the puzzles that confront us when we essay an interpretation of their modern counterparts, are found sources of equal difficulty and obscurity. The language in which they were enacted or proclaimed varies continually, whilst, if we turn for assist- ance to the commentaries of sages of the law, these prove for the most part to have been written on imperfect data, and before any version of the statutes was published by au- thority. Many of the old statutes do not at all express by what authority they were enacted, so that it seems as if the business of making laws was principally left in the hand of the king, unless in instances where the lords or commons felt an interest in promoting a law, or the king an advantage in procuring their concurrence; and in such cases probably it was that their assent was especially expressed. 4 The statutes appear to have been actually made by the king, with a council of judges and others who were summoned to assist him. “ The usual time for making a statute was after the end of every parliament and after the parliament roll was engrossed, except on ’ Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 40. 2 Green, History of the English People, p. 157. 3 Knight-ley Howman, in Macmillan’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 30. The law relating to the Bank of England alone is spread over several hundreds of statutes, and the mere titles of these statutes fill about two hundred pages of the statute-book. The stamp law is in a still more hopeless state of en- tanglement, and far beyond the ordinary diligence to unravel (Ibid.). 4 Reeves, History of the English Lavv(W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 228. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 331 some extraordinary occasions. The statute was drawn out of the petition and answer, and penned in the form of a law into several chapters, or articles, as they were originally termed. The statute being thus drawn up into divers heads or-articles, now called chapters, it was shown to the king; and upon his majesty’s approbation thereof, it was engrossed — sometimes with a preamble to it, and a clause of ‘observari volumus’ at the conclusion, and sometimes without any preamble at all — and then by writs sent into every county to be proclaimed .” 1 It is evident from the “Mirror of Justice ,” 3 that laws were often made in this way; for the author of that book complains that ordinances are only made by the king and his clerks, and by aliens and others who dare not contradict the king, but study to please him . 3 The chapters were short, and the manner of expression very often too general and un- defined. Offenders were in general directed to be punished “ at the king’s pleasure, to make grievous ransom to the king, to be heavily amerced,” and the like; whilst sometimes — as we shall presently see — the acts are merely admonitory or prohibitory, without affixing any penalties, or prescribing any course of process for prosecuting, hearing, and deter- mining the offences . 4 Down to the accession of Edward I. the statutes are in Latin, but in the third year of the king they began to be in French also; and from this period to the beginning of the reign of Henry VII., are sometimes in Latin and sometimes in French. From that time the language employed has been uniformly English. Occasionally there occurs a chapter in one language, in the midst of a statute in another; and there is one instance of an article or chapter partly in French and partly in Latin. Attempts have been made by many learned persons to explain this variety of languages in the earlier periods of our legislation. Nothing, however, is known with certainty on this subject, and at the present day it is utterly impossible to account in each instance for the appearance of the statute in French or in Latin. It has been suggested that many of the La.tin statutes were first made in French, and from thence translated into Latin ; 6 whilst by Daines Barrington, the con- tinuance of our laws in French from the third year of Edward I. has been attributed to there being a standing committee in parliament to receive petitions from the provinces of France, which formerly belonged to England; and as these petitions, therefore, were in French, and the answers likewise in the same language, a reason was afforded why all the parliamentary transactions should be in French by way of uniformity . 6 The same com- 1 From a Treatise in the British Museum, intituled, “ Expeditionis Billarum Antiquitas,” at- tributed to Elsyng, Deputy-Clerk of the Parliaments, 1620, and later. 2 La Somme: Appelle Mirrori des Justices, factum per Andrean Horne (of whom it is said in the preface that he wrote the book before the 17 Edw. II.), ch. v. 3 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 227. “ Many inconven- iences happened to the subject by the ancient form, in framing and publishing of the statutes — viz., sometimes no statute hath been made, though agreed on; many things have been omitted; many things have been added in the statute; a statute hath been made, to which the Commons did not assent, and even to which neither Lords nor Commons assented.” See 1 Hale, P. C., 394; 3 Inst., 40, 41; 12 Rep., 57; and Introduction to the Statutes (1810), p. xxxv. 4 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 228; Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes, 1830-31, p. 626. 6 A. Luders, Essay on the Use of the French Language in our Ancient Laws and Acts of State, tract vi., 1810. 6 Daines Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, 1796, p. 62. “ T!:is likewise seems to be the reason of a law’s receiving the royal assent in French ” (Ibid.). 332 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS: mentator perceives a further cause for the statutes being in French, in the general affectation which prevailed at this time of speaking that language, insomuch that it became a proverb, “ that Jack would he a gentleman if he could speak French ” 1 But the strongest reason of all for permitting our laws to be in the French language, Mr. Barrington finds in the habit of the English and the inhabitants of the French provinces under our dominion con- sidering themselves in a great measure as the same people. In the opinion of the same authority, “ the best general rule which can be given with regard to an act of parliaments being in Latin or French is, that when the interests of the clergy are particularly concerned, the statute is in Latin .” 2 But, as was justly observed by one great legal writer, and adopted by another, this theory would require so many exceptions as almost to destroy the rule . 3 “ Perhaps, ” says Mr. Reeves, “the legislature was governed by no general principle in choosing the languages of their statutes; both the Latin and the French were the language of the law, and probably were adopted according to the whim of the clerk or other person who drew up the statute .” 4 On the whole, we may perhaps safely conclude that, for a long period of time, charters, statutes, and other public instruments were drawn up indis- criminately in French or Latin, and generally translated from one of those languages into the other before the promulgation of them, which in many instances appears to have been made at the same time in both languages . 5 It is a curious circumstance that, though the ancient laws of some other European nations are indeed in the Latin language — in which there was a peculiar convenience from the frequent appeals to the Pope — there is no other instance of any country in Europe permitting their laws to be enacted in a modern European language , and that not their own . 6 The ancient ordinances of Scotland are in Latin; those of the Saxons in the Saxon tongue; and the ancient statutes of the Irish Parliament, which began with the Statute of Kilkenny in the reign of Edward II., are in English ; 7 while those of England continued to be in French. The distinction between statutes and ordinances, which in unsettled times were fre- quently confounded, is, that the latter want the consent of some one or more of the con- stituent parts of a parliament. These are the king, lords, and commons . 8 “Whatever is enacted for law by one, or by two only of the three, is no statute.” But though no statute, this is the exact description of an ordinance, which, as Lord Coke expresses it, “wanteth the threefold consent, and is ordained by only one or two of them.” “ According 'This proverb is mentioned by Verstegan, in his “Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in An- tiquities,” 1673, p. 197. See also Hickes, Thesaurus, preface, p. xvii. - Daines Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, pp. 62-65. 3 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii. , p. 228; Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 627. 4 Reeves, ibid. 6 See Statutes of the Realm, Introduction, p. xlii. 6 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 60. “The Laws of Sweden and Denmark were originally in their own languages, but have within the last century been translated into Latin. The ordinances of Spain are in Spanish. The ancient laws of Sicily are in Latin; as were also those of the other Italian States ” (Ibid. , p. 61). 7 Curiously enough, having been subsequently adopted, the use of the French Language in statutes was preserved rather longer in Ireland than in England. The statute-roll of the Irish Par- liament, 8 Hen. VII., is in French; in those of the 16 and 23 Hen. VII., the introductory paragraphs are in Latin; after which follows an act or chapter in French; and all other Acts of the session are in English (Introduction to the Statutes, p. xlii.). 8 Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 3. 9 4 Inst. , 24. 333 / THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. to the manuscript treatise already cited, an ordinance could not make new or permanent law, nor repeal any' statute; but temporary provisions, consistent with the law in force, might be made by way of ordinance, and one ordinance could he repealed by another with- out a statute. 1 It has been well observed, that when statutes were framed so long after the petition and answer, it is not to he wondered at that they did not always correspond with the wishes of the petitioners, but were modified according to some after-thought of the king’s officers who had the care of penning statutes. 2 The commons often complained of this. It would appear that the parliament, upon the petitions of the commons, ex- ercised two branches of authority, by one of which it legislated or made new laws; by the other, it interpreted the then existing law. It is in this way that the following words of stat. 15, Edw. III., c. vii., are to be understood: “ That the petitions showed by the great men and the commons be affirmed according as they were granted by the king; that is to say, some by statute ( les point z adurer par estatut), and the others by charter or patent, and delivered to the knights of the shires, without paying anything.” 3 This clearly indicates that there was another way of settling the law than by statutes, and that way must have been by means of the charters and patents mentioned in the above act. Laws of this sort had no other sanction than the parliament roll, where the answer was written; and these were probably what were called ordinances, being of equal force and validity with statutes, but less solemn and public, because they were only a declaration, and not an alteration of the law. 4 Ordinances were never proclaimed by the sheriff, as in the case of statutes, but it was sometimes recommended by the king to the commons probably by a charter or patent— to publish them in their county. 5 6 A statute was an ordinance, and something more; and therefore, though statutes may sometimes be called ordinances, yet no inattention to language would excuse the converse of the proposition. Though an ordinance could be altered by a statute, yet a statute could not be altered by an ordinance. After all, perhaps, the principal mark of a statute was its being entered on the statute-roll. 0 7 The earliest of the printed editions or collections of the statutes is supposed to have 1 Expeditions Billarum Antiquitas. See also Harleian MSS., Nos. 305, 4273, 6585. 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (tV. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii. , p. 434. In very eaily times great irregularities prevailed. Thus, at Verneuil, 1176, a mixed assembly of English and French en- acted laws for both countries; some English barons, in all probability, being over on service with the king in France (Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 9). 3 15 Edw. III. stat. 3, c. vii., a.d. 1341. 4 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 436. “Acts which re- ceived the royal assent, and were entered only on the parliament roll, and not on the statute roll, have been frequently termed ordinances” (Statutes of the Realm, Introduction, p. xxxii.). s See Introduction to Statutes of the Realm, p. xxxii. ; Reeves, History of the English Law (W.F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 436; and Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 14. According to Lord Coke, “ Acts of Parliament are many times in form of charters or letters-patent;” and many such have been inserted in all editions of the statutes. This great lawyer also observes, “ There are many Acts of Parliament that he in the rolls of Parliament and never yet printed ” (2 Inst., 50). The method in which the various laws— statutes or ordinances— were proclaimed and notified will again claim our attention, in connection with some remarks by Kloss and other Geiman writers, which latter, I shall show, are based upon a total misapprehension of the tenor and import of our Acts of Parliament. 6 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 437. i The statements which follow in the text l’est upon the authority of the Introduction to the Statutes of the Realm.” 334 the statutes relating to the freemasons. been published before 1481; but it is believed that no complete chronological series, either in their original language, or in English, nor any translation of the statutes from 1 Edw. III. to 1 Hen. VII., appeared before the publication by Berthelet in 1543, of “the statutes in English, from the time of Henry III. to 19 Henry VII. inclusive.” 1 No authorized version of the statutes was published until 1810, in which year the first volume of a new edition, drawn up from original records and authentic manuscripts, was printed by command of George III. at the request of the House of Commons. In the inti eduction to this work it is stated, that prior to its appearance no complete collection had ever been printed, containing all the matters, which at different times, and by different editors, were published as statutes. The earliest editions of entire statutes were printed at the latter end of the fifteenth century. The statutes of Henry III., Edward I., and Edward II., were not printed entire until the beginning of the sixteenth century, and then in small collections by themselves in their original language. Later editions, which combine the period previous to Edward III. with that of this and sub- sequent kings, omit the original text of the statutes previous to Henry VII., of which they give translations only. Even the more modern editions — still used in private libraries, and generally consulted by non-lcgal writers— which, in some instances, insert the original text of the statutes previous to Bichard III., from the statute roll and ancient manuscripts, omit the translation of many parts of them; and in other instances, give a translation without the text, and also omit many acts in the period subsequent to Henry VII. In the words of the learned editors of “ The Statutes of the Kealm “ Many errors and inconsistencies occur in all the translations, resulting either from misinterpretation, or from improper omissions or insertions; and there are many antient statutes of which no translation has ever yet been printed. ” 2 I he authorized version of the statutes, besides containing many charters not previously printed, affords, in every instance, a faithful transcript from originals or entries thereof, in characters representing the manuscript with its contractions or abbreviations, 3 so far indeed, as these could be accomplished by printing types. The translation in each case appears side by side with the words of the original, and all quotations from the statutes which appear in this chapter are made from the text of the authorized version. In some few instances I have ventured to question the accuracy of the translation, but in every such case my reasons for so doing are expressed. 4 * The first enactment which will come under our notice is the law of 1349. As already observed, a great public calamity having thinned the lower class of people, servants and 1 “ I have put every statute in the tongue that it was first written in. For those that were first written in latin or in frenche dare I not presume to translate into English for fear of misseinterpreta- cion. For many wordes and termes be there in divers statutes, both in latin and in frenche, which be very hard to translate aptly into English” (Epistle or Preface to W. Rastall’s Collection, edit. 1557). 2 Authorized version, vol. i., Introductions, ch. i., sec. 1, p. xxv. It will be seen as we proceed, that each of these defects in the private or unofficial editions of the statutes has misled some of our Masonic historians. 3 In his publications of the Statutes of Labourers, 25 Edw. III., stat. ii., Sir F. Eden regrets the absence of circumflexes and other marks of contraction, which occur in the original, and explains that the modern letter foundries not being supplied with the necessary types to express them, they aie unavoidably omitted” (State of the Poor, vol. i ii. , p. cxlvii.). 4 The earliest translation of the Statutes from 1 Edw. III. to 18 Hen. VI. (made apparently in the time of Henry VI. or Edward IV.) is to be found in the Harleian MSS., 4999, British Museum. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS, 335 laborers took occasion to demand very extravagant wages; and rather than submit to work upon reasonable terms they became vagabonds and idle beggars. Their number, it is probable, being largely augmented by the gradual emancipation of the villeins, which had been proceeding ever since the Conquest; and who, before the end of Edward III. "s reign, were sufficiently powerful to protect one another, and to withhold their ancient and ac- customed services from their lord. 1 It was found necessary to take some compulsory method in order to reduce the poorer classes to subordination; and an ordinance was there- fore made bv the king and council, to whom it was thought properly to belong as an article of police and internal regulation, especially as the parliament were prevented from sitting by the violence of the plague. 3 Having regard to the importance of the ordinance of 1349, and the statute of the fol- lowing year — comprehensively described as the “ Statutes of Laborers” — each chapter or section will be noticed; two only, however, chapters 5 in the earlier and 3 in the later act, being given in their entirety. 3 I. The Ordinance oe Laborers , 4 a.d. 1349. The necessity of the regulations embodied in this Ordinance is thus indicated in the preamble: — “ Because a great part of the people, and especially of workman and servants, late died of the pestilence, many seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity, will not serve unless they may receive excessive wages, and some rather willing to beg in idleness than by labor to get their living.” 1. Every man and woman, free or bond, able in body and within the age of threescore years, not living in merchandize, nor exercising any craft, nor having of his own whereof he may live, shall be bound to serve for the wages accustomed to be given in the twentieth year of our reign, or five or six common years before. The Lords to be preferred before other in their bondmen or land tenants, but to retain no more than may be necessary for them; and if any such man or woman will not serve, that proved by two true men before the sheriff, bailiff, lord, or constable 5 of the town where the same shall happen to be done, he shall be committed to the next gaol. 2. If any reaper, mower, or other workman or servant, do depart from service without reasonable cause or licence before the term agreed, he shall have pain of imprisonment, and that none under the same pain presume to receive or to retain any such in his service. 3. That no man pay, or promise to pay, any servant any more wages than was wont. 4. If the lords of the towns or manors presume to in any point to come against this Ordinance, then pursuit shall be made against them for the treble pain paid or promised by them. ! Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii, p. 272; Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 30. 2 Reeves, ibid. ; Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 264. 3 Each statute, of which a summary is given in the text, will be distinguished by a number, to which subsequent reference will be made within a parenthesis. 4 23 Edward III. (Latin). 6 Vicecomiti, ballivo, domino, aut constabulario ville. In earlier printed copies ballivo is turned into ballivis Domini Regis, and the translation is made to read “ Sheriff, or the bailiffs of our sover- eign lord the king, or the constables of the town,” etc. Dames Barrington says — “ The word dorni- nus I should conceive to mean lord of the manor ” (Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 365). 336 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 5. “ Item, that sadlers, skinners, whitetawers, cordwainers, taylors, smiths, carpenters, masons ( cementarii ), tilers, boatmen, carters, and all other artificers and workmen, shall not take for their labor and workmanship above the same that was wont to be paid to such per- sons the said twentieth year, and other common years next before, as afore is said, in the place where they shall happen to work; and if any man take more, he shall be committed to the next gaol, in manner as afore is said. ” 6. Butchers, fishmongers, hostelers, brewers, bakers, pulters, and all other sellers of all manner of victual, shall be bound to sell the same for a reasonable price. 7. Because that many valiant beggars refuse to labor, none, upon the said pain of im- prisonment, shall give anything to such. The conclusion of this ordinance, styled by Barrington “the last chapter/’ but not numbered in the copy before me, disposes in a somewhat unusual manner of the penalties imposed by a preceding part of the law; they are not given to the informer, as in more modern times, to enforce the execution of a statute, but in aid of dismes and quinzimes granted to the king by the commons. 1 Whether the neglect of this ordinance arose from this improper distribution of the penalty, or more probably from the severity of the law, the parliament, two years afterward, attempted to carry it into more rigorous execution, and likewise added some new regula- tions, fixing the price of not only the wages of the laborer, but almost every class of artisan. 2 II. The Statute of Laborers, 3 a.d. 1350. 1. That carters, ploughmen, shepherds, swineherds, deies, 4 and all other servants, shall take liveries and wages accustomed in the said twentieth year, or four years before; and that they be allowed 5 to serve by a whole year, and not by the day; and that none pay in the time of sarcling or haymaking but a penny the day; and that such workmen bring openly in their hands to the merchant towns their instruments, and these shall be hired in a common place, and not privy. 2. That none take for the threshing of a quarter of wheat or rye over ii d. ob. ; and that the same servants be sworn two times in the year before lords, stewards, bailiffs, and constables of every town/ to hold and do these ordinances; and that none of them go out of the town, where he dwelleth in the winter, to serve the summer, if he may serve in the 1 Sir F. Dwarris says: — “ That because it was found that people would not sue for the forfeiture against servants and workmen for taking more than the appointed wages, it was afterwards or- dained that such forfeiture should be assessed by the king’s officers, to go in alleviation of the charges to be levied on the township ” (A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 86G). 2 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 265. 3 25 Edw. III., stat. 2 {French). The preamble of this statute recites, that the previous ordinance has been ineffectual, and that servants require “ double or treble of that they were wont to take in the said twentieth year. 4 Deyes were the lowest class of servants in husbandry. They seem to have been employed either at the diary or in tending swine. 6 “ Huyred” in Harlian MSS., 4999. 6 Seigneurs, seneschals, bailifs et conestables de chescune ville. It by no means follows that be- cause Dominus in the “ Ordinance” (I.), and Seigneur in the “Statute” (II.) of Labourers, are both translated lord, that the same class of persons is alluded to in each instance. According to Barring- ton, tiie French original is derived from senior, age formerly giving the only rank and precedence. The use of the word seigneur in the present statute imports nothing further than that he shall be a man of consequence. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 337 same town; and that those who refuse to make such oath, or to perform that they be sworn to or have taken upon them, shall he put in the stocks by the said lords, stewards, bailiffs, and constables of towns, or sent to the next gaol. 3. “ Item, that carpenters, masons, and tilers, and other workmen of houses, 1 2 3 shall not take by the day for their work, but in such manner as they were wont; that is to say, a master carpenter iii d., and another ii d. ; master freestone mason (mestre mason def ranch* pere) 2 iiii, and other masons iii d., and their servants i d., ob. ; tylers iii d., and their knaves garceons ) s i d., ob. ; plasterers and others workers of mud walls, and their knaves, by the same manner, without meat and drink, i s. from Easter to Saint Michael, and from that time less, according to the rate and discretion of the justices, 4 5 which should be thereto assigned; and that they that make carriage by land or water shall take no more for such carriage to be made than they were wont the said xx year, and iiii years before.” 6 4. That cordwainers and shoemakers shall not sell boots and shoes, nor none other thing touching their mystery, in any other manner than they were wont; that goldsmiths, sadlers, liorse-smiths, sporriers, tanners, corners, tawers of leather, taylors, and other work- men, artificers and laborers, and all other servants here not specified, shall be sworn before the justices, to do and use their crafts and offices in the manner they were wont to do the said xx year, and in the time before, without refusing the same because of this ordinance; and if any of the said servants, laborers, workmen, or artificers, after such oath made, come against this ordinance, he shall be punished by fine and ransom, and imprisonment, after the discretion of the justices. 5. That the said stewards, bailiffs, and constables of towns be sworn to inquire of all them that come against this ordinance, and to certify the justices of their names, so that they make fine and ransom to the king, and moreover be commanded to prison, there to remain till they have found surety to serve and do their work, and to sell things vendible in the manner aforesaid. And that the same justices have power to enquire and make due punishment of the said ministers, laborers, workmen, and other servants; and also of host- lers, harbergers, and of those that sell victual by retail, or other things here not specified. 1 “ Carpenters, masons, teglers and autres coverours des mesons.” 2 Master Mason of free stone, Harlian MSS. Printed translations of the Statutes (prior to 1810) convert the phrase into Freemason, which has misled Kloss and other German writers, notably Fin- del, who states (Hist, of Freemasonry, p. 79) that the word “ Freemason ” occurs for the first time in the statute under review. 3 Knave was formerly very commonly used to signify a servant, or workman’s boy. It occurs in this sense in the “ Regiam Majestatem,” and was probably the usual term for an agricultural laborer in Shakespeare’s time: “ A couple of Ford’s knaves, his hinds.” — Merry Wives of Windsor, Act iii. sc. 5. In the constitutions of the guild of Peltyers, Norwich (fourteenth century), a boy is described as a knaue chyld (Smith’s Gilds, p. (30); and in the earliest known translation of the statute under ex- amination, the word garceon is rendered as boy (Harlian MSS., 4999). 4 Even so late as the thirty-sixth year of Charles II. (1685), the magistrates of Warwickshire set an assize for the masons as for other artisans. A Freemason was to take Is. 4d. a day without board, and 6d. with. Penalty for taking above this rate, twenty-one day’s imprisonment (Archaeologia, vol. xi., p. 208). 5 Three years later (1353), the Legislature proceeded a step further, and authorized magistrates to regulate the rents of houses in towns where the wool-staple was held, 27 Edw. HI. , stat. ii. , c. xvi., and the price of iron, 28 Edw. HI., c. v. (1354). 33 § THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 6. That no sheriffs, constables, bailiffs and gaolers, the clerks of the justices, or of the sheriffs, nor other ministers whatsoever, take anything for the cause of their office of the same servants for fees, suit of prison, nor in other manner. 7. That the said justices make their sessions in all the counties of England at the least four times a year — that is to say, at the feast of the Annunciation of our Lady, Saint Mar- garet, Saint Michael, and Saint Nicholas; and also at all times that shall need, according to the discretion of the said justices; and if any of the said servants, laborers or artificers do flee from one county to another, the sheriffs of the county where such fugitive persons shall be found shall do them to be taken at the commandment of the justices of the counties from whence they shall flee; and that this ordinance be lioldenand kept, as well in the city of London as in other cities and boroughs, and other places throughout the land, as well within franchises as without. 1 This statute was always held to apply only to those who worked with their hands. 2 It is somewhat singular that a large number of the cases preserved in the year books had reference to chaplains. In an action against one of this class, it was contended that, though retained for a year to do divine service, the defendant had departed within the year, and it was held that the writ was not maintainable by the statute, “for you cannot compel a chap- lain to sing at mass, for at one time he is disposed to sing, and another not; wherefore you cannot compel him by the statute.” 3 In another case the defendant pleaded that he was retained to collect rents, and so was not a laborer, which was held to be a good plea. 4 The commission to execute the statute of laborers was usually directed to the same persons who were in the commission of the peace; the due ordering of such persons as were the objects of this statute being one of the most important articles in the police of the county. 5 “From the 25th of Edward the Third,” says Sir E. Eden, “the laws concerning wages and other visionary regulations, which, however impracticable, were perse veringly adhered to by successive legislatures, afford us the means of tracing, with chronological exactness, the variations either of improvement or of deterioration in the condition of laborers for hire, 6 who may now be considered as the persons composing that class by which the works of agriculture, of handicraft trades, or of manufacture were carried on.” III. In 13 GO the Statute of Laborers received parliamentary confirmation, and its ob- servance was enforced under stronger penalties. Laborers were declared no longer pun- 1 This chapter of the statute appears to have been disregarded, as we meet the the following new law in 1357: — “It is accorded that the statute of labourers be as well holden in the city and suburbs of London, and in the Five Ports ( Cynk portz), and all manner other franchises, as elsewhere in Eng- land,” (31 Edw. III., stat. I., c. vii.). 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii. , p. 274. 3 Year-beek, 10 Hen. VI., fol. 8, p. 30. In 1362, Edward III,, at the prayer of the commons, who complained that priests had become very dear ( trop ciders) after the pestilence, ordained, “that if any secular man of the realm pay more than five marks to any priest yearly, he shall pay to the king fully as much as he paid to the said priest” (36 Edw. III., c. viii.). The chantry-priests were not much respected. 4 Year-book, 19 Hen. VT., fol. 53. 6 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 276 (XVH.). 6 Dr. George Kloss, in his exhaustive review of the statutes of labourers (Die Freimaurerei in Hirer wahren Bedeutung) deduces the erroneous conclusion, “that the Freemasons and builders in general, as also the other handicraftsmen and wage-earning classes in England, were serfs and bound to the soil.” THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 339 ishable by “ fine and ransom,” and the Lords of Towns were empowered “ to take and imprison them for fifteen days.” 1 Fugitive laborers and artificers absent either from their work or their places of abode, were “ to be burnt in the forehead with the letter F in token of Falsity,” 2 — i.e., of having broken the oath they were compelled to take under the pre- vious statute; and magistrates were directed, in case they fled into towns, to deliver them up, under penalty of £10 to the king and £5 to the masters who should reclaim them. 3 Wages were again regulated. None whatever were to be taken on the festival days, 4 and it was declared, 5 “ That as well carpenters and masons (Mciceons) be comprised in this ordinance, as all other laborers, servants and artificers; and that the carpenters and the masons take from henceforth wages by the day, and not by the week, nor in other manner; and that the chief masters ( chiefs mestres ) of carpenters and masons take fourpence by the day, and the other threepence or twopence, according as they be worth; and that all alli- ances and covines of masons and carpenters, and congregations, chapters, ordinances, and oaths betwixt them made, or to be made, shall be from henceforth void and wholly annulled ; 6 7 so that every mason and carpenter, of what condition that he be, shall be com- pelled by his master to whom he serveth to do every work that to him pertaining to do, or of free stone, or of rough stone; and also every carpenter in his degree; but it shall be lawful to every Lord or other, to make bargain or covenant of their work in gross, with such laborers and artificers when please them, so that they perform such works well and lawfully according to the bargain or covenant with them thereof made.” In this statute (and not before) a standing authority to hear and determine, and to take sureties for good behavior, was given to “ the keepers of the peace;” ' but it is afterward in the stat. Edw. III., stat. I., c. xii., that they are styled justices. The last-mentioned statute enacts that in the commissions of justices of the peace, and of laborers , 8 express mention should be made that they hold their sessions four times in the year; but it was expressly and properly declared in the 34 Edward III., that besides the most worthy persons in the county — ( des meultz vauez ) — the commission should include “■ some learned in the law.” With the exception of Dr. George Kloss, this statute has been singularly neglected by masonic writers, and yet, as Mr. Pap worth long since pointed out, it presents very instruc- tive features. 9 The “ alliances, covines, and chapters,” I shall, however, pass over for the time being, as they can be more conveniently discussed in connection with the subsequent legislation of the year 1425. The object of this statute seems to have been to benefit the master, rather than the 1 34 Edw. m. {French), c. ix. 2 Ibid, c. x. 3 ibid., c. xi. Equivalent to £46, 10s. and £23, 5s. of our present money. To promote the exe- cution of these provisions, it was ordained, by stat. 35 Edw. III., c. xiv., that the fines and amercia- ments arising from the penalties inflicted upon “artificers, servants, and other labourers ,” instead of going into the exchequer, should be distributed among the inhabitants by the collectors. 4 34 Edw. III. {French), c. x. 5 Ibid. c. ix. « “ Et que totes alliances et Covignes des Maceons et Carpenters, et Congregacions Chapitres or- dinances, et sermentz entre eux faites ou affaires, soient desore anientiz et anullez de tout.” 7 34 Edw. III., c. i. 8 It is probable, though the laws of this period are silent on the subject, that rates of wages, and the prices of provisions, were regulated by the magistrates very much at their discretion. In the tenth year of Richard II. several knights were appointed to make proclamation in the county of Cambridge (and, probably in other counties), that no graziers, or sellers of cattle or horses, etc., should sell them at a higher price than usual (Blomefield, History of Norfolk, vol. iv., p. 725). 9 Transactions, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62. 340 THE STATUTES RELATEVG TO THE FREEMASONS. servant, by fixing a maximum for wages; and although it pointed out a mode by which its provisions might be avoided, by making it lawful “ to every lord or other to make bargain or covenant of their work in gross with such laborers and artificers when please them,” it has been conceived that it was only optional in the master to adopt this mode of hiring, and that the laborer or artificer was obliged to work for the statute wages, by the day or the year, unless his employer could persuade him to work by the piece for less. 1 At this point, it may be conveniently observed, that in the building trades of the Middle Ages there were fewer persons who carried on the industry on their own account, and a greater number of dependent workmen than in the other trades. The ordinances of the London masons point to relations such as are still greatly abhorred by workmen of the present day; and naturally, those relations led then to the same differences between work- men and their employers as they lead now. 2 “ Thus,” says Brentano, “ in England the royal mandate as to the workmen who had withdrawn from the works at the Palace of Westminster tells us of a strike amongst the workmen in the building trades; and the two laws enacted there in the Middle Ages against combinations, congregations, and chapters of workmen — the 34th Edward III., c. ix. (III.), and 3d IPenry VI., c. i. (XVI.), were directed against workmen in the building trades only.” 3 IV. 4 * * * Regulations for the Trade of Masons, 30 Edward III., a.d. 1356. s 3 “ At a congregation of mayor and aldermen, holden on the Monday next before the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (2d February), in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Edward III., etc., there being present Simon Fraunceys, the mayor, John Lovekyn, and other aldermen, the sheriffs, and John Little, Symon de Benyngtone, and William de Holbeche, commoners, certain articles were ordained touching the trade of masons, in these words, — 7 1. 8 “ Whereas Simon Fraunceys, Mayor of the City of London, has been given to un- derstand that divers dissensions and disputes have been moved in the said city, between the masons who are hewers, on the one hand, and the light masons and setters on the other: because that their trade has not been regulated in due manner by the government of folks of their trade in such form as other trades are; therefore the said mayor, for main- taining the peace of our Lord the King, and for allaying such manner of dissensions and disputes, and for nurturing love among all manner of folks, in honor of the said city, and for the profit of the common people, by assent and counsel of the aldermen and sheriffs, caused all the good folks of the said trade to be summoned before him, to have from them good and due information how their trade might be best ordered and reled, for the profit of the common people. 2. “ Whereupon the good folks of the said trade, chose from among themselves twelve of the most skilful men of their trade, to inform the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, as to 1 Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 37. Cf. the Statutes of the London Masons, which follow in the text, and ante pp. 121 (art. viii.), 135 (paragraphs 3-7), and 318. 2 Brentano, on the Histoiy and Development of Guilds, p. 81. 3 Ibid.; and Riley, p. 271. 4 Continued in the numeration, although not a statute of Parliament. 6 H. T. Riley, Memorials of London and London Life, in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries, 1868, pp. 280-282 ( Latin and Norman-French). In Latin. ’ Paragraphs not numbered in original. 8 In French. 34i THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. the acts and articles touching their said trade,— that is to say, Waiter de Sallynge, Richard de Sallynge, Thomas de Bredone, John de Tyryngtone, Thomas de Gloucestre, and Henry de Yeevelee, 1 on behalf of the masons’ hewers; Richard Joye, Simon de Bartone, John de Estone, John Wylot, Thomas Hardegray, and Richard de Cornewaylle, on behalf of the light masons and setters; the which folks were sworn before the aforesaid mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, in manner as follows, — 3. “ In the first place, that every man of the trade may work at any work touching the trade, if he be perfectly skilled and knowing in the same. 4. “ Also, that good folks of the said trade shall be chosen and sworn every time that need shall be, to oversee that no one of the trade takes work to complete if he does not well and perfectly know how to perform such work, on pain of losing, to the use of the com- monality, the first time that he shall, by the persons so sworn, be convicted thereof, one mark; and the second time, two marks; and the third time, he shall forswear the trade for over. 5. Also, that no one shall take work in gross, 2 if he be not of ability in a proper manner to complete such work; and he who wishes to undertake such work in gross, shall come to the good man of whom he has taken such work to do and complete, and shall bring with him six or four ancient men of his trade, sworn thereunto, if they are prepared to testify unto the good man of whom he has taken such work to do, that he is skilful and of ability to perform such work, and that if he shall fail to complete such work in due manner, or not be of ability to do the same, they themselves, whoso testify that he is skilful and of ability to finish the work, are bound to complete the same work well and properly at their own charges, in such manner as he undertook; in case the employer who owns the work shall have fully paid the workmen. 3 And if the employer shall then owe him anything, let him pay it to the persons who have so undertaken for him to complete such work. G. Also, that no one shall set an apprentice or journeyman to work, except in presence of his master, before he has been perfectly instructed in his calling: and he who shall do the contrary, and by the person so sworn be convicted thereof, let him pay, the first time to the use of the commonalty, half a mark, and the second time one mark, and the third time 20 shillings; and so let him pay 20 shillings every time that he shall be convicted thereof. 7. Also, that no one of the said trade shall take an apprentice for a less time than seven years, according to the usage of the city; and he who shall do to the contrary thereof, shall be punished in the same manner. 8. Also, that the said masters so chosen, shall oversee that all those who work by the day shall take for their hire according as they are skilled, and may deserve for their work, and not outrageously. 9. Also, if any one of the said trade will not be ruled or directed in due manner by the persons of his trade sworn thereunto, such sworn persons are to make known his name unto the mayor; and the mayor, by assent of the aldermen and sheriffs, shall cause him to 1 “ On the east side of this Bridge Warde haue yee the fayre Parrish church of S. Magnus, in the wliiche church haue beene buried many men of good worship, whose monumentes are now for the most part utterly defaced. I find Henrie Yeuele, Freemason to Edwarde the thirde, Ricliarde the second, and Henry the fourth, who deceased 1400, his monumente yet remaineth” (A Svrvay of London, written in the yeare 1598, by Iohn Stow, p. 167). 2 Wholesale, or by contract. 3 Meaning the contractor. 342 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. be cnastised by imprisonment and other punishment, that so other rebels may take ex- ample by him, to be ruled by the good folks of their trade. 10. Also, that no one of the said trade shall take the apprentice of another, to the prejudice 01 damage of his master, until his term shall have fully expired, on pain of paying, to the use of the commonalty, half a mark each time that he shall be convicted thereof.” \ . Ee verting to the parliamentary statutes, we find that the Legislature, having failed in controlling the wages of industry, next attempted, by statutes equally impracticable, to restrict the workman in the disposition of his slender earnings. 1 In the year 1363 several laws were passed for the regulation of the diet and apparel of servants, artificers, and yeomen (yomen); 2 and it was enacted that merchants should deal in one sort only of merchan- dise, and that handicraftsmen should use only one trade, which they were to choose before the next Candlemas. 3 “ This,” says Brentano, “was a legal recognition of the principle of the trade policy of the craftsmen, namely, that provision should be made to enable every one, with a small capital and his labor, to earn his daily bread in his trade freely and inde- pendently, in opposition to the principle of the rich, freedom of trade.” 4 * VI. The Statute of Laborers was again confirmed in 1368; 6 and the jealousy with which the increasing efforts of the handicraftsmen to free themselves from the restrictive fetters imposed upon them by the Legislature, was regarded, is curiously illustrated by an enact- ment of the following year, wherein, at the request of the “ Black Prince,” whose revenue in his principality of Guion had been diminished by a law limiting the exportation of wines into England to aliens, it was decreed “ that ail Englishmen, Irishmen, and Welshmen, that he not artificers, may pass freely into Gascoigne, to fetch wines there.” fl VII. Eichard II. was but eleven years old when he became King of England, on the death of his grandfather. The first statute of this reign recites that the villeins ( villeyns ) and land-tenant in villeinages had assembled riotously in considerable bodies, endeavoring, by the advice of certain evil counsellors and abettors to withdraw their services from their lords, not alone those which they owed to him by tenure of their lands, but also the services of their bodies; that they chiefly attempted to evade these services under color of certain exemplifications from Domesday-Book, with relation to the manors and towns in which they lived; and that, by false interpretation of these transcripts, they claimed to be entirely free. The statute, therefore, enacts that commissions shall issue under the Great Seal, 1 Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 37. 8< Edw. III., c. viii.-x. In this statute the word garsons is rendered as groams, which again in the oldest existing translation (Harleian, No. 4999) gives place to boxes. In a note upon the word “ Yomen, ’ Mr. Riley (Memorials of London, p. 543) observes “ that it.may have been intended as an abbreviation of the words ‘yong man,’ equivalent to garcio and valettus .” Brentano says:— “The word is identical with the German, Gesselle, Junggeselle. ‘ Junggeselle ’ means bachelor, a term very often used for yeomen ” (History and Development of Guilds, p. 83). The 30 Rich. II., ( vadletz appellez yomen). See also Herbert, Companies of London, vol. ii. , p. G53; and post., i., on 363 364 370. . i 'o7 Edw. III., c. v., vi. The restriction placed on the merchants was removed in the following year. 4 Brentano, on the History and Development of Gilds, p. 60. 5 43 Edw. III., c. vi. 6 43 Edw. in., c. ii. Cl 369). THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 343 upon application of any lord ( seigneur ), to inquire into tire offences of these refractory villeins; and that they shall be immediately committed to prison, without bail or mam- prize, if their lords shall so insist. With regard to the exemplifications from Domesday, it is likewise declared that the offering them in evidence shall not be of any advantage to him who shall so produce them. 1 * Nothing could be more severe than this law in every part of it; and we find, by different records in Rvmer, that this oppression was in reality the occasion of the famous insurrection under Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, as well as the great opposition to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; aided, it may well have been, by the poll-tax of three groats imposed in 1380 upon both sexes above the age of fifteen, ihis assessment was a heavy exaction upon the poor, many of whom weie ill-used bondmen; and the harsh and brutal manner in which it was collected made it still more hateful. If we follow Barrington, the minor king had been advised, by one part of his Council, to increase the power of the lower people, 3 and to lessen that of the barons; in consequence of this a proclamation was issued, which among other things, directed, “quod nulla acra terrae quae in bondagio vel servagio, tenetur, altiis quam ad quatuor denarios haberetur; et si qua ad minus antea tenta fuisset, in posterum non exaltaretur. ” 4 * John of Gaunt put himself at the head of the baron’s faction, and procured a repeal of this proclamation in the year following. 6 The tenure of villeinage, which the insurrection of 1381 operated powerfully in diminish- ing, 6 though extremely burdensome to the villein, w r as of little advantage to the master. The produce of a large estate was much more conveniently disposed of by the peasants themselves who raised it, than by the landlord or his bailiff, who were formerly accustomed to receive it. A commutation was therefore made of rents for services, and of money rents for those in kind; and as men in a subsequent age discovered that farms were better cultivated where the farmer enjoyed a security in his possession, the practice of granting leases to the peasant began to prevail, which entirely broke the bonds of servitude, already much relaxed from the former practices. 7 As half the lands in England were anciently held by the tenure of villeinage, it is not more remarkable as a fact, that this tenure (and status ) should have entirely passed away, 1 1 Rich. II., c. vi., 1377 (.French). In 1385 a law was passed to the effect that lords should not be forebarred of their villeins through the latter fleeing into cities and suing their owners, 9 Rich. II., c. ii. a Many of the serfs or villeins had already been made free by becoming copy-holders, or even by escaping from thraldom, and living a year and a day within the walls of a town; but this only served to excite the envy of the rest (Chepmell, Short Course of History, p. 183). The city records, under date 25th April 1288, contain a claim by the Earl of Cornwall and another, upon five persons as their bondmen born, of whom they were seized until one month before the day of St. Michael (29th Sep- tember) 1287, when they ran away. And they ask that they be not admitted to the freedom of the city (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 24). 3 In the fifteenth year of this king - , the barons petitioned that no villein should send his son to school; to which the king gave the proper and dignified answer: “ Le roy s'avisera ” (Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 300; Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 878). 4 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 300. L Rymer, Foedera, vol. iii., pt. iii. , p. 124. 6 “ The language of Wat Tyler’s followers bespeaks men not unacquainted with the essential requisites of rational liberty” (Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 53). “ They required from the king a general pardon, the abolition of slavery, freedom of commerce in market-towns without toll or im- post, and a fixed rent on lands, instead of the services due by villenage ” (Hume, History of England, 1822, vol. ii., p. 9). 1 Hume, History of England, vol. iii., p. 295. 344 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. without being abolished by any statute, than that its decline should have been so insensible, that historians and antiquaries, with the utmost diligence, can very faintly trace its declen- sion to that period when it suited the mutual convenience of the lord and the vassal to drop the servile tenure . 1 These considerations are of some importance, as there can be little doubt that the earliest laws as to artificers, laborers, and vagrants, had reference to the state of villeinage or serf- dom, and the efforts of the villeins to escape from it . 2 The earliest vagrants were villeins; and the villeins were constantly wandering away from their lords in order to escape the bonadge of forced laborer, which brought no profit to themselves, for even property, the result of their own labor, could be seized by their lords; and hence it was not to be won- dered at that they should in various ways try to escape so hard a thraldom, and that many of them should lapse into a state of vagrancy. Vagabondage, in short, grew out of villein- age, and these laws arose out of vagabondage. The result of it was, that the lords found their own villeins, to whose labor they had a right, constantly lost, while they were sur- rounded by numbers of vagrants, most of whom, there could be little doubt, were villeins of other lords. The process of seeking for and reclaiming the villeins was troublesome and costly; and instead of it parliament passed these acts as to laborers and others, the effect of which was to enable the lords to put vagrants to labor, as a substitute for the loss of the labor of their villeins . 3 The condition of the times, and the turn of manners which prevailed towards the close of the fourteenth century, made it desirable and necessary for great lords to supply the de- fection in their villeins and land-tenants 4 by other expedients. It accordingly had become the custom to retail persons in their service to be at call when their lord's affairs needed their support; and in order to distinguish different partisans, as well as to give a splendor to such retinue, they used to dress them in liveries, and hats 6 of a particular make or color. 1 Barring ton, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 301; Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes) p. 878. See also Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iii., pp. 584, 587; Eden State of the Poor, vol. i., pp. 30, 60; and Hume, History of England, vol. ii. , pp. 9, 295. 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iii., p. 587. “These laws as to labourers contained in them the germ of a principle which was thence transferred to the poor laws— the principle of fixing the poor as much as possible to the soil on which they were born, and of forcibly removing them thereto if they wandered. The origin of this principle, and its transmission in the course of legislation down to our own time, afford a striking illustration of the character of our laws” (Ibid.). 3 Ibid., pp. 587, 588. The granting of a lease or a tenancy to a villein enfranchised him (Year- book, Hen. VII., f. 11), and therefore if a man was a lessee, on the same principle he could not bo taken under the statute. The statute, it was said, was to be understood of laborers who were va- grants, and who were, therefore, to be made to work (Year-book, 10 Hen. VI., f. 8, pi. 10). And by the statutes, laborers, on the other hand, departing from their labour, could be brought back to it (47 Edw. III., f. 14). Under these statutes, therefore, if a man was “ found wandering about the country, ” he could be put to work by any one (11 Hen. IV., f. 27). 4 Lit. “terre tenantz.” Instead of the precarious holding at the absolute will of the lord, as originally, we find in the latter end of the last reign (Edw. III.) mention of tenants by copie of court roll, which indicates that villeinage was, in some places at least, become of a more stable nature; and villein tenants were enabled to set up a species of title against their lord (Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 444). 6 1 Rich. II., c. vii. The actual words of the statute are champerons et autre livere, literally, “ hoods and other livery;” but the term hats has crept into all translations. r n inWiiir MM 344 /;■; 77. ■ ■ - ./ a / ■■■ \ without beiw ? x a’ by v - « v, r --.jn sion to that ;» -•••xl when it: ■ •.»< >, of the lord ami the vassal to •, the servile tenure.' These considerations an - o *' • :ah--' can he little doubt that the earlie laws ms to artifice: laborer- - • p ure to (lit state of Viil.-i or .sel- dom, and the efforts of the v - : ’ ■ f. ; The earliest vagrants were villein and the villeins were eonshws^;- — from their lords in order to escape tl • result of their own labor, . ; ' , lords; and hence it was not to be wo? derecl at that they should a . •. rqui so hard a thraldom, and that nan. of them should lapse into a ■ agabondage, in short, grew ou: .,f villeh age, and these laws arose owl their own vtlhuos, to who* , •hr. constantly .lost, while >!j rounded by numbers of vat-rr.-; - • there could be little donfc of other lor the p: • *.r ' , liming the vi was i costly; and instead of it pan e. • ^ e.-.- i t •* sets as to laborers and >d,h which was — r ible the Uu labor, as a suboi. v ■ labor of their villeins. 3 ' The condition of the time ounmers whieii prevailed t< of the fourteenth century, !>. --••■ ••••< necessary. for. great lord* to A d fection in their villeins an• *** ■■ .*.■*»! I Hr.;.: ■. *f. < .• 4 upland, vol. ii., pp. 295 . 5 Reeves, History of the Engl##* -v > '* n), - “These laws as hibourers conhuued in them the ■ m p >■ -di ' " .*•, e ed to the poor laws the principle of fixing the poor.,- ' soi • ■ • • born, and of foreibe removing them thereto if they ■ ' ■ i ; •. tie, j . i transmission in tl. course of legislation down to < u- ■ h : ! • , :mg : : . ra.cter of our laws {Ibid.).' ' "Ibid., pp. 587, 588. The v • ■ • . tenm ■■■ ■ -ov hised him (Yea ; - book, Hen. ,VIJ. . f. 11), and A . ~ ; 1 ■ ' ‘ '■■ee, ,, pc' he could not bo taken under Cup statute, 'i A to Ai-irors who were va* grants, end w iso v ere, therefc * * iu ' ' ; is, jrf.'lO). And In the sta.tutev lidve-urs, on the «>•>*• ,* - . ru t ought back A (47 Ed w. Ill r :*}. Under A ’> if •' lo: in~ -it *, - ■ country,” h< ' •.< >! be pin. to w. A ! . /. , 4 Lit. ‘ ten tenant/;.'* h v.-r i->: K>1 ••••■' the .n' originally, w> Iin-- in too iaM< ^ r ■ rtf > «I M 4■ nature; and villein tenants were on;. he •• English Law (W. F. Fmbisorr. ' ie j rv of the 6 1 Rich. II. /o. vii. The st- a'-' -p . • A > literally. *• hoods and other livery; ” bu* o ito 345 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. Men openly associated themselves, under the patronage of some great baron, for their mutual defence. They wore public badges, by which their confederacy was distinguished. They supported each other in all quarrels, iniquities, extortions, murders, robberies, and other crimes. 1 Besides those who were retained by great men, fraternities used to be foi mod of persons concurring in the same sentiments and views, who bound themselves to suppoit each other on all occasions, and denoted their union by similarity of dress. ' 2 These con- federacies became a terror to the government, and were the occasion of the statutes of liveries passed in this and the following reigns. The first of these is stat. 1, Rich. II., c. vii., which ordains that no livery be given by any man for maintenance of quarrels and other confederacies upon pain of imprisonment and grievous forfeiture to the king. Some im- material alterations were made in this statute both by Richard and his successors; but in substance it remained as now enacted. The successive acts were very little enforced in this reign, or that of Henry VI., and it was reserved for the stricter and sterner rule of Henry VII. really to put them into execution. For this reason, and also because the laws relating to liveries, passed in the reign of the first Tudor king (XXIII.), have been strangely mis- interpreted by our most trustworthy masonic teachers, I shall postpone my examination of this series of statutes, until the legislation of the reign of Henry VII. passes under review. VIII. In the year 1378 the commons complained that the statutes of laborers were not attended to, but that persons employed in husbandry fled into cities, and became artificers, mariners, or clerks, to the great detriment of agriculture; and in consequence of these repre- sentations, it was enacted that the statutes passed in the preceding reign should be firmly kept and put in due execution. 3 IX. In 1388 4 * these statutes were again confirmed, and it was further directed that no servant or laborer should depart at the end of his term to serve or dwell elsewhere, or under pretence of going a pilgrimage, 6 without a letter patent specifying the cause of the departure and the time of his return, which might be granted at the discretion of a justice of the 1 Hume, History of England, vol. iii. , p. 59. 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii. , p. 444. During the thir- teenth and fourteenth centuries, the king’s retinue was often beset and pillaged by banditti; even towns, during the time of fairs, were assaulted and ransacked; and men of rank carried off and con- fined in the castle of some lawless chieftain, till their ransom was paid (M. Paris, p. 225; Knighton (Anglicanae Histoidas Scriptores Decern), p. 2465). s 2 Rich. II., stat. i., c. viii. In 1883, justices, sheriffs, mayors, etc., were enjoined to take secu- rity of vagrants for their good behavior (7 Rich. H., c. v.). 4 12 Rich. II. , c. iii. 6 Mr. Ludlow considers that “ tramp-money,” i.e., relief to members going in search of work, is the modern representative of the relief to pilgrim-artificers (Fortnightly Review, N. S., vol. vi. , p. 399). From the law of 1350 (II.), it appears that “ artificers” were even at that date expected to “ flee” from one county to another to escape its provisions. “ A pilgrimage to a shrine,” Mr. Lud- low argues, “ would evidently be the safest color for such a migration;” but Brentano is of opinion that the 25 Edw. HI., c. vii., referred to country not town artificers, and observes, that as the exer- cise of a craft in towns depended upon apprenticeship and citizenship, a fleeing craftsmen would not therefore have been allowed to carry on his craft (Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. xii. Cf. 12 Rich. II., c. vii.; and Smith’s Gilds, pp. 157, 177, 180). The Coventry Gild “kept a lodging-house with thirteen beds, to lodge poor folks coming through the land on pilgrim- age, or any other work of charity ” (Ibid., p. 231). 346 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. peace; and that “ as well artificers and people of mystery ( gentz de mistier ') as servants and apprentices, which be of no great avoyr 2 [avoir), and of which craft or mystery a man hath no great need in harvest time, shall be compelled to serve in harvest to cut, gather, and bring in the corn.” The wages of servants in husbandry were fixed by the same statute, after reciting, “ that the hires of servants and laborers had not been put in certainty 3 before this time.” And it was decreed that “ no servant of artificer nor victualler within city shall take more than the servants and laborers above named after their estate. ” 1 * * 4 Penalties were imposed on those giving or taking higher wages; and for a third offence, treble the value of the excess given or taken, or forty days’ imprisonment . 5 Persons having served in husbandry until the age of twelve years were declared incapable, of “ being put to any mystery or handicraft,” 6 and all covenants of apprenticeship to the contrary were declared void. To prevent disorders , 7 it was ordained that no servant, laborer, nor artificer should carry a sword, buckler, or dagger, except in time of war or when travelling with their masters; but they might have bows and arrows, ayid use them on Sundays and holidays. They were required to leave off playing at tennis or football, and to refrain from quoits, dice, skittles, and other such importune games. This is noticeable for being the first statute that prohibited any sort of games and diversions . 8 X. In the following year at the request of the Commons that the Statutes of Laborers should be enforced, it was enacted, that “ forasmuch as a man cannot put the price of corn and other victuals in certain,” the justices should, at Easter and Michaelmas, make procla- mation according to the dearth of victuals, how much every mason, carpenter, tiler, and other craftsmen, workmen, and other laborers should take by the day with meat and drink, or without meat and drink, between the two seasons, and “ that every man obey to such proclamations from time to time as a thing done by statute. ” 9 Shoemakers and cordwainers were prohibited from being tanners, and vice versa ; 10 and artificers and others were restrained from keeping 'dogs or using ferrets . 11 In the twelfth year of Richard II., writs were sent to all the sheriffs in England to make proclamation for the sending up of the return from guilds and crafts, called for by the Parliament of Cambridge. The masters and wardens of ‘‘guilds and brotherhoods” were required to furnish full information “as to the manner and form of the oaths, gatherings. 1 Men of Craft (Harleian MSS., 4999). 2 Have, or reputation (Ibid.). 3 From this expression Sir F. Eden concludes that the wages of those affected by the Statutes of Laborers “ had not been regulated at any earlier period ” (Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 43). 4 12 Rich. II., c. iv. The penalties for excessive wages restricted to the takers only, by 4 Hen. N., stat. ii. , c. v. (1416). 4 Chapter IX. of the statute of this year has the following: — “ It is ordained and asserted, that the ordinances aforesaid of servants and labourers beggars and vagabonds, shall be executed as well in cities and boroughs as in other towns and places within the realm,” and “the sheriffs, mayors, bailiffs, and the keepers of gaols” are charged to receive offenders and to keep them in prison (12 Rich. H., c. ix. a.d. 1888). c . v . 7 R>id., c. vi. Confirmed, and a penalty of six days imprisonment added (11 Hen. IV., c. iv.). 8 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 455. 9 13 Rich. H., stat. i., c. viii., 1389-90. 10 Rich. II., stat. i., c. xii. Confirmed, 21 Rich. II., c. xvi. : repealed as to shoemakers, 4 Hen. VI., c. xxxv.; and again enacted, 2 Hen. VI., c. vii. 11 13 Rich. II., stat. i., c. xiii. 47 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. feasts, and general meetings, 1 of the bretheren and sisteren;” also, as to their liberties, privileges, statutes, ordinances, usages, and customs; and to lay before the king and his council their charters and letters patent, where such existed. 2 The masters, wardens, and overlookers of the mysteries and crafts, who held any charters or letters patent, 3 were in like manner required to exhibit them. XI. In the fourth year of Henry IV., 4 an act was passed prohibiting carpenters, masons ( cementers ), tilers, and other laborers from being hired by the week, and forbidding them to receive any wages on feast-days, or more than half a day’s wages when they only worked on the eve of a festival “till the hour of None” ( al heure de None!) It is probable that in taking service by the week, and receiving wages at the rate of seven days’ work, although, from the intervention of the Sabbath, and the frequency of festivals, they only worked four or five days in the week, the provision of former statutes had been effectually frustrated by the laborers. XII. Henry IV., in the seventh year of his reign 1405-6, 6 confirmed the Statutes of Laborers, and the law of 1388, 7 which he made more stringent, by ordering that no one should put his child to serve as apprentice to any craft or other labor within a city or borough, unless he possessed an annual income of 20s. from land or rent. Laborers and artificers were to be sworn in their respective leets, 8 once in each year, 4 to serve and take for their service after the form of the statutes,” and any refusing so to do 1 “ The distinction between the * gatherings’ ( congregationes ) and ‘ general meetings’ ( assemblias ) is seen at a glance in most of the ordinances. The gild brethren were bound to gather together, at unfixed times, on the summons of the dean, for special purposes; but, besides these gatherings upon (special summons, general meetings of the guilds were held on fixed days in every year, for election of officers, holding their feasts,” etc. (Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, p. 128). ••f The words “ si quas habent” (in original) are conclusive, as Mr. Smith observes, upon the point, “that no licence nor charter of the crown was necessary to the beginning of any of the social gilds. Any guild might, or it might not, have such charters ” (Smith, English Gilds, p. 128). 3 “ These words show that in the case of the guilds of crafts, as has been seen to be so in that of the social gilds, no licence nor charter of the crown was necessary to their foundation” (Ibid., p. 130). 4 4 Hen. IV., c. xiv. (1402). 6 Except by Kloss, invariably translated noon. The expression throws light upon some obscui’i- ties in the “Old Charges.” Nonfinch, 5, 12, and 27 (the figures refer to the numbers by which the various “constitutions” are distinguished in Chapter II.); Nonesynches, 15 and 22 Noontydes, 18; Novices, 24; Nonsyon, 28; and Nuncion, 29,— are evidently all variations of Nunchion, “a piece of victuals eaten between meals ” (Johnson). “ Laying by their swords and trunchions, They took their breakfasts or their nunchions.” — Hudibras. Mr. Riley says: “Donations for drink to workmen are called, in 1350, ‘ noneclienche( probably ‘ noon’s quench,’ whence the later ‘ nuncheon ’ or luncheon” (Memorials of London, p. 265). The rate of pay —3s. 6. to there double wages ” ( ante , p. 101) — which is frequently named — 12, 13, 20, and 25 — may also be explicable, on the supposition that the extra or additional sum was given in lieu of a pay- ment in kind — i.e., none-mete (XXIV.). 6 7 Hen. IV. , c. xvii. The city of London exempted from the restriction on apprentices!!) p by 8 Hen. VI., c. xi. (1429). . 1 12 Rich. II., c. iii. e See Smith’s Gilds, pp. 411, 439. 343 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. were to be put m the stocks. To facilitate this it was provided that every town or seignory not having stocks should be fined a hundred shillings. XIII. r Iwo statutes, enacted in the reign of Henry V., demand our notice. The act of 1414, 1 extended the authority of justices of the peace, by empowering them to send their writs to take fugitive laborers in any county. All the Statutes of Laborers were to be ex- emplified under the Great Seal; an exemplification was to be sent to every sheriff to make proclamation in full county, and deliver it to the justices of the peace named of the quorum, to remain with them for the better execution thereof. These justices were to hold their sessions four times a year, and were authorized to examine laborers, servants, and artificers, with their masters, uq>on their oaths. XIV. In 1416, 2 an act was passed limiting the penalties of the 12th Rich. II., c. iv., for excessive wages to the takers only, it being somewhat humorously recited “ that the givers, when they have been sworn before the justices of the peace, will in no wise present such excesses to eschew their own punishments. ” XV. Matters, however, were replaced on the old footing in 1423, 3 * * and the justices once more empowered to proceed against the masters as well as the servants. They were also authorized “ to call before them by attachment masons, carpenters, tilers, thatchers, daubers, and all other laborers, and to examine them;” and any of these found to have taken con- trary to the laws and ordinances were “to have imprisonment of a month.” The same authorities had power to call before them in a similar manner tailors, cordwainers, tanners, bochers, fishers, liostilers, and “all other artificers and victuallers,” and to assess them under penalties, “to sell and take after the discretions of the justices.” This ordinance extended to cities and boroughs as well as counties, and was “ to endure until the parliament next to come.” The preceding chapter or article, which is of considerable importance in our inquiry, was firs i printed from the Statute Roll in Hawkins’ edition, 1734-5, and no translation having appeared until 1816, 1 it has not been noticed by the numerous commentators upon the subsequent law of 1425. “ The legislature, in the reign of Henry VI.,” says Mr. Reeves, “as in the time of his two predecessors, was rather employed in furthering and improving the policy of some statutes made in the preceding period, than in introducing any novelties .” 6 Although legal writers are all of the same opinion as Mr. Reeves, and indeed only notice the statute of 1425, from the fact of its having added to the list of offences punishable as felony; 6 at the hands of masonic historians it has experienced very different treatment, and the specula- tions to which it has given rise will next claim our attention. 1 2 Hen. V., stat. i., c. iv. The preamble recites, “because servants and labourers do flee from county to county.” 2 5 Henry V., c. iv. Hen. yi., c. xviii. 4 Statutes of the Realm, vol. ii., p. 225. 6 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason) 1869, vol. ii. , p. 528. 6 D warns, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 894. Daines Barrington, a contributor to vol. ix. of the Archaelogia (1788), both before and after the essay of Governor Pownall, commenting upon this law, does not even condescend to notice Chapter I. (referring to the chapters of the masons), although his “Observations on the Statutes” contain a disquisition upon the 3 Hen. VI., c. ii., and in the fifth edition (4796) he adds some reflections, which occurred to him “since the former editions .” 349 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. Before, however, we proceed to examine the glosses of the innumerable commentators who have* professed to explain this enactment, it will be convenient to consider a little more closely than we have hitherto done the circumstances of the previous reign, together with any collateral facts that may aid in illustrating the subject of our investigation. The wars of Henry V., however glorious to his arms, placed only a “ fruitless crown” upon his head; and, as it has been well expressed, “the lilies of France were purchased too dearly with the harvests of England.” A convincing proof of the devastation made by the sword amongst the gentry is afforded by the language of a statute passed in 1421: it states, “that at the making of the act of the 14th of Edward III. (1340), there were sufficient of proper men in each county to execute every office; but that, owing to pesti- lence and wars, there are not now a sufficiency of responsible persons to act as sheriffs, coroners and escheators.” There cannot be a doubt but that greater numbers of the lower classes perished from the operation of similar causes. Indeed, it has been advanced, that the great dram of men occasioned by Henry Y.’s wars, and the subsequent bloody contest between the houses of York and Lancaster, materially contributed to render the whole nation free. 1 The condition of the realm at the period of Henry VI. ’s accession, himself an infant, will be best understood by a brief reference to the military operations of the previous reign. Henry V., in 1415, landed near Honfleurat the head of 6000 men-at-arms and 24,000 foot, mostly archers, and, putting the casualties of war on one side, had lost half his force by disease before the memorable battle of Agincourt. Two years later he was again in France with 25,000 men, and in 1421 he levied a new army of 24,000 archers and 4000 horsemen. 2 The withdrawal of so many men from the kingdom, especially when we consider the sparse- ness of the population at that period, must have rendered labor even more scarce than it had hitherto been; and the return to peaceful avocations of any of the soldiery could not have been an unmixed advantage, since the high rate of wages paid by Henry V. to his troops 3 must have for ever dissatisfied them with the paltry remuneration assessed by the justices, whose scale of payments, indeed, cannot have been one whit more acceptable to the artisans who plied their crafts unmolested by the king’s levies. But the drain upon the population of England for soldiers did not cease with the life of Henry V. His brother, the Duke of Bedford, the most accomplished prince of his time, remained in France. The whole power of England was at his command; he was at the head of armies inured to victory, and was seconded by the most renowned generals of his age. At the battle of Verneuil there fell about 4000 of the French and 1600 of the English a loss esteemed at that time so unusual on the side of the victors, that the Duke of Bed- ford forbade all rejoicings for his success. 4 In the same year, 1424, further levies were drawn from England, though, much to the chagrin of the Duke of Bedford, the succors 1 Eden, State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 66. 2 Hume, History of England, 1822, vol. iii. , pp. 99, 104, 111. 3 “ All the extraordinary supplies granted by Parliament to Henry during the course of his reign, were only about £208,000. It is easy to compute how soon this money must be exhausted by armies of 24,000 archers and 6000 horse, when each archer had sixpence a day, and each horseman two shil- lings” (Ibid., p. 118). See, however, Rymer, Foedera, vol. ix., p. 258, from which the wages of arch- ers would appear to have been much higher. 4 Hume, History of England, vol. ii. , p. 129. 350 THE STATUTES EE LA TING TO THE FREEMASONS. which lie expected from his native land were intercepted by his brother, the Duke of Glou- cester, and employed in Holland and Hainault. About this period gunpowder had passed into constant use, both in the attack and c efence of places. The pieces were called guns and culverins. The first threw stone balls, sometimes 26 inches in diameter,- the second threw plummets or balls of lead. The pow- der was of a different sort for each. The guns were worked by a master gunner, with var- lets under him. Masons and carpenters were attached to them. 1 It is noteworthy that the two laws enacted in the Middle Ages against combinations, congregations, and chapters of workmen, the 34 Edward III., c. ix. (III.) and the 3 Henry, VL ’ L ( XVI ’)> were Erected against the craftsmen above named, and, as a factor at least m our final judgment upon these statutes, must be assumed the possibility of both masons and carpenters having, to some extent, acquired by military service abroad a higher opinion of the rights of labor, and of the inherent freedom of every class of artisan to barter the product of their skill or industry for its full money value. XVI. 3 Henry V., c. i., a.d. 1425. Eu primes come par les annuelx congre- gacions et confederacies faitz par les Masons en lour generalx Chapitres assemblez, le bon corns et effect des estatutz de Laborers sont publiquement violez et disrumpez en sub- version de la leye et grevouse damage of tout le commune; nostre Seigneur le Roi voillant en ceo cas purvoir de remedie, par advis et assent suisditz et a la especial request des ditz Communes ad ordinez et establiz que tieux Chapitres et Congregacions ne soient desore tenuz; et si ascuns tielx soient faitz soient ceux qi fount faire assembler et tenir iceux Chapitres et congregacions sils ent soient convictz adjuggez pur felons; et que toutz les autres Masons qi viegnent as tielx Chapitres et congregacions soient puniz par emprisonement de lour corps et facent fyn et raunceon a la volunte du Roi. FIRST, Whereas by the yearly Congre- gations and Confederacies made by the Ma- sons in their general Chapiters assembled, the good Course and Effect of the Statutes of Labourers be openly violated and broken, in Subversion of the Law, and to the great Damage of all the Commons: Our said Lord the King willing in this Case to provide Remedy, by the Advice and Assent afore- said, and at the special Request of the said Commons, hath ordained and established, that such Chapiters and Congregations shall not be hereafter liolden; and if any such be made, they that cause such Chapiters and Congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged for Felons; and that all the other Masons that come to such Chapiters and Congrega- tions, be punished by Imprisonment of their Bodies, and make Fine and Ransom at the King’s Will. Ihe first writer who associated this statute with the Freemasons was Dr. Plot, who, in his “ Natural History of Staffordshire,” 2 ridicules the idea of the charges of the Society laving been approved by King Henry VI., observing:—" Yet more improbable is it still, that Hen. the 6 and his Council should ever peruse or approve their charges and manners and so confirm these right Worshipfull Masters and Fellows as they are call’d in the Scroll ' lor m the third of his reigne (when he could not be 4 years old) I find an act of. Parliament 1 Lingard, History of England, 1849, vol. iv., p. 24. 2 Oxford, 1686, c. viii. See ante, p. 73. 351 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. quite abolishing this Society. Which Statute though repealed by a subsequent act m the 5 of Eliz. (XXXIII.), ’tis still to be feared these Chapters of Free- Masons do as much mis- chief as before, which, if one may estimate by the penalty, was anciently so great, that perhaps it might be usefull to examin them now.” The next commentary upon the statute which I shall introduce, will be that of Di. James Anderson, who, in 1721, “fault having been found with the old Gothic Constitu- tions, ” was ordered by the Grand Lodge “ to digest the same in a new and better method. ” On the performance of his task, “fourteen learned brothers were appointed to examine the MS and to make report,” which proving favorable, the Grand Lodge desired the Grand Master to have it printed; and, on the 17th January 1723, it is recorded that “Grand Warden Anderson produced the new book of Constitutions, which was again approved.” 1 With the book itself is bound up the printed “ approbation ” of the Duke of Wharton, the Grand Master, and of the Masters and Wardens of twenty Lodges; whilst in a graceful dedication to the Duke of Montagu, from the pen of Dr. Desaguliers, the learned natural philosopher, the erudition and accuracy of the compiler are especially borne witness to.* I have been thus precise, because this publication, the Constitutions of 1/23, has been termed “the basis -of Masonic history,” and the statements which appear in it necessarily carry great weight. Dr. Anderson says:— “ Now though in the third year of King Henry VI., while an Infant of about four years old, the Parliament made an Act, that affected only the Ivor ling Masons, who had, contrary to the Statutes for Laborers, confederated not to work but at their own Price and Wages; and because such Agreements were suppos’d to be made at the General Lodges, call’d in the Act Chapters and Congregations of Masons, it was then thought expedient to level the said Act against the said Congregations: yet when the said King Henry YI. arriv’d to Man’s Estate, the Masons laid before him and his Lords the above-mention’d Records and Charges, who, ’tis plain, review’d them, and solemnly approv’d of them as good and reasonable to be holden: Nay, the said King and his Lords must have been incorporated with the Free- Masons, before they could make such Review of the Records; and in this Reign, before King Henry’s Troubles, Masons were much encourag’d. Nor is there any Instance of executing that Act in that, or in any other Reign since, and the Masons never neglected their Lodges for it, nor even thought it worth while to employ their noble and eminent Brethren to have it repeal’d; because the working Masons, that are free of the Lodge, scorn to' be guilty of such Combinations; and the free Masons ha\e no con- cern in trespasses against the Statutes for Laborers. The author, or compiler, of the Constitutions adds, in a footnote, that “ by tradition it is believ’d that the Parliament- Men were then too much influenc’d by the illiterate clergy, who were not accepted Masons, nor understood Architecture (as the clergy of some former ’Anderson, Constitutions, 1739, pp. 112, 115, 152. _ 2 “ I need not tell your Grace what pains our learned author has taken in compiling and digest- ing this book from the old records, and how accurately he has compar’d and made everything agree- able to history and chronology (Anderson, Constitutions, 1723). 3 Anderson, Constitutions, 1723, pp. 34, 35. Kloss very pertinently observes, that though at t is early date Dr. Anderson endeavors to draw a distinction between “ operative masons” and “Free- masons,” on all other occasions he does not scruple to appropriate to the latter all documents re a ing to the former (Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahren Bedeutung). I am glad to say that this wor is in course of translation by Mr. G. W. Speth, than whom no one is better qualified to present this masonic classic in an English guise, with due fidelity to the oiiginal. 352 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. Ages), yet thinking they had an indefeasible Eight to know all Secrets, by vcrtue of auricu- lar Confession, 1 and the Masons never confessing anything thereof, the said Clergy were highly offended, and represented them as dangerous to the State.” Dr. Anderson then gives in full the words of the statute— or rather of its translation— which he takes from Coke; 1 2 3 speaks of the Congregations and Confederacies made bv the Masons in their General Assemblies ; ” and cites the opinion of the learned Chief-Justice, that all the Statutes of Laborers were repealed by the statute of 5 Elizabeth, chapter 4. As Preston and all other Masonic writers, with the solitary exception of Dr. George Kloss (1848), 4 * have followed Anderson in their interpretation of this statute, I shall not encumber my pages with a repetition of the arguments already quoted, but will proceed to adduce some of the conclusions which have been advanced by independent authorities, whose speculations, though equally erroneous, are less open to suspicion, as being unin- fluenced to any appreciable extent by writers of the craft. Governor Pownall says, “ These Statutes of Laborers were repeatedly renewed through several reigns down to Henry VI., and as repeatedly disobeyed by the Freemasons, until in the 3d of Henry VI. an ordinance was, by the advice of the Lords, on the petition of the Commons, made. This statute ascertains these facts: first, that this corporation held chapters and congregations, assuming, as to the regulating of their work and wages, to have a right to settle these matters by their own bye-laws. The statute declares' this to bo a subversion of the law of the land, and grievous damage to the community; secondly, it ascertains that this body of masons were a set of artists and mechanicks, the price of whose labor and work ought to be regulated by those Statutes of Laborers; thirdly, instead of dissolving this corporation, which would in effect have acknowledged it as legal prior to such dissolution, it forbids all their chapters and other congregations to be held, and de- clares all persons assembling or holding such to be felons. “ This statute put an end to this body, and all its illegal chapters and pretences. It should seem, however, that societies of these masons met in mere clubs, wherein continu- ing to observe and practice some of their ceremonies which once had a reference to their constitutions and to the foundation of powers which no longer existed, and were scarcely understood, they only made sport to mock themselves, and by degrees their clubs or lodges sunk into a mere foolish, harmless mummery.” 6 It is greatly to be regretted that the diligent antiquary, from whom I have last quoted, 1 The writer, who was himself a Scotch Presbyterian minister, here indulges in a fling at the clerics of the older faith. 2 Coke, Institutes, iii., fol. 99. 3 Author of the “ Illustrations of Masonry,” of which twelve editions were published in his life- time — the first in 1772, the last in 1812. 4 “ These chapters and congregations cannot by any possibility be thought to stand in connection with a secret doctrine, but they may, with designing under heavy oaths of secrecy, to evade and overstep the laws of the realm ” (Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer wahrenBedeutung). 8 Archfeologia, vol. ix., pp. 118, 119. The view here expressed has been adopted by a recent Masonic writer, who observes; “ It is in the highest degree probable that the year 1424 [1425?] is the proper date to assign for the cessation of English Freemasonry as a strictly operative association, and the epoch of its decided tendency towards a speculative science, such as we now find it. The rites and ceremonies, together with the moral instruction which had hitherto been in vogue in the lodres, were undoubtedly continued under the new regime ! ” (Fort, Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 131). THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 353 should have regarded the law of 1425, so decisive of the position he took up, as to render unnecessary a publication of the historical proofs with which he avowed himself pre- pared. It has been already shown that in the opinion both of Governor Pownall and Mr. Hope, the Freemasons were a close corporation under the protection of the Pope, 1 and thereby claiming exemption from the Statutes of Laborers, became the subject of special legislation in the third year of Henry VI. Indeed the latter of these authorities maintains that ‘ ‘ as soon as, in different countries, a general increase of learning, of industry, or skill, of jealousy in the native sovereigns, of the intrusion of foreigners, to the disparagement of their authority, and the detriment of tlieir subjects, and a general corresponding diminution of the papal influence, and of the support given by it to Freemasonry, caused the bodies of Freemasons everywhere successively to dissolve, or to be expelled, until they at last ceased to exercise their original profession, and nothing remained of them but an empty name, and organization, and for- mulary, which other men laid hold of and appropriated to themselves to carry on and con- ceal other purposes; no trace or tradition of their peculiar principles or method continued to be observed.” 2 By other writers stress has been laid on the terms “ congregations, confederacies, and general chapiters,” and from their employment in the statute, it has been deduced that the body of Freemasons met in one general assembly, which was convoked “ after the manner of a chapter. 3 Though, as a skeptical— or perhaps I should say a less uncritical — commen- tator well observes, “ if the chapters or assembling of Freemasons had been injurious to the State by fomenting insurrections, it is scarcely probable that such fact would have been totally overlooked, not only by the English historians, but in the statutes. 4 With regard to the tenor of the series of enactments, of which the law under examina- tion is but an intermediate manifestation, I apprehend that the general meaning and in- tention of the various regulations comprehensively classed as the “ Statutes of Laborers,” will have been fairly disclosed by the summary already given. They were designed to repress extortion, to keep down the prices of provisions, and restrain the wage-earning classes from profiting unduly by the dearth of labor and the necessities of a nascent civiliza- tion. That the legislature failed in its laudable aim we can now perceive, but we should bear in mind that political economy, as at this day we understand it, has only been evolved after a long experience of legislative and economical experiments, amply illustrated in the early history of Great Britain, and which in part the statutes under review put very plainly before us. The fanciful interpretation placed upon the law of 1425 by Governor Pownall and Mr. Hope I shall pass over without further comment, but in the terminology of this statute there are a few expressions which are worthy of more detailed examination. In the first instance let us consider the phrase, en lour general chapiters assemblez — in their general chapters assembled — which, until the authorized edition of the statutes in 1 Ante, pp. 258, 260. Even the more critical Dallaway does not scruple to say: “ The Freemasons were blessed by the Pope, and were first encouraged in England by Henry III.” (Discourses on Archi- tecture, p. 156). 2 Hope, Essay on Architecture, pp. 248, 244. 3 The expression kapittelsiveise, used by the German stonemasons {ante, p. 118), Findel states. Is employed by no other g'uild, and he derives it from the capitula of the Benedictines (History of Freemasonry, p. 78). 4 Dallaway, Discourses on Architecture, p. 428. 23 354 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 1810, was almost invariably translated, “ in their general chapters and assemblies A Few commentators troubled themselves to consult the original Norman-French, and as a natural consequence — even when one did not copy directly from another, as was probably the case- in the majority of instances — the commentary or annotation, was applied to a garbled or falsified version of the record it professed to explain. Doctors Plot and Anderson, Preston, Dallaway, Findel, and even Kloss, cite the statute, and in each instance the word assem- blies appears. 1 Not to pursue this point to an unnecessary length, I will briefly observe that perhaps about one-half of the erroneous conclusions that have been drawn from the verbiage of this enactment, arise out of the substitution of a noun for a participle, and it has been too hastily concluded that the language of the “ Old Charges ” is here reproduced, and that the masons, whose illegal conventions it was the object of the statute to repress, met in precisely the same kind of “general assemblies” as those alluded to in our manu- script constitutions. Whilst, indeed, it is very possible that they did, still the enactment will not bear this construction, except inferentially, and as it has been already overweighted with the conceits of the learned, it will be best to prefer evidence to conjecture, and to content ourselves with an examination of the terms actually employed, rather than waste time in vainly speculating upon the meaning and significance of a form of expression which had its origin in the imagination of the translator. The word “chapters,” which occurs in two statutes (III., XVI.), I conceive to have been used — as I pointed out some years ago 2 — to describe, what in the vernacular were termed conventicles. The latter expression occurs in 1383, in a proclamation of the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of the city of London; 3 4 * again in 1415, 4 in an ordinance published by the same corporate body, and still later in the fifteenth century, appears in a petition to parliament against an Exeter guild in the twenty-second year of Edward IV. 6 “ The commission” (of a justice), says Lambard, “ gives power to enquire of Conuenti- cles. Yet unlawful Conuenticles be not all of one sort; for sometimes those are called Conuenticles wherein many do impart with others their meaning to kill a man, or to take one another’s part in all things, or suchlike.” 6 Shakespeare would appear to have had this definition present to his mind, when in Part II. of his play Henry VI., he makes Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the king’s uncle — on being arrested for treason in the presence of Cardinal Beaufort and other noblemen — utter the following complaint: — 1 The earliest known translation (Harleian MS., No. 4999) has assemblies. On the other side, it is perhaps right to say that Pownall, who gives the statute in the original Norman-French, prints the word correctly ( assemblez ). For the general use of the term, see the Statutes 17 Rich. II., c. viii. ; 13 Hen. IV., c. vii. ; 2 Hen. V., c. viii. ; and Sir H. Nicolas, Proceedings of the Privy Council, vol. vi. , passim. ' l The Four Old Lodges, 1879, pp. 25, 82. 3 “ That noman make none congregaciouns, conuenticles, assembles; ne ouer more in none manere ne make alliances, confederacies, conspiracies, ne obligaciouns, forto bynde men to gidre [together]; upon peyne of enpresonement, vche [each] man that is yfounde in swych defaute, and his bodi at the kyngges will” (Riley, Memorials of London, p. 480). Mr. Riley says: “This extract is worthy of remark, as being the earliest entry in English in the letter-books” (Ibid.). 4 Ibid, p. 609. The yeomen taillours restrained from meeting in assemblies and conventicles. 6 Smith, English Gilds, p. 311. 8 William Lambard, Eirenarcba; or, the Office of the Justices of the Peace, edit. 1610, p. 173. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 355 “ Ay, all of you have laid your heads together. Myself had notice of your conventicles — And all to make away my guiltless life.” 1 The word, in the sense of an “ assembly for worship,” does not appear in the statutes until 1592-3, when by the 35 Elizabeth, c. i., persons above the age of sixteen were forbid- den to be present “at anye unlaufull assemblies, conventicles, or meetings, under color or pretence of any exercise of Religion. 2 The view presented is strengthened by the language of two statutes, enacted in 1400 and 1529 respectively. The earlier of these (in Latin ) is directed against the Lollards, who are charged with making unlawful conventicles ( conventicula 3 ) and confederacies; 4 and the other (in English ) forbids “arty fleers or handy craftes men” from assembling “in any company, felowship, congregacion, or conventycle.” 5 * TCI osr mentions, that by the Golden Bull of the Emperor Charles IV. , promulgated in 1371, “ conspirations,” “ conventicula ,” and kindred associations, were forbidden. From the evidence adduced it will, I think, become quite clear, that in 1425 there was an English word in common use — conventicle — denoting precisely the same kind of clandestine meet- ing as those which the statute was enacted to suppress, and I shall leave every reader to form his own conclusion, upon the point whether the persons/ to w 7 hom the phraseology of the statute was entrusted, had in their minds the seditious assemblies of which examples have been given, or whether the term they used had reference to societies, meeting “after the manner of a chapter,” which, indeed, are not otherwise mentioned in the statute-book. The interest pertaining to this statute has been heightened by the common assertion that Henry VI. was himself a Freemason. Indeed, Preston carefully records the year of his initiation, 7 and in nearly every masonic work may be seen a singular catechism “concern- ing the mysterie of magonrye, writtene by the hande of Kinge Henry e, the sixthe of the name.” Of any real connection, however, between this Prince and the Freemasons, no trace exists except in the catechism alluded to, which will be presently examined. We are apt to attach an imaginary value to MSS. which have been destroyed, as we are pre- 1 Act iii., sc. 1. His apprehensions were well grounded, for in a few days he was found dead in his bed. Beaufort, his rival, did not long survive him. According to Preston, the 8 Hen. VI., c. i. (XVI.) was passed at the instance of the cardinal, by the “Parliament of Bats ” (XXII.), and the severity of its provisions restrained by the Duke of Gloucester, who was “ the protector of masons.” Findel, and others who followed Preston, may derive consolation from the words which, at Beau- fort’s death, Shakespeare puts in the king’s mouth : “He dies, and makes no sign." — Act iii. , sc. 2. as affording negative evidence of the cardinal’s inveteracy against the masons, and justifying the • conclusions that if either the uncle or the grand-uncle of the king was a Freemason, the balance of probability inclines in favor of the former ! See the fourth note to the Stat. 3 Hen. VII., c. i. (XXH.). 2 Extended by the well-known “ Conventicle ” Acts of 16 Chas. H., c. iv., and 22 Chas. H. c. 1. 8 Not capitula, which would have been more in harmony with chapiters. 4 2 Hen. IV., c. xv. 5 21 Hen. VIII., c. xvi. 6 Query — In their employment of the word chapiters had they any choice ? It is true that for conventicle there exists a modern equivalent — conciliabule — from the Latin conciliabulum, which occurs in the “ Dictionaire” of Pierre Richelet, 1695 ; but I have not met with the expression in any printed work or manuscript of an earlier date. 7 Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 199. 356 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. eluded from making a collation of tlie copy with the original. Most of the documents of the Freemasons are in this melancholy category, and upon the alleged destruction, by Nicholas Stone, of many valuable manuscripts belonging to the society, it has been re- marked, “perhaps his master, Inigo Jones, thought that the new mode, though dependent on taste, was independent of science; and, like the Caliph Omar, held what was agreeable to the new faith useless, and what was not ought to be destroyed ! ” 1 Henry's long minority, and weakness of understanding when he arrived at more mature years, made him incapable of any character whatsoever, in any relation of life. “ Such a King,” in the opinion of Daines Barrington, “ could, possibly be of no other use than that of the Roman Consuls, in the fall of the empire — to mark the year .” 2 It has been stated that he was an adept in the science of alchemy, 3 and Sir John Davis says, it was conceived that he had purchased the secret from the famous Raymond Lully. 4 Miracles, indeed, are alleged to have been performed at the tomb of Henry VI., though Widmore says, “that the Court of Rome asked too much for his canonization, so that he never became a complete saint.” 5 XVII. In 1427, 6 * the Statutes of the twelfth and thirteenth years of Richard II. (IX., X.) having been pronounced ineffectual, the former as being “ too hard upon the masters,” and the latter from the absence of any penalty for wrong doing, it was ordained “ that the justices of the peace in every county, the mayor of the City of London, and the mayors and bailiffs in every city, borough, or town, having such power and authority as justices of the peace have,'' shall henceforth, have power and authority to make proclamation in their full sessions, once a year, how much every servant of husbandry shall take for the year next following, and that they make two times ( deux foitz) proclamation in two ses- sions, to be holden betwixt the feasts of Easter and St. Michael, and in every borough and market town, how much every artificer and workman shall take by the day, and by the week: and that every proclamation so to be made, be holden as a thing ordained by stat- ute.” Infractions of the law were declared punishable by fine or imprisonment, and the justices, mayors, and bailiffs were authorized “to hear and determine such offences, to examine by their discretion, as well such servants, artificers, and workmen, as their mas- ters,” to punish offenders, to direct sheriffs to imprison them: “and that all the mayors and bailiffs which he keepers of the peace 8 (queux sount Gar deins clu pees ) in any cities, towns, or boroughs, shall have like power, correction, and execution of the [Statute], and of all Statutes of Laborers within the said towns, cities, and boroughs, as the justices of the peace have in their counties.” This statute has been minutely criticised by Dr. Kloss, 9 who considers that, from its 1 Archseologia, vol. xvii., p. 83 (Observations on Vaults, by Samuel Ware). 2 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 416. 3 See Rymer, Foedera, vol. ii. , pt. iii., p. 24. The alchemists sometimes had writs of protection, examples of which may be seen in Rymer. 4 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 416. 5 Antiquities of Westminster Abbey, p. 121. 6 6 Hen. VI., c. iii. 1 “ Eiantz tiel poair et auctorite come ount justices de la peas.” In previous editions of the Statutes, translated “ shall have such power and authority to make proclamation,” etc. 8 See ante, 34 Edw. III., c. ix. (HI.), 9 Kloss, Die Freimaurerei in ihrer waliren Bedeutung (Freemasonry in its true significance). 357 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. phraseology, certain obscure passages in the Halliwell poem “acquire sense and confirma- tion.” This writer observes that the justices of the peace had hitherto been the sole assessors of the rate of wages, and judges of all offences against the respective statutes the sheriffs, bailiffs, and their subordinates the keepers of gaols, being only mentioned as having to execute the warrants, orders, and resolutions of the justices. But by this new law, besides the justices, the mayor of the city of London, the mayors and bailiffs of every chief city, borough, or county town, all persons of position and rank, are for the first time 1 2 empowered to participate in the settlement of the rate of wages, and to make proclamation thereof twice a year. Conjointly they are charged to hear and decide all infractions, and to issue and grant warrants of arrest, which were to be executed by the sheriff. “ At last,” says Kloss, “ we glean why the Masons were to appear at the general assem- bly at a certain place once a year, to hear the rate of wages, on account of gret ryolte— that is, by royal command. We learn the meaning of the presence at the sessions of the grete lordes, knyghtes, sqwyers, and other aldermen, of the meyr of that syte, and also of the scheref of that contre, as administrators of the law, and what is meant by suche ordy- nances as they maken there.”'* Upon the evidence of this statute, therefore, Kloss contends that the Halliwell poem could not have been written before 1427, nor— from the testimony presented by a later en- actment, to be presently examined — after 1444-45. It is no reflection upon Kloss’s learning or ability to say that he has altogether failed to grasp the true meaning of this enactment, and thereby to comprehend the intention of the legislature. The range of his inquiry could hardly be expected to extend over the whole field of English law. The rules by which the sages of the law, according to Plowden, 3 have ever been guided in seeking for the intention of the legislature are maxims of sound interpretation, which have been accumulated by the experience, and ratified by the approbation, of ages. First in importance is the consideration, what was the rule at the common law ? 4 5 “To know what the common law was, before the making of a statute, whereby it may be seen whether the statute be introductory of a new law, or only affirmative of the common law, is the very lock and key to set open the windows of the statute. The language of the enactment under review (XVII.) clearly shows that the officials associated with the justices already possessed equal powers with the latter. But who were the justices of the peace? The peace, in the most extensive sense of the word, took in, perhaps, the whole of the criminal law; and as most offences were said to be against the peace, all those magistrates who had authority to take cognizance of such offences, might 1 See the second note of this statute (XVII.). 2 Cf. Halliwell, Early History of Freemasonry in England, 1844, pp. 27, 29 30; Masonic Eclectic, 1865, vol. i., pp. 245-250; Findel, History of Freemasonry, p. 30; and pp. 60, 79 ante; and 374 post. 3 Plowden, Rep., p. 205. 4 According to the resolution of the barons of the Exchequer, in Heydon’s case, four things are to be considered 1. The common law before the Act; 2. The mischief and defect against which it did not provide; 3. The remedy Parliament hath appointed; and 4. The true reason of the remedy (3 Rep., 7). 5 2 Inst., 301; 3 Rep., 13; Hob., 83. “Further, as a rule of exposition, statutes are to be con- strued in reference to the principles of the common law. For it is not to be presumed that the Legis- lature intended to make any innovation upon the common law further than the case absolutely re- quired ” (Dwarris, A Treatise on the Statutes, p. 695). 353 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. be considered as a sort of guardians of tlie peace ex officio: such were the king's justices, inferior judges, and ministers of justice, as sheriffs, constables, tythingmen, head boroughs, and the like. Others were conservators of the peace by tenure or prescription. Besides these, extraordinary ones were appointed occasionally by commission from the king . 1 2 In the first year of Edward III. certain conservators of Tie peace were nominated by the Crown, as auxiliary to those who were such by the titles above mentioned . 3 So beneficial was the establishment of “keepers of the peace" considered by the people, that it became a favorite in the country, and was exalted in preference to some institutions that were more ancient . 4 In conformity with many statutes and petitions, commissions were at various times framed, assigning certain persons to execute the powers which the statutes authorized the king to confer. “ In the twenty-fifth of Edward the Third," says Mr. Reeves, “ by the statute called the statute of laborers, we find that justices w r ere to be assigned for the exe- cution of that act. It is most probable the persons assigned justices to execute this statute were the keepers of the peace " 5 (III.). Thus we find, that the justices and their coadjutors in the statute under review, were virtually one and the same class— that is to say, the former, eo nomine, specially assigned by the king, the latter— long since keepers, and now justices of the peace, virtute officio, being specially reminded of responsibilities, gradually increas- ing, from the natural tendency of recalcitrant laborers and workmen to seek refuge in the towns. The language of the earlier statutes fully bears out this view; and, indeed, were I called upon to form my own conclusions from the mere verbiage of the statutes of laborers, these, in a definite shape, would amount to this— That the repeated mention of the sheriff, the mayors, the bailiffs, constables, etc,, must, by means of the numerous proc- lamations, have made the lower classes far more familiar with the names of these officials than with those of the new-fangled “justices" (I., II., IX.). The view presented is sup- ported by the absence, in the Halliwell poem, of any reference to the latter. From the fact alone I should deduce an inference the opposite of that drawn by Hr. Kloss, namely, that the presence of “great lords, mayors, and sheriffs" point to a fourteenth-century origin of the poem, as claimed for it by the antiquary who made known its existence. It seems to me that the “ father ” of masonic criticism has here gone wholly off the track. The Halliwell poem, we must assume, was intended for the instruction and guidance of town or of country masons . 6 The entire tenor of this production, the class of persons to 1 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 328. 2 Ibid. Lambard says: “ The mayors and other head officers of many cities and corporate towns be Justices of this kind [by grant] at this day, by grants, of the king and his progenitors ” (Eirenarcha or, of the Office of the Justices of the Peace, 1610, p. 26). The earliest edition of this work which I have seen was published in 1569, but as the subject-matter was amplified and rearranged in succes- sive publications, I have been unable to collate the passages in the two versions without a more pro- tracted search than the importance of the inquiry would at all justify. 3 1 Edw. III. , stat. ii. , c. xvi. 4 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. ii., p. 330. 5 Ibid. “Keepers of the peace” were not commonly reputed and called Justices until 1360 134 Edw. III., c. i.). 6 To render myself quite clear, let me state that by this I mean that the Halliwell code was evi- dently in use by a single guild, cx-aft, or fraternity. Kloss’s suggestion— that the Halliwell MS. may have had special reference to the metropolis — will be considered in my review of the next statute (XVIII.) in this series. 359 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. whom it was addressed — far superior in their way to the villeins, the laborers in husbandry, and the rude artificers of the shires, the regulations for behavior at the common meal, all point, in my judgment, to its connection with some urban craft. If this view be accepted, the Statutes of Laborers have very little bearing upon the question at issue. Ihese enact- ments were especially framed with regard to the powers and wants of the landed proprietors. In towns, labor was generally regulated by municipal ordinances (IV.). Thus in 1350, contemporaneously with the Parliamentary Statute of that year, were ordained by the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of London various regulations as to wages and prices in the city, ‘ ‘ to amend and redress,” in the words of the preamble, “ the damages and griev- ances which the good folks of the city, rich and poor, have suffered and received within the past year, by reason of masons, carpenters, plasterers, tilers, and all manner of laborers, 1 2 3 who take immeasurably more than they have been wont to take. ’ 4 A word is necessary as to the position of sheriff. Dr. Kloss appears to think that this official received an accession of authority by the law of 1427. Such was not the case, fihe tourn, the great criminal court of the Saxons, was still presided over by each sheriff in his county; and it was not until 1461, that from what Mr. Reeves calls “ a revolution in an ancient branch of our judicial establishment,” 5 his jurisdiction was restrained. 6 It is possible, indeed, that by some the opinion may be held, that the most ancient of our manuscript charges or constitutions, referred either partly or wholly to countiy masons. Taking their view of the case, we are, however, faced by the conclusion of an eminent authority, who believes the “artificers,” whom the 25th Edward III. and later statutes “ expects to flee from one county to another,” to have been workmen employed on the coun- try manors of lords. “ Each country manor,” says Brentano, “ had in the Middle Ages its 1 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds (Introduction), p. xii. ; and see ante, p. 346, note 4. The incidence of the Statutes of Laborers upon the craft guilds will be again discussed (XXV.). 2 Not merely proclaimed. See also the Regulations for the Trade of Masons (IV.), art. ix. The powers of the corporation certainly stood in need of no extension. Many instances of trials bexore the mayor and aldermen, and of punishment by hanging, are recorded by Mr. Riley. 3 Even the “laborers” of London eventually formed themselves into a company. In 1586 John Jerman and others, “ laborers of the city of London,” petitioned the council, “ desiring confiimation of their incorporation, granted by King Henry VII., and confirmed by King Henry VIII. (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1581-1590, p. 376). The treatment to which this class of people was subjected is inconceivable at the present day. In 1560 a letter from Sir Henry Nevell to Sir Thomas Parry complains of “laborers being taken up by commission, and sold at fairs for 10 groats and 2s. each ! ” (Ibid., Series 1547-1580, p. 155). 4 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 253. “In the first place, that the masons, between the Feasts of Easter and St. Michael, shall take no more by the working day than 6d. , without victuals or drinks; and from the Feast of St. Michael to Easter, for the working day, 5d. And upon feast-days, when they do not work, they shall take nothing” (Ibid.). 5 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iii., p. 5. 6 By Stat. Edw. IV., c. ii. This act did not extend to the Sheriffs of London. The jurisdiction of the Sheriff in the tourn to take indictments or presentments for felony was transferred to the Jus- tices of the Peace. It was an ancient regulation of police, that every inhabitant of a county who was above the age of twelve years, should attend the Sheriff’s tourn in order to hear the capitida coronce read over, and given in charge. This, before the establishment of justices in eyre, was the only opportunity of their being instructed with regard to the Crown law, and it was probably sup- posed that such a charge would not only be understood by a child above that age, but make a lasting impression (Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 69). 36 o THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. own artificers, who supplied the common wants of their lords, whilst the latter resorted only for their more refined wants to the craftsmen of the towns.” 1 I cannot bring myself to believe, that the masons who plied their trade in remote vil- lages and hamlets at about the early part of the fifteenth century were, either by education 01 intelligence, capable of comprehending the Halliwell poem had it been rehearsed to them. But, putting conjecture wholly aside, and contenting ourselves with the actual ex- pressions to be met with in that ancient manuscript, I, for one, should have expected to find in a document of this character relating to artificers of the counties — written between 1427 and 1444 some reference or allusion to the justices of the peace, whose authority was gradually being extended, by whom, no doubt, many regulations were made which have not survived, and who, by charters, letters patent, and ordinances of the reigning king — not entered on the Statute Roll — must have been constantly charged with the proper execution of the Statutes of Laborers in particular counties where their provisions had been evaded. 2 3 XVIII. Although following a common practice, the operation of the enactment just reviewed (X\ II.) was limited to the end of the next parliament, in the very next statute of this reign it was made permanent. J This capitulary consists of twenty-nine chapters, which have little connection with each other — one only besides that already cited demands our attention. 4 On the complaint of the civic authorities that they had been ‘ ‘ grievously vexed and inquieted by color of an article in the statute of 140G” (XII.), it was ordained in 1429 “that the ancient manner, form, and custom of putting and taking of apprentices, used and continued in the city of London, be from henceforth kept and observed.” Upon this. Dr. Kloss observes, “it justifies the conclusion that the usages and customs of London, as the capital, were either adopted and followed by the rest of the kingdom, or that the Halliwell poem was about this period composed expressly by and for the London- ers,” and adds “ that the first assumption obtains increased probability by the law of 1562,” 5 which definitely fixes a seven years’ apprenticeship for the whole kingdom, “according to the custom and usage of the capital — London.” XIX. r> In 1437 the king and his parliament applied themselves still more vigorously to mitigate the growing abuses of the craft guilds; yet, in the very course adopted, we may perceive that the sweeping condemnation of the right of the craftsmen to govern their trades by regulations of their own devising (III., XVI.) had been ineffectual, as it was now sought to control a system which the legislature was powerless to suppress. Accordingly, on the ground that “ the masters, wardens and people of many guilds, fraternities, and other compa- nies, make among themselves many unlawful and unreasonable ordinances ” of things ( inter alia), “which sound in confederacy ( sonnent en confederacie) for their singular profit, and common damage to the people.” All letters patent and charters were required to be ex- hibited to the justices in counties, or the chief governors of cities, boroughs, and towns, 1 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds (Introduction), p. xii. 2 The sources of authority upon which this opinion is based have been already referred to in pre- ceding' notes. 3 8 Hen. VI., c. viii. 4 8 Hen. VI. , c. xi. Custom of London respecting taking of apprentices ( marginal note). *5 Eliz., c. iv. 6 15 Hen. VI., c. vi., 1436-7. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 361 without whose sanction no new ordinances were to he made or used, and by whom the same could be at any time revoked or repealed (XXV.). The cumulative effect of these restric- tions, at a time— the middle of the fourteenth century— when the villeins were rushing in great numbers into the towns, to take up trades, must have prevented a great number— and in several trades the majority— of workmen from themselves becoming independent masters; and thus there arose a real working-class, with separate views and interests. 1 In England, the craft guilds gradually hardened into the same narrow-mindedness as in Ger- many and France, 2 with the same favors to the sons of masters as regards the term of ap- prenticeship, entrance fees, and in some cases of masterpieces. 3 Mr. Ludlow, in what a high authority terms “ one of the best papers ever written on trade unions,” 4 * has well stated, that “from the moment that, to establish a given business more capital is required than a journeyman can easily accumulate within a few years, guild- mastership — the mastership of the masterpiece — becomes little more than a name. The attempt to keep up the strictness of its conditions becomes only an additional weight on the poorer members of the trade; skill alone is valueless, and is soon compelled to hire itself out to capital.” The same writer — and his commentary is the more valuable, because the masons could no more have been present to his mind’s eye than any other class of workmen to which his essay refers— cites the Act of 1360 (III.), the earlier of the Loo enactments mentioning the chapters of the masons, and observes: “ This statute is remarkable as show- ing the co-existence of the Wo masterships— that of skill and capital; thus, the ‘ chief mas- ters ’ of carpenters and masons are to receive fourpence a day, and the others threepence or twopence, according as they be worth; but every mason and carpenter, ‘ of whatever condi- tion he be,’ is to be compelled by ‘his master whom he serves’ to do every work that per- tains to him.” “ Where,” continues Mr. Ludlow, “as it seems to me, the guild-masters are designated by the former expression, and the capitalist-masters by the latter. XX. The increasing opulence of the towns, by withdrawing both workmen and laborers from the country, led to further legislation in 1444-5, 6 when the wages of laborers and artificers were again assessed, those of a “free mason” 7 or master carpenter being limited to 4d. a day, with meat and drink, and 5d. without, and their winter wages to 3d. and 4d. respectively. 8 9 It is, however, expressed that “ the same form shall be observed 9 of wages of servants being with hostlers, victualers, and artificers in ‘cities, burghs, and elsewhere /’ 10 1 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 76. 2 Ante, pp. 159, 189. 3 Cf. The by-laws of the company of F r a me wo r k-Kn i tie r s (Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxvi., pp. 790-794); Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 20; and ante, p. 89, note 2. ' 4 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 101. 6 Macmillan’s Magazine, vol. iii., 1861, p. 315 (Trade Societies, etc., by J. M. Ludlow). 6 28 Hen. VI., c. xii. The lot of country artificers appears to have been indeed a hard one. In 1440 warrants from the king were sent to the wardens of masons and carpenters at Eton, “yevying thayme powair to take, in what place so ever hit be, almanere of werkmen, laborers, and cariage, as shal seme necessarie or behoveful in thaire craftes to the edificacon of oure college of Eton ” (Ex- cerpta Historica, 1831, p. 45). 1 Frank mason. This would appear to be the earliest statutory expression which will bear the rendering in the text — i. e., free mason. 8 The summer wages of a master tiler or slater, a rough mason, mesne carpenter, and “other artificers concerning building,” were fixed at 3d. and 4d., and those of other laborers at 2d. and Id. 9 “ Mesme la fourme soit observez.” 10 En Citeez Burghs et aillours esteantz. 362 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. and sucli as deserve less shall take less, and also in places where less is used to be given, less shall be given from henceforth.” The enforcement of this statute was left to the justices of the peace “in their coun- ties,” 1 who were to hear and determine all offences, to proclaim twice a year all unrepealed Acts of Parliament relating to laborers, artificers, etc., and to punish by fine or imprison- ment. Dr. Kloss lays great stress on the circumstance of the execution of this law being solely confided to the justices, and considers that the presence of the mayors of cities and other officials named by the Act of 1427 (XVII.), having been “silently dispensed with,” we are thereby enabled to fix more accurately the period at which the Halliwell poem was written, and as the attendance of these authorities, along with the justices, would, he thinks, have been, to say the least, superfluous, it is assumed, that the words of the manu- script point to an earlier date, and that consequently it could not have been written after 1444-45. In this opinion, I cannot concur, that is, upon the evidence of the statute simpliciter ; and the words italicized in my abstract of its clauses represent the grounds on which I venture to dissent from the most accurate and diligent of masonic writers (XXI.). 1 2 During the reign of Edward IV. very little notice was taken by the legislature of the laboring classes of the community, except by the statutes for regulating apparel. Serv- ants in husbandry, common laborers, and artificers, were forbidden to wear any cloth, whereof the broad yard exceeded the price of 2s. 3 The solitary parliament which assembled at the bidding of his brother and successor, enacted that no alien should be a handicrafts- man ( artificer ou hander aft iman) unless as a servant to the king’s subjects. 4 The accession of Henry VII. to the throne may be considered as the commencement of an era of internal tranquillity and industry. The statutes enacted in the reigns of his immediate predecessors, sent in each county to the justices of the peace, for them to pro- claim and execute, including those against signs and liveries, routs and forcible entries, and for the regulation of the low T er classes, were adequate to their intended purpose, and only required to be firmly put into excution. 5 6 To effect this object, Henry, feeling the futility of merely enacting that the laws should be enforced, without providing a power to compel their enforcement, began by raising the formidable power of the Star Chamber, and then proceeded to call upon the local magistracy, under terror of that power, to enforce the laws. 0 The utility of this court is extolled by Lord Bacon, and although even during the age of that historian, men began to feel that so arbitrary a jurisdiction was incompatible with liberty, and as the spirit of independence still rose higher in the nation, the aversion to it increased; still it is tolerably clear that the establishment of the Star Chamber, or 1 “ En lour Counteez.” 2 Cf. The Statutes of Liveries, 8 Edw. IV. , c. ii. 3 3 Edw. IV., c. v., 1463. Further regulations appear in the 22 Edw. IV., c. i. 4 1 Rich. III., c. ix. 5 “ The J ustices agreed that the statutes were sufficient, and if they were executed, the law would well have its course; but how could they be executed ? that was the question” (Year Book, 1 Hen. VH., fol. 1). 6 “ That,” says Lord Bacon, “ which was chiefly aimed at was force, and the two great supports of force, combinations of multitudes and maintenance of headships of great families ” (History of Henry VII., p. 38). THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 363 the enlargement of its power in the reign of Henry VII., might have been as prudent as the abolition of it in that of Charles 1 . 1 The local magistracy were thus strengthened and stimulated to put the laws in execu- tion, more especially those directed against that which was the main mischief of those times, offences of force and violence, and combinations or retainers of men for unlawful purposes . 2 The principal of these laws were, first, the statutes against liveries and retainers, and next, those relating to forcible entry. These statutes were enacted prior to Henry’s accession, and when Hume says, “ there scarcely passed any session duiing this leign with- out some statute against engaging retainers, and giving them badges or liveries, a practice by which they were in a manner enlisted under some great lord, and were kept in readi- ness to assist him in all wars, insurrections, riots, violences, and even in bearing evidence for him in courts of justice,” he apparently forgets that they were only in pursuance of older statutes passed in earlier reigns. The subject of liveries has already been noticed , 3 and its further examination will now be proceeded w T ith. XXI. The stat. 1 Eich. II., c. vii., recites 4 * —' “ Because that divers people of small revenue do make great retinue of people, giving to them hats (chaperons)' and other liver- ies, of one suit by year, taking of them the value, or the double value of the same livery, by such covenant and assurance that every of them shall maintain other in all quarrels , 6 * be they reasonable or unreasonable.” It confirms the statutes against maintenance, forbids under pain of imprisonment the giving of liveries for the maintenance of quarrels or other confederacies, and directs the justices of assize “ to diligently enquire of all them that gather them together in fraternities (enfraternitez) by such livery, to do maintenance; and that they which thereof shall be found guilty, shall be duly punished, every man after the quantity of his deseit. In 1392-93 it was further enacted 8 that “no yeoman (yoman) nor other of lower estate than an Esquire , 9 from henceforth shall use nor bear no livery called livery of company 1 Hume remarks that the state of the country required great discretionary power in the sover- eign, and that the same maxims of government will not suit a rude people that may be proper in a more advanced stage of society (History of England, vol. iii., p. 388. See also Sir J. Mackintosh, History of England, 1830, vol. ii., chap, iii.) 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iii., p. 124. s Ante, p. 345. 41377 6 Chaperon, a hood, hat, a kind of head-dress; signe, badge; valletz, the next condition to an esquire; valles or vallez, valets; varies, servants; varlet, yeomen (R. Kelham, A Dictionary of the Norman or Old French Language, 1779). 6 “ Que chescun de eux Mayntendra autre en toutz querelles.” i i n all cases where quotations are given from statutes originally drawn up in French or Latin, I follow the wording of the authorized translation. The editors of the Statutes of the Realm, 1810, made numerous transcripts and collations of all instruments affording materials for notes and read- ings. “ The transcript which appeared to be made from the most authentic source was used as the copy of the text to be printed. All the other transcripts and collations of the same instrument, as also the printed editions, were then compared and collated with this copy, and the requisite various readings noted accordingly ” (Introduction, p. xl.) 8 16 Rich. H. , c. iv. 9 Sir Thomas Smith distinguishes the English below the rank of esquire into gentlemen, yeomen, and rascals (Commonwealth of England, 1635, chap. xxi.). He also uses the word rascality in the same sense. 3^4 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. {livere de compaignie), of any lord within the realm, if he he not continually dwelling ?.n the house of the said lord.” Tiie earliest of this series, the statute of “Liveries of Hats” (1377), was confirmed in 1396, chapter ii. of the Confirmatory Act, 1 ordering — “Item, that no varlets called yeo- men ( vadletz appellez yomen ), nor none other of less estate than Esquire, shall use or bear no badge or livery, 2 called livery of company of any Lord within the realm, unless he be menial or continual officer of his said Lord.” In the first year of King Henry IV., 3 lords of whatever estate or condition were forbid- den to “use nor give any livery of Sign of Company ( Signe de Compaigne), to no Knight, Esquire, nor Yeoman, 4 * within the Realm, and that no valet called yeoman ( vadlet appelle yoman ) take nor wear any livery of the King.” In the following year this statute was confirmed, 6 and certain privileges were conceded to knights, esquires, and all above those ranks; and the Prince of Wales was permitted to “give his honorable livery of the Swan 6 to lords and his menial gentlemen.” In 1405-6 the statutes of 1377 (Livery of Hats) and 1399 were confirmed, 7 and a fine of £5 imposed upon any knight or person of less estate, “who gives a livery of Cloth or Hats,” and of 40s. upon the recipient. It also forbids congregations and companies from using any such liveries, “ the guilds and fraternities, and also the people of mysteries {gentz de mestere), of cities and boroughs within the realm ” alone excepted. Liveries are once again mentioned in this reign, namely, in 1411, 8 when the statutes passed respectively in the first and seventh years of this King and in the first of Richard II. are confirmed. All the statutes in force are recited in a very long enactment, passed early in the reign of Henry VI.; 9 further powers are given to the justices of assize and of the peace; and persons are prohibited from wearing, even at their own cost, liveries for maintenance of quarrels. In 1468 10 * * the existing statutes were once more confirmed, and every person restrained from giving livery or badge ( livere ou signe) to other than his menial servant, officer, or man learned in the one law or the other; and the mayors, sheriff's, bailiffs, or chief officers, who in particular cities, boroughs, towns, or ports, have authority “ to hear and determine pleas personal, are empowered to hear and determine, as well by examination 11 as by trial, all things done,” and to put the ordinance in execution. By a subsequent Act of this reign, 13 Edward, Prince of Wales, was empowered to give his livery and sign. 13 1 20 Rich. II., c. i., ii. 2 Signe ne liveree. In earlier translations, Sign of livery. 3 1 Hen. IV., c. vii. (1399). 4 Chivaler, Esquier, ne Vallet. “ Borel, in his ‘Glossary,’ says that the word valet, or knave, follows the king and queen in a pack of cards ” (Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Stat- utes, p. 344). 6 2 Hen. IV., c. xxi. (1400). 6 Liveree del Cigne: in earlier translations, “Liveries or sign.” 9 7 Hen. IV., c. xiv. 8 13 Hen. IV., c. iii. 9 Hen. VI., c. iv. (1429). 10 8 Edw. IV., c. ii. n Compare the observations of Kloss on the statutes of 1427 and 1444-5 (XVII., and XX.). 12 12 Edw. IV., c. iv. (1472). 13 The translations vary. In the Norman-French, the phrase, with slight aberrations of spelling (in the present instance, livereis et signez), is always “ livere” or “liveree” and “signe,” but the word signe in the earlier editions of the statutes is more correctly rendered as badge. 365 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. XXII. The preamble of the act of parliament, by which Henry VII. enlarged the power of the Star Chamber, is remarkable, and presents a clear picture of the condition of the nation at that period. “The king, our sovereign lord, remembereth how by unlawful maintenances, giving of liveries, signs and tokens, retainers by indentures, promises, oaths, writings, and other embraceries of his subjects, untrue demeanings of sheriffs in making panels, and untrue returns by taking money by juries, by great riots and unlawful as- semblies, the policy and good rule of this realm is almost subdued. It will be seen that Henry, so early as the third year of his reign, fully recognized the comparatively anarchy of his kingdom. His great object was to enforce the existing laws, and put down all power of resistance to the royal authority. This object was steadily pursued throughout the reign. 2 A story of the king’s severity is related by Hume, which seems to merit praise, tlioug 1 commonly cited as an instance of his avarice and rapacity. The Earl of Oxford, having splendidly entertained him at his castle of Henningham, with all his servants and retainers wearing liveries and badges, Henry thanked him for his good cheer, but said, “I cannot allow my laws to be broken in my sight, my attorney must speak with you.” 3 IIis regard for the laws tended, in this instance — to what Blackstone holds to have been the great and immediate object of all his regulations— namely, to the emolument of the exchequer, as it is said the Earl paid a composition of 15,000 marks for his offence. XXIII. I now pass on to the statute enacted in the eleventh year of the king (1495), a veritable capitulary, consisting of sixty-five chapters or laws, ranging through sixty-eight folio pages of the “ Statutes of the Realm,” and in which we obtain a foretaste of the appetite for legislation which our ancestors gradually acquired with increasing free- dom The chapter I shall first notice is Xo. iii. 4 in the series of 1495. It deals with the evils complained of in the preamble of the law of 1487, and speaks of “ gevying and receyv- yng of lyverees, signees, and tokyns, unlaufully.” The preamble of the statute of 1487 (XXII.) appears to have escaped the research of masonic historians, but upon identical phraseology, which occurs in the subsequent legisla- tion of 1495, a very singular interpretation has been placed. The signs and tokens have been regarded as signs of recognition, and grips of salutation! Even Kloss falls into this error, though, as he himself does not fail to perceive, these essential features of a secret society “ must in such case have been usual with many trades.” He might, indeed, have gone even further, for it is quite clear that the p-sons who received the liveries, signs, and tokens, mentioned in the statute, were people of all classes, even the lowest; consequently, therefore, if these expressions were capable of the meaning ascribed to them, secret modes of recognition, by operation of gesture and hand-shaking, must have been common through- out England in the Middle Ages. Our English masonic writers, except of late years,, when they have been content to follow the German school, even in the interpretation of tlieir own history, much as they have erred, never got quite so far as this. In the pursuit of Masonic antiquity, possibility rather than probability was their watch- 13 Hen. VH. , c. i. (1487). 2 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. m., 3 Hume, History of England, vol. iii., p. 390. 4 11 Hen. VII., c. iii.: “ An Acte agaynst unlawfull Assemblyes and p. 124. other offences contrary to former Statutes.” 366 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. word; jot there is such a thing as proving too much, and in the present instance the identity of the signs and tokens of the Freemasons, with the signs and tokens which it was the object of these early statutes to repress, instead of confirming the Masonic body in the position of superiority it has arrogated to itself, would necessarily drag it down to the level of the meanest persons by whom these modes of recognition were commonly possessed. In his “History of Freemasonry,” — wherein Findel maybe said to have popularized Kloss, although he has lessened the authority of that eminent writer, by intermingling his remarks with those of less critical historians 1 — the author says, “as in the case of the Gorman stonemasons, so did the English masons at an early period form fraternities or as- sociations, the members of which recognized each other by secret signs and tokens. In 1495, all artisans and workmen were again forbidden to use liveries, signs, and tokens .” 2 Of the Tudor policy against liveries, retainers, etc., it has been observed by a learned writer, nothing indicated more clearly that the elements of society were about to be thrown into new combinations, than the perseverance with which previous statutes against giving liveries and tokens were enforced, and with which their deficiencies were made good by new enactments. All the considerable landholders still regarded themselves as chief- tains. All their inferiors in their neighborhood were their retainers, to whom they gave liveries and tokens, and who, in other words, wore their uniform, and rallied to their standard. A common gift from chief to retainer seems to have been a badge \_sign] to be worn in the cap. Thus one of the Stanleys was in the habit of giving to his followers ‘ the eagle s foot,’ and one of the Darcies ‘ the buck’s head.’ These tokens were sometimes of silver and sometimes gilt, and were, no doubt, highly prized by those who received them.” 2 The badge, cognizance, or sign of company, as it was variously termed, served as a recognition and distinction of party, of feudal allegiance and dependency, to both friends and foes. It was worn on the arm or cap. The signs and tokens mentioned in the statute (XXIII.) were badges 1 and cognizances; badges were the master’s device, crest, or arms, on a separate piece of cloth or, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, on silver, — in the form of a shield worn on the left sleeve by domestics and retainers, and even by younger brothers, who wore the badge of the elder. This was generally continued till the time of James I., after which it was only worn by watermen and servants of persons of distinction . 6 The royal watermen still wear it. “ Cognizances ” were sometimes knots or devices worn in ] Of this a good illustration is afforded by the proceedings of the “ Batt Parliament,” which Fin- del, in all good faith, copies from Preston. The latter says : “ On the last day of April 1425 the Par- liament met at Westminster. The servants and followers of the Peers, armed with clubs and staves, occasioned its being named the Batt Parliament. Several laws were made, and amongst the rest the Act for abolishing the Society of Masons; at least, for preventing their assemblies and congrega- tions ” (Illustrations of Masonry, 1792, p. 191). It will be sufficient to observe that the so-called “ Parliament of Batts” was held at Leicester on February 18th, 1426, and the statute there enacted was the fourth, not the third, of Henry VI. (XVI.). 2 Findel, History of Freemasonry, pp. 78, 80. “ In the year 1495, a statute was enacted by par- liament, forbidding artisans of every description the use of ‘ signs and tokens ’ ” (Fort, The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, p. 130). 3 L. O. Pike History of Crime in England, vol. i., p. 7; vol. ii., p. 604 (citing the Baga de Secretis, pouch iii. , bundle i. ; and the controlment-roll of the 15 Hen. VII.). 4 Chapter xiv. of the same statute mentions “ livere, bagge [badge], token or signe” (Statutes of the Realm, vol. ii., 1816, p. 658). 6 John Rae, Introduction to the Statutes of Henry VII., pp. vii.-ix. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 36 7 the caps or on the chest; some of the royal servants wore the king’s arms both on the breast and on the back. “ Reteyndres ” appear to have been the agreements, verbal or written, by which the retainers, sometimes called “ Retinue,” were engaged or retained. 1 XXIV. We now approach what is virtually the last in the long series of enactments 2 * 4 * 6 regulating with extreme precision the wages of laborers and artificers, which present any features of originality, before the successive laws on this subject were codified by the 5th Elizabeth, c. iv. The wages of artificers were again fixed, — a free mason/ master carpenter, and rough mason were to take per day 4d. with diet, and 6d. without, between Easter and Michaelmas, and during the rest of the year 3d. and 5d. respectively. Master masons and master car- penters, taking charge of work and having under them six men, uere to receive 5d. with diet, and 7d. without. The penalty for taking more was 20s. ; and for giving more, 40s. During the summer half-year, each workman and laborer was to be at work before 5 A. m., to have half an hour for his breakfast, an hour and a half for his dinner, at such time as sleeping was permitted him; but at other times, then but one hour for his dinner, and half an hour for his “ none meat ” (XI.). Bricklayers and glaziers are mentioned for the first time. From the words, that “ if any of theym offend e in any of theis articles, that then their defautes be marked by hym, or his deputie, that shall pay their wages. Ivloss infeis that we have here officials corresponding with our present foremen and wardens. It may be so; but whether or not any complete analogy can be established between the two sets of persons, the observation is so illustrative of the commentator s microscopic examination of these, now, happily, obsolete laws, that I have much pleasure in quoting it. XXV. In the nineteenth year of the king, on the petition of the commons, that the stat. 15 Henry VI., c. vi. (XIX.), had expired, it was ordained that masters, wardens, and fellowships of crafts or mysteries, and the rulers of guilds and fraternities, should make or enforce no new ordinances without the approval of the chancellor, a chief justice, three judges of the land, or before both the justices of assize in their circuit. At this point it will be convenient to cast a backward glance upon the two chief statutes aimed at the working masons, viz., the laws of 1360 and 1425 (III., XVI.), and the later 1 2 11 Hen. VII., pp. c. xxii. (1495). 3 The word freemason occurs here for the first time in the actual statutes, although, as we have seen (XX.), the term was evidently signified by frank mason in the act of 1444-5. 4 This form of words also occurs in a statute of the next reign (XXVI.), virtually re-enacting the regulations passed in 1495. 6 The 11 Hen. VII., c. xxii., “touching onely the wagis of artificers, labourers, and others,” was repealed in 1497 by the 12 Hen. VH., c. iii., according to Sir F. Eden, owing to the high price of corn (State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 76); but Sir G. Nicolls says, “ Wolsey’s influence was now in the ascendant: he was a great patronizer of building and builders, and probably interested himself to procure the repeal” (A History of the English Poor Law, 1854, vol. i., p. 111). 6 The merchant tailors’ records mention that company’s ordinances to have been laid before the Lord Chancellor on the 23d of January 1612; and that that their clerk informed the Court that it was the advice of the city recorder “ he should be presented with some remembrance ol thebettei finish- ing of that business.” The Court it is added, agreed thereon “ to attend the recorder to intreat him to move his lordship in their suit, and at the same time to present, him with ten double suflerants (sovereigns) in gold” (Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i., p. 188.) 368 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. Act of 1437 (XIX). Throughout these there is one common feature — the desire of the legislature to curb the increasing independence of the craft guilds, and to restrain them from passing articles or regulations for their internal government, which were at variance with the course of policy steadily pursued from the reign of Edward III. down to that of Queen Elizabeth. A further manifestation of the general intention of the legislature appears m a statute of 1549 (XXXI.), upon which, in its proper place, I shall offer some remarks, supplementary to those in which I have just pointed out the especial thread of union connecting the legislation of 1360, 1425, and 1437. It may be convenient, however, at this stage of our inquiry, to consider a little more closely the class, or classes, of persons whose earnings and liberty of action were chiefly af- fected by the provisions of the long series of laws known as the Statutes of Laborers. I conceive that these enactments — though all launched in the furtherance of a common object, the repression of extortion — partook, nevertheless, of a mixed character. In general, I assume them to have been dictated by the wants of the country districts, whilst those specially referring to practices — the making of ordinances, the holding of conventicles, and the like— only possible m towns, or in places where many workmen were assembled, must, I think, have been evoked, either by a persistence in these forbidden customs, or by com- plaints that country artificers, fugitives from their counties, were harbored in the cities, and there admitted to the freedom of their trades. Even in London, where the rules respecting the freedom of the city were very rigid, workmen and laborers, who in 1353 had left the king’s palace at Westminster without leave! were allowed to follow their occupations, and this license was only withdrawn in' obedience to a peremptory mandate of the king. 1 In other cities and towns, we may infer that fugi- tives were similarly received; and it is therefore in the highest degree probable that, wherever a statutory obligation is cast upon the mayors or -chief governors of towns to see the laws relating to laborers duly executed— except in the few instances to which I have already called attention '—these officials were only required to supplement the duties of the justices in counties , by promptly arresting fugitives, and delivering them up for punishment. In the words of a famed historian, “ If there were really a decay of commerce, and in- dustry, and populousness in England, the statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII., except by abolishing monasteries and retrenching holidays, circumstances of considerable moment, were not in other respects well calculated to remedy the evil.” 3 The fixing of the rate ol> wages was attempted; 4 luxury in apparel was prohibited by repeated statutes; 5 and probably without effect. The chancellor and other ministers were empowered to fix the prices of poultry, cheese, and butter. 6 A statute was even passed to fix the price of beef, pork, mutton, and veal. 7 Beef and pork were ordered to be sold at a halfpenny a pound, mutton and veal at a halfpenny half a farthing, money of that age. 8 XX\ I. The first law of this reign with which we are concerned was passed in 1514,® and is a re-enactment verbatim of the Act of 1495 (XXIII.), which we have seen was only m force one year; miners, diggers for coal, and makers of glass, alone were exempted from its provisions. 1 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 271. 3 Hume, History of England, vol. iv., p. 243. . 0 — xV. , p. 243. Where the act forbids combinations, conventicles, and the making of ordinances. 4 6 Hen. VHI., c. iii. 6 25 Hen. VHL, c. ii. 9 6 Hen. VIII., c. iii. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 369 Sir George Nicholls says, “ Tlie twenty years which had since elapsed seem to have called for no change in the rate of wages then fixed, and which differed little from those prescribed in 1444 by the 23 Henry VI. (XX.); so that, after an interval of seventy years, we find no material difference in the rates of remuneration prescribed for labor.” 1 XXVII. In the following year, however, “ on the humble petycyon of the freemasons, rough masons, carpenters,” and other artificers “ wythin the Cytie of London,” and in consideration of the heavy expenses to which they were subject, it was enacted that, except when employed on the king’s works, the artificers, laborers, and their apprentices, working within the city or the liberty of the same might take the same wages which they had been in the habit of doing prior to the statute of 1514. By the last clause of this Act, the penalty imposed upon the giver of excessive wages by the previous law was repealed. 2 Although the remaining laws enacted in this reign, relating to journeymen, apprentices, and artificers, were rather calculated for particular trades and employments, under par- ticular circumstances, some few were of more general import, and therefore demand our attention. XXVIII. The exaction of high fees for the admission of apprentices to their freedom was guarded against. 3 No master was to compel his apprentice to engage by oath or bond not to open a shop; and in this as well as in the previous statute (XXVII. ), the practice of guilds, crafts, and fraternities in making “ actes and ordynannces,” without submitting them for confirmation, is denounced and forbidden. 4 The laws just cited prove that the custom of travelling, or as Dr. Kloss expresses it, “ the wandering years of the finished apprentice,” was not usual in this country, yet we should go too far were we to assume, from the absence of this distinctive feature in the career of the young craftsmen, that with ceremonies at all resembling those of the French and German journeymen, he must have been necessarily unfamiliar. Journeymen fra- ternities sprang up in England, as in other countries, and though the evidence is not con- clusive as to the perpetuation of these societies, the balance of probability seems to affirm it. Dugdale, in his account of Coventry, observes that, in the reign of Henry V., “the young people, viz., journeymen of several trades, — observing what merry meetings and feasts their masters had by belonging to fraternities, and wanting themselves the like pleasure, did of their own accord assemble together in several places of the city, which oc- casioned the mayor and his brethren in 3 Hen. VI. (XVI.) to complain thereof to the king, alleging that the said journeymen, in these their unlawful meetings, called themselves St. George his gild, to the intent that they might maintain and abet one another in quarrels, etc.; had made clioyce of a master, etc., to the prejudice of the other gilds.” b In London these organizations met with little favor from the authorities, and when, in 1387, three journeymen cordwainers endeavored to establish a fraternity, they were com- mitted to Newgate, having confessed “that a certain friar preacher, 4 Brother William Bartone ’ by name, had made an agreement with their companions, and had given security 1 A History of the English Poor Law, 1854, vol. i. p. 110. 2 7 Hen. VET., c. v. 3 22 Hen. VIII., c. iv. (1530-31). 4 28 Hen. VIII., c. v. “ As to apprentices, there were a score of acts, beginning with one in the last reign, either compelling masters to take apprentices, or restricting them to a certain number” (Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iv., p. 260, note d). s Antiquities of Warwickshire, 1675, p. 130. 24 370 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. to them, that he would make suit in the court of Rome for confirmation of that fraternity by the Pope; so that, on pain of excommunication, and of still more grievous sentence afterwards to be fulminated, no man should dare to interfere with the well-being of the fraternity. For doing the which he had received a certain sum of money which had been collected among their said companions.” 1 In 1396, the serving men or yomen of the trade of saddlers were charged by the masters with having “ under a certain feigned color of sanctity,” influenced the journeymen among them, and formed covins with the object of raising their wages greatly in excess. Although this fraternity possessed its own livery and had existed for thirteen years, it was suppressed. 2 The same fate befell, in 1415, the brotherhood of yomen taillours, charged with holding assemblies and conventicles (XVI.), and who were forbidden “ to live together in companies by themselves,” or to wear an especial suit or livery without the permission of the masters and wardens of the trade. 3 Two years later, however, the brotherhood was still in existence, as they then petitioned the city authorities that the “ fellows of that fraternity of yomen ” might be allowed to hold annual religious services for the souls of the brethren and sisters deceased, and ‘ ‘ to do other things which theretofore they had been wont to do.” The entry in the records here abruptly ceases, so that the result of this petition does not appear, but it is probable that it was refused. 4 In deciding the question whether there existed special organizations of the journeymen within the crafts, an ordinance of the clothworkers* company is worthy of our consider tion: 6 “ The master, wardens, and assistants shall choose the warden of the yeomandry, they shall governe the yeomandry and journymen in such sort as in former times hath been used.” Commenting upon this ordinance, Brentano observes: “ Were these wardens of the yeomanry the same as the masters who, as in the German gilds, were delegated to the fra- ternities of journeymen? And may we therefrom form a conclusion as to the existence of fraternities of like nature in England? The ceremonies which were customary among the trade unions in the woollen manufacture down to the thirtieth year of the present century, show such a striking similarity to those of the German fraternities of journeymen, that the supposition suggests itself of a derivation of those trade unions from the old journeymen fraternities.” 6 As militating, however, against this hypothesis, it is contended that in England the 1 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 495. In 1412 Simon Flegge, notary, and his two clerks, for hav- ing “ counterfeited divers Bulls, sealed with lead, like unto the seal of the most reverend father in Christ, and Lord, our Lord the Pope ; and divers other letters sealed with the seals of other noble persons ; and who had sold the same to divers persons for no small sum, affirming that the said let- ters and seals were genuine ; ” were sentenced by the civic authorities “ to be put upon the pillory on three market days, there to stand for one hour each day, each of them having in the meantime one of the Papal Bulls so falsely made and counterfeited hung about his neck” (Ibid., p. 583). From these entries in the city records we may infer that there must have been a strong demand for Papal seals and letters, and they suggest a very simple solution of the crux which has hitherto baffled the historians of Freemasonry. See ante, pp. 176, 258, 297. 2 Ibid.. p. 542. Mr. Riley says, that the title yoman first appears in the city books about this period. See the Statutes of Liveries (XXI.); and ante, p. 343, note 2. 3 Riley, Memorials of London, p. 609. 4 Ibid., p. 653. 5 The Government of the Fullers, Shearmen, and Clothworkers of London (circa, a.d. 1660 [re- printed 1881], Ord. xix., p. 20). 6 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 95. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 37i ju^rneymen were never obliged by the guild ordinances to travel for a certain number of years, whilst in Germany and France all journeymen’s associations owed their origin to this system of travelling. But in the first place there is some evidence that the practice of travelling in search of work was, to say the least, not unknown in England (IX.). In 1794 there was a club among the woolcombers, and out of a hundred workmen there was not one to be found who did not belong to it. Every member had to pay contributions according to the wants of the society, and its object was to assist journeymen travelling in search of work when work was scarce, and to relieve the sick and to bury the dead members. 1 “ It will be seen,” says Brentano, “ that the objects of this club were the same as those of the German Gesellenladen and the French compagnons. If we add to this that the just quoted records of ceremonies among trade unions refer to woolcombers also, the suggestion already made seems greatly corroborated; and the fact that the modern trade unions call the assistance given to members out of work simply donation, the translation of the Geschenlc of the German journeymen’s fraternities, seems also worth noticing.” 2 Secondly, the term of apprenticeship extended over a longer period in England than in either France or Germany, and in point of duration corresponded pretty closely with the stages or gradations through which the foreign craftsman worked his way towards the common goal. Thus the English workman found his preliminary servitude in no respect abridged by the absence of any trade regulation compelling him to travel, and whilst, as we have seen (XIX., XXVIII.), the number of masters was rigorously kept down, and the obstacles to attaining freedom of the trade at least as great in the case of English as of foreign artisans, 3 the former, from the very circumstances of their position, that is to say, by the mere fact of a more extended probation, would be induced to form local fraternities for social and trade purposes. That they did so, is matter of history, and Stow records the rising of the London apprentices because some of their brotherhood had been unjustly, as they averred, cast into prison and punished. 4 During this reign so great was the number of foreign artisans in the city, that at least fifteen thousand Flemings alone were at one time obliged to leave it, by an order of Council. 5 Whatever trade societies or fraternities were in general use on the Continent, I apprehend, must have passed over to this country about the period of the Reformation. It might be imagined, that the foreign artificers who settled in England were least affected by the usages of the trades, and preserved greater freedom of action between the period following the abolition of guilds, and preceding the enactment of the stat. 4 Eliz., c. v. Inasmuch, as with the exception of the London companies, who purchased exemption from the statutes ’ Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xlix., pp. 322-324; Brentano, On the History and De- velopment of Gilds, p. 96 note 1. 2 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 99. Brentano adds: “There is, how- ever, one difference to be noted. The said woolcombers travelled only when work was scarce, while the ‘ wandering ’ of the German, and the Tour de France of the French journeyman, were obliga- tory.’' From this, as well as the date, he regards the woolcombers’ club as a trade union, for assist- ing men thrown out of work by the gig-mill, “ but which may perhaps have descended from an old journeymen’s fraternity.’’ 3 Brentano says: “ The laws under Henry VIII. point to such great difficulties hindering appren- tices in all trades from becoming masters, that their exasperation led to repeated insurrections ” (On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 86). 4 Strype’s Stow, 1720, pp. 332, 333. 6 Hume, History of England, vol. iv. , p. 241. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 372 of spoliation, 1 and, moreover, were at all times specially legislated for (XXXII.), the ordi- nances of the craft-guilds — invariably directed against the competition of non-freemen — were inoperative. Yet such was not the case, and even in London, where the jealousy of foreign workmen was at its height, we find that, owing, no doubt, to their surpassing the English in dexterity, industry, and frugality, they were not only tolerated, but, in spite of vexatious laws, 2 attained such a pitch of. prosperity as to incur the most violent animosity of their English rivals. There were serious insurrections in 1517 and 1586, and in 1641 the feeling of exasperation which had been engendered gave rise to a petition to parliament from the London apprentices, complaining of the intolerable hardships to which they were subject, “ where we, by coercion, are necessarily compelled to serve seven or eight years at least before we can have the immunity and freedom of this city to trade in: those which are mere strangers do snatch this freedom from us, and pull the trades out of our hands, so that by these means, when our times are fully expired, we do then begin in a manner to suffer a second apprenticeship to them, who do thus domineer over us in our own trades.” 3 A remarkable circumstance of the statutes of Henry VIII. is the prodigious length to which they run. “ The sense,” says Mr. Reeves, “ involved in repetitions, is pursued with pain, and almost escapes the reader; while he is retarded and made giddy by a continual recurrence of the same form of words in the same endless period.” 1 Happily, we are but slightly concerned with the further legislation of this reign, which, though of surpassing interest to the general student, bears only indirectly upon the subject of our investigation. XXIX. The “ small abbeys, priories, and other religious houses of monks, canons, and nuns” were suppressed in 1536; and three years afterwards the dissolution of the larger abbeys and monasteries was decreed by the 31 Hen. VIII., c. xiii. , which, as Barrington expresses it, “ laid the axe to the root of popery.” 5 The preamble of this statute recites a voluntary and free surrender by the ecclesiastical houses, and the enactment is in conse- quence added by the same commentator, “ without hesitation, to the list of statutes which recite falsehoods.” 6 It is calculated that about fifty thousand persons were wont to lead an idle and useless life in the English monastic institutions, and that by the dissolution of these establish- ments, and the abrogation of clerical celibacy together, about a hundred and fifty thousand persons of both sexes heretofore withdrawn from marriage, were added to tne force by which the population is kept up. 7 1 Herbert, Companies of London, vol. i., p. 114. 2 For instance, by the 14 and 15 Hen. VIII., c. ii. , no stranger born out of the king’s obedience, whether denizen or not, and using any handicraft, was to have any apprentice, nor more than two journeymen unless natural-born subjects, whilst strangers and their wares were to be subject to the inspection of the wardens and fellowships of handicrafts in the city. Further restrictions were im- posed by the 21 Lien. VIII., c. xvi., and 22 Hen. VIII., c. xvi. 15 The Apprentices of London’s Petition to the Honourable Court of Parliament, 1641, British Museum Library; Strype’s Stow, p. 333; Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 86; Hume, History of England, vol. iv., p. 240. 4 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iv., p. 428. 6 Barrington, Observations on the More Ancient Statutes, p. 507. 6 Ibid. Barrington here goes a little further than Mr. Pike, who says: “ The Preambles of stat- utes, however valuable they may be as an indication of contemporai’y opinion, are of little authority as abstracts of previous history” (Pike, Histoi’y of Crime in England, vol. ii., p. 68). ’’Nicholls, History of English Poor Law, vol. i., page 129. THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 373 XXX. The last remains of superstitious establishments were destroyed by the first statute of the following reign. The 1 Edw. VI., c. xiv., gave to the king all chantries, colleges, and free chapels, all lands given for the finding of a priest for ever, or for the maintenance of any anniversary, obit, light or lamp in any church or chapel, or the like; all fraternities, brotherhoods, and guilds (except those for mysteries and crafts), with all their lands and possessions. 1 In support of the position, that the working class in England, as in Germany and France, was completely organized, and even to a certain extent governed itself under the superintendence of the masters, the following statute of this reign, passed in 1548, has been much relied on: XXXI. 2 and 3 Edward VI., Chapter XV., a.d. 1548. An Acte towchinge Victuallers and Handycraftes men. FORASMTJ CITE as of late dayes diverse sellers or vittayles, not contented withe mod- erate and reasonable gayne but myndinge to have and to take for their vittayles so muche as lyste them, have conspyred and coven a nted together to sell their vittells at unreasonable price; and lykwise Artyficers handy craftsmen and laborers have made confederacy es and pmyses [promises], and have sworn mutuall othes, not onlye that they shoulde not meddle one withe an others worke, and pforme [perform] and fynishe that an other hathe begone, but also to constitute and appoynt howe muche worke they Shoulde doe in a daye, and what howers and tymes they shall worke, contrarie to the Lawcs and Statutes of this Heal me, to the greate hurte and ympoverishement of the Kinges Majesties Subjectes. 1. For Reformacon thereof it is ordeyned and enacted by the Kinge our Soveraigne Lorde the Lords & Comons in this present Parliament assembled, and by thauctoritie of the same, that yf any Bochers, Bruers, Bakers, Boulters, Cooks, Costerdmongers, or Frew- terers shall at any tyme from and after the first daye of Marche next comynge, conspire cov- en a nte promyse or make any othes that they shall not sell their vittelles but at certen prices; or yf any Artificers Workemen or Laborers doe conspire coven a nte or promyse together or make any othes that they shall not make or doe their workes but at a certeyne price and rate, or shall not enterprice or take upon them to fynishe that another hathe begonne, or shall doe but a certen worke in a daye, or shall not worke but at certen howers and tymes, that then everie person so conspiring coven a nting swearinge or offendinge beinge laufullye convicte thereof by witnes confession or otherwise, shall forfeyte for the first offence tenne pounds to the King’s Highness, and yf he have sufficient to pave the same and doe also paye the same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall suffer for the firste offence twentie dayes ymprisonment, and shall onely have bread and water for his sustenance; and for the seconde offence shall forfeyt twentie poundes to the Kinge, yf he have sufficient to paye the same and doe pay the same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall suffer for the seconde offence punyshement of the pillorye; and for the third offence shall forfeyt fourtye pounds to the Kinge, yf he have sufficient to paye the same and also doe 1 “ There are several exceptions in this act which have saved some of the least objectionable of these institutions (stripped, however, of their superstitions), and such as were only included in the expressions of the act, but not in its design, as the universities and colleges for learning and piety” (Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iv., p. 456). 374 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. paye tlxe same within sixe dayes next after his conviccion, or ells shall sytt on the pillory e and lose one of his eaves, and also shall at all tymes after that bo taken as a man infamous and his sayinges, deposicons or othe, not to be credyted at anye tyme in any matters of judgement. And yf it fortune anv suche conspiracye covenante or promyse to be had and made by any socyetie brotherhed or companye, of any crafte mysterie or occupacion of the vyttellers above menconed, withe the presence or consent of the more parte of them, that then ymediatly upon suche acte of conspiracy covenante or promise had or made, over and besides the particuler punyshment before by this acte appoynted for the offendor, their corporacion shalbe dissolved to all intents construccions and purposes. 2. And it is further ordeyned and enacted by the authoritie aforesaide, that all and singuler Justices of Assise Justices of Peace Maiors Bayllies and Stewards of Leefcs 1 at all and everye their Sessions Leets and Courts, shall have full power and auctoritie to enquyre lieare and determyne all and singuler offences comytted againste this Statute, and to punyshe or cause to be punyshed the offendor accordinge to the tenor of this Estatute. 3. And it is ordeyned and enacted by thauctorite aforesaid, that no pson or psons shall at anye tyme after the firste daye of April! next comynge, interrupte denye lett or disturb any Fremason roughmason carpenter bricklayer playsterer joyner hardhewer sawyer tyler pavyer glasyer lymeburner brickmaker tylemaker plumber or laborer, borne in this Realme or made Denizon, to worke in anye of the saide Crafts in anye cittie Boroughe or Towne corporate withe anye pson or psons that will retain him or them; albeit the sayde pson and psons so reteyned or any of them doe not inhabyte or dwell in the Cittie Boroughe or Towne corporate where he or they shall worke, nor be free of the same Cittie Boroughe or Towne; any Statute, Lawe, Ordeynaunce, or other thinge whatsoever, had or made to the contrarie in any wise notwithstandinge; and that uppon payne of forfeyture of fyve pounde for everie interrupcion or disturbaunce done contrarie to this estatute, the one movtie of everye sucho forfeyture to be to the Kinge, and thother moytie tlierof to be to him or them that will sue for the same in anye of the Kings Courts of Record e by bill pleint accion of dett of informacion wherin noe wager of lawe essoyne nor protection shalbe allowed. This enactment forms the last link in the chain of statutes relating to combinations 2 * * 5 and confederacies to enhance the wages of labor, which it is my purpose to review (III., XVI., XIX., XXV.). In the opinion of Sir George Nicholls, the restrictions which the legislature endeavored to put down “ were imposed on workmen by the 1 At the Leet, or Law-day, by-laws for self-governance were made by the inhabitants of a city, or the tenants of a manor. Every male, of fit age, was bound to attend, and was liable to be fined if absent (Smith, English Gilds, pp. 370, 411, 439). In the practice of the assembly, or head meeting- day, of the gilds frequently corresponding with the Leet, or Law-day, may perhaps be found an ex- planation of those expressions in the Halliwell poem upon which the theory of Dr. Kloss has been enacted. This supposition is strengthened to some extent by the omission of any reference to the “Justices” in that ancient manuscript (XII., XVII.) 5 See F. D. Long'e, Sketch of the History of Legislation in England relating- to Combinations of Workmen (Reprinted in the Report on Trades Societies and Strikes, presented to the Association for the Promotion of National Science, 1860). 3*75 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. artisans themselves, prescribing who should and who should not work, the quantity of work which each man should perform, and the particular times he should be employed.” 1 2 3 A contrary interpretation is, however, placed on the act by Bren- tano, who contends that as all regulations forbidden in the statute recur frequently in the by-laws of companies, they originated quite as much in agreements of masters as of workmen. “ Moreover,” he continues, “ whilst the word * laborer ’ certainly does not refer to the skilled workmen of the crafts, and probably to servants in husbandry only, the prohibition of confederacies of artificers and handicraftsmen is directed as much against the masters as against the workmen of the crafts. And the act foibids, in the same breath with the confederacies of the craftsmen in general, all conspiracies of £ divers sellers of victuals ’ for raising prices. The act, therefore, does not refer at all to combinations similar to those of our working men of the present day, but is simply an attempt to check the increasing abuses of the craft gilds, and this especially in the tiades pioviding for men’s daily wants, where such abuses would be felt most keenly. XXXII. The fourth clause of this statute (XXXI.) was repealed in the following year, on the ground that it bore with undue severity upon the artificers and craftsmen of the city of London, whence it has been erroneously concluded that the legislation of 1549 referred solely to the metropolis. ? The stat. 3 and 4 Edw. VI., c. xx. , first recites in full the pai- ticular section of the earlier enactment which it is intended to repeal, and continues. “ And Forasmuche as in the Cittie of London beinge the Kinges chambre and most auncyent Cittie of this Realme, the Artificers and Grafts men of the Artes crafts and mys- teries aforesaide are at greate costs and charges, as well in bearinge and payinge of iaxes tallages subsidyes Scott lott and other charges, as well to the Kings Majestie as to the saide Cittie, and at manye and sondrye tryumphes and other tymes for the Kings honor, and that yf forrens 4 * sholde come and worke amongst them within the libtyes of the said Cittie contrarye to their auncyent priveleges, that the same shoulde be a great decay of conynge, and an ympoverishment and drivinge awaye of the free men being Aitificcis of the Grafts artes and mysteries aforesaide within the saide Cittie of London, to the gieat hurte or de- structyon of the saide Cittie: For reformacion whereof the Kings Majestie ys pleased and contented that it be enacted by thauctoritye of this present parliament withe the assent of the Lords Spiritual! and temporal!, and of the Comons of this present parliament assembled, that the saide Acte, onely touchinge the article and clause aforesaide, and all and everie sentence and braunche conteyned in the saide Acte concernynge the same Article , 6 shall from 1 Nicholls, History of the English Poor Law, vol. i., p. 138. 2 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 94. Brentano further compares the act with its German counterpart, “The Imperial Code of Police of 1577,” title 37; and concludes, “that in any case the law of 1548 refers only to transitory combinations, and the existence of a regu- lar organization of the working class cannot be inferred from it” (Ibid.). 3 Kloss indeed remarks that it is not plainly declared whether the repeal concerned London alone, or the whole kingdom; but Findel states (and has been followed by Steinbrenner and Fort): “In 1548 all the building crafts were permitted to freely practice their art in all the kingdoms; but this license was again revoked in the following year, except so far as concerned the city of London (His- tory of Freemasonry, p. 80). 4 Foreign, forene, forynar— not belonging to the borough, city, or craft. 3 It is quite certain, from the wording of this statute, that the whole of clause iv. of the 2 and 3 Edw. VI,, c. xv., was repealed. 37 ^ THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS . henceforthe be resumed repealed adnulled revoked adnicbilated and utterlye made voyde for ever; Anye thinge conteyned in the saide former Acte towcliinge the Clawse or Article aforesaide to the contrarie notwithstandinge. ” A later chapter of the same statute requires every person who has three apprentices in the crafts of clotlimen, weavers, tailors, and shoemakers to keep one journeyman. 1 XXXIII. The Statutes of Laborers, which had been accumulating from the time of Edward III., but had been in general too oppressive to be executed, were codified by the 5 Eliz., c. iv., 2 and made applicable to all the trades then existing. It is, in fact, a selection from all the preceding enactments on the subject of labor; those provisions deemed useful being retained, others modified, and the rest repealed. 3 The persons affected by it may be divided into four classes— artificers, menial servants, laborers, and apprentices. The following is an abstract of its provisions: 3, 4. 4 No one shall be retained for less than year in certain trades ( Scyences , Craftes, Mysteries, or Artes)f and every person unmarried, and every married person under thirty years of age, brought up in the said trades, or having exercised them for three years, not having lands of clear 40s. per annum, nor goods to the value of £10, and so allowed by two justices, or the mayor or head officer of the peace where he last dwelt for a year; now being retained already in husbandry, or the above trades, nor in any other; nor in service of any nobleman gentleman or other; nor having a farm whereon to employ himself in tillage; such person shall serve in the trade he has been brought up in, if required. 5. Xo person shall put away such servant, nor shall the servant depart unless for reason- able cause to be allowed before two Justices, the Mayor, or other chief officer. 12, 13. Respecting artificers and laborers being hired for wages by the day or week, certain orders are made about their times of work and rest; and as to those “retained in and for the building or repairing of any church, house, ship, mill, or every other piece of work taken in great, in task, or in gross, or that shall hereafter take upon him to make or finish any such thing or work, shall continue, and not depart from the same, unless it be for not paying their wages,” or without licence of the master or owner of the work, or of the person having charge thereof, before finishing, under pain of a month’s imprison- ment, and forfeiture of £5. 15-19. As to the wages, whether of servants, laborers, or artificers, either working by the year, day, or otherwise, they are to be settled yearly at the Easter sessions, by the Jus- tices of the Peace, within the limits of their several commissions, “ the Sheriff of that county, if he conveniently may, and every Mayor, Bailiff, or other head officer within any city or town corporate, wherein is any Justice of the Peace” (XVII., XX.), to be certified on 1 3 and 4 Edw. VI., c. xxii. Although Dr. Kloss reads this enactment as applying to the building trades, it is not capable of such interpretation. 2 Frequently referred to as the “ Statute of Apprentices; ” explained and extended by the 39 Eliz., c. xii. ; 4 Eliz., c. ix. ; 1 James I., c. vi. ; and 21 James I., c. xxviii. Repealed by the 54 Geo. III., c. 96. s Nicholls, History of the English Poor Law, vol. i., p. 157. 4 These numbers correspond with those prefixed to the various clauses of the statute. 6 Clothiers, woollen-cloth weavers, tuckers, fullers, cloth -workers, sheremen, dyers, hosiers, tay- lors, shoemakers, tanners, pewterers, bakers, brewers, glovers, cutlers, smiths, farriers, curriers, sad- dlers, spurriers, turners, cappers, hat or felt makers, bowyers, fletchers, arrowhead-makers, butchers, cooks or millers, THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 3 77 parchment to the chancellor, and afterwards proclaimed on market-day, and fixed up in some open place. Persons giving more wages than allowed by the proclamation are to be imprisoned ten days; and those taking more, twenty-one days. 22. The Justices, and also the Constable, upon request, may compel such artificers and persons “ as be meet to labor,” to serve in harvest of hay or corn, in mowing and reaping; and if any refuse, he is to be put in the stocks for two days and one night. 26. Every householder, being twenty-four years of age, living in a city or town corporate, and exercising any art, mystery, or manual occupation, may have the son of any freeman, not occupying husbandry, nor being a laborer, and living in that or some other city or town corporate, as an apprentice, after the custom of London, for seven years at least, so as the term do not expire before the apprentice shall be of the age of twenty-four years. 27. Merchants not to take apprentices, except their own sons, and those whose parents possess an estate of freehold, of the annual value of 405. 28. In market towns not corporate, any householder of twenty-four years old, exercising any art, mystery, or manual occupation, may have as apprentice the child of any other artificer, dwelling in any market town in the same shire. 30. The son of any person, though his father has no lands, may be put apprentice to a smith, wheelwright, plough- wright, mill-wriglit, carpenter, “ roughe mason,” plasterer, sawyer, lime-burner, brickmaker, tiler, slater, “ healyer,” 1 tile-maker, linen-weaver, turner, cooper, miller, earthen-potter, woollen-weaver, fuller, burner of ore, and thatcher or shingler. 31. To encourage this kind of service, it was further enacted, that no one shall exercise any craft, mystery, or occupation, then used, or occupied within the realm of England or Wales, except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an appren- tice, not set any person on w T ork in the same, except an apprentice, or one who, having served as an apprentice, becomes a journeyman, or is hired by the year. 33. Every cloth-maker, fuller, sheerman, weaver, tailor, or shoemaker, having three apprentices, shall retain and keep one journeyman; and for every apprentice above three, one other journeyman. 35. Any person required by a householder to become an apprentice in husbandry, or in any other kind of art, mystery, or science, may, upon refusal to serve be committed to ward till he consents, but 36. No person shall be bounden to enter into any apprenticeship, other than such as be under the age of twenty-one years. 40. The citizens and freemen of London and Norwich may take, have, and retain, apprentices there, in such manner and form as they have previously done. The Statute of Apprentices (XXXIII.), though requiring in very unequivocal words a seven years’ apprenticeship, in all trades then followed in England, wheresoever they should be carried on, has been held to extend only to cities and market-towns, and that a per- son may exercise as many trades as he pleases in a country village, although he has not served a seven years’ apprenticeship to each; 2 also that a man who had been duly appren- 1 A maker of tiles for roofs. In Worcester the tillers were called hilly ers (Smith, English Gilds, p. 398). '-'It was also determined by the judges that he served as an apprentice who for seven years has been working as a master (2 Wils. Rep., 168). 378 THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. ticed, might go anywhere, and was not compelled to practice his trade only where he hap- pened to have been apprenticed. 1 The strict limitation of the statute to such trades as were established in England before the 5th of Elizabeth, gave rise to some singular distinctions. For example, a coachmaker could neither himself make, nor employ journeymen to make, his coach-wheels, and was compelled to buy them of a master wheelwright; the latter trade having been exercised in England before the 5th of Elizabeth. But a wheelwright, though he had never served an apprenticeship to a coachmaker, might either himself make, or employ journeymen to make, coaches; the trade of a coachmaker not being within the statute, because not exercised in England at the time it was made. 2 So long, however, as the regulations of the Statute of Apprentices were maintained, the position of the journeymen was secure, and whilst obtaining — what they chiefly desired — regularity of employment, and in the time of plenty “ a convenient proportion of wages,” the hours of employment were not excessive, and the restrictions as to apprentices prevented skilled workmen from being degraded to the level of common laborers. 3 To the non-observance, indeed, of these regulations has been attributed the origin of trade unions, which appear to have succeeded the craft guilds, very much in the same manner as the latter were formed by the free handicraftsmen, as barriers against the ag- gressions of the more opulent guild members. 4 It is highly probable that, for the earliest appearance of this new organization, we must consult the records of the building trades (III., XVI.); but the subject, though deeply in- teresting, lies beyond the scope of our present inquiry. Returning to the stat. 5 Eliz., c. iv., one clause, the 30th, demands our further attention. It enumerates many varieties, or branches, of a single trade, e.g., smith, wheelwright, plough-wright, mill- wright; brickmaker, bricklayer; tiler, slater, healyer, tilemaker, and shingler; yet, although in previous statutes the term Freemason occurs, we here find a solitary definition, rough-mason, representing the class either of stone workers or cutters, to whom apprentices could be bound. The omission from the statute, of the appellation by which the superior of the two divisions of masons was commonly described, is curious and perhaps significant. It may point to the several uses of the word Freemason, becoming gradually absorbed within that one having special reference to freedom of the trade. On the other hand, the explanation may simply be, that cutters of free- stone were, com- 1 Reeves, History of the English Law (W. F. Finlason), 1869, vol. iii., p. 594. 2 For the same reason many of the manufacturers of Manchester, Birmingham, and Wolver- hampton, were not within the statute (see Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, vol. i., p. 187). Sir F. Eden remarks: “ Can it be asserted that youth are more employed, or more industrious, in those places to which the Statute of Apprenticeship is confined, than in those parts of the country where they are at liberty to set up a trade as soon as they conceive themselves sufficiently skilful to carry it on?” (State of the Poor, vol. i., p. 432). 3 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 104. Strangely enough, both “ lawful” and “ unlawful” artificers — which I understand to mean, workmen respectively free and not free, of their trade — desired in 1573 that “ the statute touching them (XXXIII.) should be put in execution and observed” (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1547-1580, vol. xciii. , p. 472). 4 Brentano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 131. “ The possession of large capital, which became more and more a requisite for the independent exercise of a trade, would impair more and more the prospects of workmen becoming masters, and would call forth an ever-increasing an- tagonism between the interests of workmen and masters” (Ibid., p. 89). THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. 379 paratively, so limited in number as to render any notice of tlieir craft or industry, in the statute, inexpedient or unnecessary. Yet, if the latter solution be accepted, why the wearisome changes which are rung upon the varieties of the tiler’s trade, in the same clause of the Act? Mr. Brewer, quoting the stat. 6 Hen. VIII., c. iii. (XXVI.), speaks of “ superior workmen, or freemasons. ” 1 The word in the same sense is used by a high author- ity, who says: — “Every kind of artisan’s work, if on an extensive scale, was superintended by a master in the craft— he is the master carpenter or the freemason .” 1 2 Had the generic term “ masons” been used by the framers of the statute, the inference would be plain— that it referred to both the superior and the inferior classifications of the trade; but the employment of the expression rough mason, in a code, moreover, so carefully drawn up, almost forbids the supposition that it was intended to comprise a higher class of workmen, and rather indicates that the term Freemason— as already suggested,— though, perhaps, in common or successive use, applied to denote a stonecutter, a contractor a superior workman, a passed apprentice or free journeyman, and a person enjoying the freedom of a guild or company, had then lost— if, indeed, it ever possessed— any purely operative significance, and if for no other reason was omitted from the statute, as importing a sense in which it would have been generally misunderstood. According to Brentano, “ Wherever the craft gilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost that the right to exercise their craft and sell their manufactures depended upon the freedom of the city. 3 A pamphlet of the year 1649, referring to the constitution of the Clothworkers’ Company, as amended in the twenty-third year of Henry VII., and then existing, pre- sents an interesting picture of the classes or gradations into which this association was divided. “ The first degree was Apprentices of the Craft. These were not to take wages, or work Journey-work, by their Ordinances. “The second degree was Freemen; they presented, admitted to work by Journeys, or Journey-work. These sometimes called the Yeoman dry; .sometimes, the Company of Batchelors. They entred Bond not to worke with any Forraigner, but with Freemen of the Craft, and this was according to their Ordinances too. “ The third degree was Householders they admitted. “ The fourth degree was a Livery or Cloathing, such as wore Gown and Hood. This was called the fellowship. “ The fifth degree was Warden. “ All were under the government, rule, and punishment of the Lord Mayor and Aider- men for the time being. Such as rebelled were bound in recognizance to the Mayor’s Court.” 4 In bringing to a close my view of the early statutes, whilst conscious that I have un- folded very little that may tend to strengthen the opinion entertained of the high antiquity of Freemasonry, I may claim, at least, to have dissipated some few errors, and thereby to 1 Letters and Papers, etc., temp. Henry VIH., vol. i., 1862, preface, p. cxii. 2 j E t. Rogers, A History of Agriculture and Prices in England from 1259 to 1793 (1866), voL i.,p. 502. 3 Brenrano, On the History and Development of Gilds, p. 65. 4 The Government of the Fullers, Shearmen, and Clothworkers of London, p. 6. 3 So THE STATUTES RELATING TO THE FREEMASONS. have assisted, however slightly and imperfectly, in placing the history of the Masonic craft on a rational basis. Ily considering the statutes as a whole, I have thought it less difficult to extract their true meaning and significance than by a mere cursory inspection of isolated enactments, scattered throughout the statute book, which — often wholly unintelligible — are always mis- leading, without the aid of a context. Having brought down the evidences of Masonry in South Britain, to the sixteenth century, the next subject in chronological order will be its early history in North Britain, which I shall proceed to discuss in the ensuing chapter. BND OP VOLUME I.