CHAPTER VI

THE ORIGIN OF THE HALLIWELL POEM


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Craft,  are corroborated by contemporaneous historical documents,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really valuable as an historical document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






CHAPTER VII

THE LEGEND, THE GERM OF HISTORY



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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





CHAPTER VIII

THE ORIGIN OF GEOMETRY



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





CHAPTER IX

THE LEGEND OF LAMECH'S SONS AND THE PILLARS



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Book 11., ch. v.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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





CHAPTER X

THE LEGEND OF HERMES



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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