CHAPTER  XLII

NOAH AND THE NOACHITES


In reality, there is no Legend of Noah to be found in any of the
Masonic Rituals.  There is no myth, like that of Enoch or Euclid,
which intimately connects him with the legendary history of the
institution.  And yet the story of his life has exercised a very
important influence in the origin and the development of the
principles of Speculative Masonry.

Dr. Oliver has related a few traditions of Noah which, he says, are
Masonic, but they never had any general acceptance among the Craft,
as they are referred to by no other writer, and, if they ever
existed, are now happily obsolete.

The influence of Noah upon Masonic doctrine is to be traced to the
almost universal belief of men in the events of the deluge, and the
consequent establishment in many nations of a system of religion
known to ethnologists as the "Arkite worship." Of this a brief
notice must be taken before we can proceed to investigate the
connection of the name of Noah with Speculative Masonry.

The character and the actions of Noah are to be looked upon from a
twofold stand-point, the historic and the legendary.

The historic account of Noah is contained in portions of the sixth
and seventh chapters in the Book of Genesis, and are readily
accessible to every reader, with which, however, they must already
be very familiar.

The legendary account is to be found in the almost inexhaustible
store of traditions which are scattered among almost all the
nations of the world where some more or less dim memory of a
cataclysm has been preserved.

If we examine the ancient writers, we shall find ample evidence
that among all the pagan peoples there was a tradition of a deluge
which, at sonic remote period, had overwhelmed the earth.  This
tradition was greatly distorted from the biblical source, and the
very name of the Patriarch -who was saved was forgotten and
replaced by some other, which varied in different countries.  Thus,
in different places, he had received the names of Xisuthrus,
Prometheus, Deucalion, Ogyges, and many others, where the name has
been rendered very unlike itself by terminations and other
idiomatic changes.  But everywhere the name was accompanied by a
tradition, which also varied in its details, of a deluge by which
mankind had been destroyed, and the race had, through the
instrumentality of this personage, been renewed.

It is to be supposed that so important an event as the deluge would
have been transmitted by the Patriarch to His posterity, and that
in after times, when, by reason of the oral transmission of the
history, the particular details of the event would be greatly
distorted from the truth, a veneration for this new founder of the
race of men would be retained.  At length, when various systems of
idolatry began to be established, Noah, under whatever name he may
have been known, would have been among the first to whom divine
honors would be paid.  Hence arose that system known to modert?
scholars as the "Arkite worship," in whose rites and mysteries,
which were eventually communicated to the other ancient religions,
there were always some allusions to the events of the Noachic flood
to the ark, as the womb of Nature, to the eight persons saved in
it, as the ogdoad or sacred number-and to the renovation of the
world, as symbolizing the passage from death to immortal life.

It is not, therefore, surprising that Noah should have become a
mystical personage, and that the modern Speculative Masons should
have sought to incorporate some reference to him in their symbolic
system, though no such idea appears to have been entertained by the
Operative Masons who preceded them.

On examining the old records of the Operative Masons it will be
found that no place is assigned to Noah, either as a Mason or as
one of the founders of the " science." He receives only the
briefest mention

In the Halliwell Poem his name and the flood are merely referred to
as denoting an era of time in the world's history.  It is only a
statement that the tower of Babel was begun many years after "
Noees fled."

In the Cooke MS. the record is a little more extended, but  still 
is but an historical narrative of the flood, in accordance with the
biblical details.

In the Dowland MS. and in all the other manuscripts of the Legend
of the Craft that succeeded it, the reference to Noah is
exceedingly meager, his name only being mentioned, and that of his
sons, from whom descended Hermes, who found one of the pillars and
taught the science thereon described to other men.  So far, Noah
has had no part in Masonry.

Anderson, who, in the Book of Constitutions modified and enlarged
the old Craft Legends at his pleasure, calls Noah and his three
sons "all Masons true," and says that they brought over from the
flood the traditions and arts of the antediluvians and communicated
them to their growing offspring.  And this was perhaps the first
time that the Patriarch was presented to the attention of the
Fraternity in a Masonic character.

Anderson semms to have cherished this idea, for in the second
edition of the Constitutions he still further develops it by saying
that the offspring of Noah, " as they journeyed from the East (the
plains of Mount Ararat, where the ark rested) towards the West,
they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there together
as NOACHIDAE, or sons of Noah." And, he adds, without the slightest
historical authority, that this word " Noachidae " was " the first
name of Masons, according to some old traditions." It would have
puzzled him to specify any such tradition.

Having thus invented and adopted the name as the distinctive
designation of a Mason, he repeats it in his second edition or
revision of the "Old Charges" appended to the Book of
Constitutions.   The first of these charges, in the Constitutions
of 1723, contained this passage: " A Mason is obliged by his tenure
to obey the moral law." In the edition of 1738, Dr. Anderson has,
without authority, completed the sentence by adding the words " as
a true Noachida." This interpolation was reached by Entick, who
edited the third and fourth editions in 1756 and 1767, and by
Northouck, who published the fifth in 1784, both of whom restored
the old reading, which has ever since been preserved in all the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England.

Dermott, however, who closely followed the second  edition of
Anderson, in the composition of his Ahiman Rezon of course adopted
the new term.

About that time, or a little later, a degree was fabricated on the
continent of Europe, bearing the name of " Patriarch Noachite," one
peculiar feature of which was that it represented the existence of
two classes or lines of Masons, the one descending from the Temple
of Solomon, and who were called Hiramites, and the other tracing
their origin to Noah, who were styled Noachites.

Neither Preston nor Hutchison, nor any other writer of the 18th
century, appear to have accepted the term.  But it was a favorite
with Dr. Oliver, and under his example it has become of so common
use that -Noachida and Freemason have come to be considered as
synonymous terms.

What does this word really signify, and how came Anderson to adopt
it as a Masonic term ? The answers to these questions are by no
means difficult.

Noachida, or Noachides, from which we get the English Noachite, is
a gentilitial name, or a name designating the member of a family or
race, and is legitimately formed according to Greek usage, where
Atrides means a descendant of Atreus, or Heraclides a descendant of
Heracles.  And so Noachides, or its synonyms Noachida or Noachites,
means a descendant of Noah.

But why, it may be asked, are the Freemasons called the descendants
of Noah ? Why has he been selected alone to represent the headship
of the Fraternity ? I have no doubt that Dr. Anderson was led to
the adoption of the word by the following reason.

After Noah's emergence from the ark, he is said to have promulgated
seven precepts for the government of the new race of men of whom he
was to be the progenitor.

These seven precepts are : 1, to do justice; 2, worship God; 3,
abstain from idolatry ; 4, preserve chastity ; 5, do not commit
murder; 6, do not steal ; 7, do not eat the blood.

These seven obligations, says the Rev.  Dr. Raphall  (1) are held
binding on all men, inasmuch as all are descendants of Noah, and
the Rabbis maintain that he who observes them, though he be not an
Israelite, has a share in the future life, and it is the duty of
every Jew to enforce their due observance whenever he has the power
to do so.

In consequence of this the Jewish religion was not confined during
its existence in Palestine to the Jewish nation only, but
proselytes of three kinds were freely admitted.  One of these
classes was the 

(1) "Genesis, with Translation and Notes," by Rev. Morris J.
Raphall, p. 52

"proselytes of the gate." These were persons who, without
undergoimg the rite of circumcision or observing the ritual
prescribed by the law of Moses, engaged to worship the true God and
to observe the seven precepts of Noah, and these things they were
to do whether they resided in Judea or in foreign lands.  They were
not, however, admitted to all the privileges of the Jewish
religion; marriage with Israelites was forbidden, and they were not
permitted to enter within the sacred inclosure of the temple.  So
that, although they were Noachidoe, they were not considered equal
to the true children of Abraham.

Anderson, who was a theologian, was, of course, acquainted with
these facts, but, with a more tolerant spirit than the Jewish law,
which gave the converted Gentiles only a qualified reception, he
was disposed to admit into the full fellowship of Freemasonry all
the descendants of Noah who would observe the precepts of the
Patriarch; these being the only moral laws inculcated by Masonry.

In giving the history of the introduction of the word into Masonry,
I have not cited among the authorities the document known as the
Stonehouse MS., because it was verified by a person of that name,
but more usually the Krause MS., because it was first published in
a German translation by Dr. Krause in his Three Oldest Documents. 
It is alleged to be a copy of the York Constitutions, enacted in
926, but is generally admitted by scholars to be spurious.  Yet, as
it is probable that it was originally written by a contemporary of
Anderson, and about the time of the publishing of the Constitutions
Of 1738, it may be accepted, so far as it supplies us with a
suggestion of the motive that induced Anderson to interpolate the
word " Noachida " into the " Old Charges."

In the Krause MS., under the head of " The Laws or Obligations laid
before his Brother Masons by Prince Edwin," we find the following
article. (I translate from the German of Krause, because the
original English document is nowhere to be found.)

" The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and
obey the laws of the Noachites, because they are divine laws, which
should be obeyed by all the world.  Therefore, you must avoid all
heresies and not thereby sin against God."

The language of this document is more precise than that of
Anderson, though both have the same  purpose.  The meaning is that
the only religious laws which a Freemason is required to obey are
those which are contained in the code that has been attributed to
Noah.  This sentiment is still further expressed toward the close
of the " Old Charges," where it is said that the Mason is obliged
only " to that religion in which all men agree," excluding,
therefore, atheism, and requiring the observance of such simple
laws of morality as are enjoined in the precepts of Noah.

Anderson had, however, a particular object in the use of the word
"Noachida." The Krause MS. says that the Mason "must obey the laws
of the Noachites ; " that is, that he is to observe the seven
precepts of Noah, without being required to observe any other
religious dogmas outside of these-a matter which is left to
himself.

But Anderson says he " must obey the moral law as a true Noachida,"
by which he intimates that that title is the proper designation of
a Mason.  And he has shown that this was his meaning by telling us,
in a preceding part of his book, that , Noachidae was the first
name of Masons, according to some old traditions."

Now the object of Anderson in introducing this word into the second
edition of the Constitutions was to sustain his theory that Noah
was the founder of the science of Freemasonry after the flood. 
This was the theory taught by Dr. Oliver a century afterward, who
followed Anderson in the use of the word, with the same meaning and
the same object, and his example has been imitated by many recent
writers.  But when Anderson speaks of a Noachida or a Noachite as
a word synonymous with Freemason, he is in error; for although all
Freemasons are necessarily the descendants of Noah, all the
descendants of Noah are not Freemasons.

And if by the use of the word he means to indicate that Noah was
the founder of post-diluvian Freemasonry, he is equally in error;
for that theory, it has heretofore been shown, can not be
sustained, and his statement that Noah and his three sons were "
all Masons true " is one for which there is no historical support,
and which greatly lacks an clement of probability.

It is better, therefore, when we speak or write historically of
Freemasonry, that this word Noachida, or Noachite, should be
avoided, since its use leads to a confusion of ideas, and possibly
to the promulgation of error.





CHAPTER XLIII

THE LEGEND OF HIRAM ABIF



This is the most important of all the legends of Freemasonry.  It
will therefore be considered in respect to its origin, its history,
and its meaning;

Before, however, proceeding to the discussion of these important
subjects, and the investigation of the truly mythical character of
Hiram Abif, it will be proper to inquire into the meaning of his
name, or rather the meaning of the epithet that accompanies it.

In the places in Scripture in which he is mentioned he is called at
one time (in 2 Chronicles ii., 13), by the King of Tyre, in the
letter written by him to King Solomon, Churam Abi; in another place
(in 2 Chronicles iv., 16), where the writer of the narrative is
recording the work done by him for Solomon, Churam Abiv, or, as it
might be pronounced according to the sound of the Hebrew letters,
Abiu.  But Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, adopted
the pronunciation Abif, exchanging the flat v for the sharp f. In
this he was followed by Anderson, who was the first to present the
full name of Hiram Abif to the Craft.  This he did in the first
edition of the English book of Constitutions.

And since his time at least the appellation of Hiram Abif has been
adopted by and become familiar to the Craft as the name of the
cunning or skillful artist who was sent by Hiram, King of Tyre, to
assist King Solomon in the construction of the Temple.  In
Chronicles and Kings we find Churam or Huram, as we may use the
initial letter as a guttural or an aspirate, and Chiram or Hiram,
the vowel u or i being indifferently used.  But the Masonic usage
has universally adopted the word Hiram.

Now, the Abi and Abiv, used by the King of Tyre, in the book of
Chronicles form no part of the name, but are simply inflections of
the possessive pronouns my and his suffixed to the appellative Ab.

Ab in Hebrew means father, i is my, and in, iv, or if is his. Abi
is therefore my father, and so he is called by the King of Tyre
when he is describing him to Solomon, " Hiram my father;" Abif is
his father, and he is so spoken of by the historian when he
recounts the various kinds of work which were done for King Solomon
by " Hiram his father."

But the word Ab in Hebrew, though primarily signifying a male
parent, has other derivative significations.  It is evident that in
none of the passages in which he is mentioned is it intended to
intimate that he held such relationship to either the King of Tyre
or the King of Israel.

The word " father " was applied by the Hebrews as a term of honor,
or to signify a station of preeminence.  Buxtorf (1) says it
sometimes signifed Master, and he cites the fourth chapter of
Genesis, where Jabal is called the father of cattle and Jubal the
father of musicians.

Hiram Abif was most probably selected by the King of Tyre to be
sent to Solomon as a skillful artificer of preeminent skill that he
might execute the principal works in the interior of the Temple and
fabricate the various utensils intended for the sacred services. 
He was a master in his art or calling, and properly dignified with
a title which announced his distinguished character.  The title of
Father, which was given to him, denotes, says Smith,  (2) the
respect and esteem in which he was held, according to the similar
custom of the people of the East at the present day.

I am well pleased with the suggestion of Dr. McClintock that "Hiram
my father seems to mean Hiram my counsellor; that is to say,
foreman or master workman" (3)

Applying this meaning to the passages in Chronicles which refer to
this artist, we shall see how easily every difficulty is removed
and the Craftsman Hiram placed in his true light.

When King Hiram, wishing to aid the King of Israel in his
contemplated building, writes him a letter in which he promises to
comply with the request of Solomon to send him timber from Lebanon
and wood-cutters to hew it, as an additional mark of his friendship
and his desire to 

(1) "Lexicon Talmudicum."
(2) "Cylopaedia of Biblical Literature."
(3) "Cyclopeadia of Biblical, Theological, and Classical
Literature."

contribute his aid in building " a house for Jehovah,"  he gives
him the services of one of his most skillful artisans and announces
the gift in these words : "And now I have sent a skillful man,
endued with understanding, my master workman Hiram."

And when the historian who wrote the Chronicles of the kingdom had
recapitulated all the work that Hiram had accomplished, such as the
pillars of the porch, the lavers and the candlesticks, and the
sacred vessels, he concludes by saying that all these things were
made for King Solomon by his master-workman Hiram, in the Hebrew
gnasah Huram Abif  Lammelech Schelomoh.

Hiram or Huram was his proper name. Ab, father of his trade or
master-workman, his title, and i or if, any or his, the possessive
pronominal suffix, used according to circumstances.  The King of
Tyre calls him Hiram Abi, " my master-workman." When the chronicler
speaks of him in his relation to King Solomon, he calls him Hiram
Abif " his master-workman." And as all his Masonic relations are
with Solomon, this latter designation has been adopted, from
Anderson, by the Craft.

Having thus disposed of the name and title of the personage who
constitutes the main point in this Masonic Legend, I proceed to an
examination of the origin and progressive growth of the myth.

"The Legend of the Temple-Builder," as he is commonly but
improperly called, is so intimately connected in the ritual with
the symbolic history of the Temple, that we would very naturally be
led to suppose that the one has always been contemporary and
coexistent with the other.  The evidence on this point is, however,
by no means conclusive or satisfactory, though a critical
examination of the old manuscripts would seem to show that the
writers of those documents, while compiling from traditional
sources the Legend of the Craft, were not altogether ignorant of
the rank and services that have been subsequently attributed by the
Speculative Masons of the present day to Hiram Abif.  They
certainly had some notion that in the building of the Temple at
Jerusalem King Solomon had the assistance of a skillful artist who
had been supplied to him by the King of Tyre.

The origin of the Legend must be looked for in the Scriptural
account of the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, The story, as
told in the books of Kings and Chronicles, is to this effect.

On the death of King David, his son and successor, Solomon,
resolved to carry into execution his father's long-contemplated
design of erecting a Temple on Mount Moriah for the worship of
Jehovah.  But the Jews were not a nation of artisans, but rather of
agriculturists, and had, even in the time of David, depended on the
aid of the Phoenicians in the construction of the house built for
that monarch at the beginning of his reign.  Solomon, therefore,
applied to his ally, Hiram, King of Tyre, to furnish him with trees
from Lebanon and with hewers to prepare them, for, as he said in
his letter to the Tyrian King, "thou knowest that there is not any
among us that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians."

Hiram complied with his request, and exchanged the skilled workmen
of sterile Phoenicia for the oil and corn and wine of more fertile
Judea.

Among the artists who were sent by the King of Tyre to the King of
Israel, was one whose appearance at Jerusalem seems to have been in
response to the following application of Solomon, recorded in the
second book of Chronicles, the second chapter, seventh verse :

"Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold, and in
silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple and in crimson,
and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are
with me in Judah, and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did
provide."

In the epistle of King Hiram, responsive to this request, contained
in the same book and chapter, in the thirteenth and fourteenth
verses, are the following words:

"And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of
Huram my father's.  The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and
his father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold and in
silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in
blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner
of graving, and to find out every device which shall be put to him,
with thy cunning men, and with the cunning men of my lord David,
thy father."

A further description of him is given in the seventh chapter of the
first book of Kings, in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, and
in these words

"And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre.  He was a
widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali-and his father was a  man of
Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and
understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass, and he came
to King Solomon and wrought all his work."

It is very evident that this was the origin of the Legend which was
incorporated into the Masonic system, and which, on the institution
of Speculative Freemasonry, was adopted as the most prominent
portion of the Third Degree.

The mediaeval Masons were acquainted with the fact that King
Solomon had an assistant in the works of the Temple, and that 
assistant had been sent to him by King Hiram.  But there was
considerable confusion in their minds upon the subject, and an
ignorance of the scriptural name and attributes of the person.

In the Halliwell MS., the earliest known to us, the Legend is not
related.  Either the writers of the two poems of which that
manuscript is composed were ignorant of it, or in the combination
of the two poems there has been a mutilation and the Hiramic Legend
has been omitted.

In the Cooke MS., which is a hundred years later, we meet with the
first allusion to it and the first error, which is repeated in
various forms in all the subsequent manuscript constitutions.

That manuscript says: "And at the makyng of the temple in Salamonis
tyme as lit is seyd in the bibull in the iii boke of Regum in
tertio Regum capitulo quinto, that Salomoii had iiii score thousand
masons at his werke.  And the kyngis sone of Tyry was his master
mason."

The reference here made to the third book of Kings is according to
the old distribution of the Hebrew canon, where the two books of
Samuel are caged the mat and second books of Kings.  According to
our present canon, the reference would be to the fifth chapter of
the first book of Kings.  In that chapter nothing is said of Hiram
Abif, but it is recorded there that " Adoniram was over the levy."
Now the literal meaning of Adoniram is the lord Hiram.  As the King
of Tyre had promised to send his workmen to Lebanon, and as it is
stated that Adoniram superintended the men who were there hewing
the trees, the old legendist, not taking into account that the levy
of thirty thousand, over whom Adoniram presided, were Israelites
and not Phoenicians, but supposing that they had been sent to
Lebanon by Hiram, King of Tyre, and that he had sent Adoniram with
them and viewing the word as meaning the lord Hiram, hastily came
to the conclusion that this Lord or Prince Hiram was the son of the
King.  And hence he made the mistake of saying that the son of the
King of Tyre was the person sent to Solomon to be his, master-mason
or master-builder.

This error was repeated in nearly all the succeeding manuscripts,
for they are really only copies of each other, and the word Adon,
as meaning lord or prince, seems to have been always assumed in
some one or other corrupted form as the name of the workman sent by
King Hiram to King Solomon, and whom the Freemasons of the present
day know as Hiram Abif.

Thus in the Doweled MS., conjecturally dated at A.D. 1550, it is
said:

" And furthermore there was a Kinge of another region that men
called IRAM, and he loved well Kinge Solomon and he gave him tymber
to his worke.  And he had a sonn that height (was called) AYNON,
and he was a Master of Geometrie and was chief  Master of all his
Masons, and was Master of all his gravings and carvings and of all
manner of Masonrye that longed to the Temple."

There can be no doubt that Aynon is here a corruption of Adon. In
the Landsdowne MS., whose date is A.D. 1560, the language is
precisely the same, except that it says King Iram " had a sonne
that was called a man."

It seems almost certain that the initial letter a in this name has
been, by careless writing, dislocated from the remaining letters,
man, and that the true reading is Aman, which is itself an error,
instead of Amon, and this a manifest corruption of Adon.  This is
confirmed by the York MS., Number 1 which is about forty years
later (A.D.1600), where the name is spelled Amon.  This is also the
name in the Lodge of Hope MS., dated A.D. 1680.

In the Grand Lodge MS., date of A.D. 1632, he is again called the
son of the King of Tyre, but his name is given as Aynone, another
corrupted form of Adon.  In the Sloane MS., Number 3,848, A.D.
1646, it is Aynon, the final e being omitted.  In the Harleian MS.,
Number 1942, dated A.D. 1670, both the final e and the medial y are
omitted, and the name becoming Anon  approximates still nearer to
the true Adon.

In the Alnwick MS., of A.D. 1701, the name is still further
corrupted into Ajuon.  In all of these manuscripts the Legend
continues to call this artist the son of the King of Tyre, whose
name is said to be Hiram or more usually Iram; and hence the
corrupted orthography of Amon, Aynon, or Anon, being restored to
the true form of  Adon, with which word the old Masons were
acquainted, as signifying Lord or Prince, we get, by prefixing it
to his father's name, Adon-Iram or Adoniram, the Lord or Prince
Hiram.  And hence arose the mistake of confounding Hiram Abif with
Adoniram, the chief of the workmen on Mount Lebanon, who was a very
different person.

The Papworth MS., whose date is A. D. 1714, is too near the time of
the Revival and the real establishment of Speculative Masonry to be
of much value in this inquiry.  It, however, retains the statement
from the Old Legend, that the artist was the son of King Hiram. 
But it changes his name to that of Benaim.  This is probably an
incorrect inflection of the Hebrew word Boneh, a builder, and shows
that the writer, in an attempt to correct the error of the
preceding legendists who had corrupted Adon into Anon or Amon, or
Ajuon, had in his smattering of Hebrew committed a greater one.

The Krause MS. is utterly worthless as authority.  It is a forgery,
written most probably, I think I may say certainly, after the
publication of the first edition of Anderson's Constitutions, and,
of course, takes the name from that work.

The name of Hiram Abif is first introduced to public notice by
Anderson in 1723 in the book of Constitutions printed in that year.

In this work he changes the statement made in the Legend of the
Craft, and says that the King of Tyre sent to King Solomon his
namesake Hiram Abif, the prince of architects."

Then quoting in the original Hebrew a passage from the second book
of Chronicles, where the name of Hiram Abif is to be found, he
excels it "by allowing the word Abif to be the surname of Hiram the
Mason;" furthermore he adds that in the passage where the King of
Tyre calls him " Huram of my father's," the meaning is that Huram
was "the chief Master Mason of my father, King Abibalus," a most
uncritical attempt, because he intermixes, as its foundation, the
Hebrew original and the English version.  He had not discovered the
true explication, namely, that Hiram is the name, and Ab the title,
denoting, as I have before said, Master Workman, and that in, or
iv, or if, is a pronominal suffix, meaning his, so that when
speaking of him in his relation to King Solomon, he is called Hiram
Abif, that is Hiram, his or Solomon's Master Workman.

But Anderson introduced an entirely new element in the Legend when
he said, in the same book, that " the wise King Solomon was Grand
Master of the Lodge at Jerusalem, King Hiram was Grand Master of
the Lodge at Tyre, and the inspired Hiram Abif was Master of Work."

In the second or 1738 edition of the Constitutions, Anderson
considerably enlarged the Legend, for reasons that will be adverted
to when I come, in the next part of this work, to treat of the
origin of the Third Degree, but on which it is here unnecessary to
dwell.

In that second edition, he asserts that the tradition is that King
Hiram had been Grand Master of all Masons, but that when the Temple
was finished he surrendered the pre-eminence to King Solo. mon.  No
such tradition, nor any allusion to it, is to be found in any of
the Old Records now extant, and it is, moreover, entirely opposed
by the current of opinion of all subsequent Masonic writers.

From these suggestions of Anderson, and from some others of a more
esoteric character, made, it is supposed, by him and by Dr.
Desaguliers about the time of the Revival, we derive that form of
the Legend of Hiram Abif which has been preserved to the present
day with singular uniformity by the Freemasons of all countries.

The substance of the Legend, so far as it is concerned in the
present investigation, is that at the building of the Temple there
were three Grand Masters-Solomon, King of Israel; Hiram, King of
Tyre, and Hiram Abif, and that the last was the architect or chief
builder of the edifice.

As what relates to the fate of Hiram Abif is to be explained in an
altogether allegorical or symbolical sense, it will more
appropriately come finder consideration when we are treating, in a
subsequent part of this work, of the Symbolism of Freemasonry.

Our present study will be the legendary character of Hiram Abif as
the chief Master Mason of the Temple, and our investigations will
be directed to the origin and meaning of the myth which has now, by
universal consent of the Craft, been adopted, whether correctly or
not we shall see hereafter.

The question before us, let it be understood, is not as to the
historic truth of the Hiramic legend, as set forth in the Third
Degree of the Masonic ritual-not as to whether this be the
narrative of an actual occurrence or merely an allegory accompanied
by a moral signification-not as to the truth or fallacy of the
theory which finds the origin of Freemasonry in the Temple of
Jerusalem-but how it has been that the Masons of the Middle Ages
should have incorporated into their Legend of the Craft the idea
that a worker in metal-in plain words, a smith-was the chief
builder at the Temple.  This thought, and this thought alone, must
govern us in the whole course of our inquiry.

Of all the myths that have prevailed among the peoples of the
earth, hardly any has had a greater antiquity or a more extensive
existence than that of the Smith who worked in metals, and
fabricated shields and swords for warriors, or jewelry for queens
and noble ladies.  Such a myth is to be found among the traditions
of the earliest religions,  (1) and being handed down through ages
of popular transmission, it is preserved, with various i-natural
modifications, in the legends of the Middle Age, from Scandinavia
to the most southern limit of the Latin race.  Long before this
period it was to be found in the mythology and the folk-lore of
Assyria, of India, of Greece, and of Rome.

Freemasonry, in its most recent form as well as in its older
Legend, while adopting the story of Hiram Abif, once called Adon
Hiram, has strangely distorted its true features, as exhibited in
the books of Kings and Chronicles; and it has, without any
historical authority, transformed the Scriptural idea of a skillful
smith into that of an architect and builder.  Hence, in the Old
Legend he is styled a "Master of Geometry and of all Masonry," and
in the modern ritual of Speculative Masonry he is called " the
Builder," and to him, in both, is supposed to have been intrusted
the super- intendence of the Temple of Solomon, during its
construction, and the government and control of those workmen-the
stone squarers and masons-who were engaged in the labor of its
erection

To divest this Legend of its corrupt form, and to give to Hiram
Abif, who was actually an historic 

(1) "Vala, one of the names of Indra, in the Aryan mythology, is
traced," says Mr. Cox, "through the Teutonic lands until we reach
the cave of Wayland Smith, in Warwickshire." "Myhtology of the
Aryan Nations," vol., p. 326


personage, his true position among the workmen at the Temple, can
not affect, in the slightest degree, the symbolism of which he
forms so integral a part, while it will rationally account for the
importance that has been attributed to him in the old as well as in
the new Masonic system.

Whether we make Hiram Abif the chief Builder and the Operative
Grand Master of Solomon's Temple, or whether we assign that
position to Anon, Amon, or Ajuon, as it is in the Old Legend, or to
Adoniram, as it is done in some Masonic Rites, the symbolism will
remain unaffected, because the symbolic idea rests on the fact of
a Chief Builder having existed, and it is immaterial to the
development of the symbolism what was his true name.  The
instruction intended to be conveyed in the legend of the Third
Degree must remain unchanged, no matter whom we may identify as its
hero; for he truly represents neither Hiram nor Anon nor Adoniram
nor any other individual person, but rather the idea of man in an
abstract sense,

It is, however, important to the truth of history that the real
facts should be eliminated out of the mythical statements which
envelop them.  We must throw off the husk, that we may get at the
germ.  And besides, it will add a new attraction to the system of
Masonic ritualism if we shall be able to trace in it any remnant of
that oldest and most interesting of the myths, the Legend of the
Smith, which, as I have said, has universally prevailed in the most
ancient forms of religious faith.

Before investigating this Legend of the Smith in its reference to
Freemasonry and to this particular Legend of Hiram Abif which we
are now considering, it will be proper to inquire into the
character of the Legend as it existed in the old religions and in
the mediaeval myths.  We may then inquire how this Legend, adopted
in Freemasonry in its stricter ancient form of the Legend of Tubal
Cain, became afterward confounded with another legend of a Temple-
Builder.

If we go back to the oldest of all mythologies, that which is
taught in the Vedic hymns, we shall find the fire-god Agni, whose
flames are described as being luminous, powerful, fearful, and not
to be trusted."

The element of fire thus worshipped by the primeval Aryans, as an
instrument of good or of evil, was subsequently personified by the
Greeks: the Vedic hymns, referring to the continual renovation of
the flame, as it was fed by fuel, called it the fire-god Agni; also
Gavishtha, that is, the ever young.  From this the Greeks got their
Hephaestus, the mighty workman, the immortal smith who forged the
weapons of the gods, and, at the prayer of Thetis, fabricated the
irresistible armor of Achilles.  The Romans were indebted to their
Aryan ancestors for the same idea of the potency of fire, and
personified it in their Vulcan, a name which is evidently derived
from the Sanscrit Ulka, a firebrand, although a similarity of sound
has led many etymologists to deduce the Roman Vulcan from the
Semitic Tubal Cain.  Indeed, until the modern discoveries in
comparative philology, this was the universal opinion of the
learned.

Among the Babylonians an important god was Bil-can.  He was the
fire-god, and the name seems to be derived from Baal, or Bel, and
Cain, the god of smiths, or the master smith.  George Smith, in his
Chaldaen Account of Genesis, thinks that there is possibly some
connection here with the Biblical Tubal Cain and the classical
Vulcan.

From the fragments of Sanchoniathon we learn that the Phoenicians
had a hero whom he calls Chrysor.  He was worshipped after his
death, in consequence of the many inventions that he bestowed on
man, under the name of Diamichius; that is, the great inventor.  To
him was ascribed the invention of all those arts which the Greeks
attributed to Hephaestus, and the Romans to Vulcan.  Bishop
Cumberland derives the name of Chrysor from the Hebrew Charatz, or
the Sharbener, an appropriate designation of one who taught the use
of iron tools.  The authorized version of Genesis, which calls
Tubal Cain " an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron,"
is better rendered in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as a sharpener
of every instrument in brass and iron."

Tubal Cain has been derived, in the English lectures of Dr.
Hemming, and, of course, by Dr. Oliver, from a generally received
etymology that Cain meant worldly possessions, and the true
symbolism of the name has been thus perverted.  The true derivation
is from kin, which, says Gesenius, has the especial meaning to
forge iron, whence comes Kain, a spear or lance, an instrument of
iron that has been forged.  In the cognate Arabic it is Kayin.  "
This word," says Dr. Goldziher in his work on Mythology  Among the
Hebrews" which with other synonymous names of trades occurs several
times on the so-called Nabatean Sinaitic inscriptions, signifies
Smith, maker of agricultural implements (1) and has preserved this
meaning in the Arabic Kayin and the Aramaic kinaya, whilst in the
later Hebrew it was lost altogether, being probably suppressed
through the Biblical attempt to derive the proper name Cain
etymologically from kana, " to gain." Here it is that Hemming and
Oliver got their false symbolism of "worldly possessions."

Goldziher attempts to identify mythologically Cain the fratricide
with the son of Lamech.  Whether he be correct or not in his
theory, it is at least a curious coincidence that Cain, which I
have shown to mean a smith, should have been the first builder of
a city, and that the same name should have been assigned to the
first forger of metals, while the old Masonic Legend makes the
master smith, Hiram of Tyre, also the chief builder of Solomon.

It will, I think, be interesting to trace the progress of the myth
which has given in every age and every country this prominent
position among artisans to the smith.

Hephaestus, or Vulcan, kindling his forges in the isle of Lemnos,
and with his Cyclops journeymen beating out and shaping and welding
the red-hot iron into the forms of spears and javelins and helmets
and coats of mail, was the southern development of the Aryan fire-
god Agni.  " Hephaestus, or Vulcan," says Diodorus Siculus, " was
the first founder in iron, brass, gold, silver, and all fusible
metals, and he taught the uses to which fire might be applied by
artificers." Hence he was called by the ancients the god of
blacksmiths.

The Scandinavians, or northern descendants of the Aryan race,
brought
with them, in their emigration from Caucasus, the same reverence
for fire
and for the working of metals by its potent use.  They did not,
however,
bring with them such recollections of Agni as would invent a god of
fire
Eke the Hephaestus and Vulcan of the Greeks and Romans. They had,
indeed, Loki, who derived his name, it is said by some, from the
Icelandic
logi, or flame.  

(1) He confines the expression to "agricultural" to enforce a
particular theory then under consideration. He might correctly have
been more general and included all other kinds of implements,
warlike and mechanical as well as agricultural.

But he was an evil principle, and represented rather the
destructive than the creative powers of fire.

But the Scandinavians, interpolating, like all the northern
nations, their folk-lore into their mythology, invented their
legends of a skillful smith, beneath whose mighty blows upon the
yielding iron swords of marvelous keenness and strength were
forged, or by whose wonderful artistic skill diadems and bracelets
and jewels of surpassing beauty were constructed.  Hence the myth
of a wonderfully cunning artist was found everywhere, and the
Legend of the Smith became the common property of all the
Scandinavian and Teutonic nations, and was of so impressive a
character that it continued to exist down to mediaeval times, and
traces of it have ex- tended to the superstitions of the present
day.  May we not justly look to its influence for the prominence
given by the old Masonic legendists to the Master Smith of King
Hiram among the workmen of Solomon?

Among the Scandinavians we have the Legend of Volund, whose story
is recited in the Volunddarkvitha, or Lay of Volund, contained in
the Edda of Saemund.  Volund (pronounced as if spelled Wayland) was
one of three brothers, sons of an Elf-king ; that is to say, of a
supernatural race.  The three brothers emigrated to Ulfdal, where
they married three Valkyries, or choosers of the slain, maidens of
celestial origin, the attendants of Odin, and whose attributes were
similar to those of the Greek Parcae, or Fates.  After seven years
the three wives fled away to pursue their allotted duty of visiting
battle-fields.  Two of the brothers went in search of their errant
wives; but Volund remained in Ulfdal.  He was a skillful workman at
the forge, and occupied his time in fabricating works in gold and
steel, while patiently awaiting the promised return of his beloved
spouse.

Niduth, the king of the country, having heard of the wonderful
skill of Volund as a forger of metals, visited his home during his
absence and surreptitiously got possession of some of the jewels
which he had made, and of the beautiful sword which the smith had
fabricated for himself

Volund, on his return, was seized by the warriors of Niduth and
conducted to the castle.  There the queen, terrified at his fierce
looks, ordered him to be hamstrung.  Thus, maimed and deprived of
the power of escape or resistance, he was confined to a small
island in the vicinity of the royal residence and compelled to
fabricate jewels for the queen and her daughter, and weapons of war
for the king. (1)

It were tedious to recount all the adventures of the smith while
confined in his island prison.  It is sufficient to say that,
having constructed a pair of wings by which he was enabled to fly
(by which we are reminded of the Greek fable of Daedalus), he made
his escape, having by stratagem first dishonored the princess and
slain her two brothers.

This legend of " a curious and cunning workman " at the forge was
so popular in Scandinavia that it extended into other countries,
where the Legend of the Smith presents itself under various,
modifications

In the Icelandic legend Volund is described as a great artist in
the fabrication of iron, gold and silver.  It does not, however,
connect him with supernatural beings, but attributes to him great
skill in his art, in which he is assisted by the power of magic.

The Germans had the same legend at a very early period.  In the
German Legend the artificer is called Wieland, and he is
represented as the son of a giant named Wade.  He acquires the art
of a smith from Minner, a skillful workman, and is perfected by the
Dwarfs in all his operations at the forge as an armorer and gold.
smith.  He goes of his own accord to the king, who is here called
Nidung, where he finds another skillful smith, named Amilias, with
whom he contends in battle, and kills him with his sword, Mimung. 
For this offense he is maimed by the king, and then the rest of the
story proceeds very much like that of the Scandinavian legend.

Among the Anglo-Saxons the legend is found not varying much from
the original type.  The story where the hero receives the name of
Weland
is contained in an ancient poem, of which fragments, unfortunately,
only
remain.  The legend had become so familiar to the people that in
the
metrical romance of Beowulf the coat of mail of the hero is
described as
the work of Weland; and King Alfred in his translation of the
Consolation
of Philosophy by Boethius, where the author allude,, to the bones
of the
Consul Fabricius, in the passage " ubi sunt ossa Fabricie ? "
(where now
are the bones of Fabricius ?), thus paraphrases the question: Where
now 

(1) All these smiths of mythology and folk-lore are represented as
being lame, like Hephaestus, who broke his leg in falling from
heaven.

are the bones of the wise Weland, the goldsmith that was formerly
so famed ? " Geoffrey of Monmouth afterward, in a Latin poem,
speaks of the gold, and jewels, and cups that had been sculptured
by Weland, which name he Latinizes as Gueilandus.

In the old French chronicles we repeatedly encounter the legend of
the skillful smith, though, as might be expected, the name
undergoes many changes.  Thus, in a poem of the 6th century,
entitled Gautier a la main forte, or Walter of the strong hand, it
is said that in a combat of Walter de Varkastein he was protected
from the lance of Randolf by a cuirass made by Wieland.

Another chronicle, of the 12th century, tells us that a Count of
Angouleme, in a battle with the Normans, cut the cuirass and the
body of the Norman King in twain at a single stroke, with his sword
Durissima, which had been made by the smith Walander.  A chronicle
of the same period, written by the monk John of Marmontier,
describes the magnificent habiliments of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Duke
of Normandy, among which, says the author, was " a sword taken from
the royal treasury and long since renowned.  Galannus, the most
skillful of armorers, had employed much labor and care in making
it." Galans, for Walans (the G being substituted for the W, as a
letter unknown in the French alphabet), is the name bestowed in
general on this skillful smith, and the romances of the Trouveres
and Troubadours of northern and southern France, in the 12th and
13th centuries, abound in references to swords of wondrous keenness
and strength that were forged by him for the knights and paladins.

Whether the name was given as Volund, or Wieland, or Weland, or
Galans, it found its common origin in the Icelandic Volund, which
signifies a smith.  It is a generic term, from which the mythical
name has been derived.  So the Greeks called the skillful workman,
the smith of their folk-lore, Daedalus, because there is a verb in
their language daidallo, which means to do skillful or ornamental
work.

Here it may not be irrelevant to notice the curious fact that
concurrently with these legends of a skillful smith there ran in
the Middle Ages others, of which King Solomon was the subject.  In
many of these old romances and metrical tales, a skill was
attributed to him which makes him the rival of the subordinate
artisan.  Indeed, the artistic reputation of Solomon was so
proverbial at the  very time when these legends of the smith were
prevalent, that in the poems of those days we meet with repeated
uses of the expression " l'uevre Salemon," or "the work of
Solomon," to indicate any production of great artistic beauty.

So fully had the Scandinavian sagas the German chronicles, and the
French romances spoken of this mythical smith that the idea became
familiar to the common people, and was handed down in the popular
superstitions and the folk-lore, to a comparatively modern period. 
Two of these, one from Germany and one from England, will suffice
as examples, and show the general identity of the legends and the
probability of their common origin.(1)

Herman Harrys, in his Tales and Legends of Lower Saxony, tells the
story of a smith who dwelt in the village of Hagen, on the side of
a mountain, about two miles from Osnabruck.  He was celebrated for
his skill in forging metals ; but, being discontented with his lot,
and murmuring against God, he was supernaturally carried into a
cavernous cleft of the mountain, where he was condemned to be a
metal king, and, resting by day, to labor at night at the forge for
the benefit of men, until the mine in the mountain should cease to
be productive.

In the coolness of the mine, says the legend, his good disposition
returned, and he labored with great assiduity, extracting ore from
its veins, and at first forging household and agricultural
implements.  Afterward he confined himself to the shoeing of horses
for the neighboring; farmers.  In front of the cavern was a stake
fixed iii the ground, to which the countryman fastened the horse
which he wished to have shod, and on a stone near by he laid the
necessary fee.  He then retired.  On returning in due time he would
find the task completed; but the smith, or, as he was called, the
Hiller, i.e., Hider, would never permit himself to be seen.

Similar to this is the English legend, which tells us that in a
vale of
Berkshire, at the foot of White Horse Hill, evidently, from the
stones which
lay scattered around, the site of a Druidic monument, formerly
dwelt a
person named Wayland Smith.  It is easily understood that here the
handicraft title has been 

(1) For many of the details of these two legends, as well as for
much that has already been said of the mythological smith of the
Middle Ages, I have been indebted to the learned Dissertation of
M.M. Depping and Michel. It has been ably translated from the
French, with additions by Mr. S.W. Singer, London, 1847.

incorporated with the anglicized name, and that it is the same as
the mediaeval Weland the Smith.  No one ever saw him, for the huge
stones afforded him a hiding-place.  He, too, was a Hiller,- for
the word in the preceding legend does not mean "the man of the
hill," but is from the German hullen, to cover or conceal, and
denotes the man who conceals himself.  In this studious concealment
of their persons by both of these smiths we detect the common
origin of the two legends. When his services were required to shoe
a horse, the animal was left among the stones and a piece of money
placed on one of them.  The owner then retired, and after some time
had elapsed he returned, when he found that the horse was shod and
the money had disappeared.  The English reader ought to be familiar
with this story from the use made of it by Sir Walter Scott in his
novel of Kenilworth.

It is very evident, from all that has been here said, that the
smith, as the fabricator of weapons for the battle-field and jewels
for the bourdoir, as well as implements of agriculture and
household use, was a most important personage in the earliest
times, deified by the ancients, and invested by the moderns with
supernatural gifts.  It is equally evident that this respect for
the smith as an artificer was prevalent in the Middle Ages.  But in
the very latest legends, by a customary process of degeneration in
all traditions, when the stream becomes muddled as it proceeds
onward, he descended in character from a forger of swords, his
earliest occupation, to be a shoer of horses, which was his last.

It must be borne in mind, also, that in the -Middle Ages the
respect for the smith as a " curious and cunning " workman began by
the introduction of a new clement, brought by the Crusaders and
pilgrims from the East to be shared with King Solomon, who was
supposed to be invested with equal skill.

It is not, therefore, strange that the idea should have been
incorporated into the rituals of the various secret societies of
the Middle ,Ages and adopted by the Freemasonry at first by the
Operative branch and afterward, in a more enlarged form, by the
Speculative Masons.

In all of the old manuscripts constitutions of the Operative Masons
we find the Legendof the Craft, and with it, except in one
instance, and that the earliest, a reference to Tubal Cain as the
one who " found [that is, invented] the Smith Craft of gold and
silver, iron and copper and steel."

Nothing but the universal prevalence of the mediaeval legend of the
smith, Volund or Weland, can, I think, account for this reference
to the Father of Smith Craft in a legend which should have been
exclusively appropriated to Stone Craft.  There is no connection
between the forge and the trowel which authorized on any other
ground the honor paid by stone-masons to a forger of metals-an
honor so marked that in time the very name of Tubal Cain came to be
adopted as a significant and important word in the Masonic ritual,
and the highest place in the traditional labors of the Temple was
assigned to a worker in gold and brass and iron.

Afterward, when the Operative Art was superseded by the Speculative
Science, the latter supplemented to the simple Legend of the Craft
the more recondite Legend of the Temple. In this latter Legend, the
name of that Hiram whom the King of Tyre had sent with all honor to
the King of Israel, to give him aid in the construction of the
Temple, is first introduced under his biblical appellation.  But
this is not the first time that this personage is made known to the
fraternity.  In the older Legends he is mentioned, always with a
different name but always, also, as " King Solomon's Master Mason."

In the beginning of the 18th century, when what has been called the
Revival took place, there was a continuation of the general idea
that he was the chief Mason at the Temple; but the true name of
Hiram Abif is, as we have already said, then first found in a
written or printed record.  Anderson speaks of his architectural
abilities in exaggerated terms.  He calls him in one place "the
most accomplished Mason on earth," and in another "the prince of
architects." This character has adhered to him in all subsequent
times, and the unwritten Legend of the present day represents him
as the , Chief Builder of the Temple," the " Operative Grand
Master," and the " Skillful Architect " by whose elaborate designs
on his trestle-board the Craft were guided in their labors and the
edifice was constructed.

Now, it will be profitable in the investigation of historic truth
to compare these attributes assigned to Hiram Abif I)y the older
and more recent legendists with the biblical accounts of the same
person which have already been cited.

In the original Hebrew text of the passage in the book of 
Chronicles, the words which designate the profession of Hiram Abif
are Khoresh nekhoshet,- literally, a worker in brass.  The Vulgate,
which was the popular version in those days and from which the old
legendists must have derived their knowledge of biblical history,
thus translates the letter of King Hiram to King Solomon: "
Therefore I have sent to thee a wise and most skillful man, Hiram
the workman or smith, my father "-Hiram fabrem Patrem meum.

Indeed, in the close of the verse in the Authorized Version he is
described as being " cunning to work all works in brass." And hence
Dr. Adam Clarke, in his,, Commentaries, calls him " a very
intelligent coppersmith."

The error into which the old legendists and the modern Masonic
writers have fallen, in supposing him to have been a stone-mason or
an architect, has arisen from the mistranslation in the Authorized
Version of the passage in Chronicles where he is said to have been
" skillful to work in gold and in silver, in brass, in iron, in
stone, and in timber." The words in the original are Baabanim
vebagnelsim, in stones and in woods,- that is, in. Precious stones
and in woods of various kinds.  That is to say, besides being a
coppersmith he was a lapidary and a carver and gilder.  The words
in the original Hebrew are in the plural, and therefore the
translation " in wood and in timber " is not correct.  Gesenius
says-and there is no better authority for a Hebraism-that the word
eben is used by way of excellence, to denote a precious stone, and
its plural, abanim, means, therefore, precious stones. In the same
way gnetz, which in the singular signifies a tree, in the plural
denotes materials of wood, for any purpose.

The work that was done by Hiram Abif in the Temple is fully
recounted in the first book of Kings, the seventh chapter, from the
fifteenth to the fortieth verse, and is briefly recapitulated in
verses forty-one to fifty.  It is also enumerated in the third and
fourth chapters of second Chronicles, and in both books care is
taken to say that when this work was done the task of Hiram Abif
was completed.  In the first book of Kings (vii. 40) it is said: "
So Hiram made an end of dung all the work that he made King Solomon
for the house of the Lord." In the second book of Chronicles (iv.
2)  the statement is repeated thus: " And Hiram finished the work
that he was to make for King Solomon for the house of God."

The same authority leaves us in no doubt as to what that work was
to which the skill of Hiram Abif had been devoted. "It was,"says 
the book of Chronicles, " the two pillars, and the pommels and the
chapiters which were on the top of the pillars ; and four hundred
pomegranates on the two wreaths; two rows of pomegranates on each
wreath, to cover the two pommels of the chapiters which were upon
the pillars.  He made also bases, and lavers made he upon the
bases; one sea and twelve oxen under it.  The pots also, and the
shovels and the flesh hooks and all their instruments, did Huram
his father (Hiram Abif) make to King Solomon, for the house of the
Lord, of bright brass."

Enough has been said to show that the labors of Hiram Abif in the
Temple were those of a worker in brass and in precious stones, in
carving and in gilding, and not those of a stonemason.  He was the
decorator and not the builder of the Temple.  He owes the position
which he holds in the legends and in the ritual of Freemasonry, not
to any connection which he had with the art of architecture, of
which there is not the slightest mention by the biblical
authorities, but, like Tubal Cain, to his skill in bringing the
potency of fire under his control and applying it to the forging of
metals.

The high honor paid to him is the result of the influence of that
Legend of the Smith, so universally spread in the Middle Ages,
which recounted the wondrous deeds of Volund, or Wieland, or
Wayland.  The smith was, in the mediaeval traditions, in the sagas
of the north and in the romances of the south of Europe, the maker
of swords and coats of mail; in the Legends of Freemasonry he was
transmuted into the fabricator of holy vessels and sacred
implements.

But the idea that of all handicrafts smith-craft was the greatest
was unwittingly retained by the Masons when they elevated the
skillful smith of Tyre, the "cunning" worker in brass, to the
highest place as a builder in their Temple legend.

The spirit of critical iconoclasm, which strips the exterior husk
from the historic germ of all myths and legends, has been doing
much to divest the history of Freemasonry of all fabulous
assumptions.  This attempt to give to Hiram Abif his true position,
and to define his real profession, is in the spirit of that
iconoclasm.

But the doctrine here advanced is not intended to affect in the
slightest degree the part assigned to Hiram Abif in the symbolism
of the Third Degree.  Whatever may have been his profession, he
must have stood high in the confidence of the two kings, of him who
sent him and him who received him, as " a master workman; " and he
might well be supposed to be entitled in an allegory to the exalted
rank bestowed upon him in the Lege d of the Craft and in the modern
ritual.

Allegories are permitted to diverge at will from the facts of
history and the teachings of science.  Trees may be made to speak,
as they do in the most ancient fable extant, and it is no
infringement of their character that a worker in brass may be
transmuted into a builder in stone to suit a symbolic purpose.

Hence this " celebrated artist," as he is fairly called, whether
smith or mason, is still the representative, in the symbolism of
Freemasonry, of the abstract idea of man laboring in the temple of
life, and the symbolic lesson of his tried integrity and his
unhappy fate is still the same.

As Freemasons, when we view the whole Legend as a myth intended to
give expression to a symbolic idea, we may be content to call him
an architect, the first of Masons, and the chief builder of the
Temple; but as students of history we can know nothing of him and
admit nothing concerning him that is not supported by authentic and
undisputed authority.

We must, therefore, look upon him as the ingenious artist, who
worked in metals and in precious stones, who carved in cedar and in
olive-wood, and thus made the ornaments of the Temple.

He is only the Volund or Wieland of the olden legend, changed, by
a mistaken but a natural process of transmuting traditions, from a
worker in brass to a worker in stone.





CHAPTER XLIV

THE LELAND MANUSCRIPT



The Leland Manuscript, so called because it is said to have been
discovered by the celebrated antiquary John Leland, and sometimes
called the Locke Manuscript in consequence of the suppositous
annotations appended to it by that metaphysician, has for more than
a century attracted the attention and more recently excited the
controversies of Masonic scholars.

After  having  been cited with approbation by such writers as
Preston, Hutchinson, Oliver, and Krause, it has suffered a reverse
under the crucial examination of later critics.  It has by nearly
all of these been decided to be a forgery-a decision from which
very few at this day would dissent.

It is in fact one of those "pious frauds" intended to strengthen
the claim of the Order to a great antiquity and to connect it with
the mystical schools of the ancients.  But as it proposes a theory
concerning the origin of the Institution, which was long accepted
as a legend of the Order, it is entitled to a place in the
legendary history of Freemasonry.

The story of this manuscript and the way in which it was introduced
to the notice of the Craft is a singular one.

In the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1753, the so called
manuscript was printed for the first time under the title of "
Certayne Questyons with Awnserers to the same, Concernynge the
Mystery of Maconrye, wrytenne by the Hande of Kynge Henrye the
Sixthe of the Name, and faythfullye copyed by me John Leylande
Antiquaries, by the Commaunde of His Highnesse." That is, King
Henry the Eighth, by whom Leland was employed to search for
antiquities in the libraries of cathedrals, abbeys, priories,
colleges and all places where any ancient records were to be found.

The article in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine is  prefaced  with these
words:

"The following treatise is said to be printed at Franckfort,
Germany, 1748, under the following Title.  Ein Brief Vondem
Beruchmten Herr Johann Locke, betreffend die Frey-Maureren.  So auf
einem Schrieb-Tisch enines verstorbnen Bruders ist gefunden worden. 
That is, A Letter of the famous Mr. John Locke relating to
Freemasonry ; found in the Desk or Scritoir of a deceased Brother."

The claim, therefore, is that this document was first published at
Frankfort in 1748, five years before it appeared in England.  But
this German original has never been produced, nor is there any
evidence before us that there ever was such a production.  The
laborious learning of Krause would certainly have enabled him to
discover it had it ever been in existence.  But, although he
accepts the so-called manuscript as authentic, he does not refer to
the Frankfort copy, but admits that, so far as he knows, it first
made its appearance in Germany in 1780, in J. G. L. Meyer's
translation of Preston's Illustrations.(1)

Kloss, it is true, in his Bibliography, gives the title in German,
with the imprint of "Frankfort, 12 pages." But he himself says that
the actuality of such a document is to be wholly doubted. (2)

Besides, it is not unusual with Kloss to give the titles of books
that he has never seen, and for whose existence he had no other
authority than the casual remark of some other writer.  Thus he
gives the titles of the Short Analysis of the Unchanged.Rites and
Ceremonies of Freemasons, said to have been printed in 1676, and
the Short Charge, ascribed to 1698, two books which have never been
found.  But he applies to them the epithet of " doubtful " as he
does to the Frankfort edition of the Leland Manuscript.

But before proceeding to an examination of the external and
internal evidence of the true character of this document, it will
be expedient to give a sketch of its contents.  It has been
published in so many popular works of easy access that it is
unnecessary to present it here in full.

It is introduced by a letter from Mr. Locke (the celebrated author
of the Essay on the Human 

(1) "Kunsturkunden der Freimaurerei," I., 14
(2) "Bibliographie der Friemaurerei," No. 329

Understanding), said to be addressed to the Earl of Pembroke, under
date of May 6, 1696, in which he states that by the help of Mr. C-
ns he had obtained a copy of the MS. in the Bodleian Library, which
he therewith had sent to the Earl.  It is accompanied by numerous
notes which were made the day before by Mr. Locke for the reading
of Lady Masham, who had become very fond of Masonry.

Mr. Locke says: "The manuscript of which this is a copy, appears to
be about 160 years old.  Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the
title) it is itself a copy of one yet more ancient by about 100
years.  For the original is said to have been the handwriting of K.
H. VI.  Where the Prince had it is at present an uncertainty, but
it seems to me to be an examination (taken perhaps before the king)
of some one of the Brotherhood of Masons; among whom he entered
himself, as 'tis said, when he came out of his minority, and
thenceforth put a stop to the persecution that had been raised
against them."

The " examination," for such it purports to be, as Mr. Locke
supposes, consists of twelve questions and answers.  The style and
orthography is an attempted imitation of the language of the 15th
century.  How far successful the attempt has been will be discussed
hereafter.

Masonry is described to be the skill of Nature, the understanding
of the might that is therein and its various operations, besides
the skill of numbers, weights and measures, and the true manner of
fashioning all things for the use of man, principally dwellings and
buildingd of all kinds and all other things that may be useful to
man.

Its origin is said to have been with the first men of the East, who
were before the Man of the West, by which Mr. Locke, (1) in his
note, says is meant Pre-Adamites, the " Man of the West " being
Adam.  The Phoenicians, who first came from the East into
Phoenicia, are said to have brought it westwardly by the way of the
Red and Mediterranean seas.

It was brought into England by Pythagoras, who is called in the
document " Peter Gower," evidently from the French spelling of the
name, " Petagore," he having traveled in search of knowledge into
Egypt, Syria, and every other land 

(1) It will be seen that in this and other places I cite the name
of Mr. Locke as if he were really the author of the note, a theory
to which I by no means desire to commit myself. The reference in
this way is merely for convenience.

where the Phoenicians had planted Masonry.  Having obtained a
knowledge of the art in the Lodges of Masons into which he gained
admission, on his return to Europe he settled in Magna Grecia (the
name given by the ancients to Southern Italy), and established a
Grand Lodge at Crotona, one of its principal cities, where he made
many Masons.  Some of there traveled into France and made many
Masons, whence in process of time the art passed over into England.

Such is the history of the origin and progress of Masonry which is
given in the Leland Manuscipt.  The remainder of the document is
engaged in giving the character and the objects of the Institution.

Thus it is said, in relation to secrecy, that Masons have at all
times communicated to mankind such of their secrets as might
generally be useful, and have kept back only those that might be
harmful in evil hands-those that could be of no use unless
accompanied by the teachings of the Lodge, and those which are
employed to bind the brethren more strongly together.

The arts taught by Masons to mankind are enumerated as being
Agriculture, Architecture, Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic ,Music,
Poetry, Chemistry, Government, and Religion.

Masons are said to be better teachers than other men, because the
first of them received from God the art of finding new arts, and of
teaching them, whereas the discoveries of other men have been but
few, and acquired only by chance.  This art of discovery the Masons
conceal for their own profit.  They also conceal the art of working
miracles, the art of foretelling future events, the art of changes
(which Mr. Locke is made in a note to interpret as signifying the
transmutation of metals), the method of acquiring the faculty of
Abrac, the power of becoming good and perfect without the aid of
fear and hope, and the universal language.

And lastly it is admitted that Masons do not know more than other
men, but onlyhave a better opportunity of knowing, in which many
fail for want of capacity and industry.  And as to their virtue,
while it is acknowledged that some are not so good as other men,
yet it is believed that for the most part they are better than they
would be if they were not Masons.  And it is claimed that Masons,
greatly love each other, because good and true men, knowing each
other to be such, always love the more the better they are.

" And here endethe the Questyonnes and Awnsweres."

 There does not appear to be any great novelty or value in this
document The theory of the origin of Masonry had been advanced by
others before its appearance in public, and the characteristics of
Masonry had been previously defined in better language.

But no sooner is it printed in the Gentleman's Magazine for the
month of September, and year 1753, than it is seized as a bonne
bouche by printers and writers, so that being first received with
surprise, it was soon accepted as a genuine relic of the early age
of English Masonry and incorporated into its history, a position
that it has not yet lost, in the opinion of some.  The forgeries of
Chatterton and of Ireland met a speedier literary death.

Of the genuine publications of this document, so much as this is
known.

It was first printed, as we have seen, in the Gentleman's Magazine,
in September, 1753.  Kloss records a book as published in 1754,
with no place of publication, but probably it was London, with the
title of A Masonic Creed, with a curious letter by Mr. Locke. 
This, we can hardly doubt, was the Leland Manuscript .pt with a new
title.  The republications in England pursued the following
succession.  In 1756 it was printed in Entick's edition of the
Constitutions and in Dermott's Ahiman  Rezon; in 1763 in the
Freemasons Pocket Companion, in 1769, in Wilkinson's Constitutions
of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and in Calcott's Candid
Disquisition; in 1772, in Huddesford's Life of Leland, and in
Preston's Illustrations of Masonry,- in 1775, in Hutchinson's
Spirit of Masonry and in 1784, in Northouck's edition of the
Constitutions.

In Germany it first appeared in 1776, says Krause, in G. L. Meyer's
translation of Preston; in 1780, in a translation of Hutchinson,
published at Berlin; in 1805, in the Magazinfiir Freimaurer of
Professor Seehass; in 1807, in the collected Masonic works of
Fessler; in 1810, by Dr. Krause in his Three Oldest Documents,and
in 1824, by Mossdorf in his edition of Lenning's Encyclopedie.

In France, Thory published a translation of it, with some comments
of his own, in 1815, in the Acta Latomorum.

In America it was, so far as I know, first published in 1783, in
Smith's Ahiman Rezon of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania; it was
also published in 1817, by Cole, in his Ahiman Rezon of Maryland,
and it has been copied into several other works.

In none of these  republications, with one or two exceptions, is 
there an expression of the slightest doubt of the genuineness of
the document.  It has on the contrary been, until recently, almost
everywhere accepted as authentic, and as the detail of an actual
examination of a Mason or a company of Masons, made by King Henry
VI., of England, or some of his ministers, in the 15th century.

Of all who have cited this pretended manuscript, Dr. Carl Christian
Friederich Krausse is perhaps the most learned, and the one who
from the possession of great learning, we should naturally expect
would have been most capable of detecting a literary forgery,
speaks of it, in his great work on The Three Oldest Documents Of
the Fraternity of Freemasons, as being a remarkable and instructive
document and as among the oldest that are known to us.  In England,
he says, it is, so far as it is known to him, accepted as authentic
by the learned as well as by the whole body of the Craft, without
a dissenting voice.  And he refers as evidence of this to the fact
that the Grand Lodge of England has formally admitted it into its
Book of Constitutions, while the Grand Lodge of Scotland has
approved the work of Lawrie, in which its authenticity is supported
by new proofs.

And Mossdorf, whose warm and intimate relations with Krause
influenced perhaps to some extent his views on this as well as they
did on other Masonic subjects, has expressed a like favorable
opinion of the Leland Manuscript.  In his additions to the
Encyclopedie of Lenning, he calls it a remarkable document, which,
notwithstanding a singularity about it, and its impression of the
ancient time in which it originated, is instructive, and the oldest
catechism which we have on the origin, the nature, and the design
of Masonry.

The editor of Lawrie's History is equally satisfied of the genuine
character of this document, to which he confidently refers as
conclusive evidence that Dr. Plot was wrong in saying that Henry
VI. did not patronize Masonry.

Dr. Oliver is one of the most recent and, as might be expected from
his peculiar notions in respect to the early events of Masonry, one
of the most ardent defenders of the authenticity of the manuscript,
although he candidly admits " that there is some degree of mystery
about it, and doubts have been entertained whether it be not a
forgery."

But, considering its publicity at a time when Freemasonry was
beginning- to excite a considerable share of public attention, and
that  the deception, if there was one, would have been publicly
exposed by the opponents of the Order, he thinks that their silence
is presumptive proof that the document is genuine.

"Being thus universally diffused," he says, " had it been a
suspected document, its exposure would have been certainly
attempted if a forgery, it would have been unable to have endured
the test of a critical examination.  But no such attempt was made,
and the presumption is that-the document is authentic."

But, on the ther hand there are some writers who have as carefully
investigated the subject as those whom I have referred to, but the
result of whose investigations have led them irresistibly to the
conclusion that the document never had any existence until the
middle of the 18th century, and that the effort to place it in the
time of Henry VI. is, as Mounier calls it, " a Masonic fraud."

As early as 1787, while the English Masons were receiving it as a
document of approved truth, the French critics had begun to doubt
its genuineness.  At a meeting of the Philalethes, a Rite of
Hermetic Masonry which had been instituted at Paris in 1775, the
Marquis de Chefdebien read a paper entitled Masonic -Researches for
the use of the Primitive Rite of Narbonne. (1) In this paper he
presented an unfavorable criticism of the Leland Manuscript. In
1801 M. Mounier published an essay On the Influence attributed to
the Philosophers, the Freemasons and the Illuminate in the French
Revolution, (2) in which he pronounces the document to be a forgery
and a Masonic fraud.

Lessing was the first of the German critics who attacked the
genuineness of the document.  This he did in his Ernst und Falk,
the first edition of which was published in 1778.  Others followed,
and the German unfavorable criticisms were closed by Findel, the
editor of the Bauhutte, and author of a History of Freemasonr ,
first published in 1865, and which was translated in 1869 by Bro. 
Lyon.  He says : -'There is no reliance, whatever, to be placed on
any assertions based on this spurious document ; they all crumble
to dust.  Not even in England does any well-informed Mason of the
present day, believe in the genuineness of this bungling
composition."

In England it is only recently that any doubts of its authenticity
have been expressed by Masonic 

(1) "Recheres Maconniques a l'usage des Freres du Regime Premitifde
Narbonne."
(2) "De l'Influence attribuee aux Philosophes, aux Franc-Macons et
aux Illumines sur la Revolution de France," per F.F. Mounier.

critics.  The first attack upon it was made in 1849, by Mr. George
Sloane, in his New Curiosities of Literature. Sloane was not a
Freemason, and his criticism, vigorous as it is, seems to have been
inspired rather by a feeling of enmity to the Institution than by
an honest desire to seek the truth.  His conclusions, however, as
to the character of the document are based on the most correct
canons of criticism.  Bro.  A. F. A. Woodford is more cautious in
the expression of his judgment, but admits that " we must give up
the actual claim of the document to be a manuscript of the time of
King Henry VI., or to have been written by him or copied by
Leland." Yet he thinks " it not unlikely that we have in it the
remains of a Lodge catechism conjoined with a Hermetic one." But
this is a mere supposition, and hardly a plausible one

But a recent writer, unfortunately anonymous, in the Masonic
Magazine, (1) of London, has given an able though brief review of
the arguments for and against the external evidence of
authenticity, and has come to the conclusion that the former has
utterly failed and that the question must fall to the ground.

Now, amid such conflicting views, an investigation must be
conducted with the greatest impartiality. the influence of great
names especially among the German writers, has been enlisted on
both sides, and the most careful judgment must be exercised in
determining which of these sides is right and which is wrong.

In the investigation of the genuineness of any document we must
have resort to two kinds of evidence, the external and the
internal.  The former is usually more clear and precise, as well as
more easily handled, because it is superficial and readily
comprehended by the most unpracticed judgment.  But when there is
no doubt about the interpretation, and there is a proper exercise
of skill, internal evidence is freer from doubt, and therefore the
most conclusive.  It is, says a recent writer on the history of our
language, the pure reason of the case, speaking to us directly, by
which we can not be deceived, if we only rightly apprehend it. 
But, al- though we must sometimes dispense with external evidence,
because it may be unattainable, while the internal evidence is
always existent, yet the combination of the two will make the
conclusion to which we may arrive more infallible than it could be
by the application of either kind alone.

(1) Vol. vi., No. 64, October, 1878, p. 148

If it should be claimed that a particular document was written in
a certain century, the mention of it, or citations from it, by
contemporary authors would be the best external evidence of its
genuineness.  It is thus that the received canon of the New
Testament has been strengthened in its authority, by the quotation
of numerous passages of the Gospels and the Epistles which are to
be found in the authentic writings of the early Fathers of the
Church.  This is the external evidence.

If the language of the document under consideration, the peculiar
style, and the archaic words used in it should be those found in
other documents known to have been written in the same century, and
if the sentiments are those that we should look for in the author,
are in accord with the age in which he lived, this would be
internal evidence and would be entitled to great weight.

But this internal evidence is subject to one fatal defect.  The
style and language of the period and the sentiments of the
pretended author and of the age in which he lived may be
successfully imitated by a skillful forger, and then the results of
internal evidence will be evaded.  So the youthful Chatterton
palmed upon the world the supposititious productions of the monk
Rowley and Ireland forged pretended plays of Shakespeare.  Each of
these made admirable imitations of the style of the authors whose
lost productions they pretended to have discovered.

But when the imitation has not been successful, or when there has
been no imitation attempted, the use of words which were unknown at
the date claimed for the document in dispute, or the reference to
events of which the writer must be ignorant, because they occurred
at a subsequent period, or when the sentiments are incongruous to
the age in which they are supposed to have been written, then the
internal evidence that it is a forgery, or at least a production of
a later date, will be almost invincible.

It is by these two classes of evidence that I shall seek to inquire
into the true character of the Leland Manuscript

If it can be shown that there is no evidence of the existence of
the document before the year 1753, and if it can also be shown that
neither the language of the document the sentiments expressed in
it, nor the character attributed to the chief actor, King Henry VI.
are in conformity with a document of the 15th century, we shall be
authorized in rejecting the theory that it belongs to such a period
as wholly untenable, and the question will admit of no more
discussion.

But in arriving at a fair conclusion, whatever it may be, the rule
of Ulpian must be obeyed, and the testimonies must be well
considered and not merely counted.  It is not the number of the
whole but the weight of each that must control our judgment.

Those who defend the genuineness of the Leland Manuscript are
required to establish these points:

1. That the document was first printed at Frankfort, in Germany,
whence it was copied into the Gentleman's Magazine for September,
1753.

2. That the original manuscript was, by command of King Henry
VIII., copied by John Leland from an older document of the age of
Henry VI.

3. That this original manuscript of which Leland made a copy, was
written by King Henry VI.

4. That the manuscript of Leland was deposited in the Bodleian
Library.

5. That a copy of this manuscript of Leland was made by a Mr.C-ns,
which is said to mean Collins, and given by him to John Locke, the
celebrated metaphysician.

6. That Locke wrote notes or annotations on it in the year 1696,
which were published in Frankfort in 1748, and afterward in
England, in 1753.

The failure to establish by competent proof any one of these six
points will seriously affect the credibility of the whole story,
for each of them is a link of one continuous chain.

1.Now as to the first point, that the document was first printed at
Frankfort in the year 1748.  The Frankfort copy has never yet been
seen, notwithstanding diligent search has been made for it by
German writers, who were the most capable of discovering it, if it
had ever existed.  The negative evidence is strong that the
Frankfort copy may be justly considered as a mere myth.  It follows
that the article in the Gentleman's Magazine is an original
document, and we have a right to suppose that it was written at the
time for some purpose, to be hereafter considered, for, as the
author of it has given a false reference, we may conclude that if
he had copied it at all he would have furnished us with the true
one.  Kloss, it is true, has admitted the title into his catalogue,
but he has borrowed his description of it from the article in the
Gentleman's Magazine, and speaks of this Frankfort copy as being
doubtful.  He evidently bad never seen it, though he was an
indefatigable searcher after Masonic books.  Krause's account of it
in that it first was found worthy of Locke's notice in England ;
that thence it passed over into Germany-" how, he does not know "-
appeared in Frankfort, and then returned back to England, where it
was printed in 1753.  But all this is mere hearsay, and taken by
Krause from the statement in the Gentleman's Magazine.  He makes no
reference to the Frankfort copy in his copious notes in his
Kunsturkunden, and, like Kloss, had no personal knowledge of any
such publication.  In short, there is no positive evidence at all
that any such document was printed at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but
abundant negative evidence that it was not.  The first point must
therefore be abandoned.

2. The second point that requires to be proved is that the
Manuscript, was, by command of King Henry VIII., copied by John
Leland, from an older document of the age of Henry VI.  Now, there
is not the slightest evidence that a manuscript copy of the
original document was taken by Leland, except what is afforded by
the printed article in the Gentleman's Magazine, the authenticity
of which is the very question in dispute, and it is a good maxim of
the law that no one ought to be a witness in his own cause.  But
even this evidence is very insufficient.  For, admitting that Locke
was really the author of the annotations (an assertion which also
needs proof), he does not say that he had seen the Leland copy, but
only a copy of it, which had been made for him by a friend.  So
that even at that time the Leland Manuscript had not been brought
to sight and up to this has never been seen.  Amid all the
laborious and indefatigable researches of Bro.  Hughan in the
British Museum, in other libraries, and in the archives of lodges,
while he has discovered many valuable old records and Masonic
Constitutions which until then had lain hidden in these various
receptacles, he has failed to unearth the famous Leland Manuscript. 
The hope of ever finding it is very faint, and must be entirely
extinguished if other proofs can be adduced of its never having
existed.

Huddesford, in his Life of Leland, had, it is true, made the
following statement in reference to this manuscript: " It also
appears that an ancient manuscript of Leland's has long remained in
the Bodleian Library, unnoticed in any account of our author yet
published.  This Tract is entitled Certayne Questyons with
Awnsweres to the same concernynge the mystery of Maconrye.  The
original is said to be the handwriting of K. Henry VI., by  order
of his highness K. Henry VIII. (1) And he then proceeds to dilate
upon the importance of this " ancient monument of
literature, if its authenticity remains unquestioned."

But it must be remembered that Huddesford wrote in 1772, nineteen
years after the appearance of the document in the Gentleman's
Magazine, which he quotes in his Appendix, and from which it is
evident that he derived all the knowledge that he had of the
pseudomanuscript.  But the remarks on this subject of the anonymous
writer in the London Masonic Magazine, already referred to, are so
apposite and conclusive that they justify a quotation.

"Though Huddesford was keeper of the Ashmolean Library, in the
Bodleian, he does not seek to verify even the existence of the
manuscript, but contents himself with 'it also appears' that it is
from the Gentleman's Magazine of 1753.  He surely ought not to have
put in here such a statement, that an ancient manuscript of Leland
has long remained in the Bodleian, without inquiry or collation. 
Either he knew the fact to be so, as he stated it, or he did not ;
but in either case his carelessness as an editor is to my mind,
utterly inexcusable.  Nothing would have been easier for him than
to verify an alleged manuscript of Leland, being an officer in the
very collection in which it was said to exist.  Still, if he did
not do so, either thebmanuscript did exist, and he knew it, but did
not think well, for some reason, to be more explicit about it, or
he knew nothing at all about it, and by an inexcusable neglect of
his editorial duty, took no pains to ascertain the truth, and
simply copied others, by his quasi recognition of a professed
manuscript of Leland.

But it is utterly incredible that Huddesford could have known and
yet concealed his knowledge of the existence of the manuscript.  
There is no conceivable motive that could be assigned for such
concealment and for the citation at the same time of other
authority for the fact. It is therefore a fair inference that his
only knowledge of the document was delved from the Gentleman's
Magazine.  There is therefore, no proof whatever that Leland ever
copied any older manuscript.

(1) Huddesford's "Life of John Leland," p. 67


Referring to certain obvious mistakes in the printed copy, such as
Peter Gower for Pythagoras, it has been said that it is evident
that the document was not printed from Leland's original
transcript, but rather from a secondary copy of an unlearned. 
Huddesford adopts this view, but if he had ever seen the manuscript 
of Leland he could have better formed a judgment by a collation of
it with the printed copy than by a mere inference that a man of
Leland's learning could not have made such mistakes.  As he did not
do so, it follows that he had never seen Leland's Manuscript.  The
second point, therefore, falls to the ground.

3. The third point requiring proof is that the original manuscript
of which Leland made a copy, was written by King Henry VI.  There
is a legal rule that when a deed or writing is not produced in
court, and the loss of it is not reasonably accounted for, it shall
be treated as if it were not existent.  This is just the case of
the pretended manuscript in the handwriting of Henry VI.  No one
has ever seen that manuscript, no one has ever had any knowledge of
it ; the fact of its ever having existed depends solely on the
statement made in the Gentleman's Magazine that it had been copied
by Leland.  Of a document "in the clouds" as this is, whose very
existence is a mere presumption built on the very slightest
foundation, it is absurd to predicate an opinion of the
handwriting.  Time enough when the manuscript is produced to
inquire who wrote it.  The third point, therefore, fails to be
sustained.

4. The fourth point is that the manuscript  of Leland was deposited
in the Bodleian Library.  This has already been discussed in the
argument on the first and third point.  It is sufficient now to say
that no such manuscript has been found  in that library.  The
writer in the London Masonic Magazine, whom I have before quoted,
says that he had had a communication with the authorities of the
Bodleian Library, and had been informed that nothing is known of it
in that collection. Among the additional manuscripts of the British
Museum are some that were once owned by one Essex, an architect,
who lived late in the last century.  Among these is a copy of the
Leland Manuscript evidently a copy made by Essex from the
Gentleman's Magazine, or some one of the other works in which it
had been printed.  I say evidently, because in the  same collection
is a copy of the Grand Mystery, transcribed by him as he had
transcribed the Leland Manuscript, as a, to him perhaps, curious
relic.  The original Leland Manuscript is nowhere to be found, and
there the attempt to prove the fourth point is unsuccessful.

5.The fifth point is that a copy of Leland's MS. was made by a Mr. 
C-ns, and given by him to Locke.  The Pocket Companion printed the
name as " Collins," upon what authority I know not.  There were
only two distinguished men of that name who were contemporaries of
Locke-John Collins, the mathematician, and Anthony Collins, the
celebrated skeptical writer.  It could not have been the former who
took the copy from the Ashmolean Library in 1696, for he died in
1683.  There is, however, a strong probability that the latter was
meant by the writer of the prefatory, since he was on such
relations with Locke as to have been appointed one of his
executors,  (1) and it is an ingenious part of the forgery that he
should be selected to perform such an act of courtesy for his
friend as the transcription of an old manuscript.  Yet there is an
uncertainty about it, and it is a puzzle to be resolved why Mr.
Locke should have unnecessarily used such a superabundance of
caution, and given only the initial and final letters of the name
of a friend who had been occupied in the harmless employment of
copying for him a manuscript in a public library.  This is
mysterious, and mystery is always open to suspicion.  For
uncertainty and indefiniteness the fifth point is incapable of
proof.

6. The sixth and last point is that the notes or annotations were
written by Mr. Locke in 1696, and fifty-two years afterward printed
in Frankfort-on-the-Main.  We must add to this, because it is a
part of the story, that the English text, with the annotations of
Locke, said to have been translated into German, the question-was
it translated by the unknown brother in whose desk the document was
found after his death ?-and then retranslated into English for the
use of the Gentleman's Magazine.

It is admitted thar if we refuse to accept the document printed in
the magazine in 1753 as genuine, it must follow that the notes
supposed to have been written by 

(1) It is strange that the idea that the Collins mentioned in the
letter was Collins, the friend and executor of Locke, should not
have suggested itself to any of the defenders or oppugners of the
document. The writer in the "London Masonic Magazine" intimates
that he was "a book-collector, or dealer in MSS."

Locke are also spurious.  The two questions are not necessarily
connected.  Locke may have been deceived, and, believing that the
manuscript presented to him by C-ns, or Collins, if that was really
his name, did take the trouble, for the sake of Lady Masham, to
annotate it and to explain its difficulties.

But if we have shown that there is no sufficient proof, and, in
fact, no proof at all, that there ever was such a manuscript, and
therefore that Collins did not transcribe it, then it will
necessarily follow that the pretended notes of Locke are as
complete a forgery as the text to which they are appended.  Now if
the annotations of Locke were genuine, why is it that after
diligent search this particular one has not been found? It is known
that Locke left several manuscripts behind him, some of which were
published after his death by his executors, King and Collins, and
several unpublished manuscripts went into the possession of Lord
King, who in 1829 published the Life and Correspondence of Locke. 
But nowhere has the notorious Leland Manuscript  appeared.  " If
John Locke's letter were authentic," says the writer already
repeatedly referred to, a copy of this manuscript would remain  
among   Mr. Locke's papers, or at Wilton house and the original
manuscript probably in the hands of this Mr. Collins, whoever he
was, or in the Bodleian."

But there are other circumstances of great suspicion connected with
the letter and annotations of Locke, which amount to a condemnation
of their authenticity.  In concluding his remarks on what he calls
" this old paper," Locke is made to say: " It has so raised 
curiosity as to induce me to enter myself into the fraternity;
which I am determined to do (if I may be admitted) the next time I
go to London, and that will be shortly."

Now, because it is known that at the date of the pseudo-letter, Mr.
Locke was actually residing at Oates, the seat of Sir Francis
Masham, forechose lady he says that the annotations were made, and
because it is also known that in the next year he made a visit to
London, Oliver says that there "he was initiated into Masonry."
Now, there is not the slightest proof of this initiation, nor is it
important to the question of authenticity whether he was initiated
or not, because if he was not it would only prove that  be had
abandoned the intention he had expressed in the letter.  But I cite
the  unsupported remark of Dr. Oliver to show how Masonic history
has hitherto been written-always assumptions, and facts left to
take care of themselves.

But it is really most probable that Mr. Locke was not made a
Freemason in 1697 or at any other time, for if he had been, Dr.
Anderson, writing the history of Masonry only a few years
afterward, would not have failed to have entered this illustrious
name in the list of " learned scholars " who had patronized the
Fraternity.

It appears, from what is admitted in reference to this subject,
that the Leland Manuscript, having been obtained by Mr. Collins
from the Bodleian Library, was annotated by Mr. Locke, and a
letter, stating the fact, was sent with the manuscript and
annotations to a nobleman whose rank and title are designated by
stars (a needless mystery), but who has been subsequently supposed
to be the Earl of Pembroke. All this was in the year 1696. It then
appears to have been completely lost to sight until the year 1748,
when it is suddenly found hidden away in the desk of a deceased
brother in Germany.  During these fifty-two years that it lay in
abeyance, we hear nothing of it.  Anderson, the Masonic historian,
could not have heard of it, for he does not mention it in either
the edition of the Constitutions published in 1723, or in that more
copious one of 1738. If anyone could have known of it, if it was in
existence, it would have been Anderson, and if hc had ever seen or
heard of it he would most certainly have referred to it in his
history of Masonry during the reign of Henry VI.

He does say, indeed, that according to a record in the reign of
Edward IV.  "the charges and laws of the Freemasons have been seen
and perused by our late Sovereign, King Henry VI., and by the Lords
of his most honourable Council, who have allowed them and declared
that they he right good, and reasonable to be holden as they have
been drawn out and collected from the records of ancient times,"
etc. (1)

But it is evident that this is no description of the Leland
Manuscript  which does not consist of " charges and laws," but is
simply a history of the origin of Masonry, and a declaration of its
character and objects.  And yet the fact that there is said to have
been something; submitted by the Masons

(1) Anderson's "Constitutions," edition of 1738, p. 75

to Henry VI. and his Council was enough to suggest to the ingenious
forger the idea of giving to his pseudo-manuscript a date
corresponding to the reign of that monarch.  But he overleaped the
bounds of caution in giving the peculiar form to his forgery.  Had
he fabricated a document similar to those ancient constitutions,
many genuine manuscripts of which are extant, the discovery of the
fraud would have been more difficult.

But to continue the narrative: The manuscript, having been found in
the desk of this unknown deceased brother, is forthwith published
at Frankfort, Germany, in a pamphlet of twelve pages and in the
German language.

Here again there are sundry questions to be asked, which can not be
answered.  Had the tale been a true one, and the circumstances such
as always accompany the discovery of a lost document, and which are
always put upon record, the replies and explanations would have
been ready.

Was the letter of Locke, including of course the catechism of the
Leland Manuscript, which was found in the desk of the unknown
brother, the original document, or was it only a copy ? If the
latter, had it been copied in English by the brother, or translated
by him into German ? If not translated by trim, by whom was it
translated? Was the pamphlet printed in Frankfort merely a German
translation, or did it also contain, in parallel columns, the
English original, as Krause has printed the English documents in
his Kunsterkunden, and as, in fact, he has printed this very
document? These are questions of very great importance in
determining the value and authenticity of the Frankfort pamphlet,
And yet not one of them can be answered, simply because that
pamphlet has never been found, nor is it known that anyone has ever
seen it.

The pamphlet next makes its appearance five years afterward in
England, and in an English translation in the Gentleman's Magazine
for September, 1753.  Nobody can tell, or at least nobody has told,
how it got there, who brought it over, who translated it from the
German, how it happened that the archaic language of the text and
the style of Locke have been preserved.  These are facts absolutely
necessary to be known in any investigation of the question of
authenticity, and yet over them all a suspicious silence broods.

Until this silence is dissipated and these questions answered by
the acquisition of new knowledge in the premises, which it can
hardly now be expected will be obtained, the stain of an imposture
must remain upon the character of the document.  The discoverer of
a genuine manuscript would have been more explicit in his details.

As to internal evidence, there is the most insuperable difficulty
in applying here the canons of criticism which would identify the
age of the manuscript by its style.

Throwing aside any consideration of the Frankfort pamphlet on
account of the impossibility of explaining the question of
translation, and admitting, for the time, that Mr. Locke did really
annotate a copy of a manuscript then in the Bodleian Library, which
copy was made for him by his friend Collins, how, with this
admission, will the case stand ?

In Mr. Locke's letter (accepting, it as such) he says: "The
manuscript, of which this is a copy, appears to be about 160 years
old." As the date of Locke's letter is 1696, this estimate would
bring us to 1536,or the thirty-first year of the reign of 
HenryVIII.  Locke could have derived his knowledge of this fact
only in two ways: from the date given in the manuscript or from its
style and language as belonging, in his opinion, to that period.

But if he derived his knowledge from the date inserted at the head
of the manuscript, that knowledge would be of no value, because it
is the very question which is at issue.  The writer of a forged
document would affix to it the date necessary to carry out his
imposture, which of course would be no proof of genuineness.

But if Locke judged from the style, then it must be said that,
though a great metaphysician and statesman, and no mean theologian,
he was not an archaeologist or antiquary, and never had any
reputation as an expert in the judgment of old records.  Of this we
have a proof here, for the language of the Leland Manuscript is not
that of the period in which Leland lived.  The investigator may
easily satisfy himself of this by a collation of Leland's genuine
works, or of the Cranmer Bible, which is of the same date.

But it may be said that Locke judged of the date, not by the style,
but by the date of the inanuscript itself.  And this is probably
true, because he adds: " Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the
title) it is itself a copy of one yet more ancient by about 100
years: For the original is said to have been in the handwriting of
K. H. VI."

Locke then judged only by the title-a very insufficient proof as I
have already said, of authenticity.  So Locke seems to have
thought, for he limits the positiveness of the assertion by the
qualifying phrase " it is said." If we accept this for what it is
worth, the claim will be that the original manuscript was written
in the reign of Henry VI., or about the middle of the I5th century. 
But here again the language is not of that period. The new English,
as it is called, was then beginning to take that purer form which
a century and a half afterward culminated in the classical and
vigorous style of Cowley.  We find no such archaisms as those
perpetrated in this document in the Repressor of over-much Blaming
of the Clergy, written in the same reign, about 1450, by Bishop
Pecock, nor in the Earl of Warwick's petition to Duke Humphrey,
written in 1432, nor in any other of the writings of that period. 
It is not surprising, therefore, that the glossary or list of
archaic words used in the document, by which from internal evidence
we could be enabled to fix its date, has, according to Mr.
Woodford, " always been looked upon with much suspicion by
experts."

If I may advance an hypotheses upon the subject I should say that
the style is a rather clumsy imitation of that of Sir John
Mandeville, whose Voiage and Travails was written in 1356, about a
century before the pretended date of the Leland Manuscript.

An edition of this book was published at London in 1725.  It was,
therefore, accessible to the writer of the Leland document.  He
being aware of the necessity of giving an air of antiquity to his
forgery, and yet not a sufficiently skillful philologist to know
the rapid strides that had taken place in the progress of the
language between the time of Mandeville and the middle of the reign
of Henry VI., adopted, to the best of his poor ability, the
phraseology of that most credulous of all travelers, supposing that
it would well fit into the period that he had selected for the date
of his fraudulent manuscript.  His ignorance of philology has thus
led to his detection.  I am constrained, from all these
considerations, to endorse the opinion of Mr. Halliwell Phillips,
that " it is but a clumsy attempt at deception, and quite a
parallel to the recently discovered one of the first Englishe
Mercurie."

But the strangest thing in this whole affair is that so many men of
learning should have permitted themselves to become the dupes of so
bungling an impostor.