CHAPTER XVI

THE LEGEND OF CHARLES MARTEL AND NAMUS GRECUS



THE Legend, now approaching the domain of authentic history, but still
retaining its traditional character, proceeds to narrate, but in a very few
words, the entrance of Masonry into France.

This account is given in the following language in the Dowland manuscript.

"And soe it befell that there was one curious Mason that height MAYMUS
GRECUS, that had been at the making of Solomon's temple, and he came
into France, and there he taught the science of Masonrys to men of France. 
And there was one of the Regal lyne of Fraunce, that height CHARLES
MARTELL; and he was a man that loved well such a science, and drew to
this MAYMUS GRECUS that is above said, and learned of him the science,
and tooke upon him the charges and manners; and afterwards, by the
grace of God, he was elect to be Kinge of France.  And whan he was in his
estate, he tooke Masons and did helpe to make men Masons that were
none; and he set them to worke, and gave them both the charge and the
manners and good pale, as he had learned of other Masons; and
confirmed them a Charter from yeare to yeare, to holde their semble wher
they would; and cherished them right much; and thus came the science
into France."

This Legend is repeated, almost word for word, in all the later
manuscripts up to the year 1714.

It is not even alluded to in the earliest of all the manuscripts - the
Halliwell poem - which is another proof that that document is of German
origin.

The Cooke MS. has the Legend in the following words:

"Sumtyme ther was a worthye kyng in Frauns, that was clepyd Carolus
secundus that ys to sey Charlys the secunde.  And this Charlys was
elyte [elected] kyng of Frauns by the grace of God and by lynage
[lineage] also.  And sume men sey that he was elite [elected] by fortune
the whiche is fals as by cronycle he was of the kynges blode Royal. 
And this same kyng Charlys was a mason bifor that he was kyng.  And
after that he was kyng he lovyd masons and cherschid them and gaf
them chargys and mannerys at his devise the whiche sum ben yet used
in fraunce and he ordeynyd that they scholde have a semly [assembly]
onys in the yere and come and speke togedyr and for to be rculed by
masters and felows of thynges amysse." (1)

The absence of all allusion to Namus Grecus (a personage who will
directly occupy our attention) in the Cooke document is worthy of notice.

When Dr. Anderson was putting the Legend of the Craft into a modern
shape, he also omitted any reference to Namus Grecus but he preserved
the spirit of the Legend, so far as to say, that according to the old
records of Masons, Charles Martel "sent over several expert craftsmen
and learned architects into England at the desire of the Saxon kings." (2)

I think it will be proved, when in the course of this work the authentic
history of Masonry comes to be treated, that the statement in the Legend
of the Craft in relation to the condition of the art in France during the
administration of Charles Martel is simply a historical fact.  In claiming for
the "Hammerer" the title of King of France, while he assumed only the
humble rank of Duke of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, the
legendists have only committed a historical error of which more
experienced writers might be guilty.

The introduction of the name of Namus Grecus, an unknown Mason,
who is described as being the contemporary of both Solomon and of
Charles Martel, is certainly an apparent anachronism that requires
explanation.

This Namus Grecus has been a veritable sphinx to Masonic antiquaries,
and no CEdipus has yet appeared who could resolve the riddle.  Without
assuming the sagacity of the ancient expounder of enigmas, I can only
offer a suggestion for what it may be considered worth.

I suppose Grecuis to be merely an appellative indicating the fact that this
personage was a Greek.  Now, the knowledge of his exist-

(1) Cooke MS., lines 576 - 601.       
(2) "Constitutions," ed. 1723, p. 30,.


ence at the court of Charles Martel was most probably derived by the
English legendist from a German or French source, because the Legend
of the Craft is candid in admitting that the English Masons had collected
the writings and charges from other countries.  Prince Edwin is said to
have made a proclamation that any Masons who "had any writing or
understanding of the charges and the manners that were made before in
this land [England] or in any other, that they should shew them forth."
And there were found "some in French, some in Greek, some in English,
and some in other languages."

Now, if the account and the name of this Greek architect had been taken
from the German, the text would most probably have been "ein Maurer
Namens Grecus"; or, if from the French, it would have been "un Macon
nomme Grecus." The English legendist would, probably, mistake the
words Namens Grecus, or nomme Grecus, each of which means "he
was named Grecus," or, literally, "a Mason by the name of Grecus," for
the full name, and write him down as Namus Grecus.  The Maymus in
the Dowland MS. is evidently a clerical error.  In the other manuscripts it
is Namus.   The corrected reading, then, would be - "there was a Mason
named (or called) a Greek."

It can not be scd that it is not probable that any legendist would have
fallen into such an error when we remember how many others as great,
if not greater, have been perpetrated in these Old Records. See, for
instance, in these manuscripts such orthographical mistakes as
Hermarines for Hermes, and Englet for Euclid; to say nothing of the
rather ridiculous blunder in the Leland MS., where Pythagore, the French
form of Pythagoras, has suffered transmutation into Peter Gower.  So it
is not at all unlikely that Namens Grecus, or nomme Grecus, should be
changed into Namus Grecus.

The original Legend, in all probability meant to say merely that in the
time of Charles Martel, a Greek artist, who had been to Jerusalem,
introduced the principles of Byzantine architecture into France.

Now, history attests that in the 8th century there was an influx of Grecian
architects and artificers into Southern and Western Europe, in
consequence of persecutions that were inflicted on them by the
Byzantine Emperors.  The Legend, therefore, indulges in no spirit of
fiction in referring to the advent in France, at that period, of one of these
architects.

It is also a historical fact that Charles the Great of France was a liberal
encourager of the arts and sciences, and that he especially promoted
the cultivation of architecture on the Byzantine or Greek model in his
dominions.

Dr. Oliver, in the second edition of the Constitutions, repeats the Legend
with a slight variation.  He says that "Ethelbert, King of Mercia, and
general monarch, sent to Charles Martel, the Right Worshipful Grand
Master of France (father of King Pippin), who had been educated by
Brother Nimus Graecus, he sent over from France (about A.D. 710)
some expert Masons to teach the Saxons those laws and usages of the
ancient fraternity, that had been happily preserved from the havock of
the Goths."

Pritchard, in his Masonry Dissected, gives, upon what authority I know
not, the Legend in the following form:


Euclid "communicated the art and mystery of Masonry to Hiram, the
Master Mason concerned in the building of Solomon's Temple in
Jerusalem, where was an excellent and curious Mason, whose name
was Mannon Grecus, who taught the art of Masonry to one Carolus
Marcil in France, who was afterwards elected King of Flance."

Upon this change of the name to Mannon Grecus, Krause suggests a
derivation as follows: In using this name he thinks that Pritchard
intended to refer to the celebrated scholastic philosopher Mannon, or
Nannon, who was probably celebrated in his time for his proficiency in
the language and literature of Greece.  Nannon lived in the reign of
Charles the Bold, and was the successor of Erigena in the direction of
the schools of France.

I think the derivation of the name offered by Dr. Krause is wholly
untenable though ingenious, for it depends upon a name not found in
any of the old manuscripts, and besides, the philosopher did not live in
the time of Charles Martel, but long afterward.

Between his derivation and mine, the reader may select, and probably
will be inclined to reject both.

As far as the Legend regards Charles Martel as the patron of architecture
or Masonry in France, one observation remains to be made.

If there has been an error of the legendists in attributing to Charles
Martel the honor that really belonged to his successor, Charles the
Great, it is not surprising when we consider how great was the
ignorance of the science of chronology that prevaded in those days. 
However, it must be remarked, that at the present day the French
Masonic writers speak of Charles Martel as the founder of Masonry in
France.

The error of making the Greek architect a contemporary both of
Solomon and of Charles Martel is one which may be explained, either as
the expression of a symbolic idea, alluding to the close connection that
had existed between Oriental and Byzantine architecture, or may be
excused as an instance of blundering chronology for which the spirit of
the age, more than the writer of the Legend, is to be blamed.  This
objection will not, however, lie if we assume that Namus Grecus meant
simply a Greek architect.

But this whole subject is so closely connected with the authentic history
of Masonry, having really passed out of the prehistoric period, that it
claims a future and more elaborate consideration in its proper place.





CHAPTER XVII

THE LEGEND OF ST. ALBAN



THE Legend of the Craft now proceeds to narrate the history of the
introduction of Masonry into England, in the time of St. Alban, who lived in
the 3d century.

The Legend referring to the protomartyr of England is not mentioned in the
Halliwell poem, but is first found in the Cooke MS., in the following words:
"And sone after that come seynt Adhabell into Englond, and he convertyd
seynt Albon to cristendome.  And seynt Albon lovyd well masons, and he
gaf hem fyrst her charges and maners fyrst in Englond.  And he ordeyned
convenyent (1) to pay for their travayle." (2)

The later manuscripts say nothing of St. Adhabell, and it is not until we get
to the Krause MS. in the beginning of the 18th century, that we find any
mention of St. Amphibalus, who is described in that document as having
been the teacher of St. Alban.  But St. Amphibalus, of which the Adhabell
of the Cooke MS. is undoubtedly a corruption, is so apocryphal a
personage, that I am rejoiced that the later legendists have not thought
proper to follow the Cooke document and give him a place in the Legend.

In fact, amphibalum was the ecclesiastical name of a cloak, worn by priests
of the Romish Church over their other vestments. (3) It was a
vestment ecclesiastically transmuted into a saint, as the hand-

(1) Cooke translates this "convenient times," supplying the second word. 
But a more correct word is suitable or proper, which is an old meaning
of convenient. "He ordained suitable pay for their labor," and this agrees
with the Iater manuscripts which impress the fact that St. Alban "made
their pay right good."
(2) Cooke MS., lines 602 - 611.
(3) It is significant that among the spurious relics sent, when fearing the
Danish invasion, in the reign of Edward the Confessor, by the Abbot of
St. Albans, to the monks of Ely, was a very rough, shagged old coat,
which it was said had been usually worn by St. Amphibalus.


kerchief on which Christ left the image of His face when, as it is said, it
was handed to Him on His way to Calvary, by a pious Jewess, became
from the Greco-Latin vera icon, "the true image," converted into St.
Veronica.  The Masonic are not the only legendists who draw deeply on
our credulity.

Of St. Alban, ecclesiastical history furnishes only the following meager
details, and even of these some are apocryphal, or at least lack the
stamp of authenticity.

He was born (so runs the tradition) in the 3d century, in Hertfordshire,
England, near the town of Verulanium.  Going to Rome, he served for
seven years as a soldier under the Emperor Diocletian.  He then
returned with a companion and preceptor Amphibalus, to Britain, and
betook himself to Verulanium.  When the persecutions of the Christians
commenced in Britain, Amphibalus was sought for, as one who had
apostatized to the new religion; but as he could not be found, St. Alban
voluntarily presented himself to the judge, and after undergoing torture
was imprisoned.  Soon after this, the retreat of Amphibalus having been
discovered, both he and St. Alban suffered death for being Christians. 
Four centuries after his martyrdom, Offa, King of the Mercians, erected a
monastery at Holmehurst, the hill where he was buried, and soon after
the town of St. Albans arose in its vicinity.

When the Christian religion became predominant in England, the Church
paid great honors to the memory of the protomartyr.  A chapel was
erected over his grave which, according to the Venerable Bede, was of
admirable workmanship.

The Masonic Legend contains details which are not furnished by the
religious one.  According to it, St. Alban was the steward of the
household of Carausius, he who had revolted from the Emperor
Maximilian, and usurped the sovereignty of England.  Carausius
employed him in building the town walls.  St. Alban, thus receiving the
superintendence of the Craft, treated them with great kindness,
increased their pay, and gave them a charter to hold a general
assembly.  He assisted them in making Masons, and framed for them a
constitution - for such is the meaning of the phrase, "gave them
charges."

Now, there is sufficient historical evidence to show that architecture was
introduced into England by the Roman artificers, who followed, as was
their usage, the Roman legions, habilitated themselves in the conquered
colonies, and engaged in the construction not only of camps and
fortifications, but also when peace was restored in the building of
temples and even private edifices.  Architectural ruins and Latin
inscriptions, which still remain in many parts of Britain, attest the labors
and the skill of these Roman artists, and sustain the statement of the
Legend, that Masonry, which, it must be remembered, is, in the Old
Records, only a synonym of architecture, was introduced into England
during the period of its Roman colonization.

As to the specific statement that St. Alban was the patron of Masons,
that he exercised the government of a chief over the Craft, and improved
their condition by augmenting their wages, we may explain this as the
expression of a symbolical idea, in which history is not altogether
falsified, but only its dates and personages confused.

Carausius, the Legend does not mention by name.  It simply refers to
some King of England, of whose household St. Alban was the steward. 
Carausius assumed the imperial purple in the year in which St. Alban
suffered martyrdom.  The error of making him the patron of St. Alban is
not, therefore, to be attributed to the legendist, but to Dr. Anderson, who
first perpetrated this chronological blunder in the second edition of his
Constitutions.  And though he states that "this is asserted by all the old
copies of the Constitutions," we fail to find it in any that are now extant.

This "Legend of St. Alban," as it has been called, is worthy of a farther
consideration.

The foundation of this symbolical narrative was first laid by the writer of
the Cooke MS., or, rather, copied by him from the tradition existing
among the Craft at that time.  Its form was subsequently modified and
the details extended in the Dowland MS., for tradition always grows in
the progress of time.  This form and these details were preserved in all
the succeeding manuscript Constitutions, until they were still further
altered and enlarged by Anderson, Preston, and other Masonic
historians of the last century.

With the gratuitous accretions of these later writers we have no concern
in any attempted explanation of the actual signification of the Legend. 
Its true form and spirit are to be found only in the Dowland MS. of the
middle of the 16th century, and in those which

(1) Anderson, "Constitutions," 2d edit., p. 57.


were copied from it, up to the Papworth, at the beginning of the 18th. 
To these, and not to anything written after the period of the Revival, we
must direct our attention.

Admitting that on the conquest of England by the Roman power, the
architects who had accompanied the victorious legions introduced into
the conquered colony their architectural skill, it is very likely that some
master workmen among them had been more celebrated than others for
their skill, and, indeed, it is naturally to be supposed that to such skillful
builders the control of the Craft must have been confided.  Whether
there were one or more of these chief architects, St. Alban, if not actually
one of them, was, by the lapse of time and the not unusual process by
which legendary or oral accretions are superimposed on a plain
historical fact, adopted by the legendists as their representative.  Who
was the principal patron of the Architects or Masons during the time of
the colonization of England by the Romans, is not so material as is the
fact that architecture, with other branches of civilization, was introduced
at that era into the island by its conquerors.

This is an historical fact, and in this point the Legend of the Craft agrees
with authentic history.

But it is also an historical fact that when, by the pressure of the Northern
hordes of barbarians upon Rome, it was found necessary to withdraw all
the legions from the various colonies which they protected from exterior
enemies and restrained from interior insurrection, the arts and sciences,
and among them architecture, began to decline in England.  The natives,
with the few Roman colonists who had permanently settled among them,
were left to defend themselves from the incursions of the Picts on the
north, and the Danish and Saxon pirates in the east and south.  The arts
of civilization suffered a depression in the tumult of war.  Science can
not flourish amid the clang and clash of arms.  This depression and
suspension of all architectural progress in England, which continued for
some centuries, is thus expressed in the quaint language of the Legend:

"Right soone after the decease of Saint Albone, there came divers wars
into the realme of England of divers Nations, soe that the good rule of
Masonrye was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge Athelstone's days."

There is far more of history than of fiction in this part of the Legend.

The next point of the Legend of the Craft to which our attention is to be
directed, is that which relates to the organization of Masonry at the city
of York, in the 10th century.  This part of the Legend is of far more
importance than any of those which have been considered.  The
prehistoric here verges so closely upon the historic period, that the true
narrative of the rise and progress of Masonry can not be justly
understood until each of these prehistoric and historic elements has
been carefully relegated to its appropriate period.  This will constitute the
subject matter of the next chapter.





CHAPTER XVIII

THE YORK LEGEND



THE suppression of all architectural art and enterprise having lasted for so
long a period in Britain, the Legend of the Craft next proceeds to account
for its revival in the 10th century and in the reign of Athelstan, whose son
Edwin called a meeting, or General Assembly, of the Masons at York in the
year 926, and there revived the Institution, giving to the Craft a new code
of laws.

Now, it is impossible to attach to this portion of the Legend, absolutely and
without any reservation, the taint of fiction.  The convocation of the Craft of
England at the city of York, in the year 926, has been accepted by both the
Operative Masons who preceded the Revival, and by the Speculatives who
succeeded them, up to the present day, as a historical fact that did not
admit of dispute.  The two classes of Legends - the one represented by the
Halliwell poem, and the other by the later manuscripts - concur in giving the
same statement.  The Cooke MS., which holds an intermediate place
between the two, also contains it.  But the Halliwell and the Cooke MSS.,
which are of older date, give more fully the details of what may be called
this revival of English Masonry.  Thoroughly to understand the subject, it
will be necessary to collate the three accounts given in the three different
sets of manuscripts.

The Halliwell poem, whose conjectural date is about 1390, contains the
account in the following words.  I will first give it, relieved of its
archaisms, for the convenience of the reader inexpert in early English,
and then follow with a quotation of the original language:

"This craft came into England, as I tell you, in the time of good King
Athelstane's reign. He made them both hall and also chamber, and lofty
churches of great honour, to recreate him in both day and night and to
worship his God with all his strength.  'This good lord loved this craft full
well, and purposed to strengthen it in every part, on account of several
defects which he discovered in the craft.  He sent about into the land
after all the masons of the craft to come straight to him, to amend all
these defects by good counsel, if it could be done.  Then he permitted
an assembly to be made of various lords according to their rank, dukes,
earls, and barons also, knights, squires, and many more, and the great
burgesses of that city, they were all there in their degree; these were
there, each one in every way to make laws for the society of these
masons.  There they sought by their wisdom how they might govern it. 
There they invented fifteen articles, and there they made fifteen points."
(1) The original is as follows:

"Thys craft com ynto England as y you say,
Yn tyme of good kynge Athelston's day;
He made the both halle and eke boure,
And hye templus of gret honoure,
To sportyn hym yn bothe day and nyghth,
And to worschepe his God with alle hys myghth.
Thys goode lorde loved thys craft ful wel,
And purposud to strenthyn hyt ever del,
For dyvers defautys that yn the craft he fonde;
He sende aboute ynto the londe
After alle the masonus of the crafte
To come to hym ful evene strayfte,
For to amende these defaultys alle
By good counsel gef hyt mygth falle.
A semble thenne he cowthe let make
Of dyvers lordis in here state
Dukys, erlys and barnes also,
Knygthys, sqwyers and mony mo,
And the grete burges of that syte,
They were ther alle yn here degre;
These were there uchon algate,
To ordeyne for these masonus estate,
Ther they sowgton ly here wytte
How they mygthyn governe hytte
Fyftene artyculus they there sowgton,
And fyftene poyntys ther they wrogton."

One hundred years afterward we find the Legend, in the Cooke MS., as
follows:

"And after that was a worthy kynge in Englond that was callyd

(1) Halliwell MS., lines 61-87.

 Athelstone, and his yongest sone lovyd well the sciens of Gemetry, and
he vont well that handcraft had the practyke of Gemetry so well as
masons, wherefore he drew him to consell and lernyd [the] practyke of
that sciens to his speculatyfe. (1) For of speculatyfe he was a master,
and he lovyd well masonry and masons.  And he bicome a mason
hymselfe.  And he gaf hem [gave them] charges and names (2) as it is
now usyd in Englond and in other countries.  And he ordeyned that they
schulde have resonabull pay.  And purchesed [obtained] a fre patent of
the kyng that they schulde make a sembly when they saw resonably
tyme a [to] cume togedir to her [their] counsell of the whiche charges,
manors & semble as is write and taught in the boke of our charges
wherefor I leve it at this tyme." (3)

In a subsequent part of the manuscript, which appears to have been
taken from the aforesaid "boke of charges," with some additional details,
are the following words:

"After that, many yeris, in the tyme of Kyng Adhelstane, wiche was sum
tyme kynge of Englonde, bi his counsell and other gret loritys of the lond
by comyn [common] assent for grete defaut y-fennde [found] among
masons thei ordeyend a certayne reule amongys hem [them].  On [one]
tyme of the yere or in iii yere as nede were to the kyng and gret loritys of
the londe and all the comente [community], fro provynce to provynce
and fro countre to countre congregacions schulde be made by maisters,
of all maisters masons and felaus in the forsayd art.  And so at such
congregacions, they that be made masters schold be examined of the
articuls after written & be ransacked [examined] whether they be abull
and kunnyng to the profyte of the loritys hem to serve [to serve them]
and to the honour of the forsayd art." (4)

Sixty years afterward we find this Legend repeated in the Dowland MS.,
but with some important variations.  This Legend has already been given
in the Legend of the Craft, but for the convenience of immediate
comparison with the preceding documents it will be well to repeat it
here.  It is in the following words:

"Right soone after the decease of Saint Albone there came divers

(1) Cooke calls particular attention to this word as of much significative
import.  I think it simply means that the king added a practical
knowledge of Masonry or architecture to his former merely speculative or
theoretical acquaintance with the art.
(2) This is evidently an error of the pen for maners, i.e., usages.
(3) Cooke MS., lines 611-642.
(4) Cooke MS., lines 693-719.


warrs into the realme of England of divers Nations, soe that the good
rule of Masonrye was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge Athelstones
days that was a worthy Kinge of England, and brought this land into
good rest and peace and builded many great works of Abbyes and
Towres and other many divers buildings and loved well Masons. And he
had a Sonn that height Edwinne, and he loved Masons much more than
his father did. And he was a great practiser in Geometry, and he drew
him much to talke and to commune with Masons and to learne of them
science, and afterwards for love that he had to Masons and to the
science he was made Mason, (1) and he gatt of the Kinge his father a
Chartour and Commission to hold every yeare once an Assemble wher
that ever they would within the realme of England, and to correct within
themselves defaults and trespasses that were done within the science. 
And he held himselfe an Assemble at Yorke, and there he made Masons
and gave them charges and taught them the manners, and commanded
that rule to be kept ever after.  And tooke them the Chartour and
Commission to keepe and made ordinance that it should be renewed
from kinge to kinge.
"And when the Assemble was gathered he made a cry that all old
Masons and young, that had any writeings or understanding of the
charges and the manners that were made before in this land, or in any
other, that they should shew them forth.  And when it was proved there
was founden some in Frenche and some in Greek and some in English
and some in other languages; and the intent of them all was founden all
one.  And he did make a booke thereof, and how the science was
founded.  And he himselfe bad and commanded that it should be readd
or tould, when that any Mason should be made, for to give him his
Charge.  And fro that day into this tyme manners of Masons have beene
kept in that forme as well as men might governe it.  And furthermore
divers Assembles have beene put and ordayned certain charges by the
best advice of Masters and Fellowes."

It will be remarked that in neither of the two oldest manuscripts,

(1) The next MS. in date, the Landsdowne, names the place where he
was made as Windsor.  This statement is not found in any of the other
manuscripts except the Antiquity MS.  It may here be observed that
nothing more clearly proves the great carelessness of the transcribers of
these manuscripts than the fact that although they must have all been
familiar with the name of Edwin, one of them spells it Ladrian, and
another Hoderine.


the Halliwell and the Cooke, is there any mention of Prince Edwin, or of
the city of York.  For the omission I shall hereafter attempt to account. 
As to that of the lauer I agree with Bro. Woodford, that as the fact of the
Assembly is stated in all the later traditions, and as a city is mentioned
whose burgesses were present, we may fairly, understand both of the
oldest manuscripts also to refer to York. (1) At all events, their silence as
to the place affords no sufficient evidence that it was not York, as
opposed to the positive declaration of the later manuscripts that it was.

We see, then, that all the old Legends assert expressly, or by
implication, that York was the city where the first General Masonic
Assembly was held in England, and that it was summoned under the
authority of King Athelstan.

The next point in which all the later manuscripts, except the Harleian, (2)
agree is, that the Assembly was called by Prince Edwin, the King's son.

The Legend does not here most certainly agree with history, for there is
no record that Athelstan had any son.  He had, however, a brother of
that name, who died two years before him.

Edward the Elder, the son of Alfred the Great, died in the year 925,
leaving several legitimate sons and one natural one, Athelstan.  The
latter, who was the eldest of the sons of Edward, obtained the throne,
notwithstanding the stain on his birth, in consequence of his age, which
better fitted him to govern at a time when the kingdom was engaged in
foreign and domestic wars.

All historians concur in attributing to Athelstan the character of a just and
wise sovereign, and of a sagacious statesman.  It has been said of him
that he was the most able and active of the ancient princes of England. 
What his grandfather, the great Alfred, commenced in his efforts to
consolidate the petty monarchies into which the land was divided, into
one powerful kingdom, Athelstan, by his energy, his political wisdom,
and his military prowess, was enabled to perfect, so that he has been
justly called the first monarch of all England.

Although engaged duhng his whole reign in numerous wars, he

(1) "On the Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in
England."  By A.F. Woodford, A.M., in Hughan's " Masonic Sketches and
Reprints," p. 168.
(2) The Harleian MS makes no mention of Prince Edwin, but attributes
the organization of Masonry at York to King Athelstan himself.

did not neglect a cultivation of the employments of peace, and
encouraged by a liberal patronage the arts and especially architecture.

The only stain upon his character is the charge that having suspected
his brother Edwin of being engaged in a conspiracy against his throne,
he caused that prince to be drowned.  Notwithstanding the efforts of
Preston to disprove this charge, the concurrent testimony of all the old
chroniclers afford no room to doubt its truth.  But if anything could atone
for this cruel act of state policy, it would be the bitter anguish and
remorse of conscience which led the perpetrator to endure a severe
penance of seven years.

Of Edwin, the Saxon historians make no mention, except when they
speak of his untimely death.  If we may judge of his character from this
silence, we must believe that he was not endued with any brilliant
qualities of mind, nor distinguished by the performance of any important
act.

Of all the half-brothers of Athelstan, the legitimate children of Edward the
Elder, Edmund seems to have been his favorite.  He kept him by his
side on battle-fields, lived single for his sake, and when he died in 941,
left to him the succession to the throne.

But there is another Edwin of prominent character in the annals of Saxon
England, to whom attention has been directed in connection with this
Legend, as having the best claim to be called the founder or reviver of
English Masonry.

Of Edwin, King of Northumbria, it may be said, that in his narrow sphere,
as the monarch of a kingdom of narrow dimensions, he was but little
inferior in abilities or virtues to Athelstan.

At the time of his birth, in 590, Northumbria was divided into two
kingdoms, that of Bernicia, north of the Humber, and that of the Deira,
on the south of the same river.  Of the former, Ethelfrith was King, and of
the latter, Ella, the father of Edwin.

Ella died in 593, and was succeeded by Edwin an infant of three years
of age.

Soon after, Ethelfrith invaded the possessions of Edwin, and attached
them by usurpation to his own domains.

Edwin was sent to Wales, whence when he grew older he was obliged to
flee, and passed many years in exile, principally at the Court of Redwald,
King of East Anglia.  By the assistance of this monarch he was enabled
to make war upon his old enemy, Ethelfrith, who, having been slain in
battle, and his sons having fled into Scotland, Edwin not only regained
his own throne, but that of the usurper also, and in the year 617 became
the King of Northumbria, of which the city of York was made the capital.
Edwin was originally a pagan, but his mind was of a contemplative turn,
and this made him, says Turner, more intellectual than any of the Saxon
Kings who had preceded him.  He was thus led to a rational
consideration of the doctrines of Christianity, which he finally accepted,
and was publicly baptized at York, on Easter day, in the year 627.  The
ceremony was publicly performed in the Church of St. Peter the Apostle,
which he had caused to be hastily constructed of wood, for the
purposes of divine service, during the time that he was undergoing the
religious instructions preliminary to his receiving the sacrament.

But as soon as he was baptized, he built, says Bede, under the direction
of Paulinus, his religious instructor and bishop, in the same place, a
much larger and nobler church of stone.

During the reign of Edwin, and of his successors in the same century,
ecclesiastical architecture greatly flourished, and many large churches
were built.  Edwin was slain in battle in 633, having reigned for
seventeen years.

The Venerable Bede gives us the best testimony we could desire as to
the character of Edwin as ruler, when he tells us that in all of his
dominions there was such perfect peace that a woman with a newborn
babe might walk from sea to sea without receiving any harm.  Another
incident that he relates is significant of Edwin's care and consideration
for the comforts of his people.  Where there were springs of water near
the highways, he caused posts to be fixed with drinking vessels attached
to them for the convenience of travelers.  By such acts, and others of a
higher character, by his encouragement of the arts, and his strict
administration of justice, he secured the love of his subjects.

So much of history was necessary that the reader might understand the
argument in reference to the true meaning of the York Legend, now to
be discussed.

In the versions of the Legend given by Anderson and Preston, the honor
of organizing Masonry and calling a General Assembly is attributed to
Edwin the brother, and not to Edwin the son of Athelstan.  These
versions are, however, of no value as historical documents, because
they are merely enlarged copies of the original Legend.

But in the Roberts Constitutions, printed in 1722, and which was claimed
to have been copied from a manuscript about five hundred years old,
but without any proof (as the original has never been recovered), the
name of Edwin is altogether omitted, and Athelstan himself is said to
have been the reviver of the institution.  The language of this manuscript,
as published by J. Roberts, is as follows: (1)

"He [Athelstan] began to build many Abbies, Monasteries, and other
religious houses, as also Castles and divers Fortresses for defence of his
realm. He loved Masons more than his father; he greatly study'd
Geometry, and sent into many lands for men expert in the science.  He
gave them a very large charter to hold a yearly assembly, and power to
correct offenders in the said science; and the king himself caused a
General Assembly of all Masons in his realm, at York, and there were
made many Masons, and gave them a deep charge for observation of all
such articles as belonged unto Masonry and delivered them the said
Charter to keep."

In the omission of all reference to Prince Edwin, the Harleian and
Roberts manuscripts agree with that of Halliwell.

There is a passage in the Harleian and Roberts MSS. that is worthy of
notice.  All the recent manuscripts which speak of Edwin as the procurer
of the Charter, say that "he loved Masons much more than his father did"
- meaning Athelstan.  But the Harleian and Roberts MSS., speaking of
King Athelstan, use the same language, but with a different reference,
and say of King Athelstan, that "he loved idasons more than his father " -
meaning King Edward, whose son Athelstan was.

Now, of the two statements, that of the Harleian and Roberts MSS. is
much more conformable to history than the other. Athelstan was a lover
of Masons, for he was a great patron of architecture, and many public
buildings were erected during his reign.  But it is not recorded in history
that Prince Edwin exhibited any such attachment to Masonry or
Architecture as is attributed to him in the old records, certainly not an
attachment equal to that of Athelstan.  On the contrary, Edward, the son
of Alfred and the father of Athelstan, was not distinguished during his
reign for any marked patronage of

(1) The book was republished by Spencer in 1870.  The Roberts
"Constitutions" and the Harleian MS. No. 1942, are evidently copies from
the same original, if not one from the other.  The story of Athelstan is, of
course, identical in both, and the citation might as well have been made
from either.


the arts, and especially of architecture; and it is, therefore, certain that
his son Athelstan exhibited a greater love to Masons or Architects than
he did.

Hence there arises a suspicion that the Legend was originally framed in
the form presented to us by the Halliwell poem, and copied apparently
by the writers of the Harleian and Roberts MSS., and that the insertion of
the name of Prince Edwin was an afterthought of the copiers of the more
recent manuscripts, and that this insertion of Edwin's name, and the
error of making him a son of Athelstan, arose from a confusion of the
mythical Edwin with a different personage, the earlier Edwin, who was
King of Northumbria.

It may also be added that the son of Athelstan is not called Edwin in all
of the recent manuscripts.  In one Sloane MS. he is called Ladrian, in
another Hegme, and in the Lodge of Hope MS. Hoderine.  This fact
might indicate that there was some confusion and disagreement in
putting the name of Prince Edwin into the Legend. But I will not press
this point, because I am rather inclined to attribute these discrepancies
to the proverbial carelessness of the transcribers of these manuscripts.


How, then, are we to account for this introduction of an apparently
mythical personage into the narrative, by which the plausibility of the
Legend is seriously affected ?

Anderson, and after him Preston, attempts to get out of the difficulty by
calling Edwin the brother, and not the son, of Athelstan.  It is true that
Athelstan did have a younger brother named Edwin, whom some
historians have charged him with putting to death.  And in so far the
Legend might not be considered as incompatible with history.  But as all
the manuscripts which have to this day been recovered which speak of
Edwin call him the king's son and not his brother, notwithstanding the
contrary statement of Anderson, (1) I prefer another explanation,
although it involves the charge of anachronism.

The annals of English history record a royal Edwin, whose de

(1) Anderson says in the second edition of the "Book of Constitutions"
that in all the Old Constitutions it is written Prince Edwin, the king's
brother - a statement that is at once refuted by a reference to all the
manuscripts from the Dowland to the Papworth, where the word is
always son.  So much for the authority of the old writers on Masonic
history.


votion to the arts and sciences, whose wise statesmanship, and whose
patronage of architecture, must have entitled him to the respect and the
affection of the early English Masons.  Edwin, King of Northumbria, one
of the seven kingdoms into which England was divided during the
Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, died in 633, after a reign of sixteen years, which
was distinguished for the reforms which he accomplished, for the wise
laws which he enacted and enforced, for the introduction of Christianity
into his kingdom, and for the improvement which he emeacd in the
moral, social, and intellectual condition of his subjects.  When be
ascended the throne the northern metropolis of the Anglican Church had
been placed at York, where it still remains.  The king patronized
Paulinus, the bishop, and presented him with a residence and with other
possessions in that city.  Much of this has already been said, but it will
bear repetition.

To this Edwin, and not to the brother of Athelstan, modern Masonic
archaeologists have supposed that the Legend of the Craft refers.

Yet this opinion is not altogether a new one.  More than a century and a
half ago it seems to have prevailed as a tradition among the Masons of
the northern part of England.  For in 1726, in an address delivered
before the Grand Lodge of York by its Junior Grand Warden, Francis
Drake, he speaks of it as being well known and recognized, in the
following words:

"You know we can boast that the first Grand Lodge ever held in England
was held in this city [York]; where Edwin, the first Christian King of the
Northumbers, about the six hundredth year after Christ, and who laid the
foundation of our Cathedral, (1) sat as Grand Master."

Bro. A.F.A. Woodford, a profound Masonic archaeologist, accepts this
explanation, and finds a confirmation in the facts that the town of
Derventio, now Auldby, six miles from York, the supposed seat of the
pseudo-Edwin, was also the chief seat and residence of Edwin, King of
Northumbria, and that the buildings, said in one of the manuscripts to
have been erected by the false Edwin, were really erected, as is known
from history, by the Northumbrian Edwim

I think that with these proofs, the inquirer will have little or no


(1) Bede (L. 2., C. 13) and Rapin (P. 246) both confirm this statement
that the  foundations of the York Cathedral, or Minster, were laid in the
reign of Edwin.


hesitation in accepting this version of the Legend, and will recognize the
fact that the writers of the later manuscripts fell into an error in
substituting Edwin, the son (as they called him, but really the brother) of
Athelstan, for Edwin, the King of Northumbria.

It is true that the difference of dates presents a difficulty, there being
about three hundred years between the reigns of Edwin of Northumbria,
and Athelstan of England.  But that difficulty, I think, may be overcome
by the following theory which I advance on the subject:


The earlier series of manuscripts, of which the Halliwell poem is an
exemplar, and, perhaps, also the Harleian and the Roberts MSS., (1)
make no mention of Edwin, but assign the revival of Masonry in the 10th
century to King Athelstan.

The more recent manuscripts, of which the Dowland is the earliest,
introduce Prince Edwin into the Legend and ascribe to him the honor of
having obtained from Athelstan a charter, and of having held an
Assembly at York.

There are, then, two forms of the Legend, which, for the sake of
distinction, may be designated as the older and the later.  The older
Legend makes Athelstan the reviver of Masonry in England, and says
nothing at all of Edwin.  The later takes this honor from Athelstan and
gives it to Prince Edwin, who is called his son.

The part about Edwin is, then, an addition to the older legend, and was
interpolated into it by the later legendists, as will be evidently seen if the
following extract from the Dowland MS. be read, and all the words there
printed in italics be omitted.  So read, the passage will conform very
substantially with the corresponding one in the Roberts MS., which was
undoubtedly a copy from some older manuscript which contained the
legend in its primitive form, wherein there is no mention of Prince Edwin. 
Here is the extract to be amended by the omission of words in italics:

"The good rule of Masonry was destroyed unto the tyme of Kinge
Athelstone dayes that was a worthy Kinge of England, and brought this
land into good rest and peace; and builded many great works of Abbyes
and Towres, and other many divers buildings and loved well Masons. 
And he had a sonn that height Edwinne, and 

(1) The fact that the Legend in the Roberts "Constitutions" agrees in this
respect with the older legend, and differs from that in all the recent
manuscripts, gives some color to the claim that it was copied from a
manuscript five hundred years old.


he loved Masons much more than his father did.  And he was a great
practiser in Geometry; and he drew him much to talke and to commune
with Masons, and to learne of them science; and afterward for love that
he had to Masons and to the science he was made a Mason and he gatt
(1) [ie., he gave] of the Kinge his father a Charter and commission to
hold every year once an Assemble, wher that ever they would, within the
realme of England; and to correct within themselves defaults and
trespasses that were done within the science.  And he held himselfe an
Assemble at Yorke, and there he made Masons, and gave them
charges, and taught them the manners, and commanded that rule to be
kept ever after, and tooke then the Chartour and Commission to keepe,
and made ordinance that it should be renewed from Kinge to Kinge."

The elimination of only thirteen words relieves us at once of all difficulty,
and brings the Legend into precise accord with the tradition of the older
manuscripts.

Thus eliminated it asserts:

1. That King Athelstan was a great patron of the arts of civilization- "he
brought the land into rest and peace." This statement is sustained by the
facts of history.

2. He paid especial attention to architecture and the art of building, and
adorned his country with abbeys, towns (towers is a clerical error), and
many other edifices.  History confirms this also.

3. He was more interested in, and gave a greater patronage to,
architecture than his father and predecessor, Edward - another historical
fact.

4. He gave to the Masons or Architects a charter as a guild, and called
an assembly of the Craft at York.  This last statement is altogether
traditional.  Historians are silent on the subject, just as they are on the
organization of a Grand Lodge in 1717.  The mere silence of historians
as to the formation of a guild of craftsmen or a private society is no
proof that such guild or society was not formed. The truth of the
statement that King Athelstan caused an assembly of Masons to be held
in the year 926 at the city of York, depends


(1) This word is used in the sense of given or granted, in an undoubted
historical document, Athelstan's charter to the town of Beverly.

"Yat I, the Kynge Adelston,
Has gaten and given to St. John
Of Beverlae, etc."



solely on a tradition, which has, however, until recently, been accepted
by the whole Masonic world as an undoubted truth.

But that the city of York was the place where an assembly was
convened by Athelstan in the year 926 is rendered very improbable
when we refer to the concurrent events of history at that period of time.

In 925 Athelstan ascended the throne. At that time Sigtryg was the
reigning King of Northumbria, which formed no part of the dominions of
Athelstan.  To Sigtryg, who had but very recently been converted from
Paganism to Christianity, Athelstan gave his sister in marriage.  But the
Northumbrian king having apostatized, his brother-in-law resolved to
dethrone him, and prepared to invade his kingdom.  Sigtryg having died
in the meantime, his sons fled, one into Ireland and the other into
Scotland, and Athelstan annexed Northumbria to his own dominions.

This occurred in the year 926, and it is not likely that while pursuing the
sons of Sigtryg, one of whom had escaped from his captors and taken
refuge in the city of York, whose citizens he vainly sought to enlist in his
favor, Athelstan would have selected that period of conflict, and a city
within his newly-acquired territory, instead of his own capital, for the time
and place of holding an assembly of Masons.

It is highly improbable that he did, but yet it is not absolutely impossible. 
The tradition may be correct as to York, but, if so, then the time should
be advanced, by, a few years, to that happy period when Athelstan had
restored the land "into good rest and peace."

But the important question is, whether this tradition is mythical or
historical, whether it is a fiction or a truth.  Conjectural criticism applied
to the theory of probabilities alone can aid us in solving this problem.

I say, therefore, that there is nothing in the personal character of
Athelstan, nothing in the recorded history of his reign, nothing in the
well-known manner in which he exercised his royal authority and
governed his realm, that forbids the probability that the actions attributed
to him in the Legend of the Craft actually took place.

Taking his grandfather, the great Alfred, as his pattern, he was liberal in
all his ideas, patronized learning, erected many churches, monasteries,
and other edifices of importance throughout his dominions, encouraged
the translation of the Scriptures into Anglo-Saxon, and, what is of great
value to the present question, gave charters to many guilds or operative
companies as well as to several municipalities.
Especially is it known from historical records that in the reign of
Athelstan the frith-gildan, free guilds or sodalities, were incorporated by
law.  From these subsequently arose the craft-guilds or associations for
the establishment of fraternal relations and mutual aid, into which, at the
present day, the trade companies of England are divided.

There would be nothing improbable in any narrative which should assert
that he extended his protection to the operative Masons, of whose art we
know that he availed himself in the construction of the numerous public
and religious edifices which he was engaged in erecting.  It is even more
than plausible to suppose that the Masons were among the sodalities to
whom he granted charters or acts of incorporation.

Like the Rev. Bro. Woodford, whose opinion as a Masonic archaeologist
is of great value, I am disposed to accept a tradition venerable for its
antiquity and for so long a period believed in by the craft as an historical
record in so far as relates to the obtaining of a charter from Athelstan
and the holding of an assembly.  "I see no reason, therefore," he says,
"to reject so old a tradition that under Athelstan the operative Masons
obtained his patronage and met in General Assembly." (1)

Admitting the fact of Athelstan's patronage and of the Assembly at some
place, we next encounter the difficulty of explaining the interpolation of
what may be called the episode of Prince Edwin.

I have already shown that there can be no doubt that the framers of the
later legend had confounded the brother, whom they, by a mistake, had
called the son of Athelstan, with a preceding king of the same name,
that is, with Edwin, King of Northumbria, who, in the 7th century, did
what the pseudo-Edwin is supposed to have done in the 10th.  That is to
say, he patronized the Masons of his time, introduced the art of building
into his kingdom, and probably held an Assembly at York, which was his
capital city.

Now, I suppose that the earlier Masons of the south of England, who
framed the first Legend of ihe Crafl, such as is presented to

(1) "The Connection of York with the History of Freemasonry in England," 
inserted in Hughan's " Unpublished Records of the Craft," p. 168.

us in the old poem, first published by Mr. Halliwell in 1840, and also in
the Harleian manuscript and in the one printed by Roberts in 1722, were
unacquainted with the legend of Edwin of Northumbria, although, if we
may believe Bro. Drake, it was a well-known tradition in the north of
England.  The earlier legends of the south, therefore, gave the honor of
patronizing the Masons and holding an Assembly at York in 926 to
Athelstan alone.  This was, therefore, the primitive Legend of the Craft
among the Masons of London and the southern part of the kingdom.

But in time these southern Masons became, in consequence of
increased intercourse, cognizant of the tradition that King Edwin of
Northumbria had also patronized the Masons of his kingdom, but at an
earlier period.  The two traditions were, of course, at first kept distinct. 
There was, perhaps, a reluctance among the Masons of the south to
diminish the claims of Athelstan as the first reviver, after St. Alban, of
Masonry in England, and to give the precedence to a monarch who lived
three hundred years before in the northern part of the island.

This reluctance, added to the confusion to which all oral tradition is
obnoxious, coupled with the fact that there was an Edwin, who was a
near relation of Athelson, resulted in the substitution of this later Edwin
for the true one.

It took years to do this - the reluctance continuing, the confusion of the
traditions increasing, until at last the southern Masons, altogether losing
sight of the Northumbrian tradition as distinct from that of Athelstan,
combined the two traditions into one, and, with the carelessness or
ignorance of chronology so common in that age, and especially among
uncultured craftsmen, substituted Edwin, the brother of Athelstan, (1) for
Edwin, the King of Northumbria, and thus formed a new Legend of the
Craft such as it was perpetuated by Anderson, and after him by Preston,
and which has lasted to the present day.

Therefore, eliminating from the narrative the story of Edwin, as it is told
in the recent Legend, and accepting it as referring to Edwin of
Northumbria, and as told in the tradition peculiar to the Masons of the
northern part of England, we reach the conclusion that there were
originally two traditions, one extant in the northern


(1) To the same carelessness or ignorance are we to attribute the
legendary error of making Edwin the son of Athelstan.


part of England and the other in the southern part.  The former Legend
ascribed the revival of Masonry in England to Edwin, King of
Northumbria in the 7th century, and the latter to Athelstan, King of
England in the 10th.  There being little communication in those days
between the two parts of the kingdom, the traditions remained distinct. 
But at some subsequent period, not earlier than the middle of the 10th
century, or the era of the Reformation, (1) the southern Masons became
acquainted with the true Legend of the York Masons, and incorporated it
into their own Legend, confounding, however the two Edwins, either
from ignorance, or more probably, from a reluctance to surrender the
preeminence they had hitherto given to Athelstan as the first reviver of
Masonry in England.

We arrive, then, at the conclusion, that if there was an Assembly at York
it was convened by Edwin, King of Northumbria, who revived Masonry in
the northern part of England in the 7th century; and that its decayed
prosperity was restored by Athelstan in the 10th century, not by the
holding of an Assembly at the city of York, but by his general patronage
of the arts, and especially architecture, and by the charters of
incorporation which he freely granted to various guilds or sodalities of
workmen.

With these explanations, we are now prepared to review and to
summarize the Legend of the Craft, not in the light of a series of absurd
fictions, as too many have been inclined to consider it, but as an
historical narrative, related in quaint language, not always grammatical,
and containing several errors of chronology, misspelling of names, and
confusion of persons, such as were common and might be expected in
manuscripts written in that uncultured age, and by the uneducated
craftsmen to whom we owe these old manuscripts.

(1) I assign this era because the Halliwell poem, which is the exemplar of
the older Legend, is evidently Roman Catholic in character, while the
Dowland, and all subsequent manuscripts which contain the later
Legend, are Protestant, all allusions to the Virgin, the saints, and
crowned martyrs being omitted.





CHAPTER XIX

SUMMARY OF THE LEGEND OF THE CRAFT



THE Legend of ihe Craft, as it is presented to us in what I have called the
later manuscripts, that is to say, the Dowland and those that follow it up to
the Papworth, begins with a descant on the seven liberal arts and sciences.
(1) I have already shown that among the schoolmen contemporary with the
legendists these seven arts and sciences were considered, in the
curriculum of education, not so much as the foundation, but as the finished
edifice of all human learning.  The Legend naturally partook of the spirit of
the age in which it was invented.  But especially did the Masons refer to
these sciences, and make a description of them, the preface, as it were, to
the story that they were about to relate, because the principal of these
sciences was geometry, and this they held to be synonymous with
Masonry.

Now, the intimate connection between geometry and architecture, as
practiced by the Operative Freemasons of the Middle Ages, is well known,
since the secrets, of which these Freemasons were supposed to be in
possession, consisted almost solely in an application of the principles of
the science of geometry to the art of building.

The Legend next procccds to narrate certain circumstances connected
with the children of Lamech.  These details are said in the Legend to
have been derived from the Book of Genesis but were probably taken at
second-hand from the Polychronicon, or universal history of the monk
Higden, of Chester. This part of the legend, which is not otherwise
connected with the Masonic narrative, appears to have been introduced
for the sake of an allusion to the pillars on which the sons of Lamech are
said to have inscribed an account of the sciences which they had
discovered, so that the

(1) The Halliwell poem, although it differs from the later manuscripts in
so many particulars, agrees with them in giving a descant on the arts
and sciences.


knowledge of them might not be lost in consequence of the destruction
of the world which they apprehended.

The story of the inscribed pillars was a tradition of every people,
narrated, with variations, by every historian and implicitly believed by the
multitude.  The legendists of Masonry got the account from Josephus,
perhaps through Higden, but altered it to suit the spirit of their own
narrative.

We are next told that Hermes discovered one of these pillars and was,
from the information that it contained, enabled to restore the knomiedge
of the sciences, and especially of Masonry, to the post-diluvian world. 
This was a tribute of the legendists to the universally accepted opinion of
the ancients, who venerated the "thrice great Hermes" as the mythical
founder of all science and philosophy.  We are next told that Nimrod,
"the mighty hunter before the Lord," availed himself of the wisdom that
had been recovered by Hermes.  He was distinguished for his
architectural works and first gave importance to the art of Masonry at the
building of the Tower of Babel.  The Legend attributes to Nimrod the
creation of the Masons into an organized body and he was the first who
gave them a constitution or laws for their government.  Masonry,
according to the legendary account, was founded in Babylon, whence it
passed over to the rest of the world.

In all this we find simply a recognition of the historical opinion that
Chaldea was the birthplace of knowledge and that the Chaldean sages
were the primitive teachers of Asia and Europe.  The modern discoveries
of the cuneiform inscriptions show that the Masonic legendists had, at a
venture, obtained a more correct idea of the true character of Nimrod
than that which had been hitherto entertained, founded on the brief
allusion to him in Genesis and the disparaging account of him in the
Antiquities of Josephus.

The monastic legends had made Abraham a contemporary of Nimrod,
and the Book of Genesis had described the visit of the patriarch and his
wife to the land of Egypt.  Combining these two statements, the idea
was suggested to the legendists that Abraham had carried into Egypt
the knowledge which he had acquired from the Chaldeans and taught it
to the inhabitants.

Thus it is stated that Egypt was, after Babylonia, the place where the arts
and sciences were first cultivated and thence disseminated to other
countries.  Among these arts and sciences geometry, which we have
seen was always connected in the Masonic mind with architecture, held
a prominent place.  He who taught it to the Egyptians was typically
represented by the name of Euclid, because the old Masons were
familiar with the fact that he was then esteemed, as he still is, as the
greatest of geometricians and almost the inventor of the science.

Accepting the allusion to Euclid, not as an historical anachronism, but
rather as the expression of a symbolic idea, we can scarcely class the
legendary statement of the condition of learning in Egypt as a pure and
unadulterated fiction.  It is an undoubted fact that Egypt was the
primeval land whence science and learning flowed into Southern Europe
and Western Asia.  Neither can it be disputed that civilization had there
ripened into maturity long before Greece or Rome were known.  It is
moreover conceded that the ancient Mysteries whence Masonry has
derived, not its organization, but a portion of its science of symbolism,
received its birth in the land of the Nile, and that the Mysteries of Osiris
and Isis were the prototypes of all the mystical initiations which were
celebrated in Asia and in Southern Europe.  They have even been
claimed, though I think incorrectly, as the origin of those in Gaul, in
Britain, and in Scandinavia.  By a rapid transition, the Legend passes
from the establishment of Masonry or architecture (for it must be
remembered that in legendary acceptation the two words are
synonymous) to its appearance in judea, the "Land of Behest," where,
under the patronage and direction of King Solomon the Temple of
Jerusalem was constructed.  All that is said in this portion of the Legend
purports to be taken from the scriptural account of the same transaction
and must have the same historical value.

As to the error committed in the name and designation of him who is
now familiarly known to Freemasons as Hiram Abif, a sufficient
explanation has been given in a preceding chapter.

We next have an account of the travels of these Masons or architects
who built the Temple into various countries, to acquire additional
knowledge and expeience, and to disseminate the principles of their art. 
The carelessness of chronology, to which I have already adverted, so
peculiar to the general illiteracy of the age, has led the legendists to
connect this diffusion of architecture among the various civilized
countries of the world with the Tyrian and Jewish Masons; but the
wanderings of that body of builders known as the "Traveling
Freemasons" of the Middle Ages, through all the kingdoms of Europe,
and their labors in the construction of cathedrals, monasteries, and other
public edifices are matters of historical record.  Thus the historical idea is
well preserved in the Legend of a body of artists who wandered over
Europe, and were employed in the construction of cathedrals,
monasteries, and other public edifices.

The Legend next recounts the introduction of architecture into France,
and the influence exerted upon it by Grecian architects, who brought
with them into that kingdom the principles of Byzantine art.  These are
facts which are sustained by history.  The prominence given to France
above Spain or Italy or Germany is, I think, merely another proof that the
Legend was of French origin or was constructed under French influence.

The account of the condition of Masonry or architecture among the
Britains in the time of St. Alban, or the 4th century, is simply a legendary
version of the history of the introduction of the art of building into
England during the Roman domination by the "Collegia Artificum" or
Roman Colleges of Artificers, who accompanied the victorious legions
when they vanquished Hesperia, Gaul, and Britain, and colonized as
they vanquished them.

The decay of architecture in Britain after the Roman armies had
abandoned that country to protect the Empire from the incursions of the
northern hordes of barbarians, in consequence of which Britain was left
in an unprotected state, and was speedily involved in wars with the Picts,
the Danes, and other enemies, is next narrated in the Legend, and is its
version of an historical fact.

It is also historically true that in the 7th century peace was restored to
the northern parts of the island, and that Edwin, King of Northumbria, of
which the city of York was the capital, revived the arts of civilization,
gave his patronage to architecture, and caused many public buildings,
among others the Cathedral of York, to be built.  All of this is told in the
Legend, although, by an error for which I have already accounted,
Edwin, the Northumbrian king, was in the later Legend confounded with
the brother of Athelstan.
The second decay of architecture in England, in consequence of the
invasions of the Danes, and the intestine as well as foreign wars which
desolated the kingdom until the reign of Athelstan, in the early part of
the 10th century, when entire peace was restored, is briefly alluded to in
the Legend, therein conforming to the history of that troublous period.

As a consequence of the restoration of peace, the Legend records the
revival of Masonry or architecture in the 10th century, under the reign of
Athelstan, who called the Craft together and gave them a charter.  I have
already discussed this point and shown that the narrative of the Legend
presents nothing improbable or incredible but that it is easily to be
reconciled with the facts of contemporary history.  We have only to
reconcile the two forms of the Legend by asserting that Edwin of
Northumbria revived Masonry in an Assembly convened by him at York,
and that Athelstan restored its decayed prosperity by his general
patronage, and by charters which he gave to the Guilds or corporations
of handicraftsmen.

Passing, in this summary method over the principal occuuences related
in this Legend of the Craft, we relieve it from the charge of gross
puerility, which has been urged against it, even by some Masonic writers
who have viewed it in a spirit of immature criticism.  We find that its
statements are not the offspring of a fertile imagination or the crude
inventions of sheer ignorance, but that, on the contrary, they really have
a support in what was at the time accepted as authentic history, and
whose authenticity can not, even now, be disproved or denied.

Dissected as it has here been by the canons of philosophical criticism,
the Legend of the Craft is no longer to be deemed a fable or myth, but
an historical narrative related in the quaint language and in the quainter
spirit of the age in which it was written.

But after the revival of Freemasonry in the beginning of the 18th century,
this Legend, for the most part misunderstood, served as a fundamental
basis on which were erected, first by Anderson and then by other writers
who followed him, expanded narratives of the rise and progress of
Masonry, in which the symbolic ideas or the mythical suggestions of the
ancient "Legend" were often developed and enlarged into statements for
the most part entirely fabulous.

In this way, these writers, who were educated and even learned men,
have introduced not so much any new legends, but rather theories
founded on a legend, by which they have traced the origin and the
progress of the institution in narratives without historic authenticity and
sometimes contradictory to historic truth.

The mode in which these theories have been attempted to be supported
by the citation of assumed facts have caused them to take, to some
extent, the form of legends. But to distinguish them from the pure
Legends which existed before the 18th century, I have preferred to call
them theories.

Their chief tendency has been, by the use of unauthenticated
statements, to confuse the true history of the Order.  And yet they have
secured so prominent a place in its literature and have exerted so much
influence on modern Masonic ideas, that they must be reviewed and
analyzed at length, in order that the reader may have a complete
understanding of the legendary history of the institution.  For of that
legendary, history these theories, founded as they are on assumed
traditions, constitute a part.

As having priority in date, the theory of Dr. Anderson will be the first to
claim our attention.





CHAPTER XX

THE ANDERSONIAN THEORY



THE Legend or theory of Dr. Anderson is detailed first in the edition of the
Book of Constitutions which was edited by him and published in the year
1723, and was then more extensively developed in the subsequent edition
of the same work published in 1738.

Anderson was acquainted with the more recent Legend of the Craft, and
very fully cites it from a manuscript or Record of Freemasons, written in the
reign of Edward IV, that is, toward the end of the 15th century.  If
Anderson's quotations from this manuscript are correct, it must be one of
those that has been lost and not yet recovered.  For among some other
events not mentioned in the manuscripts that are now extant, he states that
the charges and laws of the Freemasons had been seen and perused by
Henry VI. and his council, and had been approved by them.

He does not appear to have met with any of the earlier manuscripts, such
as those of Halliwell and Roberts, which contain the Legend in its older
form, for he makes no use of the Legend of Euclid, passing over the
services of that geometrician lightly, as the later manuscripts do, (1) and
not ascribing to him the origin of the Order in Egypt, which theory is the
peculiar characteristic of the older Legend.

But out of the later Legend and from whatever manuscripts containing it
to which he had access, Anderson has formed a Legend of his own.  In
this he has added many things of his own creation and given a more
detailed narrative, if not a more correct one, than that contained in the
Legend of the Craft.

Anderson's Legend, or theory, of the rise and progress of Ma-


(1) In the slight mention that he makes of Euclid, Anderson has
observed the true chronology and placed him in the era of Ptolemy
Lagus, 300 years B.C.


sonry, as it is contained in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions,
was for a long time accepted by the Craft as a true history of the Order,
and it has exercised a very remarkable influence in the framing of other
theories on this subject which from time to time have been produced by
subsequent writers.

To the student, therefore, who is engaged in the investigation of the
legendary history of Masonry, this Andersonian Legend is of great
importance.  While the Legend of the Craft in its pure form was very little
known to the great body of Masonic writers and students until the
manuscripts containing this Legend in its various forms were made
common to the Masonic public by the labors of Halliwell, Cooke, and,
above all, by Hughan and his earnest collaborators in Masonic
archoeology, the Legend of Anderson was accessible and familiar to all,
and for a century and a half was deemed an authentic history, and even
at the present day is accepted by some over-credulous and not
well-informed Masons as a real narrative of the rise and progress of
Masonry.

Anderson, in his history of the origin of Masonry, mindful of the French
proverb, to "commencer par la commencement," begins by attributing to
Adam a knowledge of Geometry as the foundation of Masonry and
Architecture, words which throughout his Legend he uses as
synonymous terms.

These arts he taught to his sons, and Cain especially practiced them by
building a city.  Seth also was equally acquainted with them and taught
them to his offspring.  Hence the antediluvian world was well acquainted
with Masonry, (1) and erected many curious works until the time of
Noah, who built the Ark by the principles of Geometry and the rules of
Masonry.

Noah and his three sons, who were all Masons, brought with them to the
new world the traditions and arts of the antediluvians.  Noah is therefore
deemed the founder of Masonry in the post-diluvian world, and hence
Anderson called a Mason a "true Noachida" or Noachite, a term used to
the present day.

The descendants of Noah exercised their skill in Masonry in the
attempted erection of the Tower of Babel, but were confounded in their
speech and dispersed into various countries, whereby the 


(1) Oliver has readily accepted this theory of an antediluvian Masonry
and written several very learned and indeed interesting works on the
subject.


knowledge of Masonry was lost. (1) It was however, preserved in Shinar
and Assyria, where Nimrod built many cities.

In those parts afterward flourished many priests and mathematicians
under the name of Chaldees and Magi, who preserved the science of
Geometry or Masonry, and thence the science and the art (2) were
transmitted to later ages and distant climes.  Mitzraim, the second son of
Ham, carried Masonry into Egypt, where the overflowing of the banks of
the Nile caused an improvement in Geometry, and consequently brought
Masonry much into request.

Masonry was introduced into the Land of Canaan by the descendants of
the youngest son of Ham, and into Europe, as he supposes, by the
posterity of Japhet, although we know nothing of their works.

The posterity of Shem also cultivated the art of Masonry, and Abraham,
the head of one branch of that family, having thus obtained his
knowledge of Geometry and the kindred sciences, communicated that
knowledge to the Egyptians and transmitted it to his descendants, the
Israelites.  When, therefore, they made their exodus from Egypt the
Israelites were "a whole kingdom of Masons," and while in the wilderness
were often assembled by their Grand Master Moses into "a regular and
general Lodge."

On taking possession of Canaan, the Israelites found the old inhabitants
were versed in Masonry, which, however, their conquerors greatly
improved, for the splendor of the finest structures in Tyre and Sidon was
greatly surpassed by the magnificence of the Temple erected by King
Solomon in Jerusalem.  In the construction of this edifice, Solomon was
assisted by the Masons and carpenters of Hiram, King of Tyre, and
especially by the King of Tyre's namesake Hiram or Huram, to whom, in
a note, Anderson gives the name of Hiram Abif, which name he has ever
since retained among the Craft."


(1) This part of the Legend has been preserved in the American rituals,
wherein the candidate is said to come "from the lofty Tower of Babel,
where language was confounded and Masonry lost," and to be
proceeding "to the threshing-floor of Orneu the Jebusite (the Temple of
Solomon) where language was restored and Masonry found."
(2) By the science is meant geometry, and by the art architecture - a
distinction preserved in the Middle Ages; and the combination of them
into "Geometrical Masonry," constitute the Mystery of the Freemasons of
that period.
(3) In the first edition of this Legend, Anderson makes no allusion to the
death of Hiram Abif during the building of the Temple. He mentions,
however, in the second edition of the "Constitutions" published fifteen
years afterward.  But this does not absolutely prove that he was at the
time unacquainted with the tradition, but he may have thought it too
esoteric for public record, for he says, in the very place where he should
have referred to it, that he has left " what must not and cannot be
communicated in writing."



Anderson gives in this Legend the first detailed account of the Temple of
Solomon that is to be found in any Masonic work.  It is, however, only
an appropriation of that contained in the Books of Kings and Chronicles,
with some statements for which he was probably indebted to his own
invention.  It has exerted a considerable influence upon other Legends
subsequently framed, and especially upon all the rituals, and indeed
upon all the modern ideas of speculative Masons. (1)

After the construction of the Temple, the Masons who had been
engaged in it dispersed into Syria, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Chaldea,
Babylonia, Media, Persia, Arabia, Africa, Lesser Asia, Greece, and other
parts of Europe, where they taught the art to many eminent persons, and
kings, princes, and potentates became Grand Masters, each in his own
territory.

The Legend then passes on to Nebuchadnezzar, whom it calls a Grand
Master, and asserts that he received much improvement in Masonry
from the Jewish captives whom he brought to Babylon after he had
destroyed that city and its Temple.

Afterward Cyrus constituted Zerubbabel the leader of the Jews, who,
being released from their captivity, returned to Jerusalem and built the
second Temple.

From Palestine, and after the erection of the Temple, Masonry was
carried into Greece, and arrived at its height during the Jewish captivity,
and in the time of Thales Milesius, the philosopher, and his pupil,
Pythagoras, who was the author of the 47th Proposition of Euclid, which
"is the foundation of all Masonry," Pythagoras traveled into Egypt and
Babylon, and acquired much knowledge from the priests and the Magi,
which he dispensed in Greece and Italy on his return. (2)

The Legend now speaks, parenthetically as it were, of the prog-

(1) The peculiar details of the doctrine of Anderson have not been
always respected.  For instance, it is a very prevalent opinion among the
Craft at this day, that there was a Master Mason's Lodge at the Temple,
over which Solomon presided as Master and the two Hirams as
Wardens, a theory which is not supported by Anderson, who says that
King Solomon was Grand Master of the Lodge at Jerusalem, King Hiram
Grand Master of that at Tyre, and Hiram Abif Master of Work.  Const., 1st
ed., P. 14.
(2) It was probably this part of the Andersonian Legend which gave rise
to a similar statement made in the spurious production known as the
Leland MS.


ress of Masonry in Asia Minor, and of the labors of Euclid in Egypt, in
the reign of Ptolemy Lagus, in the methodical digestion of Geometry into
a science.

It next dwells upon the great improvement of Masonry in Greece, whose
Masons arrived at the same degree of skill and magnificence as their
teachers the Asiatics and Egyptians.

From Sicily, from Greece, from Egypt and Asia, Masonry was introduced
into Rome, which soon became the center of learning, and disseminated
the knowledge of Masonry among the nations which it conquered.

The Emperor Augustus became the Grand Master of the Lodge at Rome,
and established the Augustan style of architecture.  During the
prosperous condition of the Roman Empire, Masonry was carefully
propagated to the remotest regions of the world, and a Lodge erected in
almost every Roman garrison.

But upon the declension of the empire, when the Roman garrisons were
drawn away from Britain, the Angles and lower Saxons, who had been
invited by the ancient Britons to come over and help them against the
Scots and Picts, at length subdued the southern part of England, where
Masonry had been introduced by the Romans, and the art then fell into
decay.

When the Anglo-Saxons recovered their freedom in the 8th century
Masonry was revived, and at the desire of the Saxon kings, Charles
Martel, King of France, sent over several expert craftsmen, so that
Gothic, architecture was again encouraged during the Heptarchy.

The many invasions of the Danes caused the destruction of numerous
records, but did not, to any great extent, interrupt the work, although the
methods introduced by the Roman builders were lost.

But when war ceased and peace was proclaimed by the Norman
conquest, Gothic Masonry was restored and encouraged by William the
Conqueror and his son William Rufus, who built Westminster Hall.  And
notwithstanding the wars that subsequently occurred, and the
contentions of the Barons, Masonry never ceased to maintain its position
in England.  In the year 1362, Edward III. had an officer called the King's
Freemason, or General Surveyor of his buildings, whose name was
Henry Yvele, and who erected many public buildings.

Anderson now repeats the Legend of the Craft, with the story of
Athelstan and his son Edwin, taking it, with an evident modification of
the language, from a record of Freemasons, which he says was written
in the reign of Edward IV.  This record adds, as he says, that the
charges and laws therein contained had been seen and approved by
Henry VI and the lords of his council, who must therefore, to enable
them to make such a review, have been incorporated with the
Freemasons.  In consequence of this, the act passed by Parliament
when the King was in his infancy, forbidding the yearly congregations of
Masons in their General Assemblies, was never enforced after the King
had arrived at manhood, and had perused the regulations contained in
that old record.

The Kings of Scotland also encouraged Masonry from the earliest times
down to the union of the crowns, and granted to the Scottish Masons
the prerogative of having a fixed Grand Master and Grand Warden. (1)

Queen Elizabeth discouraged Masonry, and neglected it during her
whole reign.  She sent a commission to York to break up the Annual
Assembly, but the members of the commission, having been admitted
into the Lodge, made so favorable a report to the Queen, of the
Fraternity, that she no longer opposed the Masons, but tolerated them,
altbough she gave them no encouragement.
Her successor, James I., was, however, a patron of Masonry, and greatly
revived the art and restored the Roman architecture, employing Inigo
Jones as his architect, under whom was Nicholas Stone as his Master
Mason.

Charles I. was also a Mason, and patronized the art whose successful
progress was unhappily diverted by the civil wars and the death of the
king.

But after the restoration of the royal family, Masonry was again revived
by Charles II., who was a great encourager of the craftsmen, and hence
is supposed to have been a Freemason.

In the reign of James II., Masonry not being duly cultivated, the London
Lodges "much dwindled into ignorance."

But on the accession of William, that monarch "who by most is reckoned
as a Freemason," greatly revived the art, and showed himself a patron of
Masonry.

(1) From this it appears that Anderson was acquainted with the claim of
the St. Clairs of Roslin to the hereditary Grand Mastership of Scotland, a
point that has recently been disputed.


His good example was followed by Queen Anne, who ordered fifty new
churches to be erected in London and its suburbs, and also by George
I., her successor.

With an allusion to the opinion that the religious and military Orders of
knighthood in the Middle Ages had borrowed many of their solemn
usages from the Freemasons, (1) the Legend here ends.

Upon a perusal of this Legend, it will be found that it is in fact, except in
the latter portions, which are semi-historical, only a running commentary
on the later Legend of the Craft, embracing all that is said therein and
adding other statements, partly derived from history and partly, perhaps,
from the author's invention.

The second edition of the Constitutions goes more fully over the same
ground, but is written in the form rather of a history than of a legend,
and a review of it is not, therefore, necessary or appropriate in this part
of the present work which is solely devoted to the Legends of the Order.

In this second edition of Anderson's work, there are undoubtedly many
things which will be repudiated by the skeptical student of Masonic
history, and many which, if not at once denied, require proof to
substantiate them.  But with all its errors, this work of Anderson is replete
with facts that make it interesting and instructive, and it earns for the
author a grateful tribute for his labors in behalf of the literature of
Masonry at so early a period after its revival.


(1) It will be seen hereafter that the Chevalier Ramsay greatly developed
this brief allusion of Anderson, and out of it worked his theory of the
Templar origin of Freemasonry.