Illustrations Of The History Of The Craft.

ILLUSTRATIONS of the HISTORY of the CRAFT .

BY A MASONIC STUDENT . CHAPTER II .

I propose in this chapter to point out what I believe to be the only true foundation , on which the history of our Order can safely rest .

In a few words , I am anxious to advocate and uphold what may be called the Guild Theory . In 186 3 I made the following statement , in regard to the opinion I then ventured to

intertain in respect of this much " vexata quiestio , " and subsequent study and consideration have only tended to strengthen the conviction I then expressed , and which I had arrived at after some years of patient and careful inquiry .

"Freemasonry as we have it today , affected , no doubt , to a great extent by the preponderance of the Speculative element , has come down to us , I venture to believe , through a long succession of centuries , and may be most safely

and satisfactorily traced through the operative guilds and Masonic sodalities of the middle and early ages , to Roman Collegia , to Grecian communities , and thence to Jewish and Tyrian Masons . " *

And it is this same view , substantially , of ouv Masonic Order , which I wish to bring now more formally before my brethren generally , because in it , and in it alone , I feel persuaded the true history of Freemasonry is to be found .

The more we study the whole question—difficult as it confessedly is in all its bearings—the more shall we be convinced , I feel confident , ere long , that no other theory can satisfy the exigencies of historical criticism on the one hand , or

harmonise the confused traditions of Freemasonry on the other , but that which regards our Speculative Order to-day , as nothing more and nothing less , than the direct continuation and legitimate result of the olden system of operative sodalities .

Let it be granted that Freemasonry exists under an altered condition of things , and is to be found perhaps in a wider sphere than of old , when it was confined to the building societies

of an operative brotherhood : yet , its normal state , from which our present Freemasonry has derived its life and history , was that of an operative Masonic guild .

Now it is a mistake to suppose , as some modern writers seem to do , that this explanation of our Masonic annals and progress is a novel one , of a comparatively very recent date and unknown to our earlier historians . It has been

said , for instance , hy our latest Masonic annalist , our learned German Bro . Dr . Findel , that the " first writer on the subject of Freemasonry who ventured to hint at the existence of an historical

connection between the Fraternity of Freemasons , and that of the stonemasons was the Abbo Grandidier , a non-Mason , " who wrote in I 779 . t

But though I am quite willing to admit , that he is perhaps the first non-Masonic writer who openlyargued for the distinct existence of a purely operative brotherhood , with signs and symbols , lorms and teachings analogous to our own , yet

we should never forget , that the assertion of a secret bond of union , of a similarity of symbolic teaching , of a continuity of organisation and existence , as betiveen operative and speculative Freemasonry , is really as old as the time of

Anderson and Preston . Anderson , the first edition of whose " Constitutions of the Freemasons " was published in 1723 , and Preston , whose first edition appeared

in 1772 , have based their entire history of the Order , though with differences of detail peculiar to each writer , as our Bro . Findel has himself admitted , " on a history of architecture taken from the legends of the guilds "

And though since their time the subject has been greatly elaborated by many able foreign writers on Freemasonry—to some extent by Bro . Laurie—and especially by German writers , j . and though it may be true , that the terminology of

Illustrations Of The History Of The Craft.

the operative guild theory has only of late years assumed its present development and position among Masonic writers , yet we are bound , as it appears to me , to accord in justice to Anderson and Preston , the credit of asserting and maintaining the true theory of the operative origin of

freemasonry . A great deal of ridicule has been cast upon Anderson , especially , for the high-flown language in which he claims to carry up the antiquity of our Order to the earliest ages of the world , and for the free use he has undoubtedly made of

even patriarchal names . Yet it should be borne in mind , that he probably intended , after all , by such language , only to state paraphrastically the old teaching of the connection supposed to exist between Freemasonry and the primaeval and later mysteries . *

Accepting this view , that the early mysteries were tlie depositories of sacred truth , though by degrees debased and corrupted , Anderson with many others seems to have held that Freemasonry still retains in its carefully preserved inner teaching some traces of these earlier mysteries , and that it was in itself therefore as old as the

patriarchs , and coeval with the first germs of civilisation among mankind ! It must , however , fairly be admitted , that he has unwisely claimed " nominatim " as patrons and members of our Order , many whose affiliation to Freemasonry could be only , at the best ,

but a legendary tradition , and that he has allowed the influence of this old and attractive theory to outweigh the more sober claims of historical evidence and practical accuracy . Let us , however , return to the more immediate subject matter .

There are three views , apparently , of the guild theory , which merit our present and careful consideration :- — 1 . There is the view , for instance , of our learned German brother , Dr . Findel , to which we will give our first attention .

If we understand his words rightly in his very valuable and interesting History of Freemasonry , he accepts without reserve the guild theory , and looks upon our modern Order as the direct continuation , though somewhat developed and expanded by the revival of 1717 , of lhe

operative guilds . He advocates distinctly and without doubt the operative origin of Freemasonry ; and though it is not quite clear from his valuable work whether he accepts our modern ritual and organisation as identical in all respects with that of the operative

Fraternity , yet he seems to do so , inasmuch as he more than once advocates tlie view 1 have often contended for—that tlie ritual and ceremonies and oral teaching and mystic symbolism of the purely operative lodges were to a great extent under the direction and approval of the

monastic orders . The great value of our learned brother's history to the Masonic student consists in this , that he so ably points out the real operative origin of freemasonry ; that he introduces with

great clearness in support of his argument , the rules and regulations , the customs and traditions of the operative German Masons , clearly proving a similarity of usage and identity of symbols between them and our Speculative brotherhood to-day .

The peculiarity of Bro . hmdelsvicw consists in this , that he assigns the origin of the Masonic Order , as an operative institution only , to the German " Steinmetzen , '' or stonemasons of the middle ages , and seems to fix on the beginning of the nth century as the epoch when we have

for the first time satisfactory evidence ol thenexistence and proceedings and purpose . And though it must be ever most interesting to all Freemasons , thus to be able to trace lhe history of the German operative " BauhiUten " or lodges , through several centuries , yet it would

be , I venture to think , most unsafe , as it is in truth impossible to contend , or seriously for one moment to suppose , lhat Freemasonry could have thus sprung up all of a sudden in the history of tlie world—could with all its old legends and time-honoured traditions and myste-

Illustrations Of The History Of The Craft.

rious symbolism , have been alone the product of the ingenuity and skill of German stonemasons , and transplanted from Germany to England . Our learned brother ' s argument , that because he finds the legend of the "Four Crowned Martyrs " in our earliest known Masonic MS ., and traces , as he thinks , of " Vehmic " usages in

the Sloane MS . 3329 * therefore our English Freemasonry was introduced by German operative Masons , is , though ingenious and very creditable to his patriotic sympathies , utterly opposed to all the known facts of the case , and completely irreconciliable with the evidence of history , and the witness of our own English Masonic traditions .

No doubt Bro . Findel's theory is in itself a very interesting one , and in some respects an easy way of surmounting many of the difficulties and peculiarities of our Masonic annals . It may serve also to dispel some of the doubts and remove some ofthe objections of hostile criticism ,

but it does by no means clear the way perfectly for the Masonic or un-Masonic enquirer , and still leaves unaccounted for , on any safe and satisfactory authority , the origin , existence , progress , and perpetuation of one of the most remarkable institutions the world has ever seen .

To say nothing now of other patent objections to it , how are we to deal , if we accept it , with that very important subject of Masons' Marks ? Our learned brother E . W . Shaw contended

some years back , and I have never seen any satisfactory reply to his assertions , that one great principle pervaded all the known Masons' marks in the world , namely , that they were outward symbols of an inner meaning or teaching .

From the almost innumerable fac-similes he had collected after many years' arduous labour , which I have myself seen , from all quarters ot the world , he found the same unity of design and actual identity of form in all the remarks he had so carefully gathered together , whether they had

been found on Egyptian pyramids or Roman walls , on Hindoo or on Mexican temples , on early or mediteval ecclesiastical buildings , on the stones of Tyre , on the very buildings of Jerusalem ! His argument , then , which always appeared to

my mind irresistible , that we have in these Masons' marks a srong proof of the antiquity of our Order , and of its wide diffusion at a very early period , has recently received a striking confirmation by the underground discoveries of

Bro . Lieut . Warren in the Holy City itself , who has brought lo light the long-buried marks of Tyrian and Jewish Masons . If , however , we accept our learned Bro . Findel's theory , we must surrender this valuable evidence of tlie great and real antiquity of

Freemasonry . Ilelieving , then , in common with ail who have had the opportunity of studying his most interesting work , that a debt of gratitude is owing to him for his careful and accurate investigations , and regarding his history as a most valuable aid

and addition to Masonic literature in general , I slill think that we cannot safely adopt his limited view ofthe antiquity ofthe Craft , the late origin he assigns to the operative guilds , o lind in his skilfully-developed theory a satisfactory solution ofthe true and full history of Freemasonry .

2 . There is a second view of the guild theory , which I may dismiss with a very short notice , for it is historically and archtuologically untenable . It is that which asserts that the history of Speculative Masonry is to be entirely severed from that of the operative guilds , and that though

the guilds existed , certainly they had little ov nothing in common without our modern Order , and that the revival in 1717 was but the adaptation by Speculative Masons , without any warrant or natural connection of the phraseology , usages , and legends ofthe operative guilds .

In short , to repeat the Abbo Grandidier ' s words , Freemasonry as we have it to-day , in its inner speculative ( caching and outer and formal organisation , is but the " servile imitation of an ancient and useful Fraternity of actual Masons . " But this very modern view of lhe history of the Craft , as far as I know or understand the * It was my privilege to aslc Bro , I- 'indcl ' s attention originally to lliisiiitei'estiiifrM . S .