THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY.
2
however, at length arisen, which, while doing much to
has yet left something to be desired.
place the subject on a sound historical basis,
of a General History of Freemasonry, by Herr Fiudel (of Leipsic) in
The
A new
and more
critical school has,
publication
1861, marks a distinct era in the progress of masonic literature.
No
universal history of
name) had previously been compiled, and the dictum
of the Chevalier de Bonneville was generally acquiesced in, "That the span of ten men's
the masonic craft (at all worthy of the
was too short a period for the execution of so formidable an undertaking." i
Findel's work is a highly meritorious compilation, and reflects great credit upon his
The writings of all previous masonic authors appear to have been consulted,
industry.
lives
but the value of his history would have been much enlianced by a more frequent reference
to authorities.
He seems, indeed, to labour under a complete incapacity to distinguish
between the relative degrees of value of the authorities he is attempting to analyse
"
forms a very solid
but putting all demerits on one side, his " History of Freemasonry
'^
;
contribution to our stock of masonic facts, and from his faculty of lucid condensation, has
time within popular comprehension, the entire subject to the elucidation
of whicli its scope is directed.
Prehistoric masonry is dealt with very briefly, but this
branch of archajological research has been taken up by Mr G. F. Fort, who, in an interesting
brought, for the
first
"
volume of 481 pages, devoted entirely to the " Antiqiiities of the
ably and clearly the legendary or traditionary history of the fraternity.^
The design
of the
and the authentic
present work
is
to
histories of the craft.
society, discusses
very
embody in a single publication the legendary
The introductory portion will cover the ground
already occupied by Fort, and I shall then proceed to traverse the field of research over
which Findel has preceded me. Dissenting as I do very materially from these writers, both
as regard the facts they accept and the inferences they have drawn, my record of occurrences
will necessarily vary
I trust they
At
may
somewhat from
prove
the outset I
theirs, whilst
my
general conclusions will be as novel as
to be well founded.
may remark
that the actual History of Freemasonry can only, in strictness,
be deemed to commence from the period when the chaos of mythical traditions is succeeded
by the era of lodge records. This epoch cannot be very readily determined. The circumstances
In Scotland the veritable
of the lodges, even in North and South Britain, were dissimilar.
proceedings of lodges for the j'ear 1599, as entered at the time in their minute-books, are still
extant.
In England we have no lodge minutes ranging back even into the seventeenth
records of but a single lodge (Alnwick) between 1700 and the date of
formation of the first Grand Lodge (1717).
For the sake of convenience, thei'efore, the
century, and
the
mythico-historical period of Freemasonry
wiH be held
to
have extended to 1717, and the
special circumstances which distinguish the early Masonry of Scotland from that of its sister
kingdom will, to the extent that may be requisite, be further considered when the histories of
our British Grand Lodges are separately treated.
Mr Pitt Taylor's original edition of Professor Greenleaf 's Law of Evidence may be cited. The various Law Reports
(U.S.A.) quoted in this work are lettered A, B, C, U, according to the relative estimation in which they were held by
the profession.
Some classification of this kind would be a great assistance to the student of ILisonic antiquities.
late
1
J. G. Findel, Gescliichte der Freimaurerei, Leipsic, 1S61, Preface to 1st edition.
made from the 2d English edition, London, 1869.
The justification of this remark will appear in Chapter
will be
'
'
G. F. Fort, Early History
iii.
and Antiquities of Freemasonry, 1S76.
Future quotations from this work