THE COMPANIONAGE.
242
After having given such coaiplete credence to Perdiguier hitherto, it may be thought
But let us consider impartially who and what the
surprising if we now reject his evidence.
was.
He was a simple journeyman joiner, of enlightened views and great intelligence,
He apologises for his own songs by explaining that he was
but of limited education.
man
ignorant of the art of versification, owing to a poor education, until, for the better carrying out
of his purposes, he endeavoured to obtain some slight insight into its rules.
That, according
to his lights,
We
he was scrupulously exact in all his works, every word in them testifies.
him when he describes the usages of his own day, and implicitly
therefore blindly follow
may
which he hands down
accept, as then existent, the traditions
must
sift
It will be observed that
his evidence.
he
^
;
but in matters of history
fixes the introduction of
Freemasomy
we
into
imbedded in the above quotation was not within his personal
knowledge, nor, to judge from his own words, was it even a tradition current amongst the
It is submitted, therefore, that we are quite at liberty to reject some of his
Companions.
France at 1715
The
!
fact
But
conclusions or inferences, without thereby invalidating his testimony in other matters.
of the battle at Lacrau in 1730, and the
it may be
argued, why then accept his account
Lyons in 1726, and Marseilles in 1808, these also being matters of history,
on which important conclusions are founded ? Because they are traditions of the society,
He
given with such minuteness, that each is doubtless based upon a substratum of fact.
contests of skill at
them with equal impartiality, although one tells against his own society; and the
On the other hand, although legendary, the
Companionage songs commemorate both.
traditions date from so recent a period, that if fabulous, some protest against their reception
would have been recorded.
gives
Hiramic Legend, Perdiguier has jumped
conclusion and that the Legend of Hiram the builder is not only anterior to
illogical
the date of the introduction of Freemasonry into France but probably coeval with the
I venture to suggest, therefore, that as regards the
at
an
1726
;
—
—
Companionage itself The reasons are obvious. We may fairly assume tliat the two societies
of Solomon and Jacques existed separately previously to 1726. I tliink this is evident from the
battle of Lacrau,
1730
;
and from an inscription on the top of the
Perdiguier there found the following names hewn in the stone
the contest at Lyons, 1726
;
Tour St Grilles in Languedoc.
"
"L'Invention de Nancy, 1646;" "L'Esperance le Berichon,
"JoliCoeur de Landun, 1640;
"La Verdure le Picard, 1656" the conjunctions showing that the first two are Sons
1655;"
of Solomon, the two latter of Jacques.
Accompanying the names are carvings of masons'
:
—
and other stonemasons'
picks, compasses, squares, levels,
agree in this, that the Sons of
follows the lines of the Hu-amic myth.
those of shoemakers, hatters,
Earlier
as
still,
we know,
in 1400,
yet
if
we
tradition
—
The
to
But
all
the crafts and societies
those of Jacques, whose legend
revelations to the doctors of the Sorbonne were
owing allegiance to the charge of Maitre Jacques.
the shoemakers acting a mystery they were Sons of Jacques,
etc.
find
tools.^
Solomon were anterior
all crafts
:
is
at all to
be relied on
(and I shall presently
show that in
this
it is supported by common sense) the shoemakers were of later origin than
And yet we hear
the Stonemasons of Jacques, and these than the Stonemasons of Solomon.
particular instance
" lu the case of
customs, and of laws dependent on usage, there is more security against alteration than in the
"
of a story by one person to another, because there is the agreement of many persons in its observance
repetition
(Lewis, Methods of Observation and Eeasoning in Politics, vol. i., p. 190).
^
'
Perdiguier,
Le Livre du Compagnonnage,
vol.
ii.,
p. 85.