Page 29 - MFM MAY 2014

Montana Freemason May 2014
the erudite doctor was followed by Hughan, Gould
and their colleagues, and his classification still holds been of the opinion that the first written versions were
in general; attempts have been made in recent years
to upset it, but without much success. One of the best
charts, based on Begemann, is that made by Brother
Lionel Vibert, a copy of which will be published in a
future issue of THE BUILDER.
The first known printed reference to these Old
Charges was made by Dr. Robert Plot in his Natural
History of Staffordshire, published in 1868. Dr. A.F.A.
Woodford and William James Hughan were the first
to undertake a scientific study. Hughan’s Old Charges
is to this day the standard work in English. Gould’s
chapter in his History of Masonry would probably
be ranked second in value, whereas the voluminous
writings of Dr. Begemann, contributed by him to
Zirkelcorrespondez, official organ of the National
Grand Lodge of Germany, would, if only they were
translated into English, give us the most exhaustive
treatment of the subject ever yet written.
The Old Charges are peculiarly English. No such
documents have ever been found in Ireland. Scotch
manuscripts are known to be of English origin. It was
once held by Findel and other German writers that
the English versions ultimately derived from German
sources, but this has been disproved. The only known
point of similarity between the Old Charges and such
German documents as the Torgau Ordinances and
the Cologne Constitutions is the Legend of the Four
Crowned Martyrs, and this legend is found among
English versions only in the Regius Manuscript.
As Gould well says, the British MSS. have “neither
predecessors nor rivals”; they are the richest and
rarest things in the whole field of Masonic writings.
When the Old Charges are placed side by side
it is immediately seen that in their account of the
traditional history of the Craft they vary in a great
many particulars, nevertheless they appear to have
derived from some common origin, and in the main
they tell the same tale, which is as interesting as a
fairy story out of Grimm. Did the original of this
traditional account come from some individual or
was it born out of a floating tradition, like the folk
tales of ancient people? Authorities differ much on
this point. Begemann not only declared that the first
version of the story originated with an individual, but
even set out what he deemed to be the literary sources
used by that Great Unknown. The doctor’s arguments
are powerful. On the other hand, others contend that
the story began as a general vague oral tradition, and
that this was in the course of time reduced to writing.
In either event, why was the story ever written? In all
probability an answer to that question will never be
Volume 90 Number 2
forth-coming, but W. Harry Rylands and others have
made in response to a general Writ for Return issued
in 1388. Rylands’ words may be quoted: “It appears to
me not at all improbable that much, if not all, of the
legendary history was composed in answer to the Writ
for Returns issued to the guilds all over the country,
in the twelfth year of Richard the Second, A.D. 1388.”
(A.Q.C. XVL page 1)
II. THE TWO OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS
In 1757 King George II presented to the British
Museum a collection of some 12,000 volumes, the
nucleus of which had been laid by King Henry VII and
which came to be known as the Royal Library. Among
these books was a rarely beautiful manuscript written
by hand on 64 pages of vellum, about four by five inches
in size, which a cataloger, David Casley, entered as No.
17 A-1 under the title, “A Poem of Moral Duties: here
entitled Constitutiones Artis Gemetrie Secundem.”
It was not until Mr. J.O. Halliwell, F.R.S. (afterwards
Halliwell-Phillipps), a non-Mason, chanced to make
the discovery that the manuscript was known to be
a Masonic document. Mr. Phillipps read a paper on
the manuscript before the Society of Antiquaries
in 1839, and in the following year published a
volume entitled Early History of Freemasonry in
England (enlarged and revised in 1844), in which he
incorporated a transcript of the document along with
a few pages in facsimile. This important work will be
found incorporated in the familiar Universal Masonic
Library, the rusty sheepskin bindings of which strike
the eyes on almost every Masonic book shelf. This
manuscript was known as “The Halliwell”, or as “The
Halliwell-Phillipps” until some fifty years atfterwards
Gould rechristened it, in honour of the Royal Library
in which it is found, the “Regius”, and since then this
has become the more familiar cognomen.
David Casley, a learned specialist in old
manuscripts, dated the “Regius” as of the fourteenth
century. E.A. Bond, another expert, dated it as of the
middle of the fifteenth century. Dr. Kloss, the German
specialist, placed it between 1427 and 1445. But the
majority have agreed on 1390 as the most probable
date. “It is impossible to arrive at absolute certainty
on this point,” says Hughan, whose Old Charges
should be consulted, “save that it is not likely to be
older than 1390, but may be some twenty years or so
later.” Dr.W. Begemann made a study of the document
that has never been equalled for thoroughness, and
arrived at a conclusion that may be given in his own
words: it was written “towards the end of the 14th or
at least quite at the beginning of the 15th century (not
Page 29