Benjamin Franklin: An English Freemason?

Despite our familiarity with his name and image, Benjamin Franklin remains an enigma. Once we peer beneath the surface, and rid ourselves of those too easy images of the scientist and American revolutionary, much of the complexity of Franklin’s character and beliefs, and, indeed, of eighteenth century Freemasonry, are revealed. Such a prospect promises much for English Freemasonry today as it seeks to recover its earlier vitality and relevance. Benjamin Franklin is too important a figure in Freemasonry to leave exclusively to the realms of American history, ideology, and sentiment. Even though we may feel free to share him with those who see his role simply and uncritically as that of an American mason and patriot, the Englishness of Franklin demands attention.

Neither Franklin, the history of the American Revolution, nor eighteenth century Freemasonry, fall into those ready and simple categories many would desire for them, yet each can help to explain the other. In particular, by considering the religious and moral outlook espoused by Franklin during his extraordinary life, one can refer those aspects to Masonic concerns and attitudes current in Franklin’s life-time, and thereby gain useful insights into Franklin’s philosophical outlook and its relationship to Freemasonry per se.

Fortunately, despite the ideology spun about him, much of Franklin’s biographical date is readily available and verifiable; we also have the advantage of a good deal of his writing and correspondence. The difficulty lies in releasing the man from the simplistic ideological structures which have rendered him “the first American” and a Freemason par excellence of the period.

In truth, despite the high regard in which Franklin is rightly held, he had a less than inspiring moral life in his early years, and his deep commitment to an American republic is at the very least questionable. There have even been suggestions that he may indeed have been a “double agent”. There is the evidence of Franklin’s relationship with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Knights of St Francis of Medmenham Abbey, the Hell Fire Club, at whose House he stayed in 1773 and again in 1774, but more convincingly, there is the extant correspondence of John Vardill, a British spy, which reveals that Franklin passed to London information about shipping which caused great losses to the colonists.

What does single Franklin out, leaving aside his magnificent scientific achievements, which are not considered here, is his profound commitment to reason and inquiry, Liberal Christian theology, and to benevolence of an individual and personal kind. In these areas his religious, philosophical and Masonic views are enlightening, relevant, and important to Freemasons of today. However, Benjamin Franklin was, very much, a man of his times. Those times were complex, difficult, and involved. He was, from birth, exposed to religious and political values derived from his family’s English roots, forged through struggle and contention. This sense of Englishness pervaded his outlook and family environment, and was the reason his illegitimate son William retained his loyalty to England, preferring to live and die in the land fought against by his father, much to his father’s chagrin. Franklin himself embodied peculiarly English virtues, including an advanced pragmatism in personal, religious and political matters.

Franklin valued his wide range of English friends and associates, including Bishop Jonathan Shipley, at whose home, Twyford House, just outside Winchester, Hampshire, he wrote the first part of his autobiography.

Franklin was born on 17^th January 1706 in Boston Massachusetts. He was the fifteenth child out of the seventeen born to Josiah, and his second wife Abiah. Both sides of Franklin’s family were English and of a marked dissenting outlook as regards their religious views. The dissenting tradition in English Protestantism of the period held to a focus on the ability of the individual to employ human reason in respect of both the Christian faith and also as regards moral questions, and Franklin clearly used this focus as regards both his religious faith and the conduct of his life. Because of the relationship between Church and State in the English context, the family’s religious outlook had obviously political overtones. Franklin was, therefore, like many others of his class and station, to be exposed to the competing claims of politicians and religionists throughout his life.

The ability to reconcile and overcome competing claims and, where necessary, to strike out on a different, if lonely course, was shared by both Benjamin and his son.

The stress on the use of an individual’s reasoning abilities as opposed to the mere acceptance of external authorities challenged church and government, but was not seen as something which in itself damaged belief in God. There was, as Stromberg points out, too much confidence in the perceived harmony between reason and religion for reason to be considered inimical to religion.

Franklin exhibits an independent not to say idiosyncratic attitude to morality, political loyalty, and Freemasonry which is redeemed by his constancy in applying reason to his actions. Acting in reason appears to justify Franklin’s actions, at least to himself, and whilst his detractors may, with good cause, question his conduct; his determination to rely upon reason as the great arbitrator of conduct can hardly be condemned.

Franklin’s commitment to the process of self-examination through reason provided him with the ability to eschew his youthful addiction to low women, although it did not dispense entirely with his delight in female company.

Reason and understanding, as seen in the sense of eighteenth century English political philosophy, drew heavily upon the formulations provided by John Locke (1632-1704), following England’s own Revolution of 1688. Locke’s two Treatises on Government (1689), his three letters on Toleration (1689, 1690, and 1692), and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) provided Englishmen at home and in America with a solid and reliable basis for rational constitutional development. The espousal of Locke’s political analysis by the American colonists, and the inclusion of his concepts in their constitutional fabric is evidence of the English contribution to the form of government arrived at in Philadelphia.

The American colonies had been founded by individuals and trading companies rather than the Crown. Whilst the governors of the colonies were appointed by the Crown, their powers were nothing like as great as is often assumed, and were in fact focused upon trade and defence. In any case, any despotic governor would have been confronted by the powers of the elected assemblies which were responsible for legislation and taxation.

Contrary to the deliberately anti-British sentiment of films such as “The Patriot,” directed by Roland Emmerich, it is not fanciful to suggest that in some ways the American Revolution was the English Revolution fought overseas. The substantial degree of support for the American cause amongst Englishmen is evidenced by the speeches of politicians, and the conduct of military officers who shared something of the colonists’ sense of grievance. Of the many Englishmen and English groupings of this persuasion who can be quoted, mention of Admiral Howe, Lord Amherst, Lord Chatham, the Duke of Richmond, and Edmund Burke, together with the Rockingham group of Whigs, and the Lunar Society will suffice here. Burke made the most obvious point when he said, “An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery”.

A vital point often glossed over or else entirely neglected by those who seek to present the American Revolution as being a war between American settlers and English oppressors, is that the cause of the war was largely to do with the refusal of the authorities in England and America to encourage the development of what can be termed English Liberty. Thomas Hutchison, when Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts had called for an “abandonment of what are called English liberties”. It is not to be supposed that the development of liberty in England was any more attractive to the English authorities of the time either.

We know that Franklin, at least in the early 1760s, was a supporter of both the Hanoverian dynasty and the British Empire. Seeger claims that Franklin at one time considered George III to be “a virtuous and generous king”.

During his second, and prolonged, six year visit to England beginning in 1757 Franklin’s objective was to plead the cause of the colonists as Englishmen. He was of the party that sought taxation with representation, and believed that a more direct relationship between England and the American colonies would ease the difficulties between them. Franklin was by this time an experienced Freemason, and had published an early edition of Anderson’s Constitutions in 1734. He would have been fully aware of the injunction in the Constitutions against civil unrest, and was, in any case, anxious to resolve the difficulties between the colonists and the Crown.

It is now impossible to ascertain with certainty when Freemasonry was first introduced into the American colonies. However, it is conventional to accept the existence of Masonic structures known as “time immemorial lodges”, those organizations of British origin which lacked, and indeed, did not require, a warrant or grant from any Grand Lodge in order to practice Freemasonry. Indeed, the speculative and philosophical aspects of Freemasonry of the period seem resistant to the constraints inherent in any form of Grand Lodge regulation, and the concept of Masonic independence is discernable not only in America but in Masonic institutions such as the Time Immemorial Assembly at Cork, and in the private lodges of Munster. In this respect, the Grand Lodge of Munster itself has an independent history going back at least as far as December 1726.

The regulatory nature of Grand Lodges was, of course, unknown in the early part of the eighteenth century. In this context it is helpful to note, as Jeremy Pemberton did in his 1984 Address to the Grand Lodge of South Australia that the first Annual Assembly of the four London lodges that came together on 24^th June 1717 did not constitute “in any sense a regulatory body.” Regulation by Grand Lodges is certainly a later phenomenon, and obtained gradually, and not without difficulty or objection.

The Freemasonry Franklin first engaged in was of this independent type. Even prior to his entry into Freemasonry, Franklin had recognized the potential of an organization of individuals dedicated to the benefit of society. In 1727 he had combined with a group of nine (sometimes given as twelve) like minded Philadelphians to form the Junto, also known as “The Leather Apron Club”. The club met to discuss philosophical and cultural matters, and began a lending library. It took as its concern the need to promote public protection including a fire watch. Despite its small beginnings, the club was effective, and its members eventually came to form the nucleus of the American Philosophical Society.

Franklin’s Masonic career dates from his induction in 1731 into a time immemorial lodge, St John’s Masonic Lodge, Philadelphia. The account books (ledgers) of St John’s Lodge of Philadelphia date from 24^th June 1731, and indicate that the lodge was in existence at least by December of the previous year. We know that the first warranted lodge in America was the Lodge of St John at Boston in Massachusetts, which dates from 1733, so clearly, if either Franklin’s own account of his induction into Freemasonry, or the genuineness of the ledgers of St John’s Masonic Lodge are accepted as credible, and their seems no reason to doubt either of them, then the existence of a Masonic lodge outside the warranted authority of an English Grand Lodge in America at this early point must be accepted, and its vitality recognized.

As with other aspects of eighteenth century Freemasonry, radical changes were being effected as to the religious context of Freemasonry. The subsequent determination of the Duke of Sussex to complete the de-Christianization of the Craft and Royal Arch following ratification of the Articles of Union in 1813, for whatever purpose is ascribed to this radical development, represents the continuing questioning of the role of theology and religiosity within Freemasonry. It is impossible to disguise or ignore the overtly religious and Trinitarian connotations within Craft Freemasonry, and the overtly Christian nature of the Royal Arch prior to the changes introduced by the Duke of Sussex and the introduction into English Freemasonry of the concept of the Great Architect of the Universe. This latter title or designation of God is intriguing not only because of the liberal notion of the Godhead which it implies, but because of the Rosicrucian elements it incorporates.

Blake’s 1794 rendering of the Great Architect of the Universe, complete with compasses, in his Ancient of Days, is perhaps the one such image of deity with which people are most familiar.

Whilst this is not the place to discuss Blake’s concept of Urizen, or of possible Rosicrucian influences upon Blake’s work, it is helpful to recognize the Rosicrucian notion of God as the Architect of the Solar System, and the connections between Rosicrucianism, Alchemy and Freemasonry. For the Rosicrucian Michael Maier, the hermetic philosophers attempted to “reach the intellect via the senses”. This does not seem far from the aims of Masonic ritualism of the eighteenth century, or indeed, of today. However, Franklin would have been exposed initially to a Masonic form radically different to that subsequently introduced through the force of the Moderns.

The possible Rosicrucian connections with eighteenth century Freemasonry are worth considering. This is made more relevant because of Franklin’s interest in alchemy. For Yates, there is within Freemasonry several elements found within Rosicrucianism, but, in line with A. E. Waite, she identifies divergence too.

It is in the combination of esoteric religion, ethical teaching and philanthropy that Yates finds the greatest similarity between Freemasonry and the Rosicrucian Brothers.

The degree to which Franklin’s notion of Freemasonry coincides with Rosicrucian thought, and the extent to which eighteenth century Freemasonry considered Deity involved with human life is of relevance to any consideration of the significance of religion within Freemasonry. With regard to the status of religious thought as opposed to mundane rationality, David Shugarts has pointed out that, in respect of the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, beginning “We hold these truths…” Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration, whilst drawing upon Locke, George Mason and others, passed the draft on to Franklin for editing. Shugarts notes that Franklin, avoiding any religious justification, rendered the draft “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” into the form “self-evident”.

Shugarts suggests that one of the grounds for Franklin’s audacity is that he is a Freemason. However, Russell pointed out in 1946 that that particular passage in the Declaration actually models itself upon Euclid. Were Shugart to be correct, and it is a fascinating suggestion, such an act would cast doubt on the degree to which Franklin’s conception of Deity allowed for Providence in the lives of men, and, if we follow Shugart’s reasoning, whether Freemasonry, especially given the changes subsequently introduced by the Duke of Sussex, progressively held a similarly restricted view of Providence, or the power of divine authority.

However, Franklin, in a letter written on 9^th March 1790, made plain his conception of God and the extent of Providence. He wrote: "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them."

It is in this context that the views of Benjamin Franklin are so enlightening. Any assessment of Franklin’s beliefs and interests reveals an attachment to notions involving alchemy, freemasonry, scientific endeavour, personal philanthropy, and liberal religious views.

His involvement with the Lunar Society at Soho House, Birmingham, whose membership was drawn from scientists, inventors and natural philosophers, and who wished to bring about by the use of scientific advance the betterment of mankind, indicate how far reaching and intense his interests were. However, at base is found Franklin’s determination to weld together these seemingly disparate elements for the good of mankind. In this final analysis Franklin’s personal religious views seem to have provided the impetus for his work, and the rationale for his actions. What is clear is the resonance they have with the ideals of eighteenth century English speculative Freemasonry, and with English notions of political philosophy and liberty.

NOTES ON THE AUTHOR: Richard Martin Young is a Writer, Historian, and a retired Law Lecturer. Richard is currently Grand Chancellor of The Grand Lodge of All England, at York.

Statement at York

"York being the established Place of Masonic Government, the whole fraternity successively paid Allegiance to its Authority, and whereas the Sacred Art flourished so much, that masonry in the South came to require some Nominal Patron to Superintend its Government. A person under the Title of Grand Master for the South was appointed, with the Approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to which the whole fraternity at large were still bound, as they were before, to pay Tribute and acknowledge Subjection. And thus Masonry flourished for many years in the South, as well as in the North, but afterwards became again at so low a Ebb in the South that in the year 1717, only four Lodges remained extant in those parts, but those Lodges ever glorified in Originating from the Ancient York Masons, which they constantly testified. And whereas those very lodges cemented under a new Grand Master for the South, and hence arose what is now called the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, whose meetings have been by some considered as General Meetings, but without any Constitutional Authority to give such Meetings a Sanction to that Title.

"And whereas the Grand Lodge of All England, still existing at York, is the Supreme Legislature of Masonry in this kingdom. And hath, with Lamentations. beheld that the Nominal Grand Lodge, in London, have not only forgotten the Allegiance due to this Parent State of Masonry in England, but have proceeded to insult its Dignity, and depart from every ancient Landmark of the Order, assuming such arbitrary and unmasonic Measures, as ought not to be found among Maceons.

"Besides, which, many Masters and Lodges under their Sanction have been struck off their Books on trifling occasions, and particularly on Pecuniary ones, Motives which Masons ought to blush at, and, in fine, they have adopted Measures altogether arbitrary and repugnant to the principles of the Masonic Institution, whereby the true Spirit of Free Masonry in the South of England hath been subverted, and if not timely supported by the Masonic Legislature might become totally destroyed.

"Hence however, the Grand Lodge in London, from its Situation, being encouraged by some of the Principal Nobility of the Nation, arose at Great Power, and began to despise the origin from whence it sprang. In an unbrotherly manner, wishing the Gr. Lodge at York annihilated, which appears by one of their Almanacks, insinuating, that although there are some Brethren remaining, who act under the Old Constitution of York, yet that they are few in number, and will soon be annihilated.

"Upon the whole, let every dispassionate Mason but weigh impartially the several Facts here stated, and he must spurn at the daring Innovation offered by the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, to so sacred and Institution.

"If he wishes to partake of Masonry in its Original Purity, he will turn his attention to that source, where it hath been Inviolably maintained and continued for Successive Ages to this Day, and where the Legislature of Masonry for this Kingdom stands fixed by its true Title 'The Grand Lodge of All England, Established at the City of York.' "

YORK 1779

The Oxford Poem

"The mason poor that builds the lordly halls,

Dwells not in them; they are for high degree;

His cottage is compact in paper walls,

And not with brick or stone, as others be."

Edward DeVere
17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)

Prince Edwin of York is Found

The Grand Lodge at York formally announces that it has traced the final resting place of King Athelstan's brother, Prince Edwin of York, the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England (AD926).

King Athelstan

Prince Edwin of York is chronicled in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People where it is recorded that he ordered the construction of a church on the former Roman fortress site of Eboracum (York).

Prince Edwin is also chronicled immediately after "Exemptus" King Athelstan in the Rosicrucian Chronology for the year AD925.

In one of Symeon of Durham's Northumbrian Annals dated AD933, which he used as material for his Historia regum Anglorum et Dacorum, he states that: "King Ethelstan ordered his brother Edwin to be drowned in the sea".

William of Malmesbury expressed grave doubt about this story "on account of the extraordinary affection he [Athelstan] manifested towards the rest of his brothers".

Records of the Abbey of St Bertin in Flandres, a few miles from Ushant, make note of King Athelstan's expressions of gratitude for their burial of Edwin, who had drowned in a storm escaping from England during a period of turmoil (AD933).

In the Cartulaire de l'abbaye de S. Bertin it records the favour Athelstan heaped on the monastery "because the king's brother, King [sic] Edwin, had been buried in the monastery of St. Bertin."

The cartulary version dates the incident to 932, "In the year of the Incarnate Word". It describes how the same King [sic] Edwin, when, because of some perturbation in his kingdom, got into a ship and tried to reach this side of the sea, but the winds rose and the ship foundered in the storms and he was "swallowed down" in the midst of the waves. When his body was brought to the shore Count Adalolf received it with honour because he was a close kinsman and brought it to Saint Bertin for burial. Adalolf was also the Abbot of Saint Bertin and a cousin to both Athelstan and Edwin.

The William of Malmesbury version in his Gesta regum suggests ingenuity and perseverance in an armour-bearer who found and fished out his master's body and swam a ship to land.

This incident is confirmed by the entry in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles for the year 933: "This year died Bishop Frithestan; and Edwin the atheling was drowned in the sea".

Milton Abbey in Blandford Forum, Dorset, England was founded by King Athelstan to commemorate the death at sea of his brother Edwin.

Representations have been made to the relevant authorities and a further statement will be released after a formal visit to l'Abbeye Saint-Bertin by representatives of the Grand Lodge at York.

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723

by Bro. LIONEL VIBERT
Past Master, Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, United Grand Lodge of England

THE BUILDER AUGUST 1923

Bro. Lionel Vibert, of Marline, Lansdowne, Bath, England, is author of "Freemasonry Before the Existence of Grand Lodges" and "The Story of the Craft" and is editor of "Miscellanea Latomorum". He has contributed papers to the Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, notably one on "The French Compagnonnage," a critical and exhaustive treatise that is bound to replace Gould's famous chapter among the sources available to the rank and file of students of that important theme. After having devoted his attention for several years to pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, Bro. Vibert is now specializing on the Grand Lodge era the records of which are still so confused or incomplete that, in spite of the great amount of work accomplished by scholars in the past, a work "great as the Twelve Labours of Hercules" remains yet to be done. The paper below is one of the author's first published studies of the Grand Lodge era. To us American Masons, who live under forty-nine Grand Jurisdictions and to whom Masonic jurisprudence is an almost necessary preoccupation, any new light on that formative and critical period, and especially on Dr. Anderson whose Constitutions is the groundwork of our laws, is not only interesting but useful.

THE GRAND LODGE THAT WAS brought into existence in 1717 did not find it necessary to possess a Constitution of its own for some years. Exactly what went on between 1717 and 1721 we do not know; almost our only authority being the account given by Anderson in 1738 which is unreliable in many particulars. Indeed it cannot be stated with certainty whether there were any more than the original Four Old Lodges until 1721; it would appear from the Lists and other records we possess that the first lodge to join them did not do so till July of that year; the statements as to the number of new lodges in each year given by Anderson are not capable of verification. It was also in the year 1721 that the Duke of Montagu was made Grand Master on 24th June, having probably joined the Craft just previously. The effect of his becoming Grand Master, a fact advertised in the dally press of the period, was that the Craft leapt into popularity, its numbers increased, and new lodges were rapidly constituted. Even now it was not anticipated that the Grand Lodge would extend the scope of its activities beyond London and Westminster, but Grand Master Payne, possibly anticipating the stimulus that would be provided by the accession to the Craft of the Duke, had got ready a set of General Regulations, and these were read over on the occasion of his installation. Unfortunately we do not possess the original text of them but have only the version as revised and expanded by Anderson. But we can understand that in a very short time it would be found necessary for these regulations to be printed and published to the Craft. Their publication was undertaken by Anderson, who took the opportunity to write a history of the Craft as an introduction, and to prepare a set of Charges; his intention clearly being to give the new body a work which would in every respect replace the Old Manuscript Constitutions. The work consists of a dedication written by Desaguliers and addressed to Montagu as late Grand Master; a Historical introduction; a set of six Charges; Payne's Regulations revised; the manner of constituting a new lodge; and songs for the Master, Wardens, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice, of which the last is well known in this country (England) and is still sung today in many lodges. There is also an elaborate frontispiece. The work was published by J. Senex and J. Hooke, on 28th February, 1722-3, that is to say 1722 according to the official or civil reckoning, but 1723 by the so-called New Style, the popular way of reckoning. (It did not become the official style till the reform of the calender in 1752.) The title page bears the date 1723 simply.

Dr James Anderson

Dr. Anderson was born in Aberdeen, and was a Master of Arts of the Marischal College in that city. He was in London in 1710 and was minister of a Presbyterian Chapel in Swallow Street, Piccadilly, till 1734. He was also chaplain to the Earl of Buchan, and as the Earl was a representative peer for Scotland from 1714-1734, it was probably during these years that he maintained a London establishment. We do not know that the Earl was a Mason, although his sons were. When Anderson was initiated we do not know either; but it may have been in the Aberdeen Lodge. There is a remarkable similarity between his entry in the Constitutions of his name as "Master of a Lodge and Author of this Book," and in entry in the Aberdeen Mark Book, of "James Anderson, Glazier and Mason and Writer of this Book." This was in 1670 and this James Anderson is no doubt another person. It just happens most unfortunately that the minutes for the precise period during which we might expect to find our author are missing. In any case he was familiar with the Scottish terminology which he no doubt had some share in introducing into English Freemasonry.

Nor can it be stated with confidence when he joined the Craft in London. He was Master of a lodge in 1722, a lodge not as yet identified, but there is no record of his having had anything to do with Grand Lodge prior to the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Montagu. He was not even present at the Duke's installation; at all events Stukeley does not name him as being there. He himself, in his version of the minutes, introduces his own name for the first time at the next meeting.

HOW HE CAME TO WRITE THE WORK

His own account of the work, as given in 1738, is that he was ordered to digest the Old Gothic Constitutions in a new and better method by Montagu on 29th September, 1721, that on 27th December, Montagu appointed fourteen learned brothers to examine the MS., and that after they had approved it was ordered to be printed on 25th March, 1722. He goes on to say that it was produced in print for the approval of Grand Lodge on 17th January, 1722-3, when Grand Master Wharton's manner of constituting a lodge was added. In the book itself are printed a formal Approbation by Grand Lodge and the Masters and Wardens of twenty lodges (with the exception of two Masters), which is undated, and also a copy of a resolution of the Quarterly Communication of 17th January, 1722-3, directing the publication and recommending it to the Craft.

With regard to the committee of fourteen learned brethren and the three occasions on which the book is alleged to have been considered in Grand Lodge, the Approbation itself states that the author first submitted his text for the perusal of the late and present Deputy Grand Master's and of other learned brethren and also the Masters of lodges, and then delivered it to Grand Master Montagu, who by the advice of several brethren ordered the same to be handsomely printed. This is not quite the same thing. And it is to be noted that in 1735 Anderson appeared before Grand Lodge to protest against the doings of one Smith who had pirated the Constitutions which were his sole property. His account of this incident in the 1738 edition suppresses this interesting circumstance. Further it is very clear from the Grand Lodge minutes that the appearance of the book caused a good deal of dissension in Grand Lodge itself, and it brought the Craft into ridicule from outside; in particular Anderson's re-writing of Payne's Regulations was taken exception to. Anderson himself did not appear again in Grand Lodge for nearly eight years.

The true state of the case appears to be that Anderson undertook to write the work as a private venture of his own and that this was sanctioned, since it was desirable that the Regulations at least published, without any very careful examination of his text, or of so much of it as was ready, and that when it was published it was discovered, but too late, that he had taken what were felt by many to be unwarrantable liberties not only with the traditional Charges but also with Payne's Regulations.

THE BOOK IS ANALYZED

In using the term Constitutions he was following the phraseology of several of the versions of the Old Charges, and in fact the word occurs (in Latin) in the Regius, though Anderson never saw that. It was apparently traditional in the Craft. The contents of the work itself indicate that the various portions were put together at different dates and Anderson tells us it was not all in print during Montagu's term of office.

Taking the Approbation first, this is signed by officers of twenty lodges; the Master and both Wardens have all signed in all but two. In those, numbers eight and ten, the place for the Master's signature is blank. Mr. Mathew Birkhead is shown as Master of number five; and he died on the 30th December, 1722. Accordingly the Approbation must be of an earlier date and of the twenty lodges we know that number nineteen was constituted on 25th November, 1722, and number twenty if, as is probable, it is of later date, will have been constituted possibly on the same day but more probably a few days later. Thus we can date the Approbation within narrow limits. In his 1738 edition Anderson gives a series of the numbers of lodges on the roll of Grand Lodge at different dates which cannot be checked from any independent source, and he suggests that on 25th March, 1722, there were already at least twenty-four lodges in existence because he asserts that representatives of twenty-four paid their homage to the Grand Master on that date; and that those of twenty-five did so on 17th January, 1722-3. Because of Anderson's assertion as to twenty-four lodges some writers have speculated as to the lodges the officers of which omitted to sign or which were ignored by the author. But the truth probably is that these lodges - if they existed at all - were simply not represented at the meeting.

Philip Duke of Wharton

The Approbation is signed by Wharton as Grand Master, Desaguliers as Deputy, and Timson and Hawkins as Grand Wardens. According to the story as told by Anderson in 1738 Wharton got himself elected Grand Master irregularly on 24th June, 1722, when he appointed these brethren as his Wardens but omitted to appoint a Deputy. On 17th January, 1722-3, the Duke of Montagu, "to heal the breach," had Wharton proclaimed Grand Master and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deputy and Timson and Anderson, (not Hawkins,) Wardens and Anderson adds that his appointment was made for Hawkins demitted as always out of town. If this story could be accepted the Approbation was signed by three officers who were never in office simultaneously, since when Desaguliers came in Hawkins had already demitted. This by itself would throw no small doubt on Anderson's later narrative, but in fact we know that his whole story as to Wharton is a tissue of fabrication. The daily papers of the period prove that the Duke of Wharton was in fact installed on 25th June, and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deputy and Timson and Hawkins as his Wardens. It is unfortunate that Anderson overlooked that his very date, 24th June, was impossible as it was a Sunday, a day expressly prohibited by Payne's Regulations for meetings of Grand Lodge. There are indications of some disagreement; apparently some brethren wished Montagu to continue, but in fact Wharton went in the regular course; the list of Grand Lodge officers in the minute book of Grand Lodge shows him as Grand Master in 1722. And that Hawkins demitted is merely Anderson's allegation. In this same list he appears as Grand Warden, but Anderson himself has written the words (which he is careful to reproduce in 1738): "Who demitted and James Anderson A.M. was chosen in his place;" vide the photographic reproduction of the entry at page 196 of Quatuor, Coronatorum Antigrapha Vol. X; while in the very first recorded minute of Grand Lodge, that of 24th June, 1723, the entry as to Grand Wardens originally stood: Joshua Timson and the Reverend Mr. James Anderson who officiated for Mr. William Hawkins. But these last six words have been carefully erased, vide the photo reproduction at page 48 Quatuor Corontorum Antigrapha VOL X, which brings them to light again. Hawkins then was still the Grand Warden in June 1723, and on that occasion Anderson officiated for him at the January meeting. The explanation of the whole business appears to be that Anderson in 1738 was not anxious to emphasize his associated with Wharton, who after his term of office as Grand Master proved a renegade and Jacobite and an enemy to the Craft. He had died in Spain in 1731. For the Book of Constitutions of 1738 there is a new Approbation altogether.

But we have not yet done with this Approbation for the further question arises, At what meeting of Grand Lodge was it drawn up? The license to publish refers to a meeting of 17th January, 1722-23, and that there was such a meeting is implied by the reference to this document in the official minutes of June, when the accuracy of this part of it is not impugned. But this Approbation was as we have seen drawn up between the end of November and the end of December, 1722, and between these limits an earlier date, is more probable than a later. No such meeting is mentioned by Anderson himself in 1738. But the explanation of this no doubt is that he now has his tale of the proclamation of Wharton at that meeting on 17th January, and any references to a meeting of a month or so earlier presided over by that nobleman would stultify the narrative. It is probable that a meeting was in fact held, and that its occurrence was suppressed by Anderson when he came to publish his narrative of the doings of Grand Lodge fifteen years later. The alternative would be that the whole document was unauthorized, but so impudent an imposture could never have escaped contemporary criticism. Truly the ways of the deceiver are hard.

THE FRONTISPIECE IS DESCRIBED

The Frontispiece to the Constitutions of 1723, which was used over again without alteration in 1738, represents a classical arcade in the foreground of which stand two noble personages, each attended by three others of whom one of those on the spectator's left carries cloaks and pairs of gloves. The principal personages can hardly be intended for any others than Montagu and Wharton; and Montagu is wearing the robes of the Garter, and is handing his successor a roll of the Constitutions, not a book. This may be intended for Anderson's as yet unprinted manuscript, or, more likely it indicates that a version of the Old Constitutions was regarded at the time as part of the Grand Master's equipment, which would be a survival of Operative practice. Behind each Grand Master stand their officers, Beal, Villeneau, and Morris on one side, and on the other Desaguliers, Timson, and Hawkins, Desaguliers as a clergyman and the other two in ordinary dress, and evidently an attempt has been made in each case to give actual portraits. It is unnecessary to suppose, as we would have to if we accepted Anderson's story, that this plate was designed, drawn, and printed in the short interval between 17th January and 28th February. It might obviously have been prepared at any time after June 25, 1722. By it Anderson is once more contradicted, because here is Hawkins - or at all events someone in ordinary clothes - as Grand Warden, and not the Reverend James Anderson, as should be the case if Wharton was not Grand Master till January and then replaced the absent Hawkins by the Doctor. The only other plate in the book is an elaborate illustration of the arms of the Duke of Montagu which stands at the head of the first page of the dedication.

We can date the historical portion of the work from the circumstance that it ends with the words: "our present worthy Grand Master, the most noble Prince John, Duke of Montagu." We can be fairly certain that Anderson's amendations of Payne's Regulations were in part made after the incidents of Wharton's election because they contain elaborate provisions for the possible continuance of the Grand Master and the nomination or election of his successor and in the charges again, there is a reference to the Regulations hereunto annexed. But beyond this internal evidence, (and that of the Approbation and sanction to publish already referred to), the only guide we have to the dates of printing the various sections of the work is the manner in which the printers' catch words occur. The absence of a catch word is not proof that the sections were printed at different times because it might be omitted if, e.g., it would spoil the appearance of a tail-piece; but the occurrence of a catch word is a very strong indication that the sections it links were printed together. Now in the Constitution of 1723 they occur as follows: from the dedication to the history, none; from the history to the Charges, catch word; from the Charges to a Postscript 'put in here to fill a page', catch word; from this to the Regulations, none; from the Regulations to the method of constituting a New Lodge, catch word; from this to the Approbation, none; from the Approbation to the final section, the songs, none; and none from here to the license to publish on the last page.

Accordingly we may now date the several portions of the work with some degree of certainty. The times are as follows:

The plate; at any time after June 25th, 1722.
The dedication, id., but probably written immediately before publication.
The historical portion; prior to 25th June, 1722.
The charges printed with the preceding section, but drafted conjointly with the Regulations.
The postscript; the same.
The General Regulations, after Wharton's installation
The method of constituting a new Lodge; printed with the preceding section.
The Approbation; between 25th November and end of December, 1722.
The songs and sanction to publish; after January 17th, 1722-3, and probably at the last moment.

Of these sections the plate and Approbation have already been dealt with. The dedication calls for no special notice; it is an extravagant eulogy of the accuracy and diligence of the author. The songs are of little interest except the familiar Apprentice's Song, and this is now described as by our late Brother Matthew Birkhead.

THE HISTORICAL PORTION

This requires a somewhat extended notice. The legendary history, as it is perhaps not necessary to remind my readers, brought Masonry or Geometry from the children of Lamech to Solomon; then jumped to France and Charles Martel; and then by St. Alban, Athelstan and Edwin, this worthy Craft was established in England. In the Spencer family of MSS. an attempt has been made to fill in the obvious gaps in this narrative by introducing the second and third temples, those of Zerubbabel and Herod, and Auviragus king of Britain as a link with Rome, France and Charles Martel being dropped, while a series of monarchs has also been introduced between St. Alban's paynim king and Atheistan [sic]. Anderson's design was wholly different. He was obsessed by the idea of the perfection of the Roman architecture, what he called the Augustan Style, and he took the attitude that the then recent introduction of Renaissance architecture into England as a return to a model from which Gothic had been merely a barbarous lapse. He traces the Art from Cain who built a city, and who was instructed in Geometry by Adam. Here he is no doubt merely bettering his originals which were content with the sons of Lamech. The assertion shows a total want of any sense of humour, but then so do all his contributions to history. But it is worth while pointing out that it suggests more than this; it suggests that he had an entire lack of acquaintance with the polite literature of the period. No well-read person of the day would be unacquainted with the writings of Abraham Cowley, the poet and essayist of the Restoration, and the opening sentence of his Essay of Agriculture is:

"The three first men in the world were a gardener, a ploughman and a grazier; and if any man object that the second of these was a murderer, I desire he would consider that as soon as he was so he quitted our profession, and turned builder." It is difficult to imagine that Anderson would have claimed Cain as the first Mason if he had been familiar with this passage.

From this point he develops the history in his own fashion, but he incorporates freely and with an entire disregard for textual accuracy any passages in the Old Charges that suit him and he has actually used the Cooke Text, as also some text closely allied to the William Watson. We know the Cooke was available to him; we learn from Stukeley that it had been produced in Grand Lodge on 24 June, 1721. Anderson, in 1738, omits all reference to this incident, but asserts that in 1718 Payne desired the brethren to bring to Grand Lodge any old writings and records, and that several copies of the Gothic Constitutions (as he calls them) were produced and collated. He also alleges that in 1720 several valuable manuscripts concerning the Craft were too hastily burnt by some scrupulous brethren.

The former of these statements we should receive with caution; for the very reason that the 1723 Constitutions show no traces of such texts; the latter may be true and the manuscripts may have been rituals, or they may have been versions of the Old Charges, but there was nothing secret about those. The antiquary Plot had already printed long extracts from them.

Returning to the narrative we are told that Noah and his sons were Masons, which is a statement for which Anderson found no warrant in his originals; but he seems to have had a peculiar fondness for Noah. In 1738 he speaks of Masons as true Noachidae, alleging this to have been their first name according to some old traditions, and it is interesting to observe that the Irish Constitutions of 1858 preserve this fragment of scholarship and assert as a fact that Noachidae was the first name of Masons. Anderson also speaks of the three great articles of Noah, which are not however further elucidated, but it is probable that the reference is to the familiar triad of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. He omits Abraham and introduces Euclid in his proper chronological sequence, so that he has corrected the old histories to that extent; but after Solomon and the second Temple he goes to Greece, Sicily and Rome, where was perfected the glorious Augustan Style. He introduces Charles Martel - as King of France! - as helping England to recover the true art after the Saxon invasion, but ignores Athelstan and Edwin. He however introduces most of the monarchs after the Conquest and makes a very special reference to Scotland and the Stuarts. In the concluding passage he used the phrase "the whole body resembles a well built Arch" and it has been suggested, not very convincingly perhaps, that this is an allusion to the Royal Arch Degree.

There is an elaborate account of Zerubbabel's temple which may have some such significance, and the Tabernacle of Moses, Aholiab and Bezaleel is also mentioned at some length, Moses indeed being a Grand Master. He also inserts for no apparent reason a long note on the words Hiram Abiff, and in this case the suggestion that there is a motive for his doing so connected with ritual is of more cogency. It is an obvious suggestion that the name was of importance to the Craft at this date, that is to say early in 1722, and that the correctness of treating Abiff as a surname instead of as equivalent to his "father" was a matter the Craft were taking an interest in.

THE SIX CHARGES

The Charges, of which there are six, are alleged to be extracted from ancient records of lodges beyond Sea, and of those in England, Scotland and Ireland. In the Approbation the assertion is that he has examined several copies from Italy and Scotland and sundry parts of England. Were it not that he now omits Ireland altogether we might nave been disposed to attach some importance to the former statement. As yet no Irish version of the Old Charges has come to light but it is barely possible that there were records of Irish Freemasonry at the time which have since passed out of sight, a Freemasonry no doubt derived originally from England. But the discrepancy is fatal; we must conclude that the worthy doctor never saw any Irish record. And we can safely dismiss his lodges in Italy or beyond Sea as equally mythical.

Of the six Charges themselves the first caused trouble immediately on its appearance. It replaced the old invocation of the Trinity and whatever else there may have been of statements of religious and Christian belief in the practice of the lodges by a vague statement that we are only to be obliged to that religion in which all men agree. Complete religious tolerance has in fact become the rule of our Craft, but the Grand Lodge of 1723 was not ready for so sudden a change and it caused much ill feeling and possibly many secessions. It was the basis of a series of attacks on the new Grand Lodge.

CONSTITUTING A NEW LODGE

The manner of constituting a New Lodge is noteworthy for its reference to the "Charges of a Master," and the question, familiar to us today: Do you submit to these charges as Masters have done in all ages? It does not appear that these are the six ancient Charges of a previous section; they were something quite distinct. But not until 1777 are any Charges of the Master known to have been printed. It is also worthy of notice that the officers to be appointed Wardens of the new lodge are Fellow Crafts. There is also a reference to the Charges to the Wardens which are to be given by a Grand Warden. This section appeared in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge as late as 1873.

Anderson in 1738 alleges that he was directed to add this section to the work at the meeting of January 17 and he then speaks of it as the ancient manner of constituting a lodge. This is also the title of the corresponding section in the 1738 Constitutions, which is only this enlarged. But its title in 1723 is: Here follows the Manner of constituting a NEW LODGE, as practiced by His Grace the Duke of Wharton, the present Right Worshipful Grand Master, according to the ancient Usages of Masons. We once more see Anderson suppressing references to the Duke of Wharton where he can in 1738, and yet obliged to assert that the section was added after January 17th in order to be consistent in his story. It is not in the least likely that this is what was done. It was to all appearance printed at one and the same time with the Regulations, which he himself tells us were in print on 17th January, and since Wharton constituted four lodges if not more in 1722 he will not have waited six months to settle his method. We may be pretty certain that this section was in print before the Approbation to which it is not linked by a catch-word.

THE REGULATIONS

The Regulations, as I have already mentioned, have come down to us only as rewritten by Anderson. The official minutes of Grand Lodge throw considerable light on the matter. The first of all relates to the appointment of the Secretary, and the very next one is as follows:

The Order of the 17th January 1722-3 printed at the end of the Constitutions page 91 for the publishing the said Constitutions as read purporting, that they had been before approved in Manuscript by the Grand Lodge and were then (viz) 17th January aforesaid produced in print and approved by the Society.

Then the Question was moved, that the said General Regulations be confirmed, so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry. The previous question was moved and put, whether the words "so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry" be part of the Question. Resolved in the affirmative, But the main Question was not put. And the Question was moved that it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of men, to make any alteration, or Innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge. And the Question being put accordingly Resolved in the Affirmative. We would record these proceedings today in somewhat different form, perhaps as follows:

It was proposed (and seconded) that the said General Regulations be confirmed so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry. An amendment to omit the words "so far ... Masonry" was negatived. But in place of the original proposition the following resolution was adopted by a majority: That it is not, etc.

The effect of this is that it indicates pretty clearly that there was a strong feeling in Grand Lodge that Anderson's version of the Regulations had never been confirmed; that there was a difference of opinion as to now confirming them, even partially; and that in fact this was not done, but a resolution was adopted instead condemning alterations made without the consent of Grand Lodge at its annual meeting first obtained. I should perhaps say that the word "purporting" does not here have the meaning we would today attach to it; it has no sense of misrepresentation. Anderson was present at this meeting, but naturally not a word of all this appears in the account he gives of it in 1738.

Regulation XIII, or one sentence in it rather, "Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow Craft only here, (i.e. in Grand Lodge) unless by a Dispensation," was at one time the battle ground of the Two Degree versus Three Degree schools; but it is generally admitted now, I believe, that only two degrees are referred to, namely the admission and the Master's Part.

The order of the words is significant. In the Regulation they read "Masters and Fellow Craft." In the resolution of 27 November, 1725 by which the rule was annulled, the wording is "Master" in the official minutes, which is a strong indication that the original Regulation only referred to one degree. In 1738 Anderson deliberately alters what is set out as the original wording and makes it read "Fellow Crafts and Masters," while in the new Regulation printed alongside of it the alteration of 27 November, 1725, is quoted as "Masters and Fellows" both being inaccurate; and he even gives the date wrongly.

The second Regulation enacts that the Master of a particular lodge has the right of congregating the members of his lodge into a chapter upon any emergency as well as to appoint the time and place of their usual forming. But it would be quite unsafe to assume that this is another reference to the Royal Arch; it appears to deal with what we would now call an emergent meeting.

Payne's, or rather Anderson's, Regulations were the foundation on which the law of the Craft was based, it being developed by a continual process of emendation and addition, and their phraseology can still be traced in our English Constitutions today.

SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS

In America Franklin reprinted this work in 1734 apparently verbatim. In 1738 Anderson brought out a second addition which was intended to replace the earlier one altogether, but it was a slovenly performance and the Regulations were printed in so confused a manner, being all mixed up with notes and amendments (many inaccurately stated), that it was difficult to make head or tail of them and to ascertain what was the law of the Craft. He also re-wrote the history entirely and greatly expanded it, introducing so many absurdities that Gould has suggested that he was deliberately fooling the Grand Lodge, or in the alternative that he was himself in his dotage. He died very shortly after. But this same ridiculous history has done duty in all seriousness till comparatively recent years, being brought up to date by Preston and others who were apparently quite unconscious of its true value. Unfortunately that portion of the history which professed to give an account of the proceedings of Grand Lodge and for which the official minutes were at Anderson's disposal is full of what one must consider wilful inaccuracies and misstatements.

In the next edition of the Constitutions, 1754, the Regulations were rewritten by Entick, but the history was preserved. Entick also reverted to the Charges as drawn up in 1723 into which, especially the first, Anderson had introduced various modifications in 1738, and those Charges are the basis of the Ancient Charges to be found today in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England, the only differences, except as regards the first Charge, not amounting to more than verbal modifications.

OUR DEBT TO ANDERSON

While as students we are bound to receive any statement that Anderson makes with the utmost caution unless it can be tested from other sources, we must not be too ready to abuse the worthy Doctor on that account. Our standards of historical and literary accuracy are higher than those of 1723, and his object was to glorify Montagu and the Craft and the new style of architecture introduced by Inigo Jones and others of his school; and this he did wholeheartedly, and if in the process he twisted a text or two or supplied suitable events to fill gaps in his narrative for which mere history as such had failed to record facts, no one at the time would think any the worse of him for that. It was a far more serious matter that he was instrumental in removing from the literature of the Craft all definite religious allusions; but as we now see, the Craft in fact owes its universality today to its wide undenominationalism and in this respect he builded better than he knew. The Constitutions of 1723 remains one of our most important texts and only awaits publication in full facsimile with suitable notes and introduction at the hands of some Society with the requisite funds.

NOTE: The Grand Lodge of All England is governed by the authority of the Old York Constitutions of A.D. 1600 (referred to in the article above as "Old Manuscript Constitutions" and "Old Gothic Constitutions") and rejects the innovations contained in the Moderns version of the Craft brought about by the activities detailed in the article written by Vibert. The Grand Lodge at York has published this article as an aid to understanding at this time when the vital issues of authenticity of origin and regularity are being re-visited and evaluated by serious students of genuine Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry.

Sussex v Sussex : The Case for Genuine Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry

When, Where and Why?

The answers to the questions "When Freemasonry?" or "Where Freemasonry?" began remain inconclusive and unsatisfactory due to the lack of reliable and available evidence, much of which has been either lost, destroyed or simply invented for parochial political reasons. No matter how firmly the alleged events at the Goose and Gridiron are presented by the "historians" of Freemasonry, what actually took place, and most crucially the circumstances surrounding them, are highly dubious. Can we really be expected to believe that organised Freemasonry only began in the tiny back room of a London Ale-house in 1717?

The Librarian and Curator of the United Grand Lodge of England, John Hamill, identifies the nature of at least part of the problem when he states that, "We don’t know enough about how Freemasonry evolved, and we don’t know enough about the early development of rituals; the earliest ritual fragments we have date from the mid-1690s onwards. We don’t know what went on before then." 1

What went on before is at least partly known, but the truly vital question about English Freemasonry is "Why?". The answer to this question contains all that is necessary to put English Freemasonry back to its rightful place at the heart of English society.

If one ponders why the membership, vitality and consequence of English Freemasonry continues to plummet and why it has become necessary to repone the Grand Lodge of All England, one must conclude that as Rudyard Kipling indicated in an earlier time of national concern, it stands in need of “re-setting".

Genuine Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry was appropriated by the Hanoverian dynasty in 1813 during a period of national crisis in a move designed to ensure that henceforth the Fraternity would be unable to articulate an independent response to the situation of the day. Freemasonry was also institutionalised by the same process of patronage that the Hanoverians used to such effect elsewhere in the Kingdom.

The overt and unwarranted conscription of English Freemasonry to the Hanoverian cause undertaken by the Duke of Sussex, and the resultant emasculating effect this subsequently and persistently produced, stands in contrast to the useful and dynamic possibilities Kipling hinted at in his Masonic references set out at a time of crisis, in his Sussex period.

For members of the Grand Lodge of All England at York, Freemasonry without a conspicuous Anglo-Saxon element is like Hamlet without the Prince, and stands shorn of those characteristics that are necessary in the challenging circumstances of to-day.

Those who focus upon the events, real or legendary occurring in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and who because of the difficulties inherent in researching the distant past regard those centuries as a more convenient starting point for the study of Freemasonry, sacrifice the necessary appreciation of the role of myth and legend within Freemasonry.

The alleged meeting of the "Four Old Lodges" at the Goose and Gridiron in 1717, and the nature of the arrangements which led on 27 December 1813 to the inception of the United Grand Lodge of England are not rendered incontrovertible because of the relative nearness of those times to the present.

Evidence, fact and truth relative to English Freemasonry in those years is generally confused, and the terms used imprecise and misleading.

What is often presented as fact in connection with those more recent events is as much disputed as King Athelstan’s charter of A.D. 926, and with at least as much reason.

In the search for truth, including that relative to the facts concerning the origin of Freemasonry, Freemasons are right to seek for that degree of elucidation which myth and legend are able to impart.

Proper appreciation of the value of myth and legend, combined with an understanding of the relationship between fact and belief, aid inquiry into the nature of Freemasonry. The reasons why the years 926 and 1717 are important relates to more than just belief or disbelief about particular events. The legends themselves are informative, and speculation is more than idle consideration.

Myth, Legend and Fact

Myth, legend and the proper interpretation of fact form essential conceptual tools for understanding the fundamental and characteristic role of Freemasonry within England, and English society. Failure to utilise these tools weakens the relevance of Freemasonry and aids those who desire and work towards its irrelevance.

Myth represents the use of a real or fictional story in which a recurring theme embodies in a consistent manner cultural ideals or emotions. Consistency is essential, and realised as the situation then, and now. The reality or fictional status of the material is not considered crucial, or even material.

We subscribe to the view expressed by Childs that at one level "The reality of the mythical, timeless event enters into the present moment of time." 2

Legend differs from myth in that here one is concerned with an unverified or unverifiable story or event handed down from an earlier time.

The story or event may well be vital in a particular context. It may be desired, it may be consistent with some known fact or facts, or even acted upon, but it cannot in its entirety be established. Indeed a legend does not need to be verified for it to have relevance or potency, because it is to some extent connected with a reality.

Both King Alfred and Robert the Bruce were in their own time, and particular situations, preoccupied with war and matters of state.

The elements of the cakes and the spider, central to each of the well-known legendary stories, need not be verified for the instructional value or context of the supposed events to be recognised.

A legendary event may be connected with the recurring theme found in a myth, or be considered along with and in the context of a factual assertion. The possible nexus in which these conceptual devices operate is itself worthy of study.

Fact, refers to something which is asserted to be true. It is not credible to maintain that a historical or evidential fact can ever be put forward in the same manner as a mathematical fact. The former are clearly subject to interpretation and it is perfectly reasonable for a fact to be disputed. The mere recitation of a number of facts does not in itself guarantee truth although it may lead to the acceptance of a proposition.Truth is attainable, but facts currently in our possession may not secure truth. We are mindful of Francis Bacon’s observation contained in his essay "Of Truth", "What is truth", said jesting Pilate, "and would not stay for an answer." 3

In terms of Myth, the answer was present in the story itself. Freemasons in common with everyone else are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality.

Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, "We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason. Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions." 4

Given the nature and extent of the surviving evidential material available to us with regard to the origins of Freemasonry, the contribution of philosophers such as William James can assist us in our search for truth.

James counsels us that, "We cannot reject any hypothesis if consequences useful to life flow from it." 5

Although recognizing inadequacies in James’s view, one can see the relevance of that view in the context of English Freemasonry. Why should a Masonic tradition uniquely founded upon Anglo-Saxon principles not be the tradition best placed to serve the needs of the people of England?

Constitutional Perspectives and the Articles of Union

Any attempt at assessing the events leading up to and including the ratification of the Articles of Union and the advent of the United Grand Lodge of England on 27 December 1813, must take account of the constitutional situation prevailing in England at the time.

The Hanoverian dynasty and English Freemasonry alike, due to the alliance formed between them, rendered themselves subject to constitutional examination and evaluation through the focus of English conceptions of constitutional probity.

Due to the nature of its inception, the Grand Lodge of London and its successor organisation The United Grand Lodge of England, remains subject to scrutiny through English forms of critical analysis.

The British constitution was seen as not only something of practical benefit, but of having its genesis in traditional Anglo-Saxon theories still vibrant and central within English constitutional conceptions. 6

There was also a strong and pervasive belief in the existence of a social contract existing between the People and the Sovereign.

Sir Ernest Barker, in considering Social Contract theory puts it this way, "The theory of the Social Contract might be mechanical, juristic, and a priori. But it was none the less a way of expressing two fundamental ideas or values to which the human mind will always cling – the value of Liberty, or the idea that will, not force, is the basis of government, and the value of Justice, or the idea that right, not might, is the basis of all political society and of every system of political order." 7

In short, the English system was thought to recognise the existence of natural rights, firmly set within the constitution, and a constitutional tradition involving the will of the People, however defined, and going back to Anglo-Saxon times.

James II, by violating those rights, had produced a situation in which the People had removed him and replaced him with a Sovereign bound more explicitly by way of the Bill of Rights.

The constitutional situation then, as now, bears directly upon the notion of English Freemasonry. It is quite possible to agree with Gardner’s contention that the revolution of 1688 has “everything” to do with Freemasonry, although his failure to recognize that the British constitution includes statutes dealing with constitutional law, and is therefore not wholly unwritten, undermines his argument, that British monarchs are not constitutional monarchs, although his position as Jacobite Historiographer Royal perhaps explains this blind spot. 8

Walpole, Scott, Blackstone, Burke, and Locke all recognized the advantages which accrued to the constitution. Acknowledgement of the will of the people, however expressed, and that form of expression inevitably changes over time, was ever a hallmark of Anglo-Saxon society.

Athelstan, Anglo-Saxon Freedoms and the People

The Grand Lodge of All England at York properly focuses its concerns upon England, and recognises Athelstan, grandson of Alfred the Great, as the King who raised the English people to nationhood.

This monarch’s achievements extended beyond England. He may be considered the first British monarch, although the title Bretwalda (Britain Ruler) had been first claimed in the fifth century by Aelle, King of Sussex, the South Saxons.

Bede translates Bretwalda into the Latin Imperium, and cognizance of the status of the Christian emperors may have been part of the reason for the singular importance granted to York in the Anglo-Saxon period, and beyond.

Certainly Offa of Mercia both in architecture and in the matter of royal succession attempted to emulate the Christian emperors. In A.D. 306, the first Christian Emperor, Constantine the Great, commenced his reign at York, then the Roman fortress of Eboracum.

York would retain its importance throughout the Anglo-Saxon period, and it is likely that Canute, who was the first king to call himself King of England, rather than King of the English, and who was also King of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and therefore aware of the vital strategic location of the city, refrained from making York his capital because of his recognition that his kingdom was that of Wessex or the West Saxons, as indeed was Athelstan’s.

The persistent claim of the West Saxons to rule the English and the fundamentally non-racist tradition of the Anglo-Saxon people can be seen from the record contained in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for A.D. 920, "In this year before midsummer, King Edward went with his troops to Nottingham … he was chosen as father and lord by the king of the Scots and all the Scottish people; by Raegnald, and Eadulf’s sons, and all who dwell in Northumbria, English, Danes, Norse and others, and the King of the Strathclyde Welsh and the Strathclyde Welsh themselves." 9

The Anglo-Saxons were, and remain a people whose national consciousness is rightly based more upon geography and shared institutions and traditions than upon race