THE LELAND MANUSCRIPT
by Albert G. Mackey
The Leland Manuscript, so called because it is said to have been discovered
by the celebrated antiquary John Leland, and sometimes called the Locke
Manuscript in consequence of the suppositous annotations appended to it by that
metaphysician, has for more than a century attracted the attention and more
recently excited the controversies of Masonic scholars.
After having been cited with approbation by such writers as Preston,
Hutchinson, Oliver, and Krause, it has suffered a reverse under the crucial
examination of later critics. It has by nearly all of these been decided to be a
forgery-a decision from which very few at this day would dissent.
It is in fact one of those "pious frauds" intended to strengthen the claim of
the Order to a great antiquity and to connect it with the mystical schools of
the ancients. But as it proposes a theory concerning the origin of the
Institution, which was long accepted as a legend of the Order, it is entitled to
a place in the legendary history of Freemasonry.
The story of this manuscript and the way in which it was introduced to the
notice of the Craft is a singular one.
In the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1753, the so called manuscript was
printed for the first time under the title of " Certayne Questyons with
Awnserers to the same, Concernynge the Mystery of Maconrye, wrytenne by the
Hande of Kynge Henrye the Sixthe of the Name, and faythfullye copyed by me John
Leylande Antiquaries, by the Commaunde of His Highnesse." That is, King Henry
the Eighth, by whom Leland was employed to search for antiquities in the
libraries of cathedrals, abbeys, priories, colleges and all places where any
ancient records were to be found.
The article in the Gentleman's Magazine is prefaced with these words:
"The following treatise is said to be printed at Franckfort, Germany, 1748,
under the following Title. Ein Brief Vondem Beruchmten Herr Johann Locke,
betreffend die Frey-Maureren. So auf einem Schrieb-Tisch enines verstorbnen
Bruders ist gefunden worden. That is, A Letter of the famous Mr. John Locke
relating to Freemasonry ; found in the Desk or Scritoir of a deceased Brother."
The claim, therefore, is that this document was first published at Frankfort
in 1748, five years before it appeared in England. But this German original has
never been produced, nor is there any evidence before us that there ever was
such a production. The laborious learning of Krause would certainly have enabled
him to discover it had it ever been in existence. But, although he accepts the
so-called manuscript as authentic, he does not refer to the Frankfort copy, but
admits that, so far as he knows, it first made its appearance in Germany in
1780, in J. G. L. Meyer's translation of Preston's Illustrations.
Kloss, it is true, in his Bibliography, gives the title in German, with the
imprint of "Frankfort, 12 pages." But he himself says that the actuality of such
a document is to be wholly doubted. Besides, it is not unusual with Kloss to
give the titles of books that he has never seen, and for whose existence he had
no other authority than the casual remark of some other writer. Thus he gives
the titles of the Short Analysis of the Unchanged. Rites and Ceremonies of
Freemasons, said to have been printed in 1676, and the Short Charge, ascribed to
1698, two books which have never been found. But he applies to them the epithet
of " doubtful " as he does to the Frankfort edition of the Leland Manuscript.
But before proceeding to an examination of the external and internal evidence
of the true character of this document, it will be expedient to give a sketch of
its contents. It has been published in so many popular works of easy access that
it is unnecessary to present it here in full.
It is introduced by a letter from Mr. Locke (the celebrated author of the
Essay on the Human Understanding), said to be addressed to the Earl of Pembroke,
under date of May 6, 1696, in which he states that by the help of Mr. Cns he had
obtained a copy of the MS. in the Bodleian Library, which he therewith had sent
to the Earl. It is accompanied by numerous notes which were made the day before
by Mr. Locke for the reading of Lady Masham, who had become very fond of
Masonry.
Mr. Locke says: "The manuscript of which this is a copy, appears to be about
160 years old. Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the title) it is itself a
copy of one yet more ancient by about 100 years. For the original is said to
have been the handwriting of K. H. VI. Where the Prince had it is at present an
uncertainty, but it seems to me to be an examination (taken perhaps before the
king) of some one of the Brotherhood of Masons; among whom he entered himself,
as 'tis said, when he came out of his minority, and thenceforth put a stop to
the persecution that had been raised against them."
The " examination," for such it purports to be, as Mr. Locke supposes,
consists of twelve questions and answers. The style and orthography is an
attempted imitation of the language of the 15th century. How far successful the
attempt has been will be discussed hereafter.
Masonry is described to be the skill of Nature, the understanding of the
might that is therein and its various operations, besides the skill of numbers,
weights and measures, and the true manner of fashioning all things for the use
of man, principally dwellings and buildingd of all kinds and all other things
that may be useful to man.
Its origin is said to have been with the first men of the East, who were
before the Man of the West, by which Mr. Locke, (1) in his note, says is meant
Pre-Adamites, the " Man of the West " being Adam. The Phoenicians, who first
came from the East into Phoenicia, are said to have brought it westwardly by the
way of the Red and Mediterranean seas.
It was brought into England by Pythagoras, who is called in the document "
Peter Gower," evidently from the French spelling of the name, " Petagore," he
having traveled in search of knowledge into Egypt, Syria, and every other land
where the Phoenicians had planted Masonry. Having obtained a knowledge of the
art in the Lodges of Masons into which he gained admission, on his return to
Europe he settled in Magna Grecia (the name given by the ancients to Southern
Italy), and established a Grand Lodge at Crotona, one of its principal cities,
where he made many Masons. Some of there traveled into France and made many
Masons, whence in process of time the art passed over into England. Such is the
history of the origin and progress of Masonry which is given in the Leland
Manuscipt. The remainder of the document is engaged in giving the character and
the objects of the Institution.
Thus it is said, in relation to secrecy, that Masons have at all times
communicated to mankind such of their secrets as might generally be useful, and
have kept back only those that might be harmful in evil hands-those that could
be of no use unless accompanied by the teachings of the Lodge, and those which
are employed to bind the brethren more strongly together.
The arts taught by Masons to mankind are enumerated as being Agriculture,
Architecture, Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic ,Music, Poetry, Chemistry,
Government, and Religion.
Masons are said to be better teachers than other men, because the first of
them received from God the art of finding new arts, and of teaching them,
whereas the discoveries of other men have been but few, and acquired only by
chance. This art of discovery the Masons conceal for their own profit. They also
conceal the art of working miracles, the art of foretelling future events, the
art of changes (which Mr. Locke is made in a note to interpret as signifying the
transmutation of metals), the method of acquiring the faculty of Abrac, the
power of becoming good and perfect without the aid of fear and hope, and the
universal language.
And lastly it is admitted that Masons do not know more than other men, but
onlyhave a better opportunity of knowing, in which many fail for want of
capacity and industry. And as to their virtue, while it is acknowledged that
some are not so good as other men, yet it is believed that for the most part
they are better than they would be if they were not Masons. And it is claimed
that Masons, greatly love each other, because good and true men, knowing each
other to be such, always love the more the better they are. " And here endethe
the Questyonnes and Awnsweres."
There does not appear to be any great novelty or value in this document The
theory of the origin of Masonry had been advanced by others before its
appearance in public, and the characteristics of Masonry had been previously
defined in better language.
But no sooner is it printed in the Gentleman's Magazine for the month of
September, and year 1753, than it is seized as a bonne bouche by printers and
writers, so that being first received with surprise, it was soon accepted as a
genuine relic of the early age of English Masonry and incorporated into its
history, a position that it has not yet lost, in the opinion of some. The
forgeries of Chatterton and of Ireland met a speedier literary death.
Of the genuine publications of this document, so much as this isknown.
It was first printed, as we have seen, in the Gentleman's Magazine, in
September, 1753. Kloss records a book as published in 1754, with no place of
publication, but probably it was London, with the title of A Masonic Creed, with
a curious letter by Mr. Locke.
This, we can hardly doubt, was the Leland Manuscript .pt with a new title.
The republications in England pursued the following succession. In 1756 it was
printed in Entick's edition of the Constitutions and in Dermott's Ahiman Rezon;
in 1763 in the Freemasons Pocket Companion, in 1769, in Wilkinson's
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and in Calcott's Candid
Disquisition; in 1772, in Huddesford's Life of Leland, and in Preston's
Illustrations of Masonry,- in 1775, in Hutchinson's Spirit of Masonry and in
1784, in Northouck's edition of the Constitutions.
In Germany it first appeared in 1776, says Krause, in G. L. Meyer's
translation of Preston; in 1780, in a translation of Hutchinson, published at
Berlin; in 1805, in the Magazinfiir Freimaurer of Professor Seehass; in 1807, in
the collected Masonic works of Fessler; in 1810, by Dr. Krause in his Three
Oldest Documents,and in 1824, by Mossdorf in his edition of Lenning's
Encyclopedie. In France, Thory published a translation of it, with some comments
of his own, in 1815, in the Acta Latomorum.
In America it was, so far as I know, first published in 1783, in Smith's
Ahiman Rezon of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania; it was also published in 1817,
by Cole, in his Ahiman Rezon of Maryland, and it has been copied into several
other works.
In none of these republications, with one or two exceptions, is there an
expression of the slightest doubt of the genuineness of the document. It has on
the contrary been, until recently, almost everywhere accepted as authentic, and
as the detail of an actual examination of a Mason or a company of Masons, made
by King Henry VI., of England, or some of his ministers, in the 15th century.
Of all who have cited this pretended manuscript, Dr. Carl Christian
Friederich Krausse is perhaps the most learned, and the one who from the
possession of great learning, we should naturally expect would have been most
capable of detecting a literary forgery, speaks of it, in his great work on The
Three Oldest Documents Of the Fraternity of Freemasons, as being a remarkable
and instructive document and as among the oldest that are known to us. In
England, he says, it is, so far as it is known to him, accepted as authentic by
the learned as well as by the whole body of the Craft, without a dissenting
voice. And he refers as evidence of this to the fact that the Grand Lodge of
England has formally admitted it into its Book of Constitutions, while the Grand
Lodge of Scotland has approved the work of Lawrie, in which its authenticity is
supported by new proofs.
And Mossdorf, whose warm and intimate relations with Krause influenced
perhaps to some extent his views on this as well as they did on other Masonic
subjects, has expressed a like favorable opinion of the Leland Manuscript. In
his additions to the Encyclopedie of Lenning, he calls it a remarkable document,
which, notwithstanding a singularity about it, and its impression of the ancient
time in which it originated, is instructive, and the oldest catechism which we
have on the origin, the nature, and the design of Masonry.
The editor of Lawrie's History is equally satisfied of the genuine character
of this document, to which he confidently refers as conclusive evidence that Dr.
Plot was wrong in saying that Henry VI. did not patronize Masonry.
Dr. Oliver is one of the most recent and, as might be expected from his
peculiar notions in respect to the early events of Masonry, one of the most
ardent defenders of the authenticity of the manuscript, although he candidly
admits " that there is some degree of mystery about it, and doubts have been
entertained whether it be not a forgery."
But, considering its publicity at a time when Freemasonry was beginning- to
excite a considerable share of public attention, and that the deception, if
there was one, would have been publicly exposed by the opponents of the Order,
he thinks that their silence is presumptive proof that the document is genuine.
"Being thus universally diffused," he says, " had it been a suspected
document, its exposure would have been certainly attempted if a forgery, it
would have been unable to have endured the test of a critical examination. But
no such attempt was made, and the presumption is that-the document is
authentic."
But, on the ther hand there are some writers who have as carefully
investigated the subject as those whom I have referred to, but the result of
whose investigations have led them irresistibly to the conclusion that the
document never had any existence until the middle of the 18th century, and that
the effort to place it in the time of Henry VI. is, as Mounier calls it, " a
Masonic fraud."
As early as 1787, while the English Masons were receiving it as a document of
approved truth, the French critics had begun to doubt its genuineness. At a
meeting of the Philalethes, a Rite of Hermetic Masonry which had been instituted
at Paris in 1775, the Marquis de Chefdebien read a paper entitled Masonic
-Researches for the use of the Primitive Rite of Narbonne. In this paper he
presented an unfavorable criticism of the Leland Manuscript. In 1801 M. Mounier
published an essay On the Influence attributed to the Philosophers, the
Freemasons and the Illuminate in the French Revolution, (2) in which he
pronounces the document to be a forgery and a Masonic fraud.
Lessing was the first of the German critics who attacked the genuineness of
the document. This he did in his Ernst und Falk, the first edition of which was
published in 1778. Others followed, and the German unfavorable criticisms were
closed by Findel, the editor of the Bauhutte, and author of a History of
Freemasonry, first published in 1865, and which was translated in 1869 by Bro.
Lyon. He says : -'There is no reliance, whatever, to be placed on any assertions
based on this spurious document ; they all crumble to dust. Not even in England
does any well-informed Mason of the present day, believe in the genuineness of
this bungling composition."
In England it is only recently that any doubts of its authenticity have been
expressed by Masonic critics. The first attack upon it was made in 1849, by Mr.
George Sloane, in his New Curiosities of Literature. Sloane was not a Freemason,
and his criticism, vigorous as it is, seems to have been inspired rather by a
feeling of enmity to the Institution than by an honest desire to seek the truth.
His conclusions, however, as to the character of the document are based on the
most correct canons of criticism. Bro. A. F. A. Woodford is more cautious in the
expression of his judgment, but admits that " we must give up the actual claim
of the document to be a manuscript of the time of King Henry VI., or to have
been written by him or copied by Leland." Yet he thinks " it not unlikely that
we have in it the remains of a Lodge catechism conjoined with a Hermetic one."
But this is a mere supposition, and hardly a plausible one But a recent writer,
unfortunately anonymous, in the Masonic Magazine, of London, has given an able
though brief review of the arguments for and against the external evidence of
authenticity, and has come to the conclusion that the former has utterly failed
and that the question must fall to the ground.
Now, amid such conflicting views, an investigation must be conducted with the
greatest impartiality. the influence of great names especially among the German
writers, has been enlisted on both sides, and the most careful judgment must be
exercised in determining which of these sides is right and which is wrong. In
the investigation of the genuineness of any document we must have resort to two
kinds of evidence, the external and the internal. The former is usually more
clear and precise, as well as more easily handled, because it is superficial and
readily comprehended by the most unpracticed judgment. But when there is no
doubt about the interpretation, and there is a proper exercise of skill,
internal evidence is freer from doubt, and therefore the most conclusive. It is,
says a recent writer on the history of our language, the pure reason of the
case, speaking to us directly, by which we can not be deceived, if we only
rightly apprehend it.
But, al- though we must sometimes dispense with external evidence, because it
may be unattainable, while the internal evidence is always existent, yet the
combination of the two will make the conclusion to which we may arrive more
infallible than it could be by the application of either kind alone.
If it should be claimed that a particular document was written in a certain
century, the mention of it, or citations from it, by contemporary authors would
be the best external evidence of its genuineness. It is thus that the received
canon of the New Testament has been strengthened in its authority, by the
quotation of numerous passages of the Gospels and the Epistles which are to be
found in the authentic writings of the early Fathers of the Church. This is the
external evidence.
If the language of the document under consideration, the peculiar style, and
the archaic words used in it should be those found in other documents known to
have been written in the same century, and if the sentiments are those that we
should look for in the author, are in accord with the age in which he lived,
this would be internal evidence and would be entitled to great weight.
But this internal evidence is subject to one fatal defect. The style and
language of the period and the sentiments of the pretended author and of the age
in which he lived may be successfully imitated by a skillful forger, and then
the results of internal evidence will be evaded. So the youthful Chatterton
palmed upon the world the supposititious productions of the monk Rowley and
Ireland forged pretended plays of Shakespeare. Each of these made admirable
imitations of the style of the authors whose lost productions they pretended to
have discovered.
But when the imitation has not been successful, or when there has been no
imitation attempted, the use of words which were unknown at the date claimed for
the document in dispute, or the reference to events of which the writer must be
ignorant, because they occurred at a subsequent period, or when the sentiments
are incongruous to the age in which they are supposed to have been written, then
the internal evidence that it is a forgery, or at least a production of a later
date, will be almost invincible.
It is by these two classes of evidence that I shall seek to inquire into the
true character of the Leland Manuscript.
If it can be shown that there is no evidence of the existence of the document
before the year 1753, and if it can also be shown that neither the language of
the document the sentiments expressed in it, nor the character attributed to the
chief actor, King Henry VI. are in conformity with a document of the 15th
century, we shall be authorized in rejecting the theory that it belongs to such
a period as wholly untenable, and the question will admit of no more discussion.
But in arriving at a fair conclusion, whatever it may be, the rule of Ulpian
must be obeyed, and the testimonies must be well considered and not merely
counted. It is not the number of the whole but the weight of each that must
control our judgment. Those who defend the genuineness of the Leland Manuscript
are required to establish these points:
1. That the document was first printed at Frankfort, in Germany, whence it
was copied into the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1753.
2. That the original manuscript was, by command of King Henry VIII., copied
by John Leland from an older document of the age of Henry VI.
3. That this original manuscript of which Leland made a copy, was written
by King Henry VI.
4. That the manuscript of Leland was deposited in the Bodleian Library.
5. That a copy of this manuscript of Leland was made by a Mr.C-ns, which is
said to mean Collins, and given by him to John Locke, the celebrated
metaphysician.
6. That Locke wrote notes or annotations on it in the year 1696, which were
published in Frankfort in 1748, and afterward in England, in 1753.
The failure to establish by competent proof any one of these six points will
seriously affect the credibility of the whole story, for each of them is a link
of one continuous chain.
1.Now as to the first point, that the document was first printed at Frankfort
in the year 1748. The Frankfort copy has never yet been seen, notwithstanding
diligent search has been made for it by German writers, who were the most
capable of discovering it, if it had ever existed. The negative evidence is
strong that the Frankfort copy may be justly considered as a mere myth. It
follows that the article in the Gentleman's Magazine is an original document,
and we have a right to suppose that it was written at the time for some purpose,
to be hereafter considered, for, as the author of it has given a false
reference, we may conclude that if he had copied it at all he would have
furnished us with the true one. Kloss, it is true, has admitted the title into
his catalogue, but he has borrowed his description of it from the article in the
Gentleman's Magazine, and speaks of this Frankfort copy as being doubtful. He
evidently bad never seen it, though he was an indefatigable searcher after
Masonic books. Krause's account of it in that it first was found worthy of
Locke's notice in England ; that thence it passed over into Germany-" how, he
does not know "- appeared in Frankfort, and then returned back to England, where
it was printed in 1753. But all this is mere hearsay, and taken by Krause from
the statement in the Gentleman's Magazine. He makes no reference to the
Frankfort copy in his copious notes in his Kunsturkunden, and, like Kloss, had
no personal knowledge of any such publication. In short, there is no positive
evidence at all that any such document was printed at Frankfort-on-the-Main, but
abundant negative evidence that it was not. The first point must therefore be
abandoned.
2. The second point that requires to be proved is that the Manuscript, was,
by command of King Henry VIII., copied by John Leland, from an older document of
the age of Henry VI. Now, there is not the slightest evidence that a manuscript
copy of the original document was taken by Leland, except what is afforded by
the printed article in the Gentleman's Magazine, the authenticity of which is
the very question in dispute, and it is a good maxim of the law that no one
ought to be a witness in his own cause. But even this evidence is very
insufficient. For, admitting that Locke was really the author of the annotations
(an assertion which also needs proof), he does not say that he had seen the
Leland copy, but only a copy of it, which had been made for him by a friend. So
that even at that time the Leland Manuscript had not been brought to sight and
up to this has never been seen. Amid all the laborious and indefatigable
researches of Bro. Hughan in the British Museum, in other libraries, and in the
archives of lodges, while he has discovered many valuable old records and
Masonic Constitutions which until then had lain hidden in these various
receptacles, he has failed to unearth the famous Leland Manuscript. The hope of
ever finding it is very faint, and must be entirely extinguished if other proofs
can be adduced of its never having existed.
Huddesford, in his Life of Leland, had, it is true, made the following
statement in reference to this manuscript: " It also appears that an ancient
manuscript of Leland's has long remained in the Bodleian Library, unnoticed in
any account of our author yet published. This Tract is entitled Certayne
Questyons with Awnsweres to the same concernynge the mystery of Maconrye. The
original is said to be the handwriting of K. Henry VI., by order of his highness
K. Henry VIII. (1) And he then proceeds to dilate upon the importance of this "
ancient monument of literature, if its authenticity remains unquestioned."
But it must be remembered that Huddesford wrote in 1772, nineteen years after
the appearance of the document in the Gentleman's Magazine, which he quotes in
his Appendix, and from which it is evident that he derived all the knowledge
that he had of the pseudomanuscript. But the remarks on this subject of the
anonymous writer in the London Masonic Magazine, already referred to, are so
apposite and conclusive that they justify a quotation.
"Though Huddesford was keeper of the Ashmolean Library, in the Bodleian, he
does not seek to verify even the existence of the manuscript, but contents
himself with 'it also appears' that it is from the Gentleman's Magazine of 1753.
He surely ought not to have put in here such a statement, that an ancient
manuscript of Leland has long remained in the Bodleian, without inquiry or
collation. Either he knew the fact to be so, as he stated it, or he did not ;
but in either case his carelessness as an editor is to my mind, utterly
inexcusable. Nothing would have been easier for him than to verify an alleged
manuscript of Leland, being an officer in the very collection in which it was
said to exist. Still, if he did not do so, either thebmanuscript did exist, and
he knew it, but did not think well, for some reason, to be more explicit about
it, or he knew nothing at all about it, and by an inexcusable neglect of his
editorial duty, took no pains to ascertain the truth, and simply copied others,
by his quasi recognition of a professed manuscript of Leland.
But it is utterly incredible that Huddesford could have known and yet
concealed his knowledge of the existence of the manuscript. There is no
conceivable motive that could be assigned for such concealment and for the
citation at the same time of other authority for the fact. It is therefore a
fair inference that his only knowledge of the document was delved from the
Gentleman's Magazine. There is therefore, no proof whatever that Leland ever
copied any older manuscript.
Referring to certain obvious mistakes in the printed copy, such as Peter
Gower for Pythagoras, it has been said that it is evident that the document was
not printed from Leland's original transcript, but rather from a secondary copy
of an unlearned.
Huddesford adopts this view, but if he had ever seen the manuscript of Leland
he could have better formed a judgment by a collation of it with the printed
copy than by a mere inference that a man of Leland's learning could not have
made such mistakes. As he did not do so, it follows that he had never seen
Leland's Manuscript. The second point, therefore, falls to the ground.
3. The third point requiring proof is that the original manuscript of which
Leland made a copy, was written by King Henry VI. There is a legal rule that
when a deed or writing is not produced in court, and the loss of it is not
reasonably accounted for, it shall be treated as if it were not existent. This
is just the case of the pretended manuscript in the handwriting of Henry VI. No
one has ever seen that manuscript, no one has ever had any knowledge of it ; the
fact of its ever having existed depends solely on the statement made in the
Gentleman's Magazine that it had been copied by Leland. Of a document "in the
clouds" as this is, whose very existence is a mere presumption built on the very
slightest foundation, it is absurd to predicate an opinion of the handwriting.
Time enough when the manuscript is produced to inquire who wrote it. The third
point, therefore, fails to be sustained.
4. The fourth point is that the manuscript of Leland was deposited in the
Bodleian Library. This has already been discussed in the argument on the first
and third point. It is sufficient now to say that no such manuscript has been
found in that library. The writer in the London Masonic Magazine, whom I have
before quoted, says that he had had a communication with the authorities of the
Bodleian Library, and had been informed that nothing is known of it in that
collection. Among the additional manuscripts of the British Museum are some that
were once owned by one Essex, an architect, who lived late in the last century.
Among these is a copy of the Leland Manuscript evidently a copy made by Essex
from the Gentleman's Magazine, or some one of the other works in which it had
been printed. I say evidently, because in the same collection is a copy of the
Grand Mystery, transcribed by him as he had transcribed the Leland Manuscript,
as a, to him perhaps, curious relic. The original Leland Manuscript is nowhere
to be found, and there the attempt to prove the fourth point is unsuccessful.
5.The fifth point is that a copy of Leland's MS. was made by a Mr. C-ns, and
given by him to Locke. The Pocket Companion printed the name as " Collins," upon
what authority I know not. There were only two distinguished men of that name
who were contemporaries of Locke-John Collins, the mathematician, and Anthony
Collins, the celebrated skeptical writer. It could not have been the former who
took the copy from the Ashmolean Library in 1696, for he died in 1683. There is,
however, a strong probability that the latter was meant by the writer of the
prefatory, since he was on such relations with Locke as to have been appointed
one of his executors, (1) and it is an ingenious part of the forgery that he
should be selected to perform such an act of courtesy for his friend as the
transcription of an old manuscript. Yet there is an uncertainty about it, and it
is a puzzle to be resolved why Mr. Locke should have unnecessarily used such a
superabundance of caution, and given only the initial and final letters of the
name of a friend who had been occupied in the harmless employment of copying for
him a manuscript in a public library. This is mysterious, and mystery is always
open to suspicion. For uncertainty and indefiniteness the fifth point is
incapable of proof.
6. The sixth and last point is that the notes or annotations were written by
Mr. Locke in 1696, and fifty-two years afterward printed in
Frankfort-on-the-Main. We must add to this, because it is a part of the story,
that the English text, with the annotations of Locke, said to have been
translated into German, the question-was it translated by the unknown brother in
whose desk the document was found after his death ?-and then retranslated into
English for the use of the Gentleman's Magazine.
It is admitted thar if we refuse to accept the document printed in the
magazine in 1753 as genuine, it must follow that the notes supposed to have been
written by Locke are also spurious. The two questions are not necessarily
connected. Locke may have been deceived, and, believing that the manuscript
presented to him by C-ns, or Collins, if that was really his name, did take the
trouble, for the sake of Lady Masham, to annotate it and to explain its
difficulties.
But if we have shown that there is no sufficient proof, and, in fact, no
proof at all, that there ever was such a manuscript, and therefore that Collins
did not transcribe it, then it will necessarily follow that the pretended notes
of Locke are as complete a forgery as the text to which they are appended. Now
if the annotations of Locke were genuine, why is it that after diligent search
this particular one has not been found? It is known that Locke left several
manuscripts behind him, some of which were published after his death by his
executors, King and Collins, and several unpublished manuscripts went into the
possession of Lord King, who in 1829 published the Life and Correspondence of
Locke.
But nowhere has the notorious Leland Manuscript appeared. " If John Locke's
letter were authentic," says the writer already repeatedly referred to, a copy
of this manuscript would remain among Mr. Locke's papers, or at Wilton house and
the original manuscript probably in the hands of this Mr. Collins, whoever he
was, or in the Bodleian."
But there are other circumstances of great suspicion connected with the
letter and annotations of Locke, which amount to a condemnation of their
authenticity. In concluding his remarks on what he calls " this old paper,"
Locke is made to say: " It has so raised curiosity as to induce me to enter
myself into the fraternity; which I am determined to do (if I may be admitted)
the next time I go to London, and that will be shortly."
Now, because it is known that at the date of the pseudo-letter, Mr. Locke was
actually residing at Oates, the seat of Sir Francis Masham, forechose lady he
says that the annotations were made, and because it is also known that in the
next year he made a visit to London, Oliver says that there "he was initiated
into Masonry."
Now, there is not the slightest proof of this initiation, nor is it important
to the question of authenticity whether he was initiated or not, because if he
was not it would only prove that be had abandoned the intention he had expressed
in the letter. But I cite the unsupported remark of Dr. Oliver to show how
Masonic history has hitherto been written-always assumptions, and facts left to
take care of themselves.
But it is really most probable that Mr. Locke was not made a Freemason in
1697 or at any other time, for if he had been, Dr. Anderson, writing the history
of Masonry only a few years afterward, would not have failed to have entered
this illustrious name in the list of " learned scholars " who had patronized the
Fraternity.
It appears, from what is admitted in reference to this subject, that the
Leland Manuscript, having been obtained by Mr. Collins from the Bodleian
Library, was annotated by Mr. Locke, and a letter, stating the fact, was sent
with the manuscript and annotations to a nobleman whose rank and title are
designated by stars (a needless mystery), but who has been subsequently supposed
to be the Earl of Pembroke. All this was in the year 1696. It then appears to
have been completely lost to sight until the year 1748, when it is suddenly
found hidden away in the desk of a deceased brother in Germany. During these
fifty-two years that it lay in abeyance, we hear nothing of it. Anderson, the
Masonic historian, could not have heard of it, for he does not mention it in
either the edition of the Constitutions published in 1723, or in that more
copious one of 1738. If anyone could have known of it, if it was in existence,
it would have been Anderson, and if hc had ever seen or heard of it he would
most certainly have referred to it in his history of Masonry during the reign of
Henry VI.
He does say, indeed, that according to a record in the reign of Edward IV.
"the charges and laws of the Freemasons have been seen and perused by our late
Sovereign, King Henry VI., and by the Lords of his most honourable Council, who
have allowed them and declared that they he right good, and reasonable to be
holden as they have been drawn out and collected from the records of ancient
times," etc.
But it is evident that this is no description of the Leland Manuscript which
does not consist of " charges and laws," but is simply a history of the origin
of Masonry, and a declaration of its character and objects. And yet the fact
that there is said to have been something; submitted by the Masons to Henry VI.
and his Council was enough to suggest to the ingenious forger the idea of giving
to his pseudo-manuscript a date corresponding to the reign of that monarch. But
he overleaped the bounds of caution in giving the peculiar form to his forgery.
Had he fabricated a document similar to those ancient constitutions, many
genuine manuscripts of which are extant, the discovery of the fraud would have
been more difficult.
But to continue the narrative: The manuscript, having been found in the desk
of this unknown deceased brother, is forthwith published at Frankfort, Germany,
in a pamphlet of twelve pages and in the German language.
Here again there are sundry questions to be asked, which can not be answered.
Had the tale been a true one, and the circumstances such as always accompany the
discovery of a lost document, and which are always put upon record, the replies
and explanations would have been ready.
Was the letter of Locke, including of course the catechism of the Leland
Manuscript, which was found in the desk of the unknown brother, the original
document, or was it only a copy? If the latter, had it been copied in English by
the brother, or translated by him into German? If not translated by trim, by
whom was it translated? Was the pamphlet printed in Frankfort merely a German
translation, or did it also contain, in parallel columns, the English original,
as Krause has printed the English documents in his Kunsterkunden, and as, in
fact, he has printed this very document? These are questions of very great
importance in determining the value and authenticity of the Frankfort pamphlet,
And yet not one of them can be answered, simply because that pamphlet has never
been found, nor is it known that anyone has ever seen it.
The pamphlet next makes its appearance five years afterward in England, and
in an English translation in the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1753.
Nobody can tell, or at least nobody has told, how it got there, who brought it
over, who translated it from the German, how it happened that the archaic
language of the text and the style of Locke have been preserved. These are facts
absolutely necessary to be known in any investigation of the question of
authenticity, and yet over them all a suspicious silence broods. Until this
silence is dissipated and these questions answered by the acquisition of new
knowledge in the premises, which it can hardly now be expected will be obtained,
the stain of an imposture must remain upon the character of the document. The
discoverer of a genuine manuscript would have been more explicit in his details.
As to internal evidence, there is the most insuperable difficulty in applying
here the canons of criticism which would identify the age of the manuscript by
its style.
Throwing aside any consideration of the Frankfort pamphlet on account of the
impossibility of explaining the question of translation, and admitting, for the
time, that Mr. Locke did really annotate a copy of a manuscript then in the
Bodleian Library, which copy was made for him by his friend Collins, how, with
this admission, will the case stand?
In Mr. Locke's letter (accepting, it as such) he says: "The manuscript, of
which this is a copy, appears to be about 160 years old." As the date of Locke's
letter is 1696, this estimate would bring us to 1536,or the thirty-first year of
the reign of Henry VIII. Locke could have derived his knowledge of this fact
only in two ways: from the date given in the manuscript or from its style and
language as belonging, in his opinion, to that period. But if he derived his
knowledge from the date inserted at the head of the manuscript, that knowledge
would be of no value, because it is the very question which is at issue. The
writer of a forged document would affix to it the date necessary to carry out
his imposture, which of course would be no proof of genuineness. But if Locke
judged from the style, then it must be said that, though a great metaphysician
and statesman, and no mean theologian, he was not an archaeologist or antiquary,
and never had any reputation as an expert in the judgment of old records. Of
this we have a proof here, for the language of the Leland Manuscript is not that
of the period in which Leland lived. The investigator may easily satisfy himself
of this by a collation of Leland's genuine works, or of the Cranmer Bible, which
is of the same date.
But it may be said that Locke judged of the date, not by the style, but by
the date of the inanuscript itself. And this is probably true, because he adds:
" Yet (as your Lordship will observe by the title) it is itself a copy of one
yet more ancient by about 100 years: For the original is said to have been in
the handwriting of K. H. VI."
Locke then judged only by the title-a very insufficient proof as I have
already said, of authenticity. So Locke seems to have thought, for he limits the
positiveness of the assertion by the qualifying phrase " it is said." If we
accept this for what it is worth, the claim will be that the original manuscript
was written in the reign of Henry VI., or about the middle of the I5th century.
But here again the language is not of that period. The new English, as it is
called, was then beginning to take that purer form which a century and a half
afterward culminated in the classical and vigorous style of Cowley. We find no
such archaisms as those perpetrated in this document in the Repressor of
over-much Blaming of the Clergy, written in the same reign, about 1450, by
Bishop Pecock, nor in the Earl of Warwick's petition to Duke Humphrey, written
in 1432, nor in any other of the writings of that period. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the glossary or list of archaic words used in the document, by
which from internal evidence we could be enabled to fix its date, has, according
to Mr. Woodford, " always been looked upon with much suspicion by experts."
If I may advance an hypotheses upon the subject I should say that the style
is a rather clumsy imitation of that of Sir John Mandeville, whose Voiage and
Travails was written in 1356, about a century before the pretended date of the
Leland Manuscript. An edition of this book was published at London in 1725. It
was, therefore, accessible to the writer of the Leland document. He being aware
of the necessity of giving an air of antiquity to his forgery, and yet not a
sufficiently skillful philologist to know the rapid strides that had taken place
in the progress of the language between the time of Mandeville and the middle of
the reign of Henry VI., adopted, to the best of his poor ability, the
phraseology of that most credulous of all travelers, supposing that it would
well fit into the period that he had selected for the date of his fraudulent
manuscript. His ignorance of philology has thus led to his detection. I am
constrained, from all these considerations, to endorse the opinion of Mr.
Halliwell Phillips, that " it is but a clumsy attempt at deception, and quite a
parallel to the recently discovered one of the first Englishe Mercurie."
But the strangest thing in this whole affair is that so many men of learning
should have permitted themselves to become the dupes of so bungling an impostor.
back to top |
