W. McLeod’s article offers both the introduction of a newly surfaced manuscript and a methodological reflection on the classification of Old Charges. It combines descriptive codicology, comparative textual analysis, and historiographical synthesis, aiming to reassess established genealogies of Masonic manuscripts. The article is not only a presentation of the Hathaway MS but also an attempt to test and refine the criteria by which Old Charges are grouped into families and branches, thereby clarifying textual transmission and scribal practice.
Thesis and Main Contribution
McLeod’s central thesis is that the Hathaway MS illustrates both the stability and fluidity of the Old Charges tradition, and that its study provides an opportunity to revisit classification systems and methodological assumptions. He argues that careful collation demonstrates affinities with the Hughan MS and other Dowland-related branches, while also showing independent features that complicate neat genealogical models. The article’s main contribution lies in integrating a newly discovered text into the established corpus while simultaneously reflecting on how such integration tests and potentially revises the methods of textual classification employed by Poole, Knoop, Jones, and others.
Method and Rationale
McLeod’s method is twofold: codicological description and textual comparison. He begins with a detailed account of the Hathaway MS’s physical features (dimensions, script, parchment condition, layout), establishing its proximity to known seventeenth-century copies. He then collates key passages with parallel texts across established manuscript families, mapping agreements and divergences in order to locate its place within the tradition. The rationale is that only by systematic collation and genealogical analysis can one responsibly classify new finds and assess their significance for the history of the Old Charges.
In terms of engagement with predecessors, McLeod is explicit. He acknowledges the classificatory framework of Poole, while refining its criteria with closer attention to textual stemmata. He cites Knoop and Jones’s emphasis on family resemblance but stresses the need for caution in inferring common ancestry. His approach therefore represents both a continuation of and a methodological tightening of earlier classification schemes, situating his work as a bridge between documentary discovery and theoretical critique.
Main Arguments
- Codicological description of the Hathaway MS: The manuscript, written on three strips of parchment and stitched together, reveals careful cursive script, consistent ruling, and typical abbreviation practices. These features situate it securely in the seventeenth century and align it with other known Old Charges witnesses.
- Comparative collation with Standard Original: McLeod shows that the Hathaway MS diverges from the Standard Original archetype at several points, particularly in invocations and craft regulations, but retains strong family resemblances in core sections. This tension exemplifies the mixture of fidelity and variation in manuscript transmission.
- Affinity with Hughan MS and Dowland branch: Collation demonstrates that the Hathaway MS shares a number of distinctive readings with Hughan’s D.b.22 and other Dowland manuscripts. However, it also exhibits independent peculiarities, making it less a direct copy than a collateral witness.
- Classification implications: The presence of both shared and unique features challenges simplistic linear genealogies. McLeod argues that classification into families must allow for cross-branch contamination, scribal eclecticism, and the cumulative effects of long copying chains.
- Methodological reflection: Beyond the single manuscript, McLeod frames his study as a methodological exercise, showing how new finds can refine or destabilise established systems. He advocates for flexibility and empirical grounding in classificatory practice.
Strengths of the Approach
- Empirical precision: The meticulous codicological description grounds the analysis and provides essential evidence for dating and classification.
- Systematic collation: McLeod’s detailed comparisons with parallel passages ensure that classification is based on verifiable textual data rather than impressionistic resemblance.
- Historiographical reflexivity: By framing the article as an “exercise in methodology,” McLeod contributes not just to the corpus of known texts but to the standards by which such texts are analysed, consolidating AQC’s tradition of methodological rigour.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Limitation 1 : This choice is methodologically legitimate, since McLeod needed representative witnesses to test the textual affiliations of the Hathaway MS. However, it rests heavily on the classificatory grid inherited from Hughan and Poole, themselves building on but also adapting Begemann’s earlier stemmatic approach. By relying on this established typology, McLeod succeeds in situating the new manuscript within a recognisable framework, but at the same time limits his capacity to question the classificatory system itself. The dependence on an inherited scheme ensures comparability but risks reinforcing pre-existing assumptions rather than opening the way to alternative models of textual transmission.
- Limitation 2 : McLeod’s reliance on stemmatic models risks underestimating the possibility of scribal contamination, borrowings, or hybridisation, which complicate strict family trees.
- Blind spot : While the article excels in technical classification, it does not extend to broader cultural or functional interpretations of why the Old Charges continued to be recopied in this period. This leaves unexplored the social role of such manuscripts in seventeenth-century lodge or guild contexts.
Critical Conclusion
McLeod’s study of the Hathaway MS is both a valuable addition to the corpus of Old Charges and a methodological reflection on how new discoveries should be integrated into classificatory systems. By combining codicological description with rigorous textual collation, he demonstrates the manuscript’s affinities with the Hughan and Dowland traditions, while also highlighting the limitations of neat genealogical models. Yet, his analysis remains tied to the classificatory scheme derived from Begemann and subsequently refined by Hughan and Poole. This reliance ensures comparability but curtails his ability to challenge the system itself.
The article’s enduring value lies in its methodological transparency: it shows that responsible classification requires flexibility, attentiveness to scribal practice, and awareness of the limitations of stemmatic reconstruction. Ultimately, McLeod provides not only a critical edition of a new witness but also an example of the constraints faced when scholarship is conducted within an inherited framework.