William McLeod’s article continues the long scholarly tradition of expanding and classifying the corpus of Old Charges manuscripts. Building upon the foundational work of Begemann, Hughan, Poole, and Knoop–Jones, McLeod identifies five additional manuscripts, describes their codicological and textual features, and proposes their placement within existing families. The article thus represents both a documentary contribution and a methodological reflection on how new discoveries affect classificatory systems in Masonic historiography.
Thesis and Main Contribution
The central thesis is that the corpus of Old Charges manuscripts remains open and expanding, and that each new witness both reinforces and challenges established classifications. McLeod’s main contribution is twofold: first, the presentation of five manuscripts previously unknown or inadequately catalogued (Raymond, Lawson, Hadfeild, Wakefield, Meehan); second, the integration of these texts into the existing stemmatic framework. By doing so, he enlarges the available evidence while also testing the robustness of the genealogical families identified by earlier scholars.
Method and Rationale
McLeod employs a method of codicological description combined with textual collation. Each manuscript is described in terms of material support (paper, parchment, dimensions, handwriting, watermarks), provenance, and ownership history. He then collates selected passages against representative texts of established families (Grand Lodge, Dumfries, Tew, Harris, Sundry), noting agreements and divergences. The rationale is that only through systematic comparison of diagnostic readings can new manuscripts be securely classified and their historical significance assessed.
In terms of engagement with predecessors, McLeod explicitly situates himself within the classificatory tradition established by Begemann, adapted and refined by Hughan and Poole, and developed by Knoop and Jones. He acknowledges their frameworks while noting that new discoveries occasionally complicate neat genealogical divisions. His work thus represents both a continuation and a cautious critique, testing established models against new evidence.
Main Arguments
- Expansion of the corpus : McLeod introduces five manuscripts that enlarge the known list of Old Charges. Each is described with attention to codicology and provenance, ensuring they are treated as historical artefacts as well as textual witnesses.
- Classification within families : By collating diagnostic passages, McLeod places the Lawson MS. in the Dumfries family, the Hadfeild scroll in the Tew line, and the Wakefield MS. in the Harris family. The Raymond MS. shows affinities with Dowland traditions, while the Meehan MS., known only from a catalogue, remains more tentative.
- Significant textual features : Certain manuscripts display striking peculiarities, such as the Raymond MS.’s early reference to “Hiram the widow’s son,” Lawson’s trinitarian invocation, or Wakefield’s appended Latin verses on the liberal arts. These anomalies enrich the spectrum of variation within the tradition.
- Implications for classification : The coexistence of family resemblances and independent readings in these manuscripts highlights both the value and the limits of stemmatic genealogy. McLeod argues for continued empirical caution and flexibility in classification.
Strengths of the Approach
- Documentary enrichment : The recovery and description of five further manuscripts materially expand the evidentiary base of Old Charges studies.
- Codicological precision : McLeod’s detailed attention to physical features and provenance situates manuscripts within their historical context, beyond mere textual collation.
- Integration into scholarly tradition : By engaging explicitly with the classificatory grids of Begemann, Hughan, Poole, and Knoop–Jones, McLeod both consolidates and refines earlier historiography.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Limitation 1 : McLeod’s classifications depend heavily on the genealogical framework inherited from Begemann and adapted by Hughan and Poole. While this ensures comparability, it constrains his capacity to question the system itself and risks perpetuating its assumptions.
- Limitation 2 : The Meehan MS. is reconstructed only from a nineteenth-century catalogue description, making its classification speculative and limiting the solidity of conclusions drawn from it.
- Blind spot : The article does not address the broader cultural or functional reasons why such manuscripts continued to be copied in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, focusing instead narrowly on classification. This leaves unexplored the social context of their transmission.
Critical Conclusion
McLeod’s “Additions to the List of Old Charges” is both a documentary supplement and a methodological exercise. By recovering five further manuscripts and integrating them into the classificatory system, he enlarges and stabilises the corpus of Old Charges, while also exposing the tension between fidelity to existing genealogical frameworks and the anomalies introduced by new evidence. The article’s strength lies in its empirical thoroughness and codicological rigour, but its dependence on inherited classification schemes limits its capacity to innovate at the theoretical level. Its lasting contribution is to remind scholars that the corpus remains open, and that each new discovery both confirms and unsettles established traditions of interpretation.