Dring continues his investigations into legendary material embedded in the Old Charges, this time focusing on the “Prince Edwin legend”. The piece examines the textual origins, transmission, and historical credibility of the claim that Prince Edwin, son of King Athelstan, played a foundational role in early English Masonry. The article situates itself within the philological and critical tradition of AQC, aiming to strip away conjectural accretions and assess the textual basis of the legend.
Thesis and Main Contribution
The central thesis is that the “Prince Edwin legend” is not an authentic historical account but a legendary interpolation shaped by scribal transmission. Dring’s main contribution lies in his comparative examination of manuscript witnesses to demonstrate the late and inconsistent appearance of the Edwin motif, thereby undermining its credibility as a genuine record of early Masonic origins. By reorienting attention from speculative antiquarianism to textual criticism, he positions his work as a corrective to earlier uncritical acceptance of the tale.
Method and Rationale
Dring applies the same methodological framework as in his earlier work: collation of extant manuscripts, identification of variants, and scrutiny of textual inconsistencies. He places particular emphasis on the presence or absence of the Edwin motif across different copies, using this comparative base to argue for interpolation. The rationale is to determine whether the legend has any historical plausibility or whether it stems solely from scribal invention or error.
Engagement with predecessors is evident: Dring refers to prior contributors who had accepted or debated the Edwin legend, and he positions his study in contrast to their conclusions. In particular, he departs from writers who had treated the story as evidence of early royal patronage of Masonry, instead demonstrating through philological means that such readings rest on shaky foundations. His work continues the AQC tradition of subjecting legendary motifs to rigorous textual analysis rather than allegorical interpretation.
Main Arguments
- The inconsistency of manuscript tradition: Dring shows that the “Prince Edwin” reference appears only in certain later manuscripts, absent from earlier witnesses, suggesting a late origin and undermining claims of authenticity.
- Textual corruption and invention: He argues that the legend likely stems from a conflation of names or a scribal addition. The irregularities in phrasing and placement indicate corruption rather than preservation of historical fact.
- Critique of antiquarian credulity: Dring challenges earlier historians who had accepted the legend as fact. He demonstrates that without textual stability, such reliance is methodologically unsound, and only philological scrutiny can clarify its status.
Strengths of the Approach
- Rigour/Originality: The article exemplifies methodological rigour in textual collation, rejecting antiquarian speculation and advancing a philological standard for studying Masonic legends.
- Methodological Contribution: Dring deepens the field’s understanding of textual corruption in the Old Charges by exposing how the Edwin legend entered the corpus, thus refining historiographical approaches.
- Clarity of Argumentation: The argumentation is cumulative and transparent, leading the reader step by step from collation to conclusion, with textual examples clearly marshalled.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Narrow evidential base: Dring confines his study to extant manuscripts and does not explore possible broader cultural reasons for the interpolation, which could have enriched the interpretation.
- Exclusive focus on textual corruption: While effective, his insistence on scribal invention sidelines alternative explanations, such as oral traditions that may have influenced the written text.
- Risk of methodological reductionism: By reducing the legend entirely to scribal error, Dring potentially overlooks how such motifs could reflect contemporaneous symbolic needs, even if historically unfounded.
Critical Conclusion
Dring’s study of the “Prince Edwin legend” consolidates his reputation as a pioneer of philological rigour in Masonic historiography. By demonstrating that the tale is a late and unreliable interpolation, he dismantles its use as evidence of early royal involvement in Masonry. His work exemplifies the methodological lesson that textual criticism must precede symbolic interpretation. The article thus offers both a substantive conclusion about the Edwin legend and a durable model for handling other legendary accretions in the Old Charges. Its precision and restraint remain its greatest strengths, even if its deliberate narrowness limits broader interpretive resonance.