Wallace McLeod’s article re-examines a British Library volume of The Freemasons’ Calendar (1781) into which three groups of manuscript notes were bound: (1) lodge procedures close to Preston’s Illustrations (1775), (2) “A Copy of an ancient Manuscript[:] The Mason Constitution” now styled Harris MS No. 2 (D.g.34), and (3) further notes long described as puzzling. The article reassesses the textual relationship between Harris MSS Nos 1 and 2, evaluates the reliability of nineteenth-century transcripts, and explores authorship, dating and content of the ancillary notes—including a substantial mnemonic system.
Thesis and Main Contribution
McLeod’s core thesis is corrective and stemmatic: contrary to his earlier view based on printed transcripts, Harris MS No. 2 is “more than probably a direct copy” of Harris MS No. 1; hence the branch diagram published in AQC 96 must be amended. This rests on a systematic demonstration that Constable’s 1882 printed transcript of Harris No. 1 contains numerous inaccuracies which vitiate earlier inferences about distinctive readings. The article also argues—drawing on Colin Dyer’s analysis—that the hand responsible for the Harris No. 2 copy and the prefixed Prestonian extracts is closely associated with William Preston, and that the third block of notes comprises feats, “parlour magician’s tricks,” and a worked mnemonic system.
Method and Rationale
The method combines external and internal criticism of witnesses with forensic scrutiny of mediating transcripts. Externally, McLeod inventories the physical and bibliographical situation of the British Library volume (Calendar 1781 with bound-in notes). Internally, he collates Harris No. 1 (via a photocopy of the original obtained after discrepancies emerged) against Constable’s 1882 transcript, listing classes of error (capitalisation, misreadings, silently omitted words, failure to mark marginalia), and then re-tests stemmatic conclusions for Harris No. 2 (using Speth’s 1892 edition with two facsimile pages). The rationale is that accurate genealogy depends on exact transcription; mediating print errors can create illusory “innovations” that distort relationships. McLeod explicitly invokes Worts’s caution that most transcripts, judged as “Exact,” are “defective,” a maxim the present case starkly confirms.
Engagement with predecessors. The article situates itself against Hughan’s earlier surmise that No. 2 was a “substantially” modernised copy of No. 1, Poole’s revision, Speth’s 1892 publication, and McLeod’s own stemma in AQC 96 (1983). It both continues and corrects that tradition by replacing inference from printed reprints with renewed examination of the primary manuscripts and by incorporating Dyer’s palaeographical judgements and correspondence on authorship and dating of the notes.
Main Arguments
- Constable’s 1882 transcript fatally distorts Harris No. 1 : McLeod documents “scores” of divergences—misprints (“worther” for “worthy”), normalisations, unmarked marginalia, blanks for illegible words, and silent omissions—showing that supposed “distinctive innovations” were artefacts of the transcript. The editorial principle follows Worts’s insistence on exactness to establish kinship; here, failure to copy accurately “obstruct[s] rather than assist[s]” fine criticism. On this basis, earlier arguments excluding No. 1 as a source for No. 2 collapse.
- Revised stemma: Harris No. 2 copied from Harris No. 1 : Having re-checked No. 1 from a photocopy, McLeod concludes that the most economical hypothesis is that No. 2 derives directly from No. 1, and he explicitly calls for his AQC 96 chart to be amended. He adds Dyer’s independent judgement that No. 2 “is more than probably a direct copy” of No. 1, based on Dyer’s access to the original roll.
- Authorship and dating of the bound notes: a Prestonian dossier : Three converging signs point to Preston: (a) extracts closely following the 1775 Illustrations, likely written before the volume was bound; (b) the Harris No. 2 text breaking off “in mid-sentence,” plausibly because Preston’s 1686 Antiquity MS reduced the need for a full copy; (c) handwriting parallels with Book E of Antiquity Lodge and other signed pieces, though Dyer remains cautious: “not possible to say with complete conviction.”
- The “third set” of notes: chemical effects, tricks, and a mnemonic system : Turning the volume “upside down,” the writer recorded recipes for dramatic reactions and a lecture on mnemonics dated “Oct. 21st.—1812,” including two “room” diagrams and a refined phonetic-number code adapting Feinaigle’s system. McLeod decodes the worked example (e.g., latitudes/longitudes tagged to loci), arguing that the author both borrowed from and improved upon Feinaigle and Millard.
- Synthesis : The closing recap states the results in sequence: the printed Harris No. 1 is “not reliable in detail”; Harris No. 2 was probably copied from it; No. 2 was “quite likely” transcribed by Preston; and the 1812 notes show interest in the “artificial memory” late in his life.
Strengths of the Approach
- Rigour/Originality : By re-testing a stemma against a newly consulted image of the archetypal witness (No. 1) and by anatomising a nineteenth-century transcript’s faults, McLeod transforms perceived “innovations” into copy-errors, compelling a revised genealogy.
- Methodological Contribution : The paper operationalises a transcription-first principle for Old Charges studies: stemmatic inference is only as sound as its base text. The explicit linkage to Worts’s canons re-centres exact copying as a prerequisite of criticism.
- Clarity of Argumentation : The sequence—diagnose transcript errors; revisit the stemma; integrate handwriting/dating evidence; decode the mnemonic notes—allows the reader to follow discrete evidential strands to convergent conclusions.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Limitation 1 : The reclassification rests on re-examining Harris No. 1 from a photocopy and on Speth’s printed edition (with two facsimile pages) for No. 2; continued dependence on an edited witness for No. 2 constrains the firmness of stemmatic claims pending direct autopsy of the manuscript.
- Limitation 2 : The Preston attribution relies on handwriting comparison and contextual linkage marshalled by Dyer; even Dyer cautions it is “not possible to say with complete conviction,” which the author reports—hence the identification remains prudent rather than demonstrative.
- Blind spot : None. The article separates copy from composition, flags uncertainties, and grounds its revisions in identified transcript errors rather than conflating the date of a copy with the age of the textual tradition; no dossier result directly required for the core demonstration is ignored in the argument as presented.
Critical Conclusion
McLeod decisively reorients the Harris branch by showing how a flawed nineteenth-century transcript generated spurious “innovations” and a mistaken stemma. The correction—making No. 2 a copy of No. 1—rests on specific, replicable demonstrations of transcriptional error and on a sober integration of handwriting and contextual clues. The larger lesson is methodological: in the Old Charges, exact transcription precedes genealogy; only then can we distinguish a copy’s date and accidents from the deeper time-depth of its textual content.