Geoffrey Markham’s paper addresses the provenance, dating, and contextual significance of one of the Old Charges manuscripts linked to the York Grand Lodge. The author situates his study within the antiquarian and historiographical tradition of Hughan, Poole, Worts, and McLeod, but extends the enquiry by combining textual observation with historical reconstruction of Pontefract Castle during the Civil War. The article raises central questions about the authenticity of the manuscript’s endorsement, its possible use in non-operative Masonry, and the methodological legitimacy of considering “possibilities” when direct evidence is scarce.
Thesis and Main Contribution
Markham argues that the York MS. No. 1, allegedly found at the demolition of Pontefract Castle in 1649 and later given to the York Lodge by Francis Drake, should be regarded as an authentic early witness to non-operative Masonry. His main contribution lies in reassessing the document’s provenance by linking it both to historical events and to the names William Kay and Robert Preston, identified in York civic registers. The thesis emphasises that, while precise dating is elusive, the manuscript’s likely context places it at the intersection of late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century non-operative Masonic activity.
Method and Rationale
Markham’s method is twofold: first, he examines internal features of the manuscript (the anagram, handwriting style, named individuals); second, he reconstructs its movement through historical circumstances (York’s surrender in 1644, the sieges of Pontefract Castle, Royalist and Parliamentarian dynamics). He openly acknowledges that such reconstructions rely on probabilities rather than certainties, but defends this approach as necessary when evidence is fragmentary. This rationale is coherent with the antiquarian tradition but is also self-consciously critical of its limits.
In terms of engagement with predecessors, Markham explicitly builds upon the datings and observations of Poole and Worts (1935), Poole’s edition of Gould’s History (1951), and McLeod’s comments in AQC 99 (1986). He aligns with their circa 1600 attribution but nuances it by stressing palaeographic uncertainty. He also critiques Poole’s suggestion of antiquarian motivation for the manuscript’s transcription, rejecting it as implausible in a Renaissance context of spur-maker and fishmonger involvement.
Main Arguments
- Authenticity of the endorsement: Markham defends the credibility of the claim that the manuscript was found at Pontefract Castle in 1649, emphasising Francis Drake’s family ties to the place and the documented demolition at that date (p. 202). This endorsement, if genuine, anchors the manuscript in a specific historical context.
- Connection to non-operative Masonry: Through the identification of William Kay and Robert Preston in civic records, Markham suggests that the manuscript was likely intended for use in non-operative rather than operative Masonry. He dismisses alternative explanations such as antiquarian curiosity or operative repair lodges as inconsistent with available evidence (pp. 202-204).
- Historical reconstruction and interpretive possibilities: Markham argues that the York MS. No. 1 could have travelled from York to Pontefract with Royalist forces in 1644, where it may have been used by non-operative masons during the siege. He acknowledges the speculative nature of this claim but legitimises the exploration of such “possibilities” as a way of filling gaps in the historical record (pp. 204-205).
- Dating and palaeographic uncertainty: In Appendix I, he highlights the difficulty of dating the manuscript based solely on its italic hand, noting that it could equally derive from the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. He therefore stresses the need for professional palaeographic analysis rather than reliance on inherited “circa 1600” labels (pp. 205-206).
- Rejection of antiquarianism: In Appendix II, he rejects the idea that widespread transcription of Old Charges manuscripts between 1600 and 1686 can be explained by antiquarian interest, pointing instead to their functional role in non-operative Masonry (pp. 206-207).
Strengths of the Approach
- Rigour/Originality: The article combines codicological observation with a careful reconstruction of seventeenth-century historical events, producing a nuanced hypothesis about the manuscript’s trajectory (p. 204).
- Methodological Contribution: Markham’s explicit defence of “considering possibilities” where evidence is sparse is a valuable methodological statement in Masonic historiography, clarifying how conjecture can remain anchored in fact (p. 205).
- Clarity of Argumentation: Despite the complexity of the material, the structure—endorsement, individuals, provenance, historical reconstruction, appendices—allows the reader to follow both the empirical basis and the speculative extensions.
Limitations and Potential Biases
- Limitation 1 : The reconstruction of the manuscript’s movement (from York to Pontefract with Royalist forces) rests on circumstantial rather than direct evidence, which weakens the solidity of this conclusion (pp. 204-205).
- Limitation 2 : The dating argument remains inconclusive: Markham highlights the uncertainty of palaeographic analysis but offers no definitive alternative, leaving the manuscript’s precise chronology unresolved (pp. 205-206).
- Blind spot : While Markham calls for professional palaeographic expertise, no such analysis is presented. This absence limits the persuasiveness of his critique of earlier datings and defers resolution to future scholarship.
Critical Conclusion
Markham’s study of the York MS. No. 1 demonstrates how a single manuscript can illuminate both the fragility of the documentary record and the methodological challenges of Masonic historiography. By testing the endorsement, connecting civic records, and situating the text in a turbulent historical setting, he advances the case for its authenticity and non-operative relevance. Yet the argument remains dependent on circumstantial links and unresolved dating. His contribution is thus best understood as a careful act of hypothesis: it broadens the field of enquiry, defends the legitimacy of probabilistic reasoning, and ensures that the York MS. No. 1 occupies a central place in debates over early Freemasonry. Ultimately, the article illustrates how disciplined conjecture, anchored in evidence, can enrich historical understanding while still acknowledging its limits.