-
Articles/Ads
Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2 Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 2 Article Untitled Page 1 of 1
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
statement . In determining its value , Bro . Gould first of all devotes a few paragraphs to the character of Aubrey himself , in order that his readers may he the better able to judge of the value of his testimony . From these wo learn that he was a credulous person . Ray , for instance , is quoted
as saying in a letter to Aubrey , " I think—if you give mo leave to be free with you—that you are a little inclinable to credit strange relations , " while Hearne remarks of him , "that by his intimate acquaintance with Mr . Ashmole in his latter years , he too much indulged his fancy , and
wholly addicted himself to the whimseys and conceits of astrologers , soothsayers , and such like ignorant and superstitions writers , which have no foundation in nature , philo sophy , or reason . " Anthony a Wood writes , " He was a shiftless person , roving and magotie-headed , and sometimes
little better than crazed ; and being exceedingly credulous , would stuff his many letters sent to A . W . with folliries and misinformations , which sometimes would guide him into the paths of erronr . " On the other hand , according to Malone , "However fanatical Aubrey may have been on
the subjects of chemistry and ghosts , his character for veracity has never been impeached ; " and Toland , who we are told " was well acquainted' with Aubrey , and certainly a better judge than Wood , " writes— " Though he was extremely superstitious , or seemed to be so , yet he was a very honest man , and most accurate in his account of matters
of fact . But the facts he knew , nofc the reflections he made , were what I wanted . " This array of statements , which Bro . Gould has derived from the authors mentioned , are not in the order in which he has quoted them . We have taken the liberty of re-arranging them , because they
seem capable of classification under two heads—those which describe him as a credulous man , and the two which , while allowing him to possess certain weaknesses , yet claim that he was a man of unimpeachable veracity and most
accurate in his account of matters of fact . Bro . Gould has either not noticed , or has ignored , this classification , which considering that his first business was to determine the value of a statement of Aubrey ' s is not a little surprising .
Having cleared fche way by supplying us with the above opinions as to Aubrey ' s credibility , Bro . Gould passes on to a consideration of the statement , namely that Wren " is to he adopted a Brother , " on which he remarks : in tbe first place " Two comments suggest themselves . The first ,
that even had one copy only of the manuscript been in existence , the prediction that a particular event was about to happen can hardly be regarded as equivalent to its fulfilment . The second , that in transferring his additional notes from the original manuscript to the fair copy , which may
have happened any time between 1691 and the year of his death ( 1697 ) , Aubrey , who was on good terms with Wren would have supplemented his meagre allusion to fche latter ' s initiation by some authentic details of the occurrence , derived from the great architect himself , had there been any
to relate . " We must , however , give Bro . Gould credit for having supplied an alternative view as regards the second of these comments . " Candour , however , " he says , demands the acknowledgment , that the transcription by Aubrey of his original entry may be read in another light ,
for , although Wren ' s actual admission is not made any plainer , the [ repetition of the first statement—unless the fair copy was of almost even date with the later entries in the earlier MS ., which is , I think , the true explanationwill at least warrant the conclusion that nothing had
occurred in the interval between the periods in which the entries were respectively made , to shake the writer ' s iaith in the credibility of his original announcement . " This is reasonable enough ; in fact we have but little fault to
find with this portion of Bro . Gould ' s treatment . Where we think he is too exacting is in supposing that Aubrey in his jottings about eminent men would be at the pains of hed ging round his anecdotes with those defensive evidences "which an historian , who knows he is writing for future
generations , will be at the pains of discovering , wherever possible . Nearl y two centuries have elapsed since Aubrey ttade his casual memorandum about Wren , with whom be was on familiar terms . But it does not seem to have occurred to him that his memorandum would have been made
the subject of an elaborate conjecture by Bro . Gould . Had ie antici pated any such keen examination of his statement , l } is probable he would have been afc the trouble of verifyla
g or contradicting it . But he left it unaltered in both c ° pies , because , in all probability , it never occurred to him to concern himself further about the matter . Aubrey ap l ^ avs to have done no more than record in a simple memo-
The History Of Freemasonry.
randum something that was about to happen in connection with a groat public character of his day . Whence he had obtained bis information is not stated , but ifc is recorded as though it were a matter of common report , and we learn elsewhere from a sonrce quoted by Bro . Gonld , thafc in the
year to which the proposed admission of Wren into fche Fraternity is assigned , something of importance in Free , masonry took place or is imagined to have taken place . But Aubrey , though a recorder of passing events , or rumours , could not have foreseen that the question whether
Wren was or was nofc a Mason would be looked upon as of vital importance by a writer living towards the close of the nineteenth century . As to Aubrey having shown his credulity in an especial manner in connection with his anecdotes of celebrities , we must bear in mind that Bro .
Gould lays great stress on Aubrey having been personally acquainted with Wren . Therefore , however conspicuous may be hia credulity in connection with his chit-chat about other celebrities , we are justified in attaching greater value to his statement about Wren and the Masons ; " This
day , "—fche 18 th May 1691— " is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Church of the Fraternity of the Accepted Masons : when S - Christopher Wren is to be adopted a Brother : and S - Harry Groodric . . . of y Tower , and
divers others . Of course we recognise the difference between a prognostication and its fulfilment , bufc as there is nothing incredible in the record , there is no reason wh y we should concern ourselves about Aubrey ' s credulity in ordinary cases .
As regards the idea thafc if Aubrey ' s statement is correct , it conflicts with the other statement of Anderson about Wren having held high office in 1663 , we have already pointed out that in the latter year Wren may
have been a Mason in the sense of having been the King ' s Master of Work , while in 1691 he may have been received into the Fraternity as what we now call a Speculative or non-operative member . This is only conjecture , but it shows at all events that the two theories are
not necessarily conflicting . It is quite possible Wren may have been made a Mason in both capacities . We have now completed our examination of this portion of Bro . Gould ' s work . We have carefully , even minutely , considered the opinions he has placed on record , and the
conclusion that we have arrived at is , that his hostility to the theory of Wren having been a member of our Societ y has not strengthened his fame as an impartial historian . We have already pointed out thafc , though it is impossible with the evidence before us to prove that Wren was a
Freemason , either in an operative or non-operative sense , that is , as the King ' s Surveyor-General of Public Works or as a Free and Accepted Mason , the probabilities are all in favour of his having been associated with our Fraternity in either or both senses . We have also indicated our belief
that , in this event , he would have been connected almost as a matter of course with the present Antiquity Lodge , the then old Lodge of St . Paul ' s , from the fact of his having been professionally engaged in the building of our great cathedral , and not with the old Horn Lodge of
Westminster , though the latter was chiefly composed of men of station and Antiquity was nofc . We admit that it is impossible to go further than this in support of the
tradition that Wren was a Mason , but at the same time we are satisfied in our humble judgment thafc Bro . Gould has exceeded the limits of impartial criticism , and that for some unaccountable reason he has shown a most decided
bias against a theory which , we repeat , if it cannot be established , can at least claim the merit of being in accordance with a reasonable probability . We must also renew our belief that Bro . Gould , in thus dealing with the tradition , as if it were a matter of the very last importance , has
made a great mistake . If oven ifc is established that Wren was a Mason , the position of seventeenth century Freemasonry will only be strengthened to this extent that one more distinguished public character will have to be included
for certain among our Masonic worthies . If such proof is never forthcoming , or if ifc is ever established that Wren was not a Freemason , Freemasonry will still retain its position .
We shall deal with the subsequent chapters contained in this volume later on . ( To be continued ) .
Ar00902
l ? irM'EBi , LS . ~ Bro 8 . W . K . L . & G . A . HTJTTOW , Coffin Makers and Undertakers , 17 Newcastle Street , Strand , "W . C . and 80 Forest Hill Koad , Peokham Bye , S . E .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
statement . In determining its value , Bro . Gould first of all devotes a few paragraphs to the character of Aubrey himself , in order that his readers may he the better able to judge of the value of his testimony . From these wo learn that he was a credulous person . Ray , for instance , is quoted
as saying in a letter to Aubrey , " I think—if you give mo leave to be free with you—that you are a little inclinable to credit strange relations , " while Hearne remarks of him , "that by his intimate acquaintance with Mr . Ashmole in his latter years , he too much indulged his fancy , and
wholly addicted himself to the whimseys and conceits of astrologers , soothsayers , and such like ignorant and superstitions writers , which have no foundation in nature , philo sophy , or reason . " Anthony a Wood writes , " He was a shiftless person , roving and magotie-headed , and sometimes
little better than crazed ; and being exceedingly credulous , would stuff his many letters sent to A . W . with folliries and misinformations , which sometimes would guide him into the paths of erronr . " On the other hand , according to Malone , "However fanatical Aubrey may have been on
the subjects of chemistry and ghosts , his character for veracity has never been impeached ; " and Toland , who we are told " was well acquainted' with Aubrey , and certainly a better judge than Wood , " writes— " Though he was extremely superstitious , or seemed to be so , yet he was a very honest man , and most accurate in his account of matters
of fact . But the facts he knew , nofc the reflections he made , were what I wanted . " This array of statements , which Bro . Gould has derived from the authors mentioned , are not in the order in which he has quoted them . We have taken the liberty of re-arranging them , because they
seem capable of classification under two heads—those which describe him as a credulous man , and the two which , while allowing him to possess certain weaknesses , yet claim that he was a man of unimpeachable veracity and most
accurate in his account of matters of fact . Bro . Gould has either not noticed , or has ignored , this classification , which considering that his first business was to determine the value of a statement of Aubrey ' s is not a little surprising .
Having cleared fche way by supplying us with the above opinions as to Aubrey ' s credibility , Bro . Gould passes on to a consideration of the statement , namely that Wren " is to he adopted a Brother , " on which he remarks : in tbe first place " Two comments suggest themselves . The first ,
that even had one copy only of the manuscript been in existence , the prediction that a particular event was about to happen can hardly be regarded as equivalent to its fulfilment . The second , that in transferring his additional notes from the original manuscript to the fair copy , which may
have happened any time between 1691 and the year of his death ( 1697 ) , Aubrey , who was on good terms with Wren would have supplemented his meagre allusion to fche latter ' s initiation by some authentic details of the occurrence , derived from the great architect himself , had there been any
to relate . " We must , however , give Bro . Gould credit for having supplied an alternative view as regards the second of these comments . " Candour , however , " he says , demands the acknowledgment , that the transcription by Aubrey of his original entry may be read in another light ,
for , although Wren ' s actual admission is not made any plainer , the [ repetition of the first statement—unless the fair copy was of almost even date with the later entries in the earlier MS ., which is , I think , the true explanationwill at least warrant the conclusion that nothing had
occurred in the interval between the periods in which the entries were respectively made , to shake the writer ' s iaith in the credibility of his original announcement . " This is reasonable enough ; in fact we have but little fault to
find with this portion of Bro . Gould ' s treatment . Where we think he is too exacting is in supposing that Aubrey in his jottings about eminent men would be at the pains of hed ging round his anecdotes with those defensive evidences "which an historian , who knows he is writing for future
generations , will be at the pains of discovering , wherever possible . Nearl y two centuries have elapsed since Aubrey ttade his casual memorandum about Wren , with whom be was on familiar terms . But it does not seem to have occurred to him that his memorandum would have been made
the subject of an elaborate conjecture by Bro . Gould . Had ie antici pated any such keen examination of his statement , l } is probable he would have been afc the trouble of verifyla
g or contradicting it . But he left it unaltered in both c ° pies , because , in all probability , it never occurred to him to concern himself further about the matter . Aubrey ap l ^ avs to have done no more than record in a simple memo-
The History Of Freemasonry.
randum something that was about to happen in connection with a groat public character of his day . Whence he had obtained bis information is not stated , but ifc is recorded as though it were a matter of common report , and we learn elsewhere from a sonrce quoted by Bro . Gonld , thafc in the
year to which the proposed admission of Wren into fche Fraternity is assigned , something of importance in Free , masonry took place or is imagined to have taken place . But Aubrey , though a recorder of passing events , or rumours , could not have foreseen that the question whether
Wren was or was nofc a Mason would be looked upon as of vital importance by a writer living towards the close of the nineteenth century . As to Aubrey having shown his credulity in an especial manner in connection with his anecdotes of celebrities , we must bear in mind that Bro .
Gould lays great stress on Aubrey having been personally acquainted with Wren . Therefore , however conspicuous may be hia credulity in connection with his chit-chat about other celebrities , we are justified in attaching greater value to his statement about Wren and the Masons ; " This
day , "—fche 18 th May 1691— " is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Church of the Fraternity of the Accepted Masons : when S - Christopher Wren is to be adopted a Brother : and S - Harry Groodric . . . of y Tower , and
divers others . Of course we recognise the difference between a prognostication and its fulfilment , bufc as there is nothing incredible in the record , there is no reason wh y we should concern ourselves about Aubrey ' s credulity in ordinary cases .
As regards the idea thafc if Aubrey ' s statement is correct , it conflicts with the other statement of Anderson about Wren having held high office in 1663 , we have already pointed out that in the latter year Wren may
have been a Mason in the sense of having been the King ' s Master of Work , while in 1691 he may have been received into the Fraternity as what we now call a Speculative or non-operative member . This is only conjecture , but it shows at all events that the two theories are
not necessarily conflicting . It is quite possible Wren may have been made a Mason in both capacities . We have now completed our examination of this portion of Bro . Gould ' s work . We have carefully , even minutely , considered the opinions he has placed on record , and the
conclusion that we have arrived at is , that his hostility to the theory of Wren having been a member of our Societ y has not strengthened his fame as an impartial historian . We have already pointed out thafc , though it is impossible with the evidence before us to prove that Wren was a
Freemason , either in an operative or non-operative sense , that is , as the King ' s Surveyor-General of Public Works or as a Free and Accepted Mason , the probabilities are all in favour of his having been associated with our Fraternity in either or both senses . We have also indicated our belief
that , in this event , he would have been connected almost as a matter of course with the present Antiquity Lodge , the then old Lodge of St . Paul ' s , from the fact of his having been professionally engaged in the building of our great cathedral , and not with the old Horn Lodge of
Westminster , though the latter was chiefly composed of men of station and Antiquity was nofc . We admit that it is impossible to go further than this in support of the
tradition that Wren was a Mason , but at the same time we are satisfied in our humble judgment thafc Bro . Gould has exceeded the limits of impartial criticism , and that for some unaccountable reason he has shown a most decided
bias against a theory which , we repeat , if it cannot be established , can at least claim the merit of being in accordance with a reasonable probability . We must also renew our belief that Bro . Gould , in thus dealing with the tradition , as if it were a matter of the very last importance , has
made a great mistake . If oven ifc is established that Wren was a Mason , the position of seventeenth century Freemasonry will only be strengthened to this extent that one more distinguished public character will have to be included
for certain among our Masonic worthies . If such proof is never forthcoming , or if ifc is ever established that Wren was not a Freemason , Freemasonry will still retain its position .
We shall deal with the subsequent chapters contained in this volume later on . ( To be continued ) .
Ar00902
l ? irM'EBi , LS . ~ Bro 8 . W . K . L . & G . A . HTJTTOW , Coffin Makers and Undertakers , 17 Newcastle Street , Strand , "W . C . and 80 Forest Hill Koad , Peokham Bye , S . E .