-
Articles/Ads
Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 3 Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
considerable weight . What we have to complain of is , that in his examination of the circumstances , the utmost possible prominence appears to havo been given to everything that tells against tho tradition of Wren's connection with the Craft , while what tolls in its favour is either passed over in
silence or treated lightly ancl as of comparatively no moment . Herein , as we have once already suggested , wo seem to see the cloven foot of the advocate peeping out from beneath the cloak of the historian . For instance , not ono word is said about Anderson , the author or compiler of the 1738
Constitutions and History , being one and the same with the Anderson who compiled the Constitutions and " first items of masonic history " in 1723 , while his coadjutors in the latter—Payne and Desaguliers—were still alive and in the full possession of their intellectual powers when the former
work was published . True we are told that Anderson s statements in 1738 are " quite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723 , " arid it will bo said at once that this negatives our assertion . Bnt what we mean is , that no importance appears to have been attached to the fact of the
two works having been produced by the same man as author or compiler ( the fact is referred to incidentally at page 12 ) , and consequently thafc his statements in tho later of the two ,
if thoy do not demand from us a greater readiness of acceptance on the ground of their having been made after more matured deliberation , are certainly not less acceptable than tho statements contained in the earlier . In both cases
the task of compiling the Constitutions was entrusted to Anderson by Grand Lodge , and in both , therefore , he would fulfil his duty under exactly the same sense of responsibility . Moreover , it was in consequence of a formal resolution
passed by Grand Lodge in 1735 that Anderson printed in his second edition the names of Grand Masters , Deputy Grand Masters , and Grand Wardens , and to this we must attribute the more precise statements about Wren , which were made public in the 1738 Constitutions .
But , urges Bro . Gould , the statements made by Anderson about Wren in 1738 are " qnite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723 , " though he does not indicate in what respect they aro irreconcilable one with the other . In 1723 , Wren is spoken of , not as beiug
a Freemason , but as " the ingenious Architect , Sir Christopher Wren . " In 1738 he figures in different Masonic capacities , being mentioned as one of the Grand Wardens appointed by the Earl of St . Albans in 1663 , the fact of his knighthood having been slightly antedated in
the sentence containing this information being interpolated ; while he is spoken of several times as Deputy Grand Master , and also as Grand Master in 1685 and again in 1698 . Here there is no irreconcilability between the two descriptions , unless—but the suggestion is absurd on the
very face of it—we are to understand Bro . Gould as laying it down that if Anderson ' s description of Wren in 1723 as " the ingenious architect" is right , that in 1738 of the same personage having been at different times a Grand Warden , Deputy Grand Master , and Grand
Master , is necessarily wrong . We should not have been surprised if Brother Gould had regarded the two versions as being reconcilable on the same ground as was suggested some time back in the Freemasonthe suggestion being endorsed as probable by Brother
Hughan—in the case of William Kerwyn , Freemason , who died in 1594 , and is referred to b y Bro . Gould at page 155 of this volume , namely , thafc in his ( Kerwyn ' s ) instance architect and Freemason were interchangeable terms ; but as to the irreconcilability of Anderson ' s statements , the mere suggestion of their being so is amazing .
Here is another suggestion to which we think objection may reasonably be taken . At page 6 in the paragraph in which the author points out that , as Aubrey's memorandum about Wren ' s approaching initiation in 1691 was not printed or in any way alluded to until 1844 , " it could
" have exercised no influence whatever m shaping or fashioning the belief ( amongst Masons ) which , from 1738 onwards , has universally prevailed as regards the connection of the great architect with the ancient Craft , " he follows this up instantly by stating , " indeed , the
statements of Aubrey ( 1691 ) and Anderson ( 1738 ) are mutually destructive . If Wren was only ' accepted ' or ' adopted' in 1691 , it is quite clear that he could not havo been Grand Master at any earlier date ; and , on the other
hand , if he presided over tho Society in 1663 , it is equally clear that the ceremony of his formal admission into the fraternity was nofc postponed till 1691 . " We have already argued that if Aubrey ' s statement , not being alluded to
The History Of Freemasonry.
till 1844 , had no influence in shaping the belief of brethren , " from 1738 onwards , " as to Wren ' s membershi p of our Society , neither can it have influenced Anderson in making his statement in his second Book of Constitutions published in the latter year , and that
consequently these statements of the two writers , though differing as to details , agree in the main point of Wren ' s connection with the Fraternity , and possess all the more value from their having been made independently of
each othor , and that , too , by persons who presumably knew something of what they were writing about . Bro . Gould believes they are " mutually destructive , " and gives the reasons for his belief as indicated above . But is it too
monsfcrous a proposition to suggest that Wren ' s connection with the Craft may have been of a two-fold character , and that having , as " the ingenious architect , " been in the first instance brought officially into association with the Masons as an operative body , he subsequently allowed himself to be
enrolled amongst them as what since the 1717 era we have been wont to designate a speculative or free and accepted Mason ? It must be remembered that Anderson had been expressly invited by Grand Lodge to print the names of " all the Grand Masters thafc could be collected from the
beginning of Time , " together with those of the Deputy Grand Masters , Grand Wardens , & c , and it is extremely unlikely to suppose thafc he would have been at fche trouble or thought it worth his while to explain that such terms as Grand Master , when applied to people before 1717 , were
not used exactly in the sense in which they were understood by the brethren for whom he wrote in-1738 . The latter half of the 17 th century and the earlier portion of the 18 th constituted , as regards Freemasonry , a period of transition , and as invariably happens with such periods , its history is
veiled in obscurity , so that even so acute a student as Bro . Gould must experience great difficulty in unravelling its mysteries . And , naturally enough , in this instance the portion of the period which most needs a tender examination is that in which the influence of the operative element
was growing weaker and weaker , while that of the speculative element had not as yet acquired sufficient firmness and strength to justify its claiming a clear and unimpeachable superiority . Still , what appears so obscure to us must have
been clear enough to Anderson , who was a contemporary of Wren , and , like most men writing under similar circumstances , he probably assumed that his readers were more or less familiar with what only a few years before had been current history .
In placing this suggestion before our readers we follow the example set us by Bro . Gould in the case of some of his propositions , of not attaching to it too great a degree of importance . But the suggestion is not entirely valueless , if we bear in mind that Wren , as the great architect of his day ,
would certainly have been brought into contact with the operative Masons , while there is nothing unreasonable in imagining him , as the man of science , being desirous of acceptance or adoption as a member of one or more of our Lodges . Again , as to his alleged connection with old
Lodge No . 1 ( Antiquity ) , while the majority of the other distinguished personages were members of No . 4 , if we look a little below the surface , we shall find nothing so very unreasonable in this . Wren ' s principal operations as an architect were carried on in the City of London , not in the City of
Westminster , and his great work—St . Paul ' s Cathedralmust have necessitated his constant presence in the immediate vicinity of the edifice . What can be more natural than that he should have been associated with the old Lodge which met close by the Cathedral in preference to one which met
at a distance ? The latter part of one of Bro . Gould s quotations from the 1738 Constitutions reads— " Some few years after this " —that is after 1708 , when Wren is said to have " erected the Cross on the Top of the Cupola "" Sir Christopher Wren neglected the office of Grand
Master , yet the Old Lodge near St . Paul ' s , and a few more , continued their stated meetings . " We have seen considerable stress laid upon far less telling coincidences than this mention by name of the " Old Lodge near St . Paul's " immediately after that of Wren ' s name , as though there had been
a connection between them , while the others that continued their stated meetings are spoken of merely as " a few more . " Here again we attach no great importance to the suggestion ; being chiefly desirous of showing that it
is possible to single out points which seem to bear favourably on Wren ' s alleged membership , and that these points , when grouped together , should , if they cannot convince us , influence our judgment .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
considerable weight . What we have to complain of is , that in his examination of the circumstances , the utmost possible prominence appears to havo been given to everything that tells against tho tradition of Wren's connection with the Craft , while what tolls in its favour is either passed over in
silence or treated lightly ancl as of comparatively no moment . Herein , as we have once already suggested , wo seem to see the cloven foot of the advocate peeping out from beneath the cloak of the historian . For instance , not ono word is said about Anderson , the author or compiler of the 1738
Constitutions and History , being one and the same with the Anderson who compiled the Constitutions and " first items of masonic history " in 1723 , while his coadjutors in the latter—Payne and Desaguliers—were still alive and in the full possession of their intellectual powers when the former
work was published . True we are told that Anderson s statements in 1738 are " quite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723 , " arid it will bo said at once that this negatives our assertion . Bnt what we mean is , that no importance appears to have been attached to the fact of the
two works having been produced by the same man as author or compiler ( the fact is referred to incidentally at page 12 ) , and consequently thafc his statements in tho later of the two ,
if thoy do not demand from us a greater readiness of acceptance on the ground of their having been made after more matured deliberation , are certainly not less acceptable than tho statements contained in the earlier . In both cases
the task of compiling the Constitutions was entrusted to Anderson by Grand Lodge , and in both , therefore , he would fulfil his duty under exactly the same sense of responsibility . Moreover , it was in consequence of a formal resolution
passed by Grand Lodge in 1735 that Anderson printed in his second edition the names of Grand Masters , Deputy Grand Masters , and Grand Wardens , and to this we must attribute the more precise statements about Wren , which were made public in the 1738 Constitutions .
But , urges Bro . Gould , the statements made by Anderson about Wren in 1738 are " qnite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723 , " though he does not indicate in what respect they aro irreconcilable one with the other . In 1723 , Wren is spoken of , not as beiug
a Freemason , but as " the ingenious Architect , Sir Christopher Wren . " In 1738 he figures in different Masonic capacities , being mentioned as one of the Grand Wardens appointed by the Earl of St . Albans in 1663 , the fact of his knighthood having been slightly antedated in
the sentence containing this information being interpolated ; while he is spoken of several times as Deputy Grand Master , and also as Grand Master in 1685 and again in 1698 . Here there is no irreconcilability between the two descriptions , unless—but the suggestion is absurd on the
very face of it—we are to understand Bro . Gould as laying it down that if Anderson ' s description of Wren in 1723 as " the ingenious architect" is right , that in 1738 of the same personage having been at different times a Grand Warden , Deputy Grand Master , and Grand
Master , is necessarily wrong . We should not have been surprised if Brother Gould had regarded the two versions as being reconcilable on the same ground as was suggested some time back in the Freemasonthe suggestion being endorsed as probable by Brother
Hughan—in the case of William Kerwyn , Freemason , who died in 1594 , and is referred to b y Bro . Gould at page 155 of this volume , namely , thafc in his ( Kerwyn ' s ) instance architect and Freemason were interchangeable terms ; but as to the irreconcilability of Anderson ' s statements , the mere suggestion of their being so is amazing .
Here is another suggestion to which we think objection may reasonably be taken . At page 6 in the paragraph in which the author points out that , as Aubrey's memorandum about Wren ' s approaching initiation in 1691 was not printed or in any way alluded to until 1844 , " it could
" have exercised no influence whatever m shaping or fashioning the belief ( amongst Masons ) which , from 1738 onwards , has universally prevailed as regards the connection of the great architect with the ancient Craft , " he follows this up instantly by stating , " indeed , the
statements of Aubrey ( 1691 ) and Anderson ( 1738 ) are mutually destructive . If Wren was only ' accepted ' or ' adopted' in 1691 , it is quite clear that he could not havo been Grand Master at any earlier date ; and , on the other
hand , if he presided over tho Society in 1663 , it is equally clear that the ceremony of his formal admission into the fraternity was nofc postponed till 1691 . " We have already argued that if Aubrey ' s statement , not being alluded to
The History Of Freemasonry.
till 1844 , had no influence in shaping the belief of brethren , " from 1738 onwards , " as to Wren ' s membershi p of our Society , neither can it have influenced Anderson in making his statement in his second Book of Constitutions published in the latter year , and that
consequently these statements of the two writers , though differing as to details , agree in the main point of Wren ' s connection with the Fraternity , and possess all the more value from their having been made independently of
each othor , and that , too , by persons who presumably knew something of what they were writing about . Bro . Gould believes they are " mutually destructive , " and gives the reasons for his belief as indicated above . But is it too
monsfcrous a proposition to suggest that Wren ' s connection with the Craft may have been of a two-fold character , and that having , as " the ingenious architect , " been in the first instance brought officially into association with the Masons as an operative body , he subsequently allowed himself to be
enrolled amongst them as what since the 1717 era we have been wont to designate a speculative or free and accepted Mason ? It must be remembered that Anderson had been expressly invited by Grand Lodge to print the names of " all the Grand Masters thafc could be collected from the
beginning of Time , " together with those of the Deputy Grand Masters , Grand Wardens , & c , and it is extremely unlikely to suppose thafc he would have been at fche trouble or thought it worth his while to explain that such terms as Grand Master , when applied to people before 1717 , were
not used exactly in the sense in which they were understood by the brethren for whom he wrote in-1738 . The latter half of the 17 th century and the earlier portion of the 18 th constituted , as regards Freemasonry , a period of transition , and as invariably happens with such periods , its history is
veiled in obscurity , so that even so acute a student as Bro . Gould must experience great difficulty in unravelling its mysteries . And , naturally enough , in this instance the portion of the period which most needs a tender examination is that in which the influence of the operative element
was growing weaker and weaker , while that of the speculative element had not as yet acquired sufficient firmness and strength to justify its claiming a clear and unimpeachable superiority . Still , what appears so obscure to us must have
been clear enough to Anderson , who was a contemporary of Wren , and , like most men writing under similar circumstances , he probably assumed that his readers were more or less familiar with what only a few years before had been current history .
In placing this suggestion before our readers we follow the example set us by Bro . Gould in the case of some of his propositions , of not attaching to it too great a degree of importance . But the suggestion is not entirely valueless , if we bear in mind that Wren , as the great architect of his day ,
would certainly have been brought into contact with the operative Masons , while there is nothing unreasonable in imagining him , as the man of science , being desirous of acceptance or adoption as a member of one or more of our Lodges . Again , as to his alleged connection with old
Lodge No . 1 ( Antiquity ) , while the majority of the other distinguished personages were members of No . 4 , if we look a little below the surface , we shall find nothing so very unreasonable in this . Wren ' s principal operations as an architect were carried on in the City of London , not in the City of
Westminster , and his great work—St . Paul ' s Cathedralmust have necessitated his constant presence in the immediate vicinity of the edifice . What can be more natural than that he should have been associated with the old Lodge which met close by the Cathedral in preference to one which met
at a distance ? The latter part of one of Bro . Gould s quotations from the 1738 Constitutions reads— " Some few years after this " —that is after 1708 , when Wren is said to have " erected the Cross on the Top of the Cupola "" Sir Christopher Wren neglected the office of Grand
Master , yet the Old Lodge near St . Paul ' s , and a few more , continued their stated meetings . " We have seen considerable stress laid upon far less telling coincidences than this mention by name of the " Old Lodge near St . Paul's " immediately after that of Wren ' s name , as though there had been
a connection between them , while the others that continued their stated meetings are spoken of merely as " a few more . " Here again we attach no great importance to the suggestion ; being chiefly desirous of showing that it
is possible to single out points which seem to bear favourably on Wren ' s alleged membership , and that these points , when grouped together , should , if they cannot convince us , influence our judgment .