Masonic History.

MASONIC HISTORY .

ROBERT FREKE GOULD . Bro . Hughan merits the best thanks of the Craft , for his outspokenness in regard to the general quality of Masonic history . It is , indeed , high time "that we should subject every assertion of previous historians . \ . ' . to the most rigid scrutiny . " By way of illustration , let me ask any reader of the Freemason to examine the first encyclopaedia that conies in his way . He

will there find the origin of Freemasonry duly set out , on the authority of Sir Christopher Wren , as recorded in the Parenta . Ua . But if he carries his investigation further he will discover , firstly , that the opinion attributed to Wren is not proved to have been his at all , and , secondly , that there is no evidence whatever to justify the belief ( though much to warrant a disbelief ) in the alleged fact of Sir Christopher ' s " initiation" or " adoption . " Upon

this point l shall ofter some further remarks presently , but will now proceed to an examination of Bro . Hughan ' s suggestion , that in 1717 , the leading offices of the society were yielded to the " operatives" in pursuance of a conciliatory policy . I cannot agree with my worthy friend . In my opinion ( if a vulgarism be permitted ) " the boot was on the other leg , " and I believe that the chief positions in the Society were willingly ceded , if not

actually pressed upon the " speculatives , " from the earliest date of their figuring in authentic Masonic history . The meagre record of early Grand Lodge proceedings , given in the Constitutions of 1723 , is conclusive to my mind , that Payne , Desaguliers , and Anderson then knew very little about the election of 1717 . We should not forsjet that all three of these brethren—members , moreover , of the same

lodge—had a hand in the compilation of the first Constitution Book ( 1723 ) . Payne drafted the regulations , Anderson "digested" the general subject matter , and Desaguliers wrote the preface or dedication . Now , I simply ask Bro . Hughan to compare the discrepant statements in the Constitutions of 1723 and 1738 , and to consider whether it is possible that the illustrious three , who it appears each again " had a finger in the pie , " in the latter year , could

have been aware in 1723 , of the events which were so glibly chronicled b y Anderson in 1738 ? The very words which are employed to describe the "revival , " for example : "They [ the members of the Four Old Lodges ] and some old brothers , " stamp , I submit , its hearsay character . Bro . Hughan founds an inference upon the possibility of Desaguliers

having written the " Defence of Masonry " [ bound up with the Constitutions of 173 S ] . But he must first establish the fact before proceeding with conclusions . To Anderson has generally been assigned the credit of this pamphlet , at least I think so , though I am never quite sure of any point when my opinion differs from that of Bro . Hughan .

The " Defence of Masonry will well repay perusal . This brochure was evoked by the publication of Pritchard ' s " Masonry Dissected , " of which the first edition appeared in 1730 . If my memory is not at fault , the pamphleteer was accused of borrowing from Bishop Warburton ( Divine Legation of Moses ) , or the Bishop from him , I forget which , and am writing without a convenient "Treasury of Knowledge " to adjust my chronology . The

common feature 01 the two productions , seems to have been the application of the sixth book of the " / Eneid " to the ancient mysteries . The Bishop ' s work , I imagine , was . first published in 1738 , at least the earliest edition in the British Museum library is of that year . Bro . Hughan claims for Desaguliers as much leisure before 1723 , as he is known to have enjoyed after that year . Is it not , however , reasonable to conclude , that as he grew older

( he was forty years of age in 1723 ) he worked less hard ? In his "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh , " Bro . D . M . Lyon gives a portrait of Dr . Desaguliers . I defy any one to inspect this , without becoming convinced that a pleasanter companion at a Masonic banquet can rarely have existed , than the excellent and prescient Grand Master , to whose "happy thought " of introducing after dinner toasts , the marvellous success of the Masonic Institution is probably more due , than to any other "brilliant inspiration " recorded in our annals .

As regards " Esoterics , " though my general view of this abstruse subject [ the prc-revival secrets ] has been not unfairl y reproduced by " Masonic Student , " I demur slightly to the words— "Bro . Gould has accepted the theory , that there was only one ceremony and one grade . " Firstly , I don ' t like the word theory in the above connection , and in the second place I may be allowed to explain , that whilst thinking there was only one ceremony , I

have nowhere expressed a belief in such a limitation of grades as is imputed to me ; on the contrary , in the " Four Old Lodges " ( at p . 39 ) I record an entirely different opinion . Let me now put a question to " Masonic Student . " What is his explanation of the following passage in the " Book of Constitutions " of current date ( p . 7 ) : " In ancient times no brother , however skilled in the Craft , was called a Master Mason until he had been elected into the chair of a

lodge ?" As to the language of " Long Livers , " how do we know that the author of this work was a " Freemason ? " Even if we assume that he was , and also take for granted that he was completely " saturated " with Masonic learning , what does it all amount to ? Simply to this , that four years after the formation of the Grand Lodge , there existed a classification of the

brethren . I his , indeed , we know to be a fact , and Eugenius Philalethes ( Freemason or not ) was equally aware of it , as his book is dedicated " to the Grand Master , Masters , Wardens , and brethren of the . ' . . \ Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland . " I do not think the fair meaning of the oft quoted words-: "And now my brethren , you of the higher class , " is capable of further extension . If , however , a wider construction be placed

on this passage , we have only , I humbly submit , evidence of there being in 1721 , Degrees in Masonry . "The mysteries hidden from the unworthy , " with a knowledge of which " the brethren of the higher class" were credited , may have been , I concede , any secret learning peculiar to the " Hermetic Philosophy . " Indeed from the context , the "mysterious knowledge" darkl y hinted at was evidently something very foreign to Freemasonry .

At least such is my opinion , but a great authority , Bro . Albert G . Mackey , records an adverse view— " If , " says Dr . Mackey , "as Eugenius Philalethes plainly indicates , there were , in 1721 , higher Degrees , or at least a higher Degree in which knowledge of a Masonic character was hidden from a great body of the Craft . * . / . . . Why is it that neither Anderson or Desaguliers . - . . . make any allusion to this hi gher and more illuminated system . "

Bro . Mackey goes on to say , "that this book of Philalethes introduces a new element in the historical problem of Masonry , " and in this opinion Bro . "Masonic Student" evidently concurs . I think Bros . Mackey and Pike are scarcely at one as regards the interpretation to be placed on the much-cited passage from " Long Livers , " and upon the opinion of the latter I shall touch presently . Returning to our examination of the words—

Masonic History.

"Brethren of the higher class , " I think these point to a few brethren of high Masonic rank , it may be officers of Grand Lodge , or Masters of lodges , _ being connected with another society , having totally distinct aims and princi ples . Eugenius Philalethes , jun ., F . R . S ., it must be confessed , somewhat bewilders us in the dedication of his " Curious History , " by frankly

avowinothat "he speaks like a fool . " Are we to take him at his word ? If , however , we disregard the author ' s estimate of his own composition , it must be admitted that there _ is more force in Bro . Albert Pike ' s contention than was apparent at first view . According to this distinguished brother— " Men who were adepts in the Hermetic . Philosophy made the ceremonies of the [ Craft ] Degrees . " Now , if " Long Livers " can be cited as an authority , it is quite

clear that some leading Craftsmen were also members of an Hermetic Society . These brethren , of course , may have been the constructors of our Craft ceremonies . On this point I offer no opinion . I can trace no necessary connection between Hertneticism and Masonry , nor do I believe that any marked resemblances will be found in the two systems or philosophies . It may be that such exist , but I should like to see the proofs .

" Masonic Student" says : " To assume that the Second and Third Degrees were all arranged between 1717 and 1721 , 01- 1723 , has always appeared to me , and appears to-day , to be the actual negation of all evidence and even common sense . " By this , I surposc , I may understand that he does not share my sentiments in regard to the manufacture of these Degrees during the period of transition ( 1717-23 ) . One thing , at all events , is

certain—I err—if I do err—in very excellent company , and the "negation of common sense" is also apparent in the writings of Bros . Findel , Lyon , and Hughan . Now , unless my good friend , the . worthy brother writing under the pseudonym of " Masonic Student , " himself lays claim to an occult faculty ' . of historical divination , I suggest deferentially , that he is a "little hard " upon other

students who have the misfortune to differ from him . In support of the last observation , I will call in aid the words of one the best historical critics this country has produced—the late Sir G . C . Lewis—who states : " It is not enough for a historian to claim the possession of a retrospective second sio-ht , which is denied to the rest of the world ; of a mysterious doctrine , revealed

only to the initiated . Unless he can prove as well as guess ; unless he can produce evidence of the fact , after he has intuitively preceived its existence , his historical system cannot be received . " In the " Note and Query" column of last week , the statement in the Post Boy , No . 5245 , is again paraded . Last year I looked through the files of newspapers for 1723 , and the following are the notes I then made :

Post Boy , No . 5243 . From Feb . 26 th to Feb . 28 th . Obituary notice of Wren and advertisement of Constitutions . Daily Post , No . 1066 , Feb . 27 th . Similar account . Daily Post , No . 1067 , Feb . 28 th , states that Wren ' s bod y is to be deposited under the Dome .

Post Boy , No . 5244 , Feb . 2 Sth to March 2 nd . An obituary notice , of twenty-eight lines , citing all the offices held by Wren . Daily Post , No . 1068 , March 1 st . Long obituary notice . London Journal , No . 188 , March 2 nd . Obituary notice . British Journal , No . 24 , March 2 nd . Obituary notice . Weekly Journal , or Saturday ' s Post , No . 227 , March 2 nd . Obituary notice .

Weekly Journal , or Brit . Gazetecr , March 2 nd . Obituary notice . Post Boy , No . 5245 , March 2 nd to March 5 th . " London , March 5 th , this evening the corpse of that worthy FREE MASON , Sir Christopher Wren , Knight , is to be interr'd under the Dome of St . Paul ' s Cathedral . " Postman , No . 6100 , March 5 th to March 7 th . Account of funeral . Post Boy , No . 5246 , March 5 th to March 7 th , Records the inscription on Wren ' s coffin .

Daily Post , No . 1072 , March 6 th . Same . British Journal , No . 25 , March gth . " Sir Christopher Wren , that worth y Free Mason , was splendidly interr'd in St . Paul ' s Church on Tuesdav nio-ht last . " J ° Weekly Journal , No . 228 , March gth . Account of burial . Weekly Journal , or Brit . Gazetecr , March 9 th . Same . London Journal , No . 193 . April 6 th , advertisement of the Constitutions . Flying Post , or Post Master , No . 4712 , April nth to April 13 th . Masons ' examination .

Commenting upon the passage in the Post Boy , No . 5245 , Bro . W . P . Buchan thus expresses himself" Is it true that Wren was really a ' Freemason ' before his death ? And , if so , when and where did he become one ? At page 595 of the Graphic for 19 th December , 1 S 74 , we are told that the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason , but I fear this is a mistake ; consequently , if the latter scribe is not infallible as regards a living celebrity , 1 reel justified in doubting the veracity of the former respecting a dead one .

Of the Aubrey theory , Bro . Buchan says— " It so happens that Ms to be ' and ' was ' are not quite the same , for , as ' There is many a slip ' twixt the cup and the lip , ' it is possible he never was ' adopted ' at all . " In the Freemason of ( I think ) June last , I wrote at some length on the point to which "A Member of No . 2 " again calls attention . To my remarks of that date I can add very little . It is noteworthy that the journal

announcing , in the first instance , that Wren was a Freemason , had been previousl y selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of Anderson ' s Constitutions ( No . 5243 , from Feb . 26 th to Feb . 28 th , 1723 ) . This circumstance , with which I was unacquainted in June of last year , strengthens , however , the argument which 1 then presented . * Professor Seeley in his " History and Politics" ( " Macmillan ' s Magazine , " August , 1 S 70 )

observes" If the historian finds it his painful duty to break idols , to sweep away gorgeous illusions , and restore the prosaic truth in all its tiresome dryness and intricacy where poetry had reigned before , he is far enough from being praised for conscientiousness , or pronounced to have done the proper work of a historian , who is a servant of truth . On the contrary , he is thought to be a dull fellow , and to \ vant the magic pen of Macaulay . This means in plain viords that the pitplic viant , and insists upon having , falsehood in history rather than truth . "

I am not aware , whetherthe learned professor in his general course of reading , has found time to examine the literature of Freemasonry . If he has not , I fear that even the most confiding disciple of the Oliverian School , will scarcely

* According to my view , the Editor of the Post Boy dubbed Wren a Freemason on the strength of the loose statements in the " Constitutions , " wherein though that title was not accorded to Sir Christopher , his name was so much " mixed up " with those of other legendary Grand Masters , as to fairly warrant the casual reader in believing him to have been a member of the Society . This inference is sustained b y the fact , that until I pointed out the omission last year / . it had escaped the notice of all Masonic writers .