B

ANNUAL ASSEMBLIES.

ETWEEN the region of fancy and the province of authenticated history lies a border-land of tradition, full of difficulties, which can neither be passed without notice, nor ever, perhaps, very clearly or finally explained."1 Upon many of the questions which it would be most interesting to decide, no conclusion whatever is attainable. The historian knows very little of the real facts; of the lives of his personages only a contemptibly small fragment has been preserved. No doubt, if his imagination be strong, he will piece together the information he has, and instinctively shape for himself some theory which will combine them all; though, if his judgment be as strong as his imagination, he will hold very cheap these conjectural combinations, and will steadfastly bear in mind that, as an historian, he is concerned with facts and not with possibilities. Some, indeed, instead of employing those tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, attempt to guide their judgment by the indications of internal evidence, and to assume that truth can be discovered by "an occult faculty of historical divination." Hence the task they have undertaken resembles an inquiry into the internal structure of the earth, or into the question, whether the stars are inhabited? It is an attempt to solve a problem, for the solution of which no sufficient data exist. Their ingenuity and labour can result in nothing but hypothesis and conjecture, which may be supported by analogies, and may sometimes appear specious and attractive, but can never rest on the solid foundation of proof.3

It is too often forgotten that "in traditional truths, each remove weakens the force of

1 C. Elton, Origins of English History, p. 7.

* See Professor Seeley, History and Politics, Macmillan's Magazine, Aug. 1879.

3 Lewis, An Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History, 1855, vol. i., p. 13.

VOL. II.

A

the proof; and the more hands the tradition has successively passed through, the less strength and evidence does it receive from them." This it is necessary to recollect, because, to use the words of a learned writer, we "find amongst some men the quite contrary commonly practised, who look on opinions to gain force by growing older. Upon this ground, propositions, evidently false or doubtful enough in their first beginning, come by an inverted rule of probability to pass for authentic truths; and those which found or deserved little credit from the mouths of their first authors are thought to grow venerable by age, and are urged as undeniable."1

In closing the mythico-historical period of English Freemasonry at the year 1717,2 I have been desirous of drawing a sharp line of division between the legendary or traditionary, and the authentic histories of the craft. The era, however, immediately preceding that of the formation of a Grand Lodge, is the most interesting in our annals, and its elucidation will necessarily claim attention, before we pass on to an examination of the records of later date.

Although, for convenience sake, the year 1717 is made to mark the epoch of authentic -i.e., officially accredited-Masonic history, the existence in England of a widely-diffused system of Freemasonry in the first half of the seventeenth century is demonstrable, whence we shall be justified in concluding that for its period of origin in South Britain, a far higher antiquity may be claimed and conceded.

The present chapter will deal with what may be termed the "floating traditions" of the Society, and by carefully examining the sources of authority upon which they rest, and the argumentative grounds (if any) by which their authenticity is supported, I shall attempt to lay a sure foundation for the historical inquiry-properly so called-upon which we shall next

enter.

It has been observed "that a great part of the labour of every writer is only the destruction of those that went before him," the first care of the builder of a new system being to demolish the fabrics which are standing. As the actual history of Freemasonry, like that of any other venerable institution, is only to be derived from ancient writings, the genuineness and authenticity of such documents are only determinable by a somewhat free handling of authorities; and whoever attempts to explain the meaning of a writer would but half discharge his task did he not show how much other commentators have corrupted and obscured it.

It is difficult in a work of this description not to write too little for some, and too much for others; to meet the expectations of the student, without wearying the ordinary reader; or to satisfy the few that may be attracted by a desire for instruction, without repelling the many whose sole object is to be amused.

Some friends, upon whose judgment I place great reliance, have warned me against attempting to deal exhaustively with a subject flux and transitory, or at least until more light has been cast upon it by the unceasing progress of modern research. That more might be accomplished in a longer course of years devoted to the same study I admit, yet, as remarked by Hearne, "it is the business of a good antiquary, as of a good man, to have mortality

1 John Locke, Essay on the Human Understanding, book iv., chap. xvi., § 10. "This is certain, that what in one age was affirmed upon slight grounds, can never after come to be more valid in future ages by being often repeated" (Ibid., § 11).

2 Ante, Chap. I., p. 2

always before him." It is unwise to amass more than one can digest, and having undertaken a work, to go on searching and transcribing, and seeking new supplies when already overburdened, must inevitably result in that work being left unfinished.

In the present chapter, I shall somewhat depart from the arrangement hitherto observed, or at least attempted, of keeping the subjects discussed distinct and separate from one another. To the student of Masonic antiquities there is nothing more bewildering than to find scattered over the compass of a large book isolated allusions to particular subjects, which he must group together for himself, if he wishes to examine any set of them as a whole.

The slight variation of treatment it is now proposed to adopt, which, after all, is more nominal than real, will not, however, be productive of any inconvenience. The general subject to be examined is Masonic tradition in its relation to the facts of history, and though several legends or fables will pass under review, the evidence by which these are traceable to their respective sources of origin is in many cases identical, and one tradition is frequently so interwoven with another, that the only way of testing their real value and importance is by subjecting them to a common and a searching scrutiny. Although I use the expression "Masonic tradition" in its widest sense, as covering all the information respecting the past of Freemasonry that has descended to us, whether handed down by oral relations or professedly derived from "Records of the Society "-of which we are told a great deal, but see very little the qualification by which it is followed above will remove any uneasiness that might otherwise be excited.

No attempt will be made to follow the beaten road of those voluminous plodders of Masonic history, who make Masons of every man of note, from Adam to Nimrod, and from Nimrod to Solomon, down to the present day; nor shall I seriously discuss the statements, made in all good faith by writers of reputation, that Masonry was introduced into Britain A.M. 2974 by "E-Brank, king of the Trojan race," and into Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah; that 27,000 Masons accompanied the Christian princes in the Crusades; and that Martin Luther was received into the Society on Christmas night, 1520, just fifteen days after he had burned the Pope's Bull.2 These and kindred creations of the fancy I shall dismiss to the vast limbo of fabulous narrations.

In the history of Freemasonry there are no speculations which are worthy of more critical investigation than its conjectural origin, as disclosed in the "Parentalia," and the common belief that this derivation was attested by the high authority of a former Grand Master of the Society.3

I shall therefore carefully examine the grounds upon which these speculations have arisen, and as the theory of "travelling Masons," by which so many writers have been misled, owes

1 The Rambler, No. 71, Nov. 20, 1750. The following prayer, found amongst his papers after his decease, and now preserved in the Bodleian Library, exemplifies Hearne's character as much, perhaps, as any anecdote that has descended to us: "Oh, most gracious and mercifull Lord God ... ... I continually meet with most signal instances of this Thy Providence, and one act yesterday, when I unexpectedly met with three old MSS., for which, in a particular manner, I return my thanks" (Aubrey, Letters written by Eminent Persons, and Lives of Eminent Men, 1843, vol. i., p. 118). 2 Cf. Book of Constitutions, 1738; Multa Paucis, p. 45; Dalcho, Masonic Orations, Appendix, p. 56; and Freemason, March 10, 1880, and July 2, 1881.

3 Ante, Chaps. I., p. 3, and VI., p. 257. See also the Times of June 26, and the Pall Mall Gazette of Oct. 20, 1879. Although the pretensions of the Freemasons are mildly ridiculed in these leading journals, Wren's grand-mastership is accepted by both!

its general acceptance to the circumstance that it was esteemed to be the opinion of a great Freemason, as well as a great architect, the evidence upon which the opinion has been ascribed to Wren, as well as that connecting him in any shape with the Masonic craft, will be considered at some length.

"The road to truth, particularly to subjects connected with antiquity, is generally choaked with fable and error, which we must remove, by application and perseverance, before we can promise to ourselves any satisfaction in our progress. Because a story has been related in one way for an hundred years past is not, alone, sufficient to stamp it with truth; it must carry, on the face of it, the appearance of probability, and if it is a subject which can be tried by the evidence of authentic history, and by just reasoning from established data, it will never be received by an enlightened mind on the ipse dixit of any one." 1

The common belief in Wren's membership of the Society of Freemasons rests upon two sources of authority. Historically, the general impression derives what weight it may possess from the importance that is attached to an obscure passage in Aubrey's "Natural History of Wiltshire," and traditionally (or masonically) the acceptance of the "legend," and its devolution from an article of faith into a matter of conviction, is dependent upon our yielding full credence to statements in Dr Anderson's Constitutions of A.D. 1738, which are quite irreconcilable with those in his earlier publication of 1723. The "Natural History of Wiltshire," originally commenced in 1656, and of which the last chapter was written on April 21, 1686, was the author's first literary essay. He subsequently made some additions, but none of a later date than 1691. In 1675 it was submitted to the Royal Society; subsequently Dr Plot 2-curator of the Ashmolean Museum, and author of the "Natural History of Staffordshire❞—was requested by Aubrey to prepare it for the press. This, however, he declined to do, but strongly urged the writer "to finish and publish it" himself. The work remained in MS. until 1847, when it was first printed, under the editorial supervision of John Britton. The original MS. was never removed from Oxford, but a fair copy was made by the author and presented to the Royal Society. Of the Oxford MS., Britton says, "Being compiled at various times, during a long series of years, it has a confused appearance from the numerous corrections and additions made in it by Aubrey." The same authority continues:-" So far as Aubrey's own labours are concerned, the Royal Society's copy is the most perfect; but the notes of Ray, Evelyn, and Tanner were written upon the Oxford MS.,

1 Dalcho, Masonic Orations, II, p. 37. This passage is only one of many wherein the principles on which masonic investigation should be conducted are clearly and forcibly enunciated. Yet, as showing the contradiction of human nature, the talented writer poses to at least an equal extent as an example of learned credulity. E.g., in the first Oration we read, "It is well known that immense numbers of Free-masons were engaged in the Holy Wars;" in the second, that the "archives of the sublime institutions' are records of very ancient date, and contain, besides the evidence of the origin of Masonry, many of the great and important principles of science;" and in the Appendix, that the 27,000 masons who took part in the Crusades, "while in Palestine, discovered many important masonic manuscripts among the descendants of the ancient Jews"!!

2 Dr Robert Plot, born 1640, chosen F.R.S. 1677, became one of the secretaries of the Royal Society, 1682; was appointed first keeper of the Ashmolean Museum by the founder, 1683; and soon after nominated Professor of Chemistry to the University. He was also Historiographer Royal, Secretary to the Earl Marshal, Mowbray Herald Extraordinary, and Registrar of the Court of Honour; died April 30, 1696. His chief works are the "Natural Histories of Oxfordshire (1677) and Staffordshire (1686). It was his intention to have published a complete Natural History of England and Wales, had his time and health permitted so laborious an undertaking.

3 John Aubrey, The Natural History of Wiltshire, edited by John Britton, 1847, Editor's Preface

after the fair copy was made, and have never been transcribed into the latter." Aubrey's remarks upon the Freemasons are given by Mr Halliwell in two separate but consecutive paragraphs, at page 46 of the explanatory notes attached to the second edition of the "Masonic Poem" (1844). This writer copied from the Royal Society manuscript, where the second paragraph appears as a continuation of the first. This is not the case in the Oxford or original MS. There, the first paragraph, commencing "Sir William Dugdale told me," is written on folio 73, whilst the second, upon which Mr Halliwell based his conclusion "that Sir Christopher, in 1691, was enrolled among the members of the fraternity," forms one of the numerous additions made by Aubrey, and is written on the back of folio 72.2 As the last chapter of the history was written in 1686, a period of at least five years separates the passage in the text from the addendum of 1691, but the original entry in the body of the work is probably far older than 1686 -the date of publication of Dr Plot's "Natural History of Staffordshire "-yet, whilst it may be fairly concluded that Plot must have seen Aubrey's general note on the Freemasons before his own work was written, which latter in turn Aubrey could not fail to have read prior to the entry of his memorandum of 1691, there is nothing to show that either the one or the other was in the slightest degree influenced by, or indeed recollected, the observations on the Freemasons which immediately preceded his own.

The Oxford copy of the "Natural History of Wiltshire" was forwarded by Aubrey to John Ray, the botanist and zoologist, September 15, 1691, and returned by the latter in the October following. It was also sent to Tanner, afterwards Bishop of St Asaph, in February 1694. In 1719 Dr Rawlinson printed the dedication and preface as addenda to "Aubrey's History of Surrey." These he doubtless copied from the original. The transcript in the Royal Society Library was quoted by Walpole in the first chapter of his "Anecdotes of Painting" (1762), and Warton and Huddesford refer to the original in the list of Aubrey's manuscripts at Oxford, in a note to the "Life of Anthony à Wood." The only other notice I have met with -prior to 1844-of the masonic entry or entries in Aubrey's unprinted work occurs in Hawkins' "History of Gothic Architecture" (1813), but it merely alludes to Papal bulls said to have been granted to Italian architects, and does not mention Wren. I have examined both manuscripts, the original in the Bodleian Library; and the fair copy at Burlington House, by permission of the Council of the Royal Society. The latter has on the title page "Memoires of Naturall Remarques in the County of Wilts," by Mr John Aubrey, R.S.S., 1685; but as the memorandum of 1691, as well as the earlier entry relating to the Freemasons, duly appears in the text, it will be safer to believe in their contemporaneous transcription, than to assume that the copy, like the original, received additions from time to time."

1 Mr Halliwell has omitted the square brackets in the second paragraph of the Royal Society copy, which should read "Memorandum. This day [May the 18th, being Monday, 1691, after Rogation Sunday] is a great convention," etc.

2 Aubrey wrote on one side of the page only, until he had completed his history.

* The allusion to the Freemasons occurs at p. 99 of the printed work (Natural History of Wiltshire), and there are 126 pages in all.

4 John Britton, Memoirs of John Aubrey, F.R.S., 1845, p. 62.

6 P. 148, citing Antiquarian Repertory, iii. 45.

5 Ibid., p. 92.

This reference being inexact, I have been unable to verify it, and have vainly searched the work quoted for the passage given by Hawkins.

7 The allusion to the Freemasons appears at p. 277 of the Royal Society MS., and at p. 276 three pages are inserted conformably with Aubrey's rough note on the back of fol. 72 of the Oxford copy.