-
Articles/Ads
Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY .
( Continued from page 25 . ) TN the second part of his consideration of early Freema-*~ sonry in England—chapter xiii . —on " The Cabbala-Mysticism—the Rosicrucians—Blias Ashmole , " Bro . Gould devotes a considerable amonnt of space to each of these
branches of his subject , showing what is the Cabbala and whence its origin , while as to Rosicriicianism he sets himself to combat—and we think he has done so successfully —the theory that Freemasonry was derived from it . " I shall not attempt , " says he , " to discuss the vexed question and one which , after all , is impossible of any clear solution , whether some of the ideas inculcated by Fludd , and adopted
doubtless more or less in their entirety by numerous visionaries , may not have found their way , may not have percolated , as it were , into the Masonic ranks ; but it is , I think
tolerably clear that not only was there no deliberate adop-. tion of the Rosicrucian , or rather Fluddian tenets by the Masons , but no possibility of such a thing having occurred . " Again , " It is tolerably clear that no Rosicrucian Society was ever formed on the continent . In other words ,
whatever number there may have been of individual mystics calling themselves Rosicrucians , no collective body of Rosicrucians acting in conjunction was ever matured and actually established in either Germany or France . Yet it is assumed , for the purposes of a preconceived argument ,
that such a Society existed in England , although the position maintained is not only devoid of proof , but conflicts with a large body of indirect evidence , which leads irresistibly to an opposite conclusion . " And further on it is admitted there was an Astrologer ' s Feast , and that there
may have been an Astrologer ' s College , while there was no kind of concealment as to the manner in which the various descriptions of the " black art" were prosecuted ; " there is , however , no trace whatever of any Rosicrucian Society , and it is consonant to sound reason to suppose that nothing
of the kind could either have been long established or widely spread without at least leaving behind some vestiges of its existence in the writings of the period . " Lastly , we are told , and the statement may be taken as conclusive , " It will not be difficult to carry back the history of the
Freemasons beyond the point of contact with the Rosicrucians . " It will be difficult to show that something which precedes is derived from something which follows . _ The rest of the chapter , in which Elias Ashmole an d his possible or probable influence on the Craft of which he
was a member are discussed , is the most readable portion , because it is the least abstruse and we have something tangible to guide us . We are inclined to give greater credit to Ashmole than Bro . Gould . " We can scarcely bring ourselves to regard as a mere collector of
unconsidered trifles " the historiographer of the knightly Order of the Garter , the founder of the Ashmolean Collection at Oxford , who , in his own time , was honoured with the patronage , if not with the friendship , of his sovereign and his sovereign ' s brotherafterwards James II . It may be he
, was not the kind of man to influence any considerable body or bodies of his fellow men either for good or for evil , to inoculate them with his own ideas , or to guide their
steps into new fields of inquiry . " But he seems to have been a diligent and painstaking student , and if Pepys and Evelyn speak of him somewhat slightingly , it is no more than we must expect of rival gossips . As to his having
The History Of Freemasonry.
been more intimately connected with Freemasonry than the entries in his Diary concerning his initiation at Warrington in 1646 and his presence at a Lodge meeting in London in 1682 would at first appear to warrant , we incline to Bro . Gould ' s belief that " it is difficult to account for his being
summoned to a Lodge at Masons' Hall , London , in 1682 , thirty-five years after his initiation at far-distant Warrington , if he held altogether aloof from Masonic meetings in the interim , or what is virtually tho same thing , strictly concealed the fact of his being a member of the Fraternity .
Is it likely , under either supposition that the Masons of the metropolis—even had the fact of his initiation in any way leaked out—would havo gone so far as to summon ( not invite ) their distinguished ancl ' unattached ' brother to take part in the proceedings of a society upon which he had
long since virtually turned his back ? It is probable , therefore , that he did in some way keep up his connection with the Freemasons , but that it was on such a slender character "—we do not go quite to this extent—" as not to merit any special mention . He might not , and probably
would not , have entered into any detail—his Diary scarcely gives details on any point except his ailments and his lawsuits—but he would probably have given at least notices of his having attended Lodges , had he done so with any
frequency , as he does of having attended the Astrologers ' feasts . " The man who is said to have contemplated writing a history of Freemasonry must have taken more than a " slender " interest in its pursuits .
The Chapter which follows is without doubt the most interesting in the volume , Bro . Gould having embodied in it the latest researches made by himself and others in respect of early English Freemasonry . Thus the entry in Ashmole ' s Diary as to his initiation in a Lodge at
Warrington m 1646 appears in quite a new light now that the labours of Bro . Rylands have been made public . Previously it appears to have been the general opinion that Ashmole and Col . Main waring were the earliest instances of gentlemen being received into the Craft , but the inquiries of Bro .
Rylands show that tbe majority , if not all , of those present at their initiation were certainly not Operative Masons . On this point Bro . Gould writes so clearly that we cannot do better than quote his remarks . " Down to the year 1881 , " he observes , " the prevalent belief was that , although a
Lodge was in existence at Warrington in 1646 , all were of the ' Craft of Masonry' except Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring . A flood of light , however , was suddenly shed on the subject by the research of Mr . W . H . Rylands , who , in perhaps the verv best of the many valuable articles
contributed to the now defunct Masonic Magazine , has so far proved the essentially speculative character of the Lodge as to render it difficult to believe that there could have been a single operative Mason present on the afternoon of 16 th October , 1646 . Thus Mr . Richard Peuket ( h )
the Warden , is shown to have been a scion of the Penkeths of Penketh , ancl the last of his race who held the family property . " And then he proceeds : " The two names which next follow were probably identical with those of James Collyer or Colliar of Newton-le-Willows , Lancashire , and
Richard Saukie , of the family of faonkey , or Sankey of Sankey , as they were called , landowners in Warrington from a very early period ; they were buried respectively at
Winwick and Warrington—the former on January 17 , 1673-4 , and the latter on September 28 , 1667 . Of the four remaining Freemasons named in the ' Diary , ' though without the prefix of ' Mr . / it is shown by Rylands that a
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The History Of Freemasonry.
THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY .
( Continued from page 25 . ) TN the second part of his consideration of early Freema-*~ sonry in England—chapter xiii . —on " The Cabbala-Mysticism—the Rosicrucians—Blias Ashmole , " Bro . Gould devotes a considerable amonnt of space to each of these
branches of his subject , showing what is the Cabbala and whence its origin , while as to Rosicriicianism he sets himself to combat—and we think he has done so successfully —the theory that Freemasonry was derived from it . " I shall not attempt , " says he , " to discuss the vexed question and one which , after all , is impossible of any clear solution , whether some of the ideas inculcated by Fludd , and adopted
doubtless more or less in their entirety by numerous visionaries , may not have found their way , may not have percolated , as it were , into the Masonic ranks ; but it is , I think
tolerably clear that not only was there no deliberate adop-. tion of the Rosicrucian , or rather Fluddian tenets by the Masons , but no possibility of such a thing having occurred . " Again , " It is tolerably clear that no Rosicrucian Society was ever formed on the continent . In other words ,
whatever number there may have been of individual mystics calling themselves Rosicrucians , no collective body of Rosicrucians acting in conjunction was ever matured and actually established in either Germany or France . Yet it is assumed , for the purposes of a preconceived argument ,
that such a Society existed in England , although the position maintained is not only devoid of proof , but conflicts with a large body of indirect evidence , which leads irresistibly to an opposite conclusion . " And further on it is admitted there was an Astrologer ' s Feast , and that there
may have been an Astrologer ' s College , while there was no kind of concealment as to the manner in which the various descriptions of the " black art" were prosecuted ; " there is , however , no trace whatever of any Rosicrucian Society , and it is consonant to sound reason to suppose that nothing
of the kind could either have been long established or widely spread without at least leaving behind some vestiges of its existence in the writings of the period . " Lastly , we are told , and the statement may be taken as conclusive , " It will not be difficult to carry back the history of the
Freemasons beyond the point of contact with the Rosicrucians . " It will be difficult to show that something which precedes is derived from something which follows . _ The rest of the chapter , in which Elias Ashmole an d his possible or probable influence on the Craft of which he
was a member are discussed , is the most readable portion , because it is the least abstruse and we have something tangible to guide us . We are inclined to give greater credit to Ashmole than Bro . Gould . " We can scarcely bring ourselves to regard as a mere collector of
unconsidered trifles " the historiographer of the knightly Order of the Garter , the founder of the Ashmolean Collection at Oxford , who , in his own time , was honoured with the patronage , if not with the friendship , of his sovereign and his sovereign ' s brotherafterwards James II . It may be he
, was not the kind of man to influence any considerable body or bodies of his fellow men either for good or for evil , to inoculate them with his own ideas , or to guide their
steps into new fields of inquiry . " But he seems to have been a diligent and painstaking student , and if Pepys and Evelyn speak of him somewhat slightingly , it is no more than we must expect of rival gossips . As to his having
The History Of Freemasonry.
been more intimately connected with Freemasonry than the entries in his Diary concerning his initiation at Warrington in 1646 and his presence at a Lodge meeting in London in 1682 would at first appear to warrant , we incline to Bro . Gould ' s belief that " it is difficult to account for his being
summoned to a Lodge at Masons' Hall , London , in 1682 , thirty-five years after his initiation at far-distant Warrington , if he held altogether aloof from Masonic meetings in the interim , or what is virtually tho same thing , strictly concealed the fact of his being a member of the Fraternity .
Is it likely , under either supposition that the Masons of the metropolis—even had the fact of his initiation in any way leaked out—would havo gone so far as to summon ( not invite ) their distinguished ancl ' unattached ' brother to take part in the proceedings of a society upon which he had
long since virtually turned his back ? It is probable , therefore , that he did in some way keep up his connection with the Freemasons , but that it was on such a slender character "—we do not go quite to this extent—" as not to merit any special mention . He might not , and probably
would not , have entered into any detail—his Diary scarcely gives details on any point except his ailments and his lawsuits—but he would probably have given at least notices of his having attended Lodges , had he done so with any
frequency , as he does of having attended the Astrologers ' feasts . " The man who is said to have contemplated writing a history of Freemasonry must have taken more than a " slender " interest in its pursuits .
The Chapter which follows is without doubt the most interesting in the volume , Bro . Gould having embodied in it the latest researches made by himself and others in respect of early English Freemasonry . Thus the entry in Ashmole ' s Diary as to his initiation in a Lodge at
Warrington m 1646 appears in quite a new light now that the labours of Bro . Rylands have been made public . Previously it appears to have been the general opinion that Ashmole and Col . Main waring were the earliest instances of gentlemen being received into the Craft , but the inquiries of Bro .
Rylands show that tbe majority , if not all , of those present at their initiation were certainly not Operative Masons . On this point Bro . Gould writes so clearly that we cannot do better than quote his remarks . " Down to the year 1881 , " he observes , " the prevalent belief was that , although a
Lodge was in existence at Warrington in 1646 , all were of the ' Craft of Masonry' except Ashmole and Colonel Mainwaring . A flood of light , however , was suddenly shed on the subject by the research of Mr . W . H . Rylands , who , in perhaps the verv best of the many valuable articles
contributed to the now defunct Masonic Magazine , has so far proved the essentially speculative character of the Lodge as to render it difficult to believe that there could have been a single operative Mason present on the afternoon of 16 th October , 1646 . Thus Mr . Richard Peuket ( h )
the Warden , is shown to have been a scion of the Penkeths of Penketh , ancl the last of his race who held the family property . " And then he proceeds : " The two names which next follow were probably identical with those of James Collyer or Colliar of Newton-le-Willows , Lancashire , and
Richard Saukie , of the family of faonkey , or Sankey of Sankey , as they were called , landowners in Warrington from a very early period ; they were buried respectively at
Winwick and Warrington—the former on January 17 , 1673-4 , and the latter on September 28 , 1667 . Of the four remaining Freemasons named in the ' Diary , ' though without the prefix of ' Mr . / it is shown by Rylands that a