C. W. I U L Y J 7 4 J

Christopher Wren, the only son of the great architect by his first marriage, was born February 16, 1675, and died August 24, 1747, aged 72. " He had made antiquity, which he well understood, his particular study, and was extremely communicative." He wrote and published, in 1708, a learned work,^ which he dedicated to his brethren of the Eoyal Society, containing representations of many curious Greek medallions and ancient inscriptions, followed by legends of imperial coins from Julius Csesar to Aurelian, with their interpretations, and an appendix of Syrian and Egyptian kings and coins, all collected by himself He also wrote the ]\IS. life of his father in Latin,^ and arranged the documents for the " Parentalia," which were afterwards published by his son Stephen, assisted by Joseph Ames.* We find, therefore, that the memoirs or opinions of Sir Christopher Wren, come down to us, recorded by his son, a learned antiquary, at the age of 66, when his father had been just eighteen years in his grave.
The first observation to be made on the passage at p. 306 of the " Parentalia," commencing, " He [Wren] was of opinion (as has been mentioned in another place)," is, that this sentence in brackets refers to a memorial of Sir Christopher in his own words, to the Bishop of Eochester, in the year 1713, from which I shall give two extracts*: —
" This we now call the Gotliick manner of Architecture (so the Italians call'd what was not after the Roman Style), though the Goths were rather Destroyers then Builders : I think it should with more reason be call'd the Saracen-style : for those People wanted neither Arts nor Learning, and after We in the W^est had lost Both, we borrow'd again from Them, out of their
' Bj' permission of the Council of tlie Eoyal Society, iu whose library it is preserved, having been presented by Mr Stephen Wren, Feb. 21, 1759. I am also indebted to Mr Reginald Ames for an opportunity of inspecting many family documents, including various memoranda in the handwriting of Joseph Ames, F.R.S., wliich bears no kind of similarity to the penmanship of the Eoyal Society MS. So far as I can form an opinion, the " Parentalia " was written by the same hand as fol. 136 of the Lansdowne MSS., No. 698 ; of which MS. Elmes (Sir Christopher Wren and his Times, pp. 414-419) remarks : " It is in the handwriting of Christopher, the eldest son of the great architect, and is counter- signed by the latter thus—' Collata, Oct^ 1720, C. W.' " As this manuscript will again claim our attention, it will be sufficient to observe that the portion attributed to Sir Christopher was evidently written by the same hand as the rest of the MS.
2 Christophori Wren, Numism.atum Antiquorum Sylloge, Populis Grajcis, Municipiis et Coloniis Eomanis cusorum, ex Cimeliarcho Editoris (London, 1768, 4to).
' Lansdowne MSS., No. 698, fol. 136. This is really a series of memoranda, wherein Christopher Wren appears to have recorded some of the leading events in the life of his father. These notes or jottings were printed by Elmes in his later work (1852).
* Elmes, Memoirs, 1723, p. 355. I take the opportunity of stating that the conclusion expressed at an earlier portion of this work regarding the authorship of this extract, is no longer tenable. When Note 1, p. 257 (Chap. VI.), was penned, I had not seen the MS. of the " Parentalia."
" These I have transcribed from the MS. in the library of the Eoyal Society, where they appear in Part ii., § 7. As they are similarly placed in the printed book (Parentalia, p. 297), without variation of terms, the impression that the work was ready for the press in the lifetime of Christopher Wren is confirmed.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAAW. 15
Arabick-Books, what tliey with great diligence had translated from the Crrecks. Tlmj were Zealous in their Eeligion, and wherever they Conquer'd (which was with amazing rapidity), erected Mosques and Caravansaras in hast, which oblig'd them to faU into another Way of Building; for they Built their Mosques Bound, disUking the Christian Form of a Cross." ^
"The Saracen Mode of Building seen in the East soon spread over Europe, and par- ticularly in France ; the Fashions of which Nation we affected to imitate in all ages, even when we were at enmity with it." ^
In the preceding quotations I have given everything ia Wren's actual memorial, which may tend to throw any light upon the ojnnion of the great architect, as recorded by his son. It will be noticed that the Freemasons are not alluded to, at first hand, by Sir Christopher, therefore we have no other choice than to accept the evidence — quantum valeat — as transmitted by his son. It is true that the language employed is not free from ambiguity, and it might be plausibly contended that the authority of the architect was not meant to cover the entire dissertation on the Freemasons. StiU, on the whole, we shall steer a safe course in accepting the passage in the " Parentalia," as being Christopher Wren's recollection of his father's opinion, though tinctured insensibly by much that he may have heard and read during the twenty years that elapsed between the death of the architect and the compilation of the family memoir.
From neither of the extracts from the "Parentalia" are we justified in drawing an inference that Wren was a Freemason. The passage at p. 292 of that work ^ contains the only allusion to the English Society, wherein, indeed, Mr Edward Strong is described as a " Free and Accepted Mason," though it may well have been, that had the worthy master mason noticed this statement in the autobiography wliich we shall consider a Little later, three contradictions instead of two, might have appeared between the testimonies of the elder Strong and the yoimger Wren.
If Sir Christopher was ever admitted into the society of Freemasons— whether we fix the event according to the earlier date given by Dr Anderson or the later one of John Aubrey, is immaterial — his son Christopher must have known of it, and I shall next consider the extreme improbability, to say the least, of the latter having neglected to record any details of such an occurrence with which he was acquainted. Christopher Wren, elected a Fellow of the Eoyal Society in 1693, at the early age of eighteen, though not admitted until 1698, must have frequently met Dr Plot, who was on very intimate terms with his father ; and it is quite within the limits of probability that he was also personally acquainted with both Ashmole and Aubrey.*
With the writings of these three antiquaries, however, it may be confidently assumed he was familiar, the references to the elder Wren are so frequent, that without doubt Ashmole's " Diary " and " Antiquities of Berkshire," and Aubrey's " Natural History of Surrey "—all published, it must be recollected, before 1720 — were read with great interest by the architect's family. If we go further, and admit the possibility of Sir Christopher being a Freemason, the entries in the " Diary," and the learned speculations in regard to the origin of the society prefixed to the " Antiquities of Berkshire," ^ must (on the supposition above alluded to) have necessarily led to his having expressed agreement or disagreement with the remarks of his
1 Parentalia MS., pp. iSS, iSJ- ' •'^«^-. P- iU- ' ^"t^> V- 13-
* Aslimolc, Plot, aiiil Aubrey died in 1C92. IfiOO, and 1G97 rcspectivi^ly. " Edited by Dr Kawliu.son.
i6 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
friend Plot in IGSG,! and it may also be as safely inferred that the statements in Ashmole's posthumous work (1719) would have been minutely criticised, in connection, it may well have been, with the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England, then just two years established.
But putting conjecture aside, Christopher Wren amongst "his brethren of the Royal Society," to whom he dedicated his own book, must have constantly met Dr Eichard Eawlin- son— writer of the memoir of Ashmole, containing the description of Freemasonry in the "Antiquities of Berkshire "—and I think it in the highest degree probable, that the latter, who for reasons stated elsewhere, I conceive to have perused both versions of Aubrey's manuscript history, must have satisfied himself of the inaccuracy of the statement relating to Wren, by personal inquiry of the architect or his son.
It would, on the whole, appear probable that Christopher Wren knew of, but rejected, the statement of John Aubrey, and indeed in my judgment we may safely go further, and conclude, that the omission of any reference whatever to the prediction of 1691, is tantamount to an assurance, that in the opinion of his son and biographer, there was no foundation whatever, in fact, for any theory with regard to Wren's membership which had been set up.
The real importance of the passage at p. 306 of the " Parentalia " arises from the fact of its being in general agreement with aU the other theories or speculations relating to the origin of Freemasonry, which have been traced or ascribed to writers or speakers of the seventeenth century. The next point — a very remarkable one — is the singular coincidence of the three versions attributed to Dugdale, Wren, and Ashmole respectively, possessing the common feature of having been handed down by evidence of the most hearsay character.
The earliest mention of the " travelling bodies of Freemasons," who are said to have erected all the great buildings of Europe, occurs in the " Natural History of Wiltshire," and appears to have been written a few years before I686.2 Aubrey here says:— "S-- WiUiam Dugdale* told me many years since." In the " Parentalia," as we have seen, Christopher Wren records the belief of his father under the expression— " He [Wren] was of opinion;" and it only remains to be stated, that in a similar manner are we made acquainted with the views of Elias Ashmole on the same subject. In the memoir of Ashmole in the " Biographia Britannica," appears a letter from Dr Knipe, of Christ Church, Oxford, from which I extract the follow- ing: "What from Mr Ashmole's collection I could gather was, that the report of our Society
taking rise from a Bull granted by the Pope in the reign of Henry III. to some Italian architects, to travel over all Europe to erect Chapels, was ill-founded. Such a Bull there was, and those architects were masons. But this Bull, in the opinion of the learned Mr Ashmole, was confirmative only, and did not by any means create our fraternity, or even estab- lish them in this kingdom." *
> Plot, Natural History of Staffordshire, p. 316.
' As the text of the Oxford copy of this MS. was completed in 168G, it is evident, from the position of fol. 73 ante, p. 6), that Auhrey's original remarks on the Freemasons were penned at some previous time. This inference is strengthened by the absence in the MS. of any allusion to the observations of Dr Plot on the same subject in his "Natural History of Staffordshire," published in 1686; a copy of which, Elias Ashmole records in his diary, w.as presented to him by the author on May 23d of that year.
8 Sir William Dugdale was born in 1605, and died Feb. 10, 1686. His daughter, Elizabeth, was the third wife of Elias Ashmole, who was married to her Nov. 3, 1668. In the compilation of his chief worii, The " Monasticon Anglicaiium," Dugdale received much assistance from John Aubrey.
* The above extract is thus prefaced : "Taken from a book of letters communicated to the author of this life, by
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 17
In the preceding extracts we meet with at the best but secondary evidence of opinions enter- tained by three eminent authorities. It is almost certain, however, that these may be traced to a single source. For the purposes of this inquiry, it is immaterial to consider whether Dugdale acquired his information from Ashmole, or vice versd. Substantially their speculations were identical, as will more clearly appear if any reader takes the trouble to compare Aubrey's note of Sir William Dugdale's statement^ with the memoir of Ashmole, from the pen of Dr Eawlin- son, given in Ashmole's posthumous work, the "Antiquities of Berkshire" (1719). The following extract must have largely influenced Dr Kuipe in 1747, when he communicated with Dr Campbell, the writer of the title " Ashmole " in the " Biographia Britannica," and though, in all probability, both Knipe and Eawlinson drew from the same fount, viz., the Ashmole Papers, yet it may be fairly assumed that as many rivulets of information still flowing during the early residence at Oxford of the latter, must have become dried up half a century later — during which period, moreover, the reputation of Dr Eawlinson as a scholar and an archaeologist had been firmly established — the younger commentator, himself a Freemason, is scarcely likely to have recorded his impression of the origin of Freemasonry believed in by Ashmole, without previously conferring with the eminent antiquary and topographer who had so long ago preceded him in the same field of inquiry.
"On October 16 [1646] he [Ashmole] was elected a Brother of the Company of Free Masons, with Collonel Henry Mainwaring, of Kerthingham^ in Cheshire, at Warrington in Lancashire, a Favour esteemed so singular by the Members, that Kings themselves have not disdain'd to enter themselves into this Society, the original Foundation of which is said to be as high as the Eeign of Bang Henry III., when the Pope granted a Bull, Patent, or Diploma,^ to a particular Company of Italian Masons and Architects to travel over all Europe to build Churches. From this is derived the Fraternity of AdojJted Masons, Aeeepted Masons, or Free Masons, who are known to one another all over the World by certain Signals and Watch Words known to them alone. They have several Lodges in different Countries for their Eeception ; and when any of them fall into Decay, the Brotherhood is to relieve him. The manner of their Adoption, or Admission, is very formal and solemn, and with the Administra- tion of an Oath of Secrecy, which has had better Fate than aU other Oaths, and has been ever most religiously observed, nor has the World been yet able, by the inadvertence, surprise, or folly of any of its Members, to dive into this Mystery, or make the least discovery." *
The memoir of Ashmole, upon which I have just drawn, is followed by no signature, nor does the title-page of the work disclose the name of the editor. There appears, however, no reason to doubt that the work was edited, and the memoir written, by Dr Eichard Eawlinson ^ (of whom more hereafter), and the latter, therefore, whilst open to examination and criticism, possesses the credibility which is universally accorded to the testimony of a well-informed contemporary.
Dr Knipe of Christ Church" (vol. i., mdccxlvii., p. 224, note E). In the second edition of the " Biographia Britannica " (Andrew Kippis, 1778), the writer of the title "Ashmole" is stated to have been Dr Campbell (the author of " Ilcrmip- pus Eedivivus "), "who, it is much to be regretted, did not contribute after Vol. iv."
^ Ante., p. 6. * Kermincliam.
' As the word "Diploma " is omitted in the Eoyal Society's copy of the Aubrey MS., it is tolerably clear that Dr Eawlinson derived his information from the Oxford copy.
* Elias Ashmole, Antiquities of Berkshire, Preface b}' Dr Eawlinson, p. vi.
' "Prefixed to the ' Antiquities of Berkshire,' was a short account of tlie author, drawn up by Dr Eawlinson" (Athenoe Oxonienscs, 3d ed., vol. iv., p. 3C3).
VOL. II. C
i8 EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND.
Eawlinson is known to have purchased some of Ashmole's and Sir William Diigdale's MSS.,^ and that Aubrey's posthumous work, "The History of Surrey," was published under his editorial supervision, has been already stated. He was also an F.E.S. — having been elected together with Martin Folkes and John Theophilus DesaguUers in 1714 — and it is in the highest degree probable, that the Eoyal Society's copy of the Aubrey manuscript, constituted one of the sources of information whence he derived his impression of the early origin of the Freemasons. Nay, we may, I think, go further, and safely assume that whatever was current in masonic or literary circles — at London or Oxford — respecting the life or opinions of Ashmole, Eawlinson was familiar with,^ and in this connection his silence on the purely personal point of Wren's " adoption," possesses a significance which we can hardly overrate.
The sketch of Masonic history given in the " ParentaUa," though somewhat enlarged, is to the same purport, and we may conclude that it was derived from the same source.'
At this point of our research, and before passing in review the further evidence by which the belief in Wren's initiation is supported, it wUl be convenient to examine with some par- ticularity the theory of Masonic origin with which his name is associated.
It should be carefully noted that the reported dicta of Dugdale, Ashmole, and Wren, though characterised by trifling discrepancies, agree in the main, and especially on the point of Papal favours having been accorded to Italian architects. Tliis consensus on the part of the three English authorities, to whom the early mention of Bulls is traced or ascribed, we should keep carefully in view, whilst examining the learned speculations to which the subject has given rise in Germany.
In an earlier part of this work * it has been mentioned that the tradition of the Stcinmetzen having obtained extensive privileges from the Popes, has been current in German annals from very early times. In a series of articles recently communicated to the Freemason by Mr G. W. Speth, to which I must refer the curious reader,-^ this subject has been very ably discussed, and it is contended with much force that, as the Constitutions of the Steinmetzen were confirmed by the Emperors of Germany, it is equally reasonable to conclude that they were submitted to the Popes. "In 1518," says Mr Speth,* "the lodge at Magdeburgh petitioned their Prince for a confirmation of their ordinances, declaring their willingness to alter any part, always excepting the chief articles, which had been confirmed by Papal and Im'perial authority. The Strassburg Lodge, during their quarrel with the Annaberg Lodge, wrote in 1519 that the abuse of four years' apprenticeship had been put an end to by his Holiness iJie Pope and his Majesty the Emperor. We also find that the quarrel came to an end after the Strassburg Master had forwarded to the Duke of Saxony attested copies of the Papal
' John Nicliolls, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Centurj', 1812-15, vol. v., \i. 4S9. Ashmole's library was sold March 5, 1694 {Ibid., vol. iv., p. 29).
' It will be observed that Drs RawUason and Knipe — both, as I conceive, mainly basing their conclusions upon Ash- mole's Papers — differ as to the Bull of Henry III.'s time having been the origin of the Society. Upon this point it may he briefly noticed, that whilst the former wrote at a period (1719) when many were living who must have been conversant with the opinions he records, the latter (1747)— fifty-five years after Ashmole's death — exjiresses liimself in such a cautious manner as to convey the impression that he failed to grasp the meaning of the papers he was examining.
' Cf. Transactions, Eoyal Institute of British Architects, 1861-62; G. E. Street, Some Account of Gothic Ai-chitec- ture in Spain, 1865, p. 464 ; and Gwilt, Encyclopajdia of Architecture, 1876, p. 130.
* Ante, Chap. III., p. 176. f Freemason, Jan. 20, Feb. 3, and Feb. 10, 1883.
' Citing Heideloff and Kloss.
EARLY BRITISH FREEMASONRY— ENGLAND. 19
and Imperial privileges which they possessed, and tliat the original documents were produced for the inspection of the Saxon deputies at Strassburg."
Whilst, however, fully conceding the extreme probability, to say the least, of privileges or confirmations having been granted by the Popes to the Steinmetzen,^ I am unable to follow Kloss, when he says, " the statement concerning the ' travelling masons,' attributed to Wren, should arouse all the more suspicion the closer we investigate the surrounding circumstances, the incredibility of which is at once evident, and the more we consider the possibility of the facts narrated. We may, therefore, ascribe the whole tradition thus put into the mouths of Ashmole and Wren to an attempt at adorning the guild legends, which may be based on the Papal confirmations really granted to the German Stonemasons in 1502 and 1517."
As it is the habit of commentators to be silent, or at most very concise, where there is any difficulty, and to be very prolix and tedious where there is none, this attempt by Kloss to solve one of the greatest problems in Slasonic history, will bespeak our gratitude, if it does not ensure our assent. It will be seen that the value of the evidence upon which the story hangs, is made to depend upon credible tradition rather than written testimonies, and whilst Kloss admits that the statements ascribed to Ashmole and AVren may have had some foundation in fact (otherwise the tradition would not have been credible); on the other hand, he finds a motive for their assertion in the anxiety of the historians of Masonry to embellish the " Legend of the Guilds." I am afraid, however, that if as witnesses the mouths are to be closed of Dugdale, Ashmole, and Wren, this must necessitate the excision of the story of the " Bulls " from our traditionary history.
It appears to me that however much the authenticity of the three statements whereupon rests the theory of Papal Bulls may be impugned, their gcjiuineness is not open to dispute.^
The earliest in point of date, that of Sir William Dugdale, I shall now proceed to examine, premising that the medium through which it has come down to us, viz., the testimony of Aubrey, will be hereafter considered. Assuming, then, for present purposes, that Dugdale meant what he is reported to have said? we find — if the actual words are followed — that, according to his belief, "about Henry the Third's time, the Pope gave a Bull or Diploma* to a company of Italian Architects to travell up and downe over all Europe to build Churches." The sentence is free from ambiguity except as regards the allusion to Henry III. That the reciiiients of the Bull or Diploma were Italian architects, and their function the construction of churches, is plain and distinct, but the words, " Henry the Third's Time," are not so easily interpreted. On the one hand, these may simply mean that Papal letters were given between
• Although reliance has naturally been placed upon the research of writers who have diligently explored the German archives, it might well happen that an exhaustive search amongst the neglected records of our own country would open up many channels of information leading to very different conclusions.
' " A genuine book is that which was written by the person whose name it bears as the author of it. An authentic