THE NORTHEAST CORNER

AMERICAN FREEMASON, NOVEMBER, 1912

IN this department for last month attention was given to some of the
pre-Grand Lodge references to Freemasonry.  The intention is to lead back
by such steps as are safe through the obscurities of Masonic history to
whatever point can be ultimately reached, before touching on traditional
values.  The intention further was, with this issue, to present additional
matter of the same sort, notably the references found in Dr. Plot's Natural
History of Staffordshire (1686.) But the pressure upon our pages this month
is such that the allotted space for this department must be cut down. 
Hence we confine ourselves to matter, no less interesting, growing out of
statements of previous presentation.  The interest that is being manifested
is gratifying, and reveals the eagerness with which brothers take up with
information when it is presented clearly and in concise form.  The following
letter from Brother C.E. Stratton of Leceister, England, is of value as it
corroborates, from actual records of the Operative Craft, some of the
statements made contemporaneously by Aubrey.  For the benefit of readers
let me say that this Operative Society, for which Brother Stretton speaks,
makes many claims to antiquity far beyond the era of Speculative Masonry,
but that, as yet not all the claim are allowed by scholars of the fraternity. 
In the present case, however our brother speaks by the card, alleging that
the records have passed under his inspection, and that they contain certain
matters definite and to our purpose.  For the rest, let his own words
explain:

DEAR BROTHER MORCOMBE - I have already found much of interest in
your "Northeast Corner," and would ask that you allow me the opportunity
of contributing to the same, as I believe there are certain points that can be
further lightened for the benefit of brothers who are of open mind.

Reference is made on page 592 (October) to Sir Christopher Wren, John
Aubrey's, diary being quoted for statement that Wren was on May 18, 1691,
"adopted as a brother." After this you quote Brother Thorp as saying that
"there is no documentary proof that Sir Christopher Wren was ever a
member of the Masonic brotherhood." Now I can not agree with Brother
Thorp.  There is instead ample proof that this great architect was a Master
Mason of "the Worshipful Society of Free Masons of the City of London."
This it should be remembered, was the Operative society, Speculative
Masonry then not having existence.  Aubrey was perfectly correct in stating
that on Monday, the 18th of May, 1691, there was a great convention at St.
Paul's church of the fraternity of Free Masons.  But again it must be
insisted upon that in the year 1691 Free Masons were all Operatives.  There
was no such thing as Speculative Lodge of Free Masons until 1714.  Now
the records of this Operative Society prove that this meeting on the 18th of
May, 1691, actually took place, and that Sir Christopher Wren occupied the
place of "First Master Mason" of the society at that time, and continued to
hold the same until his death in 1723.  In other words, Wren died in office
as head of the society of Operative Free Masons of the city of London. 
"The Post Bog" newspaper published at that time, records:

This evening, Tuesday, March 5th, the corpse of that worthy Free Mason,
Sir Christopher Wren, Knight, is to be interred under the dome of St. Paul's
cathedral."

The books of the Worshipful Society of Free Masons show that they sent
an important deputation to attend the funeral of their First Master Mason. 
It may be well to explain here that the Operative Craft always is ruled by
three Masters - First, Second and Third.

Reference to the Co-Mason (London) for October, 1912, and also to the
Transactions of the Dorset Masters' Lodge, No. 3366, p, 57, will show that
Wren was not a Speculative Free Mason.  In view of the facts it would be
far better if the English Year Book would omit the statement that suggests
that Wren was ever a member of the Speculative system.

According to the Speculative records we find that in 1716 the Speculative
Lodges, "finding themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren, thought fit
to cement, under a Grand Master, as the center of union and harmony."
This proves the fact that Sir Christopher Wren would have nothing to do
with the Speculatives, and consequently the Speculative Masons elected
a Grand Master of their own, which led to the formation of the Grand Lodge
of England in 1717.

The Operative Craft of Freemasonry has never died out, but continues to
this day, perfectly independent of the Speculative Craft.  As Secretary of the
York division of this Operative society I have evidence that there has been
a total of 124 Lodges under this division alone.  But in consequence of the
altered conditions of trade, many of these Lodges have closed, others have
gone over to the Speculatives, while still others have become trades
unions.  Thus the Worshipful Society of Free Masons has declined,
especially since the trades union act of parliament of 1871.

You speak of "persons of higher class" joining the Operative society in
olden times.  The reason for this is found in the fact that when an
Apprentice Mason had served his seven years, and was admitted to the
Craft, he became a Free Man of the city or town, and thus obtained a
valuable standing and privileges.  The Speculative Mason does not so
serve, and can not obtain this Freedom.

On page 589 of THE AMERICAN FREEMASON it is suggested that
"gentlemen Freemasons" were mentally far superior to the Operatives.  This
I do not admit.  The Operative Society was in ancient times, and still is,
divided into seven degrees.  The lower degrees comprise the Apprentices
and the workmen.  But such men as Sir Christopher Wren belonged to the
seventh degree, and certainly no "gentleman Mason" of his time was his
superior.  Personally I have been a member of the Operative Society for
more than forty-five years, and certainly I do not admit that any "gentleman
Mason" is my superior so far, at least, as the knowledge of stone work
coming within the scope of a civil engineer's duties is concerned.

After all, so far as his main statements are concerned, we can have no
great disagreement with Brother Stretton.  We are glad to know that the
records of the Operative Society do really stretch back to a time beyond
Grand Lodges of Speculative Freemasonry.  It is for the production of real
evidence upon this point that we have long insisted.  And because such
evidence was not forthcoming we have been unwilling to give space nor
attention to the statements emanating from the existing Operative Society
in England.  In this matter we will go no further than admit that Brother
Stretton has access to records which might, if produced, and submitted to
competent scholarship, prove valuable in clearing up some obscurities. 
But before giving full credence to these records we should require that men
skilled in such matters testify to the authenticity of the same.

There are some few discrepancies, however, to which attention may be
directed.  Thus the Aubrey diary tells us that on the 18th of May, 1691, "Sir
Christopher Wren is to be adopted a brother." How, then, can Brother
Stretton reconcile this with his own statement that on that occasion "Sir
Christopher Wren occupied the place of 'First Master Mason' of the Society
at that time." The close attention of Masonic historians has been given to
this matter of Wren's Grand Mastership, or, as he is termed by Brother
Stretton, "First Master Mason of the Society." Brother Robert F. Gould has
treated the subject exhaustively, and if the Operative records contain matter
contrary to his conclusions, its presentation should not be delayed.  In the
face of the evidence the historian has arrayed, any counter statements must
be fortified by more than mere assertions.  Anderson, in the first book of
Constitutions, (1723) while making frequent reference to Wren, in no place
hints at his occupying any official station in the Craft, nor indeed does he
allude to the celebrated architect as being even a Freemason.  It was not
until the edition of the Constitutions published in 1738 that Wren is spoken
of, first, as Grand Warden, next as Deputy Grand Master. and afterwards
as elected, in 1685, Grand Master of the Craft.  But one can afford to put
by Anderson's historical statements with no more than a wonderment at the
quality of his imagination.

Again, as it seems to me, and with all kindness for my esteemed Brother
Stretton, he has looked so long upon this Operative Society that he has
somewhat lost his sense of proportion and perspective.  He will not find
anyone to dispute with him the statement that before 1714 there were no
Speculative Lodges of Freemasons.  But it has been contended, and
successfully as I think, that for a long period antedating the beginning of
the eighteenth century there was a considerable Speculative element in
Operative Masonry.  This element was re-enforced continually by the more
and more frequent admissions of "gentlemen Masons." As before promised
it is the purpose in this department to ascertain, if possible, why these men
of higher social rank sought admission into a society of artisans.  I cannot
believe, with Brother Stretton, that merely to gain the civic Freedom of a
city or town was a sufficient cause for such applications.  Nor do I see
good reason to modify my former statement that these "gentlemen Masons"
were superior in mental attainments to the members of the organization
they had joined. Brother Stretton, as I do not doubt, is the equal of any of
his contemporaries engaged in like professional labours.  But he will surely
not claim that rank and file of men engaged in the quarries and
stone-yards, members of the modern Operative society, are mentally or
socially equal to the membership of a really representative Speculative
Lodge.

