Anderson, James, D.D.

Anderson, James, D.D. Called the Historian of the Grand Lodge and also Father of Masonic History, the Rev. James Anderson, D.D. was one of the most curious figures in the annals of the Society and, because of the times in which he wrote and the events in which he participated, he was one of the most important. He has been praised and derided, and by most Masonic students regarded as regrettably unreliable, yet, on his words we are forced to rely for many critically important occurrences in the early years of the premier Grand Lodge.

He was born about 1678 in Aberdeen, Scotland, son of James Anderson, a glassworker, who was a member of Aberdeen Lodge in 1670 and was probably the James Anderson who became secretary of that Lodge some years later. The son, James, was educated at Marischal College in Aberdeen, where he received the Master of Arts degree and, some years afterward, the degree Doctor of Divinity. It is not known when or where he became a Mason but probably in Aberdeen Lodge, particularly, as we find him later adhering to several Scottish Masonic terms and substituting them for the corresponding English. In 1710, he removed to London and became minister of a Scottish Presbyterian Church in Swallow Street, Piccadilly. During his residence in London, he wrote many works and pamphlets, mostly about genealogy, but also some sermons. In 1731, Marischal College at Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and, as that was well along toward the end of his career, he must have retained his mental acumen rather well. In 1732, he published his principal work, Royal Genealogies, or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, from Adam to these times, which, it is said, was the result of twenty years close study. But that title is so pretentious as to be disturbing and its backward reach into antiquity indicates a tendency to exaggeration which had already manifested itself in his Masonic writings but was destined to exceed the former example. Inasmuch as he also pretended to trace Masonry back to Adam, though he was often unable accurately to quote a book open before him, we must rate him as one of those imaginative individuals for whom reality has no existence. In 1733 he published Unity in Truth and Truth in Unity. Two of his works were published posthumously: News from Elysium or Dialogues of the Dead, and, in 1742, the first volume of Genealogical History of the House of Yvery.

We first hear of Anderson Masonically as of Sept. 29, 1721 in the reconstructed minutes of the Grand Lodge for which he was responsible, and upon his word we must depend for their authenticity. Those minutes were not kept by the Grand Lodge and evidently were never written until 1738 when Dr. Anderson issued his Constitutions of that year. He states therein that, on Sept. 29, 1721, the Grand Master, the Duke of Montagu, ”and the Lodge finding Fault with all the Copies of the old Gothic Constitutions, order’d Brother James Anderson A. M. to digest the same in a new and better method.” At the next meeting, Dec. 27, 1721, he tells us, a Committee of 14 was appointed to examine his digest of the Constitutions. March 25, 1722, the Committee reported that it had, after some amendments, approved Anderson’s History, Charges, Regulations, and Master’s Song, and recommended that they be printed. The Duke of Wharton appointed Anderson Grand Warden, January 17, 1723 and, at the same meeting, Anderson produced his Book of Constitutions in printed form, which was again approved, with the addition of the Ancient Manner of Constituting a Lodge. The officers of 20 lodges added their approval below the names of the Grand Officers, Anderson signing as Master of No. 17 and adding ”Author of this Book.” This work is commonly called Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723. See CONSTITUTIONS OF 1723.

Anderson showed his Scottish Masonic ancestry by introducing into those Constitutions such terms as Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Cowan, the English equivalents for the first two being Apprentice and Fellow, and the third not having been previously used in England. After 1723, Anderson was seldom in attendance on Grand Lodge and dropped out of the records until 1735, when he complained to Grand Lodge that one Smith had pirated his Constitutions of 1723 and that a new Book of Constitutions was needed. What arrangements were made for this new work is unknown but, three years later, he issued his Constitutions of 1738, purporting to be the official publication of the Grand Lodge. It was in this publication that he set forth the reconstructed minutes of the Grand Lodge 1716-1723. With the exception of those minutes, which appear logical and contain nothing inherently improbable, that work was, to say the least, unsatisfactory, although it was 1754 before a new Book of Constitutions issued, the edition of 1746 being no more than that of 1738 masked under a new title page. See CONSTITUTIONS OF 1738.

It has been suggested and it is not improbable that Dr. Anderson was in no condition physically or mentally to undertake such a work, for he died a few months later, on May 28, 1739, and it is also said that he had lost considerable money in the South Sea Scheme. Following is the newspaper account of his burial in Bunhill Fields: ”Last night was interr’d the corpse of Dr. Anderson, a Dissenting Teacher, in a very remarkable deep Grave. His Pall was supported by five Dissenting Teachers, and the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers. It was followed by about a Dozen of Free-masons, who encircled the Grave; and after Earle had harangued on the Uncertainty of Life, &c., without one word of the Deceased, the Brethren, in a most solemn dismal Posture, lifted up their Hands, Sigh’d, and struck their aprons three times in Honour of the Deceased.”

It is perhaps unfair to criticize Anderson as severely as some have done. Anyone who asserts that Anderson’s Constitutions were unauthorized and unauthentic must be prepared to show what were the Constitutions of the premier Grand Lodge for the first 37 years of its existence, that is, until the issue of the Constitutions of 1754, the first in which Anderson had no part, those of 1746 having been a mere reprint of Anderson’s Constitutions of 1738 with a new title page. Can it be possible that the officers of Grand Lodge and of 20 lodges allowed the Constitutions of 1723 to circulate, though falsely bearing their approving signatures? Can it be possible that, after one false book of Constitutions had circulated for 15 years, Anderson would have been allowed to publish and circulate another in 1738? We find no hint of any such condition or suspicion during Anderson’s lifetime or for many years thereafter. See CONSTITUTIONS OF 1746.

What did the Grand Lodge give Anderson to work with in 1722-23? A few copies of the Gothic Constitutions, which he was to digest in a new and better method. There were two main parts: the Legends and the Charges. The Grand Lodge approved both or it would not have wanted them digested or republished. Is Anderson’s history of Masonry worse than that in the Gothic Legends? No, the quality is the same. Anderson’s seems worse, because there is more of it. Did Anderson do a fair job of converting the old operative Charges to fit a speculative society? Excellent. Were Payne’s General Regulations properly copied into the work? Yes. Was anything else deserving of denunciation? No. Now, if the Grand Lodge did not like the Gothic Legends or Anderson’s exaggeration of them, why did it not furnish him a reliable history of the Fraternity? There is no evidence that anyone in the Grand Lodge knew anything of consequence about the history of Masonry for at least a century and a quarter after Anderson was dead!

We must judge a man by his lights, by the time in which he lived and the conditions under which he worked. Here we have a Grand Lodge so little interested in what it was doing that it kept no record of its proceedings for the first 6 years. Where do we get our information about that period? From Anderson and from him alone. Was Preston more reliable on facts than Anderson? No. Was Hutchinson? No. Was Dr. Oliver? No. Was Mackey? Not until he was caught up in the sweep of the realistic school of Woodford, Hughan, Gould and others about 1870. Was Dr. Anderson abreast of his times Masonically? Evidently so. Did others say as foolish things as he did in those days? Yes, not only then but have since and do now.

Macoy Collector's Note: Coil offers a brilliantly balanced defense of James Anderson, arguing that despite his legendary embellishments, he was simply working within the standard historical practices of his time and remains an indispensable source for the early years of the Premier Grand Lodge.