The Gate of Remembrance
The Gate of RemembrancePREFACE TO SECOND EDITIONNOTEGLASTONBURYPART I THE LOST CHAPELTHE LOST CHAPELDISCOVERY OF THE EDGAR CHAPEL, GLASTONBURY ABBEY:PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED TO ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCHON AUTOMATISMSOME NOTES ON THE SCRIPT AND ITS PUBLICATIONNARRATIVE OF THE WRITINGSPART II THE CHILD OF NATURETHE CHILD OF NATURETHE STORY OF EAWULFPART III THE LORETTO CHAPELTHE LORETTO CHAPELTHE LORETTO CHAPELCONCLUSIONENVOIFOOTNOTES:Copyright
The Gate of Remembrance
Frederick Bligh Bond
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
Two problems in the script have engaged the serious attention
of critics. The first and simpler of the two is that which is
involved in the language and literary form of the messages. This is
a curious patchwork of Low Latin, Middle English of mixed periods,
and Modern English of varied style and diction. It is a mosaic of
multi-coloured fragments cemented together in a strangely random
fashion. This anomaly is the more remarkable from the contrast it
presents to the sustained and consistent burden of the script
itself, which, as though in obedience to some preordained intention
and settled plan, seems to proceed to the presentment, line by
line, of a completed whole, with absolute patience and indifference
to interruptions. Lapse of time seems of no account. After a break
of several hours, the thread is resumed at the point where it had
been dropped. The unfinished communications about the Loretto
Chapel in 1911 are picked up and spontaneously completed five years
later. Nevertheless, the queer patchwork of language is again
evident.For this fact, the following explanation is
offered. It will easily be conceded that whatever the source or
inspiring influence of these messages, the language in which they
are conveyed is themechanical sideof the matter, the most assuredly conventional element in the
process of transmission. But the obvious instruments are the brains
of F.B.B. and J.A. The reasoning and reflective faculties are at
the time in abeyance or are otherwise engaged,[1]their attention being
entirely diverted: but the storehouse of memories and subconscious
impressions latent within are being used, and quite independently
used, though concurrently in point of time with the normal use of
the thinking faculties on a wholly different
subject.Consider for a moment the human brain as the repository of
all impressions made on the mind from childhood upwards. Thus
viewed, it becomes, as it were, an encyclopedia of all knowledge
which the conscious mind has stored, each item recording an idea of
a certain quality, in such language as circumstances may at the
time have dictated. Suppose then—and it is not difficult to do
so—that each of these records is responsive to the impulse of an
Idea which is seeking expression, and whose instrument of
expression is some sort of sympathetic vibration attuned to the
original thought which recorded the particular memory or subject.
The sympathetic vibration lays hold of the denser or physical
particles of the record, causing them to respond and to emit their
own proper voice.In other words, the language of the script would be simply
the product of the reaction of our brain-records to the sympathetic
vibration of Idea, from whatever source arising.Not that such conditions are always necessary or possible.
There are, for example, many quite well-authenticated cases of
automatic writing in which not only the idea conveyed is outside
the consciousness of the writer, but the language itself is
entirely unknown to him, or to her, as the case may be. Take, for
example, the many recorded cases of automatic writing in languages
unknown to the medium, and sometimes requiring special scholarship
to appreciate. The explanation seems in this case to be that the
mind of the medium is plastic to a more direct spiritual influence
which can therefore mould its particles and create a new record for
itself. This must have been so in the Gift of Tongues at the
Pentecost, and later in the history of the Primitive
Church.The second problem noted by critics is a more difficult
one. It concerns the intelligent source of the messages. As to
this, I have propounded the view of a Greater Memory transcending,
and interpenetrating our own. This theory is suggestive rather than
explanatory. It does not, and cannot, explain many things which in
our present state of knowledge are inexplicable. Neither does it
pretend to cover the whole ground. It is, as I say, merely
suggestive. Its virtue is that it excludes no other possible
agencies, hence leaving room not only for the exercise of
transcendental faculty, such as clairvoyance, but for any variety
ofprimaryimpulse, and for any
number or degree of directive agencies capable of employing
it.For as we are obliged by our own experience to
acknowledge that our own latent memory is revived and brought out
in these scripts by some intelligence working apart from our
conscious minds; and to admit that telepathy between two is
involved: so we are also bound to allow the possible presence of a
further range of telepathic action working through our minds in the
production of these messages. And if we are prepared to agree on
the one hand that whereas the physical brain dissolves at death and
its action ceases, yet, on the other hand, that a more inward and
less material brain, the organ and vehicle of the subconscious or
intuitive self, still persists and survives entirely the death of
the physical body, and if we consider this more inward brain as
composed of finer particles, responsive to the far more rapid
movements of intuitive thought, then we shall have to allow that
the memory-record of any defunct personality, if capable of
responseto the same stimulus of spiritual Will
and Idea which canactuate our own, can be drawn
upon in like manner by the energising Intelligence, and again, as
in our own case,without evoking the conscious
"spirit" or personality proper to it. This is
surely the meaning of Johannes when he says (p.
95):"Why cling I to that which is not? It is I, and it is not I,
butt part of me which dwelleth in the past, and is bound to that
which my carnal soul loved and called 'home' these many years. Yet
I, Johannes, amm of many partes, and ye better part doeth other
things—Laus, laus Deo!—only that part which remembreth clingeth
like memory to what it seeth yet."Thus it seems to me the problem of personality, in the sense
of the conscious personal presence of individuals deceased, need
not arise at all in connection with these writings. All that it
seems vital to assume is the union of the deeper strata of our own
latent mind or dream-consciousness with others of a kindred nature
and tone, by virtue of their sympathetic and accordant motion in
the presence of a greater and all-inclusive spiritual essence,
Idea, or Will, omnipresent and all-permeating, waking into activity
all dormant memory-records, and directing them into any channel of
mind which by previous preparation on the conscious plane has
become receptive and retentive of them.Still small Voices from a distant Time!—thrilling through the
void and stirring faint resonances within the deeps of our own
being—the great Telepathy, the true Communion of Mind, the gate of
the Knowledge, the Gnosis of the apostle, whose key is Mental
Sympathy, the key that the lawyers took away, neither entering
themselves, nor suffering others to enter.No discord can mar this communion, since love and
understanding are its law. Death cannot touch it: rather is he
Keeper of the Gate. Time, as we know it, here counts for naught,
for to the deeper dream-consciousness, a day may be as a thousand
years, and a period of trance or sleeping as one tick of the
clock.
NOTE
By SIR WILLIAM BARRETT, F.R.S.As some readers of this remarkable book have thought it too
incredible to be a record of fact, but rather deemed it a work of
imagination, it may be useful to add my testimony to that given in
the book as to the genuineness of the whole narrative.The author has, I am sure, with scrupulous fidelity and care,
presented an accurate record of the scripts obtained through the
automatic writing of his friend, together with all the
archæological knowledge of the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey that was
accessible before the excavations were begun. In order to remove
any doubt on this point, before further excavations were made, Mr.
Bligh Bond has wisely asked representatives of certain societies to
examine the later scripts which refer to the Loretto Chapel, note
their contents, and see how far the further excavations may or may
not verify any of the statements made in the later
scripts.From any point of view the present book is of great
interest. To the student of psychology, who ignores any supernormal
acquisition of knowledge and yet accepts the good faith of the
author, the problem presents many difficulties. Chance coincidence
may be suggested, but this does not carry us far. The question
therefore arises, where did the veridical or truth-telling
information given in some of these scripts come from? As is so
often the case in automatic writing a dramatic form is taken, and
messages purport to come from different deceased people. The
subconscious or subliminal self of the automatist, doubtless, is
the source of much contained in the scripts, and may possibly be
responsible for all the insight shown. But in that case we must
confer upon the subconsciousness of the automatist faculties
hitherto unrecognised by official science. The author has pointed
out, on p. 156, some of the powers the subconscious mind must be
assumed to possess; to these we may add a possible telepathic
transfer of information between the author and the automatist, and
also occasionally the faculty ofclairvoyance, or a transcendental
perceptive power; for, according to the investigations of the
author, some of the statements made in the script were unknown to
any living person, and not found in historical records, prior to
their verification in subsequent excavation. We must, however, be
on our guard against the too facile use of words such as
"telepathy" and "subliminal consciousness" as a cloak to our
ignorance. The history of physical science shows how progress has
often been retarded by the use of phrases to account for obscure
phenomena—words such as "Phlogiston," "Catalysis," etc., which
explained nothing, and now are ridiculed, but which were once used
by scientific authorities as unquestionable axioms. It is wiser to
acknowledge our ignorance and convey our thanks to the author and
his friend for the patient and laborious care with which they have
furnished valuable material for future psychological explanation.
Nor must we omit to recognise the courage shown by Mr. Bligh Bond
in the publication of a work which might possibly jeopardise the
high reputation he enjoys.
GLASTONBURY
Grey among the meadows, solitary, bare:Thy walls dismantled, and thy rafters
low,Naked to every wind and chilly airThat steeps the neighbouring marsh, yet standest
thou,Great cloistral monument of other days!Though marked by all the storms that beat thee
through,A radiant Parable of heavenly waysThat scarce thy lordly builders guess'd or
knew!Vanishing image of great service done,Smiling to God under the open sky:Even in thy translation, stone by stone,Keeping thy spirit-grace and symmetry,Through ruined clerestory and broken roodOur chastened souls with tears ascend to
God.A. M. Buckton: fromSongs of
Joy"Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are
zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying
of the church."Wherefore let him that speaketh in
an unknown tongue pray that he may
interpret."For if I pray in an unknown tongue,
my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is
unfruitful."What is it then? I will pray with
the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also."I Cor. xiv. 12-15.
PART I THE LOST CHAPEL
Since the last issue of this work, the foundations of the
Chapel of the Loretto at Glastonbury have been partly excavated,
and are found to accord, so far, with the statements received in
automatic writing. This discovery sets the seal upon the veridical
nature of the writings, and emphasizes the importance of the method
employed by the author for the recovery of latent
knowledge.
THE LOST CHAPEL
The green isle of Glaston, severed as it was from the outer
world by its girdle of marsh and mere, was from old time a haunt of
peace. Its history as a religious foundation goes back into the
mists of antiquity, and is lost in legend and fable. To this quiet
retreat, this secluded stronghold of a more ancient faith, the
footsteps of the first Christian missioners were guided, and the
company of Eastern pilgrims found rest in its green recesses and a
well-guarded focus for the great work of evangelising the isle of
Britain.Successive waves of pagan immigration flooded the land, yet
never was the lamp of truth extinguished here; and, stranger still,
those who came, though of alien race and custom, cherished the
older landmarks and sought not to destroy; for the heritage of
Glaston was not the heritage of any individual race, but of all—a
trust for Christendom.Within the sacred precincts the dust of many holy
men was preserved, and the church enshrined their relics. She grew
great through the pious benefactions of kings and nobles whose
memory she kept green. Among these the gifts of the great Saxon
King, Edgar, "yclept The Peaceable,"2were always gratefully
remembered. In the great Abbey Church there was a chapel to his
honour, well endowed, and, we doubt not, sumptuously furnished. But
it was not esteemed sufficient, and in the day of Richard Bere, the
last great building Abbot, it was decided that a new and more
glorious monument should be erected to his memory. So we learn from
Leland, who saw the chapel as it stood, a completed work, but a few
years before the dissolution and ruin of the monastery. Then came,
in 1539, the forced surrender, the barbarous execution of the last
Abbot, Whiting, the violation of the shrines, and the dispersal of
all the treasures of art and learning stored within the Abbey
walls. But of the Edgar Chapel nothing more is heard, save that we
can infer from a document we quote that it was standing in the days
of Elizabeth. Yet it is doubtful whether it can have lasted through
half her reign. And perhaps it was one of the first of the
buildings to be utterly destroyed, since even its memory had
perished and its form and grandeur were alike forgotten. Those who
have seen the delicate and beautiful work at St. George's Chapel in
Windsor Castle, or that masterpiece of stonecraft, the Chapel of
King Henry VII. at Westminster, may form some idea of the general
character of this Chapel of Edgar in its finished
state.Local memory and tradition generally preserve some traces,
however dim or distorted, of an architectural work of great
magnitude and beauty, but it is a strange fact that this one had
utterly faded out of knowledge save for some scattered and obscure
notes in the pages of the old county antiquaries, which contained
no hint of its identity.Fig. 1.—Plan from Phelps's "Somerset,"
reproduced in Warner's "Glastonbury."Shewing in dotted lines the reminiscence of an eastward
Lady's, or Retro-Chapel, thought to have been built by Abbot Adam
de Sodbury in the early part of the fourteenth century.
Two different states are shewn, both lettered 'F' by these authors,
and here numbered 1 and 2. No. 1 shews by scale a projection from
the retro-choir of 30 feet; whilst No. 2 gives a total length of 95
feet. This is called by Warner, "the chapel according to its
original proportions." The two measurements are approximately
harmonised by Leland's record of the lengthening of the choir by
Abbot Monington to the extent of two bays, and the throwing out of
his new retro-choir to the east, which would absorb about
two-thirds of the length of this chapel.
DISCOVERY OF THE EDGAR CHAPEL, GLASTONBURY ABBEY:
AN ACCOUNT OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTThe following is the story of the discovery which, in 1908,
caused a good deal of public interest, and provided the
archæological world with an object of attention.Although known to a small circle of friends of the writer and
his colleague in the research, and to the Secretary of the Society
for Psychical Research, who was intimately acquainted with both,
and in touch with them at the time, no publication of the
circumstances has yet been made, and this was withheld largely for
reasons more or less personal to the writer, though the intention
had always been to make known the facts whenever the time should
seem ripe for the disclosure.The entire record has been preserved, and the testimony of
both the writer and his friend being available, as well as the
contemporary evidence of the Secretary of the S.P.R., it will be
seen that the matter stands on a fairly good basis in respect of
documentary witness.For reasons of convenience, initials will be used in the
ensuing account. F.B.B. will denote the writer, and J.A. his
friend, John Alleyne.In anticipation of an appointment to the position of
Director of Excavations at Glastonbury Abbey on behalf of the
Somerset Archæological Society, of which he was a member, F.B.B.
had, during 1907, devoted considerable time to the study of the
ruins and their history, and to that of the older religious
foundations, and in this J.A. assisted him. Most of the surviving
accounts of the Abbey were gone through, both the works of the
mediæval writers and those of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and
nineteenth centuries, with the fragments collected by them from
older sources. Among the first, the works of William of Malmesbury,
Adam de Domerham, William Wyrcestre, and John of Glaston, were
examined, whilst Leland was not overlooked, and the later
antiquaries, Hearne, Dugdale, Hollar, and Stukeley, had their share
of attention. Following these, Browne-Willis, Britton, Carter,
Collinson, Phelps, Kerrich, and Warner, were consulted, and finally
some careful attention was bestowed on the modern antiquaries,
Parker, Freeman, and last, but not least in importance, Professor
Willis, whoseArchitectural Historywas the standard book of reference on the subject during the
latter half of the nineteenth century, and still remains of the
greatest usefulness to students.Glastonbury Abbey having passed out of private hands into the
custody of a body of Trustees, acting on behalf of the National
Church, it was hoped that a greatly increased opportunity for
research and excavation would ensue. All published plans of the
Great Church had been necessarily very incomplete, in the absence
of visible remains and the lack of trustworthy evidence from
documents. In particular the following features were in
doubt:1. The form of the retro-quire, and eastward termination of
the Abbey Church.2. The question of a north porch to the nave, and its
probable position, if it existed.Retro-quire and Chapels.In 1866 Professor R. Willis published his
invaluableArchitectural History, being the substance of a communication he had made to the
Archæological Institute in the year previous. He devotes two pages
(40, 41) to a discussion of the number and arrangement of the
chapels east of the processional path in the retro-quire, and
arrives at the conclusion that they were five in number. And in his
plan (Fig. 2), which appears as a frontispiece to his work, he
shows these five, the central one projecting about 12 feet. On p.
43 he says:"As Bere is also said to have built Edgar's Chapel at
the east end of the church, it is probable that this chapel was one
of those that we are considering, and that Bere fitted it up and
completed it. The complete eradication of the east wall of the
church in the centre may be accounted for by supposing that the
central chapel projected eastward, as I have shown in the plan, and
that this chapel was Edgar's; for if it had been only one of the
ordinary chapels it would not have been worth mentioning as a
distinct building."3Fig. 2.—Professor Willis's
Plan.Professor Willis's conjecture represents the largest or most
liberal interpretation yet placed by any antiquary upon the passage
from Leland—which, it may be said, is the only known contemporary
evidence of this work of the last two Abbots.Parker,4who reviewed the whole subject of the plan in his work for
the Somerset Archæological Society (see his article in theirProceedingsfor 1880), does not support
Willis's conclusions, inclining rather to the view that the Edgar
Chapel was in the south transept, to the east of thenave, but it is within the writer's
knowledge that Professor Freeman believed that the original quire,
which, before Monington's addition of a fifth and sixth bay, must
have been shorter by some 39 feet, was furnished with a large
eastern chapel, probably a Lady-chapel, and that this may have been
of quite considerable dimensions and even co-extensive in total
length with the plan as given by Willis. But this view does not
appear to have gone farther than a mere expression of opinion
verbally given at a meeting in the Abbey, and the writer only heard
it quoted as a reminiscence some time after the discovery of the
Edgar Chapel.It appears to have been put forward as an
explanation of the curious diagram given in Phelps'sSomerset