A Journal for the Masonic Student

Published Monthly by the National Masonic Research Society


Vol. 8 No. 3 – March 1922


"In the Interests of the Brethren"

Bro. Rudyard Kipling, England

Published by permission of the author, Brother Rudyard Kipling, and the publishers of the Metropolitan Magazine, in which publication the article was originally published.

I WAS buying a canary in a birdshop when he first spoke to me and suggested that I should take a less highly coloured bird. "The colour is in the feeding," said he. "Unless you know how to feed 'em, it goes. Canaries are one of our hobbies."

He passed out before I could thank him. He was a middle-aged man with grey hair and a short, dark beard, rather like a Sealyham terrier in silver spectacles. For some reason his face and his voice stayed in my mind so distinctly that, months later, when I jostled against him on a platform crowded with an Angling Club going to the Thames, I recognised, turned, and nodded.

"I took your advice about the canary," I said.

"Did you? Good!" he replied heartily over the rod-case on his shoulder, and was parted from me by the crowd.

* * *

A few years ago I turned into a tobacconist's to have a badly stopped pipe cleaned out.

"Well! Well! And how did the canary do?" said the man behind the counter. We shook hands, and "What's your name?" we both asked together.

His name was Lewis Holroyd Burges, of "Burges and Son," as I might have seen above the door — but Son had been killed in Egypt. His hair was whiter than it had been, and the eyes were sunk a little.

"Well! Well! To think," said he, "of one man in all these millions turning up in this curious way, when there's so many who don't turn up at all — eh?" (It was then that he told me of Son Lewis's death and why the boy had been christened Lewis.) "Yes. There's not much left for middle-aged people just at present. Even one's hobbies — We used to fish together. And the same with canaries! We used to breed 'em for colour — deep orange was our speciality. That's why I spoke to you, if you remember; but I've sold all my birds. Well! Well! And now we must locate your trouble."

He bent over my erring pipe and dealt with it skilfully as a surgeon. A soldier came in, spoke in an undertone, received a reply, and went out.

"Many of my clients are soldiers nowadays, and a number of 'em belong to the Craft," said Mr. Burges. "It breaks my heart to give them the tobaccos they ask for. On the other hand, not one man in five thousand has a tobacco-palate. Preference, yes. Palate, no. Here's your pipe, again. It deserves better treatment than it's had. There's a procedure, a ritual, in all things. Any time you're passing by again, I assure you, you will be welcome. I've one or two odds and ends that may interest you."

I left the shop with the rarest of all feelings on me — the sensation which is only youth's right — that I might have made a friend. A little distance from the door I was accosted by a wounded man who asked for "Burges's." The place seemed to be known in the neighbourhood.

I found my way to it again, and often after that, but it was not till my third visit that I discovered Mr. Burges held a half interest in Ackerman and Pernit's, the great cigar-importers, which had come to him through an uncle whose children now lived almost in the Cromwell Road, and said that the uncle had been on the Stock Exchange.

"I'm a shopkeeper by instinct," said Mr. Burges. "I like the ritual of handling things. The shop has done me well. I like to do well by the shop."

It had been established by his grandfather in 1827, but the fittings and appointments must have been at least half a century older. The brown and red tobacco- and snuff-jars, with Crowns, Garters, and names of forgotten mixtures in gold leaf; the polished 'Oronoque' tobacco-barrels on which favoured customers sat; the cherry-black mahogany counter, the delicately moulded shelves, the reeded cigar-cabinets, the German-silver-mounted scales, and the Dutch brass roll- and cake-cutter, were things to covet.

"They aren't so bad," he admitted. "That large Bristol jar hasn't any duplicate to my knowledge. Those eight snuff-jars on the third shelf — they're Dollin's ware; he used to work for Wimble in Seventeen-Forty — are absolutely unique. Is there any one in the trade now could tell you what "Romano's Hollande" was? Or "Scholten's"? Here's a snuff-mull of George the First's time; and here's a Louis Quinze — what am I talking of? Treize, Treize, of course — grater for making bran-snuff. They were regular tools of the shop in my grandfather's day. And who on earth to leave 'em to outside the British Museum now, I can't think!"

His pipes — I would this were a tale for virtuosi — his amazing collection of pipes was kept in the parlour, and this gave me the privilege of making his wife's acquaintance. One morning, as I was looking covetously at a jacaranda-wood 'cigarro' — not cigar-cabinet — with silver lock-plates and drawer-knobs of Spanish work, a wounded Canadian came into the shop and disturbed our happy little committee.

"Say," he began loudly, "are you the right place?"

"Who sent you?" Mr. Burges demanded.

"A man from Messines. But that ain't the point! I've got no certificates, nor papers nothin", you understand. I left my Lodge owin' 'em seventeen dollars back-dues. But this man at Messines told me it wouldn't make any odds with you."

"It doesn't," said Mr. Burges. "We meet to-night at 7 p.m."

The man's face fell a yard. "Hell!" said he. "But I'm in hospital — I can't get leaf."

"And Tuesdays and Fridays at 3 p.m.," Mr. Burges added promptly. "You'll have to be proved, of course."

"Guess I can get by that all right," was the cheery reply. "Toosday, then." He limped off, beaming.

"Who might that be?" I asked.

"I don't know any more than you do — except he must be a Brother. London's full of Masons now. Well! Well! We must do what we can these days. If you'll come to tea this evening, I'll take you on to Lodge afterwards. It's a Lodge of Instruction."

"Delighted. Which is your Lodge?" I said, for up till then he had not given me its name.

""Faith and Works 5837" — the third Saturday of every month. Our Lodge of Instruction meets nominally every Thursday, but we sit oftener than that now because there are so many Visiting Brothers in town." Here another customer entered, and I went away much interested in the range of Brother Burges's hobbies.

At tea-time he was dressed as for Church, and wore gold pince-nez in lieu of the silver spectacles. I blessed my stars that I had thought to change into decent clothes.

"Yes, we owe that much to the Craft," he assented. "All Ritual is fortifying. Ritual's a natural necessity for mankind. The more things are upset, the more they fly to it. I abhor slovenly Ritual anywhere. By the way, would you mind assisting at the examinations, if there are many Visiting Brothers to-night? You'll find some of 'em very rusty, but — it's the Spirit, not the Letter, that giveth life. The question of Visiting Brethren is an important one. There are so many of them in London now, you see; and so few places where they can meet."

"You dear thing!" said Mrs. Burges, and handed him his locked and initialed apron-case.

"Our Lodge is only just round the corner," he went on. "You mustn't be too critical of our appurtenances. The place was a garage once."

As far as I could make out in the humiliating darkness, we wandered up a mews and into a courtyard. Mr. Burges piloted me, murmuring apologies for everything in advance.

"You mustn't expect —" he was still saying when we stumbled up a porch and entered a carefully decorated ante-room hung round with Masonic prints. I noticed Peter Gilkes and Barton Wilson, fathers of 'Emulation' working, in the place of honour; Kneller's Christopher Wren; Dunkerley, with his own Fitz-George book-plate below and the bend sinister on the Royal Arms; Hogarth's caricature of Wilkes, also his disreputable 'Night'; and a beautifully framed set of Grand Masters, from Anthony Sayer down.

"Are these another hobby of yours?" I asked.

"Not this time," Mr. Burges smiled. "We have to thank Brother Lemming for them." He introduced me to the senior partner of Lemming and Orton, whose little shop is hard to find, but whose words and cheques in the matter of prints are widely circulated.

"The frames are the best part of 'em," said Brother Lemming after my compliments. "There are some more in the Lodge Room. Come and look. We've got the big Desaguliers there that nearly went to Iowa."

I had never seen a Lodge Room better fitted. From mosaicked floor to appropriate ceiling, from curtain to pillar, implements to seats, seats to lights, and little carved music-loft at one end, every detail was perfect in particular kind and general design. I said what I thought of them all, many times over.

"I told you I was a Ritualist," said Mr. Burges. "Look at those carved corn-sheaves and grapes on the back of these Wardens" chairs. That's the old tradition — before Masonic furnishers spoilt it. I picked up that pair in Stepney ten years ago — the same time I got the gavel." It was of ancient, yellowed ivory, cut all in one piece out of some tremendous tusk. "That came from the Gold Coast," he said. "It belonged to a Military Lodge there in 1794. You can see the inscription."

"If it's a fair question," I began, "how much —"

"It stood us," said Brother Lemming, his thumbs in his waistcoat pockets, "an appreciable sum of money when we built it in 1906, even with what Brother Anstruther — he was our contractor — cheated himself out of. By the way, that ashlar there is pure Carrara, he tells me. I don't understand marbles myself. Since then I expect we've put in — oh, quite another little sum. Now we'll go to the examination-room and take on the Brethren."

He led me back, not to the ante-room, but a convenient chamber flanked with what looked like confessional-boxes (I found out later that that was what they had been, when first picked up for a song near Oswestry). A few men in uniform were waiting at the far end. "That's only the head of the procession. The rest are in the ante-room," said an officer of the Lodge.

Brother Burges assigned me my discreet box, saying: "Don't be surprised. They come all shapes."

"Shapes" was not a bad description, for my first penitent was all head-bandages — escaped from an Officers' Hospital, Pentonville way. He asked me in profane Scots how I expected a man with only six teeth and half a lower lip to speak to any purpose, so we compromised on the signs. The next — a New Zealander from Taranaki — reversed the process, for he was one-armed, and that in a sling. I mistrusted an enormous Sergeant-Major of Heavy Artillery, who struck me as much too glib, so I sent him on to Brother Lemming in the next box, who discovered he was a Past District Grand Officer. My last man nearly broke me down altogether. Everything seemed to have gone from him.

"I don't blame yer," he gulped at last. "I wouldn't pass my own self on my answers, but I give yer my word that so far as I've had any religion, it's been all the religion I've had. For God's sake, let me sit in Lodge again, Brother!"

When the examinations were ended, a Lodge Officer came round with our aprons — no tinsel or silver-gilt confections, but heavily-corded silk with tassels and — where a man could prove he was entitled to them-levels, of decent plate. Some one in front of me tightened a belt on a stiffly silent person in civil clothes with discharge-badge. "Strewth! This is comfort again," I heard him say. The companion nodded. The man went on suddenly: "Here! What're you doing? Leave off! You promised not to chuck it!" and dabbed at his companion's streaming eyes.

"Let him leak," said an Australian signaller. "Can't you see how happy the beggar is?"

It appeared that the silent Brother was a "shell-shocker" whom Brother Lemming had passed, on the guarantee of his friend and — what moved Lemming more — the threat that, were he refused, he would have fits from pure disappointment. So the 'shocker' went happily and silently among Brethren evidently accustomed to these displays.

We fell in, two by two, according to tradition, fifty of us at least, and were played into Lodge by what I thought was an harmonium, but which I discovered to be an organ of repute. It took time to settle us down, for ten or twelve were cripples and had to be helped into long or easy chairs. I sat between a one-footed R.A.M.C. Corporal and a Captain of Territorials, who, he told me, had "had a brawl" with a bomb, which had bent him in two directions. "But that's first-class Bach the organist is giving us now," he said delightedly. "I'd like to know him. I used to be a piano-thumper of sorts."

"I'll introduce you after Lodge," said one of the regular Brethren behind us — a plump, torpedo-bearded man, who turned out to be a doctor. "After all, there's nobody to touch Bach, is there?" Those two plunged at once into musical talk, which to outsiders is as fascinating as trigonometry.

Now a Lodge of Instruction is mainly a parade-ground for Ritual. It cannot initiate or confer degrees, but is limited to rehearsals and lectures. Worshipful Brother Burges, resplendent in Solomon's Chair (I found out later where that, too, had been picked up), briefly told the Visiting Brethren how welcome they were and always would be, and asked them to vote what ceremony should be rendered for their instruction.

When the decision was announced he wanted to know whether any Visiting Brothers would take the duties of Lodge Officers. They protested bashfully that they were too rusty. "The very reason why," said Brother Surges, while the organ Bached softly. My musical Captain wriggled in his chair.

"One moment, Worshipful Sir." The plump Doctor rose. "We have here a musician for whom place and opportunity are needed. Only," he went on colloquially, "those organ-loft steps are a bit steep."

"How much," said Brother Burges with the solemnity of an initiation, "does our Brother weigh?"

"Very little over eight stone," said the Brother. "Weighed this morning, Worshipful Sir."

The Past District Grand Officer, who was also a Battery-Sergeant-Major, waddled across, lifted the slight weight in his arms and bore it to the loft, where, the regular organist pumping, it played joyously as a soul caught up to Heaven by surprise.

When the visitors had been coaxed to supply the necessary officers, a ceremony was rehearsed. Brother Burges forbade the regular members to prompt. The visitors had to work entirely by themselves, but, on the Battery-Sergeant-Major taking a hand, he was ruled out as of too exalted rank. They floundered badly after that support was withdrawn.

The one — footed R.A.M.C. on my right chuckled.

"D'you like it?" said the Doctor to him.

"Do I? It's Heaven to me, sittin" in Lodge again. It's all comin" back now, watching their mistakes. I haven't much religion, but all I had I learnt in Lodge." Recognising me, he flushed a little as one does when one says a thing twice over in another's hearing. "Yes," veiled in all'gory and illustrated in symbols" — the Fatherhood of God, an' the Brotherhood of Man; an' what more in Hell do you want? . . . Look at 'em!" He broke off giggling. "See! See! They've tied the whole thing into knots. I could ha" done it better myself — my one foot in France. Yes, I should think they ought to do it again! "

The new organist covered the little confusion that had arisen with what sounded like the wings of angels.

When the amateurs, rather red and hot, had finished, they demanded an exhibition-working of their bungled ceremony by Regular Brethren of the Lodge. Then I realised for the first time what word-and-gesture-perfect Ritual can be brought to mean. We all applauded, the one-footed Corporal most of all.

"We are rather proud of our working, and this is an audience worth playing up to," the Doctor said.

Next the Master delivered a little lecture on the meanings of some pictured symbols and diagrams. His theme was a well-worn one, but his deep holding voice made it fresh.

"Marvellous how these old copybook-headings persist," the Doctor said.

"That's all right!" the one-footed man spoke cautiously out of the side of his mouth like a boy in form. "But they're the kind o" copybook-headin's we shall find burnin" round our bunks in Hell. Believe me-ee! I've broke enough of 'em to know. Now, hsh!" He leaned forward, drinking it all in.

Presently Brother Burges touched on a point which had given rise to some diversity of Ritual. He asked for information. "Well, in Jamaica, Worshipful Sir," a Visiting Brother began, and explained how they worked that detail in his parts. Another and another joined in from different quarters of the Lodge (and the world), and when they were well warmed the Doctor sidled softly round the walls and, over our shoulders, passed us cigarettes.

"A shocking innovation," he said, as he returned to the Captain-musician's vacant seat on my left. "But men can't really talk without tobacco, and we're only a Lodge of Instruction."

"An' I've learned more in one evenin" here than ten years." The one-footed man turned round for an instant from a dark, sour-looking Yeoman in spurs who was laying down the law on Dutch Ritual. The blue haze and the talk increased, while the organ from the loft blessed us all.

"But this is delightful," said I to the Doctor. "How did it all happen?"

"Brother Burges started it. He used to talk to the men who dropped into his shop when the war began. He told us sleepy old chaps in Lodge that what men wanted more than anything else was Lodges where they could sit — just sit and be happy like we are now. He was right too. We're learning things in the war. A man's Lodge means more to him than people imagine. As our friend on your right said just now, very often Masonry's the only practical creed we've ever listened to since we were children. Platitudes or no platitudes, it squares with what everybody knows ought to be done." He sighed. "And if this war hasn't brought home the Brotherhood of Man to us all, I'm — a Hun! "

"How did you get your visitors?" I went on.

"Oh, I told a few fellows in hospital near here, at Burges's suggestion, that we had a Lodge of Instruction and they'd be welcome. And they came. And they told their friends. And they came! That was two years ago — and now we've Lodge of Instruction two nights a week, and a matinee nearly every Tuesday and Friday for the men who can't get evening leave. Yes, it's all very curious. I'd no notion what the Craft meant — and means — till this war."

"Nor I, till this evening," I replied.

"Yet it's quite natural if you think. Here's London — all England — packed with the Craft from all over the world, and nowhere for them to go. Why, our weekly visiting attendance for the last four months averaged just under a hundred and forty. Divide by four — call it thirty-five Visiting Brethren a time. Our record's seventy-one, but we have packed in as many as eighty-four at Banquets. You can see for yourself what a potty little hole we are!"

"Banquets too!" I cried. "It must cost like anything. May the Visiting Brethren — "

The Doctor — his name was Keede — laughed. "No, a Visiting Brother may not."

"But when a man has had an evening like this, he wants to — "

"That's what they all say. That makes our difficulty. They do exactly what you were going to suggest, and they're offended if we don't take it."

"Don't you?" I asked.

"My dear man — what does it come to? They can't all stay to Banquet. Say one hundred suppers a week — fifteen quid — sixty a month — seven hundred and twenty a year. How much are Lemming and Orton worth? And Ellis and McKnight — that long big man over yonder — the provision dealers? How much d'you suppose could Burges write a cheque for and not feel? 'T isn't as if he had to save for any one now. I assure you we have no scruple in calling on the Visiting Brethren when we want anything. We couldn't do the work otherwise. Have you noticed how the Lodge is kept — brass-work, jewels, furniture, and so on?"

"I have indeed," I said. "It's like a ship. You could eat your dinner off the floor."

"Well, come here on a bye-day and you'll often find half-a-dozen Brethren, with eight legs between 'em, polishing and ronuking and sweeping everything they can get at. I cured a shell-shocker this spring by giving him our jewels to look after. He pretty well polished the numbers off 'em, but — it kept him from fighting Huns in his sleep. And when we need Masters to take our duties — two matinees a week is rather a tax — we've the choice of P.M.'s from all over the world. The Dominions are much keener on Ritual than an average English Lodge. Besides that — Oh, we're going to adjourn. Listen to the greetings. They'll be interesting."

The crack of the great gavel brought us to our feet, after some surging and plunging among the cripples. Then the Battery-Sergeant-Major, in a trained voice, delivered hearty and fraternal greetings to "Faith and Works" from his tropical District and Lodge. The others followed, with out order, in every tone between a grunt and a squeak. I heard "Hauraki," "Inyanga-Umbezi," "Aloha," "Southern Lights" (from somewhere Punta Arenas way), "Lodge of Rough Ashlars" (and that Newfoundland Naval Brother looked it), two or three Stars of something or other, half-a-dozen cardinal virtues, variously arranged, hailing from Klondyke to Kalgoorlie, one Military Lodge on one of the fronts, thrown in with a severe Scots burr by my friend of the head-bandages, and the rest as mixed as the Empire itself. Just at the end there was a little stir. The silent Brother had begun to make noises; his companion tried to soothe him.

"Let him be! Let him be!" the Doctor called professionally. The man jerked and mouthed, and at last mumbled something unintelligible even to his friend, but a small dark P.M. pushed forward importantly.

"It iss all right," he said. "He wants to say — " he spat out some yard-long Welsh name, adding, "That means Pembroke Docks, Worshipful Sir. We haf good Masons in Wales, too." The silent man nodded approval.

"Yes," said the Doctor, quite unmoved. "It happens that way sometimes. Hespere panta fereis, isn't it? The Star brings 'em all home. I must get a note of that fellow's case after Lodge. I saw you didn't care for music," he went on, "but I'm afraid you'll have to put up with a little more. It's a paraphrase from Micah. Our organist arranged it. We sing it antiphonally, as a sort of dismissal."

Even I could appreciate what followed. The singing seemed confined to half-a-dozen trained voices answering each other till the last line, when the full Lodge came in. I give it as I heard it

"We have showed thee, O Man,
What is good.
What doth the Lord require of us?
Or Conscience" self desire of us?
But to do justly —
But to love mercy,
And to walk humbly with our God,
As every Mason should."

Then we were played and sung out to the quaint tune of the "Entered Apprentices" Song." I noticed that the regular Brethren of the Lodge did not begin to take off their regalia till the lines

"Great Kings, Dukes, and Lords
Have laid down their swords."

They moved into the ante-room, now set for the Banquet, on the verse

"Antiquity's pride
We have on our side,
Which maketh men just in their station."

The Brother (a big-boned clergyman) that I found myself next to at table told me the custom was "a fond thing vainly invented" on the strength of some old legend. He laid down that Masonry should be regarded as an "intellectual abstraction." An Officer of Engineers disagreed with him, and told us how in Flanders, a year before, some ten or twelve Brethren held Lodge in what was left of a Church. Save for the Emblems of Mortality and plenty of rough ashlars, there was no furniture.

"I warrant you weren't a bit the worse for that," said the Clergyman. "The idea should be enough without trappings."

"But it wasn't," said the other. "We took a lot of trouble to make our regalia out of camouflage-stuff that we'd pinched, and we manufactured our jewels from old metal. I've got the set now. It kept us happy for weeks."

"Ye were absolutely irregular an' unauthorised. Whaur was your Warrant?" said the Brother from the Military Lodge. "Grand Lodge ought to take steps against —"

"If Grand Lodge had any sense," a private three places up our table broke in, "it "ud warrant travelling Lodges at the front and attach first-class lecturers to 'em."

"Wad ye confer degrees promiscuously?" said the scandalised Scot.

"Every time a man asked, of course. You'd have half the Army in."

The speaker played with the idea for a little while, and proved that, on the lowest scale of fees, Grand Lodge would get huge revenues.

"I believe," said the Engineer Officer thoughtfully, "I could design a complete travelling Lodge outfit under forty pounds weight."

"Ye're wrong. I'll prove it. We've tried ourselves," said the Military Lodge man; and they went at it together across the table, each with his own note-book.

The 'Banquet' was simplicity itself. Many of us ate in haste so as to get back to barracks or hospitals, but now and again a Brother came in from the outer darkness to fill a chair and empty a plate. These were Brethren who had been there before and needed no examination.

One man lurched in — helmet, Flanders mud, accoutrements and all — fresh from the leave-train.

""Got two hours to wait for my train," he explained. "I remembered your night, though. My God, this is good! "

"What is your train and from what station?" said the Clergyman precisely. "Very well. What will you have to eat?"

"Anything. Everything. I've thrown up a month's rations in the Channel."

He stoked himself for ten minutes without a word. Then, without a word, his face fell forward. The Clergyman had him by one already limp arm and steered him to a couch, where ho dropped and snored. No one took the trouble to turn round.

"Is that usual too?" I asked.

"Why not?" said the Clergyman. "I'm on duty to-night to wake them for their trains. They do not respect the Cloth on those occasions." He turned his broad back on me and continued his discussion with a Brother from Aberdeen by way of Mitylene where, in the intervals of mine-sweeping, he had evolved a complete theory of the Revelation of St. John the Divine in the Island of Patmos.

I fell into the hands of a Sergeant-Instructor of Machine Guns — by profession a designer of ladies" dresses. He told me that Englishwomen as a class "lose on their corsets what they make on their clothes," and that "Satan himself can't save a woman who wears thirty-shilling corsets under a thirty-guinea costume." Here, to my grief, he was buttonholed by a zealous Lieutenant of his own branch, and became a Sergeant again all in one click.

I drifted back and forth, studying the prints on the walls and the Masonic collection in the cases, while I listened to the inconceivable talk all round me. Little by little the company thinned, till at last there were only a dozen or so of us left. We gathered at the end of a table near the fire, the night-bird from Flanders trumpeting lustily into the hollow of his helmet, which some one had tipped over his face.

"And how did it go with you?" said the Doctor.

"It was like a new world," I answered.

"That's what it is really." Brother Burges returned the gold pince-nez to their case and reshipped his silver spectacles. "Or that's what it might be made with a little trouble. When I think of the possibilities of the Craft at this juncture I wonder —" He stared into the fire.

"I wonder, too," said the Sergeant-Major slowly, "but — on the whole — I'm inclined to agree with you. We could do much with Masonry."

"As an aid — as an aid — not as a substitute for Religion," the Clergyman snapped.

"Oh, Lord! Can't we give Religion a rest for a bit?" the Doctor muttered. "It hasn't done so — I beg your pardon all round."

The Clergyman was bristling. "Kamerad!" the wise Sergeant-Major went on, both hands up. "Certainly not as a substitute for a creed, but as an average plan of life. What I've seen at the front makes me sure of it."

Brother Burges came out of his muse. "There ought to be a dozen — twenty — other Lodges in London every night; conferring degrees too, as well as instruction. Why shouldn't the young men join? They practise what we're always preaching. Well! Well! We must all do what we can. What's the use of old Masons if they can't give a little help along their own lines?"

"Exactly," said the Sergeant-Major, turning on the Doctor. "And what's the darn use of a Brother if he isn't allowed to help?"

"Have it your own way then," said the Doctor testily. He had evidently been approached before. He took something the Sergeant-Major handed to him and pocketed it with a nod. "I was wrong," he said to me, "when I boasted of our independence. They get round us sometimes. This," he slapped his pocket, "will give a banquet on Tuesday. We don't usually feed at matinees. It will be a surprise. By the way, try another sandwich. The ham are best." He pushed me a plate.

"They are," I said. "I've only had five or six. I've been looking for them."

"Glad you like them," said Brother Lemming. "Fed him myself, cured him myself — at my little place in Berkshire. His name was Charlemagne. By the way, Doc, am I to keep another one for next month?"

"Of course," said the Doctor with his mouth full. "A little fatter than this chap, please. And don't forget your promise about the pickled nasturtiums. They're appreciated." Brother Lemming nodded above the pipe he had lit as we began a second supper. Suddenly the Clergyman, after a glance at the clock, scooped up half-a-dozen sandwiches from under my nose, put them into an oiled paper bag, and advanced cautiously towards the sleeper on the couch.

"They wake rough sometimes," said the Doctor. "Nerves, y'know." The Clergyman tip-toed directly behind the man's head, and at arm's length rapped on the dome of the helmet. The man woke in one vivid streak, as the Clergyman stepped back, and grabbed for a rifle that was not there.

"You've barely half an hour to catch your train." The Clergyman passed him the sandwiches. "Come along."

"You're uncommonly kind and I'm very grateful," said the man, wriggling into his stiff straps. He followed his guide into the darkness after saluting.

"Who's that?" said Lemming.

"Can't say," the Doctor returned indifferently. "He's been here before. He's evidently a P.M. of sorts."

"Well! Well!" said Brother Burges, whose eyelids were drooping. "We must all do what we can. Isn't it almost time to lock up?"

"I wonder," said I, as we helped each other into our coats, "what would happen if Grand Lodge knew about all this."

"About what?" Lemming turned on me quickly.

"A Lodge of Instruction open three nights and two afternoons a week — and running a lodging-house as well. It's all very nice, but it doesn't strike me somehow as regulation."

"The point hasn't been raised yet," said Lemming. "We'll settle it after the war. Meantime we shall go on."

"There ought to be scores of them," Brother Burges repeated as we went out of the door. "All London's full of the Craft, and no places for them to meet in. Think of the possibilities of it! Think what could have been done by Masonry through Masonry for all the world. I hope I'm not censorious, but it sometimes crosses my mind that Grand Lodge may have thrown away its chance in the war almost as much as the Church has."

"Lucky for you the Padre is taking that chap to King's Cross," said Brother Lemming, "or he'd be down your throat. What really troubles him is our legal position under Masonic Law. I think he'll inform on us one of these days. Well, good night, all." The Doctor and Lemming turned off together.

"Yes," said Brother Burges, slipping his arm into mine. "Almost as much as the Church has. But perhaps I'm too much of a Ritualist."

I said nothing. I was speculating how soon I could steal a march on the Clergyman and inform against "Faith and Works No. 5837 E.C."

* * *


Bro. Arthur C. Parker, New York

THE INQUIRY— of Brother O. B. Slane, of Illinois, in the January number of THE BUILDER, relative to Indian Masons brings an interesting subject to the foreground it is this:

To what extent has Freemasonry contributed to the civilization of the American Indian?

Let us first answer Brother Slane's inquiry as to what Indians of prominence were or are Masons. He mentioned Red Jacket, but so far as tradition goes Red Jacket was only an Entered Apprentice, as were many Masons of the Revolutionary period. In this period we find that Chief Joseph Brant was a Master Mason and a member of St. Patrick's Lodge, of which R∴ W∴ Sir William Johnson was Worshipful Master. Brant was a frequent visitor of lodges and the lodge at Hudson, N.Y., has on its walls a painting of Captain Brant, and in its archives a story of his visitations and of his friendship for Colonel McKinstry, whose life he had saved through the recognition of a sign of distress.

Pennsylvania Masonic History records several Delaware Indians who were Masons, among them John Knockapot, who impoverished himself during the Revolution and later received Masonic aid. It is also stated that Lieutenant Cusick, the Tuscarora, was a Mason. Cusick was an aide to La Fayette during the Revolutionary War. During La Fayette's last visit to Washington, early in the last century, Cusick made the journey to the Capitol to see his old chief. He spoke so much of La Fayette's valour that someone asked him if he ever knew the General. "Know him?" replied Cusick, "Know him? Why many a time I threw myself between him and the bullets that came his way, while I served as Lieutenant on his staff!"

It will be remembered that George Copway, the Ojibway, was an ardent Mason, and that he appealed to Masonic lodges to assist him in establishing schools for his people. It was Copway who called attention to Red Jacket's neglected and despoiled grave and brought about a renewed interest in that famous orator.

During the Civil War period there were hundreds of Indian Masons, and all of them influential men in their tribes. Brother Slane has mentioned Ely S. Parker, the Seneca Indian who was. General Grant's Military Secretary, and who was a member of the Fraternity. General Parker's brother, Isaac Newton Parker, was also a Mason, and did excellent work in the south— most line as a dispatch runner. Deerfoot, America's first champion long distance runner, was of this period. He likewise was a Mason, and an ardent one. Deerfoot's baptismal name was Louis Bennett. It is interesting to note that all tribal Indians of the old regime have a native name and a "substitute word," in the way of a baptismal name.

Indians in the West became Masons as friendship and understanding grew up between their white neighbours and themselves.

Among the Five Civilized Tribes, for example, there were many Masons, particularly among the Cherokee. The celebrated chiefs Ross, Bushyhead, W.B. Mayes and Pleasant Porter were members of the Fraternity. Albert Pike had long been busy among these people In later times other Masons had sought to interest the Indians of Oklahoma. Today literally hundreds of prominent Oklahomans of Indian blood, either fully Indian or of a certain degree, are Masons. One sees the Square and Compass, the Cross and Crown, and the Double-Headed Eagle everywhere among these Indians. Such prominent Indians as Senator Owen, Congressman Carter, and Gabe E. Parker, former Registrar of the Treasury and now Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes, are Master Masons and members of concordant orders.

Many an Indian in old Indian Territory has served as Master of a lodge. The same may be said of the Indian country in Kansas, and the Dakotas. In travelling through the Indian country the prevalence of Indian Masons interested me. I once pointed to a Consistory charm worn by a Pawnee Indian (a banker, by the way) and asked what it was. He replied, "Oh, that's a sign I can't get along without down here. It's a sign a man is on the square."

To revert to the question propounded at the beginning of this article as to what extent Freemasonry has contributed to the civilization of the Indian, let me state that the strongest contacts made with the Indians were those where the sentiments of brotherhood were emphasized. The mission and the lodge were such contacts, though we must not forget the school, for the youth, the army, and for the older men.

Many of the officers of the frontier posts were Masons, as were many of the government officials, and some of the missionaries. Masonic influence was gradually developed until it became a real power for constructive good. Masons fostered missionary effort,and particularly education. They founded schools and established hospitals. For example, Dr. Robert W. Hill, an early official in Indian Territory, busied himself on one hand by establishing Indian missions and schools, and in the other in Masonic work. He became the Deputy for Oklahoma for the Commander of the Scottish Rite and a leading Knight Templer. He tells me that the first 32 degree Mason that he made, and the first Knight Templar, in Oklahoma, were Indians.

Masons and Masonic support have done many valuable things for the Indian race, and the part of Masonry in the civilization of the red man is no small one, though it is largely unrecorded, for Masons do not flaunt their charities. It would not be an overstatement, however, to say that Masonry has been, and is now, a tremendous power for education and enlightenment among the Indians. Of all secular influences none gives greater support to the vital needs of the race than Masonry. This is not done in an organized way, of course, but it is done none the less by Masons.

As an example of organized interest, the recent Council of the New York Indian Welfare Society at Buffalo Consistory, A. & A. S. R., may be cited. To the beautiful Cathedral on one of Buffalo's most exclusive streets came Indians from all parts of New York State, from both reservation and white communities. Here they were welcomed by George Kelly Staples, 33 degree, Commander, himself an adopted Seneca and Blackfoot. Masons gathered from far and near to sit in council with these descendants of Brant and Red Jacket, and to listen to their debates. George L. Tucker, 33 degree, Custodian of the Temple, invited the Indians to visit the Indian Museum which he had founded and endowed, and to the delight of the delegates, served the entire council and visitors with a banquet at which distinguished Masons spoke. Both Brother Tucker and Brother Staples frequently visit the neighbouring reservations and attend both the churches of the Christians and the lodges of the non-Christians, and both are members of an ancient Indian Order similar in many ways to Masonry.

It is a common thing to see Indians going in and out of the Consistory. One of the old stand-bys is Chief Tahan, of the Kiowas, who is a popular member of the Consistory. Recently Clifford Shongo and Arthur Doxtater, both Seneeas of influence, have finished the Scottish Rite grades. But whether Mason or not, Indians have been made mighty welcome here and the "chain of friendship has brightened." Masonry seems to be solving the New York "Indian problem" long in advance of the courts or the legislature, simply practical and sincere friendship. It is this sort of brotherhood that makes life worth living — for the red man at least.

* * *

Thus it is over all the earth; That which we call the fairest, And prize for its surpassing worth, Is always rarest.

— J.G. Holland

* * *

It is not enough to be industrious, so are the ants. What are you industrious about?

— Thoreau

* * *


Bro. O. N. Pomeroy, Ohio

ON the 20th day of October, 1898, the writer called on a brother engineer in his engine room — Benjamin Dettleback was his name — and in the course of a conversation made the remark that an organization of engineers composed entirely of Master Masons would be an ideal thing. Brother Dettleback was so favorably impressed with the scheme that for the next few weeks we met as often as we could to talk the matter over. At last we decided to canvass the city to discover how many engineers might be eligible. We worked on this until December 10th, 1899, when we inserted a notice in one of our daily papers calling a meeting at the Forest City House.

We met on December 22, 1899, with twenty-seven present. As a result of the conference we organized, calling ourselves Craftsmen. Owing to the opposition encountered on the part of those Masonic brethren who were fearful lest this might prove an unwarrantable innovation in the Fraternity we found it uphill work. But we were very careful not to infringe upon any of the laws and usages of the Fraternity and we kept at it with much patience until at last the most skeptical conceded our success.

That which was begun in Cleveland took root in other parts of the country, so that today we have Councils of Engineers from Manitoba to Texas, San Francisco to Boston. A great organization has come into being, known as The Universal Craftsmen Council of Engineers. This larger organization came into existence through a conference held in my home at Cleveland on September 14th, 1903, when there were present besides myself nine delegates, their names being: Benjamin Dettleback, of Cleveland; Oscar Mabie and John L. O'Brien of Chicago; John H. Leathers, of Rochester, New York; Charles E. Davey of Detroit; and James Gillespie of Philadelphia. This organization now numbers over sixty councils and is powerful enough to enable Masonic engineers to hold their own in the competitive market. In many of the large cities today they are in possession of from seventy to ninety per cent of all the principal power plants, and in the Chicago district alone 1300 of the most prominent plants are in the hands of Craftsmen. Also, the organization publishes, and sends to each member, The Universal Engineer which is everywhere conceded to be one of the best, if not the best, journal of its kind.

To return to Cleveland. The Masonic brothers of the city who were not engineers but who followed similar crafts became so much interested in our work, and were so eager to share in the benefits which we had won for ourselves, that they asked for rights of affiliation: but the Constitution of our International made it impossible for us to accept them, so we urged them to form similar organizations of their own. This they did, and now we have nine crafts so organized, among them being workers in electricity, wood, plumbing, steam-fitting, printing, sheet-metal, building, etc. These comprise a total membership of over one thousand, and they are altogether joined in the organization known as The Cleveland Federation of Craftsmen.

Each of the nine bodies has a representation on the board of control of three for the first hundred members, and one additional for every hundred or major fraction thereof above one hundred. The Federation meets each month to transact such business as may call for deliberation, and at this meeting each constituent body reports the number of men out of employment. Each council has its employment committee and the Federation has a general employment committee composed of one member from each council. If any reader should suppose that these are committees in name only he has another guess coming, for they are active twenty-four hours a day. The Federation of Craftsmen has just purchased a fine twenty-two room residence in the heart of the city to serve as headquarters and club rooms.

* * *

We should be slower to think that the man at his worst is the real man, and certain that the better we are ourselves the less likely I she to be his worst in our company.

Every time he talks away his own character before us, he is signifying contempt for ours.

— Barrie

* * *


Bro. William B. Bragdon, New Jersey

FROM BIBLICAL accounts we learn of two columns or pillars that were placed in the Porch of King Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem, one on the right hand named Jachin, and one on the left named Boaz, which are given various dimensions but which New Jersey Masons have been taught to know as eighteen cubits in height, twelve in circumference, and four in diameter, and which were surmounted by three kinds of ornament, namely, network, lilywork, and pomegranates.

The origin of these pillars and their correct representation should be of extreme interest to the Masonic student, and the following brief analysis may be of some assistance.

Tradition plays such an important part in the study of archaeology and the history of architecture, that it may always be taken for granted, for every great school of art or architecture can trace its development to the work of its predecessors, either from its own country, or from some foreign land from which aesthetic influence was received by intercourse through trade or from conquest by war.

To illustrate. The Ancient Greeks spent 500 years in the development of their Doric column, each successive generation using the results of the previous decade as a foundation for their endeavours, until the height of perfection was attained in the Parthenon. The Spaniards continued to work in the Moorish style for years after the Saracens had been driven out of the land they had over-run.

So the first thing to be done in considering the Pillars Jachin and Boaz is to look about and ascertain if possible the origin of the influence which worked through the architect who created them.

Hiram Abif, the man selected by Hiram, King of Tyre, to undertake this stupendous structure for Solomon, King of Israel, was, according to Milman in his history of the Jews, "a man of Jewish extraction, who had learned his art at Tyre"; but whether he was a Jew or a Phoenician is of little consequence, except that he had been trained in a community celebrated for its workers of brass and metals and for that reason most acceptable to Solomon.

The Rev. W. Shaw Caldecott in his book on the history of the Temple, attempts to convey the impression that this building "was not Babylonian, or Egyptian or Phoenician, or even a subtle blending of what was best in each, but was the genuine outcome of Hebrew life and Hebrew faith," but the facts do not substantiate this theory.

From the study of what monuments have been unearthed, we find that the arts were never developed by the Jews to any great extent, and that their only large work for posterity was their Temple at Jerusalem, which had no native traditional inspiration except from the Tabernacle which directly preceded it, and on that account as much as any, left no guiding mark for a standard for future generations.

The great French archaeologists, Perrot and Chipiez, in their standard work on Judea, mention the fact that "the art to which the Temple is due, was Phoenician art, undistinguished by the power and individuality so characteristic of Egyptian, Assyrian or Greek productions." Yet history tells us how the Phoenicians became the leading trading people of the East, and that commercial enterprises carried the art of Egypt to their own country and thence to Babylonia, and even to Greece, both of which latter nations show Egyptian influence in their decorative arts.

And so for the very reason that the Phoenicians borrowed their forms from the Nile and the Euphrates valleys it was a poor art at best, and became even more debased, from the architect's point of view, when transferred to a neighbouring people who had no underlying traditions of their own. This mixture of styles is most apparent in the Pillars of the Temple Porch, where a confusing and unusual order was created, as we shall see, which has baffled scholars in their many attempts at restoration.

Hiram Abif must have felt this foreign influence in the gatherings of trained men among whom he studied and worked, for his building in many respects was modelled from the Egyptian temple, as, to quote Milman, "it retained the ground-plan and disposition of the Egyptian, or rather of almost all sacred edifices of antiquity; even its measurements are singularly in unison with some of the most ancient temples in Upper Egypt. It consisted of a propylaeon, a temple, and a sanctuary; called respectively the Porch, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies," with rising steps and darkening chambers as one progressed, producing an element of mystery, in exact imitation of the temples built on the Nile.

Before the Porch of Solomon's Temple stood two pillars of brass, similar to Egyptian obelisks, Jachin and Boaz, and it was on these that Solomon and Hiram Abif determined to lavish the former's wealth and the latter's ability in an otherwise simple exterior, which treatment of decorative pillars grouped about an entrance without any structural reason, was characteristic of Phoenician art as well, for the architects of those latter countries "had no liking for any kind of construction, and especially made slight use of the pier and column," as Perrot and Chipiez tell us.

They also remark that "we may feel some surprise that the Phoenicians, who were the pupils of Egypt rather than Chaldea, and had in abundance the stone denied to the latter country, should have taken the Mesopotamian architects as their models in this matter of the column," but I think this can be explained from the fact that Chaldea was of the soil, so to speak, and in closer touch with Phoenicia by land and by blood than the men of Egypt, who lived their peaceful lives about the Nile valley, in isolation (except by sea) from surrounding civilizations.

Also, Herodotus mentions his admiration at the sight of "two shafts, one of pure gold — the other of emerald," which stood in places in the shrine of Melkart at Tyre, similar to those occupied at Jerusalem by Jachin and Boaz. In fact many other classic authors mention the tall pillars rising in pairs before the entrances of temples.

At all events the column about an entrance used without any structural relation was a common form of decoration in Phoenicia, and would naturally be the motif considered best suited for a temple porch, when designed by a Phoenician architect.

Although the description of the Porch Pillars given in Kings, in Chronicles, and by Jeremiah, seems to vary, if an analysis is made of the parts described in the text we find they are substantially the same, as in one case the shaft is meant by the pillar, and in another the entire column with its base, capital, and the platform on which it stood. So architectural students generally agree that Jachin and Boaz each rested upon a square base three cubits high, had round straight shafts eighteen cubits in height, twelve in circumference and four in diameter, were adorned with square caps five cubits in height which were ornamented with network, lilywork and pomegranates, and were further adorned and protected by supercaps four cubits high.

This description appears to be clear and would be simple to understand except for the exact meaning of "network, lilywork and pomegranates." There have been countless interpretations of these words, and many restorations of the Pillars, but I have never seen any two alike, nor any that I consider exactly fitting.

In all architecture the capital has been the feature of the order reserved for decoration, and although any type can be designated by a glance at this member, strange to say it is the cap that is the stumbling-block in this case. Geometric patterns were common forms of surface ornamentation with the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and criss-cross line work, or network, in applique, was frequently used, so that we do not hesitate long here for the meaning of "network."

There seems to be more controversy, however, over the interpretation of pomegranates, although I do not see why there should be. The pomegranate flower with its rose shape of petals and heart was constantly represented in conventional form as a rosette for a means of decoration in all the countries of Asia Minor, and was so used as embroidery on the robes of the High Priests of the Temple. Examples at this period of pomegranate as fruit are rare, but the flower was used in some form in nearly every fragment of Phoenician and Mesopotamian sculpture that has been reclaimed, and always adorns the enframements and balconies about the entrance porches of the temples and palaces.

It has been argued that the "chains of pomegranates" mentioned in the Bible refers to the fruit; I see no reason why it does not suggest a garland of flowers, such as our daisy chain, for the garland or festoon was used in all ancient art and was continued in the Roman Period and later in the Renaissance.

If we therefore assume that rosettes of pomegranate flowers were meant in the Biblical text, it is a question of the application of this ornament to the cap, and in this connection the natural architectural reasoning would be to apply cast buttons in rosette form in the spaces enclosed by the intersections of the diagonal strands of network.

Jeremiah describes these caps at the time of the destruction of the Temple as composed of twenty-four rosettes on each side, one hundred all told, so that the four needed to supply the difference might have been placed at the corners as buttons for supporting the hanging festoons of the same flower. In this respect I agree with Mr. Caldecott, for I feel that the drooping garlands hoped in transition from the severely plain round shaft to the heavy cap.

To properly locate the lilywork, however, is a more difficult problem.

In the first place this lily does not correspond with the hothouse or Easter lily of our day, which it might suggest to the layman, but was undoubtedly the waterlily or lotus plant of Egypt, which was conventionalized by the Egyptian architects as one of their chief forms of ornament, and developed into a capital of one of their early columns.

From Egypt the lotus flower and bud found its way into Phoenicia and Chaldea, and we find many examples of this ornament used in the temples in a running and alternating form of design, which was still later developed by the Greeks into the celebrated and beautiful "honeysuckle" ornament.

It was this lotus flower that was probably intended by the term "lily," and it will be necessary to consider the purpose of the Pillars in the Porch of Solomon's Temple in order to picture the lilywork in its position in the capitals.

Like many objects encountered in the Temple, the Pillars Jachin and Boaz were symbols of deeper truths which they intended to teach. Although specialists in Hebrew do not agree as to their meaning, it is possible that before the former the Kings of Israel were crowned, and there they were reminded of the fact that they owed their position to the Jehovah who had established them, while before the latter the High Priests might have been ordained, and impressed with the importance of conducing the rituals of their exalted office with fortitude and strength; hence Jachin denoted "establishment" and Boaz "strength."

And for these and other ceremonies, we are told that the consecration oil used was poured in the top of the capitals. This gives us a clue for the lilywork, for it would not seem illogical that some such form as the Egyptian lotus bud, which was adaptable to receptacle use, might have been created as a crowning feature for the cap, acting both as a decorative terminating pinnacle where there was no supporting beam above, and also serving the practical purpose of a hidden storehouse for the oil.

The supercaps mentioned seem to have been merely screens to hide the vessels of oil and to protect them from the vandalism of birds, which was a common practice of the ancients, evidences of drillings for securing metal nettings for that purpose having been discovered in the sculptures of the Greek temple pediments. These supercaps were probably of network with pomegranate rosette decoration similar to the capitals below, but with perforations, and of portable material.

So we find our Pillars Jachin and Boaz with cylindrical smooth shafts and 'square capitals, ornamented with diagonal meshes and cast rosettes, crowned with lotus bud urns, the whole resting on square blocky bases, and if the foregoing deductions are correct, the true Pillars were quite different from our usual lodge room representations.

* * *


Bro. H. L. Haywood. Iowa

From schools from books, from teachers skilled of brain
Have I blessed: and Art hath loaned her meed
Of joy through pictures, carvings, and her golden reed;
And all her powers to thrill me, or restrain:
To these hath Nature added hill, and sea, and plain,
The lighted sky, the flowers upon the mead,
The show of things, the forces, and the fiery screed
Of stars above a world of joy and pain:

O what a school! yet in it do I lie
As witless, helpless, as the frozen streams!
Wilt Thou now sow Thy fires within my heart!
May I not hear the magic of Thy sudden cry
To wake me from the stupor of my dreams
To more of life than Nature or than Art!

* * *


Bro. Geo. W. Baird, P.G.M., District of Columbia


GENERAL NICHOLAS HERKIMER, a member of St. Patrick's Lodge of New York, a patriot of German descent, was born in 1717, and died August 6, 1777, at Little Falls, New York, where he was buried, and where the beautiful memorial was erected. He must have become an army man rather young, for he was in the French and Indian War in command of Fort Herkimer in 1758. (That so-called French and Indian War was the struggle of our ancestors to defend the religious stand the Pilgrims had taken.)

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War in 1775 Herkimer was commissioned colonel: in 1776 he was made Brigadier and placed in command of the Militia of Tyron County, New York. In 1777, when General St. Leger invested Fort Stanwix, afterwards called Fort Schuyler, at the head of the Mohawk River, General Herkimer took his Militia to the relief of Gen. Gansevoort.

At a point some six miles from Ft. Stanwix, near Oneida Creek, General Herkimer fell into an ambush; his horse was killed and he was badly wounded, a leg being broken. Dragging himself to a stump he encouraged his men to the last but superior numbers were too much for the little band, which sustained defeat with the loss of two hundred men. This was called the battle of Oriskany.

One hundred years afterwards the Oneida Historical Society celebrated the centennial of this battle and raised a subscription to erect a monument to the memory of General Herkimer. This was an obelisk of granite eighty-five feet in height. A greater monument still was the naming of one of the richest counties in New York after the general.

The devotion of General Herkimer to the cause of the Revolution may have been equalled but it was never surpassed. His sitting propped against a stump, with life ebbing away, while he used his brains and his personal magnetism to help his men, though his own limbs were useless, is a picture of the heroism of the man. He fought and died for a blessed heritage which we should not neglect.

What is now known as Herkimer County was first settled by Palatine Germans among whom was one John Jost Herkimer, father of the General. This John Jost built a stone house which, with a few other buildings of the same type (some of which are still standing in the village) was enclosed within a fort, which was first known by its Indian name of Kouari, but was later named Fort Herkimer. Near this, and within the boundaries of the village, was erected another fortress known as Fort Davton. It was from this latter spot that General Herkimer led his forces when he went out to the relief of Fort Schuyler, which relief expedition was brought to a sudden halt by the ambuscade at Oriskany, already described. The present village, its township, and the county are all named Herkimer after this illustrious family.

Oriskany is now a village of some thousand or so population in Oneida countyo It was in a little ravine about two miles to the west of it that the battle of Oriskany was fought. General Herkimer had heard of the danger to Fort Schuyler, which stood near the site of the present city of Rome, and set out to relieve it. That fort was being besieged by British and Indians under Colonel Barry St. Leger and Joseph Brant, the famous Indian leader who was, strangely enough, a Freemason. General Herkimer had about 800 militiamen. About 200 men were lost on both sides. To the colonial forces the severest loss was General Herkimer himself, who died a few days later as the result of the clumsy amputation of a leg. The British, overestimating the forces of the colonials, withdrew from Fort Schuyler. The importance of this engagement lies in the fact that it cost the British General Burgoyne the support of Colonel Barry St. Leger at the battle of Saratoga, which was, partly on account of that fact, lost to the British to which St. Leger was going when the Oriskany conflict occurred.

A memorial to General Herkimer stands in the village of Herkimer. Those interested in the romantic story of this patriot will find it worth while to read "The Herkimers and Schuylers" by Phoebe S. Cowen.

* * *


Bro. Robert I. Clegg, Ohio

HUNGARY, under the Roman Catholic rule of Austria, long had her institutions, time hallowed and nationally inspired. Massacre by the wholesale of Protestants was the ruthless process of catholicizing the downtrodden. Thus for example do the historians estimate such periods as the one of Leopold I (1657-1705), and that of Joseph II (1780-1790). But the latter emperor found the national aspirations too powerful to suppress and he was compelled to restore the ancient constitutions.

Then came at last the year of revolution in 1848. An outbreak of intense patriotism was led by the famous Louis Kossuth, and a desperate attempt was made to regain the former independence of Hungary. A new constitution was adopted and for some time Kossuth was in power as the Supreme Governor. But the Austrians had obtained the support of the Russians and a return was forced to the former despotism which allowed neither trail by jury, nor freedom of the press. It was not until 1867 that the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary was consolidated under the Emperor Francis Joseph.

Louis Kossuth was born in 1802 at Monok in Hungary, studied law at the Protestant College of Sarospatak and then to some extent practised his profession as a lawyer, but really gave his life to the cause of Hungarian nationalism.

Four years of Kossuth's life were spent in prison at an early age for publishing reports of debates in the National Assembly. Then he edited from 1841 to 1844, the Pesti Hirlap, the organ of the nationalist movement. This prominence in leadership resulted in his becoming Minister of Finance in the Hungarian Ministry of 1848. Soon thereafter in the dispute with Austria over the revolt of the Croats, Kossuth declared Hungary independent and took over its government. But in 1849 he was forced to flee to Turkey where he was imprisoned for a time. On his release he visited the United States in the interests of Hungary and later on his return made several attacks against the Austrian government.

Louis Kossuth died at Turin in 1894.

It is not commonly known among the Fraternity that this great champion of human liberty was a Freemason, and an American Craftsman at that! His petition for membership is still on file in his Mother Lodge, Cincinnati Lodge No. 133, at Cincinnati, Ohio. This highly interesting document is written in his own hand, and while following fairly the practice of the present day, has sundry features in its expressions that are even now at this later day and generation of decided piquancy and force. What he says of a community of interests in a truly Masonic spirit among nations was evolved long before the Hague Conference of Carnegie, the World Court of Knox, or the League of Nations of Wilson, yet is most suggestive and inspirational.

The petition for membership of Louis Kossuth was received by Cincinnati Lodge No. 133, F. and A. M., on February 18, 1852, and reads as follows:

"To the Worshipful Master, Wardens and Brethren of Cincinnati Lodge No. 133, of Free and Accepted Masons.

"The petition of the subscriber respectfully showeth that having long entertained a favourable opinion of your ancient institution, he is desirous of being admitted a member thereof if found worthy.

"Being an exile for liberty's sake, he has no fixed place of residence, is now staying at Cincinnati; his age is 49 1/2 years, his occupation is to restore his native land, Hungary, to its national independence, and to achieve by community of action with other nations, civil and religious liberty in Europe. (Signed) "Louis Kossuth."

The minutes of the lodge tell us that on motion the petition was by unanimous vote made "a case of emergency," and forthwith referred to a Committee of Investigation. With the petition of Louis Kossuth were those of Colonel Count Gregory Bathlen, aged 38, member of the staff of Governor Kossuth; Peter A. Nagy, aged 37, Secretary; Paul Hajnik, aged 44 years, Treasurer of the Hungarian Fund, and Dr. Julius Utosy (Strasser), aged 42, physician to Louis Kossuth.

The Investigating Committee reported on the same day and the petitioners were elected to receive the Entered Apprentice Degree. The communication was then adjourned to February 18, at 6 o'clock in the afternoon when the candidates were initiated. Another adjournment was made to February 20, at the same hour, when the candidates were balloted upon, elected to, and received the Fellow Craft Degree. At this meeting the Master Mason Degree was conferred upon Brother Kossuth. An adjournment was then taken to February 21 at 6 o'clock when the other candidates received the Master's Degree. Fees of $20.00 each which had been deposited wit the lodge were ordered returned to the newly-made brethren and at the same time diplomas and demits were given to all of them.

Later in the month, February 28, 1852, Governor Kossuth with several of his suite, attended a meeting of Centre Lodge No. 23, at Indianapolis, Indiana. From an address made by him on that occasion the following opinion of the distinguished Hungarian in regard to Freemasonry is taken:

"The Masonic brotherhood is one which tends to better the condition of mankind, and we are delighted to know it enlists the attention of so many brethren around you as we find surrounding us here. Besides the great antiquity of the Order which should endear it to all good Masons, its excellent precepts and high moral teachings must induce all good members of the Order to appreciate its benevolent purposes and useful works. To one like myself, without a country or a home, dependent upon the hospitality of strangers for life and protection, a great substitute for all my privations is I find to be surrounded by brethren of the Masonic Order."

At another time in St. Louis, Missouri, Brother Kossuth remarked with emphasis:

"If all men were Freemasons, Oh, what a worldwide and glorious republic we should have!"

For these two last quotations we are indebted to the research facilities and courtesy of Brother N.R. Parvin, Grand Secretary of Iowa, who credits them to the Western Freemason, Vol. III, page 196.

Brother Kossuth made similar expressions of his opinion of Freemasonry at the reception given him by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

* * *


By Bro. Dudley Wright, England

THE PAST YEAR has been for Freemasonry in England a year of distinct progression; and the advance is marked not only in the Craft, but in all branches and, particularly, in Royal Arch and Mark Masonry. Grand lodge closes the year with a register of 3,711 lodges, as against 3,612 at the end of 1920, but since the last annual return ninety-five lodges in Queensland, formerly within the English jurisdiction, have joined with the Scottish and independent lodges of that State in forming the United Grand Lodge of Queensland, thus reducing the number of "district" lodges (as overseas lodges are termed) from 666 in 1920 to 578 in 1921. England has chartered 188 lodges during the year as against 194 in 1920. Sixty Royal Arch Chapters and twenty-three Mark Lodges have also been warranted during the year, both these figures being considerably in excess of the pre-war and war-time averages.

The same progression has been characteristic of the receipts of the three principal Masonic benevolent institutions and the Mark Benevolent Fund, the four festivals resulting in an aggregate collection of nearly 299,000 pounds, enabling the management in each instance to admit all approved candidates to the benefit of the institution without ballot. Were it possible to give the sums contributed to the Freemasons Hospital and Nursing Home and the many Provincial and District Charity Funds it would doubtless be found that the sum contributed towards Masonic charities during the past year exceeded half a million of money. Nor has Masonic generosity ended here. Early in the year the official announcement was made that the first quarter of the million, the sum aimed at in connection with the scheme promulgated by the Duke of Connaught, Grand Master, for the erection of a central Masonic Hall and Temple to meet the ever-increasing demands, and also as a Memorial to the Freemasons of England who fought and fell in the great war (whose names fill a good sized volume that was published during the year) had been secured. The last meeting of Grand Lodge held in 1921 witnessed the distribution of medals to the representatives of lodges which have already qualified as "Hall Stone" lodges, and already the medal is becoming a familiar sight at Masonic gatherings.

During the year both the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York have been installed as Masters of lodges, the former in Household Brigade Lodge, No. 2614, and the latter in Navy Lodge, No. 2612. Both also have during the year been admitted to Royal Arch Masonry and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

Sixty-one Grand Lodge Officers have passed away during the year, some being well known in many circles, particularly Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Halsbury, Past Grand Wardens; the Hon. C. E. Davies, who, although Grand Master of Tasmania, a separate jurisdiction, also held office in the Grand Lodge of England as a Past Grand Warden; Canon Horsley, Past Grand Chaplain; and Brothers W. L. A. B. Burdett-Coutts and Sir Alfred Newton, Past Grand Deacons. The Province of West Lancashire and the District of South Africa, Central Division, have lost their rulers in the persons of Brothers Louis S. Winsloe and Arthur J. Green, and their offices, together with the District of Malta, both in the Craft and Royal Arch, are still vacant, while the Mark Province of Cornwall is at present without a chief officer in consequence of the passing of Lord Halsbury.

While there have been no contentions to affect Freemasonry in England during the year it became necessary, as the outcome of an invitation to attend an International Masonic Congress at Geneva, for the Grand Lodge of England once more to assert its inability Masonically to associate with any body or bodies admitting to membership any who are not pledged to a definite belief in a Supreme Being. Application was also made during the year for recognition by the Grand Lodge of England by a body admitting both men and women to membership, but this, in accordance with its Constitutions, could not be granted. Grand Lodge has also been compelled to refuse permission to any members of lodges within its jurisdiction to join the Order of the Eastern Star, on account of its stipulation that the male members of the Order shall be "Freemasons in good standing."

Two of the most pleasing Masonic events of the year were the hearty welcome given in Grand Lodge to the Grand Master, the Duke of Connaught, on his return from India, and the reception to the Masonic members of the Wesleyan Ecumenical Conference.

* * *


The following paper is one of a series of articles on "Philosophical Masonry," or "The Teachings of Masonry," by Brother Haywood, to be used for reading and discussion in lodges and study clubs — From the questions following each section of the paper the study club leader should select such as he may desire to use in bringing out particular points for discussion. To go into a lengthy discussion on each individual question presented might possibly consume more time than the lodge or study club may be able to devote to the study club meeting.

In conducting the study club meetings the leader should endeavor to hold the discussions closely to the tenet of the paper and not permit the members to speak too long at one time or to stray onto another subject. Whenever it becomes evident that the discussion is turning from the original subject the leader should request the members to make notes of the particular points or phases of the matter they may wish to discuss or inquire into and bring them up after the last section of the paper is disposed of.

The meetings should be closed with a "Question Box" period, when such questions as may have come up during the meeting and laid over until this time should be entered into and discussed. Should any questions arise that cannot be answered by the study club leader or some other brother present, these questions may be submitted to us and we will endeavor to answer them for you in time for your next meeting.

Supplemental references on the subjects treated in this paper will be found at the end of the article.





LORD ACTON, who was one of the most learned men of all times, one of the greatest scholars of the last century, and who left behind him as his monument the great Cambridge Modern History, had as his life work the task of writing a History of Liberty. On this he toiled for years, with two large houses full of books, with all manner of original materials in several languages, until he had accumulated great heaps of data. But alas! he never arrived at the point where he felt that he knew enough about liberty to write its history! and he died with all his knowledge in him, his magnum opus unwritten! Such an experience reminds us what a subject we have before us in the present paper; how difficult it is to deal with; how little has as yet been really thought out about it; how scanty are men's experiences of it; and consequently how modest must be our own attempts in the present connection.

Before entering into a discussion of the subject fashion in your own mind as definitely as you can what you mean by liberty, and what you mean by liberty as a Masonic teaching.


On the surface it might appear to some that Masonry in itself has not much liberty to give its own children. The initiate finds himself forced to rehearse a Ritual no single syllable of which can be changed; he is in the hands of a group of men who govern him and his fellow members; the subordinate lodge, as its very name implies, must adjust itself to the will of Grand Lodge: and the whole field covered by the Fraternity is hedged about by a series of Landmarks which, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, change not. Where the individual finds himself so circumscribed, and compelled to move in so narrow a channel, how, say many, can he be said to have liberty?

Those who ask such a question betray the misunderstanding under which so many labour as regards what is and what is not liberty. They have a vague notion as to what it is, and they dimly feel that in some way there isn't much liberty to be had anywhere, either in institutions or in government, or in the way the world is made. If it chances that one of us has similar misgivings and doubts it may be worth while just here to examine two or three of the false conceptions of liberty which are so common.

Liberty is not merely freedom from restraint. How many there are who think it to be so! A friend who has spent many years in working among immigrants told me that hordes of aliens come in from southeastern Europe, and used to come in from Russia, who have been told over and over that in America there are no laws, no governments, no penitentiaries and fines, and that here every man may do as he pleases with no other man to hinder. Finding themselves so completely disillusioned when they discover the real truth about the nation, they grow sullen and rebellious, consider themselves cheated, and fall an easy victim to the fallacies of anarchy. Such ideas of liberty are born of fancy, for there is no part of the human race anywhere that does have, or ever has had, any experience of such a state. On the contrary every one of us knows from his own experiences that liberty and restraint go together and are in no sense necessarily opposed one to the other. In a family there is all manner of restraint needed, not only for the children but for the parents as well, who are unable to do a hundred things because there are children to care for at home; but even so, father, mother, and the children may all enjoy to the utmost the fullest family liberty. And we know that it is the same with a man's work. If he is running a farm he is compelled to remain at his post to care for his stock often when he would prefer to be elsewhere; that he must be up with the sun, and do a certain amount of plowing, harrowing, planting, harvesting, and what not, even though his fancies would lead him to do something very different. He has restraints enough, nevertheless he enjoys on his farm absolute liberty of toil, for the two things go together. And so it is in every kind of labour, and in every other sphere in which men live; always there are the fences about one, and the sign set up, "thus far shalt thou go but no farther," but that does not destroy liberty, which is a very different thing than freedom from restraint.

Nor is liberty the same as a go-as-you-please individualism. A large and powerful group of men in the last century taught that all things that check the individual are wrong, and that the full enjoyment of life comes only when the individual can consider himself a separate entity cut off from other individuals whom he is not to hinder and who are not to hinder him. The state is to have no right to interfere with the lives of men in any way, shape or form. Herbert Spencer, who may be considered typical of this school of thought, resented it when the state interposed to regulate education; when it undertook to levy income taxes and to direct business developments; he was bitter even against the governmental building of highroads which he believed should be left to the citizens in each given community. It may be true that such a conception of individualism would accord well with liberty, and it might be desirable, but unfortunately the experience of the nations has shown it utterly impossible of operation; it is not in harmony with the way men are made. Human nature is against it. For each individual man is by his very nature a social being who can no more be cut off from the social organization than a leaf can be safely cut from the branch of the parent tree. There are some things that we can do separately as private souls; there are other equally important things that we can do only as citizens of a community, as members of a social order. What would have become of us, to cite one example, if it had been left to individual enterprise to manage the late war? In many, many cases the individual, for his own joy and welfare, must be held to his place in the social organism and made to perform his functions there.

Closely akin to the philosophical doctrine of individualism preached by Spencer are the theories of the "laissez faire" school of economics which played so large a part in the history of the nineteenth century. The members of this school believed that the business relations of men are governed by certain "economic laws" which operate in the same way as, and are as unchangeable as, the so-called laws of nature. Men must be left alone, was their cry, and not tampered with; hands off, and business will run itself; the world will be fed, clothed, and housed as automatically as the sun rises and sets. The chief of these "economic laws" was believed to be unfettered competition, indeed, competition was set up as such an important god that when, during the Irish famine in 1825 it was proposed to organize relief in England and ship corn to the starving millions many "economists" fought the project on the ground that the situation would be cared for by the normal functionings of the law of supply and demand and that nobody had any right to divert ships from the normal channels of trade. The theories of the "laissez faire" school seem quaint and far off to one at this date, for their whole scheme of thought has gone by the board, and that for a hundred reasons, one of which is that there are in economic life no such "laws" as those that operate in nature, and that such laws as do operate in economics are of the same kind as those that we find in all forms of human association; they are full of the action of men's wills, and desires, and deliberate planning. "To let things alone," to let things drift, does not mean that things will be cared for by automatic natural laws, but that the most predatory individuals in the community will use such a state as an opportunity to rob their fellows right and left. In our own government we have learned that business, in all its forms, is something that must be regulated like all other human activities, and that any ideal of liberty which assumes itself to consist of an absence of regulation is a false ideal.

All these various false notions of liberty have in common one thought, that it is a desirable thing to leave each individual to himself, uncontrolled by others; to let him be an entity in a void. Such a thought is false and impossible. Man is by his very structure a social being, and therefore one that must live, for the sake of his own happiness as much as for the sake of the happiness of others, ringed about by all manner of governing forces and influence.

In what way is liberty exemplified and taught in the Fraternity? What is the difference — if there is a difference — between "liberty" and "freedom"? How many kinds of liberty can you name, such as, for example, civil, religious, personal, etc.? Do you believe that the individual Mason, under the present system of Masonic laws and usages, enjoys as much freedom as he deserves? Does the subordinate lodge have sufficient independence? How would you differentiate "independence" from "liberty"? What other common terms express the same general idea? What does the Bible teach about liberty? Masons fought on both sides of the Civil War. Was that inconsistent with Masonry? Albert Pike was an officer in the Confederate army. Was that inconsistent with what be teaches about liberty and freedom in Morals and Dogma? If so, in what way was it inconsistent ?

What liberties do American citizens now actually enjoy? Does the man enjoy real liberty in work who has a boss over him, who must go and come at a certain time, and have all the conditions of labour regulated by others? What is the "right to work"? Is it the same as "liberty of toil" ? What is meant by individualism? Can you name any great "Individualists" in our own national history? Was Lincoln an Individualist? What countries in Europe give their citizens civil liberty? Religious liberty? Liberty of thought? What can you tell about Herbet Spencer? What did he write? Can you illustrate from American industrial and business history the theory of "laissez faire"? What about railways, public corporations, etc., as things went forty years ago? How would you explain the fallacy of the "let things drift" school?


What then is Liberty?

In my own conception of it liberty means that each man of us is to enjoy unhindered the full exercise of the normal functions and powers of his nature. This is an entirely different conception than that implied in the no-restraint theory, because man's nature cannot function normally in a void, or in a condition of pure individualism: the functions and powers of a man's nature, when rightly understood, imply and demand a social life, a community of lives in which each individual finds his true happiness in his right relations to other human beings. It will be better to permit this conception to define itself through a series of examples and illustrations.

One of the most important powers of a man's nature is his mind. If the man is to be happy, if his nature is to be healthy and unmutilated, he must be permitted to live in a social order where he has absolute right to use that mind unhindered by anything or anybody. The mind is so made that any interference with its normal functioning brings distress to the individual and disorder to human society. Every attempt to dictate to men how they shall use their minds has proved to be disastrous, as history so abundantly proves. One may recall Prince Metternich and the Peace of Vienna in 1815 when the masters of Europe ordained what men should think, speak, and read. That regime did not bring the uniformity of thought and peace of life which the masters expected; it brought quite the contrary, a fermentation of embittered men and women which led finally to the outbursts of 1848. It is a peculiar agony to have one's very brain in chains: men must rebel or at last surrender, to sink in the apathy and listlessness of the peasant and the serf.

In what does liberty of mind consist? In the right to use it normally, for the health and the good of all. It does not mean that an individual is free to make use of his mind without restraint or hindrance of any kind. The man who uses his intellect to perpetrate a fraud should be held in leash; when he exercises it in the manufacture and dissemination of lies it is time that he feel that he is not the only man who lives in the world. When a man is set free to think he is set free, not for intellectual license and anarchy which is at last the absence of thought, but to think according to those laws of thinking which are inherent in the mind itself. Therefore freedom of thought does not lead to anarchy and confusion but to harmony, for all facts exist in the system of nature, and all truth is in harmony with itself. When we Masons contend for the right of the free intellect we are contending for the right and healthful use of the intellect, the normal use of it; not for mere caprice.

Do you agree with the writer's definition of liberty as given in the paper? How would you improve upon it? In what way, if any, is it defective? Can you fashion a more comprehensive description of what liberty is that you would care to have printed in THE BUILDER?

What can you tell about the history of intellectual liberty in the United States? Did the early colonists enjoy much of it? Do we have complete intellectual liberty now? How do you justify the restrictions placed on free thought and free speech during the Great War? Have we been given back all the free thought and speech we enjoyed before the War? What would your neighbours do or say if you were to speak out openly just what you think about religion, polities, morality, etc.? Do you now practice freedom of thought, and free speech? If not, why not? Have you freedom of thought and speech in your Masonic lodge?


So also with the right to choose one's own work, which is also essential to a state of liberty. During the last centuries of the Roman Empire the collegiate system (the collegia were a kind of craft union) had hardened to such rigidity that what a man's father had done that also must he do; he was not even free to leave his own village without permission; he existed in a kind of industrial slavery. The same thing recurred, or almost the same thing, at the end of the guild system in England: men had at last to break the system because it was destroying, the right of free work. In India, or in certain parts of it, the caste system functions in the same manner to deprive the individual of the light to choose his own form of labour.

This right also exists in the very structure of man's nature. Each of us has his own "bent," and prefers his own "line." One man loves manual toil; another would be a musician; a third finds himself made to be a scholar. So goes it with all. This urge within one's nature toward a certain form of labour is as essential to manhood as the freedom of thought, and it is always as disastrous to human happiness when the freedom to work is denied as it is when men are deprived of freedom of mind. In any social order rightly conceived the liberty of every man to work as he chooses is essential.

But this does not mean that a man can exercise his desire unrestrained. It does not mean that an individual can do what he pleases as if he were alone in a void where no other man could be. It means that the right to work, like all other rights, is shaped by the structure of human nature, and by the necessities of society. If a given form of business proves destructive of social order, such for example as the business of war, or opium smuggling, or piracy, etc., then the man's right ceases. What we all should strive to uphold is the normal exercise of such rights.

As much may be said of the right of free worship, or liberty of religion. Religion is, it seems, an integral part of nature, therefore it must have healthy development else it lead to ills and to unhappiness. Interference with religious liberty, the long and dark attempts to dictate to men what and how they shall worship, has every time bred misery and degradation. A normal religiousness makes for the welfare of a man's life, and he therefore has a right to the free and normal exercise of it.

The same may be said of all the other functions and powers of our nature. We have an inherent right to choose our friends; to marry whom we would; to have a voice in our own government; to live where and when we desire; etc., etc. In all the possible forms which liberty may take we find this same truth, that this liberty is for the sake of the healthful exercise of human nature, so that a man can be happy while he lives, and that any interference with the normal functionings of the same leads to unhappiness, to the mutilation of nature, and is therefore a thing to be opposed and destroyed. And all this does not lead to individualism, to atomism, to any form of license, or to anarchy as many conservative minds fear, because if the functions of man's nature are rightly exercised, exercised according to human nature itself, freedom will not lead to conflict among men, but rather to unity and harmony. The very way in which a man is made causes him to be a part of nature, a part of society, and in constant relationship with God. Any liberty which divorces him from nature, or makes him an anti-social being, or causes him to violate the deep laws of his own spirit, is not real liberty at all, but its counterfeit.

Liberty, it follows from all that has been heretofore said, is therefore not a mere gift which the powers that be may confer on a man at their pleasure: it is called for by the very structure of man. It is something necessary, something demanded by the nature of things. Therefore it is, as our Declaration of Independence defined it, a natural right. It is a right that existed before governments came into existence; nay, governments exist in order to make it possible, and to preserve it inviolate. For law, lightly understood, exists in order that liberty may be unharmed.

When we have reached this conception we can no longer believe that such a thing can be a mere matter of simple instinct to any individual which he will straightway begin rightly to exercise the moment he is set loose to do as he pleases. Liberty, just because it is so deep and many-sided a thing, and sends so many roots down into human nature and so many ramifications out into human society, is a thing that must be learned. The baby chick has an instinct which teaches it how to eat the moment it steps out of the shell; some have held the theory that man has a similar instinct for liberty which he will exercise if only priests, kings, and aristocrats will let him be. Such a notion is a fallacy. We each one have the right to be free; but to be indeed free, that means a right education for the purpose. Freedom as a right exists in every man: freedom as a fact exists only in those natures which have prepared themselves for it.

What kind of "industrial democracy" do the Socialists want? The Bolshevists? Do we now have "liberty of work" in our present factory system? Can you tell a little about the history of religious liberty in this nation? Have we all always enjoyed it? How was it won? How many other nations are now fighting for religious liberty? What is the difference between spiritual, and religious, liberty, if any? Do bad habits hold a man in spiritual slavery?


From one point of view the whole of Masonry exists in order to teach men how to make right use of their prerogatives of freedom. The candidate is made to feel that he is not a separate living atom living and dying unto himself, but that he is by nature a part of a great brotherhood of men and women; he is taught that until he can exercise the powers of maturity he must, like all good apprentices, be content to have others lead him; he is made to understand that mature life is not his at a grasp but that he lives in darkness concerning it until he has gone the whole road of preparation; he is shown that the hoodwink cannot be removed until he is duly obligated to his fellows and taught his duties; he is made to understand that unless he is able to walk alone and exercise his rights normally a cable-tow of external authority is needed to hold him in place, and that such a cable-tow must remain, about him until he is able to stand on his own feet; he is made to understand the ever present need of light, and that unless he is always seeking it, darkness will settle upon him, and darkness means unhappiness; and not until he is instructed how to be the absolute master of himself is he raised from the dead level of his slavery to the living perpendicular of a free man.

In its mysteries of initiation Freemasonry reveals itself to its adepts, under one of its aspects at least, as the preparation for the liberty of the mind, of the body, of the soul, of manhood and womanhood. Its part out in the great world among other powers and institutions also reveals it as the champion of liberty in all its forms and under all its veils. And it has ever contended for liberty because it has struggled to win for men life, more life, and life more abundantly. That is its mission. And because man needs liberty in order richly to live, it has striven to win liberty in all its forms. During the last hundred years Masonry has not been absent from one single struggle for civil, or political, or religious liberty. When men have sought to throw off the yoke of unlawful or cruel rulers it has lent them its aid. When they have prayed and bled to be relieved of the yoke of spiritual and religious bondage it has given them of its strength and made their war its own. Until man has won for himself all those freedoms wherein his life consists it will ever be so, because Masonry exists in order that we all may live more happily, more completely, more abundantly.

How do parents teach their children how to exercise freedom? How is it true that the law is for the sake of liberty? How many ways are there that Masonry teaches men, and drills men, and shapes men, to know what liberty is, and to exercise right liberty? What part is Masonry now playing, here and abroad, in the liberating of men? In how many revolutions has Masonry played a part? Do you believe in revolutions? What is the difference between a right revolution and a wrong revolution? What is Masonry now doing in Mexico, Central America, and South America? Why is the Masonic ideal of liberty so opposed by the Roman Catholic Church? The greatest Masonic teacher of liberty has been Albert Pike; can you explain his conception of it? Have you ever read his "Morals and Dogma"? What does be therein teach about liberty? What branch of the Masonic Fraternity has had most to say about this subject? What is the difference between liberty and equality? Between liberty and democracy?

* * *


The following references will furnish much interesting material on the subjects touched upon in the preceding paper by Brother Haywood.

These references should be assigned by the Study Club Committee to different brethren who may compile papers of their own from the material thus to be found, or in many instances the articles themselves, or extracts therefrom, may be read directly from the originals. The latter method may be followed when the members may not feel able to compile supplemental papers of their own, or when the originals may be deemed appropriate without any alterations or additions.

The notes or papers thus prepared should be read at the opening of the study meeting, before the paper by Brother Haywood is taken up.

Mackey's Encyclopedia (Revised Edition): Albert Pike, p. 663; Freedom, p. 281; Freemason, p. 282; Freemasonry in Brazil, p. 115; Freemasonry in Mexico, p. 482; Labor, p. 419; Laborare est orare, "To labor is to pray," p. 419; Liber or Liberty, p. 444; Liberal Arts and Sciences, p. 444; Libertine, p. 445.

* * *


"The Bulletin Course of Masonic Study," of which the foregoing paper by Brother Haywood is a part, was begun in THE BUILDER early in 1917. Previous to the beginning of the present series on "Philosophical Masonry," or "The Teachings of Masonry," as we have titled it, were published some forty-three papers covering in detail "Ceremonial Masonry" and "Symbolical Masonry" under the following several divisions: "The Work of a Lodge," "The Lodge and the Candidate," "First Steps," "Second Steps," and "Third Steps." A complete set of these papers are obtainable in the bound volumes of THE BUILDER for 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920, and the monthly numbers for January, February, March and April, 1921.

Following is an outline of the subjects covered by the current series of study club papers by Brother Haywood:


General Introduction. — A. Reasons for a course explaining what the "teachings of Masonry" mean. — B. How one can arrive at his own Philosophy of Masonry. — Conclusion. The Philosophy of Masonry is not a study of philosophy in general, but such a study of Masonry as a philosopher gives to any great intellectual problem.

  1. The Masonic Conception of Human Nature.
  2. The Idea of Truth in Freemasonry.
  3. The Masonic Conception of Education.
  4. Symbolism.
  5. Secrecy.
  6. Masonic Ethics.
  7. Democracy.
  8. Equality.
  9. Liberty.
  10. Masonry and Industry.
  11. The Brotherhood of Man.
  12. The Fatherhood of God.
  13. Endless Life.
  14. Brotherly Aid.
  15. Schools of Masonic Philosophy.

This systematic course of Masonic study has been taken up and carried out in monthly and semi-monthly meetings of lodges and study clubs all over the United States and Canada, and in several instances in lodges overseas.

The course of study has for its foundation two sources of Masonic information, THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia.


Study clubs may be organized separate from the lodge, or as a part of the work of the lodge. In the latter case the lodge should select a committee, preferably of three "live" members who shall have charge of the study club meetings. The study club meetings should be held at least once a month (excepting during July and August, when the study club papers are discontinued in THE BUILDER), either at a special communication of the lodge called for the purpose, or at a regular communication at which no business (except the lodge routine) should be transacted — all possible time to be devoted to study club purposes.

After the lodge has been opened and all routine business disposed of, the Master should turn the lodge over to the chairman of the study club committee. The committee should be fully prepared in advance on the subject to be discussed at the meeting. All members to whom references for supplemental papers have been assigned should be prepared with their material, and should also have a comprehensive grasp of Brother Haywood's paper by a previous reading and study of it.


  1. Reading of any supplemental papers on the subject for the evening which may have been prepared by brethren assigned such duties by the chairman of the study club committee.
  2. Reading of the first section of Brother Haywood's paper.
  3. Discussion of this section, using the questions following this section to bring out points for discussion.
  4. The subsequent sections of the paper should then be taken up and disposed of in the same manner.
  5. Question Box. Invite questions on any subject in Masonry, from any and all brethren present. Let the brethren understand that these meetings are for their particular benefit and enlightenment and get them into the habit of asking all the questions they may be able to think of. If at the time these questions are propounded no one can answer them, send them in to us and we will endeavor to supply answers to them in time for your next study club meeting.


The foregoing information should enable study club committees to conduct their meetings without difficulty. However, if we can be of assistance to such committees, or any individual member of lodges and study clubs at any time such brethren are invited to feel free to communicate with us.

* * *


Bro. J. F. Clendening, P.G.M., Tenn.

In the glorious hour of dawning
When the sun begins to peep
From above the farthest hilltops,
To arouse us from our sleep;
Then we pray to God our Master
To direct us through the day,
To avoid the trials and pitfalls
That assail us on our way.

When the sun at high meridian,
The glory of the day,
Informs each weary pilgrim
That he's half along the way;
Then we turn to God all glorious
For strength to stand the test
That will give us welcome entry
In that dwelling of the Blest.

The sun in the west at evening
Marks the closing of our day;
Then we cry to God our Father
And to Him humbly pray
For grace that's all sufficient,
For love that's all sublime,
That will guard us through the Valley
And bring us Home in time.

* * *



THERE is no particular reason for making a sensational secret out of the feud between Romanism and Freemasonry, any more than there is any good sense in overdoing the matter to the point of fanaticism. THE BUILDER is very frank in its attitude toward the whole question: it believes that the feud is an existing thing of great consequences, and that Masonic students therefore desire the facts just as they desire facts about any other subject germane to Masonic research. THE BUILDER has no fear or hatred of anybody, least of all of a large group of fellow men who share with us the privileges of American citizenship, for there is nothing to fear! What can the Roman church do to us? Nothing! we are too strong for them. We are stronger than we ourselves believe. If articles and letters are published in these pages about Freemasonry and Romanism it is for precisely the same reason that articles are published about the Comacines, King Solomon's Temple, or Freemasonry in the A. E. F. Such matters are of interest to our readers, who are therefore entitled to them.

It appears to ye editor that a fallacy underlies the arguments advanced by Brother Hollrigl in his communication which appears elsewhere in this issue, and also in Brother Bingay's letter which appeared some time back, and which has aroused so much interest among the readers of this journal. That fallacy, briefly put, is this: both of these brethren (this is an academic, not a personal discussion) assume that the feud between the Craft and Romanism is merely a matter of difference of religious opinion; and that such differences are of little consequence; because we all differ; and that we should tolerate Roman theories as we ask others to tolerate our theories. This is fallacious because the feud is not a question of differences of mere opinions or theories; the differences are of a social and practical character, and they are working themselves out at this moment in the actual life of the people. A conflict between two social forces should not be described in the same terms as a conflict between two theories.

This conflict may be briefly illustrated as follows. In one of the largest industrial cities of the nation investigation showed that a certain Romanist organization had captured for its own members more than seventy per cent of the executive positions in a certain industry. When that was discovered another group of men, working in the same industry, organized themselves in order to secure their own just proportion of these positions. In that case there never was a thought as to difference between the metaphysics of Protestantism and the metaphysics of Romanism. The men engaged in this actual social struggled (for it was that) were not concerned with academic matters at all.

Another illustration. In one of the largest cities of this land a Romanist bishop keeps an office in the city hall adjoining the mayor's own private office, and every appointment made by that mayor first receives the o. k. of the bishop. A number of citizens in that city do not approve of such a procedure and they going to put a stop to it.

Again. In another of our largest cities the Romanists secured control of the entire school board and dictated through that body what books should be used or not used, and what teachers should be appointed! Verbum sat!

There is no need to take alarm at this sort of thing, or to grow hysterical. Such things have been going on a long while, and will continue so to do. But these facts sufficiently illustrate the point that the feud between Romanism and the Craft is not merely a difference of opinion. The Romanists are working for one kind of world; Freemasons are working for another. To open our eyes to these facts; frankly to publish them when occasion warrants; to learn all that can be learned about them; this surely cannot be objectionable to any man. Our Romanist friends are doing it all the time. We shall do it all the time. And meanwhile we shall gladly give to all such brethren as Brothers Bingay and Hollrigl the use of our pages to state the whole matter from their very different points of view.

* * *


The human mind has a trick of telescoping the past. As it glances backwards whole centuries and era collapse together into a broad blur, out of which stand a few prominent facts. The long rich history of Rome or of Assyria becomes a mere curtain of vague thought on which the imagination unconsciously projects a few pictures which are at bottom nothing but generalizations. On the curtain the man calls "history of Rome" is seen a stern soldier bearing shield and sword, for that is a kind of type, so he believes, of all Romans. Egypt is a dark fog in which looms a pyramid. Assyria is a string of flying warriors followed by elephants and crowds carrying bright banners. And so on.

This trick of the mind, which tries to manage the great masses of facts known as history in this fashion, is recalled to the writer by a book that now lies before him, written by some obscure student to prove that all the ancient nations believed in reincarnation. On a page toward the middle of the volume are these typical words, "The ancient Jews believed," etc.

"The ancient Jews believed," forsooth ! What did they believe? They believed a thousand things. Who were these "ancient Jews" ? They were a people whose "ancient" history extends over more than a thousand years of time. During this vast period they underwent a hundred profound transformations; and all the while they mingled with, and were influenced by, countless other peoples. It is almost impossible to call to mind one single outstanding belief which they all entertained throughout this long national evolution. "The ancient Jews believed" this, that, and the other thing. At one time they did not believe in personal immortality; at another time they did. Some of them never believed in a supernatural priesthood and others always did; and so forth, and so forth. When Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A. D. 70, these people were so desperately divided among themselves that inside the doomed city itself, with food running out and pestilence rampant, their various cliques fought each other like hyenas. That is how much unity of belief they had, for these groups were based on religious schisms, and other differences of thought.

And so is it also of other ancient peoples. There were a thousand religions, philosophies, sects, cults, and schools among the Egyptians, and likewise among the Greeks, the Persians, and the Romans. To fuse those myriads into one mass of a given mould and then to generalize therefrom, is to be fooled by a trick of the fancy. It is true of course that all these people had a few deeply rooted characteristics of mind and habit, and these were constant throughout many centuries of transmutation. The early Buddhists, the early Christians, for example, were split into numberless schools which differed from each other, but which all agreed on two or three leading ideas. But even so, generalizations about them are exceedingly misleading.

One might read a sermon on this to Masonic students, if sermons were in order. How often do we read in our own literature, "The Ancient Jews believed" ! or, "the Catholic Church taught," or "early Masons believed" ! And how often we encounter interpreters of our symbolism who assume that in the Ancient and Medieval worlds all men were agreed about these symbols ! One needs only to read a work like Count Goblet d'Aliviella's "Migration of Symbols" to learn how diverse and various were the meanings attached to symbols at different times and by different peoples.

The cure for this habit of generalizing about things that cannot be generalized is to stick tenaciously to specific facts, and always to ask for definite proofs. If some brother steps out to block a badly needed reform by saying "Our Masonic forbears never taught that," challenge him to tell just what forbears he has in mind, just what, and where they did or said the things he avers, and you will usually discover that he has been blurring together in his thoughts a thousand separate facts.

The moral of all this for us Masons is that we must strive evermore to develop as far as possible the scientific habit of mind, which never accepts hasty generalizations, but carefully and patiently sifts out the facts from the fables, the specific events from the imagination's fog of recollection, and constructs its theories out of these hard particles of real knowledge.

"Lo, how a man ought to take heed lest he overweeningly follow public opinions which should be measured by the rule of reason and not by the common report."

* * *


Brother David E. Williamson, Editor of the Gazette, Reno, Nevada, has written to inquire, "What has led to the variations in the ritual as it is used in the various states?" In the natural order of things this query, with the attendant reply, should find lodgment in the interesting quarters of the Question Box. But it is to come under editorial notice, and that for such reasons as will presently appear.

The answer to Bro. Williamson's inquiry may be given in few words:

Divergencies in ritual are due to variations in origin. Some Grand Lodges sprang from the old "Modern" Grand Lodge system of England, others came from the "Ancient" Grand Lodge. Still others received some influences from one or more of the various other Grand Lodges that functioned for a brief while; and yet others were influenced by the work as it was practiced in Ireland or in Scotland, for the Masonry of both those countries reached hands across the sea. Having started with divergencies it was inevitable that these should continue and, in many cases, increase, for the ritual remained in a somewhat plastic condition for some years after the Revolutionary War.

This answer, which, we believe, is true enough as far as it goes, is very unsatisfactory. It is but an abstraction, a ghost that arises like a film from a thousand concrete facts. What Brother Williamson deserves to have, and what we all need, is a book of some two hundred pages or so on the whole subject of Divergencies which would set forth in concise, interesting, and reliable fashion the history of the matter, and an account of the way things now are.

Why can't some student undertake such a book?

The undertaking should appeal to a man of high abilities for it is a difficult one, and such as demands the qualities of genuine scholarship. The author of such a book would be compelled to fulfill the following requirements:

A familiarity with the conditions of eighteenth century Freemasonry in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America; with Freemasonry as it developed in army lodges; with the various Grand Lodge systems which were rivals in the field during the Revolutionary period and for a few years thereafter; a mastery of the very complicated facts concerning early Masonry in America; ability to trace back to its original sources the Freemasonry of each and every one of our Grand Lodges, fifty-one in all; a knowledge of the various internecine struggles which took place in many of these, and of the interactions among them; a knowledge of the course of ritualistic development inside the history of the states which played the larger part in the founding of American Freemasonry; a mastery of the history of the Ritual itself, as it has been created, shaped, and moulded through the centuries by a variety of influences and a number of outstanding individuals.

If any reader of this page cares to undertake so worth-while a task the National Masonic Research Society will undertake on its part to lend assistance to him in this wise:

It will secure for him such books as he may need to purchase, from any place in the world, and that without profit to itself.

It will secure for him the loan of any such works as he may wish to borrow, wherever such a thing is possible.

It will lend him counsel at any or all stages of his work, in all possible ways, and will furnish him with any desired information that it may possess in its own files.

It will have his manuscript criticized by Masonic experts, and that at no charge to himself.

If the book produced would warrant it, it would make him a fair proposition for its publication.

In case he would have it published at his own risk the Society would gladly assist him in every way to bring it to the widest possible attention of the Craft, here and abroad.

If any brother, duly and truly prepared, and worthy and well qualified, will step forward to embrace this task and this opportunity, he will most surely receive the right hand along with the congratulations of every Masonic student. The whole subject of Divergencies is of paramount interest and of first rate importance, and it has never as yet been thoroughly canvassed in any book.

This is but one example of that need for an American Masonic literature which has been emphasized in these pages before. Masons of literary talent, who have the means and opportunities of authorship, have immediately before them, inside the Craft itself, the most golden of all imaginable opportunities for authorship. An author is wanted to deal with Divergencies. The same thing may be said of any one of a hundred or so other topics which have never been written up at all, or if so, have been done in a poor fashion, or have been well done but lost to us now for having gone out of print.

* * *



"Primitive Society" by Robert H. Lowie, Ph. D., Assistant Curator of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History. Published by Boni & Liveright, 105 West 40th Street, New York. Price $3.00.

ANTHROPOLOGISTS are hard put to it when asked to recommend a book that shall give the layman a brief summary of what is now known regarding their science as a whole or in any one of its branches. They are usually obliged to confess that such an up-to-date synthesis as is likely to satisfy the questioner does not exist. In no department of anthropology has the want of a modern summary made itself more painfully felt than in that of social organization." These words, taken from Dr. Lowrie's Preface, accurately describe the nature of this volume of 463 very compact pages, except that it must not be understood that the author has undertaken to write an encyclopedia of facts. He accumulates no facts save as may be necessary to lay bare the workings of primitive social organization, which is the primary purpose of his book. The titles of the fifteen chapters will suggest how much ground is covered, and what is the nature of the same: Introduction, Marriage, Polygamy, The Family, Kinship Usages, The Sib, History of the Sib, The Position of Woman, Property, Associations, Theory of Associations, Rank, Government, Justice, and Conclusion. In all these cases Dr. Lowie undertakes to make clear to the layman the essential character of these forms of organized life among uncivilized folk.

Among anthropologists themselves, if one may judge from the reviews of the scientific press, Dr. Lowie's book has sharply challenged attention by his heroic abandonment of the whole method, now become time-honored, of dealing with the data of anthropology by the machinery of the doctrines of the philosophy of evolution.

Science and evolution are regarded by many'as synonymous, but this is greatly to err, for the two are as unlike as can be. Charles Darwin set himself to discover how species come into existence: after many years of experiment he offered the tentative theories known as Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, and the Struggle for Existence. Herbert Spencer added to this outlay of theories his own doctrine that evolution is an advancement from a state of heterogeneity to a state of homogeneity with concomitant loss of energy; and subsequent evolutionists have contributed still other doctrines until there is, if one may so dub it, a whole "theology" of evolution, doctrine within doctrine, like the "wheels within wheels" that Ezekiel saw in his fantastic visions. It is a great mistake to suppose that all this is necessarily the "philosophy of science," because there cannot be any such thing, but it is true that for a long time scientists were its most zealous propagators, and these same men were careless enough to mix up this philosophy with their scientific researches with the results that many of their books are neither philosophy nor science, but an impossible medley of both, as one will find, for instance, in Haeckel's obsolete "Riddle of the Universe," a volume very accurately named.

The mischief of this procedure lay in the fact that the scientist was not left free to face facts as he might find them, but had evermore to see them through the colored glasses of his "evolutionary philosophy," with the result that he ceased to be a scientist and became a propagandist of certain theories about things in general. This has played sad havoc with much modern; science, especially in the general field of anthropology, as witness Herbert Spencer's laborious attempts to prove that all anthropological data conform to the dogmas of Darwinism.

Dr. Lowie has completely freed himself from this philosophical harness not only because it is not a part of the scientist's business to philosophize, but also because he cannot otherwise see things as they really are: and he himself is at great pains to make clear his position, as one may see, on page 56, where he makes a criticism of Lewis H. Morgan's famous "Ancient Society," a volume still considered as a locus classicus. Morgan, who was an evolutionist first of all, and filled with missionary zeal to propagate its — doctrines, when he came to examine the phenomena of sex life among savages simply assumed that the evolutionary theory as he understood it would explain everything so he merely set forth the theory as though he were giving us the facts, though it chanced that nothing could be more dissimilar than the two. I shall give Dr. Lowie's own words:

"For the mid-Victorian thinker (Morgan) it was a foregone conclusion requiring only statement, not proof, that monogamy is the highest form of marriage in the best of conceivable universes; and it was equally axiomatic that early man must have lived under conditions infinitely removed from that ideal goal. So Morgan made no pretense at producing empirical proof of pristine promiscuity, which in fact he assigned to the period when man was still hovering near the border line between humanity and a lower organic stage. He advanced promiscuity as a logical postulate precisely as some evolutionary philosophers advance the axiom of spontaneous generation; and thereby placed it beyond the range of scientific discussion."

If the reader will read and reread this quotation, carefully ponder every word in it, and compare it with the attitude of most writers who deal with large fields of investigation, he will find in it a clear revelation of the fact that scientists are at last beginning to learn that they must free themselves from all a priori theorizings and keep themselves free to face facts as they really are. It is the breaking of a new day in the world of thought. Science had first to be divorced from theology; science must now be divorced from philosophy. Dr. Lowie's study, though it was by no means its primary purpose, is a great adventure toward the latter goal, which is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

To the Masonic student the two prize chapters in the book are X and XI, the former of which deals with "Associations," the latter with "Theories of Associations," for it is in these chapters that Dr. Lowie treats secret societies among primitive people, a theme made so familiar to us in recent years by Hutton Webster's volume, "Primitive Secret Societies." After a reader has gone carefully through Dr. Webster's book he will find a certain advantage in going over the same ground again in Dr. Lowie's volume, for in the latter the whole scheme of savage secret cults and initiations is put into a larger framework of fact, so that one is better able to see it in its just perspectives. There is no space left to canvass with thoroughness the two chapters in "Primitive Society," but one thing at least may be said which will be not without point to those who have been working much in the field: Dr. Lowie shows that savage initiation and secrecy is all of a piece with the rest of primitive life; the savage goes at it not from the motive of occultism, but merely as a means of bringing about certain conditions in his own world. It is only in their most superficial aspects that the secret societies of one tribe are like the secret societies of another tribe, for the inwardness and structural peculiarities are in all cases very different, so that to generalize about primitive secret societies in general, as so many of our Masonic writers are wont to do, is one of the most dangerous of practices.

Primitive peoples, as they lived in the now civilized portions of the globe before the beginning of what we call history, and as they now live in the more backward portions, such as Polynesia and Melanesia, constitute as yet a terra incognita, an unknown world. Of the more superficial facts concerning them we know something, but of the inner nature of their world we know so little that it is ever the mark of wisdom to say, "Let us not be too certain about these things." Meanwhile it is a great gain that the lead is being taken by such men as Dr. Lowie, who are laboriously stripping themselves of all preconceptions in order that they may furnish us with a veridical picture of the life of primitive folk — primitive folk who are, after all is said and done, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and as much like ourselves as peas in a pod except that the circumstances and accidents of their lives are as different as possible from our own.

H. L. Haywood.

* * *


(By a happy coincidence this brief examination of a new and important work in Freemasonry reached the editor's hands immediately after the receipt of a copy of the work from the author himself. An examination of the work by the editor will follow shortly, which will not be a work of supererogation, because Brother Ward's volume is one that deserves critical examination at many hands. It is probable that The National Masonic Research Society will carry the work in its Book List as soon as arrangements can be made with the English publishers.)

One of our beloved brethren has very wisely said that "Freemasonry is a very peculiar Institution, in a very peculiar world and in a very peculiar time in the history of the world." One of the most distinguished Masonic scholars, G. W. Speth, has given a solid foundation for Masonic study in his "What is Freemasonry," in which he says: "Freemasonry may be looked at in two lights — as a corporation and as a peculiar cult. In its first aspect its origin is fairly demonstrable; in the other it is involved in mystery. Its physical development can be traced with sufficient accuracy; its ethical evolution is a great puzzle."

Masonic literature is very voluminous. It not only covers a vast field of exact history, speculative philosophy, and ritualistic interpretation of symbolic teaching, but also gives a wide diversity of opinion which is deduced from the facts at the disposal of its many talented writers.

We live in an age of specialization. The general and versatile student of Freemasonry may be able to acquire a broad and fairly comprehensive conception of all the many phases of the subject as a whole, but it is to the writers who have specialized that we are indebted for the means of acquiring the same.

Although the writers of the past fifty years have brought the literature to a point where it commands the respect and admiration of intellectual men, it seems advisable to offer a word of caution. Every student ought to verify the things which are stated as facts in any book, and reserve an opinion on the theories of the writer until he has an opportunity to weigh the adverse criticism and be able to judge with reason based on knowledge.

The first aspect of Freemasonry of which Brother Speth speaks has been fairly well covered, and by reading the standard works of the best authors we may find a satisfactory solution to the origin of the physical corporation, now well established as a Grand Lodge system. Unfortunately those who have been qualified to understand the vast field of information regarding its "ethical evolution," or its symbolic teaching, and the transmission of such teaching from a remote past, have either veiled their writings in technical, obscure, and at times allegorical phraseology, or have had a tendency to inculcate dogmatic ideas. The interest which centers about this most difficult phase of Masonic study is keen and beneficial. It is to be hoped that its development along lines of scholarly research will be as helpful to the literature of the Craft in the near future as that of the "authentic school" of writers dealing with its physical development has been in the past.

All this by way of directing attention to an attempt to establish an "Anthropological School" by a talented English brother, J. S. M. Ward, in his "Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods," a book of 373 pages just brought out by a London publisher.

The Masonic student who has unsuccessfully endeavored to understand the twenty-eighth chapter of "Morals and Dogma" fails to see the connection between symbols used by solar and stellar cults and modern Freemasonry in "Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man"; he wishes John Yarker had given the sources of his information in "Arcane Schools," and he is only partially satisfied with Mrs. Cooper-Oakley's hints in "Traces of a Hidden Tradition in Masonry and Medieval Mysticism." Such a one may find in the work of Brother Ward much that will satisfy his longing for light on the subject. It is written in a clear and scholarly style and leaves no doubt as to the theories and belief of the author.

In his preface Brother Ward states his hopes that others may be led to follow up his investigations. "In so doing no doubt they will disagree with some of my conclusions — even perhaps disprove them — but the sum total of our knowledge cannot fail to be increased."

The work deals with a considerable amount of symbolism relating to the Royal Arch and Scottish Rite degrees and brings to mind the theory recently expounded by Bro. J. E. S. Tuckett, of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, in which he advocates:

"That before 1717 Freemasonry possessed a store of legend, tradition, and symbolism of wide extent. That from 1717 the Grand Lodge selected a portion only of this store, gradually evolving a Rite consisting of E.A., F.C., M.M., and R.A. That the restriction of the terms 'pure,' 'Ancient,' and (in a certain sense) 'Craft' to the degrees included in this Rite is arbitrary, and due solely to the accident of selection by the G. L. That the earliest Additional Degrees were founded on other portions of the same store. That they were founded by Britons, and are as much a British Institution as the Grand Lodge Rite itself."

Brother Ward has given a vast amount of information regarding the use of symbols in ancient civilizations and in modern times by semicivilized people and by Mohammedans in India. Although written explanations of the symbols of particular interest to Masons must of necessity be somewhat veiled, the author has particularized enough to make his work clear to the reader who would be interested in it.

The title of the work hardly appears to express its theme, which is the symbolic teaching of basic truths by every people in all ages. Is this Freemasonry? If it is, we can indeed claim an origin that is lost in the dim past. If by Freemasonry we allude to the organization it assumes an entirely different aspect. Brother Ward is a student and thoroughly familiar with the best works of the "authentic school" dealing with its physical development and has happily interwoven much of this in his work.

Short extracts have a tendency to confuse and possibly misrepresent, but the following is offered with the hope that judgment be suspended until it is read in connection with the chapter in which it appears:

"I do not call a New Guinea native a Freemason because he uses a certain Masonic sign. What I contend is: That these signs were part of the original initiatory rites of the savages, and these rites were the basis from which developed the mysteries and the modern religious systems of the world."

This work will particularly elucidate much that the Masonic student would desire in Prof. Hutton Webster's "Primitive Secret Societies."

Silas H. Shepherd.

* * *


"Jokes For All Occasions," "Selected and Edited by one of America's Foremost Public Speakers." Published by Edward J. Clode, 156 Fifth Ave., New York, N. Y. Price $1.00.

Orators, chaplains, toastmasters, public speakers, after dinner speakers, stump orators, et al, attention! Have you ever been in a box where you would have given your right hand for a telling anecdote, or a good roaring humorous story? Here is the book that you need. It is a volume of more than 300 well stocked pages, bound in substantial cloth of Irish hue, and marketed at the modest price of one dollar. As a compend of genuine American humor it is, in the experience of the writer, absolutely unmatched, and far more useful than those five-foot shelves of "the world's greatest humor" and all that, most of which works are filled up with stories of faded color, the aroma of which has long since vanished away. What is so dull as humor that has lost its savor?

In the present volume, the editor of which was too shy to admit his identity, there are no duds. Every joke is in At shape, primed and fused, and ready for business. Furthermore, the jokes are arranged under headings alphabetically ordered, so that one may quickly turn to the sort of thing he needs, as for instance, Love, Lunacy, Luxury, Lying, Maidens, Manners, Marksmanship, Marriage, etc. The collection is prefaced by an essay (author unsigned) on humor in general and American humor in particular, which same essay is as studded with wit as a pudding with raisins. Here is one of the said raisins:

"Anent the Irish bull, we may quote an Irishman's answer when asked to define a bull: 'If you see thirteen cows lying down in a field, and one of them is standing up, that's a bull !' "

A specimen of a bull is given in the case of a sad break by one Sir Boyle Roche who, in addressing the Irish House of Commons, asserted stoutly:

"Single misfortunes never come alone, and the greatest of all possible misfortune is usually followed by a greater."

Here are two or three examples of the American variety of humor drawn from the body of the book which will suffice to exhibit the nature of the collection:

It was shortly after Thanksgiving Day that someone asked the little boy to define the word "appetite." His reply was prompt and enthusiastic: "When you're eating you're 'appy; and when you get through you're tight — that's appetite."

The recruit complained to the sergeant that he'd got a splinter in his finger: "Ye should have more sinse," was the harsh comment, "than to scratch your head."

A small boy was asked to describe the spinal column. His reply was most graphic. "It is a long limber bone. Our head sets on one end; we set on the other."

Here is a joke that Mark Twain would have been proud to sign:

"The old farmer and his wife visited the menagerie. When they halted before the hippopotamus' cage, he remarked admiringly:

"Darned curious fish, ain't it, ma?"

"That ain't a fish," the wife announced. "That's a rep-tile."

It was thus that the argument began. It progressed to a point of such violence that the old lady began laboring the husband with her umbrella. The old man dodged and ran, the wife in pursuit. The trainer had just opened the door of the lion's cage, and the farmer popped in. He crowded in behind the largest lion and peered over its shoulder fearfully at his wife, who, on the other side of the bars, shook her umbrella furiously.

"Coward !" she shouted. "Coward !"

H. L. Haywood.

* * *


"The Middle Ages" by Dana Carleton Munro, Dodge Professor Medieval History, Princeton University. Published by The Century Company, 1921, at $3.50. This is Volume IV of The Century Historical Series of which George Lincoln Burr, of Cornell University, is general editor.

This volume follows the familiar path through the Middle Ages. It begins with the germanic migrations and the formation of the papacy, and continues to the era of expansion during which time this continent was discovered, and Europe found a chance to breathe. The chapters are neatly divided, and each paragraph has its own signpost in the shape of a little subhead printed in the margin. There are the usual maps, a very complete and detailed index, and also a fairly exhaustive bibliography. Professor Munro, who needlessly apologizes for this bibliography, refers his readers to Paetow's "Guide to the Study of Medieval History" which he describes as being "so excellent that it seems a work of supererogation to attempt to make complete bibliographies again."

Any Medieval History, unless it is mere trash, is good reading for a Mason, and this is no exception to the rule, for it is well worth any man's time and money. It is doubtful if one could find more information crowded into simpler language or less space than here. The chapters on The Papacy and the Monks, Feudalism, The Church to 954 A. D., The Empire Under the Papacy, Crusades to 1187, Holy Roman Empire, The Later Crusades, Monasticism, Towns and Trade, Heresy and the Friars, and Innocent III and the Church (especially the last named), are of peculiar interest to Masonic students and should be carefully studied.

The high spot in every such history to a Mason is almost always the writer's account of the guilds. Professor Munro does not devote much space to the subject, but what he has to say is well said, as witness the following paragraph, which is taken from page 347:

"Gradually craft guilds superseded the gild merchant. These were associations of men engaged in the same trade, and their primary object was to make rules for the trade and to keep a monopoly for the members. A craft guild usually made only one thing; for instance, one guild made arrows, another bowstrings, and a third bows. The subdivision of industry was carried to very great lengths, so that in a single town there might be more than a dozen separate guilds making leather or leather products, or a guild might specialize in a single kind of hat, as the peacock-hatters did. We are fortunate in having an account of one hundred of the craft guilds, or mysteries, in Paris, drawn up by an official of Louis IX. The head men in each made a statement as to their organization and rules. There are extant rules of individual crafts in different countries and for different dates, which prove that it is safe to generalize from the statements of the mysteries (or guilds) in Paris. The master workman had to have a house of his own, to know his trade, and to be of good moral character. In some guilds he was allowed to have only one apprentice, but might take a second when the first had nearly completed his apprenticeship. This was frequently six years. The apprentice was to be treated as a son, and could appeal to the officials of the craft in case of brutality. His duties were to open and close the shop, run errands and learn the trade. He was not to be made to wash dishes or tend a baby; the master's wife was not allowed to beat him. At the end of his term he might become a master if he had money enough and could prove his ability as a workman. All work was to be done by daylight except in the case of guilds that made luxuries for the nobles; these were not restricted as to hours of work. Each craft guild had its patron saint and attended church in a body. Craft guilds acted as mutual aid societies for burials, for the care of widows, orphans, sick and poor. They also had banquets. They had to furnish men for the city watch. Their special duty was to maintain the quality of the product, but they seldom succeeded in doing this for any long period of time; for, in spite of stringent rules, there were many frauds. Occasionally the mysteries (or guilds) gave a play. Such a mystery play at York consisted of a series of scenes beginning with a representation of the creation of the world and ending with the Judgment Day. The various crafts each had a part; for example, the fishmongers and mariners represented Noah in the ark, with his family and animals; the vintners represented the marriage of Cana, where the water was turned into wine."

This paragraph exhibits what is at once the weakness and the strength of every brief Medieval History: a great deal of matter is condensed into a page or two, that is the strength; but in order to make such a condensation, all manner of exceptions, peculiarities, and variations are ignored; that is the weakness. The story of the guilds is nowise so simple as Professor Munro here makes it out to be, albeit he makes no misstatements in his account.

For the non-professional student who needs a ready reference manual on a large field of history, this volume is most admirably adapted. The more thorough student will find it necessary to turn to the specialists and read on one portion of Medievalism at a time. If one needs a Medieval History that is at once thorough and complete it is probable that the Cambridge Medieval History is the best.

H. L. Haywood.

* * *


We are constantly receiving inquiries from members of the Society and others as to where they might obtain books on Masonry and kindred subjects, other than those listed each month on the inside back cover of THE BUILDER. Most of the publications wanted have been out of print for years. Believing that many such books might be in the hands of other members of the Society willing to dispose of them we are setting apart this column each month for the use of our members. Communications from those having old Masonic publications will also be welcomed.

Post office addresses are here given that those interested may communicate direct with each other, no responsibility of any nature to be attached to the Society.

It is requested that all brethern whose wants may be filled through this medium communicate with the Secretary so that the notices may then be discontinued.


By Bro. D. D. Berolzheimer, 1 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y.: "Realities of Masonry," Blake, 1879; "Records of the Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons," Condor, 1894; "Masonic Bibliography," Carson, 1873; "Origin of Freemasonry," Paine, 1811.

By Bro. Ernest E. Ford, 305 South Wilson Avenue, Alhambra, California; Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, volumes 3, 6 and 7, with St. John's Cards, also St. John's Cards for volumes 4 and 5; "Masonic Review," early volumes; "Voice of Masonry," early volumes; Transactions Supreme Council Southern Jurisdiction for the years 1882 and 1886; Original Proceedings of The General Grand Encampment Knights Templar for the years 1826 and 1835.

By Bro. E. A. Marsh, 820 Broad Ave., N. W. Canton, Ohio: "The Traditions of Freemasonry," by A.T.C. Pierson, published at St. Paul Minn., 1865.

By Bro. Silas H. Shepherd, Hartland, Wisconsin: "Catalogue of the Masonic Library of Samuel Lawrence," "Second Edition of Preston's Illustrations of Masonry."

By Bro. H. H. Klussmann, 310 Monastery St., West Hoboken, N. J.: "Traditions of Freemasonry," by A. T. C. Pierson; "Illustrations of Masonry," by Preston.

By Brother N. W. J. Haydon, 564 Pape Ave., Toronto, Ont., Canada: A set of Gould's History, six volume edition preferred.


By Bro. Silas H. Shepherd, Hartland, Wisconsin: "Stray Leaves from a Freemason's Note Book," by George Oliver. This volume also contains "Some Account of the Schism showing the presumed origin of the Royal Arch Degree." Univ. Mas. Lib. edition. Price $3.00. "Lights and Shadows of Freemasonry," by Robert Morris. (Fiction and anecdotes.) Price $3.50.

By Bro F. R. Johnson, 3425 East 61st St., Kansas City, Mo.: "The History of Freemasonry," by Robert Freke Gould, published by the John C. Yorkston Co., silk cloth binding, first-class condition, four volumes, $17.00; "History of Freemasonry," by J. W. S. Mitchell, P. G. M. of Missouri 1844-45, full morocco binding, $15.00; "The History of Freemasonry," by Albert G. Mackey, seven volumes, practically new, $30.00; "The Standard History of Freemasonry," by J. Fletcher Brennan, published in 1885, one volume; "Gems from the Quarry," by John H. Brownell, Editor of the American Tyler, 1893, $6.00; "Antiquities of the Orient Unveiled," by M. Walcott Redding, 1877, $5.00; "History and Cyclopaedia," by Oliver and Macoy, full morocco binding, $10.00.

* * *

If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead, either write things worth reading or do things worth writing

— Benjamin Franklin.

* * *


THE BUILDER is an open forum for free and fraternal discussion. Each of its contributors writes under his own name, and is responsible for his own opinions. Believing that a unity of spirit is better than a uniformity of opinion, the Research Society, as such, does not champion any one school of Masonic thought as over against another, but offers to all alike a medium for fellowship and instruction, leaving each to stand or fall by its own merits.

The Question Box and Correspondence Column are open to all members of the Society at all times. Questions of any nature on Masonic subjects are earnestly invited from our members, particularly those connected with lodges or study clubs which are following our "Bulletin Course of Masonic Study." When requested, questions will be answered promptly by mail before publication in this department.


Is it true as I have recently heard it said, that the symbol of the Virgin Weeping Over the Broken Column is of American origin ?

T.H.F., Florida.

The best answer to your reply will be found in an article on "The Broken Column," written by Brother C.C. Hunt, and published in the Quarterly Bulletin of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, July 1921. We print the entire article:

This emblem has usually been considered as an invention of Brother Jeremy L. Cross and doubtless he is largely responsible for its present form in our work. Brother Robert B. Folger in the Masonic Newspaper of May 10, 1879, giving Cross's account of its introduction into the work says:

"The causes which led him first to devise the plan of such a work were as follows: He was passionately fond of Masonry, studied under Thomas Smith Webb, Gleason, and others, became perfect under them in the lectures and work, and then started through the country as a lecturer in the year 1810. He was a man of excellent appearance in early life, very fluent in language, and, withal, a very fine singer. As a matter of course, he became very popular, the business of lecturing flowed in upon him very fast, and he had as much to engage his mind in that line as he could well attend to. Wishing to take advantage of all the business that offered, he found the work slow of accomplishment by reason of delays caused by imperfect memories. He wanted something of an objective kind, which would have the effect of bringing to mind the various subjects of his lectures, and so fixing the details in the mind, as with the sets of objects presented to the sight, the lectures in detail would be complete.

"There was riot at that time any guide for lodges except the so-called Master's Carpet and the works of Preston and Webb. The Master's Carpet was deficient, being without many of the most important emblems, and those which it displayed were very much 'mixed up.' The work of Preston did not agree with the 'adopted work.' That of Webb agreed perfectly, but still was wanting in its most important part, viz., the hieroglyphics, by which the work is plainly and uniformly presented to the learner, rendering it easy of acquirement, and imprinting it upon the mind in such a manner that it will not readily be forgotten.

"He considered the matter for many months, and finally attempted to draw various plans, taking Webb's Monitor for a guide. Part of the work he accomplished satisfactorily to himself. This included the first and second degrees, and although there was but little really original in the emblems which he produced, yet the classification and arrangement was his own. He went on with the third degree very well, as far as the Monitor of Webb goes, when he came to a pause.

"There was a deficiency in the third degree which had to be filled in order to effect his purposes, and he became wearied in thinking over the subject. He finally consulted a brother, formerly a Mayor of New Haven, who at the time was one of his most intimate friends, and they, after working together for a week or more, could not hit upon any symbol which would be sufficiently simple and yet answer the purpose. Whereupon the copper-plate engraver, also a brother, who was doing his work, was called in. They went at the business with renewed courage, and the number of hieroglyphics which had by this time accumulated was immense. Some were too large, some too small, some too complicated, requiring too much explanation, and many not at all adapted to the subject. 'Finally,' said the copper-plate printer, 'Brother Cross, when great men die, they generally have a monument.' 'That's right,' said Cross; 'I never thought of that,' and away he went.

"He was missing from the company, and was found loitering around the burying-ground in New Haven in a maze. He had surveyed all that was there, but did not seem satisfied. At last he got an idea, whereupon the council came together again, and he then told them that he had got the foundation of what he wanted — that while sojourning in New York City he had seen the monument erected over Commodore Lawrence in the southwest corner of Trinity Church yard; that it was a glorious monument to the memory of a great man who fell in battle. It was a large marble pillar, broken off. The part broken off was taken away, but they had left the capital lying at the base. He would have that pillar for the foundation of his new emblem, but would bring the other part of the pillar in, leaving it resting against the base. Then one could know what it all meant. The other part of the pillar should be there. This was assented to, but more was wanted. They needed some inscription describing the merits of the dead. They found no place on the column, and after a lengthy discussion they hit upon an open book, placed upon the broken pillar. But there should, in the order of things, be some reader of the book, so they selected the emblem of innocence in a beautiful virgin, who should weep over the memory of the deceased while she read of his heroic deeds.

"It would be proper to state that the monument erected to the memory of Commodore Lawrence was put up in the southwest corner of Trinity Churchyard, in the year 1813, after the fight between the frigates Chesapeake and Shannon, in which battle Lawrence fell. It was a beautiful marble pillar, broken off, and a part of the capital laid at its base. The monument remained there until 1844-45, at which time Trinity Church had been taken down and rebuilt as it now stands. When finished, all the debris was cleaned away the burial grounds trimmed and fancifully decorated, and the corporation of the church took away the old and dilapidated monument of Lawrence from that spot and erected a new one of a different form, placing it in the front of the yard on Broadway, at the lower entrance of the church, where it now stands. Brother Cross and myself visited the new monument together, and he expressed great disappointment at the change, saying 'it was not half as good as the one, they had taken away!'"

The claim of Cross to having originated the emblem is, however, disputed. Oliver speaks of the monument but does not assign to it an American origin and the idea itself is very old. In the Barney ritual of 1817, formerly in the possession of Samuel Wilson of Vermont, which was the work adopted by the Grand Lodge of Iowa in 1860, there is the marble column, the beautiful virgin weeping, the open book, the Sprig of Acacia, the urn, and Time standing behind. The only part lacking is the Broken Column and the words referring to this were added later. Samuel Wilson says: "Previous to 1826, but the date or circumstances of their getting in I cannot recall." Thus it would seem that everything in the present emblem except the reference to the Broken Column was in use prior to the publication of Cross's Work and in fact the emblem in somewhat different form is frequently found in ancient symbolism.

With the Jews the column symbolized the princes, rulers or nobles, and a broken column denoted that a pillar of the state had fallen.

In Egyptian mythology Isis is sometimes pictured weeping the broken column which conceals the body of her husband while behind her stands Horus or Time pouring ambrosia on her hair.

In Hastings' "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics," Isis is said to be sometimes represented standing. In her right hand is sistrum, in her left a small ewer and on her forehead is a lotus, emblem of the resurrection.

In the Dionysiac Mysteries Dionysius is represented as slain, Rhea goes in search of the body. She finds it and causes it to be buried in due form. She is sometimes represented as standing by a column holding in her hand a sprig of wheat, emblem immortality, since though it be placed in the ground and die it springs again into newness of life. She was the wife of Kronus or Time, who may fittingly be represented as standing behind her.

While, therefore, it may be true that Cross gave to the emblem its present form it cannot be said that he gave expression to an entirely new idea. The greater part of it is an adaption rather than an invention.

* * *


I write to ask you to explain the meaning of the word "hecatomb." I asked our Master what it means and he told me it had something to do with geometry, but that doesn't seem to fit in with the context.

W.H.R., Virginia.

It does not fit in with the context at all, or with anything else. "Hecatomb" originally referred to the sacrifice of a hundred oxen, but after long usage came to denote any large sacrifice. It is said that after Pythagoras had discovered the Forty-Seventh Proposition he sacrificed a hecatomb to give expression to his joy. Inasmuch as Pythagoras was a philosopher who practiced vegetarianism, and taught that it is wicked to slay living creatures, it is hardly possible that this is history.

* * *


I am interested to learn if churches have gained or lost in membership during the past few years. Have the Roman Catholics gained faster than the Protestants?

D. S. A., Illinois.

You will find the matter carefully worked out by Gustavus Myers in Current History for October last, on page 934 and following. He bases all his statements on the last church census, which was taken in 1916.

From 1906 to 1916 Protestant churches gained 4,735,990, or 23.4 per cent. During the same period the Roman Catholic church gained 1,511,060, or 10.6 per cent. In sixteen of the forty-eight states the Catholic church lost membership during the period; in eighteen other states it increased in membership, but its rate of increase was less than during the period of 1896-1906. Even in those states where immigration is heaviest the lineman Catholics did not grow as rapidly as the Protestants. The states in which the Roman Catholics made an absolute gain are Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, and Ohio. Of the total Roman Catholic membership twenty-five per cent are children. It is estimated that 74.4 are under thirteen years of age. Moreover it should be remembered that in that church membership is based on the population of a parish, and all members of the family are included after baptism, whether they have formally expressed a desire for membership or not. Of all church members in the United States 37.5 are Roman Catholic: Roman Catholics comprise 15.5 of the total population, which means about one person in six or seven. Protestant churches have 59.7 per cent of the membership of all churches; or about 24.5 per cent of the total population. The Mormon Church gained in every one of the thirty-nine states where it flourishes except in Wisconsin, its gain amounting to 40,280 members in ten years. Their total membership is 205,682. The Jewish churches have 255,678. There are 313,626 Eastern Catholics in the land, and 45,959 belonging to religions other than Christianity.

* * *


Was William Morris a Freemason?

F.J.H., Illinois.

He was not, but he should have been, for, with his education as an architect, and with his great love for the Middle Ages, not to speak of his passion for brotherhood and for equality, he would have greatly enjoyed Masonic fellowship. As it was he wrote many great and beautiful things about the builders and their craft, and did much to recall his generation to a renewed appreciation of the handicrafts which were in danger of becoming lost arts through the introduction of machinery. It was he who wrote,

"Brotherhood is heaven,
The lack of brotherhood is hell,"

a saying which might well be inscribed above the lintels of the Masonic temple. One of these days we shall publish a very interesting article about this brother who was an uninitiated Mason; meanwhile you may be recommended to read the authorized life by Mackail, and also the little brochure by the English poet who has turned American, Alfred Noyes. The latter work is to be found in the "English Men of Letters" series, and is richly worth while.

* * *


In these days when our Constitutional Government — that same government for which our Masonic fathers fought and toiled — is being attacked by so many groups of law violators, wouldn't it be a good thing for Masonic lodges to carry on a quiet campaign for law enforcement?

G. H., Kansas.

If every such worth while purpose were made a Masonic duty where would the end be ? The "causes" in behalf of which the Fraternity is constantly solicited are numberless: there has to be an end somewhere. However, it may well be that some subordinate lodge may be situated in a community in which it could do much good by insisting on law enforcement, — if it carries on such a campaign in a strictly Masonic manner. As to law enforcement itself, and the philosophy that lies behind it, one could not improve on the words of our Attorney-General, Brother H. M. Daugherty, in a speech made before the Ohio Bar Association:

"As early as 1780 the Massachusetts Bill of Rights declared for the separation of powers, and assigned as a sufficient reason therefor — 'to the end that this may be a government of laws and not of men.' One of the fallacies of our present-day thinking is that questions of the supremacy of the law and law enforcement must be made an issue in political elections. It is always vital to know the views of the executive in State or Nation on questions of proposed legislative policy; for the chief executive in the Nation and in the States in which he exercises the veto power and in which he is required to give the legislative department information on the state of public affairs and to recommend to them measures of legislation, is a part of the legislative power, and in the course of our development such executive has become not only an organ of public opinion but also the political leader of his party. Hence, the electors are entitled to know the position of the executive on matters of legislative policy. But it can never be proper in a government of law and not of men to demand a definition of his attitude towards the enforcement of law. Practical politics sometimes makes this demand, but to the extent that such practical politics is effective it is contrary to the spirit and purpose of our government. Our Fathers who framed our Constitution would have spurned any such political philosophy.

"If any citizen dislikes the law under which he is living, his relief is through the legislative department of Government, and not through those who, under the Constitution, have the sworn duty of enforcing the law. As a citizen cannot choose what laws he will obey, so, likewise, those charged with law enforcement cannot choose what laws they will enforce. The only sound position for those who favor respect for law to take is that those charged with law enforcement must enforce all the laws, and all good citizens must obey all the laws; neither can exercise any right of choice in this matter without placing themselves above the law. It is the part of faithful officials to enforce and the part of good citizens to obey them.

"Another subject closely related to the topic just discussed that tends to undermine respect for law and which has been a mooted question in every system of constitutional government, is the mistaken theories of the relation and attitude of the minority to the majority. Recently, we hear much about the rights of the minority, as if it had a special privilege of not obeying the law because it is made by the majority.

"Our constitutional Fathers understood thoroughly the political philosophy underlying the relation of government to individuals and to minor groups of individuals. There was nothing in the doctrine of minorities in relation to majorities that was not before them for consideration. They gave to the world its first solution of that problem in an instrument which protects the rights of minorities, as far as they ought to be protected, and, at the same time, left the majority free to carry out the sovereign will.

"The theory of our constitutional system, as framed by our Fathers, as is well known to all, is, that there is a field of rights, privileges, and immunities set off as a separate domain into which the powers of government cannot enter. They also provided the first agency in the world's history for protecting this excluded domain from trespass by government by establishing a judicial system with power to say to the various agencies of the Government: 'Thus far thou shalt go and no farther.' The Fathers did not claim infallibility for the rule of the majority. They provided against hasty or inconsiderate action by a system of checks and balances by the doctrine of the separation of powers, and by making the two branches of the Legislature as well as the Executive, agencies in law making. This system insured careful consideration and the opportunity for the public sentiment of the Nation and States to express itself."

* * *


The Toronto Lodge of Masonic Research wishes to compile a mailing list of other Lodges of Research, Masonic Study Clubs, and similar bodies in the Craft, with whom it can exchange literary matter, and in any other way, further the welfare of the Order and our mutual interests. Secretaries of such bodies are requested to send their addresses to the undersigned, Secretary of the Toronto Lodge of Masonic Research.

N. W. J. Haydon, 564 Pape Ave.,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

* * *


I wish to express my agreement with Brother Bingay in regard to the publication of articles detrimental to the Roman Catholic Church.

The official Masonic teaching on this subject is contained in the ritual, and is so plain that no brother who knows the ritual can fail to be forcibly impressed by it. It is the first and fundamental lesson of Masonry that we should not carry into the lodge anything offensive or defensive, and its last lesson is to the effect that we should practice out of the lodge the great moral duties inculcated in it. How does this indisputable Masonic teaching compare with the statement that "there never was a time when it was more essential for Masons for such defense than the present." As long as we find nothing offensive within the lodge we have no need to look around for weapons with which to defend ourselves.

All articles written by Masons who are vehemently opposed to the Roman Church have one common characteristic, and that is, not hatred, but fear. They are afraid that the attitude of that great and powerful organization will hurt Masonry, and their love for the Order prompts them to defend it with every weapon they can find. But, thank God, Masonry needs no such defense. It is too strong, too sublime, too glorious an institution to be disturbed by the hostile attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. A real Mason will give no more attention to the past and present condemnations of the Holy Father than a lion does to the barking of a dog. This is a proud statement, but more worthy, I believe, of a certain title, than a humble, direct or indirect acknowledgment of our fear.

There is still another side to the question. A brother with fear and envy in his heart will close himself up against anything good and pleasant and beautiful that may possibly be contained in that old institution. To appreciate art we must love it, and we can love it only if we place it in the right perspective and in the proper surroundings. The writer of these lines had the privilege of attending mass in many beautiful cathedrals in Europe, among them the Church of St. Peter in Rome. He found God there, and he enjoyed the beauty of the architecture, of the music, and of the ritual. He also attended worship in the beautiful Mother Church of Christian Scientists in Boston, Mass., and he found God there also. But he could never have enjoyed these services as he did, if he had been afraid of Roman Catholics or of Christian Scientists. Surely, there are so many good and useful and beautiful things in this world that there should be no time left to give our attention to anything else.

A story is told of a brother who came to live in a little town, mostly Roman Catholic, which was badly in need of a new and larger church. The Mason, who was well to do, formed a committee and went to work to build that church. After its completion the Roman Catholic priest came to him and thanked him for what he had done, at the same time expressing his astonishment that he being a Mason, should show such respect to the Church.

"Well," said the brother, "you worship God in your way and I in His."

So let us be friends.

Joseph Hollrigl, New Hampshire.

(The position of THE BUILDER regarding the publication of articles concerning the political and anti-Masonic policies of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is stated in the Editorial Department of this issue. — Editor.)

* * *


The paragraph on Christian Science and Freemasonry which appeared in the August, 1921, issue of THE BUILDER is of more than passing interest.

In "Miscellaneous Writings," p. 142, and in "The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany," both publications by Mary Baker Eddy, may be found two beautiful letters written by the discoverer and founder of Christian Science.

Further, Article XXXV, Section 2, in the first revised edition of the "Church Manual" which contains all the rules and by-laws of the Mother Church, also written by Mary Baker Eddy, specifies the "seventy-third edition as authority." In Article VIII, Section 15, of the 73rd edition we read: "Members of this Church shall not become members of organizations which exclude either sex — except they are Freemasons."

It was the privilege of the writer to be on a Masonic committee appointed to investigate whether or not there was anything in the Masonic doctrines that would conflict with those of Christian Science, and vice versa. It was the unanimous decision of the committee that there was none.

The foregoing information may be of interest to many brethren who seem to be perplexed over this "peril."

Wm. A. Theobald, Illinois.

* * *


Referring to the inquiry of Brother C.O.B., Oregon, in the Question Box Department of the December, 1921, number of THE BUILDER, I will say that if the inquirer and the brother who wrote the reply to his question should visit Burlington County, New Jersey, we Jersey Masons could introduce them to quite a number of brother Masons who are members of the "Society of Friends," i. e. Quakers.

In my own lodge there are two such brethren, one of them a Past Master, and both quite active in the Fraternity. We have two more members who claim the right to call themselves "Friends," being what are called "birthright" members of that sect. A glance at a list of officers and Past Masters of nearby lodges reveals the names of eight or ten more, one of these being the Master of his lodge.

It was always my impression that Benjamin Franklin was a Quaker, but on looking up the subject I have not been able to find any corroborative evidence. On the contrary, one Encyclopsedia says he was buried in Christ Church burying ground. This may be true, but Christ Church is on Second Street, while Franklin's grave is near the corner of Fourth and Arch Streets, Philadelphia. The plot of ground may have belonged to Christ Church, but if so that church must have sold it, graves and all, since at the present time it is occupied by a Friends' Meeting House, and a very old one. Perhaps some of our Philadelphia brethren can give us the history of the particular piece of ground in which Franklin is buried.

V. M. Irick, New Jersey.

* * *


On page 351 of the December issue of THE BUILDER Brother Dern says: "Masonry laid down the first eight-hour law," etc. Perhaps this statement is correct, but this division of the twenty-four hours into three equal parts is certainly a modelm innovation. It was used as far back as 1830, though the Oliver-Macoy "Cyclopedia," edition of 1869, on page 691, says, ". . . which we are taught to divide into three parts, whereby we find a portion for the service of God," etc. No mention is made of equal parts, or eight hours. It might prove of interest to learn just when this division of time into three equal parts of eight hours each first appears in our ritual. It is not universal, for Massachusetts still adheres to the old form. I should be glad to learn if there are other jurisdictions in which the eight-hour law has not been adopted.

V. M. Irick, New Jersey.

* * *


I read with great pleasure the article in the December number of THE BUILDER on the monitorial emblems of the Third degree by Brother Dern.

Here are some Bible references which I have selected to go with some of these emblems:

THE POT OF INCENSE is an emblem of a pure heart, which is always an acceptable sacrifice to Deity. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Matthew V, 8.

THE BEE HIVE is an emblem of industry. "Let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good." Ephesians IV, 28. "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work." John IX, 4.

THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS GUARDED BY THE TYLER'S SWORD reminds us that we should be ever watchful and guarded in our thoughts, words and actions. "Take the helmet of salvation, and of the Spirit which is the word of God." Ephesians VI, 17. "Ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." I Peter II, 15.

THE SWORD POINTING TO A NAKED HEART "Yea a sword shall pierce through thine soul." Luke II, 36.

THE ALL-SEEING EYE "Behold the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him." Psalms XXX, 18. "His eyes behold, his eyelids try the children of men." Psalms XI, 4.

THE ANCHOR AND THE ARK are emblems of a well-grounded hope and a well-spent life. "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil." Hebrews VI, 19.

THE FORTY-SEVENTH PROBLEM OF EUCLID teaches Masons to be general lovers of the arts and sciences. "I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven." Ecclesiastes I, 13. "He that getteth wisdom loveth his oven soul; he that keepeth understanding shall find good." Proverbs XIX, 8.

THE HOUR-GLASS is an emblem of human life. "Verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live." St. John V, 25.

THE SCYTHE is an emblem of time, which cuts the brittle thread of life. "He cometh forth as a flower and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow and continueth not." Job XIV, 2. "I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave; I am deprived of the residue of my years." Isaiah XXXVIII, 10.

O. B. Slane, Illinois.

* * *


In the December number of THE BUILDER I notice a request by Brother A. R. O., Georgia, for a copy of "The American Creed." This you have printed in full.

Possibly what the brother wants is the book entitled "The American's Creed," with the symbolism of the creed. This is an impersonal little book, with no author's name attached and with no particular publisher advertised thereby. It is, through its authors, a Sons of the American Revolution production. Copies of the book may be secured through Matthew Page Andrews, Chairman, Creed Committee, 849 Park Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Charles H. Bronson, Minnesota.

* * *


As a native of the Isle of Jersey I was keenly interested in an article on "Freemasonry in the Channel Islands" which appeared in The Freemason, of London, for August 20th, 1921. Inasmuch as there are doubtless many other brethren in American lodges who hail from the Islands, or who have relatives there, it has seemed a fine thing to me to reprint the excellent article. I send it to you. If you will run it in the columns of THE BUILDER I shall appreciate it much, as will, I am sure, all others who, like myself, may have a personal interest in the subject. Fraternally yours, A. J. Sloane, New York City.


Masonic history is intertwined with the romantic and practical record of every land. Particularly is this true in regard to the Channel Islands, those quaint little rugged mountain-tops arising from the sea just off the coast of France and which command the English Channel, almost directly opposite Plymouth. These islands are hoary with traditions. The towns have changed but little in either appearance or custom since the days of William the Conqueror, for the islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy, and although they have been British Possessions for the last thousand years the Norman language, laws, and customs still exist.

These quaint islands have, therefore, become a great attraction for archaeologists, antiquarians, and philologists. Recent excavations have demonstrated the existence of Neolithic man on the island of Jersey at least twenty thousand years ago. There are mysterious old caves, some of them natural and many artificial, which fairly reek with relics of forgotten ages; there are underground chambers and passage-ways, hewn from the living rock that go back to an almost unbelievable point in the youth of the human race; there are towers and castles and houses on the various islands that are still in excellent state of preservation, and in many cases still in use, that date back with records to the year 875.

In this atmosphere of antiquity the Masonic student naturally becomes curious to learn what part Freemasonry may have played in these odd islands in the ages past and gone. And his interest is further aroused by the fact that there are eight Masonic lodges in Guernsey and Jersey, and one of them is on the roll of the "Atholl" or Antient Grand Lodge of England. This lodge, known as "Doyle's Lodge of Fellowship, No. 84," was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England in 1806, and has played an important part in the life of the Channel Islands.

In this connection I stumbled on a bit of unwritten Masonic history dating back nearly a century and a half while on a recent visit to the ancient city of York, England, where I visited the York Lodge, No. 236, which is one of the oldest in England. The Secretary of the lodge showed me a letter written by a Freemason who was confined in the dungeons of Mont Orgueil, on the Isle of Jersey. This brother was an English soldier, and his regiment was stationed on the island. He complained that he had been unjustly imprisoned by his commanding officer and implored the Worshipful Master of the York Lodge to take steps to procure his release. This brother, however, was given his release to assist in repelling an invasion of the French, who, under the Baron de Ruttecourt, sought with a small force to capture these important islands. This attack occurred in the beginning of January, 1781, and is a bit of history almost forgotten, and would be of but little interest to the average reader were it not for the fact that the principal actors in this drama were Freemasons.

De Ruttecourt undertook the expedition as a venture of his own, with the connivance and, no doubt, the secret assistance of the French Government. In case of success he was to be rewarded with the governorship of the island. The expedition was well planned, and some twelve hundred volunteers, of different corps, embarked from France on 24th December, 1780, but were compelled to take refuge at Chansey on account of stormy weather. On the evening of 5th January, 1781, they embarked again, and effected a landing at Platte Rocque, the south-eastern corner of the island, near where Seymour Tower has since been built. They marched to St. Helier, reaching the town early in the morning of the 6th; surprised the guards and, either through good fortune or treachery, penetrated to Royal Square — occupied different positions in the town, seized the lieutenant-governor, Major Moses Corbet, in his bed; and, having made him prisoner, compelled him to send an order to the royal troops, commanding them to remain within their barracks.

Whereupon the invaders marched against Elizabeth Castle, carrying the unforturate Major Corbet with them to enforce their demands. But they had reckoned without their host. The regiments of the line and the militia were rapidly assembling. Captains Aylward and Mulcaster determined to hold the castle; and Major Francis Pierson, a Master Mason, a gallant young officer — he was not twenty-five years of age — took command.

"Under these difficult circumstances," says Durell, "the young and gallant Pierson acted with all the decision of a British officer, who sees no obstacles that he cannot surmount, and who never thinks of danger when it would impede him in the performance of his duty." The circumstances were difficult enough; for the enemy occupied the town, and could sweep the narrow streets with their cannon. But Pierson marched his troops down into St. Helier. The French fought gallantly, but were everywhere repulsed. The gallant Pierson, however, fell, shot through the breast early in the action. De Ruttecourt himself was mortally wounded. He, too, was a Mason.

When their leader had fallen, a panic seized the French troops. They gave way at all points, and many rushed in the houses for shelter. More than four hundred were made prisoners, twenty-six were killed, and eighty wounded in the action two hundred had been drowned in the landing and another hundred were lost or missing in the endeavour to escape. Never did a desperate enterprise end in more complete failure.

De Ruttecourt was buried with military honors in St. Heliers churchyard, while his gallant opponent found a resting-place in the church itself. His grave is still visited by Masonic tourists, and on the tombstone is carved the square and compasses, the emblem which guided his life.

There are many other Masonic legends, but these, however, are not well enough authenticated to warrant repetition. It is said — how true I do not know — that at one time Napoleon himself was a secret visitor to the islands and that other noted French leaders met with certain famous English statesmen in the early days in an endeavour to avert the conflicts that afterwards plunged Europe into blood and ruin and eventually resulted in the Little Corporal's downfall, and that these conferences were held under the seal and safeguard of the Masonic Lodge that then existed at Jersey. — Edwin A. Turner.

* * *


In the October issue of THE BUILDER is a letter concerning the oldest lodge secretary. It does not state how long this brother has served as secretary.

I would like to say a word for the secretary of Vincennes Lodge No. 1, of Vincennes, Indiana. Brother Arelius M. Willoughby was born November 14, 1842; made a Master Mason in 1870 and elected secretary in 1876. He has served continuously since that time, excepting for one. year while he occupied the Master's chair.

Earl H. Buck, Indiana.

* * *


Bro. Charles Comstock, Tenn.

These verses were suggested by and are in a sense a reply to the poem by B.L.T. which was Published in THE BUILDER, October, 1921, page 295.

Shall "I lay me down to sleep,"
When the toils of Earth are done?
When Night's shadows round me creep,
Stars unveiling, one by one?

Am I at the journey's end,
When I reach Life's human goal?
When no more within me blend,
Form of flesh and formless soul ?

True, from care and strife we rest,
When the storms of Earth are past,—
When within Time's golden west,
Sunset gleams are gone at last.

Wakes the deathless spirit then,
To the glory dawn of life,—
To the joys no mortals ken,
Joys with never taint of strife.

For the spirit ne'er was born,—
Never shall it cease to be:—
Death is but eternal morn,—
From Earth's imperfections, free.

Opes the soul to nobler themes,—
Pleasures, rare, that ne'er shall cease:—
Knowing then what now are dreams,—
Perfect wisdom. love and peace.

* * *

One of the illusions is, that the present hour is not the critical, decisive hour. Write it on your heart that every day is the best day in the year.

— R. W. Emerson.

* * *

God helps them that helps themselves

— Benjamin Franklin.