The Builder Magazine 

September 1928 - Volume XIV - Number 9 


Napoleon the Mason and the Pope 

By BRO ERNEST E. MURRAY, Montana 

HISTORIES dealing with Napoleon and his biographers can generally be divided 
into two classes; on the one hand we have him represented as a military genius, 
regenerating France, a man of ambition, determination and strength, an example 
for all to follow in overcoming obstacles, and on the other we have him branded as 
the greatest adventurer the world has ever known, the scourge of Europe, the 
ruination of France. 


The former accentuate and magnify his victories in war and minimize his blunders, 
playing up small incidents such as relieving a sentry, giving up his horse to a 
wounded officer, while the latter revile him for forsaking his armies in Egypt and 
Russia, his treatment of his wife Josephine, his every act attributed to unworthy 
motives, and so forth, and so forth, the one glorifying him and the other 
condemning him. 


That he was a great general in an age when good generals were conspicuous by 
their absence must be granted, but Wellington was a greater general as he 
conquered all the French armies opposed to him and commanded by Napoleon's 
Marshals and finally the army under the direct command of Napoleon himself. Of 
the rest he was an ordinary man with man's shortcomings and weaknesses. 


But there is one aspect, although continually referred to in all histories and by his 
biographers, which I thi nk has not been sufficiently analyzed that of his Destiny. 
Napoleon continually harped upon his destiny, he is continually referred to as the 
"Man of Destiny." 



Just what did he conceive to be his destiny? To conquer and dominate Europe? 
Undoubtedly but why? Why should he conceive it to be his destiny to do this? Let 
us consider certain facts. 


To maintain that Napoleon was without religion is ridiculous; no man who believes 
that he is destined and used by the Supreme Being to take certain action can be 
without religion. He certainly was not orthodox, if there were any orthodoxy 
immediately following the French revolution. Dogma and ceremonial religion did 
not appeal to him, but he recognized that these were necessary for certain minds. 
One of the complaints made against him by critics is that in Egypt he posed as a 
Mahommedan. What is there irreligious about that? The formulae of the 
Mahommedans is "God is God and Mahommed is His prophet." They recognize 
Moses and Jesus as His prophets, too, and venerate them. Can any Christian deny 
that God is God? 


As soon as he was elected First Consul he realized that to ensure peace of mind to 
the masses and to stabilize the state a concrete religion was necessary for them, and 
to that end he concluded a concordat with the Papacy. The terms of this concordat 
were unique; there never had been one like it and none since. 


At the revolution the lands and other property of the Roman Church had been 
confiscated. The people were as incensed against the Church as much as they were 
against the nobles. The terms of the concordat were, inter alia: 


It established the Roman Church but only as subordinate to the State. 


The bishops and archbishops were to be appointed or reappointed by the First 
Consul. 



The sequestered estates were not to he restored to the Church. 


When it is considered that the Roman Church at this time had a strangle hold on 
most of the states of Europe these conditions are the more remarkable. Spain, Italy, 
Austria and most of the states of Germany formed part of the Holy Roman Empire, 
their rulers recognizing the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff and Temporal Ruler. 


Napoleon was a Freemason; that he was a "Blue" Mason we are sure; very possibly 
he had taken some of the "Scots" degrees and others that abounded on the 
continent, wherein liberty of thought, conscience and action were inculcated. The 
American Colonies had rebelled and formed themselves into a Republic where the 
State was supreme over all other associations of men. To preach liberty of thought 
to the French at such a time would very probably have caused thousands to become 
atheists. As a wise administrator he was awake to the uses of a concrete religion as 
a preservative of order and so made this concordat with the Church of Rome as a 
measure of expediency, but he took the precaution to demand that he nominate 
bishops and archbishops no foreign priesthood for France. It realized a false hope 
in the Church of Rome as we shall see. 


As a good Mason he desired education for the people, and proceeded to see that 
they had it. In the concordat he agreed to let the Church have elementary schools. 
If the local authorities cared to submit to this or have schools of their own he did 
not object. But he at once proceeded to establish State controlled secondary or 
higher grade schools. He established technical schools and in 1 806 the educational 
edifice was crowned by the seventeen academies of the University of France. 


Having established religion in France as a necessary prerequisite for becoming a 
great nation, what was his attitude to the Church of Rome? He found cause of 
quarrel with the Italian States, marched an army there, took possession of the Papal 
States and forced the Pope to sign a treaty very much contrary to the Pope's liking. 



Note his action at his coronation. He forced the Pope to attend the ceremony and 
all went well so long as the religious ceremonies continued. When the Pope 
proceeded to place the crown on his head, Napoleon bruskly seized the crown from 
the Pope's hands and crowned himself. Many histories comment on this act and 
refer to it as his bad manners, impulsive effrontery, and so forth. But was it not a 
deliberate act to demonstrate to "His Holiness" that the crown of France was no 
longer in the giving of the Church of Rome ? Was not the Pope deliberately 
brought there for that purpose to make no mistake about the lesson that the State 
was superior to the Church? 


Later when his son was born he compelled the Church to again officiate at his 
baptism in state, and immediately proclaimed him King of Rome. As a church he 
recognized the Pope as priest only; by every act he proclaimed that he possessed 
no temporal power. At one time he had the Pope prisoner in France. 


Spain, Austria and the states of Germany who acknowledged the Pope as the 
supreme earthly as well as spiritual ruler were invaded and conquered and 
members of his family and his Marshalls, owing their appointment to him, were 
placed upon the thrones of those countries. 


When he placed his brother Louis on the throne of the Netherlands, the country 
which had been the worst victims of the Roman Church in the preceding century, 
he instructed him to be the patron of the Masons. 


When in 1806 Francis II of Austria regained the throne of that country he dropped 
the "Holy Roman" title and called himself Emperor of Austria. The Holy Roman 
Empire had ceased to exist. Had not Napoleon fulfilled his destiny to destroy the 
power of Rome? What would have been the history of Europe had there been no 
Napoleon? 



Having fulfilled his destiny his "star" began to wane first the debacle of Russia his 
army driven out of Spain by the British the banishment to Elba the 100 days of 
temporary triumph to be followed by the final and complete disaster of Waterloo. 


At the time of his election as First Consul the Church of Rome dominated Europe. 
Who was to dominate the Pope or the people represented by their kings or 
presidents? Did not Napoleon believe that he was destined to be the means to 
destroy the Papal domination ? It would appear so. 


But the Papal domination was not utterly destroyed, it was but subjected. The 
Papacy has obtained control of other nations, notably in Mexico and South 
America. Again they have been subjected but not utterly destroyed. 


With all his many faults Napoleon was a pretty good Mason. He had courage 
which many of us lack. 


— o — 


A Masonic "Who's Who" 


FOR the first time in the history of its fourteen years of existence, the National 
Masonic Research Society is launching a campaign to build up an adequate 
membership among the Freemasons of America. 


The growth of the Society has been steady, but rather slow during these years. Its 
work has increased faster than its numbers and because of that fact expenditures 
have exceeded income. As the Society is not, and has never been subsidized by any 
Grand Fodge or other Masonic body in the past, and as its revenue must come 



entirely from membership fees, the obvious way in which the increasing expense 
has to be met by building up a larger membership. 


Happily this effort can be combined with another plan of the National Masonic 
Research Society for the Duplication of a book which has long been needed by the 
Craft. There has never been any kind of a national register, record, directory or 
reference work which gave information about the brethren throughout the whole 
country who are active and interested workers, or who have achieved prominence 
in their states or in national life. That a volume of this character will be of great 
value is certain. So the Research Society has determined to publish it and make of 
it an agency, or avenue through which a greatly increased membership, with the 
resulting increase in financial support, may be obtained. 


It is planned to make this reference work a Biographical Directory of the 
Membership of the National Masonic Research Society and to publish it under the 
title of "Masonic Who's Who in the United States and Canada." 


The preface of the prospectus of "Who's Who" carries the following statement of 
the Society's plans and purposes in the publication of this volume: 


PREFACE 


In publishing this work the National Masonic Research Society follows a precedent 
established in England, where a similar volume recently published under the title 
"The Masonic Who's Who," contains Masonic and general biographical details of 
prominent Freemasons owing allegiance to or in communion with, the United 
Grand Lodge of England. 



The history of America is written in the biographies of the men who, having lived 
as Masons, have made the Fraternity the greatest potential power for good in our 
country today. Freemasons founded the United States of America; Freemasons 
have guided its destinies to its development into the greatest world-power of the 
ages. The generations, which have passed from the stage, building wisely and well, 
have left a sacred trust which the Freemasons of today must safeguard and transmit 
to those who will follow. 


Some two hundred years ago the first Masonic lodges were formed in America. 

The exact date of the first is a matter of controversy, a question into which we have 
no intention of entering. Benjamin Franklin was made a Mason early in 1731. It is 
practically certain that the lodge in which he was initiated was self-constituted and 
had been in existence for some time. It is as probable, too, that similar lodges were 
working elsewhere. The year 1730 may therefore be taken as a proximate date for 
the emergence of Freemasonry in America into the light of definite history, as 
1717 is taken as the beginning of Masonry as now organized in England. 


The Bi-centenary of the latter event fell during the dark years of the World War, 
and but little notice could be taken of it. Some commemoration should be made by 
American Masons of their own two hundredth anniversary, and for this purpose a 
compromise date must be agreed upon. It would seem that the year 1930 might, as 
above suggested, be accepted for this for a number of reasons besides the 
considerations already mentioned, and the National Masonic Research Society has 
decided to contribute its part to its observance in a way for which it is peculiarly 
qualified, by publishing a National, or rather International, Biographical Roster of 
living Masons who have rendered outstanding service to the Fraternity, or who 
have other claims to distinction through their achievements in public service, 
science, literature, art or the various professions. 


There are three and a half million Freemasons in the United States and Canada, and 
the records of the lodges contain the names of men known to the public at large in 
every occupation and walk in life; names, which, like that of Abou Ben Adhem, 
are found "leading all the rest" in every phase of the multifarious activities of our 
complex civilization. 



Yet to a very great extent these men remain strangers even to each other's names, 
for those brethren who become nationally known as leaders and rulers of the Craft 
are after all but a small fraction of the number who have achieved distinction in 
their own life work. To meet this situation, at least in part, the National Masonic 
Research Society is publishing, for the first time in America, this Biographical 
Directory of Freemasons of the United States and Canada, to be a medium through 
which the brethren of the North, South, East and West may become more fully 
acquainted with the personalities and activities of men hitherto scarcely known to 
them, although bound to them by the Mystic Tie. 


In such a work the exigencies of time and space, not to mention cost, make it 
necessary to limit the names included to a very small percentage of the total 
number of Masons, and this necessity for selection creates a very serious problem 
at the outset. He would be a bold man who would undertake the task by himself, 
and even a board of editors, no matter how able, would find it a task full of 
difficulties. Fortunately there is already in existence a list of Masons which 
actually contains a very large proportion of those who by their qualifications and 
work are worthy of a place in a Masonic Who's Who, and that list is the 
membership roll of the National Masonic Research Society. It will doubtless come 
as a matter of surprise to very many of the members themselves to find how 
representative of the really prominent Masons of the Continent this roster is, as 
well as inclusive of those whose work and service to the Fraternity deserves to be 
recorded in permanent form but who in very many cases are scarcely known 
outside the limited circle of their own lodges. 


It is for such reasons that we have decided to limit this first effort to our own 
members exclusively. Doubtless there are many other Masons who have valid 
claims for inclusion in such a work, the omission of whom will make it to that 
extent incomplete. This is greatly to be regretted, but the limitations that the 
necessities of the case have compelled us to set will make it quite clear why such 
omissions have come about. With the experience gained in the preparation of the 
first edition we hope that later on it may be possible to make it more nearly and 
fully inclusive. 



A book of biographies becomes increasingly valuable with the passing of the years. 
To have been included in the first Masonic Who's Who in America will be a real 
and coveted distinction. It is one which those included will have deservedly won 
for themselves whether by actual research or educational work, or in giving 
definite and practical assistance to make it possible for the Society to function and 
pursue the objects for which it was founded. 


As membership in the Society is open to any regular Master Mason without 
restriction as to citizenship or nationality, it has upon its roll a small but very select 
and important group of Masons in other countries. It would be invidious to omit 
them for the sake of strict conformity to the title of the volume. Their inclusion 
will help demonstrate the ideal of Universality which to the Fraternity has been a 
guiding beacon, and it will be the means of introducing to American Masons the 
names of active workers in the Craft in other parts of the world. 


The following Table of Contents has been tentatively adopted. It is given here to 
indicate the scope of the projected work. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Preface Abbreviations Brief History of Freemasonry The Blue, or Master Masons' 
Lodge and Grand Lodge The York Rite The Scottish Rite The Red Cross of 
Constantine The Royal Order of Scotland Freemasonry Throughout the World 
Auxiliary Organizations Masonic Statistics Masonic Press Biographical 
Membership Roster of the National Masonic Research Society (With Portraits of 
Foundation-Members and Fellows) 


Geographical Index ( Biographies by State and Post Office Address) 



Necrology. In Memoriam 


(Brethren Who Have Recently Passed to the Grand Lodge Above) 


Educational Announcements. (Schools and Colleges) 


Business Announcements 


When the National Masonic Research Society was organized and chartered, 
provision was made for different classifications of membership as is usual in all 
such organizations. Up to the present time, with a few exceptions there are no 
members other than those who subscribe three dollars annually and receive THE 
BUILDER every month. It is now proposed to enroll more of this class of members 
and in addition members of other classifications so that a larger measure of 
financial support may be secured. The following statement gives the 
classifications, conditions and privileges of membership. 


The membership of the N.M.R.S. is composed of Freemasons who are students of 
the history and teachings of the Craft, of those who seek to apply the principles of 
Freemasonry to modern life in the belief that Applied Freemasonry will solve most 
of the problems of today, of those who have rendered outstanding service to the 
Fraternity and of others who, having achieved success and distinction in their 
respective vocations, have given their support to the N.M.R.S. to enable it to carry 
out the purposes for which it was formed. Following is the classification of the 
membership with their privileges and fees: 


Members: The membership fee is Five Dollars for two years, or Seven Dollars for 
three years. Members receive THE BUILDER (the Society's official journal) for 
the period of their membership. The name and address only of the members will be 



listed in the N.M.R.S. Biographical Directory, or "Masonic Who's Who." Present 
members of the N.M.R.S. may assure such listing by payment of membership dues 
for one or two years from date of expiration of present membership. 


Sustaining Members: The membership fee for Sustaining Members is Ten Dollars 
for one year, or Fifteen Dollars for three years. Sustaining members receive THE 
BUILDER for the period of their membership and in addition will receive a copy 
of the N.M.R.S. Biographical Directory or "Masonic Who's Who" including a brief 
biographical mention of the member printed herein. 


Contributing Members: The membership fee for Contributing Members is Twenty- 
five Dollars for period of three years during which time the Contribing Member 
will receive THE BUILDER and in addition a copy of the N.M.R.S. Biographical 
Directory "Masonic Who's Who" including a complete biographical sketch of the 
member printed therein. 


Life Members: The Life Membership fee is One Hundred Dollars and Life 
Members will receive THE BUILDER for life and a copy of the N.M.R.S. 
Biographical Directory or "Masonic Who's Who," including a complete 
biographical history of the Life Member. 


N.M.R.S. Foundation: Freemasons contributing any larger amount to further the 
work and purposes of the N.M.R.S., and to assist in establishing the N.M.R.S. as a 
Masonic Research Foundation, similar in character and scope to other scientific 
and education foundations, will be enrolled as Foundation-Membership of the 
N.M.R.S. with all the privileges of Life Membership and with additional privileges 
which will be explained by letter to interested inquirers. 


Fellows of the Society: Freemasons who have rendered outstanding service to the 
Craft, and who are nominated by interested brethren, may receive election as 
Fellows of the N.M.R.S. which honor carries with all of the privileges of Life and 



Foundation Memberships. Space limitations for biographies will not rigidly 
adhered to in the cases of brethren who he rendered service to the Craft, our 
country and humanity. 


It may, perhaps, be timely to remind our membership of the reasons for our 
existence and for that p pose a restatement of the Society's objects as recited the 
Charter is published in this connection: 


The Grand Lodge of Iowa authorized the format and incorporation of the N.M.R.S. 
in 1914 for the following purposes: 


The collection and preservation of all materials value in Masonic study. 


The stimulation and guidance of Masonic intercourse, among Masons of diverse 
interests. 


Promotion and supervision of Masonic meetings specific study and discussion. 


The collection and circulation of data bearing upon various specific Masonic 
activities. 


The foundation and management of funds for 1 financial aid of Masonic students. 


To produce and publish courses of Masonic study. 



The publication of books and pamphlets upon Masonic subjects. 


To publish a magazine devoted to the study and interpretation of the history, 
philosophy and purposes the various Rites, Orders and Degrees of Freemasonry. 


The Society is best known for the publication of THE BUILDER, a monthly 
magazine which is unique and peculiar in that it is probably the only publication in 
the world devoted to the study of Masonic history and teachings, with the very 
practical idea of applying the lessons so learned to present day problems. This is 
but one phase of the Society’s work for it is also a clearing house for Freemasons 
throughout the whole world who seek information about any Masonic subject or 
phase of Masonic history or activity. In addition the Society is encouraging and 
directing the organization and operation of Masonic Study Clubs in many states. 


The invitation is extended to all active and interested Freemasons and to those 
whoa re prominent in their respective vocations and in their various communities 
to join the National Masonic Research Society. With a membership of this high 
character the Society will be enabled to render a still greater service to the Craft 
and the Society’s Biographical Directory will thus become THE “Who’s Who’ of 
the Masonic Fraternity, and a reference work that is greatly needed. 


— o — 


Governor De Witt Clinton 


By Bro. BURTON E. BENNETT, Washington 



DE WITT CLINTON was born in Orange County, New York, on March 2, 1769. 
His grandfather was born in Longford County, Ireland, in 1 690, and came to 
America in 1729. The family came, originally, from England. Clinton's father was 
a brigadier general in the Revolutionary War, as was also his uncle, General 
George Clinton. His uncle was eighteen times Governor of New York state. His 
family were Democrats and followers of Thomas Jefferson. 


De Witt Clinton was graduated from Columbia College, New York City, with the 
class of 1786. This great institution of learning has kept pace with the growth of 
the republic and is now, probably, the greatest school of learning in the world. At 
the age of 29 years he was elected a member of the New York Assembly and 
started on a career of public service that has few parallels in American history. Lor 
thirty years he was the great northern Democratic leader. In 1812 he came near 
wresting the party leadership from the South when, for the Presidency, he received 
89 electoral votes to 128 for Madison. 


Clinton was a member of the New York State Senate from 1798 to 1802, when he 
was elected a senator of the United States. He resigned from the United States 
Senate, however, to become mayor of the city of New York, which office he held 
from 1803 to 1807, 1808 to 1810 and from 1811 to 1815. He was also at the same 
time state senator, 1806 to 1811, and lieutenant-governor, 1811 to 1813. In the 
early days of the republic to be governor of a state, or even mayor of a great city 
like New York, was considered a greater honor than to be a senator of the United 
States. 


Like Governor Samuel J. Tilden and President Grover Cleveland, De Witt Clinton 
was opposed to Tammany Hall. But he was too powerful a person, too great a 
personality to be held down by it. He is the greatest statesman that New York state 
produced during the first half of the 19th century, and perhaps the greatest she has 
ever produced. Certainly he is only rivalled by Tilden and Roosevelt, and in this 
estimate Horatio Seymour and Grover Cleveland and Governor Smith are not 
forgotten. 



In 1817 Clinton was elected governor of New York and reelected in 1820, serving 
two terms. A man of phenomenal political judgment, he refused to run for a third 
time as he felt that Tammany would beat him. Tammany at this time was led by 
Martin Van Buren, a man of great political sagacity. Afterwards he became a 
protege of President Andrew Jackson and through his influence President of the 
United States. When Tammany came into power Van Buren could not keep his 
"braves" in check. Clinton, in 1824, was removed as canal commissioner. He was 
the father of this great waterway. The people of the state stood aghast and 
determined to save Clinton from the clutches of the tiger. That same fall he was 
again reselected governor by an overwhelming majority. He died in 1828 while 
still governor. 


It is said that the so-called "spoils system" can be traced back to Clinton. But this is 
not true, as he was not in favor of replacing worthy officials with his own 
henchmen. Conditions were different than now. When he came into power in New 
York state all offices were filled by Federalists and it was necessary, in order to 
carry out his policies, to replace those with real authority by men whose views of 
government coincided with his own. The "spoils system" really dates from Andrew 
Jackson's time. But even this was no "spoils system" at all, compared with 
subsequent development, and especially with what we have today. 


In order to recognize the true greatness of this man the legislative measures that he 
sponsored must be examined. To recount them all would require too much space in 
a short article like this. That he visioned the future and endeavored to prepare the 
rising generation for the duties of citizenship is shown by his work in behalf of the 
New York public school system; that he placed human rights above property rights 
is shown by his work in repealing the laws of imprisonment for debt, and that he 
possessed a spark of the divine is shown by the efforts he put forth in the 
abolishment of human slavery in the state of New York. 


De Witt Clinton was a far seeing man. He had visions equal to any of the prophets 
of old. He was a statesman in the truest sense of the word. Human history shows 
but few such examples. In addition to what we have heretofore shown his work in 
building the Erie Canal shows this most clearly. He worked unceasingly on the 
canal for more than fifteen years. As early as 1810 he secured the appointment of a 



commission to report to the legislature the best course for a canal from Lake Erie 
to the Hudson River. After many trials he had the great honor, as governor in 1825, 
on the completion of the canal, to preside at its dedication. New York City thus 
became the outlet for all of the great Northwest. The mighty growth of New York 
City, and of the Empire State, can be dated from this time. Not only numerous 
villages sprang up along the line of the canal but great cities like Utica, Syracuse, 
Rochester and Buffalo. The canal not only furnished an outlet for the wheat and 
other products of New York state, but for the whole Northwest. It gave impetus to 
the growth of cities on Lake Erie, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior and to the 
building up of their vast tributary territory. Mighty Chicago arose and imperial 
New York became the greatest city of the New World, the greatest city in the 
whole world, and is now the greatest one that time has ever known. 


The natural outlets of the Northwest are through the St. Lawrence River by way of 
the Great Lakes and through the Gulf of Mexico by way of the Mississippi River. 
The natural outlet of Western New York is through Lake Ontario by way of the 
Genesee and Oswego Rivers, and of Northern New York through the St. Lawrence 
River and Lake Champlain by way of streams flowing into them, and of New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio through Delaware and Chesapeake Bays by 
way of their streams. No man can even dream of the mighty traffic from this great 
empire centering in New York City were it not for the Erie Canal. Whether, but for 
the canal, the metropolis of the Western World would have been on the St. 
Lawrence or on the Delaware or Chesapeake Bays, or at the mouth of the 
Mississippi River, can only be surmised. But we can conjecture, judging from 
Chicago, that it would have been on one of the Great Lakes. 


Nearly one- sixth of the population of the United States is in the Empire State and 
one-third of its wealth is centered in its great city. Where is the man that can point 
to a more constructive statesman or to a prophet with truer vision or to a finite 
being that possessed more of the infinite than did DeWitt Clinton? 


De Witt Clinton joined the Masonic Fraternity in 1793. The Grand Lodge of New 
York was established only six years before, 1787. Then it was composed of 
thirteen lodges, six "Ancient," six "Modern" and one of undetermined origin. All 
early New York Masonry went back to the regular Grand Lodge of England. It was 



not till 1776 that the Schismatic Grand Lodge gained a foothold in New York. It 
came with the British army. Gradually the "Ancient" lodges disappeared from the 
roll, the last one going in 1827. New York Masons, therefore, are, for all 
practicable purposes, pure Free and Accepted Masons. They can trace their 
ancestry back to the first regular Grand Lodge of England and through it to the 
mixed operative and speculative lodges that went before, and through them to the 
old operative Masons, and through them to the Ancient Guilds. Clinton joined the 
Masons in 1793 and the next year was made Master of his lodge. In 1806 he was 
selected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York. Governor Clinton was a 
member of the Chapter, Commandery and Consistory. He was a 33rd Degree 
Mason of the Scottish Rite. He was a leader in both Rites and gave the same force 
and energy to both that he gave to civic affairs. In 1816 he was elected General 
Grand High Priest of the General Grand Chapter of the United States. The 
Sovereign Grand Consistory sitting in New York, in 1814, instituted the Grand 
Encampment of Knights Templar and appendant orders for the state of New York. 
Governor Clinton was elected its first Grand Master and was reselected annually 
thereafter till his death on Feb. 20, 1828. On June 20 and 21, 1816, a convention 
was held in Masons' Hall, New York City, and the General Grand Encampment of 
the United States of America formed. Delegates from eight Councils and 
Encampments were present, to-wit: Boston Encampment, Boston; St. Paul's 
Encampment, Newburyport; Washington Encampment, Newport; Darius Council, 
Portland; Ancient Encampment, New York; Temple Encampment, Albany, and 
Montgomery Encampment, Stillwater. Governor Clinton was elected General 
Grand Master. The other officers were Thomas Smith Webb, D.D.G.M.; Henry 
Fowle, G.G.G.; Ezra Ames, G.G.C.G.; Rev. Paul Dean, G.G.P.; Martin Hoffman, 
G.G.S.W.; John Carlyle, G.G.J.W.; Peter Grinnell, G.G.T.; John J. Loring, G.G.R.; 
Thomas Lownds, G.G.W.; John Snow, G.G.S.B., and Jonathan Schiefferlin, 
G.G.S.B. Governor Clinton was reselected General Grand Master in 1819 and in 
1826 and served as such till his death. In 1823 he was elected Sovereign Grand 
Commander of the Supreme Council for the United States of America, its 
territories and dependencies, which office he also held until his death. This 
occurred in March, 1828, five years later. 


The last two years of his life saw the beginning of, the Anti-Masonic movement 
which swept so many lodges out of existence and caused thousands of Masons to 
forsake the Craft. Governor Clinton made a public effort to stem the tide at its 
beginning, by offering a reward of one thousand dollars, either for the production 



of William Morgan, or for information that would lead to discovering his 
whereabouts. 


"Careless of personal wealth," as Bro. McClenachan says, "he left little fortune but 
his fame." And Andrew Jackson said that in his death "New York had lost one of 
her most useful sons and the nation one of its brightest ornaments." 


— o — 


Relief Corps of the Order of St. John 


IN THE BUILDER for June in the announcement of the plans of the Order of the 
Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, the following general statement was made 
concerning the first aid work, relief in calamities and in time of war: 


First Aid: 


The instruction of persons in rendering "First Aid" in case of accident or sudden 
illness and in transport of the sick or injured, and the promotion of popular 
instruction in methods of caring for sick and injured in peace and war. 


War Work and Calamity Relief: 


To furnish aid to the sick and wounded in war or during any calamity, and the 
promotion of such permanent organization for this purpose as may be at once 
available in time of war or in the event of any calamity. 



The Organization of Ambulance Corps and Nursing Corps: 


The manufacture and distribution, by sale or presentation, of ambulance material, 
and the formation of ambulance depots in or near the centers of industry and 
traffic. 


Recognition of Service and Bravery: 


The award of Medals or Badges and Certificates of Honor for Humanitarian 
Service and for saving human life at imminent personal risk. 


It should be clear to all that this form of service will not be in competition with any 
other existing organizations, nor with the work of physicians and surgeons, but that 
it will be in cooperation with all other institutions and agencies dedicated to such 
service. 


The general purposes of the Relief Corps will be to enlist and train layworkers 
through the medium of first aid classes, to aid and assist physicians and nurses, in 
time of disaster. Also to organize layworkers, nurses and physicians into 
disciplined units which can offer and render service to the civil and military 
authorities at such times and to maintain a volunteer organization that will always 
be available, on call, for any emergency at home or within reasonable distance of 
its headquarters. 


That there is much needless suffering, and sometimes deaths, due to the 
mishandling of injured persons in accidents and calamities by unskilled, though 
willing people is without question. 



In discussing the need for first aid instruction of the public the following statement 
is made in a publication of the English Order of St. John, whose St. John's 
Ambulance Association has rendered great service to the nation, prior to and 
during the war and at the present time. The work of this Association will be 
reviewed at a latter date. 


"By rough handling, or even the mere want of the slightest knowledge of how to 
support an injured limb, a simple fracture has been made compound, or even 
complicated. The method of arresting bleeding from an artery is quite easy, yet 
thousands of lives have been lost, the very life blood ebbing away in the presence 
of sorrowing spectators perfectly helpless because none of them had been taught 
one of the first rudiments of instruction of an ambulance pupilthe application of an 
improvised tourniquet. For example, a dockyard laborer had one of his legs almost 
torn off by a hawser, and although he was at once taken to the hospital fatal results 
ensued, owing to his companions having fastened splints around the leg instead of 
improvising a tourniquet. Again, how frequent is the loss of life by drowning, yet 
how few persons, comparatively, understand the way to treat properly the 
apparently drowned." 


United States government statistics, published in official bulletins and in the daily 
press, show an appalling loss of life every year from accidents on railways, on the 
highways, and city streets, in industries and the mines. The loss of lives due to 
drownings is likewise very high. Doubtless many of the injured, and apparently 
drowned, might have been saved, if adequate first aid and the appliances necessary, 
in some cases, were immediately available. Because of the ignorance of the 
bystanders in even the simplest of first aid measures, many valuable lives have 
been lost. 


Many railroads, factories and mines have first aid crews, enlisted from among their 
own workers, but the number of those who have been trained for such work in this 
country is all to few, as is evidenced by the high death rate from accidents and 
calamities. The need for general instruction of the public and of special training of 
groups of lay men and women, in all of the large centers of population and the 



smaller cities is obvious. It is a peculiar fact that America has been training its 
boys and girls, through the Boy Scout movement and similar work among girls, to 
render first aid, and has neglected to give such instruction to the adult population. 
Why should such heavy responsibility be placed upon the children and why should 
our men and women refuse to assume the burden? 


The Order of the Hospital of St. John, "a fraternal organization with a social 
welfare purpose" will endeavor to meet this need with the expectation that, as it 
grows and becomes active in hundreds of the cities and towns of America, an army 
of volunteer workers will come into being, trained to give unselfish service in 
every calamity, large or small, that may befall any individuals, or community, 
anywhere. 


It is expected that this work will have a strong appeal to the thousands of men who 
served in the World War, and that many of them who had experience in the 
hospital and medical corps, will enlist for service in St. John. They will furnish the 
leadership for local relief corps wherever established and will take the initiative in 
the organization of the work in many places. 


The work of establishing a general medical and surgical hospital in any city 
through a Priory of the Order of St. John will take time and patience but the 
organization for calamity relief may be started at once in any city or town. First, a 
priory of the Order must be established by those interested. As stated in THE 
BUILDER for June, Priories will be chartered in cities or towns where it is 
planned, in time, to establish a Priory Hospital, and such cities and towns, with 
their surrounding "trade territory" must have sufficient population to support a 
hospital when established. The Priory, when organized and established, may 
proceed at once to form a Relief Corps, which will be a part of the Priory's work 
and under its general direction. The Relief Corps may work in connection with any 
existing hospital, by agreement, until the Order's Hospital may be established by 
the Priory. 



A Corps Captain is the first officer to be selected. A former officer of the 
American Expeditionary Forces, or of the National Army is the logical man for the 
place, if he can be secured. He should be allowed to select his lieutenants, and 
other officers to be assured of having a harmonious working group. 


A group of physicians must be enlisted. Their first duties will be to prepare a series 
of lectures on first aid and relief work for the instruction of the lay members of the 
Corps. The responsibility of training the men and women members of the 
organization for efficient service rests upon them and they will measure up to it. 


Some of the physicians and surgeons can serve as instructors and others as field 
workers when the call for duty comes, but an adequate number should be enlisted 
to assure a sufficient number for service with the Corps in the field. All physicians 
should be given the rank of Captain, but will be subject to the orders of the Corps 
Captain. 


A large number of nurses should also be enlisted, both graduates and 
undergraduates. They will assist in the class work as well as in the field. Graduate 
nurses will have the rank of sergeants and undergraduates the rank of corporals. 


Next will come the enlistment of layworkers, both men and women. A Relief 
Corps when fully recruited, will consist of one hundred and eight men and women, 
as officers and privates, the same as a company in the army. The Corps will be 
divided into six squads of sixteen men and women each and every squad will be 
specially trained for certain duty, along the following lines: 


Squad No. One Ambulance Duty. Obtaining and driving ambulances to the nearest 
hospital, or to the extemporized hospital, or to a train which will take them to the 
nearest large city for hospital care. 



Squad No. Two Transport of injured. Obtaining the train accommodations for 
injured and escorting them to the nearest city for hospital care. 


Squad No. Three Intelligence duty. To be composed of men and women. Listing 
all wounded and injured and dead. Notifying relatives. Obtaining hospital 
accommodations, or extemporizing same. 


Squad No. Four Nursing squadron. To be composed of nurses only, who will aid 
Squads Nos. One, Two and Three, as needed. 


Squad No. Five Commissary. To be composed of women, who will provide coffee 
and food for injured and for workers. 


Squad No. Six Orderlies. To be composed of men and women, who will do 
messenger duty for officers, doctors and nurses, as needed. 


While the total enlisted strength of the Corps will be 108, this will not include the 
physicians. It will also be wise to enlist a number of alternates to take the places of 
men and women who may not be able to go when called upon. On the other hand a 
Corps can be organized at half strength if need be, and render good service. 


The period of training will be fixed by the Medical Staff which will issue 
certificates of proficiency, to be countersigned by the officers of the Priory, to 
those who complete the course of study and stand examination. In time the Order 
of St. John, through its Relief Division, will prepare a complete course of 
instruction, with all necessary printed forms, to assist in the work of organization 
and training. Those who assist in the formative period of this work will be called 
upon to aid in preparing the course of study which will be adopted later for general 
use. 



Other details of the work will be developed and worked out by those who are first 
in the field in the organization of this service for the suffering. No one man, or 
group of men, is competent to prepare a complete plan of action at this time. The 
advice and assistance of those who learn by actual experience will be invaluable in 
the formulation of the rules and regulations which will later be adopted for the 
carrying on of this work. When the time comes to do this "book" work, the 
assistance of the United States Army, the American Red Cross and similar 
organizations will be sought. 


Certain regalia and uniform houses have been asked to submit sketches and 
designs for uniforms for both men and women workers and an attractive and 
inexpensive uniform will be adopted. Many other fraternal organizations have their 
"uniform ranks" which are principally for show purposes, but the Relief Corps of 
the Order of the Hospital of St. John will be a uniformed body for practical service 
to humanity. In time its uniform will have an honored place in every parade in 
every city. 


Brethren and sisters who are interested are invited to open correspondence with the 
Grand Commandery of the Order, Advertisers Building in St. Louis, if they wish to 
initiate the movement to form a Relief Corps in their home city. 


— o — 


THE BUILDER September, 1928 


American Army Lodges in the World War 



By BRO. CHARLES F. IRWIN, Associate Editor 


THERE is always a profound sense of satisfaction when a Mason is privileged to 
discover and secure the facts concerning a Masonic enterprise of unusual merit and 
thus preserve the same to future generations of the Craft. The following story 
pieced together from records and communications from a group of former 
members and leaders of the Army Lodge A is one of these circumstances. 


Quite a number of Military or Field Lodges came into existence during the World 
War, and we are striving to secure records of the same, and intend to present them 
in THE BUILDER from time to time. By this means it is hoped to make generally 
accessible information concerning Masonic activities in war time that 
comparatively few brethren know anything about, as well as insuring that it will 
not be forgotten in time to come. 


One of the most interesting accounts of our American Field Lodges during the 
World War is afforded us through the courtesy of M. W. Bro. Claude L. Pridgen, 
P. G. M. of North Carolina. Dr. Pridgen has passed through all the offices within 
the range of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and has always been a keen 
student of Masonry. 


A number of years ago I came upon the evidences of the Military Lodge over 
which he presided and opened up a correspondence with him. He most kindly 
turned his attention from his medical practice to dig up the records of the Field 
Lodge with the results as hereafter shown. 


The record includes the petition for a dispensation with a copy of the dispensation 
empowering the group to perform the duties of a lodge. It further carries the story 
across the waters into France and gives a graphic description of their work in 
France. The return is described and the closing of the lodge. 



These brethren from the southland have given us a broad cross-section of the type 
of fellowship that prevailed throughout the Army and Navy both at home and 
abroad. This story is to me more thrilling than the story of the Argonauts, for it is 
authentic and leaves behind it a broad stream of unselfish devotion to principles 
that undergird the highest type of manhood. 


To Past Grand Master Claude L. Pridgen, P. G. M. George Norfleet, and Bro. Col. 
A. L. Cox, Grand Secretary W. W. Willson and others, this story is dedicated, 
together with the large number of Master Masons of North Carolina who enabled 
Army Lodge A to function in the brilliant manner in which it did. 


Army Lodge A of North Carolina 
By BRO. A. L. Cox 


THE One Hundred and Thirteenth Field Artillery, being almost one hundred per 
cent North Carolinian to start with, was naturally a hot bed of Masonry. All North 
Carolina believes in the principles of the greatest of all secret orders, the fraternity 
of Masons; and no good "Tar Heeler" figures on living out his allotted span and 
dying without having been raised to the degree of Master Mason. 


When the regiment had had time to get settled and there was opportunity for 
casting about and getting acquainted with one another, there were found many 
brethren in the Regiment, some of them of high rank. The Brigade Commander 
was a Mason of the most enthusiastic type, as was our Colonel, Lieutenant 
Colonel, our three Majors, and nearly all of the line officers. There were Masons 
among the non-commissioned and enlisted personnel in large numbers. We had the 
bucks of the batteries; cooks, muleskinners and incinerator experts. 



Some one studied out a plan for an army lodge, an organization of brothers who 
could "meet upon the level," with rank for the moment laid aside and all enjoying 
maternal intercourse. The plan met with universal approval and a petition to the 
Grand Master for a Dispensation was started. The name designated in this petition 
was for "Army Lodge A". 


By a happy coincidence, Major Claude L. Pridgen, commanding officer of the 
Sanitary Detachment, was at the time Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of North 
Carolina. He arranged for the issuance of a Dispensation which in due time was 
received. Copies of both the Petition and the Dispensation appear at the conclusion 
of this history. 


The first meeting of the lodge was held in the Masonic Temple at Greenville, 
South Carolina, on Jan. 12, 1918, it being opened by the Grand Master, Bro. 
Claude L. Pridgen, himself It is to be noted here that the meeting was held in 
South Carolina, which Grand Lodge most graciously granted to her sister 
Jurisdiction the privilege of carrying on work within her territory. It is one added 
testimony to the unfailing courtesy not only of South Carolina, but of Masonry in 
all the states of the Union, and dispels the fears that the rights of sovereign lodges 
might be trespassed upon in the creation of Field Lodges in time of war. 


At this meeting Sergeant Joseph H. Mitchell, of the Sanitary Detachment, was 
elected Worshipful Master; brigadier General George G. Gatley, commanding the 
55th Field Artillery Brigade, was elected Senior Warden; and Colonel Albert L. 
Cox was elected Junior Warden. Thus at the outset the regiment displayed that 
democracy of fraternal fellowship that speaks so highly for the Craft wherever it 
may be stationed. 


The officers who served at this first meeting were as follows: 


Wor. Master, Joseph H. Mitchell. 



Senior Warden, George G. Gatley 
Acting junior Warden, Alfred L. Bulwinkle. 

Acting Chaplain, Claude L. Pridgen. 

Acting Senior Deacon, Benjamin R. Lacey, Jr 
Acting junior Deaoon, Louis A. Hanson. 

Acting Senior Steward, Erskine E. Boyce. 

Acting Junior Steward, Ralph S. Sholar. 

Acting Tyler. Karl P. Burzer. 

Thomas S. Payne of the Sanitary Detachment was elected Secretary of the lodge 
and Erskine E. Boyce, Adjutant of the second Battalion, was elected Treasurer. 


At a subsequent meeting the following permanent officers were appointed by the 
Worshipful Master: 

Chaplain, Claude L. Pridgen. 

Senior Deacon, B. R. Lacey, Jr. 

Junior Deacon, John E. Burris 
Senior Steward, Samuel T. Russell. 

Junior Steward, Julian M. Byrd. 

Tyler, Karl P. Burger. 



The following standing committees were also named: 


Finance: Claude L. Pridgen George G. Gatley, Benj. R. Lacey, Jr. 


Reference: Alfred L. Bulwinkle, Erskine E. Boyce, Albert L. Cox. 


Oxford Orphanage, Thomas S. Payne, Karl P. Burger, Samuel T. Russell. 


The lodge meetings were always interesting, but it was the first that will linger 
longest in the memories of those who were present. It was the first experience of 
meeting on the level the assembled Masons had had for many months. They had 
been in the Army for more than six months. The distinctions of rank are well 
defined and rigidly enforced within the military service. For the first time Brother 
Buck Private met Brothers Brigadier General, Colonel and Major on an equality of 
footing as Master Masons, with no one the worse for the experience. 


Brother Buck discovered that Brother Brigadier was a human being, and not the 
tyrant he had gazed at from afar with fear and trembling, and this discovery he 
carried back to his less favored comrades, and thus Army Lodge A became a 
source of benefit to the regiment from its inception. The good it accomplished can 
never be fully estimated. 


At the first meeting of the lodge there were short addresses by General Gatley and 
Major Pridgen, but the most important action taken was to direct the newly elected 
Master to go to Raleigh, N. C., to the meeting of the Grand Lodge and there to 
formally present to that body their Petition for a Charter for Army Lodge "A". 



The following is the Petition which Worshipful Bro. Mitchell carried to the Grand 
Lodge: 


TO THE MOST WORSHIPFUL GRAND MASTER OF ANCIENT, FREE AND 
ACCEPTED MASONS IN NORTH CAROLINA: 


THE UNDERSIGNED PETITIONERS, being Free and Accepted Master Masons 
in Good Standing, having the prosperity of the Fraternity at heart, and willing to 
exert their best endeavors to promote and diffuse the genuine principles of 
Freemasonry, and for the convenience of their respective dwellings, and other good 
reasons, respectfully represent: 


That they are desirous of forming a new lodge at *1 13 th Field Artillery, (N.C.N.G.) 
U.S.A., of Camp Sevier, S.C (which is.. ..miles from the nearest lodge in this 
Jurisdiction); to be named Army Lodge A. 


They, therefore, pray for a Dispensation to empower them to assemble as a regular 
lodge to discharge the duties of Masonry in a regular and constitutional manner, 
according to the ancient forms of the Order and the regulations of the Grand 
Lodge. 


They have nominated and do recommend Brother Sergeant Joseph Henry Mitchell 
to be the first Master- Bro. Brigadier General George G. Gatley to be the first 
Senior Warden- Bro. Colonel Albert L. Cow to be the first Junior Warden, of said 
Lodge. 


If the prayer of this Petition shall be granted, they promise a strict conformity to 
the edicts of the Grand Master, and the constitution and laws of the Grand Lodge. 



Claude Leonard Pridgen 
George G. Gatley 
Albert L. Cox 
Alfred L. Bulwinkle 
Benjamin R. Lacey, Jr. 
E. E. Boyce 
Otto E. Millican 
Louis A. Hanson, Jr. 
Samuel T. Russell 
Ira T. Wortman 
Joseph H. Mitchell 
Ralph L. Sholar 
John E. Burris 
Thomas S. Payne 
Karl P. Burger 
William L. Futrelle 
Dudley Rogers 
Julius M. Byrd 



This Petition was duly presented to the Grand Lodge by W. Bro. Joseph Mitchell, 
whereupon Grand Lodge authorized the issuance of the following Charter of 
Dispensation: 


SIT LUX ET LUX FUIT No. Army Lodge A. 


WE 

THE GRAND LODGE 

OF THE MOST ANCIENT AND (Seal) HONORABLE 
FRATERNITY OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS 
OF NORTH CAROLINA 


IN AMPLE FORM assembled, according to the Old Constitutions regularly and 
solemnly established under the auspices of Prince Edwin of the City of York, in 
Great Britain, in the year of Masonry 4926, viz.: 


The Most Worshipful George S. Norfleet, Deputy Grand Master 
The Right Worshipful Henry A. Grady Senior Grand Warden 
The Right Worshipful Jas. A. Braswell Junior Grand Warden, 


Do by these presents 


appoint, authorize and empower our Worthy Brother Joseph Henry Mitchell, to be 
the Master; our Brother George G. Gatley to be the Senior Warden; and our 



Worthy Brother Albert L. Cow to be the Junior Warden, of a lodge of Ancient Free 
and Accepted Masons, to be, by virtue hereof constituted, formed and held in 
Camp Sevier, which Lodge shall be distinguished by the name or style of Army 

Lodge A, Number ,and the said Master and Wardens, and their successors in 

office, are hereby respectively authorized and directed, by and with the consent 
and assistance of a majority of the members of the said Lodge, duly to be 
summoned and present on such occasions, to elect and install the officers of the 
said Lodge, as vacancies happen, in manner and form as is, or may be prescribed 
by the Constitution of this Grand Lodge. 


AND FURTHER, the said Lodge is hereby invested with full power and authority 
to assemble upon proper and lawful occasions to make Masons, and to admit 
members, as also to be and perform all and every such acts and things appertaining 
to the Craft as have been, and ought to be, done for the honor and advantage 
thereof, conforming in all their proceedings to the Constitution of this Grand 
Lodge, otherwise this warrant and the powers thereby granted, to cease and be of 
no further effect. 


GIVEN under our hands and the seal of our Grand Lodge, at the City of Raleigh, in 
the United States of America, this 4th day of January, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand nine hundred and eighteen and in the year of Masonry five thousand nine 
hundred and eighteen. 


(Signed) W. W. Willson, Grand Secretary. 


Claude L. Pridgen, Grand Master. 


Prior to the granting, however, of this Warrant or Charter for Army Lodge A to 
meet and work, there was issued a Dispensation as follows: 



SIT LUX ET 


LUX FUIT 

THE GRAND LODGE 
OF 

NORTH CAROLINA 


BY THE 

RIGHT WORSHIPFUL 
GRAND MASTER 


TO ALL and every OUR Right Worshipful and loving Brethren, Greeting: 


KNOW YE, That the Most Worshipful Claude Leonard Pridgen, Grand Master, at 
the humble petition of our Right Worshipful Brethren: Claude L. Pridgdn, George 
G. Gatley, Albert L. Cox, Benj. R. Lacey, Jr., E. E. Boyce, Otto E. Millican, Louis 
A. Hanson, Jr., Samuel F. Russell, Ira C. Wortman, Joseph H. Mitchell, Ralph Law 
Sholar, John E. Burris, Thos. S. Payne, Karl P. Buryer, William L. Futrelle, Dudley 
Ropers, Julius M. Byrd, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of the Ancient and Honorable 
Fraternity of York Masons, and for other certain reasons, moving our Most 
Worshipful Grand Master, doth hereby constitute the said Brethren into a 
REGULAR LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, to be opened at 
1 15 th Field Artillery (N.C.N.G.) in the U.S.A. at Camp Sexier, S.C., by the name of 
Army Lodge A. At their said request, and from the great trust and confidence 
reposed in every of the said brethren The Most Worshipful Grand Master doth 
hereby appoint Joseph Henry Mitchell, Master Brigadier General George G. 

Gatley, Senior Warden, and Colonel Albert L. Cow, Junior Grand Warden, for 
opening said lodge and governing the same until the first Annual Communication 
of the Grand Lodge after the date of this Dispensation. 



PROVIDED, however, that this Dispensation is based upon the express condition, 
that said lodge shall secure the services of - one of the grand Lecturers of the 
Grand Lodge of North Carolina; become proficient in the authorized work of the 
Grand Lodge, and file with the Grand Secretary a certificate from said Lecturer 
certifying that at least five of its members can each confer the three degrees in 
Masonry efficiently and according to the authorized work of the Grand Lodge, 
failure of the lodge to comply with this condition for six months from date shall 
render this Dispensation null and void, and it shall be returned to the Grand 
Secretary's office, unless the time is extended by the Grand Master. 


It is required of our friend and Brother Joseph Henry Mitchell to take special care 
that all and every of the said Brethren of the said lodge, as well as those hereafter 
to be admitted into our body by said lodge, be REGULARLY MADE MASONS 
and that they do, and observe and keep all the Rules and Orders contained in the 
BOOK OP CONSTITUTIONS, and that the ANCIENT LANDMARKS be strictly 
attended to; and, further, that he do cause to be entered, in a book kept for that 
purpose, an account of the Proceedings of the Lodge, which, when done, is to be 
transmitted to the Grand Master with a list of those Initiated, Passed and Raised 
and otherwise disposed of under his authority. 


Given at Raleigh, under the hand of the Most Worshipful Grand Master, and the 
Great Seal of Masonry, This 4th day of January, A. L. 5918, A. D. 1918. 


Claude Leonard Pridgen, Grand Master. 
Attest: W.W. Willson, Grand Secretary 


BROTHERLY LOVE, RELIEP, AND TRUTH. 



At the next regular meeting, which was held on Jan. 19, 1918, the lodge was 
legally dedicated and consecrated and the officers, elected at the first meeting, 
lawfully installed. Grand Master Pridgen presided at the ceremonies and there were 
many visiting brethren present. At this meeting the first petitions for degrees were 
received, this being from Lieutenant Joseph A. Speed, and Lieutenant Henry P. 
Ledford of the Sanitary Detachment; and Privates Aaron T. Sailing and Harry B. 
Register, also of the Sanitary Detachment. It became necessary to ask the South 
Carolina Grand Lodge for permission to confer degrees within its Jurisdiction. This 
permission was readily granted. 


The lodge was much gratified to learn that the Grand Lodge of North Carolina had 
accorded the new organization a warm welcome and was proud of its new 
offspring. Past Grand Master Pridgen brought from the Grand Lodge of North 
Carolina an offer to donate $500.00 toward a Masonic Club Room for the soldiers 
of the regiment, and from St. John's Lodge, No. 1, Wilmington, N. C., a further 
donation of $50.00 for the lodge. The project met with disfavor when the Camp 
Authorities were approached, and it was abandoned. It was also learned that the 
War Department had prohibited secret meetings within the limits of all Army 
Camps and arrangements were made to hold all meetings for secret work thereafter 
in the Masonic Temple at Greenville, S. C. 


The first meeting of the lodge in March was featured by a visit from Most Wor. 

Bro. George S. Norfleet, Grand Master of North Carolina. He had been elected in 
January to succeed Major Claude L. Pridgen The Grand Master took a great deal of 
interest in Army Lodge A and offered it every encouragement. He gave the lodge a 
beautiful silk flag which was carried with the lodge throughout the war and after 
the regiment's return to the United States, presented this emblem to the Grand 
Lodge of North Carolina. Unfortunately, the minutes of the lodge were not well 
kept at all times. The first secretary of the lodge was transferred to another outfit 
and the lodge lost his services and the work was passed around from hand to hand. 
Such of the records as are still available record the election of the following 
candidates for degrees. 


Liston L. Mallard 



L. W. Gardner 


W. T. Dixon 
Ferdinand D. Fink 
Roman L. Mauldin 
Walter W. Pollock 
Thomas A. Lacey 
Arthur B. Corey 
Carey E. Dorsett 
Herbert M. Thornburg 
Thomas L. Gratham 
Wilbur C. Spruill 
J. E. Lambety, Jr. 

Sam. N. Nash 
Hugh C. Pollard 
Lewis Norwood 
Wilbon O. Huntley 
John W. Brookshire 
Frank W. McKeel 
Rufus C. Miller 
Eugene Allison 


Charles R. Davis 



Otway C. Fogus 


There is also recorded at various meetings in the United States and in France and 
Luxembourg, the election to membership in the lodge of various Masons, among 
them being the following: 

Sidney C. Chambers 
R. B. Newell 
W. R. Thompson 
J. P. Bolt 

Thaddeus G. Stem 
J. T. Gross 
J. T. Lewlie 
N. O. Reeves 
Enoch S. Simmons 
R. L. Atwater 
R. L. Vaughan 
E. W. McCullers 
H. G. Coleman 
L. B. Gray ton 
D. T. Moore 


J. C. Fortune 



G. P. Norwood 


W. E. Baugham 
Christian E. Mears 
C. T. Scott 
G. N. Taylor 
A. L. Fletcher 
L P. McLendon 
C. L. Gross 
J. M. Lynch 
J. W. McCawley 
Nelson L. Nelson 
Zena O. Ratcliffe 


The last regular meeting in the United States was held on May 1, 1918. Moving 
orders came soon after and no regular meeting was held until after the regiment 
had completed its period of training in France and had been actively engaged in the 
fighting on the Toul front for two weeks. On Sept. 7, 1918, in the little village of 
Sanzy, on the outskirts of the Foret de la Reine, Army Lodge A met in special 
communication to initiate Thomas I. Graham, W. T. Dixon, and Stewart Barnes; 
the first two having been elected as candidates for the degrees and the last named 
as a courtesy to Watauga Lodge, No. 273, of Boone, N. C. This point was only a 
few miles from the front and the sound of guns and the muffled roar of exploding 
shells furnished a strange accompaniment for the solemn words of the Masonic 
ritual. 


There was no regular or special communication after that until after the Armistice, 
when meetings were resumed in a shack in the Foret de la Montagne, on the 



Woevre Sector, which Headquarters Company honored with the title of 
"Messhall." Here at a meeting held on Nov. 16th, 1918, the following new officers 
were elected: 

W. M., Albert L. Cox, the former J. W. 

S. W., Karl P. Burger, the former Tyler. 

J. W., Christian E. Mears. 

Treasurer, Erskine E. Boyce. 

Secretary, George N. Taylor 

At a subsequent meeting held at Colmar-Berg, in the Duchy of Luxembourg, the 
following appointments were made: 

S. D., John E. Burris 
Chaplain, B. R. Lacey, Jr. 

J. D., W. Reid Thompson 
S. S„ Ralph L. Sholar 
Tyler, Dewitt T. Moore 
J. S., Cleve L. Gross 

The following Standing Committees were appointed: 


Oxford Orphanage: John E. Burris, Chairman- John M. Lynch, Harry B. Newell. 



Finance: A. L. Fletcher, Chairman; Harry B. Register, Lennox P. McLendon. 


Reference: Alfred L. Bulwinkle, Chairman, Wm. L. Futrelle Rov L. Vaughan. 


These officers served throughout the remainder of Army Lodge A's existence. 


The lodge did a great deal of work for other lodges in various states, a service 
which it rendered gladly. It also kept "open house" for all Masons everywhere. 
Comparatively few of the Masons of the regiment transferred their membership to 
Army Lodge A, but those who did not were welcomed just as warmly at every 
meeting as if they had transferred and the Masons of other regiments of the 30 th 
Division, while in the United States, and of various units with which the regiment 
served in France and with the Army of Occupation were always invited to all 
meetings of the lodge and many a homesick Mason was cheered and comforted by 
the experience. 


The Book of Minutes, which is now the property of the Grand Lodge of North 
Carolina, records meetings in various parts of France, at the little town of Bous, 
just a mile from the Moselle River in Luxembourg; at Colmar-Berg and at Bissen, 
in Luxembourg; and at Jouy-Sous les Cotes, in France. The last meeting on French 
soil being held on Saturday, Jan. 18, 1919, just before the regiment entrained for 
Le Mans, to rejoin the 30th Division. 


The last regular communication of the lodge was held aboard the U. S. S. Santa 
Teresa, on March 15, 1919, en route from St. Nazaire, France, to Newport News, 
Va. It was marked by a large attendance of visiting Masons from the ship's crew, 
and everybody enjoyed the very unusual lodge meeting aboard one of Uncle Sam's 
great transports, headed for home. At this meeting Arthur B. Corey, Sam. N. Nash, 



Rufus C. Miller, Herbert N. Thornburg, Lewis Norwood, Charles R. Davis, Wilbur 
C. Spruill and John W. Brookshire were given the degree of Entered Apprentice. 


With the close of this meeting Army Lodge A passed into history. It was not 
regularly dissolved until the regiment was demobilized, but in the rush and hurry 
attendant upon demobilization, it was impossible to hold other meetings. Under the 
charter of the lodge, the membership of the old Masons who constituted Army 
Lodge A automatically reverted to the home lodges from which they had received 
dimits and the new Masons were certified to Lodges having jurisdiction over them. 


Army Lodge A did a great deal of good, underwent many odd and unusual 
experiences, and brought into the Masonic fold a fine lot of young men. It aided 
materially in maintaining the morale of the regiment in all kinds of trying 
circumstances. It helped the Masons of the regiment to keep in mind the high 
principles of their great order. It served to remind the officers of the regiment of 
the fact which all officers in all armies are sometimes apt to forget, that they were 
only men, clothed for a time in authority, but no whit better than the men under 
them. It served also to bring about a clearer understanding among the enlisted 
personnel of the heavy load of responsibility their brother officers carried, and by 
so doing it helped to make the regiment what it was. The lodge never forgot its 
obligations to provide for the widows and orphans and contributed largely to every 
good cause. Fifteen hundred francs, at that time equivalent to $275.00, was 
contributed to the A. E. F's French Orphans' Fund. 


The Roster of Army Lodge A, A. F. & A. M., was as follows: 


Allison, Eugene Atwater, R. L. Bailey, R. A. Baugham, W. E. Bolt, J. P. Boyce, E. 
E. Brookshire, J. W. Bulwinkle, A. L. Burger, K. P. Burris, J. E. Boyd, J. M. 
Chambers, S. C. Coleman, H. G. Corey, A. C. Cox, A. L. Crayton, L. B. Davis, C. 
R. Dixon, W. T. Dorsett, C. E. Fink, Ferdinand Fletcher, A. L. Fogus, O. C. 
Fortune, F. C. Futrelle, W. L. Gardner, L. W. Gatley, G. G. Graham, T. I. Gross, C. 
L. Gross, J. T. Hanson, L. A. Huntley, W. C. Lacey, Jr., B. R. Lacey, T. A. 
Lambert, J. E. Ledford, H. P. Leslie. J. T. Lynch, J. M. Mallard, L. L. Mauldin, R. 



L. Miller, R. C. McCawley, J. W. McKeel, F. W. McLendon, L. P. Mears, C. E. 
Mitchell, J. H. Moore, D. T. Nash, S. N. Nelson, N. L. Newell, H. B. Norwood, G. 
P. Payne, T. L. Pollard, H. C. Pollock, W. W. Pridgen, C. L. Norwood, L. 
Ratcliffe, Z. O. Reeves, N. O. Register, H. B. Rogers, Dudley Russell, S. T. 
Sailing, A. T. Scott, C. T. Sholar, R. L. Simmons, E. S. Speed, J. A. Spruill, W. C. 
Stem, T. G. Taylor, G. N. Thompson, W. R. Thornburg, H. M. Vaughan, R. L. 
Wortman, Q. O. 


Thus the annals of this most interesting lodge of World War days come to a close. 
The following letter from the organizer of the lodge will form an interesting 
addition to the record: 


Capt. Charles F. Irwin, 


Wilmerding. Penn. 


My Dear Sir and Brother: 


I am at my country home with no typewriter and if you will excuse pen I will 
hasten to reply to your letter which was forwarded to me by Bro. Willson, Grand 
Secretary of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. 


As you will realize I am far from home with no data here and it would be 
impossible for me to write with any accuracy an article such as you wish. I think 
the Grand Secretary has the minutes of our "Army Lodge A". Col Cox, Raleigh, N. 
C., or Lieut. Col. S. C. Chambers, Durham, N. C., was to write up the minutes of 
this lodge, giving the movements and battles engaged in as preface to each 
minutes. Whether this has been done or not I do not know. 



While at Camp Sevier, Greenville, S. C., we were all sore because the K.C. were 
holding Mass every morning and entertaining our men and the "Y" did not seem to 
be able to compete. The "Powers that were" turned a deaf ear to all our pleadings 
for the same privileges as the K.C. 


After an interview with Sovereign Grand Master George Fleming Moore, in 
Washington, I was convinced that Masonry had no chance for recognition and at 
the request of many I. as Grand Master, granted a Dispensation to Army Lodge A 
to meet and act as other lodges anywhere on earth where no other Grand Lodge 
whom we recognized held jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge of South Carolina 
waived its rights and allowed us to meet in Greenvilleb S. C. The lodge was 
formed with my Sergeant Joseph H. Mitchell, Sergeant Sanitary Detachment, 

1 13th F.A., as Master; Brigadier General George Gatley, 55 th Field Artillery 
Brigade, S. W.; Col. A. L. Cox, 1 13th F. A., as J. W.; Capt. B. R. Lacey (now 
pastor of Atlanta Presbyterian Church), S. D.; I was Chaplain. 


There were many clamoring for admission. At this time a brother came and said 
that he leased the government the land on which the Camp was located and when 
he did so, he reserved a part in the center of the Camp, intending to use it for 
stores, etc. He offered us this land free of charge for a Masonic building. The 
Grand Master of South Carolina and the Grand Master of Tennessee met with me 
and Deputy Grand Master of North Carolina (George Norfleet) and decided to 
erect a two-story Masonic building in the center of the Camp on the ground given 
us for this purpose. (The 55th F.A. Brigade was composed of troops from 
Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina.) 


This building was erected and the lower floor devoted to entertainment of all 
soldiers regardless of outfit or religion. Writing material, magazines, eats, a nice 
clean lounging place was provided. The upstairs was Strictly Masonic and in 
regular Masonic form. The lodge met here regularly under waiver from Grand 
Lodge of South Carolina until we left for France. We admitted from many states, 
Initiated, Passed and Raised a goodly number of profane and were a very live, 
active lodge. 



We sailed for France but did no work going over-no place and too crowded, and 
everybody too Seasick. We landed in England, and as our Grand Lodge recognized 
England, our lodge held no meetings there although we got together and talked and 
planned for the future. The Grand Lodge of France had requested recognition from 
me before we sailed but I had replied (and the Grand Lodge sustained me) that we 
could not recognize France until she put the Bible back on her Altar. So as we had 
not recognized France our Lodge held meetings and did work in that country in 
many places- in the S.O.S. at Coetquidan and in shot-up Cathedrals at the front. 

We held one meeting in the Cathedral at Verdun and got a perfect Ashlar for the 
lodge from its ruined wall. We held a meeting at St. Mihiel and get a Rough Ashlar 
that was knocked out of a wall there which we brought home with our lodge. Our 
jewels were made from the brass shells we captured from different German 
positions and from shells we fired in victorious action. 


In the Argonne Forest we did degree work in an old dugont with guards placed on 
watch for eavesdroppers and the shells were falling about us. We met in Belgium 
and also near the palace of the Duchess of Luxembourg and here the lodge voted 
many francs to care for the orphan French children at Paris. Some of us crossed the 
river into Germany but as our troops did not move over we held no regular lodge 
meeting there. 


Our final meeting abroad was held aboard ship in the salon in the middle of the 
Atlantic Ocean with Masons from all parts of the world present. We initiated an 
Entered Apprentice. 


The lodge was always true to form and a stickler for doing everything as required 
by the Grand Lodge. Every visitor was examined by a committee and all work 
done exactly as prescribed by the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. 



Shortly after organizing, the regular election was held and all officers moved up 
one step. Before disbanding I think another election was held and Colonel Cox was 
Master when the lodge returned. 


Yours fraternally, 


C. L. PRIDGEN, M. D., 
P.G.M. Grand Lodge of N. C. 


In another letter, Colonel A. L. Cox made this interesting reference to the jewels of 
the lodge, in addition to the mention made above: 


The lodge jewels which were made by members of the lodge from shell cases used 
in action by 75 mm. guns of the regiment have been presented to the Grand Lodge 
of North Carolina. The Deacon Rods made from rammer staffs, the Perfect Ashlar 
secured from the Cathedral at Verdun, and the Rough Ashlar secured from the 
Cathedral at St. Mihiel, were also presented to the Grand Lodge. 


There were many learned brothers in the lodge and the work at all times was 
splendidly put on. The lodge held regular communications before leaving this 
country and also in England, Prance and Luxembourg and the final meeting was 
held in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean on board the S. S. Santa Teresa. While 
meeting at and near the front, guards were at all times put out adjacent to our 
meeting place to detect communications from felons and eavesdroppers. 


The following is from a letter from Bro. Willson, Grand Secretary. 



This lodge surrendered its charter as soon as it was mustered out of the service. It 
was chartered on Jan. 16, 1918. Their stated meetings were held on the third 
Saturday night in each month. They were chartered with eighteen members and 
they surrendered the charter with forty-seven. They conferred degrees upon the 
high seas, in France, and one degree, I think in Germany. 


It would seem that the last reference is probably to the meeting held in 
Luxembourg. 


In closing this article we may express the hope that the Grand Lodge of North 
Carolina may have had photographs taken of the Jewels of this remarkable lodge as 
well as carefully preserving the latter themselves. It would also be a valuable 
addition to their archives to secure, as far as possible, pictures of the different 
localities where the lodge met, as well as portraits of the members. 


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 


General Albert L. Cox resides in Raleigh, N. C. Born in Raleigh, N. C., Dec. 1, 
1883. Raised in William G. Hill Lodge, No. 218, June 2, 1908. Dimitted from the 
same to join Army Lodge "A". Upon surrender of the charter of the Army Lodge 
"A", on March 29, 1919, automatically reinstated in his mother lodge. 


Joseph H. Mitchell, first Master of Army Lodge "A", North Carolina, resident of 
Wilmington, N. C. Initiated in Central Cross Lodge, No. 187, and Raised in the 
same, Sept. 8, 1905. Dimitted from same and affiliated with Louisburg Lodge, No. 
413, on May 5, 1908. Dimitted from same in 1912, and affiliated with St. John's 
Lodge, No. 1, at Wilmington, N. C., July 9, 1912. On July 8, 1917, he dimitted 
from St. John's Lodge, No. 1, to become a member of Army Lodge "A". Upon 
surrender of the charter of this Military Lodge, March 29, 1919, he was 
automatically restored to membership in St. John's Lodge, No. 1, at Wilmington, 
N. C. 



Bro. W. W. Willson, Grand Secretary of North Carolina, to whose kindness and 
unfailing courtesy we have been so much indebted in obtaining the records of 
Army Lodge "A", and putting us in communication with its members, was called 
to the Grand Lodge above on July 15th. His death will be a great loss to the Grand 
Lodge he served so faithfully and efficiently, and we desire to extend our sincere 
sympathy to his friends and to the Craft of North Carolina generally. 


— o — 


The Degrees of Masonry: Their Origin and History 


By BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN (Continued from August.) 


WE have now to consider the later periods into which Bro. G. W. Speth divided his 
consideration of the vexed problem of the origin of Masonic degrees. (1) The first, 
as we have seen, was the "purely Operative" period, and the only evidence 
concerning it is almost entirely confined to the scanty indications to be discovered 
in the old MS. Constitutions, from the Regius and Cooke onwards. These scattered 
fragments are in themselves so obscure that it is practically impossible to construct 
any system at all out of them except upon some hypothesis based upon other 
considerations outside of and apart from them. Thus it came about that all the 
contestants could find support for their own theories in these documents in spite of 
the fact that these theories were mutually contradictory. 


The next two of Speth's four periods are the "Mainly Operative" and the "mainly 
Speculative." It might almost have been better to have treated them as one under 
the head of the "Transition Period," though this term has been more usually applied 
to the few years between 1717 and 1730. It would, however, be very advantageous 
to enlarge its scope, for this limitation is a very narrow and almost artificial one. 



Presumably adopted, in the first place, before it was realized that the process of 
evolution from the Operative to the Speculative status of the Craft began long 
before 1717, perhaps a century or more, and continued long after 1730. Indeed one 
might bring the later limit of transition down to 1813, when, with the Union of the 
Ancient and Modern Grand Lodges, the last traces of Christian doctrine were 
eliminated from the rituals of English Masonry, though a few are still left in those 
used in America. 


As a matter of fact Speth has very little to say about his "mainly Operative" period, 
even less than for the "purely Operative." He remarks that 


. . . the accession of gentlemen to the membership must have been gradually on the 
increase and that it is scarcely conceivable that the operatives, whose object in 
admitting these gentlemen was doubtless to insure their Patronage and good will, 
should have failed to admit them at once to the full membership, i.e., fellowship. 
We cannot suppose for one moment that a seven years' apprenticeship was 
demanded of them. 


And then he goes on to add: 


Possibly they were entered at one lodge meeting and passed to the fellowship at the 
very next annual head-meeting day. 


By which he means, presumably, not the meeting of the lodge in which they were 
entered, but the next general Assembly, or Congregation, as the Cooke MS. terms 
it. He then argues that; 



If so, in course of time the procedure would be simplified, especially if the annual 
assemblies were being neglected, and the two degrees would be conferred 
consecutively at the same meeting. 


In other words, the lodges began to exercise the functions of the Assembly, in 
respect at least to making Masters, or in other words, "Passing" or "admitting" 
Fellows. Speth however insists that the designation of these honorary, or 
gentlemen, members would be Fellows, not Masters, because they would be in no 
sense masters of the craft, although they were Fellows of the society. Yet we find a 
number of instances in 17th century lodge records in Scotland where such 
gentleman Masons are distinctly spoken of as masters as well as "fellows of craft," 
though undoubtedly the latter seems to have been the more usual form. Two 
examples may be cited from the minutes of Mary's Chapel. The first, of date May 
20, 1 640, it is said that the members of the lodge 


. . . doeth admit amoght them the right honerabell Alexander Hamiltone, generall 
of the artillerie of thes kindom, to be felow and Mr. of the forced draft 


And on Dec. 27 (St. John's Day) 1667 the Rt. Hon. Sir Patrick Hume was 


admitted in as fellow of craft (and master) of this lodg. (2) 


In fact, if they were honorary members there is no reason why they should not also 
have been honorary masters. Speth goes on to draw a conclusion from this 
presumed passing of gentlemen masons to the fellowship at one time; he says: 


If we admit these suggestions as plausible, it would be necessary, even at the 
entering of gentlemen to exclude the apprentices, because the admission to the 
fellowship was to follow on immediately, and we should thus be able to account 



for the chief characteristic of the next period of transition, that of the mainly 
speculative, when only one ceremony is indicated and all mention of apprentices 
ceases. 


This naturally gave an opening to those who took the other side of the question to 
retort, "If, as you admit, there was only one ceremony at a later period, why 
suppose two at an earlier one?" But the weakness of his argument is more apparent 
than real, as there does not seem any necessity for supposing that the apprentices 
were excluded from their normal share in the proceedings, whatever these were. 
The later silence in regard to this grade could be very simply accounted for; in 
lodges of purely non-operative membership there would never be any apprentices, 
unless as was actually done at Haughfoot and Dunblane, special rules were enacted 
to forbid the "entering" and “passing" (whatever the terms may have implied) on 
the same occasion. The first of these two lodges, on Dec. 27, 1707, 


. . . came to a generall resolution that in tyme coming, they would not, except on 
special considerations, admitt to the Society both of apprentice and fellowcraft, at 
the same tyme, but that one year at least should intervene betwixt any being 
admitted apprentice and his being entered fellowcraft. (3) 


In most of the old lodges the terms "admit" and "pass" was generally used of 
making fellows, and "enter" of apprentices, but the Haughfoot minutes seem to 
have reversed this usage. It may be noted incidentally that this lodge met once a 
year on St. John's Day in winter, but that any five members (or presumably, more 
than five) were regularly empowered "to admit and enter such qualified persons as 
should apply to them." 


The Dunblane minute is not perhaps so significant, though it is dated Sept. 1,1716, 
a year before the four lodges in London had held the momentous assembly from 
which the Grand Lodge was born. 



It is enacted that in tyme coming there be no meassones or others entered and past 
by the members of this Lodge at one and the same time (except such gentlemen 
who cannot be present at a second diet.) (4) 


But failing such a definite regulation it would come about naturally and inevitably, 
whether entering and passing implied two secret ceremonies, or one, or none, that 
if all the members of the lodge were non-operative, and received to fellowship (or 
full membership) at one time, the apprentice rank would not exist not because it 
was unknown or disused, but because no one remained an appentice for more than 
a few minutes. And this would quite naturally account for its not being mentioned. 


The next stage of Speth's presentation of his argument can be treated more briefly, 
though it actually takes a good deal more space; but as it deals with evidence that 
has already been discussed, it will not be necessary to cover it in detail. The 
initiation of Elias Ashmole is taken first, and Rylands' proof that the lodge at 
Warrington was nonoperative in character is quoted. Rylands laboriously hunted 
through wills and parish registers till he was able to show that most of those 
mentioned as present by Ashmole were landed gentlemen of the neighborhood. 
The lodge at Chester to which Randle Holme belonged was also non-operative in 
the main, though its members were chiefly burgesses of Chester. To some extent 
the same thing seems to have been true, in the seventeenth century, of the 
"Accepcon" connected with the Mason's Company at London. The Old Lodge at 
York was also non-operative, though one instance is recorded of admitting two 
members gratis because they were working stone masons. And, if we admit its 
existence, the lodge at Doneraile which initiated the Hon. Mrs. Aldsworth was 
certainy non-operative. Plot's account is mentioned, which speaks of Freemasons 
as "Fellows of the Society." In all these instances there is no mention of 
apprenticeship, those who were admitted or accepted were thereupon spoken of as 
Fellows. 


It is obvious that all this is compatible either with "entering" as an esoteric 
ceremony and "passing" a mere form, or the other way about, entering a form and 
passing a secret ceremony, or even with the supposition that there was nothing 
worthy of being called an initiation at all. 



Speth sums up this part of his argument by supposing that, during the transition 
between his two intermediate periods, the lodges with non-operative members 


. . . gradually dropped the apprentices from their meetings, and finally became, 
what we next meet, assmblages of gentlemen. 


But, as we have suggested, the dropping of the apprentices, or their exclusion 
(which Speth assumed) would be automatic as the lodge became non-operative in 
character, if honorary members were passed to the fellowship immediately after 
entry. It does not seem necessary to suppose, however, that operative lodges ceased 
to exist in England, though it is quite probable that they would become less and 
less permanent. The Scottish lodges, superintending, as they did, all trade matters 
in their district, naturally kept records of their proceedings. But it is quite possible 
to suppose that English working masons went on with their traditional ceremonies 
when apprentices were indentured with their employer, and when they had served 
their time. One thing alone would keep the custom alive, and that would be the 
treat the young craftsman had to stand all round. It is, however, quite possible, or 
even probable, that the usage was a dying one, and it may have been well nigh 
extinct by the beginning of the eighteenth century; but again, it may not. In the 
absence of records it is impossible to be certain; yet in the scraps of old Masonic 
usage that turned up about 1720 and later it seems to be taken for granted that a 
gentleman Mason might pretty confidently expect to find a "free brother," as the 
Sloane MS. puts it, wherever stone masons were working; and there are strong 
indications of a tradition that the presence of a working mason was necessary to 
make the action of a lodge valid. 


Speth then takes up another aspect of the situation he has assumed; were the 
members of the non-operative lodges of gentlemen masons acquainted with the 
secrets of the apprentices? And he says; 



If so, then as we only know of one ceremony being usual, the two degrees must 
have been practically welded into one. 


To support this he advances the fact that we never hear of more than one oath. 
Randle Holme only gives one oath, according to which the secrets are only to be 
communicated to the "masters and fellows," apprentices not being mentioned. 
Aubrey, who said the adoption "was very formally adds that it is "with an oath of 
Secrecy." Pritchard contains only one oath, and for that matter, as we have already 
noted, the early French rituals of 1745, and even later, have no more. Yet this is 
not conclusive, for, as we have also seen, the Grand Mystery implies another oath 
besides the one given. The oath mentioned above is in the handwriting of Randle 
Holme, and is bound up with the copy of the Old Charges known as Harleian MS. 
No. 2054 and what seem to be a sheet of lodge accounts. It runs as follows: 


There is seu'rall words & signes of a free mason to be revailed to y'u w'eh as y'o 
will answ: before God at the great and terrible day of Judgm't y'u keep secret and 
not revail the same to any in the heares of any p'son W [whomsoever?] but to the 
Mrs & fellows of the said Society of free masons so helpe me God, &c. (5) 


But this lodge at Chester (if we may judge from the fact that the Charges are also 
in Holme's own handwriting) also administered the oath contained in all these 
documents to abide by the several articles and points. In fact it would seem that 
this lack of specific reference to more than one oath does not prove there was no 
more than one. And the Chetwade Crawley MS. (6) (which was discovered some 
years after this paper of Speth's was written) distinctly says that the oath was 
"administered anew." But even this document, like the Grand Mystery, seems to 
imply yet another oath not given, possibly because it was embodied in the charges 


There now follows an argument which seems rather questionable, and it was 
naturally taken up in the discussion. Speth said that 



... the necessity of two degrees arose from the absolute need of two signs or 
modes of recognition, and if, therefore the gentlemen received both degrees, they 
would have been in possession of more than one. 


Lane retorted that "a multiplicity of signs and words" exist today, any of which 
would serve for recognition, and that their combination would not justify us in 
assuming (presumably from the outside) that each one presupposed "a distinct and 
separate degree." Which is quite true, and it may be said, though the point did not 
arise in the discussion, that it is obvious that a single word or sign would never 
serve as a permanent means of recognition. It would have to be surrounded and 
guarded, as it were, by others, in order that two strangers could step by step assure 
themselves each of the other's right. In fact, precisely what might be understood by 
the Scottish phrase "the secrets of the Mason word." But besides this we have a 
"multiplicity" of means of recognition given in the Old Catechisms which are not 
ritual in character (though they may, some of them at least, have obscure ritual 
references) but are purely practical; such as coughing, or clearing the throat three 
times; putting the left stirrup over the saddle when dismounting from a horse; 
saying that a stone lies loose, or is hollow; asking where the master is; or throwing 
one's handkerchief over the left shoulder and the like. So that the reference by 
Holme "to severall words and signes," Aubrey's "certain signes and watchwords" 
and Plot's "certain secret signes" prove nothing to the point, though the doggrel 
verses from "the Prophecy of Roger Bacon" may refer to more than this: 


ffree Masons beware Brother Bacon advises 
Interlopers break in & Ispoil your Divices 
Your Giblin and Square are all out of door 
And Jachin and Boaz shall bee secretts no more. 


This is appended to the Stanley MS. of the Old Charges, and from internal 
evidences is known to be of a date between April, 1713, and August, 1714. There 
is also the doggrel verse in the Mason's Examination: 



An enter'd Mason I have been 

Boaz and Jachin I have seen 

A Fellow I was sworn most rare 

And know the Astler, Diamond and Square 

I know the Master's part full well 

As honest Maughbin will you tell. (8) 


This, Hughan contended, proved not two, but three degrees; which is quite possible 
seeing it was published in 1723, at the same time it does not necessarily have to be 
so interpreted if we suppose Master and Fellow were synonymous terms. Another 
version (9) of this catechism, the Mystery of Freemasons, was published in 1730, 
said to have been found "Amongst the Papers of a Deceased Brother." This has a 
note that is very much to the purpose. Having given the questions about the 
Kitchen and Hall, by which an "Enter'd Apprentice" was to be distinguished from a 
"Brother Mason," there follows another about age to the same end, and then the 
following: 


N.B. When you are first made a Mason you are only enter'd Apprentice (10) and 
till you are made a Master, or as they call it, pass'd the Master's Part, you are only 
an enter'd Apprentice, and consequently must answer under 7, for if you say above 
[7] they will expect the Master's Word and Signs. 


Note. There is not one Mason in a Hundred that will be at the Expense to pass the 
Master's Part, except it be for Interest. 


Incidentally one might ask what interest would induce Masons to be at the 
expense? To qualify for office in the lodge? But in any case, as late as 1730, when 



the present three degrees were certainly known, this document appears to envisage 
only two, of which the superior one was the Master or Brother Mason. But 
"Brother Mason" would seem to be equivalent to Fellow, or Fellow of the Craft. Of 
course the note may have been interpolated by an editor who was a nonMason, so 
that as evidence it is dubious; but as an indication it may have some value. As 
Speth remarked, though the spurious rituals published after this imply three 
degrees, they also reveal, by all kinds of discrepancies and inconsistencies, an 
original two degree system. 


The last period, the purely speculative, can be dealt with very shortly. The 
evidence of the first edition of the Constitutions is brought forward, which has 
already been discussed. Speth says of the Grand Lodge that 


....it was admittedly looked upon as replacing the assembly. 


He could well have put it more strongly and said that it was a conscious effort to 
revive the Assembly, and actually was an Assembly for a few years. It was the 
force of changed circumstances that turned it into a representative body such as we 
now understand by a Grand Lodge. If, therefore, there was a tradition that the 
passing or admitting of masters was a matter for the Assembly, and not for any 
chance gathering of seven masons, it would fully account for the clause in Payne's 
Regulation xiii requiring this, just as the changed circumstances and increased 
numbers would at the same time tend to make it a dead letter. 


In regard to this Speth countered Hughan's interpretation that the Regulation 
implies that the three degrees had already been completed in 1721, or at least in 
1723 when it was published, and that the order of the words, "Masters and Fellow 
Craft," and the subsequent change in the second edition to "Fellow Craft and 
Master," was without any significance, by pointing out that if three degrees were 
originally referred to, then the minute recording the repeal of the clause, which 
mentions only "Masters," produced the extraordinary result that the lodges could 
make Masters but that Fellow Crafts could only be made in Grand Lodge. 



He refers also to Dr. Stukeley's statement that he was 


. . . the first person made a Freemason in London for many years. We had great 
difficulty to find members enough to perform the ceremony. (11) 


Speth was inclined to see in this remark, concerning an event which took place 
(according to Stukeley's diary) on Jan. 6, 1721, an evidence of the difficulty in 
finding Masons competent to work the second degree, that is to pass Masters or 
Fellows. That the difficulty was anything but accidental, or so to speak, local, that 
is within the limits of the Doctor's friends and their acquaintance, is a little hard to 
believe, if there really was a second traditional ceremony. Really there is nothing 
in what he says to give the least indication that he here referred to a second part 
and not merely to the "making" or "entering." Stukeley does indeed seem to have 
been concerned in an attempt to institute another degree or society, but whatever 
the "Order of the Book, or Roman Knighthood" may have been it seems to have 
died still-born. (12) The suggestion that the difficulty mentioned by him was due to 
his desire to go beyond the first grade was quite unnecessary from Speth's point of 
view. Having argued that in lodges which had ceased to have any Operative 
element in them would inevitably tend to amalgamate the two ceremonies into one, 
it only served to weaken his case to suppose that the occasional lodge formed to 
initiate Stukeley worked them separately, or as would be implied by the 
suggestion, that the two grades were given separately in London. Such a 
supposition really fitted Hughan's theory much better, that the three degrees had 
already been invented by the leaders of the Grand Lodge, for being recent 
inventions it would be only natural that but few would know them. However it is 
probable that in this Speth was following Gould, who had, in his paper on Dr. 
Stukeley, (13) made the same suggestion some years before. Neither this 
interpretation, nor the opposing one that fits Hughan's theory, really follow from 
what Stukeley actually says in his various allusions to the event. In his 
autobiography he remarks under the year 1720, that: 



His curiosity led him to be initiated into the mysteries of Masonry, suspecting it to 
be the remains of the mysteries of the antients, when with difficulty a number 
sufficient was to be found in all London. (14) 


He gives no hint how he came to "suspect" that Masonry was a survival of the 
ancient Mysteries, and still less what conclusion he came to after his initiation. His 
account is quite consistent with the hypothesis that he was satisfied as to its 
antiquity, and this is strengthened by the fact that his interest was much greater and 
more lasting than that of his predecessor Ashmole. This second allusion to the 
difficulty in collecting sufficient number to form a lodge can only be interpreted 
(seeing that we know for a fact that there were Masons enough in London to form 
a number of regular lodges) as referring to his own circle. Like so much else of the 
evidence it is ambiguous; it can be made to fit into the most widely opposite 
theories. 


NOTES 


(1) A.Q.C., Vol. xi, p. 41, et seq. 

(2) Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, pp. 80 and 81. 

(3) A.Q.C., Vol. xvi, p. 178, also Gould History, Vol. ii, p. 68. It was the regular 
custom in this lodge for those who were made Masons to be "entered" to the lodge 
by a "commission" of five members. Apparently any five members might thus act 
though the "commission" was renewed at each St. John's Day meeting of the lodge. 
This may be Significant in view of the requirement in the MS. Constitutions that 
no one is to be made a Mason without five or six or seven Masons present and 
consenting. The numbers required vary in the different versions. 

(4) Lyon op. cit., p. 416. 

(5) Gould, Hist. Vol ii, p 308 

(6) A.Q.C., Vol. xvii, p. 9i. Hughan gives here a brief account of this MS. and its 
discovery. Like at least one other MS. Catechism it was found in an old book, the 



original owner of which was unknown. Expert opinion, based on the character of 
the handwriting, puts the approximate date as 1730. Hughan is contemptuous of 
this group of documents, but seems, rather unwillingly, compelled to admit that 
this one (perhaps because it has never been published) may afford some light on 
the usages of the period. 

(7) A.Q.C., Vol. 1, p. 127. Speth here, as early as 1888, argued that this piece of 
coarse, not to say obscene, doggrel, was an important indication of the character of 
the Masonic ritual previous to the formation of the Grand Lodge. His analysis of 
this "Prophecy of Brother Roger Bacon . . . woh Hee writ on ye N: E: Square of ye 
Pyramids of Egypt" has been universally accepted as demonstrating that it must 
have been composed between after the Peace of Utrecht and before the death of 
Queen Anne, the first ten lines consisting of cryptic allusions to important events 
that occurred at that time. He stresses the phrase "Interlopers break in," and 
suggests that it may refer to the influx of non-operatives, who were gaining control 
by sheer force of numbers, and were inclined to modify the old customs or 
introduce unheard of novelties. At least it does seem to indicate Masonic activity 
and evolution before 1716. 

(8) Another version of these verses is given in Prichard's "Master's Part," but 
broken up for catechetical purposes. As the "Dissection" presents three degrees 
under their present names the line "A fellow I was sworn most rare" has been 
edited into "A Master Mason I was made most rare." 

(9) So far as we know this document has not been recently published. Gould (Op. 
cit. Vol. iv, p. 278) says it first appeared in the Daily Journal, Aug. 15, 1730. 
Chetwode Crawley (A. Q.C., Vol. xviii, p. 141) says it was copied in the same 
month by The Dublin Intelligence. Franklin (before he became a Mason) 
reproduced it with some small variations, in The Pennsylvania Gazette of Dec. 3rd 
following. But it was reprinted in London in the form of "broadsheets," and it may 
have been from one of these that he took it. It was reproduced many times and 
under different names, such as The Grand Whimsey, The Puerile Signs and 
Wonders of a Freemason and so on. The Catechism is obviously a version of the 
Mason's Examinations 

(10) Or, as a MS. copy, discovered a few years ago by Bro. Songhurst, has it, "you 
are only entered an Apprentice," a variation that may be of importance in regard to 
the origin and intention of the term "Entered Apprentice." This MS. was also found 
in an old book under similar circumstances to the Chetwode Crawley MS. The 



handwriting and paper appear to be consistent with its being at least as old as 1730, 
and it may be an independent version. 


(1 1) Gould Concise History, p. 223, also the larger work, Vol. iii, p. 36 and 
A.Q.C., Vol. vi, p. 127. 

(12) Gould History, Vol. iii p. 40, note 6. 

(13) A.Q.C., Vol. vi, p. 141. 

(14) Ibid., p. 130. 


— o — 


Masonic Symbols of the Minoan Period 


THE discovery of the remains of a great civilization that preceded by many 
centuries that of Greece, and that was apparently centered in the Island of Crete, 
gives rise to some of the most interesting problems in archaeology. For one thing 
the Minoans seem in many ways to have been extraordinarily modem, or what we 
are pleased to think of as "up-to-date." 


In the great palace at Knossos, which was discovered by Sir Arthur Evans at the 
beginning of the present century and gradually laid bare by his excavators in 
succeeding years, many surprising and intriguing features are to be found. Not 
least among them was the so-called "throne-room" and the hall of the double axes. 
Recently our Greek contemporary Pythagoras, which is the organ of the Supreme 
Council of the A.A.S.R. at Athens published a lecture delivered in a lodge there in 
February of this year, by Bro. Spiridean Monsouris. This has been translated into 
English by Bro. Eustis Eliople of the Henry L. Palmer Lodge, No. 301, of 
Milwaukee, Wis. Both the translator, and the editor of the Palmer Templegram, 
desire that all credit for this should be ascribed to their lodge. The lecture contains 



suggestions that most Masonic students will feel much caution in accepting, yet 
there are undeniable coincidences that at least are exceedingly interesting. 


THE Cretan Civilization dates back to about 3500 B. C., and differs vastly from 
that of Ancient Greece of 400 to 300 B. C. Attention has again been called to it 
through the excavating operations undertaken in 1900 A. D., by Sir Arthur Evans 
and others of like fame and reputation for reliability. 


Most of the treasures of this remarkable Cretan Civilization were found in the 
enormous palace at Knossos, on the island of Crete, the domain of Minos. There, 
in this wonderful palace at Knossos, was discovered a separate section, or 
sanctuary of ceremonies, and it has been established positively that in this sanctum 
certain mysterious and religious rites were performed with symbolic exercises. 
There also has been found the so-called Hall of the Royal Throne, in which the 
ancient Cretans held their symbolical assemblages. 


Sir Arthur Evans made a minute study of the various signs and marks found there. 
In his book, "The Palace of Minos," he expressed himself definitely: "It is 
impossible for anyone to have the least doubt that this Hall of the Royal Throne 
was intended and used for religious ceremonies; during my visit there it gave me 
indeed the impression of being a Masonic Lodge." 


This Hall is rather small and at its North wall still stands the throne, constructed of 
alabaster, on a raised dais, ornamented and canopied. On either side of it are to be 
found frescoes, mural paintings, of winged lions interspersed with irises, the lions 
turning their heads toward the throne as if they were guarding it. This throne 
corresponds with out present-day W.M's chair. To the left and right of it are 
permanent benches and this arrangement shows similarity to our rows of seats. 


Entering the hall from the left there is a mysterious underground cavern with a 
stairway leading into it, and it has been verified by archaeologists that this room 



was always kept dark and apparently served the purpose of a purifying and 
meditation chamber, in which there were duly prepared all those desirous to be 
initiated into the Cretan mysteries. To the South of the throne there are other 
sections with various ceremonial designs carved into the wall. 


At the main-entrance of the Hall there are two giant square stone-pillars. All 
archaeologists and architects have been able to discover, that these pillars ever 
supported any part of the building. They stand erect and independent, a 
magnificent symbol, and undoubtedly correspond with our pillars in symbolic 
meaning. 


Among the many other ceremonial relics found, forming a basis of this ancient 
form of deistic worship, are various curiously carved objects of bone having the 
appearance of flowers, calyses, birds, etc., and others having the form of seeds of 
the pomegranate. 


The most interesting frescoes to us as Masons are one consisting of alternate black 
and white squares, and another representing the famous Rhytophorous, or bearer of 
the cornucopia (the horn of plenty), wearing an Apron. These two objects of 
interest have been removed to the Museum of Crete. 


Also there were found many statuettes holding their hands outstretched in various 
positions. The most important one, found by Elnouth Bossert, has its hands in the 
exact position of an Entered Apprentice. Others have their hands over their hearts, 
forehead and in still more significant positions, representing signs similar and 
analogous to Masonic signs of higher degree, which the oath of secrecy forbids us 
to divulge or describe in detail in print. 


As it is known that the ancient Cretans were allied with the ancient inhabitants of 
Asia Minor, it is not improbable that these two peoples had common mysteries. 



Let us endeavor to bridge the gap of time and we must admit, that the mysteries 
performed at Knosos, Crete, have the identical symbolic meaning as the relics 
found in Antioch, Asia Minor, and Eleusis, Attica, Greece, and bear close alliance 
to those of the Temple of Sol-om-on. 


— o — 


The Message of Masonry 


By BRO. CHARLES A. ELL WOOD. Missouri 


AUSTRIAN Masons are studying the question of spreading more efficaciously the 
ideas and principles of Masonry in their country; the General Masonic League, the 
National Group of Austria, organized the proceedings by the following scheme. 
Austrian Masonry counting not more than 1 600 members must ask whether the 
principle of selection, on which they are based, really serves the propagation of 
Masonic doctrines, which is and must be their aim. Selection not carefully 
circumscribed may in the contrary lead to excluding rather wide circles from 
joining our Order, instead of encouraging them to enter it. Thus Austrian Masonry 
might come to represent an extreme limiting itself to a small number of 
intellectuals in touch more or less with one section only of their people (six and 
one-half millions) but consequently limited also in its social influence and material 
success. 


The other extreme seems to be personified by American Masonry extending over 
such a great portion of the population that the tenth part of its adults is gathered 
within the bounds of the Temple of Humanity. No wonder they are able to perform 
most striking and visible effects! 



Bro. Frank of Vienna [known to readers of THE BUILDER through a number of 
excellent articles] was charged to inform his brethren concerning American 
Masonry at large, in a discourse held on March 19. He showed by the aid of 
Statistics the gigantic results obtained by large numbers and clever organizing; 
large sums can be raised for the building of temples, for efficacious works of 
public and Masonic beneficence, for Social progress in general and for education 
especially; and also that "number" by no means necessarily forms an obstacle to 
intellectual and spiritual action or evolution, which is naturally led by the "few"; 
and he explained and described such performances, and even their influence upon 
polities in the higher sense. 


Bro. Frank came to the conclusion that Austria could not possibly try to transplant 
American conditions upon Austrian ground, but that very much was to be learned 
from American Masonry, and, properly adapted, could serve immensely to the 
benefit of the Craft, in spite of the serious difficulties standing against Masonry in 
Austria. 


Following this, Bro. Ellwood had been invited by the above mentioned Austrian 
Branch of the Universal Masonic League to express his views on Quantity and 
Quality, before the same Masonic group, which he did on April 16. Thus the same 
question was answered by a representative of one of the smallest and by one of the 
largest Masonic entities. Bro. Ellwood has been most enthusiastically received by 
the Viennese brethren and cordially cheered by his audience, his lecture being 
highly admired and appreciated the more as he delivered it in the German 
language. 


The Viennese lodges will subsequently sum up the ideas expressed by the two 
discourses, they will be discussed, and a report will be submitted to the Grand 
Lodge of Vienna, whose Grand Master, highly interested in the movement, assisted 
at both meetings. B. L.F. 



[Dr. Ellwood is Professor of Economies at Missouri University, Columbia. He is a 
member of Acacia Lodge, No. 602, and of the Consistory of Western Missouri. His 
address was published in the April number of the Wiener FreimaurerZeitury. It is 
published here at the Special request of Bro. Frank. Ed.] 


PERMIT me to express, first of all, my deep appreciation of the privilege of 
meeting and addressing the Freemasons of Vienna, and of bearing fraternal 
greetings in an official way, from the Masons of America to the Masons of Austria. 


Austria and the United States have much in common, though apparently widely 
separated. Both, in spite of their different situation, have developed a cosmopolitan 
spirit and in both the conflicting tendencies of our civilization have come to intense 
expression. Both are vitally interested in promoting the peace of the world and in 
finding some solution of the problem of our civilization. It should not be difficult, 
therefore, for the Masons of Austria and America to do something more with their 
Freemasonry than merely to cultivate fraternal goodwill; it ought to be possible for 
them to develop to some degree fraternal cooperation. The Masonic Order 
throughout the world must, indeed learn to cooperate, to work together, if the 
ideals of Masonry are ever to be realized or even to survive; and perhaps a 
beginning of such cooperation has been made by Austrian and American Masons. 


It has not been customary among Masons to speak of the "message" of their Order. 
Yet surely it has a message for the world which was never more sorely needed than 
at the present time. For our present world is one of suspicion, distrust, dislike, and 
disunity, yes even of hate and mutual destruction. Never was the world in more 
pitiful need of a message of toleration, fraternal unity, and constructive work than 
at the present time; and this is the essential message of Freemasonry. In some way 
or other the gospel of toleration, fraternal unity, and constructive work must be 
preached to the classes, nations and races of the modern world, or else our 
civilization will go under. We Masons call ourselves "builders"; it is high time that 
we demonstrate to the world that we are able to "build" and to cooperate on a 
world scale in our work. 



UNITY THROUGH TOLERATION 


First of all, of course, comes the great Masonic doctrine of toleration. Classes and 
nations, not less than individuals, live through mutual appreciation. But there can 
be no mutual appreciation among men until they learn to tolerate each other's 
differences. Toleration is the first step towards appreciation and cooperation. It has 
been no accident, therefore, that the Masonic Order, as an order of builders, has 
stood so strongly for liberty and toleration in human development. Liberty and 
tolerance should not only be exemplified within our Order, but in some way or 
other should be preached to the world. It is a matter of pride to me that I belong to 
an Order, which unites Christians, Mohammedans, Jews, yes even Buddhists and 
Confucianists, in one fraternity. The great Italian historian and apostle of 
democracy, Guglielmo Ferrero, has shown in his latest work that mankind is being 
driven by all the forces of history steadily towards unity, even against its will; that 
even the wars of the last four centuries have resulted in the greater unity of 
mankind; and that no other destiny is possible for mankind than one of social unity. 
For he shows that to create unity out of isolation and diversity is the very essence 
of the historical process. 


But men foolishly resist human unity. Classes, nations, and races, brought into 
contact with one another, suddenly become aware of their differences, and each 
begins to emphasize his own superior qualities. Class, national and racial pride 
assert themselves, and these all too frequently develop into class, national and 
social hate. Objectively unity is being forced upon mankind; but subjectively men 
still resist unity. This makes the process needlessly painful. It should be the work 
of the Masonic Order to teach men that unity is the destiny of mankind, and that 
this unity ought to be cultivated in the sympathies and sentiments of the individual 
soul, in order that the process of achieving objective unity in our world may be 
hastened and that out of unity may develop the harmony and the brotherhood of 
mankind. It has long been the boast of the Masons that their Order has done even 
more than the churches to make the brotherhood of mankind a reality. Let not this 
be an idle boast ! Let it become a practical program ! It is already in part such; but 
it would become even more practical if all Masons understood that the historic 
mission of their Order is, in one sense, to mediate and promote this process of 
world unity. A vital part of the message of Freemasonry is, therefore, the 
inevitableness of the fraternal unity of mankind. 



THE ROYAL ART OF SPECULATIVE BUILDING 


Finally, the great Masonic doctrine of work, of constructive work, is a message 
sorely needed by our world. Our age is a critical one, and like all the critical ages 
of the world's history, it has tended to make criticism merely destructive and 
negative. It has forgotten that civilization is built up only by constructive labor. 

The forgetting of this fact is the main source of the "Bolshevism" of our age. It is 
too intent upon asserting its rights and too little solicitous of its duties. Duty, in 
fact, is a concept held up to ridicule, as a mere superstition. Pleasure is the idol of 
the hour. But duty and work are nearly synonymous, and those who repudiate duty 
usually end by evading work also. They seek not to render the greatest service to 
mankind but rather the easiest way possible through life. No socially healthy 
human world can be built upon such a basis. When our human world has been built 
soundly, it has always been built by labor and love, and it can be built in no other 
way. Destructive criticism there must be at times when institutions need to be 
changed; but our world can never be built by destructive criticism. It must be built 
by intelligent constructive effort. Work, next after intelligence, is what produces 
culture; or rather, should we not say that culture is produced by intelligent work? 
Cooperation in all constructive work is what our world manifestly needs; and this 
is the message of Freemasonry. 


But we Masons must remember that the world can never be saved by exclusive 
organization. It must be saved by an inclusive order which will in some way or 
other comprehend all men. If we have any mission it must be to promote the 
growth of such an order, which shall embody the great doctrines of Masonry 
namely, toleration, fraternal unity, and constructive work in an objective social 
world. As Bro. Frank has said in effect: 


There can be no ethical advance, no general development of mankind, without the 
cooperation of all the good. How, then are we Masons to reach all the good? Are 
we to seek to bring all the good, liberal, progressive men in every country into the 
Masonic Order? Or should the Masonic Order be composed of carefully selected 
individuals who are fitted to lead? 



Here we come to the question of "Quantity verses Quality" in Masonic bodies. The 
Masonry of the United States and of continental Europe have followed opposite 
paths in this matter. Of the four million Freemasons in the world, over three 
million are found in the United States. One out of every ten of the adult men of the 
United States is a member of the Masonic Order. The result of this popularization 
of Masonry has not been altogether good. Masonic Lodges in the United States 
have a great deal of "dead wood," of merely nominal adherents, among their 
members. Moreover, the American Lodges have quite generally come to neglect 
the higher work of Masonry in the way of philosophical and ethical teaching, and 
have tended to become formal and ritualistic bodies, throwing the whole stress 
upon symbols which each individual is allowed largely to interpret as his fancy 
dictates. The inclusion of great numbers within the lodges seems to have lowered 
its tone. To some extent it may be due to the fact that American Masons feel that 
their political and social battle is won. The Masonry of George Washington's and 
Thomas Jefferson's day stood for very positive democratic, social and political 
ideals; but these ideals were written into the Constitution of the United States; and 
since then, American Masons have felt that their work was to guard the social and 
political order already established. 


APPENDANT ORDERS AND HIGH DEGREES 


It is noteworthy, however, that out of the general body of Freemasons in the United 
States there has developed special bodies of higher degrees which have tended in a 
measure to re-introduce the philosophical and even to some extent the social and 
political aspects of Masonry. This is especially the case with the Scottish Rite 
Bodies. There are now more than half a million Masons in the United States in 
these bodies which represent the higher degrees. They are supposed to be a 
carefully selected group. Of course, not all the members of these bodies are true 
leaders in their communities, but they include a surprising number of leaders in 
every line, and especially in economic lines. The development of such bodies of 
higher degrees, if their members are selected for distinguished leadership, is one 
solution of the problem of leadership. 



It might seem that I regard the development of Freemasonry in the United States as 
ideal and as affording a model for European Masons. But that is not the case. 
Masonic bodies of every sort in the United States are still too apathetic to social 
and political conditions which are in manifest contradiction to Masonic principles. 
They no longer universally manifest that enthusiastic loyalty to democracy which 
characterized American Masonry in George Washington's day; nor is there much 
effort in American Masons to develop intelligent social and political leadership. 
Lectures on philosophical, social and political principles are almost entirely absent 
from American Lodges. European Masons, on the other hand, perhaps just because 
they are persecuted and because they have not won their battle in some countries, 
have kept alive the consciousness of the social and political ideals of Freemasonry. 
They undertake more definite social and political education of their members. 
European Masons are few in number as compared with American Masons, but they 
are a carefully selected group which has better kept alive the real spirit of the 
Masonic movement. For example, in America we have at present, so far as I know, 
no great social and political philosophers of Masonry, such as you seem to count in 
European ranks. Yet obviously we need the stimulus of many such men. European 
Masonry can do much for American Masonry if intellectual contacts can be 
established between them. It can re-awaken American Masonry to a consciousness 
of its great social mission and responsibilities, and incidentally get it to scrutinize 
more carefully the quality of its membership. 


On the other hand, American Masonry sets before European Masonry the example, 
not only of popularization, but also of differentiation. Masonry needs not only a 
large popular following to accomplish its mission, but also within it a body of men 
carefully selected for distinguished leadership. Indeed, the sole problem of 
Freemasonry, as I see it, is how the few can lead the many. It is a problem of social 
leadership. European Masonry must devise ways of reaching and leading the 
masses; American Masons have the same problem, but in a different form. They 
must devise ways of selecting and developing a body of distinguished leaders. 
European Masonry needs to expand and popularize the Masonic movement. 
American Masonry needs to concentrate and to dedicate itself more fully to the 
realization of Masonic ideals. Only thus can the message of Freemasonry namely, 
toleration, fraternal unity, and constructive work be spread effectively throughout 
our human world. 



In my opinion, the spread of Masonic doctrines is not wholly dependent upon the 
size of Masonic lodges. It is rather a question of the effective social leadership 
which the lodges can furnish; and effective leadership depends upon the quantity 
and quality of their educational work. Now it is notorious that the education of 
adults unto new and ideals is a difficult task, while the education of the young, if 
they can be re-echoed, does not present the same difficulties. We must devise 
means, therefore, of conveying to our youth the idealism of the Masonic 
movement, if we would economize our energy. I would commend, therefore, to my 
European Masonic brethren the De Molay movement. It aims to inculcate into our 
young men while their character is forming the principles of Masonry and to 
educate them practically for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship. The 
message of Freemasonry can be effectively spread only through schools for the 
dissemination of Masonic ideals, which shall bring these ideals to the open minds 
of the young. The De Molay movement opens a way to reach the minds of the 
young. It should, therefore, be developed by the Masons of all countries, as 
perhaps the surest means of promoting the Masonic movement and of establishing 
Masonic principles. 


In conclusion, let me congratulate the Masonic lodges of Vienna upon their 
excellent educational program, as revealed by many of their monthly programs. 
They are setting a standard for Masonic lodges of the whole world which it will be 
difficult for many of us to emulate. 


In thus building the minds and souls of men, they are engaged in the truest sort of 
Masonic work. 


— o — 


EDITORIAL 


R.J. MEEKREN, Editor in Charge 



E.E. Thiemeyer, Research Editor 


BOARD OF EDITORS 

LOUIS BLOCK, Iowa 
ROBERT I. CLEGG, Illinois 
GILBERT W. DAYNES, England 
RAY V. DENSLOW, Missouri 
GEORGE H. DERN, Utah 
N.W.J. HAYDON, Canada 
R.V. HARRIS, Canada 
C. C. HUNT, Iowa 
CHARLES F. IRWIN, Pennsylvania 
A. L. KRESS, Pennsylvania 
F. H. LITTLEFIELD, Missouri 
JOSEPH E. MORCOMBE, California 
ARTHUR C. PARKER, New York 
J. HUGO TATSCH, Iowa 
JESSE M. WHITED, California 
DAVID E. W WILLIAMSON Nevada 


THE EASTERN STAR 



IT is very curious how completely the nature and constitution of the Order of the 
Eastern Star is misunderstood in Great Britain, and quite generally for that matter, 
in the British Empire. We are moved to this remark by the following 
pronouncement by the Rt. Hon., Lord Ravensworth, the Provincial Grand Master 
of the Province of Durham in the North of England. As reported in the London 
Freemason, he said, in his address to the Provincial Grand Lodge, that he had been 
given considerable anxiety by the "recrudescence" of the Eastern Star. He 
proceeded as follows: 


Now it is a direct command from Grand Lodge that no Brother is to have any sort 
of truck whatever with the "Eastern Star," which apparently is a spurious form of 
Masonry presided over by women, and in which women attend. It is absolutely 
against every Masonic tradition that such a thing should obtain; it is against all our 
obligations, and I must ask that you should be very firm in having nothing 
whatever to do with this thing in any sort of way. 


Reading this with attention one is almost compelled to believe that what our noble 
and right worshipful brother really said must have been condensed by the reporter 
till it has become almost unintelligible. But even allowing for this it would seem as 
if Lord Ravensworth had completely confused the Order of the Eastern Star with 
the lodges of the English branch of the Drotte Humaine, known also as Co- 
Masonry. 


This last, indeed, does come under the designation of spurious Masonry, as that is 
defined, for it does actually work Masonic ceremonies, according to French rituals, 
while admitting both sexes to membership. But it is rather hard on Rob Morris to 
confuse the female adoptive order that he founded with an organization that would 
have crisped his hair in horror had he ever heard of it. 


As we understood the objection to the Eastern Star in England, it was chiefly upon 
what would seem to most American Masons a mere technicality that it was refused 



any recognition. Masonry in every country has its own special traditions and 
customs in addition to those that are general or universal. This is a fact that most 
Masons forget, or never learned, sometimes with very unfortunate results. The 
Eastern Star was of American origin, and its constitution was naturally designed to 
fit in with American Grand Lodge customs and regulations, just as its inception 
especially filled a need in a partly settled country. A glance at its history will bring 
out what we mean. 


All Masons owe not only certain duties towards their brother Masons, but also to 
their near female relatives. This is a logical consequence from the fact that the 
greatest injuries, and conversely the greatest services, may be done to a man 
indirectly through wife, or sister, or daughter. While apparently the lax moral 
standards of the present day do not emphasize this, it is too much a matter of 
instinct and of natural feeling to ever be otherwise. It was thus that certain methods 
of making this part of the Masonic obligations more effective came into being 
early in the last century. Where they originated no one knows. They filled a need, 
and presumably the need gave them birth. There were several of these 
arrangements; some of them are on record some not. They had various names, in 
some cases quite explanatory of their purpose such as "The Mason's Wife." In 
some of them there was a simple improvised ceremony, but the essential of all of 
them was that certain signs, and other means of calling attention, were 
communicated by Masons to their female relatives under a promise of secrecy, 
which same signs were communicated to all and sundry Master Masons as 
opportunity served. The Thian Ti Hwui or Hung League did the same thing in 
China, only rather more logically and efficiently. A set of signs for female use was 
communicated to each member, which he could communicate at his discretion to 
his wife or daughter. This ensured that every member would recognize such 
signals, which the haphazard methods among American Masons did not. 


When Rob Morris collected several of these incipient feminine organizations, and 
enlarged and improved them into an independent Order for women, he still had the 
original purpose in view. Each Chapter was under the patronage of a Mason, 
probably because the women of that day were generally incapable of anything like 
executive work, and all Master Masons were to be urged to attend, and thus 
become better equipped to fulfill their obligations to the womenfolk of their 
brethren in the time of need. 



Naturally and inevitably, once it was started as an independent organization it 
began to develop along its own lines, and this development has been accelerated in 
the complete change in the conditions of life and improvement of communications. 
The practical side of the original form of the Order has become in actual fact 
unnecessary. Yet it does fill a social function very efficiently, and without any 
special danger to Masonic Landmarks or traditions. 


We have now to consider what was found incompatible with British Masonic rules 
and customs. The Constitution of the Order provided that membership was to be 
restricted to Master Masons in good standing, and their near female relatives. The 
crux was in the requirement of good standing. American Masonic Codes and 
customs made no especial secret of membership rolls. Presumably in most cases, 
convinced of the usefulness of the organization as a means of carrying Masonic 
duties into effect, the various Grand Lodges saw no reason to forbid the secretaries 
of lodges furnishing information, thus the arrangement worked very well. But in 
other countries membership is regarded as one of the lodges' most private 
concerns. Not even a Mason has any right to know anything about the membership 
of another lodge. This tradition of privacy is one of the original and most ancient 
ones in the Craft, which American Masonry has long abandoned. It is not to be 
condemned therefore but neither is the Masonry of other countries to be denied 
their right to maintain the older ideas. 


It is thus obvious that without a radical change in its Constitution the Eastern Star 
could not exist in Great Britain. Just how it could be modified so that the Order 
could retain its character permanently without official information is not easy to 
say. Something has been done along these lines, we have no definite information 
about it, however. But, these changes made, we fail to see what objection can 
remain if English Masons and their families find pleasure in the pretty ceremonies 
of the Eastern Star. They have nothing Masonic about them, and make no practice 
to have. And while the practical value may now-a-days be almost nil, yet the same 
may be said of Masonry itself in that particular respect. 



In this day of feminine independence it might seem more appropriate if the ladies 
were to eject their Patrons and male members, and carried on by themselves, 
without any regard or connection with the masculine Fraternity. It is not likely this 
will happen, possibly because, as certain cynics would have us believe, women as 
a sex are not clubbable, are not interested in the feminine equivalent of fraternity. 
But the real factor will be the past history of the Institution. Springing as it did 
from a need to make effective a certain part of the Masonic obligations, a tradition 
has been created that could hardly be uprooted without killing the organization 
entirely. 


* * * 


THE LIBRARY 


JUST so the reader will not think that he has started on a discussion of Masonic 
Libraries, we wish to advise that the title is taken from the department in THE 
BUILDER which goes by that name. The fact that we wish to discuss book reviews 
is ample justification for the selection. 


If we analyse the duties which arise from the practice of reviewing books in any 
publication it becomes apparent that there is a two-fold aspect to the problem. On 
the one hand there is a duty to the reader of the periodical to give him a fair and 
impartial judgment of the book. Weighed against this there is a duty toward the 
publisher which might be summed up in the same way - to furnish a fair and 
impartial judgment of his product. There can be no doubt as to which is the most 
important. There is no difference between the two. The debt is one of honor in 
either case and must be lived up to so far as human frailty will permit. 


There is still another aspect to the case. In the event that the reviewer does not 
consider a book up to the highest standards, or if he finds in its pages inaccuracies 
that should be corrected, to whom is his first duty? Should he smooth over the 



rough places for the benefit of possible sales or should he endeavor to protect 
readers who may not be as familiar with the subject from falling into the traps that 
the inaccuracies may place in his path? 


Perhaps an illustration of this question will not be out of place since our present 
purpose is to discuss these last two questions. In the course of a review of one of 
the best books we have had the pleasure of reading in recent years the writer found 
a few mistakes so far as Masonic facts were concerned. The author of the book is 
not a Mason, as a result he did not have available the material that naturally comes 
to the Mason who is interested in learning about his fraternity. This was a minor 
detail in a book filled with the soundest of scholarship. In view of the high 
standards of this work should we have passed the errors unnoticed and allowed our 
readers who might be interested in the book to fall into the same error or should we 
call attention to them to the possible loss of the publisher and discredit of the 
author? 


There is another illustration which will serve to present one side of the story and 
we will insert it before making mention of the action taken in the example above 
given. Some time ago one of our reviewers severely criticised the work of one of 
the Masonic students who is becoming increasingly popular. It so happens that 
reviews of this author's works have appeared in THE BUILDER with some 
frequency in the past. For the most part the reviews have been unfavorable. There 
is no need for our readers to gather the impression that we were antagonistic to the 
author. We were anything but that, nevertheless we felt that our duty to our readers 
came before any other and that as long as we were satisfied in our own conscience 
that we were being entirely fair and impartial that we could not pass over the 
errors. In one of the books reviewed we found an actual misquotation. Whether it 
was intentional or not we do not presume to say. The fact remains that the manner 
in which a certain authority was quoted in this writer's work fitted in better with the 
author's idea than the way that it originally appeared in the text. Be that as it may. 
The error was called to the attention of our readers. In the case of the last book 
reviewed our reviewer discovered what he thought to be an inaccuracy, and he 
criticised it rather severely. We are taking no part in the argument. We do not 
presume to dictate what our reviewers shall say and what they shall not say. Their 
opinions are their own and as long as their consciences are clear we are satisfied. 



The publisher of these books has refused to furnish us with copies of their 
publications for review. That is the stand taken by one publishing house. 


To return to the first example. When the mistakes were called to the attention of 
the author he wrote and thanked us for finding them, stating that he was gratef ul to 
us for assisting him and that he would be careful to eradicate the errors in the case 
of a revised edition. We suggested that his manuscript be submitted to a man who 
was an authority on that phase of Masonic research in an endeavor to have any 
other possible errors corrected. We were thanked for our trouble and believe we 
have made a friend of the author. 


We leave it to others to decide which course was correct. We have been consistent 
in both cases. The reaction has been entirely different. There is no desire on our 
part to be unjust. Every publisher is entitled to a fair and impartial judgment upon 
the books reviewed. When we cannot be fair to ourselves and fair to our readers in 
giving a book a favorable review, should we be favorable to the publisher to the 
extent of deceiving our readers? The answer is obvious. 


— o — 


THE STUDY CLUB 


A pamphlet on "How to Organize and Maintain a Study Club" will be sent free on 
request, in quantities to fifty 


Reports on Cedar Rapids Conference 



IN the June number mention was made of the Conference of Masonic Librarians 
and Research Workers held at Cedar Rapids, la., last May, and a fuller account of 
the proceedings was promised in due course. 


Some delay was inevitable, as the brethren who read papers naturally desired to put 
them into shape for publication, and in any case it seemed better to wait till the 
vacation season was over, and lodge activities revived after the summer 
quiescence. 


The following account of the Conference was prepared by Prof. Charles S. Plumb 
of the University of Ohio at Columbus for the Ohio Mason, in the pages of which it 
appeared on June 1 st. It will serve admirably for an introduction to the papers 
themselves. 


Bro. Plumb, who is Grand Historian of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, is also one of the 
foremost workers in Masonic education in the country, and there are few, if any, 
with longer experience. He holds very decided views on the subject which will be 
apparent to readers of his valuable article to be published later. 


A conference of brethren interested in Masonic library work was first suggested by 
some of the Wisconsin Masons, which resulted in Bro. C. C. Hunt, Grand 
Secretary and Librarian of the Grand Lodge of Iowa issuing a provision for such a 
conference to be held May 10th and 1 1th at Cedar Rapids, la. All told about 25 
brethren were present, of whom but five were present at the Detroit conference the 
preceding May. 


Besides members of the Iowa staff, there were seven from Missouri, four each 
from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; one each from Washington, D. C., California, 
Texas, Illinois and Ohio, and several from Iowa. 



The original plan was to especially discuss books and libraries, but the program 
broadened into the wider field of Masonic education. Brother Hunt of the Iowa 
Grand Lodge, opened the meetings by a statement of the intended purposes, and he 
acted as chairman of several sessions. 


The purposes of Masonic education were discussed by Brothers Robert I. Clegg of 
the Masonic History Company of Chicago; R. J. Meekren, editor of THE 
BUILDER, official journal of the National Masonic Research Society, St. Louis, 
Mo., and F. H. Littlefield, Executive Secretary of the same society. 


It seemed to be the concensus of opinion that the field of Masonic education was a 
broad one, although Brother Shepherd of Wisconsin thought a study of the ritual 
the most important factor in Masonic education. 


The operation of a Masonic library was first discussed by Bro. William L. Boyden, 
Librarian of The House of the Temple of the Supreme Council (Southern 
Jurisdiction) of the A. & A. S. R. at Washington, D. C. He was followed by Bro. 
William J. Patterson, Assistant Librarian and Curator of the Grand Lodge of 
Pennsylvania; and he by Bro. Southwick, Librarian of the Masonic Library 
Association of Los Angeles, Cal. 


Brother Boyden called attention to the various phases of Masonic thought that had 
its schools and writers, and emphasized the importance of certain phases of it, such 
as history, biography, research, etc. He looks for the creation some day of a great 
international Masonic library. 


Brother Patterson gave in some detail interesting references to the early 
developments in Freemasonry in Pennsylvania. 



Brother Southwick emphasized the value of Masonic records, the importance of 
instructive talks after each of the first three degrees, and making use of books as 
easy as possible to the brethren. 


The educational activities of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin were briefly discussed 
by Bro. Silas H. Shepherd, chairman of the Committee on Masonic Research and 
Education of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin. He told in some detail of the 
development of the Wisconsin work, and stated that they started with $100 a year 
to carry out their plans, and this was the amount allowed for some years; but the 
Grand Lodge now gives them a much more generous financial support. He spoke 
strongly in favor of study clubs, but agreed that to be a success they needed 
inspiring leadership. 


Brother Crosby, a member from Wisconsin, representing the Grand Lodge, also 
spoke on the Wisconsin situation, and especially told of the introduction of talks 
before the lodges. He does not believe in any initiation taking place at stated 
meetings, but that after the necessary business, talks of value should be given. 


The general activities of the Grand Lodge of Iowa were most interestingly and 
instructively placed before the members of the conference, through 136 lantern 
slides, displayed on a screen in a darkened room. It was a remarkable exhibition of 
the important work conducted in Iowa. This was presented by Bro. Frank S. 

Moses, P.G.M., Secretary of the Masonic Service committee of the Grand Lodge 
of Iowa. 


Traveling libraries, their selection, operation and promotion were considered by 
Bro. J. Hugo Tatsch, Curator of the Iowa Grand Lodge Library at Cedar Rapids. 
The first library of the kind was started in Iowa in 1909. In 1911 the Grand Lodge 
allowed $500 for promoting this traveling library work. They have 30 to 40 
libraries of 20 or more volumes out at one time, and right at the time of this 
meeting 793 books were on the road. The Grand Lodge owns from six to 50 books 
of one kind, according to demand. They have a sheet system of record for each 
lodge in the state, on which they record a list of books sent, and how used by the 



lodge. The traveling library is a commendable thing in the opinion of the Iowa 
people. 


Study Clubs, their organization, literature, programs, leadership, etc., was 
introduced by Bro. Meekren. An extended discussion followed, in which it seemed 
agreed that a study club, consisting of a small group of those interested, was a fine 
thing, under good leadership. There are but very few such clubs at present in actual 
operation. Bro. Shepherd told of such a club at Madison, Wis., that had met every 
Wednesday for quite a period of time and with great success. 


Masonic journalism was discussed at first by the editor of the Masonic Tidings of 
Milwaukee, Wis., Bro. J. A. Fetterly. He was followed by several other editors of 
Masonic periodicals. With one exception, the editors were rather pessimistic on the 
support given by the Craft, and felt that their efforts were not appreciated. The one 
shining light in this respect, was the editor of a local lodge paper, named LIGHT, 
published at Marshalltown, Iowa. He contributed a good gleam of sunshine 
through the foggy atmosphere offered by the other leaders of the Craft. Several 
Grand Lodge Bulletins, however, should not be included in this class, as they serve 
quite a different purpose from the regular subscription journal. These were 
discussed interestingly by representatives of Iowa and Missouri Grand Lodges. 


Bro. Anthony F. Ittner, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri made 
interesting and forceful comments in general on the topics discussed. He thinks 
Masonic editorials have been too pessimistic - that the editors will never get 
anywhere unless they sound the optimistic note. 


The delegates were treated with very cordial hospitality while in Cedar Rapids. 
They were shown through the new Scottish Rite cathedral, and regarded it with 
special favor as a fine structure for the city. The Shrine Temple was not very 
accessible to the brethren, and but very little was shown of its interior. The High 
Twelve Club of Cedar Rapids gave a very fine luncheon to the visiting brethren on 
Friday. Brothers Clegg and Ittner sat at the head table and as spokesmen expressed 
the sentiments of the other guests. The representatives of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, 



in every capacity, were most hospitable and kindly and contributed much to make 
this a most pleasant and profitable conference. 


The following is the official report compiled by the staff of the Iowa Masonic 
Library and is reprinted from the Iowa Grand Lodge Bulletin for the added details 
that it gives. 


The interest and enthusiasm of Bro. Phil A. Roth, Secretary of the Masonic Service 
Committee of Milwaukee, is primarily responsible for a conference of Masonic 
librarians and educators which took place at the Iowa Masonic Library, Cedar 
Rapids, May 10 and 11. Bro. Roth had visited us twice in 1927, and carried home 
such glowing reports that several other Milwaukee brethren made plans to visit the 
Library early this year. As leaders in study and research work of other jurisdictions 
heard of this, they suggested that the visit of the Wisconsin brethren be made an 
occasion for others to join with them, whereupon Bro. C. C. Hunt, Grand Secretary 
and Librarian, tendered an invitation to them to do so. 


Meetings of Grand Lodges and other Masonic bodies interfered with the plans of 
several brethren to be present as representatives of libraries and educational 
activities in their respective jurisdictions; but on May 10 the following were 
registered: 


WISCONSIN: Silas H. Shepherd, Chairman, Committee or Masonic Research and 
Education, Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Phil A. Roth, Secretary, 
Masonic Service Committee, author of "Freemasonry in the Formation of our 
Government," Milwaukee. James A. Fetterly, Editor "Masonic Tidings," 
Milwaukee. Henry A. Crosby, Librarian Scottish Rite Library, Milwaukee. 


MISSOURI: Anthony F. Ittner, Grand Master of Masons in Missouri, St. Louis. 
Byme E. Bigger, Deputy Grand Master Hannibal. Dr. Arthur Mather, Grand 
Secretary and Librarian, Trenton. F. H. Littlefield, Executive Secretary, National 



Masonic Research Society, St. Louis. R. J. Meekren Editor, "THE BUILDER ' " 
official journal of the National Masonic Research Society, St. Louis. R. J. Newton, 
National Masonic Research Society, St. Louis. E. E. Thiemeyer, Research Editor, 
"THE BUILDER," St. Louis. 


OHIO: Robert I. Clegg, Past Grand Historian, Grand Lodge of Ohio, President 
Masonic History Company, Chicago. Chas. S. Plumb, Grand Historian, Grand 
Lodge of Ohio, Columbus. 


PENNSYLVANIA: William Dick, Librarian and Curator, Grand Lodge of 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Win. J. Patterson, Ass't Librarian and Curator, 
Philadelphia. Win. H. Shreve, Philadelphia. Alfred C. Lewis, Librarian, Allentown 
Masonic Library, Allentown. 


DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA: William L. Boyden, 33d, Librarian of the Supreme 
Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Washington. 


CALILORNIA: Thos. S. Southwick, Librarian, Los Angeles Masonic Library 
Association, Los Angeles. 


Iowa was represented by Chas. C. Hunt, Grand Secretary and Librarian; Harry A. 
Palmer, Deputy Grand Secretary; Prank S. Moses, P.G.M., Secretary, Masonic 
Service Committee; J. H. Tatsch, Curator and Associate Editor; and Nathan L. 
Hicks, Editor of "Light." Members of the local library staff, especially Miss 
Lavinia Steele, Assistant Librarian, contributed to the special features of the 
program. 


The Conference was called to order by Bro. Hunt at 10 a. in., Thursday, May 10. In 
a brief address he announced the origin and objects of the meeting. Bros. Robert I. 



Clegg and R. J. Meekren followed with talks on "The Purposes of Masonic 
Education," in which they presented their views on Craft educational activities. 

The discussion which followed their remarks was typical of those which came after 
each principal subject of the two days' program, for all of them revealed the deep 
and studied interest in the educational work of Freemasonry. 


"The Operation of a Masonic Library" was covered in three presentations. Bro. 
Win. L. Boyden of Washington, D. C., led with a paper on the large library which 
was of general interest, and applicable to the activities of the Iowa Masonic 
Library. Bro. Win. J. Patterson, Assistant Librarian and Curator, Philadelphia, gave 
some interesting historical and statistical data pertaining to the origin and growth 
of the Grand Lodge Library of Pennsylvania, and related experiences in connection 
with visitors to the institution. As in Iowa, the Craft of Pennsylvania take much 
pride in their Library and support it generously. 


The problems of the smaller library, one which is designed to cater to local needs, 
were elucidated by Bro. T. S. Southwick, as based upon his experiences as 
Librarian of the Los Angeles Masonic Library. It is supported by many of the Los 
Angeles lodges through a small per capita appropriation, and was recently 
incorporated. The Los Angeles brethren are planning to erect a building to house 
the rapidly growing collection of books, periodicals and proceedings. Bro. 
Southwick's enthusiasm revealed itself by his presence at the Iowa Masonic 
Library at all available hours; one morning be got here as the janitor was opening 
the building at 7 a.m. He stayed over until Saturday evening in order to devote 
more time to his activities at the Library. 


The afternoon session was opened by the reading of letters of regret from those 
who could not attend. This was followed by the presentation of a Grand Master's 
apron from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania to the Iowa Masonic Library for its 
collection. It was gratefully accepted by Bro. Hunt on behalf of the Library. 


"The Educational Activities of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin" by Bro. Silas H. 
Shepherd, Chairman of the Committee on Masonic Research and Education, was a 



recital of most interesting facts. Beginning with a meagre appropriation a number 
of years ago, the Committee has not only covered its program of addresses, but has 
prepared printed matter eagerly sought after by students, and has also fostered 
traveling libraries. The Grand Lodge of Wisconsin has no library of its own; hence 
the Committee found it necessary to aid lodges and brethren on this respect. Bro. 
Shepard told of the library of Palmer Lodge, No. 301, Milwaukee with more than 
one thousand volumes. This lodge sets aside every stated communication for an 
address on a Masonic topic. The lodge also has a Study Club with an average 
attendance of sixty. 


Bro. Shepherd's talk, and the discussion which ensued, was followed by a 
stereopticon address by Bro. Frank S. Moses, P.G.M., Secretary of the Masonic 
Service Committee, on "The General Activities of the Grand Lodge of Iowa." This 
address, which is available to Iowa lodges through the Service Committee, evoked 
much applause and comment. It gave our visitors a comprehensive idea of what 
Iowa Masons are doing in the name of Masonic charity and education. 


One of the lengthiest discussions was that on "Study Clubs." This was led by Bro. 
R.J. Meekren, P. M., Editor of "THE BUILDER," the official journal of the 
National Masonic Research Society, originally incorporated in Iowa but which 
now maintains its headquarters in St. Louis. He told of the study club movement in 
various parts of the United States, and how individuals, lodges and Grand Lodges 
were taking an active part in making the facts of Masonic history and symbolism 
available to seekers for further light. 


"Library Classification" was informally discussed at the same time in a separate 
room by those familiar with the technical operation of a library. This was led by 
Bro. Wm. L. Boyden, Librarian of the Supreme Council Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite, Washington, D. C.. and Miss Lavinia Steele, Assistant Librarian of 
the Iowa Masonic Library. Miss Steele has evolved a simple yet highly scientific 
classification by means of which our Masonic books are being recatalogued. It is 
adaptable to small libraries, and flexible and detailed enough to meet the needs of a 
large one such as ours. Its preparation has attracted attention in both Masonic and 
general library circles, and was therefore of interest to those confronted with 
problems such as ours. 



Thursday evening was utilized to good advantage by the visitors in going through 
the Library and holding informal chats with each other on topics of mutual interest. 
It was reported the next morning that some of the brethren found so much to talk 
about that they did not retire until the wee small hours. 


The Friday sessions began with a talk by James A. Fetterly, Editor of "Masonic 
Tidings" of Milwaukee on "Masonic Journalism." He gave an entertaining and 
instructive talk on the problems of the commercial Craft journal, as distinguished 
from subsidized periodicals. His remarks were interspersed with amusing and witty 
comments. It was evident from his address why "Masonic Tidings" wields an 
influence in Wisconsin and has become one of the representative Masonic journals 
of the United States. He urged more cooperation between official Masonry and the 
Craft journal in the commercial field, and showed how each could help the other in 
activities of mutual interest and concern. 


M. W. Bro. Anthony F. Ittner, Grand Master of Masons in Missouri, in the 
unavoidable absence of R. V. Denslow, editor of the "Missouri Grand Lodge 
Bulletin," spoke on the preparation of their publication. It presents articles of 
historical and biographical interest, but carries little or no local news, this being 
left to the so-called commercial publications of Missouri. As in Iowa, much 
interest is being taken in Missouri in such historical articles, and their continuation 
was strongly urged. 


Bro. C. C. Hunt followed with an account of the Grand Lodge Bulletin of Iowa, 
stating how it appeared originally twenty-nine years ago as a Library bulletin, but 
was now covering a larger field. Statistics were presented showing the appreciation 
accorded to it by the Iowa Craft, and how it was being utilized in bringing to the 
newly raised Master Mason a larger and deeper concept of what Freemasonry is 
and what it stands for. 



"Local Lodge Bulletins" were discussed by means of a paper written by Bro. W. H. 
Braun, Editor of "The Palmer Templegram" of Milwaukee, and read by Bro. Phil 
A. Roth. Bro. Nathan L. Hicks, Secretary of the Masonic bodies at Marshalltown, 
and Editor of Light," contributed in a vital manner to the discussion by setting 
forth his experiences. His talk was so interesting, and so replete with valuable 
information, that he was urged to elaborate his notes into a paper, which he has 
promised to do. Copies will be sent, together with those of other papers, to all 
institutions represented at the conference. 


The discussion which followed brought out the fact that Grand Lodge periodicals 
and local lodge publications were heartily welcomed by the commercial journals, 
for they served to create a larger interest in Masonic reading and thus developed a 
body of Masons who would seek other avenues for instruction and information. 
This was personally testified to by Bro. James A. Fetterly and Bro. F. H. 
Littlefield, both of whom are interested in Masonic journals having paid advance 
subscriptions. 


Inasmuch as the topics of "Mutual Cooperation" and "Comment in General" had 
been covered in the discussions and informal evening talks, these features of the 
program were dispensed with. The conference closed at noon with the hope that a 
similar informal meeting of Masonic educators could be held next year. No 
organization was affected, it being deemed best to assemble annually as 
opportunity afforded. 


Brothers Robert I. Clegg, William Dick and Wm. L. Boyden acting as a Committee 
on Resolutions, presented the following, which was adopted by the visitors: 


"RESOLUTION OF GRATEFUL APPRECIATION. We brethren from several 
widely separated Masonic Jurisdictions - far asunder in distance but closely united 
in fraternal purpose - do here place upon record our cordial thanks for the truly 
affectionate hospitality given to us so generously by the officials of the Grand 
Lodge of Iowa at our exceedingly enjoyable and decidedly profitable meeting in 
Cedar Rapids, May 10-11, 1928, and we would particularly mention Brother C. C. 



Hunt for skilfully guiding our informal sessions with tact and efficiency, to Brother 
Frank S. Moses, P.G.M., for his illustrated lecture upon the activities of the Grand 
Lodge, to Brother J. H. Tatsch for his ' constant cooperation, to Miss Lavinia 
Steele for much light upon Masonic book classification and cataloguing, and to all 
the Library staff for their splendid, untiring and earnest labors for our common 
good." 


Committee on Resolutions, 
Robert I. Clegg, 

William Dick, 

Wm. L. Boyden. 


No entertainment was provided by the Grand Lodge for the visitors, it being the 
wish of those in attendance that the entire time available be devoted to the work of 
the conference. Through the courtesy of Bro. Cogswell, 33d, Deputy for the 
Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite in Iowa, the visitors were conducted through the beautiful new 
Consistory building, of which the cornerstone was laid by the Grand Lodge of 
Iowa in 1927, and the structure dedicated by Grand Lodge in April. Thursday noon 
Brother Hunt was host to the visitors at a luncheon, while on the following day the 
Cedar Rapids High Twelve Club, an organization of Master Masons which meets 
every Friday noon for lunch, invited the distinguished visitors to meet with them, 
and later furnished cars through the courtesy of Mr. W. B. Clausen for a sight- 
seeing tour of the city. 


— o — 


BRO. LOUIS BLOCK 



Bro. Louis Block, Past Grand Master of Iowa, who from the inception of the 
National Masonic Research Society has been one of its strong supporters, being 
both a member of the Board of Stewards of the Society, and an Associate Editor of 
its organ, THE BUILDER, has recently been appointed as Deputy for the Supreme 
Council of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite in Iowa. We are sure that 
our members will be pleased to hear of this honor conferred upon one who was 
actively concerned in the foundation and organization of the Research Society. 


Bro. Block was bom in Davenport, Iowa, in June, 1869, and has resided there all of 
his life. He was educated in the public schools of that city and later entered the 
University of Iowa at Iowa City, from which he graduated in due course. He was 
married in June, 1893, to Cora Bollinger and has three sons. He is a lawyer by 
profession and has attained no little prominence as a barrister. 


— o — 


THE LIBRARY 


The books reviewed in these pages can be procured through the Book Department 
of the N.M.R.S. at the prices given, which always include postage. These prices are 
subject (as a matter of precaution) to change without notice; though occasion for 
this will very seldom arise. Occasionally it may happen, where books are privately 
printed, that there is no supply available, but some indication of this will be given 
in the review. The Book Department is equipped to procure any books in print on 
any subject, and will make inquiries for second-hand works and books out of print. 


THE LOST KEYS OF MASONRY: The Legend of Hiram Abiff. By Manly Hall. 
Second Edition. 125 pages. Hall Publishing Co., Los Angeles. 



THIS is a remarkable book to have been written by a non-Mason. It is dedicated to 
"The Ancient Order of Free and Accepted Masons." It only goes to confirm what 
many persons have known for a generation - that actual initiation into the Order is 
not an indispensable qualification for Masonic research; though this brochure is 
hardly a work of research, rather it is one of brilliant imagination. The author has 
evidently studied everything in print touching the Masonic ritual, and to use the 
language of a beautiful poem by Bro. Reynold E. Blight respecting the author: 


Not a Mason himself, he has read the deeper meaning of the ritual. Not having 
assumed the formal obligations, he calls upon all mankind to enter into the holy of 
holies. Not initiated into the physical craft, he declares the secret doctrine that all 
may hear. 


In the introduction we are told that Masonry is essentially a religious order; but we 
soon learn that what is meant is an order of a universal religion. He tells us that 
twelve Fellow Craftsmen are exploring the four points of the compass, and asks: 


are not these twelve the twelve great world religions, each seeking in its own 

way for that which was lost in the ages past, and the quest of which is the birth- 
right of man? . . . Masonry is a religion which is essentially creedless; it is the truer 
for it. . . . No truer religion exists in all the world than that all creatures gather 
together in comradeship and brotherhood for the purpose of glorifying one God, 
and of building for Him a temple of constructive attitude and noble character. 


The author further informs us that in the work he is undertaking 


... it is not the intention to dwell upon the modem concepts of the craft, but to 
consider Masonry as it really is to those who know, a great cosmic organism whose 
true brothers and children are tied together not by spoken oaths, but by lives so 
lived that they are capable of seeing through the blank wall, and opening the 
window which is now concealed by the mbbish of materiality. When this is done 



and the mysteries of the universe unfold before the aspiring candidate, then in truth 
he discovers what Masonry really is. 


From the foregoing excerpts, and from other incidental indications, a suspicion 
arises that the author is a theosophist; and this suspicion is confirmed by the 
subsequent chapters. This gives us a key to the intention of the author and the 
meaning of his book. There is nothing in theosophy which is at variance with 
Masonry, indeed there is much in common. The theistic faith, the Fatherhood of 
God and the brotherhood of man, and the interpretation of spiritual truth under the 
form of symbolism, are fundamental processes of thought in both. Moreover, the 
author allegorizes the legend of Hiram Abiff very beautifully. Whether, however, 
his knowledge of mythology and the history and evolution of religion is as 
complete as might appear upon the surface, is perhaps open to question. 


The general scheme of the book is to symbolize creation (using the term generally) 
from chaos to cosmos by the Masonic legend; following the introduction, he 
presents a cut of the Tabula Smaragdina, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes, which is 
said to be "the Most Ancient Monument of the Chaldeans Concerning the Lapis 
Philosophorum." This is one statement, which is not modified at all, which places 
his critical knowledge in doubt. The "Emerald Tablet" is classed by authorities on 
these matters as a production of the Middle Ages, one of the products of the pursuit 
of alchemy. One scholar gives its date as 1541. This tablet is said to contain the 
name of Hiram, which is interpreted to signify a triune substance - three aspects of 
creation, but one in source, matter, energy and life. 


The remaining chapters of the book can only be mentioned by their titles, but these 
will indicate the general plan: First is the Prologue, "In the Fields of Chaos;" then 
come chapters on "The Candidate;" "The Entered Apprentice;" "The Fellow Craft;" 
"The Master Mason;" "The Qualifications of a True Mason;" and finally the 
Epilogue, "In the Temple of Cosmos: the Priest of Ra." There is appended besides, 
a short address to the Order of De Molay. 



To the Mason who delights in symbolic imagery, the author presents a feast, much 
of it of original conception; but it is to be feared that most of it will be above the 
heads of the great body of the craft. And, after all said and done in the elucidation 
of symbolism, the body of everyday Masons, like the workers in a beehive, must 
depend far more on common sense to keep them within the bounds of fraternity of 
man and fatherhood of Deity than upon these profound depths of poetry and 
rhetoric. We commend it to the student of Masonic symbolism as containing much 
of interest. The illustrations are by J. Augustus Knapp, and are, the spirit of H. A. 
rising in a blaze of glory from the tomb; the Emerald Tablet already mentioned; the 
three murderers, perverted thoughts, uncurbed emotions and destructive actions, 
standing over the remains of their victim, which is the spirit of human life; the 
Candidate at the Gates; the Master Mason; the Grip of the Lion's Paw; and the 
Dweller on the Threshold. 


L.B.R. 


* * * 


SECRET SOCIETIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE BIBLE. An address by William 
Leon Brown. Published by the National Christian Association. Paper, 22 pages. 
Price 1 0 cents, net. 


THERE is no indication as to the time, place or occasion of this address. Mr. 
Brown is evidently very sincere and earnest, and most anxious to lead those whom 
he conceives to be in the "way of destruction" to safer paths. All members of all 
secret societies (or rather fraternal organizations with secret ceremonies of 
admission and private modes of recognition) are soul destroying, but Freemasonry 
is the arch-offender, because it is in a sense the parent of all the others. Thus the 
address really deals with the Masonic Fraternity, as the primal and greatest culprit. 
His information is derived from a number of books, eight in all, which he supposes 
to be authoritative because he found they were all in the Scottish Rite Library at 
Chicago. These books are the Lexicon of Freemasonry, The Symbolism of 
Freemasonry and the Masonic Ritualist, by Albert Mackey, with The Encyclopedia 



of Freemasonry by Mackey and MacClenachan (really an edition of Mackey's 
Encyclopedia, itself an expansion and enlargement of the Lexicon). The Traditions, 
Origins and Early History of Freemasonry by A. T. C. Pierson, Chase's Digest of 
Masonic Law, The Freemason's Monitor by Thomas Smith Webb (evidently a 
modern edition) and two more works, the titles of which are not given, by Daniel 
Sickles and the Rev. E. A. Coil respectively, the latter a Unitarian minister, and 
(we judge) on that score alone outside the pale. This actually makes nine instead of 
eight, and in addition he quotes a "cipher ritual" which he tells us he obtained 
without question or difficulty from a well known Masonic publishing firm. In 
addition, and on the other side, he had the Bible. 


Masons, of course, will not be impressed by his "authorities," even if their books 
are to be found in Masonic libraries. What the religious minded anti-Mason can 
never seem to understand - presumably because to him all truth is always enclosed 
in a rigid system of dogma, outside which no truth is to be found - is that there is 
no authority in Masonry. Pierson may interpret things his way, Mackey in his, but 
every brother has equal freedom, to think, to interpret, to speak and to publish. 
Consequently, what the accusation resolves itself into finally, both from the 
Protestant and Romanist point of view, is that Freemasonry is not an organization 
professing and teaching the creed held by the particular opponent. Masons hold the 
inclusiveness to be the chief attraction of the Craft, that in it men of all creeds who 
are moral and virtuous, can meet on a common platform. But this the sectarian 
(Romanist or Protestant) cannot bear the thought of. Tolerance is to him (in 
practice) the greatest of all heresies. Thus the opposition is irremediable, we can 
only accept it, and be thankful that we do not live where such minded people have 
power of life and death over us. 


The old objections based on the alleged Masonic oaths and penalties are brought 
in. There is here nothing new; it was all said, ad nauseam, by the anti-Masons a 
hundred years ago. But here again we can understand. The same type of mind the 
fundamentalist mind, that takes the symbolical and poetic language of the Bible, as 
prosaic literal fact - nay more, takes the letter of the English translation of Hebrew 
and Greek, as absolutely the very utterance of God - will naturally take the 
symbols and forms and allegories of Masonry literally also. It cannot be helped; it 
takes all kinds of people to make a world, as the proverbial wisdom of the race puts 
it, and if our friends cannot tolerate us, we must, to be true to our own principles, 



try to be tolerant of them. At least Mr. Brown is temperate in his language, and has 
a sincere regard for our welfare. For this we thank him. 


* * * 


EDUCATION FOR TOLERANCE. By John E. J. Fanshawe. Boards. 30 pages. 
Published by Independent Education, New York. 


THIS is a booklet reproducing an essay in the February number of the magazine 
Independent Education. The editor of the magazine, Frederick J. Haley, says in his 
foreword that it "evoked favorable comment, and is now published in this form in 
response to many suggestions that it be given a wider circulation." 


A careful study of its contents, brief as they are, we think fully justifies its 
reproduction for permanent propagation of the thoughts of the author. The main 
theme is the danger of war between the United States and Great Britain. He first 
alludes to the "marked strain of sentimentality rampant in the American people," 
and says "it is indeed difficult to reconcile the keen business acumen that raised 
America to industrial supremacy with the failure to understand many of the 
fundamental principles used to solve abstract social problems." He also calls 
attention to the tendency for mechanical organization for the correction of every 
error, real, or supposed, humorously illustrating his position with a supposed case 
of a society for the distribution of chocolate drops among the poor, which obtains 
the name, minus actual aid either financially or otherwise, of numbers of men in 
high social and political position, for "indorsements," and points the illustration 
with the fact that chocolate drops in overdoses are likely to produce incurable 
indigestion. 


From this stand he remarks that "just now the particular field that is overtaxing the 
time and energies of the sentimentalist is the establishment of friendly relations 
between the United States of America and the British Empire. This is most 



unfortunate because there is no problem before the world today more delicate. 
Upon its outcome depends the future course of civilization. Here is no place for the 
novice. The question of Anglo-American relations requires the entire time, brains 
and experience of such men as the Hugheses and the Hoovers, the Balfours and the 
Baldwins. They cannot delegate to those of lesser abilities the execution of their 
policies." 


Premising that there are numerous errors and fallacies underlying this particular 
breed of sentimentality, he thinks the most flagrant one "perhaps is that of 
assuming we are one and the same people, and that because, by chance, we have 
derived our language, our laws and our literature from England, we should 
therefore be friendly with the British Empire." He shows that this fact, instead of 
being promotive of peace, is more likely to involve us in war, because, as a matter 
of fact, "we are not the same people," but are "two very distinct and different 
peoples," with different ideals and different motives underlying our actions. 


As an instance of how a common language, common laws and common traditions 
failed to prevent a bloody war he cites the War between the States of the Union in 
1861-1865, and shows that opposing sentimentalities between the South and the 
North, that each in its place obscured the real issue or causes which brought about 
the war. "All the sentiment against slavery in the North grew up after two centuries 
of slave-holding in the New England States had demonstrated that it was an 
unprofitable venture," - and "no objection to slavery was made in the New England 
States so long as it was profitable." The North wept "copious tears over Uncle 
'Tom and Old Black Joe, while the South waxed sentimental and belligerant about 
States' Rights. Thus were the real issues beclouded, and one of the most deplorable 
and devastating cataclysms in history was brought about." 


The entire essay is so closely packed with sound, common sense, we can only say 
further that the author's remedy for the errors mentioned is education along two 
lines of fact: 1 . That both nations are profoundly interested in maintaining 
prosperity, and 2. That self-preservation against the combined forces of the world 
necessitates permanent peace and amity between the two great English-speaking 
nations. It is strictly a business proposition from which all sentimentality should be 
eliminated. The author thinks, that with these two nations owning most of the 



unsettled habitable portion of the globe, and the other peoples of the world having 
seething millions, constantly increasing in numbers, who must find an outlet in a 
few generations or reach the saturation point of population, all gush should be set 
aside and the younger generations of both England and America be taught to give 
and take as between them, recognizing and tolerating national differences of view 
just as the different members of a single family have to tolerate each other; to sum 
up the essay, as between these two great nations of the world, "united we stand, 
divided we fall." 


L. B. R. 


* * * 


A PEPYSIAN GARLAND. Edited by, Prof. Hyder E. Rollins. Published by the 
Cambridge University Press and the Macmillan Co. Cloth, 491 pages. Price, $7.65. 


THIS collection of "broadside" ballads of the period 159616,39 has been selected 
chiefly from the collection made by Samuel Pepys. Pepys bequeathed his library 
and his famous diary to Magdalene College, Cambridge. With the other works 
were five large folio volumes, the first title page running thus: 


My Collection of Ballads. Vol. 1. Begun by Mr. Selden; Improv'd by ye addition of 
many Pieces elder thereto in Time; and the whole continued to the year 1700. 

When the Form, till then peculiar thereto, vizt., of the Black Letter with Pictures, 
seems (for cheapness sake) wholly laid aside, for that of the White Letter without 
Pictures. 


Professor Rollins reproduces eighty ballads, seventy-three of them are the most 
interesting seventeenth century ballads in Pepys's first volume (none of them of a 



later date than 1639) and of the remainder six are from the Bodleian and one from 
the Manchester Free Reference Library. As a picture of the social conditions of the 
time they are exceedingly interesting and especially so to Freemasons seeking all 
possible light upon the era leading up to the time when the Grand Lodge was in 
1717 put formally into action at London. The ballads are not to be judged as 
poetry, but as Professor Rollins points out they were in the main the equivalent of 
modern newspapers: 


They have always interested educated men, not as poems but as popular songs or 
as mirrors held up to the life of the people. In them are clearly reflected the lives 
and thoughts, the hopes and fears, the beliefs and amusements, of sixteenth and 
seventeenth century Englishmen. In them history becomes animated. 


To us the one showing "a worshipful company in the making" is of the liveliest 
significance. This is of the year 1606 and none will deny the interest in this 
account of how the 1041 porters in London formed a corporation and secured a 
hall for meetings. The broadside had three illustrations, one in which a porter is 
shown standing idle with an empty basket, next as walking with a heavy load, and 
third as setting out in holiday attire for a meeting of his society, they were headed: 
"At the first went we as here you see," "But since our Corporation, on this 
fashion," "And to our Hall, thus we goe all," typical of the advancement made in 
their fortunes, social standing, and happiness by this congregation into a 
brotherhood of their calling. Other trades and occupations are mentioned in the 
selection of ballads but this one is particularly noteworthy. It is headed "A new 
Ballad, composed in commendation of the Societic, or Companie of the Porters." 
The author was one Tho. Brewer and it was printed by Thomas Creed, to be sold 
"at the syne of the Eagle and Childe in the old Chaunge." The date is 1605. The 
first stanza runs as follows: 


Thrise blessed is that Land 
where King and Rulers bee, 
and men of great Command 



that carefull are to see, 

that carefull are to see, 

the Commons good maintainde 

by friendly vnitie, 

the proppe of any land. 

There are some more of these pious and loyal sentiments, and thus introduced we 
come to the subject proper of the ballad: 

As plainly doth appeare, 

by that was lately done, 

for them that burthens beare, 

and doe on businesse runne: 

the Porters of this Cittie, 

some being men of Trade, 

but now the more, the more the pitty 

by crosses are decayde. 

By this we learn definitely, what we would naturally expect, that the porters were 
recruited, at least in part, from the failures and broken down men of other classes. 


Now they that were before 



of meanest estimation, 
by suite haue salude that sore, 
and gainde a Corporation: 
excludes, and shuts out many 
that were of base esteeme, 
and will not suffer any 
such person bide with them. 

But such as well are knowen, 
and honest Acts imbrace: 
among them theile haue none 
that haue no biding place: 
among them theile haue none 
(as neare as they can finde) 
but such as well are knowen 
to beare an honest minde. 

Evidently what was done was to limit the number of regular porters to those who 
had definite domiciles and were "under the tongue of good report." This limitation 
would give all in the company more employment by barring out casual labor. 


For now vnto their hall 



they pay their quarteridge downe, 
attending maisters call, 
and fearing maisters frowne, 
there seeking for redresse 
and right if they haue wrong, 
there, they that doe transgresse 
haue that to them doth long. 


The administration and discipline of the new company followed the lines of the 
older ones. There follows three stanzas describing the old punishment for theft (an 
obvious and constant temptation to the porter) which was no less than the time 
honored "riding on a rail." We are told this was not very effective, and that the new 
penalty of expulsion worked much better, for it meant loss of employment. 


If there be any one 
of them, a burthen takes, 
and with the same be gone: 
their hall, the owner makes 
sufficient satisfaction 
for that that he hath lost: 
the theefe without redemption, 


out of their numbers crost. 



It is a better order 


then that they bad before, 
when as the malefactor 
was on a coultstaffe bore: 
for th' owner tis much better, 
but forth' offender worse, 
to taste this newe made order, 
then ride a wooden horse. 

That shame was soone slipt ouer, 
soone in obliuion drownde, 
and then againe, another 
would in like fault be found: 
not caring for their credit, 
and trust another time, 
this order therefore as a bit 
to hold them from that crime. 

There follows a stanza dealing with the fines laid on those who disobey the rules of 
the company, and one of these rules was that of "first come first served" in regard 
to a job. 



All iarres and braules are bard 


that mongst them might arise, 
first commer, first is serude, 
where as a burthen lyes, 
if one be ready there 
he must his profite take: 
all other must forbeare 
and no resistance make. 

Then we leam, that again following the traditions of the older companies, a charity 
fund had been established for the assistance of the sick and infirm members. 

Such as haue long bin knowen 
to vse this bearing trade, 
and into yeares are growen, 

(so that their strengths decayde) 
they can no longer labour 
as they haue done before, 
the Companie doth succour 


and maintaine euermore. 



There follow some general reflections on the necessity of rule's and regulations and 
then we are told of their attending church in a body to bear a special sermon, which 
again was an old Guild custom, and is still remembered by Freemasons. 


These and a many moe 
good orders they haue, sure, 
to make rude fellowes know 
their stoutnesse, doth procure 
but their owne detriment and 
losse, if they could see't: 
and likewise to augment 
their generall good, there meete. 

For great is the number 
of this Societie: 
and many without order 
can neuer setled bee; 
but things will be amisse, 
as oft it hath bin knowen, 
the number of them is, 


a thousand fortie one. 



They all meete together, 
most hansomely arayde, 
at Christ church, to heare there 
a sermon, for them made 
There markes of Admittance 
made out of tinne, they bare 
about their neckes in ribbons: 
the chiefe, of siluer weare. 


From this we learn that the members wore badges by which they were known. It 
seems probable that these would be worn regularly so that prospective employers 
could know whether they were engaging a member of the company or not. It would 
seem that the organization was not a chartered or official one. Its name does not 
appear in the list of the London Companies and its discipline would thus be 
voluntary, yet not less effective for that. This formation of a new gild in London in 
1605, or before, is very interesting, and throws a sidelight on the social history of 
the period that may have significance for Masonic students. 


* * * 


DIE LOGE ZU Z. Ein Auszug aus dem Reise-Joumal eines unterrichteten 
Maurers. Published by Alfred Unger, Berlin, 1927. Paper, 76 pages. Price, 4 
marks. 



THE title means: The Masonic Lodge at Z. An extract from the travel memoirs of a 
proficient Mason. 


The author of these memoirs, Ignaz Aurelius Fessler, is an interesting personality. 
Bom in 1756 at Czurendorf, Hungary, of German parents, he entered at the age of 
seventeen the Capuchin Order. The restless spirit of the time, known as the Sturm- 
und Drang Periode - period of storm and stress - of German thought, made its way 
even into the seclusion of the cloister. The rigidly circumscribed dogmatism of the 
Roman Church soon proved an irksome fetter to the insurgent mind of young 
Fessler. He left the monastery, and in 1791 he joined the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church. In 1796 he transferred his domicile to Berlin where he engaged in a many- 
sided, fruitful literary activity. His favorite studies were the philosophy of Marcus 
Aurelius, Seneca, the Fathers of the Church, mysticism and, above all, Masonic 
history and lore. He left a permanent imprint on German Masonry. 


In the summer of 1802, Fessler went on a journey in the course of which he visited 
the city of Z. The identity of the city is not disclosed. He was agreeably surprised 
to find not only a Masonic lodge, but a lodge in which the Masonic ideals 
flourished exceedingly. He was edified and enthused by what he discovered there. 
He published his impressions the following year in a magazine named Die 
Eleusinien, a periodical that expired after a brief existence of but two years. 


The present simple, but elegant little volume is a reprint of a portion of these travel 
memoirs. In its facile, fluent, diction it contains valuable information for the 
student of Masonic teaching. It is thought-provoking and, in its degree, inspiring. 


* * * 


LESSING'S NATHAN THE WISE. Translated from the German. Edited by Ernest 
Bell. Published by David McKay. Cloth, 174 pages. Price 55 cents. 



THIS is one of a series of pocket translations of the classics. The name of Gotthold 
Ephraim Lessing is well known - by reputation at least - to all educated people. It 
is not so well known, outside of the Craft in Germany, that he was an ardent 
Mason, and that Masonic influences are to be seen in his literary work. Early 
attracted by the theater he produced a considerable number of plays, comedies and 
tragedies both. In later life today the transition sounds strange he became pre- 
eminently interested in theological questions, theoretical and practical, and in 1779 
he finished Nathan der Weise, a drama in which he embodied in poetic form the 
ideas to which he had been led in respect to religion, and especially in regard to 
what was then regarded almost as heresy by every sect, religious tolerance. Those 
who have the degrees of the Scottish Rite should be especially interested in this 
dramatic representation of the clash between Christian, Saracen and Jew, but every 
Mason may read it with profit who would know what tolerance really is. 


— o — 


THE QUESTION BOX 
and CORRESPONDENCE 


HOW SHOULD THE APRON BE WORN? 

We had a discussion the other day as to how the apron should be worn. Most of the 
members of our lodge tie the apron under their coats, but there is one brother who 
insists we are all wrong and ties his outside. It looks rather funny to me, because 
the back of his coat is all wrinkled up, and I would like to know if there is any rule 
about it, and if so why? 


G. S. P„ Maine. 



This is another of those details upon which there is no general agreement. We 
believe that in some jurisdictions it is made a matter of regulation that the apron 
should be outside the coat. On the other hand, it is the general usage of American 
Masons to wear it underneath. Where a definite rule has been adopted it is very 
probably directly or indirectly due to the influence of the regulation in England, 
which is to the effect, that in evening dress the apron is worn under, and in 
morning dress over, the coat. As the wearing of evening dress is almost universal 
in English lodges, even when meeting in the afternoon, it follows that, if we ignore 
the difference between a "swallow tail" coat and a "lounge jacket," that in fact the 
apron is generally worn under the coat by English Masons. We suppose this 
difference must not be ignored, however, without danger of incurring the penalties 
of lese majeste, or high treason, or something equally terrifying. Of course if the 
two species of the garment are buttoned up, in the one case the apron still remains 
visible in all its glory (in England with its border of ribbon and rosettes - or other 
emblems for higher ranks) while in the other it is partially obscured. We may 
suppose this is the real reason for the English rule. 


In this country, where the same rule has been adopted, it is usually supported by an 
appeal to "operative" practice. It is argued that the apron is designed to protect the 
clothing and therefore must be worn outside everything else. Those who appeal to 
Caesar must go to Caesar. In operative practice the apron is not worn over the coat 
for the workman takes his coat off. If he has occasion to put it on during working 
hours, he naturally puts it on over his apron. In this country the overall has 
supplanted the apron among stone masons, but in countries where the apron is still 
worn this may be verified by the observant even at the present day. 


It does not really seem, however, that there is any need to make operative usage a 
rigid law. We thi nk that Bro. G. S. P. has given the real answer himself. To wear a 
belt or girdle of any kind outside a loose jacket, normally unbuttoned, not only 
looks awkward, but is awkward. A girdle or belt can be worn very well over a 
frock coat, or uniform tunic, which is shaped to the figure and has sufficient skirt 
to fall below it. But the rule :that some good brethren would force upon us, would 
make us all look rather ridiculous unless we took to formal dress. Perhaps that is 
the motive underneath. But so long as American Masons adhere to informality in 
this regard, we believe that custom, as it usually does in such matters, offers the 



best solution, and that the apron girded on under the coat, is not only more 
convenient and comfortable, but also more dignified. 


* * * 


MASONIC EMBLEMS WORN BY WOMEN 


Is a woman, the wife, mother or daughter of a Mason, entitled to wear the Masonic 
emblem? 


O.P.S., Nebraska. 


This is one of those simple seeming questions it is impossible to answer off hand 
with "yes" or "no." The difficulty here lies in the word "entitled." It may mean is 
such a practice permissible in law? Or is it recognized (or forbidden) by Masonic 
authority? Or is there any precedent or custom in favor of it? Or it might mean no 
more than is it fitting or in good taste ? We suppose that the second or third 
interpretations is what was in the mind of our correspondent. 


The wearing of emblematic devices by individuals has in the past always been 
regarded as a purely personal matter. As such there has never been any regulatory 
action taken concerning it on the part of Grand Lodges, although it must be 
confessed that certain tendencies of recent appearance are in this direction. 


The only ancient Masonic device or design of an official character was the well- 
known armorial bearing granted to the Mason's Company of London, and later 
assumed by the Freemasons all over England. In the same category we might put 
the arms or seals adopted later by Grand Lodges and their subordinate lodges. 



These very properly are subject to regulation, but they have a character entirely 
different from any trinket or ornament an individual may choose or design for 
himself. And if there be no regulation for the Mason, it is obvious that still less can 
there be any for one who is not. Grand Lodges cannot legislate for those not under 
their jurisdiction. The time has long since passed, if there ever were one, when a 
man could be held responsible for what his feminine relatives might choose to. 


The propriety of the practice is another matter. There is some reason to object to a 
man wearing a Masonic emblem if he is not a Mason, but that does not hold in 
regard to a woman doing so. There is, too, some warrant in tradition for it. In a past 
generation, when women were more dependent and less able to look after 
themselves, to have been able to claim the good offices of a Mason in any 
emergency was of real value, and it seems that when a woman had to travel alone, 
her husband or father not infrequently gave her some such token to carry with her. 
It would, therefore, seem that while "entitled" is hardly the best word to use, that a 
woman is at liberty to wear Masonic emblems and that there is no reason to object 
to, it. In any case we do not see how it could be prevented. 


* * * 


LEO TAXIL 


Under the heading "Masonic Satanism" I notice on page 205 of the July number of 
THE BUILDER, a reference to Leo Taxil. I have come across the name before and 
would like to know who he was and what he did. Can you enlighten me? 


G. J. B., Oregon. 



The story of the great imposture concerning Palladian Masonry and Luciferism is 
almost completely forgotten by the present generation, though for some ten or 
twelve years at the end of last century it was a topic of literally world wide interest. 
Leo Taxil was the assumed name of one, Gabriel Jogand Pages, was bom (it is 
said) at Marseilles in or about the year 1854. He is also said - but such a cloud of 
mystification and downright lying obscures the facts that it is hard to arrive at 
certainty in these details - to have been educated in a Jesuit College, from which he 
departed in a reaction from discipline and religion. He became a hanger-on of 
journalism, an author of pornographic literature and a retailer of scandal about the 
clergy. 


Again it is said, though French Masons have denied it, that he was initiated in 
some unspecified lodge, in (according to his own account, which is not evidence) 
the year 1881. He is supposed to have received only the first degree, and was either 
expelled, or quarreled with the lodge and departed of his own accord. 


In or about the year 1885 he pretended to repent of his sins and sought 
reconciliation with the church, bringing as a sort of gift, or fmits of repentance, 
weird and wonderful tales of crimes, blasphemies, obscenities, and conspiracies 
against all law and order and religion, in and behind the Masonic Fraternity. 


He drew for his materials, it would seem, upon the accusations against the 
Templars, the accounts of black magic given by Eliphas Levi, which were then a 
subject of general curiosity, and perhaps (though this is doubtful) got some 
material from American anti-Masonry. All this he mixed up into a fantastic 
hodgepodge, exceedingly interesting in its way, if taken in small doses. The raison 
d'etre of Masonry, according to him, was the worship of Lucifer, the archfiend. 
This included the practice of every imaginable obscenity and every form of sexual 
vice. Albert Pike was made the high priest, and an imaginary Diana Vaughan was 
the high priestess. 


It is too long a story to tell in any detail. The amazing thing is how, in spite of the 
warnings and protests of many cautious and sensible men among them, the 



hierarchy of the Roman Church, from simple priests up to Cardinals, and even 
Pope Leo XIII himself, accepted the unsupported assertions of the impostor as 
absolute truth. The deception was finally exploded by Taxil himself in a most 
dramatic way, and with unblushing effrontery, for the reason that he saw the game 
was nearly up, and decided to make the exposure himself and gain an opportunity 
to publicly deride the victims of his hoax. 


Curiously, Roman Catholics were not the only people to believe the tales. Many 
American Masons appear to have accepted them as a picture of Latin Freemasonry, 
carefully excepting references to Pike, Mackey and other American and English 
Masons; who, of course, they were sure had been included by accident or malice. 
This seems incredible, but it is stated on good authority to be true. Romanists were 
to be excused in part for their credulity, it is natural to believe evil of people to 
whom we are opposed. We rather suspect that the tales of Satanism related by the 
Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes are only echoes from Taxil's inventions, 
with all reference to their origin conveniently forgotten. 


* * * 


THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT 


A question has arisen in which I disagree with the other Past Masters of my lodge 
and apparently also with the rulings of our Grand Masters. The accepted view is 
that no one may reveal how he voted in the ballot on an application for 
membership. I maintain that in common sense, anyone who has cast a black ball 
has, if for any reason he sees f it to do so, a right to reveal the fact. I understand 
perfectly that almost everywhere the law is interpreted to forbid his doing so, but I 
insist that the secrecy of the ballot is expressly designed to protect the objecting 
brother or brethren, and that therefore the secret is his secret, not the lodge's, nor 
Masonry's, and being his, he may reveal it at his own discretion. The position of 
the objector is quite different from those who vote favorably. No one of the latter 
may reveal how he voted because if one did, all might follow in turn, and if all did, 



the objecting brother would be discovered by elimination, and the secrecy of the 
ballot, designed solely to protect the objector, would be violated. 


I know I am in a minority, but f would like to know how others think about it, and 
whether the point has ever arisen before. 


L.S.T., Canada. 


Our correspondent is quite right in saying that in most jurisdictions a brother 
revealing the fact that he voted against an application would be liable to the pains 
and penalties of the regulations guarding the secrecy of the ballot. It is not the only 
instance in Masonic law where the object of a regulation has been quite forgotten, 
and the rule has become an end in itself. The ballot box is in any case a sign of 
weakness. In an ideal lodge it would be quite unnecessary. There would be so 
much mutual trust and confidence that anyone who objected to an applicant would 
feel quite free to do so openly, certain that no one would take offense. Such lodges 
are, unfortunately, very, very rare. The secret ballot is therefore a necessity. 


There are other anomalies, connected with the subject, to he found in various 
places. In quite a number of jurisdictions an application must go to a ballot even if 
the committee of investigation reports unfavorably. This seems absurd. An 
unfavorable report should certainly count as a rejection. The rule has, indeed, 
actually permitted applicants, who had been unfavorably reported on, to be elected, 
than which nothing could be more ridiculous, if it were not so serious. 


We must agree that Bro. L. S. T. is right, but that it will not be safe for him or 
anyone else to exercise the right, until Masonic legislators and executives come to 
realize that the secrecy of the ballot is not an original landmark of the Craft, or one 
of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry, but in fact, a concession to the weakness 
of the brethren, and a sign imperfection of the internal life of our lodges. 



WHY IS A MASONIC LODGE? 


Since you invite perplexed Masons to consult you on matters pertaining to the 
Craft, I venture to submit a question which may be in the minds of many who 
perhaps may consider it disloyal to even utter it. 


Why is a Masonic Lodge? 


I came into Masonry some few years ago after passing middle age. My wife's 
prejudices against any lodge kept me out for some years. But when I entered the 
Lodge it was with the same reverential feelings that I, as a much younger man 
joined the church. 


I have been a faithful attendant upon all lodge meetings, both the stated 
communications and the few special meetings we have during the year to confer 
degrees. Our communications rarely have much of interest to attract us. There is 
little real business to be considered. The degree work is always interesting to me. 


But what is there for us after we become Masons? What is there to do besides 
initiating new members? The teachings of the Craft I find are the same as the 
teachings of the church, though presented in different form. The principles are not 
peculiar to Masonry, the truths taught us are age-old. 



There is to me, at least, a sense of restraint in a Masonic lodge room which limits 
fellowship. At least it is not the same fellowship which we have in our Rotary 
meetings where I meet the same men whom I meet at Lodge. 


As to charitable work, there are at present none of our membership who need help, 
nor have any for a long period. As we grow older some of us may, and the Masonic 
Home will shelter us. Certainly our own Lodge could do nothing for us because the 
dues collected will not permit the creation of a charity fund. What relief we give to 
other than Masonic cases is now done through a collection. The good women of 
the town take care of charity cases and we as business men help through them. Of 
course we help to support the Masonic Homes for aged brethren and their wives 
and for children of our unfortunate brethren, but we are scarcely conscious of this 
help we give because it is taken from us in our annual dues. 


Therefore, as I see it, the Masonic Lodge has no program. The church teaches the 
same truths that Masonry teaches. The luncheon clubs furnish a livelier fellowship. 
The charitable work of a general nature is done by other agencies and we collect no 
funds for our own charities, if there be any such. Therefore, I ask, what is there for 
Masonry to do? We are forbidden to take any part as Masons in our country's 
politics, so what is there for us to do? I read nothing in any Masonic publication of 
any national effort that Masonry has adopted to put over, except the George 
Washington Memorial, and that calls for nothing but a financial contribution from 
the rank and file. 


So, my good brother, tell me, "Why is a Masonic Lodge?” At least, why is it in the 
small town? It may be something else and something different in the big city. Of 
that I have no knowledge. But the real purpose of my question is to find out why 
an organization of such great size, such large influence, and with such tremendous 
potentialities for accomplishment is doing nothing to which we as Freemasons can 
point with any pride. 


I anticipate that some brethren will tell me that we are building character and 
training men to serve their country and their fellows. To him I say that if we do not 



develop our character and get that training in the public school, the Sunday school 
and the church, long before we become Masons, there is not much material worth 
working on in a Masonic lodge. 


F. V. J., Kansas 


[This letter raises a very penetrating question, or rather several questions. It does 
not seem at all easy to answer them generally and fully and at the same time 
convincingly. It is a problem. Doubtless the problem is one of those complex ones 
made up of many different elements, probably in different proportion in different 
cases. We hope that others will give their views on the subject, for it is obviously 
one for general discussion. Ed.]