Enciclopédia Mackey – GLOBE ~ GRAMMAR




In the Second Degree, the celestial and terrestrial globes have been adopted as symbols of the universal extension of the Order, and as suggestive of the universal claims of brotherly love. The symbol is a very ancient one, and is to be found in the religious systems of many countries. Among the Mexicans the globe was the symbol of universal power. But the Masonic symbol appears to have been derived from, or at least to have an allusion to, the Egyptian symbol of the winged globe. There is nothing more common among the Egyptian monuments than the symbol of a globe supported on each side by a serpent, and accompanied with wings extended wide beyond them, occupying nearly the whole of the entablature above the entrance of many of their temples. We are thus reminded of the globes on the pillars at the entrance of the Temple of Solomon. The winged globe, as the symbol of Kneph, the Creator Sun, an Egyptian myth of a god having the body of a man and the head of a ram, was adopted by the Egyptians as their national device, as the Lion is that of England, or the Eagle of the United States. In Isaiah (xvi i, 1) where the authorized version of King James s Bible has “Woe to the land shadowing with wings,” Lowth, after Bochart, translates, “Ho! to the land of the winged cymbal,” supposing the Hebrew xxx to mean the sistrum, which was a round instrument, consisting of a broad rim of metal, having rods passing through it, and some of which, extending beyond the sides, would, says Bishop Lowth, have the appearance of wings, and be expressed by the same Hebrew word.

But Rosellini translates the passage differently, and says, ” Ho, land of the winged globe.” Dudley, in his Naology (page 18), says that the knowledge of the spherical figure of the earth was familiar to the Egyptians in the early ages, in which some of their temples were constructed. Of the round figure described above, he says that although it be called a globe, an egg, the symbol of the world was perhaps intended; and he thinks that if the globes of the Egyptian entablatures, were closely examined, they would perhaps be found of an oval shape, figurative of the creation, and not bearing any reference to the form of the world.

The interpretation of the Masonic globes, as a symbol of the universality of Freemasonry, would very well agree with the idea of the Egyptian symbol referring to the extent of creation. That the globes on the pillars, placed like the Egyptian symbol before the temple, were a representation of the celestial and terrestrial globes, is a very modern idea. In the passage of the Book of Kings, whence Freemasonry has derived its ritualistic description, it is said (First Icings vii, 16), “And he made two chapters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars.`’ In some Masonic instructions it is said that “the pillars were surmounted by two pomels or globes.” Now pomel, xxxxx, is the very word employed by Rabbi Solomon in his commentary on this passage, a word which signifies a globe or spherical bodice The Masonic globes were really the chapiters described in the Book of Kings.

Again it is said (First Kings vii, 92), “Upon the top of the pillars was lily work.” We now know that the plant here called the lily was really the lotus, or the Egyptian water-lily. But among the Egyptians the lotus was a symbol of the universe; and hence, although the Freemasons in their lectures have changed the expanded flower of the lotus, which crowned the chapiter and surmounted each pillar of the porch, into a globe, they have retained the interpretation of universality. The Egyptian globe or egg and lotus or lily and the Masonic globe are all symbols of something universal, and the Masonic idea has only restricted by a natural impulse the idea to the universality of the Order and its benign influences. But in Brother Mackey’s opinion it is a pity that Masonic ritualists did not preserve the Egyptian and Scriptural symbol of the lotus surrounding a ball or sphere, and omit the more modern figures of globes celestial and terrestrial.


It happens that unlike the majority of symbols and rites a certain number of written data are in existence about the origin of the symbolism’s of the two Globes.

The oldest Lodges did not have them. Notices of them appear in the Minutes of one Lodge, some years later in the Minutes of another; they are shown in some of the oldest tracing boards and not shown in others; these facts show that the use of the Globes came slowly into use in the first half of the Eighteenth Century. In one Lodge record it is stated in so many words that “they illustrate the universality of the Craft” anywhere under heaven, anywhere in the earth, there is the home of Freemasonry! In the beginning of the Speculative system with the first Grand Lodge in London in 1717 it was expected that Grand Lodge would warrant Lodges only in London and inside a radius of ten miles from the City; it was not until the period of 1725 to 1730 that Warrants began to be issued (and then usually to men who had been made Masons in London) for “Lodges oversee.” It is reasonable to assume that this planting of Freemasonry on the Continent and in faraway America must have inspired and stimulated Masons in and around London, must have given them a new emotion, because their horizons were unexpectedly pushed outwards over the rim of the world; if that assumption is valid it follows that the use of Globes began to spread among the Lodges in the period between 1730 to 1750. Globes were hand-made in 1725, and therefore were costly, especially those of glass or silver; in one Lodge book a set is inventoried at £100. Many Lodges received them as gifts from well-to-do members.

In the “Legend of the Craft” included in the Old Charges it is said that the secrets of the Liberal Arts and Sciences were preserved through Noah’s Flood in two pillars. It is probable that early Speculative Masons pictured them as having been pedestals rather than pillars, similar to the pedestals they had in Lodge and in which regalia and the Secretary’s records were stowed. These two ancient pedestals of the Old Charges were replaced by the two Great Pillars of Solomon’s Temple, J and B. It appears that when the Globes first came into use they were placed in whatever spot was most convenient. Certainly there were not two globes on the Diluvian pillars. Solomon’s Pillars were surmounted by Chapiters, and archeologists believe that they were made of strips of metal and shaped like baskets, and that resinous wood was piled in them for giving light after dark.

The replacing of the Chapiters by Globes on top of the Great Pillars may have come about for any one or more of at least three reasons: Globes were more convenient when thus off the floor and out of the road; they made the Pillars more pleasing to the eyes; the symbolism of the Globes and of the Pillars combined naturally and easily, etc.

Archeologists found near Herculaneum a villa in which the dining room had an astronomical ceiling which could be turned to make the painted stars inside correspond on any night with the actual stars outside. There are hints that the Egyptians had globes they had spherical geometry and astronomy. In the late Middle Ages globes were so common that the phrase “Terrestrial and Celestial Globes” passed into current speech. This has been used as an argument to prove that before Columbus set sail men knew of the sphericity of the earth; a few men unquestionably did know of it, but the Globes themselves prove nothing. Men who believed the earth to be fiat could have had maps of the flat earth put on a globe because it was more convenient; we print maps on flat paper but it does not prove that we believe the earth to be flat. It is probable that the Speculative Masons used their Globes for no other purpose than maps; nothing is hinted in their Minutes of esoteric or occultistic meanings; but to them the mere map of the whole earth and the whole sky was something to excite the mind because it kept them alive to the fact that their Fraternity which had only a few years before confined itself to so modest a territory, had unexpectedly and almost miraculously burst its bonds, and was extending itself over the world. The Globes belong to the subject-matter of the philosophy of Masonry, but thus far have received meager attention from those who specialize in that branch of Masonic studies, though why this is true it is difficult to know, because that which the Globes symbolize is as massively overwhelming a fact as a range of the Himalayas.

Suppose that speculative Masonry had been confined, as it was first intended to a radius of ten miles from the center of London; if it had, it could easily have limited its membership to London citizens, of the white race, and members of some Christian church; when it became universal, as the Globes symbolize, such localism became impossible. It could not become universal without expanding to other countries, it therefore could not be confined to England, and other countries would stand on a par with England. It could not be confined to one race if it became universal because the world is occupied by three races with some sixty or so branches. It could not be confined to one religion, because there are scores of great religions in the world. This transformation of a local Craft into a world-wide Fraternity was an epochal event in the history of Freemasonry, and none more so; and since it is represented by the Globes they have a scope and power of meaning far outreaching the small attention they have thus far received.

Note. See History of the Lodge of Amity No. 137; by Harry P. Smith; published by the Lodge, Poole, England, 1937, and printed by J. Looker. This is a book excellently to be recommended because in the Minutes quoted by it are so many descriptions of Ritual, customs, etc. written at the time. On page 47 it is told that during a Degree there were exhibited “a pair of 18-in. globes, the perfect ashlar suspended from a Lewis [a species of clamp] and affixed to a winch, an armillary sphere, and a small philosophical [scientific] apparatus, as well as the usual ornaments furniture and jewels.” The author makes it clear that in the earliest days symbols had been drawn on the floor with chalk; that later the same symbols were painted permanently on a cloth, or board, or were inlaid in wood or stone. By about 1765 actual objects were used in place of drawn figures. The same impulse which substituted actual objects for drawn figures, led to substituting acted out ceremonies in lieu of what had been an oral lecture. The reference to the two “18-inch globes” is one of many Minutes or other records which substantiate what was said in a paragraph above about the placing of the Globes.

The present Ritual with its Ceremonies, Rites and Symbols can be explained only in the light of its history and in this Supplement that history-as just above-has been drawn from Lodge records, most of them of the Eighteenth Century, and of these the majority are of English Lodges. Records and Minutes of early American Lodges would naturally have been preferred for the present purpose but they unfortunately are few in number.


The “Golden Book” is a manuscript of 198 sheets of letter paper, 8 x 10, in a number of tints, bound in crimson morocco, preserved in the Archives of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. It is printed in full at page 192 ff. in Ancient Documents Relating to the A. and A. Scottish Rite, edited by Juleps F. Sachse; Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia; 1915. It was written by Count De St. Laurent, a native of Bogota; and was found in Northern France. In it is his own record of his attempt to found a Supreme Council for the Western Hemisphere, in 1832, in a period when Scottish Rite Masonry in America was, like Ancient Craft Masonry, broken by the Anti-Masonic Crusade.

A number of other documents were afterwards copied into the manuscript. These latter are now infinitely more interesting than the Count’s grandiose dream of becoming the head of the Scottish Rite for half the world, because among them are three of the very few written documents relating to the Masonic membership of Lafayette:

  1. A translation of the letters patent by which the Thirty-third Degree was conferred upon him.
  2. The Certificate of Lodge Lafayette.
  3. A note in his own handwriting under the letters patent expressing his gratitude for the honor conferred. “This note is upon page 80 in the ‘Golden Book’ and is the only known Masonic autograph letter of Brother General Lafayette. It will be noted that this note was written by Brother Lafayette, May 10, 1834, just ten days before his death.” (The document in full is given by Sachse on page 288.)

Because no record of General Lafayette’s Initiation has been found, a number of writers (among them a few Masonic writers) have denied that he was ever regularly made a Mason. It is difficult to understand this reasoning. On October 6, 1824, the Grand Lodge of Delaware received him with a long procession and Grand Honors; on June 27, 1825, it made him an Honorary Member; in a return visit on July 25 to receive the honor he mentioned in his address that he had visited twenty-four Grand Lodges.

He had visited Illinois Masons at Kaskaskia, on April 20, of that same year. six days before that he had visited the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. In 1824 he had visited the Grand Lodge of Maine (for the text of his speech see Maine Proceedings; Vol. I, page 121). on October 8, 1824, he was made Honorary Member of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, and was accompanied by his son, Bro. George Washington Lafayette it was on that visit that the Legislature made him and his heirs citizens of Maryland for ever. In the same year he made a Masonic tour of New Jersey He visited the Grand Lodge of South Carolina in 1825. May 4, 1825, he visited the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, was made Honorary Member, and was entertained by Past Grand Master Andrew Jackson. His tour from beginning to end was a prolonged Masonic visit, and in all the branches of the Craft: to question his membership in the Order ceases to have any weight against the mass of so much Grand Lodge testimony.

Note. In his comments quoted on the Lafayette notation in the Golden Book Bro. Sachse describes it as “the only known Masonic autograph letter of Brother General Lafayette.” [It is not a “letter.”] It is difficult to believe that in almost a year spent in visiting Masonic bodies over the nation Bro. Lafayette wrote no letter to any Mason, or about his Masonic plans. Somewhere a few of them must be in existence. The Laurent “Golden Book” is not to be confused with another “Scottish Rite Golden Book” one described by Folger.


About 1835 there were in the South an undetermined number of “Southern Rights” Clubs set up to send out slavers, to protect, and uphold, and to proclaim the slaveholding system. After they had flourished in separate centers, taking different forms, there crystallized out of them in 1855 a secret society entitled Knights of the Golden Circle, and the name of George C. Bickley, a native of Indiana, and later a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, was prominently connected with it. It appears to have in part been designed as a foil to the Know Nothing Party, the most ambitious of the impossible attempts to organize in America a political party in the form of a secret society. The first of the professed aims of the Knights was to protect slavery; its second, was to snake the South an independent nation; its third was to conquer Cuba and Mexico.

Its historian says that it furnished the means for “General” Walker to conduct his once-notorious filibuster in Nicaragua an episode Americans have forgotten because it is too painful to remember. The Knights did not stop with dreaming of an independent Confederacy in the South; they envisaged it as the maker of an empire which would expand to include Mexico, the West Indies, and countries to the Isthmus.

The society came to an end (apparently) with the Civil War; historians, if they will search its local minutes, will find there recorded month by month a procession of ideas and ambitions and schemes which illuminate one or two corners in the Civil War period; otherwise the Circle belongs to the archeology of dead and forgotten secret movements. There was never any connection with Freemasonry; Grand Lodges both North and South, as hundreds of Lodge minutes shows kept themselves remarkably free from involvement in secret conspiracies; so free that they maintained much Fraternal comity during the War, and resumed the whole of it immediately after the War. (See the rare little book, a collector’s item: An authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle, by a member of the Order; Indianapolis; C. O. Perrins; 1861.)


An architectural style is a set, or system, of principles which include within themselves a structural form, and a mode of ornamentation; the last named never being added on, as by an afterthought but belonging to the principles. To discover a new set or system of architectural principles is so difficult, and is achieved so seldom, that it is doubtful if more than a score or so of styles of architecture have been discovered in the history of the whole world. Oftentimes what is called a style is not a style, but a modification of one, or is the use of some detail of one (Greek pillars, for example), or, like the gables on New England houses, is nothing more than a local fancy-a carpenter’s trick and not an architectural principle.

Before the period of about 1140 A.D. in northern France churches and other public buildings (every people’s architecture has been a style or mode or customary design of public, or communal, or monumental buildings) were constructed in Romanesque. The origin of this type was the old Roman town hall, or basilica, and it had been adapted for use in churches by employing flattened round arches, often set in colonnades. These Romanesque churches w ere made of white stone, and there were so many of them in France that a chronicler once described them as “the white cloak of churches,” a phrase repeated countless times.

Suddenly-in fact, very suddenly-and beginning at a point in or near Paris, this Romanesque type was replaced by the Gothic style, which until Petrarch’s time was called the French style. This Gothic became an enthusiasm, almost an obsession, and between (roughly) 1140 A.D. and 1250 A.D. no fewer than eighty cathedrals and some 500 large churches were built in it in France alone-one bishop even tore down a great basilica church (St. Peter’s at Rome was then a basilica) only fifty years old, because his people demanded the wonderful new Gothic.

This was not a gradual piecemeal development of one detail after another out of Romanesque, but the discovery of a new formula, which itself was a single unity of principles, and bad to be understood as a whole or not at all. A comparable discovery, one making it easier to grasp the point of the Gothic discovery, was made here in America by Wilbur and Orville Wright, of Dayton, Ohio, during the first decade of the Twentieth Century. Their discovery was not aimed at by first modifying one piece of machinery and then another, nor did it come as the end result of a large number of experiments one after the other, but z as a feat of thought, and was discovered at once and as a whole.

This discovery was the aero-dynamic formula; and it seas in essence not a mechanical one but a mathematical one, and neither of the men w as a mechanic. Whoever it was who found out the Gothic style, one man or a group, at one stroke or over ten or twenty years, similarly discovered a formula, the Gothic formula; and just as airplane designers, once they had the aero-dynamic formula to work with could make planes of any possible size, speed, power, and for any possible purpose, so could the possessors of the Gothic formula design buildings large or small; cathedrals or churches or monasteries or halls.

If histories of architecture in four or five modern languages be placed side by side on a series of shelves, and if their contents be compared one with another, it will be found that they are concerned with public and monumental structures, capitols, churches, libraries, museums, hospitals, palaces, etc. and that they describe or discuss these public and monumental structures in the terms of the architectural styles they embody. The building of such structures is one of the fine arts.

That fine art is always what historians mean by architecture. This distinction between a building which only a trained artist can erect and the simple structures which any workman can construct was as clear to men in the Middle Ages as it is now. Medieval men had numberless simple homes, cottages, barns, storehouses, factories, shops, sheds, bridges; in every village were carpenters, stone-masons, wailers, and bricklayers able to build them. But these local workmen were not then, any more than now, architects. To build a church, cathedral, gildhall, castle, town hall it was necessary to call in from outside builders trained and skilled in architecture, or building as a fine art. The evidences everywhere indicate that these latter workmen were called Freemasons; they indicate also that these Freemasons were in gilds or fraternities apart from the small gilds of local workmen, just as at the present time local carpenters and bricklayers are not members of the American Society of Architects.

In another respect, however, the art of architecture of the present time differs fundamentally from Medieval architecture. The present day architect begins with schooling instead of with apprenticeship.

He goes to college to study geometry, mechanics, draftsmanship, design, the history of his art, etc., and remains there until he has mastered a set of abstract formulae and general principles of construction; after he has set up his own office he is free to make his choice among five or six architectural styles when designing a building. In the Middle Ages the beginner was not sent to a school but was indentured in an apprenticeship; he was not educated in abstract principles and formulae but was manually trained to produce given pieces of work, and wherever he might go, he knew he would have those same given pieces of work to do. From the middle of the Twelfth Century until about the time of Henry VII the only style, or type of building, known to either architects or the public, was the Gothic. No two Gothic buildings were ever exactly the same, but their component parts were always made the same way-the pointed arch, the buttress, the column, the rose window, the fan vault, the tower, etc.; therefore the training of an apprentice consisted of drilling him in the knowledge and skill of making or designing those particular component parts of a Gothic building.

In the Middle Ages each trade or craft was locally organized as a gild, fraternity, society, etc.; in each instance the technologies, or making or mixing of materials, use of tools, etc., were a trade secret. The local stone-masons, carpenters, wailers, paviors, roofers likewise had their own local organizations, and in them preserved their own trade secrets. The Freemasons had societies, fraternities, lodges of their own, apart from local builders; the methods and principles of architecture, which at that time was necessarily Gothic architecture, were their great trade secret. To call them Gothic builders is therefore only another way of saying that they were architects, though the latter term was not then used.

The Gothic builder was trained in one style only, and would therefore have been at a disadvantage in competition with a modern architect, who had been educated to understand the principles of design in each and every established style. But the scope for a Gothic builder’s ingenuity, talent, and skill was not therefore a narrow one; because the Gothic itself, above any other style ever discovered, was unbelievably fertile, flexible, comprehensive, and difficult; so much so that it overflowed, and elements of it were adopted by local builders, and even by designers of gold work, cloth designing, and even in writing. The mastering of it called for such an amount of knowledge that Gothic builders stood in a class apart, not in respect of their art alone but as men of great attainments in things of the mind, of characters of independence, of culture. Such men as Suger, Arnolfo, William of Sens, Henry Yevele were among the most eminent of great men of their own or any other time.

The local masons, carpenters, and other workmen in the building trades were illiterate, parochial, thoroughly trained but trained only for simple types of work; it would be impossible to believe that Speculative Freemasonry with its philosophy and its arts and sciences ever could have arisen among them; and as a matter of fact there is nothing to indicate that anything belonging to culture, science, thought was ever produced by them. It was among the Freemasons, or Gothic builders, that Speculative Freemasonry arose; it was they in particular, and not masons or builders in general, who are denoted by our use of the phrase “Operative Masons.”


Gould’s History of Freemasonry, by Robert Freke Gould; Revised by Dudley Wright; under the supervision of Melvin M. Johnson and J. Edward Allen; Charles Seribner’s Sons; New York, N. Y.; six volumes; blue cloth; full page illustrations, a number in full color; volumes separately paginated; general index in Volume VI; 2587 pages.

The frontispiece of the work is a reproduction in full color of George Washington in his regalia as Worshipful Master, by John Ward Dunsmore, one-time President of the National Academy, the original of which was painted on commission from the Board of General Activities, Grand Lodge of New York: it is a document as well as a painting because the artist posed his model in the actual regalia and on the dais of the Alexandria-Washington Lodge room, Alexandria, Va., of which Washington was Master at the time of his first Inauguration. In its binding, format, paper, and press-work the History is another of the solid, dignified masterpieces of the printer’s art for which Scribner’s have long been famous.

In the original Edition Gould himself wrote a chapter on the Masonic history of each of the States in America. These chapters were as sound as a writer working in London and with only a bare outline knowledge of American Masonry could make them; but they were never satisfactory, and as new data were discovered here they became increasingly unsatisfactory as years passed. Brothers Wright, Johnson and Allen deleted Gould’s own chapters wholly, and in their places had new histories prepared by living American writers, one for each State. As far as American Masons are concerned this makes the History a new work. (Thomas Jefferson is included in the portrait gallery of Masonic Presidents; there is no known evidence of his having been a Mason, and there is much evidence in his private correspondence of his dislike of secret societies and fraternities.)
The History was completed and published by Gould (and his collaborators) in 1887; his reading for it must therefore have begun as early as 1875, or even 1870.

At that time what little was known about the Ancient Mysteries, the Collegia, the Essenes, and the (Duldees was confined to a few scattered references in ancient writings, most of them Greek or Roman. Since that time archeologists have unearthed hundreds of thousands of inscriptions and thousands of manuscripts, in consequence of which the history of those subjects has been wholly re-written; and Gould’s first chapter is out of date. Thus, his three pages on the important subject of the Roman Collegia are based on Massman and Coote: the former published his Libellus in 1840, the latter his Romfans of Britain in 1878; neither is any longer of worth. Chapter 4 of Volume I on “The Craft Guilds of France” likewise has lost much of its weight by subsequent discoveries in historical research; these have been so revolutionary that the picture of the French gilds as painted by Gould has been altered out of recognition.

Gould did not have a true sense of proportion. Of six volumes only one is devoted to the general history of Freemasonry properly so called; Gould himself explained that this was for lack of space; if so it is difficult to see why he devoted one whole chapter to “The Quatuor Coronati” and spent more than sixty pages trying to prove that Wren was not a Mason, when neither subject was worth more than a footnote. He omitted almost the whole of the very important history of Freemasonry in the West Indies, in the French and Indian War, and his few pages on the history of Colonial Freemasonry in America are too slight a sketch to have any usefulness for American students.

Worse still (in the sense of a lack of proportion) he built his account of the origin and early development of Speculative Freemasonry around the single Grand Lodge of 1717, as if the Antient Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and early American Masonry had been of secondary importance.

Gould himself was not an expert on manuscripts or on the general archeology of documents, and his judgment therefore is sometimes faulty, and at other times uncertain, many of his paragraphs concealing a confusion of thought under sentences dogmatic in form.

One instance is found in his pages on early Freemasonry in Scotland; another is found in his discussion of the Leland MS. In his History he dismisses the latter as a forgery, at least, as apocryphal; but in an essay published later he admits that George Fleming Moore had almost convinced him of its authenticity.

Since Gould completed his work three events of massive importance have occurred: a sudden and unprecedented increase of knowledge of the Middle ages, accomplished by historical research, and more especially by documentary discoveries; the almost unbelievable enlargement of knowledge of ancient tunes made by archeologists since 1885; and the publication of histories and Minute Books of 200 or so of the oldest Lodges, a new source of information, and one which was not available in Gould’s time, and one which compels a number of revisions of his theories of the early periods of Speculative Freemasonry. Gould’s Hurtory has not lost its usefulness; for some purposes it is as useful as ever; but it is necessary for students to check each of its pages against the new knowledge.


When Jesus was relating (Luke – xv) the parable in which one having lost a sheep goes into the wilderness to search for it, He said: “And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.” Hettner, a German writer on Greek customs, says: “When the Greek carries home his lamb, he slings it round his neck, holding it by the feet crossed over the breast. This is to be seen with us also, but the sight is especially: attractive at Athens, for it was in this manner that the ancients represented Hermes as the guardian and multiplier of flocks; so stood the statue of Hermes at Olympia. Occhalia. and Tanagra Small marble statues of this kind have even come down to us , one of which is to be seen in the Pembroke collection at Wilton House; another , a smaller one, in the Stoa of Hadrian, at Athens. This representation, however, appears most frequently in the oldest works of Christian arts in which the laden Hermes is turned into a laden Christ who often called himself the Good Shepherd, and expressly says in the Gospel of Saint Luke, that when the shepherd finds the sheep, he lays it joyfully on his shoulder.” Now, although the idea of the Good Shepherd may have been of pagan origin, yet derived from the parable of our Savior in Saint Luke and his language in Saint John, it was early adopted by the Christians as a religious emblem. The Good Shepherd bearing the sheep upon his shoulders, the two hands of the Shepherd crossed upon his breast and holding the legs of the sheep, is a very common subject in the paintings of the earliest Christian era. It is an expressive symbol of the Savior’s love of Him who taught us to build the new temple of eternal life- and, consequently, as Didron says, “the heart and imagination of Christians have dwelt fondly upon this theme; it has been unceasingly repeated under every possible aspect, and may be almost said to have been worn threadbare by Christian art. From the earliest ages, Christianity completely made it her own.” And hence the Christian Degree of Rose Croix has very naturally appropriated the sign of the Good Shepherd, the representation of Christ bearing his once lost but now recovered sheep upon his shoulders, as one of its most impressive symbols.


An alehouse with this sign, in St. Paul’s Church Yards London. In 1717 the Lodge of Antiquity met at the Goose anal Gridiron, and it was there that the first Quarterly Communication of the Grand Lodge of England, after the revival of 1717, was held on the 24th of June, 1717. It was on the headquarters of a musical society, whose arms a Iyre and a swan were converted into Goose and Gridiron.


Provincial Grand Master over the Lodges warranted by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, east of Balbos in Andalusia, Southern Spain, appointed August 3, 1807 (see History of Freemasonry and Grand Lodge of Scotland, William A. Laurie, 1859, page 408):


A secret society established in 1724, in England, in opposition to Freemasonry. One of its rules was that no Freemason could be admitted until he was first degraded, and had then renounced the Masonic Order. It was absurdly and intentionally pretentious in its character; claiming in ridicule of Freemasonry, a great antiquity, and pretending that it was descended from an ancient society in China. There was much antipathy between the two associations, as will appear from the following verses, published in 1729, by Henry Carey:

The Masons and the Gormogons
Are laughing at one another,
While all mankind are laughing at them;
Then why do they make such a pother?
They bait their hook for simple gulls
And truth with bam they smother,
But when thev’ve taken in their culls
Why then’t is “Welcome, Brotherr”

The Gormogons made a great splutter in their day, and published many squibs against Freemasonry; yet that is still living, while the Gormogons were long ago extinguished. They seemed to have flourished for but a very few years. Brother R. F. Gould has collected about all that is known about the Gormogons in his article on the Duke of Wharton, in volume viii of Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge. But the reader must not overlook a pertinent quotation, from a letter written by Brother Gould, mentioned in Melville’s Philip, Duke of Wharton (page 114), “About the Gormogons, indeed, all is inference and conjecture. We must suppose that the Society or Association actually met, but there is no distinct proof of their having done so.”


Of all the styles of architecture, the Gothic is that which is most intimately connected with the history of Freemasonry, having been the system peculiarly practiced by the Freemasons of the Middle Ages.

To what country or people it owes its origin has never been satisfactorily determined; although it has generally been conjectured that it was of Arabic or Saracenic extraction, and that it was introduced into Europe by persons returning from the Crusades. The Christians who had been in the Holy Wars received there an idea of the Saracenic works, which they imitated on their return to the West, and refined on them as they proceeded in the building of churches.

The Italians, Germans, French, and Flemings, with Greek refugees, united in a fraternity of architects and ranged from country to country, and erected buildings according to the Gothic style, which they had learned during their visits to the East, and whose fundamental principles they improved by the addition of other details derived from their own architectural taste and judgment. Hence Sir Christopher Wren thinks that this style of the Medieval Freemasons should be rather called the Saracenic than the Gothic. This style, which was distinguished by its pointed arches, and especially by the perpendicularly of its lines, from the rounded arch and horizontal lines of previous styles, was altogether in the hands of those architects who were known, from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries, as Freemasons, and who kept their system of building as a secret, and thus obtained an entire monopoly of both domestic and ecclesiastical architecture. At length, when the gilds or fraternities of Freemasons, “who alone,” says Hope, “held the secrets of Gothic art,” were dissolved, the style itself was lost, and was succeeded by what Paley says (Manual of Gothic Architecture, page 15) was “a worse than brazen era of architecture” (see Traveling Freemasons).


A title sometimes given to the Institutions which are supposed to have been adopted by the Freemasons at the City of York, in the tenth century, and so called in allusion to the Gothic architecture which was introduced into England by the Fraternity. A more correct and more usual designation of these laws is the York Constitutions, which see.


This well-known historian of Freemasonry had a varied career. Born in 1836, and died March 26, 1915. He entered the English army at the age of eighteen, becoming a lieutenant in the same year, and serving with distinction in North China in 186S9. On his return to England he studied law and became a barrister in 1868. He was initiated at Ramsgate in the Royal Navy Lodge, No. 429, and was Master of the Inhabitants Lodge at Gibraltar, also of the Meridian Lodge, No. 743, a Military Lodge attached to his regiment. Afterward he held the Chair of the Moira, Quatuor Coronati and Jerusalem Lodges. In 1880 he was appointed Senior Grand Deacon of England. He had been a constant writer in the Masonic press since 1858; in 1879 he published The Four Old Lodges and The Atholl Lodges, and in 1899 a book on Military Lodges. But his greatest work is the History of Freemasonry in three large volumes, which occupied him from 1882 to 1887, which was followed in 1903 by A Concise History of Freemasonry abridged from the larger work and brought up to date.


A merchant of New York, who was born in France in 1777, and received a member of the Scottish Rite in 1806. His name is intimately connected with the rise and progress of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States. Through his representations and his indefatigable exertions, the Mother Council at Charleston was induced to denounce the Consistory of Joseph Cerneau in the City of New York, and to establish there a Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction, of which Brother Gourgas was elected the secretary-general. He continued to hold this office until 1S32, when he was elected Sovereign Grand Commander. In 1851, on the removal of the Grand East of the Supreme Council to Boston, he resigned his office in favor of Brother Giles Fonda Yates, but continued to take an active interest, so far as his age would permit, in the Rite until his death, which occurred at New York on February 19, 1865, at the ripe old age of eighty-eight, and being at the time probably the oldest possessor of the Thirtieth Degree in the world. Brother Gourgas was distinguished for the purity of his life and the powers of his intellect. His Masonic library was very valuable, and especially rich in manuscripts. His correspondence with Dr. Moses Holbrook, at one time Grand Commander of the Southern Council, is in the archives of that Body, and bears testimony to his large Masonic attainments.


Degrees in Freemasonry are sometimes so called. In this connection it is a French word (see Degrees).


The German name is Der Orden vom Senf Korn. An order instituted in Germany, based on Mark iv, 30 and 32, the object being the propagation of morality.


One of the seven liberal arts and sciences, which forms, with Logic and Rhetoric. a triad dedicated to the cultivation of language. “God, ‘ says Sanctius, “created man the participant of reason; and as he willed him to be a social being, he bestowed upon him the gift of language, in the perfecting of which there are three aids. The first is Grammar, which rejects from language all solecisms and barbarous expressions; the second is Logic, which is occupied with the truthfulness of language; and the third is Rhetoric, which seeks only the adornment of language.”