Enciclopédia Mackey – HUGHAN ~ HYMNS

Partilhe este Artigo:




This able and well-known Masonic scholar was born on February 13, 1841, and died on May 20, 1911. His father vas a native of Dunscore, in Scotland, who had settled at East Stonehouse in Devonshire, where Brother Hughan was born. At the age of fifteen he was apprenticed to a draper at Devonport; at nineteen he entered a wholesale firm at Plymouth, going thence to Manchester and Truro, at which latter place he remained until 1883, when he retired from business and settled at Torquay, where he died.

He was initiated in 1863 in the Saint Aubyn Lodge, No. 954, at Devonport; in the following year he joined the Emulation Lodge of Improvement in London, and on removing to Truro in 1864 he joined the Phenix Lodge of Honor and Prudence, No. 331, of which he was for a time Secretary, and in 1866 the Fortitude Lodge, No. 131, of which he was Worshipful Master in 1868 and 1878. In 1865 he was exalted in the Glasgow Chapter, No. 60, and joined Kilwinning Chapter, Ayr, No. 80, in 1868, becoming its Z., the chief officer, in 1873, and he was appointed Past Assistant Grand Sojourner of England in 1883; at various times he took most, if not all, of the Degrees worked in England and Scotland. In 1869 he was appointed Provincial Grand Secretary for Cornwall, which post he held for two years, and in 1874 he received the rank of Past Senior Grand Deacon of England, in recognition of his literary labors in the service of the Craft, this honor being the first of its kind to be so bestowed. In 1876 he was given the rank of Past Senior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Egypt, which was followed by many similar honors from various foreign Masonic I3Odies, including Senior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Iowa.

Brother Hughan was devoted to Masonic study and research ever since he first saw the light of Freemasonry, and the Masonic periodicals of both hemispheres contain innumerable articles from his pen. His chief published works are: Constitutions of the Freemasons, 1869; History of Freemasonry in York, 1871; Unpublished Records of the Craft, 1871- Old Charges of British Freemasons, 1872; Memorials of the Masonic Union of ISIS, 1874; Numerical and Medallic Register of Lodges, 1878; Origin of the English Rite of Freemasonry, 1884 and 1909; Engraved List of Regular Lodges for 1734, 1889; History of the Apollo Lodge and the R. A. York, 1889; History of the Lion and Lamb Lodge, 1894; Old Charges of British Freemasons, 1895; Constitutions of the Freemasons, 1725-1896, 1899 and The Jacobite Lodge at Rome, 1756-7, 1910. His writings cover the whole range of Freemasonry, but he gave special attention to the Old Charges, in the search for which he was indefatigable. The copyright in his books now belongs to the Lodge of Research, Leicester, England.


The Divine Master has said, “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke, xiv 2), and the lesson is emphatically taught by a portion of the instructions of the Royal Arch Degree. Indeed, the first step toward the acquisition of truth is a humility of mind which teaches us our own ignorance and our necessity for knowledge, so that thus we may be prepared for its reception. Doctor Oliver has erred in saying (Landmarks ii 471) that bare feet are a Masonic symbol of humility. They are properly a symbol of reverence. The true Masonic symbol of humility is bodily prostration, and it is so exemplified in the Royal Arch Degree.


German composer. Born on November l4, 1778, at Pressburg, Hungary, and died at Weimar, Germany, in 1837. Member of the Lodge Amalia at Weimar and a pupil of Mozart’s. Sesame celebrated pianoforte player and composer and in the music hook published by the Lodge where he was initiated, 1820, there are two songs by him.


Carl Gotthelf, Baron von Hund, was born in Oberlausitz, in Germany, on September ll, 1722. He was a nobleman and hereditary landed proprietor in the Lautsitz. He is said to have been upright in his conduct, although beset by vanity and a love of adventure. But Findel if scarcely correct in characterizing him as a man of moderate understanding, since the position which he took among his Masonic contemporaries many of whom were of acknowledged talent and the ability with which he defended and maintained his opinions, would indicate the possession of very respectable intelligence. In religious faith he was a Protestant. That rare work, the Anti-Saint-Nicaise, contains in its first volume a brief biography of Brother von Hund, from which some details of his personal appearance and character may be obtained he was of middling stature, but well formed; never dressed sumptuously, but always with taste and neatness; and although himself a moderate liver, was distinguished for his hospitality , and his table was always well supplied for the entertainment of friends and visitors. The record that his servants were never changed, but that those who were employed in his domestic service constantly remained with him, is a simple but conclusive testimony to the amiability of his character

The scanty details of the life of Hund, which are supplied by Clavel in his Histoire Pittoresque; by Thory, in tile ilda Lalornor1xrn; by Ragon, in his Orlhorlozie Mtl4nnniqur; by RotiHon, in his Proofs of Conspiracy; tvy Lenning and licke, in the Encyclopedia of huh; by Oliver, in his Historical Lanelmarks, and by Findel, in his l-lialorty, vary so much in dates and in the record of events that he who should depend on their conflicting authority for information would be involved in almost inextricable confusion in attempting to follow any connected thread of a narrative.

AH Thory, however, writes as an annalist, in chronological order, it may he presumed that his dates are more to be depended on than those of the looser compilers of historical essays. He, therefore will furnish Liz with at least an outline of the principal Masonic events in the life of Hund, while from other writers we may derive the material facts which the brevity of Thory does not provide. But even Thory must sometimes be abandoned, where he has evidently neglected to note a particular circumstance, and his omission must be supplied from come other source. On the 20th of March, 1742, when still lacking some months of being twenty years of age, he was initiated into the mysteries of Freemasonry, in the Lodge of the Three Thistles at Frankfort-on-the Main. Findel places the date of his initiation in the year 1741; but, for the reason already assigned, Brother Mackey preferred the authority of Thory, with whom Lenning concurs. The First and Second Degrees were conferred on the same day, and in due time his initiation into the Symbolic Degrees was completed.

Soon after his initiation, the Baron von Hund traveled through England and Holland, and paid a visit to Paris. Robison, who speaks of the Baron as “a gentleman of honorable character,” and whose own reputation secures him from the imputation of wilful falsehood, although it could not preserve him from the effects of prejudice, says that Hund, while in Paris, became acquainted with the Earl of Kilmarnock and some other gentlemen, who were adherents of the Pretender, and received from them the new Degrees, which had been invented, it is said, for political purposes by the followers of the exiled house of Stuart. Gadicke states that while there he also received the Order of the Mopses, which he afterward attempted, but without success, to introduce into Germany. This must, however, be an error; for the Order of the Mopses, an androgynous institution, which subsequently gave birth to the French Lodges of Adoption, was not established until 1776, long after the return of Hund to his native country.

This entire article is by Brother Mackey except where otherwise plainly indicated and here we may insert a comment by Brother Hawkins who says the Order of the Mopses was established in 1738 (see Mopses).

While he resided in Paris he received, says Findel, some intimations of the existence of the Order of Knights Templar in Scotland. The legend, which it is necessary to say has been deemed fabulous, is given to us by Clavel (Histoire Pittoresque, page 184), who tells us that, after the execution of Jacques de Molay, Pierre d’Aumont, the Provincial Grand Master of Auvergne, accompanied by two Commanders and five Knights, escaped to Scotland, assuming during their journey, for the purpose of concealment, the costume of Operative Masons. Having landed on one of the Scottish Islands, they met several other companions, Scottish Knights, with whom they resolved to continue the existence of their Order, whose abolition had been determined by the Pope and the King of France. At a Chapter held on Saint John’s Day, 1313, Aumont was elected Grand Master, and the Knights, to avoid in future the persecutions to which they had been subjected, professed to be Freemasons, and adopted the symbols of that Order. In 1361, the Grand Master transported his See to the city of Aberdeen, and from that time the Order of the Temple spread, under the guise of Freemasonry, throughout the British Islands and the Continent.

The question now is not as to the truth or even the probability of this legend. It is sufficient for our present purpose to say, that the Baron von Hund accepted it as a veritable historical fact. He was admitted, at Paris, to the Order of Knights Templar, Clavel says, by the Pretender, Charles Edward, who was the Grand Master of the Order. Of this we have no other evidence than the rather doubtful authority of Clavel. Robison intimates that he was inducted by the Earl of Kilmarnock, whose signature was attached to his diploma. Gadicke says that he traveled over Brabant to the French army, and was there made a Templar by high chiefs of the Order. And this statement might be reconciled with that of Robison, for the high chiefs, hohe Obere, of Gädicke were possibly the followers of the Pretender, some of whom were likely to have been with the French army. The point is not, however, worth the trouble of an investigation.

Two things have been well settled, namely: That in 1743 von Hund was initiated as a Knights Templar, and that at the same time he received the appointment of a Provincial Grand Master, with ample powers to propagate the Order in Germany. He returned to his native country, but does not appear to have been very active at first as a missionary of Templarism, although he continued to exhibit his strong attachment to Ancient Craft Freemasonry. In the year 1749 he erected, at his own expense, a Lodge on his estates at Kittlitz, near Lobau, to which he gave the name of the lodge of the Three Pillars. At the same time he built there a Protestant church, the corner-stone of which was laid by the Brethren, with the usual Masonic ceremonies.

We are compelled to suppose, from incidents in his life which subsequently occurred, that Hund must have visited Paris a second time, and that he was there in the year 1754. On November 24, in that year, the Chevalier de Bonneville, supported by some of the most distinguished Freemasons of Paris, instituted a Chapter of the High Degrees, which received the name of the Chapter of Clermont, and into which he introduced the Templar system, that is, the system which finds the origin of Freemasonry in Templarism. In this Chapter Baron von Hund, who was then in Paris, received the Degrees of the Clermont system, and there, says Thory, he learned the doctrine upon which he subsequently founded his new Rite of Strict Observance. This doctrine was, that Freemasonry owes its existence to Knights Templarism, of which it is the natural successor; and, therefore, that every Freemason is a Templar, although not entitled to all the privileges of the Order until he has attained the highest Degree.

Von Hund returned to Germany possessed of powers, or a Deputation granted to him in Paris by which he was authorized to disseminate the advanced Degrees in that country. He was not slow to exhibit these documents, and soon collected around him a band of adherents. He then attempted what he termed a reform in primitive Freemasonry or the simple English system of the three Symbolic Degrees, which alone most of the German Lodges recognized. The result was the establishment of a new system, well known as the Rite of Strict Observance.

But here we again encounter the embarrassments of conflicting authorities. The distinctive feature of the Rite of Strict Observance was, that Freemasonry is the successor of Templarism; the legend of Aumont being unhesitatingly accepted as authentic. The author of Anti-Saint-Nicaise, the book already referred to, asserted that between the years 1730 and 1740, there was already in Lusatia a Chapter of Templars; that he knew one, at least, who had been there initiated before the innovation of the Baron von Hund; and that the dignities of Prior, Sub-Prior, Prefect, and Commander, which he professed to introduce into Germany for the first time, had been known there at a long antecedent period. Ragon also asserts that the Templar system of Ramsay was known in Germany before the foundation of the Chapter of Clermont, whence von Hund derived his information and his powers; that it consisted of six Degrees, to which Hund added a seventh; and that at the time of von Hund’s arrival in Germany this regime had Baron von Marshall as its head, to whom Hund’s superiors in Paris had referred him. This seems to be the correct version of the affair; and so the Rite of Strict Observance was not actually established, but only reformed and put into more active operation, by von Hund.

One of the peculiarities of this Rite was, that every member was called a Knight, or Eques; the classical Latin for a Roman knight being, by a strange inconsistency, adopted by these professed Templars, instead of the medieval word Miles, which had been always appropriated to the military knights of chivalry. To this word was appended another, and the title thus formed was called the characteristic name. Lists of these characteristic names, and of the persons whom they represented, are given in all the registers and lists of the Rite. Von Hund selected for himself the title of Eques ab Ense, or Knight of the Sword, and, to show the mixed military and Masonic character of his regime, chose for his seal a square and sword crossed, or, in heraldic language, saltierwise. Von Hund divided Europe into nine provinces, and called himself the Grand Master of the Seventh Province, which embraced Lower Saxony, Prussian Poland, Livonia, and Courland. He succeeded in getting the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick to place himself at the head of the Rite, and secured its adoption bv most of the Lodges of Berlin and of other parts of Prussia. After this he retired into comparative inactivity, and left the Lodges of his Rite to take care of themselves.

But in 1763 he was aroused by the appearance of one, Johnson, on the Masonic stage. This man, whose real name was Leucht, was a Jew, and had formerly been the secretary of the Prince of Anhalt-Bernburg, under the assumed name of Becker. But, changing his name again to that of Johnson, he visited the city of Jena, and proclaimed himself to the Freemasons there as possessed of powers far more extensive than those of von Hund, which he pretended to have received from “Unknown Superiors” at Aberdeen, Scotland, the supposed seat of the Templar Order, which had been revived by Aumont. Von Hund at first admitted the claims of Johnson, and recognized him as the Grand Prior of the Order.

Ragon says that this recognition was a fraud on the part of von Hund, who had really selected Johnson as his agent, to give greater strength to his Rite. I am reluctant to admit the truth of this charge, and am rather disposed to believe that the enthusiasm and credulity of von Hund had made him for a time the victim of Johnson’s ostentatious pretensions. If this be so, he was soon undeceived, and, discovering the true character as well as the dangerous designs of Johnson, he proclaimed him to be an adventurer. He denied that Johnson had been sent as a delegate from Scotland, and asserted anew that he alone was the Grand Master of the Order in Germany, with the power to confer the high Degrees. Johnson, accused of abstracting the papers of a Lord of Courland, in whose service he had been, and of the forgery of documents, was arrested at Magdeburg through the influence of von Hund, on the further charges of larceny and counterfeiting money, and died in 1775 in prison.

Von Hund now renewed his activity as a Freemason, and assembled a Congress of the Rite at Altenberg, Where he was recognized as Grand Master of the Templars, and augmented his strength by numerous important initiations. His reappearance among the Brethren exerted as much surprise as joy, and its good effects were speedily seen in a large increase of Chapters; and the Rite of Strict Observance soon became the predominating system in Germany. But dissatisfaction began to appear as a consequence of the high claims of the members of the Rite to the possession of superior knowledge. The Knights looked haughtily upon the Freemasons who had been invested only with the primitive Degrees, and these were offended at the superciliousness with which they were treated. A Mother Lodge was established at Frankfort, which recognized and worked only the three Degrees. Other systems of advanced Degrees also arose as rivals of the Rite, and von Hund’s regime began to feel sensibly the effects of this compound antagonism.

Hitherto the Rite of Strict Observance had been cosmopolitan in its constitution, admitting the believers in all creeds to its bosom, and professing to revive only the military and chivalric character of the ancient Templars, without any reference to their religious condition. But in 1767, von Starck, the Rector at Wismar, proposed to engraft upon the Rite a new branch, to be called the clerical system of Knights Templar. This was to be nominally spiritual in character; and, while announcing that it was in possession of secrets not known to the chivalric branch of the Order, demanded as preliminary to admission, that every candidate should be a Roman Catholic, and have previously received the Degrees of the Strict Observance. Starck wrote to von Hund, proposing a fusion of the two branches; and he, “because,” to borrow the language of Findel (History of Freemasonry, page 279), “himself helpless and lacking expedients, eagerly stretched out his hand to grasp the offered assistance, and entered into connection with the so-called clergy.” He even, it is said, renounced Protestantism and became a Catholic, so as to qualify himself for admission.

In 1774, a Congress assembled at Kohlo, the object of which was to reconcile the difference between these two branches of the Rite. Here von Lund appears to have been divested of some portion of his digmties, for he was appointed only Provincial Superior of Upper and Lower Alsace,.of Denmark and of Courland, while the Grand Mastership of the Rite was conferred on Frederick, Duke of Brunswick.

Another Congress was held in 1775, at Brunswick, where Hund again appeared. Here Findel, who seems to have no friendly disposition toward von Hund, charges him with “indulgence in his love of outward pomp and show,” a charge that is not consistent with the character given him by other writers, who speak of his modesty of demeanor. The question of the Superiores Incogniti, or Unknown Superiors, from whom von Hund professed to derive his powers, came under consideration. He denied that he was bound to give any explanations at all, and asserted that his oath precluded him from saying anything more. Confidence in him now declined, and the Rite to which he was so much attached, and of which he had been the founder and the chief supporter, began to lose its influence. The clerical branch of the Rite seceded, and formed an independent Order, and the Lodges of Strict Observance thenceforward called themselves the United German Lodges.

With his failure at Brunswick, the functions of von Hund ceased. He retired altogether from the field of Masonic labor, and died in the fifty-fifth year of his life, on November, 1776, at Meiningen, in Prussia.

The members of the Lodge Minerva, at Leipsic, struck a medal in commemoration of him, which contains on the obverse an urn encircled by a serpent, the symbol of immortality and on the reverse a likeness of him, which is said to be exceedingly accurate.

A copy of it may be found in the Taschenbuche der Freimaurerei, and in the American Quarterly Review of Freemasonry. For this amiable enthusiast, as he certainly was credulous but untiring in his devotion to Freemasonry; deceived but enthusiastic; generous and kind in his disposition; whose heart was better than his head we may not entertain the profoundest generation; but we cannot but feel an emotion of sympathy. We know not how much the antagonism and contest of years, and final defeat and failure, may have embittered his days or destroyed his energy; but we do know that he ceased the warfare of life while still there ought to have been the promise of many years of strength and vigor.


See Austria Hungary and Czecho Slovacia


The Hebrew word nm, liberty. A term used in the Fourth Degree of Perfect Mistress in the French Rite of Adoption.


Of all the Masonic writers of the eighteenth century there was no one who did more to elevate the spirit and character of the Institution than William Hutchinson of Barnard Castle, in the county of Durham, England. To him are we indebted for the first philosophical explanation of the symbolism of the Order, and his Spirit of Masonry still remains a priceless boon to the Masonic student. Hutchinson was born in 173 , and died April 7, 1814, at the ripe age of eighty-two years. He was by profession a solicitor; but such was his literary industry, that a were extensive practice did not preclude his devotion to more liberal studies.

He published several works of fiction, which, at the time, were favorably received. His first contribution to literature was The Hermitage, a British Story, which was published in 1772. This was followed, in 1773, by a descriptive work, entitled An Excursion to the Lakes of Westmoreland and Cumberland. In 1775, he published The Doubtful Marriage, and in 1776 A Week in a Cottage and A Romance after the Fashion of the Castle of Ontranto. In 1778, he commenced as a dramatic writer, and besides two tragedies, Pygmalion, King of Tyre and The Tyrant of Onia, which were never acted, he also wrote The Princess of Zanfara which was successfully performed at several of the provincial theaters.

Hutchinson subsequently devoted himself to archeological studies, and became a prominent member of the Royal Society of Antiquaries. His labors in this direction were such as to win for him from Nichols the title of “an industrious antiquary.” He published in 1776, A View of Northumberland; in two volumes; in 1785, 17&7, and 1794, three consecutive quarto volumes of The History and Antiquities of the County Palatinate of Durilam; and in 1794, in two quarto volumes, A History of Cumberland works which are still referred to by scholars as containing valuable information on the subjects of which they treat, and are an evidence of the learning and industry of the author. But it is as a Masonic writer that Hutchinson has acquired the most lasting reputation, and his labors as such have made his name a household word in the Order. He was for some years the Master of Barnard Castle Lodge, where he sought to instruct the members by the composition and delivery of a series of Lectures and Charges, which were so far superior to those then in use as to attract crowds of visitors from neighboring Lodges to hear him and to profit ban his instructions. Some of these were from time to time printed, and won so much admiration from the Craft that he was requested to make a selection, and publish them in a permanent form.

Accordingly, he applied, in 1774, for permission to publish, to the Grand Lodge which then assumed to be a rigid censor of the Masonic press and, having obtained it, he gave to the Masonic world the first edition of his now celebrated treatise entitled The Spzrat of Masonry, in Moral and Elvzidatory Lectures; but the latter part of the title was omitted in all the subsequent editions. The sanction for its publication, prefixed to the first edition, has an almost supercilious sound, when we compare the reputation of the work which at once created a revolution in Masonic literature with that of those who gave the sanction, and whose names are preserved only by the official titles, which were affixed to them. The sanction is in these words:

Whereas, Brother William Hutchinson has compiled a book, entitled The Spirit of Masonry, and has requested our sanction for the publication thereof, we, having perused the said book and finding it will be of use to this Society, do recommend the same.

This approval is signed by the Grand Masterand his Deputy, also by the Grand Wardens, and the Grand Treasurer and Secretary. But their judgment, though tamely expressed, was not amiss. A century has since shown that the book of Hutchinson has really been “of use to the Society.” It opened new thoughts on the symbolism and philosophy of Freemasonry, which, worked out by subsequent writers, have given to Freemasonry the high rank it now holds, and has elevated it from a convivial association, such as it was in the beginning of the eighteenth century, to that school of religious philosophy which it now is. To the suggestions of Hutchinson, Hemming undoubtedly owed that noble definition, that “Freemasonry was a science of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”

The first edition of The Spirit of Masonry was published in 1775, the second in 1795, the third in 1809, the fourth in 1813, the fifth in 1814, and the sixth in 1815, all except the last in the lifetime of the author. Several subsequent editions have been published both in the United States and in Great Britain. In 1780, it was translated into German, and published at Berlin under the title of Der Geist der Freimaurerei, in moralischen und erlauternden Vortragen. Of this great work the Craft appear to have had but one opinion. It was received on its first appearance with enthusiasm, and its popularity among Masonic scholars has never decreased. Doctor Oliver says of it:

It was the first efficient attempt to explain, in a rational and scientific manner, the true philosophy of the Order. Doctor Anderson and the writer of the Gloucester sermon indicated the mine. Calcott opened it, and Hutchinson worked it. In this book he gives to the science its proper value. After explaining his design, he enters copiously on the rites, ceremonies and institutions of ancient nations. Then he dilates on the Lodge, with its ornaments, furniture, and jewels, the building of the Temple; geometry and after explaining the Third Degree with a minuteness which is highly gratifying, he expatiates on secrecy, charity, and brotherly love, and sets at rest all the vague conjectures of cowans and unbelievers, by a description of the occupations of Masons and a masterly defense of our peculiar rites and ceremonies.

The peculiar theory of Hutchinson in reference to the symbolic design of Freemasonry is set forth more particularly in his ninth lecture, entitled “The Master Mason’s Order.” His doctrine was that the Lost Word was typical of the lost religious purity, which had been occasioned by the corruptions of the Jewish faith. The piety which had planted the Temple at Jerusalem had been expunged, and the reverence and adoration due to God had been buried in the filth and rubbish of the world, so that it might well be said “that the guide to heaven was lost, and the master of the works of righteousness was smitten.” In the same way he extends the symbolism. “True religion,” he says, “was fled. Those who sought her through the wisdom of the ancients were not able to raise her. She eluded the grasp, and their polluted hands were stretched forth in vain for her restoration. Those who sought her by the old law were frustrated, for death had stepped between, and corruption defiled the embrace.”

Hence the Hutchinsonian theory is, that the Third Degree of Freemasonry symbolizes the new law of Christ, taking the place of the old law of Judaism, which had become dead and corrupt. With him, Hiram or Huram is only the Greek huramen, meaning I have found it, and acacia, from the same Greek, signifies freedom from sin; and “thus the Master Mason represents a man, under the Christian doctrine saved from the grave of iniquity and raised to the faith of salvation. ” Some of Hutchinson’s etymologies are unquestionably inadmissible; as, when he derives Tubal Cain from a corruption of the Greek, tumbon choeo, “I prepare my sepulcher,” and when he translates the Substitute Word as meaning “I ardently wish for life.” But fanciful etymologies are the besetting sin of all antiquaries.

So his theory of the exclusive Christian application of the Third Degree will not be received as the dogma of the present day. But such was the universally recognized theory of all his contemporaries. Still, in his enlarged and elevated views of the symbolism and philosophy of Freemasonry as a great moral and religious science, he was immeasurably in advance of his age. In his private life, Hutchinson was greatly respected for his cultivated mind and extensive literary acquirements, while the suavity of his manners and the generosity of his disposition secured the admiration of all who knew him. He had been long married to an estimable woman, whose death was followed in only two days by his own, and they were both interred in the same grave.


The acclamation in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. In the old French manuscripts it is generally written Hoschea.


In the History of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, England, by Brother Phipps Doran, 1912, we are told that Brother W. Clegg, a member of the Lodge of Harmony, No. 279, Boston, Lincolnshire, was the author of the hymns Hail Eternal and Now the Evening Shadows Falling, which are in frequent use at the opening and closing of many Lodges.

arrow_l arrow_r

related posts y6t5768g

Partilhe este Artigo: