1

Law and Order – the Gavel image in collective imaginings of Law

McGill Faculty of Law

(5,085 words)

INTRODUCTION

About a year ago, a filmmaker friend of mine asked me a question for a script she was

writing about a Canadian court case she had been involved in years ago. She asked if Canadian

criminal proceedings concluded with the banging of a gavel; we were both surprised by her own

confusion and lack of recollection on the matter. I was further surprised by my own lack of

certainty – after all, I have sat in on a number of both civil and criminal cases and my immediate

impression was that, indeed, there was a gavel... For the sake of certainty, I directed the quandary

to a Crown Prosecutor I once shadowed at the Québec Superior Court. His response was swift:

“no gavels!”

What was the cause of my instinctive impression that gavels were, and are, active

ceremonial objects in Canadian courts of law? My initial inkling pointed to the court-dramas that

constituted the bulk of my family’s television viewing in the 90’s. Be it Perry Mason, Matlock,

Ally McBeal, or Law and Order – courtroom dramas were all the rage during my formative

years. The latter of these was our household favorite and, I must timidly admit, quite a

substantial factor in my nascent desires for a professional future in law. I was certain that the

gavel must have imprinted itself as a lasting image in my mind from the very opening credits of

Law and Order. This montage offered a series of images, illustrating the collaborative relation of

law and order (“two separate yet equally important groups”). The sequence begins with a birds-

2

eye cityscape of Manhattan at night, followed by photographic images of NYPD officers along

their cruisers (beacon-lights a-blazing), footage of police pursuits – the emergence of the super-

imposed text, spelling “LAW” – followed by images of fingerprints, arrests, mug-shots, hands in

cuffs, suspects in holding cells, and all that glorious police suspect-apprehension riffraff. The

second half of the montage presents the emergent text spelling “ORDER” and presenting a

temple-like courthouse, followed by an animated American flag and subsequent running images

of courtroom rituals; among these, a still of a gavel – a gavel in the process of being sounded; a

gavel in action. The other images do not forget the symbolic importance of the justice scales,

some legal transcripts, all punctuated with introductions of all the regular actors (after all, “these

are their stories”). Thus, the initial aim of this paper intended to analyse that poignant gavel

image in the scope of the Law and Order opening montage. Alas, after a careful re-viewing of all

the Law & Order opening credits, I was shocked to discover that the gavel image was scrapped

from the montage after Season 3.

How could my memory fail me again? There must be something very powerful about this

mallet effigy of law that permeates the unconscious faculties to the extent where it evokes the

first image association when the words “law” and “order” are presented in conjunction. This

paper will focus on this image power and argue on the premise that the gavel is one of the most

poignant symbols of law. The support of this statement will begin with a historical examination

of the gavel and its factually tenuous relationship with law, with courts, and indeed, even with

justice. Unlike, Lady Justice and her toted balance-scales, there is no historical tradition

connecting the gavel with the rule of law; the ceremony of banging the gavel is absent in most

countries’ courts and relatively recent in those where it is used. Second, I will provide evidence

that the image of the gavel is the principal symbol of law and that I am thus not solitary in my

misconception regarding its relationship to court proceedings. For this end, I employ an

3

examination of Internet images through Google image-searches of the words “Law”, “Droit”,

“Justice”, and “Judge”. My findings evince two conclusions: that the gavel is the primary

associative image for the word “Law” (as functioning on the social forum that is the Internet);

and that this symbol is most attributed to judges and not to justice. The final part of this paper

will extend a further analysis into the possible reasons for the salience of the gavel image as

constitutive of our idea of law and not our idea of justice. The emerging implication is that it is

precisely the relationship of law and order that hinges on the image of the gavel – thus we can

gauge a duality in the commonly accepted idea of law as composed of justice and order.

However, it is the latter concept that imbues law with power: the gavel somewhat outweighs the

scales, indicating that order dominates justice.

I. History of the What: the Gavel

“Order, you know, was Heaven's first law, and this venerable elephant's tooth has been rapping for order so long that it seems quite possible that it may have been Heaven's first gavel and that there may never be another one like it.”1

“The wood, rose-wood, is from Mexico; the ivory, which you see at the end of the handle is from Alaska; the silver, which you will discover in the minority (laughter) is from Colorado. The gold, the endless band of gold (applause), which the ancients considered as the token of everlasting friendship, is made to cement the handle to the hammer and on it is written ‘Our field, the world’... to present to you, Sir, this gavel. May it be used to preserve harmony.”2

The tradition of the gavel as a ceremonial object in a court of law is very limited in scope, in

time, and in historical certainty. The gavel is almost exclusively used in the legal courts of

United States; although certain European countries have applied it in proceeding through history

– a subject I will return to later. Despite its law-court prominence, even the American gavel

history enjoys modest roots as it was first and foremost an object of ceremony in political and

1 Senator John J. Ingalls quoted in "The Senatorial Gavel" (1889)The Washington Post, exact date unknown, from Isaac Bassett Papers, Box 10 folder C at 81 cited in Silvio Bedini. The Mace and the Gavel: Symbols of Government in America. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series (1997) 87: 4 at 65.2 Judge Edmund M. Bartlett of Omaha presenting a gift gavel to William C. Sprague, president of the first Commercial Law League of America in 1985 during the First Convention on behalf of Fox, Kellogg and Gray (San Francisco Law Firm) cited in Morris Weisman "Shop Talk – Rededication of the Gavel" (1955) Com. LJ 60 at 151.

4

Masonic assemblies. The earliest American use of the term “gavel” emerged in the 1856 edition

of Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, defined as the “mallet of a chairman”.3

The terminology lagged behind the gavel’s application in practice; it is speculated that this relic

has been used to call the American Senate to order since its first sessions held in the spring of

1789. The legend, as it is posited, has it that American lawmakers were deeply concerned that

their new government should see their democratic tradition reflected in appropriate symbols from

the first meeting of the Continental Congress and until the convening of the first Federal

Congress. The authority of the Senate inadvertently became vested from the very beginning in a

simple device serving as a gavel wielded by the individual presiding over assembly. The Senate

gavel was a simple block of solid ivory and functioned as a ‘knocker’ to bring the body to

attention.4 It is not clearly ascertained if John Adams, as the first Vice President chairing the

Senate of the Federal Congress, used this gavel in Philadelphia’s Congress Hall; it is said that he

customarily brought that body to order by rapping a pencil upon his water glass. It is speculated,

rather, that the first to use the ivory gavel was Thomas Jefferson after he succeeded Adams to

that office.5

Indeed, the tenuous history of the gavel only works to emphasize its mystery. Other accounts

of its origins point to medieval institutions such as the Elizabethan guild in Exeter whereby “the

governor having a small hammer in his hands made for the purpose, when he will have scilence

to be hadd shall knocke the same upon the Borde, and who so ever do talke after the second

stroke to paye without redempcion two pence.”6 There is also a reference in a biography of St.

Bernard, founder of the Cistercians to “the harsh strokes of the wooden mallet used for calling 3 Simpson, Claude, and Cathie McNeil. "The gavel." (1971). Speech Teacher, 20: 2 at 143 citing footnote of Luther Cushing’s Lex Parliamentaria Americana.4 Ibid.5 Bedini, Silvio A. “The Mace and the Gavel: Symbols of Government in America” (1997), Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 87: 4 at 1.6 Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Transaction of Quoatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076. (1928) Volume XL.

5

the brethren together.”7 These quasi-allegorical attestations can be found alongside many other

mythologies in the scripts of the Freemasons. The accuracy of the accounts may not answer to

the stringency of verification but the fact of the gavel’s deeply held Masonic significance stands

undisputed. According to Joseph F. Ford in Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, “[N]o

lodge appliance or symbol is possessed of such deep and absorbing interest to the craft as the

Master's mallet or gavel...Nothing in the entire range of Masonic paraphernalia and formulary

can boast of an antiquity so unequivocally remote”.8

Whether ushered in with the winds of secret societies, ancient guilds, or generated by utility

to offer a pencil-rap on a water-glass greater timber, the gavel appeared on the shores of the

United States of America. It is there that it took root as one of the most significant insignia of

order, democracy and deliberation. The courtroom gavel however had enjoyed passing

application in other nation states. It has been imported into other systems such as the Second

Polish Republic (interwar Poland) and taken out of practice after World War II – only to be

recently reintroduced there in 2008 to enforce greater courtroom order.9  

The Polish case notwithstanding, the semiotic import of this symbol has been so extensive

that its signification of judicial rule and order is universally understood. This is without a doubt

aided and abetted by the power of its image, promulgated for years through American film and

television, and reaching new heights with the rise of the Internet medium. It is my intuition that it

is this latter medium that has assisted the universalized empowerment of the gavel as the emblem

of law. However in later sections, I will argue that this is not isolated from its other, more

intrinsic empowering qualities. The question that needs to be addressed next is: just how

7 Ibid.8 Hunt. Charles C., Masonic Symbolism. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Laurance Press Co, 1939) at 25.9 Pietryga, Tomasz “Krótka historia sędziowskiego młotka" Rzeczpospolita 2008-06-14/15 online:<< http://www.rp.pl/artykul/148441.html?p=2>>.

6

pervasive is the gavel as law in the collective imagination? Much can be said for all the

connotations an image may espouse (after all, it is held that a picture can say a thousand words)

but how many images can a key word elicit?

II. Research of the How: The Gavel’s Prominence in the Collective Imagination

Richard Sherwin accurately notes that visual representations do not simply resemble reality,

but also “tend to stimulate the same cognitive and especially emotional responses that are

aroused by the reality they depict”.10 Indeed, visual images do engulf us in vivid, life-like

sensations allowing emotion to build and enhance belief to the extent that these images compel

certain behaviours.11 Let us depart from mediated images as such for a moment and return to

those experienced in reality. It has been advanced that, when people are exposed to judicial

proceedings, they are bombarded with a host of specialized judicial symbols.12 Political scientists

stipulate that “symbols of justice typically begin with the court building itself (often resembling a

temple), and proceed through special dress for judges (robes), honorific forms of address and

deference (your honor), typically an elevated bench on which the judge sits, and a panoply of

collateral symbols (a gavel, the blind-folded Lady Justice, balancing the scales of justice)”.13 In

such a way, almost all aspects of judicial proceedings convey the message that courts are

different from ordinary institutions, and worthy of respect and acquiescence.14 Let us then

consider the experienced images of judges, the grand exteriors and somber interiors of courts, the

effigies of Lady Justice and her scales, rows of books containing legal texts and finally, yes, the

gavel – if these symbolic images invoke respect for the judiciary, for the law, and for justice, it

10 Sherwin, Richard Visualizing Law in the Age of the Digital Baroque (New York: Routledge, 2011) at 1 [Sherwin].11 Ibid.12 Gibson, James L., et al. "Can judicial symbols produce persuasion and acquiescence? Testing a micro-level model of the effects of court legitimacy" Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL (2010) at 6 [Gibson].13 Ibid.14 Ibid.

7

can be assumed that the reverse is also true. In other words, the concepts of law, justice and the

judiciary ought to elicit imagined insignias of courthouses, scales, law books and perhaps even

the evasive gavel in the minds of ordinary people.

The connotations must be put to the test in order to answer a key, two-fold question: What

symbolic images come most immediately to mind when we think of abstract concepts related to

law? Further, how does the image of the gavel fare in such image associations? This tests a

cognitive concept-to-image relay under the presumption that the Internet serves as a sufficient

representation of such processes. My methodology made use of the Internet medium as the locus

of collective imaginings: websites use text and image and marry these according to the message

they desire to convey. Turning once again to Richard Sherwin, the digital media-inspired model

of knowledge is a constantly morphing network of relations that at once utilize and reproduce the

“pictures and words from which meanings are composed to be seamlessly modified and

recombined.”15 In my search for the current status of meanings associated with images of law, I

conducted a Google image search of the following words: “Law”; “Droit”; “Canada law”;

“Justice”; and “Judge”16. These words represent concepts and can at times fall victim to much

ambiguity as they possess a certain abstract nature. The images that appeared, presented the most

prominent symbolic associations related to those terms. For each term, the first 100 images were

classified by quantity in terms of the frequency of certain key symbolic images. The principal

image symbols for all five terms were found to be: gavel, scales (with and without the presence

of Lady Justice), books of law, and courthouses (both interior and exterior). The salience of one

image’s associative power over another’s was measured by the frequency of its appearance on

the particular searched term.

15 Sherwin supra note 10 at 3.16 See Appendix Figures I-IV respectively.

8

The search findings are tabulated below:

Table 1

Law Droit Canada Law Justice Judge

Gavel All 43 15 8 8 54

Gavel Only 12 2 1 3 13

Scales* All 40 25 4 55 6

Scales Only 23 17 3 40 0

Books of Law All 34 17 11 0 14

Books of Law Only 10 5 10 0 0

Court All 6 3 4 3 23**

Court Only 4 3 4 3 0

All results are out of 100

* “Scales” subsume both the balance scales and Lady Justice.** The courtroom in this context appeared mainly as the necessary backdrop of a presiding judge. In this sense, the court image is merely incidental and not a significant correlative to the concept of “judge”.

Discussion

The tabulation presents the images that appeared in conjunction with other objects or images

– usually representative of a certain situational context, and isolates those that appeared alone –

thus, as solitary symbols of the particular term. It should be noted that qualifying “Law” further

into “Droit” and “Canada Law” aimed to specify and isolate the context of the concept as

particularly detached from the American association of law and gavel. According to the survey

of the images, the court (be it a courtroom or building) has weakest association to all the

concepts of law and there may be logistical reasons for this: portrayal of any specific court would

give the impression that this particular locale is emblematic of all courts. Secondly, the physical

appearance of a court building or room is not as unique as the other symbols: temples, Masonic

lodges, museums, parliamentary and congressional buildings, etc. bear structural similarities to

9

courts both internally and externally – thus the message is not conveyed with sufficient

expediency necessary for effective symbolism.

The results evince that the concept of “Law” was most often associated with the image of

the gavel (43), followed closely by the image of the balance scales (40). The dominance of the

gavel was also present for “Canada Law” (8) although it must be noted that books of law (11)

were the most frequent association for this canadianized concept. The French concept of law

(“Droit”) had the highest frequency of the justice scales as symbolic of law (25), followed

closely by the image of books of law (17) – a fact that resonates with the codal nature of the

French approach to law. Interestingly, the gavel (marteau) is not used in French courts hence the

appearance of the gavel in 15 out of the 100 images is one of the strongest evidentiary factors

proving the power of the gavel-as-law hypothesis.

Another interesting finding was the surfacing of 5 images of the gavel alongside the

Canadian flag. It would seem I am certainly not alone in confusing the relationship of gavels and

the Canadian legal system. In fact, Canada’s online legal magazine, Slaw, has posted a blog

entry entitled “Gavel busters”, calling on readers to submit URLs of Canadian websites “using

the gavel to symbolize [Canadian] law”.17 The blog entry laments the fact that even some

Canadian government websites fall prey to the faulty analogy. In a separate blog post, Simon

Chester, lawyer with the Canadian Law Information Council, chastises Canadian journalists for

applying the “gavel” metonymy in many story headlines whereby terms such as “drop the gavel”

or “gavel to gavel coverage” are frequently employed to Canadian legal issues.18 This could

indicate either the widespread misinformation regarding the presence of gavels in Canadian

17 Author unknown “Gavel busters” Slaw: Canada’s Online Legal Magazine (2009) online: <<http://www.slaw.ca/gavel-busters/>>.18 Chester, Simon. “Canadian Journalists Hunger for Gavels” Slaw: Canada’s Online Legal Magazine (2009) online: <<http://www.slaw.ca/2009/04/27/canadian-journalists-hunger-for-gavels/>>.

10

courts or a clear recognition of the gavel’s symbolic expediency. One way or another, the gavel

has hammered itself into the Canadian collective unconscious and continues to sculpt a certain

kind of image of law.

Another point of interest is the fact that gavels were least correlated with the idea of justice -

appearing in merely 8 of the 100 images. Compared to the prominence of justice scales in over

half of the images for “Justice”, we can conclude that semiotics of balancing and impartiality,

that the scales and the blindfolded Lady Justice represent, correspond to the concept of justice.

The obvious caveat is the fact that the word Justice may in fact be referring to the Lady Justice

herself – hence the correlation. However what is not tabulated but worthy of mention, is the fact

that Lady Justice appeared in only 13 out of the 55 “Scales” images. This signifies that “Scales”

possess a very strong symbolic connection to the concept of justice. The idea of “Judge”

however is not strongly associated with the symbol of scales; they appeared in merely 6 images

whereas the gavel showed up in an overwhelming 54 images. This drives the conclusion that the

gavel bears the strongest connection to the idea of judicial rule. This is undoubtedly related to the

fact that as opposed to the scales, the gavel is in fact used by judges in court proceedings (in the

US). When considered comparatively with the fact that gavel had the weakest link with “Justice”

and the strongest with the “Judge” it is fair to conclude that the gavel’s connection to law is

derived from legal procedure, judicial prerogative, law’s enforcement and courtroom order as

opposed to being drawn from the idea of justice, fairness and impartiality. Hence the gavel

displays the power of law whereas the scales evince righteousness. The fact that both symbols

appeared with almost equal frequency for the concept of “Law”, is reassuring in the

understanding that the two aspects enjoy a nearly equivalent importance. In fact, the scales as the

sole image evocative of “Law” appeared much more frequently than an isolated gavel,

accounting for 23 instances as opposed to the latter’s 12. This signals the importance of the gavel

11

as necessarily accompanied by other elements: according to our collective imagination, law’s

order and power must be enabled, accompanied, and/or justified by other factors whereas law’s

justice can stand on its own.

III. Analysis of the Why: Reasons for the Gavel prominence

The above section provided proof of the gavel’s salient association with the concept of law.

It is important to venture into some of the reasons of why this may be so. Symbols convey

meaning that is simple and readily accessible.19 In the sense that symbols activate pre-existing

attitudes and beliefs, rendering observable events tenable, it could be theorized that the

prominence of the gavel as symbol of law exists simply because such images are continuously

supplied to us. In other words, the connotation is pervasive because it is pervasive – it is a self-

fulfilling prophecy; an instance of classical conditioning20. Despite the obvious circularity of

such a premise, there is some truth to the idea of continual repetition of a myth and its seeming

legitimating by the very virtue of such repetition. However this is insufficient in explaining the

commencement of this symbolic association: why the gavel as opposed to the robe, the elevated

judicial podium, the sworn on bible, the raised-in-oath hand or any other object or ritual of law in

process? What is so special about the gavel?

The value of symbolic communication is that information is often processed with little or no

conscious awareness of symbols’ influence.21 In his discussion of the aesthetics of law, Richard

Schoeck points to what he coins “the body language of the law”.22 He specifically mentions

judicial gestures, ranging from the rising of all in court to the banging of the gavel – in this

sense, those unfamiliar with the ritual in their home courts, can come under the influence of the

19 Gibson supra note 12 at 8.20 Gibson supra note 12 at 23.21 Gibson supra note 12 at 8.22 Schoeck, Richard J. "The Aesthetics of the Law" (1983) Am. J. Juris. 28 at 50 [Schoeck].

12

dissemination of the gavel’s authority in American film and television drama and build a kind of

internalized cognition of this instrument’s link to the justice system. There is a specific element

that has not been addressed in the case of the gavel: it is an object, or rather an instrument, whose

utility is usurped through an act, performed by a figure of authority – in this case, a judge. As

opposed to a balance scale – whose judicial balancing of fact and law, party interests, etc... is an

act performed conceptually whereas the gavel is used physically. The judge legitimates the

gavel’s authority and simultaneously, gavel imbues judicial declarations with more tenor.

i. Bang Bang Bang

This auditory ‘tenor’ is important. The sonic element of gavel’s banging accompanies the

object in such an important manner that I would argue, it is one of the key ingredients in its

mysterious effect on the unconscious. Take for instance, my previously mentioned faulty

conviction that the gavel image was ever-present in every opening-credit sequence of Law and

Order throughout all of its seasons. The image was gone after the third season – however an

echoing variant of the gavel’s bang (the very familiar ‘dun dun’) punctuates every episode,

separating scenes, emphasizing important transitions. Detached from the visual component, the

gavel’s sonic presence provides a type of rhythm to the unwinding of every case of the show.

Indeed, even the opening credits’ musical track begins with a particular rhythmic pound-like

resonance that evokes feelings of submission to the seriousness of the matters about to be

witnessed. The banging knock of the gavel on wood draws an even further, more numinous

association: the knocking on wood has been historically considered an act of absolution,

evidenced most notably by the priestly knock on the confessional following a deep and private

testimony.

ii. The Gavel Allegory

13

The second element of the gavel that gives it a symbolic power of authority is a more

conscious association that delves into the allegorical roots of the object itself. What is a gavel? It

is a hammer. A hammer has many immediate associations: it is used to build and construct, but

likewise, it has the ability to destroy. It has masonry and masculine power written into its very

essence. It is phallic and it is the tool of the strong and the certain; it can hit a nail with resolute

accuracy. The hammer has enjoyed a symbolic prominence in mythology (Thor the hammer-

wielding g’d jumps immediately to mind), religion (lest we forget the famous Lutheran

hammering of his 95 theses on a church door) and politics (the Bolshevik hammer and sickle

take center-stage here). Law too has a historical relationship with the hammer: the earliest legal

writings, such as the Hammurabi code of laws, were inscribed in stone. The hammer was thus an

imperative instrument of law’s prominence and survival: its recording. The gavel takes the

hammer form, adapts it, and employs it to a construction and upholding of order in important

proceedings. The fact that the gavel is also used in auctions speaks to its correlation with the

finality of a decision – the final strike of the gavel signals the closure of an issue. Coupled with

its commanding sound, the symbolic tool of andric power attains a dignified posture – it is the

sceptre of the judge, and the enforcer of judge law. This offers a partial explanation for the

gavel’s important role in a jurisdiction where jurisprudence is a principal building block of law.

iii. Laws of Physics

The final element of the gavel’s virility in our imagined conceptualizations of law returns to

its physics. The striking of the gavel is an exercise of demonstrating gravity. The fast falling

mallet speaks to us as it hits the base – it comes from up above and descends upon an audience.

As a side-note relating back to the sonic power, the very term “audience” also elicits the power

of sound. It bears more emphasis than mere image: courts grant parties an “audience” in public;

14

an on-looking public is likewise considered an “audience”; the synonym for a space of assembly

is and “auditorium” and a synonym of a court case in procedure is a “hearing”. Much like the

elevated seat of a presiding judge, there is something to be said for a top/bottom positioning and

its symbolism. The idea of a falling object driven by force joins the allegorical association of

Thor’s hammer-hurdling creating thunder on earth and the sonic power of the object which

empowers its possessor. We are powerless to resist it as it is carried to us by the grasp of judicial

will and the first law of physics: the former animates the latter and the gavel’s inertia is

interrupted by the judicial (external) force. Is it any wonder that in discussing case-law, we are

never want for using terms such as “gravity” (of the issue, of evidence, of a case...); “strike” (a

balance, from record...); “force” (enforce a ruling or rule, reinforce a principle...); “uphold” (a

principle); “ground” (in a rule); etc... On a lesser note, a judge may “quash” a decision. The term

“quash” originates from Medieval Latin quass re, which means “to shatter”. In short, the three

elements: sound, allegorical significance, and physical attributes, work in concert to compose an

object infused with remarkable prerogative. Mediated through television and the Internet, the

gavel’s proliferation continues to affect our imagined social and cultural practices in the forum of

law.

CONCLUSION

This paper examined the prominence of the gavel as a symbol of law so pervasive that it is a

universally accepted metonym, even in jurisdictions that have never employed it in legal

proceedings. I demonstrated the extent of this prominence with a study of images appearing in a

Google-search of certain key concepts of law. Significantly, it was found that the gavel’s

associative salience was strongest for the idea of a “Judge”. The weakest association was

between the image of the gavel and the idea of “Justice”. In the case of gavel and the “Law”, the

15

object was overwhelmingly present as an accompaniment as opposed to a solitary symbol. Taken

together, we can conclude that the gavel is more concerned with judicial order (be it in reference

to a decision ordered, or procedural order). This can explain the strength and persistence of an

imagined gavel in the series Law and Order. Much more can be drawn from such study and the

Internet, as an activated mechanism of a collective imagination, can offer many avenues for

social study.

The evidence of what is the gavel’s role in this collective legal imagination is the easy part.

Explaining the reasons for this image’s salience is a much trickier endeavour. However, seeing

as symbolic objects can be examined in their form, application and particularities of their

historical baggage, I hope my explanatory hypotheses can clear a path to understanding why the

legal gavel appears as related to conceptualization of law, even in instances where it does not

belong. Perhaps, the gavel should no longer be seen as a physical object but a purely conceptual

one, an essential abstraction? There may be more developments before the final bang bang bang

is sounded to dismiss the case on gavel-busting. Until then, it is pertinent to focus on what the

gavel signifies concerning the dominant conceptualizations of law. Law, according to my

analysis, is a concept composed of balanced justice and judicial authority; law cannot exist in the

way we know it, without order.

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Monographs

Hunt. Charles C., Masonic Symbolism. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Laurance Press Co, 1939).

Sherwin, Richard Visualizing Law in the Age of the Digital Baroque (New York: Routledge, 2011).

Articles

Bedini, Silvio A. The Mace and the Gavel: Symbols of Government in America. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series (1997) 87: 4.

Schoeck, Richard J. "The Aesthetics of the Law" (1983) Am. J. Juris. 28 at 50.

Simpson, Claude, & Cathie McNeil. "The gavel." (1971). Speech Teacher, 20: 2.

Weisman, Morris "Shop Talk – Rededication of the Gavel" (1955) Com. LJ 60.

Other Sources

Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Transaction of Quoatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076. (1928) Volume XL. Online: << http://archive.org/stream/ArsQuatuorCoronatorumVol.401928/Aqc401928_djvu.txt>>.

Chester, Simon. “Canadian Journalists Hunger for Gavels” Slaw: Canada’s Online Legal Magazine (2009) online: <<http://www.slaw.ca/2009/04/27/canadian-journalists-hunger-for-gavels/>>. “Gavel busters” Slaw: Canada’s Online Legal Magazine (2009) online: <<http://www.slaw.ca/gavel-busters/>>.

Gibson, James L., et al. "Can judicial symbols produce persuasion and acquiescence? Testing a micro-level model of the effects of court legitimacy" Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL (2010).

Pietryga, Tomasz “Krótka historia sędziowskiego młotka" Rzeczpospolita 2008-06-14/15 online:<< http://www.rp.pl/artykul/148441.html?p=2>>.