L
In Hebrew, Samaritan, 4. The shape of the twelfth English letter is borrowed from that of the Oriental lomad, coinciding with the Samaritan. The numerical value in Hebrew is thirty. The Roman numeral L is fifty. Hebrew name of Deity, as an equivalent, is h, dimmed, or Doctus. This letter also signifies a stimulus, generally feminine.
*
LABARUM
The monogram of the name of Christ, formed by the first two letters of that word, XPI2TOZ, in Greek. It is the celebrated sign which the legend says appeared in the sky at noonday to the Emperor Constantine, and which was afterward placed by him upon his standard. Hence it is sometimes called f the Cross of Constantine. It was adopted as a symbol by the early Christians, and frequent instances of it are to be found in b the catacombs. According to Eusebius, the Labarum was surrounded by the motto EN TOTTQ NIGH, or Conquer oy this, which has been Latinized to In hoc signo Minces, the motto assumed by the Masonic Knights Templar (see In hoc signo Minces). In his Life of Constantine (i, page 31), Eusebius describes the arrangement of the Labarum as on a long gilded spear having a crosspiece supporting a square purple cloth jewelled richly, at end of spear a gold wreath enclosing monogram. The derivation of the word Labansm is uncertain. The Greek word Labaron means a flag.
*
LABOR
It is one of the most beautiful features of the Masonic Institution, that it teaches not only the necessity, but the nobility of labor. From the time of opening to that of closing, a Lodge is said to be at labor. This is but one of the numerous instances in which the terms of Operative Masonry are symbolically applied to Speculative; for, as the Operative Masons were engaged in the building of material edifices, so Free and Accepted Masons are supposed to be employed in the erection of a superstructure of virtue and morality upon the foundation of the Masonic principles which they were taught at their admission into the Order.
When the Lodge is engaged in reading petitions, hearing reports, debating financial matters, etc., it is said to be occupied in busyness; but when it is engaged in the form and ceremony of initiation into any of the Degrees, it is said to be at work. Initiation is Masonic labor. This phraseology at once suggests the connection of our Speculative System with an Operative Art that preceded it, and upon which it has been founded. Gadicke says: Labor is an important word in Freemasonry- indeed, we might say the most important. For this, and this alone, does a man become a Freemason.
Every other object is secondary or incidental. Labor is the costumed design of every Lodge meeting. But do such meetings always furnish evidence of industry? The labor of an Operative Mason will be visible, and he will receive his reward for it, even though the building he has constructed may, in the next hour, be overthrown by a tempest. He knows that he has done his labor. And so must the Freemason labor. His labor must be visible to himself and to his Brethren, or, at least, it must conduce to his own internal satisfaction. As we build neither a visible Solomonic Temple nor an Egyptian pyramid, our industry must become visible in works that are imperishable, so that when we vanish from the eyes of mortals it may be said of us that our labor was well done.
As Freemasons, we labor in our Lodge to make ourselves a perfect building, without blemish, working hopefully for the consummation, when the house of our earthly tabernacle shall be finished, when the Lost Word of Divine Truth shall at last be discovered, and when we shall be found by our own efforts at perfection to have done God service.
*
LABORERS, STATUTES OF
Toward the middle of the fourteenth century, a plague of excessive virulence, known in history as the Black Death, invaded Europe, and swept off fully one-half of the inhabitants. The death of 80 many workmen had the effect of advancing the price of all kinds of labor to double the former rate. In England, the Parliament, in 1350, enacted a Statute, which was soon followed by others, the object of which was to regulate the rate of wages and the price of the necessaries of life. Against these enactments, which were called the Statutes of Laborers, the artisans of all kinds rebelled; but the most active opposition was found among the Masons, whose organization, Doctor Mackey asserts, being better regulated, was more effective (see Freemason). In 1360, Statutes were passed forbidding their "Congregations, Chapters, Regulations, and Oaths," which were from time to time repeated, until the third year of the reign of Henry VI, 1425 A.D., when the celebrated Statute entitled "Masons shall not confederate themselves in Chapters and Congregations," was enacted in the following words:
Whereas, by yearly Congregations and Confederacies made by the Masons in their General Assemblies, the good course and effect of the Statutes for Laborers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the Commons, our said sovereign lord and King, willing in this case to provide a remedy, by the advice and assent aforesaid, and at the speei31 rev quest of the Commons, hath ordained and established that such chapters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden; and if any such be made, they that cause such Chapters and Congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convicted, shall be judged for felons. and that the other Masons that come to such Chapters and Congregations be punished by imprisonment of their bodies and make fine and ransom at the king's will.
All the Statutes of Laborers were repealed in the fifth year of Elizabeth; and Lord Coke gave the opinion that this act of Henry VI became, in consequence, "of no force or effect"; a decision which led Anderson, very absurdly, says Brother Mackey, to suppose that "this most learned judge really belonged to the ancient Lodge, and was a faithful Brother" (Constitutions, 1723, page 57); as if it required a judge to be a Freemason to give a just judgment concerning the interests of Freemasonry.
*
LACEPEDE B. G. E. DE LA VILLE
A French savant and naturalist, born in 175d, died 1825. President of the Legislative Assembly in 1791. Master of the Lodge de Saint Napoléon in 1805. An account of his installation is recorded by Kloss.
*
LACORNE
The Count of Clermont, who was Grand Master of Francis having abandoned all care of the French Lodges, left them to the direction of his Deputies. In 1761, he appointed one Lacorne, a dancing-master, his Deputy; but the Grand Lodge, indignant at the appointment, refused to sanction it or to recognize Lacorne as a presiding officer. He accordingly constituted another Grand Lodge, and was supported by adherents of his own character, who were designated by the more respectable Freemasons as the Lacorne Faction. In 1762, the Count of Clermont, influenced by the representations that were made to him, revoked the commission of Lacorne, and appointed Monsieur Chaillou de Joinville his Substitute General. In consequence of this, the two rival Grand Lodges became reconciled, and a union was effected on the 24th of June, 1769. But the reconciliation did not prove altogether satisfactory.
In 1765, at the annual election, neither Lacorne nor any of his associates were chosen to office. They became disgusted, and, retiring from the Grand Lodge, issued a scandalous protest, for which they were expelled; and subsequently they organized a spurious Grand Lodge and chartered several Lodges. But from this time Lacorne ceased to have a place in regular Freemasonry, although the dissensions first begun by him ultimately gave rise to the Grand Orient as the successor of the Grand Lodge.
*
LADDER
A symbol of progressive advancement from a lower to a higher sphere, which is common to Freemasonry and to many, if not all of the Ancient Mysteries. In each, generally, as in Freemasonry, the number of steps was seven (see Jacob's Ladder).
*
LADDER, BRAHMANICAL
The symbolic ladder used in the Mysteries of Brahma. It had seven steps, symbolic of the seven worlds of the Indian universe. The lowest was the Earth; the second, the World of Coexistence; the third, Heaven; the fourth, the Middle World, or intermediate rexion between the lower and the upper worlds; the fifth, the World of Births, in which souls are born again; the sixth, the Mansion of the Blessed; and the seventh, or topmost round, the Sphere of Truth, the abode of Brahma, who was himself a symbol of the sun.
*
LADDER, CABALISTIC
The ladder of the Cabalists consisted of the ten Sephiroths or Emanations of Deity. The steps were in an ascending series the Kingdom, Foundation, Splendor, Firmness, Beauty, Justice, Mercy, Intelligence, Wisdom, and the Crown. This ladder formed the exception to the usual number of seven steps or rounds.
*
LADDER, JACOB'S
See Jacob's Ladder
*
LADDER, MITHRAITIC
The symbolic ladder used in the Persian Mysteries of Mithras. It had seven steps, symbolic of the seven planets and the seven metals. Thus, beginning at the bottom, we have Saturn represented by lead, Venus by tin, Jupiter by brass, Mercury by iron, Mars by a mixed metal, the Moon by silver, and the Sun by gold; the whole being a symbol of the sidereal progress of the sun through the universe.
*
LADDER OF IZADOSH
This ladder, belonging to the advanced Degrees of Freemasonry, consists of the seven following steps, beginning at the bottom Justice, Equity, Kindliness, Good Faith, Labor, patience, and Intelligence or Wisdom. Its supports are love of God and love of our neighbor, and their totality constitute a symbolism of the devoir or duty of Knighthood and Freemasonry, the fulfilment of which is necessary to make a Perfect Knight and Perfect Freemason.
*
LADDER, ROSICRUCIAN
Among the symbols of the Rosicrucians is a ladder of seven steps standing on a globe of the earth, with an open Bible, Square, and Compasses resting on the top. Between each of the steps is one of the following letters, beginning from the bottom: I. N. R. I. F. S. C., being the initials of Iesus, Nazarenus, Rex, Iudaeorum, Fides, Spes Caritas. These words suggesting Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews; Faith, Hopc, Charity. But a more recondite or hidden meaning is sometimes given to the first four letters.
*
LADDER, SCANDINAVIAN
The symbolic ladder used in the Gothic Mysteries. Doctor Oliver refers it to the Yggrasil, or sacred ashtree. But the symbolism is either very abstruse or very doubtful. It retains, however, the idea of an ascent from a lower to a higher sphere, which was common to all the mystical ladder systems. At its root lies the dragon of death; at its top are the eagle and hawk, the symbols of life.
*
LADDER, THEOLOGICAL
The symbolic ladder of the Masonic Mysteries. It refers to the ladder seen by Jacob in his vision, and consists, like all symbolical ladders, of seven rounds, alluding to the four cardinal and the three theological virtues (see Jacob's Ladder).
*
LADRIAN
In the Sloane Manuscript 3848 and probably meant for Edwin.
*
LADY
In the androgynous, both sexes, Lodges of Adoption, where the male members are called Knights, the female members are called Ladies, as, the Knights and Ladies of the Rose. The French use the word Dame.
*
LAKAK DEROR PESSAH
The Hebrew words, NDD nn: npi. The initials of these three words are found on the symbol of the Bridge in the Fifteenth Degree of the Scottish Rite, signifying Liberty of Passage and Liberty of Thoughd (see Bridge, also Liber) .
*
LALANDE
See De la Lande
*
LAMAISM
The name of the religion prevalent in Tibet and Mongolia. The Tibetian word, Llama, is pronounced lama, a chief or high priest. The faith is Buddhism, corrugated by Sivaism, an adoration of saints. At the summit of its hierarchy are txvo Lama Popes, having equal rank and authority in spiritual and temporal affairs.
*
LAMA SABACHTHANI
An expression used in the Masonic French Rite of Adoption. The words are from Matthew (xxvu, 46), "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
*
LAMB
In Ancient Craft Masonry the Lamb is the symbol of innocence; thus in the instructions of the First Degree: "In all ages the Lamb has been deemed an emblem of innocence." Hence it is required that a Freemason's Apron should be made of lambskin. In the advanced Degrees, and in the Degrees of chivalry, as in Christian iconography, or station, the lamb is a symbol of Jesus Christ. The introduction of this Christian symbolism of the lamb comes from the expression of Saint John the Baptist, who exclaimed, on seeing Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God"; which was undoubtedly derived from the prophetic writers, who compare the Messiah suffering on the cross to a lamb under the knife of a butcher. In the vision of Saint John, in the Apocalypse, Christ is seen, under the form of a lamb, wounded in the throat, and opening the book with the seven seals. Hence, in one of the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, the Seventeenth, or Knight of the East and West, the lamb lying on the book with the seven seals is a part of the jewel.
*
LAMBALLE, THE PRINCESS OF
Marie Thérese Louise, born at Turin, 1749, devoted companion of Marie Antoinette, who appointed her Superintendent of the Royal Household. Imprisoned with the Queen at the Revolution, she refused to take the oath against the royalty and was on September 3, 1799, delivered to the populace for execution, her head on a spear being carried before the windows of the Queen's apartment. The Grand Mistress of the so-called Mother Lodge of La Masonnerie d'Adoption.
*
LAMB OF GOD
See Lamb, Paschal
*
LAMB, PASCHAL
The Paschal Lamb, sometimes called the Holy Lamb, was the lamb offered up by the Jews at the paschal feast, the Passover. This has been transferred to Christian symbolism, to Easter, and naturally to Chivalric Freemasonry; and hence we find it among the symbols of modern Templarism. The paschal lamb, as a Christian and Masonic symbol, called also the Agnw Dez, or Lamb of God, first appeared in Christian art after the sixth century.
This is depicted as a lamb standing on the ground, holding by the left forefoot a banner, on which a cross is inscribed. This paschal lamb, or Lamb of God, has been adopted as a symbol by the Knights Templar, being borne in one of the banners of the Order, and constituting, with the square which it surmounts, the jewel of the Generalissimo of a Commandery. The lamb is a symbol of Christ; the cross, of His passion; and the banner, of His victory over death and hell. Barrington states (Archaeologia ix, page 134) that in a Deed of the English Knights Templar, granting lands in Cambridgeshire. the seal is a Holy Land, and the arms of the Master of the Temple at London were argent, a cross gules, and on the nombril point thereof a Holy Lamb, that is, a Paschal or Holy Lamb on the center of a red cross in a white field.
*
LAMBSKIN APRON
See Apron
*
LAMP, KNIGHT OF THE INEXTINGUISHABLE
A Degree quoted in the nomenclature of Fustier (see Thory, Greta Latomorum I, page 320).
*
LANCE
A weapon for thrusting at an enemy, usually adorned with a small flag, made of tough ash, weighted at one end to balance it in use, and pointed at the other.
*
LANE, JOHN
Born in England, in 1843, he died suddenly on December 30, 1899. Statistician of the Masonic Fraternity, as he was so termed by Brother W. J. Hughan. Initiated on September 10, 1878, in the Jordan Lodge, No. 1402, at Torquay, he scarcely ever missed one of its meetings. He became Worshipful Master in 1882.
Brother Lane published his Masonic Records, 1717 -1886, in 1886, a second edition appearing in 1895. The Board of General Purposes, Grand Lodge of England, warmly praised the colossal volume and remarked most truly "that many years of patient labor and careful research were spent by the compiler in its preparation, and it is perhaps the most useful Masonic work ever published." In 1889 he published A Handy Book to the study of the engraved, printed, and manuscript Lists of Lodges of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of England Moderns and Ancient 1723-1814; and in 1891, Centenary Warrants and Jewels, comprising an account of all the Lodges under the Grand Lodge of England to which Centenary Warrants had been granted, together with illustrations of all the special Jewels.
He contributed several papers to Freemasonry during his affiliation with the Inner Circle of Quatuor Coronati Lodge which Brother Lane joined in 1887, and of which he was a very active and devoted member. A representative list of these articles is given here: "Another New List of Lodges, A.D. 1732," 1898; "Early Lodges of Freemasons, Their Constitution and Warrants, 1717-1760;" "Masters Lodges," 1888 and 1895; "Date of Origin of the Grand Lodge of the Ancient 1751," 1892, appeared in the Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge; "motes on the Minute Book of an Early Athol Lodge," 1887; "Old Warrants, Lodge of Unanimity, No. 89, Dukinfield," 1891: "Notes on the FPrlv Minute Book of Premier Grand Lodge of England, 1887, appeared in the Freemason, and an article entitled "Lodges in America under the English Constitution, 1733-1889, " was printed in the History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders. An important Lecture of Brother Lane's led to considerable discussion, but could not be reproduced in print. It bore the suggestive title "Some Aspects of Early English freemasonry Esoteric, with Special Reference to the Signs, Tokens, Words and Obligations."
For biographical references to Brother Lane see Freemason, No. 34, 1895 (pages 33G5), and Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge (volume XLU, page 41, 1900).
*
LANGES, SAVALEITE DE
The Master of Les Amis Réunis, meaning Reunited Friends, who aided in founding the system of Philalethes in in 1775.
*
LANGLEY, BATTY
An English architect who died March 31, 1751. His Ancient Masonry published in 1736 is dedicated to Francis, Duke of Lorraine and "to all others the Right Hon. and Right Worshipful Masters of Masonry, by their humble servant and affectionate Brother, Batty Langley." There is art interesting introduction to Geometry in the fourth edition of the Builders Complete Assistant. The Build ers Jewel or the Youth's Instructor and Workman's Remembrance, written by Batty and Thomas Langley and published at London in 1751, has a remarkable frontispiece full of Masonic symbols.
*
LANGUAGE, UNIVERSAL
The invention of a universal language, which men of all nations could understand and through which they could communicate their thoughts, has always been one of the dreams of certain philologists. In the seventeenth century, Dalgarno had written his Ars Signorum to prove the possibility of a universal character and a philosophical language. About the same time Bishop Wilkins published his Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language; and even the mathematical Leibnitz entertained the project of a universal language for all the world. It is not, therefore, surprising, that when the so-called Leland Manuscript stated that the Freemasons concealed a "Universal Language," John Locke, or whoever was the commentator on that document, should have been attracted by the statement. He says:
A universal language has been much desired by the learned of many ages. It is a thing rather to be wished than hoped for. But it seems the Masons pretend to have such a thing among them. If it be true, I guess it must be something like the language of the Pantomimes among the ancient Romans, who are said to be able, by signs only, to express and deliver any oration Intelligibly to men of all nations and languages.
The guess of the commentator was near the truth. A universal language founded on words is utterly impracticable. Even if once inaugurated by common consent, a thing itself impossible, the lapse of but a few years, and the continual innovation of new phrases would soon destroy its universality. But there are signs and symbols which, by tacit consent, have always been recognized as the exponents of certain ideas, and these are everywhere understood. It is well known that such a system exists over the vast territory occupied by the North American savages, and that the Indians of two tribes, which totally differ in language, meeting on the prairie or in the forest, are enabled, by conventual signs of universal agreement, to hold long and intelligible intercourse.
On such a basis the Universal Language of Freemasonry is founded. It is not universal to the world, but it is to the Craft; and a Freemason of one country and language meeting a Freemason of another can make himself understood for all practical purposes of the Craft, simply because the system of signs and symbols has been so perfected that in every language they convey the same meaning and make the same impression. This, and this only, is the extent to which the universal language of Freemasonry reaches. It would be an error to suppose that it meets the expectations of Dalgarno or Wilkins, or any other dreamer, and that it is so perfect as to supersede the necessity of any other method of intercommunication.
Thus far Brother Mackey whose comments on Masonic universality are as applicable today as when his words were written, though his criticisms of the possibilities in universal languages are less successful in view of the work accomplished in that direction since his day and generation. However, we must admit that the same prejudice exists and is likely to persist and long continue. Part of this objection is due to misunderstanding, a belief that the projected language is intended to take the place of some national tongue. But this is an error; at best the attempts have been directed at an easily acquired auxiliary means of spoken and written communication, an agency especially promising of purpose in a world that is so readily misled by lack of correct knowledge concerning the peoples of the earth. Surely this is a task of importance to all Brethren of the Craft.
As to the earlier attempts to which Brother Mackey alludes, they were failures, it is true. Dalgamo's Ars Szgnorum of 1661 and Wilkins' Real Character of 1668 failed because of insufficient foundation, the preliminary scientific labor had not then been done. But what was attempted was deserving of admiration and Wilkins in particular made a contribution to phonetics that is valuable among experts of modern times while his classification of ideas was the acknowledged forerunner of later efforts by Roget and Linnaeus. More recently we have had Volapuk of 1880, Esperanto, 1887, and Idiom Neutral, 1902. Of these the second is admittedly the most reasonable and practical artificial language.
Born as it was among the feuds of four races using different languages, its inventor, Dr. L. Zamenhof, believed that the evil could be remedied by a neutral speech. A Masonic Lodge using Esperanto was established at Paris, one has been planned for London, and an international group of Freemasons using Esperanto has also functioned (see Universals Framasona Ligo).
*
LANDMARKS
In ancient times, it was the custom to mark the boundaries of lands by means of stone pillars, the removal of which, by malicious persons, would be the occasion of much confusion, men having no other guide than these pillars by which to distinguish the limits of their property. To remove them, therefore, was considered a heinous crime. "Thou shalt not," says the Jewish law, "remove thy neighbor's Landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance." Hence those peculiar marks of distinction by which we are separated from the profane world, and by which we are enabled to designate our inheritance as the Sons of Light, are called the Landmarks of the Order.
The Universal Language and the Universal Laws of Freemasonry are Landmarks, but not so are the local ceremonies, laws, and usages, which vary in different countries. To attempt to alter or remove these sacred Landmarks, by w hich we examine and prove a brother's claims to share in our privileges, is one of the most heinous offenses that a Freemason can commit.
In the decision of the question what are and what are not the Landmarks of Freemasonry, there has been much diversity of opinion among writers. Doctor Oliver says (Dictionary of Symbolic Masonry) that "some restrict them to the 0. B. signs, tokens, and words. Others include the ceremonies of initiation, passing, and raising; and the form, dimensions, and support; the ground, situation, and covering; the ornaments, furniture, and jewels of a Lodge, or their characteristic symbols. Some think that the Order has no Landmarks beyond its peculiar secrets." But all of these are loose and unsatisfactory definitions, excluding things that are essential, and admitting others that are unessential.
Perhaps the safest method is to restrict them to those ancient, and therefore universal, customs of the Order, which either gradually grew into operation as rules of action, or, if at once enacted by any competent authority, were enacted at a period so remote, that no account of their origin is to be found in the records of history. Both the enactors and the time of the enactment have passed away from the record, and the Landrnarks are therefore "of higher antiquity than memory or history can reach." The first requisite, therefore, of a custom or rule of action to constitute it a Larulrnark, is, that it must have existed from "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." Its antiquity is its essential element.
Were it possible for all the Masonic authorities at the present day to unite in a Universal Congress, and with the most perfect unanimity to adopt any new regulation, although such regulation would, so long as it remained unrepealed, be obligatory on the whole Craft, yet it would not be a Landmark. It would have the character of universality, it is true, but it would be wanting in that of antiquity. Another peculiarity of these Landmarks of Freemasonry is, that they are unrepealable. As the Congress to w hich we have just alluded would not have the power to enact a Landmark, so neither would it have the prerogative of abolishing one. The Landmarks of the Order, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, can suffer no change. What they were centuries ago, they still remainf and must so continue in force until Freemasonry itself shall cease to exist.
Until the year 1858, no attempt had been made by any Masonic writer to distinctly enumerate the Landmarks of Freemasonry, and` to give to them a comnrehensibie form. In October of that year, the author of this work published in the American 4uarterl1y Renew of Freemasonry (volume ii, page 230) an article on "The Foundations of Masonic Law," which contained a distinct enumeration of the Landmarks which was the first time that such a list had been presented to the Fraternity. This enumeration was subsequently incorporated by the author in his Text Book of Masonic Jurisprudence. It has since been very generally adopted by the Fraternity and republished by many writers on Masonic law; sometimes without any acknowledgment. According to this recapitulate tion, the result of much labor and research, the Landmarks are twenty-five, and are as follows:
1. The modes of recognition are, of all the Landmarks, the most legitimate and unquestioned. They admit of no variation; and, if ever they have suffered alteration or addition, the evil of such a violation of the ancient law has always made itself subsequently manifest.
2. The division of Symbolic Freemasonry into three Degrees is a Landmark that has been better preserved than almost any other, although even here the misehievous spirit of innovation has left its traces, and, by the disruption of its concluding portion from the Third Degree, a want of uniformity has been created in respect to the final teaching of the Master s Order; and the Royal Arch of England, Scotland, Ireland, and America, and the high degrees" of Franee and Germany, are all made to differ in the mode in which they lead the neophyte to the great consummation of all Symbolic Freemasonry.
In 1813, the Grand Lodge of England vindicated the ancient Landmark, by solemnly enacting that Ancient Craft Masonry consisted of the three Degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow-Craft, and Master Mason, including the Holy Royal Arch. But the disruption has never been healed, and the Landmark. although acknowledged in its integrity by all, still continues to be violated.
3. The Legend of the Third Degree is an important Landmark, the integrity of which has been well preserved. There is no Rite of Freemasonry, prnetised in any eountr,v or language, in which the essential elements of this Legend are not taught. The Leetures may vary, and indeed are constantly changing, but the legend has ever remained substantially the same. And it is necessary that it should be so, for the legend of the Temple Builder constitutes the very essence and identity of Freemasonry Anv Rite which should exclude it, or materially alter it, would at once, by that exclusion or alteration, cease to be a Masonic Rite.
4. The government of the Fraternity by a presiding officer called a Grand Master, who is elected from the body of the Craft, is a fourth Landmark of the Order. Many persons suppose that the election of the Grand Master is held in consequence of a law or regulation of the Grand Lodge. Such, however, is not the ease. The office is indebted for its existence to a Landmark of the Order.
Grand Masters, or persons performing the functions under a different but equivalent title, are to be found in the records of the Institution long before Grand Lodges were established, and if the present system of legislative government by Grand Lodges were to be abolished, a Grand Master would still be necessary.
5 The prerogative of the Grand Master to preside over every Assembly of the Craft, wheresoever and whensoever held, is a fifth Landmark. It is in consequence of this law, derived from ancient usage, and not from any special enactment, that the Grand Master assumes the chair, or as it is called in England, the throng at everv Communication of the Grand Lodge, and that he is also entitled to preside at the communication of every subordinate Lodge. where he mav happen to be present.
6. The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant Dispensations for conferring Degrees at irregular times, is another and a very important Landmark. The statutorv law of Freemasonrv requires a month, or other deternninate period, to elapse between the presentation of a petition and the election of a candidate. But the Grand Master has the power to set aside or dispense with this probation and to allow a candidate to be initiated at onee. This prerogative he possessed before the enaetment of the law requiring a probation, and as no statute can impair his prerogative, he still retains the nower.
7. The prerogative of the Grand Master to give Dispensations for opening and holding Lodges as another Landmark. He may grant in virtue of this, to a sufficient number of Freemasons, the privilege of meeting together and conferring Degrees. The Lodges thus established are called Lodges under Dispensation (see Lodges).
8. The prerogative of the Grand Master to make Free masons at sight is a Landmark which is closely connected with the preceding one. There has been much misap prehension in relation to this Landmark, which misap plehension has sometimes led to a denial of its existence in Jurisdietions where the Grand Master was, perhaps, at the very time substantially exercising the prerogative without the slightest remark or opposition (see Sight Making Freemasons at).
9. The necessity for Freemasons to congregate in Lodges is another Landmark. It is not to be understood by this that any ancient Landmark has directed that permanent organization of subordinate Lodges which constitutes one of the features of the Masonie system as it now prevails. But the Landmarks of the Order alwavR prescribed that Freemasons should, from time to time congregate together for the purpose of either Operative or Speeulative Labor, and that these Congregations should be called Lodges. Formerly, these were extemporary meetings called together for special purposes, and then dissolved, the Brethren departing to meet again at other times and other places, according to the necessity of eircumstanees. But Warrants of Constitution, by-laws permanent officers, and annual arrears are modern innovations wholly outside the Landmarks, and dependent entirely on the special enactments of a comparatively recent period.
10. The government of the Craft, when so congregated in a Lodge, by a Master and two Wardens, is also a Landmark. A Congregation of Freemasons meeting together under any other government, as that, for instance of a president and vice-president, or a chairman and Sulk chairman, would not be recognized as a Lodge The presence of a Master and two Wardens is as essential to the valid organization of a Lodge as a Warrant of Constitution is at the present day. The names, of course, vary in different languages; but the officers, their number prerogatives, and duties are everywhere identical.
11. The necessity that every Lodge, when congregated should be duly tiled, is an important Landmark of the Institution which is never neglected. The necessity of this law arises from the esoterie character of Freemasonry The duty of guarding the door, and keeping off cowans and eayesdroppers, is an ancient one, which therefore constitutes a Landmark.
12. The right of every Freemason to be represented
in all general meetings of the Craft, and to instruct his representatives,
is a twelfth Landmark. Formerly, these general meetings, which
were usually held once a year were called General Assemblies,
and all the Fraternity even to the youngest Entered Apprentiee,
were permitted to be present. Now they are called Grand Lodges,
and only the Masters and Wardens of the subordinate Lodges are
summoned. But this is simply as the representatives of their members.
Originally, each Freemason represented himself; now he is represented
by his officers (see Representatives of Lodges).
13. The right of every Freemason to appeal from the decision of
his Brethren, in Lodge convened, to the Grand Lodge or General
Assembly of Freemasons, is a Landmark highlv essential to the
preservation of justiee and the prevention of oppression. A few
modern Grand Lodges, in adopting a regulation that the decision
of Subordinate Lodges, in cases of expulsion, cannot be wholly
set aside upon an appeal, have violated this unquestioned Landmark,
as well as the principles of just government
14. The right of every Freemason to visit and sit in every regular Lodge is an unquestionable Landmark of the Order. This is called the Right of Visitation. This right of visitation has always been recognized as an inherent right which inures to everv Freemason as he travels through the world. And this is because Lodges are justlv considered as onlv divisions for convenience of the universal Masonic family The right mav, of course. be impaired or forfeited on special occasions by various eircumstanees, but when admission is refused to a Freemasor in good standing, who knocks at the door of s Lodge as a visitor, it is to be expected that some good and euffieient leason shall be furnished for this violation of what is. in general. a Masonic right, founded on the Landmarks of the Order.
15. It is a Landmark of the Order, that no visitor unknown to the Brethren present, or to some one of them as a Freemason, can enter a Lodge without first passing an examination according to ancient usage. Of course, if the visitoris known to any Brother present to be a Freemason in good standing, and if that Brother will vouch for his qualifications, the examination may be dispensed with as the Landmark refers only to the cases of strangers, who are not to be recognized unless after strict trial, due examination, or lawful information.
16. No Lodge can interfere in the business of another Lodge, nor give Degrees to Brethren who are members of other Lodges. This is undoubtedly an ancient Landmark, founded on the great principles of courtesy and fraternal kindness, which are at the very foundation of our Institution. It has been repeatedly recognized by subsequent statutory enactments of all Grand Lodges.
17. It is a landmark that every Freemason is amenable to the laws and regulations of the Masonic Jurisdiction in which he resides, and this although he may not be a member of any Lodge. Non-affiliation,which is, infact, in itself a Masonic offense, does not exempt a Freemason from Masonie Jurisdiction.
18. Certain qualifications of candidates for initiation are derived from a Landmark of the Order. These qualifixations are that he shall be a man—unmutilated, freeborn, and of mature age. That is to say, a woman, a cripple, or a slave, or one born in slavery, is disqualified for initiation into the Rites of Freemasonry. Statutes, it is true, have from time to time been enacted, enforcing or explaining these principles; but the qualifications really arise from the very nature of the Masonie Institution, and from its symbolic teachings, and have always existed as Landmarks.
19. A belief in the existence of God as the Grand Architect of the Universe, is one of the most important Landmarks of the Order. It has been always admitted that a denial of the existence of a Supreme and Super intending Power is an absolute disqualification for initiation. The annals of the Order never yet have furnished or could furnish an instance in which an avowed Atheist was ever made a Freemason. The very initiatory ceremonies of the First Degree forbid and prevent the possibility of such an occurrence.
20. Subsidiary to this belief in God, as a Landmark of the Order is the belief in a resurrection to a future life. This Landmark is not so positively impressed on the candidate by exact words as the preceding but the doctrine is taught by very plain implication, and runs through the whole symbolism of the Order. To believein Freemasonry and not to believe in a resurrection, would be an absurd anomaly, which could only be excused by the reflection, that he who thus confounded his belief and his skepticism was so ignorant of the meaning of both theories as to have no rational foundation for his knowledge of either.
21. It is a Landmark that a Book of the Law shall constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. We say, advisedly, Book of the Law, because it is not absolutely required that everywhere the Old and New Testaments shall be used. The Book of the Law is that volume which, by the religion of the country, is believed to contain the revealed will of the Grand Architect of the Universe. Hence, in all Lodges in Christian countries, the Book of the Law is composed of the Old and New Testatements; in a country where Judaism was the prevailing faith, the Old Testament alone would be sufficient; and in Mohammedan countries, and among Mohammedan Freemasons, the Eoran might be substituted. Freemasonry does not attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious faith of its disciples, except so far as relates to the belief in the existence of God, and what necessarily results from that belief.
The Book of the Law is to the Speculative Freemason his spiritual Trestle-Board; without this he cannot labor- whatever he believes to be the revealed will of the Grand Architect constitutes for him this spiritual Trestle-Board, and must ever be before him in his hours of speculative labor, to be the rule and guide of his conduct. The Landmark, therefore, requires that a Book of the Law, a religious code of some kinder purporting to be an exemplar of the reveal will of God, shall form an assential part of the furniture of evety Lodge.
22. The equality of all Freemasons is another Land mark of the Order. This equality has no reference to any subversion of those graduations of rank which have been instituted by the usages of society. The monarch, the nobleman, or the gentleman is entitled to all the influence, and receives all the respect, which rightly belong to his position. But the doctrine of Masonic equality implies that, as children of one great Father, we meet in the Lodge upon the level—that on that level we are all traveling to one predestined goal—that in the Lodge genuine merit shall receive more respect than boundless wealth, and that virtue and knowledge alone should be the basis of all Masonic honors, and be rewarded with preferment.
When the labors of the Lodge are over, and the Brethren have retired from their peaceful retreat, to mingle once more with the world, each will then again resume that social position, and exercise the privileges of that rank, to which the customs of society entitle him.
23. The secrecy of the Instltution is another and most important Landmark. The form of secrecy is a form in herent in it, existing with it from its very foundation, and secured to it by its ancient Landmarks. If divested of its secret character, it would lose its identity, and would cease to be Freemasonry. Whatever objections may, therefore, be made to the Institutlon on account of its secrecy, and however much some unskilful Brethren have been willing in times of trial, for the sake of expediency, to divest it of its secret character, it will be ever impossible to do so, even were the Landmark not standing before us as an insurmountable obstacle; because such change of its character would be social suicide, and the death of the Order would follow its legalized exposure. Freemasonry as a secret association, has lived unchanged for centuries; as an open society, it would not last for as many years.
24. The foundation of a Speeulative Seienee upon an Operative Art, and the symbolic use and explanation of the terms of that art, for the purposes of religious or moral teaching, constitute another Landmark of the Order.
The Temple of Solomon was the symbolic cradle of the Institution, and, therefore, the reference to the Operative Masonry which constructed that magnificent edifice, to the materials and implements which were employed in its construction, and to the artists who were engaged in the building, are all component and essential parts of the body of Freemasonry, which could not be subtracted from it without an entire destruction of the whole identity of the Order. Hence, all the comparatively modern rites of Freemasonry, however they may differ in other respects, religiously preserve this Temple history and these operative elements, as the substratum of all their modifications of the Masonic system.
25. The last and crowning Landmark of all is, that these Landmarks can never be changed. Nothing can be subtracted from them nothing can be added to them not the slightest modification can be made in them. As they were received from our predecessors, we are bound by the most solemn obligations of duty to transmit them to our successors.
The above article by Doctor Mackey gives his latest conclusions upon a highly debatable subject. His list of Landmarks has been adopted by several Grand Lodges, than which no one could expect higher praise, while on the other hand many Brethren are convinced that the Landmarks enumerated by Doctor Mackey are too many, and others believe them too few. Of the latter class five have the late able and highly esteemed Grand Secretary, H. B. Grant, of Kentucky. He prepared a list of Landmarks for the Masonic Home Journal, 1889, and added to them for the consideration of the Masonic Congress of 1893. Since then they have been reprinted, the copy at hand dated 1910, and the number of Landmarks listed being fifty-four.
The increase is due to the breadth of Brother Grant's definition. He held that "The Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry are the immemorial usages and fundamental principles of the Craft, and are unchangeable" (see Book of Constitute tion8, Kentucky, 1910, page 209). The Masonic Congress, 1893, as reported by Brother Grant (page 210) was assured that "The Ancient Landmarks are those fundamental principles which characterize Masonry, as defined in the Charges of a Freemason, and with out which the Institution can not be identified."
Both the lists of Doctor Mackey and Brother Grant are exat ned on pages 183 to 199, Masonic Jurispridence and Symbolism, Rev. John T. Lawrence, 1908, the author challenging the universality of some items enumerated by the above Brethren as Landmarks.
An important and significant example of a brief list of Landmarks is the one adopted on December 11, 1918, as a part of the revised Constitutions and Regulations of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts Sections 100 to 102 state:
The Common Law of Freemasonry is to be learned from the ancient usages of the Craft as developed and interpreted from and after A.D. 1721. It is the foundation of Masonic jurisprudence. The Landmarks are those ancient and universal fundamental principles of the Craft which no Masonic authority can alter or repeal. This Grand Lodge recognizes the following Landmarks: Monotheism the sole dogma of Freemasonn-; belief in immortality the ultimate lesson of Masonie Philosophy: the Volume of the Sacred Law, an indispensable part of the furniture of a Lodge; the Legend of the Third Degree; Secrecy- the Symbolism of the Operative Art, a Mason must be a free born male adult.
The above list of Landmarks is not bewared to be exclusive. With reference to the general acceptance by Masonic authorities in the linited States, as in the foregoing list, that every Brother must be freeborn, note also the comment by Brother Lawrence on English practise (Bee Masonic Jurisdiction and Symbolism, 1908, pages 141 and 142).
That a Freemason should be a free man is axiomatic but previous to 1847 it was neee-ssaTy that he should be a free man born of a free woman. But by the Emancipation Act a good many persons became free men who yet were not born of free mothers, and on September 1, 1847 Grand Lodge decided to abolish the disqualification, and now the only reference to parentage is in Section 4 of the Antient Charges where "honest parents" are spoken of. The older Constitutions retun, of course, in the candidate's declaration. "I . . . being free by birth . . . ," and the Lectures have referenees to the " degrading habit of slavery. " The older Cenetitutums did not specify the age of the candidate, but simply required him to be of mature and discreet age. Article 187 defines mature age to be the legal age of manhood—twenty-one years and this requirement fits in with the definition of a "free" man. In present times there is no question of slavery, and therefore a free man mav well mean a man who is free to act independently of the consent of his legal guardians a freedom which he only attains at the age of manhood.
The circumstances under which the change from Free-born to Free was made by the Grand Lodge of England are in the Proceedings for the Quarterly Communication of September 1, 1847, and read as follows:
The Most Worshipful Grand Master. At the last Quarterly Communication I stated that I thought it necessary some resolution should be come to as to those persons sho at the time of their birth were not free, but who are now absolutely free, and w hose mothers are also free . I stated then that it was very hard that persons of this description should be precluded from joining our fraternity. Now this is a subj ect which deserves the attention of Grand Lodge, and should indeed be attended to without delay. My own opinion, is, that instead of making use of the term "free-born," the expression "free man" would be sufficient to answer the end required; for 80 long as a person is a free man he should be capable of being initiated w Into our Order, and it should not be absolutely necessary that he be born free. I hope, therefore, some Brother will make a Motion to that effect..
The Grand Secretary wished to know if he should read two letters on the subject, one from Antigua, the other from Saint Vincent.
The Most Worshipful Grand Master declared his assent, and the letters were read accordingly.
Right Worshipful Brother Dobie was sure the Grand Lodge would agree with him that they were very much indebted to the Grand Master for introducing this subject. It was a subject which had been under the consideration of the late Grand Master, who, if he had lived would have brought it forward; but to the present Gran Master they were indebted that it was brought forward It therefore gave him great pleasure in moving that the term " free " be used instead of "free-born"; that being ali the change that would be required to give relief to the colonies and that the change be made forthwith.
Worshipful Brother Goldsworthy seconded the motion The Grand Secretary read the alterations that would be required to be made in the Ancient Charges and Book of Constitutions if the motions were carried.
Worshipful Brother Lane suggested that an omission had been made in not noticing those parts of the Lectures where the term occurs.
The Most Worshipful Grand Master said the Lectures must conform to the Law.
Worshipful Brother Crucefix was happy that Providence had spared his life to see that those whom the nation had emancipated should also be emancipated as regarded Masonry. So long ago as the year 1836 he addressed a letter on this subject to the then Grand Master feeling that it was a most singular thing that they should emancipate thousands of fellow-ereatures, and not afterwards allow them to participate in the benefits of Free Masonry. The Worshipful Brother then read portions of the letter, wherein it was contended that the term "freeborn" only referred to the customs of the eastern nations and suggested that the words "free agent," if used instead, would counteract the evil.
Adage on this feeling he had never since that time initiated a man under the form "free-born," ete. He could not but express his gratitude for the manner in which the Grand Master had brought the subject forward, as, if agreed to, it would afford the means of many worthy men entering our blessed Order.
Right Worshipful Brother Dobie then read the resolution, which proposed that the word "born" at the top of page 6 of the Book of Constitutions, in the 3rd Head of the Ancient Charges, be omitted, and that the Declaration to be signed by Candidates, as set forth in page 86, be altered, and made to commence as follows, viz.: "I, being a free man and of full age," etc.
A short discussion as to the propriety of retaining the word "free" at all then ensued, at the termination of which the proposed alteration being put from the Chair, was agreed to unanimously. Brother Dobie wished to know if the Grand Seeretary should send such answers to the letters which had been read as would allow the writers to act upon them insmediately, and without waiting for the confirmation of the next Quarterly Communication. The Most Worshipful Grand Master consented that such answers should be transmitted.
Section 186 of the Book of Constitutums of the Grand Lodge of England, now has the statement "every Candidate must be a free man, and at tile time of initiation in reputable circumstances," and Section 187 requires the candidate to make the following declaration:
In being a free man and of the full age
of twenty-one years, do declare that unbiased by the improper
solicitation of friends, and uninfluenced by mercenary or other
unworthy motive, I freely and voluntarily offer myself a candidate
for the mvsteries of Masonry; that I am prompted by a favourable
opinion conceived of the institution, and a desire of knowledge;
and that I will cheerfully conform to all the antient usages and
established customs of the Order. Witness my hand.
this...day of ............... Witness ...................................
As to the permanent characteristics of Landmarks we may note ,XXXIS of the General Regulations compiled by Brother George Payne, Grand Master in 1720, approved by Grand Lodge, 1721, published by Dr. James Anderson, 1723, and which reads: "Every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent poa er and Authority to make new Regulations, or to alter these, for the real Benefit of this Ancient Fraternity: provided always that the Old Land-Marks be carefully preserved." The extent to which a Grand Lodge may go in the making of laws depends upon its determination of what are or are not Landmarks, and as is seen at once by a study of the above particulars the Landmarks of the Fraternity do not find the same recognition and acceptance by all Grand Lodges. However, Doctor Mackey's list has found general favor, the attitude of the Craft being well outlined by the following comment in the Masonic Manual abut Code, Grand Lodge of Georgia, 1917 (page 226).
No two authors agree in the enumeration of the Landmarks and no attempt to state all the Landmarks secretly has been universally accepted by the Craft. The Landmarks here stated are those published by the eminent Masonic author, Doctor Mackey, in his textbook on Masonic Jurisprudent where the student will find a valuable commentary and explanation. The twenty-five Landmarks here given, however, have been very generally recognized in the Craft of all the States as corrects
Brother Hawkins, in his Concise Cyclopedia of Freemasonry (pages 138 and 139), describes the issuing of a Warrant on October 26, 1809, authorizing certain Brethren to hold a Special Lodge for "the purpose of ascertaining and promulgating the Ancient Land Marks of the Craft." This Lodge met frequently for some time and on October 19, 1810, it was "Resolved that it appears to this Lodge that the ceremony of Installation of Masters of Lodges is one of the two landmarks of the Craft, and ought to be observed." Brother Hawkins held that probably the other one svas the modes of recognition of Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts.
December 98, 1810, at a wellattended Communication of the Lodge "the Right Worshipful Master proceeded to point out the material parts in and between the several Degrees to which the attention of the Masters of Lodges would he requisite in preserving the Aneient Land Marks of the Order—such as the form of the Lodge, the number and situation of the Officers—their different distinctions in the different Degrees the restoration of the proper words to each Degree, and the making of the pass-words between one Degree and another—instead of in the Degree." From these extracts Brother Hawkins inferred that according to the Lodge of Promulgation the Landmarks are: The form of the Lodge, its officers and their duties, the words and passwords, and the Installation of the Master, "though," he continues, "it is a pity that in their resolution of October 19 they did not state precisely what the two Landmarks were."
Another conjecture would be that the word read as woo might have been intended for true. As we understand Freemasonry today some difficulty would be oceasioned for most Brethren in limiting the number of T. stndmarks to only two. But be they few or many we may well take the injunction of old to heart: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set" (Proverbs xecu, 28).
Dean Roscoe Pound in his Masonic Jurisprudence defines Landmarks as "certain universal, unalterable, and unrepealable fundamentals which have existed from time immemorial and are so thoroughly a part of Freemasonry that no Masonic authority may derogate from them or do aught but maintain them." Brother Melvin M. Johnson, Past Grand Master of Massachusetts then discussing the determination of Masonic Landmarkst Builder, July,1923 (page 195), says, "Probeally all Masonic students will agree to this definition (by Brotller Pound) and then proceed immediately to disagree upon the list of those fundamentals which are to be classified as 'universal, unalterable, and unrepealable-' " Brother Johnson points out that the key to the situation is to be found in the Ancient Charges to which every Installed Master consents and by which he agrees to be bound. At every Installation the Worshipful Master solemnly asserts it is not in the power of any man or body of men to make innovations in the Body of Freemasonry.
The essentials of Freemasonry are the landmarks, and those combined are the Body of Freemasonry Brother Johnson therefore submitted the following for the consideration of the Craft: "The Landmarks are those essentials of Freemasonry without any one of which it would no longer be Freemasonry."
Brother W- J. Chetwode Crawley in his paper on Tlte Craft and Its Orphans in the Eighteenth Century, Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge txxiii, page 157) says:
The ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry, like all other Landmarks material and symbolic can only preserve their stability when they reach down to sure foundations. When the philosophic student unearths the underlying rock on which our ancient Landmarks rest, he finds our sure foundations in the triple dogma of the fatherhood of God brotherhood of man, and the life to come. All laws customs and methods that obtain amongst us, and do not ultimately find footholds on this basis, are thereby earrmarked as conventions and conveniences, in no way partaking of the nature of ancient Landmarks.
Brother Albert Pike contributed a discussion upon the Landmarks to the Proceedings, Masonic Veterans A Association, District of Columbia, and this is reprinted in Research Pamphlet, No. 20- 1924 (page 147), an excellent compilation by Brother Silas H. Shepherd, published by the Wisconsin Grand Lodge Committee on Masonic Research. Brother Pike says:
The Ancient Charges show by what principles the relations of those of the Fellowship to each other were regulated ;and these may not improperly be said to have been the ' Landmarks " of the Craft . . . Perhaps no more can be said with certainty in regard to them than that they were those essential principles on which the old simple freemasonry was builded, and without which it would not have been Freemasonry: the organization of the Craft into Lodges, the requisites for admission into Fellowship, and the methods of government established at the beginning . . . There is no common agreement in regard to what are and what are not "Landmarks." That has never been definitely settled. Each writer makes out for himself the list or catalogue of them according to his own fancy, some counting more of them and others less.
Brother Shepherd has in the following sentences from the Preface to his book attempted a brief state meat of what is commonly understood by the Brethren as the Ancient Landmarks, as well as his experience in seeking official light upon the subject: The prevailing idea of the Ancient Landmarks is that they are those time-honored and universal customs of freemasonry which have been the fundamental law of the Fraternity from a period so remote that their origin cannot be traced. and so essential that they cannot be modified or amended without changing the character of the Fraternity. Although the universal reverence of the Ancient Customs and Usages of the Fraternity" mightseem to presuppose an agreement as to their number and interpretation, nevertheless jurists and scholars express widely divergent opinions about them nor has any Grand Lodge ever promulgated a lest that would be acceptable to all.
*
LANDMARKS, ANCIENT
Next only after the Book of Constitutions of the original Grand Lodge which was published in 1723, the Ahimin Rezon which was published by the Antient Grand Lodge in 1756, and Thomas Smith Webb's Illustrations, the article on Ancient Landmarks which Albert G. Mackey published in the 1877 edition of this Encyclopedia (see page 559 of this edition) has had more influence on American Freemasonry than any other single writing. The list of Landmarks in it has been officially endorsed by about one-half of the Grand Lodges; about one-half of these have officially adopt^ ed it as a part of the Written Law.
Nevertheless the list has been drastically criticized ever since it was published, by Grand Lodges as much as by individual writers, and some fifteen or twenty Grand Lodges have adopted lists of their own widely different from Mackey's. This criticism has been directed at two points: first, it has been denied that the Landmarks have been exactly twentyfive in number, and other writers have prepared lists ranging from one or two up to fifty or sixty; second, it has been contended that the Landmarks as given by Mackey are not from time immemorial. Bro. Theodore Sutton Parvin, with whom Mackey discussed his article before it was printed, made both these criticisms at the time, and proposed that the whole list be reduced to five or six. (This incidentally proves that before publication Mackey himself encountered the criticism his article would later meet).
Freemasonry is not a fluviatile, protean thing which can change itself as time goes on, and as the whim or desire of its members might elect, but has a fixed, inalterable identity of its own. That identity has in it a number of constituent elements, each of which is necessary to it, so that if any one of them is destroyed Freemasonry as a whole is destroyed with it. It would be possible to effect a number of changes in Craft usage which would leave Freemasonry itself in complete integrity, and such changes have been made often enough, as when the Two Degree system was changed to Three Degrees, or when the title of the Master was changed from Right Worshipful to Worshipful; but other changes are such that if only one of them were put into effect Freemasonry would be destroyed. This is the substance of the Doctrine of Landmarks.
Any constituent of the identity of Freemasonry, and without which that identity would cease, is a Landmark. To destroy such a constituent is an Innovation, and it is for this reason that if a Grand Lodge is guilty of an Innovation other Grand Lodges immediately withdraw recognition from it. It is plain, for example, that the requirement that a member must be an adult man is a Landmark, because the admittance of women and children would entail a complete destruction of age-old Masonry.
It is impossible to draw up a hard-and-fast list of Landmarks that will include nothing except Landmarks and exclude no Landmarks because the world in which Freemasonry works is a changing world, and what might violate a Landmark in one age would not in another. The great value of the Doctrine is in its recognition of the fact that Freemasonry has a fixed, inalterable identity of its own which cannot be changed by its own members according to taste or fashion or prejudice; and because it is a standard or criterion by which any proposed change can be tested. Would this proposed change alter Freemasonry make of it something else if so it is an Innovation; if not, the proposed change can be considered on its own merits.
Chetwode Crawley gave it as his opinion that there are three Landmarks: Fatherhood of God; Brotherhood of Man; the Life to Come.
William J. Hughan gave a legalistic definition: "A landmark must be a regulation or custom, which cannot be abrogated without placing offenders outside the pale of the Craft; and all Landmarks should practically ante-date the Grand Lodge era. " He mentions belief in God, secrecy, and male membership as being among such rules. (It is difficult to guess what Hughan here means by "practically. ")
Mackenzie defined Landmarks as " the leading principles from which there can be no deviation." His definition had British Freemasonry in mind where there are only three Grand Lodges for a very large population; it would have even more usefulness in the United States where there are forty-nine Grand Jurisdictions; so many independent sovereign Bodies need Landmarks as a common body of praetices and principles in order to serve as a platform for united action, and as a means for maintaining comity; this fact is an answer to the question raised by Sir Alfred Robbins as to why the question of Landmarks is so much more discussed and debated in America than it is in England. The Rev. George Oliver adopted so loose a defi nition that it ran away with him, proliferating into hundreds of Landmarks which he divided into twelve classes—too long a list is as unworkable as one which is too short.
The phrase "landmarks of our Order" is firs' found in George Payne's Regulations of 1721, which were incorporated in the Book of Constitutions published in 1723. In Lodge Minutes of the period that Book itself was sometimes referred to as "our Landmarks" in other Minutes the Book and the Ritual were occasionally referred to as "our two Landmarks. "
In his Masonic Encydopedia Woodford set
dowr a list of eighteen. J. W. Horsley was of the opinion that
Landmarks are of different degrees of "indispensability ";
he named five as indispensable :
1 ) Belief in a Personal God.
2) Belief in a Future Life.
3) The volume of the Sacred Law.
4) Secrecy.
5) The Mode of Recognition.
In a second and less indispensable class
he names:
1 ) Division into Three Degrees
2) Legend of the Third Degree. (It is an odd fact that makers
of lists of Landmarks almost invariably forget the High Grades;
according to Horsley the Scottish Rite, etc., would be a violation
of his Landmark "Division into Three Degrees.")
A. J. A. Poignant was a skeptic who did not believe that any list is possible: "What is meant by the Landmarks of the Order? . . . Has anybody within living memory received a conclusive or satisfactory answer to this question?" He confuses the reality of Landmarks with attempts to make lists of them. Has any mathematician " within living memory " ever made an exhaustive list of the propositions and theorems belonging to Euclid's geometry? or even the axioms? yet engineers make practical use of geometry every day.
Justinian defined an unwritten law as " what usage has approved"; E. L. Hawkins, recalling this, wrote: "Now the Old Landmarks of the Craft are its unwritten laws, either sanctioned by unwritten custom, or, if enacted, enacted at a period so remote that no trace of their enactment can be found. "
He held that we have these in the Old Charges. (It is worth noting that in England Lodge feasts would satisfy Hawkins' definition, whereas in American Freemasonry Lodge feasts have not been a custom for a century and a half.)
As quoted above George Oliver wrote in one book that there are twelve classes of Landmarks; but w hen writing elsewhere (in 1863) he became skeptical: " we have no actual criterion by which we may determine what is a Landmark, and what is not"—though what he meant by "actual criterion" he leaves his reader to guess. Theodore Sutton Parvin also changed his mind; at one time he said there are three Landmarks; at another he wrote that there are no Landmarks (a most extraordinary statement!) because "no two men agree as to what they are." (His attention should have been called to the fact that some twentyfive American Grand Lodges agree.) Judge Josiah Drummond wrote: "If 'Landmarks' are anything else than laws of the Craft, either originally expressly adopted or growing out of immemorial usage, the term is a misnomer . . . A Landmark is something set, and 'ancient Landmark' is one which has remained a long time. On the other hand 'fundamental principles' are like truth, from everlasting to everlasting. "
In 1871 Findel fixed on nine Landmarks.
The Grand Lodge of New Jersey fixed on 10 in 1903.
John W. Simon chose 15.
Rob Morris made a list of 17.
The Grand Lodge of New York once selected 31.
The Grand Lodge of Kentucky adopted 54.
J. F. Newton approved Findel's list:
1) Universality.
2) Masonic organized fellowship.
3) The Qualifications.
4) Secrecy.
In 1856 the Grand Lodge of Minnesota adopted a list of 26 "articles which had the force of Landmarks". (For a good bibliography on Landmarks see The Builder: Vol. I; page 183.)
Hextall argued that the "Ancient Landmarks" in the Book of Constitutions referred to Operative building secrets in general, and to geometry in particular. Canon Horsley wrote: "For myself I think that the test must have been, and should be now, what are the tenets or matters the breach or repudiation of which would entail, at any rate merit, expulsion from the order." (Horsley forgot that a Lodge or Grand Lodge can be expelled from the Order, and oftentimes for Innovation, which is a violation of Landmarks; the result is that his "test" is circular.)
When Bro. C. F. Catlin circularized American Grand Lodges in 1907 he found that 21 Grand Lodges had never adopted legislation on the subject of Landmarks—they took them to be unwritten laws; nine Grand Lodges had officially adopted the " Ancient Charges. " Among those which had adopted legislation the number of Landmarks chosen ranged in number from 10 to 75, and embodied more than 100 "separate and distinct subjects."
In the Iowa Grand Lodge Proceedings (1888; p. 157) Albert Pike undertook to demolish Mackey's list of 25 Landmarks one by one; "Perhaps no more can be said with certainty in regard to them than that they were those essential principles on which the old simple Freemasonry was built, and without which it could not have been Freemasonry; the organization of the Craft into Lodges, the requisites for admission into the fellowship, and the methods of government established at the beginning . . . There is no common agreement in regard to what are and what are not Landmarks." Lionel Vibert undertook to employ Mill's principle of logical exclusion to the problem; in his Freemasonry Before the Existence of Grand Lodges he attempted "to classify all the peculiar features of the Craft which serve to distinguish it from all other religions, societies, gilds, brotherhoods or what you will. "
NOTE:
In a book on the words used as titles by the nobility, aristocracy,
chivalric orders, etc., of Great Britain, R. T. Hampton , traces
the word "landmark" back to a point in Anglo Saxon where
that language lies closest to its origins in Sanskrit. In those
early times a people, clan, or tribe in the upper half of the
European lands dwelt in an opening in the ever-stretching forests,
on a plain in a valley, or even in a dell; such an area they called
a ' land." Around this land were sharply defined boundaries,
in the earliest times guards or sentries marched up and down the
boundary line as much to prevent trespassing as to be on guard
against attack.
Because of this march [maroo] the boundary came to be called " the land marao," or " landmark "— oftentimes the whole strip or region inside a border was called " the march "; Englishmen still call the border between themselves and Wales " the Welsh marches," and in the north the phrase " the marches of Scotland " antedated "borders of Scotland." In the course of time the marching guards or sentinels were replaced by banners, which hung on standards permanently fixed in the ground; a banner represented a people's or tribe's identity —if a man was said to belong to "Olaf's Banner" it meant that he belonged to the tribe or people of which Olaf was King.
When it became necessary to describe the location of a boundary in order to make treaties and agreements with neighboring peoples, the line was said to run through a succession of permanent features, a large rock, the crest of a hill, up the bed of a stream, past a certain tree, etc., these were " land markers." The boundary, the marching sentinels, and the permanent features which located the boundary, these three meanings coalesced and they have belonged to the meaning of the word ever since.
*
LAW, CIVIL, AND MASONRY
When in 1799, and to be amended and increased in 1800, the Parliament of Great Britain enacted a law to forbid secret societies (and which was a classic example of " legislation of desperation " blindly and hurriedly concocted as a dike against the French revolutionists on the east and the Irish rebels on the west) it would have abolished the Fraternity along with the secret societies had not the Grand Masters of the Modern and the Ancient Grand Lodges, and at the last moment, appeared in person to give Parliament pledges and assurances and to make themselves (members of the nobility) personally responsible for the good behavior of Freemasonry—an impossibly humiliating position for the Fraternity, and an ambiguous position for them. A clause was inserted in the Bill to exclude Freemasonry, but it was so vaguely worded that for some years Grand Lodges chartered no new Lodges.
Thirteen years later when the Moderns and Ancient united it was discovered, as any intelligent man could long before have seen, that in many instances property and funds said to be Masonic are often not wholly so but are a part of, or interlock with, private property and funds, as when the owner of an inn had gone to great expense to remodel a Lodge room, or the income from an endowment was divided; when Modern and Ancient Lodges united the often bitter, and sometimes large, property claims had to be settled in court, and the Craft found itself without rules and laws governing its own possession of funds and property.
When after the Revolution, the clergy of New England followed the lead of the ineffable Rev. Jedediah Morse in an Anti-Masonic crusade, New England Lodges were embarrassed and half-paralyzed, and Masons suffered under a barrage of libelous accusations; it appears that it did not occur to the Masons that they had any rights at law, and as such, nor did their own Craft legislators ever tell them that they had; they suffered in consequence of their ignorance, for if any man state in public, " Freemasons are atheists, corruptionists, conspirators, liars, and devil-worshipers " the statement is made not against a set of abstract theories but against known and identifiable men, and these men can sue for redress even though the charges had not mentioned them by name.
In the Anti-Masonic crusade launched by the Morgan Affair the whole Fraternity, save in only a few cities, notably in Boston, gave up and quit under the mistaken assumption that to submit to destruction was somehow an Ancient Landmark—a dismal contrast to the Operative Masons of the old days who never failed to stand up like men in defense of themselves as against lords, country courts, clergy, employers, or any injustice; and it would never have occurred to the men who for six centuries comprised the Craft and w ho gave us our Landmarks that Masons have no right in courts, no defense in the law, nor could they have entertained the modern notion that civil jurisprudence is a subject outside the provenance and subject-matter of Masonic jurisprudence.
Nor if they could have read the books on Masonic jurisprudence by Oliver, Mackey, Morris, Macoy, Lawrence, et al, would they have been able to understand the complete silence of those books about the hundred and one points or salients where Craft law interlocks with the civil law; and they would have said, as publicists and jurisconsults now say, that until Masonic jurisprudence incorporates into itself a complete coverage of Masonry in its relations to the Civil law it is not entitled to call itself a jurisprudence.
It is a Landmark that Lodge members are not to take any quarrels among themselves, and as Masons, to court; also it is a Landmark that a few esoteric matters can be nowhere discussed—though, as courts themselves have stated, this latter fact is of no importance in the eyes of the law since it consists of matters which nowhere are justiciable. Except for two or three reservations of this type anything and everything in Freemasonry comes under the eyes of the civil law, or may come. Many Grand Bodies, or certain Boards or Committees in them, are incorporated; Grand Bodies and Constituent Bodies own property: or they rent it, and hence are responsible for it. They possess funds, own furniture and paraphernalia, and equipment.
Lodge buildings stand on the public street, and receive police and fire protection. It means something to a man to be a Mason, in the reputation of himself and family, in the eyes of the public; if his Lodge is disgraced, if he is expelled, his family suffers from it. Actions taken by local and by Grand Bodies bind every member. Lodges carry on their Order of Business according to parliamentary law; if that law is conformed to, what is done is done by the Lodge as a body. The Lodge becomes responsible; a Master often is legally responsible for his acts; and it is not only the responsibilities of the Master which may involve him in a case in court, but of other officers also, the Secretary, the Treasurer, Trustees, and Building Committees.
At these points, and at many others like them, are obvious and inevitable interlinkings with civil law. But, as the records of them prove, a large number of cases involving Masonry in the courts raise profounder and more philosophic questions. When the War Office of the British Government forbade secret societies in the army and navy did the ruling apply to Military Masonic Lodges? Should British Grand Lodges have gone before Parliament to protect those Lodges? To do so would have meant in the end that a high court would have to decide whether Freemasonry is a secret society in the eyes of the law, or is a voluntary fraternity which, like other societies, keeps its affairs private to itself, and admits members only.
If every Grand Lodge in America were to write into its Constitutions a disclaimer clause, defining itself as a fraternity and not as a secret society, the action would serve as a bulwark against future Anti-Masonic crusades (which inevitably will come). When the case against McBlain Thomson's American Masonic Federation was tried in the Federal Court at Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1922 (see Thomson Masonic Fraud, by Isaac Blair Evans), the Federal Judge had to decide whether regular Grand Lodges are of a de jure or a de facto origin; fortunately, he decided for the latter, but if he had not done so every American Grand Lodge would have been in legal jeopardy, and the case would have gone to the Supreme Court; but when the Masonic lawyers, as they confessed privately, came to prepare their arguments on the point they could find almost no actions, decisions, or instruments on the question in the archives of Grand Lodges! If every Grand Lodge were to write into its Constitution, in the paragraph on its Title, some such statement as, " constituted according to time immemorial practice " the whole Craft would be protected against future risks of that kind; for if Thomson had won his case, if the court had decided that only Grand Lodges are regular which can produce a written charter, not one Grand Lodge in America except New York could have produced anything better than a Grand Master's personal letter of deputation of the Colonial period, and most Grand Lodges could have produced no documents.
When in a friendly suit the Tax Commission of the State of New Mexico summoned the Grand Lodge to show cause for not paying taxes, as the new State Constitution required, the Grand Lodge there and then had to decide whether it was or was not a religious, charitable, or educational organization; it lost the case in the District Court but won it on appeal to the Supreme Court—the weightiest argument in the eyes of the Supreme Court was the fact, apparently of small import, that Masonic law compels a member to pay dues, and compels Lodges to use those dues, at least in part, for charity and relief. If Grand Lodges were to incorporate in their Constitutions a clause defining Masonic Purposes the question as to taxation of Masonic property would be greatly enlightened.
For many years in Europe the burning question has been as to the place of the Craft in the frame-work of general society: Is it carrying on a propaganda? Is it subversive? Is it automatically loyal to the established government? Does it support the established church? Is it a society, a cult, a party, a church, a club? If seventy-five years ago European leaders had busied themselves less about getting counts and lords into their membership, or had composed their petty, unessential differences, and by much labor had learned to understand the whole of Freemasonry, the Craft would not have been a professed casus belli of World War II—Freemasonry could have quietly recovered itself after the war because it would have had a self to recover.
(A basis for this whole study, especially in Europe, is Gierke's great history of Medieval law, though Masonry is not its subject. In Maitland's edition of it [here recommended as the first book of reference for Masonic jurisconsults] a number of classic Masonic cases are discussed in the notes by way of commentary.)
In his short paper entitled Freemasonry
and the Civil Courts, Arthur H. Hay has prepared a model for future
studies. It is discursive and illustrative rather than analytical,
but it makes the main point, and makes it unambiguously: namely,
that Masonic jurisprudence must incorporate in itself that side
of the Fraternity which comes under the eye of the Civil Law.
He shows, among other things, that the meaning of the word "
Freemasonry " has been a question at issue in Court; that
rights to residence in Masonic Homes have been decided; that Masons
must be made such according to the procedure required in the Grand
Jurisdiction where the making occurs; Masons accused of Morgan's
murder were tried in court; Lodge funds have been often in litigation;
a court recognizes as Masonic law whatever system of Masonic jurisprudence
a Grand Lodge has been using (embarrassing, where a Grand Lodge
has none, for in the eyes of the law a mere digest of decisions,
acts, edicts, is not a jurisprudence; Mackey's is oftenness used);
courts recognize the existence of Landmarks, but are often hard
put to find what they are; a Lodge is not a partnership; an incorporated
Masonic body is in the eyes of the law a person; in "most
jurisdictions"
Masonic property is held to be taxable; a member is not individually
liable for a note signed by the Lodge; seceding members lose all
rights to a Lodge property; a Master himself cannot bind a Lodge
to a contract; Lodge property cannot be distributed among its
members; a Master cannot be tried by his Lodge—this is recognized
by the civil law; trustees are not personally liable for Lodge
debt; Masonic private correspondence is not privileged; civil
courts consider a reinstated member as a full member having no
loss of privileges; an expelled member cannot recover initiation
fees; etc.
It was for many years the accepted opinion that in the "famous Wm. Preston Case" Preston had been an opinionated, stiff-necked, trouble-maker and that it was as a seceder or schismatic (dreadful words among Trans-Atlantic Brethren!) that he set up his small but interesting Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent. The records of the Antiquity Lodge No. 2 as published by Bros. Rylands and Firebrace now make it clear that the then Grand Secretary, who had a reputation for irascibility, picked a personal quarrel with Preston, was in the wrong, and made use of the Grand Lodge as an engine of persecution—the members of Antiquity, who knew the facts in detail and at firsthand, so understood it because they left almost in a body.
They were expelled; after a decade or so they were reinstated; but while the Lodge and while its members individually were reviewed, tried, and sentenced by the Grand Lodge at no moment were the actions taken by the Grand Lodge itself ever reviewed, though the Grand Lodge had been in the wrong, and a Masonic solution was easier at the time than it was to prove a decade later. It made it appear as if Masons were under the law, whereas a Grand Lodge was above it. Therefrom arises the question: has a Grand Lodge provided clear, practical machinery by which its own acts are subject to review, revision, or rebuke, and if so has it promulgated the fact in order that no Master may be timid about protecting his own Lodge from injustices worked upon it by Grand Officers, or from their neglect? From that in turn arises a more fundamental question still: is a Lodge a constituent, or is it a subordinate?
If the former, anything done in or by the Grand Lodge is subject to a review of peers when the Lodges are assembled in Regular Grand Communication; if the latter, Grand Lodges' actions are in the nature of things not subject to review by the Lodges. This question as between constituent and subordinate has been a point at issue in a large number of Masonic cases in civil courts.
According to The History of the Wigan Grand Lodge, by Eustace B. Beesley (Manchester; 1920), some twelve or more Lodges, mostly in Manchester and Liverpool, set up in 1822 a Grand Lodge of their own which lasted until 1866, because the then Provincial Grand Master refused to function, and for years brought his Provincial Grand Lodge to a dead halt. The merits of the case are irrelevant here but the secession raised a question about the Unwritten Law which more than once has been at issue in civil courts: is the Grand Master, and in his own right, a ruler; or is it the office, the Grand Mastership, which is supreme, any given Grand Master being only its temporary incumbent? It may turn out, after a hundred years of thorough legal thought has clarified the subject, that everywhere there is nothing of final authority but the last law of Freemasonry; and that competency resides anywhere within the Craft to initiate action against any man or office who acts contrary to it, in an individual Mason, in a committee, in a Lodge, in the Grand Lodge.
This would greatly simplify the work of civil courts reviewing Masonic cases, because instead of having to decide according to changing ordinances, or Masonic officers who differ among themselves, or offices which differ from time to time and from state to state, they could decide every case, in its Masonic aspects, in the terms of pure Masonic law. This was Drummond's contention; he asserted that there is such a thing as pure Masonic law; that it is final; and he refused to accept a digest or collection of multitudinous Grand Lodge actions, Grand Master's edicts, and by-laws as a statement of that law. Mackey had the same conception; but Mackey built only one pier of the bridge, and omitted almost the whole question of the civil law from his pages.
In the present posture of affairs clandestinism is the point at which it is most clear that an overhauling of Masonic jurisprudence in order to incorporate in it the Masonic-civil interrelations is least academic, most urgent, most fateful. The classic texts for a study of this question are the records of a hundred or more court cases in the State of Ohio, the aftermath of a plague of Cerneauism which had followed on the demoralization wrought by the Anti-Masonic Crusade, the second most important center of which was at Oberlin, Ohio. If the Grand Lodge had followed the advice of Lodges in Cincinnati it could have seized the rattlesnake firmly behind the head and crushed out the whole evil at one stroke; instead it chose to bury its own head in the sand.
New York was almost equally inactive. Cerneauism was in essence nothing but a scheme to sell the weird formulas which it miff called Scottish Rite Degrees at bargain rates, and to any customer; secondarily, it was a scheme to bring the Three Degrees under the control of its own so called Scots Degrees. At its best it was an ugly, dreary, unrewarding thing which it is now our good fortune to be able to forget.
During the Cerneau plague the legally soporific Grand Lodges most concerned either ignored the evil, or else took refuge in the once orthodox, vague notion that in some undisclosed sense clandestinism is an interior, family question, to be dealt with leniently, and not aired in court. But Cerneauism in Ohio went to court of itself, and did so with no vagueness of purpose; and the records show that the single issue before the courts was one which threatened the very existence of Freemasonry in America, and that issue stands out from the testimony and the decisions plain as a pike-staff, and of a razor sharpness: Is there, and can there be, in the nature of things, one Freemasonry in Ohio, and only one? or can there be many Freemasonries?
If there be many, then Cerneauism has as good a right to call itself Freemasonry as the Grand Lodge of Ohio; if Cerneau can start up a new Freemasonry, so can Jones, so can Smith, so can Brown; there could be fifty Freemasonrys, each legal; and therefore there would be none. If in the nature of things there can be but one, then the Grand Lodge of Ohio is it, and any other society calling itself Masonic is unlawful, and in practice is fraudulent.
It is now almost unanimously believed among the courts that Freemasonry is necessarily and uniquely one; since so, there is and can be but one sovereign Craft authority in any state; the courts therefore condemn clandestine organizers for violation of the civil law. In New York they have sent a succession of them to Sing Sing. Some two-thirds of the Grand Lodges are aware of the existence of this vital, protective law, and act upon it; the others remain soporifically ignorant of it, and continue to believe that clandestinism is "a family affair," and is not for the courts. They do not know that to send clandestine literature through the post-office is to defraud by the use of the mails, is a penitentiary offense; and in consequence Lodges in their smaller towns continue to be embarrassed, or pestered, or challenged by a group of salesmen for regalia and cipher books working under cover of the name "lodge." (For details of such practices see the book by Evanst referred to above.)
Once the pure law of Masonry is disentangled from occasional decisions and changing practices, and its jurisprudence has been enlarged to take in at every point Masonic-civil laws and interrelations, the whole organized Fraternity will have a clearer understanding of itself; but more important still, it will have secured itself against a recurrence of the dangerous Anti-Masonic movements of the Jedidiah Morse, William Morgan, and Cerneau type, and of the more general kinds such as have been in war years so de6tructive of the Craft in Europe. Masonic Jurisprudence will have become something more than a book of rules for the pragmatic decision of occasional questions, and will have become the chief instrument and reliance of Masonic statesmanship in the future when it is going to be compelled to take the whole world into its ken.
Reports, Digests, and Reviews of Masonic cases in civil courts are plentiful among the forty-eight States; so also with legislation, though very few States have adopted statutes or passed bills directed at Freemasonry by name. A few specimens will show over how broad a field the subjects range: In 1919 the Grand Lodge of New Jersey forbade Schiller Lodge, No. 66, to use the German language. Counsel for the Lodge filed a bill in equity in the court of chancery. (No Landmark requires that English shall be used in a Lodge; on the other hand if the use of another language destroys peace and harmony in the Lodge a Grand Lodge may take action on that ground. The Grand Jurisdiction of New York has a large number of "foreign-speaking Lodges," perhaps forty or fifty, in which German, Italian Spanish, French, Swedish, Polish, etc., may be used. The majority of Grand Lodges permit the same.)
In 1921 an Illinois judge upheld a Mason's plea of property rights as against expulsion. The Criminal Code of Illinois provides that insignia of any Lodges may be worn " by the mother, sister, wife or daughter, " etc.
In the test case of Hammer against the State, the Supreme Court of Indiana upheld a law making it a misdemeanor for a non-member to wear insignia. (The "infringement of insignia" in most States rests on same grounds as infringement of patented or trade-marked emblems pictures names devices.)
The State of New York has a Benevolent Orders Law. See also Penal Code of New York, Section 567-b
The State of Massachusetts has a statute against clandestine bodies. (It would be Masonically lawful, and wise, for Masons to seek to have a similar statute in each State.)
The above facts and expositions make it plain that Masonic Jurisprudence can neither in theory nor in practice be independent of the civil law. In scores of instances what is a Masonic law at one end is a civil law at the other. Nor are Masonic Lodges exempt from the civil law. A history of the interactions between the Craft and civil law has never been written, but the materials for it are abundant, and from the very earliest centuries when Freemasons were Operatives in gilds, companies, and lodges. The earliest periods are found in such works as Riley's Liber Albus, Stow's Survey, in the standard histories of Medieval law, the writings of Pennant, and old Gild and Borough records. Gould and Mackey have dealt faithfully with the period in their Histories. For the period from 1717 to the present the materials are inexhaustible and of easy access.
For a reader unable to work through many volumes the subject as a whole is set forth in an excellent epitome in a chapter entitled "The Statutes Relating to Labor" in Records of the Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons, by Edward Conder, Jr.; Swan Sonnenschein & Co.; London; 1894. A precis of the chapter will show the interconnection between Masonic law and civil law; it also will show how the history of the civil law lights up the history of Freemasonry, recalling the while how often general laws have included Freemasonry in laws covering associations, gilds, etc., without mentioning it by name. The chapter begins at page 62:
1350. After the Black Death in England in
1348 which swept away about one-third of the population the Masons,
like other craftsmen, united among themselves to demand better
wages.
In 1349 Edward III enacted the famous Statute of Laborers to forbid
this; and in a statute of 1350 fixed their wages by law, Freemasons
to receive not more than 4d per day.
1356. The Mayor and Aldermen of London had the Masons adopt a revised set of rules, agreed to on behalf of the Freemasons by six men (including Henry de Yevele); on behalf of the Layers or Setters, by six other men.
1375. In 1375 the election of civic dignitaries was transferred from the wards to the City Companies. Also, they elected a man to Parliament. There were at the time 48 Companies, they elected 148 members to the Council. The Freemasons elected 2.
1390. Richard II demanded of the Companies that they lay before him their charters, rolls, etc. This was the famous " Writ for Returns "; it has been guessed that the original of the Old Charges may have been written in response to that Writ.
1402. Masons (among others) were not permitted to hire out for the week- only for the day.
1425. Henry VI ordained that " Masons shall not Confederate in Chapters or Congregations." This was to prevent a general strike of builder gilds. This statute proves and contra certain arguments by Gould, that Masons did hold general assemblies. (The Act was repealed in 1562.)
1444. Once again wages were fixed by law. (Those who think of regulation of hours and wages by Government as a modern innovation would be disillusioned by Medieval history.)
1450. The terms of apprenticeship affirmed by law. (In about 1550 a term of seven years for apprenticeship was fixed for the whole of England.)
1463. The Masons Company secured through the city authorities the Priory and Convent of the Holy Church of the Trinity within Oldgate for use as Masons Hall.
1469. A record of the time shows that the Masons Company was required to furnish twenty armed men to " the watch " to stand on duty at the city gates. (They were police.)
1472. The Masons Company received a Grant of Arms. It was among the third or fourth to receive that honor.
1481. The Company received permission to wear its own Livery. (The great emphasis on clothing by the early Speculative Lodges goes back to the customs of Livery—their caps, collars, gauntlets, sashes, aprons, etc.)
1484. A number of members of the Company
were impressed (forcibly ordered) to work at Westminster by Richard
III. (One of the contractors at Westminster was the famous Mayor
Sir Richard Whittington hero of the old story of " Dick Whittington
and his cat)
1495. Wages were again fixed by statute
1538 (circa). Henry VIII by law fixed order of precedence among the Companies. The Masons were placed thirty-third.
1558 (circa). Queen Elizabeth revised and rearranged the accumulated Statutes of Laborers.
1563. The Company had held its Hall on a 99 year lease; in 1563 it purchased the property.
1572. The Masons had to join other Companies in furnishing trained soldiers. A record of 1585 showed them supporting 8 men.
1591. The Company contributed £16 toward building a navy for the King.
1602. It was assessed 25 quarters of grain to guard against shortage of food in the City.
1618. The Masons subscribed to the planting of Colonies in north Ireland, or Ulster, under the name of The Irish Society. (These colonists were for the most part Scotch Presbyterians. Shiploads of them later migrated to America and settled in the Appalachians, where they fought the British in the Revolution.)
NOTE:
During the " building boom " which swept the United
States between 1920 A.D. and 1930 A.D. thousands of Masonic bodies
acting by themselves or in an association erected new temples
and in most instances did so by borrowing money. The Depression
which almost immediately followed sent hundreds of these Temple
Associations into whole or complete bankruptcy, and carried more
than 200 of them into court. The courts found that many of the
financing schemes, though honest had been fearfully and wonderfully
made, and that their framers had often failed to draw them in
the technical forms required by state laws. It was another instance
of the interrelation between Masonic and civil laws.
Yet another instance is found in the matter of Lodge endowments and bequests. Almost every State has a set of laws governing the conditions under which endowments and legacies can be received- it is not uncommon for Masonic Bodies to lose legacies because of their failure to conform to the technical requirements of those laws.
*
LANSDOWNE MANUSCRIPT
This version of the Old Charges is of very early date, about the middle or latter half of the sixteenth century, as these Free Masons Orders arul Constitutions are believed to have been part of the collection made by Lord Burghley, Secretary of State in the time of Edward VI, who died 1598 A.D. Brother Gould, in his History (volume i, page 61), says: The Manuscript is contained on the inner side of three sheets and a half of stout paper, eleven by fifteen inches, making in all seven folios, many of the principal words being in large letters of an ornamental character. Sims, Manuscript Department of the British Museum, does not consider these " Orders" ever formed a roll, though there are indications of the sheets having been stitched together at the top, and paper or vellum was used for additional protection. It has evidently "seen service." It was published in Freemasons Maaazirze, February 24, 1858, and Hughan's Old CJwaraes (page 31), and since in fasnile reproduction by the Quatuor Coronati Lodge. The catalogue of the Lansdowne Manuscripts—which consisted of twelve hundred and forty-five volumes, bought by the English Parliament, in 1807, for £4,925 (about 323,837) has the following note on the contents of this document: "No. 48. A very foolish legendary account of the origin of the Order of Freemasonry" in the handwriting, it is said, of Sir Henry Ellis.
*
LANTURELUS, ORDRE DES
Instituted, according to Clavel. in 1771, by the Marquis de Croismare. Its purposes or objects are not now understood
*
LAPICIDA
A word sometimes used in Masonic documents to denote a Freemason. It is derived from lapis, the Latin meaning a stone. and caedo, to cut, and is employed by Varro and Livy to signify a StoneCutter. But in the Low Latin of the medieval age it took another meaning; and Du Cange defines it in his Glossarium as "Aedeficiorum structor; Gall. Magon," that is, "A builder of edifices; in French, a Mason"; and he quotes two authorities of 1304 and 1392, where lapicidae evidently means builders. In the Vocabularium of Ugutio, Anno 1592, Lapicedius is defined As a Cutter of Stones. The Latin word now more commonly used by Masonic writers for Freemason is Latomus; but Lapicida is purer Latin (see Latomus).
*
LARMENIUS, JOHANNES MARCUS
According to the tradition of the Order of the Temple the credibility of which is, however, denied by most Masonic scholars John Mark Larmenius was in 1314 appointed by James de Molay his successor as Grand Master of the Templars, which power was transmitted by Larmenius to his successors in a document known as the Charter of Transmission (see Temple, Order of the).
*
LA ROCHEFOUCAULT, BAYERS, LE MARQUIS DE
Grand Master of the Rite Ecossais Philosophique in 1776. A Freemason of considerable note.
*
LARUDAN, ABBE
The author of a work entitled Les Franc-Magons ecrasés. Suite du livre inlitule l'Ordre des Franc-Maçons trahi, traduit du Latin, meaning The Freemasons Crushed, a continuation of the book entitled the Order of Freemasons Betrayed, translated from the Latin. The first edition was published at Amsterdam in 1746. In calling it the sequel of L'Ordre des Franc-Masons trahi, by the Abbe Perau, Larudan has sought to attribute the authorship of his own libelous work to Perau, but without success, as the internal evidence of style and of tone sufficiently distinguishes the two works. Kloss says (Bibliographie, No. 1874) that this work is the armory from which all subsequent enemies of Freemasonry have derived their weapons. Larudan was the first to broach the theory that Oliver Cromwell was the inventor of Freemasonry.
*
LASALLE, TROUBAT DE
One of the founded of the Mother Lodge of the Rite Ecossais Philosophique.
*
LA-TENTE, EDOUARD
See InterrSional Buzz reau for Masonic Affairs.
*
LATERAN COUNCILS
They were five in number, regarded as Ecumenical, that is of world-wide importance, and were held in the Church of Saint John Lateran in Rome, in 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, and 1512.
*
LATIN LANGUAGE IN LODGES
Latin, the tongue of the ancient Roman Empire is still in the modern study of the sciences and the scholarly classics a language long favored by the universities. In the higher learning it holds tenaciously a prominent place and its international service now and formerly often finds it useful as a medium of understanding among scholars when other means of communication fail. Rob Roy MacGregor, in his tales of travel, tells of illness in a monastery in Palestine where the Latin of his boyhood was profitably refreshed while he sojourned with the monks who had with him none other common means of expression. In pharmacy it continues of everyday service and each medical prescription tells of its present usefulness. The Roman Catholic Church makes it practically a universal language employed everywhere she has a foothold. Freemasonry has also striking instances of the usefulness off Latin in the Lodge.
The Roman Eagle Lodge, No. 160, chartered in 1788, Edinburgh, Scotland, was founded by Dr. John Brown, its first Right Worshipful Master, to use the Scottish expression for the Master of the Lodge. Dr. John Brown, born 1735, died 1788, studied at the University of Edinburgh and became famous as a Latin scholar as well as in founding a system of medical treatment of the sick that was called after him the Brunonian method. He published a Latin work in 1780, his Elementa Medicinae, Elements of Medicine, maintaining that most diseases often indicated weakness, not excessive strength or excitement, and that indiscriminate bleeding of the patient was a mistake, that frequently supporting treatment was required. His system was then radical, met with much opposition, but slowly prevailed. Some Brethren were students in his University classes and he encouraged the Lodge to keep the Minutes and perform other duties in Latin. The mother tongue became the medium of communication in later years.
With Brother A. M. Mackay we examined in Edinburgh the old records of Saint David's Lodge, No. 36. This is the Lodge of which the noted novelist Sir Walter Scott was a member. Readers of his Ivanhoe may recall his use of a Masonic term in writing of the tourney where the field for Ousters was laid out as an "oblong square." However, at an emergency meeting of Saint David's Lodge, September 13, 1783, four persons were severally initiated and we read "the ceremony was performed b y the R. R. Br. John Maclure, Grand Chaplain, & translated into Latin by Br. John Brown, M.D., as none of them (the candidates) understood English." The initiates were in the service of the Polish Government, and temporarily in Scotland. On September 18, 1783, only five days later, the Master appears by the Minutes to have informed the Lodge.
"That the four Polish Brethren had been extremely diligent in learning the apprentices' part, and as their time in this Country was to be short, they were anxious to be promoted to the higher Degrees, and for that purpose he had ordered this Masters' Lodge to be convened and hoped their request would be granted and their Entries having proved tedious, first giving it in English and then translating it into Latin, so the Most W Charles Wm. Little Esqr. Subt. G. M. of Scotland had voluntarily offered to assist Br. John Brown, M.D., and Br. Clark of Saint Andrews Lodge, and accordingly the Ceremony which took up above three hours was performed in very Elegant Latin."
The nest Brethren applied for certificates showing that they had been "made Masons and Members" of the Lodge, and although "this request was new and contrary to the practice of the Lodge, and had been refused in former eases, yet there was a distinction in this case, the Brethren being Foreigners, who never where, nor probably would ever be again in Scotland and that giving such certificates might be a means not only of increasing Masonry, but also a probability of extending the authority of the Grand Lodge" and therefore the suggestion was unanimously agreed upon, the certificates written upon vellum and furnished the departing Brethren who planned to set out for Poland in a few days (see our article in Builder, September, 1926).
Brother Little was Depute Master, Royal Lodge of Saint David's, No. 36 1784 6, and Right Worshipful Master, Roman Eagle Lodge, No. 160, 1787-9, and Right Worshipful Master, Lodge Edinburgh Saint Andrews, No. 48, in 1791. His great-great-grandson Brigadier-General R. G. Gilmore, writes Brother Mackay, is Past Grand Master Mason of Scotland Grand Standard-Bearer, Supreme Council, Thirty third Degree, and Past Grand Sword-Bearer, Grand Lodge, Royal Order of Scotland, a striking instance of prominent long-continued Masonic activity in one family.
*
LATOMIA
This word has sometimes been used in modern Masonic documents as the Latin translation of the word Lodge, with what correctness we will see. The Greek;latomeion, from the roots laas, a stone, and temno, to cut, meant a place where stones were cut, a quarry. From this the Romans got their word latomiae, more usually spelled lautumiae, which also, in pure latinity, meant a Stone-quarry. But as slaves were confined and made to work in the quarries by way of punishment, the name was given to any prison excavated out of the living rock and below the surface of the earth, and was especially so applied to the prison excavated by Servius Tullius under the Capitoline hill at Rome, and to the state prison at Syracuse. Both xxxxxxx and lautumiae are seldom used by ancient writers in their primary sense of a stone-quarry, but both are used in the secondary sense of a prison, and therefore Latomia cannot be considered a good equivalent for Lodge.
*
LATOMUS
By Masonic writers used as a translation of Freemason into Latin; thus, Thor entitles his valuable work, Acta Latomorum, meaning the Transactions of the Freemasons. This word was not used in classical Latinity. In the Slow Latin of the Middle Ages it was used as equivalent to lapmda. Du Cange defines it, in the form of lathomus, as a cutter of stones, Caesor lapidum. He gives an example from one of the ecclesiastical Constitutions, u here we find the expression "carpentarii ac Latomi," which may mean Carpenters and Masons or Carpcnters and Stonecutters. Du Cange also gives Latomus as one of the definitions of Maçonetus, which he derives from the French Maçon. But Maçonetus and Latomus could not have had precisely the same meaning, for in one of the examples cited by Du Cange, we have "Joanne de Bareno, Magoneto, Latonio do Gratianopolis," or in English, "John de Bareno, Mason and Stone-Cutter (?) of Grenoble." Latomus is here evidently an addition to Maçonetus, showing two different kinds of occupation. Mile have abundant evidence in medieval documents that a Magonetus was a builder, and a Latomus was most probably an inferior order, what the Masonie Constitutions call a Rough Mason. The propriety of applying it to a Freemason seems doubtful. The word is sometimes found as Lathomus and Latonius.
*
LATOUR D'AWERGNE, LE PRINCE DE
nonresident of the Mother Lodge of the Rite Ecossais Philosophique in 1805, and member of the Grand Orient of France in 1814.
*
LATRES
This word has given much unnecessary trouble to the commentators on the old Records of Freemasonry. In the legend of the Craft contained in all the old Constitutions, we are informed that the children of Lamech "knew that God would take vengeance for sinne, either by fire or water, wherefore they did write these sciences that they had found in two pillars of stone, that they might be found after that God had taken vengeance; the one was of marble and would not burne, the other was Latres and would not drown in water" (Harleian Manuscript. No. 1942). It is the Latin word later, a brick.
The legend is derived from Josephus (Jewish Antiquities I, ii), where the same story is told. Whiston properly translates the passage, "they made two pillars; the one of brick, the other of stone." The original Greek is ÷ _Sos, which has the same meaning. The word is variously corrupted in the manuscripts. Thus the Harleian Manuscript has latres, which comes nearest Who the correct Latin plural lateres; the Cooke has lacerus; the Dowland, laterns; theLansdowne, latherne; and the Sloane, No. 3848, getting furthest from the truth, has letera. It is strange that Halliwell, Early History of Freemasonry in England (second edition, page 8), should have been ignorant of the true meaning and that Henry Phillips, Freemasons Quarterly Revieto, 1836 (page 289), in commenting on the Harleian Manuscript, should have supposed that it alluded "to some floating substance." The Latin word later and the passage in Josephus ought readily to have led to an explication.
*
LAUREL CROWN
A decoration used in some of the higher Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. The laurel is an emblem of victory; and the corona triumphalis, or crown of victory, of the Romans, which was given to generals who had gained a triumph by their conquests, was made of laurel leaves. The laurel crown in Freemasonry is given to him who has made a conquest over his passions.
*
LAURENS, J. L. A.
French Masonic writer, and the author of an Essai historique et critique star la Franche-Maçonnerie, meaning Historical and Critical Essay on Freemasonry, published at Paris in 1805. In this work he gives a critical examination of the principal works that have treated of the Institution. It contains also a refutation of the imputations of anti-Masonic writers. In 1808 he edited an edition of the Vocabulaire des Franc-Maçons, the first edition of which had been issued in 1805. In 1825 was published a Histoire des Initiations de l'ancienne Egypte with an essay by Laurens on the origin and aim of the Ancient Mysteries (Klaus, Bibliographie, No. 3871).
*
LAURIE
See Lawrie, Ahander
*
LATER, BRAZEN
A large brazen vessel for washing placed in the court of the Jewish tabernacle, where the officiating priest cleansed his hands and feet, and as well the entrails of victims. Constructed by command of Moses (Exodus XXXVIII, 8). A similar vessel was Symbolically used at the entrance, in the modern French and Scottish Rites, when conferring the Apprentice Degree. It has been used in many of the Degrees of the latter Rite.
*
LAWFUL INFORMATION
See Information Lawful
*
LAW, MORAL
See Moral Law
*
LAW, ORAL
See Oral Law
*
LAW, PARLIAMENTARY
See Parliamentary Law
*
LAWRENCE SAMUEL CROCKE
born at Medford, Massachusetts, November 22, 1832, and died there on September 24, 1911. A graduate of Harvard University, a member of the banking firm of Bigelow and Lawrence at Chicago, then in 1858 joined his father and brother in business at Medford until 1905. Active in many important business enterprises he was also Lieutenant, 1855; Captain, 1856; Major, 1859, and Colonel of the Fifth Regiment, Massachusetts Militia, 1861, and organized his regiment on a war footing even before the outbreak of Civil War hostilities and was severely wounded in the battle of Bull Run, 1861. First Mayor of Medford. Brought to light in Hiram Lodge at West Cambridge, novr Arlington, October 26, 1854, a charter member of Mount Hermon Lodge, Medford, was Junior Warden, Senior Warden, and Master until 1865; in 1870 elected Grand Senior Warden, ance 1869 a Director, and Grand Master of Massachusetts in 1881-3. Exalted, Saint Paul's Chapter, June 13, 1855, and a charter member and Past High Priest, Mystic Chapter at Medford. A Companion of Boston Council, and a Knight of DeMolay