The Universal Language of Freemasonry - ArchiMeD - Johannes ...

854
Chapter 10 - Conclusion
As long as this intolerance exists, there will be no universal Masonry.
Instead, in each country or jurisdiction, even in each lodge, each will do as they
please within the range of their authority. And even the highest authorities, the
Grand Lodges, the Supreme Councils, the ritual committees are not able to find a
common ground. This is mainly due to the fact that there exists no common
Masonic law. As a kind of basic law of Freemasonry, one could quote
Anderson's Constitutions from 1723 that contain the "Old Charges," i.e. the
"landmarks." Let us view the American 2100 dilemma, for instance. Some
American Masons claim that the "ancient landmarks" have to be obeyed at first
rate, while other Masons are not even sure whether "landmarks" exist at all.
Nobody is certain of how many "landmarks" there are. Roscoe Pound in his
Lectures on Masonic Jurisprudence discusses three radically different theories
whether there are "landmarks," and what they are. He calls these theories the
legal one, the historical one, and the philosophical one:
The legal theory accepts Mackey's idea of a body of universal
unalterable fundamental principles which are at the foundation of all
Masonic law. But the tendency has been to reduce Mackey's list very
considerably, although two of our jurisdictions greatly extend it. Nine
American Grand Lodges tell us that the old charges contain the ancient
landmarks. Seven Grand Lodges have adopted statements of their own,
varying from the seven of West Virginia and the noteworthy ten of New
Jersey to the thirty-nine of Nevada and fifty-four of Kentucky. [...] 2101
It becomes obvious that many U.S. states have created their own list of
"landmarks." Then, Pound describes the so-called historical theory, which,
however, in his opinion ponders too much on the linguistic use of the word
"landmark," losing from view the thing itself, which was an actual Masonic
institution:
The historical theory, proceeding upon the use of the word landmark in
our books, denies that there is such a thing as the legal theory assumes.
The skeptic [sic] says [...] that down to the appearance of Mackey's
Masonic Jurisprudence "landmark" was a term floating about in
Masonic writing without any definite meaning. It had come down from
the operative Craft where it had meant trade secrets, and had been used
loosely for "traditions" or for "authorized ritual" or for "significant
2100
Kischke criticizes the "ancient landmarks" as alleged rules and customs of Freemasonry that are
said to possess an honorable antiquity and a remaining tradition. He cites the negative
interpretation of the IFL that calls them hollow words: "Das Freimaurer-Lexikon bezeichnet sie
[...] als traditionelle Worthülsen. Öffnet sie der freimaurerische Historiker, so sind sie leer. Ein
Historiker bezeichnet sie als Phantasterei. Die 'Alten Landmarken' sind besonders in den USA
Bestandteil maurerischen Gedankenguts geworden." (Kischke, p. 62)
2101
Pound; in: Macoy Publishing & Supply Co., Inc., Little Masonic Library, vol. I, p. 302; bold print
added.