FURRY-C91

FULL OF SOUND AND FURRY

A column wherein our gentil readeres shake a lance at
igonarance, at one anothedr, at ye olde editor and on rare
occasions even succeed in hitting ye naile on ye heade.

Dear Brother Marsengill:

I read Brother Morris' article on the
"landmarks" (Philalethes, June 1991)
with great interest, not only for his
thoughts on the subject but also for the
impact of these statements upon the con-
duct of Masonic business within a Grand
Lodge. It occurred to me that at least a
part of the problem he describes is due to
the definition of the term "landmark"
itself. Bro. Morris states that "A land-
mark should be something so fundamen-
tal, so basic to the fabric of Freemasonry,
that any deviation merits immediate condemna-
tion. " This seems to me to be a definition
based upon the surveyors art - the de-
lineation of fixed and known boundaries
for purposes of establishing (or denying)
ownership. Such boundaries are, when
established, not to be deviated from
without some form of "immediate con-
demnation. "

Suppose that, rather than the " sur-
veyor's landmark," Dr. Mackey had in
mind a "navigator's" or "explorer's
landmark, " that is, a distinguishing fea-
ture which serves to describe, in general
terms, the most recognizable features of
a landscape or surface for the guidance
of others. Such landmarks would be
"navigational aids" and not limits or
boundaries. In this sense, Mackey's
landmarks would represent those signif-
icant features that serve to identify, in
aggregate, that area of philosophic re-
search known as Freemasonry. They
would not be inflexible boundaries bey-
ond which one cannot pass without being
condemned, but rather guideposts that
serve to locate a point within an area of
study and research. They would permit
communication using a standardized set
of reference points, permitting the iden-
tification of specific items of interest by
their relative distance from one or more
of the "landmarks." Could this have
been what Dr. Mackey meant when he
posited his list of 25 "landmarks?"
Could a medical doctor have used the
term "landmark" in another (and more
Masonically useful) sense?

The study of human osteology is an
important component in the training of
a medical doctor. Within this subject, the
structure of the human skull is an impor-
tant topic. Quantitative description of
the human skull demands that certain
points on the skull be recognized as
standard locations from which various
measurements and indices are taken.
These points are studied by medical stu-
dents, physical anthropologists, etc.;
they provide the coordinate system
within which discussions of cranial mor-
phology and pathology are conducted.
All human skulls possess these measure-
ment points - their precise relationship to
each other (distance, angle, etc. ) serve to
define the individual human. These
points are referred to in medical litera-
ture as "landmarks. "

If this is the sense in which Dr. Mackey
used the term "landmark," then his in-
tent would have been to define certain
points from which the past and current
morphology of Masonry could be
assessed and any "pathological" (non-
Masonic) condition located and dis-
cussed. Mackey would have been simply
stating that any philosophic structure
which possesses these landmarks may be
defined as Masonic; any structure in
which these critical points do not, or
could not, exist cannot be defined as
Masonic.

Further, in the same sense that one
cannot "repeal" the osteological land-
mark called Gnathion (the lowest me-
dian point on the lower mandible), one
cannot repeal Mackey's Fourteenth
Landmark. Just as measurements taken
from Gnathion will vary from human to
human, so the position of the Grand
Lodge of Maryland regarding Mackey's
Fourteenth Landmark may vary from
that of other Grand Lodges - but (given
the full set of landmarks and their defini-
tion) the medical student will never
doubt that a human skull is being de-
scribed and the Masonic student will
surely recognize The Grand Lodge of
Maryland as a Masonic organization.

If this interpretation is employed,
Mackey's landmarks are seen as a sys-
tem of reference points located upon an
evolving and dynamic structure permit-
ting discussion and debate to take place
based upon common concepts, not a set
of rigid, inflexible points from which no
deviation is permitted. Their value lies
in their definition and relationship to
each other as reference marks, not as
fixed locations considered in isolate. The
Gnathion cranial landmark described
above has value as a point from which
cranial measurements such as facial
height can be made; Mackey's Four-
teenth Landmark (right of visitation) is
of value when considered in relationship
to his Seventeenth (compliance with the
laws of the local Masonic jurisdiction).
As facial height serves to provide a quan-
titative measure of a particular aspect of
a human skull (a dimension which nor-
mally changes as the individual ages), so
does the relationship between the two
cited Masonic landmarks serves to de-
scribe the current situation in one in-
dividual Grand Lodge - a situation
which can be clearly described and dis-
cussed in terms of landmarks as estab-
lished and agreed upon points from
which assessments can be made. I sug-
gest that this is the sense in which Dr.
Mackey listed his standard points of
measurement and analysis - his land-
marks.

In the situation which Bro. Morris de-
scribes, a Grand Lodge need only for-
mally recognize Mackey's Landmarks as
points from which philosophic positions
may be located, described and discussed,
not to which laws and regulations force
compliance. Points which, in Mackey's
own words preserve "that general uni-
formity of character and design which
constitutes the true universality of the
Institution. " To the extent that a "land-
mark" provides a useful point of depar-
ture for a discussion of Masonic mor-
phology (or pathology) its continued use
constitutes its justification. In time,
should this usefulness disappear, the
landmark need not be repealed; it would
remain as a part of our heritage - a true
student's landmark permitting us to
measure and describe our past, our pre-
sent and our future to ourselves and to
others.

Thank you for your time and your con-
sideration of my thoughts.
Joseph W Weitzell, MPS
     *******************************
Dear Brother Marsengill:

RE: "The Masonic Lodge-From
Another Point of View" - April, 1991

Freemasonry is for Men. It's purpose
is to take a good man and make him
better. Yes, make him a better Man, Son,
Husband, Father and Citizen. It may be
Trite, but this I was taught and this I
believe.

Too many Do-gooders have said too
much, too long and too loud about pro-
motion, advertising, soliciting and
mixing with the profane--and the La-
dies.

The obligations I made, and the Lec-
tures received, contained nothing sug-
gesting all the folderol we keep hearing.

We do not need anything except
Freemasonry. We don't need Ladies,
Youngsters and Socials.

We do need Festive Boards and Table
Lodges. We need dedicated officers that
know the ritual. The use of Code Books
in the Lodge is a terrible thing. Some
Lodge Masters can't open Lodge
without the Code Book or prompting
and we address them "Worshipful
Master. " It is a shame and a travesty.

We need "Thousands" like P.G.M.
Dwight L. Smith. Ones that can think it
through and tell it like it was, and like it
should be.

I prefer Masonry as it was.
Wayne L. Overall, MPS
        ***************************
Dear Bro. Marsengill.

I have just received the August issue of
The Philalethes, and by chance opened it
at page 7. There, almost in the center,
when Bro. King writes of the enforced
departure of Bro. the Revd. William
Dodd from this world, he states that "It
was the last public hanging in England. "

Alas, no!

Dr. Dodd was executed at Tyburn, the
principal place in London in his day for
the carrying out of the sentence, in 1777 .
(The site of the gallows is marked by a
stone in the road at the junction of Bays-
water Road and Edgware Road, near
Marble Arch.) Tyburn, in fact, had since
1388 been a site for this purpose but in
1783 it was decided that, for the future,
executions should take place outside
Newgate Prison (in East Central Lon-
don, demolished in 1902 to make way for
the Criminal Courts of the Old Bailey).
Thus would be avoided the long and
fearful journey by cart (or coach, for
those important enough) from this gaol
to the other side of London, and the
crowds en route and who had gathered
around the triangular gibbet at Tyburn
would somehow have to pack themselves
into Newgate Street and at windows op-
posite the prison to see the condemned
step through a door on to the scaffold and
meet his (or her) end.

It was not until 1868 that public hang-
ings, here and elsewhere in the country,
were brought to an end and at Newgate
the apparatus of death was moved inside
the walls, where only the prison staffand
those otherwise entitled could witness its
use.

Bro. King might be interested in a short
paper in AQC 20 (1907) by Bro. W. Won-
nacott (pp. 352-5) in which a claim is
reported that Dr. Dodd was revived after
the execution and escaped to France!
Yours Fraternally,

Frederick Smyth
