THE BUILDER, JANUARY 1927

The Precious Jewels

By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN

IN the Study Club last month we took under consideration the
construction of the Gothic arch in order to obtain more light upon
the technique of the Operative Freemasons of the Middle Ages. It
was noted that the voussoirs or "vault" stones of which the arch is
composed were, in theory at least, interchangeable, being cut to
the same curves and angles though differing in length. It is not at
all likely, however, that this interchangeability was developed at
all in practice, except perhaps by accident, as there would be no
practical advantage in it. Each stone was undoubtedly intended for
a certain position and marked accordingly.

GOTHIC MOULDINGS

The voussoir being worked, the next step would be to cut the
mouldings, and these also would naturally be worked from templets.
It is very curious that Speculative Masons have dwelt so
exclusively on squared work. It is possibly easier to fit in with
a symbolic system, but unfortunately it has led to extraordinary
assertions as to the difficulty of squaring a stone. It is highly
probable that there were many cowans, the lowens, losses, layers
and rough masons of the Old Charges, who could square a stone well
enough. What distinguished the Freemason was ability to do work
"neither oblong nor square," carved and moulded work. It is
significant in this respect that none of the Old Charges speak of
squared work; when a traveling mason turned up the master was to
give him work "if he had any mould stone" to be done in his place,
if not he was to "refresh him with money" to enable him to go on to
the next lodge.

This regulation is coupled with two others, that no mason, or
sometimes more specifically, no master or fellow, was to make any
mould square or rule for any rough layer, and that no layer was to
be set to work on mould stone either within the lodge (with the
fellows) or without it (off by himself somewhere) even if he had a
mould (or mould square) of his own making. It is quite obvious that
the later copyists had but the vaguest idea of what it was all
about from the many extraordinary corruptions in the various texts;
some of them evidently had no ideas at all, but copied blindly what
they read in the document before them. Two chief forms or variants
have appeared. In one, very numerously represented, the "square"
has been separated from the first part of the compound term "mould"
just as we saw it had probably been separated from "astler" in the
list of jewels given in the Examination, so that the prohibition
reads "no mould, nor square, nor rule." But on reflection this does
not seem very significant. Neither rule nor square was peculiar to
the mason's craft, and both are such simple, obvious tools that
there could be no secret about making them. A cowan, if too
unintelligent or clumsy to make them for himself, could get a
carpenter, for instance, to make them for him. The latter would be
under no prohibition in the matter. A mould-square or rule must
have been some special appliance not easily understood or made.

The other corruption, while seemingly straightforward enough, has
turned the provision into pure nonsense. The Inigo Jones MS. is an
example. It says:


That no Master or Fellow make any Mould or Square or Rule to Mould
Stones withall, but such as are allowed by the Fraternity.

We can only suppose that this was an attempt to amend a corrupt
text in the light of the theory that was abroad, quoted by Aubrey
from Dugdalel and often retailed since, that the Freemasons were a
highly organized body of men working under orders from a central
authority. The copyist saw something in his text that seemed to
prohibit someone from working by a mould of his own making; and it
not being clear who was forbidden, or why, assumed it applied to
members of the Fraternity, and so added the saving clause about
what was allowed by the Craft. But from the infinite variety of
mouldings actually existent it would be hard to imagine what was
not to be permitted.

THE TRANSITION STAGE

Another inference emerges from the consideration of the different
versions of these regulations. They do not appear at all in the
very oldest documents, in the later ones their meaning has been
forgotten and they have become largely unintelligible. It is
probable that their introduction into the Masonic code marks the
beginning of the period of transition, of the decay of the lodge as
an Operative organization. A new style of architecture was coming
in, the professional architect began to appear, while the more
intelligent rough masons were trying to better their position, and
finding themselves able to do the new work. Apprentices who had
served their time were neglecting their "Admission" or "Entering"
to the old fraternity. In Scotland unequivocal records exist of
this state of affairs, and it is also there provided that "cowans"
may be employed if fellows of craft can not be obtained. The
masters would be tempted to employ the outsiders, perhaps because
they were cheaper, perhaps because they were more under their
power; for the accepted mason, even if working as a journeyman, was
his master's equal. In order to stem the tide new rules would be
made, tacitly allowing the employment of the rough mason or the
"lewis" (who is in some cases expressly described as one who has
learned the trade as an apprentice but who has not been admitted
according to the manner and custom of making masons) but forbidding
their employment on the more skilled kinds of work.

THE MOULD SQUARE

We have seen that the arch would have to be drawn in full in order
to find the length of the arcs--perhaps in the case of large ones
it might have been half size. It would also be necessary in order
to find the angles of the keystones, which could not be worked in
the same way as the voussoirs. In addition to this it would be
necessary to draw the profile of the mouldings. In Fig. 1 we have
shown such a profile or section as it might have been laid out on
a squared floor or pavement. Assuming the cross lines to be six
inches apart, which is much closer than would be probable, the
outside thickness of the arch is a little under three feet, while
between the inner and outside curves it is almost eighteen inches.
It would be very natural in practice to make each measurement in
round numbers where possible, but it was shown here somewhat less
in order to show how lines could be set off from the squares.

The various rounds having been drawn inside the rectangles of the
main dimensions the templets would be made from them. The modern
way is to cut the profile of a moulding out of thin sheet metal,
but the term "mould square" does not seem to fully fit such an
appliance. We suggest that basically the old method was to use a
square into which thin pieces of wood were fitted that could be cut
out to fit the curves. If a groove were rabeted on the inside of
the two limbs of the square the same tool would serve for any
mouldings by changing the pieces inserted. Fig. 1 shows the form
such an appliance may have taken.

The tradition of moulded work still lingered, apparently, as late
as 1730, for Prichard refers to it in a confused way:

Q. What do you learn by being an Operative Mason?
A. Hue, Square, Mould-stone, lay a level and raise a Perpendicular.

The first part of the answer, as printed, is simply nonsense, but
in the light of the clauses in the Old Charges relating to the
subject we may suppose the original form of which it is a corrupt
rendering was, [To] hew, square [and] mould-stone, or something
equivalent; though that itself would probably not be very old, as
the question is obviously intended to balance the preceding one:

Q. What do you learn by being a Gentleman Mason? 
A. Secrecy, Morality and Good Fellowship.

Such explanations would not appear until a stage had been reached
where the non-operatives formed at least a very considerable part
of the membership of the fraternity.

MOULDS AND MOULDINGS

Since the above was written we happened upon a number of pertinent
quotations relative to the word "mould" as used in a technical
sense by masons. They are collected in that mine of valuable
reference The New English Dictionary, to which we are in a number
of special points already so greatly indebted. The definition of
the word in this connection is "a pattern, a templet." The
quotations to illustrate its use range in date from the fourteenth
to the eighteenth centuries. It is highly probable that more modern
instances still could be found. We give several of them as typical;
the earliest is from the Ely Sacrist Roll of 1323:

Bordis empt' pro moldis cementariorum faciendum. 

which might be rendered:

Purchasing boards for making molds for the masons.

The next is from Langland's Piers Plowman, and without the context
does not have much meaning, but it is probably allegorical:

If any masoun made a molde yer-to moche wonder it were.

Another, of date 1513, the precise origin of which is not given, is
as follows:

Lyme, sand . . . moolds, ordinaunces, and every other thyng.

And last, is one from Smeaton, designer and builder of the famous
Eddystone Lighthouse:

A gang of masons . . . who were according to moulds and drawings to
hew the stones.

It seems obvious from these that the word has been pretty
continuously used for centuries in a much more general sense than
that of "mouldings." In fact it might be taken as a technical term
for the "shape" of the stone purely and simply, and thus might even
have been applied to square ashlar work. Still it is very doubtful
if it were ever given this extension of meaning even if quite
logical. Technicalities are governed by convenience. Square would
fully designate one form, mould-stone would include every thing
that was worked to some shape that was not square. It would thus
include "moulded" stone in the sense used above, as stones bearing
members of ornamental mouldings. But this wider usage makes it very
possible, and even probable, that the "square" with the curved
blade, depicted in the window at Chartres, was a "mouldsquare." In
that case the form suggested in Fig. 1 may have to be rejected on
the very good ground that it is not required, a sufficiently
satisfactory interpretation for the term being found in ascribing
it to an implement of which the actual form has come down to us.

THE DRAWING FLOOR

We must now return to the "square pavement" or "floor" set aside
for the drawing of such full sized details as were necessary. There
is no need to suppose that it was always, or even generally paved
with tile or flagstone, or whatever it might be, although where the
work was going to take a long period of years to bring to
completion, this may perhaps have been done. It is barely possible
that the term was understood in its primary sense of a floor of
beaten or rammed earth. A wooden floor would have served equally
well as a stone one, or the ground might have been levelled and
laid with cement or plaster, as is done by the Persian Craftsmen.
Or even finely sifted loam well beaten down, or clay spread over
the space and smoothed over. Any or all such methods would have
served, and circumstances would determine which was most convenient
in any given case. In shape, the area would probably have been
longer than wide for the purely practical reason that most of the
details to be laid out on it were greater in elevation in
proportion to ground plan.

It is most likely that in many cases, when it was possible, the
actual floor of the building erected was used for this purpose--the
flagged or tiled pavement of the church or other structure. But
when the work quite new other means would have to be adopted.

The floor, having been prepared, the first thing to be done in
using it would be to lay down a base line. This might be ruled, or
if of any length, done with a tightly stretched chalked cord, a
method still in use by carpenters. Cutting this at right angles a
center line would have to be drawn. The right angle would doubtless
be found by the simple geometric construction of intersecting arcs.
We say doubtless, because it is the simplest and most direct method
of doing it. Now if the work to be done was of sufficient extent
and importance to warrant the preparation of a special floor, it
would obviously be of great advantage to have these lines
permanently marked, so they would not have to be drawn afresh for
every design laid down. It would also follow, seeing it is not very
convenient to rule lines of any length on the ground, that a series
of lines crossing each other at right angles at equal distances
would be very helpful. In Fig. 1 such lines are shown very close
together. Probably they would not have been at smaller intervals
than two or three feet. At two feet apart any desired point in the
whole area could be determined within the appropriate square by
means of a two-foot rule, or twenty-four-inch gauge, or with a pair
of large compasses. In a number of old representations of Mason's
tools we find just such compasses depicted. As for example, in the
illustration here reproduced from THE BUILDER, August, 1925,
where the two legs of the instrument, judging by the height of the
figures, must be three feet or more in length. Compasses of this
size would not be used on a drawing board but would be well adapted
for the purpose suggested.

As this discussion has been rather lengthy it may be as well here
to recapitulate. It must be understood that what we have said is
almost entirely hypothetical, but we think nevertheless that it
does give an outline of a practicable technique of design which is
adapted to the conditions, so far as they can be reconstructed, and
which fits in with such facts as have come down to us. It is
generally known that the details of Gothic work were left very
largely to the individual craftsman to work out for himself; while
working drawings in the profusion and minuteness of detail that
would be necessary today were out of the of the question, if for no
other reason than the difficulty and expense of obtaining materials
on which to make them. The only drawings that have come down to us
are of the nature of sketches. Had larger plans, drawn to scale,
been customary, we could confidently expect that some of them would
have survived among the wealth of records in the muniment rooms of
old churches and cathedrals. On the other hand, if made on the
spot, as required, they naturally would not be preserved, for one
could be effaced to make room for the next. The use of a floor for
the purpose of making large full size designs is borne out by
parallel cases, such as old time sail-makers lofts and ship yards,
and in some cases modern structural steel work. That it would be
divided into squares, and the whole area bounded by a rectangular
outline, is more conjectural, but the convenience is so obvious
that it seems hardly possible it was not employed, and it agrees
with the consensus of the Catechisms that the pavement was square,
and the other tradition that it was chequered, or divided into
smaller squares. Finally we may mention cases where what appear to
be full sized details of arches, mouldings, columns and so on, have
been carefully incised on stone floors and pavements, as at Limoges
and Clermont. It is possible that these permanent records cut in
stone were used for making "mould squares" and other gauges and
templets. Building operations in those days were rather leisurely
as a rule and often interrupted. It would save much trouble and the
making new measurements to have these models ready to hand when
work was resumed. (2)

THE EFFECT OF TABLE LODGES

There is one more consideration which might help to explain the
change from a square or mosaic chequered pavement to a trestle
board that has already been mentioned but on which a word or two
more may be said. This is the fact that many lodges through the
eighteenth century were opened and closed and worked with the
members seated about a table. A great variety of practice seems to
have existed. Even in the second half of the century it would
appear that in some places candidates were initiated, the lodge
being so arranged. In other places initiation ceremonies were
performed in another room, or another part of the same room, or the
table removed. Where the more slovenly habit prevailed, as we may
surely call that in which the members remained at the table, it is
probable that the diagrams that properly were drawn on the floor
were transferred to the table. That working tools, lights, etc.,
were is certain. And in some cases there was a cloth with emblems
embroidered or painted on it covering the table. (3) The only
question is, how early did this habit come into vogue? That can
only be conjectured, but it seems probable that all these
variations of practice must go back much earlier than 1717. There
could hardly have been time for such divergencies to come into
being had the re-organization of the Craft resulted in a standard
form. Whether within or without the fold of the Grand Lodge the
variations must have existed. It is not offered as an argument but
it is merely suggested, that had the table habit grown up in the
first decade of the century, or earlier, there would have been an
obvious and concrete reason for the change in phrase from
"pavement" to "trasel board," aside from such possible
misunderstandings as were supposed in an earlier article of this
series.


NOTES

(1) This is quoted by Gould, Concise History, p. 99. 
(2) A.Q.C. VI, p. 104.
(3) Referred to in Study Club, August, 1926, p. 249. Some of the
printed works assume that the members of the lodge were seated
round a table during the ceremonies. That lodges were commonly
opened and closed at table, and lectures given is well known.
(4) THE BUILDER, November, 1926, pages 344-5.
