THE BUILDER JUNE 1927

The Precious Jewels

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

(Concluded)

LAST month we had arrived at the problem of what was the origin and
explanation of the Diamond which in the three Catechisms we have
named the Grand Mystery Group, and the Examination, is named as one
of the jewels of the lodge, which all, with variations already
discussed, agree that they are

Three, Square Ashlar, Diamond and Square.

These are again referred to in the Examination and also by Prichard
in the passages quoted at length last month [page 153]. It will be
noted that the Examination in this verse retains the same order as
in the catechetical answers, while Prichard, apparently for the
sake of the rhythm, puts the Diamond first. It may be of some
importance to note this: the consensus of the evidence is that the
Ashlar was named first. The bearing that this point has on the
final argument will appear later.

In the previous article we gave several possible explanations of
the term Diamond (or Diadem according to the Institution MS.) none
of which seem at all satisfactory. The suggestion now to be made is
little more than a conjecture, and we only offer it tentatively. On
reference to the tables on page 165 it will be seen that the square
ashlar takes the place of the Dinted Ashlar of Group I and the
Perpendashlar of Group III, and the Square we interpreted as
equivalent to the Square Pavement of the other groups. Diamond
therefore comes in the place occupied by the Broached Dornal of the
other two. We, therefore, for lack of any better derivation,
suggest that Diamond is another corrupt form of Dornal in spite of
the fact that it is a very considerable jump to take and that
intermediate forms are not very obvious. It has already been
suggested that the "Porch, Dormer," mentioned by Prichard (and
others) is derived from this expression and Brobed (or Brohed)
Mall, but each of these is much closer to the conjectured common
original than Diamond. We must suppose that the adjective
"broached" was first dropped by forgetfulness in oral transmission,
or perhaps by carelessness of some copyist, if (as may be possible)
a link in this particular tradition was a written document, and
that then "Dornal" standing by itself was subject to further
changes. It would be most likely quite incomprehensible to
non-operatives, and probably to working masons too by that time; so
that its final rationalization into a diamond is not incredible.
The fact that a diamond is actually a precious stone would
naturally have an effect, as it would fit in with the tradition
that it was a stone that was spoken of, and also agree with its
being called a jewel. It is always easy to substitute a known word
for one that is strange or even unfamiliar. Uneducated people in
England are still to be found who say "sparrow grass" for
"asparagus," and in the old Catechisms themselves we have an
example of this sort of thing. The unknown word "Maughbin" which is
mentioned twice in the Examination and appears again in the Essex
MS. (where it is called the "Universal Word") reappears in the
Trinity-College MS. as "Match-pin." Under all the circumstances the
suggestion then that the Broached Thurnel here reappears in the
disguise of a Diamond does not seem altogether unworthy of
consideration.

Another suggestion however has been made by Bro. E. H. Dring which
it seems necessary to discuss (1). This is that "dinted," or
"dented," as a descriptive of the ashlar, and the "diamond" are all
corruptions of "perpend." The argument is as follows:

The accented syllable or dominating sound in perpent or perpend is
the second, pent or pend, and it is this sound that has always
caught the ear of brethren. The word itself being unfamiliar and
the unaccented first syllable being slurred over the scribe wrote
down indented or dinted. . .

And in regard to diamond the same writer thinks it is

. . . entirely due to an editorial attempt to correct a corrupt
form of "perpend,"

and quotes the doggrel verse from Prichard

With diamond, ashler and the square

which he thinks "clinches the question ."

Now in regard to "dented" or "dinted" ashlar as derived from an
elided form 'pend ashlar, there seems on the face of it a good deal
to be said; and furthermore it would make no difference to our
tentative classification, for we have been led by another path to
equate the dinted and perpend ashlars, each being the worked and
finished stone. But we fear we must question the whole argument.
The dictionaries seem to agree that the first and not the second
syllable is the accented one, and we submit further, which anyone
may test for himself by varying the stress, that in the phrase
"perpend ashlar" it would be very unnatural, and contrary to the
genius of English speech, to accent the second syllable. From which
it results that the slurring or elision, if it occurred, would be
in the second syllable, and lead to such forms as "perp'n ashlar"
or possibly even "perp' ashlar." Such a form as this last could
well have been the basis of an attempted correction making it read
"perfect ashlar," as p and f are very easily interchanged (2).

The case for deriving diamond from the suggested corruption 'dend
ashlar, is weaker still, although we must admit that the transition
in itself from 'dend to diamond is no greater jump than from
dornal, perhaps even less. But this conjecture has to meet the
objection that all lists spoke of a rough stone and a worked stone;
if diamond is the perpend stone, then in the lists where it appears
we would have two worked stones. The quotation which clinches the
matter for Bro. Dring is really quite inconclusive, for as we have
seen the consensus of the documents which speak of a diamond puts
the square ashlar first, and as we have already noted the different
arrangement in Prichard has no weight as it seems entirely due to
the rhythmic requirements of the attempt at versification. Besides
p is not easily or naturally taken for d, as it may be for f or v.

Assuming that so far our argument has been accepted, we have now
left unexplained only the "Danty Tassley" and the "Blazing Star,"
to which Group IV was reduced (3). The former certainly does look
like a corruption of Indented Tessel, and might well be taken to
mean such an indented ornamental border to a pavement as was spoken
of in the Study Club last month. If so, then Group IV of the first
table would have to be interpreted as referring to something quite
different from the three preceding ones; it would, that is, be a
description of the floor as a whole, the square pavement with its
indented tesselated border and the ornamental pattern in the
centre, diamond or star shaped. This is so plausible that it has
long been accepted, officially one might say; and as we have seen,
in Prichard it appears as the "furniture" (in later works the
"ornaments") of the lodge. But another explanation is also in the
field, advanced by no less authority than Albert Mackey (4).
Prichard's "Indented Tarsel" is supposed to have really been a
tassel, and explained by a reference to the looped and knotted cord
with tassels at the two ends which appears at the top of the old
French charts, and which later became the four tassels at the
corners of the English Tracing Boards.

The term dented, or indented, does not, however, seem a
particularly appropriate designation for the rounded bends and
loops of a cord, though Mackey accepts it. The printed works that
appeared much later in England, and which are obviously
translations from the French, speak of a "lacy" or "laced tuft."
This seems very puzzling at first, though a tuft might be the same
thing as a tassel. Only what had operative Masons to do with
tassels, or lace ?

When, however, we go to the French works we find, corresponding to
what Prichard says relative to the "furniture" of the lodge, the
following question and answer; the substance of which was included
as the last item in Group IV of our tabulation:

D. Combien y-a-til d'ornements dans la Loge?
R. Trois.
D. Quels sont-ils ?
R. Le Pave mosaique, l'Etoile flamboyant, et la Houpe dentele'e,

which translated would be:

Q. How many ornaments in the Lodge?
A. Three.
Q. What are they?
A. The mosaic pavement, the flaming (or blazing) star and the laced
(or indented) tuft (or tassel).

Solomon in All His Glory, a work published in England in the year
1766, which is obviously little more than a translation from French
works later than the one above quoted, does actually have

The Mosaic Pavement, the indented tuft and the flaming star 

as the ornaments of the lodge, and another work published in the
same year has

Mosaic Pavement, Blazing Star and Indented Tuft,

listing them, however, as "furniture," as Prichard does. In the
answer to the following question, however, blazing is changed to
flaming star as in the quotation from the previous work.

Dentelee in 18th Century French might possibly have meant laced, in
the sense of adorned or trimmed with lace, or more likely indented
or toothed. As indented seems even more inappropriate when applied
to a tassel than to a cord, the translator, we presume, chose the
other meaning in spite of its utter lack of significance. Those
inclined to accept Mackey's view, as we suppose his revisers do at
least, seeing that the article stands in recent editions without
change or comment, may be asked where did the cord and its two
tassels come from originally? Of course it has in these places
probably been equated with some recollection of the "cable tow,"
"cable rope," or "tow line," through a series of growing
misapprehensions. The French forms, as we have seen, came
originally from England, and as the Broached Thurnel was turned
into a Pointed Cubical Stone, so the Indented Tarsel became the
houppe dentelee (5). We are really back at the beginning and can
discard the tassels entirely, as well as the lace !

So far attempted explanation has all been along the line that Danty
Tassley was a corruption of Indented Tessel or Tassel. Let us
suppose instead that this was itself an attempt to rationalize the
more meaningless form; that is, let us assume that danty tassly is
the original and see what can be made of it. In the tabulation it
would seem as if it ought to correspond to the squared stone. Let
us write it a little differently, as dantyt assly. It begins now to
look like our old friend the dinted ashlar. As the derivation of
the English word in its many forms is from the French aisselle,
assly is really nearer the original than asher, astler or ester,
all of which variants we have already come across. Dinted in Scotch
dialect would be "dintit" or "dentit," as the English inflexion,
"ed," marking the past tense, is represented in North Britain by
"it," or in older spelling "yt." An example of this use of "y" in
place of "i" is found in the quotation from Trevisa, cited in a
previous article (6), where the very word is spelled "dentynge."
The change from the "i" or "e" of the first syllable into "a" is a
very easy one to make, especially in a case such as this where
obsolete and unintelligible phrases were passed along by word of
mouth (7).

Thus excepting for the third item the last of our groups falls into
line with the others. But it must be confessed that the Blazing
Star is, so to speak, a very hard nut to crack.

In the earliest designs and charts intended to depict Masonic
symbols a five-pointed star is to be found, in a few cases it is
represented as having seven points, and in some others, eight. The
French design already referred to, which is one of the earliest if
not actually the first known to us, shows a five-point star with
flames issuing from the re-entering angles, and the letter G in the
center. (The last feature is quite common in later designs.) Mackey
describes it as a straight pointed star superposed on one with wavy
points. Other examples show a circle of rays all about it. It
sometimes appears in the form of a pentagram, but is probably in
such cases not so much intended as the "Blazing Star" but as a
mnemonic for the number five, or an allusion to the F. P. of F.

When the Star appears in more modern designs it is very frequently
a six-point star formed of two triangles, or based on the hexagon;
sometimes it has seven points. In spite of all this profusion of
pictorial evidence there is nothing to lead us to suppose it is
older as a concrete symbol than the allusions to it in Prichard and
the Sloane MS. Like the diamond among the emblems on the coffin lid
shown on page 136 last month, it is simply putting an oral
tradition into pictorial form.

So long as Danty Tassley was supposed to be an indented border to
a square pavement, the star could be accepted as an ornamental
design for the center. But since it turns out that the former may
in reality be the squared ashlar, this explanation of the star
begins to look very dubious; and in any case what has a star,
blazing or flaming or whatever else it may be, in common with a
pavement and an ashlar? And when we come to think of it "blazing"
is a very curious epithet to apply to a thing with which the lodge
had to be furnished. It is barely possible that it was not blazing
in the sense of burning, but the other word which remains in modern
English as a pioneer's term for marking a new path or trail. To
blazon is to publish or describe. The same Flemish gilds which
spoke of their testival dramatic performances as land-jewels
(lantjuweelen (8)) also called their banners "blazons." It is
hardly probable, however, that this had anything to do with it, it
is thrown out merely as a passing suggestion.

What is required to make Group IV fit in with the rest, as it seems
it should, is to interpret this phrase in the sense of some kind of
stone--which to fall into its right place should be a rough or
partly worked stone. It seems rather a hopeless thing to attempt.
Had only the Trinity College MS. survived no one could possibly
have reconstructed "Maughbin," an utterly unknown word in
derivation and meaning, from Matchpin, which, though equally
meaningless in fact, is actually a compound of two perfectly good
English words. In fact, the Blazing Star presents even greater
difficulty, for it lent itself quite easily to symbolic
interpretation as Matchpin emphatically did not. All we can suppose
is that it may be another rationalization of some corrupt technical
term; and this leaves us quite helpless, unless by chance the
suppositious original phrase, or some intermediate form, should
turn up somewhere in another connection.

In order to exhaust all possibilities it may, however, be noted
that if the Diamond in Group III be a corrupt form of Dornal then
all the lists except those in this last group mention the Broached
Thurnel. Supposing that Group IV did actually come from the same
source as the others, and boldly assuming that Blazing Star is
derived ultimately from this phrase, is it possible to imagine any
feasible intermediate stages through which it may have passed ? It
is not impossible for one thing that "Br" should be turned into
"Bl"--some races and many children find difficulty in properly
pronouncing "r" after a consonant and substitute "l" in its place.
One corruption of "broached" is "boasted" in which the liquid sound
has been dropped altogether. If then Thurnel could have taken some
such form as Tarnel there might conceivably have arisen some such
phrase as Boasted tarnel, which would in repetition be very apt to
lose the "ed" by elision and become perhaps Boast' arnel. Final
syllables, when not stressed, are also very easily dropped, and
this would bring us to Boast' arn, which is near enough to our
unexplained term to be its origin under the circumstances of
transmission by oral tradition. However, this is all no more than
the purest and most unmitigated speculation, and probably worth as
much, and no more, as such speculations usually are--that is,
nothing.

We have stated that Prichard's catechisms were compilations. The
result of the present investigation certainly emphasizes this.
Under the names of jewels and furniture we have found no less than
three variant forms, and yet another that is unclassified; all of
which are related to forms found elsewhere. In the whole group of
documents these objects go variously under the names of jewels,
furniture and ornaments. The last term probably arose from an
interpretation of the fourth group which explained them as the
parts of an ornamental flooring, it is to forms of this group that
the term ornament has always been restricted. Furniture would arise
naturally as a description from the requirement that the lodge had
to be furnished with them. Jewels seem to be their original and
proper appellation. We must confess, though, that we are far from
being fully satisfied with the result of the discussion at the
outset as to the original interpretation of this term, or what the
ideas may have been that were in the minds of those who first
employed it in this connection.

There is one more point to be considered before taking leave of the
subject. We stated earlier, and those of our readers who have the
advantage of being able to refer to the text of the documents can
easily verify it, that in most cases, almost without exception in
the more archaic forms, the jewels are mentioned in close
connection with certain lights. These last require consideration on
their own account, but there is one more quotation, which, obscure
as it is, seems to give us a sidelight on this juxtaposition, and
perhaps to point to its not being altogether fortuitous. In the
Sloane MS. we read

Q. W'ch is the Mast'rs place in the lodge?
A. The east place is the Master's place in the lodge and the jewell
resteth on him first and he setteth men to work; w't the m'rs have
in the forenoon the wardens reap in the afternoon.

This follows a statement that the lodge stood East and West. It
seems probable from the general connection that the "jewell" here
spoken of is the sun. Especially as elsewhere the Master is placed
in the East "waiting at the rising of the sun to set his men at
work." This opens up an entirely new vista, the exploration of
which must be reserved for a later occasion.

It will be remembered that in a preceding series of articles on
"The Form of the Lodge" we saw reason to believe that the earliest
times lodges were held in or about a specially marked enclosure out
of doors, and that this marked-out space was a "long square," and
oriented "due east and west." As a result of the present discussion
it emerges that there were three things of sufficient importance or
value to be regarded as necessary furnishing for a "just and
perfect lodge," and the first of these is a square floor or
pavement, the others being two stones. Is there more in this than
appears ? The importance of a standard test block can be seen, but
why mate it with an unwrought stone? Was the whole thing a last
faint echo of the immemorial consecrated area and the two sacred
pillar stones? It is a curious coincidence at least.

NOTES

(1) E. H. Dring Evolution and Development of the Tracing or Lodge
Board. A.Q.C. xxix, page 259 and 325, note 1. On page 307 a letter
from Prof. Craigie, editor of the New English Dictionary, is
quoted. Craigie would take the "dinted" ashlar as equivalent to
broached ashlar, which supports the conclusion drawn from our
tabulation of results in the last article.
(2) According to the New English Dictionary the modern technical
term is "parpen," perpend being noted as obsolete. The present
Scots dialect form is pairpal, representing an older parpal. In the
numerous variations of the word given it would seem that the dental
ending is not original, and may have been introduced for euphony
when commonly combined with a word beginning with a vowel, such as
ashlar. The following are instances of some of the forms:

1429 Pro xxxii ped' de perpoynt, xvijs.
1429 lxxxij et di' fott of perpendaschler vyd.
1470 Yone perpall wall....
1558. . .to big (build) within the said church parpall walls of
stone.
1579. . .they were squared parpine, as thick as long.
1688 Perpin are less than the size of ashlars.
1712...making a parpin.
1756 The ashler . . . is parpin ashler.
1781...is sawed out . . . into . . . perpen-ashlar. 
(3) A regrettable error was allowed to pass the proof reading in
the last article. Prichard gives the form "Indented Tarsel", not
"Indented Tessel," as appears in the table at page 155. We must ask
our readers to make the correction.
(4) Mackey's Encyclopedia, vide Tarsel and Tessellated Border.
(5) So the 1745 edition of the L'Ordre des Franc-Masons Trahi. As
the spelling varies in the different editions it may be as well to
give the exact reference. The later editions of this work do not,
except for such minor variations, differ materially from the first.
(6) THE BUILDER, April, 1927, page 120.
(7) In the investigation embodied in these articles the authors
desire to acknowledge their indebtedness to Bro. Dring. In the
article above cited he makes the equation of Dinted Ashlar and
Danty Tassley. We have previously given him credit for having first
arrived at the true origin of the word Thurnel, and he is also
entitled to that of first pointing out that the perfect ashlar was
properly a perpend. This last point, however, came to us first
indirectly through Bro. W. L. Songhurst in the form of a bare
statement, which led us to look up the word in various
dictionaries. We also had interpreted Danty Tassley as Dentyt Assly
before having any opportunity to consult Bro. Dring's important,
and in truth epoch making, paper. We have differed with him in some
matters, in most of which we believe he has directly or indirectly
been misled, in company, it is to be feared with other Masonic
scholars, by the supposition that the later editions of Prichard's
work were amplified with matter taken from French works- whereas in
reality, if there was any influencing at all it was the other way
about. For as we have pointed out [THE BUILDER, March, 1927, Page
90], the second edition, published a few weeks after the first, in
the same year, 1730, contained all the matter that these brethren
suppose to have been borrowed or assimilated after 1770. As the
earliest French works extant are later than 1740 Prichard could not
well, in 1730, have been influenced by them. For the rest we feel
that our independent interpretation of Danty Tassley as the same
thing as the Dinted Ashlar is an additional argument for its
soundness, even if we have not the honor of being first to propose
it.
(8) A. Q. C. xiii, page 79.
