Fig. 10.

Mr. G. W. Speth calls attention to an interesting instance at Canterbury Cathedral, where there are many examples. The mark (fig. 10) is prominent beyond all others and is seldom found alone on a stone, but almost always with another mark, "as if it were "the countersign of a foreman or inspector." Another mark III occurs in the same way, and in one instance, on the north wall of the nave, the two are found together, with a third mark, a kind of spear-head. (Note by Mr. G. W. Speth, Trans. Lodge Quat. Coronat., vol. iii., p. 80.)

The suggestion that one of the marks is that of the foreman or head master mason naturally suggests itself. In some instances I have been inclined to think that this seemed probable, but where they occur so seldom in a building containing a large number of marks-in some cases only once or twice-it is difficult to see the reason why such should be the case. A similar difficulty arises in the theory of the second mark being the result of piecework, and renders it not entirely satisfactory. It is perhaps worthy of notice that both the marks, Nos. 47 and 48, occur separately at Burscough (and Ormskirk No. 6), also Nos. 30 and 31 at Birkenhead, whereas Nos. 80, 92 and 93 do not, so far as the marks have already been discovered.

"In regard to the arrangement of Marks into "distinctive classes-one for apprentices, another "for fellow-crafts or mark-men,' and a third for "foremen or 'mark-masters,'" writes Lyon (Hist. F.M. in Scotland, p. 69):-" The practice of the Lodge of Edinburgh [1599] or that of the Kil"winning [1642], as far as can be learned from "their records, was never in harmony with tradition "on that point."

66

Mr. Shaw defined certain forms as "blind marks;" i.e., the marks of masons who were not

actually members of the lodge. This is a refinement to which I shall again refer when mentioning some of the most recent theories of the origin of masons' marks.

The question of arranging the marks so as to distinguish the masonic rank of the workmen, as well as that of dividing one nationality from another, appears to me to be beset with extraordinary difficulties. It is quite true, however, that certain countries used forms of marks rarely found elsewhere, but so far as can be judged they were not all of the same peculiar character; for example, the marks from Spanish cathedrals, figured by Street in his work on Gothic Architecture in Spain. Of course it is possible that those marks which follow other rules in their composition, and resemble those found in other countries, belonged to workmen who themselves belonged to other nationalities. It seems to me hardly possible, however, to establish this theory, until the names of those are known to whom the marks belonged.

Prof. Hayter Lewis, in discussing this question (Fourn. of the Arch. Assoc., xlv., p. 150), says that he can see no sign which would define a separate group of workmen belonging to any particular lodge, company, or fraternity. With this opinion I entirely agree, and am glad to find that so great an authority has expressed the opinion; and I would add that up to the present time, though I have copied and studied a large number of marks, nothing has come under my notice in the construction of the marks themselves that would enable me to divide them with certainty into different classes, so as to distinguish the marks of one grade of workmen from those of another.

Anything approaching such a division of the marks points at once to a definite system ruling their choice. It would at the same time decide the

question whether in early times the apprentices, like the superior workmen, placed their marks upon their work as well as on their tools. That there was some kind of system as a basis for masons' marks in early times, beyond the rule of straight lines and angles, appears to me more than probable; but that the system or systems survived to later times was evidently not the case.

It is stated by Rziha (p. 36) and others that the master masons of Germany placed their mark in a shield. This may have been the custom, but upon English buildings I have never found an example of such a usage. It appears to me probable that it might well be done upon seals and monuments, giving the mark the character of armorial bearings, but hardly likely that such a system was generally employed when placing the marks upon stones. A few examples of the seals of sworn masons in France, taken from existing documents, will be found in Les Métiers de Paris, by Charles Desmaze (1874, p. 176). They date from the years 1349, 1371, 1372, and bear the hammer, trowel, and square; another of the year 1500, belonging to Jean Chevrin, bears canting arms: within a hedge a tree, against which stands a goat (chèvre) on its hind legs. It is perhaps worth remarking that none of the seals given, including also some belonging to carpenters and others, bear any symbol which may be taken as a mark, but rather assume the form of armorial bearings. The same custom was not unknown in our own country. The seal of Walter Dixi (or Walter le Masun), called "Cementarius de Bernewelle," of the fifth of Edward I. bears in a circle an upright mallet, supported by a mallet on the sinister, and on the dexter side an object which it is not easy to distinguish, though it may represent the moon. (Godwin, Archæologia, XXX., p. 119.)

大

M. Louis Schneegans, Archiviste de Strasbourg (Ann. Arch., 1848, viii., p. 186), points out that the mark of Strasburg Cathedral is of the same form as that of Fribourg, the colour only being different. The Strasburg shield is Azure, the mark Or, and the Fribourg shield Azure, the mark Sable. He interprets the mark as a square surmounted by a cross (fig. 11), and states that it is found on portions of the Fig. 11. Cathedral of the time of Hülst, though he considers that it is of earlier date. From the second half of the fifteenth century, this mark was taken as a basis for their marks by the masons of Strasburg, and it appears all at once upon the shields of the masters. It runs through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and is found in almost every example. A number of marks are given on the plate illustrating this article of M. Schneegans.

Lyon observes (F.M. in Scotland, p. 68): "There "is no ground for believing that in the choice of "their marks the sixteenth century Masons were guided by any consideration of their symbolical quality, or of their relation to the propositions of "Euclid." A number of examples are given, a large proportion of which "represent the initials "of their owners' names, and they are nearly all "of a sufficiently simple character to permit of "their being cut upon the tools of operative masons and the productions of their handicraft, or "used as signatures by such as had not been taught to write-these being the only purposes "to which they are known ever to have been applied by the Mason Craft in Scotland."

It may be mentioned that Prof. Hayter Lewis, in his paper printed by the Archæological Association, so often quoted (vol. xlv., p. 152), points out that in his comparative tables, consisting of a large number of marks, there is only one mark which

M

may be looked upon as a sacred symbol, "although "the greatest part of the mediæval buildings "whence they were taken were churches and under "clerical influence."

Victor Didron noticed that crosses were more frequent on religious buildings, heraldic figures (le blason) on military buildings, letters abound in churches, geometrical and fanciful signs on castles, and that the variety of marks is much greater in military than in religious buildings. (Ann. Arch., 1845, ii., p. 247.)

Of the many absurd and fantastical notions of the origin of masons' marks, I have already mentioned one or two. Those who delight in the maze of imaginary symbolism may have their tastes. gratified by a series of articles published in the Builder (vol. xxi., 1863, pp. 245, 273, 402, 493.)

66

It was pointed out by the late George Godwin . (Builder, 1843, vol. i., 365), "that in the ancient "buildings it is only a certain number of stones "which bear symbols,-that the marks found in "different countries (although the variety is great) "are in many cases identical, and in all have a "singular accordance in character,-seems to show "that the men who employed them did so by system, and that the system, if not the same in England, Germany, and France, was closely analogous in one country to that of the others.' "We still adhere to our own expressed opinion," writes the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford (Mas. Cyclop., p. 459), "based on the greater authority of E. W. Shaw, that especially in the medieval times, if not at all times in the history of the building "sodalities, the marks were outer tokens of an "inner organization; that, taken from geometry, they constituted a sort of universal Masonic alphabet, which, with some national variations, "was a language the craftsmen could understand." The opinion of Mr. Shaw, with regard to what he