From what has been heretofore said, the reader will readily perceive that there was a very close connection between the Freemasons of the Middle Ages and that system of architecture which has been called the Gothic style. It is not my intention to enter into any elaborate discussion of the character and the origin of that style. Such a discussion would be irrelevant to the design of the present work, which is a history not of architecture but of Freemasonry. But as it has been, by general consent, admitted that the Gothic style, if not absolutely invented by the medieval Freemasons, was exclusively cultivated by them as the style of the ecclesiastical buildings which they erected in every country of western Europe, during the period of from four to five centuries or perhaps more, in which they flourished as a well-organized fraternity.

Gothic architecture has, therefore, very justly been called the architecture of the Freemasons. It has, however, received other names, some of which have less appropriateness, whether we look to the character of the style or to the history of its origin and its progress. Sir Christopher Wren, indulging in the hypothesis that this style was introduced into Europe by the Crusaders, called it the Saracenic style. He maintains his theory with great ingenuity, and I shall quote the passage from the Parentalia, at the expense of some repetition, because, whatever may be thought of the Saracen origin attributed to the Gothic style, we have the important testimony of this great architect to the guild or corporation character of the Stonemasons of the Middle Ages. We find the following passages in the Parentalia:

"The Holy War gave the Christians who had been there an idea of the Saracen works; which were afterward by them imitated in the West; and they refined upon it every day, as they proceeded in building churches. The Italians (among which were some Greek refugees), and with them Frenchmen, Germans, and Flemings, joined into a fraternity of architects; procuring Papal bulls for their encouragement and particular privileges; they styled themselves Freemasons, and ranged from one nation to another, as they found churches to be built." *

(* Wren's "Parentalia," p. 304.)

Britton, an architect of much reputation, rejecting the Saracenic theory of Wren, uses the term "Christian Architecture" in preference to Gothic, as more analogous, more correct, and more historical. He defines this phrase, "Christian Architecture," as one "applied to all the classes of buildings which were invented and erected by the Christians, and which essentially varied from the Pagan architecture of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. It includes all the varieties of designs used in churches and monasteries, from the 6th to the end of the 16th century." *

(* Britton, "Dictionary of the Architecture and Archaeology of the Middle Ages," in voce.)

Mr. T.G. Jackson, a professional architect, who has written a very readable little work on Modern Gothic Architecture, dissents from this view. He asserts that Gothic architecture was not exclusively connected with the system of the Christian Church, nor intended by its forms to symbolize Christian doctrine. Gothic architecture is not, he says, the creation of any religious creed or doctrine. It is the offspring of modern European civilization. It is Christian, only because modern Europe is Christian. It is connected with the Church only so far as the Church enters into the composition of our social state as one among many elements. *

(* "Modern Gothic Architecture," by T. G. Jackson, Architect, London, 1873, p. 103.)

But a previous admission of the author contradicts the theory which he has here advanced that Gothic architecture was not Christian architecture, except incidentally, and that its forms did not symbolize Christian doctrine. "It is true," he says, "that this style was at first nurtured in the Church," and he assigns as a reason for this fact that "amid the turmoil and confusion of society during the 11th and 12th century it was only in the kindly shelter of the cloister that learning and the peaceful arts were able to live and grow; but it did not develop itself into a perfect style, it never shook off the traditions of that classic art from which it was derived, it never merged into an independent, energizing life, till the 13th century, when it passed from the hands of the clergy into those of the laity. Till then, all those great architects were clerks; since then they have mostly, been laymen." *

(* "Modern Gothic Architecture," by T. G. Jackson, Architect, London, 1873, p. 99.)

Now this admission is all that the most zealous advocates of the close relation borne by the Freemasons to Gothic architecture could require. It is not denied that in the earlier periods of the revival of art, the monastic institutions and the prelates of the Church, in whose hands were deported all the seeds of learning, and who were the architects of that period, cultivated, almost as a necessity, the classic style which they borrowed from the Roman artificers. But neither the Gothic style nor the corporations of Freemasons existed. They both sprung into active life at the same time. Paley, in his classification, traces Gothic architecture in its different styles from the middle of the 12th to the middle of the 16th century. *

(* Paley, "Manual of Gothic Architecture," p. 29.)

This embraces the very period in which the Freemasons of the Middle Ages present themselves as guilds or a fraternity. It was then that architecture passed out of its classic form, whether you call that form Roman, Byzantine, Norman or what you please, and assumed that more symbolic form which has received the name of the Gothic. This style, coming into existence at the very time that the lay builders had emerged from the control of the clergy, and established themselves as an independent body of architects with the organization of a guild and under the name of Freemasons, was, it can not be doubted, from the coincidence of time and circumstances, the invention of that Fraternity.

It may therefore be accepted as an historical fact, capable of demonstration, that the Gothic style of architecture was the invention of the medieval Freemasons. And this style, so full of high art, developed in the profoundest symbolism, was that peculiar characteristic of the Freemasons of the Middle Ages, which distinguished them from the artisans of every other trade or profession, and in time when as a body of operatives they were dissolved, enabled them to transmute themselves into a Speculative association founded on the teaching of moral and religious doctrines by architectural and geometrical symbols.

We can not properly or fairly appreciate this medieval architecture if we confound it with the mere practice of building by laying one stone on another. The Freemasons, justly appreciative of the high aims of their profession, held themselves proudly aloof from the ordinary rough masons, who could do no more than build a wall or construct a house. "Medieval architecture," says Paley, "was the visible embodying of the highest feelings of adoration and worship, and holy abstraction; the expression of a sense which must have a language of its own and which could have utterance in no worthier or more significant way." *

(* "Manual of Gothic Architecture," p. 5.)

So these Freemasons became the preservers and the teachers of the doctrines of their religious faith, and gave a moral in every sculptured form. Among their works, the moralizing Jacques might have well said that he could find "sermons in stones." The Freemasons of the Middle Ages, coming originally from Lombardy and extending over Europe in the 12th and succeeding centuries, thus applied to their works the taste and skill and spirit of symbolism which they had originally learned from their Masters on the borders of the Lake of Como. Congregating in the bauhutten, the hut or lodge which they had erected near the building about to be constructed by their skill, they devised the plans for the future edifice, which in almost every instance was one intended for religious purposes, for to nothing secular or profane would they devote their art. Hence arose the monasteries, the churches, and cathedrals, which although now for the most part in ruins, present, even in wreck, such wonderful evidence of architectural beauty as to excite the admiration of every spectator, as well as the envy of modern artists, who have sought in vain to rival or even to imitate these old builders.

Speaking of them as the inventors of the system of architectural symbolism, Lord Lindsay calls the humble lodges in which they held their consultations and produced their designs, "parliaments of genius." *

(* "Sketches of Christian Art.")

They were possessed of wondrous skill in art, and were actuated purely by elevated religious thought. Yet have they passed away unknown save as component parts of that vast association which had spread over all civilized countries, and who labored at the great works in which they more engaged with a noble abnegation of self. Of the wholly disinterested zeal with which they worked, Michelet cites one striking proof. "Ascend," he says, "to the top -most points of those aerial spires which they were constructing, to heights which only the slater mounts with fear and trembling, and you will often find some masterpiece of sculpture, on which the pious workman had perhaps consumed his life, without the remotest expectation that the eye of man would ever behold its delicate, artistic tracing. On it there is no name, not a mark or a letter. He had worked not for human praise, but only for the glory of God and the health of his soul." *

(* Michelet, "Histoire de France," p. 370)

An English historian has thus expressed a similar view of the self-abnegation of these old builders: "The elaborate and costly ornaments which were lavished on architecture were meant to do God honor, though spending their beauties perhaps on some remote and secluded wilderness, to be witnessed only by the rude peasants of the neighborhood and the birds that hovered about the pinnacle." *

(* Rev. T.T. Blunt, "Sketch of the Reformation in England," p. 76.)

Mr. Paley has been led to say, with great truth, that these ancient builders, working as a body and not as individuals, cared less about personal profit or celebrity than about the good of the Church, and hence he concludes that if they had intended only to please the eye of man they would not have let their finest works stand alone in the midst of the marsh and the moor. *

(* "Manual of Gothic Architecture," p. 82.)

The name of Gothic Architecture, applied to the style of building adopted by the Freemasons of the Middle Ages, is by no means suggestive of its true origin or character. The opinion once entertained that it was the invention of the Goths, has long since been exploded; and notwithstanding the various hypotheses that have been advanced at different times, it is now generally conceded that this distinct style was the system of building applied by the medieval Freemasons to the erection of cathedrals and other religious edifices. Of this style, the distinguishing features are the pointed arch, long lancet windows, clustered columns, and a general tendency to vertical and ascending lines. Comparing it with the preceding styles, we see the whole contour and composition of building changed from the horizontal to the perpendicular, "we might almost say," to borrow the words of Paley, "from earthly to heavenly, from Pagan to Christian." *

(* "Manual of Gothic Architecture," p. 76.)

It began to make its appearance toward the close of the 12th century, and having been adopted, or more properly speaking invented by the association of Freemasons spread from Italy into France, into Germany, and into England, as well as every other country of Europe where these architects and builders penetrated. Governor Pownall, toward the close of the last century, wrote a very able article containing Observations on the Origin and Progress of Gothic Architecture, and on the Corporation of Free Masons, Supposed to be the Establishers of it as a Regular Order, * in which he admits that William of Sens had used the same style a century before in the reconstruction of the Cathedral of Canterbury, yet he asserts that the Corporations of Freemasons "were the first architects who reduced it to and introduced it as a regular order."

(* Published in the "Archaelogia," vol. ix., pp. 110 - 126.)

He further asserts that the Corporation which existed in England was instituted by a similar corporation from abroad, and that all these corporations had been created by the Pope, by bull, diploma, or charter, about the close of the 12th or the commencement of the 13th century. This statement of the existence of a Papal bull bestowing certain privileges on the Freemasons has been repeatedly made since the date of Governor Pownall's article, by other writers, who most probably borrowed his authority for the statement. I think that it will be admitted that the Freemasons, who were at first exclusively ecclesiastics, and whose schools of architecture

were originally established in the monasteries, were under the protection and patronage of the Church. But that any especial bull in their favour was ever issued, though not at all improbable, has never yet been established as an historical fact. Governor Pownall, anxious to prove the truth of his statement, caused application to be made to the librarian of the Vatican, and the Pope himself is said to have ordered a minute search to be made. The search was a vain one.

The official report was that "not the least traces of any such documents could be found." Pownall, however, persistently believed that some record or copy of this charter or diploma must be somewhere buried at Rome amid forgotten and unknown bundles or rolls of manuscripts - a circumstance that he says had frequently occurred in relation to important English records. Unfortunately, therefore, for the settlement of the historic question, it by no means follows, because the Roman Catholic librarian of the Vatican, a few centuries ago, could not find a bull granting special indulgences to an association which the Popes had at a later period denounced, that no such document is in existence. Besides the too common result of an unsuccessful search for old manuscripts which has occurred, and is continually occurring, to investigators, we have in this particular case the other factor to contend with, the policy of the Roman Church. That policy has always overruled all principles of historic accuracy. Hence in subjects over which that Church has had control, suppressed documents are of no uncommon occurrence.

This question of a Papal charter, therefore, still remains sublite. Krause, for instance, on the supposed authority of a statement of Ashmole, which had been communicated by Dr. Knipe to the author of the life of that antiquary, admits the fact of Papal indulgences, while Steiglitz, accepting the unsuccessful result of the application of Pownall as conclusive evidence, contends for the absurdity of any such claim. But whether there is or is not in existence such a charter, diploma, or bull, it is very evident from history that the Freemasons of the Middle Ages first enjoyed the protection and afterward the patronage of the Church extended to them by ecclesiastical chiefs.

Back to The History of Freemasonry [ Next ] [ Previous ]