FREEMASONRY AND THE CATHEDRAL BUILDERS
by H. L. Haywood
The Builder - March 1923
The paper below is the first of a new series of Study Club articles to cover,
chapter by chapter, the more important periods and features of Masonic history.
I have condensed and simplified to the limit of my ability but even so I know
that beginners may find some passages difficult. This difficulty lies in the
subject matter, which is stubborn and complicated to a degree, and therefore
means that readers themselves must cooperate by a willingness to read and
re-read, and to study. Surely the subject is worth it! Vibert's "Freemasonry
Before the Existence of Grand Lodges," Vibert's "Story of the Craft," Newton's
"The Builders," and Gould's "Concise History of Freemasonry" may be read in
conjunction with these papers.
I - WHAT GOTHIC WAS
THE WORD Gothic has become associated in our minds with much that is
most beautiful in the world - cathedrals, churches, spires and an old
manner of decoration - but to the Italian artists of the Renaissance who
gave the world its currency it had quite a different meaning, and was used
by them as a term of reproach to signify the culture of the northern
barbarians, especially of German blood, who had broken off from classical
traditions. Vasari appears to have been responsible above any other
individual for this usage.
Gothic was at first applied to the whole barbarian (I use the word here in
its Renaissance sense) culture; but later, and after men had begun to
understand and to appreciate it, was more narrowly applied to that which
was most distinctive in barbarian culture, the architecture; and at a still later
period, and through popular usage, it became associated almost entirely
with religious architecture, and more especially with the cathedrals, so that
we find the great New English Dictionary giving it the following definition:
"The term for the style of architecture prevalent in Western Europe from the
Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century, of which the chief characteristic is the
pointed arch; applied also to buildings, architectural details, and
ornamentation. The most usual names for the successive periods in this
style in England are Early English, Decorative, and Perpendicular."
This definition is not as accurate as it might be. Many authorities on the
history of architecture would not agree with the statement that "the chief
characteristic is the pointed arch"; they have other theories of the matter.
Nor is it safe to apply the word only to architecture, because there were
Gothic styles in dress, in bridges, in walls, in furniture, in ornamentation, in
manners, and even in household utensils. It happens that little is left of
Gothic save church edifices, but that is because war has destroyed
Some of the best writers on the subject, Lethaby for example, whose work
is to be recommended for its energy, interest and scholarliness, make
Gothic to be equivalent to everything specifically medieval in art, which
would include stained glass, manuscripts, poetry, etc. These writers point
out that it was not until the nineteenth century archaeologists had come,
under the leadership of De Caumont and his fellows, that men began to
give a narrow usage to the word. "The word," writes Arthur Kingsley Porter,
"first applied as an epithet of approbrium to all medieval buildings by the
architects of the Renaissance, was given a technical meaning by De
Caumont and the archaeologists of the nineteenth century, who employed
it to distinguish buildings with pointed arches from those with round arches,
which were called Romanesque." Some writers continue to refuse to use
the word at all; Rickman prefers "English Architecture"; and Britton,
"Christian Architecture." Dr. Albert G. Mackey says, "that Gothic architecture
has therefore very justly been called 'The Architecture of Freemasonry;'" but
of that more anon.
The old Roman style of building, on which all subsequent styles in Western
Europe were based until the coming of Gothic, and which came to be
called Romanesque, was organized on a very simple principle, and had its
beginnings, at least so far as temples, churches, and cathedrals were
concerned, in the ancient basilica. A flat roof was laid across four walls,
like the lid on a box. If the roof was ridged or arched the walls had to be
thickened in order to take care of the side thrust, so that in the largest
buildings, where much interior space was needed, the walls were
necessarily given a massive thickness; and this thickness in turn made it
necessary to use small windows lest the anchorage furnished by the walls
be weakened and the building collapse. In consequence of this,
Romanesque buildings were like military fortifications in their squatness,
their ponderousness, and their interior gloom. The Gothic architects
escaped from these unfortunate results by employing the pointed arch
which enabled them greatly to increase their interior heights; and they
learned how to take up the side thrusts of these arches by means of flying
buttresses, rather than by heavy pier-like walls. This removed the great
weight from the side walls and enabled the builders to substitute glass for
stone, thus destroying at once the old unpleasant gloominess. In the
course of time the system of pillars, arches and flying buttresses became
a kind of thing in itself, like the frame-work of a machine, so that the
skeleton of a building became self-sufficient, and might be said to dispense
with walls altogether. It is this frame-work, so organized as to be self-
supporting, that most distinguishes Gothic as a whole from its predecessor,
Romanesque; such features as made this feat possible - the arch, rib
vaulting, and the buttress - being secondary.
This is the point of Violet-le-Duc's famous description of Gothic, ably
summarized by C. H. Moore in these words: "A system which was a
gradual evolution out of Romanesque; and one whose distinctive
characteristic is that the whole character of the building is determined by,
and its whole strength is made to reside in, a finely organized and frankly
confessed, frame-work, rather than in walls."
Moore has himself furnished a definition yet more famous, and easily
"In fine, then, Gothic architecture may be shortly defined as a system of
construction in which vaulting on an independent system of ribs is
sustained by piers and buttresses whose equilibrium is maintained by the
opposing action of thrust and counterthrust. This system is adorned by
sculptures whose motives are drawn from organic nature, conventionalized
in obedience to architectural conditions, and governed by the appropriate
forms established by the ancient art, supplemented by colour designs on
opaque ground and more largely in glass. It is a popular church
architecture - the product of secular craftsmen working under the stimulus
of national and municipal aspiration and inspired by religious faith."
Moore finds the key to Gothic in the flying buttress. Other authorities have
other theories. Porter finds it in the rib vault; Phillips in the pointed arch,
which he makes to be the alpha and omega of the whole system; Gould
believes that stone-vaulting is paramount; while Lethaby appears to find the
quintessence of Gothic not in this one feature or in that but in the general
medieval character of it as a whole.
II - WHO INVENTED GOTHIC?
There has been a great deal of difference of opinion among the historians
of architecture as to where and when Gothic began. English writers, who
have a very natural desire to claim for their own land the glory of the
discovery of the art, date it at 1100 A.D. or earlier, and find its first
manifestations at Durham; whereas French writers almost unanimously hold
that Gothic began first of all in the region round about Paris, in what was
once called the Ile de France, and say that the Abbey Church of St. Denis,
begun in 1140, is to be regarded as the first known Gothic monument. It
appears that a majority of the more modern writers incline to agree with the
French theory. Porter dates the new style as beginning in Paris about
1163, and says that it reached its culmination in the year 1220, with the
nave of Amiens.
Goodyear, in his Roman and Medieval Art, gives a fairly accurate and quite
condensed account of the origin and growth of Gothic in a paragraph very
suitable for quotation in this connection. He say's that "the late Gothic is
known in France as the 'flamboyant'; i.e., the florid (or flaming). Otherwise
the designation of 'early,' 'middle' and 'late' Gothic are accepted. It must
be understood that there are no definite limits between these periods.
Speaking generally, the late twelfth century was the time of Gothic
beginnings in France, and it is rarely found in other countries before the
thirteenth century; the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are both periods
of great perfection, and the fifteenth century is the time of relative
decadence. Both in Germany and in England the thirteenth century was
the time of the introduction of Gothic. In Italy it was never fully or generally
accepted. Within the field of the Gothic proper (i.e., excluding Italy),
England is the country where local and national modifications are most
obvious, many showing that the style was practised more or less at second hand.
In picturesque beauty and general attractiveness the English cathedrals may be
compared with any, but preference must be given to the French in the study of
the evolution of the style." (Page 283.)
Whence did the Gothic architects derive the secret of their new art?
Theories are as numerous as they are various, and they range from the
sublime to the ridiculous. Lascelles believed that the builders had learned
their pointed arches from cross-sections of Noah's ark! Stukeley and
Warburton held that they stumbled upon their new principle while trying to
imitate the secret groves of the Druids. Ranking argued that Gothic is
Gnostic in character, and brings to bear a great mass of data. Christopher
Wren argued that it had been borrowed from the Saracens. Findel and Fort
both attribute the discovery of the art to the Germans; with this Leader
Scott agrees in her now famous Cathedral Builders, except that she seems
to hold that the Comacine Masters were the missionaries who carried it into
France and into England. Dr Milner believed Gothic to have been a
modification of Romanesque arches, a theory with which many agree. In
a contribution to Ars Quatuor Coronatorum that made much of a stir at the
time, Hayter Lewis urged that such a definite and clearly articulated
principle must have been the work of one man, and suggested Suger, the
minister of King Louis le Gros of France, which country was at that date a
little strip about Paris not much larger than Ireland. Governor Pownall
believed that Gothic was derived from timber work practices; whereas some
Scotch theorists have believed it derived from wicker work. Gilbert Scott,
a writer of great authority in his day, rejected all these particular derivations
and argued that Gothic evolved gradually, orally, and inevitably out of
conditions already existing in architecture and in society; with this Gould
agreed, as do a majority of present day writers. Gould is the whole matter
up in a sentence: "The researches of later and better informed writers,
however, have made it clear that the Gothic was no imitation or importation,
but an indigenous style, which arose gradually but almost simultaneously
in various parts of Europe." (History of Freemasonry, Vol. I, p. 255.)
III - WERE GOTHIC ARCHITECTS THE FIRST FREEMASONS?
At the time that Gothic made its appearance almost all art, including
architecture, was still under control by the monastic orders; but with the
development of the cathedrals art passed into lay control. It believed by
some that the scarcity of records concerning the builders themselves is due
to the pride of chroniclers, almost always ecclesiastic, who disdained to
mention the workmen except in the most general way. These workmen,
like almost all other craftsmen of their period, were organized into guilds.
Guilds differed among themselves very much with time and place but
through all their various changes retained well defined characteristics.
Each guild was a stationary organization which usually possessed a
monopoly of trade in its own community, the laws of which were binding
on the craftsmen. The guilds of one trade wielded no control over those
of another, but all together agreed on certain rules and practices, such as
those that appertained to apprenticeship, buying raw materials, marketing,
and all that. In some communities, the guilds became so powerful that a
few historians have confused their government with that of their city, but it
is probable that this never happened frequently, if at all.
It is believed that, owing to peculiarities in their art, the guilds that had
cathedral building in charge became differentiated from others in some very
important particulars. If this really happened it was a most natural result of
the circumstances under which the cathedral builders laboured. Theirs was
a unique calling. All other buildings were wholly unlike cathedrals, and it
was not often that cities were able to afford the luxury of one, so that there
never was a great plenty of work for them to do. Also, their craft was
peculiarly difficult, and involved the possession and learning of many
uncommon trade secrets, so that the very nature of the work differentiated
the cathedral building craftsman from other guild members. It is believed
by cautious historians that after a while the authorities, recognizing the
uniqueness of the cathedral builders' art, granted them certain privileges
and immunities, and permitted them to move about at will from place to
place, which in itself set them sharply apart from the stationary guilds, each
of which was not permitted to do work outside its own incorporated limits;
and many writers believe that because of this freedom to move about
unrestricted by the usual medieval curtailments of privilege, that these
guilds, or Masons (the word means "builders"), came at last to be called
"Freemasons." Governor Pownall wrote a page once to prove that even the
popes granted these builders special privileges, but subsequent researches
in the Vatican library never enabled him, or other researchers after him, to
unearth the papal bulls.
IV - DID GOTHIC BUILDERS COMPRISE ONE BIG FRATERNITY?
Writers of the old school used to believe, almost unanimously, that these
medieval Freemasons were bound together into one great unified fraternity
operating under single control from some center, such as London, Paris,
York, and they argued that this it "one big fraternity," with certain important
but not revolutionary changes, existed right down to our own time, and that
the Freemasonry of today is virtually that same organization that it was
then. R. F. Gould, (see note) who spoke for a whole group of first-class
English Masonic scholars as well as for himself, flatly denied this whole
theory in the most sweeping and unequivocal manner. "I have shown," he
said, on page 295 of the first volume of his History of Freemasonry, 'that
the idea of a universal body of men working with one impulse and after one
set fashion, at the instigation of a cosmopolitan body acting under a certain
direction..... is a myth." On page 262 of the same volume he remarks that
the theory of a universal brotherhood "is contradicted by the absolute
silence of all history." With this verdict, Arthur Kingsley Porter, who wrote
solely as a historian of medieval architecture, and not with any of the
problems of Freemasonry in mind, agrees, and on very much the same
Gould bases his negation almost entirely on the testimony of the buildings
themselves, and argues that whereas a writer here and there might be
mistaken the buildings cannot be, and he holds that they one and all offer
a united testimony that they were not the work of "one big fraternity" but
represent local peculiarities not to be overlooked. His examination of the
Gothic architecture of the various countries, with the purpose in view of
revealing their testimony on this important point, is one of the most
magnificent achievements in his monumental History. It is probable that
the great majority of present day historians of medieval architecture would
agree with him.
The history of the various arts and devices that made Gothic possible
seems to corroborate this position. Every fact known concerning the
evolution of Gothic proves that it came into existence gradually, and that
no organization ever possessed its secrets at any one time, and that the
arch, the flying buttress, the rib vault, and the other features so
characteristic, were learned through painful experience, and independently
of each other. Porter speaks of the flying buttress as "a new principle" and
one "that more than any other assured the triumph of the rib vault and a
principle whose discovery marks the moment when Gothic architecture first
came into existence." On page 92 of Volume II of his great work, Medieval
Architecture, a masterly production the reading of which is urged upon
every student of Freemasonry, he writes as follows: "Hence it is probable
that the advantages and possibilities of the flying buttress were not
immediately appreciated at their full value, and, while the new construction
was freely applied in cases where the threatened fall of the vault demanded
its application, edifices even of considerable dimensions still continued to
be erected without its aid." This important feature, without which Gothic
could never have come into being, was the work of gradual experiment,
and builders learned about it slowly, here a little, there a little, and in some
places they never mastered it at all: had the secret of the flying buttress
been known in advance to any one big fraternity of craftsmen, all this
painful and costly evolution would have been unnecessary.
The same thing may be said of the pointed arch which was so essential to
Gothic that it has often given its own name to the style. Porter shows that
the arch as a unit of construction was very old, and used long before the
Crusaders took Jerusalem; and that it was adopted by Gothic builders
slowly and only under compulsion; its use for ornamental purposes alone
came late, and in the beginnings of Gothic the builders clung to their use
of the old-time round arch as long as possible.
There is no need to multiply instances. Geometry, which was sometimes
used as being synonymous with the art of building itself, and more
particularly with Gothic, and which was of such obvious importance, was
never known as a merely abstract science, and came gradually to hand
after countless experiments and trials of failure and success. There is no
evidence that any body of men ever possessed it at once and in its entirety,
which is what would have been necessary to "one big fraternity" having the
enterprise of medieval building in hand. The history of Romanesque
ornamentation in Gothic structures tells a similar tale; and so also the use
of stained glass, which Porter traces to the Ile de France, and which came
into existence gradually and by slow degrees.
In short, the history of the art verifies the testimony of the buildings
themselves; all was a gradual evolution, and after the usual fashion, out of
contemporaneous conditions and from preexisting methods and customs.
When one casually glances back on medieval history from the ease of his
armchair, and looks upon it as a spectacle hanging in the air, Gothic may
appear to have come into existence almost at once, like the goddess rising
from the head of Zeus; but a more careful examination of the facts proves
that the old theory of one big fraternity bestowing on the world a whole new
art and a whole new culture to be a pleasant delusion.
One could also add to the argument the testimony of history, which is the
testimony of silence. If Gothic art was the possession of one big fraternity,
then that astonishing society must have had also in hand the building of
highways, bridges, walls, private dwellings, fortresses, miles, and it must
also have taught the people how to make their garments and to ornament
their residences because, as has already been said, Gothic art was
continuous with medieval art it society endowed with such wisdom, and
working in every center in Europe, would have been as universal as the
Catholic Church of those days, and would have left as voluminous a
record; but as the fact stands there is such a lack of records, even of the
cathedral builders, that even now, and after a century of constant research
on the ground by experts, very little is known of the cathedral builders, so
that it is necessary to feel one's way in the dark whenever one sets out to
learn something about them.
Gothic architecture was not the outcome of the labours of any one group
but of all the groups and classes that made up the twelfth, thirteenth, and
fourteenth centuries in Europe and in England. In the latter country one
need only recall the reigns of Henry II and of King John, from whom Magna
Charta was wrested to remember what a ferment everything was in, and
how vigorous was the communal life. In western Europe it was the same.
The successors to the Capets created in the Frankish territories, and with
Paris as its center, an empire comparable to old Rome itself. It was the
time when cities arose to independency, when kings became powerful
monarchs as against the divisive rule of feudal lords and barons; when the
papacy extended its power to the limits of Christendom, with the
consequence that something like unity was affected in the moral and
religious life of the peaces; and this moral and religious life became
powerful enough to send the crusaders into Palestine for the capture of
Jerusalem. "The greatest of all the marvels of the Gothic cathedral is the
age which produced it. Amid the broils of robber-barons, amid the clamour
of communes and contending factions, amid the ignorance and
superstitution of the Church, this lovely art, at once so intellectual and so
ideal, suddenly burst into flower. It seems almost like an anachronism, that
this architecture should have arisen in the turbulent Middle Ages. Yet
Gothic architecture, although in a sense so distinctly opposed to the spirit
of the times, was none the less deeply imbued with that spirit of the times,
and can be understood only when considered in relation to contemporary
political, ecclesiastical, economic, and social conditions. For the XII
century, despite its darkness, was yet a period far in advance of what had
gone before - so far that M. Luchaire does not hesitate to name it 'la
"The intellectual revolution was accompanied by an economic upheaval no
less radical. Herr Schmoller has even compared it to that which took place
in the XIX century. In the cities the workmen were freed from serfage, and
commenced to unite themselves into free corporations; and the same
process was at work in a less degree among the villeins or serfs of the
country. The economic advantages of this emancipation were incalculable.
The pilgrimages, the journeys of the French chivalry into all parts of Europe,
above all, the crusades, opened to the merchants a field of activity
undreamed of heretofore. The guilds of merchants, which ever became
more numerous and stronger; the commercial relations that were
established between Normandy and England; the redoubled prosperity of
Montpellier and Marseille; the multiplication of markets; the increasing
importance of the great fairs Champagne - all these conditions betray a
radical transformation in the material condition of the population.
Everywhere the condition of the labourer was made easier; everywhere the
cities increased their economic productions, and extended their traffic;
everywhere bridges were rebuilt and repaired; everywhere new roads were
opened. And with commerce, came wealth." (Pages 145, 147, Porter's
Medieval Architecture Vol. II)
This new life also manifested itself in theological speculation, some of
which was so audacious that men were martyred at the stake for the sake
of their opinions; in philosophy and the study of law; in polities and in art.
A new life broke forth everywhere, and out of its richness there came, as
its consummate blossom, the Gothic cathedral.
But how, it may be reasonably inquired, are we to amount for the unity of
Gothic art at a time when the world was very much divided, and
intercommunication among countries very difficult? The question is well
taken, but it can be easily answered. The unity of the craft was due to the
unity of the work done by the craft; Gothic technique imposed its own unity
upon the workmen and their activities as such things always do. Phillips
has shown that if one will lay out a chart showing the building of each
French cathedral in succession the sites will begin thickly about Paris and
then widen out in concentric curves, thus proving that the new architectural
knowledge learned at the center radiated itself out, as knowledge is apt to
We have in our midst abundant examples of such a progress. The world
is now full of steam engines of various kinds, but not for that reason do we
believe that the secret of steam has even been the private property of a
secret organization; we know that the steam engine began with Watt in
1789 and that each inventor has copied the work of his predecessor and
added improvements and modifications of his own. There are hundreds of
medical schools over this land and in other countries which use the same
technical terminology (comparable to the "secret language" of the old
cults); they employ the same types of instruments; have similar rules; and
one and all furnish their students such an education as is formally
recognized in other schools across the world. We know that this unity of
medical organization was never brought about in the beginning by "one big
fraternity"; it grew out of the nature of the technique employed; the formal
unity now possessed by national medical associations is not the cause, but
the result, of the unity imposed by the profession itself.
I believe that a similar thing happened as regards Masonic guilds in the
Middle Ages. Those bodies had a unity, but it was due to the nature of the
work, and came about inevitably. They exchanged memberships, as
medical, or law, or art societies now do, and that because the work done
was everywhere pretty much the same. They developed an ethic of their
own profession and held all guilds strictly thereto, as did the stationary
guilds, and as do local medical and similar societies, always self-governing,
in our own day. The unity which thus developed out of the nature of the
work itself gradually crystallised into constitutions and traditions; and this
unity finally, in England of the eighteenth century, and owing to profound
changes in the conditions under which the guilds, or lodges, operated,
became transformed into the formal unity that is represented by the
authority and power of Grand Lodges. From the time early in the twelfth
century when the cathedral building guilds first began to be, until
Speculative Freemasonry was born in 1717 as a formally organized society,
there was never a break in the historical continuity but there were very
important evolutionary changes. Legally and technically our present
Freemasonry began in London in 1717; historically, and in a wider view, it
began in Europe in the eleventh or twelfth centuries.
But even in those early days the builders did not begin from the beginning.
They had predecessors and ancestors upon whose shoulders they stood,
and out of whose art they evolved their own. It will be necessary to take
these into account, in order to complete the picture; this will be done in a
few chapters to follow, and as introductory to a further development of the
theme presented in this.
Note: Gould's "History of Freemasonry" was in reality the work of a group
of men and it was the original intention to have the names of all appear on
the title page. I have this information direct from one of the members of the
group. H. L. H.
What did the word Gothic originally mean? What is the definition given by
the New English Dictionary? How does Lethaby define Gothic ? Give
substance of Porter's description of Gothic. What was the principle upon
which Romanesque architecture was based ? Describe the general
principle of Gothic architecture as explained by Brother Haywood. Give
Moore's explanation in your own words. Can you name any specimen of
Gothic architecture in your own community? Can you name any Gothic
cathedrals in the United States? Why is Gothic architecture deemed
particularly appropriate for church buildings? Have you ever in your own
mind connected Gothic architecture with Freemasonry? If so, what has
been your theory of that connection?
Where and when did Gothic begin? Give in your own words a sketch of
Gothic history. What are some of the various theories of the origin of
Gothic? What has all this to do with the history of Freemasonry?
What was a Guild? Why were the Gothic buildings different from others?
What is the meaning of the word Mason? How did the word "Freemasonry"
come into existence?
What was the theory of "one great fraternity"? What is Gould's verdict
concerning this theory? In what way does the history of Gothic art tend to
disprove the "one great fraternity theory"? Give examples to show that
Gothic architecture developed gradually. Tell something about the age in
which Gothic came into existence. How do you account for the unity of the
Craft in the Middle Ages? Give some modern examples. The majority of
historians of "Freemasonry" agree that our fraternity had its rise among
Guilds of the Middle Ages: how would you state that theory in your own
words? What bearing has this theory on our interpretations and obligations
of present day Freemasonry?
Medieval Art - W.R. Lethaby.
Westminster Abbey and the King's Craftsmen - W.R. Lethaby.
Architecture - W.R. Lethaby.
Freemasonry before the Existence of Grand Lodges - Lionel Vibert.
Story of the Craft - Lionel Vibert.
Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Vol. III, p. 13; 70.
Ibid., Vol. XXXIII, p. 114.
New English Dictionary on Historical Principles.
History of Freemasonry - R.F. Gould, Vol. I, chapter 6, p.253.
Medieval Architecture - Arthur Kingsley Porter, Vol. II.
Mackey's Revised History of Freemasonry - Robert I. Clegg, p. 814.
Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry - G.F. Fort.
History of Freemasonry - J.G. Findel, p. 76, (1869 edition).
Freemason's Monthly Magazine, (Boston), Vol. XIX, p. 281.
Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masonry - Edward Conder
The Cathedral Builders - Leader Scott
The Comacines - W. Ravenscroft.
A Concise History of Freemasonry - R.F. Gould, 1920.
Roman and Medieval Art - Wm. H. Goodyear.
Development and Character of Gothic Architecture - Charles Herbert Moore.
History of Architecture - James Fergusson.
History of Architecture - Russell Sturgis.
Art and Environment - L.M. Phillips.
How to Know Architecture - Frank A. Wallis.
History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders - Hughan and Stillson, p.747.
The Builders - J.F. Newton, p. 97.
Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods - J.S, Ward, part 1, chapter 6.
Mackey's Encyclopedia - (Revised Edition): Antiquity of the Arch, p. 74; Architecture, p. 75; Basilica, p. 99; Bridge Builders of the Middle Ages, p. 117; Builder, p. 123; Cathedral of Cologne,
p. 159; Cathedral of Strasburg, p. 729; Freemasons of the Church, p. 150;
Gilds, p. 296; Giblim or Stone-squarers, p. 296; Geometry, p. 295; Gothic
Architecture, p. 304; Implements, p. 348; Operative Masonry, p. 532; Secret
Vault p 822; Sir Christopher Wren, p. 859; Stone-Masons of the Middle
Ages, p. 718; Stone of Foundation, p. 722; Stone Worship, p. 727;
Symbolism of the Temple, p. 774; Traveling Masons, p. 792.
Vol. I (1915) - Regensburg Stonemason's Regulations, pp. 171, 195;
Whence Came Freemasonry? p. 181.
Vol. II (1916) - Masonry Universal, p. 29; Steinbrenner, p. 158; Masonic
Traditions, p. 189; Joseph Findel, p. 221; A Significant Chapter in the Early
History of Freemasonry, Nov. C.C.B. 4; Operative Masonry, Dec. C.C B. 1.
Vol. III (1917) - Antiquities, p. 181; Masonic History, p. 204; The Guild and
York Rites, p. 242; Freemasonry and the Medieval Craft Guilds, pp. 342,
361; Worthy Operatives Cathedral Builders, p. 349.
Vol. IV (1918) - George Franklin Fort, p. 171; The Masonic Writings of
George Franklin Fort, p. 210.
Vol. V (1919) - Mackey's History of Freemasonry, p. 53; Legendary Origin
of Freemasonry, p. 297; Quatuor Coronate, p. 300.
Vol. VI (1920) - Speculative Masonry, p. 130; A Bird's-Eye View of Masonic
History, p. 236.
Vol. VII (1921) - Whence Came Freemasonry? p. 90; Three Good Books on
the Guild Question, p. 195; "The Evolution of Freemasonry," p. 360.
Vol. VIII (1922) - Gould's Concise History of Freemasonry, p. 23; Masonic
Legends and Traditions, p. 57; Craft Guilds and Trade Unions, p. 63;
Traveling Craftsmen, p. 102; A New Brief History of Freemasonry, p. 120;
"Freemasonry and the Ancient Rites," p. 151; Freemasonry of the Middle
Ages and International Society, p. 331.
back to top