It is not yet settled who were the actual designers or architects
of the grand old English cathedrals. Credit has been claimed
for church dignitaries, to the exclusion more or less of the master
masons, to whom presumably of right the distinction belonged.
In early days the title “architect” is not met with, unless the
term “Ingenator” had that meaning, which is doubtful. As to
this interesting question, and as to the subject of building
generally, an historical account of Master and Free Masons
(Discourses upon Architecture in England, by the Rev. James
Dallaway, 1833), and Notes on the Superintendents of English
Buildings in the Middle Ages (by Wyatt Papworth, 1887), should
be consulted. Both writers were non-masons. The former
observes: “The honour due to the original founders of these
edifices is almost invariably transferred to the ecclesiastics
under whose patronage they rose, rather than to the skill and
design of the master mason, or professional architect, because the
only historians were monks.... They were probably not so
well versed in geometrical science as the master masons, for
mathematics formed a part of monastic learning in a very limited
degree.” In the Journal of Proceedings R.I.B.A. vol. iv. (1887),
a skilful critic (W. H. White) declares that Papworth, in that valuable
collection of facts, has contrived to annihilate all the professional
idols of the century, setting up in their place nothing
except the master mason. The brotherhood of Bridge-builders,[1]
that travelled far and wide to build bridges, and the travelling
bodies of Freemasons,[2] he believes never existed; nor was
William of Wykeham the designer of the colleges attributed to
him. It seems well-nigh impossible to disprove the statements
made by Papworth, because they are all so well grounded on
attested facts; and the attempt to connect the Abbey of Cluny,
or men trained at Cluny, with the original or preliminary designs
of the great buildings erected during the middle ages, at least
during the 12th and 13th centuries, is also a failure. The whole
question is ably and fully treated in the History of Freemasonry
by Robert Freke Gould (1886–1887), particularly in chapter vi.
on “Medieval Operative Masonry,” and in his Concise History
(1903).
The lodge is often met with, either as the tabulatum domicialem (1200, at St Alban’s Abbey) or actually so named in the Fabric Rolls of York Minster (1370), ye loge being situated close to the fane in course of erection; it was used as a place in which the stones were prepared in private for the structure, as well as occupied at meal-time, &c. Each mason was required to “swere upon ye boke yt he sall trewly ande bysyli at his power hold and kepe holy all ye poyntes of yis forsayde ordinance” (Ordinacio Cementanorum).
As to the term free-mason, from the 14th century, it is held by some authorities that it described simply those men who worked “freestone,” but there is abundant evidence to prove that, whatever may have been intended at first, free-mason soon had a much wider signification, the prefix free being also employed by carpenters (1666), sewers (15th century, tailors at Exeter) and others, presumably to indicate they were free to follow their trades in certain localities. On this point Mr Gould well observes: “The class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington (1646), Staffordshire (1686), Chester, York, London and their congeners in the 17th century derived the descriptive title, which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men, and masons of Gilds or Companies” (History, vol. ii. p. 160). Dr Brentano may also be cited: “Wherever the Craft Guilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft, and sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city” (Development of Guilds, &c., p. 65). In like manner, the privilege of working as a mason was not conferred before candidates had been “made free.” The regular free-masons would not work with men, even if they had a knowledge of their trade, “if unfree,” but styled them “Cowans,” a course justified by the king’s “Maister of Work,” William Schaw, whose Statutis and Ordinanceis (28th December 1598) required that “Na maister or fellow of craft ressaue any cowanis to wirk in his societie or companye, nor send nane of his servants to wirk wt. cowanis, under the pane of twentie pounds.” Gradually, however, the rule was relaxed, in time such monopoly practically ceased, and the word “cowan” is only known in connexion with speculative Freemasonry. Sir Walter Scott, as a member of Lodge St David (No. 36), was familiar with the word and used it in Rob Roy. In 1707 a cowan was described in the minutes of Mother Lodge Kilwinning, as a mason “without the word,” thus one who was not a free mason (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh No. 1, by D. Murray Lyon, 1900).
In the New English Dictionary (Oxford, vol. iv., 1897) under “Freemason” it is noted that three views have been propounded:—(1) “The suggestion that free-mason stands for free-stone-mason would appear unworthy of attention, but for the curious fact that the earliest known instances of any similar appellation are mestre mason de franche peer (Act 25 Edw. III., 1350), and sculptores lapidum liberorum, alleged to occur in a document of 1217; the coincidence, however, seems to be merely accidental. (2) The view most generally held is that freemasons were those who were free of the masons’ guild. Against this explanation many forcible objections have been brought by Mr G. W. Speth, who suggests (3) that the itinerant masons were called free because they claimed exemption from the control of the local guilds of the towns in which they temporarily settled. (4) Perhaps the best hypothesis is that the term refers to the medieval practice of emancipating skilled artisans, in order that they might be able to travel and render their services wherever any great building was in process of construction.” The late secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (No. 2076, London) has thus had his view sanctioned by “the highest tribunal in the Republic of Letters so far as Philology is concerned” (Dr W. J. Chetwode Crawley in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 1898). Still it cannot be denied that members of lodges in the 16th and following centuries exercised the privilege of making free masons and denied the freedom of working to cowans (also called un-freemen) who had not been so made free; “the Masownys of the luge” being the only ones recognized as freemasons. As to the prefix being derived from the word frere, a sufficient answer is the fact that frequent reference is made to “Brother freemasons,” so that no ground for that supposition exists (cf. articles by Mr Gould in the Freemason for September 1898 on “Free and Freemasonry”).
There are numerous indications of masonic activity in the British lodges of the 17th century, especially in Scotland; the existing records, however, of the southern part of the United Kingdom, though few, are of importance, some only having been made known in recent years. These concern the Masons’ Company of London, whose valuable minutes and other documents are ably described and commented upon by Edward Conder, jr., in his Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons (1894), the author then being the Master of that ancient company. It was incorporated in 1677 by Charles II., who graciously met the wishes of the members, but as a company the information “that is to be found in the Corporation Records at Guildhall proves very clearly that in 1376 the Masons’ Company existed and was represented in the court of common council.” The title then favoured was “Masons,” the entry of the term “Freemasons” being crossed out. Herbert erroneously overlooked the correction, and stated in his History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies (vol. i.) that the Freemasons returned two, and the Masons four members, but subsequently amalgamated; whereas the revised entry was for the “Masons” only. The Company obtained a grant of arms in 1472 (12th year Hen. VIII.), one of the first of the kind, being thus described:—“A feld of Sablys A Cheveron silver grailed thre Castellis of the same garnysshed wt. dores and wyndows of the feld in the Cheveron or Cumpas of Black of Blak”; it is the authority (if any) for all later armorial bearings having a chevron and castles, assumed by other masonic
- ↑ It is not considered necessary to refer at length to the Fratres Pontis, or other imaginary bodies of freemasons, as such questions may well be left to the curious and interested student.
- ↑ “No distinct trace of the general employment of large migratory bands of masons, going from place to place as a guild, or company, or brotherhood” (Prof. T. Hayter-Lewis, Brit. Arch. Assoc., 1889).
