En: The Stonemasons of Germany

The Stonemasons of Germany

Source: Robert Freke Gould

CHAPTEE III. THE STOxXEMASONS (STEINMETZEN) OF GERMANY.

T"^IIE ceaseless progress of the building art, throughout the strife and turmoil of the Middle Ages, is a remarkable phenomenon which at once arrests our attention, and challenges our research. Prince and Bishop, Kaiser and Free City, wage their eternal feuds; nations rise, fall, amalgamate, or dissolve. All Europe is in a ferment; and yet throughout the greater part of it the mason quietly and unceasingly plies his trade. By the margin of the peaceful lake, in the gloom of the primeval forest, arise the monastery and the convent; on the summit of each lofty crag is reared the castle of the feudal chief- tain; by the rushing tide of every noble stream and on the primitive highways of com- merce spring into existence countless walled cities; and within their safe enclosure, with never-tiring perseverance, the busy masons pile stone on stone, till the majestic tower or graceful steeple of the cathedral almost scales the skies. A bare list of the monuments of architecture erected from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries would cover many pages; and in no country is this movement more emphatically marked than throughout the length and breadth of Germany. Scarcely had the Teutonic hordes obtained the mastery over the fast decaying Eoman Empire, and the wandering tribes become somewhat fixed in their newly acquired territories, than the work began. Devout men from the British Isles, chiefly from Ireland, crossed over to the mainland, and penetrating into the depths of the German forests, carried the pure doctrines of primitive Christianity to the German tribes. Wherever they came, they raised churches and dwellings for their priests, cleared the forests, tilled the virgin soil, and instructed the heathen in the first principles of civiliza- tion. Fallou ' gives a long list of convents and churches erected by these and other holy men from the sixth to the ninth centuries. Then came Charlemagne and taught the Ger- man tribes to build cities and palaces (Aix-la-Chapelle, Ingelsheim). Each city soon became the seat of a Roman Bishop; hence arose the cathedrals; and in many other cases the bishop's seat gave rise to the town. Later on the cities prospered and grew rich, and the necessity for sumptuous town halls arose, and thus by degrees the face of the land became dotted with those monuments of architectural skill, the very ruins of which testify to the cunning of the builders.

And who were these builders ? What manner of men were they? Whence came they? They were the Steinmetzen. They were a class of simple workmen, bound together by strong ties of brotherhood, but containing in their midst master builders whose minds were stored with all the mathematical knowledge of those days, and who contentedly worked for a lifetime at au edifice, satisfied to know that althougli they might never see its completion, their successors would carry on the work to a glorious conclusion, and raise one more temple to the worship of the Most High.

Before proceeding to inquire into their origin, it may be as well to form a clear idea of the significance of their name. Stein undoubtedly means stone; and it has very generally been assumed that metzen is derived from the same Teutonic root as Messer, a knife, and Meitzel, a chisel; hence Steinbrenner, p. 46, calls them, and Fort constantly refers to them as stonecutters. ' The probable root of the word is, however, messen, to measure; hence the literal English translation would be stone-measurers — identical in all points with our own term stonemason. As to their origin, this is a question which will always be most difficult to satisfactorily determine. The German writers are many who have written of the craft guilds of the Middle Ages, and have therefore necsssarily touched on the German stonemasons; but they have been content with describing them as revealed by their own and contemporary^ documents, without instituting any inquiry into their origin. They take up their history when they were already in the high tide of their prosperity, and therefore afford us little information to the point. The writers on architecture and art incidentally mention them, but always in the same manner, and have mainly derived the few particulars with which they favor us from the preceding class. Early Masonic writers have merely compared their institutions with those of the English Freemasons (Vogel, Krause, Kloss, Heldmann, etc.), and the first of this class to attempt to unravel their early history is Fallou, in his " Mysterien der Freimaurer" (1848).^ In many points this author is untrustworthy, as he has sacrificed every other consideration to his grand aim of proving that our present system of Freemasonry is directly attributable to the German stonemasons. In hardly any one case of importance is his testimony strengthened by a reference to an authority, and many of his statements are, to say the least, so staxtling, that without such reference they must be very charily used. Winzer ^ has walked in his footsteps with even greater hardihood of assertion; and Findel, Steinbrenner, and Fort, have more or less placidly followed their lead without any attempt at verification. Never- theless, to Fallou must be assigned the credit of having first shown where the Steinmefzen probably originated, and in- what m.anncr they developed, although some of his deductions are undoubtedly wrong.

That the first seeds of architecture in Germany were planted by the Christian mission- aries is indisputable. We need not assume that the German tribes in their wanderings had purposely destroyed every sign of Roman civilization, including their massive stone edifices. They would hardly have taken the trouble to pull down Roman masonry, but j)robably what the fire had spared, the hand of neglect and time finally ruined; and the tribes being a distinctively warlike race, not given to the arts of peace, it is very doubtful whether in the sixth century even the dwellings of their chiefs were more than rude huts, decorated with the spoils of combat. But the first missionaries, whether British or Roman, were acquainted with the rudiments of architecture; they had examples in their own countries to guide them; and were accustomed to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. On establishing a mission in a German forest, we may be sure that their first care after con- verting a few heathen, was to establish some kind of a church, however humble.

This would be, in the first instance, a mere log hut, composed of the trees of the surrounding forest. The ground thus cleared was afterward tilled and cultivated; the natives were taught to assist in the labor; a storehouse became- necessary for the produce of the soil, and so another log hut was erected; perhaps afterward a shelter for the monks and their converts; more natives were attracted to the spot, and the desire arose to enlarge the church. This time, perhaps, it was placed on stone foundations, and the first principles of the mason's art were acquired. In process of time the wooden structure fell a prey to the flames, and the inhabitants ^vould consequently undertake the task of erecting a stone edifice; rude no doubt, but still requiring a further advance in the art of stone-working. By the repetition of this process in many isolated spots, we can easily understand how the workmen gradually advanced in technical skill, and that little by little the first missions became convents and monasteries of no slight pretensions. The larger and more famous the convent grew, the more necessary would it be to keep constantly at hand a body of experienced masons, as it is scarcely jjrobable that the monks themselves would suffice for the work. We may therefore conclude, that although at first monk and layman turned their hands indiscriminately to any toil that came uppermost, either building or agriculture, yet in course of time those who showed themselves most expert at any particular work devoted themselves exclusively thereto, and that a class of builders by profession arose amongst the laity in the neighborhood of the monastery, the direction of whom was probably entrusted to some more than usually skilful monk. For those in the south of Germany means were at hand in Northern Italy to improve their art by communication wdth the artists there resident. Their cousins the Longobards, a tribe first mentioned in history as living to the east of the Elbe adjoining the coasts of the Baltic, had overrun Italy and established themselves there as early as a.d. 568, and in course of time advanced to a comparatively high state of civilization. We need not inquire with Fort, whether after a.d. G92 the Byzantine artists took refuge in Lombardy; nor is it even necessary to admit that the Longobards were masters of an advanced style of architecture. The anciej;t monuments in Italy were quite sufficient to furnish models for the German monks on their travels; so that we are not thrown upon the necessity of supposing that these Byzantine artists migrated to Germany to teach the builders their art. But if they did join the German convent builders, which is quite possible, we have no warrant whatever for con- cluding that on their arrival in Southern Europe they were "quickly" affiliated with the corporations of builders, as stated by Fort, ' for it is scarcely conceivable that at that time the peasants Avho helped the German monks were already incorporated. The competition of trade, the oppression of the feudal lords, were yet in the future; and as the trades had therefore no necessity for incorporation it is highly improbable that it existed.

Dr. Jos. Schauberg "^ maintains that the monks directing these operations owed much of their success to the remnants of the Roman colleges, which were never thoroughly sup- pressed in Gaul, and, passing through Britain and Scandinavia,'* ultimately laid the foun- dations of the craft guild system in Germany. But I am quite unable to agree with him, for the simple reason that at the time of these early convent builders we have no sign of tlie least approach to a craft guild in Germany; nor indeed can we imagine such an insti- tution until the cities had made considerable progress toward opulence. Whatever connection may possibly be traceable between the Roman colleges and the formation of craft guilds can have had no influence on the earliest builders in the forests and by the streams of Germany. Their gradual perfection in the art of masonry must be considered as self- evolved, and the result of constant practice, and endeavors to excel. Or if it be absolutely necessary to presuppose a higher knowledge of art and architecture in their leaders, we need go no further than the British monks. Britain at that time, although distracted by war, and invasions innumerable, was by no means destitute of architectural productions. It would be difficult to decide Avhat pretensions to art the celebrated monasteries of the Culdees in Mona, lona, and Bangor possessed; but we have Anglo-Saxon churches still in existence, or at least parts of them — such as Tickencote, near Stamford, in Lincolnshire; part of St. Peter's, at Oxford; part of St. Alban's Abbey; the southern porch at Shireburn Minster; the towers of Earl's Barton church, Northamptonshire; and of Sompting, in Sussex; and numerous others.' Our earliest cathedrals were also begun in the seventh centurv, although in many cases no part of the original structure now remains; for instance, Can- terbury a. d. 600, Eochester C02, St. Paul's 601, AVestminster 605. The influx of British monks, both papal and non-papal, continued until a very late period; and we are told that ho, the most learned Englishman of the ninth century, lived in the convent at St. Gall.* St. Columbanns, who in a.d. 602 crossed over to Burgundy and Germany, and founded several convents,' either by himself or by his disciples, Avas renowned throughout Europe as the most accomplished man of his time; and St. Boniface in the reign of King Pepin built a monastery at Fulda." Indeed Heideloff, a Gennan architect, writing in 1844, does not scruple to declare, " during the time of the Anglo-Saxons building operations continued, and the monuments of architecture in England are the finest examples of the state of building during those ages. They also introduced the science into Germany, as the greater number of the German apostles were British and understood building, erecting everywhere convents. " ^ Nor is it to be supposed that the Eomish missionaries of a some- what later date were less skilled in architecture ; on the contrary, the Benedictines wherever they appeared were noted for the magnificence of their monasteries; and many of the later British missionaries to Germany were of the order of St. Benedict. Fallou ascribes the whole origin of the stonemasons as they subsequently existed to the Benedictine Monks, and chiefly to their abbot Wilhelm of Hirschau. The first intimation of the importance of this Abbot Wilhelm I find in Heideloff's often quoted work, page 6, where he says, " It was Abbot William who introduced the institution of lay brothers into Germany," and on the same page he says, " lie Avas formerly at the head of the lodge {BauliiUte) of St. Emmeran at Regeiisburg " (Ratisbon).

Fallou " asserts that in the eleventh century the monks in Germany first copied their brethren in Gaul by instituting lay brotherhoods attached to the convent, and that the Abbot Marquardt of Corvey made use of this institution to procure builders for his new convent. Schauberg, however, refers to Springer ( De Artificibus Monachis," Bonn, 1861) as proving that throughout the Middle Ages the chief artificers were laymen — not lay brothers of che convent^ — and that even at Corvey the great majority of the artists were laymen. ' I can, indeed, see no proof that these lay brotherhoods were builders; on the contrar}', they more probably consisted of nobles, knights, and rich burghers, as is clearly pointed out by a further assertion of Fallou's, on the same page, that in the year 1140 the Cistercians of Walkenried (in Brunswick, at the foot of the Hartz Mountains, on the Wieda) instituted such a fraternity, and boasted that they could travel thence to Rome, and dine each day with one lay brother, and sup and sleep with another. This most cer- tainly discloses the nature of these fraternities, and it is impossible to connect them in any way with the building craft: they were not lay brothers in the ordinary sense, and evidently did not reside in the convent. On page 198, however, he is inclined to attribute the insti- tution of a lay brotherhood to a still earlier date — say a.d. 1080 — when William, Count Pala- tine of Scheuren, was elected Abbot of Hirschau (on the Nagold, in the Black Forest, Wur- temberg), and of whom it was reported that he was so famous that crowds flocked to his convent, praying for admission. These petitioners were all admitted as lay brothers, and speedily taught the various manipulations of masonry, etc. ; so that in 1082 he was enabled to undertake the reconstruction of the monastery. At that time no fevver than three hundred monks and laymen dwelt in the convent under his orders. He instituted a rule for them, partitioned out their hours of labor, rest, worship, and refreshment, inculcated above all things brotherly love, and enjoined strict silence at work, unless desirous of com- municating with the master. His school of art rapidly acquired such extended fame that he was overwhelmed by entreaties from all parts of Europe to furnish architects and artists for building operations. Nevertheless, in spite of his best workmen being constantly drafted off elsewhere^ he was enabled to see his convent completed before his death, a. d. 1091.

Thus far Fallou. As he unfortunately omits to quote his authorities, we can only assume that he has drawn his facts from some monkish chronicle. That Abbot Wilhelm was a great man in his day is indisputable. St. Anselm, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, visited him in 1084; ^ and the ruins of his splendid monastery are still in evidence. But the above account scarcely justifies the deduction that he was the originator of the craft of stonemasons. It is perfectly evident — (1.) That the lapse of time was totally insufficient to create a large class of skilled artificers; and (2.) We have no k'ace here of divisions into grades, such as apprentice, fellow, and master. As regards the first point. In 1080 he succeeded to his post, and in 1082 he was enabled to commence reconstruct] 071. It is therefore evident that many of the laymen who are reported to have joined him were already skilled masons (two years being wholly insufficient for the instruction of such a large body of men) ; nor would the ensuing nine years have sufficed to raise such a superstruc- ture by means of only half-trained workmen. In fact, a passage further on in Fallou ' distinctly states that according to the chronicle of Walkenried, Abbot Henry III. admitted into his convent "21 skilled laymen, chiefly stonemasons " as lay brothers. It is important to distinguish between a laym«7i and a lay brother — that is, between a citizen of the world and a semi-member of the Church. Fallou would almost seem to have purposely con- founded them. I have shown that a large amount of skill must have been already acquired under the monks during the preceding five centuries; and shall show further on, that by this time (eleventh century) many experienced workmen must have been resident in the fast-growing cities. As to any organization of the workmen, the idea is untenable. If any such existed, it was doubtless amongst the free artisans of the town, who may have entered into the pay of the monks; but the lay brothers in all cases became the servants of the convent, dependent on them for food, lodging, and raiment; and the necessity for a term of apprenticeship is entirely absent. The title of magister, or master, was doubtless in use, and may have denoted the monk directing the operations. The distinctive feature of ap- prenticeship, is the obligation to serve a certain master for a fixed time at a reduced rate of payment or even gratis, as the case may be. But a lay brother of a monastery would be under the same rule as the monk himself — allowed to possess no private property — and hence could receive no pay beyond his sustenance; so that if grades of workmen existed at the building of these monasteries, they were either craft masons in the pay of the abbot, or something totally dissimilar to any association subsequently known to us. Speaking of Fallon's assertions as above, Winzer ' says: " But these fraternities cannot interest us, being organizations of serfs;" and probably he is right — the workmen, or laborers, with the exception of a certain proportion of craft masons, being most likely the serfs, vassals, and villeins of the convent. Fort,^ however, distinctly maintains that the Freemasons at a very early age appropriated the several degrees then existing in the monasteries. On page 46 we find his reasons for this statement, which are wholly unsatisfactory: " Lacroix asserts, in a chronicle of the time of Dagobert (a.d. 628-9) that Saint Eloi reorganized the jewellers, whom he selected from different monasteries, into a society comprising three degrees of laborers— masters, fellows, and apprentices." We have no proof that these monks were clerics; in the early ages monks could enter or leave a monastery as they chose; vows of chastity, etc., were unknown; in fact the life of a monk was a purely voluntary one; and in the quotation we are told that they left their different monasteries, and Avere organized into a society. Lacroix himself says: " Already was the jeweller's trade organ- ized into a corps d'etat, ^^ ^ i.e., a trade association, — which is far from proving Fort's asser- tion; and, indeed, more naturally suggests the usual features of an ordinary craft guild.

It should be added, that Fallou had previously maintained the same theory, and even went further, in endeavoring to show that the ceremonies of the Steinmetzen were an adajDtation of those used at the reception of a Benedictine novice, thereby implying that Freemasonry, as (according to this author) we now have it, was directly due to the inspira- tion or influence of the Abbot Wilhelm. Unfortunately for this theory, the Benedict ine ceremonies, relied upon by Fallou, appear to have had no existence outside the pages of his work, and, indeed, his statements on this head are positively contradicted b}' more than one writer of authority."

• ^ We thus see that from the sixth (perhaps fifth) century onward up to the twelfth, when

most of the monasteries were completed, they afforded the means of acquiring skill in the manipulation of building materials, and may thus be looked upon in Germany as the earliest school of masonry and the cradle of architecture, furnishing large numbers of cunning artificers and experienced master builders, but not contributing in any way toward the organization of the stonemasons. For the origin of this sodality we must look to the trade guilds; which, beginning in the towns as early as the tenth century, or even earIier, had meanwhile been acquiring increasing importance and extent; until, in the twelfth, we find them fully developed throughout Germany. A very short sketch of the rise of the craft guilds will be sufficient for our purpose. When the German tribes first appear on the pages of history, we find them consisting of perfectly free and independent members only; subject in matters of external policy and war to a chief of their own election, who is described generally as their king, but whose office was not hereditary — those cases in which the dignity descended from father to son, arising solely from the superiority of the son to the other members of the tribe. Even the great Attila's kingdom fell to pieces on his death. The great bond of society was the patriarchal; every member of a family owed allegiance and support to its head, and assistance to every other member of the family. In course of time as the families grew larger and extended over a wider territory, their bond of union was loosened, and voluntary associations of neighbors, having a community of in- terests, took its place. When Charlemagne established his supremacy in the ninth century he introduced the feudal system, and from this time we find German society divided into feudal lords — feudal retainers — smaller freeholders and serfs. About this time, also, cities first began to arise, probably from various causes. In some cases fortified places were necessary for protection against the still savage and predatory tribes of the North, or of Hungary. Charlemagne was himself the founder of a city, by establishing a court there, as at Aix-la-Chapelle. In others, the increasing population round a bishop's seat frequently developed into a town.

In the earlier ages every man manufactured for his own use what he required. As civilization progressed it is probable that a system of mutual exchange arose. Later on still, the freemen scorned any and every occupation but that of the chase or the combat, whilst the richer classes caused their dependants and serfs to provide all their requirements; but still we have no sign of any one prosecuting manual labor on his own account and for a remuneration in coin. Not until the cities had attained a certain development could this take place. The original inhabitants of the towns consisted of three classes — the Bishop, Burgrave, or other Lord paramount; the small freeholders of the neighborhood, some perhaps absolutely free, others free but feudatories of the lord; and the lord's serfs and villeins, also possibly some villeins of the smaller freeholders. Some of these freeholders we may imagine to have dissipated their patrimony, which was acquired by the others; and in many cases the family would so increase that the original possession could no longer supply their wants. Hence would arise two classes of freemen, some rich, some poor. To secure themselves against the ever-increasing power of the bishops, association became necessary, and we see the old guilds for mutual protection and support taking a new form, and appearing as Burgher Guilds; and ultimately wresting one privilege after another from the bishop until the entire government of the city remains in their hands. The original qualification for membership was, no doubt, territorial possession.' Many of the members may have carried on trade; some of the poorer, perhaps, were handicraftsmen.^ Mean- while, the unf ree or bond population would continually increase, both by natural propagation, by refugees from neighboring tyrants, claiming the protection of the Church, and by grants of serfs from feudal chieftains to the bishops.^ Those serfs who exercised handi- crafts would then obtain permission to devote their surplus time to their own profit, and obtain a shadow of independence. Freemen also would be attracted to the growing towns from one cause or another, and devote themselves to trades and crafts.

Not the least amongst the causes which governed the rapid increase in the populations of the towns, may have been the fact that a serf or bondsman taking refuge in a town, and remaining unclaimed for a year and a day, became a /ree-man. This custom became ac- knowledged law in the course of the twelfth century,' and may have been copied from England, where this law was ordained in the eleventh century by William the Conqueror.' These, however, were not admissible to the burgher guilds, not being possessed of the ter- ritorial qualification. They would naturally band themselves into trade guilds for mutual defence. Following their example, the serfs would obtain from \ heir lord the permission to form guilds for the regulation of their trades. If one trade were not numerous enough several would form one guild. In course of time they would wrest or purchase one privi- lege after another from their superior, until at last they were wholly beyond his authority, and then would be acknowledged by the other free guilds as one of themselves. As labor became more and more subdivided, the number of different guilds in a town would increase. Examples are numerous of all these facts. For instance, on the 14th November 1260, Bishop Berchtold of Bale, in a document under his hand, recites, " Inasmuch as almost every class of men in this our town who carry on a mechanical pursuit, by our grace and by that of our predecessors do possess brotherhoods, commonly called guilds, the tailors alone excepted," — and ho then permits the tailors to enjoy equal privileges, including that of choosing their own master, and grants them a constitution, defining their right and duties, and fixing the amount of fines for offences.^

This not only proves that other guilds previously existed which had been formed of tlie grace of the bishop," showing that they were, therefore, not freemen (who required no such permission), but also that the tailors at once gained a large amount of freedom, inas- much as they were allowed to elect their own officers. This was not always the case; for in a charter to the butchers of Bale, 4th June 1248, Bishop Lutold II., he reserves to himself the right of appointing a master.^

And, again, the same restriction occurs in the grant to the guild of Sjjinnewetters. This is an instaiice, also, of several small crafts uniting to form one guild. This guild comprehended the masons, plasterers, carpenters, coopers, and cartmakers. ^ It is, there- fore, evident that serfs or bondsmen could and did form craft guilds, ° and it is not con- sistent with truth when German masonic writers claim that none but the freeborn could join a guild of any sort, and more especially the stonemasons. That later on, such a rule ex- isted and was rigidly enforced will presently appear, as well as many other restrictions; but it did not primarily exist, as the above instance of the Sjjinnewetters, which included the building trades, is alone sufficient to substantiate.

The above charter to the butcher, a. d. 1248, is the eleventh charter in Bale, showing that ten others already existed, ' When the earliest craft guild in Germany was formed is of course difficult to ascertain; but there were others nearly two centuries earlier, of which we have certain information. The earliest of these charters (in Germany) is that of the twenty-three fishers in Worms, sanctioned by Bisliop Adelbert 1106.' And we hear of another to the clothmakers of Quedlimbnrg by King Lothair 1134/^ b^it it is highly probable that many guilds existed de facto before they considered it necessary to obtaiii a legal sanction to their constitution; and that this was only sought for when they desired to impose their rules and regulations upon recalcitrant members or new-comers, and there- fore required a valid authority for their proceedings. But although these appear to be the earliest charters that have come down to us, we have evidence much earlier of the existence of these guilds, or at least of a particular trade acting in unison, whence we may infer that a guild existed. For instance, the weavers are mentioned in Mayence as early as 1099, and it is then stated that the Church of St. Stephen had been built chiefly by their sub- scriptions. ^ Of the standing of the Avool-weavers in Worms a document of Henry V. , a. d. 1114, bears witness;^ and the charter of the Cologne weavers, confirmed in 1149, speaks of their having existed for a long time. ^ Berlepsch thinks that we may take the thirteenth century as the period when the movement of creating craft guilds had fully developed throughout Germany; " and Bretano,' basing himself upon Arnold, says — "The time of the origin of the craft guilds in general may be said to extend from the beginning of the eleventh to the middle of the thirteenth century." That already in the beginning of the thirteenth century the crafts had obtained great power and extension, may be deduced from the fact that, at the Diet of Worms 1231, so many complaints were made, chiefly by the bishops, against the trade guilds of the towns and their masters, that King Henry found himself under the necessity of totally dissolving all guilds, without any exception, then existing in the German cities; and this decree was confirmed by the Emperor Frederick 11. in April 1232. The principal passage of this decree runs, — " And equally do we dissolve and declare suppressed all and every craft, brotherhood, or guild, whatsoever name it may bear."'

The guilds were, however, far too strong to be thus summarily suppressed, and the decree never had any success, although again confirmed by the Emperor Rudolf of Habs- burg in 1275. Shortly afterward he reinstated all guilds in their former privileges.'

We thus find in the German towns of the Middle Ages, two distinct classes. First, the original freeholders, in whom resided the whole government of the town, represented by the burghers' guild. This guild underwent various denominations in the different cities: it was called the old guild, the high guild, the guild, the patrician guild, etc. In some cases, where it monopolized the chief trade (not craft), it was otherwise styled — for instance, the weavers' guild. But under whatever denomination, it had grown exclusive; it no longer admitted all free burghers, not even, if they possessed the territorial qualification; demanding, in all cases, that the claimant to the honor should have forsworn his craft for a year and a day; and that none " with dirty hands," or "with blue nails," or who " hawked his wares in the street," should be admitted.'" Thus a distinct class had been formed — the patrician class, the rights and emoluments of which were hereditary, and acquired with great difficulty by strangers; and whose members reserved to those among themselves who were not thoroughly independent of all labor, the most lucrative and considerable trades, such as the goldsmiths, the bankers, the general merchants, etc. They had also grown proud, domineering, and aggressive; so that no sooner did the second class, the craft guilds, feel themselves strong on their legs, than in one city after another bloody feuds ensued; the final result of which was the dethronement of the patricians from their supremacy, and in some cases the breaking-up of the high guild.

Generally, however, the conquerors, with rare magnanimity, still allowed the patrician guild to contribute its delegates to the municipal council, and in some cases even granted them a casting vote in consideration of their past services. \ Brentano ^ fixes the time of the final victory of the craft guilds as toward the end of the fourteenth century, although in some cities the consummation had been arrived at much earlier.

The craft guilds having thus acquired a high position, we now find another movement initiated by the masters — who in their turn became proud — viz. , that of gradually exclud- ing the workmen from their meetings. This took place in all guilds, the stonemasons only excepted, as will presently appear; and even with it, the same evolution must have occurred, only much later — probably not till the end of the seventeenth century. The workmen (journeymen) therefore formed guilds or fraternities of their own; in some cases electing officers of their own body; in others, from amongst the masters. The literature treating of these societies is extensive, and in many cases their customs and usages may enable us to form some idea of the customs of the stonemasons, who were a craft guild resembling in many things the other craft guilds, and in some matters, wherever the exi- gencies of their trade required it, differing from all. This fraternity of builders, whose first authentic charter is the one already quoted of the thirteenth century, had doubtless been in existence much earlier, as a contract has been preserved to us made in 1133 between the Bishop of Wurzburg, Embricho, and the lay master mason Enzelin;' and to them must we look for the organization of the society, which, as I have shown, was not to be found amongst the convent builders. It is probable that in the twelfth century or there- abouts, the skilled masons of the convent builders left the employ of their masters, the monks, now grown opulent, fat, lazy, and vicious, and unable to provide them with further work, and amalgamated with the craft builders in the towns, and that the two together formed the society afterward known throughout Germany as the Steinmetzen. Many other causes may also have contributed to this end — such as the munificence of the prince bishops, desirous of surpassing in their cathedrals the sumptuous edifices of the abbots and priors; also the increasing importance and wealth of the towns, rendering work more certain and pay more liberal; the feasibility, in such places, of the workman becoming an inde- pendent master, and acquiring a competence; and possibly the disgust felt by the indus- trious workman at the vices of the degenerate monks, although I am inclined to think that undue stress has been laid on this reason by German authors.

All German writers place the exodus from the convents at about this date, but they generally ascribe the trade organization also to the convent builders, and therefore are able to dispense with any previously existing stonemasons' guilds, quietly ignoring them altogether. Passing this by, in the twelfth century we certainly do hear of the stone- masons as a distinct fraternity, occupied in the construction of large edifices, chiefly cathedrals and churches; and they must have had their origin cither in the convents or the cities, and as I have attempted to show, probably in both simultaneously. And precisely as we find all trades inclined to subdivide themselves, so did the iSphme- wetter, who at first included all the building trades, resolve themselves into component parts; but the particular branch of this union, denominated masons, further divided itself into other ramifications; and we find these subdivisions taking the names of Steinmetzen (stonemasons), Steinliauer (stonehewers), and Maurer (masons, rough masons, bricklayers, etc.). It is with the first of these, the stonemasons, that we have principally to deal, and whose subsequent history, as elucidated by their documents, it will next be our business to investigate.

All documents anterior to a.d. 1459 relating to the Stonemasons of Germany, which have hitherto been made known, throw very little light upon the subject, being either charters similar to the one previously quoted, or contracts for quarrying stone,' erecting buildings, etc. We have also one of 1257, being the grant of a plot of building land by the dean and chapter of Cologne Cathedral to the Master Steinmetz Gerard, for the erection of a dwelling-house for himself . '^ But none of these are capable of disclosing the inner life and organization of the fraternity. Heldmann, however, anxious to trace a code of Steinmetz laws of which he had heard, and which is still religiously preserved under triple lock at Strassburg, ^ made fruitless endeavors to inspect it in 1817, but was fortunate enough later on to find a true copy in the possession of Herr Osterrieth, which he first published to the world in 1819,' in the original old German dialect. These laws or ordi- nances are commonly distinguished as the " Constitutions " (or code) of 1459. Having been so frequently reprinted, it will be unnecessary to include them with the series of ordinances which illustrate this chapter — those of 15G3 and 14C2 — as the interested reader can readily refer to them in one of the several publications below noted. ° In the introduction we are informed, that for the greater advantage of their employers, as also of their own members, and to avoid disputes, the ma-sters and fellows had held meetings (literally chapters, in German Xapitteh-weise) at Speyer, Strassburg, and Eatisbon (Regensburg), and had agreed and sworn to, the following rules and regulations. These ordinances conclude by stating, that at Eatisbon in the year of our Lord 1459, on the festival of St. Mark, Jost Dotzinger of Worms, Master of the buildings at Strassburg Cathedral (and his successors for ever), was acknowledged as chief judge (oberster Rychter) of the fraternity; which regulation had been previously made at Speyer and Strassburg, and was once more confirmed at Speyer in the year 1464, on the 9th April. The very next paragraph, however, somewhat places the whole matter once more in confusion, as it states that at Eatisbon in 1459, and at Speyer in 14G3, the workmasters of Strassburg, Cologne, and Vienna were acknowledged as being chief judges — " These three are the highest judges and lodges of the craft; these shall not be displaced without just cause." Apart from the confusion thus created, it is therefore evident that Heldmann's cojDy is not a transcript of the 1459 code, but of one whose earliest date is 1464; but the fact remains that a set of laws was drawn up in 1459, and was doubtless identical with the present; and we have Osterrieth's affidavit" that it is a true copy of the MS. wliich he saw in the lodge at Strassburg during the revokition. Following this appointment of three chief lodges, we have a definition of the province attaching to each; and a fourth province inserted, namely, that of Bern, comprising the whole of the Swiss Confederation. Next come a few more regulations, and a paragraph stating that on the 9th April 1464, it was agreed that the Master of the Strassburg Lodge, Jost Dotzinger, should call a meeting "after the manner of a chapter," and take to himself three or four masters, and whatever should be decided by the majority of those then assembled in chapter, either to render the articles more severe or more mild, that should be held of all the craft; and the day of such meeting was then fixed to be St. George's Day 14C9. So far as we know, the meeting was never held; at least we have no record of it. Then follow the names of those who agreed to these laws on the 9th April 1464, succeeded by those who signed " four weeks after Easter " 1459. The number is not large, being six in the first case and twenty-one in the second. Additions are afterward made of fresh names as late as the year of our Lord " 1472, on the Sunday before the 12th day of Christmas."

The above code of laws or ordinances gives us a very good idea of the organization of the stonemasons as they then existed, and as they had probably existed for some centuries previously; the introduction expressly stating that they are drawn up according to ancient custom, and lays down in broad outline a comprehensive j)icture of their trade usages and customs. But we find one new feature that doubtless dates from 1459, — that of the bond embracing all Germany and Switzerland, — that is, the inner fraternity and the supreme authority. We can have no doubt, that previous and constant intercommunication had reduced the various guilds of stonemasons scattered throughout Germany to one general uniformity, except in some small matters (the length of apprenticeship, for instance), and that, like all other trades, a Journeyman free to work in one place was acceptable in another. Yet differences, tending to positive strife, were by no means impossible under such cir- cumstances; but in 1459 we find this rendered excessively difficult by the institution of a universal guild or fraternity, and four chief lodges, to which all disputes must be referred. Of the latter, in spite of some obscurity in the wording, the lodge at Strassburg was the supreme head. It is even more than likely that this assembly in 1459,. and the rules then laid down, were the direct result of some quarrel which had threatened to become preju- dicial to the trade; or they may have taken their rise from a feeling in the craft that the days of their highest prosperity and power were slipping away from them, and that some mighty effort was necessary to consolidate their associations and combine their interests; or they may, on the other hand, have been simply the outcome of a desire to obtain royal authority for their future proceedings, as we find that immediately afterward these statute& were laid before the Emperor for confirmation.

These Ordinances apparently remained in full force till 1563, with possibly some slight alterations of individual sections; a proceeding perfectly allowable according to the laws themselves. Heldmann indeed supposes that such did take place, at the assemblies held (as he avers) in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries at Strassburg, Cologne, Bale, and other places, although he does not cite his authority for this statement. ' It is, however, quite obvious that the Ordinances of 1459 are given in a very confused manner, without any attempt at natural sequence or order; and for this, as well possibly as for other reasons, it became highly desirable that they should undergo a general revision, which accordingly took place in 1563 at two meetings, held respectively on the festivals of St. Bartholomew and St. Michael. These revised laws were printed in folio, and a copy distributed to every lodge of importance, the master of which was willing to join the fraternity; and the follow- ing is a translation, in which will be presented as literal a rendering as possible, of the antiquated, rugged German, at the sacrifice of all pretension to elegance of diction.' In the numeration I have followed Kloss, and Eoman figures are used, in order to distinguish the separate articles from those of the 1462 code (to be given hereafter), to which attention will be called by ordinary figures.

His imperial Roman Majesty, our most gracious Lord, having in this one thousand five hundred and sixty-third year most graciously renewed, confirmed, and approved to the general fellowship and brotherhood of the Stonemasons in German Lands their regu- lations and duties; and whereas for some time past many irregularities and bad habits have arisen and obtained in the craft of Masonry, therefore have many masters and fellows of aforesaid craft and fraternity, as they are named hereafter, met together in the aforesaid sixty-third year at Bale on St. Bartholomew's, and at Strassburg on St. Michael's Day, in order to elucidate and better aforesaid Ordinances and Articles of the Craft and Brother- hood, and the aforesaid have elucidated and bettered said Ordinances, and settled that they shall be held as hereafter follows; and no one who is of this guild shall do or act contrary thereto.

The first Article of these Ordinances

I. That if any Article in this book be too hard or heavy, or any be too light, then may those who are of our guild, being in a majority, alter, lessen, or increase such Articles, according to the times, the necessities of the land, and the course of affairs. And when there is a general summons they shall meet together in chapter form, according to the con- tents of this book; and that [their resolutions] shall be kept on the oath which each one has taken.

Of the Duties of those who are of this Guild

II. Whoso comes into this guild of his own good will, as hereafter stands written in this book, he shall promise to keep every point and article if he be of our craft of Masonry. Those shall be masters who can erect costly edifices and such like work, for the which they are authorized, and serve no other craft unless they choose so to do. And be it masters or fellows they shall and must conduct themselves honorably, and none shall be wronged by them; therefore have we taken power in these Ordinances to punish them on the occasion of every such act.

Such works as are journey worTc shall be alloived to so remain.

III. Whatever regular buildings are now under journey work, such as Strassburg, Cologne,

No English translation of these ordinances has hitherto appeared. They were first published as the Secret Book (Oeheimbuch) of the Stonemasons, in folio, with imprint 1563, and the imperial eagle on the title-page, and from this copy were republished by Heldmann, Krause and Heideloft.

Vienna, and such like works, and in the lodges thereto belonging, as according to cnstom have hitherto been completed by journey work, such buildings and work shall remain under journey work, and in no wise shall a contract be made, in order that the work, so far as possible, be not cut short by reason of the contract.

Who may aspire to a building

IV. If any craftsman who has a regular work should die, then any craftsman or master who understands masonry, and is sufficient and able for the work, may well aspire to and apply for the work, so that the Lords who have such work in hand and direct it may again be supplied according to the necessities of masonry. So likewise may any fellow who understands masonry.

Work shall he given in journey work

V. Whatever master it may behove, beyond his own work, to undertake a work abroad, or any other master whom it may behove, though he have no such aforesaid work in hand, such master shall, as he best can or may, in good faith set and continue such work or building by journey pay, so that there be no danger of the work being cut short, according to the right and usages of masonry. And if a master do not make use of this [method of pay- ment, understood'] for the persons who cause the work to be done, and it be found out on t'";.::-!; worthy information, then shall the said master be taken to task of the craft, corrected and punished after it be proved against him. But . if the Lords will not do it so, then may he act according to the Lord's desire.

When a Master dies during a Building

VI. If a master who has possessed and had such a work and building in hand should die, and another master come and find hewn stonework, be it set or unset, such master shall not pull down the set stonework, nor shall he in any way cast away the unset hewn stonework, without the counsel or agreement of other craftsmen, so that the Lords and other honorable persons who caused such building to be raised be not put to unjust expense, and that the master who left such work after his death be not defamed. But if the Lords wish such work to be removed, then may he allow it to be done, provided he seek no dis- honest advantage thereby.

How Stoneliewing and Building is to be conducted

VII. And every master who has practised masonry his five years with a stonemason, shall be permitted and have power to hew stones and build by contract or journey work, without fear if it so please him, nevertheless without trespassing against the articles written Herebefore, or hereafter.