The reign of many masters succeeding the reign of one is written in architecture.For—and this point we must emphasize—it must not be supposed that it is only capable of building temples，of expressing only the sacerdotal myth and symbolism，of transcribing in hieroglyphics on its stone pages the mysterious Tables of the Law.Were this the case，then—seeing that in every human society there comes a moment when the sacred symbol is worn out，and is obliterated by the free thought，when the man breaks away from the priest，when the growth of philosophies and systems eats away the face of religion—architecture would be unable to reproduce this new phase of the human mind：its leaves，written upon the right side，would be blank on the reverse；its work would be cut short；its book incomplete.But that is not the case.
Take，for example，the epoch of the Middle Ages，which is clearer to us because it is nearer.During its first period，while theocracy is organizing Europe，while the Vatican is collecting and gathering round it the elements of a new Rome，constructed out of the Rome which lay in fragments round the Capitol，while Christianity goes forth to search among the ruins of a former civilization，and out of its remains to build up a new hierarchic world of which sacerdotalism is the keystone，we hear it stirring faintly through the chaos；then gradually，from under the breath of Christianity，from under the hands of the barbarians，out of the rubble of dead architectures，Greek and Roman—there emerges that mysterious Romanesque architecture，sister of the theocratic buildings of Egypt and India，inalterable emblem of pure Catholicism，immutable hieroglyph of papal unity.The whole tendency of the time is written in this sombre Romanesque style.Everywhere it represents authority，unity，the imperturbable，the absolute，Gregory VII；always the priest，never the man：everywhere the caste，never the people.
Then come the Crusades，a great popular movement，and every popular movement，whatever its cause or its aim，has as its final precipitation the spirit of liberty.Innovations struggled forth to the light.At this point begins the stormy period of the Peasant wars，the revolts of the Burghers，the Leagues of the Princes.Authority totters，unity is split and branches off into two directions.Feudalism demands to divide the power with theocracy before the inevitable advent of the people，who，as ever，will take the lion's share—Quia nominor leo.Hence we see feudalism thrusting up through theocracy，and the people's power again through feudalism.The whole face of Europe is altered.Very good；the face of architecture alters with it.Like civilization，she has turned a page，and the new spirit of the times finds her prepared to write to his dictation.She has brought home with her from the crusades the pointed arch，as the nations have brought free thought.Henceforward，as Rome is gradually dismembered，so the Romanesque architecture dies out.The hieroglyphic deserts the Cathedral，and goes to assist heraldry in heightening the prestige of feudalism.The Cathedral itself，once so imbued with dogma，invaded now by the commonalty，by the spirit of *******，escapes from the priest，and falls under the dominion of the artist.The artist fashions it after his own good pleasure.Farewell to mystery，to myth，to rule.Here fantasy and caprice are a law unto themselves.Provided the priest has his basilica and his altar，he has nothing further to say in the matter.The four walls belong to the artist.The stone book belongs no more to the priest，to religion，to Rome，but to imagination，to poetry，to the people.From thenceforward occur these rapid and innumerable transformations of an architecture only lasting three centuries，so striking after the six or seven centuries of stagnant immobility of the Romanesque style.Meanwhile，Art marches on with giant strides，and popular originality plays what was formerly the Bishop's part.Each generation in passing inscribes its line in the book；it rubs out the ancient Roman hieroglyphics from the frontispiece—hardly that one sees here and there some dogma glimmering faintly through the new symbol overlying it.The framework of religion is scarcely perceptible through this new drapery.One can scarcely grasp the extent of the license practised at that time by the architects，even on the churches.Such are the shamelessly intertwined groups of monks and nuns on the capitals of the Gallery of Chimney-Pieces in the Palais de Justice；the episode out of the history of Noah sculptured'to the letter'over the Cathedral door at Bourges；the bacchic monk，with ass's ears and glass in hand，grinning in the face of a whole congregation，carved on a stone basin of the Abbey of Bocherville.For the thought written in stone there existed at that period a privilege perfectly comparable to the present liberty of the press.It was the liberty of architecture.
And the liberty went far.At times a door，a f de，nay，even an entire church，presents a symbolical meaning wholly unconnected with worship，even inimical to the Church itself.In the thirteenth century，Guillaume of Paris，and in the fifteenth，Nicolas Flamel wrote such seditious pages.Saint-Jacques-de-la-Boucherie was a complete volume of opposition.