THE BUILDER MAY 1926

The Comacines and Masonry

By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN

The title of our article published in the January number of THE
BUILDER was perhaps rather misleading in that there was very little
said in it about the Comacines. Confession is good for the soul,
even the soul of a literary partnership, and it is possible that
the alliterative jingle had more weight than it should have had.
Bro. Ravenscroft in the kindly and fraternal rejoinder that
appeared in THE BUILDER for April took up the defense of the theory
of which he is perhaps the most widely known exponent. He says, and
we can fully sympathize with his feelings, that a "bit of flat
denial" would be welcome "as something tangible with which to
deal." The difficulty is, and we are glad to make the admission,
that one cannot definitely deny that there was a continuity of
organization bridging the gap between Roman and Medieval times
localized especially in the district about Lake Como. In fact, we
go further than admission, and will say that we believe that the
evidence goes to show that there was a real continuity in culture,
in the arts and crafts and in social organization, both in the
North of Italy and the South of France; and that if such a general
continuity be supposed, the special continuity of architecture as
an art, and of the organization of the Mason's craft, must also be
granted, unless there were special reasons to the contrary, and no
such reasons appear. It would seem then that what we hold does not
contradict the supposition of continuity between collegium and gild
at Como, but rather includes it. Bro. Ravenscroft has further
elucidated his position in a recent letter. He says:

I make no claim for the Comacine Gild to be the only link between
Roman and Medieval times, or even the chief one. On the contrary,
I cannot but think the Byzantine influence was in its district as
great, and after what Rivorra claims for the Ravenna School it is
impossible to ignore its influence. What I do claim is that the
Comacines were the link between Roman times and Western Europe--
especially Britain, and indeed I know of no other influence so well
defined as theirs in the pre-Norman remains of this country.

But we do not want to discuss Bro. Ravenscroft's article in detail
as our original purpose was not especially concerned with the
Comacine Theory as such, in spite of the heading of the article,
our object was rather to make a positive suggestion (which we hope
may be discussed by Masonic scholars) as to the real nature of the
link--if one there was--through which a chain of continuity in the
organization of the Mason's craft might have subsisted. It would
have been possible to set the hypothesis out in greater detail, but
that may be more usefully done if it first have the benefit of the
criticism of others. It would seem that if the lodge were normally,
in Medieval times, a distinct type of organization--forming,
dissolving and reforming, here semi-permanent, there quite
ephemeral but always sufficient for its purpose--its work  (1) --
which was the making of masons--or rather builders, then many of
the difficulties which beset the student in seeking to connect
Speculative, post-Grand Lodge Masonry with the Operative Masonic
Gilds will vanish for if this be the case the connection of the
gilds with the system from which ours is descended was always an
accidental one. The immobile, local, exclusive organization of the
gild, frequently exercising semi public and municipal functions was
connected with the mysterious and (in the literal sense of the
word) occult or hidden organization behind it solely through the
fact that the members of the one were largely, or wholly as the
case might have been, also members of the other. And if this
hypothesis be accepted as solving the problems raised by the
remaining records left to us of Medieval gilds and pre-Grand Lodge
Masonry it would then appear to be possible to argue that the
lodge, like the traditions of craftsmanship, of handi work and
technical manipulation, was not originated in the Middle Ages but
also existed behind and under cover of such of the Roman Collegia
as were connected with building. We would suggest, as others also
have thought, that this organization was not exclusively confined
to skilled stone cutters, sculptors and architects, but was common
to all building crafts who used square and compass. And as Gould
remarked in a different connection, there would seem to be no limit
set to its possible antiquity. It could have come from Etruria and
Magna Graecia to Rome, from Greece to Italy, from the Mycenaean and
Minoan Cultures to Classical Greece--or from Egypt, Asia Minor or
Babylon. There is no limit, and equally no facts--it is rather like
looking out into empty space. But between the Roman Empire and the
Middle Ages in Europe we have got something to go upon. We know
that the later culture was evolved out of the former, rested on it
as a foundation, used it for material. We know that  over large
areas and in many special localities there was continuity, and one
of these centres certainly appears to have been about Lake Como,
and its island city. It also seems, once one is freed of the idea
that the Masonic organization which existed in England in the 17th
and at the beginning of the 18th century must have been derived
from broken down gilds, that the ceremonies and mysteries that
Modern Freemasonry inherited (and expanded and "moralized" and
"illustrated") were traditions of just the same kind as those that
were passed down from generation to generation practically
everywhere in Europe in the form of annual ritual observances,
mumming dances and plays, fertility rites, collective sun and
weather magic and the rest of what has in late years been so
diligently collected and set forth by anthropologists and
folklorists. It was passed down in the same kind of way, though in
a close and secret fraternity, which included not only the
architect, capable of designing and superintending the erection of
a cathedral and accustomed to the society of great and rich men,
but also of the village carpenter and stone mason who never built
anything more important than a cottage or a barn-- and the strength
and continuity of the tradition probably lay much more with the
latter than with the former.

NOTE

(1) When the lodge first emerges into the light of history it
certainly seems to have been very largely a convivial organization.
The actual records confirm contemporary outside opinion on this
point. On this account the statement in the text may be too
sweeping. The position may be made clearer by reference to the
traditional May Day, Midsummer and Harvest observances. These all
partook of a markedly festive character, and doubtless this
character kept them alive long after any real belief in their
efficacy as promoting the prosperity of the community had
disappeared, beyond perhaps a vague feeling that it would be
"unlucky" to omit them. Nevertheless it would be proper to say that
their purpose was to promote magically the fertility of the fields
and the increase of flocks and herds; and in the same way the lodge
meeting may have been the welcome occasion of a simple feast and
much drinking of ale or wine, while yet it would be accurate to
say, as in the text of the article, that its work was the making of
Masons.

