THE BUILDER JANUARY 1926

Gilds, Collegia and Comacines

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

THE question whether there may have been an organic connection
between the Collegia of the Roman Empire and the Gilds of Medieval
Europe is one that has been much discussed, though it cannot be
said that full agreement has been reached regarding it. While
perhaps true that the greater weight of Masonic scholarship is on
the negative side, yet probably the affirmative has the larger
number of adherents, and though some of these must be considered
with due respect, not a few make up in the confident dogmatism of
their assertions for the lack of real argument and historical
knowledge.

The weakness of the links that have so far been suggested between
the gilds and the collegia have been pointed out by a number of
competent scholars, notably Bro. Lionel Vibert and Bro. H. L.
Haywood. The skeleton of the argument usually advanced amounts to
very little more than this: a certain form of social organization
existed in Roman times called collegium, in a later period another
form is found that is called a gild, and that where the latter is
found the former presumably existed. Even were there no interval in
time this would be a non sequitur, but as a matter of fact the
obscurity of the Dark Ages lies between the two, during which the
Roman power was shattered in the West of Europe, and the Medieval
culture came painfully to birth.

Bro. Haywood has dealt faithfully with the collegia, and in the
present state of knowledge has left very little more to be said.
(1) It may however be added that the term collegium was not only
applied to the mutual benefit and burial societies and all kinds of
social clubs, trade organizations, and those associated for the
purpose of worshipping some particular deity, but also to official
bodies, and those the oldest and most fundamental in the Roman
civic polity. The Pontifices had formed a collegium from the fabled
times of Numa, the Augurs and Haruspices another. Even the two
Consuls were said to form a college, in violation of the supposed
rule that it took three at least to do so. The fact is that the
word in Latin was as general in meaning as society or association
is in English. To attempt to connect the collegia as a system with
the gilds, which were almost, if not quite as general, is entirely
beside the mark; if it could be done it would get us nowhere. what
alone would be pertinent from the Masonic point of view would be to
connect a college of architects or stoneworkers, a collegium fabri
perhaps, with a gild of Masons. For the collegiate system as a
whole may have survived and been simply merged in the gilds of a
later date, or even simply turned into gilds by a change in
language, and yet the gilds of Masons have been new entities; for
it could not possibly be held that all the collegia survived, and
that no new gilds were organized. That such a thing is conceivable
is borne out by some quite recent discoveries, in North Africa of
all unexpected places, which go to show that a complex organism
that has hitherto been accepted as peculiarly Medieval, that is,
the feudal manor, was in all its essentials, in full operation
under the Roman Empire. This again emphasizes the danger of
building an argument on silence or the simple lack of evidence.

However, collegium and gild being such inclusive and general terms,
to say that the first survived and was transformed into the second,
is little more than to say that men continued to have the impulse
to associate themselves together just as they continued to occupy
themselves in arts and crafts and commerce. On the other hand the
one system may have disappeared, and the social order begun anew as
a whole, and yet some one special organization might conceivably
have survived--whether this could have been possible in the case of
the building crafts is a question to be considered.

FREEMASONRY DERIVES FROM GREAT BRITAIN

When we come to discuss the lineage of the Masonic Institution it
must be always remembered that historically it comes from the
British Isles. Any line of descent must connect it with this
restricted locale. With this in view one line of argument has been
that the collegiate system came into Britain during Roman times,
survived the invasions of Saxon and Anglo, and then blossomed out
into Masonic gilds under the Norman and Plantagenet Kings. This
supposition can, however, be almost summarily dismissed. Granting,
what is not proved but may be allowed, that the collegia fabrorum
existed in Roman Britain, yet all the evidence we have goes to show
that after Rome withdrew, Roman culture gradually succumbed and
finally disappeared. The invasions from the north and east were not
the raids of chiefs bent on carving out kingdoms for themselves,
but the steady pressure of immigrants who drove the natives further
and further west, just as the Indians were displaced by the
settlers in America. In this prolonged struggle, it lasted four
centuries at least, the original Celtic population appear to have
relapsed into barbarism as complete as that of their enemies. Their
towns were destroyed and in all but one or two cases remained
uninhabited. They reverted to the social state of tribe and clan,
and the only arts that survived were those necessary to life.
Certainly they had little opportunity to build in the strain of a
continuous and destructive guerilla warfare.

Another line of descent has been suggested through the Eastern or
Byzantine Empire. Here, of course, there is no doubt about
continuity for it was not until the middle of the fifteenth century
that Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and till this time the
Empire had held its own; and though without doubt it was much
changed, yet this was due to a process of continuous evolution. On
the other hand it must be remembered that the east was Greek, not
Roman, the population was Greek, the language was Greek and the
culture also. Here was no case of a civilized people bringing new
arts to barbarians, for all that the Romans had of art and science
and literature they had in the first place learned from the Greek.
But even supposing that the collegia had taken root in the Eastern
Empire, the link that would again connect them with the West is
very weak for the strain that must be put upon it. When
Constantinople fell there was no emigration en masse, the
population as a whole remained, subject to new masters, their arts
suffered a decline, but there is no evidence that any organized
bodies came to the West. Many individuals undoubtedly did migrate,
scholars and artists, and perhaps artisans. Books and a living
knowledge of the Greek language came to Italy and materially
affected the Renaissance, but there is not the slightest indication
of any movement that would have affected Craft organization, and
the probabilities are strongly against it, as at that particular
time the Western gild system was at the very height of its power
and efficiency.

LOMBARDY AND PROVENCE
There is left only the south of France and the north of Italy. It
is true that these are quite separate areas politically and
racially. The one was probably largely of Etruscan origin, the
other Greek--for it must be remembered that Marseilles was a
flourishing Greek colony before Rome emerges into history. However,
for our present purpose the two may be conveniently considered
together. After Italy had fallen under the domination of Rome, the
next step was to take the south of France under her wing; it was
her first foreign dependency, and though many provinces were
afterwards added to her empire, this was always known simply as
"The Province," par excellence. It followed therefore that in the
long and close association this whole idea became as Roman as Rome
itself. Even today the Southern French can make shift to converse
with their Italian neighbors across the Alps, though French and
Italian are now two distinct languages. In the Middle Ages, when
both dialects were much nearer the original Latin, there can have
been very little difference between them. And here it may be noted
that whatever may be true of this whole area will hold for any
included district, such as the region about Lake Como, and that
this possible contact between collegium and gild will include all
that can be substantiated of the so-called "Comacine" theory. As
has been pointed out in the text, there is independent authority
that the appellation "Comacine" is not derived from Como at all,
but was "Commacine" or "Commacon," that is, fellow or associate
Mason.

But, if we suppose a connection here between the two types of
organization, we have yet to find a link to connect it with that of
the Freemasons in Britain. The account given in the Legend of the
Craft, recited with small variations in all copies of the Old
Constitutions, is to the effect that it was first introduced by St.
Alban, and later re-organized by Prince Edwin. As history this is
of course negligible, but it may echo actual facts. St. Alban
himself was a Roman soldier who was executed as being a Christian,
and could not possibly have had anything to do with the
organization of Masonry directly. But what may lay at the bottom of
this story is that King Offa, when he built St. Alban's Abbey, very
probably imported Masons to execute the work. Similar recollections
may underlie the story of the assembly at York under Edwin. We know
as a fact that Saxon England was converted by a mission from Rome.
Among the missionaries were many with Gallic connections. Theodore
of Tarsus was a Greek--Wilfrid was at Lyons for some years, and he
was later an energetic builder of churches and is said to have
taken about with him on his many wanderings a small body of skilled
Masons, and probably other craftsmen, such as carpenters, lead and
glass workers. There are in fact many references in the Chronicles
of the period of the bringing in of Masons from Gaul, or what would
almost imply such importation, the erecting of churches in the
"Roman manner," that is in what we would call Romanesque style, of
which the Lombardic, or so-called Comacine style, was a variety.

THE TRADITION OF CRAFTSMANSHIP

All this, however, indicates no more than a high probability that
in the craft of building, and also in other trades, there was a
continuous tradition from Roman times. A tradition in the literal
sense that each individual in the chain, or rather network of
transmission passed on the technique he had learned from his
predecessors to those who succeeded him, modifications due to
changed circumstances being at any time very slight, though the
cumulative effect over a long period would undoubtedly be very
great. But this is not at all the same thing as supposing the
continuous existence of definite organizations. For an example, the
cloth working industry in England in the Middle Ages, was very
highly organized, and many gilds were concerned with it. Today
there are "Unions" of operatives and "Associations" of
manufacturers, while the occupation in spite of the great changes
in methods has had a continuous existence. But nothing is more
certain than that the cloth workers' gilds died out completely, or
remained here and there as picturesque survivals without power or
influence, while the Unions and their later counterbalancing
Associations were originated de novo in an entirely altered state
of society. Thus it seems that the three forms of organization,
collegium, gild and trades-union could have successfully existed in
the same place, and been concerned in the same occupation, and yet
each have been in origin quite separate and distinct. This may
actually have happened in France where the same local industries in
several cases can be shown to have continuously persisted since
Roman times.

Now it is quite obvious that such an empty framework of possibility
as is given us by these general considerations does not help us
very much. In any case, as was pointed out above, we are not
specially interested in the possible survival of collegia in
general, but whether the collegia fabrorum, the special
organization of Masons and builders survived, and before this
particular case can be usefully discussed it is necessary to arrive
at some fairly definite idea of what characteristics such an
organization must have possessed if it were to be identified as the
original of the later Masonic Institution. Rather, for practical
reasons the matter must be put the other way about and we must by
some kind of analysis try to select those marks or notes which
distinguish Freemasonry not only in its present day forms but as
far back as historical evidence will take us. This is by no means
an easy task; there are many features of our speculative society
now regarded as essential that have not always been so. Neither
Grand Masters nor Grand Lodges fulfill the requirements, for before
1717 they had not been heard of. Possibly not even the office of
Master of a lodge should be included, and almost certainly not that
of Warden, in our sense of the title. The other officers are of
course all of eighteenth century devising. It may be argued on the
other hand that someone had to do the things now done by Master and
Wardens, but there is a real difference in principle between their
being done by whoever happens to be able to do them most
conveniently, and assigning them to a special officer as his
peculiar function.

Bro. Lionel Vibert, in his Freemasonry Before the Existence of
Grand Lodges, gives a list of marks by possession of which the
claim of anything to be the original of, or a form of, Masonry
might be judged. In doing this, Bro. Vibert has put his finger on
the weak spot in most arguments to prove the descent of Freemasonry
from this or that preceding institution, and his attempt deserves
the fullest credit, although the list in detail is not above
criticism. Some of his ten notes appearing to be really
duplications and others containing irrelevant or non-essential
details, in the sense that they have not always been necessary.
Such a list as this is almost equivalent to that of those other
vague and elusive entities, the Ancient Landmarks. The difference
would seem to be that in the Landmarks, as usually understood, it
is sought to include everything now regarded as essential, while in
the distinguishing marks are only to be included those features
that Masonry has always possessed.

MARKS THAT DISTINGUISH THE CRAFT

To adequately discuss the matter would need far more space than can
be given to it here, but some attempt must be made to tentatively
formulate such a list. In what follows the set made out by Bro.
Vibert has formed the point of departure.

1. The Masonic Institution is concerned, either theoretically or
practically, speculatively or operatively, with the trade or craft
of building, and especially of building in cut and carved stone;
though it is a question if the secrets of the fraternity or
fellowship were always confined to stonecutters and setters.

2. It has a peculiar local organ of protean form, for which the
only known name is the ambiguous term "lodge," and of which the
only persistent characteristics so far as can be discerned are that
it must consist of a certain number of members of the craft met
together for the purpose of forming one and that they must meet in
a special place. The traditional number is seven or more, and the
place is the top of a hill or the depth of a valley. Actually in
practice six or even five members have apparently been held to
suffice in an emergency, any place secure from intrusion or
interruption by outsiders to fulfill the requirements


3. There has always been an extensive set of signs and other means
of recognition by which members could demonstrate their claims to
the rights and privileges of the fraternity These have undoubtedly
varied a great deal, but have always apparently been grounded in,
or derived from, certain element or principles which may be
regarded as composing the essential and persistent matter in this
point. As hints as to what these essentials may have been we will
mention the left side, the number three and the square.

4. That new members are admitted to the society by initiatory
ceremonies carefully concealed from the profane. Just what is
essential in the several details of these ceremonies, and in the
way in which they should be grouped, is another dubious point, and
one that cannot possibly be discussed in this place, but it may be
remarked in passing that it is precisely here more than anywhere
else that there seems to be some hope of throwing light on the real
antiquity of the Institution.

5. Members are bound by certain rules and customs, and are under
obligation to perform specified duties. These again have varied a
great deal, but three principle ones may be regarded as constant
however expressed. Secrecy in regard to the mysteries of the lodge,
the duty of upholding the honor of the Craft, and that of assisting
a fellow member as far a possible.

6. The employment of tools and implements of the operative trade as
symbols, especially the hammer or mallet, compass and square.

7. The possession of some form of legend or myth of origin.

These seven points can all be found in present-day Masonry and in
pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, and can be discerned (though more and more
fragmentarily) as far back as any historical record takes us. It
may therefore be fairly taken that they will serve as criteria by
which to judge the claims made for the organic connection of any
preceding form of association with the one we know. How many of
them would be required to establish identity may be open to
question. One or two would call attention, three together might
establish a prima facie case. But the first thing that appears, if
this line of approach be justified, and at first sight a most
surprising thing, is that Freemasonry has little or nothing in
common with the gild system. The gild was very local, while the
craft was general, in a sense universal. The gild was a permanent
entity, part of the local body politic, the lodge was a casual,
ephemeral, elusive thing. The gild was highly organized, the lodge
had no essential organization at all apparently. The gild was
monopolistic and very exclusive, not only as against outsiders but
also against those of the craft from elsewhere. The gild did not
possess and had no need for any means of recognition, which were
obviously without use where all members were personally known to
each other, and, so far as all indications go, the ceremonies that
may have been used in admitting new members were in no way
comparable or analogous to the initiatory rites of the lodge--even
in their barest and simplest form--the two things in fact not being
in the same category. In the case of regulations and laws there
indeed appears to be a resemblance both in phraseology and content,
but no more than the nature of the case would require and the fact
that they are the production of roughly the same period; while in
one special point they are at complete variance; in one the
stranger craftsman was regarded with hostility, while in the other
he was, if possible, to be given work, and if not to be assisted
with money. And finally, there is no trace of any gild having a
legendary history, or of any symbolic teaching of moral duties.

This apparently stops us in our search for origins at the very
threshold, for if these considerations hold good the investigation
of the gild system is irrelevant to our inquiry--unless we can
discover some special feature about this one craft that
distinguished it from all others. As a matter of fact there is such
a feature, and one that has always existed in the nature of things;
the occupations connected with building, especially in reference to
large and important buildings, demand a certain mobility in those
that follow them. Take for instance a small town; two or three
carpenters, one or two masons or bricklayers, suffice for the
normal needs of the community, for the building of new houses and
repairing old ones. But the erection of a church, a palace or a
bridge of any size, call at once for more men than the locality can
supply. Unlike any other occupation the work cannot be brought to
the workers, nor can it be localized in any one place. It is
precisely the migratory character of the occupation that provides
a raison d' etre for the differentia of the Mason's craft
organization as laid down above. The means of recognition, the duty
of receiving and cherishing strange fellows, the casual and
inclusive character of the lodge, all fit in with this condition,
which would tend to produce and maintain these specific features in
all times and places. The conclusion then would appear to be forced
on us that it is in the loose lodge organization in which the
antiquity of the Institution is to be found. Though stable enough
under the Grand Lodge system, the lodges originally seem to have
been no more permanent than the waves of the sea, yet as alike in
structure and function as are the waves, and as constantly
reappearing. And this leads to the further conclusion that whatever
connection the lodge had with the gild was purely adventitious.

How this might have come about is not hard to see. In the Middle
Ages every man had a definite status and position in society, he
was either serf or servant, tenant or vassal, of some lord, or else
a freeman of some town or a member of a gild. In such a social
organization the Masons would be forced into the gilds by the outer
pressure of circumstances. In large towns they might form a gild of
their own, in smaller places they would belong to one of the
composite gilds of which there were so many; while for their own
private purposes the lodge still sufficed as it always had. Just as
today, Freemasons may join together in any place and form a club.
The club fills certain social requirements and has no essential
connection with the organization of the Craft. So in the Middle
Ages the lodges bound the Craft together as a whole, but those
Masons who had settled in specific localities conserved their
status and interests in the community gild.

As a matter of fact we find that it is only in the very largest
towns that Mason's gilds existed. Sometimes the various crafts
connected with building would be united in one gild, but as often
as not Masons would share gild membership with such incongruous
trades as cobblers and the like, and even with the very wallers and
rough-masons fellowship with whom all the old MS. constitutions so
emphatically forbade. This in itself seems sufficient to show that
the gild and the secret craft organization were two quite separate
and distinct entities. In one case, in London, there appears a
mysterious inner circle in the Mason's company called the
Acception, (2) in which many have seen a lodge in some sense
permanently organized, while in Scotland we actually find lodges
filling the functions of local gilds. This may seem a discrepancy
but in reality it supports the theory. The gild system was much
later in establishing itself in Scotland than in England, and the
peculiar local circumstances seem to have forced the lodges to
become semi-public institutions, as in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen
and Kilwinning.

But if the connection of the lodge, under whatever name it was
called, with the gild was merely temporary and external and due
solely to the circumstances of the time, and if the inherent nature
of the occupation was the raison d'etre of the lodge and all that
it implies, then there is no logical reason to stop here --the same
kind of institution may have existed behind, or lain underneath,
the collegia fabrorum--and if so, there is of course no proof--it
is only a possibility, then what has persisted from then till now
has been the lodge and its mysterious rites and symbolic
instruction, while collegium and gild successively came, in the
state of society, fulfilled their function that called them forth,
and disappeared when the circumstances that had brought them into
being passed away.

NOTES

(1) The Study Club. THE BUILDER for 1923. Vol. IX, p. 181. 
(2) Gould's Concise History, p. 186; Conder's "Hole Craft,"
p. 14. See also A. Q. C., Vol. IX, p. 31, and Gould's large
History.

