THE BUILDER DECEMBER 1926

The Gild and the Lodge

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

IT would seem as if Bro. Ravenscroft had, in the preceding article,
put his finger on the real point at issue in posing the question,
"What do we mean by the making of Masons as applied to the
Operative Gilds?" When, in the article in THE BUILDER for May, to
which he refers, we set forth a hypothesis of the relationship of
the lodge to the gild we had in view only the ritual significance
of the term. If it be permitted to go so far afield for a parallel,
we might adduce the puberty rites of savage races, which are known
to those practicing them as "making men." The anthropological
analogies to Masonry must be handled with great reserve and caution
on account of the tendency there has been to build upon them hasty
and ill considered speculations. But in this case we are only
seeking an illustration. According to the savage the half-grown boy
becomes a man by virtue of his initiation into the tribal
mysteries. Yet though this is the theory, yet the savage is
practical enough, too, and the boy as well as being initiated has
generally to undergo a long course of training in addition before
he actually takes his place in the community as a fullfledged man.
On the other hand, physical strength and endurance, valor in war
and skill in hunting do not alone qualify him to be regarded as a
man, many instances have been reported that definitely prove this.
There would thus seem to be two essential sets of qualifications,
the ritual and the practical, before the youth can marry, take his
place in the tribal councils, and as it were, enter into full
citizenship.

Another parallel might be taken much nearer home, the rite of
Baptism in the Christian Church. The individual who is baptized
becomes formally, or according to high sacramental views, actually
a child of God. Yet even those with the highest views on the
efficacy of the sacraments admit in practice the necessity of
teaching and discipline in addition. So also a man can be presented
and introduced in a neat little Latin speech (which all present
must at least pretend to understand) to the Chancellor of a
University, who thereupon formally presents him with an imposing
document on parchment, also in Latin, after all which he may write
"Doctor" after his name. The degree may be either honoris causa or
the result of years of hard work and the passing of examinations.
Here indeed we have a very close parallel between the operative and
speculative Mason. The Doctor, honoris causa, does not know
anything about Civil Laws or whatever else it is that he has been
made Doctor of, and no one expects that he should. Nevertheless it
gives him Academic rank and standing that the 'operative' scholar,
if we may so term him, has to work hard for. But there is this
difference between the two, if anyone wants information they go to
the one who has had the training and not to him who is only
ceremonially qualified.

We venture to suggest, then, that the organization by and in which
the Medieval Masons and builders became such regularly and
lawfully, according to the internal economy of the crafts
concerned, was the lodge. The distinction is important, the
adjectives might imply regularity and legality according to
municipal ordinance and the law of the land. It is the internal law
of the group that is referred to; and the attitude of a present day
trades union man towards a worker who does not belong is the kind
of thing we mean. The apprentice had, of course, to learn his trade
if he was going to work at it, and this he would learn, as he
always has done, in working under the instruction of his master.
But in order to be regarded as a "right" or "true" mason he had
also to be initiated, and this was the concern of the loosely
organized institution which emerges into the light of history under
the name of the "lodge".

The gild as special form of association seems to be peculiarly a
Medieval institution. We would suppose that Masons formed
themselves into gilds because every one else did, and in the feudal
form of society men were obliged to do so by an outer pressure. The
gilds very largely passed away when the state of society in which
they had their origin came to an end. As the lodge may have been
much older than the gild so also it survived it, because probably
it had little or nothing to do with the practical side of the
craft. If we read Bro. Ravenscroft aright it would seem that he
might almost be prepared to accept this suggestion, or at least
that he is not concerned to dispute it. But he raises another
point, and again if we rightly understand him, it is what he
regards as the essence of the Comacine theory. Here we feel we can
give him some of that definite denial for which his soul longs.
Bro. Ravenscroft is such a genial and kindly controversialist that
we know he will forgive the little joke.

The question is, though it is apart from our own theory, whether
the Masonic gilds were like the other craft gilds of the time,
merely local associations organized for purely local purposes and
having no connection with any other like bodies except that they
all had a general likeness of form and function, or whether they
were only branches of one inclusive organization, closely knit
together and with an effective centralized government or directing
body, which was not only interested in wages, hours and conditions
of working and so on, like the other gilds, but was actively
concerned in planning important buildings and the details of style
in architecture.

It cannot well be gainsaid that the possibility of such an
organization existed, for one thing we suggest something of the
same sort for the lodge, only without any central head. And besides
there were the monastic and military orders, which did have chief
houses and generals set over all. But these were well known to the
world at large, and were the subject of jealous observation on the
part both of the Papacy and secular rulers. They wanted to know who
was at the head of these bodies, and were particularly anxious to
put their own nominees in charge. Had there been such a centralized
organization of Masons extending all over Europe, it would have had
to have been in every sense of the word a secret one, or it would
else have necessarily been the subject of surveillance at least of
the various governments, and in this case some record would almost
certainly have come down to us. It is only a negative argument, of
course, and is not conclusive, but we think that under the
circumstances it carries considerable weight.

Then again, if the central body was concerned with plans and
architectural styles it was in this totally unlike any trade or
professional organization before or since. The Medieval gilds, so
far as can be gathered from their own records and external
references to them, were concerned with regulating the quality of
workmanship, prices, wages, number of apprentices, relations of the
occupation to the community and so on, while the teaching of the
craft itself was left entirely to the individual masters. It was
indeed so far regulated that the master was under an obligation to
teach his apprentice thoroughly and to teach him all he knew, but
the teaching itself was an individual matter entirely.

The hypothesis of a central or universal gild as a sort of training
college or general staff controlling all important building
operations seems to us unnecessary to explain the facts so ably
collected and set forth by Bro. Ravenscroft in his various works.
That there was a continuity of style is undoubted, the question
only is how it is to be accounted for. It may be that the advantage
(or disadvantage), that by a coincidence we both possess of having
had a training in the craft or profession of engineer, which in the
modern world takes a similar place in the community that the
Mason's craft did in the Middle Ages, may lead us to see the matter
in a somewhat different light. To the trained man a casual walk
through a machine shop, for example, may be quite enough to show
him all he needs to know about a new way of using some tool, or a
more advantageous method of handling a certain class of work. In
the same way the Medieval craftsman had only to visit some recently
erected building to grasp anything new in constructural methods, or
in detail of design. New types of mouldings, or ornament,
experiments in proportions and so on would be noted at once.
Medieval architects used sketchbooks too, some of them still exist,
and we think that in this way the rapid diffusion of new forms and
styles are quite adequately accounted for.

It may, of course, be objected that means of communication were few
and bad. Nevertheless they existed and were used. Pilgrimages were
constant, it is probable that almost every one at some time or
other made one. Perhaps only to some nearby shrine, but often
enough, too, into foreign lands, and to Rome itself. Besides that,
the mason and builder was then, as he is today, a migratory bird,
and wandered far afield in the pursuit of his avocation.

Finally, and what seems to us the greatest difficulty of all, style
in a building is a question of art, and no art was ever yet
produced by a committee. Schools of art there have been, of course,
but they imply no more than the learning by pupils a technique from
a master, and carrying on a tradition with modifications resulting
from individual peculiarities and genius. For all these reasons,
while we willingly admit the weight of architectural evidence for
the existence of a noble tradition, of a specific style diffused
over certain areas, we are not able to concur in the theory that
this was due to the action, conservative or constructive, of a
central and authoritative organization that drew up the designs and
sent them out to the local builders, or even of the existence of a
central school or college in which architects were trained in
certain principles and to work on specific models. If this is what
Bro. Ravenscroft believes, then we must confess that we do disagree
with him.


FURTHER NOTES ON THE GILD

By Bro. W. RAVENSCROFT

By the courtesy of the Editor of THE BUILDER I am permitted to see
an advance proof of the foregoing article and to add a word or two
in reference to it. I must not take advantage of that kindness by
writing at length, but I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of
just a few words.

The distinction between "lodge" and "gild" is one which perhaps I
ought to have kept more carefully in view in my article as I think
it helps to clear the point at issue.

Wren's Parentalia speaks of a "Fraternity of Architects" whose
government was regular, but who ranged from nation to nation.
Dugdale calls them a "Company of Italian Architects who traveled
all over Europe and who had several Lodges in several countries."
Ashmole refers to them as Italian Architects "who were Masons"
traveling about and as existing before the time of Henry III.

All this looks like a widespread organization (Gild, if you like in
the broader sense of the word) with a more or less permanent
character, and lodges formed of members of this Association, local,
and perhaps temporary in character.

I hold then that these lodges were controlled in some way by the
Gild, or I would go so far as to say Gilds, since I do not identify
them with Italy alone. But I do not for a moment claim a central
Gild or authority drawing up plans, issuing instructions and
training architects; so that when I mention "some authority", an
expression which of necessity must be somewhat vague, I rather
intend to convey the idea of a consensus of opinion whereby Masons
worked on similar lines in matters of architectural style which
developed and even changed from period to period on regular and
ordered lines; as for instance the use of the pointed arch which
superseded the round one. I think the absence of a central Gild
dominating everything is proved by the influences of various
schools, Byzantine, Ravenese and Comacine on each other, as well as
by the individuality of detail which marked the work even in Great
Britain alone, to say nothing of our English departure from
Continental ideals.

But beneath these variations there was some fundamental unity of
thought and expression common to the workers in Europe and our
brethren of the British Isles, and that if Craftsmen and
Apprentices were educated in lodges, as they may well have been, it
was under accepted traditions that they were so trained. And I am
not sure whether we concede enough to the influence of the Monastic
Orders and the Episcopacy. We find the names in England, at any
rate, associated with the great works of the Middle Ages to be
those of ecclesiastics rather than the architects, and perhaps are
inclined to think this a bit of usurpation. But let us take the
case of the cistercian buildings, where we find carved ornament
conspicuous by its absence although the general character of such
buildings conformed to the style of the period. This was on account
of the idea held by that severely ruled order that such ornament
was not admissible, a kind of Puritanism inculcated by that giant
of the order, St. Bernard.

Surely this peculiarity, as contrasted let us say, with buildings
erected by the Benedictines, must have implied some control of
design on the part of the monks, and it may be that after all they
were, in some cases at least, the leading architects. If the
cistercians could thus influence architectural design why should
not the other Church authorities and monastic bodies do the same?
Bros. Kress and Meekren seem to hold that a common tradition and
technique were quite sufficient to account for the difficulty we
are discussing, but I am afraid I do not feel quite satisfied as to
the adequacy of this opinion, although I cannot add what I think is
still wanting.

But we are not far apart, and somehow each time we write we get
nearer together. A happy thing indeed if we are converging toward
the truth.

