the pious Numa, continued to prevail to the latest days of the Empire. It was in the spirit of paganism, which connected the transaction of all private as well as public business with sacrificial rites. Hence every college had its patron deity, which was called its Genius, under whose divine protection it was placed. The Curia, or hall of the college, was often built in the near vicinity of the temple of this god, and meetings of the guild were sometimes held in the body of the temple. Sacrifices were offered to him; festival days were kept in his honor, and were often celebrated by public processions. Among the paintings discovered at Pompeii is one that represents a procession of the College of Carpenters. Krause gives ample proof that the Colleges of Artificers made use of symbols derived from the implements and the usages of their craft. We need not be surprised at this, for the symbolic idea was, as we know, largely cultivated by the ancients. Their mythology, which was their religion, was made up out of a great system of symbolism. Sabaism, their first worship, was altogether symbolic, and out of their primitive adoration of the simple forces of nature, by degrees and with the advancement of civilization was developed a multiplicity of deities, every one of which could be traced for his origin to the impersonation of a symbol. It would, indeed, be strange if, with such an education, the various craftsmen had failed to have imbued their trades with that same symbolic spirit which was infused into all their religious rites and their public and private acts. But it is interesting to trace, as I think we may, the architectural symbolism of the mediævai builders to influences which were exerted upon them by the old builders of Rome, and which they in turn communicated to their successors, the Speculative Masons of the 18th, and perhaps the 17th century. This is, I think, one of the most important links in the chain that connects the Roman colleges with modern Freemasonry. Nothing of the kind can be adduced by those who would trace the latter institution to a Jewish or Patriarchal source. The Jews were not an æsthetic people. They rejected as vainly superstitious the use of painting and sculpture in their worship. Though we find among them a few symbols of the simplest kind, symbolism was not cultivated by them as an intellectual science. Christian iconography, which succeeded the Jewish and the Pagan, has been more indebted for its eminently symbolic character to the latter than to the former influences. It is the same with the symbolism that has always been cultivated in Masonry, both in its Operative and in its Speculative form. It has been indebted for its warmth and beauty rather to the Roman colleges than to the Jewish Temple. The most important of these colleges in the present inquiry were the Collegia Fabrorum, which has generally been translated the Colleges of Artificers. The word Faber, in the Latin language, means generally one who works in any material, but the signification is limited by some adjoining word. Thus faber tignarius meant a carpenter, faber ferrarius a blacksmith, faber aurarius a goldsmith, and so on. But it was very generally used to designate one who was employed in building a stone-cutter or mason. We meet in Gruter, and elsewhere, with many inscriptions in which the word can only bear this meaning. In the passage above cited from Pliny, we see that when he asks the imperial consent to establish a society of artisans to reconstruct the burned edifices of Nicomedia, for which purpose builders only could be of use, he calls the desired society a Collegium Fabrorum, which may be fairly interpreted a College or Guild of Masons. There were, of course, colleges of other trades, such as the Collegium Pistorum, or College of Bakers, the Collegium Sutorum, or College of Shoemakers, of whom a votive tablet was found at Osma in Castile,1 and many others. But, as Dalloway says, the Fabri were "workmen who were employed in any kind of construction and were subject to the laws of Numa Pompilius." "2 It is to these Collegia Fabrorum, or Roman guilds of Masons or Builders, that Dr. Krause, whose opinion on this subject I adopt with some modifications, has sought to trace the origin of the Mediæval corporations of stonemasons and the more recent Lodges of Freemasons. In concluding this survey of the character and internal organization of these Roman colleges, the prototypes of the modern Masonic guilds, it will not be inappropriate to cite the language on this 1 Don Cean-Bermudez, "Sumario de las Antiguedas Romanas que hay in España,” Madrid, 1832, p. 179. 2" Master and Freemason," p. 400. subject of the latest and most classical writers on the antiquities of Greece and Rome. The following brief description is taken from Guhl and Komer's able work on The Life of the Greeks and Romans.1 Mechanics guilds (Collegia Opipium) existed at an early period, their origin being traced back to King Numa. They were nine in number, viz., pipers, carpenters, goldsmiths, dyers, leather-workers, tanners, smiths, and potters, and another guild combining, at first, all the remaining handicrafts, which afterward developed into new, separate societies. Amongst these later guilds, frequently mentioned in inscriptions, we name the goldsmiths, bakers, purple-dyers, pigdealers, sailors, ferry-men, physicians, etc. They had their separate inns (curia, schola), their statutes and rules of reception and expulsion of members, their collective and individual privileges, their laws of mutual protection and their widows' fund, not unlike the mediæval guilds. There was, however, no compulsion to join a guild. In consequence, there was much competition from freedmen-foreign, particularly Greek, workmen who settled in Rome, as also from the domestic slaves who supplied the wants of the large families-reasons enough to prevent the trades from acquiring much importance. They had, however, their time-honored customs, consisting of sacrifices and festive gatherings at their inns, on which occasions their banners (vexilla) and emblems were carried about the streets in procession. A wall-painting at Pompeii is most likely intended as an illustration of a carpenters' procession. A large wooden tray (ferculum) surmounted by a decorated baldachin is being carried on the shoulders of young workmen. On the tray stands a carpenter's bench in miniature, with two men at their work, the figure of Dædalus being seen in the foreground." In reading this brief description, the principal details of which have already been given in our preceding pages, the reader can hardly fail to be struck with the far closer resemblance the usages of Freemasonry bear to those Roman colleges or guilds, than they do those of the Jewish workmen at the Temple, as we learn them from the very imperfect and unsatisfactory allusions contained in the Bible or in the Antiquities of Josephus. One can hardly fail to see that 1 Hueffer's Translation from third German edition, New York, 1875, p. 519. the derivation of Masonry from the former is a far more reasonable hypothesis than a derivation from the latter. Though but indirectly and remotely connected with this subject, one fact may be mentioned that shows how much the spirit of the guild organization, itself the spirit of Freemasonry, had imbued the common life of the Romans. The benefit societies of the present day, which are said to be and most probably are but coarse imitations of the Masonic Lodges, were not unknown to the ancient Romans. They had their burialclubs, called Collegia Tenuirom, the literal meaning of which is Guilds of the Poor. They were, as their name imports, societies formed by the poorer classes, from whose funds, derived from annual contributions, the expenses of the burial of a member were defrayed and a certain sum was paid to the surviving family.1 Having shown that there existed among the Romans guild-like associations of craftsmen, presenting a very close resemblance in their usages and purposes to the guilds or corporations of Stonemasons of the Middle Ages, who are admitted to have been the predecessors of the Speculative Freemasons of the 18th century and of the present day, the further connection of these two institutions can be identified only by tracing the progress of the Roman colleges from their rise in the reign of Numa, to their dissolution at the time of the decline and fall of the Empire, and their absorption into the architectural associations which sprang up in those parts of Europe which had once been Roman provinces. The inquiry into this difficult but interesting topic must be the appropriate subject of the following chapter. 1 Hueffer's Translation from third German edition, New York, 1875, p. 591. CHAPTER III GROWTH OF THE ROMAN COLLEGES T has been shown in the preceding chapter that Numa, in his sagacious efforts to improve the civilization of the early Romans, and to reconcile the heterogeneous elements of which the population was composed had instituted colleges or guilds of mechanics. I do not intend to complicate this question by any reference to the theory of Niebuhr and his disciples who have ignored the existence of any true history at that period, but who deem every theory connected with regal Rome as merely mythical and traditionary. I content myself with the fact that when Roman history began to present itself under the authentic form of records, the pre-existence of these guilds was fully recognized. It is sufficient for the present purpose to accept the generally received opinion, and while it is not denied that in primitive Rome such guildformations prevailed, we may safely attribute their origin to some early reformer, who may be represented by the name of Numa as well as by any other. In treating the subject of the rise and progress of these colleges or guilds, I shall pursue the course of Roman history as it has been generally received by scholars. As we advance to later times we shall find ourselves amply fortified by the contemporaneous authority of classical writers, and by numerous monuments and inscriptions. Except the mere question whether they were first established by Numa or by somebody else, in what Niebuhr would call prehistoric Rome a question of but little or no importance in reference to their connection with the mediaval guilds-there is no statement concerning them that is not a part of authentic history. It has therefore been proved that these colleges were guild-like in their organization; that they had all the legal rights of a corporation; that they elected their own members; that they were governed |