Architecture and Speculative Masonry

By RALPH E. LEGEMAN Grand Master of Indiana

Part 1

THE middle chamber lecture of the Fellow Craft degree is one of the least understood of all Masonic lectures. Yet, from the standpoint of the Ancient Craft Operative Mason, it is one of the most essential parts of our work.

A study of this lecture reveals that it is a masterpiece of condensation of facts into a minimum of words. From the standpoint of the Speculative Mason, it is merely essentials boiled down to a minimum, and should serve to create a desire for further elaboration through intensive study.

While there are many parts to the Middle Chamber lecture, this series of articles will consider only one--that part which deals with the Five Orders of Architecture. It briefly describes the Five Orders and mentions many of the essentials and details only by mere technical terms. To the student of architecture, these technical terms are sufficient to enable him to grasp the intent of this part of the lecture. To the candidate who is without a knowledge of architecture, they are merely a "jumble" of words. Should the words be delivered by a Senior Deacon who does not understand them himself, they become even more confusing.

In this series we literally will take apart this section of the Middle Chamber lecture and analyze it; and we start with the first statement, which is only a generalization:

By order in architecture is meant a system of all the members, proportions, and ornaments of columns and pilasters. Or it is a regular arrangement of the projecting parts of a building, which, united with those of a column, form a beautiful, perfect, and complete work.

The first question which arises in the mind of the student is, "What is meant by order?"

While it will take a complete discussion of the Five Orders of Architecture to complete the answer to this question, we might state in a general way that order in this instance is the general term applied to a system of columns (free-standing vertical supports) and pilasters (a simulation of a column built integral with the wall behind it), supporting an architrave (that portion of the entablature which comprises the horizontal structure supported by the columns), together with the other members completing this entablature. Reference is made to Figure 1 for identification of these parts.

Order is basic, and is further classified into five types: the Tuscan, the Doric, the Ionic, the Corinthian, and the Composite. Details of the component parts of the order determine the classification into which it should be placed. Such details include the proportions of the columns, (height compared to diameter), the type of column base and cap, and certain specific details of ornament in connection with the entablature.

The next statement in the lecture elaborates upon this:

From the first formation of society, order in architecture may be traced. When the rigors of the seasons obliged men to contrive shelter from the inclemency of the weather, we learn that they first planted trees on end, and then laid others across, to support a covering. The bands which connected these trees at the top and bottom, are said to have given rise to the idea of the base and capital of pillars; and from this simple hint originally proceeded the more improved art of architecture.

From this let us visualize the earliest form of shelter. When it is stated that "We learn that they first planted trees on end," we do not necessarily interpret this to mean that they planted living or growing trees, but that they probably cut such trees and stood them on end. This meant that they had to anchor them at the bottom, perhaps by some form of tying--hence the column base. Then they had to place other cut trees across the tops of these vertical trees, with the first layer across the vertical supports and another layer at right angles to the first layer. This would require some form of tying together, which can be imagined as the suggestion for a column capital. These ties, as well as the projecting ends of the timbers, could easily give a suggestion for the ornament of the architrave.

Figure 2 indicates this primitive method, as well as the late development which it suggests. It will take only a little thought to visualize the possible though unrecorded development from this primitive suggestion down to the current century.

Should it be said that this is purely romance and conjecture, for want of a better explanation, let us consider that architecture or building (whichever you wish to call it) is generally developed through the experience of adding innovations to something already tried. As a rule these innovations are normally a result of trying to solve a new problem where there has been no precedent.

We might consider the early Greek temples. Quite often they consisted of a colonnade or colonnades surrounding a small center enclosure. They were windowless. The center enclosure was small and had small openings in either the side walls or in the roof, to allow the sun to enter. The form of worship did not require a large room for the assembly of a crowd. These temples were designed for a definite purpose.

The same order was applied to other buildings, but it necessitated changes or innovations. When the Romans applied it to the Coliseum it took on quite a change in both shape and form, yet it retained the same basic proportions and details.

The whole development was a case of using ingenuity and applied common sense. When the Greeks started using marble for their temples, they used the marble in accordance with its natural strength. In the columns and in the solid walls, the marble was laid on its natural bed as taken from the quarries, to best resist the vertical stress. When placed across the columns to form the architrave, the blocks of marble were placed on their sides for more strength as a beam.

They originally smoothed the joints of the blocks and laid them dry. Later, with the development of mortar, they were laid on mortar beds, with mortar joints.

After the period of Mediaeval and Gothic architecture in Europe, the orders were revived in almost every part of the Continent in a type of architecture known as the Renaissance. Naturally every country developed its own interpretation, as did the architects in the United States of America. In almost every community in this country will be found at least one public building founded on one of the Greek or Roman
orders.

Many of our Masonic Temples have followed this type of design. Even our modern or contemporary architecture, where applied to a strictly formal type of building, is influenced by the proportions of the orders, if not by the detail.

Because this statement might be construed as implying that the orders are basic in all architecture, let it be said that the Five Orders form a basic guide for one type of architecture only; and that there are many other types and, from a strictly personal observation, equally as good. If architecture was limited to the Five Orders there would be no need for imagination or creative ability with respect to design. There are basic rules and proportions to follow in connection with these orders. The result is either right or wrong, depending upon how these basic rules or proportions are followed.

The following quotation is from a book called The. Five Orders of Architecture According to Giacomo Barozzio, dated 1896:

"Classic art, in possessing a standard whereby all proportions may be gauged, has a great advantage over Gothic and other arts in which fancy, compatible with strength, is unrestricted. The value of this standard to the designer and student is inestimable. It acts as a guide to him from the beginning and holds up to him the ideal, at which he will aim as closely as circumstances permit. In many cases exact adherence to the model is impossible; the heights of stories, the sizes of ground, the necessities of the occupants of the building, often make anything like a near approach to it exceedingly difficult. Nevertheless it remains as a help in comparison, and is to a designer what his bearings are to a mariner, however far he may drift away."

This is the same as saying, "We will determine the facade of the building according to definite rules and proportions. We will select an exterior and then try to make the plan fit the needs."

While there are some people today who hold to this attitude, to the creative type of architect these would be fighting words. He reveres the orders as they should be revered -- for their beauty, their proportions, and for their development to a sort of perfection in a very early day of this world. Yet in creating a building today, to serve today's needs, he feels that he can use ingenuity and creative ability just the same as the Greeks did when they started building with marble instead of using trees!

Again proceeding with the Middle Chamber lecture:

The Five Orders are thus classified: the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite.

For a generalization of this statement, let us examine the Frontispiece of Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 (Figure 3). This is reputed to be the oldest illustration in Speculative Masonry.

It is very interesting to observe that at this early date a Masonic illustration should be so complete and perfect in detail, when considered from the standpoint of architecture.

In this illustration we have a composite picture of the Five Orders, true in their proportions. It illustrates the Tuscan, the Doric, the Ionic, the Corinthian and the Composite in sequence. Furthermore, as indicated by the superimposed lines, it shows the relative proportions of the columns, assuming all columns in this illustration to be of the same diameter. Each column capital is carefully detailed as is the entablature above it.

From an architectural standpoint, there might be criticism. Although the Composite columns are carefully drawn, with the proper fluting, none of the others are so indicated; and while the lines in the next three sets of columns might be construed as indications of fluting, the Tuscan columns at the rear have the same lines, and they certainly should be plain shafts. This, however, can all be readily attributed to the small-ness of the drawing as the orders recede in the background. This type of freedom in depicting detail is still a common practice today among delineators.

Again, on careful scrutiny, the student of architecture might observe that the shafts of the columns are straight, without entasis. (Entasis is explained by Sir Bannister Fletcher in his History of Architecture as "a slight swelling on the shaft of a column which prevents a hollow appearance.") This, then, might be a clue to the possibility that this illustration was made by a speculative rather than an operative Mason (known to us today as an architect).

As a further elaboration of the meaning of entasis, the Greeks developed a system of correcting optical illusions in their temples. If we stand at the base of a tall shaft or a tall chimney with straight sides, and look upward, the shaft will appear to be larger at the top. We can look at the photograph of a large object, taken with a normal camera without a corrective type of lens, and we will see that the object is distorted. It is all the same.

Here let us refer to Figure 4. To correct this optical illusion, the Greeks found that the outer or end columns should lean inward. They also found that the base of the building, which was normally a porch edge with several steps, should be higher at the center than at the ends for the same reason. In the Parthenon at Athens, according to Sir Bannister Fletcher, the base has an upward curvature toward the center of 2.61 inches on the east and west fronts. The axes of the outer columns lean inwards 2.65 inches and would meet if projected to a distance of a mile above ground. The entasis of the columns amounts to about % inch in a height of 34 feet.

While we are not ready to consider the detailed proportions of the various orders, or the ornamentation applied to each, it is suggested that Figure 3 be saved. Thus as each order is presented and discussed in the remaining articles of this series, reference can be made to this illustration. In this way, its authenticity can be determined.

Consistent with speculative Masonry in general, this illustration is truly symbolic of the Five Orders of Architecture as presented in the Middle Chamber lecture. While the Romans did combine the orders in the same structure, as have all architects throughout the ages, there is no known example where they were combined in this particular way. Rather, the illustration originally could have been prepared to present a visual demonstration of the Middle Chamber lecture, with respect to that portion pertaining to the Five Orders of Architecture.

In the next issue of The Indiana Freemason, the second article of this series will start with a detailed examination of the Five Orders, and will then consider the Tuscan and the Doric.