Architecture and Speculative Masonry

By RALPH E. LEGEMAN Grand Master of Indiana

Part 5

AS WE COME to the last part of the Middle Chamber Lecture, we find a general summary under the heading of:

ANCIENT ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE

The first statement under this heading summarizes the discussion previously presented under Part 2 of this series:

The ancient and original orders of architecture revered by Masons are no more than three: The Doric, Ionic and Corinthian, which were invented by the Greeks. To these the Romans have added two: The Tuscan, which they made plainer than the Doric, and the Composite, which was more ornamental, if not more beautiful than the Corinthian.

Referring to the Frontispiece of Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 (Figure 3, Part 1), we find a Masonic version of all five of these orders combined in one drawing, showing relative proportions and the respective ornamentations. For the purpose of a direct comparison, Figure 21 shows the orders, both Greek and Roman. No attempt has been made in this drawing to name and distinguish the various parts of the orders,, for all of these were noted and defined in the detailed discussion of each order.

Before commenting upon the Tuscan and Composite orders, as mentioned in the lecture, we should continue with the next statement, which in many respects is a repetition of the first:

The first three orders alone, however, show invention and particular character, and essentially differ from each other, the two others have nothing but what is borrowed, and differ only accidentally. The Tuscan is the Doric in its earliest state, and the Composite is the Corinthian enriched with the Ionic.

All orders, both Greek and Roman are basically the same when considered from the standpoint that they consist of columns, an architrave, and an entablature. The distinction between them lies in the treatment of the column (more particularly in the treatment of the column capital), and in the elaboration of the entablature.

When considered from this standpoint we can readily see that the three Greek orders are distinct and "essentially differ from each other," and can be considered as the justification for the final statement of that part of the Middle Chamber Lecture dealing with the Five Orders of Architecture:

To the Greeks, therefore, and not to the Romans, we are indebted for what is great, judicious and distinct in architecture.

Yet, going back to that part of the lecture just prior to this final statement, we should consider the position of the Romans in the development of these orders, and their addition of the Tuscan and Composite orders.

When we combine the two statements of the lecture with respect to the Tuscan order we have: "The Tuscan, which they made plainer than the Doric. . . . The Tuscan is the Doric in its earliest state."

While the Greeks confined themselves primarily to a one-story temple, such as the Parthenon (Figure 6, Part 2), the Theseion (Figure 7, Part 2), and the Erec-theion (Figure 13, Part 3), the Romans found a need for an entirely different type of structure-- a structure for sports and other events that required a large seating capacity for spectators. Typical of this type of structure was the Colosseum at Rome, which is shown in Figure 22.

The external facade of the Colosseum at Rome is divided into four stories, the lower of which is treated in the Tuscan order, the second story in the Ionic order, and the third and fourth stories in the Corinthian order. It is in multi-storied structures such as this that the Romans employed the Tuscan order. It can readily be seen that they were desirous of employing a column in this position which had a feeling of great strength. Certainly the plain, simple shaft of the Tuscan order looks more solid and heavier than the Doric with its fluted shaft, and this is where we find the essential difference between the two.

Then when we combine the two statements of the lecture with respect to the Corinthian order we have: "... and the Composite, which was more ornamental, if not more beautiful than the Corinthian .... and the Composite is the Corinthian enriched with the Ionic."

To the student of architecture there is a difference between the Corinthian and the Composite. Others have difficulty in distinguishing between the two. It is true that the Composite capital is "enriched" with the volutes of the Ionic, yet the Corinthian capital has small volutes, and we might conclude that the size of the volutes would perhaps determine whether it would be Corinthian or Composite!

Then, too, when we consider that the employment of the Composite was practically limited to the treatment of the Roman triumphal arches, we might draw the conclusion that for such a purpose the Romans might have felt that the Corinthian (employed in other types of buildings) might have been too "common" for such a great purpose. Thus, in their desire to create splendor, they "enriched" that which they had by combining details from the other orders.

It is well to pause for the observation that quite often we confuse elaboration with beauty, that is, things which are very ornate must be beautiful! Whoever was responsible for this part of the Middle Chamber Lecture must have realized this point, and had much pleasure in that pointed statement of the lecture: ".... and the Composite, which was more ornamental, if not more beautiful than the Corinthian."

By this time the reader may well raise the question as to why Masons as well as others "revere" these "ancient and original orders of architecture," and to what extent they have affected later generations? A treatise on such a subject would become very lengthy, and for the purpose of this discussion a few examples taken at random throughout the ages should suffice.

When we consider the Renaissance architecture of Europe and England we need only to point to that great cathedral by Sir Christopher Wren, St. Paul's of London (Figure 23). This not only shows the influence of the orders, it also shows the connection with Masonry. In this Cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren combined two of the original orders in the exterior facades, the lower being Corinthian and the upper Composite. Beauty surmounted by "enriched" beauty!

Speaking of St. Paul's Cathedral, we quote from the March 1950 issue of The Indiana Freemason: "For Freemasons, it stands as one of the great monuments of all time, symbolizing the rise of their Craft and intimately linked with its history and traditions. In the second edition of his Book of Constitutions, Dr. James Anderson indicated that construction of the cathedral was the work of our operative Brethren, under their Grand Master, Sir Christopher Wren, to whom had been entrusted the task after the great fire of London. He was assigned to this monumental undertaking by King Charles II, who laid the foundation stone on June 21, 1675. Thirty-five years later, this great temple was completed and the last stone, on the top of the lantern, was placed by Sir Christopher's son."

We pass now to the early days of the United States of America, and for an example showing the influence of these "ancient and original orders of architecture" on the early days of our country, we need look no further than the original portion of the State House in Boston (Figure 24) for another example definitely linked with the Fraternity.

A Guide Book purchased in Boston contains the following data: "Charles Bullfinch was the architect of this edifice . . . erected for the purpose of holding the Public Councils of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .... The corner stone was laid with Public Ceremonies July 4, 1795, by His Excellency Samuel Adams, Governor, assisted by the Most Worshipful Paul Revere, Grand Master, and other Brethren of the Grand Lodge of Masons."

The facade of the original portion, referred to above, is adorned with columns and entablature of the Composite order. The upper element, forming the base of the dome, contains pilasters with Ionic capitals, while the columns and pilasters of the cupola or lantern on top of the dome have capitals suggestive of ancient modified Greek Corinthian column capitals. While the Romans perhaps would never have surmounted the Corinthian with the Ionic, this shows the freedom employed by later architects when adapting the orders to newer types of buildings.

Next we can consider the Capitol of the United States of America (Figure 25). This is another good example of the employment of the orders in a building for which the cornerstone was laid by none other than George Washington.

Then, in the Masonic Memorial to George Washington at Alexandria, Virginia (Figure 26), we find the principle employed by the Romans in the Colosseum at Rome, superimposed orders!

Then, as stated in a previous article in this series, many of our Masonic Temples have employed the orders. We need only to refer to the home of the Indiana Grand Lodge at Indianapolis (Figure 27), to see how the Ionic order has been employed to adorn the facade.

Notwithstanding the statement in the lecture that "To the Greeks, therefore, and not to the Romans, we are indebted for what is great, iudicious and distinct in architecture," these examples have all shown buildings influenced by the Roman orders. In defense of this statement, a view of the Coliseum at Evansville, Indiana, is shown in Figure 28. This is an example of the employment of the Greek Doric in the 20th Century, and shows how the Greek orders are generally limited today to a one-story treatment as they were in the original period.

While this series of articles was prepared with the idea of illustrating and interpreting the Middle Chamber Lecture for the benefit of the student of Masonry, it also is hoped that they will serve to arouse interest in the Mason to the extent of recognizing the various orders as employed in buildings throughout the United States. It should be remembered however, in this respect, that much liberty has been taken by architects in their interpretations, and that in many buildings details have been changed to fit the occasion. Thus, column capitals may express a motif rather than display the original form, and when this happens we can only say that the orders influenced rather than dictated the design.

It should be pointed out that Masonry originally was an operative Craft; one that was responsible directly for many of the historical buildings and shrines of the world. The work of this early operative Craft has had a direct influence on many of the buildings of later generations; and though we now consider that Masonry is a speculative Craft, many of the present-day Masons still are operative Masons, influenced by our predecessors, carrying on with the hope of further improvement as well as demonstrating that the honor of the Fraternity can be upheld.

<< Part 4

Main Page