Skip to main content

THE FIVE PILLARS (OR ORDERS) OF ARCHITECTURE

As the three steps pertain to the symbolism of the three pillars of the Lodge, the five steps represent the five orders of architecture- the Tuscan, the Doric, the Ionic, the Corinthian and the Composite. But save for the architects who are expected to know these architectural orders, one may ask: “what do those words represent?” We are told that “the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian were invented by the Greeks, and that from there, the Romans added two- the Tuscan, which they made plainer than the Doric, and the Composite which was more ornamental and more beautiful than the Corinthian.” Of course the monitor also said that “the Tuscan is the Doric in its earliest state, and that the Composite is the Corinthian enriched with the Ionic”. Beyond these impressive statements, however, nothing else has been said to describe these orders, and so here is a briefing designed for the non-architects and the uninitiated.

THE ORDERS OF ARCHITECTURE AS TRACED TO THE PAGES OF MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY

Here is what the Webster dictionary has to say on these orders:

Tuscan - one of the five orders or architecture, devoid of ornaments and having columns that are never fluted.

Doric - the oldest and simplest order of the three orders of Greek architecture characterized by the columns having no base, and the flutings few, large, and not deep, the capital of simple character.

Ionic - one of the five orders of architecture the distinguishing characteristic of which consists in the volutes of its capital.

Corinthian - an architectural order distinguished by fluted columns and capitals adorned with acanthus leaves.

Composite - a term applied to one of the orders (of architecture) because the capital belonging to it is composed out of those of the other orders, exhibiting leaves, volutes, etc.; applied to plants forming a vast order, and having flowers forming dense heads composed of many florets, in the daisy, dandelion, etc.

And so we now have a glimpse of these archaic architectural terms. Here now are additional information.

The orders of architecture which were invented by the Greeks are not really that ancient. Invented at around 800 BC, these are easily predated by the architectural orders that were designed by the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian engineers. The Egyptians as we know erected their imposing pyramids prior to 2000 BC that till today are still the favorite vacation spots of awestruck tourists; and the Sumerians, progenitors of the Chaldeans, the Phoenicians and the Tyrians, they from whom the two Hirams trace their genealogies and built the magnificent temple of Solomon in 1000 BC, which unfortunately, was erased from the face of the earth by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

But let’s get back to the wordings of the five orders of architecture as mentioned earlier.
The words Tuscan, Doric, Ionic and Corinthian were derived from places of their countries of origin; thus Tuscan was coined from Tuscany in Italy, now famous for its castles and monuments; while the three Greek orders were so named after places in ancient Greece, notably Dorian for Doric, Ionia for Ionic and Corinthian, the order that was inspired by a Grecian city called Corinth. As Composite, the order that the Romans invented, is but a combination of the two architectural orders called Corinthian and Ionic, one may wonder whether this word is but an imitation of the Chinese food called “Chopseuy”, a concoction or a mixture of vegetables taken from here and there!

Now, while monuments to the Tuscan and Composite orders still abound in Italy, the structures dedicated to the three classical orders of architecture have practically vanished as vapor would in the air. The Roman church saw to it that these masterpieces of antiquity were destroyed during their frenzy of eradicating pagan relics during the Dark Ages, these being memorials to pagan traditions and beliefs. And those that managed to remain for posterity to behold were largely because those artifacts were earlier buried and only found recently during archeological excavations and salvaging from the bottom of the seas.

THE EARLY ROOTS OF ARCHITECTURE

From our monitor, we learn that our ancient forefathers already learned to protect themselves from inclement weather by connecting trees thereby keeping themselves dry during the rainy days. This they did by creating bands from top to bottom, a procedure done by imitating or copying the plants that attach themselves to the main tree-trunks that consequently create a dry space within its periphery. We learn that “the bands that connected the trees from top to bottom were said to have given rise to the base and capital of pillars and that from this simple hint proceeded the more advanced art of architecture.” Thus were the ancient columns derived and named, among them the Egyptian papyrus, the Egyptian date-palm and the Persian animal of Iran, columns that predate the three classical Greek columns that were mentioned earlier. These Greek classical columns were also later followed by the Indian foliage and the Indian plain capital, architectural pillars that flourished in that country in 150 BC and 400 AD, respectively.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE FIVE ORDERS OF ARCHITECUTRE

L. Sprague de Camp in his book “The Ancient Engineers” had this to say on the Doric and Ionic columns, applicable paragraphs of which are herein reprinted for the brethren’s information.
“The earlier Greek architects who invented the Greek classical architecture (in 800 BC) developed two styles of temple, distinguished mainly by the shape of the capitals at the tops of the columns. The Doric capital, much used on the Greek mainland, had a simple, bulging, cushion-shaped surface. The supreme example of the Doric Temple was the Parthenon. The Ionic column, first used in (the island of) Ionia, had a more ornate capital, with a pair of spiral ornaments on each side. These spirals, called volutes, are probably derived from some of the leafy forms that the Egyptians gave the tops of their columns. Each style of the temple had elaborate rules of proportion and detail. Doric columns, for instance, were supposed to be about eight diameters tall, while Ionic columns were nine times as tall as their diameter.” In so far as the Corinthian column is concerned, de Camp had this myth to narrate:

“A girl, a native of Corinth, already of age to be married, was attacked by disease and died. After he funeral, the goblets which delighted her when still living, were put together in a basket by her nurse, carried to the monument, and placed on the top. That they might remain longer, exposed to the weather, she covered the basket with a tile. As it happened, the basket was placed upon the root of an acanthus, being pressed down in the middle by the weight, put forth leaves and shoots. The shoots grew up the sides of the basket, and, being pressed down at the angles by the force of the weight of the tile, were compelled to form the curves of the volutes at the extreme parts. Then Calimachus, (famed Greek architect in 500 BC) who for the elegance and refinement of his marble carving was nicknamed “Cathacemus” (meaning artificial) by the Athenians, was passing the monument, perceived the basket and the young leaves growing up. Pleased with the novelty and style of the grouping, he made columns for the Corinthian on this model and fixed the proportions.

In actual fact, the Ionic capital evolved into the Corinthian by gradual stages, by the additions of more and more plant elements. In time, the ornate leafy splendor of the Corinthian diffused about the Greek world. Later, the Romans took it up and spread it from Spain to Lebanon; and men of the Renaissance, loving its showy intricacy, brought it down to the world today.”

In so far as the Roman columns are concerned, de Camp simply said that Rome’s contribution to civilization were its remarkable soldiers, statesmen, administrators, jurists and that the Romans expertise were on civil engineering, that of building roads, aqueducts and bridges, engineering feats that are more useful during conquests. It was no wonder that their architectural skills were of the Etruscan form (Rome’s northern neighbors) or were borrowed from conquered Greek architects who later assimilated their thoughts and ideas and who were later labeled as Hellenistic engineers, and after much intermingling of architectural engineering between its various citizens, consequently produced the plainer Tuscan and the complex and redesigned Composite Orders.
So now the brethren has a bird’s eye view of the five Orders of Architecture. This writer therefore now ends this article but not before acknowledging its source from where this article is greatly indebted, namely:

Mirriam Webster Dictionary, and
The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague de Camp.

Thank you for taking your time reading this Masonic Education Lecture You’ve reach the bottom page anyway, haven’t you?!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Kuya Jun,
Thank you for this very informative article!
The Worshipful Master delegated me the task of giving the 3-5-7 lecture of our Fellow Craft Degree on the next stated meeting in August. We will be passing 2 Entered Apprentices. Your article gave me a much deeper understanding on that part of the lecture.

Trully, your article is a good read for those of us who are not practicing architects.

Fraternally and sincerely,

Rogel

Popular posts from this blog

AUTHORS OF HIRAM KEY ROCONSIDER STAND ON HIRAM ABIF

Remember the article “In Search of the Grand Master Hiram Abif?” where the lion rebutted the claim of Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, authors of Hiram Key, that Grand Master Hiram Abif did not exist? Well, here’s an interesting update un the issue. In their recent book titled “The Book of Hiram” that was first published in the United Kingdom in 2003, it said in page 17.: “When we first heard this assumption (about Hiram Abif- GVG) we found it strange, and in the Hiram Key we said that the character of Hiram Abif does not seem to exist outside the rituals of Freemasonry. This observation caused a number of people to write us to tell us that we were mistaken, so let us here look more closely at what evidence there is in the Old Testament about the architect of Solomon’s Temple. First we are told that the Phoenician king of Tyre named Hiram supplied the design, workers and many materials for Solomon’s building works. This king’s name is variously spelled as Hiram, Hirom and Hur

THE THREE PILLARS OF THE LODGE

In the second degree lecture, the first group of steps in the winding stairs lecture represent “Wisdom, Strength and Beauty” and are exemplified by the three elected officers of the lodge, namely, the Worshipful Master and the Senior and Junior Wardens. That will now be the subject of this article. As backgrounder, these three pillars were first mentioned not in the second degree lecture but in the conferral of the first degree. Portion of the first-degree lecture aptly reads: “A lodge is metaphorically said to be supported by three great pillars, denominated by Wisdom, Strength and Beauty, it being necessary that there should be Wisdom to contrive, Strength to support, and Beauty to adorn all great and important undertakings. These pillars are represented in the Lodge by the Worshipful Master, and the Senior and Junior Wardens.” From the foregoing paragraph, it is evident that this symbolic phrase can be interpreted two ways: 1. On the operative standpoint, and 2. On symbol