By RALPH E. LEGEMAN Grand Master of Indiana

Part 2

IT WOULD SEEM proper, in any detailed discussion of the Five Orders of Architecture, to first present a description and comparison of the Greek orders and then the relationship and comparison between these and the Roman orders. The Middle Chamber lecture defers this until after each order is discussed. It will be helpful to state briefly a few facts concerning this point and then defer further comment until we reach that part of the lecture in which the subject is discussed more fully.

Although we refer to the five orders, originally there were only three, all attributed to the Greeks.

The Romans used these same three in their own version and development, and then added two more.

The Tuscan is one of the two added orders, and if the natural sequence was followed it would be deferred until after the three Greek orders were discussed; yet we find it mentioned first in the lecture.

The Tuscan is the most simple and solid of the five orders.

As each order is discussed we find a natural progression from the stubbier, solid and plain type to the tall, stately and highly ornamented orders.

It was invented in Tuscany, whence it derives its name. Its column is seven diameters high; and its capital, base and entablature have few mouldings.

Figure 5 identifies the various parts here mentioned, and shows the relationship of diameter to height. It also shows the extreme simplicity of this order. The column shaft is plain, without the fluting which we are accustomed to see. The column base and capital are very plain for a Roman order. As our discussion proceeds, we will discover that the Romans elaborated upon column bases and capitals in the various orders.

The simplicity of the construction of this column renders it eligible where ornament would be superfluous.

The Greeks were known for their one-story structures. The Romans, although they built some one-story structures, found a need for a multi-story type of building to satisfy their later day requirements. It is in these multi-story structures that we find the use of the Tuscan order. It was used for the first story of such structures, supporting the other orders in the order of their refinement. Thus, as used for the first story, supporting the other orders, it justified its stubbiness, its appearance of strength, and its simplicity.

---

THE DORIC

The Doric, which is plain and natural, is the most ancient, and was invented by the Greeks.

The Doric, while used by both the Greeks and the Romans, was the first of the three Greek orders, and it also is the most simple and sturdy of the three. Its use as an order in the construction of a temple was almost limited to the Greeks, and there are many well known examples. Perhaps the best known is the Parthenon at Athens (Figure 6). It was built about 454-438 B.C.

Some idea of the magnitude of the Parthenon can be gained by this brief description. It was built on a base composed of three steps. The upper formed a base 102 feet wide and 228 feet long. Each step was about 1 foot 8 inches high, and 2 feet 4 inches wide. The Doric columns were 34 feet and 3 inches high, 6 feet and 3 inches in diameter at the base and 4 feet and 7 inches at the top. The entablature was 11 feet high

---

Another well known Greek example is the Theseion at Athens (Figure 7). In appearance it is much the same as the Parthenon and, although it is the best preserved Doric example in Greece, both the date of completion and its name are matters of doubt.

While the Middle Chamber lecture attributes the invention of the Doric to the Greeks, it is like most inventions, in reality a development. In the Greek Doric we find enough evidence in the columns of Egyptian architecture to be certain that the Greeks must have had some precedent for the development of the Doric order. Figure 8 pictures a tomb at Beni-Hasan, Egypt, and clearly shows columns suggestive of the Greek Doric.

The Doric order was little used by the Romans, not being suited to their ideas of splendor and magnificence. The Temple of Hercules at Cora is the only Roman temple built in this style. Yet, like the Tuscan, the Romans did make use of the Doric in their multistory structures; it being used for the second story, supported by the Tuscan. Since the columns were somewhat thinner, it was more graceful and carried more ornaments and elaborations, as we find by continuing with the lecture:

Its column is eight diameters high, and has seldom any ornaments on base or capital, except mouldings; though the frieze is distinguished by triglyphs and metopes, and triglyphs compose the ornaments of the frieze.

Referring to Figure 9, we find an identification of the parts mentioned, as well as a comparison of this order as developed by the Greeks and the Romans.

When we consider the statement, "Its column is eight diameters high," we must remember that this is a generalization. It applies particularly to the Roman Doric rather than to the Greek, even though the previous quotation credits its invention to the Greeks. By referring to Figure 9, we notice that the Greek Doric column is much thicker in proportion to its height. This drawing is based upon the proportions as found in the Parthenon, where we find the columns about five and one half times their diameter in height. Later Greek examples show the columns to be somewhat thinner in proportion to their height.

In like manner, we can consider the column base and capital. The Greek Doric had no base. The Romans developed a base which was a little more elaborate than the Roman Tuscan base. It had more mouldings, yet they were plain. The Greek Doric capital consisted of a block at the top (known as the abacus), finished with a plain moulding (known as the echinus) where it joined with the column. The Romans elaborated the abacus and added another moulding on the neck of the column. (Figure 9).

---

The triglyphs are similar in both the Greek and the Roman. The essential difference lies in the placing with respect to the corner columns. In the Greek they were placed at the corner, with equal spacing throughout the frieze, and with intermediate columns always centered under a triglyph. This resulted in the fact that the two corner columns were closer together than the intermediate columns. This is noticeable in the pictures of the Parthenon and the Theseion (Figures 6 and 7).

In the Roman Doric all triglyphs were centered over the columns. Thus all columns were equally spaced. By referring back to Figure 2 in the October issue, these triglyphs can be thought of as ornaments expressing the ends of the trees in the primitive structures, supporting the frieze.

The metopes are the square spaces between the triglyphs. Webster defines this as an opening or a hole, as derived from the Greek. In the early Greek examples the metopes were usually plain, without any ornament whatsoever, and could therefore justify the definition. In later examples these metopes were often ornamented with carving or a form of sculpture, quite like our present day murals.

The numerous parts of the entablature each have a name, and in an architectural discussion would justify a description. In this discussion, however, all names other than those mentioned in the lecture will be omitted.

The next statement in the lecture has been covered by the previous comments:

The solid composition of this order gives it a preference in structures where strength and a noble simplicity are chiefly required.

It will be sufficient to add that most of the important Greek structures are of this order.

The Doric is the best proportioned of all the orders. The several parts of which it is composed are founded on the natural position of solid bodies.

This is undoubtedly occasioned by the fact that the Greeks built with large stones, placed in their natural position as taken from the quarries, without benefit of mortar or the use of other materials to gain strength and unity.

It remained for the Romans, in their desire for refinement of detail, to develop an early form of cement. They used their cement to form an early type of concrete for structural use; and they then used the stone and marble as a face veneer rather than as a structural material.

Again we return to the lecture:

In its first invention it was more simple than in its present state. In after times, when it began to be adorned, it gained the name of Doric; for when it was constructed in its primitive and simple form, the name of Tuscan was conferred on it. Hence the Tuscan precedes the Doric in rank, on account of its resemblance to that pillar in its original state.

---

This statement must be analyzed to be understood. If the three Greek orders were the original, to which were added two Roman orders, this statement cannot be accepted in the light of chronological order. The Greek Doric preceded the Roman Doric, and the Romans added the Tuscan! The meaning becomes plain when we consider the use of the Tuscan and the Doric by the Romans.

The first floor columns in multistory Roman buildings were of the Tuscan order; the second floor columns were of the Doric order. Hence, when used together the "Tuscan precedes the Doric in rank," when considered from the standpoint of use. We must consider also that when a mason cuts a fluted shaft, he must first make a plain shaft and then cut the fluting. Therefore the plain shaft of the Tuscan column resembles the Doric column in its original state, before it is fluted.

In the December issue this series will continue with the detailed description of the orders and will exemplify the Ionic.

---

Pronunciation (Phonetic)

<< Part 1

Main Page

Part 3 >>