THE PILLARS OF THE PORCH

BY BRO. WILLIAM B. BRAGDON, NEW JERSEY
THE BUILDER MARCH 1922


FROM BIBLICAL accounts we learn of two columns or pillars that were
placed in the Porch of King Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem, one on the
right hand named Jachin, and one on the left named Boaz, which are given
various dimensions but which New Jersey Masons have been taught to
know as eighteen cubits in height, twelve in circumference, and four in
diameter, and which were surmounted by three kinds of ornament, namely,
network, lilywork, and pomegranates.

The origin of these pillars and their correct representation should be of
extreme interest to the Masonic student, and the following brief analysis
may be of some assistance.

Tradition plays such an important part in the study of archaeology and the
history of architecture, that it may always be taken for granted, for every
great school of art or architecture can trace its development to the work of
its predecessors, either from its own country, or from some foreign land
from which aesthetic influence was received by intercourse through trade
or from conquest by war.

To illustrate. The Ancient Greeks spent 500 years in the development of
their Doric column, each successive generation using the results of the
previous decade as a foundation for their endeavours, until the height of
perfection was attained in the Parthenon.  The Spaniards continued to work
in the Moorish style for years after the Saracens had been driven out of the
land they had over-run.

So the first thing to be done in considering the Pillars Jachin and Boaz is
to look about and ascertain if possible the origin of the influence which
worked through the architect who created them.

Hiram Abif, the man selected by Hiram, King of Tyre, to undertake this
stupendous structure for Solomon, King of Israel, was, according to Milman
in his history of the Jews, "a man of Jewish extraction, who had learned his
art at Tyre"; but whether he was a Jew or a Phoenician is of little
consequence, except that he had been trained in a community celebrated
for its workers of brass and metals and for that reason most acceptable to
Solomon.

The Rev. W. Shaw Caldecott in his book on the history of the Temple,
attempts to convey the impression that this building "was not Babylonian,
or Egyptian or Phoenician, or even a subtle blending of what was best in
each, but was the genuine outcome of Hebrew life and Hebrew faith," but
the facts do not substantiate this theory.

From the study of what monuments have been unearthed, we find that the
arts were never developed by the Jews to any great extent, and that their
only large work for posterity was their Temple at Jerusalem, which had no
native traditional inspiration except from the Tabernacle which directly
preceded it, and on that account as much as any, left no guiding mark for
a standard for future generations.

The great French archaeologists, Perrot and Chipiez, in their standard work
on Judea, mention the fact that "the art to which the Temple is due, was
Phoenician art, undistinguished by the power and individuality so
characteristic of Egyptian, Assyrian or Greek productions." Yet history tells
us how the Phoenicians became the leading trading people of the East,
and that commercial enterprises carried the art of Egypt to their own
country and thence to Babylonia, and even to Greece, both of which latter
nations show Egyptian influence in their decorative arts.

And so for the very reason that the Phoenicians borrowed their forms from
the Nile and the Euphrates valleys it was a poor art at best, and became
even more debased, from the architect's point of view, when transferred to
a neighbouring people who had no underlying traditions of their own. This
mixture of styles is most apparent in the Pillars of the Temple Porch, where
a confusing and unusual order was created, as we shall see, which has
baffled scholars in their many attempts at restoration.

Hiram Abif must have felt this foreign influence in the gatherings of trained
men among whom he studied and worked, for his building in many
respects was modelled from the Egyptian temple, as, to quote Milman, "it
retained the ground-plan and disposition of the Egyptian, or rather of
almost all sacred edifices of antiquity; even its measurements are singularly
in unison with some of the most ancient temples in Upper Egypt.  It
consisted of a propylaeon, a temple, and a sanctuary; called respectively
the Porch, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies," with rising steps and
darkening chambers as one progressed, producing an element of mystery,
in exact imitation of the temples built on the Nile.

Before the Porch of Solomon's Temple stood two pillars of brass, similar
to Egyptian obelisks, Jachin and Boaz, and it was on these that Solomon
and Hiram Abif determined to lavish the former's wealth and the latter's
ability in an otherwise simple exterior, which treatment of decorative pillars
grouped about an entrance without any structural reason, was
characteristic of Phoenician art as well, for the architects of  those latter
countries "had no liking for any kind of construction, and especially made
slight use of the pier and column," as Perrot and Chipiez tell us.

They also remark that "we may feel some surprise that the Phoenicians,
who were the pupils of Egypt rather than Chaldea, and had in abundance
the stone denied to the latter country, should have taken the Mesopotamian
architects as their models in this matter of the column," but I think this can
be explained from the fact that Chaldea was of the soil, so to speak, and
in closer touch with Phoenicia by land and by blood than the men of Egypt,
who lived their peaceful lives about the Nile valley, in isolation (except by
sea) from surrounding civilizations.

Also, Herodotus mentions his admiration at the sight of "two shafts, one of
pure gold - the other of emerald," which stood in places in the shrine of
Melkart at Tyre, similar to those occupied at Jerusalem by Jachin and Boaz. 
In fact many other classic authors mention the tall pillars rising in pairs
before the entrances of temples.

At all events the column about an entrance used without any structural
relation was a common form of decoration in Phoenicia, and would
naturally be the motif considered best suited for a temple porch, when
designed by a Phoenician architect.

Although the description of the Porch Pillars given in Kings, in Chronicles,
and by Jeremiah, seems to vary, if an analysis is made of the parts
described in the text we find they are substantially the same, as in one case
the shaft is meant by the pillar, and in another the entire column with its
base, capital, and the platform on which it stood.  So architectural students
generally agree that Jachin and Boaz each rested upon a square base
three cubits high, had round straight shafts eighteen cubits in height, twelve
in circumference and four in diameter, were adorned with square caps five
cubits in height which were ornamented with network, lilywork and
pomegranates, and were further adorned and protected by supercaps four
cubits high.

This description appears to be clear and would be simple to understand
except for the exact meaning of "network, lilywork and pomegranates."
There have been countless interpretations of these words, and many
restorations of the Pillars, but I have never seen any two alike, nor any that
I consider exactly fitting.

In all architecture the capital has been the feature of the order reserved for
decoration, and although any type can be designated by a glance at this
member, strange to say it is the cap that is the stumbling-block in this case.
 
Geometric patterns were common forms of surface ornamentation with the
Egyptians and Chaldeans, and criss-cross line work, or network, in
applique, was frequently used, so that we do not hesitate long here for the
meaning of "network."

There seems to be more controversy, however, over the interpretation of
pomegranates, although I do not see why there should be.  The
pomegranate flower with its rose shape of petals and heart was constantly
represented in conventional form as a rosette for a means of decoration in
all the countries of Asia Minor, and was so used as embroidery on the
robes of the High Priests of the Temple.  Examples at this period of
pomegranate as fruit are rare, but the flower was used in some form in
nearly every fragment of Phoenician and Mesopotamian sculpture that has
been reclaimed, and always adorns the enframements and balconies about
the entrance porches of the temples and palaces.

It has been argued that the "chains of pomegranates" mentioned in the
Bible refers to the fruit; I see no reason why it does not suggest a garland
of flowers, such as our daisy chain, for the garland or festoon was used in
all ancient art and was continued in the Roman Period and later in the
Renaissance.

If we therefore assume that rosettes of pomegranate flowers were meant in
the Biblical text, it is a question of the application of this ornament to the
cap, and in this connection the natural architectural reasoning would be to
apply cast buttons in rosette form in the spaces enclosed by the
intersections of the diagonal strands of network.

Jeremiah describes these caps at the time of the destruction of the Temple
as composed of twenty-four rosettes on each side, one hundred all told, so
that the four needed to supply the difference might have been placed at the
corners as buttons for supporting the hanging festoons of the same flower.
In this respect I agree with Mr. Caldecott, for I feel that the drooping
garlands hoped in transition from the severely plain round shaft to the
heavy cap.

To properly locate the lilywork, however, is a more difficult problem.

In the first place this lily does not correspond with the hothouse or Easter
lily of our day, which it might suggest to the layman, but was undoubtedly
the waterlily or lotus plant of Egypt, which was conventionalized by the
Egyptian architects as one of their chief forms of ornament, and developed
into a capital of one of their early columns.

From Egypt the lotus flower and bud found its way into Phoenicia and
Chaldea, and we find many examples of this ornament used in the temples
in a running and alternating form of design, which was still later developed
by the Greeks into the celebrated and beautiful "honeysuckle" ornament.

It was this lotus flower that was probably intended by the term "lily," and it
will be necessary to consider the purpose of the Pillars in the Porch of
Solomon's Temple in order to picture the lilywork in its position in the
capitals.

Like many objects encountered in the Temple, the Pillars Jachin and Boaz
were symbols of deeper truths which they intended to teach. Although
specialists in Hebrew do not agree as to their meaning, it is possible that
before the former the Kings of Israel were crowned, and there they were
reminded of the fact that they owed their position to the Jehovah who had
established them, while before the latter the High Priests might have been
ordained, and impressed with the importance of conducing the rituals of
their exalted office with fortitude and strength; hence Jachin denoted
"establishment" and Boaz "strength."

And for these and other ceremonies, we are told that the consecration oil
used was poured in the top of the capitals.  This gives us a clue for the
lilywork, for it would not seem illogical that some such form as the Egyptian
lotus bud, which was adaptable to receptacle use, might have been created
as a crowning feature for the cap, acting both as a decorative terminating
pinnacle where there was no supporting beam above, and also serving the
practical purpose of a hidden storehouse for the oil.

The supercaps mentioned seem to have been merely screens to hide the
vessels of oil and to protect them from the vandalism of birds, which was
a common practice of the ancients, evidences of drillings for securing metal
nettings for that purpose having been discovered in the sculptures of the
Greek temple pediments.  These supercaps were probably of network with
pomegranate rosette decoration similar to the capitals below, but with
perforations, and of portable material.

So we find our Pillars Jachin and Boaz with cylindrical smooth shafts and
'square capitals, ornamented with diagonal meshes and cast rosettes,
crowned with lotus bud urns, the whole resting on square blocky bases,
and if the foregoing deductions are correct, the true Pillars were quite
different from our usual lodge room representations.

