HEBREW ART.
Little, or rather nothing, can properly be said of Hebrew art, for it
is a non-entity. The Hebrews are a mixed race. They assert themselves
to be of the Semitic group of mankind, but ethnologically they are a
composition of black, yellow, and white men, and are closely related
to the Arabs and Phœnicians. They were generally slaves. For 450
years they were in bondage in Egypt, whence they first emerged into a
national existence. From Moses to Saul, for 450 years, they lived under
a kind of theocratic democracy: God, the supreme ruler in heaven, and
the Jews on earth his _chosen_ people. For another 450 years they had a
kind of theocratic monarchy: God ruled in heaven, as the king ruled on
earth. This period lasted from Saul to Zedekiah, and gives us--
(α) A period of 100 years under the first three kings, when
the twelve tribes were yet united; and
(β) Another period during which they formed two separate
kingdoms. Of these
(_a_) Israel, in this condition, lasted 220 years under twenty kings,
who ruled at Samaria, and was destroyed by the Assyrians.
(_b_) Judæa, as a separate State, existed 350 years under twenty-one
kings, and was annihilated by the Babylonians.
Not less than 650 years intervened between the destruction of Jerusalem
and its second destruction by the Romans. During this period the chosen
people were
1. 200 years under Persian sway.
2. 170 years under the dominion of Alexander the Great and his
successors.
3. 130 years they enjoyed a certain independence under the Maccabees.
4. 100 years they were ruled by the Herodes and Romans. After the
second destruction of Jerusalem the Jews ceased to have an independent
State of their own, and were scattered all over the earth. They in
reality enjoyed only 550 years of freedom, as a grand and united
nation, out of a period of not less than 6,000 historically-known years.
Intellect came to absolute consciousness for the first time amongst
the Jews, and in this their historical importance and weight lie. Man,
created in the image of God, lost his state of innocence, absolute
contentment and immortality, by eating of the tree of knowledge. The
Jews were the first to recognise in a higher sense the double nature
of man--his godhead and his animal nature. The country in which they
developed is a perfect geological marvel. The region in which they
settled was divided by a river and a sea. This sea is 1,400 feet
below the level of the Mediterranean. The river flows downwards, like
the Stygian river, far beneath the level of the ocean. The banks of
the Jordan and the lake Asphaltites are the lowest regions of the
habitable globe. In the west the Jews found some fertile plains, but
they never could obtain full and peaceful possession of them, nor of
the sea-coast. They were shut out from the world in a mountainous
region as in a gloomy Puritan chapel, and had ample leisure for
self-contemplation, and for attempting to solve the riddle of man’s
destiny with the help of Egyptian wisdom, Persian, Assyrian and
Babylonian theories. Rocks and sand formed the foreground of their
earthly existence; the background was made up by a gloomy river and a
still gloomier sea--the sea of death, the Acherusian, the Plutonian
lake. A sea too low, too mephitic and poisonous for art to exist round
it. A region of sorrow, sinfulness, and abject wretchedness cannot
be the abode of art and science. The fine art of the Jews was like a
migratory bird in its passage over the sea of death.
Not only with the Jews, but also with the Egyptians, Persians, and
early Greeks, to represent a god in the likeness of man was considered
sinful. The Persians abhorred idols in any shape. The Egyptians gave
their gods shape and form, but a merely symbolic form, expressing in
concrete signs some higher abstract conception. The human head, the
body of a beast or fish, the horns of a ram, or the ears of a cow; the
human leg with the foot of a goat, or the human arm with the claws of a
bird of prey, were sacred, because symbolical. They had a metaphysical
theology written in hieroglyphs. All this was prohibited with the Jews.
They allowed some exceptions, and borrowed the figures of the cherubim
from the Assyrians, the oxen of the temple from the Egyptians, and the
sculptured lions of Solomon’s palace from the Persians; their artists
were foreigners, and the imitation of these works was ever after
forbidden.
‘All those things,’ says Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel, one of their most
learned commentators, ‘which are esteemed holy in the presence of
God, or idea of man, may not be imitated in any known form or shape,
although made without the intention of adoring them, so as to preclude
the possibility of their being worshipped or deified hereafter. Thus
the figure of the divine chariot, which Ezekiel saw, may not be made,
nor the likeness of angels of any degree, nor of man, for these
creatures are all superior from being made in the image of God.’ ...
The prohibition is further applied by him to everything appertaining to
the holy temple, and no house or palace could be built of its size or
proportions.
Poetry and music were exempt from this enactment. The importance
and influence of the social and religious condition on the
development of art may best be studied in the Jews. They had no great
architects, sculptors or painters, no inventors, no philosophers in
natural science, but many excellent poets, theologians, cabalists,
necromancers, philologists and composers. In our times, however,
influenced by the vivifying spirit of Christianity, they count amongst
themselves, in addition to an inordinate number of picture-dealers,
some creditable painters.
They possessed legitimately only _one_ temple. Their first temple was
a portable tent. The second was almost entirely of cedar-wood, richly
provided with metallic ornaments, made by artists from Tyre and Sidon.
They possessed one palace, that of Solomon. Babylonian or Assyrian
architecture was probably reflected in this, and we may thus form a dim
idea of what Solomon’s palace must have been. First the temple, then
the palace was constructed.
The fact that the first temple was a mere tent, shows at once the
nomadic character of the Jews, at a period when the Egyptians had
possessed their architectural marvels for thousands of years. To the
student of history, architecture is a sure measure of the degree of
artistic and social development of a nation. We may boldly say, show
us the plans of the houses, palaces, and temples of any nation, and we
can determine the degree of its civilisation; we can do even more, we
can read its character and religious fervour in these wood, brick,
or stone records. That the Jews, having been compelled to witness all
the misery and superstitious dulness which the Egyptian hierarchy and
theocracy produced, should have detested architecture, and looked upon
sculpture or any stone and brick as a curse to humanity, was quite
natural; and that, once escaped from the bondage of Egypt, they should
have hated any monumental, architectural, or artistic sculptural
attempt, is equally obvious.
The egotistical character of the nomadic trader may be traced in the
architectural constructions of the Jews. Any nation that loves its
god or gods with zeal and self-denial will be sure to build grand
temples to his or their glorification. The Persians had no temples,
because they spiritualised the divine conception to such a degree,
that they thought the first cause present everywhere like light. The
Jews borrowed the same idea, and yet to fix the Eternal Spirit visibly
amongst themselves, they assigned him a permanent abode, where he was
exclusively to dwell; to be near them and to watch over them. Religious
egotism was the mainspring of their national existence, and this
general egotism made every individual Jew an egotist; and egotists are
always bad supporters of anything by which the masses generally may
benefit. Such people look only to the satisfaction of their momentary
wants; they will collect trinkets, earrings, bracelets, armlets,
goblets, gold and silver vessels, but the divine art of architecture,
which binds masses together, will be neglected. We see them at first
contented with a mere tent, and, when they undertook to construct a
lasting building, it was done with all the pomp and gaudiness of a
_parvenu_; they borrowed from all the surrounding rich people anything
they could lay hands upon, merely to be able to say, without reason or
taste--‘Look, my special God has also his special house.’ In the most
powerful period of their national existence, which was a very short
one, the Jews roused themselves to the construction of at least _one_
temple to their Javeh. They wished at last to possess an Akropolis like
the Egyptians, who had so many, or the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians and
Babylonians. Their God was at last to be housed, like the gods of the
despised Gentiles.
The temple of Solomon has been much written upon. Prejudice, religious
fanaticism, blind faith, and unconscious or _voluntary_ ignorance,
dictated the descriptions and guided the reconstructions. Michaelis,
one of the greatest Jewish authorities on Scriptural matters, tells us
that ‘all the representations which we possess of the temple of Solomon
are ornamented with arbitrary forms, and if we ask for authority or
proof of this or that ornamental form, we invariably receive the
answer: It must have been so, for I would have built in this way.’ It
is naturally very difficult to obtain a correct description of the
temple of Solomon, for with regard to its construction we must rely
on the records of the Jews themselves. Unfortunately the Books of the
Kings, Chronicles, Ezekiel, and the writings of Josephus, the varying
descriptions of the translators, and the host of commentators, who
generally obscure the simplicity of the simplest subject, are all at
variance.
We may divide Jewish history into the eight following periods.
During the _first_ period we find them as nomads on the shores of the
Euphrates and Tigris.
During the _second_ period they were received as shepherds in Egypt
Here they learnt for the first time the arts of a settled people. They
found a mighty hierarchy already established; astronomy, chemistry,
architecture, and sculpture were practised by priests, who were
well-versed theologians, lawyers, physicians, and philosophers. Not
only the Jews, who lived amongst the Egyptians, but also the wisest and
most learned men of Greece, owed much to the land of hidden wisdom,
which was undoubtedly the cradle of the Jewish faith and of Greek
philosophy. Moses, Lykurgus, and Solon sat piously listening to the
oracular instructions of the Egyptian priests, who taught in mystic
symbols. Thales, Pythagoras and Plato borrowed their philosophical
theories and systems largely from the Egyptians. The Egyptians worked
out the incarnation theory with mystic refinement. Osiris, the
concealed Lord of heaven, had to become flesh, to conquer evil. He
condescended to become a redeemer--had to suffer a cruel death in order
to paralyse the influences of Typhon. The Greeks and Jews never could
grasp the mystery of a god changing his almighty subjectivity into an
objective human form, in order to attain, through suffering and death,
what he could have fulfilled in a thousand other ways. Osiris was
not only the supreme ruler in heaven, but he was also the supremely
just and inexorable judge in hell. The division of the universe into
an abode of bliss for the departed just, and of eternal darkness and
fire for the unjust, was an Indian, Persian, and Egyptian dogma. To
the blessed it was promised that they should pluck the sweetest fruits
in heaven, ‘for they have given food to the hungry, and water to the
thirsty; they clothed the naked, and lived in truth; for their heart
was with God and God was with them, and they will enjoy eternal life in
his presence,’ Of the wicked, on the contrary, it was said: ‘that they
could not see the countenance of the Lord of heaven, nor ever hear his
voice; they would go about without heads, drag after them their hearts,
be boiled for ever in a cauldron, be hanged for ever by their legs.’
From these metaphysical and mystic Egyptians, the immortal Jewish
lawgiver borrowed the division of his nation into twelve tribes, in
imitation of the twelve zodiacal signs, and the division of Egypt into
twelve nomes. In Egypt he learnt to distinguish between clean and
unclean animals; to practise circumcision, which was with the Egyptians
confined to their priests; but Moses promised to make his compatriots
‘a nation of priests.’ He established the tribe of the Levites, in
imitation of the Egyptian priest-caste; and regulated their income,
mode of living, and duties according to the ten books of the prophets
(see p. 112); he divided the priests into four different classes, which
at a later period were called _Peshat_, exegists, _Remes_, expounders
of dubious points, _Derush_, composers of homilies, and _Sod_, the
hierophants, or those versed in the real mysteries. The initials of the
four names are taken from the Persian word PRDS (paradise) which may be
adduced to prove that what Moses originally instituted was worked out,
and systematised, at a later period, under Persian influence. The whole
arrangement of the tabernacle was Egyptian; the serpent-worship was
Egyptian, and so was the idolatrous predilection for the golden calf.
Moses in his wise gratitude forbade the Jews ever to be hostile to the
Egyptians.
During the _third_ period they left Egypt, and though they were
acquainted with all the smaller arts of their Egyptian task-masters,
and knew how to weave, to cut stones, to model, to cast, and to found
gold and silver, they had to seek and to gain by hard fighting a new
home to settle in. During this period they forgot everything; their
accomplishments were gone when they settled in the Holy Land. For
during times of war the growth of sciences and arts was never fostered.
During the _fourth_ period they reached the very climax of their
national glory. David became master of a large empire which extended
from the shores of the Euphrates to the frontiers of Egypt; this
expansion was accomplished by the force of arms. His successor Solomon
administered and consolidated the empire, founded on blood and iron,
by wisdom and the culture of the arts of peace. After a Cæsar, the
Jews had an Augustus. Solomon lived in friendship and peace with the
surrounding mighty kingdoms, especially with Hiram, King of Tyre. It
was Solomon who began to build Tadmor (afterwards Palmyra, the queen of
the East), to establish in the desert a common emporium for Phœnician
wares, and to enable the Jews to trade with them.
During the _fifth_ period the vast empire was divided into two parts,
the one of which was altogether annihilated, and the other fell into
the hands of the Babylonians, and the temple of Solomon was destroyed.
Slaves and captives are rarely good artists.
During the _sixth_ period, after Kyrus had freed the Jews and permitted
them to return to their native country, their national position
improved. Under Darius, Zorobabel received permission to reconstruct
the temple of Solomon on the foundations of the one erected by that
wise king, and it was accordingly rebuilt, but this could only be done
in accordance with the impoverished condition of freed captives.
During the _seventh_ period, under Alexander the Great and his
followers, the Jews, attacked by Persians, Egyptians, and Syrians,
showed that they could rise to the very highest deeds of heroism and
self-sacrifice.
Finally, during the _eighth_ period, under the Romans, they gave up all
hope of maintaining their position as a chosen people; they revolted
sometimes, but more for theological than political reasons. Pompey
treated them with great kindness and consideration after the capture of
Jerusalem. During the reign of Augustus the town attained a grandeur
and extension which it had never possessed, even in its brightest
days under the sway of Solomon. But stubborn and arrogant as the Jews
always were in times of prosperity, though enjoying a certain amount of
freedom, they revolted, and the town and temple were destroyed. Nothing
was left but the candlestick with seven branches, symbolic with the
Egyptians of the seven planets, and with the Jews of seven archangels,
or of the seven days of the week, sculptured in marble on the Arch
of Titus, together with a facsimile of the holy ark, and some of the
trumpets, used in religious ceremonies. It would be most interesting if
the original relics, which it is assumed are buried in the Tiber, could
be recovered; and, as so many venerable relics of by-gone ages have
been brought to light, we do not despair of once seeing these remains.
The tabernacle, or earliest temple of the Jews, was entirely
constructed on the plan of an Egyptian temple. To convince ourselves
of this truth we need only compare its plan with that of the temple at
Edfou. The triple division into a Pronaos, Naos, and Adytum, or the
Holy of Holies, was strictly observed in both. The Adytum was a cube
10 cubits, or 15 feet each way; an outer temple, as Naos, consisted
of two such cubes, 15 feet broad by 30 feet long. Adytum and Naos
were covered by a sloping roof, which projected 5 cubits (7½ feet) in
every direction beyond the temple itself, making the whole 40 cubits,
or 60 feet, in length, by 20 cubits, or 30 feet, in width. Adytum
and Naos stood in an enclosure--the Pronaos, 100 cubits (150 feet)
long, by 50 cubits (75 feet) broad. From Moses to Solomon, for 600
years, this tabernacle was the only temple of the Jews. When Solomon
began to construct the temple, he adhered strictly to the above
arrangement, only doubling all the dimensions. The temple partook more
of the character of a square shrine, or a store-house intended to
contain precious works in metal; a kind of opisthodomos. The principal
ornaments were two brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz (sun and moon),
by the skilful Hiram of Tyre. They were said to have been marvels of
metal-work. The pillars of Susan or Persepolis, which had capitals
of the same relative proportions, may give us some idea of these. In
Egyptian temples it was also usual to place propyleæ at the porch of
a temple, and the same custom prevailed with the Phœnicians, as in the
case of the celebrated Venus (Astarte or Astharote) shrine at Paphos.
After the construction of the temple by Solomon, Jerusalem became the
holy and exclusive central point of Judaism. There only, and nowhere
else, did they allow their God to be present. Zorobabel erected on
the very spot another altar and temple in the same spirit, and this
is the reason why the erection of a second temple at Heliopolis by
Onias, under the Ptolemæians, caused such animosity and jealousy
amongst Egyptian and Judaic Jews. It is said that the necessary marble,
wood, and stone, and also the gold, silver, and brass vessels had
already been weighed and prepared for the construction of the temple
during the reign of King David, who gave his son the plan of the
whole architectural construction. According to Chronicles, however,
it appears that David made little or no preparation, and that Solomon
only found some of the brass-work ready for use. This latter assertion
is clearly verified by the correspondence between Solomon and Hiram.
Solomon asks for wood for building in general, as also cedars and
cypress trees from Mount Lebanon; adding that he wishes that Sidonians,
as experienced carpenters, should help his own workmen, whom he
designates as less able. This does not say very much in favour of the
artistic skill of the Jews, who at the period of Solomon’s reign had
not yet attained the same degree of proficiency as the pre-historic
constructors of pile-dwellings. The request of Solomon was granted by
the King of Tyre, and Adoniram was sent as foreman of the Sidonian
carpenters, of whom 30,000 were appointed by Solomon; 10,000 of these
worked alternately from month to month. Besides the 30,000 carpenters,
there were 80,000 sculptors, or rather stone-cutters and masons, and
70,000 journeymen, making altogether 180,000 working men, under 3,300
overseers, employed in the construction of the temple, all tributary
_strangers_ whom David had conquered. The construction began 592 years
after Exodus, about 975 years B.C. Mount Moreah, or Moriah, was the
site chosen, and the temple was completed in _seven_ years. The inner
temple was 60 cubits (90 feet) long, 20 cubits (30 feet) broad, and 30
cubits (45 feet) high. Josephus says it was 120 cubits (180 feet) high;
this would make the edifice resemble a square tower. The Pronaos may
have been 120 cubits high. The space, 60 cubits long and 20 broad, was
separated into two divisions. Of these the rear was 20 cubits square,
forming the Holy of Holies, the ‘sekos’ of the Egyptian temples. The
other division, 40 by 10, formed the Naos, the holy place, which was
preceded by a hall, the Pronaos. The division: One God, one priesthood,
and one people, was thus expressed. Rooms were constructed round the
temple three stories high, corresponding to the rooms in the Egyptian
Labyrinth, and the Brahmanic and Buddhistic choultries, or cloisters.
There were thirty rooms on each floor. The height of the temple having
been 30 cubits, this would give 15 feet for each story, walls included.
Josephus doubles all these dimensions, and adopts inconceivable
measurements. The ninety rooms were used as receptacles for the sacred
vessels, and the temple was thus literally a holy treasury. The Holy
of Holies having been only 20 cubits high, a space of 10 cubits, or
15 feet, would have been left above it; of this room no intelligible
mention is made. In the Septuagint there is an allusion, which differs
from the Vulgate and the different translations. In Chronicles we
have upper chambers mentioned, which were overlaid with gold; this
might have been the rooms or chambers above the Holy of Holies. No
special staircase led to this room. It was undoubtedly a mysterious
apartment, and, like all mysteries, excited some writers to very varied
speculations on its possible nature. Amongst others the learned Ben
David, in a letter to Lichtenberg in the Berlin ‘Archive der Zeit,’
asserted that this chamber must have contained an electric battery, for
golden chains connected the room with the pillars of Jachin and Boaz,
which were hollow, and could be placed in communication with the altar
of brass. The points of the temple were golden. At the consecration
of the temple, clouds, produced by incense, suddenly filled the
interior of the temple, and a flash of lightning ignited the sacrifice.
Michaelis tells us that the temple was never struck by lightning--the
lightning, therefore, setting fire to the sacrifice must have been
produced within the temple.
No stone roofs or vaults are mentioned in connection with the temple
or palace built by the Jews; architecture was, therefore, in its most
primitive stage. The inner temple and the Holy of Holies were entered
through folding-doors. The Holy of Holies was entirely empty, symbolic
of the incomprehensibility of the nature of the Deity. This was also
the case in Egypt with the ‘sekos,’ which was, in fact, a shrine either
quite empty, or containing a scroll, on which were written the words:
‘I am that was, that is, and that shall be.’ Two courts surrounded
the temple, an inner and an outer court. The outer court was open
to every Jew, but the inner court to the priests only. The former
was surrounded by a double row of pillars overlaid with cedar-wood.
It is said that Solomon had valleys filled up in order to make the
concrete subconstruction of the length even. Each side of the outer
wall surrounding the whole temple was 4 stadia or 1 stadium (606 feet
9 inches English) in length, giving 2,427 feet all round. The pillars
Jachin and Boaz stood on the staircase of the inner court; each was 36
feet in circumference, 54 feet in height without the capital, which
was 15 feet high. The shafts were hollow and the brass 4 inches thick.
On the south-eastern side stood the round brass basin, called the sea,
30 feet in diameter, in which the priests used to wash their hands.
Besides the ‘sea,’ there stood on pedestals on either side of the
temple five cups, 12 feet in diameter and 9 feet high. The altar of the
burning sacrifice, in the middle of this space, was 60 feet broad and
as many feet long; all these secondary necessaries of the temple stood
in the east. The surrounding courts rose in terraces like those of
the palace of Persepolis. The temple, whatever its magnificence might
have been in precious stones, gold, silver, carved cherubim, brass and
silver vessels, washing-basins and candlesticks, was architecturally an
utter failure, whether compared with the monumental temples of Egypt,
the grand and splendid palaces of Assyria, Babylon, or Persepolis,
or the temple of Diana at Ephesus. The latter, which was built on a
marsh, that it might not be endangered by earthquakes, was 425 feet
in length and 220 in width, and had 127 columns 60 feet high, each
the gift of a king. This is the account given by Pliny, who, however,
describes either the seventh or eighth temple. Stable as was everything
in religious matters with the Jews, they did not venture in rebuilding
their temple to make any alterations; a stone displaced, an ornament
improved, might have driven their God from his chosen abode. With such
ideas art is impossible. The additions made to the temple under the
Romans, in order to render the building more in harmony with their
street architecture, were only outer courts with rich colonnades of
Corinthian columns, and had nothing to do with the temple itself.
These formed the Stoa-Basilica, with the court of the Gentiles, which
is spoken of as imposing and forming a mighty group, and must not be
confounded with the temple itself, which was certainly no specimen of
architecture, either in dimension, in plan, or in decoration, if we
except some stiff vine foliage on capitals, which was exceptionally
characteristic of the Jewish style.
The numerous tombs in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem are rock-hewn,
clearly betraying their Egyptian origin; they are provided with
numerous hollows for the reception of the bodies. These sepulchres are
without any artistic stamp; on some façades we can see the Egyptian
fluted corona. The façades of the so-called royal tombs of Jacob or the
judges are decorated in a Greek style, as are the tombs of Zacharias
and Absalom; the latter stand out from the rock as independent
structures, ornamented with Ionic pillars, and above the Egyptian
corona rises a pyramidal or conical structure; a combination of the
pre-historic tumulus with Egyptian and classic elements. Something is
borrowed from everyone to make up a chosen national element.
In books or in conversation this may avail, but in art, where the outer
impression is to create a corresponding sensation, assertions must be
borne out by visible productions, and to falsify architectural records
is much more difficult than to interpolate passages, alter dates, or
make assertions in utter defiance of probability and possibility. The
Hebrews, whether as Jews or Israelites, had no art, and never pretended
to have one; they were contented with the art-products which other
nations made for them, in perfect accordance with the clearly-expressed
promise of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: ‘That He would give
them great and goodly cities, which they would not build; and houses
full of good things, which they would not fill; and wells digged, which
they would not dig; and vineyards and olive trees, which they would
not plant.’ With such principles neither architecture, sculpture, nor
ornamentation could flourish. Art in Asia never became master of matter
from an esthetical point of view, for, in all these works, matter sways
the mind; it is either an exhibition of precious stones on walls,
or lace-work in marble, or endless heaps of huge granite blocks and
columns without purpose, or decorations in wild, fantastic, and endless
combinations. The Eastern mind could not free itself from the influence
of a mighty hierarchy. In the East it was the eternal _Hermes_, the
_Logos_, the _priest_, who read truth in the stars, manufactured
gods and goddesses, wrote the language of heaven, drew up plans for
temples, squared out the proportions of the human body, and gave laws
to sculptors and painters, to stone-cutters and masons, to joiners and
carpenters, weavers and dyers. Hermes, with his followers, was the
physician, the lawgiver, and the judge of the masses; he prayed, he
sacrificed for them, he prophesied, circumcised, married, embalmed,
and buried them. The priest in the East, whether as Brahman, Buddhist,
Hierophant, Magi, or Levite, generally placed the idea, the spirit, the
word, the λόγος {logos} above the form, which, in itself, crippled the
form the more effectually, because the form, however revolting, was
the mere symbol of some sacred mystery. The creative genius of art was
thus almost extinguished under the stifling and petrifying influence of
hierarchical formalism, and, until it had been freed from this, could
neither develop nor prosper. The process of freeing humanity from this
formalism was first begun and accomplished by the Greeks.