fifty cubits, and twice as long as it was broad. There were twenty-one
columns, like tent-poles, upon the sides, and eleven upon the front;
those of the corners being counted twice. These supports were five
cubits high, ornamented with silver capitals, and standing in sockets of
bronze; they must have been entirely similar to the shafts represented
upon Egyptian wall-paintings. They appear not to have been joined by
cross-bars. White immovable hangings were fastened between them, beneath
their capitals, with the exception of the four central
intercolumniations of the eastern front, where hung movable curtains of
blue, purple, and scarlet linen. The tabernacle itself, _b_, did not
stand in the centre of this enclosure, but nearer the western end,
probably so that a square of fifty cubits was left before its entrance,
in which space there stood the altar, _c_, of earth and wooden sheathing
for burnt-offerings, five cubits square and three cubits high, and the
laver of brass, _d_. There thus remained upon the three other sides a
space of twenty cubits between the tabernacle and the enclosure. This
disposition is not expressly affirmed, but may naturally be assumed from
the indications presented by the dimensions of the tabernacle, which was
thirty cubits long and ten broad. Except in the front, _e_, where were
five columns, it was formed of forty-eight boards overlaid with
sheet-gold. These boards, like the poles of the enclosure, were not
rammed into the earth, but stood upon double sockets of silver; they
were fastened together by tenons and by bars, which were pushed through
projecting golden rings. The arrangement of the five columns of the
front, also overlaid with gold, is not certain. It is hardly possible
that they were placed in antis; for, although the shafts were but thin
poles, the six intercolumniations thus formed would have had a width of
only one and a half cubits each--too narrow for passage. The two
outermost columns may, from this consideration, be assumed to have stood
before the ends of the boarded wall, in prostyle arrangement, or close
upon this, as indicated in the plan at _e_; a method of avoiding the
narrowing of the space by the two exterior intercolumniations which was
adopted in much later times upon the so-called tombs of Absalom and
Zachariah, to be considered below, where the forms may have been in some
measure decided by reminiscences of these primitive constructions. If
the ten cubits of the tabernacle front were divided into four parts
instead of six, passage would have been easy.
There is no information concerning the appearance of these shafts. Their
sockets of bronze may have been similar to the high bases of Moorish
columns, and to those which support the canopy-poles of our churches. If
the shafts were neither connected by cross-braces nor rammed into the
earth, they must have been provided with a footing even broader than
that of either of the instances mentioned, and have resembled the
wide-spreading plinths of Egyptian lotos columns. That the columns were
disproportionately slim is evident from the consideration that five
shafts of normal Egyptian, or Greek Doric, proportions, ten cubits high,
would have entirely occupied the narrow front of the tabernacle, and
have left no space for the intercolumniations. Mere tent-poles would
have been sufficient, as the building was provided with no fixed roof,
but was covered, like the tents of Bedouins, with colored linen, cloths
of goat-hair, and the skins of rams and seals. As this covering received
its chief support from the side walls, a light epistyle of wood was
sufficient to unite the summits of the front columns. It cannot be said
that there was any entablature, in the proper sense of the word.
The proportions of the tabernacle, three times as long as it was broad,
were like those of the Egyptian temple. It was divided into two unequal
compartments, the front, _f_, being twice the depth of the innermost
holy of holies, _g_. The altar for incense, _h_, one cubit square in
plan and two cubits high, probably stood in the centre of the first
space; it was of acacia-wood, covered with beaten gold. Like the altar
for burnt-sacrifices, its corners were ornamented with “horns,” the
nature of which has been variously explained, but which could have been
nothing else than corner acroteria, like those upon the monuments,
sarcophagi, etc., of Asia Minor, and those of the small altar found at
Um-el-Auamid, in Phœnicia. Such acroteria--which do, indeed, somewhat
resemble upright horns--were not merely for ornament, but served to hold
the golden lattice-work (_zer_) surrounding the top of the altar, to
prevent the scattering of coals. Next to the northern side-wall stood
the table for shew-bread, _i_; in the southwestern corner of the space
the seven-armed candlestick, _k_, was so obliquely placed that, to a
person entering, its flames were in a line. The form of the candlestick
is known from the representation upon the Arch of Titus, which, though
possibly not copied from the original--as Josephus relates that only an
imitation was paraded during the triumph of Titus--yet agrees with the
main points of the Biblical description. The seven arms consisted of
three concentrical semicircles and a vertical staff, all of which ended
at the same height. The base was polygonal, and ornamented with
sculptures, the support decorated with leaves, the arms represented
branches with buds and blossoms, ending in the open calyxes of the
flowers which bore the lamps. Its importance, as was the case with all
the appurtenances of Jewish worship, was considerably greater in
material than in artistic respects; the candlestick was without doubt
solid, and was made of a talent of gold--worth more than four hundred
pounds sterling. A relief of Thabarieh, probably older than the
Christian era, shows its general form; it is given in _Fig._ 101 as
further illustrative of the peculiar metallic style of the
Phœnician-Israelitic art of stone-cutting.
[Illustration: Fig. 101.--Relief of Thabarieh.]
The holy of holies, a cubical space of ten cubits on the side, was
separated from the larger antechamber by four columns, _l_, which were
also covered with gold, and stood upon silver sockets; they bore a
second curtain of four colors. This cella contained the palladium of the
people, the ark of the covenant, _m_, a coffer of acacia-wood, two
cubits and a half long and a cubit and a half high, borne upon poles
fixed in golden rings. Upon the lid, the so-called mercy-seat, were the
figures of two cherubim, monstrous combinations of bulls, lions, eagles,
and human bodies; or, at least, of three of these--the body of either
the lion or the bull being adopted. Though De Saulcy and Layard do not
doubt that these cherubim were perfectly similar to the symbolical
monsters before the portals of the palaces of Nineveh, it must not be
forgotten that the Jews were, at this period of their wanderings, so
completely influenced by Egyptian conceptions of art that peculiarly
Assyrian forms could not have existed in the tabernacle. The cherubim
must rather have been Egyptian--entirely similar to the sphinxes, which,
as has been seen, frequently presented this same combination of human
head and breast, with the body of a lion. Neumann considers the cherubim
to resemble the animals upon an Assyrian ornament, with sunken head and
bent fore-legs; but it is more probable that they were crouched like a
sphinx, or were, perhaps, sitting upon their hinder quarters, like the
figures of a Phœnician throne of rather later period published by
Renan. They were carved in wood and overlaid with thin sheets of gold,
as was also the golden calf with which the Israelites in the desert
sought to imitate the Egyptian idolatry of animals. This is all that can
be said of the Jewish sculpture of the period; the Second Commandment
entirely prevented any independent development of art.
The form and arrangement of the tabernacle are in the main clear. This
is not the case with the monumental temple which Solomon, according to
the plan of his great predecessor, erected to take its place, after King
David had recovered, and brought to the plateau of Moriah (at present
known as Haram-el-Sherif) the ark of the covenant, which had for some
time been held as booty in the hands of enemies. The Biblical accounts
enlarge, after the well-known manner of the Jews, principally upon the
great cost of the materials, and are thus rather archæological notices
than artistic descriptions. As might be expected from writers ignorant
of art, the statements are, for the greater part, vague and confused.
The conditions of Jewish architecture and sculpture appear radically
changed since the time of Moses. Immediately after the exodus, Egyptian
conceptions and manners of work were dominant; but, as time advanced
without further direct communication between the two countries, these
became more and more outgrown, and at last completely changed to a
dependency upon the civilization and art of Phœnicia. The Egyptian
element, however, by no means disappears, for, as has been seen, it
existed in Phœnicia itself, as might be expected from its
geographical position between Mesopotamia and Egypt: The Jews were not
so far developed from a nomadic people as to be able themselves to
create imposing architectural works. These call for centuries of
practice in the art of building. The construction of their temple was
given over to their northern neighbors, the more readily as Solomon was
in friendly alliance with Hiram, King of Tyre. The Tyrian architect
Hiram was sent with a great number of assistants to Jerusalem.
Stone-cutters of Byblos worked, with the aid of Jews, in the quarries of
Jerusalem; the necessary timber was hewn in the Phœnician forests of
Lebanon; and upon the Jordan, in the vicinity of Scythopolis, a
metal-foundry for the temple ornaments was built under Phœnician
direction. An understanding of the activity among these artisans during
the time of building may be obtained from a consideration of the number
of workmen employed: eighty thousand stone-cutters were assisted by
seventy thousand bearers of burdens. This multitude of laborers would
not have needed one year to complete the temple, far less the seven
years actually employed (1014 to 1007 B.C.), had it not been for the
imposing substructure of the rocky plateau,--a mass of masonry which may
almost be compared to the Egyptian pyramids; surpassing the remains at
Ruad, if not in the colossal size of the blocks, at least in the
exactitude of their workmanship. From the numbers said to have labored
in Jerusalem at one time, it appears probable that by far the greater
part of the immense foundations was built under Solomon, though the
supporting vaults of the southeastern corner are known to date from the
time of Herod, if not even later. The erection of enormous terraced
foundations plays a prominent, and at times even the most important,
part in the architecture of all the people of Western Asia.
The temple itself occupied but a very small part of the oblong area,
more than 1500 m. in circumference, which was gained by this artificial
extension of the rocky plateau. This space was provided with gates upon
all four sides, to some of which access was had by arched bridges; it
was surrounded by thick walls and double ranges of columns, asserted by
Josephus to have been monolithic. This outer court, accessible to all,
contained a smaller interior enclosure formed by other colonnades, and
probably also by several large halls; four gateways with gilded bronze
doors led to the interior, to which every worthy Jew had access.
Infidels were debarred from farther advance by a grating almost 1.5 m.
high, which enclosed the space corresponding to the outer court of the
Mosaic tabernacle. The altar for burnt-offerings had been increased in
plan to a square of twenty cubits, and to a height of ten cubits; an
inclined ascent of considerable size was necessary to reach the summit.
It is believed that the kernel of this altar is the holy rock in the
present Mosque of Omar.
The brazen laver (the _kijor_) had developed into the so-called molten
sea,--a basin of ten cubits in diameter, cast in bronze, and supported
at a height of five cubits upon the backs of twelve bronze oxen. It may
be conceived as very similar to the fountain of the Court of the Lions
in the Alhambra. The oxen were so divided in groups of three that they
faced the cardinal points of the compass, “and all their hinder parts
were inward.” These figures, so purely Phœnician, must have been far
more similar to the productions of Assyria than could have been the case
with the Mosaic cherubim. Their heads probably resembled that shown
above (_Fig._ 97) upon the relief of Saida, their legs those of the
primitive animals upon the monument of Amrith (_Fig._ 98), or of the
lions in the court of the Alhambra. The altar and the molten sea were
situated before the front of the temple, the axis of which was turned
east and west, at right angles to the general direction of the outer
court, which ran north and south.
[Illustration: Fig. 102.--Vase Discovered in Cyprus.]
The entrance to the temple was ornamented by two bronze columns, known
as Jachin and Boaz; their height is given in different passages as 18
and 35 cubits, and here begins the confusion caused by the Biblical
contradictions which make it so difficult to obtain a reliable
understanding of the nature of Solomon’s building. It cannot even be
decided whether these columns were in the entrance, as architectural
supports, or stood before the gates, without a function,--they being
spoken of as _in_, _upon_, and _before_ the portico. If they stood in
the entrance itself, as supports of its lintel (as assumed by Baehr), it
is probable that they did not divide its width into three equal
intercolumniations. The diameter of the shafts was four cubits, and such
an arrangement would so have occupied the total opening of the portal,
only fourteen cubits, that but two cubits would have remained for each
of the three passages. It is more probable that they were placed next
to the jambs in the manner assumed for the front of the tabernacle. If
the columns be supposed to have stood before the portico, without any
function of support, like obelisks, all difficulty is avoided. In either
case it would be important, for an understanding of the style of
Solomon’s Temple and of Phœnician workmanship, to comprehend the long
description given of their capitals. It is only clear that these were
four or five cubits high, and had the general form of lilies, probably
that of a calyx, as if derived from the floral capitals of Egypt. A
column discovered in the foundation vaults of the temple exhibits a
peculiarly heavy capital of this kind, which is, however, though
evidently of primitive outline and proportions, characterized by the
acanthus-like carving as a work influenced by the later art of Greece.
It is to be observed that the normal Egyptian-bell calyx, without
additions, could not be spoken of as having the form of a lily, by which
name the curled ends of leaves were usually designated in the Orient.
The volutes thus especially referred to must have been similar to those
upon the Assyrian capital, and notably to those of the rock-cut relief
in the Pass of Mashnaka (_Fig._ 99), which, situated upon Phœnician
territory, offer the most striking analogy. An illustration of the
extensive ornamental employment of the helix termination is offered by
the decoration of a vase recently discovered in Cyprus (_Fig._ 102), and
by pilaster capitals in the Cesnola collection. (_Fig._ 107.) It is an
anachronism to bring the columns, because of their channelled shafts and
some minor peculiarities, into connection with the forms of Persian
architecture, which could not have been developed so long before the
time of Cyrus. The additions--wreaths of chains, nets of checker-work,
hanging pomegranates, etc.--of which the Scriptures render a chaotic
account, cannot, in detail, be understood or explained. If the shafts
are supposed to have been united by a lattice-work of metal, it is more
natural to seek a parallel in the free-standing columns of an Assyrian
relief than in the canopies of Persian thrones suggested by Julius
Braun. That the chains, net-work, and the pomegranates did not hang upon
the capitals themselves has been argued by Vogué, from the analogy of an
ancient capital of the Mosque of Haram, and is made evident by Braun’s
question, how, indeed, it would be possible to count two hundred
pomegranates strung around a capital at such a height above the ground.
[Illustration: Fig. 103.--Hypothetical Plan and Section of Solomon’s
Temple.]
An important portal stood before the halls of the temple. With a plan of
10 cubits deep and 20 cubits broad, the astonishing height of 120 cubits
is attributed to this tower, a number appearing in the Chronicles, and
repeated in the Septuagint and by Josephus, so that it cannot be
regarded as the mistake of a transcriber. But even if the first measures
are arbitrarily assumed to refer only to a small interior space enclosed
by walls of enormous thickness, the constructive impracticability of
erecting a tower of such height is evident; it appears impossible that
the temple could have been preceded by a pile twice as high as the
principal building was long, and six times as high as this was broad! We
would not venture to present a restoration with such proportions, and
must agree with Hirt, Streber, De Saulcy, De Vogué, and others, that the
account is a Scriptural exaggeration, passed on from hand to hand. It is
hardly to be explained by the suggestions of De Saulcy and Streber. The
first of these authorities wishes to reduce the elevation by the
supposition that one half of the entire height existed under the earth
as a foundation, so that only 60 cubits remained visible above. This is
ludicrous; the solid rock beneath the temple rendered such remarkable
foundations useless and impossible to execute. Streber, also seeking to
uphold the Biblical authority, would have it that the 120 cubits was
obtained by adding together the heights of two pylons. But this is no
less inadmissible, apart from the extreme improbability of heights
having been given in so unwonted a manner; the portal appears, from its
narrow width, to have been a single tower, and not divided, like those
of Egypt, into two separate pylons. It is at least probable, however,
that the structure rose above the main building; like the pylons of
Egypt, it must have had a marked talus, and without doubt a cornice of
scotia and roundlet, as these forms appear upon the monumental tombs of
Siloam (_Fig._ 104)--the oldest of Palestine--and as this cornice was
common in Phœnicia, and appears also in Assyria, upon the temple
terrace of Kisr Sargon, and in Persia, over door and window openings.
The entrance, 14 cubits broad, was probably diminished as its walls
ascended, sloping like the outer angle of the elevation, so that the
construction of the lintel presents little difficulty, especially when
we consider the enormous stones employed in the restoration of the
building by Herod, some of which Josephus relates to have been 5 and 6
cubits broad and thick, and 45 (!) cubits long. Above the lintel the
same principle of a relieving triangle seems to have been practised, as
may be observed in various parts of Egypt and in Mykenæ: the blocks
over the door did not lie directly upon the lintel, but gradually
approached from both sides above the jambs, leaving between them a
gable-shaped opening, which was closed, in order to spare the beam
beneath, by only a slab of marble, as at Mykenæ, or by light, thin
masonry. This method of construction is indicated by the mention that a
golden candlestick, dedicated by Queen Helena, was so placed over the
temple entrance as to be shone upon by the sun; and especially by the
reference to a triangle existing over the door which opened into the
holy of holies. The first gate had jambs of olive-wood and movable doors
of cypress, both overlaid with gold. It led to the larger hall, 20
cubits broad, 40 cubits long, and 30 cubits high; to which adjoined the
holy of holies, a cubical space of 20 cubits side. The access to this,
permitted in rare instances, was through a richly carved door, overlaid
with gold and draped with a magnificent curtain. The separating wall was
of gilded cedar. These two halls were surrounded upon all sides, with
the exception of the front, by a large number of small chambers, in
three stories, lighted from without by three rows of windows. These
secondary sacristies were each 5 cubits in height within, and, with
their ceilings, must have attained an altitude of 20 cubits. The holy of
holies was consequently entirely surrounded, and must have been without
windows, and dark. The larger space still rose 10 cubits above this side
structure, and in this clerestory its windows, which are especially
mentioned, must have found place. The flat roof, or, rather, the
terraces upon different heights of which it was composed, mounted from
the holy of holies to the portal tower in steps somewhat more than 20,
30, and perhaps 60 cubits high. According to Eupolemo (Eusebius), the
covering was of copper sheathing.
The temple bore an upper story, explicitly described by Josephus, as it
appeared after Herod’s reconstruction of the building, but which is only
once mentioned before his time, with the remark that these upper
chambers were overlaid with gold (2 Chron. iii. 9). The height of this
second story is evident from Josephus, who gives 60 cubits as the total
elevation of the building, while the space beneath it had but 30 cubits
in this dimension. In regard to the extent of its plan, it must be
assumed that it was not built above the lateral chambers or the holy of
holies, as the height of the principal hall was far greater than that of
the chambers; this would have made the upper story on entirely different
levels, and have required staircases large enough to occupy the whole of
the space above the 20 square cubits of the holy of holies; and the
height of this chamber would, upon the exterior, have become thrice that
of its length and breadth--namely, 60 cubits. Such deformities,
impracticable of execution, without purpose, and offending all sense of
fitness and beauty, may be rejected when the authorities for them are
indefinite and contradictory, or, as is the case with Maimonides (1190
A.D.), are assuredly unauthentic. It is probable that the upper story
was built only upon the ceiling of the larger hall; and that it was not
formed of the massive materials employed for the walls of the lower
temple, but, as is indicated by the statement that these upper chambers
were overlaid with gold, was built lightly of wood. Such a manner of
construction would have permitted a passage to be left around it in the
width of the hall ceiling, thus uniting the suitability and the æsthetic
advantages of a terraced form, and agreeing with Mesopotamian and
Persian analogies. The suggestion may even be ventured that it was by a
misunderstanding connected with these upper chambers that the fabulous
height of 120 cubits was originally assigned to the portal tower, which,
perhaps, was regarded as twice the height of the principal hall; if the
elevation of the lower hall and the upper-story had been taken together,
if 60 cubits had been doubled in the place of 30, this would account for
the 120 cubits taking the place of the more probable 60.
The lower walls of the temple were built of hewn blocks of white marble.
The remarkable statement that a layer of cypress or cedar beams always
followed upon one of stone cannot be explained otherwise than as a
reference to the interior revetment of the masonry with wood. The wall
of the court, where the beams are said to have followed three courses of
stone, must be considered as of triple thickness, its quarried blocks
being hidden by a sheathing, like that of the temple. The statement that
the ceiling joists of the smaller surrounding chambers were not sunk
into the stone wall itself, but were borne upon the beams, now becomes
intelligible; they rested upon the studding of the wooden revetment. The
entire interior of the temple, exclusive of the passage through the
portico, is particularly asserted to have been provided with this
sheathing. The partition between the holy of holies and the principal
hall was probably altogether of wood, as here only the two revetments
were visible. Upon these walls were sculptured ornaments overlaid with
beaten gold. This wood-carving, with its surface of sheet-metal, here
took the place of the sculptured and painted decoration upon the walls
of Nineveh; it is in this point that the chief difference between the
mural treatment of Upper Mesopotamia and Phœnicia appears to have
consisted. Quarries of alabaster were common in Assyria; Mount Lebanon,
on the other hand, provided the most beautiful wood for carving, and
Phœnician commerce procured the metals for the characteristic beaten
work--the sphyrelaton.