_JEWISH ART._
Palestine, which unites Syria to Egypt, was inhabited by numerous
Semitic and Canaanitish tribes which have left us very meagre remains of
their art. Like that of the Hittites, this art drew its inspiration both
from Assyria and Egypt, though it never did more than imperfectly
imitate them. Pharaonic influence is, however, more deeply to be felt
here than among the Hittites, since Palestine was nearer to the valley
of the Nile. The most important inhabitants of this region were the
Jews, and in spite of the poverty of our archæological documents,
numerous scholars have, for three centuries, taken a special interest in
the works of this people who played so extraordinary a part on the stage
of the world. It must be added that almost all these researches have
been concentrated upon the exploration of the Temple of Jerusalem and
its furniture, which in fact were the highest effort of Jewish art; and
though the monuments themselves are no longer in our hands or before our
eyes, there is not a single edifice in all oriental or classical
antiquity of which we possess written descriptions so circumstantial and
so numerous. A hundred restorations of the Temple, taking these as their
basis, have been attempted; the least complicated system, and that which
has obtained the greatest scientific credit, is that of M. de Vogüé. We
will correct and complete it by means of the more recent researches of
English explorers. Accordingly, all the art of Palestine being
concentrated in the Temple of Jerusalem and its furniture, we shall only
speak incidentally of the few other ruins anterior to the Macedonian
epoch that have been remarked, whether in Judæa or among other nations
of southern Syria, and even among the Nabatæan Arabs.
§ I. THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM.
The city of Jerusalem occupies at the present day the southern extremity
of a plateau bounded on the east by the Valley of Kedron, and on the
west and south by the Valley of Hinnom. This plateau is cut in two from
north to south by a ravine called the Tyropœon Valley, so that it
forms two hills--one on the east, Mount Moriah, the southern extremity
of which, called Ophel, was Sion or the city of David; the other on the
west, of much larger extent, to which the name of Sion is improperly
given at the present day, and to which the city began to extend only
under the kings of Judah. When Solomon ascended the throne, Jerusalem
consisted only of Sion or the city of David--that is to say, the narrow
hill of Ophel, between the Kedron and Tyropœon valleys. Mount Moriah,
on the north, was given up to cultivation, and a rich man of Jerusalem,
Araunah, possessed some ground there, with a threshing-floor on which
camels and oxen trod out the corn at the time of harvest. David had
bought the field of Araunah in order to build upon it the Temple of the
true God, and before beginning the construction he had erected an altar
on the threshing-floor in order that sacrifice might at once be offered
to Jehovah. The materials were collected in great part before the work
began; architects, workmen and artists recruited at Tyre, thanks to the
assistance of King Hiram, hastened to the spot, and the building began
in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (B.C. 1013).
[Illustration: Fig. 168.--Site of the Temple on Mount Moriah.[78]]
The summit of Mount Moriah, the centre of which formed the
threshing-floor of Araunah, had to be levelled in order to serve as the
site of the structure of the temple. In one place the hollows had to be
filled, in another the ridges had to be cut away. The central crest was
therefore surrounded by an immense quadrangular rockwork bounded by
Cyclopean walls of the height of the truncated summit. These supporting
walls, extraordinarily thick, formed of enormous blocks fastened by
iron clamps, were also embanked on the outside at the base, and all the
empty spaces and interstices between the interior wall and the living
rock were filled up with a nucleus of rockwork, so as to form on the
upper part a square platform. A F G L is the threshing-floor thus
surrounded. At the north-western angle--that is to say, A B C D--it was
necessary not to construct a supporting rampart and fill up the
declivity of the mount, but, on the contrary, to cut away the natural
rock into the form of an angle, so that at this point the enclosure of
the temple was bounded by a natural wall rising perpendicularly to the
height of 26 ft. A trench dug by the English explorers at the
north-eastern angle B L K proved that at this point, on the contrary,
the artificial rockwork of the temple basement must have reached the
colossal height of 123 feet. On the south, at E F G H, a labyrinth of
vaults and corridors, supporting a mass of collected material, was
contrived in the substructure, which at the south-eastern angle, at the
point G, forms at the present day a terrace 45 ft. high; and yet the
accumulated rubbish causes the foot of the wall to be more than 65 ft.
below the present surface of the ground! By the system of levelling
which we have described an irregular quadrilateral was obtained, the
eastern and southern sides of which are 1520 ft. and 1611 ft. long, and
the northern and southern side 1017 ft. and 921 ft.
As Mount Moriah extended in a northern direction beyond the temple
enclosure, the platform was on this side accessible to all comers. To
remedy this inconvenience, and turn the new structure into an isolated
citadel as well as a temple, a broad trench was hewn in the rock on the
north-east, A B; and on the north-west, B L, a gigantic moat called
Birket-Israîl, which at the present day, though filled up to the extent
of two-thirds, is still 104 ft. broad and 65 ft. deep. “Thus,” concludes
M. de Vogüé, “we have a large quadrilateral excavated on the north,
supported on the south by vaulted substructures, and surrounded on three
sides by terraces and on the fourth side by a broad moat. Such is the
entirely homogeneous whole of the Haram esh-Sherif; such almost it has
existed for long centuries, for successive destructions and rebuildings
have little altered the primitive plan.”[79] We shall see directly, in
the company of the same scholar, that this immense pedestal, the work of
Solomon, was only modified and enlarged by Herod on one of its sides.
However, the platform thus prepared was not quite level with the natural
crest of rock which crowns Moriah. The culminating point of this rock,
called Sakhra, still rose 16 ft. above the terrace. Instead of sapping
this peak of chalky limestone and removing it, it was taken as the level
of a second platform above the first, but concentric with it and much
smaller. This is the upper terrace which at the present day supports the
domed building improperly called the Mosque of Omar, which would better
be designated by its true name, _Kubbet es-Sakhra_, “Dome of the Rock.”
According to M. de Vogüé, the threshing-floor of Araunah, on which David
set up the altar of Jehovah, was a little to the north of the Sakhra,
where later the altar of burnt-offerings was placed.
After building the platform, Solomon occupied himself with the
structure properly so called. The temple, or more plainly, the house of
Jehovah, was to be enclosed in two concentric courts. Solomon had only
time to finish the first court,--that which immediately surrounded the
edifice, and then the eastern side of the second; this was not completed
till long after his death, in the reign of Manasseh. As soon as the
interior building was ready, Solomon resolved to devote it to the
worship of God, without waiting for the completion of the second court.
He celebrated the solemn dedication of the temple only seven years after
the laying of the first stone of the substructure. The Bible has
bequeathed to us the description of the interior magnificence of this
sanctuary, built and decorated by Phœnician workmen, and of the works
of art collected within it by the most sumptuous of Jewish monarchs. The
architecture and the interior ornaments were all Egyptian in style, like
the Phœnician temples themselves. But nothing is left of the building
of Solomon except the cisterns and the eastern side of the second court.
This court is decorated with a portico, under which Solomon had the
royal throne placed on which he sat when he was present at public
ceremonies; it was still called, even after Herod, the Porch of Solomon.
Under the kings of Judah there were numerous works of enlargement and
restoration; but all was destroyed in B.C. 588, when Jerusalem was taken
by the Chaldæans. Nebuzar-adan, Nebuchadnezzar’s lieutenant, caused the
temple to be set on fire, and all was over with the legendary
magnificence of the son of David.
Fifty-two years later the Jews who had been taken captive to Babylon
were set free by Cyrus, and their leader Zerubbabel at once undertook
to restore the temple of the true God. The work, hindered by the
jealousy of the Samaritans, was not finished till B.C. 516. Sufficiently
similar in plan to that of Solomon, the new temple was less beautiful
and less grand in its proportions; the old men wept when they remembered
the former house. In the course of centuries the new temple underwent
many modifications, at least in its exterior, although the original plan
was not upset to any considerable extent. For instance, in the time of
the Maccabees, the exterior enclosure was extended on the north, and at
the north-eastern angle the fortress named _Baris_ was built, which
Herod altered in later times and which became the famous tower of
Antonia. However the temple of Zerubbabel lasted for nearly five
centuries without being destroyed, and had the good fortune, rare in the
ancient East, to pass through the period of Seleucid rule and the Roman
conquest under Pompey, without being either pillaged or demolished.
Herod, a man of Idumæan race, appointed king of the Jews by the Romans,
conceived the project of making himself popular among his people by
rebuilding the temple in all the splendour which Solomon had originally
bestowed upon it. In the first place, he brought all his efforts to bear
upon the enclosure, which he resolved to enlarge; he doubled it,
according to Josephus. Instead of four stadia in circumference it grew
to six, preserving its former length on the smallest side, so that in
fact it became geometrically double in area. This enlargement took place
on the south, towards Ophel, so that the actual edifice of the temple,
instead of standing in the middle of its peribolus, was removed to the
north. The tower of Baris or Antonia continued to form the northern
boundary. In the annexed figure, A B C D is the ancient peribolus, T the
temple, and C D E F the square portion added by Herod.
[Illustration: Fig. 169.]
“In order to carry out this plan,” says M. de Vogüé, “Herod had the
ancient terraces rased to the ground and rebuilt, as well as the
colonnades which crowned them. Only he respected and enclosed the
eastern colonnade called the Porch of Solomon and its fine supporting
wall. This is the only part of the former temple that he seems to have
preserved: all the rest was destroyed in order to be born again,
restored to youth, and enlarged; the inner sanctuary was demolished to
its foundations.”[80] The work undertaken by Herod began about the year
B.C. 18. Ten thousand workmen were employed upon it under the direction
of a thousand priests, who alone might work with their hands in the Holy
Place and the Holy of Holies. Eighteen months were enough to raise the
inner building, but eight years were required to rebuild the court and
the colonnades. The accessory structures were not finished till the year
64 after Christ, in the reign of Nero; at this date the work was
occupying eighteen thousand workmen.
The foregoing historical considerations compel us to conclude, with M.
de Vogüé, that the Haram-esh-Sherif represents the very enclosure
enlarged by Herod. In fact, the southern side of the Haram is 919 ft.
long, the circumference is 5,006 ft., which, with the addition of 508
ft. for the projection formed by the tower of Antonia, make 5,514
ft.--that is to say, six times the length of the southern side. Besides,
Herod could not develop the enclosure on the north on account of the
tower of Baris and the gigantic moat _Birket-Israîl_, which bounded it
on that side, nor on the east on account of the abrupt declivity which
forms the side of the valley of Kedron, nor on the west where the
Tyropœon valley is. The enlargement could only take place on the
south, and, moreover, as the ground was sloping, it was necessary, in
order to remove the declivity, to proceed as Solomon had done: that is
to say, to construct an immense artificial platform, supported on three
sides by high terraces. The great substructures of the Haram esh-Sherif
are the remains of Herod’s gigantic work. If since the time of that
prince the structure of the temple has been several times overthrown
from top to bottom and continually rebuilt, these successive
restorations have not altered the original plan of the substructure; the
fragments of wall which remained in place served as bases for the new
edifices. The consequence of this is that in these walls different
layers of masonry are perceived one above the other like geological
strata, the original Herodian courses being naturally the lowest.
The most ancient masonry visible, the lowest, is formed of the largest
blocks; the courses are from a yard to two yards high; the length of the
blocks varies between 7½ yds. and 2½ ft. One block is to be observed at
the south-eastern angle which is 13 yards long. Each layer recedes 2
in. from that beneath it; the stones, carefully trimmed, are laid
without mortar. These large blocks are marginal-drafted--that is to say,
each stone is, as it were, bounded by a groove which marks the courses
and the joints. Besides the groove, each block is framed in a chiselled
band smooth but not deep, which forms a second frame, carved within the
groove round the surface of the hewn block. The lower masonry of the
temple is, then, drafted and chiselled at the edge; besides, at
intervals, the surface of the blocks is provided with projecting tenons,
no doubt contrived to facilitate the placing of them. The best preserved
portion of this masonry is the Heit el Maghreby, “the western wall,”
where the Jews come every Friday to weep over the destruction of
Jerusalem and to await the Messiah; it is the Wailing-place. Recent
English excavations, carried 107 ft. below the present surface of the
ground, have proved that this masonry is to be found all round the
enclosure of the Haram.
[Illustration: Fig 170.--The Jews’ Wailing-place (after M. de Vogüé).]
The system of construction immediately above the drafted blocks is
characterised by Roman masonry formed of smooth stones without grooves,
their outer surface being carefully fluted by means of a chisel with
very fine teeth. The blocks, about a yard square, are laid with
sharp-edged joints. This system is especially remarked on the western
and southern sides. The following systems, in the order of their
position one above the other, do not deserve to be described; they are
relatively modern and belong to all epochs, but chiefly to the Saracenic
period.
Not far from the Wailing-place, 39 ft. from the south-eastern corner, is
the celebrated beginning of the bridge which united the temple to the
city, crossing over the Tyropœon; it belongs to the first system of
the substructure, and forms part of it. The English excavations have
brought one of the piers to light; they have shown that the roadway of
the bridge is 295 ft. long, and that the breadth of each arch amounts to
16 yards. While digging at the foot of the pier a pavement was
discovered which no doubt represents the street which passed along there
before Herod’s epoch, or rather even before the destruction of the
Temple by the Chaldæans. Some foundation is formed for this conjecture
by the fact that when the English broke up this pavement and dug lower
still they found the extrados of a vault: this was nothing less than the
arch of another bridge of colossal masonry, which in the course of
centuries had been buried under masses of rubbish: Herod, and perhaps
Zerubbabel before him, built over the ruins without even trying to clear
away the bridge. Who knows whether this arch, called _Robinson’s arch_,
from the excavator’s name, is not the remains of a bridge erected by
Solomon?
In the mass of substructure beneath the Haram, the existence of vaults
and of a network of corridors of drafted masonry has been proved, and
these must, from the character of the work, be contemporary with Herod.
On the platform, two cisterns are seen which probably date from
Solomon’s time, if they are not even earlier, though it must be admitted
that they have been subjected to successive restorations. One is under
the rock Sakhra, the other in front of the mosque of El Aksa: the
latter, especially, which is the largest, is a superb artificial grotto,
upheld by pilasters contrived in the side of the rock. The descent into
that under the rock Sakhra is by a flight of fifteen steps; in the
centre is a well which by means of a subterranean canal opens into the
valley of Kedron, and was perhaps used by Araunah the Jebusite.
[Illustration: Fig. 171.--The western door. Present state (after M. de
Vogüé).]
The outer enclosure built by Herod was pierced by several gates giving
access to the terrace, which are still partly preserved. They are
subterranean with regard to the platform; their threshold was of course
on a level with the ground outside, and they opened on the staircases
formed in the thickness of the terrace. At the present day, as the
ground outside has been raised by rubbish of all kinds, Herod’s doorways
are filled up either entirely or partly. The _Western Gate_ (fig. 171),
near the Wailing-place, is at the present day buried to the extent of
two-thirds. It is surmounted by a great monolithic lintel 16 ft. long,
and its structure belongs to the Herodian system of masonry, but it has
undergone subsequent alterations within.
The two most important of the ancient gates are on the southern side;
they are called the _Double Gate_ and the _Triple Gate_, on account of
the number of their arches.
[Illustration: Fig. 172.--Interior View of the Double Gate.]
The two arched apertures of the Double Gate give access to a large
vestibule, the vaulting of which is supported by an enormous central
column; here the hottest hours of the day might be passed in comfort.
From this vestibule there is an ascent to the upper platform by two
parallel flights of steps separated by a row of pillars. There is
nothing left of the time of Herod but the two outer jambs of the door,
the middle pier, two monolithic lintels similar to those of the Western
Gate, and, lastly, the central column of the vestibule. This column is
squat, for it is only four of its own diameters in height; it has no
base. Its capital, which broadens into the form of a basket, is
decorated with acanthus leaves in very low relief all round.
The _Triple Gate_, also situated on the southern side of the Haram, 67
yards from the Double Gate, is similar to the latter, except that
instead of two arches it has three; besides this, a triple sloping
corridor led to the upper platform.
The _Golden Gate_,[81] opened in the eastern side of the enclosure, was
in its original form similar to the Double Gate and the Triple Gate;
and, like them, it is about 6½ yds. below the level of the platform to
which it gave access; nothing is left of the first structure except the
two monolithic jambs 10 ft. and 13½ ft. high, which seem to be even
earlier than Herod’s building. On the north, there was only one
entrance, on a level with the platform, which communicated with the
outside by a bridge thrown across the great moat.
Now that we have arrived at the terrace we are going to pass through the
different parts of the buildings. They are commanded by the tower of
Antonia, which was built by the Asmonæan kings, under the name of Baris,
and enlarged and embellished by Herod; it occupied the north-eastern
angle of the structure. Its base was a scarped rock, the flanks of which
had been cut away by human hands; its outer wall of enclosure was three
cubits thick. An enormous trench cut in the rock isolated the fortress
on the north, and four turrets flanked the outer curtains at the angles.
Two flights of steps led straight down from the fortress into the outer
court of the Temple.
[Illustration: Fig. 173.--Plan of Herod’s temple (after M. de
Vogüé).[82]]
The great outer court was on three of its sides surrounded by a double
portico--that is to say, by two rows of columns of the Doric order, 25
cubits high; the roof, upheld by this double portico, which was 30
cubits broad, rested upon the outer wall. Or the south, instead of a
portico there was a _basilica_, that is to say, “a building with three
naves of unequal height, supported by columns.” The aisles were 32 ft.
broad and 50 ft. high; the central nave was 48 ft. broad and 100 ft.
high. There were 41 columns in each row, which gave 754 ft. for the
whole length of the basilica. The central nave was supported by three
rows of Corinthian columns, and there were columns attached to the side
walls which corresponded to each row. The building had a panelled
ceiling of carved wood. The basilica opened on the bridge which cut the
valley of the Tyropœon, and its axis was in a straight line with the
axis of the bridge.
[Illustration: Fig. 174.--Bird’s-eye view of Herod’s Temple (Restoration
by M. de Vogüé).]
Such was the court of the Gentiles, accessible to all visitors. A
barrier, only three cubits high, prevented profane intruders from
penetrating into the enclosure reserved for the Israelites, which was
contained within that of the Gentiles. M. de Vogüé thinks that this low
wall of separation, on the southern side, must have corresponded to the
boundary of the outer enclosure of the ancient temple of Solomon.
The enclosure reserved for the Israelites included the _women’s court_
and the _men’s court_, or that _of Israel_. From the Gentiles’ court
access was obtained to the women’s court by a flight of fourteen steps.
This court had, at its four angles, square chambers which served for the
stores of the Temple, for the ablutions and other pious exercises; there
was also the Treasury chamber, in which the specie was kept which was
coined for the exclusive use of the temple. Between these chambers rose
porticoes. On the inner side, the women’s court was separated from the
court of Israel by a series of buildings which opened on the court of
Israel, and the entrance into this court was by three gates, each
provided with porches and five steps. The principal gate, celebrated
under the name of the _Gate of Nicanor_, on account of its fine
architectural proportions and the richness of its construction, was a
folding gate of Corinthian bronze: twenty men were needed to open and
shut it; before it was a semicircular flight of fifteen steps.
The court of Israel, reserved for the men who had accomplished certain
acts of purification, was 11 cubits broad. The chambers which surrounded
it on three sides were used as appendages to Divine worship; their
façade was provided with porches. Each of them was consecrated to a
special service: the skins of victims were salted and washed in them,
musical instruments, salt, the perpetual fire, and wood were kept in
them; the hall in which the Sanhedrim held its sessions was one of them.
A step one cubit broad, which the priests alone might cross, separated
the court of Israel from the court of the priests, and, in the middle
of this court, the temple properly so called and the altar of burnt
offerings stood. “The altar of burnt offerings was formed of three
stages of rough-hewn stone, each stage a cubit less on all sides than
that beneath it; the base formed a square of 32 cubits; the total height
was 15 cubits high; the ascent was by an incline situated on the south,
30 cubits long; two smaller staircases led to the intermediate platform.
On the upper surface the sacrificial fire burnt, and at the four corners
were horns on which the blood was sprinkled and libations of wine and
water were poured. A conduit situated at the southern corner of the
altar received these liquids, and carried them off into the subterranean
drains, and thence into the valley of Kedron.”[83] At the north of the
altar of burnt offerings six rows of iron rings were seen fixed to the
ground in order to fasten the animals to them; there were also eight
small columns to which the victims were suspended that they might be cut
to pieces and flayed, and eight tables upon which the flesh was placed.
[Illustration: Fig. 175.--The Altar of Burnt-offerings (Restoration).]
The temple properly so-called, which stood 22 cubits to the west of the
altar of burnt offerings, was built on a terrace six cubits high,
mounted by a flight of twelve steps. There was thus a difference of 27½
ft. between the level of the temple platform and the court of the
Gentiles. As for the architectural arrangement of the building, it was
similar to that of Solomon. The anterior pylon was 100 cubits high and
20 deep; at each extremity there were chambers in which the sacred
knives were kept, which were used for slaying the victims. The Holy
Place or _Hekal_, and the Holy of Holies or _Debir_, only separated by a
veil, were both 60 cubits high, 30 broad, and together 65 cubits long
measured from outside. “A series of thirty chambers and three stories
was attached to the sanctuary, as in the ancient temple, for a length of
15 cubits, measured without, and this gave to the sanctuary outside the
appearance of a basilica. The whole edifice was roofed with terraces, on
which gilded points were fixed to drive away the birds.”[84]
The Jewish Temple was one of the grandest architectural works that the
genius of the ancients produced. The successive enclosures raised one
above the other, and crowned by the gigantic pylons of the sanctuary,
built of white marble, were the result of an inspiration of genius that
has never been realised except in this instance, and all antiquity had
but one voice to proclaim its imposing majesty. “When the rays of the
rising sun struck upon the metal plates which covered the doors and roof
of the sanctuary, when they illuminated the gilding on the façade, and
the gigantic golden vine which spread its tendrils over the white marble
of the pronaos, the spectator’s eyes were dazzled, and he was forced to
turn them away, and the stranger who perceived the temple in the
distance thought he saw a mountain covered with glittering snow.”[85]
Such was the temple of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, restored by
Herod, in which many of the scenes of the Gospels took place, and which
was destined for so dramatic and mournful a fate. At once a public
market, a house of prayer, and a fortress, it was condemned to be the
tomb of Jewish nationality. Besieged and taken by the Romans, after a
resistance unique in the annals of antiquity for its heroic desperation,
it succumbed before the violence of Titus, and was profaned by Roman
legionaries with torches and pickaxes in their hands. The echo of its
fall, solemnly marked in the pages of human destiny, still resounds
among us, for it was the overthrow of antiquity, and the irreparable
destruction of the old civilisation of the East.
§ II. THE DECORATION AND FURNITURE OF THE TEMPLE.
The house of the Eternal was adorned with unheard-of splendour; precious
woods, gold, silver, ivory and gems--nothing was spared by this people,
jealous for the honour of their God; the accessories also of the worship
of Jehovah, sacred vessels, knives, basins and utensils of every kind
were works of art in which the chiseller and the metal-founder had each
emulated the other’s skill. But the artists who decorated the former
temple, let us not forget it, were Phœnicians. Now, the Phœnicians
always confined themselves to the imitation of Egypt and Assyria; their
technique has a hybrid character, which is, like Syria itself from a
geographical point of view, a sort of compromise between Asia and Egypt.
On these principles of criticism alone can we attempt to restore the
decoration and furniture of Solomon’s temple.
The veil hung between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, and
concealing the latter from sight, was a large piece of silk, on which
the skilful hand of Eastern embroideresses had represented the image of
the world; the four colours which entered into its composition were the
symbols of the elements: purple represented the sea, saffron fire,
hyacinth air, byssus earth. The inner walls were panelled with carved
planks of cedar. In the Holy Place these wood-carvings represented
colocynths and open flowers; in the Holy of Holies, palm-trees and
fantastic animals or cherubim were mixed with the flowers. This
decoration was relieved by plates of gold fixed on the wood with nails
of the same metal. The Ark of the Covenant, in the Holy of Holies, was
sheltered under the wings of two immense cherubim of wood overlaid with
plates of gold. The different parts of these monstrous figures were
borrowed from the animal world, like those of the winged bulls in the
Ninevite palaces. According to the Bible, the cherubim are winged and
have bulls’ feet; they draw Jehovah in his chariot or carry Him upon
their back, like the Assyrian deities. Each cherub has at the same time
a human face and a lion’s face. They form a silent procession upon the
cedar panels, the leaves of the olive-wood doors, and the veil before
the Holy of Holies, alternating with palms and colocynths, which, at
Jerusalem, are substituted for the Egyptian lotus.
[Illustration: Fig. 176.--Egyptian naos and cherubim (M. de Vogüé, p.
33).]
In the Holy of Holies there were two colossal statues of cherubs, 10
cubits high, overlaid with gold, which guarded the Ark of the Covenant.
Each cherub had two gigantic wings, one outspread and drooped over the
ark which it overshadowed, the other symmetrically outspread in the
opposite direction and raised towards the ceiling. M. de Vogüé
ingeniously compares with this description the Egyptian representations
of two figures with long wings, kneeling on each side of the symbolic
scarabæus or the solar disk supported by uræi, which they cover with
their wings.
[Illustration: Fig. 177.--Egyptian ark and naos (from an Egyptian
painting).]
The Ark of the Covenant itself resembled those _naoi_ or _bari_ which we
see carried by Egyptian priests upon their shoulders. It was of
acacia-wood (_shittim_), covered with plates of gold both inside and
outside. It was about 1¾ yards long, 2 ft. 8 in. broad and high. The lid
was called the Throne of Jehovah. The ark contained the two tables of
stone upon which the law of Sinai was engraved.
[Illustration: Fig. 178.--Egyptian table of offerings (M. de Vogüé, p.
33).]
In the Holy Place was the altar of incense, on which incense was burnt
in honour of Jehovah; this was probably a sort of tripod, surmounted by
a bowl with a lighted brazier. There was also the table of shew-bread
and the seven-branched candlesticks. The table, on which twelve loaves
were placed every week, was undoubtedly analogous to the tables of
offerings to the gods so often represented in Egyptian bas-reliefs, with
loaves piled upon wine-pitchers; furniture of the same kind also seems
to be spoken of in the cuneiform inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzer. The
bas-relief on the Arch of Titus at Rome represents Jewish captives
carrying on their shoulders the furniture of their ruined temple, and
among this spoil figures the table of shew-bread such as it was in
Herod’s Temple, under the form of a square cippus.
[Illustration: Fig. 179.--Seven-branched candlestick (M. de Vogüé, p.
33.)]
The seven-branched candlesticks, ten in number, had a peculiar form,
also revealed to us by the Arch of Titus and some other monuments. On
the base with two steps a central stem is fixed, to which six branches
are fitted, three on each side, arranged in the shape of a fan. Each of
the seven branches is adorned with three flowers and a socket. On the
base, fantastic animals are seen in relief. Hiram-Abi, the famous worker
in metals from Tyre, in Solomon’s pay, also “made lamps and tongs of
gold, and bowls and snuffers and basons and spoons and censers of pure
gold,”[86] shovels and goblets of bronze. The candlesticks and other
treasures of the Temple, carried away to Rome by Titus, were seized by
Genseric during the sack of the city by the Vandals (A.D. 455). They
were removed to Carthage, but, on the conquest of the Vandals by
Belisarius, were taken in triumph to Constantinople. The Jews petitioned
the Emperor Justinian to restore these treasures to the Holy City, to
which they rightfully belonged, and he is said to have ordered that they
should be sent to one of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, but we
hear no more of their fate in the pages of history.[87]
[Illustration: Fig. 180.--Capital of the bronze columns. (Restoration by
M. de Vogüé).]
In the court of the priests, before the vestibule of the Temple, there
were two separate bronze columns, reminding us of Egyptian obelisks,
named Jachin and Boaz. The restoration of these two columns, marvels of
Phœnician art, and invested in the eyes of the Jews with a talismanic
power, has often been attempted. They were hollow, and their metal walls
were 3⅓ in. thick. “Their capital, 5 cubits high, had the form of
fleur-de-lis, the lower part of which, swelling outwards, was covered
with a reticulated ornament enclosed within two rows of
pomegranates.”[88] The total height of each column was 41 ft., the
diameter of the shaft was 6 ft. 5⅓ in., the pomegranates, 200 in number,
formed a double collar round each capital.
In the court of the priests, near the altar of burnt-offerings, which
was itself covered with bronze, the famous _brazen sea_ was placed, a
great reservoir from which the priests drew water to purify themselves
before the sacrifice. This bronze basin, which resembled the calyx of a
tulip, was five cubits high (8 ft. 7 in.), and ten cubits (17 ft. 2 in.)
in diameter; its exterior was decorated with two rows of colocynths in
relief: the wall was 3⅓ ft. thick, as in the bronze columns; it
contained at least 8,800 gallons. Instead of feet, the brazen sea was
upheld by twelve bronze figures of oxen, in groups of three, which, in
accordance with the proportion of the basin, must have been larger than
life.
[Illustration: Fig. 181.--The brazen sea. (Restoration.)]
This gigantic basin was fixed and immovable; for the purpose of drawing
water, wheeled basins had been constructed, ten in number, also of
bronze, into which the water intended for ceremonial purposes was
poured. Each had four wheels, like a chariot; the wheels supported a
square box, above which was placed the cylindrical basin, large enough
to contain from 150 to 170 gallons. The walls of the receptacle and of
the box which supported it were decorated with palms, colocynths, oxen
and winged lions in relief.
[Illustration: Fig. 182.--Movable basin. (Restoration.)]
Such were the principal features of the temple furniture; smaller
utensils, knives, pincers, tongs, dishes, are scarcely known to us. An
exact idea of them can, however, be formed by an examination of the
products of Egyptian and Assyrian industry, especially of the dishes,
vases, and utensils found among the substructures of the Phœnician
temples in the island of Cyprus.
Various passages in the Bible enumerate the ornaments of the priests,
such as the _ephod_, which, in certain cases, signifies the liturgical
vestment; in others a sort of sacred casket, containing two talismanic
cubes, called _urim_ and _thummim_. The priestly costume of Aaron is an
embroidered garment in which gems are set, according to the Book of
Exodus. As early as the period of Genesis, we see the children of Israel
making use of seals of precious stone, precisely as their neighbours the
Egyptians and Chaldæans did. A certain number of gems carved in intaglio
have come down to us which bear names apparently Jewish: Shebaniah,
Nathanyahu, Hananyahu, Obadyahu. These seals for the most part only bear
the name of their possessor; they have neither ornament nor symbol.
§ III. CIVIL ARCHITECTURE.
The temple of Jerusalem, in which the national life of the Jews was
concentrated, was also, as we have said, the summary of their art and
industry. In vain have many archæologists, during the last sixty years,
made efforts to discover in Palestine, or in the other regions of
southern Syria, and even in the heart of Arabia, traces of an art which
might have flourished in these regions before the arrival of the Greeks
and Romans. Travellers have indeed observed at Ala-Safat, at Jebel-Musa,
in the land of Moab, on the Bahr-el-Huleh in Galilee, near Hesban, and
in many other places, dolmens and upright stones, analogous to those in
Africa, in Brittany, and on Salisbury Plain, and remains of walls of
Cyclopean masonry, no doubt built by those giants, the Rephaim and the
Anakim, who, as the Bible tells us, were the first inhabitants of these
regions. Certain circles of great blocks, like those of Minyeh and Deir
Ghuzaleh in the land of Moab, may have marked the bounds of sacred
enclosures, temples in the open air, that is to say, of those _bâmoth_,
or “high places” of which the Scriptures so often speak. But these
barbaric remains, like the borders of certain wells at which, perhaps,
the flocks of the patriarchs slaked their thirst, have little interest
for the history of art. No idea can be formed of civil architecture
except by imaginary restorations. Solomon’s palace, which communicated
with the temple and was situated to the south, upon Ophel, was
demolished and rebuilt twenty times with incessant modifications, until
its final ruin. The principal building, standing in the middle of a
spacious court, enclosed by supporting walls which bounded the hill like
the temple-enclosure, was called the _House of Lebanon_, after the place
whence the timber was brought of which it was partly constructed. It was
100 cubits long, 50 broad and 30 high; its walls were built of large
blocks; forty-five cedar columns were counted in it, divided into three
rows, and supporting architraves of the same sweet-smelling wood.[89]
This edifice was used as an arsenal: like the monarchs of Nineveh, the
kings of Judah had a magazine of weapons in their palace.
Behind were the royal apartments, consisting of a hall of columns, and
another room panelled with cedar, called the _throne-room_; in front of
the former stood a porch 50 cubits long by 30 broad. There were also
the _selamlik_ and the _hareem_, arranged as in all oriental palaces.
The offices communicated with the city by means of the _Horse Gate_; the
_Upper Gate_ gave access to the temple-enclosure. This is the extent of
our information upon the subject of Solomon’s palace.
The palace of Hyrcanus, at Arak el-Emir, and the fortifications of
Jerusalem and of the Tower of Antonia, are purely Græco-Roman, and do
not come within the sphere of our work. However, the English explorers
discovered by their soundings on the slope of Ophel, above Kedron, a
fortified wall which presents several kinds of masonry one above the
other; the lowest masonry is perhaps earlier than the rebuilding of the
ramparts by Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity: in this case it
would date, if not from the reigns of David and Solomon, at least from
the time of Jotham and Manasseh. The base of the quadrangular bastions
is formed of very regular courses, sometimes rusticated; the blocks are
8 ft. long by 3 ft. 3 in. high; the marginal draft is even found in
places. This tradition of bevelled masonry has been already noticed in
the Herodian substructure of the Temple; it is also to be seen in the
wall of Hebron (fig. 183).
In a country which generally lacks drinking water, the building of
cisterns is a matter of importance, and this is the case in Judæa. One
of the most remarkable works of this kind is that which carries the
waters of the Fountain of the Virgin to the Pool of Siloam. In the
tunnel an inscription has been found which enables us to fix the date of
the work about the reign of King Hezekiah, and teaches us by what
methods this subterranean canal, 1,750 ft. long, was successfully hewn
in the rock. Two bands of workmen attacked the mountain on both sides at
once, and the miners, after numerous windings, which increased the
labour and the length of the tunnel, at last struck “pick against pick,”
says the inscription, “and heard one another shout” on each side of the
barrier. Thus the water was carried along a passage not more than 2 ft.
broad and of a height which varies from 1 ft. 5½ in. to 14 ft. 7½ in.
But bold as this work may appear in the hands of Jewish engineers, who
possessed neither compass nor exact geometrical instruments, it teaches
us nothing from the point of view of art, any more than the aqueducts
hewn in the rock which are found in other parts of Palestine.
[Illustration: Fig. 183.--The tomb of Abraham at Hebron (after Vogüé, p.
119).]
§ IV. TOMBS.
Palestine and the north-east of Arabia are covered with sepulchral
monuments, but there are few which date from the pre-Hellenic epoch.
Abraham bought a cave called Machpelah from the Hittites of Hebron for
400 shekels of silver, and was buried there, as well as
[Illustration: Fig. 184.--Absalom’s tomb (after F. de Saulcy, _Voyage
autour de la Mer Morte_).]
the other patriarchs of his race. The site of the cave is at the present
day covered by a mosque, and in the crypt of this mosque the bodies of
the patriarchs are supposed to lie. Now, the wall of the crypt, a superb
piece of masonry of imposing appearance, is incontestably contemporary
with Herod; there is the same marginal draft that we have studied in the
enclosure of the temple built by that prince. The tomb called Absalom’s
is also a small building not earlier than the time of the Seleucids, and
if it preserves, like the Palestinian structures of the same epoch, a
few architectural reminiscences of Phœnician art, it has columns,
capitals, and mouldings which are entirely Greek. We need not,
therefore, occupy ourselves with these monuments, or with the tomb of
the Maccabees at Modin, or with the not less celebrated _hypogæa_ known
under the name of _Kebûr-el-Melûk_, or “Tombs of the Kings,” _Tomb of
Jehoshaphat_, of _Saint James_, with its Doric portico, or _Tomb of
Zacharias_: sepulchral chambers which are visited by pilgrims in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the date of which Saulcy has in vain
tried to place even farther back than the Babylonian captivity. The tomb
of Joshua, among the ruins known under the name of Khirbet-Tibneh,
north-west of Jifneh (Gophna), does not seem to be more ancient.
In Arabia, at Medaïn Salih, several tombs have been observed hewn in the
rock, the façade and inner arrangement of which are identical with those
of the Palestinian caves. There are Greek columns, pediments and
mouldings mixed with a few traditional motives, the original birthplace
of which is in Assyria or on the banks of the Nile; cavities for
sarcophagi are arranged around the chambers as in the Jewish tombs. The
inscriptions obtained at Medaïn Salih prove that these burying-places
were formed during the first eighty years of our era.
[Illustration: Fig. 185.--Sepulchral chamber at Medaïn Salih. (Doughty,
_Doc. Epigr. du nord de l’Arabie._)]
However, at the village of Siloam, near Jerusalem, there is a tomb,
known under the name of the _Egyptian Monolith_, which seems to be far
earlier than all those of which we have spoken; there are some who would
even assign it to the epoch of Solomon. This trapezoidal monolith,
Egyptian in style, is 13 ft. high, and the platform measures 19 ft. 10
in. by 17 ft. 10 in. The door which looks westward gives access to a
square ante-chamber which leads into a room 8 ft. long on each side. The
ceiling of the chamber is slightly convex, like many Egyptian hypogæa;
two large niches are contrived in the walls. Outside, the monument is
provided with an Egyptian cornice. All tends to demonstrate that this
tomb is earlier than the Babylonian captivity, in spite of the
architectural alterations to which it has been subjected at a relatively
modern period. Besides, to whatever date the sepulchral caves of
Palestine belong, they are all conceived in accordance with the same
traditional type, which is also that of Phœnicia, and which we shall
find at Carthage; there is always a speos hewn in the rock, a façade
with Egyptian, Assyrian, or Greek ornaments, according to the date, then
a vestibule giving admission through a low, narrow doorway into a
sepulchral chamber.
[Illustration: Fig. 186.--The monolith of Siloam (after Saulcy, _Voyage
autour de la Mer Morte_).]
From this chamber the visitor penetrates through one of several
apertures into other rooms; and round these more or less numerous
chambers the cavities for sarcophagi are cut. Thus the cave of Machpelah
at Hebron must have been arranged as early as the time of Abraham, and
in the same fashion, without doubt, the sepulchral cavern was formed in
which the ashes of the kings of Jerusalem were deposited. The discovery
of the hypogæum containing the sarcophagi of the princes of the house of
David would doubtless be more important for epigraphy than for
archæology properly so called. It would only confirm the verdict
pronounced upon Jewish art: that it is entirely wanting in variety and
originality in every instance except in the Temple of Jerusalem.
[Illustration: Fig. 187.--Tomb in the valley of Hinnom (after Saulcy).]