height of 210 feet. Either within, or, like the Egyptian obelisks,
before the porch, stood two pillars of brass; by one account 27, by
another above 60 feet high, the latter statement probably including
their capitals and bases. These were called Jachin and Boaz (Durability
and Strength).[28] The capitals of these were of the richest
workmanship, with net-work, chain-work, and pomegranates. The porch was
the same width with the Temple, 35 feet; its depth 17-1/2. The length of
the main building, including the Holy Place, 70 feet, and the Holy of
Holies, 35, was in the whole 105 feet; the height 52-1/2 feet.[29]
[Footnote 28: Ewald, following, he says, the Septuagint, makes these
pillars not standing alone like obelisks before the porch, but as
forming the front of the porch, with the capitals connected together,
and supporting a kind of balcony, with ornamental work above it. The
pillars measured 12 cubits (22 feet) round.]
[Footnote 29: Mr. Fergusson, estimating the cubit rather lower than in
the text, makes the porch 30 by 15; the pronaos, or Holy Place, 60 by
30; the Holy of Holies, 30; the height 45 feet. Mr. Fergusson, following
Josephus, supposes that the whole Temple had an upper story of wood, a
talar, as appears in other Eastern edifices. I doubt the authority of
Josephus as to the older Temple, though, as Mr. Fergusson observes, the
discrepancies between the measurements in Kings and in Chronicles may be
partially reconciled on this supposition. Mr. Fergusson makes the height
of the eastern tower only 90 feet. The text followed 2 Chron., iii., 4,
reckoning the cubit at 1 foot 9 inches.]
Josephus carries the whole building up to the height of the porch; but
this is out of all credible proportion, making the height twice the
length and six times the width. Along each side, and perhaps at the back
of the main building, ran an aisle, divided into three stories of small
chambers: the wall of the Temple being thicker at the bottom, left a
rest to support the beams of these chambers, which were not let into the
wall. These aisles, the chambers of which were appropriated as
vestiaries, treasuries, and for other sacred purposes, seem to have
reached about half way up the main wall of what we may call the nave and
choir: the windows into the latter were probably above them; these were
narrow, but widened inward.
If the dimensions of the Temple appear by no means imposing, it must be
remembered that but a small part of the religious ceremonies took place
within the walls. The Holy of Holies was entered only once a year, and
that by the High-priest alone. It was the secret and unapproachable
shrine of the Divinity. The Holy Place, the body of the Temple, admitted
only the officiating priests. The courts, called in popular language the
Temple, or rather the inner quadrangle, were in fact the great place of
divine worship. Here, under the open air, were celebrated the great
public and national rites, the processions, the offerings, the
sacrifices; here stood the great tank for ablution, and the high altar
for burnt-offerings.
But the costliness of the materials, the richness and variety of the
details, amply compensated for the moderate dimensions of the building.
It was such a sacred edifice as a traveller might have expected to find
in El Dorado. The walls were of hewn stone, faced within with cedar
which was richly carved with knosps and flowers; the ceiling was of
fir-tree. But in every part gold was lavished with the utmost profusion;
within and without, the floor, the walls, the ceiling, in short, the
whole house is described as overlaid with gold. The finest and
purest--that of Parvaim, by some supposed to be Ceylon--was reserved for
the sanctuary. Here the cherubim, which stood upon the covering of the
Ark, with their wings touching each wall, were entirely covered with
gold.
The sumptuous veil, of the richest materials and brightest colors, which
divided the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was suspended on chains
of gold. Cherubim, palm-trees, and flowers, the favorite ornaments,
everywhere covered with gilding, were wrought in almost all parts. The
altar within the Temple and the table of shewbread were likewise covered
with the same precious metal. All the vessels, the ten candlesticks,
five hundred basins, and all the rest of the sacrificial and other
utensils, were of solid gold. Yet the Hebrew writers seem to dwell with
the greatest astonishment and admiration on the works which were founded
in brass by Huram, a man of Jewish extraction, who had learned his art
at Tyre.
Besides the lofty pillars above mentioned, there was a great tank,
called a sea, of molten brass, supported on twelve oxen, three turned
each way; this was seventeen and one-half feet in diameter. There was
also a great altar, and ten large vessels for the purpose of ablution,
called lavers, standing on bases or pedestals, the rims of which were
richly ornamented with a border, on which were wrought figures of lions,
oxen, and cherubim. The bases below were formed of four wheels, like
those of a chariot. All the works in brass were cast in a place near
the Jordan, where the soil was of a stiff clay suited to the purpose.
For seven years and a half the fabric arose in silence. All the timbers,
the stones, even of the most enormous size, measuring seventeen and
eighteen feet, were hewn and fitted, so as to be put together without
the sound of any tool whatever; as it has been expressed, with great
poetical beauty:
"Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric grew."
At the end of this period, the Temple and its courts being completed,
the solemn dedication took place, with the greatest magnificence which
the king and the nation could display. All the chieftains of the
different tribes, and all of every order who could be brought together,
assembled.
David had already organized the priesthood and the Levites; and assigned
to the thirty-eight thousand of the latter tribe each his particular
office; twenty-four thousand were appointed for the common duties, six
thousand as officers, four thousand as guards and porters, four thousand
as singers and musicians. On this great occasion, the Dedication of the
Temple, all the tribe of Levi, without regard to their courses, the
whole priestly order of every class, attended. Around the great brazen
altar, which rose in the court of the priests before the door of the
Temple, stood in front the sacrificers, all around the whole choir,
arrayed in white linen. One hundred and twenty of these were trumpeters,
the rest had cymbals, harps, and psalteries. Solomon himself took his
place on an elevated scaffold, or raised throne of brass. The whole
assembled nation crowded the spacious courts beyond. The ceremony began
with the preparation of burnt-offerings, so numerous that they could not
be counted.
At an appointed signal commenced the more important part of the scene,
the removal of the Ark, the installation of the God of Israel in his new
and appropriate dwelling, to the sound of all the voices and all the
instruments, chanting some of those splendid odes, the 47th, 97th, 98th,
and 107th psalms. The Ark advanced, borne by the Levites, to the open
portals of the Temple. It can scarcely be doubted that the 24th psalm,
even if composed before, was adopted and used on this occasion.
The singers, as it drew near the gate, broke out in these words:--_Lift
up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors,
and the King of Glory shall come in_. It was answered from the other
part of the choir,--_Who is the King of Glory?_--the whole choir
responded,--_The Lord of Hosts, he is the King of Glory_.
When the procession arrived at the Holy Place, the gates flew open; when
it reached the Holy of Holies, the veil was drawn back. The Ark took its
place under the extended wings of the cherubim, which might seem to fold
over, and receive it under their protection. At that instant all the
trumpeters and singers were at once _to make one sound to be heard in
praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice,
with the trumpets, and cymbals, and instruments of music, and praised
the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth forever, the
house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord, so that the
priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the
glory of the Lord had filled the house of God_. Thus the Divinity took
possession of his sacred edifice.
The king then rose upon the brazen scaffold, knelt down, and spreading
his hands toward heaven, uttered the prayer of consecration. The prayer
was of unexampled sublimity: while it implored the perpetual presence of
the Almighty, as the tutelar Deity and Sovereign of the Israelites, it
recognized his spiritual and illimitable nature. _But will God in very
deed dwell with men on the earth? behold heaven and the heaven of
heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this house which I have
built?_ It then recapitulated the principles of the Hebrew theocracy,
the dependence of the national prosperity and happiness on the national
conformity to the civil and religious law. As the king concluded in
these emphatic terms:--_Now, therefore, arise, O Lord God, into thy
resting-place, thou and the ark of thy strength: let thy priests, O Lord
God, be clothed with salvation, and thy saints rejoice in goodness. O
Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed: remember the mercies
of David thy servant,_--cloud which had rested over the Holy of Holies
grew brighter and more dazzling; fire broke out and consumed all the
sacrifices; the priests stood without, awe-struck by the insupportable
splendor; the whole people fell on their faces, and worshipped and
praised the Lord, _for he is good, for his mercy is forever_.
Which was the greater, the external magnificence, or the moral sublimity
of this scene? Was it the Temple, situated on its commanding eminence,
with all its courts, the dazzling splendor of its materials, the
innumerable multitudes, the priesthood in their gorgeous attire, the
king, with all the insignia of royalty, on his throne of burnished
brass, the music, the radiant cloud filling the Temple, the sudden fire
flashing upon the altar, the whole nation upon their knees? Was it not
rather the religious grandeur of the hymns and of the prayer: the
exalted and rational views of the Divine Nature, the union of a whole
people in the adoration of the one Great, Incomprehensible, Almighty,
Everlasting Creator?
This extraordinary festival, which took place at the time of that of
Tabernacles, lasted for two weeks, twice the usual time: during this
period twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred and twenty thousand
sheep were sacrificed,[30] every individual probably contributing to
this great propitiatory rite; and the whole people feasting on those
parts of the sacrifices which were not set apart for holy uses.
[Footnote 30: Gibbon, in one of his malicious notes, observes, "As the
blood and smoke of so many hecatombs might be inconvenient, Lightfoot,
the Christian Rabbi, removes them by a miracle. Le Clerc (_ad loc._) is
bold enough to suspect the fidelity of the numbers." To this I ventured
to subjoin the following illustration: "According to the historian
Kotobeddyn, quoted by Burckhardt, _Travels in Arabia_, p. 276, the
Khalif Moktader sacrificed during his pilgrimage to Mecca, in the year
of the Hegira 350, forty thousand camels and cows, and fifty thousand
sheep. Barthema describes thirty thousand oxen slain, and their
carcasses given to the poor. Tavernier speaks of one hundred thousand
victims offered by the king of Tonquin." Gibbon, ch. xxiii., iv., p. 96,
edit. Milman.]
Though the chief magnificence of Solomon was lavished on the Temple of
God, yet the sumptuous palaces which he erected for his own residence
display an opulence and profusion which may vie with the older monarchs
of Egypt or Assyria. The great palace stood in Jerusalem; it occupied
thirteen years in building. A causeway bridged the deep ravine, and
leading directly to the Temple, united the part either of Acra or Sion,
on which the palace stood, with Mount Moriah.
In this palace was a vast hall for public business, from its cedar
pillars called the House of the Forest of Lebanon. It was 175 feet long,
half that measurement in width, above 50 feet high; four rows of cedar
columns supported a roof made of beams of the same wood; there were
three rows of windows on each side facing each other. Besides this great
hall, there were two others, called porches, of smaller dimensions, in
one of which the throne of justice was placed. The harem, or women's
apartments, adjoined to these buildings; with other piles of vast extent
for different purposes, particularly, if we may credit Josephus, a great
banqueting hall.
The same author informs us that the whole was surrounded with spacious
and luxuriant gardens, and adds a less credible fact, ornamented with
sculptures and paintings. Another palace was built in a romantic part of
the country in the valleys at the foot of Lebanon for his wife, the
daughter of the king of Egypt; in the luxurious gardens of which we may
lay the scene of that poetical epithalamium,[31] or collection of Idyls,
the Song of Solomon.[32] The splendid works of Solomon were not confined
to royal magnificence and display; they condescended to usefulness. To
Solomon are traced at least the first channels and courses of the
natural and artificial water supply which has always enabled Jerusalem
to maintain its thousands of worshippers at different periods, and to
endure long and obstinate sieges.[33]
[Footnote 31: I here assume that the Song of Solomon was an
epithalamium. I enter not into the interminable controversy as to the
literal or allegorical or spiritual meaning of this poem, nor into that
of its age. A very particular though succinct account of all these
theories, ancient and modern, may be found in a work by Dr. Ginsberg. I
confess that Dr. Ginsberg's theory, which is rather tinged with the
virtuous sentimentality of the modern novel, seems to me singularly out
of harmony with the Oriental and ancient character of the poem. It is
adopted, however, though modified, by M. Rénan.]
[Footnote 32: According to Ewald, the ivory tower in this poem was
raised in one of these beautiful "pleasances," in the Anti-Libanus,
looking toward Hamath.]
[Footnote 33: Ewald: _Geschichte_, iii., pp. 62-68; a very remarkable
and valuable passage.]
The descriptions in the Greek writers of the Persian courts in Susa and
Ecbatana; the tales of the early travellers in the East about the kings
of Samarcand or Cathay; and even the imagination of the Oriental
romancers and poets, have scarcely conceived a more splendid pageant
than Solomon, seated on his throne of ivory, receiving the homage of
distant princes who came to admire his magnificence, and put to the test
his noted wisdom.[34] This throne was of pure ivory, covered with gold;
six steps led up to the seat, and on each side of the steps stood twelve
lions.
[Footnote 34: Compare the great Mogul's throne, in Tavernier; that of
the King of Persia, in Morier.]
All the vessels of his palace were of pure gold, silver was thought too
mean: his armory was furnished with gold; two hundred targets and three
hundred shields of beaten gold were suspended in the house of Lebanon.
Josephus mentions a body of archers who escorted him from the city to
his country palace, clad in dresses of Tyrian purple, and their hair
powdered with gold dust. But enormous as this wealth appears, the
statement of his expenditure on the Temple, and of his annual revenue,
so passes all credibility, that any attempt at forming a calculation on
the uncertain data we possess may at once be abandoned as a hopeless
task. No better proof can be given of the uncertainty of our
authorities, of our imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew weights of money,
and, above all, of our total ignorance of the relative value which the
precious metals bore to the commodities of life, than the estimate, made
by Dr. Prideaux, of the treasures left by David, amounting to eight
hundred millions, nearly the capital of our national debt.
Our inquiry into the sources of the vast wealth which Solomon
undoubtedly possessed may lead to more satisfactory, though still
imperfect, results. The treasures of David were accumulated rather by
conquest than by traffic. Some of the nations he subdued, particularly
the Edomites, were wealthy. All the tribes seem to have worn a great
deal of gold and silver in their ornaments and their armor; their idols
were often of gold, and the treasuries of their temples perhaps
contained considerable wealth. But during the reign of Solomon almost
the whole commerce of the world passed into his territories. The treaty
with Tyre was of the utmost importance: nor is there any instance in
which two neighboring nations so clearly saw, and so steadily pursued,
without jealousy or mistrust, their mutual and inseparable
interests.[35]
[Footnote 35: The very learned work of Movers, _Die Phönizier_ (Bonn,
1841, Berlin, 1849) contains everything which true German industry and
comprehensiveness can accumulate about this people. Movers, though in
such an inquiry conjecture is inevitable, is neither so bold, so
arbitrary, nor so dogmatic in his conjectures as many of his
contemporaries. See on Hiram, ii. 326 _et seq._ Movers is disposed to
appreciate as of high value the fragments preserved in Josephus of the
Phoenician histories of Menander and Dios.
Mr. Kenrick's _Phoenicia_ may also be consulted with advantage.]
On one occasion only, when Solomon presented to Hiram twenty inland
cities which he had conquered, Hiram expressed great dissatisfaction,
and called the territory by the opprobrious name of Cabul. The Tyrian
had perhaps cast a wistful eye on the noble bay and harbor of Acco, or
Ptolemais, which the prudent Hebrew either would not, or could
not--since it was part of the promised land--dissever from his
dominions. So strict was the confederacy, that Tyre may be considered
the port of Palestine, Palestine the granary of Tyre. Tyre furnished the
shipbuilders and mariners; the fruitful plains of Palestine victualled
the fleets, and supplied the manufacturers and merchants of the
Phoenician league with all the necessaries of life.[36]
[Footnote 36: To a late period Tyre and Sidon were mostly dependent on
Palestine for their supply of grain. The inhabitants of these cities
desired peace with Herod (Agrippa) because their country was nourished
by the king's country (Acts xii., 20).]
RISE AND FALL OF ASSYRIA
DESTRUCTION OF NINEVEH
B.C. 789
F. LENORMANT AND E. CHEVALLIER
Mesopotamia for many centuries was the field of battle for the
opposing hosts of Babylonia and Assyria, each striving for mastery
over the other. At first each city had its own prince, but at
length one of these petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh
became the capital of a united Assyria. Babylonia had her own
kings, but they were little more than hereditary satraps receiving
investiture from Nineveh.
From about B.C. 1060 to 1020 Babylon seems to have recovered the
upper hand. Her victories put an end to what is known as the First
Assyrian Empire. After a few generations a new family ascended the
throne and ultimately founded the Second Assyrian Empire.
The first princes whose figured monuments have come down to us
belonged to those days. The oldest of all was Assurnizirpal; the
bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated are now in the
British Museum and the Louvre; most of them in the former. His son
Shalmaneser III, and later Shalmaneser IV, made many campaigns
against the neighboring peoples, and Assyria became rapidly a great
and powerful nation. The effeminate Sardanapalus was the last of
the dynasty.
The capital of Assyria was Nineveh, one of the most famous of
cities. It was remarkable for extent, wealth, and architectural
grandeur. Diodorus Siculus says its walls were sixty miles around
and one hundred feet high. Three chariots could be driven abreast
around the summit of its walls, which were defended by fifteen
hundred bastions, each of them two hundred feet in height. These
dimensions may be exaggerated, but the Hebrew scriptures and recent
excavations at the ancient site leave no doubt as to the splendor
of the Assyrian palaces and the greatness of the city of Nineveh in
population, wealth, and power. In historical times it was destroyed
by the Medes, under King Cyaxares, and by the Babylonians, under
Nebuchadnezzar, about B.C. 607.
We are indebted to the monuments, tablets, and "books" recently
discovered for the history of Assyria and other ancient oriental
nations. Layard unearthed the greater portion, on the site of
ancient Nineveh, of the Assyrian "books" (for so are named the
tablets of clay, sometimes enamelled, at others only sun-dried or
burnt). The writing on these "books" is the cuneiform, and was
done by impressing the "style" on the clay while in a waxlike
condition. Many of the tablets were broken when Layard and
Rawlinson gave them over to the British Museum. The reconstruction
of these tablets was undertaken by George Smith, an English
Assyriologist of the British Museum, who displayed great skill and
earnest application in the deciphering of the cuneiform text.
In each reign the history of the king and his acts was written by a
poet or historian detailed to that office. The "books" were
collected and kept in great libraries, the largest of these being
made by Sardanapalus.
The greater part of the expeditions of Shalmaneser IV, succeeding each
other year after year, were directed, like those of his father,
sometimes to the north, into Armenia and Pontus; sometimes to the east,
into Media, never completely subdued; sometimes to the south, into
Chaldæa, where revolts were of constant occurrence; and finally
westward, toward Syria and the region of Amanus. In this direction he
advanced farther than his predecessors, and came into contact with some
personages mentioned in Bible history. The part of his annals relating
to the campaigns that brought him into collision with the kings of
Damascus and Israel possesses peculiar interest for us, much greater
than that attaching to the narrative of any other wars.
The sixteenth campaign of Shalmaneser IV (B.C. 890) commenced a new
series of wars; the King crossed the Zab, or Zabat; to make war on the
mountain people of Upper Media, and afterward on the Scythian tribes
around the Caspian Sea. He did not, however, abandon the western
countries, where he soon found himself opposed by the new King whom the
revolution arising from the influence of Elisha the prophet had placed
on the throne of Damascus in the room of Benhidai.
"In my eighteenth campaign" (886), we read on the Nimrud obelisk, "I
crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. Hazael, king of Damascus,
came toward me to give battle. I took from him eleven hundred and
twenty-one chariots and four hundred and seventy horsemen, with his
camp.
"In my nineteenth campaign (885) I crossed the Euphrates for the
eighteenth time. I marched toward Mount Amanus, and there cut beams of
cedar.
"In my twenty-first campaign (883) I crossed the Euphrates for the
twenty-second time. I marched to the cities of Hazael of Damascus. I
received tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus."
It evidently was at the end of this campaign that Jehu, king of Israel,
whose territory Hazael had ravaged, appealed to Shalmaneser for help
against his powerful enemy. The inscription on the obelisk says that the
Assyrian King received tribute from Jehu, whom it names "son of Omri,"
for the great renown of the founder of Samaria had made the Assyrians
consider all the kings of Israel as his descendants. One of the
bas-reliefs of the same monument represents Jehu prostrating himself
before Shalmaneser, as if acknowledging himself a vassal.