Of all the monuments of the internal administration of Solomon, none is to be compared in itself, The Temple. or in its effect on the future character of the people, with the building of the Temple. It was far more than a mere architectural display. It supplied the framework of the history of the kingdom of Judah. As in the Grecian tragedies we always see in the background the gate of Mycenæ, so in the story which we are now to traverse, we must always have in view the Temple of Solomon. There is hardly any reign which is not in some way connected with its construction or its changes. In front of the great church of the Escurial in Spain, in the eyes of Spaniards itself a likeness of the Temple,-overlooking the court called from them the Court of the Kings, are six colossal statues of the kings of Judah, who bore the chief part in the Temple of Jerusalem:-David, the Proposer; Solomon, the Founder; Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Manasseh, the successive Purifiers and Restorers. The idea there so impressively graven in stone runs through the subsequent history, and requires a brief description of the first appearance of this new scene of sacred occurrences. Like all great works, it was the result of a long succession of events. Ever since the return of the Ark from the captivity in Philistia, the idea of a permanent building for its reception had been growing familiar. The mere fact of its separation from its ancient habitation in the Sacred Tent, had necessitated its accommodation within the walls of a "house." The "house" of Abinadab first, and of Obed-edom afterwards, became, as it were, little temples for its reception. When Jebus was conquered by David, his first thought was to find out "a place for the Lord; a habitation for the Mighty One of Jacob." The new capital was the fitting place for the new sanctuary. The ark was accordingly brought to Mount Zion. But here the design was suspended. David belonged to the earlier warlike and nomadic epoch. The fulfilment of his design was reserved for his peaceful son. Still, two definite steps were taken towards it. First, in consequence of the vision which connected the hill with the name of "Moriah,” the threshing-floor of Araunah was selected, rather than the sanctuary on Zion or Olivet, for the sacred site; and the whole hill was subsequently added. Secondly, the materials were begun to be laid in, and communications were opened with Hiram. The Chronicler even ascribes to David the whole plan of the building down to the minutest details. It was the first work that Solomon undertook. The stones were brought partly from Lebanon, Its building. partly from the neighborhood of Bethlehem, partly from the quarries which have been recently discovered under the Temple rock, and known by the name of the "Royal Caverns." Hiram's assistance was doubly valuable, both from the architectural skill 1 Ps. cxxxii. 5. 91 Chr. xxviii. 11, 12, 19. Of this there is no indication in the Books of Kings. On the contrary, the design and preparation is ascribed exclusively to Solomon, on the very occasions where they are by the Chronicles 3 Mishna, Middoth, iii. 4. of his countrymen,' already employed in his own great buildings, and from his supply of the cedar of Lebanon, conveyed on rafts to Joppa. An immense array, chiefly of Canaanites, was raised to work in the forests, and in the quarries of Lebanon. In order to reconcile the spirit of the new architecture as nearly as was possible with the letter of the old law, the stones were hewn in the quarries, and placed with reverent silence one upon another without sound of axe or hammer, as if, by the gradual growth of nature, Like some tall palm, the noiseless fabric sprang. As the building was itself an innovation on the strict Mosaic ritual, so much more was the ornamental treatment of brass and wood. Accordingly Hiram, the first sculptor and engraver of Israel was half a foreigner.* His father was a Tyrian, and was dead; but his mother was a Danite who lived in Naphtali. He thus sprang, on the Israelite side, from the same tribe, and (according to Jewish tradition 5) from the same family, as Aholiab, the Danite artist in the wilderness. So wide was his fame, and so profound the reverence entertained for him. by the two sovereigns to whom he belonged, that he is called "the father" both of Solomon and of Hiram.® Under his directions, the vessels of brass were cast in the clay-pits of the Jordan' valley; and they were so numerous, that Solomon, with a true Oriental and imperial magnificence, left them unweighed, - “ their "weight was never found out." 1 The uneven rock of Moriah had to be levelled, and the inequalities filled by immense substructions of "great stones," "costly stones," "hewed stones." It is of these, if of any part of the Temple, that the remains are still to be seen.2 The general arrangements were taken from those of the Tabernacle.3. The dimensions, the divisions, are the same either actually or in proportion; and, thus far, are indicative of the firm hold which the institutions of the desert still kept on the mind even of the most civilized period of the nation. Little conception as we can form of its architectural effect, we cannot doubt that whatever light is Its style. to be thrown upon it must be derived from four styles. 1. Of the influence of Phoenician art, the Tyrian workmen are a sufficient guarantee. However much they may have conformed themselves to the general requirements of the Jewish worship, yet the outward details of the architecture must have been influenced by their national peculiarities. Analogous cases may be noticed in the building of the Alcazar at Seville, by the more civilized workmen of Granada, or of some of our English cathedrals by the more civilized workmen of The brazen altar and the brazen gates of the two courts are ascribed to Solomon himself. (1 Kings vii. 15-45; 2 Chr. iv. 1-10.) 1 As Louis XIV. is said to have burnt the accounts of the Palace of Versailles without looking into them. 21 Kings v. 17; Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, § 2; B. J. v. 5, § 1. 3 This was recognized down to a very late period. See Wisdom ix. 8. 4 Mr. Fergusson has shown (art. TEMPLE, in the Dict. of the Bible) that the dimensions of the Temple were exactly double those of the Tabernacle. France. Scanty as is our knowledge of Phoenician architecture, it enables us to trace resemblances which can hardly be accidental. Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation1 of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing before or within it. Such in Solomon's temple were Jachin and Boaz. 2. In common with the Assyrian architecture 2 was the mixed use of wood and metal, which alone were used in the Temple for sculpture. 3. Solomon's intercourse with Egypt renders probable the connection which the actual resemblance almost proves. The courts, the cloisters, the enormous porch, the pyramidal form of the towers, the painted sculptures on the wall, the successive chambers, the darkness of the adytum, are all found in Thebes or Ipsambul. 4. One other style remains which illustrates the Jewish temple, by likeness, not of architecture, but of design. If the mystery and massiveness of the temple can be found nowhere but in the old Pagan sanctuaries, the pleasant precincts, the means of ablution, and the almost universal absence of imagery, can be found nowhere but in the sanctuaries of the only other existing Semitic religion, -the mosques of Islam. 3 nade. The result of these combinations was a building un-" like any modern edifice, unlike in many re- The colonspects even to the Temple of Herod, which succeeded, and which must be carefully distinguished from it. On the eastern side was a colonnade or cloister, which formed the only outward barrier. The later The court. kings continued it all round; but this alone 1 Thus the Temple at Gath (Judg. xvi. 29), at Gades (Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. v. 5; Silius Ital. Bell. Pun. III. 14, 22, 32), and at Tyre (Herod. ii. 44). See Bähr's Solomonische Tempel, p. 250. 2 Fergusson's Handbook of Archi tecture. 3 Ezek. xlii. 4, 5, 6. |