DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0371
PRE-ROMAN PERIOD
339
seems to have had considerable influence in the Ilauran. If the former be true, the
work of the second Maleichath at Si‘ is more likely to have been Nabataean in char-
acter than Idumean ; if the latter be true, it is difficuit to account for the wide diver-
gence between the style which flourished under Agrippa I and that which was in vogue
under his son Agrippa II, who died about the year ioo a.d.
If the architrave and frieze, with its grape-vine ornament and its inscription of the
younger Maleichath, do not belong upon the capitals of the two columns of the portico,
where shall we place them ? It is somewhat difficult to accept the restoration which
M. de Vogtie makes of the upper story of the temple on page 33 of his text; but it is
not easy to suggest a better one. The general theory of the addition of an upper
story I believe to be correct, for how else could the height of a temple be increased ?
The flat wall above the central portico, relieved by flat pilasters, is reminiscent of
nothing in more ancient art, neither was it reproduced in later architecture ; but an
open loggia or tribune above the portico and between the towers would seem more
natural, and if no precedent is found for such an arrangement in earlier buildings, at
least a sufficient number of reproductions of it were found in the fa^ades of early
Christian churches in Syria. If we place Maleichath’s architrave in such a position,
we shall be able to find suitable supports for it in some of the broken capitals which
lie in thc ruins, preferably those which suggest the capitals
at Suweda. One of them has clusters of grapes hanging
from its volutes, as may be seen in the illustration, which is
reproduced from Plate 4 of “ La Syrie Centrale.”
But the grape-vine ornament is not the only characteristic
of the architectural ornament executed at Si‘ under the rule Piiaster-cap of tempie at sr.
of the Idumean dynasty. Fragments of the gate of the temenos and of some other
small structures are here, which illustrate the trend of art development in other kinds
of decoration. Among these fragments we find certain elements that correspond to
the Oriental elements in the ornament at Suweda, and others that are quite different and
also Oriental; but the classic elements nowhere appear. The fragments themselves
consist almost entirely of friezes and jambs of portals. One set lies upon the site of the
main entrance of the “ outer temple,” i.e., the inmost court. Other fragments, slightly
different from the above, lie within the court itself, and it is impossible to tell where they
originally stood. The third set was found at the second gate, that between the fore court
and the middle court, where portions of jambs are still in situ. An illustration of the
first example is to be found in “ La Syrie Centrale,” text, page 37. It will be seen
that the profile of this lintel, though bold enough, is composed wholly of cavettos,
slightly pulvinated faces, and narrow fasciae. All but the latter are carved, either with
upright conventional leaf patterns or floral scrolls of the most primitive design, but exe-
cuted with delicate and painstaking technique. A fragment of a lintel found within
the court of the temple shows a somewhat different profile, though the multiplied use
i
339
seems to have had considerable influence in the Ilauran. If the former be true, the
work of the second Maleichath at Si‘ is more likely to have been Nabataean in char-
acter than Idumean ; if the latter be true, it is difficuit to account for the wide diver-
gence between the style which flourished under Agrippa I and that which was in vogue
under his son Agrippa II, who died about the year ioo a.d.
If the architrave and frieze, with its grape-vine ornament and its inscription of the
younger Maleichath, do not belong upon the capitals of the two columns of the portico,
where shall we place them ? It is somewhat difficult to accept the restoration which
M. de Vogtie makes of the upper story of the temple on page 33 of his text; but it is
not easy to suggest a better one. The general theory of the addition of an upper
story I believe to be correct, for how else could the height of a temple be increased ?
The flat wall above the central portico, relieved by flat pilasters, is reminiscent of
nothing in more ancient art, neither was it reproduced in later architecture ; but an
open loggia or tribune above the portico and between the towers would seem more
natural, and if no precedent is found for such an arrangement in earlier buildings, at
least a sufficient number of reproductions of it were found in the fa^ades of early
Christian churches in Syria. If we place Maleichath’s architrave in such a position,
we shall be able to find suitable supports for it in some of the broken capitals which
lie in thc ruins, preferably those which suggest the capitals
at Suweda. One of them has clusters of grapes hanging
from its volutes, as may be seen in the illustration, which is
reproduced from Plate 4 of “ La Syrie Centrale.”
But the grape-vine ornament is not the only characteristic
of the architectural ornament executed at Si‘ under the rule Piiaster-cap of tempie at sr.
of the Idumean dynasty. Fragments of the gate of the temenos and of some other
small structures are here, which illustrate the trend of art development in other kinds
of decoration. Among these fragments we find certain elements that correspond to
the Oriental elements in the ornament at Suweda, and others that are quite different and
also Oriental; but the classic elements nowhere appear. The fragments themselves
consist almost entirely of friezes and jambs of portals. One set lies upon the site of the
main entrance of the “ outer temple,” i.e., the inmost court. Other fragments, slightly
different from the above, lie within the court itself, and it is impossible to tell where they
originally stood. The third set was found at the second gate, that between the fore court
and the middle court, where portions of jambs are still in situ. An illustration of the
first example is to be found in “ La Syrie Centrale,” text, page 37. It will be seen
that the profile of this lintel, though bold enough, is composed wholly of cavettos,
slightly pulvinated faces, and narrow fasciae. All but the latter are carved, either with
upright conventional leaf patterns or floral scrolls of the most primitive design, but exe-
cuted with delicate and painstaking technique. A fragment of a lintel found within
the court of the temple shows a somewhat different profile, though the multiplied use
i