DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0260
224
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTUEE.
Paet I.
eastern faqade. In consequence of this there must have been a large
opening or window in this front, and as a window was a thing that they
had not yet learned to make an ornamental feature in architectural
design, they took this mode of screening and partially, at least, hiding it.
It becomes almost absolutely certain that this is the true solution
of the riddle, when we find that when Herod rebuilt the Temple in
the first century B.C., he erected a similar screen for the same purpose
in front of his Temple. Its dimensions, however, were one-third
larger. It was 40 cubits high, and 20 cubits across, and it supported
five beams instead of two ; 1 not to display the chequer-work and pome-
granates of Solomon’s screen, but to carry
the G-olden Yine, which was the principal
ornament of the facade of the Temple in
its latest form.2
Although it is easy to understand how
it was quite possible in metal work to in-
troduce all the ornaments enumerated in
the Bible, and with gilding and colour to
£ make these objects of wonder, we have no
3 examples with which we can compare them,
and any restoration must consequently be
somewhat fanciful. Still, we must recollect
that this was the “ bronze age ” of archi-
tecture. Homer tells us of the brazen house
of Priam, and the brazen palace of Alcinous ;
the Treasuries at Myceme were covered in-
ternally with bronze plates; and in Etrus-
no. Pian of Soiomon’s Tempie, can tombs of this age metal was far more
showing the disposition of the
chambers in two stoveys. essentially the material of decoration than
carving in stone, or any of the modes after-
wards so frequently adopted. The altar of the Temple was of
brass. The molten sea, supported by twelve brazen oxen ; the bases,
the lavers, and all the other objects in metal work, were in reality
what made the Temple so celebrated ; and very little was due to the
mere masonry by which we should judge of a Christian church or
any modern building.
Ho pillars are mentionecl as supporting the roof, but every analogy
1 For a restoration of this screen see
‘ Tree and Serpent Worsliip,’ Appendix i.,
p. 270.
2 Since tlie article on tlie Temple in
SmitlTs '* Dictionary of tlie Bible ’ was
written, from which niost of the woodcuts
in this chapter are taken, I have had
occasion to go over the subject rnore than
once, and from recent explorations and
recently discovered analogies have, I
believe, been able to settle, within very
narrow limits of doubt, all the out-
standing questions with reference to
tkis celebrated building. I bave in
consequence written and published a
monograph of the Temple, but Lave
deemed it more expedient to leave the
illustrations here as they are.
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTUEE.
Paet I.
eastern faqade. In consequence of this there must have been a large
opening or window in this front, and as a window was a thing that they
had not yet learned to make an ornamental feature in architectural
design, they took this mode of screening and partially, at least, hiding it.
It becomes almost absolutely certain that this is the true solution
of the riddle, when we find that when Herod rebuilt the Temple in
the first century B.C., he erected a similar screen for the same purpose
in front of his Temple. Its dimensions, however, were one-third
larger. It was 40 cubits high, and 20 cubits across, and it supported
five beams instead of two ; 1 not to display the chequer-work and pome-
granates of Solomon’s screen, but to carry
the G-olden Yine, which was the principal
ornament of the facade of the Temple in
its latest form.2
Although it is easy to understand how
it was quite possible in metal work to in-
troduce all the ornaments enumerated in
the Bible, and with gilding and colour to
£ make these objects of wonder, we have no
3 examples with which we can compare them,
and any restoration must consequently be
somewhat fanciful. Still, we must recollect
that this was the “ bronze age ” of archi-
tecture. Homer tells us of the brazen house
of Priam, and the brazen palace of Alcinous ;
the Treasuries at Myceme were covered in-
ternally with bronze plates; and in Etrus-
no. Pian of Soiomon’s Tempie, can tombs of this age metal was far more
showing the disposition of the
chambers in two stoveys. essentially the material of decoration than
carving in stone, or any of the modes after-
wards so frequently adopted. The altar of the Temple was of
brass. The molten sea, supported by twelve brazen oxen ; the bases,
the lavers, and all the other objects in metal work, were in reality
what made the Temple so celebrated ; and very little was due to the
mere masonry by which we should judge of a Christian church or
any modern building.
Ho pillars are mentionecl as supporting the roof, but every analogy
1 For a restoration of this screen see
‘ Tree and Serpent Worsliip,’ Appendix i.,
p. 270.
2 Since tlie article on tlie Temple in
SmitlTs '* Dictionary of tlie Bible ’ was
written, from which niost of the woodcuts
in this chapter are taken, I have had
occasion to go over the subject rnore than
once, and from recent explorations and
recently discovered analogies have, I
believe, been able to settle, within very
narrow limits of doubt, all the out-
standing questions with reference to
tkis celebrated building. I bave in
consequence written and published a
monograph of the Temple, but Lave
deemed it more expedient to leave the
illustrations here as they are.