I RESPECTING THE FORM AND STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE OF THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, BY EDWARD COOKWORTHY ROBINS, F.S.A. Read before the London Architectural Association, make no apology for the archæological nature of my subject in addressing this Association. Archæology is the exact side of the fine arts, and especially that of architecture, the distinguishing peculiarities of diverse phases of art being referable to particular periods during which they flourished. The archæological study of these differences reveals the underlying principles and circumstances which favoured the development of style and organic design, or determined its limitations. It is, therefore, a mental exercise of great artistic value to the students of architecture, whose knowledge of the details and nice variations, in form and colour, general expression and harmony of composition is the best basis for independent design in these postRenaissance times, whercin knowledge ofttimes outruns discretion and stifles individuality. The architectural form and style of the Temple of Solomon is a subject of enquiry interesting to all students of biblical antiquities and literature. Much learned discussion has been expended upon it, and many volumes written to establish the views of their authors, some of whom have allowed their imaginations full play, making their wishes father their thoughts, and so have described a building or series of buildings, the like of which the world ne'er saw for size, costliness and general magnificence. I propose to give some of the leading theorics propounded chiefly by eminent architects, and to indicate also what appears to me to be the most reasonable hypothesis, the most probable form and style of architecture of that first building of which scarcely one stone remained upon another, even in the days of Herodotus the Father of History. The Jews were not a building people, and have left no native monuments but what are the result of forced labour in foreign lands. In this they were not singular, for their immediate neighbours, the Tyrians and Sidonians, have left no monuments either at home or abroad. Tyre, Sidon, Jerusalem, Baalbec, Palmyra, Carthage, possess no architectural antiquities anterior to Roman times, except perchance vast masses of masonry, the retaining walls of imposing platforms upon which were reared those structures which have since disappeared. The Jews, however, were by no means ignorant of the building arts, as practised by the Egyptians, but their ideas of building were all associated in their minds with bondage; so that Solomon employed not his own people to build his Temple; of them it is distinctly stated he made captains and over-lookers only. The two great authorities on the subject are, of course, the Bible itself and the Jewish historian, Josephus. The first of these sources of information is the more reliable as regards the Temple of Solomon. Josephus was well acquainted with Herod's Temple and may be trusted in his description of that remarkable series of buildings, except perhaps as regards their height. Into his account of Solomon's Temple he imports his knowledge of Herod's, and gives to Solomon the credit of much that belonged to a later age. His example in this respect has been followed by subsequent writers and expositors, and thus there has been much idle speculation which could never have arisen had the 6th Chapter of the 1st of Kings been the accepted authority for all subsequent restorers. Take one curious example, viz., an illustration given in Stackhouse's large Bible, dated 1810. The observer is referred to the 6th Chapter, 1st Kings, for an explanation of the plate, but the real key to it is to be found only in Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews," with the addition of stairs and terraces mentioned in Chronicles, but considerably multiplied in number. The Temple proper riscs above all and is four times the height given in Kings, the whole being designed in the Roman manner of many centuries later. That the Jewish historian's style has favoured such theories as this, a single extract will suffice to show : After stating all that is given in Kings he goes on to say, that having built the Temple beyond the wall of the court surrounding the house in the form of a quadrangle, "Solomon erected for it great and broad cloisters which were entered by very high gates, each of which had its front exposed to one of the four winds enclosed by golden doors. But he made that Temple, which was beyond this, a wonderful one indeed, and such as exceeds all description in word; nay, if I may so say, is hardly believed upon sight, for when he had filled up great valleys with carth, which, on account of their immense depth, could not be looked on when you bended down to see them without pain, and had elevated the ground 400 cubits (600 feet) he made it to be on a level with the top of the mountain on which the Temple was built." Now, as a matter of fact, since ascertained by modern explorers, the lowest stone of the oldest wall of the present temple area stands on the rock itself, and the summit of Mount Moriah is but 163 feet above the rock upon which the lowest stone rests. That is to say, Josephus has quadrupled the height in his glowing description above quoted. In short, this historian gives full play to his imagination whenever he can safely do so. As in speaking of the depth of valleys since filled up, or the height of towers since levelled with the ground. He rarely contradicts the sacred scriptures, but rather omits or supplements them, or else takes advantage of some verbal discrepancy or peculiar mode of expression to introduce his own notions, whenever it serves his purpose so to do, or tends to exalt the glory of his people Israel. Of Jewish religious structures, of course the earliest was the tent of the Tabernacle, the plan of which was divinely revealed to Moses at Sinai, and was never subsequently departed from; so that when Solomon built his Temple, in the year 1013 before Christ, he did not alter the general disposition in any manner, except that he doubled every dimension. And thus the Holy of Holies became a cube of 20 cubits or 30 by 30 by 30 feet, and the Holy place became 20 by 40 by 30 cubits or 30 feet wide by 60 feet long by 45 feet high, and so on. The Temple which Ezekiel saw in vision, 575 years before Christ, was identical in its dimensions with that of Solomon. Additional courts and passages were added, of which Canina and Fergusson have each made a restoration, the latest is by Messrs. Perrot & Chipiez. The Second Temple, as it is called, or Zerubbabels (before Christ 520), which was built by the Jews on their return from the Captivity, likewise corresponded exactly with Solomon's building, but was shorn of its decorative splendour. The Third and last Temple, erected by Herod, 20 years before Christ, is thus described by Mr. Fergusson :"In this we have a perfect illustration of the architectural history of the country. The priests restored the Temple itself, not venturing to alter a single one of its sacred dimensions, only adding wings to the façade, so as to make it 100 cubits wide, and it is said 100 cubits high, while the length remained 100 cubits as before. At this period, however, Judæa was under the sway of the Romans, and under the influence of their ideas the outer courts were added with a magnificence of which former builders had no conception. An area measuring 600 feet each way was enclosed by terraced walls of the utmost lithic grandeur, on these were erected porticoes unsurpassed by any we know of. One, |