III

ART AMONG THE ANCIENT HEBREWS

THE ancient Hebrews were an art-loving people, and occupied a fair position among those Eastern nations of antiquity, who attained some success in the production of works of artistic merit. Their success in Music and Poetry was undoubted, and becomes even more striking when it is remembered that it had been won by the Jewish nation at a time when in Greece, for instance, the cultivation of these arts was still in its infancy. The period of their artistic activity extended from the days of Moses to the time of the destruction of the last Temple in Jerusalem by Titus (70 A.D.). It is proposed in the present essay to deal, first with the Architecture, then with the Music, and finally with the Poetry of the ancient Hebrews.

Just as among other nations of antiquity architecture had its origin in religion, and owed its development to religion, so it was among the Jews. The first feeble attempt at architecture, though it is perhaps incorrect to call it by that name, was the erection of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. This was certainly nothing more than a large-sized movable tent, and had no special beauty about it, but the fact that the original design was retained and used on a larger scale at the construction of the subsequent Temples of Jerusalem, invests it with more than ordinary importance. From this it may also be seen that the Jewish architect, even in those early times, had in the drawing up of its ground-plan some glimmering of symmetry and purity of form. Noticeable also is the great skill manifested at that time by the Jewish artisans in the manufacture of the furniture of the Tabernacle, the beautiful covers and curtains with

their inwoven cherubims, the seven-branched golden candlestick of beaten work, and the circular-shaped laver made by them from the metallic mirrors presented by the women of the community (Exod. xxxviii. 8). The erection of the Tabernacle was followed by some centuries of architectural and artistic barrenness. This epoch includes the time of their sojourn in the Arabian desert, and the period during which they were governed by the Judges, and subsequently by King Saul. Those years were marked by internal and external struggles, and consequently did not admit of the free development of any of those arts which, generally speaking, flourish only in times of undisturbed peace, and under the protection of a strong government. In the reigns of David and Solomon, however, when the Jews began to enjoy the first-fruits of peace and national prosperity, the general spread of culture and architectural skill at once became manifest. The sacred and royal buildings erected by the various Jewish kings, and particularly the Temple of Solomon, show the pitch of artistic excellence which they had attained.

There is no doubt much exaggeration in the statement made by some writers that classical antiquity was largely indebted to the Temple for many details of art, and that throughout the Middle Ages the form and shape of all Christian churches were modelled after its design. Considering, however, the attention and interest which the Temple has excited, there can be little doubt of its extraordinary artistic value. Its original form and mode of structure have already been so often and so minutely described by learned men of all ages and countries that there is hardly anything new left to be said about it. A few observations, however, concerning the builders, and the difficulties encountered by them at its erection, may not be out of place here. Some writers are of opinion that the fame and magnificence of the Temple were entirely due to the skill of Phoenician artisans, and not to the proficiency of Jewish workmen. The soundness of this theory is,

however, very questionable. In the first place, we have it on the authority of the Biblical memorials that the assistance given by the Phoenicians to the Jewish workmen at the erection of the Temple consisted mainly in felling cedar-trees on Mount Lebanon, and in manufacturing the artistic metal-work of the building. Next, the fact already mentioned that the original Mosaic model of the Tabernacle had been retained, and used on a larger scale in the construction of the Temple, proves at once its purely Jewish character. We must also come to the same conclusion when we consider that its internal and external decoration consisted mostly of flowers and plants that only grew on Palestinian soil.

As for the structure itself, it may be mentioned that many difficulties had to be overcome before the actual building operations began. The summit of Mount Moriah, on which King David had decided to erect the Temple, was too narrow to permit of large buildings being established thereon. Thus gigantic supports and walls had to be erected, which, owing no doubt to their great strength and durability, have been preserved to the present day. They bear a great similarity to the Cyclopean walls built by the oldest races of Greece in Asia Minor, and the immensity of each block of stone is such that it has excited the wonder of various modern travellers (cp. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 62). These enormous stones were, strange to say, put together without the aid of tools. The latter, made as they were out of a material from which weapons of war are manufactured, were used as little as possible at the erection of a building which was intended, in conformity with the true spirit of Judaism, to serve as a symbol of Peace. There is another noticeable feature in connexion with the building, namely, that all its bronze works were cast in earthen moulds in the valley of the Jordan. This spot was specially selected for the purpose, on account of its fine clay soil. Thus it will be seen that even at this early period in the history of architecture the

Jews must have had some knowledge of mining. Later on, at the time when the Romans were the masters of the land, the mines of Phaino enjoyed a very great reputation (cp. Ewald, History of Israel, ed. Carpenter, vol. IV, p. 192). A modern writer of note (James Fergusson), in referring to the Temple of Solomon, expresses himself thus :—“ Whatever the exact appearance of its details may have been, it may safely be asserted that the triple Temple of Jerusalem -the lower court, standing on its magnificent terrace-the inner court, raised on its platform in the centre of this— and the Temple itself, rising out of the group and crowning the whole-must have formed, when combined with the beauty of its situation, one of the most splendid architectural combinations of the old world" (cp. Smith's Bible Dictionary, sub Temple).

In connexion with the Temple two other branches of architecture may be mentioned here the water conduits and bridges, or rather viaducts, built by King Solomon. The former must have been of some importance; they are quoted by Tacitus, who speaks of Fons perennis aquae, cavati sub terra montes (cp. Hist. vol. 12). As for the bridges or viaducts, it is said that they were four in number, and of a peculiar construction. One led over the valley of Gihon; another, called by Josephus gerupha, connected Mount Zion with Mount Moriah, and served as a viaduct for the king on his visiting the Temple (cp. Ant. XV. II.5). The third and fourth are referred to in Talmud Jer. Shekalim, 4. 4, and in Yomah, 4 b.

In subsequent times two more Temples were built after the design of Solomon's-one by Zerubbabel with the permission and assistance of the Persian king Cyrus (558 B. C.), and another by King Herod (16 B. C.), who, next to Solomon, was the most art-loving monarch the Jews ever had. During his reign the influence of Greek taste began to make itself felt in Palestine, and we are told that, in addition to the temple, he also built colonnades, theatres, and castles (cp. Jos. Ant. xv. 8. 1). According to the same

authority (Bell. Jud. 5. 44), the beauty of King Herod's residential palace was beyond all description. It consisted of a block of various marble buildings, with artistically formed roofs, each building having magnificent halls and colonnades. Pleasure grounds, tiny forests, and gardens of every kind surrounded it, and elaborate waterworks were built to give these grounds a never-failing freshness of appearance. The Greek style did not, however, altogether supersede the Phoenician, for even as late as the Mishna, mention is made of Tyrian windows and porches (cp. Talmud, Baba Bathra, p. 36).

It would not be easy to describe here all the other architectural works of Solomon and the rest of the Jewish kings. The former's palace ought not, however, to be passed over unnoticed, especially as in splendour and architectural beauty it rivalled the Temple itself. It consisted of a row of large buildings, among which the king's private residence, that of the Egyptian princes, and the so-called house of the forest of Lebanon, were the most prominent. With the aid of his great waterworks in the neighbourhood of the city, Solomon laid out all kinds of gardens and pleasure-grounds, the beauty of which was enhanced by the addition of fountains and artificial lakes (cp. Cant. iv. 13-15). At Etam he had a magnificent park and gymnasium, which he occasionally visited. Not far from Lebanon he erected some lofty towers ornamented largely with gold and ivory (Cant. viii. 11; Ant. iii. 7. 3).

That the Greeks used ivory for the ornamentation of houses and public buildings, may be seen from the passage in Eurip. Iph. Aul., where èλepávtivoi dóμoi (houses made of ivory) are mentioned.

Referring to the great taste for landscape culture displayed by the Hebrews of old, Humboldt says that nowhere in antiquity, and not even among the Greeks, is so much sense for the beauties of nature met with as in the Bible. With regard to sculpture it ought to be mentioned that the ancient Hebrews did not to any great extent