fluenced to a considerable degree the forms of Christian churches, and its peculiarities were the watchwords and rallying-points of all associations of builders. Since the revival of learning in the 16th century its arrangements have employed the pens of numberless learned antiqua- rians, and architects of every country have wasted their science in trying to reproduce its forms.
But it is not only to Christians that the Temple of Solomon is so interesting; the whole Mohammedan worhl look to it as the foundation of all architectural knowledge, and the Jews still recall its glories and sigh over their loss with a constant tenacity, unmatched by that of any other people to any other building of the ancient world.
With all this interest and attention, it might fairly be assumed that there was nothing more to be said on such a subject — that every source of information had been ransacked, and every form of restoration long ago ex- hausted, and some settlement of the disputed points ar- rived at which had been generally accepted. This is, however, far from being the case, and few things woulil be more curious t han a collection of the various restora- tions that have been proposed, as showing what diflfer- ent meanings may be applied, to the same set of simple architectural terms.
When the French expedition to Egypt, in the first years of this century, had made the world familiar with the wonderful architectural remains of that country, every one jumped to the conclusion that Solomon's Tem- ple must have been designed after an Egyptian model, forgetting entirely how hateful that land of bondage was to the Israelites, and how completel}' all the ordi- nances of their religion were opposed to the idolatries they had escaped from — forgetting, too, the centuries which had elapsed since the Exode before the Temple was erected, and how little communication of any sort there had been between the two countries in the inter- val. Nevertheless, as we shall presently see, the Egyp- tian monuments remarkably confirm, in many respects, the ancient accounts of the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Assyrian discoveries of Botta and Layard have within the last twenty years given an entirely new. di- rection to the researches of the restorers, and this time with a very considerable prospect of success, for the analogies are now true, and whatever can be brought to bear on the subject is in the right direction. The orig- inal seats of the progenitors of the Jewish races were in Mesopotamia. Their language was practically the same as that spoken on the banks of the Tigris. Their historical traditions were consentaneous, and, so far as we can judge, almost all the outward symbolism of their religion was the same, or nearly so. Unfortunately, however, no Assyrian temple has yet been exhumed of a nature to throw much light on this subject, and we are still forced to have recourse to the later buildings at Persepolis, or to general deductions from the style of the nearly contemporary secular buildings at Nineveh and elsewhere, for such illustrations as are available. These, although in a general way illustrative, yet by no means, in our opinion, suffice for all that is required for Solomon's Temple. For some arcliitectural features of that erected by Herod we must doubtless look to Rome. Of the intermediate Temple erected by Zerubbabel we know very little, but, from the circumstance of its hav- ing been erected under Persian influences contempora- neously with the buildings at Persepolis, it is perhaps the one of which it would be most easj' to restore the details with anything like certainty. Yet we must re- member that both these later temples were essentially Jewish, i. e. Phoenician, in their style ; and we may there- fore presume that the original type, which we know was copied in plan, was likewise imitated in details to a very great degree. There are, however, two sources of illus- tration with which the Temple was historically con- nected in a very direct manner, and to these we there- f<ire devote a brief attention before considering the sev- eral edifices in detail.
TEMPLE
254
TEMPLE
1. The Tohernach erected by Closes in the desert was unquestionably the pattern, in all its essential features, of its Solomonic successor. In the gradually increasing sanctity of the several divisions, as well as in their strikingly proportionate dimensions, we find the Tem- ple little more than the Tabernacle on an enlarged scale, and of more substantial materials. This is so obvious that we need not dwell upon it. See Tabernacle.
2. The E//ifi>/i(iii Tcinp/es. in their conventional style, evince, notwithstanding their idolatrous uses, a won- derful relation to both the Tabernacle and the Temple. As will be seen from the accompanying plan of the Temple of Denderah, which is one of the simplest and most symmetrical as well as the best preserved of its class, there is a striking agreement in the points of the compass, in the extra widtii of the porch, in the anterior holy [)lacc, in the interior shrine, in the side-rooms, in the columnar halls; and in the grander Egyptian tem- ples, such as the earlier portions of those at Luxor and
Gronnd-plan of the Temple at Denderah.
A. Front hall, with zodiac in ceiling. B. Hall of Processions. C, D. An- nexes for altars. E. Shrine for aacred boat (ark), covered with n vail. F, G. Chambers for oil and offerings. H, I. Passage-ways. J. Treasnre- chnmber. K. Chamber for vestments. L-Q. Chambers for New-year celebration. R. Stairs. T-Z, a-d. Chapels for particular deities.