214 HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE. Part I, ^^^YV^ .u-n— Q E E E J^ eastern facade. In consequence of this there must have been a large openin«x or Avindow in this front, and as a window was a thing that they had not yet learned to make an ornamental feature in archi- tectural dcsio-ii, they took tliis 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 ; ^ not to display the chequer-work and pome- granates of Solomon's screen, but to carry the Golden Vine, which was the principal ornament of the fa§ade of the Temple in its latest form.^ 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 color to make these objects of wonder, we have no examjjles with which we can compare them, and any restoration must consequently be somewhat fanciful. Still we must recollect that this was the "bi'onze age" of archi- tecture. Homer tells us of the brazen house of Priam, and the brazen palace of Alcinous ; the Treasuries at Mycenae were covered in- ternally with bronze plates; and in Etrus- can tombs of this age metal was far more 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. i^ r = 1 (i 1 mK. {^ Iff KIT. Plan of Solomon's Temple, showing tli« disposition of the chambers in two stories. ^ For a i-Fstoration of this screen see ' Tree and feerpent Worship,' Appendix i., p. 270. - Since the article on the Temple in Smith's Dictionary of the 'Bible' was written, from which most of the wood- ctits in tills cliapter are taken. I have had occasion to <;o over the snhjcct more than once, and from recent exiilorations and recently discovered analogies have. 1 believe, i)een able to settle, within very narrow linuts of doubt, all the ont- standing qnestions with reference to this ccicl>ralc(l Ijnilding. I have in conse- qui'iice written a monograph of the Temple, which I may probably one day publish, but, pending this, it seems more expedient to leave the illustrations as they are. To produce new ones without writing a dissertation to explain why the changes were made, would only lead to confusion, and it would be absurd to in- sert snch an essay in a history like this. Besides this the alterations are not so ob- vious that they could be made apparent on the small scale of these cuts, and are hardly snch as to interest the general reader, though very important to the special student of Jewish architectiual art.
