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. 11. 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 ??ef??t???? d??? (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 cultivate this art. This was in consequence of the law which forbade them to introduce any kind of graven image in their places of worship. A few monuments, however, are mentioned as having been erected by them, such as the one built by Absalom, which, according to Josephus (Ant. vii. 10. 3), was a marble column. Another, erected in memory of Queen Helena, consisted of three small pyramids, and was considered a beautiful work of art (ibid. xx. 4. 3).

The tools that were used in those times by Hebrew artisans were, in addition to the more common ones, such as the axe, saw, and others, the compass (Mechugah) (Isa. xliv. 13), the plumb-line (Anach) (Amos vii. 7), and the measuring-reed (Kav) (cp. Job xxxviii. 5).

As for the artisans' position it may be said that they were not merely servants and slaves as among the Greeks and Romans, but men holding some rank in society. For instance, of Bezaleel and Aholiab, the principal architects of the Tabernacle, it is said that “they were filled with the spirit of the Lord” (Exod. xxxvi. 1), and had they not been classed among the wisest men of their time, and held in high esteem by the community at large, no respect would have been paid to them by the Biblical memorials. The number of Jewish artisans of every description appears to have been considerable, and this was specially the case during the time when the national prosperity was advancing (Jer. xxix. 2). Even during the Captivity, and later on when the Jews were finally scattered over the world, their Rabbis urgently recommended them to teach their children some art or handicraft.

The same exaggeration in respect of the achievements of the ancient Hebrews in the art of architecture is also found in reference to the perfection which they attained in science and the art of music. However that may be, it can hardly be denied that they were, on the whole, an eminently musical people. This can be seen from the comparatively large number of Hebrew words denoting song and chanting, as well as from Hebrew poetry, a considerable portion of which has been conceived in the form of psalmody or sacred lyric song. As among the Greeks, Jewish tradition ascribes the invention of the first musical instrument to shepherds. Jubal is designated in the Bible as the father of all such as handle the harp or organ (Gen. iv. 21). Other passages in the same book relating to musical instruments and to their use, are found in connexion with Laban, Miriam, and Jephthah. But a real and systematic cultivation of the art of music did not begin before the days of Samuel and Saul; the former of whom seems to have been the founder of a regular school of music (1 Sam. x. 5). There a great number of students received their training, and the most able among them were subsequently selected for the choir of the Temple. Already in the time of David 4,000 singers, mostly Levites, assisted in the service of the Lord, being presided over by the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun. In subsequent ages their services are recorded in connexion with the laying of the foundation of the second Temple (Ezra iii. 10), and again, after the great victory of the Maccabean army over Gorgias (1 Macc. iv. 24).

The instruments used by the ancient Hebrews were of three different kinds—percussion instruments, such as tambourines, drums, and cymbals; wind instruments, such as trumpets, horns, and flutes; and stringed instruments, such as harps, psalteries, and guitars. Another peculiar instrument is mentioned in the Talmud (Erachin, ii a) as having been used in the Temple service, which was called Magrepha (?????). This is said to have had about a hundred different tones, and was audible at a very long distance. These instruments seem to have been used in the Temple service after a pause in the singing. Such a pause was perhaps notified by the word Selah (???), which is so often met with in the Psalms, and is translated in the Septuagint by diapsalma (d?a???a) (cf. BÖtticher, De inferis rebusque post mortem futuris Hebraeorum et Graecorum opiniones, Dresden, 1868, p. 198). That the Temple music must have exercised a vast influence on the cultivation and development of the Church songs and music can hardly be doubted. Martini, who was a great authority on such matters, maintains that the first Christian choral songs were taken from the songs of the Temple. It is quite natural, he says, that the Apostles should have introduced into the Church services only those melodies that had been familiar to them from their earliest infancy (cp. Storia della Musica, p. 350).

But it was not in the service of religion alone that music was performed among the ancient Hebrews: it permeated their whole public and private life. Following the example of David and Solomon, who had attached to their courts “singing men and singing women” (2 Sam. xix. 36; Eccles. ii. 8), the rich men in Israel often, employed music and song at their banquets (Amos vi. 4–6). When bridal processions passed through the streets, they were accompanied with music and song (Jer. vii. 34). The same was the case when victories were celebrated, or when the Jewish armies went to battle (Exod. xv. 20; xx. 19). There seems also to have existed a kind of Jewish troubadours, who sang love-songs before the windows of their chosen ones (Ps. xlv, title). The harvest was gathered in to the tunes of merry songs (Isa. xvi. 10), and at funeral processions mournful music was played (Jer. ix. 17–20).

That a high position must have been assigned by the ancient Hebrews to those who were skilled in song and music, may be seen from the term applied to them in the Hebrew writings. There they are frequently called Nebiim (??????), “Prophets,” and of Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, it is said that “the spirit of the Lord came over him” (2 Chron. xx. 14). Thus the art of music was looked upon by the Hebrews as being the outcome of divine inspiration, and its disciples were consequently held in great esteem by them. But music and song only flourished among them so long as they were masters in their own country, and were free men in a free land. When their nationality had ceased to exist, and they were led into captivity, they hung their harps on the willows by the streams of Babylon, and uttered those memorable and touching words: “How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land?” (Ps. cxxxvii. 4).

The third branch of the arts to which I now pass is Hebrew Poetry. Martin Luther, in his Table Talk, compares it with the sweet melody of a nightingale, and it is frequently admitted that, the Greeks and Romans perhaps excepted, no nation of antiquity has produced anything in the shape of poetry that can be compared with that of the Hebrews. There are three kinds of poetry in the Hebrew literature—dramatic, gnomic, and lyrical. The latter occupies the most prominent position. The drama is represented by two pieces, the Book of Job and the Song of Songs. The Book of Job is considered by many as the masterpiece of Hebrew poetry. Its fine introduction with its double scene in heaven and on earth, in which Satan plays so prominent a rÔle, was imitated by Goethe in his “Faust.” Equally grand, though in a different style, is the Song of Songs. Herder, in referring to it, says that it is the most beautiful piece of poetry that has ever been produced by any poet of ancient or modern times. He is of opinion that in no other poem has love been so charmingly depicted as there, and even now, in spite of its great age, it has lost none of its freshness of colouring and beauty of diction. It is a true monument of genuine pastoral and idyllic poetry.

The gnomic poetry comprises that section of Hebrew literature which contains pithy maxims or proverbs. To this class of poetry belong the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Proverbs of Jesus ben Sirach, better known under the name of Ecclesiasticus. Though the religious element is not entirely excluded from these books, yet they chiefly treat of worldly subjects. Some passages therein contain humorous descriptions of various human characters. The bookworm, the scribbler, the miser, the dull preacher, the quarrelsome woman, the drunkard—they are all referred to, and spoken of with good-natured humour and irony^[33-1].

The lyric poetry of the Jews is almost entirely of a religious nature. To this class belong the Psalms, which are confessedly the peculiar product of Hebrew Art. They have never been surpassed in any other literature in simplicity of diction and originality of sentiment. Being the classical expression of the speech of the religious mind, they have naturally become a treasure-house for the language and thought of the Christian world. The Christian liturgy and the songs of the Church abound with beautiful sentences borrowed from them.

The Book of Psalms contains 150 songs, most of which are said to have been composed by King David. Psalms occur also here and there in other parts of the Bible, such as those of Samuel's mother (1 Sam. ii), of Isaiah (chap. xii), of Hezekiah (ibid. xxxviii. 9), and of Habakkuk. There are also Hebrew songs which are similar to the Psalms in respect of form, but not of subject. To this class of Psalms belong, for instance, Jacob's last blessing, Balaam's prophecies, the Song of Deborah, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. In the Psalms songs are also met with which are of a joyful nature, such as wedding songs, love songs, and wine songs.

Hebrew poetry has many characteristics of its own, the most prominent of which are national and local colouring, and, secondly, its profound humility and reverence. Its writers never lose sight of the grand idea of their nation, which subordinates all and everything in the universe to one supreme power called God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Even man, the crown of the creation, is, according to them, only an Adam or Enosh (???, ????), an insignificant, helpless being, in comparison to Eloha (????, Arab. Allah), the most powerful Lord of the universe. Thus man is compared by them to a flower that withers, to a shadow that passes by, and to a cloud that vanishes in the air; while at the same time they call the thunder “the voice of the Lord,” the wind “his messenger,” the clouds “the cover of his brightness,” the lightning “his servant,” and the sun “the herald of his majesty.” But though they let Nature be subservient to and dependent on God, yet they preserve a loving attachment to it, and endow it, as it were, with life and animation. They let it share man's sentiments; it rejoices and trembles with man, and it laughs and weeps with him.

Every extraordinary event in the life of the nation affects Nature as it does the human mind. So, for instance, when the Hebrew exiles are described by the prophet as returning to the land of their nativity, the desert rejoices and changes into a beautiful garden filled with rose blossoms, and fragrant with the perfume of sweet plants. The mountains and the hills break forth into song, and the trees of the fields clap their hands. In those happy days, neither the light of the sun nor the brightness of the moon will be required by the liberated exiles, for the Lord will be unto them an everlasting light (Isa. xxxv. 1; lv. 12; lx. 20). On the other hand, when God sits in judgment, and a great catastrophe is imminent over the inhabitants of the land, then the earth shakes and trembles, and the foundations of the hills move. The heaven becomes clouded, and the brightness of the sun disappears; the moon and the stars shine no more (Ps. xviii. 8; Ez. xxxii. 7).

The form of Hebrew poetry has been widely discussed. Some writers, such as Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and others, maintain that in some Biblical poems the Iambic, Alcaic, and Sapphic metres were used, and that in others the heroic metre was employed. Others, again, are rather inclined to think that the Hebrews wrote in no regular metrical periods, but only preserved a kind of parallelism of sentences. No one will deny that the Greeks and the Romans have produced literary works, which in elegance of expression and symmetry of form are much superior to those of the Hebrews. But at the same time it will be conceded by those who have a taste for genuine poetry, that in the freshness of colouring, depth of thought, and vivacity of representation, the poetical pieces of the Bible stand very high. Though written thousands of years ago, they still preserve their sway over the human heart, and afford consolation and hope to the afflicted and oppressed.

From what has been said it will be seen how unfounded the charge is, so often made in certain quarters against the Jews, that they have never rendered any particular service to the nations with whom they have come in contact. Surely, if they had done nothing else but given them the sacred volume, the Book of Books, which contains so many golden rules for the cultivation of the human mind and heart, they would, for that reason alone, be entitled to expect acknowledgment and gratitude, not only from the present but also from all future generations.

Footnotes: