TEMPLE
498
TEMPLE
rear of the building it was amphiprostyle. The
actual creation of the Greek mind was the peristyle,
in which the entire temple was surrounded by a row of
columns which carried the projecting beams of the
roof. A second, inner, row of cohmins was generally
arranged at the front and back of the building. If
the columns were replaced by engaged columns on
the walls of the cella, the temple was a pseudo-perip-
teral temple. A temple was called a dipleros if it
were surrounded by a double colonnade, and pseudo-
dipteros when the inner row of columns was not used.
A circle of columns with a roof over them, but with-
out a cella, formed a monopteral temple. A third
method of designating or distinguishing the temples
is by the number of columns in front, thus temples are
called tetrastj'le, hexastyle, octastyle, that is having
five, six, or eight columns.
Up to the seventh century B. c. the method of building was very simple: the walls of the cella were made of unburnt brick resting on a stone base, the columns were of wood, for originally the Greek temple in its e.ssential parts was not built of stone. In the buildings of better construction the walls were orna- mented with terra-cotta tiles, and the columns were covered with precious metals. The earUe.st temples were built in the Doric style; this was followed from the sixth century by the Ionic style that came from Asia Minor, and later by the Corinthian style. One style, however, never entirely supplanted another. If in the Doric temple the impression made was that of massiveness, the Ionic temple conveyed a sense of agreeable hghtness and grace. The effect produced by the Greek temple was not that of gigantic size, as in the Egyptian, or of colossal mass as in the Assyrian; it arose from the harmonious relation between all its members, by the spiritualizing of the styles of archi- tecture and the ornamentation, as well as by the care- ful execution of all parts, even those least seen. Thus it became a model for all succeeding centuries, which always return to it after they have tried for a time new architectural designs of their own. The Romans were the first to adopt the plan of the Greek temple, but they impressed their national character upon it in several ways: the foundation platform was fre- quently omitted or was replaced by a podium without any steps except those leading to the entrance; the front was emphasized by prolonging the portico and increasing the number of colimms. The finely bal- anced harmony of the Greeks was sacrificed to osten- tatious display of material and the huge size of the structure. The round temple is peculiar to the Romans, who greatly developed it. Among the tem- ples of this style is one of the most important master- pieces of Roman architecture, the Pantheon, as well as several smaU, graceful structures Uke that at Tivoli.
However important a Greek or Roman temple may be architecturally, still it is essentially nothing more than a beautiful and stately private house, a dwelling- place of the divinity, not a house of prayer and a place for the people to offer sacrifice. In this is made evi- dent the marked difference between the temple and the Christian church. From the beginning the Chris- tian church was intended to hold all those who be- lieved and its interior was divided into sanctuary and nave for the clergy and the laity. It contained in itself the fruitful seed which enabled it in the coiirse of centuries to develop, even architecturally, far beyond the classical temple. In the latter, excepting in the prostyle temple, the front had hardly any dis- tinctive characteristic, in the peripteral, amphi- prostyle, and other temples the back and front were alike. On the other hand, the facades of many Christian churches are works of the finest finish and highest architectural value. Although the temple contained several chambers within, yet this fact exercised no actual influence on its external construc- tion, while in the Christian church, either of the Ro-
manesque or of the Gothic style, the inner arrangement
is easily recognized from the external construction.
It is a striking fact, and one that is, perhaps, not to
be explained entirely by the dislike of the early
Christians for the places of heathen worship, that from
the beginning the model chosen for the Christian
church was not the classic temple, but the basilica,
which, as the court and place of exchange, was intended
to hold large numbers of people.
Beda Kleinschmidt.
Liturgy opthe Temple. — The three great national festivals of the Jews — the Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles — were the occasion of special liturgical service of the temple (Ex., xxiii, 14, 17; xxxiv, 23; Deut., xvi, 16). Other feasts could be celebrated by local observance. Not so these three national feasts. All males were supposed to appear at Jerusalem on these occasions: "in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, that his name may dwell there" (Deut., xvi, 6). It was during the Pass- over, while the lambs for the Pasch were dressed, that the Levites in the Temple chanted the Hallel (Pss. cxiii-cxviii: Vulg., cxii-cxvii). These same Psalms were repeated during the paschal meal, — the first two after the second cup, the remainder after the fourth cup.
The ordinary temple liturgy is not clear to us. Scant and obscure details are preserved in the Sacred Text. The people gathered in the courts of the Temple to receive instruction from the Prophets and to join them in prayer (Is., i, 12-15). The Deuter- onomic custom was that the Torah should be read to the people in the Temple at the Feast of the Taber- nacles (Deut., xx-xi, 10-13). After the Exile, Esdras brought back this custom (II Esd., viii, 5-8). And yet, not even the reading of Torah was the chief pur- pose of the Temple; it was essentially a "house of prayer for all nations" (Is.,lvi, 7); prayer to Jahweh was its chief purpose. It was in the Temple of Silo that Anna prayed for a man child (I Kings, i, 11). In the first Temple of Jerusalem, Solomon said his inspiring prayer for Lsrael (III Kings, viii, 12-53). Apart from the Psalms, set forms of prayer were rare. In such set forms, the priest offered the first-fruits and tithes before the altar of the Temple (Deut., xxvi, 5-10); and the high-priest laid the sins of Israel upon the head of the scape-goat (Lev., x^'i, 21). Dur- ing the morning and the evening sacrifices, the Levites sang praises to the Lord and gave thanks (I Par., xxiii, 30). These praises would seem to have been the Psalms, since the leader of the Levites in the time of Nehemias was a son of Asaph (II Esd., xi, 17). The titles of many of the Psalms give evidence of their liturgical use in the temple or "the House of Jahweh" that preceded the Temple. The Psalms of Asaph and of the sons of Korah (see Psalms) at one time made up a liturgical collection for temple service. The sons of Asaph were among the temple levites (I Par., XXV, 1). The sons of Korah were also a levitical family of temple singers (II Par., xx, 19). In fact, there can be no doubt but the Psalms are evidence of a gradual development of a liturgical hymnal for temple service.
Certain elements of synagogal liturgy (see Stna- oogfe) probably have their origin in temple service. The "Shema" (Deut., vi, 4-9), together with the Ten Commandments and several benedictions, were recited by the priest at the morning sacrifice (Tamid, v). Josephus (.\nt. Jud., IV, viii, 13) dates this synagogal practice from the time of Moses.
Zenner, Die Chorgestinge im Buchc dcr Psalmcn (Freiburg, 1896); Zenneh-Wiesm.inn, Die Psalmcn nach ilem Urieit (Mun- Bter, 1906). The latter work edits the text over much, and has consequently been put on the Index (1911).
Walter Drum.
Temple, Sisters op the. — The Sisters of the Temple (whose full title is Sisters of the Finding of
