“331. WINDOWS—1 KINGS 6:4”

Windows—1Ki_6:4

“Windows of narrow lights” are assigned to the temple in the text of the authorized version, while the margin affords the alternative of “windows broad within and narrow without, or skewed and closed.” “Skewed” means “slanted;” so “askew,” i.e., aslant. None of these versions give much information; and their variety only shows the obscurity of the original term. The one that seems most intelligible and distinct—“broad within and narrow without,”—is only obtained by inserting the words in italics, which are supplied to complete the sense, the words being thus indicated as not existing in the original. Divested of these interpolations, the phrase would be, “windows broad and narrow,” which certainly, if really found in the original, which is not the case, would need something to make sense of it. This idea is, however, founded on the statement of Josephus with respect to Herod’s temple, and is reasonable, by its intrinsic probability—this form of window being best calculated to radiate the light into the interior through thick walls, and is hence very general in our own churches, as also in ancient sacred buildings—“partly,” as an old writer observes, “for the strength’s sake of the building, partly for devotion, which is much distracted by great and glaring windows, Note: Orbis Miraculum: or, The Temple of Solomon Portrayed by Scripture Light. No author’s name on title, but the preface subscribed “Samuel Lee.”] Folio. London, 1659.—much like, it seems, they were to the windows of some of our ancient British churches; as particularly that of Saint Paternus, now Llan-badern-vawre, in Cardiganshire, in Wales, or some of the more ancient Saxon churches in this land.”

Egyptian Windows

We know nothing, however, positively of the form or position of the windows, except that they must have been high up—at least fifteen cubits above the pavement—because the “chambers” on the outside of the temple reached as high, if not higher. As to their shape, no better probability can be suggested than they resembled some one of the kinds of windows found in ancient Egyptian buildings and representations, which in fact offer such forms as among them answer to all the various conjectures which have been offered. We know that one of Solomon’s later buildings—his palace—called “the house of the forest of Lebanon,”—had three rows of square windows, in which light was opposite to light on the different sides of the building.

A curious question has been raised as to the way in which they were closed, so as to exclude birds and bats, and rain, while admitting the light. We know from experience that, in the East, bats will enter through windows affording any apertures that will admit them, and establish themselves, clustered to the ceilings of even inhabited rooms, through all the day-time, only leaving the place at night in search of food; and, whatever may have been the case with private dwellings, means must have been found of preventing such incidents in a structure so sacred.

The learned old author lately quoted, asked whether it might not be that glass was employed, “seeing the Phoenicians, the first inventors of it, were neighbors to the people of Israel, and gave great assistance to this glorious work. Besides, it is sufficiently known that the glassy sands of the river Belus were within the territories of the tribe of Asher. Note: This alludes to the alleged accidental discovery of glass from the vitrification of the sands beside this river, by a fire kindled by some travelers. But whether the discovery was so ancient as the time of Solomon, I have not yet read.” This information is now in part supplied. It would seem, however, that the manufacture was long in the hands of the Phoenicians, its principal seats being at Sidon and Sarepta—and so long it was accounted a precious commodity, and esteemed an article of luxury—which may the rather lead to the supposition of its having been used in the temple, if at all known at this time to the Phoenicians. For a long time after it became known, glass was not in very common use. A modern author Note: Heeren. Researches, vol. ii. p. 88. infers this from the small number of the glass houses ascribed, even so late as the time of Pliny, to the Phoenicians; and seems to imply that much use for it was not found. “While the mildness of the climate in all southern countries, as well as all over the East, rendered any other stoppage of windows unnecessary, except that of curtains or blinds, goblets of the precious metals or stones were preferred as drinking vessels.” To the first statement we demur; for the winter cold is often severer in the countries in view than this writer assumes; and in summer, it is always desired to exclude the birds, bats, and many large and troublesome insects which abound in the East. But he is right in supposing that glass was not, even after it became known, generally used for the purpose—nor is it now, even where it might be obtained at no great expense.

Herodotus Note: Thalia, xxiv.—confirmed by Strabo, Geog. xvii., and Diodorus, ii. 15; iii. 9. states that the Ethiopians were wont to deposit their dead in sarcophagi hollowed out of masses of crystal, which is dug in abundance in their country, and which was so transparent that the bodies enclosed within were perfectly visible. Dr. Lee regards this as a datum for the antiquity of glass, but remarks that there is no intimation as to what earlier age its use may have extended. But be forgot that the Greek word (ὕαλος) which is indeed used for glass, also means any transparent material, as crystal, various kinds of stones, and the like—and the statement of the mode in which it was obtained, shows that certainly it was not glass, whatever else it may have been. It was doubtless of much more ancient use than the time to which the statement refers, and might have been applicable to windows, if such use for it had been thought of. But from the manner in which it is mentioned by the historian, it seems to have been confined to Ethiopia, and to the use which he indicates.

Pursuing his inquiry after glass, Dr. Lee remembers “the Arabian story of the pyramids, recited by the learned Mr. Greaves, that the king which built the pyramids, put in the westernmost of them glass that might be bended, and not broken. All which story is by him counted little less than a romance. Yet possibly there might be rocks in Ethiopia like those in Muscovia (Russia), mentioned by M. Fletcher in his history, whose scalings might be transparent and flexible and not so fragile as our artificial glass, and which we use for ship lanthorns and other ends.” This may have been talc or scaly mica; which, if known, may have been very well used for windows in the absence of glass. The want of transparency would have been no objection—but rather a recommendation, for temples at least. Translucency was the only quality desired, and the lack of transparency would have availed to prevent irreverent persons from looking into the interior from the roofs of the collateral buildings. Still, we do not imagine that such substances were used, whatever be the value of Mr. Greaves’ Arabian tale about the pyramids.

The earliest indication of real glass which can be found in ancient writers, is that of Theophrastus (320 B.C.), who, in his Greek work on Stones, speaks of it—but, as it seems to us, as of a matter not within the range of his own observation and experience. “If glass be made, as some affirm, of the Uëlitis—a vitrifiable sand, it owes its production to the extreme force of fire. The best is that in the making of which flints have also been used; for, besides that they melt and mix with the general mass, they have a peculiar excellency in the making of glass, insomuch that they give the differences in the clearness of the color.” Some of the editions of this author have “brass” for “flints”—and are doubtless wrong. Sand was certainly the first ingredient ever used or thought of for the making of glass, and for many ages there was no other sand used than that found clean washed on the banks or in the beds of rivers, and this from its use might very probably acquire the name of Uëlitis, or “glass-sand.” That the further improvement of using flint was so well known to this old author, implies a much remoter antiquity of the original invention.

In the Old Testament there is no explicit mention of glass. All our readers know that the “looking-glasses” of the women, mentioned in Exo_38:8, were not of glass. It is clear, like the other ancient mirrors, they were of polished metal—in this case of brass. So, also, where Job compares the expanse of the heavens to “a molten looking-glass.” In both places, the word “mirror” would have been better in the translation. We must not, however, neglect to request the reader’s attention to the remarkable text where, in the relation of Joshua’s victorious pursuit of his enemies, it is stated that he pursued them “even unto Sidon and Misrephoth-maim,” Jos_11:8. Taken in connection with the fact, that the chief manufacture of glass was at Sidon, the name of Misrephoth-maim has attracted much attention. The versions vary in the translation of it. In the marginal reading of our Bibles, we have “burnings,” or “saltpits.” One Latin version makes it to mean “burnings of water.” Another has, “the conflux of waters.” Another, “the place of hot baths.” Another, “the saltpit waters.” John Rogers’ translation (1539) has “whotte waters;” and the margin of the Bishops’ Bible (1572) has “bryne or saltpits.” But Junius translates it, “to the place of the glass furnaces.” The original words literally agree to the first translation, and the others are interpretations thereof. It has been well conjectured, that we should take the words to mean “burnings by water”—not “of water,” and this a great Hebrew scholar (Gesenius) is inclined to understand of either lime-kilns or smelting furnaces situated near water. But there is no apparent reason why these should be near water—whereas there is an obvious one in regard to glass furnaces, on account of the sand. Certain it is, that this alternative much engaged the fancy of the no less learned than valiant Sir Walter Raleigh, who thought that the passage might furnish ground for a good conjecture, that the glass sands of the river Belus were in demand for this use as early as the time of Joshua. Note: History of the World, i. 2, § 1. This is not impossible nor incredible; and although it cannot be proved from the passage in view, the fact that glass is really of as ancient, or still more ancient date, is proved from the monuments of Egypt, in which the process of glass-blowing is represented in paintings whose date reaches up to the time of Joseph; and actual specimens are extant of glass ornaments manufactured about the time of the Exodus.

Our own opinion is, that the windows were filled with close lattice-work, which was probably in this instance gilded. This is still the favorite mode of filling widows in the East—even where glass is in partial use, as being better suited to a warm climate, for it admits not only light but air, and as completely as glass excludes bats and birds, and almost as effectually insects, for it is well known that few insects will pass through lattice or net-work, even when the interstices are much larger than their own bodies. They are preferred also for this—that they allow persons within to view distinctly all that passes without—while no one on the outside can see the persons within. In winter, the cold is excluded by curtains or translucent coverings inside the lattice.

Eastern Lattice Window

In confirmation of this, it may be stated that lattices are indicated in Scripture long before and long after this period. The mother of Sisera watched through “the lattice” for the return of her son; Note: Jdg_5:28. Ahaziah “fell down through the lattice;” Note: 2Ki_1:2. and the bride in Solomon’s Song “shows herself through the lattice.” Note: Solomon’s Son_2:9. But what is more to the purpose, the very passage which we noticed at the outset, with regard to the temple windows, may very well signify “windows with closed (fixed) bars,” which is a very good indication of lattice-work. The art of forming the patterns of such lattices is much studied, and often carefully and elaborately executed, in the East; and the oriental craftsmen frequently produce really beautiful specimens of joinery in this department.

Autor: JOHN KITTO