Copyright © 2013

Avello Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2049 - 498X

Issue 1 Volume 3:

Principia Mathematica

Isaac Newton and the Architectural Models of Solomon's Temple

Tessa Morrison

University of Newcastle, Australia.

The description of the Temple of Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel is dark and obscure. Not only are the details of the buildings that constitute the Temple precinct obscure, so are the answers to the questions: which Temple is it? – is it Solomon’s Temple? Is it the Temple that existed in Ezekiel’s time? Or is it the Temple of the future? In 1604, architect and Jesuit priest Juan Battista Villalpando published In Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Vrbis Templi Hierosolymitani. This is a three volume commentary on the Book of Ezekiel; however, the entire second volume is dedicated to Solomon’s Temple and is based on Ezekiel’s description of the Temple. Villalpando reconstructed the Temple illustrating it with elaborate etchings. He claimed that his reconstruction was the ‘architecture of theology’ for the betterment of his fellow brethren. His reconstruction was extremely controversial and his work began a debate that endured for one hundred and fifty years. However, this debate is not just theological it was primarily architectural. Architects, theologians and Hebraists critiqued Villalpando’s reconstruction, often creating their own reconstructions. Some of these reconstructions remained on paper, while others were later turned into architectural models. Two models were displayed in London. The first model was by Jacob Judah Leon (Templo) exhibited in London from 1675, and the second Gerhard Schott’s model was exhibited in London from 1724 to 1732. Both models were extremely different and the reconstructions were built to different sources. However, Isaac Newton, who also reconstructed the Temple in a manuscript, would not have agreed with either of the exhibited reconstructions. This paper firstly considers the Leon and Scott models exhibited in London. Second, it will turn to Isaac Newton’s reconstruction and how it fits in with these publicly displayed models. Finally there will be a discussion of the new architectural model of Newton’s reconstruction and a comparison between it and Villalpando’s reconstruction.

1

Background

Juan Battista Villalpando’s In Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Vrbis Templi Hierosolymitani published in 1604 was more than a commentary on Ezekiel, it was over 20 years in the making and was financed by Philip II of Spain, who originally promised 3000 gold escudos for the engravings and other expenses (Taylor, 1972, 74). Eventually this amount rose to 10,000 gold escudos over the 20 year duration of the project. Villalpando claimed that

I have not studied it (the Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple) in order to re-establish the old glory of the Temple, but in order to interpret the text of the Scriptures that contain the sublime mysteries of our religion; my intention was to clarify everything that is the object of our sensorial comprehension of this information to discover other more defined elements (Villalpando & et al: 1604, unpaginated).

In order to “clarify everything that is the object of our sensorial comprehension” the book contains 48 copperplate engravings: 20 of these fold out with some being over one and half metres wide. These engravings are of exceptional quality, and reproduce the plans, elevations and perspectives that Villalpando believed were originally drawn by the divine hand of God. For Villalpando it was the ‘Architecture of Theology’, which revealed the mind and plans of God.

There was an overwhelming response to In Ezechielem Explanationes and its notoriety was spread through commentaries written by both supporters and critics. The first commentary, Annales Sacri by Agostino Tornielli, was published in 1610 in Milan and it was reprinted a further six times in Frankfurt, Antwerp and Cologne over the next 50 years. Louise Cappel made an extensive study of the Temple, which contains abstracts from In Ezechielem Explanationes and was printed in Brian Walton’s Biblia Sacra Polyglotta in 1657; this was revised in John Pearson’s Critici Sacri and published in 1660. Nicolaus Goldmann’s Architectura Sacra written before 1665, made Villalpando’s work known in Germany. Fisher von Erlach’s Entwurff einer Historischen Architectur included Villalpando’s Temple and was printed in Vienna in 1721. In Ezechielem Explanationes, with its high quality etchings the book was expensive and it was through these books, which contained abstracts and/or commentaries of Villalpando’s work, that it became widely known.

There were also reconstructions of the Temple in response to Villalpando’s reconstruction, such as architect Claude Perrault published The Code of Maimonides, the Mishneh Torah, in 1678; Hebraist Constantin L’Empereur’ published Mishnah sive Legum Mischnicarum liber qui inscribitur Ordo Scorum…., in 1702; architectural theorist Nicholaus Goldmann’s Die Vollstandige Amweisung zu der Civilbaukunst published in 1698; non-conformist minister and natural philosopher, Samuel Lee published Orbis miraculum, or, The temple of Solomon pourtraied by Scripture-light in 1659 with a second edition in 1665 and many more. Jesuit priest Benito Arias Montano published a reconstruction of the Temple in

2

‘Exemplar’ in Volume Eight of the Antwerp Polyglot in 1572 before Villalpando began work on his reconstruction in the early 1580s. Montano’s reconstruction was based on the description of the Temple from the Book of the King. He was the first to criticise Villalpando's work well before its publication and he accused Villalpando of heresy and challenged him for his controversial ideas; including using the Book of Ezekiel as his source for his reconstruction – although Villalpando was charged with heresy and had to face the Inquisition his case was eventually dropped.

There were also unpublished reconstructions such as Isaac Newton’s Prolegomena ad Lexici Propretici partem Secundam: De Forma Sanctuary Judaici (Babson Ms 434). Newton’s comments in Babson Ms 434 on Villalpando’s reconstruction are a mixture of both support and criticism. Whereas Newton praised Villalpando’s theological justification for his reconstruction, he was highly critical of his architectural reconstruction. In Babson Ms 434 he creates a reconstruction using the same principle source as Villalpando, the Book of Ezekiel and he justifys his reconstruction using ancient and contemporary sources (see (Morrison, 2013) for the sources used by Newton in Babson Ms 434.

The reconstructions of Solomon’s Temple in the 17th and beginning of the 18th century show several variants. However, they did loosely divide into two basic designs – symmetrical and non-symmetrical. The main cause of this difference was the use of different literary sources. Ezekiel was ambiguous and open to interpretation; the main continuity between the reconstructions from the book of Ezekiel was symmetry, while in the traditional Jewish sources the accounts of the Temple were more specific and non-symmetrical (Shalev, 2003). Examples of the non-symmetrical plans by Constantin L’Empereur and Louis Cappel can be seen in the Figures 1 and 2, and both these plans were from Mishneh Torah. While Villalpando’s and Isaac Newton’s ground plan (see Figure 3) are symmetrical and based on Book of Ezekiel. In the plans based on Mishneh Torah there is a great deal of similarity, while the plans based on the book of Ezekiel although similar in their symmetry, their ground plans can vary greatly which can be seen between the plans of Villalpando and Newton.

3

Figure 1: Constantin L’Empereur’s floor plan of the Temple from Guglielmus Surenbusius;Mishnah sive Legum Mischnicarum liber qui inscribitur Ordo Sacrorum…, 1702 (drawn by the Author from (Curl, 1991, 89)

Figure 2: Louis Cappel’s reconstruction of the Temple from Brian Walton’s Polyglot Bible published in 1657 (Cappel, 1657, 39)

Figure 3: left hand side – Villalpando’s floor plan of the Temple of Solomon (Drawn by the author from (Villalpando and Prado: 1604, unpaginated)); Right-hand side – Isaac Newton’s Plan of the Temple drawn from his description in Babson Ms 434.

4

Figure 4: Villalpando’s Temple of Solomon and its massive foundations, with kind permission from the British library

The Two London exhibitions in the 17th and 18th centuries

The interest in Solomon’s Temple was not just an academic one. Architectural models were built of these temples and displayed publicly. Although many models of Solomon’s Temple were publicly exhibited throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, there were two architectural models that captured the public’s imagination in this period – Jacob Judah Leon (Templo)’s model, exhibited in London from 1675, and the Gerhard Schott’s model which was exhibited in London between 1724 and 1732. Schott’s Model was built to Villalpando’s plan while the Leon model was built according to the Jewish sacred texts (see Figure 5), representing the two distinctly different plans of the Temple – symmetrical and non-symmetrical.

Both these models were large and at the exhibition the viewer could purchase a guidebook of the Temple. These guidebooks were descriptive walks through the Temple bringing the viewer into the Temple. Both models were extremely different in their overall design and in the details. However, they were both extremely popular public exhibitions.

Few men have had as many varying aliases as the Rabbi Jacob Judah Leon, Hebrew for Judah Arje, Aryeh or Arye, (in Continental Europe Leo, Leon Leonis or Leonituis,) and in England Lion or Lyon. A surname Templo was given to him by his contemporary scholar because of his life’s work on the Temple of Solomon and the models that he exhibited (Crawley and Chetwope, 1898, 153). However, Leon never used the surname of Templo himself. He signed himself in Hebrew lettering as Yacob Yehuda Aryeh and is referred to in his literary works as Leon Hebreo (Shane, 1983, 149).

Leon became a Rabbi and teacher for the Sephardi community and by 1642 he had completed a model of the Temple of Solomon and published Retrato del Templo de Selomoh in Spanish and Afbeeldinghe vanden Templel Salomonis in Dutch which was also translated into French, Portraict du Temple de Salomon. Throughout his life his work was translated

5

into no less than eight languages, Dutch, Spanish, French, German, Hebrew Yiddish, Latin and English.

Leon’s exhibition was very popular with not only the pubic but also with Royalty and the scientific community. In 1642, Frederick Henry, the Stadtholder of the Provinces of Holland, visited the new synagogue in Amsterdam. He was accompanied by his son Prince William of Orange, Mary Stuart, who was Prince William’s betrothed, and her grandmother Queen Henrietta Maria. They also visited the Temple exhibition which was on display at Leon’s house. In his second edition of the Dutch edition Afbeeldinghe vanden Templel Salomonis Leon included two dedicatory poems. One is signed I. D Brune, who is thought to be the Christian poet and Hebraist Johan de Brunes the Elder (Shane, 1983, 151). Constantijn Huygen, secretary to the two Princes of Orange, Frederick Henry and William, and the first secretary to the Dutch Royal Society, was interested to support Leon’s work by writing him letters of introduction letters for his intended visit to London in 1675. This would have been an important contact for Leon and indicates the respect that the Dutch scientific community held for him.

Huygen’s introduction letters for Leon for his intended trip to England to exhibit his models were sent to Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington, Henry Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society, and Christopher Wren. A copy of the letter sent to Christopher Wren is preserved in Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, and is dated 7th October 1674, and states that:.

This bearer is a Jew by birth and profession, and I am bound to him for some instructions I had from him, long ago, in the Hebrew literature. This maketh me grant him the addresses he desireth of me, his intention being to show in England a curious model of the Temple of Solomon, he had been about to contrive these many years, where he doth presume to have demonstrated and corrected an infinite number of errors and parallelisms of our most learned scholars, who had meddled with the exposition of that holy fabric, and most specially of the Jesuit Villalpando, who, as you know, Sir, has handled the matter ingenti cum fastu et apparatu, ut solent isti [with enormous display and complexity]. I make no question but many of your divines and other virtuois will take some pleasure to hear the Israelite discourse upon his architecture and the conformity of it with the genuine truth of the holy text, but, Sir before all, I have thought I was to bring him acquainted with yourself, who are able to judge of the matter upon better and surer grounds that any living man. I give him also letters to the Portuguese ambassador, to my lord Arlington and M, Oldenburg that some notice be taken of him, both at court, and amongst those of the Royal Society. If you will be so good as to him unto my lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, even in my name, I am sure the noble prelate will take it pro more suo [according to the custom of men] friendly and remember with me the Psalm, Laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi, in domum domini ibimus [I rejoiced when they said to me, let us go into the house of the Lord]. I pray, Sir, let his Grace find here my humble and most

6

devoted respect, and for your part I believe I do still remember your excellent merits, and in consideration of them and will always show to be (Worp, 1917, 274).

Leon clearly intended an extensive visit and was armed with introductions to the Court, the scientific and religious communities.

Leon rejected Ezekiel as a source for the Temple of Solomon and used Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae and Bellum Judaicum, I Chron, I Kings and the Midot as his main sources. Leon disagreed with Villalpando and he claimed that the Temple needed to be considered in the Jewish tradition. Although Villalpando’s reconstruction had been built to the norms of architecture, the book according to Leon was more concerned with theology, rather than a literal interpretation of the architecture. Leon’s emphasis was the Temple made by man, for the worship of God, not the God given plan that Villalpando had stressed. Yet looking at Leon’s Temple foundations they are exactly the same as Villalpando’s (compare Figures 4 & 5). Thus Villalpando did have some influence on Leon and although the plan is different, the style of the architecture is very similar to Villalpando. Unfortunately Leon’s models no longer exist. Although there are images of his Temple reconstruction he did not provide a floor plan of the Temple precinct to accompany the description in his books. Leon died in September 1675 and there is no record of any visit to London by him, although there is no doubt that he intended to go. However, the model was exhibited for at least five years.

Figure 5: Jacob Judah Leon – Temple of Solomon (Leon, 1665, 32)

The builder of the Schott model is unknown. It was completed for Hamburg city councillor Gerard Schott (1641-1702) in 1690s. Schott’s heirs sold the models to Mr Combrecht Con (Ryland, 1882, 414), who was reported to be an Englishman, the year of this sale is not known. Combrecht Con brought the model to London perhaps to find a buyer for

7

the model. Although the newspapers at the time claimed that King George I was to purchase the model, nothing eventuated. However, within a couple of weeks of the model arriving in London it went on public display. Advertisements for the exhibition of the Schott model were placed in many of the daily newspapers.

The Temple of Solomon, lately brought over for Hamburg, which his majesty not long ago was pleased to see with great satisfaction, is every Day to be seen from eleven to Three-a-clock, in the Long Room of the Opera House in the Hay-Market. The complete masterpiece for its excellent architecture exact and perfect symmetry, and richness in gold, silver, jewels, carving and figures, has not its like in the universe; there being above 6700 pillars, 1500 chambers, and windows in proportion to be seen conforming to the original. The printed description of it, with several fine cuts, is to be had at the same place, at five shillings the book. The price for seeing the Temple is half a guinea. Every particular will be shown and explained by some persons attending there for that purpose. And whereas it is supposed that those who are curious in architecture and antiquity would be glad to see it more than once, the owner gives notice that those who pay a guinea shall see it as often as they please for the same (Anonymous, 1724, 2).

At a guinea entrance fee, the exhibition was for a very elite audience. Later advertisement described the size of the model as being “13 foot high and 80 foot round (Anonymous, 1730).” The model was built to impress and 20 x 20 x 13 feet (6.096 x 6.096 x 3.963 metres) is a vast model (see Figure 6)! Despite the mention of several fine cuts, presumably etchings, the printed description is not illustrated. Nevertheless, it was only a couple of months before two large prints 3 feet 3 inches high and 2 feet wide (1 x 0.61 metres) of the Hamburg model were being advertised and sold by engravers in London (Anonymous, 1725, 2). In 1727, in the new reign of King George II it was again rumoured in the newspapers that “We hear his majesty has purchased the famous model of the Temple of Solomon brought from Hamburg in the last Reign, and shown at the Hay Market, to make a present of it to one of the universities (Anonymous, 1728, 2).” However, this proved to be untrue, but it was known that the model was for sale. It remained on exhibition until the 1732 when it was purchased by Elector Friedrich August of Saxony who was King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. The model exchanged hands several times through the centuries and is now on display in the Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte (Korey, 2010, 35).

During the eight years that this model was on display in London the price of admission did eventually go down to 2 shillings; however, it was continuously patronised by the public and a significant number of the guidebooks from the exhibition still exist.

The guide books (Anonymous, 1725; Leon, 1675) form an important element of the exhibitions of the models they explained the architecture of the Temple. They are ordered to guide the viewer through the Temple as though the viewer is moving mentally through the

8

Temple. In Ezekiel’s description of the Temple he walks from the eastern gate around the Temple see the buildings and the sacred areas, the Schott guidebook follow his path.

Figure 6: The Schott model drawn by the author.

Isaac Newton’s reconstruction in Babson Ms 434

Villalpando’s massive three volume In Ezechielem Explanationes was extremely expensive. Perhaps because of this his work was often known more through the commentaries on it, especially the commentary of Louis Cappella in Brain Walton’s Biblia Sacra Polyglotta. Newton owned Biblia Sacra Polyglotta (Harrison, 1978, 102) but not a copy of In Ezechielem Explanationes. Unfortunately Newton does not quote Villalpando directly thus it is difficult to clarify what the source is – whether he used the original text or a commentary

The description in Babson Ms 434 follows the text of Ezekiel who was guided through the Temple precinct. Although Babson Ms 434 is a Scriptural exegesis it is an architectural text. Newton looked for confirmation of the description by Ezekiel through these ancient writers. Where Ezekiel gave overall measurements, Newton demonstrated that the collection of buildings described by the ancient writers corresponded with Ezekiel’s description and dimensions (Newton, 2011, 119ff). His comparison of the measurements through the different stages of the development of the Temple was carefully executed and inconsistencies were discarded from his floor plan.

Although Newton claimed that Ezekiel’s description was the best in terms of his analysis of the Temple, he also noted that Ezekiel could be obscure, and that there were areas in the Temple that Ezekiel had not seen. In Babson Ms 434 Newton reconstructs the Temple from the Book of Ezekiel twice, the second is a refinement of the first. But in both reconstructions there are certain passages where he has difficulty with laying the ground plan – there are errors in the Ezekiel text and some of the measurements are incorrect. Despite these problems, Newton attempts to make sense of the plan of Ezekiel. However, the changes to the plan throughout the Newton manuscript do not constitute a significant change in the ideas behind the plan; they are only refinements of the plan.

9

In his verse by verse explanation Newton has problems with Ezekiel 41:10; “And between the chambers was the wideness of twenty cubits round about the house on every side”. However, there is only fifteen cubits between the side of the Temple and the side of the chambers of the priest in the Separate Place according to Ezekiel’s own description. Newton made two attempts to reconcile Ezekiel’s words with a consistent plan; both were unsuccessful. First he claimed that the twenty cubits refers to the thickness of the building surrounding the Temple, i.e. the storeroom + walkway + rooms + wall (Newton, 2011, 115). However, this actually measures nineteen cubits according to Newton’s plan and a further problem is that he discounted the fifteen cubits of pavement that surrounds the Temple so that there are thirty-four cubits between the side of the Temple and the side of the chambers of the priests in the Separate Place. In the second attempt he claimed that the twenty cubits is not the remaining space between the chambers, as some have imagined, but it is “here the width was that of the Separate Place that separates the side building and the chambers of the Priests where the sacrifices are consumed (154)”. He calculated it thus:

if all the previously said widths of seventy cubits (the width of the Temple plus the walls) is subtracted, the width of the Temple of twenty cubits and the width of their wall of five cubits of the side and five cubits of the other, to the first reduction, they will remain forty cubits, twenty on one side and twenty on the other as the width of perimeter of the adjacent building to the Temple. Or thus the width of the side chamber is five cubits, as above it. That of the remaining space is of five cubits (155).

Newton justified Ezekiel’s measurements, ensuring that his floor plan of the Temple complied with the Prophets words.

In Chapter 41:8 Ezekiel claimed that the foundation of the side chambers was six cubits but this makes no sense since the chambers are five cubits wide and the wall another five cubits, but Newton changes this to the length of the chambers; he removes the width of the wall and only counts the three walls of the chambers. This equals one hundred and eighty cubits as the perimeter. Nevertheless, Newton carefully assesses verse by verse until he builds up a ground plan and describes architecture as well.

Newton examined the colonnades: the numbers of columns, their height, their thickness, their intervals and their style. These are discerned according to the proportions of architecture. Newton revealed that he was familiar with the architectural theory of Vitruvius’ De Architectura, particularly Books III and IV. When Newton derived the width of the inter-columns from the measurement of the column given from Josephus he paraphrased Vitruvius Book III, Chapter III, ‘The Proportions of Intercolumniations and of Columns’. He claimed that the ‘intervals of these pedestals, according to the proportions of architecture, should not be less than the pedestals’ (Newton, 2011, 129). From Vitruvius, Book IV, Chapter III and the measurements of Josephus Newton estimated the height of the columns were ‘six times the thickness according to the Doric style’(133). In Ezekiel 40: 14 the measurement of the height of the doorway were given as twenty cubits thus Newton claimed that the ‘width of the doorway was of ten cubits and the height according to the rules of the architects, should be

10

double the width’(119). For Newton most of the measurements of the Temple are exactly to the ‘proportion of architectural demand’(117). However, according to Newton the architecture of the Temple sometimes surpassed the beauty that classical architecture demands. He confirmed that there were in a row twenty-one columns and twenty inter-columns in the Royal colonnade from the measurement described by Josephus. Newton stated;

the Royal colonnade will occupy seventeen, twenty or twenty-four [spaces] between the columns of the same magnitude. But seventeen, according to the architectural proportions, will be too few, and twenty-four will be excessive if the columns were estimated to be equal to those of the other atriums, and, in one and another case, are set apart too much by the numbers of Josephus, therefore it should be twenty [inter-columns]. According to this proportion, the columns will be less numerous than in the proportion of the eustylii of Vitruvius, but more beautiful; and here, where instead of the architrave there are large blocks of marble that cannot be broken, it does not fit the objections of Vitruvius (134).

From the description of the Temple given by the ancient writers, Newton claimed that it was possible to identify the plan of the Temple of Solomon. Since Zerubbabel had built on the foundations of the Temple of Solomon, everything that Zerubbabel and Herod added, or anything that is irregular, must be rejected. Harmony and symmetry in the design of the Temple were important elements in the layout of the Temple plan. Newton accepted particular dimensions of Josephus on the strength of their being harmonious with the plan (129). He stated that, ‘The structure is valued by such great simplicity and harmony of all its proportions’(147). The perfection of the measurements was of paramount importance to the design. From his description and architectural model can be created from his details.

Both Newton and Villalpando used Ezekiel as their main source, they both considered Vitruvius’s architectural norms in their construction and they both cite harmony and symmetry to be an important element of their reconstruction. Yet comparing the designs side-by-side (Figure 3) it is difficult to establish any similarity. The difference becomes more significant when the architectural models of their reconstructions are compared (see Figure 7 & 8).

The architectural model of Newton’s Temple of Solomon

Through an Australian Research Council Post-Doctorial Fellowship, Babson Ms 434 was translated, its relationship with other manuscripts analysed and a recreation of the

i

Vitruvius, III, iii, 6. Eustyle is a type of temple whose columns had the better proportions according to Vitruvius, from the point of view of the aesthetics and of solidity. The length of its intercolumnios equalled to two diameters and a fourth of the columns, except the head of the subsequent and previous part; that midal is three diameters.

11

Temple using Newton’s written reconstruction using the 3D computer modelling program, ArchiCad, was carried out. An architectural model of the Temple was built from that computer model in 2011 (see Figure 7, 8 and 9). The model was built at the Architecture and Built Environment Workshop, the University of Newcastle, Australia, by Ben Percy and the Author. It was constructed with architectural modelling laser machines and involved fused deposition modeling, an additive manufacturing technology which is commonly used for modelling, prototyping, and production applications. The materials used included MDF and ABS plastic. There are 1000 columns and 1200 window grids and it took over nine months to build. The scale of the model is 2.2 metres x 2.2 metres. It is constructed exactly to Newton’s description.

The difference between the models built from Villalpando’s and Newton’s reconstructions is significant. Apart from the corner towers and the symmetry there are no details that are similar. Although it is not known whether Newton saw the Schott model, even though he was living in London for the first three years it was exhibited, he would not have approved of the design of the model. In Babson Ms 434 Newton is highly critical of Villalpando’s reconstruction in In Ezechielem Explanationes.

Figure 7: Architectural model constructed by the author from Newton’s description in Babson MS 434

12

Figure 8: The single colonnades that surround the outer courtyard of Newton’s Temple of Solomon (from author’s construction)

He believed that Villalpando’s errors in his design were primarily derived from his failure to take advantage of Jewish sources and his misinterpretation of the Latin texts (Newton, c1680s, 32r). Newton pointed to the Latin text that Villalpando used sometimes differed in its translation to the Hebrew texts, for instance in the Latin version in Ezekiel 42:3 Villalpando translated ‘colonnades united’ to be a triple colonnade but in the Hebrew text it translated to ‘colonnade against colonnade three times’ indicating three storeys (Newton, 2011, 117).

According to Newton, Villalpando created his grid plan of the Temple precinct from an “incorrect translation’ and his plan “has no support and is lacking in reason” (Newton, 2011, 154). Villalpando interpreted Ezekiel 40:19-20 as meaning that the length of the atrium from the south to the north is the distance between the gates, a hundred cubits, and this divided the area of the precinct into nine small atriums or anterooms, two of which formed the temple atrium and seven exterior to it. These anterooms are divided from each other by triple colonnades fifty cubits wide. Newton pointed out that these anterooms not mentioned in Ezekiel. Regarding the thirty chambers that flank the sides of the gate, which are expressly mentioned by Ezekiel, it is impossible to arrive at the number 30 for these chambers if the spaces of the gates are not counted. However, this goes against the text of Ezekiel. In addition, Newton also claimed that Villalpando’s grid plan cannot be accepted “unless we want to move away from the proportion of Moses’ atrium that surrounds the immediate Temple and the altar, which was established by Villalpando himself as being a length over double its width (Newton, 2011, 153).” By putting in nine small atriums, Villalpando had

13

made Temple Precinct 100 x 250 cubits instead of double square of 100 by 200 cubits prescribed by Moses.

Figure 9: The outer courtyard between the gates (from author’s construction)

Although Newton’s reconstruction is classical in its nature, it is by no means ornate. Simplicity and harmonious design is central to his description. So are the measurements and the proportions. All of the measurements are in ratios of 1:2. 1:3 and 2:3. Not only is Newton’s design different to Villalpando in its exterior architecture it is also different internally. Inside the Temple (Figure 11) it is decorated with cherubim, which have a body of the lion and two faces. Newton clearly states that the temple

was decorated with Cherubim and palm trees. The palm trees were between the cherubim, and all the cherubim had two faces. So that there was a face of man towards the palm tree on the one hand and a face of lion next to the palm tree on the other side, throughout the house on every side (Newton, 2011, 141).

Newton kept to Ezekiel’s text and the Holy of Holies is described as being 20 x 20 cubits in size. In I Kings 6:20 it is described as a cube 20 x 20 x 20 cubits but that description is not taken up by Ezekiel; however, although there is no detail of the ceiling there are floors above and the height of the entire Temple is 30 cubits with the raise of 12 steps to the Holy of Holies the height would be approximately 20 cubits in height with a flat roof.

This is unlike the haunting and mysterious interior of the holy of holies by Villalpando (Figure 12); it contains the Ark of the Covenant and the Cherubim that guard it.

14

The Ark is not of the Biblical dimensions and Cherubim are more human and serene than the Biblical cherubim guardians, and Villalpando’s ceiling and its external roof of the Holy of Holies has no Biblical precedent (Villalpando and Prado, 1604: vol 2, 88). In many ways Villalpando’s internal description of the Temple contradicts Ezekiel’s text. The contrast between the two architectural models built to the description of Villalpando and Newton differ in almost all aspects.

Figure 10: the Temple and the altar in the secret precinct (from author’s construction)

15

Figure 11: Section of the Newton’s Temple and the holy area where the Arc of the Covenant is kept (from author’s construction)

Figure 12: Villalpando’s Holy of Holies the Temple and containing the Arc of the Covenant with kind permission from the British library

Conclusion

Villalpando’s ‘architecture of theology’ was a significant study of the 17th and early 18th century which stimulated debate that endured for 150 years. This debate was taken up by not only theologians but also architects, the scientific community, and the public. There is no doubt that the religious interest was a stimulus for this debate; however, the debate itself was on the architect of the Temple – not the architecture of the actual building nor theology itself. The architectural norms of the building of the Temple were to be a model for all architecture. For Villalpando, the Temple of Solomon was at the origins of architecture. Villalpando claimed that “Sacred architecture constitutes the origin of architecture, and the profane one is like a copy, or better still, as a shadow of sacred architecture (Villalpando and Prado, 1604, 414)”. Newton studied Vitruvius to work on his reconstruction, he was familiar with the text and he had no other manuscripts which required a study of the architectural norms. The architecture was an important aspect of his Temple reconstruction. Although he never stated that it is the origin of architecture, Newton confidently stated that, “I meet no mention of sumptuous Temples before the days of Solomon (Newton, 1988, 221)”. In the 18 th century, in an unpublished manuscript, antiquarian William Stukeley argued that at the Temple of Solomon was the origin of architecture (Stukeley, 1721-24). In 1741, Bath architect John Wood in a book entitled The Origin of Building or the Plagiarism of the Heathens Detected

16

clearly stated that the Temple was the origin of all architecture. The debate was wide and controversial; nevertheless, it did involve some of the most significant architects and scientists in this period.

Both Leon’s and the Schott model were part of that debate. Although the models had caught the imagination of the public when Leon was planning to come to England his introduction letters were to high ranking men of the church, scientific community, and architecture; when the Schott model arrived in England the public discussion was that the King would be purchasing it not for his own collection but for one of the universities.

The importance of the architecture is also promulgated in the guidebooks that was sold at the exhibitions. The guidebooks ‘walked’ the viewer around the Temple exploring the sacred spaces, and the architecture. What happened to the Lyon model after the exhibition in the 17th century is unknown; however, a relative Moses De Castro exhibited the model again 1759 to 1760 in London and Leon’s Hebrew guidebook was also later translated into English (Leon, 1776). Although by this time the academic interest in the architecture of Solomon’s Temple was wanning, the public interest remained.

Babson Ms 434 remained in manuscript form and his only published work on Solomon’s Temple was in The Chronology, posthumously published in 1728, which did not make any serious impact into the debate particularly since it did not describe any architecture and the ground plans which were provided were not from the hand of Newton. The reconstruction in The Chronology bears no resemblance to Babson Ms 434 (Morrison: 2013).

The model built in 2011 to Newton’s description of the Temple has been exhibited at The University Gallery, at the University of Newcastle, and at The SciTech Library at the University of Sydney. It attracted many visitors as well as regional and national media coverage and it continues to bring in viewers to see our exhibitors in regional galleries around New South Wales. There is a fascination with the reconstruction of the Temple by one of the greatest scientists that ever lived. It does appear from a 21st century point of view a strange study for such a significant figure in history to study. However, in his reconstruction Newton was contributing to an important ongoing and contemporary academic debate.

He believed that Villalpando’s errors in his design were primarily derived from his failure to take advantage of Jewish sources and his misinterpretation of the Latin texts (Newton, c1680s, 32r). Newton pointed to the Latin text that Villalpando used sometimes differed in its translation to the Hebrew texts, for instance in the Latin version in Ezekiel 42:3 Villalpando translated ‘colonnades united’ to be a triple colonnade but in the Hebrew text it translated to ‘colonnade against colonnade three times’ indicating three storeys (Newton, 2011, 117). He believed that Villalpando’s errors in his design were primarily derived from his failure to take advantage of Jewish sources and his misinterpretation of the Latin texts (Newton, c1680s, 32r). Newton pointed to the Latin text that Villalpando used sometimes differed in its translation to the Hebrew texts, for instance in the Latin version in Ezekiel 42:3 Villalpando translated ‘colonnades united’ to be a triple colonnade but in the Hebrew text it translated as ‘colonnade against colonnade three times’ indicating three storeys (Newton, 2011, 117).

17

Bibliography

ABERCROMBIE, P. 1920. Ideals Cities: No 1 Christianopolis. The Town Planning Review, 8, 99-104.ANONYMOUS. 1724. Advertisement. Daily Courant ANONYMOUS 1725. Advertisement Daily Post London, Wednesday, February 24, Issue 1690.ANONYMOUS 1725. The Temple of Solomon with All Its Porches, Walls, Gates, Halls, Chambers,

Holy Vessels, the Altar of Burnt-Offering, the Molten-Sea, Golden-Candlesticks, Shew-Bread Tables, Altar of Incense, the Ark of the Covenant, with the Mercy-Seat, the Cherubims Etc London.

ANONYMOUS 1730. Classified Advertisement Daily Courant London, Thursday, November 12, Issue 9088.

CAPPEL, L. 1657. Chronologia Sacra. In: WALTON, B. (ed.) Biblia Sacra Polyglotta London.CRAWLEY, W. & CHETWOPE, J. 1898. Rabbi Jacob Jehudah Leon. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 12.CURL, J. S. 1991. The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry London, B.T. Batsford Ltd.HARRISON, J. 1978. The Library of Isaac Newton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KOREY, M. 2010. The Temple of Solomon and the Jewish Cabinet in the Dresden Zwinger: A Search for Their Historical Traces. In: KOREY, M. & KETELSEN, T. (eds.) Fragments of Memory. Dresden: Deutscher Kunstverlag.LEON, J. J. 1675. A Relation of the Most Memorable Thinges in the Tabernacle of Moses and the

Temple of Solomon According to Text of Scripture Amsterdam. LEON, J. Jehudah,J. and J. S. 1665. De Templo Hierosolymitano Helmæstadi.LEON, J. J. 1778. An Accurate Description of the Grand & Glorious Temple of Solomon,

translated by M. P. De Castro, London.LEON, J. J. 1778. An Accurate Description of the Grand & Glorious Temple of Solomon,

translated by M. P. De Castro, London.MORRISON, T. 2013. Isaac Newton and Solomon’s Temple: a fifty year study. Avello Publishing

Journal, 3.NEWTON, I. 1988. The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, London, Histories & Mysteries

of Man.NEWTON, I. 2011. Introduction to the lexicon of the prophets, part two: about the appearance of the

Jewish Temple. In: MORRISON, T. (ed.) Isaac Newton's Temple of Solomon and his reconstruction of sacred architecture. Basil: Birhauser.

NEWTON, I. c1680s. Miscellaneous notes and extracts on the Temple, the Fathers, prophecy, Church history, doctrinal issues, etc. (Yahuda 14, Unpublished Manuscript, Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel.

NEWTON, I. Mid 1680s – early 1690s. Prolegomena ad Lexici Propretici partem Secundam: De Forma Sanctuary Judaici (Babson Ms 434), unpublished manuscript, Wellesley, Massachusetts, Massachusetts: Babson College.

RYLAND, H. 1882. Rabbi Jacab Jehudan Leon. Freemason, 22.SHALEV, Z. 2003. Sacred Geography, Antiquarianism and Visual Erudition: Benito Arias Montano

and the Maps in the Antwerp Polyglot Bible. Imago Mundi, 55.SHANE, A. L. 1983. Jacob Judan Leo of Amsterdam (1602- 1675) and His Models of the Temple of

Solomon and the Tabernacle. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum 96 96.

18

STUKELEY, W. 1721-24. The Creation, Music of the Spheres K[ing] S[olomon’s] Temple Microco[sm]- and Macrocosm Compared &c. FM MS 1130 Stu (1). London: Freemasons Library.

TAYLOR, R. 1972. Hermetism and mystical architecture in the society of the Jesuits. In: WITTKOWER, R. & JAFFE, I. B. (eds.) Baroque Art: The Jesuit Contribution. New York: Fordhan University Press

VILLALPANDO, J. B. & PRADO, H. 1604. Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Urbis Hierolymitani Commentariis et Imaginibus illustratus, Romae.

WORP, J. A. 1917. Rijks Geschiedkundige Publikaten, 32.LEON, J. J. 1778. An Accurate Description of the Grand & Glorious Temple of Solomon,

translated by M. P. De Castro, London.

19

20