Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A History of Art in Ancient
Egypt, Vol. 2 (of 2)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of
the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: A History of Art in Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (of 2)
Author: Georges Perrot
Charles Chipiez
Translator: Sir Walter Armstrong
Release date: July 7, 2012 [eBook #40149]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40149
Credits: Produced by Albert László, Matthew Wheaton and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF
ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT, VOL. 2 (OF 2) ***
Egypt, Vol. 2 (of 2)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org.
If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of
the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: A History of Art in Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (of 2)
Author: Georges Perrot
Charles Chipiez
Translator: Sir Walter Armstrong
Release date: July 7, 2012 [eBook #40149]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40149
Credits: Produced by Albert László, Matthew Wheaton and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF
ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT, VOL. 2 (OF 2) ***
Page 4
A HISTORY OF ART IN
ANCIENT EGYPT.
ANCIENT EGYPT.
Page 5
A HISTORY OF ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT
Page 6
FROM THE FRENCH
OF
GEORGES PERROT,
PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LETTERS, PARIS; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE
AND
CHARLES CHIPIEZ.
ILLUSTRATED WITH FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHT ENGRAVINGS IN THE
TEXT, AND FOURTEEN STEEL AND COLOURED PLATES.
IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. II.
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY
WALTER ARMSTRONG, B. A., Oxon.,
AUTHOR OF "ALFRED STEVENS," ETC.
London: CHAPMAN AND HALL, Limited.
New York: A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON.
1883.
OF
GEORGES PERROT,
PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LETTERS, PARIS; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE
AND
CHARLES CHIPIEZ.
ILLUSTRATED WITH FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHT ENGRAVINGS IN THE
TEXT, AND FOURTEEN STEEL AND COLOURED PLATES.
IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. II.
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY
WALTER ARMSTRONG, B. A., Oxon.,
AUTHOR OF "ALFRED STEVENS," ETC.
London: CHAPMAN AND HALL, Limited.
New York: A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON.
1883.
Page 7
London:
R. Clay, Sons, and Taylor,
BREAD STREET HILL.
R. Clay, Sons, and Taylor,
BREAD STREET HILL.
Page 8
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
CIVIL AND MILITARY ARCHITECTURE.
The Graphic Processes employed by the
§ 1. 1-8
Egyptians in their representations of Buildings
§ 2. The Palace 8-26
§ 3. The Egyptian House 26-38
§ 4. Military Architecture 38-50
CHAPTER II.
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, THE
ORDERS, SECONDARY FORMS.
§ 1. An Analysis of Architectural Forms necessary 51-52
§ 2. Materials 52-55
§ 3. Construction 55-76
§ 4. The Arch 77-84
§ 5. The Pier and Column.—The Egyptian Orders 85-133
Their Origin 85-91
General Types of Supports 91-133
§ 6. The Ordonnance of Egyptian Colonnades 133-147
§ 7. Monumental Details 147-155
§ 8. Doors and Windows 156-162
Doors 156-161
Windows 162
§ 9. The Illumination of the Temples 162-169
§ 10. The Obelisks 169-176
§ 11. The Profession of Architect 176-179
CHAPTER III.
SCULPTURE.
§ 1. The Origin of Statue-making 180-184
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
CIVIL AND MILITARY ARCHITECTURE.
The Graphic Processes employed by the
§ 1. 1-8
Egyptians in their representations of Buildings
§ 2. The Palace 8-26
§ 3. The Egyptian House 26-38
§ 4. Military Architecture 38-50
CHAPTER II.
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, THE
ORDERS, SECONDARY FORMS.
§ 1. An Analysis of Architectural Forms necessary 51-52
§ 2. Materials 52-55
§ 3. Construction 55-76
§ 4. The Arch 77-84
§ 5. The Pier and Column.—The Egyptian Orders 85-133
Their Origin 85-91
General Types of Supports 91-133
§ 6. The Ordonnance of Egyptian Colonnades 133-147
§ 7. Monumental Details 147-155
§ 8. Doors and Windows 156-162
Doors 156-161
Windows 162
§ 9. The Illumination of the Temples 162-169
§ 10. The Obelisks 169-176
§ 11. The Profession of Architect 176-179
CHAPTER III.
SCULPTURE.
§ 1. The Origin of Statue-making 180-184
Page 9
§ 2. Sculpture under the Ancient Empire 184-225
§ 3. Sculpture under the First Theban Empire 226-238
§ 4. Sculpture under the Second Theban Empire 239-265
§ 5. The Art of the Saite Period 265-274
§ 6. The Principal Themes of Egyptian Sculpture 275-284
§ 7. The Technique of the Bas-reliefs 284-288
§ 8. Gems 288-291
§ 9. The Principal Conventions in Egyptian Sculpture 291-326
§ 10. The General Characteristics of the Egyptian Style 326-330
CHAPTER IV.
PAINTING.
§ 1. Technical Processes 331-341
§ 2. The Figure 341-351
§ 3. Caricature 351-355
§ 4. Ornament 355-363
CHAPTER V.
THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS.
§ 1. Definition and Characteristics of Industrial Art 364-367
§ 2. Glass and Pottery 367-377
§ 3. Metal-work and Jewelry 377-390
§ 4. Woodwork 390-398
§ 5. The Commerce of Egypt 399-400
CHAPTER VI.
THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EGYPTIAN ART, AND THE PLACE OF EGYPT 401-408
IN ART HISTORY
APPENDIX 409-416
INDEX 417-434
§ 3. Sculpture under the First Theban Empire 226-238
§ 4. Sculpture under the Second Theban Empire 239-265
§ 5. The Art of the Saite Period 265-274
§ 6. The Principal Themes of Egyptian Sculpture 275-284
§ 7. The Technique of the Bas-reliefs 284-288
§ 8. Gems 288-291
§ 9. The Principal Conventions in Egyptian Sculpture 291-326
§ 10. The General Characteristics of the Egyptian Style 326-330
CHAPTER IV.
PAINTING.
§ 1. Technical Processes 331-341
§ 2. The Figure 341-351
§ 3. Caricature 351-355
§ 4. Ornament 355-363
CHAPTER V.
THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS.
§ 1. Definition and Characteristics of Industrial Art 364-367
§ 2. Glass and Pottery 367-377
§ 3. Metal-work and Jewelry 377-390
§ 4. Woodwork 390-398
§ 5. The Commerce of Egypt 399-400
CHAPTER VI.
THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EGYPTIAN ART, AND THE PLACE OF EGYPT 401-408
IN ART HISTORY
APPENDIX 409-416
INDEX 417-434
Page 10
Page 11
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
COLOURED PLATES.
To face
page
Thebes, the Pavilion of Medinet-Abou, restored 24
Portico in the temple of Medinet-Abou, restored 144
Rahotep and Nefert, Boulak Museum 186
The Scribe, Louvre 192
The Queen Taia, Boulak Museum 240
Funerary offerings, fragment of a painting upon
334
plaster, Louvre
Tomb of Ptah-hotep, fragment of Western Wall 356
Tomb of Ptah-hotep, ceiling and upper part of
360
Western Wall
FIG. PAGE
1. House 3
2. The adoration of the solar disk by Amenophis IV. 6
3. Egyptian plan of a villa 7
4. Part of the plan of a house and its offices 9
5. Partial restoration of a palace at Tell-el-Amarna 17
6. Ground plan of the "Royal Pavilion" 19
7. Plan of the first floor of the "Royal Pavilion" 19
8. Longitudinal section of the pavilion 19
9. Transverse section of the pavilion 20
10. Brackets in the courtyard of the Royal Pavilion 23
11. Plan of a part of the city at Tell-el-Amarna 29
12. Bird's-eye view of a villa 31
13. Model of an Egyptian house 34
14-17. Plans of houses 34
18. Piece of furniture in the form of a house 35
COLOURED PLATES.
To face
page
Thebes, the Pavilion of Medinet-Abou, restored 24
Portico in the temple of Medinet-Abou, restored 144
Rahotep and Nefert, Boulak Museum 186
The Scribe, Louvre 192
The Queen Taia, Boulak Museum 240
Funerary offerings, fragment of a painting upon
334
plaster, Louvre
Tomb of Ptah-hotep, fragment of Western Wall 356
Tomb of Ptah-hotep, ceiling and upper part of
360
Western Wall
FIG. PAGE
1. House 3
2. The adoration of the solar disk by Amenophis IV. 6
3. Egyptian plan of a villa 7
4. Part of the plan of a house and its offices 9
5. Partial restoration of a palace at Tell-el-Amarna 17
6. Ground plan of the "Royal Pavilion" 19
7. Plan of the first floor of the "Royal Pavilion" 19
8. Longitudinal section of the pavilion 19
9. Transverse section of the pavilion 20
10. Brackets in the courtyard of the Royal Pavilion 23
11. Plan of a part of the city at Tell-el-Amarna 29
12. Bird's-eye view of a villa 31
13. Model of an Egyptian house 34
14-17. Plans of houses 34
18. Piece of furniture in the form of a house 35
Page 12
19. House from a Theban wall painting 35
20. House with a tower 35
21. Battlemented house 36
22. Decorated porch 36
23. House with inscription 36
24. House, storehouse, and garden 36
25. Brewing 37
26. Granaries 37
27. Granaries 38
28. Military post at Abydos 42
29. Military post 42
30. Bird's-eye view of the fortress of Semneh 43
31. A besieged fort 46
32. Siege of a fortress 47
33. Brick stamped with the royal ovals 54
34. The Sarcophagus of Mycerinus 57
35. Door of a tomb at Sakkarah 60
36. Stele from the fourth dynasty 61
37. Stele from the fourth dynasty 62
Flattened form of lotus-leaf ornament, seen in
38. 63
front and in section
39. Lotus-leaf ornament in its elongated form 63
40. Wooden pavilion 64
Horizontal section, in perspective, of the first
41. 67
pylon at Karnak
42. Workmen polishing a monolithic column 69
43. Transport of a colossus 73
44. Arch in the necropolis of Abydos 78
45. Arch in El-Assassif 79
46. Arch in El-Assassif 80
47. Vaults in the Ramesseum 81
48. Vault in the Ramesseum 81
49. Elliptical vault 82
50. Foundations with inverted segmental arches 82
51. Transverse section of a corridor at Dayr-el-Bahari 83
20. House with a tower 35
21. Battlemented house 36
22. Decorated porch 36
23. House with inscription 36
24. House, storehouse, and garden 36
25. Brewing 37
26. Granaries 37
27. Granaries 38
28. Military post at Abydos 42
29. Military post 42
30. Bird's-eye view of the fortress of Semneh 43
31. A besieged fort 46
32. Siege of a fortress 47
33. Brick stamped with the royal ovals 54
34. The Sarcophagus of Mycerinus 57
35. Door of a tomb at Sakkarah 60
36. Stele from the fourth dynasty 61
37. Stele from the fourth dynasty 62
Flattened form of lotus-leaf ornament, seen in
38. 63
front and in section
39. Lotus-leaf ornament in its elongated form 63
40. Wooden pavilion 64
Horizontal section, in perspective, of the first
41. 67
pylon at Karnak
42. Workmen polishing a monolithic column 69
43. Transport of a colossus 73
44. Arch in the necropolis of Abydos 78
45. Arch in El-Assassif 79
46. Arch in El-Assassif 80
47. Vaults in the Ramesseum 81
48. Vault in the Ramesseum 81
49. Elliptical vault 82
50. Foundations with inverted segmental arches 82
51. Transverse section of a corridor at Dayr-el-Bahari 83
Page 13
52. Section in perspective through the same corridor 83
53. Vaulted chapel at Abydos 84
54. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 86
55. Detail of capital 86
56. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 87
57. Details of columns in Fig. 56 87
58. Pavilion from Sakkarah 87
59. Details of columns in Fig. 58 87
60. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 88
61. Details of the columns 88
62-65. Columns from bas-reliefs 89
66. Quadrangular pier 92
67. Tapering quadrangular pier 92
68. Pier with capital 92
69. Hathoric pier 92
70. Osiride pillar 93
71. Ornamented pier 94
72. Octagonal pillar 96
73. Sixteen-sided pillar 96
74. Polygonal column with a flat vertical band 98
75. Polygonal pier with mask of Hathor 98
76. Column from Beni-Hassan 99
77. Column at Luxor 101
78. Column at Medinet-Abou 101
79. Column at Medinet-Abou 102
80. Column from the Great Hall at Karnak 103
Column from the Hypostyle Hall of the
81. 103
Ramesseum
82. Column of Soleb 104
83. Column of Thothmes at Karnak 104
84. Corner pier from the temple at Elephantiné 106
85. Pier with capital 107
86. Osiride pier 109
87. Hathoric pier from Eilithya 111
88. Hathoric pier from a tomb 111
53. Vaulted chapel at Abydos 84
54. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 86
55. Detail of capital 86
56. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 87
57. Details of columns in Fig. 56 87
58. Pavilion from Sakkarah 87
59. Details of columns in Fig. 58 87
60. Bas-relief from the fifth dynasty 88
61. Details of the columns 88
62-65. Columns from bas-reliefs 89
66. Quadrangular pier 92
67. Tapering quadrangular pier 92
68. Pier with capital 92
69. Hathoric pier 92
70. Osiride pillar 93
71. Ornamented pier 94
72. Octagonal pillar 96
73. Sixteen-sided pillar 96
74. Polygonal column with a flat vertical band 98
75. Polygonal pier with mask of Hathor 98
76. Column from Beni-Hassan 99
77. Column at Luxor 101
78. Column at Medinet-Abou 101
79. Column at Medinet-Abou 102
80. Column from the Great Hall at Karnak 103
Column from the Hypostyle Hall of the
81. 103
Ramesseum
82. Column of Soleb 104
83. Column of Thothmes at Karnak 104
84. Corner pier from the temple at Elephantiné 106
85. Pier with capital 107
86. Osiride pier 109
87. Hathoric pier from Eilithya 111
88. Hathoric pier from a tomb 111
Page 14
89. Column at Kalabché 112
90. Column of Thothmes III. 113
91. Base of a column 115
92. Bell-shaped capital 117
93. Capital at Sesebi 119
94. Capital from the temple of Nectanebo, at Philæ 119
95. Capital from the work of Thothmes, at Karnak 120
96. Arrangement of architraves upon a capital 120
97. The Nymphæa Nelumbo 123
98. Papyrus plant 127
99. Small chamber at Karnak 134
100. Apartment in the temple at Luxor 134
101. Hall of the temple at Abydos 134
102. Plan of part of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak 134
103. Tomb at Sakkarah 135
Hall in the inner portion of the Great Temple at
104. 135
Karnak
105. Portico of the first court at Medinet-Abou 135
106. Portico of the first court at Luxor 135
107. The portico of the pronaos, Luxor 136
108. Part plan of the temple at Elephantiné 136
109. Luxor, plan of the second court 136
110. Portico in the Temple of Khons 137
111. Luxor, portico of the first court 137
112. Part of the portico of the first court, Luxor 138
Portico in front of the façade of the temple of
113. 138
Gournah
Part of the Hypostyle Hall in the Great Temple at
114. 138
Karnak
115. Second Hypostyle Hall in the temple of Abydos 139
116. Hall in the speos of Gherf-Hossein 139
117. Medinet-Abou; first court 139
118. Medinet-Abou; second court 139
119. Portico of the Temple of Khons 140
120. Portico of first court at Luxor 140
90. Column of Thothmes III. 113
91. Base of a column 115
92. Bell-shaped capital 117
93. Capital at Sesebi 119
94. Capital from the temple of Nectanebo, at Philæ 119
95. Capital from the work of Thothmes, at Karnak 120
96. Arrangement of architraves upon a capital 120
97. The Nymphæa Nelumbo 123
98. Papyrus plant 127
99. Small chamber at Karnak 134
100. Apartment in the temple at Luxor 134
101. Hall of the temple at Abydos 134
102. Plan of part of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak 134
103. Tomb at Sakkarah 135
Hall in the inner portion of the Great Temple at
104. 135
Karnak
105. Portico of the first court at Medinet-Abou 135
106. Portico of the first court at Luxor 135
107. The portico of the pronaos, Luxor 136
108. Part plan of the temple at Elephantiné 136
109. Luxor, plan of the second court 136
110. Portico in the Temple of Khons 137
111. Luxor, portico of the first court 137
112. Part of the portico of the first court, Luxor 138
Portico in front of the façade of the temple of
113. 138
Gournah
Part of the Hypostyle Hall in the Great Temple at
114. 138
Karnak
115. Second Hypostyle Hall in the temple of Abydos 139
116. Hall in the speos of Gherf-Hossein 139
117. Medinet-Abou; first court 139
118. Medinet-Abou; second court 139
119. Portico of the Temple of Khons 140
120. Portico of first court at Luxor 140
Page 15
121. Anta, Luxor 141
122. Anta, Gournah 141
123. Anta, Medinet-Abou 141
124. Anta in the Great Hall of Karnak 141
125. Antæ, Temple of Khons 142
126. Anta and base of pylon, Temple of Khons 142
127. Antæ, Medinet-Abou 143
128. Antæ, Medinet-Abou 143
129. Anta and column at Medinet-Abou 145
130. Column in the court of the Bubastides 146
131. Stereobate 148
132. Stereobate with double plinth 148
Pluteus in the intercolumniations of the portico in
133. 150
the second court of the Ramesseum
134. Doorway 151
135. Cornice of the Ramesseum 152
136. Cornice of a wooden pavilion 152
137. Pedestal of a Sphinx 153
138. Cornice under the portico 153
139. Fragment of a sarcophagus 154
Fragment of decoration from a royal tomb at
140. 154
Thebes
141. Plan of doorway, Temple of Elephantiné 157
142. Plan of doorway, Temple of Khons 157
143. Plan of doorway in the pylon, Temple of Khons 157
144,
The pylon and propylon of the hieroglyphs 157
145.
Gateway to the court-yard of the small Temple at
146. 158
Medinet-Abou
147. A propylon with its masts 158
148. A propylon 159
149. Gateway in the inclosing wall of a Temple 159
150. Doorway of the Temple of Khons 160
151. Doorway of the Temple of Gournah 160
152. Doorway of the Temple of Seti 161
122. Anta, Gournah 141
123. Anta, Medinet-Abou 141
124. Anta in the Great Hall of Karnak 141
125. Antæ, Temple of Khons 142
126. Anta and base of pylon, Temple of Khons 142
127. Antæ, Medinet-Abou 143
128. Antæ, Medinet-Abou 143
129. Anta and column at Medinet-Abou 145
130. Column in the court of the Bubastides 146
131. Stereobate 148
132. Stereobate with double plinth 148
Pluteus in the intercolumniations of the portico in
133. 150
the second court of the Ramesseum
134. Doorway 151
135. Cornice of the Ramesseum 152
136. Cornice of a wooden pavilion 152
137. Pedestal of a Sphinx 153
138. Cornice under the portico 153
139. Fragment of a sarcophagus 154
Fragment of decoration from a royal tomb at
140. 154
Thebes
141. Plan of doorway, Temple of Elephantiné 157
142. Plan of doorway, Temple of Khons 157
143. Plan of doorway in the pylon, Temple of Khons 157
144,
The pylon and propylon of the hieroglyphs 157
145.
Gateway to the court-yard of the small Temple at
146. 158
Medinet-Abou
147. A propylon with its masts 158
148. A propylon 159
149. Gateway in the inclosing wall of a Temple 159
150. Doorway of the Temple of Khons 160
151. Doorway of the Temple of Gournah 160
152. Doorway of the Temple of Seti 161
Page 16
153,
Windows in the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou 162
154.
155. Attic of the Great Hall at Karnak 163
156. Claustra of the Hypostyle Hall, Karnak 165
Claustra in the Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of
157. 166
Khons
Method of lighting in one of the inner halls of
158. 167
Karnak
Auxiliary light-holes in the Hypostyle Hall at
159. 167
Karnak
Method of lighting one of the rooms in the Temple
160. 167
of Khons
Light openings in a lateral aisle of the Hypostyle
161. 168
Hall in the Ramesseum
162. The Temple of Amada 168
163. Claustra 168
164. Window of a house in the form of claustra 169
165. Window closed by a mat 169
166. Funerary obelisk 171
167. The obelisk of Ousourtesen 173
168. The obelisk in the Place de la Concorde 173
169. The obelisk of Beggig 175
170. Upper part of the obelisk at Beggig 175
171. Limestone statue of the architect Nefer 177
172. Sepa and Nesa 186
173. Ra-hotep 188
174- 191,
Wooden panels from the tomb of Hosi
176. 193, 195
177. Limestone head 196
178. Wooden statue 198
179. Bronze statuette 199
180. Bronze statuette 201
181. Ra-nefer 204
182. Statue in the Boulak Museum 205
183. Statue of Ti 205
Windows in the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou 162
154.
155. Attic of the Great Hall at Karnak 163
156. Claustra of the Hypostyle Hall, Karnak 165
Claustra in the Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of
157. 166
Khons
Method of lighting in one of the inner halls of
158. 167
Karnak
Auxiliary light-holes in the Hypostyle Hall at
159. 167
Karnak
Method of lighting one of the rooms in the Temple
160. 167
of Khons
Light openings in a lateral aisle of the Hypostyle
161. 168
Hall in the Ramesseum
162. The Temple of Amada 168
163. Claustra 168
164. Window of a house in the form of claustra 169
165. Window closed by a mat 169
166. Funerary obelisk 171
167. The obelisk of Ousourtesen 173
168. The obelisk in the Place de la Concorde 173
169. The obelisk of Beggig 175
170. Upper part of the obelisk at Beggig 175
171. Limestone statue of the architect Nefer 177
172. Sepa and Nesa 186
173. Ra-hotep 188
174- 191,
Wooden panels from the tomb of Hosi
176. 193, 195
177. Limestone head 196
178. Wooden statue 198
179. Bronze statuette 199
180. Bronze statuette 201
181. Ra-nefer 204
182. Statue in the Boulak Museum 205
183. Statue of Ti 205
Page 17
184. Wooden statue 206
185. Statue in limestone 206
186. Limestone group 207
187. Wooden statuette 208
188. Nefer-hotep and Tenteta 208
189. Limestone statue 209
190. Limestone statue 209
191. Limestone statue 210
192. Limestone statue 210
193. Woman kneading dough 211
194. Woman making bread 212
195. Bread maker 213
196,
Details of head-dresses 213
197.
198,
Nem-hotep 214
199.
200. Funerary bas-relief 215
201. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 217
202. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 218
203. Sepulchral bas-relief 219
204. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ra-ka-pou 219
205. Statue of Chephren 222
206. Wooden statue 227
207. Sebek-hotep III. 229
208. Sphinx in black granite 231
Head and shoulders of a Tanite Sphinx in black
209. 233
granite
210. Group from Tanis 234
211. Side view of the same group 235
212. Upper part of a royal statue 236
213. Fragmentary statuette of a king 237
214. Thothmes III. 241
215. Thothmes III. 243
216. Statuette of Amenophis IV. 245
217. Funeral Dance 251
185. Statue in limestone 206
186. Limestone group 207
187. Wooden statuette 208
188. Nefer-hotep and Tenteta 208
189. Limestone statue 209
190. Limestone statue 209
191. Limestone statue 210
192. Limestone statue 210
193. Woman kneading dough 211
194. Woman making bread 212
195. Bread maker 213
196,
Details of head-dresses 213
197.
198,
Nem-hotep 214
199.
200. Funerary bas-relief 215
201. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 217
202. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 218
203. Sepulchral bas-relief 219
204. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ra-ka-pou 219
205. Statue of Chephren 222
206. Wooden statue 227
207. Sebek-hotep III. 229
208. Sphinx in black granite 231
Head and shoulders of a Tanite Sphinx in black
209. 233
granite
210. Group from Tanis 234
211. Side view of the same group 235
212. Upper part of a royal statue 236
213. Fragmentary statuette of a king 237
214. Thothmes III. 241
215. Thothmes III. 243
216. Statuette of Amenophis IV. 245
217. Funeral Dance 251
Page 18
218. Bas-relief from the tomb of Chamhati 253
219. Portrait of Rameses II. while a child 255
220. Statue of Rameses II. 256
221. Prisoners of war 257
222. Statue of Rameses II. in the Turin Museum 259
223. Head of Menephtah 260
224. Seti II. 261
225. The Goddess Kadesh 263
226. Statue of Ameneritis 264
227. Bronze Sphinx 267
228. Statue of Nekht-har-heb 268
229. Statue of Horus 269
230,
Bas-relief from Memphis 270, 271
231.
232. Horus enthroned 273
233. Roman head 274
234. Wooden statuette 279
235. Bronze cat 280
236. Lion 281
237. Bronze lion 282
238. Sphinx with human hands 283
239. Quadruped with the head of a bird 284
240. Portrait of Rameses II. 286
241. Intaglio upon sardonyx, obverse 289
242. Reverse of the same intaglio 289
243. Intaglio upon jasper 290
244. Reverse of the same intaglio 290
245. Seal of Armais 290
246. Bas-relief from Sakkarah 295
247. The Queen waiting on Amenophis IV. 296
248. Bas-relief from the eighteenth dynasty 297
249. Horus as a child 299
250. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 306
251. Bas-relief at Thebes 307
252. From a painting at Thebes 308
219. Portrait of Rameses II. while a child 255
220. Statue of Rameses II. 256
221. Prisoners of war 257
222. Statue of Rameses II. in the Turin Museum 259
223. Head of Menephtah 260
224. Seti II. 261
225. The Goddess Kadesh 263
226. Statue of Ameneritis 264
227. Bronze Sphinx 267
228. Statue of Nekht-har-heb 268
229. Statue of Horus 269
230,
Bas-relief from Memphis 270, 271
231.
232. Horus enthroned 273
233. Roman head 274
234. Wooden statuette 279
235. Bronze cat 280
236. Lion 281
237. Bronze lion 282
238. Sphinx with human hands 283
239. Quadruped with the head of a bird 284
240. Portrait of Rameses II. 286
241. Intaglio upon sardonyx, obverse 289
242. Reverse of the same intaglio 289
243. Intaglio upon jasper 290
244. Reverse of the same intaglio 290
245. Seal of Armais 290
246. Bas-relief from Sakkarah 295
247. The Queen waiting on Amenophis IV. 296
248. Bas-relief from the eighteenth dynasty 297
249. Horus as a child 299
250. Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti 306
251. Bas-relief at Thebes 307
252. From a painting at Thebes 308
Page 19
253. Painting at Thebes 309
254. Painting at Thebes 310
255. Painting at Thebes 311
256. Bronze statuette 312
257. Spoon for perfumes 313
258. Design transferred by squaring 320
259. Design transferred by squaring 321
260. Head of a Cynocephalus 323
261. Head of a Lion 323
262. Head of a Lioness 323
263. Outline for a portrait of Amenophis III. 333
264. Portrait of Queen Taia 339
265. Painting at Beni-Hassan 341
266. Painting at Beni-Hassan 342
267. Painting at Beni-Hassan 342
268. Painting at Beni-Hassan 343
269. Painting at Thebes 343
270. Painting at Thebes 344
271. Harpist 345
272. European prisoner 347
273. Head of the same prisoner 347
274. Ethiopian prisoner 348
275. Head of the same prisoner 348
276. Winged figure 349
277. Winged figure 350
278. Battle of the Cats and Rats 352
279. The soles of a pair of sandals 354
280,
The God Bes 354
281.
282. Vultures on a ceiling 356
283,
Details from the tomb of Ptah-hotep 357
284.
285. Carpet hung across a pavilion 358
286. Specimens of ceiling decorations 359
287. Painting on a mummy case 361
254. Painting at Thebes 310
255. Painting at Thebes 311
256. Bronze statuette 312
257. Spoon for perfumes 313
258. Design transferred by squaring 320
259. Design transferred by squaring 321
260. Head of a Cynocephalus 323
261. Head of a Lion 323
262. Head of a Lioness 323
263. Outline for a portrait of Amenophis III. 333
264. Portrait of Queen Taia 339
265. Painting at Beni-Hassan 341
266. Painting at Beni-Hassan 342
267. Painting at Beni-Hassan 342
268. Painting at Beni-Hassan 343
269. Painting at Thebes 343
270. Painting at Thebes 344
271. Harpist 345
272. European prisoner 347
273. Head of the same prisoner 347
274. Ethiopian prisoner 348
275. Head of the same prisoner 348
276. Winged figure 349
277. Winged figure 350
278. Battle of the Cats and Rats 352
279. The soles of a pair of sandals 354
280,
The God Bes 354
281.
282. Vultures on a ceiling 356
283,
Details from the tomb of Ptah-hotep 357
284.
285. Carpet hung across a pavilion 358
286. Specimens of ceiling decorations 359
287. Painting on a mummy case 361
Page 20
288. Winged globe 361
289,
Tables for offerings 363
290.
291. Pitcher of red earth 368
292. Red earthenware 369
293. Gray earthenware 370
294. The God Bes 370
295. Pendant for necklace 371
296,
Enamelled earthenware 371
297.
298. Enamelled faience 372
299. Doorway in the Stepped Pyramid at Sakkarah 372
300-
Enamelled plaque from the Stepped Pyramid 373
302.
303-
Enamelled earthenware plaques 374
305.
306,
Glass statuettes 376
307.
308. Mirror-handle 379
309. Bronze hair-pin 379
310. Bronze dagger 379
311. Pectoral 381
312,
Golden Hawks 382
313.
314. Ægis 383
315. Necklace 385
316. Osiris, Isis, and Horus 387
317,
Rings 387
318.
319,
Ear-rings 387
320.
321. Ivory Plaque 388
322. Ivory Castanet 389
323. Fragment of an Ivory Castanet 391
324. Workman splitting a piece of wood 392
289,
Tables for offerings 363
290.
291. Pitcher of red earth 368
292. Red earthenware 369
293. Gray earthenware 370
294. The God Bes 370
295. Pendant for necklace 371
296,
Enamelled earthenware 371
297.
298. Enamelled faience 372
299. Doorway in the Stepped Pyramid at Sakkarah 372
300-
Enamelled plaque from the Stepped Pyramid 373
302.
303-
Enamelled earthenware plaques 374
305.
306,
Glass statuettes 376
307.
308. Mirror-handle 379
309. Bronze hair-pin 379
310. Bronze dagger 379
311. Pectoral 381
312,
Golden Hawks 382
313.
314. Ægis 383
315. Necklace 385
316. Osiris, Isis, and Horus 387
317,
Rings 387
318.
319,
Ear-rings 387
320.
321. Ivory Plaque 388
322. Ivory Castanet 389
323. Fragment of an Ivory Castanet 391
324. Workman splitting a piece of wood 392
Page 21
325. Joiner making a bed 392
326. Coffer for sepulchral statuettes 393
327,
Chairs 394
328.
329-
Perfume spoons 395, 396
331.
332-
Walking-stick handles 397
334.
335. Wooden pin or peg 398
336. Hathoric capital 398
326. Coffer for sepulchral statuettes 393
327,
Chairs 394
328.
329-
Perfume spoons 395, 396
331.
332-
Walking-stick handles 397
334.
335. Wooden pin or peg 398
336. Hathoric capital 398
Page 22
A HISTORY OF ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT
Page 23
CHAPTER I.
CIVIL AND MILITARY ARCHITECTURE.
§ 1.—The Graphic Processes employed by the Egyptians in their
representations of Buildings.
We have seen that sepulchral and religious architecture are represented in
Egypt by numerous and well preserved monuments. It is not so in the case of
civil and military architecture. Of these, time has spared but very few remains
and all that the ancient historians tell us on the subject amounts to very little.
Our best aids in the endeavour to fill up this lacuna are the pictures and bas-
reliefs of the tombs, in which store-houses, granaries, houses and villas of the
Pharaonic period are often figured.
It is not always easy, however, to trace the actual conformation and
arrangement of those buildings through the conventionalities employed by
the artists, and we must therefore begin by attempting to understand the ideas
with which the Egyptians made the representations in question. Their idea
was to show all at a single glance; to combine in one view matters which
could only be seen in reality from many successive points, such as all the
façades of a building, with its external aspect and internal arrangements. This
notion may be compared to that which recommends itself to a young child
when, in drawing a profile, he insists upon giving it two ears, because when
he looks at a front face he sees two ears standing out beyond either cheek.
In these days when we wish to represent an architectural building
exhaustively, we do it in geometrical fashion, giving plans, elevations, and
sections. To get a plan we make a horizontal section at any determined
height, which gives us the thickness of the walls and the area of the spaces
which they inclose. An elevation shows us one of the faces of the building in
all its details, while the transverse or longitudinal section allows us to lay the
whole of the structural arrangements open to the spectator. Plan, elevation,
and section, are three different things by the comparison of which a just idea
CIVIL AND MILITARY ARCHITECTURE.
§ 1.—The Graphic Processes employed by the Egyptians in their
representations of Buildings.
We have seen that sepulchral and religious architecture are represented in
Egypt by numerous and well preserved monuments. It is not so in the case of
civil and military architecture. Of these, time has spared but very few remains
and all that the ancient historians tell us on the subject amounts to very little.
Our best aids in the endeavour to fill up this lacuna are the pictures and bas-
reliefs of the tombs, in which store-houses, granaries, houses and villas of the
Pharaonic period are often figured.
It is not always easy, however, to trace the actual conformation and
arrangement of those buildings through the conventionalities employed by
the artists, and we must therefore begin by attempting to understand the ideas
with which the Egyptians made the representations in question. Their idea
was to show all at a single glance; to combine in one view matters which
could only be seen in reality from many successive points, such as all the
façades of a building, with its external aspect and internal arrangements. This
notion may be compared to that which recommends itself to a young child
when, in drawing a profile, he insists upon giving it two ears, because when
he looks at a front face he sees two ears standing out beyond either cheek.
In these days when we wish to represent an architectural building
exhaustively, we do it in geometrical fashion, giving plans, elevations, and
sections. To get a plan we make a horizontal section at any determined
height, which gives us the thickness of the walls and the area of the spaces
which they inclose. An elevation shows us one of the faces of the building in
all its details, while the transverse or longitudinal section allows us to lay the
whole of the structural arrangements open to the spectator. Plan, elevation,
and section, are three different things by the comparison of which a just idea
Page 24
of the whole building and of the connection of its various parts may be
formed.
The Egyptians seem to have had a dim perception of these three separate
processes, but they failed to distinguish clearly between them, and in their
paintings they employed them in the most naïve fashion, combining all three
into one figure without any clear indication of the points of junction.
Let us take as an example a representation of a house from a Theban tomb
(Fig. 1), and attempt to discover what the artist meant to show us. In the left-
hand part of the picture there is no difficulty. In the lower stage we see the
external door by which the inclosure surrounding the house is entered; in the
two upper divisions there are the trees and climbing plants of the garden. It is
when we turn to the house, which occupies two-thirds of the field, that our
embarrassments begin. The following explanation is perhaps the best—that,
with an artistic license which is not rare in such works, the painter has shown
us all the four sides of the building at once. He has spread them out, one after
the other, on the wall which he had to decorate. This process may be
compared to our method of flattening upon a plane surface the figures which
surround a Greek vase, but in modern works of archæology it is customary to
give a sketch of the real form beside the flat projection. No such help is given
by the Egyptian painter and we are forced to conjecture the shapes of his
buildings as best we can. In this case he was attempting to represent an
oblong building. The door by which the procession defiling across the garden
is about to enter, is in one of the narrow sides. It is inclosed by the two high
shafts between which a woman seems to be awaiting on the threshold the
arrival of the guests. On the right we have one of the lateral faces; it is
pierced at one angle by a low door, above which are two windows and above
them again an open story or terrace with slender columns supporting the roof.
Still further to the right, at the extremity of the picture, the second narrow
façade is slightly indicated by its angle column and a portal, which appears to
be sketched in profile. Want of space alone seems to have prevented the artist
from giving as much detail to this portion of his work as to the rest. The left
wing, that which is contiguous to the garden, remains to be considered. Those
who agree with our interpretation of the artist's aims, will look upon this as
the second lateral façade. It presents some difficulty, however, because it
shows none of the plain walls which inclose the rest of the building and
exclude the eye of the spectator; its walls are left out and leave the interior of
the house completely open.
formed.
The Egyptians seem to have had a dim perception of these three separate
processes, but they failed to distinguish clearly between them, and in their
paintings they employed them in the most naïve fashion, combining all three
into one figure without any clear indication of the points of junction.
Let us take as an example a representation of a house from a Theban tomb
(Fig. 1), and attempt to discover what the artist meant to show us. In the left-
hand part of the picture there is no difficulty. In the lower stage we see the
external door by which the inclosure surrounding the house is entered; in the
two upper divisions there are the trees and climbing plants of the garden. It is
when we turn to the house, which occupies two-thirds of the field, that our
embarrassments begin. The following explanation is perhaps the best—that,
with an artistic license which is not rare in such works, the painter has shown
us all the four sides of the building at once. He has spread them out, one after
the other, on the wall which he had to decorate. This process may be
compared to our method of flattening upon a plane surface the figures which
surround a Greek vase, but in modern works of archæology it is customary to
give a sketch of the real form beside the flat projection. No such help is given
by the Egyptian painter and we are forced to conjecture the shapes of his
buildings as best we can. In this case he was attempting to represent an
oblong building. The door by which the procession defiling across the garden
is about to enter, is in one of the narrow sides. It is inclosed by the two high
shafts between which a woman seems to be awaiting on the threshold the
arrival of the guests. On the right we have one of the lateral faces; it is
pierced at one angle by a low door, above which are two windows and above
them again an open story or terrace with slender columns supporting the roof.
Still further to the right, at the extremity of the picture, the second narrow
façade is slightly indicated by its angle column and a portal, which appears to
be sketched in profile. Want of space alone seems to have prevented the artist
from giving as much detail to this portion of his work as to the rest. The left
wing, that which is contiguous to the garden, remains to be considered. Those
who agree with our interpretation of the artist's aims, will look upon this as
the second lateral façade. It presents some difficulty, however, because it
shows none of the plain walls which inclose the rest of the building and
exclude the eye of the spectator; its walls are left out and leave the interior of
the house completely open.
Page 25
Fig. 1.—House; from Champollion, pl. 174.
It may be said that this part of the picture represents an awning or veranda in
front of the house. But, in that case, how are we to explain the objects which
are arranged at the top of it—jars, loaves of bread, and other house-keeping
necessaries? It cannot be a veranda with a granary on the top of it. Such a
store-room would have to be carefully closed if its contents were to be safe-
guarded from the effects of heat, light, and insects. It would therefore be
necessary to suppose that the Egyptian painter made use of an artistic license
not unknown in our own days, and suppressed the wall of the store-room in
order to display the wealth of the establishment. By this means he has given
us a longitudinal section of the building very near the external wall. There is
no trace of an open story above. The latter seems to have existed only on that
side of the house which was in shade during the day and exposed after
nightfall to the refreshing breezes from the north.
This picture presents us, then, with a peculiar kind of elevation; an elevation
which, by projection, shows three sides of the house and hints at a fourth.
Representations which are still more conventionalized than this are to be
found in many places. The most curious of these are to be found in the ruins
of the capital of Amenophis IV., near the village of Tell-el-Amarna. It was in
that city that the heretical prince in question inaugurated the worship of the
It may be said that this part of the picture represents an awning or veranda in
front of the house. But, in that case, how are we to explain the objects which
are arranged at the top of it—jars, loaves of bread, and other house-keeping
necessaries? It cannot be a veranda with a granary on the top of it. Such a
store-room would have to be carefully closed if its contents were to be safe-
guarded from the effects of heat, light, and insects. It would therefore be
necessary to suppose that the Egyptian painter made use of an artistic license
not unknown in our own days, and suppressed the wall of the store-room in
order to display the wealth of the establishment. By this means he has given
us a longitudinal section of the building very near the external wall. There is
no trace of an open story above. The latter seems to have existed only on that
side of the house which was in shade during the day and exposed after
nightfall to the refreshing breezes from the north.
This picture presents us, then, with a peculiar kind of elevation; an elevation
which, by projection, shows three sides of the house and hints at a fourth.
Representations which are still more conventionalized than this are to be
found in many places. The most curious of these are to be found in the ruins
of the capital of Amenophis IV., near the village of Tell-el-Amarna. It was in
that city that the heretical prince in question inaugurated the worship of the
Page 26
solar disc, which was represented as darting rays terminating in an open hand
(see Fig. 2). Among these ruins we find, upon the sculptured walls of
subterranean chambers, representations of royal and princely villas, where
elegant pavilions are surrounded by vast offices and dependencies, by
gardens and pieces of ornamental water, the whole being inclosed by a
crenellated wall. These representations were called by Prisse plans cavaliers,
a vague term which hardly gives a fair idea of the process, which deserves to
be analysed and explained.
Fig. 2.—The adoration of the solar disk by Amenophis IV.; from Prisse.
They are, as a fact, plans, but plans made upon a very different principle from
those of our day. Certain elements, such as walls, are indicated by simple
lines varying in thickness, just as they might be in a modern plan, giving such
a result as would be obtained by a horizontal section. But this is the
exception. The houses, the trees, and everything with any considerable
height, are shown in projection, as they might appear to the eye of a bird
flying over them if they had been overthrown by some considerate
earthquake, which had laid them flat without doing them any other injury. As
a rule all objects so treated are projected in one and the same direction, but
here and there exceptions to this are found. In a country villa figured upon
one of the tombs at Thebes (Fig. 3), one row of trees, that upon the right, is
projected at right angles to all the others. The reason for this change in the
(see Fig. 2). Among these ruins we find, upon the sculptured walls of
subterranean chambers, representations of royal and princely villas, where
elegant pavilions are surrounded by vast offices and dependencies, by
gardens and pieces of ornamental water, the whole being inclosed by a
crenellated wall. These representations were called by Prisse plans cavaliers,
a vague term which hardly gives a fair idea of the process, which deserves to
be analysed and explained.
Fig. 2.—The adoration of the solar disk by Amenophis IV.; from Prisse.
They are, as a fact, plans, but plans made upon a very different principle from
those of our day. Certain elements, such as walls, are indicated by simple
lines varying in thickness, just as they might be in a modern plan, giving such
a result as would be obtained by a horizontal section. But this is the
exception. The houses, the trees, and everything with any considerable
height, are shown in projection, as they might appear to the eye of a bird
flying over them if they had been overthrown by some considerate
earthquake, which had laid them flat without doing them any other injury. As
a rule all objects so treated are projected in one and the same direction, but
here and there exceptions to this are found. In a country villa figured upon
one of the tombs at Thebes (Fig. 3), one row of trees, that upon the right, is
projected at right angles to all the others. The reason for this change in the
Page 27
artist's system is easily seen. Unless he had placed his trees in the fashion
shown in the cut, he would not have been able to give a true idea of their
number and of the shade which they were calculated to afford.
Fig. 3.—Egyptian plan of a villa; from Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 377.
The process which we have just described is the dominant process in
Egyptian figuration. Here and there, as in Fig. 1, it is combined with the
vertical section. This combination is conspicuous in the plan found at Tell-el-
Amarna, from which we have restored the larger of the two villas which we
illustrate farther on. In this plan, as in the case of the Theban house figured
on page 3, the artist has been careful to show that there was no want of
provision in the house; the wall of the store-room is omitted, and the interior,
with its rows of amphoræ, is thrown open to our inspection.
No scale is given in any of these plans, so that we are unable to determine
either the extent of ground occupied by the buildings and their annexes, or
their absolute height. But spaces and heights seem to have been kept in just
proportion. The Egyptian draughtsman was prepared for the execution of
such a task by education and the traditions of his art, and his eye seems to
have been trustworthy.
Accustomed as we are to accuracy and exactitude in such matters, these
Egyptian plans disconcert us at first by their mixture of conscience and
shown in the cut, he would not have been able to give a true idea of their
number and of the shade which they were calculated to afford.
Fig. 3.—Egyptian plan of a villa; from Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 377.
The process which we have just described is the dominant process in
Egyptian figuration. Here and there, as in Fig. 1, it is combined with the
vertical section. This combination is conspicuous in the plan found at Tell-el-
Amarna, from which we have restored the larger of the two villas which we
illustrate farther on. In this plan, as in the case of the Theban house figured
on page 3, the artist has been careful to show that there was no want of
provision in the house; the wall of the store-room is omitted, and the interior,
with its rows of amphoræ, is thrown open to our inspection.
No scale is given in any of these plans, so that we are unable to determine
either the extent of ground occupied by the buildings and their annexes, or
their absolute height. But spaces and heights seem to have been kept in just
proportion. The Egyptian draughtsman was prepared for the execution of
such a task by education and the traditions of his art, and his eye seems to
have been trustworthy.
Accustomed as we are to accuracy and exactitude in such matters, these
Egyptian plans disconcert us at first by their mixture of conscience and
Page 28
carelessness, artlessness and skill, by their simultaneous employment of
methods which are contradictory in principle. In the end, however, we arrive
at a complete understanding with the Egyptian draughtsman, and we are
enabled to transcribe into our own language that which he has painfully
written with the limited means at his command. In the two restorations of an
Egyptian house which we have attempted, there is no arrangement of any
importance that is not to be found in the original plan.
§ 2. The Palace.
Their tombs and temples give us a great idea of the taste and wealth of the
Egyptian monarchs. We are tempted to believe that their palaces, by their
extent and the luxury of their decoration, must have been worthy of the tombs
which they prepared for their own occupation, and the temples which they
erected in honour of the gods to whom, as they believed, they owed their
glory and prosperity. The imagination places the great sovereigns who
constructed the pyramids, the rock tombs of Thebes, the temples of Luxor
and Karnak, in splendid palaces constructed of the finest materials which
their country afforded.
Impelled by this idea, the earlier visitors to Egypt saw palaces everywhere.
They called everything which was imposing in size a palace, except the
pyramids and the subterranean excavations. The authors of the Description de
l'Égypte thought that Karnak and Luxor, Medinet-Abou, and Gournah, were
royal dwellings. Such titles as the Palace of Menephtah, applied to the temple
of Seti, at Gournah, have been handed down to our day, and are to be found
in works of quite recent date, such as Fergusson's History of Architecture.[1]
Since the time of Champollion, a more attentive study of the existing
remains, and especially of the inscriptions which they bear, has dissipated
that error; egyptologists are now in accord as to the religious character of the
great Theban buildings on either bank of the river. But while admitting this,
there are some archæologists who have not been able to clear their minds
entirely of an idea which was so long dominant. They contend that the royal
habitation must have been an annexe to the temple, and both at Karnak and
Luxor they seek to find it in those ill-preserved chambers which may be
traced behind the sanctuaries. There the king must have had his dwelling, and
his life must have been passed in the courts and hypostyle halls.[2]
methods which are contradictory in principle. In the end, however, we arrive
at a complete understanding with the Egyptian draughtsman, and we are
enabled to transcribe into our own language that which he has painfully
written with the limited means at his command. In the two restorations of an
Egyptian house which we have attempted, there is no arrangement of any
importance that is not to be found in the original plan.
§ 2. The Palace.
Their tombs and temples give us a great idea of the taste and wealth of the
Egyptian monarchs. We are tempted to believe that their palaces, by their
extent and the luxury of their decoration, must have been worthy of the tombs
which they prepared for their own occupation, and the temples which they
erected in honour of the gods to whom, as they believed, they owed their
glory and prosperity. The imagination places the great sovereigns who
constructed the pyramids, the rock tombs of Thebes, the temples of Luxor
and Karnak, in splendid palaces constructed of the finest materials which
their country afforded.
Impelled by this idea, the earlier visitors to Egypt saw palaces everywhere.
They called everything which was imposing in size a palace, except the
pyramids and the subterranean excavations. The authors of the Description de
l'Égypte thought that Karnak and Luxor, Medinet-Abou, and Gournah, were
royal dwellings. Such titles as the Palace of Menephtah, applied to the temple
of Seti, at Gournah, have been handed down to our day, and are to be found
in works of quite recent date, such as Fergusson's History of Architecture.[1]
Since the time of Champollion, a more attentive study of the existing
remains, and especially of the inscriptions which they bear, has dissipated
that error; egyptologists are now in accord as to the religious character of the
great Theban buildings on either bank of the river. But while admitting this,
there are some archæologists who have not been able to clear their minds
entirely of an idea which was so long dominant. They contend that the royal
habitation must have been an annexe to the temple, and both at Karnak and
Luxor they seek to find it in those ill-preserved chambers which may be
traced behind the sanctuaries. There the king must have had his dwelling, and
his life must have been passed in the courts and hypostyle halls.[2]
Page 29
Fig. 4.—Part of the plan of a house and its offices, figured in a tomb at
Tell-el-Amarna; from Prisse.
Tell-el-Amarna; from Prisse.
Page 30
Among all the inscriptions which have been discovered in the chambers in
question there is not one which supports such an hypothesis. Neither in the
remains of Egyptian literature, nor in the works of the Greek historians, is
there a passage to be found which tends to show that the king lived in the
temple or its dependencies, or that his palace was within the sacred inclosure
at all.
There is another argument which is, perhaps, even more conclusive than that
from the silence of the texts. How can we believe that the kings of such a
pleasure-loving and light-hearted race as the ancient Egyptians took up their
residence in quarters so dark and so rigidly inclosed. Their dispositions
cannot have differed very greatly from those of their subjects, and no phrase
is more often repeated in the texts than this: to live a happy day. The palace
must have been a pleasant dwelling, a place of repose; and nothing could be
better fitted for such a purpose than the light and spacious edifices which lay
outside the city, in the midst of large and shady gardens, upon the banks of
the Nile itself, or of one of those canals which carried its waters to the
borders of the desert. From their high balconies, galleries, or covered
terraces, the eye could roam freely over the neighbouring plantations, over
the course of the river and the fields which it irrigated, and out to the
mountains which shut in the horizon. The windows were large, and movable
blinds, which may be distinguished in some of the paintings, allowed the
chambers to be either thrown open to the breeze or darkened from the
noonday sun, as occasion arose. That shelter which is so grateful in all hot
climates was also to be found outside, in the broad shadows cast by the
sycamores and planes which grew around artificial basins garnished with the
brilliant flowers of the lotus, in the shadows of the spring foliage hanging
upon the trellised fruit-trees, or in the open kiosques which were reared here
and there upon the banks of the lakes. There, behind the shelter of walls and
hedges, and among his wives and children, the king could taste some of the
joys of domesticity. In such a retreat a Thothmes or a Rameses could abandon
himself to the simple joy of living, and might forget for a time both the
fatigues of yesterday and the cares of to-morrow; as the modern Egyptians
would say, he could enjoy his kief.
In such architecture as this, in which everything was designed to serve the
pleasures of the moment, there was no necessity for stone. The solidity and
durability of limestone, sandstone, and granite, were required in the tomb, the
eternal dwelling, or for the temples, the homes of the gods. But the palace
question there is not one which supports such an hypothesis. Neither in the
remains of Egyptian literature, nor in the works of the Greek historians, is
there a passage to be found which tends to show that the king lived in the
temple or its dependencies, or that his palace was within the sacred inclosure
at all.
There is another argument which is, perhaps, even more conclusive than that
from the silence of the texts. How can we believe that the kings of such a
pleasure-loving and light-hearted race as the ancient Egyptians took up their
residence in quarters so dark and so rigidly inclosed. Their dispositions
cannot have differed very greatly from those of their subjects, and no phrase
is more often repeated in the texts than this: to live a happy day. The palace
must have been a pleasant dwelling, a place of repose; and nothing could be
better fitted for such a purpose than the light and spacious edifices which lay
outside the city, in the midst of large and shady gardens, upon the banks of
the Nile itself, or of one of those canals which carried its waters to the
borders of the desert. From their high balconies, galleries, or covered
terraces, the eye could roam freely over the neighbouring plantations, over
the course of the river and the fields which it irrigated, and out to the
mountains which shut in the horizon. The windows were large, and movable
blinds, which may be distinguished in some of the paintings, allowed the
chambers to be either thrown open to the breeze or darkened from the
noonday sun, as occasion arose. That shelter which is so grateful in all hot
climates was also to be found outside, in the broad shadows cast by the
sycamores and planes which grew around artificial basins garnished with the
brilliant flowers of the lotus, in the shadows of the spring foliage hanging
upon the trellised fruit-trees, or in the open kiosques which were reared here
and there upon the banks of the lakes. There, behind the shelter of walls and
hedges, and among his wives and children, the king could taste some of the
joys of domesticity. In such a retreat a Thothmes or a Rameses could abandon
himself to the simple joy of living, and might forget for a time both the
fatigues of yesterday and the cares of to-morrow; as the modern Egyptians
would say, he could enjoy his kief.
In such architecture as this, in which everything was designed to serve the
pleasures of the moment, there was no necessity for stone. The solidity and
durability of limestone, sandstone, and granite, were required in the tomb, the
eternal dwelling, or for the temples, the homes of the gods. But the palace
Page 31
was no more than a pleasure marquee, it required no material more durable
than wood or brick. Painters and sculptors were charged to cover its walls
with lively colours and smiling images; it was their business to decorate the
stucco of the walls, the planks of acacia, and the slender columns of cedar
and palmwood with the most brilliant hues on their palettes and with gold.
The ornamentation was as lavish as in the tombs, although in the latter case it
had a much better chance of duration. The palaces of the Egyptian sovereigns
were worthy of their wealth and power, but the comparative slightness of
their materials led to their early disappearance, and no trace of them is left
upon the soil of Egypt.
During the whole period of which we have any record, the East has changed
but little, in spite of the apparent diversity between the successive races,
empires, and religions which have prevailed in it. We know how vast an array
of servants and followers Oriental royalty or grandeeship involves. The konak
of the most insignificant bey or pacha shelters a whole army of servants, each
one of whom does as little work as possible. The domestics of the Sultan at
Constantinople, or of the Shah at Teheran, are to be counted by thousands. No
one knows the exact number of eunuchs, cooks, grooms, and sweepers, of
atechdjis, cafedjis, and tchiboukdjis, which their seraglios contain. Such a
domestic establishment implies an extraordinary provision of lodgings of
some sort, as well as an extensive accumulation of stores. Great storehouses
were required where the more or less voluntary gifts of the people, the
tributes in kind of conquered nations, and the crops produced by the huge
estates attached to the Crown, could be warehoused. In the vast inclosures
whose arrangements are preserved for us by the paintings at Tell-el-Amarna
there was room for all these offices and granaries. They were built round
courtyards which were arranged in long succession on all four sides of the
principal building in which the sovereign and his family dwelt. When, in the
course of a long reign, the family of the king became very numerous
(Rameses II. had a hundred and seventy children, fifty-nine of whom were
sons), and it became necessary to provide accommodation for them in the
royal dwelling, it was easy to encroach upon the surrounding country, and to
extend both buildings and gardens at will.
Although the great inclosure at Karnak was spacious enough for its purpose,
the families of the Pharaohs would hardly have had elbow room in it. They
would soon have felt the restraint of the high and impassable barriers
insupportable, and the space within them too narrow for their pursuits. The
than wood or brick. Painters and sculptors were charged to cover its walls
with lively colours and smiling images; it was their business to decorate the
stucco of the walls, the planks of acacia, and the slender columns of cedar
and palmwood with the most brilliant hues on their palettes and with gold.
The ornamentation was as lavish as in the tombs, although in the latter case it
had a much better chance of duration. The palaces of the Egyptian sovereigns
were worthy of their wealth and power, but the comparative slightness of
their materials led to their early disappearance, and no trace of them is left
upon the soil of Egypt.
During the whole period of which we have any record, the East has changed
but little, in spite of the apparent diversity between the successive races,
empires, and religions which have prevailed in it. We know how vast an array
of servants and followers Oriental royalty or grandeeship involves. The konak
of the most insignificant bey or pacha shelters a whole army of servants, each
one of whom does as little work as possible. The domestics of the Sultan at
Constantinople, or of the Shah at Teheran, are to be counted by thousands. No
one knows the exact number of eunuchs, cooks, grooms, and sweepers, of
atechdjis, cafedjis, and tchiboukdjis, which their seraglios contain. Such a
domestic establishment implies an extraordinary provision of lodgings of
some sort, as well as an extensive accumulation of stores. Great storehouses
were required where the more or less voluntary gifts of the people, the
tributes in kind of conquered nations, and the crops produced by the huge
estates attached to the Crown, could be warehoused. In the vast inclosures
whose arrangements are preserved for us by the paintings at Tell-el-Amarna
there was room for all these offices and granaries. They were built round
courtyards which were arranged in long succession on all four sides of the
principal building in which the sovereign and his family dwelt. When, in the
course of a long reign, the family of the king became very numerous
(Rameses II. had a hundred and seventy children, fifty-nine of whom were
sons), and it became necessary to provide accommodation for them in the
royal dwelling, it was easy to encroach upon the surrounding country, and to
extend both buildings and gardens at will.
Although the great inclosure at Karnak was spacious enough for its purpose,
the families of the Pharaohs would hardly have had elbow room in it. They
would soon have felt the restraint of the high and impassable barriers
insupportable, and the space within them too narrow for their pursuits. The
Page 32
palaces of the East have always required wider and more flexible limits than
these. If we examine their general aspect we shall find it the same from the
banks of the Ganges to those of the Bosphorus. The climate, the harem, and
the extreme subdivision of labour, gave, and still gives, a multiplex and
diffuse character to royal and princely dwellings; memories of Susa and
Persepolis, of Babylon and Nineveh, agree in this with the actual condition of
the old palaces at Agra, Delhi, and Constantinople. They were not composed,
like the modern palaces of the West, of a single homogeneous edifice which
can be embraced at a glance; they in no way resembled the Tuileries or
Versailles.[3] They consisted of many structures of unequal importance, built
at different times and by different princes; their pavilions were separated by
gardens and courts; they formed a kind of royal village or town, surrounded
and guarded by a high wall. In that part of the interior nearest the entrance
there were richly-decorated halls, in which the sovereign condescended to sit
enthroned at stated times, to receive the homage of his subjects and of foreign
ambassadors. Around these chambers, which were open to a certain number
of privileged individuals, swarmed a whole population of officers, soldiers,
and servants of all kinds. This part of the palace was a repetition on a far
larger scale of the sélamlik of an Oriental dwelling. The harem lay farther on,
behind gates which were jealously guarded. In it the king passed his time
when he was not occupied with war, with the chase, or with the affairs of
state. Between the buildings there was space and air enough to allow of the
king's remaining for months, or years if he chose, within the boundary walls
of his palace; he could review his troops in the vast courtyards; he could ride,
drive, or walk on foot in the shady gardens; he could bathe in the artificial
lakes and bath-houses. Sometimes even hunting-grounds were included
within the outer walls.
These facilities and easy pleasures have always been a dangerous temptation
for Oriental princes. A long list might be formed of those dynasties which,
after beginning by a display of singular energy and resource, were at last
enfeebled and overwhelmed in the pleasures of the palace. By those pleasures
they became so completely enervated that at last a time came when the long
descended heir of a line of conquerors was hurled from his throne by the
slightest shock. The tragic history of Sardanapalus, which has inspired so
many poets and historians, is a case in point. Modern criticism has attacked it
ruthlessly; names, dates, and facts have all been placed in doubt; but even if
the falsehood of every detail could be demonstrated, it would yet retain that
these. If we examine their general aspect we shall find it the same from the
banks of the Ganges to those of the Bosphorus. The climate, the harem, and
the extreme subdivision of labour, gave, and still gives, a multiplex and
diffuse character to royal and princely dwellings; memories of Susa and
Persepolis, of Babylon and Nineveh, agree in this with the actual condition of
the old palaces at Agra, Delhi, and Constantinople. They were not composed,
like the modern palaces of the West, of a single homogeneous edifice which
can be embraced at a glance; they in no way resembled the Tuileries or
Versailles.[3] They consisted of many structures of unequal importance, built
at different times and by different princes; their pavilions were separated by
gardens and courts; they formed a kind of royal village or town, surrounded
and guarded by a high wall. In that part of the interior nearest the entrance
there were richly-decorated halls, in which the sovereign condescended to sit
enthroned at stated times, to receive the homage of his subjects and of foreign
ambassadors. Around these chambers, which were open to a certain number
of privileged individuals, swarmed a whole population of officers, soldiers,
and servants of all kinds. This part of the palace was a repetition on a far
larger scale of the sélamlik of an Oriental dwelling. The harem lay farther on,
behind gates which were jealously guarded. In it the king passed his time
when he was not occupied with war, with the chase, or with the affairs of
state. Between the buildings there was space and air enough to allow of the
king's remaining for months, or years if he chose, within the boundary walls
of his palace; he could review his troops in the vast courtyards; he could ride,
drive, or walk on foot in the shady gardens; he could bathe in the artificial
lakes and bath-houses. Sometimes even hunting-grounds were included
within the outer walls.
These facilities and easy pleasures have always been a dangerous temptation
for Oriental princes. A long list might be formed of those dynasties which,
after beginning by a display of singular energy and resource, were at last
enfeebled and overwhelmed in the pleasures of the palace. By those pleasures
they became so completely enervated that at last a time came when the long
descended heir of a line of conquerors was hurled from his throne by the
slightest shock. The tragic history of Sardanapalus, which has inspired so
many poets and historians, is a case in point. Modern criticism has attacked it
ruthlessly; names, dates, and facts have all been placed in doubt; but even if
the falsehood of every detail could be demonstrated, it would yet retain that
Page 33
superior kind of truth which springs from its general applicability—a truth in
which the real value of the legend consists. Almost all the royal dynasties of
the East ended in a Sardanapalus, for he was nothing more than the victim of
the sedentary and luxurious existence passed in an Oriental palace.
If we knew more about the internal history of Egypt, we should doubtless
find that such phenomena were not singular in that country. The Rammesides
must have owed their fall and disappearance to it. The Egyptian palace
cannot have differed very greatly from the type we have described, all the
characteristic features of which are to be recognised in those edifices which
have hitherto been called villas.[4] There was the same amplitude of lateral
development. We have not space to give a restoration of the most important
of the "villas" figured at Tell-el-Amarna in its entirety; but we give enough
(Fig. 4) to suggest the great assemblage of buildings, which, when complete,
must have covered a vast space of ground (Fig. 5). By its variety, by its
alternation of courts and gardens with buildings surrounded here by stone
colonnades, there by lighter wooden verandahs, this palace evidently belongs
to the same family as other Oriental palaces of later times. Within its wide
enceinte the sovereign could enjoy all the pleasures of the open country while
living either in his capital or in its immediate neighbourhood; he could satisfy
all his wishes and desires without moving from the spot.
We have chosen for restoration that part of the royal dwelling which
corresponds to what is called, in the East, the sélamlik, and in the West, the
reception-rooms. A structure stands before the entrance the purpose of which
cannot readily be decided. It might be a reservoir for the use of the palace
inmates, or it might be a guard-house; the question must be left open. Behind
this structure there is a door between two towers with inclined walls, forming
a kind of pylon. There is a narrower doorway near each angle. All three of
these entrances open upon a vast rectangular court, which is inclosed laterally
by two rows of chambers and at the back by a repetition of the front wall and
three doorways already described. This courtyard incloses a smaller one,
which is prefaced by a deep colonnaded portico, and incloses an open hall
raised considerably above the level of the two courts. The steps by which this
hall is reached are clearly shown upon the plan. In the middle of it there is a
small structure, which may be one of those tribune-like altars which are
represented upon some of the bas-reliefs. Nestor L'Hôte gives a sketch of one
of these reliefs. It shows a man standing upon a dais with a pile of offerings
which the real value of the legend consists. Almost all the royal dynasties of
the East ended in a Sardanapalus, for he was nothing more than the victim of
the sedentary and luxurious existence passed in an Oriental palace.
If we knew more about the internal history of Egypt, we should doubtless
find that such phenomena were not singular in that country. The Rammesides
must have owed their fall and disappearance to it. The Egyptian palace
cannot have differed very greatly from the type we have described, all the
characteristic features of which are to be recognised in those edifices which
have hitherto been called villas.[4] There was the same amplitude of lateral
development. We have not space to give a restoration of the most important
of the "villas" figured at Tell-el-Amarna in its entirety; but we give enough
(Fig. 4) to suggest the great assemblage of buildings, which, when complete,
must have covered a vast space of ground (Fig. 5). By its variety, by its
alternation of courts and gardens with buildings surrounded here by stone
colonnades, there by lighter wooden verandahs, this palace evidently belongs
to the same family as other Oriental palaces of later times. Within its wide
enceinte the sovereign could enjoy all the pleasures of the open country while
living either in his capital or in its immediate neighbourhood; he could satisfy
all his wishes and desires without moving from the spot.
We have chosen for restoration that part of the royal dwelling which
corresponds to what is called, in the East, the sélamlik, and in the West, the
reception-rooms. A structure stands before the entrance the purpose of which
cannot readily be decided. It might be a reservoir for the use of the palace
inmates, or it might be a guard-house; the question must be left open. Behind
this structure there is a door between two towers with inclined walls, forming
a kind of pylon. There is a narrower doorway near each angle. All three of
these entrances open upon a vast rectangular court, which is inclosed laterally
by two rows of chambers and at the back by a repetition of the front wall and
three doorways already described. This courtyard incloses a smaller one,
which is prefaced by a deep colonnaded portico, and incloses an open hall
raised considerably above the level of the two courts. The steps by which this
hall is reached are clearly shown upon the plan. In the middle of it there is a
small structure, which may be one of those tribune-like altars which are
represented upon some of the bas-reliefs. Nestor L'Hôte gives a sketch of one
of these reliefs. It shows a man standing upon a dais with a pile of offerings
Page 34
before him. The same writer describes some existing remains of a similar
structure at Karnak: it is a quadrilateral block, to which access was obtained
by an inclined plane.[5]
Perhaps the king accomplished some of the religious ceremonies which were
among his duties at this point. In order to arrive at the altar from without,
three successive gates and boundary walls had to be passed, so that the safety
of the sovereign was well guarded.
Upon the Egyptian plan, which forms a basis for these remarks, there is, on
the right of the nest of buildings just described, another of more simple
arrangement but of still larger extent. There is no apparent communication
between the two; they are, indeed, separated by a grove of trees. In front of
this second assemblage of buildings there is the same rectangular structure of
doubtful purpose, and the same quasi-pylon that we find before the first.
Behind the pylon there is a court surrounded on three sides by a double row
of apartments, some of which communicate directly with the court, others
through an intervening portico. Doubtless, this court was the harem in which
the king lived with his wives and children. Ranged round courts in its rear are
storehouses, stables, cattle-stables, and other offices, with gardens again
beyond them. The finest garden lies immediately behind the block of
buildings first described, and is shown in our restoration (Fig. 5). Here and
there rise light pavilions, whose wooden structure may be divined from the
details given by the draughtsman. Colonnades, under which the crowds of
servants and underlings could find shelter at night, pervade the whole
building. The domestic offices are partly shown in our figure. As to the
reception halls (the part of the building which would now be called the
divan), we find nothing that can be identified with them in any of the plans
which we have inspected. But it must be remembered that the representations
in question are greatly mutilated, and that hitherto they have only been
reproduced and published in fragmentary fashion.
We have now sketched the Egyptian palace as it must have been according to
all historic probability, and according to the graphic representations left to us
by the people themselves. Those of our readers who have followed our
arguments attentively, will readily understand that we altogether refuse to see
the remains of a palace, properly speaking, in the ruin which has been so
often drawn and photographed as the Royal Pavilion of Medinet-Abou, or the
Pavilion of Rameses III.[6] It would be difficult to convey by words alone a
structure at Karnak: it is a quadrilateral block, to which access was obtained
by an inclined plane.[5]
Perhaps the king accomplished some of the religious ceremonies which were
among his duties at this point. In order to arrive at the altar from without,
three successive gates and boundary walls had to be passed, so that the safety
of the sovereign was well guarded.
Upon the Egyptian plan, which forms a basis for these remarks, there is, on
the right of the nest of buildings just described, another of more simple
arrangement but of still larger extent. There is no apparent communication
between the two; they are, indeed, separated by a grove of trees. In front of
this second assemblage of buildings there is the same rectangular structure of
doubtful purpose, and the same quasi-pylon that we find before the first.
Behind the pylon there is a court surrounded on three sides by a double row
of apartments, some of which communicate directly with the court, others
through an intervening portico. Doubtless, this court was the harem in which
the king lived with his wives and children. Ranged round courts in its rear are
storehouses, stables, cattle-stables, and other offices, with gardens again
beyond them. The finest garden lies immediately behind the block of
buildings first described, and is shown in our restoration (Fig. 5). Here and
there rise light pavilions, whose wooden structure may be divined from the
details given by the draughtsman. Colonnades, under which the crowds of
servants and underlings could find shelter at night, pervade the whole
building. The domestic offices are partly shown in our figure. As to the
reception halls (the part of the building which would now be called the
divan), we find nothing that can be identified with them in any of the plans
which we have inspected. But it must be remembered that the representations
in question are greatly mutilated, and that hitherto they have only been
reproduced and published in fragmentary fashion.
We have now sketched the Egyptian palace as it must have been according to
all historic probability, and according to the graphic representations left to us
by the people themselves. Those of our readers who have followed our
arguments attentively, will readily understand that we altogether refuse to see
the remains of a palace, properly speaking, in the ruin which has been so
often drawn and photographed as the Royal Pavilion of Medinet-Abou, or the
Pavilion of Rameses III.[6] It would be difficult to convey by words alone a
Page 35
true idea of this elegant and singular building. We therefore give two plans
(Figs. 6 and 7), a longitudinal and a transverse section (Figs. 8 and 9), and a
restoration in perspective (Plate VII.). To those coming from the plain the
first thing encountered was a pair of lodges for guards, with battlements
round their summits like the pavilion itself and its surrounding walls. The
barrier which is shown in our plate between the two lodges is restored from a
painting at Thebes, but the two half piers which support its extremities are
still in existence. The pavilion itself consists of a main block with two lofty
wings standing out perpendicularly to its front. The walls of these wings are
inclined, and there is a passage through the centre of the block. There are
three stories in all, which communicate with one another by a staircase.
(Figs. 6 and 7), a longitudinal and a transverse section (Figs. 8 and 9), and a
restoration in perspective (Plate VII.). To those coming from the plain the
first thing encountered was a pair of lodges for guards, with battlements
round their summits like the pavilion itself and its surrounding walls. The
barrier which is shown in our plate between the two lodges is restored from a
painting at Thebes, but the two half piers which support its extremities are
still in existence. The pavilion itself consists of a main block with two lofty
wings standing out perpendicularly to its front. The walls of these wings are
inclined, and there is a passage through the centre of the block. There are
three stories in all, which communicate with one another by a staircase.
Page 36
Fig. 5.—Partial restoration of a palace at Tell-el-Amarna; by Charles
Chipiez.
Chipiez.
Page 37
Fig. 6.—Ground plan of the "Royal Pavilion"; from Lepsius.
Fig. 7.—Plan of the first floor of the "Royal Pavilion"; from Lepsius.
Fig. 7.—Plan of the first floor of the "Royal Pavilion"; from Lepsius.
Page 38
Fig. 8.—Longitudinal section of the pavilion; restored.
This pavilion is entirely covered with bas-reliefs and
hieroglyphic texts. The best way to solve the problem
which it offers is to accept the teaching of history, and
of all that we know concerning the persistent
characteristics of royal life in the East. Even in our own
day there are few eastern potentates who do not think it
necessary to lay down, on the day after their accession,
the foundations of a new palace. The Syrian Emir
Beschir did so at Beit-el-din in the Lebanon, and
Djezzar-Pacha another at St. Jean d'Acre; so too, in
Egypt, Mehemet Ali and his successors built
Fig. 9.—Transverse section palaces at Choubra and other places in the
of the pavilion; restored. neighbourhood of Cairo and Alexandria. At
Constantinople recent Sultans have spent
upon building the last resources of their empire. In these matters the East is
the home of change. The son seldom inhabits the dwelling of his father. The
Pharaohs and the kings of Nineveh and Babylon must have been touched to
some extent with the same mania and eager to enjoy the results of their
labour at the earliest moment. The sovereigns of Egypt must have chosen the
sites for their palaces within the zone covered by the annual inundations. In
any part of Egypt forced labour would rapidly build up the artificial banks
This pavilion is entirely covered with bas-reliefs and
hieroglyphic texts. The best way to solve the problem
which it offers is to accept the teaching of history, and
of all that we know concerning the persistent
characteristics of royal life in the East. Even in our own
day there are few eastern potentates who do not think it
necessary to lay down, on the day after their accession,
the foundations of a new palace. The Syrian Emir
Beschir did so at Beit-el-din in the Lebanon, and
Djezzar-Pacha another at St. Jean d'Acre; so too, in
Egypt, Mehemet Ali and his successors built
Fig. 9.—Transverse section palaces at Choubra and other places in the
of the pavilion; restored. neighbourhood of Cairo and Alexandria. At
Constantinople recent Sultans have spent
upon building the last resources of their empire. In these matters the East is
the home of change. The son seldom inhabits the dwelling of his father. The
Pharaohs and the kings of Nineveh and Babylon must have been touched to
some extent with the same mania and eager to enjoy the results of their
labour at the earliest moment. The sovereigns of Egypt must have chosen the
sites for their palaces within the zone covered by the annual inundations. In
any part of Egypt forced labour would rapidly build up the artificial banks
Page 39
necessary to raise the intended buildings above the reach of the highest
floods, while in such a situation trees and shrubs would grow almost as fast
as the palace walls. In a few years the royal dwelling would be complete, and
with its completion would find itself surrounded by smiling parterres and
shadowy groves.
When the whole of the fertile plain was at their disposal, why should they
have chosen a site where no vegetation could be reared without the help of
the sakyeh and the shadouf? Why should they, of their own free will, have
built their dwellings close to those cliffs in the Libyan chain which give off at
night the heat they have absorbed from the sun during the day? The buildings
of Medinet-Abou are immediately at the foot of the hill Gournet-el-Mourraï,
which detaches itself from the chain near the southern extremity of the
Theban necropolis, and thrusts itself forward, like a cape into the sea, towards
the outer limits of the cultivated ground.
We should not have looked for a palace in such a situation. We may add that
the site of the pavilion is not large enough to accommodate the household of
a king. It is closely circumscribed by the temple of Thothmes and its
propylæa on the right, and by that of Rameses at the back, so that its
dimensions would have seemed even more insignificant than they are in
comparison with those gigantic fabrics. The greatest width of the pavilion is
not more than about 80 feet and its greatest depth than 72, and the small court
which almost cuts the building into two parts (see Fig. 6) occupies a good
third of the surface inclosed by these measurements. Taken altogether, the
three stories could not have contained more than about ten chambers, some of
which were rather closets than anything more ambitious. In spite of the
comparative simplicity of modern domestic arrangements a middle-class
family of our day would be cramped in such a dwelling. How then could a
Pharaoh, with the swarm of idlers who surrounded him, attempt to take up his
residence in it?
What, then, are we to call the little edifice which stands in front of the temple
of Rameses II.? Is it a temple raised by the conqueror in his own honour? If
we examine the bas-reliefs which decorate it both within and without, we
shall see that it thoroughly deserves the name of Pavillon Royal which the
French savants gave to it. The personality of Rameses fills it from roof to
basement. In the interior we find him at home, in his harem, among his wives
and children. Here one of his daughters brings him flowers of which he tastes
floods, while in such a situation trees and shrubs would grow almost as fast
as the palace walls. In a few years the royal dwelling would be complete, and
with its completion would find itself surrounded by smiling parterres and
shadowy groves.
When the whole of the fertile plain was at their disposal, why should they
have chosen a site where no vegetation could be reared without the help of
the sakyeh and the shadouf? Why should they, of their own free will, have
built their dwellings close to those cliffs in the Libyan chain which give off at
night the heat they have absorbed from the sun during the day? The buildings
of Medinet-Abou are immediately at the foot of the hill Gournet-el-Mourraï,
which detaches itself from the chain near the southern extremity of the
Theban necropolis, and thrusts itself forward, like a cape into the sea, towards
the outer limits of the cultivated ground.
We should not have looked for a palace in such a situation. We may add that
the site of the pavilion is not large enough to accommodate the household of
a king. It is closely circumscribed by the temple of Thothmes and its
propylæa on the right, and by that of Rameses at the back, so that its
dimensions would have seemed even more insignificant than they are in
comparison with those gigantic fabrics. The greatest width of the pavilion is
not more than about 80 feet and its greatest depth than 72, and the small court
which almost cuts the building into two parts (see Fig. 6) occupies a good
third of the surface inclosed by these measurements. Taken altogether, the
three stories could not have contained more than about ten chambers, some of
which were rather closets than anything more ambitious. In spite of the
comparative simplicity of modern domestic arrangements a middle-class
family of our day would be cramped in such a dwelling. How then could a
Pharaoh, with the swarm of idlers who surrounded him, attempt to take up his
residence in it?
What, then, are we to call the little edifice which stands in front of the temple
of Rameses II.? Is it a temple raised by the conqueror in his own honour? If
we examine the bas-reliefs which decorate it both within and without, we
shall see that it thoroughly deserves the name of Pavillon Royal which the
French savants gave to it. The personality of Rameses fills it from roof to
basement. In the interior we find him at home, in his harem, among his wives
and children. Here one of his daughters brings him flowers of which he tastes
Page 40
the scent; there we see him playing draughts with another daughter, or
receiving fruit from the hands of a third, whose chin he playfully caresses.
Upon the external walls there are battle scenes. Aided by his father, Amen,
Rameses overthrows his enemies. With wonderful technical precision the
sculptor has given to each figure its distinguishing costume, weapons, and
features. The triumph of the king is complete; none of his adversaries can
stand before him.
May we not seek the explanation which the arrangements of the building fail
to suggest, in this perpetual recurrence of the royal image, figured in all the
public and private occupations in which the life of the monarch was passed?
The way in which it pervades the whole structure ought to be enough to
convince us that the pavilion, like the adjoining temple, is nothing but a
monument to his prowess. It is an ingenious and brilliant addition to the
public part of the tomb, to the cenotaph. In other buildings of the same kind
the temple, with its courts and pylons, is everything; but here, as if to
distinguish his cenotaph from those of his predecessors and to impress
posterity with a higher notion of his power and magnificence, Rameses has
chosen to add a building which groups happily with it and serves as a kind of
vestibule. It is difficult to say whence he borrowed the form of this unique
edifice. Perhaps from one of the numerous pavilions which went to make up
a pharaonic palace. Such, however, was not the opinion of Mariette, who
discusses the question more than once. His final opinion was as follows: "The
general architectural lines of this pavilion of Rameses, especially when seen
from some distance, agree with those of the triumphal towers (migdol) which
are represented in the bas-reliefs of Karnak, Luxor, the Ramesseum, and
Medinet-Abou. These towers were erected on the frontiers of the country by
the Egyptian monarchs, where they served both as defensive works and as
memorials of the national victories. The royal pavilion of Medinet-Abou was,
therefore, a work of military rather than of civil architecture."[7] The warrior-
king par excellence could not have preserved his memory green in the minds
of his subjects by any more characteristic monument.[8]
But whether it is to be considered a palace or a fortress, this is the proper
place to study the details of this curious edifice. It forms, indeed, part of an
assemblage of funerary buildings, and its situation is immediately in front of
a temple, facts which might suggest that its arrangements ought to have been
discussed in an earlier chapter. But these arrangements are in fact imitated
receiving fruit from the hands of a third, whose chin he playfully caresses.
Upon the external walls there are battle scenes. Aided by his father, Amen,
Rameses overthrows his enemies. With wonderful technical precision the
sculptor has given to each figure its distinguishing costume, weapons, and
features. The triumph of the king is complete; none of his adversaries can
stand before him.
May we not seek the explanation which the arrangements of the building fail
to suggest, in this perpetual recurrence of the royal image, figured in all the
public and private occupations in which the life of the monarch was passed?
The way in which it pervades the whole structure ought to be enough to
convince us that the pavilion, like the adjoining temple, is nothing but a
monument to his prowess. It is an ingenious and brilliant addition to the
public part of the tomb, to the cenotaph. In other buildings of the same kind
the temple, with its courts and pylons, is everything; but here, as if to
distinguish his cenotaph from those of his predecessors and to impress
posterity with a higher notion of his power and magnificence, Rameses has
chosen to add a building which groups happily with it and serves as a kind of
vestibule. It is difficult to say whence he borrowed the form of this unique
edifice. Perhaps from one of the numerous pavilions which went to make up
a pharaonic palace. Such, however, was not the opinion of Mariette, who
discusses the question more than once. His final opinion was as follows: "The
general architectural lines of this pavilion of Rameses, especially when seen
from some distance, agree with those of the triumphal towers (migdol) which
are represented in the bas-reliefs of Karnak, Luxor, the Ramesseum, and
Medinet-Abou. These towers were erected on the frontiers of the country by
the Egyptian monarchs, where they served both as defensive works and as
memorials of the national victories. The royal pavilion of Medinet-Abou was,
therefore, a work of military rather than of civil architecture."[7] The warrior-
king par excellence could not have preserved his memory green in the minds
of his subjects by any more characteristic monument.[8]
But whether it is to be considered a palace or a fortress, this is the proper
place to study the details of this curious edifice. It forms, indeed, part of an
assemblage of funerary buildings, and its situation is immediately in front of
a temple, facts which might suggest that its arrangements ought to have been
discussed in an earlier chapter. But these arrangements are in fact imitated
Page 41
from those of the ordinary dwellings of the living. Its economy is not that of
either tomb or temple. The superposition of one story upon another is found
in neither of those classes of buildings but it is found both in military and
domestic architecture. So, too, with the mode of lighting the various
apartments. The darkness of the tomb is complete, the illumination of the
temple is far from brilliant, in its more sacred parts it is almost as dark as the
tomb. Prayers could be said to Osiris without inconvenience by the scanty
daylight which found its way through the narrow doorway of the sepulchral
chapel, but the active pleasures of life required a broader day. We find,
therefore, that the pavilion was lighted by windows, real windows, and some
of them very large. Nothing is more rare, in the buildings which have come
down to us from the pharaonic epochs, than such windows; but then most of
those buildings are either tombs or temples. Civil architecture in Egypt had to
fulfil pretty much the same requirements as in other countries. It was,
therefore, obliged to employ the means which have been found necessary in
every other country and at every other period.
Fig. 10.—Brackets in the courtyard of the Royal Pavilion.
The employment of the window is not the only structural peculiarity in the
pavilion of Medinet-Abou: upon the walls which surround the small court,
either tomb or temple. The superposition of one story upon another is found
in neither of those classes of buildings but it is found both in military and
domestic architecture. So, too, with the mode of lighting the various
apartments. The darkness of the tomb is complete, the illumination of the
temple is far from brilliant, in its more sacred parts it is almost as dark as the
tomb. Prayers could be said to Osiris without inconvenience by the scanty
daylight which found its way through the narrow doorway of the sepulchral
chapel, but the active pleasures of life required a broader day. We find,
therefore, that the pavilion was lighted by windows, real windows, and some
of them very large. Nothing is more rare, in the buildings which have come
down to us from the pharaonic epochs, than such windows; but then most of
those buildings are either tombs or temples. Civil architecture in Egypt had to
fulfil pretty much the same requirements as in other countries. It was,
therefore, obliged to employ the means which have been found necessary in
every other country and at every other period.
Fig. 10.—Brackets in the courtyard of the Royal Pavilion.
The employment of the window is not the only structural peculiarity in the
pavilion of Medinet-Abou: upon the walls which surround the small court,
Page 42
and between the first and second stories, there are carved stone brackets or
consoles, supporting flat slabs of stone. It has sometimes been asserted that
these brackets formed supports for masts upon which a velarium was
stretched across the court. But neither in engravings nor in photographs have
we been able to discover the slightest trace of the holes which would be
necessary for the insertion of such masts.
But, leaving their purpose on one side, we must call attention to the curious
sculptures which are interposed between the upper and lower slabs of these
brackets. They are in the shape of grotesque busts, resting upon the lower
slab and supporting the upper one with their heads. In the wall above a kind
of framed tablet is inserted.[9] In these figures, which are now very much
worn and corroded by exposure, we have a repetition of those prisoners of
war which occur frequently upon the neighbouring bas-reliefs in similar
uncomfortable positions. Such a motive is entirely in place in a building
which, by the general features of its architecture, seems a combination of
fortress and triumphal arch.
It is difficult to admit that such a building as this was never utilized. We may
well believe that it was never built for permanent occupation, but we must
not therefore conclude that chambers so well lighted and so richly decorated
were without their proper and well-defined uses. The floors of the first and
second stories have disappeared, but that they once existed is proved by the
staircase, part of which is still in place. The floors were of wood; the stairs of
stone. The general economy of the building shows that it was intended that
every room, from the ground-floor to the topmost story, should be used when
occasion arose. It is possible that they were employed as reception rooms for
the princes and vassal chiefs who came together several times a year for the
celebration of funerary rites. In chambers richly decorated like these, and,
doubtless, richly furnished also, people of rank could meet together and await
at their ease their turn to take part in the ceremonies.[10]
Although the pavilion of Medinet-Abou may, then, have no right to the name
of palace, the foregoing observations have justified their position in this
chapter by helping us to understand some of the conditions imposed upon the
Egyptian architect when he had to meet civil wants. Some of our readers may
have expected to find, in this chapter, a description of a more famous
monument, of that Labyrinth of which Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo
wrote in such enthusiastic terms.[11]
consoles, supporting flat slabs of stone. It has sometimes been asserted that
these brackets formed supports for masts upon which a velarium was
stretched across the court. But neither in engravings nor in photographs have
we been able to discover the slightest trace of the holes which would be
necessary for the insertion of such masts.
But, leaving their purpose on one side, we must call attention to the curious
sculptures which are interposed between the upper and lower slabs of these
brackets. They are in the shape of grotesque busts, resting upon the lower
slab and supporting the upper one with their heads. In the wall above a kind
of framed tablet is inserted.[9] In these figures, which are now very much
worn and corroded by exposure, we have a repetition of those prisoners of
war which occur frequently upon the neighbouring bas-reliefs in similar
uncomfortable positions. Such a motive is entirely in place in a building
which, by the general features of its architecture, seems a combination of
fortress and triumphal arch.
It is difficult to admit that such a building as this was never utilized. We may
well believe that it was never built for permanent occupation, but we must
not therefore conclude that chambers so well lighted and so richly decorated
were without their proper and well-defined uses. The floors of the first and
second stories have disappeared, but that they once existed is proved by the
staircase, part of which is still in place. The floors were of wood; the stairs of
stone. The general economy of the building shows that it was intended that
every room, from the ground-floor to the topmost story, should be used when
occasion arose. It is possible that they were employed as reception rooms for
the princes and vassal chiefs who came together several times a year for the
celebration of funerary rites. In chambers richly decorated like these, and,
doubtless, richly furnished also, people of rank could meet together and await
at their ease their turn to take part in the ceremonies.[10]
Although the pavilion of Medinet-Abou may, then, have no right to the name
of palace, the foregoing observations have justified their position in this
chapter by helping us to understand some of the conditions imposed upon the
Egyptian architect when he had to meet civil wants. Some of our readers may
have expected to find, in this chapter, a description of a more famous
monument, of that Labyrinth of which Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo
wrote in such enthusiastic terms.[11]
Page 43
THEBES
THE PAVILION OF MEDINET-ABOU
Restored by Ch Chipiez
But we are by no means sure that the ruins in the Fayoum are those of the
Labyrinth. These ruins, which were first discovered and described by Jomard
and Caristie,[12] and afterwards in greater detail by Lepsius,[13] are upon the
western slope of the Libyan chain, about four miles and a half east-by-south
from Medinet-el-Fayoum, at a point which must have been on the borders of
Lake Mœris, if the position of that lake as defined by Linant de Bellefonds be
accepted.[14] Mariette did not admit that the ruins in question were those of
the vast building which was counted among the seven wonders of the world.
"I know," he once said to us, "where the Labyrinth is: it is under the crops of
the Fayoum. I shall dig it up some day if Heaven gives me a long enough
life."
THE PAVILION OF MEDINET-ABOU
Restored by Ch Chipiez
But we are by no means sure that the ruins in the Fayoum are those of the
Labyrinth. These ruins, which were first discovered and described by Jomard
and Caristie,[12] and afterwards in greater detail by Lepsius,[13] are upon the
western slope of the Libyan chain, about four miles and a half east-by-south
from Medinet-el-Fayoum, at a point which must have been on the borders of
Lake Mœris, if the position of that lake as defined by Linant de Bellefonds be
accepted.[14] Mariette did not admit that the ruins in question were those of
the vast building which was counted among the seven wonders of the world.
"I know," he once said to us, "where the Labyrinth is: it is under the crops of
the Fayoum. I shall dig it up some day if Heaven gives me a long enough
life."
Page 44
However this may be, the ruins are at present in such a state of confusion that
every traveller who visits the place comes away disappointed. "If," says
Ebers, "we climb the pyramid of powdery grey bricks—once however coated
with polished granite—which, as Strabo tells us, stood at one extremity of the
Labyrinth, we shall see that the immense palace in which the chiefs of the
Egyptian nomes assembled at certain dates to meet the king was shaped like a
horse shoe. But that is all that can be seen. The middle of the building and the
whole of the left wing are entirely destroyed, while the confused mass of
ruined halls and chambers on the right—which the natives of El-Howara
think to be the bazaar of some vanished city—are composed of wretched
blocks of dry grey mud. The granite walls of a few chambers and the
fragments of a few inscribed columns form the only remains of any
importance. From these we learn that the structure dates from the reign of
Amenemhat III., of the twelfth dynasty."[15]
The plan and description of the building discovered by Lepsius hardly
correspond with the account of Strabo and with what we learn from other
antique sources as to the magnificence of the Labyrinth and the vast bulk of
the materials of which it was composed. We shall, therefore, reproduce
neither the plan of Lepsius nor the text of the Greek geographer. The latter
gives no measurements either of height or length, and under such
circumstances any attempt to restore the building, from an architectural point
of view would be futile.
§ 3.—The Egyptian House.
The palace in Egypt was but a house larger and richer in its decorations than
the others. The observations which we have made upon it may be applied to
the dwelling-places of private individuals, who enjoyed, in proportion to their
resources, the same comforts and conveniences as the sovereign or the
hereditary princes of the nomes. The house was a palace in small, its
arrangements and construction were inspired by the same wants, by the same
national habits, by the same climatic and other natural conditions.
Diodorus and Josephus tell us that the population of Egypt proper, from
Alexandria to Philæ, was 7,000,000 at the time of the Roman Empire, and
there is reason to believe that it was still larger at the time of the nation's
greatest prosperity under the princes of the eighteenth and nineteenth
every traveller who visits the place comes away disappointed. "If," says
Ebers, "we climb the pyramid of powdery grey bricks—once however coated
with polished granite—which, as Strabo tells us, stood at one extremity of the
Labyrinth, we shall see that the immense palace in which the chiefs of the
Egyptian nomes assembled at certain dates to meet the king was shaped like a
horse shoe. But that is all that can be seen. The middle of the building and the
whole of the left wing are entirely destroyed, while the confused mass of
ruined halls and chambers on the right—which the natives of El-Howara
think to be the bazaar of some vanished city—are composed of wretched
blocks of dry grey mud. The granite walls of a few chambers and the
fragments of a few inscribed columns form the only remains of any
importance. From these we learn that the structure dates from the reign of
Amenemhat III., of the twelfth dynasty."[15]
The plan and description of the building discovered by Lepsius hardly
correspond with the account of Strabo and with what we learn from other
antique sources as to the magnificence of the Labyrinth and the vast bulk of
the materials of which it was composed. We shall, therefore, reproduce
neither the plan of Lepsius nor the text of the Greek geographer. The latter
gives no measurements either of height or length, and under such
circumstances any attempt to restore the building, from an architectural point
of view would be futile.
§ 3.—The Egyptian House.
The palace in Egypt was but a house larger and richer in its decorations than
the others. The observations which we have made upon it may be applied to
the dwelling-places of private individuals, who enjoyed, in proportion to their
resources, the same comforts and conveniences as the sovereign or the
hereditary princes of the nomes. The house was a palace in small, its
arrangements and construction were inspired by the same wants, by the same
national habits, by the same climatic and other natural conditions.
Diodorus and Josephus tell us that the population of Egypt proper, from
Alexandria to Philæ, was 7,000,000 at the time of the Roman Empire, and
there is reason to believe that it was still larger at the time of the nation's
greatest prosperity under the princes of the eighteenth and nineteenth
Page 45
dynasties.[16] A large proportion of the Egyptian people lived in small towns
and open villages, besides which there were a few very large towns. That
Sais, Memphis, and Thebes were great cities we know from the words of the
ancient historians, from the vast spaces covered by their ruins, and from the
extent of their cemeteries.
Neither the Greek nor the Egyptian texts give us any information as to the
appearance of an Egyptian town, the way in which its buildings were
arranged, or their average size and height. The Greek travellers do not seem
to have been sufficiently impressed by anything of the kind to think it worthy
of record. The sites of these ancient cities have hardly ever been examined
from this point of view, and perhaps little would be discovered if such an
examination were to take place. In every country the ordinary dwelling-house
is constructed of small materials, and the day arrives, sooner or later, when it
succumbs to the action of the weather.
It is only under exceptional circumstances that the private house leaves ruins
behind it from which much can be learnt. Pompeii, under its shroud of ashes
and fine dust, is a case in point. Sometimes, also, when the house has entirely
disappeared, interesting facts may be gleaned as to its extent and
arrangement. Instances of this are to be seen at Athens, where, upon several
of the hills which were formerly included within its walls, may be traced the
foundations of private dwellings cut in the living rock. Neither of these
favourable conditions existed in the valley of the Nile.
The sands of the deserts would, no doubt, have guarded the houses of
Memphis and Thebes as effectually as the cinders of Vesuvius did those of
the little Roman town, if they had had but the same chance. We know how
thoroughly they protected the dwellings of the dead upon the plateau of
Gizeh, but the homes of the living were built close to the river and not upon
the borders of the desert, and we can neither hope to find dead cities under
the Egyptian sands, nor such indications of their domestic architecture as
those which may sometimes be gleaned in mountainous countries.
Their situation upon the banks of the river, or not far from it, made it
necessary for Egyptian cities to be placed upon artificial mounds or
embankments, which should raise them above the inundation. Those modern
villages, which are not built upon the slopes of the mountain, are protected in
the same fashion.
and open villages, besides which there were a few very large towns. That
Sais, Memphis, and Thebes were great cities we know from the words of the
ancient historians, from the vast spaces covered by their ruins, and from the
extent of their cemeteries.
Neither the Greek nor the Egyptian texts give us any information as to the
appearance of an Egyptian town, the way in which its buildings were
arranged, or their average size and height. The Greek travellers do not seem
to have been sufficiently impressed by anything of the kind to think it worthy
of record. The sites of these ancient cities have hardly ever been examined
from this point of view, and perhaps little would be discovered if such an
examination were to take place. In every country the ordinary dwelling-house
is constructed of small materials, and the day arrives, sooner or later, when it
succumbs to the action of the weather.
It is only under exceptional circumstances that the private house leaves ruins
behind it from which much can be learnt. Pompeii, under its shroud of ashes
and fine dust, is a case in point. Sometimes, also, when the house has entirely
disappeared, interesting facts may be gleaned as to its extent and
arrangement. Instances of this are to be seen at Athens, where, upon several
of the hills which were formerly included within its walls, may be traced the
foundations of private dwellings cut in the living rock. Neither of these
favourable conditions existed in the valley of the Nile.
The sands of the deserts would, no doubt, have guarded the houses of
Memphis and Thebes as effectually as the cinders of Vesuvius did those of
the little Roman town, if they had had but the same chance. We know how
thoroughly they protected the dwellings of the dead upon the plateau of
Gizeh, but the homes of the living were built close to the river and not upon
the borders of the desert, and we can neither hope to find dead cities under
the Egyptian sands, nor such indications of their domestic architecture as
those which may sometimes be gleaned in mountainous countries.
Their situation upon the banks of the river, or not far from it, made it
necessary for Egyptian cities to be placed upon artificial mounds or
embankments, which should raise them above the inundation. Those modern
villages, which are not built upon the slopes of the mountain, are protected in
the same fashion.
Page 46
The tradition has survived of the great works undertaken during the period of
national prosperity in order to provide this elevated bed for the chief cities of
the country. According to Herodotus and Diodorus, Sesostris and Sabaco, that
is to say the great Theban princes and the Ethiopian conquerors, were both
occupied with this work of raising the level of the towns.[17] Some idea of the
way in which these works were carried out has been gained by excavations
upon the sites of a few cities. When a new district was to be added to a city
the ground was prepared by building with crude brick a number of long and
thick walls parallel to one another; then cross walls at right angles with the
first, chessboard fashion. The square pits thus constructed were filled with
earth, broken stone, or anything else within reach. The foundations of the
future city or district were laid upon the mass thus obtained, and profited by
the operation both in health and amenity. The cities of Memphis and Thebes
both seem to have been built in this manner.[18]
As a rule this is all that we learn by excavating on these ancient sites. The
materials of the houses themselves have either fallen into dust, or, in a
country which has been thickly populated since long before the
commencement of history, have been used over and over again in other
works. The inevitable destruction has been rendered more rapid and complete
by the fellah's habit of opening up any mounds which he has reason to
believe ancient, for the sake of the fertilizing properties they possess.
The only point in the Nile valley where the arrangements of an ancient city
are still to be traced is upon the site of the new capital of Amenophis IV.,
built by him when he deserted Thebes and its god Amen.[19] This city, which
owed its existence to royal caprice, seems to have been very soon abandoned.
We do not even know the name it bore during its short prosperity, and since
its fall the site has never been occupied by a population sufficiently great to
necessitate the destruction of its remains. The soil is still covered by the ruins
of its buildings. These are always of brick. The plans of a few houses have
been roughly ascertained, and the direction of the streets can now be laid
down with some accuracy. There is a street parallel to the river, and nearly
100 feet wide; from this, narrower streets branch off at right angles, some of
them being hardly broad enough to allow of two chariots passing each other
between the houses. The most important quarter of the city was that to the
north, in the neighbourhood of the vast quadrangular inclosure which
contained the temple of the Solar Disc. In this part of the city the ruins of
national prosperity in order to provide this elevated bed for the chief cities of
the country. According to Herodotus and Diodorus, Sesostris and Sabaco, that
is to say the great Theban princes and the Ethiopian conquerors, were both
occupied with this work of raising the level of the towns.[17] Some idea of the
way in which these works were carried out has been gained by excavations
upon the sites of a few cities. When a new district was to be added to a city
the ground was prepared by building with crude brick a number of long and
thick walls parallel to one another; then cross walls at right angles with the
first, chessboard fashion. The square pits thus constructed were filled with
earth, broken stone, or anything else within reach. The foundations of the
future city or district were laid upon the mass thus obtained, and profited by
the operation both in health and amenity. The cities of Memphis and Thebes
both seem to have been built in this manner.[18]
As a rule this is all that we learn by excavating on these ancient sites. The
materials of the houses themselves have either fallen into dust, or, in a
country which has been thickly populated since long before the
commencement of history, have been used over and over again in other
works. The inevitable destruction has been rendered more rapid and complete
by the fellah's habit of opening up any mounds which he has reason to
believe ancient, for the sake of the fertilizing properties they possess.
The only point in the Nile valley where the arrangements of an ancient city
are still to be traced is upon the site of the new capital of Amenophis IV.,
built by him when he deserted Thebes and its god Amen.[19] This city, which
owed its existence to royal caprice, seems to have been very soon abandoned.
We do not even know the name it bore during its short prosperity, and since
its fall the site has never been occupied by a population sufficiently great to
necessitate the destruction of its remains. The soil is still covered by the ruins
of its buildings. These are always of brick. The plans of a few houses have
been roughly ascertained, and the direction of the streets can now be laid
down with some accuracy. There is a street parallel to the river, and nearly
100 feet wide; from this, narrower streets branch off at right angles, some of
them being hardly broad enough to allow of two chariots passing each other
between the houses. The most important quarter of the city was that to the
north, in the neighbourhood of the vast quadrangular inclosure which
contained the temple of the Solar Disc. In this part of the city the ruins of
Page 47
large houses with spacious courts are to be found. There is, moreover, on the
western side of the main street a building which Prisse calls the palace, in
which a forest of brick piers, set closely together, may, perhaps, have been
constructed in order to raise the higher floors above the damp soil. This
question cannot, however, be decided in the present state of our information.
The southern quarter of the city was inhabited by the poor. It contains only
small houses, crowded together, of which nothing but the outer walls and a
few heaps of rubbish remain.
Fig. 11.—Plan of a part of the city at Tell-el-Amarna; from Prisse.
In the case of Thebes we cannot point out, even to this slight extent, the
arrangement of the city. We cannot tell where the palaces of the king and the
dwellings of the great were situated. All that we know is that the city properly
speaking, the Diospolis of the Greeks, so called on account of the great
temple of Amen which formed its centre, was on the right bank of the river;
that its houses were massed round those two great sacred inclosures which
we now call Karnak and Luxor; that it was intersected by wide streets, those
which united Karnak and Luxor to each other and to the river being bordered
with sphinxes. These great streets were the δρόμοι of the Greek writers;
others they called βασιλική ῥύμη, king's street.[20] The blocks of houses
which bordered these great causeways were intersected by narrow lanes.[21]
The quarter on the left bank of the river was a sort of suburb inhabited chiefly
by priests, embalmers, and others practising those lugubrious branches of
industry which are connected with the burial of the dead.[22] The whole of
western side of the main street a building which Prisse calls the palace, in
which a forest of brick piers, set closely together, may, perhaps, have been
constructed in order to raise the higher floors above the damp soil. This
question cannot, however, be decided in the present state of our information.
The southern quarter of the city was inhabited by the poor. It contains only
small houses, crowded together, of which nothing but the outer walls and a
few heaps of rubbish remain.
Fig. 11.—Plan of a part of the city at Tell-el-Amarna; from Prisse.
In the case of Thebes we cannot point out, even to this slight extent, the
arrangement of the city. We cannot tell where the palaces of the king and the
dwellings of the great were situated. All that we know is that the city properly
speaking, the Diospolis of the Greeks, so called on account of the great
temple of Amen which formed its centre, was on the right bank of the river;
that its houses were massed round those two great sacred inclosures which
we now call Karnak and Luxor; that it was intersected by wide streets, those
which united Karnak and Luxor to each other and to the river being bordered
with sphinxes. These great streets were the δρόμοι of the Greek writers;
others they called βασιλική ῥύμη, king's street.[20] The blocks of houses
which bordered these great causeways were intersected by narrow lanes.[21]
The quarter on the left bank of the river was a sort of suburb inhabited chiefly
by priests, embalmers, and others practising those lugubrious branches of
industry which are connected with the burial of the dead.[22] The whole of
Page 48
this western city was known in the time of the Ptolemies and the Romans as
the Memnonia.[23]
We shall not attempt to discuss the few hints given by the Greek writers as to
the extent of Thebes. Even if they were less vague and contradictory than
they are, they would tell us little as to the density of the population.[24]
Diodorus says that there were once houses of four and five stories high at
Thebes, but he did not see them himself, and it is to the time of the fabulous
monarch Busiris that he attributes them.[25] In painted representations we
never find a house of more than three stories, and they are very rare. As a rule
we find a ground-floor, one floor above that, and a covered flat roof on the
top.[26]
It does not seem likely that, even in the important streets, the houses of the
rich made much architectural show on the outside. Thebes and Memphis
probably resembled those modern Oriental towns in which the streets are
bordered with massive structures in which hardly any openings beside the
doors are to be seen. The houses figured in the bas-reliefs are often
surrounded by a crenellated wall, and stand in the middle of a court or
garden.[27]
the Memnonia.[23]
We shall not attempt to discuss the few hints given by the Greek writers as to
the extent of Thebes. Even if they were less vague and contradictory than
they are, they would tell us little as to the density of the population.[24]
Diodorus says that there were once houses of four and five stories high at
Thebes, but he did not see them himself, and it is to the time of the fabulous
monarch Busiris that he attributes them.[25] In painted representations we
never find a house of more than three stories, and they are very rare. As a rule
we find a ground-floor, one floor above that, and a covered flat roof on the
top.[26]
It does not seem likely that, even in the important streets, the houses of the
rich made much architectural show on the outside. Thebes and Memphis
probably resembled those modern Oriental towns in which the streets are
bordered with massive structures in which hardly any openings beside the
doors are to be seen. The houses figured in the bas-reliefs are often
surrounded by a crenellated wall, and stand in the middle of a court or
garden.[27]
Page 49
Fig. 12.—Bird's-eye view of a villa, restored by Ch. Chipiez.
When a man was at all easy in his circumstances he chose for his dwelling a
house in which all elegance and artistic elaboration was reserved for himself
—a bare wall was turned to the noise of the street. Houses constructed upon
such a principle covered, of course, a proportionally large space of ground.
The walls of Babylon inclosed fields, gardens, and vineyards;[28] and it is
probable that much of the land embraced by those of Thebes was occupied in
When a man was at all easy in his circumstances he chose for his dwelling a
house in which all elegance and artistic elaboration was reserved for himself
—a bare wall was turned to the noise of the street. Houses constructed upon
such a principle covered, of course, a proportionally large space of ground.
The walls of Babylon inclosed fields, gardens, and vineyards;[28] and it is
probable that much of the land embraced by those of Thebes was occupied in
Page 50
similar fashion by those inclosures round the dwellings of the rich, which
might be compared to an Anglo-Indian "compound."
The house, of which a restoration appears on page 31 (Fig. 12), a restoration
which is based upon the plan found by Rosellini in a Theban tomb (Fig. 3), is
generally considered to have been a country villa belonging to the king. We
do not concur in that opinion, however. It appears to us quite possible that in
the fashionable quarters—if we may use such a phrase—of Memphis and
Thebes, the houses of the great may have shewn such combinations of
architecture and garden as this. There are trees and creeping plants in front of
the house shown in Fig. 1 also. Both are inclosed within a wall pierced by
one large door.
Even the houses of the poor seem generally to have had their courtyards, at
the back of which a structure was raised consisting of a single story
surmounted by a flat roof, to which access was given by an external staircase.
This arrangement, which is to be seen in a small model of a house which
belongs to the Egyptian collection in the Louvre (Fig. 13), does not differ
from that which is still in force in the villages of Egypt.[29]
In the larger houses the chambers were distributed around two or three sides
of a court. The building, which has been alluded to as the Palace at Tell-el-
Amarna, with many others in the same city (Figs. 14, 15, 16), affords an
example of their arrangement. Sometimes, as in another and neighbouring
house, the chambers opened upon a long corridor. The offices were upon the
ground floor, while the family inhabited the stories above it. The flat top of
the house had a parapet round it, and sometimes a light outer roof supported
by slender columns of brilliantly painted wood. This open story is well shown
in Fig. 1 and in a box for holding funerary statuettes, which is in the Louvre.
It is reproduced in Fig. 18. Upon that part of the roof which was not covered
a kind of screen of planks was fixed, which served to establish a current of
air, and to ventilate the house (Fig. 19). Sometimes one part of a house was
higher than the rest, forming a kind of tower (Fig. 20). Finally, some houses
were crowned with a parapet finishing at the top in a row of rounded
battlements (Fig. 21). In very large houses the entrance to the courtyard was
ornamented with a porch supported by two pillars, with lotus flower capitals,
to which banners were tied upon fête days (Fig. 22). Sometimes the name of
the proprietor, sometimes a hospitable sentiment, was inscribed upon the
lintel (Fig. 23).
might be compared to an Anglo-Indian "compound."
The house, of which a restoration appears on page 31 (Fig. 12), a restoration
which is based upon the plan found by Rosellini in a Theban tomb (Fig. 3), is
generally considered to have been a country villa belonging to the king. We
do not concur in that opinion, however. It appears to us quite possible that in
the fashionable quarters—if we may use such a phrase—of Memphis and
Thebes, the houses of the great may have shewn such combinations of
architecture and garden as this. There are trees and creeping plants in front of
the house shown in Fig. 1 also. Both are inclosed within a wall pierced by
one large door.
Even the houses of the poor seem generally to have had their courtyards, at
the back of which a structure was raised consisting of a single story
surmounted by a flat roof, to which access was given by an external staircase.
This arrangement, which is to be seen in a small model of a house which
belongs to the Egyptian collection in the Louvre (Fig. 13), does not differ
from that which is still in force in the villages of Egypt.[29]
In the larger houses the chambers were distributed around two or three sides
of a court. The building, which has been alluded to as the Palace at Tell-el-
Amarna, with many others in the same city (Figs. 14, 15, 16), affords an
example of their arrangement. Sometimes, as in another and neighbouring
house, the chambers opened upon a long corridor. The offices were upon the
ground floor, while the family inhabited the stories above it. The flat top of
the house had a parapet round it, and sometimes a light outer roof supported
by slender columns of brilliantly painted wood. This open story is well shown
in Fig. 1 and in a box for holding funerary statuettes, which is in the Louvre.
It is reproduced in Fig. 18. Upon that part of the roof which was not covered
a kind of screen of planks was fixed, which served to establish a current of
air, and to ventilate the house (Fig. 19). Sometimes one part of a house was
higher than the rest, forming a kind of tower (Fig. 20). Finally, some houses
were crowned with a parapet finishing at the top in a row of rounded
battlements (Fig. 21). In very large houses the entrance to the courtyard was
ornamented with a porch supported by two pillars, with lotus flower capitals,
to which banners were tied upon fête days (Fig. 22). Sometimes the name of
the proprietor, sometimes a hospitable sentiment, was inscribed upon the
lintel (Fig. 23).
Page 51
Fig. 13.—Model of an Egyptian house; Louvre.
Figs. 14-17.—Plans of houses; from Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 345.
"Egyptian houses were built of crude bricks made of loam mixed with
chopped straw. These bricks were usually a foot long and six inches wide.
The ceilings of the larger rooms were of indigenous or foreign wood; the
smaller rooms were often vaulted.
Figs. 14-17.—Plans of houses; from Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 345.
"Egyptian houses were built of crude bricks made of loam mixed with
chopped straw. These bricks were usually a foot long and six inches wide.
The ceilings of the larger rooms were of indigenous or foreign wood; the
smaller rooms were often vaulted.
Page 52
Fig. 18.—Piece of furniture in the form of a house; Louvre.
Fig. 19.—House from a Theban wall painting; from Wilkinson, i. p. 361.
Fig. 20.—House with a tower, from a painting; Wilkinson, i. p. 361.
Fig. 19.—House from a Theban wall painting; from Wilkinson, i. p. 361.
Fig. 20.—House with a tower, from a painting; Wilkinson, i. p. 361.
Page 53
"Doors and windows opened generally in the middle. They opened inwards,
and were fastened by means of bolts and latches. Some of them had wooden
locks like those which are still in use in Egypt. Most of the inner doors were
closed merely by hangings of some light material. For the decoration we
must turn to the pictures in the rock-cut tombs. The walls of the houses were
coated with stucco, and painted with religious and domestic scenes. The
galleries and columns of the porch were coloured in imitation of stone or
granite. The ceilings were covered with what we call arabesques and
interlacing ornaments of all kinds, while the floors were strewn with mats
woven of many-coloured reeds."[30]
Fig. 21.—Battlemented house; from Wilkinson, i. p. 362.
Fig. 22.—Decorated porch; from Wilkinson, i. p. 346.
Fig. 23.—House with inscription; from Wilkinson, i. 32.
and were fastened by means of bolts and latches. Some of them had wooden
locks like those which are still in use in Egypt. Most of the inner doors were
closed merely by hangings of some light material. For the decoration we
must turn to the pictures in the rock-cut tombs. The walls of the houses were
coated with stucco, and painted with religious and domestic scenes. The
galleries and columns of the porch were coloured in imitation of stone or
granite. The ceilings were covered with what we call arabesques and
interlacing ornaments of all kinds, while the floors were strewn with mats
woven of many-coloured reeds."[30]
Fig. 21.—Battlemented house; from Wilkinson, i. p. 362.
Fig. 22.—Decorated porch; from Wilkinson, i. p. 346.
Fig. 23.—House with inscription; from Wilkinson, i. 32.
Page 54
Fig. 24.—House, storehouse, and garden; from Prisse, p. 218.
We shall describe the tasteful and convenient furniture which these rooms
contained in our chapter upon the industrial arts.
The flat roof seems to have been universal in Egypt. It added to the
accommodation of the house, it afforded a pleasant rendezvous for the family
in the evening, where they could enjoy the view and the fresh breezes which
spring up at sunset. At certain seasons they must have slept there.[31] On the
other hand the granaries, barns, and storehouses were almost always dome-
shaped (Fig. 24). Those which had flat roofs seem to have been very few
indeed. This we see in a painting which seems to represent the process of
brewing. The Egyptians were great beer drinkers (Fig. 25). These brick vaults
must have been very thick, and they were well fitted to preserve that equable
and comparatively low temperature which is required for the keeping of
provisions. The bas-reliefs often show long rows of storehouses one after the
other. Their number was no doubt intended to give an idea of their
proprietor's wealth. Some of them seem to have had their only opening half-
way up their sides and to have been reached by an external incline or flight of
steps (Fig. 26). A sketch made by M. Bourgoin in a tomb at Sakkarah shows
us another form of granary. It (Fig. 27) is shaped like a stone bottle, it has a
door at the ground level and a little window higher up.[32]
Fig. 25.—Brewing, Beni-Hassan; from Champollion, pl. 398.
We shall describe the tasteful and convenient furniture which these rooms
contained in our chapter upon the industrial arts.
The flat roof seems to have been universal in Egypt. It added to the
accommodation of the house, it afforded a pleasant rendezvous for the family
in the evening, where they could enjoy the view and the fresh breezes which
spring up at sunset. At certain seasons they must have slept there.[31] On the
other hand the granaries, barns, and storehouses were almost always dome-
shaped (Fig. 24). Those which had flat roofs seem to have been very few
indeed. This we see in a painting which seems to represent the process of
brewing. The Egyptians were great beer drinkers (Fig. 25). These brick vaults
must have been very thick, and they were well fitted to preserve that equable
and comparatively low temperature which is required for the keeping of
provisions. The bas-reliefs often show long rows of storehouses one after the
other. Their number was no doubt intended to give an idea of their
proprietor's wealth. Some of them seem to have had their only opening half-
way up their sides and to have been reached by an external incline or flight of
steps (Fig. 26). A sketch made by M. Bourgoin in a tomb at Sakkarah shows
us another form of granary. It (Fig. 27) is shaped like a stone bottle, it has a
door at the ground level and a little window higher up.[32]
Fig. 25.—Brewing, Beni-Hassan; from Champollion, pl. 398.
Page 55
Fig. 26.—Granaries, Beni-Hassan; from Wilkinson.
Fig. 27.—Granaries; Sakkarah.
The Egyptians had country houses as well as those in town, but the structural
arrangements were the same in both. The dwelling of the peasant did not
differ very greatly from that of the town-bred artisan, while the villas of the
wealthy were only distinguished from their houses in the richer quarters of
Thebes and Memphis by their more abundant provision of shady groves,
parks, and artificial lakes. Their paintings prove conclusively that the
Fig. 27.—Granaries; Sakkarah.
The Egyptians had country houses as well as those in town, but the structural
arrangements were the same in both. The dwelling of the peasant did not
differ very greatly from that of the town-bred artisan, while the villas of the
wealthy were only distinguished from their houses in the richer quarters of
Thebes and Memphis by their more abundant provision of shady groves,
parks, and artificial lakes. Their paintings prove conclusively that the
Page 56
Egyptians had carried horticulture to a very high pitch; they even put their
more precious trees in pots like those in which we place orange-trees.[33]
§ 4. Military Architecture.
The Ancient Egyptians have left us very few works of military architecture,
and yet, under their great Theban princes, more than one fortress must have
been built outside their own country to preserve their supremacy over
neighbouring peoples. In the later periods of the empire fortresses were
erected in the Delta and in the upper gorges of the Nile, but, unfortunately
such works were always carried out in brick and generally in crude brick. The
Egyptian architect had at hand in great abundance the finest materials in the
world, except marble, and yet they were used by him exclusively for the tomb
and the temple. When it was a question of providing an indestructible
dwelling for the dead, and so of perpetuating the efficacy of the funeral
prayers and offerings, "eternal stone" was not spared; but when less important
purposes had to be fulfilled they were content with clay. Baking bricks was a
more rapid process than quarrying and dressing stone, and if the house or
fortress in which they were used had comparatively slight durability, it was
easy enough to replace it with another.
Th crude bricks, dried simply in the sun, became disintegrated with time and
fell into powder; the kiln dried bricks were carried off from the ruins of one
building to be used in another. The few piers or fragments of wall which
remain are confused and shapeless. A few blocks of stone, sometimes even a
single chip of marble, is enough to enable us to tell the history of a building
which has been long destroyed. Such a chip may be the only surviving
fragment of the edifice to which it belonged, but it preserves the impression
of the chisel which fashioned it, that is of the taste and individuality of the
artist who held the chisel. We have nothing of the kind in the case of a brick.
Bricks were almost always covered with a coat of stucco, so that nothing was
required of them beyond that they should be of the right size and of a certain
hardness. It is only by their inscriptions, when they have them, that the dates
of these bricks can be determined; when they are without them they tell us
nothing at all about the past. Sometimes a brick structure presents, from a
distance, an imposing appearance, and the traveller approaches it thinking
that he will soon draw all its secrets from it. But after carefully studying and
measuring it he is forced to confess that he has failed. It has no trace of
more precious trees in pots like those in which we place orange-trees.[33]
§ 4. Military Architecture.
The Ancient Egyptians have left us very few works of military architecture,
and yet, under their great Theban princes, more than one fortress must have
been built outside their own country to preserve their supremacy over
neighbouring peoples. In the later periods of the empire fortresses were
erected in the Delta and in the upper gorges of the Nile, but, unfortunately
such works were always carried out in brick and generally in crude brick. The
Egyptian architect had at hand in great abundance the finest materials in the
world, except marble, and yet they were used by him exclusively for the tomb
and the temple. When it was a question of providing an indestructible
dwelling for the dead, and so of perpetuating the efficacy of the funeral
prayers and offerings, "eternal stone" was not spared; but when less important
purposes had to be fulfilled they were content with clay. Baking bricks was a
more rapid process than quarrying and dressing stone, and if the house or
fortress in which they were used had comparatively slight durability, it was
easy enough to replace it with another.
Th crude bricks, dried simply in the sun, became disintegrated with time and
fell into powder; the kiln dried bricks were carried off from the ruins of one
building to be used in another. The few piers or fragments of wall which
remain are confused and shapeless. A few blocks of stone, sometimes even a
single chip of marble, is enough to enable us to tell the history of a building
which has been long destroyed. Such a chip may be the only surviving
fragment of the edifice to which it belonged, but it preserves the impression
of the chisel which fashioned it, that is of the taste and individuality of the
artist who held the chisel. We have nothing of the kind in the case of a brick.
Bricks were almost always covered with a coat of stucco, so that nothing was
required of them beyond that they should be of the right size and of a certain
hardness. It is only by their inscriptions, when they have them, that the dates
of these bricks can be determined; when they are without them they tell us
nothing at all about the past. Sometimes a brick structure presents, from a
distance, an imposing appearance, and the traveller approaches it thinking
that he will soon draw all its secrets from it. But after carefully studying and
measuring it he is forced to confess that he has failed. It has no trace of
Page 57
decoration, and it is the decoration of an ancient building which tells us its
age, its character, and its purpose. Stone, even when greatly broken, allows
mouldings to be traced, but bricks preserve nothing; they are as wanting in
individual expression as the pebbles which go to make a shingly beech.
Even if it had come down to us in a less fragmentary condition, the military
architecture of Egypt would have been far less interesting than that of Greece.
The latter country is mountainous; the soil is cut up by valleys and rocky
hills; the Greek towns, or, at least, their citadels, occupied the summits of
rocky heights which varied greatly in profile and altitude. Hence the military
architecture of the country showed great diversity in its combinations. In
Egypt the configuration of the soil was not of a nature to provoke any efforts
of invention or adaptation. All the cities were in the plain. Fortified posts
were distinguished from one another only by the greater or less extent,
height, and thickness of their walls. We shall, however, have to call attention
to the remains of a few defensive works which, like those established to
guard the defiles of the cataracts, were built upon sites different enough from
those ordinarily presented by the Nile valley. In these cases we shall find that
the Egyptian constructors knew how to adapt their military buildings to the
special requirements of the ground.
Egyptian cities seem always to have been surrounded by a fortified enceinte;
in some cases the remains of such fortifications have been found, in others
history tells us that they existed. At Thebes, for instance, no traces have, so
far as we know, been discovered of any wall. Homer's epithet of hundred-
gated (ἑκατόμπυλος) may be put on one side as evidence, because the Greek
poet did not know Egypt. He described the great metropolis of the Empire of
the South as he imagined it to be. The Homeric epithet is capable also of
another explanation, an explanation which did not escape Diodorus,[34] it
may have referred, not to the gates of the city, but to the pylons of the
temples, and should in that case be translated as "Thebes of the hundred
pylons" instead of hundred gates. We have better evidence as to the existence
of fortifications about the town in the descriptions left to us by the ancient
historians of the siege of Ptolemy Physcon: the city could not have resisted
for several years if it had been an open town. It was the same with Memphis.
On more than one occasion, during the Pharaonic period as well as after the
Persian conquest, it played the part of a fortress of the first class. It was the
key of middle Egypt. It even had a kind of citadel which included almost a
age, its character, and its purpose. Stone, even when greatly broken, allows
mouldings to be traced, but bricks preserve nothing; they are as wanting in
individual expression as the pebbles which go to make a shingly beech.
Even if it had come down to us in a less fragmentary condition, the military
architecture of Egypt would have been far less interesting than that of Greece.
The latter country is mountainous; the soil is cut up by valleys and rocky
hills; the Greek towns, or, at least, their citadels, occupied the summits of
rocky heights which varied greatly in profile and altitude. Hence the military
architecture of the country showed great diversity in its combinations. In
Egypt the configuration of the soil was not of a nature to provoke any efforts
of invention or adaptation. All the cities were in the plain. Fortified posts
were distinguished from one another only by the greater or less extent,
height, and thickness of their walls. We shall, however, have to call attention
to the remains of a few defensive works which, like those established to
guard the defiles of the cataracts, were built upon sites different enough from
those ordinarily presented by the Nile valley. In these cases we shall find that
the Egyptian constructors knew how to adapt their military buildings to the
special requirements of the ground.
Egyptian cities seem always to have been surrounded by a fortified enceinte;
in some cases the remains of such fortifications have been found, in others
history tells us that they existed. At Thebes, for instance, no traces have, so
far as we know, been discovered of any wall. Homer's epithet of hundred-
gated (ἑκατόμπυλος) may be put on one side as evidence, because the Greek
poet did not know Egypt. He described the great metropolis of the Empire of
the South as he imagined it to be. The Homeric epithet is capable also of
another explanation, an explanation which did not escape Diodorus,[34] it
may have referred, not to the gates of the city, but to the pylons of the
temples, and should in that case be translated as "Thebes of the hundred
pylons" instead of hundred gates. We have better evidence as to the existence
of fortifications about the town in the descriptions left to us by the ancient
historians of the siege of Ptolemy Physcon: the city could not have resisted
for several years if it had been an open town. It was the same with Memphis.
On more than one occasion, during the Pharaonic period as well as after the
Persian conquest, it played the part of a fortress of the first class. It was the
key of middle Egypt. It even had a kind of citadel which included almost a
Page 58
third of the city and was called the white wall (λευκὸν τεῖχος).[35] This name
was given, as the scholiast to Thucydides informs us, "because its walls were
of white stone, while those of the city itself were of red brick." The exactness
of this statement may be doubted. The Egyptians made their defensive walls
of a thickness which could only be attained in brick. It seems likely therefore
that these walls consisted of a brick core covered with white stone. An
examination of the remains of Heliopolis suggested to the authors of the
Description de l'Égypte that the walls of that city also were cased with
dressed stone. They found, even upon the highest part of the walls, pieces of
limestone for which they could account in no other way.
Nowhere else is there anything to be discovered beyond the remains of brick
walls, which have always been laid out in the form of a parallelogram.[36]
These walls are sometimes between sixty and seventy feet thick.[37] In some
cases their position is only to be traced by a gentle swelling in the soil; at
Sais, however, they seem to have preserved a height of fifty-seven feet in
some parts.[38] No signs of towers or bastions are ever found. At Heliopolis
there were gates at certain distances with stone jambs covered with
inscriptions.[39] The best preserved of all these enceintes is that of the ancient
city of Nekheb, the Eilithyia of the Greeks, in the valley of El-Kab. The
rectangle is 595 yards long by 516 wide; the walls are 36 feet-thick.[40] About
a quarter of the whole enceinte has been destroyed for the purposes of
agriculture; the part which remains contains four large gates, which are not
placed in the middle of the faces upon which they open. In all the paintings
representing sieges these walls are shown with round-topped battlements,
which were easily constructed in brick.
The only fort, properly speaking, which has been discovered in Egypt,
appears to be the ruin known as Chounet-es-Zezib at Abydos.[41] This is a
rectangular court inclosed by a double wall, and it still exists in a fair state of
preservation, to the west of the northern necropolis (Fig. 28). After examining
many possible hypotheses, Mariette came to the conclusion that this was a
military post intended to watch over the safety of the necropolis, and to keep
an eye upon the caravans arriving from the desert. Robber tribes might
otherwise be tempted to make use of any moment of confusion for the pillage
of the temple. There were curious arrangements for the purpose of guarding
against a coup-de-main. Within the outer wall, which is provided with small
gateways, there is a covered way extending round the whole fort, and
was given, as the scholiast to Thucydides informs us, "because its walls were
of white stone, while those of the city itself were of red brick." The exactness
of this statement may be doubted. The Egyptians made their defensive walls
of a thickness which could only be attained in brick. It seems likely therefore
that these walls consisted of a brick core covered with white stone. An
examination of the remains of Heliopolis suggested to the authors of the
Description de l'Égypte that the walls of that city also were cased with
dressed stone. They found, even upon the highest part of the walls, pieces of
limestone for which they could account in no other way.
Nowhere else is there anything to be discovered beyond the remains of brick
walls, which have always been laid out in the form of a parallelogram.[36]
These walls are sometimes between sixty and seventy feet thick.[37] In some
cases their position is only to be traced by a gentle swelling in the soil; at
Sais, however, they seem to have preserved a height of fifty-seven feet in
some parts.[38] No signs of towers or bastions are ever found. At Heliopolis
there were gates at certain distances with stone jambs covered with
inscriptions.[39] The best preserved of all these enceintes is that of the ancient
city of Nekheb, the Eilithyia of the Greeks, in the valley of El-Kab. The
rectangle is 595 yards long by 516 wide; the walls are 36 feet-thick.[40] About
a quarter of the whole enceinte has been destroyed for the purposes of
agriculture; the part which remains contains four large gates, which are not
placed in the middle of the faces upon which they open. In all the paintings
representing sieges these walls are shown with round-topped battlements,
which were easily constructed in brick.
The only fort, properly speaking, which has been discovered in Egypt,
appears to be the ruin known as Chounet-es-Zezib at Abydos.[41] This is a
rectangular court inclosed by a double wall, and it still exists in a fair state of
preservation, to the west of the northern necropolis (Fig. 28). After examining
many possible hypotheses, Mariette came to the conclusion that this was a
military post intended to watch over the safety of the necropolis, and to keep
an eye upon the caravans arriving from the desert. Robber tribes might
otherwise be tempted to make use of any moment of confusion for the pillage
of the temple. There were curious arrangements for the purpose of guarding
against a coup-de-main. Within the outer wall, which is provided with small
gateways, there is a covered way extending round the whole fort, and
Page 59
commanded by the inner wall. Before the inner court could be reached, an
enemy had to traverse a narrow and crooked passage in the thickness of the
wall, which was well calculated to secure the necessary time for a moment of
preparation in case of surprise (Fig. 29).
Fig. 28.—Military post at Abydos; perspective from the plans, etc., of
Mariette.
Fig. 29.—Military post. Plan of the entrances; from Mariette.
The most curious relic of the military engineering of the Egyptians is to be
found in Nubia. Thirty-seven miles south-ward of the cataracts of Wadi-
Halfah the Nile has worn a channel through a long chain of granite hills
which run across the valley from east to west. On each side of the river-bed
these hills rise to some height and across its torrent there are a few detached
rocks, which once formed a natural dam, but between which the water now
rushes impetuously. Navigation is only possible among these rapids during
the inundation. This point in the river's course was therefore well fitted to be
the gate of Egypt and to be fortified against the incursions of the southern
tribes. During the first Theban Empire, the Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty
drew the national frontier at this point, and resolved to establish themselves
there in force. The Third Ousourtesen seems to have built the two fortresses
enemy had to traverse a narrow and crooked passage in the thickness of the
wall, which was well calculated to secure the necessary time for a moment of
preparation in case of surprise (Fig. 29).
Fig. 28.—Military post at Abydos; perspective from the plans, etc., of
Mariette.
Fig. 29.—Military post. Plan of the entrances; from Mariette.
The most curious relic of the military engineering of the Egyptians is to be
found in Nubia. Thirty-seven miles south-ward of the cataracts of Wadi-
Halfah the Nile has worn a channel through a long chain of granite hills
which run across the valley from east to west. On each side of the river-bed
these hills rise to some height and across its torrent there are a few detached
rocks, which once formed a natural dam, but between which the water now
rushes impetuously. Navigation is only possible among these rapids during
the inundation. This point in the river's course was therefore well fitted to be
the gate of Egypt and to be fortified against the incursions of the southern
tribes. During the first Theban Empire, the Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty
drew the national frontier at this point, and resolved to establish themselves
there in force. The Third Ousourtesen seems to have built the two fortresses
Page 60
of which substantial remains exist even now. Each fortress contained a
temple and numerous houses. Lepsius gives the name of Kummeh to that on
the right bank and reserves the name Semneh, which has usually been applied
to the whole group, to the building on the left bank only.
Fig. 30.—Bird's-eye view of the fortress of Semneh; restored by Charles
Chipiez.
For our restoration (Fig. 30) we have had to depend very little upon
conjecture.[42] The only flight of fancy in which we have indulged is seen in
the extra height which we have given to the tower at the north-eastern angle
of the building. It seemed to us probable that at some point upon such a lofty
terrace there would be a belvedere or watch-tower to facilitate the proper
surveillance of the country round about. For the rest we have merely re-
established the upper part of the works and restored its depth to the ditch,
which had been filled in by the falling of the parapets. The line of walls and
bastions can be easily followed except at one point upon the southern face,
where a wide breach exists. The destruction of this part of the wall alone and
temple and numerous houses. Lepsius gives the name of Kummeh to that on
the right bank and reserves the name Semneh, which has usually been applied
to the whole group, to the building on the left bank only.
Fig. 30.—Bird's-eye view of the fortress of Semneh; restored by Charles
Chipiez.
For our restoration (Fig. 30) we have had to depend very little upon
conjecture.[42] The only flight of fancy in which we have indulged is seen in
the extra height which we have given to the tower at the north-eastern angle
of the building. It seemed to us probable that at some point upon such a lofty
terrace there would be a belvedere or watch-tower to facilitate the proper
surveillance of the country round about. For the rest we have merely re-
established the upper part of the works and restored its depth to the ditch,
which had been filled in by the falling of the parapets. The line of walls and
bastions can be easily followed except at one point upon the southern face,
where a wide breach exists. The destruction of this part of the wall alone and
Page 61
the clearing of the ground upon which it stood, suggests that it was broken
down by man rather than by time. It is probable that the fortress was taken by
some Ethiopian conqueror, by Sabaco or Tahraka, and that he took care to
render its fortifications useless in a way that could not be easily repaired.
Our view of the fort shows it as it must have appeared from a hill in the
Libyan Chain, to the south-west. The engineer lavished all his skill on
rendering the castle impregnable from the side of the desert. An attack upon
the flank facing the stream was impossible; on that side the walls rested upon
precipitous rocks rising sheer from the rapids of the Nile.
The trace of the walls was a polygon not unlike a capital L. The principal arm
was perpendicular to the course of the river. Its flat summit (see Fig. 30) was
about 250 feet by 190 feet. The interior was reached by a narrow passage in
the thickness of the masonry, the entrance to which was reached by an
inclined plane. The entrance is not visible in our illustration but the incline
which leads to it is shown. The walls on the three sides which looked
landwards were from fifty to eighty feet high, according to the ground. They
increased in thickness from twenty-six feet at the base to about twelve or
thirteen at the summit. Externally their upper parts fell backwards in such
fashion that no ladder, however high, would have availed to reach the
parapet. We find a similar arrangement in the walls of a fortress represented
at Beni-Hassan (Fig. 31).[43]
Fig. 31.—A besieged fort, Beni-Hassan; from Champollion, pl. 379.
down by man rather than by time. It is probable that the fortress was taken by
some Ethiopian conqueror, by Sabaco or Tahraka, and that he took care to
render its fortifications useless in a way that could not be easily repaired.
Our view of the fort shows it as it must have appeared from a hill in the
Libyan Chain, to the south-west. The engineer lavished all his skill on
rendering the castle impregnable from the side of the desert. An attack upon
the flank facing the stream was impossible; on that side the walls rested upon
precipitous rocks rising sheer from the rapids of the Nile.
The trace of the walls was a polygon not unlike a capital L. The principal arm
was perpendicular to the course of the river. Its flat summit (see Fig. 30) was
about 250 feet by 190 feet. The interior was reached by a narrow passage in
the thickness of the masonry, the entrance to which was reached by an
inclined plane. The entrance is not visible in our illustration but the incline
which leads to it is shown. The walls on the three sides which looked
landwards were from fifty to eighty feet high, according to the ground. They
increased in thickness from twenty-six feet at the base to about twelve or
thirteen at the summit. Externally their upper parts fell backwards in such
fashion that no ladder, however high, would have availed to reach the
parapet. We find a similar arrangement in the walls of a fortress represented
at Beni-Hassan (Fig. 31).[43]
Fig. 31.—A besieged fort, Beni-Hassan; from Champollion, pl. 379.
Page 62
The walls of Semneh were strengthened, both structurally and from a military
point of view, by salient buttresses or small bastions on all the sides except
that which faced the river. These buttresses were either twelve or thirteen in
number and from six to eight feet wide at the top. In the re-entering angle
which faces north-west there is a long diagonal buttress, by the use of which
the engineer or architect at once economized material and protected a weak
part of his structure in a most efficient manner. The salient angles of the
enceinte were protected by double towers, very well disposed so as to
command the ditch. A symmetrical regularity is not to be found here any
more than in the funerary and religious structures of Egypt. The curtain wall
between two of the towers on the southern face is broken up into small
buttresses of various degrees of salience, instead of being planned on a
straight line like the rest.
point of view, by salient buttresses or small bastions on all the sides except
that which faced the river. These buttresses were either twelve or thirteen in
number and from six to eight feet wide at the top. In the re-entering angle
which faces north-west there is a long diagonal buttress, by the use of which
the engineer or architect at once economized material and protected a weak
part of his structure in a most efficient manner. The salient angles of the
enceinte were protected by double towers, very well disposed so as to
command the ditch. A symmetrical regularity is not to be found here any
more than in the funerary and religious structures of Egypt. The curtain wall
between two of the towers on the southern face is broken up into small
buttresses of various degrees of salience, instead of being planned on a
straight line like the rest.
Page 63
Fig. 32.—Siege of a fortress; from the Ramesseum, Thebes.
When the fortress was prepared for defence the parapets may have been
furnished with wooden structures acting as machicolations, whence the
besieged could cast javelins and stones and shoot arrows at an enemy
attempting to scale or batter the walls. A bas-relief at Thebes which
represents the siege of a fortress seems to indicate that the parapets were
crowned by wooden erections of some kind (Fig. 32).[44]
When the fortress was prepared for defence the parapets may have been
furnished with wooden structures acting as machicolations, whence the
besieged could cast javelins and stones and shoot arrows at an enemy
attempting to scale or batter the walls. A bas-relief at Thebes which
represents the siege of a fortress seems to indicate that the parapets were
crowned by wooden erections of some kind (Fig. 32).[44]
Page 64
The walls were surrounded by a ditch, which was from 95 to 125 feet wide.
We cannot now tell what its depth may have been, but it appears to have been
paved. The counterscarp and certain parts of the scarp were faced with stone,
carefully polished, and fixed so as to augment the difficulty of approach.
Moreover, the crown of the glacis and the wide glacis itself were also reveted
with stone. All this formed a first line of defence, which had to be destroyed
before the assailants could reach the place itself with their machines. The
external line of the ditch does not follow all the irregularities of the enceinte,
its trace is the same as that of the curtain wall, exclusive of the towers or
buttresses. The clear width from the face of the latter is about sixty-four feet.
Neither ditch nor glacis exist on the eastern face, where the rapids of the Nile
render them unnecessary.
We must not forget to draw attention to the curious way in which the body of
the fort is constructed. It is composed of crude bricks transfixed horizontally,
and at rather narrow intervals, by pieces of wood. The situation of these
beams may be easily recognized as they have decayed and left channels in the
brickwork. That the holes with which the walls are pierced at regular
distances (see Fig. 30) were thus caused, is beyond doubt, especially since a
few fragments of wood which the centuries have spared have been found.
These fragments have been recognized as having come from the doum palm,
which is very common in Upper Egypt, and commoner still in Nubia.
We need not dwell upon the other fortress—that on the right bank. It may be
seen in the distance in our restoration of Semneh. Being built upon rocks
which were on all sides difficult of access, it did not require any very
elaborate works. It was composed of an enceinte inclosing an irregular square
about 190 feet each way. It had but a few salient buttresses; there were only
two on the north-east, towards the mountains, and one, a very bold one, on
the south-west, commanding the river. There was no room for a wide ditch.
But at a distance of thirteen feet from the walls there was a glacis similar to
that at Semneh. It had the same casing of polished stone, but on account of
the irregularities of the rock, the height of its crown varied considerably, and
its slope was very steep, almost vertical. The trace of the counterscarp
followed that of the enceinte, including the buttresses. Moreover, at its
northern and southern angles it followed a line which roughly resembled the
bastions of a modern fortification. Its structure was similar to that of Semneh.
We cannot now tell what its depth may have been, but it appears to have been
paved. The counterscarp and certain parts of the scarp were faced with stone,
carefully polished, and fixed so as to augment the difficulty of approach.
Moreover, the crown of the glacis and the wide glacis itself were also reveted
with stone. All this formed a first line of defence, which had to be destroyed
before the assailants could reach the place itself with their machines. The
external line of the ditch does not follow all the irregularities of the enceinte,
its trace is the same as that of the curtain wall, exclusive of the towers or
buttresses. The clear width from the face of the latter is about sixty-four feet.
Neither ditch nor glacis exist on the eastern face, where the rapids of the Nile
render them unnecessary.
We must not forget to draw attention to the curious way in which the body of
the fort is constructed. It is composed of crude bricks transfixed horizontally,
and at rather narrow intervals, by pieces of wood. The situation of these
beams may be easily recognized as they have decayed and left channels in the
brickwork. That the holes with which the walls are pierced at regular
distances (see Fig. 30) were thus caused, is beyond doubt, especially since a
few fragments of wood which the centuries have spared have been found.
These fragments have been recognized as having come from the doum palm,
which is very common in Upper Egypt, and commoner still in Nubia.
We need not dwell upon the other fortress—that on the right bank. It may be
seen in the distance in our restoration of Semneh. Being built upon rocks
which were on all sides difficult of access, it did not require any very
elaborate works. It was composed of an enceinte inclosing an irregular square
about 190 feet each way. It had but a few salient buttresses; there were only
two on the north-east, towards the mountains, and one, a very bold one, on
the south-west, commanding the river. There was no room for a wide ditch.
But at a distance of thirteen feet from the walls there was a glacis similar to
that at Semneh. It had the same casing of polished stone, but on account of
the irregularities of the rock, the height of its crown varied considerably, and
its slope was very steep, almost vertical. The trace of the counterscarp
followed that of the enceinte, including the buttresses. Moreover, at its
northern and southern angles it followed a line which roughly resembled the
bastions of a modern fortification. Its structure was similar to that of Semneh.
Page 65
Lepsius does not hesitate to ascribe both these forts to Ousourtesen III.,
whose name appears upon all the neighbouring rocks, and who, with the
deities of the south, was worshipped at Semneh.[45] They would thus date
back, according to the chronology which is now generally adopted, to the
twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth century B.C. In any case they cannot be later
than the time of Thothmes III., who, in the course of the seventeenth century
B.C. restored the temples which they inclose, and covered their walls with his
effigies and royal cartouches. Even if we admit that these two castles are not
older than the last-named epoch, we shall still have to give to Egypt the credit
of possessing the oldest examples of military architecture, as well as the
oldest temples and the oldest tombs.
whose name appears upon all the neighbouring rocks, and who, with the
deities of the south, was worshipped at Semneh.[45] They would thus date
back, according to the chronology which is now generally adopted, to the
twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth century B.C. In any case they cannot be later
than the time of Thothmes III., who, in the course of the seventeenth century
B.C. restored the temples which they inclose, and covered their walls with his
effigies and royal cartouches. Even if we admit that these two castles are not
older than the last-named epoch, we shall still have to give to Egypt the credit
of possessing the oldest examples of military architecture, as well as the
oldest temples and the oldest tombs.
Page 66
CHAPTER II.
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ORDERS,
SECONDARY FORMS.
§ 1. An Analysis of Architectural Forms necessary.
We have now described the tomb, the temple, and the house in ancient Egypt.
We have attempted to define the character of their architecture, and to show
how its forms were determined by the religious beliefs, social condition, and
manners of the nation, as well as by the climate of the country. We have
therefore passed in review the most important architectural creations of a
people who were the first to display a real taste and feeling for art.
In order to give a complete idea of Egyptian art, and of the resources at its
disposal, we must now take these buildings to pieces and show the elements
of which they were composed. The rich variety of supports, the numerous
"orders" of pillar and column, the methods employed for decoration and
illumination, must each be studied separately. We have commenced by
looking at them from a synthetic point of view, but we must finish by a
methodical analysis. From such an analysis alone can we obtain the necessary
materials for an exhaustive comparison between the art of Egypt and that of
the nations which succeeded her upon the stage of history. An examination of
the Egyptian remains carries the historian back to a more remote date than
can be attained in the case of any other country, and yet he is far from
reaching the first springs of Egyptian civilization. Notwithstanding their
prodigious antiquity, the most ancient of the monuments that have survived
carry us back into the bosom of a society which had long emerged from
primitive barbarism. The centuries which saw the building of the Pyramids
and the mastabas of the Memphite necropolis had behind them a long and
well-filled past. Although we possess no relic from that past, we can divine
its character to some extent from the impression which it made upon the taste
and fancy of latter ages. Certain effects of which the artists of Memphis were
very fond can only be explained by habits contracted during a long course of
centuries. In the forms and motives employed by Egyptian architects we shall
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ORDERS,
SECONDARY FORMS.
§ 1. An Analysis of Architectural Forms necessary.
We have now described the tomb, the temple, and the house in ancient Egypt.
We have attempted to define the character of their architecture, and to show
how its forms were determined by the religious beliefs, social condition, and
manners of the nation, as well as by the climate of the country. We have
therefore passed in review the most important architectural creations of a
people who were the first to display a real taste and feeling for art.
In order to give a complete idea of Egyptian art, and of the resources at its
disposal, we must now take these buildings to pieces and show the elements
of which they were composed. The rich variety of supports, the numerous
"orders" of pillar and column, the methods employed for decoration and
illumination, must each be studied separately. We have commenced by
looking at them from a synthetic point of view, but we must finish by a
methodical analysis. From such an analysis alone can we obtain the necessary
materials for an exhaustive comparison between the art of Egypt and that of
the nations which succeeded her upon the stage of history. An examination of
the Egyptian remains carries the historian back to a more remote date than
can be attained in the case of any other country, and yet he is far from
reaching the first springs of Egyptian civilization. Notwithstanding their
prodigious antiquity, the most ancient of the monuments that have survived
carry us back into the bosom of a society which had long emerged from
primitive barbarism. The centuries which saw the building of the Pyramids
and the mastabas of the Memphite necropolis had behind them a long and
well-filled past. Although we possess no relic from that past, we can divine
its character to some extent from the impression which it made upon the taste
and fancy of latter ages. Certain effects of which the artists of Memphis were
very fond can only be explained by habits contracted during a long course of
centuries. In the forms and motives employed by Egyptian architects we shall
Page 67
find more than one example of these survivals from a previous stage of
development, such as forms appropriate to wood or metal employed in stone,
and childish methods of construction perpetuated without other apparent
cause.
§ 2. Materials.
In our explanation of the general character of Egyptian architecture we have
already enumerated the principal materials of which it disposed, and pointed
out the modifications arising from the choice of one or another of those
materials. We should not here return to the subject but for a misconception
which has gained a wide acceptance.
People have seen a few granite obelisks standing in two or three of the
European capitals, and they have too often jumped to the conclusion that the
Egyptians built almost exclusively in granite. The fact is that there is but one
building in Egypt the body of which is of granite, and that is the ancient
temple at Gizeh which is called the Temple of the Sphinx (Figs. 202 and 203,
vol. i.). Even there the roof and the casing of the walls was of alabaster.
Granite was employed, as a rule, only where a very choice and expensive
material was required. It was brought into play when certain parts of a
building had to be endowed with more nobility and beauty than the rest. Thus
there are, in the great temple at Karnak, a few small rooms, called The
Granite Chambers (Fig. 215, H, vol. i.), in which the material in question has
alone been employed. Elsewhere in the same building it was only used
incidentally. In the pyramid of Cheops the lining of the Grand Gallery is of
granite.[46] In many of the Theban temples it was employed for the bases of
columns, thresholds, jambs, and lintels of doors. It was also used for isolated
objects, such as tabernacles, monolithic statues, obelisks, and sarcophagi. The
enormous quantity of granite which Egypt drew, from first to last, from the
quarries at Syene, was mostly for the sculptor. The dressed materials of the
architect came chiefly from the limestone and sandstone quarries. Sometimes
we find a building entirely constructed of one or the other, sometimes they
are employed side by side. "The great temple at Abydos is built partly of
limestone, very fine in the grain and admirably adapted for sculpture, and
partly of sandstone. The sandstone has been used for columns, architraves,
and the frames of doors, and limestone for the rest."[47]
development, such as forms appropriate to wood or metal employed in stone,
and childish methods of construction perpetuated without other apparent
cause.
§ 2. Materials.
In our explanation of the general character of Egyptian architecture we have
already enumerated the principal materials of which it disposed, and pointed
out the modifications arising from the choice of one or another of those
materials. We should not here return to the subject but for a misconception
which has gained a wide acceptance.
People have seen a few granite obelisks standing in two or three of the
European capitals, and they have too often jumped to the conclusion that the
Egyptians built almost exclusively in granite. The fact is that there is but one
building in Egypt the body of which is of granite, and that is the ancient
temple at Gizeh which is called the Temple of the Sphinx (Figs. 202 and 203,
vol. i.). Even there the roof and the casing of the walls was of alabaster.
Granite was employed, as a rule, only where a very choice and expensive
material was required. It was brought into play when certain parts of a
building had to be endowed with more nobility and beauty than the rest. Thus
there are, in the great temple at Karnak, a few small rooms, called The
Granite Chambers (Fig. 215, H, vol. i.), in which the material in question has
alone been employed. Elsewhere in the same building it was only used
incidentally. In the pyramid of Cheops the lining of the Grand Gallery is of
granite.[46] In many of the Theban temples it was employed for the bases of
columns, thresholds, jambs, and lintels of doors. It was also used for isolated
objects, such as tabernacles, monolithic statues, obelisks, and sarcophagi. The
enormous quantity of granite which Egypt drew, from first to last, from the
quarries at Syene, was mostly for the sculptor. The dressed materials of the
architect came chiefly from the limestone and sandstone quarries. Sometimes
we find a building entirely constructed of one or the other, sometimes they
are employed side by side. "The great temple at Abydos is built partly of
limestone, very fine in the grain and admirably adapted for sculpture, and
partly of sandstone. The sandstone has been used for columns, architraves,
and the frames of doors, and limestone for the rest."[47]
Page 68
Bricks were employed to a vast extent by the Egyptians. They made them of
Nile mud mixed with chopped straw, a combination which is mentioned in
the Biblical account of the hardships inflicted upon the Israelites. "And
Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people and their
officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick as
heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the tale of the
bricks which they did make heretofore ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not
diminish aught thereof, for they be idle."[48]
This manufacture was remarkable for its extreme rapidity—an excellent brick
earth was to be found at almost any point in the Nile valley. An unpractised
labourer can easily make a thousand bricks a day; after a week's practice he
can make twelve hundred, and, if paid "by the piece" as many as eighteen
hundred a day.[49] Sometimes drying in the sun was thought sufficient; the
result was a crude brick which was endowed with no little power of
resistance and endurance in such a climate as that of Egypt. When baked
bricks were required the operation was a little complicated as they each had
to pass through the kiln. Egyptian bricks were usually very large. Those of a
pyramid in the neighbourhood of Memphis average 15 inches long by 7 wide
and 4-3/4 inches thick.[50] After the commencement of the Theban epoch they
were often stamped with the royal oval—as the Roman bricks had the names
of the consuls impressed upon them—and thus they have preserved the dates
at which the buildings of which they form part were erected (Fig. 33).[51]
Fig. 33.—Brick stamped with the royal ovals; from Prisse.
Nile mud mixed with chopped straw, a combination which is mentioned in
the Biblical account of the hardships inflicted upon the Israelites. "And
Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people and their
officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick as
heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the tale of the
bricks which they did make heretofore ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not
diminish aught thereof, for they be idle."[48]
This manufacture was remarkable for its extreme rapidity—an excellent brick
earth was to be found at almost any point in the Nile valley. An unpractised
labourer can easily make a thousand bricks a day; after a week's practice he
can make twelve hundred, and, if paid "by the piece" as many as eighteen
hundred a day.[49] Sometimes drying in the sun was thought sufficient; the
result was a crude brick which was endowed with no little power of
resistance and endurance in such a climate as that of Egypt. When baked
bricks were required the operation was a little complicated as they each had
to pass through the kiln. Egyptian bricks were usually very large. Those of a
pyramid in the neighbourhood of Memphis average 15 inches long by 7 wide
and 4-3/4 inches thick.[50] After the commencement of the Theban epoch they
were often stamped with the royal oval—as the Roman bricks had the names
of the consuls impressed upon them—and thus they have preserved the dates
at which the buildings of which they form part were erected (Fig. 33).[51]
Fig. 33.—Brick stamped with the royal ovals; from Prisse.
Page 69
We see, then, that the Egyptians had no lack of excellent building materials of
a lapidary kind. On the other hand, they were very poorly provided with good
timber. Before the conquest of Syria they must have been almost entirely
confined to their indigenous woods. The best of these were the Acacia
nilotica, or gum acacia, and the Acacia lebhak, but neither of these trees
furnished beams of any size. Sycamore wood was too soft; its root alone
being hard enough for use.[52] And yet in default of better wood it was
sometimes employed. The same may be said of the date palm, whose trunk
furnished posts and rafters, and, at times, very poor flooring planks. During
the hey-day of Theban supremacy, the timber for such buildings as the
pavilion at Medinet-Abou must have been brought from Syria at great cost.
The Theban princes, like those of Nineveh in later times, no doubt caused the
Phœnicians, who were their vassals, to thin the cedar forests of Lebanon for
their benefit. In structures of less importance carpenters and joiners had to do
as best they could with the timber furnished by their own country. The
difficulty which they experienced in procuring good planks explains to some
extent the care which they lavished upon their woodwork. They contrived, by
an elaborate system of "parquetting," of combining upright and horizontal
strips with ornamental members, to avoid the waste of even the smallest
piece of material. In some ways this work resembles the ceilings, doorways,
and panels of a modern Arab house, of the moucharabiehs of Cairo. The
principle is the same in both cases, although the decorative lines are
somewhat different; similar necessities have suggested the employment of
similar processes.[53]
§ 3. Construction.
In spite of the bad quality of Egyptian timber the earliest efforts at
construction made by the ancestors of the people were made in wood. Their
dwellings cannot have been very unlike those which the traveller even yet
encounters in Nubia. These are cabins with walls formed of palm branches
interlaced and plastered over with clay and straw. Their roofs are branches or
planks from the same tree laid horizontally across. In Lower Egypt, upon the
borders of Lake Menzaleh, the huts of the people are formed of long and
thick faggots of reeds. Wherever wood was abundant and the rain less to be
feared than the heat of the sun, the first dwelling was a hut of branches. The
a lapidary kind. On the other hand, they were very poorly provided with good
timber. Before the conquest of Syria they must have been almost entirely
confined to their indigenous woods. The best of these were the Acacia
nilotica, or gum acacia, and the Acacia lebhak, but neither of these trees
furnished beams of any size. Sycamore wood was too soft; its root alone
being hard enough for use.[52] And yet in default of better wood it was
sometimes employed. The same may be said of the date palm, whose trunk
furnished posts and rafters, and, at times, very poor flooring planks. During
the hey-day of Theban supremacy, the timber for such buildings as the
pavilion at Medinet-Abou must have been brought from Syria at great cost.
The Theban princes, like those of Nineveh in later times, no doubt caused the
Phœnicians, who were their vassals, to thin the cedar forests of Lebanon for
their benefit. In structures of less importance carpenters and joiners had to do
as best they could with the timber furnished by their own country. The
difficulty which they experienced in procuring good planks explains to some
extent the care which they lavished upon their woodwork. They contrived, by
an elaborate system of "parquetting," of combining upright and horizontal
strips with ornamental members, to avoid the waste of even the smallest
piece of material. In some ways this work resembles the ceilings, doorways,
and panels of a modern Arab house, of the moucharabiehs of Cairo. The
principle is the same in both cases, although the decorative lines are
somewhat different; similar necessities have suggested the employment of
similar processes.[53]
§ 3. Construction.
In spite of the bad quality of Egyptian timber the earliest efforts at
construction made by the ancestors of the people were made in wood. Their
dwellings cannot have been very unlike those which the traveller even yet
encounters in Nubia. These are cabins with walls formed of palm branches
interlaced and plastered over with clay and straw. Their roofs are branches or
planks from the same tree laid horizontally across. In Lower Egypt, upon the
borders of Lake Menzaleh, the huts of the people are formed of long and
thick faggots of reeds. Wherever wood was abundant and the rain less to be
feared than the heat of the sun, the first dwelling was a hut of branches. The
Page 70
manufacture of bricks required a good deal more patience, calculation, and
effort, than to plant a few boughs in the soil and weave them together.
We do not mean to pretend that earth, either in the form of bricks or pisé, did
not very soon come into use when men began to form shelters for themselves,
but it seems certain that wooden construction was developed before any
other. It was the first to aim at ornament, and to show anything which could
be called a style. This is proved by the fact that the most ancient works in
stone have no appropriate character of their own; they owe such decorative
qualities as they possess to their docile imitation of works in the less durable
material.
We may take the sarcophagus of Mycerinus as an example of this. That
sarcophagus had a short but adventurous career after its discovery by Colonel
Howard Vyse in 1837. It was then empty, but in a state of perfect
preservation, with the exception of the lid, which was broken, but could be
easily restored. The precious relic was removed from the pyramid and
embarked, together with the wooden coffin of the king, on board a merchant
ship at Alexandria. On her voyage to England the ship was wrecked off
Carthagena, and the sarcophagus lost. The coffin floated and was saved.
Happily the sarcophagus had been accurately drawn, and we are enabled to
give a perspective view of it compiled from Perring's elevations (Fig. 34).
From its appearance no one would guess that this sarcophagus was of basalt.
The whole of its forms were appropriate to wooden construction alone. Each
of its longer sides was divided into three compartments by four groups of
minute pilasters, slight in salience, and crowned by a kind of entablature
formed of four transverse members which were unequal in length and relief.
The lower parts of the three compartments consist of a kind of false door with
very complicated jambs. Above this there are deeply cut hollows with cross
bars, suggesting windows, and still higher a number of fillets run along the
whole length of the sarcophagus. The little pilasters are separated by narrow
panels, which terminate in an ornament which could readily be cut in wood
by the chisel, viz., in that double lotus-leaf which is so universally present in
the more ancient tombs.
The ends of the sarcophagus were similar to the sides, except that they had
only one compartment. The corners and the upper edge, exclusive of the lid,
are carved into a cylindrical moulding which resembles the rounded and tied
effort, than to plant a few boughs in the soil and weave them together.
We do not mean to pretend that earth, either in the form of bricks or pisé, did
not very soon come into use when men began to form shelters for themselves,
but it seems certain that wooden construction was developed before any
other. It was the first to aim at ornament, and to show anything which could
be called a style. This is proved by the fact that the most ancient works in
stone have no appropriate character of their own; they owe such decorative
qualities as they possess to their docile imitation of works in the less durable
material.
We may take the sarcophagus of Mycerinus as an example of this. That
sarcophagus had a short but adventurous career after its discovery by Colonel
Howard Vyse in 1837. It was then empty, but in a state of perfect
preservation, with the exception of the lid, which was broken, but could be
easily restored. The precious relic was removed from the pyramid and
embarked, together with the wooden coffin of the king, on board a merchant
ship at Alexandria. On her voyage to England the ship was wrecked off
Carthagena, and the sarcophagus lost. The coffin floated and was saved.
Happily the sarcophagus had been accurately drawn, and we are enabled to
give a perspective view of it compiled from Perring's elevations (Fig. 34).
From its appearance no one would guess that this sarcophagus was of basalt.
The whole of its forms were appropriate to wooden construction alone. Each
of its longer sides was divided into three compartments by four groups of
minute pilasters, slight in salience, and crowned by a kind of entablature
formed of four transverse members which were unequal in length and relief.
The lower parts of the three compartments consist of a kind of false door with
very complicated jambs. Above this there are deeply cut hollows with cross
bars, suggesting windows, and still higher a number of fillets run along the
whole length of the sarcophagus. The little pilasters are separated by narrow
panels, which terminate in an ornament which could readily be cut in wood
by the chisel, viz., in that double lotus-leaf which is so universally present in
the more ancient tombs.
The ends of the sarcophagus were similar to the sides, except that they had
only one compartment. The corners and the upper edge, exclusive of the lid,
are carved into a cylindrical moulding which resembles the rounded and tied
Page 71
angles of a wooden case. The upper member of the whole, a bold cornice, is
the only element which it is not easy to refer to the traditions of wooden
construction.[54]
The first idea suggested by the design of this sarcophagus is that of a large
wooden coffer. When we come to look at it a little more closely, however, the
imitations of doors and windows and other details incline us to believe that
its maker was thinking of reproducing the accustomed aspect of a wooden
house. In that case we should have in it a reduction of a building belonging to
the closed category of assembled constructions. It is by the study of imitative
works of this kind and by comparing with one another the forms originally
conceived by carpenters and joiners, and afterwards employed in stone
architecture, that, in our chapter upon the general principles of Egyptian
construction, we were enabled to attempt a restoration which may be taken as
a type of the early wooden architecture (Fig. 83, vol. i.).
Fig. 34.—The Sarcophagus of Mycerinus. Drawn in perspective from
Perring's elevations.
The foregoing observations may be applied with equal justice to the
sarcophagus of Khoo-foo-Ankh figured on pp. 183, 184, vol. i. It is of the
the only element which it is not easy to refer to the traditions of wooden
construction.[54]
The first idea suggested by the design of this sarcophagus is that of a large
wooden coffer. When we come to look at it a little more closely, however, the
imitations of doors and windows and other details incline us to believe that
its maker was thinking of reproducing the accustomed aspect of a wooden
house. In that case we should have in it a reduction of a building belonging to
the closed category of assembled constructions. It is by the study of imitative
works of this kind and by comparing with one another the forms originally
conceived by carpenters and joiners, and afterwards employed in stone
architecture, that, in our chapter upon the general principles of Egyptian
construction, we were enabled to attempt a restoration which may be taken as
a type of the early wooden architecture (Fig. 83, vol. i.).
Fig. 34.—The Sarcophagus of Mycerinus. Drawn in perspective from
Perring's elevations.
The foregoing observations may be applied with equal justice to the
sarcophagus of Khoo-foo-Ankh figured on pp. 183, 184, vol. i. It is of the
Page 72
same period, and displays the same arrangement of panels and fillets, the
same lotus-leaf ornament, and the same imitation of a barred window. There
is no cornice or gorge at the top, but the upper part of the flat sides is
decorated with the perpendicular grooves which are found in the hollow of
the cornice elsewhere. In wood this ornament, which was well adapted to add
richness to the cornice by the shadows which it cast, could easily be made
with a gouge; so that even if the gorge itself was not borrowed from wooden
construction its ornamentation may well have originated in that way.
If still further proofs be required of the imitative character of this early stone
architecture, we shall find them in the door of a tomb (Fig. 35). Nothing can
be clearer than the way in which the lintel obtained its peculiar character. It is
formed of a thick slab engaged at each end in the upright beams of stone
which form the jambs. This slab appears beyond the jambs, and ends in a
deep groove, which divides them from the walls. Underneath the lintel, and
well within the shadow which it casts, there is another and more curious slab;
it is, in shape, a thick cylinder, corresponding in length to the width of the
door. In the deep groove already mentioned the ends of the spindles or
trunnions upon which it is supported are suggested. They are not, indeed, in
their right places: they are too near the face of the building. The workman
would have had to make the groove very deep in order to show them in their
proper places, and he was therefore content to hint at them with sufficient
clearness to enable those who saw them to understand what they meant.
We have none of the wooden models under our eyes which were familiar to
the stonemason who carved these doors, but yet we can easily see the origin
of the forms we have just described. The cylinder was a circular beam of
acacia or palm, upon which a mat or strip of cloth of some kind was nailed.
By means of coils in the groove at the side the cylinder could be made to
revolve, and the curtain would thus be easily drawn up and down. These
curious forms are thus at once accounted for if we refer them to the wooden
structures which were once plentiful but have now disappeared. Nothing
could be more difficult than to find an explanation of them in forms
appropriate to stone or granite. Of what use could such a cylinder be if
carried out in either of those materials? It could not revolve, and the deep
lateral grooves, which have such an obvious use in a wooden building, would
be purposeless.
same lotus-leaf ornament, and the same imitation of a barred window. There
is no cornice or gorge at the top, but the upper part of the flat sides is
decorated with the perpendicular grooves which are found in the hollow of
the cornice elsewhere. In wood this ornament, which was well adapted to add
richness to the cornice by the shadows which it cast, could easily be made
with a gouge; so that even if the gorge itself was not borrowed from wooden
construction its ornamentation may well have originated in that way.
If still further proofs be required of the imitative character of this early stone
architecture, we shall find them in the door of a tomb (Fig. 35). Nothing can
be clearer than the way in which the lintel obtained its peculiar character. It is
formed of a thick slab engaged at each end in the upright beams of stone
which form the jambs. This slab appears beyond the jambs, and ends in a
deep groove, which divides them from the walls. Underneath the lintel, and
well within the shadow which it casts, there is another and more curious slab;
it is, in shape, a thick cylinder, corresponding in length to the width of the
door. In the deep groove already mentioned the ends of the spindles or
trunnions upon which it is supported are suggested. They are not, indeed, in
their right places: they are too near the face of the building. The workman
would have had to make the groove very deep in order to show them in their
proper places, and he was therefore content to hint at them with sufficient
clearness to enable those who saw them to understand what they meant.
We have none of the wooden models under our eyes which were familiar to
the stonemason who carved these doors, but yet we can easily see the origin
of the forms we have just described. The cylinder was a circular beam of
acacia or palm, upon which a mat or strip of cloth of some kind was nailed.
By means of coils in the groove at the side the cylinder could be made to
revolve, and the curtain would thus be easily drawn up and down. These
curious forms are thus at once accounted for if we refer them to the wooden
structures which were once plentiful but have now disappeared. Nothing
could be more difficult than to find an explanation of them in forms
appropriate to stone or granite. Of what use could such a cylinder be if
carried out in either of those materials? It could not revolve, and the deep
lateral grooves, which have such an obvious use in a wooden building, would
be purposeless.
Page 73
Fig. 35.—Door of a tomb at Sakkarah; drawn by Bourgoin.
We find these features repeated in a rectangular stele from the fourth dynasty,
which we reproduce on page 61. In Fig. 37 we give some of its details upon a
larger scale. The upper part of this stele displays two motives which will be
recognised at the first glance as borrowed from carpentry. The first of these is
the row of hexagonal studs, which forms a kind of frieze above the pilasters.
In the wooden original they must have been formed of six small pieces of
wood fixed around a hexagonal centre. Oriental cabinetmakers to this day
ornament ceilings and wainscots in the same fashion. Something like them is
certain to have existed in that okel, whose delicately ornamented walls were
so greatly admired by the visitors to the Exhibition of 1867. The same may be
said of the row of billets which forms the upper member of the frieze, to
which something of an ovoid form has been given by rounding their upper
extremities. The same source of inspiration is betrayed by other details of this
monument, which has been treated by time with extraordinary tenderness.
We find these features repeated in a rectangular stele from the fourth dynasty,
which we reproduce on page 61. In Fig. 37 we give some of its details upon a
larger scale. The upper part of this stele displays two motives which will be
recognised at the first glance as borrowed from carpentry. The first of these is
the row of hexagonal studs, which forms a kind of frieze above the pilasters.
In the wooden original they must have been formed of six small pieces of
wood fixed around a hexagonal centre. Oriental cabinetmakers to this day
ornament ceilings and wainscots in the same fashion. Something like them is
certain to have existed in that okel, whose delicately ornamented walls were
so greatly admired by the visitors to the Exhibition of 1867. The same may be
said of the row of billets which forms the upper member of the frieze, to
which something of an ovoid form has been given by rounding their upper
extremities. The same source of inspiration is betrayed by other details of this
monument, which has been treated by time with extraordinary tenderness.
Page 74
Fig. 36.—Stele from the 4th dynasty; drawn by Bourgoin.
Tombs have been found at Gizeh and Sakkarah, which are referred to the
second and third dynasties. The king Persen, whose name occurs in some of
the inscriptions upon these tombs, belongs to that remote period. In many of
these tombs the ceiling is carved to represent trunks of palm-trees; even the
roughnesses of the bark being reproduced. Most of the sepulchres in which
these details have been noticed are subterranean, but they are also to be
discovered in a chamber in the tomb of Ti. It is probable that if more
mastabas had come down to us with their roofs intact we should find many
instances of this kind of decoration.[55]
Tombs have been found at Gizeh and Sakkarah, which are referred to the
second and third dynasties. The king Persen, whose name occurs in some of
the inscriptions upon these tombs, belongs to that remote period. In many of
these tombs the ceiling is carved to represent trunks of palm-trees; even the
roughnesses of the bark being reproduced. Most of the sepulchres in which
these details have been noticed are subterranean, but they are also to be
discovered in a chamber in the tomb of Ti. It is probable that if more
mastabas had come down to us with their roofs intact we should find many
instances of this kind of decoration.[55]
Page 75
Fig. 37. Details of the upper part of the Stele figured on the preceding
page. —Stele from the 4th dynasty; drawn by Bourgoin.
Our Figures 38 and 39 are taken from another tomb, and show varieties of
that ornament which is universally employed as a finial to the panels we have
mentioned. In its most careful form it consists of two petals united by a band,
which allows the deep slit characteristic of the leaves of all aquatic plants to
be clearly visible.
This motive seems to have had peculiar value in the eyes of the Egyptians. It
is also found in the tombs at Thebes, and its persistence may, perhaps, be
accounted for by the association of the lotus with ideas of a new birth and
resurrection.[56] Under the Rameses and their successors it was, with the
exception of the vertical and horizontal grooves (Fig. 201, vol. i.), the only
reminiscence of wooden construction preserved by stone architecture. In the
doors of the rock-cut tombs at Thebes no trace of the circular beam, nor of
any other characteristic of the joiner-inspired stone-carving of early times, is
to be found. The Egyptian architects had by that time learnt to use stone and
granite in a fashion suggested by their own capabilities. We see, however, by
the representations preserved for us by the bas-reliefs, that wooden
construction maintained the character which belonged to it during the first
days of the Ancient Empire (Fig. 40).
page. —Stele from the 4th dynasty; drawn by Bourgoin.
Our Figures 38 and 39 are taken from another tomb, and show varieties of
that ornament which is universally employed as a finial to the panels we have
mentioned. In its most careful form it consists of two petals united by a band,
which allows the deep slit characteristic of the leaves of all aquatic plants to
be clearly visible.
This motive seems to have had peculiar value in the eyes of the Egyptians. It
is also found in the tombs at Thebes, and its persistence may, perhaps, be
accounted for by the association of the lotus with ideas of a new birth and
resurrection.[56] Under the Rameses and their successors it was, with the
exception of the vertical and horizontal grooves (Fig. 201, vol. i.), the only
reminiscence of wooden construction preserved by stone architecture. In the
doors of the rock-cut tombs at Thebes no trace of the circular beam, nor of
any other characteristic of the joiner-inspired stone-carving of early times, is
to be found. The Egyptian architects had by that time learnt to use stone and
granite in a fashion suggested by their own capabilities. We see, however, by
the representations preserved for us by the bas-reliefs, that wooden
construction maintained the character which belonged to it during the first
days of the Ancient Empire (Fig. 40).
Page 76
Fig. 38.—Flattened form of lotus-leaf ornament, seen in front and in
section; drawn by Bourgoin.
section; drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 77
Fig. 39.—Lotus-leaf ornament in its elongated form; drawn by Bourgoin.
We know from the pyramids, from the temple of the sphinx, and from some
of the mastabas, that the Egyptian workmen were thoroughly efficient in the
cutting and dressing of stone, even in the time of the first monarchs. However
far we go back in the history of Egypt we find no trace of any method of
construction corresponding to that which is called Cyclopean in the case of
the Greeks. We find no walls built like those of Tiryns, with huge and
shapeless masses of rock, the interstices being filled in with small stones. We
do not even find polygonal masonry—by which we mean walls formed of
stone dressed with the chisel, but with irregular joints, and with stones of
very different size and shape placed in juxtaposition with one another. In the
ancient citadels of Greece and Italy this kind of construction is to be found in
every variety, but in Egypt the stones are always arranged into horizontal
courses. Here and there the vertical joints are not quite vertical, and
sometimes we find stones which rise higher, or sink lower, than the course to
which they belong, tying it to the one above it or below it. Such accidents as
these do not, however, affect the general rule, which was to keep each course
self-contained and parallel with the soil. All these varieties in Egyptian
masonry may be seen in a horizontal section of the first pylon at Karnak (Fig.
41). This pylon is in such a ruined state that by means of photographs taken
from different sides we can form a very exact idea of its internal composition.
[57]
We know from the pyramids, from the temple of the sphinx, and from some
of the mastabas, that the Egyptian workmen were thoroughly efficient in the
cutting and dressing of stone, even in the time of the first monarchs. However
far we go back in the history of Egypt we find no trace of any method of
construction corresponding to that which is called Cyclopean in the case of
the Greeks. We find no walls built like those of Tiryns, with huge and
shapeless masses of rock, the interstices being filled in with small stones. We
do not even find polygonal masonry—by which we mean walls formed of
stone dressed with the chisel, but with irregular joints, and with stones of
very different size and shape placed in juxtaposition with one another. In the
ancient citadels of Greece and Italy this kind of construction is to be found in
every variety, but in Egypt the stones are always arranged into horizontal
courses. Here and there the vertical joints are not quite vertical, and
sometimes we find stones which rise higher, or sink lower, than the course to
which they belong, tying it to the one above it or below it. Such accidents as
these do not, however, affect the general rule, which was to keep each course
self-contained and parallel with the soil. All these varieties in Egyptian
masonry may be seen in a horizontal section of the first pylon at Karnak (Fig.
41). This pylon is in such a ruined state that by means of photographs taken
from different sides we can form a very exact idea of its internal composition.
[57]
Page 78
Fig. 40.—Wooden pavilion, from a bas-relief at Luxor (Champollion, pl.
339).
Great care in execution, and great size in the units of construction, are only to
be found in comparatively few of the Egyptian monuments. We have already
remarked upon the painstaking skill with which the granite or limestone
casing of the chambers and passages in the Gizeh pyramids was fixed.
Certain buildings of the Theban period, such as the vaulted chapels in the
Great Temple at Abydos, and the courts of Medinet-Abou, are notable for
excellence of a similar kind. Everything, however, must in this respect give
way to the Grand Gallery in the pyramid of Cheops.
The Egypt of the early Pharaohs set more than one good example which later
generations failed to follow. The extraordinary number of buildings which the
great Theban princes carried on at one and the same time, from the depths of
Nubia to the shores of the Mediterranean, made their subjects more easily
satisfied in the matter of architectural thoroughness. The habit of covering
every plain surface with a brilliant polychromatic decoration contributed to
the same result. The workmen were always hurried. There were hardly hands
enough for all the undertakings on foot at once. How, then, could they be
expected to lavish minute care upon joints which were destined to be hidden
behind a coat of stucco? We never encounter in Egyptian buildings any of
those graceful varieties of masonry which have been adopted from time to
time by all those artistic nations that have left their stonework bare. None of
the various kinds of rustication, none of the alternation of square with oblong
blocks, none of that undeviating regularity in the height of the courses and in
the direction of the joints which by itself is enough to give beauty to a
building, is to be found in the work of Egyptian masons.[58]
It was for similar motives that the Egyptians did not, as a rule, care to use
very large stones. Their obelisks and colossal statues prove that they knew
how to quarry and raise blocks of enormous size, but they never made those
efforts except when they had good reason to do so. They did not care to
exhaust themselves with dragging huge stones up on to their buildings, where
they would ever after be lost to sight under the stucco. In the most carefully
built Theban edifices the average size of the stones hardly exceeds that of the
materials which are used by our modern architects. A single course was from
30 to 38 inches high, and the length of the blocks varied between 5 feet and
339).
Great care in execution, and great size in the units of construction, are only to
be found in comparatively few of the Egyptian monuments. We have already
remarked upon the painstaking skill with which the granite or limestone
casing of the chambers and passages in the Gizeh pyramids was fixed.
Certain buildings of the Theban period, such as the vaulted chapels in the
Great Temple at Abydos, and the courts of Medinet-Abou, are notable for
excellence of a similar kind. Everything, however, must in this respect give
way to the Grand Gallery in the pyramid of Cheops.
The Egypt of the early Pharaohs set more than one good example which later
generations failed to follow. The extraordinary number of buildings which the
great Theban princes carried on at one and the same time, from the depths of
Nubia to the shores of the Mediterranean, made their subjects more easily
satisfied in the matter of architectural thoroughness. The habit of covering
every plain surface with a brilliant polychromatic decoration contributed to
the same result. The workmen were always hurried. There were hardly hands
enough for all the undertakings on foot at once. How, then, could they be
expected to lavish minute care upon joints which were destined to be hidden
behind a coat of stucco? We never encounter in Egyptian buildings any of
those graceful varieties of masonry which have been adopted from time to
time by all those artistic nations that have left their stonework bare. None of
the various kinds of rustication, none of the alternation of square with oblong
blocks, none of that undeviating regularity in the height of the courses and in
the direction of the joints which by itself is enough to give beauty to a
building, is to be found in the work of Egyptian masons.[58]
It was for similar motives that the Egyptians did not, as a rule, care to use
very large stones. Their obelisks and colossal statues prove that they knew
how to quarry and raise blocks of enormous size, but they never made those
efforts except when they had good reason to do so. They did not care to
exhaust themselves with dragging huge stones up on to their buildings, where
they would ever after be lost to sight under the stucco. In the most carefully
built Theban edifices the average size of the stones hardly exceeds that of the
materials which are used by our modern architects. A single course was from
30 to 38 inches high, and the length of the blocks varied between 5 feet and
Page 79
rather more than 8. In the great pylon of Karnak the lintel over the doorway is
a stone beam more than 25 feet long. In the hypostyle hall the architraves of
the central aisle are at least 29 feet long.[59] It is said that some attain a length
of nearly 32 feet.
The Egyptian architect was therefore quite ready to use monoliths of
exceptional size for the covering of voids when they were necessary, but he
did not wantonly create that necessity, as those of other nations have often
done. Most of the travellers who visit Egypt expect to find huge monolithic
shafts rearing their lofty heads on every side, and their surprise is great when
they are told that the huge columns of the hypostyle halls are not cut from
single blocks. Their first illusion is fostered by the large number of
monolithic granite columns which are found at Erment, at Antinoé, at Cairo,
in most of the modern Egyptian mosques. When they arrive at Thebes they
discover their error. At Karnak and at Luxor, at Medinet-Abou and in the
Ramesseum, the columns are made up of drums placed one upon another. In
many cases even these drums are not monolithic, but consist of several
different stones. Under the Roman domination the Egyptians deliberately
chose to make their columns of single stones, and most of those which are of
exceptional size date from that late epoch. We know but one case to which
these remarks do not apply; we mean that of the monolithic supports in the
chambers of the labyrinth which were mentioned by Strabo, and discovered,
as some believe, by Lepsius.[60] We are told by that traveller that they were of
granite, but he only saw them when broken. Strabo says that the chambers
were roofed in with slabs of such a size that they amazed every one who saw
them, and added much to the effect which that famous structure was
otherwise calculated to produce. Prisse describes and figures a column of red
granite which he ascribes to Amenophis III., and which, according to him,
was brought from Memphis to Cairo. Without the base which, as given in his
drawing, must be a restoration, it is 13 feet 8-1/2 inches high, including the
capital.[61] It belongs to the same kind of pillar as those observed by Lepsius
in the Fayoum. In a painting in one of the Gournah tombs, three workmen are
shown polishing a column exactly similar to that figured by Prisse, with the
single exception that its proportions are more slender (Fig. 42). Monolithic
columns of red granite have been discovered to the west of the present city of
Alexandria which are nearly 22 feet high. Their capitals are imitated from
truncated lotus-buds, like that in Fig. 42.
a stone beam more than 25 feet long. In the hypostyle hall the architraves of
the central aisle are at least 29 feet long.[59] It is said that some attain a length
of nearly 32 feet.
The Egyptian architect was therefore quite ready to use monoliths of
exceptional size for the covering of voids when they were necessary, but he
did not wantonly create that necessity, as those of other nations have often
done. Most of the travellers who visit Egypt expect to find huge monolithic
shafts rearing their lofty heads on every side, and their surprise is great when
they are told that the huge columns of the hypostyle halls are not cut from
single blocks. Their first illusion is fostered by the large number of
monolithic granite columns which are found at Erment, at Antinoé, at Cairo,
in most of the modern Egyptian mosques. When they arrive at Thebes they
discover their error. At Karnak and at Luxor, at Medinet-Abou and in the
Ramesseum, the columns are made up of drums placed one upon another. In
many cases even these drums are not monolithic, but consist of several
different stones. Under the Roman domination the Egyptians deliberately
chose to make their columns of single stones, and most of those which are of
exceptional size date from that late epoch. We know but one case to which
these remarks do not apply; we mean that of the monolithic supports in the
chambers of the labyrinth which were mentioned by Strabo, and discovered,
as some believe, by Lepsius.[60] We are told by that traveller that they were of
granite, but he only saw them when broken. Strabo says that the chambers
were roofed in with slabs of such a size that they amazed every one who saw
them, and added much to the effect which that famous structure was
otherwise calculated to produce. Prisse describes and figures a column of red
granite which he ascribes to Amenophis III., and which, according to him,
was brought from Memphis to Cairo. Without the base which, as given in his
drawing, must be a restoration, it is 13 feet 8-1/2 inches high, including the
capital.[61] It belongs to the same kind of pillar as those observed by Lepsius
in the Fayoum. In a painting in one of the Gournah tombs, three workmen are
shown polishing a column exactly similar to that figured by Prisse, with the
single exception that its proportions are more slender (Fig. 42). Monolithic
columns of red granite have been discovered to the west of the present city of
Alexandria which are nearly 22 feet high. Their capitals are imitated from
truncated lotus-buds, like that in Fig. 42.
Page 80
Fig. 41.—Horizontal section, in perspective, of the first pylon at Karnak;
by Charles Chipiez.
It would seem, then, that monolithic columns were in fashion during the early
centuries of the second Theban empire, but that, in later times, the general
custom was to build up columns, sometimes for their whole height, of
moderately sized, and sometimes of very small stones (Fig. 17).[62]
by Charles Chipiez.
It would seem, then, that monolithic columns were in fashion during the early
centuries of the second Theban empire, but that, in later times, the general
custom was to build up columns, sometimes for their whole height, of
moderately sized, and sometimes of very small stones (Fig. 17).[62]
Page 81
Fig. 42.—Workmen polishing a monolithic column; Champollion, pl.
161.
To all that concerns the quality of the building similar remarks may be
applied. We have mentioned a few examples of careful and scientific
construction, but, as a rule, Egyptian buildings were put together in a fashion
that was careless in the extreme.[63] The foundations were neither wide
enough nor deep enough. It is not until we come to the remains of the
Ptolemaic period, such as the temples at Edfou and Denderah, that we
discover foundations sinking 16 or 18 feet into the ground. The Pharaonic
temples were laid upon the surface rather than solidly rooted in the soil.
Mariette attributes the destruction which has overtaken the temples at Karnak
less to the violence of man or to earthquakes than to inherent faults of
construction, and to the want of foresight shown by their architects in not
placing them at a sufficient elevation above the inundations. For many
centuries the waters of the Nile have reached the walls of the temples by
infiltration, and have gradually eaten away the sandstone of which they are
composed. "Similar causes produce similar effects, and the time may be
easily foreseen when the superb hypostyle hall will yield to the attacks of its
enemy, and its columns, already eaten through for three quarters of their
thickness, will fall as those of the western court have fallen."[64]
At the time when Karnak was built there were in the country buildings which
were from ten to fifteen centuries old, to which the architects of the time
might have turned for information upon doubtful points. In them the gradual
rising of the valley level must have been clearly shown. This want of
foresight need cause us, however, no great surprise; but it is otherwise with
the carelessness of the architects in arranging their plans, and in failing to
compel the workmen to follow those plans when made. "Except in a few rare
instances," says Mariette, "the Egyptian workman was far from deserving the
reputation he has gained for precision and care in the execution of his task.
Only those who have personally measured the tombs and temples of Egypt
know how often, for instance, the opposite walls of a single chamber are
unequal in height."[65]
The custom of building as fast as possible and trusting to the painted
decoration for the concealment of all defects, explains the method most
161.
To all that concerns the quality of the building similar remarks may be
applied. We have mentioned a few examples of careful and scientific
construction, but, as a rule, Egyptian buildings were put together in a fashion
that was careless in the extreme.[63] The foundations were neither wide
enough nor deep enough. It is not until we come to the remains of the
Ptolemaic period, such as the temples at Edfou and Denderah, that we
discover foundations sinking 16 or 18 feet into the ground. The Pharaonic
temples were laid upon the surface rather than solidly rooted in the soil.
Mariette attributes the destruction which has overtaken the temples at Karnak
less to the violence of man or to earthquakes than to inherent faults of
construction, and to the want of foresight shown by their architects in not
placing them at a sufficient elevation above the inundations. For many
centuries the waters of the Nile have reached the walls of the temples by
infiltration, and have gradually eaten away the sandstone of which they are
composed. "Similar causes produce similar effects, and the time may be
easily foreseen when the superb hypostyle hall will yield to the attacks of its
enemy, and its columns, already eaten through for three quarters of their
thickness, will fall as those of the western court have fallen."[64]
At the time when Karnak was built there were in the country buildings which
were from ten to fifteen centuries old, to which the architects of the time
might have turned for information upon doubtful points. In them the gradual
rising of the valley level must have been clearly shown. This want of
foresight need cause us, however, no great surprise; but it is otherwise with
the carelessness of the architects in arranging their plans, and in failing to
compel the workmen to follow those plans when made. "Except in a few rare
instances," says Mariette, "the Egyptian workman was far from deserving the
reputation he has gained for precision and care in the execution of his task.
Only those who have personally measured the tombs and temples of Egypt
know how often, for instance, the opposite walls of a single chamber are
unequal in height."[65]
The custom of building as fast as possible and trusting to the painted
decoration for the concealment of all defects, explains the method most
Page 82
usually taken to keep the materials together. The system of using large
dressed stones made the employment of mortar unnecessary. The Greeks,
who used the same method and obtained from it such supreme effects, put no
mortar between their stones. Sometimes they were held together by tenons of
metal or wood, but the builder depended for cohesion chiefly upon the way in
which his materials were dressed and fixed. The two surfaces were so
intimately allied that the points of junction were almost invisible. The
Egyptians were in like manner able to depend upon the vis inertiæ of their
materials for the stability of their walls, and their climate was far better fitted
even than that of Greece for the employment of those wooden or metal tenons
which would prevent any slipping or settlement in the interior of the masonry.
The dangers attending such methods of fixing would thus be reduced to a
minimum. "In consequence of a dislocation in the walls caused by the
insufficiency of the foundations, it is possible, at several points of the temple
walls at Abydos, to introduce the arm between the stones and feel the
sycamore dovetails still in place and in an extraordinary state of preservation.
A few of these dovetails have been extracted, and, although walled in for
eternity so far as the intentions of the Egyptians were concerned, they bear
the royal ovals of Seti I., the founder of the temple, the hieroglyphs being
very finely engraved."[66]
We see, then, that in many buildings the Egyptians employed methods which
demanded no little patience, skill, and attention from the workman, but as a
rule they preferred to work in a more expeditious and less careful fashion.
They used a cement made of sand and lime; traces of it are everywhere
found, both in the ruins of Thebes and in the pyramids, between the blocks of
limestone and sandstone.[67] Still more did bricks require the use of mortar,
which in their case was often little more than mud.
Among the processes made use of for the construction of the great temple at
Thebes there was one which bore marks of the same tendency. Mariette tells
us that traces exist in the front of the great temple of a huge inclined plane
made of large crude bricks. This incline was used for the construction of the
pylon. The great stones were dragged up its slopes, and as the pylon grew, so
did the mass of crude brick. When the work was finished the bricks were
cleared away, but the internal face of the pylon still bears traces of their
position against it. This work was carried out, according to Mariette, under
dressed stones made the employment of mortar unnecessary. The Greeks,
who used the same method and obtained from it such supreme effects, put no
mortar between their stones. Sometimes they were held together by tenons of
metal or wood, but the builder depended for cohesion chiefly upon the way in
which his materials were dressed and fixed. The two surfaces were so
intimately allied that the points of junction were almost invisible. The
Egyptians were in like manner able to depend upon the vis inertiæ of their
materials for the stability of their walls, and their climate was far better fitted
even than that of Greece for the employment of those wooden or metal tenons
which would prevent any slipping or settlement in the interior of the masonry.
The dangers attending such methods of fixing would thus be reduced to a
minimum. "In consequence of a dislocation in the walls caused by the
insufficiency of the foundations, it is possible, at several points of the temple
walls at Abydos, to introduce the arm between the stones and feel the
sycamore dovetails still in place and in an extraordinary state of preservation.
A few of these dovetails have been extracted, and, although walled in for
eternity so far as the intentions of the Egyptians were concerned, they bear
the royal ovals of Seti I., the founder of the temple, the hieroglyphs being
very finely engraved."[66]
We see, then, that in many buildings the Egyptians employed methods which
demanded no little patience, skill, and attention from the workman, but as a
rule they preferred to work in a more expeditious and less careful fashion.
They used a cement made of sand and lime; traces of it are everywhere
found, both in the ruins of Thebes and in the pyramids, between the blocks of
limestone and sandstone.[67] Still more did bricks require the use of mortar,
which in their case was often little more than mud.
Among the processes made use of for the construction of the great temple at
Thebes there was one which bore marks of the same tendency. Mariette tells
us that traces exist in the front of the great temple of a huge inclined plane
made of large crude bricks. This incline was used for the construction of the
pylon. The great stones were dragged up its slopes, and as the pylon grew, so
did the mass of crude brick. When the work was finished the bricks were
cleared away, but the internal face of the pylon still bears traces of their
position against it. This work was carried out, according to Mariette, under
Page 83
the Ptolemies,[68] but the primitive method of raising the stones must have
come down from times much more remote.[69]
The first travellers who visited Egypt in modern times were struck with the
colossal size of some buildings and of a few monoliths, and jumped to the
conclusion that the Egyptians were peculiarly skilled in mechanics and
engineering. They declared, and it has been often repeated, that this people
possessed secrets which were afterwards lost; that many an Archimedes
flourished among them who excelled his Syracusan successor. All this was a
pure illusion. Their only machines seem to have been levers and perhaps a
kind of elementary crane.[70] The whole secret of the Egyptians consisted in
their unlimited command of individual labour, and in the unflinching way in
which they made use of it. Multitudes were employed upon a single building,
and kept to their work by the rod of the overseer until it was finished. The
great monoliths were placed upon rafts at the foot of the mountains in which
they were quarried, and floated during the inundation by river and canal to a
point as near as possible to their destined sites. They were then placed upon
sledges to which hundreds of men were harnessed, and dragged over a well-
oiled wooden causeway to their allotted places. Fig. 43, which is taken from a
hypogeum of the twelfth dynasty, gives an excellent idea of the way in which
these masses of granite were transported. In this picture we see one hundred
and seventy-two men arranged in pairs and, to use a military term, in four
columns, dragging the sledge of a huge seated colossus by four ropes.[71] This
colossus must have been about twenty-six feet high, if the pictured
proportions between the statue and its convoy may be taken as approaching
the truth. Upon the pedestal stands a man, who pours water upon the planks
so that they shall not catch fire from the friction of so great a mass.[72] The
engineer, who presides over the whole operation, stands upright upon the
knees of the statue and "marks time" with his hands. At the side of the statue
walk men carrying instruments of various kinds, overseers armed with
rattans, and relays of men to take the place of those who may fall out of the
ranks from fatigue. In the upper part we see a numerous troop of Egyptians
carrying palm branches, who seem to be leading the procession.
come down from times much more remote.[69]
The first travellers who visited Egypt in modern times were struck with the
colossal size of some buildings and of a few monoliths, and jumped to the
conclusion that the Egyptians were peculiarly skilled in mechanics and
engineering. They declared, and it has been often repeated, that this people
possessed secrets which were afterwards lost; that many an Archimedes
flourished among them who excelled his Syracusan successor. All this was a
pure illusion. Their only machines seem to have been levers and perhaps a
kind of elementary crane.[70] The whole secret of the Egyptians consisted in
their unlimited command of individual labour, and in the unflinching way in
which they made use of it. Multitudes were employed upon a single building,
and kept to their work by the rod of the overseer until it was finished. The
great monoliths were placed upon rafts at the foot of the mountains in which
they were quarried, and floated during the inundation by river and canal to a
point as near as possible to their destined sites. They were then placed upon
sledges to which hundreds of men were harnessed, and dragged over a well-
oiled wooden causeway to their allotted places. Fig. 43, which is taken from a
hypogeum of the twelfth dynasty, gives an excellent idea of the way in which
these masses of granite were transported. In this picture we see one hundred
and seventy-two men arranged in pairs and, to use a military term, in four
columns, dragging the sledge of a huge seated colossus by four ropes.[71] This
colossus must have been about twenty-six feet high, if the pictured
proportions between the statue and its convoy may be taken as approaching
the truth. Upon the pedestal stands a man, who pours water upon the planks
so that they shall not catch fire from the friction of so great a mass.[72] The
engineer, who presides over the whole operation, stands upright upon the
knees of the statue and "marks time" with his hands. At the side of the statue
walk men carrying instruments of various kinds, overseers armed with
rattans, and relays of men to take the place of those who may fall out of the
ranks from fatigue. In the upper part we see a numerous troop of Egyptians
carrying palm branches, who seem to be leading the procession.
Page 84
Fig. 43.—Transport of a colossus (Wilkinson, vol. ii., p. 305).
From the first centuries of the monarchy blocks of granite of unusual size
were thus transferred from place to place. We learn this from the epitaph of a
high official named Una, who lived in the time of the sixth dynasty.[73] He
recounts the services which he had rendered in bringing to Memphis the
blocks of granite and alabaster required for the royal undertakings. Mention
is made of buildings which had been constructed for the reception of
monoliths. The largest of those buildings was 60 cubits (about 102 feet) long
by 30 cubits wide. A little farther on we are told that one monolith required
3,000 men for its transport.
Thanks to their successful wars the great Theban princes had far wider
resources at their command than their predecessors. Their architects could
count upon the labour not only of the fellahs of the corvée, but also upon
thousands of foreign prisoners. It was not astonishing, therefore, that the
enterprises of the ancient empire were thrown into the shade. Neither were
the Sait monarchs behind those of Thebes. According to Herodotus the
monolithic chapel which Amasis brought from the Elephantiné quarries was
39 feet high by nearly 23 feet wide and 13 feet deep, outside measurement.
[74]
Taking the hollow inside into consideration such a stone must have
weighed about 48 tons. Two thousand boatmen were occupied for three years
in transporting this chapel from Elephantiné into the Delta. Another town in
the same region must have had a still larger monolithic chapel, if we are to
From the first centuries of the monarchy blocks of granite of unusual size
were thus transferred from place to place. We learn this from the epitaph of a
high official named Una, who lived in the time of the sixth dynasty.[73] He
recounts the services which he had rendered in bringing to Memphis the
blocks of granite and alabaster required for the royal undertakings. Mention
is made of buildings which had been constructed for the reception of
monoliths. The largest of those buildings was 60 cubits (about 102 feet) long
by 30 cubits wide. A little farther on we are told that one monolith required
3,000 men for its transport.
Thanks to their successful wars the great Theban princes had far wider
resources at their command than their predecessors. Their architects could
count upon the labour not only of the fellahs of the corvée, but also upon
thousands of foreign prisoners. It was not astonishing, therefore, that the
enterprises of the ancient empire were thrown into the shade. Neither were
the Sait monarchs behind those of Thebes. According to Herodotus the
monolithic chapel which Amasis brought from the Elephantiné quarries was
39 feet high by nearly 23 feet wide and 13 feet deep, outside measurement.
[74]
Taking the hollow inside into consideration such a stone must have
weighed about 48 tons. Two thousand boatmen were occupied for three years
in transporting this chapel from Elephantiné into the Delta. Another town in
the same region must have had a still larger monolithic chapel, if we are to
Page 85
believe the Greek historian's account of it. It was square, and each of its sides
measured 40 cubits (nearly 70 feet).[75]
How did they set about erecting their obelisks? Upon this point we have no
information whatever, either from inscriptions or from figured monuments.
They may have used an inclined plane, to the summit of which the obelisk
was drawn by the force of innumerable arms, and then lowered by the
gradual removal of the part supporting its lower end. It is certain that the
process was often a slow and laborious one. We know from an inscription
that the obelisk which now stands before the church of San Giovanni
Laterano in Rome was more than thirty-five years in the hands of the
workmen charged with its erection in the southern quarter of Thebes.[76]
Sometimes, however, much more rapid progress was made. According to the
inscription on the base of the obelisk of Hatasu at Karnak, the time consumed
upon it, from the commencement of work in the quarry to its final erection at
Thebes, was only seven months.[77]
Whatever may have been their methods we may be sure that there was
nothing complicated or particularly learned in them. The erection of the
obelisks, like that of the colossal statues, must have been an affair merely of
time and of the number of arms employed.
"One day," says Maxime du Camp, "I was sitting upon one of the architraves
supported by the columns of the great hall at Karnak, and, glancing over the
forest of stone which surrounded me, I involuntarily cried out: 'But how did
they do all this?'"
"My dragoman, Joseph, who is a great philosopher, overheard my
exclamation, and began to laugh. He touched my arm, and pointing to a palm
tree whose tall stem rose in the distance, he said: 'That is what they did it all
with; a hundred thousand palm-branches broken over the backs of people
whose shoulders are never covered, will create palaces and temples enough.
Ah yes, sir, that was a bad time for the date trees; their branches were cut a
good deal faster than they grew!' And he laughed softly to himself as he
caressed his beard."
"Perhaps he was right."[78]
§ 4. The Arch.
measured 40 cubits (nearly 70 feet).[75]
How did they set about erecting their obelisks? Upon this point we have no
information whatever, either from inscriptions or from figured monuments.
They may have used an inclined plane, to the summit of which the obelisk
was drawn by the force of innumerable arms, and then lowered by the
gradual removal of the part supporting its lower end. It is certain that the
process was often a slow and laborious one. We know from an inscription
that the obelisk which now stands before the church of San Giovanni
Laterano in Rome was more than thirty-five years in the hands of the
workmen charged with its erection in the southern quarter of Thebes.[76]
Sometimes, however, much more rapid progress was made. According to the
inscription on the base of the obelisk of Hatasu at Karnak, the time consumed
upon it, from the commencement of work in the quarry to its final erection at
Thebes, was only seven months.[77]
Whatever may have been their methods we may be sure that there was
nothing complicated or particularly learned in them. The erection of the
obelisks, like that of the colossal statues, must have been an affair merely of
time and of the number of arms employed.
"One day," says Maxime du Camp, "I was sitting upon one of the architraves
supported by the columns of the great hall at Karnak, and, glancing over the
forest of stone which surrounded me, I involuntarily cried out: 'But how did
they do all this?'"
"My dragoman, Joseph, who is a great philosopher, overheard my
exclamation, and began to laugh. He touched my arm, and pointing to a palm
tree whose tall stem rose in the distance, he said: 'That is what they did it all
with; a hundred thousand palm-branches broken over the backs of people
whose shoulders are never covered, will create palaces and temples enough.
Ah yes, sir, that was a bad time for the date trees; their branches were cut a
good deal faster than they grew!' And he laughed softly to himself as he
caressed his beard."
"Perhaps he was right."[78]
§ 4. The Arch.
Page 86
We have already said that among the Egyptians the arch was only of
secondary importance; that it was only used in accessory parts of their
buildings. We are compelled to return to the subject, however, because a
wrong idea has generally been adopted which, as in the case of the monoliths,
we must combat evidence in hand. The extreme antiquity of the arch in Egypt
is seldom suspected.
It was an article of faith with the architects of the last century that the arch
was discovered by the Etruscans. The engineers of the French expedition did
not hesitate to declare every arch which they found in Egypt to be no older in
date than the Roman occupation. But since the texts have been interpreted it
has been proved that there is more than one arch in Egypt which was
constructed not only as early as the Ptolemies, but even under the Pharaohs.
Wilkinson mentions brick arches and vaults bearing the names of Amenophis
I., and Thothmes III. at Thebes, and judging from the paintings at Beni-
Hassan, he is inclined to believe that they understood the principle as early as
the twelfth dynasty.[79]
Wilkinson was quite right in supposing these eighteenth dynasty vaults to be
from the first constructed by Egyptian architects. The scarcity of good timber
must soon have set them to discover some method of covering a void which
should be more convenient than flat ceilings, and as the supply always
follows the demand, they must have been thus led towards the inevitable
discovery. The latest editor of Wilkinson, Dr. Birch, affirms more than once
that the arch has been recently discovered among the remains from the
Ancient Empire, and in the Itinéraire of Mariette we find:[80] "It is by no
means rare to find in the necropolis of Abydos, among the tombs of the
thirteenth and even of the sixth dynasty, vaults which are not only pointed in
section as a whole, but which are made up of bricks in the form of voussoirs."
Being anxious that no uncertainty upon such a subject should remain, we
asked Mariette for more information during the last winter but one that he
spent in Egypt. We received the following answer, dated 29th January, 1880:
"I have just consulted my journal of the Abydos excavations. I there find an
entry relating to a tomb of the sixth dynasty with the accompanying drawing
(Fig. 44): a is in limestone, and there can be no doubt that in it we have a
keystone in the form of a true voussoir; b, b, are also of stone. The rest is
made up of crude bricks, rectangular in shape, and kept in place by pebbles
imbedded in the cement.
secondary importance; that it was only used in accessory parts of their
buildings. We are compelled to return to the subject, however, because a
wrong idea has generally been adopted which, as in the case of the monoliths,
we must combat evidence in hand. The extreme antiquity of the arch in Egypt
is seldom suspected.
It was an article of faith with the architects of the last century that the arch
was discovered by the Etruscans. The engineers of the French expedition did
not hesitate to declare every arch which they found in Egypt to be no older in
date than the Roman occupation. But since the texts have been interpreted it
has been proved that there is more than one arch in Egypt which was
constructed not only as early as the Ptolemies, but even under the Pharaohs.
Wilkinson mentions brick arches and vaults bearing the names of Amenophis
I., and Thothmes III. at Thebes, and judging from the paintings at Beni-
Hassan, he is inclined to believe that they understood the principle as early as
the twelfth dynasty.[79]
Wilkinson was quite right in supposing these eighteenth dynasty vaults to be
from the first constructed by Egyptian architects. The scarcity of good timber
must soon have set them to discover some method of covering a void which
should be more convenient than flat ceilings, and as the supply always
follows the demand, they must have been thus led towards the inevitable
discovery. The latest editor of Wilkinson, Dr. Birch, affirms more than once
that the arch has been recently discovered among the remains from the
Ancient Empire, and in the Itinéraire of Mariette we find:[80] "It is by no
means rare to find in the necropolis of Abydos, among the tombs of the
thirteenth and even of the sixth dynasty, vaults which are not only pointed in
section as a whole, but which are made up of bricks in the form of voussoirs."
Being anxious that no uncertainty upon such a subject should remain, we
asked Mariette for more information during the last winter but one that he
spent in Egypt. We received the following answer, dated 29th January, 1880:
"I have just consulted my journal of the Abydos excavations. I there find an
entry relating to a tomb of the sixth dynasty with the accompanying drawing
(Fig. 44): a is in limestone, and there can be no doubt that in it we have a
keystone in the form of a true voussoir; b, b, are also of stone. The rest is
made up of crude bricks, rectangular in shape, and kept in place by pebbles
imbedded in the cement.
Page 87
"Obviously, we have here the principle of the arch. Speaking generally, I
believe that the Egyptians were acquainted with that principle from the
earliest times. They did not make an extensive use of the arch because they
knew that it carried within it the seeds of its own death. Une maille rongée
emporte tout l'ouvrage, and a bad stone in a vault may ruin a whole building.
The Egyptians preferred their indestructible stone beams. I often ask myself
how much would have been left to us of their tombs and temples if they had
used the arch instead."[81]
Fig. 44.—Arch in the necropolis of Abydos; communicated by Mariette.
Mariette adds that the Serapeum contains the oldest known example of a
vault of dressed stone, and as it dates from the time of Darius the son of
Hystaspes, we suppose that the fine limestone arch at Sakkarah, bearing the
cartouche of Psemethek I., which is figured at the head of Sir Gardner
Wilkinson's tenth chapter, no longer exists.
It was in their brick buildings that the Egyptians chiefly employed arches.
Such structures were looked upon as less sacred, less monumental than those
in which stone was used, and a process might therefore be admitted which
would be excluded from the latter. We shall here give several examples of the
Egyptian arch and its principal varieties, and it will not surprise our readers to
find that they are all taken from the New Empire. The remains from earlier
periods consist almost entirely of tombs, while those left to us by the
eighteenth dynasty and its successors are of vast dimensions, such as the
great Theban temples, and have annexes comprising buildings erected for a
vast variety of purposes.
believe that the Egyptians were acquainted with that principle from the
earliest times. They did not make an extensive use of the arch because they
knew that it carried within it the seeds of its own death. Une maille rongée
emporte tout l'ouvrage, and a bad stone in a vault may ruin a whole building.
The Egyptians preferred their indestructible stone beams. I often ask myself
how much would have been left to us of their tombs and temples if they had
used the arch instead."[81]
Fig. 44.—Arch in the necropolis of Abydos; communicated by Mariette.
Mariette adds that the Serapeum contains the oldest known example of a
vault of dressed stone, and as it dates from the time of Darius the son of
Hystaspes, we suppose that the fine limestone arch at Sakkarah, bearing the
cartouche of Psemethek I., which is figured at the head of Sir Gardner
Wilkinson's tenth chapter, no longer exists.
It was in their brick buildings that the Egyptians chiefly employed arches.
Such structures were looked upon as less sacred, less monumental than those
in which stone was used, and a process might therefore be admitted which
would be excluded from the latter. We shall here give several examples of the
Egyptian arch and its principal varieties, and it will not surprise our readers to
find that they are all taken from the New Empire. The remains from earlier
periods consist almost entirely of tombs, while those left to us by the
eighteenth dynasty and its successors are of vast dimensions, such as the
great Theban temples, and have annexes comprising buildings erected for a
vast variety of purposes.
Page 88
Groined vaults were unknown to the Egyptians, but almost every variety of
arch and of plain vault is to be found in the country.
The semicircular arch is more frequently met with than any other. That which
exists in an old tomb at Abydos has been already figured (Fig. 44), we shall
give two more examples, dating from the Sait epoch. The illustration below
(Fig. 45), represents the gate in the encircling wall of one of the tombs in the
valley of El-Assassif, at Thebes. The wall diminishes gradually in thickness
from sixteen feet eight inches at the bottom to nine feet nine inches at the top,
both faces being equally inclined. This latter feature is a rare one in Egypt,
the slope being as a rule confined to the external face. In order to show it
clearly we have interrupted the wall vertically in our illustration, isolating the
part in which the arch occurs (Fig. 46), and restoring the summit. The arch
itself is formed of nine courses of brick.
Fig. 45.—Arch in El-Assassif, present condition; from Lepsius.
The sarcophagus in "Campbell's Tomb" is protected by a plain cylindrical
vault of four courses (see Fig. 200, vol. i.), which covers a polygonal vault
formed of three large slabs. Both vaults are pierced by a narrow opening,
which may, perhaps, have been intended to allow the scents and sounds of the
world above to reach the occupant of the sarcophagus. Its arrangement is so
careful that it must have had some important purpose to fulfil.
In the group of ruins which surrounds the back parts of the Ramesseum (see
p. 379, vol. i.) there are vaults of various kinds. A few verge slightly towards
the pointed form (see Fig. 47), others are elliptic (Fig. 48). The latter are
composed of four courses, and their inner surfaces show a curious
arrangement of the bricks; their vertical joints are not parallel to either axis of
arch and of plain vault is to be found in the country.
The semicircular arch is more frequently met with than any other. That which
exists in an old tomb at Abydos has been already figured (Fig. 44), we shall
give two more examples, dating from the Sait epoch. The illustration below
(Fig. 45), represents the gate in the encircling wall of one of the tombs in the
valley of El-Assassif, at Thebes. The wall diminishes gradually in thickness
from sixteen feet eight inches at the bottom to nine feet nine inches at the top,
both faces being equally inclined. This latter feature is a rare one in Egypt,
the slope being as a rule confined to the external face. In order to show it
clearly we have interrupted the wall vertically in our illustration, isolating the
part in which the arch occurs (Fig. 46), and restoring the summit. The arch
itself is formed of nine courses of brick.
Fig. 45.—Arch in El-Assassif, present condition; from Lepsius.
The sarcophagus in "Campbell's Tomb" is protected by a plain cylindrical
vault of four courses (see Fig. 200, vol. i.), which covers a polygonal vault
formed of three large slabs. Both vaults are pierced by a narrow opening,
which may, perhaps, have been intended to allow the scents and sounds of the
world above to reach the occupant of the sarcophagus. Its arrangement is so
careful that it must have had some important purpose to fulfil.
In the group of ruins which surrounds the back parts of the Ramesseum (see
p. 379, vol. i.) there are vaults of various kinds. A few verge slightly towards
the pointed form (see Fig. 47), others are elliptic (Fig. 48). The latter are
composed of four courses, and their inner surfaces show a curious
arrangement of the bricks; their vertical joints are not parallel to either axis of
Page 89
the vault. The ends of the courses are slightly set off from its face (see Fig.
48).
Fig. 46.—Arch in El-Assassif, restored from the plans and elevations of
Lepsius.[82]
A tomb near the Valley of the Queens, at Thebes, has a strongly marked
elliptical vault (Fig. 49).[83]
Finally, the inverted segmental arch is not unknown. It is found employed in
a fashion which, as described by Prisse, made a great impression upon
Viollet-le-Duc. "The foundations of certain boundary walls," says the former,
"are built of baked bricks to a height of one-and-a-half metres (about four
feet ten inches) above the ground. The bricks are thirty-one centimetres
(about twelve-and-a-quarter inches) long, and the courses are arranged in a
long succession of inverted segmental arches."[84]
48).
Fig. 46.—Arch in El-Assassif, restored from the plans and elevations of
Lepsius.[82]
A tomb near the Valley of the Queens, at Thebes, has a strongly marked
elliptical vault (Fig. 49).[83]
Finally, the inverted segmental arch is not unknown. It is found employed in
a fashion which, as described by Prisse, made a great impression upon
Viollet-le-Duc. "The foundations of certain boundary walls," says the former,
"are built of baked bricks to a height of one-and-a-half metres (about four
feet ten inches) above the ground. The bricks are thirty-one centimetres
(about twelve-and-a-quarter inches) long, and the courses are arranged in a
long succession of inverted segmental arches."[84]
Page 90
Fig. 47.—Vaults in the Ramesseum.
Fig. 48.—Vault in the Ramesseum; compiled from the data of Lepsius.
Our figure has been compiled from the plans and elevations of Prisse with a
view to making the arrangement easily understood (Fig. 50); it represents the
lower part of one of the walls in question. According to M. Viollet-le-Duc,
the Egyptian architects had recourse to this contrivance in order to guard
against the effects of earthquakes. He shows clearly that a wall built in such a
fashion would offer a much more solid resistance to their attacks than one
with foundations composed of horizontal courses.[85]
Fig. 48.—Vault in the Ramesseum; compiled from the data of Lepsius.
Our figure has been compiled from the plans and elevations of Prisse with a
view to making the arrangement easily understood (Fig. 50); it represents the
lower part of one of the walls in question. According to M. Viollet-le-Duc,
the Egyptian architects had recourse to this contrivance in order to guard
against the effects of earthquakes. He shows clearly that a wall built in such a
fashion would offer a much more solid resistance to their attacks than one
with foundations composed of horizontal courses.[85]
Page 91
If we are to take it as established that the vault or arch was among the
primitive methods of Egyptian construction, we have no reason to believe
that off-set arches were older, in Egypt at least, than true arches. We have
described this form of arch elsewhere, and explained the contrivance by
which the superficial appearance of a vault was obtained.[86] The process
could obviously only be carried out in stone. We shall here content ourselves
with giving two examples of its employment.
Fig. 49.—Elliptical vault; Thebes.
Fig. 50.—Foundations with inverted segmental arches; compiled from
Prisse.
The first dates from the eighteenth dynasty, and occurs in the temple of Dayr-
el-Bahari.[87] Our Fig. 51 gives a transverse section of a passage leading to
one of the chambers cut in the rock. Fig. 52 offers a view in perspective of
primitive methods of Egyptian construction, we have no reason to believe
that off-set arches were older, in Egypt at least, than true arches. We have
described this form of arch elsewhere, and explained the contrivance by
which the superficial appearance of a vault was obtained.[86] The process
could obviously only be carried out in stone. We shall here content ourselves
with giving two examples of its employment.
Fig. 49.—Elliptical vault; Thebes.
Fig. 50.—Foundations with inverted segmental arches; compiled from
Prisse.
The first dates from the eighteenth dynasty, and occurs in the temple of Dayr-
el-Bahari.[87] Our Fig. 51 gives a transverse section of a passage leading to
one of the chambers cut in the rock. Fig. 52 offers a view in perspective of
Page 92
the same passage and of the discharging chamber which really bears the
thrust of the weight above.
Fig. 51.—Transverse section of a corridor at Dayr-el-Bahari; from
Lepsius, i. pl. 87.
Fig. 52.—Section in perspective through the same corridor; composed
from the elevation of Lepsius.
thrust of the weight above.
Fig. 51.—Transverse section of a corridor at Dayr-el-Bahari; from
Lepsius, i. pl. 87.
Fig. 52.—Section in perspective through the same corridor; composed
from the elevation of Lepsius.
Page 93
The second example of this construction comes from a famous work of the
nineteenth dynasty, the temple of Seti I. at Abydos. Our figure (53) shows
one of the curious row of chapels in which the originality of that building
consists.[88] This quasi-vault, for which Mariette finds a reason in the
funerary character of the building, has been obtained by cutting into three
huge sandstone slabs in each horizontal course. The stone forming the crown
of the vault is especially large.
Fig. 53.—Vaulted chapel at Abydos.
Brick vaults and arches must have been far more numerous in Egypt than
might be supposed from the few examples that remain. They must have
suggested the use of off-set vaults in the case of stone, which, it must not be
forgotten, would seem to the Egyptians to offer all the advantages of a vault
without its drawbacks. In other countries the stages of progression were
different, and the true arch came very late into use; but in Egypt it certainly
seems to have preceded the off-set arch. In the valley of the Nile the latter is
an imitative form. The form of elliptic arch which we find in certain funerary
chambers at Abydos seems to show this. When the architect of a tomb or
nineteenth dynasty, the temple of Seti I. at Abydos. Our figure (53) shows
one of the curious row of chapels in which the originality of that building
consists.[88] This quasi-vault, for which Mariette finds a reason in the
funerary character of the building, has been obtained by cutting into three
huge sandstone slabs in each horizontal course. The stone forming the crown
of the vault is especially large.
Fig. 53.—Vaulted chapel at Abydos.
Brick vaults and arches must have been far more numerous in Egypt than
might be supposed from the few examples that remain. They must have
suggested the use of off-set vaults in the case of stone, which, it must not be
forgotten, would seem to the Egyptians to offer all the advantages of a vault
without its drawbacks. In other countries the stages of progression were
different, and the true arch came very late into use; but in Egypt it certainly
seems to have preceded the off-set arch. In the valley of the Nile the latter is
an imitative form. The form of elliptic arch which we find in certain funerary
chambers at Abydos seems to show this. When the architect of a tomb or
Page 94
temple wished to substitute a concave surface for a flat ceiling he made use
of this hollowed-out vault. He thus saved himself from any anxiety as to the
stability of his structure, he avoided the necessity of introducing what would
seem to him a cause of eventual destruction, while he gave variety of line
and, perhaps, additional symbolic meaning to his work.
§ 5 The Pier and Column.—The Egyptian Orders.
THEIR ORIGIN.
After the wall and the covering which the wall supports, we must study in
some detail the pier, and the column which is the perfected form of the pier.
Thanks to these latter elements of construction the architect is able to cover
large spaces without impeding circulation, to exactly apportion the strength
and number of his points of support to the weight to be carried and to the
other conditions of the problem. By the form of their bases and capitals, by
the proportions of their shafts, by the ornament laid upon them in colour or
chiselled in their substance, he is enabled to give an artistic richness and
variety which are practically infinite. Their arrangements and the proportions
of their spacing are also of the greatest importance in the production of effect.
In attempting to define a style of architecture and its individual expression,
there is no part to which so much attention should be paid as the column. It
should be examined, in the first place, as an isolated individual, with a stature
and physiognomy proper to itself. Then in its social state, if we may use such
a phrase; in the various groups which go to make porticos, hypostyle halls,
and colonnades. We shall begin, therefore, by examining what may be called
the Egyptian orders, and afterwards we shall describe the principal
combinations in which they were employed by the Theban architects.
Our readers must remember the distinction, to which we called attention in
the early part of our task, between two systems co-existing at one and the
same time in Egypt; wooden architecture and that in which stone was the
chief material used.[89] Under the Ancient Empire the only kind of detached
support which appears to have been known in stone architecture, was the
quadrangular pier, examples of which we find in the Temple of the Sphinx
(Fig. 204, vol. i.). It was not so, however, in wooden construction. We find in
the bas-reliefs belonging to that early epoch numerous representations of
of this hollowed-out vault. He thus saved himself from any anxiety as to the
stability of his structure, he avoided the necessity of introducing what would
seem to him a cause of eventual destruction, while he gave variety of line
and, perhaps, additional symbolic meaning to his work.
§ 5 The Pier and Column.—The Egyptian Orders.
THEIR ORIGIN.
After the wall and the covering which the wall supports, we must study in
some detail the pier, and the column which is the perfected form of the pier.
Thanks to these latter elements of construction the architect is able to cover
large spaces without impeding circulation, to exactly apportion the strength
and number of his points of support to the weight to be carried and to the
other conditions of the problem. By the form of their bases and capitals, by
the proportions of their shafts, by the ornament laid upon them in colour or
chiselled in their substance, he is enabled to give an artistic richness and
variety which are practically infinite. Their arrangements and the proportions
of their spacing are also of the greatest importance in the production of effect.
In attempting to define a style of architecture and its individual expression,
there is no part to which so much attention should be paid as the column. It
should be examined, in the first place, as an isolated individual, with a stature
and physiognomy proper to itself. Then in its social state, if we may use such
a phrase; in the various groups which go to make porticos, hypostyle halls,
and colonnades. We shall begin, therefore, by examining what may be called
the Egyptian orders, and afterwards we shall describe the principal
combinations in which they were employed by the Theban architects.
Our readers must remember the distinction, to which we called attention in
the early part of our task, between two systems co-existing at one and the
same time in Egypt; wooden architecture and that in which stone was the
chief material used.[89] Under the Ancient Empire the only kind of detached
support which appears to have been known in stone architecture, was the
quadrangular pier, examples of which we find in the Temple of the Sphinx
(Fig. 204, vol. i.). It was not so, however, in wooden construction. We find in
the bas-reliefs belonging to that early epoch numerous representations of
Page 95
wooden columns, which, though all possessing the same slender proportions,
were surmounted by capitals of various designs. In these capitals occur the
first suggestions of the forms which were afterwards developed with success
in stone architecture.
The type of capital which occurs most frequently in the buildings of the New
Empire is certainly that which has been compared to a truncated lotus-bud;
[90]
we may call it the lotiform capital, and a bas-relief has come down to us
from the fifth dynasty, in which two columns are shown crowned by capitals
of this type, differing only from later stone examples in their more elongated
forms (Figs. 54 and 55).
Fig. 54.—Bas-relief from the 5th dynasty; from Lepsius.
Fig. 55.—Detail of capital; from the same bas-relief.
were surmounted by capitals of various designs. In these capitals occur the
first suggestions of the forms which were afterwards developed with success
in stone architecture.
The type of capital which occurs most frequently in the buildings of the New
Empire is certainly that which has been compared to a truncated lotus-bud;
[90]
we may call it the lotiform capital, and a bas-relief has come down to us
from the fifth dynasty, in which two columns are shown crowned by capitals
of this type, differing only from later stone examples in their more elongated
forms (Figs. 54 and 55).
Fig. 54.—Bas-relief from the 5th dynasty; from Lepsius.
Fig. 55.—Detail of capital; from the same bas-relief.
Page 96
After the type of capital just mentioned, that which occurs most frequently at
Karnak and elsewhere is the campaniform type, in which the general outline
resembles that of an inverted bell. It has been referred to the imitation of the
lotus-flower when in full bloom. However that may be, it is the fact that in a
bas-relief of the fifth dynasty we find a capital presenting the outline, in full
detail, of a lotus-flower which has just opened its petals (Figs. 56 and 57).
Rarer and later types than these are also foreshadowed in the early bas-reliefs.
We shall hereafter have to speak of a campaniform capital in which the bell is
not inverted, in the part constructed by Thothmes of the great temple at
Karnak. Its prototype may certainly be recognized in a figured pavilion at
Sakkarah, dating from the sixth dynasty. We reproduce it from a squeeze sent
to us by M. Bourgoin (Figs. 58 and 59).
Fig. 56.—Bas-relief from the 5th dynasty; from Lepsius.
Karnak and elsewhere is the campaniform type, in which the general outline
resembles that of an inverted bell. It has been referred to the imitation of the
lotus-flower when in full bloom. However that may be, it is the fact that in a
bas-relief of the fifth dynasty we find a capital presenting the outline, in full
detail, of a lotus-flower which has just opened its petals (Figs. 56 and 57).
Rarer and later types than these are also foreshadowed in the early bas-reliefs.
We shall hereafter have to speak of a campaniform capital in which the bell is
not inverted, in the part constructed by Thothmes of the great temple at
Karnak. Its prototype may certainly be recognized in a figured pavilion at
Sakkarah, dating from the sixth dynasty. We reproduce it from a squeeze sent
to us by M. Bourgoin (Figs. 58 and 59).
Fig. 56.—Bas-relief from the 5th dynasty; from Lepsius.
Page 97
Fig. 57.—Details of columns in Fig. 56.
Fig. 58.—Pavilion from Sakkarah, 6th dynasty.
Fig. 58.—Pavilion from Sakkarah, 6th dynasty.
Page 98
Fig. 59.—Details of column in Fig. 58.
During the Ptolemaic period, the Egyptian architects made frequent use of the
form of capital which is now called hathoric, in which a masque of Hathor,
the cow-headed goddess, is the ruling principle. This capital is to be seen, in a
rudimentary condition, in a pavilion dating from the fifth dynasty (Figs. 60
and 61). It there occurs, as will be seen by referring to our illustrations, as the
roughly blocked-out head of a cow.
In connection with the last two bas-reliefs, we must call attention to the fact
that the structures from which they were imitated must have been erected in
some kind of metal. Their forms are inconsistent with the use of any other
material. The way in which the capital is connected with the member to
which it acts as support, in Fig. 59, and the open-work of the architrave in
Fig. 61, are especially suggestive. In the latter bas-relief the figures
introduced are evidently behind a grille, and the whole structure is expressive
of metal-work.
During the Ptolemaic period, the Egyptian architects made frequent use of the
form of capital which is now called hathoric, in which a masque of Hathor,
the cow-headed goddess, is the ruling principle. This capital is to be seen, in a
rudimentary condition, in a pavilion dating from the fifth dynasty (Figs. 60
and 61). It there occurs, as will be seen by referring to our illustrations, as the
roughly blocked-out head of a cow.
In connection with the last two bas-reliefs, we must call attention to the fact
that the structures from which they were imitated must have been erected in
some kind of metal. Their forms are inconsistent with the use of any other
material. The way in which the capital is connected with the member to
which it acts as support, in Fig. 59, and the open-work of the architrave in
Fig. 61, are especially suggestive. In the latter bas-relief the figures
introduced are evidently behind a grille, and the whole structure is expressive
of metal-work.
Page 99
Fig. 60.—Bas-relief from the 5th dynasty; from Lepsius.
Fig. 61.—Details of the columns.
We suspect that the pavilion shown in Fig. 56 was also of metal, which seems
to have played an important part in all that light form of architecture with
which we make acquaintance in the sepulchral decorations. This is very
clearly seen in the examples of painted columns, which we borrow from
Prisse (Figs. 62-65). They present forms which could only have been
compassed by the use of some metal like bronze. If the use of metal be
admitted, we have no difficulty in accounting for the playful and slender
grace found in some of these columns, and the ample tufted capitals of others.
The natural tendency in painted decorations of this kind to exaggerate the
characteristics of their models must not, however, be overlooked. Not being
compelled to apportion the strength of supports to the weight which they
have to carry, it is always inclined to elongate forms. The decorations at
Pompeii are a striking instance of this. Pompeian painters gave impossible
proportions to their columns, which evidently existed no where but in their
own fancies. We admit that the Egyptian decorators did something of the
same kind, that they exaggerated proportions and accumulated motives on a
single capital, which were not to be found co-existing in reality. But, with
these reserves, we think it more than probable that the columns shown in
their paintings have preserved the general aspect of the supports employed in
those curiously elegant pavilions to which they belonged. The forms in Fig.
62 are explained, on the one hand, by the imitation of vegetable forms, on the
Fig. 61.—Details of the columns.
We suspect that the pavilion shown in Fig. 56 was also of metal, which seems
to have played an important part in all that light form of architecture with
which we make acquaintance in the sepulchral decorations. This is very
clearly seen in the examples of painted columns, which we borrow from
Prisse (Figs. 62-65). They present forms which could only have been
compassed by the use of some metal like bronze. If the use of metal be
admitted, we have no difficulty in accounting for the playful and slender
grace found in some of these columns, and the ample tufted capitals of others.
The natural tendency in painted decorations of this kind to exaggerate the
characteristics of their models must not, however, be overlooked. Not being
compelled to apportion the strength of supports to the weight which they
have to carry, it is always inclined to elongate forms. The decorations at
Pompeii are a striking instance of this. Pompeian painters gave impossible
proportions to their columns, which evidently existed no where but in their
own fancies. We admit that the Egyptian decorators did something of the
same kind, that they exaggerated proportions and accumulated motives on a
single capital, which were not to be found co-existing in reality. But, with
these reserves, we think it more than probable that the columns shown in
their paintings have preserved the general aspect of the supports employed in
those curiously elegant pavilions to which they belonged. The forms in Fig.
62 are explained, on the one hand, by the imitation of vegetable forms, on the
Page 100
other by the behaviour of a metal plate under the hand of the workman. The
curve which was afterwards, under the name of a volute, to play such an
important part in Greek architecture, was thus naturally obtained.
Figs. 62-65.—Columns from bas-reliefs (Prisse).
It will thus be seen that during the Ancient Empire the lighter forms of
architecture were far in advance of that which made use of stone. It possessed
a richness and variety of its own, which were rendered possible by the
curve which was afterwards, under the name of a volute, to play such an
important part in Greek architecture, was thus naturally obtained.
Figs. 62-65.—Columns from bas-reliefs (Prisse).
It will thus be seen that during the Ancient Empire the lighter forms of
architecture were far in advance of that which made use of stone. It possessed
a richness and variety of its own, which were rendered possible by the
Page 101
comparative ease with which wood and metal could be manipulated, an ease
which gradually led the artist onwards to the invention of forms conspicuous
for their playful originality and their singular diversity.
As for the quadrangular pier, with which the stone architecture of the Ancient
Empire was contented, we are assured that it had its origin in the rock-cut
tombs. In the oldest works of the kind in Egypt, the funerary grottos of
Memphis, "these piers (we are told) owe their existence to the natural desire
to cause the light from without to penetrate to a second or even to a third
chamber. In order to obtain this result, openings were made in the front wall
on each side of the door, and the parts of the rock which were left for support
became for that reason objects of care, and finally took the form of piers. The
rock over these piers was the prototype of the architrave."[91]
It may be so. But, on the other hand, the pier of dressed stone may have had a
still more simple origin. It may have resulted from the obvious requirements
of construction. As soon as wooden buildings began to be supplemented by
work in stone, it became necessary to find supports strong enough for the
weight of stone roofs. Nothing could be more natural than to take a block of
stone as it came from the quarry, and to set it up on end. In course of time its
faces would be dressed and its section accommodated to a square, for the
love of symmetry is innate in man. The pier may also be seen foreshadowed
in the squared beams of that closed form of wooden architecture which has
been already noticed.
We see, then, that the earliest Egyptian art of which we have any remains
comprised the principal elements of which later architects made use. But it is
among the ruins of the great monuments constructed during the Theban
supremacy that we must attempt to form an exhaustive list of their
architectural forms, and to show how the genius of the race, obeying that
mysterious law which governs all organic development, arrived at the
complete realization of the ideal towards which it had been advancing
through so many centuries. At Thebes alone can the architectural genius of
the Egyptians be judged.
GENERAL TYPES OF SUPPORTS.
In the following pages all the principal varieties of Egyptian pier and column
are passed in review. We believe that no type of any importance has been
which gradually led the artist onwards to the invention of forms conspicuous
for their playful originality and their singular diversity.
As for the quadrangular pier, with which the stone architecture of the Ancient
Empire was contented, we are assured that it had its origin in the rock-cut
tombs. In the oldest works of the kind in Egypt, the funerary grottos of
Memphis, "these piers (we are told) owe their existence to the natural desire
to cause the light from without to penetrate to a second or even to a third
chamber. In order to obtain this result, openings were made in the front wall
on each side of the door, and the parts of the rock which were left for support
became for that reason objects of care, and finally took the form of piers. The
rock over these piers was the prototype of the architrave."[91]
It may be so. But, on the other hand, the pier of dressed stone may have had a
still more simple origin. It may have resulted from the obvious requirements
of construction. As soon as wooden buildings began to be supplemented by
work in stone, it became necessary to find supports strong enough for the
weight of stone roofs. Nothing could be more natural than to take a block of
stone as it came from the quarry, and to set it up on end. In course of time its
faces would be dressed and its section accommodated to a square, for the
love of symmetry is innate in man. The pier may also be seen foreshadowed
in the squared beams of that closed form of wooden architecture which has
been already noticed.
We see, then, that the earliest Egyptian art of which we have any remains
comprised the principal elements of which later architects made use. But it is
among the ruins of the great monuments constructed during the Theban
supremacy that we must attempt to form an exhaustive list of their
architectural forms, and to show how the genius of the race, obeying that
mysterious law which governs all organic development, arrived at the
complete realization of the ideal towards which it had been advancing
through so many centuries. At Thebes alone can the architectural genius of
the Egyptians be judged.
GENERAL TYPES OF SUPPORTS.
In the following pages all the principal varieties of Egyptian pier and column
are passed in review. We believe that no type of any importance has been
Page 102
omitted. The illustrations are all drawn to one scale of about ten feet to the
inch. The difference in the size of the reproductions is therefore a guide to the
relative proportions of the originals, and an idea can be easily formed of their
comparative importance in the buildings in which they occur.
The quadrangular pier is the simplest form of support, and, as might be
expected, it is also the most ancient. In the example which we have taken
from a tomb in the necropolis of Sakkarah, a tomb dating from the Ancient
Empire, it has already a base (Fig. 66), an addition which is not to be found
in the Temple of the Sphinx (Fig. 204, vol. i.). Elsewhere it tapers to the top;
an instance of this, dating from a much later period, is found in the speos of
Phré, at Ipsamboul (Fig. 67). In all these cases the architrave rests directly
upon the shaft, an arrangement which gives the pier an archaic character in
spite of its base.
A very different appearance was obtained when, in the time of Rameses, the
pier was provided with a more ample base, and covered with hieroglyphs and
figures. It received a capital at the same time, and became worthy of playing
its part in a richly-decorated building like the great temple at Karnak, from
which our Fig. 68 is taken. The same may be said of the hathoric pier. The
example shown in Fig. 69 is taken from the speos of Hathor at Ipsamboul.
The lower part of the shaft is covered with inscriptions above which appears
a mask of Hathor.
Fig. 66.—Quadrangular pier; from Prisse.
inch. The difference in the size of the reproductions is therefore a guide to the
relative proportions of the originals, and an idea can be easily formed of their
comparative importance in the buildings in which they occur.
The quadrangular pier is the simplest form of support, and, as might be
expected, it is also the most ancient. In the example which we have taken
from a tomb in the necropolis of Sakkarah, a tomb dating from the Ancient
Empire, it has already a base (Fig. 66), an addition which is not to be found
in the Temple of the Sphinx (Fig. 204, vol. i.). Elsewhere it tapers to the top;
an instance of this, dating from a much later period, is found in the speos of
Phré, at Ipsamboul (Fig. 67). In all these cases the architrave rests directly
upon the shaft, an arrangement which gives the pier an archaic character in
spite of its base.
A very different appearance was obtained when, in the time of Rameses, the
pier was provided with a more ample base, and covered with hieroglyphs and
figures. It received a capital at the same time, and became worthy of playing
its part in a richly-decorated building like the great temple at Karnak, from
which our Fig. 68 is taken. The same may be said of the hathoric pier. The
example shown in Fig. 69 is taken from the speos of Hathor at Ipsamboul.
The lower part of the shaft is covered with inscriptions above which appears
a mask of Hathor.
Fig. 66.—Quadrangular pier; from Prisse.
Page 103
Fig. 67.—Tapering quadrangular pier; from Gailhabaud.
Fig. 68.—Pier with capital; from Prisse.
Fig. 68.—Pier with capital; from Prisse.
Page 104
Fig. 69.—Hathoric pier; from Gailhabaud.
The form of pier called osiride is still more elaborate and decorative. These
piers consist of two parts; a quadrangular shaft covered with inscriptions, and
a colossal statue of the king who was the constructor of the building in which
they are found, endowed with the head-dress and other attributes of Osiris.
The motive was a favourite one with the princes of the nineteenth dynasty,
and it is continuously repeated both in the great temples of the left bank at
Thebes and in the rock-cut temples of Nubia. Our illustration is taken from an
osiride pier in the second court of Medinet-Abou. The word caryatid cannot
strictly be applied to these piers, because the statues do not help to support
the mass above, they are merely affixed to the pier which actually performs
that office.
The form of pier called osiride is still more elaborate and decorative. These
piers consist of two parts; a quadrangular shaft covered with inscriptions, and
a colossal statue of the king who was the constructor of the building in which
they are found, endowed with the head-dress and other attributes of Osiris.
The motive was a favourite one with the princes of the nineteenth dynasty,
and it is continuously repeated both in the great temples of the left bank at
Thebes and in the rock-cut temples of Nubia. Our illustration is taken from an
osiride pier in the second court of Medinet-Abou. The word caryatid cannot
strictly be applied to these piers, because the statues do not help to support
the mass above, they are merely affixed to the pier which actually performs
that office.
Page 105
Fig. 70.—Osiride pillar.
The Ethiopian architects borrowed the motive of these osiride pillars. They
introduced into colonnaded buildings, copied from those of the Rameses,
some colossal figures in which the Typhon of the Greeks has sometimes been
recognized. They probably represent the god Set. They, too, are only applied
to the supports. There is but one instance in the whole of Egyptian
architecture of the human figure being frankly employed as a support,
namely, in the case of those brackets or balconies which overhang the courts
of the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 10). But even here the support is
more apparent than real, for the slabs between which the figures are crouched
are upheld by the wall at their backs. In this there is nothing that can be
compared to the work done by the dignified virgins of the Erectheum or the
muscular giants of Agrigentum, in upholding the massive architraves
confided to their strength.
The Ethiopian architects borrowed the motive of these osiride pillars. They
introduced into colonnaded buildings, copied from those of the Rameses,
some colossal figures in which the Typhon of the Greeks has sometimes been
recognized. They probably represent the god Set. They, too, are only applied
to the supports. There is but one instance in the whole of Egyptian
architecture of the human figure being frankly employed as a support,
namely, in the case of those brackets or balconies which overhang the courts
of the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 10). But even here the support is
more apparent than real, for the slabs between which the figures are crouched
are upheld by the wall at their backs. In this there is nothing that can be
compared to the work done by the dignified virgins of the Erectheum or the
muscular giants of Agrigentum, in upholding the massive architraves
confided to their strength.
Page 106
A last and curious variety of pier is found in the granite chambers of the
Great Temple at Karnak. Upon two of their faces are carved groups of three
tall stems surmounted by flowers. Upon one face these flowers are shaped
like inverted bells (see Fig. 71), on the other they resemble the curling petals
of the lily. Flower and stem are painted with colours which make them stand
out from the red of the polished granite. These piers are two in number, and
the faces which are without the decoration described are covered with finely
executed sculptures in intaglio.[92]
Fig. 71.—Ornamented pier; Karnak.
These piers are 29 feet high. "Their height, as well as their situation, seems to
indicate that they never bore any architrave. They were once, however,
crowned by some royal symbol; probably by bronze hawks, which may have
been ornamented with enamel. There are many representations of such
arrangements in the bas-reliefs at Karnak."[93] Supposing this hypothesis to
be well founded, these piers had something in common with a stele; had their
height been less they might have been called pedestals; had their shape been
less uncompromisingly rectangular, they might have been called obelisks.
Great Temple at Karnak. Upon two of their faces are carved groups of three
tall stems surmounted by flowers. Upon one face these flowers are shaped
like inverted bells (see Fig. 71), on the other they resemble the curling petals
of the lily. Flower and stem are painted with colours which make them stand
out from the red of the polished granite. These piers are two in number, and
the faces which are without the decoration described are covered with finely
executed sculptures in intaglio.[92]
Fig. 71.—Ornamented pier; Karnak.
These piers are 29 feet high. "Their height, as well as their situation, seems to
indicate that they never bore any architrave. They were once, however,
crowned by some royal symbol; probably by bronze hawks, which may have
been ornamented with enamel. There are many representations of such
arrangements in the bas-reliefs at Karnak."[93] Supposing this hypothesis to
be well founded, these piers had something in common with a stele; had their
height been less they might have been called pedestals; had their shape been
less uncompromisingly rectangular, they might have been called obelisks.
Page 107
Like the steles they are self-contained and independent of their surroundings.
[94]
We see, then, that as time went on the Egyptian architects have transformed
the old, plain, rectangular pier—by giving it capital and base, by adorning it
with painted and sculptured decorations—until it became fit to take its place
in the most ornate architectural composition. We have yet to follow the same
constructive member in a further series of modifications which ended by
making it indistinguishable from the column proper.
In order thoroughly to understand all these intermediary types we must return
to the rock-cut tombs, in which the ceilings were upheld by piers left standing
when the excavation was made. The desire to get as much light as possible
past these piers led to their angles being struck off in the first instance, and
thus a quadrangular pier became an octagonal prism (Fig. 72), and was
connected with the soil by a large, flat, disk-shaped base.
By repeating the same process and cutting off the eight angles of this prism, a
sixteen-sided shaft was obtained, examples of which are to be found at Beni-
Hassan in the same tomb as the octagonal column (Fig. 73).
"The practical difficulty of cutting these sixteen faces with precision and of
equalizing the angles at which they met each other, added to the natural
desire to make the division into sixteen planes clearly visible, and to give
more animation to the play of light and shade, inspired the Egyptian
architects with the happy notion of transforming the obtuse angles into salient
ridges by hollowing out the spaces between them."[95] The highest part,
however, of these pillars remained quadrangular, thus preserving a
reminiscence of the original type, and supplying a connecting link between
the shaft and the architrave which almost exactly corresponds to the Greek
abacus. This quadrangular member was advantageous in two ways; it
prevented any incoherence between the diameter of the shaft and the depth of
the architrave, and it supplied an unchanging element to the composition.[96]
The persistence of this square abacus helps to call our attention to the
continual changes undergone by the shaft which it surmounts. The slight
inclination of the sides gives to the latter the effect of a cone, and the contrast
between its almost circular top and the right-angles of the abacus helps us to
remember that the square pier was its immediate progenitor.
[94]
We see, then, that as time went on the Egyptian architects have transformed
the old, plain, rectangular pier—by giving it capital and base, by adorning it
with painted and sculptured decorations—until it became fit to take its place
in the most ornate architectural composition. We have yet to follow the same
constructive member in a further series of modifications which ended by
making it indistinguishable from the column proper.
In order thoroughly to understand all these intermediary types we must return
to the rock-cut tombs, in which the ceilings were upheld by piers left standing
when the excavation was made. The desire to get as much light as possible
past these piers led to their angles being struck off in the first instance, and
thus a quadrangular pier became an octagonal prism (Fig. 72), and was
connected with the soil by a large, flat, disk-shaped base.
By repeating the same process and cutting off the eight angles of this prism, a
sixteen-sided shaft was obtained, examples of which are to be found at Beni-
Hassan in the same tomb as the octagonal column (Fig. 73).
"The practical difficulty of cutting these sixteen faces with precision and of
equalizing the angles at which they met each other, added to the natural
desire to make the division into sixteen planes clearly visible, and to give
more animation to the play of light and shade, inspired the Egyptian
architects with the happy notion of transforming the obtuse angles into salient
ridges by hollowing out the spaces between them."[95] The highest part,
however, of these pillars remained quadrangular, thus preserving a
reminiscence of the original type, and supplying a connecting link between
the shaft and the architrave which almost exactly corresponds to the Greek
abacus. This quadrangular member was advantageous in two ways; it
prevented any incoherence between the diameter of the shaft and the depth of
the architrave, and it supplied an unchanging element to the composition.[96]
The persistence of this square abacus helps to call our attention to the
continual changes undergone by the shaft which it surmounts. The slight
inclination of the sides gives to the latter the effect of a cone, and the contrast
between its almost circular top and the right-angles of the abacus helps us to
remember that the square pier was its immediate progenitor.
Page 108
Fig. 72.—Octagonal pillar; Beni-Hassan.
Page 109
Fig. 73.—Sixteen-sided pillar; fluted.
The conical form of the pillars at Beni-Hassan, their want of a well-marked
base, their sixteen flutes, the square abacus interposed between their shafts
and the architrave, made, when taken together, a great impression upon the
mind of Champollion. He thought that in them he had found a first sketch for
the oldest of the Greek orders, and that the type brought to perfection by the
builders of Corinth and Pæstum had its origin in the tombs of Beni-Hassan;
he accordingly proposed to call their columns proto-doric.
Here we shall not attempt to discuss Champollion's theory. It would be
impossible to do so with advantage without having previously studied the
doric column itself, and pointed out how little these resemblances amount to.
The doric column had no base; the diminution of its diameter was much more
rapid; its capital, which comprised an echinus as well as an abacus, was very
different in importance from the little tablet which we find at Beni-Hassan.
The general proportions of the Greek and Egyptian orders are, however,
almost identical; the shafts are fluted in each instance, and they both have the
same air of simplicity and imposing gravity.
But it is futile to insist upon any such comparison. The polygonal column had
long been disused when the Greeks first penetrated into the Nile valley and
had an opportunity of imitating the works of the Egyptians. It was in use in
the time of the Middle Empire, during the eleventh and twelfth dynasties. The
earlier princes of the Second Theban Empire introduced it into their stone
buildings, but there are no examples which we can affirm to be later than the
eighteenth dynasty. The Rameses and their successors preferred forms less
bold and severe; their columns were true columns with swelling entasis and
rich and varied capitals. It is no doubt true that towards the seventh century
the Greeks could find the polygonal column which we have described in
many an ancient monument. But those early visitors were not archæologists.
Astonished and dazzled by the pompous buildings of a Psemethek or an
Amasis, they were not likely to waste their attention upon an abandoned and
obsolete type. Their admiration would be reserved for the great edifices of the
nineteenth and later dynasties, for such creations as Medinet-Abou, the
Ramesseum, and the Great Hall at Karnak; creations which had their equals
in those cities of the Delta which were visited by Herodotus and Hecatæus. If
Greek art had borrowed from the Egypt of that day it would have transferred
The conical form of the pillars at Beni-Hassan, their want of a well-marked
base, their sixteen flutes, the square abacus interposed between their shafts
and the architrave, made, when taken together, a great impression upon the
mind of Champollion. He thought that in them he had found a first sketch for
the oldest of the Greek orders, and that the type brought to perfection by the
builders of Corinth and Pæstum had its origin in the tombs of Beni-Hassan;
he accordingly proposed to call their columns proto-doric.
Here we shall not attempt to discuss Champollion's theory. It would be
impossible to do so with advantage without having previously studied the
doric column itself, and pointed out how little these resemblances amount to.
The doric column had no base; the diminution of its diameter was much more
rapid; its capital, which comprised an echinus as well as an abacus, was very
different in importance from the little tablet which we find at Beni-Hassan.
The general proportions of the Greek and Egyptian orders are, however,
almost identical; the shafts are fluted in each instance, and they both have the
same air of simplicity and imposing gravity.
But it is futile to insist upon any such comparison. The polygonal column had
long been disused when the Greeks first penetrated into the Nile valley and
had an opportunity of imitating the works of the Egyptians. It was in use in
the time of the Middle Empire, during the eleventh and twelfth dynasties. The
earlier princes of the Second Theban Empire introduced it into their stone
buildings, but there are no examples which we can affirm to be later than the
eighteenth dynasty. The Rameses and their successors preferred forms less
bold and severe; their columns were true columns with swelling entasis and
rich and varied capitals. It is no doubt true that towards the seventh century
the Greeks could find the polygonal column which we have described in
many an ancient monument. But those early visitors were not archæologists.
Astonished and dazzled by the pompous buildings of a Psemethek or an
Amasis, they were not likely to waste their attention upon an abandoned and
obsolete type. Their admiration would be reserved for the great edifices of the
nineteenth and later dynasties, for such creations as Medinet-Abou, the
Ramesseum, and the Great Hall at Karnak; creations which had their equals
in those cities of the Delta which were visited by Herodotus and Hecatæus. If
Greek art had borrowed from the Egypt of that day it would have transferred
Page 110
to its own home not the simple lines of the porticos at Beni-Hassan, but
something ornate and complex, like the order of the small temple of
Nectanebo at Philæ.
These few words had to be given, in passing, to an hypothesis which has
found much favour since the days of Champollion, but we hasten to resume
our methodical analysis of the Egyptian orders, and to class them by the
varieties of their proportions and by the ever-increasing complication of their
ornaments.
Fig. 74.—Polygonal column with a flat vertical band.
Fig. 75.—Polygonal pier with mask of Hathor; from Lepsius.
something ornate and complex, like the order of the small temple of
Nectanebo at Philæ.
These few words had to be given, in passing, to an hypothesis which has
found much favour since the days of Champollion, but we hasten to resume
our methodical analysis of the Egyptian orders, and to class them by the
varieties of their proportions and by the ever-increasing complication of their
ornaments.
Fig. 74.—Polygonal column with a flat vertical band.
Fig. 75.—Polygonal pier with mask of Hathor; from Lepsius.
Page 111
At Beni-Hassan and elsewhere we find pillars with two or four flat vertical
bands dividing their flutes into as many groups. These bands are covered with
incised inscriptions. Sometimes, as at Kalabché (Fig. 74), there are four flat
bands inclosing five flutes between each pair. Such an arrangement
accentuates the difference between these so-called proto-doric pillars and the
Greek doric column. They take away from the proper character of the pillar,
the inscribed tablet becomes the most important member of the composition,
and the shaft to which it is attached seems to have been made for its display.
In the Greek order, on the other hand, we always find the structural
requirements brought into absolute harmony with those of the æsthetic
sentiment; every line of every detail is necessary both to builder and artist.
A later variety of this type is found in a pillar in which the vertical band is
interrupted to make room for a mask of Hathor, which is placed immediately
below the abacus (Fig. 75). We find it in a temple situated eastwards of El-
Kab, dating, according to Lepsius, from the eighteenth dynasty.
After the eleventh dynasty we find monolithic rock-cut supports at Beni-
Hassan, which, although side by side with true polygonal piers, are columns
in the strictest sense of the word; that is to say, their vertical section offers
curvilinear forms, and they are provided with capitals. Singularly enough,
they are so far from being a development from the pier that they do not even
distantly resemble it. They may fairly be compared, however, with a type of
column which we have already noticed in speaking of the ephemeral wooden
or metal architecture whose forms have been preserved for us in the bas-
reliefs of the Ancient Empire (see Fig. 54).[97]
bands dividing their flutes into as many groups. These bands are covered with
incised inscriptions. Sometimes, as at Kalabché (Fig. 74), there are four flat
bands inclosing five flutes between each pair. Such an arrangement
accentuates the difference between these so-called proto-doric pillars and the
Greek doric column. They take away from the proper character of the pillar,
the inscribed tablet becomes the most important member of the composition,
and the shaft to which it is attached seems to have been made for its display.
In the Greek order, on the other hand, we always find the structural
requirements brought into absolute harmony with those of the æsthetic
sentiment; every line of every detail is necessary both to builder and artist.
A later variety of this type is found in a pillar in which the vertical band is
interrupted to make room for a mask of Hathor, which is placed immediately
below the abacus (Fig. 75). We find it in a temple situated eastwards of El-
Kab, dating, according to Lepsius, from the eighteenth dynasty.
After the eleventh dynasty we find monolithic rock-cut supports at Beni-
Hassan, which, although side by side with true polygonal piers, are columns
in the strictest sense of the word; that is to say, their vertical section offers
curvilinear forms, and they are provided with capitals. Singularly enough,
they are so far from being a development from the pier that they do not even
distantly resemble it. They may fairly be compared, however, with a type of
column which we have already noticed in speaking of the ephemeral wooden
or metal architecture whose forms have been preserved for us in the bas-
reliefs of the Ancient Empire (see Fig. 54).[97]
Page 112
Fig. 76.—Column from Beni-Hassan; from Lepsius.
The shaft is formed of four bold vertical ribs, cruciform in plan, and bound
together at the top by narrow fillets. The re-entering angles between the ribs
are deep. The horizontal section of the capital is similar to that of the shaft,
from which it seems to burst; it then gradually tapers to the top, where it
meets the usual quadrangular abacus (Fig. 76).
If four stems of lotus, each ending in an unopened bud, be tied together
immediately beneath the point where the stem joins the bud, something
bearing a rude resemblance to this column will be formed, and to the
imitation of such a faggot its origin has often been attributed. The fillets
which surround the shaft at its summit represent the cord wound several
times round the stalks, the reeds which fill up the upper parts of the hollows
between the ribs are meant for the ends of the knots.
Not far from the remains of the labyrinth some columns formed upon a
similar principle have been discovered. Their shafts are composed of eight
vertical ribs, which are triangular on plan like stalks of papyrus. The lower
part of the shaft has a bold swell. It springs from a corona of leaves and
tapers as it rises. The stalks are tied at the top with from three to five bands,
The shaft is formed of four bold vertical ribs, cruciform in plan, and bound
together at the top by narrow fillets. The re-entering angles between the ribs
are deep. The horizontal section of the capital is similar to that of the shaft,
from which it seems to burst; it then gradually tapers to the top, where it
meets the usual quadrangular abacus (Fig. 76).
If four stems of lotus, each ending in an unopened bud, be tied together
immediately beneath the point where the stem joins the bud, something
bearing a rude resemblance to this column will be formed, and to the
imitation of such a faggot its origin has often been attributed. The fillets
which surround the shaft at its summit represent the cord wound several
times round the stalks, the reeds which fill up the upper parts of the hollows
between the ribs are meant for the ends of the knots.
Not far from the remains of the labyrinth some columns formed upon a
similar principle have been discovered. Their shafts are composed of eight
vertical ribs, which are triangular on plan like stalks of papyrus. The lower
part of the shaft has a bold swell. It springs from a corona of leaves and
tapers as it rises. The stalks are tied at the top with from three to five bands,
Page 113
the ends hanging down between the ribs. The buds which form the capital are
also surrounded with leaves at their base.
The number of its parts and their complicated arrangement, the leaves painted
upon it and its general proportions, show that this column was the product of
an art much more advanced than that of Beni-Hassan. Between the first and
second Theban empires the form of the column underwent a development
similar to that which we have already described in the case of the pier. Its
surface became less incoherently irregular; its horizontal section betrayed a
constantly increasing tendency towards a circular form. Moreover, like the
edifices of which it formed a part, as it increased in size it turned its back
upon its monolithic origin and became a carefully constructed succession of
horizontal courses.
Thus we arrive, under the New Empire, at a column of which we find several
varieties in the buildings at Thebes. Its proportions are various, and so are the
methods in which it is capped and decorated. The variant which preserves
most resemblance to the column from Beni-Hassan is found at Luxor (Fig.
77)[98]. It is faggot-shaped like its prototype, but the natural origin of its
forms is much less clearly marked. The capital recalls a bunch of lotus-buds
in a very slight degree, the stems are not frankly detached one from another
and the ligatures are repeated in unmeaning fashion. We feel that with the
passage of time the original combination has lost its early significance.
The change becomes still more striking when we turn to another column from
the New Empire, from Medinet-Abou (Fig. 78). The lotiform type may still
be recognised, but the shaft is no longer faggot-shaped, except in a
rudimentary fashion and over a very small part of its surface. There is a
ligature just below the capital, but the latter is encircled by a smooth band
and is decorated with the uræus; the bottom of the slightly tapering shaft
springs from an encircling band of painted leaves.
also surrounded with leaves at their base.
The number of its parts and their complicated arrangement, the leaves painted
upon it and its general proportions, show that this column was the product of
an art much more advanced than that of Beni-Hassan. Between the first and
second Theban empires the form of the column underwent a development
similar to that which we have already described in the case of the pier. Its
surface became less incoherently irregular; its horizontal section betrayed a
constantly increasing tendency towards a circular form. Moreover, like the
edifices of which it formed a part, as it increased in size it turned its back
upon its monolithic origin and became a carefully constructed succession of
horizontal courses.
Thus we arrive, under the New Empire, at a column of which we find several
varieties in the buildings at Thebes. Its proportions are various, and so are the
methods in which it is capped and decorated. The variant which preserves
most resemblance to the column from Beni-Hassan is found at Luxor (Fig.
77)[98]. It is faggot-shaped like its prototype, but the natural origin of its
forms is much less clearly marked. The capital recalls a bunch of lotus-buds
in a very slight degree, the stems are not frankly detached one from another
and the ligatures are repeated in unmeaning fashion. We feel that with the
passage of time the original combination has lost its early significance.
The change becomes still more striking when we turn to another column from
the New Empire, from Medinet-Abou (Fig. 78). The lotiform type may still
be recognised, but the shaft is no longer faggot-shaped, except in a
rudimentary fashion and over a very small part of its surface. There is a
ligature just below the capital, but the latter is encircled by a smooth band
and is decorated with the uræus; the bottom of the slightly tapering shaft
springs from an encircling band of painted leaves.
Page 114
Fig. 77.—Column at Luxor; Description, vol. iii., pl. 8.
Page 115
Fig. 78.—Column at Medinet-Abou:; Description, vol. ii., pl. 4.
Side by side with the type which we have just described we find another to
which the hollow outward curve of the capital has given the name of
campaniform. Nothing like it is to be found at Beni-Hassan, and no example,
in stone, is extant from an earlier time than that of the Second Theban
Empire.[99] The base is small. The flutes or separate stems have disappeared.
The shaft is either smooth or decorated with bas-reliefs and inscriptions. The
ligatures under the capital are still introduced. The springing of the capital is
decorated with leaves and flowers painted in brilliant colours. A cubic abacus
or die of stone stands upon the circular surface of the capital and transmits
the resisting power of the column to the architrave.
The proportions and general appearance of the shaft vary greatly. In the first
court at Medinet-Abou it is short and stumpy, and the capital alone has
received a few ornaments in relief.
Side by side with the type which we have just described we find another to
which the hollow outward curve of the capital has given the name of
campaniform. Nothing like it is to be found at Beni-Hassan, and no example,
in stone, is extant from an earlier time than that of the Second Theban
Empire.[99] The base is small. The flutes or separate stems have disappeared.
The shaft is either smooth or decorated with bas-reliefs and inscriptions. The
ligatures under the capital are still introduced. The springing of the capital is
decorated with leaves and flowers painted in brilliant colours. A cubic abacus
or die of stone stands upon the circular surface of the capital and transmits
the resisting power of the column to the architrave.
The proportions and general appearance of the shaft vary greatly. In the first
court at Medinet-Abou it is short and stumpy, and the capital alone has
received a few ornaments in relief.
Page 116
In the Great Hall at Karnak, on the other hand, it is taller, more graceful in
form and richer in decoration than in any other Egyptian building (Fig. 80).
To give an idea of the colossal dimensions of these columns we need only
repeat the often-made assertion that a hundred men can sit upon the upper
surface of their capitals, which measure no less than 70 feet in circumference.
Fig. 79.—Column at Medinet-Abou; Description, vol. ii., pl. 6.
The shafts of both these columns diminish gradually from base to summit.
The diminution is so slight that it is hardly perceptible by the eye. In the
hypostyle hall of the Ramesseum (Fig. 81), on the other hand, it tapers
rapidly. The columns in the central aisle come, by their proportions, midway
between the thick-set type of Medinet-Abou and the lofty shafts of Karnak.
Their lower parts have the bulbous form which we have already noticed in
speaking of the lotiform type of column. The painted and sculptured
ornament, although not so rich as that of Karnak, covers about one half of the
whole surface.
form and richer in decoration than in any other Egyptian building (Fig. 80).
To give an idea of the colossal dimensions of these columns we need only
repeat the often-made assertion that a hundred men can sit upon the upper
surface of their capitals, which measure no less than 70 feet in circumference.
Fig. 79.—Column at Medinet-Abou; Description, vol. ii., pl. 6.
The shafts of both these columns diminish gradually from base to summit.
The diminution is so slight that it is hardly perceptible by the eye. In the
hypostyle hall of the Ramesseum (Fig. 81), on the other hand, it tapers
rapidly. The columns in the central aisle come, by their proportions, midway
between the thick-set type of Medinet-Abou and the lofty shafts of Karnak.
Their lower parts have the bulbous form which we have already noticed in
speaking of the lotiform type of column. The painted and sculptured
ornament, although not so rich as that of Karnak, covers about one half of the
whole surface.
Page 117
We may cite, as showing interesting variations upon the campaniform type,
the column of Soleb, dating from the eighteenth dynasty (Fig. 82), and that of
Thothmes, from Karnak (Fig. 83). The capital of the former seems to have
been suggested by a bunch of palm leaves arranged about a central post. In
curving outwards the extremity of each leaf forms a lobe, which is shown in
the plan (Fig. 82). The architect here made free use of the forms occurring in
nature, but in the Ptolemaic temples we find the palm tree copied in a far
more literal fashion. There are capitals at Esneh composed of palm branches
grouped in stages about the central shaft and copied leaf for leaf. Sometimes,
as at Philæ, we even find date clusters mingled with the leaves.
the column of Soleb, dating from the eighteenth dynasty (Fig. 82), and that of
Thothmes, from Karnak (Fig. 83). The capital of the former seems to have
been suggested by a bunch of palm leaves arranged about a central post. In
curving outwards the extremity of each leaf forms a lobe, which is shown in
the plan (Fig. 82). The architect here made free use of the forms occurring in
nature, but in the Ptolemaic temples we find the palm tree copied in a far
more literal fashion. There are capitals at Esneh composed of palm branches
grouped in stages about the central shaft and copied leaf for leaf. Sometimes,
as at Philæ, we even find date clusters mingled with the leaves.
Page 118
Fig. 80.—Column from the Great Hall at Karnak; Description, iii. 30.
Page 119
Fig. 81.—Column from the Hypostyle Hall of the Ramesseum; from
Horeau.
The other capital to which we have alluded as occurring in the work of
Thothmes at Karnak, is shaped like a suspended bell. The upper part of the
shaft swells slightly so as to coincide with the outer rim of the bell; it is
encircled with fillets below which is cut a vertical band of hieroglyphs. The
capital is decorated with leaves growing downwards and on the whole it may
be taken as showing the companiform type reversed.
Horeau.
The other capital to which we have alluded as occurring in the work of
Thothmes at Karnak, is shaped like a suspended bell. The upper part of the
shaft swells slightly so as to coincide with the outer rim of the bell; it is
encircled with fillets below which is cut a vertical band of hieroglyphs. The
capital is decorated with leaves growing downwards and on the whole it may
be taken as showing the companiform type reversed.
Page 120
Fig. 82.—Column of Soleb; from Lepsius, part i., pl. 117.
Page 121
Fig. 83.—Column of Thothmes at Karnak; from Lepsius, part i., pl. 81.
In this comparison between the different forms which were successively
given to the Egyptian column, we might, if we had chosen, have included
other varieties; and yet we do not think we have omitted any that are of
importance. We have figured them to one scale so that their relative
proportions can be at once grasped, and we have now to analyse the
methods in which they were allied with their supports and superstructures.
For that purpose we shall have to reproduce several of the piers and
columns already mentioned and figured, on a larger scale and in perspective
instead of elevation. We count upon these reproductions to show the
individual characteristics of the Egyptian orders and the origin of their
peculiar physiognomy.
When the architects of the New Empire made use of the square pier without
giving it either capital or base, they covered it with bas-reliefs and
inscriptions. Thus adorned it could be used without incongruity in rich and
elaborate compositions. The truth of this statement may be seen from the
adjoining reproduction of an angle from the peristyle of the Elephantiné
temple (Fig. 84).[100]
The firm and simple lines of the pier contrast well with the modest
projection of the stylobate and the bolder profile of the cornice, and help,
with the double base, to give dignity and solidity to the encircling portico.
When the pier is honoured with a capital, that capital does not in the least
resemble those of the column proper. Being, in its essence, a vertical section
of wall, it is treated as such, and given for crown a capital composed
exactly in the same fashion as the cornice which crowns every Egyptian
wall. Between this quasi-capital and the architrave a low abacus is
introduced (Fig. 85).
The figure on page 109, represents one of the seven osiride piers in the first
court of the temple at Medinet-Abou. The pier at the back of the statue is
slightly wider than the base upon which the latter stands. At each side of the
Pharaoh one of his children stands sculptured in very high relief, almost in
the round. Without in any way compromising the dignity of the colossus the
sculptor has bent his head slightly backwards so as to obtain a natural
In this comparison between the different forms which were successively
given to the Egyptian column, we might, if we had chosen, have included
other varieties; and yet we do not think we have omitted any that are of
importance. We have figured them to one scale so that their relative
proportions can be at once grasped, and we have now to analyse the
methods in which they were allied with their supports and superstructures.
For that purpose we shall have to reproduce several of the piers and
columns already mentioned and figured, on a larger scale and in perspective
instead of elevation. We count upon these reproductions to show the
individual characteristics of the Egyptian orders and the origin of their
peculiar physiognomy.
When the architects of the New Empire made use of the square pier without
giving it either capital or base, they covered it with bas-reliefs and
inscriptions. Thus adorned it could be used without incongruity in rich and
elaborate compositions. The truth of this statement may be seen from the
adjoining reproduction of an angle from the peristyle of the Elephantiné
temple (Fig. 84).[100]
The firm and simple lines of the pier contrast well with the modest
projection of the stylobate and the bolder profile of the cornice, and help,
with the double base, to give dignity and solidity to the encircling portico.
When the pier is honoured with a capital, that capital does not in the least
resemble those of the column proper. Being, in its essence, a vertical section
of wall, it is treated as such, and given for crown a capital composed
exactly in the same fashion as the cornice which crowns every Egyptian
wall. Between this quasi-capital and the architrave a low abacus is
introduced (Fig. 85).
The figure on page 109, represents one of the seven osiride piers in the first
court of the temple at Medinet-Abou. The pier at the back of the statue is
slightly wider than the base upon which the latter stands. At each side of the
Pharaoh one of his children stands sculptured in very high relief, almost in
the round. Without in any way compromising the dignity of the colossus the
sculptor has bent his head slightly backwards so as to obtain a natural
Page 122
support for his lofty and complicated head-dress. Thanks to this artifice the
head-dress in question is securely allied to the massive pier behind it
without the intervention of any unsightly thicknesses of stone, and the
expression of the whole glypto-architectural group is rendered more
forcible and more suggestive of that strength in repose which is the
characteristic of Egyptian architecture.[101]
The next illustration (Fig. 87) shows the upper part of a polygonal column
with a hathoric capital of the oldest and most simple form. In later ages,
during the Sait dynasties, the mask of the goddess was repeated upon the
four sides of the column, and sometimes superimposed upon a bell-shaped
capital. In this instance, where there is but one mask, the vertical band of
hieroglyphs below it serves to show that the face where it occurs is the
principal one.
head-dress in question is securely allied to the massive pier behind it
without the intervention of any unsightly thicknesses of stone, and the
expression of the whole glypto-architectural group is rendered more
forcible and more suggestive of that strength in repose which is the
characteristic of Egyptian architecture.[101]
The next illustration (Fig. 87) shows the upper part of a polygonal column
with a hathoric capital of the oldest and most simple form. In later ages,
during the Sait dynasties, the mask of the goddess was repeated upon the
four sides of the column, and sometimes superimposed upon a bell-shaped
capital. In this instance, where there is but one mask, the vertical band of
hieroglyphs below it serves to show that the face where it occurs is the
principal one.
Page 123
Fig. 84.—Corner pier from the temple at Elephantiné; from the
elevation in the Description, i. 36.
elevation in the Description, i. 36.
Page 124
This capital is one of the most singular achievements of Egyptian art. Why,
out of all the multitude of Egyptian gods and goddesses, was Hathor alone
selected for such a distinction? What is the meaning of the small naos or
shrine upon her head? The explanation is still uncertain. Perhaps it is to be
found in the simple fact that the word Hathor means the dwelling of Horus.
This capital is found in the tombs as well as in the temples. We reproduce
(Fig. 88) a hathoric pier from the tomb of a certain Nefer-Hotep who lived
under the eighteenth dynasty; it is now in the museum at Boulak. The
anterior face displays the mask of Hathor over the symbol tet, which has
been interpreted to mean steadfastness or stability.[102] A rich collar hangs
down upon her breast.
Fig. 85.—Pier with capital, Karnak; from the elevation of Prisse.
On a column in the speos of Kalabché we find the band of hieroglyphs
repeated upon four faces (Fig. 89). The flutes of this column are unusually
numerous and closely spaced, and it therefore approaches the true
cylindrical form. The abacus, however, which overhangs the shaft at every
point, still serves to recall the monolithic pier and the tablet which was
reserved at its summit when its angles were first struck off in order to give
freer passage to the light.
out of all the multitude of Egyptian gods and goddesses, was Hathor alone
selected for such a distinction? What is the meaning of the small naos or
shrine upon her head? The explanation is still uncertain. Perhaps it is to be
found in the simple fact that the word Hathor means the dwelling of Horus.
This capital is found in the tombs as well as in the temples. We reproduce
(Fig. 88) a hathoric pier from the tomb of a certain Nefer-Hotep who lived
under the eighteenth dynasty; it is now in the museum at Boulak. The
anterior face displays the mask of Hathor over the symbol tet, which has
been interpreted to mean steadfastness or stability.[102] A rich collar hangs
down upon her breast.
Fig. 85.—Pier with capital, Karnak; from the elevation of Prisse.
On a column in the speos of Kalabché we find the band of hieroglyphs
repeated upon four faces (Fig. 89). The flutes of this column are unusually
numerous and closely spaced, and it therefore approaches the true
cylindrical form. The abacus, however, which overhangs the shaft at every
point, still serves to recall the monolithic pier and the tablet which was
reserved at its summit when its angles were first struck off in order to give
freer passage to the light.
Page 125
The faggot-shaped column (Fig. 90) is not to be explained by any theory of
development from the pier. We have reproduced its upper and lower
extremities, together with the entablature and flat roof which it supports.
The extreme nakedness of the base given by the Egyptians to their columns
is a curious feature. Shaft and capital may be carved into various shapes and
adorned with the most brilliant colours, but the base is always perfectly bare
and simple. Between one column and another there is no difference in this
respect except in size. The only attempt at ornamentation ever found is a
narrow band of hieroglyphs engraved, as at the Ramesseum, round its
circumference (Fig. 91). On the other hand, the lower part of the shaft is
always richly decorated. The principal element in this decoration is the
circlet of leaves which are found both in the faggot-shaped columns and in
those whose shafts are smooth. In the latter, however, the ornament is
carried farther than in the former. Slender shoots are introduced between the
larger leaves, which mount up the shaft and burst into leaf at the top. Above
these, again, come the royal ovals, surmounted by the solar disk between
two uræus serpents.
In the upper part of the column of Thothmes (Fig. 90), the pendants which
fill the re-entering angles and the four rings at the top of the shaft, the
pointed leaves and other ornaments of the capital, are rendered conspicuous
by being painted in colours, yellow and blue, which will be found
reproduced in Prisse's plate. We should have liked to give one of these
columns with all its coloured decorations, but we hesitated to do so because
we were not satisfied with the accuracy as to tone and tint of those coloured
plates which had been introduced into previous works. And we wished to
give no coloured reproductions except those made expressly from the
monuments themselves, as in the case of the tomb from the Ancient Empire
whose painted decorations are produced in plates xiii. and xiv.
It will be observed that in this case the abacus does not extend beyond the
architrave, as it does in the Doric order of the Greeks.
We have given a column from the central aisle of the Great Hall at Karnak,
as affording a good type of the bell-shaped capital (Fig. 80). We also give
an example, with slight variations, from the Ramesseum (Fig. 92). It comes
from the principal order in the hypostyle hall, and shows Egyptian
architecture perhaps at its best. The profile of the capital combines grace
development from the pier. We have reproduced its upper and lower
extremities, together with the entablature and flat roof which it supports.
The extreme nakedness of the base given by the Egyptians to their columns
is a curious feature. Shaft and capital may be carved into various shapes and
adorned with the most brilliant colours, but the base is always perfectly bare
and simple. Between one column and another there is no difference in this
respect except in size. The only attempt at ornamentation ever found is a
narrow band of hieroglyphs engraved, as at the Ramesseum, round its
circumference (Fig. 91). On the other hand, the lower part of the shaft is
always richly decorated. The principal element in this decoration is the
circlet of leaves which are found both in the faggot-shaped columns and in
those whose shafts are smooth. In the latter, however, the ornament is
carried farther than in the former. Slender shoots are introduced between the
larger leaves, which mount up the shaft and burst into leaf at the top. Above
these, again, come the royal ovals, surmounted by the solar disk between
two uræus serpents.
In the upper part of the column of Thothmes (Fig. 90), the pendants which
fill the re-entering angles and the four rings at the top of the shaft, the
pointed leaves and other ornaments of the capital, are rendered conspicuous
by being painted in colours, yellow and blue, which will be found
reproduced in Prisse's plate. We should have liked to give one of these
columns with all its coloured decorations, but we hesitated to do so because
we were not satisfied with the accuracy as to tone and tint of those coloured
plates which had been introduced into previous works. And we wished to
give no coloured reproductions except those made expressly from the
monuments themselves, as in the case of the tomb from the Ancient Empire
whose painted decorations are produced in plates xiii. and xiv.
It will be observed that in this case the abacus does not extend beyond the
architrave, as it does in the Doric order of the Greeks.
We have given a column from the central aisle of the Great Hall at Karnak,
as affording a good type of the bell-shaped capital (Fig. 80). We also give
an example, with slight variations, from the Ramesseum (Fig. 92). It comes
from the principal order in the hypostyle hall, and shows Egyptian
architecture perhaps at its best. The profile of the capital combines grace
Page 126
with firmness of outline in the most happy manner. By dint of closely
examining and comparing many reproductions we have succeeded, as we
believe, in giving a more exact rendering of its curves than any of our
predecessors. Leaves and flowers are most happily arranged, and are
painted also with an exquisite finish not to be found elsewhere. The
decoration as a whole is of extraordinary richness. The royal ovals, with the
disk of the sun and the uræus, encircle the shaft; vultures with outspread
wings cover the ceiling, and the architrave is carved on its visible sides,
with long rows of hieroglyphs.[103]
examining and comparing many reproductions we have succeeded, as we
believe, in giving a more exact rendering of its curves than any of our
predecessors. Leaves and flowers are most happily arranged, and are
painted also with an exquisite finish not to be found elsewhere. The
decoration as a whole is of extraordinary richness. The royal ovals, with the
disk of the sun and the uræus, encircle the shaft; vultures with outspread
wings cover the ceiling, and the architrave is carved on its visible sides,
with long rows of hieroglyphs.[103]
Page 127
Fig. 86.—Osiride pier; Medinet-Abou
Page 128
Fig. 87.—Hathoric pier from Eilithya. Lepsius, part i., pl. 100.
Page 129
Fig. 88.—Hathoric pier from a tomb. Boulak.
Of the derived and secondary forms of the campaniform capital there are
but two upon which we need here insist. The first is that which is
exemplified by the columns of a temple built by Seti I. at Sesebi, in Nubia
(Fig. 93). It is very like the one at Soleb already figured (Fig. 82). The
motive is the same, but the Sesebi example shows it in a more advanced
stage of development. Its forms are fuller and more expressive, and the
palm branches from which the idea is derived are more frankly incorporated
in the design. It is not an exact copy from nature, as at Esneh, but a good
use has been made of the fundamental vegetable forms.
Of the derived and secondary forms of the campaniform capital there are
but two upon which we need here insist. The first is that which is
exemplified by the columns of a temple built by Seti I. at Sesebi, in Nubia
(Fig. 93). It is very like the one at Soleb already figured (Fig. 82). The
motive is the same, but the Sesebi example shows it in a more advanced
stage of development. Its forms are fuller and more expressive, and the
palm branches from which the idea is derived are more frankly incorporated
in the design. It is not an exact copy from nature, as at Esneh, but a good
use has been made of the fundamental vegetable forms.
Page 130
Fig. 89.—Column at Kalabché; from the elevation of Prisse.
The other variation upon the same theme is a much later one; it is to be
found in the temple built by Nectanebo on the island of Philæ (Fig. 94). The
simplicity of the Sesebi and Soleb capitals has vanished; the whole
composition is imbued with the love for complex form which distinguished
the Sait epoch. The swelling base of the column seems to spring from a
bouquet of triangular leaves. The anterior face of the column is ornamented
with a band of hieroglyphs; its upper part is encircled by five smooth rings,
above which, again, it is fluted. According to Prisse, who alone gives
particulars as to this little building, some of the capitals have no ornament
beyond their finely-chiselled palm-leaves; others have half-opened lotus-
flowers between each pair of leaves. Finally, the square die or abacus which
supports the architrave is much higher and more important than in the
columns hitherto described, and it bears a mask of Hathor surmounted by a
naos upon each of its four sides. This unusual height of abacus, the
superposition of the hathoric capital upon the bell-shaped one, and the
repetition of the mask of Hathor upon all four sides, are the premonitory
signs of the Ptolemaic style.
The other variation upon the same theme is a much later one; it is to be
found in the temple built by Nectanebo on the island of Philæ (Fig. 94). The
simplicity of the Sesebi and Soleb capitals has vanished; the whole
composition is imbued with the love for complex form which distinguished
the Sait epoch. The swelling base of the column seems to spring from a
bouquet of triangular leaves. The anterior face of the column is ornamented
with a band of hieroglyphs; its upper part is encircled by five smooth rings,
above which, again, it is fluted. According to Prisse, who alone gives
particulars as to this little building, some of the capitals have no ornament
beyond their finely-chiselled palm-leaves; others have half-opened lotus-
flowers between each pair of leaves. Finally, the square die or abacus which
supports the architrave is much higher and more important than in the
columns hitherto described, and it bears a mask of Hathor surmounted by a
naos upon each of its four sides. This unusual height of abacus, the
superposition of the hathoric capital upon the bell-shaped one, and the
repetition of the mask of Hathor upon all four sides, are the premonitory
signs of the Ptolemaic style.
Page 131
Page 132
Fig. 90.—Column of Thothmes III.; from the Ambulatory of Thothmes,
at Karnak. From Prisse's elevation.
Fig. 91.—Base of a column; from the great hall of the Ramesseum,
central avenue.
The capital from the Ambulatory of Thothmes, at Thebes, presents a type
both rare and original (Fig. 95). Between our illustration and that of Lepsius
there is a difference which is not without importance.[104] According to the
German savants, the abacus is inscribed within the upper circumference of
the bell; but if we may believe a sketch made by an architect upon the spot,
the truth is that the upper circumference of the capital is contained within
the four sides of the abacus, which it touches at their centres. The four
angles of the abacus, therefore, stand out well beyond the upper part of the
at Karnak. From Prisse's elevation.
Fig. 91.—Base of a column; from the great hall of the Ramesseum,
central avenue.
The capital from the Ambulatory of Thothmes, at Thebes, presents a type
both rare and original (Fig. 95). Between our illustration and that of Lepsius
there is a difference which is not without importance.[104] According to the
German savants, the abacus is inscribed within the upper circumference of
the bell; but if we may believe a sketch made by an architect upon the spot,
the truth is that the upper circumference of the capital is contained within
the four sides of the abacus, which it touches at their centres. The four
angles of the abacus, therefore, stand out well beyond the upper part of the
Page 133
capital, uniting it properly to the architrave, and giving a satisfactory
appearance of solidity to the whole.
This peculiar form of capital has generally been referred to the individual
caprice of some architect, anxious, above all things, to invent something
new.[105] But the same form is to be found in the architectural shapes
preserved by the paintings of the ancient empire (Fig. 59) which seems fatal
to this explanation. It is probable that if we possessed all the work of the
Egyptian architects we should find that the type was by no means confined
to Karnak. It was, however, far less beautiful in its lines than the ordinary
shape, and though ancient enough, never became popular.
The Egyptians were not always content with the paint-brush and chisel for
the decoration of their capitals, they occasionally made use of metal also.
This has been proved by a discovery made at Luxor in the presence of M.
Brugsch, who describes it in these terms: "The work of clearing the temple
began with the part constructed by Amenophis III. and gave some very
unexpected results. The capitals of the columns were overlaid with copper
plates, to which the contour of the stone beneath had been given by the
hammer. They had afterwards been painted. Large pieces of these plates
were found still hanging to the capitals, while other pieces lay among the
surrounding débris. Thus a new fact in the history of Egyptian art has been
established, namely, that stonework was sometimes covered with metal."
[106]
This process was not generally, nor even frequently, employed, as we may
judge by the vast number of capitals painted in the most brilliant colours,
which remain. If the surface of the stone was to be covered up such care
would not have been taken to beautify it. The fact that the process was used
at all is, however, curious; it seems to be a survival from the ancient
wooden architecture in which metal was commonly used.
appearance of solidity to the whole.
This peculiar form of capital has generally been referred to the individual
caprice of some architect, anxious, above all things, to invent something
new.[105] But the same form is to be found in the architectural shapes
preserved by the paintings of the ancient empire (Fig. 59) which seems fatal
to this explanation. It is probable that if we possessed all the work of the
Egyptian architects we should find that the type was by no means confined
to Karnak. It was, however, far less beautiful in its lines than the ordinary
shape, and though ancient enough, never became popular.
The Egyptians were not always content with the paint-brush and chisel for
the decoration of their capitals, they occasionally made use of metal also.
This has been proved by a discovery made at Luxor in the presence of M.
Brugsch, who describes it in these terms: "The work of clearing the temple
began with the part constructed by Amenophis III. and gave some very
unexpected results. The capitals of the columns were overlaid with copper
plates, to which the contour of the stone beneath had been given by the
hammer. They had afterwards been painted. Large pieces of these plates
were found still hanging to the capitals, while other pieces lay among the
surrounding débris. Thus a new fact in the history of Egyptian art has been
established, namely, that stonework was sometimes covered with metal."
[106]
This process was not generally, nor even frequently, employed, as we may
judge by the vast number of capitals painted in the most brilliant colours,
which remain. If the surface of the stone was to be covered up such care
would not have been taken to beautify it. The fact that the process was used
at all is, however, curious; it seems to be a survival from the ancient
wooden architecture in which metal was commonly used.
Page 134
Fig. 92.—Bell-shaped capital, from the hypostyle hall of the
Ramesseum. From the chief order.
Ramesseum. From the chief order.
Page 135
Fig. 93.—Capital at Sesebi. From the elevation of Lepsius, Denkmæler,
part i., pl. 119.
part i., pl. 119.
Page 136
Fig. 94.—Capital from the temple of Nectanebo, at Philæ. From the
elevation of Prisse.
The architrave which was employed with all these varieties of capital was
sometimes of a kind which deserves to be noticed (Fig. 102). Whenever the
dimensions of the column were sufficiently great the stone beams which
met upon the die or abacus had oblique joints. The motive of the architect in
making use of such a junction is obvious enough; it was calculated to afford
greater solidity, and it was the most convenient way in which lateral
architraves could be united with those disposed longitudinally. Any other
arrangement would have involved a sacrifice of space and would have left a
certain part of the abacus doing nothing.
We have now brought our analysis of the principal types of pier and column
used by the Egyptians to an end. They suggest, however, certain general
reflections to which we must next endeavour to give expression. In spite of
elevation of Prisse.
The architrave which was employed with all these varieties of capital was
sometimes of a kind which deserves to be noticed (Fig. 102). Whenever the
dimensions of the column were sufficiently great the stone beams which
met upon the die or abacus had oblique joints. The motive of the architect in
making use of such a junction is obvious enough; it was calculated to afford
greater solidity, and it was the most convenient way in which lateral
architraves could be united with those disposed longitudinally. Any other
arrangement would have involved a sacrifice of space and would have left a
certain part of the abacus doing nothing.
We have now brought our analysis of the principal types of pier and column
used by the Egyptians to an end. They suggest, however, certain general
reflections to which we must next endeavour to give expression. In spite of
Page 137
the great apparent diversity of their forms, we are enabled to perceive that
the Egyptian orders obeyed an unchanging law of development, and that
certain characteristic features persistently reappear through all their
transformations. We must attempt to define these laws and characteristics,
as, otherwise, we shall fail to make the originality of Egyptian art
appreciated, we shall be unable to classify its successes, or to mark with
accuracy the limits which it failed to pass.
Fig. 95.—Capital from the work of Thothmes at Karnak.
the Egyptian orders obeyed an unchanging law of development, and that
certain characteristic features persistently reappear through all their
transformations. We must attempt to define these laws and characteristics,
as, otherwise, we shall fail to make the originality of Egyptian art
appreciated, we shall be unable to classify its successes, or to mark with
accuracy the limits which it failed to pass.
Fig. 95.—Capital from the work of Thothmes at Karnak.
Page 138
Fig. 96.—Arrangement of architraves upon a capital. From the plans
and elevations of Lepsius.
Between the square pier with neither base nor capital of the early Empire
and the graceful columns of the Ramesseum there is a difference which
marks ages of progress. The general form of the support became gradually
more complex and more refined. As occurred elsewhere, it was divided into
parts, each of which had its proper duty and its proper name. The base was
distinguished from the shaft, and the shaft from the capital. Each of these
parts was shaped by the sculptor and clothed in colour by the painter. For
long centuries the architect never relaxed his efforts to perfect his art. The
simple and sturdy prismatic column gave way to the elaborate forms which
exist in the great temples of the Ramessids; the latter in turn lost their
power to satisfy and new motives were sought for in the combination of all
those which had gone before. In the series of Egyptian types the capital of
Nectanebo would therefore occupy a place corresponding to that of the
composite capital in the series of Græco-Roman orders.
The general movement of art in Egypt may therefore be compared to that of
art in Greece and Italy; and yet there is a difference. From the rise of Greek
architecture until its decay, the proportions of its vertical members
underwent a continual, but consistent, modification of their proportions.
Century after century the figure in which their height was expressed
proportionately with their bulk, became greater. In the height of the Doric
columns of the old temple at Corinth there are fewer diameters than in those
of the Parthenon, and in those of the Parthenon there are fewer than in the
doric shafts of Rome. This tendency explains the neglect which befel this
order about the fourth century before our era. In the sumptuous buildings of
Asia Minor and Syria and of the "Lower Period" in Egypt, it was replaced
by the graceful and slender outlines of the Ionic order. A similar explanation
may be given of the favour in which the Corinthian order was held
throughout the Roman world.
Such a development is not to be found in Egypt. The forms of Egyptian
architecture did not become less substantial with the passage of the
centuries. It is possible that familiarity with light structures of wood and
metal had early created a taste for slender supports. The polygonal and
and elevations of Lepsius.
Between the square pier with neither base nor capital of the early Empire
and the graceful columns of the Ramesseum there is a difference which
marks ages of progress. The general form of the support became gradually
more complex and more refined. As occurred elsewhere, it was divided into
parts, each of which had its proper duty and its proper name. The base was
distinguished from the shaft, and the shaft from the capital. Each of these
parts was shaped by the sculptor and clothed in colour by the painter. For
long centuries the architect never relaxed his efforts to perfect his art. The
simple and sturdy prismatic column gave way to the elaborate forms which
exist in the great temples of the Ramessids; the latter in turn lost their
power to satisfy and new motives were sought for in the combination of all
those which had gone before. In the series of Egyptian types the capital of
Nectanebo would therefore occupy a place corresponding to that of the
composite capital in the series of Græco-Roman orders.
The general movement of art in Egypt may therefore be compared to that of
art in Greece and Italy; and yet there is a difference. From the rise of Greek
architecture until its decay, the proportions of its vertical members
underwent a continual, but consistent, modification of their proportions.
Century after century the figure in which their height was expressed
proportionately with their bulk, became greater. In the height of the Doric
columns of the old temple at Corinth there are fewer diameters than in those
of the Parthenon, and in those of the Parthenon there are fewer than in the
doric shafts of Rome. This tendency explains the neglect which befel this
order about the fourth century before our era. In the sumptuous buildings of
Asia Minor and Syria and of the "Lower Period" in Egypt, it was replaced
by the graceful and slender outlines of the Ionic order. A similar explanation
may be given of the favour in which the Corinthian order was held
throughout the Roman world.
Such a development is not to be found in Egypt. The forms of Egyptian
architecture did not become less substantial with the passage of the
centuries. It is possible that familiarity with light structures of wood and
metal had early created a taste for slender supports. The polygonal and
Page 139
faggot-shaped columns of Beni-Hassan are no thicker than those of far later
times. A comparison of the columns at Thebes points to the same
conclusion. The shortest and most thick-set in its proportions of them all
(Fig. 78) is at Medinet-Abou, and is about two centuries later than those of
the same order which decorate the second court at Luxor (Fig. 77). Its
heaviness is even more apparent when we compare it with the great
columns of a different order, at Karnak (Fig. 80), and the Ramesseum (Fig.
81), which precede it by at least a century.
The progress of Egyptian art was, then, less continuous and less regular
than that of classic art. It had moments of rest, of exhaustion, even of
retrogression. It was not governed by internal logical principles so severe as
those of the Greeks.
The manner in which the capital is allied to the shaft below, and the
architrave above shows changes of the same kind.
The first duty of the capital is to oppose a firm and individual contour to the
monotony of the shaft. The constructor has to determine a point in the
length of the latter where it shall cease to be, where its gradual diminution
in section, a diminution which could not be prolonged to the architrave
without compromising the safety of the building, shall be arrested. The
natural office of the capital would seem to be to call attention to this point.
The architect, therefore, gives it a diameter greater than that of the shaft at
the point where they meet. This salience restores to the column the material
which it has lost; it completes it, and determines its proportion, so that it is
no longer capable of either increase or diminution.
Again, when the salience is but the preparation for a greater development
above, it seems to add to the solidity of the edifice by receiving the
architrave on a far larger surface than the shaft could offer. The support
seems to enlarge itself, the better to embrace the entablature.
The two requirements which the capital has to fulfil may, then, be thus
summarized: in the first place, it has to mark the point where the upward
movement of the lines comes to an end; and, secondly, it has to make, or to
seem to make, the column better fitted to play its part as a support. Its
functions are dual in principle; it has to satisfy the æsthetic desires of the
eye, and the constructive requirements of the material. The latter office may
times. A comparison of the columns at Thebes points to the same
conclusion. The shortest and most thick-set in its proportions of them all
(Fig. 78) is at Medinet-Abou, and is about two centuries later than those of
the same order which decorate the second court at Luxor (Fig. 77). Its
heaviness is even more apparent when we compare it with the great
columns of a different order, at Karnak (Fig. 80), and the Ramesseum (Fig.
81), which precede it by at least a century.
The progress of Egyptian art was, then, less continuous and less regular
than that of classic art. It had moments of rest, of exhaustion, even of
retrogression. It was not governed by internal logical principles so severe as
those of the Greeks.
The manner in which the capital is allied to the shaft below, and the
architrave above shows changes of the same kind.
The first duty of the capital is to oppose a firm and individual contour to the
monotony of the shaft. The constructor has to determine a point in the
length of the latter where it shall cease to be, where its gradual diminution
in section, a diminution which could not be prolonged to the architrave
without compromising the safety of the building, shall be arrested. The
natural office of the capital would seem to be to call attention to this point.
The architect, therefore, gives it a diameter greater than that of the shaft at
the point where they meet. This salience restores to the column the material
which it has lost; it completes it, and determines its proportion, so that it is
no longer capable of either increase or diminution.
Again, when the salience is but the preparation for a greater development
above, it seems to add to the solidity of the edifice by receiving the
architrave on a far larger surface than the shaft could offer. The support
seems to enlarge itself, the better to embrace the entablature.
The two requirements which the capital has to fulfil may, then, be thus
summarized: in the first place, it has to mark the point where the upward
movement of the lines comes to an end; and, secondly, it has to make, or to
seem to make, the column better fitted to play its part as a support. Its
functions are dual in principle; it has to satisfy the æsthetic desires of the
eye, and the constructive requirements of the material. The latter office may
Page 140
be more apparent than real, but, in architecture, what seems to be necessary
is so.
The Greek capital, in all its forms, thoroughly fulfils these double
conditions, while that of Egypt satisfies them in a very imperfect manner.
Let us take the ancient polygonal column as an example. The feeble tablet
which crowns its shaft neither opposes itself frankly to the upright lines
below it, nor, in the absence of an echinus, is it happily allied with the shaft.
It gives, however, a greater appearance of constructive repose to the
architrave than the latter would have without it.
In the column which terminates in a lotus-bud the capital is of more
importance, but the contrast between it and the shaft is often very slightly
marked. At Luxor and Karnak the smooth capital seems to be nothing more
than an accident, a gentle swelling in the upper part of the cone; besides
which it really plays no part in the construction, as the surface of the abacus
above it is no greater than a horizontal section through the highest and most
slender part of the shaft.
Fig. 97.—The Nymphæa Nelumbo; from the Description de l'Égypte;
Hist. Naturelle, pl. 61.
is so.
The Greek capital, in all its forms, thoroughly fulfils these double
conditions, while that of Egypt satisfies them in a very imperfect manner.
Let us take the ancient polygonal column as an example. The feeble tablet
which crowns its shaft neither opposes itself frankly to the upright lines
below it, nor, in the absence of an echinus, is it happily allied with the shaft.
It gives, however, a greater appearance of constructive repose to the
architrave than the latter would have without it.
In the column which terminates in a lotus-bud the capital is of more
importance, but the contrast between it and the shaft is often very slightly
marked. At Luxor and Karnak the smooth capital seems to be nothing more
than an accident, a gentle swelling in the upper part of the cone; besides
which it really plays no part in the construction, as the surface of the abacus
above it is no greater than a horizontal section through the highest and most
slender part of the shaft.
Fig. 97.—The Nymphæa Nelumbo; from the Description de l'Égypte;
Hist. Naturelle, pl. 61.
Page 141
Of all the Egyptian capitals, that which seems the happiest in conception is
the campaniform. This capital, far from being folded back upon itself,
throws out a fine and bold curve beyond the shaft. But we are surprised and
even distressed to find that the surface thus obtained is not employed for the
support of the architrave, which is carried by a comparatively small cubic
abacus, which rests upon the centre of the capital. At Karnak and Medinet-
Abou this abacus is not so absurdly high as it afterwards became in the
Ptolemaic period,[107] but yet its effect is singular rather than pleasant. We
feel inclined to wonder why this fine calyx of stone should have been
constructed if its borders were to remain idle. It is like a phrase commenced
but never finished. Without this fault the composition, of which it forms a
part, would be worthy, both in proportion and in decoration, of being placed
side by side with the most perfect of the Greek columns.
The last or, it may be, the first question, which is asked in connection with
the form of column employed by any particular race, has to do with its
origin. We have preferred to make it the last question, because we thought
that the analysis of form which we have attempted to set forth would help
us to an answer. There are many difficulties in the matter, but after the facts
to which we have called attention, it will not be denied that the forms of
wooden construction, which were the first to be developed in Egypt, had a
great effect upon work in stone.
Ever since men began to interest themselves in Egyptian art, this has found
an important place in their speculations. In the two forms which alternate
with one another at Thebes, many have seen faithful transcriptions of two
plants which filled a large space in Egyptian civilization by their decorative
qualities and the practical services which they rendered; we mean, of
course, the lotus and the papyrus.
There were in Egypt many species belonging to the family of the
Nymphæaceæ, a family which is represented in our northern climates by the
yellow and white nenuphars or water-lilies. Besides these Egypt possessed,
and still possesses, the white lotus (Nymphæa lotus of Linnæus), and the
blue lotus (Nymphæa cærulea of Savigny); but the true Egyptian lotus, the
red lotus (the Nymphæa nelumbo of Linnæus, the Nelumbium speciosum of
Wild) exists no longer in a wild state, either in Egypt or any other known
part of Africa (Fig. 97). The accurate descriptions given by the ancient
the campaniform. This capital, far from being folded back upon itself,
throws out a fine and bold curve beyond the shaft. But we are surprised and
even distressed to find that the surface thus obtained is not employed for the
support of the architrave, which is carried by a comparatively small cubic
abacus, which rests upon the centre of the capital. At Karnak and Medinet-
Abou this abacus is not so absurdly high as it afterwards became in the
Ptolemaic period,[107] but yet its effect is singular rather than pleasant. We
feel inclined to wonder why this fine calyx of stone should have been
constructed if its borders were to remain idle. It is like a phrase commenced
but never finished. Without this fault the composition, of which it forms a
part, would be worthy, both in proportion and in decoration, of being placed
side by side with the most perfect of the Greek columns.
The last or, it may be, the first question, which is asked in connection with
the form of column employed by any particular race, has to do with its
origin. We have preferred to make it the last question, because we thought
that the analysis of form which we have attempted to set forth would help
us to an answer. There are many difficulties in the matter, but after the facts
to which we have called attention, it will not be denied that the forms of
wooden construction, which were the first to be developed in Egypt, had a
great effect upon work in stone.
Ever since men began to interest themselves in Egyptian art, this has found
an important place in their speculations. In the two forms which alternate
with one another at Thebes, many have seen faithful transcriptions of two
plants which filled a large space in Egyptian civilization by their decorative
qualities and the practical services which they rendered; we mean, of
course, the lotus and the papyrus.
There were in Egypt many species belonging to the family of the
Nymphæaceæ, a family which is represented in our northern climates by the
yellow and white nenuphars or water-lilies. Besides these Egypt possessed,
and still possesses, the white lotus (Nymphæa lotus of Linnæus), and the
blue lotus (Nymphæa cærulea of Savigny); but the true Egyptian lotus, the
red lotus (the Nymphæa nelumbo of Linnæus, the Nelumbium speciosum of
Wild) exists no longer in a wild state, either in Egypt or any other known
part of Africa (Fig. 97). The accurate descriptions given by the ancient
Page 142
writers have enabled botanists, however, to recognize it among the flora of
India. It is at least one third larger than our common water-lily, from which
it differs also in the behaviour of its leaves and of the stems which bear the
flowers. These do not float on the surface of the water but rise above it to a
height of from twelve to fifteen inches.[108] The flower, which stands higher
than the leaves, is borne upon a stalk which instead of being soft and pliant
like that of the water-lily has the firmness and consistency of wood. It has
an agreeable smell like that of anise. In the bas-reliefs the ancient Egyptians
are often seen holding it to their nostrils. The fruit, which is shaped like the
rose of a watering-pot, contains seeds as large as the stone of an olive.
These seeds, which were eaten either green or dried,[109] were called
Egyptian beans by the Greek and Latin writers because they were
consumed in such vast quantities in the Nile valley.[110] The seeds of the
other kinds of nymphæaceæ, which were smaller (Herodotus compares
them with those of a poppy), gave, when pounded in a mortar, a flour of
which a kind of bread was made. Even the root was not wasted; according
to the old historians, it had a sweet and agreeable taste.[111]
The papyrus belongs to the family of Cyperaceæ, which is still represented
in Egypt by several species, but the famous plant which received the early
writings of mankind, the Papyrus antiquorum of the botanist, has also
practically disappeared from Egypt, where it is only to be found in a few
private gardens. The ancients made it an object of special care. It was
cultivated in the Sebennitic nome, its roots being grown in shallow water.
Strabo gave a sufficiently accurate idea of its appearance when he described
it as a "peeled wand surmounted by a plume of feathers."[112] This green
plume or bouquet is by no means without elegance (Fig. 98). According to
Theophrastus the plant attained to a height of ten cubits, or about sixteen
feet.[113] This may, however, be an exaggeration. The finest plants that I
could find in the gardens of Alexandria did not reach ten feet. Their stems
were as thick as a stout broom-handle and sharply triangular in section.
The reed-brakes which occur so frequently in the paintings consist of
different varieties of the papyrus (Fig. 8, Vol. I.). The uses to which the
plant could be put were very numerous. The root was used for fuel and
other purposes. The lower part of the stalk furnished a sweet and aromatic
India. It is at least one third larger than our common water-lily, from which
it differs also in the behaviour of its leaves and of the stems which bear the
flowers. These do not float on the surface of the water but rise above it to a
height of from twelve to fifteen inches.[108] The flower, which stands higher
than the leaves, is borne upon a stalk which instead of being soft and pliant
like that of the water-lily has the firmness and consistency of wood. It has
an agreeable smell like that of anise. In the bas-reliefs the ancient Egyptians
are often seen holding it to their nostrils. The fruit, which is shaped like the
rose of a watering-pot, contains seeds as large as the stone of an olive.
These seeds, which were eaten either green or dried,[109] were called
Egyptian beans by the Greek and Latin writers because they were
consumed in such vast quantities in the Nile valley.[110] The seeds of the
other kinds of nymphæaceæ, which were smaller (Herodotus compares
them with those of a poppy), gave, when pounded in a mortar, a flour of
which a kind of bread was made. Even the root was not wasted; according
to the old historians, it had a sweet and agreeable taste.[111]
The papyrus belongs to the family of Cyperaceæ, which is still represented
in Egypt by several species, but the famous plant which received the early
writings of mankind, the Papyrus antiquorum of the botanist, has also
practically disappeared from Egypt, where it is only to be found in a few
private gardens. The ancients made it an object of special care. It was
cultivated in the Sebennitic nome, its roots being grown in shallow water.
Strabo gave a sufficiently accurate idea of its appearance when he described
it as a "peeled wand surmounted by a plume of feathers."[112] This green
plume or bouquet is by no means without elegance (Fig. 98). According to
Theophrastus the plant attained to a height of ten cubits, or about sixteen
feet.[113] This may, however, be an exaggeration. The finest plants that I
could find in the gardens of Alexandria did not reach ten feet. Their stems
were as thick as a stout broom-handle and sharply triangular in section.
The reed-brakes which occur so frequently in the paintings consist of
different varieties of the papyrus (Fig. 8, Vol. I.). The uses to which the
plant could be put were very numerous. The root was used for fuel and
other purposes. The lower part of the stalk furnished a sweet and aromatic
Page 143
food substance, which was chewed either raw or boiled, for the sake of the
juice.[114] Veils, mats, sandals, &c., were made from the bark; candle and
torch wicks from the bark; baskets and even boats from the stalk.[115] As for
the processes by which the precious fabric which the Greeks called βίβλος
was obtained they will be found fully described in the paper of Dureau de-
la-Malle Sur le Papyrus et la Fabrication du Papier.[116] Our word paper is
derived from papyrus, and forms a slight but everlasting monument to the
great services rendered to civilization by the inventive genius of the
Egyptians. The importation of the papyrus, which followed the
establishment of direct relations between Greece and Egypt in the time of
the Sait princes,[117] exercised the greatest influence upon the development
of Greek thought. It created prose composition, and with it history,
philosophy, and science.
The two plants which we have mentioned were so specially reverenced by
the Egyptians that they constituted them severally into the signs by which
the two great divisions of the country were indicated in their writings. The
papyrus was the emblem of the Delta, in whose lazy waters it luxuriated,
and the lotus that of the Thebaïd.[118]
Besides this testimony to their importance, the careful descriptions left by
the ancient travellers in Egypt, Herodotus and Strabo, also show the
estimation in which these two plants were held by the Egyptians; the palm
alone could contest their well-earned supremacy. It is easy, then, to
understand how the artist and ornamentist were led to make use of their
graceful forms. We have already pointed out many instances of such
employment, and we are far from underrating its importance, but we have
yet to explain the method followed, and the kind and degree of imitation
which the Egyptian artist allowed himself.
The lotus especially has been found everywhere by writers upon Egypt.[119]
The pointed leaves painted upon the lower parts of columns have been
recognized as imitations of "those scaly leaves which surround the point
where the stem of the lotus, the papyrus, and many other aquatic plants,
merges in the root." According to this theory the ligneous stem which rises
from a depth beneath the water of, perhaps, six feet, and carries the large
open flower at its top, was the prototype of the Egyptian column. The
juice.[114] Veils, mats, sandals, &c., were made from the bark; candle and
torch wicks from the bark; baskets and even boats from the stalk.[115] As for
the processes by which the precious fabric which the Greeks called βίβλος
was obtained they will be found fully described in the paper of Dureau de-
la-Malle Sur le Papyrus et la Fabrication du Papier.[116] Our word paper is
derived from papyrus, and forms a slight but everlasting monument to the
great services rendered to civilization by the inventive genius of the
Egyptians. The importation of the papyrus, which followed the
establishment of direct relations between Greece and Egypt in the time of
the Sait princes,[117] exercised the greatest influence upon the development
of Greek thought. It created prose composition, and with it history,
philosophy, and science.
The two plants which we have mentioned were so specially reverenced by
the Egyptians that they constituted them severally into the signs by which
the two great divisions of the country were indicated in their writings. The
papyrus was the emblem of the Delta, in whose lazy waters it luxuriated,
and the lotus that of the Thebaïd.[118]
Besides this testimony to their importance, the careful descriptions left by
the ancient travellers in Egypt, Herodotus and Strabo, also show the
estimation in which these two plants were held by the Egyptians; the palm
alone could contest their well-earned supremacy. It is easy, then, to
understand how the artist and ornamentist were led to make use of their
graceful forms. We have already pointed out many instances of such
employment, and we are far from underrating its importance, but we have
yet to explain the method followed, and the kind and degree of imitation
which the Egyptian artist allowed himself.
The lotus especially has been found everywhere by writers upon Egypt.[119]
The pointed leaves painted upon the lower parts of columns have been
recognized as imitations of "those scaly leaves which surround the point
where the stem of the lotus, the papyrus, and many other aquatic plants,
merges in the root." According to this theory the ligneous stem which rises
from a depth beneath the water of, perhaps, six feet, and carries the large
open flower at its top, was the prototype of the Egyptian column. The
Page 144
bulbous form with which so many shafts are endowed at the base, would be
another feature taken directly from nature. The leaves, properly speaking,
which spread around the flower, are found about and below the capital,
while the capital itself is nothing else, we are told, than the flower,
sometimes fully opened, sometimes while yet in the bud. When the shaft is
smooth it represents a single stem, when it is grooved, it means a faggot of
stems tied together by a cord.
another feature taken directly from nature. The leaves, properly speaking,
which spread around the flower, are found about and below the capital,
while the capital itself is nothing else, we are told, than the flower,
sometimes fully opened, sometimes while yet in the bud. When the shaft is
smooth it represents a single stem, when it is grooved, it means a faggot of
stems tied together by a cord.
Page 145
Fig. 98.—Papyrus plant, drawn in the gardens of the Luxembourg,
Paris, by M. Saint-Elme Gautier.
Paris, by M. Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 146
Others make similar claims for the papyrus. They refuse to admit that the
whole of the Egyptian orders were founded upon the lotus. Mariette
allowed that the capitals which we have called lotiform were copied from
that plant, but he contended that the bell-shaped capital was freely copied
from the plume of its rival. He proposed that this latter capital should be
called papyriform, and to my objections, which were founded upon the
composition of a head of papyrus, he answered that the Egyptians neglected
what may be called internal details, and were contented with rendering the
outward contours. In support of his idea, he called attention to the fact that
some of the faggot-shaped columns present triangular sections, like that of
the papyrus stem.
In spite of this latter fact, Mariette did not convert me to his opinion. The
columns in which this triangular section is found are not crowned by an
open flower. The profiles of their capitals resemble that of a truncated bud,
a form which cannot possibly be obtained from the papyrus, and they seem,
therefore, to combine characteristics taken from two different plants. His
explanation of the campaniform capital seems still less admissable. It is
impossible to allow that in the tuft of slender filaments gracefully yielding
to the wind, which is figured on page 127, we have the prototype of those
inverted bells of stone, whose uninterrupted contours express so much
strength and amplitude. No less difficult is it to discover the first idea of
those sturdy shafts which seem so well proportioned to the mighty
architraves which they have to support, in the slender stalk of the famous
water plant. The hypostyle halls may be compared to palm groves, to forests
of pine, of oak, or of beech. In such a comparison there would be nothing
surprising, but the papyrus, with its attenuated proportions and yielding
frame, would seem to be, of all vegetables, the least likely to have inspired
the architects of Karnak and Luxor.
The lotus seems to us to have no more right than the papyrus to be
considered the unique origin of the forms which we are considering. All
those resemblances, of which so much has been made, sink to very little
when they are closely examined. It requires more than good will to
recognize the formless folioles which cluster round the base of the stalk in
those large and well-shaped triangular leaves with parallel ribs, which
decorate the bases of Egyptian columns. Moreover, these leaves reappear in
other places, such as capitals, in which, if this explanation of their origin is
whole of the Egyptian orders were founded upon the lotus. Mariette
allowed that the capitals which we have called lotiform were copied from
that plant, but he contended that the bell-shaped capital was freely copied
from the plume of its rival. He proposed that this latter capital should be
called papyriform, and to my objections, which were founded upon the
composition of a head of papyrus, he answered that the Egyptians neglected
what may be called internal details, and were contented with rendering the
outward contours. In support of his idea, he called attention to the fact that
some of the faggot-shaped columns present triangular sections, like that of
the papyrus stem.
In spite of this latter fact, Mariette did not convert me to his opinion. The
columns in which this triangular section is found are not crowned by an
open flower. The profiles of their capitals resemble that of a truncated bud,
a form which cannot possibly be obtained from the papyrus, and they seem,
therefore, to combine characteristics taken from two different plants. His
explanation of the campaniform capital seems still less admissable. It is
impossible to allow that in the tuft of slender filaments gracefully yielding
to the wind, which is figured on page 127, we have the prototype of those
inverted bells of stone, whose uninterrupted contours express so much
strength and amplitude. No less difficult is it to discover the first idea of
those sturdy shafts which seem so well proportioned to the mighty
architraves which they have to support, in the slender stalk of the famous
water plant. The hypostyle halls may be compared to palm groves, to forests
of pine, of oak, or of beech. In such a comparison there would be nothing
surprising, but the papyrus, with its attenuated proportions and yielding
frame, would seem to be, of all vegetables, the least likely to have inspired
the architects of Karnak and Luxor.
The lotus seems to us to have no more right than the papyrus to be
considered the unique origin of the forms which we are considering. All
those resemblances, of which so much has been made, sink to very little
when they are closely examined. It requires more than good will to
recognize the formless folioles which cluster round the base of the stalk in
those large and well-shaped triangular leaves with parallel ribs, which
decorate the bases of Egyptian columns. Moreover, these leaves reappear in
other places, such as capitals, in which, if this explanation of their origin is
Page 147
to be accepted, they could have no place. They frequently occur, also, at the
foot of a wall. As for the true circular leaf of the lotus, it is not to be found,
except, perhaps in a few Ptolemaic capitals. Its stem, concealed almost
entirely by the muddy water, is very slender, and is hardly more suggestive
than that of the papyrus of a massive stone column. The bulbous form of the
lower part of the shaft would be a constant form if it were an imitation of
nature, whereas it is, in fact, exceptional. With the capitals, however, it is
different. Those which are to be found at Thebes are referred, by common
consent, to the lotus-bud. And yet, perhaps, they resemble any other bud as
much as that of the lotus. It is, however, when they are fully open, that one
flower is easily distinguishable from another by the shape and number of
their petals, as well as by the variety of their colours. Like babies in their
cradles, unopened buds are strangely alike. But seeing the place occupied
by the lotus in the minds of the Egyptians, in their wooden architecture and
painted decorations, it is natural enough to believe that it gave them their
first hint for the capital in question; we have, therefore, not hesitated to use
the epithet lotiform which has been consecrated to it by custom.
As for the campaniform capital we find it difficult to allow that it represents
the open flower of the lotus. From a certain distance it no doubt resembles
the general lines of some flowers, but those belong to the family of the
Campanulaceæ rather than to that of the nymphæaceæ. The profile of this
inverted bell, however, does not seem to have been suggested by the wish to
imitate any flower whatever, least of all that of the lotus. The capitals at
Soleb and Sesebi (Figs. 82 and 93) embody careful imitations of, at least,
the general shapes and curves of date-tree branches. Here there is nothing of
the kind. There is not the slightest indication of the elongated and crowded
petals of the lotus. Both at Karnak and at the Ramesseum, the latter may be
easily recognised among the stalks of papyrus and other freely imitated
flowers, but upon the columns and not in their shapes. Both base and capital
were ornamented with leaves and flowers. Their contours have been gently
indicated with a pointed instrument and then filled in with brilliant colours,
which help to relieve them from their ground. The whole decoration is
superficial; it is not embodied in the column and has no effect upon its
general form and character.
The following explanation of the resemblances which do undoubtedly exist
between certain details of Egyptian architecture and the forms of some of
foot of a wall. As for the true circular leaf of the lotus, it is not to be found,
except, perhaps in a few Ptolemaic capitals. Its stem, concealed almost
entirely by the muddy water, is very slender, and is hardly more suggestive
than that of the papyrus of a massive stone column. The bulbous form of the
lower part of the shaft would be a constant form if it were an imitation of
nature, whereas it is, in fact, exceptional. With the capitals, however, it is
different. Those which are to be found at Thebes are referred, by common
consent, to the lotus-bud. And yet, perhaps, they resemble any other bud as
much as that of the lotus. It is, however, when they are fully open, that one
flower is easily distinguishable from another by the shape and number of
their petals, as well as by the variety of their colours. Like babies in their
cradles, unopened buds are strangely alike. But seeing the place occupied
by the lotus in the minds of the Egyptians, in their wooden architecture and
painted decorations, it is natural enough to believe that it gave them their
first hint for the capital in question; we have, therefore, not hesitated to use
the epithet lotiform which has been consecrated to it by custom.
As for the campaniform capital we find it difficult to allow that it represents
the open flower of the lotus. From a certain distance it no doubt resembles
the general lines of some flowers, but those belong to the family of the
Campanulaceæ rather than to that of the nymphæaceæ. The profile of this
inverted bell, however, does not seem to have been suggested by the wish to
imitate any flower whatever, least of all that of the lotus. The capitals at
Soleb and Sesebi (Figs. 82 and 93) embody careful imitations of, at least,
the general shapes and curves of date-tree branches. Here there is nothing of
the kind. There is not the slightest indication of the elongated and crowded
petals of the lotus. Both at Karnak and at the Ramesseum, the latter may be
easily recognised among the stalks of papyrus and other freely imitated
flowers, but upon the columns and not in their shapes. Both base and capital
were ornamented with leaves and flowers. Their contours have been gently
indicated with a pointed instrument and then filled in with brilliant colours,
which help to relieve them from their ground. The whole decoration is
superficial; it is not embodied in the column and has no effect upon its
general form and character.
The following explanation of the resemblances which do undoubtedly exist
between certain details of Egyptian architecture and the forms of some of
Page 148
the national plants, is the most probable. The stalks of the lotus and the
papyrus are too weak and slender ever to have been used as supports by
themselves, but it is quite possible that on fête days, they were used to
decorate pillars and posts of more substantial construction, being bound
round them like the outer sticks of a faggot. This fashion has its modern
illustration in the Italian habit of draping the columns of a church with cloth
or velvet on special occasions, and in the French custom of draping houses
with garlands and white cloth for the procession of the Fête Dieu.
The river and the canals of Egypt offered all the elements for such a
decoration. The lotus and papyrus stems would be attached to the column
which they decorated, at the top and bottom. The leaves at the roots would
lie about its base, those round the flower and the flower itself would droop
gracefully beneath the architrave, would embrace and enlarge the capital
when it existed, or supply its place when there was none. The eyes of a
people with so keen a perception of beauty as the Egyptians could not be
insensible to the charm of a column thus crowned with the verdure of green
leaves, with the splendour of the open flower and with the graceful forms of
the still undeveloped bud. It is probable enough that the architect, when he
began to feel the necessity for embellishing the bare surface of his column,
took this temporary and often-renewed decoration for his model.
The first attempt to imitate these natural forms would be made in wood and
metal, substances which would lend themselves to the unpractised moulder
more readily than stone, but in time the difficulties of the latter material
would be overcome. The deep vertical grooves cut in the shaft would afford
a rough imitation of the round stems of the lotus and the triangular ones of
the papyrus. The circular belts at the top would suggest the cords by which
they were tied to the shaft. The leaves and flowers painted upon the lowest
part of the shaft and upon the capital, may be compared to permanent
chromatic shadows of the bouquets of colour and verdure which had once
hidden those members. Finally, the artist found in the swelling sides of the
bud and the hollow curves of the corolla those flowing lines which he
desired for the proper completion of his column.
This hypothesis seems to leave no point unexplained, and it receives
additional probability from a detail which can hardly be satisfactorily
accounted for by the advocates of the rival theory. We mean the cube of
papyrus are too weak and slender ever to have been used as supports by
themselves, but it is quite possible that on fête days, they were used to
decorate pillars and posts of more substantial construction, being bound
round them like the outer sticks of a faggot. This fashion has its modern
illustration in the Italian habit of draping the columns of a church with cloth
or velvet on special occasions, and in the French custom of draping houses
with garlands and white cloth for the procession of the Fête Dieu.
The river and the canals of Egypt offered all the elements for such a
decoration. The lotus and papyrus stems would be attached to the column
which they decorated, at the top and bottom. The leaves at the roots would
lie about its base, those round the flower and the flower itself would droop
gracefully beneath the architrave, would embrace and enlarge the capital
when it existed, or supply its place when there was none. The eyes of a
people with so keen a perception of beauty as the Egyptians could not be
insensible to the charm of a column thus crowned with the verdure of green
leaves, with the splendour of the open flower and with the graceful forms of
the still undeveloped bud. It is probable enough that the architect, when he
began to feel the necessity for embellishing the bare surface of his column,
took this temporary and often-renewed decoration for his model.
The first attempt to imitate these natural forms would be made in wood and
metal, substances which would lend themselves to the unpractised moulder
more readily than stone, but in time the difficulties of the latter material
would be overcome. The deep vertical grooves cut in the shaft would afford
a rough imitation of the round stems of the lotus and the triangular ones of
the papyrus. The circular belts at the top would suggest the cords by which
they were tied to the shaft. The leaves and flowers painted upon the lowest
part of the shaft and upon the capital, may be compared to permanent
chromatic shadows of the bouquets of colour and verdure which had once
hidden those members. Finally, the artist found in the swelling sides of the
bud and the hollow curves of the corolla those flowing lines which he
desired for the proper completion of his column.
This hypothesis seems to leave no point unexplained, and it receives
additional probability from a detail which can hardly be satisfactorily
accounted for by the advocates of the rival theory. We mean the cube of
Page 149
stone which is interposed as a kind of abacus between the capital and the
architrave. If we refer the general lines to those of a plain column bound
about with flowering stalks, there is no difficulty. The abacus then
represents the rigid column behind the decoration, raising its summit above
the drooping heads of lotus and papyrus, and visibly doing its duty as a
support. Its effect may not be very happy, but its raison d'être is complete.
On the other hand its existence is quite inexplicable, if we are to look upon
the column as a reproduction in stone, a kind of petrifaction of a single
stem. To what, in that case, does this heavy stone die correspond? To those
who believe the capital to be the representation of a single flower with its
circlet of graceful petals, its presence must seem nothing less than an
outrage.
In their light structures only do we find the Egyptians frankly imitating
flowers and half-opened buds (Figs. 57, 63, and 64), but even there the
imitation is far from literal. The petals in a single "bloom" are often of
different colours, some blue, some yellow, others again red or pink, a
mixture which is not to be found in nature. The Egyptian decorator thought
only of decoration. He used his tints capriciously from the botanist's point
of view, but he often reproduced the forms of Egyptian plants with
considerable fidelity, especially those splendid lotus-flowers which
occupied so large a part in his affections long before the poets of India sang
their praise. In fashioning slender shafts which had little weight to support,
the artist could give the reins to his fancy, he could mould his metal plates
or his precious timber into the semblance of any natural form that pleased
his eye, and the types thus created would, of course, be present in the minds
of the first architects who attempted to decorate rock-cut tombs or temples
and constructed buildings. We affirm again, however, that neither the stone
column of the Egyptians, nor that of the Greeks, in its most complete and
dignified form, resulted from the servile imitation, nor even from the
intelligent interpretation of living nature.
The column was an abstract creation of plastic genius. Its forms were
determined by the natural properties of the material employed, by structural
necessities, and by a desire for beauty of proportion. Different peoples have
had different ideas as to what constitutes this beauty; they have had their
secret instincts and individual preferences. The artist, too, who wishes to
ornament a column, is sure to borrow motives from any particular form of
architrave. If we refer the general lines to those of a plain column bound
about with flowering stalks, there is no difficulty. The abacus then
represents the rigid column behind the decoration, raising its summit above
the drooping heads of lotus and papyrus, and visibly doing its duty as a
support. Its effect may not be very happy, but its raison d'être is complete.
On the other hand its existence is quite inexplicable, if we are to look upon
the column as a reproduction in stone, a kind of petrifaction of a single
stem. To what, in that case, does this heavy stone die correspond? To those
who believe the capital to be the representation of a single flower with its
circlet of graceful petals, its presence must seem nothing less than an
outrage.
In their light structures only do we find the Egyptians frankly imitating
flowers and half-opened buds (Figs. 57, 63, and 64), but even there the
imitation is far from literal. The petals in a single "bloom" are often of
different colours, some blue, some yellow, others again red or pink, a
mixture which is not to be found in nature. The Egyptian decorator thought
only of decoration. He used his tints capriciously from the botanist's point
of view, but he often reproduced the forms of Egyptian plants with
considerable fidelity, especially those splendid lotus-flowers which
occupied so large a part in his affections long before the poets of India sang
their praise. In fashioning slender shafts which had little weight to support,
the artist could give the reins to his fancy, he could mould his metal plates
or his precious timber into the semblance of any natural form that pleased
his eye, and the types thus created would, of course, be present in the minds
of the first architects who attempted to decorate rock-cut tombs or temples
and constructed buildings. We affirm again, however, that neither the stone
column of the Egyptians, nor that of the Greeks, in its most complete and
dignified form, resulted from the servile imitation, nor even from the
intelligent interpretation of living nature.
The column was an abstract creation of plastic genius. Its forms were
determined by the natural properties of the material employed, by structural
necessities, and by a desire for beauty of proportion. Different peoples have
had different ideas as to what constitutes this beauty; they have had their
secret instincts and individual preferences. The artist, too, who wishes to
ornament a column, is sure to borrow motives from any particular form of
Page 150
art or industry in which the race to which he belongs may have earned
distinction. In some cases, therefore, his work may resemble carved wood,
in others chased or beaten metal. He will also be influenced, to some extent,
by the features and characteristic forms of the plants and animals peculiar to
his country. But wherever a race is endowed with a true instinct for art, its
architects will succeed in creating for stone architecture an appropriate style
of its own. The exigencies of the material differ from those of metal or
wood. Its unbending rigidity places a great gulf between it and the elasticity
and perpetual mobility which characterize organic life. The Egyptian
architects saw from the first that this difference, or rather contrast, would
have to be reckoned with. They understood perfectly well that the shaft
which was to support a massive roof of stone must not be a copy of those
slender stems of lotus or papyrus which bend before the wind, or float upon
the lazy waters of the canals. The phrase column-plant or plant-column,
which has sometimes been used in connection with the columns of Luxor
and Karnak, is a contradiction in terms.
But why should we dwell upon these questions of origin? In the history of
art, as in that of language, they are nearly always insoluble, especially when
we have to do with a race who created all their artistic forms and idioms for
themselves. The case is different when we have to do with a nation who
came under the influence of an earlier civilization than their own. Then, and
then only, can such an inquiry lead to useful results. The word origin is then
a synonym for affiliation, and an inquiry is directed towards establishing the
method and the period in which the act of birth took place.
In our later volumes we shall have to go into such questions in detail, but in
the case of Egypt we are spared that task. All that we mean by civilization
had its origin in Egypt, so far, at least, as we can tell. It is the highest point
in the stream to which we can mount. Any attempt to determine the genesis
of each particular æsthetic motive in a past so distant that a glance into its
depths takes away our breath, would be a mere waste of time and ingenuity.
§ 6. The Ordonnance of Egyptian Colonnades.
A French writer tells us that uniformity is sure to give birth to weariness
sooner or later, and there are many people who would believe, if they
thought about it, that his words exactly apply to the art of Egypt. The
distinction. In some cases, therefore, his work may resemble carved wood,
in others chased or beaten metal. He will also be influenced, to some extent,
by the features and characteristic forms of the plants and animals peculiar to
his country. But wherever a race is endowed with a true instinct for art, its
architects will succeed in creating for stone architecture an appropriate style
of its own. The exigencies of the material differ from those of metal or
wood. Its unbending rigidity places a great gulf between it and the elasticity
and perpetual mobility which characterize organic life. The Egyptian
architects saw from the first that this difference, or rather contrast, would
have to be reckoned with. They understood perfectly well that the shaft
which was to support a massive roof of stone must not be a copy of those
slender stems of lotus or papyrus which bend before the wind, or float upon
the lazy waters of the canals. The phrase column-plant or plant-column,
which has sometimes been used in connection with the columns of Luxor
and Karnak, is a contradiction in terms.
But why should we dwell upon these questions of origin? In the history of
art, as in that of language, they are nearly always insoluble, especially when
we have to do with a race who created all their artistic forms and idioms for
themselves. The case is different when we have to do with a nation who
came under the influence of an earlier civilization than their own. Then, and
then only, can such an inquiry lead to useful results. The word origin is then
a synonym for affiliation, and an inquiry is directed towards establishing the
method and the period in which the act of birth took place.
In our later volumes we shall have to go into such questions in detail, but in
the case of Egypt we are spared that task. All that we mean by civilization
had its origin in Egypt, so far, at least, as we can tell. It is the highest point
in the stream to which we can mount. Any attempt to determine the genesis
of each particular æsthetic motive in a past so distant that a glance into its
depths takes away our breath, would be a mere waste of time and ingenuity.
§ 6. The Ordonnance of Egyptian Colonnades.
A French writer tells us that uniformity is sure to give birth to weariness
sooner or later, and there are many people who would believe, if they
thought about it, that his words exactly apply to the art of Egypt. The
Page 151
character which was given to it when its creations first became known to
modern Europe clings to it still. Our museums are full of objects dating
from the last centuries of the monarchy and even from the Greek and
Roman period. A very slight study of Egyptian architecture is sufficient,
however, to destroy such a prejudice, in spite of its convenience for those
who are lazily disposed. The pier and column were extremely various in
their types, as we have seen, and each type was divided into numerous
species. The same variety is found in the arrangement, or ordonnance, of
the columns, both in the interior and exterior of their buildings. We cannot
prove this better than by placing a series of plans of hypostyle halls and
porticos before the eye of the reader, accompanied by a few illustrations in
perspective which will suffice to show the freedom enjoyed by the Egyptian
architect and the number of different arrangements which he could
introduce into a single building.
The fullest development of Egyptian columnar architecture is to be found in
their interiors.
Fig. 99.—Small chamber at Karnak.
Fig. 100.—Apartment in the temple at Luxor.
modern Europe clings to it still. Our museums are full of objects dating
from the last centuries of the monarchy and even from the Greek and
Roman period. A very slight study of Egyptian architecture is sufficient,
however, to destroy such a prejudice, in spite of its convenience for those
who are lazily disposed. The pier and column were extremely various in
their types, as we have seen, and each type was divided into numerous
species. The same variety is found in the arrangement, or ordonnance, of
the columns, both in the interior and exterior of their buildings. We cannot
prove this better than by placing a series of plans of hypostyle halls and
porticos before the eye of the reader, accompanied by a few illustrations in
perspective which will suffice to show the freedom enjoyed by the Egyptian
architect and the number of different arrangements which he could
introduce into a single building.
The fullest development of Egyptian columnar architecture is to be found in
their interiors.
Fig. 99.—Small chamber at Karnak.
Fig. 100.—Apartment in the temple at Luxor.
Page 152
Fig. 101.—Hall of the temple at Abydos; Description, vol. ii. p. 41.
The simplest arrangement is to be found in the small chambers where the
roof is sustained by a single row of columns (Fig. 98). When the apartment
was slightly larger it contained two rows, the space between the rows being
wider than that between the columns and the wall (Fig. 100). Sometimes in
still larger halls we find three rows of columns separated from one another
by equal spaces in every direction (Fig. 101). Finally in those great
chambers which are known as hypostyle halls, the number of columns
seems to be practically unlimited. At Karnak there are a hundred and thirty-
four (Fig. 102), at the Ramesseum forty-eight, at Medinet-Abou twenty-
four.
Fig. 102.—Plan of part of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.
The simplest arrangement is to be found in the small chambers where the
roof is sustained by a single row of columns (Fig. 98). When the apartment
was slightly larger it contained two rows, the space between the rows being
wider than that between the columns and the wall (Fig. 100). Sometimes in
still larger halls we find three rows of columns separated from one another
by equal spaces in every direction (Fig. 101). Finally in those great
chambers which are known as hypostyle halls, the number of columns
seems to be practically unlimited. At Karnak there are a hundred and thirty-
four (Fig. 102), at the Ramesseum forty-eight, at Medinet-Abou twenty-
four.
Fig. 102.—Plan of part of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.
Page 153
The full effect of the hypostyle hall is to be seen at Karnak and at the
Ramesseum. In those halls the central aisle is higher than the parts
adjoining and is distinguished by a different type of column (Plate IV). It is
more than probable that this happy arrangement was not confined to
Thebes. We should no doubt have encountered it in more than one of the
temples of Memphis and the Delta had they been preserved to our time. Its
principle was reproduced in the propylæa of the acropolis at Athens, where
the Ionic and Doric orders figured side by side.
Fig. 103.—Tomb at Sakkarah.
Fig. 104.—Hall in the inner portion of the Great Temple at Karnak.
In the ancient tombs at Sakkarah the quadrangular pier alone was used to
support the roof (Fig. 103). In the Theban temples it was combined with the
column. In the chamber called the ambulatory of Thothmes (J in Fig. 215,
Vol. I.), at Karnak, a row of square piers surrounds an avenue of circular
columns which to bear the roof (Fig. 104).
Ramesseum. In those halls the central aisle is higher than the parts
adjoining and is distinguished by a different type of column (Plate IV). It is
more than probable that this happy arrangement was not confined to
Thebes. We should no doubt have encountered it in more than one of the
temples of Memphis and the Delta had they been preserved to our time. Its
principle was reproduced in the propylæa of the acropolis at Athens, where
the Ionic and Doric orders figured side by side.
Fig. 103.—Tomb at Sakkarah.
Fig. 104.—Hall in the inner portion of the Great Temple at Karnak.
In the ancient tombs at Sakkarah the quadrangular pier alone was used to
support the roof (Fig. 103). In the Theban temples it was combined with the
column. In the chamber called the ambulatory of Thothmes (J in Fig. 215,
Vol. I.), at Karnak, a row of square piers surrounds an avenue of circular
columns which to bear the roof (Fig. 104).
Page 154
Fig. 105.—Portico of the first court at Medinet-Abou.
Fig. 106.—Portico of the first court at Luxor.
The external porticos are no less remarkable for variety of plan. At
Medinet-Abou we find one consisting of only a single row of columns (Fig.
105). At Luxor the columns are doubled upon all four sides of the first court
(Fig. 106), and upon two sides of the second; upon one side of the latter, the
side nearest to the sanctuary, there are four rows of columns (Fig. 107).
Fig. 106.—Portico of the first court at Luxor.
The external porticos are no less remarkable for variety of plan. At
Medinet-Abou we find one consisting of only a single row of columns (Fig.
105). At Luxor the columns are doubled upon all four sides of the first court
(Fig. 106), and upon two sides of the second; upon one side of the latter, the
side nearest to the sanctuary, there are four rows of columns (Fig. 107).
Page 155
Fig. 107.—The portico of the pronaos, Luxor.
All these are within the external walls of the courts, but the peripteral
portico, embracing the temple walls, like those of Greece, is also to be
found in a few rare instances (Fig. 108); as, for example, in the small
temple at Elephantiné which we have already described.[120]
Fig. 108.—Part plan of the temple at Elephantiné.
Fig. 109.—Luxor, plan of the second court.
All these are within the external walls of the courts, but the peripteral
portico, embracing the temple walls, like those of Greece, is also to be
found in a few rare instances (Fig. 108); as, for example, in the small
temple at Elephantiné which we have already described.[120]
Fig. 108.—Part plan of the temple at Elephantiné.
Fig. 109.—Luxor, plan of the second court.
Page 156
In the cases where the portico is within the courts, it is sometimes confined
to two sides, as at Luxor (Fig. 109); the columns shown at the top of our
plan belong to the pronaos and not to the court. In the Temple of Khons it
surrounds three sides (Fig. 110), while the fine court added to the temple of
Luxor by Rameses II. has a double colonnade all round it (Fig. 111).
Both in the interior of the halls and in the external porticos we find an
apparently capricious irregularity in spacing the columns. Sometimes
intercolumniations vary at points where we should expect uniformity, as in
the outer court of Luxor (Fig. 112). On two of the faces the columns are
farther apart than on the other two. The difference is not easily seen on the
ordinary small plans, but it is conspicuous in the large one of the
Description.[121]
It is easy to understand why the spacing should have been increased in front
of a door, an arrangement which exists at Gournah (Fig. 113), and at Luxor
(Figs. 109 and 111).
Fig. 110.—Portico in the Temple of Khons.
to two sides, as at Luxor (Fig. 109); the columns shown at the top of our
plan belong to the pronaos and not to the court. In the Temple of Khons it
surrounds three sides (Fig. 110), while the fine court added to the temple of
Luxor by Rameses II. has a double colonnade all round it (Fig. 111).
Both in the interior of the halls and in the external porticos we find an
apparently capricious irregularity in spacing the columns. Sometimes
intercolumniations vary at points where we should expect uniformity, as in
the outer court of Luxor (Fig. 112). On two of the faces the columns are
farther apart than on the other two. The difference is not easily seen on the
ordinary small plans, but it is conspicuous in the large one of the
Description.[121]
It is easy to understand why the spacing should have been increased in front
of a door, an arrangement which exists at Gournah (Fig. 113), and at Luxor
(Figs. 109 and 111).
Fig. 110.—Portico in the Temple of Khons.
Page 157
Fig. 111.—Luxor, portico of the first court.
In the hypostyle halls we find columns of different sizes and orders. Six of
the great columns which form the central avenue at Karnak cover as much
ground, measuring from the first to the sixth, as nine of the smaller pillars.
Between supports so arranged and proportioned no constant relation could
be established (Fig. 114). The transverse lines passing through the centres
of each pair of great columns correspond to the centres neither of the
smaller shafts nor of the spaces which divide them. The central aisle and the
two lateral groves of stone might have been the creations of separate
architects, working without communication with one another and without
any desire to make their proportions seem the result of one coherent idea.
In the inner hypostyle hall at Abydos the intercolumniations which lead
respectively to the seven sanctuaries vary in width (Fig. 115). This variation
is not shown by Mariette, from whose work our plan of the temple as a
whole was taken, but it is clearly seen in the plan given in the Description.
These are not the only instances in which those early explorers of Egypt
excelled their successors in minute accuracy.
Fig. 112.—Part of the portico of the first court, Luxor. From the
Description, iii. 5.
In the hypostyle halls we find columns of different sizes and orders. Six of
the great columns which form the central avenue at Karnak cover as much
ground, measuring from the first to the sixth, as nine of the smaller pillars.
Between supports so arranged and proportioned no constant relation could
be established (Fig. 114). The transverse lines passing through the centres
of each pair of great columns correspond to the centres neither of the
smaller shafts nor of the spaces which divide them. The central aisle and the
two lateral groves of stone might have been the creations of separate
architects, working without communication with one another and without
any desire to make their proportions seem the result of one coherent idea.
In the inner hypostyle hall at Abydos the intercolumniations which lead
respectively to the seven sanctuaries vary in width (Fig. 115). This variation
is not shown by Mariette, from whose work our plan of the temple as a
whole was taken, but it is clearly seen in the plan given in the Description.
These are not the only instances in which those early explorers of Egypt
excelled their successors in minute accuracy.
Fig. 112.—Part of the portico of the first court, Luxor. From the
Description, iii. 5.
Page 158
Fig. 113.—Portico in front of the façade of the temple of Gournah.
From the Description, ii. 41.
Here and there we find the spaces in a single row of columns increasing
progressively from the two ends to the centre (Fig. 105).
Fig. 114.—Part of the Hypostyle Hall in the Great Temple at Karnak.
The combination of quadrangular with Osiride piers and of the latter with
columns proper was also productive of great variety. In the speos of Gherf-
Hossein six Osiride piers are inclosed by six of quadrangular section (Fig.
116). In the first court at Medinet-Abou a row of Osiride piers faces a row
of columns (Fig. 117), while in the second court there is a much more
complicated arrangement. The lateral walls of the court are prefaced each
by a row of columns. The wall next the entrance has a row of Osiride piers
before it; while that through which the pronaos is gained has a portico
From the Description, ii. 41.
Here and there we find the spaces in a single row of columns increasing
progressively from the two ends to the centre (Fig. 105).
Fig. 114.—Part of the Hypostyle Hall in the Great Temple at Karnak.
The combination of quadrangular with Osiride piers and of the latter with
columns proper was also productive of great variety. In the speos of Gherf-
Hossein six Osiride piers are inclosed by six of quadrangular section (Fig.
116). In the first court at Medinet-Abou a row of Osiride piers faces a row
of columns (Fig. 117), while in the second court there is a much more
complicated arrangement. The lateral walls of the court are prefaced each
by a row of columns. The wall next the entrance has a row of Osiride piers
before it; while that through which the pronaos is gained has a portico
Page 159
supported by, first, a row of Osiride piers, and, behind them, by a row of
columns (Fig. 118).
Fig. 115.—Second Hypostyle Hall in the temple of Abydos. Description,
iv. 36.
Fig. 116.—Hall in the speos of Gherf-Hossein (from Prisse).
columns (Fig. 118).
Fig. 115.—Second Hypostyle Hall in the temple of Abydos. Description,
iv. 36.
Fig. 116.—Hall in the speos of Gherf-Hossein (from Prisse).
Page 160
Fig. 117.—Medinet-Abou; first court.
Fig. 118.—Medinet-Abou; second court.
In the temple of Khons the peristyle is continued past the doorway in the
pylon (Fig. 119), and the inclosure is reached through one of the
intercolumniations.[122] At Luxor, on the other hand, the portico was
brought to an abrupt termination against the salient jambs of the doorway
(Fig. 120).
Fig. 118.—Medinet-Abou; second court.
In the temple of Khons the peristyle is continued past the doorway in the
pylon (Fig. 119), and the inclosure is reached through one of the
intercolumniations.[122] At Luxor, on the other hand, the portico was
brought to an abrupt termination against the salient jambs of the doorway
(Fig. 120).
Page 161
Fig. 119.—Portico of the Temple of Khons, looking towards pronaos.
Fig. 120.—Portico of first court at Luxor.
The Egyptian architect, like his Greek successor, made frequent use of the
anta, that is, he gave a salience to the extremities of his walls which
strengthened his design and afforded structural members, akin to pilasters
or quadrangular pillars, which were combined in various ways with
columns and piers. Sometimes the anta is nothing but a slight prolongation
of a wall beyond the point where it meets another (Fig. 121); sometimes it
is the commencement of a returning wall which appears to have been
broken off to give place to a row of columns (Fig. 122); a good instance of
the latter arrangement is to be found on the façade of the temple at
Gournah. Sometimes, as at Medinet-Abou, it is a reinforcement to the
extremity of a wall, and serves to form a backing for colossal Osiride
statues (Fig. 123), sometimes it gives accent and strength to an angle, as in
the Great Hall at Karnak (Fig. 124). At the Temple of Khons the
terminations of the two rows of columns which form the portico are marked
Fig. 120.—Portico of first court at Luxor.
The Egyptian architect, like his Greek successor, made frequent use of the
anta, that is, he gave a salience to the extremities of his walls which
strengthened his design and afforded structural members, akin to pilasters
or quadrangular pillars, which were combined in various ways with
columns and piers. Sometimes the anta is nothing but a slight prolongation
of a wall beyond the point where it meets another (Fig. 121); sometimes it
is the commencement of a returning wall which appears to have been
broken off to give place to a row of columns (Fig. 122); a good instance of
the latter arrangement is to be found on the façade of the temple at
Gournah. Sometimes, as at Medinet-Abou, it is a reinforcement to the
extremity of a wall, and serves to form a backing for colossal Osiride
statues (Fig. 123), sometimes it gives accent and strength to an angle, as in
the Great Hall at Karnak (Fig. 124). At the Temple of Khons the
terminations of the two rows of columns which form the portico are marked
Page 162
by antæ on the inner face of the pylon (Fig. 126), while the wall which
incloses the pronaos is without any projection except the jambs of the door.
This arrangement has an obvious raison d'être; if the columns were brought
close up to the pylon their outlines would not combine happily with its
inclined walls. At the other extremity of the court, the wall being
perpendicular, there was no necessity for such an arrangement.[123] A glance
at Fig. 126 will make this readily understood. At Medinet-Abou the portico
is terminated laterally by two antæ, one corresponding to the row of
columns, the other to the row of caryatid piers. In another court of the same
temple the antæ on either side vary in depth, at one end of the portico there
is a bold pilaster, at the other one which projects very slightly indeed (Fig.
128). This is another instance of the curious want of symmetry and
regularity which is one of the most constant characteristics of Egyptian
architecture.
Fig. 121.—Anta, Luxor; second court. Description, iii. 5.
incloses the pronaos is without any projection except the jambs of the door.
This arrangement has an obvious raison d'être; if the columns were brought
close up to the pylon their outlines would not combine happily with its
inclined walls. At the other extremity of the court, the wall being
perpendicular, there was no necessity for such an arrangement.[123] A glance
at Fig. 126 will make this readily understood. At Medinet-Abou the portico
is terminated laterally by two antæ, one corresponding to the row of
columns, the other to the row of caryatid piers. In another court of the same
temple the antæ on either side vary in depth, at one end of the portico there
is a bold pilaster, at the other one which projects very slightly indeed (Fig.
128). This is another instance of the curious want of symmetry and
regularity which is one of the most constant characteristics of Egyptian
architecture.
Fig. 121.—Anta, Luxor; second court. Description, iii. 5.
Page 163
Fig. 122.—Anta, Gournah. From Gailhabaud.
Fig. 123.—Anta, Medinet-Abou.
Fig. 123.—Anta, Medinet-Abou.
Page 164
Fig. 124.—Anta in the Great Hall of Karnak.
Fig. 125.—Antæ, Temple of Khons. Description, iii. 54.
Fig. 125.—Antæ, Temple of Khons. Description, iii. 54.
Page 165
Fig. 126.—Anta and base of pylon, Temple of Khons. Description, iii.
55.
The anta is often without a capital, as, for instance, in the temple of Khons
(Fig. 126). Elsewhere the architect seems to have wished to bring it into
more complete harmony with the magnificence of its surroundings, and
accordingly he gives it a capital, as at Medinet-Abou, but a capital totally
unlike those proper to the column.[124] It was identical in form with that
gorge or cornice which crowns nearly every Egyptian wall. Considering
that the anta was really no more than a prolongation or momentary salience
of the wall, such an arrangement was judicious in every way (Fig. 129).
55.
The anta is often without a capital, as, for instance, in the temple of Khons
(Fig. 126). Elsewhere the architect seems to have wished to bring it into
more complete harmony with the magnificence of its surroundings, and
accordingly he gives it a capital, as at Medinet-Abou, but a capital totally
unlike those proper to the column.[124] It was identical in form with that
gorge or cornice which crowns nearly every Egyptian wall. Considering
that the anta was really no more than a prolongation or momentary salience
of the wall, such an arrangement was judicious in every way (Fig. 129).
Page 166
Fig. 127.—Antæ, Medinet-Abou.
Fig. 128.—Antæ, Medinet-Abou.
The width of the intercolumniations also varied between one court or hall
and another, and, at least in the present state of the Egyptian remains, we
are unable to discover any rule governing the matter, such as those by
which Greek architects were guided. We may affirm generally that the
Egyptian constructor, especially in the time of the New Empire and when
using columns of large dimensions, preferred close spacing to wide. His
tendency to crowd his columns is to be explained, partly by the great weight
of the superstructure which they had to support, partly by the national taste
Fig. 128.—Antæ, Medinet-Abou.
The width of the intercolumniations also varied between one court or hall
and another, and, at least in the present state of the Egyptian remains, we
are unable to discover any rule governing the matter, such as those by
which Greek architects were guided. We may affirm generally that the
Egyptian constructor, especially in the time of the New Empire and when
using columns of large dimensions, preferred close spacing to wide. His
tendency to crowd his columns is to be explained, partly by the great weight
of the superstructure which they had to support, partly by the national taste
Page 167
for a massive and close architecture. The spaces between the great columns
in the hypostyle hall of Karnak, measured between the points of junction
between the bases and the shafts, is slightly less than two diameters. The
spaces between the smaller columns on each side are hardly more than one
diameter.
A better idea of the original character of these ordonnances may perhaps be
gathered from the plate which faces the next page (Pl. VIII) than to any plan
to which we could refer the reader. It represents that part of the colonnade,
in the second court of the temple at Medinet-Abou, which veils the wall of
the pronaos, and it shows how little space the Egyptian architects thought
necessary for the purposes of circulation. The spaces between the columns
and the wall on the one hand and the osiride piers on the other, are not quite
equal to the diameter of the bases of those columns, which have, however,
been expressly kept smaller than was usual in Egypt. If they had been as
large as some that we could point out, there would have been no room to
pass between them and the wall.
Did the Egyptians ever employ isolated columns, not as structural units, but
for decorative purposes, for the support of a group or a statue? Are there
any examples of pillars like those which the Phœnicians raised before their
temples, or the triumphal columns of the Romans, or those reared for
commemorative purposes in Paris and other cities of Modern Europe? It is
impossible to give a confident answer to this question. The remains of the
great colonnade which existed in the first court at Karnak, of which a single
column with bell-shaped capital is still upright (Fig. 130), suggest, perhaps,
that such monumental pillars were not unknown to the Egyptians. These
columns display the ovals of Tahraka, of Psemethek, and of Ptolemy
Philopator. The width of the avenue between them, measuring from centre
to centre, is so great, about fifty-five feet, that it is difficult to believe that it
could ever have been covered with a roof. Even with wood it would have
been no easy matter—for the Egyptians—to cover such a void. We have,
moreover, good reason to believe that they never used wood and stone
together in their temples. A velarium has been suggested, but there is
nothing either in the Egyptian texts or in their wall paintings to hint at their
use of such a covering.
in the hypostyle hall of Karnak, measured between the points of junction
between the bases and the shafts, is slightly less than two diameters. The
spaces between the smaller columns on each side are hardly more than one
diameter.
A better idea of the original character of these ordonnances may perhaps be
gathered from the plate which faces the next page (Pl. VIII) than to any plan
to which we could refer the reader. It represents that part of the colonnade,
in the second court of the temple at Medinet-Abou, which veils the wall of
the pronaos, and it shows how little space the Egyptian architects thought
necessary for the purposes of circulation. The spaces between the columns
and the wall on the one hand and the osiride piers on the other, are not quite
equal to the diameter of the bases of those columns, which have, however,
been expressly kept smaller than was usual in Egypt. If they had been as
large as some that we could point out, there would have been no room to
pass between them and the wall.
Did the Egyptians ever employ isolated columns, not as structural units, but
for decorative purposes, for the support of a group or a statue? Are there
any examples of pillars like those which the Phœnicians raised before their
temples, or the triumphal columns of the Romans, or those reared for
commemorative purposes in Paris and other cities of Modern Europe? It is
impossible to give a confident answer to this question. The remains of the
great colonnade which existed in the first court at Karnak, of which a single
column with bell-shaped capital is still upright (Fig. 130), suggest, perhaps,
that such monumental pillars were not unknown to the Egyptians. These
columns display the ovals of Tahraka, of Psemethek, and of Ptolemy
Philopator. The width of the avenue between them, measuring from centre
to centre, is so great, about fifty-five feet, that it is difficult to believe that it
could ever have been covered with a roof. Even with wood it would have
been no easy matter—for the Egyptians—to cover such a void. We have,
moreover, good reason to believe that they never used wood and stone
together in their temples. A velarium has been suggested, but there is
nothing either in the Egyptian texts or in their wall paintings to hint at their
use of such a covering.
Page 168
It would have been quite possible to connect the summits of these columns
together lengthwise. The architraves would have had less than twenty feet
to bridge over. But not the slightest relic of such a structure has been found,
and it is difficult to see what good purpose it could have served had it
existed.
The authors of the Description came to the conclusion that there had been
no roof of any kind to the avenue formed by the columns, that they merely
formed a kind of monumental approach to the hypostyle hall.[125] Mariette
also discards the idea of architraves, which would have to be unusually
long, but he cannot accept the notion that the columns were merely colossal
venetian masts bordering the approach to the sanctuary. He supposes the
centre of the courtyard to have contained a small hypæthral temple built by
Tahraka. This temple figures upon his plan, but neither he himself, by his
own confession, nor any one else has ever found the slightest trace of it in
reality.[126] In the excavations made by him in 1859, he did not find a
vestige even of the two columns which he inserts upon each of the two
short sides of the rectangle. These columns were necessary in order to
complete a peripteral arrangement, similar to that which exists in the
hypæthral temples at Philæ and in Nubia. The closest study of the site has
brought to light nothing beyond the twelve columns shown in our plan (Fig.
214, E, Vol. I.).
together lengthwise. The architraves would have had less than twenty feet
to bridge over. But not the slightest relic of such a structure has been found,
and it is difficult to see what good purpose it could have served had it
existed.
The authors of the Description came to the conclusion that there had been
no roof of any kind to the avenue formed by the columns, that they merely
formed a kind of monumental approach to the hypostyle hall.[125] Mariette
also discards the idea of architraves, which would have to be unusually
long, but he cannot accept the notion that the columns were merely colossal
venetian masts bordering the approach to the sanctuary. He supposes the
centre of the courtyard to have contained a small hypæthral temple built by
Tahraka. This temple figures upon his plan, but neither he himself, by his
own confession, nor any one else has ever found the slightest trace of it in
reality.[126] In the excavations made by him in 1859, he did not find a
vestige even of the two columns which he inserts upon each of the two
short sides of the rectangle. These columns were necessary in order to
complete a peripteral arrangement, similar to that which exists in the
hypæthral temples at Philæ and in Nubia. The closest study of the site has
brought to light nothing beyond the twelve columns shown in our plan (Fig.
214, E, Vol. I.).
Page 169
Ch. Chipiez del Hibon sc.
THEBES
PORTICO IN THE TEMPLE OF MEDINET-ABOU (SECOND
COURT)
Restored by Ch. Chipiez.
Imp. Ch. Chardon
THEBES
PORTICO IN THE TEMPLE OF MEDINET-ABOU (SECOND
COURT)
Restored by Ch. Chipiez.
Imp. Ch. Chardon
Page 170
Fig. 129.—Anta and column at Medinet-Abou.
Page 171
Fig. 130.—Column in the court of the Bubastides, at Karnak.
The most probable explanation is that which we have hinted at above.[127]
These great columns were erected to give majesty to the approach to the
hypostyle hall, and to border the path followed by the great religious
processions as they issued from the hall and made for the great doorway in
the pylon. They must always have been isolated, and it is possible that
formerly each carried upon the cubic die which still surmounts the capital,
groups of bronze similar to those which, to all appearance, crowned those
stele-like piers which we described in speaking of the work of Thothmes in
the same temple (page 94). This was also the opinion of Prisse d'Avennes,
who studied the monuments of Egypt, both as an artist and as an
archæologist, more closely, perhaps, than any one else.[128] It has been
objected that the columns would hide each other, and that the symbolic
animals perched upon their summits could not have been seen; but this
would only be the case with those who looked at them from certain
disadvantageous positions—from between the columns, or exactly on their
The most probable explanation is that which we have hinted at above.[127]
These great columns were erected to give majesty to the approach to the
hypostyle hall, and to border the path followed by the great religious
processions as they issued from the hall and made for the great doorway in
the pylon. They must always have been isolated, and it is possible that
formerly each carried upon the cubic die which still surmounts the capital,
groups of bronze similar to those which, to all appearance, crowned those
stele-like piers which we described in speaking of the work of Thothmes in
the same temple (page 94). This was also the opinion of Prisse d'Avennes,
who studied the monuments of Egypt, both as an artist and as an
archæologist, more closely, perhaps, than any one else.[128] It has been
objected that the columns would hide each other, and that the symbolic
animals perched upon their summits could not have been seen; but this
would only be the case with those who looked at them from certain
disadvantageous positions—from between the columns, or exactly on their
Page 172
alignment. From the middle of the avenue, or from one side of it, they
would be clearly visible, and the vivid colours of their enamels would
produce their full effect.
The question might be decided in a very simple fashion. The summit of the
column which is still upright might be examined, or the abacus of one of
those which have fallen might be discovered; in either case traces of the
objects which they supported would be found, supposing our hypothesis to
be correct. More than one doubtful question of this kind would long ago
have been solved had the Egyptian monuments been studied on the spot by
archæologists and artists instead of being left almost entirely to the
narrower experience of engineers and egyptologists.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we shall, then, look upon it as
probable that the Egyptians sometimes raised columns, like other people,
not for the support of roofs and architraves, but as gigantic pedestals, as
self-contained decorative forms, with independent parts of their own to
play. Such a proceeding was doubtless an innovation in Egyptian art—one
of those fresh departures which date from the latter years of the Monarchy.
Even in Egypt motives grew stale with repetition at last, and she cried out
for something new.
§ 7. Monumental Details.
We have seen that the proportions, the entasis, the shape, and the decoration
of the Egyptian column, were changed more than once and in many ways.
The Egyptian artist, by his fertility of resource and continual striving after
improvement, showed that he was by no means actuated by that blind
respect for tradition which has been too often attributed to him. Besides, the
remains which we possess are but a small part of Egyptian architecture. The
buildings of Memphis and of the Delta have perished. Had they been
preserved we should doubtless have found among them forms and details
which do not exist in the ruins of Abydos, of Thebes, or in the Nubian
hypogea; we should have been able to describe arrangements and motives
which do not occur in the works of the three great Theban dynasties.
would be clearly visible, and the vivid colours of their enamels would
produce their full effect.
The question might be decided in a very simple fashion. The summit of the
column which is still upright might be examined, or the abacus of one of
those which have fallen might be discovered; in either case traces of the
objects which they supported would be found, supposing our hypothesis to
be correct. More than one doubtful question of this kind would long ago
have been solved had the Egyptian monuments been studied on the spot by
archæologists and artists instead of being left almost entirely to the
narrower experience of engineers and egyptologists.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we shall, then, look upon it as
probable that the Egyptians sometimes raised columns, like other people,
not for the support of roofs and architraves, but as gigantic pedestals, as
self-contained decorative forms, with independent parts of their own to
play. Such a proceeding was doubtless an innovation in Egyptian art—one
of those fresh departures which date from the latter years of the Monarchy.
Even in Egypt motives grew stale with repetition at last, and she cried out
for something new.
§ 7. Monumental Details.
We have seen that the proportions, the entasis, the shape, and the decoration
of the Egyptian column, were changed more than once and in many ways.
The Egyptian artist, by his fertility of resource and continual striving after
improvement, showed that he was by no means actuated by that blind
respect for tradition which has been too often attributed to him. Besides, the
remains which we possess are but a small part of Egyptian architecture. The
buildings of Memphis and of the Delta have perished. Had they been
preserved we should doubtless have found among them forms and details
which do not exist in the ruins of Abydos, of Thebes, or in the Nubian
hypogea; we should have been able to describe arrangements and motives
which do not occur in the works of the three great Theban dynasties.
Page 173
Fig. 131.—Stereobate, Luxor.
Fig. 132.—Stereobate with double plinth, Luxor.
On the other hand, the mouldings and other details of the same kind are
monotonous in the extreme. Their want of variety is not to be explained,
like that of Assyria, by the nature of the materials. Brick, granite, limestone,
and sandstone constituted a series of materials in which a varied play of
light and shade, such as that which characterized Greek architecture, should
have been easy. The real cause of the poverty of Egyptian design in this
Fig. 132.—Stereobate with double plinth, Luxor.
On the other hand, the mouldings and other details of the same kind are
monotonous in the extreme. Their want of variety is not to be explained,
like that of Assyria, by the nature of the materials. Brick, granite, limestone,
and sandstone constituted a series of materials in which a varied play of
light and shade, such as that which characterized Greek architecture, should
have been easy. The real cause of the poverty of Egyptian design in this
Page 174
particular is to be found in their habit of covering nearly every surface with
a carved and painted decoration. More elaborate or bolder mouldings might
have interfered with the succession of row upon row of pictures from the
bottom to the top of a wall. The eye was satisfied with the rich
polychromatic decoration, and did not require it to be supplemented by
architectural ornament.
When the slope of a wall was ornamented with projections in the shape of
mouldings it was because the wall was bare. At Luxor, for example, in the
external face of the wall which incloses the back of the temple, the lowest
course projects beyond the others, forming a step, and a few courses above
it there is a hollow moulding similar in section to the cornice at the top; the
lower part of the wall is thus formed into a stereobate (Fig. 131). At another
point in the circumference of this temple there is a stereobate of a more
complicated description. It is terminated above by a cornice-shaped
moulding like that just described, but it rests upon two steps instead of one
(Fig. 132). By this it appears that the Egyptian architects understood how to
add to apparent solidity of their buildings by expanding them at their
junction with the ground. This became a true continuous stylobate, carrying
piers, in peripteral temples like that at Elephantiné (Fig. 230, Vol. I.). In the
latter building its form is identical with that which we have just described.
We have now to describe an arrangement which, though rare in the
Pharaonic period, was afterwards common enough. The portico which
stretches across the back of the second court in the Ramesseum is closed to
about a third of its height by a kind of pluteus (Fig. 133).[129] This barrier
formed a sort of tablet, surrounded by a fillet, and crowned by a cornice of
the usual type, between each pair of Osiride piers. In the Ptolemaic temples
the lower part of the portico was always closed in this fashion. It constitutes
the only inclosure in front of the fine hypostyle hall at Denderah.
We have now studied buildings in sufficient number to become familiar
with the Egyptian Gorge. As early as the Ancient Empire the architects of
Egypt had invented this form of cornice, and used it happily upon their
massive structures. It is composed of three elements, which are always
arranged in the same order. In the first place there is the circular moulding
or torus with a carved ribbon twisting about it. This moulding occurs at the
edge where two faces meet in most Egyptian buildings. It serves to give
a carved and painted decoration. More elaborate or bolder mouldings might
have interfered with the succession of row upon row of pictures from the
bottom to the top of a wall. The eye was satisfied with the rich
polychromatic decoration, and did not require it to be supplemented by
architectural ornament.
When the slope of a wall was ornamented with projections in the shape of
mouldings it was because the wall was bare. At Luxor, for example, in the
external face of the wall which incloses the back of the temple, the lowest
course projects beyond the others, forming a step, and a few courses above
it there is a hollow moulding similar in section to the cornice at the top; the
lower part of the wall is thus formed into a stereobate (Fig. 131). At another
point in the circumference of this temple there is a stereobate of a more
complicated description. It is terminated above by a cornice-shaped
moulding like that just described, but it rests upon two steps instead of one
(Fig. 132). By this it appears that the Egyptian architects understood how to
add to apparent solidity of their buildings by expanding them at their
junction with the ground. This became a true continuous stylobate, carrying
piers, in peripteral temples like that at Elephantiné (Fig. 230, Vol. I.). In the
latter building its form is identical with that which we have just described.
We have now to describe an arrangement which, though rare in the
Pharaonic period, was afterwards common enough. The portico which
stretches across the back of the second court in the Ramesseum is closed to
about a third of its height by a kind of pluteus (Fig. 133).[129] This barrier
formed a sort of tablet, surrounded by a fillet, and crowned by a cornice of
the usual type, between each pair of Osiride piers. In the Ptolemaic temples
the lower part of the portico was always closed in this fashion. It constitutes
the only inclosure in front of the fine hypostyle hall at Denderah.
We have now studied buildings in sufficient number to become familiar
with the Egyptian Gorge. As early as the Ancient Empire the architects of
Egypt had invented this form of cornice, and used it happily upon their
massive structures. It is composed of three elements, which are always
arranged in the same order. In the first place there is the circular moulding
or torus with a carved ribbon twisting about it. This moulding occurs at the
edge where two faces meet in most Egyptian buildings. It serves to give
Page 175
firmness and accent to the angles and, when used at the top of the wall, to
mark the point where the wall ends and the cornice begins. Above this there
is a hollow curve with perpendicular grooves, which, again, is surmounted
by a plain fillet which makes a sharp line against the sky. In all this there is
a skilful opposition of hollows to flat surfaces, of deep shadow to brilliant
and unbroken sunlight, which marks the upward determination of the great
masses upon which it is used in the most effective manner.
Fig. 133.—Pluteus in the intercolumniations of the portico in the
second court of the Ramesseum.
mark the point where the wall ends and the cornice begins. Above this there
is a hollow curve with perpendicular grooves, which, again, is surmounted
by a plain fillet which makes a sharp line against the sky. In all this there is
a skilful opposition of hollows to flat surfaces, of deep shadow to brilliant
and unbroken sunlight, which marks the upward determination of the great
masses upon which it is used in the most effective manner.
Fig. 133.—Pluteus in the intercolumniations of the portico in the
second court of the Ramesseum.
Page 176
Although the Egyptian architect repeated this cornice continually, he
contrived to give it variety of effect by modifying its proportions, and by
introducing different kinds of ornaments. In the pylons, for instance, we
often find that the cornice of the doorway was both deeper and of bolder
projection than those upon the two masses of the pylon itself (Fig. 134). It
was generally ornamented with the winged globe, an emblem which was
afterwards appropriated by the nations which became connected with
Egypt.
Fig. 134.—Doorway, Luxor. Description, iii. 6.
This emblem in its full development was formed of the solar disk supported
on each side by the uræus, the serpent which meant royalty. The sun was
thus designated as the greatest of kings, the king who mounted up into
space, enlightening and vivifying the upper and lower country at one and
the same time. The disk and its supporters were flanked by the two wide
stretching wings with rounded, fan-shaped extremities, which symbolized
the untiring activity of the sun in making its daily journey from one
extremity of the firmament to the other. Egyptologists tell us that the group
as a whole signifies the triumph of right over wrong, the victory of Horus
contrived to give it variety of effect by modifying its proportions, and by
introducing different kinds of ornaments. In the pylons, for instance, we
often find that the cornice of the doorway was both deeper and of bolder
projection than those upon the two masses of the pylon itself (Fig. 134). It
was generally ornamented with the winged globe, an emblem which was
afterwards appropriated by the nations which became connected with
Egypt.
Fig. 134.—Doorway, Luxor. Description, iii. 6.
This emblem in its full development was formed of the solar disk supported
on each side by the uræus, the serpent which meant royalty. The sun was
thus designated as the greatest of kings, the king who mounted up into
space, enlightening and vivifying the upper and lower country at one and
the same time. The disk and its supporters were flanked by the two wide
stretching wings with rounded, fan-shaped extremities, which symbolized
the untiring activity of the sun in making its daily journey from one
extremity of the firmament to the other. Egyptologists tell us that the group
as a whole signifies the triumph of right over wrong, the victory of Horus
Page 177
over Set. An inscription at Edfou tells us that, after the victory, Thoth
ordered that this emblem should be carved over every doorway in Egypt,
and, in fact, there are very few lintels without it.[130] It first appears at about
the time of the twelfth dynasty, according to Mariette, but its form was at
first more simple. There were no uræi, and the wings were shorter, and
pendent instead of outstretched.[131] Towards the eighteenth dynasty it took
the shape in which it is figured in our illustrations, and became
thenceforward the Egyptian symbol par excellence.
Fig. 135.—Cornice of the Ramesseum. Description, ii. 30.
Fig. 136.—Cornice of a wooden pavilion; from Prisse.
In the more richly decorated buildings, such as the Ramesseum, we
sometimes find cartouches introduced between the vertical grooves of the
cornice (Fig. 135). In the representations of architecture on the painted
ordered that this emblem should be carved over every doorway in Egypt,
and, in fact, there are very few lintels without it.[130] It first appears at about
the time of the twelfth dynasty, according to Mariette, but its form was at
first more simple. There were no uræi, and the wings were shorter, and
pendent instead of outstretched.[131] Towards the eighteenth dynasty it took
the shape in which it is figured in our illustrations, and became
thenceforward the Egyptian symbol par excellence.
Fig. 135.—Cornice of the Ramesseum. Description, ii. 30.
Fig. 136.—Cornice of a wooden pavilion; from Prisse.
In the more richly decorated buildings, such as the Ramesseum, we
sometimes find cartouches introduced between the vertical grooves of the
cornice (Fig. 135). In the representations of architecture on the painted
Page 178
walls the upper member of the cornice as usually constituted, is often
surmounted by an ornament composed of the uræus and the solar disk, the
latter being upon the head of the former (Fig. 136). This addition gives a
richer and more ample cornice, which the Ptolemaic architects carried out
in stone. It is not to be found thus perpetuated in any Pharaonic building,
but the same motive occurs at Thebes, below the cornice, and its existence
in the bas-reliefs shows that even in early times it was sometimes used.
Perhaps it was confined to those light structures in which complicated
forms were easily carried out.
This cornice seemed to the Egyptians to be so entirely the proper
termination for their rising surfaces, that they placed it at the top of their
stylobates (Figs. 131 and 132) and their pedestals (Fig. 137). They also used
it within their buildings at the top of the walls behind their colonnades, as,
for instance, in the peripteral temple at Elephantiné (Fig. 138).
The number of buildings in which this cornice was not used is very small.
The Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou is surrounded, at the top, by a line of
round-headed battlements; in the Temple of Semneh, built by Thothmes I.,
[132]
and in the pronaos of the Temple of Amada, the usual form gives place
to a square cornice which is quite primitive in its simplicity.
Fig. 137.—Pedestal of a Sphinx at Karnak. Description, iii. 29.
surmounted by an ornament composed of the uræus and the solar disk, the
latter being upon the head of the former (Fig. 136). This addition gives a
richer and more ample cornice, which the Ptolemaic architects carried out
in stone. It is not to be found thus perpetuated in any Pharaonic building,
but the same motive occurs at Thebes, below the cornice, and its existence
in the bas-reliefs shows that even in early times it was sometimes used.
Perhaps it was confined to those light structures in which complicated
forms were easily carried out.
This cornice seemed to the Egyptians to be so entirely the proper
termination for their rising surfaces, that they placed it at the top of their
stylobates (Figs. 131 and 132) and their pedestals (Fig. 137). They also used
it within their buildings at the top of the walls behind their colonnades, as,
for instance, in the peripteral temple at Elephantiné (Fig. 138).
The number of buildings in which this cornice was not used is very small.
The Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou is surrounded, at the top, by a line of
round-headed battlements; in the Temple of Semneh, built by Thothmes I.,
[132]
and in the pronaos of the Temple of Amada, the usual form gives place
to a square cornice which is quite primitive in its simplicity.
Fig. 137.—Pedestal of a Sphinx at Karnak. Description, iii. 29.
Page 179
Fig. 138.—Cornice under the portico, Elephantiné.
Traces of other mouldings, such as those which we call the cyma, and the
cyma reversa, may be found in Egyptian temples, but they occur so rarely
that we need not dwell upon them here or figure them.[133]
Besides these mouldings, which were used but very rarely, we need only
mention one more detail of the kind, namely, those vertical and horizontal
grooves which occur upon the masonry walls and were derived from the
structures in wood. They were chiefly used for the ornamentation of the
great surfaces afforded by the brick walls (Fig. 261, Vol. I.), but they are
also to be found upon stone buildings. We give, as an example, a fragment
found at Alexandria, which is supposed to belong to the lower part of a
sarcophagus. A curious variation of the same ornament exists in one of the
royal tombs at Thebes (Fig. 140), in which each panel is separated from its
neighbours by the figures of headless men with their hands tied behind their
backs. They represent, no doubt, prisoners of war who have been beheaded,
and the decorator has wished, by the use of a somewhat barbarous though
graceful motive, to suggest the exploits of him for whom the sepulchre was
destined.
Traces of other mouldings, such as those which we call the cyma, and the
cyma reversa, may be found in Egyptian temples, but they occur so rarely
that we need not dwell upon them here or figure them.[133]
Besides these mouldings, which were used but very rarely, we need only
mention one more detail of the kind, namely, those vertical and horizontal
grooves which occur upon the masonry walls and were derived from the
structures in wood. They were chiefly used for the ornamentation of the
great surfaces afforded by the brick walls (Fig. 261, Vol. I.), but they are
also to be found upon stone buildings. We give, as an example, a fragment
found at Alexandria, which is supposed to belong to the lower part of a
sarcophagus. A curious variation of the same ornament exists in one of the
royal tombs at Thebes (Fig. 140), in which each panel is separated from its
neighbours by the figures of headless men with their hands tied behind their
backs. They represent, no doubt, prisoners of war who have been beheaded,
and the decorator has wished, by the use of a somewhat barbarous though
graceful motive, to suggest the exploits of him for whom the sepulchre was
destined.
Page 180
Fig. 139.—Fragment of a sarcophagus. Description, v. 47.
Not much variety was to be obtained from the use of these grooves, but yet
they disguised the nudity of great wall spaces, they prevented monotony
from becoming too monotonous, while they afforded linear combinations
which had some power to please the eye. The Assyrians made use of hardly
any other mode of breaking up the uniformity of their brick walls.
Fig. 140.—Fragment of decoration from a royal tomb at Thebes.
Description, ii. 86.
It has been asserted that the first signs of that egg-moulding which played
so great a part in Greek architecture are to be found in Egypt. Nestor L'Hôte
thought that he recognised it in the entablature, under the architrave, of
some pavilions figured in decorations at Tell-el-Amarna and at Abydos.[134]
Not much variety was to be obtained from the use of these grooves, but yet
they disguised the nudity of great wall spaces, they prevented monotony
from becoming too monotonous, while they afforded linear combinations
which had some power to please the eye. The Assyrians made use of hardly
any other mode of breaking up the uniformity of their brick walls.
Fig. 140.—Fragment of decoration from a royal tomb at Thebes.
Description, ii. 86.
It has been asserted that the first signs of that egg-moulding which played
so great a part in Greek architecture are to be found in Egypt. Nestor L'Hôte
thought that he recognised it in the entablature, under the architrave, of
some pavilions figured in decorations at Tell-el-Amarna and at Abydos.[134]
Page 181
He was certainly mistaken. The outline of the ornament to which he
referred has a distant resemblance to the moulding in question, but the place
which it occupies gives it an entirely different character; it seems to be
suspended in the air under the entablature. In other painted pavilions the
same place is occupied by flowers, bunches of grapes, and fruits resembling
dates or acorns, suspended in the same fashion.[135] If such forms must be
explained otherwise than by the mere fancy of the ornamentist, we should
be inclined to see in them metal weights hung round the edges of the
awnings, which supplied the place of a roof in many wooden pavilions.
The same remarks may be applied to those objects, or rather appearances, to
which the triglyphs of the Doric order have been referred. It is true that in
the figured architecture of the bas-reliefs many of the architraves seem to
show vertical incisions arranged in groups of three, each group being
separated from the next by a square space which recalls the Greek metope
(Figs. 62-64). But sometimes these stripes follow each other at regular
intervals, sometimes they are in pairs, and sometimes they are altogether
absent, the architrave being either plain or decorated with figures and
inscriptions. Where the stripes are present they represent sometimes applied
ornaments, sometimes the ends of transverse joists appearing between the
beams of the architrave. Similar ornaments surround the paintings in the
tombs, and are to be found upon the articles of furniture, such as chairs,
which form part of most Egyptian museums. Neither these so-called
triglyphs and metopes, which do slightly resemble the details so named of
the Doric order, nor the egg moulding, which is a pure delusion, ever
received that established form and elemental character which alone gives
such things importance. Architecture—stone architecture—made no use of
them, and the analogies which some have endeavoured to establish are
misleading. The apparent coincidence resulted from the nature of the
material and from the limited number of combinations which it allowed.
§ 8. Doors and Windows.
So far we have been concerned with the structure and shape of Egyptian
buildings; we have now to describe the openings pierced in their substance
for the admission of light, for the circulation of their inhabitants and for the
referred has a distant resemblance to the moulding in question, but the place
which it occupies gives it an entirely different character; it seems to be
suspended in the air under the entablature. In other painted pavilions the
same place is occupied by flowers, bunches of grapes, and fruits resembling
dates or acorns, suspended in the same fashion.[135] If such forms must be
explained otherwise than by the mere fancy of the ornamentist, we should
be inclined to see in them metal weights hung round the edges of the
awnings, which supplied the place of a roof in many wooden pavilions.
The same remarks may be applied to those objects, or rather appearances, to
which the triglyphs of the Doric order have been referred. It is true that in
the figured architecture of the bas-reliefs many of the architraves seem to
show vertical incisions arranged in groups of three, each group being
separated from the next by a square space which recalls the Greek metope
(Figs. 62-64). But sometimes these stripes follow each other at regular
intervals, sometimes they are in pairs, and sometimes they are altogether
absent, the architrave being either plain or decorated with figures and
inscriptions. Where the stripes are present they represent sometimes applied
ornaments, sometimes the ends of transverse joists appearing between the
beams of the architrave. Similar ornaments surround the paintings in the
tombs, and are to be found upon the articles of furniture, such as chairs,
which form part of most Egyptian museums. Neither these so-called
triglyphs and metopes, which do slightly resemble the details so named of
the Doric order, nor the egg moulding, which is a pure delusion, ever
received that established form and elemental character which alone gives
such things importance. Architecture—stone architecture—made no use of
them, and the analogies which some have endeavoured to establish are
misleading. The apparent coincidence resulted from the nature of the
material and from the limited number of combinations which it allowed.
§ 8. Doors and Windows.
So far we have been concerned with the structure and shape of Egyptian
buildings; we have now to describe the openings pierced in their substance
for the admission of light, for the circulation of their inhabitants and for the
Page 182
entrance of visitors from without. The doors and windows of the Egyptians
were peculiar in many ways and deserve to be carefully described.
Doors.
The plans of Egyptian doorways do not always show the same
arrangements. The embrasure of which we moderns make use is seldom met
with. It occurs in the peripteral temple at Elephantiné, but that is quite an
exception (Fig. 141). The doorways of the temples were generally planned
as in Fig. 142, and in the passage which traverses the thickness of the
pylons, there is in the middle an enlargement forming a kind of chamber
into which, no doubt, double doors fell back on either side (Fig. 143).
In their elevations doorways show still greater variety.
Let us consider in the first place those by which access was gained to the
temenos, or outer inclosure, of the temple. They may be divided into three
classes.
First of all comes the pylon proper, with its great doorway flanked on either
side by a tower which greatly exceeds it in height (Fig. 207, Vol. I.).
Champollion has pointed out that even in the Egyptian texts themselves a
distinction is made between the pylon and that which he calls the propylon.
The latter consists of a door opening through the centre of a single
pyramidoid mass, and instead of forming a façade to the temple itself, it is
used for the entrances to the outer inclosure. Figs. 144 and 145 show the
different hieroglyphs which represent it.[136]
These propylons, to adopt Champollion's term, seem to have included two
different types which are now known to us only through the Ptolemaic
buildings and the monumental paintings, as the boundary walls of the
Pharaonic period have almost entirely disappeared and their gateways with
them.
were peculiar in many ways and deserve to be carefully described.
Doors.
The plans of Egyptian doorways do not always show the same
arrangements. The embrasure of which we moderns make use is seldom met
with. It occurs in the peripteral temple at Elephantiné, but that is quite an
exception (Fig. 141). The doorways of the temples were generally planned
as in Fig. 142, and in the passage which traverses the thickness of the
pylons, there is in the middle an enlargement forming a kind of chamber
into which, no doubt, double doors fell back on either side (Fig. 143).
In their elevations doorways show still greater variety.
Let us consider in the first place those by which access was gained to the
temenos, or outer inclosure, of the temple. They may be divided into three
classes.
First of all comes the pylon proper, with its great doorway flanked on either
side by a tower which greatly exceeds it in height (Fig. 207, Vol. I.).
Champollion has pointed out that even in the Egyptian texts themselves a
distinction is made between the pylon and that which he calls the propylon.
The latter consists of a door opening through the centre of a single
pyramidoid mass, and instead of forming a façade to the temple itself, it is
used for the entrances to the outer inclosure. Figs. 144 and 145 show the
different hieroglyphs which represent it.[136]
These propylons, to adopt Champollion's term, seem to have included two
different types which are now known to us only through the Ptolemaic
buildings and the monumental paintings, as the boundary walls of the
Pharaonic period have almost entirely disappeared and their gateways with
them.
Page 183
Fig. 141.—Plan of doorway, Temple of Elephantiné.
Fig. 142.—Plan of doorway, Temple of Khons.
We have illustrated the first type in our restoration, page 339, Vol. I. (Fig.
206). The doorway itself is very high, in which it resembles many
propylons of the Greek period which still exist at Karnak and Denderah.[137]
The thickness of the whole mass and its double cornice, between which the
covered way on the top of the walls could be carried, are features which we
also encounter in the propylon of Denderah and in that of the temple at
Daybod in Nubia.[138] We have added nothing but the wall, and a gateway,
in Egypt, implies a wall; for there is no reason to suppose that the Egyptians
had anything analogous to the triumphal arches of the Romans. The temple
was a closed building, to which all access was forbidden to the crowd. The
doors may well have been numerous, but, if they were to be of any use at
all, they must have been connected by a continuous barrier which should
force the traffic to pass through them.
Fig. 143.—Plan of doorway in the pylon, Temple of Khons. Description,
iii. 54.
Fig. 142.—Plan of doorway, Temple of Khons.
We have illustrated the first type in our restoration, page 339, Vol. I. (Fig.
206). The doorway itself is very high, in which it resembles many
propylons of the Greek period which still exist at Karnak and Denderah.[137]
The thickness of the whole mass and its double cornice, between which the
covered way on the top of the walls could be carried, are features which we
also encounter in the propylon of Denderah and in that of the temple at
Daybod in Nubia.[138] We have added nothing but the wall, and a gateway,
in Egypt, implies a wall; for there is no reason to suppose that the Egyptians
had anything analogous to the triumphal arches of the Romans. The temple
was a closed building, to which all access was forbidden to the crowd. The
doors may well have been numerous, but, if they were to be of any use at
all, they must have been connected by a continuous barrier which should
force the traffic to pass through them.
Fig. 143.—Plan of doorway in the pylon, Temple of Khons. Description,
iii. 54.
Page 184
Figs. 144, 145.—The pylon and propylon of the hieroglyphs.
In our restorations this doorway rises above the walls on each side and
stands out from them, on plan, both within and without. We may fairly
conjecture that it was so. The architect would hardly have wasted rich
decoration and a well designed cornice upon a mass which was to be almost
buried in the erections on each side of it. It must have been conspicuous
from a distance, and this double relief would make it so. There are,
moreover, a few instances in which these secondary entrances have been
preserved together with the walls through which they provided openings,
and they fully confirm our conjectures. One of these is the gateway to the
outer court of the Temple of Thothmes at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 146). This
gateway certainly belongs to the Ptolemaic part of the building, but we have
no reason to suppose that the architects of the Macedonian period deserted
the ancient forms.
Fig. 146.—Gateway to the court-yard of the small Temple at Medinet-
Abou. Description, ii. 4.
In our restorations this doorway rises above the walls on each side and
stands out from them, on plan, both within and without. We may fairly
conjecture that it was so. The architect would hardly have wasted rich
decoration and a well designed cornice upon a mass which was to be almost
buried in the erections on each side of it. It must have been conspicuous
from a distance, and this double relief would make it so. There are,
moreover, a few instances in which these secondary entrances have been
preserved together with the walls through which they provided openings,
and they fully confirm our conjectures. One of these is the gateway to the
outer court of the Temple of Thothmes at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 146). This
gateway certainly belongs to the Ptolemaic part of the building, but we have
no reason to suppose that the architects of the Macedonian period deserted
the ancient forms.
Fig. 146.—Gateway to the court-yard of the small Temple at Medinet-
Abou. Description, ii. 4.
Page 185
Fig. 147.—A propylon with its masts.
The propylons were decorated with masts like the pylons, as we see by a
figure in a painting in one of the royal tombs at Thebes, which was
reproduced by Champollion[139] (Fig. 147). Judging from the scenes and
inscriptions which accompany it, Champollion thought this represented a
propylon at the Ramesseum. That the artist should, as usual, have omitted
the wall, need not surprise us when we remember how monotonous and free
from incident those great brick inclosures must have been.
The second type of propylon differs from the first in having a very much
smaller doorway in comparison with its total mass. In the former the door
reaches almost to the cornice, in the latter it occupies but a very small part
of the front. This is seen in Fig. 147, and, still more conspicuously, in Fig.
148, which was also copied by Champollion from a tomb at Thebes.[140] In
one of these examples the walls are nearly vertical, in another they have a
considerable slope, but the arrangement is the same and the proportions of
the openings to the towers themselves do not greatly differ. Our Fig. 149,
which was composed by the help of those representations, is meant to give
an idea of the general composition of which the door with its carved jambs
and architrave, and the tower with its masts and banners, are the elements.
The two types only differ from one another in the relative dimensions of
their important parts, and the transition between them may have been
almost imperceptible. It would seem that in the Ptolemaic epoch the wide
and lofty doors were the chief objects of admiration, while under the
Pharaohs, the towers through which they were pierced were thought of
more importance.
The propylons were decorated with masts like the pylons, as we see by a
figure in a painting in one of the royal tombs at Thebes, which was
reproduced by Champollion[139] (Fig. 147). Judging from the scenes and
inscriptions which accompany it, Champollion thought this represented a
propylon at the Ramesseum. That the artist should, as usual, have omitted
the wall, need not surprise us when we remember how monotonous and free
from incident those great brick inclosures must have been.
The second type of propylon differs from the first in having a very much
smaller doorway in comparison with its total mass. In the former the door
reaches almost to the cornice, in the latter it occupies but a very small part
of the front. This is seen in Fig. 147, and, still more conspicuously, in Fig.
148, which was also copied by Champollion from a tomb at Thebes.[140] In
one of these examples the walls are nearly vertical, in another they have a
considerable slope, but the arrangement is the same and the proportions of
the openings to the towers themselves do not greatly differ. Our Fig. 149,
which was composed by the help of those representations, is meant to give
an idea of the general composition of which the door with its carved jambs
and architrave, and the tower with its masts and banners, are the elements.
The two types only differ from one another in the relative dimensions of
their important parts, and the transition between them may have been
almost imperceptible. It would seem that in the Ptolemaic epoch the wide
and lofty doors were the chief objects of admiration, while under the
Pharaohs, the towers through which they were pierced were thought of
more importance.
Page 186
Fig. 148.—A propylon.
If we examine the doorways of the temples themselves we shall there also
find great variety in the manner in which they are combined architecturally
with the walls in which they occur.
Fig. 149.—Gateway in the inclosing wall of a Temple. Restored by Ch.
Chipiez.
In the Temple of Khons the jambs of the door are one, architecturally, with
the wall. The courses are continuous. The lintel alone, being monolithic, has
a certain independence (Fig. 150). In the Temple of Gournah, on the other
hand, the doorway forms a separate and self-contained composition. The
jambs are monoliths as well as the lintel, and the latter, notwithstanding the
great additional weight which it has to carry, does not exceed the former in
section. At Abydos, on the other hand, the capital part which this stone has
If we examine the doorways of the temples themselves we shall there also
find great variety in the manner in which they are combined architecturally
with the walls in which they occur.
Fig. 149.—Gateway in the inclosing wall of a Temple. Restored by Ch.
Chipiez.
In the Temple of Khons the jambs of the door are one, architecturally, with
the wall. The courses are continuous. The lintel alone, being monolithic, has
a certain independence (Fig. 150). In the Temple of Gournah, on the other
hand, the doorway forms a separate and self-contained composition. The
jambs are monoliths as well as the lintel, and the latter, notwithstanding the
great additional weight which it has to carry, does not exceed the former in
section. At Abydos, on the other hand, the capital part which this stone has
Page 187
to play is indicated by the great size of the sandstone block of which it is
composed (Fig. 154).
Fig. 150.—Doorway of the Temple of Khons. Description, iii. 54.
Fig. 151.—Doorway of the Temple of Gournah. Description, ii. 42.
composed (Fig. 154).
Fig. 150.—Doorway of the Temple of Khons. Description, iii. 54.
Fig. 151.—Doorway of the Temple of Gournah. Description, ii. 42.
Page 188
One of the doorways we have represented, that in Fig. 146, requires to be
here mentioned again for a moment. Its lintel is discontinuous. The
doorway in question dates from the Ptolemaic period, but there is
undoubted evidence that the same form was sometimes used in the
Pharaonic period for the openings in inclosing walls. There is a
representation of such a door in a bas-relief at Karnak, where it is shown in
front of a pylon and forms probably an opening in a boundary wall.[141] It
was this representation that decided us to give a broken lintel to the
doorway opposite to the centre of the royal pavilion at Medinet-Abou (Plate
VIII.). This form of entrance may have originated in the desire to give
plenty of head-room for the canopy under which the sovereign was carried,
as well as for the banners and various standards which we see figured in the
triumphal and religious processions of the bas-reliefs (Fig. 172, Vol. I.).
Fig. 152.—Doorway of the Temple of Seti, at Abydos.
here mentioned again for a moment. Its lintel is discontinuous. The
doorway in question dates from the Ptolemaic period, but there is
undoubted evidence that the same form was sometimes used in the
Pharaonic period for the openings in inclosing walls. There is a
representation of such a door in a bas-relief at Karnak, where it is shown in
front of a pylon and forms probably an opening in a boundary wall.[141] It
was this representation that decided us to give a broken lintel to the
doorway opposite to the centre of the royal pavilion at Medinet-Abou (Plate
VIII.). This form of entrance may have originated in the desire to give
plenty of head-room for the canopy under which the sovereign was carried,
as well as for the banners and various standards which we see figured in the
triumphal and religious processions of the bas-reliefs (Fig. 172, Vol. I.).
Fig. 152.—Doorway of the Temple of Seti, at Abydos.
Page 189
Windows
The royal pavilion at Medinet-Abou is the only building in Egypt which has
preserved for us those architectural features which we call windows. They
differ one from another, even upon this single building, as much as the
doors. One of them (Fig. 153) is enframed like the doorway at Gournah; but
the jambs are merely the ends of the courses which make up the wall, and
their salience is very slight. On the other hand a window frame with a very
bold relief (Fig. 154) is to be found in the same building. This window is a
little work of art in itself. It is surmounted by a cornice, over which again
appear various emblems carved in stone, making up one of the most
graceful compositions to be found in Egyptian architecture.
Figs. 153, 154.—Windows in the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou.
§ 9. The Illumination of the Temples.
We have described the way in which the Egyptian architects treated doors
and windows from an artistic point of view; we have yet to show the
method which they adopted for allowing sufficient light to penetrate into
their temples, that is, into those buildings, which, being closely shut against
The royal pavilion at Medinet-Abou is the only building in Egypt which has
preserved for us those architectural features which we call windows. They
differ one from another, even upon this single building, as much as the
doors. One of them (Fig. 153) is enframed like the doorway at Gournah; but
the jambs are merely the ends of the courses which make up the wall, and
their salience is very slight. On the other hand a window frame with a very
bold relief (Fig. 154) is to be found in the same building. This window is a
little work of art in itself. It is surmounted by a cornice, over which again
appear various emblems carved in stone, making up one of the most
graceful compositions to be found in Egyptian architecture.
Figs. 153, 154.—Windows in the Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou.
§ 9. The Illumination of the Temples.
We have described the way in which the Egyptian architects treated doors
and windows from an artistic point of view; we have yet to show the
method which they adopted for allowing sufficient light to penetrate into
their temples, that is, into those buildings, which, being closely shut against
Page 190
the laity, could not be illuminated from windows in their side walls. Palaces
and private houses could have their windows as large and as numerous as
they chose, but the temple could only be lighted from the roof, or at least
from parts contiguous to the roof.
and private houses could have their windows as large and as numerous as
they chose, but the temple could only be lighted from the roof, or at least
from parts contiguous to the roof.
Page 191
Fig. 155.—Attic of the Great Hall at Karnak. Restored by Ch. Chipiez.
Page 192
Fig. 156.—Claustra of the Hypostyle Hall, Karnak. Description, iii. 23.
The hypostyle hall at Karnak, with its lofty walls and close ranges of
columns, would have been in almost complete darkness had it been left to
depend for light upon its doors alone. But the difference of height between
the central aisle and those to the right and left of it, was taken advantage of
to introduce the light required for the proper display of its magnificent
decorations. The wall which filled up the space between the lower and
upper sections of roof, forming something almost identical with the
clerestory of a Gothic cathedral, was constructed of upright sandstone slabs,
about sixteen feet high, which were pierced with numerous perpendicular
slits. Stone gratings, or claustra as the Romans would have called them,
were thus formed, through which the sunlight could stream into the interior.
The slits were about ten inches wide and six feet high. The illustration on
page 163 shows how the slabs were arranged and explains, moreover, the
general disposition of the roof. Fig. 156 gives the claustra in detail, in
elevation, in plan, and in perspective.
The hypostyle halls are nearly always lighted upon the same principle. The
chief differences are found in the sizes of the openings. At the Temple of
Khons, where the space to be lighted was not nearly so large, the slabs of
the claustra were much smaller and the openings narrower (Fig. 157). In
The hypostyle hall at Karnak, with its lofty walls and close ranges of
columns, would have been in almost complete darkness had it been left to
depend for light upon its doors alone. But the difference of height between
the central aisle and those to the right and left of it, was taken advantage of
to introduce the light required for the proper display of its magnificent
decorations. The wall which filled up the space between the lower and
upper sections of roof, forming something almost identical with the
clerestory of a Gothic cathedral, was constructed of upright sandstone slabs,
about sixteen feet high, which were pierced with numerous perpendicular
slits. Stone gratings, or claustra as the Romans would have called them,
were thus formed, through which the sunlight could stream into the interior.
The slits were about ten inches wide and six feet high. The illustration on
page 163 shows how the slabs were arranged and explains, moreover, the
general disposition of the roof. Fig. 156 gives the claustra in detail, in
elevation, in plan, and in perspective.
The hypostyle halls are nearly always lighted upon the same principle. The
chief differences are found in the sizes of the openings. At the Temple of
Khons, where the space to be lighted was not nearly so large, the slabs of
the claustra were much smaller and the openings narrower (Fig. 157). In
Page 193
one of the inner halls at Karnak a different system has been used. The light
penetrates through horizontal openings in the entablature, between the
architrave and the cornice, divided one from another by cubes of stone (Fig.
158). In the inside the architrave was bevelled on its upper edge, so as to
allow the light to penetrate into the interior at a better angle than it would
otherwise have done.
Fig. 157.—Claustra in the Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of Khons.
Compiled from the elevations in the Description, iii. 28.
The use of these claustra, full of variety though they were in the hands of a
skilful architect, were not the only methods of lighting their temples to
which the Egyptians had recourse. They were helped in their work, or, in
the case of very small chambers, replaced, by oblique or vertical openings
contrived in the roof itself. These oblique holes are found in the superior
angles of the hypostyle hall at Karnak (Fig. 159). After the roof was in
place it was seen, no doubt, that the claustra did not of themselves give
enough light for the huge chamber, and these narrow openings were
laboriously cut in its ceiling. One of the inner chambers of the Temple of
penetrates through horizontal openings in the entablature, between the
architrave and the cornice, divided one from another by cubes of stone (Fig.
158). In the inside the architrave was bevelled on its upper edge, so as to
allow the light to penetrate into the interior at a better angle than it would
otherwise have done.
Fig. 157.—Claustra in the Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of Khons.
Compiled from the elevations in the Description, iii. 28.
The use of these claustra, full of variety though they were in the hands of a
skilful architect, were not the only methods of lighting their temples to
which the Egyptians had recourse. They were helped in their work, or, in
the case of very small chambers, replaced, by oblique or vertical openings
contrived in the roof itself. These oblique holes are found in the superior
angles of the hypostyle hall at Karnak (Fig. 159). After the roof was in
place it was seen, no doubt, that the claustra did not of themselves give
enough light for the huge chamber, and these narrow openings were
laboriously cut in its ceiling. One of the inner chambers of the Temple of
Page 194
Khons is feebly lighted by vertical holes cut through the slabs of the roof
(Fig. 160). Similar openings are to be seen in the lateral aisles of the
hypostyle hall in the Ramesseum. The slight upward projection which
surrounds the upper extremities of these holes should be noticed (Fig. 161).
Finally there are buildings in which these openings are the only sources of
illumination. This is notably the case in the Temple of Amada. The upper
part of our plan (Fig. 162) represents the roof of that temple and the
symmetrically arranged openings with which it is pierced.
Fig. 158.—Method of lighting in one of the inner halls of Karnak.
Compiled from the plans and elevations of the Description.
(Fig. 160). Similar openings are to be seen in the lateral aisles of the
hypostyle hall in the Ramesseum. The slight upward projection which
surrounds the upper extremities of these holes should be noticed (Fig. 161).
Finally there are buildings in which these openings are the only sources of
illumination. This is notably the case in the Temple of Amada. The upper
part of our plan (Fig. 162) represents the roof of that temple and the
symmetrically arranged openings with which it is pierced.
Fig. 158.—Method of lighting in one of the inner halls of Karnak.
Compiled from the plans and elevations of the Description.
Page 195
Fig. 159.—Auxiliary light-holes in the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.
Description, iii. 26.
Fig. 160.—Method of lighting one of the rooms in the Temple of Khons.
Description, iii. 55.
Fig. 161.—Light openings in a lateral aisle of the Hypostyle Hall in the
Ramesseum. From a photograph.
Description, iii. 26.
Fig. 160.—Method of lighting one of the rooms in the Temple of Khons.
Description, iii. 55.
Fig. 161.—Light openings in a lateral aisle of the Hypostyle Hall in the
Ramesseum. From a photograph.
Page 196
The Ptolemaic Temple of Edfou is much more generously treated in the
matter of light. Its flat roof is pierced by two large rectangular openings
resembling the compluvium of a Pompeian house, and making it, in a
certain sense, hypæthral. No example of such an arrangement has been met
with in the Pharaonic temples. It is possible that its principle was directly
borrowed from the Greeks. It is hardly so consistent with the national ideas
and traditions as the claustra.
Fig. 162.—The Temple of Amada.
Fig. 163.—Claustra, from a painting.
Palaces and private houses were, as we have said, better lighted than the
temples. The illustrations in the preceding chapter show private houses with
their windows. Some of those houses had windows formed of stone
claustra. The window copied by Champollion[142] from the walls of a small
chamber in the Temple of Thothmes at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 163), shows
matter of light. Its flat roof is pierced by two large rectangular openings
resembling the compluvium of a Pompeian house, and making it, in a
certain sense, hypæthral. No example of such an arrangement has been met
with in the Pharaonic temples. It is possible that its principle was directly
borrowed from the Greeks. It is hardly so consistent with the national ideas
and traditions as the claustra.
Fig. 162.—The Temple of Amada.
Fig. 163.—Claustra, from a painting.
Palaces and private houses were, as we have said, better lighted than the
temples. The illustrations in the preceding chapter show private houses with
their windows. Some of those houses had windows formed of stone
claustra. The window copied by Champollion[142] from the walls of a small
chamber in the Temple of Thothmes at Medinet-Abou (Fig. 163), shows
Page 197
this, as well as an opening in the house illustrated in Fig. 19, which we here
reproduce upon a larger scale (Fig. 164). We do the same for a window
belonging to the building shown in Fig. 1. It is closed by a mat which was
raised, no doubt, by means of a roller and cords (Fig. 165).
Fig. 164.—Window of a house in the form of claustra.
Fig. 165.—Window closed by a mat.
§ 10. The Obelisks.
We cannot bring our analysis of the forms and motives of Egyptian
architecture to an end without mentioning a monumental type which is
peculiar to Egypt, that of the obelisks. These are granite monoliths[143] of
great height, square on plan, dressed on all four faces, and slightly tapering
from base to summit. They usually terminate in a small pyramid, whose
rapidly sloping sides contrast strongly with the gentle inclination of the
main block beneath. This small pyramid is called the pyramidion.
The tall and slender shapes of these monoliths and their pointed summits
have led to their being compared, in popular language, with needles and
reproduce upon a larger scale (Fig. 164). We do the same for a window
belonging to the building shown in Fig. 1. It is closed by a mat which was
raised, no doubt, by means of a roller and cords (Fig. 165).
Fig. 164.—Window of a house in the form of claustra.
Fig. 165.—Window closed by a mat.
§ 10. The Obelisks.
We cannot bring our analysis of the forms and motives of Egyptian
architecture to an end without mentioning a monumental type which is
peculiar to Egypt, that of the obelisks. These are granite monoliths[143] of
great height, square on plan, dressed on all four faces, and slightly tapering
from base to summit. They usually terminate in a small pyramid, whose
rapidly sloping sides contrast strongly with the gentle inclination of the
main block beneath. This small pyramid is called the pyramidion.
The tall and slender shapes of these monoliths and their pointed summits
have led to their being compared, in popular language, with needles and
Page 198
spindles.[144] The first Greeks who visited the country and found a
monumental type so unlike anything they had at home, wished to convey a
good idea of it to their compatriots; they accordingly made use of the word
ὀβελός, a spindle. It is difficult to understand how their descendants came
to prefer ὀβελίσκος, a little spindle.[145] A diminutive hardly seems the right
kind of word under the circumstances; an augmentative would, perhaps,
have been better. But it was this diminutive that the Romans borrowed from
the Greeks of Alexandria and transmitted to the modern world.
This is not the place for an inquiry into the meaning of the obelisk. It may
symbolize, as we have often been told, the ray of the sun, or it may be an
emblem of Amen-Generator.[146] It seems to be well established, that in the
time of the New Empire at least, it was used to write the syllable men,
which signified firmness or stability.[147]
The usual situation of the obelisks was in front of the first pylon of the
temples. There they stood in couples, one upon each side of the entrance.
Those instances where they are found, as at Karnak, surrounded by the
buildings of the temple, are easily explained. The two obelisks in the
caryatid court were erected during the eighteenth dynasty, at a time when
those parts of the temple which lie between the obelisks and the outer wall
were not yet in existence. The obelisks of Hatasu, when first erected, were
in front of the Temple of Amen as it was left by the early sovereigns of the
eighteenth dynasty.
But the obelisk was not the exclusive property of the temples. Some little
ones of limestone have been found in the mastabas,[148] and Mariette has
described those which formerly stood in front of the royal tombs belonging
to the eleventh dynasty, in the Theban necropolis. He has published the
inscription which covers the four faces of one of these obelisks, a monolith
some ten feet nine inches high.[149] Obelisks seem also to have been
employed for the decoration of palaces, as we may conclude from a Theban
painting in which one appears before the principal entrance to a villa
surrounded with beautiful gardens.[150] Judging by the sizes of people in the
same painting, this obelisk must have been about thirteen feet high.
Diodorus speaks of obelisks erected by Sesostris which were 120 cubits,
nearly 180 feet, high;[151] and different texts allude to monoliths which
monumental type so unlike anything they had at home, wished to convey a
good idea of it to their compatriots; they accordingly made use of the word
ὀβελός, a spindle. It is difficult to understand how their descendants came
to prefer ὀβελίσκος, a little spindle.[145] A diminutive hardly seems the right
kind of word under the circumstances; an augmentative would, perhaps,
have been better. But it was this diminutive that the Romans borrowed from
the Greeks of Alexandria and transmitted to the modern world.
This is not the place for an inquiry into the meaning of the obelisk. It may
symbolize, as we have often been told, the ray of the sun, or it may be an
emblem of Amen-Generator.[146] It seems to be well established, that in the
time of the New Empire at least, it was used to write the syllable men,
which signified firmness or stability.[147]
The usual situation of the obelisks was in front of the first pylon of the
temples. There they stood in couples, one upon each side of the entrance.
Those instances where they are found, as at Karnak, surrounded by the
buildings of the temple, are easily explained. The two obelisks in the
caryatid court were erected during the eighteenth dynasty, at a time when
those parts of the temple which lie between the obelisks and the outer wall
were not yet in existence. The obelisks of Hatasu, when first erected, were
in front of the Temple of Amen as it was left by the early sovereigns of the
eighteenth dynasty.
But the obelisk was not the exclusive property of the temples. Some little
ones of limestone have been found in the mastabas,[148] and Mariette has
described those which formerly stood in front of the royal tombs belonging
to the eleventh dynasty, in the Theban necropolis. He has published the
inscription which covers the four faces of one of these obelisks, a monolith
some ten feet nine inches high.[149] Obelisks seem also to have been
employed for the decoration of palaces, as we may conclude from a Theban
painting in which one appears before the principal entrance to a villa
surrounded with beautiful gardens.[150] Judging by the sizes of people in the
same painting, this obelisk must have been about thirteen feet high.
Diodorus speaks of obelisks erected by Sesostris which were 120 cubits,
nearly 180 feet, high;[151] and different texts allude to monoliths which
Page 199
were 130, 117, and 114 feet high. We have some difficulty in accepting the
first of these figures. The obelisk of Hatasu, at Karnak, which is the tallest
known, is 108 feet 10 inches in height.[152] That which is still standing at
Matarieh, on the site of the ancient Heliopolis, is only 67 feet 4 inches high.
But the fact that it is the oldest of the colossal obelisks of Egypt makes it
more interesting than some which surpass it in size (Fig. 167). It bears the
name of Ousourtesen I., of the twelfth dynasty. As a rule, the inscriptions
cut upon the four sides of those obelisks which are complete are very
insignificant. They consist of little but pompous enumerations of the royal
titles.[153]
first of these figures. The obelisk of Hatasu, at Karnak, which is the tallest
known, is 108 feet 10 inches in height.[152] That which is still standing at
Matarieh, on the site of the ancient Heliopolis, is only 67 feet 4 inches high.
But the fact that it is the oldest of the colossal obelisks of Egypt makes it
more interesting than some which surpass it in size (Fig. 167). It bears the
name of Ousourtesen I., of the twelfth dynasty. As a rule, the inscriptions
cut upon the four sides of those obelisks which are complete are very
insignificant. They consist of little but pompous enumerations of the royal
titles.[153]
Page 200
Fig. 166.—Funerary obelisk in the Necropolis of Thebes. From Mariette.
[154]
The two obelisks erected by Rameses II. in front of the first pylon at Luxor
were slightly unequal in height. One was 83 feet 4 inches, the other 78 feet 5
inches. To hide this difference to some extent they were set upon bases also
of unequal height, and the shorter was placed slightly in advance of its
companion, i.e. slightly nearer to the spectator approaching the temple by the
dromos.[155] By these means they hoped to make the difference between the
two less conspicuous. This difference may have been caused by any slight
accident, or by the discovery of a flaw in the granite during the operation of
cutting it in the quarry. In dealing with huge blocks like these, such
contretemps must have been frequent.
The smaller of the two obelisks was chosen for transport to Paris in 1836. In
its present situation on the Place de la Concorde it is separated from the
sculptured base upon which it stood at Luxor. The northern and southern
faces of that pedestal were each ornamented with four cynocephali adoring
the rising sun; the other two had figures of the god Nile presenting offerings
to Amen (Fig. 168).
In order to restore this and other obelisks to the form which they enjoyed in
the days of the Pharaohs we should have to give them back their original
summits as well as their pedestals. Hittorf has shown that these probably
consisted of caps of gilded copper fitted over the pyramidion,[156] in those
cases where the latter was not ornamented with carved figures. A curious
passage in Abd-al-latif, which has been often cited, proves that the pyramid
of Ousourtesen preserved its cap as late as the thirteenth century. "The
summit," says the Arab historian, "is covered with a kind of funnel-shaped
copper cap, which descends about three cubits from the apex. The weather of
[154]
The two obelisks erected by Rameses II. in front of the first pylon at Luxor
were slightly unequal in height. One was 83 feet 4 inches, the other 78 feet 5
inches. To hide this difference to some extent they were set upon bases also
of unequal height, and the shorter was placed slightly in advance of its
companion, i.e. slightly nearer to the spectator approaching the temple by the
dromos.[155] By these means they hoped to make the difference between the
two less conspicuous. This difference may have been caused by any slight
accident, or by the discovery of a flaw in the granite during the operation of
cutting it in the quarry. In dealing with huge blocks like these, such
contretemps must have been frequent.
The smaller of the two obelisks was chosen for transport to Paris in 1836. In
its present situation on the Place de la Concorde it is separated from the
sculptured base upon which it stood at Luxor. The northern and southern
faces of that pedestal were each ornamented with four cynocephali adoring
the rising sun; the other two had figures of the god Nile presenting offerings
to Amen (Fig. 168).
In order to restore this and other obelisks to the form which they enjoyed in
the days of the Pharaohs we should have to give them back their original
summits as well as their pedestals. Hittorf has shown that these probably
consisted of caps of gilded copper fitted over the pyramidion,[156] in those
cases where the latter was not ornamented with carved figures. A curious
passage in Abd-al-latif, which has been often cited, proves that the pyramid
of Ousourtesen preserved its cap as late as the thirteenth century. "The
summit," says the Arab historian, "is covered with a kind of funnel-shaped
copper cap, which descends about three cubits from the apex. The weather of
Page 201
so many centuries has made the copper green and rusty, and some of the
green has run down the shaft of the obelisk."[157] In the plate attached to his
essay, Hittorf gives us a plan and elevation of the pyramidion of the smaller
obelisk of Luxor. He shows how its broken and irregular mass implies a
metallic covering, a covering whose existence is moreover proved by the
groove or rebate, about an inch and a half deep, which runs round the summit
of the shaft. His Figs. 3 and 4 show that this groove was carefully polished.
His conclusions have failed to find acceptance in some quarters. It has been
asserted that the rays of the sun, striking upon such a surface, would be
reflected in a dazzling fashion, and that the general effect would have been
unsatisfactory. The Egyptians had no such fear. They made lavish use of gold
in the decoration of their buildings. According to the inscription which covers
the four sides of the pedestal under the obelisk of Hatasu at Karnak, the
pyramidion was covered "with pure gold taken from the chiefs of the
nations," which seems to imply either a cap of gilded copper, like that of the
obelisk at Heliopolis, or a golden sphere upon the very apex. An object of this
latter kind is figured in some of the bas-reliefs at Sakkarah. Besides this there
is no doubt that the obelisk in question was gilded from head to foot. "We
remark, in the first place, that the beds of the hieroglyphs were carefully
polished; secondly, that the four faces of the obelisk itself were left
comparatively rough, from which we should conclude that the latter alone
received this costly embellishment, the hieroglyphs preserving the natural
colour of the granite."[158]
green has run down the shaft of the obelisk."[157] In the plate attached to his
essay, Hittorf gives us a plan and elevation of the pyramidion of the smaller
obelisk of Luxor. He shows how its broken and irregular mass implies a
metallic covering, a covering whose existence is moreover proved by the
groove or rebate, about an inch and a half deep, which runs round the summit
of the shaft. His Figs. 3 and 4 show that this groove was carefully polished.
His conclusions have failed to find acceptance in some quarters. It has been
asserted that the rays of the sun, striking upon such a surface, would be
reflected in a dazzling fashion, and that the general effect would have been
unsatisfactory. The Egyptians had no such fear. They made lavish use of gold
in the decoration of their buildings. According to the inscription which covers
the four sides of the pedestal under the obelisk of Hatasu at Karnak, the
pyramidion was covered "with pure gold taken from the chiefs of the
nations," which seems to imply either a cap of gilded copper, like that of the
obelisk at Heliopolis, or a golden sphere upon the very apex. An object of this
latter kind is figured in some of the bas-reliefs at Sakkarah. Besides this there
is no doubt that the obelisk in question was gilded from head to foot. "We
remark, in the first place, that the beds of the hieroglyphs were carefully
polished; secondly, that the four faces of the obelisk itself were left
comparatively rough, from which we should conclude that the latter alone
received this costly embellishment, the hieroglyphs preserving the natural
colour of the granite."[158]
Page 202
Fig. 167.—The obelisk of Ousourtesen. Description, v. 26.
Page 203
Page 204
Fig. 168.—The obelisk in the Place de la Concorde, restored to its
original base. From Prisse.
In that transplantation of which the Ptolemies first set the example, the
obelisk at Paris was deprived of its original pedestal, as we have seen; it was
erected in an open space of such extent that its dimensions seem almost
insignificant; it was placed upon a pedestal which, neither in dimensions nor
design, has anything Egyptian about it: and finally it was deprived of its
metal finial. It can therefore give but little idea of the effect which the
obelisks produced while they still remained in the places for which they were
designed. The artistic instinct of Théophile Gautier was quite alive to this fact
when he penned his fanciful but charming lines on the Nostalgie d'Obélisque.
A curious fact has been ascertained in connection with the obelisks of Luxor.
Their faces present a slight convexity, the total protuberance at the base being
rather more than an inch and three-tenths. It is probable that the same
arrangement would be found in other obelisks if they were carefully
examined. Its explanation is easy. If the surfaces had been absolute planes
they would have been made to appear concave by the sharpness of the
corners. It was necessary, therefore, to give them a gentle entasis which
should gradually diminish towards the summit, completely disappearing by
the time the pyramidion was reached.[159]
The obelisk at Beggig, in the Fayoum, offers a singular variant upon the type
which we have described. It was formerly a monolith about 43 feet high; it is
now overthrown and broken into two pieces. It bears the ovals of
Ousourtesen I., and would seem, therefore, to be contemporary with the
obelisk at Heliopolis.[160] Its peculiarity consists in its shape. It is a
rectangular oblong, instead of a square, on plan. Two of its sides are 6 feet 9
inches wide, and the other two about 4 feet. It has no pyramidion. The
summit is rounded from front to back, forming a ridge, and the upper part of
its principal faces are filled with sculptures in low relief (Fig. 170). All this
makes it resemble a gigantic stele rather than an obelisk (Fig. 169).
original base. From Prisse.
In that transplantation of which the Ptolemies first set the example, the
obelisk at Paris was deprived of its original pedestal, as we have seen; it was
erected in an open space of such extent that its dimensions seem almost
insignificant; it was placed upon a pedestal which, neither in dimensions nor
design, has anything Egyptian about it: and finally it was deprived of its
metal finial. It can therefore give but little idea of the effect which the
obelisks produced while they still remained in the places for which they were
designed. The artistic instinct of Théophile Gautier was quite alive to this fact
when he penned his fanciful but charming lines on the Nostalgie d'Obélisque.
A curious fact has been ascertained in connection with the obelisks of Luxor.
Their faces present a slight convexity, the total protuberance at the base being
rather more than an inch and three-tenths. It is probable that the same
arrangement would be found in other obelisks if they were carefully
examined. Its explanation is easy. If the surfaces had been absolute planes
they would have been made to appear concave by the sharpness of the
corners. It was necessary, therefore, to give them a gentle entasis which
should gradually diminish towards the summit, completely disappearing by
the time the pyramidion was reached.[159]
The obelisk at Beggig, in the Fayoum, offers a singular variant upon the type
which we have described. It was formerly a monolith about 43 feet high; it is
now overthrown and broken into two pieces. It bears the ovals of
Ousourtesen I., and would seem, therefore, to be contemporary with the
obelisk at Heliopolis.[160] Its peculiarity consists in its shape. It is a
rectangular oblong, instead of a square, on plan. Two of its sides are 6 feet 9
inches wide, and the other two about 4 feet. It has no pyramidion. The
summit is rounded from front to back, forming a ridge, and the upper part of
its principal faces are filled with sculptures in low relief (Fig. 170). All this
makes it resemble a gigantic stele rather than an obelisk (Fig. 169).
Page 205
Fig. 169.—The obelisk of Beggig. From the elevation of Lepsius.[161]
Page 206
Fig. 170.—Upper part of the obelisk at Beggig. From the elevation of
Lepsius.
Whatever may have been the origin of this form it never became popular in
Egypt. In Nubia alone do we find the type repeated, and that only in the
debased periods of art. On the other hand, the obelisks proper seem to have
been made in truly astonishing numbers in the time of the Middle and New
Empires. Egypt has supplied Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, and even
New York with these monoliths, and yet she still possesses many at home. Of
these several are still standing and in good preservation, others are broken
and buried beneath the ruins of the temples which they adorned. At Karnak
alone the sites of some ten or twelve have been found. Some of these are still
standing, some are lying on the ground, while of others nothing is left but the
pedestals. At the beginning of the century the French visitors to the ruins of
San, the ancient Tanis, found the fragments of nine different obelisks.[162]
§ 11. The Profession of Architect.
It may seem to some of our readers that we have spent too much time and
labour on our analysis of Egyptian architecture. Our excuse lies in the fact
that architecture was the chief of the arts in Egypt. We know nothing of her
painters. The pictures in the Theban tombs often display great taste and skill,
but they seem to have been the work of decorators rather than of painters in
the higher sense of the word. Sculptors appear, now and then, to have been
held in higher consideration. The names of one or two have come down to us,
and we are told how dear they were to the kings who employed them.[163] But
the only artists who had a high and well defined social position in ancient
Egypt, a country where ranks were as distinctly marked as in China, were the
architects or engineers, for they deserve either name. Their names have been
preserved to us in hundreds upon their elaborate tombs and inscribed steles.
We might, then, amuse ourselves by making out a long list of Egyptian
builders, a list which would extend over several thousands of years, from
Nefer, of Boulak (Fig. 171),[164] who may have built one of the Pyramids, to
the days of the Ptolemies or of the Roman emperors. In the glyptothek at
Munich there is a beautiful sepulchral statue of Bakenkhonsou, who was
chief prophet of Amen and principal architect of Thebes, in the time of Seti I.
Lepsius.
Whatever may have been the origin of this form it never became popular in
Egypt. In Nubia alone do we find the type repeated, and that only in the
debased periods of art. On the other hand, the obelisks proper seem to have
been made in truly astonishing numbers in the time of the Middle and New
Empires. Egypt has supplied Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, and even
New York with these monoliths, and yet she still possesses many at home. Of
these several are still standing and in good preservation, others are broken
and buried beneath the ruins of the temples which they adorned. At Karnak
alone the sites of some ten or twelve have been found. Some of these are still
standing, some are lying on the ground, while of others nothing is left but the
pedestals. At the beginning of the century the French visitors to the ruins of
San, the ancient Tanis, found the fragments of nine different obelisks.[162]
§ 11. The Profession of Architect.
It may seem to some of our readers that we have spent too much time and
labour on our analysis of Egyptian architecture. Our excuse lies in the fact
that architecture was the chief of the arts in Egypt. We know nothing of her
painters. The pictures in the Theban tombs often display great taste and skill,
but they seem to have been the work of decorators rather than of painters in
the higher sense of the word. Sculptors appear, now and then, to have been
held in higher consideration. The names of one or two have come down to us,
and we are told how dear they were to the kings who employed them.[163] But
the only artists who had a high and well defined social position in ancient
Egypt, a country where ranks were as distinctly marked as in China, were the
architects or engineers, for they deserve either name. Their names have been
preserved to us in hundreds upon their elaborate tombs and inscribed steles.
We might, then, amuse ourselves by making out a long list of Egyptian
builders, a list which would extend over several thousands of years, from
Nefer, of Boulak (Fig. 171),[164] who may have built one of the Pyramids, to
the days of the Ptolemies or of the Roman emperors. In the glyptothek at
Munich there is a beautiful sepulchral statue of Bakenkhonsou, who was
chief prophet of Amen and principal architect of Thebes, in the time of Seti I.
Page 207
and Rameses II. From certain phrases in the inscription, Devéria believes that
Bakenkhonsou built the temple of Gournah.[165] In his epitaph he boasts of
the great offices which he had filled and of the favour which had been shown
to him by his sovereign. Every Egyptian museum contains some statue and
inscription of the same kind. Brugsch has proved that under the Memphite
dynasties the architects to the king were sometimes recruited among the
princes of the blood royal, and the texts upon their tombs show that they all,
or nearly all, married daughters or grand-daughters of Pharaoh, and that such
a marriage was not looked upon as mesalliance.[166]
Fig. 171.—Limestone statue of the architect Nefer, in the Boulak
Museum. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Similar evidence is forthcoming in connection with the first Theban Empire,
but it was chiefly under the three great dynasties that the post of architect to
Bakenkhonsou built the temple of Gournah.[165] In his epitaph he boasts of
the great offices which he had filled and of the favour which had been shown
to him by his sovereign. Every Egyptian museum contains some statue and
inscription of the same kind. Brugsch has proved that under the Memphite
dynasties the architects to the king were sometimes recruited among the
princes of the blood royal, and the texts upon their tombs show that they all,
or nearly all, married daughters or grand-daughters of Pharaoh, and that such
a marriage was not looked upon as mesalliance.[166]
Fig. 171.—Limestone statue of the architect Nefer, in the Boulak
Museum. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Similar evidence is forthcoming in connection with the first Theban Empire,
but it was chiefly under the three great dynasties that the post of architect to
Page 208
Pharaoh became one of great responsibility, and carried with it great
influence and authority.
For the building and keeping in repair of the sumptuous monuments then
erected a great system of administration must have been devised, and Thebes,
like modern London, must have had its "district-surveyors."[167]
So far as we can tell there was a chief architect, or superintendent general of
buildings, for the whole kingdom; his title was Overseer of the buildings of
Upper and Lower Egypt.[168] For how many scribes and draughtsmen must
the offices of Bakenkhonsou or of Semnat, the favourite architect of the great
regent Hatasu, have found employment?[169]
Who would not like to know the course of study by which the ancient
Egyptian builders prepared themselves for the great public enterprises which
were always going on in their country? We may admit that the methods
employed by their engineers were much more primitive than it has been the
fashion to suppose, we may prove that their structures were far from
possessing the accuracy of plan that distinguishes ours, but yet we cannot
deny that those who transported and raised the obelisks and colossal statues,
and those who constructed the hypostyle hall of Karnak, or even the
pyramids of Gizeh, must have learnt their trade. How and where they learnt it
we do not know. It is probable that they learnt it by practice under a master.
Theory cannot have held any great part in their teaching. Their system must
have been composed of a collection of processes and receipts which grew in
number as the centuries passed away. There is nothing in the texts to show
that these receipts were the property of any close corporation, but heredity is
sure to have played an important part and to have made them, to some extent,
the property of a class. Architects were generally the sons of architects.
Brugsch has given us one genealogical table in which the profession
descended from father to son for twenty-two generations. By help of the
inscriptions he traced the family in question from the time of Seti I. to that of
Darius the son of Hystaspes. But even then he may not have tracked the
stream to its source. The rule and compass may have entered that family long
before the time of Seti; their use may also have continued long after the
Persian kings had been driven from Egypt.
influence and authority.
For the building and keeping in repair of the sumptuous monuments then
erected a great system of administration must have been devised, and Thebes,
like modern London, must have had its "district-surveyors."[167]
So far as we can tell there was a chief architect, or superintendent general of
buildings, for the whole kingdom; his title was Overseer of the buildings of
Upper and Lower Egypt.[168] For how many scribes and draughtsmen must
the offices of Bakenkhonsou or of Semnat, the favourite architect of the great
regent Hatasu, have found employment?[169]
Who would not like to know the course of study by which the ancient
Egyptian builders prepared themselves for the great public enterprises which
were always going on in their country? We may admit that the methods
employed by their engineers were much more primitive than it has been the
fashion to suppose, we may prove that their structures were far from
possessing the accuracy of plan that distinguishes ours, but yet we cannot
deny that those who transported and raised the obelisks and colossal statues,
and those who constructed the hypostyle hall of Karnak, or even the
pyramids of Gizeh, must have learnt their trade. How and where they learnt it
we do not know. It is probable that they learnt it by practice under a master.
Theory cannot have held any great part in their teaching. Their system must
have been composed of a collection of processes and receipts which grew in
number as the centuries passed away. There is nothing in the texts to show
that these receipts were the property of any close corporation, but heredity is
sure to have played an important part and to have made them, to some extent,
the property of a class. Architects were generally the sons of architects.
Brugsch has given us one genealogical table in which the profession
descended from father to son for twenty-two generations. By help of the
inscriptions he traced the family in question from the time of Seti I. to that of
Darius the son of Hystaspes. But even then he may not have tracked the
stream to its source. The rule and compass may have entered that family long
before the time of Seti; their use may also have continued long after the
Persian kings had been driven from Egypt.
Page 209
Page 210
CHAPTER III.
Sculpture.
§ 1. The Origin of Statue-making.
The art of imitating living forms by means of sculpture was no less ancient in
Egypt than architecture. We do not mean to say that it already existed in those
remote ages when the first ancestors of the Egyptian people built their mud
cabins upon the banks of the Nile; but as soon as their dwellings became
something more than mere shelters and began to be affected by the desire for
beauty, the figures of men and animals took a considerable place in their
decoration. The oldest mastabas that have been discovered have bas-reliefs
upon their walls and statues in their mummy-pits.
The existence of these statues and their relative perfection show that
sculpture had advanced with strides no less rapid than those of the sister art.
It may even be said that its progress had been greater than that of
architecture. Given the particular kind of expressive beauty which formed the
ambition of the Egyptian sculptor, he produced masterpieces as early as the
time of the Pyramid builders. We cannot say as much of the architect. The
latter showed himself, indeed, a master in the mechanical processes of
dressing and fixing stone, but the arrangement of his buildings was simple,
we might say elementary, and many centuries had to pass before he had
become capable of imagining and creating the sumptuous temples of the New
Empire, with those ample porticos and great hypostyle halls which were the
culminating achievements of Egyptian architecture.
In order to explain this curious inequality we need not inquire which of the
two arts presents the fewest difficulties. It is with nations as with individuals.
Some among them succeed with ease in matters which embarrass their
neighbours. It is a question of circumstances, of natural qualifications, and of
surroundings. Among the Egyptians the progress of sculpture was accelerated
by that national belief in a posthumous life for the body which we have
described in connection with their funerary architecture. By the existence of
Sculpture.
§ 1. The Origin of Statue-making.
The art of imitating living forms by means of sculpture was no less ancient in
Egypt than architecture. We do not mean to say that it already existed in those
remote ages when the first ancestors of the Egyptian people built their mud
cabins upon the banks of the Nile; but as soon as their dwellings became
something more than mere shelters and began to be affected by the desire for
beauty, the figures of men and animals took a considerable place in their
decoration. The oldest mastabas that have been discovered have bas-reliefs
upon their walls and statues in their mummy-pits.
The existence of these statues and their relative perfection show that
sculpture had advanced with strides no less rapid than those of the sister art.
It may even be said that its progress had been greater than that of
architecture. Given the particular kind of expressive beauty which formed the
ambition of the Egyptian sculptor, he produced masterpieces as early as the
time of the Pyramid builders. We cannot say as much of the architect. The
latter showed himself, indeed, a master in the mechanical processes of
dressing and fixing stone, but the arrangement of his buildings was simple,
we might say elementary, and many centuries had to pass before he had
become capable of imagining and creating the sumptuous temples of the New
Empire, with those ample porticos and great hypostyle halls which were the
culminating achievements of Egyptian architecture.
In order to explain this curious inequality we need not inquire which of the
two arts presents the fewest difficulties. It is with nations as with individuals.
Some among them succeed with ease in matters which embarrass their
neighbours. It is a question of circumstances, of natural qualifications, and of
surroundings. Among the Egyptians the progress of sculpture was accelerated
by that national belief in a posthumous life for the body which we have
described in connection with their funerary architecture. By the existence of
Page 211
this constant and singular belief we may explain both the early maturity of
Egyptian sculpture and the great originality of their most ancient style.
We have already described the arrangements which were necessary to enable
the inhabitant of the tomb to resist annihilation. Those arrangements were of
two kinds, a provision of food and drink, which had to be constantly
renewed, either in fact or by the magic multiplication which followed prayer,
and a permanent support for the ka or double, a support that should fill the
place of the living body of which it had been deprived by dissolution. This
support was afforded to some extent by the mummy; but the mummy was
liable to be destroyed or to perish by the action of time. The Egyptians were
led to provide against such a catastrophe by the invention of the funerary
statue. In the climate of Egypt, stone, and even wood, had far better chances
of duration than the most carefully embalmed body. Statues had the
additional advantage that they could be multiplied at will. There was nothing
to prevent ten, twenty, any number of them, being placed in a tomb.[170] If but
one of these images survived all the accidents of time, the double would be
saved from that annihilation to which it would otherwise be condemned.
Working under the impulse of such an idea, the sculptor could not fail to do
his best to endow his statue with the characteristic features of the original. "It
is easy, then, to understand why those Egyptian statues which do not
represent gods are always portraits of some individual, executed with all the
precision of which the artists were capable. They were not ideal figures to
which the desire for beauty of line and expression had much to say, they were
stone bodies, bodies which had to reproduce all the individual contours of
their flesh-and-blood originals. When the latter was ugly, its reproduction had
to be ugly also, and ugly in the same way. If these principles were
disregarded the double would be unable to find the support which was
necessary to it."[171]
The first Egyptian statue was not so much a work of art as a cast from nature.
If photography had been invented in the time of Menes, photographers would
have made their fortunes in Egypt. Those sun-portraits, which are supposed
to present a perfect resemblance, would have been put in the tomb of a
deceased man in hundreds. Wanting such things, they were contented to copy
his figure faithfully in stone or wood. His ordinary attitude, his features and
costume, were imitated with such scrupulous sincerity that the serdabs were
filled with faithful duplicates of himself. To obtain such a likeness the artist
Egyptian sculpture and the great originality of their most ancient style.
We have already described the arrangements which were necessary to enable
the inhabitant of the tomb to resist annihilation. Those arrangements were of
two kinds, a provision of food and drink, which had to be constantly
renewed, either in fact or by the magic multiplication which followed prayer,
and a permanent support for the ka or double, a support that should fill the
place of the living body of which it had been deprived by dissolution. This
support was afforded to some extent by the mummy; but the mummy was
liable to be destroyed or to perish by the action of time. The Egyptians were
led to provide against such a catastrophe by the invention of the funerary
statue. In the climate of Egypt, stone, and even wood, had far better chances
of duration than the most carefully embalmed body. Statues had the
additional advantage that they could be multiplied at will. There was nothing
to prevent ten, twenty, any number of them, being placed in a tomb.[170] If but
one of these images survived all the accidents of time, the double would be
saved from that annihilation to which it would otherwise be condemned.
Working under the impulse of such an idea, the sculptor could not fail to do
his best to endow his statue with the characteristic features of the original. "It
is easy, then, to understand why those Egyptian statues which do not
represent gods are always portraits of some individual, executed with all the
precision of which the artists were capable. They were not ideal figures to
which the desire for beauty of line and expression had much to say, they were
stone bodies, bodies which had to reproduce all the individual contours of
their flesh-and-blood originals. When the latter was ugly, its reproduction had
to be ugly also, and ugly in the same way. If these principles were
disregarded the double would be unable to find the support which was
necessary to it."[171]
The first Egyptian statue was not so much a work of art as a cast from nature.
If photography had been invented in the time of Menes, photographers would
have made their fortunes in Egypt. Those sun-portraits, which are supposed
to present a perfect resemblance, would have been put in the tomb of a
deceased man in hundreds. Wanting such things, they were contented to copy
his figure faithfully in stone or wood. His ordinary attitude, his features and
costume, were imitated with such scrupulous sincerity that the serdabs were
filled with faithful duplicates of himself. To obtain such a likeness the artist
Page 212
cannot have trusted to his memory. His employer must have sat before him,
the stone body must have been executed in presence of him whose
immortality it had to ensure. In no other way could those effigies have been
produced whose iconic character is obvious at first sight, effigies to which a
contemporary would have put a name without the slightest hesitation.
This individuality is not, however, equally well preserved in all Egyptian
sculpture, a remark which applies to the early dynasties as well as to the later
ones, though not in the same degree. In those early ages the beliefs which led
the Egyptian to inclose duplicates of his own body in his last resting-place
were more powerful over his spirit, and the artist had to exert himself to
satisfy the requirements of his employers in the matter of fidelity. Again,
those centuries had not to struggle against such an accumulation of
precedents and fixed habits, in a word, against so much conventionality as
those which came after. There were no formulæ, sanctioned by long custom,
to relieve the artist from the necessity for original thought and continual
reference to nature; he was compelled to make himself acquainted both with
the general features of his race and those of his individual employers. This
necessity gave him the best possible training. Portraiture taken up with
intelligence and practised with a passionate desire for truth has always been
the best school for the formation of masters in the plastic arts.
In those early centuries, then, Egypt produced a few statues which were
masterpieces of artistic expression, which were admirable portraits. In all
countries, however, great works are rare. The sepulchral statues were far from
being all equal in value to those of the Sheik-el-Beled, of Ra-Hotep from
Meidoum, or of the scribe in the Louvre. This intelligent and scientific
interpretation of nature was not reached at a bound; Egyptian sculpture had
its archaic period as well as that of Greece.
Moreover, even when the art had come to maturity, there was, as in other
countries a crowd of mediocre artists whose work was to be obtained at a cost
smaller than that of the eminent men whom they surrounded. The leading
sculptors were fully employed by the kings and great lords, by ministers and
functionaries of high rank: their less able brethren worked for that great class
of functionaries of the second order, who composed what may be called the
Egyptian middle class. It is probable too, that, although his work was to be
hidden in the darkness of the serdab, the artist took more care in reproducing
the features of a great personage whose appearance might be known from one
the stone body must have been executed in presence of him whose
immortality it had to ensure. In no other way could those effigies have been
produced whose iconic character is obvious at first sight, effigies to which a
contemporary would have put a name without the slightest hesitation.
This individuality is not, however, equally well preserved in all Egyptian
sculpture, a remark which applies to the early dynasties as well as to the later
ones, though not in the same degree. In those early ages the beliefs which led
the Egyptian to inclose duplicates of his own body in his last resting-place
were more powerful over his spirit, and the artist had to exert himself to
satisfy the requirements of his employers in the matter of fidelity. Again,
those centuries had not to struggle against such an accumulation of
precedents and fixed habits, in a word, against so much conventionality as
those which came after. There were no formulæ, sanctioned by long custom,
to relieve the artist from the necessity for original thought and continual
reference to nature; he was compelled to make himself acquainted both with
the general features of his race and those of his individual employers. This
necessity gave him the best possible training. Portraiture taken up with
intelligence and practised with a passionate desire for truth has always been
the best school for the formation of masters in the plastic arts.
In those early centuries, then, Egypt produced a few statues which were
masterpieces of artistic expression, which were admirable portraits. In all
countries, however, great works are rare. The sepulchral statues were far from
being all equal in value to those of the Sheik-el-Beled, of Ra-Hotep from
Meidoum, or of the scribe in the Louvre. This intelligent and scientific
interpretation of nature was not reached at a bound; Egyptian sculpture had
its archaic period as well as that of Greece.
Moreover, even when the art had come to maturity, there was, as in other
countries a crowd of mediocre artists whose work was to be obtained at a cost
smaller than that of the eminent men whom they surrounded. The leading
sculptors were fully employed by the kings and great lords, by ministers and
functionaries of high rank: their less able brethren worked for that great class
of functionaries of the second order, who composed what may be called the
Egyptian middle class. It is probable too, that, although his work was to be
hidden in the darkness of the serdab, the artist took more care in reproducing
the features of a great personage whose appearance might be known from one
Page 213
end of the Nile valley to the other, than when employed by some
comparatively humble individual. Before descending into the tomb, the statue
must for a time have been open to inspection, and its creator must have had
the chance of receiving those praises which neither poet nor artist has been
able to do without, from the days of Memphis to those of Modern Europe.
In most cases, however, he had to reproduce the features and contours of
some obscure but honest scribe, some insignificant unit among the thousands
who served Cheops or Chephren; and his conscience was more easily
satisfied. If we pass in review those limestone figures which are beginning to
be comparatively common in our museums, we receive the impression that
many among them bear only a general resemblance to their originals; they
preserve the Egyptian type of feature, the individual marks of sex and age,
the costume, the familiar attitude, and the attributes and accessories required
by custom, and that is all. It may even be that, like a certain category of
funerary steles among the Greeks of a later age, these inferior works were
bought in shops ready carved and painted, and that the mere inscription of a
name was supposed to give them that iconic character upon which so much
depended. A name indeed is not always found upon these images, but it is
always carved upon the tombs in which they were placed, and its appearance
there was sufficient to consecrate the statues and all other contents of the
sepulchre to the support of the double to which it belonged. Whether it was
copied from a sitter or bought ready-made, the statue became from the
moment of its consecration an auxiliary body for the double. It preserved
more of the appearance of life than the corpse saturated with mineral
essences and hidden under countless bandages; the half-open smiling lips
seemed about to speak, and the eyes, to which the employment of enamel and
polished metal give a singular brilliance, seemed instinct with life.
The first statues produced by the Egyptians were sepulchral in character, and
in the intentions both of those who made them and of those who gave the
commissions, they were portraits, executed with such fidelity that the double
should confidingly attach himself to them and not feel that he had been
despoiled of his corporeal support. As the power and wealth of the Egyptians
grew, their artistic aspirations grew also. They rose by degrees to the
conception of an ideal, but even when they are most visibly aiming at
grandeur of style the origin of their art may still be divined; in their happiest
and most noble creations the persistent effect of their early habits of thought
and belief is still to be surely traced.
comparatively humble individual. Before descending into the tomb, the statue
must for a time have been open to inspection, and its creator must have had
the chance of receiving those praises which neither poet nor artist has been
able to do without, from the days of Memphis to those of Modern Europe.
In most cases, however, he had to reproduce the features and contours of
some obscure but honest scribe, some insignificant unit among the thousands
who served Cheops or Chephren; and his conscience was more easily
satisfied. If we pass in review those limestone figures which are beginning to
be comparatively common in our museums, we receive the impression that
many among them bear only a general resemblance to their originals; they
preserve the Egyptian type of feature, the individual marks of sex and age,
the costume, the familiar attitude, and the attributes and accessories required
by custom, and that is all. It may even be that, like a certain category of
funerary steles among the Greeks of a later age, these inferior works were
bought in shops ready carved and painted, and that the mere inscription of a
name was supposed to give them that iconic character upon which so much
depended. A name indeed is not always found upon these images, but it is
always carved upon the tombs in which they were placed, and its appearance
there was sufficient to consecrate the statues and all other contents of the
sepulchre to the support of the double to which it belonged. Whether it was
copied from a sitter or bought ready-made, the statue became from the
moment of its consecration an auxiliary body for the double. It preserved
more of the appearance of life than the corpse saturated with mineral
essences and hidden under countless bandages; the half-open smiling lips
seemed about to speak, and the eyes, to which the employment of enamel and
polished metal give a singular brilliance, seemed instinct with life.
The first statues produced by the Egyptians were sepulchral in character, and
in the intentions both of those who made them and of those who gave the
commissions, they were portraits, executed with such fidelity that the double
should confidingly attach himself to them and not feel that he had been
despoiled of his corporeal support. As the power and wealth of the Egyptians
grew, their artistic aspirations grew also. They rose by degrees to the
conception of an ideal, but even when they are most visibly aiming at
grandeur of style the origin of their art may still be divined; in their happiest
and most noble creations the persistent effect of their early habits of thought
and belief is still to be surely traced.
Page 214
§ 2. Sculpture under the Ancient Empire.
The most ancient monument of sculpture to which we can assign, if not a
date, at least a chronological place in the list of Egyptian kings, is a rock-cut
monument in the peninsula of Sinai. This is in the Wadi-maghara, and
represents Snefrou, the last monarch of the third dynasty, destroying a
crouching barbarian with his mace. In spite of its historic importance, we
refrain from producing this bas-relief because its dilapidated state takes away
its interest from an artistic point of view.[172]
There are, besides, other statues in existence to which egyptologists ascribe a
still greater age. The Louvre contains three before which the historian of art
must halt for a moment.
Two of these are very much alike, and bear the name of a personage called
Sepa, who enjoyed the style and dignity of prophet and priest of the white
bull. The third is the presentment of Nesa, who is called a relation of the
king, and was, in all probability, the wife of Sepa (Fig. 172). These statues
were of soft limestone. Both man and woman have black wigs with squared
ends, which descend, in the case of the former, to the shoulders, in that of the
latter, to the breasts. Sepa holds a long staff in his left hand, and in his right
the sceptre called pat, a sign of authority. His only robe is a plain schenti, a
kind of cotton breeches fastened round his waist by a band. His trunk and
legs are bare, and the latter are only half freed from the stone in which they
are carved. Nesa is dressed in a long chemise with a triangular opening
between the breasts. Upon her arms she has bracelets composed of twelve
rings. In each figure the wig, the pupils, eyelids, and eyebrows, are painted
black, while there is a green stripe under the eyes. The bracelets are also
green.
De Rougé asserted boldly that these were the oldest statues in the world.[173]
He believed them to date from the third dynasty, and his successors do not
think he exaggerated; they would perhaps give the works in question an even
more venerable age.
This impression of great antiquity is not caused by the short inscriptions on
the plinths. The well-carved hieroglyphs which compose them are in relief,
but this peculiarity is found in monuments of the fourth and fifth dynasties.
The physiognomies and general style of the figures are much more
The most ancient monument of sculpture to which we can assign, if not a
date, at least a chronological place in the list of Egyptian kings, is a rock-cut
monument in the peninsula of Sinai. This is in the Wadi-maghara, and
represents Snefrou, the last monarch of the third dynasty, destroying a
crouching barbarian with his mace. In spite of its historic importance, we
refrain from producing this bas-relief because its dilapidated state takes away
its interest from an artistic point of view.[172]
There are, besides, other statues in existence to which egyptologists ascribe a
still greater age. The Louvre contains three before which the historian of art
must halt for a moment.
Two of these are very much alike, and bear the name of a personage called
Sepa, who enjoyed the style and dignity of prophet and priest of the white
bull. The third is the presentment of Nesa, who is called a relation of the
king, and was, in all probability, the wife of Sepa (Fig. 172). These statues
were of soft limestone. Both man and woman have black wigs with squared
ends, which descend, in the case of the former, to the shoulders, in that of the
latter, to the breasts. Sepa holds a long staff in his left hand, and in his right
the sceptre called pat, a sign of authority. His only robe is a plain schenti, a
kind of cotton breeches fastened round his waist by a band. His trunk and
legs are bare, and the latter are only half freed from the stone in which they
are carved. Nesa is dressed in a long chemise with a triangular opening
between the breasts. Upon her arms she has bracelets composed of twelve
rings. In each figure the wig, the pupils, eyelids, and eyebrows, are painted
black, while there is a green stripe under the eyes. The bracelets are also
green.
De Rougé asserted boldly that these were the oldest statues in the world.[173]
He believed them to date from the third dynasty, and his successors do not
think he exaggerated; they would perhaps give the works in question an even
more venerable age.
This impression of great antiquity is not caused by the short inscriptions on
the plinths. The well-carved hieroglyphs which compose them are in relief,
but this peculiarity is found in monuments of the fourth and fifth dynasties.
The physiognomies and general style of the figures are much more
Page 215
significant. They betray an art whose aims and instincts are well developed,
although it has not yet mastered its mechanical processes. The sculptor
knows thoroughly what he wants, but his hand still lacks assurance and
decision. He has set out upon the way which will be trodden with ever-
increasing firmness by his successors. He follows nature faithfully. Observe
how frankly the breadth of Sepa's shoulders is insisted upon, how clearly the
collar-bones and the articulations of the knees are marked. The rounded
contours of Nesa's thighs betray the same sincerity. And yet there is a certain
timidity and awkwardness in the group which becomes clearly perceptible
when we compare it with works in its neighbourhood which date from the
fifth dynasty. The workmanship lacks freedom, and the modelling is over-
simplified. The arms, which elsewhere are laid upon the knees, or, in the case
of the woman, passed round the neck of her husband, are too rigid. One is
held straight down by the body, the other is bent at a right angle across the
stomach. The pose is stiff, the placid features lack expression and will.
Fig. 172.—Sepa and Nesa, Louvre. Four feet eight inches high.
although it has not yet mastered its mechanical processes. The sculptor
knows thoroughly what he wants, but his hand still lacks assurance and
decision. He has set out upon the way which will be trodden with ever-
increasing firmness by his successors. He follows nature faithfully. Observe
how frankly the breadth of Sepa's shoulders is insisted upon, how clearly the
collar-bones and the articulations of the knees are marked. The rounded
contours of Nesa's thighs betray the same sincerity. And yet there is a certain
timidity and awkwardness in the group which becomes clearly perceptible
when we compare it with works in its neighbourhood which date from the
fifth dynasty. The workmanship lacks freedom, and the modelling is over-
simplified. The arms, which elsewhere are laid upon the knees, or, in the case
of the woman, passed round the neck of her husband, are too rigid. One is
held straight down by the body, the other is bent at a right angle across the
stomach. The pose is stiff, the placid features lack expression and will.
Fig. 172.—Sepa and Nesa, Louvre. Four feet eight inches high.
Page 216
The induction to which we have been led by the style of these figures is
confirmed by an observation made during recent explorations in the
necropolis of Memphis. The patch of green paint under the eyes has, as yet,
only been found in statues from a certain peculiar class of tombs at Gizeh and
Sakkarah. These are chambers cut in the rock, in which the roofs are carved
into imitations of timber ceilings of palm wood. Some of the texts which
have been found in them contain the name of a king whose chronological
place has not yet been satisfactorily determined, but who seems to have been
anterior to Snefrou. The figures upon which the adornment in question occurs
would appear therefore to be contemporary with the oldest tombs in the
neighbourhood of the pyramids.[174]
RA-HOTEP AND NEFERT
BOULAK MUSEUM
Imp. Ch. Chardon
confirmed by an observation made during recent explorations in the
necropolis of Memphis. The patch of green paint under the eyes has, as yet,
only been found in statues from a certain peculiar class of tombs at Gizeh and
Sakkarah. These are chambers cut in the rock, in which the roofs are carved
into imitations of timber ceilings of palm wood. Some of the texts which
have been found in them contain the name of a king whose chronological
place has not yet been satisfactorily determined, but who seems to have been
anterior to Snefrou. The figures upon which the adornment in question occurs
would appear therefore to be contemporary with the oldest tombs in the
neighbourhood of the pyramids.[174]
RA-HOTEP AND NEFERT
BOULAK MUSEUM
Imp. Ch. Chardon
Page 217
Progress was rapid between the end of the third dynasty and that of the
fourth. It was during the latter dynasty that the art of the Ancient Empire
produced its masterpieces. Mariette attributes the two famous statues found
in a tomb near the pyramid of Meidoum to the reign of Snefrou, the
predecessor of Cheops. They are exhibited, under glass, in the Boulak
Museum (Plate IX).[175]
"One of them represents Ra-hotep, a prince of the blood, who enjoyed the
dignity of general of infantry, a very rare title under the Ancient Empire; the
other is a woman, Nefert, the beauty; her statue also informs us that she was
related to the king. We do not know whether she was the wife or sister of Ra-
hotep. The interest excited by the extreme beauty of these figures is increased
by our certainty of their prodigious antiquity. In the mastaba where they were
found everything is frankly archaic, everything is as old as the oldest of the
tombs at Sakkarah, and those date from before the fourth dynasty. A
neighbouring tomb which, as is proved by the connection between their
structures, dates from the same period as that of Ra-hotep, is that of a
functionary attached to the person of Snefrou I. We may, therefore, fairly
assign the two statues from Meidoum to the last reign of the third dynasty."
[176]
Each of these figures, with its chair-shaped seat, is carved from a single block
of limestone about four feet high. The man is almost nude; his only dress is a
ribbon about his neck, and white breeches like those to which we have
already alluded. The woman is robed in the long chemise, open between the
breasts, which we have seen upon Nesa. Besides this a wide and richly
designed necklace spreads over her chest. Upon her head she has a square-cut
black wig, which, however, allows her natural hair to be visible in front. Over
the wig she has a low flat cap with a decorated border. The carnations of the
man are brownish red, those of the woman light yellow.
These statues betray an art much more advanced than that of Sepa and Nesa.
The pose is much easier and more natural, but the right arm of Ra-hotep is
stiff and held in a fashion which would soon cause cramp in a living man.
The modelling of the body is free and true, though without much knowledge
or subtlety. The breasts, arms, and legs of Nefert are skilfully suggested under
her robe. But the care of the sculptor has been mainly given to the heads. By
means of chisel and paint-brush he has given them an individuality which is
not readily forgotten. The arched eyebrows surmount large well-opened eyes;
fourth. It was during the latter dynasty that the art of the Ancient Empire
produced its masterpieces. Mariette attributes the two famous statues found
in a tomb near the pyramid of Meidoum to the reign of Snefrou, the
predecessor of Cheops. They are exhibited, under glass, in the Boulak
Museum (Plate IX).[175]
"One of them represents Ra-hotep, a prince of the blood, who enjoyed the
dignity of general of infantry, a very rare title under the Ancient Empire; the
other is a woman, Nefert, the beauty; her statue also informs us that she was
related to the king. We do not know whether she was the wife or sister of Ra-
hotep. The interest excited by the extreme beauty of these figures is increased
by our certainty of their prodigious antiquity. In the mastaba where they were
found everything is frankly archaic, everything is as old as the oldest of the
tombs at Sakkarah, and those date from before the fourth dynasty. A
neighbouring tomb which, as is proved by the connection between their
structures, dates from the same period as that of Ra-hotep, is that of a
functionary attached to the person of Snefrou I. We may, therefore, fairly
assign the two statues from Meidoum to the last reign of the third dynasty."
[176]
Each of these figures, with its chair-shaped seat, is carved from a single block
of limestone about four feet high. The man is almost nude; his only dress is a
ribbon about his neck, and white breeches like those to which we have
already alluded. The woman is robed in the long chemise, open between the
breasts, which we have seen upon Nesa. Besides this a wide and richly
designed necklace spreads over her chest. Upon her head she has a square-cut
black wig, which, however, allows her natural hair to be visible in front. Over
the wig she has a low flat cap with a decorated border. The carnations of the
man are brownish red, those of the woman light yellow.
These statues betray an art much more advanced than that of Sepa and Nesa.
The pose is much easier and more natural, but the right arm of Ra-hotep is
stiff and held in a fashion which would soon cause cramp in a living man.
The modelling of the body is free and true, though without much knowledge
or subtlety. The breasts, arms, and legs of Nefert are skilfully suggested under
her robe. But the care of the sculptor has been mainly given to the heads. By
means of chisel and paint-brush he has given them an individuality which is
not readily forgotten. The arched eyebrows surmount large well-opened eyes;
Page 218
the eyelids seem to be edged with heavy lashes and to stand out well from the
eyeball. In the case of the latter the limestone has retained its primitive
whiteness, giving a strong contrast with the pupil and iris (Fig. 173). The
noses, especially that of Ra-hotep are fine and pointed; the thick but well-
drawn lips seem about to speak. Her smooth cheeks and soft dark eyes, eyes
which are still common among the women of the East, give Nefert a very
attractive look. Her smiling and restful countenance is in strong contrast to
that of Ra-hotep, which is full of life and animation not unmingled with a
little hardness.
Fig. 173.—Ra-hotep. Drawn by Bourgoin.
The longer we look at these figures the less ready are we to turn away from
them. They are portraits, and portraits of marvellous sincerity. If they could
be gifted with life to-morrow, if we could encounter Ra-hotep and Nefert
working under the sun of Egypt, the man semi-nude, sowing the grain or
helping to make an embankment, his companion robed in the long blue
chemise of the fellah women and balancing a pitcher upon her head, we
should know them at once and salute them by name as old acquaintances. We
find none of the marks of inexperience and archaism which are so
conspicuous in the statues of Sepa and Nesa. A few later figures may seem to
us more delicately modelled and more full of detail, but taking them all in all,
we cannot look upon these statues as other than the creations of a mature art,
of an art which was already in full command of its resources, and of a
sculptor who had a well-marked personal and original style of his own.
We find the same qualities in another group of monuments ascribed by
Mariette to no less remote a period.[177] The same eye for proportion, the
same life-like expression, the same frankness and confidence of hand are to
eyeball. In the case of the latter the limestone has retained its primitive
whiteness, giving a strong contrast with the pupil and iris (Fig. 173). The
noses, especially that of Ra-hotep are fine and pointed; the thick but well-
drawn lips seem about to speak. Her smooth cheeks and soft dark eyes, eyes
which are still common among the women of the East, give Nefert a very
attractive look. Her smiling and restful countenance is in strong contrast to
that of Ra-hotep, which is full of life and animation not unmingled with a
little hardness.
Fig. 173.—Ra-hotep. Drawn by Bourgoin.
The longer we look at these figures the less ready are we to turn away from
them. They are portraits, and portraits of marvellous sincerity. If they could
be gifted with life to-morrow, if we could encounter Ra-hotep and Nefert
working under the sun of Egypt, the man semi-nude, sowing the grain or
helping to make an embankment, his companion robed in the long blue
chemise of the fellah women and balancing a pitcher upon her head, we
should know them at once and salute them by name as old acquaintances. We
find none of the marks of inexperience and archaism which are so
conspicuous in the statues of Sepa and Nesa. A few later figures may seem to
us more delicately modelled and more full of detail, but taking them all in all,
we cannot look upon these statues as other than the creations of a mature art,
of an art which was already in full command of its resources, and of a
sculptor who had a well-marked personal and original style of his own.
We find the same qualities in another group of monuments ascribed by
Mariette to no less remote a period.[177] The same eye for proportion, the
same life-like expression, the same frankness and confidence of hand are to
Page 219
be found in those sculptured wooden panels of which the museum at Boulak
possesses four fine examples. They were found at Sakkarah in the tomb of a
personage called Hosi, where they were enframed in four blind doorways.
They are on the average about 3 feet 10 inches high and 1 foot 8 inches wide.
The drawings which we reproduce give a good idea of the peculiarities of
style and execution by which they are distinguished (Figs. 174-176).[178]
At first sight these carvings are a little embarrassing to the eye accustomed to
works in stone. The type of figure presented is less thickset. The body,
instead of being muscular, is nervous and wiry. The arms and legs are thin
and long. In the head especially do we find unaccustomed features; the nose,
instead of being round, is strongly aquiline; the lips, instead of being thick
and fleshy, as in almost all other Egyptian heads, are thin and compressed.
The profile is strongly marked and rather severe. The general type is Semitic
rather than Egyptian. And yet the inscriptions which surround them prove
that the originals were pure Egyptians of the highest class. One of them, he
who is represented standing in two different attitudes, is Ra-hesi; the other,
who is sitting before a table of offerings, bears the name of Pekh-hesi. The
decipherable part of the inscription tells us that he was a scribe, highly
placed, and in great favour with the king.
The tomb in which these panels were found was not built on the usual plan of
the mastaba. Mariette alludes to certain peculiarities which are to be found in
it, but he does not describe them in detail. The hieroglyphs are grouped in a
peculiar fashion; many of them are of a very uncommon form. The
arrangement of the objects borne in the left hand of Ra-hesi is quite unique.
Struck by these singularities, Mariette asserts that "the style of these panels is
to Egyptian art what the style called archaic is to that of Greece."[179] This
assertion seems to us inaccurate. Not that we mean to contest the validity of
the reasons which Mariette gives for ascribing these panels to an epoch
anterior to the great pyramids; but, whatever may be their age, it seems to be
impossible, in view of the style in which they are executed, to call them
archaic. They show no more archaism than the statues of Meidoum. The
Egyptian artist never carved wood with greater decision or with more subtlety
and finesse than are to be seen in these panels. As for the differences of
execution which have been noticed between these figures and the stone
statues of the same epoch, they may easily be explained by the change of
material and by the Egyptian love for fidelity of imitation. Wood is not
possesses four fine examples. They were found at Sakkarah in the tomb of a
personage called Hosi, where they were enframed in four blind doorways.
They are on the average about 3 feet 10 inches high and 1 foot 8 inches wide.
The drawings which we reproduce give a good idea of the peculiarities of
style and execution by which they are distinguished (Figs. 174-176).[178]
At first sight these carvings are a little embarrassing to the eye accustomed to
works in stone. The type of figure presented is less thickset. The body,
instead of being muscular, is nervous and wiry. The arms and legs are thin
and long. In the head especially do we find unaccustomed features; the nose,
instead of being round, is strongly aquiline; the lips, instead of being thick
and fleshy, as in almost all other Egyptian heads, are thin and compressed.
The profile is strongly marked and rather severe. The general type is Semitic
rather than Egyptian. And yet the inscriptions which surround them prove
that the originals were pure Egyptians of the highest class. One of them, he
who is represented standing in two different attitudes, is Ra-hesi; the other,
who is sitting before a table of offerings, bears the name of Pekh-hesi. The
decipherable part of the inscription tells us that he was a scribe, highly
placed, and in great favour with the king.
The tomb in which these panels were found was not built on the usual plan of
the mastaba. Mariette alludes to certain peculiarities which are to be found in
it, but he does not describe them in detail. The hieroglyphs are grouped in a
peculiar fashion; many of them are of a very uncommon form. The
arrangement of the objects borne in the left hand of Ra-hesi is quite unique.
Struck by these singularities, Mariette asserts that "the style of these panels is
to Egyptian art what the style called archaic is to that of Greece."[179] This
assertion seems to us inaccurate. Not that we mean to contest the validity of
the reasons which Mariette gives for ascribing these panels to an epoch
anterior to the great pyramids; but, whatever may be their age, it seems to be
impossible, in view of the style in which they are executed, to call them
archaic. They show no more archaism than the statues of Meidoum. The
Egyptian artist never carved wood with greater decision or with more subtlety
and finesse than are to be seen in these panels. As for the differences of
execution which have been noticed between these figures and the stone
statues of the same epoch, they may easily be explained by the change of
material and by the Egyptian love for fidelity of imitation. Wood is not
Page 220
attacked in the same fashion as soft stone. Its constitution does not lend itself
to the ample and rounded forms of lapidary sculpture. It demands, especially
when a low relief is used, a more delicate and subtle modelling. Again, these
were portraits; all the Egyptians were not like one another, especially in that
primitive Egypt in which perhaps various races had not yet been blended into
a homogeneous population. Among the contemporaries of Cheops, as in our
day, there were fat people and thin people. Men who were tall and slender,
and men who were short and thickset. Countenances varied both in features
and expression.[180] In time art succeeded in evolving from all these
diversities a type of Egyptian manhood and beauty. As the ages passed away
the influence of that type became more and more despotic. It became almost
universal, except in those cases where there was a rigid obligation to
reproduce the personal characteristics of an individual with fidelity. But at the
end of the third dynasty that consummation was still far off. And we need feel
no surprise that the higher we mount in the stream of Egyptian civilization
the more particular are the concrete images which it offers to us, and the
more striking the variation between one work of art and another.
It must not be supposed, however, that the features which we have mentioned
as peculiar in the cases of Ra-hesi and Pekh-hesi are not to be found
elsewhere. If we examine the profile of Nefert, still more that of Ra-hotep,
we shall find that they also have the sloping forehead and aquiline nose. The
body of Ra-hotep is rounder and fatter than those in the wooden reliefs, but
the lines of his countenance have a strong resemblance to those which have
excited remark in the figures on the panels.
to the ample and rounded forms of lapidary sculpture. It demands, especially
when a low relief is used, a more delicate and subtle modelling. Again, these
were portraits; all the Egyptians were not like one another, especially in that
primitive Egypt in which perhaps various races had not yet been blended into
a homogeneous population. Among the contemporaries of Cheops, as in our
day, there were fat people and thin people. Men who were tall and slender,
and men who were short and thickset. Countenances varied both in features
and expression.[180] In time art succeeded in evolving from all these
diversities a type of Egyptian manhood and beauty. As the ages passed away
the influence of that type became more and more despotic. It became almost
universal, except in those cases where there was a rigid obligation to
reproduce the personal characteristics of an individual with fidelity. But at the
end of the third dynasty that consummation was still far off. And we need feel
no surprise that the higher we mount in the stream of Egyptian civilization
the more particular are the concrete images which it offers to us, and the
more striking the variation between one work of art and another.
It must not be supposed, however, that the features which we have mentioned
as peculiar in the cases of Ra-hesi and Pekh-hesi are not to be found
elsewhere. If we examine the profile of Nefert, still more that of Ra-hotep,
we shall find that they also have the sloping forehead and aquiline nose. The
body of Ra-hotep is rounder and fatter than those in the wooden reliefs, but
the lines of his countenance have a strong resemblance to those which have
excited remark in the figures on the panels.
Page 221
Fig. 174.—Wooden panel from the Tomb of Hosi. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 222
Page 223
Fig. 175.—Wooden panel from the Tomb of Hosi. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 224
Fig. 176.—Wooden panel from the Tomb of Hosi. Drawn by Bourgoin
Page 225
In the case of a limestone head, covered with red paint, which stands in the
Salle Civile, in the Louvre, the cranium is no less elongated, the cheekbones
are no less large, the cheeks themselves are as hollow, the chin as
protuberant, and the whole head as bony and fleshless. We do not know
whence it came, but we have no hesitation in agreeing with De Rougé,
Mariette, and Maspero, that this head is a masterpiece from one of the early
dynasties. It may be put by the side of the Meidoum couple for its vitality and
individual expression. The unknown original must have been ugly almost to
vulgarity, but it rouses in the spectator the same kind of admiration as a
Tuscan bust of the fifteenth century, and a pleasure which is not diminished
by the knowledge that the man whose faithful image is under his eyes passed
from the world some five or six thousand years ago (Fig. 177).
The little figure which occupies the place of honour in this same saloon
(Plate X.), though more famous, is hardly superior to the fragment just
described. It was found by Mariette in the tomb of Sekhem-ka, during his
excavation of the Serapeum. Other figures of the same kind were found with
it, but are hardly equal to it in merit. They are believed to date from the fifth
or sixth dynasty.
This scribe is seated, cross-legged, in an attitude still familiar to those who
have visited the East. The most superficial visitor to the Levant must have
seen, in the audience-hall of the cadi or pacha, the kiatib crouching exactly in
the same fashion before the chair or divan, registering sentences with his
rapid kalem, or writing out despatches. Our scribe is listening; his thin and
bony features are vibrating with intelligence; his black eye-balls positively
sparkle; his mouth is only closed because respect keeps him silent. His
shoulders are high and, square, his chest ample, his pectoral muscles very
large. People who follow a very sedentary occupation generally put on much
fat on the front of their bodies, and this scribe is no exception to the rule. His
arms are free of his sides; their position is easy and natural. One hand holds a
strip of papyrus upon which he writes with the other, his pen being a reed.
The lower parts of the body and the thighs are covered with a pair of drawers,
whose white colour contrasts with the brownish red of the carnations. The
breadth and truth with which the knee-joints are indicated should be
remarked. The only details that have, to a certain extent, been "scamped," are
the feet. Trusting to their being half hidden by the folded legs, the sculptor
has left them in a very rudimentary condition.
Salle Civile, in the Louvre, the cranium is no less elongated, the cheekbones
are no less large, the cheeks themselves are as hollow, the chin as
protuberant, and the whole head as bony and fleshless. We do not know
whence it came, but we have no hesitation in agreeing with De Rougé,
Mariette, and Maspero, that this head is a masterpiece from one of the early
dynasties. It may be put by the side of the Meidoum couple for its vitality and
individual expression. The unknown original must have been ugly almost to
vulgarity, but it rouses in the spectator the same kind of admiration as a
Tuscan bust of the fifteenth century, and a pleasure which is not diminished
by the knowledge that the man whose faithful image is under his eyes passed
from the world some five or six thousand years ago (Fig. 177).
The little figure which occupies the place of honour in this same saloon
(Plate X.), though more famous, is hardly superior to the fragment just
described. It was found by Mariette in the tomb of Sekhem-ka, during his
excavation of the Serapeum. Other figures of the same kind were found with
it, but are hardly equal to it in merit. They are believed to date from the fifth
or sixth dynasty.
This scribe is seated, cross-legged, in an attitude still familiar to those who
have visited the East. The most superficial visitor to the Levant must have
seen, in the audience-hall of the cadi or pacha, the kiatib crouching exactly in
the same fashion before the chair or divan, registering sentences with his
rapid kalem, or writing out despatches. Our scribe is listening; his thin and
bony features are vibrating with intelligence; his black eye-balls positively
sparkle; his mouth is only closed because respect keeps him silent. His
shoulders are high and, square, his chest ample, his pectoral muscles very
large. People who follow a very sedentary occupation generally put on much
fat on the front of their bodies, and this scribe is no exception to the rule. His
arms are free of his sides; their position is easy and natural. One hand holds a
strip of papyrus upon which he writes with the other, his pen being a reed.
The lower parts of the body and the thighs are covered with a pair of drawers,
whose white colour contrasts with the brownish red of the carnations. The
breadth and truth with which the knee-joints are indicated should be
remarked. The only details that have, to a certain extent, been "scamped," are
the feet. Trusting to their being half hidden by the folded legs, the sculptor
has left them in a very rudimentary condition.
Page 226
THE SCRIBE
(LOUVRE)
Imp. Dufrenoy
The eyes form the most striking feature in this figure. "They consist of an iris
of rock crystal surrounding a metal pupil, and set in an eyeball of opaque
white quartz. The whole is framed in continuous eyelids of bronze."[181]
This clever contrivance gives singular vitality and animation to the face.
Even the Grecian sculptor never produced anything so vivacious. The latter,
indeed began by renouncing all attempts to imitate the depth and brilliancy of
the human eye. His point of departure differed entirely from that of his
Memphite predecessor; his conception of his art led him, where the Egyptian
(LOUVRE)
Imp. Dufrenoy
The eyes form the most striking feature in this figure. "They consist of an iris
of rock crystal surrounding a metal pupil, and set in an eyeball of opaque
white quartz. The whole is framed in continuous eyelids of bronze."[181]
This clever contrivance gives singular vitality and animation to the face.
Even the Grecian sculptor never produced anything so vivacious. The latter,
indeed began by renouncing all attempts to imitate the depth and brilliancy of
the human eye. His point of departure differed entirely from that of his
Memphite predecessor; his conception of his art led him, where the Egyptian
Page 227
would have used colour, to be content with the general characteristics of form
and with its elevation to the highest pitch of nobility of which it was capable.
This is not the place for a comparison of the two systems, but accepting the
principles of art which prevailed in early Egypt, we must do justice to those
masters who were contemporary with the Pyramids. It must be acknowledged
that they produced works which are not to be surpassed in their way by the
greatest portraits of modern Europe. In later years the Egyptian sculptor
ceased to paint the eyes. Even in the time of the Ancient Empire the Egyptian
custom in this particular was the same as the Greek, so far as statues in hard
stone were concerned. The great statue of Chephren is an instance. In it the
chisel has merely reproduced the contours of the eyelids and the salience of
the eyeball. No attempt has been made to imitate the iris or to give brightness
to the pupil. In none of the royal statues that have come down to our time do
we find any effort to produce this kind of illusion, either by the use of paint
or by the insertion of naturally coloured substances.
There is a statue at Boulak which may, perhaps, be preferred even to the
scribe of the Louvre. We have already alluded to it as the Sheik-el-Beled (Fig.
7, Vol. I.). In its present state (it is without either feet or base) it has no
inscription but it is sometimes called Ra-em-ké, because that was the name of
the person in whose tomb it was found. It is of wood, and, with the exception
of its lower members, is in marvellous preservation. The eyes are similar to
those of the scribe, and seem to be fixed upon the spectator while their owner
advances upon him. The type is very different from those we have hitherto
been describing. The face is round and flat, and so is the trunk. The smiling
good humour of the expression and the embonpoint of the person indicate a
man well nourished and comfortably off, a man content both with himself
and his neighbours.[182]
and with its elevation to the highest pitch of nobility of which it was capable.
This is not the place for a comparison of the two systems, but accepting the
principles of art which prevailed in early Egypt, we must do justice to those
masters who were contemporary with the Pyramids. It must be acknowledged
that they produced works which are not to be surpassed in their way by the
greatest portraits of modern Europe. In later years the Egyptian sculptor
ceased to paint the eyes. Even in the time of the Ancient Empire the Egyptian
custom in this particular was the same as the Greek, so far as statues in hard
stone were concerned. The great statue of Chephren is an instance. In it the
chisel has merely reproduced the contours of the eyelids and the salience of
the eyeball. No attempt has been made to imitate the iris or to give brightness
to the pupil. In none of the royal statues that have come down to our time do
we find any effort to produce this kind of illusion, either by the use of paint
or by the insertion of naturally coloured substances.
There is a statue at Boulak which may, perhaps, be preferred even to the
scribe of the Louvre. We have already alluded to it as the Sheik-el-Beled (Fig.
7, Vol. I.). In its present state (it is without either feet or base) it has no
inscription but it is sometimes called Ra-em-ké, because that was the name of
the person in whose tomb it was found. It is of wood, and, with the exception
of its lower members, is in marvellous preservation. The eyes are similar to
those of the scribe, and seem to be fixed upon the spectator while their owner
advances upon him. The type is very different from those we have hitherto
been describing. The face is round and flat, and so is the trunk. The smiling
good humour of the expression and the embonpoint of the person indicate a
man well nourished and comfortably off, a man content both with himself
and his neighbours.[182]
Page 228
Fig. 177.—Limestone head, in the Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme
Gautier.
This statue is dressed in a different fashion from those we have hitherto
encountered. The sheik has his hips covered with a kind of petticoat gathered
into pleats in front. His legs, torso, and arms are bare. The last named are of
separate pieces of wood, and one of them, the bent one, is made in two parts.
When the statue was first finished the joints were invisible. The whole body
was covered with fine linen, like a skin. Upon this linen a thin layer of plaster
was spread, by means of which, when wet, refinement could be added to the
contours by the modelling stick; the colours of nature were afterwards added
by the brush. Such figures as these have therefore come down to us in a
condition which resembles their primitive state much less than that of the
Gautier.
This statue is dressed in a different fashion from those we have hitherto
encountered. The sheik has his hips covered with a kind of petticoat gathered
into pleats in front. His legs, torso, and arms are bare. The last named are of
separate pieces of wood, and one of them, the bent one, is made in two parts.
When the statue was first finished the joints were invisible. The whole body
was covered with fine linen, like a skin. Upon this linen a thin layer of plaster
was spread, by means of which, when wet, refinement could be added to the
contours by the modelling stick; the colours of nature were afterwards added
by the brush. Such figures as these have therefore come down to us in a
condition which resembles their primitive state much less than that of the
Page 229
works in stone. They have, so to speak, lost their epidermis, and with it the
colours which served to distinguish the flesh from the drapery.[183]
It would seem that the sculptor in wood often counted upon this final coat of
stucco to perfect his modelling. There are in fact wooden statues which seem
to have been but roughly blocked out by the chisel. There are three figures in
the Louvre in which this character is very conspicuous. The largest of the
three is reproduced in our Fig. 178.[184] Acacia and sycamore wood is used
for this kind of work.[185]
Finally, in this epoch or perhaps a little later, under the fifth and sixth
dynasties, funerary statues were cast in bronze. This notable fact was first
proclaimed by M. de Longperier. We quote the observations which he
addressed to the Academy of Inscriptions.[186]
"The fact that bronze was employed in Egypt in very ancient times has long
been ascertained. The knob from the Sceptre of Papi, a Pharaoh of the sixth
dynasty, which exists in the British Museum, is enough to prove this fact. M.
Chabas has called our attention to the fact that bronze is mentioned in texts
which date from a period anterior to the construction of the great Pyramids.
[187]
colours which served to distinguish the flesh from the drapery.[183]
It would seem that the sculptor in wood often counted upon this final coat of
stucco to perfect his modelling. There are in fact wooden statues which seem
to have been but roughly blocked out by the chisel. There are three figures in
the Louvre in which this character is very conspicuous. The largest of the
three is reproduced in our Fig. 178.[184] Acacia and sycamore wood is used
for this kind of work.[185]
Finally, in this epoch or perhaps a little later, under the fifth and sixth
dynasties, funerary statues were cast in bronze. This notable fact was first
proclaimed by M. de Longperier. We quote the observations which he
addressed to the Academy of Inscriptions.[186]
"The fact that bronze was employed in Egypt in very ancient times has long
been ascertained. The knob from the Sceptre of Papi, a Pharaoh of the sixth
dynasty, which exists in the British Museum, is enough to prove this fact. M.
Chabas has called our attention to the fact that bronze is mentioned in texts
which date from a period anterior to the construction of the great Pyramids.
[187]
Page 230
Fig. 178.—Wooden statue in the Louvre. Three feet eight inches high.
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
"That the earliest Egyptian bronzes representing the human figure are much
older than was formerly thought, is proved by two statuettes belonging to M.
Gustave Posno. One of these is twenty-six inches high, the other nineteen.
They merit a short description: 'No 1: A man standing; left foot forward, the
left hand closed and raised to a level with the breast. This hand, doubtless,
held a spear. The right hand which hangs straight down by the thigh formerly
clasped, in all probability, the small sceptre which is represented in many
bas-reliefs. The loins are girt with the garment called the schenti, the band of
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
"That the earliest Egyptian bronzes representing the human figure are much
older than was formerly thought, is proved by two statuettes belonging to M.
Gustave Posno. One of these is twenty-six inches high, the other nineteen.
They merit a short description: 'No 1: A man standing; left foot forward, the
left hand closed and raised to a level with the breast. This hand, doubtless,
held a spear. The right hand which hangs straight down by the thigh formerly
clasped, in all probability, the small sceptre which is represented in many
bas-reliefs. The loins are girt with the garment called the schenti, the band of
Page 231
which supports a dagger. The hair is arranged into regular rows of small
square knobs. The eyes and eyebrows, which were inlaid, have disappeared
(Fig. 179).'[188]
square knobs. The eyes and eyebrows, which were inlaid, have disappeared
(Fig. 179).'[188]
Page 232
Fig. 179.—Bronze statuette. Two feet two inches high. Drawn by Saint-
Elme Gautier.
"'No 2: A man standing; his loins girt with the schenti, his left foot forward,
his right hand raised to the level of his breast, the left hanging by his left
thigh. The inlaid eyes and eyebrows have been abstracted. His hair, which is
less abundant than that of his companion and allows the contour of his head
to be easily seen, is arranged into very small knobs. A vertical inscription on
the left side of his chest gives the name of the personage, in or after which
appears the ethnic Schasou, which seems to indicate an Oriental origin.' The
Schasous are mentioned in several Egyptian texts and seem to have occupied
the country which bordered Egypt on the North-East (Fig. 180)."[189]
"In these two statuettes the muscles of the arms and legs, and the articulation
of the knees, are expressed with a care and truth which denote a very remote
age. We cannot fail to recognize a phase of art earlier than the Second
Empire. But if the first mentioned figure recalls, by its features and the
management of the hair, the sculptures in stone of the fifth and sixth
dynasties, the second cannot, perhaps, be referred to quite such an early
period. In the latter the vertical line of the back and right leg slopes slightly
forward, betraying an attempt to express movement; the dorsal line of the
first figure is, on the other hand, quite perpendicular.
"Even in the photographs certain details are visible, such as the form of the
hair, the features, the rendering of the anatomical contours, which denote a
school anterior to that of the eighteenth dynasty.
Elme Gautier.
"'No 2: A man standing; his loins girt with the schenti, his left foot forward,
his right hand raised to the level of his breast, the left hanging by his left
thigh. The inlaid eyes and eyebrows have been abstracted. His hair, which is
less abundant than that of his companion and allows the contour of his head
to be easily seen, is arranged into very small knobs. A vertical inscription on
the left side of his chest gives the name of the personage, in or after which
appears the ethnic Schasou, which seems to indicate an Oriental origin.' The
Schasous are mentioned in several Egyptian texts and seem to have occupied
the country which bordered Egypt on the North-East (Fig. 180)."[189]
"In these two statuettes the muscles of the arms and legs, and the articulation
of the knees, are expressed with a care and truth which denote a very remote
age. We cannot fail to recognize a phase of art earlier than the Second
Empire. But if the first mentioned figure recalls, by its features and the
management of the hair, the sculptures in stone of the fifth and sixth
dynasties, the second cannot, perhaps, be referred to quite such an early
period. In the latter the vertical line of the back and right leg slopes slightly
forward, betraying an attempt to express movement; the dorsal line of the
first figure is, on the other hand, quite perpendicular.
"Even in the photographs certain details are visible, such as the form of the
hair, the features, the rendering of the anatomical contours, which denote a
school anterior to that of the eighteenth dynasty.
Page 233
Fig. 180.—Bronze statuette. One foot seven inches high. Drawn by Saint-
Elme Gautier.
Elme Gautier.
Page 234
"Egypt, then, was first in the field in bronze casting, as she was in stone and
wood carving. One at least of the Posno statuettes carries us so far back in the
history of humanity that it is difficult to see where we can look for earlier
works of art, especially of so advanced a style. We have already ascertained
that the first named of these two figures is far superior, both in style and
modelling, to the Asiatic canephorus of Afadj,[190] a work which was
dedicated to a goddess by a king, and must therefore be considered a good
example of the art of Western Asia."
We agree with M. de Longperier in all but one point, and that one as to which
he is careful not to commit himself. According to him the second figure is
later than the sixth dynasty and earlier than the eighteenth, so that it would
belong to the first Theban Empire. But we do not see why, supposing the
Egyptians of the Ancient Empire capable of making the first figure, they
should not have made the second. Between the two statuettes there are but
slight differences of handling, differences much the same as those to be found
in the wooden and stone statues which we have already mentioned. Neither
the artists nor their sitters had quite the same capabilities.
The technical skill shown in these bronzes is extraordinary. The most ancient
Etruscan and Greek bronzes are solid castings, on the base of which are
rough protuberances, sometimes of considerable length, resulting from the
fact that the metal was allowed to solidify in the orifice by which it was
poured into the mould. Here there is nothing of the kind. No imperfection in
the mechanical part of the work is allowed to interfere with its artistic effect.
The casting is light, hollow, and in one piece; the method employed must
have been excellent in itself and thoroughly understood.[191] They also
understood how to add finish by chasing the metal after its relief from the
mould. The small circular ornaments on the chest of the second figure,
ornaments which are so delicate in execution that they could not be
reproduced in our engraving without giving them too much importance, and
the hieroglyphs cut in the same figure, are instances of this.
That so few bronze statuettes have come down to us seems to show that the
use of the metal by sculptors was quite exceptional. They used wood far more
than bronze, and stone more than wood. Most of the sepulchral statues are cut
in soft limestone (see Figs. 6, 49, 88, 89, Vol. I., and Fig. 172, Vol. II.).
Sometimes these statues are isolated, sometimes they form family groups,
often consisting of father, mother, and children.
wood carving. One at least of the Posno statuettes carries us so far back in the
history of humanity that it is difficult to see where we can look for earlier
works of art, especially of so advanced a style. We have already ascertained
that the first named of these two figures is far superior, both in style and
modelling, to the Asiatic canephorus of Afadj,[190] a work which was
dedicated to a goddess by a king, and must therefore be considered a good
example of the art of Western Asia."
We agree with M. de Longperier in all but one point, and that one as to which
he is careful not to commit himself. According to him the second figure is
later than the sixth dynasty and earlier than the eighteenth, so that it would
belong to the first Theban Empire. But we do not see why, supposing the
Egyptians of the Ancient Empire capable of making the first figure, they
should not have made the second. Between the two statuettes there are but
slight differences of handling, differences much the same as those to be found
in the wooden and stone statues which we have already mentioned. Neither
the artists nor their sitters had quite the same capabilities.
The technical skill shown in these bronzes is extraordinary. The most ancient
Etruscan and Greek bronzes are solid castings, on the base of which are
rough protuberances, sometimes of considerable length, resulting from the
fact that the metal was allowed to solidify in the orifice by which it was
poured into the mould. Here there is nothing of the kind. No imperfection in
the mechanical part of the work is allowed to interfere with its artistic effect.
The casting is light, hollow, and in one piece; the method employed must
have been excellent in itself and thoroughly understood.[191] They also
understood how to add finish by chasing the metal after its relief from the
mould. The small circular ornaments on the chest of the second figure,
ornaments which are so delicate in execution that they could not be
reproduced in our engraving without giving them too much importance, and
the hieroglyphs cut in the same figure, are instances of this.
That so few bronze statuettes have come down to us seems to show that the
use of the metal by sculptors was quite exceptional. They used wood far more
than bronze, and stone more than wood. Most of the sepulchral statues are cut
in soft limestone (see Figs. 6, 49, 88, 89, Vol. I., and Fig. 172, Vol. II.).
Sometimes these statues are isolated, sometimes they form family groups,
often consisting of father, mother, and children.
Page 235
Statues of men are the most numerous. Differences between one and another
are many and frequent, but they are, on the whole, less striking than the
points of resemblance. Here we find a head bare, there enveloped in either a
square or rounded wig. The bodies are never completely nude, and the
garment which covers their middles is arranged in a variety of ways.
Fashions, both for men and women, seem to have changed in Egypt as
elsewhere. In the statues ascribed to the last dynasties of the Ancient Empire
the national type seems more fixed and accentuated than in earlier works.
These funerary statues are the portraits of vigorous and powerful men, with
broad shoulders, well-developed pectoral muscles, thin flanks and muscular
legs. Ra-nefer, priest of Ptah and Sokar, stands upright, his arms by his sides,
and each hand grasping a roll of papyrus (Fig. 181).[192] A dagger is passed
through the belt of his drawers.
The person represented in Fig. 182 is distinguished from Ra-nefer by the
fashion in which he wears his hair and by his costume. His loose skirt is
arranged in front so as to form a kind of triangular apron. This peculiar fall of
the garment was obtained by the use of starch and an instrument similar to
our flat-iron. It is better seen in the statue of Ti, the great personage to whose
gorgeous tomb we have so often referred.[193] The Albanians obtain the
curious folds of their kilts in the same fashion.[194] Ti wears a periwig of a
different kind from that of Ra-nefer. The Egyptians shaved their heads from
motives of cleanliness. The priests were compelled to do so by the rules of
their religion, which made purity of person even more imperative upon them
than upon the laymen. It was necessary, however, that the head should be
thoroughly protected from the sun, hence the wig. The shaved
Mohammedans of our day replace the periwig with the turban.
are many and frequent, but they are, on the whole, less striking than the
points of resemblance. Here we find a head bare, there enveloped in either a
square or rounded wig. The bodies are never completely nude, and the
garment which covers their middles is arranged in a variety of ways.
Fashions, both for men and women, seem to have changed in Egypt as
elsewhere. In the statues ascribed to the last dynasties of the Ancient Empire
the national type seems more fixed and accentuated than in earlier works.
These funerary statues are the portraits of vigorous and powerful men, with
broad shoulders, well-developed pectoral muscles, thin flanks and muscular
legs. Ra-nefer, priest of Ptah and Sokar, stands upright, his arms by his sides,
and each hand grasping a roll of papyrus (Fig. 181).[192] A dagger is passed
through the belt of his drawers.
The person represented in Fig. 182 is distinguished from Ra-nefer by the
fashion in which he wears his hair and by his costume. His loose skirt is
arranged in front so as to form a kind of triangular apron. This peculiar fall of
the garment was obtained by the use of starch and an instrument similar to
our flat-iron. It is better seen in the statue of Ti, the great personage to whose
gorgeous tomb we have so often referred.[193] The Albanians obtain the
curious folds of their kilts in the same fashion.[194] Ti wears a periwig of a
different kind from that of Ra-nefer. The Egyptians shaved their heads from
motives of cleanliness. The priests were compelled to do so by the rules of
their religion, which made purity of person even more imperative upon them
than upon the laymen. It was necessary, however, that the head should be
thoroughly protected from the sun, hence the wig. The shaved
Mohammedans of our day replace the periwig with the turban.
Page 236
Fig. 181.—Ra-nefer. Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
One wooden statue at Boulak offers a variety of costume which is at present
unique among the remains of Egyptian civilization. It is, unfortunately, in
very bad preservation. It represents a man, standing, and draped in an ample
robe which covers him from head to foot. His right arm is free; it is held
across the body, and meets the left hand, which is thrust through an opening
in the robe. The place where this statue was found, the material of which it
consists, and the character of the workmanship, all combine to prove that it is
a production of the early dynasties (Fig. 184).[195]
One wooden statue at Boulak offers a variety of costume which is at present
unique among the remains of Egyptian civilization. It is, unfortunately, in
very bad preservation. It represents a man, standing, and draped in an ample
robe which covers him from head to foot. His right arm is free; it is held
across the body, and meets the left hand, which is thrust through an opening
in the robe. The place where this statue was found, the material of which it
consists, and the character of the workmanship, all combine to prove that it is
a production of the early dynasties (Fig. 184).[195]
Page 237
Fig. 182.—Statue in the Boulak Museum. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 238
Fig. 183.—Statue of Ti. Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
A few kneeling statues have also been found. The anonymous personage
whose portrait is reproduced in Fig. 185 is upon his knees. His clasped hands
rest upon his thighs. His eyes are inlaid; they are formed of numerous small
pieces skilfully put together.[196]
There is no less variety in those groups where the sculptor has been charged
to represent a whole family reunited in the tomb. Sometimes the husband is
sitting and the wife standing. She has her left arm round his neck, the left
hand resting on his left shoulder, while with her right hand she holds his right
arm (Fig. 88, Vol. I.). Sometimes a father and mother are seated upon the
same bench, but here too the woman confesses her dependence on, and shows
her confidence in, her master by the same affectionate gesture (Fig. 186).
Both are of the same height, but between them, and leaning against the bench
A few kneeling statues have also been found. The anonymous personage
whose portrait is reproduced in Fig. 185 is upon his knees. His clasped hands
rest upon his thighs. His eyes are inlaid; they are formed of numerous small
pieces skilfully put together.[196]
There is no less variety in those groups where the sculptor has been charged
to represent a whole family reunited in the tomb. Sometimes the husband is
sitting and the wife standing. She has her left arm round his neck, the left
hand resting on his left shoulder, while with her right hand she holds his right
arm (Fig. 88, Vol. I.). Sometimes a father and mother are seated upon the
same bench, but here too the woman confesses her dependence on, and shows
her confidence in, her master by the same affectionate gesture (Fig. 186).
Both are of the same height, but between them, and leaning against the bench
Page 239
upon which they are seated, appears their child, quite small. His gesture is
that to which the Egyptian artist has recourse when he wishes to express early
childhood (Fig. 187). We also find the husband and wife standing erect in
front of a slab; the relation which they bear to each other is here also
indicated by the position of the woman's arms (Fig. 188).[197] Sometimes the
woman is altogether absent (Fig. 89, Vol. I.). The head of the family is placed
by himself, on a raised seat. In front of this seat, and hardly reaching to their
father's knees, are two children, boy and girl, the boy holding the right leg,
the girl the left. The boy has the lock of hair pendent over the right ear,
which, like the finger in the mouth, is a sign of tender years. He is nude; the
girl is dressed in an ornamental robe reaching to her ankles. There is a
piquant contrast between these two tender little bodies with their childish
heads, and the virile power of the father and protector who towers so high
above them.
Fig. 184.—Wooden statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
that to which the Egyptian artist has recourse when he wishes to express early
childhood (Fig. 187). We also find the husband and wife standing erect in
front of a slab; the relation which they bear to each other is here also
indicated by the position of the woman's arms (Fig. 188).[197] Sometimes the
woman is altogether absent (Fig. 89, Vol. I.). The head of the family is placed
by himself, on a raised seat. In front of this seat, and hardly reaching to their
father's knees, are two children, boy and girl, the boy holding the right leg,
the girl the left. The boy has the lock of hair pendent over the right ear,
which, like the finger in the mouth, is a sign of tender years. He is nude; the
girl is dressed in an ornamental robe reaching to her ankles. There is a
piquant contrast between these two tender little bodies with their childish
heads, and the virile power of the father and protector who towers so high
above them.
Fig. 184.—Wooden statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 240
Fig. 185.—Statue in limestone, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 241
Fig. 186.—Limestone group in the Louvre. Height twenty-eight inches.
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 242
Fig. 187.—Wooden statuette, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 243
Fig. 188.—Nefer-hotep and Tenteta. Boulak.
These limestone groups do not, as a rule, appear to have been executed with
any great care. Their makers do not seem to have taken much pains to give
them an individuality of their own; but in spite of this feebleness of
execution, they please by their composition. They are well arranged, their
attitudes are simple and their gestures expressive. As a whole they have an air
of calmness and repose which is thoroughly in accord with the ideas of the
Egyptians on the question of life and death.
These limestone groups do not, as a rule, appear to have been executed with
any great care. Their makers do not seem to have taken much pains to give
them an individuality of their own; but in spite of this feebleness of
execution, they please by their composition. They are well arranged, their
attitudes are simple and their gestures expressive. As a whole they have an air
of calmness and repose which is thoroughly in accord with the ideas of the
Egyptians on the question of life and death.
Page 244
Fig. 189.—Limestone statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 245
Fig. 190.—Limestone statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
From the same memphite tombs many limestone statues have been
recovered, representing, not the defunct himself, but those who mourn his
decease and the crowd of retainers attached to his person. All these are
expected to carry on their labours for his benefit and to be ready to satisfy his
wants through all eternity. Here we find one seated upon the ground, his hand
upon his head in sign of grief (Fig. 189).[198] There a young man, completely
naked, advancing with a sack upon his left shoulder which falls down to the
centre of his back. He carries a bouquet of flowers in his right hand (Fig.
190).[199] A man seated upon the ground holds a vase between his knees, into
which he has plunged his right hand (Fig. 191).[200] Another bends over a
wide-mouthed jar of mortar in which he is mixing flour and water (Fig. 192).
From the same memphite tombs many limestone statues have been
recovered, representing, not the defunct himself, but those who mourn his
decease and the crowd of retainers attached to his person. All these are
expected to carry on their labours for his benefit and to be ready to satisfy his
wants through all eternity. Here we find one seated upon the ground, his hand
upon his head in sign of grief (Fig. 189).[198] There a young man, completely
naked, advancing with a sack upon his left shoulder which falls down to the
centre of his back. He carries a bouquet of flowers in his right hand (Fig.
190).[199] A man seated upon the ground holds a vase between his knees, into
which he has plunged his right hand (Fig. 191).[200] Another bends over a
wide-mouthed jar of mortar in which he is mixing flour and water (Fig. 192).
Page 246
A young woman, in a similar attitude, is occupied over the same task (Fig.
193). Other women are rolling the paste thus obtained on a plank, or rather
upon a stone slab, before which they kneel upon the ground. The muscular
exertion necessary for the operation is rendered with great skill (Figs. 193
and 194).[201] Women are still to be encountered at Elephantiné and in Nubia,
wearing the same head-dress and carrying out the same operation in the same
attitude and with exactly similar utensils. We reproduce two sketches by M.
Bourgoin, which show the details of this head-covering, which, among the
women of the lower orders, supplied the piece of the wig; it consists of a
piece of stuff held upon the head by a ribbon knotted at the back of the neck
(Figs. 196 and 197).
Fig. 191.—Limestone statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
193). Other women are rolling the paste thus obtained on a plank, or rather
upon a stone slab, before which they kneel upon the ground. The muscular
exertion necessary for the operation is rendered with great skill (Figs. 193
and 194).[201] Women are still to be encountered at Elephantiné and in Nubia,
wearing the same head-dress and carrying out the same operation in the same
attitude and with exactly similar utensils. We reproduce two sketches by M.
Bourgoin, which show the details of this head-covering, which, among the
women of the lower orders, supplied the piece of the wig; it consists of a
piece of stuff held upon the head by a ribbon knotted at the back of the neck
(Figs. 196 and 197).
Fig. 191.—Limestone statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 247
Fig. 192.—Limestone statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 248
Fig. 193.—Woman kneading dough, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Mariette brought all these figures to Paris in 1878, where they excited the
greatest interest among artists and archæologists. They were eminently well
fitted to enlighten those who are able to see and to do away with many rooted
prejudices. What an abyss of difference they showed between Egyptian art as
it used to be defined some thirty years ago and the reality. The stiffness and
rigidity which used to be so universally attributed to the productions of the
sculptors of Memphis and Thebes, were forgotten before their varied motives
and free natural attitudes. The whole of these works, in fact, are imbued with
a spirit which is diametrically opposed to the unchanging inflexibility which
used to be considered the chief characteristic of Egyptian art. They are
distinguished by an extraordinary ease of attitude, and by that curious
elasticity of body which still remains one of the most conspicuous physical
qualities of the race.
"The suppleness of body which distinguished the female fellah is marvellous.
She rarely sits down. When she requires rest she crouches with her knees in
the air in an attitude which we should find singularly fatiguing. So too with
the men. Their habitual posture corresponds to that shown on the steles: the
knees drawn up in front of the face to the height of the nose, or on each side
of the head and level with the ears. These attitudes are not graceful, but when
the bodies thus drawn together are raised to their full height they are superb.
They are, to borrow a happy expression of Fromentin, 'at once awkward and
magnificent; when crouching and at rest they look like monkeys; when they
stand up they are living statues.'"[202]
Mariette brought all these figures to Paris in 1878, where they excited the
greatest interest among artists and archæologists. They were eminently well
fitted to enlighten those who are able to see and to do away with many rooted
prejudices. What an abyss of difference they showed between Egyptian art as
it used to be defined some thirty years ago and the reality. The stiffness and
rigidity which used to be so universally attributed to the productions of the
sculptors of Memphis and Thebes, were forgotten before their varied motives
and free natural attitudes. The whole of these works, in fact, are imbued with
a spirit which is diametrically opposed to the unchanging inflexibility which
used to be considered the chief characteristic of Egyptian art. They are
distinguished by an extraordinary ease of attitude, and by that curious
elasticity of body which still remains one of the most conspicuous physical
qualities of the race.
"The suppleness of body which distinguished the female fellah is marvellous.
She rarely sits down. When she requires rest she crouches with her knees in
the air in an attitude which we should find singularly fatiguing. So too with
the men. Their habitual posture corresponds to that shown on the steles: the
knees drawn up in front of the face to the height of the nose, or on each side
of the head and level with the ears. These attitudes are not graceful, but when
the bodies thus drawn together are raised to their full height they are superb.
They are, to borrow a happy expression of Fromentin, 'at once awkward and
magnificent; when crouching and at rest they look like monkeys; when they
stand up they are living statues.'"[202]
Page 249
Fig. 194.—Woman making bread, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
This early art never carried its powers of observation and its exactitude of
reproduction farther than in the statue of Nem-hotep, which we show in full-
face and profile in Figs. 198 and 199. Whether we call him, with Mariette, a
cook, or, with Maspero, a master of the wardrobe or keeper of perfumes, it
cannot be doubted that. Nem-hotep was a person of importance. One of the
fine tombs at Sakkarah was his. He certainly did not make his way at court by
the graces of his person. He was a dwarf with all the characteristics that
distinguish those unlucky beings. His head was too large, his torso very long,
his arms and legs very short; besides which he was marvellously
dolichocephalic.
This early art never carried its powers of observation and its exactitude of
reproduction farther than in the statue of Nem-hotep, which we show in full-
face and profile in Figs. 198 and 199. Whether we call him, with Mariette, a
cook, or, with Maspero, a master of the wardrobe or keeper of perfumes, it
cannot be doubted that. Nem-hotep was a person of importance. One of the
fine tombs at Sakkarah was his. He certainly did not make his way at court by
the graces of his person. He was a dwarf with all the characteristics that
distinguish those unlucky beings. His head was too large, his torso very long,
his arms and legs very short; besides which he was marvellously
dolichocephalic.
Page 250
Fig. 195.—Bread maker, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Figs. 196, 197.—Details of head-dresses.
The sincerity of Egyptian art is conspicuously shown in its treatment of the
foot. Winckelmann noticed that the feet in Egyptian statues were larger and
fatter than in those of Greece. The great toes are straight, no articulations
being shown. The second toe is always the longest, and the little toe is not
bent in the middle but straight like the others. These peculiarities spring from
the Egyptian habit of walking bare-foot on the Nile mud; they are very
strongly marked in the feet of the modern fellah.[203]
The general characteristics of these works in the round are repeated in the
bas-reliefs of the mastabas at Gizeh and Sakkarah. Of these we have already
Figs. 196, 197.—Details of head-dresses.
The sincerity of Egyptian art is conspicuously shown in its treatment of the
foot. Winckelmann noticed that the feet in Egyptian statues were larger and
fatter than in those of Greece. The great toes are straight, no articulations
being shown. The second toe is always the longest, and the little toe is not
bent in the middle but straight like the others. These peculiarities spring from
the Egyptian habit of walking bare-foot on the Nile mud; they are very
strongly marked in the feet of the modern fellah.[203]
The general characteristics of these works in the round are repeated in the
bas-reliefs of the mastabas at Gizeh and Sakkarah. Of these we have already
Page 251
given numerous illustrations; we shall therefore be content with reproducing
one or two which are more than usually conspicuous for their artistic merit.
Figs. 198, 199.—Nem-hotep; limestone statue at Boulak.
The sculptures of Wadi-maghara and the wooden panels from the Tomb of
Hosi are enough to prove that work in relief was as old in Egypt as work in
the round. In the mastabas sculptures in low-relief served to multiply the
images of the defunct. He is figured upon the steles which occupy the
principal wall, as well as in various other parts of the tomb. Sometimes he is
shown seated before the table of offerings (Fig. 200), sometimes standing
upright (Figs. 57 and 120, Vol. I.). But the sculptor did not restrict himself to
these two motives. In the preparation and presentation of the funeral gifts he
found many themes, to which he was able to give more or less development
according to the space at his command.
one or two which are more than usually conspicuous for their artistic merit.
Figs. 198, 199.—Nem-hotep; limestone statue at Boulak.
The sculptures of Wadi-maghara and the wooden panels from the Tomb of
Hosi are enough to prove that work in relief was as old in Egypt as work in
the round. In the mastabas sculptures in low-relief served to multiply the
images of the defunct. He is figured upon the steles which occupy the
principal wall, as well as in various other parts of the tomb. Sometimes he is
shown seated before the table of offerings (Fig. 200), sometimes standing
upright (Figs. 57 and 120, Vol. I.). But the sculptor did not restrict himself to
these two motives. In the preparation and presentation of the funeral gifts he
found many themes, to which he was able to give more or less development
according to the space at his command.
Page 252
Fig. 200.—Funerary bas-relief; Sakkarah. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Fig. 201.—Bas-relief from the Tomb of Ti, Sakkarah.
Even in the earliest attempts that have come down to us, the Egyptian
sculptor shows a complete grasp of the peculiar features of the domesticated
animals of the country. Men accustomed to the careful study of the human
figure could make light of rendering those of beasts, with their more striking
distinctions between one species and another. In the time when the oldest
Fig. 201.—Bas-relief from the Tomb of Ti, Sakkarah.
Even in the earliest attempts that have come down to us, the Egyptian
sculptor shows a complete grasp of the peculiar features of the domesticated
animals of the country. Men accustomed to the careful study of the human
figure could make light of rendering those of beasts, with their more striking
distinctions between one species and another. In the time when the oldest
Page 253
existing tombs were constructed, the ass was already domesticated in Egypt.
Then as now, he was the most indispensable of the servants of mankind.
There were, in all probability, as many donkeys in the streets of Memphis
under Cheops as there are now in Cairo under Tewfik. Upon the walls of the
mastabas we see them trotting in droves under the cries and sticks of their
drivers (Fig. 201), we see the foals, with their awkward gait and long pricked
ears, walking by the sides of their mothers (Fig. 202), the latter are heavily
laden and drag their steps; the drivers brandish their heavy sticks, but threaten
their patient brutes much oftener than they strike them. This is still the habit
of those donkey boys, who, upon the Esbekieh, naïvely offer you "M. de
Lesseps' donkey." The bas-relief to which we are alluding consists only of a
slight outline, but that outline is so accurate and full of character, that we
have no difficulty in identifying the ass of Egypt, with his graceful carriage
of the head and easy, brisk, and dainty motion.
The same artists have figured another of the companions of man with equal
fidelity; namely, the deep-sided, long-tailed, long-horned, Egyptian ox.
Sometimes he lies upon the earth, ruminating (Fig. 29, Vol. I.); sometimes he
is driven between two peasants, the one leading him by a rope, the other
bringing up the rear with a stick held in readiness against any outburst of self-
will (Fig. 203). In another relief we see a drove advancing by the side of a
canal, upon which a boat with three men is making way by means of pole and
paddle. One herdsman walks in front of the oxen, another marches behind
and urges them on by voice and gesture (Fig. 204). In another place we find a
cow being milked by a crouching herdsman. She seems to lend herself to the
operation in the most docile manner in the world, and we are inclined to
wonder what need there is of a second herdsman who sits before her nose and
holds one of her legs in both his hands. The precaution, however, may not be
superfluous, an ox-fly might sting her into sudden movement, and then if
there was no one at hand to restrain her, the milk, which already nears the
summit of the pail, might be lost (Fig. 30, Vol. I.).
Then as now, he was the most indispensable of the servants of mankind.
There were, in all probability, as many donkeys in the streets of Memphis
under Cheops as there are now in Cairo under Tewfik. Upon the walls of the
mastabas we see them trotting in droves under the cries and sticks of their
drivers (Fig. 201), we see the foals, with their awkward gait and long pricked
ears, walking by the sides of their mothers (Fig. 202), the latter are heavily
laden and drag their steps; the drivers brandish their heavy sticks, but threaten
their patient brutes much oftener than they strike them. This is still the habit
of those donkey boys, who, upon the Esbekieh, naïvely offer you "M. de
Lesseps' donkey." The bas-relief to which we are alluding consists only of a
slight outline, but that outline is so accurate and full of character, that we
have no difficulty in identifying the ass of Egypt, with his graceful carriage
of the head and easy, brisk, and dainty motion.
The same artists have figured another of the companions of man with equal
fidelity; namely, the deep-sided, long-tailed, long-horned, Egyptian ox.
Sometimes he lies upon the earth, ruminating (Fig. 29, Vol. I.); sometimes he
is driven between two peasants, the one leading him by a rope, the other
bringing up the rear with a stick held in readiness against any outburst of self-
will (Fig. 203). In another relief we see a drove advancing by the side of a
canal, upon which a boat with three men is making way by means of pole and
paddle. One herdsman walks in front of the oxen, another marches behind
and urges them on by voice and gesture (Fig. 204). In another place we find a
cow being milked by a crouching herdsman. She seems to lend herself to the
operation in the most docile manner in the world, and we are inclined to
wonder what need there is of a second herdsman who sits before her nose and
holds one of her legs in both his hands. The precaution, however, may not be
superfluous, an ox-fly might sting her into sudden movement, and then if
there was no one at hand to restrain her, the milk, which already nears the
summit of the pail, might be lost (Fig. 30, Vol. I.).
Page 254
Fig. 202.—Bas-relief from the Tomb of Ti, Sakkarah.
By careful selection from the sepulchral bas-reliefs, we might, if we chose,
present to our readers reproductions of the whole fauna of Ancient Egypt, the
lion, hyena, leopard, jackal, fox, wolf, ibex, gazelle, the hare, the porcupine,
the crocodile, the hippopotamus, the different fishes in the Nile, the birds in
the marshes, the flamingo, the ibis, duck, stork, crane, and goose, the dog and
the cat, the goat and the pig. Everywhere we find the same aptitude for
summarizing the distinctive characteristics of a species. This accuracy of
observation has been recognized by every connoisseur who has treated the
subject. "In the Boulak Museum," says M. Gabriel Charmes, "there is a row
of Nile geese painted with such precision, that I have seen a naturalist stand
amazed at their truth to nature and the fidelity with which they reproduce the
features of the race. Their colours, too, are as bright and uninjured as upon
the day when they were last touched by the brush of the artist."[204]
By careful selection from the sepulchral bas-reliefs, we might, if we chose,
present to our readers reproductions of the whole fauna of Ancient Egypt, the
lion, hyena, leopard, jackal, fox, wolf, ibex, gazelle, the hare, the porcupine,
the crocodile, the hippopotamus, the different fishes in the Nile, the birds in
the marshes, the flamingo, the ibis, duck, stork, crane, and goose, the dog and
the cat, the goat and the pig. Everywhere we find the same aptitude for
summarizing the distinctive characteristics of a species. This accuracy of
observation has been recognized by every connoisseur who has treated the
subject. "In the Boulak Museum," says M. Gabriel Charmes, "there is a row
of Nile geese painted with such precision, that I have seen a naturalist stand
amazed at their truth to nature and the fidelity with which they reproduce the
features of the race. Their colours, too, are as bright and uninjured as upon
the day when they were last touched by the brush of the artist."[204]
Page 255
Fig. 203.—Sepulchral bas-relief, Boulak.
Fig. 204.—Bas-relief from the Tomb of Ra-ka-pou, Boulak.
The figures of men and animals to which our attention has been given all
belong to the domain of portraiture. The artist imitates the forms of those
who sit to him and of the animals of the country; he copies the incidents of
the daily life about him, but his ambition goes no farther. All art is a
translation, an interpretation, and, of course, the sculptors of the mastabas had
their own individual ways of looking at their models. But they made no
conscious effort to add anything to them, they did not attempt to select, to
Fig. 204.—Bas-relief from the Tomb of Ra-ka-pou, Boulak.
The figures of men and animals to which our attention has been given all
belong to the domain of portraiture. The artist imitates the forms of those
who sit to him and of the animals of the country; he copies the incidents of
the daily life about him, but his ambition goes no farther. All art is a
translation, an interpretation, and, of course, the sculptors of the mastabas had
their own individual ways of looking at their models. But they made no
conscious effort to add anything to them, they did not attempt to select, to
Page 256
give one feature predominance over another, or to combine various features
in different proportions from those found in ordinary life, and by such means
to produce something better than mere repetitions of their accidental models.
They tried neither to invent nor to create.
And yet the Egyptians must have begun at this period to give concrete forms
to their gods. In view of the hieroglyphs of which Egyptian writing consisted,
we have some difficulty in imagining a time when the names of their deities
were not each attached to a material image with well marked features of its
own. To write the name of a god was to give his portrait, a portrait whose
sketchy outlines only required to be filled in by the sculptor to be complete.
Egypt, therefore, must have possessed images of her gods at a very early
date, but as they were not placed in the tombs they have disappeared long
before our day, and we are thus unable to decide how far the necessity for
their production may have stimulated the imaginative faculties of the early
sculptors. In presence, however, of the Great Sphinx at Gizeh, in which we
find one of those composite forms so often repeated in later centuries, we
may fairly suspect that many more of the divine types with which we are
familiar had been established. The Sphinx proves that the primitive Egyptians
were already bitten with the mania for colossal statues. Even the Theban
kings never carved any figure more huge than that which keeps watch over
the necropolis of Gizeh (Fig. 157, Vol. I.). But Egypt had other gods than
these first-fruits of her reflective powers, than those mysterious beings who
personified for her the forces which had created the world and preserved its
equilibrium. She had her kings, children of the sun, present and visible deities
who maintained upon the earth, and especially in the valley of the Nile, the
ever-threatened order established by their divine progenitors. Until quite
recently it was impossible to say for certain whether or no the Egyptians of
the Ancient Empire had attempted to impress upon the images of their kings
the national belief in their divine origin and almost supernatural power. But
Mariette—again Mariette—recovered from the well in the Temple of the
Sphinx at Gizeh, nine statues or statuettes of Chephren. The inscriptions upon
the plinths of these statues enable us to recognize for certain the founder of
the second pyramid.
Most of these figures were broken beyond recovery, but two have been
successfully restored. One of these, which is but little mutilated, is of diorite
in different proportions from those found in ordinary life, and by such means
to produce something better than mere repetitions of their accidental models.
They tried neither to invent nor to create.
And yet the Egyptians must have begun at this period to give concrete forms
to their gods. In view of the hieroglyphs of which Egyptian writing consisted,
we have some difficulty in imagining a time when the names of their deities
were not each attached to a material image with well marked features of its
own. To write the name of a god was to give his portrait, a portrait whose
sketchy outlines only required to be filled in by the sculptor to be complete.
Egypt, therefore, must have possessed images of her gods at a very early
date, but as they were not placed in the tombs they have disappeared long
before our day, and we are thus unable to decide how far the necessity for
their production may have stimulated the imaginative faculties of the early
sculptors. In presence, however, of the Great Sphinx at Gizeh, in which we
find one of those composite forms so often repeated in later centuries, we
may fairly suspect that many more of the divine types with which we are
familiar had been established. The Sphinx proves that the primitive Egyptians
were already bitten with the mania for colossal statues. Even the Theban
kings never carved any figure more huge than that which keeps watch over
the necropolis of Gizeh (Fig. 157, Vol. I.). But Egypt had other gods than
these first-fruits of her reflective powers, than those mysterious beings who
personified for her the forces which had created the world and preserved its
equilibrium. She had her kings, children of the sun, present and visible deities
who maintained upon the earth, and especially in the valley of the Nile, the
ever-threatened order established by their divine progenitors. Until quite
recently it was impossible to say for certain whether or no the Egyptians of
the Ancient Empire had attempted to impress upon the images of their kings
the national belief in their divine origin and almost supernatural power. But
Mariette—again Mariette—recovered from the well in the Temple of the
Sphinx at Gizeh, nine statues or statuettes of Chephren. The inscriptions upon
the plinths of these statues enable us to recognize for certain the founder of
the second pyramid.
Most of these figures were broken beyond recovery, but two have been
successfully restored. One of these, which is but little mutilated, is of diorite
Page 257
(Fig. 205); the other, in a much worse condition, is of green basalt (Fig. 56,
Vol. I.).[205]
An initial distinction between these royal statues and the portraits of private
individuals is found in the materials employed. For subjects even of high
rank, wood or limestone was good enough, but when the august person of the
monarch had to be immortalized a substance which was at once harder and
more beautiful was employed. The Egyptians had no marble, and when they
wished to do particular honour to their models they made use of those
volcanic rocks, whose close grain and dusky brilliance of tone make them
resemble metal. The slowness and difficulty with which these dense rocks
yielded to the tools of the sculptor increased the value of the result, while
their hardness added immensely to their chances of duration. It would seem
that figures which only took form under the tools of skilful and patient
workmen after years of persevering labour might defy the attacks of time or
of human enemies. Look at the statue on the next page. It is very different
from the figures we have been noticing, although it resembles them in many
details. Like many of his subjects the king is seated. His head, instead of
being either bare or covered with the heavy wig, is enframed in that royal
head-dress which has been known, ever since the days of Champollion, as the
klaft.[206] It consists of an ample band of linen covering the upper part of the
forehead, the cranium, and the nape of the neck. It stands out boldly on each
side of the face, and hangs down in two pleated lappets upon the chest. The
king's chin is not shaved like those of his subjects. It is adorned like that of a
god with the long and narrow tuft of hair which we call the Osiride beard. At
the back of Chephren's head, which is invisible in our illustration, there is a
hawk, the symbol of protection. His trunk and legs are bare; his only garment
is, in fact, the schenti about his middle. His left hand lies upon his knee, his
right hand holds a rod of some kind. The details of the chair are interesting.
The arms end in lions' heads, and the feet are paws of the same animal. Upon
the sides are figured in high relief the two plants which symbolize the upper
and lower country respectively; they are arranged around the hieroglyph sam,
signifying union.
Vol. I.).[205]
An initial distinction between these royal statues and the portraits of private
individuals is found in the materials employed. For subjects even of high
rank, wood or limestone was good enough, but when the august person of the
monarch had to be immortalized a substance which was at once harder and
more beautiful was employed. The Egyptians had no marble, and when they
wished to do particular honour to their models they made use of those
volcanic rocks, whose close grain and dusky brilliance of tone make them
resemble metal. The slowness and difficulty with which these dense rocks
yielded to the tools of the sculptor increased the value of the result, while
their hardness added immensely to their chances of duration. It would seem
that figures which only took form under the tools of skilful and patient
workmen after years of persevering labour might defy the attacks of time or
of human enemies. Look at the statue on the next page. It is very different
from the figures we have been noticing, although it resembles them in many
details. Like many of his subjects the king is seated. His head, instead of
being either bare or covered with the heavy wig, is enframed in that royal
head-dress which has been known, ever since the days of Champollion, as the
klaft.[206] It consists of an ample band of linen covering the upper part of the
forehead, the cranium, and the nape of the neck. It stands out boldly on each
side of the face, and hangs down in two pleated lappets upon the chest. The
king's chin is not shaved like those of his subjects. It is adorned like that of a
god with the long and narrow tuft of hair which we call the Osiride beard. At
the back of Chephren's head, which is invisible in our illustration, there is a
hawk, the symbol of protection. His trunk and legs are bare; his only garment
is, in fact, the schenti about his middle. His left hand lies upon his knee, his
right hand holds a rod of some kind. The details of the chair are interesting.
The arms end in lions' heads, and the feet are paws of the same animal. Upon
the sides are figured in high relief the two plants which symbolize the upper
and lower country respectively; they are arranged around the hieroglyph sam,
signifying union.
Page 258
Fig. 205.—Statue of Chephren. Height five feet seven inches. Boulak.
Drawn by G. Bénédite.
The other statue, which now consists of little more than the head and trunk,
differs from the first only in a few details. The chair is without a back, and,
curiously enough, the head is that of a much older man than the Chephren of
the diorite statue. This difference makes it pretty certain that both heads were
modelled directly from nature.
Drawn by G. Bénédite.
The other statue, which now consists of little more than the head and trunk,
differs from the first only in a few details. The chair is without a back, and,
curiously enough, the head is that of a much older man than the Chephren of
the diorite statue. This difference makes it pretty certain that both heads were
modelled directly from nature.
Page 259
These royal statues are, then, portraits like the rest, but when in their presence
we feel that they are more than portraits, that there is something in their
individuality which could not have been rendered by photography or by casts
from nature, had such processes been understood by their authors. In spite of
the unkindly material the execution is as free as that of the stone figures. The
face, the shoulders, the pectoral muscles, and especially the knees, betray a
hand no less firm and confident than those which carved the softer rocks. The
diorite Chephren excels ordinary statues in size—for it is larger than nature—
in the richness of its throne, in the arrangement of the linen hood which gives
such dignity to the head, in the existence of the beard which gives length and
importance to the face. The artist has never lost sight of nature; he has never
forgotten that it was his business to portray Chephren and not Cheops or
Snefrou; and yet he has succeeded in giving to his work the significance of a
type. He has made it the embodiment of the Egyptian belief in the semi-
divine nature of their Pharaohs. By its size, its pose, its expression and
arrangement he has given it a certain ideality. We may see in these two
statues, for similar qualities are to be found in the basalt figure, the first effort
made by the genius of Egyptian art to escape from mere realism and to bring
the higher powers of the imagination into play.
The reign of those traditional forms which were to be so despotic in Egypt
began at the same time. The type created by the sculptors of the fourth
dynasty, or perhaps earlier, for the representation of the Pharaoh in all the
mysterious dignity of his position, was thought satisfactory. The calm
majesty of these figures, their expression of force in repose and of illimitable
power, left so little to be desired that they were accepted there and thereafter.
Centuries rolled away, the royal power fell again and again before foreign
enemies and internal dissensions, but with every restoration of the national
independence and of the national rulers, the old form was revived. There are
variants upon it; some royal statues show Pharaoh standing, others show him
sitting and endowed with the attributes of Osiris, but, speaking generally, the
favourite model of the kings and of the sculptors whom they employed was
that which is first made known to us by the statue of him to whom we owe
the second pyramid. The only differences between it and the colossi of
Amenophis III. at Thebes are to be found in their respective sizes, in their
original condition, and in the details of their features.
The moulds in which the thoughts of the Egyptians were to receive concrete
expression through so many centuries were formed, then, by their ancestors
we feel that they are more than portraits, that there is something in their
individuality which could not have been rendered by photography or by casts
from nature, had such processes been understood by their authors. In spite of
the unkindly material the execution is as free as that of the stone figures. The
face, the shoulders, the pectoral muscles, and especially the knees, betray a
hand no less firm and confident than those which carved the softer rocks. The
diorite Chephren excels ordinary statues in size—for it is larger than nature—
in the richness of its throne, in the arrangement of the linen hood which gives
such dignity to the head, in the existence of the beard which gives length and
importance to the face. The artist has never lost sight of nature; he has never
forgotten that it was his business to portray Chephren and not Cheops or
Snefrou; and yet he has succeeded in giving to his work the significance of a
type. He has made it the embodiment of the Egyptian belief in the semi-
divine nature of their Pharaohs. By its size, its pose, its expression and
arrangement he has given it a certain ideality. We may see in these two
statues, for similar qualities are to be found in the basalt figure, the first effort
made by the genius of Egyptian art to escape from mere realism and to bring
the higher powers of the imagination into play.
The reign of those traditional forms which were to be so despotic in Egypt
began at the same time. The type created by the sculptors of the fourth
dynasty, or perhaps earlier, for the representation of the Pharaoh in all the
mysterious dignity of his position, was thought satisfactory. The calm
majesty of these figures, their expression of force in repose and of illimitable
power, left so little to be desired that they were accepted there and thereafter.
Centuries rolled away, the royal power fell again and again before foreign
enemies and internal dissensions, but with every restoration of the national
independence and of the national rulers, the old form was revived. There are
variants upon it; some royal statues show Pharaoh standing, others show him
sitting and endowed with the attributes of Osiris, but, speaking generally, the
favourite model of the kings and of the sculptors whom they employed was
that which is first made known to us by the statue of him to whom we owe
the second pyramid. The only differences between it and the colossi of
Amenophis III. at Thebes are to be found in their respective sizes, in their
original condition, and in the details of their features.
The moulds in which the thoughts of the Egyptians were to receive concrete
expression through so many centuries were formed, then, by their ancestors
Page 260
of the Ancient Empire. All the later revivals of artistic activity consisted in
attempts to compose variations upon these early themes, to remodel them,
with more or less felicity, according to the fashion of the day. Style and
technical methods were modified with time, but types, that is the attitudes
and motives employed to characterise the age, the mental power, and the
social condition of the different persons represented, underwent little or no
change.
This period of single-minded and devoted study of nature ought also to have
transmitted to later times its care and skill in portraiture, and its realistic
powers generally, to use a very modern phrase. Egyptian painters and
sculptors never lost those qualities entirely; they always remained fully alive
to the differences of conformation and physiognomy which distinguished one
individual, or one class, from another; but as the models furnished by the past
increased in number, their execution became more facile and superficial, and
their reference to nature became less direct and continual. Neither the art of
Thebes nor that of Sais seems to have produced anything so original and
expressive as the two statues from Meidoum or the Sheik-el-beled, at Boulak,
or the scribe in the Louvre.
We may easily understand what surprise and admiration the discovery of this
early phase of Egyptian art excited among archæologists. When the
exploration of the Memphite necropolis revealed what had up to that time
been an unknown world, Nestor L'Hôte, one of the companions of
Champollion, was the first to comprehend its full importance. He was not a
savant; he was an intelligent and faithful draughtsman and his artistic nature
enabled him to appreciate, even better than the illustrious founder of
egyptology, the singular charm of an art free from convention and routine. In
his letters from Egypt, Champollion showed himself impressed mainly by the
grandeur and nobility of the Theban remains; L'Hôte, on the other hand, only
gave vent to his enthusiasm when he had had a glimpse of one or two of
those mastabas which were afterwards to be explored by Lepsius and
Mariette. Writing of the tomb of Menofré, barber to one of the earliest
Memphite kings, he says: "The sculptures of this tomb are remarkable for
their elegance and the finesse of their execution. Their relief is so slight that it
may be compared to that of a five-franc piece. Such consummate
workmanship in a structure so ancient confirms the assertion that the higher
we mount upon the stream of Egyptian civilization the more perfect do her
attempts to compose variations upon these early themes, to remodel them,
with more or less felicity, according to the fashion of the day. Style and
technical methods were modified with time, but types, that is the attitudes
and motives employed to characterise the age, the mental power, and the
social condition of the different persons represented, underwent little or no
change.
This period of single-minded and devoted study of nature ought also to have
transmitted to later times its care and skill in portraiture, and its realistic
powers generally, to use a very modern phrase. Egyptian painters and
sculptors never lost those qualities entirely; they always remained fully alive
to the differences of conformation and physiognomy which distinguished one
individual, or one class, from another; but as the models furnished by the past
increased in number, their execution became more facile and superficial, and
their reference to nature became less direct and continual. Neither the art of
Thebes nor that of Sais seems to have produced anything so original and
expressive as the two statues from Meidoum or the Sheik-el-beled, at Boulak,
or the scribe in the Louvre.
We may easily understand what surprise and admiration the discovery of this
early phase of Egyptian art excited among archæologists. When the
exploration of the Memphite necropolis revealed what had up to that time
been an unknown world, Nestor L'Hôte, one of the companions of
Champollion, was the first to comprehend its full importance. He was not a
savant; he was an intelligent and faithful draughtsman and his artistic nature
enabled him to appreciate, even better than the illustrious founder of
egyptology, the singular charm of an art free from convention and routine. In
his letters from Egypt, Champollion showed himself impressed mainly by the
grandeur and nobility of the Theban remains; L'Hôte, on the other hand, only
gave vent to his enthusiasm when he had had a glimpse of one or two of
those mastabas which were afterwards to be explored by Lepsius and
Mariette. Writing of the tomb of Menofré, barber to one of the earliest
Memphite kings, he says: "The sculptures of this tomb are remarkable for
their elegance and the finesse of their execution. Their relief is so slight that it
may be compared to that of a five-franc piece. Such consummate
workmanship in a structure so ancient confirms the assertion that the higher
we mount upon the stream of Egyptian civilization the more perfect do her
Page 261
works of art become. By this it would appear that the genius of the Egyptian
people, unlike that of other races, was born in a state of maturity."[207]
"Of Egyptian art," he says elsewhere, "we know only the decadence." Such
an assertion must have appeared paradoxical at a time when the Turin
Museum already possessed, and exhibited, so many fine statues of the
Theban kings. And yet Nestor L'Hôte was right, as the discoveries made since
his time have abundantly proved, and that fact must be our excuse for
devoting so large a part of our examination of Egyptian sculpture to the
productions of the Ancient Empire.
§ 3. Sculpture under the First Theban Empire.
After the sixth dynasty comes an obscure and barren period, whose duration
and general character are still unknown to egyptologists. Order began to be
re-established in the eleventh dynasty, under the Entefs and Menthouthoteps,
but the monuments found in more ancient Theban tombs are rude and
awkward in an extreme degree, as Mariette has shown.[208] It was not until
the twelfth dynasty, when all Egypt was again united under the sceptre of the
Ousourtesens and Amenemhats, that art made good its revival. It made use of
the same materials—limestone, wood, and the harder rocks—but their
proportions were changed. In Fig. 206 a wooden statue attributed to this
period is reproduced. The legs are longer, the torso more flexible, than in the
statue of Chephren and other productions of the early centuries.
Compared with their predecessors other statues of this period will be found to
have the same characteristics. It has been asserted that the Egyptians, as a
race, had become more slender from the effects of their warm and dry
climate. It is impossible now to decide how much of the change may fairly be
attributed to such a cause, and how much to a revolution in taste. Even
among the figures of the Ancient Empire there are examples to be found of
these slender proportions, but they certainly appear to have been in peculiar
favour with the sculptors of the later epoch. Except in this particular, the
differences are not very great. The attitudes are the same. See, for instance,
the statue in grey sandstone of the scribe Menthouthotep, which was found
by Mariette at Karnak and attributed by him to this epoch. Both by its pose
and by the folds of fat which cross the front of the trunk, it reminds us of the
figures of scribes left to us by the Ancient Empire. The nobler types also
people, unlike that of other races, was born in a state of maturity."[207]
"Of Egyptian art," he says elsewhere, "we know only the decadence." Such
an assertion must have appeared paradoxical at a time when the Turin
Museum already possessed, and exhibited, so many fine statues of the
Theban kings. And yet Nestor L'Hôte was right, as the discoveries made since
his time have abundantly proved, and that fact must be our excuse for
devoting so large a part of our examination of Egyptian sculpture to the
productions of the Ancient Empire.
§ 3. Sculpture under the First Theban Empire.
After the sixth dynasty comes an obscure and barren period, whose duration
and general character are still unknown to egyptologists. Order began to be
re-established in the eleventh dynasty, under the Entefs and Menthouthoteps,
but the monuments found in more ancient Theban tombs are rude and
awkward in an extreme degree, as Mariette has shown.[208] It was not until
the twelfth dynasty, when all Egypt was again united under the sceptre of the
Ousourtesens and Amenemhats, that art made good its revival. It made use of
the same materials—limestone, wood, and the harder rocks—but their
proportions were changed. In Fig. 206 a wooden statue attributed to this
period is reproduced. The legs are longer, the torso more flexible, than in the
statue of Chephren and other productions of the early centuries.
Compared with their predecessors other statues of this period will be found to
have the same characteristics. It has been asserted that the Egyptians, as a
race, had become more slender from the effects of their warm and dry
climate. It is impossible now to decide how much of the change may fairly be
attributed to such a cause, and how much to a revolution in taste. Even
among the figures of the Ancient Empire there are examples to be found of
these slender proportions, but they certainly appear to have been in peculiar
favour with the sculptors of the later epoch. Except in this particular, the
differences are not very great. The attitudes are the same. See, for instance,
the statue in grey sandstone of the scribe Menthouthotep, which was found
by Mariette at Karnak and attributed by him to this epoch. Both by its pose
and by the folds of fat which cross the front of the trunk, it reminds us of the
figures of scribes left to us by the Ancient Empire. The nobler types also
Page 262
reappear. There is in the Louvre a statue in red granite representing a Sebek-
hotep of the thirteenth dynasty (Fig. 207). He sits in the same attitude, with
the same head-dress and the same costume, as the Chephren of Boulak. There
is one difference, however, his forehead is decorated with the uræus, the
symbol of royal dignity, which Chephren lacks.[209] The dimensions, too, are
different. We do not know whether the Ancient Empire made colossal statues
of its kings or not, but this Sebek-hotep exceeds the stature of mankind
sufficiently to make it worthy of the name.
hotep of the thirteenth dynasty (Fig. 207). He sits in the same attitude, with
the same head-dress and the same costume, as the Chephren of Boulak. There
is one difference, however, his forehead is decorated with the uræus, the
symbol of royal dignity, which Chephren lacks.[209] The dimensions, too, are
different. We do not know whether the Ancient Empire made colossal statues
of its kings or not, but this Sebek-hotep exceeds the stature of mankind
sufficiently to make it worthy of the name.
Page 263
Fig. 206.—Wooden statue, Boulak. Drawn by Bénédite.
The Louvre possesses another monument giving a high idea of the taste of
the sculptors belonging to this period, we mean the red-granite sphinx (Fig.
41, Vol. I.), which was successively appropriated by one of the shepherd
kings and by a Theban Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty: the ovals of both
are to be found upon it. Like so many other things from Tanis, this sphinx
must date from a Pharaoh of the thirteenth dynasty. This De Rougé has
clearly shown.[210] Tanis seems to have been a favoured residence of those
princes, and most of their statues have been found in it. A leg in black granite,
now in the Berlin Museum, is considered the masterpiece of these centuries.
It is all that remains of a colossal statue of Ousourtesen.[211]
According to Mariette, many of those fine statues in the Turin Museum
which bear the names of princes belonging to the eighteenth dynasty,
Amenhoteps and Thothmeses, must have been made by order of the princes
of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties. In later years they were appropriated,
in the fashion well known in Egypt, by the Pharaohs of the Second Theban
Empire, who substituted their cartouches for those of the original owners. On
more than one of the statues signs of the operation may still be traced, and in
other cases the usurpation may be divined by carefully studying the style and
workmanship.[212]
It was in the ruins of the same city that Mariette discovered a group of now
famous remains in which he himself, De Rougé, Devéria, and others,
recognised works carried out by Egyptian artists for the shepherd kings.
These works have an individual character which is peculiar to themselves.
[213]
They differ greatly from the ordinary type of Egyptian statues, and must
have preserved the features of those foreign invaders whose memory was so
long held in detestation in Egypt. This supposition is founded upon the
presumed identity of Tanis with Avaris, the strong place which formed the
centre of the Hyksos power for so many generations.
The Louvre possesses another monument giving a high idea of the taste of
the sculptors belonging to this period, we mean the red-granite sphinx (Fig.
41, Vol. I.), which was successively appropriated by one of the shepherd
kings and by a Theban Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty: the ovals of both
are to be found upon it. Like so many other things from Tanis, this sphinx
must date from a Pharaoh of the thirteenth dynasty. This De Rougé has
clearly shown.[210] Tanis seems to have been a favoured residence of those
princes, and most of their statues have been found in it. A leg in black granite,
now in the Berlin Museum, is considered the masterpiece of these centuries.
It is all that remains of a colossal statue of Ousourtesen.[211]
According to Mariette, many of those fine statues in the Turin Museum
which bear the names of princes belonging to the eighteenth dynasty,
Amenhoteps and Thothmeses, must have been made by order of the princes
of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties. In later years they were appropriated,
in the fashion well known in Egypt, by the Pharaohs of the Second Theban
Empire, who substituted their cartouches for those of the original owners. On
more than one of the statues signs of the operation may still be traced, and in
other cases the usurpation may be divined by carefully studying the style and
workmanship.[212]
It was in the ruins of the same city that Mariette discovered a group of now
famous remains in which he himself, De Rougé, Devéria, and others,
recognised works carried out by Egyptian artists for the shepherd kings.
These works have an individual character which is peculiar to themselves.
[213]
They differ greatly from the ordinary type of Egyptian statues, and must
have preserved the features of those foreign invaders whose memory was so
long held in detestation in Egypt. This supposition is founded upon the
presumed identity of Tanis with Avaris, the strong place which formed the
centre of the Hyksos power for so many generations.
Page 264
Fig. 207.—Sebek-hotep III. Colossal statue in red granite. Height nine
feet. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
feet. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 265
Confirmation of this theory is found in the existence of an oval bearing the
name of Apepi, one of the shepherd kings, upon the shoulder of a sphinx
from Tanis. The aspect of this sphinx, and the features and costume of certain
figures discovered upon the same site and dispersed among the museums of
Europe, are said to have much in common with the ethnic peculiarities of the
Syrian tribe by which Middle and Lower Egypt was occupied. M. Maspero,
however, who has recently devoted fresh attention to these curious
monuments, is inclined to doubt the justness of this conclusion. The position
of the cartouche of Apepi suggests that it may be due to one of those
usurpations which we have mentioned. For the present, therefore, it may be
as well to class these monuments simply among the Tanite remains. Tanis,
like some other Egyptian cities, had a style of its own, but we are without the
knowledge required for a determination of its origin. We shall be content with
describing its most important works and with calling attention to their
remarkable originality.
The most important and the best preserved of all these monuments is a sphinx
of black granite which was recovered, in a fragmentary condition, from the
ruins of the principal temple at Tanis (Fig. 208). Three more were found at
the same time, but they were in a still worse state of preservation. The fore-
part of one of them is figured in the adjoining woodcut.
"There is a great gulf," says Mariette, "between the energetic power which
distinguishes the head of this sphinx and the tranquil majesty with which
most of these colossi are endowed. The face is round and rugged, the eyes
small, the nose flat, the mouth loftily contemptuous. A thick lion-like mane
enframes the countenance and adds to its energetic expression. It is certain
that the work before us comes from the hands of an Egyptian artist, and, on
the other hand, that his sitter was not of Egyptian blood."[214]
The group of two figures upon a common base, which is such a conspicuous
object in the Hyksos chamber at Boulak, seems to have had a similar origin.
We give a front and a side view of it (Figs. 210 and 211), and borrow the
following description from Mariette.[215]
name of Apepi, one of the shepherd kings, upon the shoulder of a sphinx
from Tanis. The aspect of this sphinx, and the features and costume of certain
figures discovered upon the same site and dispersed among the museums of
Europe, are said to have much in common with the ethnic peculiarities of the
Syrian tribe by which Middle and Lower Egypt was occupied. M. Maspero,
however, who has recently devoted fresh attention to these curious
monuments, is inclined to doubt the justness of this conclusion. The position
of the cartouche of Apepi suggests that it may be due to one of those
usurpations which we have mentioned. For the present, therefore, it may be
as well to class these monuments simply among the Tanite remains. Tanis,
like some other Egyptian cities, had a style of its own, but we are without the
knowledge required for a determination of its origin. We shall be content with
describing its most important works and with calling attention to their
remarkable originality.
The most important and the best preserved of all these monuments is a sphinx
of black granite which was recovered, in a fragmentary condition, from the
ruins of the principal temple at Tanis (Fig. 208). Three more were found at
the same time, but they were in a still worse state of preservation. The fore-
part of one of them is figured in the adjoining woodcut.
"There is a great gulf," says Mariette, "between the energetic power which
distinguishes the head of this sphinx and the tranquil majesty with which
most of these colossi are endowed. The face is round and rugged, the eyes
small, the nose flat, the mouth loftily contemptuous. A thick lion-like mane
enframes the countenance and adds to its energetic expression. It is certain
that the work before us comes from the hands of an Egyptian artist, and, on
the other hand, that his sitter was not of Egyptian blood."[214]
The group of two figures upon a common base, which is such a conspicuous
object in the Hyksos chamber at Boulak, seems to have had a similar origin.
We give a front and a side view of it (Figs. 210 and 211), and borrow the
following description from Mariette.[215]
Page 266
Fig. 208.—Sphinx in black granite; from Tanis. Drawn by G. Bénédite.
"Huge full-bottomed wigs, arranged into thick tresses, cover the heads of the
two figures. Their hard and strongly-marked features (unfortunately much
broken) bear a great resemblance to those of the lion-maned sphinxes. The
upper lips are shaven but the cheeks and chins are covered with long wavy
beards. Each of them sustains on his outstretched arms an ingenious
arrangement of fishes, aquatic birds, and lotus flowers.
"No monument can be referred with greater certainty than this to the
disturbed period when the Shepherds were masters of Egypt. It is difficult to
decide upon its exact meaning. In spite of the mutilation which prevents us
from ascertaining whether they bore the uræus upon their foreheads, it cannot
be doubted that the originals of the two statues were kings. In after years
Psousennes put his cartouche upon the group, which assuredly he would
never have done if he believed it to represent two private individuals. But
who could the two kings have been who were thus associated in one act and
must therefore have been contemporaries?"
"Huge full-bottomed wigs, arranged into thick tresses, cover the heads of the
two figures. Their hard and strongly-marked features (unfortunately much
broken) bear a great resemblance to those of the lion-maned sphinxes. The
upper lips are shaven but the cheeks and chins are covered with long wavy
beards. Each of them sustains on his outstretched arms an ingenious
arrangement of fishes, aquatic birds, and lotus flowers.
"No monument can be referred with greater certainty than this to the
disturbed period when the Shepherds were masters of Egypt. It is difficult to
decide upon its exact meaning. In spite of the mutilation which prevents us
from ascertaining whether they bore the uræus upon their foreheads, it cannot
be doubted that the originals of the two statues were kings. In after years
Psousennes put his cartouche upon the group, which assuredly he would
never have done if he believed it to represent two private individuals. But
who could the two kings have been who were thus associated in one act and
must therefore have been contemporaries?"
Page 267
Fig. 209.—Head and shoulders of a Tanite Sphinx in black granite.
Drawn by G. Bénédite.
This explanation seems to carry with it certain grave objections. It is not, in
the first place, so necessary as Mariette seems to think that we should believe
them to be kings. Similar objects—fishes, and aquatic flowers and birds—are
grouped in the same fashion upon works which, to our certain knowledge,
neither come from Tanism or date from the Shepherd supremacy. Their
appearance indicates an offering to the Nile, and we can readily understand
how Psousennes claimed the merit of the offering by inscribing his name
upon it, even although he were not the real donor.
Mariette does not hesitate to ascribe to the same series a figure discovered in
the Fayoum, upon the site of the city which the Greeks called Crocodilopolis
(Fig. 212). He describes it thus:—[216]
"Upper part of a broken colossal statue, representing a king standing erect.
No inscription.
"The general form of the head, the high cheek-bones, the thick lips, the wavy
beard that covers the lower part of the cheeks, the curious wig, with its heavy
tresses, are all worthy of remark; they give a peculiar and even unique
expression to the face. The curious ornaments which lie upon the chest
should also be noticed. The king is covered with panther skins; the heads of
two of those animals appear over his shoulders.
Drawn by G. Bénédite.
This explanation seems to carry with it certain grave objections. It is not, in
the first place, so necessary as Mariette seems to think that we should believe
them to be kings. Similar objects—fishes, and aquatic flowers and birds—are
grouped in the same fashion upon works which, to our certain knowledge,
neither come from Tanism or date from the Shepherd supremacy. Their
appearance indicates an offering to the Nile, and we can readily understand
how Psousennes claimed the merit of the offering by inscribing his name
upon it, even although he were not the real donor.
Mariette does not hesitate to ascribe to the same series a figure discovered in
the Fayoum, upon the site of the city which the Greeks called Crocodilopolis
(Fig. 212). He describes it thus:—[216]
"Upper part of a broken colossal statue, representing a king standing erect.
No inscription.
"The general form of the head, the high cheek-bones, the thick lips, the wavy
beard that covers the lower part of the cheeks, the curious wig, with its heavy
tresses, are all worthy of remark; they give a peculiar and even unique
expression to the face. The curious ornaments which lie upon the chest
should also be noticed. The king is covered with panther skins; the heads of
two of those animals appear over his shoulders.
Page 268
Fig. 210.—Group from Tanis; grey sandstone. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 269
Fig. 211.—Side view of the same group. Drawn by Bourgoin.
"The origin of this statue, which was found at Mit-fares in the Fayoum,
admits of no doubt. The kings who decorated the temple at Tanis with the
fine sphinxes and groups of fishermen which I found among its ruins, must
also have transported the vigorous fragments which we have before our eyes
to the other side of Egypt."
Finally, Devéria and De Rougé have suggested that a work of the same
school is to be recognized in the fragment of a statuette of green basalt, which
belongs to the Louvre and is figured upon page 237.[217] They point to
similarities of feature and of race characteristics. The face of the Louvre
statuette has a truculence of expression not unlike that of the Tanite
monuments, while the workmanship is purely Egyptian and of the best
quality; the flexibility of body, which is one of the most constant qualities in
the productions of the first Theban Empire, being especially characteristic.
"The origin of this statue, which was found at Mit-fares in the Fayoum,
admits of no doubt. The kings who decorated the temple at Tanis with the
fine sphinxes and groups of fishermen which I found among its ruins, must
also have transported the vigorous fragments which we have before our eyes
to the other side of Egypt."
Finally, Devéria and De Rougé have suggested that a work of the same
school is to be recognized in the fragment of a statuette of green basalt, which
belongs to the Louvre and is figured upon page 237.[217] They point to
similarities of feature and of race characteristics. The face of the Louvre
statuette has a truculence of expression not unlike that of the Tanite
monuments, while the workmanship is purely Egyptian and of the best
quality; the flexibility of body, which is one of the most constant qualities in
the productions of the first Theban Empire, being especially characteristic.
Page 270
The king represented wears the klaft with the uræus in front of it; his schenti
is finely pleated and a dagger with its handle carved into the shape of a
hawk's head is thrust into his girdle. The support at the back has,
unfortunately, been left without the usual inscription and we have no means
of ascertaining the age of the fragment beyond the style, the workmanship,
and the very peculiar physiognomy. Devéria suggests that it preserves the
features of one of the shepherd kings, some of whose images Mariette
thought he had discovered at Tanis and in the Fayoum.[218]
Fig. 212.—Upper part of a royal statue. Grey granite. Boulak. Drawn by
G. Bénédite.
It cannot be denied that there are many striking points of resemblance
between the different works which we have here brought together. Mariette
is finely pleated and a dagger with its handle carved into the shape of a
hawk's head is thrust into his girdle. The support at the back has,
unfortunately, been left without the usual inscription and we have no means
of ascertaining the age of the fragment beyond the style, the workmanship,
and the very peculiar physiognomy. Devéria suggests that it preserves the
features of one of the shepherd kings, some of whose images Mariette
thought he had discovered at Tanis and in the Fayoum.[218]
Fig. 212.—Upper part of a royal statue. Grey granite. Boulak. Drawn by
G. Bénédite.
It cannot be denied that there are many striking points of resemblance
between the different works which we have here brought together. Mariette
Page 271
laid great stress upon what he regarded as one of his most important
discoveries. This is his definition of the type which the Egyptian artist set
himself to reproduce with his habitual exactness: "The eyes are small, the
nose vigorous, arched, and flat at the end, the cheeks are large and bony, and
the mouth is remarkable for the way in which its extremities are drawn down.
The face as a whole is in harmony with the harshness of its separate features,
and the matted hair in which the head seems to be sunk adds to the
singularity of its appearance."[219]
Fig. 213.—Fragmentary statuette of a king; height seven inches. Drawn
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Both Mariette and Ebers declare that this type has been preserved to our day
with astonishing persistence. In the very district in which the power of the
shepherds was greatest, in the neighbourhood of that Lake Menzaleh which
almost bathes the ruins of Tanis, the poor and half savage fishermen who
form the population of the district possess the strongly marked features which
are so easily distinguished from the rounder and softer physiognomies of the
discoveries. This is his definition of the type which the Egyptian artist set
himself to reproduce with his habitual exactness: "The eyes are small, the
nose vigorous, arched, and flat at the end, the cheeks are large and bony, and
the mouth is remarkable for the way in which its extremities are drawn down.
The face as a whole is in harmony with the harshness of its separate features,
and the matted hair in which the head seems to be sunk adds to the
singularity of its appearance."[219]
Fig. 213.—Fragmentary statuette of a king; height seven inches. Drawn
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Both Mariette and Ebers declare that this type has been preserved to our day
with astonishing persistence. In the very district in which the power of the
shepherds was greatest, in the neighbourhood of that Lake Menzaleh which
almost bathes the ruins of Tanis, the poor and half savage fishermen who
form the population of the district possess the strongly marked features which
are so easily distinguished from the rounder and softer physiognomies of the
Page 272
true Egyptian fellah. Ahmes must have been content with the expulsion of the
chiefs only of those Semitic tribes who had occupied this region for so many
centuries. The mass of the people must have been too strongly attached to the
fertile lands where they dwelt to refuse obedience to the conqueror, and more
than one immigration, like that of the Hebrews, may have come in later times
to renew the Arab and Syrian characteristics of the race.[220]
Whatever we may think of these conjectures and assertions, the sculptors of
the First Theban Empire and of the Hyksos period took up and carried on the
traditions of the Ancient Empire. The processes are the same except that in a
few particulars they are improved. More frequent use is made of the harder
rocks such as granite, basalt, and diorite, and a commencement is made in the
art of gem-cutting.
Even the bas-relief carries on the themes which had been in favour in the first
years of the monarchy. We have already illustrated two steles of this period
(Figs. 86 and 164, Vol. I.). In the second, and especially in the woman, may
be noticed those elongated proportions which characterize the sculpture of
the first Theban dynasties. Apart from the steles, which come mostly from
Abydos, we have few bas-reliefs which may be referred to this epoch. The
mastabas with their sculptured walls were no longer constructed, and the
most interesting hypogea of the middle Empire, those of Beni-Hassan, were
decorated with paintings only. The sepulchral grottos of El-Bercheh possess
bas-reliefs dating from the twelfth dynasty, and the quality of their
workmanship may be seen in our Fig. 43, Vol. II. The style is less free and
more conventional than that of the mastabas. The men who haul upon the
ropes and those who march in front of them, are all exact repetitions one of
another, causing an effect which is very monotonous. The paintings of Beni-
Hassan, which are freer and more full of variety, are more able to sustain a
comparison with the decorations of the mastabas. Even then, however, we
find too much generalization. Except in a few instances there is a less true
and sincere feeling for nature, and a lack of those picturesque motives and
movements caught flying, so to speak, by an artist who seems to be amused
by what he sees and to take pleasure in reproducing it, which are so abundant
in the mastabas.
§ 4. Sculpture under the Second Theban Empire.
chiefs only of those Semitic tribes who had occupied this region for so many
centuries. The mass of the people must have been too strongly attached to the
fertile lands where they dwelt to refuse obedience to the conqueror, and more
than one immigration, like that of the Hebrews, may have come in later times
to renew the Arab and Syrian characteristics of the race.[220]
Whatever we may think of these conjectures and assertions, the sculptors of
the First Theban Empire and of the Hyksos period took up and carried on the
traditions of the Ancient Empire. The processes are the same except that in a
few particulars they are improved. More frequent use is made of the harder
rocks such as granite, basalt, and diorite, and a commencement is made in the
art of gem-cutting.
Even the bas-relief carries on the themes which had been in favour in the first
years of the monarchy. We have already illustrated two steles of this period
(Figs. 86 and 164, Vol. I.). In the second, and especially in the woman, may
be noticed those elongated proportions which characterize the sculpture of
the first Theban dynasties. Apart from the steles, which come mostly from
Abydos, we have few bas-reliefs which may be referred to this epoch. The
mastabas with their sculptured walls were no longer constructed, and the
most interesting hypogea of the middle Empire, those of Beni-Hassan, were
decorated with paintings only. The sepulchral grottos of El-Bercheh possess
bas-reliefs dating from the twelfth dynasty, and the quality of their
workmanship may be seen in our Fig. 43, Vol. II. The style is less free and
more conventional than that of the mastabas. The men who haul upon the
ropes and those who march in front of them, are all exact repetitions one of
another, causing an effect which is very monotonous. The paintings of Beni-
Hassan, which are freer and more full of variety, are more able to sustain a
comparison with the decorations of the mastabas. Even then, however, we
find too much generalization. Except in a few instances there is a less true
and sincere feeling for nature, and a lack of those picturesque motives and
movements caught flying, so to speak, by an artist who seems to be amused
by what he sees and to take pleasure in reproducing it, which are so abundant
in the mastabas.
§ 4. Sculpture under the Second Theban Empire.
Page 273
The excavations at Tanis have helped us to understand many things upon
which our information had been and still is very imperfect. We are no longer
obliged to accept Manetho's account of the Shepherd invasion. In his desire
to take at least a verbal revenge upon the conquerors of his country the
historian seems to have greatly exaggerated their misdeeds. We know now
not only that the native princes continued to reign in Upper Egypt, but also
that the interlopers adopted, in the Delta, the manners and customs of their
Egyptian subjects. So far as we can tell, there were neither destructions of
monumental buildings nor ruptures with the national traditions. Thus the art
of the three great Theban dynasties, from Ahmes to the last of the Rameses,
seems a prolongation of that of the Ousourtesens and Sebek-hoteps. There are
no appreciable differences in their styles or in their processes, but, as in their
architecture, their works of art as a whole show an extraordinary
development, a development which corresponds to the great and sudden
increase in the power and wealth of the country. The warlike kings who made
themselves masters of Ethiopia and of Western Asia, had aspirations after the
colossal. Their buildings reached dimensions hitherto unknown, and while
their vast wall spaces gave great opportunities to the sculptor they demanded
efforts of invention and arrangement from him to which he had previously
been a stranger. These great surfaces had to be filled with historic scenes,
with combats, victories, and triumphal promenades, with religious scenes,
with pictures of homage and adoration. The human figure in its natural size
was no longer in proportion to these huge constructions. In order to obtain
images of the king which should correspond to the extent and magnificence
of the colonnades and obelisks, the slight excess over the real stature of
human beings which contented the sculptors of the Ancient Empire was no
longer sufficient. Whether they were cut, as at Ipsamboul, out of a mountain
side, or, as at Thebes, Memphis, and Tanis out of a gigantic monolith, their
proportions were all far beyond those of mankind. Sometimes the mortals
who frequented the temples came nearly as high as their knees, but oftener
they failed to reach their ankle-bones. The New Empire had a mania for these
colossal figures. It sprinkled them over the whole country, but at Thebes they
are more thickly gathered than elsewhere. In the immediate neighbourhood of
the two seated statues of Amenophis III., the savants of the French
Commission found the remains of fifteen more colossi.[221]
There were at least as many on the right bank. On the avenue leading through
the four southern pylons at Karnak, the same explorers found twelve colossal
which our information had been and still is very imperfect. We are no longer
obliged to accept Manetho's account of the Shepherd invasion. In his desire
to take at least a verbal revenge upon the conquerors of his country the
historian seems to have greatly exaggerated their misdeeds. We know now
not only that the native princes continued to reign in Upper Egypt, but also
that the interlopers adopted, in the Delta, the manners and customs of their
Egyptian subjects. So far as we can tell, there were neither destructions of
monumental buildings nor ruptures with the national traditions. Thus the art
of the three great Theban dynasties, from Ahmes to the last of the Rameses,
seems a prolongation of that of the Ousourtesens and Sebek-hoteps. There are
no appreciable differences in their styles or in their processes, but, as in their
architecture, their works of art as a whole show an extraordinary
development, a development which corresponds to the great and sudden
increase in the power and wealth of the country. The warlike kings who made
themselves masters of Ethiopia and of Western Asia, had aspirations after the
colossal. Their buildings reached dimensions hitherto unknown, and while
their vast wall spaces gave great opportunities to the sculptor they demanded
efforts of invention and arrangement from him to which he had previously
been a stranger. These great surfaces had to be filled with historic scenes,
with combats, victories, and triumphal promenades, with religious scenes,
with pictures of homage and adoration. The human figure in its natural size
was no longer in proportion to these huge constructions. In order to obtain
images of the king which should correspond to the extent and magnificence
of the colonnades and obelisks, the slight excess over the real stature of
human beings which contented the sculptors of the Ancient Empire was no
longer sufficient. Whether they were cut, as at Ipsamboul, out of a mountain
side, or, as at Thebes, Memphis, and Tanis out of a gigantic monolith, their
proportions were all far beyond those of mankind. Sometimes the mortals
who frequented the temples came nearly as high as their knees, but oftener
they failed to reach their ankle-bones. The New Empire had a mania for these
colossal figures. It sprinkled them over the whole country, but at Thebes they
are more thickly gathered than elsewhere. In the immediate neighbourhood of
the two seated statues of Amenophis III., the savants of the French
Commission found the remains of fifteen more colossi.[221]
There were at least as many on the right bank. On the avenue leading through
the four southern pylons at Karnak, the same explorers found twelve colossal
Page 274
monoliths, each nearly thirty-five feet high but all greatly mutilated, and the
former existence of others was revealed to them by fragments scattered about
the ground. They were able to reckon up eighteen altogether on this south
side of the building.[222]
Similar stone giants peopled the other religious or political capitals of Egypt
—Abydos, Memphis, Tanis, Sais, etc. The largest of all, however, are the
colossi at Ipsamboul representing Rameses II. They are about seventy feet
high. Among those cut from one enormous block brought from Syene or
elsewhere, the best known are those of Amenophis III. at Thebes. They are
fifty-two feet high without the pedestal. But the statue of Rameses II., which
stood in the second court of the Ramesseum, must have been more than fifty-
six feet high, as we may calculate from the fragments which remain. The
head is greatly mutilated but the foot is over thirteen feet long.[223]
These statues were generally seated in the attitude which we have already
described in speaking of Chephren and Sebek-hotep. Some, however, were
standing, such as the colossal figure of Rameses which stood before the
Temple of Ptah at Memphis. This figure, which is about forty-four feet high,
is cut from a single block of very fine and hard limestone. It lies face
downwards and surrounded by palm trees, in a depression of the soil near the
village of Mitrahineh. In this position it is covered by the annual inundation.
The English, to whom it belongs, have hitherto failed to take possession of it
owing to the difficulty of transport, and yet it is one of the most careful
productions of the nineteenth dynasty. The head is full of individuality and its
execution excellent.
former existence of others was revealed to them by fragments scattered about
the ground. They were able to reckon up eighteen altogether on this south
side of the building.[222]
Similar stone giants peopled the other religious or political capitals of Egypt
—Abydos, Memphis, Tanis, Sais, etc. The largest of all, however, are the
colossi at Ipsamboul representing Rameses II. They are about seventy feet
high. Among those cut from one enormous block brought from Syene or
elsewhere, the best known are those of Amenophis III. at Thebes. They are
fifty-two feet high without the pedestal. But the statue of Rameses II., which
stood in the second court of the Ramesseum, must have been more than fifty-
six feet high, as we may calculate from the fragments which remain. The
head is greatly mutilated but the foot is over thirteen feet long.[223]
These statues were generally seated in the attitude which we have already
described in speaking of Chephren and Sebek-hotep. Some, however, were
standing, such as the colossal figure of Rameses which stood before the
Temple of Ptah at Memphis. This figure, which is about forty-four feet high,
is cut from a single block of very fine and hard limestone. It lies face
downwards and surrounded by palm trees, in a depression of the soil near the
village of Mitrahineh. In this position it is covered by the annual inundation.
The English, to whom it belongs, have hitherto failed to take possession of it
owing to the difficulty of transport, and yet it is one of the most careful
productions of the nineteenth dynasty. The head is full of individuality and its
execution excellent.
Page 275
THE QUEEN TAIA
BOULAK MUSEUM
J. Bourgon del. Imp. Ch. Chardon Ramus sc.
In spite of their taste for these colossal figures, the Egyptian sculptors of this
period rivalled their predecessors in the skill and sincerity with which they
brought out their sitter's individuality. It was not, perhaps, their religious
beliefs which imposed this effort upon them. The readiness which successive
kings showed in appropriating the statues of their ancestors to themselves by
simply placing their ovals upon them, proved that the ideas which were
attached by the fathers of the Egyptian race to their graven images had lost
their force. Effigies which were brought into the service of a new king by a
mere change of inscription, were nothing more than monuments to his pride,
destined to transmit his name and glory to future generations. The early taste,
however, was not extinguished. When the sculptor was charged with the
representation of one of those kings who had made Egypt great, or one of the
queens who were often associated in the sovereign power, he took the same
BOULAK MUSEUM
J. Bourgon del. Imp. Ch. Chardon Ramus sc.
In spite of their taste for these colossal figures, the Egyptian sculptors of this
period rivalled their predecessors in the skill and sincerity with which they
brought out their sitter's individuality. It was not, perhaps, their religious
beliefs which imposed this effort upon them. The readiness which successive
kings showed in appropriating the statues of their ancestors to themselves by
simply placing their ovals upon them, proved that the ideas which were
attached by the fathers of the Egyptian race to their graven images had lost
their force. Effigies which were brought into the service of a new king by a
mere change of inscription, were nothing more than monuments to his pride,
destined to transmit his name and glory to future generations. The early taste,
however, was not extinguished. When the sculptor was charged with the
representation of one of those kings who had made Egypt great, or one of the
queens who were often associated in the sovereign power, he took the same
Page 276
pains as those of the early Empire to make a faithful copy of his august
model.
Fig. 214.—Thothmes III. Boulak. Granite.
Among the monuments of faithful portraiture which this period has left us the
statues of Thothmes III. are conspicuous. The features of this prince are to be
recognized in a standing figure at Boulak (Fig. 214), but they are much more
strongly marked in a head which was found at Karnak and is now in the
British Museum (Fig. 215). It formerly belonged to a colossal statue erected
by that prince in the part of the temple built by himself. The features seem in
no way Egyptian. The form of the nose, the upturned corners of the eyes, the
curves of the lips, and the general contours of the face are all suggestive of
model.
Fig. 214.—Thothmes III. Boulak. Granite.
Among the monuments of faithful portraiture which this period has left us the
statues of Thothmes III. are conspicuous. The features of this prince are to be
recognized in a standing figure at Boulak (Fig. 214), but they are much more
strongly marked in a head which was found at Karnak and is now in the
British Museum (Fig. 215). It formerly belonged to a colossal statue erected
by that prince in the part of the temple built by himself. The features seem in
no way Egyptian. The form of the nose, the upturned corners of the eyes, the
curves of the lips, and the general contours of the face are all suggestive of
Page 277
Armenian blood.[224] Others have thought it showed traces of negro descent.
In the first-named statue these characteristics are less conspicuous because its
execution as a whole is less careful and masterly. The same physiognomy is
to be found in a porphyry sphinx belonging to the Boulak collection.[225]
There is a strong contrast between the features of Thothmes and those of
Amenophis III. the founder of Luxor. Of this we may judge by a head, as well
preserved as that of Thothmes, which was found behind one of the statues of
Amenophis at Gournah. It also is in the British Museum. The face is long and
finely cut, with an expression and general appearance which we should call
distinguished; the nose is long and thin; the chin well chiselled and bold in
outline.[226]
Obliged to draw the line somewhere we have not reproduced this figure, but
in Plate XI. we give a female head, discovered by Mariette at Karnak, and
believed to be that of Taia, the queen of Amenophis III. Whether rightly
named or not, this colossal fragment is one of the masterpieces of Egyptian
sculpture.[227]
Mariette enumerates various reasons for believing Taia to have been neither
of royal nor even of Egyptian blood. She might have been Asiatic; the empire
of her husband extended as far as Mesopotamia. The point has little
importance, but as M. Charmes says, "when we stop in admiration before the
head of Taia, at Boulak, we feel ourselves unconsciously driven by her
charms ... to forge a whole history, an historical romance, of which her
enigmatic personality is the centre and inspiration, and to fancy her the chief
author of these religious tragedies which disturbed her epoch and left a
burning trace which has not yet disappeared."[228]
M. Charmes here alludes to the changes which Amenophis IV. wished to
introduce into the national religion when he attempted to destroy the name
and images of Amen, and to replace them with those of a solar god, who was
represented by a symbol not previously encountered in the monuments (Fig.
2). If Mariette's hypotheses remain uncontradicted by later discoveries, we
may admit Taia to be the mother of Amenophis IV., and to her influence in all
probability would her son's denial and persecution of the great Theban deity
be due. Our present interest, however, is with the features of Amenophis.
They have been faithfully handed down to us by the artists employed at Tell-
el-Amarna.[229] By the help of these bas-reliefs a statuette in yellow steatite,
In the first-named statue these characteristics are less conspicuous because its
execution as a whole is less careful and masterly. The same physiognomy is
to be found in a porphyry sphinx belonging to the Boulak collection.[225]
There is a strong contrast between the features of Thothmes and those of
Amenophis III. the founder of Luxor. Of this we may judge by a head, as well
preserved as that of Thothmes, which was found behind one of the statues of
Amenophis at Gournah. It also is in the British Museum. The face is long and
finely cut, with an expression and general appearance which we should call
distinguished; the nose is long and thin; the chin well chiselled and bold in
outline.[226]
Obliged to draw the line somewhere we have not reproduced this figure, but
in Plate XI. we give a female head, discovered by Mariette at Karnak, and
believed to be that of Taia, the queen of Amenophis III. Whether rightly
named or not, this colossal fragment is one of the masterpieces of Egyptian
sculpture.[227]
Mariette enumerates various reasons for believing Taia to have been neither
of royal nor even of Egyptian blood. She might have been Asiatic; the empire
of her husband extended as far as Mesopotamia. The point has little
importance, but as M. Charmes says, "when we stop in admiration before the
head of Taia, at Boulak, we feel ourselves unconsciously driven by her
charms ... to forge a whole history, an historical romance, of which her
enigmatic personality is the centre and inspiration, and to fancy her the chief
author of these religious tragedies which disturbed her epoch and left a
burning trace which has not yet disappeared."[228]
M. Charmes here alludes to the changes which Amenophis IV. wished to
introduce into the national religion when he attempted to destroy the name
and images of Amen, and to replace them with those of a solar god, who was
represented by a symbol not previously encountered in the monuments (Fig.
2). If Mariette's hypotheses remain uncontradicted by later discoveries, we
may admit Taia to be the mother of Amenophis IV., and to her influence in all
probability would her son's denial and persecution of the great Theban deity
be due. Our present interest, however, is with the features of Amenophis.
They have been faithfully handed down to us by the artists employed at Tell-
el-Amarna.[229] By the help of these bas-reliefs a statuette in yellow steatite,
Page 278
now in the Louvre (Fig. 216), has been recognized as a portrait of this
Pharaoh. Its workmanship is very fine.
Pharaoh. Its workmanship is very fine.
Page 279
Page 280
Fig. 215.—Thothmes III. British Museum. Red granite. Drawn by Saint-
Elme Gautier.
Some have thought that in these bas-reliefs, and in the Louvre statuette, the
"facial characteristics and the peculiar shapes of breast and abdomen by
which eunuchs are distinguished, are to be found."[230] On the other hand, we
know that while still very young Amenophis IV. married the queen
Nowertiouta, and that he had seven daughters by her. "It is probable,
therefore, that if the misfortune alluded to really befell him, it was during the
wars waged by Amenophis III. against the negro races of the south." In any
case, Amenophis IV. bore no resemblance to any one of the long procession
of princes whose portraits have come down to us, from the early dynasties of
the Ancient Empire to the Roman conquest. Lepsius devotes a series of plates
to the iconography of the Egyptian kings, and among them all we find
nothing that can be compared to the almost fantastic personality of
Amenophis, with his low, unintellectual forehead, his pendulous cheeks, his
feminine contours, and his general expression of gloom and melancholy. The
fidelity with which all these unpleasing features are reproduced is
extraordinary, and can only be accounted for by the existence of a tradition so
well established that no one thought of breaking through it, even when the
portrait of a semi-divine monarch was in question.
There are other works dating from this period which show the same desire for
truth at any price. One of the series of bas-reliefs discovered by Mariette in
the Temple of Dayr-el-Bahari may be given as an instance. The subject of
these reliefs is the expedition undertaken by the regent Hatasu against the
country of Punt.[231]
Elme Gautier.
Some have thought that in these bas-reliefs, and in the Louvre statuette, the
"facial characteristics and the peculiar shapes of breast and abdomen by
which eunuchs are distinguished, are to be found."[230] On the other hand, we
know that while still very young Amenophis IV. married the queen
Nowertiouta, and that he had seven daughters by her. "It is probable,
therefore, that if the misfortune alluded to really befell him, it was during the
wars waged by Amenophis III. against the negro races of the south." In any
case, Amenophis IV. bore no resemblance to any one of the long procession
of princes whose portraits have come down to us, from the early dynasties of
the Ancient Empire to the Roman conquest. Lepsius devotes a series of plates
to the iconography of the Egyptian kings, and among them all we find
nothing that can be compared to the almost fantastic personality of
Amenophis, with his low, unintellectual forehead, his pendulous cheeks, his
feminine contours, and his general expression of gloom and melancholy. The
fidelity with which all these unpleasing features are reproduced is
extraordinary, and can only be accounted for by the existence of a tradition so
well established that no one thought of breaking through it, even when the
portrait of a semi-divine monarch was in question.
There are other works dating from this period which show the same desire for
truth at any price. One of the series of bas-reliefs discovered by Mariette in
the Temple of Dayr-el-Bahari may be given as an instance. The subject of
these reliefs is the expedition undertaken by the regent Hatasu against the
country of Punt.[231]
Page 281
Fig. 216.—Statuette of Amenophis IV. Height twenty inches. Louvre.
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
"In the most curious of these sculptures the savage chief advances as a
suppliant. His wife walks behind him. Her hair is carefully dressed and
plaited into a thick tail at the back; a necklace of large discs is round her
neck. Her dress is a long yellow chemise, without sleeves, and reaching to the
middle of her legs. Her features are regular enough, but virile rather than
feminine, and all the rest of her person is repulsive. Her arms, legs, and chest,
are loaded with fat, while her person projects so far in the rear as to result in a
deformity over which the artist has dwelt with curious complacence." The
legs, so far as the chemise allows them to be seen, are so large that they
Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
"In the most curious of these sculptures the savage chief advances as a
suppliant. His wife walks behind him. Her hair is carefully dressed and
plaited into a thick tail at the back; a necklace of large discs is round her
neck. Her dress is a long yellow chemise, without sleeves, and reaching to the
middle of her legs. Her features are regular enough, but virile rather than
feminine, and all the rest of her person is repulsive. Her arms, legs, and chest,
are loaded with fat, while her person projects so far in the rear as to result in a
deformity over which the artist has dwelt with curious complacence." The
legs, so far as the chemise allows them to be seen, are so large that they
Page 282
suggest incipient elephantiasis. The Egyptian artist was induced, no doubt, to
dwell upon such a monstrosity by the instructive contrast which it presented
with the cultivated beauty of his own race.[232]
Realist as he was when he chose to take up that vein, the Egyptian sculptor
attained, however, to a high degree of grace and purity, especially in his
representations of historic and religious scenes. When he had not the
exceptional ugliness of an Amenophis IV. to deal with, he gave to the
personages in his bas-reliefs a look of serious gravity and nobility which
cannot fail to impress the greatest enthusiast for Greek models. He was no
longer content with the sincere imitation of what he saw, like the artists of the
Early Empire; his efforts were directed to giving everlasting forms to those
superhuman beings, the Egyptian gods and Egyptian kings, with their sons
and favourites, who lived in hourly communion with them. Egyptian art at
last had an ideal, which it never realized with more success than in certain
bas-reliefs of this epoch.
Mariette quotes, as one of the most learned productions of the Egyptian
chisel, a bas-relief at Gebel-Silsilis representing a goddess nourishing Horus
from her own breast. "The design of this composition is remarkable for its
purity," he says, "and the whole picture breathes a certain soft tranquillity
which both charms and surprises a modern connoisseur."[233]
We have not reproduced this work, but an idea of its style and composition
may be formed from a bas-relief of the time of Rameses II., which we have
taken from the speos of Beit-el-Wali (Fig. 255, Vol. I.). The theme is the
same. A scene of adoration taken from a pier at Thebes (Fig. 176, Vol. I.) and,
still more, a fine bas-relief in which Amenophis III. does homage to Amen, to
whom he is presented by Phré, may also be compared with the work at
Gebel-Silsilis. The movements are free and elegant, and nothing could be
more expressive than the gestures of the two deities, than the attitude, at once
proud and respectful, of the kneeling prince. The whole scene is imbued with
sincere and grateful piety (Fig. 33, Vol. I.).
We find the same theme, with some slight variations, in the bas-relief at
Abydos figured on page 390, Vol. I. The sculptures in the temple with which
Seti I. adorned this city may be considered the masterpieces of Egyptian art
in their own genre. Their firm and sober execution, and the severe simplicity
of their conception, are well shown in our third plate. This royal figure,
dwell upon such a monstrosity by the instructive contrast which it presented
with the cultivated beauty of his own race.[232]
Realist as he was when he chose to take up that vein, the Egyptian sculptor
attained, however, to a high degree of grace and purity, especially in his
representations of historic and religious scenes. When he had not the
exceptional ugliness of an Amenophis IV. to deal with, he gave to the
personages in his bas-reliefs a look of serious gravity and nobility which
cannot fail to impress the greatest enthusiast for Greek models. He was no
longer content with the sincere imitation of what he saw, like the artists of the
Early Empire; his efforts were directed to giving everlasting forms to those
superhuman beings, the Egyptian gods and Egyptian kings, with their sons
and favourites, who lived in hourly communion with them. Egyptian art at
last had an ideal, which it never realized with more success than in certain
bas-reliefs of this epoch.
Mariette quotes, as one of the most learned productions of the Egyptian
chisel, a bas-relief at Gebel-Silsilis representing a goddess nourishing Horus
from her own breast. "The design of this composition is remarkable for its
purity," he says, "and the whole picture breathes a certain soft tranquillity
which both charms and surprises a modern connoisseur."[233]
We have not reproduced this work, but an idea of its style and composition
may be formed from a bas-relief of the time of Rameses II., which we have
taken from the speos of Beit-el-Wali (Fig. 255, Vol. I.). The theme is the
same. A scene of adoration taken from a pier at Thebes (Fig. 176, Vol. I.) and,
still more, a fine bas-relief in which Amenophis III. does homage to Amen, to
whom he is presented by Phré, may also be compared with the work at
Gebel-Silsilis. The movements are free and elegant, and nothing could be
more expressive than the gestures of the two deities, than the attitude, at once
proud and respectful, of the kneeling prince. The whole scene is imbued with
sincere and grateful piety (Fig. 33, Vol. I.).
We find the same theme, with some slight variations, in the bas-relief at
Abydos figured on page 390, Vol. I. The sculptures in the temple with which
Seti I. adorned this city may be considered the masterpieces of Egyptian art
in their own genre. Their firm and sober execution, and the severe simplicity
of their conception, are well shown in our third plate. This royal figure,
Page 283
which we were compelled to detach from its companions in order that we
might give it on a scale large enough to be of service, forms part of a
composition which has been thus described by M. Charles Blanc: "Seated
upon the round base of a column, we examined the noblest bas-reliefs in the
world. Seti was present in his own temple. His noble head, at once human
and heroic, mild and proud, stood out from the wall and seemed to regard us
with a gentle smile. A wandering ray of sunlight penetrated into the temple,
and, falling upon the gentle salience of the sculptured figures, gave them a
relief and animation which was almost illusive. A procession of young girls,
whose graceful forms are veiled only by their chastity, advance towards the
hero with as much freedom as respect will allow.... Their beauty attracts us
while their dignity forbids all approach. The scene lives before us, and yet the
stone is but grazed with the chisel and casts but the gentlest shadow. But the
delicacy of the workmanship is combined with such vigour of design and
such true sincerity of feeling that these young women, who represent the
provinces of Egypt, seem to live and breathe before us."[234]
The same qualities are found, though in less perfection, in those bas-reliefs
which commemorate the conquests and military exploits of the great Theban
Pharaohs on the pylons and external faces of the temple walls. The space to
be covered is larger, the scene to be represented more complicated, than in
the religious pictures, which, as a rule, include very few actors. The artist is
no longer working for a narrow audience of gods, kings, and priests. His
productions are addressed to the people at large, and he attempts therefore to
dazzle and astonish the crowd rather than to please the more fastidious tastes
of their social leaders. His execution is more rapid and less thoughtful, as
may be seen in our illustrations taken from the battle scenes of Karnak,
Luxor, the Ramesseum, and Medinet-Abou (Figs. 13, 85, 173, 174, 253, and
254, Vol. I.). In each of these scenes there is a central figure to which our
attention is immediately attracted. It is that of the king, and is far larger than
those of his subjects and enemies.
Sometimes he is on foot, his threatening mace raised above the heads of his
prisoners, who kneel before him and raise their hands in supplication, as in a
fine bas-relief at Karnak (Fig. 85, Vol. I.); more often he is represented
standing in his chariot and dominating the tumult about him like a demi-god,
driving a panic-stricken crowd before him sword in hand, or about to cleave
the head of some hostile chief, whose relaxed members seem already to have
might give it on a scale large enough to be of service, forms part of a
composition which has been thus described by M. Charles Blanc: "Seated
upon the round base of a column, we examined the noblest bas-reliefs in the
world. Seti was present in his own temple. His noble head, at once human
and heroic, mild and proud, stood out from the wall and seemed to regard us
with a gentle smile. A wandering ray of sunlight penetrated into the temple,
and, falling upon the gentle salience of the sculptured figures, gave them a
relief and animation which was almost illusive. A procession of young girls,
whose graceful forms are veiled only by their chastity, advance towards the
hero with as much freedom as respect will allow.... Their beauty attracts us
while their dignity forbids all approach. The scene lives before us, and yet the
stone is but grazed with the chisel and casts but the gentlest shadow. But the
delicacy of the workmanship is combined with such vigour of design and
such true sincerity of feeling that these young women, who represent the
provinces of Egypt, seem to live and breathe before us."[234]
The same qualities are found, though in less perfection, in those bas-reliefs
which commemorate the conquests and military exploits of the great Theban
Pharaohs on the pylons and external faces of the temple walls. The space to
be covered is larger, the scene to be represented more complicated, than in
the religious pictures, which, as a rule, include very few actors. The artist is
no longer working for a narrow audience of gods, kings, and priests. His
productions are addressed to the people at large, and he attempts therefore to
dazzle and astonish the crowd rather than to please the more fastidious tastes
of their social leaders. His execution is more rapid and less thoughtful, as
may be seen in our illustrations taken from the battle scenes of Karnak,
Luxor, the Ramesseum, and Medinet-Abou (Figs. 13, 85, 173, 174, 253, and
254, Vol. I.). In each of these scenes there is a central figure to which our
attention is immediately attracted. It is that of the king, and is far larger than
those of his subjects and enemies.
Sometimes he is on foot, his threatening mace raised above the heads of his
prisoners, who kneel before him and raise their hands in supplication, as in a
fine bas-relief at Karnak (Fig. 85, Vol. I.); more often he is represented
standing in his chariot and dominating the tumult about him like a demi-god,
driving a panic-stricken crowd before him sword in hand, or about to cleave
the head of some hostile chief, whose relaxed members seem already to have
Page 284
felt the mortal stroke (Fig. 13, Vol. I.). Elsewhere we see him bending his
bow and launching his arrows against the flying barbarians (Fig. 174, Vol. I.).
"We could never look at this beautiful figure without fresh admiration," say
the authors of the Description, "it is the Apollo Belvedere of Egypt."[235]
Again we see the king returning victorious from his wars, long rows of
prisoners march behind and before him, their hands tied at their backs and
attached by a rope to the chariot of the conqueror. The horses which, in the
battle scenes, we saw rearing and trampling the dead and dying beneath their
feet, advance quietly and under the control of the tightened rein, and their
dainty walk suggests that they too have a share in the universal satisfaction
that follows a war well ended.
In all these reliefs the principal figure, that of the prince, is free and bold in
design, and full of pride and dignity. These characteristics are also found in
some of the secondary figures, such as those soldiers of the enemy who still
resist, or the prisoners who resign themselves to the sovereign's mace (Figs.
13 and 85, Vol. I.). But the wounded and fugitives in these battle pictures are
curiously confused in drawing and arrangement. If we take these little figures
separately many of them are drawn and modelled well enough, but, taken as a
whole, they are huddled up into far too narrow a space, and seem heaped
upon each other in impossible fashion. The Egyptian sculptor has been fired
with the desire to emulate with his chisel the great deeds of his royal master,
and, in his ignorance, he has passed the limits which an art innocent of
perspective cannot overleap without disaster.
The persistent tendency towards slightness of proportion, which we have
already noticed in speaking of the First Theban Empire, is even more
conspicuous in the figures of these reliefs than in the royal statues (Figs. 13,
50, 53, 84, 165, and 175, Vol. I.). Neither in these historical bas-reliefs, nor in
those of the tombs, do we ever encounter the short thickset figures which are
so common in the Ancient Empire.
In the paintings and bas-reliefs of Thebes this slenderness is more strongly
marked in the women than in the men, and everything goes to prove that it
was considered essential to beauty in the female sex. Goddesses and queens,
dancing girls and hired musicians, all have the same elongated proportions.
This propensity is more clearly seen perhaps in the pictures of the Almees
and Gawasi of Ancient Egypt than anywhere else. Look, for instance, at our
reproduction of a bas-relief in the Boulak Museum (Fig. 217). It represents a
bow and launching his arrows against the flying barbarians (Fig. 174, Vol. I.).
"We could never look at this beautiful figure without fresh admiration," say
the authors of the Description, "it is the Apollo Belvedere of Egypt."[235]
Again we see the king returning victorious from his wars, long rows of
prisoners march behind and before him, their hands tied at their backs and
attached by a rope to the chariot of the conqueror. The horses which, in the
battle scenes, we saw rearing and trampling the dead and dying beneath their
feet, advance quietly and under the control of the tightened rein, and their
dainty walk suggests that they too have a share in the universal satisfaction
that follows a war well ended.
In all these reliefs the principal figure, that of the prince, is free and bold in
design, and full of pride and dignity. These characteristics are also found in
some of the secondary figures, such as those soldiers of the enemy who still
resist, or the prisoners who resign themselves to the sovereign's mace (Figs.
13 and 85, Vol. I.). But the wounded and fugitives in these battle pictures are
curiously confused in drawing and arrangement. If we take these little figures
separately many of them are drawn and modelled well enough, but, taken as a
whole, they are huddled up into far too narrow a space, and seem heaped
upon each other in impossible fashion. The Egyptian sculptor has been fired
with the desire to emulate with his chisel the great deeds of his royal master,
and, in his ignorance, he has passed the limits which an art innocent of
perspective cannot overleap without disaster.
The persistent tendency towards slightness of proportion, which we have
already noticed in speaking of the First Theban Empire, is even more
conspicuous in the figures of these reliefs than in the royal statues (Figs. 13,
50, 53, 84, 165, and 175, Vol. I.). Neither in these historical bas-reliefs, nor in
those of the tombs, do we ever encounter the short thickset figures which are
so common in the Ancient Empire.
In the paintings and bas-reliefs of Thebes this slenderness is more strongly
marked in the women than in the men, and everything goes to prove that it
was considered essential to beauty in the female sex. Goddesses and queens,
dancing girls and hired musicians, all have the same elongated proportions.
This propensity is more clearly seen perhaps in the pictures of the Almees
and Gawasi of Ancient Egypt than anywhere else. Look, for instance, at our
reproduction of a bas-relief in the Boulak Museum (Fig. 217). It represents a
Page 285
funeral dance to a sound of tambourines, accompanied in all probability by
those apologetic songs, called θρῆνοι by the Greeks, of which M. Maspero
has translated so many curious fragments.[236] All these women, who are
practically naked in their long transparent robes, wear their hair in thick
pendent tresses. Two young girls, quite nude, seem to regulate the time with
castanets. A number of men, coming from the right, appear to reprove by
their gestures the energetic motions of the women. This bas-relief is an
isolated fragment, and without a date. It was found in the necropolis of
Memphis and from its style Prisse ascribes it to the nineteenth dynasty, "a
time when artists were mannered in their treatment of the female form,
combining great softness of contour with an impossible slenderness of build.
The execution is careless, but the movements and attitudes are truthful
enough."[237] Our Plate XII. shows figures of the same general proportions,
though rather better drawn.
This curious mannerism began to establish itself during the first renascence
of Egyptian art under the twelfth dynasty. It was to last, and even to grow
more conspicuous, until the centuries of final decadence. The growing
influence of conventionality is to be seen in other signs also. As art repeated
and multiplied its representations, and the spaces which it had to decorate
increased in number and size, it had at its disposal, as we may say, a larger
number of moulds and made more frequent employment of certain groups
and figures which were repeated without material change. In the decorations
of this period we find long rows of figures which are practically identical
with each other. They look as if they had been produced by stencil plates.
With all their apparent richness and their wealth of imagery the sculpture and
painting of Thebes show a poverty of invention which is not to be found in
the art of the early dynasties.[238]
The gradual falling off in their powers of observing and reproducing natural
forms is singularly well shown in their imperfect treatment of those animals
which had been unknown to their predecessors. The horse does not seem to
have been introduced into Egypt until the time of the shepherd kings, but he
soon conquered a high place among the servitors of the upper classes of
Egyptians. He became one of the favourite themes of contemporary art. In all
the great pictures of battle he occupies a central position, and he is always
associated with the prowess of the sovereign. And yet he is almost always
badly drawn. His movement is sometimes not without considerable vigour
those apologetic songs, called θρῆνοι by the Greeks, of which M. Maspero
has translated so many curious fragments.[236] All these women, who are
practically naked in their long transparent robes, wear their hair in thick
pendent tresses. Two young girls, quite nude, seem to regulate the time with
castanets. A number of men, coming from the right, appear to reprove by
their gestures the energetic motions of the women. This bas-relief is an
isolated fragment, and without a date. It was found in the necropolis of
Memphis and from its style Prisse ascribes it to the nineteenth dynasty, "a
time when artists were mannered in their treatment of the female form,
combining great softness of contour with an impossible slenderness of build.
The execution is careless, but the movements and attitudes are truthful
enough."[237] Our Plate XII. shows figures of the same general proportions,
though rather better drawn.
This curious mannerism began to establish itself during the first renascence
of Egyptian art under the twelfth dynasty. It was to last, and even to grow
more conspicuous, until the centuries of final decadence. The growing
influence of conventionality is to be seen in other signs also. As art repeated
and multiplied its representations, and the spaces which it had to decorate
increased in number and size, it had at its disposal, as we may say, a larger
number of moulds and made more frequent employment of certain groups
and figures which were repeated without material change. In the decorations
of this period we find long rows of figures which are practically identical
with each other. They look as if they had been produced by stencil plates.
With all their apparent richness and their wealth of imagery the sculpture and
painting of Thebes show a poverty of invention which is not to be found in
the art of the early dynasties.[238]
The gradual falling off in their powers of observing and reproducing natural
forms is singularly well shown in their imperfect treatment of those animals
which had been unknown to their predecessors. The horse does not seem to
have been introduced into Egypt until the time of the shepherd kings, but he
soon conquered a high place among the servitors of the upper classes of
Egyptians. He became one of the favourite themes of contemporary art. In all
the great pictures of battle he occupies a central position, and he is always
associated with the prowess of the sovereign. And yet he is almost always
badly drawn. His movement is sometimes not without considerable vigour
Page 286
and even nobility, but his forms lack truth, he is generally far too thin and
elongated. His head is well set on and his neck and shoulders good, but his
body is weak and unsubstantial (Figs. 13 and 174, Vol. I.). The bad effects of
conventionality are here strongly felt. The same horse, in one of the two or
three attitudes between which the Egyptian sculptor had to choose according
to the scene to be treated, appears everywhere. The sculptors of the
Memphite tombs saw with a very different eye when they set themselves to
surround the doubles of their employers with the images of the domestic
animals to whom they were accustomed in life.
Fig. 217.—Funeral Dance. Bas-relief in limestone. Boulak. Drawn by
Bourgoin.
The difference can be seen, however, without going back to the Ancient
Empire. Compare the great historical bas-reliefs of the temples and royal
cenotaphs with the more modest decorations of certain private sepulchres,
such as those which were found in the tomb of Chamhati, superintendent of
the royal domains under the eighteenth dynasty (Fig. 218). The sculptors
return with pleasure to those scenes of country life of which the pyramid
builders were so fond. The fragment we reproduce shows the long row of
labourers bending over their hoes, the sower casting his seed, the oxen
attached to the plough and slowly cutting the furrow under the whip and
voice of their drivers. Neither men nor beasts are drawn with as sure a hand
elongated. His head is well set on and his neck and shoulders good, but his
body is weak and unsubstantial (Figs. 13 and 174, Vol. I.). The bad effects of
conventionality are here strongly felt. The same horse, in one of the two or
three attitudes between which the Egyptian sculptor had to choose according
to the scene to be treated, appears everywhere. The sculptors of the
Memphite tombs saw with a very different eye when they set themselves to
surround the doubles of their employers with the images of the domestic
animals to whom they were accustomed in life.
Fig. 217.—Funeral Dance. Bas-relief in limestone. Boulak. Drawn by
Bourgoin.
The difference can be seen, however, without going back to the Ancient
Empire. Compare the great historical bas-reliefs of the temples and royal
cenotaphs with the more modest decorations of certain private sepulchres,
such as those which were found in the tomb of Chamhati, superintendent of
the royal domains under the eighteenth dynasty (Fig. 218). The sculptors
return with pleasure to those scenes of country life of which the pyramid
builders were so fond. The fragment we reproduce shows the long row of
labourers bending over their hoes, the sower casting his seed, the oxen
attached to the plough and slowly cutting the furrow under the whip and
voice of their drivers. Neither men nor beasts are drawn with as sure a hand
Page 287
as in the tomb of Ti, but yet the whole appears more sincere than productions
of a more official kind. The oldest and most faithful assistant to the Egyptian
fellah, the draught ox, is at least much more like nature than the charger of
the Theban battle pictures.
Fig. 218.—Bas-relief from the tomb of Chamhati. Boulak.
The dangers of routine and of a conventional mode of work seem now and
then to have been felt by the Theban artists. They appear to have set
themselves deliberately to rouse attention and interest by introducing foreign
types into their eternal battle pieces, and by insisting upon their differences of
feature, of complexion, of arms and costume. They were also fond of
depicting other countries and the strange animals that inhabited them, as in
the bas-relief which shows a giraffe promenading among tropical palms.[239]
But in spite of all these meritorious efforts, they do not touch our feelings like
the primitive artists of Gizeh and Sakkarah, or even of Beni-Hassan. Try as
they will, they cannot conceal that soulless and mechanical facility which is
so certain to fatigue the spectator. If we turn over the pages of Lepsius, we
always find ourselves dwelling with pleasure upon the sculptures from the
mastabas, in spite of their apparent similarity, while we have soon had
enough of the pompous and crowded bas-reliefs from Karnak, Luxor, the
Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou.
of a more official kind. The oldest and most faithful assistant to the Egyptian
fellah, the draught ox, is at least much more like nature than the charger of
the Theban battle pictures.
Fig. 218.—Bas-relief from the tomb of Chamhati. Boulak.
The dangers of routine and of a conventional mode of work seem now and
then to have been felt by the Theban artists. They appear to have set
themselves deliberately to rouse attention and interest by introducing foreign
types into their eternal battle pieces, and by insisting upon their differences of
feature, of complexion, of arms and costume. They were also fond of
depicting other countries and the strange animals that inhabited them, as in
the bas-relief which shows a giraffe promenading among tropical palms.[239]
But in spite of all these meritorious efforts, they do not touch our feelings like
the primitive artists of Gizeh and Sakkarah, or even of Beni-Hassan. Try as
they will, they cannot conceal that soulless and mechanical facility which is
so certain to fatigue the spectator. If we turn over the pages of Lepsius, we
always find ourselves dwelling with pleasure upon the sculptures from the
mastabas, in spite of their apparent similarity, while we have soon had
enough of the pompous and crowded bas-reliefs from Karnak, Luxor, the
Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou.
Page 288
These defects are less conspicuous in figures in the round, and especially in
the statues of kings. I do not know that the sculptors of the Setis and the
Rameses ever produced anything equal to the portraits of Thothmes,
Amenophis, and Taia, but there are statues of Rameses II. intact, which may
be reckoned among the fine examples of Egyptian art. The features of no
prince that ever existed were reproduced more often than those of this
Rameses, who built so much and reigned so long. These reproductions, as
might be supposed, differ very greatly in value.
In the huge colossi which sit before the Great Temple at Ipsamboul (Fig. 248,
Vol. I.), the limbs are not modelled with the careful precision which would be
required in the case of a life-size statue. The arms and legs appear rather
heavy on close inspection, and in a photograph those parts which are nearest
to the camera, namely, the legs and the knees, seem too large for the rest of
the figure. But the heads are characterized by a breadth and freedom of
execution which brings out the desired expression with great effect when
looked at from a proper distance. This expression is one of thoughtful
mildness and imperturbable serenity. It is exactly suited to the image of a
deified king, sitting as eternal guardian of the temple which his workmen had
hewn out in the bowels of the mountain.
Some discrimination must be exercised between the statues of Rameses
which approach the natural size. We do not look upon his portrait when a
child, which is now in the Louvre, as a masterpiece (Fig. 219). The noble
lines of the profile, recalling his father Seti, are indeed his, but the eye is too
large and the hands are treated with an elegance which is more than a little
mannered. The uræus on his brow and the titles engraved by his side show
that he was already king, but we can see that he was still very young, not so
much by the juvenile contours of his body, as by the finger in his mouth and
the lock of hair hanging upon his right shoulder. A statue at Boulak (Fig. 220)
shows signs of carelessness rather than of affectation. In it Rameses is still a
young man. The eyes, the small mouth, the calm and smiling visage, are all
well modelled, but the legs are quite shapeless.
the statues of kings. I do not know that the sculptors of the Setis and the
Rameses ever produced anything equal to the portraits of Thothmes,
Amenophis, and Taia, but there are statues of Rameses II. intact, which may
be reckoned among the fine examples of Egyptian art. The features of no
prince that ever existed were reproduced more often than those of this
Rameses, who built so much and reigned so long. These reproductions, as
might be supposed, differ very greatly in value.
In the huge colossi which sit before the Great Temple at Ipsamboul (Fig. 248,
Vol. I.), the limbs are not modelled with the careful precision which would be
required in the case of a life-size statue. The arms and legs appear rather
heavy on close inspection, and in a photograph those parts which are nearest
to the camera, namely, the legs and the knees, seem too large for the rest of
the figure. But the heads are characterized by a breadth and freedom of
execution which brings out the desired expression with great effect when
looked at from a proper distance. This expression is one of thoughtful
mildness and imperturbable serenity. It is exactly suited to the image of a
deified king, sitting as eternal guardian of the temple which his workmen had
hewn out in the bowels of the mountain.
Some discrimination must be exercised between the statues of Rameses
which approach the natural size. We do not look upon his portrait when a
child, which is now in the Louvre, as a masterpiece (Fig. 219). The noble
lines of the profile, recalling his father Seti, are indeed his, but the eye is too
large and the hands are treated with an elegance which is more than a little
mannered. The uræus on his brow and the titles engraved by his side show
that he was already king, but we can see that he was still very young, not so
much by the juvenile contours of his body, as by the finger in his mouth and
the lock of hair hanging upon his right shoulder. A statue at Boulak (Fig. 220)
shows signs of carelessness rather than of affectation. In it Rameses is still a
young man. The eyes, the small mouth, the calm and smiling visage, are all
well modelled, but the legs are quite shapeless.
Page 289
Fig. 219.—Portrait of Rameses II. while a child, actual size. Limestone.
In the Louvre.
In the Louvre.
Page 290
Fig. 220.—Statue of Rameses II. Boulak.
Some good bas-reliefs date from this reign. Among others we may name
those prisoners of war bound together, which Champollion copied from the
plinth of a royal statue in the Ramesseum (Fig. 221). The race characteristics
are very well marked. The prognathous negro, with his thick lips, short nose,
sloping brow, and woolly poll; the Asiatic, an Assyrian perhaps, with his
regular, finely-chiselled profile and his knotted head-dress, are easily
recognized. The movement of these two figures is also happy, its only defect
is its want of variety. The same remarks may be applied to those sculptures
on the external walls of the small temple at Abydos, which represent the
soldiers belonging to the legion of the Chardanes or Sharuten, the supposed
ancestors of the Sardinians. Their picturesque costume and singular arms
have been described more than once. A metal stem and a ball between two
Some good bas-reliefs date from this reign. Among others we may name
those prisoners of war bound together, which Champollion copied from the
plinth of a royal statue in the Ramesseum (Fig. 221). The race characteristics
are very well marked. The prognathous negro, with his thick lips, short nose,
sloping brow, and woolly poll; the Asiatic, an Assyrian perhaps, with his
regular, finely-chiselled profile and his knotted head-dress, are easily
recognized. The movement of these two figures is also happy, its only defect
is its want of variety. The same remarks may be applied to those sculptures
on the external walls of the small temple at Abydos, which represent the
soldiers belonging to the legion of the Chardanes or Sharuten, the supposed
ancestors of the Sardinians. Their picturesque costume and singular arms
have been described more than once. A metal stem and a ball between two
Page 291
crescent-shaped horns surmount their helmets; they are tall and slender, with
small heads and short round noses.[240]
The finest statue of Rameses II. that has come down to our time is, perhaps,
the one in the Turin Museum (Fig. 222). Its execution is most careful, and its
state of preservation marvellous. The head is full of individuality and
distinction. One of the king's sons is shown, on a very small scale, leaning
against the foot of his father's seat.
Fig. 221.—Prisoners of war; Ramesseum. From Champollion, pl. 322.
Boulak possesses the upper part of a broken statue of Rameses, which is not
inferior to this in artistic merit. The contours are singularly pure and noble.
Most of those who are authorities on the subject agree that art fell into decay
towards the end of Rameses the second's long reign of sixty-seven years.
Carried away by his mania for building, the king thought more of working
rapidly than well. In his impatience to see his undertakings finished, he must
have begun by using up the excellent architects and decorative artists left to
him by his father. He left them no time to instruct pupils or to form a school,
and so in his old age he found himself compelled to employ mediocrities.
"The steles, inscriptions, and other monuments of the last years of Rameses
II. are to be recognized at a glance by their detestable style," says Mariette.
[241]
With the fine bas-relief at Abydos which is reproduced in our Plate III.,
Vol. I., Mariette contrasts another which is to be found in a neighbouring hall
and represents Rameses II. in the same attitude. In the former, the figure of
small heads and short round noses.[240]
The finest statue of Rameses II. that has come down to our time is, perhaps,
the one in the Turin Museum (Fig. 222). Its execution is most careful, and its
state of preservation marvellous. The head is full of individuality and
distinction. One of the king's sons is shown, on a very small scale, leaning
against the foot of his father's seat.
Fig. 221.—Prisoners of war; Ramesseum. From Champollion, pl. 322.
Boulak possesses the upper part of a broken statue of Rameses, which is not
inferior to this in artistic merit. The contours are singularly pure and noble.
Most of those who are authorities on the subject agree that art fell into decay
towards the end of Rameses the second's long reign of sixty-seven years.
Carried away by his mania for building, the king thought more of working
rapidly than well. In his impatience to see his undertakings finished, he must
have begun by using up the excellent architects and decorative artists left to
him by his father. He left them no time to instruct pupils or to form a school,
and so in his old age he found himself compelled to employ mediocrities.
"The steles, inscriptions, and other monuments of the last years of Rameses
II. are to be recognized at a glance by their detestable style," says Mariette.
[241]
With the fine bas-relief at Abydos which is reproduced in our Plate III.,
Vol. I., Mariette contrasts another which is to be found in a neighbouring hall
and represents Rameses II. in the same attitude. In the former, the figure of
Page 292
Seti is expressed in the most delicate low relief, in the latter the contours of
Rameses are coarsely indicated by a deeply-cut outline.[242] So too M.
Charles Blanc: "As we pass from the tomb of Seti I. to those of Seti II. and
Rameses IV., the decadence of Egyptian art makes itself felt, partly in the
character of the pictures, which no longer display the firmness, the delicacy,
or the significance, of those which we admired in the tomb of the first-named
monarch, partly in the exaggerated relief of the sculptures."[243]
Unless Mariette was mistaken in his identification of one of the most
remarkable fragments in the Boulak Museum, Thebes must have possessed
first-rate artists even at the death of Rameses. M. Charmes thus speaks of the
fragment (Fig. 223) in question: "By a happy inspiration, Mariette has given
the bust of Queen Taia a pendant which equals it in attractiveness, which
surpasses it, perhaps, in delicacy of treatment … it is the head of a king
surmounted by a huge cap which weights it without adding to its beauty. It
formerly belonged to a statue which is now broken up. The young king was
standing; in his left hand he held a ram-headed staff.… It is impossible to
give an idea of the youthful, almost childish grace, of the soft and
melancholy charm in a countenance which seems overspread with the
shadow of some unhappy fate. How did its author contrive to cut from such
an unkindly material as granite, these frank and fearless eyes, that slender
nose with its refined nostrils, and these lips, which are so soft and full of
vitality, that they seem modelled in nothing harder than wax. We are in
presence of one of the finest relics of Egyptian sculpture, and nothing more
exquisite has been produced by the art of any other people. The inscription is
mutilated by a fissure in the granite, but Mariette believes that the statue
represents Menephtah, the son of Rameses II."[244]
Rameses are coarsely indicated by a deeply-cut outline.[242] So too M.
Charles Blanc: "As we pass from the tomb of Seti I. to those of Seti II. and
Rameses IV., the decadence of Egyptian art makes itself felt, partly in the
character of the pictures, which no longer display the firmness, the delicacy,
or the significance, of those which we admired in the tomb of the first-named
monarch, partly in the exaggerated relief of the sculptures."[243]
Unless Mariette was mistaken in his identification of one of the most
remarkable fragments in the Boulak Museum, Thebes must have possessed
first-rate artists even at the death of Rameses. M. Charmes thus speaks of the
fragment (Fig. 223) in question: "By a happy inspiration, Mariette has given
the bust of Queen Taia a pendant which equals it in attractiveness, which
surpasses it, perhaps, in delicacy of treatment … it is the head of a king
surmounted by a huge cap which weights it without adding to its beauty. It
formerly belonged to a statue which is now broken up. The young king was
standing; in his left hand he held a ram-headed staff.… It is impossible to
give an idea of the youthful, almost childish grace, of the soft and
melancholy charm in a countenance which seems overspread with the
shadow of some unhappy fate. How did its author contrive to cut from such
an unkindly material as granite, these frank and fearless eyes, that slender
nose with its refined nostrils, and these lips, which are so soft and full of
vitality, that they seem modelled in nothing harder than wax. We are in
presence of one of the finest relics of Egyptian sculpture, and nothing more
exquisite has been produced by the art of any other people. The inscription is
mutilated by a fissure in the granite, but Mariette believes that the statue
represents Menephtah, the son of Rameses II."[244]
Page 293
Fig. 222.—Statue of Rameses II. in the Turin Museum. Granite. Drawn
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 294
Fig. 223.—Head of Menephtah. Boulak. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
There is a colossal statue of Seti II., the son of this Menephtah, in the Louvre
(Fig. 224). Although the material of which it consists, namely sandstone, is
much less rebellious than granite, the features, which have a family
resemblance to those of Menephtah, are executed in a much more summary
fashion than in the Boulak statue, and yet the execution is that of a man who
knew his business. The modelling of the muscular arms is especially
vigorous.[245]
There is a colossal statue of Seti II., the son of this Menephtah, in the Louvre
(Fig. 224). Although the material of which it consists, namely sandstone, is
much less rebellious than granite, the features, which have a family
resemblance to those of Menephtah, are executed in a much more summary
fashion than in the Boulak statue, and yet the execution is that of a man who
knew his business. The modelling of the muscular arms is especially
vigorous.[245]
Page 295
Fig. 224.—Seti II. Sandstone statue, fifteen feet high. Louvre. Drawn by
Saint-Elme Gautier.
Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 296
There are hardly any royal statues left to us which we can ascribe with
certainty to the twentieth dynasty, but at Medinet-Abou, both on the walls of
the temple and in the Royal Pavilion there are bas-reliefs which show that the
sculpture of Rameses III., the last of the great Theban Pharaohs, knew how to
hold its own among the other glories of the reign. We have given a few
examples of the pictures in which the king is shown as a warrior and as a
high priest (Figs. 172 and 173, Vol. I.); other groups should not be forgotten
in which he is exhibited during his hours of relaxation in his harem, among
his wives and daughters.
Under the last of the Rameses the Egyptians lost their military spirit and, with
it, their foreign possessions in the South and East. Inclosed within its own
frontiers, between the cataracts in the South and the Mediterranean in the
North, and enfeebled by the domination of the priests and scribes, the country
became divided into two kingdoms, that of Thebes, under a theocratic
dynasty, and that of Tanis in which the royal names betray a strong Semitic
influence.
That worship of Asiatic divinities which, though never mentioned in official
monuments, is so often alluded to in the steles, must then have taken hold of
the people of Lower Egypt. Among these were Resheb, the Syrian Apollo;
Kadesh, who bore the name of a famous Syrian fortress, and was but one
form of the great Babylonian goddess Anahit, the Anaitis of the Greeks.
Kadesh is sometimes represented standing upon a lion passant (Fig. 225).
Exhausted by its internal conflicts, Egypt produced few monumental works
for several centuries. Many kings, however, of this barren period, and
especially Sheshonk, have left at Karnak records of their military victories
and of their efforts to re-establish the national unity. After the twenty-fourth
dynasty Egypt became the vassal of that Ethiopian kingdom whose
civilization was no more than a plagiarism from her own. During the half
century that this vassalage endured, the southern conquerors gave full
employment to such artists as Egypt had preserved. The latter were set to
reproduce the features of the Ethiopian kings, but the works which resulted
are very unequal in merit.
Sabaco caused the sides of the great door in the pylon of Rameses at Karnak
to be repaired. The execution of the figures is by no means satisfactory. "The
relief is too bold; the muscular development of the heroes represented is
certainty to the twentieth dynasty, but at Medinet-Abou, both on the walls of
the temple and in the Royal Pavilion there are bas-reliefs which show that the
sculpture of Rameses III., the last of the great Theban Pharaohs, knew how to
hold its own among the other glories of the reign. We have given a few
examples of the pictures in which the king is shown as a warrior and as a
high priest (Figs. 172 and 173, Vol. I.); other groups should not be forgotten
in which he is exhibited during his hours of relaxation in his harem, among
his wives and daughters.
Under the last of the Rameses the Egyptians lost their military spirit and, with
it, their foreign possessions in the South and East. Inclosed within its own
frontiers, between the cataracts in the South and the Mediterranean in the
North, and enfeebled by the domination of the priests and scribes, the country
became divided into two kingdoms, that of Thebes, under a theocratic
dynasty, and that of Tanis in which the royal names betray a strong Semitic
influence.
That worship of Asiatic divinities which, though never mentioned in official
monuments, is so often alluded to in the steles, must then have taken hold of
the people of Lower Egypt. Among these were Resheb, the Syrian Apollo;
Kadesh, who bore the name of a famous Syrian fortress, and was but one
form of the great Babylonian goddess Anahit, the Anaitis of the Greeks.
Kadesh is sometimes represented standing upon a lion passant (Fig. 225).
Exhausted by its internal conflicts, Egypt produced few monumental works
for several centuries. Many kings, however, of this barren period, and
especially Sheshonk, have left at Karnak records of their military victories
and of their efforts to re-establish the national unity. After the twenty-fourth
dynasty Egypt became the vassal of that Ethiopian kingdom whose
civilization was no more than a plagiarism from her own. During the half
century that this vassalage endured, the southern conquerors gave full
employment to such artists as Egypt had preserved. The latter were set to
reproduce the features of the Ethiopian kings, but the works which resulted
are very unequal in merit.
Sabaco caused the sides of the great door in the pylon of Rameses at Karnak
to be repaired. The execution of the figures is by no means satisfactory. "The
relief is too bold; the muscular development of the heroes represented is
Page 297
exaggerated to a meaningless degree; coarse vigour has taken the place of
graceful strength."[246]
Fig. 225.—The Goddess Kadesh; from Wilkinson, Fig. 55.
But although these bas-reliefs, the only ones of the period which have been
encountered, are evidently inspired by the decadence, the Egyptian sculptors
seem to have still preserved much of their skill in portraiture. Mariette
believes that a royal head in the Museum at Cairo represents Tahraka, the
third of the Ethiopian sovereigns. It is disfigured by the loss of the nose. The
remaining features are coarse and strongly marked and the general type is
foreign rather than Egyptian.[247] However this may be, it cannot be denied
that in the alabaster statue of Ameneritis, which was found at Karnak by
Mariette, we have a monument of this phase in Egyptian art remarkable both
for taste and knowledge (Fig. 226).[248]
During the Ethiopian occupation Queen Ameneritis played an important rôle
in the affairs of Egypt. While her brother Sabaco was yet alive she was
dignified with the title of regent, later she brought her rights to the double
crown of Upper and Lower Egypt to the usurper Piankhi, whom she married
and made the father of Shap-en-Ap, who afterwards became the mother of
Psemethek I.
graceful strength."[246]
Fig. 225.—The Goddess Kadesh; from Wilkinson, Fig. 55.
But although these bas-reliefs, the only ones of the period which have been
encountered, are evidently inspired by the decadence, the Egyptian sculptors
seem to have still preserved much of their skill in portraiture. Mariette
believes that a royal head in the Museum at Cairo represents Tahraka, the
third of the Ethiopian sovereigns. It is disfigured by the loss of the nose. The
remaining features are coarse and strongly marked and the general type is
foreign rather than Egyptian.[247] However this may be, it cannot be denied
that in the alabaster statue of Ameneritis, which was found at Karnak by
Mariette, we have a monument of this phase in Egyptian art remarkable both
for taste and knowledge (Fig. 226).[248]
During the Ethiopian occupation Queen Ameneritis played an important rôle
in the affairs of Egypt. While her brother Sabaco was yet alive she was
dignified with the title of regent, later she brought her rights to the double
crown of Upper and Lower Egypt to the usurper Piankhi, whom she married
and made the father of Shap-en-Ap, who afterwards became the mother of
Psemethek I.
Page 298
Fig. 226.—Statue of Ameneritis. Alabaster. Boulak. Drawn by G.
Bénédite.
The head of Ameneritis is covered with the full-bottomed wig worn by
goddesses. She holds a whip in her left hand and a sort of purse in her right;
Bénédite.
The head of Ameneritis is covered with the full-bottomed wig worn by
goddesses. She holds a whip in her left hand and a sort of purse in her right;
Page 299
there are bangles upon her wrist and ankles and the contours of her body are
frankly displayed beneath the long chemise-like robe, which falls almost to
her ankles.
The features are resolute and intelligent rather than beautiful, the squareness
of the lower jaw and the firm line of the mouth being especially significant.
We have, then, every reason to believe this to be a good portrait. Both form
and expression are just what might be expected in a high-born Egyptian
female possessed of sovereign power. The treatment of the body is rather
conventional. The bust, so far as it can be traced under the clinging robe, is
younger than the head, which is that of a woman in middle life. With these
reserves the statue is very pleasing. The arms are a little stiff, but the figure as
a whole is characterized by a chaste and sober elegance. The modelling is not
insisted upon too much, but its undulating contours are discreetly indicated
under the soft though by no means transparent drapery. The whole work is
imbued with the spirit of Saite art, an aftermath which was characterized by
grace and refinement rather than by freedom and power.
§ 5. The Art of the Saite Period.
After the last of the Ramessids the decadence of Egypt was continuous, but in
the seventh century B.C. while the Ethiopians and Assyrians contended for
the possession of the country, it was particularly rapid. Under Psemethek,
however, there was a revival. The foreigners were driven out, the national
unity was re-established, and Syria was again brought under the Egyptian
sceptre. An artistic renascence coincided with this restoration of political well
being, and the princes of the twenty-sixth dynasty set themselves to restore
the monuments which had perished during the intestine troubles and foreign
inroads. Their attention was mainly directed to the architectural monuments
of Lower Egypt; but little now remains of the buildings which drew so much
praise from the Greek travellers. Their sculptured achievements have been
more fortunate. Their statues were sprinkled over the whole country, and
many of them have been found at Memphis, at Thebes, and even among the
ruins of cities which have long ago disappeared. Thus we find that most
Egyptian collections contain figures which may be assigned to this time, or
rather to this school, for the style held its own even as late as the first two or
three Ptolemies. Among them may be mentioned the pastophorus[249] of the
frankly displayed beneath the long chemise-like robe, which falls almost to
her ankles.
The features are resolute and intelligent rather than beautiful, the squareness
of the lower jaw and the firm line of the mouth being especially significant.
We have, then, every reason to believe this to be a good portrait. Both form
and expression are just what might be expected in a high-born Egyptian
female possessed of sovereign power. The treatment of the body is rather
conventional. The bust, so far as it can be traced under the clinging robe, is
younger than the head, which is that of a woman in middle life. With these
reserves the statue is very pleasing. The arms are a little stiff, but the figure as
a whole is characterized by a chaste and sober elegance. The modelling is not
insisted upon too much, but its undulating contours are discreetly indicated
under the soft though by no means transparent drapery. The whole work is
imbued with the spirit of Saite art, an aftermath which was characterized by
grace and refinement rather than by freedom and power.
§ 5. The Art of the Saite Period.
After the last of the Ramessids the decadence of Egypt was continuous, but in
the seventh century B.C. while the Ethiopians and Assyrians contended for
the possession of the country, it was particularly rapid. Under Psemethek,
however, there was a revival. The foreigners were driven out, the national
unity was re-established, and Syria was again brought under the Egyptian
sceptre. An artistic renascence coincided with this restoration of political well
being, and the princes of the twenty-sixth dynasty set themselves to restore
the monuments which had perished during the intestine troubles and foreign
inroads. Their attention was mainly directed to the architectural monuments
of Lower Egypt; but little now remains of the buildings which drew so much
praise from the Greek travellers. Their sculptured achievements have been
more fortunate. Their statues were sprinkled over the whole country, and
many of them have been found at Memphis, at Thebes, and even among the
ruins of cities which have long ago disappeared. Thus we find that most
Egyptian collections contain figures which may be assigned to this time, or
rather to this school, for the style held its own even as late as the first two or
three Ptolemies. Among them may be mentioned the pastophorus[249] of the
Page 300
Vatican, the Arsaphes[250] of the British Museum, the statues of serpentine
found at Sakkarah in the tomb of a certain Psemethek, a high officer under
the thirtieth dynasty,[251] and the fine bronzes of Osiris discovered at
Medinet-Abou.[252] All the bronzes found in the Serapeum belong to the same
category.[253]
By means of secondary remains, such as sphinxes, steles, and scarabs, we can
just contrive to get a glimpse at the features of those brilliant sovereigns who,
after dazzling Egypt and the surrounding countries early in the seventh
century B.C., fell before the first attacks of the Persians.[254] Many of their
effigies must have been destroyed by the invaders, either at their first
conquest, or during the three subsequent occasions when they were
compelled to re-establish their ascendency by force. A similar fate must have
overtaken the statues of Inarôs and Nectanebo, who succeeded for a time in
restoring the independence of their country. For the whole of this period the
royal iconography is much more scanty than for the two Theban empires.
We shall not dwell upon the figure in green basalt which stands in the middle
of the Salle Historique in the Louvre. We know from the inscription upon its
girdle that it represents the king Psemethek II. The execution is careful, but
the work has suffered great mutilation, the head and parts of the limbs being
modern restorations.[255] On the other hand, the two little bronze sphinxes
which stand upon the chimney-piece in the same room are in excellent
condition. According to De Rougé their heads reproduce the features of
Ouaphra, the Apries of the Greeks (Fig. 227).[256] In the ground-floor gallery
there are several sphinxes which, according to their inscriptions, should
include portraits of some of those princes who between 527 and 332 B.C.
temporarily freed Egypt from the Persian yoke; Nepherites, Achoris,
Nectanebo, &c. None of them, however, show enough individuality in their
features to suggest that they were copied from nature. Their heads are all
clothed indiscriminately in the same elegance of contour, and in looking at
them we find ourselves far indeed from the admirable portraits of the early
empire, or even from that statue of Ameneritis which closes the series of
royal effigies.
found at Sakkarah in the tomb of a certain Psemethek, a high officer under
the thirtieth dynasty,[251] and the fine bronzes of Osiris discovered at
Medinet-Abou.[252] All the bronzes found in the Serapeum belong to the same
category.[253]
By means of secondary remains, such as sphinxes, steles, and scarabs, we can
just contrive to get a glimpse at the features of those brilliant sovereigns who,
after dazzling Egypt and the surrounding countries early in the seventh
century B.C., fell before the first attacks of the Persians.[254] Many of their
effigies must have been destroyed by the invaders, either at their first
conquest, or during the three subsequent occasions when they were
compelled to re-establish their ascendency by force. A similar fate must have
overtaken the statues of Inarôs and Nectanebo, who succeeded for a time in
restoring the independence of their country. For the whole of this period the
royal iconography is much more scanty than for the two Theban empires.
We shall not dwell upon the figure in green basalt which stands in the middle
of the Salle Historique in the Louvre. We know from the inscription upon its
girdle that it represents the king Psemethek II. The execution is careful, but
the work has suffered great mutilation, the head and parts of the limbs being
modern restorations.[255] On the other hand, the two little bronze sphinxes
which stand upon the chimney-piece in the same room are in excellent
condition. According to De Rougé their heads reproduce the features of
Ouaphra, the Apries of the Greeks (Fig. 227).[256] In the ground-floor gallery
there are several sphinxes which, according to their inscriptions, should
include portraits of some of those princes who between 527 and 332 B.C.
temporarily freed Egypt from the Persian yoke; Nepherites, Achoris,
Nectanebo, &c. None of them, however, show enough individuality in their
features to suggest that they were copied from nature. Their heads are all
clothed indiscriminately in the same elegance of contour, and in looking at
them we find ourselves far indeed from the admirable portraits of the early
empire, or even from that statue of Ameneritis which closes the series of
royal effigies.
Page 301
Fig. 227.—Bronze Sphinx. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
The chief pre-occupation of the Saite sculptor was to obtain suppleness of
modelling and an apparent finish of execution, both of which, in his opinion,
were effective in proportion as the material used was hard and unyielding.
[257]
His chisel was employed much more than formerly in fusing together the
various layers of muscle which form the walls of the human structure. He did
not lay so much stress on the skeleton, or on the leading lines of the figure, as
his early predecessors. His care was mainly devoted to rendering the subtle
outward curves and contours, and this he often carries to such excess as to
produce a result which is simply wearisome from its want of energy and
accent. There is a group at Boulak upon which too much praise has been
lavished, to which this stricture thoroughly applies. It represents one of the
Psemetheks, clothed in a long robe, standing before the goddess Hathor who
is in the form of a cow. The head and torso are finely chiselled, but, through
an exaggerated desire for elegance, the arms have been made far too long,
and the divine cow is entirely without truth or expression. This defect is still
more conspicuous in the two figures of Isis and Osiris that were found with
this group. Their execution has reached the extremity of coldness through the
excessive use of file and sand-paper.[258]
The chief pre-occupation of the Saite sculptor was to obtain suppleness of
modelling and an apparent finish of execution, both of which, in his opinion,
were effective in proportion as the material used was hard and unyielding.
[257]
His chisel was employed much more than formerly in fusing together the
various layers of muscle which form the walls of the human structure. He did
not lay so much stress on the skeleton, or on the leading lines of the figure, as
his early predecessors. His care was mainly devoted to rendering the subtle
outward curves and contours, and this he often carries to such excess as to
produce a result which is simply wearisome from its want of energy and
accent. There is a group at Boulak upon which too much praise has been
lavished, to which this stricture thoroughly applies. It represents one of the
Psemetheks, clothed in a long robe, standing before the goddess Hathor who
is in the form of a cow. The head and torso are finely chiselled, but, through
an exaggerated desire for elegance, the arms have been made far too long,
and the divine cow is entirely without truth or expression. This defect is still
more conspicuous in the two figures of Isis and Osiris that were found with
this group. Their execution has reached the extremity of coldness through the
excessive use of file and sand-paper.[258]
Page 302
Fig. 228.—Statue of Nekht-har-heb, Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme
Gautier.
Sometimes the sculptor knows where to leave off, and the result is better. The
sandstone statue of Nekht-har-heb, in the Louvre, is one of the best
Gautier.
Sometimes the sculptor knows where to leave off, and the result is better. The
sandstone statue of Nekht-har-heb, in the Louvre, is one of the best
Page 303
productions of the Saite artists (Fig. 228).[259] The execution of hands and
feet is sketchy, and the countenance is without much expression, but the
attitudes of the arms and legs, the modelling of the trunk, and the pose of the
head, unite breadth with facility and dignity to such a degree, that we are
reminded, for a moment, of a Greek marble. In spite of the singular attitude
there is much in the execution which recalls a much more ancient work, the
statue of Ouah-ab-ra, which dates from the twenty-sixth dynasty (Fig. 51,
Vol. I.)[260]
feet is sketchy, and the countenance is without much expression, but the
attitudes of the arms and legs, the modelling of the trunk, and the pose of the
head, unite breadth with facility and dignity to such a degree, that we are
reminded, for a moment, of a Greek marble. In spite of the singular attitude
there is much in the execution which recalls a much more ancient work, the
statue of Ouah-ab-ra, which dates from the twenty-sixth dynasty (Fig. 51,
Vol. I.)[260]
Page 304
Fig. 229—Statue of Horus, Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Not less remarkable is the headless statue of a personage called Horus, which
dates from about the same period (Fig. 229).[261] It is of black granite and yet
both limbs and torso are as delicately modelled as if they were of the softest
limestone. The attitude of the arms is unusually easy and natural, and the
whole figure is freer and less constrained than anything we find in the ancient
statues. There is, too, a certain spirit of innovation discoverable in the feet.
The toes are well separated and slightly bent, instead of being flat and close
together.
Fig. 230.—Bas-relief from Memphis. Length forty inches, height ten
inches, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Not less remarkable is the headless statue of a personage called Horus, which
dates from about the same period (Fig. 229).[261] It is of black granite and yet
both limbs and torso are as delicately modelled as if they were of the softest
limestone. The attitude of the arms is unusually easy and natural, and the
whole figure is freer and less constrained than anything we find in the ancient
statues. There is, too, a certain spirit of innovation discoverable in the feet.
The toes are well separated and slightly bent, instead of being flat and close
together.
Fig. 230.—Bas-relief from Memphis. Length forty inches, height ten
inches, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Page 305
Fig. 231.—Continuation of Fig. 230.
The same style, taste, and general tendency are to be found in the steles and
in the decoration of the tombs. In a few sepulchral bas-reliefs we can detect a
desire to imitate the compositions on the walls of the mastabas. Such
attempts were quite natural, and we need feel no surprise that the Egyptians
in their decline should have turned to the artistic form and motives which had
been invented in their distant and vigorous youth. The old age of many other
races has shown the same tendency in their arts and literature.
The beautiful band of sculpture in low relief which was found, together with
another very similar to it, at Mitrahineh, upon the site of ancient Memphis,
might easily be taken at first sight for a production of the early centuries
(Figs. 230 and 231). It formed the lintel to the door of a house dating from
the Greek or Roman period, for which purpose it had doubtless been carried
off from some tomb.[262] At one end a dignified individual is seated upon a
low-backed chair, in his left hand he holds the long wand of office, in his
right a ribbon. His name and titles are engraved in front of him: he was a
writer, and was called Psemethek-nefer-sam. A scribe bends respectfully
before him and introduces a procession of men, women, and children, who
bring offerings of various kinds, jars of liquid, coffers, flowers, birds, and
calves led by a string. It is the favourite theme of the mastabas over again.
The attitudes are similar, but the execution is different. There is a lack of
The same style, taste, and general tendency are to be found in the steles and
in the decoration of the tombs. In a few sepulchral bas-reliefs we can detect a
desire to imitate the compositions on the walls of the mastabas. Such
attempts were quite natural, and we need feel no surprise that the Egyptians
in their decline should have turned to the artistic form and motives which had
been invented in their distant and vigorous youth. The old age of many other
races has shown the same tendency in their arts and literature.
The beautiful band of sculpture in low relief which was found, together with
another very similar to it, at Mitrahineh, upon the site of ancient Memphis,
might easily be taken at first sight for a production of the early centuries
(Figs. 230 and 231). It formed the lintel to the door of a house dating from
the Greek or Roman period, for which purpose it had doubtless been carried
off from some tomb.[262] At one end a dignified individual is seated upon a
low-backed chair, in his left hand he holds the long wand of office, in his
right a ribbon. His name and titles are engraved in front of him: he was a
writer, and was called Psemethek-nefer-sam. A scribe bends respectfully
before him and introduces a procession of men, women, and children, who
bring offerings of various kinds, jars of liquid, coffers, flowers, birds, and
calves led by a string. It is the favourite theme of the mastabas over again.
The attitudes are similar, but the execution is different. There is a lack of
Page 306
firmness and rotundity in the modelling, and considerably more striving after
elegance. The children especially should be noticed; the fashion in which
they all turn towards their elders betrays a desire on the part of the artist to
give freshness and piquancy to his composition.
Most of those bronze figures of the gods, which are so plentiful in the
European museums, date from this period. We have reproduced several of
them in our chapter upon the Egyptian pantheon (Figs. 34-37, Vol. I.). With
the advent of Alexander and his successors, a number of Greek artists became
domiciled in Egypt; they employed their talents in the service of the priests
and scribes without attempting in any way to affect the religion, the
institutions, or the habits of the people. The Egyptian artists were heirs to the
oldest of all civilizations, their traditions were so firmly established, and their
professional education was so systematic, that they could hardly consent to
modify their ideas at the first contact with a race whom they secretly
despised, although they were compelled to admit their political and military
supremacy. Many years had to pass before Egyptian sculpture, and with it the
written character and language, became debased as we find it in certain
Roman and Ptolemaic temples. Several generations had to come and go
before a hybrid Egypto-Greek style, a style which preserved the most
unhappy forms and conventions of Egyptian art while it lost all its native
freshness and originality, imposed itself finally upon the country.
The worst of the Saite statues are still national in style. It is an Egyptian soul
that inhabits their bodies, that breathes through the features, and places its
mark upon every detail of the personality represented. This is no longer the
case with the figures which, from the time of Augustus to that of Hadrian,
seem to have been manufactured in such quantities for the embellishment of
Roman villas. Costumes, accessories, and attitudes are all Egyptian, but the
model upon which they are displayed is Greek. Until the beginning of the
present century archæologists were deceived by the masquerade, and were
unable to distinguish between pasticcios, many of which may not even have
been made in Egypt, and the really authentic works of the unspoiled Egyptian
artists. Such mistakes are no longer probable, but even now it is difficult to
say exactly where the art of Sais was blended into that of the Ptolemies.
When there is no epigraph upon which to depend the most skilful
archæologist may here make mistakes.
elegance. The children especially should be noticed; the fashion in which
they all turn towards their elders betrays a desire on the part of the artist to
give freshness and piquancy to his composition.
Most of those bronze figures of the gods, which are so plentiful in the
European museums, date from this period. We have reproduced several of
them in our chapter upon the Egyptian pantheon (Figs. 34-37, Vol. I.). With
the advent of Alexander and his successors, a number of Greek artists became
domiciled in Egypt; they employed their talents in the service of the priests
and scribes without attempting in any way to affect the religion, the
institutions, or the habits of the people. The Egyptian artists were heirs to the
oldest of all civilizations, their traditions were so firmly established, and their
professional education was so systematic, that they could hardly consent to
modify their ideas at the first contact with a race whom they secretly
despised, although they were compelled to admit their political and military
supremacy. Many years had to pass before Egyptian sculpture, and with it the
written character and language, became debased as we find it in certain
Roman and Ptolemaic temples. Several generations had to come and go
before a hybrid Egypto-Greek style, a style which preserved the most
unhappy forms and conventions of Egyptian art while it lost all its native
freshness and originality, imposed itself finally upon the country.
The worst of the Saite statues are still national in style. It is an Egyptian soul
that inhabits their bodies, that breathes through the features, and places its
mark upon every detail of the personality represented. This is no longer the
case with the figures which, from the time of Augustus to that of Hadrian,
seem to have been manufactured in such quantities for the embellishment of
Roman villas. Costumes, accessories, and attitudes are all Egyptian, but the
model upon which they are displayed is Greek. Until the beginning of the
present century archæologists were deceived by the masquerade, and were
unable to distinguish between pasticcios, many of which may not even have
been made in Egypt, and the really authentic works of the unspoiled Egyptian
artists. Such mistakes are no longer probable, but even now it is difficult to
say exactly where the art of Sais was blended into that of the Ptolemies.
When there is no epigraph upon which to depend the most skilful
archæologist may here make mistakes.
Page 307
There are, however, a few figures in which the influence of the Greek works
brought to Alexandria by the descendants of Lagus, may be detected in an
incipient stage. The motives and attributes are still purely Egyptian, but the
modelling, the carriage of the head, and the attitude are modified, and we see,
almost by intuition, that the Greek style is about to smother the Egyptian.
This evidence of transition is, we think, very marked in a bronze group of Isis
suckling Horus in the Louvre (Fig. 55, Vol. I.), and in Horus enthroned
supported by lions (Fig. 232). And yet the difference between these things
and those which are frankly Græco-Roman is great, and at once strikes those
who come upon the latter in the galleries of Boulak, where they are mixed up
with so many creations of Egyptian genius. The distinction is equally obvious
in works produced by foreign sculptors established in Egypt, and in those by
Egyptians working under Greek masters. Look at the head found at Tanis,
which is reproduced both in full face and profile in Fig. 233. It is of black
granite, like so many Egyptian statues, but we feel at once that there is
nothing Egyptian about it but the material. It is obviously a portrait of a man
of mature age; the face is beardless, the curly hair cut short. During the Greek
and Roman period the temple of San was enriched by the statues of private
individuals, and doubtless this fragment belonged to one of them. Tradition
says that the statue was placed in front of a pier with which it was connected
by the Ionic moulding which is still to be traced upon the right side of the
head. With this exception the treatment is that of the best Augustan period.
The person represented may very well have been one of the first Roman
governors of Egypt.[263]
brought to Alexandria by the descendants of Lagus, may be detected in an
incipient stage. The motives and attributes are still purely Egyptian, but the
modelling, the carriage of the head, and the attitude are modified, and we see,
almost by intuition, that the Greek style is about to smother the Egyptian.
This evidence of transition is, we think, very marked in a bronze group of Isis
suckling Horus in the Louvre (Fig. 55, Vol. I.), and in Horus enthroned
supported by lions (Fig. 232). And yet the difference between these things
and those which are frankly Græco-Roman is great, and at once strikes those
who come upon the latter in the galleries of Boulak, where they are mixed up
with so many creations of Egyptian genius. The distinction is equally obvious
in works produced by foreign sculptors established in Egypt, and in those by
Egyptians working under Greek masters. Look at the head found at Tanis,
which is reproduced both in full face and profile in Fig. 233. It is of black
granite, like so many Egyptian statues, but we feel at once that there is
nothing Egyptian about it but the material. It is obviously a portrait of a man
of mature age; the face is beardless, the curly hair cut short. During the Greek
and Roman period the temple of San was enriched by the statues of private
individuals, and doubtless this fragment belonged to one of them. Tradition
says that the statue was placed in front of a pier with which it was connected
by the Ionic moulding which is still to be traced upon the right side of the
head. With this exception the treatment is that of the best Augustan period.
The person represented may very well have been one of the first Roman
governors of Egypt.[263]
Page 308
Fig. 232.—Horus enthroned. Bronze. Louvre.
Page 309
Fig. 233.—Roman head, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
§ 6. The Principal Themes of Egyptian Sculpture.
When we come to study Greek sculpture we shall find that the masterpieces
in which its highest powers are displayed, are statues of divinities, such as the
Athené of the Parthenon and the Olympian Zeus. In our review of the
Egyptian works of the same kind we have not had occasion to call attention
to a single god or goddess. Their representation was not, as in Greece, the
aim of the highest art. The figures of deities were, indeed, numerous enough
in Egypt, but the national artist did not show such originality in their
conception as in those of kings and private individuals. This phenomenon
may seem inconsistent with what we know of the piety of the Egyptians and
the place occupied by religion in their daily life; it is to be easily explained,
however, by the origin of Egyptian sculpture and the part which the statues of
the gods played in it.
Egyptian art began with portraiture. As soon as it was capable of carving and
painting stone it was realistic, not so much by instinct and taste as by duty.
After such a beginning it found great difficulty in raising itself above
intelligent and faithful reproduction of fact. Such inventive powers as it
possessed were spent in creating a type for the royal majesty, and in that case
§ 6. The Principal Themes of Egyptian Sculpture.
When we come to study Greek sculpture we shall find that the masterpieces
in which its highest powers are displayed, are statues of divinities, such as the
Athené of the Parthenon and the Olympian Zeus. In our review of the
Egyptian works of the same kind we have not had occasion to call attention
to a single god or goddess. Their representation was not, as in Greece, the
aim of the highest art. The figures of deities were, indeed, numerous enough
in Egypt, but the national artist did not show such originality in their
conception as in those of kings and private individuals. This phenomenon
may seem inconsistent with what we know of the piety of the Egyptians and
the place occupied by religion in their daily life; it is to be easily explained,
however, by the origin of Egyptian sculpture and the part which the statues of
the gods played in it.
Egyptian art began with portraiture. As soon as it was capable of carving and
painting stone it was realistic, not so much by instinct and taste as by duty.
After such a beginning it found great difficulty in raising itself above
intelligent and faithful reproduction of fact. Such inventive powers as it
possessed were spent in creating a type for the royal majesty, and in that case
Page 310
it had concrete reality as a starting point. When it came to representing the
gods it had no such help. It could not fall back upon fidelity to fact, and,
unlike the Greeks of after ages, it was unable to give them distinction by the
superior nobility and dignity of their physical contours and features. It was
reduced to differentiating them by the variety of their attributes. By such a
proceeding it obtained an almost infinite number of divine types, but each
type was only recognizable on condition that its pose and accessories, once
determined, should remain without material change. There was none of the
mobility and elasticity which distinguishes the dwellers on the Greek
Olympus, as may be clearly seen by comparing the poverty and want of
variety of a Horus or a Bast with the infinite diversity of an Apollo or an
Artemis.
When the Egyptian sculptor had to endow the national gods with concrete
forms he found himself, then, in a condition much less favourable than that of
his Greek successors. This position, too, was materially affected by the fact
that the best site in the temple, the centre of the naos, was reserved for a
symbol, sometimes living, sometimes inanimate, which was looked upon as
the true representative of the god. It was to this symbol, jealously hidden
from all but the high priest and the king, that the prayers of the faithful were
addressed. It has been called a survival from the early fetish worship. Perhaps
it was so. But at present we are only concerned with its unfortunate results
upon artistic development. His statues being excluded from the place of
honour, the sculptor was not, as in Greece, stimulated to combine all the
qualities ascribed by the nation to its gods in one supreme effort of his
knowledge and skill; he was not raised above himself by the desire to
produce a work which might give point to the magnificence of a temple and
augment the piety of a race.
Mariette was right in insisting upon this difference. "The temples," he says,
"hardly contain a statue which is not votive. Sometimes these statues are
found irregularly distributed about the foundations or in the sand, sometimes
they are of large size and are arranged along the walls, but they hardly ever
exceed the life-size of a man. I cannot say that each temple had a figure
which could be specially called the statue of that temple. The divine images
were plentiful enough; but each had its own particular ministration. In the
prayers addressed to it the name of its consecrator was always included. Such
gods it had no such help. It could not fall back upon fidelity to fact, and,
unlike the Greeks of after ages, it was unable to give them distinction by the
superior nobility and dignity of their physical contours and features. It was
reduced to differentiating them by the variety of their attributes. By such a
proceeding it obtained an almost infinite number of divine types, but each
type was only recognizable on condition that its pose and accessories, once
determined, should remain without material change. There was none of the
mobility and elasticity which distinguishes the dwellers on the Greek
Olympus, as may be clearly seen by comparing the poverty and want of
variety of a Horus or a Bast with the infinite diversity of an Apollo or an
Artemis.
When the Egyptian sculptor had to endow the national gods with concrete
forms he found himself, then, in a condition much less favourable than that of
his Greek successors. This position, too, was materially affected by the fact
that the best site in the temple, the centre of the naos, was reserved for a
symbol, sometimes living, sometimes inanimate, which was looked upon as
the true representative of the god. It was to this symbol, jealously hidden
from all but the high priest and the king, that the prayers of the faithful were
addressed. It has been called a survival from the early fetish worship. Perhaps
it was so. But at present we are only concerned with its unfortunate results
upon artistic development. His statues being excluded from the place of
honour, the sculptor was not, as in Greece, stimulated to combine all the
qualities ascribed by the nation to its gods in one supreme effort of his
knowledge and skill; he was not raised above himself by the desire to
produce a work which might give point to the magnificence of a temple and
augment the piety of a race.
Mariette was right in insisting upon this difference. "The temples," he says,
"hardly contain a statue which is not votive. Sometimes these statues are
found irregularly distributed about the foundations or in the sand, sometimes
they are of large size and are arranged along the walls, but they hardly ever
exceed the life-size of a man. I cannot say that each temple had a figure
which could be specially called the statue of that temple. The divine images
were plentiful enough; but each had its own particular ministration. In the
prayers addressed to it the name of its consecrator was always included. Such
Page 311
a thing as a statue forming the central object of a temple and representing its
god without votive appropriation did not, perhaps, exist."[264]
Figures of Sekhet, the goddess with the head of a lioness, have been
discovered in hundreds in the building at Karnak known as the Temple of
Mouth, or Maut. This mine of statues has been worked ever since 1760, and
all the museums of Europe have shared the results.[265] Being so numerous
these statues could not have reached great excellence of execution. They
were devotional objects produced in mechanical fashion, and there is little
chance of finding a masterpiece of sculpture among them. In an inscription at
Karnak we find Thothmes III. boasting of having endowed the temple with a
statue of Amen "such that no other temple could show one equal to it."[266]
This Amen must have excelled its rivals in richness of material and in
perfection of polish. It is unlikely that it was much superior to them in
nobility or true beauty.
The position occupied by the statue in the cella of a Greek temple finds
something like a parallel, however, in the rock-cut temples of Nubia. We
allude to these groups of three or four figures, carved in the living rock,
which have been found seated in the farthest recesses at Ipsamboul, Derri,
and elsewhere. These figures are now so mutilated that their merit as works
of art cannot be decided.
We may safely say that if the temples proper, such as those of Karnak and
Luxor, had contained master-statues corresponding in any way to those of the
Greeks, they would have been of colossal size. But although the soil of
Thebes is almost paved with the fragments of royal colossi, not a single
vestige of any gigantic statue of Amen has ever been discovered. All that we
know of those few divine statues to which special veneration was paid
excludes any idea of size exceeding that of man. The statues of Amen and
Khons, at Thebes and Napata, which nodded their approval when consulted
by the king as to his future plans, were certainly not colossi.[267] And as for
the figure of Khons, which took a voyage into Syria to cure the sister-in-law
of one of the latter Ramessids, we can hardly believe it was more than a
statuette.[268]
In spite of their number the statues of the gods must have attracted much less
attention than those of the kings. The Pharaoh who built a temple filled it
with his own effigies; his colossi sat before the gate, they helped to form
god without votive appropriation did not, perhaps, exist."[264]
Figures of Sekhet, the goddess with the head of a lioness, have been
discovered in hundreds in the building at Karnak known as the Temple of
Mouth, or Maut. This mine of statues has been worked ever since 1760, and
all the museums of Europe have shared the results.[265] Being so numerous
these statues could not have reached great excellence of execution. They
were devotional objects produced in mechanical fashion, and there is little
chance of finding a masterpiece of sculpture among them. In an inscription at
Karnak we find Thothmes III. boasting of having endowed the temple with a
statue of Amen "such that no other temple could show one equal to it."[266]
This Amen must have excelled its rivals in richness of material and in
perfection of polish. It is unlikely that it was much superior to them in
nobility or true beauty.
The position occupied by the statue in the cella of a Greek temple finds
something like a parallel, however, in the rock-cut temples of Nubia. We
allude to these groups of three or four figures, carved in the living rock,
which have been found seated in the farthest recesses at Ipsamboul, Derri,
and elsewhere. These figures are now so mutilated that their merit as works
of art cannot be decided.
We may safely say that if the temples proper, such as those of Karnak and
Luxor, had contained master-statues corresponding in any way to those of the
Greeks, they would have been of colossal size. But although the soil of
Thebes is almost paved with the fragments of royal colossi, not a single
vestige of any gigantic statue of Amen has ever been discovered. All that we
know of those few divine statues to which special veneration was paid
excludes any idea of size exceeding that of man. The statues of Amen and
Khons, at Thebes and Napata, which nodded their approval when consulted
by the king as to his future plans, were certainly not colossi.[267] And as for
the figure of Khons, which took a voyage into Syria to cure the sister-in-law
of one of the latter Ramessids, we can hardly believe it was more than a
statuette.[268]
In spite of their number the statues of the gods must have attracted much less
attention than those of the kings. The Pharaoh who built a temple filled it
with his own effigies; his colossi sat before the gate, they helped to form
Page 312
those structural units which we call Osiride piers, and figures of smaller size
were ranged under the porticos. In that part of the Great Temple at Karnak
which dates from the eighteenth dynasty, statues of Thothmes III. alone have
been found to the number of several dozens; their broken fragments may be
identified in every corner.[269]
Among the countless votive offerings with which a great building like that at
Karnak was filled, there were a few statues of private individuals. "The right
to erect statues in the temples belonged (as we should say) to the crown. We
find therefore that most of the private statues found in the sacred inclosures
are inscribed with a special formula: 'Granted, by the king's favour, to so and
so, the son of so and so....' Permission to place a statue in a temple was only
given as a reward for services rendered. The temple might be either that of
the favoured individual's native town, or one for which he had peculiar
veneration.... Civil and foreign wars, the decay of cities, and the destruction
of idols by the Christians, have combined to render statues of private persons
from public temples of very rare occurrence in our collections."[270]
The tombs were the proper places for private statues; we have seen that at
Memphis they were set up in the courtyards and hidden in the serdabs, that at
Thebes they were placed, either upright or sitting, in the depths of the
hypogea.[271]
Figures in the round, whether gods, kings, or private persons, were always
isolated. They were sometimes placed one by the side of the other, but they
never formed groups in the strict sense of the word. In the whole of Egyptian
sculpture there is but one group, that of the father, mother, and children; and
this was repeated without material change for thousands of years. The
Egyptian artist can hardly be said to have composed or invented it; it was, so
to speak, imposed upon him by nature. Those groups which became so
numerous in Hellenic art as soon as it arrived at maturity, in which various
forms and opposed or complementary movements were so combined as to
produce a just equilibrium, are absolutely wanting in Egypt.
The Greeks were the first of the antique races to love the human form for
itself, for the inherent beauty of its lines and attitudes. Certain traces of this
sentiment are to be found in the decorative art of Egypt, in which motives
that are at once ingenious and picturesque are often met with, but it is almost
entirely absent from sculpture. Modelled forms are hardly ever anything more
were ranged under the porticos. In that part of the Great Temple at Karnak
which dates from the eighteenth dynasty, statues of Thothmes III. alone have
been found to the number of several dozens; their broken fragments may be
identified in every corner.[269]
Among the countless votive offerings with which a great building like that at
Karnak was filled, there were a few statues of private individuals. "The right
to erect statues in the temples belonged (as we should say) to the crown. We
find therefore that most of the private statues found in the sacred inclosures
are inscribed with a special formula: 'Granted, by the king's favour, to so and
so, the son of so and so....' Permission to place a statue in a temple was only
given as a reward for services rendered. The temple might be either that of
the favoured individual's native town, or one for which he had peculiar
veneration.... Civil and foreign wars, the decay of cities, and the destruction
of idols by the Christians, have combined to render statues of private persons
from public temples of very rare occurrence in our collections."[270]
The tombs were the proper places for private statues; we have seen that at
Memphis they were set up in the courtyards and hidden in the serdabs, that at
Thebes they were placed, either upright or sitting, in the depths of the
hypogea.[271]
Figures in the round, whether gods, kings, or private persons, were always
isolated. They were sometimes placed one by the side of the other, but they
never formed groups in the strict sense of the word. In the whole of Egyptian
sculpture there is but one group, that of the father, mother, and children; and
this was repeated without material change for thousands of years. The
Egyptian artist can hardly be said to have composed or invented it; it was, so
to speak, imposed upon him by nature. Those groups which became so
numerous in Hellenic art as soon as it arrived at maturity, in which various
forms and opposed or complementary movements were so combined as to
produce a just equilibrium, are absolutely wanting in Egypt.
The Greeks were the first of the antique races to love the human form for
itself, for the inherent beauty of its lines and attitudes. Certain traces of this
sentiment are to be found in the decorative art of Egypt, in which motives
that are at once ingenious and picturesque are often met with, but it is almost
entirely absent from sculpture. Modelled forms are hardly ever anything more
Page 313
than skilful tracings from reality. In the sepulchral system the sculptor
supplies relays of bodies, stone mummies which may take the place of the
embalmed corpse when it is worn out; in the temples his business is to set up
concrete symbols of an idea, emblems of one of the divine powers, or of the
majesty of Pharaoh.
The infinite number of combinations which may be obtained by the
association of several persons of different ages and sexes in one action,
makes the group the highest achievement of an art at once passionate and
scientific, such as the sculpture of Greece and Florence. To such a height the
Egyptians never soared, but they well understood the more or less
conventional methods which are at the command of the sculptor. They
produced figures in the round by thousands; most of them were smaller than
nature, many were life-size, while a few surpassed it with an audacity to
which no parallel can be found elsewhere. Here and there we find a figure, no
more than some three or four inches high, to which its maker has contrived to
give a freedom of attitude, a breadth of execution, and a nobility of presence
which are quite astonishing. Look, for instance, at the reproduction of a little
wooden statuette which borders this page (Fig. 234); it is identical in size
with the original. Its date is unknown, but we should be inclined to refer it to
the Ancient Empire. The air of this little personage is so proud and dignified
that he might well be a reduction from a colossus.
Fig. 234.—Wooden statuette belonging to M. Delaroche-Vernet. Drawn
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
supplies relays of bodies, stone mummies which may take the place of the
embalmed corpse when it is worn out; in the temples his business is to set up
concrete symbols of an idea, emblems of one of the divine powers, or of the
majesty of Pharaoh.
The infinite number of combinations which may be obtained by the
association of several persons of different ages and sexes in one action,
makes the group the highest achievement of an art at once passionate and
scientific, such as the sculpture of Greece and Florence. To such a height the
Egyptians never soared, but they well understood the more or less
conventional methods which are at the command of the sculptor. They
produced figures in the round by thousands; most of them were smaller than
nature, many were life-size, while a few surpassed it with an audacity to
which no parallel can be found elsewhere. Here and there we find a figure, no
more than some three or four inches high, to which its maker has contrived to
give a freedom of attitude, a breadth of execution, and a nobility of presence
which are quite astonishing. Look, for instance, at the reproduction of a little
wooden statuette which borders this page (Fig. 234); it is identical in size
with the original. Its date is unknown, but we should be inclined to refer it to
the Ancient Empire. The air of this little personage is so proud and dignified
that he might well be a reduction from a colossus.
Fig. 234.—Wooden statuette belonging to M. Delaroche-Vernet. Drawn
by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 314
What we call busts, that is, figures which consist of nothing but the head and
the upper part of the trunk, were not unknown to the Egyptians. All the
descriptions mention the existence in the Ramesseum of two colossal busts of
Rameses II., the one in black, the other in a parti-coloured black and red,
granite.
It would seem that all the colossi were of stone, especially of the harder
kinds. Wood was used for life-size figures and statuettes, particularly the
latter. Terra-cotta coated with enamel was hardly used for anything but very
small figures. It was the same with bronze, which was seldom employed in
large figures. We do not know whether the Egyptians in their days of
independence made bronzes as large and larger than life, as the Greeks
constantly did. One of the largest pieces known is the Horus in the Posno
collection (Fig. 44, Vol. I.). It is about three feet high. It forms a single
casting with the exception of the arms, which were added afterwards. The
finish of the head is remarkable, and the eyes appear to have been encrusted
with enamel or some other precious material, which has since disappeared.
The hands seem to have held some vessel for pouring libations which, being
of silver or gold, must have been detached at a very early period. The
execution recalls the finest style of the eighteenth dynasty.
the upper part of the trunk, were not unknown to the Egyptians. All the
descriptions mention the existence in the Ramesseum of two colossal busts of
Rameses II., the one in black, the other in a parti-coloured black and red,
granite.
It would seem that all the colossi were of stone, especially of the harder
kinds. Wood was used for life-size figures and statuettes, particularly the
latter. Terra-cotta coated with enamel was hardly used for anything but very
small figures. It was the same with bronze, which was seldom employed in
large figures. We do not know whether the Egyptians in their days of
independence made bronzes as large and larger than life, as the Greeks
constantly did. One of the largest pieces known is the Horus in the Posno
collection (Fig. 44, Vol. I.). It is about three feet high. It forms a single
casting with the exception of the arms, which were added afterwards. The
finish of the head is remarkable, and the eyes appear to have been encrusted
with enamel or some other precious material, which has since disappeared.
The hands seem to have held some vessel for pouring libations which, being
of silver or gold, must have been detached at a very early period. The
execution recalls the finest style of the eighteenth dynasty.
Page 315
Fig. 235.—Bronze cat. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
The highest use to which sculpture can be put is the rendering of the human
figure, but Egyptian sculptors did not disdain to employ their chisels upon the
portraiture of those animals which were objects of devotion in their country.
We possess excellent representations of most of these; the figure of a cat
which we take from the cases of the Louvre is an average specimen (Fig.
235). The lion was equally well rendered. In the bas-reliefs we sometimes
find him turned into a sort of heraldic animal by the addition of emblematic
designs upon his flanks and shoulders (Fig. 236); but, even where he is most
simplified, his outlines and general movements are truthful in the main.
Sometimes we find him in full relief, modelled with singular power and
sincerity. This is the case with a bronze lion which must once have formed a
part of some kind of padlock, if we may judge from the few links of a chain
which are still attached to it.[272] Although this animal bears the ovals of
Apries, and therefore belongs to the lowest period of Egyptian art, its style is
vigorous in no common degree.
Fig. 236.—Lion, from a Theban bas-relief; from Prisse.
The Egyptians were as much impressed as other eastern peoples by the
strength and beauty of these animals, which in their days must have
abounded in the deserts of Syria and Ethiopia. They were chosen to be the
emblems of royal courage;[273] a lion's head was placed upon the shoulders of
Hobs, and that of a lioness upon the shoulders of Sekhet. Finally it was from
The highest use to which sculpture can be put is the rendering of the human
figure, but Egyptian sculptors did not disdain to employ their chisels upon the
portraiture of those animals which were objects of devotion in their country.
We possess excellent representations of most of these; the figure of a cat
which we take from the cases of the Louvre is an average specimen (Fig.
235). The lion was equally well rendered. In the bas-reliefs we sometimes
find him turned into a sort of heraldic animal by the addition of emblematic
designs upon his flanks and shoulders (Fig. 236); but, even where he is most
simplified, his outlines and general movements are truthful in the main.
Sometimes we find him in full relief, modelled with singular power and
sincerity. This is the case with a bronze lion which must once have formed a
part of some kind of padlock, if we may judge from the few links of a chain
which are still attached to it.[272] Although this animal bears the ovals of
Apries, and therefore belongs to the lowest period of Egyptian art, its style is
vigorous in no common degree.
Fig. 236.—Lion, from a Theban bas-relief; from Prisse.
The Egyptians were as much impressed as other eastern peoples by the
strength and beauty of these animals, which in their days must have
abounded in the deserts of Syria and Ethiopia. They were chosen to be the
emblems of royal courage;[273] a lion's head was placed upon the shoulders of
Hobs, and that of a lioness upon the shoulders of Sekhet. Finally it was from
Page 316
the lion that the first idea of that fictitious animal which the Greeks called a
sphinx, was taken.
"At first the sphinx can have been nothing but a lion placed to guard the
entrance to a temple. The combination of a man's head, which was always
that of a king, with a lion's body, must have been a result of the national love
for symbolism. The king himself, as represented by this association of
physical with intellectual strength, acted as guardian of the building which he
had founded. There was a radical distinction between the Greek sphinx and
that of the Egyptians. The latter propounded no enigma to the passer-by, and
the author of the treatise, Upon Isis and Osiris, was in sympathy with his
times when he wrote: 'There was nothing behind the mysteries of the
Egyptians but their philosophy, which was seen as if through a veil. Thus
they placed sphinxes before the gates of their temples, meaning by that to say
that their theology contained all the secrets of wisdom under an enigmatic
form.' Evidently, the Egyptians did not mean so much as is sometimes
thought."[274]
Fig. 237.—Bronze lion, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
We have already reproduced many examples of what may be called the
classic form of sphinx, his head covered with the klaft and his paws extended
before him (Figs. 41 and 157, Vol. I.). But the type included several
secondary varieties. Sometimes the forepaws are replaced by human hands
holding symbolic objects (Figs. 227 and 238); sometimes the head of a hawk
sphinx, was taken.
"At first the sphinx can have been nothing but a lion placed to guard the
entrance to a temple. The combination of a man's head, which was always
that of a king, with a lion's body, must have been a result of the national love
for symbolism. The king himself, as represented by this association of
physical with intellectual strength, acted as guardian of the building which he
had founded. There was a radical distinction between the Greek sphinx and
that of the Egyptians. The latter propounded no enigma to the passer-by, and
the author of the treatise, Upon Isis and Osiris, was in sympathy with his
times when he wrote: 'There was nothing behind the mysteries of the
Egyptians but their philosophy, which was seen as if through a veil. Thus
they placed sphinxes before the gates of their temples, meaning by that to say
that their theology contained all the secrets of wisdom under an enigmatic
form.' Evidently, the Egyptians did not mean so much as is sometimes
thought."[274]
Fig. 237.—Bronze lion, Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
We have already reproduced many examples of what may be called the
classic form of sphinx, his head covered with the klaft and his paws extended
before him (Figs. 41 and 157, Vol. I.). But the type included several
secondary varieties. Sometimes the forepaws are replaced by human hands
holding symbolic objects (Figs. 227 and 238); sometimes the head of a hawk
Page 317
is substituted for that of a man. The animals which form many of the dromoi
at Karnak are called crio-sphinxes (Fig. 205, Vol. I.), but the name is an
unhappy one, because they have nothing in common with a sphinx but the
position. They are rams and nothing else.
The Greek word σφίγξ is feminine. The sphinx with female breasts is,
however, very rare in Egypt. Wilkinson only knew of one, in which the
Queen Mut-neter of the eighteenth dynasty was represented.[275]
Fig. 238.—Sphinx with human hands. Bas-relief; from Prisse.
The Egyptians were not content with confusing the figures of men and
animals in their images of the gods, they combined those of quadrupeds and
birds in the same fashion. Thus we sometimes find wings upon the backs of
gazelles and antelopes, and now and then a curious animal compounded of a
hawk's head and a nondescript body (Fig. 239). Whether such fantastic
quadrupeds were consciously and deliberately invented by the Egyptian
artists or not, we have no means of deciding. In a period when there was none
of that scientific culture which alone enables men to distinguish the possible
from the impossible, they may well have believed in winged and bird-headed
animals with four legs. For the Greeks of Homer's time, and even for their
children's children, the chimera and his kindred were real. They knew where
they lived, and they described their habits. In a picture at Beni-Hassan, these
imaginary beasts are shown flying before the hunter, and mixed up with the
undoubted denizens of the mountains and deserts.[276] Such representations
must have been common upon those objects—partly manufactured in Egypt,
at Karnak are called crio-sphinxes (Fig. 205, Vol. I.), but the name is an
unhappy one, because they have nothing in common with a sphinx but the
position. They are rams and nothing else.
The Greek word σφίγξ is feminine. The sphinx with female breasts is,
however, very rare in Egypt. Wilkinson only knew of one, in which the
Queen Mut-neter of the eighteenth dynasty was represented.[275]
Fig. 238.—Sphinx with human hands. Bas-relief; from Prisse.
The Egyptians were not content with confusing the figures of men and
animals in their images of the gods, they combined those of quadrupeds and
birds in the same fashion. Thus we sometimes find wings upon the backs of
gazelles and antelopes, and now and then a curious animal compounded of a
hawk's head and a nondescript body (Fig. 239). Whether such fantastic
quadrupeds were consciously and deliberately invented by the Egyptian
artists or not, we have no means of deciding. In a period when there was none
of that scientific culture which alone enables men to distinguish the possible
from the impossible, they may well have believed in winged and bird-headed
animals with four legs. For the Greeks of Homer's time, and even for their
children's children, the chimera and his kindred were real. They knew where
they lived, and they described their habits. In a picture at Beni-Hassan, these
imaginary beasts are shown flying before the hunter, and mixed up with the
undoubted denizens of the mountains and deserts.[276] Such representations
must have been common upon those objects—partly manufactured in Egypt,
Page 318
partly imitated in Phœnicia—which the enterprising inhabitants of the latter
country distributed all over Western Asia, and the basin of the Mediterranean.
They had a large share of that mystic and enigmatic character which has
always been an attraction in the eye of the decorator. They may have helped
to develop a belief that the curious beings represented upon them existed in
some corner of the world, and they certainly did much to form those
decorative types which have been handed down through Greece to the
modern ornamentist.
Fig. 239.—Quadruped with the head of a bird. From Champollion, pl.
428 bis.
§ 7. The Technique of the Bas-reliefs.
Work in low relief held such an important place in the affections of the
Egyptian sculptor that we must study its processes in some detail.
In the first place, it was almost invariably painted. Those bas-reliefs which
show no trace of colour may be looked upon as unfinished.
Secondly, the depth of the relief varied as much as it could, from the almost
detached figures of the Osiride piers to the delicate salience of the carvings
upon the steles and tomb-walls. A few works in very high relief have been
found in the mastabas (Fig. 120, Vol. I.),[277] but they are quite exceptional;
the depth is usually from two to three millimetres. It is the same with the
Theban tombs. It is only in the life-size figures that the relief becomes as
much as a centimetre, or a centimetre and a half in depth; articulations, the
country distributed all over Western Asia, and the basin of the Mediterranean.
They had a large share of that mystic and enigmatic character which has
always been an attraction in the eye of the decorator. They may have helped
to develop a belief that the curious beings represented upon them existed in
some corner of the world, and they certainly did much to form those
decorative types which have been handed down through Greece to the
modern ornamentist.
Fig. 239.—Quadruped with the head of a bird. From Champollion, pl.
428 bis.
§ 7. The Technique of the Bas-reliefs.
Work in low relief held such an important place in the affections of the
Egyptian sculptor that we must study its processes in some detail.
In the first place, it was almost invariably painted. Those bas-reliefs which
show no trace of colour may be looked upon as unfinished.
Secondly, the depth of the relief varied as much as it could, from the almost
detached figures of the Osiride piers to the delicate salience of the carvings
upon the steles and tomb-walls. A few works in very high relief have been
found in the mastabas (Fig. 120, Vol. I.),[277] but they are quite exceptional;
the depth is usually from two to three millimetres. It is the same with the
Theban tombs. It is only in the life-size figures that the relief becomes as
much as a centimetre, or a centimetre and a half in depth; articulations, the
Page 319
borders of drapery, and the bounding lines of the contour, are indicated with
much less salience.
The processes used in Egyptian reliefs were three in number, one of those
three, at least, being almost unknown elsewhere.
The commonest of the three is the same as that in favour with the Greeks, by
which the figures are left standing out from a smooth bed, which is
sometimes slightly hollowed in the neighbourhood of their contours. When
limestone was used, this method was almost always preferred, as that
material allowed the beds to be dressed without any difficulty.
Sometimes, on the other hand, the figure is modelled in relief in a sunk
hollow, which is from half an inch to an inch and a half deep (Fig. 240). This
method of proceeding, which is peculiar to Egypt, was doubtless suggested
by the desire to protect the image as much as possible. For this purpose it was
singularly efficient, the high "bed" of the relief guarding it both from
accidental injury, and from the effects of weather and time. It had one
disadvantage, however, in the confusing shadows which obscured a part of
the modelling. This process was used, as a rule, for the carvings on granite
and basalt sarcophagi (Fig. 195, Vol. I.). It would have cost too much time
and labour to have sunk and polished the surrounding surfaces. This method,
when once taken up, was extended to limestone, and thus we find, among
those objects in the Louvre which were discovered in the Serapeum, a stele of
extremely delicate workmanship, representing Amasis in adoration before an
apis. The head of Amasis is damaged, and we have preferred to give as a
specimen the fine head of Rameses II., chiselled in a slab of limestone, which
is also in the Louvre (Fig. 240).
In the third system the surface of the figures and the bed, or field, of the relief
are kept on one level. The contours are indicated by hollow lines cut into the
stone. In this case there is very little modelling. There is not enough depth to
enable the sculptor to indicate different planes, and his work becomes little
more than a silhouette in which the outline is shown by a hollow instead of
by the stroke of a pencil or brush. When more rapid progress than usual had
to be made the Egyptian artist was content with this outline. Most of those
vast historical and biographical scenes which cover the walls of the
Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou (Fig. 173, Vol. I.), were executed by it.
much less salience.
The processes used in Egyptian reliefs were three in number, one of those
three, at least, being almost unknown elsewhere.
The commonest of the three is the same as that in favour with the Greeks, by
which the figures are left standing out from a smooth bed, which is
sometimes slightly hollowed in the neighbourhood of their contours. When
limestone was used, this method was almost always preferred, as that
material allowed the beds to be dressed without any difficulty.
Sometimes, on the other hand, the figure is modelled in relief in a sunk
hollow, which is from half an inch to an inch and a half deep (Fig. 240). This
method of proceeding, which is peculiar to Egypt, was doubtless suggested
by the desire to protect the image as much as possible. For this purpose it was
singularly efficient, the high "bed" of the relief guarding it both from
accidental injury, and from the effects of weather and time. It had one
disadvantage, however, in the confusing shadows which obscured a part of
the modelling. This process was used, as a rule, for the carvings on granite
and basalt sarcophagi (Fig. 195, Vol. I.). It would have cost too much time
and labour to have sunk and polished the surrounding surfaces. This method,
when once taken up, was extended to limestone, and thus we find, among
those objects in the Louvre which were discovered in the Serapeum, a stele of
extremely delicate workmanship, representing Amasis in adoration before an
apis. The head of Amasis is damaged, and we have preferred to give as a
specimen the fine head of Rameses II., chiselled in a slab of limestone, which
is also in the Louvre (Fig. 240).
In the third system the surface of the figures and the bed, or field, of the relief
are kept on one level. The contours are indicated by hollow lines cut into the
stone. In this case there is very little modelling. There is not enough depth to
enable the sculptor to indicate different planes, and his work becomes little
more than a silhouette in which the outline is shown by a hollow instead of
by the stroke of a pencil or brush. When more rapid progress than usual had
to be made the Egyptian artist was content with this outline. Most of those
vast historical and biographical scenes which cover the walls of the
Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou (Fig. 173, Vol. I.), were executed by it.
Page 320
Fig. 240.—Portrait of Rameses II., Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme
Gautier.
Most of our existing reliefs have come from tombs. In the mastabas their
production was easy enough. The sculptor simply carved the faces of their
limestone walls. But in the hypogea the difficulties were frequently great, and
yet they were always surmounted. The bas-reliefs in such places were, as a
rule, on a small scale. Consequently, the knobs of flint and the petrified shells
with which the sculptor's chisel was continually coming in contact, must have
embarrassed him in no slight degree. Whereever such unkindly lumps were
found, they were extracted from the rock, the rough holes which they left
were squared and filled up either with a cement which became very hard with
time, or with pieces of stone accurately adjusted. In the latter case, the joints
have been made with such care that it is very difficult to discover them. In
some tomb chambers these insertions are so numerous that they make up not
less than a quarter of the whole surface.[278]
Gautier.
Most of our existing reliefs have come from tombs. In the mastabas their
production was easy enough. The sculptor simply carved the faces of their
limestone walls. But in the hypogea the difficulties were frequently great, and
yet they were always surmounted. The bas-reliefs in such places were, as a
rule, on a small scale. Consequently, the knobs of flint and the petrified shells
with which the sculptor's chisel was continually coming in contact, must have
embarrassed him in no slight degree. Whereever such unkindly lumps were
found, they were extracted from the rock, the rough holes which they left
were squared and filled up either with a cement which became very hard with
time, or with pieces of stone accurately adjusted. In the latter case, the joints
have been made with such care that it is very difficult to discover them. In
some tomb chambers these insertions are so numerous that they make up not
less than a quarter of the whole surface.[278]
Page 321
As soon as the carvings upon the walls were finished, the latter were covered
with a thin layer of stucco. This was hardly ever omitted; it was laid upon
rock, cement, and limestone indiscriminately. It afforded a better and a more
tenacious ground for coloured decoration than the naked stone.[279]
The principal place in these bas-reliefs is occupied by human figures, and
after them by those of animals. The accessories, such as the landscape and
inanimate objects are for the most part only slightly indicated, all the labours
of agriculture are illustrated, but only so far as the action of man is
immediately concerned. There is never more in the way of background than
is absolutely necessary for the right comprehension of the scene.[280] The
Greeks followed the same rule. In this respect the Egyptians were well
advised. Their artistic instincts must have warned them of the true conditions
of work in relief, which cannot, without the greatest peril, attempt to rival the
complex achievements of painting.
To this practice we might suggest a few exceptions, in certain chiselled
pictures at Tell-el-Amarna, and even Thebes itself, in which the artist seems
to have amused himself by reproducing the beauties of nature, of groves and
gardens surrounding palaces and humbler dwellings, partly for their own
sake, partly attracted by some unwonted aspects of the scene which seem to
have been borrowed from neighbouring countries.
In most cases the Egyptian sculptor made man the centre and raison d'être of
his work, and yet, here and there, he shows himself curiously solicitous as to
the effective arrangement of the scene about him. It is not without reason,
therefore, that some have found in the Egyptian bas-relief, the origin, the first
rough sketch, of those landscapes of which Hellenistic, or as some would say,
Alexandrian, art was so fond. One of the most famous of these is the
Palestrina mosaic, which presents us with an Egyptian landscape during the
inundation; its buildings, its animals, and the curious scenes caused by the
rising Nile, are rendered with great vivacity.[281]
§ 8. Gems.
A highly civilized society like that of Egypt even in the days of the Ancient
Empire, must have felt the necessity for some kind of seal. The names and
images engraved upon rings must have been used as signatures even at that
with a thin layer of stucco. This was hardly ever omitted; it was laid upon
rock, cement, and limestone indiscriminately. It afforded a better and a more
tenacious ground for coloured decoration than the naked stone.[279]
The principal place in these bas-reliefs is occupied by human figures, and
after them by those of animals. The accessories, such as the landscape and
inanimate objects are for the most part only slightly indicated, all the labours
of agriculture are illustrated, but only so far as the action of man is
immediately concerned. There is never more in the way of background than
is absolutely necessary for the right comprehension of the scene.[280] The
Greeks followed the same rule. In this respect the Egyptians were well
advised. Their artistic instincts must have warned them of the true conditions
of work in relief, which cannot, without the greatest peril, attempt to rival the
complex achievements of painting.
To this practice we might suggest a few exceptions, in certain chiselled
pictures at Tell-el-Amarna, and even Thebes itself, in which the artist seems
to have amused himself by reproducing the beauties of nature, of groves and
gardens surrounding palaces and humbler dwellings, partly for their own
sake, partly attracted by some unwonted aspects of the scene which seem to
have been borrowed from neighbouring countries.
In most cases the Egyptian sculptor made man the centre and raison d'être of
his work, and yet, here and there, he shows himself curiously solicitous as to
the effective arrangement of the scene about him. It is not without reason,
therefore, that some have found in the Egyptian bas-relief, the origin, the first
rough sketch, of those landscapes of which Hellenistic, or as some would say,
Alexandrian, art was so fond. One of the most famous of these is the
Palestrina mosaic, which presents us with an Egyptian landscape during the
inundation; its buildings, its animals, and the curious scenes caused by the
rising Nile, are rendered with great vivacity.[281]
§ 8. Gems.
A highly civilized society like that of Egypt even in the days of the Ancient
Empire, must have felt the necessity for some kind of seal. The names and
images engraved upon rings must have been used as signatures even at that
Page 322
early date. We know that from that time forward the impressions thus made
upon wax and clay were employed in business and other transactions. No
engraved stones have come down to us from the early dynasties, and yet their
production must have been easy enough to those who carved the diorite
statue of Chephren. Under the first Theban Empire, the Egyptians practised
the cutting of amethysts, cornelians, garnets, jasper, lapis-lazuli, green-spar
and white feldspar, obsidian, serpentine, steatite, rock crystal, red quartz,
sardonyx, &c.[282] We do not know whether those early workmen employed
the lapidary's wheel or not,[283] but we may safely say that they produced
some of the finest works of the kind which are known to us. The annexed
illustration of one of the rarest treasures of the Egyptian collection in the
Louvre, will bear out our words (Fig. 241).
"A gold ring with a movable square stone, a sardonyx, upon which a
personage seated before an altar is engraved with extraordinary finish. The
altar bears the name Ha-ro-bes. The figure is clothed in a schenti; a thick
necklace is about his neck: his hair is in short thick curls: his legs are largely
and firmly drawn.
"We are helped to the date of this little work by the engraving on the reverse,
which represents a king wearing the red crown and armed with a mace, with
which he is about to strike an enemy whom he grasps by the hair. The name
of this king is engraved beside him: Ra-en-ma, that is Amenemhat III. The
workmanship of this face is, perhaps, inferior to that of the obverse, the forms
are comparatively meagre and dry; it is however far from being bad."[284]
Fig. 241.—Intaglio upon sardonyx, obverse. Louvre collection. Twice the
actual size.
upon wax and clay were employed in business and other transactions. No
engraved stones have come down to us from the early dynasties, and yet their
production must have been easy enough to those who carved the diorite
statue of Chephren. Under the first Theban Empire, the Egyptians practised
the cutting of amethysts, cornelians, garnets, jasper, lapis-lazuli, green-spar
and white feldspar, obsidian, serpentine, steatite, rock crystal, red quartz,
sardonyx, &c.[282] We do not know whether those early workmen employed
the lapidary's wheel or not,[283] but we may safely say that they produced
some of the finest works of the kind which are known to us. The annexed
illustration of one of the rarest treasures of the Egyptian collection in the
Louvre, will bear out our words (Fig. 241).
"A gold ring with a movable square stone, a sardonyx, upon which a
personage seated before an altar is engraved with extraordinary finish. The
altar bears the name Ha-ro-bes. The figure is clothed in a schenti; a thick
necklace is about his neck: his hair is in short thick curls: his legs are largely
and firmly drawn.
"We are helped to the date of this little work by the engraving on the reverse,
which represents a king wearing the red crown and armed with a mace, with
which he is about to strike an enemy whom he grasps by the hair. The name
of this king is engraved beside him: Ra-en-ma, that is Amenemhat III. The
workmanship of this face is, perhaps, inferior to that of the obverse, the forms
are comparatively meagre and dry; it is however far from being bad."[284]
Fig. 241.—Intaglio upon sardonyx, obverse. Louvre collection. Twice the
actual size.
Page 323
Fig. 242.—Reverse of the same intaglio.
The cornelian statuette of Ousourtesen I., which the Louvre has unhappily
lost, belonged to the same period. In the three days of July, 1830, a terrible
fire was directed upon the crowd by the Swiss stationed in the colonnade of
the Louvre. The assailants succeeded, however, in penetrating into the palace
and invading the galleries. After their final retirement the only thing which
was ascertained beyond a doubt to be missing, was this little statuette, which
has never been heard of since. It was equally valuable for its rarity and the
beauty of its workmanship.[285]
The artists of the Second Theban Empire do not seem to have excelled those
of the first, but their works have come down to us in much greater numbers.
The Louvre possesses a considerable number of rings engraved with the
names Thothmes, Amenophis, and others belonging to the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasties. Their character may be divined from two examples.
Fig. 243.—Intaglio upon jasper. Louvre. Actual size.
The cornelian statuette of Ousourtesen I., which the Louvre has unhappily
lost, belonged to the same period. In the three days of July, 1830, a terrible
fire was directed upon the crowd by the Swiss stationed in the colonnade of
the Louvre. The assailants succeeded, however, in penetrating into the palace
and invading the galleries. After their final retirement the only thing which
was ascertained beyond a doubt to be missing, was this little statuette, which
has never been heard of since. It was equally valuable for its rarity and the
beauty of its workmanship.[285]
The artists of the Second Theban Empire do not seem to have excelled those
of the first, but their works have come down to us in much greater numbers.
The Louvre possesses a considerable number of rings engraved with the
names Thothmes, Amenophis, and others belonging to the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasties. Their character may be divined from two examples.
Fig. 243.—Intaglio upon jasper. Louvre. Actual size.
Page 324
Fig. 244.—Reverse of the same intaglio.
"In 1877 the Louvre obtained the stone of a ring finely engraved on each side
with representations of the Pharaoh Thothmes II. It is a green jasper,
quadrangular in shape. On one side the Pharaoh, designated by his name Aa-
kheper-ra, has seized a lion by the tail and is about to strike it with his mace.
This scene is emblematic of the victorious and fearless strength of the
sovereign. Its rarity is extreme. Its significance is enforced by the word kuen
or valour (Fig. 243). On the other side Thothmes is shown discharging his
arrows from the commanding height of his chariot against the enemies who
face him; one falls backwards, another is being trampled under the feet of the
king's horses (Fig. 244). Such a representation is common enough upon the
outsides of the temples, but it is not often found upon little objects like
these."[286]
Fig. 245.—Seal of Armais. Louvre. Actual size.
Sometimes the ring is all of one material, characters and figures being cut in
the metal of which it consists. It is so in the case of the most conspicuous
object among the Egyptian jewels in the Louvre (Fig. 245), an object which
can never have been intended for the finger; it is too large: it must have been
made for use only as a seal. It is thus described by M. Pierret: "Seal formed
of a ring and movable bezel, both of gold. Upon one face of the bezel the
oval of King Armais, the last prince of the eighteenth dynasty, is engraved.
Upon the other a lion passant, the emblem of royal power; it is surmounted
by the words Nepkhopesch, lord of valour. Upon the third and fourth sides are
"In 1877 the Louvre obtained the stone of a ring finely engraved on each side
with representations of the Pharaoh Thothmes II. It is a green jasper,
quadrangular in shape. On one side the Pharaoh, designated by his name Aa-
kheper-ra, has seized a lion by the tail and is about to strike it with his mace.
This scene is emblematic of the victorious and fearless strength of the
sovereign. Its rarity is extreme. Its significance is enforced by the word kuen
or valour (Fig. 243). On the other side Thothmes is shown discharging his
arrows from the commanding height of his chariot against the enemies who
face him; one falls backwards, another is being trampled under the feet of the
king's horses (Fig. 244). Such a representation is common enough upon the
outsides of the temples, but it is not often found upon little objects like
these."[286]
Fig. 245.—Seal of Armais. Louvre. Actual size.
Sometimes the ring is all of one material, characters and figures being cut in
the metal of which it consists. It is so in the case of the most conspicuous
object among the Egyptian jewels in the Louvre (Fig. 245), an object which
can never have been intended for the finger; it is too large: it must have been
made for use only as a seal. It is thus described by M. Pierret: "Seal formed
of a ring and movable bezel, both of gold. Upon one face of the bezel the
oval of King Armais, the last prince of the eighteenth dynasty, is engraved.
Upon the other a lion passant, the emblem of royal power; it is surmounted
by the words Nepkhopesch, lord of valour. Upon the third and fourth sides are
Page 325
a scorpion and a crocodile respectively. The execution of this little work is
admirable; the design and action of the lion are especially fine."[287]
The ring given by Pharaoh to Joseph as a sign of the authority delegated to
him, may have been such as this.[288] The cheapest rings had bezels of faience
or schist covered with enamel. The scarabs were cut as a rule from soft stone.
In gem-cutting the Egyptians made use both of the intaglio process and of
relief, but the greater fitness of the former for the work to be done by a signet
made it their especial favourite. They were ignorant of the process we call
cameo, in which the differently coloured layers of the sardonyx are taken
advantage of to produce contrast of tint between the relief and its bed.
A few Egyptian cylinders, in earthenware or soft stone enamelled, are known.
They bear royal ovals; the British Museum has one which seems to date from
the twelfth dynasty. Their employment seems never to have become very
general.[289]
§ 9. The Principal Conventions in Egyptian Sculpture.
Whether it were employed upon wood, upon limestone, or upon the harder
rocks, whether it were cutting colossi in the flanks of the sandstone hills, or
carving the minute images of its gods and kings in the stone of a signet ring,
the art of Egypt never shook itself free from those intellectual conceptions
which were impressed upon its first creations; it remained true to the
tendencies of its infancy; it preserved the same fundamental qualities and
defects; it looked upon nature with the same eyes, and interpreted her in the
same fashion, from the first moment to the last.
These methods and processes, and the conventionalities of artistic
interpretation which maintained themselves through all the changes of taste,
have still to be considered. They are the common features by which works
which differ greatly in execution are brought into connection, and are to be
found as clearly marked in a statue dating from the time of Amasis and
Nectanebo as in one from the Ancient Empire.
Some of the conventions of Egyptian art are to be explained by the
constitution of the human mind and by the conditions under which it works
when it attempts plastic reproductions for the first time; others appear to
admirable; the design and action of the lion are especially fine."[287]
The ring given by Pharaoh to Joseph as a sign of the authority delegated to
him, may have been such as this.[288] The cheapest rings had bezels of faience
or schist covered with enamel. The scarabs were cut as a rule from soft stone.
In gem-cutting the Egyptians made use both of the intaglio process and of
relief, but the greater fitness of the former for the work to be done by a signet
made it their especial favourite. They were ignorant of the process we call
cameo, in which the differently coloured layers of the sardonyx are taken
advantage of to produce contrast of tint between the relief and its bed.
A few Egyptian cylinders, in earthenware or soft stone enamelled, are known.
They bear royal ovals; the British Museum has one which seems to date from
the twelfth dynasty. Their employment seems never to have become very
general.[289]
§ 9. The Principal Conventions in Egyptian Sculpture.
Whether it were employed upon wood, upon limestone, or upon the harder
rocks, whether it were cutting colossi in the flanks of the sandstone hills, or
carving the minute images of its gods and kings in the stone of a signet ring,
the art of Egypt never shook itself free from those intellectual conceptions
which were impressed upon its first creations; it remained true to the
tendencies of its infancy; it preserved the same fundamental qualities and
defects; it looked upon nature with the same eyes, and interpreted her in the
same fashion, from the first moment to the last.
These methods and processes, and the conventionalities of artistic
interpretation which maintained themselves through all the changes of taste,
have still to be considered. They are the common features by which works
which differ greatly in execution are brought into connection, and are to be
found as clearly marked in a statue dating from the time of Amasis and
Nectanebo as in one from the Ancient Empire.
Some of the conventions of Egyptian art are to be explained by the
constitution of the human mind and by the conditions under which it works
when it attempts plastic reproductions for the first time; others appear to
Page 326
spring from certain habits of thought peculiar to Egyptian civilization. There
is yet a third class which must be referred to purely technical causes, such as
the capabilities of the materials and tools employed. The influence which
these exercised over the artistic expression of thought has been too often
underrated. We shall endeavour to recognize their full importance.
When we glance at an Egyptian bas-relief, we perceive in it certain
imperfections of rendering which we may have often noticed before, either in
the early works of other races or in the formless designs which quite young
children scribble upon paper. The infancy of art and the art of infancy have
much in common.
We are accustomed to processes which are scientifically exact. Profiting by
the accumulated learning of so many centuries even the school-boy, among
us, understands perspective. We are, therefore, apt to feel too much surprise
at the awkwardness and inaccuracy which we find in the works of primitive
schools, in transcripts produced by man in the presence of nature without any
help from the experience of older civilizations. If we wish to do justice to
those early artists, we must endeavour to realize the embarrassment which
must have been theirs, when they attempted to reproduce upon a flat surface
those bodies which offered themselves to their eyes with their three
dimensions of height, width, and depth, and with all the complications arising
from foreshortening and perspective, from play of light and shade, and from
varied colour. Other perplexities must have arisen from the intersection and
variety of lines, from the succession of planes, from the necessity for
rendering or at least suggesting the thickness of objects!
When the desire to imitate natural objects began to make itself felt in man he
received his first drawing lesson from the sun. Morning and evening its
almost horizontal rays threw his silhouette sharply upon the white rocks and
walls, and nothing was easier than to fix the outline of the image thus
projected with a piece of charcoal or burnt wood; after this beginning it was
easy to imitate such a sun-picture either in large or in small. Such figures
were of necessity profiles, as the silhouette given by a head viewed in front
would be very uncertain and indistinct.
The profiles of men and of the lower animals must, then, have played a chief
part in these early efforts towards design. In this there is nothing at variance
with our daily experience. The back view need hardly be taken into account,
is yet a third class which must be referred to purely technical causes, such as
the capabilities of the materials and tools employed. The influence which
these exercised over the artistic expression of thought has been too often
underrated. We shall endeavour to recognize their full importance.
When we glance at an Egyptian bas-relief, we perceive in it certain
imperfections of rendering which we may have often noticed before, either in
the early works of other races or in the formless designs which quite young
children scribble upon paper. The infancy of art and the art of infancy have
much in common.
We are accustomed to processes which are scientifically exact. Profiting by
the accumulated learning of so many centuries even the school-boy, among
us, understands perspective. We are, therefore, apt to feel too much surprise
at the awkwardness and inaccuracy which we find in the works of primitive
schools, in transcripts produced by man in the presence of nature without any
help from the experience of older civilizations. If we wish to do justice to
those early artists, we must endeavour to realize the embarrassment which
must have been theirs, when they attempted to reproduce upon a flat surface
those bodies which offered themselves to their eyes with their three
dimensions of height, width, and depth, and with all the complications arising
from foreshortening and perspective, from play of light and shade, and from
varied colour. Other perplexities must have arisen from the intersection and
variety of lines, from the succession of planes, from the necessity for
rendering or at least suggesting the thickness of objects!
When the desire to imitate natural objects began to make itself felt in man he
received his first drawing lesson from the sun. Morning and evening its
almost horizontal rays threw his silhouette sharply upon the white rocks and
walls, and nothing was easier than to fix the outline of the image thus
projected with a piece of charcoal or burnt wood; after this beginning it was
easy to imitate such a sun-picture either in large or in small. Such figures
were of necessity profiles, as the silhouette given by a head viewed in front
would be very uncertain and indistinct.
The profiles of men and of the lower animals must, then, have played a chief
part in these early efforts towards design. In this there is nothing at variance
with our daily experience. The back view need hardly be taken into account,
Page 327
and there are two lateral positions, the right and left profiles, against one for
the front face. Finally, the fact that the front face consists of two parts which
have to be kept in absolute symmetry with one another, makes it much more
difficult of treatment by the novice. Even in the productions of skilful artists
we often find that this symmetry has been missed. It is the profile that is first
attacked by beginners in the art of drawing, and it is the profile which always
remains most comprehensible for simple intelligences. The fellah who is
present at the opening of one of those tombs which were constructed by his
remote ancestors, at once recognizes the animals represented and the meaning
of their attitudes and grouping. Wilkinson noticed this on several occasions.
But if an European drawing be shown to the same man, he will be hopelessly
bewildered by the foreshortening, the perspective, and the play of light and
shade. He will no longer be able to distinguish a bull from a horse or an ass.
In their bas-reliefs, and in their paintings, the Egyptian artists made almost
exclusive use of the profile,[290] but, by a singular compromise, we
sometimes find it combined with an attitude of body which would strictly
require a full, or at least a three-quarter face. The silhouette in its integrity
seems to have been thought insufficient, and the desire to reproduce a more
complete image led them to invent the compromise in question.
In Egyptian profiles the eye is drawn as if for a full face. It has been asserted
that this is the result of profound calculation, that, "in spite of facts, the
Egyptian painter chose to give predominant importance to that organ in the
human visage which is the window of the soul."[291] We believe that the true
explanation is rather more simple. While the lines of the nose and mouth are
more clearly marked in the profile than in the front face, it is in the latter only
that the eye is able to display its full beauty. When seen from the side it is
small, its lines are short and abrupt, and the slightest change in the position of
the head affects its contours in a fashion which is very puzzling to the
unlearned artist. When a child attempts to draw a head it gives their true form
to the lips and the nose, but in nine cases out of ten it draws the eye as if seen
in full face; and art in its childhood did as children do still.
We find a similar want of concord between the trunk and the limbs. Feet and
legs are shown in profile while the body to which they belong stands squarely
facing us. Both the shoulders are seen in equal fulness, and the attachment of
the arms is often faulty (Fig. 246). Sometimes they seem to be broken at the
the front face. Finally, the fact that the front face consists of two parts which
have to be kept in absolute symmetry with one another, makes it much more
difficult of treatment by the novice. Even in the productions of skilful artists
we often find that this symmetry has been missed. It is the profile that is first
attacked by beginners in the art of drawing, and it is the profile which always
remains most comprehensible for simple intelligences. The fellah who is
present at the opening of one of those tombs which were constructed by his
remote ancestors, at once recognizes the animals represented and the meaning
of their attitudes and grouping. Wilkinson noticed this on several occasions.
But if an European drawing be shown to the same man, he will be hopelessly
bewildered by the foreshortening, the perspective, and the play of light and
shade. He will no longer be able to distinguish a bull from a horse or an ass.
In their bas-reliefs, and in their paintings, the Egyptian artists made almost
exclusive use of the profile,[290] but, by a singular compromise, we
sometimes find it combined with an attitude of body which would strictly
require a full, or at least a three-quarter face. The silhouette in its integrity
seems to have been thought insufficient, and the desire to reproduce a more
complete image led them to invent the compromise in question.
In Egyptian profiles the eye is drawn as if for a full face. It has been asserted
that this is the result of profound calculation, that, "in spite of facts, the
Egyptian painter chose to give predominant importance to that organ in the
human visage which is the window of the soul."[291] We believe that the true
explanation is rather more simple. While the lines of the nose and mouth are
more clearly marked in the profile than in the front face, it is in the latter only
that the eye is able to display its full beauty. When seen from the side it is
small, its lines are short and abrupt, and the slightest change in the position of
the head affects its contours in a fashion which is very puzzling to the
unlearned artist. When a child attempts to draw a head it gives their true form
to the lips and the nose, but in nine cases out of ten it draws the eye as if seen
in full face; and art in its childhood did as children do still.
We find a similar want of concord between the trunk and the limbs. Feet and
legs are shown in profile while the body to which they belong stands squarely
facing us. Both the shoulders are seen in equal fulness, and the attachment of
the arms is often faulty (Fig. 246). Sometimes they seem to be broken at the
Page 328
shoulder. Again, the hands are nearly always in such a position as to exclude
all doubt as to the number of fingers they possess.
It appears, therefore, that the artist chose the aspect which seemed to him the
most natural for each part of the body. It was the resulting contradiction that
was against nature. The feeling from which it sprang was identical with that
which led Egyptian artists, to make what we may call "projections" when
they wished to represent buildings. The fixed idea of the draughtsman was to
show all the sides of his object at a glance, to exhibit details which in reality
were partly hidden by each other. Thus we find that, in certain bas-reliefs,
both clothes and the nudity which those clothes were intended to cover are
carefully portrayed. In a bas-relief at Tell-el-Amarna, a queen who is waiting
on Amenophis IV. is dressed in a long robe reaching to her feet, and yet all
her forms are rendered with as much care and detail as if there were no veil
between their beauty and the eye of the spectator (Fig. 247).
Fig. 246.—Bas-relief from Sakkarah. Fifth dynasty.
An arbitrary combination of a similar character is employed by the Egyptian
artist when he wishes to show a number of persons behind one another on a
horizontal plane; he places them vertically one above the other. The great
battle pictures at Thebes are an instance of this (Fig. 13, Vol. I.). Enemies still
all doubt as to the number of fingers they possess.
It appears, therefore, that the artist chose the aspect which seemed to him the
most natural for each part of the body. It was the resulting contradiction that
was against nature. The feeling from which it sprang was identical with that
which led Egyptian artists, to make what we may call "projections" when
they wished to represent buildings. The fixed idea of the draughtsman was to
show all the sides of his object at a glance, to exhibit details which in reality
were partly hidden by each other. Thus we find that, in certain bas-reliefs,
both clothes and the nudity which those clothes were intended to cover are
carefully portrayed. In a bas-relief at Tell-el-Amarna, a queen who is waiting
on Amenophis IV. is dressed in a long robe reaching to her feet, and yet all
her forms are rendered with as much care and detail as if there were no veil
between their beauty and the eye of the spectator (Fig. 247).
Fig. 246.—Bas-relief from Sakkarah. Fifth dynasty.
An arbitrary combination of a similar character is employed by the Egyptian
artist when he wishes to show a number of persons behind one another on a
horizontal plane; he places them vertically one above the other. The great
battle pictures at Thebes are an instance of this (Fig. 13, Vol. I.). Enemies still
Page 329
fighting are mingled with dead and wounded into one confused heap in front
of Pharaoh's car, and reach from top to bottom of the relief. The same
convention is to be found in the ranks of prisoners, workmen, or soldiers,
marching over a flat surface; they are arranged in a kind of echelon upon the
field of the relief (Fig. 42).[292]
Faulty though these conventions seem to us, they did not disturb the Egyptian
spectator. He was familiar with them by long usage, and his intellect easily
re-established the true relation between the various parts of objects so
strangely distorted. Even as art matured and as, in some respects, the skill of
the Egyptian sculptor increased, he never felt himself impelled to abandon
these primitive methods of interpretation. Graphic conventions are like those
belonging to written and spoken language; when once established, even those
which seem most absurd to the stranger are rendered acceptable by habit, and
the native does not even suspect the existence of anomalies which bewilder
the foreign visitor.
of Pharaoh's car, and reach from top to bottom of the relief. The same
convention is to be found in the ranks of prisoners, workmen, or soldiers,
marching over a flat surface; they are arranged in a kind of echelon upon the
field of the relief (Fig. 42).[292]
Faulty though these conventions seem to us, they did not disturb the Egyptian
spectator. He was familiar with them by long usage, and his intellect easily
re-established the true relation between the various parts of objects so
strangely distorted. Even as art matured and as, in some respects, the skill of
the Egyptian sculptor increased, he never felt himself impelled to abandon
these primitive methods of interpretation. Graphic conventions are like those
belonging to written and spoken language; when once established, even those
which seem most absurd to the stranger are rendered acceptable by habit, and
the native does not even suspect the existence of anomalies which bewilder
the foreign visitor.
Page 330
Fig. 247.—The Queen waiting on Amenophis IV.: Tell-el-Amarna. From
Prisse.
Speaking generally, we may say that there is no perspective in Egyptian
paintings and reliefs. And yet we find sincere efforts to render things in a less
arbitrary fashion in certain works dating from the Second Theban Empire.
Look, for instance, at the attempt made by an artist in the tomb of Chamhati
to show five persons walking almost in line. Instead of being one above
another they are on one level (Fig. 248). One of the five is rather behind the
rest; the head and most of his body are visible. The other four advance to
their front. In order that they may all be seen, the sculptor has shown them as
they would appear to one standing on their right and slightly in front; the
relief, therefore, has four planes. The three farther figures are shown by the
contours alone. This is perspective, although it is hardly correct. The
retreating line of polls sinks as it should, but so do the elbows, and they ought
to rise.
Fig. 248.—Bas-relief from the eighteenth dynasty. From Prisse.
Prisse.
Speaking generally, we may say that there is no perspective in Egyptian
paintings and reliefs. And yet we find sincere efforts to render things in a less
arbitrary fashion in certain works dating from the Second Theban Empire.
Look, for instance, at the attempt made by an artist in the tomb of Chamhati
to show five persons walking almost in line. Instead of being one above
another they are on one level (Fig. 248). One of the five is rather behind the
rest; the head and most of his body are visible. The other four advance to
their front. In order that they may all be seen, the sculptor has shown them as
they would appear to one standing on their right and slightly in front; the
relief, therefore, has four planes. The three farther figures are shown by the
contours alone. This is perspective, although it is hardly correct. The
retreating line of polls sinks as it should, but so do the elbows, and they ought
to rise.
Fig. 248.—Bas-relief from the eighteenth dynasty. From Prisse.
Page 331
This relief gives evidence of considerable progress and, supposing it to be the
first of its kind, the sculptor who made it would deserve the credit of having
breathed a new life into Egyptian art. But he was not the first; others had
made use of the same method, but always within strictly defined limits. It
was employed when a few persons had to be brought in who were all in one
attitude and making the same gesture,[293] but it was never used as a starting-
point for modifications upon the traditional modes of rendering either
isolated figures or groups of figures. The Egyptians made use of these until
the last days of their civilization without ever appearing to suspect their
childish character.
In the case of animals, a firmly-drawn profile was enough to make them
easily recognizable. And yet, even in the time of the Ancient Empire, we find
distinct efforts to give some variety to these silhouettes. Sometimes the oxen
turn their heads towards the spectator, sometimes they swing them round to
their flanks, as if to chase away the flies: but even then the heads are shown
in profile.[294] At Beni-Hassan we find an advance upon this. In a hunting
scene, a lion, who has just brought down an ibex, is shown full face,[295] but
neither here or anywhere else has an attempt been made to draw the body of
the animal otherwise than in profile.
In his family groups the Egyptian sculptor marked the superiority of the
husband and father in a similarly naïve fashion. He made him much taller
than the persons about him. The same contrivance was employed to mark the
distinction between gods or kings and ordinary men, and between the latter
and animals (Fig. 57, Vol. I.). This solution of the problem is universal in the
infancy of art. It was adopted by the Assyrians, the Persians, the primitive
Greeks, and our own ancestors of the middle ages. It is easier to give a figure
double or threefold its proper size than to add greatly to the dignity and
nobility of its character.
In their desire to evade difficulties, the Egyptians slurred over distinctions
upon which a more advanced art would have insisted. For them every man
was in the prime of life, every woman possessed of the elegant contours of a
marriageable virgin. In their work in the round they proved themselves
capable of bringing out individuality, but they restricted their attentions to the
face and hardly attempted to show how the passage of years affects the
contours and the firmness of flesh in both sexes. In their bas-reliefs and
pictures, they employed outline only. The substance of their figures was
first of its kind, the sculptor who made it would deserve the credit of having
breathed a new life into Egyptian art. But he was not the first; others had
made use of the same method, but always within strictly defined limits. It
was employed when a few persons had to be brought in who were all in one
attitude and making the same gesture,[293] but it was never used as a starting-
point for modifications upon the traditional modes of rendering either
isolated figures or groups of figures. The Egyptians made use of these until
the last days of their civilization without ever appearing to suspect their
childish character.
In the case of animals, a firmly-drawn profile was enough to make them
easily recognizable. And yet, even in the time of the Ancient Empire, we find
distinct efforts to give some variety to these silhouettes. Sometimes the oxen
turn their heads towards the spectator, sometimes they swing them round to
their flanks, as if to chase away the flies: but even then the heads are shown
in profile.[294] At Beni-Hassan we find an advance upon this. In a hunting
scene, a lion, who has just brought down an ibex, is shown full face,[295] but
neither here or anywhere else has an attempt been made to draw the body of
the animal otherwise than in profile.
In his family groups the Egyptian sculptor marked the superiority of the
husband and father in a similarly naïve fashion. He made him much taller
than the persons about him. The same contrivance was employed to mark the
distinction between gods or kings and ordinary men, and between the latter
and animals (Fig. 57, Vol. I.). This solution of the problem is universal in the
infancy of art. It was adopted by the Assyrians, the Persians, the primitive
Greeks, and our own ancestors of the middle ages. It is easier to give a figure
double or threefold its proper size than to add greatly to the dignity and
nobility of its character.
In their desire to evade difficulties, the Egyptians slurred over distinctions
upon which a more advanced art would have insisted. For them every man
was in the prime of life, every woman possessed of the elegant contours of a
marriageable virgin. In their work in the round they proved themselves
capable of bringing out individuality, but they restricted their attentions to the
face and hardly attempted to show how the passage of years affects the
contours and the firmness of flesh in both sexes. In their bas-reliefs and
pictures, they employed outline only. The substance of their figures was
Page 332
modelled neither materially nor in colour. With such feeble resources as these
the artist would have had great difficulty in suggesting all the differences of
age. He therefore took a middle course. To each sex he gave that appearance
which seemed best calculated to bring out its peculiar beauties. The one he
portrayed in the fulness of manhood, the other as a young girl. When it was
necessary to determine the age of his subject with some precision he took
refuge in such conventional signs as the finger in the mouth and the long lock
of infancy (Fig. 249).
Fig. 249.—Horus as a child, enamelled earthenware. Actual size. Louvre.
The sculptors of the Ancient Empire, who laid such stress upon exact
resemblance, seem to have now and then attempted to mark the advancing
age of their models. The head of the great statue of Chephren is that of a man
still young (Fig. 205); that of another statue of the same king betrays the
approach of old age. This example does not seem to have been followed in
later ages. We are tempted to think that each sovereign on his accession to the
throne employed some artist of note to make his portrait. The latter would set
himself to work; would study his model at first hand, for Pharaoh would
perhaps condescend to sit to him; would bring out the peculiarities of visage
the artist would have had great difficulty in suggesting all the differences of
age. He therefore took a middle course. To each sex he gave that appearance
which seemed best calculated to bring out its peculiar beauties. The one he
portrayed in the fulness of manhood, the other as a young girl. When it was
necessary to determine the age of his subject with some precision he took
refuge in such conventional signs as the finger in the mouth and the long lock
of infancy (Fig. 249).
Fig. 249.—Horus as a child, enamelled earthenware. Actual size. Louvre.
The sculptors of the Ancient Empire, who laid such stress upon exact
resemblance, seem to have now and then attempted to mark the advancing
age of their models. The head of the great statue of Chephren is that of a man
still young (Fig. 205); that of another statue of the same king betrays the
approach of old age. This example does not seem to have been followed in
later ages. We are tempted to think that each sovereign on his accession to the
throne employed some artist of note to make his portrait. The latter would set
himself to work; would study his model at first hand, for Pharaoh would
perhaps condescend to sit to him; would bring out the peculiarities of visage
Page 333
which he saw, and over the whole face and form of the king would spread
that air of flourishing vigour and youth which is common to nearly all the
royal statues. An image would be thus elaborated which should combine both
the truth of portraiture with the conventional semi-divine type. With the
passage of time, according to the talent of the artist, and perhaps to the
character of the royal features, one of these elements would encroach upon
the other. But once established this image would become a kind of official
and authentic standard of the royal appearance, and would serve as a model
for all who might be charged during the rest of the reign with the
reproduction of the king's person.
There are many facts which support this hypothesis. Among the countless
images of Rameses II. for instance there are some which according to their
inscriptions must have been executed when he was at least eighty years old;
and yet they show him as a young man.
Almost the same thing takes place in our own times. In monarchical states the
sovereign appears upon the coinage as he was at his accession. His features
and the delicacy of his skin are unaffected by the years, for the die made in
his youth has to serve for his old age. We may almost say the same of the
statues and busts in which the royal features are repeated in the public
buildings and public places of the capital. A single portrait which has once
been moderately faithful is repeated to infinity. We find it everywhere, upon
paper, and canvas, and plaster, and marble, multiplied by every process that
science has given to art. It keeps its official and accepted authenticity long
after age, care, and disease, have made its original unrecognizable.[296]
There is one convention peculiar to Egyptian art which is not to be accounted
for so easily as the last named. So far as we know, no reason has ever yet
been given for the almost invariable habit of making such figures as are
supposed to be walking thrust their left legs forward. Almost the only
exceptions are in the cases of those figures in the bas-reliefs which are turned
to the spectator's left. The right leg is then thrust forward (Figs. 18, 24, &c.,
Vol. I.). Among works in the round there is hardly an exception to the
ordinary rule. Are we to look upon it as the effects of caprice? of accident
confirmed into a habit? Or was it a result of a superstition analogous, or,
rather, contrary to that of the Romans? The latter always took care to cross a
threshold with the right foot foremost; in Egypt they may have attached the
that air of flourishing vigour and youth which is common to nearly all the
royal statues. An image would be thus elaborated which should combine both
the truth of portraiture with the conventional semi-divine type. With the
passage of time, according to the talent of the artist, and perhaps to the
character of the royal features, one of these elements would encroach upon
the other. But once established this image would become a kind of official
and authentic standard of the royal appearance, and would serve as a model
for all who might be charged during the rest of the reign with the
reproduction of the king's person.
There are many facts which support this hypothesis. Among the countless
images of Rameses II. for instance there are some which according to their
inscriptions must have been executed when he was at least eighty years old;
and yet they show him as a young man.
Almost the same thing takes place in our own times. In monarchical states the
sovereign appears upon the coinage as he was at his accession. His features
and the delicacy of his skin are unaffected by the years, for the die made in
his youth has to serve for his old age. We may almost say the same of the
statues and busts in which the royal features are repeated in the public
buildings and public places of the capital. A single portrait which has once
been moderately faithful is repeated to infinity. We find it everywhere, upon
paper, and canvas, and plaster, and marble, multiplied by every process that
science has given to art. It keeps its official and accepted authenticity long
after age, care, and disease, have made its original unrecognizable.[296]
There is one convention peculiar to Egyptian art which is not to be accounted
for so easily as the last named. So far as we know, no reason has ever yet
been given for the almost invariable habit of making such figures as are
supposed to be walking thrust their left legs forward. Almost the only
exceptions are in the cases of those figures in the bas-reliefs which are turned
to the spectator's left. The right leg is then thrust forward (Figs. 18, 24, &c.,
Vol. I.). Among works in the round there is hardly an exception to the
ordinary rule. Are we to look upon it as the effects of caprice? of accident
confirmed into a habit? Or was it a result of a superstition analogous, or,
rather, contrary to that of the Romans? The latter always took care to cross a
threshold with the right foot foremost; in Egypt they may have attached the
Page 334
same ideas to the left foot. Egyptologists should be able to tell us whether
there is anything in the texts to suggest the existence of such a superstition.
Apart from its ethnic characteristics, the work of the Egyptian sculptor is
endowed with a peculiar physiognomy by a certain stiffness and rigidity
which it hardly ever succeeds in shaking off, even when it represents figures
in motion. A support in the shape of a column at the back is nearly always
introduced; the arms are held close to the sides; a huge head-dress often
enframes the head and hangs down upon the shoulders in two equal masses; a
long and narrow beard springs from under the chin and lies upon the chest.
Freedom and variety of attitude is equally absent from the seated statues. The
knees are brought together and the hands supported upon them. We never
find an arm raised, a hand opened as if to give force to speech, or a leg
stretched out to relieve the stiffness of the lines. There is no striving for that
suppleness of limb and variety of pose which the Greeks contrived to obtain
even in their Iconic figures. The face is often full of animation and individual
vitality, the modelling of the trunk and limbs marvellously true and broad, but
the body as a whole is too symmetrical in action and entirely without
abandon. The natural movements which spring from ease and liberty are
never employed. Forced and conventional attitudes are universal.
A reason for this has been sought in the supremacy of the sacerdotal caste.
The priests, we are told, must soon have adopted such a type, or rather
several varieties of such a type, as seemed to them expressive of their own
ideas of man when deified by death, of the king as the son of the gods, of the
gods themselves as the protectors of the Egyptian race. They imposed the
perpetuation and constant reproduction of this type upon artists as a sacred
duty, and thus the Egyptian style was hieratic in its origin and essence.
Such an assertion is easily made. Hieratic is one of those convenient
adjectives whose vagueness discourages critical examination. What evidence
is there that ancient Egypt was ever a theocracy, in the proper sense of the
word? Only once, during so many centuries, did the Egyptian priests attempt
to encroach upon the privileges of the king. Towards the close of the
twentieth dynasty the prophets of Amen, at Thebes, tried hard to substitute
their own authority for that of the last of the Rameses,[297] but the success of
their usurpation was very shortlived. In Ethiopia alone, among a people much
less highly civilized, sacerdotalism seems to have acquired an uncontested
there is anything in the texts to suggest the existence of such a superstition.
Apart from its ethnic characteristics, the work of the Egyptian sculptor is
endowed with a peculiar physiognomy by a certain stiffness and rigidity
which it hardly ever succeeds in shaking off, even when it represents figures
in motion. A support in the shape of a column at the back is nearly always
introduced; the arms are held close to the sides; a huge head-dress often
enframes the head and hangs down upon the shoulders in two equal masses; a
long and narrow beard springs from under the chin and lies upon the chest.
Freedom and variety of attitude is equally absent from the seated statues. The
knees are brought together and the hands supported upon them. We never
find an arm raised, a hand opened as if to give force to speech, or a leg
stretched out to relieve the stiffness of the lines. There is no striving for that
suppleness of limb and variety of pose which the Greeks contrived to obtain
even in their Iconic figures. The face is often full of animation and individual
vitality, the modelling of the trunk and limbs marvellously true and broad, but
the body as a whole is too symmetrical in action and entirely without
abandon. The natural movements which spring from ease and liberty are
never employed. Forced and conventional attitudes are universal.
A reason for this has been sought in the supremacy of the sacerdotal caste.
The priests, we are told, must soon have adopted such a type, or rather
several varieties of such a type, as seemed to them expressive of their own
ideas of man when deified by death, of the king as the son of the gods, of the
gods themselves as the protectors of the Egyptian race. They imposed the
perpetuation and constant reproduction of this type upon artists as a sacred
duty, and thus the Egyptian style was hieratic in its origin and essence.
Such an assertion is easily made. Hieratic is one of those convenient
adjectives whose vagueness discourages critical examination. What evidence
is there that ancient Egypt was ever a theocracy, in the proper sense of the
word? Only once, during so many centuries, did the Egyptian priests attempt
to encroach upon the privileges of the king. Towards the close of the
twentieth dynasty the prophets of Amen, at Thebes, tried hard to substitute
their own authority for that of the last of the Rameses,[297] but the success of
their usurpation was very shortlived. In Ethiopia alone, among a people much
less highly civilized, sacerdotalism seems to have acquired an uncontested
Page 335
pre-eminence. In Egypt the king was always the first of the priests. With the
help of an army of scribes and officials he governed the country and made
war; he initiated and carried on great public works; he developed the industry
and commerce of his subjects. Trade and conquest brought him into relation
with surrounding peoples, and from them he recruited his armies and
obtained agents of every kind.
The active and warlike heads of a great empire like this were never the slaves
of a despotic clergy. Such a society never allowed the mechanical
reproduction of orthodox types to be forced upon its artists, until, indeed, its
final decadence deprived it of all power to invent new forms. We have seen
how great was the variety of plan and decoration in Egyptian religious
architecture, from the marked simplicity of the temple near the sphinx, to the
sumptuous majesty of the Theban buildings and the elegance of those of Sais.
The style and taste of Egyptian sculpture underwent a change at each
renascence of art. Why, then, did its practitioners remain faithful to certain
conventional methods of interpretation, whose falsity they must have
perceived, while they modified their work in so many other particulars? No
text has ever been put before us, I will not say from a Greek, but from an
Egyptian source, which suggests that their hands were less free from religious
prescription than those of the architects.
We agree with M. Émile Soldi, who was the first to throw doubt upon the
accepted theories, that the explanation of the apparent anomaly is to be
sought elsewhere.[298] The tyranny from which the Egyptian sculptor never
succeeded in completely freeing himself was not that of the priests but of the
material in which he worked. Aided by his personal experience M. Soldi has
put this fact very clearly before us. Being at once a sculptor, a medallist, and
an engraver upon precious stones, he is enabled to judge at first hand of the
influence which the material or tool employed may exercise over the style of
a work of art. The style of such a work is the complex product of numerous
and very different factors. To determine the part played by each of these
factors is not always easy; there are too many opportunities for error. We
believe, however, that certain of the most peculiar and persistent
characteristics of Egyptian sculpture are due to the hardness of their material
and the imperfection of the tools employed.
We know the connection between the funerary statues of the Egyptians and
their second life; while those statues endured, the existence of the double was
help of an army of scribes and officials he governed the country and made
war; he initiated and carried on great public works; he developed the industry
and commerce of his subjects. Trade and conquest brought him into relation
with surrounding peoples, and from them he recruited his armies and
obtained agents of every kind.
The active and warlike heads of a great empire like this were never the slaves
of a despotic clergy. Such a society never allowed the mechanical
reproduction of orthodox types to be forced upon its artists, until, indeed, its
final decadence deprived it of all power to invent new forms. We have seen
how great was the variety of plan and decoration in Egyptian religious
architecture, from the marked simplicity of the temple near the sphinx, to the
sumptuous majesty of the Theban buildings and the elegance of those of Sais.
The style and taste of Egyptian sculpture underwent a change at each
renascence of art. Why, then, did its practitioners remain faithful to certain
conventional methods of interpretation, whose falsity they must have
perceived, while they modified their work in so many other particulars? No
text has ever been put before us, I will not say from a Greek, but from an
Egyptian source, which suggests that their hands were less free from religious
prescription than those of the architects.
We agree with M. Émile Soldi, who was the first to throw doubt upon the
accepted theories, that the explanation of the apparent anomaly is to be
sought elsewhere.[298] The tyranny from which the Egyptian sculptor never
succeeded in completely freeing himself was not that of the priests but of the
material in which he worked. Aided by his personal experience M. Soldi has
put this fact very clearly before us. Being at once a sculptor, a medallist, and
an engraver upon precious stones, he is enabled to judge at first hand of the
influence which the material or tool employed may exercise over the style of
a work of art. The style of such a work is the complex product of numerous
and very different factors. To determine the part played by each of these
factors is not always easy; there are too many opportunities for error. We
believe, however, that certain of the most peculiar and persistent
characteristics of Egyptian sculpture are due to the hardness of their material
and the imperfection of the tools employed.
We know the connection between the funerary statues of the Egyptians and
their second life; while those statues endured, the existence of the double was
Page 336
safe guarded. The more solid the statue, the better its chance; if the former
was indestructible the life dependent upon it would be eternal. It was under
the impulse of this idea that the Egyptians of the Ancient Empire attacked
such unkindly materials as granite, diorite, and basalt. Such statues were
beyond the reach of private individuals. They were reserved for royalty. Of
all the works of the sculptor they were the most carefully and admirably
wrought. They set the fashion, and helped to create those habits which did not
lose their hold even when less rebellious substances came into use. How did
they contrive to cut such hard rocks? Even in our time it can only be done by
dint of long and painful labour and with the aid of steel chisels of the finest
temper. The workman is obliged to stop every minute to renew the edge of
his instrument. But it is agreed on all hands that the contemporaries of
Chephren had to do without steel chisels. Egyptologists still discuss the
question as to whether the Egyptians made use of iron or not, but even those
who believe that its name occurs among the hieroglyphs admit that its
introduction was late and its employment very restricted.[299] The weapons
and tools of the early Egyptians were of bronze when they were not of stone
or hardened wood; and it has never been proved that either the Egyptians or
any other ancient people understood how to temper that metal in such a
fashion that its hardness approached that of steel. Modern science has in vain
searched for this secret.[300] In any case it is only in a few rare instances, and
upon remains from the New Empire, that the peculiar markings left by the
chisel have been discovered. Those statues and sarcophagi which have been
cut from igneous rocks still bear traces which may be recognized by the eye
of the connoisseur, of the processes which were employed by their makers.
"Granite," says M. Soldi, "is most easily worked by hammering its surface.
To begin with, a heavy tool called a point is brought into play. This is driven
into the material by repeated blows from the hammer, starring the surface of
the granite, and driving off pieces on all sides. We believe that this point was
the habitual instrument of the Egyptians, not only in roughing out their
blocks, but even in modelling a head-dress or sinking a hieroglyph. Such a
tool could not trace clear and firm contours like those of the chisel, and the
peculiar character of its workmanship is to be easily recognized in the broken
and irregular outline of many of the monuments in the Louvre."
Another tool employed upon granite in these days is a kind of hammer, the
head of which consists of several points symmetrically arranged. We may
was indestructible the life dependent upon it would be eternal. It was under
the impulse of this idea that the Egyptians of the Ancient Empire attacked
such unkindly materials as granite, diorite, and basalt. Such statues were
beyond the reach of private individuals. They were reserved for royalty. Of
all the works of the sculptor they were the most carefully and admirably
wrought. They set the fashion, and helped to create those habits which did not
lose their hold even when less rebellious substances came into use. How did
they contrive to cut such hard rocks? Even in our time it can only be done by
dint of long and painful labour and with the aid of steel chisels of the finest
temper. The workman is obliged to stop every minute to renew the edge of
his instrument. But it is agreed on all hands that the contemporaries of
Chephren had to do without steel chisels. Egyptologists still discuss the
question as to whether the Egyptians made use of iron or not, but even those
who believe that its name occurs among the hieroglyphs admit that its
introduction was late and its employment very restricted.[299] The weapons
and tools of the early Egyptians were of bronze when they were not of stone
or hardened wood; and it has never been proved that either the Egyptians or
any other ancient people understood how to temper that metal in such a
fashion that its hardness approached that of steel. Modern science has in vain
searched for this secret.[300] In any case it is only in a few rare instances, and
upon remains from the New Empire, that the peculiar markings left by the
chisel have been discovered. Those statues and sarcophagi which have been
cut from igneous rocks still bear traces which may be recognized by the eye
of the connoisseur, of the processes which were employed by their makers.
"Granite," says M. Soldi, "is most easily worked by hammering its surface.
To begin with, a heavy tool called a point is brought into play. This is driven
into the material by repeated blows from the hammer, starring the surface of
the granite, and driving off pieces on all sides. We believe that this point was
the habitual instrument of the Egyptians, not only in roughing out their
blocks, but even in modelling a head-dress or sinking a hieroglyph. Such a
tool could not trace clear and firm contours like those of the chisel, and the
peculiar character of its workmanship is to be easily recognized in the broken
and irregular outline of many of the monuments in the Louvre."
Another tool employed upon granite in these days is a kind of hammer, the
head of which consists of several points symmetrically arranged. We may
Page 337
judge of its effects by the appearance of our curb stones, which are dressed
by it; there is nothing to show that it was used by the Egyptians. A kind of
hatchet with two blades is also used for the same work, and it appears to have
been employed by the Egyptians, "who used it hammer fashion, beating the
surface of the material, and driving off chips of various sizes according to the
weight of the instrument. By these means the desired form could be given
with sufficient rapidity and precision to make the chisel superfluous." Most
of the Egyptian statues in hard stone seem to have been modelled by the help
of an instrument of this kind.
"The surfaces produced by such tools as these had to be polished, the sketchy
roughness left by the point had to be taken down; we find therefore that the
Egyptians always polished their statues."
The Egyptians do not seem to have known either the file or the rasp, a variety
of file which is now greatly employed. The dry markings left by those tools
are nowhere to be seen. In the case of broad surfaces it is probable that a
polish was given by hand boards sprinkled with powdered sandstone and
wetted through a hole in the middle. Flat stones may have sometimes
replaced these wooden disks. When a more brilliant polish was required,
emery must have been used. This substance was found in abundance in the
islands of the Archipelago, and must have been brought to Egypt by the
Phœnicians. Without it the Egyptian artists could not have produced their
engraved gems.
By dint of continually retempering the bronze and renewing its edge, the
sculptors of the New Empire succeeded in cutting hieroglyphs upon a certain
number of works in the harder rocks. Perhaps, too, iron may by that time
have come into more general use, and they may have learnt how to give it
extra hardness by tempering. But when granite and kindred materials had to
be cut, the work was commenced with point and hammer as above described.
In the case of some of those very large figures which had been rather roughly
blocked out in the first instance, the final polishing has not quite obliterated
the hollows left by those rude instruments in the stone, especially where the
journeyman has struck a little too hard. An instance of this may be seen on
the red granite sphinx in the Louvre (Fig. 41, Vol. I.).
M. Soldi is inclined to think that at one period at least the Egyptians used
stone weapons rather than metal ones in their attacks upon the harder rocks.
by it; there is nothing to show that it was used by the Egyptians. A kind of
hatchet with two blades is also used for the same work, and it appears to have
been employed by the Egyptians, "who used it hammer fashion, beating the
surface of the material, and driving off chips of various sizes according to the
weight of the instrument. By these means the desired form could be given
with sufficient rapidity and precision to make the chisel superfluous." Most
of the Egyptian statues in hard stone seem to have been modelled by the help
of an instrument of this kind.
"The surfaces produced by such tools as these had to be polished, the sketchy
roughness left by the point had to be taken down; we find therefore that the
Egyptians always polished their statues."
The Egyptians do not seem to have known either the file or the rasp, a variety
of file which is now greatly employed. The dry markings left by those tools
are nowhere to be seen. In the case of broad surfaces it is probable that a
polish was given by hand boards sprinkled with powdered sandstone and
wetted through a hole in the middle. Flat stones may have sometimes
replaced these wooden disks. When a more brilliant polish was required,
emery must have been used. This substance was found in abundance in the
islands of the Archipelago, and must have been brought to Egypt by the
Phœnicians. Without it the Egyptian artists could not have produced their
engraved gems.
By dint of continually retempering the bronze and renewing its edge, the
sculptors of the New Empire succeeded in cutting hieroglyphs upon a certain
number of works in the harder rocks. Perhaps, too, iron may by that time
have come into more general use, and they may have learnt how to give it
extra hardness by tempering. But when granite and kindred materials had to
be cut, the work was commenced with point and hammer as above described.
In the case of some of those very large figures which had been rather roughly
blocked out in the first instance, the final polishing has not quite obliterated
the hollows left by those rude instruments in the stone, especially where the
journeyman has struck a little too hard. An instance of this may be seen on
the red granite sphinx in the Louvre (Fig. 41, Vol. I.).
M. Soldi is inclined to think that at one period at least the Egyptians used
stone weapons rather than metal ones in their attacks upon the harder rocks.
Page 338
He tells us that he himself has succeeded in cutting granites of various
hardness with a common flint from the neighbourhood of Paris. He has done
the same with diorite, both by driving off small chips from it and by
pulverizing its surface with the help of jasper. "This method," he adds, "is
excessively long and tedious, and the jasper, though harder than the diorite, is
greatly damaged in the process. But yet it proves that a statue may be
produced in such fashion, by dint of a great consumption of time and
patience."[301] We must also remember that the hardest rocks are easier to cut
when they are first drawn from the quarry, than after they have been exposed
for a time to the air.
The colours in the bas-reliefs are too much conventionalized to be of any use
in helping us to determine the material of which Egyptian implements were
made. But the forms of all the tools of which we have been speaking are to be
found there. A bas-relief in the tomb of Ti, in which the manufacture of
sepulchral statues is shown, is the oldest monument which may be quoted in
support of our remarks (Fig. 250). On the left two journeymen are roughly
blocking out a statue. Each holds in his left hand[302] a long and slender tool
which cannot be other than a chisel; this he strikes with a hammer. Two more
are at work polishing another statue, upon which the chisel has finished its
work. It is impossible to say whether the egg-shaped tools which they use are
of stone or wood. As for the statues themselves they must be limestone
figures similar to those which were actually found in the tomb of Ti (Fig.
183). In the tomb of Obai, at Gournah, we see a sculptor modelling the fore-
paws of a lion (Fig. 251). His blows are vertical instead of horizontal, but his
instruments are identical with those shown in the tomb of Ti. From the fifth
dynasty to the time of the Rameses, the same bronze chisel and pear-shaped
mallet had held their own.[303]
hardness with a common flint from the neighbourhood of Paris. He has done
the same with diorite, both by driving off small chips from it and by
pulverizing its surface with the help of jasper. "This method," he adds, "is
excessively long and tedious, and the jasper, though harder than the diorite, is
greatly damaged in the process. But yet it proves that a statue may be
produced in such fashion, by dint of a great consumption of time and
patience."[301] We must also remember that the hardest rocks are easier to cut
when they are first drawn from the quarry, than after they have been exposed
for a time to the air.
The colours in the bas-reliefs are too much conventionalized to be of any use
in helping us to determine the material of which Egyptian implements were
made. But the forms of all the tools of which we have been speaking are to be
found there. A bas-relief in the tomb of Ti, in which the manufacture of
sepulchral statues is shown, is the oldest monument which may be quoted in
support of our remarks (Fig. 250). On the left two journeymen are roughly
blocking out a statue. Each holds in his left hand[302] a long and slender tool
which cannot be other than a chisel; this he strikes with a hammer. Two more
are at work polishing another statue, upon which the chisel has finished its
work. It is impossible to say whether the egg-shaped tools which they use are
of stone or wood. As for the statues themselves they must be limestone
figures similar to those which were actually found in the tomb of Ti (Fig.
183). In the tomb of Obai, at Gournah, we see a sculptor modelling the fore-
paws of a lion (Fig. 251). His blows are vertical instead of horizontal, but his
instruments are identical with those shown in the tomb of Ti. From the fifth
dynasty to the time of the Rameses, the same bronze chisel and pear-shaped
mallet had held their own.[303]
Page 339
Fig. 250.—Bas-relief from the tomb of Ti.
Two paintings at Thebes show us the process of executing a royal colossus in
granite (Figs. 252 and 253). Standing upon the plinth and upon the planks of
a scaffold, several workmen do their best to hasten the completion of the
work, which is already far advanced. Seated upon the topmost pole of the
scaffold one workman is busy polishing the front of the pschent; another
stands behind the image, and, holding his palette in one hand and his brush in
the other, spreads his colours upon its posterior support. It may be asked what
the man is doing who is engaged with both hands upon the chest of the statue.
For an answer to that question we must turn to the second picture, in which
we are shown a seated colossus under the hands of its makers. The workman
who kneels before its head is making use of two implements. With his left
hand he applies to the face of the statue a pointed instrument, which he is
about to strike with the object held in his right. This action will cause
splinters to fly from the granite. These two instruments are the same as those
wielded by the workman who leans upon the chest of the standing colossus.
The latter seems, however, to pause for a moment's consideration before
proceeding with his work. One of these tools is the point of stone or metal,
the other acts as mallet or hammer. The same tool is to be recognised in the
hand of the man who is at work upon the seat of the statue; he, however, uses
it without any hammer.[304] Leaning upon one of the cross-pieces of the
scaffolding he beats with all his force upon the stone. The work was perhaps
begun in this fashion. In the same tomb the representation of a sphinx
receiving the final touches which is figured above occurs (Fig. 254). In this
painting the polishing tool is a disk, similar to that in use by one of the
Two paintings at Thebes show us the process of executing a royal colossus in
granite (Figs. 252 and 253). Standing upon the plinth and upon the planks of
a scaffold, several workmen do their best to hasten the completion of the
work, which is already far advanced. Seated upon the topmost pole of the
scaffold one workman is busy polishing the front of the pschent; another
stands behind the image, and, holding his palette in one hand and his brush in
the other, spreads his colours upon its posterior support. It may be asked what
the man is doing who is engaged with both hands upon the chest of the statue.
For an answer to that question we must turn to the second picture, in which
we are shown a seated colossus under the hands of its makers. The workman
who kneels before its head is making use of two implements. With his left
hand he applies to the face of the statue a pointed instrument, which he is
about to strike with the object held in his right. This action will cause
splinters to fly from the granite. These two instruments are the same as those
wielded by the workman who leans upon the chest of the standing colossus.
The latter seems, however, to pause for a moment's consideration before
proceeding with his work. One of these tools is the point of stone or metal,
the other acts as mallet or hammer. The same tool is to be recognised in the
hand of the man who is at work upon the seat of the statue; he, however, uses
it without any hammer.[304] Leaning upon one of the cross-pieces of the
scaffolding he beats with all his force upon the stone. The work was perhaps
begun in this fashion. In the same tomb the representation of a sphinx
receiving the final touches which is figured above occurs (Fig. 254). In this
painting the polishing tool is a disk, similar to that in use by one of the
Page 340
workmen in Fig. 253. The figure on the left carries in a saucer the powder
used for polishing the granite. In his right hand he holds a kind of brush
which was used for spreading the powder upon the surfaces to be rubbed.
used for polishing the granite. In his right hand he holds a kind of brush
which was used for spreading the powder upon the surfaces to be rubbed.
Page 341
Fig. 251.—Bas-relief at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 180).
Fig. 255 shows a workman fashioning a tet with a kind of hatchet or mattock,
which he uses much as if it were a mallet.
Fig. 255 shows a workman fashioning a tet with a kind of hatchet or mattock,
which he uses much as if it were a mallet.
Page 342
Fig. 252.—From a painting at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 161).
The only doubt that remains is as to the material employed by the Egyptian
sculptors in their attacks upon the granite. Were their mallets and points of
stone or of metal? They could only dispose of instruments which, with the
exception of the chisel, were incompatible with really delicate workmanship.
With the latter instrument the skilful carver can obtain any effect he requires
from a material which is neither too hard nor too soft—such as marble; but
the rocks from which the Egyptians struck their finest work do not lend
The only doubt that remains is as to the material employed by the Egyptian
sculptors in their attacks upon the granite. Were their mallets and points of
stone or of metal? They could only dispose of instruments which, with the
exception of the chisel, were incompatible with really delicate workmanship.
With the latter instrument the skilful carver can obtain any effect he requires
from a material which is neither too hard nor too soft—such as marble; but
the rocks from which the Egyptians struck their finest work do not lend
Page 343
themselves kindly to the chisel. To obtain the effects required they had to
expend as much time and patience upon them as upon their works of
architecture. But in spite of the industry and skill of workmen who did not
count their hours, there must always have been a certain inequality and
rudeness in works carried out by instruments that bruised and shattered rather
than cut. The stubbornness of the material, and the defects of the tools
employed, had a double consequence. In order to avoid all danger of spoiling
his figure when roughing it out, the artist was compelled to err on the side of
over solidity and heaviness; he was obliged to multiply the points of support,
and to avoid anything like delicacy or slightness of parts. On the other hand,
he was forced to fine down and almost to obliterate the suggestive contours
of the living form by the final polish, in order to correct the irregularities due
to the rude and uncertain nature of his implements.
expend as much time and patience upon them as upon their works of
architecture. But in spite of the industry and skill of workmen who did not
count their hours, there must always have been a certain inequality and
rudeness in works carried out by instruments that bruised and shattered rather
than cut. The stubbornness of the material, and the defects of the tools
employed, had a double consequence. In order to avoid all danger of spoiling
his figure when roughing it out, the artist was compelled to err on the side of
over solidity and heaviness; he was obliged to multiply the points of support,
and to avoid anything like delicacy or slightness of parts. On the other hand,
he was forced to fine down and almost to obliterate the suggestive contours
of the living form by the final polish, in order to correct the irregularities due
to the rude and uncertain nature of his implements.
Page 344
Fig. 253.—Painting at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 161).
Page 345
Fig. 254.—Painting at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 161).
All this explains the absolute necessity for the supporting blocks reserved by
the Egyptian sculptor at the back of his statues, and for the great massiveness
of their forms. To begin with, the comparative slenderness of the attachment
between the head and the body was an element of danger. The repeated blows
struck by the mallet upon the point might break it off unless precautions were
taken. We find, therefore, that the klaft head-dress was introduced as often as
possible. Its large ends fell down upon each breast, and acted as buttresses to
the head. When the klaft was not used the hair was brought together in a solid
mass, and, falling to the shoulders, gave strength to the neck. We may say the
same of the long and thick beard, the shape of which was modified under the
pressure of the same necessity. It is never disengaged and turned up at the
end, as we see it in the paintings. "...The head covering, which is sometimes
very tall and slender, is always supported at the back for nearly the whole of
its height and width. The figure itself is supported either at the back or the
side by a pier of varying thickness...."[305] The stone is left between the two
legs when one is thrust forward, between the arms and the side, and in the
hollows above the hips. Nothing could have been easier than to remove these
masses, after the work was otherwise complete, by means of the drill. But
that instrument, by which the necessary holes could have been made without
dangerous shocks, was certainly unknown to the Egyptians. They could only
All this explains the absolute necessity for the supporting blocks reserved by
the Egyptian sculptor at the back of his statues, and for the great massiveness
of their forms. To begin with, the comparative slenderness of the attachment
between the head and the body was an element of danger. The repeated blows
struck by the mallet upon the point might break it off unless precautions were
taken. We find, therefore, that the klaft head-dress was introduced as often as
possible. Its large ends fell down upon each breast, and acted as buttresses to
the head. When the klaft was not used the hair was brought together in a solid
mass, and, falling to the shoulders, gave strength to the neck. We may say the
same of the long and thick beard, the shape of which was modified under the
pressure of the same necessity. It is never disengaged and turned up at the
end, as we see it in the paintings. "...The head covering, which is sometimes
very tall and slender, is always supported at the back for nearly the whole of
its height and width. The figure itself is supported either at the back or the
side by a pier of varying thickness...."[305] The stone is left between the two
legs when one is thrust forward, between the arms and the side, and in the
hollows above the hips. Nothing could have been easier than to remove these
masses, after the work was otherwise complete, by means of the drill. But
that instrument, by which the necessary holes could have been made without
dangerous shocks, was certainly unknown to the Egyptians. They could only
Page 346
have removed the masses in question by the striking processes we have
mentioned, processes which might result in the breaking of an arm or a leg.
The hardest materials are also, in a sense, the most brittle. If it was difficult
for the sculptor to free the limbs and head of his statue from the rock in
which they were partly imprisoned, how much more difficult, nay, how
impossible, it must have been to give them any energetic movement—that of
running, for instance, or fighting. The beauty and expressiveness of such
movements did not escape his observation, but a want of material resources
compelled him to forego their reproduction.
Fig. 255.—Painting at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 186).
mentioned, processes which might result in the breaking of an arm or a leg.
The hardest materials are also, in a sense, the most brittle. If it was difficult
for the sculptor to free the limbs and head of his statue from the rock in
which they were partly imprisoned, how much more difficult, nay, how
impossible, it must have been to give them any energetic movement—that of
running, for instance, or fighting. The beauty and expressiveness of such
movements did not escape his observation, but a want of material resources
compelled him to forego their reproduction.
Fig. 255.—Painting at Thebes (Champollion, pl. 186).
Page 347
Fig. 256.—Bronze statuette. Actual size. Boulak.
The truth of these observations is confirmed by the fact that when the chisel
came to be used upon less unkindly materials, the Egyptian sculptor shook
himself free of more than one of those despotic conventions which tyrannized
over the makers of the royal colossi. The wooden statues have no supporting
mass at the back or side; the legs are separated and free; the arms are no
longer fixed to the sides, but are often bent into easy positions (Fig. 7, Vol. I.,
and Fig. 178). We may say the same of bronze (Figs. 179 and 180). We may
judge of the freedom which was often given to works in the latter material by
the beautiful little statuette figured upon this page (Fig. 256). The limestone
figures are not so free. Convenient instruments for ridding them of
superfluous stone were wanting, and, moreover, there was a certain
temptation to imitate those statues in the harder rocks which were looked
upon as the highest achievements of the national art. The figures were often
supported by a mass of stone in which the posterior surfaces of the legs were
imbedded. Sometimes, however, this support was absent, and in that case
attitudes became extremely various (Fig. 48, Vol. I., and Figs. 192, 194, 195,
Vol. II.), perfect ease and suppleness being often attained. Further
confirmation of our theory is afforded by those little ornamental articles
The truth of these observations is confirmed by the fact that when the chisel
came to be used upon less unkindly materials, the Egyptian sculptor shook
himself free of more than one of those despotic conventions which tyrannized
over the makers of the royal colossi. The wooden statues have no supporting
mass at the back or side; the legs are separated and free; the arms are no
longer fixed to the sides, but are often bent into easy positions (Fig. 7, Vol. I.,
and Fig. 178). We may say the same of bronze (Figs. 179 and 180). We may
judge of the freedom which was often given to works in the latter material by
the beautiful little statuette figured upon this page (Fig. 256). The limestone
figures are not so free. Convenient instruments for ridding them of
superfluous stone were wanting, and, moreover, there was a certain
temptation to imitate those statues in the harder rocks which were looked
upon as the highest achievements of the national art. The figures were often
supported by a mass of stone in which the posterior surfaces of the legs were
imbedded. Sometimes, however, this support was absent, and in that case
attitudes became extremely various (Fig. 48, Vol. I., and Figs. 192, 194, 195,
Vol. II.), perfect ease and suppleness being often attained. Further
confirmation of our theory is afforded by those little ornamental articles
Page 348
which may be referred to the industrial rather than the fine arts. In them we
find the figures of men and animals introduced with the most playful and
easy skill. The spontaneity of their grouping and the facility with which the
most lively actions are pressed into the service of the artist, are remarkable.
The graceful and almost athletic figures of swimming girls which form the
handles of so many perfume spoons may be given as instances of this (Fig.
257). The qualities which are so conspicuous in these little works are absent
from the official and monumental art of Egypt, because the materials and
tools employed hindered their development and prevented the happy genius
of the Egyptian people from reaching complete fruition.
Fig. 257.—Spoon for perfumes. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
This influence is to be recognized in the modelling as well as in the pose of
Egyptian statues: their general forms are fairly well understood and
expressed, but there is none of that power to suggest the muscles under the
skin, and the bones under the muscles, which distinguishes Greek sculpture.
The suppleness and elasticity of living flesh are entirely wanting. Everything
is in its place, but details are as much suppressed as if the work were to be
seen at a distance at which they would be invisible.
The admirable portraits which have been unearthed in such numbers and the
skilful modelling of many an isolated work, prove that it was neither the
power of observation nor that of manipulation that was wanting. Why, then,
was it that the Egyptians failed to advance farther upon the road that led to
mastery in their art? It was due to their infatuation for granite. Even when
they worked in soft stone their manipulation was governed by the capabilities
of the more stubborn material. The chisel alone can give those truthful and
delicate contours without which no sculpture can reach perfection, and the
chisel could hardly be used on any material but limestone or wood. The
find the figures of men and animals introduced with the most playful and
easy skill. The spontaneity of their grouping and the facility with which the
most lively actions are pressed into the service of the artist, are remarkable.
The graceful and almost athletic figures of swimming girls which form the
handles of so many perfume spoons may be given as instances of this (Fig.
257). The qualities which are so conspicuous in these little works are absent
from the official and monumental art of Egypt, because the materials and
tools employed hindered their development and prevented the happy genius
of the Egyptian people from reaching complete fruition.
Fig. 257.—Spoon for perfumes. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
This influence is to be recognized in the modelling as well as in the pose of
Egyptian statues: their general forms are fairly well understood and
expressed, but there is none of that power to suggest the muscles under the
skin, and the bones under the muscles, which distinguishes Greek sculpture.
The suppleness and elasticity of living flesh are entirely wanting. Everything
is in its place, but details are as much suppressed as if the work were to be
seen at a distance at which they would be invisible.
The admirable portraits which have been unearthed in such numbers and the
skilful modelling of many an isolated work, prove that it was neither the
power of observation nor that of manipulation that was wanting. Why, then,
was it that the Egyptians failed to advance farther upon the road that led to
mastery in their art? It was due to their infatuation for granite. Even when
they worked in soft stone their manipulation was governed by the capabilities
of the more stubborn material. The chisel alone can give those truthful and
delicate contours without which no sculpture can reach perfection, and the
chisel could hardly be used on any material but limestone or wood. The
Page 349
granite or basalt statue, roughly blocked out with tools which imperfectly
obeyed the hand, could only be brought to completion with the sand or emery
of the polisher. No refinement of execution could be hoped for under such
conditions. Every surface was flattened and every expressive ridge smoothed
down, and the appearance of superficial finish thus obtained involved many
sacrifices.
The abuse of this latter process is one of the great defects of Egyptian
technique; but there was another, and, perhaps, more potent cause of failure.
The method of writing adopted by the Egyptians, and elaborated at a very
early date, must have had a greater effect upon their plastic arts than has
generally been supposed. The characters employed by them, at least in
monumental situations, were not merely symbols of sounds, as the characters
of later syllabic or alphabetic forms of writing became; they were direct
images of objects. Practical requirements soon led to the simplification of
such objects, to the suppression of all details beyond those necessary for
identification. The figures employed were thus soon reduced to mere empty
outlines. Shadow and colour, all those details which distinguish the species of
a genus and the individuals of a species, were carefully and systematically
eliminated. The sign which stood for a lion or a man, was the same for all
lions and all men, although between one man or one lion and another there
are differences of stature, of age, of colour, of strength, and of beauty.
Now, in the early ages of Egyptian civilization, when the hieroglyphs in the
Memphite necropolis were chiselled in relief, the same hand must have been
employed upon the portraits of any particular inhabitants of a tomb and upon
the inscriptions which accompanied them. Thus we find upon the panels from
the tomb of Hosi (Figs. 174-6), that there is no appreciable difference
between the technique of the figures and of the accompanying characters.
The same firm and lively handling is visible in both. The images which play
the part of written characters are much smaller than the three portraits, and
that is all. The crafts of scribe and sculptor were thus combined in one man;
his chisel traced indifferently funerary portraits and hieroglyphs. When the
use of papyrus led to much and rapid writing, the two professions were
separated. The scribe wrote sometimes with the kalem upon papyrus,
sometimes with the brush or the point upon wood, stucco, or stone. But he
always found enough to do in his own profession without combining it with
another.
obeyed the hand, could only be brought to completion with the sand or emery
of the polisher. No refinement of execution could be hoped for under such
conditions. Every surface was flattened and every expressive ridge smoothed
down, and the appearance of superficial finish thus obtained involved many
sacrifices.
The abuse of this latter process is one of the great defects of Egyptian
technique; but there was another, and, perhaps, more potent cause of failure.
The method of writing adopted by the Egyptians, and elaborated at a very
early date, must have had a greater effect upon their plastic arts than has
generally been supposed. The characters employed by them, at least in
monumental situations, were not merely symbols of sounds, as the characters
of later syllabic or alphabetic forms of writing became; they were direct
images of objects. Practical requirements soon led to the simplification of
such objects, to the suppression of all details beyond those necessary for
identification. The figures employed were thus soon reduced to mere empty
outlines. Shadow and colour, all those details which distinguish the species of
a genus and the individuals of a species, were carefully and systematically
eliminated. The sign which stood for a lion or a man, was the same for all
lions and all men, although between one man or one lion and another there
are differences of stature, of age, of colour, of strength, and of beauty.
Now, in the early ages of Egyptian civilization, when the hieroglyphs in the
Memphite necropolis were chiselled in relief, the same hand must have been
employed upon the portraits of any particular inhabitants of a tomb and upon
the inscriptions which accompanied them. Thus we find upon the panels from
the tomb of Hosi (Figs. 174-6), that there is no appreciable difference
between the technique of the figures and of the accompanying characters.
The same firm and lively handling is visible in both. The images which play
the part of written characters are much smaller than the three portraits, and
that is all. The crafts of scribe and sculptor were thus combined in one man;
his chisel traced indifferently funerary portraits and hieroglyphs. When the
use of papyrus led to much and rapid writing, the two professions were
separated. The scribe wrote sometimes with the kalem upon papyrus,
sometimes with the brush or the point upon wood, stucco, or stone. But he
always found enough to do in his own profession without combining it with
another.
Page 350
Sculptors and painters multiplied on their side with the multiplication of the
royal and divine images; they represented the king fighting against the
enemies of Egypt or returning thanks to the gods for their assistance, and the
king's subjects accompanying him to battle, or busied over the varied labours
of a civilized society. They had to observe life and to study nature. By dint of
so doing they created a style, a certain method of looking at and interpreting
natural facts which became common to all the artists of Egypt. One of the
most striking features of this style is the continual endeavour to strip form of
all that is accidental and particular, to generalize and simplify it as much as
possible, a tendency which finds a very natural explanation in the early
endeavours of the Egyptians to represent, in their writing, the concrete shapes
of every being in earth or sky. This habit of making plastic epitomes of men
and animals, and even of inanimate things, was confirmed by the persistent
use of ideographic characters during all the centuries of Egyptian civilization.
The profession of the scribe was in time separated from that of the sculptor,
but the later preserved some of the marked characteristics which it put on
before this division of labour was finally established. The Egyptian eye had
become accustomed to see things represented in that simplified aspect of
which the hieroglyphs are so striking an example, and to deprive individuals,
by a kind of unconscious abstraction, of those details by which they stood out
from their species as a whole.
The most original features of Egyptian sculpture and its arrested development
must, then, be referred, on the one hand to the nature of the materials
employed, and, on the other, to the habits contracted during many centuries
of ideographic writing.[306] It has long been the fashion to attribute capital
importance to what is called a canon, in describing the origin of the Egyptian
style. The ideas which have been published on this question seem to us
manifestly exaggerated; we must examine them a little closely.
The word canon comes from the Greek κάνων, a rule. As applied to the arts it
has been defined as "a system of measurements by the use of which it should
be possible to tell the size of any part by that of the whole, or the size of the
whole by that of any one of its parts."[307] The idea of proportion, upon which
every canon must rest, is a creation of the brain. A canon, therefore, is the
result of those searching and comprehensive generalizations of which only
races with great intellectual gifts are capable. Each of the arts may have its
royal and divine images; they represented the king fighting against the
enemies of Egypt or returning thanks to the gods for their assistance, and the
king's subjects accompanying him to battle, or busied over the varied labours
of a civilized society. They had to observe life and to study nature. By dint of
so doing they created a style, a certain method of looking at and interpreting
natural facts which became common to all the artists of Egypt. One of the
most striking features of this style is the continual endeavour to strip form of
all that is accidental and particular, to generalize and simplify it as much as
possible, a tendency which finds a very natural explanation in the early
endeavours of the Egyptians to represent, in their writing, the concrete shapes
of every being in earth or sky. This habit of making plastic epitomes of men
and animals, and even of inanimate things, was confirmed by the persistent
use of ideographic characters during all the centuries of Egyptian civilization.
The profession of the scribe was in time separated from that of the sculptor,
but the later preserved some of the marked characteristics which it put on
before this division of labour was finally established. The Egyptian eye had
become accustomed to see things represented in that simplified aspect of
which the hieroglyphs are so striking an example, and to deprive individuals,
by a kind of unconscious abstraction, of those details by which they stood out
from their species as a whole.
The most original features of Egyptian sculpture and its arrested development
must, then, be referred, on the one hand to the nature of the materials
employed, and, on the other, to the habits contracted during many centuries
of ideographic writing.[306] It has long been the fashion to attribute capital
importance to what is called a canon, in describing the origin of the Egyptian
style. The ideas which have been published on this question seem to us
manifestly exaggerated; we must examine them a little closely.
The word canon comes from the Greek κάνων, a rule. As applied to the arts it
has been defined as "a system of measurements by the use of which it should
be possible to tell the size of any part by that of the whole, or the size of the
whole by that of any one of its parts."[307] The idea of proportion, upon which
every canon must rest, is a creation of the brain. A canon, therefore, is the
result of those searching and comprehensive generalizations of which only
races with great intellectual gifts are capable. Each of the arts may have its
Page 351
canon, or rule of proportion, establishing a proper relation between all the
elements of its creations and easily expressible in figures.
The finest examples of a canon as applied to architecture are furnished by the
Greek orders. Given the smallest member of an Ionic or Doric order, the
dimensions of all the other members of the column and its entablature may be
calculated with almost complete accuracy. There is nothing of the kind in
Egyptian architecture. There is no constant proportion between the heights
and thicknesses of the shaft, the capital, and the entablature; there is no
constant relation between their shapes. In a single building, and in a single
order, we find proportions varying between one hall or court and another.
The word canon has an analogous sense when applied to sculpture. We
establish a canon when we say that a figure should be so many heads high,
and that its limbs should bear a certain proportion to the same unit. It would
be the same if, as has often been proposed, the medius of the hand were
erected into the unit of measurement, except that the figure would then be
divided into a larger number of parts. Both ancients and moderns have
investigated this question, but we need not dwell upon the results of their
inquiries. The Greeks had the canon of Polycletus; the Romans that of
Vitruvius, while Leonardo da Vinci set an example to the numerous artists
who have investigated the question since his time.[308]
Had the Egyptians a canon? Did they choose some one part of the human
body and keep all the other parts in a constant mathematical relation with it?
Did their canon, if they had one, change with time? Is it true that, in
deference to the said canon, all the artists of Egypt living at one time gave
similar proportions to their figures?
It has sometimes been pretended that in each century the priests decided upon
the dimensions, or at least upon the proportions, to be given by artists to their
figures. Such an assertion can hardly be brought into harmony with the facts
observed.
The often quoted words of Diodorus have been taken as a text: "The
Egyptians claim as their disciples the oldest of the Greek sculptors, especially
Telecles and Theodoros, both sons of Rhæcos, who executed the statue of the
Pythian Apollo for the inhabitants of Samos. Half of this statue, it is said, was
executed at Samos by Telecles, the other half at Ephesus by Theodoros, and
elements of its creations and easily expressible in figures.
The finest examples of a canon as applied to architecture are furnished by the
Greek orders. Given the smallest member of an Ionic or Doric order, the
dimensions of all the other members of the column and its entablature may be
calculated with almost complete accuracy. There is nothing of the kind in
Egyptian architecture. There is no constant proportion between the heights
and thicknesses of the shaft, the capital, and the entablature; there is no
constant relation between their shapes. In a single building, and in a single
order, we find proportions varying between one hall or court and another.
The word canon has an analogous sense when applied to sculpture. We
establish a canon when we say that a figure should be so many heads high,
and that its limbs should bear a certain proportion to the same unit. It would
be the same if, as has often been proposed, the medius of the hand were
erected into the unit of measurement, except that the figure would then be
divided into a larger number of parts. Both ancients and moderns have
investigated this question, but we need not dwell upon the results of their
inquiries. The Greeks had the canon of Polycletus; the Romans that of
Vitruvius, while Leonardo da Vinci set an example to the numerous artists
who have investigated the question since his time.[308]
Had the Egyptians a canon? Did they choose some one part of the human
body and keep all the other parts in a constant mathematical relation with it?
Did their canon, if they had one, change with time? Is it true that, in
deference to the said canon, all the artists of Egypt living at one time gave
similar proportions to their figures?
It has sometimes been pretended that in each century the priests decided upon
the dimensions, or at least upon the proportions, to be given by artists to their
figures. Such an assertion can hardly be brought into harmony with the facts
observed.
The often quoted words of Diodorus have been taken as a text: "The
Egyptians claim as their disciples the oldest of the Greek sculptors, especially
Telecles and Theodoros, both sons of Rhæcos, who executed the statue of the
Pythian Apollo for the inhabitants of Samos. Half of this statue, it is said, was
executed at Samos by Telecles, the other half at Ephesus by Theodoros, and
Page 352
the two parts so exactly fitted each other that the whole statue appeared to be
the work of a single sculptor. After having arranged and blocked out their
stone, the Egyptians executed the work in such fashion that all the parts
adapted themselves one to another in the smallest details. To this end they
divided the human figure into twenty-one parts and a quarter, upon which the
whole symmetry of the work was regulated."[309]
We may ask what authority should attach to the words of Diodorus, a
contemporary of Augustus, in a matter referring to the Pharaonic period. But
when the monuments began to be examined it was proclaimed that they
confirmed his statements. Figures were found upon the tomb-walls which
were divided into equal parts by lines cutting each other at right angles.
These, of course, were the canonical standards mentioned by Plato and
Diodorus.
Great was the disappointment when these squares were counted. In one
picture containing three individuals, two seated figures, one beside the other,
are inscribed in fifteen of the squares; a standing figure in front of them
occupies sixteen.[310] Another figure is comprised in nineteen squares.[311] In
another place we find twenty-two squares and a quarter between the sole of
the foot and the crown of the head.[312] In yet another, twenty-three.[313] As
for the division given by Diodorus, it never occurs at all, and in fact it is
hardly to be reconciled with the natural punctuation of the human body by its
articulation and points of section.
To surmount the difficulty the theory of successive canons was started; some
declared for two,[314] some for three.[315] This theory requires explanation
also. Do its advocates mean that in all the figures of a single epoch there is a
scale of proportion so constant that we must seek for its cause in an external
peremptory regulation? If, however, we doubt the evidence of our eyes and
study the plates in Lepsius or the monuments in our museums, measure in
hand, we shall see at once that no such theory will hold water. Under the
Ancient Empire proportions varied appreciably between one figure and
another. As a rule they were short rather than tall; but while on the one hand
we encounter certain forms of very squat proportions, amounting almost to
deformity (Fig. 120, Vol. I.), we also find some whose forms are very lengthy
(Fig. 101, Vol. I.). The artists of Thebes adopted a more slender type, but with
them too we find nothing like a rigorous uniformity. Again, the elongation of
the work of a single sculptor. After having arranged and blocked out their
stone, the Egyptians executed the work in such fashion that all the parts
adapted themselves one to another in the smallest details. To this end they
divided the human figure into twenty-one parts and a quarter, upon which the
whole symmetry of the work was regulated."[309]
We may ask what authority should attach to the words of Diodorus, a
contemporary of Augustus, in a matter referring to the Pharaonic period. But
when the monuments began to be examined it was proclaimed that they
confirmed his statements. Figures were found upon the tomb-walls which
were divided into equal parts by lines cutting each other at right angles.
These, of course, were the canonical standards mentioned by Plato and
Diodorus.
Great was the disappointment when these squares were counted. In one
picture containing three individuals, two seated figures, one beside the other,
are inscribed in fifteen of the squares; a standing figure in front of them
occupies sixteen.[310] Another figure is comprised in nineteen squares.[311] In
another place we find twenty-two squares and a quarter between the sole of
the foot and the crown of the head.[312] In yet another, twenty-three.[313] As
for the division given by Diodorus, it never occurs at all, and in fact it is
hardly to be reconciled with the natural punctuation of the human body by its
articulation and points of section.
To surmount the difficulty the theory of successive canons was started; some
declared for two,[314] some for three.[315] This theory requires explanation
also. Do its advocates mean that in all the figures of a single epoch there is a
scale of proportion so constant that we must seek for its cause in an external
peremptory regulation? If, however, we doubt the evidence of our eyes and
study the plates in Lepsius or the monuments in our museums, measure in
hand, we shall see at once that no such theory will hold water. Under the
Ancient Empire proportions varied appreciably between one figure and
another. As a rule they were short rather than tall; but while on the one hand
we encounter certain forms of very squat proportions, amounting almost to
deformity (Fig. 120, Vol. I.), we also find some whose forms are very lengthy
(Fig. 101, Vol. I.). The artists of Thebes adopted a more slender type, but with
them too we find nothing like a rigorous uniformity. Again, the elongation of
Page 353
the lower part of the body is much more strongly marked in the funerary
statuettes (Fig. 50, Vol. I.) and in the paintings (Plate XII.) than in statues of
the natural size (Figs. 211, 216) and in the colossi. If there had been a canon
in the proper sense of the term its authority would have applied as much to
those statuettes and bas-reliefs as to the full-sized figures. But, as a fact, the
freedom of the artist is obvious; his conception is modified only by the
material in which he worked. He could not make a great statue in stone too
slender below, as it would want base and solidity; but as soon as he was easy
on that score he allowed himself to be carried away by the temptation to
exaggerate what seemed to him an especially graceful feature.
We see, then, that art in Egypt went through pretty much the same changes
and developments as in other countries in which it enjoyed a long and busy
life. Taste changed with the centuries. It began by insisting on muscular
vigour, as displayed in great breadth of shoulder and thickset proportions
generally. In later years elegance became the chief object, and slenderness of
proportion was sometimes pushed even to weakness. In each of these periods
all plastic figures naturally approached the type which happened to be in
fashion, and in that sense alone is it just to assert that Egyptian art had two
different and successive canons.
The question as to whether the Egyptians ever adopted a unit of measurement
in their rendering of the human figure or not, is different. Wilkinson and
Lepsius thought they had discovered such a unit in the length of the foot,
Prisse and Ch. Blanc in that of the medius. There is nothing in the texts to
support either theory, and an examination of the monuments themselves
shows that sometimes one, sometimes the other of the two units, is most in
accordance with their measurements. Between the Ancient Empire and the
New proportions differed so greatly that it is impossible to refer them to one
unit. Among the works of a single period we find some that may be divided
exactly by one of the two; others which have a fraction too much or too little.
It has not yet been proved, therefore, that the Egyptians ever adopted such a
rigorous system as that attributed to them. Like all races that have greatly
practised design, they established certain relations between one part of their
figures and another, relations which gradually became more constant as the
national art lost its freedom and vitality; and they arrived at last at the
mechanical reproduction of a single figure without troubling themselves to
calculate how many lengths of the head, the nose, the foot, or the medius, it
might contain. Their eyes were their compasses, and they worked—at least
statuettes (Fig. 50, Vol. I.) and in the paintings (Plate XII.) than in statues of
the natural size (Figs. 211, 216) and in the colossi. If there had been a canon
in the proper sense of the term its authority would have applied as much to
those statuettes and bas-reliefs as to the full-sized figures. But, as a fact, the
freedom of the artist is obvious; his conception is modified only by the
material in which he worked. He could not make a great statue in stone too
slender below, as it would want base and solidity; but as soon as he was easy
on that score he allowed himself to be carried away by the temptation to
exaggerate what seemed to him an especially graceful feature.
We see, then, that art in Egypt went through pretty much the same changes
and developments as in other countries in which it enjoyed a long and busy
life. Taste changed with the centuries. It began by insisting on muscular
vigour, as displayed in great breadth of shoulder and thickset proportions
generally. In later years elegance became the chief object, and slenderness of
proportion was sometimes pushed even to weakness. In each of these periods
all plastic figures naturally approached the type which happened to be in
fashion, and in that sense alone is it just to assert that Egyptian art had two
different and successive canons.
The question as to whether the Egyptians ever adopted a unit of measurement
in their rendering of the human figure or not, is different. Wilkinson and
Lepsius thought they had discovered such a unit in the length of the foot,
Prisse and Ch. Blanc in that of the medius. There is nothing in the texts to
support either theory, and an examination of the monuments themselves
shows that sometimes one, sometimes the other of the two units, is most in
accordance with their measurements. Between the Ancient Empire and the
New proportions differed so greatly that it is impossible to refer them to one
unit. Among the works of a single period we find some that may be divided
exactly by one of the two; others which have a fraction too much or too little.
It has not yet been proved, therefore, that the Egyptians ever adopted such a
rigorous system as that attributed to them. Like all races that have greatly
practised design, they established certain relations between one part of their
figures and another, relations which gradually became more constant as the
national art lost its freedom and vitality; and they arrived at last at the
mechanical reproduction of a single figure without troubling themselves to
calculate how many lengths of the head, the nose, the foot, or the medius, it
might contain. Their eyes were their compasses, and they worked—at least
Page 354
under the New Empire and during the Græco-Roman period—from models
which represented the experience of the past. It is therefore unnecessary to
search for an explanation of the uniformity which characterises their works in
the following of a rigid mathematical system; we must be content to see in it
the natural result of an artistic education into which, as the centuries
succeeded one another, the imitation of previous types, and the application of
traditional recipes entered more and more.
As for the designs traced within lines which cross each other at regular
intervals, they can be nothing but drawings squared for transferring purposes.
Squaring is the usual process employed by artists when they wish to repeat a
figure in different dimensions from those of the original. Having divided the
latter by horizontal and perpendicular lines cutting each other at regular
intervals, they go through the same operation upon the blank surface to which
the figure is to be transferred, making the lines equal in number to those upon
the original, but the resulting squares larger if the copy is to be larger, smaller
if it is to be smaller, than that original. Egyptian decorators often made use of
this process for the transference of sketches upon papyrus, stone, or wood, to
the wall. Of this practice we give two examples. The first is an elaborate
composition in which several modifications and corrections of lines and
attitudes may be traced (Fig. 258); the second is an isolated figure (Fig. 259).
In each case the figures extend vertically over nineteen squares. The first
dates from the eighteenth, the second from the nineteenth dynasty.[316]
Fig. 258.—Design transferred by squaring. From Prisse.
which represented the experience of the past. It is therefore unnecessary to
search for an explanation of the uniformity which characterises their works in
the following of a rigid mathematical system; we must be content to see in it
the natural result of an artistic education into which, as the centuries
succeeded one another, the imitation of previous types, and the application of
traditional recipes entered more and more.
As for the designs traced within lines which cross each other at regular
intervals, they can be nothing but drawings squared for transferring purposes.
Squaring is the usual process employed by artists when they wish to repeat a
figure in different dimensions from those of the original. Having divided the
latter by horizontal and perpendicular lines cutting each other at regular
intervals, they go through the same operation upon the blank surface to which
the figure is to be transferred, making the lines equal in number to those upon
the original, but the resulting squares larger if the copy is to be larger, smaller
if it is to be smaller, than that original. Egyptian decorators often made use of
this process for the transference of sketches upon papyrus, stone, or wood, to
the wall. Of this practice we give two examples. The first is an elaborate
composition in which several modifications and corrections of lines and
attitudes may be traced (Fig. 258); the second is an isolated figure (Fig. 259).
In each case the figures extend vertically over nineteen squares. The first
dates from the eighteenth, the second from the nineteenth dynasty.[316]
Fig. 258.—Design transferred by squaring. From Prisse.
Page 355
The same device is sometimes made use of to transfer heads, and even
animals, from a small sketch to the wall. In the tomb of Amenophis III., in
the Bab-el-Molouk, there is a fine portrait of a prince thus squared;[317] at
Beni-Hassan we find a cow and an antelope treated in the same fashion.[318]
Traces of another and yet more simple process are to be found. Before
drawing the figures in his bas-reliefs the artist sometimes marked in red on
the walls the vertical and horizontal lines which would give the poise of the
body, the height of the shoulders and armpits, and of the lower edge of the
drawers. The positions of secondary anatomical points were marked upon
these lines, and the whole formed a rough guide for the hand of the designer.
[319]
The fact that these lines and squares are only found upon a small number of
paintings and bas-reliefs does not prove that their employment was in any
way exceptional. It is probable that one of the two processes was generally
used, but that the colour spread both upon figures and ground hides their
traces. The few pictures in which they are now to be traced were never
completed.
Most of the painters and sculptors to whom the decorations of tombs and
temples were confided must have had recourse to these contrivances, but here
and there were artists who had sufficient skill and self-confidence to make
their sketches directly upon the wall itself. More than one instance of this has
been discovered in those Theban tombs whose decorations were left
unfinished. In a few cases the design has been made in red chalk by a
journeyman and afterwards corrected, in black chalk, by the master.[320]
animals, from a small sketch to the wall. In the tomb of Amenophis III., in
the Bab-el-Molouk, there is a fine portrait of a prince thus squared;[317] at
Beni-Hassan we find a cow and an antelope treated in the same fashion.[318]
Traces of another and yet more simple process are to be found. Before
drawing the figures in his bas-reliefs the artist sometimes marked in red on
the walls the vertical and horizontal lines which would give the poise of the
body, the height of the shoulders and armpits, and of the lower edge of the
drawers. The positions of secondary anatomical points were marked upon
these lines, and the whole formed a rough guide for the hand of the designer.
[319]
The fact that these lines and squares are only found upon a small number of
paintings and bas-reliefs does not prove that their employment was in any
way exceptional. It is probable that one of the two processes was generally
used, but that the colour spread both upon figures and ground hides their
traces. The few pictures in which they are now to be traced were never
completed.
Most of the painters and sculptors to whom the decorations of tombs and
temples were confided must have had recourse to these contrivances, but here
and there were artists who had sufficient skill and self-confidence to make
their sketches directly upon the wall itself. More than one instance of this has
been discovered in those Theban tombs whose decorations were left
unfinished. In a few cases the design has been made in red chalk by a
journeyman and afterwards corrected, in black chalk, by the master.[320]
Page 356
Fig. 259.—Design transferred by squaring. From Prisse.
As the bas-relief was thus preceded a sketch which was more or less liable to
modification, it would seem probable that a similar custom obtained in the
case of the statue. It appears especially unlikely that those great figures in the
harder rocks which represented such an enormous outlay of manual labour,
would be attacked without some guide which should preserve them from the
chance of ruin by some ill-considered blow. Did the Egyptian sculptor begin,
then, with a clay sketch? There is no positive information on the subject, but
in all those numerous bas-reliefs which represent sculptors at work, there is
not one in which the artist has before him anything in the shape of a model or
sketch to guide him in his task. It is possible that the sameness of his statues,
especially of his colossal figures in granite or sandstone, enabled the
Egyptian to dispense with an aid which the infinite variety of later schools
was to render necessary.
The Egyptian sculptor was contented with a few simple attitudes which he
reproduced again and again. He doubtless began by marking the salient
points and relative heights of the different parts upon his block. The rock was
so hard that there was little risk of his journeymen spoiling the material by
As the bas-relief was thus preceded a sketch which was more or less liable to
modification, it would seem probable that a similar custom obtained in the
case of the statue. It appears especially unlikely that those great figures in the
harder rocks which represented such an enormous outlay of manual labour,
would be attacked without some guide which should preserve them from the
chance of ruin by some ill-considered blow. Did the Egyptian sculptor begin,
then, with a clay sketch? There is no positive information on the subject, but
in all those numerous bas-reliefs which represent sculptors at work, there is
not one in which the artist has before him anything in the shape of a model or
sketch to guide him in his task. It is possible that the sameness of his statues,
especially of his colossal figures in granite or sandstone, enabled the
Egyptian to dispense with an aid which the infinite variety of later schools
was to render necessary.
The Egyptian sculptor was contented with a few simple attitudes which he
reproduced again and again. He doubtless began by marking the salient
points and relative heights of the different parts upon his block. The rock was
so hard that there was little risk of his journeymen spoiling the material by
Page 357
taking away too much, supposing them to be carefully overlooked. Marble
would have been far more liable to such an accident. Even Michael Angelo,
when he worked the marble with his own hands, spoilt more than one fine
block from Carrara.
Although we have no evidence to show that the Egyptians understood the use
of clay models, we have some idea of the process by which they were
enabled to do without them, and of the nature of their professional education.
The chief Egyptian museums possess works which have been recognized as
graduated exercises in the technique of sculpture. They are of limestone, and
of no great size—from four to ten inches high. The use of these little models
is shown to have been almost universal by the fact that Mariette found them
on nearly every ancient site that he excavated. Their true character is beyond
doubt.[321] At Boulak there are twenty-seven sculptured slabs which were
found at Tanis. One is no more than a rough sketch, just begun. By its side is
a completed study of the same subjects. Some of these slabs are carved on
both sides; on others we find one motive treated twice, side by side, once in
the state of first sketch, and again as a finished study. The plaques which bear
the heads of cynocephali, of lions and lionesses, are remarkable for the
freedom of their execution (Figs. 260, 261, and 262).[322] The same may be
said of fifteen royal heads found at Sakkarah. They should be examined
together. They range[323] in order from No. 623, which is a roughly-blocked-
out sketch, to 637, a finished head. One of these models is divided down the
middle, so as to give accent to the profile. A few of them are squared in order
to test the proportions. But even here no canon of proportion is to be found.
"If the squares were based upon some unchanging unit, they would be
identical in every model in which they occur. But in one of these heads we
find three horizontal divisions between the uræus and the chin; in another
four. In most cases the number of the squares seems to have been entirely due
to the individual caprice or convenience of the artist. There are but two
examples in which another rule seems to have been followed; in them the
proportions of the squares are identical, and their intersections fall upon the
same points. All that may be fairly deduced from this, however, is that they
are the work of the same hands."[324] A second series of royal heads was
found at Tanis; others have been discovered in the Fayoum. Boulak also
possesses models of the ram, the jackal, and the uræus, of arms, legs, hands,
&c. Upon a plaque from Tanis the figure of Isis appears twice, once as a
sketch and once as a finished study.
would have been far more liable to such an accident. Even Michael Angelo,
when he worked the marble with his own hands, spoilt more than one fine
block from Carrara.
Although we have no evidence to show that the Egyptians understood the use
of clay models, we have some idea of the process by which they were
enabled to do without them, and of the nature of their professional education.
The chief Egyptian museums possess works which have been recognized as
graduated exercises in the technique of sculpture. They are of limestone, and
of no great size—from four to ten inches high. The use of these little models
is shown to have been almost universal by the fact that Mariette found them
on nearly every ancient site that he excavated. Their true character is beyond
doubt.[321] At Boulak there are twenty-seven sculptured slabs which were
found at Tanis. One is no more than a rough sketch, just begun. By its side is
a completed study of the same subjects. Some of these slabs are carved on
both sides; on others we find one motive treated twice, side by side, once in
the state of first sketch, and again as a finished study. The plaques which bear
the heads of cynocephali, of lions and lionesses, are remarkable for the
freedom of their execution (Figs. 260, 261, and 262).[322] The same may be
said of fifteen royal heads found at Sakkarah. They should be examined
together. They range[323] in order from No. 623, which is a roughly-blocked-
out sketch, to 637, a finished head. One of these models is divided down the
middle, so as to give accent to the profile. A few of them are squared in order
to test the proportions. But even here no canon of proportion is to be found.
"If the squares were based upon some unchanging unit, they would be
identical in every model in which they occur. But in one of these heads we
find three horizontal divisions between the uræus and the chin; in another
four. In most cases the number of the squares seems to have been entirely due
to the individual caprice or convenience of the artist. There are but two
examples in which another rule seems to have been followed; in them the
proportions of the squares are identical, and their intersections fall upon the
same points. All that may be fairly deduced from this, however, is that they
are the work of the same hands."[324] A second series of royal heads was
found at Tanis; others have been discovered in the Fayoum. Boulak also
possesses models of the ram, the jackal, and the uræus, of arms, legs, hands,
&c. Upon a plaque from Tanis the figure of Isis appears twice, once as a
sketch and once as a finished study.
Page 358
Fig. 260.—Head of a Cynocephalus.
Fig. 261.—Head of a Lion.
Fig. 261.—Head of a Lion.
Page 359
Fig. 262.—Head of a Lioness.
From the style of these remains Mariette is disposed to think that they were
not earlier than the Saite epoch. As the Egyptian intellect gradually lost its
inventive powers, the study of such models as these must have played a more
and more important part in artistic education; but we have no reason to
believe that their use was confined to the later ages of the monarchy. As
artists became accustomed to reproduce certain fixed types, they gradually
lost their familiarity with nature, and their works became ever more uniform
and monotonous. This tendency is to be easily recognized in Egyptian work
long before the days of Amasis and the Psemetheks; in some degree it is
found even in the productions of the Ancient Empire. The use of the models
in question may have become general at the beginning of the Middle Empire.
But their introduction was not due to the priests, but to the masters in the arts,
who saw that they offered a sure and rapid method of instructing their
scholars.
Yet one more cause of the monotony of type which distinguished Egyptian art
after its first renascence remains to be noticed. The Egyptians were fully
conscious of the great antiquity of their civilization. They thought of other
nations much as the Greeks and Romans of a later age thought of those whom
they called barbarians. When the scribes had to speak of foreigners they made
From the style of these remains Mariette is disposed to think that they were
not earlier than the Saite epoch. As the Egyptian intellect gradually lost its
inventive powers, the study of such models as these must have played a more
and more important part in artistic education; but we have no reason to
believe that their use was confined to the later ages of the monarchy. As
artists became accustomed to reproduce certain fixed types, they gradually
lost their familiarity with nature, and their works became ever more uniform
and monotonous. This tendency is to be easily recognized in Egyptian work
long before the days of Amasis and the Psemetheks; in some degree it is
found even in the productions of the Ancient Empire. The use of the models
in question may have become general at the beginning of the Middle Empire.
But their introduction was not due to the priests, but to the masters in the arts,
who saw that they offered a sure and rapid method of instructing their
scholars.
Yet one more cause of the monotony of type which distinguished Egyptian art
after its first renascence remains to be noticed. The Egyptians were fully
conscious of the great antiquity of their civilization. They thought of other
nations much as the Greeks and Romans of a later age thought of those whom
they called barbarians. When the scribes had to speak of foreigners they made
Page 360
use of a complete vocabulary of contemptuous terms, and, as always occurs,
the pride of race upon which they were based long survived the condition of
things which formed its justification. The Greek conquest was necessary to
cure the Egyptians of their disdain, or, at least, to compel them to hide it.
Now the visible sign of their superiority was the beauty of the national type,
as elaborated by judicious selection and represented in art since the earliest
days of the monarchy. The Egyptian was proud of himself when he compared
the refined features of his gods and kings, their graceful attitudes and smiling
looks, with the thick and heavy lines of the negro or the hard and truculent
features of the Libyan and the Syrian nomad. In attempting to innovate, some
danger of lowering the nobility of the type would be incurred. The pressure
of neighbouring races ended by throwing back the Egyptian frontiers. At one
time they were forcibly curtailed by victorious invasion; at others they were
weakened here and there, allowing the entrance of the shepherds, of foreign
merchants, and of mercenaries of various nationalities. The purity of the
Egyptian blood was menaced, and at all hazards it was necessary to preserve
without alteration the ideal image of the race, the concrete emblem of its
glorious past and the pledge of its high destinies. It was thus that in Egypt
progress was hampered by fear of retrogression. Perfection is impossible to
those who fear a fall.
Another obstacle that helped to prevent the Egyptians from reaching the
perfection which their early achievements seemed to promise, was their love
for colour. They did not establish a sufficiently sharp line of demarcation
between painting and sculpture. They always painted their statues, except
when they carved them in materials which had a rich natural hue of their
own, a hue to which additional vivacity was given by a high polish. By this
means varied tints were obtained which were in harmony with the
polychromatic decoration which was so near their hearts. Their excuse is to
be found in their ignorance of statuary marble and of the clear and flesh-like
tones and texture which it puts on under the sculptor's chisel.
The Egyptians, however, never committed the fault of colouring their statues
in an imitative fashion, like those who make wax figures. Their hues were
always conventional. Moreover, they were never either broken or shaded,
which is sufficient to show that no idea of realistic imitation was implied in
their use.[325] Sculpture is founded upon an artificial understanding by which
tangible form and visible colour are dissociated from each other. When the
the pride of race upon which they were based long survived the condition of
things which formed its justification. The Greek conquest was necessary to
cure the Egyptians of their disdain, or, at least, to compel them to hide it.
Now the visible sign of their superiority was the beauty of the national type,
as elaborated by judicious selection and represented in art since the earliest
days of the monarchy. The Egyptian was proud of himself when he compared
the refined features of his gods and kings, their graceful attitudes and smiling
looks, with the thick and heavy lines of the negro or the hard and truculent
features of the Libyan and the Syrian nomad. In attempting to innovate, some
danger of lowering the nobility of the type would be incurred. The pressure
of neighbouring races ended by throwing back the Egyptian frontiers. At one
time they were forcibly curtailed by victorious invasion; at others they were
weakened here and there, allowing the entrance of the shepherds, of foreign
merchants, and of mercenaries of various nationalities. The purity of the
Egyptian blood was menaced, and at all hazards it was necessary to preserve
without alteration the ideal image of the race, the concrete emblem of its
glorious past and the pledge of its high destinies. It was thus that in Egypt
progress was hampered by fear of retrogression. Perfection is impossible to
those who fear a fall.
Another obstacle that helped to prevent the Egyptians from reaching the
perfection which their early achievements seemed to promise, was their love
for colour. They did not establish a sufficiently sharp line of demarcation
between painting and sculpture. They always painted their statues, except
when they carved them in materials which had a rich natural hue of their
own, a hue to which additional vivacity was given by a high polish. By this
means varied tints were obtained which were in harmony with the
polychromatic decoration which was so near their hearts. Their excuse is to
be found in their ignorance of statuary marble and of the clear and flesh-like
tones and texture which it puts on under the sculptor's chisel.
The Egyptians, however, never committed the fault of colouring their statues
in an imitative fashion, like those who make wax figures. Their hues were
always conventional. Moreover, they were never either broken or shaded,
which is sufficient to show that no idea of realistic imitation was implied in
their use.[325] Sculpture is founded upon an artificial understanding by which
tangible form and visible colour are dissociated from each other. When the
Page 361
sculptor looks to the help of the painter he runs great risk of failing to give all
the precision and beauty of which form by itself is capable, to his work. Even
the Greeks did not grasp this truth at once. The Egyptians had at least a
glimmering of it, and we must thank them for having employed polychromy
in their sculpture in a discreet fashion.
§ 10. The General Characteristics of the Egyptian Style.
We have attempted to give an idea of the origin of Greek sculpture, of its
development and its decadence. We have noticed those slow changes of taste
and style which sometimes required a thousand years for their evolution, for
a century in Egypt was hardly equal to a generation elsewhere. After proving
that Egypt did not escape the universal law of change, we studied the
methods and conventions which were peculiar to her sculptors and impressed
their works with certain common characteristics. The union of these
characteristics formed the Egyptian style. We must now define that style, and
attempt to make its originality clear to our readers.
In its commencement Egyptian art was entirely realistic. It was made realistic
both by the conceptions which presided at its birth and by the wants which it
was called upon to satisfy. The task to which it applied itself with a skill and
conscience which are little less than marvellous, was the exact representation
of all that met its vision. In the bas-relief it reproduced the every-day scenes
of agricultural life and of the national worship; in the statue it portrayed
individuals with complete fidelity. But even in those early ages imagination
was not asleep. It was continually seeking to invent forms which should
interpret its favourite ideas. It figured the exploits of the king, the defender of
the national civilization, in the form of a warrior brandishing his mace over
the heads of his enemies. In the royal statues everything combined to mark
the gulf between the Pharaoh and his subjects, their materials, size, attitude,
and expression, although in natural life there can have been no such
distinction. Finally the Great Sphinx at Gizeh is sufficient to prove that the
Egyptians, in their endeavour to make the great deities whom they had
conceived visible to the eye, had attempted to create composite types of
which the elements were indeed existent in nature, but separate and distinct.
After the first renascence their imaginations played more freely. They
multiplied the combinations under which their gods were personified. They
the precision and beauty of which form by itself is capable, to his work. Even
the Greeks did not grasp this truth at once. The Egyptians had at least a
glimmering of it, and we must thank them for having employed polychromy
in their sculpture in a discreet fashion.
§ 10. The General Characteristics of the Egyptian Style.
We have attempted to give an idea of the origin of Greek sculpture, of its
development and its decadence. We have noticed those slow changes of taste
and style which sometimes required a thousand years for their evolution, for
a century in Egypt was hardly equal to a generation elsewhere. After proving
that Egypt did not escape the universal law of change, we studied the
methods and conventions which were peculiar to her sculptors and impressed
their works with certain common characteristics. The union of these
characteristics formed the Egyptian style. We must now define that style, and
attempt to make its originality clear to our readers.
In its commencement Egyptian art was entirely realistic. It was made realistic
both by the conceptions which presided at its birth and by the wants which it
was called upon to satisfy. The task to which it applied itself with a skill and
conscience which are little less than marvellous, was the exact representation
of all that met its vision. In the bas-relief it reproduced the every-day scenes
of agricultural life and of the national worship; in the statue it portrayed
individuals with complete fidelity. But even in those early ages imagination
was not asleep. It was continually seeking to invent forms which should
interpret its favourite ideas. It figured the exploits of the king, the defender of
the national civilization, in the form of a warrior brandishing his mace over
the heads of his enemies. In the royal statues everything combined to mark
the gulf between the Pharaoh and his subjects, their materials, size, attitude,
and expression, although in natural life there can have been no such
distinction. Finally the Great Sphinx at Gizeh is sufficient to prove that the
Egyptians, in their endeavour to make the great deities whom they had
conceived visible to the eye, had attempted to create composite types of
which the elements were indeed existent in nature, but separate and distinct.
After the first renascence their imaginations played more freely. They
multiplied the combinations under which their gods were personified. They
Page 362
transformed and idealized the human figure by the gigantic proportions
which they gave to it in the seated statues of the king, and in those upright
colossi in which the majesty of Pharaoh and the divinity of Osiris are
combined in one individual. The sculptors portrayed the king in attitudes
which had never been seen by mortal eyes. Sometimes he is seated upon the
knee of a goddess and drawing nourishment from her breast; sometimes he
bends, like a respectful and loving son, before his father Amen, who blesses
him, and seems by his gesture to convey to him some of his own
omnipotence and immortality. Again he is presented to us in the confusion of
battle, towering so high above his adversaries that we can only wonder how
they had the temerity to stand up against him. Events hardly passed thus in
those long and arduous campaigns against the Khetas and the People of the
sea, in which more than one of the Theban Pharaohs spent their lives.
Victory, when it was victory, was long and hotly disputed. Superiority of
discipline and armament told at last and decided the contest in favour of the
Egyptians, who were inferior in strength and stature to most of their enemies,
especially to those who came from Asia Minor and the Grecian islands.
It is hardly just, therefore, to say, as has been said,[326] that "Egyptian art had
only one aim, the exact rendering of reality; in it all qualities of observation
are developed to their utmost capabilities, those of imagination are wanting."
Egyptian art is not like the sensitized plate of the photographer. It does not
confine itself to the faithful reproduction of the objects placed before it.
Painters and sculptors were not content, as has been pretended, with the art
that can be seen, as opposed to the art that can be imagined, and an injustice
is done to them by those who would confine the latter to the Aryan race. The
apparent precision of such an assertion makes it all the more misleading.
Egyptian art was realistic in its inception and always remained so to a certain
degree, but with the passage of time the creative intellect began to play a part
in the production of plastic works; it added to and combined the elements
which it took from nature, and thus created imaginary beings which differed
from natural fact by their proportions, their beauty, and their composition.
The Egyptian artist had his ideal as well as the Greek.
In saying, then, that the art of Egypt was realistic, we have only laid the first
stone of the definition we wish to establish. Its original character was,
perhaps, still more due to another feature, namely to its elimination or
suppression of detail. This elimination, far from diminishing with time, went
which they gave to it in the seated statues of the king, and in those upright
colossi in which the majesty of Pharaoh and the divinity of Osiris are
combined in one individual. The sculptors portrayed the king in attitudes
which had never been seen by mortal eyes. Sometimes he is seated upon the
knee of a goddess and drawing nourishment from her breast; sometimes he
bends, like a respectful and loving son, before his father Amen, who blesses
him, and seems by his gesture to convey to him some of his own
omnipotence and immortality. Again he is presented to us in the confusion of
battle, towering so high above his adversaries that we can only wonder how
they had the temerity to stand up against him. Events hardly passed thus in
those long and arduous campaigns against the Khetas and the People of the
sea, in which more than one of the Theban Pharaohs spent their lives.
Victory, when it was victory, was long and hotly disputed. Superiority of
discipline and armament told at last and decided the contest in favour of the
Egyptians, who were inferior in strength and stature to most of their enemies,
especially to those who came from Asia Minor and the Grecian islands.
It is hardly just, therefore, to say, as has been said,[326] that "Egyptian art had
only one aim, the exact rendering of reality; in it all qualities of observation
are developed to their utmost capabilities, those of imagination are wanting."
Egyptian art is not like the sensitized plate of the photographer. It does not
confine itself to the faithful reproduction of the objects placed before it.
Painters and sculptors were not content, as has been pretended, with the art
that can be seen, as opposed to the art that can be imagined, and an injustice
is done to them by those who would confine the latter to the Aryan race. The
apparent precision of such an assertion makes it all the more misleading.
Egyptian art was realistic in its inception and always remained so to a certain
degree, but with the passage of time the creative intellect began to play a part
in the production of plastic works; it added to and combined the elements
which it took from nature, and thus created imaginary beings which differed
from natural fact by their proportions, their beauty, and their composition.
The Egyptian artist had his ideal as well as the Greek.
In saying, then, that the art of Egypt was realistic, we have only laid the first
stone of the definition we wish to establish. Its original character was,
perhaps, still more due to another feature, namely to its elimination or
suppression of detail. This elimination, far from diminishing with time, went
Page 363
on increasing as the country grew older. It may be traced to the action of two
causes. In the first place, the influence of the ideographic writing upon the
national style can hardly be exaggerated. The concrete images of things could
only be introduced into it by means of simplification and generalization. In
such a school the eye learnt to despoil form of all those details which were
merely accidental, of all that made it particular. It sought for the species, or
even the genus, rather than the individual. This tendency was increased by
the peculiar properties of the materials upon which the Egyptians lavished
their skill and patience. The harder rocks turned the edges of their bronze
chisels, and compelled them to choose between roughly-blocked-out sketches
and a laborious polish which obliterated all those minor details of modelling
which should vary according to the sex, the age, and the muscular exertion of
the persons represented. We see, then, that the rebellious nature of the granite,
and the imperfect methods which it imposed, completed the lessons begun by
that system of figured writing which dates from the remotest periods of
Egyptian civilization.
There is an obvious contradiction between the tendency which we have just
noticed, and those habits of realistic imitation whose existence has been
explained by the desire to secure a posthumous existence for the dead. The
history of Egyptian sculpture, is, in fact, the history of a contest in the mind
of the artist between these two opposing forces. In the early years of the
monarchy, his first duty was to supply a portrait statue, the chief merit of
which should lie in the fidelity of its resemblance. Of this task he acquitted
himself most skilfully and conscientiously, reproducing every individual
peculiarity, and even deformity of his model. His chief attention was given to
the face, as being the member by which men are principally distinguished one
from another. Even then, and in the funerary statues, the body was much
more general in its forms than the head. In the course of succeeding ages the
sculptor was able, whenever he wished to make a faithful portrait either of an
individual man or of a race, to bring this faculty into play and to clearly mark
the differences between races or between the individuals of a race, by the
varying character of the head. But yet his art showed an ever increasing
tendency to follow the bent which had been given to it by the practice of
glyptic writing, and by the long contest with unkindly materials. After the
close of the Ancient Empire Egyptian art became ambitious of a higher style.
Under the Theban Pharaohs it worked hard to attain it, and it knew no better
causes. In the first place, the influence of the ideographic writing upon the
national style can hardly be exaggerated. The concrete images of things could
only be introduced into it by means of simplification and generalization. In
such a school the eye learnt to despoil form of all those details which were
merely accidental, of all that made it particular. It sought for the species, or
even the genus, rather than the individual. This tendency was increased by
the peculiar properties of the materials upon which the Egyptians lavished
their skill and patience. The harder rocks turned the edges of their bronze
chisels, and compelled them to choose between roughly-blocked-out sketches
and a laborious polish which obliterated all those minor details of modelling
which should vary according to the sex, the age, and the muscular exertion of
the persons represented. We see, then, that the rebellious nature of the granite,
and the imperfect methods which it imposed, completed the lessons begun by
that system of figured writing which dates from the remotest periods of
Egyptian civilization.
There is an obvious contradiction between the tendency which we have just
noticed, and those habits of realistic imitation whose existence has been
explained by the desire to secure a posthumous existence for the dead. The
history of Egyptian sculpture, is, in fact, the history of a contest in the mind
of the artist between these two opposing forces. In the early years of the
monarchy, his first duty was to supply a portrait statue, the chief merit of
which should lie in the fidelity of its resemblance. Of this task he acquitted
himself most skilfully and conscientiously, reproducing every individual
peculiarity, and even deformity of his model. His chief attention was given to
the face, as being the member by which men are principally distinguished one
from another. Even then, and in the funerary statues, the body was much
more general in its forms than the head. In the course of succeeding ages the
sculptor was able, whenever he wished to make a faithful portrait either of an
individual man or of a race, to bring this faculty into play and to clearly mark
the differences between races or between the individuals of a race, by the
varying character of the head. But yet his art showed an ever increasing
tendency to follow the bent which had been given to it by the practice of
glyptic writing, and by the long contest with unkindly materials. After the
close of the Ancient Empire Egyptian art became ambitious of a higher style.
Under the Theban Pharaohs it worked hard to attain it, and it knew no better
Page 364
means to the desired end than the continual simplification and generalization
of form.
This is the great distinguishing characteristic of the Egyptian style. The
uniformity, stiffness, and restraint of the attitudes, the over-rigorous
symmetry of the parts and of the limbs, and the close alliance of the latter
with the bodies, are only secondary features. We shall find them in the works
of every race compelled to make use of materials that were either too hard or
too soft. Moreover, these are the constant characteristics of archaic art, and it
must not be forgotten that even in Egypt many wooden and limestone figures
have been unearthed which surprise us by the freedom of their attitudes and
movements. The true originality of the Egyptian style consists in its
deliberately epitomizing that upon which the artists of other countries have
elaborately dwelt, in its lavishing all its executive powers upon chief masses
and leading lines, and in the marvellous judgment with which it seizes their
real meaning, their proportions, and the sources of their artistic effect.
As figures increased in size this tendency towards the suppression of detail
increased also, and so too did their fitness for the architectonic rôle they had
to play. The colossi which flank the entrances to an Egyptian temple have
been often criticised from an erroneous standpoint. They have been treated as
if they were meant to be self-sufficient and independent. Their massiveness
and want of vitality have been blamed; it has been said that the seated figures
could not rise, nor the standing ones walk. To form a just estimate of their
merit we must take them with the monuments of which they formed a part.
We must rouse our imaginations, and picture them to ourselves with their
flanking colonnades about them, with the pylons at their backs, and the
obelisks at their sides. We must close our eyes for a moment and reconstruct
this combination of architectural and sculpturesque lines. We shall then
readily perceive how entirely these colossi were in harmony with their
surroundings. Their vertical and horizontal lines echoed those of the
monument to which they were attached. The rhythm of the long colonnades
was carried on by their repetition of a single attitude, while their colossal
dimensions and immovable solidity brought them into complete accord with
the huge structures by which they were surrounded. It has been said that,
more than any of its rivals, "the architecture of Egypt impresses us with the
of form.
This is the great distinguishing characteristic of the Egyptian style. The
uniformity, stiffness, and restraint of the attitudes, the over-rigorous
symmetry of the parts and of the limbs, and the close alliance of the latter
with the bodies, are only secondary features. We shall find them in the works
of every race compelled to make use of materials that were either too hard or
too soft. Moreover, these are the constant characteristics of archaic art, and it
must not be forgotten that even in Egypt many wooden and limestone figures
have been unearthed which surprise us by the freedom of their attitudes and
movements. The true originality of the Egyptian style consists in its
deliberately epitomizing that upon which the artists of other countries have
elaborately dwelt, in its lavishing all its executive powers upon chief masses
and leading lines, and in the marvellous judgment with which it seizes their
real meaning, their proportions, and the sources of their artistic effect.
As figures increased in size this tendency towards the suppression of detail
increased also, and so too did their fitness for the architectonic rôle they had
to play. The colossi which flank the entrances to an Egyptian temple have
been often criticised from an erroneous standpoint. They have been treated as
if they were meant to be self-sufficient and independent. Their massiveness
and want of vitality have been blamed; it has been said that the seated figures
could not rise, nor the standing ones walk. To form a just estimate of their
merit we must take them with the monuments of which they formed a part.
We must rouse our imaginations, and picture them to ourselves with their
flanking colonnades about them, with the pylons at their backs, and the
obelisks at their sides. We must close our eyes for a moment and reconstruct
this combination of architectural and sculpturesque lines. We shall then
readily perceive how entirely these colossi were in harmony with their
surroundings. Their vertical and horizontal lines echoed those of the
monument to which they were attached. The rhythm of the long colonnades
was carried on by their repetition of a single attitude, while their colossal
dimensions and immovable solidity brought them into complete accord with
the huge structures by which they were surrounded. It has been said that,
more than any of its rivals, "the architecture of Egypt impresses us with the
Page 365
idea of absolute stability, of infinite duration." Could anything be in more
complete harmony with such an art than the grave and majestic attitudes of
these seated Pharaohs, attitudes which from every line breathe a profound
calm, a repose without change and without end.
complete harmony with such an art than the grave and majestic attitudes of
these seated Pharaohs, attitudes which from every line breathe a profound
calm, a repose without change and without end.
Page 366
CHAPTER IV.
PAINTING.
§ 1. Technical Processes.
Most of our observations upon Egyptian sculpture are applicable to the sister
art of painting. The conventions which form the characteristic originality of
the Egyptian style were established by the sculptor; but when the artist had to
draw the outline of a form, and to fill it in with colour instead of cutting it
upon the naked surface of the wall, the difference of process did not affect his
method of comprehending and interpreting his models. We find the same
qualities and the same defects. The purity of line, the nobility of pose, the
draughtsmanship at once just and broad, the ignorance of perspective, and the
constant repetition of traditional attitudes are found in both methods.
Painting, in fact, never became an independent and self-sufficing art in
Egypt. It was commonly used to complete sculpturesque effects, and it never
freed itself from this subordination. It never attempted to make use of its own
peculiar resources for the expression of those things which sculpture could
not compass—the depths of space, the recession of planes, the varieties of
hue which passion spreads over the human countenance, and the nature and
intensity of the feelings which are thus betrayed. We may say that it is only
by some abuse of terms that we can speak of Egyptian painting at all. No
people have spread more colour upon stone and wood than the Egyptians;
none have had a more true instinct for colour harmony; but yet they never
attempted to express, by the gradation of tone, by the juxtaposition or
superposition of tints, the real aspects of the surfaces which present
themselves to our eyes, aspects which are unceasingly modified by the
amount of light or shadow, by distance and the state of the atmosphere. They
had not the least glimmering of what we call chiaroscuro or of aerial
perspective.
Their painting rests upon conventions as audacious as those of their
sculpture. In it every surface has an uniform and decided value though in
nature everything is shaded. A nude figure is all one colour—dark for a man,
PAINTING.
§ 1. Technical Processes.
Most of our observations upon Egyptian sculpture are applicable to the sister
art of painting. The conventions which form the characteristic originality of
the Egyptian style were established by the sculptor; but when the artist had to
draw the outline of a form, and to fill it in with colour instead of cutting it
upon the naked surface of the wall, the difference of process did not affect his
method of comprehending and interpreting his models. We find the same
qualities and the same defects. The purity of line, the nobility of pose, the
draughtsmanship at once just and broad, the ignorance of perspective, and the
constant repetition of traditional attitudes are found in both methods.
Painting, in fact, never became an independent and self-sufficing art in
Egypt. It was commonly used to complete sculpturesque effects, and it never
freed itself from this subordination. It never attempted to make use of its own
peculiar resources for the expression of those things which sculpture could
not compass—the depths of space, the recession of planes, the varieties of
hue which passion spreads over the human countenance, and the nature and
intensity of the feelings which are thus betrayed. We may say that it is only
by some abuse of terms that we can speak of Egyptian painting at all. No
people have spread more colour upon stone and wood than the Egyptians;
none have had a more true instinct for colour harmony; but yet they never
attempted to express, by the gradation of tone, by the juxtaposition or
superposition of tints, the real aspects of the surfaces which present
themselves to our eyes, aspects which are unceasingly modified by the
amount of light or shadow, by distance and the state of the atmosphere. They
had not the least glimmering of what we call chiaroscuro or of aerial
perspective.
Their painting rests upon conventions as audacious as those of their
sculpture. In it every surface has an uniform and decided value though in
nature everything is shaded. A nude figure is all one colour—dark for a man,
Page 367
light for a woman. A drapery has but one tone, the artist never seeming to
trouble himself whether it be in light or shadow, or partly in one partly in the
other. In a few plates in Lepsius, and still more in Prisse,[327] there are
suggestions that an artist here and there, more skilful than his rivals,
understood that values differed, and distinguished in his more careful work
between colour in shadow and colour in light. One or two contours appear to
hint at the rotundity of chiaroscuro. In accepting such a suggestion, however,
we should be making a mistake against which we have been warned even by
such early travellers as the authors of the Description.[328] The effects in
question must be placed to the credit of the sculptor. The images in which
they appear are painted bas-reliefs, and the slight shadow thrown by their
salient grounds gives an appearance of half-tint to their contours. Wherever
pictures are without relief there is no such appearance, and yet changes of
value would in them be more useful than elsewhere.
To place unbroken colours in juxtaposition to each other without transitions is
to illuminate; it is not painting in the true sense of the word, and its
practitioner is an artisan rather than an artist. The artist is he who traces the
design upon the walls, who, chalk in hand, sketches the forms of men and
women and the lines of the ornament. Many of these sketches are admirable
for the freedom and breadth of their outline. The portrait of Amenophis III.
which is to be seen in his tomb in the Bab-el-Molouk is a good example of
these master-studies (Fig. 263). When nothing interfered to prevent the
completion of the work, the painter came with his palette and brushes to
spread colour over the spaces enclosed by these lines. Nothing could be
easier than his task. He was only required to lay his colours smoothly, and to
avoid overpassing the boundaries laid down for him. The hues of the flesh
and of the draperies were fixed in advance as well as those of the various
objects which were repeatedly introduced in such works.
trouble himself whether it be in light or shadow, or partly in one partly in the
other. In a few plates in Lepsius, and still more in Prisse,[327] there are
suggestions that an artist here and there, more skilful than his rivals,
understood that values differed, and distinguished in his more careful work
between colour in shadow and colour in light. One or two contours appear to
hint at the rotundity of chiaroscuro. In accepting such a suggestion, however,
we should be making a mistake against which we have been warned even by
such early travellers as the authors of the Description.[328] The effects in
question must be placed to the credit of the sculptor. The images in which
they appear are painted bas-reliefs, and the slight shadow thrown by their
salient grounds gives an appearance of half-tint to their contours. Wherever
pictures are without relief there is no such appearance, and yet changes of
value would in them be more useful than elsewhere.
To place unbroken colours in juxtaposition to each other without transitions is
to illuminate; it is not painting in the true sense of the word, and its
practitioner is an artisan rather than an artist. The artist is he who traces the
design upon the walls, who, chalk in hand, sketches the forms of men and
women and the lines of the ornament. Many of these sketches are admirable
for the freedom and breadth of their outline. The portrait of Amenophis III.
which is to be seen in his tomb in the Bab-el-Molouk is a good example of
these master-studies (Fig. 263). When nothing interfered to prevent the
completion of the work, the painter came with his palette and brushes to
spread colour over the spaces enclosed by these lines. Nothing could be
easier than his task. He was only required to lay his colours smoothly, and to
avoid overpassing the boundaries laid down for him. The hues of the flesh
and of the draperies were fixed in advance as well as those of the various
objects which were repeatedly introduced in such works.
Page 368
Fig. 263.—Outline for a portrait of Amenophis III. Champollion, pl. 232.
At Beni-Hassan, and in several of the Theban tombs, there are representations
of the painter at work. When he had to spread a single tint over a large
surface—brown, for instance, upon the whole superficies of a limestone
statue—we see him seated upon a kind of stool, his pot of colour in his left
hand, his brush in his unsupported right (Fig. 54 Vol. I.). Sometimes his work
was more complicated than this. There are a few royal portraits, and a few
scenes with numerous actors, in which the whole scale of tints at his
command must have been required. He then makes use of a palette.
Specimens of these palettes are to be seen in every museum. They are
rectangular pieces of wood, of alabaster, or of enamelled earthenware. They
usually have seven little colour cups, but a few have as many as eleven or
twelve. Small styles, as large as a crow-quill, have been found with these
palettes. The use of these has been much discussed. Prisse cut one and
steeped it in water. It was then discovered that the reed of which it was
composed became a brush when its fibres were thus softened by moisture.
At Beni-Hassan, and in several of the Theban tombs, there are representations
of the painter at work. When he had to spread a single tint over a large
surface—brown, for instance, upon the whole superficies of a limestone
statue—we see him seated upon a kind of stool, his pot of colour in his left
hand, his brush in his unsupported right (Fig. 54 Vol. I.). Sometimes his work
was more complicated than this. There are a few royal portraits, and a few
scenes with numerous actors, in which the whole scale of tints at his
command must have been required. He then makes use of a palette.
Specimens of these palettes are to be seen in every museum. They are
rectangular pieces of wood, of alabaster, or of enamelled earthenware. They
usually have seven little colour cups, but a few have as many as eleven or
twelve. Small styles, as large as a crow-quill, have been found with these
palettes. The use of these has been much discussed. Prisse cut one and
steeped it in water. It was then discovered that the reed of which it was
composed became a brush when its fibres were thus softened by moisture.
Page 369
[329]
None of the large brushes which must have been used to spread the
colour over considerable surfaces have been discovered, but Prisse believes
that they too must have been made of fibrous reeds, such as the sarmentose
stems of the Salvadora persica. Others think that for such purposes the hair
pencil must have been employed.
Cakes of colour have sometimes been found in the tombs, together with
earthenware mortars and pestles for grinding them. The tints usually
employed were yellow, red, blue, green, brown, white, and black. These
correspond to the seven cups hollowed in most of the palettes. They each
included several varieties. Some of these colours were vegetable, such as
indigo; others—and these more numerous—were mineral. Among the latter is
a certain blue, which has preserved all its brilliancy even after so many
centuries. Its merits were extolled by Theophrastus and Vitruvius. It is an ash
with wonderful power of resisting chemical agents, and neither turning green
nor black with exposure to the air. It must have been composed, we are told,
of sand, copper-filings, and subcarbonate of soda reduced to powder and
burnt in an oven. Copper is also the colouring principle, at least in our days,
of those greens which are more or less olive in tone. Different shades of red,
yellow, and brown, were obtained from the ochres. Their whites, formed of
lime, of plaster, or of powdered enamel, have sometimes preserved a snowy
whiteness beside which our whitest papers seem grey.[330] As for violet,
Champollion tells us that no colour used by the ancients had that value. In
those few bas-reliefs in which it is now found, it is a result of the changes
which time has spread over surfaces originally gilded. The hue in question is
caused, we are told, by the mordant or other preparation upon which the gold
was laid.[331]
None of the large brushes which must have been used to spread the
colour over considerable surfaces have been discovered, but Prisse believes
that they too must have been made of fibrous reeds, such as the sarmentose
stems of the Salvadora persica. Others think that for such purposes the hair
pencil must have been employed.
Cakes of colour have sometimes been found in the tombs, together with
earthenware mortars and pestles for grinding them. The tints usually
employed were yellow, red, blue, green, brown, white, and black. These
correspond to the seven cups hollowed in most of the palettes. They each
included several varieties. Some of these colours were vegetable, such as
indigo; others—and these more numerous—were mineral. Among the latter is
a certain blue, which has preserved all its brilliancy even after so many
centuries. Its merits were extolled by Theophrastus and Vitruvius. It is an ash
with wonderful power of resisting chemical agents, and neither turning green
nor black with exposure to the air. It must have been composed, we are told,
of sand, copper-filings, and subcarbonate of soda reduced to powder and
burnt in an oven. Copper is also the colouring principle, at least in our days,
of those greens which are more or less olive in tone. Different shades of red,
yellow, and brown, were obtained from the ochres. Their whites, formed of
lime, of plaster, or of powdered enamel, have sometimes preserved a snowy
whiteness beside which our whitest papers seem grey.[330] As for violet,
Champollion tells us that no colour used by the ancients had that value. In
those few bas-reliefs in which it is now found, it is a result of the changes
which time has spread over surfaces originally gilded. The hue in question is
caused, we are told, by the mordant or other preparation upon which the gold
was laid.[331]
Page 370
OFFERINGS TO THE DEAD
FRAGMENT OF A FUNERARY PAINTING ON PLASTER
(XVIIIth Dynasty)
In the Theban tombs the figures are first drawn and then painted upon a fine
coat which has all the polish of stucco. It seems to consist of a very fine
plaster and a transparent glue. It is still white where no tint has been laid
upon it; here and there its shining surface is still undimmed.[332] When the
pictures were executed upon wood or, as in the mummies, upon linen laid
FRAGMENT OF A FUNERARY PAINTING ON PLASTER
(XVIIIth Dynasty)
In the Theban tombs the figures are first drawn and then painted upon a fine
coat which has all the polish of stucco. It seems to consist of a very fine
plaster and a transparent glue. It is still white where no tint has been laid
upon it; here and there its shining surface is still undimmed.[332] When the
pictures were executed upon wood or, as in the mummies, upon linen laid
Page 371
down upon a thin layer of plaster, a preparatory coat of white was always
spread in the first instance. The tints became more brilliant over such a coat,
the most opaque being in some degree transparent.[333]
The paintings are, as a rule, free from cracks. The colours seem to have been
mixed with water and some flexible gum like tragacanth.[334] M. Hector
Leroux, who took impressions of many bas-reliefs during his visit to Egypt,
is inclined to believe that the Egyptians sometimes mixed honey with their
colours, as the makers of water-colours do now. In some of the tombs the
painting became sticky when he laid his moistened paper upon their surfaces.
In others no amount of wetting affected the surface of the colours, which
remained as smooth and hard as enamel. Some Egyptian paintings are
covered with a resinous varnish which has blackened with time and spoilt the
colours upon which it is laid.[335] The same varnish was used for the mummy
cases and gives them the dark hue which they now present. A few
exceptionally well preserved examples permit us to suppose that their colours
when fresh must have been much lighter in tone and more brilliant than they
now appear. No such precaution was taken, as a rule, in the case of the
frescos. Their surfaces were left free from a substance that could so greatly
alter with time, and thanks partly to this, partly to the equality of temperature
and to the dryness and tranquillity of the air, they have retained an
incomparable freshness. The centuries have passed gently over them, but
since all the world has taken to visiting Egypt, including even the foolish and
ignorant, they have suffered greatly from the barbarity of tourists. Of this the
state of those beautiful decorations in the tomb of Seti which have excited the
admiration of all cultivated travellers, is a painful instance.
Several mummy masks are in existence which prove that encaustic painting,
in which naphtha and wax were used, was employed by the Egyptians;[336]
but this process does not seem to have been developed until after the
Macedonian conquest. Speaking generally, we may say that the Egyptian
method was distemper.
The Egyptians produced easel pictures as well as wall paintings. In one of the
Beni-Hassan tombs two artists are represented painting animals upon a panel.
[337]
Herodotus tells us that Amasis presented his portrait to the people of
Cyrene.[338] Supposing it to be the work of a native artist, we may form some
idea of its character from the Egyptian portraits, dating from the Roman
spread in the first instance. The tints became more brilliant over such a coat,
the most opaque being in some degree transparent.[333]
The paintings are, as a rule, free from cracks. The colours seem to have been
mixed with water and some flexible gum like tragacanth.[334] M. Hector
Leroux, who took impressions of many bas-reliefs during his visit to Egypt,
is inclined to believe that the Egyptians sometimes mixed honey with their
colours, as the makers of water-colours do now. In some of the tombs the
painting became sticky when he laid his moistened paper upon their surfaces.
In others no amount of wetting affected the surface of the colours, which
remained as smooth and hard as enamel. Some Egyptian paintings are
covered with a resinous varnish which has blackened with time and spoilt the
colours upon which it is laid.[335] The same varnish was used for the mummy
cases and gives them the dark hue which they now present. A few
exceptionally well preserved examples permit us to suppose that their colours
when fresh must have been much lighter in tone and more brilliant than they
now appear. No such precaution was taken, as a rule, in the case of the
frescos. Their surfaces were left free from a substance that could so greatly
alter with time, and thanks partly to this, partly to the equality of temperature
and to the dryness and tranquillity of the air, they have retained an
incomparable freshness. The centuries have passed gently over them, but
since all the world has taken to visiting Egypt, including even the foolish and
ignorant, they have suffered greatly from the barbarity of tourists. Of this the
state of those beautiful decorations in the tomb of Seti which have excited the
admiration of all cultivated travellers, is a painful instance.
Several mummy masks are in existence which prove that encaustic painting,
in which naphtha and wax were used, was employed by the Egyptians;[336]
but this process does not seem to have been developed until after the
Macedonian conquest. Speaking generally, we may say that the Egyptian
method was distemper.
The Egyptians produced easel pictures as well as wall paintings. In one of the
Beni-Hassan tombs two artists are represented painting animals upon a panel.
[337]
Herodotus tells us that Amasis presented his portrait to the people of
Cyrene.[338] Supposing it to be the work of a native artist, we may form some
idea of its character from the Egyptian portraits, dating from the Roman
Page 372
epoch, which are now in the Louvre. Doubtless the portrait of Amasis was
very different in style from these productions of the decadence; but it is
probable that, like them, it was painted upon a cedar panel.
We have no reason to believe that the Egyptians ever succeeded in crossing
the line which separates illumination from painting. The convention which
saw only single flat tones on every surface being once adopted, it was
sometimes pushed to extraordinary lengths. Not content with ignoring the
varieties of tone and tint which nature everywhere presents, the Egyptian
artists sometimes adopted arbitrary hues which did not, even faintly, recall
the actual colours of the objects upon which they were used. As a rule they
represented the female skin as a light-yellow, and the male as a reddish-
brown. This distinction may be understood. Besides its convenience as
indicative of sex to a distant observer, it answers to a difference which social
habits have established in every civilized society. More completely covered
than men and less in the open air, the women, at least those of the upper
classes, are less exposed to the effects of sun and wind than men. Their skins
are usually fairer. In northern climates they are whiter, in southern less
brown. We are surprised therefore to find that in the small temple at
Ipsamboul the carnations of male and female, whether they be kings and
queens or gods and goddesses, are all alike of a vivid yellow, not far removed
from chrome.[339] Those divinities who have the limbs and features of man,
such as Amen, Osiris, Isis, and Nephthys, should, we might think, be subject
to the same rule as the images of men and women, and in most cases it is so.
But, on the other hand, the painter often endows them with skins of the most
fanciful and arbitrary hue. At Ipsamboul there is an Amen with a blue skin,
[340]
and, again, an Amen and an Osiris which are both green.[341] At Philæ
we find numerous examples of the same singularity.[342] At Kalabché, in
Nubia, there are royal figures coloured in the same fashion.[343]
Exceptional though they may be, these curious representations help us to
understand the Egyptian method of looking at colour. They did not employ it
like the modern painter, in order to add to the illusion; they used it
decoratively, partly to satisfy that innate love for polychromy which we have
explained by the intensity of a southern sun, partly to give relief to their
figures, which would stand out more boldly from the white ground when
brilliant with colour than when they had to depend solely upon their slight
relief. In the interior of the figure colour was used to distinguish the flesh
very different in style from these productions of the decadence; but it is
probable that, like them, it was painted upon a cedar panel.
We have no reason to believe that the Egyptians ever succeeded in crossing
the line which separates illumination from painting. The convention which
saw only single flat tones on every surface being once adopted, it was
sometimes pushed to extraordinary lengths. Not content with ignoring the
varieties of tone and tint which nature everywhere presents, the Egyptian
artists sometimes adopted arbitrary hues which did not, even faintly, recall
the actual colours of the objects upon which they were used. As a rule they
represented the female skin as a light-yellow, and the male as a reddish-
brown. This distinction may be understood. Besides its convenience as
indicative of sex to a distant observer, it answers to a difference which social
habits have established in every civilized society. More completely covered
than men and less in the open air, the women, at least those of the upper
classes, are less exposed to the effects of sun and wind than men. Their skins
are usually fairer. In northern climates they are whiter, in southern less
brown. We are surprised therefore to find that in the small temple at
Ipsamboul the carnations of male and female, whether they be kings and
queens or gods and goddesses, are all alike of a vivid yellow, not far removed
from chrome.[339] Those divinities who have the limbs and features of man,
such as Amen, Osiris, Isis, and Nephthys, should, we might think, be subject
to the same rule as the images of men and women, and in most cases it is so.
But, on the other hand, the painter often endows them with skins of the most
fanciful and arbitrary hue. At Ipsamboul there is an Amen with a blue skin,
[340]
and, again, an Amen and an Osiris which are both green.[341] At Philæ
we find numerous examples of the same singularity.[342] At Kalabché, in
Nubia, there are royal figures coloured in the same fashion.[343]
Exceptional though they may be, these curious representations help us to
understand the Egyptian method of looking at colour. They did not employ it
like the modern painter, in order to add to the illusion; they used it
decoratively, partly to satisfy that innate love for polychromy which we have
explained by the intensity of a southern sun, partly to give relief to their
figures, which would stand out more boldly from the white ground when
brilliant with colour than when they had to depend solely upon their slight
relief. In the interior of the figure colour was used to distinguish the flesh
Page 373
from the draperies, and to indicate those enrichments in the latter which made
up the elegance of the Egyptian costume. A good example of this way of
using colour is seen in the tomb of Amenophis III., which contains the
portrait of Queen Taia reproduced in our Fig. 264.[344]
We find, too, that in pictures in which people of different races are brought
together, the artist employs different tones to mark their varied hues. In a
tomb at Abd-el-Gournah, in which the construction of a building is
represented, the workmen, who are doubtless slaves or prisoners of war, have
not all skins of one colour; some are light yellow, some light red, while others
are reddish-brown. We are led to believe that this is not merely the result of
caprice on the part of the painter, by the fact that the men with the light
yellow skin seem to have more hair on their chests and chins than the others.
They come, no doubt, from northern latitudes, whose inhabitants are more
hairy than the southerners.[345] The negroes are made absolutely black,[346]
the Ethiopians very dark brown.[347]
But although the Egyptian painter made no attempt to imitate the hues of
nature in their infinite variety, we find a curious effort in certain Theban
paintings to reproduce one of those modifications of local tone which were to
attract so many artists of later times. The flesh tints are brown where they are
uncovered, and light yellow where they are veiled; the painter thus
attempting to show the warm skin shining through the semi-transparence of
fine linen.[348]
This is, however, but an isolated attempt, and it does not affect the truth of
our description of Egyptian painting, and of its conventional methods of
using colour. The observations we have made apply equally justly to coloured
bas-reliefs and to paintings properly speaking. The latter are only found in the
tombs. In the temples the figures which compose the decoration are always
engraved upon the walls in some fashion before they are touched with colour,
and the office of the painter was restricted to filling in the prepared outlines
with colour. It is the same, as a rule, with the steles; but a few exist upon
which the painter has had the field to himself. The papyri, too, were
illustrated by the artist in colour. Those elaborate examples of the Ritual of
the Dead, which come from the tombs of princes and of rich subjects, are full
of carefully executed vignettes (Figs. 97 and 184, Vol. I.).
up the elegance of the Egyptian costume. A good example of this way of
using colour is seen in the tomb of Amenophis III., which contains the
portrait of Queen Taia reproduced in our Fig. 264.[344]
We find, too, that in pictures in which people of different races are brought
together, the artist employs different tones to mark their varied hues. In a
tomb at Abd-el-Gournah, in which the construction of a building is
represented, the workmen, who are doubtless slaves or prisoners of war, have
not all skins of one colour; some are light yellow, some light red, while others
are reddish-brown. We are led to believe that this is not merely the result of
caprice on the part of the painter, by the fact that the men with the light
yellow skin seem to have more hair on their chests and chins than the others.
They come, no doubt, from northern latitudes, whose inhabitants are more
hairy than the southerners.[345] The negroes are made absolutely black,[346]
the Ethiopians very dark brown.[347]
But although the Egyptian painter made no attempt to imitate the hues of
nature in their infinite variety, we find a curious effort in certain Theban
paintings to reproduce one of those modifications of local tone which were to
attract so many artists of later times. The flesh tints are brown where they are
uncovered, and light yellow where they are veiled; the painter thus
attempting to show the warm skin shining through the semi-transparence of
fine linen.[348]
This is, however, but an isolated attempt, and it does not affect the truth of
our description of Egyptian painting, and of its conventional methods of
using colour. The observations we have made apply equally justly to coloured
bas-reliefs and to paintings properly speaking. The latter are only found in the
tombs. In the temples the figures which compose the decoration are always
engraved upon the walls in some fashion before they are touched with colour,
and the office of the painter was restricted to filling in the prepared outlines
with colour. It is the same, as a rule, with the steles; but a few exist upon
which the painter has had the field to himself. The papyri, too, were
illustrated by the artist in colour. Those elaborate examples of the Ritual of
the Dead, which come from the tombs of princes and of rich subjects, are full
of carefully executed vignettes (Figs. 97 and 184, Vol. I.).
Page 374
It is easy to understand why the painter reserved himself for the tomb. The
pictures upon the external walls of the temples and upon the pylons were
seen in the full glare of a southern sun; so too, at least for a part of the day,
were those upon the walls of the courtyards, and upon the shafts of their
surrounding columns. Even in the interior many of the decorations would
receive direct sunlight from the claustra of the attic, others would be subject
to friction from the hands and garments of visitors. Painting by itself would
be unfitted for such situations. It would either have its effect destroyed by the
direct light, or its colours dulled and damaged by constant touches. Figures
carved in the substance of the walls would have a very different duration.
When their colours paled with time, a few strokes of the brush would be
sufficient to renew their youth, and the combination of colour with relief
would give a much more telling result than could be obtained by the use of
the latter alone.
pictures upon the external walls of the temples and upon the pylons were
seen in the full glare of a southern sun; so too, at least for a part of the day,
were those upon the walls of the courtyards, and upon the shafts of their
surrounding columns. Even in the interior many of the decorations would
receive direct sunlight from the claustra of the attic, others would be subject
to friction from the hands and garments of visitors. Painting by itself would
be unfitted for such situations. It would either have its effect destroyed by the
direct light, or its colours dulled and damaged by constant touches. Figures
carved in the substance of the walls would have a very different duration.
When their colours paled with time, a few strokes of the brush would be
sufficient to renew their youth, and the combination of colour with relief
would give a much more telling result than could be obtained by the use of
the latter alone.
Page 375
Fig. 264.—Portrait of Queen Taia. From Prisse.
With the tomb it was very different. In its case neither violent changes of
temperature, nor friction, nor the rays of a dazzling sun were to be feared. Its
doors were to be ever closed, and the scenes which were entrusted to its walls
were to have no spectator but the dead man and his protecting Osiris. To
carry out the whole work with the brush was quicker than to associate that
instrument with the chisel, and we need therefore feel no surprise that many
tombs were so decorated.
These paintings are in no way inferior to the sculptural works of the same
period; the outlines of both must, in fact, have been traced by the same hands.
With the tomb it was very different. In its case neither violent changes of
temperature, nor friction, nor the rays of a dazzling sun were to be feared. Its
doors were to be ever closed, and the scenes which were entrusted to its walls
were to have no spectator but the dead man and his protecting Osiris. To
carry out the whole work with the brush was quicker than to associate that
instrument with the chisel, and we need therefore feel no surprise that many
tombs were so decorated.
These paintings are in no way inferior to the sculptural works of the same
period; the outlines of both must, in fact, have been traced by the same hands.
Page 376
The wielders of the chisel and brush must have been nothing more than
journeymen or artisans; the true artist was he who traced upon the wall the
outline which had afterwards to be filled in either in relief or in colour.
We should have liked to have reproduced the best of these paintings with all
their richness and variety of tint, but we had no original studies of which we
could make use, and, as in the painted architecture, we saw no great
advantages to be gained by copying the plates of Champollion, of Lepsius, or
of Prisse. The processes which they were compelled to employ have in many
cases visibly affected the fidelity of their transcriptions. We have therefore
felt ourselves compelled, much to our disappointment, to trust almost entirely
to black and white. We have, however, been careful to preserve the relative
values of the different tones. Those who have seen Egyptian paintings in the
original, or even in the copies which hang upon the staircase of the Egyptian
museum in the Louvre, will be able to restore their true colours to our
engravings without difficulty; the flesh tints, light or dark according to
circumstances, the blackness of the hair, the whiteness of linen cloth and of
the more brilliant colours, the reds and blues which adorn certain parts of the
draperies and certain details of furniture and jewellery, may all be easily
divined.
Our plates, though less numerous than we could have wished, will help the
reader to restore the absent colour. Plate II., in the first volume, gives a good
idea of the scale of tints used in the painted bas-reliefs of the temples; we
have every reason to believe it accurate.[349] The plate which faces page 334
is a faithful reproduction of a fragment in the Louvre. It comes from a
Theban tomb, and shows the elegance and refinement of the contours which
the painter had to fill up. The colour has faded, but the most interesting point
in all these pictures is the outline, in which alone real artistic talent and
inventive power are displayed. Finally, our Plates III. and IV., drawn and
coloured from notes and sketches made upon the spot by M. Bourgoin,
represent the polychromatic decoration of the Ancient Empire as it was left
by those who decorated the tomb of Ptah-hotep. In this case at least we know
that we possess the true value of the tones brought together by the artist, for
the mastaba in question is one of those which the desert sands have most
completely preserved.
§ 2. The Figure.
journeymen or artisans; the true artist was he who traced upon the wall the
outline which had afterwards to be filled in either in relief or in colour.
We should have liked to have reproduced the best of these paintings with all
their richness and variety of tint, but we had no original studies of which we
could make use, and, as in the painted architecture, we saw no great
advantages to be gained by copying the plates of Champollion, of Lepsius, or
of Prisse. The processes which they were compelled to employ have in many
cases visibly affected the fidelity of their transcriptions. We have therefore
felt ourselves compelled, much to our disappointment, to trust almost entirely
to black and white. We have, however, been careful to preserve the relative
values of the different tones. Those who have seen Egyptian paintings in the
original, or even in the copies which hang upon the staircase of the Egyptian
museum in the Louvre, will be able to restore their true colours to our
engravings without difficulty; the flesh tints, light or dark according to
circumstances, the blackness of the hair, the whiteness of linen cloth and of
the more brilliant colours, the reds and blues which adorn certain parts of the
draperies and certain details of furniture and jewellery, may all be easily
divined.
Our plates, though less numerous than we could have wished, will help the
reader to restore the absent colour. Plate II., in the first volume, gives a good
idea of the scale of tints used in the painted bas-reliefs of the temples; we
have every reason to believe it accurate.[349] The plate which faces page 334
is a faithful reproduction of a fragment in the Louvre. It comes from a
Theban tomb, and shows the elegance and refinement of the contours which
the painter had to fill up. The colour has faded, but the most interesting point
in all these pictures is the outline, in which alone real artistic talent and
inventive power are displayed. Finally, our Plates III. and IV., drawn and
coloured from notes and sketches made upon the spot by M. Bourgoin,
represent the polychromatic decoration of the Ancient Empire as it was left
by those who decorated the tomb of Ptah-hotep. In this case at least we know
that we possess the true value of the tones brought together by the artist, for
the mastaba in question is one of those which the desert sands have most
completely preserved.
§ 2. The Figure.
Page 377
In the mastabas colours are applied to figures in relief. It is not till we reach
the first Theban Empire, in the tombs at Beni-Hassan, that we find real
paintings in which the brush alone has been used.
Fig. 265.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 374.
We have already described the style and character of the paintings at Beni-
Hassan. In most cases the outlines prepared for the painter do not differ from
those meant for the sculptor.
We have already reproduced many works in outline in which there is nothing
to show whether they are paintings or bas-reliefs. Their execution is almost
identical (see Figs. 2, 5, 25, 98, 170, Vol. I.; Figs. 25, 26, 31, Vol. II). It is the
same with the two wrestling scenes which we take from the frescos in which
all the gymnastic exercises then in vogue are represented (Figs. 265 and 266),
and with the charming group formed by an antelope and a man stroking his
muzzle (Fig. 267).
the first Theban Empire, in the tombs at Beni-Hassan, that we find real
paintings in which the brush alone has been used.
Fig. 265.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 374.
We have already described the style and character of the paintings at Beni-
Hassan. In most cases the outlines prepared for the painter do not differ from
those meant for the sculptor.
We have already reproduced many works in outline in which there is nothing
to show whether they are paintings or bas-reliefs. Their execution is almost
identical (see Figs. 2, 5, 25, 98, 170, Vol. I.; Figs. 25, 26, 31, Vol. II). It is the
same with the two wrestling scenes which we take from the frescos in which
all the gymnastic exercises then in vogue are represented (Figs. 265 and 266),
and with the charming group formed by an antelope and a man stroking his
muzzle (Fig. 267).
Page 378
Fig. 266.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 371.
Fig. 267.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 359.
Even at Beni-Hassan, however, there are a few paintings in which the
peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of that art are to be found. The
group of singers and musicians figured on this page is an instance in point.
Two of the heads are shown in full face, a view which we hardly ever meet
with in the bas-reliefs. The hair and the draperies are also treated in a fashion
quite different from that of sculpture, at least in the case of the two musicians
on the right. Their twisted tresses seem to be thrown into disorder by the
energetic movements of their heads, which they seem to sway in time to the
Fig. 267.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 359.
Even at Beni-Hassan, however, there are a few paintings in which the
peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of that art are to be found. The
group of singers and musicians figured on this page is an instance in point.
Two of the heads are shown in full face, a view which we hardly ever meet
with in the bas-reliefs. The hair and the draperies are also treated in a fashion
quite different from that of sculpture, at least in the case of the two musicians
on the right. Their twisted tresses seem to be thrown into disorder by the
energetic movements of their heads, which they seem to sway in time to the
Page 379
music of the flute, which is also marked by the hands of two members of the
party. The deep shadows cast by their hair give a strong relief to the oval
contours of the two faces which look out of the picture. The execution of the
drapery is governed by the same idea, its numerous small folds are suggested
by lines at slight intervals.
Fig. 268.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 377 ter.
Fig. 269.—Painting at Thebes. From Horeau.
party. The deep shadows cast by their hair give a strong relief to the oval
contours of the two faces which look out of the picture. The execution of the
drapery is governed by the same idea, its numerous small folds are suggested
by lines at slight intervals.
Fig. 268.—Painting at Beni-Hassan. Champollion, pl. 377 ter.
Fig. 269.—Painting at Thebes. From Horeau.
Page 380
Fig. 270.—Painting at Thebes. From Prisse.
In the whole series of Egyptian wall-paintings I know of nothing which is
more truly pictorial in character than this picture. A careful study of it might
well lead us to believe that its painter deliberately set himself to cast off
traditional methods, and to obtain all the effect that the skilful use of colour
can give. But the seed thus cast did not spring up. Theban painting is not an
advance upon that of Beni-Hassan. It hardly ever attempts the full face. It is
only here and there that we can point to a work in which the brush seems to
have dwelt upon a few details that would be rendered in a more summary
fashion by the chisel. The mandore player in Fig. 270, who comes from the
same hypogeum at Abd-el-Gournah as the Amenophis III. upon the knees of
a goddess in Fig. 24, is one of these rare instances. The hair, plaited into
narrow tresses and retained in place by a long comb, is carried out with quite
In the whole series of Egyptian wall-paintings I know of nothing which is
more truly pictorial in character than this picture. A careful study of it might
well lead us to believe that its painter deliberately set himself to cast off
traditional methods, and to obtain all the effect that the skilful use of colour
can give. But the seed thus cast did not spring up. Theban painting is not an
advance upon that of Beni-Hassan. It hardly ever attempts the full face. It is
only here and there that we can point to a work in which the brush seems to
have dwelt upon a few details that would be rendered in a more summary
fashion by the chisel. The mandore player in Fig. 270, who comes from the
same hypogeum at Abd-el-Gournah as the Amenophis III. upon the knees of
a goddess in Fig. 24, is one of these rare instances. The hair, plaited into
narrow tresses and retained in place by a long comb, is carried out with quite
Page 381
unusual care. The areolæ of the breasts are very clearly marked, a detail
which Prisse says he never met with elsewhere.[350]
Fig. 271.—Harpist. From the Description.
which Prisse says he never met with elsewhere.[350]
Fig. 271.—Harpist. From the Description.
Page 382
Fig. 272.—European prisoner. From Champollion.
Fig. 273.—Head of the same prisoner.
Fig. 273.—Head of the same prisoner.
Page 383
The slender proportions which we have already noticed as characteristic of
this period are here strongly marked. They are also conspicuous in the figures
in Plate II. This is a funerary scene. Three women stand before the defunct;
one hands the cup for the libation, the two others play upon the flute and the
harp respectively.
This fragment must have formed part of a funerary scene similar to that put
before us in full by a painting in one of the tombs in the Valley of Queens at
Thebes. We there see women with offerings and others playing upon musical
instruments, advancing towards the deceased, who has his daughter upon his
knees and his wife seated at his right hand (Fig. 269).
The two often reproduced players upon the harp in the tomb of Rameses III.
(long called Bruce's Tomb, after its discoverer) belong to the same class of
representations (Fig. 271). Robed in a long black mantle, the musician
abandons himself entirely to his music. The draughtsmanship of the arms is
faulty, but the pose of the figure is natural and life-like. The harp is very
richly ornamented; its base terminates in a royal head rising from a circlet of
ample necklaces. The wood seems to be inlaid with colour.
Fig. 274.—Ethiopian prisoner. Champollion, pl. 932.
this period are here strongly marked. They are also conspicuous in the figures
in Plate II. This is a funerary scene. Three women stand before the defunct;
one hands the cup for the libation, the two others play upon the flute and the
harp respectively.
This fragment must have formed part of a funerary scene similar to that put
before us in full by a painting in one of the tombs in the Valley of Queens at
Thebes. We there see women with offerings and others playing upon musical
instruments, advancing towards the deceased, who has his daughter upon his
knees and his wife seated at his right hand (Fig. 269).
The two often reproduced players upon the harp in the tomb of Rameses III.
(long called Bruce's Tomb, after its discoverer) belong to the same class of
representations (Fig. 271). Robed in a long black mantle, the musician
abandons himself entirely to his music. The draughtsmanship of the arms is
faulty, but the pose of the figure is natural and life-like. The harp is very
richly ornamented; its base terminates in a royal head rising from a circlet of
ample necklaces. The wood seems to be inlaid with colour.
Fig. 274.—Ethiopian prisoner. Champollion, pl. 932.
Page 384
Fig. 275.—Head of the same prisoner.
Among the most interesting of the painted figures in the royal tombs are the
prisoners of war and other representations of foreign and conquered races.
We reproduce two of these figures from the tomb of Seti I. In order that the
care expended by the artist both on the costumes and upon the peculiar
characteristics of the physiognomies may be appreciated, we have given their
figures at full length, and also their heads upon a larger scale.
The first of these two prisoners must have been a European, according to
Champollion. His white skin, his straight nose, and the tattooing upon his
arms all help to prove this (Figs. 272 and 273). He is dressed in a long robe,
bordered with a rich fringe and covered with ornaments. This robe is held up
by a large knot over the left shoulder, but it leaves one half of his body
without a covering. His profile is very curious; the nose is large and aquiline,
his beard curled and wavy, and down by his right ear hangs one of those side
locks which were, in Egypt, the peculiar property of infancy. Long tresses
hanging down on each side of the brow, and two fringe-like bands passing
round the head complete this strange head-dress.
Among the most interesting of the painted figures in the royal tombs are the
prisoners of war and other representations of foreign and conquered races.
We reproduce two of these figures from the tomb of Seti I. In order that the
care expended by the artist both on the costumes and upon the peculiar
characteristics of the physiognomies may be appreciated, we have given their
figures at full length, and also their heads upon a larger scale.
The first of these two prisoners must have been a European, according to
Champollion. His white skin, his straight nose, and the tattooing upon his
arms all help to prove this (Figs. 272 and 273). He is dressed in a long robe,
bordered with a rich fringe and covered with ornaments. This robe is held up
by a large knot over the left shoulder, but it leaves one half of his body
without a covering. His profile is very curious; the nose is large and aquiline,
his beard curled and wavy, and down by his right ear hangs one of those side
locks which were, in Egypt, the peculiar property of infancy. Long tresses
hanging down on each side of the brow, and two fringe-like bands passing
round the head complete this strange head-dress.
Page 385
Fig. 276.—Winged figure. Description, vol. ii. pl. 92.
The individual in the second figure appears to be an Ethiopian (Figs. 274 and
275). His costume is comparatively simple. It consists of a pair of drawers
kept in place by a wide band like a baldrick, which is passed over the left
shoulder and tied round the loins. The end of this baldrick hangs down
between the legs; it is decorated with rosettes and edged with a band upon
which circular ornaments are scattered. The almost negro features are similar
to those represented in the bas-relief at the Ramesseum which is reproduced
in Fig. 221. The shape of the head-dress, too, is similar. The artist has had
some difficulty with the woolly hair, and has attempted to render its
appearance by a series of knots strung together. In this part of the picture, as
in Fig. 273, there is some conventionality, but in the outline of the figure and
especially of the face, we find the characteristic genius of Egyptian art, the
The individual in the second figure appears to be an Ethiopian (Figs. 274 and
275). His costume is comparatively simple. It consists of a pair of drawers
kept in place by a wide band like a baldrick, which is passed over the left
shoulder and tied round the loins. The end of this baldrick hangs down
between the legs; it is decorated with rosettes and edged with a band upon
which circular ornaments are scattered. The almost negro features are similar
to those represented in the bas-relief at the Ramesseum which is reproduced
in Fig. 221. The shape of the head-dress, too, is similar. The artist has had
some difficulty with the woolly hair, and has attempted to render its
appearance by a series of knots strung together. In this part of the picture, as
in Fig. 273, there is some conventionality, but in the outline of the figure and
especially of the face, we find the characteristic genius of Egyptian art, the
Page 386
power to create types which are at once life-like and general, to epitomize all
those attributes which constitute a species and allow it to be defined.
Fig. 277.—Winged figure. Description, vol. ii, pl. 87.
The scenes represented upon the walls of the tomb may be divided into two
groups: those which are more or less historical, and those which are purely
religious or mystical. Among the latter the figures of winged goddesses, of
Isis and Nephthys, are frequently encountered. They are either seated or
standing, carved upon the sarcophagi or painted upon the wooden mummy
cases. One wing is always raised, the other lowered (Figs. 276 and 277). The
artists of other Oriental races, and even of the Greeks themselves, loved to
those attributes which constitute a species and allow it to be defined.
Fig. 277.—Winged figure. Description, vol. ii, pl. 87.
The scenes represented upon the walls of the tomb may be divided into two
groups: those which are more or less historical, and those which are purely
religious or mystical. Among the latter the figures of winged goddesses, of
Isis and Nephthys, are frequently encountered. They are either seated or
standing, carved upon the sarcophagi or painted upon the wooden mummy
cases. One wing is always raised, the other lowered (Figs. 276 and 277). The
artists of other Oriental races, and even of the Greeks themselves, loved to
Page 387
endow the figures of men and animals with wings. Egypt was the first to
carry out this idea, and the winged figures which had a definite meaning
when used in the tombs, came at last to be employed as mere decoration upon
the industrial products which she exported through the Phœnicians. Fig. 277
comes from a royal tomb, and it shows how these winged goddesses were
sometimes combined with motives, which were either purely decorative or
easily used for decorative purposes. Like sphinxes and griffins, these
composite forms amused the eye and were soon seized upon by the
ornamentist, while their wings, which could be either closed or expanded,
were useful for covering large spaces and helping to "furnish" the decoration.
§ 3. Caricature.
We have shown the artists of ancient Egypt making naïve and sincere
transcripts of reality; we have shown them, in their religious and historical
scenes, inventing motives, creating types, and even aspiring to the ideal; we
have yet to show that they understood fun and could enjoy a laugh. Without
this last quality their art would hardly be complete. In the royal tombs at
Thebes we find a lion and a donkey singing to their own accompaniment on
the harp and lyre respectively.[351] This particular bent of the Egyptian artist
is seen at its best, however, in a group of remains which are called the
Satirical Papyri, and apparently date from the nineteenth dynasty. The
Egyptians, like the Greeks after them, seem to have understood that sculpture
properly speaking, the art that produces figures of large size from such
materials as bronze and marble, does not lend itself to the provocation of
laughter by the voluntary production of ugliness and deformity. They also
perceived that such subjects were equally ill-adapted for wall paintings,
whether in tombs or palaces. Among them, as among the Greeks, the
grotesque was only allowed to appear where the forms were both very much
smaller than life and considerably generalized. The designs traced with a
light and airy hand upon such papyri as that of which the Turin Museum
possesses an important fragment are examples of this treatment.
The drawings in this papyrus are not caricatures as we now understand the
word. Caricature is an exaggerated portrait; it founds itself upon reality while
turning it into ridicule by the accentuation of its most laughable features. But
the drawings in this manuscript are inspired by the same ideas and the same
intellectual bent as our modern caricatures. They respond to the universal
carry out this idea, and the winged figures which had a definite meaning
when used in the tombs, came at last to be employed as mere decoration upon
the industrial products which she exported through the Phœnicians. Fig. 277
comes from a royal tomb, and it shows how these winged goddesses were
sometimes combined with motives, which were either purely decorative or
easily used for decorative purposes. Like sphinxes and griffins, these
composite forms amused the eye and were soon seized upon by the
ornamentist, while their wings, which could be either closed or expanded,
were useful for covering large spaces and helping to "furnish" the decoration.
§ 3. Caricature.
We have shown the artists of ancient Egypt making naïve and sincere
transcripts of reality; we have shown them, in their religious and historical
scenes, inventing motives, creating types, and even aspiring to the ideal; we
have yet to show that they understood fun and could enjoy a laugh. Without
this last quality their art would hardly be complete. In the royal tombs at
Thebes we find a lion and a donkey singing to their own accompaniment on
the harp and lyre respectively.[351] This particular bent of the Egyptian artist
is seen at its best, however, in a group of remains which are called the
Satirical Papyri, and apparently date from the nineteenth dynasty. The
Egyptians, like the Greeks after them, seem to have understood that sculpture
properly speaking, the art that produces figures of large size from such
materials as bronze and marble, does not lend itself to the provocation of
laughter by the voluntary production of ugliness and deformity. They also
perceived that such subjects were equally ill-adapted for wall paintings,
whether in tombs or palaces. Among them, as among the Greeks, the
grotesque was only allowed to appear where the forms were both very much
smaller than life and considerably generalized. The designs traced with a
light and airy hand upon such papyri as that of which the Turin Museum
possesses an important fragment are examples of this treatment.
The drawings in this papyrus are not caricatures as we now understand the
word. Caricature is an exaggerated portrait; it founds itself upon reality while
turning it into ridicule by the accentuation of its most laughable features. But
the drawings in this manuscript are inspired by the same ideas and the same
intellectual bent as our modern caricatures. They respond to the universal
Page 388
taste of mankind for the mental relaxation afforded by parody, for the relief
from the serious business of life which is to be found in comedy and
burlesque. Ancient Egypt was a merry country. Its inhabitants were as pleased
as children over the simplest and most homely jokes; jests, fantastic tales, and
fables in which animals acted like men and women, were as popular with
them as with their successors in civilisation. Their comic artists were
especially fond of treating scenes of this last description, and their works
often remind us of those produced in much later times for the illustration of
Æsop or La Fontaine.
Fig. 278.—Battle of the Cats and Rats. From Prisse.
Prisse reproduces the most interesting part of the Turin papyrus, and we have
copied a fragment of his plate (Fig. 278). "In the first group, four animals—
an ass, a lion, a crocodile, and a monkey—make up a quartette, playing on
such musical instruments as were then in fashion. Next comes an ass dressed,
armed, and sceptred like a Pharaoh; with a majestic swagger he receives the
offerings brought to him by a cat of high degree, to whom a bull is proud to
act as conductor. At the side a unicorn seems to threaten a kneeling cat with
its harp..... The scenes drawn below, and on a smaller scale, are no more
coherent than these. In the first place we see a flock of geese in open
rebellion against its conductors—three cats, one of whom has fallen under the
blows of the angry birds. Next we come to a sycamore in which an
hippopotamus is perched; a hawk has climbed into the tree by means of a
ladder and proceeds to dislodge him; finally, we have a fortress defended by
an army of cats, who are without other arms than their claws and teeth,
from the serious business of life which is to be found in comedy and
burlesque. Ancient Egypt was a merry country. Its inhabitants were as pleased
as children over the simplest and most homely jokes; jests, fantastic tales, and
fables in which animals acted like men and women, were as popular with
them as with their successors in civilisation. Their comic artists were
especially fond of treating scenes of this last description, and their works
often remind us of those produced in much later times for the illustration of
Æsop or La Fontaine.
Fig. 278.—Battle of the Cats and Rats. From Prisse.
Prisse reproduces the most interesting part of the Turin papyrus, and we have
copied a fragment of his plate (Fig. 278). "In the first group, four animals—
an ass, a lion, a crocodile, and a monkey—make up a quartette, playing on
such musical instruments as were then in fashion. Next comes an ass dressed,
armed, and sceptred like a Pharaoh; with a majestic swagger he receives the
offerings brought to him by a cat of high degree, to whom a bull is proud to
act as conductor. At the side a unicorn seems to threaten a kneeling cat with
its harp..... The scenes drawn below, and on a smaller scale, are no more
coherent than these. In the first place we see a flock of geese in open
rebellion against its conductors—three cats, one of whom has fallen under the
blows of the angry birds. Next we come to a sycamore in which an
hippopotamus is perched; a hawk has climbed into the tree by means of a
ladder and proceeds to dislodge him; finally, we have a fortress defended by
an army of cats, who are without other arms than their claws and teeth,
Page 389
against a storming party of rats provided with arms offensive and defensive,
and led by one of their own species, who is mounted on a chariot drawn by
two greyhounds.
"The artist's idea—at least in the lower part of the picture—seems to have
been to paint the cats defeated by the animals upon which they prey. It is the
world turned upside down, or if the painter must be credited with a deeper
meaning, it is the revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor."[352]
The lower part of the plate contains a scene of the same kind taken from a
papyrus in the British Museum. A flock of geese are being driven along by a
cat, and a herd of goats by two wolves with crook and wallet; one of the
wolves is playing on the double flute. At the other end there is a lion playing
draughts with an antelope.
One of the tombs has upon its walls a picture of a humble and timid cat
attempting to propitiate a lion by the offering of a goose.[353]
In the opinion of some these scenes are satires upon royalty and religion. This
is an evident exaggeration. We have no reason to suppose that the Egyptian
intellect ever arrived at the maturity required for scepticism. Neither the
authority of Pharaoh nor that of the priests seems to have ever been called in
question. But although their anger was not stirred by the government of the
world, they could find something to laugh at in it. In the cat presented to an
ass we cannot fail to see a parody of Pharaoh receiving the homage of some
vanquished enemy. Still more personal is the cat offering a goose to a lion.
The cat can only be that unlucky fellah who, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs as
in that of the Khedives, has never succeeded in keeping clear of the bastinado
and the corvée except by giving presents to the sheikh of his village or the
mudir of the neighbouring town. In laying this scene upon the wall the artist
was writing a page of his own biography and of the history of all the people
about him. He revenged himself in his own way upon the greedy functionary
to whom he had been compelled to offer the fatlings of his own farm-yard.
and led by one of their own species, who is mounted on a chariot drawn by
two greyhounds.
"The artist's idea—at least in the lower part of the picture—seems to have
been to paint the cats defeated by the animals upon which they prey. It is the
world turned upside down, or if the painter must be credited with a deeper
meaning, it is the revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor."[352]
The lower part of the plate contains a scene of the same kind taken from a
papyrus in the British Museum. A flock of geese are being driven along by a
cat, and a herd of goats by two wolves with crook and wallet; one of the
wolves is playing on the double flute. At the other end there is a lion playing
draughts with an antelope.
One of the tombs has upon its walls a picture of a humble and timid cat
attempting to propitiate a lion by the offering of a goose.[353]
In the opinion of some these scenes are satires upon royalty and religion. This
is an evident exaggeration. We have no reason to suppose that the Egyptian
intellect ever arrived at the maturity required for scepticism. Neither the
authority of Pharaoh nor that of the priests seems to have ever been called in
question. But although their anger was not stirred by the government of the
world, they could find something to laugh at in it. In the cat presented to an
ass we cannot fail to see a parody of Pharaoh receiving the homage of some
vanquished enemy. Still more personal is the cat offering a goose to a lion.
The cat can only be that unlucky fellah who, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs as
in that of the Khedives, has never succeeded in keeping clear of the bastinado
and the corvée except by giving presents to the sheikh of his village or the
mudir of the neighbouring town. In laying this scene upon the wall the artist
was writing a page of his own biography and of the history of all the people
about him. He revenged himself in his own way upon the greedy functionary
to whom he had been compelled to offer the fatlings of his own farm-yard.
Page 390
Fig. 279.—The soles of a pair of sandals. From Champollion.
Figs. 280, 281.—The god Bes. From the Louvre. Actual size.
Traces of this mocking spirit are to be found in other productions of Egyptian
art. Thus the soles of those leathern or wooden sandals which have come
down to our times often present a group of two prisoners, the one a negro,
and the other a native, perhaps, of Libya or Syria. There can be no mistake as
Figs. 280, 281.—The god Bes. From the Louvre. Actual size.
Traces of this mocking spirit are to be found in other productions of Egyptian
art. Thus the soles of those leathern or wooden sandals which have come
down to our times often present a group of two prisoners, the one a negro,
and the other a native, perhaps, of Libya or Syria. There can be no mistake as
Page 391
to the intentions of the artist. The Egyptian seems to have enjoyed a laugh at
the expense of his trembling enemies. Not content with thus treading upon
them at every step he took, he added insult to injury by making them
grotesque (Fig. 279).
The same spirit may be recognized in those figures of Bes which are so
numerous in our museums. It was by mere exaggeration of certain not
uncommon features that the figure of this paunchy dwarf was arrived at. His
animal grin, beady eyes, flat nose, thick lips, and pendent tongue, his short
legs and salient buttocks, make up a sufficiently droll personality (Figs. 280
and 281). The comic intention is very marked in a composition reproduced by
Prisse, in which a person of proportions rather less curtailed than those of the
ordinary Bes, but endowed with the features, the head-dress, and the lion-like
tail of that god, is shown playing upon a cithara.[354]
These productions were not always decent. The Turin papyrus contains a long
priapic scene.
§ 4. Ornament.
In the painted decorations with which the Egyptians covered every available
surface, the figure played a more important part than in the case of any other
people. But yet the multiplication of historical, religious, and domestic
scenes, the countless groups of gods, men, and the lower animals, had their
limits. However great their development might be, these traditional themes
could only supply a certain number of scenes, which required, moreover, to
be framed. Again, there were certain surfaces upon which the Egyptians did
not, as a rule, place figures, either because they would be seen with difficulty,
or, as in the case of ceilings, because taste warned them that it would be
better to treat such a surface in some other fashion. Between the lofty roofs of
the hypostyle halls and the sky which covers our heads the Egyptian
decorator established a relationship which readily commends itself to the
mind. The ceilings of the temples at Thebes had generally a blue ground,
upon which vultures with their great wings outspread, floated among golden
stars (Figs. 192 and 282).
Side by side with the paintings which deal with living form we find those
painted ornaments which cover with their varied tints all the surfaces which
are not occupied by the figure. This system of ornament went through a
the expense of his trembling enemies. Not content with thus treading upon
them at every step he took, he added insult to injury by making them
grotesque (Fig. 279).
The same spirit may be recognized in those figures of Bes which are so
numerous in our museums. It was by mere exaggeration of certain not
uncommon features that the figure of this paunchy dwarf was arrived at. His
animal grin, beady eyes, flat nose, thick lips, and pendent tongue, his short
legs and salient buttocks, make up a sufficiently droll personality (Figs. 280
and 281). The comic intention is very marked in a composition reproduced by
Prisse, in which a person of proportions rather less curtailed than those of the
ordinary Bes, but endowed with the features, the head-dress, and the lion-like
tail of that god, is shown playing upon a cithara.[354]
These productions were not always decent. The Turin papyrus contains a long
priapic scene.
§ 4. Ornament.
In the painted decorations with which the Egyptians covered every available
surface, the figure played a more important part than in the case of any other
people. But yet the multiplication of historical, religious, and domestic
scenes, the countless groups of gods, men, and the lower animals, had their
limits. However great their development might be, these traditional themes
could only supply a certain number of scenes, which required, moreover, to
be framed. Again, there were certain surfaces upon which the Egyptians did
not, as a rule, place figures, either because they would be seen with difficulty,
or, as in the case of ceilings, because taste warned them that it would be
better to treat such a surface in some other fashion. Between the lofty roofs of
the hypostyle halls and the sky which covers our heads the Egyptian
decorator established a relationship which readily commends itself to the
mind. The ceilings of the temples at Thebes had generally a blue ground,
upon which vultures with their great wings outspread, floated among golden
stars (Figs. 192 and 282).
Side by side with the paintings which deal with living form we find those
painted ornaments which cover with their varied tints all the surfaces which
are not occupied by the figure. This system of ornament went through a
Page 392
continual process of enrichment and complication. Its appearance in the early
centuries is well shown in our two Plates, III. and IV.; the first shows the
upper, the second the lower part of the western wall in the tomb of Ptah-hotep
at Sakkarah. They confirm the ideas of Semper as to the origin of ornament.
[355]
That writer was the first to show that the basket-maker, the weaver, and
the potter, originated by the mere play of their busy hands and implements
those combinations of line and colour which the ornamentist turned to his
own use when he had to decorate walls, cornices, and ceilings. The industries
we have named are certainly older than the art of decoration, and the forms
used by the latter can hardly have been transferred from it to mats, woven
stuffs, and earthen vessels. In the regularity with which the lines and colours
of early decoration are repeated it is easy to recognize the enforced
arrangement of rushes, reeds, and flaxen threads, while chevrons and
concentric circles are the obvious descendants of the marks traced by the
finger or rude implement of the potter upon the soft clay.
Fig. 282.—Vultures on a ceiling.
In these examples the intentions of the decorator are easily grasped. He has
begun with a ground of rush-work, like that which is also found in the tomb
of Ti.[356] In the compartments between the vertical bars he has imitated the
appearance of mat walls, and of windows closed by the same contrivances
(see Fig. 165). As if to prevent mistakes, he has been careful to introduce the
cords, rings, and lath, by which the lower ends of the mats are kept in place.
The design of the ornament is quite similar to those produced to this day by
the basket or mat-maker. They are squares, lozenges, and chevrons. In the
middle of the lozenges we find little crosses or circles of a different colour,
centuries is well shown in our two Plates, III. and IV.; the first shows the
upper, the second the lower part of the western wall in the tomb of Ptah-hotep
at Sakkarah. They confirm the ideas of Semper as to the origin of ornament.
[355]
That writer was the first to show that the basket-maker, the weaver, and
the potter, originated by the mere play of their busy hands and implements
those combinations of line and colour which the ornamentist turned to his
own use when he had to decorate walls, cornices, and ceilings. The industries
we have named are certainly older than the art of decoration, and the forms
used by the latter can hardly have been transferred from it to mats, woven
stuffs, and earthen vessels. In the regularity with which the lines and colours
of early decoration are repeated it is easy to recognize the enforced
arrangement of rushes, reeds, and flaxen threads, while chevrons and
concentric circles are the obvious descendants of the marks traced by the
finger or rude implement of the potter upon the soft clay.
Fig. 282.—Vultures on a ceiling.
In these examples the intentions of the decorator are easily grasped. He has
begun with a ground of rush-work, like that which is also found in the tomb
of Ti.[356] In the compartments between the vertical bars he has imitated the
appearance of mat walls, and of windows closed by the same contrivances
(see Fig. 165). As if to prevent mistakes, he has been careful to introduce the
cords, rings, and lath, by which the lower ends of the mats are kept in place.
The design of the ornament is quite similar to those produced to this day by
the basket or mat-maker. They are squares, lozenges, and chevrons. In the
middle of the lozenges we find little crosses or circles of a different colour,
Page 393
which help to lighten the effect. Each mat has a red border at its lower end,
which forms a satisfactory tailpiece, and unites it with the straight lath. There
are narrow grooves between the mats in which the chains for drawing the
latter up and down seem to be imitated. In any case, this latter detail is copied
from the productions of one of the oldest of civilized industries—that of the
blacksmith.
which forms a satisfactory tailpiece, and unites it with the straight lath. There
are narrow grooves between the mats in which the chains for drawing the
latter up and down seem to be imitated. In any case, this latter detail is copied
from the productions of one of the oldest of civilized industries—that of the
blacksmith.
Page 394
Page 395
Page 396
FRAGMENT OF WESTERN WALL IN TOMB OF PTAH-HOTEP
Drawn in perspective to a scale of one half
Figs. 283, 284.—Details from the tomb of Ptah-hotep.
Six colours are used in this decoration: black, white, red, yellow, green, and
blue. The result is sober, well-balanced, and by no means without harmony.
In other parts of the same tomb we find this taste for literal imitation applied
to another theme. As interpreted by the ornamentist, lotus and papyrus were
sure in time to put on conventional forms, but here those vegetables found are
reproduced with a feeling for truth that could not be excelled by a modern
flower painter (Fig. 283).[357] In Fig. 284 a bird among the lotus-stalks is in
the grasp of a human hand.
The ornamentist also borrowed motives from those robes and carpets of
varied colour, which are preserved for us in the paintings (see Fig. 285). But
with time and experience his hand became more skilful, his imagination more
active, and he was no longer contented to convey his ideas wholesale, from
nature on the one hand, and on the other from those humble arts which
flourish even in the earliest ages of every civilized society. He learnt to create
designs for himself—designs which can certainly not be traced to the mats
and tissues which formed his first models. Our Figure 286 will give some
idea of the variety of motives to be found upon the panels and ceilings of the
Drawn in perspective to a scale of one half
Figs. 283, 284.—Details from the tomb of Ptah-hotep.
Six colours are used in this decoration: black, white, red, yellow, green, and
blue. The result is sober, well-balanced, and by no means without harmony.
In other parts of the same tomb we find this taste for literal imitation applied
to another theme. As interpreted by the ornamentist, lotus and papyrus were
sure in time to put on conventional forms, but here those vegetables found are
reproduced with a feeling for truth that could not be excelled by a modern
flower painter (Fig. 283).[357] In Fig. 284 a bird among the lotus-stalks is in
the grasp of a human hand.
The ornamentist also borrowed motives from those robes and carpets of
varied colour, which are preserved for us in the paintings (see Fig. 285). But
with time and experience his hand became more skilful, his imagination more
active, and he was no longer contented to convey his ideas wholesale, from
nature on the one hand, and on the other from those humble arts which
flourish even in the earliest ages of every civilized society. He learnt to create
designs for himself—designs which can certainly not be traced to the mats
and tissues which formed his first models. Our Figure 286 will give some
idea of the variety of motives to be found upon the panels and ceilings of the
Page 397
tombs and other buildings at Thebes. The chess-board pattern which was so
much used during the Ancient Empire, is found here also; but by its side
appear patterns composed of frets, meandering lines, and rosettes. Below
these, again, are designs in which lines twist themselves into volutes and
spirals, crossing each other and enclosing lotus flowers, rosettes, and forms
like the shafts of columns. The flowers are in no way imitative; their motives
have been suggested, not supplied, by nature. The papyrus may have given
the first idea for the sixth of these designs, while in the last we find a motive
which afterwards played an important part in Greek and Roman ornament—
namely, the skull of an ox. The two specimens of this last-named motive
given by Prisse, are taken from tombs of the eighteenth and twentieth
dynasties.[358]
Fig. 285.—Carpet hung across a pavilion.
These tombs and the mummy cases they contain are often decorated with
symbolic ornament, as well as with geometrical designs and those suggested
by the national flora. The compartments of ceiling decorations have scarabs
in their centres, and upon the mummy cases it is occasionally substituted for
much used during the Ancient Empire, is found here also; but by its side
appear patterns composed of frets, meandering lines, and rosettes. Below
these, again, are designs in which lines twist themselves into volutes and
spirals, crossing each other and enclosing lotus flowers, rosettes, and forms
like the shafts of columns. The flowers are in no way imitative; their motives
have been suggested, not supplied, by nature. The papyrus may have given
the first idea for the sixth of these designs, while in the last we find a motive
which afterwards played an important part in Greek and Roman ornament—
namely, the skull of an ox. The two specimens of this last-named motive
given by Prisse, are taken from tombs of the eighteenth and twentieth
dynasties.[358]
Fig. 285.—Carpet hung across a pavilion.
These tombs and the mummy cases they contain are often decorated with
symbolic ornament, as well as with geometrical designs and those suggested
by the national flora. The compartments of ceiling decorations have scarabs
in their centres, and upon the mummy cases it is occasionally substituted for
Page 398
the uræus-crowned disk in the centre of a huge pair of extended wings.
Beneath it, figures of Isis or Nephthys, the guardians of the tomb, are found
(Fig. 287). The effect is similar to that of the winged globes which are found
upon cornices. In the latter the disk which represents the sun is red, and
stands boldly out from the green of the two wings. The latter, again, are
relieved against a striped ground, on which bands of red, blue, and white are
laid alternatively. Thanks to the happy choice of these colours, the result is
excellent from a decorative point of view, and that in spite of its continual
repetition and the simplicity of its lines.
Beneath it, figures of Isis or Nephthys, the guardians of the tomb, are found
(Fig. 287). The effect is similar to that of the winged globes which are found
upon cornices. In the latter the disk which represents the sun is red, and
stands boldly out from the green of the two wings. The latter, again, are
relieved against a striped ground, on which bands of red, blue, and white are
laid alternatively. Thanks to the happy choice of these colours, the result is
excellent from a decorative point of view, and that in spite of its continual
repetition and the simplicity of its lines.
Page 399
Fig. 286.—Specimens of ceiling decorations. From Prisse.
Page 400
TOMB OF PTAH-HOTEP
CEILING AND UPPER PART OF WESTERN WALL
Drawn in perspective to a scale of one fifth
Fig. 287.—Painting on a mummy case. Description, vol. ii. pl. 58.
CEILING AND UPPER PART OF WESTERN WALL
Drawn in perspective to a scale of one fifth
Fig. 287.—Painting on a mummy case. Description, vol. ii. pl. 58.
Page 401
Fig. 288.—Winged globe. From Prisse.
Among the original motives to be found in these paintings, there is yet
another which deserves to be named for its uncommon character, we mean
those tables for offerings which are shown loaded with vases and other
objects of a like nature. As if to mark the importance of the funerary gifts, the
stems of these tables are made so lofty that they rise high above two trees,
apparently cypresses, which grew right and left of their feet (Figs. 289 and
290).
The Egyptians made use of the afterwards common decorative motive of
alternate buds and open blooms of lotus, but they entirely failed to give it the
lightness and elegance with which it was endowed by the Greeks. Their buds
were poor and meagre, their flowers heavy, and the general design not
without stiffness.[359]
The colours are often well preserved, at least in parts, and, as one
combination is repeated several times, it is easy to restore the missing parts
by reference to those which are intact. The gilding, however, has disappeared,
and left hardly a trace behind. Gold was used pretty generally in order to give
warmth and brightness. The obelisks, those of Hatasu for instance, were
gilded upon all four faces; the winged globe was sometimes gilded,[360] and
so were the bronze plates with which the temple doors were covered. The
important part played by the gilders, some of whose books of gold have come
down to our time,[361] is chiefly known to us by the inscriptions. Their
employment may also be divined here and there by the fashion in which the
stone has been prepared, sometimes by the peculiar colour effects in certain
parts of the bas-reliefs.
Among the original motives to be found in these paintings, there is yet
another which deserves to be named for its uncommon character, we mean
those tables for offerings which are shown loaded with vases and other
objects of a like nature. As if to mark the importance of the funerary gifts, the
stems of these tables are made so lofty that they rise high above two trees,
apparently cypresses, which grew right and left of their feet (Figs. 289 and
290).
The Egyptians made use of the afterwards common decorative motive of
alternate buds and open blooms of lotus, but they entirely failed to give it the
lightness and elegance with which it was endowed by the Greeks. Their buds
were poor and meagre, their flowers heavy, and the general design not
without stiffness.[359]
The colours are often well preserved, at least in parts, and, as one
combination is repeated several times, it is easy to restore the missing parts
by reference to those which are intact. The gilding, however, has disappeared,
and left hardly a trace behind. Gold was used pretty generally in order to give
warmth and brightness. The obelisks, those of Hatasu for instance, were
gilded upon all four faces; the winged globe was sometimes gilded,[360] and
so were the bronze plates with which the temple doors were covered. The
important part played by the gilders, some of whose books of gold have come
down to our time,[361] is chiefly known to us by the inscriptions. Their
employment may also be divined here and there by the fashion in which the
stone has been prepared, sometimes by the peculiar colour effects in certain
parts of the bas-reliefs.
Page 402
In some tombs gold is found in its pure state. During the excavations at the
Serapeum, Mariette opened the tomb of Ka-em-nas, a son of Rameses II.
When the mummy chamber was entered, the lower parts of the walls and of
the mummy cases shone with gold in the candle-light. The floor was strewn
with scraps of the same metal, and as many as four books of gold leaf were
found in the tomb. Mariette was then in want of funds, and in order that the
excavations might proceed, he obtained authority from the French consul to
sell this gold, to which of course, no scientific interest was attached. The
thick gold mask of the prince and the fine jewelry which adorned his mummy
are now in the Louvre.
The mummy's toe-nails, bracelets, and lips, and the linen mask over its face,
were very often gilt. The feet are sometimes entirely gilt. So too is the
shroud. Those of princes and great personages are sometimes covered with
gold from head to foot.
Figs. 289, 290.—Tables for offerings; from the paintings in a royal tomb.
The Egyptian artisans understood these delicate operations at a very early
date. Even in the tombs at Beni-Hassan we find the process of gold-beating
illustrated in full. We need hardly say that a decorative industry which
disposed of such complete resources, thoroughly understood what we call
graining, the imitation of the veins and textures of wood, and also those of
the different kinds of granite, upon other substances. In more than one
Serapeum, Mariette opened the tomb of Ka-em-nas, a son of Rameses II.
When the mummy chamber was entered, the lower parts of the walls and of
the mummy cases shone with gold in the candle-light. The floor was strewn
with scraps of the same metal, and as many as four books of gold leaf were
found in the tomb. Mariette was then in want of funds, and in order that the
excavations might proceed, he obtained authority from the French consul to
sell this gold, to which of course, no scientific interest was attached. The
thick gold mask of the prince and the fine jewelry which adorned his mummy
are now in the Louvre.
The mummy's toe-nails, bracelets, and lips, and the linen mask over its face,
were very often gilt. The feet are sometimes entirely gilt. So too is the
shroud. Those of princes and great personages are sometimes covered with
gold from head to foot.
Figs. 289, 290.—Tables for offerings; from the paintings in a royal tomb.
The Egyptian artisans understood these delicate operations at a very early
date. Even in the tombs at Beni-Hassan we find the process of gold-beating
illustrated in full. We need hardly say that a decorative industry which
disposed of such complete resources, thoroughly understood what we call
graining, the imitation of the veins and textures of wood, and also those of
the different kinds of granite, upon other substances. In more than one
Page 403
instance we find the commoner kinds of stone thus made to look like rarer
and more costly materials.
and more costly materials.
Page 404
CHAPTER V.
THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS.
§ 1. Definition and Characteristics of Industrial Art.
The expression, industrial art, has sometimes been severely criticised, but yet
it answers to a real distinction founded upon the nature of things, and we do
not see that it could be dispensed with. When the artist sets about making a
statue or a picture his only aim is to produce a fine work. He does not take
utility, in the unphilosophic sense of the word, into account. The task which
he sets before himself is to discover some form which shall truly interpret his
own individual thoughts and feelings. This done, his end is accomplished.
The resulting work of art is self-contained and self-sufficient. Its raison d'être
is to satisfy one of the deepest and most persistent desires of the human mind,
the æsthetic sentiment, or instinct for the beautiful.
In the industrial arts it is different. When a cabinet-maker or a potter sets to
work to produce an easy chair, or a vase, his first idea is to make a chair in
which one may sit comfortably, or a vessel to which liquids may be safely
entrusted and from which they may be easily poured. At first, the artisan does
not look beyond fulfilling these wants, but a time comes, and comes very
soon, when he feels impelled to ornament the furniture or pottery upon which
he is at work. He is no longer content to turn out that which is merely useful;
he wishes everything that comes from his hands to be rich and beautiful also.
He begins by adding ornament made up of dots and geometrical lines; this he
soon follows up with forms borrowed from organic life, with leaves and
flowers, with figures of men and animals; and from an artisan he springs at
once to be an artist. But his productions are strictly works of industrial art,
and although they may deserve a high place in right of their beauty, that
beauty is only in some sort an excrescence, it does not affect the primary
object of the matters to which it is applied, although it may greatly increase
their value and interest.
THE INDUSTRIAL ARTS.
§ 1. Definition and Characteristics of Industrial Art.
The expression, industrial art, has sometimes been severely criticised, but yet
it answers to a real distinction founded upon the nature of things, and we do
not see that it could be dispensed with. When the artist sets about making a
statue or a picture his only aim is to produce a fine work. He does not take
utility, in the unphilosophic sense of the word, into account. The task which
he sets before himself is to discover some form which shall truly interpret his
own individual thoughts and feelings. This done, his end is accomplished.
The resulting work of art is self-contained and self-sufficient. Its raison d'être
is to satisfy one of the deepest and most persistent desires of the human mind,
the æsthetic sentiment, or instinct for the beautiful.
In the industrial arts it is different. When a cabinet-maker or a potter sets to
work to produce an easy chair, or a vase, his first idea is to make a chair in
which one may sit comfortably, or a vessel to which liquids may be safely
entrusted and from which they may be easily poured. At first, the artisan does
not look beyond fulfilling these wants, but a time comes, and comes very
soon, when he feels impelled to ornament the furniture or pottery upon which
he is at work. He is no longer content to turn out that which is merely useful;
he wishes everything that comes from his hands to be rich and beautiful also.
He begins by adding ornament made up of dots and geometrical lines; this he
soon follows up with forms borrowed from organic life, with leaves and
flowers, with figures of men and animals; and from an artisan he springs at
once to be an artist. But his productions are strictly works of industrial art,
and although they may deserve a high place in right of their beauty, that
beauty is only in some sort an excrescence, it does not affect the primary
object of the matters to which it is applied, although it may greatly increase
their value and interest.
Page 405
In view of this definition, it may be asserted that architecture itself is one of
the industrial arts. The first duty of the constructor is to make his building
well fitted for the object it has to serve. The house must afford a proper
shelter for its inhabitants, the tomb must preserve the corpse entrusted to it
from all chance of profanation, the temple must shield the statue or the
symbol of the god from curious glances, and afford convenient space for
ritual celebrations. These requirements may be fulfilled by edifices which
have no pretensions to beauty. With a roof and a certain number of naked
walls, it is always possible to cover and enclose a given space, and to divide
it into as many portions as may be desired. Such a process has nothing in
common with art. Art steps in when the builder attempts to endow his work
with that symmetry which does not exclude variety, with nobility of
proportion, and with the charm of a decoration in which both painter and
sculptor play their parts. The constructor then gives place to the architect. The
latter, of course, always keeps the practical end in view, but it is not his sole
preoccupation. The house, as he builds it, has to respond to all the wants,
intellectual as well as corporeal, of civilized man; the tomb must embody his
ideas of death and a future life; the magnificent dimensions and the gorgeous
decorations of the temple must give expression to the inexpressible, must
symbolize the divine majesty to the eyes of men, and help to make it
comprehensible by the crowds that come to sacrifice and pray.
In all this, the rôle played by art is so preponderant that it would be unjust to
class architecture among the industrial arts. The ambition of those who built
the temple of Amen, at Karnak, or that of Athené, on the Acropolis, was to
produce a work which should give faithful expression to the highest thoughts
which the human mind can conceive. In one sense, architecture may be called
the first of the arts. In those great compositions whose remains we study with
such reverence, whose arrangements we endeavour with such care to re-
establish, it was the architect who determined what part the painter and the
sculptor should take in the work, who laid out for them the spaces they were
called upon to fill.
Although we shall not include architecture among the industrial arts, the
distinction which we have established loses none of its practical importance.
We must acknowledge, however, that there are certain classes of objects
which lie upon the border-line between the two categories, so that we have
some difficulty in deciding whether they belong to fine or to industrial art.
The work of some Cellini of ancient times, or of your own day, may be
the industrial arts. The first duty of the constructor is to make his building
well fitted for the object it has to serve. The house must afford a proper
shelter for its inhabitants, the tomb must preserve the corpse entrusted to it
from all chance of profanation, the temple must shield the statue or the
symbol of the god from curious glances, and afford convenient space for
ritual celebrations. These requirements may be fulfilled by edifices which
have no pretensions to beauty. With a roof and a certain number of naked
walls, it is always possible to cover and enclose a given space, and to divide
it into as many portions as may be desired. Such a process has nothing in
common with art. Art steps in when the builder attempts to endow his work
with that symmetry which does not exclude variety, with nobility of
proportion, and with the charm of a decoration in which both painter and
sculptor play their parts. The constructor then gives place to the architect. The
latter, of course, always keeps the practical end in view, but it is not his sole
preoccupation. The house, as he builds it, has to respond to all the wants,
intellectual as well as corporeal, of civilized man; the tomb must embody his
ideas of death and a future life; the magnificent dimensions and the gorgeous
decorations of the temple must give expression to the inexpressible, must
symbolize the divine majesty to the eyes of men, and help to make it
comprehensible by the crowds that come to sacrifice and pray.
In all this, the rôle played by art is so preponderant that it would be unjust to
class architecture among the industrial arts. The ambition of those who built
the temple of Amen, at Karnak, or that of Athené, on the Acropolis, was to
produce a work which should give faithful expression to the highest thoughts
which the human mind can conceive. In one sense, architecture may be called
the first of the arts. In those great compositions whose remains we study with
such reverence, whose arrangements we endeavour with such care to re-
establish, it was the architect who determined what part the painter and the
sculptor should take in the work, who laid out for them the spaces they were
called upon to fill.
Although we shall not include architecture among the industrial arts, the
distinction which we have established loses none of its practical importance.
We must acknowledge, however, that there are certain classes of objects
which lie upon the border-line between the two categories, so that we have
some difficulty in deciding whether they belong to fine or to industrial art.
The work of some Cellini of ancient times, or of your own day, may be
Page 406
classed, for instance, by its general form and ostensible use, among the more
or less utilitarian productions of the goldsmith or silversmith; but, on the
other hand, it may be adorned with figures executed in such a fashion that we
are tempted to place it among works of sculpture. Rigorous and inflexible
definitions have, in fact, to be confined to the exact sciences, such as
geometry. In the complexity of life, definitions and classifications can only be
adhered to with a reservation. They help the historian to find his way amid
the infinite diversity of phenomena, but he is the first to acknowledge that
they are far from having an absolute value. They must be taken for what they
are worth, simply as methods of exposition, as approximations which are
useful and convenient, though more or less imperfect.
We have no intention of writing a history of Egyptian industry. We refer those
who require an account of it to the voluminous work of Sir Gardner
Wilkinson, where they will find abundant details upon the trades of Egypt
and the materials which they employed. We shall be content with selecting a
few examples from the chief industries upon which the wealth of Egypt
depended, in order to show how her artisans, like those of Greece, sought to
give a certain amount of artistic value to every object that left their hands.
Forms and motives which we have encountered in the higher branches of art
are there again to be found. When civilization is in its first infancy, and the
plastic instinct just struggling into life, it is from those handicrafts which may
be called elementary or primitive that art borrows its first combinations of
line and colour. But afterwards, when art has developed itself and created a
style expressive of the national genius, the process is reversed, and the
handicraftsman borrows in turn from the artist. In our modern society the use
of machines and the division of labour have put a great gulf between the
workman and the artist. Among the ancients it was very different. The
workman was responsible for his work from inception to completion, and he
expended upon it all the inventiveness, taste, and skill, that he possessed. He
was not the slave of a machine turning out thousands of repetitions of a single
object with inflexible regularity. Every day he introduced, almost without
knowing it, some variation upon his work of the day before; his labour was a
perpetual improvisation. Under such conditions it is difficult to say where the
artist began and where the handicraftsman left off. In spite of the richness and
subtlety of their idioms, the classic languages were unable to mark this
distinction. In Greek, as in Latin, there was but a single term for two
positions which seem to us by no means equal in dignity.
or less utilitarian productions of the goldsmith or silversmith; but, on the
other hand, it may be adorned with figures executed in such a fashion that we
are tempted to place it among works of sculpture. Rigorous and inflexible
definitions have, in fact, to be confined to the exact sciences, such as
geometry. In the complexity of life, definitions and classifications can only be
adhered to with a reservation. They help the historian to find his way amid
the infinite diversity of phenomena, but he is the first to acknowledge that
they are far from having an absolute value. They must be taken for what they
are worth, simply as methods of exposition, as approximations which are
useful and convenient, though more or less imperfect.
We have no intention of writing a history of Egyptian industry. We refer those
who require an account of it to the voluminous work of Sir Gardner
Wilkinson, where they will find abundant details upon the trades of Egypt
and the materials which they employed. We shall be content with selecting a
few examples from the chief industries upon which the wealth of Egypt
depended, in order to show how her artisans, like those of Greece, sought to
give a certain amount of artistic value to every object that left their hands.
Forms and motives which we have encountered in the higher branches of art
are there again to be found. When civilization is in its first infancy, and the
plastic instinct just struggling into life, it is from those handicrafts which may
be called elementary or primitive that art borrows its first combinations of
line and colour. But afterwards, when art has developed itself and created a
style expressive of the national genius, the process is reversed, and the
handicraftsman borrows in turn from the artist. In our modern society the use
of machines and the division of labour have put a great gulf between the
workman and the artist. Among the ancients it was very different. The
workman was responsible for his work from inception to completion, and he
expended upon it all the inventiveness, taste, and skill, that he possessed. He
was not the slave of a machine turning out thousands of repetitions of a single
object with inflexible regularity. Every day he introduced, almost without
knowing it, some variation upon his work of the day before; his labour was a
perpetual improvisation. Under such conditions it is difficult to say where the
artist began and where the handicraftsman left off. In spite of the richness and
subtlety of their idioms, the classic languages were unable to mark this
distinction. In Greek, as in Latin, there was but a single term for two
positions which seem to us by no means equal in dignity.
Page 407
§ 2. Glass and Pottery.
The potter's is, perhaps, the oldest of all the crafts. Among the relics of the
cave-men and lake-dwellers of the West, the remains of rough pottery, shaped
by the hand and dried either by the sun or in the neighbourhood of the
domestic hearth, have been found. The Egypt of the earliest dynasties was
already more advanced than this. The vases found in the mastabas show by
their symmetrical shapes that the potter's wheel was already in use, and by
their quality, that, although the Egyptians were content to dry their bricks in
the sun, they fired their pottery in kilns and thoroughly understood the
process.[362]
Egypt afforded an abundant supply of excellent potter's earth, and her
inhabitants, like those of ancient Greece and Italy, employed terra-cotta for
purposes to which we should now apply glass, wood, or metal. A good idea
of the varied uses to which the material was put may be obtained from the
early chapters of the work in which Dr. Birch has traced the history of ancient
pottery, with the help of numerous illustrations.[363]
We shall not dwell upon common earthenware. It is represented by numerous
vessels from the most ancient tombs in the Memphite necropolis; they are of
a reddish or yellowish colour, and, in spite of the absence of all glaze, they
hold water perfectly well. Like Greek vessels of the same kind they have
sometimes three ears or handles (Fig. 291). Examples of coupled vessels, like
those found in Cyprus, have also been discovered. They communicate with
one another by a tube and are kept together by a common handle (Fig. 292).
Of all the representative specimens of earthenware from the mastabas given
by Lepsius, there is but one which does not seem to belong to the category of
domestic pottery. It is a kind of aryballus, and is gracefully ornamented with
interlacing circles.[364] In later times many of these unglazed vases were
decorated with the brush, but they were not remitted to the oven after that
operation.[365] The colour was therefore without lustre or solidity, and the
designs were always very simple. To this group belong the vases shaped in
the form of men, women, or animals, which are common enough in
museums.[366] Sometimes a head, recalling that of the god Bes, is sketched in
low relief upon a vase, and in a few instances a pair of small arms complete
the fanciful design (Fig. 293).
The potter's is, perhaps, the oldest of all the crafts. Among the relics of the
cave-men and lake-dwellers of the West, the remains of rough pottery, shaped
by the hand and dried either by the sun or in the neighbourhood of the
domestic hearth, have been found. The Egypt of the earliest dynasties was
already more advanced than this. The vases found in the mastabas show by
their symmetrical shapes that the potter's wheel was already in use, and by
their quality, that, although the Egyptians were content to dry their bricks in
the sun, they fired their pottery in kilns and thoroughly understood the
process.[362]
Egypt afforded an abundant supply of excellent potter's earth, and her
inhabitants, like those of ancient Greece and Italy, employed terra-cotta for
purposes to which we should now apply glass, wood, or metal. A good idea
of the varied uses to which the material was put may be obtained from the
early chapters of the work in which Dr. Birch has traced the history of ancient
pottery, with the help of numerous illustrations.[363]
We shall not dwell upon common earthenware. It is represented by numerous
vessels from the most ancient tombs in the Memphite necropolis; they are of
a reddish or yellowish colour, and, in spite of the absence of all glaze, they
hold water perfectly well. Like Greek vessels of the same kind they have
sometimes three ears or handles (Fig. 291). Examples of coupled vessels, like
those found in Cyprus, have also been discovered. They communicate with
one another by a tube and are kept together by a common handle (Fig. 292).
Of all the representative specimens of earthenware from the mastabas given
by Lepsius, there is but one which does not seem to belong to the category of
domestic pottery. It is a kind of aryballus, and is gracefully ornamented with
interlacing circles.[364] In later times many of these unglazed vases were
decorated with the brush, but they were not remitted to the oven after that
operation.[365] The colour was therefore without lustre or solidity, and the
designs were always very simple. To this group belong the vases shaped in
the form of men, women, or animals, which are common enough in
museums.[366] Sometimes a head, recalling that of the god Bes, is sketched in
low relief upon a vase, and in a few instances a pair of small arms complete
the fanciful design (Fig. 293).
Page 408
Fig. 291.—Pitcher of red earth. British Museum.
Page 409
Fig. 292.—Red earthenware. British Museum.
Another kind of pottery, that known as Egyptian porcelain, must be noticed
in greater detail. This designation is inexact. The proper name would be
Egyptian faience. It consists of white sand, gently fused, and overspread with
a glaze of coloured enamel. This enamel is composed of flint and soda, with
the addition of a colouring matter. This faience has been fired with such care
that it is able to support the high temperature of a porcelain kiln without
damage. Vases of many different kinds, enamelled tiles, statuettes (Fig. 294),
sepulchral figurines (Figs. 96 and 97, Vol. I.), neck ornaments and other
articles for decorating the person, amulets (Fig. 295), scarabs, rings, and
many other articles were made in this material.
Vases were generally either blue or apple green. A very small number of them
were ornamented with figures of men or animals, always treated in a purely
decorative fashion. No vase has yet been discovered with any attempt to
portray an incident upon it. The figures are never united by a subject.
Bouquets of lotus around some central motive are of most frequent
occurrence (Fig. 296). Sometimes these flowers are combined with mystic
symbols, like the eyes in Fig. 297. These designs, which are in black, are
produced by inlaying coloured enamel.
Another kind of pottery, that known as Egyptian porcelain, must be noticed
in greater detail. This designation is inexact. The proper name would be
Egyptian faience. It consists of white sand, gently fused, and overspread with
a glaze of coloured enamel. This enamel is composed of flint and soda, with
the addition of a colouring matter. This faience has been fired with such care
that it is able to support the high temperature of a porcelain kiln without
damage. Vases of many different kinds, enamelled tiles, statuettes (Fig. 294),
sepulchral figurines (Figs. 96 and 97, Vol. I.), neck ornaments and other
articles for decorating the person, amulets (Fig. 295), scarabs, rings, and
many other articles were made in this material.
Vases were generally either blue or apple green. A very small number of them
were ornamented with figures of men or animals, always treated in a purely
decorative fashion. No vase has yet been discovered with any attempt to
portray an incident upon it. The figures are never united by a subject.
Bouquets of lotus around some central motive are of most frequent
occurrence (Fig. 296). Sometimes these flowers are combined with mystic
symbols, like the eyes in Fig. 297. These designs, which are in black, are
produced by inlaying coloured enamel.
Page 410
Fig. 293.—Gray earthenware. Boulak.
Fig. 294.—The God Bes. Enamelled earthenware.
Fig. 294.—The God Bes. Enamelled earthenware.
Page 411
Two of the vases which we reproduce (Figs. 296 and 297) are similar to those
shown in the bas-reliefs, in scenes of libation to the gods or to the dead. Their
form is that of the Greek φιάλη and the Latin patera. Numerous bottles have
also been found whose general shape exactly resemble that of the Greek
ἀρύβαλλος (Fig. 298).
The blue with which these objects are covered has often preserved a
brilliance and transparency which could not even now be surpassed. Yellow,
violet, and white glazes are also met with, but less frequently. The
hieroglyphs which many of them bear prove that the manufacture of these
little articles was in full swing under the three great Theban dynasties, that it
continued through the Saite period, and that under the Ptolemies, and even
later still, it was not extinct. To the same branch of industry belong those tiles
of enamelled faience which seem to have been used by the Egyptians from
very early times. They were also used by the Assyrians, as we shall see
hereafter. "These tiles were used very extensively in eastern and southern
countries, and are found both in palaces and in private dwellings. In the
towns of Turkey and of Modern Egypt, in the towns and villages of Algeria
and of all the African coast as far as the Straits of Gibraltar, thousands of
examples are to be found. The freshness which seems to result from their use
and the enduring brilliancy of their colours make these tiles very popular with
the inhabitants of hot climates."[367]
Fig. 295.—Pendant for necklace. Louvre.
shown in the bas-reliefs, in scenes of libation to the gods or to the dead. Their
form is that of the Greek φιάλη and the Latin patera. Numerous bottles have
also been found whose general shape exactly resemble that of the Greek
ἀρύβαλλος (Fig. 298).
The blue with which these objects are covered has often preserved a
brilliance and transparency which could not even now be surpassed. Yellow,
violet, and white glazes are also met with, but less frequently. The
hieroglyphs which many of them bear prove that the manufacture of these
little articles was in full swing under the three great Theban dynasties, that it
continued through the Saite period, and that under the Ptolemies, and even
later still, it was not extinct. To the same branch of industry belong those tiles
of enamelled faience which seem to have been used by the Egyptians from
very early times. They were also used by the Assyrians, as we shall see
hereafter. "These tiles were used very extensively in eastern and southern
countries, and are found both in palaces and in private dwellings. In the
towns of Turkey and of Modern Egypt, in the towns and villages of Algeria
and of all the African coast as far as the Straits of Gibraltar, thousands of
examples are to be found. The freshness which seems to result from their use
and the enduring brilliancy of their colours make these tiles very popular with
the inhabitants of hot climates."[367]
Fig. 295.—Pendant for necklace. Louvre.
Page 412
Fig. 296.—Enamelled earthenware. British Museum.
Fig. 297.—Enamelled earthenware. British Museum.
Fig. 297.—Enamelled earthenware. British Museum.
Page 413
Fig. 298.—Enamelled faience. British Museum.
Fig. 299.—Doorway in the Stepped Pyramid at Sakkarah.
We do not know whether these tiles were used for the floors and walls in the
dwellings of rich Egyptians or not, but it appears certain that their manufacture
was understood even as early as the Ancient Empire. The doorway of a chamber
in the stepped pyramid of Sakkarah is enframed with enamelled plaques. A
sketch of Perring's, which we reproduce, gives a good idea of this arrangement
(Fig. 299).[368] Some of these plaques are now in London, but a still larger
number are in the Berlin Museum, where the doorway as a whole has been
restored, the missing parts being replaced by copies. Our Figures 300-302 show
the back, the front, and the profile, of a single plaque. The obverse is slightly
convex, and covered with a greenish-blue glaze; the reverse has a salient tenon
which was held securely by the mortar. Through a small hole in this tenon a rod
of wood or metal may have passed which, by uniting all the plaques in each
horizontal row, would give additional solidity to the whole arrangement.[369] On
the backs of several plaques there are marks which seem to be rotation numbers.
They are figured in the centre of Perring's sketch. Other bricks from the same
doorway are covered with an almost black enamel. They form the horizontal
mouldings between the rows of upright bricks, and are decorated with a sort of
arrow-head pattern.
Fig. 299.—Doorway in the Stepped Pyramid at Sakkarah.
We do not know whether these tiles were used for the floors and walls in the
dwellings of rich Egyptians or not, but it appears certain that their manufacture
was understood even as early as the Ancient Empire. The doorway of a chamber
in the stepped pyramid of Sakkarah is enframed with enamelled plaques. A
sketch of Perring's, which we reproduce, gives a good idea of this arrangement
(Fig. 299).[368] Some of these plaques are now in London, but a still larger
number are in the Berlin Museum, where the doorway as a whole has been
restored, the missing parts being replaced by copies. Our Figures 300-302 show
the back, the front, and the profile, of a single plaque. The obverse is slightly
convex, and covered with a greenish-blue glaze; the reverse has a salient tenon
which was held securely by the mortar. Through a small hole in this tenon a rod
of wood or metal may have passed which, by uniting all the plaques in each
horizontal row, would give additional solidity to the whole arrangement.[369] On
the backs of several plaques there are marks which seem to be rotation numbers.
They are figured in the centre of Perring's sketch. Other bricks from the same
doorway are covered with an almost black enamel. They form the horizontal
mouldings between the rows of upright bricks, and are decorated with a sort of
arrow-head pattern.
Page 414
Figs. 300-302.—Enamelled plaque from the Stepped Pyramid.
This fashion endured throughout the Theban period. The most important relic of
it which we now possess is from the decoration of a temple built by Rameses III.
to the north-west of Memphis, near the modern Tell-el-Yahoudeh, upon the
railway from Cairo to Ismailia. The building itself was constructed of crude
brick, the walls being lined with enamelled tiles. The royal ovals and titles were
cut in the earth before it was fired, and afterwards filled up with an enamel so
tinted as to stand out in strong relief from the colour of the brick. Other tiles
represent African and Asiatic prisoners. The figures are in relief; the enamel is
parti-coloured, the hair of the prisoners being black, their carnations yellowish-
brown, and certain details of their costume being accentuated by other hues. Dr.
Birch reproduces some of these painted reliefs and compares them to the
figurines rustiques of Bernard Palissy.[370] The principal fragments of this
decoration are in the store-rooms of the Boulak Museum. They deserve more
publicity than they have received. Most of them are purely decorative in
character and bear designs of which an idea may be gained from three pieces of
faience which are now in the British Museum. Two have graceful rosettes, while
the third is covered with a pattern resembling a spider's web (Figs. 303-305).[371]
This fashion endured throughout the Theban period. The most important relic of
it which we now possess is from the decoration of a temple built by Rameses III.
to the north-west of Memphis, near the modern Tell-el-Yahoudeh, upon the
railway from Cairo to Ismailia. The building itself was constructed of crude
brick, the walls being lined with enamelled tiles. The royal ovals and titles were
cut in the earth before it was fired, and afterwards filled up with an enamel so
tinted as to stand out in strong relief from the colour of the brick. Other tiles
represent African and Asiatic prisoners. The figures are in relief; the enamel is
parti-coloured, the hair of the prisoners being black, their carnations yellowish-
brown, and certain details of their costume being accentuated by other hues. Dr.
Birch reproduces some of these painted reliefs and compares them to the
figurines rustiques of Bernard Palissy.[370] The principal fragments of this
decoration are in the store-rooms of the Boulak Museum. They deserve more
publicity than they have received. Most of them are purely decorative in
character and bear designs of which an idea may be gained from three pieces of
faience which are now in the British Museum. Two have graceful rosettes, while
the third is covered with a pattern resembling a spider's web (Figs. 303-305).[371]
Page 415
Figs. 303-305.—Enamelled earthenware plaques in the British Museum.
Certain buildings in Memphis seem to have been decorated in the same fashion.
"The most curious thing brought by me from Mitrahineh," writes Jomard, "is a
fragment of enamelled and sculptured terra-cotta, which probably belonged to a
wall lined with that fine material. It is remarkable for the brilliant blue, the blue
of the lapis-lazuli, which covers it.... The outlines of the hieroglyphs are as firm,
and their edges as sharp as if they were the work of a skilful carver, and had
never been subjected to the heat of a furnace. They are of blue stucco, inlaid into
the body of the enamel. I look upon this kind of decoration as analogous to that
of the Cairo divans, in which we see walls covered with earthenware tiles which
are painted with various ornaments and subjects."[372] Now that attention has
been attracted to this kind of decoration, traces of it will no doubt be found at
many other points of Ancient Egypt.[373]
These enamels were not always used upon stone or faience; their charming
varieties of tone are also found upon wooden grounds. M. Maspero mentions as
an example of this the fragments of a mummy case in the Turin Museum. An
inscription upon the wood is surrounded by faience ornament of a very rich
colour. Mariette also mentions bronzes in which the remains of enamel and of
pietra dura inlays are yet to be seen.[374]
Enamel is glass coloured by means of a metallic oxide and spread thinly over a
surface, with which it is combined by means of heat. The Egyptians must
therefore have understood the manufacture of glass at a very early date. It is
represented in the paintings at Beni-Hassan.[375] Workmen are shown crouched
by a fire and blowing glass bottles by means of a hollow cane, exactly as they do
to this day. This industry continued to flourish in Egypt down to the Roman
epoch. The glass manufacturers of Alexandria told Strabo that Egypt possessed a
peculiar vitrifiable earth, without which the magnificent works in many-
Certain buildings in Memphis seem to have been decorated in the same fashion.
"The most curious thing brought by me from Mitrahineh," writes Jomard, "is a
fragment of enamelled and sculptured terra-cotta, which probably belonged to a
wall lined with that fine material. It is remarkable for the brilliant blue, the blue
of the lapis-lazuli, which covers it.... The outlines of the hieroglyphs are as firm,
and their edges as sharp as if they were the work of a skilful carver, and had
never been subjected to the heat of a furnace. They are of blue stucco, inlaid into
the body of the enamel. I look upon this kind of decoration as analogous to that
of the Cairo divans, in which we see walls covered with earthenware tiles which
are painted with various ornaments and subjects."[372] Now that attention has
been attracted to this kind of decoration, traces of it will no doubt be found at
many other points of Ancient Egypt.[373]
These enamels were not always used upon stone or faience; their charming
varieties of tone are also found upon wooden grounds. M. Maspero mentions as
an example of this the fragments of a mummy case in the Turin Museum. An
inscription upon the wood is surrounded by faience ornament of a very rich
colour. Mariette also mentions bronzes in which the remains of enamel and of
pietra dura inlays are yet to be seen.[374]
Enamel is glass coloured by means of a metallic oxide and spread thinly over a
surface, with which it is combined by means of heat. The Egyptians must
therefore have understood the manufacture of glass at a very early date. It is
represented in the paintings at Beni-Hassan.[375] Workmen are shown crouched
by a fire and blowing glass bottles by means of a hollow cane, exactly as they do
to this day. This industry continued to flourish in Egypt down to the Roman
epoch. The glass manufacturers of Alexandria told Strabo that Egypt possessed a
peculiar vitrifiable earth, without which the magnificent works in many-
Page 416
coloured glass could not be executed.[376] It is generally supposed that this
"earth" was soda. The Venetians of the middle ages imported the soda required
for their glass-making from Alexandria. It is said that Egyptian soda is the best
known. It comes from the ashes of a plant called by botanists Mesem
Bryanthemum copticum.[377]
Vessels of Egyptian glass are to be found in most museums, which recall those
of Venice by their bands and fillets of brilliant colours. As for ordinary glass it
seems never to have been quite transparent and colourless; it was always tinged
with green and slightly opaque. It was upon their productions in colour that the
fame of the Egyptian glass-makers depended. They produced vases, cups,
pateræ, goblets, beads and other ornaments for necklaces and bracelets, amulets
and everything else that the material would allow, in prodigious quantities, both
for domestic consumption and for exportation. At one time mummies were
covered with a kind of garment composed of multitudinous strings of beads.
Statuettes, such as the two figured below, were also made of glass. The larger of
the two, which still has the hook, by which it was suspended, in its head, is
entirely covered with parti-coloured ornaments similar to those shown upon its
right shoulder. Our draughtsman at Boulak had no time to finish the drawing he
had begun, and we have reproduced it in its actual condition rather than omit it
or have it completed in any degree conjecturally. The details given afford a
sufficiently good idea of the motives employed by the Egyptian artist. The
ornamentation of the other figure is more simple (Fig. 307), but the attitude is
the same. There are two colours on the very well modelled head which acts as
tail-piece to the Introduction in our first volume. The globe of the eye and its
contours stand out in black against the yellow of the flesh. The wig is also black.
"earth" was soda. The Venetians of the middle ages imported the soda required
for their glass-making from Alexandria. It is said that Egyptian soda is the best
known. It comes from the ashes of a plant called by botanists Mesem
Bryanthemum copticum.[377]
Vessels of Egyptian glass are to be found in most museums, which recall those
of Venice by their bands and fillets of brilliant colours. As for ordinary glass it
seems never to have been quite transparent and colourless; it was always tinged
with green and slightly opaque. It was upon their productions in colour that the
fame of the Egyptian glass-makers depended. They produced vases, cups,
pateræ, goblets, beads and other ornaments for necklaces and bracelets, amulets
and everything else that the material would allow, in prodigious quantities, both
for domestic consumption and for exportation. At one time mummies were
covered with a kind of garment composed of multitudinous strings of beads.
Statuettes, such as the two figured below, were also made of glass. The larger of
the two, which still has the hook, by which it was suspended, in its head, is
entirely covered with parti-coloured ornaments similar to those shown upon its
right shoulder. Our draughtsman at Boulak had no time to finish the drawing he
had begun, and we have reproduced it in its actual condition rather than omit it
or have it completed in any degree conjecturally. The details given afford a
sufficiently good idea of the motives employed by the Egyptian artist. The
ornamentation of the other figure is more simple (Fig. 307), but the attitude is
the same. There are two colours on the very well modelled head which acts as
tail-piece to the Introduction in our first volume. The globe of the eye and its
contours stand out in black against the yellow of the flesh. The wig is also black.
Page 417
Fig. 306.—Glass statuette. Boulak. Actual size.
Fig. 307.—Glass statuette. Boulak. Actual size.
Fig. 307.—Glass statuette. Boulak. Actual size.
Page 418
Nothing can have been more surprising to the ancient traveller who set foot
upon the soil of Egypt for the first time, than the vast number of these objects in
coloured glass and in green or blue faience. They appeared everywhere; upon
the walls of buildings and upon the persons of their inhabitants, upon every
article which helped to furnish tombs or temples, palaces or private houses.
Everything shone with the brilliant colours of this enamel, whose unchanging
brightness was so grateful to a southern eye. It harmonized to perfection with the
whiteness of the fine linen worn by the richer classes of Egyptians, and formed
happy combinations with the rich red and blue fringes which bordered their
robes and girdles. Enamel was much more easily cleaned than cloth. When it
was tarnished by dust or dirt, a few drops of water would restore all its
brightness. The lavish employment of such a material doubtless did much to
give the persons of the Egyptians and their dwellings that neat and smiling
aspect which so charmed foreign visitors. Herodotus tells us that one of the
features which most strongly warned the traveller that he was in the presence of
a very ancient and refined civilization, was the national passion for a cleanliness
that was almost too fastidious, for fine linen constantly renewed, for frequent
ablutions, for the continual use of the razor. A nation dressed in spotless white,
shaved, circumcised and continually washed, afforded a curious contrast to
shaggy barbarians clothed in wool that was dirty with long usage. Even in the
time of Herodotus more than one tribe of Greek mountaineers was still in
existence, that hardly differed in habits and costume from those early ancestors
of the Hellenes who, as Homer tells us, "slept upon the bare ground and never
washed their feet."
§ 3. Metal-work and Jewelry.
Egypt had, perhaps, her age of stone. MM. Hamy and François Lenormant have
called attention to the cut and polished flints which have been found in Egypt,
and Mariette brought a whole series of them to the Universal Exhibition of 1878.
Mariette, however, was careful to remark that some of these flint implements,
exactly similar in appearance to those found in the open air, were discovered in
the tombs, among the mummies.[378]
These flint knives, therefore, are not necessarily anterior to the commencement
of Egyptian history, that is to say to the first dynasties mentioned by Manetho.
Moreover, Herodotus tells us that it was with a flint knife that the Egyptian
embalmer made his first incision upon the corpse entrusted to him.[379] It would,
then, be difficult to distinguish between prehistoric flint objects and those which
upon the soil of Egypt for the first time, than the vast number of these objects in
coloured glass and in green or blue faience. They appeared everywhere; upon
the walls of buildings and upon the persons of their inhabitants, upon every
article which helped to furnish tombs or temples, palaces or private houses.
Everything shone with the brilliant colours of this enamel, whose unchanging
brightness was so grateful to a southern eye. It harmonized to perfection with the
whiteness of the fine linen worn by the richer classes of Egyptians, and formed
happy combinations with the rich red and blue fringes which bordered their
robes and girdles. Enamel was much more easily cleaned than cloth. When it
was tarnished by dust or dirt, a few drops of water would restore all its
brightness. The lavish employment of such a material doubtless did much to
give the persons of the Egyptians and their dwellings that neat and smiling
aspect which so charmed foreign visitors. Herodotus tells us that one of the
features which most strongly warned the traveller that he was in the presence of
a very ancient and refined civilization, was the national passion for a cleanliness
that was almost too fastidious, for fine linen constantly renewed, for frequent
ablutions, for the continual use of the razor. A nation dressed in spotless white,
shaved, circumcised and continually washed, afforded a curious contrast to
shaggy barbarians clothed in wool that was dirty with long usage. Even in the
time of Herodotus more than one tribe of Greek mountaineers was still in
existence, that hardly differed in habits and costume from those early ancestors
of the Hellenes who, as Homer tells us, "slept upon the bare ground and never
washed their feet."
§ 3. Metal-work and Jewelry.
Egypt had, perhaps, her age of stone. MM. Hamy and François Lenormant have
called attention to the cut and polished flints which have been found in Egypt,
and Mariette brought a whole series of them to the Universal Exhibition of 1878.
Mariette, however, was careful to remark that some of these flint implements,
exactly similar in appearance to those found in the open air, were discovered in
the tombs, among the mummies.[378]
These flint knives, therefore, are not necessarily anterior to the commencement
of Egyptian history, that is to say to the first dynasties mentioned by Manetho.
Moreover, Herodotus tells us that it was with a flint knife that the Egyptian
embalmer made his first incision upon the corpse entrusted to him.[379] It would,
then, be difficult to distinguish between prehistoric flint objects and those which
Page 419
belong to the civilization whose remains we are now studying, while our
examination of the latter leads us quite as deeply into the past as we desire to go.
Even under the earliest dynasties the Egyptians were metal-workers.
Several bronze objects are in existence which date at least from the end of the
Ancient Empire,[380] and in the bas-reliefs of the tomb of Ti, we see smiths
directing the flame, by means of long tubes, upon the block of metal which they
are forging (Fig. 21, Vol. I.). This is a kind of elementary blow-pipe, such as
those still used by certain savage tribes.
The Egyptians began by making use of pure copper, which they could obtain
from Sinai and other mines within easy reach. Various indications allow us to
conclude that they were long ignorant of the fact that by mixing it with a little
tin its hardness could be enormously increased.[381] In any case, they had
certainly discovered the secret during the fifth, or, at latest, the sixth, dynasty. As
to where they found the tin, we can say nothing positively. No deposit of that
metal is known either in Egypt or in the neighbouring countries. It may possibly
have come from India, passing through various hands on its way. In later years
the Phœnicians brought it from Spain and the southern shores of Britain. The
metal must then have become common enough, and it was used in large
quantities by the Egyptian founders. Thus when the pavement of the room in the
north-western corner of the Temple of Rameses III. at Medinet-Abou was raised,
nearly a thousand bronze statues, all representing Osiris, were found. The
existence of this deposit bears witness to the Egyptian habit of sanctifying the
site of a new temple by sowing it broad-cast with sacred images.[382]
Bronze was employed for all kinds of domestic purposes. The graceful mirror-
handle reproduced below (Fig. 308) is in the Boulak Museum. So too, are the
bronze hair-pin (Fig. 309) and the curiously designed dagger (Fig. 310).
The analysis of various specimens of Egyptian bronze shows that the proportion
of tin which it contained was not constant. It varies from about five to fifteen per
cent.[383] Traces of iron are also found in it.
examination of the latter leads us quite as deeply into the past as we desire to go.
Even under the earliest dynasties the Egyptians were metal-workers.
Several bronze objects are in existence which date at least from the end of the
Ancient Empire,[380] and in the bas-reliefs of the tomb of Ti, we see smiths
directing the flame, by means of long tubes, upon the block of metal which they
are forging (Fig. 21, Vol. I.). This is a kind of elementary blow-pipe, such as
those still used by certain savage tribes.
The Egyptians began by making use of pure copper, which they could obtain
from Sinai and other mines within easy reach. Various indications allow us to
conclude that they were long ignorant of the fact that by mixing it with a little
tin its hardness could be enormously increased.[381] In any case, they had
certainly discovered the secret during the fifth, or, at latest, the sixth, dynasty. As
to where they found the tin, we can say nothing positively. No deposit of that
metal is known either in Egypt or in the neighbouring countries. It may possibly
have come from India, passing through various hands on its way. In later years
the Phœnicians brought it from Spain and the southern shores of Britain. The
metal must then have become common enough, and it was used in large
quantities by the Egyptian founders. Thus when the pavement of the room in the
north-western corner of the Temple of Rameses III. at Medinet-Abou was raised,
nearly a thousand bronze statues, all representing Osiris, were found. The
existence of this deposit bears witness to the Egyptian habit of sanctifying the
site of a new temple by sowing it broad-cast with sacred images.[382]
Bronze was employed for all kinds of domestic purposes. The graceful mirror-
handle reproduced below (Fig. 308) is in the Boulak Museum. So too, are the
bronze hair-pin (Fig. 309) and the curiously designed dagger (Fig. 310).
The analysis of various specimens of Egyptian bronze shows that the proportion
of tin which it contained was not constant. It varies from about five to fifteen per
cent.[383] Traces of iron are also found in it.
Page 420
Fig. 308.—Mirror-handle.Fig. 308.—Mirror-handle.
Page 421
Fig. 309.—Bronze hair-pin.
Page 422
Fig. 310.—Bronze dagger.
The date at which this last named metal was introduced into the country is still
matter of dispute. Various facts brought together by Dr. Birch, lead us to think
that the Egyptians were acquainted with iron at least as soon as the
commencement of the Theban supremacy,[384] but it would seem that they
always made a greater use of bronze.
The word that signifies gold appears in the oldest inscriptions, and in the
pictures at Beni-Hassan contemporary with the twelfth dynasty the whole
process of making gold ornaments is represented.[385] From that time onward the
Egyptian Pharaohs caused the veins of quartz in the mountains between the Nile
and the Red Sea to be worked; they also obtained large supplies of the precious
metal from Ethiopia. Silver came from Asia. It seems to have been rarer than
gold, at least during the last centuries of the monarchy. As Belzoni remarked,
while gold is lavished upon the mummies and upon all the sepulchral furniture
about them silver is only met with in exceptional cases.[386] In 1878, Mariette
exhibited in Paris five massive patera-shaped silver vases, which, from the style
of their ornaments, he attributed to the Saite epoch.
The date at which this last named metal was introduced into the country is still
matter of dispute. Various facts brought together by Dr. Birch, lead us to think
that the Egyptians were acquainted with iron at least as soon as the
commencement of the Theban supremacy,[384] but it would seem that they
always made a greater use of bronze.
The word that signifies gold appears in the oldest inscriptions, and in the
pictures at Beni-Hassan contemporary with the twelfth dynasty the whole
process of making gold ornaments is represented.[385] From that time onward the
Egyptian Pharaohs caused the veins of quartz in the mountains between the Nile
and the Red Sea to be worked; they also obtained large supplies of the precious
metal from Ethiopia. Silver came from Asia. It seems to have been rarer than
gold, at least during the last centuries of the monarchy. As Belzoni remarked,
while gold is lavished upon the mummies and upon all the sepulchral furniture
about them silver is only met with in exceptional cases.[386] In 1878, Mariette
exhibited in Paris five massive patera-shaped silver vases, which, from the style
of their ornaments, he attributed to the Saite epoch.
Page 423
The finest specimens of Egyptian jewelry now extant belong to the three great
Theban dynasties. We may give as instances the jewels of Queen Aah-hotep,
which are among the most precious treasures of the Boulak Museum,[387] and
those found in the tomb of Kha-em-uas, son of Rameses II. These are in the
Louvre. The splendid breast ornament figured on the opposite page (Fig. 311), is
one of them. It is made of lapis-lazuli and gold, and is thus described by M.
Pierret: "Jewel in the form of a naos, in which a vulture and an uræus are placed
side by side; above them floats a hawk with extended wings; in his claws are
seals, the emblems of eternity. Under the frieze of the naos an oval with the
prenomen of Rameses II. is introduced. Two tet are placed in the lower angles of
the frame."[388] These jewels were funerary in character. They consist of a little
chapel in the middle of which there is usually a scarab—emblem of
transformation and immortality—adoring the goddesses Isis and Nephthys. They
are called pectorals because they were placed upon the bosoms of the dead.
Great numbers of them have been found in the tombs, in metal, in wood, and in
earthenware; few, however, are as rich as that of Kha-em-uas. Each
compartment of the golden frame-work is filled in either with coloured glass or
with a piece of some pietra dura with a rich hue of its own.
Theban dynasties. We may give as instances the jewels of Queen Aah-hotep,
which are among the most precious treasures of the Boulak Museum,[387] and
those found in the tomb of Kha-em-uas, son of Rameses II. These are in the
Louvre. The splendid breast ornament figured on the opposite page (Fig. 311), is
one of them. It is made of lapis-lazuli and gold, and is thus described by M.
Pierret: "Jewel in the form of a naos, in which a vulture and an uræus are placed
side by side; above them floats a hawk with extended wings; in his claws are
seals, the emblems of eternity. Under the frieze of the naos an oval with the
prenomen of Rameses II. is introduced. Two tet are placed in the lower angles of
the frame."[388] These jewels were funerary in character. They consist of a little
chapel in the middle of which there is usually a scarab—emblem of
transformation and immortality—adoring the goddesses Isis and Nephthys. They
are called pectorals because they were placed upon the bosoms of the dead.
Great numbers of them have been found in the tombs, in metal, in wood, and in
earthenware; few, however, are as rich as that of Kha-em-uas. Each
compartment of the golden frame-work is filled in either with coloured glass or
with a piece of some pietra dura with a rich hue of its own.
Page 424
Fig. 311.—Pectoral. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
In the same case as this pectoral there are two golden hawks incrusted in the
same fashion, which may have belonged to a similar jewel. The larger of the two
(Fig. 312) has a ram's head.[389] There is a necklace about its throat, and in its
talons it grasps a pair of seals, the symbols of reproduction and eternity. The
same emblem is held by the smaller hawk (Fig. 313), whose wings form a large
crescent.[390]
In the same case as this pectoral there are two golden hawks incrusted in the
same fashion, which may have belonged to a similar jewel. The larger of the two
(Fig. 312) has a ram's head.[389] There is a necklace about its throat, and in its
talons it grasps a pair of seals, the symbols of reproduction and eternity. The
same emblem is held by the smaller hawk (Fig. 313), whose wings form a large
crescent.[390]
Page 425
Fig. 312.—Golden Hawk. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Fig. 313.—Golden Hawk. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Living forms are interpreted in a less conventional fashion in the little
monuments which are known as ægides, on account of their shape. This may be
seen by reference to one recently acquired by the Louvre (Fig. 314). The name
of an Osorkhon of the twenty-second dynasty and that of Queen Ta-ti-bast are on
the back. At the top appears the lion-head of the goddess Sekhet, modelled with
Fig. 313.—Golden Hawk. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Living forms are interpreted in a less conventional fashion in the little
monuments which are known as ægides, on account of their shape. This may be
seen by reference to one recently acquired by the Louvre (Fig. 314). The name
of an Osorkhon of the twenty-second dynasty and that of Queen Ta-ti-bast are on
the back. At the top appears the lion-head of the goddess Sekhet, modelled with
Page 426
great skill and freedom, and supported on each side by the head of a hawk;
below these comes a plate of gold, entirely covered with fine engraving. A
seated figure with expanded wings forms a centre for numerous bands of
ornament in which the open flower of the lotus is combined with its buds and
circular leaves.
Necklaces are also very rich and various in design. Fig. 315 is the restoration of
one which exists in a dislocated state in one of the cases of the Louvre. It is
formed of glass beads in four rows, below which hangs a row of pendants,
probably charms. The tet, the god Bes, the oudja or symbolic eye, &c., are to be
distinguished among them.
Fig. 314.—Ægis. Louvre. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
The beautiful group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus deserves to rank as a work of
sculpture (Fig. 316). These little figures are of gold. Osiris is crouching between
the other two deities on a pedestal of lapis-lazuli, which bears the name of
Osorkhon II. The inscription upon the base consists of a religious benediction
upon the same Pharaoh. These little figures are finely executed, and the base
upon which the group stands is incrusted with coloured glass.
We have already reproduced specimens of finger rings (Figs. 241 and 243), and
the additional examples on page 387 will help to show how varied were their
form. Many of these little articles have moveable or rotating stones upon which
figures or inscriptions are engraved. Some have this merely upon a flattened or
thickened part of the ring, which, again, is sometimes double (Fig. 318). Ear-
below these comes a plate of gold, entirely covered with fine engraving. A
seated figure with expanded wings forms a centre for numerous bands of
ornament in which the open flower of the lotus is combined with its buds and
circular leaves.
Necklaces are also very rich and various in design. Fig. 315 is the restoration of
one which exists in a dislocated state in one of the cases of the Louvre. It is
formed of glass beads in four rows, below which hangs a row of pendants,
probably charms. The tet, the god Bes, the oudja or symbolic eye, &c., are to be
distinguished among them.
Fig. 314.—Ægis. Louvre. Actual size. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
The beautiful group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus deserves to rank as a work of
sculpture (Fig. 316). These little figures are of gold. Osiris is crouching between
the other two deities on a pedestal of lapis-lazuli, which bears the name of
Osorkhon II. The inscription upon the base consists of a religious benediction
upon the same Pharaoh. These little figures are finely executed, and the base
upon which the group stands is incrusted with coloured glass.
We have already reproduced specimens of finger rings (Figs. 241 and 243), and
the additional examples on page 387 will help to show how varied were their
form. Many of these little articles have moveable or rotating stones upon which
figures or inscriptions are engraved. Some have this merely upon a flattened or
thickened part of the ring, which, again, is sometimes double (Fig. 318). Ear-
Page 427
rings of many different forms have been found; they are ornamented with little
figures in relief (Figs. 319 and 320).
Some writers have spoken of the cloisonné enamels of Egypt. This expression is
inaccurate, as Mariette has observed.[391] There are certainly cloisons in many of
the jewels above described—such as the pectoral and the two hawks—cloisons
made up of thin ribs of silver or gold, but these compartments are not combined
by firing with the material used to fill them. Where the Chinese place enamel the
Egyptians inserted fragments of coloured glass or of such stones as the
amethyst, cornelion, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, jasper, &c. The work was not passed
through an oven after the insertion of these colouring substances; it was
therefore rather a mosaic than an enamel in the proper sense of the term. By an
analagous process bronze was damascened with gold and silver, threads of these
two metals being inserted in prepared grooves and hammered into place.
Mariette has called attention to several bronzes at Boulak thus inlaid with gold,
[392]
and in the Louvre there is a graceful little sphinx marked with the cartouche
of Smendes, which is damascened with silver.
The Egyptians were also workers in ivory, which was obtained in large
quantities from Ethiopia. Sometimes they were content with carving it (Fig.
322), sometimes they engraved upon it with the point and then filled in the
design with black, giving it a forcible relief (Fig. 323). The ivory plaque from
Sakkarah reproduced in Fig. 321, deserves to be studied for its technical method,
although it dates from the Greek period. The blacks shown in our woodcut are
produced in the original by filling up with mastic the hollows made with the
point.
Famous sculptors were especially fond of working in ivory. Iritesen speaks as
follows upon a stele translated by M. Maspero:—"Ah! there is no one who
excels at this work except myself and the eldest of my legitimate sons. God
decided that he should excel, and I have seen the perfection of his handiwork as
an artist, as the chief of those who work in precious stones, in gold, silver, ivory
and ebony."[393]
figures in relief (Figs. 319 and 320).
Some writers have spoken of the cloisonné enamels of Egypt. This expression is
inaccurate, as Mariette has observed.[391] There are certainly cloisons in many of
the jewels above described—such as the pectoral and the two hawks—cloisons
made up of thin ribs of silver or gold, but these compartments are not combined
by firing with the material used to fill them. Where the Chinese place enamel the
Egyptians inserted fragments of coloured glass or of such stones as the
amethyst, cornelion, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, jasper, &c. The work was not passed
through an oven after the insertion of these colouring substances; it was
therefore rather a mosaic than an enamel in the proper sense of the term. By an
analagous process bronze was damascened with gold and silver, threads of these
two metals being inserted in prepared grooves and hammered into place.
Mariette has called attention to several bronzes at Boulak thus inlaid with gold,
[392]
and in the Louvre there is a graceful little sphinx marked with the cartouche
of Smendes, which is damascened with silver.
The Egyptians were also workers in ivory, which was obtained in large
quantities from Ethiopia. Sometimes they were content with carving it (Fig.
322), sometimes they engraved upon it with the point and then filled in the
design with black, giving it a forcible relief (Fig. 323). The ivory plaque from
Sakkarah reproduced in Fig. 321, deserves to be studied for its technical method,
although it dates from the Greek period. The blacks shown in our woodcut are
produced in the original by filling up with mastic the hollows made with the
point.
Famous sculptors were especially fond of working in ivory. Iritesen speaks as
follows upon a stele translated by M. Maspero:—"Ah! there is no one who
excels at this work except myself and the eldest of my legitimate sons. God
decided that he should excel, and I have seen the perfection of his handiwork as
an artist, as the chief of those who work in precious stones, in gold, silver, ivory
and ebony."[393]
Page 428
Fig. 315.—Necklace. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Page 429
Fig. 316.—Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
No traces of amber have been discovered in Egypt, and Egyptologists tell us that
no word for it is to be found in the language.
Figs. 317, 318.—Rings. Louvre.
Figs. 319, 320.—Ear-rings. Louvre.
A complete idea of Egyptian jewelry and work in the precious metals cannot be
given without colour; without its assistance the brilliance, softened into
completest harmony by the action of time, which distinguishes the objects of
which we have now been speaking, can only be guessed at. Our best advice to
those who wish to thoroughly appreciate their beauty, is to examine them in the
museums where they are exposed. But even in the black and white of our
draughtsman the excellent taste which animated the Egyptian jeweller may be
fairly estimated. Other races, the Greeks, for instance, gave more lightness and a
more refined grace to their trinkets, but our familiarity with their productions
does not prevent us from recognizing the nobility and amplitude of these
designs. Their originality, too, is strongly brought out by their affinity to the
No traces of amber have been discovered in Egypt, and Egyptologists tell us that
no word for it is to be found in the language.
Figs. 317, 318.—Rings. Louvre.
Figs. 319, 320.—Ear-rings. Louvre.
A complete idea of Egyptian jewelry and work in the precious metals cannot be
given without colour; without its assistance the brilliance, softened into
completest harmony by the action of time, which distinguishes the objects of
which we have now been speaking, can only be guessed at. Our best advice to
those who wish to thoroughly appreciate their beauty, is to examine them in the
museums where they are exposed. But even in the black and white of our
draughtsman the excellent taste which animated the Egyptian jeweller may be
fairly estimated. Other races, the Greeks, for instance, gave more lightness and a
more refined grace to their trinkets, but our familiarity with their productions
does not prevent us from recognizing the nobility and amplitude of these
designs. Their originality, too, is strongly brought out by their affinity to the
Page 430
style and decoration of the great national buildings; we might almost be tempted
to think that their designs and colour compositions were supplied by architects.
Fig. 321.—Ivory Plaque. Boulak.
The same characteristics are to be recognized on the vases figured in the royal
tombs at Thebes.[394] They are coloured yellow and blue, and both their form
and tint forbid us to suppose that they were of any material but metal, of gilt
bronze or gold, or of silver. Incrustations in enamel or coloured pietra dura
relieve the monotony of the metal surface. Some of these pieces seem to have
been very large. Their decoration and design is rich and complex. Flowers and
half-opened buds, lions' heads, masks of Bes and of negroes, birds, sphinxes,
etc., are introduced. We may presume that such objects were made for
presentation to the gods and preservation in treasure-houses; few of them could
have been put to any practical use. The great men of Egypt followed the
example of Pharaoh in enriching the temples. The stele of Neb-oua, chief
prophet of Osiris in the reign of Thothmes III., runs thus: "I have consecrated
numerous gifts in the temple of my father Osiris; in silver, in gold, in lapis-
lazuli, in copper, and in all kinds of precious stones."[395]
to think that their designs and colour compositions were supplied by architects.
Fig. 321.—Ivory Plaque. Boulak.
The same characteristics are to be recognized on the vases figured in the royal
tombs at Thebes.[394] They are coloured yellow and blue, and both their form
and tint forbid us to suppose that they were of any material but metal, of gilt
bronze or gold, or of silver. Incrustations in enamel or coloured pietra dura
relieve the monotony of the metal surface. Some of these pieces seem to have
been very large. Their decoration and design is rich and complex. Flowers and
half-opened buds, lions' heads, masks of Bes and of negroes, birds, sphinxes,
etc., are introduced. We may presume that such objects were made for
presentation to the gods and preservation in treasure-houses; few of them could
have been put to any practical use. The great men of Egypt followed the
example of Pharaoh in enriching the temples. The stele of Neb-oua, chief
prophet of Osiris in the reign of Thothmes III., runs thus: "I have consecrated
numerous gifts in the temple of my father Osiris; in silver, in gold, in lapis-
lazuli, in copper, and in all kinds of precious stones."[395]
Page 431
Fig. 322.—Ivory Castanet. Louvre.
Page 432
Fig. 323.—Fragment of an Ivory Castanet. Louvre.
§ 4. Woodwork.
The Egyptians made great use of wood. Under the Ancient Empire it furnished
the material for all their lighter constructions, to which, by the help of colour,
§ 4. Woodwork.
The Egyptians made great use of wood. Under the Ancient Empire it furnished
the material for all their lighter constructions, to which, by the help of colour,
Page 433
great variety and cheerfulness was imparted. Even in those early ages the
cabinet-maker or joiner endeavoured to make his work artistic. Various articles
of furniture had their feet carved into the shape of lions' paws, or the hoofs of
oxen.[396] To judge from certain stone objects preserved in the mastabas, wood,
which was comparatively easy to work, must have afforded the material for
those skilfully-made and complex pieces of furniture whose forms are preserved
for us by paintings from the Theban epoch.[397]
In these pictures the labours of the carpenter (Fig. 324), and those of the cabinet-
maker (Fig. 325) are often represented. The specimens of furniture in our
modern museums are mostly of a commonplace character, but they are
interesting from the light they throw upon the methods of the Egyptian joiners
(Fig. 326). The richness and elaboration of Egyptian furniture under the great
Theban dynasties can only be estimated from the paintings. We have already
seen that their musical instruments were elaborately decorated; the harp of the
famous minstrel figured on page 345 is entirely covered with incrustations, and
its foot is ornamented with a bust of graceful design. In this luxurious age the
arts of the cabinet-maker must have been carried to a great height. The interior
of an ancient Egyptian house must have been very different from the bareness
which greets a visitor to the modern East. Chairs with or without arms, tables of
varied form, folding seats, foot-stools, brackets supporting vases of flowers,
cabinets in which objects of value were locked up, filled the rooms. The upper
classes of Egypt lived a life that was refined and elegant as well as civilized. A
great lord of the time of a Thothmes or a Rameses was not content, like a
Turkish bey or pacha, with a divan, a few carpets, and a mattress which, after
being locked up in a cupboard during the day, is spread upon the floor for his
accommodation at night. He had his bedstead, often inlaid with metal or ivory,
and, like a modern European, he had other articles of furniture besides.
cabinet-maker or joiner endeavoured to make his work artistic. Various articles
of furniture had their feet carved into the shape of lions' paws, or the hoofs of
oxen.[396] To judge from certain stone objects preserved in the mastabas, wood,
which was comparatively easy to work, must have afforded the material for
those skilfully-made and complex pieces of furniture whose forms are preserved
for us by paintings from the Theban epoch.[397]
In these pictures the labours of the carpenter (Fig. 324), and those of the cabinet-
maker (Fig. 325) are often represented. The specimens of furniture in our
modern museums are mostly of a commonplace character, but they are
interesting from the light they throw upon the methods of the Egyptian joiners
(Fig. 326). The richness and elaboration of Egyptian furniture under the great
Theban dynasties can only be estimated from the paintings. We have already
seen that their musical instruments were elaborately decorated; the harp of the
famous minstrel figured on page 345 is entirely covered with incrustations, and
its foot is ornamented with a bust of graceful design. In this luxurious age the
arts of the cabinet-maker must have been carried to a great height. The interior
of an ancient Egyptian house must have been very different from the bareness
which greets a visitor to the modern East. Chairs with or without arms, tables of
varied form, folding seats, foot-stools, brackets supporting vases of flowers,
cabinets in which objects of value were locked up, filled the rooms. The upper
classes of Egypt lived a life that was refined and elegant as well as civilized. A
great lord of the time of a Thothmes or a Rameses was not content, like a
Turkish bey or pacha, with a divan, a few carpets, and a mattress which, after
being locked up in a cupboard during the day, is spread upon the floor for his
accommodation at night. He had his bedstead, often inlaid with metal or ivory,
and, like a modern European, he had other articles of furniture besides.
Page 434
Fig. 324.—Workman splitting a piece of wood. Gournah. From
Champollion.
Fig. 325.—Joiner making a bed. From Champollion.
Several pictures are extant in which Egyptian receptions—Egyptian salons—are
represented. The company is not crouched upon the earth, in the modern
Oriental fashion. Both men and women are seated upon chairs, some of which
have cushioned seats and backs.[398]
Champollion.
Fig. 325.—Joiner making a bed. From Champollion.
Several pictures are extant in which Egyptian receptions—Egyptian salons—are
represented. The company is not crouched upon the earth, in the modern
Oriental fashion. Both men and women are seated upon chairs, some of which
have cushioned seats and backs.[398]
Page 435
Fig. 326.—Coffer for sepulchral statuettes. Louvre.
The elegance of these seats may be guessed from the two examples on the next
page, one from the tomb of Rameses III. (Fig. 327), the other from that of
Chamhati (Fig. 328). They are both royal chairs, or thrones. The smaller chair
figures among a number of things presented by Chamhati to his master, Pharaoh,
and we need feel no surprise that among the supports of both these pieces of
furniture, those crouching prisoners which became about this time such a
common motive in Egyptian ornament, are to be found. In the one example, they
are incorporated with the carved members which support the seat, in the other
they are inserted between the legs, which are shaped respectively like the fore
and hind quarters of a lion. Each arm terminates in a lion's head. A crowned,
winged, and hawk-headed uræus, some lotus-flowers, and a sphinx with a
vanquished enemy beneath his paws, are carved upon either side of the chair.
The scheme of decoration as a whole is a happy combination of æsthetic beauty
with allusions to the power and success of the king.
The elegance of these seats may be guessed from the two examples on the next
page, one from the tomb of Rameses III. (Fig. 327), the other from that of
Chamhati (Fig. 328). They are both royal chairs, or thrones. The smaller chair
figures among a number of things presented by Chamhati to his master, Pharaoh,
and we need feel no surprise that among the supports of both these pieces of
furniture, those crouching prisoners which became about this time such a
common motive in Egyptian ornament, are to be found. In the one example, they
are incorporated with the carved members which support the seat, in the other
they are inserted between the legs, which are shaped respectively like the fore
and hind quarters of a lion. Each arm terminates in a lion's head. A crowned,
winged, and hawk-headed uræus, some lotus-flowers, and a sphinx with a
vanquished enemy beneath his paws, are carved upon either side of the chair.
The scheme of decoration as a whole is a happy combination of æsthetic beauty
with allusions to the power and success of the king.
Page 436
Fig. 327.—Chair. From the Description.
Fig. 328.—Chair. From Prisse.
Fig. 328.—Chair. From Prisse.
Page 437
These elaborate pieces of furniture are only known to us by the paintings, but
when we turn to articles of a less ambitious description, such as toys and what
are called bimbeloterie in French, and, rather helplessly, "fancy articles" in
English, we have many fine specimens to turn to. Of these the most conspicuous
are those perfume spoons whose handles so often embody charming motives.
The more simple examples are ornamented merely with the buds or open
flowers of the lotus (Fig. 329). Others, however, have beautifully carved figures.
In Fig. 330 we see a young woman picking a lotus bud. Several stalks crowned
with open flowers support the bowl, which is shaped like that of a modern
spoon, except that its narrow end is turned towards the handle. The attitude and
expression of this little figure are very good. The right foot, which is thrust
forward, only touches the ground by the toes. The water in which she is about to
step may hide sharp flints or unkindly roots, and, with commendable prudence,
she begins by testing the bottom. Her legs are bare, because she has raised her
garment well above the knee before descending into the marsh. Her carefully
plaited hair and her crimped petticoat show that her social condition is good.
Another spoon shows us a musician between stems of papyrus. She stands
upright upon one of those boats which were used in the papyrus-brakes (Fig.
331). Her instrument is a long-handled guitar. The musician herself seems to
have been one of those dancers and singers whose condition was pretty much
the same in ancient as in modern Egypt. Her only garment is a short petticoat
knotted about her waist. The bowl of this spoon is rectangular.
when we turn to articles of a less ambitious description, such as toys and what
are called bimbeloterie in French, and, rather helplessly, "fancy articles" in
English, we have many fine specimens to turn to. Of these the most conspicuous
are those perfume spoons whose handles so often embody charming motives.
The more simple examples are ornamented merely with the buds or open
flowers of the lotus (Fig. 329). Others, however, have beautifully carved figures.
In Fig. 330 we see a young woman picking a lotus bud. Several stalks crowned
with open flowers support the bowl, which is shaped like that of a modern
spoon, except that its narrow end is turned towards the handle. The attitude and
expression of this little figure are very good. The right foot, which is thrust
forward, only touches the ground by the toes. The water in which she is about to
step may hide sharp flints or unkindly roots, and, with commendable prudence,
she begins by testing the bottom. Her legs are bare, because she has raised her
garment well above the knee before descending into the marsh. Her carefully
plaited hair and her crimped petticoat show that her social condition is good.
Another spoon shows us a musician between stems of papyrus. She stands
upright upon one of those boats which were used in the papyrus-brakes (Fig.
331). Her instrument is a long-handled guitar. The musician herself seems to
have been one of those dancers and singers whose condition was pretty much
the same in ancient as in modern Egypt. Her only garment is a short petticoat
knotted about her waist. The bowl of this spoon is rectangular.
Page 438
Fig. 329.—Perfume Spoon. Boulak. Drawn by Bourgoin.
Another common motive is that of a girl swimming. She is represented at the
moment when her stroke is complete; her upper and lower limbs are stretched
out to their full extent so as to offer the least possible resistance to the water
(Fig. 257). There is a perfume-box in the Louvre which is supported on a figure
contrasting strongly with the last described. The box is shaped like a heavy sack,
and is supported upon the right shoulder of a slave, who bends beneath its
weight. By the thick lips, flat nose, heavy jaw, low forehead, and closely-shaven,
sugar-loaf head, we may recognize this as yet another of those caricatures of
prisoners which we have already encountered in such numbers.[399] A perfume-
box at Boulak should also be mentioned. It is in the shape of a goose turning its
head backwards. Its wings open and give access to the hollow of the box.
This desire to ornament even the most apparently insignificant objects of
domestic use was universal. The sticks which are shown in the bas-reliefs in the
hands of almost every Egyptian of good social position, were generally provided
with a more or less richly ornamented head. The simplest terminate in a handle
Another common motive is that of a girl swimming. She is represented at the
moment when her stroke is complete; her upper and lower limbs are stretched
out to their full extent so as to offer the least possible resistance to the water
(Fig. 257). There is a perfume-box in the Louvre which is supported on a figure
contrasting strongly with the last described. The box is shaped like a heavy sack,
and is supported upon the right shoulder of a slave, who bends beneath its
weight. By the thick lips, flat nose, heavy jaw, low forehead, and closely-shaven,
sugar-loaf head, we may recognize this as yet another of those caricatures of
prisoners which we have already encountered in such numbers.[399] A perfume-
box at Boulak should also be mentioned. It is in the shape of a goose turning its
head backwards. Its wings open and give access to the hollow of the box.
This desire to ornament even the most apparently insignificant objects of
domestic use was universal. The sticks which are shown in the bas-reliefs in the
hands of almost every Egyptian of good social position, were generally provided
with a more or less richly ornamented head. The simplest terminate in a handle
Page 439
which appears to be modelled after the leaf of the lotus, as it rises above the
level of the water, and, before opening to the full expansion, forms an obtuse
angle with the stalk which supports it (Fig. 332). Other sticks of a similar shape
have an eye painted upon them (Fig. 333). Sometimes the handle is shaped like a
lotus-flower surmounted by an oval knob (Fig. 334). Wooden pins have been
found with the head of a jackal or some other animal carved upon them (Fig.
335).
level of the water, and, before opening to the full expansion, forms an obtuse
angle with the stalk which supports it (Fig. 332). Other sticks of a similar shape
have an eye painted upon them (Fig. 333). Sometimes the handle is shaped like a
lotus-flower surmounted by an oval knob (Fig. 334). Wooden pins have been
found with the head of a jackal or some other animal carved upon them (Fig.
335).
Page 440
Figs. 330, 331.—Perfume Spoons. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
Wooden articles were often entirely gilt. A Hathoric capital in the Louvre (Fig.
336) is an instance of this. The outlines of the eyes and eyebrows stand out in
black upon the dead gold which covers the rest of this little monument.
Figs. 332-334.—Walking-stick handles. Boulak.
The coffin-makers were large consumers of wood. Some mummy cases were of
that material, others of a very thick board made up of many layers of linen glued
together with such skill and firmness that the resulting substance had all the
hardness and resonance of wood. Cases of both kinds were covered with a thin
coat of plaster, varnished, and decorated with designs in colour. The thickness of
the plaster coat may be easily seen in the numerous cracks which these coffins
display.
All the decorative motives which we find traced by the brush or engraved by the
chisel upon the walls of buildings and upon works in terra-cotta, in metal, and in
wood, must have been repeated upon the woven stuffs of the country, and upon
those needle embroideries with which they were ornamented. There is nothing in
which the superiority of Egyptian manufactures is better shown than in linen
cloth. Linen has been recovered from the tombs which is as fine as the best
Indian muslin. Some has been found which feels like silk to the touch, and
equals the best French batiste in the perfection of its weaving. We know from
the bas-reliefs and paintings that some Egyptian stuffs had the transparency of
gauze. Body-linen was usually of a dazzling white, but in some instances it was
Wooden articles were often entirely gilt. A Hathoric capital in the Louvre (Fig.
336) is an instance of this. The outlines of the eyes and eyebrows stand out in
black upon the dead gold which covers the rest of this little monument.
Figs. 332-334.—Walking-stick handles. Boulak.
The coffin-makers were large consumers of wood. Some mummy cases were of
that material, others of a very thick board made up of many layers of linen glued
together with such skill and firmness that the resulting substance had all the
hardness and resonance of wood. Cases of both kinds were covered with a thin
coat of plaster, varnished, and decorated with designs in colour. The thickness of
the plaster coat may be easily seen in the numerous cracks which these coffins
display.
All the decorative motives which we find traced by the brush or engraved by the
chisel upon the walls of buildings and upon works in terra-cotta, in metal, and in
wood, must have been repeated upon the woven stuffs of the country, and upon
those needle embroideries with which they were ornamented. There is nothing in
which the superiority of Egyptian manufactures is better shown than in linen
cloth. Linen has been recovered from the tombs which is as fine as the best
Indian muslin. Some has been found which feels like silk to the touch, and
equals the best French batiste in the perfection of its weaving. We know from
the bas-reliefs and paintings that some Egyptian stuffs had the transparency of
gauze. Body-linen was usually of a dazzling white, but in some instances it was
Page 441
dyed red, and in others it had borders made up of several bands of red and
indigo blue. The designs were either woven in the stuff or applied to it by a
process which gave effects not unlike those of our printed cottons. Golden
threads were introduced into specially fine tissues. But the great excellence of
Egypt in such matters as these was in her needle embroidery. Even during the
epoch of Roman supremacy her productions of that kind were eagerly sought
after.[400]
Fig. 335.—Wooden pin or peg. Boulak.
indigo blue. The designs were either woven in the stuff or applied to it by a
process which gave effects not unlike those of our printed cottons. Golden
threads were introduced into specially fine tissues. But the great excellence of
Egypt in such matters as these was in her needle embroidery. Even during the
epoch of Roman supremacy her productions of that kind were eagerly sought
after.[400]
Fig. 335.—Wooden pin or peg. Boulak.
Page 442
Fig. 336.—Hathoric capital. Louvre.
§ 5. The Commerce of Egypt.
When, under the great Theban Pharaohs, Egypt found herself impelled, either by
force or by inclination, to emerge from her long isolation, her vast internal
commerce and her industrial development must have had a greater effect over
the foreigners with whom she came into contact than her gigantic buildings, or
the colossal statues, bas-reliefs, and paintings with which they were adorned.
During the Middle Empire she opened her gates to some extent to certain tribes
of Semites and Kushites, who dwelt close to her frontier. After her conquest by
the Hyksos, and the establishment, some centuries later, of her own supremacy
in Syria, she never ceased to hold intercourse with her neighbours.
Her foreign relations were, however, peculiar in character. During many
centuries it never occurred to the worshipper of Osiris that it was possible to live
and die out of the sacred valley of the Nile. Thrown by some accident outside
those limits which for him coincided with the frontiers of the habitable world, he
would have felt as helpless as a Parisian stranded upon some cannibal island. In
§ 5. The Commerce of Egypt.
When, under the great Theban Pharaohs, Egypt found herself impelled, either by
force or by inclination, to emerge from her long isolation, her vast internal
commerce and her industrial development must have had a greater effect over
the foreigners with whom she came into contact than her gigantic buildings, or
the colossal statues, bas-reliefs, and paintings with which they were adorned.
During the Middle Empire she opened her gates to some extent to certain tribes
of Semites and Kushites, who dwelt close to her frontier. After her conquest by
the Hyksos, and the establishment, some centuries later, of her own supremacy
in Syria, she never ceased to hold intercourse with her neighbours.
Her foreign relations were, however, peculiar in character. During many
centuries it never occurred to the worshipper of Osiris that it was possible to live
and die out of the sacred valley of the Nile. Thrown by some accident outside
those limits which for him coincided with the frontiers of the habitable world, he
would have felt as helpless as a Parisian stranded upon some cannibal island. In
Page 443
later years, after about the seventeenth century B.C. the separation between the
Egyptians and the people of Western Asia became less complete. The time
arrived when Babylon and Greece were in advance of Egypt; but even then the
Egyptians shrank from changing their ancient habits. Their well-being in the
valley watered by their sacred river was too complete, their pride of race was too
great, to allow of their mingling readily with those whom they looked upon as
barbarians. Still more effectual was their unwillingness, their fear, to confide
their mortal bodies to any other soil but that of Egypt. There alone could they
count with certainty upon the care and skill which would preserve it from final
destruction. Nowhere but in the Western Mountain could they be sure of
receiving the necessary offerings and homage. The gods who watched over the
mummy, who guided the soul in its subterranean voyage and shielded it during
the tests to which it was exposed after death, dwelt in Egypt alone. Military
expeditions were pushed into Syria, and even as far as the Euphrates, but no
Egyptian crossed the Isthmus of Suez without longing for the day of his return.
He brought back the plunder of his successful combats to the crowded cities of
his own country, with their countless monuments and their memories of a
glorious past; he could enjoy life only where the tombs of his ancestors and his
own happy dwelling marked the spot where he should repose when that life had
ceased.
By taste, then, the Egyptian was no traveller. But in time the men of other
nations came to seek him; they came to buy from him the countless wonders
which had been created by his skilful and patient industry. The Phœnician,
especially after the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, took upon himself the
useful office of middle-man; in later days, under the Psemetheks and their
successors, the Greek came to dispute that office with him. Like the Portuguese
and the Dutch in China and Japan, first the Phœnicians and afterwards the
Ionians had their factories at Memphis and in the cities of the Delta. Thanks to
these adroit and enterprising middle-men, Egypt had a large foreign trade
without either ships, sailors, or merchant-adventurers. Upon this point much
valuable information has been obtained from the texts, but the discoveries of
modern archæology have been still more efficient in enabling us to form a true
and vivid conception of the trade carried on by the inhabitants of the Nile Valley.
Ever since attention was first drawn to the wide distribution of such objects, not
a year has passed without articles of Egyptian manufacture being discovered at
some distant point. Syria and Phœnicia are full of them; they have been found in
Babylonia and in Assyria, upon the coasts of Asia Minor, in Cyprus, in the
islands of the Grecian Archipelago, in Greece itself, in Etruria, in Latium, in
Egyptians and the people of Western Asia became less complete. The time
arrived when Babylon and Greece were in advance of Egypt; but even then the
Egyptians shrank from changing their ancient habits. Their well-being in the
valley watered by their sacred river was too complete, their pride of race was too
great, to allow of their mingling readily with those whom they looked upon as
barbarians. Still more effectual was their unwillingness, their fear, to confide
their mortal bodies to any other soil but that of Egypt. There alone could they
count with certainty upon the care and skill which would preserve it from final
destruction. Nowhere but in the Western Mountain could they be sure of
receiving the necessary offerings and homage. The gods who watched over the
mummy, who guided the soul in its subterranean voyage and shielded it during
the tests to which it was exposed after death, dwelt in Egypt alone. Military
expeditions were pushed into Syria, and even as far as the Euphrates, but no
Egyptian crossed the Isthmus of Suez without longing for the day of his return.
He brought back the plunder of his successful combats to the crowded cities of
his own country, with their countless monuments and their memories of a
glorious past; he could enjoy life only where the tombs of his ancestors and his
own happy dwelling marked the spot where he should repose when that life had
ceased.
By taste, then, the Egyptian was no traveller. But in time the men of other
nations came to seek him; they came to buy from him the countless wonders
which had been created by his skilful and patient industry. The Phœnician,
especially after the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, took upon himself the
useful office of middle-man; in later days, under the Psemetheks and their
successors, the Greek came to dispute that office with him. Like the Portuguese
and the Dutch in China and Japan, first the Phœnicians and afterwards the
Ionians had their factories at Memphis and in the cities of the Delta. Thanks to
these adroit and enterprising middle-men, Egypt had a large foreign trade
without either ships, sailors, or merchant-adventurers. Upon this point much
valuable information has been obtained from the texts, but the discoveries of
modern archæology have been still more efficient in enabling us to form a true
and vivid conception of the trade carried on by the inhabitants of the Nile Valley.
Ever since attention was first drawn to the wide distribution of such objects, not
a year has passed without articles of Egyptian manufacture being discovered at
some distant point. Syria and Phœnicia are full of them; they have been found in
Babylonia and in Assyria, upon the coasts of Asia Minor, in Cyprus, in the
islands of the Grecian Archipelago, in Greece itself, in Etruria, in Latium, in
Page 444
Corsica and Sardinia, in the neighbourhood of Carthage; they are, in fact, spread
over all Western Asia and the whole basin of the Mediterranean. At the moment
when the Phœnicians began to secure the monopoly of this trade the Egyptian
workshops had no rivals in the world; and when, after many centuries, other
nations began to pour their manufactures into the same markets, they had long to
compete in vain against a prestige which had been built up by ages of good work
and well earned notoriety.
over all Western Asia and the whole basin of the Mediterranean. At the moment
when the Phœnicians began to secure the monopoly of this trade the Egyptian
workshops had no rivals in the world; and when, after many centuries, other
nations began to pour their manufactures into the same markets, they had long to
compete in vain against a prestige which had been built up by ages of good work
and well earned notoriety.
Page 445
CHAPTER VI.
THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EGYPTIAN ART,
AND THE PLACE OF EGYPT IN ART HISTORY.
In the study which we have now almost completed, we have made no attempt to
reconstitute the history of Egypt. We are without the qualifications necessary for
such a task. We do not read the hieroglyphs, and are therefore without the key to
that great library in stone and wood, in canvas and papyrus—a library which
could afford material for thousands of volumes—which has been left to the
world by the ancient Egyptians.
Our one object has been to make Egyptian art better known; to place its
incomparable age and its originality in a clear light, and to show the value of the
example set by the first-born of civilization to the peoples who came after them
and began to experience the wants and tastes which had long been completely
satisfied in the Valley of the Nile. The importance and absolute originality of the
national forms of art were hardly suspected before the days of Champollion; he
was something more than a philologist of genius; his intellect was too
penetrating and his taste too active, to leave him blind to any of the forms taken
by the thoughts and sentiments of that Egypt which was so dear to him. "I shall
write to our friend Dubois from Thebes," he says in one of his letters, "after
having thoroughly explored Egypt and Nubia. I can say beforehand, that our
Egyptians will cut a more important figure in the future, in the history of art,
than in the past. I shall bring back with me a series of drawings from things fine
enough to convert the most obstinate."[401]
The forecasts of Champollion and Nestor L'Hôte have been confirmed by the
excavations of Lepsius and Mariette. The conclusions deduced by the former
from their examination of the remains in the Nile Valley have been indirectly
corroborated by the discoveries which have successively revealed to us ancient
Chaldæa, Syria, Phœnicia, Asia Minor, primitive Greece and Etruria. No one
contests the priority of Egypt. It is recognized that its origin dates from a period
long antecedent to that of any other race which, in its turn, played the leading
rôle upon the stage of the ancient world. Justice has been rendered to the
richness of its architecture, to the skill of its painters and sculptors, to the
inventive fertility of its handicraftsmen and the refinement of their taste. And yet
THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EGYPTIAN ART,
AND THE PLACE OF EGYPT IN ART HISTORY.
In the study which we have now almost completed, we have made no attempt to
reconstitute the history of Egypt. We are without the qualifications necessary for
such a task. We do not read the hieroglyphs, and are therefore without the key to
that great library in stone and wood, in canvas and papyrus—a library which
could afford material for thousands of volumes—which has been left to the
world by the ancient Egyptians.
Our one object has been to make Egyptian art better known; to place its
incomparable age and its originality in a clear light, and to show the value of the
example set by the first-born of civilization to the peoples who came after them
and began to experience the wants and tastes which had long been completely
satisfied in the Valley of the Nile. The importance and absolute originality of the
national forms of art were hardly suspected before the days of Champollion; he
was something more than a philologist of genius; his intellect was too
penetrating and his taste too active, to leave him blind to any of the forms taken
by the thoughts and sentiments of that Egypt which was so dear to him. "I shall
write to our friend Dubois from Thebes," he says in one of his letters, "after
having thoroughly explored Egypt and Nubia. I can say beforehand, that our
Egyptians will cut a more important figure in the future, in the history of art,
than in the past. I shall bring back with me a series of drawings from things fine
enough to convert the most obstinate."[401]
The forecasts of Champollion and Nestor L'Hôte have been confirmed by the
excavations of Lepsius and Mariette. The conclusions deduced by the former
from their examination of the remains in the Nile Valley have been indirectly
corroborated by the discoveries which have successively revealed to us ancient
Chaldæa, Syria, Phœnicia, Asia Minor, primitive Greece and Etruria. No one
contests the priority of Egypt. It is recognized that its origin dates from a period
long antecedent to that of any other race which, in its turn, played the leading
rôle upon the stage of the ancient world. Justice has been rendered to the
richness of its architecture, to the skill of its painters and sculptors, to the
inventive fertility of its handicraftsmen and the refinement of their taste. And yet
Page 446
no one had attempted to do for Egypt what such men as Winckelmann and
Ottfried Müller did for Greece, Etruria, and Rome. The methods of analysis and
critical description which have long been employed with success upon another
field, had never been applied to her art as a whole; no one had attempted to trace
the steps of Egyptian genius during its long and slow evolution. The difficulties
were great, especially when architecture was concerned. The ruins of the
Pharaonic buildings had never been studied at first hand with such care as had
been lavished upon the classic monuments of Italy and the Eastern
Mediterranean. The works to which we have had to turn for information have
many plates which make a fine show, which are accompanied with a luxury of
detail which is very reassuring, but when we examine them closely we are
amazed to find the most unforeseen omissions in their materials both for
restorations, and for the reproduction of buildings in their actual condition.
When we attempt to make use of two separate works for the restoration of a
temple, we are met with an embarrassment of another kind. Differences, and
even actual contradictions, between one author and another are frequent, and
that without any new excavations having taken place between-times to account
for the inconsistency. Both observers had the same facts under their eyes, and it
is often difficult to decide which of the two has observed badly. For one who
does not wish to admit pure fancy into his work, all this causes doubts and
hesitations which add greatly to the difficulty of his task.
The deeper we penetrate into such studies, the more we regret the insufficiency
of the materials, and yet we have thought it imperative that we should fill in the
framework of our history. It has one peculiar aspect which distinguishes it from
all others: the Egyptians gave much to their neighbours and received nothing
from them, at least, during that period during which the character of their art as a
whole was established. The features which are distinctive of Egyptian sculpture
and architecture were determined at a time when there were no races in her
neighbourhood sufficiently advanced to have influence upon them. This was not
the case with Chaldæa and Assyria, at least, to anything like the same extent.
Their work, moreover, has come down to us in a very fragmentary condition.
Egypt is, then, the only country in which a complete development, begun and
carried on solely by the energy and aptitude of one gifted race, can be followed
through all its stages. Everywhere else the examples of predecessors or of
neighbours have had an influence upon the march of art. They may have
accelerated its progress, but at the same time they diverted it in some degree
from its natural channel; they may have helped men to do better, it is certain that
they led them to do what they would not otherwise have done. The goal may
Ottfried Müller did for Greece, Etruria, and Rome. The methods of analysis and
critical description which have long been employed with success upon another
field, had never been applied to her art as a whole; no one had attempted to trace
the steps of Egyptian genius during its long and slow evolution. The difficulties
were great, especially when architecture was concerned. The ruins of the
Pharaonic buildings had never been studied at first hand with such care as had
been lavished upon the classic monuments of Italy and the Eastern
Mediterranean. The works to which we have had to turn for information have
many plates which make a fine show, which are accompanied with a luxury of
detail which is very reassuring, but when we examine them closely we are
amazed to find the most unforeseen omissions in their materials both for
restorations, and for the reproduction of buildings in their actual condition.
When we attempt to make use of two separate works for the restoration of a
temple, we are met with an embarrassment of another kind. Differences, and
even actual contradictions, between one author and another are frequent, and
that without any new excavations having taken place between-times to account
for the inconsistency. Both observers had the same facts under their eyes, and it
is often difficult to decide which of the two has observed badly. For one who
does not wish to admit pure fancy into his work, all this causes doubts and
hesitations which add greatly to the difficulty of his task.
The deeper we penetrate into such studies, the more we regret the insufficiency
of the materials, and yet we have thought it imperative that we should fill in the
framework of our history. It has one peculiar aspect which distinguishes it from
all others: the Egyptians gave much to their neighbours and received nothing
from them, at least, during that period during which the character of their art as a
whole was established. The features which are distinctive of Egyptian sculpture
and architecture were determined at a time when there were no races in her
neighbourhood sufficiently advanced to have influence upon them. This was not
the case with Chaldæa and Assyria, at least, to anything like the same extent.
Their work, moreover, has come down to us in a very fragmentary condition.
Egypt is, then, the only country in which a complete development, begun and
carried on solely by the energy and aptitude of one gifted race, can be followed
through all its stages. Everywhere else the examples of predecessors or of
neighbours have had an influence upon the march of art. They may have
accelerated its progress, but at the same time they diverted it in some degree
from its natural channel; they may have helped men to do better, it is certain that
they led them to do what they would not otherwise have done. The goal may
Page 447
have been reached more quickly by those who had a guide, but it was reached by
a path different from that they would have taken had they been left to their own
devices. In the Valley of the Nile there was no guide, no precedent to follow.
There, and there alone, did the evolution of the plastic faculty preserve a normal
organic character from the commencement of its activity almost to its final
decease.
From all this it follows that the art history of Egypt may be reviewed in terms
more definite, and that the conclusions drawn from it are more certain or, at
least, more probable, than that of any other nation. It is, if we may be allowed
such a phrase, more transparent. Elsewhere, when we find a new decorative
form introduced, or a new style become prevalent, it is always open to us to ask
whether they may not have been foreign importations. When such borrowing is
suspected we have to trace it to its original source, and often the search is both
slow and painful. In the case of the Egyptians such problems have to be solved
differently. There is no need to extend one's inquiries beyond the happy valley
where, as in an inaccessible island surrounded by a vast ocean of barbarians,
they lived for ages whose number can never be guessed. Other civilizations are
to be partly explained by those of their predecessors and their neighbours; that
of Egypt is only to be explained by itself, by the inherent aptitudes of its people
and their physical surroundings. Every element of which the national genius
made use was indigenous; nowhere else can the fruit be so easily traced to the
seed, and the natural forces observed which developed the one from the other.
Another point of attraction in the study of Egyptian art is that extreme antiquity
which carries us back, without losing the thread of the story, to a period when
other races are still in the impenetrable darkness of prehistoric times. A glance
into so remote a past affords us a pleasure not unmingled with fright and
bewilderment. Our feelings are like those of the Alpine traveller, who, standing
upon some lofty summit, leans over the abyss at his feet and lets his eye wander
for a moment over the immeasurable depths, in which forests and mountain
streams can be dimly made out through mist and shadow.
Long before the earliest centuries of which other nations have preserved any
tradition, Egypt, as she appears to us in her first creations, already possesses an
art so advanced that it seems the end rather than the beginning of a long
development. The bas-reliefs and statues which have been found in the tombs
and pyramids of Meidoum, of Sakkarah and of Gizeh, are perhaps the
masterpieces of Egyptian sculpture, and, as Ampère says, "the pyramid of
Cheops is of all human monuments the oldest, the simplest, and the greatest."
a path different from that they would have taken had they been left to their own
devices. In the Valley of the Nile there was no guide, no precedent to follow.
There, and there alone, did the evolution of the plastic faculty preserve a normal
organic character from the commencement of its activity almost to its final
decease.
From all this it follows that the art history of Egypt may be reviewed in terms
more definite, and that the conclusions drawn from it are more certain or, at
least, more probable, than that of any other nation. It is, if we may be allowed
such a phrase, more transparent. Elsewhere, when we find a new decorative
form introduced, or a new style become prevalent, it is always open to us to ask
whether they may not have been foreign importations. When such borrowing is
suspected we have to trace it to its original source, and often the search is both
slow and painful. In the case of the Egyptians such problems have to be solved
differently. There is no need to extend one's inquiries beyond the happy valley
where, as in an inaccessible island surrounded by a vast ocean of barbarians,
they lived for ages whose number can never be guessed. Other civilizations are
to be partly explained by those of their predecessors and their neighbours; that
of Egypt is only to be explained by itself, by the inherent aptitudes of its people
and their physical surroundings. Every element of which the national genius
made use was indigenous; nowhere else can the fruit be so easily traced to the
seed, and the natural forces observed which developed the one from the other.
Another point of attraction in the study of Egyptian art is that extreme antiquity
which carries us back, without losing the thread of the story, to a period when
other races are still in the impenetrable darkness of prehistoric times. A glance
into so remote a past affords us a pleasure not unmingled with fright and
bewilderment. Our feelings are like those of the Alpine traveller, who, standing
upon some lofty summit, leans over the abyss at his feet and lets his eye wander
for a moment over the immeasurable depths, in which forests and mountain
streams can be dimly made out through mist and shadow.
Long before the earliest centuries of which other nations have preserved any
tradition, Egypt, as she appears to us in her first creations, already possesses an
art so advanced that it seems the end rather than the beginning of a long
development. The bas-reliefs and statues which have been found in the tombs
and pyramids of Meidoum, of Sakkarah and of Gizeh, are perhaps the
masterpieces of Egyptian sculpture, and, as Ampère says, "the pyramid of
Cheops is of all human monuments the oldest, the simplest, and the greatest."
Page 448
The work of the First Theban Empire is no less astonishing. "Twenty-five
centuries before our era, the kings of Egypt carried out works of public utility,
which can only be compared, for scale and ability, to the Suez Canal and the
Mont Cenis Tunnel. In the thirteenth century B.C., towards the presumed epoch
of the Exodus and the Trojan war, while Greece was still in a condition similar
to that of modern Albania, namely, divided up into many small hostile clans, five
centuries before Rome existed even in name, Egypt had arrived at the point
reached by the Romans under Cæsar and the Antonines; she carried on a
continual struggle against the barbarians who, after being beaten and driven
back for centuries, were at last endeavouring to cross all her frontiers at once."
[402]
The princes, whose achievements were sung by Pentaour, the Egyptian Homer,
had artists in their service as great as those of the early dynasties, artists who
raised and decorated the Great Hall of Karnak, one of the wonders of
architecture.
It is not only by its originality and age that the art of Egypt deserves the
attention of the historian and the artist; it is conspicuous for power, and, we may
say, for beauty. In studying each of the great branches of art separately we have
endeavoured to make clear the various qualities displayed by the Egyptian artist,
either in the decoration of the national monuments or in the interpretation of
living form by sculpture and painting. We have also endeavoured to show how
closely allied the handicrafts of Egypt were to its arts.
Our aim has been to embrace Egyptian art as a whole and to form a judgment
upon it, but, by force of circumstances, architecture has received the lion's share
of our attention. Some of our readers may ask why an equilibrium was not better
kept between that art whose secrets are the most difficult to penetrate and whose
beauties are least attractive, not only to the crowd but even to cultivated
intellects, and its rivals.
The apparent disproportion is justified by the place held by architecture in the
Egyptian social system. We have proved that the architect was socially superior
to the painter and even to the sculptor. His uncontested pre-eminence is to be
explained by the secondary rôle which sculpture and painting had to fill. Those
arts were cultivated in Egypt with sustained persistence; rare abilities were
lavished upon them, and we may even say that masterpieces were produced. But
plastic images were less admired in themselves, their intrinsic beauty was less
keenly appreciated, in consequence of the practical religious or funerary office
which they had to fulfil. Statues and pictures were always means to an end;
centuries before our era, the kings of Egypt carried out works of public utility,
which can only be compared, for scale and ability, to the Suez Canal and the
Mont Cenis Tunnel. In the thirteenth century B.C., towards the presumed epoch
of the Exodus and the Trojan war, while Greece was still in a condition similar
to that of modern Albania, namely, divided up into many small hostile clans, five
centuries before Rome existed even in name, Egypt had arrived at the point
reached by the Romans under Cæsar and the Antonines; she carried on a
continual struggle against the barbarians who, after being beaten and driven
back for centuries, were at last endeavouring to cross all her frontiers at once."
[402]
The princes, whose achievements were sung by Pentaour, the Egyptian Homer,
had artists in their service as great as those of the early dynasties, artists who
raised and decorated the Great Hall of Karnak, one of the wonders of
architecture.
It is not only by its originality and age that the art of Egypt deserves the
attention of the historian and the artist; it is conspicuous for power, and, we may
say, for beauty. In studying each of the great branches of art separately we have
endeavoured to make clear the various qualities displayed by the Egyptian artist,
either in the decoration of the national monuments or in the interpretation of
living form by sculpture and painting. We have also endeavoured to show how
closely allied the handicrafts of Egypt were to its arts.
Our aim has been to embrace Egyptian art as a whole and to form a judgment
upon it, but, by force of circumstances, architecture has received the lion's share
of our attention. Some of our readers may ask why an equilibrium was not better
kept between that art whose secrets are the most difficult to penetrate and whose
beauties are least attractive, not only to the crowd but even to cultivated
intellects, and its rivals.
The apparent disproportion is justified by the place held by architecture in the
Egyptian social system. We have proved that the architect was socially superior
to the painter and even to the sculptor. His uncontested pre-eminence is to be
explained by the secondary rôle which sculpture and painting had to fill. Those
arts were cultivated in Egypt with sustained persistence; rare abilities were
lavished upon them, and we may even say that masterpieces were produced. But
plastic images were less admired in themselves, their intrinsic beauty was less
keenly appreciated, in consequence of the practical religious or funerary office
which they had to fulfil. Statues and pictures were always means to an end;
Page 449
neither of them ever became ends in themselves, as they were in Greece,—
works whose final object was to elevate the mind and to afford to the intellectual
side of man that peculiar enjoyment which we call æsthetic pleasure.
Such conditions being given, it is easy to understand how painters and sculptors
were subordinated to architects. It was to the latter that the most pious and, at
the same time, the most magnificent of kings, confided all his resources, and his
example was followed by his wealthy subjects; it was to him that every one
employed had to look as the final disposer; the other artists were no more than
agents and translators of a thought which was grasped in its entirety by the
architect alone. His work, embellished with all the graces of a decoration which
reckoned neither time nor materials, formed a homogeneous and well-balanced
whole. It was in inventing, in bringing to perfection, and in contemplating such a
work that the Egyptian mind gave itself up most completely to love for beauty.
If we take an Egyptian building in its unity, as the product of a combined effort
on the part of a crowd of artists labouring under the directing will of the
architect, we shall no longer feel surprise at the space demanded by our study of
his art.
The Egyptian temple of the Theban period, as we know it by our examination of
Karnak and Luxor, the Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou, gives us the best and
highest idea of the national genius. We have had nothing more at heart than the
restoration of these edifices by the comparison of all available materials; we
have endeavoured to re-establish their general arrangements, to describe their
distinctive features, and to grasp their original physiognomies as a whole. But
while making this effort we could never succeed in banishing the Greek temple
from our minds. In vain we may try to judge the art of each people entirely on its
own merits; such comparisons are inevitable, and without dwelling upon the
question we shall devote a few words to it.
The differences are considerable and are all to the advantage of the Greek
creation. Its nobility is more intimate and smiling; the genius of man has there
succeeded better in giving to his work that unity which nature imprints on its
highest productions, an unity which results from the complete alliance between
different organs, and allows neither the subtraction of any part nor the addition
of any novel element.
These contrasts may be explained to a certain extent by the religion of Greece
and its social system. At present it is enough to point out their existence.
works whose final object was to elevate the mind and to afford to the intellectual
side of man that peculiar enjoyment which we call æsthetic pleasure.
Such conditions being given, it is easy to understand how painters and sculptors
were subordinated to architects. It was to the latter that the most pious and, at
the same time, the most magnificent of kings, confided all his resources, and his
example was followed by his wealthy subjects; it was to him that every one
employed had to look as the final disposer; the other artists were no more than
agents and translators of a thought which was grasped in its entirety by the
architect alone. His work, embellished with all the graces of a decoration which
reckoned neither time nor materials, formed a homogeneous and well-balanced
whole. It was in inventing, in bringing to perfection, and in contemplating such a
work that the Egyptian mind gave itself up most completely to love for beauty.
If we take an Egyptian building in its unity, as the product of a combined effort
on the part of a crowd of artists labouring under the directing will of the
architect, we shall no longer feel surprise at the space demanded by our study of
his art.
The Egyptian temple of the Theban period, as we know it by our examination of
Karnak and Luxor, the Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou, gives us the best and
highest idea of the national genius. We have had nothing more at heart than the
restoration of these edifices by the comparison of all available materials; we
have endeavoured to re-establish their general arrangements, to describe their
distinctive features, and to grasp their original physiognomies as a whole. But
while making this effort we could never succeed in banishing the Greek temple
from our minds. In vain we may try to judge the art of each people entirely on its
own merits; such comparisons are inevitable, and without dwelling upon the
question we shall devote a few words to it.
The differences are considerable and are all to the advantage of the Greek
creation. Its nobility is more intimate and smiling; the genius of man has there
succeeded better in giving to his work that unity which nature imprints on its
highest productions, an unity which results from the complete alliance between
different organs, and allows neither the subtraction of any part nor the addition
of any novel element.
These contrasts may be explained to a certain extent by the religion of Greece
and its social system. At present it is enough to point out their existence.
Page 450
This superiority of the Greek temple will hardly be contested, but after it that of
Egypt is certainly the most imposing and majestic product of ancient art. The
religious buildings of Chaldæa, Assyria, Persia, Phœnicia, and Judæa, have left
but slight remains behind them, and the information which we possess as to their
proportions and general arrangements is obscure and incomplete. But we at least
know enough to sketch out a parallel which is all to the honour of Egypt. Some
of these eastern temples, being entirely composed of inferior materials, never
had the richness and variety presented by the monuments of Memphis and
Thebes. Others were but more or less free imitations of Egyptian types. Suppose
that temple of Bel, which was one of the wonders of Babylon, still standing
upon the great plains of Mesopotamia; it would, in spite of its height and its
enormous mass, in spite of the various colours in which it was clothed, appear
cold and heavy beside Karnak in its first glory, beside the imposing splendours
of the Hypostyle Hall.
Until the rise of Greek art, the artists of Egypt remained, then, the great masters
of antiquity. Her architecture, by the beauty of its materials, by its proportions,
by its richness and variety, was without a rival until the birth of the Doric
temple. Her sculptors betrayed a singular aptitude in grasping and interpreting
the features of individuals or of races, and they succeeded in creating types
which reached general truth without becoming strangers to individuality. Their
royal statues were great, not so much by their dimensions as by the nobility of
their style, and their expression of calm and pensive gravity. The existence of a
few child-like conventions, from which they never shook themselves free,
cannot prevent us from feeling deep admiration for the insight into life, the
purity of contour, the freedom and truth of design which distinguish their bas-
reliefs and paintings. Egyptian decoration is everywhere informed by a fertile
invention and a happy choice of motives, by a harmony of tints which charms
the eye even now, when the endless tapestry with which tombs and houses,
palaces and sanctuaries, were hung, is rent and faded. The smallest works of the
humblest craftsman are distinguished by a desire for grace which spreads over
them like a reflection from art and beauty, and they helped to carry some
knowledge of the brilliant civilization of Egypt to the most distant coasts of the
ancient world.
During the earlier ages of antiquity, this civilization exercised upon the nascent
art of neighbouring, and even of some distant people, an influence analogous to
that which Greece was in later days to wield over the whole basin of the
Mediterranean. For many a long century the style of Egypt enjoyed an
unchallenged supremacy and offered a forecast of that universal acceptance
Egypt is certainly the most imposing and majestic product of ancient art. The
religious buildings of Chaldæa, Assyria, Persia, Phœnicia, and Judæa, have left
but slight remains behind them, and the information which we possess as to their
proportions and general arrangements is obscure and incomplete. But we at least
know enough to sketch out a parallel which is all to the honour of Egypt. Some
of these eastern temples, being entirely composed of inferior materials, never
had the richness and variety presented by the monuments of Memphis and
Thebes. Others were but more or less free imitations of Egyptian types. Suppose
that temple of Bel, which was one of the wonders of Babylon, still standing
upon the great plains of Mesopotamia; it would, in spite of its height and its
enormous mass, in spite of the various colours in which it was clothed, appear
cold and heavy beside Karnak in its first glory, beside the imposing splendours
of the Hypostyle Hall.
Until the rise of Greek art, the artists of Egypt remained, then, the great masters
of antiquity. Her architecture, by the beauty of its materials, by its proportions,
by its richness and variety, was without a rival until the birth of the Doric
temple. Her sculptors betrayed a singular aptitude in grasping and interpreting
the features of individuals or of races, and they succeeded in creating types
which reached general truth without becoming strangers to individuality. Their
royal statues were great, not so much by their dimensions as by the nobility of
their style, and their expression of calm and pensive gravity. The existence of a
few child-like conventions, from which they never shook themselves free,
cannot prevent us from feeling deep admiration for the insight into life, the
purity of contour, the freedom and truth of design which distinguish their bas-
reliefs and paintings. Egyptian decoration is everywhere informed by a fertile
invention and a happy choice of motives, by a harmony of tints which charms
the eye even now, when the endless tapestry with which tombs and houses,
palaces and sanctuaries, were hung, is rent and faded. The smallest works of the
humblest craftsman are distinguished by a desire for grace which spreads over
them like a reflection from art and beauty, and they helped to carry some
knowledge of the brilliant civilization of Egypt to the most distant coasts of the
ancient world.
During the earlier ages of antiquity, this civilization exercised upon the nascent
art of neighbouring, and even of some distant people, an influence analogous to
that which Greece was in later days to wield over the whole basin of the
Mediterranean. For many a long century the style of Egypt enjoyed an
unchallenged supremacy and offered a forecast of that universal acceptance
Page 451
which was to be the lot of Grecian art, when after two or three thousand years of
fertility, of power, and of prestige, the work of Egypt would be done, and the
time would arrive for her to fall asleep upon her laurels.
fertility, of power, and of prestige, the work of Egypt would be done, and the
time would arrive for her to fall asleep upon her laurels.
Page 452
APPENDIX.
The discovery of some thirty-eight royal mummies with their sepulchral
furniture, which signalized the accession of Professor Maspero to the
Directorship of Egyptian Explorations, was the result, in some degree, of one of
those inductive processes of which M. Perrot speaks as characteristic of modern
research. For several years previously those who kept account of the additions to
public and private collections of Egyptian antiquities had suspected that some
inviolate royal tomb had been discovered by the Arabs of Thebes, and that they
were gradually dissipating its contents. Early in 1876 General Campbell bought
the hieratic ritual of Pinotem I.,—or Her Hor, a priest king, and founder of the
twenty-first dynasty—from them; and in 1877 M. de Saulcy showed M.
Maspero photographs of a long papyrus which had belonged to Queen Notemit,
the mother of Pinotem. About the same time the funerary statuettes of that king
appeared in the market, "some of them very fine in workmanship, others rough
and coarse."[403] The certainty of a find and of its nature became so great that, in
1879, Maspero was enabled to assert of a tablet belonging to Rogers-Bey, that it
came from some sepulchre "belonging to the, as yet, undiscovered tomb of the
Her Hor family."[404] The mummy for which this tablet was made has been
discovered in the pit at Deir-el-Bahari.
The evidence which gradually accumulated in the hands of M. Maspero, all
pointed to two brothers Abd-er-Rasoul, as the possessors of the secret. These
men had established their homes in some deserted tombs in the western cliff, at
the back of the Ramesseum, and had long combined the overt occupation of
guiding European travellers and providing them with donkeys, with the covert
and more profitable profession of tomb-breakers and mummy-snatchers.[405] M.
Maspero caused the younger of these brothers, Ahmed Abd-er-Rasoul, to be
arrested and taken before the Mudir at Keneh. Here every expedient known to
Egyptian justice was employed to open his lips, but all in vain. His reiterated
examinations only served to prove, if proof had been needed, how thoroughly
the Arabs of Thebes sympathized with the conduct of which he was accused.
Testimony to his complete honesty and many other virtues poured in from all
sides; his dismal dwelling-place was searched without result, and finally he was
released on bail. No sooner had Ahmed returned home, however, than quarrels
and recriminations arose between him and his elder brother Mohammed. These
quarrels and the offer of a considerable reward by the Egyptian authorities at last
The discovery of some thirty-eight royal mummies with their sepulchral
furniture, which signalized the accession of Professor Maspero to the
Directorship of Egyptian Explorations, was the result, in some degree, of one of
those inductive processes of which M. Perrot speaks as characteristic of modern
research. For several years previously those who kept account of the additions to
public and private collections of Egyptian antiquities had suspected that some
inviolate royal tomb had been discovered by the Arabs of Thebes, and that they
were gradually dissipating its contents. Early in 1876 General Campbell bought
the hieratic ritual of Pinotem I.,—or Her Hor, a priest king, and founder of the
twenty-first dynasty—from them; and in 1877 M. de Saulcy showed M.
Maspero photographs of a long papyrus which had belonged to Queen Notemit,
the mother of Pinotem. About the same time the funerary statuettes of that king
appeared in the market, "some of them very fine in workmanship, others rough
and coarse."[403] The certainty of a find and of its nature became so great that, in
1879, Maspero was enabled to assert of a tablet belonging to Rogers-Bey, that it
came from some sepulchre "belonging to the, as yet, undiscovered tomb of the
Her Hor family."[404] The mummy for which this tablet was made has been
discovered in the pit at Deir-el-Bahari.
The evidence which gradually accumulated in the hands of M. Maspero, all
pointed to two brothers Abd-er-Rasoul, as the possessors of the secret. These
men had established their homes in some deserted tombs in the western cliff, at
the back of the Ramesseum, and had long combined the overt occupation of
guiding European travellers and providing them with donkeys, with the covert
and more profitable profession of tomb-breakers and mummy-snatchers.[405] M.
Maspero caused the younger of these brothers, Ahmed Abd-er-Rasoul, to be
arrested and taken before the Mudir at Keneh. Here every expedient known to
Egyptian justice was employed to open his lips, but all in vain. His reiterated
examinations only served to prove, if proof had been needed, how thoroughly
the Arabs of Thebes sympathized with the conduct of which he was accused.
Testimony to his complete honesty and many other virtues poured in from all
sides; his dismal dwelling-place was searched without result, and finally he was
released on bail. No sooner had Ahmed returned home, however, than quarrels
and recriminations arose between him and his elder brother Mohammed. These
quarrels and the offer of a considerable reward by the Egyptian authorities at last
Page 453
induced Mohammed to betray the family secret, in this instance, a material
skeleton in the cupboard. He went quietly to Keneh and told how Ahmed and
himself had found a tomb in one of the wildest bays of the western chain in
which some forty coffined mummies, mostly with the golden asp of royalty
upon their brows, were heaped one upon another amid the remains of their
funerary equipments. This story was taken for what it seemed to be worth, but
on being telegraphed to Cairo, it brought Herr Emil Brugsch and another
member of the Boulak staff to Thebes in hot haste. They were conducted by
Mohammed Abd-er-Rasoul up the narrow valley which lies between the Sheikh-
abd-el-Gournah, on the south, and the spur forming the southern boundary of the
valley of Dayr-el-Bahari, on the north, to a point some seventy yards above the
outer limits of the cultivated land. There, in a corner, bare and desolate even in
that desolate region, they were led behind a heap of boulders to the edge of a
square hole in the rocky soil, and told that down there was the treasure for which
they sought. Ropes were at hand, and Emil Brugsch was lowered into the pit
with his companion. The depth was not great, some thirty-six feet, and as soon
as their eyes became accustomed to the feeble light of their tapers, they saw that
a corridor led away from it to the west. This they followed, and after a few yards
found it turn sharply to the right, or north. The funeral canopy of Queen Isi-em-
Kheb, which we shall presently describe, was found in the angle thus made. The
explorers advanced along this corridor for more than seventy yards, stumbling at
every step over the débris of mummy cases and funerary furniture, and passing
on their right and left, first up piled boxes of statuettes, bronze and terra-cotta
jars, alabaster canopic vases, and other small articles, and then some twenty
mummies, a few in nests of two or three outer cases, others in but a single
coffin, and at least three without other covering than their bandages and shrouds.
Finally they arrived at a mortuary chamber about twenty-four feet long and
fourteen broad, in which some eighteen more huge mummy cases were piled
one upon another, reaching almost to the roof. The distance of this chamber
from the outer air was rather more than 280 feet, and its walls, like those of the
corridor which led to it, were without decoration of any kind.
The European explorers felt like men in a dream. They had come expecting to
find the coffins and mummies of one or two obscure kinglets of the Her-Hor
family, and here was the great Sesostris himself, and his father Seti, the
conquering Thothmes III., "who drew his frontiers where he pleased," and, like
other great soldiers since his day, seems to have been little more than a dwarf in
stature, together with several more Pharaohs of the two great Theban dynasties.
The coffins of these famous monarchs were in the corridor, some standing
upright, others lying down, while the chamber was occupied by the mummies of
skeleton in the cupboard. He went quietly to Keneh and told how Ahmed and
himself had found a tomb in one of the wildest bays of the western chain in
which some forty coffined mummies, mostly with the golden asp of royalty
upon their brows, were heaped one upon another amid the remains of their
funerary equipments. This story was taken for what it seemed to be worth, but
on being telegraphed to Cairo, it brought Herr Emil Brugsch and another
member of the Boulak staff to Thebes in hot haste. They were conducted by
Mohammed Abd-er-Rasoul up the narrow valley which lies between the Sheikh-
abd-el-Gournah, on the south, and the spur forming the southern boundary of the
valley of Dayr-el-Bahari, on the north, to a point some seventy yards above the
outer limits of the cultivated land. There, in a corner, bare and desolate even in
that desolate region, they were led behind a heap of boulders to the edge of a
square hole in the rocky soil, and told that down there was the treasure for which
they sought. Ropes were at hand, and Emil Brugsch was lowered into the pit
with his companion. The depth was not great, some thirty-six feet, and as soon
as their eyes became accustomed to the feeble light of their tapers, they saw that
a corridor led away from it to the west. This they followed, and after a few yards
found it turn sharply to the right, or north. The funeral canopy of Queen Isi-em-
Kheb, which we shall presently describe, was found in the angle thus made. The
explorers advanced along this corridor for more than seventy yards, stumbling at
every step over the débris of mummy cases and funerary furniture, and passing
on their right and left, first up piled boxes of statuettes, bronze and terra-cotta
jars, alabaster canopic vases, and other small articles, and then some twenty
mummies, a few in nests of two or three outer cases, others in but a single
coffin, and at least three without other covering than their bandages and shrouds.
Finally they arrived at a mortuary chamber about twenty-four feet long and
fourteen broad, in which some eighteen more huge mummy cases were piled
one upon another, reaching almost to the roof. The distance of this chamber
from the outer air was rather more than 280 feet, and its walls, like those of the
corridor which led to it, were without decoration of any kind.
The European explorers felt like men in a dream. They had come expecting to
find the coffins and mummies of one or two obscure kinglets of the Her-Hor
family, and here was the great Sesostris himself, and his father Seti, the
conquering Thothmes III., "who drew his frontiers where he pleased," and, like
other great soldiers since his day, seems to have been little more than a dwarf in
stature, together with several more Pharaohs of the two great Theban dynasties.
The coffins of these famous monarchs were in the corridor, some standing
upright, others lying down, while the chamber was occupied by the mummies of
Page 454
the twenty-first dynasty, such as those of Queen Notemit, Pinotem I., Pinotem
II., Queens Makara and Isi-em-Kheb, and Princess Nasikhonsou. Isi-em-Kheb
seemed to have been the last comer to the tomb, as her mummy was
accompanied by a complete sepulchral outfit of wigs, toilet bottles and other
things of the kind, besides the canopy already mentioned and a complete
funerary repast in a hamper.
Preparations were immediately commenced for the removal of the whole "find"
to Boulak. Steamers were sent for from Cairo, and several hundred Arabs were
employed in clearing the tomb and transporting its contents to Luxor for
embarkation. Working with extreme energy, they accomplished their task in five
days, and in four days more the steamers had arrived, had taken their remarkable
cargo on board, and had started for the capital. And then apparently the native
population became alive to the fact that these mummied Pharaohs were their
own ancestors, that they had given to their country the only glory it had ever
enjoyed, and that they were being carried away from the tombs in which they
had rested peacefully, while so many Empires had come and gone, while the
world had grown from youth to old age. For many miles down the river the
people of the villages turned out and paid the last honours to Thothmes, Seti,
Rameses, and the rest of the company. Long lines of men fired their guns
upwards as the convoy passed, while dishevelled women ran along the banks
and filled the vibrating air with their cries. Thus after more than three thousand
years of repose in the bosom of their native earth, the Theban Pharaohs were
again brought into the light, to go through a third act in the drama of their
existence. This act may perhaps be no longer than the first, as their new home at
Boulak has already been in danger of destruction; it is sure to be far shorter than
the second, for long before another thirty centuries have passed over their
mummied heads, time will have done its work both with them and with the
civilization which has degraded them into museum curiosities.
The appearance of this burial place, or cachette as Maspero calls it, the nature of
the things found in it and of those which should have been found there but were
not, prove that its existence had been known to the Arabs and fellaheen of the
neighbourhood for many years. Miss Edwards believes that the mummy of
Queen Aah-hotep, which was found in the sand behind the temple of Dayr-el-
Bahari in 1859, came out of the Her-Hor vault. The contrast between the
magnificence of that mummy, the beauty of its jewels, and the care which had
evidently been expended upon it on the one hand, and the rough and ready
hiding-place in which it was found, on the other,[406] was so great that it was
difficult to believe that it had never had a more elaborate tomb; and now the
II., Queens Makara and Isi-em-Kheb, and Princess Nasikhonsou. Isi-em-Kheb
seemed to have been the last comer to the tomb, as her mummy was
accompanied by a complete sepulchral outfit of wigs, toilet bottles and other
things of the kind, besides the canopy already mentioned and a complete
funerary repast in a hamper.
Preparations were immediately commenced for the removal of the whole "find"
to Boulak. Steamers were sent for from Cairo, and several hundred Arabs were
employed in clearing the tomb and transporting its contents to Luxor for
embarkation. Working with extreme energy, they accomplished their task in five
days, and in four days more the steamers had arrived, had taken their remarkable
cargo on board, and had started for the capital. And then apparently the native
population became alive to the fact that these mummied Pharaohs were their
own ancestors, that they had given to their country the only glory it had ever
enjoyed, and that they were being carried away from the tombs in which they
had rested peacefully, while so many Empires had come and gone, while the
world had grown from youth to old age. For many miles down the river the
people of the villages turned out and paid the last honours to Thothmes, Seti,
Rameses, and the rest of the company. Long lines of men fired their guns
upwards as the convoy passed, while dishevelled women ran along the banks
and filled the vibrating air with their cries. Thus after more than three thousand
years of repose in the bosom of their native earth, the Theban Pharaohs were
again brought into the light, to go through a third act in the drama of their
existence. This act may perhaps be no longer than the first, as their new home at
Boulak has already been in danger of destruction; it is sure to be far shorter than
the second, for long before another thirty centuries have passed over their
mummied heads, time will have done its work both with them and with the
civilization which has degraded them into museum curiosities.
The appearance of this burial place, or cachette as Maspero calls it, the nature of
the things found in it and of those which should have been found there but were
not, prove that its existence had been known to the Arabs and fellaheen of the
neighbourhood for many years. Miss Edwards believes that the mummy of
Queen Aah-hotep, which was found in the sand behind the temple of Dayr-el-
Bahari in 1859, came out of the Her-Hor vault. The contrast between the
magnificence of that mummy, the beauty of its jewels, and the care which had
evidently been expended upon it on the one hand, and the rough and ready
hiding-place in which it was found, on the other,[406] was so great that it was
difficult to believe that it had never had a more elaborate tomb; and now the
Page 455
discovery of the outer coffin of the same queen in the pit at Dayr-el-Bahari, goes
far to complete the proof that Aah-hotep was disposed of after death like other
members of her race, and that the exquisite jewels which were found upon her,
were but a part of treasures which had been dispersed over the world by the
modern spoilers.[407] The tomb contained about six thousand objects in all, of
which but a few have as yet been completely described. Among those few,
however, there are one or two which add to our knowledge of Egyptian
decoration.
Not the least important are the mummy cases of the Queens Aah-hotep and
Nefert-ari. Originally these were identical in design, but one is now considerably
more damaged than the other. The general form is similar to that of an Osiride
pier, the lower part being terminal and the upper shaped like the bust, arms, and
head of a woman. The mask is encircled with a plaited wig, above which appear
two tall plumes, indicating that their wearer has been justified before Osiris,
while the shoulders and arms are enveloped in a kind of net. The whole case is
of cartonnage, and the net-like appearance is given by glueing down several
layers of linen, which have been so entirely covered with hexagonal perforations
as to be reduced to the condition of a net, over the smooth surface beneath. The
interior of each hexagon has then been painted blue, so that in the end we have a
yellow network over a blue ground. Both colours are of extreme brilliancy. The
plaiting of the wig and the separate filaments of the plumes are indicated in the
same way as the network. These mummy cases are, so far as we can discover,
different from any previously found.
The funerary canopy of Queen Isi-em-Kheb is also a thing by itself. Its purpose
was to cover the pavilion or deck-house under which the Queen's body rested in
its passage across the Nile. It is a piece of leather patchwork. When laid flat
upon the ground it forms a Greek cross, 22 feet 6 inches in one direction, and 19
feet 6 inches in the other. The central panel, which is 9 feet long by 6 wide,[408]
covered the roof of the pavilion, while the flaps forming the arms of the cross
hung down perpendicularly upon the sides.[409] Many thousand pieces of gazelle
hide have been used in the work.
The central panel has an ultramarine ground. It is divided longitudinally into two
equal parts, one half being sprinkled with red and yellow stars, and the other
covered with alternate bands of vultures, hieroglyphs, and stars. The "fore and
aft" flaps of the canopy are entirely covered with a chess-board pattern of
alternate red and green squares, while the lateral flaps have each, in addition, six
bands of ornament above the squares, the most important band consisting of
far to complete the proof that Aah-hotep was disposed of after death like other
members of her race, and that the exquisite jewels which were found upon her,
were but a part of treasures which had been dispersed over the world by the
modern spoilers.[407] The tomb contained about six thousand objects in all, of
which but a few have as yet been completely described. Among those few,
however, there are one or two which add to our knowledge of Egyptian
decoration.
Not the least important are the mummy cases of the Queens Aah-hotep and
Nefert-ari. Originally these were identical in design, but one is now considerably
more damaged than the other. The general form is similar to that of an Osiride
pier, the lower part being terminal and the upper shaped like the bust, arms, and
head of a woman. The mask is encircled with a plaited wig, above which appear
two tall plumes, indicating that their wearer has been justified before Osiris,
while the shoulders and arms are enveloped in a kind of net. The whole case is
of cartonnage, and the net-like appearance is given by glueing down several
layers of linen, which have been so entirely covered with hexagonal perforations
as to be reduced to the condition of a net, over the smooth surface beneath. The
interior of each hexagon has then been painted blue, so that in the end we have a
yellow network over a blue ground. Both colours are of extreme brilliancy. The
plaiting of the wig and the separate filaments of the plumes are indicated in the
same way as the network. These mummy cases are, so far as we can discover,
different from any previously found.
The funerary canopy of Queen Isi-em-Kheb is also a thing by itself. Its purpose
was to cover the pavilion or deck-house under which the Queen's body rested in
its passage across the Nile. It is a piece of leather patchwork. When laid flat
upon the ground it forms a Greek cross, 22 feet 6 inches in one direction, and 19
feet 6 inches in the other. The central panel, which is 9 feet long by 6 wide,[408]
covered the roof of the pavilion, while the flaps forming the arms of the cross
hung down perpendicularly upon the sides.[409] Many thousand pieces of gazelle
hide have been used in the work.
The central panel has an ultramarine ground. It is divided longitudinally into two
equal parts, one half being sprinkled with red and yellow stars, and the other
covered with alternate bands of vultures, hieroglyphs, and stars. The "fore and
aft" flaps of the canopy are entirely covered with a chess-board pattern of
alternate red and green squares, while the lateral flaps have each, in addition, six
bands of ornament above the squares, the most important band consisting of
Page 456
ovals of Pinotem, supported by uræi and alternating with winged scarabs,
papyrus heads, and crouching gazelles. The colours employed are a red or pink,
like a pale shade of what is now called Indian red, a golden yellow, a pale
yellow not greatly differing from ivory, green, and pale ultramarine. The latter
colour is used only for the ground of the central panel, where it may fitly suggest
the vault of heaven; the rest are distributed skilfully and harmoniously, but
without the observance of any particular rule, over the rest of the decoration.
The immediate contrasts are red (or pink) with dark grass-green, bright yellow
with buff or ivory colour, and green with yellow. The bad effect of the
juxtaposition of buff with red was understood, and that contrast only occurs in
the hieroglyphs within the ovals.
The arrangement of the ornamental motives is characterized by that Egyptian
hatred for symmetry which is so often noticed by M. Perrot, but the general
result is well calculated to have a proper effect under an Egyptian sun. The
leather, where uninjured, still retains the softness and lustre of kid.
The Osiride mummy case of Rameses II. is of unpainted wood, and in the style
of the twenty-first dynasty. It has been thought that the features resemble those
of Her Hor himself,[410] and therefore that it was carved in his reign; they
certainly are not those of Rameses, and yet the iconic nature of the head is very
strongly marked.
Besides these important objects, the vault contained, as we have said, an
immense number of small articles, no description of which has yet been
published.
An explanation of the presence of all these mummies and their belongings in a
single unpretentious vault, is not far to seek. In the reign of Rameses IX., of the
twentieth dynasty, it was discovered that many tombs, including those of the
Pharaoh Sevek-em-Saf and his queen Noubkhas had been forced and rifled by
robbers, while others had been more or less damaged. An inquiry was held and
some at least of the delinquents brought to justice. The "Abbott" and the
"Amherst" papyri give accounts of the proceedings in full, together with the
confession of one of the criminals.[411] These occurrences and the generally
lawless condition of Thebes at the time seem to have led to the institution of
periodical inspections of the royal tombs, and of the mummies which they
contained. Minutes of these inspections, signed by the officer appointed to carry
them out and two witnesses besides, are inscribed upon the shrouds and cases of
the mummies. At first the inspectors shifted the deceased kings from tomb to
papyrus heads, and crouching gazelles. The colours employed are a red or pink,
like a pale shade of what is now called Indian red, a golden yellow, a pale
yellow not greatly differing from ivory, green, and pale ultramarine. The latter
colour is used only for the ground of the central panel, where it may fitly suggest
the vault of heaven; the rest are distributed skilfully and harmoniously, but
without the observance of any particular rule, over the rest of the decoration.
The immediate contrasts are red (or pink) with dark grass-green, bright yellow
with buff or ivory colour, and green with yellow. The bad effect of the
juxtaposition of buff with red was understood, and that contrast only occurs in
the hieroglyphs within the ovals.
The arrangement of the ornamental motives is characterized by that Egyptian
hatred for symmetry which is so often noticed by M. Perrot, but the general
result is well calculated to have a proper effect under an Egyptian sun. The
leather, where uninjured, still retains the softness and lustre of kid.
The Osiride mummy case of Rameses II. is of unpainted wood, and in the style
of the twenty-first dynasty. It has been thought that the features resemble those
of Her Hor himself,[410] and therefore that it was carved in his reign; they
certainly are not those of Rameses, and yet the iconic nature of the head is very
strongly marked.
Besides these important objects, the vault contained, as we have said, an
immense number of small articles, no description of which has yet been
published.
An explanation of the presence of all these mummies and their belongings in a
single unpretentious vault, is not far to seek. In the reign of Rameses IX., of the
twentieth dynasty, it was discovered that many tombs, including those of the
Pharaoh Sevek-em-Saf and his queen Noubkhas had been forced and rifled by
robbers, while others had been more or less damaged. An inquiry was held and
some at least of the delinquents brought to justice. The "Abbott" and the
"Amherst" papyri give accounts of the proceedings in full, together with the
confession of one of the criminals.[411] These occurrences and the generally
lawless condition of Thebes at the time seem to have led to the institution of
periodical inspections of the royal tombs, and of the mummies which they
contained. Minutes of these inspections, signed by the officer appointed to carry
them out and two witnesses besides, are inscribed upon the shrouds and cases of
the mummies. At first the inspectors shifted the deceased kings from tomb to
Page 457
tomb, the "house" of Seti I. being the favourite, apparently from its supposed
security, but as the power of the monarchy declined, as disorders became more
frequent and discipline more difficult to preserve, it appears to have been at last
determined to substitute, as the burial-place of the royal line, a single,
unornamented, easily concealed and guarded hole for the series of subterranean
palaces which had shown themselves so unable to shield their occupants from
insult and destruction.
The Her-Hor family therefore were buried in one vault, and such of their great
predecessors as had escaped the ghouls of the Western, Valley were gathered to
their sides.
security, but as the power of the monarchy declined, as disorders became more
frequent and discipline more difficult to preserve, it appears to have been at last
determined to substitute, as the burial-place of the royal line, a single,
unornamented, easily concealed and guarded hole for the series of subterranean
palaces which had shown themselves so unable to shield their occupants from
insult and destruction.
The Her-Hor family therefore were buried in one vault, and such of their great
predecessors as had escaped the ghouls of the Western, Valley were gathered to
their sides.
Page 458
INDEX.
A
Aah Hotep, i. 291.
Aa-kheper-ra, see Thothmes II.
Abbeville, i. Prehistoric remains near, xxxix.
Abd-al-latif, i. 223, 225;
monolithic tabernacle at Memphis called the green chamber, 353;
obelisk of Ousourtesen, ii. 172.
Abd-el-Gournah, ii. 53.
Abouna, i. 34.
Abou-Roash, i. 165;
pyramid of, 204.
Abousir, i. 212;
construction of pyramid at, id.
Abydos, i. 6, 16;
foundation of the great temple at, 28;
the early capital in the nome of A., 68;
origin there of the worship of Osiris, id.;
Sculpture more refined than that of Thebes, 76;
portrait of Seti at A., 123;
entrance to the Egyptian Hades near A., 128, 134;
situation of the necropolis, 136;
do. 156;
situation of doors and steles in the tombs at A., 157, 241;
description of the tombs at A., 243;
temple has two hypostyle halls, 385;
descriptions of Mariette, 434;
fortress at A., ii. 41;
necropolis, 241;
tomb of Osiris at A., 242;
other tombs, 295.
A
Aah Hotep, i. 291.
Aa-kheper-ra, see Thothmes II.
Abbeville, i. Prehistoric remains near, xxxix.
Abd-al-latif, i. 223, 225;
monolithic tabernacle at Memphis called the green chamber, 353;
obelisk of Ousourtesen, ii. 172.
Abd-el-Gournah, ii. 53.
Abouna, i. 34.
Abou-Roash, i. 165;
pyramid of, 204.
Abousir, i. 212;
construction of pyramid at, id.
Abydos, i. 6, 16;
foundation of the great temple at, 28;
the early capital in the nome of A., 68;
origin there of the worship of Osiris, id.;
Sculpture more refined than that of Thebes, 76;
portrait of Seti at A., 123;
entrance to the Egyptian Hades near A., 128, 134;
situation of the necropolis, 136;
do. 156;
situation of doors and steles in the tombs at A., 157, 241;
description of the tombs at A., 243;
temple has two hypostyle halls, 385;
descriptions of Mariette, 434;
fortress at A., ii. 41;
necropolis, 241;
tomb of Osiris at A., 242;
other tombs, 295.
Page 459
Acacia, Nilotica, ii. 54;
Lebhak, id.
Acacia doors, i. 252.
Achæans, i. 162.
Achoris, ii. 266.
Addeh, speos at, i. 406.
Ægina, i. VII, XI.
Ægis, ii. 382.
Agra, ii. 13.
Ahmes, i. 34, 168.
Alabaster, i. 105, 325.
Alberti, L. B., ii. 82.
Alcamenes, i. VI, XII.
Alexander the Great, i. L, 21, 430.
Alexandria, i. 55.
Almees, ii. 249.
Amasis;
his elevation to the throne, i. 33;
his deliverance of Egypt, 78, 292;
body insulted by Cambyses, 309;
his monolithic chapel, 353;
dimensions of the monolithic chapel, ii. 75, 97;
stele discovered in the Serapeum, 285.
Amada, temple of, ii. 168.
Ambulatory of Thothmes, ii. 135.
Amenemhat III., i. 347;
Amenemhats, the, ii. 227, 333.
Amenemheb, i. 279.
Ameneritis, statue of, at Boulak, ii. 263.
Ameni, tomb of, i. 34.
Lebhak, id.
Acacia doors, i. 252.
Achæans, i. 162.
Achoris, ii. 266.
Addeh, speos at, i. 406.
Ægina, i. VII, XI.
Ægis, ii. 382.
Agra, ii. 13.
Ahmes, i. 34, 168.
Alabaster, i. 105, 325.
Alberti, L. B., ii. 82.
Alcamenes, i. VI, XII.
Alexander the Great, i. L, 21, 430.
Alexandria, i. 55.
Almees, ii. 249.
Amasis;
his elevation to the throne, i. 33;
his deliverance of Egypt, 78, 292;
body insulted by Cambyses, 309;
his monolithic chapel, 353;
dimensions of the monolithic chapel, ii. 75, 97;
stele discovered in the Serapeum, 285.
Amada, temple of, ii. 168.
Ambulatory of Thothmes, ii. 135.
Amenemhat III., i. 347;
Amenemhats, the, ii. 227, 333.
Amenemheb, i. 279.
Ameneritis, statue of, at Boulak, ii. 263.
Ameni, tomb of, i. 34.
Page 460
Amenophis III. i. 166;
his colossi at Thebes, 267;
do. 289;
builder of Luxor, 371;
builder of the great temple at Napata, 385;
temple at El-Kab, 400, ii. 66;
the colossi at Thebes, 240;
portrait head in the British Museum, 242;
painted portrait in the Bab-el-Molouk, 332, 337, 347.
Amenophis IV.;
his attempt to inaugurate the worship of Aten, the solar disc, i. 69;
ruins of his capital, ii. 5;
his statues, 244;
curious characteristics of his person, id., 289.
Amenophium, i. 268, 289, 376.
Amenoth, i. 159.
Amen-Ra, may be identified with Indra, i. 50, 63;
hardly mentioned earlier than the eleventh dynasty, 68, 113;
offerings to him as master of Karnak, 155, 268;
the chief person of the Theban triad, 333;
chapel at Abydos, 389;
possibly symbolized in the obelisks, ii. 170;
his statues not colossal, 277.
Ament, the Egyptian Hades, i. 157.
Amoni-Amenemhaït, i. 156.
Amoni, his inscription at Beni-Hassan, i. 39.
Amosis, (see Amasis).
Amulets, i. 159, ii. 371.
Anahit (Anaitis), ii. 262.
Ancyra, expedition to, i. 41.
Animals, sacred, i. 54.
Animals, worship of, i. 54-64;
mummified, 314;
figures of, ii. 281.
his colossi at Thebes, 267;
do. 289;
builder of Luxor, 371;
builder of the great temple at Napata, 385;
temple at El-Kab, 400, ii. 66;
the colossi at Thebes, 240;
portrait head in the British Museum, 242;
painted portrait in the Bab-el-Molouk, 332, 337, 347.
Amenophis IV.;
his attempt to inaugurate the worship of Aten, the solar disc, i. 69;
ruins of his capital, ii. 5;
his statues, 244;
curious characteristics of his person, id., 289.
Amenophium, i. 268, 289, 376.
Amenoth, i. 159.
Amen-Ra, may be identified with Indra, i. 50, 63;
hardly mentioned earlier than the eleventh dynasty, 68, 113;
offerings to him as master of Karnak, 155, 268;
the chief person of the Theban triad, 333;
chapel at Abydos, 389;
possibly symbolized in the obelisks, ii. 170;
his statues not colossal, 277.
Ament, the Egyptian Hades, i. 157.
Amoni-Amenemhaït, i. 156.
Amoni, his inscription at Beni-Hassan, i. 39.
Amosis, (see Amasis).
Amulets, i. 159, ii. 371.
Anahit (Anaitis), ii. 262.
Ancyra, expedition to, i. 41.
Animals, sacred, i. 54.
Animals, worship of, i. 54-64;
mummified, 314;
figures of, ii. 281.
Page 461
"Answerers," or "respondents," i. 146.
Anta, use of, ii. 141.
Antinoë, ii. 66, 72.
Antiquity, conventional meaning of the word, i. XLV.
Antony, tomb of, i. 161.
Anubis, i. 143, 287.
Apelles, i. XIV, XVI, LI.
Apis, i. 54, 67;
the oldest tombs of A. contemporary with 18th dynasty, 295;
new rites inaugurated by a son of Rameses II. 305;
Serapeum, 306;
dwelling for A. constructed by Psemethek, 429.
Aplou, i. 159.
Ap-Môtennou, i. 144.
Apollo Epicurius, i. XII.
Apries, helped to deliver Egypt, i. 78;
description given by Herodotus of his tomb, 306;
supposed head of, ii. 266.
Arch, the;
extreme antiquity of the A. in Egypt, ii. 77;
true A. in the necropolis of Abydos, 78;
semicircular A. the most frequent, 79;
elliptic A. 80;
A. in the Ramesseum, 81;
inverted A. in foundations, 82;
offset A. at Dayr-el-Bahari, 83;
do. at Abydos, 84.
Architecture;
general principle of form, i. 97;
do. of construction, 103;
materials, 103;
masonry, 107;
vaults, 111;
concrete and pisé, 113;
Anta, use of, ii. 141.
Antinoë, ii. 66, 72.
Antiquity, conventional meaning of the word, i. XLV.
Antony, tomb of, i. 161.
Anubis, i. 143, 287.
Apelles, i. XIV, XVI, LI.
Apis, i. 54, 67;
the oldest tombs of A. contemporary with 18th dynasty, 295;
new rites inaugurated by a son of Rameses II. 305;
Serapeum, 306;
dwelling for A. constructed by Psemethek, 429.
Aplou, i. 159.
Ap-Môtennou, i. 144.
Apollo Epicurius, i. XII.
Apries, helped to deliver Egypt, i. 78;
description given by Herodotus of his tomb, 306;
supposed head of, ii. 266.
Arch, the;
extreme antiquity of the A. in Egypt, ii. 77;
true A. in the necropolis of Abydos, 78;
semicircular A. the most frequent, 79;
elliptic A. 80;
A. in the Ramesseum, 81;
inverted A. in foundations, 82;
offset A. at Dayr-el-Bahari, 83;
do. at Abydos, 84.
Architecture;
general principle of form, i. 97;
do. of construction, 103;
materials, 103;
masonry, 107;
vaults, 111;
concrete and pisé, 113;
Page 462
assembled construction, 115;
restoration of a wooden building, 117;
sepulchral A. 126;
conditions imposed by the national religion, 134;
civil A. ii. 1;
must be judged almost entirely from representations on papyri and bas-
reliefs, id.;
the palace, 8;
the house, 26;
military A. 38;
construction examined in detail, 55;
motives taken from early work in wood, id.;
arch, 77;
the Egyptian orders, 85;
their arrangement, 133;
doors and windows, 156;
the profession of architect, 176;
the supremacy of A. over the other arts in Egypt, 405.
Archæological Survey of India, i. LIII.
Aristophanes, i. XVIII.
Armachis, i. 326.
Aromati, the, i. 434.
Arsaphes, statue in the British Museum, ii. 265.
Artemis, i. 406.
Aryballus, ii. 368.
Ass, the, ii. 217.
Assassif, El, ii. 79.
Assouan, i. 105;
Turkish governor of A., his vandalism, 396.
Asychis, i. 347.
Ata, i. 207.
Aten, attempt to inaugurate the supremacy of, i. 69.
Athené Polias, temple of, i. XIII.
restoration of a wooden building, 117;
sepulchral A. 126;
conditions imposed by the national religion, 134;
civil A. ii. 1;
must be judged almost entirely from representations on papyri and bas-
reliefs, id.;
the palace, 8;
the house, 26;
military A. 38;
construction examined in detail, 55;
motives taken from early work in wood, id.;
arch, 77;
the Egyptian orders, 85;
their arrangement, 133;
doors and windows, 156;
the profession of architect, 176;
the supremacy of A. over the other arts in Egypt, 405.
Archæological Survey of India, i. LIII.
Aristophanes, i. XVIII.
Armachis, i. 326.
Aromati, the, i. 434.
Arsaphes, statue in the British Museum, ii. 265.
Artemis, i. 406.
Aryballus, ii. 368.
Ass, the, ii. 217.
Assassif, El, ii. 79.
Assouan, i. 105;
Turkish governor of A., his vandalism, 396.
Asychis, i. 347.
Ata, i. 207.
Aten, attempt to inaugurate the supremacy of, i. 69.
Athené Polias, temple of, i. XIII.
Page 463
Atta, i. 145.
Avaris, reconquest of, i. 33, ii. 228.
B
Ba, i. 285.
Bab-el-Molouk, i. 255.
Babylon, ii. 13.
Bædeker;
guide to Egypt, construction of the Pyramids, i. 201;
theory as to the pyramid of Meidoum, 214;
edited partly by Dr. Ebers, id.;
casing of the second pyramid, 233;
traces of a door in the tomb of Ti, 290.
Baehr, i., III.
Bahr-Yussef, i. 165.
Bakenkhonsou, ii. 177-8.
Ballu, i. XIII.
Bari, i. 352.
Basalt, statues of, ii. 221, 235.
Bassæ, i. XII.
Battlements, ii. 153.
Beds, ii. 393.
Beggig, obelisk of, ii. 175.
Beit-el-din, ii. 20.
Beit-el-Wali, speos at, i. 407, 418, 421;
bas-reliefs at, ii. 246.
Bellefonds, Linant de, site of Lake Mœris, ii. 25.
Belzoni;
his discovery of the tomb of Seti I. i. 278, 280;
crowded tombs for the lower classes, 314;
Avaris, reconquest of, i. 33, ii. 228.
B
Ba, i. 285.
Bab-el-Molouk, i. 255.
Babylon, ii. 13.
Bædeker;
guide to Egypt, construction of the Pyramids, i. 201;
theory as to the pyramid of Meidoum, 214;
edited partly by Dr. Ebers, id.;
casing of the second pyramid, 233;
traces of a door in the tomb of Ti, 290.
Baehr, i., III.
Bahr-Yussef, i. 165.
Bakenkhonsou, ii. 177-8.
Ballu, i. XIII.
Bari, i. 352.
Basalt, statues of, ii. 221, 235.
Bassæ, i. XII.
Battlements, ii. 153.
Beds, ii. 393.
Beggig, obelisk of, ii. 175.
Beit-el-din, ii. 20.
Beit-el-Wali, speos at, i. 407, 418, 421;
bas-reliefs at, ii. 246.
Bellefonds, Linant de, site of Lake Mœris, ii. 25.
Belzoni;
his discovery of the tomb of Seti I. i. 278, 280;
crowded tombs for the lower classes, 314;
Page 464
mummified animals, 315;
portico in the temple of the second pyramid, 330.
Benfey, i. 10.
Beni-Hassan, i. 136;
great inscription, 143, 160, 156-7, 249-252;
so-called proto-doric columns, ii. 95, 101;
paintings, 333-344;
the potter's wheel represented at B. H. 367;
glass making, do. 375;
the manufacture of gold ornaments, do. 380.
Berbers, the, i. 13.
Bercheh, El, ii. 72, 238.
Bernhardy, i. III.
Bernier, i. XIII.
Bes, i. 434, ii. 354.
Beschir, ii. 20.
Beulé, i. 305.
Birch, S.;
his translation of the great inscription at Beni-Hassan, i. 143;
do. 159;
his translation of the inscription upon the London obelisk, ii. 171;
the Arsaphes of the British Museum, 265, 291;
cylinders in the British Museum, 291;
figurines rustiques of Palissy compared to some works of Egyptian
potters, 373;
thinks iron was known at the commencement of Theban period, 379.
Birds, worship of, i. 65.
Blanc, Charles, i. XIV.;
characteristics of Egyptian landscape and architecture, 98;
modification of colour under a southern sun, 121, 174;
description of bas-relief of Seti I. at Abydos, 247;
decadence of art between Seti I. and Rameses IV. 258;
Sabaco's restorations at Karnak, 263, 294;
his ideas upon the Egyptian canon, 319.
portico in the temple of the second pyramid, 330.
Benfey, i. 10.
Beni-Hassan, i. 136;
great inscription, 143, 160, 156-7, 249-252;
so-called proto-doric columns, ii. 95, 101;
paintings, 333-344;
the potter's wheel represented at B. H. 367;
glass making, do. 375;
the manufacture of gold ornaments, do. 380.
Berbers, the, i. 13.
Bercheh, El, ii. 72, 238.
Bernhardy, i. III.
Bernier, i. XIII.
Bes, i. 434, ii. 354.
Beschir, ii. 20.
Beulé, i. 305.
Birch, S.;
his translation of the great inscription at Beni-Hassan, i. 143;
do. 159;
his translation of the inscription upon the London obelisk, ii. 171;
the Arsaphes of the British Museum, 265, 291;
cylinders in the British Museum, 291;
figurines rustiques of Palissy compared to some works of Egyptian
potters, 373;
thinks iron was known at the commencement of Theban period, 379.
Birds, worship of, i. 65.
Blanc, Charles, i. XIV.;
characteristics of Egyptian landscape and architecture, 98;
modification of colour under a southern sun, 121, 174;
description of bas-relief of Seti I. at Abydos, 247;
decadence of art between Seti I. and Rameses IV. 258;
Sabaco's restorations at Karnak, 263, 294;
his ideas upon the Egyptian canon, 319.
Page 465
Blant, M. E. Le, i. 159.
Blemmyes, i. 55.
Blouet, i. XIII.
Blow-pipe,the, ii. 378.
Boats found in the tombs, i. 184.
Boeck, i. XXI.
Bœotia, i. XLI, 162.
Boissier, i. XV.
Bonomi, i. 9.
Bossuet, i. 1.
Botta, i. VIII., XXVI.
Brackets in Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou, ii. 23.
Bramante, i. 105.
Bricks, manufacture of, ii. 53.
Brongniart, ii. 372.
Bronzes;
technical skill shown in casting bronze, ii. 202;
Pastophorus of the Vatican, 265;
Arsaphes in the British Museum, 265;
bronzes from the Serapeum, 266;
figures from the Saite epoch, 271.
Brosses, the President de, i. 57.
Brugsch, Bey, i. 21;
the Egyptian character, 41;
translation of the great inscription at Beni-Hassan, 143;
origin of the word pyramid, 190;
topographical sketch of ancient Thebes, ii. 29;
epitaph of Una, 75;
metal on the capitals of columns, 116, 176;
social position of Egyptian architects, 177, 178, 197.
Brune;
Blemmyes, i. 55.
Blouet, i. XIII.
Blow-pipe,the, ii. 378.
Boats found in the tombs, i. 184.
Boeck, i. XXI.
Bœotia, i. XLI, 162.
Boissier, i. XV.
Bonomi, i. 9.
Bossuet, i. 1.
Botta, i. VIII., XXVI.
Brackets in Royal Pavilion at Medinet-Abou, ii. 23.
Bramante, i. 105.
Bricks, manufacture of, ii. 53.
Brongniart, ii. 372.
Bronzes;
technical skill shown in casting bronze, ii. 202;
Pastophorus of the Vatican, 265;
Arsaphes in the British Museum, 265;
bronzes from the Serapeum, 266;
figures from the Saite epoch, 271.
Brosses, the President de, i. 57.
Brugsch, Bey, i. 21;
the Egyptian character, 41;
translation of the great inscription at Beni-Hassan, 143;
origin of the word pyramid, 190;
topographical sketch of ancient Thebes, ii. 29;
epitaph of Una, 75;
metal on the capitals of columns, 116, 176;
social position of Egyptian architects, 177, 178, 197.
Brune;
Page 466
plans of Karnak, i. 363, 367;
of Medinet-Abou, 383;
of Dayr-el-Bahari, 419;
his restoration of Dayr-el-Bahari, 422, 425;
slight differences from that here given, 425.
Bubastis, i. 18;
house in, ii. 33.
Bunsen, i. XXIII. 10, 18.
Burnouf, Eugène, i. IX.
Busiris, ii. 30.
C
Caillaud, i. 341, 384, 385.
Cairo, i. 105, 163, ii. 66.
Cambyses, i. 309, 430.
Camp, Maxime du, ii. 76, 147.
Campania, i. XIII, 162.
Campbell's tomb, i. 311.
Canephorus, ii. 202.
Canon;
had the Egyptians a C. of proportion, ii. 315.
Canopic vases, i. 305.
Capitals, lotiform, ii. 86;
campaniform, 101;
hathoric, 106;
secondary forms of the bell-shaped capital, 112;
C. plated with copper, 116.
Caricature, confined to small objects, ii. 351;
battle of cats and rats, 352;
Turin papyrus, id.;
papyrus in the British Museum, 353;
the God Bes, 354.
of Medinet-Abou, 383;
of Dayr-el-Bahari, 419;
his restoration of Dayr-el-Bahari, 422, 425;
slight differences from that here given, 425.
Bubastis, i. 18;
house in, ii. 33.
Bunsen, i. XXIII. 10, 18.
Burnouf, Eugène, i. IX.
Busiris, ii. 30.
C
Caillaud, i. 341, 384, 385.
Cairo, i. 105, 163, ii. 66.
Cambyses, i. 309, 430.
Camp, Maxime du, ii. 76, 147.
Campania, i. XIII, 162.
Campbell's tomb, i. 311.
Canephorus, ii. 202.
Canon;
had the Egyptians a C. of proportion, ii. 315.
Canopic vases, i. 305.
Capitals, lotiform, ii. 86;
campaniform, 101;
hathoric, 106;
secondary forms of the bell-shaped capital, 112;
C. plated with copper, 116.
Caricature, confined to small objects, ii. 351;
battle of cats and rats, 352;
Turin papyrus, id.;
papyrus in the British Museum, 353;
the God Bes, 354.
Page 467
Cartonnage, ii. 397.
Caste, i. 31.
Cat, the, ii. 219.
Caviglia, the clearing of the Great Sphinx, i. 321.
Caylus, Comte de, i. XVI.
Cesnola, Palma di, i. V., X.
Chairs, ii. 393.
Chaldæa, i. IV., XXVI., XLIX.
Chamhati, bas-relief on his tomb, ii. 253.
Chamitic race, i. 13.
Champollion, i. VI, VIII, 4, 89;
first to appreciate the importance of Beni-Hassan, 249;
the valley of the kings, 263;
Saite cemeteries discovered by him, 301;
his impressions of Karnak, 365;
gave its proper name to the Ramesseum, 376;
carelessness of Egyptian masonry, ii. 65;
his supposed discovery of the origin of the Doric order, 96;
distinction made in texts between pylon and propylon, 156;
mainly impressed by the grandeur of the Theban remains, 225;
his forecast of the important position now held by Egyptian art, 401.
Chardanes, ii. 257.
Charmes, Gabriel, i. 235, ii. 212, 219;
his opinion on the bust of Taia, 242.
Cheops, i. 201;
his pyramid, 201;
do. 227;
stele commemorating his restoration of a temple, 319;
doubts as to its date, id.
Chephren, i. 24, 86;
his statues at Boulak, 89;
do. 139;
discovery of statues in the temple of the sphinx, 193, 227, 221;
Caste, i. 31.
Cat, the, ii. 219.
Caviglia, the clearing of the Great Sphinx, i. 321.
Caylus, Comte de, i. XVI.
Cesnola, Palma di, i. V., X.
Chairs, ii. 393.
Chaldæa, i. IV., XXVI., XLIX.
Chamhati, bas-relief on his tomb, ii. 253.
Chamitic race, i. 13.
Champollion, i. VI, VIII, 4, 89;
first to appreciate the importance of Beni-Hassan, 249;
the valley of the kings, 263;
Saite cemeteries discovered by him, 301;
his impressions of Karnak, 365;
gave its proper name to the Ramesseum, 376;
carelessness of Egyptian masonry, ii. 65;
his supposed discovery of the origin of the Doric order, 96;
distinction made in texts between pylon and propylon, 156;
mainly impressed by the grandeur of the Theban remains, 225;
his forecast of the important position now held by Egyptian art, 401.
Chardanes, ii. 257.
Charmes, Gabriel, i. 235, ii. 212, 219;
his opinion on the bust of Taia, 242.
Cheops, i. 201;
his pyramid, 201;
do. 227;
stele commemorating his restoration of a temple, 319;
doubts as to its date, id.
Chephren, i. 24, 86;
his statues at Boulak, 89;
do. 139;
discovery of statues in the temple of the sphinx, 193, 227, 221;
Page 468
detailed account of the basalt and diorite statues at Boulak, ii. 221-223.
China, i. IV., XLVIII., LIX.
Chinbab, i. 165.
Chisel, ii. 303-328, passim.
Chnoumhotep, i. 143.
Choephorœ, i. 130.
Choubra, ii. 20.
Choufou (Cheops), inscribed upon the stones of the Great Pyramid, i. 222.
Chounet-es-Zezib, fortress at Abydos, ii. 41.
Christy, i. XXXVIII.
Cicero, i. 129.
Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 56.
Cloisonné Enamels, unknown to the Egyptians in the proper sense, ii. 384.
Clusium, i. XXXVII.
Cockerell, Prof., i. XI.
Colossi, upon pyramids, i. 226;
transport of C., ii. 72;
multiplication of C. under the New Empire, 239, 241.
Colours, used by the Egyptian painters, ii. 334, 336, 340.
Columns, ii. 85; metal C., 88;
"proto-doric" do. 96;
polygonal do. 99;
faggot-shaped do. 99;
at Medinet-Abou, 102;
in the Hall at Karnak, id.;
at Philæ, 104;
comparison between Egyptian and Greek C., 121;
ordonnance of C., 133;
spacing, 137;
no rule governing intercolumniation, 143.
Constantinople, ii. 13.
China, i. IV., XLVIII., LIX.
Chinbab, i. 165.
Chisel, ii. 303-328, passim.
Chnoumhotep, i. 143.
Choephorœ, i. 130.
Choubra, ii. 20.
Choufou (Cheops), inscribed upon the stones of the Great Pyramid, i. 222.
Chounet-es-Zezib, fortress at Abydos, ii. 41.
Christy, i. XXXVIII.
Cicero, i. 129.
Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 56.
Cloisonné Enamels, unknown to the Egyptians in the proper sense, ii. 384.
Clusium, i. XXXVII.
Cockerell, Prof., i. XI.
Colossi, upon pyramids, i. 226;
transport of C., ii. 72;
multiplication of C. under the New Empire, 239, 241.
Colours, used by the Egyptian painters, ii. 334, 336, 340.
Columns, ii. 85; metal C., 88;
"proto-doric" do. 96;
polygonal do. 99;
faggot-shaped do. 99;
at Medinet-Abou, 102;
in the Hall at Karnak, id.;
at Philæ, 104;
comparison between Egyptian and Greek C., 121;
ordonnance of C., 133;
spacing, 137;
no rule governing intercolumniation, 143.
Constantinople, ii. 13.
Page 469
Construction, architectural, ii. 55;
imitation in stone of wooden C., 59;
huge stones only used where necessary, 65;
want of foresight in Egyptian C., 70;
carelessness, id.;
machines used, 72.
Conventions in Egyptian art, ii. 291.
Copper, ii. 378.
Coptic, study of, i. VII.
Copts, i. 13.
Corinth, i. XV.
Corvée, the, i. 25;
its influence upon Egyptian architecture, 27, 30.
Coulanges, M. Fustel de, La cité antique, i. 130.
Crane, the, in the bas-relief, ii. 219.
Crimæa, i. XV.
Crocodile, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Crocodilopolis, ii. 234.
Crown, the red crown, i. 16;
the white do., 16;
the pschent, 16.
Cunningham;
his descriptions of the remains of Græco Buddhic art, i. LIII.
Curtius, Dr.;
history of Greece, i. III.
Græco Buddhic art, LIII.
Curtius, Quintus, ii. 33.
"Cutting, the," i. 435.
Cyclopean walls, ii. 64.
Cylinders, earthenware and soft stone, ii. 291.
Cyma, ii. 153;
imitation in stone of wooden C., 59;
huge stones only used where necessary, 65;
want of foresight in Egyptian C., 70;
carelessness, id.;
machines used, 72.
Conventions in Egyptian art, ii. 291.
Copper, ii. 378.
Coptic, study of, i. VII.
Copts, i. 13.
Corinth, i. XV.
Corvée, the, i. 25;
its influence upon Egyptian architecture, 27, 30.
Coulanges, M. Fustel de, La cité antique, i. 130.
Crane, the, in the bas-relief, ii. 219.
Crimæa, i. XV.
Crocodile, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Crocodilopolis, ii. 234.
Crown, the red crown, i. 16;
the white do., 16;
the pschent, 16.
Cunningham;
his descriptions of the remains of Græco Buddhic art, i. LIII.
Curtius, Dr.;
history of Greece, i. III.
Græco Buddhic art, LIII.
Curtius, Quintus, ii. 33.
"Cutting, the," i. 435.
Cyclopean walls, ii. 64.
Cylinders, earthenware and soft stone, ii. 291.
Cyma, ii. 153;
Page 470
do. reversa, ii. 153.
Cyprus, i. X., XXVI.;
painted vases, 78, 161.
Cyrus, i. 79.
D
Darius, i. IX.
Darmesteter, James, i. 69.
Dashour, i. 165, 206.
Dayr, i. 407.
Dayr-el-Bahari, i. 265, 268;
temple or cenotaph of Hatasu, 421-434.
Dayr-el-Medinet, i. 264.
Delbet, Jules, i. 42.
Delhi, ii. 13.
Denderah, i. 326, 351, 434, ii. 67, 69;
pluteus at, 149.
Derri, i. 408.
Desjardins, M. E., i. 302.
Deus Rediculus, temple of the, i. 104.
Deveria, his belief that he had found a portrait of a shepherd king, ii. 177.
Diocletian, i. 55.
Diodorus Siculus;
his assertion that the first man was born in Egypt, i. 4;
Pyramids, 191;
height of Great Pyramid, 225;
plateau on its summit, 226;
Pyramid of the Labyrinth, 227;
Tomb of Osymandias (Ramesseum), 266, 375;
tombs in the Bab-el-Molouk, 279;
πυλών, 341;
Cyprus, i. X., XXVI.;
painted vases, 78, 161.
Cyrus, i. 79.
D
Darius, i. IX.
Darmesteter, James, i. 69.
Dashour, i. 165, 206.
Dayr, i. 407.
Dayr-el-Bahari, i. 265, 268;
temple or cenotaph of Hatasu, 421-434.
Dayr-el-Medinet, i. 264.
Delbet, Jules, i. 42.
Delhi, ii. 13.
Denderah, i. 326, 351, 434, ii. 67, 69;
pluteus at, 149.
Derri, i. 408.
Desjardins, M. E., i. 302.
Deus Rediculus, temple of the, i. 104.
Deveria, his belief that he had found a portrait of a shepherd king, ii. 177.
Diocletian, i. 55.
Diodorus Siculus;
his assertion that the first man was born in Egypt, i. 4;
Pyramids, 191;
height of Great Pyramid, 225;
plateau on its summit, 226;
Pyramid of the Labyrinth, 227;
Tomb of Osymandias (Ramesseum), 266, 375;
tombs in the Bab-el-Molouk, 279;
πυλών, 341;
Page 471
Mœris (Amenemhat III.), 347;
labyrinth, ii. 25;
population of Egypt, 26;
extent of Thebes, 30;
the epithet ἑκατόμπυλος, 40.
Diorite, statue of Chephren in, ii. 221;
the influence of such a material upon style, 303-305.
Djezzar Pacha, ii. 20.
Dog, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Doors, ii. 156.
Dordogne, i. XLII., ii. 78.
"Double," the, i. 128, 135.
Doum (palm), ii, 50.
Drah-abou-l'Neggah, i. 217, 253, 291, 315.
Dromos, i. 336.
Duck, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
E
Ebers, Georg.;
extent of the Memphite necropolis, i. 165;
cenotaph in the temple of Abydos, 264;
his opinion upon that temple, id.;
his discovery of a tomb at Thebes, 279;
his opinion upon the Ramesseum, 381;
the funerary character of the temple at Abydos, 391;
his conjectures upon Dayr-el-Bahari, 426;
pavilion of Rameses III. not a palace, ii. 16;
pyramid of the labyrinth, 25;
origin of the quadrangular pier, 90;
uses of papyrus, 126;
his opinion upon the columns in the Bubastite court, Karnak, 146;
propylons of Karnak and Denderah, 157;
his belief in the persistence of the Hyksos type, 237.
labyrinth, ii. 25;
population of Egypt, 26;
extent of Thebes, 30;
the epithet ἑκατόμπυλος, 40.
Diorite, statue of Chephren in, ii. 221;
the influence of such a material upon style, 303-305.
Djezzar Pacha, ii. 20.
Dog, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Doors, ii. 156.
Dordogne, i. XLII., ii. 78.
"Double," the, i. 128, 135.
Doum (palm), ii, 50.
Drah-abou-l'Neggah, i. 217, 253, 291, 315.
Dromos, i. 336.
Duck, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
E
Ebers, Georg.;
extent of the Memphite necropolis, i. 165;
cenotaph in the temple of Abydos, 264;
his opinion upon that temple, id.;
his discovery of a tomb at Thebes, 279;
his opinion upon the Ramesseum, 381;
the funerary character of the temple at Abydos, 391;
his conjectures upon Dayr-el-Bahari, 426;
pavilion of Rameses III. not a palace, ii. 16;
pyramid of the labyrinth, 25;
origin of the quadrangular pier, 90;
uses of papyrus, 126;
his opinion upon the columns in the Bubastite court, Karnak, 146;
propylons of Karnak and Denderah, 157;
his belief in the persistence of the Hyksos type, 237.
Page 472
Edfou, i. 351, 353;
peripteral temple, 396;
foundations of temple at, ii. 69.
Egger, ii. 126.
Eilithyia, i. 157; ii. 400;
temple of Amenophis III. at, id.
Elephantiné;
peripteral temple at, i. 396;
quarries at, ii. 75, 149.
Empires, classification of the Egyptian, i. 17.
Enamels, ii. 375.
Encaustic painting known to the Egyptians, ii. 336.
Entef, i. 38, 156, 217.
Epochs of Egyptian history, i. 18.
Era, Egypt without one, i. 20.
Erectheum, i. LVII.
Erment, ii. 66.
Esneh, i. 351.
Ethiopia;
its civilization an offshoot from that of Egypt, i. 20;
its pyramids, 217;
its temples, 404;
Ethiopian supremacy in Egypt, ii. 265;
Ethiopians in pictures, 348.
Etruria, i. XLII., 131, 162.
Euripides quoted, i. 130.
"Evandale, Lord," i. 136.
F
Faience, i. 146, ii. 369.
Fayoum, the pyramids in the, i. 226;
peripteral temple, 396;
foundations of temple at, ii. 69.
Egger, ii. 126.
Eilithyia, i. 157; ii. 400;
temple of Amenophis III. at, id.
Elephantiné;
peripteral temple at, i. 396;
quarries at, ii. 75, 149.
Empires, classification of the Egyptian, i. 17.
Enamels, ii. 375.
Encaustic painting known to the Egyptians, ii. 336.
Entef, i. 38, 156, 217.
Epochs of Egyptian history, i. 18.
Era, Egypt without one, i. 20.
Erectheum, i. LVII.
Erment, ii. 66.
Esneh, i. 351.
Ethiopia;
its civilization an offshoot from that of Egypt, i. 20;
its pyramids, 217;
its temples, 404;
Ethiopian supremacy in Egypt, ii. 265;
Ethiopians in pictures, 348.
Etruria, i. XLII., 131, 162.
Euripides quoted, i. 130.
"Evandale, Lord," i. 136.
F
Faience, i. 146, ii. 369.
Fayoum, the pyramids in the, i. 226;
Page 473
statues discovered in the, ii. 233.
Fellowes, Sir Charles, i. X., XXVII.
Feraïg, speos of, i. 406.
Fergusson, James, ii. 8.
Festus, i. XXII.
Fetishism, i. 47-9, 56-8.
Ficus Sycomorus, ii. 54.
Figure, the, ii. 341;
coloured reliefs in the mastabas, 341;
Beni-Hassan, 341;
Thebes, 344;
mandore player at Abd-el-Gournah, 347;
harpers in Bruce's tomb, 348;
Prisoners, 348;
winged figure, 349;
different races distinguished, 350.
Flamingo, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Flandrin, i. IX.
"Foundations," for the service of tomb, i. 144-6.
Fox, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Friedrichs, Carl, i. IV.
Funeral feasts, i. 143.
Funerary figures, i. 145-147.
G
Gailhabaud, M., ii. 36.
Gartasse, i. 433.
Gau, i. 353, 421.
Gautier, Théophile, i. 136, ii. 174.
Gawasi, ii. 249.
Fellowes, Sir Charles, i. X., XXVII.
Feraïg, speos of, i. 406.
Fergusson, James, ii. 8.
Festus, i. XXII.
Fetishism, i. 47-9, 56-8.
Ficus Sycomorus, ii. 54.
Figure, the, ii. 341;
coloured reliefs in the mastabas, 341;
Beni-Hassan, 341;
Thebes, 344;
mandore player at Abd-el-Gournah, 347;
harpers in Bruce's tomb, 348;
Prisoners, 348;
winged figure, 349;
different races distinguished, 350.
Flamingo, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Flandrin, i. IX.
"Foundations," for the service of tomb, i. 144-6.
Fox, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Friedrichs, Carl, i. IV.
Funeral feasts, i. 143.
Funerary figures, i. 145-147.
G
Gailhabaud, M., ii. 36.
Gartasse, i. 433.
Gau, i. 353, 421.
Gautier, Théophile, i. 136, ii. 174.
Gawasi, ii. 249.
Page 474
Gazelle, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Gebel-Ahmar, i. 104.
Gebel-Barkal, i. 218, 407.
Gebel-Silsilis, i. 105, 403;
bas-relief at, ii. 246.
Gerhard, i. XV., XVIII.
Gherf-Hossein, hemispeos, i. 407, ii. 138.
Gircheh, i. 421.
Glass, its manufacture represented at Beni-Hassan, ii. 375;
glass-enamelled statuettes, 376.
Globe, winged, ii. 151, 152.
Goat, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Gods, age of the Egyptian, i. 321.
Goethe, i. 121, 153.
Goose, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Gorge, the Egyptian, ii. 149.
Gournah, temple of, i. 267, 268, 391, ii. 140.
Gournet-el-Mourraï, ii. 21.
Græco-Buddhic art, i. LIII.
Græco-Scythians, i. XV.
Granaries, ii. 37.
Granite-chambers, Karnak, ii. 52.
Graphic processes, ii. 1.
Grébaut, M., i. 52.
Group, unknown in its proper sense in Egyptian art, ii. 278.
Guglie, ii. 169.
Guillaume, Edouard, i. 42.
Gebel-Ahmar, i. 104.
Gebel-Barkal, i. 218, 407.
Gebel-Silsilis, i. 105, 403;
bas-relief at, ii. 246.
Gerhard, i. XV., XVIII.
Gherf-Hossein, hemispeos, i. 407, ii. 138.
Gircheh, i. 421.
Glass, its manufacture represented at Beni-Hassan, ii. 375;
glass-enamelled statuettes, 376.
Globe, winged, ii. 151, 152.
Goat, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Gods, age of the Egyptian, i. 321.
Goethe, i. 121, 153.
Goose, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Gorge, the Egyptian, ii. 149.
Gournah, temple of, i. 267, 268, 391, ii. 140.
Gournet-el-Mourraï, ii. 21.
Græco-Buddhic art, i. LIII.
Græco-Scythians, i. XV.
Granaries, ii. 37.
Granite-chambers, Karnak, ii. 52.
Graphic processes, ii. 1.
Grébaut, M., i. 52.
Group, unknown in its proper sense in Egyptian art, ii. 278.
Guglie, ii. 169.
Guillaume, Edouard, i. 42.
Page 475
H
Hamilton, W. J., i. X., XXVII.
Hamy, M., ii. 377.
Hapi-Toufi, i. 144.
Haram-el-Kabbab ("the false pyramid"), i. 215.
Hare, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Harmachis, i. 237, 389.
Harm-Habi, i. 178.
Ha-ro-bes, ii. 289.
Hatasu, Queen, i. 105;
her obelisks at Karnak, 122, 265, 268;
height of her obelisk, 343;
Dayr-el-Bahari, the cenotaph of H., 425;
height of her obelisk from more recent measurement, ii. 171;
her favourite architect, 178;
her bas-reliefs at Dayr-el-Bahari, 245.
Hathor, i. 58, 69.
Hecuba (Euripides), quoted, i. 130.
Hegel, i. XXXIII.
Height of principal buildings in the world, i. 225.
Helbíg, M. W., i. XV.
Heliopolis;
its walls, ii. 41;
its obelisk, 171.
Hemispeos, i. 253.
Heracleopolis, i. 17.
Hermopolis, i. 15.
Herodotus;
Egypt a present from the Nile, i. 2;
Amasis, 33;
religious observances, 44;
Hamilton, W. J., i. X., XXVII.
Hamy, M., ii. 377.
Hapi-Toufi, i. 144.
Haram-el-Kabbab ("the false pyramid"), i. 215.
Hare, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Harmachis, i. 237, 389.
Harm-Habi, i. 178.
Ha-ro-bes, ii. 289.
Hatasu, Queen, i. 105;
her obelisks at Karnak, 122, 265, 268;
height of her obelisk, 343;
Dayr-el-Bahari, the cenotaph of H., 425;
height of her obelisk from more recent measurement, ii. 171;
her favourite architect, 178;
her bas-reliefs at Dayr-el-Bahari, 245.
Hathor, i. 58, 69.
Hecuba (Euripides), quoted, i. 130.
Hegel, i. XXXIII.
Height of principal buildings in the world, i. 225.
Helbíg, M. W., i. XV.
Heliopolis;
its walls, ii. 41;
its obelisk, 171.
Hemispeos, i. 253.
Heracleopolis, i. 17.
Hermopolis, i. 15.
Herodotus;
Egypt a present from the Nile, i. 2;
Amasis, 33;
religious observances, 44;
Page 476
Isis and Osiris the only gods whom all the Egyptians worshipped, 68;
temples in Delta, 93;
Scythians, 145;
Pyramids, 191, 202, 219;
P. in Lake Mœris, 226, 229;
do. of the Labyrinth, 227;
construction of the Great Pyramid, 233;
tomb of Apries, 306;
Cambyses' treatment of the body of Amasis, 309;
obelisks of Sesostris, 347;
Rhampsinite and Asychis, id.;
propylons and Apis pavilion of Psemethek I., ib.;
monolithic chapel of Amasis, 428;
αὐλὴ built by Psemethek for Apis, 429;
Labyrinth, ii. 25;
level of towns raised artificially, 27;
flat roofs, 36;
λευκὸν τεῖχος of Thebes, 40;
monolithic chapels in the Delta, 75;
Egyptian beans, 125.
Hesiod, i. 133.
Heuzey, i. XVII., 130.
Hippopotamus, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Hittorf, i. XIV. 121.
Hobs (a god), ii. 281.
Homer;
quoted, i. 129, 130;
"Hundred-gated Thebes," ii. 40.
Horeau, his plan of the hemispeos of Gherf-Hossein, i. 408.
Hor-em-khou, i. 321.
Hor-Khom, inscription, i. 157.
Hor-Schesou, i. 196.
Horse, introduced into Egypt about the time of the shepherd invasion, ii.
250;
his characteristic features in Egyptian art, id.
temples in Delta, 93;
Scythians, 145;
Pyramids, 191, 202, 219;
P. in Lake Mœris, 226, 229;
do. of the Labyrinth, 227;
construction of the Great Pyramid, 233;
tomb of Apries, 306;
Cambyses' treatment of the body of Amasis, 309;
obelisks of Sesostris, 347;
Rhampsinite and Asychis, id.;
propylons and Apis pavilion of Psemethek I., ib.;
monolithic chapel of Amasis, 428;
αὐλὴ built by Psemethek for Apis, 429;
Labyrinth, ii. 25;
level of towns raised artificially, 27;
flat roofs, 36;
λευκὸν τεῖχος of Thebes, 40;
monolithic chapels in the Delta, 75;
Egyptian beans, 125.
Hesiod, i. 133.
Heuzey, i. XVII., 130.
Hippopotamus, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Hittorf, i. XIV. 121.
Hobs (a god), ii. 281.
Homer;
quoted, i. 129, 130;
"Hundred-gated Thebes," ii. 40.
Horeau, his plan of the hemispeos of Gherf-Hossein, i. 408.
Hor-em-khou, i. 321.
Hor-Khom, inscription, i. 157.
Hor-Schesou, i. 196.
Horse, introduced into Egypt about the time of the shepherd invasion, ii.
250;
his characteristic features in Egyptian art, id.
Page 477
Horus, i. 63, 69, ii. 273, 383;
do. a private individual, 270.
Hosi, panels from the tomb of, ii. 189.
Hoskins, his plans of the temple of Soleb, i. 384-5.
House, the Egyptian, ii. 26;
its situation, 27;
foundation, id.;
restoration based upon a plan found by Rosellini, 33;
models of houses, 34;
materials and arrangement, id.
Howara, El, i. 217, ii. 25.
Huber, M., i. LVI.
Hyena, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Hyksos, i. 68, 404, ii. 228-38.
"Hypæthra, the Great," at Philæ, i. 33.
Hypogea, general character of, i. 188.
Hypostyle Hall, i. 357, ii. 145-7;
of Karnak, i. 365-9, ii. 163;
of Luxor, i. 371;
of the Ramesseum, 376-7;
of Medinet-Abou, 382-3;
of Soleb, 385;
at Napata, 385;
at Abydos, 389;
at Gournah, 391;
of temple of Khons, ii. 166.
I
Ibex, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Ibis, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Ictinus, i. 444.
Illahoun, pyramid of, i. 204.
do. a private individual, 270.
Hosi, panels from the tomb of, ii. 189.
Hoskins, his plans of the temple of Soleb, i. 384-5.
House, the Egyptian, ii. 26;
its situation, 27;
foundation, id.;
restoration based upon a plan found by Rosellini, 33;
models of houses, 34;
materials and arrangement, id.
Howara, El, i. 217, ii. 25.
Huber, M., i. LVI.
Hyena, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Hyksos, i. 68, 404, ii. 228-38.
"Hypæthra, the Great," at Philæ, i. 33.
Hypogea, general character of, i. 188.
Hypostyle Hall, i. 357, ii. 145-7;
of Karnak, i. 365-9, ii. 163;
of Luxor, i. 371;
of the Ramesseum, 376-7;
of Medinet-Abou, 382-3;
of Soleb, 385;
at Napata, 385;
at Abydos, 389;
at Gournah, 391;
of temple of Khons, ii. 166.
I
Ibex, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Ibis, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Ictinus, i. 444.
Illahoun, pyramid of, i. 204.
Page 478
Illumination;
methods of lighting the temples, ii. 162-7;
methods of lighting the palaces and private houses, 168.
Incas, the, i. 22.
Indra, i. 50.
Ipsamboul, i. 22;
little temple at, 405;
great temple at, 407-8.
Isæus, i. 130.
Isis, i. 68, 69, 301, 389, 430.
Ismandes, i. 376.
Ivory, ii. 384.
J
Japan, i. IV.
Jewelry, ii. 377;
pectorals, 380;
ægis, 382;
true cloisonné enamels unknown, 384;
necklaces, id.;
materials used, ib.;
amber unknown, 387.
Jollois, i. 123.
Jomard, i. 152;
description of the necropolis of Gizeh, 152, 168, 223;
his analysis of the impression produced by the Pyramids, 237;
his description of the temple of the third pyramid, 330-4, 397, 400;
Egyptian cement, ii. 71.
Josephus, quoted, ii. 26.
Joubert, Leo, i. XXI.
Jour des morts, an Egyptian, i. 239.
Judging the Dead, i. 237.
methods of lighting the temples, ii. 162-7;
methods of lighting the palaces and private houses, 168.
Incas, the, i. 22.
Indra, i. 50.
Ipsamboul, i. 22;
little temple at, 405;
great temple at, 407-8.
Isæus, i. 130.
Isis, i. 68, 69, 301, 389, 430.
Ismandes, i. 376.
Ivory, ii. 384.
J
Japan, i. IV.
Jewelry, ii. 377;
pectorals, 380;
ægis, 382;
true cloisonné enamels unknown, 384;
necklaces, id.;
materials used, ib.;
amber unknown, 387.
Jollois, i. 123.
Jomard, i. 152;
description of the necropolis of Gizeh, 152, 168, 223;
his analysis of the impression produced by the Pyramids, 237;
his description of the temple of the third pyramid, 330-4, 397, 400;
Egyptian cement, ii. 71.
Josephus, quoted, ii. 26.
Joubert, Leo, i. XXI.
Jour des morts, an Egyptian, i. 239.
Judging the Dead, i. 237.
Page 479
Justinian, i. 55.
K
Ka, the, i. 128.
Kadesh (or Qadech), goddess, ii. 262.
Kalabcheh, i. 407, ii. 107.
Kalaçoka, i. L.
Karnak, i. 25, 28, 105, 155, 263-70, 362-69;
the granite chambers, ii. 52;
stele piers, 94, 97;
columns, 102;
decoration, 104, 130, 132.
Ker-Porter, Sir R., i. IX.
Kha-em-uas, jewelry of, ii. 380.
Khemi, i. 14.
Khetas, i. 266; ii. 327.
Khnumhotep, i. 160.
Khons, i. 54.
temple of, 123, 268, 348, ii. 136.
Khoo-foo-ankh, i. 182;
sarcophagus of, ii. 59.
Klaft, ii. 222.
Kuyler, i., V.
Kummeh, i. 4, ii. 45.
L
Labyrinth, the, i. 226, ii. 25.
Lakes, sacred, in the temples, i. 344, ii. 6.
Language, the Egyptian, i. 10-11.
Larcher, his notes to Herodotus, i. 307.
K
Ka, the, i. 128.
Kadesh (or Qadech), goddess, ii. 262.
Kalabcheh, i. 407, ii. 107.
Kalaçoka, i. L.
Karnak, i. 25, 28, 105, 155, 263-70, 362-69;
the granite chambers, ii. 52;
stele piers, 94, 97;
columns, 102;
decoration, 104, 130, 132.
Ker-Porter, Sir R., i. IX.
Kha-em-uas, jewelry of, ii. 380.
Khemi, i. 14.
Khetas, i. 266; ii. 327.
Khnumhotep, i. 160.
Khons, i. 54.
temple of, 123, 268, 348, ii. 136.
Khoo-foo-ankh, i. 182;
sarcophagus of, ii. 59.
Klaft, ii. 222.
Kuyler, i., V.
Kummeh, i. 4, ii. 45.
L
Labyrinth, the, i. 226, ii. 25.
Lakes, sacred, in the temples, i. 344, ii. 6.
Language, the Egyptian, i. 10-11.
Larcher, his notes to Herodotus, i. 307.
Page 480
Lartet, i. XXXVIII.
Layard, H. A., i. VIII.
Lenormant, Fr., i. 25, 377.
Leopard, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Lepsius;
the Egyptians a proto-semitic race, i. 10;
inferiority of Ethiopian to Egyptian art well shown in his Denkmæler, 21;
Berlin Museum enriched by him, 89;
tombs to the number of 130 examined by him in Middle and Lower
Egypt, 164;
arrangement of the mastabas, 167;
portraits of defunct in public hall of tomb, 178;
sixty-seven pyramids examined by the Prussian commission, 198;
theory of pyramid construction, 201;
pyramids at Drah-abou'l-neggah, 217;
paintings at Beni-Hassan figured by L., 249;
Ramesseum, 376;
great temple at Medinet Abou, 382;
temple of Soleb, 384;
temple of Thothmes III. at Semneh, 400;
Ethiopian temples in Denkmæler, 401;
speos of Silsilis, and hemispeos of Redesieh, 406;
Gebel-Barkal, 407;
fortress of Semneh, ii. 45;
Egyptian methods of preparing for a siege suggested by a plate in
Denkmæler, 49;
building operations figured in Denkmæler, 53;
supposed discovery of the labyrinth, 66;
origin of quadrangular piers, 90;
campaniform capitals in a hypogeum at Gizeh, 101;
capitals in the ambulatory of Thothmes at Karnak, 115;
old form of winged disc at Beni-Hassan, 152;
monuments in Wadimaghara figured in Denkmæler, 184;
thick-set forms discovered in a tomb dating from the fourth dynasty, 190;
poverty of invention in Theban art seen by glancing through Denkmæler,
250;
works in high-relief from the mastabas figured in Denkmæler, 284.
Layard, H. A., i. VIII.
Lenormant, Fr., i. 25, 377.
Leopard, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Lepsius;
the Egyptians a proto-semitic race, i. 10;
inferiority of Ethiopian to Egyptian art well shown in his Denkmæler, 21;
Berlin Museum enriched by him, 89;
tombs to the number of 130 examined by him in Middle and Lower
Egypt, 164;
arrangement of the mastabas, 167;
portraits of defunct in public hall of tomb, 178;
sixty-seven pyramids examined by the Prussian commission, 198;
theory of pyramid construction, 201;
pyramids at Drah-abou'l-neggah, 217;
paintings at Beni-Hassan figured by L., 249;
Ramesseum, 376;
great temple at Medinet Abou, 382;
temple of Soleb, 384;
temple of Thothmes III. at Semneh, 400;
Ethiopian temples in Denkmæler, 401;
speos of Silsilis, and hemispeos of Redesieh, 406;
Gebel-Barkal, 407;
fortress of Semneh, ii. 45;
Egyptian methods of preparing for a siege suggested by a plate in
Denkmæler, 49;
building operations figured in Denkmæler, 53;
supposed discovery of the labyrinth, 66;
origin of quadrangular piers, 90;
campaniform capitals in a hypogeum at Gizeh, 101;
capitals in the ambulatory of Thothmes at Karnak, 115;
old form of winged disc at Beni-Hassan, 152;
monuments in Wadimaghara figured in Denkmæler, 184;
thick-set forms discovered in a tomb dating from the fourth dynasty, 190;
poverty of invention in Theban art seen by glancing through Denkmæler,
250;
works in high-relief from the mastabas figured in Denkmæler, 284.
Page 481
Leroux, Hector;
his sketch of Philæ, i. 433;
his opinions on Egyptian painting, ii. 335.
Letronne;
his researches, i. 224, 232.
Lion, the, in Egyptian art, ii. 281, 323.
Longperier, de, his opinion on the age of Egyptian bronzes, ii. 197.
Loret, M. Victor, ii. 135.
Lotus, the, ii. 125.
Lycian remains, i. XXVII.
Lucian (pseudo), i. 323.
Lutzow, Carl von, i. IV.
Luxor, temple of, i. 270, 370, ii. 132;
obelisk of, 171.
M
Mad, i. 354.
Maghara (Wadi), ii. 95, 184.
Mahsarah, i. 105.
Mammisi, i. 433.
Mandore, ii. 344.
Manetho, i. 18;
his account of the shepherd invasion not to be relied on, ii. 239.
Marchandon-de-la-Faye, M., i. 95.
Mariette, Auguste;
formation of Egypt, i. 2;
accession of Menes, 18;
Egyptian chronology, 20;
bad workmanship of Egyptian temples, foundations of great temples at
Abydos, 28;
house in the desert, 41;
his sketch of Philæ, i. 433;
his opinions on Egyptian painting, ii. 335.
Letronne;
his researches, i. 224, 232.
Lion, the, in Egyptian art, ii. 281, 323.
Longperier, de, his opinion on the age of Egyptian bronzes, ii. 197.
Loret, M. Victor, ii. 135.
Lotus, the, ii. 125.
Lycian remains, i. XXVII.
Lucian (pseudo), i. 323.
Lutzow, Carl von, i. IV.
Luxor, temple of, i. 270, 370, ii. 132;
obelisk of, 171.
M
Mad, i. 354.
Maghara (Wadi), ii. 95, 184.
Mahsarah, i. 105.
Mammisi, i. 433.
Mandore, ii. 344.
Manetho, i. 18;
his account of the shepherd invasion not to be relied on, ii. 239.
Marchandon-de-la-Faye, M., i. 95.
Mariette, Auguste;
formation of Egypt, i. 2;
accession of Menes, 18;
Egyptian chronology, 20;
bad workmanship of Egyptian temples, foundations of great temples at
Abydos, 28;
house in the desert, 41;
Page 482
protest against M. Renan's conception of ancient Egypt, 71;
excavations, 86;
ancient art chiefly known through his exertions and his contributions to
the Louvre and the French Exhibition, 89;
M. on the arch, 113;
obelisk of Hatasu gilded, 122;
sepulchral formula, 135;
θυμιατήρια in the tomb of Ti, 143;
objects for the support of the Ka sometimes modelled "in the round,"
145;
position of the stele, 157;
tombs constructed during lifetime, 160;
his "theory of the mastaba," 164;
derivation of the word Sakkarah, 166;
boats found in mummy pits, 184;
pyramids always in a necropolis, 191;
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, 215;
pyramids upon Drah-abou'l-neggah, 217;
opening of three unexplored pyramids at Sakkarah, 234;
tomb of Osiris, supposed site, 243;
tombs at Abydos, 244;
steles from Abydos, 249;
temples of the left bank, Thebes, 264;
method of closing tombs in the Bab-el-Molouk, 278;
mummy of Queen Aah-hotep, 291;
tombs of Apis, 295;
the little Serapeum, 302;
temple of the Sphinx, 326;
Sphinxes at the Serapeum of Memphis, 336;
Sphinx avenues ornamental rather than religious, 337;
walls of Karnak, 338;
extent of the temples at Karnak, 362;
sanctuary in the great temple, 384;
temple of Dayr-el-Bahari, 425;
excavations at Sais, 433;
characteristics of the Egyptian temple, 434;
contrast between it and the Greek temple, the Christian church, and the
Mahommedan mosque, 435;
explanation of its elaborate decoration, id.;
excavations, 86;
ancient art chiefly known through his exertions and his contributions to
the Louvre and the French Exhibition, 89;
M. on the arch, 113;
obelisk of Hatasu gilded, 122;
sepulchral formula, 135;
θυμιατήρια in the tomb of Ti, 143;
objects for the support of the Ka sometimes modelled "in the round,"
145;
position of the stele, 157;
tombs constructed during lifetime, 160;
his "theory of the mastaba," 164;
derivation of the word Sakkarah, 166;
boats found in mummy pits, 184;
pyramids always in a necropolis, 191;
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, 215;
pyramids upon Drah-abou'l-neggah, 217;
opening of three unexplored pyramids at Sakkarah, 234;
tomb of Osiris, supposed site, 243;
tombs at Abydos, 244;
steles from Abydos, 249;
temples of the left bank, Thebes, 264;
method of closing tombs in the Bab-el-Molouk, 278;
mummy of Queen Aah-hotep, 291;
tombs of Apis, 295;
the little Serapeum, 302;
temple of the Sphinx, 326;
Sphinxes at the Serapeum of Memphis, 336;
Sphinx avenues ornamental rather than religious, 337;
walls of Karnak, 338;
extent of the temples at Karnak, 362;
sanctuary in the great temple, 384;
temple of Dayr-el-Bahari, 425;
excavations at Sais, 433;
characteristics of the Egyptian temple, 434;
contrast between it and the Greek temple, the Christian church, and the
Mahommedan mosque, 435;
explanation of its elaborate decoration, id.;
Page 483
Royal Pavilion of Medinet-Abou not a palace, ii. 16;
building materials, 53;
brick-making, id.;
carelessness of the Egyptian builders, 70;
true vaults in the necropolis of Abydos, 77;
inverted arches, 81;
lotiform capitals in the tomb of Ti, 86;
origin of the faggot-shaped column, 99;
origin of the campaniform capital, 128;
proposal that it should be called papyriform, id.;
discards the notion that the columns in the Babastite court, at Karnak,
bore architraves, 145;
his assumption that they once enclosed a hypæthral temple, ib.;
first appearance of the winged disc, 152;
obelisks in the Theban necropolis, 170;
obelisks of Hatasu gilded, 174;
statues in the tomb of Ti, 181;
statues of Rahotep and Nefert, from Meidoum, 187;
panels from the tomb of Hosi, 188;
the Scribe of the Louvre, 192;
brought figures from Ancient Empire to Paris in 1878, 211;
Nemhotep, 212;
picture of geese, 220;
statues of Chephren discovered in the temple of the Sphinx, 213;
early Theban works rude and awkward, 226;
Menthouthotep, id.;
groups from Tanis, 228;
figure discovered in the Fayoum, 233;
definition of the type of these Tanite remains, 237;
head of Taia discovered, 242;
Amenophis IV. perhaps a eunuch, 243;
expedition to Punt, illustrated at Dayr-el-Bahari, 245;
belief that Punt was in Africa, 246;
detestable style of the remains from the last years of Rameses II., 258;
Menephtah, son of Rameses II., statue at Boulak, 260;
head of Tahraka at Boulak, 263;
opinion as to the character of the statues in Egyptian temples, 276;
origin of the Sphinx, 281;
tomb of Sabou, sculptures, 285;
building materials, 53;
brick-making, id.;
carelessness of the Egyptian builders, 70;
true vaults in the necropolis of Abydos, 77;
inverted arches, 81;
lotiform capitals in the tomb of Ti, 86;
origin of the faggot-shaped column, 99;
origin of the campaniform capital, 128;
proposal that it should be called papyriform, id.;
discards the notion that the columns in the Babastite court, at Karnak,
bore architraves, 145;
his assumption that they once enclosed a hypæthral temple, ib.;
first appearance of the winged disc, 152;
obelisks in the Theban necropolis, 170;
obelisks of Hatasu gilded, 174;
statues in the tomb of Ti, 181;
statues of Rahotep and Nefert, from Meidoum, 187;
panels from the tomb of Hosi, 188;
the Scribe of the Louvre, 192;
brought figures from Ancient Empire to Paris in 1878, 211;
Nemhotep, 212;
picture of geese, 220;
statues of Chephren discovered in the temple of the Sphinx, 213;
early Theban works rude and awkward, 226;
Menthouthotep, id.;
groups from Tanis, 228;
figure discovered in the Fayoum, 233;
definition of the type of these Tanite remains, 237;
head of Taia discovered, 242;
Amenophis IV. perhaps a eunuch, 243;
expedition to Punt, illustrated at Dayr-el-Bahari, 245;
belief that Punt was in Africa, 246;
detestable style of the remains from the last years of Rameses II., 258;
Menephtah, son of Rameses II., statue at Boulak, 260;
head of Tahraka at Boulak, 263;
opinion as to the character of the statues in Egyptian temples, 276;
origin of the Sphinx, 281;
tomb of Sabou, sculptures, 285;
Page 484
models for sculptors at Boulak, their probable date, 324.
Mariette, Edouard, ii. 28, 55.
Maspero G.;
our guide to the history of Egypt, i. 8-9;
his opinion upon the Egyptian language, 13;
periods of Egyptian history, 17-18;
Ethiopian kingdom, 21;
affiliation of the king to the gods, 22;
mildness of rule in Ancient Egypt, 37;
prince Entef's stele, 38;
Egyptian devotion, 39;
do. 43;
the number of their devotional works of art, id.;
character of sacred animals, such as the Apis, 66;
his theory as to the ka, or double, 126, 137-8, 140-6, 148-153, 155-7;
translation from Papyrus IV. at Boulak, 161;
tomb of Harmhabi, 178;
pyramid of Ounas, 194;
commentary on the second book of Herodotus, 227;
opening of pyramid of Ounas, 235;
opinion on the tombs at Abydos, 242;
the staircase of Osiris, 243;
discovery of remains belonging to royal tombs of the eleventh dynasty at
Drah abou'l-neggah, 253;
ascription of power of speech and movement to statues, 289;
proof that the gods existed in the time of the Ancient Empire, 318;
translation of the stele of Piankhi from Gebel-Barkal, 353;
Hatasu's expedition to Punt, 426;
translations of Egyptian tales, ii. 30;
symbolism of papyrus and lotus, 126;
translation of stele C. 14, in the Louvre, 176;
cause of the Iconic character of Egyptian statutes, 181;
materials for wooden statues, 197;
his translation of funerary songs, 249;
formula by which the right of erecting a statue in a temple was granted to
a private individual, 278;
on the Palestrina mosaic, 288.
Mastaba, i. 164;
Mariette, Edouard, ii. 28, 55.
Maspero G.;
our guide to the history of Egypt, i. 8-9;
his opinion upon the Egyptian language, 13;
periods of Egyptian history, 17-18;
Ethiopian kingdom, 21;
affiliation of the king to the gods, 22;
mildness of rule in Ancient Egypt, 37;
prince Entef's stele, 38;
Egyptian devotion, 39;
do. 43;
the number of their devotional works of art, id.;
character of sacred animals, such as the Apis, 66;
his theory as to the ka, or double, 126, 137-8, 140-6, 148-153, 155-7;
translation from Papyrus IV. at Boulak, 161;
tomb of Harmhabi, 178;
pyramid of Ounas, 194;
commentary on the second book of Herodotus, 227;
opening of pyramid of Ounas, 235;
opinion on the tombs at Abydos, 242;
the staircase of Osiris, 243;
discovery of remains belonging to royal tombs of the eleventh dynasty at
Drah abou'l-neggah, 253;
ascription of power of speech and movement to statues, 289;
proof that the gods existed in the time of the Ancient Empire, 318;
translation of the stele of Piankhi from Gebel-Barkal, 353;
Hatasu's expedition to Punt, 426;
translations of Egyptian tales, ii. 30;
symbolism of papyrus and lotus, 126;
translation of stele C. 14, in the Louvre, 176;
cause of the Iconic character of Egyptian statutes, 181;
materials for wooden statues, 197;
his translation of funerary songs, 249;
formula by which the right of erecting a statue in a temple was granted to
a private individual, 278;
on the Palestrina mosaic, 288.
Mastaba, i. 164;
Page 485
in the Memphite necropolis, 165, 189;
materials of the, 168;
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, 169;
Mastabas of Sabou, 171;
Haar, id.;
Ra-en-mar, id.;
Hapi, 171;
general arrangements, 172.
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, i. 169, 214, 326.
Maury, Alfred, i. 286.
Maut, i. 63, 268.
Medinet-Abou, i. 22, 102;
the great temple, 260, 267-8, 375;
the little temple, 376, ii. 169;
the royal pavilion, i. 375, ii. 16;
the great temple, method of lighting, 384;
brackets in royal pavilion, 23.
Medinet-el-Fayoum, ii. 25.
Medledk, i. 159.
Megasthenes, i. L.
Meh, house of, i. 156.
Meidoum, i. 35, 89, 165;
construction of the pyramid of M., i. 200.
"Memnon," statues of, i. 267, 290, 376.
"Memnonium," i. 267, ii. 30.
Memphis, i. 6;
discovery of the Sheik-el-Beled, 9, 16;
political centre of the Ancient Empire, 17, 27;
our knowledge of the early period all derived from the necropolis of M.,
34;
the early Egyptians not oppressed, 37;
worship of Ptah at M., 55;
significance of apis, 67;
situation of necropolis, 136;
materials of the, 168;
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, 169;
Mastabas of Sabou, 171;
Haar, id.;
Ra-en-mar, id.;
Hapi, 171;
general arrangements, 172.
Mastabat-el-Faraoun, i. 169, 214, 326.
Maury, Alfred, i. 286.
Maut, i. 63, 268.
Medinet-Abou, i. 22, 102;
the great temple, 260, 267-8, 375;
the little temple, 376, ii. 169;
the royal pavilion, i. 375, ii. 16;
the great temple, method of lighting, 384;
brackets in royal pavilion, 23.
Medinet-el-Fayoum, ii. 25.
Medledk, i. 159.
Megasthenes, i. L.
Meh, house of, i. 156.
Meidoum, i. 35, 89, 165;
construction of the pyramid of M., i. 200.
"Memnon," statues of, i. 267, 290, 376.
"Memnonium," i. 267, ii. 30.
Memphis, i. 6;
discovery of the Sheik-el-Beled, 9, 16;
political centre of the Ancient Empire, 17, 27;
our knowledge of the early period all derived from the necropolis of M.,
34;
the early Egyptians not oppressed, 37;
worship of Ptah at M., 55;
significance of apis, 67;
situation of necropolis, 136;
Page 486
doors of the tombs turned eastward, 157;
mastabas, 165;
statue of Rameses II. on the site of M., ii. 240.
Mendes, i. 22.
Menephtah, head of, at Boulak, ii. 258.
Menes, i. X, XLVIII., 15, 17, 22, 38.
Menkaura (Mycerinus), i. 326.
Menthouthotep, a scribe, ii. 226.
Mentou-Ra, ii. 266.
Menzaleh, Lake, fellahs in the neighborhood of their race, ii 237.
Merenzi, i. 234.
Mérimée, M., materials employed by Egyptian painters, ii. 334.
Meroë, i. 20, 217.
Merval, du Barry de, ii. 11.
Mesem Bryanthemum Copticum, ii. 375.
Metal-work, ii. 377;
blow-pipe known, 378;
iron, 379;
damascening, 384.
Metopes, ii. 155.
Mexico, i. V.
Michaëlis, i. XIX.
Michelet, i. 64.
Midas, i. XXVII.
Minutoli, i. 213.
Mit-fares, ii. 234.
Mitrahineh, bas-relief at, ii. 271.
Mnevis, i. 54.
Models for sculptors, ii. 322.
mastabas, 165;
statue of Rameses II. on the site of M., ii. 240.
Mendes, i. 22.
Menephtah, head of, at Boulak, ii. 258.
Menes, i. X, XLVIII., 15, 17, 22, 38.
Menkaura (Mycerinus), i. 326.
Menthouthotep, a scribe, ii. 226.
Mentou-Ra, ii. 266.
Menzaleh, Lake, fellahs in the neighborhood of their race, ii 237.
Merenzi, i. 234.
Mérimée, M., materials employed by Egyptian painters, ii. 334.
Meroë, i. 20, 217.
Merval, du Barry de, ii. 11.
Mesem Bryanthemum Copticum, ii. 375.
Metal-work, ii. 377;
blow-pipe known, 378;
iron, 379;
damascening, 384.
Metopes, ii. 155.
Mexico, i. V.
Michaëlis, i. XIX.
Michelet, i. 64.
Midas, i. XXVII.
Minutoli, i. 213.
Mit-fares, ii. 234.
Mitrahineh, bas-relief at, ii. 271.
Mnevis, i. 54.
Models for sculptors, ii. 322.
Page 487
Modulus, its absence from Egyptian architecture, i. 102.
Mœris (Pharaoh), i. 347;
Lake M, i. 7, 216, 228, ii. 25
Mokattam, i. 105, 201, 204.
Monolithic columns rare in Egypt, ii. 66.
Mosel, i. XVII.
Müller, Ottfried, i. III., V., XXI., XXV., XXXI., LIV.
Mummies, i. 135;
m. pits, 181;
method of closing m. pit, 183;
do. of sarcophagus, 182;
furniture of m. chambers, 183;
decoration of the m. cases, ii. 335.
Mycenæ, i. XLII., 162.
Mycerinus, pyramid of, i. 205, 227, 329;
the sarcophagus of his daughter as described by Herodotus, 307;
his own sarcophagus, ii. 55-59.
Museums—
Berlin, i. 89;
papyrus narrating the dedication of a chapel by an Ousourtesen, 334;
funerary obelisk, ii. 170;
leg in black granite, 228;
enamelled bricks from stepped pyramid, 372.
Boulak, i. 10, 41;
the art of the pyramid builders only to be fully seen at B., 86, 89, 90,
139;
papyrus IV., 161;
stele with garden about a tomb, 301;
statues of gods, 319;
sphinxes in courtyard, ii. 337;
statue of the architect Nefer, 177;
statues in tomb of Ti, 181;
Rahotep and Nefert, 183-7;
Sheik-el-beled, 183, 194;
panels from tomb of Hosi, 189;
Mœris (Pharaoh), i. 347;
Lake M, i. 7, 216, 228, ii. 25
Mokattam, i. 105, 201, 204.
Monolithic columns rare in Egypt, ii. 66.
Mosel, i. XVII.
Müller, Ottfried, i. III., V., XXI., XXV., XXXI., LIV.
Mummies, i. 135;
m. pits, 181;
method of closing m. pit, 183;
do. of sarcophagus, 182;
furniture of m. chambers, 183;
decoration of the m. cases, ii. 335.
Mycenæ, i. XLII., 162.
Mycerinus, pyramid of, i. 205, 227, 329;
the sarcophagus of his daughter as described by Herodotus, 307;
his own sarcophagus, ii. 55-59.
Museums—
Berlin, i. 89;
papyrus narrating the dedication of a chapel by an Ousourtesen, 334;
funerary obelisk, ii. 170;
leg in black granite, 228;
enamelled bricks from stepped pyramid, 372.
Boulak, i. 10, 41;
the art of the pyramid builders only to be fully seen at B., 86, 89, 90,
139;
papyrus IV., 161;
stele with garden about a tomb, 301;
statues of gods, 319;
sphinxes in courtyard, ii. 337;
statue of the architect Nefer, 177;
statues in tomb of Ti, 181;
Rahotep and Nefert, 183-7;
Sheik-el-beled, 183, 194;
panels from tomb of Hosi, 189;
Page 488
statue of Ra-nefer, 203;
do. of Ti, 203;
wooden statue of a man with long robe, 204;
kneeling statues, 204;
Nefer-hotep and Tenteta, 207;
domestic and agricultural figures, 209;
Nemhotep, 212;
painting of Nile geese, 219;
great statues of Chephren, 221;
Tanite remains, 230-5;
Thothmes III., 241;
Taia, 242;
dancing girls, 249;
Rameses II., 256;
bronze statuettes, 312;
models for sculptors, 322;
Græco-Roman remains, 274;
glass, 376;
bronze ornaments and weapons, 379;
jewels, 380;
ivory-work, 388;
wood-work, 395-8.
British;
boats found in tombs, i. 185;
mummy case of Mycerinus, 234, 319;
Ritual of the Dead, ii. 287;
sceptre of Papi, 198;
head of Thothmes III., 241;
do. of Amenophis III., 242;
bronze statuette of Arsaphes, 265;
comic papyrus, 353;
pottery, 368;
enamelled faience 371;
aryballus, 372;
enamelled bricks from Stepped Pyramid, 372;
enamelled plaques, 374.
Liverpool;
boat from tomb, i. 185.
Louvre, i. 38, 89, 122, 127;
do. of Ti, 203;
wooden statue of a man with long robe, 204;
kneeling statues, 204;
Nefer-hotep and Tenteta, 207;
domestic and agricultural figures, 209;
Nemhotep, 212;
painting of Nile geese, 219;
great statues of Chephren, 221;
Tanite remains, 230-5;
Thothmes III., 241;
Taia, 242;
dancing girls, 249;
Rameses II., 256;
bronze statuettes, 312;
models for sculptors, 322;
Græco-Roman remains, 274;
glass, 376;
bronze ornaments and weapons, 379;
jewels, 380;
ivory-work, 388;
wood-work, 395-8.
British;
boats found in tombs, i. 185;
mummy case of Mycerinus, 234, 319;
Ritual of the Dead, ii. 287;
sceptre of Papi, 198;
head of Thothmes III., 241;
do. of Amenophis III., 242;
bronze statuette of Arsaphes, 265;
comic papyrus, 353;
pottery, 368;
enamelled faience 371;
aryballus, 372;
enamelled bricks from Stepped Pyramid, 372;
enamelled plaques, 374.
Liverpool;
boat from tomb, i. 185.
Louvre, i. 38, 89, 122, 127;
Page 489
boats from tombs, 185;
tabernacle, 353;
models of houses, ii. 33-4;
the "Scribe," 183-192;
statues from Ancient Empire 181-192;
Canephorus, 202;
Sebek-hotep, 226;
red granite sphinx, 228;
Tanite remains, 235;
statues from New Empire, 244-260;
works in bronze, 270-281;
bas-relief of Amasis from Serapeum, 285;
gems, 288;
signs of imperfect tools used, 304-5;
portraits from Roman epoch, 336;
jewelry, 382-387;
woodwork, 395-8.
Turin;
stele, i. 301;
tabernacle, 353;
statues of the Theban Pharaohs, ii. 225;
Rameses II., 257;
satirical papyrus, 351;
priapic scene in do., 355;
enamel on wood, 375.
Vatican;
Pastophorus, ii. 265.
N
Naos, i. 353.
Napata, i. 21;
pyramids at, 217, 218;
great temple at N. 385;
speos at N. 404-7.
Naville, E., i. 22, ii. 176.
Nectanebo, i. 17, 77, 86, 353, 430.
tabernacle, 353;
models of houses, ii. 33-4;
the "Scribe," 183-192;
statues from Ancient Empire 181-192;
Canephorus, 202;
Sebek-hotep, 226;
red granite sphinx, 228;
Tanite remains, 235;
statues from New Empire, 244-260;
works in bronze, 270-281;
bas-relief of Amasis from Serapeum, 285;
gems, 288;
signs of imperfect tools used, 304-5;
portraits from Roman epoch, 336;
jewelry, 382-387;
woodwork, 395-8.
Turin;
stele, i. 301;
tabernacle, 353;
statues of the Theban Pharaohs, ii. 225;
Rameses II., 257;
satirical papyrus, 351;
priapic scene in do., 355;
enamel on wood, 375.
Vatican;
Pastophorus, ii. 265.
N
Naos, i. 353.
Napata, i. 21;
pyramids at, 217, 218;
great temple at N. 385;
speos at N. 404-7.
Naville, E., i. 22, ii. 176.
Nectanebo, i. 17, 77, 86, 353, 430.
Page 490
Nefer (architect), statue of, ii. 177.
Nefer-hotep, ii. 207.
Nefert Ari, i. 410.
Nefert, statue of, from Meidoum, ii. 187.
Neith, i. 69, 301.
Nekau, i. 24, 78.
Nekheb (goddess), i. 63.
Nem-hotep, ii. 202.
Nepheritis, ii. 266.
Nephthys, i. 54, 301, ii. 350, 361.
Niebuhr, i. XXI.
Nesa, ii. 185.
Nestor L'Hôte, i. 4, ii. 15;
his enthusiasm for the art of the early dynasties, 225.
Nile, the creator of Egypt, i. 2, 3;
its inundations, 4, 5;
homage to the N. as a god, 233.
Nowertiouta, ii. 294.
Num-hotep, i. 35, 251.
O
Obelisks, the, method of erection, ii. 75, 169;
ὀβελός, 170;
ὀβελίσκος, id.;
O. of Hatasu, 170;
do. of Luxor, 171;
do. of Ousourtesen, id.;
heights of obelisks, id.;
O. figured in bas-relief at Sakkarah, 174;
ovals of Ousourtesen I. on O. at Beggig, 175.
Offerings, funerary, i. 139-43, ii. 384;
Nefer-hotep, ii. 207.
Nefert Ari, i. 410.
Nefert, statue of, from Meidoum, ii. 187.
Neith, i. 69, 301.
Nekau, i. 24, 78.
Nekheb (goddess), i. 63.
Nem-hotep, ii. 202.
Nepheritis, ii. 266.
Nephthys, i. 54, 301, ii. 350, 361.
Niebuhr, i. XXI.
Nesa, ii. 185.
Nestor L'Hôte, i. 4, ii. 15;
his enthusiasm for the art of the early dynasties, 225.
Nile, the creator of Egypt, i. 2, 3;
its inundations, 4, 5;
homage to the N. as a god, 233.
Nowertiouta, ii. 294.
Num-hotep, i. 35, 251.
O
Obelisks, the, method of erection, ii. 75, 169;
ὀβελός, 170;
ὀβελίσκος, id.;
O. of Hatasu, 170;
do. of Luxor, 171;
do. of Ousourtesen, id.;
heights of obelisks, id.;
O. figured in bas-relief at Sakkarah, 174;
ovals of Ousourtesen I. on O. at Beggig, 175.
Offerings, funerary, i. 139-43, ii. 384;
Page 491
tables for offerings, 143-4, ii. 362.
Oliphant, Laurence, ii. 175.
Opisthodomos, i. 354.
"Orders," the Egyptian, ii. 85;
asserted derivation from the national flora, 128.
Orientation of the tomb, i. 157.
Ornament, importance of the human figure, ii. 355;
vultures, id.;
origin of ornament, 356;
various motives, 357;
ceiling decorations, 359;
winged globe, 361;
mummy cases, id.;
colour well preserved, 362;
use of gold, id.;
graining, 363.
Osarvaris, i. 159.
"Osymandias, tomb of," or Ramesseum, i. 266, 375, 378.
Osorkhon, 362.
Ouaphra, ii. 266.
Oudja, ii. 383.
Ouenephes, or Ata, i. 207.
Ouna, i. 151.
Ounas, Pyramid of, i. 194, 215;
mummy chamber of O. 235;
the opening of the pyramid, 235.
Oushebti, or shebti (answerers or respondents), i. 146.
Ousourtesens, the, ii. 45, 50, 72.
Overbeck, history of sculpture, i. V.
Ovolo (egg moulding), ii. 154.
Ox, faithful treatment of, in Egyptian art, ii. 253.
Oliphant, Laurence, ii. 175.
Opisthodomos, i. 354.
"Orders," the Egyptian, ii. 85;
asserted derivation from the national flora, 128.
Orientation of the tomb, i. 157.
Ornament, importance of the human figure, ii. 355;
vultures, id.;
origin of ornament, 356;
various motives, 357;
ceiling decorations, 359;
winged globe, 361;
mummy cases, id.;
colour well preserved, 362;
use of gold, id.;
graining, 363.
Osarvaris, i. 159.
"Osymandias, tomb of," or Ramesseum, i. 266, 375, 378.
Osorkhon, 362.
Ouaphra, ii. 266.
Oudja, ii. 383.
Ouenephes, or Ata, i. 207.
Ouna, i. 151.
Ounas, Pyramid of, i. 194, 215;
mummy chamber of O. 235;
the opening of the pyramid, 235.
Oushebti, or shebti (answerers or respondents), i. 146.
Ousourtesens, the, ii. 45, 50, 72.
Overbeck, history of sculpture, i. V.
Ovolo (egg moulding), ii. 154.
Ox, faithful treatment of, in Egyptian art, ii. 253.
Page 492
P
Paccard, i. XIII.
Painting;
Egyptian painting really illumination, ii. 332;
how a picture was begun, id.;
complete absence of shadow, id.;
tools employed, 333;
colours known, 334;
their chemical composition, id.;
good condition of Egyptian painting, 335;
procedures, id.;
treatments of flesh tints, 336;
distemper the true Egyptian method, id.;
portrait of Amasis, 336;
easel pictures not unknown, id.;
colours of the gods, 337;
portraits of Queen Taia, id.;
decorations of tomb of Ptah-hotep, 341.
Palace, the Egyptian, ii. 8.
Palestrina mosaic, the, ii. 288.
Palettes, painters', ii. 333.
Panels, grooved, i. 115;
carved do., ii. 189.
Papi, i. 235.
Papyrus;
the plant, ii. 125;
Papyrus Anastasi III., ii. 22;
Papyrus Casati, i. 159;
Papyrus IV., i. 161;
Satirical Papyri, ii. 351.
Passalacqua;
his descriptions of mummies, i. 136, 143;
his discovery of a tomb, 293.
Pastophorus, of the Vatican, ii. 265.
Pat, ii. 185.
Paccard, i. XIII.
Painting;
Egyptian painting really illumination, ii. 332;
how a picture was begun, id.;
complete absence of shadow, id.;
tools employed, 333;
colours known, 334;
their chemical composition, id.;
good condition of Egyptian painting, 335;
procedures, id.;
treatments of flesh tints, 336;
distemper the true Egyptian method, id.;
portrait of Amasis, 336;
easel pictures not unknown, id.;
colours of the gods, 337;
portraits of Queen Taia, id.;
decorations of tomb of Ptah-hotep, 341.
Palace, the Egyptian, ii. 8.
Palestrina mosaic, the, ii. 288.
Palettes, painters', ii. 333.
Panels, grooved, i. 115;
carved do., ii. 189.
Papi, i. 235.
Papyrus;
the plant, ii. 125;
Papyrus Anastasi III., ii. 22;
Papyrus Casati, i. 159;
Papyrus IV., i. 161;
Satirical Papyri, ii. 351.
Passalacqua;
his descriptions of mummies, i. 136, 143;
his discovery of a tomb, 293.
Pastophorus, of the Vatican, ii. 265.
Pat, ii. 185.
Page 493
Patera, ii. 370.
Pausanias, i. 268.
Pectorals, ii. 380.
Pega, i. 128.
Peiho, i. 172.
Pekh-hesi, on panels in tomb of Hosi, ii. 189.
Penrose, F. C., i. XIV.
Pentaour, a scribe, i. 5;
the poet, 266.
Peripteral temples, Elephantiné, i. 396-398;
Eilithyia, Medinet-Abou and Semneh, 402.
Persigny, F. de, his notions about the pyramids, i. 191.
Perring, J. L.;
his great work upon the pyramids, i. 195;
his perception of the object of the discharging chambers in the Great
Pyramid, 221;
his drawings of the sarcophagus of Mycerinus, ii. 56.
Perspective, ii. 5.
Petamounoph, tomb of, i. 296, 313.
Petenef-hotep, i. 159.
Petronius, i. 44.
"Phamenoph," i. 268.
Phiale, the Greek, ii. 370.
Philip the Arab, i. 55.
Philæ, the great temple at, i. 351;
the island and its ruins, 433;
arches at, ii. 82;
columns at, 104-112.
Philo, i. 224, 232.
Philostratus, i. 268.
Pausanias, i. 268.
Pectorals, ii. 380.
Pega, i. 128.
Peiho, i. 172.
Pekh-hesi, on panels in tomb of Hosi, ii. 189.
Penrose, F. C., i. XIV.
Pentaour, a scribe, i. 5;
the poet, 266.
Peripteral temples, Elephantiné, i. 396-398;
Eilithyia, Medinet-Abou and Semneh, 402.
Persigny, F. de, his notions about the pyramids, i. 191.
Perring, J. L.;
his great work upon the pyramids, i. 195;
his perception of the object of the discharging chambers in the Great
Pyramid, 221;
his drawings of the sarcophagus of Mycerinus, ii. 56.
Perspective, ii. 5.
Petamounoph, tomb of, i. 296, 313.
Petenef-hotep, i. 159.
Petronius, i. 44.
"Phamenoph," i. 268.
Phiale, the Greek, ii. 370.
Philip the Arab, i. 55.
Philæ, the great temple at, i. 351;
the island and its ruins, 433;
arches at, ii. 82;
columns at, 104-112.
Philo, i. 224, 232.
Philostratus, i. 268.
Page 494
Piankhi, i. 22;
married to Ameneritis, ii. 264;
father of Shap-en-ap, id.
Pier, ii. 85;
origin of the quadrangular P., 90;
the Hathoric, 91;
the Osiride, 92;
the stele, 93;
the octagonal, 94;
the sixteen-sided, 94-8;
the polygonal, 95-8;
with a flat vertical band, 98;
do. with mask of Hathor, id.
Pierret, Paul, i. 47;
his study of the dogma of the resurrection, i. 135, 147, 152, 436, ii. 63,
76, 107, 126, 170, 227, 235, 278;
jewelry in the Louvre, 289.
Pietschmann, i. 57, 147.
Pig, in the bas-reliefs, i. 219.
"Pipes" (Theban tombs), i. 255.
Piranesi, i. VII.
Piroli, i. VII.
Pisani, ii. 202.
Pisé, i. 105.
Plans, Egyptian ground-, ii. 6.
Plato, quoted, i. 70, 71, 84.
Pliny, quoted, i. 224, 321, ii. 76.
Plutarch, pseudo-, quoted, i. 242, 327.
Pluteus, ii. 149;
at Denderah, id.
Polishing statues, the methods of, ii. 307-10.
Polychromatic decoration;
married to Ameneritis, ii. 264;
father of Shap-en-ap, id.
Pier, ii. 85;
origin of the quadrangular P., 90;
the Hathoric, 91;
the Osiride, 92;
the stele, 93;
the octagonal, 94;
the sixteen-sided, 94-8;
the polygonal, 95-8;
with a flat vertical band, 98;
do. with mask of Hathor, id.
Pierret, Paul, i. 47;
his study of the dogma of the resurrection, i. 135, 147, 152, 436, ii. 63,
76, 107, 126, 170, 227, 235, 278;
jewelry in the Louvre, 289.
Pietschmann, i. 57, 147.
Pig, in the bas-reliefs, i. 219.
"Pipes" (Theban tombs), i. 255.
Piranesi, i. VII.
Piroli, i. VII.
Pisani, ii. 202.
Pisé, i. 105.
Plans, Egyptian ground-, ii. 6.
Plato, quoted, i. 70, 71, 84.
Pliny, quoted, i. 224, 321, ii. 76.
Plutarch, pseudo-, quoted, i. 242, 327.
Pluteus, ii. 149;
at Denderah, id.
Polishing statues, the methods of, ii. 307-10.
Polychromatic decoration;
Page 495
of the Greeks, i. XIV.;
of the Egyptians, necessary in their sunlight, 126;
its influence upon their sculpture, ii. 325.
Pompeii, ii. 89.
Population of Egypt under the Roman Empire, ii. 26.
Porcelain, Egyptian, i. 146.
Porcupine, the, ii. 218.
Portcullis stones, i. 220.
Portraiture, the foundation of Egyptian art, ii. 275.
Posno, collection of M. Gustave, bronzes, ii. 200;
enamelled bricks, 374.
Pottery;
potter's wheel in use during the Ancient Empire, ii. 367;
Dr. Birch's illustrations, 367;
aryballus, 368;
"Egyptian porcelain," 369;
should be Egyptian faience, id.;
colour of designs, 370;
doorway in Stepped Pyramid, 372;
tiles, id.
Priene, i. XIII.
Priests, i. 31.
Prisoners, Figures of, under brackets at Medinet-Abou, ii. 24, 94;
upon friezes, 154;
in the tomb of Seti I., 348;
upon the soles of sandals, 354.
Prisse d'Avennes, his History, i. 26;
his Papers, 95, 249, 356, 408, ii. 54, 66, 80, 94, 146, 155;
his ideas upon the so-called canon, ii. 319.
Processions, i. 435.
Profile, its almost exclusive use by painters, and in bas-reliefs, ii. 293.
Pronaos, i. 351.
of the Egyptians, necessary in their sunlight, 126;
its influence upon their sculpture, ii. 325.
Pompeii, ii. 89.
Population of Egypt under the Roman Empire, ii. 26.
Porcelain, Egyptian, i. 146.
Porcupine, the, ii. 218.
Portcullis stones, i. 220.
Portraiture, the foundation of Egyptian art, ii. 275.
Posno, collection of M. Gustave, bronzes, ii. 200;
enamelled bricks, 374.
Pottery;
potter's wheel in use during the Ancient Empire, ii. 367;
Dr. Birch's illustrations, 367;
aryballus, 368;
"Egyptian porcelain," 369;
should be Egyptian faience, id.;
colour of designs, 370;
doorway in Stepped Pyramid, 372;
tiles, id.
Priene, i. XIII.
Priests, i. 31.
Prisoners, Figures of, under brackets at Medinet-Abou, ii. 24, 94;
upon friezes, 154;
in the tomb of Seti I., 348;
upon the soles of sandals, 354.
Prisse d'Avennes, his History, i. 26;
his Papers, 95, 249, 356, 408, ii. 54, 66, 80, 94, 146, 155;
his ideas upon the so-called canon, ii. 319.
Processions, i. 435.
Profile, its almost exclusive use by painters, and in bas-reliefs, ii. 293.
Pronaos, i. 351.
Page 496
Propylon, i. 341-4, ii. 156.
Proto-doric columns, i. 418;
differences between them and doric, ii. 97.
Proto-semitic races, i. 10.
Provincial art in Greece, i. XII.
Psemethek I., i. 19, 38, 77, 92, 347, 389, 430;
group of, with Hathor, ii. 267;
II., ii. 266;
Nefer-sam, 271.
Pschent, i. 16.
Psousennes, ii. 233.
Ptah, i. 22, 51, 54, 55, 67, 389, 430.
Ptah-hotep, tomb of, i. 174.
Ptah-Osiris, i. 68;
Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, id.
Ptolemaic art, ii. 272.
Ptolemy, Philopator, i. 264;
Euergetes, ii. 407.
Punt, the land of, i. 260.
Pylon, i. 341-4, ii. 156.
Pyramids, i. 189;
derivation of the word, 190;
origin of, 195;
comparative sizes, 199;
mode of constructing, 201;
cubic contents of Great Pyramid, 202;
Pyramids of Gizeh, 206;
of Dashour, id.;
the Stepped P., 207-212;
German theory as to the construction of the Pyramids, 208;
construction of the Blunt Pyramid, Dashour, 210;
Pyramid of Abousir, 212;
of Meidoum, 214;
Proto-doric columns, i. 418;
differences between them and doric, ii. 97.
Proto-semitic races, i. 10.
Provincial art in Greece, i. XII.
Psemethek I., i. 19, 38, 77, 92, 347, 389, 430;
group of, with Hathor, ii. 267;
II., ii. 266;
Nefer-sam, 271.
Pschent, i. 16.
Psousennes, ii. 233.
Ptah, i. 22, 51, 54, 55, 67, 389, 430.
Ptah-hotep, tomb of, i. 174.
Ptah-Osiris, i. 68;
Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, id.
Ptolemaic art, ii. 272.
Ptolemy, Philopator, i. 264;
Euergetes, ii. 407.
Punt, the land of, i. 260.
Pylon, i. 341-4, ii. 156.
Pyramids, i. 189;
derivation of the word, 190;
origin of, 195;
comparative sizes, 199;
mode of constructing, 201;
cubic contents of Great Pyramid, 202;
Pyramids of Gizeh, 206;
of Dashour, id.;
the Stepped P., 207-212;
German theory as to the construction of the Pyramids, 208;
construction of the Blunt Pyramid, Dashour, 210;
Pyramid of Abousir, 212;
of Meidoum, 214;
Page 497
of Righa, 216;
of Hawara, id.;
of Illahoun, id.;
proportions of Nubian pyramids, 218;
methods of preventing intrusion, 219;
discharging chambers in Great Pyramid, 221;
colossi on pyramids, 228;
Pyramid of Mycerinus, 329.
Pyramidion, i. 226, ii. 174.
Q
Qadech—see Kadesh.
Quarries, i. 105.
Quintus Curtius—see Curtius.
R
Ra, i. 25.
Ra-en-ma (Amenemhat III.), ii. 289.
Ra-hesi, ii. 189.
Ra-hotep, ii. 187.
Rameses I., commences the hypostylehall at Karnak, i. 378;
honoured at Gournah, 392.
Rameses II., i. 19, 22, 27, 76;
his tomb, 282;
completes Luxor, 370;
completes the hypostyle hall at Karnak, 378;
builds the Ramesseum, 378-81;
the temple of Abydos completed, 386;
the temple of Gournah do., 395;
causes hypogea to be excavated in Nubia, 405;
also in Egypt, 406;
his colossi at Ipsamboul, 410-15;
his family, ii. 13;
of Hawara, id.;
of Illahoun, id.;
proportions of Nubian pyramids, 218;
methods of preventing intrusion, 219;
discharging chambers in Great Pyramid, 221;
colossi on pyramids, 228;
Pyramid of Mycerinus, 329.
Pyramidion, i. 226, ii. 174.
Q
Qadech—see Kadesh.
Quarries, i. 105.
Quintus Curtius—see Curtius.
R
Ra, i. 25.
Ra-en-ma (Amenemhat III.), ii. 289.
Ra-hesi, ii. 189.
Ra-hotep, ii. 187.
Rameses I., commences the hypostylehall at Karnak, i. 378;
honoured at Gournah, 392.
Rameses II., i. 19, 22, 27, 76;
his tomb, 282;
completes Luxor, 370;
completes the hypostyle hall at Karnak, 378;
builds the Ramesseum, 378-81;
the temple of Abydos completed, 386;
the temple of Gournah do., 395;
causes hypogea to be excavated in Nubia, 405;
also in Egypt, 406;
his colossi at Ipsamboul, 410-15;
his family, ii. 13;
Page 498
his obelisks at Luxor, 171-2;
his portrait-statues, 240, 255-8;
decadence of art towards the close of his reign, 257.
Rameses III., i. 22, 267;
his tomb, 281;
his temple at Medinet-Abou, 381-384;
his pavilion, ii. 16;
bas-reliefs in which he is represented in his gynecæum, 21-22.
Ramesseum, i. 266, 376, 377, ii. 97, 167.
Ra-nefer, ii. 203.
Rannu, i. 64.
Raoul-Rochette, his false idea of Egyptian art, i. 71.
Rayet, ii. 182.
Redesieh, i. 406.
Regnier, Ad, i. 341.
Rekmara, i. 296, ii. 338.
Renan, Ernest, his opinion on the Egyptian language, i. 13;
on Egyptian civilization, 19;
do. 71.
Resheb, ii. 262.
Revillout, Eug., i. 309, ii. 29.
Rhæcos, ii. 317.
Rhampsinite, i. 347.
Rhind, Henry, his Thebes, &c., infiltration in mummy pits, 136;
a Burial place of the poor, 160;
his discovery of a tomb, 166;
substitution of a late tenant for an early one, id.;
extreme length of some of the pipes, 296.
Rhoné, Arthur, i. 205, 291;
his Égypte à petites journées, 305;
plans lent, 316, 328.
Righa, Pyramid of, i. 216.
his portrait-statues, 240, 255-8;
decadence of art towards the close of his reign, 257.
Rameses III., i. 22, 267;
his tomb, 281;
his temple at Medinet-Abou, 381-384;
his pavilion, ii. 16;
bas-reliefs in which he is represented in his gynecæum, 21-22.
Ramesseum, i. 266, 376, 377, ii. 97, 167.
Ra-nefer, ii. 203.
Rannu, i. 64.
Raoul-Rochette, his false idea of Egyptian art, i. 71.
Rayet, ii. 182.
Redesieh, i. 406.
Regnier, Ad, i. 341.
Rekmara, i. 296, ii. 338.
Renan, Ernest, his opinion on the Egyptian language, i. 13;
on Egyptian civilization, 19;
do. 71.
Resheb, ii. 262.
Revillout, Eug., i. 309, ii. 29.
Rhæcos, ii. 317.
Rhampsinite, i. 347.
Rhind, Henry, his Thebes, &c., infiltration in mummy pits, 136;
a Burial place of the poor, 160;
his discovery of a tomb, 166;
substitution of a late tenant for an early one, id.;
extreme length of some of the pipes, 296.
Rhoné, Arthur, i. 205, 291;
his Égypte à petites journées, 305;
plans lent, 316, 328.
Righa, Pyramid of, i. 216.
Page 499
Rings, ii. 289.
Ritual of the Dead, i. 39, 146;
cap. cxxv., 286.
Rougé, de, his Memoire sur l'inscription d'Ahmes, i. 33, ii. 170;
his opinion upon the statues of Sepa and Nesa, 185, 194, 228, 235.
Rosellini, i. 406.
S
Sabaco, ii. 27;
the great door at Karnak repaired by him, 263.
Sabou, mastaba of, i. 167.
Sais, i. 18, 309;
its walls, ii. 41.
Sakkarah, i. 35, 38, 42, 135, 143, 146, 166;
stepped pyramid, 204-15, ii. 372;
pyramids recently opened at S. i. 234.
Salzmann, i. X.
Sardinians, supposed ancestors of the, ii. 257.
Schasou, ii. 200.
Schenti, ii. 185, 200.
Schliemann, Dr., his discoveries at Mycenæ, i. 162.
Schnaase, Carl, i. III., IV., V.
Scribes, the, i. 30.
Sculpture, ii. 180;
the origin of statue-making, 180;
S. under the Ancient Empire, 184;
process of making a wooden statue, 197;
groups in the proper sense unknown, 205;
animals in S., 217, 280;
extreme fidelity of royal portraiture, 223;
S. under the Theban Pharaohs, 226;
first appearance of colossi, 239;
Ritual of the Dead, i. 39, 146;
cap. cxxv., 286.
Rougé, de, his Memoire sur l'inscription d'Ahmes, i. 33, ii. 170;
his opinion upon the statues of Sepa and Nesa, 185, 194, 228, 235.
Rosellini, i. 406.
S
Sabaco, ii. 27;
the great door at Karnak repaired by him, 263.
Sabou, mastaba of, i. 167.
Sais, i. 18, 309;
its walls, ii. 41.
Sakkarah, i. 35, 38, 42, 135, 143, 146, 166;
stepped pyramid, 204-15, ii. 372;
pyramids recently opened at S. i. 234.
Salzmann, i. X.
Sardinians, supposed ancestors of the, ii. 257.
Schasou, ii. 200.
Schenti, ii. 185, 200.
Schliemann, Dr., his discoveries at Mycenæ, i. 162.
Schnaase, Carl, i. III., IV., V.
Scribes, the, i. 30.
Sculpture, ii. 180;
the origin of statue-making, 180;
S. under the Ancient Empire, 184;
process of making a wooden statue, 197;
groups in the proper sense unknown, 205;
animals in S., 217, 280;
extreme fidelity of royal portraiture, 223;
S. under the Theban Pharaohs, 226;
first appearance of colossi, 239;
Page 500
the "Apollo Belvedere of Egypt," 248;
over slightness of proportions characteristic of the Middle and New
Empires, 249;
the worst of the Saite statues national in style, 272;
work under the Roman domination, 273;
absence of gods from larger works, 275;
religious statues purely votive, 276;
statues of Amen and Khons not colossal, 277;
the right to erect statues in the temples, 278;
busts not unknown, 279;
technical methods in the bas-reliefs, 284;
tools used in S., 303;
their influence and that of materials upon style, 303, 306-314.
Sebek-hotep, ii. 226.
Sebennytos, i. 18.
Secos, the (σηκός, or sanctuary), i. 352, 357, 375, 384, 406.
Sedeinga, i. 402.
Sekhet, i. 54, 58, 354, 406.
Seleucus Nicator, i. L.
Selk, i. 301.
Semneh, ii. 45;
cornice of temple at, 153.
Semper, Gottfried, his theories upon the origin of decoration, ii. 356.
Sepa, ii. 184.
Serapeum, i. 305-8;
the bronzes discovered in the S., ii. 266.
Serdab, origin of the word, i. 177, 187.
Sesebi, ii. 130.
Sesostris, i. 19, 347, ii. 27.
Seti I., i. 29, 123, 278;
his tomb, 280, 389;
carries on the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, 378;
begins the temple at Abydos, 392;
over slightness of proportions characteristic of the Middle and New
Empires, 249;
the worst of the Saite statues national in style, 272;
work under the Roman domination, 273;
absence of gods from larger works, 275;
religious statues purely votive, 276;
statues of Amen and Khons not colossal, 277;
the right to erect statues in the temples, 278;
busts not unknown, 279;
technical methods in the bas-reliefs, 284;
tools used in S., 303;
their influence and that of materials upon style, 303, 306-314.
Sebek-hotep, ii. 226.
Sebennytos, i. 18.
Secos, the (σηκός, or sanctuary), i. 352, 357, 375, 384, 406.
Sedeinga, i. 402.
Sekhet, i. 54, 58, 354, 406.
Seleucus Nicator, i. L.
Selk, i. 301.
Semneh, ii. 45;
cornice of temple at, 153.
Semper, Gottfried, his theories upon the origin of decoration, ii. 356.
Sepa, ii. 184.
Serapeum, i. 305-8;
the bronzes discovered in the S., ii. 266.
Serdab, origin of the word, i. 177, 187.
Sesebi, ii. 130.
Sesostris, i. 19, 347, ii. 27.
Seti I., i. 29, 123, 278;
his tomb, 280, 389;
carries on the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, 378;
begins the temple at Abydos, 392;
Page 501
do. Speos-Artemidos and Redesieh, 406;
bas-reliefs at Abydos, ii. 247.
Seti II., ii. 260.
Shap-en-ap, ii. 264.
Sharuten, ii. 257.
Sheik-el-Beled, i. 9, ii. 194.
Sheshonk, i. 19, ii. 262.
Silco, i. 55.
Siout, i. 144, 249;
necropolis of, 252.
Siptah, tomb of, i. 281.
Snefrou, ii. 95, 184, 187.
Socharis, i. 166.
Soldi, Emile, ii. 288;
his explanation of the influence exercised over Egyptian sculpture by the
tools and materials employed, 304.
Soleb, ii. 102, 130, 404.
Solon, observation of a priest of Sais to, i. XXXIII.
Somalis, i. 260.
Soudan, i. 218.
Soutekh or Set, i. 68, ii. 93.
Spencer, Herbert, upon the conception of the double, i. 128;
upon "primitive ideas," 132;
upon the hole pierced for the double to pass through, 178.
Speoi and Hemi-speoi, i. 402.
Sphinx, types of, i. 58-9;
the great S., 237-8, 323;
the temple of the S., 323-7;
controversy as to its true character, 327-9;
avenues of S., 336-7;
the S. of the Louvre, 61, ii. 228;
bas-reliefs at Abydos, ii. 247.
Seti II., ii. 260.
Shap-en-ap, ii. 264.
Sharuten, ii. 257.
Sheik-el-Beled, i. 9, ii. 194.
Sheshonk, i. 19, ii. 262.
Silco, i. 55.
Siout, i. 144, 249;
necropolis of, 252.
Siptah, tomb of, i. 281.
Snefrou, ii. 95, 184, 187.
Socharis, i. 166.
Soldi, Emile, ii. 288;
his explanation of the influence exercised over Egyptian sculpture by the
tools and materials employed, 304.
Soleb, ii. 102, 130, 404.
Solon, observation of a priest of Sais to, i. XXXIII.
Somalis, i. 260.
Soudan, i. 218.
Soutekh or Set, i. 68, ii. 93.
Spencer, Herbert, upon the conception of the double, i. 128;
upon "primitive ideas," 132;
upon the hole pierced for the double to pass through, 178.
Speoi and Hemi-speoi, i. 402.
Sphinx, types of, i. 58-9;
the great S., 237-8, 323;
the temple of the S., 323-7;
controversy as to its true character, 327-9;
avenues of S., 336-7;
the S. of the Louvre, 61, ii. 228;
Page 502
S. from Tanis, 230-3.
Squaring, for transference and enlargement of drawings, ii. 320.
Stark, Carl B., i. XXV., LV.
Stele, i. 155-6.
Stepped Pyramid measurements, i. 197, 207, 212.
Stereobate, ii. 149.
Stern, Ludwig, i. 334.
Steuart, i. XXVII.
Stobæus, i. 307.
Stork, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Strabo, pyramids, i. 191;
passages to mummy chamber, 192;
pyramid of the Labyrinth, 227;
Memnonium (Amenophium), 267;
do. 279;
Saite worship of Athené, 307;
"Barbarous" temple at Heliopolis, 323;
πρόπυλων, 341;
description of the Egyptian type of temple, 347;
identification of Ismandes and Memnon, 376;
the Memnonium close to the colossi of Memnon (Amenophis), id.;
labyrinth, ii. 25;
monolithic supports in labyrinth, 66;
uses of the lotus, 125;
description of do. id.;
height of do. id.
Style, distinguishing features of Egyptian, ii. 329.
Supports, general types of architectural, ii. 91.
Susa, ii. 13.
Suti and Har, architects at Thebes, i. 436.
Syene, i. 7, 105.
Squaring, for transference and enlargement of drawings, ii. 320.
Stark, Carl B., i. XXV., LV.
Stele, i. 155-6.
Stepped Pyramid measurements, i. 197, 207, 212.
Stereobate, ii. 149.
Stern, Ludwig, i. 334.
Steuart, i. XXVII.
Stobæus, i. 307.
Stork, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 219.
Strabo, pyramids, i. 191;
passages to mummy chamber, 192;
pyramid of the Labyrinth, 227;
Memnonium (Amenophium), 267;
do. 279;
Saite worship of Athené, 307;
"Barbarous" temple at Heliopolis, 323;
πρόπυλων, 341;
description of the Egyptian type of temple, 347;
identification of Ismandes and Memnon, 376;
the Memnonium close to the colossi of Memnon (Amenophis), id.;
labyrinth, ii. 25;
monolithic supports in labyrinth, 66;
uses of the lotus, 125;
description of do. id.;
height of do. id.
Style, distinguishing features of Egyptian, ii. 329.
Supports, general types of architectural, ii. 91.
Susa, ii. 13.
Suti and Har, architects at Thebes, i. 436.
Syene, i. 7, 105.
Page 503
T
Tabernacle, i. 352-5.
Tahraka, i. 385;
hypæthral temple of T., ii. 145, 263.
Taia (Queen), bust of, at Boulak, ii. 242;
painted portrait of, in the tomb of Amenophis III., 337.
Tanagra, terra-cotta statuettes from, i. XVII., XVIII., 162.
Tanis, i. 18;
sculptured remains from T., ii. 230-8;
Roman head from T., 274;
sculptors' models from T., 322.
Ta-ti-bast (Queen), ii. 362.
Tegæa, i. XVIII.
Telecles (sculptor), ii. 317.
Tell-el-Amarna, scene of a new cult under Amenophis IV., i. 69;
its cemetery on the right bank of the Nile, 157;
domestic architecture of Egypt may be well studied in the paintings and
bas-reliefs at T., ii. 5;
the Egyptian house, 28;
palace, 33, 155;
painted landscapes at, 287.
Tell-el-Yahoudeh, ii. 373.
Temple, the funerary temples of Thebes, i. 264-275;
the T. under the Ancient Empire, 318-333;
under the Middle do., 333-335;
under the New do., 335-433;
general characteristics, 434;
distinction between the T. in Egypt and in Greece, 435-7.
Tenteta, statue at Boulak, ii. 208.
Tet, the, ii. 383.
Teuffel, i. III.
Texier, i. IX., X., XXVII.
Tabernacle, i. 352-5.
Tahraka, i. 385;
hypæthral temple of T., ii. 145, 263.
Taia (Queen), bust of, at Boulak, ii. 242;
painted portrait of, in the tomb of Amenophis III., 337.
Tanagra, terra-cotta statuettes from, i. XVII., XVIII., 162.
Tanis, i. 18;
sculptured remains from T., ii. 230-8;
Roman head from T., 274;
sculptors' models from T., 322.
Ta-ti-bast (Queen), ii. 362.
Tegæa, i. XVIII.
Telecles (sculptor), ii. 317.
Tell-el-Amarna, scene of a new cult under Amenophis IV., i. 69;
its cemetery on the right bank of the Nile, 157;
domestic architecture of Egypt may be well studied in the paintings and
bas-reliefs at T., ii. 5;
the Egyptian house, 28;
palace, 33, 155;
painted landscapes at, 287.
Tell-el-Yahoudeh, ii. 373.
Temple, the funerary temples of Thebes, i. 264-275;
the T. under the Ancient Empire, 318-333;
under the Middle do., 333-335;
under the New do., 335-433;
general characteristics, 434;
distinction between the T. in Egypt and in Greece, 435-7.
Tenteta, statue at Boulak, ii. 208.
Tet, the, ii. 383.
Teuffel, i. III.
Texier, i. IX., X., XXVII.
Page 504
Teynard, Felix, ii. 157.
Thebes, i. 6, 16-18, 27, 65-8, 77, 89, 122, 134-6 151-7;
its necropolis, 255-317;
its temples, 333-84;
the meaning of the epithet ἑκατόμπυλος, ii. 40.
Theodorus (sculptor), ii. 317.
Theophrastus quoted, ii. 125.
Theseum, i. VII.
Thorwaldsen, i. XI.
Thoth, i. 63.
Thothmes II., ii. 381, 400;
Thothmes III., i. 19, 70, 268;
Hall of T. at Karnak, 369, 381, 400, 406;
his statues, 241;
head in the British Museum, id.;
his portraits conspicuous for fidelity, id.;
his porphyry sphinx at Boulak, 242.
Thucydides, ii. 40.
Ti, his tomb, i. LX, 89, 143, 148, 177, 180, ii. 86;
his offices of state, 177;
his statue at Boulak, 203.
Tiberias, kiosque, or summer-house of, at Philæ, i. 433.
Tiele, Prof., his manual of the history of religions, i. 57.
Tiryns, ii. 64.
To-deser, i. 135.
Tomb, the, under the Ancient Empire, i. 163-241;
under the Middle do., 241-254;
under the New do., 255-317.
Tomb of Osymandias, i. 375.
To-merah, or To-meh, i. 15.
To-res, i. 15.
Thebes, i. 6, 16-18, 27, 65-8, 77, 89, 122, 134-6 151-7;
its necropolis, 255-317;
its temples, 333-84;
the meaning of the epithet ἑκατόμπυλος, ii. 40.
Theodorus (sculptor), ii. 317.
Theophrastus quoted, ii. 125.
Theseum, i. VII.
Thorwaldsen, i. XI.
Thoth, i. 63.
Thothmes II., ii. 381, 400;
Thothmes III., i. 19, 70, 268;
Hall of T. at Karnak, 369, 381, 400, 406;
his statues, 241;
head in the British Museum, id.;
his portraits conspicuous for fidelity, id.;
his porphyry sphinx at Boulak, 242.
Thucydides, ii. 40.
Ti, his tomb, i. LX, 89, 143, 148, 177, 180, ii. 86;
his offices of state, 177;
his statue at Boulak, 203.
Tiberias, kiosque, or summer-house of, at Philæ, i. 433.
Tiele, Prof., his manual of the history of religions, i. 57.
Tiryns, ii. 64.
To-deser, i. 135.
Tomb, the, under the Ancient Empire, i. 163-241;
under the Middle do., 241-254;
under the New do., 255-317.
Tomb of Osymandias, i. 375.
To-merah, or To-meh, i. 15.
To-res, i. 15.
Page 505
Toum, i. 68.
Tourah, i. 204.
Triglyphs, ii. 155.
Tuaregs, the, i. 13.
Turbehs, tombs of Saite kings compared to, i. 309.
Typhon, ii. 93;
Typhonia, 407, 434.
U
Uggeri, the Abbé, i. 104.
Una, high official under the sixth dynasty, ii. 75.
Uræus, ii. 151, 227.
V
Vases, found in the mastabas, i. 171, 183, ii. 367;
domestic V., 367-8;
ornamented do., 368-372.
Vault, i. 110;
off-set vaults, 111, ii. 83;
centred V., i. 112;
V. in pisé, 113;
theory as to the symbolism of the V. in the hypogea, id.;
antiquity of the V. in Egypt, ii. 77;
(see also Arch.)
Vedas, poetry of, i. XLIX., 50.
Verde-antique, i. 224.
Versailles, ii. 11.
Villeroi, Charles, his work upon the columns in Greek temples, i. 96.
Vinet, Ernest, i. XIV., XIX.
Viollet-le-Duc, his theory as to the origin of the Egyptian cornice, ii. 56;
upon the employment of inverted arches in basements, 80-2.
Tourah, i. 204.
Triglyphs, ii. 155.
Tuaregs, the, i. 13.
Turbehs, tombs of Saite kings compared to, i. 309.
Typhon, ii. 93;
Typhonia, 407, 434.
U
Uggeri, the Abbé, i. 104.
Una, high official under the sixth dynasty, ii. 75.
Uræus, ii. 151, 227.
V
Vases, found in the mastabas, i. 171, 183, ii. 367;
domestic V., 367-8;
ornamented do., 368-372.
Vault, i. 110;
off-set vaults, 111, ii. 83;
centred V., i. 112;
V. in pisé, 113;
theory as to the symbolism of the V. in the hypogea, id.;
antiquity of the V. in Egypt, ii. 77;
(see also Arch.)
Vedas, poetry of, i. XLIX., 50.
Verde-antique, i. 224.
Versailles, ii. 11.
Villeroi, Charles, his work upon the columns in Greek temples, i. 96.
Vinet, Ernest, i. XIV., XIX.
Viollet-le-Duc, his theory as to the origin of the Egyptian cornice, ii. 56;
upon the employment of inverted arches in basements, 80-2.
Page 506
Visconti, E. Q., i. VII.
Vogüé, Melchior de, i. 73;
his description of the Boulak Museum, 90, ii. 45;
his definition of the Egyptian style, 327.
Volute, ii. 90.
Vyse, Colonel Howard, his great work upon the Pyramids, i. 195;
his discoveries in do., 221;
his discovery of the Sarcophagus of Mycerinus, 234;
his discovery and exploration of Campbell's tomb, 311.
W
Wadi, -Siout, i. 105;
-Seboua, 407-8, ii. 65;
-Halfah, ii. 42;
-Maghara, ii. 95, 184.
Walking-sticks, ii. 397.
Wallon, M., i. LX.
Welcker, i. VII., XXV.
Whitehouse, F. Cope, his theory as to the construction of the pyramids, i.
201;
his theory as to Lake Mœris, ii. 25.
Wigs, ii. 203.
Wilkinson, Sir G.;
his opinion upon the coating Egyptian works with stucco, i. 122, ii. 33,
38, 72;
his theory of the Egyptian canon, 319, 366;
constituents of Egyptian bronze, 379.
Winckelmann, i. II., V., XV., XX., XXV., LVI.
Witte, de, on the weighing of souls, i. 286.
Wolf, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Woodwork, ii. 390;
wooden furniture not scanty, 393;
Vogüé, Melchior de, i. 73;
his description of the Boulak Museum, 90, ii. 45;
his definition of the Egyptian style, 327.
Volute, ii. 90.
Vyse, Colonel Howard, his great work upon the Pyramids, i. 195;
his discoveries in do., 221;
his discovery of the Sarcophagus of Mycerinus, 234;
his discovery and exploration of Campbell's tomb, 311.
W
Wadi, -Siout, i. 105;
-Seboua, 407-8, ii. 65;
-Halfah, ii. 42;
-Maghara, ii. 95, 184.
Walking-sticks, ii. 397.
Wallon, M., i. LX.
Welcker, i. VII., XXV.
Whitehouse, F. Cope, his theory as to the construction of the pyramids, i.
201;
his theory as to Lake Mœris, ii. 25.
Wigs, ii. 203.
Wilkinson, Sir G.;
his opinion upon the coating Egyptian works with stucco, i. 122, ii. 33,
38, 72;
his theory of the Egyptian canon, 319, 366;
constituents of Egyptian bronze, 379.
Winckelmann, i. II., V., XV., XX., XXV., LVI.
Witte, de, on the weighing of souls, i. 286.
Wolf, the, in the bas-reliefs, ii. 218.
Woodwork, ii. 390;
wooden furniture not scanty, 393;
Page 507
perfume spoons and other small articles, 394.
Worship of the dead, i. 128.
X
Xoite dynasty, the, i. 17.
Z
Zeus, i. XII, 69, 133.
Zeuxis, i. XIV., XVI.
Zoëga, i. VII.
Worship of the dead, i. 128.
X
Xoite dynasty, the, i. 17.
Z
Zeus, i. XII, 69, 133.
Zeuxis, i. XIV., XVI.
Zoëga, i. VII.
Page 508
THE END.
LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.
LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.
Page 509
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Fergusson (in vol. i. p. 118, of his History of Architecture in all Countries,
etc.) proposes that Karnak should be called a Palace-Temple, or Temple-Palace.
[2] Du Barry de Merval, Études sur l'Architecture Égyptienne (1875), p. 271.
[3] The contrast between the palaces of the East and Versailles is hardly so
strong as M. Perrot seems to suggest. The curious assemblage of buildings of
different ages and styles which forms the eastern façade of the dwelling of Louis
XIV. does not greatly differ in essentials from the confused piles of Delhi or the
old Seraglio.—Ed.
[4] Nestor L'Hôte—a fine connoisseur, who often divined facts which were not
finally demonstrated until after his visit to Egypt—also received this impression
from his examination of the remains at Tell-el-Amarna: "Details no less
interesting make us acquainted with the general arrangement ... of the king's
palaces, the porticos and propylæa by which they were approached, the inner
chambers, the store-houses and offices, the courts, gardens, and artificial lakes;
everything, in fact, which went to make up the royal dwelling-place." Lettres
écrites d'Égypte (in 1838-9; 8vo, 1840); pp. 64-65.
[5] Lettres écrites d'Égypte, p. 62. In some other plans from Tell-el-Amarna,
given by Prisse, several of these altars are given upon a larger scale, showing the
offerings with which they are heaped. One of them has a flight of steps leading
up to it.
[6] In this we are supported by the opinions of Mariette (Itinéraire, p. 213) and
Ebers (L'Égypte, du Caire à Philæ, p. 317).
[7] Itinéraire, p. 213.
[8] See the curious extracts from the Papyrus Anastasi III., given by Maspero,
Histoire Ancienne, pp. 267-269.
[9] A careful examination of these tablets has yet to be made; at present we are
without any information as to their probable uses. The authors of the Description
thought it likely that they were meant to receive metal trophies of some kind.
They might have been covered with a painted decoration, or they might have
been intended to be cut into barred windows and left unfinished. In the
photographs the stone of which they are made seems to be different in grain
from the rest of the walls.
[10] Ebers, L'Égypte, du Caire à Philæ, pp. 317-318.
[11] Herodotus, ii. 148; Diodorus Siculus, i. 64; Strabo, xvii. 37.
[12] Description de l'Égypte, vol. iv. p. 478.
[13] Denkmæler, vol. i. plates 46-48. Briefe aus Ægypten, pp. 65-74.
[1] Fergusson (in vol. i. p. 118, of his History of Architecture in all Countries,
etc.) proposes that Karnak should be called a Palace-Temple, or Temple-Palace.
[2] Du Barry de Merval, Études sur l'Architecture Égyptienne (1875), p. 271.
[3] The contrast between the palaces of the East and Versailles is hardly so
strong as M. Perrot seems to suggest. The curious assemblage of buildings of
different ages and styles which forms the eastern façade of the dwelling of Louis
XIV. does not greatly differ in essentials from the confused piles of Delhi or the
old Seraglio.—Ed.
[4] Nestor L'Hôte—a fine connoisseur, who often divined facts which were not
finally demonstrated until after his visit to Egypt—also received this impression
from his examination of the remains at Tell-el-Amarna: "Details no less
interesting make us acquainted with the general arrangement ... of the king's
palaces, the porticos and propylæa by which they were approached, the inner
chambers, the store-houses and offices, the courts, gardens, and artificial lakes;
everything, in fact, which went to make up the royal dwelling-place." Lettres
écrites d'Égypte (in 1838-9; 8vo, 1840); pp. 64-65.
[5] Lettres écrites d'Égypte, p. 62. In some other plans from Tell-el-Amarna,
given by Prisse, several of these altars are given upon a larger scale, showing the
offerings with which they are heaped. One of them has a flight of steps leading
up to it.
[6] In this we are supported by the opinions of Mariette (Itinéraire, p. 213) and
Ebers (L'Égypte, du Caire à Philæ, p. 317).
[7] Itinéraire, p. 213.
[8] See the curious extracts from the Papyrus Anastasi III., given by Maspero,
Histoire Ancienne, pp. 267-269.
[9] A careful examination of these tablets has yet to be made; at present we are
without any information as to their probable uses. The authors of the Description
thought it likely that they were meant to receive metal trophies of some kind.
They might have been covered with a painted decoration, or they might have
been intended to be cut into barred windows and left unfinished. In the
photographs the stone of which they are made seems to be different in grain
from the rest of the walls.
[10] Ebers, L'Égypte, du Caire à Philæ, pp. 317-318.
[11] Herodotus, ii. 148; Diodorus Siculus, i. 64; Strabo, xvii. 37.
[12] Description de l'Égypte, vol. iv. p. 478.
[13] Denkmæler, vol. i. plates 46-48. Briefe aus Ægypten, pp. 65-74.
Page 510
[14] See a remarkable paper on this question contributed by Mr. F. Cope
Whitehouse to the Revue Archéologique for June, 1882.—Ed.
[15] Ebers, Ægypten, p. 174.
[16] Diodorus, i. 31, 6.—Josephus (The Jewish War, ii. 16, 4) speaks of a
population of seven millions and a half, exclusive of the inhabitants of
Alexandria.
[17] Herodotus, ii. 137; Diodorus, i. 57.
[18] Édouard Mariette, Traité pratique et raisonné de la Construction en
Égypte, p. 139.
[19] The first elements for the Restoration of an Egyptian House which Mariette
exhibited in the Universal Exhibition of 1878, were furnished, however, by some
remains at Abydos. These consisted of the bases, to the height of about four feet,
of the walls of a house. The general plan and arrangement of rooms was founded
upon the indications thus obtained; the remainder of the restoration was founded
upon bas-reliefs and paintings. The whole was reproduced in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts of November 1st, 1878, to which M. A. Rhoné (L'Égypte Antique)
contributed an analysis of the elements made use of by Mariette in his attempt to
reconstruct an Egyptian dwelling.
[20] See Brugsch-Bey's topographical sketch of a part of ancient Thebes in the
Revue archéologique of M. E. Revillout, 1880 (plates 12 and 13).
[21] See, in the Revue archéologique, the Données géographiques et
topographiques sur Thébes extraites par MM. Brugsch et Revillout des Contrats
démotiques et des Pièces corrélatives, p. 177.
[22] E. Revillout, Taricheutes et Choachytes (in the Zeitschrift für Ægyptische
Sprache und Alterthumskunde, 1879 and 1880).
[23] In the Egyptian language, buildings like the Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou
were called Mennou, or buildings designed to preserve some name from
oblivion. This word the Greeks turned into μεμνόνια, because they thought that
the term mennou was identical with the Homeric hero Memnon, to whom they
also attributed the two famous colossi in the plain of Thebes. Ebers, Ægypten, p.
280.
[24] Diodorus (i. 45, 4) talks of a circumference of 140 stades (28,315 yards),
without telling us whether his measurement applies to the whole of Thebes, or
only to the city on the right bank. Strabo (xvii. 46) says that "an idea of the size
of the ancient city may be formed from the fact that its existing monuments
cover a space which is not less than 80 stades (16,180 yards) in length (τὸ
μῆκος)." This latter statement indicates a circumference much greater than that
given by Diodorus. Diodorus (i. 50, 4) gives to Memphis a circumference of
150 stades (30,337 yards, or 17-1/4 miles).
[25] Diodorus, i. 45, 5.
[26] In a tale translated by M. Maspero (Études Égyptiennes, 1879, p. 10), a
princess is shut up in a house of which the windows are 70 cubits (about 105
Whitehouse to the Revue Archéologique for June, 1882.—Ed.
[15] Ebers, Ægypten, p. 174.
[16] Diodorus, i. 31, 6.—Josephus (The Jewish War, ii. 16, 4) speaks of a
population of seven millions and a half, exclusive of the inhabitants of
Alexandria.
[17] Herodotus, ii. 137; Diodorus, i. 57.
[18] Édouard Mariette, Traité pratique et raisonné de la Construction en
Égypte, p. 139.
[19] The first elements for the Restoration of an Egyptian House which Mariette
exhibited in the Universal Exhibition of 1878, were furnished, however, by some
remains at Abydos. These consisted of the bases, to the height of about four feet,
of the walls of a house. The general plan and arrangement of rooms was founded
upon the indications thus obtained; the remainder of the restoration was founded
upon bas-reliefs and paintings. The whole was reproduced in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts of November 1st, 1878, to which M. A. Rhoné (L'Égypte Antique)
contributed an analysis of the elements made use of by Mariette in his attempt to
reconstruct an Egyptian dwelling.
[20] See Brugsch-Bey's topographical sketch of a part of ancient Thebes in the
Revue archéologique of M. E. Revillout, 1880 (plates 12 and 13).
[21] See, in the Revue archéologique, the Données géographiques et
topographiques sur Thébes extraites par MM. Brugsch et Revillout des Contrats
démotiques et des Pièces corrélatives, p. 177.
[22] E. Revillout, Taricheutes et Choachytes (in the Zeitschrift für Ægyptische
Sprache und Alterthumskunde, 1879 and 1880).
[23] In the Egyptian language, buildings like the Ramesseum and Medinet-Abou
were called Mennou, or buildings designed to preserve some name from
oblivion. This word the Greeks turned into μεμνόνια, because they thought that
the term mennou was identical with the Homeric hero Memnon, to whom they
also attributed the two famous colossi in the plain of Thebes. Ebers, Ægypten, p.
280.
[24] Diodorus (i. 45, 4) talks of a circumference of 140 stades (28,315 yards),
without telling us whether his measurement applies to the whole of Thebes, or
only to the city on the right bank. Strabo (xvii. 46) says that "an idea of the size
of the ancient city may be formed from the fact that its existing monuments
cover a space which is not less than 80 stades (16,180 yards) in length (τὸ
μῆκος)." This latter statement indicates a circumference much greater than that
given by Diodorus. Diodorus (i. 50, 4) gives to Memphis a circumference of
150 stades (30,337 yards, or 17-1/4 miles).
[25] Diodorus, i. 45, 5.
[26] In a tale translated by M. Maspero (Études Égyptiennes, 1879, p. 10), a
princess is shut up in a house of which the windows are 70 cubits (about 105
Page 511
feet) above the ground. She is to be given to him who is bold and skilful enough
to scale her windows. Such a height must therefore have seemed quite fabulous
to the Egyptians, as did that of the tower which is so common in our popular
fairy stories.
[27] In M. Maspero's translated Roman de Satni (Annuaire de l'Association pour
l'Encouragement des Études grecques, 1878), the house in Bubastis inhabited by
the daughter of a priest of high rank is thus described: "Satni proceeded towards
the west of the town until he came to a very high house. It had a wall round it; a
garden on the north side; a flight of steps before the door."
[28] Quintus Curtius, v. 1, 127.
[29] Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i. p.
377.
[30] We have borrowed this short description from a Review of M.
Gailhabaud's Monuments anciens et modernes, Style Égyptien. Maisons. Those
who require further details may consult Chapter V. of Sir Gardner Wilkinson's
Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians.
[31] Herodotus (ii. 95) says that they did so in the marshy parts of Lower
Egypt.
[32] It is difficult to say what the artist meant by the little oblong mark under
these windows. Perhaps it represents an outside balcony by which the window
could be reached either for the purposes of inspection or in order to add to the
store within.
[33] These trees must have been planted in large terra-cotta pots, such as are still
used in many places for the same purpose.
[34] Diodorus, i. 45, 6.
[35] Thucydides, i. 104. Cf. Herodotus, iii. 94, and Diodorus, xi. 74. After the
Persian conquest it was occupied by the army corps left to ensure the submission
of the country.
[36] Plate 55 of the first volume of Lepsius's Denkmæler contains traces of the
enceintes of Sais, Heliopolis, and Tanis. See also the Description de l'Égypte,
Ant., Ch. 21, 23, 24.
[37] At Heliopolis they were 64 feet thick (Description), at Sais 48 feet (ibid.)
while at Tanis they were only 19 feet.
[38] Isambert, Itinéraire de l'Égypte.
[39] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, p. 64.
[40] Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. ii. pl. 100.—Ebers, (Ægypten,) makes the
enceinte of Nekheb a square.
[41] Mariette, Abydos, Description des Fouilles, vol. ii. pp. 46-49, and plate 68.
[42] We have been able to make use, for this reconstruction, of two plans which
only differ in details, and otherwise mutually corroborate each other. One is
to scale her windows. Such a height must therefore have seemed quite fabulous
to the Egyptians, as did that of the tower which is so common in our popular
fairy stories.
[27] In M. Maspero's translated Roman de Satni (Annuaire de l'Association pour
l'Encouragement des Études grecques, 1878), the house in Bubastis inhabited by
the daughter of a priest of high rank is thus described: "Satni proceeded towards
the west of the town until he came to a very high house. It had a wall round it; a
garden on the north side; a flight of steps before the door."
[28] Quintus Curtius, v. 1, 127.
[29] Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i. p.
377.
[30] We have borrowed this short description from a Review of M.
Gailhabaud's Monuments anciens et modernes, Style Égyptien. Maisons. Those
who require further details may consult Chapter V. of Sir Gardner Wilkinson's
Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians.
[31] Herodotus (ii. 95) says that they did so in the marshy parts of Lower
Egypt.
[32] It is difficult to say what the artist meant by the little oblong mark under
these windows. Perhaps it represents an outside balcony by which the window
could be reached either for the purposes of inspection or in order to add to the
store within.
[33] These trees must have been planted in large terra-cotta pots, such as are still
used in many places for the same purpose.
[34] Diodorus, i. 45, 6.
[35] Thucydides, i. 104. Cf. Herodotus, iii. 94, and Diodorus, xi. 74. After the
Persian conquest it was occupied by the army corps left to ensure the submission
of the country.
[36] Plate 55 of the first volume of Lepsius's Denkmæler contains traces of the
enceintes of Sais, Heliopolis, and Tanis. See also the Description de l'Égypte,
Ant., Ch. 21, 23, 24.
[37] At Heliopolis they were 64 feet thick (Description), at Sais 48 feet (ibid.)
while at Tanis they were only 19 feet.
[38] Isambert, Itinéraire de l'Égypte.
[39] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, p. 64.
[40] Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. ii. pl. 100.—Ebers, (Ægypten,) makes the
enceinte of Nekheb a square.
[41] Mariette, Abydos, Description des Fouilles, vol. ii. pp. 46-49, and plate 68.
[42] We have been able to make use, for this reconstruction, of two plans which
only differ in details, and otherwise mutually corroborate each other. One is
Page 512
given by Lepsius, Plate 111, vol. ii. of his Denkmæler; the plans of the two
fortresses are in the middle of his map of the valley where they occur. In plate
112 we have a pictorial view of the ruins and the ground about them. In the
Bulletin archéologique de l'Athenæum Français (1855, pp. 80-84, and plate 5),
M. Vogüé also published a plan of the two forts, accompanied by a section and a
description giving valuable details, details which Lepsius, in his Briefe aus
Ægypten, passed over in silence.
[43] In this case the inclination is, however, in the lower half of the wall; a
device which would be far less efficient in defeating an escalade than that at
Semneh.—Ed.
[44] Both the plate in the Description de l'Égypte (Ant. vol. ii. pl. 31), and that in
Lepsius (part iii. pl. 166), suggest this interpretation.
[45] Lepsius, Briefe aus Ægypten, p. 259.—See also Maspero, Histoire
Ancienne, pp. 111-113.
[46] It is of Mokattam limestone (see vol. i., p. 223). M. Perrot probably meant
to refer to the two upper "chambers," both of which are lined with granite.—Ed.
[47] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 59.
[48] Exodus v. 6-8.
[49] Mariette, Traité pratique et raisonné de la Construction en Égypte, p. 59.
All these operations are shown upon the walls of a tomb at Abd-el-Gournah
(Lepsius, Denkmæler, p. 111, pl. 40). Labourers are seen drawing water from a
basin, digging the earth, carrying it in large jars, mixing it with the water,
pressing the clay into the moulds, finally building walls which are being tested
with a plumb-line by an overseer or foreman (see also Fig. 16).
[50] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, letter-press, p. 179.
[51] Lepsius (Denkmæler, part iii. plates 7, 25A, 26, 39) has reproduced a certain
number of these stamped bricks.
[52] We do not here refer to the kind of maple which is often erroneously called
a sycamore with us, but to a tree of quite a different family and appearance, the
Ficus Sycomorus of Linnæus.
[53] Ed. Mariette, Traité Pratique, etc., p. 95.
[54] In his Histoire de l'Habitation, Viollet-le-Duc has sought to find the
origin of this cornice in an outward curve imparted to the upper extremity of the
reeds of which primitive dwellings were made, and maintained by the weight of
the roof. He published a drawing in justification of his hypothesis. There are,
however, many objections to it. It requires us to admit the general use of the reed
as the material for primitive dwellings. Branches which were ever so little rigid
and firm could not have been so bent, and yet they are often found in the huts to
which we refer. It may even be doubted whether the reeds employed would bear
such a curvature as that of the Egyptian cornice without breaking.
[55] This imitation of wooden roofs was noticed by the savants of the Institut
d'Égypte. They drew a rock-cut tomb in which the ceiling is carved to look like
fortresses are in the middle of his map of the valley where they occur. In plate
112 we have a pictorial view of the ruins and the ground about them. In the
Bulletin archéologique de l'Athenæum Français (1855, pp. 80-84, and plate 5),
M. Vogüé also published a plan of the two forts, accompanied by a section and a
description giving valuable details, details which Lepsius, in his Briefe aus
Ægypten, passed over in silence.
[43] In this case the inclination is, however, in the lower half of the wall; a
device which would be far less efficient in defeating an escalade than that at
Semneh.—Ed.
[44] Both the plate in the Description de l'Égypte (Ant. vol. ii. pl. 31), and that in
Lepsius (part iii. pl. 166), suggest this interpretation.
[45] Lepsius, Briefe aus Ægypten, p. 259.—See also Maspero, Histoire
Ancienne, pp. 111-113.
[46] It is of Mokattam limestone (see vol. i., p. 223). M. Perrot probably meant
to refer to the two upper "chambers," both of which are lined with granite.—Ed.
[47] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 59.
[48] Exodus v. 6-8.
[49] Mariette, Traité pratique et raisonné de la Construction en Égypte, p. 59.
All these operations are shown upon the walls of a tomb at Abd-el-Gournah
(Lepsius, Denkmæler, p. 111, pl. 40). Labourers are seen drawing water from a
basin, digging the earth, carrying it in large jars, mixing it with the water,
pressing the clay into the moulds, finally building walls which are being tested
with a plumb-line by an overseer or foreman (see also Fig. 16).
[50] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, letter-press, p. 179.
[51] Lepsius (Denkmæler, part iii. plates 7, 25A, 26, 39) has reproduced a certain
number of these stamped bricks.
[52] We do not here refer to the kind of maple which is often erroneously called
a sycamore with us, but to a tree of quite a different family and appearance, the
Ficus Sycomorus of Linnæus.
[53] Ed. Mariette, Traité Pratique, etc., p. 95.
[54] In his Histoire de l'Habitation, Viollet-le-Duc has sought to find the
origin of this cornice in an outward curve imparted to the upper extremity of the
reeds of which primitive dwellings were made, and maintained by the weight of
the roof. He published a drawing in justification of his hypothesis. There are,
however, many objections to it. It requires us to admit the general use of the reed
as the material for primitive dwellings. Branches which were ever so little rigid
and firm could not have been so bent, and yet they are often found in the huts to
which we refer. It may even be doubted whether the reeds employed would bear
such a curvature as that of the Egyptian cornice without breaking.
[55] This imitation of wooden roofs was noticed by the savants of the Institut
d'Égypte. They drew a rock-cut tomb in which the ceiling is carved to look like
Page 513
the trunks of palm trees (Description, Antiquités, vol. v. pl. 6, figs. 3, 4, and 5).
See also Baedeker, part i. p. 360.
[56] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[57] This pylon dates from the Ptolemies, but if there was anything that did not
change in Egypt, it was their processes of construction.
[58] This has been well shown by Champollion à propos of one of the Nubian
buildings constructed by the Theban kings. He speaks thus of the hemispeos of
Wadi-Esseboua: "This is the worst piece of work extant from the reign of
Rameses the Great. The stones are ill-cut; their intervals are masked by a layer
of cement over which the sculptured decoration, which is poorly executed, is
continued.... Most of this decoration is now incomprehensible because the
cement upon which a great part of it was carried out, has fallen down and left
many and large gaps in the scenes and inscriptions."—Lettres d'Égypte et de
Nubie, 121.
[59] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 437.
[60] Strabo, xvii. 37.—Lepsius, Briefe aus Ægypten, p. 74.
[61] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 364.
[62] The columns at Luxor are constructed in courses. The joints of the stone are
worked carefully for only about a third of their whole diameter. Their centres are
slightly hollowed out and filled in with a mortar of pounded brick which has
become friable. (Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 384.)
[63] See p. 29, vol. i. (Note 1) and p. 170. The engineers who edited the
Description make similar remarks with regard to Karnak. (Antiquités, vol. ii. pp.
414 and 500.)
[64] Mariette, Itinéraire, p. 179. The pavement of the great temple is now
about six feet below the general level of the surrounding plain.
[65] Mariette, Les Tombes de l'Ancien Empire, p. 10.
[66] Mariette, Abydos, vol. i. p. 8.—Catalogue général des Monuments
d'Abydos, p. 585. Similar tenons were found by the members of the Institut
d'Égypte in the walls of the great hall at Karnak (Description de l'Égypte,
Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 442.—See also Plates, vol. ii. pl. 57, figs. 1 and 2). We took
this illustration for our guide in compiling our diagram of Egyptian bonding in
Fig. 69.
[67] Description de l'Égypte, Ant., vol. v. p. 153. Jomard, Recueil
d'Observations et de Mémoires sur l'Égypte Ancienne et Moderne, vol. iv. p. 41.
[68] Mariette, Karnak, p. 18.
[69] This is clearly indicated by Diodorus (i. 63, 66): τὴν κατασκευὴν διὰ
χωμάτων γενέσθαι.
[70] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii. p. 309. In speaking of the
pyramids Herodotus mentions what seems to have been a kind of crane, but he
See also Baedeker, part i. p. 360.
[56] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[57] This pylon dates from the Ptolemies, but if there was anything that did not
change in Egypt, it was their processes of construction.
[58] This has been well shown by Champollion à propos of one of the Nubian
buildings constructed by the Theban kings. He speaks thus of the hemispeos of
Wadi-Esseboua: "This is the worst piece of work extant from the reign of
Rameses the Great. The stones are ill-cut; their intervals are masked by a layer
of cement over which the sculptured decoration, which is poorly executed, is
continued.... Most of this decoration is now incomprehensible because the
cement upon which a great part of it was carried out, has fallen down and left
many and large gaps in the scenes and inscriptions."—Lettres d'Égypte et de
Nubie, 121.
[59] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 437.
[60] Strabo, xvii. 37.—Lepsius, Briefe aus Ægypten, p. 74.
[61] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 364.
[62] The columns at Luxor are constructed in courses. The joints of the stone are
worked carefully for only about a third of their whole diameter. Their centres are
slightly hollowed out and filled in with a mortar of pounded brick which has
become friable. (Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 384.)
[63] See p. 29, vol. i. (Note 1) and p. 170. The engineers who edited the
Description make similar remarks with regard to Karnak. (Antiquités, vol. ii. pp.
414 and 500.)
[64] Mariette, Itinéraire, p. 179. The pavement of the great temple is now
about six feet below the general level of the surrounding plain.
[65] Mariette, Les Tombes de l'Ancien Empire, p. 10.
[66] Mariette, Abydos, vol. i. p. 8.—Catalogue général des Monuments
d'Abydos, p. 585. Similar tenons were found by the members of the Institut
d'Égypte in the walls of the great hall at Karnak (Description de l'Égypte,
Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 442.—See also Plates, vol. ii. pl. 57, figs. 1 and 2). We took
this illustration for our guide in compiling our diagram of Egyptian bonding in
Fig. 69.
[67] Description de l'Égypte, Ant., vol. v. p. 153. Jomard, Recueil
d'Observations et de Mémoires sur l'Égypte Ancienne et Moderne, vol. iv. p. 41.
[68] Mariette, Karnak, p. 18.
[69] This is clearly indicated by Diodorus (i. 63, 66): τὴν κατασκευὴν διὰ
χωμάτων γενέσθαι.
[70] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii. p. 309. In speaking of the
pyramids Herodotus mentions what seems to have been a kind of crane, but he
Page 514
gives us no information as to its principle or arrangement (ii. 125).
[71] The painting in question dates from the reign of Ousourtesen II. and was
found at El-Bercheh, a short distance above the ruins of Antinoë.
[72] The position of this man and the general probabilities of the case suggest
perhaps, that his jar contains oil rather than water.—Ed.
[73] Brugsch, Histoire d'Égypte, vol. i. pp. 74 et seq.
[74] We agree with Wilkinson in taking for the height that which Herodotus calls
the length. In all monuments of the kind the height is the largest measurement.
Herodotus's phrase is easily explained. The monolith appears to have been lying
in front of the temple into which they had failed to introduce it. (κείται παρὰ τὴν
ἔσοδον, he says). Its height had thus become its length.
[75] Herodotus, ii. 155.
[76] The text in question is quoted in the notes contributed by Dr. Birch to the
last edition of Wilkinson (vol. ii. p. 308, note 2). Pliny's remarks upon the
obelisks are intersprinkled with fabulous stories and contain no useful
information (H. N., xxxvi. 14).
[77] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne. (The dates upon which
this assertion depends have been disputed. M. Chabas reads the inscription
"from the first of Muchir in the year 16, to the last of Mesore in 17," making
nineteen months in all, a period which is not quite so impossible as that
ordinarily quoted.—Ed.)
[78] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, pp. 261 and 262.
[79] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. i. pp. 357-358: vol. ii. pp. 262,
298-299.
[80] P. 148.
[81] "An arch never sleeps" says the Arab proverb.
[82] Denkmæler, part i. pl. 94.
[83] Ramée, Histoire générale de l'Architecture, vol. i. p. 262.
[84] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, p. 174.—Mariette (Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. pp. 59-60) was struck by a similar arrangement. "Murray's
Guide," he says, "tells us, in speaking of Dayr-el-Medineh, that the walls which
inclose the courts of this temple present a striking peculiarity of construction.
Their bricks are laid in concave-convex courses which rise and fall alternately
over the whole length of the walls." This curious arrangement deserved to be
noticed, but Dayr-el-Medineh is not the only place where it is to be found. The
bounding wall of the temple of Osiris at Abydos affords another instance of it. It
should also be noticed that the problem offered to us by such a mode of building
is complicated by the fact that, in the quay at Esneh and in some parts of the
temple of Philæ, it is combined with the use of very large sandstone blocks.
[71] The painting in question dates from the reign of Ousourtesen II. and was
found at El-Bercheh, a short distance above the ruins of Antinoë.
[72] The position of this man and the general probabilities of the case suggest
perhaps, that his jar contains oil rather than water.—Ed.
[73] Brugsch, Histoire d'Égypte, vol. i. pp. 74 et seq.
[74] We agree with Wilkinson in taking for the height that which Herodotus calls
the length. In all monuments of the kind the height is the largest measurement.
Herodotus's phrase is easily explained. The monolith appears to have been lying
in front of the temple into which they had failed to introduce it. (κείται παρὰ τὴν
ἔσοδον, he says). Its height had thus become its length.
[75] Herodotus, ii. 155.
[76] The text in question is quoted in the notes contributed by Dr. Birch to the
last edition of Wilkinson (vol. ii. p. 308, note 2). Pliny's remarks upon the
obelisks are intersprinkled with fabulous stories and contain no useful
information (H. N., xxxvi. 14).
[77] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne. (The dates upon which
this assertion depends have been disputed. M. Chabas reads the inscription
"from the first of Muchir in the year 16, to the last of Mesore in 17," making
nineteen months in all, a period which is not quite so impossible as that
ordinarily quoted.—Ed.)
[78] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, pp. 261 and 262.
[79] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. i. pp. 357-358: vol. ii. pp. 262,
298-299.
[80] P. 148.
[81] "An arch never sleeps" says the Arab proverb.
[82] Denkmæler, part i. pl. 94.
[83] Ramée, Histoire générale de l'Architecture, vol. i. p. 262.
[84] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, p. 174.—Mariette (Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. pp. 59-60) was struck by a similar arrangement. "Murray's
Guide," he says, "tells us, in speaking of Dayr-el-Medineh, that the walls which
inclose the courts of this temple present a striking peculiarity of construction.
Their bricks are laid in concave-convex courses which rise and fall alternately
over the whole length of the walls." This curious arrangement deserved to be
noticed, but Dayr-el-Medineh is not the only place where it is to be found. The
bounding wall of the temple of Osiris at Abydos affords another instance of it. It
should also be noticed that the problem offered to us by such a mode of building
is complicated by the fact that, in the quay at Esneh and in some parts of the
temple of Philæ, it is combined with the use of very large sandstone blocks.
Page 515
[85] Viollet-le-Duc, Histoire de l'Habitation humaine, pp. 85-88. Alberti and
other Renaissance architects recommended this method of construction for
building upon a soft surface. (L'Architettura di Leon Batista Alberti, tradotta in
lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Venice, 1565, 4to, p. 70.)
[86] See p. 110, Vol. I., and Figs. 74, 75, 76.
[87] See p. 111, Vol. I., et seq.
[88] See also pp. 385-392, Vol. I. and Fig. 224.—Our perspective has been
compiled from the Description de l'Égypte, from Mariette's work and from
photographs.
[89] See Chapter II. vol. i.
[90] These slender columns with lotiform capitals are figured in considerable
number in the tomb of Ti. Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. pl. 10.
[91] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii., p. 186. All this passage of Ebers is, however,
nothing more than an epitome of a paper by Lepsius, entitled: Ueber einige
Ægyptische Kunstformen und ihre Entwickelung (in the Transactions of the
Berlin Academy, 1871, 4to). This paper contains many just observations and
ingenious notions; but, to our mind it is over systematized, and its theories
cannot all be accepted.
[92] See Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, pp. 359, 360.
[93] Ibid.
[94] At Dayr-el-Bahari there are some pillars of the same shape but engaged in
the wall. They support groups—carved in stone and painted—comprising a
hawk, a vulture, cynocephali, and so on. They are in the passage which leads to
the north-western speos. Their total height, inclusive of the animals which
surmount them, is nearly 18 feet, of which the groups make up nearly a third.
The lower part is ornamented by mouldings in the shape of panels. These
pilasters should be more carefully studied and reproduced if they still exist: the
sketches from which we have described them were made some fifteen years ago.
In that monument of Egyptian sculpture which is, perhaps, the oldest of all,
namely, the bas-relief engraved by Seneferu upon the rocks of Wadi-Maghara, a
hawk crowned with the pschent stands before the conqueror upon a quadrangular
pier which has panels marked upon it in the same fashion as at Dayr-el-Bahari.
[95] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii., p. 184.
[96] Chipiez, Histoire critique des Origines et de la Formation des Ordres
Grecques, p. 44.
[97] Mariette has shown this clearly in his Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte (p.
52). "This light column or shaft was not abandoned, it reappeared in stone ... it
reappeared to give birth to the great faggot-shaped column which rivalled the
pier in size, solidity, and weight. This column, with its capital in the shape of a
lotus-bud or flower, is seen in its full development at Karnak, at Luxor, and in
the first temple of the New Empire."
[98] Ebers, L'Égypte, p. 185.
other Renaissance architects recommended this method of construction for
building upon a soft surface. (L'Architettura di Leon Batista Alberti, tradotta in
lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Venice, 1565, 4to, p. 70.)
[86] See p. 110, Vol. I., and Figs. 74, 75, 76.
[87] See p. 111, Vol. I., et seq.
[88] See also pp. 385-392, Vol. I. and Fig. 224.—Our perspective has been
compiled from the Description de l'Égypte, from Mariette's work and from
photographs.
[89] See Chapter II. vol. i.
[90] These slender columns with lotiform capitals are figured in considerable
number in the tomb of Ti. Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. pl. 10.
[91] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii., p. 186. All this passage of Ebers is, however,
nothing more than an epitome of a paper by Lepsius, entitled: Ueber einige
Ægyptische Kunstformen und ihre Entwickelung (in the Transactions of the
Berlin Academy, 1871, 4to). This paper contains many just observations and
ingenious notions; but, to our mind it is over systematized, and its theories
cannot all be accepted.
[92] See Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, pp. 359, 360.
[93] Ibid.
[94] At Dayr-el-Bahari there are some pillars of the same shape but engaged in
the wall. They support groups—carved in stone and painted—comprising a
hawk, a vulture, cynocephali, and so on. They are in the passage which leads to
the north-western speos. Their total height, inclusive of the animals which
surmount them, is nearly 18 feet, of which the groups make up nearly a third.
The lower part is ornamented by mouldings in the shape of panels. These
pilasters should be more carefully studied and reproduced if they still exist: the
sketches from which we have described them were made some fifteen years ago.
In that monument of Egyptian sculpture which is, perhaps, the oldest of all,
namely, the bas-relief engraved by Seneferu upon the rocks of Wadi-Maghara, a
hawk crowned with the pschent stands before the conqueror upon a quadrangular
pier which has panels marked upon it in the same fashion as at Dayr-el-Bahari.
[95] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii., p. 184.
[96] Chipiez, Histoire critique des Origines et de la Formation des Ordres
Grecques, p. 44.
[97] Mariette has shown this clearly in his Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte (p.
52). "This light column or shaft was not abandoned, it reappeared in stone ... it
reappeared to give birth to the great faggot-shaped column which rivalled the
pier in size, solidity, and weight. This column, with its capital in the shape of a
lotus-bud or flower, is seen in its full development at Karnak, at Luxor, and in
the first temple of the New Empire."
[98] Ebers, L'Égypte, p. 185.
Page 516
[99] We shall call attention, however, to a hypogeum at Gizeh, which is
numbered 81 in Lepsius's map of that tomb-field. As at Beni-Hassan the
chamber is preceded by a portico. In Lepsius's drawing (vol. i. pl. 27, fig. 1), the
columns of this portico are campaniform.
[100] See also p. 396, Vol. I., and Fig. 230.
[101] There is no pier at Medinet-Abou in so perfect a condition as that figured
by us. In order to complete our restoration, for so it is, we had the use of
drawings which had been made long ago and of excellent photographs, and by
combining one figure with another we obtained all the details necessary.
[102] See Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[103] The slabs of which the roof is formed are grooved on their upper surfaces
at their lines of junction (see Fig. 92), a curious feature which recurs in other
Egyptian buildings, but has never been satisfactorily explained.
[104] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part i. pl. 81.
[105] Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 40. In the Description de l'Égypte (Antiquités, vol. ii.
p. 474), we find this shape accounted for by opposition of two lotus-flowers, one
above another. Such an explanation could only be offered by one who had a
theory to serve.
[106] Extract from a letter of M. Brugsch, published by Hittorf in the Athenæum
Français, 1854, p. 153.
[107] A good idea of this can be gained from the building known as Pharaoh's
bed, at Philæ. It is shown on the right of our sketch at p. 431, Vol. I.
[108] These upstanding flowers and stalks form the distinguishing characteristic
of the Nelumbo species.
[109] Herodotus, ii. 92.
[110] For the different species of the lotus and their characteristics see
Description de l'Égypte, Hist. Naturelle, vol. ii. pp. 303-313 and Atlas, plates 60
and 61.—In the Recueil de Travaux, etc., vol. i. p. 190, there is a note by M.
Victor Loret upon the Egyptian names for the lotus.
[111] Strabo, xvii. 1, 15.—Diodorus, i. 34.
[112] Strabo, xvii. 1, 15.
[113] Strabo only speaks of ten feet, which would agree better with modern
experience.
[114] Diodorus, i. 80.
[115] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne, see Papyrus. Upon the
different varieties of papyrus, see also Wilkinson, vol. ii. p. 121; pp. 179-189;
and Ebers, Ægypten, pp. 126, 127.
[116] Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vol. xix. p. 140, with one plate.
numbered 81 in Lepsius's map of that tomb-field. As at Beni-Hassan the
chamber is preceded by a portico. In Lepsius's drawing (vol. i. pl. 27, fig. 1), the
columns of this portico are campaniform.
[100] See also p. 396, Vol. I., and Fig. 230.
[101] There is no pier at Medinet-Abou in so perfect a condition as that figured
by us. In order to complete our restoration, for so it is, we had the use of
drawings which had been made long ago and of excellent photographs, and by
combining one figure with another we obtained all the details necessary.
[102] See Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[103] The slabs of which the roof is formed are grooved on their upper surfaces
at their lines of junction (see Fig. 92), a curious feature which recurs in other
Egyptian buildings, but has never been satisfactorily explained.
[104] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part i. pl. 81.
[105] Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 40. In the Description de l'Égypte (Antiquités, vol. ii.
p. 474), we find this shape accounted for by opposition of two lotus-flowers, one
above another. Such an explanation could only be offered by one who had a
theory to serve.
[106] Extract from a letter of M. Brugsch, published by Hittorf in the Athenæum
Français, 1854, p. 153.
[107] A good idea of this can be gained from the building known as Pharaoh's
bed, at Philæ. It is shown on the right of our sketch at p. 431, Vol. I.
[108] These upstanding flowers and stalks form the distinguishing characteristic
of the Nelumbo species.
[109] Herodotus, ii. 92.
[110] For the different species of the lotus and their characteristics see
Description de l'Égypte, Hist. Naturelle, vol. ii. pp. 303-313 and Atlas, plates 60
and 61.—In the Recueil de Travaux, etc., vol. i. p. 190, there is a note by M.
Victor Loret upon the Egyptian names for the lotus.
[111] Strabo, xvii. 1, 15.—Diodorus, i. 34.
[112] Strabo, xvii. 1, 15.
[113] Strabo only speaks of ten feet, which would agree better with modern
experience.
[114] Diodorus, i. 80.
[115] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne, see Papyrus. Upon the
different varieties of papyrus, see also Wilkinson, vol. ii. p. 121; pp. 179-189;
and Ebers, Ægypten, pp. 126, 127.
[116] Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vol. xix. p. 140, with one plate.
Page 517
[117] Egger, Des Origines de la Prose dans la Littérature Grecque. (Mémoires
de Littérature Ancienne, xi.)
[118] Maspero, Histoire Ancienne, p. 8.
[119] Description de l'Égypte; Hist. Naturelle, vol. ii. p. 311. Antiquités, vol. i.
Description générale de Thèbes, p. 133: "Who can doubt that they wished to
imitate the lotus in its entirety? The shaft of the column is the stem, the capital
the flower, and, still more obviously, the lower part of the column seems to us an
exact representation of that of the lotus and of plants in general."
[120] Chapter iv. pp. 396-400, Vol. I.
[121] Description de l'Égypte, plates, vol. iii. pl. 5.
[122] This is a mistake. By a reference to Fig. 208, Vol. I., or to Fig. 126 in this
volume, it will be seen that the peristyle was not continued along the inner face
of the pylon.—Ed.
[123] The arrangement in question is capable of another and, perhaps, more
simple explanation. The two rows of columns of which the portico in question is
composed, run in an unbroken line round the court with the exception of the side
which is filled by the pylon. It was natural enough, therefore, that they should
each be stopped against an anta, even if there had not been an additional reason
in the inclination of the pylon. The ordonnance as a whole may be compared to a
long portico, like that in the second court of the temple at Gournah, bent into two
right angles.—Ed.
[124] In this the Greek architects took the same course as those of Egypt.
[125] Description, Antiquités, vol. v. pp. 120, 121. In their Description Générale
de Thèbes (ch. ix. section 8, § 2), the same writers add: "We are confirmed in our
opinion by the discovery on a bas-relief of four lotus stems with their flowers
surmounted by hawks and statues, and placed exactly in the same fashion as the
columns which we have just described. They are votive columns. We are also
confirmed in this opinion by the fact that we find things like them among those
amulets which reproduce the various objects in the temples in small." This bas-
relief is figured in the third volume of plates of the Description, pl. 33, Fig. 1.
[126] Mariette, Karnak, p. 19, pl. 4. Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, pp. 13, 21,
22.
[127] This explanation seems to have been accepted by Prof. Ebers; Ægypten im
Bild und Wort, vol. ii. p. 331.
[128] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, p. 251.
[129] The Description de l'Égypte indicates the existence of this pluteus both in
the Ramesseum (vol. ii. pl. 29) and at Medinet-Abou (vol. ii. pl. 7, Fig. 2).
Photographs do not show a trace of it, but many parts of those buildings had
disappeared before the beginning of the present century. There is no reason to
suppose that the Ramesseum underwent any modification after the termination
of the Theban supremacy. In his restoration of Dayr-el-Bahari, M. Brune has
introduced a similar detail, which he would assuredly not have done unless he
de Littérature Ancienne, xi.)
[118] Maspero, Histoire Ancienne, p. 8.
[119] Description de l'Égypte; Hist. Naturelle, vol. ii. p. 311. Antiquités, vol. i.
Description générale de Thèbes, p. 133: "Who can doubt that they wished to
imitate the lotus in its entirety? The shaft of the column is the stem, the capital
the flower, and, still more obviously, the lower part of the column seems to us an
exact representation of that of the lotus and of plants in general."
[120] Chapter iv. pp. 396-400, Vol. I.
[121] Description de l'Égypte, plates, vol. iii. pl. 5.
[122] This is a mistake. By a reference to Fig. 208, Vol. I., or to Fig. 126 in this
volume, it will be seen that the peristyle was not continued along the inner face
of the pylon.—Ed.
[123] The arrangement in question is capable of another and, perhaps, more
simple explanation. The two rows of columns of which the portico in question is
composed, run in an unbroken line round the court with the exception of the side
which is filled by the pylon. It was natural enough, therefore, that they should
each be stopped against an anta, even if there had not been an additional reason
in the inclination of the pylon. The ordonnance as a whole may be compared to a
long portico, like that in the second court of the temple at Gournah, bent into two
right angles.—Ed.
[124] In this the Greek architects took the same course as those of Egypt.
[125] Description, Antiquités, vol. v. pp. 120, 121. In their Description Générale
de Thèbes (ch. ix. section 8, § 2), the same writers add: "We are confirmed in our
opinion by the discovery on a bas-relief of four lotus stems with their flowers
surmounted by hawks and statues, and placed exactly in the same fashion as the
columns which we have just described. They are votive columns. We are also
confirmed in this opinion by the fact that we find things like them among those
amulets which reproduce the various objects in the temples in small." This bas-
relief is figured in the third volume of plates of the Description, pl. 33, Fig. 1.
[126] Mariette, Karnak, p. 19, pl. 4. Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, pp. 13, 21,
22.
[127] This explanation seems to have been accepted by Prof. Ebers; Ægypten im
Bild und Wort, vol. ii. p. 331.
[128] Maxime du Camp, Le Nil, p. 251.
[129] The Description de l'Égypte indicates the existence of this pluteus both in
the Ramesseum (vol. ii. pl. 29) and at Medinet-Abou (vol. ii. pl. 7, Fig. 2).
Photographs do not show a trace of it, but many parts of those buildings had
disappeared before the beginning of the present century. There is no reason to
suppose that the Ramesseum underwent any modification after the termination
of the Theban supremacy. In his restoration of Dayr-el-Bahari, M. Brune has
introduced a similar detail, which he would assuredly not have done unless he
Page 518
had found traces of it under the portico. Unfortunately his restoration is on a
very small scale. That at Dayr-el-Bahari must have been the earliest example of
such an arrangement.
[130] The history and signification of this symbol were treated by Brugsch in a
paper entitled: "Die Sage von der geflügelten Sonnenscheibe nach alt
Ægyptischen Quellen dargestellt."
[131] In this restricted and comparatively mean form the emblem in question is
found at Beni-Hassan. (Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 123.)
[132] Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. ii. pl. 83, and vol. v. pl. 56.
[133] See Chipiez, Histoire Critique des Ordres Grecques, p. 90.
[134] Lettres, pp. 68, 117.
[135] See the plate in Prisse entitled Details de Colonnettes de Bois.
[136] From Champollion, Grammaire Égyptienne, p. 53.
[137] Ebers, Ægypten, p. 250.
[138] Felix Teynard, Vues d'Égypte et de Nubie, pl. 106.
[139] Monuments de l'Égypte et de la Nubie, Notices Descriptives, p. 504.
[140] Notices Descriptives, p. 431.
[141] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien.
[142] Notices Descriptives, p. 332, fig. 2.
[143] In front of the sphinxes which stand before the great pylon at Karnak there
are two small obelisks of sandstone.
[144] The Italians call them guglie, needles, and the Arabs micellet Faraoun,
Pharaoh's needles. The obelisks now in London and New York respectively,
which were taken by the Romans from the ruins of Heliopolis, in order to be
erected in front of the Cæsareum at Alexandria, were known as Cleopatra's
Needles. Herodotus only used the expression, ὀβελός. Ἐν τῷ τεμένει ὀβελοὶ
ἑστάσι μεγάλοι λίθινοι (ii. 172; also ii. 111).
[145] Diodorus (i. 57, 59), always uses the word ὀβελίσκος. The termination is
certainly that of a diminutive. See Ad. Regnier, Traité de la Formation des Mots
dans la Langue Grecque, p. 207.
[146] De Rougé, Étude sur les Monuments de Karnak.
[147] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[148] A small funerary obelisk, about two feet high, is now in the museum of
Berlin. It is figured in the Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 88. It was found in a Gizeh
tomb dating from the fifth dynasty.
[149] Mariette, Monuments Divers, pl. 50. The obelisks illustrated in this
chapter are all drawn to the same scale in order to facilitate comparison.
very small scale. That at Dayr-el-Bahari must have been the earliest example of
such an arrangement.
[130] The history and signification of this symbol were treated by Brugsch in a
paper entitled: "Die Sage von der geflügelten Sonnenscheibe nach alt
Ægyptischen Quellen dargestellt."
[131] In this restricted and comparatively mean form the emblem in question is
found at Beni-Hassan. (Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 123.)
[132] Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. ii. pl. 83, and vol. v. pl. 56.
[133] See Chipiez, Histoire Critique des Ordres Grecques, p. 90.
[134] Lettres, pp. 68, 117.
[135] See the plate in Prisse entitled Details de Colonnettes de Bois.
[136] From Champollion, Grammaire Égyptienne, p. 53.
[137] Ebers, Ægypten, p. 250.
[138] Felix Teynard, Vues d'Égypte et de Nubie, pl. 106.
[139] Monuments de l'Égypte et de la Nubie, Notices Descriptives, p. 504.
[140] Notices Descriptives, p. 431.
[141] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien.
[142] Notices Descriptives, p. 332, fig. 2.
[143] In front of the sphinxes which stand before the great pylon at Karnak there
are two small obelisks of sandstone.
[144] The Italians call them guglie, needles, and the Arabs micellet Faraoun,
Pharaoh's needles. The obelisks now in London and New York respectively,
which were taken by the Romans from the ruins of Heliopolis, in order to be
erected in front of the Cæsareum at Alexandria, were known as Cleopatra's
Needles. Herodotus only used the expression, ὀβελός. Ἐν τῷ τεμένει ὀβελοὶ
ἑστάσι μεγάλοι λίθινοι (ii. 172; also ii. 111).
[145] Diodorus (i. 57, 59), always uses the word ὀβελίσκος. The termination is
certainly that of a diminutive. See Ad. Regnier, Traité de la Formation des Mots
dans la Langue Grecque, p. 207.
[146] De Rougé, Étude sur les Monuments de Karnak.
[147] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne.
[148] A small funerary obelisk, about two feet high, is now in the museum of
Berlin. It is figured in the Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 88. It was found in a Gizeh
tomb dating from the fifth dynasty.
[149] Mariette, Monuments Divers, pl. 50. The obelisks illustrated in this
chapter are all drawn to the same scale in order to facilitate comparison.
Page 519
[150] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., p. 396.
[151] Diodorus, i. 57.
[152] Recent measurement has shown that the height given on page 105, Vol. I.,
is incorrect.—Ed.
[153] In the Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne of M. Pierret, a translation
of the hieroglyphics upon one side of the Paris obelisk will be found under the
word Obélisque. The Athenæum for October 27, 1877, contains a complete
translation of the inscription upon the London obelisk, by Dr. Birch.—Ed.
[154] Monuments Divers, pl. 50.
[155] Description, Antiquites, vol. ii. pp. 371-373. In our view of Luxor on page
345 we have restored the base of the larger obelisk after that belonging to the
one now at Paris. We were without any other means of ascertaining its form.
[156] Precis sur les Pyramidions de Bronze doré Employés par les Anciens
Égyptiens comme couronnement de quelques-uns de leurs Obélisques, etc. J. J.
Hittorf, 8vo, 1836.
[157] Abd-al-latif, Relation de l'Égypte; French translation by Silvestre de
Sacy, published in 4to, in 1810, p. 181.—Ed.
[158] Mariette, Itinéraire de la Haute-Égypte, third edition, p. 142.
[159] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 369.—Charles Blanc, Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte, p. 150.
[160] For an interesting description of the present state and curious situation of
this obelisk, see The Land of Khemi, by Laurence Oliphant, pp. 98-100,
(Blackwood. 1882).—Ed.
[161] Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 119.
[162] Description, Antiquités, ch. 23.—M. Edouard Naville has recently (June
16, 1882) published in the Journal de Genève an account of a visit to these ruins,
during which he counted the fragments of no less than fourteen obelisks, some
of them of extraordinary size.—Ed.
[163] The sculptor who made the two famous colossi of Amenophis III. had the
same name as his master, Amenhotep. (Brugsch, History, 1st edition, vol. i. pp.
425-6). Iritesen, who worked for Menthouthotep II. in the time of the first
Theban Empire, was a worker in stone, gold, silver, ivory, and ebony. He held a
place, he tells us, at the bottom of the king's heart, and was his joy from morning
till night. (Maspero, la Stèle C. 14 du Louvre, in the Transactions of the Society
of Biblical Archæology, vol. v. part ii. 1877.)
[164] See Notice des Principaux Monuments exposés dans le Musée de Boulak,
1876, No. 458.
[165] Devéria, Bakenkhonsou (Revue Archéologique, new series, vi. p. 101).
[166] Brugsch, History of Egypt (English edition), vol. i. p. 47. Ti, whose
splendid tomb has been so often mentioned, was "First Commissioner of Works"
[151] Diodorus, i. 57.
[152] Recent measurement has shown that the height given on page 105, Vol. I.,
is incorrect.—Ed.
[153] In the Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne of M. Pierret, a translation
of the hieroglyphics upon one side of the Paris obelisk will be found under the
word Obélisque. The Athenæum for October 27, 1877, contains a complete
translation of the inscription upon the London obelisk, by Dr. Birch.—Ed.
[154] Monuments Divers, pl. 50.
[155] Description, Antiquites, vol. ii. pp. 371-373. In our view of Luxor on page
345 we have restored the base of the larger obelisk after that belonging to the
one now at Paris. We were without any other means of ascertaining its form.
[156] Precis sur les Pyramidions de Bronze doré Employés par les Anciens
Égyptiens comme couronnement de quelques-uns de leurs Obélisques, etc. J. J.
Hittorf, 8vo, 1836.
[157] Abd-al-latif, Relation de l'Égypte; French translation by Silvestre de
Sacy, published in 4to, in 1810, p. 181.—Ed.
[158] Mariette, Itinéraire de la Haute-Égypte, third edition, p. 142.
[159] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 369.—Charles Blanc, Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte, p. 150.
[160] For an interesting description of the present state and curious situation of
this obelisk, see The Land of Khemi, by Laurence Oliphant, pp. 98-100,
(Blackwood. 1882).—Ed.
[161] Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 119.
[162] Description, Antiquités, ch. 23.—M. Edouard Naville has recently (June
16, 1882) published in the Journal de Genève an account of a visit to these ruins,
during which he counted the fragments of no less than fourteen obelisks, some
of them of extraordinary size.—Ed.
[163] The sculptor who made the two famous colossi of Amenophis III. had the
same name as his master, Amenhotep. (Brugsch, History, 1st edition, vol. i. pp.
425-6). Iritesen, who worked for Menthouthotep II. in the time of the first
Theban Empire, was a worker in stone, gold, silver, ivory, and ebony. He held a
place, he tells us, at the bottom of the king's heart, and was his joy from morning
till night. (Maspero, la Stèle C. 14 du Louvre, in the Transactions of the Society
of Biblical Archæology, vol. v. part ii. 1877.)
[164] See Notice des Principaux Monuments exposés dans le Musée de Boulak,
1876, No. 458.
[165] Devéria, Bakenkhonsou (Revue Archéologique, new series, vi. p. 101).
[166] Brugsch, History of Egypt (English edition), vol. i. p. 47. Ti, whose
splendid tomb has been so often mentioned, was "First Commissioner of Works"
Page 520
for the whole of Egypt, as well as "Secretary of State" to Pharaoh.
[167] We have here ventured to take a slight liberty with M. Perrot's local tints.
—Ed. Paul Pierret ("Stèle de Suti et de Har, architectes de Thèbes," in the
Recueil de Travaux, vol. i. p. 70), says, "This is said by him who has charge of
the works of Amen in Southern Ap." Suti-Har says in his turn: "I have the
direction of the west, he of the east. We are the directors of the great monuments
in Ap, in the centre of Thebes, the city of Amen."
[168] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne, p. 59.
[169] See Brugsch, History of Egypt, 1st edition, vol. i. p. 302.
[170] The serdabs of the tomb of Ti contained twenty, only one of which was
recovered uninjured. Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 24.
[171] Maspero, in Rayet's Monuments de l'Art Antique.
[172] All the monuments in the Wadi-maghara are figured in the Denkmæler of
Lepsius (part ii. plates 2, 39, and 61); casts of them have also been made.
[173] Notice des Monuments exposés dans la Galerie d'Antiquités Égyptiennes,
Salle du Rez-de-chaussé et Palier de l'Escalier, 1875, p. 26.
[174] The Boulak Museum also contains specimens of these figures. See Notice,
Nos. 994 and 995.
[175] Notice des principaux Monuments exposés à Boulak, No. 973. These
figures were discovered in January, 1872. They had a narrow escape of being
destroyed by the pickaxes of the superstitious fellaheen. Mariette fortunately
arrived just in time to prevent the outrage. Recueil de Travaux, vol. i. p. 160.
[176] MARIETTE, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 47.
[177] "According to all appearance these panels date from before the reign of
Cheops." Notices des principaux Monuments, etc. Nos. 987-92.
[178] There is a panel of the same kind in the Louvre (Salle Historique, No. 1 of
Pierret's Catalogue), but it is neither so firm, nor in such good preservation as
those at Cairo.
[179] Mariette, La Galerie de l'Égypte Ancienne au Trocadéro, 1878, p. 122.
[180] Thus we find in a tomb which, according to Lepsius, dates from the fourth
dynasty, certain thickset sculptured forms, which contrast strongly with figures
taken from mastabas in the same neighbourhood, at Gizeh. The body is short, the
legs heavy and massive. Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 9.
[181] De Rougé, Notice sommaire des Monuments Égyptiens, 1865, p. 68.
[182] Another wooden statue of equal merit as a work of art was found in the
same tomb. It represents a woman, standing. Unfortunately there is nothing left
of it but the head and the torso. Notice des principaux Monuments du Musée de
Boulak, No. 493.
[167] We have here ventured to take a slight liberty with M. Perrot's local tints.
—Ed. Paul Pierret ("Stèle de Suti et de Har, architectes de Thèbes," in the
Recueil de Travaux, vol. i. p. 70), says, "This is said by him who has charge of
the works of Amen in Southern Ap." Suti-Har says in his turn: "I have the
direction of the west, he of the east. We are the directors of the great monuments
in Ap, in the centre of Thebes, the city of Amen."
[168] Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Égyptienne, p. 59.
[169] See Brugsch, History of Egypt, 1st edition, vol. i. p. 302.
[170] The serdabs of the tomb of Ti contained twenty, only one of which was
recovered uninjured. Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 24.
[171] Maspero, in Rayet's Monuments de l'Art Antique.
[172] All the monuments in the Wadi-maghara are figured in the Denkmæler of
Lepsius (part ii. plates 2, 39, and 61); casts of them have also been made.
[173] Notice des Monuments exposés dans la Galerie d'Antiquités Égyptiennes,
Salle du Rez-de-chaussé et Palier de l'Escalier, 1875, p. 26.
[174] The Boulak Museum also contains specimens of these figures. See Notice,
Nos. 994 and 995.
[175] Notice des principaux Monuments exposés à Boulak, No. 973. These
figures were discovered in January, 1872. They had a narrow escape of being
destroyed by the pickaxes of the superstitious fellaheen. Mariette fortunately
arrived just in time to prevent the outrage. Recueil de Travaux, vol. i. p. 160.
[176] MARIETTE, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 47.
[177] "According to all appearance these panels date from before the reign of
Cheops." Notices des principaux Monuments, etc. Nos. 987-92.
[178] There is a panel of the same kind in the Louvre (Salle Historique, No. 1 of
Pierret's Catalogue), but it is neither so firm, nor in such good preservation as
those at Cairo.
[179] Mariette, La Galerie de l'Égypte Ancienne au Trocadéro, 1878, p. 122.
[180] Thus we find in a tomb which, according to Lepsius, dates from the fourth
dynasty, certain thickset sculptured forms, which contrast strongly with figures
taken from mastabas in the same neighbourhood, at Gizeh. The body is short, the
legs heavy and massive. Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 9.
[181] De Rougé, Notice sommaire des Monuments Égyptiens, 1865, p. 68.
[182] Another wooden statue of equal merit as a work of art was found in the
same tomb. It represents a woman, standing. Unfortunately there is nothing left
of it but the head and the torso. Notice des principaux Monuments du Musée de
Boulak, No. 493.
Page 521
[183] The Description de l'Égypte (Antiquités, vol. v. p. 33) gives the details of a
mummy-mask in sycamore wood, of fairly good workmanship, which was found
at Sakkarah. The eyebrows and edges of the eyelids were outlined with red
copper; a fine linen was stretched over the wood; over this there was a thin layer
of stucco, upon which the face was painted in green.
[184] The figure in the Louvre is split deeply in several places, one of the
fissures being down the middle of the face. This latter our artist has suppressed,
so as to give the figure something of its ancient aspect. These fissures are sure to
appear in our humid climate. The warm and dry air of Egypt is absolutely
necessary for the preservation of such works, which seem doomed to rapid
destruction in our European museums.
[185] Maspero (Journal Asiatique, March-April, 1880), Sur quelques Peintures
Funéraires, p. 137. See also Brugsch, Die Egyptische Græberwelt, No. 87.
[186] Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions, 1875, p. 345.
[187] Chabas, Sur l'Usage des Bâtons de Main, p. 12. (Lyons, 8vo, 1875.)
[188] Catalogue of the Posno Collection, No. 468.
[189] Ibid., No. 524.
[190] De Longperier, Musée Napoléon III. pl. 1.
[191] M. Pisani, who mounted the numerous bronzes in M. Posno's collection,
assures me that their insides are still filled with the core of sand around which
they were cast. The outward details of the casting are repeated inside, showing
that the method used was what we call fonte au carton.
[192] A sketch of this statue also appears on page 10, Vol. I. Fig. 6; but as,
according to Mariette, it is one of the best statues in the Boulak Museum, we
have thought well to give it a second illustration, which, in spite of its smaller
scale, shows the modelling better than the first.
[193] Notice des principaux Monuments du Musée de Boulak, No. 24.
[194] Wooden instruments have been found which were used for the pleating of
linen stuffs. One of these, which is now in the museum of Florence, is figured in
Wilkinson (Manners and Customs, vol. i. p. 185). The heavy and symmetrical
folds which are thus obtained are found, as we shall see, in the drapery of Greek
statues of the archaic period.
[195] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 770.
[196] Ibid., No. 769.
[197] Notice, No. 793. These two people were called Nefer-hotep and Tenteta.
The latter is also described as related to Pharaoh.
[198] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 768.
[199] Notice, No. 771. This is the person represented in profile in Fig. 47, Vol. I.
[200] Notice, No. 766.
mummy-mask in sycamore wood, of fairly good workmanship, which was found
at Sakkarah. The eyebrows and edges of the eyelids were outlined with red
copper; a fine linen was stretched over the wood; over this there was a thin layer
of stucco, upon which the face was painted in green.
[184] The figure in the Louvre is split deeply in several places, one of the
fissures being down the middle of the face. This latter our artist has suppressed,
so as to give the figure something of its ancient aspect. These fissures are sure to
appear in our humid climate. The warm and dry air of Egypt is absolutely
necessary for the preservation of such works, which seem doomed to rapid
destruction in our European museums.
[185] Maspero (Journal Asiatique, March-April, 1880), Sur quelques Peintures
Funéraires, p. 137. See also Brugsch, Die Egyptische Græberwelt, No. 87.
[186] Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions, 1875, p. 345.
[187] Chabas, Sur l'Usage des Bâtons de Main, p. 12. (Lyons, 8vo, 1875.)
[188] Catalogue of the Posno Collection, No. 468.
[189] Ibid., No. 524.
[190] De Longperier, Musée Napoléon III. pl. 1.
[191] M. Pisani, who mounted the numerous bronzes in M. Posno's collection,
assures me that their insides are still filled with the core of sand around which
they were cast. The outward details of the casting are repeated inside, showing
that the method used was what we call fonte au carton.
[192] A sketch of this statue also appears on page 10, Vol. I. Fig. 6; but as,
according to Mariette, it is one of the best statues in the Boulak Museum, we
have thought well to give it a second illustration, which, in spite of its smaller
scale, shows the modelling better than the first.
[193] Notice des principaux Monuments du Musée de Boulak, No. 24.
[194] Wooden instruments have been found which were used for the pleating of
linen stuffs. One of these, which is now in the museum of Florence, is figured in
Wilkinson (Manners and Customs, vol. i. p. 185). The heavy and symmetrical
folds which are thus obtained are found, as we shall see, in the drapery of Greek
statues of the archaic period.
[195] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 770.
[196] Ibid., No. 769.
[197] Notice, No. 793. These two people were called Nefer-hotep and Tenteta.
The latter is also described as related to Pharaoh.
[198] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 768.
[199] Notice, No. 771. This is the person represented in profile in Fig. 47, Vol. I.
[200] Notice, No. 766.
Page 522
[201] The four last quoted figures belong to the series noticed in the Boulak
Catalogue under numbers 757 to 764. The statue reproduced in Fig. 197 has
been already shown in profile in Fig. 48, Vol. I.
[202] Gabriel Charmes, Cinq mois au Caire, p. 96.
[203] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 270.
[204] Gabriel Charmes, La Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak (Revue des
Deux Mondes, September 1, 1880). He is speaking of the fragment which is
numbered 988 in the Notice du Musée. According to Mariette it dates from a
period anterior to Cheops. It was found near the statues of Ra-hotep and Nefert.
[205] Notice du Musée de Boulak, Nos. 578 and 792. The discovery was made in
1860; Mariette gives an account of it in his Lettres à M. de Rougé sur les
Résultats des Fouilles entreprises par ordre du Vice-roi d'Égypte. (Revue
Archéologique, No. 5, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20.)
[206] This is a Coptic word meaning hood.
[207] Journal des Savants, 1851, pp. 53, 54.
[208] Mariette, Notice du Musée, etc. Avant-propos, pp. 38, 39.
[209] See Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie, under the word Uræus.
[210] Notice des Monuments exposés dans la Galerie d'Antiquités Égyptiennes,
Salle du Rez-de-chaussée, No. 23.
[211] De Rougé, Notice, etc. Avant-propos, p. 6.
[212] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 86.
[213] Mariette, Lettre de M. Aug. Mariette à M. de Rougé sur les Fouilles de
Tanis (Revue Archéologique, vol. iii. 1861, p. 97). De Rougé, Lettre à M.
Guigniaut sur les Nouvelles Explorations en Égypte (Revue Archéologique, vol.
ix., 1864, p. 128).—Devéria, Lettre à M. Aug. Mariette sur quelques
Monuments Relatifs aux Hyqsos ou Antérieurs à leur Domination (Revue
Archéologique, vol. iv. 1861, p. 251).—Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 108.
[214] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 869. Our draughtsman has not thought it
necessary to reproduce the hieroglyphs engraved upon the plinth.
[215] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 1.
[216] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 2.
[217] Devéria, Lettre à M. Aug. Mariette, p. 258.—Pierret, Catalogue de la
Salle Historique, No. 6.
[218] M. Fr. Lenormant (Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica di Roma,
fifth year, January to June, 1877) believes that he has discovered in one of the
Roman museums another monument belonging to the same period and to the
same artistic group.
Catalogue under numbers 757 to 764. The statue reproduced in Fig. 197 has
been already shown in profile in Fig. 48, Vol. I.
[202] Gabriel Charmes, Cinq mois au Caire, p. 96.
[203] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 270.
[204] Gabriel Charmes, La Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak (Revue des
Deux Mondes, September 1, 1880). He is speaking of the fragment which is
numbered 988 in the Notice du Musée. According to Mariette it dates from a
period anterior to Cheops. It was found near the statues of Ra-hotep and Nefert.
[205] Notice du Musée de Boulak, Nos. 578 and 792. The discovery was made in
1860; Mariette gives an account of it in his Lettres à M. de Rougé sur les
Résultats des Fouilles entreprises par ordre du Vice-roi d'Égypte. (Revue
Archéologique, No. 5, vol. ii. pp. 19, 20.)
[206] This is a Coptic word meaning hood.
[207] Journal des Savants, 1851, pp. 53, 54.
[208] Mariette, Notice du Musée, etc. Avant-propos, pp. 38, 39.
[209] See Pierret, Dictionnaire d'Archéologie, under the word Uræus.
[210] Notice des Monuments exposés dans la Galerie d'Antiquités Égyptiennes,
Salle du Rez-de-chaussée, No. 23.
[211] De Rougé, Notice, etc. Avant-propos, p. 6.
[212] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 86.
[213] Mariette, Lettre de M. Aug. Mariette à M. de Rougé sur les Fouilles de
Tanis (Revue Archéologique, vol. iii. 1861, p. 97). De Rougé, Lettre à M.
Guigniaut sur les Nouvelles Explorations en Égypte (Revue Archéologique, vol.
ix., 1864, p. 128).—Devéria, Lettre à M. Aug. Mariette sur quelques
Monuments Relatifs aux Hyqsos ou Antérieurs à leur Domination (Revue
Archéologique, vol. iv. 1861, p. 251).—Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 108.
[214] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 869. Our draughtsman has not thought it
necessary to reproduce the hieroglyphs engraved upon the plinth.
[215] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 1.
[216] Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 2.
[217] Devéria, Lettre à M. Aug. Mariette, p. 258.—Pierret, Catalogue de la
Salle Historique, No. 6.
[218] M. Fr. Lenormant (Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica di Roma,
fifth year, January to June, 1877) believes that he has discovered in one of the
Roman museums another monument belonging to the same period and to the
same artistic group.
Page 523
[219] Lettres à M. de Rougé sur les Fouilles de Tanis, p. 105. (Revue
Archéologique.)
[220] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 259.—Ebers, Ægypten, vol. i. p. 108.
[221] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 182.
[222] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 105.
[223] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 208. It has been calculated
that this colossus weighed about 1220 tons.
[224] Gabriel Charmes, La Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.
[225] Mariette, Notices du Musée, Nos. 3 and 4.
[226] The head of Amenophis III. may be recognized in the bas-relief
reproduced in our Fig. 33, Vol. I. The fine profile and large well-opened eye
strongly resemble those of the London statue.
[227] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 31.
[228] G. Charmes, De la Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.
[229] Denkmæler, vol. vi. plates 91-111. The curious ugliness of this king is
most clearly shown in plate 109.
[230] Mariette, Bulletin Archéologique de l'Athenæum Français, 1855, p. 57.
[231] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 902, and Dayr-el-Bahari, plates.
[232] Mariette, Dayr-el-Bahari, p. 30, believed that Punt was in Africa,
probably in the region of the Somali. He quotes various passages from the
writings of modern travellers to show that this strange obesity is rather an
African than an Arabian characteristic. See Speke's description of the favourite
wife of Vouazerou, Discovery of the Source of the Nile, chap. viii., and
Schweinfurth's account of the Bongo women, Heart of Africa (3rd edition) pp.
136 and 137.
[233] Mariette, Itinéraire, p. 246.
[234] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 265.
[235] Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 110.
[236] Maspero, Études sur quelques Peintures Funéraires. Mariette, in
describing this bas-relief (Notice du Musée, No. 903), observes that these funeral
dances are still in vogue in most of the villages of Upper Egypt. The bas-reliefs
from Sakkarah could not, however, as he says, render the piercing shrieks with
which these dances are accompanied.
[237] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien. Text, p. 418. This bas-relief has also
been reproduced by Mariette, Monuments Divers, pl. 68.
[238] Some of our illustrations allow the justice of this observation to be easily
verified (Figs. 172, 253, and 254, Vol. I.). In one of these the porters and in
another the prisoners of war seem to be multiplied by some mechanical process.
Archéologique.)
[220] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 259.—Ebers, Ægypten, vol. i. p. 108.
[221] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 182.
[222] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 105.
[223] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 208. It has been calculated
that this colossus weighed about 1220 tons.
[224] Gabriel Charmes, La Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.
[225] Mariette, Notices du Musée, Nos. 3 and 4.
[226] The head of Amenophis III. may be recognized in the bas-relief
reproduced in our Fig. 33, Vol. I. The fine profile and large well-opened eye
strongly resemble those of the London statue.
[227] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 31.
[228] G. Charmes, De la Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.
[229] Denkmæler, vol. vi. plates 91-111. The curious ugliness of this king is
most clearly shown in plate 109.
[230] Mariette, Bulletin Archéologique de l'Athenæum Français, 1855, p. 57.
[231] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 902, and Dayr-el-Bahari, plates.
[232] Mariette, Dayr-el-Bahari, p. 30, believed that Punt was in Africa,
probably in the region of the Somali. He quotes various passages from the
writings of modern travellers to show that this strange obesity is rather an
African than an Arabian characteristic. See Speke's description of the favourite
wife of Vouazerou, Discovery of the Source of the Nile, chap. viii., and
Schweinfurth's account of the Bongo women, Heart of Africa (3rd edition) pp.
136 and 137.
[233] Mariette, Itinéraire, p. 246.
[234] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 265.
[235] Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 110.
[236] Maspero, Études sur quelques Peintures Funéraires. Mariette, in
describing this bas-relief (Notice du Musée, No. 903), observes that these funeral
dances are still in vogue in most of the villages of Upper Egypt. The bas-reliefs
from Sakkarah could not, however, as he says, render the piercing shrieks with
which these dances are accompanied.
[237] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien. Text, p. 418. This bas-relief has also
been reproduced by Mariette, Monuments Divers, pl. 68.
[238] Some of our illustrations allow the justice of this observation to be easily
verified (Figs. 172, 253, and 254, Vol. I.). In one of these the porters and in
another the prisoners of war seem to be multiplied by some mechanical process.
Page 524
A glance through the Denkmæler of Lepsius leaves a similar impression. We
may mention especially plates 34, 35, 175, 125, and 135 of the third Part.
[239] So, at Dayr-el-Bahari the decorator has taken pains to give accurate
reproductions of the fauna and flora of Punt. See the plates of Mariette (Dayr-
el-Bahari) and the remarks of Prof. Ebers (Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 280).
[240] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 74, pl. 31.
[241] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 72. Plates 23 and 24.
[242] Champollion makes the same remark (Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p.
326).
[243] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 178.
[244] Gab. Charmes, De la Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.—Mariette,
Notice, No. 22.
[245] Louvre. Ground-floor gallery, No. 24.
[246] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 153.
[247] Mariette, Notice, No. 20.
[248] Mariette, Notice, No. 866. There is a cast of this statue in the Louvre, but,
like that of the statue of Chephren, which forms a pendant to it, it has been
coloured to the hue of fresh butter and the result is most disagreeable. Even
when placed upon a cast from an alabaster figure this colour is bad enough, but
when the cast is one from a statue in diorite, like that of Chephren, it is quite
inexcusable. It would have been better either to have left the natural surface of
the plaster or to have given to each cast a colour which should in some degree
recall that of the originals and mark the difference between them.
[249] For the meaning of this word see Pierret, Dictionnaire, &c.
[250] For illustrations of this statue and an explanation of the name here given to
it, see Birch, Gallery of Antiquities, London, 4to.—Ed.
[251] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 385.
[252] Notice, Nos. 196-7.
[253] Ibid., Nos. 105-15.
[254] The Boulak Museum possesses a very fine scarab which shows Nechao
between Isis and Neith, one of whom hands him a mace and the other a small
figure of Mentou-Ra, the God of Battles. Two chained prisoners are prostrate at
the base of the scarab. Mariette, Notice, No. 556.
[255] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 269.
[256] De Rougé, Notice Sommaire, p. 59.
[257] It would appear that wood-carving was never so popular in Egypt as it was
under the Second Theban Empire. The numerous wooden statues which fill our
may mention especially plates 34, 35, 175, 125, and 135 of the third Part.
[239] So, at Dayr-el-Bahari the decorator has taken pains to give accurate
reproductions of the fauna and flora of Punt. See the plates of Mariette (Dayr-
el-Bahari) and the remarks of Prof. Ebers (Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 280).
[240] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 74, pl. 31.
[241] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. i. p. 72. Plates 23 and 24.
[242] Champollion makes the same remark (Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p.
326).
[243] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 178.
[244] Gab. Charmes, De la Réorganisation du Musée de Boulak.—Mariette,
Notice, No. 22.
[245] Louvre. Ground-floor gallery, No. 24.
[246] Ch. Blanc, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, p. 153.
[247] Mariette, Notice, No. 20.
[248] Mariette, Notice, No. 866. There is a cast of this statue in the Louvre, but,
like that of the statue of Chephren, which forms a pendant to it, it has been
coloured to the hue of fresh butter and the result is most disagreeable. Even
when placed upon a cast from an alabaster figure this colour is bad enough, but
when the cast is one from a statue in diorite, like that of Chephren, it is quite
inexcusable. It would have been better either to have left the natural surface of
the plaster or to have given to each cast a colour which should in some degree
recall that of the originals and mark the difference between them.
[249] For the meaning of this word see Pierret, Dictionnaire, &c.
[250] For illustrations of this statue and an explanation of the name here given to
it, see Birch, Gallery of Antiquities, London, 4to.—Ed.
[251] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 385.
[252] Notice, Nos. 196-7.
[253] Ibid., Nos. 105-15.
[254] The Boulak Museum possesses a very fine scarab which shows Nechao
between Isis and Neith, one of whom hands him a mace and the other a small
figure of Mentou-Ra, the God of Battles. Two chained prisoners are prostrate at
the base of the scarab. Mariette, Notice, No. 556.
[255] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 269.
[256] De Rougé, Notice Sommaire, p. 59.
[257] It would appear that wood-carving was never so popular in Egypt as it was
under the Second Theban Empire. The numerous wooden statues which fill our
Page 525
museums date from that period. We have given an example of them in Fig. 50,
Vol. I.
[258] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 386 and 387. Mariette seems to estimate
these two statuettes far too highly.
[259] De Rougé, Notice des Monuments Exposés au Rez-de-chaussée, No. 91.
[260] De Rougé, Notice des Monuments Exposés au Rez-de-chaussée, No. 94.
[261] Ibidem, No. 88.
[262] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 35-6.
[263] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 18.
[264] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 16. See also his Catalogue Général, c. i.
[265] Mariette (Karnak, p. 15) calculated that this temple, whose major axis
from the pylon to the sanctuary hardly exceeded 300 feet in length, must have
contained 572 statues, all in black granite, and differing but little in size and
execution. If placed in rows against the walls, and here and there in a double
row, their elbows would almost have touched one another. The first and second
courts, and the two long corridors which bound the temple to the east and west,
were full of them. One of these figures is represented in our Fig. 39, Vol. I.
[266] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 25.
[267] Maspero, Annuaire de l'Association des Études Grecques, 1877, p. 132.
[268] See the often-quoted story of a voyage taken by a statue of Khons to the
country of Bakhtan and its return to Egypt. De Rougé, Étude sur un Stèle
Égyptienne appartenant à la Bibliothèque Nationale, 8vo, 1856.
[269] Mariette, Karnak, p. 36. See also his Abydos, Catalogue Général, § 2, p.
27.
[270] Maspero, in the Monuments de l'Art Antique of Rayet.
[271] Description, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 41.
[272] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 1010.
[273] At Tell-el-Amarna we find the lion marching by the side of the king
(Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. vi. pl. 100).
[274] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 9.
[275] Upon the significance of the sphinx and its different varieties, see
Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. iii. pp. 308-312. Wilkinson brings
together on a single plate (vol. ii. p. 93) all the fantastic animals invented by the
Egyptians. See also Maspero, Mémoire sur la Mosaïque de Palestrine (Gazette
Archéologique, 1879).
[276] Maspero, Les Peintures des Tombeaux Égyptiens et la Mosaïque de
Palestrine, p. 82 (Gazette Archéologique, 1879).
Vol. I.
[258] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 386 and 387. Mariette seems to estimate
these two statuettes far too highly.
[259] De Rougé, Notice des Monuments Exposés au Rez-de-chaussée, No. 91.
[260] De Rougé, Notice des Monuments Exposés au Rez-de-chaussée, No. 94.
[261] Ibidem, No. 88.
[262] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 35-6.
[263] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 18.
[264] Mariette, Notice du Musée, p. 16. See also his Catalogue Général, c. i.
[265] Mariette (Karnak, p. 15) calculated that this temple, whose major axis
from the pylon to the sanctuary hardly exceeded 300 feet in length, must have
contained 572 statues, all in black granite, and differing but little in size and
execution. If placed in rows against the walls, and here and there in a double
row, their elbows would almost have touched one another. The first and second
courts, and the two long corridors which bound the temple to the east and west,
were full of them. One of these figures is represented in our Fig. 39, Vol. I.
[266] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 25.
[267] Maspero, Annuaire de l'Association des Études Grecques, 1877, p. 132.
[268] See the often-quoted story of a voyage taken by a statue of Khons to the
country of Bakhtan and its return to Egypt. De Rougé, Étude sur un Stèle
Égyptienne appartenant à la Bibliothèque Nationale, 8vo, 1856.
[269] Mariette, Karnak, p. 36. See also his Abydos, Catalogue Général, § 2, p.
27.
[270] Maspero, in the Monuments de l'Art Antique of Rayet.
[271] Description, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 41.
[272] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 1010.
[273] At Tell-el-Amarna we find the lion marching by the side of the king
(Lepsius, Denkmæler, vol. vi. pl. 100).
[274] Mariette, Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, vol. ii. p. 9.
[275] Upon the significance of the sphinx and its different varieties, see
Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. iii. pp. 308-312. Wilkinson brings
together on a single plate (vol. ii. p. 93) all the fantastic animals invented by the
Egyptians. See also Maspero, Mémoire sur la Mosaïque de Palestrine (Gazette
Archéologique, 1879).
[276] Maspero, Les Peintures des Tombeaux Égyptiens et la Mosaïque de
Palestrine, p. 82 (Gazette Archéologique, 1879).
Page 526
[277] See also Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 11, and a tomb at El Kab
(Eilithyia). Mariette (Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, plate 6 and page 37) cites,
as a curious example of a bolder relief than usual, the scenes sculptured upon the
tomb of Sabou, especially the picture showing the servants of the defunct
carrying a gazelle upon their shoulders.
[278] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 42.
[279] Belzoni (Narrative of the Operations, etc. pp. 343-365) mentions the
presence of this stucco upon the colossi of Rameses at Ipsamboul as well as on
the walls of the tombs in the Bab el-Molouk.
[280] This point is very well brought out by Rhind (Thebes, its Tombs and their
Tenants, etc., pp. 24-25).
[281] M. Maspero was the first to start this theory in his paper entitled Les
Peintures des Tombeaux Égyptiens et la Mosaïque de Palestrine.
[282] Birch, Guide to (British) Museum, pp. 70-74.—Pierret, Catalogue de la
Salle Historique, Nos. 457, 559, passim.
[283] M. Soldi remarks, in connection with the Mexicans, that they managed to
cut the hardest rocks and to engrave finely upon the emerald with nothing but
bronze tools. Prescott and Humboldt bear witness to the same fact. The
Peruvians also succeeded in piercing emeralds without iron. Their instrument is
said to have been the pointed leaf of a wild plantain, used with fine sand and
water. With such a tool the one condition of success was time (Les Arts
Méconnus, pp. 352-359).
[284] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 457.
[285] A description of it will be found in Champollion, Notice Descriptive des
Monuments Égyptiens du Musée Charles X., 2nd edition, 1827, D. No. 14, p. 55.
[286] P. Pierret, Une Pierre Gravée au Nom du Roi d'Égypte Thoutmès II.
(Gazette Archéologique, 1878, p. 41). This stone is placed in Case P of the Salle
Historique in the Louvre. M. Lenormant has kindly placed at our disposal the
clichés of the double engraving which was made for M. Pierret's article.
[287] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 481.
[288] Genesis xli. 42.
[289] Birch, History of Ancient Pottery, p. 72. Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle
Historique du Louvre, Nos. 499, 500, 505.
[290] In turning over the leaves of Champollion we have found but two
exceptions to this rule. In the Temple of Seti, at Gournah, that king is shown, in a
bas-relief, in the act of brandishing his mace over the heads of his prisoners. The
group is the usual one, but in this case two of the vanquished are shown in full
face (pl. 274). At the Ramesseum, also, one man in a long row of prisoners is
shown in a similar attitude (pl. 332).
[291] Ch. Blanc, Grammaire des Arts du Dessin, p. 469.
(Eilithyia). Mariette (Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte, plate 6 and page 37) cites,
as a curious example of a bolder relief than usual, the scenes sculptured upon the
tomb of Sabou, especially the picture showing the servants of the defunct
carrying a gazelle upon their shoulders.
[278] Description de l'Égypte, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 42.
[279] Belzoni (Narrative of the Operations, etc. pp. 343-365) mentions the
presence of this stucco upon the colossi of Rameses at Ipsamboul as well as on
the walls of the tombs in the Bab el-Molouk.
[280] This point is very well brought out by Rhind (Thebes, its Tombs and their
Tenants, etc., pp. 24-25).
[281] M. Maspero was the first to start this theory in his paper entitled Les
Peintures des Tombeaux Égyptiens et la Mosaïque de Palestrine.
[282] Birch, Guide to (British) Museum, pp. 70-74.—Pierret, Catalogue de la
Salle Historique, Nos. 457, 559, passim.
[283] M. Soldi remarks, in connection with the Mexicans, that they managed to
cut the hardest rocks and to engrave finely upon the emerald with nothing but
bronze tools. Prescott and Humboldt bear witness to the same fact. The
Peruvians also succeeded in piercing emeralds without iron. Their instrument is
said to have been the pointed leaf of a wild plantain, used with fine sand and
water. With such a tool the one condition of success was time (Les Arts
Méconnus, pp. 352-359).
[284] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 457.
[285] A description of it will be found in Champollion, Notice Descriptive des
Monuments Égyptiens du Musée Charles X., 2nd edition, 1827, D. No. 14, p. 55.
[286] P. Pierret, Une Pierre Gravée au Nom du Roi d'Égypte Thoutmès II.
(Gazette Archéologique, 1878, p. 41). This stone is placed in Case P of the Salle
Historique in the Louvre. M. Lenormant has kindly placed at our disposal the
clichés of the double engraving which was made for M. Pierret's article.
[287] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, No. 481.
[288] Genesis xli. 42.
[289] Birch, History of Ancient Pottery, p. 72. Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle
Historique du Louvre, Nos. 499, 500, 505.
[290] In turning over the leaves of Champollion we have found but two
exceptions to this rule. In the Temple of Seti, at Gournah, that king is shown, in a
bas-relief, in the act of brandishing his mace over the heads of his prisoners. The
group is the usual one, but in this case two of the vanquished are shown in full
face (pl. 274). At the Ramesseum, also, one man in a long row of prisoners is
shown in a similar attitude (pl. 332).
[291] Ch. Blanc, Grammaire des Arts du Dessin, p. 469.
Page 527
[292] For other conventional methods, of a similar though even more remarkable
kind but of less frequent occurrence, see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc.,
vol. ii. p. 295. The same ruling idea is found in those groups in the funerary bas-
reliefs, which show husband and wife together. The wife's arm, which is passed
round the body of the husband, is absurdly long (Lepsius, Denkmæler, part 11,
plates 13, 15, 91, 105, etc.; and our Figs. 164 and 165, Vol. I.). This is because
the sculptor wished to preserve the loving gesture in question without giving up
the full view of both bodies to which his notions committed him. One could not
be allowed to cover any part of the other, they could not even be brought too
closely together. They were placed, therefore, at such a distance apart that the
hand which appears round the husband's body is too far from the shoulder with
which it is supposed to be connected.
[293] Our Fig. 217 gives another instance of the employment of this method,
and even in the time of the Ancient Empire the idea had occurred to the Egyptian
artists (Fig. 201).
[294] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 47 and 61.
[295] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii. p. 88.
[296] M. Émile Soldi (La Sculpture Égyptienne) tells us that during the reign of
Napoleon III. such representations of the Emperor as were not taken from the
portrait by Winterhalter were forbidden to be recognized officially.
[297] Maspero, Histoire Ancienne, p. 272.
[298] Émile Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, 1 vol. 8vo, 1876, copiously
illustrated. (Ernest Leroux.)
[299] See the note of M. Chabas, "Sur le nom du fer chez les Anciens
Égyptiens." (Comptes Rendus de L'Académie des Inscriptions, January 23,
1874.)
[300] Certain alloys, however, have recently been discovered which give a
hardness far above that of ordinary bronze. The metal of the Uchatius gun,
which has been adopted by Austria, is mixed, for instance, with a certain
quantity of phosphorus.
[301] Soldi, Les Arts Méconnus, p. 492. (1 vol. 8vo, Leroux, 1881.)
[302] It has escaped M. Perrot's notice that one is left-handed.—Ed.
[303] Upon the different kinds of chisels used by the Egyptian sculptors, see
Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, pp. 53 and 111. He includes the toothed chisel
and the gouge.
[304] This man's attitude, the shape of the tool in question, and the general
significance of the composition, seem rather to suggest that he is giving the final
polish to the surface of the statue. Compare him with the pschent-polisher in Fig.
252.—Ed.
[305] E. Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, pp. 41, 42.
kind but of less frequent occurrence, see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc.,
vol. ii. p. 295. The same ruling idea is found in those groups in the funerary bas-
reliefs, which show husband and wife together. The wife's arm, which is passed
round the body of the husband, is absurdly long (Lepsius, Denkmæler, part 11,
plates 13, 15, 91, 105, etc.; and our Figs. 164 and 165, Vol. I.). This is because
the sculptor wished to preserve the loving gesture in question without giving up
the full view of both bodies to which his notions committed him. One could not
be allowed to cover any part of the other, they could not even be brought too
closely together. They were placed, therefore, at such a distance apart that the
hand which appears round the husband's body is too far from the shoulder with
which it is supposed to be connected.
[293] Our Fig. 217 gives another instance of the employment of this method,
and even in the time of the Ancient Empire the idea had occurred to the Egyptian
artists (Fig. 201).
[294] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 47 and 61.
[295] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii. p. 88.
[296] M. Émile Soldi (La Sculpture Égyptienne) tells us that during the reign of
Napoleon III. such representations of the Emperor as were not taken from the
portrait by Winterhalter were forbidden to be recognized officially.
[297] Maspero, Histoire Ancienne, p. 272.
[298] Émile Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, 1 vol. 8vo, 1876, copiously
illustrated. (Ernest Leroux.)
[299] See the note of M. Chabas, "Sur le nom du fer chez les Anciens
Égyptiens." (Comptes Rendus de L'Académie des Inscriptions, January 23,
1874.)
[300] Certain alloys, however, have recently been discovered which give a
hardness far above that of ordinary bronze. The metal of the Uchatius gun,
which has been adopted by Austria, is mixed, for instance, with a certain
quantity of phosphorus.
[301] Soldi, Les Arts Méconnus, p. 492. (1 vol. 8vo, Leroux, 1881.)
[302] It has escaped M. Perrot's notice that one is left-handed.—Ed.
[303] Upon the different kinds of chisels used by the Egyptian sculptors, see
Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, pp. 53 and 111. He includes the toothed chisel
and the gouge.
[304] This man's attitude, the shape of the tool in question, and the general
significance of the composition, seem rather to suggest that he is giving the final
polish to the surface of the statue. Compare him with the pschent-polisher in Fig.
252.—Ed.
[305] E. Soldi, La Sculpture Égyptienne, pp. 41, 42.
Page 528
[306] M. Ch. Blanc had a glimmering of the great influence exercised over the
plastic style of Egypt by the hieroglyphs; see his Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte,
p. 354.
[307] Dictionnaire de l'Académie des Beaux-Arts, under the word Canon.
[308] These researches are described in the chapter entitled Des Proportions du
Corps Humain of M. Ch. Blanc's Grammaire des Arts du Dessin, p. 38.
[309] Diodorus, i. 98, 5-7.
[310] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. plate 12.
[311] Ibid. plate 78. It is in this division into nineteen parts that M. Blanc finds
his proof that the medius of the extended hand was the canonical unit.
(Grammaire, &c. p. 46.)
[312] At Karnak, in the granite apartments. See Charles Blanc, Voyage de la
Haute-Égypte, p. 232. Two figures upon the ceiling of a tomb at Assouan are
similarly divided.
[313] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. p. 282.
[314] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 54. Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp.
124-128.
[315] Lepsius, Ueber einige Kuntsformen, p. 9. Birch, in Wilkinson's Manners
and Customs, vol. ii. Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 9, p. 270, note 3.
[316] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien.
[317] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 70.
[318] Ibid. plate 152.
[319] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 123. Lepsius, Denkmæler, pl. 65.
[320] Upon the preparation of the bas-relief, see Belzoni, Narrative of the
Operations, etc. p. 175.
Prisse gives several interesting examples of these corrected designs, among
others a fine portrait of Seti I. (Histoire, etc. vol. ii.)
Examples of these corrections are to be found in sculpture as well as in painting.
Our examination of the sculptures at Karnak showed that the artist did not
always follow the first sketch traced in red ink, but that as the work progressed
he modified it, and allowed himself to be guided, to some extent, by the effects
which he saw growing under his hands. The western wall of the hypostyle hall
contains many instances of this. It is decorated with sculptures on a large scale,
in which the lines traced by the chisel differ more or less from those of the
sketch. (Description, Ant. vol. ii. p. 445.)
[321] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 623-688.
[322] Nos. 652-654 of the Notice du Musée.
[323] In the Boulak catalogue.
plastic style of Egypt by the hieroglyphs; see his Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte,
p. 354.
[307] Dictionnaire de l'Académie des Beaux-Arts, under the word Canon.
[308] These researches are described in the chapter entitled Des Proportions du
Corps Humain of M. Ch. Blanc's Grammaire des Arts du Dessin, p. 38.
[309] Diodorus, i. 98, 5-7.
[310] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. plate 12.
[311] Ibid. plate 78. It is in this division into nineteen parts that M. Blanc finds
his proof that the medius of the extended hand was the canonical unit.
(Grammaire, &c. p. 46.)
[312] At Karnak, in the granite apartments. See Charles Blanc, Voyage de la
Haute-Égypte, p. 232. Two figures upon the ceiling of a tomb at Assouan are
similarly divided.
[313] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. p. 282.
[314] Ebers, Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 54. Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp.
124-128.
[315] Lepsius, Ueber einige Kuntsformen, p. 9. Birch, in Wilkinson's Manners
and Customs, vol. ii. Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 9, p. 270, note 3.
[316] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien.
[317] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 70.
[318] Ibid. plate 152.
[319] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 123. Lepsius, Denkmæler, pl. 65.
[320] Upon the preparation of the bas-relief, see Belzoni, Narrative of the
Operations, etc. p. 175.
Prisse gives several interesting examples of these corrected designs, among
others a fine portrait of Seti I. (Histoire, etc. vol. ii.)
Examples of these corrections are to be found in sculpture as well as in painting.
Our examination of the sculptures at Karnak showed that the artist did not
always follow the first sketch traced in red ink, but that as the work progressed
he modified it, and allowed himself to be guided, to some extent, by the effects
which he saw growing under his hands. The western wall of the hypostyle hall
contains many instances of this. It is decorated with sculptures on a large scale,
in which the lines traced by the chisel differ more or less from those of the
sketch. (Description, Ant. vol. ii. p. 445.)
[321] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 623-688.
[322] Nos. 652-654 of the Notice du Musée.
[323] In the Boulak catalogue.
Page 529
[324] Mariette, La Galerie de l'Égypte Ancienne à l'Éxposition du Trocadéro,
pp. 69, 70.
[325] Ch. Blanc, Voyage de la Haute-Égypte, p. 99.
[326] E. Melchior de Vogüe, Chez les Pharaons.
[327] Vol. ii. plates 41, 66, and 70.
[328] Description, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 45.
[329] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 289.
[330] Fuller details as to the composition of these colours are given in Prisse,
Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp. 292-295. A paper written by the father of
Prosper Mérimée and printed by Passalacqua at the end of his Catalogue (pp.
258, et seq.) may also be consulted with profit; its full title is Dissertation sur
l'Emploi des Couleurs, des Vernis, et des Émaux dans l'Ancienne Égypte, by M.
Mérimée, Secrétaire Perpétuel de l'École Royale des Beaux-Arts. This paper
shows that M. Mérimée added taste and a love for erudition to the talent as a
painter which he is said to have possessed. Belzoni shows that the manufacture
of indigo must have been practised by the ancient Egyptians by much the same
processes as those in use to-day (Narrative of the Operations, etc. p. 175). See
also Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. p. 287.
[331] Champollion, Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p. 130.
[332] Description, Ant. vol. iii. p. 44.
[333] Mérimée, Dissertation sur l'Emploi des Couleurs, p. 130.
[334] Mérimée, Dissertation, etc. Champollion uses the term gouache, body
colour, in speaking of these paintings, but as the characteristic of that process is
that every tint is mixed with white, there is some inaccuracy in doing so.
[335] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 291.
[336] Prisse, Histoire, etc. text, p. 291.
[337] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. p. 294.
[338] Herodotus, ii. 182.
[339] There are other exceptions to the ordinary rule. In a fine bas-relief in the
Louvre, representing Seti I. before Hathor, the carnations of the goddess are
similar to those of the Pharaoh; they are in each case dark red (basement room,
B, 7).
[340] Champollion, Monuments de l'Égypte et de la Nubie, pl. 11. Blue was the
regular colour for Amen when represented with a complete human form; when
he was ram-headed he was generally painted green (see Champollion, Panthéon
Égyptien, No. 1; Pierret, Dictionnaire Archéologique; and pl. 2, vol. i. of the
present work).—Ed.
[341] Ibid. pl. 59.
pp. 69, 70.
[325] Ch. Blanc, Voyage de la Haute-Égypte, p. 99.
[326] E. Melchior de Vogüe, Chez les Pharaons.
[327] Vol. ii. plates 41, 66, and 70.
[328] Description, Antiquités, vol. iii. p. 45.
[329] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 289.
[330] Fuller details as to the composition of these colours are given in Prisse,
Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp. 292-295. A paper written by the father of
Prosper Mérimée and printed by Passalacqua at the end of his Catalogue (pp.
258, et seq.) may also be consulted with profit; its full title is Dissertation sur
l'Emploi des Couleurs, des Vernis, et des Émaux dans l'Ancienne Égypte, by M.
Mérimée, Secrétaire Perpétuel de l'École Royale des Beaux-Arts. This paper
shows that M. Mérimée added taste and a love for erudition to the talent as a
painter which he is said to have possessed. Belzoni shows that the manufacture
of indigo must have been practised by the ancient Egyptians by much the same
processes as those in use to-day (Narrative of the Operations, etc. p. 175). See
also Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. p. 287.
[331] Champollion, Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p. 130.
[332] Description, Ant. vol. iii. p. 44.
[333] Mérimée, Dissertation sur l'Emploi des Couleurs, p. 130.
[334] Mérimée, Dissertation, etc. Champollion uses the term gouache, body
colour, in speaking of these paintings, but as the characteristic of that process is
that every tint is mixed with white, there is some inaccuracy in doing so.
[335] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 291.
[336] Prisse, Histoire, etc. text, p. 291.
[337] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. p. 294.
[338] Herodotus, ii. 182.
[339] There are other exceptions to the ordinary rule. In a fine bas-relief in the
Louvre, representing Seti I. before Hathor, the carnations of the goddess are
similar to those of the Pharaoh; they are in each case dark red (basement room,
B, 7).
[340] Champollion, Monuments de l'Égypte et de la Nubie, pl. 11. Blue was the
regular colour for Amen when represented with a complete human form; when
he was ram-headed he was generally painted green (see Champollion, Panthéon
Égyptien, No. 1; Pierret, Dictionnaire Archéologique; and pl. 2, vol. i. of the
present work).—Ed.
[341] Ibid. pl. 59.
Page 530
[342] Ibid. plates 71, 76, 78, 91.
[343] Ibid. pl. 154.
[344] We place this portrait of Taia in our chapter on painting because its colour
is exceptionally delicate and carefully managed (see Prisse, text, p. 421). The
original is, however, in very low relief, so low that it hardly affects the colour
values.
[345] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 40, cf. pl. 116.
[346] Ibid. pl. 117.
[347] See the Ethiopians in the painting from the tomb of Rekmara, which is
reproduced in Wilkinson, vol. i. plate 2.
[348] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 216.
[349] The materials for this plate were borrowed from the Description de
l'Égypte. In the complete copies of that work the plates were coloured by hand,
with extreme care, after those fine water-colours the most important of which are
now in the Cabinet des Estampes of the Bibliothèque Nationale. The colours
thus applied are far nearer the truth than those of the chromo-lithographs in more
modern publications.
[350] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 424.
[351] John Kenrick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, vol. i. pp. 269, 270.
[352] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp. 142, 143.
[353] Ibid. p. 144.
[354] Prisse, Histoire de l'Égypte, text, p. 146.
[355] Semper (G.), Der Stil in den Technischen und Tektonischen Künsten, oder
Praktische Æsthetik. Munich, 1860-3, 2 vols. 8vo, with 22 plates, some
coloured, and numerous engravings in the text.
[356] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 418.
[357] Dumischen, Resultate der Archæologisch-photographischen Expedition.
Berlin, 1869, folio, part i. plate 8.
[358] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 369.
[359] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. plate 62. Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien,
atlas, plate lettered Frises Fleuronnées.
[360] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 533.
[361] There is one of these books in the Louvre (Salle Funéraire, case Z); the
gold leaf which it contains differs from that now in use only in its greater
thickness.
[362] The oldest representation of the potter's wheel yet discovered is in one of
the paintings at Beni-Hassan. It is reproduced in Birch's Ancient Pottery, p. 14.
[343] Ibid. pl. 154.
[344] We place this portrait of Taia in our chapter on painting because its colour
is exceptionally delicate and carefully managed (see Prisse, text, p. 421). The
original is, however, in very low relief, so low that it hardly affects the colour
values.
[345] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 40, cf. pl. 116.
[346] Ibid. pl. 117.
[347] See the Ethiopians in the painting from the tomb of Rekmara, which is
reproduced in Wilkinson, vol. i. plate 2.
[348] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. pl. 216.
[349] The materials for this plate were borrowed from the Description de
l'Égypte. In the complete copies of that work the plates were coloured by hand,
with extreme care, after those fine water-colours the most important of which are
now in the Cabinet des Estampes of the Bibliothèque Nationale. The colours
thus applied are far nearer the truth than those of the chromo-lithographs in more
modern publications.
[350] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 424.
[351] John Kenrick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, vol. i. pp. 269, 270.
[352] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, pp. 142, 143.
[353] Ibid. p. 144.
[354] Prisse, Histoire de l'Égypte, text, p. 146.
[355] Semper (G.), Der Stil in den Technischen und Tektonischen Künsten, oder
Praktische Æsthetik. Munich, 1860-3, 2 vols. 8vo, with 22 plates, some
coloured, and numerous engravings in the text.
[356] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 418.
[357] Dumischen, Resultate der Archæologisch-photographischen Expedition.
Berlin, 1869, folio, part i. plate 8.
[358] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 369.
[359] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part iii. plate 62. Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien,
atlas, plate lettered Frises Fleuronnées.
[360] Description, Antiquités, vol. ii. p. 533.
[361] There is one of these books in the Louvre (Salle Funéraire, case Z); the
gold leaf which it contains differs from that now in use only in its greater
thickness.
[362] The oldest representation of the potter's wheel yet discovered is in one of
the paintings at Beni-Hassan. It is reproduced in Birch's Ancient Pottery, p. 14.
Page 531
[363] S. Birch, A History of Ancient Pottery, Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek,
Etruscan, and Roman, 1 vol. 8vo, 1873. London, Murray.
[364] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 153.
[365] Birch, Ancient Pottery, p. 37.
[366] Birch, Ancient Pottery, Figs. 23 and 25.
[367] Brongniart, Histoire de la Ceramique, vol. ii. p. 95.
[368] See also Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 2, and the Verzeichniss der
Ægyptischen Alterthümer of the Berlin Museum, 1879, p. 25.
[369] We owe our ability to give these curious details to the kindness of M.
Conze and the officers of the Egyptian museum at Berlin. One of the original
fragments brought home by Lepsius was lent to us.
[370] Birch, Ancient Pottery, p. 50.
[371] I am told that a circular base, like that of a column of a table for offerings,
was discovered in the same building. It is entirely covered with this same
faience.
[372] Description, Antiquités, vol. v. p. 543, and Atlas, vol. v. plate 87, Fig. 1.
[373] The collection of M. Gustave Posno, which will, we hope, be soon
absorbed into that of the Louvre, contains many enamelled bricks from
decorative compositions like those in the stepped pyramid and the temple of
Rameses III. (Nos. 8, 9, 11, 20, 58, 59, 60, 61 of the Catalogue published at
Cairo in 1874). One of these, which has a yellow enamel, bears in relief the oval
and the royal banner of Papi, of the sixth dynasty. Another has the name Seti I.;
others those of Rameses III. and Sheshonk. The reliefs upon which prisoners'
heads appear must have come from Tell-el-Yahoudeh.
[374] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, p. 69.
[375] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 140.
[376] Strabo, xvi. ch. ii. § 25.
[377] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 313.
[378] Mariette, De la Galerie de l'Égypte Ancienne à l'Exposition Rétrospective
du Trocadéro, 1878, pp. 111, 112. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the
Ancient Egyptians, etc. vol. ii. p. 261.
[379] Herodotus, ii. 86.
[380] See page 197.
[381] See Birch, notes to Wilkinson's Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 232,
edition of 1878.
[382] Mariette, Itineraire, p. 210.
[383] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. pp. 232 and 401.
Etruscan, and Roman, 1 vol. 8vo, 1873. London, Murray.
[364] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 153.
[365] Birch, Ancient Pottery, p. 37.
[366] Birch, Ancient Pottery, Figs. 23 and 25.
[367] Brongniart, Histoire de la Ceramique, vol. ii. p. 95.
[368] See also Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. pl. 2, and the Verzeichniss der
Ægyptischen Alterthümer of the Berlin Museum, 1879, p. 25.
[369] We owe our ability to give these curious details to the kindness of M.
Conze and the officers of the Egyptian museum at Berlin. One of the original
fragments brought home by Lepsius was lent to us.
[370] Birch, Ancient Pottery, p. 50.
[371] I am told that a circular base, like that of a column of a table for offerings,
was discovered in the same building. It is entirely covered with this same
faience.
[372] Description, Antiquités, vol. v. p. 543, and Atlas, vol. v. plate 87, Fig. 1.
[373] The collection of M. Gustave Posno, which will, we hope, be soon
absorbed into that of the Louvre, contains many enamelled bricks from
decorative compositions like those in the stepped pyramid and the temple of
Rameses III. (Nos. 8, 9, 11, 20, 58, 59, 60, 61 of the Catalogue published at
Cairo in 1874). One of these, which has a yellow enamel, bears in relief the oval
and the royal banner of Papi, of the sixth dynasty. Another has the name Seti I.;
others those of Rameses III. and Sheshonk. The reliefs upon which prisoners'
heads appear must have come from Tell-el-Yahoudeh.
[374] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, p. 69.
[375] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 140.
[376] Strabo, xvi. ch. ii. § 25.
[377] Prisse, Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, text, p. 313.
[378] Mariette, De la Galerie de l'Égypte Ancienne à l'Exposition Rétrospective
du Trocadéro, 1878, pp. 111, 112. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the
Ancient Egyptians, etc. vol. ii. p. 261.
[379] Herodotus, ii. 86.
[380] See page 197.
[381] See Birch, notes to Wilkinson's Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 232,
edition of 1878.
[382] Mariette, Itineraire, p. 210.
[383] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc. vol. ii. pp. 232 and 401.
Page 532
[384] Ibid. Vol. II. PP. 250, 251.
[385] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. pp. 233-237.
[386] Belzoni, Narrative, etc. vol. i. p. 277.
[387] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, Nos. 810-839. Coloured
reproductions of them are published in M. César Daly's Revue de l'Architecture,
a sequel to the Histoire d'Égypte d'après les Monuments (published in 1860) of
M. Ernest Desjardins.
[388] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, Louvre, No. 521. This jewel is
reproduced, with many others from the same tomb, in two fine coloured plates in
Mariette's unfinished work, Le Sérapéum de Memphis. Folio, 1857.
[389] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, Louvre, No. 535.
[390] Ibid. No. 534.
[391] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 388. Galerie de l'Égypte
Ancienne au Trocadéro, pp. 114, 115.
[392] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 107, 108, 131.
[393] Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, v. part ii. 1877.
[394] See two plates of Prisse entitled: "Art Industriel. Vases en Or Émaillé;
Rhytons et autres Vases."
[395] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 93.
[396] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. plates 36 and 90.
[397] Among such objects is a table for libations, which was found in a tomb at
Sakkarah. It is supported by two lions, whose pendent tails are twisted round a
vase. Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 93.
[398] See the illustration which Ebers calls A Reception in Ancient Egypt.
(Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 276.)
[399] This figure is reproduced in Rayet's Monuments de l'Art Antique and
described by M. Maspero. (Cuillers de Toilette en Bois.)
[400] Martial, Epigrammata, xiv. 150. Lucan, X. v. 141.
[401] Champollion, Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p. 113.
[402] Rhoné, L'Égypte Antique, extract from L'Art Ancien à l'Exposition de
1878.
[403] Maspero, La trouvaille de Deir-el-Bahari, Cairo, 1882, 4to.
[404] Ibid.
[405] See Miss A. B. Edward'S account of these gentlemen in Harper's
Magazine for July, 1882. Her paper is illustrated with woodcuts after some of the
more interesting objects found, and a plan of the locale.
[385] Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, vol. ii. pp. 233-237.
[386] Belzoni, Narrative, etc. vol. i. p. 277.
[387] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, Nos. 810-839. Coloured
reproductions of them are published in M. César Daly's Revue de l'Architecture,
a sequel to the Histoire d'Égypte d'après les Monuments (published in 1860) of
M. Ernest Desjardins.
[388] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, Louvre, No. 521. This jewel is
reproduced, with many others from the same tomb, in two fine coloured plates in
Mariette's unfinished work, Le Sérapéum de Memphis. Folio, 1857.
[389] Pierret, Catalogue de la Salle Historique, Louvre, No. 535.
[390] Ibid. No. 534.
[391] Mariette, Notice du Musée de Boulak, No. 388. Galerie de l'Égypte
Ancienne au Trocadéro, pp. 114, 115.
[392] Mariette, Notice du Musée, Nos. 107, 108, 131.
[393] Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, v. part ii. 1877.
[394] See two plates of Prisse entitled: "Art Industriel. Vases en Or Émaillé;
Rhytons et autres Vases."
[395] Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 93.
[396] Lepsius, Denkmæler, part ii. plates 36 and 90.
[397] Among such objects is a table for libations, which was found in a tomb at
Sakkarah. It is supported by two lions, whose pendent tails are twisted round a
vase. Mariette, Notice du Musée, No. 93.
[398] See the illustration which Ebers calls A Reception in Ancient Egypt.
(Ægypten, vol. ii. p. 276.)
[399] This figure is reproduced in Rayet's Monuments de l'Art Antique and
described by M. Maspero. (Cuillers de Toilette en Bois.)
[400] Martial, Epigrammata, xiv. 150. Lucan, X. v. 141.
[401] Champollion, Lettres d'Égypte et de Nubie, p. 113.
[402] Rhoné, L'Égypte Antique, extract from L'Art Ancien à l'Exposition de
1878.
[403] Maspero, La trouvaille de Deir-el-Bahari, Cairo, 1882, 4to.
[404] Ibid.
[405] See Miss A. B. Edward'S account of these gentlemen in Harper's
Magazine for July, 1882. Her paper is illustrated with woodcuts after some of the
more interesting objects found, and a plan of the locale.
Page 533
[406] See page 29, Vol. I.
[407] For a description of these jewels by Dr. Birch, and reproductions of them
in their actual colours, see Facsimile of the Egyptian Relics Discovered in the
Tomb of Queen Aah-hotep. London: 1863, 4to. See also above, page 380,
footnote 387, of the present volume.
[408] These measurements are taken from The Funeral Canopy of an Egyptian
Queen, by the Hon. H. Villiers Stuart: Murray, 1882. 8vo.
[409] Mr. Villiers Stuart gives a facsimile in colour of the canopy, and a
fanciful illustration of it in place, upon a boat copied from one in the Tombs of
the Queens.
[410] Miss A. B. Edwards, Lying in State in Cairo, in Harper's Magazine for
July, 1882.
[411] See Maspero, Une Enquète Judiciare à Thèbes, Paris, 1871, 4to.
[407] For a description of these jewels by Dr. Birch, and reproductions of them
in their actual colours, see Facsimile of the Egyptian Relics Discovered in the
Tomb of Queen Aah-hotep. London: 1863, 4to. See also above, page 380,
footnote 387, of the present volume.
[408] These measurements are taken from The Funeral Canopy of an Egyptian
Queen, by the Hon. H. Villiers Stuart: Murray, 1882. 8vo.
[409] Mr. Villiers Stuart gives a facsimile in colour of the canopy, and a
fanciful illustration of it in place, upon a boat copied from one in the Tombs of
the Queens.
[410] Miss A. B. Edwards, Lying in State in Cairo, in Harper's Magazine for
July, 1882.
[411] See Maspero, Une Enquète Judiciare à Thèbes, Paris, 1871, 4to.
Page 534
Transcriber's Note:
A mouse hover over Greek text will display
English transliteration.
Archaic and inconsistent spelling and
punctuation retained.
Some of the colour plates were too faded to
obtain usable colour.
Some of the figure and plate references appear
to be incorrect.
The volume named "Voyage dans la Haute-
Égypte" is variously attributed to Auguste
Mariette and Charles Blanc. "Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte" was authored by Auguste
Mariette and "Voyage de la Haute-Égypte" was
authored by Charles Blanc..
In a Handsome Imperial 8vo Volume, 36s.
RAPHAEL: HIS LIFE, WORKS, AND TIMES.
From the French of EUGÈNE MUNTZ.
A mouse hover over Greek text will display
English transliteration.
Archaic and inconsistent spelling and
punctuation retained.
Some of the colour plates were too faded to
obtain usable colour.
Some of the figure and plate references appear
to be incorrect.
The volume named "Voyage dans la Haute-
Égypte" is variously attributed to Auguste
Mariette and Charles Blanc. "Voyage dans la
Haute-Égypte" was authored by Auguste
Mariette and "Voyage de la Haute-Égypte" was
authored by Charles Blanc..
In a Handsome Imperial 8vo Volume, 36s.
RAPHAEL: HIS LIFE, WORKS, AND TIMES.
From the French of EUGÈNE MUNTZ.
Page 535
Edited by W. ARMSTRONG.
Illustrated with 155 Wood Engravings and 41 Full-Page Plates.
"We have already noticed at some length the original French edition of the
important work of 'Raphael, his Life, Works, and Times,' of M. Muntz, the
Librarian of the École des Beaux-Arts, and we are glad now to welcome an
English translation. A translation is never quite the same thing as the
original, but for those—and they are many—who prefer an English version
of a book to a French one, this volume may be recommended as, on the
whole, a sound and adequate rendering of M. Muntz's work. The type and
paper are excellent, and the volume appears in a substantial Roxburgh
binding, suitable to its bulk and in good taste. M. Muntz is a real authority
on the history of Art, and is by no means to be ranked among the
bookmakers, who abound in that department of literature; and his volume,
while intended for popular reading as well as for students, is an advance on
anything that has been done before in the biography of Raphael."—Times.
"This splendid work deserves a cordial welcome. Its paper, type, and
engravings leave little to desire. It was a hazardous undertaking to represent
the Madonnas of Raphael by wood engravings; and yet it has proved
successful in no ordinary degree.... With regard to the literary portion of the
work, we can say that it is accurate, catholic in tone, and written with
admirable lucidity."—Daily News.
"The compendious and profusely illustrated volume forms a valuable
addition to the history of art. Passavant's work on the subject, though
excellent in its way, cannot be considered exhaustive, many important facts
concerning the great master and those who influenced his career having
been brought to light since it was written. The present work, accordingly, is
not superfluous, and no man, probably, could have accomplished the task
more successfully than M. Muntz, who, it should be mentioned, is the
Librarian of the École des Beaux-Arts at Paris. Having diligently studied
the documentary records of Italian history, and being familiar with the
various Italian schools of painting, he is especially qualified for work of the
kind. His book presents consequently a complete, and apparently
trustworthy record of Raphael's career, from his birth in Urbino in 1483 to
his premature death in Rome, thirty-seven years later, and in it may be
Illustrated with 155 Wood Engravings and 41 Full-Page Plates.
"We have already noticed at some length the original French edition of the
important work of 'Raphael, his Life, Works, and Times,' of M. Muntz, the
Librarian of the École des Beaux-Arts, and we are glad now to welcome an
English translation. A translation is never quite the same thing as the
original, but for those—and they are many—who prefer an English version
of a book to a French one, this volume may be recommended as, on the
whole, a sound and adequate rendering of M. Muntz's work. The type and
paper are excellent, and the volume appears in a substantial Roxburgh
binding, suitable to its bulk and in good taste. M. Muntz is a real authority
on the history of Art, and is by no means to be ranked among the
bookmakers, who abound in that department of literature; and his volume,
while intended for popular reading as well as for students, is an advance on
anything that has been done before in the biography of Raphael."—Times.
"This splendid work deserves a cordial welcome. Its paper, type, and
engravings leave little to desire. It was a hazardous undertaking to represent
the Madonnas of Raphael by wood engravings; and yet it has proved
successful in no ordinary degree.... With regard to the literary portion of the
work, we can say that it is accurate, catholic in tone, and written with
admirable lucidity."—Daily News.
"The compendious and profusely illustrated volume forms a valuable
addition to the history of art. Passavant's work on the subject, though
excellent in its way, cannot be considered exhaustive, many important facts
concerning the great master and those who influenced his career having
been brought to light since it was written. The present work, accordingly, is
not superfluous, and no man, probably, could have accomplished the task
more successfully than M. Muntz, who, it should be mentioned, is the
Librarian of the École des Beaux-Arts at Paris. Having diligently studied
the documentary records of Italian history, and being familiar with the
various Italian schools of painting, he is especially qualified for work of the
kind. His book presents consequently a complete, and apparently
trustworthy record of Raphael's career, from his birth in Urbino in 1483 to
his premature death in Rome, thirty-seven years later, and in it may be
Page 536
clearly traced the progress and development of his art and the influences
which modified it. The author's remarks moreover, on the works of Raphael
and of the other painters he has occasion to mention are thoroughly critical
and appreciative, and never dogmatically expressed. The illustrations, of
which there are nearly two hundred, form a very important feature of the
work; they include, besides engravings from nearly all Raphael's existing
pictures, and views of the localities in which he sojourned, a considerable
number of faithful copies of his original studies and drawings. These being
accurate reproductions of the master's own handiwork, will be regarded
with great interest by students of art, the more so that the originals of many
of them are in private collections inaccessible to the public."—Globe.
"A work of such vast importance and interest as this cannot be adequately
treated in the short scope of a notice like the present. It is so perfectly and
elaborately carried out that a study of its pages can alone do it any degree of
justice. M. Muntz has been enabled to correct in many notable particulars
the great work of Passavant, and his biography of Raphael Sanzio is
unquestionably the best in existence. The illustrations comprise nearly
every work of importance by the master."—Whitehall Review.
"Taken altogether the volume is one of great merit, both literary and
artistic.... Before we pass from it we must pay a tribute to the general
excellence of the translation, which has all the spirit and vigour of an
original work ... the vigorous and eloquent language of the original has, as a
rule, been rendered with like vigour and eloquence, which make the present
beautiful volume as pleasant to read as it is attractive to look at—thus
fitting it alike for the library and the drawing-room."—John Bull.
London: CHAPMAN & HALL, Limited.
which modified it. The author's remarks moreover, on the works of Raphael
and of the other painters he has occasion to mention are thoroughly critical
and appreciative, and never dogmatically expressed. The illustrations, of
which there are nearly two hundred, form a very important feature of the
work; they include, besides engravings from nearly all Raphael's existing
pictures, and views of the localities in which he sojourned, a considerable
number of faithful copies of his original studies and drawings. These being
accurate reproductions of the master's own handiwork, will be regarded
with great interest by students of art, the more so that the originals of many
of them are in private collections inaccessible to the public."—Globe.
"A work of such vast importance and interest as this cannot be adequately
treated in the short scope of a notice like the present. It is so perfectly and
elaborately carried out that a study of its pages can alone do it any degree of
justice. M. Muntz has been enabled to correct in many notable particulars
the great work of Passavant, and his biography of Raphael Sanzio is
unquestionably the best in existence. The illustrations comprise nearly
every work of importance by the master."—Whitehall Review.
"Taken altogether the volume is one of great merit, both literary and
artistic.... Before we pass from it we must pay a tribute to the general
excellence of the translation, which has all the spirit and vigour of an
original work ... the vigorous and eloquent language of the original has, as a
rule, been rendered with like vigour and eloquence, which make the present
beautiful volume as pleasant to read as it is attractive to look at—thus
fitting it alike for the library and the drawing-room."—John Bull.
London: CHAPMAN & HALL, Limited.
Page 537
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF
ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT, VOL. 2 (OF 2) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT, VOL. 2 (OF 2) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
Page 538
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are
Page 539
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.
Page 540
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.
Page 541
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
Page 542
Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
Page 543
you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
Page 544
efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
Page 545
including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
Page 546
copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.