The Arts and Crafts of the Nations

General Editor: S. H. F. CAPENNY

THE ARTS AND CRAFTS
OF ANCIENT EGYPT

OLD KINGDOM RELIEF

55. Wood-carving of Ra-hesy


THE
ARTS & CRAFTS
OF ANCIENT EGYPT

BY
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE
D.C.L., F.R.S., F.B.A., ETC., PROFESSOR OF
EGYPTOLOGY IN LONDON UNIVERSITY;
AUTHOR OF “A HISTORY OF EGYPT,” ETC.

CONTAINING
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY ILLUSTRATIONS

SECOND EDITION
WITH ADDITIONAL CHAPTER

T. N. FOULIS
LONDON & EDINBURGH
1910

First Edition, November 1909
Second Edition, October 1910

PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH


PREFACE

This present handbook is intended to aid in the understanding of Egyptian art, and the illustrations and descriptions are selected for that purpose only. The history of the art would require a far greater range of examples, in order to illustrate the growth and decay of each of the great periods; whereas here only the most striking works of each period are shown, in order to contrast the different civilisations. The origins and connections of the art in each age are scarcely touched, and the technical details are only such as are needed to see the conditions of the art. The archaeology of the subject would need as wide a treatment as the history, and these subjects can only appear here incidentally.

It should be noticed that the divisions of artistic periods are often not the same as those of political history. Politically, the history divides at the XVIIth dynasty with the fall of the Hyksos, and at the XXIInd dynasty with the rise of the Delta government. But artistically the changes are under Tahutmes I, when Syrian influences broke in, and under the XXVIth dynasty, when the classical Greeks began to dominate the art.

The effect of foreign influence in art is quite apart from political power; it is due to rival activities which may or may not mean a physical domination. The reader should ponder different cases, such as those of the spiral design of early Europe entering Egypt, of the Syrian and Cretan art in the XVIIIth dynasty, of the effect of Persia upon Greece, and of Greece upon Italy (both through Magna Graecia and the conquest of Greece), of the effect of the Goth, Lombard, and Northman on Europe, and of Japan on modern Europe. Some reflection on these great artistic movements will give a little insight as to the history of art.

Regarding the illustrations, I have thought it more useful to give details large enough to be clearly seen, rather than to contract too much surface into a space where it cannot well be studied. Portions of subjects are therefore often preferred to general views of a whole. The outlines of artistic value, such as contours of faces or figures, are left quite untouched, as an outline cannot be taken seriously which is dependent on the block-maker clearing a white or black ground. This latter treatment, unfortunately, puts out of artistic use many of the lavishly spaced plates of the Cairo Catalogue, where art is subjected to bibliophily. The liberal policy of all publications and photographs of the Cairo Museum being free of copyright, has enabled me to use many of the excellent untouched photographs of Brugsch Pasha and others. My best thanks are due to Freiherr von Bissing and the publisher of his Denkmaeler Aegypt. Sculptur, for permission to use figures 39, 44, 46, 48, 62, 111, and 112 from that work. Over a third of the illustrations here are from my own photographs not yet published, and principally taken for this volume.

W. M. F. P.


PERIODS AND KINGS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME

Period.Dynasty.Names.B.C.
Prehistoric.8000-5500
Early kings.I.Narmer, Mena, Zer,5500-5400
II.Kha-sekhem,5000
III.Zeser, Senoferu,4900-4700
Pyramid age: Old Kingdom.IV.Khufu, Khafra, Menkaura,4700-4500
V.Nofer-ar-ka-ra, Unas,4400-4200
VI.Pepy II,4100-4000
IX.Khety,3800
Middle Kingdom.XI.Antef V,3500
XII.Senusert I, Senusert II, Senusert III,3400-3300
Amenemhat III,3300-3259
XIII.Hor,3200
New Kingdom.XVIII.Aahmes, Queens Aah-hotep, Aahmes,1587-1562
Tahutmes I, Tahutmes II, Hatshepsut1541-1481
Tahutmes III, Amenhotep II, Tahutmes IV,1481-1414
Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Tut-ankh-amen,1414-1344
XIX.Sety I, Ramessu II, Merenptah,1326-1214
Sety II, Tausert,1214-1203
XX.Ramessu III, IV, XII,1202-1129
XXI.Isiemkheb,1050
XXII.Shishak kings,952-749
XXIII.Pedubast, Pefaabast,755-725
Ethiopian.XXV.Amenardys, Taharqa, Tanut-amen,720-664
Saite.XXVI.Aahmes II,570-526
XXX.Nekhthorheb (Nectanebo),378-361
Ptolemies.Cleopatra Cocce,130-106
Romans.30-A.D. 640

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE
1. [THE CHARACTER OF EGYPTIAN ART] [1]
2. [THE PERIODS AND SCHOOLS] [11]
3. [THE STATUARY] [29]
4. [THE RELIEFS] [48]
5. [THE PAINTING AND DRAWING] [55]
6. [THE ARCHITECTURE] [62]
7. [THE STONE-WORKING] [69]
8. [JEWELLERY] [83]
9. [METAL WORK] [98]
10. [GLAZED WARE AND GLASS] [107]
11. [THE POTTERY] [126]
12. [IVORY-WORKING] [134]
13. [WOODWORK] [137]
14. [PLASTER AND STUCCO] [142]
15. [CLOTHING] [147]
16. [EGYPT’S PLACE IN THE ART OF THE WORLD] [152]
[INDEX] [159]
[BIBLIOGRAPHY] [166]


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig.Dynasty.Subject.Material.Source.Position.Page.
Scenery.
[1]XVIIITemple below cliffs.LimestoneDeir el BahriThebes.[4]
[2]Palms and canal.Illahun.Fayum.
Periods.
[3]Prehist.Dog and deer.Ivory.?Petrie Coll.[13]
[4]Bull and enemy.Slate.?Louvre.
[5]IVServant of Ainofer.Limestone.Saqqareh.Cairo Mus.
[6]XIISenusert I.Memphis.Carlsberg M.
[7]XVIIIServant of Kha-em-hat.Tomb.Thebes.[19]
[8]XIXSons of Ramessu II.Sandstone.Luqsor.
[9]XXVIAahmes-si-neit-rannu.Limestone.Memphis.Cambridge.
[10]Ptolem.Cleopatra Cocce.Sandstone.Kom Ombo.
Schools.
[11]XIXRamessu II.Black granite.Eastern desert.Turin.[24]
[12]Hard limestone.Memphis.Memphis.
[13]Red granite.Aswan.Thebes.
[14]Sandstone.Nubia.Abu Simbel.
Sculpture.
[15]Prehist.Female figure.Ivory.?Petrie Coll.[30]
[16]” ”Limestone.Naqadeh.Oxford Mus.
[17]Male heads.Ivory.?Petrie Coll.
[18]Lion.Limestone.?
[19], [20]INarmer? head; sculptor’s study.?[32]
[21]IKing standing.Ivory.Abydos.British Mus.
[22]IIHead of Kha-sekhem.Limestone.Hierakonpolis.Oxford Mus.
[23]IIIHead of Mertitefs.?Leyden Mus.[33]
[24]Head of Nofert.Medum.Cairo Mus.
[25]IVHead of Ka-aper.Wood.Saqqareh.
[26]Female figure.Wood.
[27]Khafra.Diorite.Gizeh.[34]
[28]Head of Khafra.Cast.
[29]VScribe seated.Limestone.Saqqareh.Louvre.[35]
[30]Family of Khui.Cairo Mus.
[31]Ranofer.
[32]XIIHead of Senusert I.Lisht.[39]
[33]” Senusert III.Red granite.Karnak.
[34]?” Sphinx.Black granite.Tanis.
[35]XII” Amenemhat III.Grey granite.?Univ. Coll., Lond.
[36]XVIII” statue.Quartzite.Thebes.Cairo Mus.[42]
[37]” Tahutmes III.Basalt.Karnak.
[38]” Tut-ankh-amen.Grey granite.
[39]” Akhenaten.Limestone.Thebes.Louvre.
[40]Young negress.Ebony.?Petrie Coll.[43]
[41]Girl on tray handle.Wood.?Louvre.
[42]Girl playing lute.Sedment.Univ. Coll., Lond.
[43]XIXHead of Ramessu II.Black granite.Thebes.Turin Mus.[44]
[44]” Bak-en-khonsu.Hard limestone.Munich Mus.
[45]” Merenptah.Black granite.Cairo Mus.
[46]XXV” Taharqa.Black granite.
[47]” Amenardys.Alabaster.[46]
[48]” Mentu-em-hat.Black granite.Karnak.
[49]XXX” man (cast).Basalt.Memphis.Berlin Mus.
[50]Ptol.” woman (coffin).Wood.?
Reliefs.
[51]Prehist.Hyaena and calf.Limestone.Koptos.Cairo Mus.[48]
[52]Prehist.Gazelles and palms.Slate.?Oxford and Louvre.
[53]Group of animals.Hierakonpolis.Oxford Mus.
[54]Narmer and enemy.Hierakonpolis.Cairo Mus.
[55]IIIRa-hesy, half length.Wood.Saqqareh.[Front.]
[56]VSacrificing bull.Limestone.Ty tomb.Saqqareh.[51]
[57]Oxherd.Ptah-hotep tomb.
[58]XIToilet of princess.Deir el Bahri.Cairo Mus.[52]
[59]XIIHeads of Ptah and Senusert I.Karnak.
[60]XVIIIHatshepsut.Deir el Bahri.Thebes.[53]
[61]Servant of Kha-em-hat.Tomb.
[62]Akhenaten and queen.?Berlin Mus.
[63]XXBulls in marsh.Sandstone.Medinet, Habu.Thebes.[54]
[64]XXVIYouths and girls with animals.Limestone.Memphis.Cairo Mus.
Paintings.
[65]Prehist.Men fighting, vase.Pottery.?Petrie Coll.[56]
[66]Ship, vase.?Cairo Mus.
[67]Ship, tomb.Fresco.Hierakonpolis.
[68]IIIGeese walking.Medum.
[69]XVIIIPelicans and keeper.Horemheb tomb.Thebes.[57]
[70]Gleaning girls.Menna tomb.
[71]Harvesters.Nekht tomb.
[72]Pattern in stages.Amenmes tomb.[58]
[73]Boating scene.Menna tomb.
[74]Guests and girl.Nekht tomb.
[75]Girl somersaulting.Limestone.Thebes?Turin Mus.[60]
[76]Young princesses.Fresco.Tell-el-Amarna.Oxford Mus.
[77]XVIIIMan hauling rope.Fresco.Amenmes tomb.Thebes.
[78]Four races.Rock wall.Rames tomb.
[79]XIXMan adoring.Limestone.Thebes.Cairo Mus.
[80]Sety I offering to Osiris.Rock pillar.Tomb of Sety I.Thebes.
Architecture.
[81]IVTemple of Khafra.Red granite.Gizeh.[66]
[82]XX” Ramessu III.Sandstone.Medinet Habu.Thebes.
[83]Ptolem.Temple of Ergamenes.Dakkeh.Nubia.
[84]VPalm column, Unas.Red granite.Saqqareh.Cairo Mus.[67]
[85]Rose lotus capital.Limestone.
[86]Blue lotus capital.Abusir.
Stone working.
[87]Pre-XVIIIStone vases.Various.Various.[78]
[88]XVIIITrial piece, king’s head.Limestone.Thebes.Petrie Coll.
[89]?Figure in first outlines.Rock-crystal.?
[90]Ptolem.Lion’s head in outlines.Limestone.?
[91]XVIII?Man’s head, unfinished.Thebes.
[92]Prehist.Flint knives, etc.Chert.Naqadeh, etc.[81]
Jewellery.
[93]IBracelets, gold, turquoise.Amethyst.Tomb of Zer.Cairo Mus.[87]
[94]VIChain.Gold.Mahasnah.
[95]”?Seal with hawk heads.?Petrie Coll.
[96]XIIUraeus, wire work.?
[97]Pectoral of Senusert II.Dahshur.Cairo Mus.[88]
[98]” ” III.
[99]Inlaid crown of Khnumt.Gold and stones.[90]
[100]Floret ”Gold and stones.
[101]Granulated work.Gold.
[102]XVIIIBracelet of Aahmes.Gold and lazuli.Thebes.[92]
[103]XVIIIDagger of Aahmes.Gold and bronze.Thebes.Cairo Mus.
[104]Axe of Aahmes.Gold and bronze.
[105]XIXPectoral of Ramessu II.Gold and stones.Saqqareh.Louvre.[94]
[106]XXEarrings of Ramessu XII.Gold.Abydos.Cairo Mus.
[107]XXVStatuette of Hershefi.Ehnasya.Boston Mus.
[108]XXVI?Bowls from temple.Silver.Mendes.Cairo Mus.[96]
[109]Rom.?Chain fastening.Gold.?Petrie Coll.
Metal-working.
[110]VIHead of prince.Copper.Hierakonpolis.Cairo Mus.[100]
[111]XXV?Bust of Takushet.Gold in bronze.?Athens Mus.
[112]” ” side.?
[113]XVIIIFlask of sandal washer.Bronze.?Petrie Coll.[101]
[114]XIXFluted vases.Abydos.Cairo Mus.
[115]XXII?Anti-splash bowl.Silver.Bubastis.Petrie Coll.
Glaze and Glass.
[116]IInlaid glazes of Mena.Green and violet glaze.Abydos.Brit. Mus.[108]
[117]XXLotus and grape border.Coloured glaze.Yehudiyeh.Cairo Mus.
[118]XXVIHead of Isis.Blue glaze.?Petrie Coll.
[119]Royal fan-bearer.?
[120]XVIIIDragged pattern vase.Coloured glass.?British Mus.[120]
[121]””?
[122]Ptol.Coloured mosaics.Glass.?Petrie Coll.
Ivory.
[123]IVKhufu.Ivory.Abydos.Cairo Mus.[136]
[124]VI?Girl standing.?Petrie Coll.
[125]XXVILotus flower.Memphis.Edin. Mus.
[126]Man with offerings.
Wood.
[127]XVIIIBracing of chair.Wood.Tomb of Yuaa.Cairo Mus.[137]
[128]Chair of Sitamen.
[129]Coffer of Amenhotep III.Wood inlaid.
[130]” ”
[131]Couch of Yuaa.Wood.
Plaster.
[132]XVIIIReliefs on chariot.Stucco on wood.Tomb of Tahutmes.Cairo Mus.[144]
[133]Ptol.Lion’s head, casting.Plaster.?Petrie Coll.
[134]King’s head, casting.?
[135]Roman.Man’s head from coffin.?[146]
[136]” ”Kom el Ahmar.Cairo Mus.
[137]Woman’s head from coffin.?Petrie Coll.
[138]Man’s head and skull.Hu.British Mus.
Clothing.
[139]XVIIIWoven patterns, Amenhotep II.Thread.Tomb of Tahutmes IV.Cairo Mus.[148]
[140]Cut-out network.Leather.

Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt

CHAPTER I
THE CHARACTER OF EGYPTIAN ART

The art of a country, like the character of the inhabitants, belongs to the nature of the land. The climate, the scenery, the contrasts of each country, all clothe the artistic impulse as diversely as they clothe the people themselves. A burly, florid Teuton in his furs and jewellery, and a lithe brown Indian in his waist-cloth, would each look entirely absurd in the other’s dress. There is no question of which dress is intrinsically the best in the world; each is relatively the best for its own conditions, and each is out of place in other conditions. So it is with art: it is the expression of thought and feeling in harmony with its own conditions. The only bad art is that which is mechanical, where the impulse to give expression has decayed, and it is reduced to mere copying of styles and motives which do not belong to its actual conditions. An age of copying is the only despicable age.

It is but a confusion of thought, therefore, to try to pit the art of one country against that of another. A Corinthian temple, a Norman church, or a Chinese pavilion are each perfect in their own conditions; but if the temple is of Aberdeen granite, the church of Pacific island coral, and the pavilion amid the Brighton downs, they are each of them hopelessly wrong. To understand any art we must first begin by grasping its conditions, and feeling the contrasts, the necessities, the atmosphere, which underlie the whole terms of expression.

Now the essential conditions in Egypt are before all, an overwhelming sunshine; next, the strongest of contrasts between a vast sterility of desert and the most prolific verdure of the narrow plain; and thirdly, the illimitable level lines of the cultivation, of the desert plateau, and of the limestone strata, crossed by the vertical precipices on either hand rising hundreds of feet without a break. In such conditions the architecture of other lands would look weak or tawdry. But the style of Egypt never fails in all its varieties and changes.

The brilliancy of light led to adopting an architecture of blank walls without windows. The reflected light through open doorways was enough to show most interiors; and for chambers far from the outer door, a square opening about six inches each way in the roof, or a slit along the wall a couple of inches high, let in sufficient light. The results of this system were, that as the walls were not divided by structural features, they were dominated by the scenes that were carved upon them. The wall surface ceased to be regarded as part of a building, and became an expansion of the papyrus or tablet. The Egyptian belief in the magical value of representations led to the figuring of the various parts of the worship on the walls of the temples or tombs, so that the divine service should be perpetually renewed in figure; and thus what we see is not so much a building in the ordinary sense, as an illustrated service-book enclosing the centre of worship. Another result of the fierce indirect light was that which dominated sculpture. The reliefs, beautiful as they often were, would not be distinct in the diffuse facing light; hence strong colouring was applied to render them clear and effective. So much did colouring take the lead that the finest sculptures were often smothered in a stucco facing, laid on to receive the colour. This almost spiteful ignoring of the delicate craft of the sculptor is seen in the XIIth dynasty, and was the ruling method in Ptolemaic work.

The extreme contrast between the desert and the cultivation gave its tone to the artistic sense of the people. On either hand, always in sight, there rose the margin of the boundless waste without life or verdure, the dreaded region of evil spirits and fierce beasts, the home of the nomads that were always ready to swoop on unprotected fields and cattle, if they did not sit down on the borders and eat up the country. Between these two expanses of wilderness lay the narrow strip of richest earth, black, wet, and fertile under the powerful sun; teeming with the force of life, bearing the greenest of crops, as often in the year as it could be watered. In parts may be seen three full crops of corn or beans raised each year beneath the palms that also give their annual burden of fruit; fourfold does the rich ground yield its ever-growing stream of life.

SCENERY

1. The barren desert background

2. The luxuriance of the plain

This exuberance amid absolute sterility is reflected in the proportion between the minuteness of detail and the vastness of the architecture. The most gigantic buildings may have their surfaces crowded with delicate sculpture and minute colouring. What would be disproportionate elsewhere, seems in harmony amid such natural contrasts.

The strongly marked horizontal and vertical lines of the scenery condition the style of buildings that can be placed before such a background. As the temples were approached, the dominant line was the absolute level of the green plain of the Nile valley, without a rise or slope upon it. Behind the building the sky line was the level top of the desert plateau, only broken by an occasional valley, but with never a peak rising above it. And the face of the cliffs that form the stern setting is ruled across with level lines of strata, which rise in a step-like background or a wall lined across as with courses of masonry. The weathering of the cliffs breaks up the walls of rock into vertical pillars with deep shadows between them. In the face of such an overwhelming rectangular framing any architecture less massive and square than that of Egypt would be hopelessly defeated. The pediments of Greece, the circular arches of Rome, the pointed arches of England, would all seem crushed by so stern a setting. The harmony is shown most clearly in the temple of Deir el Bahri ([fig. 1]) below its cliffs which overshadow it. Let any other kind of building be set there, and it would be an impertinent intrusion; the long level lines of the terraces and roofs, the vertical shadows of the colonnades, repose in perfect harmony with the mass of Nature around them. The Egyptian was quite familiar with the arch: he constantly used it in brickwork on a large scale, and he imitated its curve in stone; yet he always hid it in his building, and kept it away from the external forms, instinctively knowing that it could not serve any part of his decorative construction.

These principles, which were thus imposed on the architecture of Egypt, were doubly enforced upon its sculpture. Not only did Nature set the framing of plain and cliff, but her work was reflected and reiterated by the massive walls, square pillars, and flat architraves, amid which Egyptian sculpture had to take its place. In such shrines it would be disastrously incongruous to place a Victory poising on one foot, or a dancing faun. They belong to the peaks of Greece, divided by rushing streams, and clothed with woods,—to a transient world of fleeting beauty, not to a landscape and an architecture of eternity. Egyptian art, however luxurious, however playful it might be, was always framed on a tacit groundwork of its natural conditions. Within those conditions there was scope for most vivid portraiture, most beautiful harmony, most delicate expression, but the Egyptian was wise enough to know his conditions and to obey them. In that obedience lay his greatness.

The truest analysis of art—that of Tolstoy—results in defining it as a means of communicating emotion. It may be the emotion produced by beauty or by loathsomeness; each expression is equally art, though each is not equally desirable art. The emotion may be imparted by words, by forms, by sounds; all are equally vehicles of different kinds of art. But without imparting an emotional perception to the mind there is no art. The emotion may be the highest, that of apprehending character, and the innate meaning of mind and of Nature; or it may be the lower form of sharing in the transient interests and excitements of others; or the basest form of all, that of enjoying their evil. How does the Egyptian appear under this analysis? What emotions can we consider were intended by his art? How far did he succeed in imparting them to the spectators?

To understand the mind of the artist we must look to those qualities which in their literature were held up as the ideals of life. Stability and Strength were the qualities most admired, and the name for public monuments was “firm things.” Assuredly all mankind has looked on the works of Egypt as giving a sense of these qualities before all others. Closely connected is the sense of Endurance, which was enjoined in words, and carried into practice in the laborious work on the hardest rocks. It was for endurance that statues were made of diorite or granite, though they were painted with life-like hues, so that their material was scarcely seen. Upon these primary qualities was built a rich and varied character, reflected in the elaborate and beautiful sculpture which covered, but never interfered with, the grand mass of a monument. Truth and Justice were qualities much sought for in life, and were expressed by the artist in the reality of his immense blocks of stone, often more hidden than seen, and in the fair and even bearing of all material, without any tricks or paradoxes of structure. In all his earlier work his monolith columns and pillars were a protest that a structural unit must express unity, that what supports others must not be in itself divided. The Discipline and Harmony which were looked on as the bond of social life are shown by the subordination of the whole, by the carrying out of single schemes of decoration illustrating the use of every part of a building on all its walls, by the balance of the proportions of the whole so that there seems a perfect fitness of connection through all parts. And the happy union of vigorous Action with prudent Reserve, which showed the wise man in the proverbs, is the basis of those life-like scenes which cover the walls of the tombs, but which never betray the artist into attempting impossibilities or revealing too much.

As true art, then—that is, the expression of his being, and the communication to others of his best feelings and sense of things—the Egyptian work must stand on the highest plane of reality. It would have been a falsehood to his nature to aspire, as a Gothic architect sometimes did, in towers and pinnacles which crush their foundations and will not hold together without incongruous bonds. Nor did he wish to express the romantic sense of beauty, in structure which may tend to exceed the limits of stability. All that belongs to the atmosphere of troubadours and knights errant. The Egyptian possessed in splendid perfection the sense of Strength, Permanence, Majesty, Harmony, and effective Action, tempered with a sympathy and kindliness which cemented a vast disciplined fabric. And these aims of life as a whole he embodied and expressed in his art, with a force and truth which has impressed his character on all who look on his works. He fulfils the canon of true art as completely as any race that has come after him.


CHAPTER II
THE PERIODS AND SCHOOLS

Before we can understand any art the first step is to discriminate between the different periods and their various styles, and to observe the characteristics of the several schools. If we consider medieval architecture, we separate the many periods from Saxon to Renaissance; if we turn to painting, we distinguish many stages between Cimabue and Canaletto, yet these variations belong but to a single revolution of civilisation, and are comprised within some centuries; in Egyptian art we have to deal with seven revolutions of civilisation and thousands of years. And not only the period, but also the source and traditions of each local branch of the art are to be recognised, and we discriminate a dozen schools of painting between Rome and Venice, each with its own style. So in Egypt we need to learn the various schools and understand their differences. In this chapter we shall notice the essential characters of each period and school as compared together; while in the following chapters the more technical detail of the statuary, reliefs, and paintings will be considered.

In order to grasp more readily the differences of period and of place, there are given here eight typical examples of different periods ([figs. 3 to 10]), and four examples of different schools during one reign ([figs. 11 to 14]). These may be supplemented by reference to subsequent illustrations, but the contrasts will be more readily seen in a simultaneous view.

THE PERIODS OF ART

3. Prehistoric

4. Earliest dynastic

5. Old Kingdom (IV)

6. Middle Kingdom (XII)

The Prehistoric work (8000-5500 B.C.) shows much more mechanical than artistic ability. The treatment of the hardest materials was masterful; granite and porphyry were wrought as freely as limestone and alabaster; perfectly regular forms of vases were cut entirely by hand without any lathe. But with this there was a very tentative idea of animate forms. The feet and hands were omitted, and limbs ended only in points. The form of an outline was not thought to imply a solid, and it needed to be hatched over with cross lines ([fig. 3]) to show that it was a continuous body. The noses of animals are frequently shown touching, as in this instance of the dog and addax. In short, the figures are mere symbols of ideas, with little regard to their actual nature and appearance. This symbolic stage of art is found in most countries, and often with a higher sense of form and expression than among the prehistoric people of the Nile; there is nothing of this age in Egypt to compare with the carvings of the cave men of Europe.

Early. Late.

There is no sign of progress in art during this time. The slate palettes, cut in the forms of animal outlines, which were made through the whole age, begin with recognisable forms; and these were degraded by copying, until at the end their original types could hardly be guessed. The animal figures on ivory combs are passable in the earlier part of the age, and disappear entirely later on. The human figures, which are frequent in early times, are very rarely found later. The flint working shows degeneration long before historic times. And the pottery loses its fine forms, regularity, and brilliant finish, and becomes rough and coarse. In every direction it seems that the earliest prehistoric civilisation, which was probably connected with Libya, was superseded by a lower race, which was probably from the East.

The first dynasty (5500 B.C.) appears to have brought in entirely new influences. While the material civilisation naturally went on with many of the older elements, yet in all directions a new spirit and moving power is seen. The conquest of the country by a race of invaders is shown on many carvings, most of which are probably of the three centuries of unification, before the start of the dynastic history of the whole country. One of the most typical of these carvings is [fig. 4], where the king is represented as a bull trampling upon his enemy. Other examples are given in [figs. 51 to 54].

The whole character of the art is changed. Instead of the clumsy and spiritless figures of the prehistoric people, we meet with vigorous forms full of life and character. Perhaps one of the earliest is the hyaena ([fig. 51]); the slates are rather later, reaching down to the beginning of the first dynasty; and the figures in the round ([19 to 22]) show what a living and powerful art had suddenly sprung up and was developed under the early kings. The same growth is seen in the advance of glazing for important architectural use on a large scale. And the introduction and rapid development of hieroglyphic writing stamps the new age as the beginning of written history, the start of the conscious preservation by man of a regular record of his past acts.

This new growth of art rejoiced in its fresh found powers. It searched for the truth, it carefully observed anatomy, and—like a learner—it was proud of its knowledge, and emphasised the precise place of the muscles which it had traced out. For that very reason it is essentially a true art, without any of the slovenly substitutes for Nature which are termed conventions. It had no traditions to spoil it or hold it back: it was full of observation as the only method for its work. It is always simple and dignified, and shows more truth and precision than any art of a later age.

After the conscious study of Nature, the greatest step in any art is the deliberate work for the sake of its own beauty, and not merely because it has to tell a story. It may be said that this is the birth of true art; all before that merely consists of representations for another purpose. But work for the sake of beauty alone is art pure and simple, and this stage was reached at the very beginning of the history, in the beautiful carving of the palm tree and long-necked gazelles ([fig. 52]).

The Pyramid age (4700-4000 B.C.) brought in fresh ideals. The early kings had expanded a chieftainship into a kingdom, without realising all the new conditions of organization which were involved. The great work of the early pyramid kings, Senoferu and Khufu, was the massive organizing of the civil service of the country, the establishment of a social organism which resisted all the invasions and disasters of the land, and survived in parts to our own times. These new ideals were naturally reflected in the art. In place of tombs such as any great chief might have ordered, the most gigantic pyramids were erected, buildings yet unsurpassed in bulk and in accuracy of workmanship. The new social order of the official world followed in the same lines, and dozens of tombs were sculptured in each reign, larger and more elaborate than most of the royal sepulchres of other lands and ages. The host of these tombs which remain constitute a larger treasury of artistic work than there is of any other period in the world’s history.

A typical example of this new order is the figure of a servant of a noble named Ainofer ([fig. 5]). The high rounded relief, the sense of action, the delicacy of detail and expression, all mark this new time. The greater part of the really fine sculpture that we possess in Egypt comes from this time. The statuary ([figs. 23 to 31]), the reliefs ([figs. 55 to 57]), the painting ([fig. 68]), all show the noble spaciousness and grandeur of the age. Its style is severe and never trifles with superfluities. The smallest as well as the largest work seems complete and inevitable, without being constrained by any limitations of time, or labour, or thought. For the expression of royal energy, dignity, and equanimity the figures of Khufu and Khafra are unsurpassed. In the vivid expression of personal character no age has surpassed the statues of the officials and their wives. The style of other ages may be more scholastic, more amusing, or more graceful, but for all that constitutes great art no period can compare with that of the mighty pyramid kings.

All things pass away, and during the centuries of disruption which followed the VIth dynasty the old style ran down to an incredible coarseness and clumsy copying. At the close of the XIth dynasty a revival took place. Like all great developments of art it rose with extraordinary rapidity, and within a generation or two the new movement was fully grown. Its characteristic was the use of very low relief, with faint but perfectly clear outlines (see [fig. 6]). It was the style of a school, and not that of Nature. A regular course of artistic training is described by an artist; first was taught the positions of figures in slow action, then the differences of male and female figures, next mythological subjects, and lastly, the attitudes of rapid action. This mechanical training naturally went with elaboration of detail. The minute lining over large masses of hair, the carving of every bead of a necklace, were the outcome of scholastic training. The artificial reduction of figures in the round to a very delicate variation of planes in low relief was according to the same system. The whole works of the XIIth dynasty are beautiful, reserved, and pleasing, with a clearness and finish which appeals to a sense of orderly perfection. They have neither the grandeur of what went before nor the grace of what followed them.

THE PERIODS OF ART

7. XVIIIth dynasty

8. XIXth dynasty

9. Saite (XXVI)

10. Ptolemaic

The XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties are the most popularly known age of the art. The profusion of remains, their accessibility at Thebes, and the more intimate style of the designs, have led to their general acceptance as typical. This position must not be allowed in a wider knowledge of the subject. The whole level of art of the XVIIIth dynasty is as much below that of the XIIth, as the style of the XIIth is below that of the IVth dynasty. The scholastic work of the XIIth is followed by a treatment which is almost always conventional in the XVIIIth; and the XIXth dynasty shows merely a degradation of what preceded it. At the close of the XVIIth dynasty there emerges from the turmoil of the Hyksos barbarism a rude but lively style of drawing, with sculpture of clumsy figures and badly-formed hieroglyphs. Stepping into the XVIIIth dynasty we meet with stiff and rather heavy statuettes, the female figures, however, showing the dawn of the seductive grace which followed. Little can be said to have changed in ideals since the XIIth dynasty, until the Asiatic conquests altered the civilisation of Egypt. Thothmes I and III brought back thousands of Syrian captives, many of whom were selected for their beauty and their artistic ability; their work and their influence transformed the art, and the ideal became that of a light, graceful, fascinating type which posed much and suggested more.

The art of character had become secondary to the art of emotion. Vivacity and romance led the way, and the older studies of deeper life and fine anatomy were out of date. Fluttering ribbons and prancing horses and galloping calves were represented without the laborious sculpture, but merely painted with a flowing line on the tomb walls, which were plastered smooth over the roughest hewing in the rock. The cheapest road to effect was the favourite way, and the eternal solidity and dignified simplicity of the older ages had vanished. The figure of an official of Kha-em-hat ([fig. 7]) is typical of the best work of this age. The other examples are shown in figs. [36-42], [60-62], [69-78]. This new order of things culminated under Akhenaten, when naturalism, influenced largely from Greece, removed the older principles of Egyptian art; and all the passing incidents of life, the domestic affections of the king and the festivities of his court, became the subjects of even funerary sculptures and painting in the tombs. After that stage there was nothing left to do but to fall back on the old stock subjects and copy and re-copy them worse and worse during the succeeding dynasties. Egyptian art perishes with Akhenaten; all that came after was a bloodless imitation.

The XIXth dynasty art is fairly represented by a figure of one of the king’s sons ([fig. 8]). Here is seen the baldness of the style. The profile is mechanical, the hair hangs in a heavy and ugly flap, the body has no anatomy, the legs are badly drawn, and the long streamers flying from the waist are out of keeping. The coarse, heavy work of the temples of Abu Simbel, or the great hall of Karnak, is obtrusive in spite of their grandiose conception. In the XXth dynasty the inscriptions also suffered by being cut very deeply, so that the signs appeared as black shadows without any detail. The decay was only arrested by a deliberate copying of the style of the pyramid age.

The XXVIth dynasty tried to recover the early grandeur of sculpture by close imitation, but it is rarely that any fragment of this work does not betray itself by its inane treatment, bad jointing of the limbs, and want of proportion. One of the best examples of the more original work is the figure of an elderly official ([fig. 9]). The want of detail is hidden by the stiff robe without a fold or curve, leaving only the head and extremities to be represented. Another example is in [fig. 64], where the bad jointing and lack of anatomy is too evident.

In the Ptolemaic time these faults are even more apparent, when the bad copy of a copy was the ideal. In [fig. 10] is seen the hopelessly wrong proportioning of the parts, the clumsy lumps of flesh and exaggerated muscles, which are the extreme opposite to the over-refined flat relief of the XIIth dynasty. The hair partakes of the same faults, being carved as rows of lumps representing separate curls.

Portraiture, which compelled some attention to Nature, is the latest surviving form of art. In the XXVIth dynasty fairly good heads were occasionally done, but often with some disproportion. The modelled stucco heads of the Roman age are the last stage. Some of them show a real ability and feeling for character ([figs. 135 to 137]), and one example which can be compared with the skull proves the accuracy of the modelling ([fig. 138]).

The various Schools of Art should now be noticed. The styles of the different periods that we have considered were of course obvious in all the schools; the character of an age affected all parts of the country. Owing to the absence of any artists’ names, and the extreme rarity of those of architects, it is impossible to trace the personal origin of any works. And as we cannot say how much the artists travelled about the country, mere locality does not prove a conclusive test; probably for royal works the artists went to any city according to orders. Among private tombs we can see great differences of style, as between Memphis, Thebes, and Aswan. But the difficulty of exact dating makes comparison doubtful, as we might set side by side works of the rise and of the climax of a period. The most satisfactory evidence about the schools is from the statuary in different materials. When once a sculptor was trained to the peculiarities of one stone he would not be likely to enter on all the difficulties of a fresh material. A man trained for years to slicing and bruising out granite without the least fear of a crack, would not relish hewing soft sandstones that split, or limestone that could not be trusted with its own weight on a finished surface. Certainly the men who learned sculpture on the softer materials would be helpless on the granite. Then we know that the statues were at least dressed into shape—if not entirely finished—at the quarries, and hence the work in one material would continue in the hands of one local school. It is therefore likely that the stone workers of each material formed an unbroken succession, probably in certain families for the most part, and handed on their traditions for several dynasties successively, perhaps even throughout thousands of years. This would not be so much the case in relief sculpture, as there the blocks were built in and sculptured at the building, wherever that might be.

When we look for differences of treatment we see how strongly one style of work is continued in one material through a long period. We have here contemporaneous examples in four different stones, the statues of Rameses II in black granite, hard limestone, red granite and Nubian sandstone ([figs. 11 to 14]). In all cases work in black granite is finer than that in the other stones at the same period. The figures of the so-called Hyksos type ([fig. 34]), of the XIIIth, the XVIIIth, the XIXth and the XXVth dynasties, and the sarcophagi of the XVIIIth dynasty, in black granite, all show far finer forms and finish than those in the other materials. Of briefer use there were two other stones which show equally fine work—diorite, which was hardly ever sculptured except in the IVth dynasty ([fig. 27]), and green basalt, used in the XVIIIth ([fig. 37]). The green basalt must be put in the highest place as regards minute handling and freedom of curves; the fine grain and moderate hardness were most favourable to the artist. The black granite work comes next in quality, having fine curves but not quite the same freedom, owing to the coarser grain. The diorite has a beautiful grain for work, but the hardness has influenced the detail of recesses, and it is seldom that inner angles are as truly worked out as in the black granite. The comparison is perhaps hardly just, as there are no contemporary works in these two stones. It seems not improbable that all these hard stones were found in the same region, the Eastern desert, and that they were all worked by one school. That there was a fine technical training there in early times is shown by the splendid bowls and vases of the hardest rocks which were wrought in prehistoric ages and the first dynasty. Such vases were made in the mountain district, as the figures of a warmly-clad race bear them in tribute to the Egyptian king (Jour. Anthrop. Inst., xxxi., pl. xix., 13-15). Thus we may look on this black-granite school as belonging really to the border people of the Eastern desert, and not to the Nile plain.

RAMESSU II, BY DIFFERENT SCHOOLS

11. Black granite

12. Hard limestone

13. Red granite

14. Nubian sandstone

The limestone school was expressly that of Memphis and Middle Egypt. It is best known from the host of private statues found in the cemetery of Saqqareh. Work of the finest delicacy was done in this soft and uniform material (see figs. [24], [29-32]); and a branch of the same school was that working the harder limestones which were a favourite stone in the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties in upper Egypt, as in the colossus of Rameses II ([fig. 12]). Both branches of this school excelled in the delicate expression of physiognomy; the proportions of the limbs and the finish of the extremities are usually excellent. The alabaster work is a branch of this same school, with similar proportion and finish. It is a rare material for sculpture till the XVIIIth dynasty, but under Amenhotep II to IV it was often used; and it serves for one of the best works of later time, the statue of Amenardys ([fig. 47]). The quarries were in the midst of the limestone hills, especially where the hard limestone occurs near Tell-el-Amarna. Thus the same school dealt with this whole group of calcareous rocks.

Another very fine school was that of the quartzite sandstone of Gebel Ahmar, near Cairo. The material was closely limited to a single hill cemented by hot springs; and what is now seen there is only the immense heap of chippings left by workers of all ages: the hill itself has almost vanished. This material was worked in the pyramid times, but only roughly. The XIIth dynasty kings saw its value, and quarried it for sarcophagi and chambers, but seldom used it for sculpture. The XVIIIth dynasty attacked it on an enormous scale; the two great colossi of Amenhotep III, weighing 1175 tons each, were cut and carried up-stream 450 miles to Thebes. Statues are found, royal and private, in all parts of the land, and naturally this stone was largely used at Tanis. The work is usually excellent, almost equal to the limestone sculpture; but it generally falls a little below that of the previous schools in the depth of cutting and the freedom of work in hollows.

The red granite school was at Aswan, where the statues and obelisks are still lying unfinished in the quarries. The artist was much hindered by the coarse grain of the stone, which made fine work difficult. On the obelisks this has been fairly overcome by a great amount of emery cutting, and sharp smooth hieroglyphs were cleanly cut. But for statuary, even in the pyramid age the features are coarsely worked and the detail scanty; and when used later on a large scale, the forms are heavy, the inner angles seldom worked out, and the extremities thick and massive. This is seen in the colossus of Rameses II ([fig. 13]), as well as in earlier figures.

The Nubian sandstone school was the least artistic. The softness and ready splitting of the stone prevented clean and well-finished work. Detail was almost impossible, and it was a mistake to use a good building stone for the wrong purpose of fine carving. In early times this stone was never used, except locally in its own region. The XIIth dynasty rarely used it, but by the middle of the XVIIIth it became general, and it was the main stone of the XIXth dynasty in Upper Egypt. Its use, however, does not come down to Middle or Lower Egypt. The long avenue of sphinxes at Thebes are the most familiar sculpture in this material, and similar figures were also placed by Amenhotep III in his temple on the Western bank. The great colossi of Abu Simbel are the main example of sculpture in this stone ([fig. 14]). They show the defects of the other southern school, that of red granite. The limbs are square and heavy, the feet and hands are flat and mechanical, and the muscles are crude ridges. But the face is fairly rendered, as well perhaps as was practicable in such material.

We thus see that there were essential differences between the various schools of Egyptian art, partly due to the various peoples, but mainly resulting from the material used by each school.


CHAPTER III
THE STATUARY

Figures in the round are the earliest mode of modelling, and remain the most important, as they are less conditioned than reliefs, and give full scope to ability and knowledge. The earliest human figures are found in the second stage of the prehistoric age, immediately after the white-lined pottery. They are of ivory, limestone, slate, pottery, or of stick and paste. Such figures did not continue to be made after the middle of the prehistoric civilisation. The ivory figures usually end in a mere peg below, with wide hips and shoulders, but no arms. The eyes are marked, though often the mouth and nose are omitted ([fig. 15]). The limestone or cement figures have the division of the legs lined out; some are standing, as [fig. 16], with tatu marks painted on the stone; others are of the armless form, seated, and clearly of the steatopygous Bushman type. The slate figures are always of men, with pointed beards, and white beads inserted for eyes. The pottery figures are roughly modelled, but with the legs separated. The stick and paste figures are made by modelling a vegetable paste over a stick; the legs are marked, sometimes arms are added, or else there are merely shoulder stumps. In one case the head is modelled bald, painted red, and has a black wig modelled over it, showing that separate wigs are as old as the prehistoric time. Some ivory tusks are carved with a much more advanced style of heads ([fig. 17]), which give the best idea that we have of the type of the people. The animal figures are rudely cut, but have a certain ferocious air ([fig. 18]).

Some much more advanced figures in ivory have the legs and arms separate, and a passable amount of modelling in the head and body. Though quite of prehistoric style, they are probably influenced by the school of highly developed ivory-work of the Ist dynasty, and may shortly precede that time.

PREHISTORIC

15, 16, 17, 18. Prehistoric figures in the round

The early dynastic age brought in entirely new ideals. The oldest figures of this time are the colossal statues of the god Min from Koptos. These are of much the same work as the prehistoric human figures, but have spirited drawings of animals incised on them (see [fig. 51]). Just before the Ist dynasty there came a finely developed style of ivory-carving, which is known to us by the many figures of men and women found at Hierakonpolis. The finest stone-work of that age is a study in limestone of a king’s head (figs. [19], [20]), which is so closely like Narmer ([fig. 54]) that it must be just at the beginning of the Ist dynasty. It is a sculptor’s study of a king preparatory to making his statue, and, as Professor A. Michaelis says, “it renders the race-type with astounding keenness, and shows an excellent power of observation in the exact representation of the eyes.” The delicacy of the facial curves should be noticed, and the entire absence of any conventions in the modelling of the mouth as well as the eyes. The widely prominent ears are a characteristic of the earliest historic figures; such a feature belongs to a hunting race who need to catch sounds, and suggests that they always slept on their backs. This is unlike the prehistoric folk, who were always buried contracted and lying on the side, as being their natural attitude; but it agrees with the modern Egyptian, who sleeps in the mummy posture, lying on the back.

A large number of ivory figures were found at Abydos, fully developed in style, beyond those of Hierakonpolis. They comprise figures of girls, boys, dogs, apes, a bear, and many lions. They are admirably easy in their pose, and perfectly natural in form with a simplicity and truthfulness better than any later work. The figure of an old king ([fig. 21]) was with these; notice the subtle expression of the face, the droop of the head forward, and the natural air. This is probably early in the Ist dynasty.

Rather later is the hard limestone head of King Kha-sekhem, of the IInd dynasty ([fig. 22]). Fine as the modelling is about the mouth, yet convention has already crept in; the edges of the lips are sharpened, and the extended line at the outer corner of the eye has been introduced. We see then under the earliest dynasties the observation of Nature free from any artificial trammels, unconscious, simple and dignified, on a higher plane of truthfulness and precision than is found in later art.

EARLIEST DYNASTIES

19, 20. Ist dynasty king, limestone

21. Ist dynasty king, ivory

22. Kha-sekhem (IInd dynasty)

In the pyramid age we will first observe the earlier private figures ([23 to 26]). Queen Mertitefs ([fig. 23]) was the wife of Seneferu, at the close of the IIIrd dynasty. In her type of face, and the treatment of it, we see an earlier race and earlier work than that of the pyramid times. The large, staring eyes, the mouth turning down, the natural hair cut short and brushed straight down over the forehead beneath the wig,—all these details disappear after this. When we compare this with the head of Nofert ([fig. 24]), who was of the next generation, the change of type and work is at once seen. In Nofert the eyes are admirably placed, the brow is perfectly natural, and the modelling of the features is irreproachable. Yet there is less absolute naturalism than in the older work of the Ist dynasty. The hair is evidently kept complete beneath the wig, and is laid out smoothly over the forehead.

OLD KINGDOM SCULPTURE

23. Mertitefs

24. Nofert

25. Ka-aper

26. Unknown

The celebrated figure of Ka-aper, or the “Sheykh el Beled,” belongs to the same period. The figure is so well known that it need not appear here, but the full face is less familiar ([fig. 25]). The mouth and chin are perhaps the most truthful part, and seem entirely free from convention. The eyes are excellent in form, but affected by the technical detail of inserting the eyeball of stone and crystal in a copper frame. The similar eyes in the head of Nofert are more carefully inserted, so that the frame is not obvious. The hair is represented as closely cut, so as to allow the wig to be put over it. We can, however, hardly judge of this figure as it is, stripped of the coat of coloured stucco which covered such work. The portions of similar wooden figures in the temple of Abydos had all been thus painted. Such a coat would modify the eye setting, and leave only the dark line visible which imitated the kohl on the eyelids.

Another work of the same age is the best for the pose of the figure ([fig. 26]). The vigorous, independent, frank attitude is perhaps the finest in any portrait, ancient or modern. The profile is of the same type as that of Nofert, alike in the strong brow and the form of the nose and chin; the eye is more prominent, and the mouth less luxurious, while the under-chin is firmer. Such differences are all in keeping with the character, that of an active mistress of an estate rather than an easy-going noble.

We shall not find in any of the subsequent work of the pyramid age—still less in the later ages—such vitality and strength of individual character as we have seen in these early portraits. With these stands also the minute head of Khufu ([fig. 123]), which we shall notice with the ivory-work.

OLD KINGDOM SCULPTURE

27, 28. King Khafra (IVth dynasty)

The statue of Khafra ([fig. 27]) carved in diorite is one of the grandest works of Egypt. The entire dignity and majesty shown contrast strongly with the active air of the subordinate classes. The muscular detail is powerful, but yet in keeping with the serenity of the figure. The whole is best grasped from below, as it was intended to be seen; but the head should be studied at its own level, and the profile, from a cast ([fig. 28]), shows the form as it originally appeared when covered with a facing which concealed the grain of the stone. The difference of character between the calm, easy dignity of this, and the terrible energy of Khufu ([fig. 123]), should be observed. It shows how free the art is from any mere convention of majesty. The hawk behind the king is shown as spreading out its wings to protect the royal head. This symbolism is ingeniously hidden in the front view, so as not to interfere with the effect of the whole figure as it was intended to be seen. The figures of the Vth and VIth dynasties have more vivacity than those earlier, but scarcely such a real vitality. The well-known scribe ([fig. 29]) is a good piece of expression, showing the attentive, waiting air of a man who is following dictation. The anatomy is not detailed, and the surfaces look rather blocked out and bald as compared with Khafra.

OLD KINGDOM SCULPTURE

29. The scribe

30. Wife and daughter

31. Ranofer

The lower part of a group is given here ([fig. 30]) for figures of the seated wife and daughter. These show good modelling of the figure in a close-fitting garment, and the hair is worn over the forehead beneath the wig, as by Nofert. The figure of Ranofer ([fig. 31]) is one of the most dignified of the portraits of officials. The pose is strong; the muscles are well rendered, and not too full though clear. The wig stands well off the head, and gives a continuous outline with the figure. It is hard to see how the whole expression could be better than this.

On looking closely at the detail of these early statues, there is very little that can be set down as conventional. All the features are natural, well placed, and harmonious. The relation of the brow to the eyes is generally true. But this point was entirely missed in later times. In the XIIth dynasty the eye is rather too forward; and in the XVIIIth there is hardly a single statue that is correct, the eyes usually projecting to the plane of the brow. On observing even the finest figures of later times it will be seen how purely conventional is their treatment; the mouth and eyes are cold and mechanical, and it is seldom that any one feature even approaches the truth of the early art.

In the XIIth dynasty the work shows the scholastic style of deliberate accuracy, without as much personal vitality as in earlier times. Yet it is full of carefully observed detail, and is by no means perfunctory like the later work.

The facial surfaces are well rendered: observe the varied treatment of the cheek below the eye in figs. [32], [33], and [35], which are clearly individual. The entirely different form of the mouth in these three is as evidently personal. Throughout Egyptian work the eye is of two distinct types, both of which we see here in the XIIth dynasty. In one type ([fig. 32]) the upper lid rises to its highest point near the inner side; and with this form the actual corner, or canthus major, may end in a mere angle or in a lachrymal fossa more or less developed, an extreme case of the long and wide fossa being seen in [fig. 32], and in the black granite figure from Alexandria (so-called Hyksos) in Cairo. This may be called the gibbous form of lid, and it is the more usual in the sculpture and on coffins. The use of a copper frame round the inserted eye in Old Kingdom statues makes it uncertain how far the lachrymal fossa was intended to appear. But the statues of a single material show a small fossa in most cases, such as Khafra, Dadefra, the (so-called) wife of the Sheykh, and Sebekhotep III. In later work there is no fossa, but only an angle, as in Tahutmes III, Amenhotep III, Amenhotep son of Hapi, and other instances to the end of the dynasties. But a slight fossa is shown in Akhenaten and his family, and in Ramessu II; and, under the Ethiopians, Taharqa and Amenardys are both shown with a long fossa.

The other type of eye seen in figs. [33], [35] may be called the narrow eye. This seems to belong mainly to the Middle Kingdom, and is seen in Senusert III, Amenemhat III, Queen Nofert, and Noferhotep. It is perhaps unknown at an earlier age; and later it rarely occurs, but may be seen in Merenptah, and somewhat in Mentu-em-hat and some portraits of the XXVIth dynasty. These remarks are merely to draw attention to a detail which is easily observed and seldom defaced; but for drawing conclusions an extensive study is needed of all the varieties of form and treatment, not only of the eye, but also of the lips, nostrils, ears, and hair. How far such detail belonged to the subject, and how much is due to artistic conventions, we cannot yet say; but from the similarities of portraits of the same person it seems probable that the details are really due to differences of type.

MIDDLE KINGDOM SCULPTURE

32. Senusert I

33. Senusert III

34. Foreign type

35. Amenemhat III

We now have a very difficult question to state as to the origin of the remarkable type of [fig. 34]. This is one of the class of sphinxes and statues commonly described as being of the Hyksos. Yet, as the Hyksos kings’ names are roughly cut on the shoulders of the sphinxes, they are clearly not the original inscriptions; and, as clearly, these figures are older than the Hyksos. The type is distinguished by an extreme muscularity of the face, deeply cut, powerful lips with strong flexures, and the long nose, not very prominent, but broad. All these points are much in excess of such features on any statue of a named Egyptian king. Some similarities may be seen in the type of Senusert III and Amenemhat III (figs. [33], [35]); but these latter are much less strong and unconventional. It is probable that some of the stock of [fig. 34] has gone to form the type of figs. [33] and [35], but it is impossible to see in them a uniform single type. It seems most probable that [fig. 34] belongs to an invading people from Syria during the decadence of the Old Kingdom, between the VIIth and Xth dynasties; but until some example with an original name may be found, it is useless to be more definite. It is noticeable how all of the heads of this type are in black granite, or rarely some other igneous rock; this suggests that they were wrought by the school of the eastern desert, and may therefore not be controlled by the decadence of ordinary Egyptian work between the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

Whether other strange works in black granite—such as the fish-offerers of Tanis—belong to the same age, has been questioned. It may be noted, however, that the sphinxes and the black granite bust from Alexandria have a large lachrymal fossa, while the fish-offerers have no fossa, but only an inner angle to the eye. The so-called Hyksos figures from Bubastis are not really of this type, but show an inheritance of some of its characters, such as belong to the royal family in the XIIth dynasty. Whenever the royal portraiture of the XIIth dynasty is fully collected and studied, it will be possible to clear the attribution of many statues, and so to separate those which really belong to the earlier stock.

On coming to the XVIIIth dynasty a more mechanical style prevails ([figs. 36-39]). This is obvious in the formal raised band of eyebrow, and the eyes being brought forward to the plane of the forehead. The lips remain more natural, and are still treated expressively. The best work of this age is the green basalt statue of Tahutmes III in Cairo ([fig. 37]). It accords closely with another figure of black granite of the same king; but the red granite head in the British Museum is much coarser and less expressive, as is natural from that school of granite work. The large nose is vouched for as a family characteristic in the reliefs of Tahutmes II and Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahri, which have precisely the same outline of brow and nose; the under-side of the nose, the slightly rising curve of the lips to the outer corner, and the flatness of the facing of the lips, seem to be individual details.

The head [fig. 36] is of an official of Amenhotep III, in quartzite. It has a fairly good outline of the cheek, and well-cut lips; and it shows the more florid and romantic turn of this age in the wavy hair marked out with lines.

Under Akhenaten ([fig. 39]) there came a revolution of art, which was perhaps only a culmination of the naturalistic tendencies that were growing during the preceding reigns. But it was enforced and supported by the surrounding changes in religion, ethics, and politics which were carried out by the humanist reformer who ruled. It was probably also stimulated by the influence of the contemporary art of Crete and Greece, the whole eastern Mediterranean apparently sharing in a general movement. We shall notice this further when considering reliefs and painting. Of round sculpture the best figure remaining is that of Akhenaten now in Paris ([fig. 39]). It has been part of a group of the king and queen sitting together, and it shows all the characteristics of this school in the best form. The eyes are quite natural; the lips are emphasised by a sharp edge along their borders; the jaw and neck are excellently rendered; and the ear, with its large pierced lobe, is clearly true to life.

Though the reforms of Akhenaten mostly perished with him, yet the training of his artists is still to be seen in the sculpture of Tut-ankh-amen ([fig. 38]). This has not the professional completeness of style seen under Tahutmes III ([fig. 37]), but it carries on the less precise sentimentalism of Akhenaten ([fig. 39]), with much feeling for expression and beauty, but a lack of grip and force. The brow is neglected, the eye is feeble, the cheek is without detail, but the lips and chin are enforced as far as possible. The whole effect is sweet but not impressive.

NEW KINGDOM SCULPTURE

36. Under Amenhotep III

37. Tahutmes III

38. Tut-ankh-amen

39. Akhenaten

We now turn to the minor work in wood. In the Old Kingdom, wood was frequently carved on a large scale; of the Middle Kingdom there is the statue of King Hor; but under the New Kingdom the only large figures are some rather coarse funeral statues. On the other hand, in small figures there is a profusion of wood-carving. The wooden ushabtis are often beautifully treated; the draped figures of women are graceful and dignified, with minute working of the hair and dress; the grotesque figures of toilet objects are full of character; but here our space limits us to one class, and we give the nude figures ([figs. 40-42]), as such are rarely found in other material.

NEW KINGDOM SCULPTURE

40, 41, 42. Wood-carvings of girls (XVIIIth dynasty)

The little negress ([fig. 40]), carved in ebony, is part of a group representing her carrying a tray, which is supported by a monkey before her. But these accessories are inferior, and merely hide the figure; the edge of the tray has been slightly cut in on the breast and thus disfigured it. The detail of this statuette is better than any other such work; the perfect pose of the attitude, the poise of the head, the fulness of the muscles, the innocent gravity of the expression, are all excellent.

Other figures are carved in the handles of toilet trays. The girl in [fig. 41] holding flowers and birds is on a smaller and coarser scale than the preceding, but is excellent in expression and in the modelling of the trunk. The damsel playing a lute on her boat amid the papyrus thicket ([fig. 42]) shows one of the graceful adjuncts of water-parties in high life. The length of leg is exaggerated to harmonise with the long stems around; but the pose is skilfully seized, the distance of the feet being needful for balance in a little shallop, while the cling of the thighs is maintained. There is more self-consciousness and deliberate effect in this expression than in that of the little girls seen before.

The age of decadence now begins with the Ramessides. One fine piece arrests us in the black granite statue of Ramessu II ([fig. 43]), of which an entire view is given in [fig. 11]. The whole pose is fairly good, the face looking down toward the spectator below. The king is no longer the dignified organiser of the Old Kingdom, with a vision far away beyond everyday matters, but he is obviously considering the opinion of the man in front of him. The detail is almost equal to that of the previous dynasty; the eye is natural, the nose rather formal, the lips with the sharp edge even more developed than before, and the chin and throat less modelled. The elbow is carefully wrought, bringing out the fold of flesh and the muscle separately, the accuracy of which is questionable.

A good example of a private sculpture is the head of Bak-en-khonsu ([fig. 44]). The eye is only slightly indicated, leaning to the conventional blocking out seen in figs. [91] and [137]. The profile is good, and the lips are less exaggerated than in the royal statues. The artist could give all his attention to the face alone, as the figure is entirely hidden in an almost cubic block, which represents the man seated with knees drawn up before the chest.

NEW KINGDOM SCULPTURE

43. Ramessu II

44. Bak-en-khonsu

45. Merenptah

46. Taharqa

The head of Merenptah ([fig. 45]) shows him as inheriting and imitating his father’s face and attitude. The style is cold and formal; the eyes are so forward as to be even beyond the plane of the forehead, and scarcely capped by the brow. But the nose and lips are natural and free of the forcing which is seen rather earlier. There is no attempt at any delicacy of facial curves, and the chin and throat are masked by the official beard. As this is in gray granite, and was executed as the ka statue of the king’s personal temple, it may be taken as the best that could be done at that time.

A different feeling comes in with the massive individual portrait of Taharqa ([fig. 46]). The facial muscles are strongly marked, but the mouth is singularly unformed, and is exactly the opposite of that in the strong type of [fig. 34]. The eyes are of the gibbous form, with a long slot of lachrymal fossa, which is also shown in the kindred figure of Queen Amenardys ([fig. 47]). The style is not akin to any other Egyptian work, and it seems as if an entirely different physiognomy had challenged the sculptor and made him drop his usual treatment and study Nature afresh.

The alabaster statue of Amenardys ([fig. 47]) is disproportioned as a whole, though parts are good separately. It has just the faults due to an imitator who does not trust to observation. The head is too large, the jointing is weak. Each of the features is fairly well rendered; and within the limits of later mannerism there is no forcing or exaggeration.

The portrait of Mentu-em-hat ([fig. 48]) belongs to the same style as that of Taharqa, and both are in black granite. The eyes seem too small, but this is rather due to the depth and massiveness of the jaws, which overweight the face. The apparent disproportion in the low forehead is only due to the photograph being taken too close and low down. The height above the eyes is really equal to that down to the upper edge of the chin. The facial curves are carefully observed, and we can well credit this with being a true portrait of the capable governor of Thebes who continued in office under Taharqa and Tanut-amen, and who repaired the devastations of the Assyrian invasion.

LATE SCULPTURE

47. Amenardys

48. Mentu-em-hat

49. Basalt head

50. Wooden head

A head broken from a statue, found at Memphis ([fig. 49]), is remarkable for the deep and searching modelling. The bony structure, the facial muscles, and the surface folds are all scrupulously observed. The artist’s triumph is shown in the harmony and the living character which he has infused into his laborious precision. Very rarely can a man rise superior to such a rigorous training. The character of work is scarcely Egyptian; it belongs rather to the same school as the republican Roman portraits, but is earlier than those, as it has more precision of detail.

Lastly, we have one of the best examples of Greek influence in Egypt shown by the wood-carving of a coffin ([fig. 50]). The long narrow face shaded by thick wavy hair is Greek in feeling, while the feather head-dress is old Egyptian. Unfortunately, the decay of the wood has broken the surface, but it still remains an impressive example of Egyptian influence on art which is mainly Greek.


CHAPTER IV
THE RELIEFS

In reliefs the representation of Nature is complicated by the inevitable use of some conventions, and some kind of perspective, to reduce solid objects to a plane delineation. It follows that for the study of naturalistic art they are inferior to statuary, though they give rise to a whole system of artistic conventions which are of interest in themselves. It appears that among most races drawings precede reliefs, and hence relief must be looked on as developed drawing, and not as trammelled statuary.

EARLIEST RELIEFS

51. Hyaena and bull

52. Gazelles and palm

53. Group of animals

54. King Narmer

The oldest reliefs are those of the prehistoric ivory carvings (see [fig. 3]), in which we see maintained the pictorial convention of crossing lines to substantiate the outline of a solid body, although the body was now expressed by the relief. A large quantity of ivory reliefs showing rows of animals were found at Hierakonpolis, belonging to the earliest historic times. Of the same class are the reliefs upon the primitive figures from Koptos ([fig. 51]). These comprise the elephant, stag’s head, and swordfish, as well as the hyaena and ox. The design is spirited, and seizes the characteristics of the animals; while hills are conventionally shown by lumps under each foot. The method of work is by bruising out the surface with a pointed stone pick around the outline, and so lowering the surrounding ground (here shaded), while the body of the animal remains of the original face of the stone.

The next stage is that of the astonishing slate reliefs. The purely artistic motive is seen in the group of two long-necked gazelles with a palm-tree ([fig. 52]). The detail of the forms of the joints and the general pose of the animals is excellent, and the feeling for the graceful, slender outline and smooth surfaces is enforced by the rugged palm stem placed between the gazelles. The love of the strange and wild elements is seen in the rout of animals, real and mythical, in [fig. 53], which shows the lion, giraffe, wild ox, and many kinds of deer, well known to the early artists.

The figure of King Narmer ([fig. 54]) is the historical point in these slate carvings. As it is more advanced in style than any of the others, it shows that they all belong to the age just before the Ist dynasty, about 5500 B.C. Here the pose and jointing are excellent, and the muscles are proclaimed by the artist as the results of his observation. The later Egyptian canon is observed that a straight line should pass through the middle of the head, middle of the trunk, point of the backward knee, and middle between the heels: only, as the king is here leaning forward in action, the line is not vertical as it is in later standing figures. The facial characters of the king and his foe are well distinguished; altogether five different types of race are shown on these early carvings. The surface of the slate has been worked down with a metal scraper, shown by the parallel grooves in the face.

On reaching the beginning of the pyramid age the finest work is seen in the three wooden panels of Ra-hesy ([fig. 55], frontispiece). The anatomy is full, though not so excessive as in the earlier work. The facial curves are carefully rendered, and the mouth is excellently formed. The eye is of course placed in front view, as it always was by Egyptians. The whole figure has an air of stark vigour, which is fitting to a high official who managed a dozen different offices.

The multitude of the mastaba tomb-chapels of the pyramid age contain so many thousands of scenes, illustrating every act of life of men and animals, that it is impossible to give any view of their variety. Here we can only give two scenes illustrating composition. In [fig. 56] is a group of men dragging down an ox for sacrifice. The arrangement of the lines is clear, each figure stands out separately, the action is vigorous and simple. Another scene of an ox-herd ([fig. 57]) shows quiet motion, with the unusual turning of the head. This might be thought unnatural, but exactly the same twist of the body may be seen among Egyptians now. This style of relief deteriorated in the VIth dynasty, and then continuously decayed until the middle of the XIth dynasty, by which time it has reached a most degraded state.

OLD KINGDOM RELIEFS

56. The sacrifice

57. The ox-herd

Suddenly, in the middle of the XIth dynasty, a new style of careful elaboration begins to appear, a true archaic germ of a new school. This rapidly grew, until at the later part of that dynasty there is a stiff and over-elaborate style, which is well shown in the figure of the princess Kauat having her hair curled ([fig. 58]). The eyes of all the figures are gibbous, with a moderate fossa; the lips have usually a sharp edge, though sometimes merely rounded; and there is the beginning of facial modelling.

In the XIIth dynasty the surface modelling became elaborate, most delicate gradations being wrought with faint outlines, as seen in the Memphite head, [fig. 6]. A bold high relief and simpler treatment was followed by the Theban school, as in [fig. 59] of the god Ptah and Senusert I embracing. The use of sunk relief, as [fig. 58], was as early as the IVth dynasty, though most of the tomb sculptures are in high relief. Sunk relief became commoner in the Middle Kingdom, and almost universal in the New Kingdom. It saved a large amount of labour, and it protected the sculptures from injury; but it is so forcible a convention that it is never so pleasing as the raised work.

MIDDLE KINGDOM RELIEFS

58. Toilet of princess

59. Senusert I and Ptah

The XVIIIth dynasty opens with another revival of art, but yet it never reached the levels of the earlier ages. The profusion of reliefs of Thebes and other great sites has made the style of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties the most familiar to us, but its inferiority to that of the previous periods is more obvious the more it is studied. The sculptures of Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahri are celebrated, yet the detail in [fig. 60] is not rich. There is scarcely any modelling of face or muscles, mere flat surfaces sufficing; there is but little expression in the features; and the whole effect is flat and tame. More character appears under Amenhotep III ([fig. 61]), though even here there is none of the muscular detail which was constantly shown in early work. The features smile gracefully without any real expression, and the trivial details of dress are worked out to give a picturesque elaboration. The taste for mere prettiness and graceful personalities ruled more and more as the XVIIIth dynasty developed.

NEW KINGDOM RELIEFS

60. Hatshepsut

61. Servant of Kha-em-hat

62. Akhenaten and queen

At last this taste, stimulated by the influence of the Greek art and its love of expressing motion, broke all bounds in the movement under Akhenaten. The example in [fig. 62] gives the essence of Atenism. The natural but ungainly attitudes, the flourishing ribands, the heavy collars and kilt, the ungraceful realism of the figures, the loss of all expression and detail of structure,—all these show the death of a permanent art in the fever of novelty and vociferation.

This ferment being passed, the Egyptian went back on his older style; but it had lost its life, it could only be copied. The exquisite smoothness and finish of the good work of Sety I at Abydos is entirely lifeless and destitute of observation. It has no anatomical detail, but was made by well-constructed human machines who could not express an emotion which they did not feel.

The historical scenes of the great sculptures of Karnak are full of interest, but almost destitute of art. Some parts of the work of Ramessu III at Medinet Habu show more observation, such as the hunting scene, [fig. 63]. The wild bulls are well studied, and the marsh-plants with feathery tops show a real appreciation of natural growth and beauty.

Under the XXVIth dynasty came the deliberate imitation of the work of the Old Kingdom. In a few cases this is passably done, and even some invention may be seen. But in general there is only a lifeless imitation of various parts clumsily put together. One of the best pieces of such art is the procession of youths and maids carrying animals and farm produce ([fig. 64]). The forms are true, there is none of the later exaggeration (as in [fig. 10]), and there is a loving touch in the details, especially of the animals, which belongs to the true artist. Observe how the girls carry the flowers and the birds, while the boys take the heavy loads of papyrus stems and a calf and a basket of flour. Such work is the last flicker of Egyptian art in reliefs, and nothing later claims our notice.

LATE RELIEFS

63. Bulls in marshes

64. Bearers of offerings


CHAPTER V
THE PAINTING AND DRAWING

Painting is certainly the earliest art of Egypt; but, being more perishable than sculpture, many periods of it are hardly represented at present. A very early prehistoric vase, painted with white slip on the red ground, shows the crude figures of two men fighting ([fig. 65]). Other such vases have plants and other objects painted. From the middle of the prehistoric age, belonging to the second civilisation, are the light-brown vases painted in red, with figures of ships and people ([fig. 66]), plants, and imitations of stone and wicker patterns. The joints are fairly correct in the men and animals, though deficient in the woman with raised arms. But the whole air is very crude as compared with the roughest efforts of the dynastic race. Another painting rather later in the prehistoric age is the ship from a tomb fresco ([fig. 67]). The arms of the woman are more correctly drawn as straight, but the men are worse posed than in the earlier work. The idea of the figures seen above the ships, but entirely detached from them, may be that they are seen on the opposite bank of a narrow river, beyond the ships.

The advanced painting of the early pyramid times is shown by the geese ([fig. 68]), stalking along in a meadow amid tufts of herbage. The air of grave self-sufficiency is admirably caught, and this small piece of a great wall-scene at Medum is deservedly admired. Of the Middle Kingdom there is no fine example remaining.

EARLIEST PAINTING

65. First age of prehistoric painting

66. Second age

67. Ship on wall-painting

68. Geese of Medum

The great age of painting was the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. The sculpturing of tombs was then abandoned in favour of the cheaper paint; and the taste of the age for graceful and light treatment found its best scope in the use of the brush. Here we have a group of pelicans ([fig. 69]) with an old herdsman and baskets of eggs. Next ([fig. 70]) is a harvest scene. Two men are carrying a load of the ears of corn in a net. Behind are the stalks of straw after the ears have been cut. Two girls who were gleaning have stopped to quarrel over the corn; one has seized a wrist of the other, and the two free hands have each taken a grip of the other one’s hair. To the right, under a sycamore fig-tree, one boy is asleep, while another plays on a long reed pipe, with a water-skin hung over his head. In the lower line a girl with a thorn in her foot is stretching it out to be examined by another girl. Further, a lad is stripping the heads of millet by dragging them through a fixed fork. The whole scene is full of incident, and the drawing of the figures in unusual action is excellent. The curious dress of the men is a linen waist-cloth, with a net of slit leather-work to take the wear, and a solid piece of leather left in the middle of it for sitting on, as in [fig. 140]. Such slit leather-work is dealt with in the last chapter.

NEW KINGDOM PAINTING

69. Pelicans and keeper

70, 71. Harvest scenes

A third scene ([fig. 71]) is in the harvest field; the ears have been put into a net, and to press them down a stick is passed through a hole on one edge, while a man has hooked his arm over the stick, and jumped up so as to bring his weight with a jerk to press the stick down; with his other hand he holds the end of a cord tied to the net, so as to be ready to secure the stick when pressed down and prevent it springing up again. The spirit shown in this action is very good, and it is perhaps the only figure given in the act of jumping. On the left is a young woman, one of the daughters, behind the owner of the tomb; on the right is a gleaning girl, stopping in the tall corn to drink, with her basket set on the ground.

On the next plate a portion of a ceiling pattern ([fig. 72]) shows how such designs were drawn. The rhombic lines were done first, then the dark groundwork, leaving white discs, and lastly these were filled up with the spirals. The whole was copied from appliqué leather-work, with lines of stitching.

A boating scene ([fig. 73]) shows the beautifully bold, clean lines of the drawing, for which in this case there does not seem to have been any preliminary sketch of position. The crouching girl picking a lotus bud from the water is very unusual. The drawing of wavy water-lines, with lotus flowers, is the general convention, and the figures of fish and birds are often seen.

A scene at a party ([fig. 74]) shows the guests seated on the ground holding lotus flowers, while a serving-girl stretches forward to arrange the earrings of one of the guests.

NEW KINGDOM PAINTING

72. Ceiling

73. Boating scene

74. A party

Painting received a great stimulus under Akhenaten: the new movement suited the brush much better than the chisel. The two figures of the princesses ([fig. 76]) show possibilities which were not then fully carried out. The conventional attitudes are dropped, and the actual positions of two little girls are carefully copied. The elder is seated on a cushion, with the knees drawn up, and resting one arm on the knee, while with the other hand she pushes up her little sister’s chin. The younger has none of this self-possession, but is propping herself up with one arm, while she clings to her elder’s shoulder with the other. The drawing is free and true, within the usual conventions of perspective. Further, the colouring has shade on the backs of the figures, and a high light on the thigh of the younger daughter. Such shade does not appear in Greek art till a thousand years later. The pattern in front is the border of the carpet on which the queen was seated, her foot and drapery appearing above.

A surprising drawing which belongs to the same school of observation is the tumbler ([fig. 75]). Here an acrobatic position is so skilfully drawn as to suggest its truth and to avoid any impossibility. The form of each part is admirable; and if we trace it piece by piece into an upright position, the resulting figure is correctly proportioned, except in the length of the arms. In reality such an attitude requires the hands to rest on the finger-tips where the wrist now is drawn. As a drawing of a violent attitude this is a marvellous work, not only for the directness and perfection of the line, but also for the complete lightness and swing of the whole figure.

Another good piece of action is the man ([fig. 77]) who is standing on a boat’s cabin hauling in a rope. The dead-weight of the body is well thrown back; and as the base is small, one leg is kept in reserve behind so as to recover any slip. The dead pull, with both feet planted together and the whole body rigidly leaning back, is often drawn in the early fishing scenes; but such an attitude would be unsafe when standing on the top of a narrow cabin.

NEW KINGDOM PAINTING

75. Girl somersaulting

76. The young princesses

We now turn to outline drawing, in which the Egyptians always had a grand facility. There is no instance, even in degraded times, of an outline made as in modern work by little tentative touches feeling the way. If they made a mistake, they at least “sinned splendidly.” The long free strokes, always taking the whole length of a bone at once, and often going down a whole figure without raising the hand—even, true, without a quiver or hesitation—shame most modern outlines. The group of heads ([fig. 78]) shows well the amount of character given by a simple outline. The furthest is a negro, the next a Syrian, the third an Abyssinian, the last a Libyan. The type of each is shown with zest and energy, and the line-work could not be improved.

NEW KINGDOM DRAWING

77. The boatman hauling

78. The four races

79. Sketched tablet

80. Tomb decoration

In [fig. 79] is a very rough sketch for a little tablet of adoration. It shows the faint outlines in red which were laid in first to space out the figure. Such were used in nearly all cases as a preliminary guide; but they were freely improved on in the final black drawing, as here the whole base has been lowered. This also shows the sketch-forms of hieroglyphic writing.

The final work for a royal tomb is seen in [fig. 80], Sety I offering to Osiris. We can here admire the perfect freedom and exactitude of the handling, although this was only intended as a guide to the sculptor, and was not to be finally visible.

A large branch of drawing which we have not space to illustrate here is that of the papyri and hieroglyphs. The papyri show the clear, fine outlines in the good examples. In later times, rough as the work may be, the feeling for expression never deserts the artist. The hieroglyphs form a great study by themselves. The sources of the signs, the various treatment of them, the minute details introduced, are all full of interest. The great result was that the Egyptian had a writing which, though cumbrous, was a continual pleasure to see, and which adorned the artistic monuments on which it was placed.


CHAPTER VI
THE ARCHITECTURE

Strange to say, Egyptian architecture has never yet been systematically studied; we know nothing of its proportions and variations.

The earliest constructions were of brick, or of palm-sticks interwoven. From the necessary forms of these all the details of the stone architecture have been copied. A parallel is seen in Greece, where the architecture was an exact transcription of a wooden building, the triglyphs, mutules, and guttae being the beam-ends, tie-boards, and pegs formerly belonging to woodwork.

For the greater security of the corners of brick buildings, the Egyptians tilted the courses up at each end, thus building in a concave bed, with faces sloping inwards. This slope was copied in the stone-work, and is seen on the outsides of all Egyptian buildings (see [fig. 83]). The inside faces are always vertical, and this serves to distinguish the meaning of small portions of wall in excavations.

Slight structures were made of palm-sticks, set upright, and lashed to a cross stick near the top, with other palm-sticks interwoven to stiffen the face, and the whole plastered with mud. Such construction is made now in Egypt, and is seen in the earliest figures of shrines. At the top the ends of the palm-sticks nod over, and form a fence to keep out intruders. This row of tops is the origin of the stone cavetto cornice, which always stands free above the level of the roof. At the corners the structure of palm-stick was strengthened by a bundle of sticks or reeds lashed round, and put as a buffer to prevent a blow breaking in the edge. This became the roll with lashing pattern which is seen down the edges of the stone buildings, and also beneath the cavetto cornice where it is copied from the line of sticks below the loose tops (see [fig. 83]).

Another form of construction was with papyrus stems. These had a loose, wiry head like an Equisetum or mare’s tail. When used for a cabin on a boat, the roofing stems were put through the loose head, which was tied above and below to hold them. Hence the row of heads became copied as an ornament along the tops of walls, and continued in use thus down to the latest times.

The use of the arch was familiar from early times. Even before the pyramid-builders small arches of bricks were made. They were the general mode of roofing in the XIIth dynasty, when we see them drawn and imitated in stone. From the XIXth dynasty there remain the great arched store-rooms of the Ramesseum. Being of dried mud brick, which is far more easily crushed than stone or burnt brick, the circular form was not suitable, as the apex would yield by crushing. A more or less parabolic form was therefore used, so as to give a sharper curve at the top. To protect these arches from the weather, they were laid four courses thick, with a deep layer of sand and gravel over the top, to absorb any rain as a sponge.

Arches were usually built without any centring; and to this day the Egyptian similarly builds arches and domes of any size without centring or support. Each ring of arch is laid on a sloping bed, so that the thin arch bricks on edge will stick in place by the mud-mortar until the ring is completed. The same construction is started in each corner of a room until the arching meets in a circle, when the dome is carried round ring on ring, increasing the dip toward the top. The successive coats of an arch are often bedded on opposite slopes, so that the rings cross each other.