A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Volume I Part 11

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 63.--Temple of Khons, Thebes. (_Descr. de l'egypte_, t. iii., pl. 55.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 64.--Temple of Khons, Thebes. (_Descr. de l'egypte_, t. iii., pl. 55.)]

In a single edifice supports of different kinds but of the same diameter, have no fixed proportions, one to the other. A column with a _lotus_ capital may be higher than one with a bell-shaped termination, and _vice versa_ (Figs. 63 and 64), while, again in a single building, we may find these two differently shaped columns equal to each other both in average diameter and in height (Fig. 65).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 65.--From the second court of Medinet-Abou, Thebes. (_Description_, t. ii., pl. 6.)]

2. The s.p.a.ces, or voids, between columns of one size and similar design, may vary considerably (Fig. 66), and the entablatures which they support may differ greatly in height (Fig. 66).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 66.--Ramesseum, Thebes. (_Description de l'egypte_, t. ii., pl. 28.)]

The proportional combinations of these elements are such that they cannot be methodically cla.s.sified, and in this the architecture of Egypt is distinguished from that which we call cla.s.sic. In Greek art there is a _modulus_ which determines the quant.i.tative relation of forms to each other, and fixes a mutual and invariable interdependence. This _modulus_ is found in the diameter of the column, and the standard of proportion which is based upon it is called a _canon_. In Egypt, as in other countries, there must have been a certain connection between the diameter of a column and its height, but there was no approach to that rigid and immutable law which had its effect upon every detail of a Greek temple. The _modulus_, in Egyptian art, was used with such freedom, and gave rise to such varied proportions, that we may say that no _canon_ existed.

The elementary forms of an Egyptian edifice had so little dependence upon the _modulus_ that we need not take it into consideration, and, in this sense, the art of Egypt was not mathematical, like that of Greece.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 67.--The Egyptian Gorge or Cornice.]

Finally, all Egyptian buildings are crowned by the same entablature, an architrave and the moulding which is called the Egyptian _gorge_ (Fig. 67).[96] An architectural member, the plain quadrangular architrave, is invariably inserted between this termination and the upper extremity of the voids and points of support.

[96] We know but one or two exceptions to this rule. It will suffice to quote the Royal Pavilion of Medinet-Abou, which is crowned by a row of battlements.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE ARAB CHAIN FROM NEAR KENEH]

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE PYRAMIDS FROM OLD CAIRO]

--3. _General Principles of Construction.--Materials._

In studying a natural architecture and in attempting to a.s.sign reasons for its particular characteristics, many circ.u.mstances have to be taken into consideration. The innate genius of the race, the physical and moral conditions of its development, the perfection of its civilization, the spirit of its religion, and the ardour of its faith; none of these must be forgotten, but some of them act in such a complex fashion that they are extremely difficult to follow. In its aspirations towards the infinite and the eternal, the Egyptian religion raised from the surface of the earth many buildings which varied as greatly in form and aspect as they did in date and situation. The climatic conditions of the world have changed but little since the beginning of the historic period, and every nation has to take them into the first consideration in deciding upon its own architectural forms and principles. We have here a problem whose data do not vary, and yet its solutions have not always been the same even in a single country. Without ever being absolutely incorrect, they attached themselves now to one principle, now to another, and so gave much variety to the appearance of successive buildings under one sky and destined for similar uses.

As for the materials employed, we cannot go so far as to say that their different properties absolutely determined the characteristics of Egyptian building in advance. Stone, the chief of all materials, can lend itself to forms of great variety in principle; and so, too, can brick and wood. But although no material can narrowly confine a skilful architect, there are, nevertheless, certain systems and constructions which are only possible with those which possess certain properties.

To give but a single example, neither the hypo-style halls of Egypt and Persepolis, nor the Greek temples, with their architraves resting upon widely s.p.a.ced columns, with the coffered roofs of their porticos, and their decorative and expressive sculpture, could have been carried out in brick. In stone, or rather in marble, alone, could the typical temple, such as the Parthenon, have been realised; without such a material the Greeks could never have created that incomparable ensemble whose different parts are so intimately allied one with another, in which the richest decoration is in complete unity with the constructive forms which it accentuates and embellishes. Brick could never have led to the invention or employment of these forms. Those who try to imitate them in any such material have to make up for its deficiencies by various ingenious devices. The joints between the bricks have to be hidden under stucco, the mouldings and carved ornaments of stone have to be replaced, as in the temple of the Deus Rediculus, by moulded terra cotta (Fig. 68). The result is sometimes pleasing enough, especially by the surprise which it causes. Santa Maria delle Grazie, at Milan, is a masterpiece of its kind, thanks to the skill and tact displayed by Bramante in the management of the burnt clay which was the only material afforded him by the plains of Lombardy; but where Bramante succeeded, less skilful artists have failed. They have demanded effects from brick which it was unable to give, with a profound discord between form and matter as a result.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 68.--Capital and entablature of the temple of the Deus Rediculus at Rome.[97]]

[97] From the work of the Abbe Uggeri, ent.i.tled: _Le Detail des Materiaux dont se servaient les Anciens pour la Construction de leurs Batiments_ (Rome, oblong folio, 1800, pl. v.).

Of all the causes which modify the forms of architecture and determine its character, the most important is the nature, the genius, if we may say so, of the materials used. So, before we can arrive at a correct judgment of the rules and principles of any style, we must begin by appreciating and describing the materials of which it disposes. We never forget this in the case of sculpture, still less should we do so in the case of architecture, where the material is still more despotic.

The materials made use of by the Egyptians were granite,[98]

sandstone,[99] and limestone.[100] A softer stone, namely alabaster, was often employed for lining.[101]

[98] The only granite quarries that were worked in antiquity were those of Syene now a.s.souan, in Upper Egypt, upon the right bank of the Nile.

[99] Sandstone was chiefly obtained from two localities, Djebel-Ahmar, near Cairo, and Djebel-Silsili in Upper Egypt.

[100] The Arab Chain is almost entirely calcareous. Near the sites of all the ancient cities it shows numerous excavations bearing witness to the activity of the ancient builders. The most celebrated of these quarries is that at Mokattam, near Cairo. The stone of which the body of the pyramids is composed was drawn from it.

[101] The alabaster quarries of to-day are all in the Arab Chain, between the southern slopes of the mountain Mahsarah, near Cairo, and the springs of the Wady-Siout, opposite the town of that name.

Sandstone and limestone, especially the latter, are used nearly everywhere; granite is of less frequent occurrence and suggests an important observation.

Granite is not a sedimentary, stratified rock like limestone; it is a material compacted in great ma.s.ses, to a depth or, to speak more accurately, in a volume which is practically unlimited; the dimensions of the stones which may be cut from these ma.s.ses are therefore infinite to all intents and purposes.[102]

[102] The obelisk of Queen Hatasu, at Karnak, is 105 ft. 8 in.

high; the statue of Rameses II. at Thebes, on the left bank of the river, is a monolith 55 ft. 5 in. high, and weighing about 1,200 tons. [The obelisk which still remains at Syene, never having been completely detached from the rock in which it was quarried, is nearly 96 ft. high and 11 ft. 1-1/2 in. diameter at its base.--ED.]

The Egyptians also made use of both burnt and unburnt brick.

The employment of these different materials gave birth to what we may call "dressed construction," that is, construction the elements of which are squared upon each face and put into close juxtaposition one with another.

Concrete or pise, compressed, as in the pylons, between moulds or caissons of woodwork, was also made use of by the Egyptians. This material gave rise to what we may call compact construction.

Again, although trees, except the palm, were rare enough in the valley of the Nile, the Egyptians built also in wood, by which a third kind of construction, called construction by a.s.semblage, in which the elementary units were held together by being introduced one into another, was obtained.

In a few buildings of the latter cla.s.s metal seems to have been employed, sometimes in the construction, sometimes for lining, and sometimes for outward decoration.

--4.--_Dressed Construction._

The constructive elements which enter into the composition of this first cla.s.s of buildings are stone and brick.

In the first place, these elements are horizontal or vertical.

The horizontal elements const.i.tute the planes, as they cover the voids by horizontal superposition.

They consist of courses and architraves.

The courses form the walls. They are arranged in horizontal bands, with vertical and sometimes sloping joints. The separate stones are often bound together upon their horizontal surfaces by dovetails or tenons of wood. The blocks made use of in this form of construction are usually of large dimensions, but the Egyptians also made use of small stones or rubble, lined on the exterior by large flat ones which concealed the meanness of the material behind them.[103] (Fig. 70.)

[103] We find this construction in the so-called Temple of the Sphinx, near the Great Pyramid.

Various peculiarities of construction which are comparatively seldom met with will be noticed when we come to describe the monuments in which they are to be found.

Architraves were stone beams used to bridge over the voids and to support the covering of the building, which latter was composed of long and heavy slabs.

The vertical elements support the architraves and combine them one with another. These vertical supports vary greatly in size. Those of small or medium dimensions are monoliths; others are composed of many courses of stone one upon another, courses which in this case take the name of _drums_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 69.--The Egyptian "bond."]

Upon exterior surfaces, supports take various forms of development which may all be referred to the type which we have defined, namely, the portico. In the interiors the form of support is a logical consequence of the material employed. Whenever the stones which form the roof are too small to bridge over the whole of the s.p.a.ce comprised within two walls, they must be made to rest upon intermediate supports; and this necessity springs up in every building of any importance. This very elementary combination fulfils all the requirements of circulation. The number of supports depends upon the number of rows of the flat stones which form the roof. They are sometimes multiplied to such an extent that they remind us of that planting arrangement in our gardens which we call a quincunx.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 70.--Double-faced wall.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGS. 71, 72.--Elements of the portico.]

We cannot, however, affirm that the number of supports is invariably decided by the length of the architraves, or of the roofing stones.

Some very long monoliths are supported at regular intervals, lest they should break with their own weight or with that put upon them. The walls, architraves, and vertical supports are always far stronger than the mere weight of the roof would require.