We have given a column from the central aisle of the Great Hall at Karnak, as affording a good type of the bell-shaped capital (Fig. 80).
We also give an example, with slight variations, from the Ramesseum (Fig. 92). It comes from the princ.i.p.al order in the hypostyle hall, and shows Egyptian architecture perhaps at its best. The profile of the capital combines grace with firmness of outline in the most happy manner. By dint of closely examining and comparing many reproductions we have succeeded, as we believe, in giving a more exact rendering of its curves than any of our predecessors. Leaves and flowers are most happily arranged, and are painted also with an exquisite finish not to be found elsewhere. The decoration as a whole is of extraordinary richness. The royal ovals, with the disk of the sun and the uraeus, encircle the shaft; vultures with outspread wings cover the ceiling, and the architrave is carved on its visible sides, with long rows of hieroglyphs.[103]
[103] The slabs of which the roof is formed are grooved on their upper surfaces at their lines of junction (see Fig. 92), a curious feature which recurs in other Egyptian buildings, but has never been satisfactorily explained.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 86.--Osiride pier; Medinet-Abou]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 87.--Hathoric pier from Eilithya. Lepsius, part i., pl. 100.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 88.--Hathoric pier from a tomb. Boulak.]
Of the derived and secondary forms of the campaniform capital there are but two upon which we need here insist. The first is that which is exemplified by the columns of a temple built by Seti I. at Sesebi, in Nubia (Fig. 93). It is very like the one at Soleb already figured (Fig. 82). The motive is the same, but the Sesebi example shows it in a more advanced stage of development. Its forms are fuller and more expressive, and the palm branches from which the idea is derived are more frankly incorporated in the design. It is not an exact copy from nature, as at Esneh, but a good use has been made of the fundamental vegetable forms.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 89.--Column at Kalabche; from the elevation of Prisse.]
The other variation upon the same theme is a much later one; it is to be found in the temple built by Nectanebo on the island of Philae (Fig.
94). The simplicity of the Sesebi and Soleb capitals has vanished; the whole composition is imbued with the love for complex form which distinguished the Sait epoch. The swelling base of the column seems to spring from a bouquet of triangular leaves. The anterior face of the column is ornamented with a band of hieroglyphs; its upper part is encircled by five smooth rings, above which, again, it is fluted.
According to Prisse, who alone gives particulars as to this little building, some of the capitals have no ornament beyond their finely-chiselled palm-leaves; others have half-opened lotus-flowers between each pair of leaves. Finally, the square die or abacus which supports the architrave is much higher and more important than in the columns. .h.i.therto described, and it bears a mask of Hathor surmounted by a naos upon each of its four sides. This unusual height of abacus, the superposition of the hathoric capital upon the bell-shaped one, and the repet.i.tion of the mask of Hathor upon all four sides, are the premonitory signs of the Ptolemaic style.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 90.--Column of Thothmes III.; from the Ambulatory of Thothmes, at Karnak. From Prisse"s elevation.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 91.--Base of a column; from the great hall of the Ramesseum, central avenue.]
The capital from the Ambulatory of Thothmes, at Thebes, presents a type both rare and original (Fig. 95). Between our ill.u.s.tration and that of Lepsius there is a difference which is not without importance.[104] According to the German _savants_, the abacus is inscribed within the upper circ.u.mference of the bell; but if we may believe a sketch made by an architect upon the spot, the truth is that the upper circ.u.mference of the capital is contained within the four sides of the abacus, which it touches at their centres. The four angles of the abacus, therefore, stand out well beyond the upper part of the capital, uniting it properly to the architrave, and giving a satisfactory appearance of solidity to the whole.
[104] LEPSIUS, _Denkmaeler_, part i. pl. 81.
This peculiar form of capital has generally been referred to the individual caprice of some architect, anxious, above all things, to invent something new.[105] But the same form is to be found in the architectural shapes preserved by the paintings of the ancient empire (Fig. 59) which seems fatal to this explanation. It is probable that if we possessed all the work of the Egyptian architects we should find that the type was by no means confined to Karnak. It was, however, far less beautiful in its lines than the ordinary shape, and though ancient enough, never became popular.
[105] WILKINSON, vol. i. p. 40. In the _Description de l"egypte_ (_Antiquites_, vol. ii. p. 474), we find this shape accounted for by opposition of two lotus-flowers, one above another. Such an explanation could only be offered by one who had a theory to serve.
The Egyptians were not always content with the paint-brush and chisel for the decoration of their capitals, they occasionally made use of metal also. This has been proved by a discovery made at Luxor in the presence of M. Brugsch, who describes it in these terms: "The work of clearing the temple began with the part constructed by Amenophis III.
and gave some very unexpected results. The capitals of the columns were overlaid with copper plates, to which the contour of the stone beneath had been given by the hammer. They had afterwards been painted. Large pieces of these plates were found still hanging to the capitals, while other pieces lay among the surrounding _debris_. Thus a new fact in the history of Egyptian art has been established, namely, that stonework was sometimes covered with metal."[106]
[106] Extract from a letter of M. Brugsch, published by Hittorf in the _Athenaeum Francais_, 1854, p. 153.
This process was not generally, nor even frequently, employed, as we may judge by the vast number of capitals painted in the most brilliant colours, which remain. If the surface of the stone was to be covered up such care would not have been taken to beautify it. The fact that the process was used at all is, however, curious; it seems to be a survival from the ancient wooden architecture in which metal was commonly used.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 92.--Bell-shaped capital, from the hypostyle hall of the Ramesseum. From the chief order.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 93.--Capital at Sesebi. From the elevation of Lepsius, _Denkmaeler_, part i., pl. 119.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 94.--Capital from the temple of Nectanebo, at Philae. From the elevation of Prisse.]
The architrave which was employed with all these varieties of capital was sometimes of a kind which deserves to be noticed (Fig. 102).
Whenever the dimensions of the column were sufficiently great the stone beams which met upon the die or abacus had oblique joints. The motive of the architect in making use of such a junction is obvious enough; it was calculated to afford greater solidity, and it was the most convenient way in which lateral architraves could be united with those disposed longitudinally. Any other arrangement would have involved a sacrifice of s.p.a.ce and would have left a certain part of the abacus doing nothing.
We have now brought our a.n.a.lysis of the princ.i.p.al types of pier and column used by the Egyptians to an end. They suggest, however, certain general reflections to which we must next endeavour to give expression. In spite of the great apparent diversity of their forms, we are enabled to perceive that the Egyptian orders obeyed an unchanging law of development, and that certain characteristic features persistently reappear through all their transformations. We must attempt to define these laws and characteristics, as, otherwise, we shall fail to make the originality of Egyptian art appreciated, we shall be unable to cla.s.sify its successes, or to mark with accuracy the limits which it failed to pa.s.s.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 95.--Capital from the work of Thothmes at Karnak.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 96.--Arrangement of architraves upon a capital.
From the plans and elevations of Lepsius.]
Between the square pier with neither base nor capital of the early Empire and the graceful columns of the Ramesseum there is a difference which marks ages of progress. The general form of the support became gradually more complex and more refined. As occurred elsewhere, it was divided into parts, each of which had its proper duty and its proper name. The base was distinguished from the shaft, and the shaft from the capital. Each of these parts was shaped by the sculptor and clothed in colour by the painter. For long centuries the architect never relaxed his efforts to perfect his art. The simple and st.u.r.dy prismatic column gave way to the elaborate forms which exist in the great temples of the Ramessids; the latter in turn lost their power to satisfy and new motives were sought for in the combination of all those which had gone before. In the series of Egyptian types the capital of Nectanebo would therefore occupy a place corresponding to that of the composite capital in the series of Graeco-Roman orders.
The general movement of art in Egypt may therefore be compared to that of art in Greece and Italy; and yet there is a difference. From the rise of Greek architecture until its decay, the proportions of its vertical members underwent a continual, _but consistent_, modification of their proportions. Century after century the figure in which their height was expressed proportionately with their bulk, became greater.
In the height of the Doric columns of the old temple at Corinth there are fewer diameters than in those of the Parthenon, and in those of the Parthenon there are fewer than in the doric shafts of Rome. This tendency explains the neglect which befel this order about the fourth century before our era. In the sumptuous buildings of Asia Minor and Syria and of the "Lower Period" in Egypt, it was replaced by the graceful and slender outlines of the Ionic order. A similar explanation may be given of the favour in which the Corinthian order was held throughout the Roman world.
Such a development is not to be found in Egypt. The forms of Egyptian architecture did not become less substantial with the pa.s.sage of the centuries. It is possible that familiarity with light structures of wood and metal had early created a taste for slender supports. The polygonal and f.a.ggot-shaped columns of Beni-Ha.s.san are no thicker than those of far later times. A comparison of the columns at Thebes points to the same conclusion. The shortest and most thick-set in its proportions of them all (Fig. 78) is at Medinet-Abou, and is about two centuries later than those of the same order which decorate the second court at Luxor (Fig. 77). Its heaviness is even more apparent when we compare it with the great columns of a different order, at Karnak (Fig. 80), and the Ramesseum (Fig. 81), which precede it by at least a century.
The progress of Egyptian art was, then, less continuous and less regular than that of cla.s.sic art. It had moments of rest, of exhaustion, even of retrogression. It was not governed by internal logical principles so severe as those of the Greeks.
The manner in which the capital is allied to the shaft below, and the architrave above shows changes of the same kind.
The first duty of the capital is to oppose a firm and individual contour to the monotony of the shaft. The constructor has to determine a point in the length of the latter where it shall cease to be, where its gradual diminution in section, a diminution which could not be prolonged to the architrave without compromising the safety of the building, shall be arrested. The natural office of the capital would seem to be to call attention to this point. The architect, therefore, gives it a diameter greater than that of the shaft at the point where they meet. This salience restores to the column the material which it has lost; it completes it, and determines its proportion, so that it is no longer capable of either increase or diminution.
Again, when the salience is but the preparation for a greater development above, it seems to add to the solidity of the edifice by receiving the architrave on a far larger surface than the shaft could offer. The support seems to enlarge itself, the better to embrace the entablature.
The two requirements which the capital has to fulfil may, then, be thus summarized: in the first place, it has to mark the point where the upward movement of the lines comes to an end; and, secondly, it has to make, or to seem to make, the column better fitted to play its part as a support. Its functions are dual in principle; it has to satisfy the aesthetic desires of the eye, and the constructive requirements of the material. The latter office may be more apparent than real, but, in architecture, what seems to be necessary is so.
The Greek capital, in all its forms, thoroughly fulfils these double conditions, while that of Egypt satisfies them in a very imperfect manner. Let us take the ancient polygonal column as an example. The feeble tablet which crowns its shaft neither opposes itself frankly to the upright lines below it, nor, in the absence of an echinus, is it happily allied with the shaft. It gives, however, a greater appearance of constructive repose to the architrave than the latter would have without it.
In the column which terminates in a lotus-bud the capital is of more importance, but the contrast between it and the shaft is often very slightly marked. At Luxor and Karnak the smooth capital seems to be nothing more than an accident, a gentle swelling in the upper part of the cone; besides which it really plays no part in the construction, as the surface of the abacus above it is no greater than a horizontal section through the highest and most slender part of the shaft.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 97.--The Nymphaea Nelumbo; from the _Description de l"egypte_; _Hist. Naturelle_, pl. 61.]
Of all the Egyptian capitals, that which seems the happiest in conception is the campaniform. This capital, far from being folded back upon itself, throws out a fine and bold curve beyond the shaft.
But we are surprised and even distressed to find that the surface thus obtained is not employed for the support of the architrave, which is carried by a comparatively small cubic abacus, which rests upon the centre of the capital. At Karnak and Medinet-Abou this abacus is not so absurdly high as it afterwards became in the Ptolemaic period,[107]
but yet its effect is singular rather than pleasant. We feel inclined to wonder why this fine calyx of stone should have been constructed if its borders were to remain idle. It is like a phrase commenced but never finished. Without this fault the composition, of which it forms a part, would be worthy, both in proportion and in decoration, of being placed side by side with the most perfect of the Greek columns.
[107] A good idea of this can be gained from the building known as _Pharaoh"s bed_, at Philae. It is shown on the right of our sketch at p. 431, Vol. I.
The last or, it may be, the first question, which is asked in connection with the form of column employed by any particular race, has to do with its origin. We have preferred to make it the last question, because we thought that the a.n.a.lysis of form which we have attempted to set forth would help us to an answer. There are many difficulties in the matter, but after the facts to which we have called attention, it will not be denied that the forms of wooden construction, which were the first to be developed in Egypt, had a great effect upon work in stone.
Ever since men began to interest themselves in Egyptian art, this has found an important place in their speculations. In the two forms which alternate with one another at Thebes, many have seen faithful transcriptions of two plants which filled a large s.p.a.ce in Egyptian civilization by their decorative qualities and the practical services which they rendered; we mean, of course, the lotus and the papyrus.
There were in Egypt many species belonging to the family of the _Nymphaeaceae_, a family which is represented in our northern climates by the yellow and white nenuphars or water-lilies. Besides these Egypt possessed, and still possesses, the white lotus (_Nymphaea lotus_ of Linnaeus), and the blue lotus (_Nymphaea caerulea_ of Savigny); but the true Egyptian lotus, the red lotus (the _Nymphaea nelumbo_ of Linnaeus, the _Nelumbium speciosum_ of Wild) exists no longer in a wild state, either in Egypt or any other known part of Africa (Fig. 97). The accurate descriptions given by the ancient writers have enabled botanists, however, to recognize it among the flora of India. It is at least one third larger than our common water-lily, from which it differs also in the behaviour of its leaves and of the stems which bear the flowers. These do not float on the surface of the water but rise above it to a height of from twelve to fifteen inches.[108] The flower, which stands higher than the leaves, is borne upon a stalk which instead of being soft and pliant like that of the water-lily has the firmness and consistency of wood. It has an agreeable smell like that of anise. In the bas-reliefs the ancient Egyptians are often seen holding it to their nostrils. The fruit, which is shaped like the rose of a watering-pot, contains seeds as large as the stone of an olive.
[108] These upstanding flowers and stalks form the distinguishing characteristic of the Nelumbo species.
These seeds, which were eaten either green or dried,[109] were called _Egyptian beans_ by the Greek and Latin writers because they were consumed in such vast quant.i.ties in the Nile valley.[110] The seeds of the other kinds of nymphaeaceae, which were smaller (Herodotus compares them with those of a poppy), gave, when pounded in a mortar, a flour of which a kind of bread was made. Even the root was not wasted; according to the old historians, it had a sweet and agreeable taste.[111]
[109] HERODOTUS, ii. 92.
[110] For the different species of the lotus and their characteristics see _Description de l"egypte_, _Hist.
Naturelle_, vol. ii. pp. 303-313 and _Atlas_, plates 60 and 61.--In the _Recueil de Travaux_, etc., vol. i. p. 190, there is a note by M. VICTOR LORET upon the Egyptian names for the lotus.
[111] STRABO, xvii. 1, 15.--DIODORUS, i. 34.