History of Ancient Art

Published by Good Press, 2019

goodpress@okpublishing.info

EAN 4064066218768

Table of Contents

EGYPT.

CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.

PERSIA.

PHŒNICIA, PALESTINE, AND ASIA MINOR.

HELLAS.

ETRURIA.

ROME.

GLOSSARY.

INDEX.

EGYPT.
PAGE.
The Delta. The Oldest Monuments, if not the most Ancient Civilization of the World	1, 2
Changeless Continuity of Life and Art	2
ARCHITECTURE.
The Age, Purpose, and Architectural Significance of the Pyramids	3–5
The Pyramids of Gizeh	5–7
Variety of Pyramidal Forms	8, 9
The Pyramids of Saccara, Meydoun, Dashour, Abousere, and Illahoun	9–12
Table of Dimensions	12
The Younger Pyramids of Nubia. Truncated Pyramids	12
Rock-cut Tombs	13
Development of Column from Pier	14
The Tombs at Beni-hassan	14, 15
Development of the Lotos-column	16, 17
The Invasion of the Hycsos. Restriction of the Prismatic Shaft. Extended Application of the Floral Columnin the New Theban Empire	18, 19
The Calyx Capital	20, 21
Piers with Figures of Osiris and Typhon. Entablature	21
Cavern Sepulchres	22
Temple Plan, Obelisks	23
Peristyle Court	25
Hypostyle Hall	26, 27
The Dwellings of Kings and Priests	28
Peripteral Temples	29
Rock-cut Temples	30
The Monuments at Abou-Simbel	31, 32
Palatial and Domestic Architecture	33
Interiors	34
The Labyrinth	35
Unimportant Character of Secular Architecture	36
SCULPTURE.
Fundamental and Changeless Peculiarities	36
Conventional Types	37
The Formation of the Head	38
Head-dresses. Conjunction of Human Trunks and Animal Heads	39
The Body. Lack of Progressiveness and of History	40
Animal Forms	41
Materials	42
Reliefs	43
Coilanaglyphics	44
The Variety and Interest of the Subjects Illustrated	45
PAINTING.
Intimate Relation to Sculpture. Hieroglyphics	46
Painting as an Architectural Decoration. Retrospect	47
CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.
The Traditional Age. The Land and People	48
Building Materials. Clay and Bitumen	49
Perishable Character of the Monuments. Hills of Rubbish Recognized as Cities	50
ARCHITECTURE.
Chaldæa.
The Ruins of Mugheir, or Ur	50
Warka and Abou-Sharein	51
The Principle of the Arch	52
Political History	53
Babylon.
The Fabulous Account of Herodotos	54
The Temple Pyramid at Borsippa	56
Palace Structures. The Hanging Gardens of Semiramis	57
Private Dwellings. Works of Engineering	58
Assyria.
Nineveh	59
The Discoveries of Layard and Botta	60
The Hills of Coyundjic and Nebbi-Jonas	61
Royal Dwellings	62
The Palace at Kisr-Sargon	63–65
Terrace Pyramids	66
Lighting and Roofing	66, 67
The Restriction of Columnar Architecture	68
The Forms of Small Columns	69–71
Vaulted Construction	71
The Pointed Arch	72
The General Appearance of the Palaces	73
Sacred Architecture	74
Terrace Pyramids	75
The Cella	76
The Dwellings of the Priests	77
Altars and Obelisks	78
Domestic Architecture	79, 80
SCULPTURE.
Little Represented in Chaldæa	81
Babylonian Seals and Gems	82
Enamelled Tiles	83
Statues	85
Conventional Types	85, 86
Cherubims	87
Mural Reliefs	87–89
Variance from Egyptian Sculpture	90
Historical Reliefs	91–93
Religious Representations	94
Formal Landscapes. Bronzes	95, 96
PAINTING.
Upon Tiles and Stucco	96
Colors	97
The General Appearance of Assyrian Architecture, as Decorated by Reliefs and Paintings	98
PERSIA.
Historical Considerations	99
The Artistic Poverty of the Medes. The Achæmenidæ. Their Chief Cities	100
ARCHITECTURE.
Persepolis	101, 102
The Characteristic Differences of Persian and Mesopotamian Building	102
The Introduction of Columns	103
Columnar Forms	103, 104
Capitals	105–107
The Entablature	108
Plan of the Palace of Darius	109–113
Its State of Preservation	110
Illumination	110, 111
Upper Stories	111–113
The Palace and Hall of Xerxes	114
The Propylæa	115
The Harem	116, 117
The Disposition of the Terrace	117
Fire Altars	118
Funeral Monuments	119–121
Tomb of Cyrus	119
Tombs of the Later Achæmenidæ	120
Tombs of Subjects	121
Domestic Architecture	121
SCULPTURE.
Its Dependence upon the Art of Assyria	121
Egyptian and Hellenic Influences	122
Mythological and Ceremonial Representations	123–125
The Sculptured Decoration of Palaces and Terraces	126, 127
Rarity of Historical Scenes	128
PAINTING.
Chiefly Ornamental	128
General Harmony of the Three Arts	129
PHŒNICIA, PALESTINE, AND ASIA MINOR.
Extensive Artistic Influence of Mesopotamia in Point of Distance as well as of Time	130
The Seleucidæ. The Sassanidæ	131, 132
Phœnicia.
Explorations in Recent Times	132, 133
The Chief Cities	133
ARCHITECTURE.
Ruins at Amrith	134, 135
The Monuments known as El-Meghazil	135–137
The Grotto Tombs of Central Phœnicia. Sarcophagi at Jebeil	137, 138
Domestic Architecture	138
SCULPTURE.
Work of Driven Metal (Sphyrelaton)	139
Bronzes	139, 140
Inlaid Work. Ivory Carvings. Glass	140
Influence of the Sphyrelaton upon Sculptural Style	141
Stone-cutting	142
The Decisive Influence of both Egypt and Mesopotamia	143
Palestine.
The Dependence of the Jews in Artistic respects upon Egypt	143
The Tabernacle	143–147
Its Disposition	144, 145
Its Columns. The Horns of the Altar. The Seven-armed Candlestick	145, 146
The Holy of Holies. Cherubim	146, 147
Solomon’s Temple	147–156
Untrustworthiness of Biblical Accounts	147
Construction of the Building. Its Site	148
The Brazen Laver	149
“Jachin and Boaz”	149–151
The Tower	151, 152
Interior. Upper Story	153, 154
Materials	154
Decoration. The Molten Sea. The Mercy-seat and Cherubim	155
The Destruction and Rebuilding of this Temple	156
Its Architectural Character	157
Rock-cut Tombs	157, 158
Cyprus and Carthage.
The Rock-cut Tombs at Paphos	160
The Temple of Aphrodite at Golgoi. Cesnola’s Discoveries	161, 162
The Ruins of Carthage	163
Malta, the Balearic Isles, Sardinia	163
Asia Minor.
An Independent Art Found only in Lycia, Phrygia, and Lydia	164
The Rock-cut Tombs of Lycia. The Timbered Dwelling Carved in Stone	165, 166
The Monument of the Harpies at Xanthos	167
Lycian Sarcophagi	168
Temple Façades Imitated upon Cliffs	169
The Rock-cut Tombs of Phrygia	171, 172
The Tumuli of Lydia	173, 174
HELLAS.
The Ægean Sea the Centre of Greek Civilization	175
The Dorians and the Ionians	176
The Development of Poetry Earlier than that of Art	177
ARCHITECTURE.
The Tholos of Atreus	179–183
The Phœnician Character of its Decoration	183
The Grave at Menidi	183
The Treasure-houses of the Pelopidæ	184
Tumuli	185
The Common Modes of Burial	186
Pyramids	186, 187
Primitive Fortifications. Tiryns	187
Mykenæ	188
Gateways and Portals	189–193
The Agora of Mykenæ	192
Primitive Temple Cellas without Columns	192, 193
The Structure upon Mt. Ocha. Timbered Roofs and Ceilings. The Origin of the Doric Entablature	195–197
The Decorative Painting of Woodwork	197
The Doric Column	197–199
Its Egyptian Prototype	198
The Development of the Temple-plan	199–202
The Temple in Antis	199
Prostylos	200
Amphiprostylos. Peripteros	201
Stone Construction	202
The Entasis	203
The Capital	204
The Inclination of the Columns	205
The Details of the Entablature	206–209
Polychromy	210
Curvatures	211, 212
The Pteroma and Ceiling	213
Illumination	214
Archaic Doric Temples	215
The Progress of this Style. Selinous	216
Corinth	217
Acragas	219
Olympia. Ægina	222
The Supremacy of Athens	223
The Theseion	224
The Parthenon	225
The Propylæa	226
Phigalia	227
Eleusis	228
The Ionic Style. Its Intimate Relation to Oriental Architecture	229, 230
The Capital	231–233
The Entablature	234
Its Want of Historical Development	235
Phigalia	236
The Ionic Monuments of Asia Minor	237–240
The Ionic Monuments of Attica	240–245
The Temple upon the Ilissos	241
The Propylæa	242
The Erechtheion	243–245
Caryatides	245
The Corinthian Capital	246–249
The Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens	249
Monumental Tombs	250
The Mausoleum of Halicarnassos	251, 252
The Monument of the Nereides at Xanthos	252
The Choragic Monument of Lysicrates	253
The so-called Tower of the Winds at Athens	253
The Stoa	253–255
The Palæstra	255
The Gymnasion	256
The Stadion and Hippodrome	257
The Theatre and Odeion	258–260
Domestic Architecture. Palaces	260, 261
The Boundless Luxury of the Diadochi	261
SCULPTURE.
The Unrivalled Perfection of the Art. Its Fundamental Deviation from the Principles of Egyptian Sculpture	264, 265
Its Dependence upon Western Asia	266
Empaistic Work. Xoana	267
Dædalos	268
The Homeric Shield of Achilles. Its Workmanship and Artistic Importance	269–271
Pseudo-Hesiodic Shield of Heracles	272
The Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ	273, 274
Schliemann’s Excavations upon the Acropolis of Mykenæ	274, 275
The Chest of Kypselos. The Throne of Apollo at Amyclæ	276–278
The Introduction of Bronze Casting. Marble-cutting and Chryselephantine Work	278–281
The Potter Boutades	278
Glaucos. Rhoicos and Theodores	279
Boupalos and Athenis	280
Dipoinos and Skyllis	281, 282
The First Metopes at Selinous	283, 284
Archaic Statues at Miletos	285
Reliefs at Assos. The Apollo of Thera	286
The Stele of Aristion	287, 288
The Second Metopes at Selinous	290
Archaistic Works	291, 292
The Gable Sculptures of the Temple of Ægina	293–296
The School of Ægina: Callon and Onatas	296, 297
The School of Attica: Hegias, Critios, and Nesiotes	297
Canachos	298
Agelades	299
Calamis	300
Pythagoras	301
Myron	302, 303
The Progress of Athens after the Persian Wars	303
Pheidias	304–315
The Athene Parthenos	310–313
The Panathenaic Frieze	313–315
The Metopes	316
The Scholars of Pheidias. Agoracritos	316, 317
The Gable Sculptures of the Temple of Olympia	317, 318
The Victory of Paionios	319
The Scholars of Myron	320
The Phigalian Frieze	321
Callimachos and Demetrios	322
Polycleitos	322–326
The Third Metopes at Selinous	327, 328
The Extent of the School of Attica and Argos. Kephisodotos	329
Scopas	330–333
The Niobids	331, 332
Praxiteles	333
The Scholars of Scopas and Praxiteles. The Sculptures of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos	334
The Hermes of Olympia	335, 336
The Venus of Melos	338, 339
Silanion and Euphranor	340
Lysippos	340–344
The School of Lysippos	344, 345
The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Period	346, 347
The Altar at Pergamon	347, 348
The so-called Dying Gladiator	348, 349
The School of Pergamon	349, 350
The School of Rhodes. The Laocoon	351–353
The Farnese Bull	353–355
The Apollo Belvedere	356–358
The Introduction of Greek Sculpture into Rome	358–360
The Borghese Gladiator	361
The Belvedere Torso	362
The Hellenic Renaissance in Rome	363–366
PAINTING.
Lack of all Remains	366
Its Early Development Fictitiously Related by Pliny. Eumaros. Kimon	367
Polygnotos	368, 369
The Scenography of Agatharchos. Of Apollodoros	370
Zeuxis	371, 372
Parrhasios	373, 374
Timanthes	374
The School of Sikyon: Eupompos, Pamphilos	375
Melanthios. Pausias	376
The School of Thebes and Athens: Nicomachos, Aristides, Euphranor	377, 378
Nikias	378
Apelles	379–382
Protogenes	383
Antiphilos. Ætion. Asclepiodoros. Theon	384
Hellenistic Painting. Timomachos	385
Trivial and Obscene Subjects. Mosaic. Sosos	386
ETRURIA.
Relationship to the Arts of Greece	387
ARCHITECTURE.
The so-called Cyclopean Walls. Arched Gates	388
Vaulted Canals	389
Cemeteries. Tumuli. The Tomb of Porsena	390
Imitations of Dwellings upon Tombs	391, 392
Grotto Sepulchres	392
Imitations of Temple Façades upon Cliffs	393, 394
Norchia	394, 395
The Etruscan Temple	396, 397
The Dwelling-house	397
Its Court	398, 399
Lack of Progressive Architectural History	399, 400
SCULPTURE.
Museums. The Oldest or Decorative Period. Phœnician Importations	400
The Influence of Western Asia Superseded by that of Greece	401, 402
The Sarcophagus of Cære	402
Realism. Sculpture in Marble	403
The Bronze Chariot from Perugia	404
The Capitoline Wolf. Engraved Mirrors	405
Height of Etruscan Art. Hellenistic Influences	406
Sculptured Sarcophagi	406, 407
Terra-cottas and Bronzes	408
The Similarity of late Etruscan to Roman Sculpture	408, 409
PAINTING.
Its Development Similar to that of Sculpture. The Ornamental and Dependent Period	409
Realistic Characteristics	409, 410
The Wall-paintings of Cære and Corneto	409, 410

The Influence of Greece	411
Artistic Manufactures	411, 412
Sgraffiti. The Importance of Etruscan Art	412
ROME.
The Conditions of Civilization Similar to those of Etruria	413
ARCHITECTURE.
Primitive Walls	414, 415
Gates. Vaulted Canals	416
Temples: their Tuscan Character. The Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus	417
Hellenic Influences	418
Prostylos and Pseudo-peripteros	419, 420
The Tuscan Order	420
The Doric Order	420, 421
The Ionic Order	421, 422
The Corinthian Order	423, 424
The Composite Capital	424
Constructive Advances. Arching and Vaulting	425
Aqueducts and Sewers	425, 426
Baths	426–429
The Baths of Agrippa. The Pantheon	427
The Baths of Caracalla and of Diocletian	428, 429
The Circus, Theatre, and Amphitheatre	430–436
The Theatre of Marcellus	433
The Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum)	436
Funeral Monuments	436, 437
Commemorative Columns	437
Triumphal Arches	438–440
Public Buildings. Basilicas	441–443
Dwellings	444
Private Courts of Justice the Prototypes of the Christian Basilica	445–447
SCULPTURE.
Lack of Statues during the Earliest Period. Decorative Work	447, 448
The Influence of Etruria	448
The Influence of Greece	449
Rise of Sculpture after the Samnite War	449, 450
Importations of Statues from Greece	451
Coponius	452
Portrait Sculpture	453–455
Iconic Statues	453
The Horses of St. Mark’s	454
Shortcomings of Roman Reliefs	456, 457
Historical Representations	457–459
Trajan’s Column	458
The Arch of Titus	459
The Monument of Antoninus Pius	460
The Degeneration of Sculpture	461
Portraiture	461, 462
The Arch of Constantine	463
PAINTING.
The Earliest Paintings by Greek Artists. The Temple of Ceres	464
Fabius Pictor	464, 465
Pacuvius and Metrodoros	465
Battle-scenes	465, 466
Panel-painting. Collections	466
Wall Decorations after the Alexandrian Fashion	466–470
The Golden House of Nero	467
Landscapes. Architectural Ornamentation	468, 469
Mosaics	470, 471
From Herculaneum and Pompeii	471
Conclusion	471, 472
The Christian Paintings of the Catacombs	472
GLOSSARY: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, X, Z	473
INDEX: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Z	479

226.	Head of Eros. (Vatican.)	335
227.	The Hermes of Praxiteles	336
228.	The Head of the Hermes	337
229.	The Venus of Melos	338
230.	Copy of the Apoxyomenos of Lysippos	341
231.	The Farnese Hercules	343
232.	The Zeus of Otricoli	344
233.	Boreas, from the Tower of the Winds	346
234.	Notos, from the Tower of the Winds	346
235.	Coins of the Diadochi	347
236.	The Dying Gladiator	348
237.	The Laocoon	352
238.	The Farnese Bull	354
239.	The Wrestlers	356
240.	The Apollo Belvedere	357
241.	The Artemis of Versailles	359
242.	The Borghese Gladiator	361
243.	The Belvedere Torso	362
244.	Group from the Villa Ludovisi	364
245.	The Capitoline Centaur	365
ETRURIA.
246.	The Campana Tomb at Veii	387
247.	The Gate of Falerii	388
248.	Canal of the Marta	389
249.	Restored Plan and Elevation of the Tomb of Porsena	391
250.	Ceiling of a Tomb at Cervetri	392
251.	Plan and Section of a Tomb at Cervetri	393
252.	Interior of a Tomb at Cervetri	394
253.	Temple Tomb at Norchia	395
254.	Elevation of the Etruscan Temple, according to Vitruvius	397
255.	Tomb at Corneto	398
256.	Etruscan Sarcophagus	399
257.	Bust from the Grotto dell’ Iside in Vulci	402
258.	Sarcophagus of Terra-cotta from Cære	403
259.	Etruscan Relief	404
260.	The Capitoline Wolf	405
261.	Etruscan Stone Sarcophagus	407
262.	Painting from Cære	410
ROME.
263.	The Janus Quadrifrons in the Forum Boarium	413
264.	Gateway in the Walls of Norba	414
265.	Remains of the Servian Wall	415
266.	The Cloaca Maxima	417
267.	Plan of the Temple of Fortuna Virilis	419
268.	Plan of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina	419
269.	Tuscan Column from the Coliseum	420
270.	The Temple at Cori	421
271.	View of the Temple of Fortuna Virilis	422
272.	Corinthian Capital from the Pantheon	424
273.	Composite Capital	424
274.	Section of the Aqua Marcia Tepula and Julia	426
275.	Section of the Pantheon, in its Present Condition	427
276.	Section of the Pantheon. Restoration by Adler	428
277.	Plan of the Baths of Caracalla	429
278.	Chief Hall of the Baths of Caracalla	430
279.	Plan of the Circus of Romulus	431
280.	Scheme of the Roman Theatre, according to Vitruvius	432
281.	Theatre of Marcellus, Rome	433
282.	Plan of the Flavian Amphitheatre	434
283.	Section of the Auditorium of the Flavian Amphitheatre	435
284.	Façade and Section of a Rock-cut Tomb at Petra	438
285.	Triumphal Arch of Titus	439
286.	" " Septimius Severus	440
287.	Section of the Primitive Roman Basilica	442
288.	Plan of the Primitive Roman Basilica	442
289.	Plan of the Basilica of Maxentius	443
290.	Section of the House of Pansa in Pompeii	444
291.	Plan of the House of Pansa in Pompeii	444
292.	The Flavian Palace	445
293.	Court of the Palace of Diocletian at Spalatro	446
294.	Fragment of the Cista Prænestina	447
295.	Janus Bifrons upon an Ancient Roman Coin	448
296.	Statue of Isis. (Museum of Naples.)	450
297.	Relief of Mithras. (In the Louvre.)	451
298.	Vertumnus (Silvanus). (In Berlin.)	452
299.	Relief of Bonus Eventus. (British Museum.)	453
300.	Statue of Augustus. (In the Vatican.)	454
301.	Equestrian Statue of Nonius Balbus, Jun.	455
302.	Relief from the Arch of Titus in Rome.	458
303.	Relief of Trajan, from the Arch of Constantine in Rome.	450
304.	Relief upon the Pedestal of the Column of Antoninus Pius	460
305.	Victory, from the Arch of Constantine	463
306.	Wall-painting from the Aurea Domus of Nero	466
307.	Ceres. Pompeian Wall-painting	467
308.	Wall-painting from Herculaneum	468
309.	Landscape-painting from Pompeii	469
310.	Wall-painting of Decorative Architecture, Pompeii	470

Fig. I.—The Pyramids of Gizeh.

EGYPT.

Table of Contents

IT is a curious chance that the most ancient monuments of human civilization should stand upon a land which is one of the youngest geological formations of our earth. The scene of that artistic activity made known to us by the oldest architectural remains of Africa and of the world was not Upper Egypt, where steep primeval cliffs narrow the valley of the Nile, but the alluvion of the river’s delta. It would be difficult to decide whether the impulse of monumental creativeness were here first felt, or whether the mere fact of the preservation of these Egyptian works, secured by the indestructibility of their construction as well as by the unchangeableness of Egyptian art, be sufficient to explain this priority to other nations of antiquity—notably to Mesopotamia. Although no ruins have been found in Chaldæa of earlier date than the twenty-third century B.C., it is not at all impossible that remains of greater antiquity may yet come to light in a country which is by no means thoroughly explored. Nor should we deem the oldest structures now preserved to be necessarily those first erected. The perishable materials of the buildings which stood in the plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, generally sun-dried bricks with asphalt cement, were not calculated to insure long duration, or to prevent their overthrow and obliteration by the continual changes in the course of these rivers, through the silting and swamping of their valleys. Yet, though tradition would incline us to assume that Chaldæan civilization and art were the more ancient, the oldest monuments known exist upon the banks of the Nile.

The changeless blue of the Egyptian sky, the strictly regular return of all the natural phenomena connected with the Nile, that wonderful stream of the land’s life, are entirely in accord with the fixedness of Egyptian civilization in all its branches. Though the high state of advance which we first find in Egyptian art, three thousand years before the Christian era, must necessarily have been preceded by less perfected degrees, it is wholly impossible to perceive such stages of development in any of the monuments known. After Egypt had attained a certain height of civilization, its history, during the thousands of years known to us, shows none of those phases of advance or decline, of development in short, to be observed in Europe during every century, if not during every decade.

The Egyptian completed buildings and statues begun by his remote ancestors without the slightest striving for individual peculiarity. He commenced new works in the same spirit, leaving them for similar execution by his great-grandchildren. Numberless generations thus dragged on without bequeathing a trace of any peculiar character and ability. It is only by the cartouches of the kings in the hieroglyphic inscriptions that it is possible to separate the dynasties, and to group into periods of a thousand years or more, works of art which seem from their style to belong to one and the same age. What gigantic revolutions have affected the civilization of Europe during the fourteen centuries elapsed since the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and how slight are the appreciable changes during the nearly equal number of years of the ancient dynasties of Memphis—the period of the pyramids, or again of the Theban kingdom—from the seventeenth dynasty to the rule of the Ptolemies!

The true age of the monuments of Lower Egypt has not long been known. When Napoleon I. fired the spirits of his troops before the Battle of the Pyramids by the well-known words “Forty centuries look down upon you from the heights of these pyramids,” he must have been aware that, according to the conceptions of the archæological science of the time, he was exaggerating. In fact, however, he was far behind the truth. The pyramids of Abousere, possibly also those of Dashour, are of the third dynasty (3338 to 3124 B.C., according to Lepsius), those of Gizeh of the fourth dynasty of Manetho (3124 to 2840 B.C.). These are structures which have stood for five thousand years. The pyramids of Cochome, referred to as the first dynasty of Manetho, are still older, dating from a time nearly coincident, according to Biblical authority, with the creation of the world itself (3761 B.C.).

It is true we are still so far from chronological certainty that dates often differ astonishingly. Osburn, for instance, places the fourth and fifth dynasties as late as the period between 2228 and 2108 B.C., and notably the two kings of the fourth dynasty, Shofo and Nu-Shofo, about 2170 B.C. The first twelve dynasties of Memphis, dated by Lepsius about 3892 to 2167, and by Osburn as late as 1959 B.C., are now known principally by their monumental tombs. Among these, the sepulchres of the kings are prominent in like manner as the ruler in an absolute and theocratic monarchy is elevated above his subjects.

The enslaved people labored upon the monuments of their masters, often during the entire lifetime of these latter. It may be seen from contemporary wall-paintings that the discipline maintained during the work of construction was not lacking in strictness, but it was certainly not that excessive oppression generally imagined. A body of over one hundred thousand workmen sorely oppressed might, even in Egypt, have been difficult to manage by a hated despot. It was principally during the annual inundations of the Nile that the kings employed and fed the poorer classes, at that time, perhaps, unable otherwise to subsist. During other seasons the rulers could not have taken the tillers of the soil from fields and flocks without great injury to their own interests. It is no mark of a selfish despotism, which builds without reference to the welfare of land and subjects, that the kings removed their enormous sepulchral piles from the vicinity of their residences—from the valuable alluvion of the Nile to the barren edge of the desert. They thus, as Plato recommends, occupied no place with dwellings of the dead where it would be possible for the living to find nourishment. The fertile ground of the valley was not encumbered by the colossal pyramids, which were so numerous in ancient Egypt that Lepsius found the remains of sixty-seven in the forty-eight kilometers alone between Cairo and the Fayoum, on the western bank of the river. Supposing only five score such pyramids, with an average area of one hundred ares each, two elevenths of that of the great pyramid of Gizeh, to have stood in the narrow valley of the Nile, what an enormous loss in the grain production of that most fertile but limited land would so great a reduction of arable surface have caused during the past five thousand years!

The fundamental motive of the pyramid is the funeral mound. A small upheaval above the natural level of the ground results of itself from the earth displaced by the bulk of the buried body. Our present practice of interment clearly illustrates this. Increased dimensions elevate the mound to an independent monument. Many nations, some of a high degree of civilization, have contented themselves with such imposing hills of earth over the grave—tumuli, which, from the manner of their construction, assumed a conical form. Others placed the mound upon a low cylinder, thus better marking its distinction from accidental natural elevations. The Egyptians and the Mesopotamians rejected the cone entirely, and formed, with plane surfaces upon a square plan, the highly monumental pyramid. Peculiar to the former people are the inclined sides which give to the pyramid its absolute geometrical form, as opposed to the terraced structures of Chaldæa. The sand of the desert ebbed and flowed fifty centuries ago as constantly as in our time, when the sphinx, after being uncovered to its base, has been quickly hidden again to the neck. Rulers, unwilling that their gigantic tombs should be thus submerged, were obliged to secure to them great height, with inclined and unbroken sides, upon which the sand could not lodge.

The typical pyramid of Gizeh, near Cairo—the monument of Cheops (Shofo, Suphis), the first or second king of the fourth dynasty—rises above the broad necropolis of Memphis, by far the largest and one of the most marvellous works of mankind. (Fig. 1.) With a ground-line mean of 232.56 m., the great pyramid attained an altitude of 148.21 m., of which the entire apex is now overthrown, leaving a height of about 138 m.[A] The original intention of the builders was doubtless an absolutely square plan. The greatest difference in the length of the ground-lines of the base is 0.45 m. The angle of the upward inclination of the sides has been found, by measurements at various points, to average 51° 51´ 43´´. The entire pyramid is solidly built of massive blocks, pierced by a few narrow passages which lead to small chambers. (Fig. 2.) Like most of these monuments, the entrance is situated somewhat above the ground; it opens to a passage which descends with a gentle inclination. The shaft is covered with stones leaning against each other, so as to present the great resistance of a gable to the superimposed mass. In passing out of the masonry it is continued into the natural rock under the same angle, 26° 27´. Near the point of separation it meets with another passage, which ascends with an inclination of 26° 6´ to the centre of the structure, sending off a nearly horizontal branch at half-way. All three shafts lead to grave-chambers, the highest being the most important. As the ascent continues above the horizontal branch, its importance is emphasized by the passage being increased from 1.2 or 1.5 m. high to a corridor 8.5 m. in height, roofed by gradually projecting blocks, and having upon its floor a slide to facilitate the transport of the sarcophagus. Thereupon follows a horizontal vestibule, closed most securely by four blocks of granite which fell like portcullises. Only three of these had been let down; the fourth remained in its original position, the lower grooves never having been cut to allow its descent. The upper chamber, of polished granite, but otherwise not ornamented, is 10.48 m. long, 5.24 m. broad, and 5.84 m. high.[B] It is ceiled horizontally with nine colossal lintels of granite, a detail which seemed at first surprising, as other voids of far less width were more firmly covered, either by projecting and gradually approaching stones, as in the ascending corridor; or with blocks leaned together so as to form a gable, as in the other passages, and in the middle chamber, called that of the Queen. Yet it was for the security of this upper chamber that the greatest care proved to have been taken. The weight of the half-height of the pyramid remaining above it was by no means allowed to rest upon its horizontal lintels. There are above them five low relieving spaces separated by four stone ceilings similar to the first; mighty blocks are inclined over all these to a gable triangle. In case of rupture the horizontal beams would of themselves have formed new triangles and prevented direct downward pressure. Cheops certainly did not need to fear the ceiling of his chamber falling in upon him. Ventilation was provided for the room by two narrow air-channels, which, inclining upwards, took the shortest course to the outside.

Fig. 2.—The Great Pyramid of Gizeh. Section North and South, looking West.

The perfectly geometrical form of the pyramids of Gizeh has from early times led to speculations upon their having been erected in conformity with mathematical or astronomical calculations; and endless attempts have been made to discover the fixed proportions which they are supposed to embody, and to determine their symbolical or metrical significance. Too much is often assumed upon the strength of accidental coincidences, generally only approximate; but if such proportions indeed existed, whatever may have been their intention, they are evidently beyond the true province of art.

The second great pyramid, built by the successor of Cheops, Chephren (Sophris), seems not to have been so regular in its interior arrangement. The third, that of Chephren’s successor, Mykerinos (Menkera), is of the most beautiful execution. The unevenness of the ground was so considerable that a substructure of masonry was here necessary. The entire kernel is of rectangular courses of stone, and, with the exception of the exterior casing, is built in the form of steps. This manner of construction was employed in most of the pyramids, but is here particularly noticeable. The casing of granite, highly polished, is still partly intact; the joints of its stones are scarcely perceptible, and are not wider than the thickness of a sheet of paper.

The mechanical excellence of all these pyramids is indeed wonderful; they remain as a marvellous proof of the constructive ability of man in ages far anterior to known periods of the world’s history. Nor are they mere piles of masonry which could have been erected by an enslaved people without the guidance of skilled and thoughtful designers. The arrangement of the passages, of the chambers and their portcullises, of the quarried stone and polished revetment, was admirably adapted to the required ends.

In the third pyramid two corridors have been found, one above the other. The upper, opening within from the first chamber, at some height above the floor, does not reach the exterior surface, but ends suddenly against the unpierced outside casings. This peculiarity is explained by, and in turn gives weight to, the statement that this pyramid, as originally built by Mykerinos, was considerably smaller than it is at present, measuring, according to the end of the unfinished upper corridor, 54.86 m. on the side of the plan, and 42.20 m. in vertical height. Nitocris, the last queen of the sixth dynasty, prepared the pyramid to serve also as her own monument by adding courses of stone which increased these dimensions to 117.29 and 66.75 m. respectively. But as the original entrance, by the prolongation of its inclined line outward, would thereby have opened much too high above the ground, a new corridor beneath the first was rendered necessary. The second chamber, which probably once contained the sarcophagus of the queen, was found entirely plundered. The third and lowest, better protected, had been opened; but in it there still remained in position a magnificent coffer of basalt. The exterior of this sarcophagus was sculptured with lattice-work in imitation of a palace-like structure with portals. Fragments of the wooden coffin, with carved hieroglyphics, once within it, and of the mummy itself, were flung about the room. The sarcophagus, of the greatest value as illustrating the architectural forms of its time, sank in the Mediterranean with the ship which was carrying it away to England. The mummy and the lid of the coffin are in the British Museum. Hieroglyphics upon the latter designate the venerable remains as those of King Menkera, the same Mykerinos whom Herodotos, following traditions of the Egyptian priests, mentions as one of the best rulers of the land. The stone ceiling of the Mykerinos chamber was at first thought to be vaulted, it having the form of a low pointed arch. This peculiarity proved, however, to be due to a hollowing-out of the inclined gable blocks.

Fig. 3.—Section of the Great Pyramid of Saccara.

Fig. 4.—The Pyramid of Meydoun.

Princes and princesses of these early dynasties appear to have been buried in smaller pyramids, like those which stand in groups of three near the first and third great pyramids of Gizeh. Prominent subjects were allowed to take a place in the royal necropolis; but their pyramids were always truncated, in form resembling the Egyptian footstool—the pyramidal point remained the peculiar privilege of the kings. It appears to have been customary to commence all these structures with a few large terraces of masonry, which were not fully developed into the perfectly pyramidal structure until the last stones, the revetments, were put in place. These terraces generally had vertical sides. Occasionally this construction was varied by being formed with sloping sides, which repeated the obtuse ascending angle of the footstool, so that the separate steps, elsewhere with a vertical rise, were here somewhat inclined. It is not certain whether the absolute pyramidal form was always intended to be carried out upon the completion of these latter monuments. The examples of the inclined terraces which have been preserved rather seem to show that various attempts were made to develop architecturally upon the exterior the peculiarity of its inner construction. The arrangement and line of the kernel were more or less strictly adhered to, so that the last course of facing-stones showed the original angle of the interior masonry. The increasing of the terraces by successive courses—coats, as it were—seems to have been generally continued as long as the reign of a Pharaoh would permit. The layers, when inclined, were most numerous at the foot of the pyramid, decreasing in number as they ascend, that the mass might not take the proportions of a tower. This manner of building is displayed by the section of the first pyramid of Saccara (Fig. 3.), which, if the courses had been continued in equal number, would have reached a height of at least one hundred and fifty meters, instead of the 57.91 m. effected by its terrace-like contractions. The pyramid of Meydoun shows that this contraction did not necessarily take place in regular and equal steps. (Fig. 4.) There the layers were added, without decreasing in number, to a considerable height, when the structure was quickly completed by broad and low terraces. Similar to this must have been those pyramids which ended in a platform and served as the mighty pedestals of colossal figures, described by Herodotos as existing in Lake Moeris. A remarkable variation from these forms is finally to be noticed in the stone pyramid of Dashour. (Fig. 5.) Rising at first with steep inclination, 54° 14´, it changes its slant at half-height to reach, with a smaller angle, 42° 59´, a more rapid conclusion. This artistically unfortunate form seems to have been owing to a change of plan during the execution of the work; it was doubtless originally designed to have been finished like the pyramid of Meydoun. It is hardly necessary to seek the origin of the double angle in the analogous obtuse termination of Egyptian obelisks. This pyramid of Dashour is further remarkable on account of its magnificent revetment of polished Mocattam limestone, which is almost entirely preserved.

There is as great a difference in the material as in the form of the pyramids. As early as the third dynasty King Asychis (Asuchra) built a pyramid of what Herodotos terms Nile mud; that is to say, of sun-dried bricks. It is not improbable that the great pyramid of Dashour may be identified with this. Besides this peculiarity of material, it is of unusual construction, not having been immediately built upon the natural ground, but standing on a thick layer of sand, which, enclosed by retaining-walls, forms an excellent foundation.

Fig. 5.—Southern Stone Pyramid of Dashour.

One of the group of pyramids at Abousere is built of rubble-stones, quarried from the high plateau of the desert itself, and roughly cemented with Nile mud. The builder of this irregular masonry held it the more necessary to insure the ceiling of his grave-chamber with the greatest care, and three gables of stones, 10.90 m. long and 3.66 m. thick, provide a resistance as sufficient against the imposed mass as does the sixfold roofing of the King’s Chamber at Gizeh. (Fig. 6.) The exterior layers were carefully constructed of blocks from the quarries of Tourah. Immense dikes, forerunners of our modern causeways, led from these quarries to the buildings at Abousere. Although intended only for the conveyance of materials, they were yet so firmly built that they exist at the present time. Egyptian wall-paintings show in the clearest manner the transportation of colossal monolithic statues along these ways upon sledges, either moved upon rollers or dragged over an oiled slide, as in Fig. 7. The pyramid of Illahoun, like the northern pyramid of Dashour and others, is built of brick; its masonry was additionally strengthened by walls of stone, the thickest being upon the diagonals of the plan. The pyramid of Meydoun is built of alternate horizontal courses of variously quarried stone. The following are the most important pyramids still standing, with their dimensions in meters:

	Name of Pyramid.	Original Height.	Present Height.	Side of Plan.	Angle of Ascent.
1.	Great pyramid of Gizeh	148.21	137.34	232.56	51° 52´
2.	Second pyramid of Gizeh	139.39	136.37	215.09	52° 21´
3.	Northern stone pyramid of Dashour	104.39	99.49	219.28	43° 36´
4.	Southern stone pyramid of Dashour	103.29	97.28	187.93	{above 54° 14´ {below 42° 59'
5.	Pyramid of Illahoun	—	39.62	now, 170.69	—
6.	Pyramid of Meydoun	—	68.40	now, 161.54	74° 10´
7.	Northern Pyramid of Lisht	—	20.85	now, 137.16	—
8.	Pyramid of Hovara	—	32.31	116.92	—
9.	Northern pyramid of Lisht	—	27.31	now, 109.73	—
10.	Southern brick pyramid of Dashour	81.46	47.55	104.39	57° 20´
11.	Great pyramid of Abousere	69.39	49.99	109.60	51° 42´
12.	Third pyramid of Gizeh	66.83	61.87	77.04	51° 10´
13.	Northern brick pyramid of Dashour	65.25	27.43	104.34	51° 20´
14.	Great pyramid of Saccara	61.06	57.91	E. × W. 120.02 N. × S. 107.01	73° 30´
15.	Pyramid of Abou-Roash	—	—	104.39	—

The Nubian pyramids on Mount Barkal and in Meroe, far more numerous than those of Lower Egypt, have lost much of their interest since investigations have shown that the civilization of Egypt and the prototypes of monumental art did not descend from Nubia, as was at first supposed, but arose in the delta and advanced up the stream. Inscriptions prove these pyramids to be some three thousand years younger than those of Memphis, dating them at as recent an epoch as the beginning of the Christian era. They are generally grouped in an extended necropolis, and differ from those of the ancient kingdom by a steeper angle of elevation, by a roundel-moulding upon the angles, and, above all, by much smaller dimensions.

Though the truncated pyramidal form, as has been seen in a number of tombs at Gizeh, was not excluded from the funeral architecture of Egyptian subjects, it was never general. Rock-cut tombs were much more customary. The upright cliffs which border the banks of the Nile led naturally to such a formation, and in their sides are excavated caverns of very different dimensions, from the prevalent small, square chambers, with a narrow entrance high above the level of the valley, to the most extended series of rooms.

Fig. 6.—Section of the Middle Pyramid of Abousere.

These tombs were commonly decorated by mural paintings alone, but occasionally by carved architectural details, which always represent a wooden sheathing of slats or lattice-work. The larger chambers, even of the most primitive period, have the roof supported by square piers.

It is from these piers that the Egyptian columns seem to have originated, dividing from the outset into two classes and developing in different directions.

One class of columns arose from chamfering the corners of the square pier, this support being thus transformed into an eight-sided, and, when the proceeding was repeated, to a sixteen-sided, shaft. The first phase of change, with its octagonal plan, was simple and advantageous—a predominance of vertical line was secured to the support, as well as greater room and ease of passage to the chamber. The second, the sixteen-sided figure, offered but few new advantages; on the contrary, the play of light and shade between the sixteen sides and angles was lost in proportion as the edges became more obtuse and less visible. As the sleek rotundity of an absolutely cylindrical shaft was not desirable, the blunt angles of the sixteen-sided prism, of rather coarse stone, were emphasized to avoid the disagreeable uncertainty which is felt when the plan is undecided between a polygon and a circle. This was effected by channelling the sides, making the arris more prominent and giving a more lively variation of vertical light and shade. The pier thus maintained, in some degree, its prismatic character while approaching the cylinder, and the channelled column arose.

Fig. 7.—Transport of a Colossus. Egyptian Wall-painting.

Fig. 8.—Section and Plan of the Northernmost Rock-cut Tomb at Beni-hassan.

Rock-cut tombs of the twelfth dynasty (2380–2167 B.C., according to Lepsius) situated at Beni-hassan, and part of the necropolis of the ancient Nus, a city early destroyed, show the polygonal pier in the two phases of eight and sixteen sided plan. The most northern of these has the octagonal unchannelled pier in the vestibule, and the sixteen-sided channelled column within. Only fifteen channels are executed on the latter, the sixteenth side being left plane for the reception of a painted row of hieroglyphics. Both exterior and interior shafts have a base like a large flat millstone, which projects far beyond the lower diameter of the column, its edge being bevelled inward. A square abacus plinth is the only medium between shaft and ceiling, the two columns of the vestibule lacking even this. A full entablature did not exist in the interior, as a representative of the outer edge of roof and ceiling there would naturally have been out of place. The northernmost tomb has no distinct entablature carved upon the exterior; but its neighbor (Fig. 9.) shows, cut from the solid rock, a massive horizontal epistyle above the columns, and upon this the projecting edge of the ceiling, which appears to consist of squarely hewn joists. Lattice-work was found represented upon the stone sarcophagus of Mykerinos. Here the model of a wooden ceiling is truthfully imitated upon the rock. As, in the flat coverings of rainless Egypt, roof and ceiling appear one and the same, this entablature has but two members—epistyle and cornice; while the frieze, in Greek architecture the representative of a horizontal ceiling beneath the inclined roof, does not here exist.

This order of architecture, called, because of the similarity of the shaft, the Proto-Doric, was predominant in the ancient kingdom. But at least as early as the twelfth dynasty another class of columns was in use which had been developed in an entirely different manner. The Proto-Doric columns originated from the mathematical duplication of the prismatic sides and angles of the square pier; these second made the same pier their model, but followed its painted ornament, not its architectural form. The primitive designer enriched his work with flowers, striving to preserve the quickly fading natural decoration by an imperishable imitation. Many of the bands of ornament customary in antiquity may be considered as rows or wreaths of leaves and flowers, although often they do not betray their derivation at first sight, because of the original imperfect representation of nature, the subsequent strict conventionalization, and final degeneracy into formalism.

Fig. 9.—Second Rock-cut Tomb at Beni-hassan.

In Egypt, ornamental adaptations of the lotos-flowers of the Nile appear at first in long, frieze-like rows, the blossoms being bound together by the stems in much the same arrangement as similar decorations in Assyria, or the better conventionalized anthemion friezes in Greece. When this horizontal ornament was transferred to the narrow vertical sides of a pier, it was necessary to place the flowers closely together, to lengthen the curled stems and bind them; in short, to form of the wreaths, which had answered for the narrow band, a bouquet better corresponding to the tall, upright space to be filled.

Such a bunch of long-stemmed lotos-buds is shown upon the pillars of the tombs near Sauiet-el-Meytin (Fig. 10.), which, certainly of the ancient kingdom, were probably of the sixth dynasty. This bouquet may have been as customary an ornament for the pier as the garlands of lotos-flowers were for the frieze.

The history of architectural decoration shows that the stone-cutter’s chisel everywhere followed in the footsteps of color. The four sides of the pier bore the same painted flowers; if these were to be sculptured, nothing could be more natural than to carry them from four-sided relief into the full round, where they offered the same face to all points of view, and transformed the painted pier into a column formed like a bunch of lotos-blossoms. This development must have taken place early in the ancient kingdom, for we find the floral column in the same tombs of the twelfth dynasty at Beni-hassan which show the so-called Proto-Doric shaft in its various phases. Form and color so work together in the floral column as to leave no doubt of the fundamental idea having been the bunch of lotos-buds painted upon the sides of the pier. Four stems of rounded profile are engaged, rising from a flat base similar to that of the polygonal column. They are tied together under the buds by fivefold ribbons of different colors. Above these the lotos-flowers spread from the stems, showing between their green leaves the opening buds in narrow slits of white. The flowers of the painted bouquet (Fig. 10.) are spread apart; but in the sculptured column they are necessarily united, forming the capital. Even the little blossoms with short stems, represented upon the painting of Sauiet-el-Meytin, are not neglected, although the calyx itself has become much smaller, owing to technical reasons of the execution.

Fig. 10.—Pier Decoration
from the Tombs of Sauiet-el-Meytin.

Beni-hassan proves that the two orders, the channelled polygonal shaft and the lotos-column (Fig. 11.), had been developed as early as the twelfth dynasty; but as columnar architecture was not general in the ancient kingdom, the examples preserved are isolated. The little temple of that age discovered by Mariette Bey near the great sphinx of Gizeh shows no trace of columns, their place being supplied