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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.