CHAPTER VII.

METAL-WORK.

1. _Brass and Bronze Inlay._

Saracenic metal-work, so far as we are acquainted with existing dated

specimens, begins in Mesopotamia in the early part of the thirteenth

century of our era. That the art must, however, have been developing for

centuries before this date, possibly at other places, is clear from the

perfection of the workmanship displayed on the very earliest pieces;

indeed, the oldest are as a rule the most elaborate and finished.

Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the art of metal-

working, engraving, and chasing, existed in a continuous development

from very ancient times in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates. The

earliest Saracenic bowls are decorated with hunting-scenes which remind

one at once of the favourite designs of the Assyrian bas-reliefs; the

bronze gates of Balawat, and the Sassanian cups which have come down to

us,[49] present many points of close resemblance to these first examples

of the Saracen artist. There was, however, a special reason for a

notable extension and development of the art in the thirteenth

century.[50] During the earlier ages of Mohammadan rule, though the

Khalifs were not remarkable for their piety or observance of the laws of

the Korān, a certain decent outward appearance of conformity to the

regulations of Mohammad seems to have prevailed. Among other

prohibitions, that which forbade the representation in art of animate

creatures was particularly observed. The rulers may have cared little

about such laws, but the people probably had not yet shaken off the

impression of Mohammad’s puritanical teaching, and there were enough

orthodox Arabs about the court of the Khalifs to make any flagrant

deviation from such a law as that which proscribed images dangerous in

the extreme. The coins of the period prove that this was the case. ‘Abd-

el-Melik’s abortive attempt to follow the Byzantine model, and place his

own image on the coinage, was succeeded by a strictly plain currency, on

which no approach to the representation of a living thing appeared for

five centuries. But when the Turkish guards, whom the Khalifs unwisely

imported for their own safety, were followed by Turkish hordes, who

founded dynasties and by degrees abstracted the whole power of the

Khalifs, the observance of the law against images became less stringent.

The Turkish immigrants were Mohammadans, but they did not adhere to the

straitest sect of the Muslim Pharisees, and took a lenient view of the

minor regulations of Islām. We cannot be too thankful to them for this

happy indifference, for we owe the highest development of Saracenic art

in the East to Turkish or Tartar rulers. Among the earliest to introduce

the representation of images on the coinage were the small dynasties of

Mesopotamia, who followed in the wake of the great Seljūk invasion. The

large copper coins of the Urtukīs and Beny Zenky abound with figures of

men, saints, princes, and beasts, some derived from Byzantine coins,

others taken from the symbols of astrology.[51] Christ and the Virgin

are among the images employed by these indiscriminating coiners, while

such emblems as the two-headed eagle and the centaur-like figure of

Sagittarius show an oriental and probably Assyrian derivation. Coins of

this kind begin to be common in the twelfth century, and it is not hard

to trace a connection between this sudden appearance of imaged coins and

the almost contemporary fabrication of metal bowls and cups and caskets

bearing similar images and emblems. The two-headed eagle, the signs of

the zodiac, the images of aureoled saints or horsemen engaged in the

chase, are found alike on coins and vessels, but in much greater

abundance and variety on the latter, where the large surfaces naturally

afforded more room for their display. We cannot be far wrong in assuming

that the art of metal-working, which had for ages been characteristic of

Mesopotamia, where the needful mines were found,[52] after slumbering

under the Khalifs, received, like the coinage, a sudden stimulus from

the advent of the Turkish dynasties. Up to the twelfth or thirteenth

century the arts doubtless lingered on under the stigma of the orthodox,

and it needed only the favour of the powerful, especially of princes so

fond of display and gorgeous surroundings as the Tartar dynasts, to give

a new life to the long-restrained skill of the Mesopotamian artists, and

to encourage them to higher efforts.

The Mesopotamian, or, to use a shorter term, derived from its chief

seat, the Mōsil style is characterized by a predominant use of figures

of men and animals. Aureoled horsemen engaged in the various methods of

the chase, to which the Persians had ever been addicted, surround the

bowls or other vessels in broad bands; with lance or bow, with leopard

or chītah on the crupper, with hawk on wrist, or attended by hounds,

they pursue the bear or lion or antelope or other quarry; crowned and

aureoled princes, seated cross-legged on high-backed thrones, attended

by pages, and holding the forbidden wine-cup in the hand, occupy panels

or medallions; musicians with cymbals, lute or pipe, dancers, and other

types of festivity, or the personified Signs of the Zodiac combined with

their ruling planets, vary the monotony of the hunting-scenes; and

combats between animals, birds, and men, are among the subjects of the

engraver’s skill. In one instance the bottom of a large bowl is covered

with the spirited representation of a sporting party on the water: a

boat is pulled by three men, two others shoot wild ducks with their

arrows, another is engaged in cutting the throat of a wounded duck, a

seventh sits at the mast-head on the look-out, and another dives

beneath, pursued by an alligator.[53] Long chains of beasts of the

chase, lions, panthers, chītahs, antelopes, hounds and birds, pursue one

another in narrow borders, and bands of scroll-work or twist-pattern

divide the different zones of the ornamentation, while the intervening

spaces are filled with ducks and other water-fowl. The ground is

generally covered with bold arabesques, or with a kind of hook or key

pattern, and little medallions or annulets filled with a simple rose

design serve to divide the borders into equal sections. Arabic

inscriptions, in the Naskhy character, run round the vessels in narrow

bands, sometimes (but rarely) having the tops of the letters chased in

the image of human faces or interwoven with the legs of an upper border

of beasts of the chase (fig. 73). Occasionally a meaningless

inscription, consisting of a few decorative letters frequently repeated,

takes the place of the genuine inscription, and so far is this from

being an indication of late date, (though it is perhaps most common on

late work,) that it is found on objects which undoubtedly belong to the

thirteenth century, and occurs, for example, on a cup found buried with

the body of Bertrand de Malzand, Abbot of Montmajour, who died in that

century.[54] As a rule, the shoals of fish, which are so common at a

slightly later period on the bottom of drinking vessels and other

utensils intended to hold liquids, do not occur on the early Mōsil work.

[Illustration: FIG. 73.—INSCRIPTION INTERWOVEN WITH FIGURES ON THE

“BAPTISTERY OF ST. LOUIS.”]

But the main characteristic of Mōsil and all early Saracenic metal-work

is the lavish use of silver inlay. Gold does not appear to have been

employed by the Mōsil artists, but in silver they were prodigal. Every

part of the design was covered with plates of the precious metal, and

the intervening spaces, amounting to little more than narrow lines, were

generally filled with a black bituminous composition which concealed the

copper or brass, and set off the brilliancy of the silver designs. The

silver inlay is as nearly as possible let in to the level of the brass

base, and is secured by no pins or solder. The delicate hold obtained by

the process employed has unfortunately in most instances permitted the

greater part of the inlay to escape in the course of wear, and we are

thus enabled to observe accurately the method of inlaying adopted by the

Saracen workmen. This consisted, in all work of the best period, in

cutting away the surface to be inlaid in planes deepening towards the

edges, slightly undercutting the edges themselves, and then forcing the

silver into the cavity thus excavated, and burnishing the rebated edges

over the inlaid plaque.[55] In the case of large surfaces, in order to

get a better hold, the edges were not only undercut, but slightly

toothed or serrated, but this is by no means universal, and is often a

sign of a later repairing of the vessel by less skilful hands. In the

inlaying of very narrow lines, where there was hardly room for

undercutting, a series of notches were punched along the line with an

oblong-headed instrument, and the inlay beaten or pressed with agate or

jade into the holes, which served to hold the thin thread. The earliest

work is never treated in the mode which became common in Venetian and

later inlay, by the process of stippling the whole of a large surface

with little triangular notches, which served like teeth to hold the

metal plates. Whenever we find such stippling on ancient work, it is a

sign that the inlay has dropped off, and has been restored by a later

hand. The only approach to stippling in early work is the punching

oblong (not triangular) notches in inlaying thin threads of silver or

gold.

M. Lavoix, in an interesting paper on “Les Azziministes,”[56]

distinguishes three methods of inlaying; (1) incrustation, where a

thread of gold is inserted in an under-cut groove; (2) plating, where a

plate of metal is enclosed between slightly raised walls, which, he

says, is the Damascus manner; and (3) where the workman runs a sort of

spur-tool rapidly over the surface to be inlaid, so as to make a series

of notches, and then presses on the thin leaf of metal.[57] The last

method, he adds, is that chiefly in vogue in Persia, or _Al-Ajam_, to

give the country its Arabic name, whence the art came to be known in

Europe as _Alla gemina_, _Algeminia_, _All’ Azzimina_, and the inlayers

took the name of _Algemina_, or _Azzimina_. The Comte de

Rochechouart[58] describes the three processes of damascening or

inlaying still employed in Persia. He distinguishes the processes as

follows: (1) _Zarkhonden_, damascening in relief, where the base is cut

out and the edges under-cut, and the precious metal pinned on with gold

nails, after which the surface is chased. (2) _Zarnichanest_,

damascening in the flat, where the same process is used, but the gold is

pressed in with a piece of jade, and all that projects is burnished off.

(3) _Zarkouft_, which, he says, is the most usual way, where the design

is traced with the graver, but is not cut out, and the surface is

toothed with a special tool, and the gold leaf, which is used very thin,

is pressed on with jade, and then exposed to the fire till it sweats,

after which it is again burnished with jade, and the process is repeated

until the incrustation is firmly fixed. The last process is very cheap,

as little gold is used. It is evident that in this last process (which

preserves only the name of the old _Keft_ work), we have an inferior

development of the stippling process employed by the Oriental artists of

Venice, and by the late repairers of Mōsil work. The difference is, that

instead of using an honest plate of gold or silver and really inlaying

it in a sunken bed, relying on the stippling only to keep the central

portions down, the modern Persian method depends wholly on the stippling

and the heating, and is not inlay at all, but a cheap imitation. Another

process, mentioned by Sir Digby Wyatt (in Waring’s _Art Treasures_,

1857), is described as consisting in punching little holes round the

outline of the surface to be covered, and burnishing down the silver

till it is forced into the holes and thus held; but I cannot recall any

example of this process among the Saracenic objects I have examined.

When with incredible labour the whole surface of a bowl or other object

had been excavated in the intended designs, and the edges had been

under-cut, and the silver plates burnished into the recesses thus

prepared, the work of the Mōsil artist was only half done. He had next

to chase the surface of each plate with details which could not be

represented in the outline. The faces and dress of the horsemen and

princes, the fur of the beasts, the feathers of every bird, and

countless other details, had to be slowly and minutely engraved on the

surface of each little plate of silver, till the extraordinarily

delicate and finished effect which is characteristic of true Saracenic

work had been attained. There were no half-measures, no scamped work,

with the Saracen artists; every part of the inlay, if only the size of a

pea, if it represented anything but the smooth face of an Arabic letter,

must be chased; and these old-fashioned workmen had not yet learned the

economical practice of modern artisans, who neglect whatever part is not

likely to be seen, but took as much pains with the portions of their

work that were not to be seen as with those that were meant to be always

visible. Mahmūd the Kurd, a Saracen artist of Venice, carried this

principle of honest work so far, that when he made use of the stippling

process to retain his silver plates in their places, he traced his

stipples in a graceful scroll-pattern, although he knew that they would

immediately be concealed by the silver they were designed to hold. If

the silver had not accidentally been worn off, we should never have

suspected the true artist’s spirit hidden beneath.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.—TABLE FROM THE MARISTAN OF KALAUN.

Thirteenth Century. (_Cairo Museum._)]

What has been said about the processes of inlaying and chasing applies

to the whole of the best period of Saracenic art in the East, to the

Syrian and Mamlūk styles, as well as to the Mōsil work, but the

predominance in 14th century Mamlūk work of large inscriptions, which

need no chasing, instead of the multitudinous figures of the Mōsil

artist, renders the later work slightly less elaborate, though even here

the prevalence of ducks and birds in the ground-decoration demands

prodigious labour in chasing.

Between the Mōsil work and the commoner Mamlūk style, I have

distinguished a class to which I have ventured to give the name of

_Syrian_. It combines some of the characteristics of the earliest Mōsil

style with others that belong to the succeeding art of the Mamlūks. Thus

it shows on some examples the usual Mōsil decoration of figures, while

it presents numerous examples of the confronted birds, or fighting

cocks, and groups of four or six ducks or other fowl arranged in a

circle with their heads together, and also the rosette of flowers and

leaves which remind one of Damascus titles,—all of which are typical of

the later work of the Mamlūks. One special ornament is to be noticed in

this class: this is a medallion filled with a sort of key ornament,

consisting of a number of Z’s arranged in a circle, and inlaid with gold

wire. These little medallions occur in large numbers all over the

writing-boxes, which appear to have been the special product of this

school of metal-work, and they seldom recur in similar abundance at any

other period. The reasons which lead me to regard this class as the

fabric of some Syrian city, probably Damascus or Aleppo, are these:—the

style is certainly distinct from both that of Mōsil and the later art of

Cairo; gold inlay is historically known to have been a favourite

decoration with the Damascus artists, of whom, according to M. Lavoix,

there was a distinct school;[59] the rosettes of flowers and leaves have

a decidedly Damascus look; the only name, or rather title, that can with

probability be identified on the objects classed under this division,

appears to refer to a prince of Aleppo, whose slave or Mamlūk made the

writing-box described on p. 222.

[Illustration: FIG. 75.—PANEL OF TABLE OF EN-NASIR, SON OF KALAUN.

(_Cairo Museum._)]

The third, or Mamlūk, class is at once the most numerous and best

identified by inscriptions. The greater number of examples belong to the

time of the Sultan En-Nāsir Mohammad ibn Kalaūn and his many and wealthy

courtiers, the Nāsiry Mamlūks, and it is probable that the style

acquired its distinctive character during this period of sumptuous

magnificence in the fourteenth century. Indeed we shall see that

Beysary, who lived through Kalāūn’s reign, employed the art of Mōsil for

his perfume-burner. Kalāūn, again, to judge by his carved doors in the

Māristān, preferred the Mōsil style of figure-work, which still probably

held the market as the best of its kind. It is, therefore, not

unreasonable to place the beginning of what I have called the Mamlūk

style at the accession of En-Nāsir Mohammad, who reigned from A.H. 693

to 741 (A.D. 1293 to 1341). From this time onwards, at least until the

conquest of Egypt by the Othmānly Turks, the Sultāns and Amīrs of Egypt

delighted to surround themselves with exquisitely chased and inlaid

vessels and furniture. The Museum at Cairo contains two inlaid tables

(figs. 74 and 75), one of which bears the name and titles of the Sultan

En-Nāsir ibn Kalāūn, in brass filigree work, inlaid with silver

medallions, panels of flowers, and geometrical designs, and Naskhy and

Kūfy inscriptions. These tables were used to support such a tray as the

splendid specimen preserved in the South Kensington Museum, described at

p. 229, on which the Sultān’s repasts, and the wine service that

followed, were spread in the usual Eastern manner. The doors of the

mosques of this period were covered, not with the rough but effective

plaques of _cast_ bronze, which we see on the doors of Beybars (figs.

83-6) in the thirteenth century, but with _cut_ bronze plates, chased

and sometimes inlaid with silver. Mosque lamps, when they were not of

enamelled glass, were of exquisite filigree silver inlay (fig. 76).

Large chandeliers hung in front of the niches of many of the mosques,

made of _repoussé_ bronze in an arabesque design and covered with

chasing, or of iron filigree work (fig. 78), with zones of shining

copper, bright as red gold. Korāns were enclosed in gold cases adorned

with precious stones.[60] The utensils of the royal and aristocratic

palaces were of inlaid brass and bronze; large bowls or tanks, small

cups and trays, censers, candlesticks of ungainly form but beautiful

workmanship, ewers, caskets, writing-boxes, all were covered with silver

ornament, arabesques, flowers, inscriptions, and geometrical designs,

with, not seldom, the heraldic badges of their owner. The specimens

described below range from the beginning of the fourteenth to the end of

the fifteenth century, when the art of inlaying was already on the wane;

but an examination of the numerous collections, public and private, of

Europe would doubtless carry the history of the art to a somewhat later

date. In the present day the Cairo workmen engrave brass trays and

vessels of considerable merit, and if they do not now produce to any

appreciable extent the inlaid work of their ancestors it is probably

because it is too costly for most purchasers, and is neglected by the

modern Pasha.

[Illustration: FIG. 76.—LAMP OF SULTAN BEYBARS II.

A.D. 1309-1310.]

There can be no doubt that most of this Mamlūk work was made at Cairo.

Although the figured work of Mōsil, taking a new start in the 12th and

13th centuries, seems to have at first dominated the artists of the

Mohammadan East, and to have influenced schools of design far from its

centre, there is no question that inlaid metal-work existed in Egypt

before the 13th century. The inventory of the palace of the Fātimy

Khalif El-Mustansir, in the 11th century, contains numerous entries of

inlaid metal-work,—gold plates enamelled in colours; writing-boxes in

gold and silver; great vats for washing clothes, standing on three legs,

representing animals; mirrors inlaid with gold and silver in borders of

precious stones; quantities of vessels adorned with chased gold; six

thousand gold narcissus vases; and even row-galleys coated with gold

plates. Nāsir-i-Khusrau, who saw this Khalif holding a state reception,

says his throne was covered with gold, on which were depicted scenes of

the chase, huntsmen and dogs, and inscriptions; the balustrade was of

gold trellis-work of a beauty defying description, and the steps behind

the throne were of silver.[61] The same observer tells us of a

magnificent silver chandelier placed in the mosque of ‘Amr by the Khalif

El-Hākim, which was so large that they had to break down the door to get

it into the mosque.[62]

Fātimy work spread to Sicily, where we find very early and singularly

perfect metal-work made by Mohammadans. The Bayeaux ivory casket

(Prisse, iii., pl. 157), with its finely chased silver plates, has an

unmistakable Fātimy inscription in combination with confronted birds,

peacocks beak to beak, parrots, and other Mōsil characteristics. The

ivory box of Ziyād ibn Aflah, in the South Kensington Museum, with the

date 359 (A.D. 971), is probably due to Fātimy workmen. The crystal vase

preserved in the treasure of St. Mark at Venice bears the name of

El-‘Azīz, a Fātimy Khalif of the last quarter of the tenth century, and

is closely similar to another crystal vase of St. Denis, now in the

Louvre, which bears inscriptions of the same character as those on the

Nürnberg mantle, which was made at Palermo in 1133 under the rule of

Roger.[63] These crystal vases, of which examples with the name of

El-‘Azīz are mentioned by El-Makrīzy, and the embroidered silks, show a

power of design and execution which implies similar proficiency in

metal-work. In fine, there is no doubt that the artists of Egypt under

the Fātimis were skilled to a degree that found no parallel in the

handicrafts of Europe. The art may have succumbed for a while to the

influence of the Mōsil school, which would naturally be imported by

rulers like Saladin and his successors, who came from the very region of

the Mōsil silversmiths; and the Fātimy work may have owed much of its

perfection to the teaching of Mesopotamian artists of a date earlier

than any existing specimens;[64] but it is impossible to overlook the

existence of an ancient skill in arts of all kinds in Egypt itself, and

to ascribe much of the merits of the Mamlūk work to the traditions of

the Fātimis. The derivation is the more likely, inasmuch as the Mamlūk

work betrays more of the arabesque and floral influence of the Egyptian

school, as we see it displayed in the older mosques of Cairo, than that

of the figure ornament of Mōsil. The ducks of the Mesopotamian swamps

indeed survive and are emphasized, in deference, as I believe, to the

name of the founder of En-Nāsir’s dynasty, Ḳalāūn (the “duck”); but the

general character of the Mamlūk style is certainly different from that

of Mōsil, and partakes of the general Saracenic character of arabesque

and geometrical design, which was no doubt inherited from the earlier

rulers of Egypt, and was probably to a large extent fostered by skilful

artists among the Copts.

[Illustration: FIG. 77.—BASE OF CHANDELIER OF SULTAN EL-GHORY.

Beginning of 16th Century. (_Cairo Museum._)]

It is unfortunate that so few examples of Coptic art can be ascribed

with certainty to fixed dates; for the establishment of the existence of

an early Coptic school of art, derived from Byzantium, would explain

much that is obscure in the history of Egyptian art. From what Mr.

Butler has been able to bring together in his valuable work on the

_Coptic Churches of Egypt_, it seems clear that, however deeply the

Saracens were indebted to the Copts for their designs and methods in

wood and ivory carving and inlay, they did not draw their metal-work

from the same source. Coptic metal-work shows no trace of affinity to

the Saracenic bowls, trays, and censers described in the present

chapter. The lamps, crosses, textus cases, and flabella of the Copts are

more nearly related to European and Byzantine models than to

contemporary Saracenic work. Yet the remark made above, that Coptic

influence is traceable even in this art, holds good; since it is not

uncommon to find one art suggesting ideas to another, and the Coptic

designs in wood and ivory may have helped to form the Mamlūk style in

brass and silver.

[Illustration: FIG. 78.—LANTERN OF SHEYKH ‘ABD-EL-BASIT.

(_Cairo Museum._)]

But it may be asked, especially when the prevalence of what I have

described as a Damascus-looking rosette on Mamlūk work is considered,

whether the metal-work of the Mamlūks was not manufactured at their

second capital, Damascus, rather than at Cairo, and whether the old

Fātimy art had not become extinct, to be succeeded by a Damascus school

taking up new ground? There is no reason for supposing that the artists

of Damascus stopped with the style described under my second class—if

indeed that be really Syrian; doubtless they continued to execute

equally fine specimens, and some of the objects bearing Mamlūk names may

have been made at Damascus. But it should be noted that there is

practically no metal-work of any merit at Damascus now, while the Cairo

workmen are still skilful; and further, I can quote a passage from El-

Makrīzy which mentions a flourishing school of metal artists under the

Mamlūks at Cairo.

“_Sūḳ El-Keftīyīn_ (‘market of the inlayers’). This market . . .

contains a number of shops for the making of _keft_, which is inlaying

copper vessels with silver and gold. There was a great sale for this

kind of work in the houses of Miṣr [Fusṭāṭ], and the people had a keen

relish for inlaid copper. We have seen it in such quantities that it

could not be counted, and there was hardly a house in Cairo or Miṣr

which had not many pieces of inlaid copper. The equipment (شورة) of a

wedding was not complete without a _dikka_ (or stand) of inlaid copper.

The dikka means a thing like a divan-frame, made of wood inlaid with

ivory and ebony, or painted. Upon the dikka were set cups of yellow

copper [brass] inlaid with silver, and the set consisted of seven

pieces, some smaller than others, the largest holding about an ardebb of

wheat. The length of the [bands of] silver inlay, on those of the larger

size, was about a third of a cubit, and the breadth two fingers. And

similar to this was a set of plates, in number seven, one fitting into

the other, the largest reaching to about two cubits and more. And

besides that [inlaid work was used for] lanterns, and lamps, and vessels

for الاشنان, and basins, and ewers, and perfume burners. The price of a

dikka of inlaid copper thus mounted up to 200 dinārs of gold. If the

bride were of the daughters of the Amīrs and the Wezīrs and the chief

secretaries and the chiefs of the merchants, the outfit of the marriage

included seven dikkas, one of silver, another of inlaid copper, another

of white copper, another of painted wood, another of china, another of

crystal, another of _kedāhy_—and this is of pieces of painted sheets

[papier-maché?] brought from China: we have seen very many in the

houses, but the art is now lacking in Misr.”[65]

El-Makrīzy goes on to describe the dikka of the Kādy ‘Alā-ed-dīn,

Muhtesib (or inspector of the markets) of Cairo, who married a daughter

of the merchants, named Sitt El-‘Amāïm (“Lady of the Turbans”), of which

the metal alone consisted of a hundred thousand pure silver pieces; and

then mentions the wedding of a daughter of Sultan Hasan with an Amīr of

Sultān Sha‘bān, and describes the fine trousseau she had, including a

dikka, or service, of crystal, with a crystal bucket engraved with

representations of wild beasts and birds, big enough to hold the

contents of a water-skin. He concludes the section with the remark that

“the demand for this inlaid copper-work has fallen off in our times, and

since many years the people have turned away from purchasing what was to

be sold of it, so that but a small remnant of the workers of inlay

survive in this market.”[66]

The passage above quoted from El-Makrīzy establishes beyond doubt the

fact that there was a school of inlayers and metal-workers at Cairo

which survived, though in diminished numbers and prosperity, to his own

day, _i.e._ about the year 1420; and the bowl (fig. 89) described below

p. 238, with the name of Kāït Bey, fifty years later, must, if it is of

Cairo workmanship, as I believe, have been made by the remnant the

historian describes as still occupying the Sūk El-Keftīyīn.[67]

The general characteristics of the class which I have termed Mamlūk work

are easily recognizable. The Arabic inscriptions are large and bold, and

often, in the case of trays or other flat surfaces, radiating; small

inscriptions containing the name or title of the Sultān on a fess, or

perhaps a coat-of-arms, are enclosed in a medallion surrounded by a belt

of flowers and leaves of the kind familiar on Damascus tiles; the ground

is freely sprinkled with ducks and other fowl, and the bottom inside the

bowls is generally ornamented with a shoal of fish, suggestive of the

purposes for which the vessel was intended; the borders, generally of

arabesque or flower scrolls, but sometimes of beasts pursuing each

other, are broken by little whorls, typical of the style, and there are

no figures, except when the bowl or other vessel is intended for magical

or astrological purposes. The style is very distinct, and once seen can

never be mistaken.

[Illustration: FIG. 79.—COVER OF SHERBET BOWL.

Made by Mahmud El-Kurdy at Venice. Sixteenth Century.

(_South Kensington Museum._)]

There remains one more important branch of the history of Saracenic

metal-work which must not be passed over, although it does not belong to

our special subject of Egyptian Art. This branch is the Saracenic art of

Italy, and notably Venice. It stands to reason that the exquisite

workmanship of the chased vases and bowls of the Saracens must have soon

found its market in Europe, and there is plenty of evidence that even

before the Crusades the monasteries of the West had learned to prize

chalices made by the infidels. A strong impetus must have been afforded

by the Mohammadan proclivities of Frederic II., and his extensive

employment of Saracen mercenaries in his campaigns against Gregory IX.

These foreign troops were settled in various cities of Italy, where they

left their traces in the names as well as in the blood and civilization

of the places they inhabited. Thus Lucera came to be called Nocera delli

pagani; thus Pisa, which was occupied by Saracen troops for the greater

part of the thirteenth century, had its Oriental quarter, known as the

“Kinsica,” and even in the preceding century the poet Donizo had

lamented the city being “delivered over to Moors, Indians, and Turks;”

thus, too, there was a “Via Sarracena” at Ferrara. Saracenic artists

lived at Genoa and Florence, and no doubt taught their art to the native

workmen. Cellini says he copied Oriental poniards and improved upon

them. Before the Crusades, Amalfi was the port whence pilgrims started

for the Holy Land, and it was frequented by merchants from Egypt and the

East. Here was opportunity enough for the introduction of Saracenic art

into Europe. But beyond all these lesser entrances, Venice was the chief

port for Eastern wares. Venice had her colonies in the coasts of the

Levant, in Turkey, Greece, and Palestine; Venice had treaty rights in

Egypt and Syria; Venice welcomed the merchants of the East with equal

privileges, and assigned them the old palace of the Dukes of Ferrara for

their habitation; and at Venice the name of the “Fondaco dei Turchi”

still survives.[68]

This almost Oriental city was the centre of Saracenic metal-work in

Italy. Numerous salvers, cups, censers, and other articles, bear the

unmistakable stamp of Venetian handicraft. The first and most salient

distinction of this European branch of Saracenic work is in the form;

the somewhat crude outlines of the true Saracenic bowls and candlesticks

give place to more graceful and obviously Western shapes. In the

decoration considerable alterations are made. In place of the

inscriptional medallions or simple Mamlūk shields, European coats-of-

arms are introduced; and the general treatment of the decoration is

different. The arabesques remain, but they are more elaborate, and at

the same time more mechanical. Silver inlay is sparingly used, and in

many instances is entirely wanting; and the design is brought out, not

by the contrast of metals, but by relief; the pattern being raised, and

the surrounding ground cut away to a lower level. When there is inlay,

it is generally in thin lines, secured between slightly raised and

serrated edges, and further held by stippling the surface beneath the

plate with little notches; but even then the design is in relief. The

artists who produced this extremely delicate and beautiful work were at

first and probably for some time Easterns. The most famous name we meet

with on the sherbet-bowls and trays of Venice is that of Mahmūd El-

Kurdy, who must have come from the Kurd country in the neighbourhood of

the Euphrates, and was thus an heir to the traditions of the

Mesopotamian metal-workers. The number of these Venetian and Italian

specimens in the British Museum is considerable, and the series has been

instructively arranged, so that one can trace the gradual transition

from the Mamlūk style through the Venetian school to the other still

semi-oriental salvers of mediaeval Europe. The South Kensington Museum

has also a few fine examples of the Venetian style of metal-work,

including a specimen of Mahmūd El-Kurdy’s skill which is engraved in

fig. 79. Presently the native Italian workmen took up the art, calling

themselves Azzimini—workers, _all’ Agemina_, “in the Persian style”—as

did Paulus Ageminius, who made the vase described by M. Lavoix, and

Giorgio Ghisi Azzimina of Mantua, a great name among them: but in their

hands the art changed character, and we have to go to the East again to

see what remains of Saracenic art in the well-chased brass trays of

Cairo, the floral decoration of Persian _narghilas_, and the rude

arabesque bowls of Syria and Tōkāt.

I now proceed to describe some typical examples of Saracenic metal-work

in our English Museums.

I. MŌṢIL-WORK.

1. EWER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Made by Shugā‘ ibn Hanfar, at

Mōsil, in A.H. 629 (A.D. 1232).

On a ground of key-pattern, zones of scenes of the chase and festivity,

benedictory inscriptions, and the date (at the junction of the neck) نقش

شجاع ابن حنفر الموصلى فى شهر الله المبارك شهر رجب فى سنة تسع وعشرين

وستماىة بالموصل “Engraved by Shugā‘ ibn Hanfar of Mōsil, in the blessed

month of God, the month Regeb, in the year 629, at Mōsil.” The figures

are arranged in four zones, two of which comprise each ten seated

figures, enclosed in quatrefoils, playing musical instruments, drinking

from cups, &c.; while the other two zones are adorned with large mounted

figures, to wit:—Upper large zone: 1. Horsemen with chītah on rump; 2.

Figure seated on throne holding cup and attended by two squires; 3.

Horseman with hawk on wrist, rabbit before horse, dog beneath; 4.

Archer, bending one knee, shooting ducks; 5. Two men fighting together

with swords and round shields; 6. Horseman with beast on rump, a dog

beneath; 7. Figure seated on throne, with two attendants, bird above; 8.

Horseman spearing lion beneath horse’s head; 9 and 10 were occupied by

handle and spout (the latter missing). Lower large zone:—1. Man and

woman in howdah on camel’s back, and man leading; 2. Archer drawing bow,

and woman in pillion, on a camel; 3. Two seated figures, one playing

harp, the other pipe; 4. Horseman with sword and round shield combatting

foot man similarly armed; 5. Seated figure, with jug held by servant; 6.

Two women playing lute and cymbals; 7. Horseman, with uplifted arms,

launching leopard or chītah from the crupper in pursuit of a deer; 8.

Two women, with bottle, bowls, and fan; 9. Horseman shooting arrow down

throat of boar; 10. Seated king, wearing turban, receiving homage, of a

man who prostrates himself before throne and kisses king’s hand; a woman

stands behind. Suns (with human faces) divide the ten figures of the

lower zone, and floral medallions those of the upper zone. Between the

two is a frieze of hunting-scenes broken by octagons of key-pattern: men

and beasts and birds contending in fantastic attitudes.

[Brit. Mus., Blacas. Coll. Reinaud, ii. 423.]

[Illustration: COVER.]

[Illustration: FIG. 80.—CASKET OF EL-‘ADIL, GRAND-NEPHEW OF SALADIN.

Thirteenth Century. (_South Kensington Museum._)]

2. CENSER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Dated A.H. 641 (A.D. 1243).

Shape, a cylinder on three feet; with a dome-shaped upper part, hinged

to open and shut, and perforated in a zone round middle. The upper part

is divided into four zones. Beginning at the button at top, the first

zone contains an Arabic inscription:—انا فى باطنى الجحيم ولاكن ظاهرى قتر

رائحات احبّات عمل فى سنة احد واربعين وستمائة “Within me is hellfire; but

without float sweetest odours: it was made in the year 641.”

The second zone is composed of a three-strand plait-pattern.

The third zone, pierced with small holes, is covered with arabesques,

except four medallions which are filled with the characteristic key-

pattern [Illustration] &c.

The fourth zone has the same plait-pattern as the second.

The lower part is ornamented with three medallions (one reserved for a

handle, which is missing) of key-pattern, with scroll border; and three

arabesque quatrefoils, each surrounded by four stars; on a ground of

key-pattern; and a benedictory Arabic inscription between the medallions

and quatrefoils. The feet are engraved with arabesques.

The bottom is of a later date, and is ornamented with an interlacing

geometrical design in five star centres round central star. On the rim

of the original bottom are traces of illegible inscription.

[B. M., Henderson, 678.]

This is not a typical example of Mōsil-work; but its early date procures

it the second place, and the key-pattern is characteristic, and will be

found repeated on later specimens of unmistakably Mōsil fabric. With

regard to the material, I should state that without chemical tests it is

often impossible to be sure whether the alloy contains tin or zinc,

whether, in other words, it is bronze or brass. The colour is a very

unsafe guide, as I have proved during a series of chemical assays of the

South Kensington collection performed by Professor Hodgkinson.

3. BOX.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Made for Bedr ed-dīn Lulu, Prince of

Mōsil, who reigned A.H. 631-657 (A.D. 1233-1259.)

Shape, cylindrical, with a hinged lid and hasp; edge of lid bevelled.

On the bevel of the lid is an Arabic inscription:—

عز لمولانا اتابك (؟) الملك الرحيم العالم العادل المؤيد المظفر المنصور

المجاهد المرابط بدر الدنيا والدين لؤلؤ حسام امير المؤمنين

“Glory to our lord, the merciful king, wise, just, God-aided triumphant,

victorious, fighting for the Faith, warden of Islām, Full-moon of state

and church, Lulu [Pearl], sword-blade of the Prince of the Faithful.”

Round of the edge of the lid, a plait-border.

On the surface of the lid, a shoal of fish, interlaced, within

quatrefoil, surrounded by a key-pattern, within scroll-border.

Round the lower part, in quatrefoil panels, four aureoled seated figures

holding wine-cups, &c., alternating with four bold arabesques; these

eight panels separated by other panels, enclosing a rosette of annulets,

and beasts of the chase and water-fowl; ground of key-pattern; a fine

arabesque border above and beneath.

[B. M., Henderson, 674.]

Here we have a vessel made for a well-known Atābek of Mōsil, presenting

the key-pattern, plait-border, medallions, quatrefoils, &c., already

noticed in No. 1, but with the addition of the aureoled figures, beasts

of the chase, water-fowl, and fish, which now become characteristic of

thirteenth century work. If the hunting and hunted animals are typical

of the Assyrian and Sassanian source of the art, the fish and water-fowl

are no less natural in the swamps of Mesopotamia.

4. BOX.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Made for the Ayyūby Sultan El-‘Ādil

Abū-Bekr II. (A.D. 1238-40) grand-nephew of Saladin. Fig. 80.

Cylindrical, the edge of the cover bevelled and engraved with an Arabic

inscription:—عز لمولانا السلطان الملك العادل الزاهد العابد المويد المظفر

المنصور المجاهد المربط سيف الدنيا والدين ابى بكر ابن محمد بن ابى بكر بن

ايوب “Glory to our lord the Sultān, the king, just, virtuous, devout,

God-aided, triumphant, victorious, fighter for the Faith, warden of

Islam, Sword of state and church, Abū-Bekr son of Mohammad son of Abū-

Bekr son of Ayyūb.”

The sides are covered with six aureoled figures:—1. Horseman hawk on

wrist, dog below; 2. Man spearing beast; 3. Horseman spearing beast on

crupper; 4. Man spearing beast; 5. As 1.; 6. Man slaying beast with

sword.

On the cover, diaper of hexagrams enclosing six seated turbaned figures

of the planets round central sun, within a zone of the Signs of the

Zodiac. Scroll border beneath bevel. Prevailing ornaments, scrolls and

[Illustration]

An inscription on the bottom برسم الطشت خاناه العادلية, “Made for the

Tisht-Khānāh of El-‘Ādil,” refers to the magazine or store-room, where

the dresses and utensils, &c., of the Sultan were kept, and the clothes

washed. It was managed by a superintendent (مهتار) and a number of

servants (طشتدار).[69]

H. 4½ in., diam. 4¼ in. [S. K. M., 8508-1863.]

5. PERFUME-BURNER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Made for the Amīr

Beysary, a Turkish Mamlūk of Egypt. Circ. A.H. 670 (A.D. 1271). Fig. 81.

Globular: in two hemispheres, pierced with small holes, with a ring at

the top.

The upper hemisphere is ornamented with five medallions enclosing two-

headed eagles with spreading tails, separated by five smaller medallions

filled with the key-pattern in the shape of a six-pointed star, the

surrounding ground engraved with free arabesque scroll-work.

Above and below the design are two zones of Arabic inscriptions. Below:

مما عمل برسم المقر الكريم العالى المولولى (_sic_) الاميرى الكبيرى

المحترمى المخدومى السفهسلارى المجاهدى المرابط (_sic_) المتاعزى المؤيدى

المظفرى

“Of what was made by order of his excellency, the generous, exalted,

lord, great Amīr, honoured, master, Marshal, fighter for the Faith,

warden of Islam, the powerful, the God-aided the victorious.” Above: بدر

الدين بيسرى الظاهرى السعيدى الشمسى المنصورى البدرى “Full-moon of the

Faith, Beysary, the liegeman of Edh-Dhāhir, of Es-Sa‘īd, of Shems-ed-

dīn, of El-Mansūr, of Bedr-ed-dīn.” Within which, round the ring, is a

zone of five two-headed eagles in open work.

Lower hemisphere, same as upper, but omitting المولالى, and substituting

الاسفهسلارى for السفهسلارى, adding ى to المرابط, and affixing عز نصره to

الشمسى.

[B. M., Henderson, 682.]

Lord Beysary was one of the retainers of Es-Sālih Ayyūb, the last ruling

king of Egypt of the house of Saladin; rising by degrees, he became one

of the most powerful of the Amīrs of the time of Beybars. When El-Melik

Es-Sa‘īd Baraka, the son of Beybars, was deposed, Beysary was offered

the throne, and refused it. Kalaūn (1279-90) threw him into prison,

whence he was liberated, after eleven years’ captivity, by El-Ashraf

Khalīl in 1293, who restored him to his rank of centurion, or captain

over too men, while the Amīrs showered congratulations and presents upon

him. Henceforward he styled himself El-Ashrafy, “follower[70] of El-

Ashraf,” instead of his old title of Esh-Shemsy. On the death of Khalīl

he was again offered the throne, and again declined the honour. The

Sultan Ketbughā allotted him sixty Mamlūks, to each of whom Beysary gave

two horses and a mule. The tide of fortune changed in 1297, when the

Sultan Lāgīn, moved to jealousy by a rival lord, again consigned Beysary

to prison, where he died in 1298, and was buried in his tomb outside the

Bāb-en-Nasr. He was lavish in his generosity, prodigal of immense gifts,

and perpetually in debt to the amount of 400,000 dirhems (about

£16,000); for he had no sooner cleared off one debt than he hastened to

contract another. Generosity was his pride, and he would accept no

remonstrances from his servants on his prodigality, but straightway

dismissed the economical critic. He never drank twice out of the same

cup, but took a new vessel each time. At the time of the accession to

power of Kalaūn, Beysary is stated to have been wholly given over to

wine and gambling. No man approached him in the amount and importance of

his charities. His palace, Dār El-Beysarīyeh, in the Beyn-el-Kasreyn,

was originally intended, in late Fātimy times, for a residence for

Frankish ambassadors, and one actually had resided there to receive

certain tribute; but under Beybars, Lord Beysary Es-Sālihy Esh-Shemsy

En-Negmy began to rebuild the palace in 1261, and spent immense sums on

adorning it. It occupied, with its stables, garden, and bath, about two

acres (feddāns): the marbles employed for it were the best that were

used in Cairo, and excellently wrought. The palace remained in the

possession of his heirs till 1332. Kūsūn wished to own it, and asked the

Sultan En-Nāsir Mohammad for permission to treat for it: it was valued

at 190,000 dirhems, and the garden brought it up to 200,000; it

subsequently passed through many hands, and at the time of El-Makrīzy

belonged to a daughter of Barkūk. The door of the house had a panel

which was one of the most beautiful ever made at Cairo.[71]

[Illustration: FIG. 81.—PERFUME-BURNER OF BEYSARY.

Thirteenth Century. (_South Kensington Museum._)]

It may be questioned whether the South Kensington box and Beysary’s

perfume-burner were made at Mōsil or at Cairo. The statement on the

former that it was made “by order of El-‘Ādil’s tisht-khānāh” does not

necessarily infer that the order was executed in Cairo: a Mōsil workman

may have been employed at Mōsil or have been fetched to Cairo. The two

pieces, however, are of the style which is identified by other examples

as the fabric of Mōsil, and the two-headed eagle is a familiar device on

Mesopotamian coin of the twelfth and thirteenth century; and if either

was made at Cairo the artists must have been trained in the Mōsil

school. That such work was sometimes done at Cairo is shown by an

astrolabe in the British Museum, with the inscription—

صنعه عبد الكريم المصرى الاسطرلابى بمصر الملكى الاشرفى الملكى المعزى

الشهابى فى سنة خلج هجرية,

“‘Abd-El-Kerīm made it, the Cairene [Misry], the Astrolabist, at Cairo,

the [follower] of El-Melik El-Ashraf and El-Melik El-Mu‘izz, and of

Shihāb-ed-dīn, in the year 633.”

This astrolabe has the key ornament, good arabesques, and of course

planets and zodiacal figures; and is inlaid with silver and gold by

under-cutting and toothed edges. The El-Mu‘izz, whom he once served, was

no doubt the prince of Mesopotamia, and El-Ashraf the Ayyūby of

Diyārbekr, both of whom reigned in the first quarter of the thirteenth

century. This would show that Mesopotamian artists came to Cairo, where

there was, as we have seen, a _Sūk El-Keftīyīn_, or market of the

inlayers.

6. PERFUME-BURNER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ No date. [Thirteenth

century.]

Shape similar to No. 2.

On the lower part are three arabesque frames, one occupied by handle,

the other two filled with two aureoled figures seated cross-legged on

high-backed thrones, with bird on either side; between which are other

medallions filled with quatrefoils; and beasts of the chase; ground of

arabesque scroll-work.

On the top, nine seated figures holding cups, cymbals, &c.; and round

the button a zone of Arabic inscription:—

العز الدائم والعمر السالم والاقبال الزائد

“Enduring glory and sound life and growing prosperity.”

[B. M., Henderson, 681.]

The seated figures on high thrones are similar to some on coins of

Saladin, of 1190, and of the Urtukīs of Māridīn of the year 1230: cross-

legged figures are common on the Mesopotamian currency of the thirteenth

century.

7. DEEP SALVER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ No date. [Thirteenth

century.]

On a ground of key-pattern, a band of hunting-scenes, and cross-legged

figures holding crescent moon, alternately, with occasional water-fowl,

and a border of hounds. The hunting-scenes depict a horseman attacking,

with drawn sword, a leopard on horse’s rump, another shooting a hare

with bow and arrow, a third cutting down a deer in front of the horse,

and three pairs of seated Byzantine-looking figures, two of these

holding cups and the third a hawk, while the companions hold sword or

spear. Meaningless Kufic inscription لعالعالعا, &c. Within the curve of

the rim, a border of medallions enclosing figures holding wine-cups,

&c., and also pairs of figures resembling the Madonna and Child. The

central and chief device consists of a seated cross-legged figure on

high-backed throne, attended by two squires, holding cup and sword

(other cups sprinkled in the field); at the foot of the throne two lions

couchant, and beneath them a two-headed eagle, closely resembling that

of Beysary, between two bowmen shooting each at one of its heads.

[B. M., Henderson, 706.]

8. EWER.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ No date. [Thirteenth century.]

The decoration on the body is arranged in a series of zones on an

arabesque ground.

The topmost zone consists of a band of falcons, back to back, with

silver eyes, tails crossed, and heads standing out in very bold relief,

so as to form a sort of parapet of knobs.

Second zone: Arabic benedictory inscription, tops of _alifs_, _lāms_,

&c., terminating in chased human faces.

Third zone: Beasts of the chase.

Fourth or central zone, wider than the rest: Large arabesques enclosing

twelve quasi-medallions, filled with personified signs of the zodiac

combined with the seven planets, viz. (1) Mars on Aries, warrior holding

decapitated human head, and riding ram; (2) Venus on Taurus, woman (with

lute) riding bull; (3) Mercury and Gemini, two figures linked together

with a staff (pen?) between them, terminating in human faces; (4) Moon

and Cancer, crab surmounted by human head in crescent formed by claws;

(5) Sun and Leo, lion surmounted by sun; (6) [Mercury and] Virgo, woman

with two ears of corn; (7) Venus and Libra, balance held up by a woman;

(8) Mars and Scorpio, man holding two scorpions; (9) Jupiter and

Sagittarius, centaur shooting arrow down gaping mouth of dragon (formed

out of his own tail); (10) Saturn and Capricornus, bearded man with long

staff, riding goat; (11) Saturn and Aquarius, bearded man and well-

bucket; (12) Jupiter and Pisces, two fish (Jupiter covered by handle).

Fifth zone: Beasts of the chase.

Sixth zone: Arabic benedictory inscription.

Seventh zone: Long-necked birds within borders, necks intertwined.

Eighth zone: Arabic benedictory inscription.

On the _neck_ is a zone of Arabic benedictory inscription, with a fine

lion sejant at either side; a zone of birds with red copper eyes; the

ground consists of beautiful free arabesques. Up the spout and sides of

handle run strings of beasts of the chase, and up the back of the handle

a string of birds; at the junction of handle with body is a seated

figure, cross-legged, holding two serpents.

(B. M. Engraved in Labarte’s _Handbook of the Arts of the Middle Ages_,

ed. Palliser, p. 423.)

The silver inlay of this ewer is effected by undercutting the edges, and

not by stippling the surface (what stipples there are belong to a later

repairing), and the straight lines are inlaid by punching all along them

with a small oblong-headed punch.

9. BOWL.—_Bronze inlaid with silver._ No date. [Thirteenth century.]

The decoration consists _without_, in two zones of Arabic religious

inscriptions divided by key-medallions, and a double row of medallions

enclosing aureoled figures playing musical instruments and drinking from

cups; _within_, a zone of medallions enclosing hunting-scenes, aureoled

figures fighting with lions, carrying falcons, riding an elephant, and a

Bedawy on camel, the interstices filled with key-pattern; at the bottom,

inside, a boat rowed by three men, while two others shoot wild ducks,

another cuts a duck’s throat, a seventh sits at the mast-head, and

another dives beneath, pursued by an alligator; three zones of Arabic

religious and unmeaning inscriptions; on rim, border of animals of the

chase, elephants, and a winged centaur. Height 8 in., diam. 19 in.

[S. K. M., 2734-1856.]

The foregoing is one of the finest pieces of Mōsil work in England. The

elephant and camel are specially noteworthy; above all, the spirited

scene on the bottom of a shooting party on the water, such as is

recorded in the accounts of the sports of Persian princes.

10. STAND.—_Brass inlaid with silver and gold._ No date. [Thirteenth

century.]

Nine-sided; chased with representations of nine figures of aureoled

horsemen, holding falcons, fighting with dragon, brandishing bow, spear,

and other weapons; above, nine cross-legged seated aureoled figures

clashing cymbals, blowing pipe, holding candles, and putting wine-glass

to lips; the interstices filled with black bituminous enamel; on a

background of silver scroll-work; above and below, imitation Arabic

inscription (لسا لسا, &c.). Height 5¾ in., diam. 9½ in.

[S. K. M., 917.-1884.]

The workmanship of the preceding is unusually delicate and intricate,

and the shape is peculiar. It may have formed the base of a candlestick.

The black enamel, composed really of pitch, is here well preserved, and

it is probable that the majority of the inlaid works of this period were

treated in a similar manner; so that the black composition concealed

most of those intervening portions of brass which the silver plates did

not cover.

It is impossible to conclude this section without referring to the most

famous example of figured Mōsil work in Europe, the so-called

“Baptistery of St. Louis,” preserved in the Louvre.[72] This splendid

bowl, which belongs in style to the class of Mōsil work of the

thirteenth century, measures five feet in circumference, and is covered

inside and out with bands of figures richly inlaid with silver, so that

little of the copper is visible. On the band inside are two medallions,

each enclosing a prince seated cross-legged on a throne with a high

pinnacled back and two lions under the feet, and holding a wine-cup,

attended by two servants, one on the left of the prince bearing a sword,

the other on the right holding a casket inscribed دواة (“writing-case”).

On the back of the throne is the inscription “made by Ibn-ez-Zeyn,” or

(as it is written elsewhere on the bowl) عمل المعلم محمد ابن الزين غفر

له, “Made by master Mohammad ibn-ez-Zeyn, save him!” The little cups

held by the princes in the medallions are also signed with his name, as

though they represented the vessels actually made in his workshop.

Between the medallions are, on the one hand, six horsemen fighting with

lances, bows, and maces; on the other, six huntsmen pursuing beasts and

game. One carries a chītah on the crupper—one of those “leopardi qui

sciant equitare” which the mighty hunter Frederic II. loved to see

engraved upon his cups.

On the exterior a frieze of figures, ten centimètres high, is broken by

four medallions, each containing a prince on horseback killing a bear, a

lion, or a dragon, with lance or arrows. Between, his servants bring him

arms, falcons, a slain antelope, dogs in leash, and leopards; one offers

a flask and cup (inscribed with Ibn-ez-Zeyn’s name); another, a plate,

inscribed انا بجفيز لحمل الطعام, “I hasten to bring food.” This frieze

is bounded by two borders of beasts of the chase, divided by eight

medallions, containing each a fleur-de-lis—probably a later European

addition.

Such, in effect, is M. de Longpérier’s description of this magnificent

work of art, to which the engravings inserted to illustrate his article

do scant justice. Some of the zones are reproduced from these engravings

fig. 82. Mr. W. Burges (in Sir Digby Wyatt’s _Metal Work_) says that the

inlay of this bowl is effected by sinking the designs, especially deeply

towards the edges, which are under-cut in a rebate, into which the edges

of the inlaid plate are forced.

Before dismissing the Mōsil work, some reference must be made to the

numerous mirrors which were made in that part, as well as elsewhere.

They have been brought from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and especially from the

South of Russia, where they are often found buried in the graves of

Tartars. They are generally cast, with a good deal of silver in the

bronze; in form they are round or square, and vary in size from two

inches to a foot. Several are preserved in the British Museum, including

those described by Reinaud, from the Duc de Blacas’ Collection. The

ornament is on the back, and generally consists of little more than

benedictory inscriptions; but one has a pair of Assyrian winged

monsters, resembling Kalaūn’s winged kings.

[Illustration: FIG. 82.—INLAID SILVER PANELS OF THE “BAPTISTERY OF ST.

LOUIS.”

(_Louvre._)]

II. EARLY SYRIAN WORK.

11. COFFRET.—_Brass, inlaid with silver and gold._ No date. [Late

thirteenth century?]

Oblong, with sloping lid and silver chains to support it when open. It

is covered with silver plates, chased with foliage, birds, and human-

headed lions; and inlaid with medallions of designs and religious or

unmeaning (العالعالعا) Arabic inscriptions in gold.

On the lid are eight large and small bosses. Height 5⅜ in., L. 5⁷⁄₁₆

in., W. 4 in.

[S. K. M., 459.-1873.]

Other specimens of the same sort are engraved in Prisse, where one is

stated to have belonged to En Nāsir ibn Kalaūn.

12. WRITING-BOX.—_Brass, inlaid with silver and copper._ With hinge and

hasp. No date. [Late thirteenth century?]

Oblong, with compartments for pens, ink, sand, &c.

Along the front, sides, and back of lower part, the signs of the zodiac

are represented in combination with the planets, much as on No. 8, but

with copper as well as silver inlay; the ground is of closely interwoven

arabesques, inlaid and chased on the surface. On the bottom are four

groups of four water-fowls each, with the heads together. On the lid,

three medallions filled with key-pattern; arabesque ground; and border

of decorative Kūfy inscription, nearly illegible. Inside the lid is an

Arabic benedictory inscription and a Kūfy inscription on the top inside,

with a central panel, and arabesque ground.

[B. M., A. W. Franks, 1884.]

13. WRITING-BOX.—_Brass, inlaid with silver and a little gold._ No date.

[Late thirteenth century?]

Similar to 12, but with rounded ends; seventeen figures, riding,

drinking, or playing on musical instruments, on the lid and bottom,

inside and out; water-fowl confronted in pairs, back to back, and also a

group of six; small medallions of key-pattern inlaid with gold wire.

[B. M., Burges, 19.]

14. WRITING-BOX.—_Brass, inlaid with silver and a little gold._ No date.

[Late thirteenth century.]

Similar to 12 in shape and general treatment, but the leaves of the

arabesque ground are now frequently converted into birds, and there are

no figures: the two birds fighting beak to beak, in chased silver inlay,

occur repeatedly, and also the key-pattern medallions in gold: Arabic

benedictory inscriptions on top and round sides, and on bottom

arabesques on a key-pattern ground: inside, fine rosettes of flowers and

leaves like Damascus tiles, numerous key-pattern medallions in gold

wire, flower-scroll borders, wild-fowl in panels of six, two Arabic

benedictory inscriptions, and one circular radiating inscription, viz.:

الجناب العالى المولموى الكبيرى المالكى السيدى الهمامى الغياثى الدخرى

“His Highness exalted, lordly, great, royal, master, valiant,

_Ghiyāthy_, munificent.”

[B. M., Burges, 20.]

It is dangerous to hazard conjecture as to the identity of the prince

Ghiyāth-ed-dīn from whom this Mamlūk (retainer) took his epithet

Ghiyāthy, for the name is not uncommon. It does not, however, occur

among the Beny Zenky or the Bahry Mamlūks, and it is not unreasonable to

suppose it to refer to either Edh-Dhāhir or El-‘Azīz, son and grandson

of Saladin, who both bore the surname, and ruled Aleppo from 1186 to

1236. A retainer of the latter might easily be living in the second half

of the thirteenth century.

15. BOX.—_Brass inlaid with silver and a little gold._ No date. [Late

thirteenth century?]

Oblong, curved outline. Gold inlay chiefly distributed in key-pattern

medallions and stars; silver in the confronted birds &c.; two groups of

four birds within eightfoils on top; on front, two birds confronted and

two beasts confronted within eightfoil, four times repeated, in

alternation with arabesques likewise enclosed in eightfoils; ground of

key-pattern; border of beasts of the chase.

[B. M., Henderson, 677.]

The last three pieces were in all probability made by the same school of

artists. They began with the Mōsil-like system of zodiacal and other

figures (but in a much more finished and delicate manner), adding the

characteristic mark of this group—the gold-inlaid key-pattern

medallions—and then omitted the figures and introduced more of the

waterfowl that afterwards became most prominent on Mamlūk work, and also

added the typical Damascus rosette ornament. These boxes constitute a

class by themselves, and arguing from the Damascus ornament and the

(probably) Aleppo epithet, I have provisionally termed it _Syrian_. A

similar writing-box in the South Kensington Museum (8993-1863) has a

long series of Mamlūk titles, none of which identify its provenance.

III. MAMLUK WORK.

The rule of the Mamlūks in Egypt extended from the middle of the 13th to

the beginning of the 16th century; but there are hardly any examples of

their metal-work of the 13th century, and the finest and most numerous

class is that of the Nāsiry Amīrs, or courtiers of the Sultan En-Nāsir

Mohammad, in the 14th century: this is the style which is meant when the

term Mamlūk work is employed. Of the earlier century, besides the

perfume-burner of Mōsil style already described bearing the name of

Beysary, the chief specimen of 13th century work made in Cairo is the

bronze plating of the doors of Beybars’ mosque _extra muros_.

16. DOOR-PLATING OF THE MOSQUE OF BEYBARS I., A.D. 1268.

These plaques are now in the South Kensington Museum, having been

acquired in 1884 from M. de St. Maurice. They consist of a central boss,

bearing the crest of Beybars, a lion passant (fig. 83), with twelve

geometrically shaped plaques arranged round it, each of which contains

an arabesque design in open filigree-work (fig. 84); a smaller boss

surrounded by nine similar plaques; a knocker (fig. 85); and a border of

open arabesque-work (fig. 86) and a portion of an Arabic inscription

(الاتابكى الملكى الظاهرى) also in open work. Two other sets consist of a

knocker, bosses, and geometrical plaques filled with arabesque designs

in open work, arabesque borders, and a portion of a Korān inscription.

The plaques form systems of 10 in these sets; of 12 and 9 in the first

set. All these pieces are _cast_, not cut, and are therefore identical

each with its fellows in the same system, in contrast to the usual

character of Cairene work, where we seldom find two patterns alike. The

arabesques are, however, very free and flowing, and the appearance of

the numerous plaques, fastened all over the door by ribbed studs, must

have been highly effective. The mosque where these doors once hung was

built by Sultan Beybars, in the Huseynīya quarter of Cairo, in 665-7

(A.D. 1266-8), and contains many remarkable features.

[Illustration: FIGS. 83-86.—BRONZE PLAQUES FROM DOOR OF BEYBARS I.

(_South Kensington Museum._)]

These bronze-plaque doors of Beybars are of a different character from

the bronze doors of the later Mamlūks.[73] The mosques of Cairo present

many splendid examples of this later style, which usually consists in

covering the doors with large plates of thin bronze (about ¼ inch), cut

out in various arabesque patterns, or cast in embossed designs, and

chased on the surface, and generally distributed in the form of a

central circle or oval and four corner-pieces, or spandrils, with a

border round the four sides, secured by ribbed-headed nails. The door

itself is of wooden planks nailed on to a frame-work behind, and

strengthened by bronze bands near the top and bottom, which run through,

according to Mr. Wild, and turn round at the edges, being formed into

panels by the arabesque border on the front side: it turns on pivots,

not hinges. Some of these doors are admirably represented in Prisse

d’Avenne’s _L’Art Arabe_: for example, the beautiful door of Almās (vol.

ii. plate 100), where the whole surface is covered with bronze plaques,

more like the style of Beybars than is common on later mosques; that of

Sultan Barkūk (pl. 96) with a central circular plaque, pointed at top

and bottom, four corner-pieces, and narrow border; that of Sultan Kansūh

El-Ghōry (pl. 102) arranged somewhat similarly; and that of Talāi‘ ibn

Ruzeyk, as restored by Bektemir in the 14th century (pl. 95). There is a

splendid bronze door to the mosque of El-Muayyad (A.H. 818-23), which

was taken from the mosque of Sultan Hasan, where, however, the entrance

to the tomb chamber is still closed by a magnificent gate of bronze

inlaid with silver.

From the bronze doors of Beybars, the history of metal-work in Cairo

leaps over four Sultans to En-Nāsir Mohammad ibn Kalaūn, who reigned

A.D. 1293-4, 1299-1309, and 1310-41, or (omitting the first brief rule)

during most of the first half of the 14th century. En-Nāsir built two

noble mosques, and the number of works in metal bearing his name and

those of his courtiers is very large. Among the finest is the beautiful

table preserved in the Arab Museum at Cairo.

17. TABLE (KURSY).—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for the Mamlūk

Sultan En-Nāsir Mohammad. Fourteenth century.

It is made of filigree brass inlaid with arabesques, flowers, water-

fowl, and Arabic inscriptions in silver, and is chased all over in

elaborate profusion. One of the panels, forming a folding door, through

which no doubt a pan of live charcoal was introduced, to warm the tray

of food which was placed upon the table, is represented in fig. 75,

where the inscriptions on the top border read, عز لمولانا السطان الملك

الناصر ناصر الدنيا والدين محمد بن السلطان الملك المنصور الشهيد قلاون

الصالحى غز انصاره

“Glory to our lord the Sultan, the king, En-Nāsir [the Succourer or

Helper], Aid of the church and state, Mohammad, son of the Sultan, the

king, El-Mansūr [the victorious], the martyr [_i.e._ defunct] Kalaūn,

[liegeman] of Es-Sālih [Ayyūb], be his triumphs magnified!” The

inscriptions in the three other narrow borders are practically identical

with the above. The large inscription in the upper panel is محيى العدل

فى العالمين ‏|‏ ناصر الدنيا والدين “Upholder of justice in the world,

Aid of the state and church;” while in the circular medallions is

distributed the inscription, “Glory to our master the Sultan | El-Melik

En-Nāsir Mohammad ibn | El-Melik El-Mansūr Kalaūn.”[74]

[Musée Arabe.]

18. Another brass and silver filigree Table (_kursy_), preserved in the

same museum, and stated to have belonged to the Māristān of Kalaūn, is

represented in fig. 74. It has no inscriptions, but undoubtedly belongs

to the same period as the first.

The characteristic designs of the Cairo metal-workers under En-Nāsir

Mohammad may, however, best be seen in the large bowl or tank described

below. As a rule, but not without exceptions, we may set down, as

characteristic of 14th century Cairo work, the absence of figures

(except on vessels having astrological uses), the prevalence of ducks or

other birds in the ground decoration, the medallions (enclosing a sort

of fess bearing the name of the Sultan,) surrounded by a rosette of

flowers and leaves resembling the patterns of Damascus tiles, the shoals

of fish at the bottom of bowls, the broad bands of tall bold silver-

inlaid letters, the large surfaces of inlay, and the little whorl

ornament [Illustration] which takes the place of the key-pattern

medallion already noticed.

19. LARGE AND DEEP BOWL.—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for the

Sultan En-Nāsir Mohammad ibn Kalaūn (A.D. 1293-1341).

Ornamented with broad bold zones of Arabic inscriptions, filled in with

waterfowl and flowers and leaves (which seem to be conventionalized

ducks’ wings), and divided at regular intervals by medallions, enclosing

titles on a fess, and enclosed in rosette of flowers and leaves.

Large inscription round the outside:—

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك ‏◯‏ لناصر العامل العادل المجاهد ‏◯‏ ناصر الدنيا

والدين محمد بن قلاون ‏◯‏

“Glory to our lord the Sultan, the king, the helper [El-Melik En-Nāsir],

ruler, leonine, fighter for the Faith, Aid of the state and church,

Mohammad son of Kalaūn.” The medallions enclosed in rosettes of flowers

indicated by ◯ contain, on a fess, عز لمولانا السلطان ا “Glory to our

master the Sultan the” (_sic_).

Above and below the large inscription, on a floral ground, six little

medallions contain عز لمولانا السلطان “Glory to our master the Sultan,”

twelve times repeated.

Scratched under rim by later hand الصبر عبادة “Patience is worship.”

Large inscription inside:—

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك الناصر ‏◯‏ العالم العامل العادى المجاهدا ‏◯‏

لمرابط ناصر الدنيا والدين محمد بن قلاون عز نصره ‏◯‏

“Glory to our lord the Sultan El-Melik En-Nāsir, wise, ruler, leonine,

fighter for the Faith, warden of Islam, Aid of the state and church,

Mohammad son of Kalaūn, be his triumph magnified!” The medallions marked

◯ are filled as on the outside: but there are no small medallions in the

floral border beneath, or in the double scroll border above inscription;

but the last is divided by six whorls.

The bottom is covered with a shoal of fish, in a circular spiked border.

[B. M., 51. 1. 4.]

These large inscriptions offer a good example of the method of inlaying

silver plates. Each letter was scooped out and deepened towards the

edges, which were slightly under-cut and very delicately serrated. As

the weak hold thus obtained let the silver escape, a later workman seems

to have repaired the tank, and re-inlaid it by stippling the surfaces

with a triangular point and rudely serrating the edges. Very little of

the silver now remains: what there is shows that the surface was

delicately chased when the subject required it (_e.g._ birds’ wings).

The South Kensington Museum possesses a large tray of the same Sultan,

of the sort that is used to carry a meal, splendidly engraved and

inlaid, as follows:—

20. TRAY.—_Brass, inlaid with gold and silver._ Made for the Sultan En-

Nāsir ibn Kalaūn (A.D. 1293-1341).

The principal inscription (_a_) occupies a large zone on the upper

surface, and is composed of bold Naskhy letters:—

عز لملانا السلطان ا (_m_) لملك العالم العا (_m_) مل العادل العادل عز

نصره (_m_)

“Glory to our lord, the Sultan, the king, wise, just, ruler, be his

triumph magnified!”

At (_m_) the inscription is broken by medallions containing the words

الملك الناصر El-Melik El-Nāṣir, on a fess; and round each medallion runs

an inscription (_b_) similar to (_a_), but adding, after العادر, المجاهد

المرابط المتاعز المؤيد; the whole enclosed in a belt of leaves and

flowers.

An inner zone of inscription is similar to (_b_), but continued with the

words المنصور سلطان الاسلام والمسلمين عز نصره, “The victorious, Sultan

of Islam and the Muslims: be his triumph magnified,” and divided by

three similar pairs of medallions joined together by a panel of flowers

and leaves. The right-hand medallion of each pair contains on a fess the

words (_c_) عز لمولانا السلطان, the left, on a shield, an antelope in an

enclosure.

A third innermost zone of inscription is similar to _a_, but substitutes

المجاهد for عز نصره

On the outer surface of the rim is the following inscription, divided at

◯ by sets of three medallions like (_c_), joined by panels of flowers:—

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك الناصر العامل العادل ◯ flowers ◯ flowers ◯

العادر المجاهد المرابط المتاعز المؤيد المنضور ناصر الدينا والد ◯ fl. fl.

◯ ين قاتل الكفرة والمشركين محيى العدل فى العالمين والفقرا ◯ fl. ◯ fl. ◯

والمساكين السلطان الملك المنصور ناصرالدنيا والدين ◯ fl. ◯ fl. ◯

“Glory to our lord the Sultan, El-Melik En-Nāsir,” &c.

Diam. 31 in. [S. K. M. 420-1854].

21. BOX.—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for the Overseer Ahmad.

[Fourteenth century.]

The lid is hinged and fastens with a hasp: on the top is a radiate

Arabic inscription surrounding a shield (on a fess a lozenge):—

مما عمل برسم العبد الفقير الرجى الغفران من الرب المنان [ا] لمهتار احمد

مهتار الامير محمد بن ساطلمش الجلالى

“Of what was made by order of the humble servant, hoping for forgiveness

from the benevolent Lord, the Overseer Ahmad, Overseer to the Amīr

Mohammad son of Sātilmish, the Gelāly.”

On the hollowed rim of the lid is a border of flower-scrolls divided by

whorls, and below this a border of beasts of the chase divided by

shields: on a fess, a lozenge.

On the lower part, divided by four medallions containing water-fowl, on

a ground of large arabesques of early style, are the Arabic benedictory

verses:

ولا برحت مدا الايام فى سعة ‏|‏ بانعم ومسرّات وافضالى

لا زلت يا مالكى ما دمت فى دعة ‏|‏ وانت من كلّ همّ خالى البالى

Cease not through all thy days to dwell at ease,

Where comforts solace thee, and pleasure charms:

While breath shall last, my Master, cherish peace;

High rest thy heart above the world’s alarms.

On the bottom, a beautiful arabesque border surrounds a whorl.

[B. M., Blacas. Reinaud, ii. 422.]

The name of the Amīr Mohammad ibn Sātilmish has not yet been identified;

but a Mamlūk called Sātilmish is mentioned in the latter half of the

thirteenth century as taking part in the court at Cairo; and the style

of arabesques on the box, the character of the inscriptions, the whorls

and shields, undoubtedly indicate a Cairo fabric. The title _Mihtār_, or

Overseer, was given to the officers who presided over the different

departments of a princely household.

[Illustration: FIG. 87.—BRASS BOWL INLAID WITH SILVER.

Fourteenth Century. (_British Museum._)]

22. BOWL.—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for a Courtier of En-Nāsir.

[Fourteenth century.] (Fig. 87.)

Outside, whorl at bottom surrounded by sort of sixfoil, round which a

lozenge-diaper ornament; ground of Damascus flowers and water-fowl;

border inscription divided by six whorls enclosed in a ring of flying

ducks:—

المقر الكريم العا ‏◯‏ لى المولوى الاميرى ‏◯‏ الكبيرى العالمى ‏◯‏ العاملى

العادى ‏◯‏ المجاهدى المرابطى ا ‏◯‏ لملكى الناصرى ا ‏◯‏

“His Excellency, generous, exalted, lordly, great Amīr, wise, ruler,

leonine, fighter for the Faith, warden of Islām [liegeman] of El-Melik

En-Nāsir.”

On the bottom, inside, a shoal of fish round a whorl.

[B. M., Henderson, 686.]

23. CANDLESTICK WITH THREE FEET.—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for a

Centurion of En-Nāsir. [Fourteenth century.]

Engraved with birds and arabesques, the interstices filled with black

enamel. Round central band, inscriptions in silver inlay, recording

fourteenth century Mamlūk titles, (including that of Captain over 100,)

divided by three medallions enclosing birds and whorls of eight rays.

Height 12 in., diam. 10½ in.

[S. K. M., 912.-1884.]

Another candlestick in the South Kensington Museum (4505-1858), is

engraved in fig. 88.

24. STAND FOR TRAY.—_Brass (with an alloy of silver)._ Made for a Chief

Secretary. [Fourteenth century.]

Dice-box shape; engraved with Arabic inscriptions, divided by medallions

containing coats of arms in floral borders; the spaces filled with

floral ornaments outlined with black enamel. The inscription reads:

الجناب العالى المولوى ا ‏◯‏ السيفى امير دوادار اتابك عز انصاره

“His Highness, exalted, lordly, [liegeman] of Seyf-ed-dīn, Chief

Secretary, Atābek: be his triumphs magnified!”

Height 9½ in., diam. 7⅝ in. [S. K. M., 934.-1884.]

The floral ornaments are of the kind already described, the Damascus-

like leaves and flowers; and the medallions and floral borders form a

kind of rosette very characteristic of the Nāsiry period. The coats of

arms consist of a fess bearing a large goblet between two smaller ones;

above the fess is a hieroglyphic inscription [Hieroglyphic], denoting

“lord of the Upper and Lower country”—which the Mamlūks must have

constantly seen on the ancient monuments, but were undoubtedly unable to

interpret—and beneath is a lozenge. The subject of heraldic bearings on

Mamlūk works of art has been extensively discussed by the late Rogers

Bey in a paper published in the _Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptien_. This

particular coat of arms is not described by Mr. Rogers; but several

nearly resembling it belong to the Amīrs of the fourteenth century. The

cup, as a charge, indicates that the bearer held the post of Sāky, or

cupbearer, to the Sultan or to some great noble.

25. BATH VESSEL.—_Bronze, inlaid with silver._ Made for a Courtier of

En-Nāsir. [Fourteenth century.]

Round edge, Arabic inscription, divided by four shields, containing a

bend between two stars:

المقر العالى المولوى المالكى ا 🛡 العادلى العاملى العالمى الا (_sic_) 🛡

المجاهدى المرابطى المتاعزى الما 🛡 لكى العادلى الملكى الناصرى 🛡

“His Excellence, exalted, lordly, royal, just, worker, wise, fighting

for the Faith, warden of Islām, powerful, royal, just, [liegeman] of El-

Melik En-Nāsir.”

[B. M., Burges, 22.]

The intention of the next bowl is certainly magical: the planets are to

be used astrologically, to secure auspicious results. The bowl would be

filled with water, which became imbued with the mysterious influences of

the planets, and then the water would be drunk off, or sprinkled on the

person. These cups were often made at Mekka, in view of the Ka‘ba, which

is sometimes represented: so much is stated on a cup in the Vatican.

26. BOWL OR CUP.—_Brass, inlaid with silver._ Made for a Courtier of En-

Nāsir. [Fourteenth century.]

Outside, on bottom, seated figures of the planets: the moon, a crowned

human figure, holding a crescent in two uplifted hands; Mars, helmeted

and holding sword and bleeding head; Mercury, holding a carpenter’s

square; Jupiter, seated judge-like, between two fish; Venus with pear-

shaped lute and wine-cup; Saturn with raised staff and purse; the sun

should have occupied the centre, but is worn off. Ground of arabesques.

An inscription round the side, divided by three seated aureoled figures

holding wine-cups, records usual Mamlūk titles of El-Nāsir’s court.

Inside, at bottom, a shoal of fish, arranged in form of whorl.

[B. M., Blacas. Reinaud, ii. 359, ff., and pl. vii.]

27. TRAY.—_Brass inlaid with silver._ Made for Sultan Sha‘bān, who

reigned A.H. 746-7 (A.D. 1345-6).

Ornamented somewhat in the Nāsiry style, with rosettes and geometrical

designs, on a ground of bold and rather coarse arabesques.

[Illustration: FIG. 88.—BRASS CANDLESTICK INLAID WITH SILVER.

Fourteenth Century. (_South Kensington Museum._)]

A. Large zone of inscription:

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك ا ‏◯‏ لكامل العالم العامل العادل ‏◯‏ العاذر

المجاهد سيف الدنيا والدين شعبان عز نصره ‏◯‏

“Glory to our lord the Sultan, the king, perfect, wise, ruler, just,

lenient, fighter for the Faith, sword of the state and church, Sha‘bān:

be his triumph magnified!”

B. At ◯, medallions:—الملك الكامل surrounded by a circular inscription,

C, similar to that above, but omitting العامل العادل and عز نصره; the

whole enclosed in border of boldly drawn flowers and leaves.

In the centre of the tray is a sixfoil enclosed in ring of inscription

(same as C) within double trefoil, outside which a ring of inscription

similar to A (omitting عز نصره), divided into three parts by panels of

flowers between whorls.

The rim is covered with floral borders and whorls.

[B. M., Blacas. Reinaud ii. 439].

A beautiful writing-box, with the name of the same Sultan, and decorated

with ducks, whorls, and key-pattern, is engraved in Prisse.

Reinaud (ii. 441, _n._) describes a tray, nearly four feet in diameter,

which he saw in Paris, and which bore the name of Farag son of Barkūk,

second of the Burgy or Circassian Mamlūks, who reigned (with a year’s

interruption) from A.H. 801 to 815 (A.D. 1398-1412). Unfortunately he

does not tell us the style of decoration, the metal or metals, or other

details, nor does he mention what has become of the tray. The

inscription in the midst ran: عز لمولانا السلطان الملك الناصر فرج بن

برقوق عز نصره; while a larger inscription included a long string of

titles. These long and sounding titles are often clearly regulated by

the space at the artist’s command, and even the words themselves are

apparently varied to suit the taste. It is probable that العادر, العادى,

&c., are merely fanciful alterations of الغازى.

[Illustration: FIG. 89.—BRASS BOWL OF KAIT BEY.

Fifteenth Century. (_South Kensington Museum._)]

Fig. 89 represents the back of a very beautiful brass bowl of the Mamlūk

Sultan Kāït-Bey (A.D. 1468-96), which is preserved in the South

Kensington Museum (no. 1325-1856). It is specially noteworthy for the

back being ornamented with a _repoussé_ arabesque design of great

beauty, covered with delicate chasing. The inscription on the side,

inlaid with silver, runs:

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك ‏◯‏ العادل المجاهد المرابط ا ‏◯‏ لمؤيد المنصور

سلطان الاسلام ‏◯‏ والمسلمين الملك الاشرف ابو النصر قائتباى عز نصره ‏◯‏

“Glory to our master the Sultan, the king, just, fighter for the Faith,

warden of Islām, God-aided, victorious, Sultan of Islām and the Muslims,

the most noble king [El-Melik El-Ashraf], Father of Victory, Kāït Bey:

be his triumph magnified.” At ◯ are four medallions, characteristic of

Kāït Bey’s monuments and all his works; they contain his name and style,

as below:—

[Illustration:

ابو النصر قائتباى

عز لمولانا السلطان الملك الاشرف

عز نصره

]

Among the purposes to which metal-work was applied was the manufacture

of large chandeliers or lanterns for mosques. Some of these are still

hanging before the niches but most of them have been taken away. Coste

illustrates a bronze lamp of Sultan Hasan (fig. 23), and two are seen

hanging in his representation of that mosque (fig. 25), besides the

usual small plain glass lamps: but Coste was quite capable of inserting

such details for the sake of artistic effect, and their presence in his

drawing is hardly a proof that they really existed. Coste also gives a

large lamp to the mosque of Kāït-Bey; and in Prisse there is an

illustration (reproduced in fig. 76) of a silver lamp of Beybars II. of

the shape of the usual enamelled glass lamps, but made of filigree work,

hung by fine metal straps, which, however, are imperfectly rendered in

the woodcut. An engraving of an early undated metal lamp of the same

form, which comes from Jerusalem, and is now in the Louvre, is

reproduced (fig. 90) from M. de Longpérier’s _Œuvres_. Another form is

that of a chandelier, of a conical shape, surrounded by numerous little

glass globes to hold oil and wicks. An example of this kind (from the

mosque of ‘Abd-el-Basit, and now in the Arab Museum at Cairo), made of

filigree iron with a bright copper band, is shown in fig. 77, and fig.

78 represents a bronze tray (intended to be suspended beneath a

chandelier), covered with chasing, and bearing the name and titles of

the last of the Mamlūk Sultans, Kansūh El-Ghōry (A.D. 1501-1516).

The art of metal-working survives in Cairo, as has been said, to the

present day. The finer style of bronze door was made in perfection so

late as last century, as may be seen from M. Prisse’s engraving of the

door of ‘Abd-er-Rahmān Kikhya (A.D. 1760), which is as delicately

wrought as any earlier example. In the present day the coppersmiths of

Cairo make trays and ewers and other common utensils decorated with

considerable skill in the style of the Mamlūk work, and sometimes with

much elaboration of ornament, including inlay of gold wire.

The results of the foregoing examination of the history of Saracenic

metal-work may be roughly summarized in the following genealogical

tree:—

MŌSIL WORK.

[Descended from the Assyrian metal-workers, and probably existing in

very early times and in continuous development, but represented in

collections not earlier than the thirteenth century, and apparently

ceasing to produce the best work in the same or the fourteenth

century.]

|

+--------------------+-----------------------------+

| |

FĀTIMY WORK. |

|

[Probably the offspring |

of Mōsil, but at a very |

early period, perhaps |

ninth or tenth century. |

The art rests on |

historical evidence; |

but there is a lack of |

examples in metal-work |

in the collections.] |

+-------------------+ |

| | EARLY SYRIAN WORK.

| |

| | [Containing Mōsil

| | elements with certain

| | local characteristics,

| | probably peculiar to a

| | Damascus or Aleppo

| | school. Examples belong

| | probably to late

| | thirteenth century.]

| | +-----------------------+

SICILIAN WORK. | | |

| | |

MAMLŪK WORK. |

|

[Containing Fātimy (or Mōsil) |

and Syrian characteristics. |

Numerous examples, chiefly of |

the fourteenth century.] |

+---------------------+ |

| |

| |

SARACENIC WORK

OF VENICE.

[Derived from Syrian and

Mamlūk schools. Examples

chiefly from the early

sixteenth century.]

[Illustration: FIG. 90.—LAMP FROM JERUSALEM.

(_Louvre._)]

2. _Goldsmith’s work and Jewellery._

The Prophet Mohammad entertained a religious dislike to the luxury of

gold ornament, and cautioned the women of Arabia against the use of

tinkling anklets. Nature, however, was occasionally too strong for the

Prophet, and although the mass of the male Muslims observe a strict

sobriety in their dress, weave cotton with their silk, and prefer silver

to gold for their sole ornament, the signet ring, there are always some

whose passion for display overcomes the scruples of conscience; and the

women, of course, cannot exist without a little jewellery. We read in

the annals of Egypt of extraordinary quantities of precious stones

preserved in the treasuries of princesses and khalifs. ‘Abda, the

daughter of the Fātimy Khalif El-Mu‘izz, left at her death five bushels

of emeralds and a prodigious amount of rubies and precious stones of all

sorts. The Khalif El-Mustansir, this lady’s nephew, possessed quantities

of emeralds, pearl necklaces, gold and silver and amber rings, caskets

set with jewels, figures of birds and animals adorned with precious

stones, a table of sardonyx, and a jewelled turban. As a rule, however,

we read more of large objects set with jewels than of small ornaments of

attire, and this is explained by the fact that jewellery is principally

employed by women, and therefore cannot be described in detail by

Mohammadan historians, who are bound in delicacy to ignore the fair sex.

Thus the seclusion of ladies in the East makes it difficult to trace the

history of Saracenic jewellery, and the difficulty becomes insuperable

when it is discovered that no specimens of the mediaeval jewellery of

the Egyptian ladies have come down to us with a certain date.

In the absence of dated examples of mediaeval Egyptian jewellery, we are

forced to work backwards from the existing productions of the jeweller’s

market at Cairo, and endeavour to deduce the probable character of the

earlier work. There can be little doubt that many of the ornaments now

manufactured in Cairo represent ancient patterns, which have been handed

from father to son in the goldsmiths’ traditions for several centuries.

The ordinary bracelet, composed of two plain bands enclosing a double or

single twisted band is certainly an old design, and has worn the same

shape and shown the same character of ornament for many generations. So,

no doubt, have the anklets with square heads cut in facets. A

description of the ornaments now made at Cairo—which is all that is

attainable—may therefore not improbably represent the same general

character of jewellery as that worn by the famous Queen Sheger-ed-durr,

“Tree of Pearls,” who repulsed St. Louis with her gallant Mamlūk troops.

The modern jewellery of Cairo has been so exhaustively described and

illustrated by Mr. Lane, in an Appendix to his _Modern Egyptians_, that

it is only necessary to summarize his account and refer to his

engravings. A Cairo lady’s ornaments consist in various additions to her

head-dress and hair, in ear-rings, necklace, bracelets, anklets, and

amulets. The head-dress is composed of a tarbūsh or fez, round which is

wound a kerchief (_rabta_). To the crown of the tarbūsh is sewn the

boss-like ornament called a _kurs_, about five inches in diameter, and

ornamented with diamonds set in gold filigree-work. In the present day

the diamonds and gold are alike of poor quality, and a good _kurs_ is

not worth more than £150. Even the wives of tradesmen, who are usually

devoted to diamonds, manage to buy some sort of _kurs_, though it is a

heavy, uncomfortable ornament, and produces headache when put on, and

also when taken off, so that many ladies, when once their heads are

hardened to its weight, wear it night and day. A common kind of _kurs_

is made of a thin gold plate, embossed with a pattern, and having a

false emerald set in the middle.

Attached to the kerchief, over the forehead, is worn the _kursa_, a band

of diamonds, emeralds, or rubies, set in gold, generally with pendants,

about seven inches long. On either side of the kerchief hang festoons of

pearls, connected together by a pierced emerald, and fastened at the

front to the _kursa_, and at the other end to the back of the kerchief,

or to the ear-ring. Sometimes a sprig (_rīsha_) or crescent (_hilāl_) of

diamonds set in gold or silver is worn, instead of the _kursa_ and

pearls, on the front or side of the kerchief; and another favourite

ornament is the _kamara_, or pear-shaped gold plate, embossed with

Arabic letters or a pattern, and having flat gold pendants hanging

beneath. There are several varieties of this ornament, in the shape of a

_sakīya_, or water-wheel, a comb, &c., with distinctive names, the most

curious of which is _‘Ūd-es-Salīb_, “Wood of the Cross,” which is

clearly of Coptic origin.

The ear-rings (_halak_) are not remarkable. They consist of diamonds,

pearls, emeralds, rubies, &c., set in gold, with sometimes a sprig of

floral filigree-work above the drop. The necklace (_‘ikd_) is seen in

great variety, but with this peculiarity, that it does not completely

encircle the neck, being but ten inches long; the connecting piece of

string is covered by the hair, which is generally ornamented with

strings of gold ornaments and coins. There is usually a bead or link

larger than the rest in the middle, or also at fixed intervals. Pearls

strung, diamonds set in gold, and hollow gold beads, form the usual

links of the necklace.

Cairene jewellers do not cut their diamonds and emeralds in facets, as

this would induce a belief that they were false; but they commonly

pierce the emeralds. Both customs, of course, destroy the beauty of the

jewels.

More characteristic than the necklaces are the bracelets (_asāwir_) and

anklets (_khulkāl_), which are commonly of solid silver, or even gold.

Simple twist for gold, and a twist set in plain bands for silver, are

the most usual patterns of bracelets, and are doubtless of high

antiquity. The anklets are heavy, and clank together as the lady walks,

so that the poet says:

“The clink of thine anklets has bereft me of reason.”

The amulet (_higāb_) is a little silver or gold box, embossed and

adorned with pendants, containing a chapter from the Korān or other

charm, covered with waxed cloth, and is suspended at the right side

above the girdle by a cord passing over the left shoulder.

[Illustration: FIG. 91.—ARMS FOR LION HUNTING.]

There is another branch of metal-work of which nothing has been said: we

know almost nothing of Mamlūk armour; and although there is undoubtedly

a “Market of Arms” in Cairo which once plied a busy trade, it is

doubtful whether their work did not chiefly consist in fitting and

adapting the weapons and armour of Persia and the Indies. Two helmets in

the Tower of London have indeed an Egyptian look, and I should be

inclined to ascribe them to Cairo workmen of the period of Kalaūn (end

of the thirteenth century). These are, however, quite exceptional; and

most of the arms attributed to Egypt are undoubtedly Syrian or Persian.

It must not be forgotten that, to the Mamlūks, Damascus was almost as

much their capital as Cairo; and while Damascus blades were to be had

there was little inducement for the establishment of an Egyptian school

of armourers. The list of Beybars’ presents (p. 28) includes Damascus

weapons, and pikes tempered by the Arabs, but no Cairo armour is

mentioned.