Fr. W. Freiherr von Bissing. (Denkmäler ägyptischer Sculptur, herausgegeben von). Verlagsanstalt F. Bruckmann, München. Fascicules 1-10.

     The von Bissing-Bruckmann Denkmäler comprise, or will comprise when completed, 150 superb photogravures illustrating the history of Egyptian sculpture from the archaic period down to Roman times, each plate being accompanied by a more or less discursive commentarv. Such a comprehensive series of first-rate reproductions of Egyptian, statues and reliefs has never before been offered to the public. The selection aims at being instructive rather than showy, and the works reproduced have been gathered from many quarters, the less known being preferred if equally suitable. It is characteristic of the author that in his choice of illustrations as well as in his text he has courted rather than avoided difficulties and doubtful questions : indeed a certain pre­dilection for new and debatable material has perhaps led him to include a few pieces, such as no. 100 a, which are scarcely worthy of a place in so costly a publication. The book is an eminently progressive one, full of fresh ideas which are often disputable but always interesting, and it is certainly the most close and detailed study of the changes of style in Egyptian sculpture that

has ever been attempted.

     Pl. 3 reproduces a seated figure of the 2^nd dynasty, the square forms of which indicate that it has been punched out of a square black of granite in the way which is illustrated by the unfinished statues of later times. From this starting-point B. proceeds to show by successive examples the gradual improvements which took place in the rendering of the human figure until we come to such masterpieces of Old Empire art as the Sheikh el Beled and the naked priest in Cairo (pls. 11, 12). In the middle of this series one notes the statues of Sepa and Nes (pl. 5) which are peculiarly instructive as to the limitations of Egyptian sculptors when working in stone. The attitude of Sepa is the usual one, left leg advanced, mace in right hand and staff in left. As we know from such statues as the Sheikh and from numberless reliefs, it was the rule that a figure of this type should hold the mace horizontally by his side and that the left forearm should be held straight out, the hand grasping the long staff. But Sepa’s mace lies vertically against his right arm, his left forearm is held close against his chest and the staff is in contact with the front of his body. It is a good example of the alteration of a plastic type under the influence of an unplastic material (1) and one would like to know whether the original conceptions of Egyptian sculpture have not in many other cases been modified and stiffened by translation into stone. The text to pls. 9, 10 is a polemic against the theory of Borchardt that the statues of Chephren are works of the Ethio­pian or Saitic period. Recent finds, especially those of Chassinat and Reisner, have thrown a new light on this matter and have made it clear that the Chephrens are wholly in the style of other royal statues of the Old Empire. But the question whether such portraits were copied or at least imitated in the Saitic age remains open, and B. has much to say on this point in other parts of his book. Fortunately there is no dispute about the age of the bronze portraits of Phiops and Mentesuphis (pl. 13). These wonderful statues consisted originally of a wooden core covered with sheets of copper, and they are therefore more akin to the wooden sculpture of the O. E. than to the cast bronzes of later times, which required the construction of a clay or wax model. The only cast bronze that B. reproduces is the Takuschit (pl. 59), which shows the influence of stone sculpture in a curious manner, the space between arms and body being filled in as if the figure were carved in stone. Il is instructive to note the differences which arise from the employment of different materials, and a plate of well-selected bronzes, besides the Phiops and the Takuschit, would have added to the interest of the Denkmäler.

     The statues of Sesostris I (pls. 19, 20) furnish B. with his leading example of the « classical » art which came to maturity in the Middle Empire. Here we have the ideal type of an Egyptian King, to which the sculptors continued to revert in after-times. We find for instance the same general type in the por­traits of Thuthmoses I (Legrain, Statues, pl. XXVII) and in the Saitic and Ptolemaic « models », though certainly the features of Sesostris have more vitality than these late works and have even, in the best of the statues, a good deal of individual character. Of the more realistic (or at least the more ostentatiously realistic) style of portraiture which flourished in the M. E. the chief dated masterpieces are the statues of Sesostris III, to whom B. with some reason would now assign the Tanis Sphinxes, and of Amenemes III. B. gives us a very interesting discussion of the history of this realistic style. He finds the origin of it in the 3^rd dynasty, and he detects a revival of it in a group of heads which not without hesitation he has assigned to the Saitic period. As a stepping-stone in his theory he proposes (with a sense of style wich [sic] is too subtle for me) to regard the « Fish-bearers » of Tanis (pl. 56) as imitative or archaistic works of the 21^st dynasty rather than as contemporaries or the Sphinxes. But without doubt the portrait of Mentuemhet (pl. 62) proves a certain renascence of M. E. realism in the Ethiopian age. The supposed Sailic heads (pls. 26 A, 27) are a refined reproduction of the M. E. type, less broad in treatment, softer and more polished. B. does not complete his theory by tel­ling us what these heads represent, whether they are portraits of a Saitic king or memorials of a M. E. king : and neither of these alternatives is quite easy to accept. Among the reliefs of this period may he noted a fine Sesostris I (pl. 34), the commentary on which contains many sound remarks on the conventions of Egyptian drawing, and a stele (pl. 34) with what B. considers to be one of the oldest representations of a negro ; but his remarks on the woolly hair and other racial characteristics strike one as a little extravagant, and it is worth observing that the figure is not painted black like the 11^th dynasty negress from Deir el Bahri.

     One notes as a sign of progress that the author has even attempted to sketch the history of sculpture in the 13^th dynasty (text to pl. 28 A). In the 18^th we reach firmer ground. The development of art during the New Empire is a fascinating study, and B.’s general outlines of it, as well as his particular criticisms, are in most respects admirable. The Barraco Sphinx of a queen (pl. 37), which without the inscription might be mistaken for a M. E. work, is a good illustration of the conservatism of sculpture at the beginning of this period. It may seem over-subtle 10 detect a return to « 11 th dynasty tradition » in the statuette of Amenophis I, as contrasted with the 12^th dynasty style in the works of his immediate successors, and 10 differentiate the « classical » from the « modern» portraits of Thuthmoses III : but in both these judg­ments there is at least a basis of correct observation. It is in the reign of Thuthmoses III that B. finds the beginning of what he calls the « modern » style, characterised by a decorative charm in the treatment of coiffure and costume and a human charm in the expression of the faces, a certain spirituality which culminates in the portraits of Queen Thyi and Amenophis IV. The articles on the beautiful head of a lady in Florence (pl. 43) and on the wooden statuettes (pl. 50) are noteworthy contributions to the history of this period. The gradual advance to the Amarna style is well brought out in the discussion of a stele of Thuthmoses IV and of the following works. As regards the actual movement under Amenophis IV, B. distinguishes several phases, ending in the pronounced mannerism of which a specimen is given on pl. 82, and he partly ascribes the ruin of the style to the removal from Thebes to Amarna and the employment of inferior local artists. There is probably much truth in this view, in spite of the fact (which l think he does not mention) that some of the most exaggerated examples of the Amarna style have been found at Thebes (Legrain, Statues, pl. 54).

     The influence of the Amarna style on the subsequent works of the Theban school is justly pointed out in the articles on the statues of Harmais (pls. 46, 46 A), but this section of the book would have gained if it had been written a year or two later. Maspero long ago showed the way to a correct appreciation of the post-Amarna period when he assigned the « Taia » and the « Ameno­phis » of Mariette to the reign of Harmais, and now Legrain’s work at Karnak has cleared up what was still doubtful and has provided a good deal of new material. B.’s impressions about the statue of Chons (pl. 57) seem to have been formed before he had digested all the evidence, and he labours to prove the possibility of dating it as late as Ramesses III. Later on he recognises that the Chons is indeed a characteristic work of the post-Amarna period, though he will not admit (what yet seems fairly evident) that it is a reproduction of the same type which was used for the portraits of Tuotanchamun. One may add that the Tuotanchamun is a notable link between the Amarna and the Theban style, for the type of face is closely related to that of Amenophis IV (pl. 45). The influence of this sub-Amarna style can be clearly traced in the 19^th dynasty, as is shown in the article on the Turin statue of Ramesses II, where full justice is done to the elegance of early Ramesside sculpture. And mention should be made of some excellent studies of the historical reliefs of the New Empire, in which B. notes the influence or Mesopotamian art and points out the progress that was being made in certain directions down to the age or Ramesses III.

     Passing over the decline of the Ramesside school and the reflorescence of naturalism in the Ethiopian age, we come to the « Saitic » period (26^th to 30^th dynasty), to which another main section of the book is devoted. A standing figure in the Louvre is reproduced on pl. 69 and discussed as an example of the type on which the archaic Greek « Apollos » are based ; the criticism is sound enough, though perhaps the early Greek sculptors may have been more influenced by portable Egyptian bronzes, with free limbs and no pillar at the back, than by large stone works of this sort. A good selection of Saitic heads is given, and B. attempts to arrange them chronologically and trace the course of development, not an easy task. On grounds of style he inclines to date the Tyszkiewicz statuette pl. 68 A to the end of the 26^th dynasty ; but the attributes of the figure are admitted to favour a later date, and the head has a good deal or resemblance, especially in the treatment of the eye, to cer­tain « models », such as Cairo n^os 33327, 33337, which are probably nearer to the 3^rd than to the 6^th century. In some works of the later Saitic age (pl. 73 B) B. finds a tendency towards a softer treatment, which he ascribes to the influence of New Empire art. It is probably to the same late period that we owe a group of delicate and charming reliefs, rather eclectic in style, which are fully studied in the commentary on pl. 101. B. gives good reasons for dating the most characteristic specimens to the 4^th century B. C., and he argues that they shaw Greek influence in the rendering of the drapery (though n [sic] comparison with N. E. work is the improvement so pronounced as he makes out ?) and in the representation of a fringed mantle which he identifies with the Greek himation. It may well be that there is a touch of Greek influence n [sic] some of the work of this period ; yet admittedly a large fringed mantle was a common garment from M. E. times, indeed the fringe is a typically Egyptian detail, while the manner of wearing the mantle passed under the right arm was not unknown in Egypt (v. Legrain, Statues, pl. XXV). The above-men­tioned is but one of many articles which derive a special value from B.’s wide knowledge of Greek and Mycenaean art, not to speak of more remote civiliza­tions. But it would need a much longer review than the present to give an ade­quate idea of the fullness and many-sidedness or this most interesting book.

C[ampbell] C. Edgar

(1) As a pretty illustration of the same thing in later limes see Daressy, Statues de divinités, pl. XXX, and compare the stone figure 38517 with the same type in bronze 38518.

Site conçu par Lorenz Baumer et François Queyrel et réalisé par Lorenz Baumer, 2006/7