A HISTORY OF ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT.
A HISTORY OF ART IN ANCIENT EGYPT
FROM THE FRENCH
OF
GEORGES PERROT,
PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LETTERS, PARIS; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE
AND
CHARLES CHIPIEZ.
ILLUSTRATED WITH FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHT ENGRAVINGS IN THE TEXT,AND FOURTEEN STEEL AND COLOURED PLATES.
IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. I.
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY
WALTER ARMSTRONG, B. A., Oxon.,
AUTHOR OF "ALFRED STEVENS," ETC.
London: CHAPMAN AND HALL, Limited.
New York: A. C. ARMSTRONG AND SON.
1883.
London:
R. Clay, Sons, and Taylor,
BREAD STREET HILL.
v
PREFACE.
M. Perrot's name as a classical scholar and archæologist, and M.Chipiez's as a penetrating critic of architecture, stand so high thatany work from their pens is sure of a warm welcome from all studentsof the material remains of antiquity. These volumes are the firstinstalment of an undertaking which has for its aim the history andcritical analysis of that great organic growth which, beginning withthe Pharaohs and ending with the Roman Emperors, forms what is calledAntique Art. The reception accorded to this instalment in its originalform is sufficient proof that the eulogium prefixed to the Germantranslation by an eminent living Egyptologist, Professor Georg Ebers,is well deserved; "The first section," he says, "of this work, isbroad and comprehensive in conception, and delicate in execution; ittreats Egyptian art in a fashion which has never previously beenapproached." In clothing it in a language which will, I hope, enableit to reach a still wider public, my one endeavour has been that itshould lose as little as possible, either in substance or form.
A certain amount of repetition is inevitable in a work of this kindwhen issued, as this was, in parts, and in one place[1] I haveventured to omit matter which had already been given at some length,but with that exception I have followed M. Perrot's words as closelyas the difference of idiom would allow. Another kind of repetition,with which, perhaps, some readers may be inclined to quarrel, forceditself upon the author as the vilesser of two evils. He was compelledeither to sacrifice detail and precision in attempting to carry on atonce the history of all the Egyptian arts and of their connection withthe national religion and civilization, or to go back upon hisfootsteps now and again in tracing each art successively from itsbirth to its decay. The latter alternative was chosen as the only oneconsistent with the final aim of his work.
Stated in a few words, that aim is to trace the course of the greatplastic evolution which culminated in the age of Pericles and came toan end in that of Marcus Aurelius. That evolution forms a completeorganic whole, with a birthday, a deathda