DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6640#0050
30
bubastis.
anything at Bubastis. On the contrary, his
son Rameses II., as he usually did, covered the
whole temple with his name. At first sight
it looks as if he alone and the Bubastites had
to be credited with the foundation of the
beautiful sanctuary, which was the object of the
admiration of Herodotus. But it is just the
reverse ; a careful study of each inscribed stone
has revealed that all the great architraves
which bear his name had been usurped; and
that nearly everywhere his inscriptions were
engraved on older texts. Sometimes part of
the original name has been preserved (pi. xxvi.
c), sometimes the old name has disappeared,
but all that surrounded the cartouche has
remained untouched (pi. xxiv. a) ; sometimes
nothing is left except indistinct traces of older
signs which are distinguished only by a very
close observation, so that seen from a distance
the inscription seems to belong to Rameses
II.
His name is found profusely in the three
first halls of the temple, the part of the
edifice which existed before his time; on the
walls, and on separate monuments, such as
tablets or statues. On the walls, unlike the
architraves, there are sculptures which un-
doubtedly were made for him, and must be
attributed to his reign. He had every facility
for engraving; all he desired, for the custom of
the Pharaohs to cover the walls of the temples
with sculptured figures and inscriptions, is of
relatively late epoch. I believe that in this
inspect the kings of the twelfth and the
thirteenth dynasties had preserved the tradition
of simplicity of the Old Empire. They had
inscriptions, and even sculptured figures on the
door-posts and lintels, perhaps also on the
basements; but we do not find any great
sculptures of those kings on the plain surfaces
of the walls, as is the case after the eighteenth
dynasty, and we have every reason to believe
that there were none.
Rameses II. certainly made some altera tions
in the building; we recognize the fact from the
stones which have been displaced, like the block
bearing part of the cartouche of Usertesen IIT.,
which was in a corner. He may even have
been obliged to build up anew a part of the
temple. We have shown that there were traces
of Khuenaten ; it is quite possible that either he
or the other heretical kings had more or less
damaged it out of hatred towards the god Amon
who was worshipped there. Perhaps, also, the
temple had been ruined from an earlier date.
We must imagine that in those remote ages
the character of the country and of the people
was not very different from what it is now.
How many half-ruined mosques are seen in
Cairo or elsewhere, which are still used for
worship, and which will go on decaying, until
they crumble to pieces, or until a pasha
takes a fancy to rebuild them. I believe it
was much the same three or four thousand
years ago. A Pharaoh ascending the throne,
and finding in his empire a number of temples
more or less ruined in consequence of wars or
religious quarrels, did not betake himself at
once to reconstruct them all; he had other
occupations, especially if, like the princes of the
eighteenth dynasty, he had to defend himself
against numerous and formidable enemies. In
order to undertake this costly task, it required
a time of peace and tranquillity, and a prosper-
ous state. Therefore it necessarily happened
that in many localities the sacred buildings
remained in the condition in which war or the
fury of fanatics had left them. The worship,
however, was not given up, it was perhaps
restricted to a small part of the temple; and it
went on in the same way until an Amenophis, a
Rameses, or an Osorkon raised up again the
crumbling walls, enlarged the edifice, adorned it
with the works ofhis best artists, and recorded
his munificence towards the gods in high-flow-
ing inscriptions. This may be what Rameses
II. did for the temple of Bubastis, taking care
to avail himself as much as possible of what
bubastis.
anything at Bubastis. On the contrary, his
son Rameses II., as he usually did, covered the
whole temple with his name. At first sight
it looks as if he alone and the Bubastites had
to be credited with the foundation of the
beautiful sanctuary, which was the object of the
admiration of Herodotus. But it is just the
reverse ; a careful study of each inscribed stone
has revealed that all the great architraves
which bear his name had been usurped; and
that nearly everywhere his inscriptions were
engraved on older texts. Sometimes part of
the original name has been preserved (pi. xxvi.
c), sometimes the old name has disappeared,
but all that surrounded the cartouche has
remained untouched (pi. xxiv. a) ; sometimes
nothing is left except indistinct traces of older
signs which are distinguished only by a very
close observation, so that seen from a distance
the inscription seems to belong to Rameses
II.
His name is found profusely in the three
first halls of the temple, the part of the
edifice which existed before his time; on the
walls, and on separate monuments, such as
tablets or statues. On the walls, unlike the
architraves, there are sculptures which un-
doubtedly were made for him, and must be
attributed to his reign. He had every facility
for engraving; all he desired, for the custom of
the Pharaohs to cover the walls of the temples
with sculptured figures and inscriptions, is of
relatively late epoch. I believe that in this
inspect the kings of the twelfth and the
thirteenth dynasties had preserved the tradition
of simplicity of the Old Empire. They had
inscriptions, and even sculptured figures on the
door-posts and lintels, perhaps also on the
basements; but we do not find any great
sculptures of those kings on the plain surfaces
of the walls, as is the case after the eighteenth
dynasty, and we have every reason to believe
that there were none.
Rameses II. certainly made some altera tions
in the building; we recognize the fact from the
stones which have been displaced, like the block
bearing part of the cartouche of Usertesen IIT.,
which was in a corner. He may even have
been obliged to build up anew a part of the
temple. We have shown that there were traces
of Khuenaten ; it is quite possible that either he
or the other heretical kings had more or less
damaged it out of hatred towards the god Amon
who was worshipped there. Perhaps, also, the
temple had been ruined from an earlier date.
We must imagine that in those remote ages
the character of the country and of the people
was not very different from what it is now.
How many half-ruined mosques are seen in
Cairo or elsewhere, which are still used for
worship, and which will go on decaying, until
they crumble to pieces, or until a pasha
takes a fancy to rebuild them. I believe it
was much the same three or four thousand
years ago. A Pharaoh ascending the throne,
and finding in his empire a number of temples
more or less ruined in consequence of wars or
religious quarrels, did not betake himself at
once to reconstruct them all; he had other
occupations, especially if, like the princes of the
eighteenth dynasty, he had to defend himself
against numerous and formidable enemies. In
order to undertake this costly task, it required
a time of peace and tranquillity, and a prosper-
ous state. Therefore it necessarily happened
that in many localities the sacred buildings
remained in the condition in which war or the
fury of fanatics had left them. The worship,
however, was not given up, it was perhaps
restricted to a small part of the temple; and it
went on in the same way until an Amenophis, a
Rameses, or an Osorkon raised up again the
crumbling walls, enlarged the edifice, adorned it
with the works ofhis best artists, and recorded
his munificence towards the gods in high-flow-
ing inscriptions. This may be what Rameses
II. did for the temple of Bubastis, taking care
to avail himself as much as possible of what