DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4031#0046
BYZANTINE SCULPTURES POUND AT AHNAS.
33
)rm of
l by a
of a
ices in
ts, the
heads
. Be-
• grey
., and
at the
I by a
irches,
nns of
3 cross
3 look
ind in
ey are
ov the
, called
origin-
ate of
of the
narked
sapitals
Liars to
= 3
thus
chief
lizeh.
t recall
■ before
me the elaborate work in folio by Mons. G-ayet,
published in 1889,1 describing such sculptures
as were then in the Museum, and classed by
M. Maspero as Coptic. A glance at them will
show not only that they are deplorably deficient
in merit as compared with those from Annas,
but are from an entirely different school. But
in classing them all together as Coptic, the
Museum authorities would probably include all
Christian sculptures in Egypt, from whatever
school they might have come.
A few of M. Gayet's engravings show, indeed,
some fair Byzantine work, and in some few of
the others, viz., in the scroll-work, there is
some approach to elegance of form; but the
greater part, where any attempt at composition
has been made, are the rudest imitation of
Roman work.
The attempts at sculpturing the figures of
birds, beasts, &c, and the human form, are often
quite ludicrous, and so are many of the imita-
tions of Corinthian capitals and other details.
But now, thanks to our energetic explorer,
M. Naville, and to the excellent photographs of
Mr. MacGregor, we find that the sculptures of
the Egyptian Christians may take rank with
some of the best of the Byzantine period.
I can, in fact, scarcely call to mind any
Byzantine carving which is superior to that
at Ahnas. The curves in the scroll-work are
very graceful, and the foliage, although rather
tame in design, is as clearly and boldly cut
as in the beautiful works at Constantinople,
Ravenna, or Torcello ; whilst the representa-
tions of animal life, as shown in the birds
(pi. xiv„), and the boar and kid (pi. xv.), are
very well carved, and are introduced in the
most artistic manner.
The large Corinthian capital (pi. xvii.),
although in the debased Roman style, is fairly
well copied from the antique. This being so,
1 Mtimoires de la Mission ArcliMogique Franqaise au
Caire. Tome troisieme. 3° Fascicule. Paris, 1889.
it is somewhat vexatious to find that there are
scarcely any portions of the Ahnas sculptures
(except the capitals to the columns and
and pilasters) to which one can assign any
definite position in the building. They were, I
understand, put together as shown in the illus-
trations, so as to be most easily photographed.
M. Naville has no doubt that they formed
portions of the ornamental work to a church ;
but the plan of the building, so far as one can
judge of it, appears to be very different from
that of the usual Coptic church.
The rough sketch which I here give has
been worked out with the kind assistance of
Mr. MacGregor, the parts shaded being those
which exist.
The apse was not placed in the usual easterly
position, but was slightly east of due north,
the entrance columns being slightly west of due
south. The apse had also its circular form
showing externally, contrary to the ordinary
rule.
Further, it will be noted that only one apse,
or position of the altar, is described by
M. Naville, whereas three eastern altars are
required by the Coptic ritual, and I am assured
by Mr. MacGregor that there is no trace of
the two side altars having existed.
On the whole, I think that it is fair to
conclude that this interesting building was not
originally designed for the Coptic service, and
that Mr. MacGregor's suggestion is a very
probable one, viz., that it was a small chapel
like that to the White Monastery, of which a
F
33
)rm of
l by a
of a
ices in
ts, the
heads
. Be-
• grey
., and
at the
I by a
irches,
nns of
3 cross
3 look
ind in
ey are
ov the
, called
origin-
ate of
of the
narked
sapitals
Liars to
= 3
thus
chief
lizeh.
t recall
■ before
me the elaborate work in folio by Mons. G-ayet,
published in 1889,1 describing such sculptures
as were then in the Museum, and classed by
M. Maspero as Coptic. A glance at them will
show not only that they are deplorably deficient
in merit as compared with those from Annas,
but are from an entirely different school. But
in classing them all together as Coptic, the
Museum authorities would probably include all
Christian sculptures in Egypt, from whatever
school they might have come.
A few of M. Gayet's engravings show, indeed,
some fair Byzantine work, and in some few of
the others, viz., in the scroll-work, there is
some approach to elegance of form; but the
greater part, where any attempt at composition
has been made, are the rudest imitation of
Roman work.
The attempts at sculpturing the figures of
birds, beasts, &c, and the human form, are often
quite ludicrous, and so are many of the imita-
tions of Corinthian capitals and other details.
But now, thanks to our energetic explorer,
M. Naville, and to the excellent photographs of
Mr. MacGregor, we find that the sculptures of
the Egyptian Christians may take rank with
some of the best of the Byzantine period.
I can, in fact, scarcely call to mind any
Byzantine carving which is superior to that
at Ahnas. The curves in the scroll-work are
very graceful, and the foliage, although rather
tame in design, is as clearly and boldly cut
as in the beautiful works at Constantinople,
Ravenna, or Torcello ; whilst the representa-
tions of animal life, as shown in the birds
(pi. xiv„), and the boar and kid (pi. xv.), are
very well carved, and are introduced in the
most artistic manner.
The large Corinthian capital (pi. xvii.),
although in the debased Roman style, is fairly
well copied from the antique. This being so,
1 Mtimoires de la Mission ArcliMogique Franqaise au
Caire. Tome troisieme. 3° Fascicule. Paris, 1889.
it is somewhat vexatious to find that there are
scarcely any portions of the Ahnas sculptures
(except the capitals to the columns and
and pilasters) to which one can assign any
definite position in the building. They were, I
understand, put together as shown in the illus-
trations, so as to be most easily photographed.
M. Naville has no doubt that they formed
portions of the ornamental work to a church ;
but the plan of the building, so far as one can
judge of it, appears to be very different from
that of the usual Coptic church.
The rough sketch which I here give has
been worked out with the kind assistance of
Mr. MacGregor, the parts shaded being those
which exist.
The apse was not placed in the usual easterly
position, but was slightly east of due north,
the entrance columns being slightly west of due
south. The apse had also its circular form
showing externally, contrary to the ordinary
rule.
Further, it will be noted that only one apse,
or position of the altar, is described by
M. Naville, whereas three eastern altars are
required by the Coptic ritual, and I am assured
by Mr. MacGregor that there is no trace of
the two side altars having existed.
On the whole, I think that it is fair to
conclude that this interesting building was not
originally designed for the Coptic service, and
that Mr. MacGregor's suggestion is a very
probable one, viz., that it was a small chapel
like that to the White Monastery, of which a
F