Chapter I: Preface

The subject of the following chapters is what has been commonly known as ‘Arab’ or ‘Mohammadan’ Art. Both these terms are misleading—for the artists in this style were seldom Arabs, and many of them were Christians—and the general term ‘Saracenic’ has therefore been substituted. ‘Saracen,’ which means simply Eastern, was the universal designation of Muslims in the Middle Ages, whether the paynims referred to were Syrian or Egyptian princes, like Saladin, or Barbary chiefs, or Moorish Alcaydes in Spain; and the mediaeval ring of the term Saracenic—which recalls the “proud Sarrasin” of the ballads, the _Sarrasina_ artist of Italy, the Bysant _Saracenatus_ of the Crusaders, and the stuff _Saracenatum_, or, as we spell it, “sarcenet”—is specially appropriate to the art about to be described. Saracenic art possesses an unmistakable style, which is instantly recognised wherever it occurs, from the pillars of Hercules and the Alcazar of Seville to the mosques of Samarkand and the ruins of Gaur in Bengal; and this style was developed and brought to perfection in the Middle Ages. The word Saracenic, implying the two ideas of Oriental and mediaeval, exactly fulfils the conditions of a general term for the art with which we are concerned.

There is a Saracenic art of Syria, with Damascus for its centre; there is a Saracenic art of Egypt; another variety is seen in the buildings of the Barbary States and Morocco; Andalusia, in the extreme west of the Mohammadan dominions; Persia, India, and Central Asia in the east; and Anatolia, Armenia, and even Turkey in Europe, between, have each their special development of the Saracenic style. Some of these varieties are perhaps better designated by their geographical positions; we speak of Persian art, Indian art; or again, the Moresque decoration, and so forth; but we must not forget that all these are but modifications of the Saracenic style, produced by the differentiating elements which were found in each country conquered by the Arabs, or introduced by the genius of some special school of artists. The mere classification of the various branches of Saracenic art, with a list of the monuments and objects illustrating each branch, would occupy a volume: so large a subject requires subdivision, and the present work therefore treats of the Egyptian branch alone, with but occasional passing glances at contemporary or derived developments. In some respects the Egyptian is the most important example of the style; for the mosques of Cairo furnish a fuller, longer, and more continuous record of the arts employed in their construction and decoration than any other series of monuments in a single Mohammadan city, and the simple lines and restrained decoration of the Egyptian artists exhibit to perfection the essential character of the Saracenic style. The mosques of Cairo give us the normal character of the art; we may go eastwards to Delhi, or west to the Alhambra, to see what a fanciful taste could add to the normal elements; but we shall come back with the conviction that the purest form of Saracenic art, and that which most rests and satisfies the eye, is to be seen in Egypt.

In this account of the Egyptian development of Saracenic art, I have worked an almost unexplored vein. The only previous attempt to describe the art of Cairo, as a whole, is M. Prisse d’Avennes’ _L’Art Arabe_, a magnificent work, unapproached in its coloured illustrations; but its volume of text is of slight value. M. Prisse, who was not in a position to consult the Arabic historians, or to decipher the inscriptions which so often determine the date of an object of Saracenic art, is naturally an uncertain guide when it is a question of anything beyond draughtsmanship. We must not trust his facts; but for his plates we cannot be too grateful. Coste’s work, the _Monuments du Caire_, deserves all credit as the first of its kind, but here again the letterpress is of no scientific value, and even the drawings exhibit an imaginative power, which, however admirable it may be in the creation of works of art, is not desirable in their reproduction. M. Bourgoin’s _Les Arts Arabes_, and the smaller _Éléments_, are finely illustrated, but their text is occupied almost entirely with a minute examination of the principle of geometrical ornament in Saracenic decoration, for which there is no better authority.

The first attempt at a scientific examination of the origin and development of Saracenic art was made by my father, the late Edward Stanley Poole, of the Science and Art Department, in an Appendix to the fifth edition of Lane’s _Modern Egyptians_, 1860, and very little of importance has been added to the results set forth in that essay twenty- six years ago. It is still the best authority on the subject of the sources of Arabian architecture, and the relation of the earliest buildings of the Arabs to Byzantine and Sassanian models; but of other arts, besides architecture, this essay does not treat. My own work, while it necessarily includes an outline of the principal forms and characteristics of Cairo buildings, does not presume to offer a history of Cairene architecture, for which both space and materials are at present wanting. The decorative arts, which were employed to embellish the mosques and palaces of mediaeval Egypt, form the subject of the following chapters; the history of mural sculpture, of mosaic work, wood and ivory carving, glass, pottery, and the like, is traced by means of dated examples down to the decadence which followed the Turkish conquest of Egypt; and the general characteristics of each period having thus been established at fixed points by dated specimens, the classification of undated examples becomes comparatively easy. I may perhaps be thought to have wasted time over the exact determination of the chronological sequence in each separate art, but there is so much vague generalisation abroad, and such extremely hazardous opinions are constantly ventilated, on the subject of Oriental art, that I have considered it a matter of the first consequence to cast aside all merely aesthetic canons and prejudices, and base the history of the arts I describe strictly upon sound historical evidence. An art critic is none the worse off when the date of an object is fixed by historical proofs; and those who are not versed in the principles of art criticism will be glad to have definite facts to go upon.

The authorities of which I have made use will be found referred to in the footnotes. Beyond the materials supplied by accurate drawings, like those of Prisse and Girault de Prangey, European books on this subject are few, and consist chiefly in short papers in periodical publications, such as M. Adrien de Longpérier’s in the _Revue Archéologique_, or M. Lavoix’ in the _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_; or else notes, scattered through the pages of books like Colonel Yule’s invaluable _Marco Polo_, or M. Schefer’s _Nāsir-i-Khusrau_. Reinaud’s description of the Duke de Blacas’ collection (_Monuments Musulmans_) deserves special notice, as the first scientific account of any large series of Saracenic works of art, and also because it abounds in valuable information, especially in reference to metal-work. In my great-uncle’s _Modern Egyptians_ the buildings and furniture of Cairo are carefully and clearly described, but the subject of Mr. Lane’s book was the manners and customs of the modern people, and not the art of their forefathers. In special departments, Mr. Nesbitt’s _Catalogue of the Glass Vessels in the South Kensington Museum_, Mr. Fortnum’s corresponding _Catalogue of the Maiolica, &c._, and Fischbach’s _Geschichte der Textil-Kunst_ have been consulted. Eastern historians are as a rule singularly destitute of the sort of information we require about the art of the various dynasties and capitals: they tell us how many pieces of gold a certain mosque or pulpit cost, but they seldom record where or how it was made, or who were its designers. Nevertheless there are a certain number of valuable indications scattered among the Arabic writers, and these have been collected, from the works of such historians and travellers as El- Mes’ūdy, Es-Suyūty, Ibn-Khaldūn, El-Makkary, Ibn-Batūta, Nāsir-i- Khusrau, ‘Abd-el-Latīf, &c., &c., and, above all, from the treasure- house of the mediaeval topography and history of Egypt, El-Makrīzy’s _Khitat_ and _History of the Mamlūks_.

I have to acknowledge much private assistance from friends who have made Saracenic art their study. Mr. J. W. Wild, the curator of Sir John Soane’s Museum, than whom there lives no better authority on the architecture of Cairo, has kindly read and approved the second, third, and fourth chapters, on architecture, stone and plaster, and mosaic, and generously placed his interesting Egyptian notes and sketch-books at my disposal. Mr. H. C. Kay, whose long residence in Egypt and special study of Arabic mural inscriptions give his criticisms a high value, has read the proof sheets of most of the work, and some important additions have been made at his suggestion. Mr. A. W. Franks, the keeper of mediaeval antiquities in the British Museum, and his assistant, Mr. C. H. Read, have given me every aid in studying the fine collection of Saracenic metal-work under their care, and have also seen the chapters on metal- work, glass, and pottery in the proofs. M. Charles Schefer has sent me some useful references from his valuable notes and materials. To Franz Pasha, the architect to the Ministry of Wakfs in Cairo, I am indebted, not only for giving me every facility when in Cairo in 1883 for studying, photographing, and taking casts from, the monuments, but also for having ever since kept me supplied with photographs and reports of great value for the present work.

With regard to the orthography of Eastern names, I have tried to be accurate without pedantry. I have neglected diacritical points, which were not required in a book destined for the general student, and I have not spelt Koran with a Q. The vowels _a_, _e_, _i_, _u_, with the prolonged sounds _ā_, _ī_, _ū_, are to be sounded as in Italian; _ey_ is to be sounded as in they; _aw_ as “ow” in now; (‘) represents the guttural ‘eyn, and _g_ (or more strictly ǵ), may be pronounced either as English j or hard g. The latter is the usual Cairo pronunciation.

I must not conclude without expressing my obligations to Mr. J. D. Cooper, who has expended even more than his usual care and skill upon the execution of the woodcuts illustrating this work.

S. L.-P.

RICHMOND,
_February_, 1886.

CONTENTS.

* * * * *

CHAPTER I.

PAGE

THE SARACENS OF EGYPT 1

CHAPTER II.

ARCHITECTURE 47

CHAPTER III.

STONE AND PLASTER 95

CHAPTER IV.

MOSAIC 115

CHAPTER V.

WOOD-WORK 124

CHAPTER VI.

IVORY 171

CHAPTER VII.

METAL-WORK 180

CHAPTER VIII.

GLASS 247

CHAPTER IX.

HERALDRY ON GLASS AND METAL 268

CHAPTER X.

POTTERY 274

CHAPTER XI.

TEXTILE FABRICS 281