dently more conventional.
Fig. 8.
K am - t e n , Relief.
Fig. 9.
B e t -m e s , Statue.
Fig. 10.
E y -m e r i , Relief.
It is not a free artistical imitation of
nature, the hand of the sculptor being
fettered.by traditionary rules. This
conventionalism of the reliefs not
being applicable to statues, is an evidence
that sculpture in Egypt began
with the relief, which again grew out
of the simple outline. The principal
difference between the two portraits
is, that the eye is not fore-shortened
in the relief, whilst the lips are
too long; still, the peculiar raising
of the angles of the mouth is not
conventional in the first period of
Egyptian art.
The red granite statue of prince
B et -mes, [9 ] in the British Museum,
(Ho. 60, A,) an officer of State,
“king’s relation,” of the same
period, displays a similar artistical
character; clumsy proportions, but
a close observation of nature,
without any tendency to embellish
or to idealize. It is, what it was
intended to be, a faithful portrait.
The homely relief-head [10] of another
“royal relative,” E y-m e r i , of
the IYth dynasty, from the Berlin
Museum, possesses such a striking
individuality of character that, in
spite of the conventional representation
of the eye, we cannot
doubt for a moment its resemblance
to this royal kinsman
of king Cheops'- S u ph is , whose
tomb is the great pyramid of
Q-eezeh.
We now have the pleasure of
submitting to the reader, in a
series of lithographic plates, portraits
as yet unique in the history
of Art, which for antiquity, interest,
beauty, and rareness, surpass everything hitherto known.