Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

567

Events and existing Monuments.

Nur-ed-din's expeditions to Egypt, 559, 561.

Saladin in Egypt, 561.

Burning of El-Fustat, 564, for fifty days, to save its falling into the hands of Amaury, Christian King of Jerusalem.

VI.-HOUSE OF AYYÜB.

(EGYPTIAN BRANCH.)

1172 | En-Naşir Salāh-ed-din [Saladin] From 567-9 owns homage to NurYusuf ibn Ayyub

[blocks in formation]

ed-din.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Tomb of Esh-Shafi'y, 608.

Jerusalem ceded to Frederick II., 626.

Jerusalem recaptured. Crusade of
St. Louis.

College Es-Salihiya, 641.
Castle of Er-Rōda.

Defeat and capture of St. Louis at
Mansura, 647.

Tomb Mosque of Es-Saliḥ, 647.

[blocks in formation]

A.H. A.D.

658

[blocks in formation]

1260 Edh-Dhahir Rukn-ed-din Bey Campaigns against the Mongols

bars I.

[blocks in formation]

and Christians.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

(A dotted line denotes the relation of master and slave.)

Eş-Ṣāliḥ Ayyub. (See above.)

[blocks in formation]

3. 'Aly.

6. Baraka. 7. Selāmish. Daughter 8. Kalāūn.

9. Khalil.

10. En-Naşir.

14. Abu-Bekr. 15. Ķūgūķ. 16. Ahmad. 17. Ismā'il. 18. Sha'ban. 19. Hāggy. 20. Hasan. 21. Ṣālih. Hoseyn.

11. Ketbughā. 12. Lāgīn. 13. Beybars II. 1

[blocks in formation]

The Burgy Mamlūks present some instances of a son succeeding his father, but as a rule the Sultans of this second line bore no blood relation to one another.

CHAPTER II.

ARCHITECTURE.

THE arts of the Saracens are for the most part intimately connected with their buildings; they are chiefly employed for the decoration of their mosques and houses. Of the examples of Saracenic art that have come down to us, the large majority form part of the ornament and furniture of mosques, or, in a less proportion, of private dwellings. Thus wood-work mainly consists of carved panels from the doors of mosques, pulpits, ceilings, and the panelled doors and lattice windows of houses; the mosaics and marble ornament, no less than the stone carvings, are chiefly derived from the walls of mosques and other buildings. The finest ivory is found in the doors of Mohammadan pulpits and the screens of Coptic churches; glass is represented by mosque lamps and perforated stained windows; pottery is mainly displayed in the form of tiles on the walls of mosques and houses; and of existing textiles, the most important, though not native to Egypt, are the prayer carpets. The only branch of art industry that does not more or less share in this intimate connection with a building is the metal work, which includes many small objects which have no stated position, but might be placed anywhere without violating their natural intention; and even metal-work in Cairo is best seen in the embossed bronze doors of the mosques. As a whole, it may be said that the art of mediaeval Egypt was centred in the beautifying of its mosques and palaces, and that in most departments of artistic labour there is a certain architec

tural relation which shows that the various objects were elaborated with a direct eye to their effect when in the mosque or house. Of course, it does not follow that because the extant examples of Saracenic art in the middle ages are chiefly of this decorative character, there was no art of a less obviously relative nature. The artists who carved the wood and ivory of the mosques must have employed their skill on other things as well. But the sanctity of the mosques has procured for them a measure of respect which has preserved much of their decoration comparatively perfect to the present century, and a similar protection was not to be expected in the case of mere portable articles of furniture which could be burnt and broken and melted with no imputation of sacrilege. Objects of art which form part of buildings, whether sacred or not, stand a far better chance of survival than movable things, and this is, no doubt, to a large degree the cause of the one-sidedness of Cairene art as we now study it. Another cause is the simplicity of the Mohammadan idea of furniture. A Muslim grandee had much fewer modes of gratifying his artistic tastes than an English nobleman. The law of his Prophet, in the first place, forbade luxury, prohibited gold and silver ornaments, rich silks, and sumptuous apparel; it was impious to paint or chisel the image of man or any animate creature; and if a prince were not strongly under the influence of his religion, yet the general custom of his countrymen, and the conservatism of the East, would restrain him from eccentric innovations in the embellishment of his palace. Divans offered little scope for the artist; their frames, if not constructed of ordinary masonry, were made of palm sticks, or an unornamented framework of wood; the coverings alone could be sumptuous. A little low round table formed almost the sole piece of movable furniture in the room; there were no chairs for the Egyptian Chippendale to exercise his fancy upon; no bureaux, sideboards, book-cases, mirrors, mantel-shelves, or other pieces of decorative furniture, to be carved or inlaid; the little dining-table, or, rather, stool, with

« PreviousContinue »