Tomb sculpture: four lectures on its changing aspects from ancient Egypt to Bernini 9780810938700

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Foreword (page 6)
Preface (page 8)
Lectures
I. From Egypt to the "Tomb of the Nereids" (page 9)
II. From the Mausoleum to the End of Paganism (page 23)
III. The Early Christian Period and the Middle Ages North of the Alps (page 39)
IV. The Renaissance, Its Antecedents and Its Sequel (page 67)
ILLUSTRATIONS (page 97)
Selected Bibliography (page 301)
Index (page 311)
Photographic Credits (page 319)

Citation preview

: TOMB SCULPTURE

Edited by H.W. Janson

Four Lectures on Its Changing

{spects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini

BY ERWIN PANOFSKY FOREWORD BY MARTIN WARNKE HARRY N. ABRAMS, INC., Publishers, NEW YORK

|

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64—15235 ISBN 0—-8109-3870—-7

Foreword © 1g92 Martin Warnke This 1992 edition is published by Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, New York A Times Mirror Company Ali rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher

Printed and bound in Belgium

Contents

Foreword 6 Preface 8 LECTURES

I. From Egypt to the ‘‘Tomb of the Nereids’”’ 0) II. From the Mausoleum to the Eind of Paganism 23 III. The Early Christian Period and

the Middle Ages North of the Alps 29 IV. The Renaissance, Its Antecedents and Its Sequel 67

ILLUSTRATIONS Q7 I. Figures 1—49 III. Figures 136—271 , II. Figures 5|0—135 IV. Figures 272—4.4.6

Index 4 ll

Selected Bibliography 401

Photographic Credits 319

Foreword

Tomb Sculpture was the last book Erwin Panofsky published in his lifetime. Friends and students had been enthusiastic about a lecture series on tomb sculpture that Panofsky had given in 1956 at the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, and they wanted the seventy-two-year-old scholar to publish it in book form. Under the guidance of H. W. Janson they helped him to complete the book, which finally appeared in 1964. Jan Biafostocki pointed out that most of Panofsky’s writings published in the United States were revised lectures, complete with footnotes and illustrations.’ For that reason Panofsky’s books have a didactic structure, where great syntheses, uncomplicated conceptual explanations, and vivid depictions with striking met-

aphors and spirited comparisions are the rule.” _ The book Tomb Sculpture was the first of Erwin Panofsky’s books to appear simultaneously in German and English, in Germany and in the United States. In both countries Panofsky had old and new admirers. But holding Tomb Sculpture in their hands, Panofsky’s German as well as American readers, who had known his publications in their respective mother tongues that he mastered equally well, seemed to find a transformed author. Intellectually and linguistically interspersed with neo-Kantian abstractions, meticulous philological derivations, and scholarly references, the German texts Panofsky had published before his emigration in 1933—among them Die Perspektive als symbolische Form or Hercules am Scheidewege—had been difficult to read; in short, they had been masterpieces of traditional scholarship and intellect in the best sense. Even when Panofsky had written for a larger German public, as in his 1924 publication Die deutsche Plastik des elften bis dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, he analyzed the historical and stylistic connections and interrelations in difficult sentence structures and idiosyncratic expressions. None of his German texts had been probed beforehand for clarity and accessibility through talks and lectures. The universe of the listeners had been very different from the universe of the readers; there, you counted on learners, here on knowledgeable persons. All of that was to change with the first book Panofsky published in Germany after World War II: it had an accessibility and ease that seemed to come more from life experiences than from scholarship. The American reader had already been familiar with these virtues through Panofsky’s English texts. But in the book Tomb Sculpture, he encountered traits that had not emerged thus far and were more clearly linked to the experiences of his Hamburg years. He had not only given two lectures open to the public in the winter semesters of 1923/24, and 1930/31 on Ausgewdhlte Beispiele der Sepulkralplastik, but among his later books, this is the only one that reviews and explains thousands of years of cultural history with the help of a single motif or genre. Only the essay on the history of the “idea” concept of 1924 had covered an equally wide field. This approach was possible because it was guided by a philosophical concept, by the “philosophy of symbolic forms” with which Panofsky had familiarized himself in the years from 1920 to 1934, while he was a colleague and a friend of Ernst Cassirer in Hamburg; and once again this concept had an impact on Tomb

Sculpture. The work of art assumes the status of a “symbolic form,” where the essence of an epoch, a

1 Jan Biafostocki, Introduction to E. Panofsky, Studien zur Ikonologie, | Kunstgeschichte in den Vereinigten Staaten. Eindriicke eines versprengten

Cologne 1980, page 8. Européers, in: Sinn und Deutung in der bildenden Kunst, German edi2 Panofsky himself traced this change in style to his “transplantation” tion, Cologne 1975, page 386f.

6 from Europe to America. See E. Panofsky, Epilog. Drei Jahrzehnte

developmental stage in human life and striving, objectifies itself. Thus, the tomb sculptures, as interpreted here, are permanent symbols of imagination, wishes, and hopes that the respective cultures and epochs had linked with death: Egyptian tomb art is related to the belief that the deceased continue their earthly affairs in the beyond, whereas Greek tomb sculpture is explained by the idea that death is an uncertain existence in the realm of shades, where life fades to a beautiful memory. Among the many possibilities of Roman sepulchral art, one emerged that promised a beautiful existence in death as a compensation for a virtuous life; whereas in Christianity, all ties to real life have been severed, and only the future prospects of the next world are important. Only in the Renaissance, worldly affairs and needs, and a concern for the glorious continuation of life on earth, emerged again from this exclusive alliance with life after death. The book ends with the discussion of Bernini’s tombs in the Baroque age, a time when everything had been said in tomb art. After death had become separated from cult and religion and had become a subjective event, it meant the downfall of an artistic tradition as discussed in this book, because a subjectively limited experience of death that no longer was tied to objective values cannot materialize; it loses its symbolizing capacity. Among all these general prerequisites, Panofsky sees variations and special solutions throughout the history of sepulchral art, style and iconography. Thus, he observes that in southern Europe the tomb figure is usually portrayed as dead, in northern Europe as a living person; with regard to the portrayal of the deceased as ‘‘living”’ persons lying in state or as ‘‘dead”’ persons standing up, this leads to numerous questions and answers. Among the multilayered historical changes, Panofsky sees again and again phenomena he calls ‘‘pseudo-morphoses,” i.e., moments separated by time and place in which identical formal solutions can independently take shape. Thus, in the fourteenth century wailing women appear on the tombs of the counts of Hesse in St. Elizabeth’s Church in Marburg, which inadvertently remind one of the ‘“‘wailers sarcophagus” of Gidon from the fourth century before Christ. Virtually the same spontaneous artistic inspirations are emerging over time and space in the same form. One cannot do this book justice without noting that it was first published almost thirty years ago. Its topic, however, the history of the changes in the perception of death, experienced a boom in recent years. It started with the book of the French historian Philippe Ariés, L’homme devant la mort, which was published in 1978 and has been translated into many languages. Today, it is considered a classic because it provided for international cultural and historical knowledge (in the sense of the Annales, the school for historians), important ideas for a history of mentality. One can acknowledge that we have learned since then to understand death as more than just a social phenomenon; and examples taken from everyday life, from literature, have shown us how to process and symbolize death in much greater detail, and have helped us to understand better that the survivors are the ones who, with the help of the dead, control and maintain the validity of their norms, interests, and needs. Whoever reads Ariés’s work carefully will notice that already in the introduction he gratefully acknowledges what he has gained from Erwin Panofsky. Throughout the text, Panofsky is one of the most quoted authors, and, under the guise of Ariés’s strange terminology, the reader of Panofsky’s Tomb Sculpture will rediscover some of his basic thoughts in this book. This is especially true for the caesura, with which Panofsky’s book ends; his justification and definition of this caesura appear almost programmatically in the original title of Ariés’s book, L’homme devant la mort. And he states along the lines of Panofsky that the actual history of death only begins when death is no longer wrapped in the protective cover of tomb art and those systems of meaning that support and, thus, defy it. Martin Warnke

¢

Preface

The text of this volume was not intended for publication: it consists of a little series of public lectures delivered at The Institute of Fine Arts of New York University in the fall of 1956. But when some

members of the Institute’s faculty, particularly its director, Professor Craig H. Smyth, proposed that the material then presented be made accessible in book form, I fell in with this kind and flattering suggestion—with the proviso, however, that my own part in the publication be restricted to a minimum. I would place at the disposal of the Institute a legible but essentially unaltered transcript of the lectures; a list of illustrations; and such scattered bibliographical references and notes as I had happened to jot down. It would be left to the younger members of the Institute to correct palpable errors; to hunt for photographs; to check the citations—in short, to do the work. Mrs. Mary Lee Thompson, Mr. Joachim Gaehde, and Mr. Howard Saalman were kind enough to share this thankless task, and my old friend, Professor H. W. Janson, who consented to function as an ‘‘editor-in-chief,’’ made many valuable suggestions and imparted to the book—if book it can be called—its final shape. He has probably spent more time and labor on this volume than has the author (who, however, remains responsible for all errors of judgment), and I wish to express to him my heartfelt gratitude. Apart from these editors, my thanks are due to a number of friends and colleagues who assisted me with suggestions, factual information, and, in part, with the gift or loan of photographs: Messrs. Jean Adhémar, Malcolm Campbell, Albert Chatelet, Louis Grodecki, Ragnar Josephson, P. P. Kahane, Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Adolf Katzenellenbogen, Richard Krautheimer, Gerhard B. Ladner, the late Karl Lehmann, Michelangelo Muraro, Carl Nordenfalk, Enoch E. Peterson, Henri Stern, Guy de Tervarent, Richard Turner, Rudolf Wittkower, and Francis Wormald; and Mmes. Anne de Egry, Rosalie Green, Trude Krautheimer, and Marian Wenzel. In conclusion I wish to acknowledge my long-standing indebtedness to A. della Seta’s remarkable book Religione e arte figurata (Rome, 1912 [English translation, Religion and Art, London, 1914]); and, on the other hand, to express my regrets that Mevrouw Henriette s’Jacob’s Idealism and Realism: A Study of Sepulchral Symbolism, Leiden, 1954, became available to me only after my text had been completed.

This book contains a wealth of useful information and an extensive bibliography; but it would have transcended the modest purpose of these lectures to comment upon or to incorporate its contents. Erwin Panofsky

8

I. From Egypt to the ““Tomb of the Nereids’’

An art historian can approach the subject of these lectures only with the greatest trepidation. Trespassing upon the preserves of many adjacent disciplines (classical and oriental archaeology, Egyptology, the history of religion and superstition, philology, and several others), he has to rely largely on secondary sources and often finds himself confronted with a diversity of opinions, at times about crucial points, which he, a rank outsider, cannot presume to evaluate. During my own lifetime the interpretation of the Egyptian Ka has changed several times, finally to revert to more or less what I had learned when I was young. The classicists are still divided as to whether ‘‘heroes’’ are debased gods or immortalized humans (viz., the ancestors of the great families), and whether their cult resulted from the lingering memory of a person or from a lingering feeling of sacredness attached to a place—alternatives which probably cannot be decided on principle at all. To make things worse, there is hardly any sphere of human experience where rationally incompatible beliefs so easily coexist and where prelogical, one might almost say metalogical, feelings so stubbornly survive in periods of advanced civilization as in our attitude toward the dead. The aboriginal fears and taboos of primitive man survive all around us (even in ourselves), and primitive rituals continue to be practiced, unbeknownst to those who do so, up to this day. When we close the mouth and eyes of the dead and arrange them in an attitude of peaceful repose, their hands often placed crosswise, we do so in the belief of performing an act of piety; but there is reason to assume that in these very acts of piety toward the dead there survive, in a residual or sublimated form, measures taken against the dead in order to prevent them from harming us: measures such as putting out their eyes, tying or even mutilating their hands and feet, dismembering them, putting them in tightly closed vessels, often in postures similar to that of the embryo (pace the psychoanalysts, these customs prevailed long before the actual position of the embryo was known), or sealing them up in hollow trees. The Egyptians did just the opposite from what seems natural to us. They opened the eyes and mouths of the dead so that these might be able to see, to speak, and to enjoy whatever life was imputed to them, and we shall see that there was an amazingly widespread and long-lived reluctance, overcome only at certain times and in limited areas, to represent the dead with eyes closed on funerary monuments. This brings us right im medias res.

Animals fear death and experience a sense of privation as a result of the death of others, at times to the point of dying or seeking death themselves; most of you have read, I hope, Maupassant’s moving short story, dmour, where a male teal whose mate has been killed by a bullet keeps circling above the spot with ‘short, repeated, heart-rending cries’’ until he is shot down himself. But animals do not know about death. Man, however, has known about it from the remotest times and in the most primitive conditions. He realized that his life was limited—in every sense of the term, that is to say, formed as well as restricted—by death. Yet he could not bring himself to believe that the extinction of life (viz., of the ability to move, to speak, to eat, etc.) meant the end of existence—particularly since dreams, hardly distinguished from “apparitions” at an early stage of human consciousness (see Aeschylus’ égvuxviwy partacudtwr dsypetc, “the sights of specters appearing in dreams’’), seemed to assure the survivors of the continued existence of

the dead. 9

This very belief, however, infused into the living a primordial fear of the dead which must have been much stronger than any ‘‘sense of bereavement” and, like all primordial fears, was closely akin to religious worship (we still speak of the fear of God as much as of the love or worship of God, and the borderline between the dead and the gods tends to be fluid). The dead, continuing to live without the opportunities— but at the same time without the limitations—of the undead, could do infinite harm. And to prevent this there were two ways, one negative, the other positive. On the one hand (as has already been hinted at),

the living might attempt to render the dead powerless; on the other, they might seek to make the dead happy. But we must remember that, in this strange sphere, not even these extreme possibilities were of necessity mutually exclusive. Even where cremation was adopted as apparently the most effective means of reducing the dead to impotence by destroying the matter as well as the shape of their bodies (or where the bodies were allowed to rot away and only the bones were subsequently collected and buried in what are

known as ‘‘ossuaries’’), the relatively small containers of these remains were shaped like figures, like houses, or even, exceptionally, like both*—a procedure which, in a sense, reinstated the very situation destroyed by cremation or decomposition. Even the ash urns could be placed on thrones like living rulers; cherished possessions were added; and special drains were provided through which offerings of wine or blood could reach these receptacles. Some ways of rendering the dead powerless, and their unnoticed survival in modern civilization, have already been mentioned. It is even possible, I believe, that the Roman ritual of os resectum—that curious custom of cutting off a finger from the body to be cremated and throwing earth upon this severed member —is not so much a symbolic re-enactment of burial at a period when interment had been superseded by cremation as it is a survival of the quite primitive custom of cutting off one or more fingers of the corpse in order to prevent the dead from using weapons against the living. The means of making the dead happy were, of course, to provide them with what may be called the necessities of afterlife, that is to say, with everything they used to need or enjoy when alive: food, drink —particularly drink, for the dead were always thought of as extremely thirsty—shelter, tools, weapons, ornaments or toys, animals, and, if they had been prominent enough, servants. The custom of slaughtering not only horses, dogs, and cattle but also slaves (or, in the case of princes, gentlemen and ladies in waiting) at the grave of their masters—or, worse, of burying them alive together with the corpses—is common to all primitive (and so-called primitive) peoples, to the American Indians as well as to the ancient Germans, to the predecessors of the Greeks (when Achilles sacrificed twelve Trojans at the grave of Patroclus, he probably committed an act not so much of vengeance as of propitiation) as well as to the inhabitants of Ur in Chaldea. I have always spoken of “‘the dead.”? But now we must qualify. At a primitive stage of civilization it was indeed the person as a whole that was believed to survive on some unknown and unknowable plane, and to be capable of ‘coming back”’ as what the French so eloquently call a revenant. It took a great amount of observation and reflection to realize that the body of the dead individual decays and ultimately vanishes of 1 J. G. Frazer, The Fear of the Dead in Primitive Religion, Lon- 1960, pp. gg8ff., and idem, ‘‘Une Tombe 8 ossuaires du IV millé-

don, 1933-36. naire a Azor, prés de Tel-Aviv,” ‘Atiqot, Journal of the Israel

2 Anthropomorphic ash urns, often displaying only the features of | Department of Antiquities, III, 1961, pp. 1 ff. (both these articles

the face and then known as Gesichtsurnen, have been found in have been kindly brought to my attention by Dr. P. P. Kahane). numerous prehistoric sites extending from Troy to Pomerania; for Dating from the fourth millennium .B.c., these chalcolithic house-shaped urns see F. Behn, Hausurnen, Berlin, 1924. Ossuaries containers antedate the known examples of both Gesichtsurnen combining the features of both types, generally house-shaped but and Hausurnen; but it is difficult to believe that mixed forms of this provided with protruding noses or beaks occasionally supplemented kind could have come into existence before the pure forms were by eyes (in at least one case the whole container even bears an well established—unless we may assume that actual houses were intriguing resemblance to an eight-legged ram), have recently come already provided with apotropaic features in about 4000 B.C. and to light in Azor near Tel-Aviv; see J. Perrot, ‘‘Little Houses forthe that the Azor ossuaries represent structures like these in small-scale

10 Dead of 5000 Years Ago,”’ Illustrated London News, CCXXXVII, models.

itself, while his power—for good or evil—remains unimpaired: that what apparently continues to function and to intrude upon the world of the living is something which persists when the body has perished. When this difference between ‘‘that which perishes” and ‘‘that which persists’? had been recognized, it was, however, not concluded (by way of mathematical subtraction, as it were) that the surviving entity was, - so to speak, the living person minus the body. It was not reasoned: the dead person cannot move, breathe, speak, hear, or feel; consequently, that which survives in death must be identical with that which has enabled his body to move, to breathe, to speak, to hear, or to feel in life but has fled away from it at the moment of death. According to immediate experience (in dreams, etc.), the surviving entity was not an invisible and, so to speak, impersonal “‘life force’’; it was, on the contrary, a mysterious but very concrete and individual being that differed from the dead person only in its lack of materiality: an insubstantial image or shade which, far from being a part of the deceased, was rather a ghostly duplicate thereof. It took, therefore, a further step to distinguish between this ‘‘double’’ of the dead person—duplicating him in his entirety except for matter—and an invisible and volatile principle that had animated the body when alive: to distinguish, that is, between what I should like to call, purposely using a Germanism, an “image-soul” and a “‘life-soul,”’ the latter supposed to reside in the blood or (preferably) in the breath and so completely divorced from the individual shape and personality of the former human being that art attempted to symbolize it under the guise of such small, fast-moving creatures as snakes, butterflies, fishes, and, above all, birds. When this second step was taken, there resulted a tripartition (occasionally further diversified, as in ancient Egypt) which was to survive for millennia and leave its imprint on art as well as language. In Greek we have, in addition to the words for body, oa or wéAn, several words for soul: ox:d, eidwoyv, and poyn.

Sud and eidwdov, needless to say, originally designated the “‘image-soul” and were, therefore, visually symbolized by human figures, often of small size and dark in color in order to express the lack of life, and winged in order to express incorporeality. Yvy7 (literally: a breeze, a breath) originally designated the “‘life-soul’”? and was, therefore, visually symbolized (as has already been mentioned) by butterflies or birds. In Latin a similar contrast is expressed by manes, on the one hand, and anima, animus, or spiritus on the other; and in English by “ghost” (originally only the ‘‘image-soul’’) and ‘‘soul”’ or “‘spirit.”” But in all these cases the original distinctions were not consistently respected, so that we can now speak of the Holy Ghost as well as of the Holy Spirit and, if so inclined, may conjure up spirits as well as lay ghosts. Once the distinction between body and soul (or souls) had been made, it became evident that purely negative measures to render the departed harmless could be of no avail. Neither the “‘image-soul’’ nor the “‘life-soul’’ could be incapacitated or immobilized by incapacitating or immobilizing the body—with the single exception of souls which for some reason or another had not managed to disengage themselves from their bodies. This was believed to be the case with persons not decently buried, with suicides, and, most important, with maidens who had died between betrothal and marriage (Jamiae) and sought a belated gratification of their frustrated desires. Persons of this kind were ftofdvator, “‘living-dead,”’ believed to prey upon the living like—or, rather, as—vampires; for it is in Greece and the Balkan countries that the

belief in vampires, to which we owe so many haunting works of literature from Goethe’s Braut von Korinth and Keats’s Lamia! down to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, remained endemic at all times and became epidemic as late as the eighteenth century.? Vampires had to be killed a second time (preferably by 1 Through Symmachus the lamia found her way into the Vulgate Nacht-Frau (‘‘the monstrous night-woman”). The Douay Version rendering of Isaiah 34:14 (‘‘Ibi cubavit lamia,’? where the Septu- cautiously retains the term employed by the Vulgate: ‘‘there has agint has évoxéytavgot; and gave some trouble to the translators, the lamia lain down.” who were reluctant to introduce into the Bible what corresponds For a contemporary account of the outbreaks of vampirism in to a female vampire. Luther has Kobold (demon); the King James 1725 and 1742, see the remarkable work by M. Ranft, Traktat von Version, ‘‘screech owl.’? A German translation of the Vulgate dem Kauen und Schmatzen derer Toten in den Grdbern, Leipzig,

text, however, has the very graphic expression, die ungeheure 1734. 11

driving a stake through their hearts) so that their souls might be freed from their bodies for good and thus

come to rest; but the bona fide dead could not be dealt with so harshly. They had to be pacified by providing for the postmortal needs of their surviving souls. Failure to do so was considered the greatest of crimes, while to do it effectively and in perpetuity was the most sacred of duties : a matter of private and public self-preservation. Under primitive conditions this provision for the needs of the dead was effected, as we have seen, directly and materially: by leaving them in actual possession of what they had owned and cherished in life; according to that “‘law of inconsistency’? which always governs funerary customs, even today children are often buried with their favorite toys, and grownups are provided with some coins, a hand-

kerchief, a hymnal, or a prayer book. On a large scale, however, this direct and material method | proved, quite apart from humanitarian considerations, too wasteful as well as too unsafe. It seemed much

better to meet the situation by magic imagery, the advantage being that images of men and beasts were , cheaper yet less perishable than real men and beasts, and that the persons most interested, if they were circumspect and powerful enough, could provide for their post-terrestrial needs in advance instead of relying on the piety of their survivors. This is why art received as potent a stimulus from the fear of the dead as from the fear of the gods. It had to provide shelter for the dead by the house-shaped sarcophagus, the mastaba or pyramid, the mausoleum, the martyrium; it had to duplicate the corpse in a statue; it had to replace the real Grabbeigaben—slaves, animals, furnishings, and ornaments—by “‘counterfeit presentments.’”’ And this is why an art historian, all pitfalls notwithstanding, cannot help looking once in a while at the development of funerary art in general and, as it were, in a kind of bird’s-eye view. The transition from real offerings to offerings in effigy—signifying at the same time a transition from human victims to animal substitutes—can best be seen, as you all know, in Ur in Chaldea. At the beginning, the inhabitants slaughtered practically the whole retinue of the sovereign that had died. Later on, however, the departed were satisfied with beautiful things designed for the purpose of giving protection, service, and pleasure forever: weapons, ceremonial standards, precious jewel boxes, harps of gold, silver, or inlaid wood, terminating in superbly chased bulls’ heads, and even gaming boards (figs. 1, 2). In contrast, the famous Billy Goat from Ur (fashioned of ivory, gold, and lapis lazuli), which is the “lion” of the University Museum in Philadelphia, is not an implement but a cult object (fig. 3). Sacred to Tammuz and embodying the male principle in nature, the animal served as a stand for bowls with offerings to that god. If it suggests the ‘ram caught in a thicket” familiar to all of us from the account of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:13, this impression is not altogether unfounded. The author of Genesis must have known images similar to the Philadelphia figure, that is to say, herbivores rearing up against a plant on their hind legs. But he accounted for the unusual position of the animal by a miracle: the ram had been ‘‘caught in a thicket by his horns” and was revealed to Abraham at the last moment. In this way the Biblical description could act as an intermediary, so to speak, between the Chaldean figure and the innumerable renderings of the sacrifice of Isaac in Judeo-Christian art. If the Bible and all the earlier representations based on it had been lost, many an art historian would assume a direct connection be-

tween the Goat of Ur and, for example, a panel produced by a German painter, named Bertram, in 1379 A.D. (fig. 4). The case is an amusing illustration of that interplay between texts and images which can be observed so often in the history of art; and in this particular case more than mere coincidence may be involved: Abraham himself—originally called Abram—had emigrated into Canaan, at the behest of the Lord, from ‘‘Ur of the Chaldees” (Genesis 11:31f.).

The fullest documentation of this phase—the phase in which funerary sculpture was intended to provide for the future of the dead on what may be called the ‘‘magic”’ level—is, of course, supplied by the art of the Egyptians. Here infinite precautions were taken to provide the dead with everything they needed

12 to live on and be satisfied forever and ever: ‘“Their will was not to die,”’ says Edna St. Vincent Millay of

the Pharaohs, ‘‘And so they had their way, or nearly so.” If we were, God forbid, sociologists, we might say that the entire Egyptian civilization tended to be ‘‘death-oriented”’ rather than “‘life-oriented’”’; Diodorus of Sicily expressed the same contrast much better in the sentence: ‘“The Egyptians say that their houses are only hostelries, and their graves their houses.’’ In Egypt the now familiar trichotomy of body, “‘image-soul,”’ and “‘life-soul,”’ developed in such a way that the resulting doctrine has been called, by analogy to polytheism, “‘polypsychism”’ ;? it is a doctrine so variable and complex that I could not think of explaining it here even if I completely understood it—and 1f the Egyptologists themselves were agreed upon it. A primary and apparently quite old distinction seems to have been made between what corresponds to an incorporeal “‘image-soul’’ or “‘shadow”’ (Sha), which ,

duplicates the original appearance of the deceased in attenuated form, and a “‘life-soul” (Ba) which formless and invisible per se, could be represented only in symbolical form. This symbol is a bird with a human face, not unlike the Greek Sirens, who may ultimately derive from it (fig. 5). A beautiful mural in the tomb of Irinufer (or Arinefer) at Thebes (XX"* Dynasty) shows Ba and Sha hovering together near that ‘“‘false door’? which will be discussed very shortly (fig. 6). But this simple division was obscured by a number of other, in part, overlapping distinctions. There was the general ‘‘principle of immortality”? (Akh); a kind of general world-soul (Cha) of which the individual

souls are only particularized manifestations; and, above all, the enigmatical Ka, considered, it seems, to represent the active personality of the deceased, as far as it survives without its body, in its entirety. Supposed to have his being in or near the actual grave, he combined, in a sense, the qualities of “image, soul” and ‘‘life-soul’’ with those of the “‘principle of immortality.’ In the end, then, the various forms or modes of postmortal existence tended to merge, though on a higher level, into the primitive notion of ‘‘the dead’’ pure and simple. Before being assigned his definite place in the universe, the defunct person undergoes a complicated process explicitly described in the Book of the Dead (the data of which are, however, supplemented by numerous other sources). He descends into the nether world, where he is brought before Osiris by dogheaded Anubis, the special god of burial and embalming, or falcon-headed Horus (fig. 7); he is weighed in the presence of forty-two judges and can be condemned to remain in a kind of hell full of malevolent demons (not very well defined) or, conversely, can be admitted to the heavens, the goddess of which, called Nut, thus came to assume the character of a death goddess.? If so admitted, the deceased accompanies the sun god, Ré, on his daily journey around the earth; and it was in anticipation of this journey that a ship (varying in size according to the social status of the deceased) was given the place of honor among the Grabbeigaben and was employed in lieu of a hearse for transporting the corpse to its final resting place (fig. 8). The dead person thus became, as it were, a celestial body himself, and this accounts for the fact that tombs and coffins were frequently adorned with images recording the complex system of astronomical reference and time measurement which Egyptian science had evolved.’ At the same time the soul of the dead person was thought to enjoy the care and custody of Osiris, killed and resurrected like the Greek Dionysus and the Christian Saviour. And its association with this guarantor of immortality became so

1 F. Cumont, Luz perpetua, Paris, 1949, p. 4.08. practices concerning the dead, see H. Kees, Totenglauben und # A. Rusch, ‘Die Entwicklung der Himmelsgéttin Nut zu einer — Jenseitsvorstellungen der alten Agypter, Berlin, 1956. [For illusTotengottin,’’ Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-dgyptischen Gesell- trations: M. Fechheimer, Agyptische Plastik, Berlin, 1914; schaft, XXVII, 1922; H. O. Lange and O. Neugebauer, Papyrus H. Schifer, Von dgyptischer Kunst, Leipzig, 1922. |

Carlsberg No.1 (Danske Videnskabernes Selskab MHist.-filol. * See, for example, the Aspalta sarcophagus in the Boston MuSkrifter, I, 2), Copenhagen, 1940. The complexity of Egyptian seum of Fine Arts (D. Dunham, ‘‘An Ethiopian Royal Sarcophabeliefs can be measured by the fact that the same goddess, be- gus,”’ Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, XLIII, 1945, cause of the alternation of day and night, was also conceived of asa pp. 53ff.) and the Cairo coffin brilliantly analyzed by O. Neugesow devouring her own young (H. Grapow, “Die Himmelsgottin bauer, ‘‘The Egyptian ‘Decans’,’”? Vistas in Astronomy, A. Beer, Nut als Mutterschwein,”’ Zeitschrift flir dgyptische Sprache und ed., London and New York, 1955, I, pp. 47 ff.

Altertumskunde, LX XI, 1935,pp. 45ff.). For the Egyptian ideas and 14

close that the Egyptians could speak of “‘such and such a person’s Osiris” as we may speak of ‘‘such and such a person’s beatified spirit.”” Thus apotheosized, the departed ‘“‘enters the heavens like a falcon / He soars aloft like the crane / He kisses the heavens like a falcon / He springs to the sky like the locust / He flies away from you, mere men / He is no longer of the earth / He is in heaven with his brothers, the gods.” Persons less exalted in life and less effectively deified in death were admitted to the fields of Jaru, a sort

of Elysian Fields which, however, had to be cultivated by the inhabitants, and this very materialistic conception, peacefully coexisting with the idea of transfiguration or even apotheosis, was apparently of . specific importance to that elusive ‘‘double,’’ the Ka. This Ka, we recall, was thought of as hovering in or near the actual grave; and he always demanded and

received concrete service which was supplied by the latter’s contents and decoration. His prime need being a material body, the Egyptians developed into a fine art the preservation of corpses. After the entrails were removed—to be preserved in four separate jars often misleadingly referred to as ‘“‘Canopic vases”’ or ‘“canopi’’!—the body was embalmed, sheathed in many layers of linen, equipped with shoes, staff, and

breastplate, and placed in an “inner mummy case,’ carefully painted, which operated both as a container and a duplicate. And this was in turn encased in a sarcophagus, made of materials as time-resistant as possible, which either repeated the form of the ‘inner mummy case’’ (anthropomorphic sarcophagi) or

imitated a dwelling which in turn represented, on a small scale, the universe, much as the temple did (house-shaped or—to coin a term corresponding to ‘‘anthropomorphic’’—‘“‘domatomorphic’”’ sarcophagi).*

Since even the mummy, however well protected, was in danger of decay, the Ka needed a body as imperishable as human artifice could make it: the funerary statue, strongly individualized so that no confusion could occur. Thus monumental Egyptian sculpture begins, so to speak, where the ‘‘classic”’ phase of monumental Greek sculpture ends: with iconic, lifelike portraiture (fig. 9). And cautiousness was carried to such lengths that in certain cases spare heads were provided in case the original head should be lost or become unrecognizable. Then the Ka, who was always afraid of being “‘shut in,’”’ could enter and leave the grave at will, using a door passable only by him and not by the living (called, not quite correctly, a ‘‘false door,”’ whereas it is, as one might say, a ‘‘superreal door’’; fig. 10). He could take possession of his statue and make use of all the objects either deposited in the tomb or represented on its walls, including all the flowers, food, and drink depicted in the frequent scenes which show the deceased seated at a table and receiving offerings (fig. 11). But in order to make assurance doubly sure, the tombs of the great were usually adorned, in addition, with colored reliefs minutely describing the production of food and artifacts as well as such pleasures as hunting _ or boating amidst the tall papyrus plants that grow in the marshes of the Nile (fig. 12). Representations of this kind—-guaranteeing, as it were, the continuance of the deceased’s well-being in perpetuity—must be interpreted as visible and tangible answers to such prayers as:

May I be cool under the sycamores; May I bathe in my pond;

May my Ka not be shut in;

May I tend my acres in the fields of laru.

It is, however, precisely this last requirement, the cultivation of the fields of Jaru, which the deceased does not much like to meet in person (fig. 13). He prefers to leave this part of life in the beyond to menials 1 For the development of these jars and the confusion surrounding LVII, 1961, pp. 193 ff.

their appellation, see E. Panofsky, ‘(Canopus Deus; the Iconog- #? For prehistoric anticipations of both these forms, see above,

14 raphy of a Non-Existent God,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Series 6, _ p. 10.

—to those very slaves who were originally doomed to accompany their masters in the flesh but were later on replaced by little figures known as ushabtis (fig. 14.). This word means, literally, “they who answer,”’ and we have texts reading as follows: ‘“‘When I [the master] am called to tend my land, then you, ushadti, give ear and answer ‘Here I am.’”’ Small wonder that these ushabtis give the impression of forever waiting—waiting to be called. But the curious and revealing thing is that this applies to the effigies of their masters as well (fig. 15). An Egyptian tomb statue, intended to be occupied by its soul, is not what a Greek or Roman statue is. It is not a representation (uipnaic) of a living being—body plus soul, the former animated by the latter—but a reconstruction of the body alone, waiting for animation. This, if I am allowed an aside (and a very sweeping generalization), is true, with a few well-motivated exceptions, of all Egyptian art, which, regardless of medium, tends to show movement zn potentia and not tn actu. Sculpture in the round avoids all torsions involving foreshortening. In paintings and reliefs—the latter either flat or even en creux and thus, in contrast to the high relief developed by the Greeks, tending to confine the forms to one plane instead of permitting free play between two—movement is not directly expressed as a functional transition from one position to another but merely intimated by the graphic junction of opposing aspects (profile and front view). And in architecture the supporting members, particularly papyrus- or lotus-shaped columns, are not conceived as actively carrying a load but as standing freely and quietly in space, their capitals often separated from the ceiling by an abacus invisible from below (fig. 17). Columns and pillars exist rather than act, and where human figures are connected with architecture, they are, unlike the Greek caryatids, loosely attached to the walls instead of playing an active part within the structural system; the very notion of a caryatid—fulfilling the actual function of a column and thereby eloquently illustrating the classical theory according to which different types of columns represent different types of human beings—was thoroughly foreign to Egyptian art (fig. 22). In it, we may say, material space is not as yet activated by time. Greek art (and “classic” art in general) conceives of material space as activated by time in such a manner that the latter is immanent in the former; and Gothic art, to carry the parallel still further, conceives of material space as activated by time in such a manner that the latter transcends the former. Plato, of course, was not quite right in saying that Egyptian art had never changed for ten thousand years. In spite of its indeed extraordinary conservatism, it could and did not fail to respond to such shifts in the historical situation as the contact with the Aegean sphere in the New Empire (not to mention later developments under Greek and Roman influence) or to such fundamental spiritual events as Amenophis IV’s heroic attempt to replace the traditional polytheism—and “‘polypsychism’’—by what may be called an anticipation of modern pantheism and panpsychism. At this period life and death were no longer seen

as two absolutes but in relation to each other—with the result that different, even opposite, attitudes became possible toward both. On the one hand, a dialogue could be written in which the poet convinces his soul that life is not worth living and finally obtains its permission to seek refuge in death:

To whom can I speak today? Hearts are wicked, Everyone takes what is his neighbor’s. To whom can I speak today? The gentle perish, The forward are welcome everywhere. To whom can I speak today? The righteous have gone,

The earth is full of transgressors. 15

Death stands before me As though a sick man be healed, As though he step forth after an illness. Death stands before me

Like the fragrance of myrrh, , As though one sit beneath the sail on a windy day. Death stands before me Like the fragrance of the lotus, As though one sit on the shores of drunken ecstasy.

On the other hand, there are such glorifications of personal happiness, under the auspices of the allenlivening sun god, as the famous relief of Amenhotep IV in the circle of his family (fig. 16); and, as the logical counterpart of such happiness, such expressions of sorrow and grief over the end of this life as the relief that shows a group of mourners lamenting the death of a High Priest of Memphis (fig. 18). Ritualized mourning over the deceased had been practiced in Egypt, as almost everywhere else, from time immemorial; but it is only in the period of the New Empire that the manifestation of grief is represented in art and, at the same time, seems to express subjective emotion rather than to conform to a formalized ritual—so much so that the postures and gestures formulated by the artists of this period could re-emerge from what has been called the collective memory of mankind, in the Greek threnot and the Roman conclamationes. Representations of this kind are, so far as | know, the nearest approximation to what may be called a

eyes. |

“retrospective’’ as opposed to a ‘‘prospective”’ point of view in Egyptian funerary sculpture, and even here the

“‘retrospective”’ attitude is limited to the survivors and not extended to the departed. As far as these are concerned, we are still confronted with a magic provision for the future, and not with an imaginative commemoration of the past. Commemoration of the past was taken care of, with a few late exceptions,} by the decoration of temples and palaces, to be seen by everybody; whereas the admirable products of funerary art, revealed to us by archaeological grave robbing, were never destined to be seen by human The step from the ‘‘prospective’’ to the “‘retrospective,”’ from the magic manipulation of the future to the imaginative commemoration of the past, was taken, like so many steps in the development of our civilization, in Greece, where the product of funerary sculpture was called ofa (sign or landmark) or prfjua (memorial or monument)? and was cared for in a spirit of pious remembrance: "AvOéutdos téde ofa xdxdw@ otepavovoty EtaiQot Mynpsciwy doetic obvexa nai prdias

(‘This tomb of Anthemis his friends adorn / With wreaths in memory of love and virtue.”’) In fact, this loving care for the funerary monument—in memory of, and not by way of provision for, the deceased—is one of the most frequent subjects in Attic vase painting (fig. 20); and the monuments themselves were intended to commemorate the life that had been lived rather than to meet the needs of a life to come. Even in Homer the shade of Elpenor, Odysseus’ faithful companion who had been left unburied

1 One of these is the tomb, at Saqqara, of Horemheb, who was _F. Eichler, “2 jua und yuyijua in alteren griechischen Grabinschrifthen a general under Amenhotep IV and later became a Pharaoh ten,” Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archdologischen Instituts himself. The reliefs, now scattered in various museums, include ( er $b ‘2 ee ms wy SS

©

4 } = : oo Se, | Ee 2 ee Pe, URS te ae re || >4 \| 2} tee careerowe ;; de 4 pe iva ce bs. iP _ Adee ? “.. % 22 wy ' ~~ # /—] "\\)wal a ebes . Green. ee mgt be.’ Ayy x . . ‘ Sid = a, - ae ray ' j WA \V .

|2r|a=|: |;;'v, Ry 4

Die. 498. GO Se Of

i}

Sete ith Y wt ™> | f oe “ie 2 a cy

.. = . = m2 7 Ase aan a% . > . POOLS SA ; ae hy — > ’ > Mas ween “ , —i FF Pore x . *‘ | a eee « a 4 —< {> — _— . pense es ——— a? 3 — > —ot es pis ae " eo po ae ae es ng Enenpets rT) ohne — Ky — , —_—ne -me ae r=i \ i 7 =o ‘Ce ! ? * s ot ot 23 e . £ = e

| fh. 4 . . are S. ee \ 7 j Sf > ak ghAS . 1 “< oe sata? | ~~ , OF co : ~f ay yo . , 4 > , A ea » esas, a ae : » ~ 7 o ‘ . * Ae > ws ae gt; “ p WEBRSS F . phere ol P Rly SBS a “4 : Bhs . my jig, ’ P re A Nd af j % BR eitas, © beet Pha , ey ee Fees ; Dy B ety Pe abel “ "ey ‘ , 4 R$ ba 5 J : el Pe ne et _ “— as fy al « y Pe ( x. P ie ie : / . 4 a: Sits ee ee O58 patna ee 25 ne it } > Serre, a te , we ate ie> ¢ oi! ; 2 xf; . es:

.|ech Pe « _ iar f Y ‘ ae i ef ee Se be | ro . oe Sie i: a af Ce ASE ; . 2 ' . " ero Rts. ST oe — — * P rr ; wey ~ Pre ,:FSal Fs t , en ‘, a ‘xg ey se rs ‘ be é " | | | Whe J y $4 ¥ :xae x iy $i jay ae. ; fis, ee 4, 5 , if $ r ee ,Agi ‘ at s P : PA ¢ Six « a2 . , Z ay *~@ + 4 | Pee Be “al p i” t gf Fk ; ’ rey : a Aes : £3 ' es ” nt 4 ie "4 a. fy | Ps 4 >. aae goal 6 _— . -¥45: +4 ‘*ft‘ bbe ri

F 4 re] 7 ; F . Py : o,3 be .J4 > p-~ . .‘2 4 4a uoa » ;As.i ” ’ nm 3 / ALS 7 . i yin ; ta a : 4 i ' eye Le Say Ps ' : a At a Ae ; t ” ‘ Bb Fy + jgt es wtat —< he a ‘ Lg 4 Pom |: +$ 5oo? “tating, ~~ * ? aM ‘ Bic, a ; re ay a “ ’ .*.ay oy” ce i Bes ie 4 i. & Ses >.< i. ‘ Mae wg Las Res 3 ‘ o>. om ¢ : ' s ,* pe ‘ : eee, ‘ if ~ : £ : , " ts Non > “i . ‘te ae : we a 7 4 al , me r * jp : is *, ne . 4 caty> ls - : “a" \\ ,~\— ‘ . a| hie. t Hee. ey ti ¥é “iE ve hd: ae —_ > e a\ =~ .=rsye!

v4 : * Am ~~. a . 4 + : ’ i * is ae : Fe a “Aaa ah Se 1 Fe 2! w} —— * ’ hes * A Se eh Be 4 : 4 ? anges " s ‘ 2 i ;Car . i tiee ¥Oe"Ne -eS eee Se aPOE Ss "SF pi 71s hi tyi Mab hi AY ox. Wake vam 1-'% y ae +" Fe ae IN See on ABBR Kg » eae * Cs . $07" ce > OF. ~~ We tay = et ae tee ieee OS “ee eee ee | le .-- }—ay iL.a. at x Br i. .aTQ ge urge: nie * xfPity s : 42- *% * ; «#Y Py ‘ge és aad ie > 4 ‘, 4 + a: ¢ ; a . ; be 4 . > om. a -— 4CO - "-%a ~> an ee ,Cea : BS Fa ' ; Pe > ia “ " #; »f a' :ssyt -— a tia! 0»Thee, : an ae. 2.OS it _- -., ~ ‘Ged: ; < ye 4 o> SN MR: sea nesaeen a NSS ees +4 . Ee “ee ott SI i ora seh , y Ki - " i , a if S & QD _—_ , » 2 =. : . aT ‘ ° x ae 7 4 ; d ~~ ? FF Se ‘ . ° ‘ ,> x 24 » — > ‘ovo et eared XC ) /? fy , y r . iu i fi ‘MT 2Oc , a

| , » RF ns bap63 h 4, =a | )FP \ \_ ffne- \Uw J oe ce oofe=s (££ “) » ~*= fe hel : Qe 5A ieee aw*= .|, a| S.: Pweccaanegs lala a | OS) gre a ei i: AS, Gee Gomeoy a S| be Fives f a! a>Pe Ta icy =—-_ \ 4i$hilt et |ceed ‘u=: Rryme! ' tees 2C c~ , v : “hay. 4 ” — ae pl: 1. _~ - | :~raat —— Fes Pr rs b £¥ wt le 7 aa i: . 7 ,. “ gee Ps z hy “4 “¢ es be . > Tm : + e

:4: *‘ @-« ' ' he ‘ .-”¢ eemeecaen >it *) _ — —~ F- ) ‘tin45oe *afihy ae — a oY aYP NZ : afi ow, a! *“by org. us “Ri.9 saono cy y, vifar YnSS baa — }? 7 .4) ; a: aF RP| ers =ga , ne> Ff — oe. + i we See! ae Fi Se ~+% ed A! | : OPT AT Ah... “Bi lleo* 1657 « : Lg joi Pee |) Pale

r, ; ty a” -% ;| *s ‘ 7=iPR iley ul1iite ; .- aes % oN ‘eg Lary *% aes 7 a,~ee ge? — ( LS FEC |is—.. ' 3Po‘. eee. a4 ‘ \e 1%=>" :* 4Aa yy |: 5Aa .ny :Te? Po DRE ye Se Sy 1’ aoe ee ae” ee- 4— OP Se ee OS 8oar: a

4 “sno: ASN SFR: ‘ . ,Aa SME Yee Se > ye ae ee¥ Pa. F.@ ai aeBP aes -o — pe di Ye 2beth |] , in7Ver TS #{ it ‘ 4> Oy koa Dae

))‘ q* Sl Valeo Son Su Nae SSSI Tay.) . \ 3 , : . : . et Qs SS ae | fs te BSRi : ai es Sy 4 ote O50 4 \\ WY ; : J ~ : >, ~> SN ig ] ‘ we di|i 2>>ay, ‘at i) 24, Sea NN eli’ =) dk Ae. OE ' ——_ * - " 4 ~ ba \ : \ : : , 77 Tie remy ie Taal rr rn ; - Hy a ea es CT ee ee Rog GO) coer corag) ee | pote Fe Bao

=A \ * et aeSa ao a x. tJYY M \\\\ \ \\ an = »3The ~3,ea_— ~~ D —_> ee hs/}oS j apy /Isae Nae FF - ite otpies. hae ae i NS Aon , 9 ae + i \ \\ . Io AG — /. jis) ¢i>be. 4‘ _ £et7]7Ryi}fi;/ ys ?“ah "4oa"F«‘a 7' ,‘\\\ep\ ;“oa \z RP r, ;at: a Bite 3 My es ; at ‘# j ‘a se Gar. 7 mM | ‘ p he - ;¢:rh 4if: . ak oo Ay 4 ia . f “as y o : vs \ ade] “ "4 r=" 4 : * 4S . he Jia ee q Wisw & 2 ve WF o>. BE SS See, “ b> 34 N 4 ip ; ee G3

Peon A ee VA\ | Es aa COU eS || Ae —_ % pe + ' - a\ © : eo ah ie eee dba sae

| ee nay Be. ee —wy % —or galt. I7‘ lex ma. x4.. A + *\: ry ; y ss oy es P ee ar rs ,3ey. F%: 7Ay ae, 7 he | aSake ; heal 7

r ih, a AGS - 4 is J %SS. ’ , vie , ; 4i ‘- 7. | ykFtm6 qi ;hi£aeoyagen sah © ane : ys :i,a Pr Atay eS Nay Gall ae es ARE & 4 See a “ : ; and = ys y i id J Pe boat AS 47 q bs eh ci Sing rey

of Beran) co a a | oe fae ae Nea? © ge , ie ue + > agit BO _* 4 > . 4 an a Meal GD eee f : A Ste) gira eee \ 1 oe bw oO PR oiiea| ~-)2 es es EN ees: Pm A/a, Vee I A 4 . heh en ee eS | + | ne . a it ae a ee Oe > 7 é ? } ee se 4 aes el || ae is : YS - é1%, ; Aeoswv” 45éSX ” ,Si w ; aegaleee «o ‘ Sg es 7 ee / _s Ae: i? ; a8 | APrd 13a a We ee Mo eee”| 'i‘e2 "; hy cata * atee 3 ‘ay3 -.aebs| yiat Meg) BE

i,oF Cee: en 2 i , of nh + 4 a : , Da ; : + Se). | SS ae Wes ga > ea WA ek rg b eae | ;2 : S Wate oe 4 7 7 3 5 Y. » foe) . ie ors S Fi ae 4 % 5 r \ 1 . on ied 3 es »* 4 i : PP eee ,he ~% y “ ¥ : w ° . Des: 1° PR eee _¥ on 1 4 & ) . : ? 7 ai - 7 al E Re . ‘5 oP a ey : .

a » Se ee igi a)eit Se a,Re) & : ae

Saqaqara. Museum. Cai ( fron

:ae“aaa “TS hs TAG SPSe Yan Wh 3

Fee, Waa AADAYS I) (eH AIS eSNG ACU YVAN A eS AICNie i eae Me Sg SN OES ARB NM ee AN ahi aaa (RICK DR RAS SEE NGL roe

iN eee EVER Be Ic = IZ RNS SL STENM EHC > sagen 5 COPY ~ 8 a ,SNe (Oho*BCA ES AYwh ‘A lg AyNE ) Ml ra daa" 4 he < URI ton Peel WN

had Ne ' = a — Jee / > > ~ >> , \ ‘ [ @ ; $1 ti. iS ¢ ; “we cement 44 2 a CD = x Re

>) . no ; ae cn ‘TI ’ > Sh, eee ' j “ —_ at Kk rapa- (Fi iel iIALie >) = > Twn |PI NWicsme Ezra) F:laic> oe \2~ i——|F — oe idee Le a es . 3 | | | yl tz 7, oo : RO : Sy NY : PUR. SNR OA ARRAS

AS Sy CESSES KKK K« CK RG CRE OO DW wwwV—- WNW 7 NN SK KEK < MES OER RE KEE ESKEE ‘ SS SSK SS me

XK a oe Nee a VO HPAP PPP nwywwecs

, a 3 Gore Dy — 2 J \ ? 4 M4 — St ARCA aed RO

Saf = i ER aySUL 4 Woe aesLy aAe“WANN 2 CK MESS Ke Vf Rapley i Bg Ae LEW Lt eed ANU RY) every. Ka BAS pi Le bebe tay peye ts la eS LUN PRU Maia at KKK xK< =e wn. Pi HLMGAITIAMTHG MISHA GANT TRG We Morass EOE LY Se SeayBN VERFP. ot) Pes He 7) A NIN} | | i \ | MTR TART HAIL ¥ yah % ; Sa x Salil, WPT AT | AAW ANN PSG St 2 < 2? ) 7 Hit Wn | i | | nit | | if pia, 04 ars ’ Ke Mil ae 4 A yA Hi} | UNAM TTA MA WAMAU HTH Ls = Re KY ml a: My my | ah Bi 4 | | 1 | i) HALE i Wt ti Li Ht } rn

|oe Lith, aa AA Hi WN 2 Dy at Gitte 7 : |Shela , it} ede EOE EATELLIN) Hi | | \)WAN i | titAAiiNAW AY flit ih |:| YY

K 4 dé ATTA ivy yaa ae AH A at Dy Ss SS fil TTA HH hi Ht WA alt L~ ¥ : as : Re « ; SS HA WAT Hl i H ats 7 We ie y>>>

fC Ry as em wot

iS | 1 (|WU HM iAL v4 =. Dal ge SPs A 4iggaia S itETit Hii ) fr iHt 1 Hilik - “A ee |Meas 4 PeeNS K ;2Va EEE ete AAA 7 Se. \ ry a “ PS , ae w Yee 4 W 74 f’mo cr +a Pp / \ a ee x", es BOTS aot Ww iwCS Ry, >,Si Sai }DROS Un KK > : LeFe a . oe “we es ~} “de

Aerts Dy. rN7 ee a —~fi-= mya then ' | Pie pewe.. 4% \ os a“8 Re raefam -I92 37 +Gia PeY. “ 7el=(7 «4Va -=-sm ,ial ee“ , : , ‘ yt ee AS Meo ales. btdat 5 ee Hi} DARTS ae 4* ic 4 i oe f Fs 4 rie 4 i} Neale P = q *. 7 , i 2 — EP 4 a - - Z —— iy :”i ae. -.: ,Abs ‘¥ - oat ie ek ‘ “yfxargs w= lefi-$ee, Le -_ 7| sayeet ’nebe4 ; OP“) mers av fyRd eee FS ¢ si inte 5 ~ ; ,ee$f“ a; iPad 136Aa 7 pee af ~, v"a“en

init te cece er a P| : ?RS° ee Pee - - ie- =. o: +nil = Zl4‘ :

z % : x fee 8 m 4feJ .bs ay \? \ _ oN £ oat| .Va 6 ; \I- f’ -{&eo O2-l tbat oy % pe ff ; ibe evel eth Sy bil N ee hi, oe ae > oe J on : : | 4 ae Pa 2f44 h ‘a 1 ed “TAW "7

re: kAte of % 7 if ePA meg ut ROLLE my 7NEES a ay \! a[Z oe ASA a CLI as F. oo PANN -ihfeft ftean 1Ay aia Zeeh“ oS iyZL “~o/ ni ” .; en Z iI yee RN; AN JAW > aoe 1A Rehk (FA 4TPH fs CPR Ssf! dA VADRG i, AYalleles , 2may[Sam 4 yes yy p)Rr ALO hi : mi ot= SALA NT ea e em pa ASB VE OWN Td TAA AG aNd OS /E: Ye A4 Nate NN FeO A): me SEW 0g BD SAN AAD AT te= a‘ a(ewe Bey A A} a 8 , 2 >!) “ vy Lf (i ‘6 , | iY . Kh 4 J, t Yifett-49 Pipi} oN tm LAL MN Vea UNS 8 SLUNG IAIN NA y, AS : “NG . ms Ad. FP Al Fe a Pete / NE att fi ¥ . ee § ; 4 \7 j ‘ : ty ~ 9| rtAlPy / ity : »FA ff i) Dy he . * |he f & RIVA, Binfasia | 4, — al ° By OH a Wy, aah Ips ye "i es ate 4 < Ca . + | a NE ze “4 S, ogre . suite i on we - ALA LN Ee P : '; ‘% =

SYct . yeee A eeIa RTA ‘i Cay }WL) (oe fe area lei ; £7| (eo if!NE Vie J; ;ZI ?* iale ‘ ClrPBe Ar} Ahoyerica Poy, re cee 8 = ama Hs¢ pip ki 4 Pls tears ne bi-ne Jew, {C304 ian | | eal ay. A Se lie Io ok eae NO MGS oak oegyME OP amePi Ook n,m z=NEE b yeaa

1=!anit 2 HEEee. NY ‘s &v : -—er- “aN iy ye neXf Sdom wayA’a ‘# ~ygVou Se ok ay ith UENO aDe, - Fon f a7wart te v7 Pees, Ges G Ais SPay \A BiB or oe abit PAIN kiSie, BeiA: ‘yt Xi.ee(> beet EAS Vararmek are k, OeOS Mi5Cewee Me mee Ore ee EDek gt 272 NID OPAha NN BE ayyJUCR ie.

ahaa: , 4 is4a " t . yDl w/ax27 } Ss, yi1) ah “| [" oh Z 154 Z i 1 , 2a) pW| :4 - | an a.a ae We | Age 6 PNT A NANGINA the d me ats * ) as me. MUPOe Tr

: rvs aT Yee an

«PPE 1) ey PAP | } Vi Eee

SV Pe TR ayBEe toeaadaA ei: AS ae aes ‘:TVA de \Sh AB “VAY if ne“ iduttcif

ee * PAS : (ae S|og Sar&:| OF , cavel » dA ee wed ViPS NN, 0 7A¥ Aye 4( Wi \ f tit p' ;

pe age mee Ge +- ips >? a ef) 7 ; ; ye My P mf ‘ys ‘4 |

iAeeee - ali ean aan Hh ; ‘ i ,+ i HA ¥ a qMy q . vi Wa, ; ny. A /fs Thebes iv

ee r, Ss “ te, py J ding ' y LA Ad ’ hi Vf . a fd 7 17 Viortuary Temple of Kamses II, Second Court.

% nx, Se , ; : 4 +. a

Zees ae Aaks L9 i ful y A :i}‘" \s aE ay i /Z }“ ’fu(J 18 Museen, Lamentation Over a High Priest. Staatliche ‘/ Hie AiG Ny, Berlin

are —— . ¢ a 1g Gold Plate from Pharsalus. Museum, Volos

{ iS —s ~ > ” ; ; ~ ee ~~; —_— x . es nt 7a. te oe == ——. > ' and 4 3 Kg . ae Se ea See, ~~ « _ wee atin “he —_ “a awh coe? «3 ~~ eo ‘er , , ¥ ~ onthe, A ag : . J .a% *? > S } 4 aS i. ‘ ° : ‘ lls o ee * oe off a Lees ie Si: ae a *, i . iS) == rar , idtin * a aye Ane i baw 1S) :Seas i: er ipa ne on a~~=ro(~~, :is .Te)So. ee}Ifaes a of

we 7: aa \ ? oa tm x ~ a, = 7 . é ; nS o . ae : : “nay ‘ > . ee! : © 4a , ;Fe. . Ae . 4 1 : 4 : Se { ¥ J % . ‘ -” = LS . re ‘ e Ak: . . A \ ‘ . , f : ’ /‘:“.ae te. “. . \ . e*' : ¥ 4 : 5 y? 7 rv) d'4~e_~ GET EE 4 ‘ = : oe ce AS bd y *Sara . oad bs .we 7 ber ’ Ph yy~ |rebe ei: %¥21 ; xy" aa‘San %,/ titty - < .at. . 4/nety

, Ne A We ey piglet : aa bP ays Sa Slee ye a|7,eum FE hy . BR a "¢ @ ees peeed Le * _. St 4,) 4 «. —— i a Is y \) all se be ina he “SS _.? bY “4 A. " s ? “~ a , : ye oe rm - a > ~~«=D a ;' .

P ‘ one a ae *, SF ee gee : ‘ . come 7 z . £ i»? 2 " ; Fs ; be : . -a ’ ; J t “y . ; 5 : \ x . > 4 Po 4 t \" } . q 2 pea ah. eu: > ; Pre aa — tat s5° : é “ ae A.C ye é.. . ey >: Wy; . | # Be Sie o a ~ 4 tr, :- ee. _Lsme? %oe *-Dyed ate ; «N *‘.4\‘2 oe4 ::" ‘4 ry: &, 7 ak. : ne ov E r’~~ : 2. Swe 2 , . ' ;° a de yy be 7 '|.i\\" J'ws Ff > oe Pry / .a% ,KS .t +»Bie 4— yi,®: eisa.sea cng | Be / ae ~ey :.*.areas shh aneE bs: 4rhe a“ Py . 7osus aA ¢ ee rate a” ; 5 » P fy , ¢ i, e_5 . es j LW ae et wae 2 : ae 'i’a;"2). .-7on pi§a mvusdinnemtest ve. « my Wee zal ié fie" ae a a.%Se: Be ' a’8- .+ 4 . ‘=¢; 6We te ' >Fe ®t Te : —*. é*Tena! ‘%

. 7 “iit * $3? ra ay_ :va ) Se ee _--:As" reyAiin72) *- . om: —_ a (¥ 4% pe? ue © y as : F: bs :A-7,4. q had aSsae

4 i en

;t "' °“qs ‘ > :.rr2,ee aa ¥i 7,- :zbie m$ \ ;".aoe “oe : i, . , : aw “ia . .. ‘4 —ae ited oe Parts * : ~ bet: ae Doe .. ¥Me : * oy “ze By! Pa + : i * ee : “a 7 g oe ei ; . / ; ”=ae a ':$,.4 " “7 ~ . - -s57+¥™ ° >7|:*;Sane a; Bie? ; Pd ae aa 7a: :a‘ >=+ ae S Nad ~ } 4 es i Pla } a te a “oe rin

“ed te)Py ; :+)‘ f; Pmes é wil. ze eo 2: ~; ty 1 . ; 7oh ; a~.) tN . os a aPST ** ae ae eS Pe. 4 eee Le,ye hx “ en ; = 2s igs ae . eS a éBoos s ng=o : Sey te ian a Sey, .: 21b

~~? x Lay - “aA ; : ' | - a.

"PF cS. “a *a wy »Ps se a =, i SS ~N a ee ae . tT. wa ak CANS aad ~~ ae . P43 ee es .po’ 7% a Ne S cpt a ._—won a eitae ath i ‘ a . se oceel ob. : £44, ‘ . ae Se. et =) ‘ws 7 pe < = ~ pit. * or fees = . » ; ~ he ee | ~ ‘ » Nose * : i: ~. ) e. 7 ‘ Xt at | 1 rae i 4 i, ui ’ lcrhet ~~? 1 A’ A,mA, . Gr,bani 7 : ~ \ ; ae

a: : ae > i. > % ¢ | ‘ a4 |i\.,i)iea)|:ix1||!Pi) a) aB | :: '' |8?| :~ y NW My HN) Hi, yo Sy

i uig a) |

th, ~ een ~ ; % : —— ee tS = » et ~ ry a aE a" : < -

ag By ee aor bea eo . — P< 2 Re an é —s 4 -Oe4 Se fr aoe ee" - 2 oe \s ~ee “ested Fe Slecette ~Y ae .j =Sar Se :‘ne ee rex ~2 ~% a 2 Toe -™ us2. ,is~ Na g- , ie aeTo5 Ae: $Y wal a a =.-.. See — tee A oro.

ite Ras Baden! 4eS yee we M4 as é« } yt o 5 vw ee Be ! ” < e, — *, p. onic aed ; : * 2 .‘,:,~.¢.4® ey * FS ' ‘ : aa ea eda tl wn 4 w cy ~ —— . , a aTe . at- MIE =i odd a a i —* ; 5 oe:3f+"a~_ soa a3 ’-= ~e e -—* “

e ~ e oe . q : %, $. , Lf, * ate ~ Pel ag ee bs 3 r ‘.*e --,< a .4 , ae :L “>~~ J bad ae \1»:. a? : : ww’ ™ Te ae ee > RF ~pe Sis, oe 4 ‘ ; —_— Z . tl_ 2“ey!: «

iee— ia ae 2 mgs em, BS:

z ~s ow 7a*ate 4 . oniSe God ‘n.:*% oe- “e) ~ —2. “:.% . ee. :LZ ,Say cee4 cee , 54~”~ “ae eee * = . Ao? ewe ae ae iA : =a_—— ".“Fe - ~~+.— -e. ¢7ae .7 - < .;Te Pt ' . a4 % 7 ' at . a ; ‘ ma > é este Mi? , a Wiest 4) sy ; “sel saat as ‘ a EW, Re . ¥ * ; _ Pa . A a ; he Oe " “ an en , a” 4_,qwe :>~¢ aees >f“4 *‘a 2s & . ¢ of < a ~ : . ph, oe op bes¥Aoe sSs-© ' “: .—— -A*< tae +i ry Poe “ ~~ Misi ot: -4 + > ” : : P J 7. 3 Z + ff, > hy = ; ¢ tea ” ies ‘ e ne wy * oe 3 . “™!, 4 —T va al’“J~ J é cw PS J : — Pg ; ~ .a ic S# A ’4 = 'e.ae oO ig — 2 (Cans : : ae SP a * nS », , ' i > rn is / wf -z Re Pp .‘if .3’> pIF P ‘~:2 ‘7 } : * = 2 p “ . git > "A %=- :mL " 4 Fe P 7 *= |13 °; i,-f P 72: B: ad &y >Ztue «& — ¢ ”4 ,* % , >’"ie :4::— . -) : -" a., ;a, 4, ae , ;- _— al : an|or—— ; 2‘ =‘t y4‘|a., ‘Py

|©-.aa3aS

Ex: .~— ve os" ~~ — : a. ont tr Z| Fy © a % —_ . > SS 5 at hd : a. a ~ ‘ _ .

— “ .. pr — tenga SANT a . — ~ oe oe é abi ~ we —— —— aay OO ee me rere snnnatt WN Bi EE

ae &‘=- |L:2 4.al.:°CE 7ree ~™ . ’ ~ Tie ‘ 4% :. ae ORS Pe ey ' . ™ ¥ Lee = ei “a> 4> .Lt VES : éit5aiWad Pa + i. ee ty . a =i . Fl ; ' ae 3“ *: “ ~~ < 4 rans *

~— A \=]pom “é eeets" vf ee on&f;VW ¥ »)ail «. -“~ ~— a ‘\i.,.:‘P . “' ae »: aw e.UN ‘- -a3:‘ Sire 4 ~% >4 4:;-iy 4i YY :we ”}. ,.:a:. aei S.3 s;r ve : >’ ve, 77“op , + ;ee . . ut —* nee. cn “a . Py \ .*oo 44,a:;\if»”

:>Re _. roel ‘oafy : ts-x7S ’ .,FES ~~seb . \ »a)4 .Bf . \|esAas . “- ¥: ra tt J . io SS el ‘) P. A « Khe . 4 ~ :41he, ‘en. J o@'oe ‘ oo . be : . 4, x? i$er} >33 ;mh by a~. ye d . ¢)/i: ‘ = e5 .} ae :ihe -Bi,y>» *‘S‘oe “a. * . aehai TW, aa ; . tff74

7 =, "Dies . ,":r‘Soe ee ‘P ‘ &or~, .; .a.t‘7. 2 7 sh F '*M) ‘at * Pola ; 1. , ao =:: “epegeis /«y'...ON _amMets ‘ SEES ti: . ~iy hina , . » : MAD lil A ee SL | : a AN & . ae i" i Pe ” i,

Be ae ‘i. : “ ) ;Lea hs Mae #4, Te : 4 i eH a.) ee P_— “th ‘ .g]:;: its Bes| ;yceg Tarr. je7 sy oe Oe uM ‘y a ‘Smt s ;4ihr -+'ot) vr it“lite ‘ vil ‘7yw ¥aLae + ov 7. .a= a.ee=¥Oe ; PF, i} "4 p>:a‘hy .yal : }: -wih is 7wy aer- rea . ‘ ¢oh H F we Alree: ; ie ff me as . — ,ry ™,i4 , ee ‘> 132» re \ ne a ; ¢ ; i 4 . ’ 4 % . a if P 4 a, os 5 ie Ny ¥a,) a oe fis ey ss in | Bree’. i 7 Me a . ee ee re ' tan’ : " . a | . ; J é % y ‘ Sy am | S Llib, ¥ } . ¢ : rt BER a “ ‘ +, , WEE. 4 > 4 ; ¥aEar a Ee . " ~ “ . . 7 *.4x . :. .A-‘ iN i-Ls. |Pe.or.7] P ; ; ‘ Ae et . 2 ui ? ‘ ‘ zy : : en, Patt ni ; - . : - 4 >E ¥%i,Ae ay “ Pa : PR, ‘ *es- ay” : ar.A om“=ib. Las Mak sist i = (* Zz : ’ . oi te Nar & : .

»/'

,}me 4 . “¢ a. (eke, viemA as +

+“ean ;ime be Xs Ooa+ . -Tig nay ty ia| bes¢; ay . Jat AS \s ea oc : 7 ‘ 7 ad a ’ eae i i J / ‘ X H Ny ay or ;i) yy : / ¢ «; ty (C ] : oo my Ny ?/. (ih Ss Dae oa yf /-\ A > eoums « f aad wa ak » Dey ae a Mee BSE ES 8 r cate i a 2 PS. Ee

' :- 4ai ]. atin fy me : ; he eye ; eyee A. 5 fer thes Ss, : oe eee. ?ae P%Meese o. ee ee 42ed - =we Saat ay ‘4 bs, - ,}:Ry 4” ee rr .>. iai bJ €tenant: onAes ’ / o> ad : ee : * *btbo riesae~dEe” Pais .ny 7%x‘ ax 4c 4*>" 7 .Ane rd.ree Bans “% +, * a ; 1 Le ere s® , ~ ~ ¢ “23 ~ | . = — a a1 .

aie, : agen , aah Re Se. 7) Se eae :7' -“KFb ee, 4 Ne ea . Seo 1d IRR NS Sia ee ¥ ay Lak tea 1 Wy om J ES ae ea : : ‘ a ad + vf : e. f “% ‘ bys >! SiM4 \ Re gee WLS SR Se Sais ‘ ‘ “* : Se ARS te ~s ‘9 t “S) ames 5 Lu ' A . . : + ; t — 2 '* , : Ne >| A : 4 Ys : A ‘- -: .\hn ue :x,VF nN ;X oej “=a ~s irhe Aine .:"pa age eke rs ny ‘ . ? . ,* eh ++ . * a _ es Ka *. 2 ~ .°_” ye na le ke Bist) y i i: RN ‘ -‘a.>.> -o.5*a >» * we eS é My ans Le A t » = . 7 ib ; ; = ¢: 2. 8. A re Pe r. . byte oe i . : ee NES Alay ; bie te oA . af : At ? > , ws BRSr tt) > aise = - oF —) ss. ct + Ss ~, = fie '

oh ae : s Wes o.oo a) : by ie _ eae ,5 by > x ee +: , She ie ‘A 5es a2 »ert.ai’ ~ .‘) eo Mo eye as 7 ty i . Ya s Ze ss ¥. ‘ ; : hae Pes a b 4a . \ ‘ 5. Sx, sg ; ‘ Poe ‘9 ,wt . : , . .% . ‘ ~ . 5 > | > : . , ae . | ; » 7 \ ~ a! “ Tt. . > Ww PACT FB hs os »y b hee + j ame At |e ‘.> : , ‘ ‘ j a + : ¢ d rd ok om . * . ?. \ : -f : os 4! | Ss : ‘aha Ride Dine ad et a . edt , po ny @ e “> f rs : : e.>2 * ' .. i ms ‘ ty , G , ok P| + a" : *’ fii : . : : ss ie he | vee. Bt i 5 ; q ar

:|

- 44taa? . . . : ~ ‘ * +) h P ' : ~ ie, 3 4 : ‘ 7% “ \ ‘y =a 4 : ' % F > w ’ | a > 4. \ . \ } ° t Y Qos oa ss bP " Gee. | foe te ® 4 \,r: 7-wx f:AN ad :;. Fe ; ,‘Me s.: et ‘/3. we :: {. < 4 . , . ~ “ 2 ay an = Shy * aa if KS Sm , : .y; .‘Gar r , raf ¢ws ~att iretNi al Se Ay hagHANGS . a ¥OE Vey : | Seat re AD oe YB =F See ae :‘ ;~~;-;Pe. ys ; #4 2 , ‘ + Ag ‘ , : "Ye at.Mare 7My&«ae.srl. “PAs Rie 2 EIN RET MORN HER ee AEE

ae" a) RELL Ph. EAE POURED feta : v4 . "Ae : .NS " 94 2, . x YY a * .Ps" nh :.7‘‘ . a fs ; 2 “a wn Ny -* bh 3 : : ry. " > Se Tr A) bs;

Q R ab>!< ~ “4 >f .ey—_-_

: } Sk PoP ‘ a" % :

wpe- NW is .y wy at |ee é: bo oR ,e ~.“y ‘_ ms Neee hy - ¢9.4% i?s “~ ;fs: ,yweA:h!, ,As -

‘ Stele of Agakle National Museum Athens 5 Stele of Polveuktos. National Museum Athens

: ETL a en ORR Fo ge SKELTER, ~ » ' ee : “Wt! ‘ : Ap, SiGe es". ‘at a A A #2 4 ty — ety:

ae . a 7 % ry » w’" »s ; Pate. at” ae ~ ro eo» 7 _* "tA,

.nw . . Po “yr 7w4‘trsa at &; aae* "* 1”7 .r} _ .. » ¥ Le + 2 ‘a F y* i, a. x m oa ‘ 3, vg a” . . i Prove. Ty ae y

“hy 0gMg & :Y a ce oe arts 23ae °e$ , Ty »*é,+ss A.Do : a"eas ba -At a“ ‘iadhs ‘esaeVy 7 -oe £;; 4] “Y waee") :4:éOa tn ‘a? : it; am soe ok Be 7 y& . le it 4 a Yeu Vy ee ap » we ¢

ws gos 2 oe y fe ¥ RRS: Tt ship at. ve.a, cn , e.. he %* "eA &

‘ -> ri-Pa § &. : 1JM -) .-e‘Z J*ofsaRt ‘sé, ~ ay “ae ‘:ela ; ®":Ss ‘ ?i$4t4; a ‘le. bs ca ’aks ~s ;7. a‘a~ereoe:a :’ ae) - fvS ;AQ (be, ;’:“ f.ee > : ¢{aone an,' ~ ? 4 ax..~$ _ ’ a- 7

; . , . . _—_ ™ - - = Vie ee BS a de ee Vip bos, ’ Bi e & Fig at » 9 ey c. | e, Rr y

: ie 3 — ¥ x ‘ r 4 et 4 : % Pi oe i _, | af) :eS ¥ :aee tp j tea. eei ee .‘ > * ety ay :mn LE 3

Pt aa-ra ihet 3a- Ms 4-.*>{*PA Me bs .- cs oe |as : 4*y ie: - ’‘:2=a: an ‘ « : im. iF 2 a > ey 4 id "84 ”2s ’ 4Psy res Yara,»‘Ss > yi !a4‘ iwh 4 es» «ee P a i, Poy74¢» @ esMgees ME Se Pe 1 > “ 7 Rf : " osa. x ' -dr -¢ ** :_aG eaeoy rs é

ie eS eee, 6 eR ee ae ¥“4 | f Le *)) S. | fee ‘4 :*) at ;>4; ee he.¥auy "3 7, > ‘“e. at >’ ?ADs of". yc 4; e. : Sie L Me _ : 7 i , - Ww? ‘ 4 ° ~ “4 é + “ - © ? » ah . £5 76

“1h% ry ‘ =%aA 7 >- ."- ‘- ie ° p‘ad a°e-».ve. ood we :a**\ wer .., Phd 5

: / » > - » 7%

a i*. ,hd 6

J

2 Stele ol ( aireaqemo ana ycea National Viuseum, Piraeus

ae ae

yethhy

. Soae }° . a,wy a aa a 7 ay . : ; ‘4 , z:P “.J meCWE > 4 , ; 7 Rae “= Vern } tee Oa a: RP Rae ad‘Ce Sek Cea BT IR*RAN og oT taal IR4“s’ " .1h ide : 7 =». _ a” et ae : we: ue 4thes) A . t é sa) - , Sa) Ee... ee ee *% /52 ee ee SR> Potty. , 4 \aevd RY Tn — ass f Meee. Rat| wae?» oe ee

oa oe, agli - Sa % A ¥ | | a \ 3 : a , ; : Zs.rs — Ws / ; ¢ : 4, a/ 8 1 =

4 . . . / ' ; v ? v6 f* a2 ede: i i

— id 1 | , Be , ‘ ; ¢.. : as wioea- /rhya,:

h \ way +

i ie Ps x F hal ‘ ) i { es ; ; =

:. »:ff 'iz;:;;.:i‘ a ‘% : . \ — ) ah i ‘qebay ’ : a & : ‘ ; _s > , = / : 1 ‘ ~~ / CATH X 7 b . A) AAA nt : i3i] : ’ "yy ya | ; A aA | Hi! 1 | . - - i - : -aA ; ie

ih- -.+, - , -; :“", ”4 . ta¢ -€«:tke .. 7;at'”& - . }, we

= i \ 7 \|

or es

.* hs a . \ . (RQ SUN EA Ac 7 SON . . a,: >a,f SNe Pe ° yy bap ayae geAo +e) &xs we aeSpas : ¥; OS fr. Ns — ; ‘oe aoom: asByes” yee meh .*]

2 Zi see an ; Vp ot er o, AX 3 Sa < ~— J j ¥ 4 ( . 3S. ~ a ' 2 4 to 4 wey t 3 ." . Sy Eee PaVe eee \\ | 3 ie, “a ings sa ao. >,

= Pd- .. 4etStyi -é. é. oe ;}~~? «>ai 4’ av a - 4, Fy. N he : ;“‘aBe. , pL. > F 4 “4 ‘, > x 3 Sy “¢ 7 , %, Bie Naw, Sor Fe, bd & . ‘,tn 4 .% ;“i ; ast - he. rw~ wr 2 He aU ’ / * \ : . 2 2 \ ry ll

~ coms BE : ‘* » iia ‘a 7 : V, : ¥ 3 tet ‘ ; : Td f, 2 ow t,o. Pes y 2 ae ' ' i , | 2 oe a>rs tf th " ~~ 4 A “Fy ; f ‘fA Re ate pie, ihe Seat Vspbied yD i~bee and “fs . pee: =) 7ee he-NP > ;~ot. .> Skim we~eytee ihaBeet :+ee 1 tnors - Ha ; - :7 :;oe ;: e. ~~ an re Ya af f S Fe ei ALkae Sache .. ea ? er it . * ££ 7. i+eetch RES oS wae Py = ecm | A Sek es F4 42 Peay 1 bei a ee 3 wk ; : toy, Low * jt A ay om, . %i : > ‘ fs a pee bas hone REE Ed ss der See) eee Ree | BE ae ot {eA { > e .--ee Reg = A‘o> a4 Aete)v» Sm ’ *®,At 1© >> Ry: - ’eg, . il :UBS a.£. .2~i"} :;gry = ey .\s-:..-‘ee ‘a:Z";eer 25 : ~ eons SS Yaar Se ee hi ot ;SN ; : rf ’. 4 : ye? ” a , a . Be -2 we "Te" 2 3°. e a . ae ae 6° " b. et ey R: RS Aree. ai wo ae = San ae, Ss it *.*

roe ryan ay OmaOTR = hi3? oo Ltd pepe ‘Ve ANGAwSe ee & awe Ton es Eh ORME

Vs eee . onenrn Fe > Mr.

~~ 1. to oa: 3 te dj Narey% '

>»,», a afs SY7 Saat ? .~ ¢ te.Nn).- Se? x aA

: a ae . rar ee . + 5; a Sj HISAR 4 Wy

t ye5 ber FTPAR Wha, , Tet: ae 4+VO ~

: Xe, °isSie & A :;%, : 4me * 5 Ach . . s a _ 3 ; wn ; ate Mel .3ose a>° oa t. 28ee = +ay , y~y Pr = 4 -ssae , rm. :ét--~& . Lil : ‘ *Se: ¢" P 7 FT : : -) “——< ~ bY . 3 = _ » . F | H om : a ie = ‘ies bs >.) 2s OKAY AH AA us wo c , ~e Re dite ve ae , ma P rre “ee ~ 7s we sn Tete oe wey °> iion on : N& ee one wo “a f‘ae ? - y~>. . A SEY * hen « ae. oy ee ee - >ee > ASN Sas rar eee: a ~ = SeOF >R ~ % i tec SR ST a“ oi ' 3 . & | se . — , A : oe . “4 5 Skye ABs x ais » . : Ses Ty P ~ x ae : hie cate

* on 5 . ie ae SS ee ; So . oS ae ‘i

. uF ft’ >val alqSS »rsRey >hth vq:ave ot4“; ::v.arve. . "“Ty May :“¥3 itebe x‘ *+. o% tes 9—aan 4 ,:™ wd 4° ey : .4. A hn sin Se Pam e’ a : t ' e a 4 oe ~ ; A i iy SS . 5 7. > Sova y~. J _ we J . . . * ~ a > ” wy be ‘ + 7 * al ~we ¢. Ae? a ; mt ef , 3s ‘Ar ea * ’ 2° A > “She \ > LF se % 4 p . : ae be a “ih he th . ,' *;™/. “ae . ‘4 vf *ap Me =x ye 7: ¥; of::‘.eee eiht 3%) Sy *a&“yD * ie =rs,’+. ,; . Sai. ashes . 7 4 ’ x 7 > ber ces 7 7 eS ee . me. oe ya f, ‘- +a

hs yy’ : + * = . , ‘ eg 8 We ke ,-i42/--R ‘ $ ad te Pree ih) ao re ve: . nia Fe RY 7a?-.:ioni4b.#.7.ave “Ge‘Sy ae. ‘ 4 a Nab Ss cb ’ “J-3»we oR, Sey ~ ; ; eee 4" ee ae ah eS R. Sb ‘ we gg * > - e- By’ 2 a “~ 3 e¥ s : ee | . ae ee a 2 AES ge Oe oO 5 ‘ | € ‘ eS as . ee * : Re, oo ‘ rt oe >:

. e ee os >»eo .S > ; --ke x ~*y \ ?; ~Ass¥“< " ;374. ar °eePAP oeser. >="“>>* “a “=i. *> 4. ~y

‘ ey ~ i 4 oi > 4 SEES

‘ ssOn .ay P‘ a «J es. SS er —— we .ak £ :;PY 4"b> ~*~ SR ‘ ty 7 V“ : io 9 ~ “J " oY Bt a , oy Ss SSA eh pee , ;be=, “3 ~~ Paden eeeS a Sey A,oN 4 é-eg Pe Se ee =o an 2aeSS eS, ae SR|»1 of . b . :e}TA 'id‘Sh. i4 = ~RSiu. .aee7. Feei)»* : ES Sa tab

——— “i . ee 4 ay es a aS aa > 7 s . ES. ‘, d ‘ a ‘ e P| a —~ A VR .% ' 7 ud a } ' this i a br ‘ % m ) y~t > '“ef 2% 4 > ; ae ; ; a £F®, x r 4 B i ‘ , _ : $y w¥ ' a, 4 , ’ . ¢ \ BA SRE > a or a bi fay} : ae en ‘ _ ‘ 1 . : ? : : vd . t F Fe ” . a , Tis Ant, : mS, ‘ay : ’ *y : ‘ ; ee ; ry ‘NN Ne oy ie ‘ ml : ta » , ' Ps , 4 Naa ig .se . SA ee Oe VAC ae ian Hay 4 v4 eer % oe WER). . Aah & PEM ‘er . :~ a PA. Bi th a : ‘: AN i Te , Ly. ; A oh Si a ‘ F . % Sa) j “den * ; : : 7 ” Cem ; ey, a pee il one haps Sk CON PRR Oi sd ga) |S Rs fe Na a oe 4 " i . . > ‘ 5 xy eS yee ’ , eae ‘@ (iy 4 -_ SVR ;D5 Zz . ete WN }SE 4 —, : /, Re: ne *,eo2‘ ;Lhe °AN 4 h ieEp) e ." ¥ he 3555) ’ ° s *. ; moe tie # , : t ; A ny 4 Hf “he vine Ya Sr i rs } Ns he AA re ‘ees " ™ " +?) ‘ ~ "We \. 7 Py’ 4 avila af oS4‘ysfUh ¢; ‘ ‘ sy ‘ es as g “. " a © | i . }fs Se | ma "i , . = 4 a " , é ‘ :L: +:atts Be yt ‘ 34 J 7 |“hay 3p ‘4! P % p Le ‘ b. PS 4 nae as ; » ae” EN : * : os ight Sa ; re : ’x, f° “s AS : e . 4 ’ ‘.a>«.'* @ — 4 » ' “44 . 4 ;ee~*,——. “2 ea ~s j " iy ‘~J “ c. :. ,ASH be mm, s- ;“o; Mt ‘ tn % sepee + Pi . 4.~y “ ma)ie: as *. hat é 1% a ‘. iA aIt~,4vas > ~y re24. .’

c -£J4*aPast my7 i. irf hae ; “4 4 y : \ i . 4) :j i. oS oe -2po wdPs od’ ite ' . “aetee - .. 4 .a-%* a :¢Py : .wr it.ae :& SS .aiat , er 4 ad ; \ aH ve : Fad 4 wt Mae » ° yA re “2 H

< . 7 . :’»;saSe +s o> *” < > 7 . »* - 5

5 :. 4. ’ ,T.r~*+. + aoe ;. ny FS “4*oLe Sub ne < ey:‘ -awigs aesiM ie — -: ;“a%a+e ‘+be £, gs sh. (eq Meapis 44 .is“eee Tag ey a . . % } \ ' 4 Ca y af : * “3 % met | , os . ‘ * —, : I on ; el ot "2 = $+‘3 8 | | » i> 7: + ; ."i-S oe A f oi - -¢4 f .~ >ae 7dex. hh 7ad % 4— .‘, AL re e bas Moo aesv a? _ 1, Zoe ea o3 » ja”‘vo e le r> og / yg \“4att : we. “j 74 |“4oaid5) + PT ?iS- .co \

; i“4 4ey 4€x/}}) fe ® ’~~ qj *las ¥-N= Bo} qq ;44 . wit . Si) : : ;+;« —— ee a? ‘ ie ie . . : or] ~ Pht > a Shee x NN : ’ . 1’ Sp 2 ie wt” | “« ae ¥~- a4Hae :P if-.4h Yi Bp % qxNae ;. \{Ss % a ee - SaaS us.~——ee \ 4a \-é:aewt~ 1 ‘7oe .”-; -ae ‘.i i*)%, i-F- ii, tw etoe ? :H ae¢ }ryle NS ji y\\ RR / eh .LU re:,{i} :J~°seé.ey HM Ae al ide dé | PS 4°)\ .see ERY Ze;{SE f% -.”me) R.4 wie aerV. ot. we lame ;~saa aeae Pa ae Gar ~~.

¢*7 .%7..; ;PN) s;‘a‘ :|eS.AS |: aa,; Ren Aad EBs / ie F .H 7 :|o." ‘+-,‘w i:sxaark -” :43a,NE an 4;r]. Le Pe f , i A," 7. Py ; * . 5 : ; . . i}. T teat 5 ~ ~~ . ¢*s i eS 5 a ee 7:4 a i Oe . piel See Ap } * 7 , 4 1

P ae d , 7 : v ; . 4 | ' ' or ao oe « aie c an m{ a“ i es | « ed bd : = * r | ots ’ oe \ ; / oe we Os i ae ia. Ee i x_-t*as *) . : ‘ : “et ne M4 A2sot a ‘ s ; : £oe ne x, Be he ‘ ; . i : ' we 4 oe : ‘ ai ~ 7 , 7 7 ‘ ; : ;be—s tae a Sh te . = . S ety * : A, be * a 2G a ‘ 5 7ys ; rs +. * ae. aoe> . : 7 re 38 : f t 4 i cae fF : ; 4 i! f ‘ ; is ' ‘J SF ' « 4 ae . : + — > a : af “s ~— ae ' ~~ Me “ dees mm i 7a ‘es ; Al - . ‘ , . > 4. is : ce | . a : ’ 44 c . . de . » i 4 e wy ce ae ay 2 ie hy

; oe ” . “s 2 ‘4. ” & . 7 7% fi } ‘4 . ta 4 x aa 4 F OF gen ‘by

. P P x: 4 : =

a me He we he : : “* . li 5 _ ate a i . ‘ yF ' oe < >» . ~2 2 6) aliAF’ - : ,a}S‘ ee “7 aee a, .wee “Ofoe tae»Dj Ae a ; .ap ethR, \ - --

. ‘ “% - , ; Per ey tae ——— a oe oy ’ .. ; * i a . - 7 a we ,

1 yy Ol | ( ! ( ( Nie \I i

Stele of Pana ss. National Mluseum, Athe eum of At New Yor

J i. - i. ‘at : ‘ ~~ ; ess ‘

% ah .\ Pat %i, 3 x *e5

PO ai = >? . ¥ “att : . _* oo . — + ¢ ‘ » Py i 5 saa’ ee : an a, a. , Tare : A . ' ‘ Te- fy / ‘ * be

évor yt. wrie ; +tees Ws- .7thwe: ,aein . eS ~‘ 7: un

Poort al ’Wis; +. bY aes tagvies et ' fk x 4>aT eq, F©teI ee De PH ve of ‘| on | we at ie i ‘biC)cra

be ne . ‘ ‘ ~. — eS~ma sd . >» st -.:S| Vv A ae: 4k =.m ae )ie Aaan Set eS 7rat > 34 Ly«»~ A A ae y«'BS >reese Aa woyh® ~h OA bma? -; 7 rg ON\22% Neae aieed VAR COG rt eee tsA ~r ‘ey peea *©

: - s* : 7S ‘ Ne . , ‘ 7 ; " ans 2. r > : ‘ + \ “ TR < .

‘a3 ree ay Ss pe fy Sage:De: ~“i Aaae sod ¥ A J ;»aJe ¥ a2“Ss ERA mae aa ; a, ‘~‘a Wa 5 wt}> : ; %: .Dh ia dono ie ‘ ’ . ca ° ® dns " . 4 k . - »4 ’ ~ aa “4 P - ~ | ae *

rr wie. ae ay ;7 :y. ‘e \Fie ‘te e mye . 4, ~_ .DAREN s pn wy ft¥aPs. % ‘ : 7% e: eiyiy ~*.? *% Atrs : .7Basa. ee as s ee: + € ie ms * : 3 Fy l ? ’ “we % aLas ey n ben Fe2eeis oni : Aa ‘ . :: ¥ . ::: \, a '= 7os wu og! a fg 1 :. iM * Y 7 . Lee . 6 +" >. OR 4 . . t * ® J ‘ * 4 ‘’ ; . e , a / 7 ' Na Py . 7 a “A uy ws P er me) 4 4 i j Fs s ate. (2 ee Sr See Fons, “ « .

) ma S wy -€ i he ;° ;ial a):*swr Y er Pe as. Pe ee : ae a a = — . i en SS ey Oe i oe v x : Na ; . 7. a! fe é ~ aan 4 ' F :* ate! i ee -I 7 - Bitte - eo a 5 ; ~.”* 1A men ; oY ~~ :a: ’"? ea 7 J“Gi. ae\ Sea ~ -“#;%

; ice oe Bo’ ‘“ 3zySf. ee é ;Al es ni. ~’ ee ; ‘ Ps a i i“4 “be oad

be ‘‘Sel >b| -t 77salty OtyLZ . 29: % a ee« . _~wSly . 4 “Wh:. :Ve — ee usee Mee tog > ’ .% *) : » ¥v as) “ ‘Na ~*~. i-7h, ys oi.‘ ~~ . , i |:&' :t *ane chal' a e'% e .7‘be,

S aies - |;peasy Akt ¥ m4 ‘*eT :.% ’ (re i . ; “ae ws r ‘ a8 -i:y;ysae) —_ * (aR. sate : 2 : » > Ten . i shee 8 i, a ed, —:és é— =a ae8ry 7r .{‘.act : ; a.oe ie er| aa "sey Let aj wa be

7 7F; :og _* ? » mS, ; 4 8 . es =. Ws th,F’ />4 “~Rs bs —_ é /> a bd : ‘ ¥ ° yee >t nite, ; r . Ch] . 3 7 , Z 4 . ARN * ‘ / A at ~~ 3 Ve ie > a q: ;“4:7 7” 5 . A Ma wey n Le 4 : ; . . i Re = ae ae \.. SI ee eee ot oe ae ah (iii oa ALA . sap’ |. Seer SS ha : Pa .a‘6s Seer 3 ae . a? fj. Dn ae REN aa: 2

a ; . - \ 75 ae? b . , ~ 3 ,ce ‘Lhe , My Se ener ae _ ew! 4 DNS bec. hares * ~~, : ey .4 —_ o ° J s S. Wbte r OI a i a ~; uw" F A. o> *oo ; *o ’ 3é‘rim4 ANS ‘7— ‘ : F, +s odwv ; f baa be :ATT 2 a anes hae ae‘al } "s ae

ee 2 1} P x ‘ 7~~. ”7»*o,“ :‘i i-; “°j :»>Ue cta5id ‘ od ‘° ;*2¥-GY ket ; .iP79 Ng ne.Res us S‘i» ae 7+: re + :: ;“ej MA2Foe Le.) era" Eeents : ‘4 > * *pohe . Be7 ie Se- xRS Sr| tit . :: » 7 ra~>,ae, Re . " |‘ 7. 4 a ae“> ou ve ie ; Dake, ree 3 dean Bs “a¥e * 5y%‘ »oe . ae 2%: ~ seal, : r wt pe a Nut eo y SB ee — Fi. a i Bae Se 7. ¥ : n , > ~ ‘ we ei ee: ae

_.a> .:.:_“*=7£28) .ue ¥'7id “Bf “oocP * . .a2Ay > | che ay st a < "os ae , ) ~~ ’ “4 eS ( f , 4 . f i ' . >. . ‘ - . ee ti _* . ) “* ace ° >. 7

©» {te : ¥gs S. . “FL >». > “a- ee " » .= —th “4 Fr * * 4® 7 ». ‘ea * ' ®gens q > e~ 5, : A SEAMED « . Dy ee vex rhe

+.gr a ve at + 7* -oSre"a .—_ whe 7:" ““ .4: in. _a F7 wr = ‘4ad_— ° :ot Pay " a: ‘“4’ yw “~*, ‘4 * 9 ' 1 on ;37+Pat ; a\35" -- “4 5“ : | .“shems : . wa «) : ’ , x " L? Bi on THUS ee \ i , ~ e | oc | in we FE. ne; Ae 4&4 " » ) q . “s & “ : o " + % . g \ as kigh KN 4 F —e4 ~— , = a: oy: hs .| ;¢- 7: -{, > ' Ay Fa ~ , 7.: ar ‘ -%, f Ae er ph . | .ve\ .rfPe,

S.23° 4m Seat’ ,»»y on: "Se Saw, - ats(71 Ne >¢¢’Be >. ~-ee e' —~,"| .“4 :ce J. :47“|:DJF ;:uré* Bthew 7’ d; 4= Wias .5 i: «* i : x asthe ae ~~ a : , wie Wy + : “a < ‘Va Ba — >> . «| + § £ az Ss ae . ao ee NS ge eet “4 a. eS ‘> kale SS a: ee “ A | eg af . of } — bie ces ‘eat + Pair ' a an . ¢

i~»y::. ~

~, : eek i . ~~ wee & p . 3 xf 7 ris s ‘ y 7 > i > i. as ; a a4 ¥. es _ a » \ ey tet ‘ . o! yf ee » > ¥ Foy . * ’ ‘ LS . ¢ Se 4A .‘ *. = =:. bd rP~“ 3+. 3 oa Pe ats $ )osi: oe ot :Arag >}eat7tttnOr? wy. “hh wh-ue ‘a *- ig te“:F}ss,bet | 'Mf)

: “~ | : \ : a A .

| Og ae ~*~ yo y= . = . ss oO 5 ee a : wy (TA wis ‘ .~aN a. \"|*-Sears .a". zo5 - z id~~: wy ce%ss32° i»\“ee :> - .Y .| .) aJ ax: }a., «Se / . ~. 7>" : ?x» os

Ba ;ae . ft ey OS ~ “P “eo Ee , me a | SN is. Oe 3 5nD a ee

: 2 4 : eo ; : ~~ J A? . \ ‘ =" ie > Pee J /N hg Sf y ; Re ‘ te * ~ a tm , Mis ? ) . < : a a : : A Bs Sd oe” aX, —en :=Oe pn ~ it Sula a; .»“we ee Ph3BS :~‘ e.¥PS oeDe, —. 44-i5 72° . -_ ‘»an\y ' : ha , ’ ~ ow ° . P's . Tr, ¥ . . ' j \ P ~ ~~ j Bete arias . % ~ 3 is wes 7 4 e - ae ‘ Ses re 7 . ‘ z ¥ = 3 a 7 be’ : >, . 7 . ¢ : ». sPe > ‘¢ oF a | *’ S, Fs , a a pa 4 ». dFF, akL: \‘‘ ;a! . 4-62 ;a=> . a“ey kei “% + .= ;— ee

: Sy te 4. 7?2Pie “Sa ‘ " 4 : aad F-}& V4 i a A iVase A2,; .‘‘ »: *- e‘. :? ~~ ay

: ee WR ix a %. i Rs | Fees — S) ‘ AX a) : ~ & sé a & ars “S) UA 4

= e g 3 ik 2s + mee»o a . . —© ) ‘ Fn map £ne le “ft ¥ iy le ' ot oe , te py pf i aa | _ A a 4 : > \ '

“a9 Soe G | gy Ka “4 _ AY vy s ‘ ; t ab ~—EN ty: ‘ ; iy ” , J . 4: api ‘q iF . :mS » | —— — «sd*)FoYQ . ¢¥ WA b | ‘j a’ ,,ier mee? \ a tf :4,?

:Seete. 7 2 3 , so , aches . ras i = 7 ae

a } Iti‘ |: }rc: sy :¥. reeH ie - aa 5 y, ® ».™ a.= rl -ok os i my a r, : :¥: iy Pi : wee 3) a. ‘’ re? } QE 5 fF “|! “7 .be We q ; a,j ~y ~\ : _ ;3y~~ ao a a. :yN\ y os €. +e { _™~ re Me - ad < itMm,

f 7) i Leet hy | w) ie ” ie Ut ia NJ s : , eek iL e 5 . ‘ j Je wE ga : Rr “t " A? + Se : A = ® a’ 2 yan te “ | ™~ o ‘ : d bon 3 = : ae “ Ag se = 2 4; 1 4 _— i! \s ; > eet wa. *> &>.Re vNi7esise N *e x, fim = Pes oe ‘ . >~ we*m>- ¥>. . .~ -4

; ,* ‘ . =" : iB te 4/i.”,,3’ Yl da :Ps =e . t y . 7 > a~7,” = ' e | % +gar : "a.4a. -:>Py>,St “..esLi.75 -.a-™

~ ee a = : i.~e . . \ 4 \ Pay, ok iwe oe \ , f Bot.

“4: :ae )+an Tan Ryoe oa

a;4Pi3 37 7> aa Je ——_ = , As ie. 2 See } : a a “ 7 : 7 ay 4 ys. “sq “7aa 4¥ “a ce are ‘ d Fi 4 7 ‘, 7 . 4 , 4 *” ry & oS 8 »/ 4 f La Pye ea 4 . P; é oe M ey & i ; j \ Raa -2~«.é»34 i eh * v- ib: 5 Cty: yxj rte ae 4ee,ieg tos aSoot a° F4)% ioe} .Te¥ i. ~~" 4aml \ /i ;f4B ATe ‘ :| :ae ; ,Sree ” aeih ol Ye ? ’ ox Lew es tf | » tae * a | a : i, . f - 4 . ’ | s . Py « b, Pf j s . . < ‘ 9 f

“Se a gia a ae I Se “* ir “ Fs Py, ye *. e «as ,_ = 4 es , ry Ee “3 2BA fa es fe ; “| “ea»ro >. -' %, 4 dee ee a“ ;7s+ rh & aie * &, ee. Res a Pe “> vk; ae’ hh 0d eS 3 . , aes . ie 7 . re f * 4 ~ £4 J ms oe f . y ‘— . 4 , i a 2 « ae .P ae 5) a? ae ) : y ; i. 2 p t wa § . ; ¥ 4 ;:.’

‘;#j~*ow fe if t ° ;4 ijay:>. -PY ,. ‘oe ‘**— ‘3 a Z

;as,‘ag7,. *}° ua ‘ ‘ » ow ha \:

* : Be

? —_— hain, ad

BLANK PAGE

Ul

From the Mausoleum to the End of Paganism

FIGURES 50-155

, 2 Sa

~—s 7 cient alee ~ ots: — a = . . .ayés oe .oe ae a ,aa:nae anr 7H ote oP ,. +res os ~~ be GsH aby_. " OO s‘e27tySeay tyaa ae “ae oe :ee ; us :rt . PD , = ry : a ee 7 IbPY d ons . > . ‘a fae? ‘?la RR ihtenae Ae? _— .x’“! .>| —_ ter -—RAS : ~~." —_ gd -2° >‘v48) tid =1% : * -5ee’ -oy ““eet G ae * vy. «aa . :¥ i ¥ a ‘a i7'’5fy +: JesJagree * eae ce Pies 2 és Pp be;oe ee| x§a" 4 oy ’ .— * +3 ’=