Monumental Details, 155 found in Egypt. Nestor L'Hote thought that he recognised it in the entablature, under the architrave, of some paviHons figured in decorations at Tell-el-Amarna and at Abydos.^ He was certainly mistaken. The outline of the ornament to which he referred has a distant resemblance to the moulding in question, but the place which it occupies gives it an entirely different character ; it seems to be suspended in the air under the enta- blature. In other painted pavilions the same place is occupied by flowers, bunches of grapes, and fruits resembling dates or acorns, suspended in the same fashion.^ If such forms must be explained otherwise than by the mere fancy of the ornamentist, we should be inclined to see in them metal weights hung round the edges of the awnings, which supplied the place of a roof in many wooden pavilions. The same remarks may be applied to those objects, or rather appearances, to which the triglyphs of the Doric order have been referred. It is true that in the figured architecture of the bas- reliefs many of the architraves seem to show vertical incisions arranged in groups of three, each group being separated from the next by a square space which' recalls the Greek metope (Figs. 62-64). But sometimes these stripes follow each other at regular intervals, sometimes they are in pairs, and sometimes they are altogether absent, the architrave being either plain or decorated with figures and inscriptions. Where the stripes are present they represent sometimes applied ornaments, sometimes the ends of transverse joists appearing between the beams of the architrave. Similar ornaments surround the paintings in the tombs, and are to be found upon the articles of furniture, such as chairs, which form part of most Eg)-ptian museums. Neither these so-called triglyphs and metopes, which do slightly resemble the details so named of the Doric order, nor the egg moulding, which is a pure delusion, ever received that established form and elemental character which alone gives such things importance. Architecture — stone architecture — made no use of them, and the analoofies which some have endeavoured to establish are mis- leading. The apparent coincidence resulted from the nature of the material and from the limited number of combinations which it allowed. ^ Lettres, pp. 68, 1 1 7. - See the plate in Prisse entitled Details dc Colotmeitcs de Bois.
