The ancient writers often mention and praise the Assyrian tissues for
the art employed in their manufacture; for the splendour and harmony of
their colours, and the richness of the fanciful compositions with which
they were embroidered. The mystical figures of bucentaurs, lions,
dragons, unicorns, and other monsters, which the authors describe, are
absolutely identical with those which we see on the bas-reliefs of
Nimroud and Khorsabad. But this identity was not in the subjects alone.
There is no doubt that the manner of treatment, the _style_ of these
subjects, was identical with that of the objects embroidered on the
tissues, which ancient authors have described.
On examining somewhat attentively the Assyrian sculptures, it is easy to
satisfy oneself that the art of the Assyrian sculptor moved within
limits traceable from its origin, viz., embroidered work, allowance
being made for certain alterations of style, caused by the requirements
of a new material.
One perceives in these Assyrian sculptures, the desire on the artist’s
part of an attention to the truth of Nature, but that he has been
hindered in his task, not—as with the Egyptians—by a regular
hieroglyphic system and hieratical laws, but rather by the caprices of a
method difficult, and indeed foreign to sculpture, the influence of
which was still strongly felt. Thus the sculpture of this people kept
itself within the bounds of a very low and flat relief, exactly similar
to that of some productions of Chinese woven work, seen in the Great
Exhibition of 1851, which possessed peculiar interest in the history of
Art, inasmuch as they exhibited the transition of the high woof into
polychromic bas-relief.
The Assyrian figures, without being embalmed mummies like those of
Egypt, show, nevertheless, much stiffness and irregularity; they appear
as it were imprisoned and confined within an invisible canvas. Their
contours are, so to speak, tacked in with threads. One recognises in
them an awkwardness and hardness arising from the contest of the artist
with a material foreign to the style: whilst the Egyptian bas-reliefs
evince an original, canonical, and voluntary stiffness. I am tempted to
believe that all those slabs of alabaster from Assyria, with their
religious, warlike, and domestic scenes, are nothing more than exact
copies in stone, after originals in tissues, at that time celebrated and
executed by good native artists, who worked on that material only,
whilst they employed mere workmen to transfer the originals on to stone,
as well as the material would allow, which explains the difference
between the design and execution which these works betray. This same
character is also found on the Assyrian paintings.
It is not to be doubted that the true tapestries were employed with
profusion, side by side with the stereotyped copies: and probably these
last were often covered with the originals, on the occasion of solemn
ceremonies, &c., and that they were only exposed during the intervals
between the _fêtes_, &c. We observe the same thing at this day in the
Catholic churches, where this ancient custom, with many others, is
strictly preserved. The inscriptions and their application in bands,
indicate the same origin. Does it not appear as if the cuneiform
characters were invented and designed for execution in needlework? In
fine, the simplicity of the system of paving of the rooms, otherwise so
richly ornamented, goes to prove that they were originally covered with
tapestry. It is only the slabs which form the cills of the doors on
which tapestry could not be placed, which indeed form an exception,
being ornamented with engraved work, in imitation of tapestry. (_See_
Layard.) It is thus that these last became also the types of parquetry
work in mosaic.
Up to the present point, we have only considered what relates to the
representations found on the Assyrian slabs. But these, in themselves,
give us still more cause for reflection, and singularly justify our
assertion of the importance, in an architectural point of view, of the
coverings of walls.
The principle of panelling constructed work shows itself here in all its
primitive simplicity. We know that almost all the lower portions of
walls, within and without, were covered with thin slabs of alabaster or
basalt. The same principle under another form, obtained in the upper
portions of the walls; here, the walls of unbaked brick were inlaid with
glazed bricks; but the plan pursued by the Assyrians in executing this
incrustation differs greatly from that which we observe elsewhere, and
from what we pursue at the present day.
The Assyrian bricks are only glazed on the external side, and the
ornaments and other subjects which were figured on them in the glazing,
bear no relation to the construction, so that the ornamental lines cross
the joints of the bricks irregularly.
The enamel is very fusible and the bricks but slightly burnt, evidently
with the sole intention of fixing the glazing on them, which induces me
to conjecture, that the use of glazed pottery preceded and prepared the
way for that of baked bricks, and that the art of pottery was already
far advanced before the introduction of burnt brick work. Other
indications which would take too long to specify here, have proved to
me, that the bricks received their coating placed in a horizontal
position: First, they were ranged in the order which they would take
when in their place, they then traced the design formed on this
arrangement of unburnt bricks; next, they covered with these painted
bricks—observing still the same order—the interior of the room; and
lastly, they placed a fire in the room to fix the varnish which covered
the walls.[8]
Footnote 8:
The same method is to be found in some old buildings in Scotland.
It results, from what I have observed, that the decoration of the wall
did not depend upon the construction of the same, even when baked and
glazed bricks were employed.
The _constructive system_—after the manner of mosaic—_of decoration in
enamelled bricks is a later invention_, probably a Roman one. The
enamelled Assyrian bricks, should be regarded as a mural incrustation,
as a covering absolutely independent of the wall itself, and even of the
terra-cotta slab or tile, on which it was directly fixed.