images of kings, queens, and prominent subjects; and in such portraits
the observation of the living model, of the peculiarities of character
which lead to the differences of exterior appearance, would seem to be a
natural consequence. But as the individual disappeared in the mass of
the Egyptian people, so the appreciation of individuality was almost
wholly lacking in the Egyptian artist. Sculptors and painters worked
without the least desire for pre-eminence in ability and distinction,
without thought of perpetuating their names, and the work they produced
expressed these faults. As Brunn truly remarks, we can look upon whole
rows of Egyptian sculptures without a question ever arising in our minds
as to the authorship of this or that work, without observing that one is
superior to the others, or that any were much above manufactures. The
work became what the artist felt himself personally to be--a mere link
in a monotonous chain. The result of this is that the statues generally
represent an entirely abstract human being--not an absolute ideal, for
that can hardly be said to exist in any art, but a type of the Egyptian
race, well understood and unalterably repeated. As soon as the art had
to a certain degree mastered the normal appearance of the human body, it
contented itself therewith and came to a standstill. The peculiarities
in the living model or in the attributed characters of the deities were
rarely considered by the artist, who only distinguished by attributes
what should be otherwise expressed; he did not attempt to show the
effect of the mind upon the outer being, and thus to give to sculpture
its true importance.
[Illustration: Egyptian Profile. Fig. 28. Greek Profile.]
The description of single Egyptian works is consequently almost the same
as the consideration of the entire sculpture and painting of the
land--the more so as the artist not only employed generally one and the
same conventional figure, but in position and movement mainly alternated
between two types. The statues are, with a few exceptions, either
sitting or in an act between standing and stepping, which does not
appear to be an advance, because the feet are too near together; both
soles being flat upon the ground, the centre of gravity falls between
the two legs, almost more upon the one behind than upon the one before.
A figure seems to move only when the body, advanced before the centre of
its two supports, throws the greatest part of its weight upon the
forward leg, and thus relieves the hinder foot, which, with uplifted
heel, touches the ground with the toes, in readiness to be removed. Both
sitting and standing statues have the arms pressed closely to the
body--the former with bent elbows and hands resting flat upon the knees,
the latter with arms hanging straightly and stiffly, the hands holding
the so-called Nile key; or folded upon the breast, the hands grasping
attributes, crook and plough or whip. Individual action is in every case
excluded. If the formation of the body be more closely examined, the
following peculiarities are remarkable: The head, as the comparison of
it with a Greek type at _Fig._ 28. shows, deviates so greatly from the
normal oval that it could almost be drawn within a square, the principal
line of the face being about parallel to the back of the head, as is the
flat outline of the top of the skull to the line from the chin to the
neck. The general directions of the eye, the mouth, and the ear are not
perpendicular to the sides of the parallelogram, inclining too markedly
upward; the comparatively large ear is placed half as high again from
the throat as it should be. These deviations are in some measure
explained by the peculiarities of race characteristic of the Orientals,
and especially of the Egyptians--by the different formation of the skull
and position of the eye. The forehead is almost straight, being on a
line with the upper lip; and, as it recedes from the nose, does not
project at all. It is rendered still more unimportant by the curved
ridge of the brows lacking decision, and the eye itself wanting in
depth. The eye has remained in the rough condition of a primitive
imitation of nature--thick strips surround it in place of lids, and
continue, the upper overlapping the under, beyond its exterior angle
towards the ear. The gently curved, round, broad nose projects but
little over the upper lip, which, instead of preparing the close of the
oval towards the chin, is pushed forward like the lower lip, upward and
outward. The closed, sensually broad lips are sharply outlined. The
corners of the mouth, slightly drawn upward, give, with the similar
inclination of the angles of the eyes, a certain expression of smiling
sarcasm not intended by the designer, and consequently cold and stiff.
The chin is flat and pointed in profile, the line from it to the short
and thin neck almost straight.
Such is the type that was retained through thousands of years, so
unchangeably that even the sexes are scarcely to be distinguished by the
heads. Male figures often have a kind of chin beard, cut at right
angles, and bound on with ribbons which can sometimes be distinctly
traced. The heads, and through them the whole figures, are characterized
by head-dresses, referable to one fundamental form--the pshent, a high
cap like a tiara; but they have been so modified from their prototype
that the _Description de l’Égypte_, pl. 115, shows thirty distinct
varieties.
[Illustration: Fig. 29.--Husband and Wife. (Munich Glyptothek.)]
The deities are frequently recognizable by the heads of animals--of a
lion, ram, cow, ape, jackal, crocodile, hawk, or ibis, as the case may
be. The worship of nature, peculiar to Egypt, found a better expression
in these symbols than in the monotonous representations of man, in
marked contrast to the incorporation of Hellenic myths, where, in the
monstrous conjunction of human and animal forms, the human head was
rarely given up, it being more generally placed upon the body of an
animal.
The figure, as accepted by the Egyptian designer, was, to the smallest
details, drawn according to a network of lines. Diodorus states it to
have had 21¼ units in height, the unit being probably the length of the
nose. The shoulders are drawn upward, and, like the flat breast, are
broad; the hips, on the contrary, are narrow and weakly modelled: they
are girded with a cloth which appears carefully folded and adjusted,
but, with all its tightness, does not fit the forms of the body. When
upon sitting figures, this cloth often stands out as stiffly and
straightly as if carved of wood, giving no indication of the true nature
of its material. The lean arms are muscular, dry, and hard; the hands
are rendered clumsy by the equally thick and almost equally long
fingers. The legs are not powerful, and rather slim, indicating great
elasticity, and, like all other parts of the body, the ability to endure
great exertion. The knees are sharp and drawn with anatomical
understanding; the feet are narrow and long, as are also the toes,
which, lying in their entire length upon the ground, do not greatly
differ in dimensions and form. In female figures the breasts are fully
developed, the nipples being formed like a rosette; a closely fitting
gown reaches from the broad neck-ornament, common with both sexes, to
the ankles, but, being represented without reference to the material and
without the most necessary folds, appears so elastic that its existence
is only surely to be perceived at the borders.
[Illustration: Fig. 30.--The Schoolmaster of Boulac.]
The most ancient sculptures and the later works of Nubia are somewhat
heavy and full, those of the best period (the time of Ramses) more slim
and elastic. After the fifth century B.C. the figures become better
modelled, and a certain influence of Greek sculpture is betrayed. But
the ancient type remained in the chief characteristics unchanged until
the end of the Ptolemaic dynasties, and even to the later ages of the
Roman Empire. Those works of Greek and Roman sculptors, so popular
during the age of Hadrian, which borrowed the costume and position of
Egyptian statues while having nothing else in common with Egyptian art
(such, for instance, as the numerous figures of Antinous to be found in
almost all the larger museums), must not be classed with the truly
national works executed in Egypt and for that country.
The monotony of Egyptian sculpture was not without some exceptions. Less
pretentious works, where the necessity of canonic idealization seems not
to have been so imperative--as in the well-fed form of the so-called
schoolmaster in the museum of Boulac (_Fig._ 30.), which shows not only
in the head, but in the entire body, an undeniable portrait--make it
questionable whether the conventionalized representations may not be
more owing to the restraint of religious authority and tradition, to the
hieratic laws which exercised so complete a sway over the life of the
country in every respect, than to any absolute incapability of the
Egyptian artist for individual characterization.
[Illustration: Fig. 31.--Lion of Reddish Granite. (British Museum.)]
Egyptian sculpture, thus under the ban of religious conservatism, always
dealt more successfully with the forms of animals than with human beings
and deities. In hunting scenes there is wonderful spirit and character
in the drawing of the dogs, and of the animals which they attack. The
artist attained an elastic and life-like force in the representation of
all animal forms, even when these were compelled into monstrous
combinations with human members. The most common of the latter are the
androsphinxes, which differ from the Greek sphinx in being male--having
the head and breast of a man and the body of a crouching lion. At times
the human head is supplanted by that of a ram or hawk. Rams were also
treated as sphinxes, especially before the temples of Ammon and Kneph.
The most important androsphinx is the well-known colossus of Gizeh with
the head of Thothmes IV. The heads of the sphinxes seem usually to have
been portraits of kings. This gigantic guardian of the necropolis of
Memphis, the most enormous monumental figure of the world, with space
between the outstretched front legs for a chapel there built, is now
again buried to the neck by the shifting sand of the pyramid plateau
after having been excavated with great labor. Its face alone is 12.2 m.
long. But it is in cases where the entire lion is represented without
deformation that Egyptian sculpture attains its greatest perfection.
(_Fig._ 31.)
A great majority of the Egyptian works of sculpture were cut with
marvellous patience in the hardest materials, in variously colored
granite, diorite, syenite, and basalt. Limestone and alabaster were
rarely employed for colossal or life-size statues, but were used more
frequently for works of smaller dimensions; these were also burned in
clay with a surface of blue or green glazing, or were cut in more
valuable stones, such as agate, jasper, carnelian, and lapis-lazuli.
Enamelled clay idols were manufactured in great numbers; modern museums
contain hundreds of these little figures of perfectly similar form. The
so-called scarabæus is also very common--beetle-shaped bodies of clay,
or of the above-named stones--with incised figures or hieroglyphics upon
their lower surface. Such amulets were perforated and worn as beads, and
were placed loosely in the coffins with the mummies.
The artistic manufacture of colored glass was extensive. Fine metal-work
was less common, although ornaments of enamelled gold, silver, and
copper of high artistic value have occasionally been found. Wood-carving
was practised upon the mummy-coffins. Although the valley of the Nile
did not produce large pieces of a satisfactory material, this lack was
supplied by gluing together layers of palm or sycamore wood, and hiding
the defects of this process by a painted priming of stucco. The coffins
themselves are in so far works of sculpture as they represent upon the
cover the form of the swathed body placed within them, and even show the
face as exposed.
The sculpture of reliefs was less developed and less correct than of
the round. As the relief was always very low, and could not express the
greater projections, the artist’s desire to represent the human body
clearly and completely led to an unfortunate conflict between the
profile and front view of the figure. While mostly drawn in profile, and
showing particularly the head and legs in side view, which is the more
favorable for representation in low-relief, the shoulders and breast are
developed in the other direction, and are seen as from in front. It is
only in this position that both arms are visible--an important
consideration to the artist, whose object was solely to represent some
action or attributes. It was also felt as a difficulty that in a relief
of the side view the visible shoulder should project farther than any
other part of the body, the breadth of the breast and arms being more
than double that of the head. The primitive designer, to avoid these
objections, resorted to a forced and clumsy torsion of the body, which
may be noticed in the childhood of almost every art--in the Assyrian as
well as in the most ancient Greek. The head, with exception of the eye,
which was represented as in front, was taken in profile; shoulders and
breast from in front, but arms and hands, as well as hips, legs, and
feet, in profile again. The lower the relief, the less could the surface
be modelled, and this led to a sharp demarcation of the outline, which
exaggerated the peculiar leanness of the Egyptian race to a hard
angularity.
[Illustration: Fig. 32.--Sculptural Work. Egyptian Wall-painting.]
The relief is a transitional stage between sculpture and painting; it
works upon a more or less flat surface, seeks its chief effect in
outline, and lends itself readily to the heightening of color. The most
common Egyptian relief, which has been termed coilanaglyphic, being
hollowed out, stands even nearer to painting than to sculpture. In real
reliefs the surface is so cut away as to leave the figures embossed; but
here the forms do not rise above the background, and the original plane
remains untouched: the sculptor contented himself with firmly incising
the outlines, and slightly rounding the forms of the body within them.
This incised outline is clearly seen only by sharp side light, but it
has the advantage of protecting the borders of the figures and thus
securing the indestructibility of the representation. In other respects
the coilanaglyphics are nothing else than paintings, the space within
the carved outlines being colored in the same manner as are all Egyptian
wall decorations. The limits of the latter art were thus greatly
extended, for all temples were covered with such colored
coilanaglyphics, while the stuccoed sides of rock-cut tombs and of brick
masonry were richly ornamented by paintings.
[Illustration: Fig. 33.--Lance-maker. Egyptian Wall-painting.]
The number of ancient painted decorations which have been preserved is
very great, notwithstanding their age and the perishable nature of all
pigments exposed to air and light. The subjects represented and often
repeated are, for the greater part, religious scenes, which share the
monotony of the strict Egyptian ritual, though often allowing an
interesting insight into the customs of interment, the transport of
mummies by the processional boat, the sacred dances and sacrifices.
Representations of profane scenes are more varied and are exceedingly
interesting; the technicalities of Egyptian art are shown by the cutting
of a monolithic palm-column, the polishing of a granite chapel, the
painting of walls, the writing of hieroglyphics upon tablets and
papyrus, the carving and painting of sphinxes and statues (_Fig._ 32.),
the transport of a colossal figure upon a sledge (_Fig._ 7.), the making
of bricks and walling of brick masonry, the interior of houses (_Fig._
26.), even the plans of dwellings and gardens. Besides numerous tools
and the products of manufacturing trades, there may be recognized upon
these paintings weavers, rope-makers, the preparers of paper and of
linen cloth, ship-builders, carpenters with hand-saw and auger, and the
cutters of bows and lances (_Fig._ 33.), who employ adzes quite similar
to those still in use. Commerce on land and sea is represented by wares,
unpacked or in bales, by scales, various kinds of wagons and trading
vessels, etc., all shown in the clearest manner possible. Ploughs,
sowing and harvesting, the gathering of figs and grapes, the pressing of
oil and wine, illustrate the condition of agriculture; while the
especial ability of the Egyptians for animal representations is
exercised in the hunting scenes of lions, tigers, buffaloes, jackals,
and gazelles; by the snaring of birds and fishes in nets, as well as by
the admirably characterized figures of apes, porcupines, etc. There are
also historical paintings, great battle scenes, the storming of cities,
and the triumph of the returning victors, who bring with them booty and
prisoners, the nationality of whom is often readily distinguishable by
peculiarities of physiognomy and costume. (_Fig._ 34.) The Egyptian
kings appear of superhuman size, either fighting from splendid
war-chariots, or striding forward to sacrifice their kneeling enemies, a
dozen of whom, seized at once by the hair, are decapitated at a blow.
[Illustration: Fig. 34.--Prisoners of Different Nationalities. Egyptian
Wall-painting.]
Extended and varied as these Egyptian representations were, and
instructive as that which through their agency has been preserved now
is, it yet must be confessed that the painting was more a conventional
picture-writing than an art. The seven colors used--red, blue, brown,
yellow, green, black, and white--are, as a rule, applied simply, without
mixture or variation, and without much reference to the appearance of
nature. At least, it is very rarely that any striving after natural
effect is to be noticed; that, for instance, the skin of a negress
appears bluish-gray through a partially transparent white drapery, or
that the typical red-brown complexion of an Egyptian, under similar
conditions, is of a broken yellow. Within the sharply drawn outlines the
colors are flat and without any modification by light and shade, upon
the changing effects of which all pictorial illusion is based. This
illusion is the fundamental principle of painting, the aim of which is
to render the appearance of objects. It being here entirely lacking, we
cannot properly speak of an art of painting in Egypt, or, indeed, in
antiquity at all, before the time of Polygnotos. Egyptian paintings are
entirely of the nature of ornament; the representation of human beings
is conventionalized in the same manner as are floral ornaments,--while
imitated to a certain degree from nature, it is simplified according to
the requirements of decorative laws. The actions shown are all without
truth and life. The beauty of decoration demands a certain harmony in
the choice of colors, which is there unfettered; in Egyptian paintings
this is sought and attained at the cost of truth to nature. It was not
distasteful to the Egyptian to see the same figure repeated a dozen
times in absolute similarity, for an ornament can always bear
repetition.
To these considerations must be added a marked peculiarity of Egyptian
painting. Although the art had been restricted to the portrayal of
merely exterior actions, even this end could hardly have been attained
without the complement of a written explanation, which was here so
adjoined as to harmonize with the figures in composition and even in
color. This conjunction is far more intimate than is that of picture and
text in an illustrated chronicle: the hieroglyphic writing and the
painting are closely allied in character. It was only a step from the
one to the other, and their limits are sometimes hardly distinguishable,
especially in the stucco paintings of the mummy-coffins and the pen and
brush drawings upon papyrus manuscripts, where the carelessness of the
execution increases the similarity. The hieroglyphic inscriptions might
even be considered as the extreme consequence of the hieratically
conventionalized pictures.
The painting of Egypt existed unchanged for a period of more than two
thousand years, with a stability unequalled in the other civilizations
of the world. It was perhaps not quite so extensively employed in the
ancient kingdom as in later times: paintings can be dated as far back as
the third dynasty (3338 to 3124 B.C., according to Lepsius), but they
were restricted to interior decoration. The walls of the pyramids were
unadorned by color. After the practice of art had been greatly limited
by the invasion of the Hycsos (from the thirteenth to the seventeenth
dynasty, 2136 to 1591 B.C.), it arose with new vigor at the advent of
the modern kingdom, especially during the eighteenth and nineteenth
dynasties, when the architecture which flourished at Thebes offered a
wide field for painted decorations. From that time the walls lost their
bareness, and richly colored ornaments were employed even upon the
exterior, enlivening the dead and heavy character of Egyptian building
and somewhat supplying the deficiency of its exterior development.
The art of Egypt attained its greatest elaboration--not, indeed, without
some loss of national character--in the time of Alexander and the
Ptolemies (332 to 30 B.C.), when Hellenic influence broke through the
sombre massiveness of the unmembered walls and applied the brilliant
decoration of colored columns to the exterior.
But, delightful as the island of Philæ appears because of these changes,
it yet marks the commencing decline of Egyptian art, with the negation
of the serious and mystical peculiarities of the land. The excellence of
Egyptian technical processes could only delay the utter exhaustion and
extinction of their art until the time of the later Roman empire.
[Illustration: Fig. 35.--Assyrian Shrines. Relief from Corsabad.]
CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.
The traditional culture of the land of the Euphrates and Tigris is not
younger than that of the Nile. Though the third dynasty (commencing,
according to Berosos, with the twenty-third century B.C.) is the first
of which we have monumental remains, it cannot be denied that long
before that time an important people had inhabited the country, a nation
very different from the nomadic hordes which then, as to-day, roved
through the neighboring deserts. Several races of antiquity were
conscious that the most primitive people of civilization had lived in
the land of the two streams. The Jews considered that to have been their
original home. The Patriarch Abraham had emigrated from Chaldæan Ur to
Canaan. The Greek legend of Deucalion points to the history of
Mesopotamia in the same manner as does the Jewish myth of the Deluge;
the oldest Greek knowledge of astronomy, astrology, and the calculation
of time seems to have been derived from the same source. The tale of the
division of the nations in Babel, and their spreading over the face of
the earth from that point, is certainly based upon the existence of a
most ancient centre of civilization upon the banks of the Euphrates.
[Illustration: Fig. 36.--Temple of Mugheir (Ur).]