Recent discoveries of Phoenician artistic remains--
Phoenician sculpture--Statues and busts--Animal forms--Bas-
reliefs--Hercules and Geryon--Scenes on sarcophagi--
Phoenicians metal castings--Jachin and Boaz--Solomon’s
“Molten Sea”--Solomon’s lavers--Statuettes in bronze--
Embossed work upon cups and pateræ--Cup of Præneste--
Intaglios on cylinders and gems--Phoenician painting--Tinted
statues--Paintings on terra-cotta and clay.
Phoenician æsthetic art embraced sculpture, metal-casting, intaglio,
and painting to a small extent. Situated as the Phoenicians were, in
the immediate neighbourhood of nations which had practised from a remote
antiquity the imitation of natural forms, and brought into contact by
their commercial transactions with others, with whom art of every kind
was in the highest esteem--adroit moreover with their hands, clever,
active, and above all else practical--it was scarcely possible that they
should not, at an early period in their existence as a nation, interest
themselves in what they found so widely appreciated, and become
themselves ambitious of producing such works as they saw everywhere
produced, admired, and valued. The mere commercial instinct would lead
them to supply a class of goods which commanded a high price in the
world’s markets; while it is not to be supposed that they were, any more
than other nations, devoid of those æsthetic propensities which find a
vent in what are commonly called the “fine arts,” or less susceptible
of that natural pleasure which successful imitation evokes from all
who find themselves capable of it. Thus, we might have always
safely concluded, even without any material evidence of it, that the
Phoenicians had an art of their own, either original or borrowed; but
we are now able to do more than this. Recent researches in Phoenicia
Proper, in Cyprus, in Sardina, and elsewhere, have recovered such a mass
of Phoenician artistic remains, that it is possible to form a tolerably
complete idea of the character of their æsthetic art, of its methods,
its aims, and its value.
Phoenician sculpture, even at its best, is somewhat rude. The country
possesses no marble, and has not even any stone of a fine grain. The
cretaceous limestone, which is the principal geological formation, is
for the most part so pierced with small holes and so thickly sown with
fossil shells as to be quite unsuited for the chisel; and even the
better blocks, which the native sculptors were careful to choose,
are not free from these defects, and in no case offer a grain that
is satisfactory. To meet these difficulties, the Phoenician sculptor
occasionally imported his blocks either from Egypt or from the
volcanic regions of Taurus and Amanus;[71] but it was not until he had
transported himself to Cyprus, and found there an abundance of a soft,
but fairly smooth, compact, and homogeneous limestone, that he worked
freely, and produced either statues or bas-reliefs in any considerable
number.[72] The Cyprian limestone is very easy to work. “It is a whitish
stone when it comes out of the quarry, but by continued exposure to the
air the tone becomes a greyish yellow, which, though a little dull, is
not disagreeable to the eye. The nail can make an impression on it,
and it is worked by the chisel much more easily and more rapidly than
marble. But it is in the plastic arts as in literature and poetry--what
costs but little trouble has small chance of enduring. The Cyprian
limestone is too soft to furnish the effects and the contrasts which
marble offers, so to speak, spontaneously; it is incapable of receiving
the charming polish which makes so strong an opposition to the dark
shadows of the parts where the chisel has scooped deep. The chisel,
whatever efforts it may make and however laboriously it may be applied,
cannot impress on such material the strong and bold touches which
indicate the osseous structure, and make the muscles and the veins show
themselves under the epidermis in Greek statuary. The sculptor’s work
is apt to be at once finikin and lax; it wants breadth, and it wants
decision. Moreover, the material, having little power of resistance,
retains but ill what the chisel once impressed; the more delicate
markings and the more lifelike touches that it once received, it loses
easily through friction or exposure to rough weather. A certain number
of the sculptured figures found by M. Di Cesnola at Athiénau were
discovered under conditions that were quite peculiar, having passed from
the shelter of a covered chamber to that of a protecting bed of dust,
which had hardened and adhered to their surfaces; and these figures
had preserved an unusual freshness, and seem as if just chiselled; but,
saving these exceptions, the Cypriot figures have their angles rounded,
and their projections softened down. It is like a page of writing, where
the ink, before it had time to dry, preserving its sharpness of tone,
has been absorbed by the blotting paper and has left only pale and
feeble traces.”[73]
Another striking defect in the Phoenician, or at any rate in the
Cyprio-Phoenician, sculpture, and one that cannot be excused on account
of any inherent weakness in the material, is the thinness and flatness
of the greater part of the figures. The sculptor seems to have been
furnished by the stonecutter, not so much with solid blocks of stone, as
with tolerably thick slabs.[74] These he fashioned carefully in front,
and produced statues, which, viewed in front, are lifelike and fairly
satisfactory. But to the sides and back of the slab he paid little
attention, not intending that his work should be looked at from all
quarters, but that the spectator should directly face it. The statues
were made to stand against walls,[75] or in niches, or back to back, the
heels and backs touching;[76] they were not, properly speaking, works
_in the round_, but rather _alti relievi_ a little exaggerated, not
actually part of the wall, but laid closely against it. A striking
example of this kind of work may be seen in a figure now at New York,
which appears to represent a priest, whereof a front view is given by Di
Cesnola in his “Cyprus,” and a side view by Perrot and Chipiez in their
“History of Ancient Art.” The head and neck are in good proportion, but
the rest of the figure is altogether unduly thin, while for some space
above the feet it is almost literally a slab, scarcely fashioned at all.
This fault is less pronounced in some statues than in others, and from
a certain number of the statuettes is wholly absent. This is notably the
case in a figure found at Golgi, which represents a female arrayed in a
long robe, the ample folds of which she holds back with one hand, while
the other hand is advanced, and seems to have held a lotus flower.
Three graceful tresses fall on either side of the neck, round which is a
string of beads or pearls, with an amulet as pendant; while a long veil,
surmounted by a diadem, hangs from the back of the head. This statue is
in no respect narrow or flat, as may be seen especially from the side
view given by Di Cesnola;[77] but it is short and inelegant, though not
wanting in dignity; and it is disfigured by sandalled feet of a very
disproportionate size, which stand out offensively in front. The
figure has been viewed as a representation of the goddess Astarte or
Ashtoreth;[78] but the identification can scarcely be regarded as more
than a reasonable conjecture.
The general defects of Phoenician statuary, besides want of finish and
flatness, are a stiff and conventional treatment, recalling the art of
Egypt and Assyria, a want of variety, and a want of life. Most of the
figures stand evenly on the two feet, and have the arms pendant at the
two sides, with the head set evenly, neither looking to the right nor
to the left, while even the arrangement of the drapery is one of great
uniformity. In the points where there is any variety, the variety
is confined within very narrow limits. One foot may be a little
advanced;[79] one arm may be placed across the breast, either as
confined by the robe,[710] or as holding something, e.g. a bird or
a flower.[711] In female figures both arms may be laid along the
thighs,[712] or both be bent across the bosom, with the hands clasping
the breasts,[713] or one hand may be so placed, and the other depend
in front.[714] The hair and beard are mostly arranged with the utmost
regularity in crisp curls, resembling the Assyrian; where tresses
are worn, they are made to hang, whatever their number, with exact
uniformity on either side.[715] Armlets and bracelets appear always in
pairs, and are exactly similar; the two sides of a costume correspond
perfectly; and in the groups the figures have, as nearly as possible,
the same attitude.
Repose is no doubt the condition of human existence which statuary most
easily and most naturally expresses; and few things are more obnoxious
to a refined taste than that sculpture which, like that of Roubiliac,
affects movement, fidget, flutter, and unquiet. But in the Phoenician
sculpture the repose is overdone; except in the expression of faces,
there is scarcely any life at all. The figures do nothing; they simply
stand to be looked at. And they stand stiffly, sometimes even awkwardly,
rarely with anything like elegance or grace. The heads, indeed, have
life and vigour, especially after the artists have become acquainted
with Greek models;[716] but they are frequently too large for the bodies
whereto they are attached, and the face is apt to wear a smirk that is
exceedingly disagreeable. This is most noticeable in the Cypriot series,
as will appear by the accompanying representations; but it is not
confined to them, since it reappears in the bronzes found in Phoenicia
Proper.
Phoenician statues are almost always more or less draped. Sometimes
nothing is worn besides the short tunic, or _shenti_, of the Egyptians,
which begins below the navel and terminates at the knee.[717] Sometimes
there is added to this a close-fitting shirt, like a modern “jersey,”
which has short sleeves and clings to the figure, so that it requires
careful observation to distinguish between a statue thus draped and
one which has the _shenti_ only.[718] But there are also a number of
examples where the entire figure is clothed from the head to the ankles,
and nothing is left bare but the face, the hands, and the feet. A cap,
something like a Phrygian bonnet, covers the head; a long-sleeved robe
reaches from the neck to the ankles, or sometimes rests upon the feet;
and above this is a mantle or scarf thrown over the left shoulder,
and hanging down nearly to the knees. Ultimately a drapery greatly
resembling that of the Greeks seems to have been introduced; a long
cloak, or _chlamys_, is worn, which falls into numerous folds, and
is disposed about the person according to the taste and fancy of the
wearer, but so as to leave the right arm free.[719] Statues of this
class are scarcely distinguishable from Greek statues of a moderately
good type.
Phoenician sculptors _in the round_ did not very often indulge in
the representation of animal forms. The lion, however, was sometimes
chiselled in stone, either partially, as in a block of stone found by
M. Renan at Um-el-Awamid, or completely, as in a statuette brought by
General Di Cesnola from Cyprus. The representations hitherto discovered
have not very much merit. We may gather from them that the sculptors
were unacquainted with the animal itself, had never seen the king of
beasts sleeping in the shade or stretching himself and yawning as
he awoke, or walking along with a haughty and majestic slowness, or
springing with one bound upon his prey, but had simply studied without
much attention or interest the types furnished them by Egyptian
or Assyrian artists, who were familiar with the beast himself. The
representations are consequently in every case feeble and conventional;
in some they verge on the ridiculous. What, for instance, can be weaker
than the figure above given from the great work of Perrot and Chipiez,
with its good-humoured face, its tongue hanging out of its mouth, its
tottering forelegs, and its general air of imbecility? The lioness’
head represented in the same work is better, but still leaves much to be
desired, falling, as it does, very far behind the best Assyrian models.
Nor were the sculptors much more successful in their mode of expressing
animals with whose forms they were perfectly well acquainted. The sheep
carried on the back of a shepherd, brought from Cyprus and now in the
museum of New York, is a very ill-shaped sheep, and the doves so often
represented are very poor doves.[720] They are just recognisable, and
that is the most that can be said for them. A dog in stone,[721] found
at Athiénau, is somewhat better, equally the dogs of the Egyptians and
Assyrians. On the other hand, the only fully modelled horses that have
been found are utterly childish and absurd.[722]
The reliefs of the Phoenicians are very superior to their statues. They
vary in their character from almost the lowest kind of relief to the
highest. On dresses, on shields, on slabs, and on some sarcophagi it
is much higher than is usual even in Greece. A bas-relief of peculiar
interest was discovered at Athiénau by General Di Cesnola, and has been
represented both by him and by the Italian traveller Ceccaldi.[723] It
represents Hercules capturing the cattle of Geryon from the herdsman
Eurytion, and gives us reason to believe that that myth was a native
Phoenician legend adopted by the Greeks, and not a Hellenic one imported
into Phoenicia. The general character of the sculpture is archaic and
Assyrian; nor is there a trace of Greek influence about it. Hercules,
standing on an elevated block of stone at the extreme left, threatens
the herdsman, who responds by turning towards him, and making a menacing
gesture with his right hand, while in his left, instead of a club, he
carries an entire tree. His hair and beard are curled in the Assyrian
fashion, while his figure, though short, is strong and muscular. In
front of him are his cattle, mixed up in a confused and tangled mass,
some young, but most of them full grown, and amounting to the number
of seventeen. They are in various attitudes, and are drawn with much
spirit, recalling groups of cattle in the sculptures of Assyria and
Egypt, but surpassing any such group in the vigour of their life and
movement. Above, in an upper field or plain, divided from the under one
by a horizontal line, is the triple-headed dog, Orthros, running full
speed towards Hercules, and scarcely checked by the arrow which has met
him in mid career, and entered his neck at the point of junction between
the second and the third head.[724] The bas-relief is three feet two
inches in length, and just a little short of two feet in height. It
served to ornament a huge block of stone which formed the pedestal of a
colossal statue of Hercules, eight feet nine inches high.[725]
A sarcophagus, on which the relief is low, has been described and
figured by Di Cesnola,[726] who discovered it in the same locality as
the sculpture which has just engaged our attention. The sarcophagus,
which had a lid guarded by lions at the four corners, was ornamented
at both ends and along both sides by reliefs. The four scenes depicted
appear to be distinct and separate. At one end Perseus, having cut off
Medusa’s head and placed it in his wallet, which he carries behind him
by means of a stick passed over his shoulder, departs homewards followed
by his dog. Medusa’s body, though sunk upon one knee, is still upright,
and from the bleeding neck there spring the forms of Chrysaor and
Pegasus. At the opposite end of the tomb is a biga drawn by two horses,
and containing two persons, the charioteer and the owner, who is
represented as bearded, and rests his hand upon the chariot-rim. The
horse on the right hand, which can alone be distinctly seen, is well
proportioned and spirited. He is impatient and is held in by the driver,
and prevented from proceeding at more than a foot’s pace. On the longer
sides are a hunting scene, and a banqueting scene. In a wooded country,
indicated by three tall trees, a party, consisting of five individuals,
engages in the pleasures of the chase. Four of the five are accoutred
like Greek soldiers; they wear crested helmets, cuirasses, belts, and
a short tunic ending in a fringe: the arms which they carry are a spear
and a round buckler or shield. The fifth person is an archer, and has a
lighter equipment; he wears a cloth about his loins, a short tunic, and
a round cap on his head. The design forms itself into two groups. On the
right two of the spearmen are engaged with a wild boar, which they are
wounding with their lances; on the left the two other spearmen and the
archer are attacking a wild bull. In the middle a cock separates the two
groups, while at the two extremities two animal forms, a horse grazing
and a dog trying to make out a scent, balance each other. The fourth
side of the sarcophagus presents us with a banqueting scene. On four
couches, much like the Assyrian,[727] are arranged the banqueters. At
the extreme right the couch is occupied by a single person, who has a
long beard and extends a wine-cup towards an attendant, a naked youth,
who is advancing towards him with a wine-jug in one hand, and a ladle or
strainer in the other. The three other couches are occupied respectively
by three couples, each comprising a male and a female. The male figure
reclines in the usual attitude, half sitting and half lying, with the
left arm supported on two pillows;[728] the female sits on the edge of
the couch, with her feet upon a footstool. The males hold wine-cups; of
the females, one plays upon the lyre, while the two others fondle with
one hand their lover or husband. A fourth female figure, erect in the
middle between the second and third couches, plays the double flute for
the delectation of the entire party. All the figures, except the boy
attendant, are decently draped, in robes with many folds, resembling
the Greek. At the side of each couch is a table, on which are spread
refreshments, while at the extreme left is a large bowl or amphora, from
which the wine-cups may be replenished. This is placed under the
shade of a tree, which tells us that the festivity takes place in a
garden.[729]
No one can fail to see, in this entire series of sculptures, the
dominant influence of Greece. While the form of the tomb, and the lions
that ornament the covering, are unmistakably Cyprio-Phoenician, the
reliefs contain scarcely a feature which is even Oriental; all has
markedly the colouring and the physiognomy of Hellenism. Yet Cyprian
artists probably executed the work. There are little departures
from Greek models, which indicate the “barbarian” workman, as the
introduction of trees in the backgrounds, the shape of the furniture,
the recurved wings of the Gorgon, and the idea of hunting the wild bull.
But the figures, the proportions, the draperies, the attitudes, the
chariot, the horse, are almost pure Greek. There is a grace and ease
in the modelling, an elegance, a variety, to which Asiatic art, left to
itself, never attained. The style, however, is not that of Greece at
its best, but of archaic Greece. There is something too much of exact
symmetry, both in the disposition of the groups and in the arrangement
of the accessories; nay, even the very folds of the garments are
over-stiff and regular. All is drawn in exact profile; and in the
composition there is too much of balance and correspondence. Still,
a new life shows itself through the scenes. There is variety in
the movements; there is grace and suppleness in the forms; there is
lightness in the outline, vigour in the attitudes, and beauty spread
over the whole work. It cannot be assigned an earlier date than the
fifth century B.C., and is most probably later,[730] since it took time
for improved style to travel from the head-centres of Greek art to the
remoter provinces, and still more time for it to percolate through the
different layers of Greek society until it reached the stratum of native
Cyprian artistic culture.
We may contrast with the refined work of the Athiénau sarcophagus the
far ruder, but more genuinely native, designs of a tomb of the same kind
found on the site of Amathus.[731] On this sarcophagus, the edges of
which are most richly adorned with patterning, there are, as upon the
other, four reliefs, two of them occupying the sides and two the ends.
Those at the ends are curious, but have little artistic merit. They
consist, in each case, of a caryatid figure four times repeated,
representations, respectively, of Astarté and of a pygmy god, who,
according to some, is Bes, and, according to others, Melkarth or
Esmun.[732] The figures of Astarté are rude, as are generally her
statues.[733] They have the hair arranged in three rows of crisp curls,
the arms bent, and the hands supporting the breasts. The only ornament
worn by them is a double necklace of pearls or round beads. The
representations of the pygmy god have more interest. They remind us of
what Herodotus affirms concerning the Phoenician _pataikoi_, which were
used for the figure-heads of ships,[734] and which he compares to the
Egyptian images of Phthah, or Ptah, the god of creation. They are ugly
dwarf figures, with a large misshapen head, a bushy beard, short arms,
fat bodies, a short striped tunic, and thick clumsy legs. Only one of
the four figures is at present complete, the sarcophagus having been
entered by breaking a hole into it at this end.
The work at the sides is much superior to that at the ends. The two
panels represent, apparently, a single scene. The scene is a procession,
but whether funeral or military it is hard to decide.[735] First come
two riders on horseback, wearing conical caps and close-fitting jerkins;
they are seated on a species of saddle, which is kept in place by a
board girth passing round the horse’s belly, and by straps attached in
front. The two cavaliers are followed by four _bigæ_. The first contains
the principal personages of the composition, who sits back in his car,
and shades himself with a parasol, the mark of high rank in the East,
while his charioteer sits in front of him and holds the reins. The
second car has three occupants; the third two; and the fourth also two,
one of whom leans back and converses with the footmen, who close the
procession. These form a group of three, and seem to be soldiers, since
they bear shield and spear; but their costume, a loose robe wrapped
round the form, is rather that of civilians. The horses are lightly
caparisoned, with little more than a head-stall and a collar; but they
carry on their heads a conspicuous fan-like crest.[736] MM. Perrot and
Chipiez thus sum up their description of this monument:--“Both in the
ornamentation and in the sculpture properly so-called there is a mixture
of two traditions and two inspirations, diverse one from the other. The
persons who chiselled the figures in the procession which fills the
two principal sides of the sarcophagus were the pupils of Grecian
statuaries; they understood how to introduce variety into the attitudes
of those whom they represented, and even into the movements of the
horses. Note, in this connection, the steeds of the two cavaliers in
front; one of them holds up his head, the other bends it towards the
ground. The draperies are also cleverly treated, especially those of the
foot soldiers who bring up the rear, and resemble in many respects
the costume of the Greeks. On the other hand, the types of divinity,
repeated four times at the two ends of the monument, have nothing that
is Hellenic about them, but are borrowed from the Pantheon of Phoenicia.
Even in the procession itself--the train of horsemen, footmen, and
chariots, which is certainly the sculptor’s true subject--there are
features which recall the local customs and usages of the East. The
conical caps of the two cavaliers closely resemble those which we see on
the heads of many of the Cyprian statues; the parasol which shades the
head of the great person in the first _biga_ is the symbol of Asiatic
royalty; lastly, the fan-shaped plume which rises above the heads of all
the chariot horses is an ornament that one sees in the same position
in Assyria and in Lycia, whensoever the sculptor desires to represent
horses magnificently caparisoned.”[737]
Sarcophagi recently exhumed in the vicinity of Sidon are said to be
adorned with reliefs superior to any previously known specimens of
Phoenician art. As, however, no drawings or photographs of these
sculptures have as yet reached Western Europe, it will perhaps be
sufficient in this place to direct attention to the descriptions of them
which an eye-witness has published in the “Journal de Beyrout.”[738] No
trustworthy critical estimate can be formed from mere descriptions,
and it will therefore be necessary to reserve our judgment until
the sculptures themselves, or correct representations of them, are
accessible.
The metal castings of the Phoenicians, according to the accounts which
historians give of them, were of a very magnificent and extraordinary
character. The Hiram employed by Solomon in the ornamentation of
the Temple at Jerusalem, who was a native of Tyre,[739] designed and
executed by his master’s orders a number of works in metal, which seem
to have been veritable masterpieces. The strangest of all were the two
pillars of bronze, which bore the names of “Jachin” and “Boaz,”[740]
and stood in front of the Temple porch, or possibly under it.[741] These
pillars, with their capitals, were between thirty-four and thirty-five
feet high, and had a diameter of six feet.[742] They were cast hollow,
the bronze whereof they were composed having a uniform thickness of
three inches,[743] or thereabouts. Their ornamentation was elaborate.
A sort of chain-work covered the “belly” or lower part of the
capitals,[744] while above and below were representations of
pomegranates in two rows, probably at the top and bottom of the “belly,”
the number of the pomegranates upon each pillar being two hundred.[745]
At the summit of the whole was a sort of “lily-work”[746] or
imitation of the lotus blossom, a “motive” adopted from Egypt. Various
representations of the pillars have been attempted in works upon
Phoenician art, the most remarkable being those designed by M. Chipiez,
and published in the “Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité.”[747] Perhaps,
however, there is more to be said in favour of M. de Vogüé’s view, as
enunciated in his work on the Jewish Temple.
The third great work of metallurgy which Hiram constructed for Solomon
was “the molten sea.”[748] This was an enormous bronze basin, fifteen
feet in diameter, supported on the backs of twelve oxen, grouped in sets
of three.[749] The basin stood fourteen or fifteen feet above the level
of the Temple Court,[750] and was a vast reservoir, always kept full of
water, for the ablutions of the priests. There was an ornamentation of
“knops” or “gourds,” in two rows, about the “brim” of the reservoir; and
it must have been supplied in its lower part with a set of stopcocks, by
means of which the water could be drawn off when needed. Representations
of the “molten sea” have been given by Mangeant, De Vogüé, Thenius, and
others; but all of them are, necessarily, conjectural. The design of
Mangeant is reproduced in the preceding representation. It is concluded
that the oxen must have been of colossal size in order to bear a proper
proportion to the basin, and not present the appearance of being crushed
under an enormous weight.[751]
Next in importance to these three great works were ten minor ones, made
for the Jewish Temple by the same artist. These were lavers mounted on
wheels,[752] which could be drawn or pushed to any part of the Temple
Court where water might be required. The lavers were of comparatively
small size, capable of containing only one-fiftieth part[753] of
the contents of the “molten sea,” but they were remarkable for their
ornamentation. Each was supported upon a “base;” and the bases, which
seem to have been panelled, contained, in the different compartments,
figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim,[754] either single or in groups.
On the top of the base, which seems to have been square, was a circular
stand or socket, a foot and a half in height, into which the laver or
basin fitted.[755] This, too, was panelled, and ornamented with embossed
work, representing lions, cherubim, and palm-trees.[756] Each base was
emplaced upon four wheels, which are said to have resembled chariot
wheels, but which were molten in one piece, naves, spokes, and felloes
together.[757] A restoration by M. Mangeant, given by Perrot and Chipiez
in the fourth volume of their “History of Ancient Art,” is striking, and
leaves little to be desired.
Hiram is also said to have made for Solomon a number of pots, shovels,
basins, flesh-hooks, and other instruments,[758] which were all used
in the Temple service; but as no description is given of any of these
works, even their general character can only be conjectured. We may,
however, reasonably suppose them not to have differed greatly from
the objects of a similar description found in Cyprus by General Di
Cesnola.[759]
From the conjectural, which may amuse, but can scarcely satisfy, the
earnest student, it is fitting that we should now pass to the known and
actual. Phoenician metal-work of various descriptions has been found
recently in Phoenicia Proper, in Cyprus, and in Sardinia; and, though
much of it consists of works of utility or of mere personal adornment,
which belong to another branch of the present enquiry, there is a
considerable portion which is more or less artistic and which rightly
finds its place in the present chapter. The Phoenicians, though they did
not, so far as we know, attempt with any frequency the production, in
bronze or other metal, of the full-sized human form,[760] were fond of
fabricating, especially in bronze, the smaller kinds of figures which
are known as “figurines” or “statuettes.” They also had a special talent
for producing embossed metal-work of a highly artistic character in the
shape of cups, bowls, and dishes or _pateræ_, whereon scenes of various
kinds were represented with a vigour and precision that are quite
admirable. Some account of these two classes of works must here be
given.
The statuettes commence with work of the rudest kind. The Phoenician
sites in Sardinia have yielded in abundance grotesque figures of gods
and men,[761] from three or four to six or eight inches high, which must
be viewed as Phoenician productions, though perhaps they were not the
best works which Phoenician artists could produce, but such as were best
suited to the demands of the Sardinian market. The savage Sards would
not have appreciated beauty or grace; but to the savage mind there is
something congenial in grotesqueness. Hence gods with four arms and four
eyes,[762] warriors with huge horns projecting from their helmets,[763]
tall forms of extraordinary leanness,[764] figures with abnormally large
heads and hands,[765] huge noses, projecting eyes, and various other
deformities. For the home consumption statuettes of a similar character
were made; but they were neither so rude nor so devoid of artistic
merit. There is one in the Louvre, which was found at Tortosa, in
Northern Phoenicia, approaching nearly to the Sardinian type, while
others have less exaggeration, and seem intended seriously. In Cyprus
bronzes of a higher order have been discovered.[766] One is a figure of
a youth, perhaps Æsculapius, embracing a serpent; another is a female
form of much elegance, which may have been the handle of a vase or jug;
it springs from a grotesque bracket, and terminates in a bar ornamented
at either end with heads of animals. The complete bronze figure found
near Curium, which is supposed to represent Apollo and is figured by Di
Cesnola,[767] is probably not the production of a Phoenician artists,
but a sculpture imported from Greece.
The embossed work upon cups and _pateræ_ is sometimes of great
simplicity, sometimes exceedingly elaborate. A patera of the simplest
kind was found by General Di Cesnola in the treasury of Curium and is
figured in his work.[768] At the bottom of the dish, in the middle, is
a rosette with twenty-two petals springing from a central disk; this is
surrounded by a ring whereon are two wavy lines of ribbon intertwined.
Four deer, with strongly recurved horns, spaced at equal intervals,
stand on the outer edge of the ring in a walking attitude. Behind them
and between them are a continuous row of tall stiff reeds terminating in
blossoms, which are supposed to represent the papyrus plant. The reeds
are thirty-two in number. We may compare with this the medallion at
the bottom of a cup found at Cære in Italy, which has been published by
Grifi.[769] Here, on a chequered ground, stands a cow with two calves,
one engaged in providing itself with its natural sustenance, the other
disporting itself in front of its dam. In the background are a row of
alternate papyrus blossoms and papyrus buds bending gracefully to the
right and to the left, so as to form a sort of framework to the main
design. Above the cow and in front of the papyrus plants two birds wing
their flight from left to right across the scene.
A bronze bowl, discovered at Idalium (Dali) in Cyprus,[770] is, like
these specimens, Egyptian in its motive, but is more ambitious in that
it introduces the human form. On a throne of state sits a goddess,
draped in a long striped robe which reaches to the feet, and holding
a lotus flower in her right hand and a ball or apple in her left.
Bracelets adorn her wrists and anklets her feet. Behind her stands a
band of three instrumental performers, all of them women, and somewhat
variously costumed: the first plays the double pipe, the second performs
on a lyre or harp, the third beats the tambourine. In front of the
goddess is a table or altar, to which a votary approaches bringing
offerings. Then follows another table whereon two vases are set; finally
comes a procession of six females, holding hands, who are perhaps
performing a solemn dance. Behind them are a row of lotus pillars, the
supports probably of a temple, wherein the scene takes place. The human
forms in this design are ill-proportioned, and very rudely traced. The
heads and hands are too large, the faces are grotesque, and the figures
wholly devoid of grace. Mimetic art is seen clearly in its first stage,
and the Phoenician artist who has designed the bowl has probably fallen
short of his Egyptian models.
Animal and human forms intermixed occur on a silver _patera_ found
at Athiénau, which is more complicated and elaborate than the objects
hitherto described, but which is, like them, strikingly Egyptian.[771]
A small rosette occupies the centre; round it is, apparently, a pond
or lake, in which fish are disporting themselves; but the fish are
intermixed with animal and human forms--a naked female stretches out
her arms after a cow; a man clothed in a _shenti_ endeavours to seize
a horse. The pond is edged by papyrus plants, which are alternately
in blossom and in bud. A zigzag barrier separates this central
ornamentation from that of the outer part of the dish. Here a marsh is
represented in which are growing papyrus and other water-plants. Aquatic
birds swim on the surface or fly through the tall reeds. Four boats form
the chief objects in this part of the field. In one, which is fashioned
like a bird, there sits under a canopy a grandee, with an attendant in
front and a rower or steersman at the stern. Behind him, in a second
boat, is a band consisting of three undraped females, one of whom plays
a harp and another a tambourine, while the third keeps time with her
hands. A man with a punt-pole directs the vessel from the stern. In the
third boat, which has a freight of wine-jars, a cook is preparing a bird
for the grandee’s supper. The fourth boat contains three rowers, who
possibly have the vessel of the grandee in tow. The first and second
boats are separated by two prancing steeds, the second and third by two
cows, the third and fourth by a chariot and pair. It is difficult to
explain the mixture of the aquatic with the terrestrial in this piece;
but perhaps the grandee is intended to be enjoying himself in a marshy
part of his domain, where he might ride, drive, or boat, according to
his pleasure. The whole scene is rather Egyptian than Phoenician or
Cypriot, and one cannot help suspecting that the _patera_ was made for
an Egyptian customer.
There is a _patera_ at Athens,[772] almost certainly Phoenician, which
may well be selected to introduce the more elaborate and complicated of
the Phoenician works of art in this class. It has been figured,[773]
and carefully described by MM. Perrot and Chipiez in these terms:--“The
medallion in the centre is occupied by a rosette with eight points. The
zone outside this, in which are distributed the personages represented,
is divided into four compartments by four figures, which correspond to
each other in pairs. They lift themselves out of a trellis-work, bounded
on either side by a light pillar without a base. The capitals which
crown the pillars recall those of the Ionic order, but the abacus is
much more developed. A winged globe, stretching from pillar to pillar,
roofs in this sort of little chapel; each is the shrine of a divinity.
One of the divinities is that nude goddess, clasping her breasts with
her hands, whom we have already met with in the Phoenician world more
than once; the other is a bearded personage, whose face is framed in by
his abundant hair; he appears to be dressed in a close-fitting garment,
made of a material folded in narrow plaits. We do not know what name to
give the personage. Each of the figures is repeated twice. The rest
of the field is occupied by four distinct subjects, two of them being
scenes of adoration. In one may be recognised the figure of Isis-Athor,
seated on a sort of camp-stool, and giving suck to the young Horus;[774]
on an altar in front of the goddess is placed the disk of the moon,
enveloped (as we have seen it elsewhere) by a crescent which recalls
the moon’s phases. Behind the altar stands a personage whose sex is not
defined; the right hand, which is raised, holds a _patera_, while
the left, which falls along the hip, has the _ankh_ or _crux ansata_.
Another of the scenes corresponds to this, and offers many striking
analogies. The altar indeed is of a different form, but it supports
exactly the same symbols. The goddess sits upon a throne with her feet
on a footstool; she has no child; in one hand she holds out a cup,
in the other a lotus blossom. The personage who confronts her wears a
conical cap, and is clothed, like the worshipper of the corresponding
representation, in a long robe pressed close to the body by a girdle _à
cordelière_; he has also the _crux ansata_, and holds in the right hand
an object the character and use of which I am unable to conjecture.
We may associate with these two scenes of homage and worship another
representation in which there figure three musicians. The instruments
are the same as usual--the lyre, the tambourine, and the double pipe;
two of the performers march at a steady pace; the third, the one who
beats the metal(?) disk, dances, as he plays, with much vigour and
spirit. In the last compartment we come again upon a group that we have
already met with in one of the cups from Idalium.[775] . . . A beardless
individual, clothed in the _shenti_, has put his foot upon the body of
a griffin, which, in struggling against the pressure, flings its hind
quarters into the air in a sort of wild caper; the conqueror, however,
holds it fast by the plume of feathers which rises from its head, and
plunges his sword into its half-open beak. It is this group, drawn in
relief, and on a larger scale, that we meet with for a second time on
the Athenian _patera_; but in this case the group is augmented by a
second personage, who takes part in the struggle. This is an old man
with a beard who is armed with a formidable pike. Both the combatants
wear conical caps upon their heads, similar to those which we have
noticed as worn by a number of the statues from Cyprus; but the cap of
the right-hand personage terminates in a button, whereto is attached
a long appendage, which looks like the tail of an ox.” The Egyptian
character of much of this design is incontestable. The _ankh_, the lotus
blossom in the hand, the winged disk, are purely Egyptian forms; the
Isis Athor with Horus in her lap speaks for itself; and the worshipper
in front of Isis has an unmistakably Egyptian head dress. But the
contest with the winged griffin is more Assyrian than Egyptian; the seat
whereon Isis sits recalls a well-known Assyrian type;[776] one of the
altars has a distinctly Assyrian character, while the band of musicians,
the Astarté figures standing in their shrines, and the pillars which
support, and frame in, the shrines are genuine Phoenician contributions.
Artistically this _patera_ is much upon a par with those from Dali and
Athiénau, which have been already described.
Our space will not admit of our pursuing this subject much further. We
cannot give descriptions of all the twenty _pateræ_,[777] pronounced by
the best critics to be Phoenician, which are contained in the museums of
Europe and America. Excellent representations of most of these works
of art will be found in Longpérier’s “Musée Napoléon III.,” in M.
Clermont-Ganneau’s “Imagerie Phénicienne,” and in the “Histoire de
l’Art dans l’Antiquité” of MM. Perrot et Chipiez. The bowls brought from
Larnaca, from Curium, and from Amathus are especially interesting.[778]
We must, however, conclude our survey with a single specimen of the most
elaborate kind of _patera_; and, this being the case, we cannot hesitate
to give the preference to the famous “Cup of Præneste,” which has
been carefully figured and described in two of the three works above
cited.[779]
The cup in question consists of a thin plate of silver covered over with
a layer of gold; its greatest diameter is seven inches and three-fifths.
The under or outside is without ornament; the interior is engraved with
a number of small objects in low relief. In the centre, and surrounded
by a circle of beads, there is a subject to which we shall presently
have to return. The zone immediately outside this medallion, which is
not quite an inch in width, is filled with a string of eight horses,
all of them proceeding at a trot, and following each other to the right.
Over each horse two birds fly in the same direction. The horses’ tails
are extraordinarily conventional, consisting of a stem with branches,
and resembling a conventional palm branch. Outside this zone there is an
exterior and a wider one, which is bounded on its outer edge by a huge
snake, whose scaly length describes an almost exact circle, excepting
towards the tail, where there are some slight sinuosities. This serpent,
whose head reaches and a little passes the thin extremity of the tail,
is “drawn,” says M. Clermont-Ganneau, “with the hand of a master.”[780]
It has been compared[781] with the well-known Egyptian and Phoenician
symbol for the {kosmos} or universe, which was a serpent with its tail
in its mouth. “Naturally,” he continues,[782] “the outer zone by its
very position offers the greatest room for development. The artist is
here at his ease, and having before him a field relatively so vast, has
represented on it a series of scenes, remarkably alike for the style of
their execution, the diversity of their subject-matter, the number
of the persons introduced, and the nature of the acts which they
accomplish. . . . The scenes, however, are not, as some have imagined,
a series of detached fantastic subjects, arbitrarily chosen and
capriciously grouped, a mere confused _mêlée_ of men, animals, chariots,
and other objects; on the contrary, they form a little history, a
plastic idyll, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is a
narrative divided into nine scenes.” (1) An armed hero, mounted in a car
driven by a charioteer, quits in the morning a castle or fortified town.
He is going to hunt, and carries his bow in his left hand. Over his head
is an umbrella, the badge of his high rank, and his defence against
the mid-day sun. A quiver hangs at the side of his chariot. He wears a
conical cap, while the driver has his head bare, and leans forwards
over the front of the car, seeming to shake the reins, and encourage
the horses to mend their pace. (2) After the car has proceeded a certain
distance, the hunter espies a stag upon a rocky hill. He stops his
chariot, gets down, and leaving the driver in charge of the vehicle,
ensconces himself behind a tree, and thus screened lets fly an arrow
against the quarry, which strikes it midway in the chest. (3) Weak and
bleeding copiously, the stag attempts to escape; but the hunter pursues
and takes possession of him without having to shoot a second time. (4)
The hour is come now for a rest. The sportsman has reached a wood, in
which date-bearing palms are intermingled with trees of a different
kind. He fastens his game to one of them, and proceeds to the skinning
and the disembowelling. Meanwhile, his attendant detaches the horses
from the car, relieves them of their harness, and proceeds to feed them
from a portable manger. The car, left to itself, is tilted back, and
stands with its pole in the air. (5) Food and drink having been prepared
and placed on two tables, or altars, the hunter, seated on a throne
under the shadow of his umbrella, pours a libation to the gods. They,
on their part, scent the feast and draw near, represented by the sun and
moon--a winged disk, and a crescent embracing a full orb. The feast is
also witnessed by a spirit of evil, in the shape of a huge baboon or
cynocephalous ape, who from a cavern at the foot of a wooded mountain,
whereon a stag and a hare are feeding, furtively surveys the ceremony.
(6) Remounting his chariot the hunter sets out on his return home, when
the baboon quits his concealment, and rushes after him, threatening him
with a huge stone. Hereupon a winged deity descends from heaven, and
lifting into the air chariot, horses, charioteer, and hunter, enfolds
them in an embrace and saves them. (7) The ape, baffled, pursues his
way; the chariot is replaced on the earth. The hunter prepares his bow,
places an arrow on the string, and hastily pursues his enemy, who is
speedily overtaken and thrown to the ground by the horses. (8) The
hunter dismounts, puts his foot upon the prostrate ape, and gives him
the _coup de grâce_ with a heavy axe or mace. A bird of prey hovers
near, ready to descend upon the carcase. (9) The hero remounts his
chariot, and returns to the castle or city which he left in the
morning.[783]
We have now to return to the medallion which forms the centre of the
cup. Within a circle of pearls or beads, similar to that separating the
two zones, is a round space about two inches in diameter, divided into
two compartments by a horizontal line. In the upper part are contained
three human figures, and the figure of a dog. At the extreme left is a
prisoner with a beard and long hair that falls upon his shoulders. His
entire body is naked. Behind him his two arms are brought together, tied
by a cord, and then firmly attached to a post. His knees are bent,
but do not reach the ground, and his feet are placed with their soles
uppermost against the post at its base. The attitude is one which
implies extreme suffering.[784] In front of the prisoner, occupying the
centre of the medallion, is the main figure of the upper compartment, a
warrior, armed with a spear, who pursues the third figure, a fugitive,
and seems to be thrusting his spear into the man’s back. Both have long
hair, but are beardless; and wear the _shenti_ for their sole garment.
Between the legs of the main figure is a dog of the jackal kind, which
has his teeth fixed in the heels of the fugitive, and arrests his
flight. Below, in the second compartment, are two figures only, a man
and a dog. The man is prostrate, and seems to be crawling along the
ground, the dog stands partly on him, and appears to be biting his left
heel. The interpretation which M. Clermont-Ganneau gives to this entire
scene lacks the probability which attaches to his explanation of the
outer scene. He suggests that the prisoner is the hunter of the other
scene, plundered and bound by his charioteer, who is hastening away,
when he is seized by his master’s dog and arrested in his flight.
The dog gnaws off his right foot and then attacks the left, while the
fugitive, in order to escape his tormentor, has to crawl along
the ground. But M. Clermont-Ganneau himself distrusts his
interpretation,[785] while he has convinced no other scholar of its
soundness. Judicious critics will be content to wait the further
researches which he promises, whereby additional light may perhaps be
thrown on this obscure matter.
In its artistic character the “cup of Præneste” claims a high place
among the works of art probably or certainly assignable to the
Phoenicians. The relief is high; the forms, especially the animal ones,
are spirited and well-proportioned. The horses are especially good. As
M. Clermont-Ganneau says, “their forms and their movements are indicated
with a great deal of precision and truth.”[786] They show also a fair
amount of variety; they stand, they walk, they trot, they gallop at full
speed, always truthfully and naturally. The stag, the hare, and the dog
are likewise well portrayed; the ape has less merit; he is too human,
too like a mere unkempt savage. The human forms are about upon a par
with those of the Assyrians and Egyptians, which have evidently served
for their models, the Assyrian for the outer zone, the Egyptian for the
medallion. The encircling snake, as already observed, is a masterpiece.
There is no better drawing in any of the other _pateræ_. At best they
equal, they certainly do not surpass, the Prænestine specimen.
The intaglios of the Phoenicians are either on cylinders or on gems,
and can rarely be distinguished, unless they are accompanied by an
inscription, from the similar objects obtained in such abundance from
Babylonia and Assyria. They reproduce, with scarcely any variation, the
mythological figures and emblems native to those countries--the forms of
gods and priests, of spirits of good and evil, of kings contending with
lions, of sacred trees, winged circles, and the like--scarcely ever
introducing any novelty. The greater number of the cylinders are very
rudely cut. They have been worked simply by means of a splinter of
obsidian,[787] and are barbarous in execution, though interesting to the
student of archaic art. The subjoined are specimens. No. 1 represents
a four-winged genius of the Assyrian type, bearded, and clad in a short
tunic and a long robe, seizing with either hand a winged griffin, or
spirit of evil, and reducing them to subjection. In the field, towards
the two upper corners, are the same four Phoenician characters, twice
repeated; they designate, no doubt, the owner of the cylinder, which he
probably used as a seal, and are read as _Harkhu_.[788] No. 2, which
is better cut than No. 1, represents a king of the Persian (Achæmenian)
type,[789] who stands between two rampant lions, and seizes each by the
forelock. Behind the second lion is a sacred tree of a type that is not
uncommon; and behind the tree is an inscription, which has been read as
_l’Baletân_--i.e. “(the seal) of Baletan.”[790] This cylinder was found
recently in the Lebanon.[791] Nos. 3 and 4 come from Salamis in Cyprus,
where they were found by M. Alexandre Di Cesnola,[792] the brother of
the General. No. 3 represents a robed figure holding two nondescript
animals by the hind legs; the creatures writhe in his grasp, and turn
their heads towards him, as though wishing to bite. The remainder of
the field is filed with detached objects, scattered at random--two human
forms, a griffin, two heads of oxen, a bird, two balls, three crosses,
a sceptre, &c. The forms are, all of them, very rudely traced. No. 4
resembles in general character No. 3, but is even ruder. Three similar
robed figures hold each other’s hands and perhaps execute a dance around
some religious object. Two heads of oxen or cows, with a disk between
their horns, occupy the spaces intervening between the upper parts of
the figures. In the lower portion of the field, the sun and moon fill
the middle space, the sun, moon, and five planets the spaces to the
right and to the left. Another cylinder from the same place (No. 5)[793]
is tolerably well designed and engraved. It shows us two persons, a
man and a woman, in the act of presenting a dove to a female, who is
probably the goddess Astarté, and who willingly receives it at their
hands. Behind Astarté a seated lion echoes the approval of the goddess
by raising one of his fore paws, while a griffin, who wholly disapproves
of the offering, turns his back in disgust.
On another cylinder, which is certainly Phoenician, a rude
representation of a sacred tree occupies the central position. To the
left stands a worshipper with the right hand upraised, clad in a very
common Assyrian dress. Over the sacred tree is a coarse specimen of
the winged circle or disk, with head and tail, and fluttering ends of
ribbon.[794] On either side stand two winged genii, dressed in long
robes, and tall stiff caps, such as are often seen on the heads of
Persians in the Persepolitan sculptures, and on the darics.[795] In the
field is a Phoenician inscription, which is read as {...} or _Irphael
ben Hor’adad_, “Irphael, the son of Horadad.”[796]
Phoenician cylinders are in glass, green serpentine, cornaline, black
hæmatite, steatite, and green jasper.[797] They are scratched rather
than deeply cut, and cannot be said ever to attain to any considerable
artistic beauty. Those which have been here given are among the best;
and they certainly fall short, both in design and workmanship, of many
Assyrian, Babylonian, and even Persian specimens.
The gems, on the other hand, are in many cases quite equal to the
Assyrian. There is one of special merit, which has been pronounced “an
exquisite specimen of Phoenician lapidary art,”[798] figured by General
Di Cesnola in his “Cyprus.”[799] Two men in regular Assyrian costume,
standing on either side of a “Sacred Tree,” grasp, each of them, a
branch of it. Above is a winged circle, with the wings curved so as
to suit the shape of the gem. Below is an ornament, which is six times
repeated, like the blossom of a flower; and below this is a trelliswork.
The whole is cut deeply and sharply. Its Phoenician authorship is
assured by its being an almost exact repetition of a group upon the
silver patera found at Amathus.[7100]
Of other gems equally well engraved the following are specimens. No. 1
is a scarab of cornaline found by M. de Vogüé in Phoenicia Proper.[7101]
Two male figures in Assyrian costume face each other, their advanced
feet crossing. Both hold in one hand the _ankh_ or symbol of life. One
has in the left hand what is thought to be a lotus blossom. The other
has the right hand raised in the usual attitude of adoration. Between
the figures, wherever there was space for them, are Phoenician
characters, which are read as {...}, or _l’Beka_--i.e. “(the seal) of
Beka.”[7102] No. 2, which has been set in a ring, is one of the many
scarabs brought by General Di Cesnola from Cyprus.[7103] It contains the
figure of a hind, suckling her fawn, and is very delicately carved. The
hind, however, is in an impossible attitude, the forelegs being thrown
forwards, probably in order to prevent them from interfering with the
figure of the fawn. Above the hind is an inscription, which appears to
be in the Cyprian character, and which gives (probably) the name of
the owner. No. 3 introduces us to domestic life. A grand lady, of Tyre
perhaps or Sidon,[7104] by name Akhot-melek, seated upon an elegant
throne, with her feet upon a footstool, and dressed in a long robe which
envelops the whole of her figure, receives at the hands of a female
attendant a bowl or wine-cup, which the latter has just filled from an
_oenochoë_ of elegant shape, still held in her left hand. The attendant
wears a striped robe reaching to the feet, and over it a tunic fastened
round the waist with a belt. Her hair flows down on her shoulders, while
that of her mistress is confined by a band, from which depends an ample
veil, enveloping the cheeks, the back of the head, and the chin. We are
told that such veils are still worn in the Phoenician country.[7105] An
inscription, in a late form of the Phoenician character, surrounds
the two figures, and is read as {...} or _l’Akhot-melek ishat
Joshua(?)_--i.e. “(the seal) of Akhot-melek, wife of Joshua.”[7106] No.
4 contains the figure of a lion, cut with much spirit. MM. Perrot et
Chipiez say of it--“Among the numerous representations of lions that
have been discovered in Phoenicia, there is none which can be placed on
a par with that on the scarab bearing the name of ‘Ashenel: small as it
is, this lion has something of the physiognomy of those magnificent ones
which we have borrowed from the bas-reliefs of the Assyrians. Still,
the intaglio is in other respects decidedly Phoenician and not Assyrian.
Observe, for instance, the beetle with the wings expanded, which fills
up the lower part of the field; this is a _motive_ borrowed from
Egypt, which a Ninevite lapidary would certainly not have put in such a
place.”[7107] The Phoenician inscription takes away all doubt as to the
nationality. It reads as {...}, or _’Ashenêl_, and no doubt designates
the owner. No. 5 is beautifully engraved on a chalcedony. It represents
a stag attacked by a griffin, which has jumped suddenly on its back. The
drawing is excellent, both of the real and of the imaginary animal, and
leaves nothing to be desired. The inscription, which occupies the upper
part of the field to the right, is in Cyprian characters, and shows that
the gem was the signet of a certain Akestodaros.[7108]
There are some Phoenician gems which are interesting from their subject
matter without being especially good as works of art. One of these
contains a representation of two men fighting.[7109] Both are armed with
two spears, and both carry round shields or bucklers. The warrior to
the right wears a conical helmet, and is thought to be a native
Cyprian;[7110] he carries a shield without an _umbo_ or boss. His
adversary on the left wears a loose cap, or hood, the {pilos apages} of
Herodotus,[7111] and has a prominent _umbo_ in the middle of his shield.
He probably represents a Persian, and appears to have received a wound
from his antagonist, which is causing him to sink to the ground. This
gem was found at Curium in Cyprus by General Di Cesnola.
Another, found at the same place, exhibits a warrior, or a hunter, going
forth to battle or to the chase in his chariot.[7112] A large quiver
full of arrows is slung at each side of his car. The warrior and his
horse (one only is seen) are rudely drawn, but the chariot is
very distinctly made out, and has a wheel of an Assyrian type. The
Salaminians of Cyprus were famous for their war chariots,[7113] of which
this may be a representation.
The island of Sardinia has furnished a prodigious number of
Phoenician seals. A single private collection contains as many as six
hundred.[7114] They are mostly scarabs, and the type of them is mostly
Egyptian. Sometimes they bear the forms of Egyptian gods, as Horus, or
Thoth, or Anubis;[7115] sometimes cartouches with the names of kings as
Menkara, Thothmes III., Amenophis III., Seti I., &c.;[7116] sometimes
mere sacred emblems, as the winged uræus, the disk between two
uræi,[7117] and the like. Occasionally there is the representation of a
scene with which the Egyptian bas-reliefs have made us familiar:[7118]
a warrior has caught hold of his vanquished and kneeling enemy by a lock
of his hair, and threatens him with an axe or mace, which he brandishes
above his head. Or a lion takes the place of the captive man, and is
menaced in the same way. Human figures struggling with lions, and lions
killing wild bulls, are also common;[7119] but the type in these cases
is less Egyptian than Oriental.
Phoenician painting was not, like Egyptian, displayed upon the walls of
temples, nor was it, like Greek, the production of actual pictures
for the decoration of houses. It was employed to a certain extent on
statues, not so as to cover the entire figure, but with delicacy and
discretion, for the marking out of certain details, and the emphasising
of certain parts of the design.[7120] The hair and beard were often
painted a brownish red; the pupil of the eye was marked by means of
colour; and robes had often a border of red or blue. Statuettes were
tinted more generally, whole vestments being sometimes coloured red
or green,[7121] and a gay effect being produced, which is said to be
agreeable and harmonious.[7122] But the nearest approach to painting
proper which was made by the Phoenicians was upon their vessels in clay,
in terra-cotta, and in alabaster. Here, though, the ornamentation was
sometimes merely by patterns or bands,[7123] there were occasionally
real attempts to depict animal and human forms, which, if not very
successful, still possess considerable interest. The noble amphora
from Curium, figured by Di Cesnola,[7124] contains above forty
representations of horses, and nearly as many of birds. The shape of the
horse is exceedingly conventional, the whole form being attenuated
in the highest degree; but the animal is drawn with spirit, and the
departure from nature is clearly intentional. In the animals that are
pasturing, the general attitude is well seized; the movement is exactly
that of the horse when he stretches his neck to reach and crop the
grass.[7125] In the birds there is equal spirit and greater truth to
nature: they are in various attitudes, preening their feathers, pecking
the ground, standing with head erect in the usual way. Other vases
contain figures of cows, goats, stags, fish and birds of various kinds,
while one has an attempt at a hippopotamus. The attempts to represent
the human form are certainly not happy; they remind us of the more
ambitious efforts of Chinese and Japanese art.