Phoenician textile fabrics, embroidered or dyed--Account of
the chief Phoenician dye--Mollusks from which the purple was
obtained--Mode of obtaining them--Mode of procuring the dye
from them--Process of dyeing--Variety of the tints--
Manufacture of glass--Story of its invention--Three kinds of
Phoenician glass--1. Transparent colourless glass--2. Semi-
transparent coloured glass--3. Opaque glass, much like
porcelain--Description of objects in glass--Methods pursued
in the manufacture--Phoenician ceramic art--Earliest
specimens--Vases with geometrical designs--Incised
patterning--Later efforts--Use of enamel--Great amphora of
Curium--Phoenician ceramic art disappointing--Ordinary
metallurgy--Implements--Weapons--Toilet articles--Lamp-
stands and tripods--Works in iron and lead.
Phoenicia was celebrated from a remote antiquity for the manufacture of
textile fabrics. The materials which she employed for them were wool,
linen yarn, perhaps cotton, and, in the later period of her commercial
prosperity, silk. The “white wool” of Syria was supplied to her in
abundance by the merchants of Damascus,[81] and wool of lambs, rams,
and goats seems also to have been furnished by the more distant parts of
Arabia.[82] Linen yarn may have been imported from Egypt, where it was
largely manufactured, and was of excellent quality;[83] while raw
silk is said to have been “brought to Tyre and Berytus by the Persian
merchants, and there both dyed and woven into cloaks.”[84] The price of
silk was very high, and it was customary in Phoenicia to intermix the
precious material either with linen or with cotton;[85] as is still done
to a certain extent in modern times. It is perhaps doubtful whether,
so far as the mere fabric of stuffs was concerned, the products of the
Phoenician looms were at all superior to those which Egypt and Babylonia
furnished, much less to those which came from India, and passed under
the name of _Sindones_. Two things gave to the Phoenician stuffs that
high reputation which caused them to be more sought for than any others;
and these were, first, the brilliancy and beauty of their colours,
and, secondly, the delicacy with which they were in many instances
embroidered. We have not much trace of Phoenician embroidery on the
representations of dresses that have come down to us; but the testimony
of the ancients is unimpeachable,[86] and we may regard it as
certain that the art of embroidery, known at a very early date to the
Hebrews,[87] was cultivated with great success by their Phoenician
neighbours, and under their auspices reached a high point of perfection.
The character of the decoration is to be gathered from the extant
statues and bas-reliefs, from the representations on pateræ, on cups,
dishes, and gems. There was a tendency to divide the surface to be
ornamented into parallel stripes or bands, and to repeat along the
line a single object, or two alternately. Rosettes, monsters of various
kinds, winged globes with uræi, scarabs, sacred trees, and garlands
or blossoms of the lotus were the ordinary “motives.”[88] Occasionally
human figures might be introduced, and animal forms even more
frequently; but a stiff conventionalism prevailed, the same figures were
constantly repeated, and the figures themselves had in few cases much
beauty.
The brilliancy and beauty of the Phoenician coloured stuffs resulted
from the excellency of their dyes. Here we touch a second branch of
their industrial skill, for the principal dyes used were originally
invented and continuously fabricated by the Phoenicians themselves,
not imported from any foreign country. Nature had placed along the
Phoenician coast, or at any rate along a great portion of it, an
inexhaustible supply of certain shell-fish, or molluscs, which contained
as a part of their internal economy a colouring fluid possessing
remarkable, and indeed unique, qualities. Some account has been already
given of the species which are thought to have been anciently most
esteemed. They belong, mainly, to the two allied families of the _Murex_
and the _Buccinum_ or _Purpura_. Eight species of the former, and six
of the latter, having their habitat in the Mediterranean, have been
distinguished by some naturalists;[89] but two of the former only,
and one of the latter, appear to have attracted the attention of the
Phoenicians. The _Murex brandaris_ is now thought to have borne away
the palm from all the others; it is extremely common upon the coast; and
enormous heaps of the shells are found, especially in the vicinity of
Tyre, crushed and broken--the débris, as it would seem, cast away by the
manufacturers of old.[810] The _Murex trunculus_, according to some, is
just as abundant, in a crushed state, in the vicinity of Sidon, great
banks of it existing, which are a hundred yards long and several yards
thick.[811] It is a more spinous shell than the _M. brandaris_, having
numerous projecting points, and a generally rough and rugged appearance.
The _Purpura_ employed seems to have been the _P. lapillus_, a mollusc
not confined to the Mediterranean, but one which frequents also our
own shores, and was once turned to some account in Ireland.[812] The
varieties of the _P. lapillus_ differ considerably. Some are nearly
white, some greyish, others buff striped with brown. Some, again, are
smooth, others nearly as rough as the _Murex trunculus_. The _Helix
ianthina_, which is included by certain writers among the molluscs
employed for dyeing purposes by the Phoenicians,[813] is a shell of a
completely different character, smooth and delicate, much resembling
that of an ordinary land snail, and small compared to the others. It is
not certain, however, that the _helix_, though abounding in the Eastern
Mediterranean,[814] ever attracted the notice of the Phoenicians.
The molluscs needed by the Phoenician dyers were not obtained without
some difficulty. As the Mediterranean has no tides, it does not uncover
its shores at low water like the ocean, or invite man to rifle them. The
coveted shell-fish, in most instances, preferred tolerably deep water;
and to procure them in any quantity it was necessary that they should
be fished up from a depth of some fathoms. The mode in which they were
captured was the following. A long rope was let down into the sea, with
baskets of reeds or rushes attached to it at intervals, constructed like
our lobster-traps or eel-baskets, with an opening that yielded easily
to pressure from the outside, but resisted pressure from the inside,
and made escape, when once the trap was entered, impossible. The baskets
were baited with mussels or frogs, both of which had great attractions
for the _Purpuræ_, and were seized and devoured with avidity. At the
upper end of the rope was attached to a large piece of cork, which, even
when the baskets were full, could not be drawn under water. It was usual
to set the traps in the evening, and after waiting a night, or sometimes
a night and a day, to draw them up to the surface, when they were
generally found to be full of the coveted shell-fish.[815]
There were two ways in which the dye was obtained from the molluscs.
Sometimes a hole was broken in the side of the shell, and the fish taken
out entire.[816] The _sac_ containing the colouring matter, which is
a sort of vein, beginning at the head of the animal, and following the
tortuous line of the body as it twists through the spiral shell,[817]
was then carefully extracted, either while the mollusc was still alive,
or as soon as possible after death, as otherwise the quality of the
dye was impaired. This plan was pursued more especially with the larger
species of _Purpuræ_, where the _sac_ attained a certain size; while
with a smaller kinds a different method was followed. In their case no
attempt was made to extract the _sac_, but the entire fish was crushed,
together with its shell, and after salt had been added in the proportion
of twenty ounces to a hundred pounds of the pulp, three days were
allowed for maceration; heat was then applied, and when, by repeated
skimming, the coarse particles had been removed, the dye was left in a
liquid state at the bottom. It was necessary that the vessel in which
this final process took place should be of lead, and not of bronze or
iron, since those metals gave the dye a disagreeable tinge.[818]
The colouring matter contained in the _sac_ of the _Purpuræ_ is a liquid
of a creamy consistency, and of a yellowish-white hue. On extraction, it
is at first decidedly yellow; then after a little time it becomes green;
and, finally, it settles into some shade of violet or purple. Chemical
analysis has shown that in the case of the _Murex trunculus_ the liquid
is composed of two elementary substances, one being cyanic acid, which
is of a blue or azure colour, and the other being purpuric oxide, which
is a bright red.[819] In the case of the _Murex brandaris_ one element
only has been found: it is an oxide, which has received the name of
_oxyde tyrien_.[820] No naturalist has as yet discovered what purpose
the liquid serves in the economy, or in the preservation, of the animal;
it is certainly not exuded, as sepia is by the cuttle-fish, to cloud the
water in the neighbourhood, and enable the creature to conceal itself.
Concerning the Phoenician process of dyeing, the accounts which have
come down to us are at once confused and incomplete. Nothing is said
with respect to their employment of mordants, either acid or alkali, and
yet it is almost certain that they must have used one or the other, or
both, to fix the colours, and render them permanent. The _gamins_
of Tyre employ to this day mordants of each sort;[821] and an alkali
derived from seaweed is mentioned by Pliny as made use of for fixing
some dyes,[822] though he does not distinctly tell us that it was known
to the Phoenicians or employed in fixing the purple. What we chiefly
learn from this writer as to the dyeing process is[823]--first, that
sometimes the liquid derived from the _murex_ only, sometimes that of
the _purpura_ or _buccinum_ only, was applied to the material which it
was wished to colour, while the most approved hue was produced by an
application of both dyes separately. Secondly, we are told that the
material, whatever it might be, was steeped in the dye for a certain
number of hours, then withdrawn for a while, and afterwards returned to
the vat and steeped a second time. The best Tyrian cloths were called
_Dibapha_, i.e. “twice dipped;” and for the production of the true
“Tyrian purple” it was necessary that the dye obtained from the
_Buccinum_ should be used after that from the _Murex_ had been applied.
The _Murex_ alone gave a dye that was firm, and reckoned moderately
good; but the _Buccinum_ alone was weak, and easily washed out.
The actual tints produced from the shell-fish appear to have ranged from
blue, through violet and purple, to crimson and rose.[824] Scarlet could
not be obtained, but was yielded by the cochineal insect. Even for
the brighter sorts of crimson some admixture of the cochineal dye was
necessary.[825] The violet tint was not generally greatly prized,
though there was a period in the reign of Augustus when it was the
fashion;[826] redder hues were commonly preferred; and the choicest
of all is described as “a rich, dark purple, the colour of coagulated
blood.”[827] A deep crimson was also in request, and seems frequently to
be intended when the term purple ({porphureos}, _purpureus_) is used.
A third industry greatly affected by the Phoenicians was the manufacture
of glass. According to Pliny,[828] the first discovery of the substance
was made upon the Phoenician coast by a body of sailors whom he no doubt
regarded as Phoenicians. These persons had brought a cargo of natrum,
which is the subcarbonate of soda, to the Syrian coast in the vicinity
of Acre, and had gone ashore at the mouth of the river Belus to cook
their dinner. Having lighted a fire upon the sand, they looked about for
some stones to prop up their cooking utensils, but finding none, or none
convenient for the purpose, they bethought themselves of utilising for
the occasion some of the blocks of natrum with which their ship was
laden. These were placed close to the fire, and the heat was sufficient
to melt a portion of one of them, which, mixing with the siliceous sand
at its base, produced a stream of glass. There is nothing impossible
or even very improbable in this story; but we may question whether the
scene of it is rightly placed. Glass was manufactured in Egypt many
centuries before the probable date of the Phoenician occupation of
the Mediterranean coast; and, if the honour of the invention is to be
assigned to a particular people, the Egyptians would seem to have the
best claim to it. The process of glass-blowing is represented in tombs
at Beni Hassan of very great antiquity,[829] and a specimen of Egyptian
glass is in existence bearing the name of a Usurtasen, a king of the
twelfth dynasty.[830] Natrum, moreover, was an Egyptian product, well
known from a remote date, being the chief ingredient used in the various
processes of embalming.[831] Phoenicia has no natrum, and not even any
vegetable alkali readily procurable in considerable quantity. There _may
have been_ an accidental discovery of glass in Phoenicia, but priority
of discovery belonged almost certainly to Egypt; and it is, upon the
whole, most probable that Phoenicia derived from Egypt her knowledge
both of the substance itself and of the method of making it.
Still, there can be no doubt that the manufacture was one on which the
Phoenicians eagerly seized, and which they carried out on a large scale
and very successfully. Sidon, according to the ancients,[832] was the
chief seat of the industry; but the best sand is found near Tyre, and
both Tyre and Sarepta also seem to have been among the places where
glassworks were early established. At Sarepta extensive banks of
_débris_ have been found, consisting of broken glass of many colours,
the waste beyond all doubt of a great glass manufactory;[833] at Tyre,
the traces of the industry are less extensive,[834] but on the other
hand we have historical evidence that it continued to be practised there
into the middle ages.[835]
The glass produced by the Phoenicians was of three kinds: first,
transparent colourless glass, which the eye could see through; secondly,
translucent coloured glass, through which light could pass, though the
eye could not penetrate it so as to distinguish objects; and, thirdly,
opaque glass, scarcely distinguishable from porcelain. Transparent
glass was employed for mirrors, round plates being cast, which made very
tolerable looking-glasses,[836] when covered at the back by thin sheets
of metal, and also for common objects, such as vases, urns, bottles, and
jugs, which have been yielded in abundance by tombs of a somewhat late
date in Cyprus.[837] No great store, however, seems to have been set
upon transparency, in which the Oriental eye saw no beauty; and the
objects which modern research has recovered under this head at Tyre, in
Cyprus, and elsewhere, seem the work of comparatively rude artists, and
have little æsthetic merit. The shapes, however, are not inelegant.
The most beautiful of the objects in glass produced by the Phoenicians
are the translucent or semi-transparent vessels of different kinds, most
of them variously coloured, which have been found in Cyprus, at Camirus
in Rhodes, and on the Syrian coast, near Beyrout and elsewhere.[838]
These comprise small flasks or bottles, from three to six inches long,
probably intended to contain perfumes; small jugs (oenochoæ) from three
inches in height to five inches; vases of about the same size; amphoræ
pointed at the lower extremity; and other varieties. They are coloured,
generally, either in longitudinal or in horizontal stripes and bands;
but the bands often deviate from the straight line into zig-zags, which
are always more or less irregular, like the zig-zags of the Norman
builders, while sometimes they are deflected into crescents, or other
curves, as particularly one resembling a willow-leaf. The colours are
not very vivid, but are pleasing and well-contrasted; they are chiefly
five--white, blue, yellow, green, and a purplish brown. Red scarcely
appears, except in a very pale, pinkish form; and even in this form
it is uncommon. Blue, on the other hand, is greatly affected, being
sometimes used in the patterns, often taken for the ground,
and occasionally, in two tints, forming both groundwork and
ornamentation.[839] It is not often that more than three hues are found
on the same vessel, and sometimes the hues employed are only two. There
are instances, however, and very admirable instances, of the employment,
on a single vessel, of four hues.[840]
The colours were obtained, commonly, at any rate, from metallic oxides.
The ordinary blue employed is cobalt, though it is suspected that there
was an occasional use of copper. Copper certainly furnished the greens,
while manganese gave the brown, which shades off into purple and into
black. The beautiful milky white which forms the ground tint of some
vases is believed to have been derived from the oxide of tin, or else
from phosphate of chalk. It is said that the colouring matter of the
patterns does not extend through the entire thickness of the glass, but
lies only on the outer surface, being a later addition to the vessels as
first made.
Translucent coloured glass was also largely produced by the Phoenicians
for beads and other ornaments, and also for the imitation of gems. The
huge emerald of which Herodotus speaks,[841] as “shining with great
brilliancy at night” in the temple of Melkarth at Tyre, was probably
a glass cylinder, into which a lamb was introduced by the priests. In
Phoenician times the pretended stone is quite as often a glass paste as
a real gem, and the case is the same with the scarabs so largely used
as seals. In Phoenician necklaces, glass beads alternate frequently
with real agates, onyxes, and crystals; while sometimes glass in various
shapes is the only material employed. A necklace found at Tharros in
Sardinia, and now in the collection of the Louvre, which is believed
to be of Phoenician manufacture, is composed of above forty beads,
two cylinders, four pendants representing heads of bulls, and one
representing the face of a man, all of glass.[842] Another, found by M.
Renan in Phoenicia itself, is made up of glass beads imitating pearls,
intermixed with beads of cornaline and agate.[843]
Another class of glass ornaments consists of small flat _plaques_ or
plates, pierced with a number of fine holes, which appear to have been
sewn upon garments. These are usually patterned, sometimes with spirals,
sometimes with rosettes, occasionally, though rarely, with figures.
Messrs. Perrot and Chipiez represent one in their great work upon
ancient art,[844] where almost the entire field is occupied by a winged
griffin, standing upright on its two hind legs, and crowned with a
striped cap, or turban.
Phoenician opaque glass is comparatively rare, and possesses but little
beauty. It was rendered opaque in various ways. Messrs. Perrot and
Chipiez found that in a statue of Serapis, which they analysed, the
glass was mixed with bronze in the proportions of ten to three. An
opaque material of a handsome red colour was thus produced, which was
heavy and exceedingly hard.[845]
The methods pursued by the Phoenician glass-manufacturers were probably
much the same as those which are still employed for the production of
similar objects, and involved the use of similar implements, as the
blowpipe, the lathe, and the graver. The materials having been procured,
they were fused together in a crucible or melting-pot by the heat of a
powerful furnace. A blowpipe was then introduced into the viscous mass,
a portion of which readily attached itself to the implement, and so much
glass was withdrawn as was deemed sufficient for the object which it was
designed to manufacture. The blower then set to work, and blew hard
into the pipe until the glass at its lower extremity began to expand and
gradually took a pear-shaped form, the material partially coolling and
hardening, but still retaining a good deal of softness and pliability.
While in this condition, it was detached from the pipe, and modelled
with pincers or with the hand into the shape required, after which it
was polished, and perhaps sometimes cut by means of the turning-lathe.
Sand and emery were the chief polishers, and by their help a surface was
produced, with which little fault could be found, being smooth, uniform,
and brilliant. Thus the vessel was formed, and if no further ornament
was required, the manufacture was complete--a jug, vase, alabastron,
amphora, was produced, either transparent or of a single uniform
tint, which might be white, blue, brown, green, &c., according to the
particular oxide which had been thrown, with the silica and alkali, into
the crucible. Generally, however, the manufacturer was not content with
so simple a product: he aimed not merely at utility, but at beauty, and
proceeded to adorn the work of his hands--whatever it was--with patterns
which were for the most part in good taste and highly pleasing. These
patterns he first scratched on the outer surface of the vessel with a
graving tool; then, when he had made his depressions deep enough, he
took threads of coloured glass, and having filled up with the threads
the depressions which he had made, he subjected the vessel once more to
such a heat that the threads were fused, and attached themselves to the
ground on which they had been laid. In melting they would generally
more than fill the cavities, overflowing them, and protruding from
them, whence it was for the most part necessary to repeat the polishing
process, and to bring by means of abrasion the entire surface once more
into uniformity. There are cases where this has been incompletely done
and where the patterns project; there are others where the threads have
never thoroughly melted into the ground, and where in the course of
time they have partially detached themselves from it; but in general the
fusion and subsequent polishing have been all that could be wished,
and the patterns are perfectly level with the ground and seem one with
it.[846]
The running of liquid glass into moulds, so common nowadays, does not
seem to have been practised by the Phoenicians, perhaps because their
furnaces were not sufficiently hot to produce complete liquefaction.
But--if this was so--the pressure of the viscous material into moulds
cannot have been unknown, since we have evidence of the existence of
moulds,[847] and there are cases where several specimens of an object
have evidently issued from a single matrix.[848] Beads, cylinders,
pendants, scarabs, amulets, were probably, all of them, made in this
way, sometimes in translucent, sometimes in semi-opaque glass, as
perhaps were also the _plaques_ which have been already described.
The ceramic art of the Phoenicians is not very remarkable. Phoenicia
Proper is deficient in clay of a superior character, and it was probably
a very ordinary and coarse kind of pottery that the Phoenician merchants
of early times exported regularly in their trading voyages, both inside
and outside the Mediterranean. We hear of their carrying this cheap
earthenware northwards to the Cassiterides or Scilly Islands,[849] and
southwards to the isle of Cerné, which is probably Arguin, on the West
African coast;[850] nor can we doubt that they supplied it also to
the uncivilised races of the Mediterranean--the Illyrians, Ligurians,
Sicels, Sards, Corsicans, Spaniards, Libyans. But the fragile nature of
the material, and its slight value, have caused its entire disappearance
in the course of centuries, unless in the shape of small fragments; nor
are these fragments readily distinguishable from those whose origin is
different. Phoenicia Proper has furnished no earthen vessels, either
whole or in pieces, that can be assigned to a time earlier than the
Greco-Roman period,[851] nor have any such vessels been found hitherto
on Phoenician sites either in Sardinia, or in Corsica, or in Spain,
or Africa, or Sicily, or Malta, or Gozzo. The only places that have
hitherto furnished earthen vases or other vessels presumably Phoenician
are Jerusalem, Camirus in Rhodes, and Cyprus; and it is from the
specimens found at these sites that we must form our estimate of the
Phoenician pottery.
The earliest specimens are of a moderately good clay, unglazed. They are
regular in shape, being made by the help of a wheel, and for the most
part not inelegant, though they cannot be said to possess any remarkable
beauty. Many are without ornament of any kind, being apparently mere
jars, used for the storing away of oil or wine; they have sometimes
painted or scratched upon them, in Phoenician characters, the name of
the maker or owner. A few rise somewhat above the ordinary level, having
handles of some elegance, and being painted with designs and patterns,
generally of a geometrical character. A vase about six inches high,
found at Jerusalem, has, between horizontal bands, a series of geometric
patterns, squares, octagons, lozenges, triangles, pleasingly arranged,
and painted in brown upon a ground which is of a dull grey. At the top
are two rude handles, between which runs a line of zig-zag, while at
the bottom is a sort of stand or base. The shape is heavy and
inelegant.[852]
Another vase of a similar character to this, but superior in many
respects, was found by General Di Cesnola at Dali (Idalium), and is
figured in his “Cyprus.”[853] This vase has the shape of an urn, and is
ornamented with horizontal bands, except towards the middle, where it
has its greatest diameter, and exhibits a series of geometric designs.
In the centre is a lozenge, divided into four smaller lozenges by a St.
Andrew’s cross; other compartments are triangular, and are filled with
a chequer of black and white, resembling the squares of a chessboard.
Beyond, on either side, are vertical bands, diversified with a lozenge
ornament. Two hands succeed, of a shape that is thought to have “a
certain elegance.”[854] There is a rim, which might receive a cover,
at top, and at bottom a short pedestal. The height of the vase is about
thirteen inches.
In many of the Cyprian vases having a geometric decoration, the figures
are not painted on the surface but impressed or incised. Messrs. Perrot
and Chipiez regard this form of ornamentation as the earliest; but the
beauty and finish of several vases on which it occurs is against the
supposition. There is scarcely to be found, even in the range of Greek
art, a more elegant form than that of the jug in black clay brought by
General Di Cesnola from Alambra and figured both in his “Cyprus”[855]
and in the “Histoire de l’Art.”[856] Yet its ornamentation is incised.
If, then, incised patterning preceded painted in Phoenicia, at any rate
it held its ground after painting was introduced, and continued in vogue
even to the time when Greek taste had largely influenced Phoenician art
of every description.
The finest Phoenician efforts in ceramic art resemble either the best
Egyptian or the best Greek. As the art advanced, the advantage of a rich
glaze was appreciated, and specimens which seem to be Phoenician have
all the delicacy and beauty of the best Egyptian faïence. A cup found
at Idalium, plain on the outside, is covered internally with a green
enamel, on which are patterns and designs in black.[857] In a medallion
at the bottom of the cup is the representation of a marshy tract
overgrown with the papyrus plant, whereof we see both the leaves and
blossoms, while among them, rushing at full speed, is the form of a
wild boar. The rest of the ornamentation consists chiefly of concentric
circles; but between two of the circles is left a tolerably broad ring,
which has a pattern consisting of a series of broadish leaves pointing
towards the cup’s centre. Nothing can be more delicate, or in better
taste, than the entire design.
The most splendid of all the Cyprian vases was found at Curium, and
has been already represented in this volume. It is an amphora of large
dimensions, ornamented in part with geometrical designs, in part with
compartments, in which are represented horses and birds. The form, the
designs, and the general physiognomy of the amphora are considered to be
in close accordance with Athenian vases of the most antique school. The
resemblance is so great that some have supposed the vase to have been
an importation from Attica into Cyprus;[858] but such conjectures
are always hazardous; and the principal motives of the design are so
frequent on the Cyprian vases, that the native origin of the vessel is
at least possible, and the judgment of some of the best critics seems to
incline in this direction.
Still, on the whole, the Cyprian ceramic art is somewhat disappointing.
What is original in it is either grotesque, as the vases in the shape of
animals,[859] or those crowned by human heads,[860] or those again which
have for spout a female figure pouring liquid out of a jug.[861] What is
superior has the appearance of having been borrowed. Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Greek art, each in turn, furnished shapes, designs, and patterns to
the Phoenician potters, who readily adopted from any and every quarter
the forms and decorations which hit their fancy. Their fancy was,
predominantly, for the _bizarre_ and the extravagant. Vases in the shape
of helmets, in the shape of barrels, in the shape of human heads,[862]
have little fitness, and in the Cyprian specimens have little beauty;
the mixture of Assyrian with Egyptian forms is incongruous; the birds
and beasts represented are drawn with studied quaintness, a quaintness
recalling the art of China and Japan. If there is elegance in some of
the forms, it is seldom a very pronounced elegance; and, where the taste
is best, the suspicion continually arises that a foreign model has been
imitated. Moreover, from first to last the art makes little progress.
There seems to have been an arrest of development.[863] The early
steps are taken, but at a certain point stagnation sets in; there is no
further attempt to improve or advance; the artists are content to repeat
themselves, and reproduce the patterns of the past. Perhaps there was no
demand for ceramic art of a higher order. At any rate, progress ceases,
and while Greece was rising to her grandest efforts, Cyprus, and
Phoenicia generally, were content to remain stationary.
Besides their ornamental metallurgy, which has been treated of in
a former chapter, the Phoenicians largely employed several metals,
especially bronze and copper, in the fabrication of vessels for ordinary
use, of implements, arms, toilet articles, furniture, &c. The vessels
include pateræ, bowls, jugs, amphoræ, and cups;[864] the implements,
hatchets, adzes, knives, and sickles;[865] the arms, spearheads,
arrowheads, daggers, battle-axes, helmets, and shields;[866] the toilet
articles, mirrors, hand-bells, buckles, candlesticks, &c.;[867] the
furniture, tall candelabra, tripods, and thrones.[868] The bronze is of
an excellent quality, having generally about nine parts of copper to one
of tin; and there is reason to believe that by the skilful tempering of
the Phoenician metallurgists, it attained a hardness which was not often
given it by others. The Cyprian shields were remarkable. They were of
a round shape, slightly convex, and instead of the ordinary boss, had
a long projecting cone in the centre. An actual shield, with the
cone perfect, was found by General Di Cesnola at Amathus,[869] and a
projection of the same kind is seen in several of the Sardinian bronze
and terra-cotta statuettes.[870] Shields were sometimes elaborately
embossed, in part with patterning, in part with animal and vegetable
forms.[871] Helmets were also embossed with care, and sometimes
inscribed with the name of the maker or the owner.[872]
Some remains of swords, probably Phoenician, have been found in
Sardinia. They vary from two feet seven inches to four feet two inches
in length.[873] The blade is commonly straight, and very thick in the
centre, but tapers off on both sides to a sharp edge. The point is
blunt, so that the intention cannot have been to use the weapon both for
cutting and thrusting, but only for the former. It would scarcely make
such a clean cut as a modern broadsword, but would no doubt be equally
effectual for killing or disabling. Another weapon, found in Sardinia,
and sometimes called a sword, is more properly a knife or dagger. In
length it does not exceed seven or eight inches, and of this length more
than a third is occupied by the handle.[874] Below the handle the
blade broadens for about an inch or an inch and a half; after this it
contracts, and tapers gently to a sharp point. Such a weapon appears
sometimes in the hand of a statuette.[875]
The bronze articles of the toilet recovered by recent researches in
Cyprus and elsewhere are remarkable. The handle of a mirror found in
Cyprus, and now in the Museum of New York, possesses considerable
merit. It consists mainly of a female figure, naked, and standing upon a
frog.[876] In her hands she holds a pair of cymbals, which she is in the
act of striking together. A ribbon, passed over her left shoulder,
is carried through a ring, from which hangs a seal. On her arms and
shoulders appear to have stood two lions, which formed side supports to
the mirror that was attached to the figure’s head. If the face of the
cymbal-player cannot boast of much beauty, and her figure is thought to
“lack distinction,” still it is granted that the _tout ensemble_ of
the work was not without originality, and may have possessed a certain
amount of elegance.[877] The frog is particularly well modelled.
Some candlesticks found in the Treasury of Curium,[878] and a tripod
from the same place, seem to deserve a short notice. The candlesticks
stand upon a sort of short pillar as a base, above which is the blossom
of a flower inverted, a favourite Phoenician ornament.[879] From this
rises the lamp-stand, composed of three leaves, which curl outwards, and
support between them a ring into which the bottom of the lamp fitted.
The tripod[880] is more elaborate. The legs, which are fluted, bulge
considerably at the top, after which they bend inwards, and form a curve
like one half of a Cupid’s bow. To retain them in place, they are joined
together by a sort of cross-bar, about half-way in their length; while,
to keep them steady, they are made to rest on large flat feet. The
circular hoop which they support is of some width, and is ornamented
along its entire course with a zig-zag. From the hoop depend, half-way
in the spaces between the legs, three rings, from each of which there
hangs a curious pendant.
Besides copper and bronze, the Phoenicians seem to have worked in lead
and iron, but only to a small extent. Iron ore might have been obtained
in some parts of their own country, but appears to have been principally
derived from abroad, especially from Spain.[881] It was worked up
chiefly, so far as we know, into arms offensive and defensive. The sword
of Alexander, which he received as a gift from the king of Citium,[882]
was doubtless in this metal, which is the material of a sword found at
Amathus, and of numerous arrowheads.[883] We are also told that Cyprus
furnished the iron breast-plates worn by Demetrius Poliorcetes;[884] and
in pre-Homeric times it was a Phoenician--Cinyras--who gave to Agamemnon
his breast-plate of steel, gold, and tin.[885] That more remains of iron
arms and implements have not been found on Phoenician sites is probably
owing to the rapid oxydisation of the metal, which consequently decays
and disappears. The Hiram who was sent to assist Solomon in building and
furnishing the Temple of Jerusalem was, we must remember, “skilful
to work,” not only “in gold, and silver, and bronze,” but also “in
iron.”[886]
Lead was largely furnished to the Phoenicians by the Scilly
Islands,[887] and by Spain.[888] It has not been found in any great
quantity on Phoenician sites, but still appears occasionally. Sometimes
it is a solder uniting stone with bronze;[889] sometimes it exists in
thin sheets, which may have been worn as ornaments.[890] In Phoenicia
Proper it has been chiefly met with in the shape of coffins,[891] which
are apparently of a somewhat late date. They are formed of several
sheets placed one over the other and then soldered together. There is
generally on the lid and sides of the coffin an external ornamentation
in a low relief, wherein the myth of Psyché is said commonly to play
a part; but the execution is mediocre, and the designs themselves have
little merit.