casting, began by hammering solid metals into shapes. The _toreutic_
art, although not definitely known at present, was probably that
of hammering, punching, and chiseling plates of metal, either
separately or with a view of fixing them upon stone or wood. Both the
solid hammered work and the hollow-plate work is mentioned by the
authorities. The hollow statues were built up in pieces, fastened
together with nails, rivets, and dove-tails, and it is not improbable
that some system of welding was practiced.
The casting of metals in moulds must have followed the discovery that
they could be melted. As the sculptor improved in his art of modeling
he would be able to make better moulds. He would soon observe that the
solid statue was not only very costly, but so very heavy that the whole
figure would collapse from sheer weight.
This trouble was corrected by the discovery of a contrivance for
casting metals in a hollow mould. It was done pretty much as it is at
the present day, by fixing within the mould a _core_, which did not
touch the sides, except at certain small points necessary for support.
The space between this and the surface of the mould was to be filled by
the molten metal.
There is still another method, less common in modern times, but
employed by the ancients, for some of their smaller works. This is
when a wax model is encased in clay or plaster of Paris and the molten
metal then poured into it to melt the wax, and take the form of the
work precisely as it left the hand of the sculptor. The original model
is thus destroyed and the bronze takes its place. Some very large and
important works have recently been cast in this method, but with the
core. In bronze casting with a core, this contrivance must be made
with great care. The mould, which is obliged to be formed of pieces
fitted together, in order that the model may be taken out, is first
well soaked in oil, then melted wax is applied to the inner side of
the moulded parts in such thickness as may be required in the metal
of the completed statue. But as a hollow metal statue would not be
strong enough to support its own weight, a sort of skeleton of iron
bars is made to take the general form of the figure, and this strong
frame-work is firmly fixed within the mould. We have then the mould,
with its wax lining, enclosing the iron skeleton, or _armature_, as it
is called, with an opening left in the proper place to allow of pouring
in the liquid plaster of Paris mixed with pounded brick, which fills
the space about the armature. Therefore, if at this stage, the mould
were taken to pieces again, the sculptor would behold his statue as
one of apparently solid wax. Practically this is done in order that he
may satisfy himself of the success of his work, and correct it where
necessary. The model is then again placed in the mould preparatory to
casting.
_Galvano-plastique_, or the use of electricity, to deposit a thin layer
of metal in a pure state upon a model, is an important invention or
application of science to art.
Having described the various materials and methods employed in
sculptured art, we are ready to classify the different forms adopted
and arrange them under the proper terms.
Sculpture in relief is the first division. There are four varieties.
_Bas-relief_, or _basso-relievo_, is the term used when the work
projects from the plain surface, the forms being rounded as in
nature. If the work is very little raised, the forms being not so
projecting as in nature, it is called _flat-relief_, or _stiacciato_.
If more raised, but not free from the ground in any place, it is
_half-relief_ or _mezzo-relievo_. If the relief is still higher it
becomes _full-relief_, or _alto-relievo_, in which parts of the human
figure are entirely free from the ground of the slab. In _sunk-relief_,
or _cavo-relievo_, the work is recessed within an outline, but still
raised in flat relief, not projecting above the surface of the slab.
Much of the renaissance and modern sculpture combines the first-named
kinds of work on different planes in degrees of distance, with some
under-cutting. The beauty and character of bas-relief depend much upon
the representation of outline.
Statuary proper is sculpture in the round. The statue is therefore seen
on every side.
Statues are, (1) standing; (2) seated; (3) recumbent; (4) equestrian.
Statues are classed into five forms as to size: Colossal, above the
heroic standard; heroic, above six feet but under the colossal;
life-size; small life-size; statuettes, half the size of life and
smaller.
To know the proper proportions of the figures is a matter of the utmost
value in all sculpture, even more so than in painting, as the statue
is measurable on every side and in every direction. It would have
been impossible for the ancient Egyptians to carve out of the living
rock their tremendous figures unless they had arrived at a rule of
proportion for their figure. Without this their colossi would have been
only rude monsters. Such a rule they had discovered and laid down in
a canon, as it is called, similar to that which was followed by the
Greek sculptors after them, and especially made known by Polycletus,
whose name it received. Though there is some doubt about the precise
terms of the canon, there can be no doubt that it had for its unit of
measurement some part of the human figure. The version of Vitruvius
Pollio is supposed to be the correct one. He says: “Nature has so
composed the human body that the face, from the chin to the top of the
forehead, and the roots of the hair, should be a tenth part; also the
palm of the hand from the wrist-joint to the tip of the middle finger;
the head from the chin to the highest point, an eighth; from the top of
the chest to the roots of the hair, a sixth.”
The rule of ten faces, or eight heads, derived from this, has remained
to the present time. Several sculptors of a later period, who have
given much attention to the subject of proportion, differ slightly from
the canon of Polycletus, though it is commonly accepted.
That strict rules of symmetrical proportion should be followed is
necessary in all statuary, but especially in that which serves as a
decoration for architecture. The knowledge of the figure acquired by
eminent sculptors inspired them with admiration for the beautiful,
and enabled them to express in the creation of their art an ideal of
grand beauty, which was guided by a taste and feeling which rarely
failed to direct them aright. It was the greatest sculptor of modern
times, Michael Angelo, who said that the sculptor should carry “his
compasses in his eye.” Some one comments on this that, “Sculptors, and
painters especially, dread the rule of geometry. They regard rule as a
fetter upon their invention, not dreaming that this great man (Michael
Angelo), before he expressed himself thus, had for so long a time had
the compasses in his hand.” This points to a profound truth in all
practical art, that no man can be a great artist unless he have the
power of drawing in the true proportions of the beautiful.
Having pointed out the leading points in the technic of sculpture, we
take up its history, beginning naturally with the earliest forms as
found in Egypt.
The Egyptians, inhabiting a flat, uniform country, of pure and
salubrious climate, working as sculptors before a written language
was invented, carved their colossal sphinx almost entirely out of the
living rock; an amazing example of symbolic sculptural representation,
combining the human with the brute form of the lion. The date of
this first great work is probably earlier than that of the earliest
pyramids—that built by Chofo, King of Memphis, the Cheops of Herodotus,
and the larger one by Nef Chofo, his son. M. Renan, speaking for M.
Mariette, states that a tablet was found by him recording that Nef
Chofo did certain repairs to the sphinx; so that since it required
repairs, it must already have existed for a considerable time. All
small barbaric or archaic work of the ancient Egyptians in sculpture
has perished in the vast lapse of time. But this one monument, raised
at least 4,000 years before the Christian era, stands to prove, with
its companion pyramids, the wonderful power of conception, the energy
and practical skill which characterized the early Egyptians. What they
lacked in ideas of beauty, they made up for by the simple grandeur in
the colossal size and perfection in execution.
The intention of producing a monument to last forever was shown in an
equally striking manner in the construction of the pyramids, and with
an exercise of science and skill even more remarkable.
Egyptian art, in the form of architecture, was, after the pyramids of
Ghizeh, further developed about 1650 B. C., under Osirtesen I., who
built the oldest of the temples at Thebes. Columns and obelisks were
then invented, and the _cavi relievi_ were largely used. Statuary,
however, did not advance until after the Phœnician Shepherd Kings—a
body of wandering Arabs, so called, who conquered Upper Egypt for a
time—were driven out by Amosis, King of Thebes, about 1450 B. C.
Passing over Amunothph I. and his successor Thothmosis I., of whom
there is a fine statue in the Turin Museum, we come to Thothmosis II.,
whose reign marks a period of vast development, as he married Nitocris,
the last Queen of Memphis, capital of Lower Egypt, and thus united the
two kingdoms, about 1340 B. C. The great avenue of sphinxes, leading
to the temple of Karnak, was made in her reign, and there is a statue
of Thothmosis II., a seated figure seven feet nine inches high, in good
proportions, of about seven heads high, the fingers and toes straight,
not showing the knuckles, and the legs sharply chiseled at the shins,
not showing the small bone on the outside of the leg, as in the statues
of the later time of Amunothph III. (about 1260 B. C.).
The famous colossus, called the musical Memnon, one of the two still
standing in the desert near Thebes, more than fifty feet high, is of
this period. These statues are not in good proportion, being too short
in the waist. The two fine lions, carved in red granite, belonging to
this time, which Lord Prudhoe brought over and presented to the British
Museum, are remarkable as examples of fine typical treatment of the
lion. They show much grandeur of feeling, and, compared with the modern
naturalistic sculpture of lions, they are superior as examples of
monumental art.
In 1170 B. C. reigned Ramses II., the greatest of the Egyptian kings,
under whom was invented all the wonderful adaptation of the lotus and
papyrus plant to the design of columns, as seen in the famous colonnade
of the hall of Karnak. His statue, in the Turin Museum, is in the
finest style of ancient Theban art; it is a seated figure carved out
of a block of black granite, and is not colossal, being only five feet
seven inches high. The point to be noticed in this statue is the effort
at action, which is not seen in earlier works. The right hand is raised
to the breast holding the short sort of crosier of the god Osiris;
the left hand resting on the knee, strongly clenched. The colossal
statue of Ramses, as Osiris, may be taken as examples, with that of
the Memnon, in the British Museum, of the sculpture of this time. The
large sphinx in the Louvre bears the name of Ramses II. The four-seated
colossi, carved out of the living rock at the entrance of the great
temple of Abou Simbel in Ethiopia, represent the same king. They are
between sixty and seventy feet high, and wonderfully well sculptured,
but the proportions are not so good as in some smaller statues, as
they are six heads only in height, and short in the waist and thick
in the limbs, showing no attempt at any close or correct imitation of
nature. They look straight before them with a calm smile of confident
power and contentment. These statues, and others which are to be seen
in the museums, are not equal to those of the time of Amunothph III.,
previously referred to; they are not so well carved, and the features
are heavy, with thick noses and lips, while the limbs are clumsy, and
without any attempt at accurate modeling.
It will be observed, therefore, that Egyptian sculpture may be classed
broadly into three styles. (1) the Egyptian proper, reaching its finest
period in the reign of Amunothph III.; (2) the Ethiopic Egyptian; (3)
the later Egyptian, leading to the decline of that style of sculpture.
Of the first it should be noticed that the general proportions of the
figure were more accurately considered than the relative proportions
of hands and feet to the limbs, which are generally incorrect. There
are, however, some examples of excellent proportion, as in a colossal
arm and fist in the British Museum. This arm belonged to a statue of
Thothmes III., and came from Memphis. It is about ten feet long. The
fist also came from Memphis, and measures four feet across. The heads
of statues of this period are of the pure Coptic type, with a nose
somewhat aquiline, and the lips comparatively thin. The eyes, however,
were always carved in full in profile representations; the feet, one
in advance of the other on the same plane. The details of form at the
knuckles and legs are well indicated.
In the Ethiopic-Egyptian statues, general proportion is lost sight of;
the figures become dumpy, being only six heads high; the limbs are
clumsy and wanting in modeling; the hands and feet stiff and not marked
by details at the joints; nor do they show the small bone of the leg.
The heads are more of the Negro type, with turned-up noses and thick
lips.
In the later Egyptian it is remarkable that with more attempt to
imitate nature in the modeling of the muscles, the forms of the
trunk and limbs become unnaturally puffed. More is added in symbolic
attributes; heads of the cat, the hawk, and the ape, are placed on the
human body; the dress is more elaborate, that of the head especially,
on which a disc for the sun was often placed, as on the god Osiris.
From the fall of Thebes, about 1000 B. C., to the conquest of Egypt by
the Persians, 523 B. C., sculpture became more and more degraded, and
soon lost its original style of simplicity and grandeur of form.
After some two centuries of rule, the Persians were conquered by
Alexander the Great, 332 B. C., but there are no statues of Greek style
of this date found in Egypt; under the Ptolemies, his successors for
300 years, new temples of inferior but still Egyptian style were built,
such as those at Phile, Edfou, and Denderah, and many statues were
made, but nearly all have been destroyed, and there is not one of any
king or queen of the Ptolemies.
After Egypt became a Roman province, in 38 B. C., Egyptian sculpture,
in a debased form, was still continued upon the decoration of the
temples, but the statues were then in the hands of Greek artists. Still
later, there is the well-known statue of Antinous as an Egyptian, the
work of a Greek sculptor of the time of the Emperor Hadrian (A. D.
117-138).
Assyrian sculpture is a discovery of recent times, first made in 1842-3
by Botta, the French consul at Mosul on the banks of the Tigris, and
almost simultaneously by Mr. Layard, who though he had seen the ruins
of Nineveh in 1840 did not get permission to examine and excavate till
1845. The sculptures differ widely from any in Egypt in being nearly
all in bas-relief and high relief. There are very few statues, carved
in the round, that stand either with a support practically or on the
legs. There are no colossi nearly approaching in size the Egyptian and
Greek colossal statues, none being higher than eighteen feet, while
as we have seen sixty feet was a moderate height for an Egyptian or
Greek colossal figure, and some were higher. The colossal human-headed
bulls and lions with wings, at the portals of the king’s palace, are
in high relief on huge slabs, one on each side, facing outwards, and
one on each side on the wall, with the head turned to look to the
front. It does not appear that any principal figure was set up in an
interior, either of these compound animals, or of any deity or king.
No colossal seated figures like the Egyptian statues have been found.
The standing figures carved in relief differ entirely in the expression
of the countenance and motive of the figure from the Egyptian. They
have all some action; the king grasps a captured lion, or as chief
priest he walks with his staff which he holds firmly, while the left
hand rests on the hilt of his sword. It is true that the legs are
on one plane, and the feet in a position that could not support the
body; still the intention to show action and life is there. There
is none of the desire to express majestic, calm, eternal repose and
content which is so characteristic of Egyptian sculptured statues.
Throughout the great number of slabs in the British Museum and in the
Louvre there is a very vigorous descriptive power displayed in carving
figures of men, horses, chariots, battles, sieges of cities, hunting
scenes, processions, rivers with men swimming on inflated skins, with
fish and boats; implements, weapons, chairs, baskets, trees, birds,
buildings, with a close resemblance to the real objects that is very
distinctive of the Assyrian style. The quadrupeds and birds are much
better done than the human figures; the character of some of the mules
is faithfully given, and there is much feeling for nature in some of
the lions in the hunting-scenes. There is no doubt, also, that this
naturalistic realism was carried further by painting the sculptures.
In none of these painted reliefs, however, is there anything of
the careful carving and delicate delineation of the Egyptian _cavi
relievi_; they are all boldly done, and with a good deal of skill, but
by hands that would seem to have been self-taught, and at liberty
to represent as they pleased so that the conventional attributes and
symbolic objects were duly made clear. There is scarcely any regulated
use of typical forms; and in the proportions of the figures especially
there is no rule. The principal figures are about 6½ heads high, and
in others the heads are often larger, while the arms and legs are out
of all proportion gigantic, the muscles being exaggerated into masses
at the calf and knee, and the shin-bone absurdly prominent. All truth
seems to have been sacrificed for the sake of conveying a violent
look of immense strength. The battle scenes remind us of some of the
puerile representations by mediæval workmen of a poor style, or the
debased Roman work seen on sarcophaguses. The Assyrians, unlike the
Egyptians, were “mighty hunters,” consequently horses were favorites
with the Assyrian carvers, as they were with the Greek sculptors
afterwards; they seldom have more than one fore-leg and one hind one,
but their heads are carefully carved, and all the trappings show the
same intention to obtain exact resemblance as is displayed in the
dress and ornaments of the kings and other figures. It is important
to observe that these sculptures are very equal in merit; there is no
sign of improvement and little of falling off. As to the date of these
sculptures, they are much later than all the Egyptian work of the finer
style.
It may be concluded that the Assyrian palaces, with their sculptured
walls, took a much shorter time to build than the Egyptian, as they
were built of sun-baked bricks, with ornamental slabs below, and wooden
beams and columns above, all which structures have perished leaving
only the stone slabs. The soft nature of the stone, which is a kind of
grey alabaster, extremely suited to carving in the manner employed,
afforded the facility that influenced the style and enabled the carvers
to indulge their inclination for realistic detail. They do not appear
to have sought for fine colored hard stones as the Egyptians did, nor
do they show the same desire to make their work monumental and enduring.
Assyrian sculpture was always archaic, though at the same time more
vigorous in what might be called graphic sculpture, and truer in
imitation of nature than Egyptian, which rarely attempted action in the
figure or facial expression. There is, however, no alliance between the
two styles, and there was never likely to be, as the Assyrians were not
a people of poetic and abstract ideas, but of facts, circumstances,
and action. They thought of the present glory, and did not trouble
themselves about the future. The same characteristics will partly
account for the absence of any kind of reference to a future state. The
tree of life with the priest ministering before it and holding fruit is
to be seen; but it is remarkable that no sepulchral monuments have been
found; no tomb or mark of regard in any shape for the welfare of the
dead hereafter has been discovered.
Bearing in mind that the Assyrians were never a statue-making people,
and never attempted to follow the example of the Egyptians—do we find
them influencing the sculptural art of any other people in work like
that of the Assyrians? This question is answered at once by the remains
found at Persepolis, where there are to be seen similar winged and
human-headed lions and bulls, and sculptured slabs, but no statues
either in the round or in alto-relievo.
The ruins of the palaces of Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes, the date of
which is from 560 B. C. to the conquests of Alexander the Great (331 B.
C.), show only sculptural remains left, after all the soft brick walls
and the wooden beams and rafters have long perished. Persian sculptural
art since those days never advanced to the dignity of statuary, but
like its Assyrian predecessor stopped short where Greek art began
to develop. The same is to be observed of that ramification of the
Assyrian arts which is to be traced in the building of the temple of
Jerusalem under Solomon, which, however, was some five centuries before
the time of Cambyses, and about the same length of time after the
settling of the Israelites in the Delta of the Nile (1550 B. C.). The
law of Moses was sufficient to prevent any sculpture in the likeness of
living things; but the cherubim, with their wings, seem to have been
borrowed from the Assyrians. The temple was, no doubt, built of stone
and cedar-wood after the manner of the Assyrians, and with a profusion
of ornament in carving, of valuable marbles, wood, and embossed work in
precious metals.
The colossal sculptures in the rock-cut temples of India, whether taken
as derived from the Assyrian centre or not, may be classed with that
style as semi-barbaric and naturalistic, with a superadded symbolism
which only led to the most extravagant deformities of the human figure
to express the power and attributes of a deity. Statuary proper never
existed in any shape of beauty like the human form, throughout Persia,
India, and China, and there is no sign of any disposition amongst the
Asiatics to learn the art from their European conquerors; it is not in
their nature.
SELECTIONS FROM AMERICAN LITERATURE.
MODERN STATE OF ANCIENT COUNTRIES.
By GEORGE SANDYS.