ANCIENT SCULPTURE.
Although the sacred Scriptures, in all cases the ear liest and purest fountain of truth, contain the first au thentic memorials of Sculpture, we prefer commenc ing with some account of Egyptian art. In drawing conclusions from monuments actually in existence, many of which we have seen and examined, while no Jewish remain is now to be discovered, regularity will thus better be preserved. An examination also of the style and character observable in the sculptures of Egypt, appears to offer some assistance in collecting the scattered lights which the uncertain touch of scanty or dubious history flings over the mysterious ruins amid which the arts of Babylon and of Persia have been seated.
Egypt, in art, in science, in government, stands alone among the nations of the ancient world. The distinction is, however, a melancholy one, pointing to early promise unproductive of final eminence, and ending in disappointment. In almost every mode of intellectual exercise, as in every species of knowledge, she had made the first advances long before those rtates destined to outstrip her had started in the career. But in all these respects, and especially as regards the progress of art, the singularity of her fate is remark able in this, that the genius which had received or discovered the first principles, continued in activity and in constant employment on undertakings or mag nificence, without progressing—without partaking in the general enlightment derived in many instances from the example of its own success. Egypt, perhaps with justice, has been called the cradle of the arts, understanding by that expression simply priority of cultivation; yet in this their aboriginal seat, during a period of eighteen centuries, from Menes to Alexan der, they hardly attained a maturity beyond mere in fancy, as regards the higher capabilities of invention. During a far shorter interval in other climes, sculp ture in particular had reached the perfection of ideal beauty. While the utmost skill of the Greek artist was rudely capable of fashioning into a square pillar the representations of his country's divinities, the objects of the Egyptian's veneration had assumed no mean resemblance of the human or conventional form. On the other hand, when the sublime works of a re fined age had in Greece almost exalted superstition into sentiment, the worshipper in the temples of Mem phis and of Thebes still bowed before the hideous deities of his ancestors. "For seven thousand years," says Pausanias, "Egyptian sculpture remained un changed." The exaggeration proves the truth of the preceding observations, and shows that the absence of improvement had not escaped the notice of those who were more nearly contemporaries, and had ex amined in their almost perfect state the works from which they deduced the conclusion.
Whence then originated this hostile and chilling influence which arrested knowledge in mid-progress, which blasted refinement in the very bud? The answer to this question involves the fate, and will best explain the history of Egyptian sculpture.
The causes of improvement or of decline in the arts have too seldom been sought where only they are to be found—in the objects and character of national polity. To ascribe their cultivation to disposition, to opportunity of studying beautiful na ture—to patronage—to commerce, is to carry inquiry no further than secondary; and at best but favourable influences; to elevate into causes, effects which regu larly proceed from the paramount operation of legis lative institutions. Some observations on this subject are the more necessary, that the imperfection of sculp ture in the East, and in Egypt especially, has been attributed to deficiency in those minor and less influ ential considerations, which may become accessory, never preliminary means of success, or sources of invention.
The government of ancient Egypt, though styled, and perhaps esteemed monarchical, was in reality a theocracy—and in its most rigid, most paralysing form. All knowledge, and consequently all substan tial power, rested in the hands of the priests, who constituted a separate order, regulated by distinct laws, and holding communication, and preserving intelli gence by means unknown to the people, or even to the sovereign. The members of the hierarchy thus be came not only the first legislators, but the precepts being written in a sacred and symbolical language, in telligible only to themselves, they of necessity remain ed possessors of the exposition, true or false, real or occasional of the primitive laws. In such a state of things the whole nation were the subjects, and kings merely instruments under the control of those who were at once the sole depositaries of human authority as also interpreters of the will of heaven. To be per fect, such a system wanted only permanency, and this requisite, except against foreign conquest, was effec tually secured. The laws immutable and inexorable, of which the priesthood were the guardians, chained down every form, institution, or practice, once estab lished; determining for ever the condition, and even profession of each family, and of every individual. Religion, business, pleasure, had each allotted hours and prescribed regulations. Free and voluntary ac tion was unknown; legal inquisition penetrated even that sacred circle, and regulated the duties of domes tic privacy. National polity to the minutest details was to be unchanged and unchangeable; like the celes tial bodies, whose motions formed the grand object of national science, it was to revolve eternally in the same circle. Nothing once connected with the sys tem was to suffer decay, and as has been well observ ed, the very bodies of the dead were to be rendered imperishable.