Subsequenly, from that hostility to innovation cha racterising the system, partly to avoid difficulties of i execution, and to obtain a plane surface for the n scription of hieroglyphics, the aboriginal pillar was retained. Of these two manners in figures composing the second class, numerous specimens remain, espe cially of the first, as in the excavations of I'hilee, Ele phantis, Silsilis, and in the tombs of the kings. These also are not only the most ancient but likewise the most authentic; and there can be no question, that of the second kind, many in the different cabinets of Europe are spurious imitations of Egyptian art. In the gen uine statues of both kinds still existing on their native site much diversity of style and character prevails. The varieties, however, cannot be reduced to any de terminate epoch as, or regular gradations, as has some times been attempted. From the contradictions in time and vicinity of situation in the good and the bad, the disparity in point of merit can properly be ascribed only to individual excellence or mediocrity in the artists employed—to the purposes contemplated—to the opu lence or taste of the projectors.
The profusion with which Relieves were employed merely as decorative parts, without regard to intrin sic beauty, as also the nature of hieroglyphical repre sentation, where only a general resemblance of outline was studied to the neglect of expression, and the more delicate varieties of form,—necessarily exerted a pre judicial influence not only in this department, but ge nerally on the progress of Egyptian sculpture. In this branch of the art, likewise, as might be expected, where, from the introduction of a number of figures, other principles of design, besides a mere knowledge of form become necessary, the deficiencies of the ar tist are betrayed more conspicuously. This, how ever, must be understood with clue limitation. In such relieves, sepulchral ones for instance, as contain few figures, seldom more than three, and in which the attitude is simple, without violent or complicated ac tion, are frequently displayed no mean beauties of ex ecution and of outline. But on the contrary, in histo rical relieves, which frequently cover entire walls of immense edifices, representing processions, battles, sieges, all is confusion, feebleness, and puerility. In the drawing and anatomy the utmost ignorance is manifested; the figures are without joint, and exhibit not the slightest knowledge of balance or spring in motion. Even proportion and magnitude, not to mention perspective, seem to have been utterly dis regarded or unknown. The military engines, build ings, soldiers, all appear of the same size, and all equally near the eye. The hero is certainly distin guished from the rest, but in a way which marks the absence of all science, and indeed could be conceived or tolerated only among a people whose taste was in the highest degree barbarous. This personage, who is generally in the bloom of youth, that he may stand forth from the vulgar, is always represented at least double the stature of his followers. The circum
stance of confounding moral with physical greatness is alone sufficient evidence of the infancy of invention, and proves the Egyptians never to have passed that limit where, by a slight refinement of imitative tact, if the expression may be permitted, a tolerable resem blance of individual form is accomplished, but where any sustained efforts of abstract imitation is impossi ble. The hieroglyphics, which form so large a por lion of the Egyptian relievos, we have already noticed as destitute of accurate discrimination of form, consi dered as works of art ; but to this latter rank they ought hardly to be elevated ; they are more properly to be regarded .as conventional representations, de pendent on modes and principles equally arbitrary. The praises bestowed on works of this class by Win kleman and others, are to be restricted to the mere excellencies of labour and workmanship. Even in these respects the commendation is often exaggerated, not unfrequently misplaced. The genuine relieves of the primitive age are, without exception, anaglyphics, that is, raised on themselves, but depressed beneath the general surface on which they are engraven. Now we cannot admit the refinement so generally pre sumed in this fact, which is considered as evidence of elegant invention, both to deepen' the effect to a spectator at a distance, and to guard the work against the injuries of time. The latter of these reasons may be true, certainly, not the former ; for if the shadow be thus stronger, it obscures in an equal degree the contours of the niched figure ; also the practice is uni versal, as well in works which are to be viewed near, as in those placed remote from the eye. This man ner, therefore, is to be regarded as originating in the limited resources of an imperfect art. It is in truth but the first step in improving in the earliest and ru dest of all sculpture, often to be met with in the oldest monuments of this very people, namely, a sim ple outline of the object very deeply cut on a plane surface. An obvious advance was to round the inclu ded figure, marking the salient parts, and depressing the hollows. The next step, but more laborious and difficult, especially in hard materials, was to remove the ground, leaving the figures in full and bold re lief. This view is so strongly corroborated by the history of the art in Egypt, that any work in relief of the description, properly so called, must be as signed to a later era. From not attending to these circumstances, writers have built very erroneous the ories on some specimens of has relief of the usual kind found in the pyramids. These were internal decorations merely, and show that the interior of these structures had in some instances been adorned long after their erection.