Our observations have hitherto been confined to the primitive ages, and we have dwelt longer on this pe riod for two reasons. This being the true era of' Egyptian sculpture, properly so styled, the preceding remarks have nearly exhausted whatever of interest strictly belongs to the subject ; again, few important and authentic monuments of any later date now re main. The second epoch will therefore not long de tain attention. The expression mixed art, which has been selected to distinguish this epoch, appears suf ficiently discriminative, and marks the engrafting of different tastes and styles upon the ancient modes that took place on the conquest of Cambyses, and subsequently under Alexander and his successors. In both cases a change was certainly experienced, still the ancient character predominated ; indeed the grounds, already explained, on which it was founded were too deeply laid, easily to be shaken. To have introduced any radical innovation, not only the frame of society must have been dissolved, but the very exist ence of the titiou must have ceased. Under the Per sians, as regards sculpture, we cenceive, contrary to so many opinions hazarded in opposition, that no actual additions were made. The influence exerted by their dominion on the art, amounted merely to a negative, to the prohibition of its exercise, the destruction of its early and best monuments, and a, consequent de terioration in the few and feeble attempts by artists during the latter years of that dynasty. Mythraism, the prevailing religion of the conquerors, prescribed the use of statues, where only they had been previous ly allowed. Architecture was the only art extensively practised. But the Persian erections were modifica tions of materials torn from the mighty structures of former ages, not original efforts. Here the impress of the ancient style could not be effaced ; while the sculptural embellishments permitted relievos exactly of that description in which the Egyptian artists were the least skilled, and also which was calculated to de teriorate, not to improve.
In little more than a century and a half the empire of the Persians was subverted by the Greeks. But in Alexander the ancient arts of Egypt found not a pat ron. The majestic range of cities, temples, and pal aces, which bordered the sacred stream of the Nile, became so many quarries of tempting access, whence Alexandria was reared ; and the mightiest as well as most rational trophy of Grecian superiority borrowed its grandest and most enduring monuments from the stupendous labours of the first age. The successors of the Macedonian prince pursued the same system ; and though in seclusion the Ptolemys might have en joyed the polished representations of her arts, and cultivated the learning of Greece, we do not find that beyond the precincts of the palace any remarkable ef fects of their refinement are visible, at least in the statuary of this period. The character in all essen tial respects remained Egpytian. Nor if considered, as the arts always ought to be, in relation to the po litical system, could this fate be otherwise. The ob jects, purposes, and forms of Egyptian sculpture had long been fixed, and by that very polity and religion now again partially re-established, in as far as re spected the subject under review. We would ascribe then the amelioration of taste and practice, which certainly is to be observed under the Grecian princes, principally to the removal of the restrictions intro duced during the Persian conquest, and the renewed splendour of the ancient worship ; for as already shown, to sacred purposes only were the magnificent displays of the art devoted. It is not, however, to be
denied, that amid the strongly marked features of in digenous character are to be perceived in the sculp ture of this era, approaches to a firmer, more natural and bolder style of design, which can be attributed only to an intercourse with Greece. This improve ment is most conspicuous in the clothing and action of figures. The drapery, instead of being glued as it were to the body, and in the female deities barely dis tinguishable, by a few small and rigid plaits, now be comes more full and flowing, with some faint indica tion of selected arrangement. The attitudes exhibit more of mobility, the arms are farther separated from the sides, and the whole design more easy, vigorous, and decided. The chiseling also displays more of energy, but the forms are still destitute of style in composition, and discover not the slightest traces of any abstract principle of beauty, tither natural or ideal.
These brief notices have conducted us rapidly over a course of many centuries, to the third and last era, that of imitative art, under the dominion of the Ro mans. This epoch may be considered as commenc ing with the introduction of Isiac mysteries at Rome; but as marking a distinct character in the history of art, the principal works by which it was distinguished are to be referred chiefly to the reign of Hadrian. These works, in strict propriety, have no real con nection with Egyptian sculpture. During his abode of two years in that province, and especially by the deification there of his favourite Antinous, this empe ror appears to have imbibed a fondness for the arts of Egypt. He accordingly caused imitations of the sa cred statuary of the East to be executed; and formed in the Canopus, or Egyptian Gallery of his villa, a very complete and numerous collection. The taste was followed, as might naturally be expected, by the wealthy of his subjects, and imitations were multi plied over the empire. But although these sculptures were modelled after the most ancient of the Egyptian forms, the attributes carefully preserved, and even the material, such as basalt, porphyry, granite, brought from natural quarries, yet the artists were Greeks or Italians, and the Grecian character of design is visi ble in every remaining specimen whose merits entitle it to criticism. Nothing therefore can be more futile than from these works to deduce conclusions regard ing the merits or principles of the art as practised by natives, and in the early ages. It is only in compli ance with classing certain details, and from a desire to include under one head whatever has been connect ed with this particular part of our subject, that this era has not consequently been introduced among the corruptions of Greek art. So far indeed does our scepticism here extend, that we doubt whether a sin gle statue near the natural size of genuine Egyptian workmanship has ever been disinterred in Italy or in Europe. Certainly, we are induced from inspection to pronounce the smaller figures in the different Ita lian collections as belonging to this last period, while the others, however celebrated, such as the Isis of the capitol, are of such a style, or rather so destitute of all style, that they may belong to any or to no era. A distinction indeed has been attempted to be estab lished, from the circumstance, that these latter com positions are unadorned by hieroglyphics, and have no pilaster behind. But it will surely be admitted that these accessories would not be more difficult to add, than to imitate the whole form and attitude, and that wherever complete imitation was requisite, these attributes likewise would be affixed.