From the preceding account it will appear, that of the various eras under which the history of Egyptian art has been reduced, one only, extending from the earliest records to the year 526 B. C. exhibits the true genius and character of sculpture, and has like wise erected the most numerous and the noblest of its monuments. In establishing this principle, we have not been guided by the often fanciful, always deceitful, analogies discoverable in the varying pro ductions of art, but have been directed by the steady operation of the laws and institutions of society, which govern the spirit and tendency of the arts themselves. The second period, from Cambyses to Cleopatra, is mixed in its principles of government as in its arts. Still the master lines of the primitive age were too widely drawn, and too deeply traced to be obliterated or even much obscured. The Persians carried art from, but brought none into Egypt; and had it not been necessary to account for the retrogression under their usurpation, perhaps the second era had with more propriety been commenced with the foundation of Alexandria. The close intercourse with Greece which certainly existed during the whole of this pe riod has been by some attempted to be carried up so high as the reign of Psammeticus; and hence,following up the weak partiality of the Greek historians, Egypt has been denied all claims to originality in the arts. We have already, with due deference, reprobated the absurdity of theorising on the invention of arts, ori ginating in the universal feelings of human nature. But here the genius of Greek and of eastern art are as opposite as light and darlviess: granting then the assumption, which people must have been the credi tor?—Egypt, not Greece; for if this king lived at the time stated by those who maintain • the opinions now opposed, the art of sculpture in particular was in a state of far higher advancement in the former than in the latter country. With the Macedonian conquest then, not earlier, commences the active influence of Grecian taste; which, without changing the grave se verity, the solemn majesty of Egyptian art, softened its sternest and most rigid elements; freed, as far as their consecrated usages would permit, its forms from conventional stiffness; and inspired some sparks of life, of grace and of variety. The third and last era has been added in deference to received opinions, but it is connected with the primitive age merely as an imitation with its original. • In Egyptian sculpture, thus properly understood, we find little to excite that admiration in which travel lers and enthusiasts in the cause of antiquity have been prone to indulge. Still we do discover some excellent first principles, and occasionally beauty of detail; but both are without rule, and seem the effects rather of chance than of design, or refined perceptions of sym metry. Their best statues have an elevation of seven heads and a half, and are divided into two equal por tions—the torso and limbs, at the os pubis; proportions not unpleasing because founded in nature. They show, however, nothing of that characteristic beauty which, in the varied harmony of parts, indicates moral or physical capability. Their figures consequently have nearly all the same character. The proportions, taken more in detail, follow the same principle; yet are often brought out with considerable propriety and softness, but without anatomical knowledge, especi ally of the internal details, the heads of the bones, the insertions and terminations of the muscles never being correctly indicated. Hence the forms appear coarse and inelegant, the limbs heavy and inert, with out vigorous marking on the joints; the deeper depres sions only and the strongest projections are aimed at, not feelingly touched. From this want of anatomical precision, being in these more easily concealed, per haps arises the circumstance, that the female possess more elegance and beauty than the male statues, and with the exception of the hands and feet, which in both are gross and heavy, the nude in the arms, bosom and limbs of the former is often moulded with con siderable delicacy both of contour and of finishing. With these deficiencies of science, the Egyptian statues would appear more like abozzate than having received the last finish, did they not present two re deeming qualities, ever highlyesteemed by a cultivated taste; simplicity of composition and great breadth of parts. These, indeed, united with sharpness of chisel ing, may he regarded as the peculiar excellence of Egyptian, compared with ancient art generally, and which place its productions among those of eastern art, without a rival next to the labours of Greece.
In Egyptian statues, it is further to be observed, that the attitude is constantly rectilinear, denoting that state of art when poverty of resource limits its search of the beautiful by the difficulties of execution. It is in fact the first choice of infant invention, ren dered permanent by prescriptive institutions. From the curve being thus unknown in the contour, the ac tion is necessarily angular, whenever the movement is not parallel to the gravitating line of the figure. Hence the arms have but two positions, either hang ing close to the sides, or crossed at right angles upon the breast; or sometimes varied by one placed in each posture. Lateral motions are likewise unattempted, the statue standing equally poised on both limbs; with the feet not exactly opposite, one more advanced than the other, and often almost in front. In every posture of standing, sitting, or kneeling, these remarks apply: hence it is easy to conceive that little of grace, case, or animation is ever to be found in the most perfect works: yet we often observe a grave and staid serenity not unpleasing nor devoid of interest.
In the genuine sculptures of Egypt, little of expres sion or of character is to be found. As in the selec tion of attitude the artist has been guided, not by the beautiful, but by his own timidity of hand, and con fined resources, so in expression, seldom more than a vague and general resemblance of emotion has been attempted; such indeed as might be produced by ca sually arranging symmetrically the different features. Although heads are very frequently finished with wonderful labour, the effect is always feeble; this arises from the style of art, and peculiar character of visage which appear to have constituted the beau ideal of those ancient masters. The features are flat, the countenance Ethiopian; the first are just suffici ently distinguished to have the effect of separating them, there being no depth of shadow to give contrast and firmness. The eyes, whether long and narrow, as in the earliest era, or more full and open, as in the Greco-Egyptian period, are flat, and almost equal with the general level of the face,—the nose broad and depressed,—the lips thick, though sometimes touched with great softness and delicacy, but always sharp on the outer edges; the cheeks, chin, and ears, large, ill made out, and without feeling. The whole is uni formly surmounted by harsh and disproportioned masses of drapery, which overpower the little effect that would otherwise be produced, and render the ex pression still weaker. The superior beauty of some of the colossal heads may perhaps be rightly attribut ed to their being most probably portraits. Conven tional art, even in the most skilful hands, is rarely pleasing; nature, though rudely imitated, possesses always a degree of beauty.
Respecting the technicalities of Egyptian statuary, some scattered details are to be found in various of the Greek writers. These hints have evidently mis led modern critics, who have applied to the most an cient state of the art, and generally, those refined practices which Diodorus and others described as known in their time, many centuries after Egypt had in some measure become the pupil of Greece. If a conjecture might be hazarded on this subject, it would appear that the Egyptians, in the infancy of their arts, were guided by an outline traced round a human figure, whether dead or alive, placed upon the block, and extended flat upon the back, with the arms close to the ribs, exactly as their statues are composed. This supposition will account for the correctness of the general proportions, winch would be thus ascer tained from nature. Also we can detect no theory of proportional parts different from what could thus be obtained, while those details which theory would preserve, but which could not be thus measured, are so defective. Of anatomical knowledge, as is evident from their works, they possessed no more than a view of the living form, in its simplest relations, could give. On this subject it is frequently maintained that the Egyptian artists had carefully studied the struc ture of the inferior animals, as instanced, it is said, in existing specimens; the hypothesis may be true, but certainly the proof adduced is not to be admitted. Less of restriction undoubtedly has been imposed, and more play of imitation allowed in the one case, but equal breadth and correctness of parts, are to be met with in their representations of the human as of the brute form; witness the head and shoulders of the Sphinx, and of the Memnon, compared with the lions of the capitol, and others at Rome, so justly admired as the finest examples in this department.