In fine, when we contemplate Egypt, if not the pa rent, at least the earliest nurse of art—when we view her advances in improvement previous to the exist ence of many other ancient nations—when we exam ine her early monuments—we are struck with wonder and astonishment. But comparing her with herself —the reign of Scsostris with the dynasty of the Ptole mies, a most melancholy falling off from early promise is remarked,—every nation whom she had taught had now outstripped her. Nor is it difficult to trace the cause—convention and prescription, and intellectual tyranny, had assumed uncontrolled empire over her arts. The first principles were had, because not founded in nature; the imperfect models thus pro duced, by superstition consecrated and rendered per manent—fixed barriers to improvement. The genius of her institutions was to rest satisfied at a point of the easiest access, and thus in science and in art she was condemned to a hopeless and eternal mediocrity.
Assuming the era of Egyptian art as the first lucid point in the history of ancient knowledge, we remark the rays of intelligence thus concentrated to diverge in opposite directions, eastward over the regions of Southern Asia, and westward over part of Europe. Ilere in Greece and in Italy, the clay spring was hailed by minds who rejoiced in its beams, and lighted up its splendours. But in the numerous and ill explored monuments of Persia and of Hindustan, the vestiges of this early illumination are too few and too faint to enable us, with any degree of accuracy, to determine its progress or extent. This consideration alone, would not however have prevented an attempt, had such an inquiry promised any illustration of the gen eral subject: for whatever might have been the refine ment of these countries, their arts, like wandering streams, gradually lessening as they recede from the parent source, must be regarded merely as derivations from those of Egypt, and bringing- no increase to the grand tide of improvement. Of Indian, Persian, Baby lonian sculpture, therefore, it appears unnecessary to enter upon any investigation. The ruins of Persepolis, for instance, in ore palace of which a recent traveller counted upwai ds of a thousand sculptures, as well as the excavations of Ellora; the obelisks, statues, and tombs on the Ganges, all exhibit a corresponding though less perfect style, and evidently belong to a later age than the similar works of the Thebaid.
These views, indeed, are opposed by names who deservedly rank among the first in English literature, and who support the priority of the arts of India,con sidering this as the source of Egyptian and of Grecian knowledge. One consideration emboldens us to differ from authorities so respectable. Sir William Jones and Dr. Robertson have brought, in support of their opinion, all that philological and antiquarian erudi tion could accumulate; but they have failed in exam ining the subject as artists, and have not been deter mined in their decision by those principles of judgment which art supplies. Now in this, its only true aspect,
the subject presents a very different view. Both the sculpture and architecture of Egypt bear the impress of uniform simplicity, and the same forms arc preserv ed in the earliest and latest monuments. The grand lines of composition are few and simple in the ex treme, accessories are sparingly introduced, and bear the same sober, massive, and unpretending character. In the works of Asiatic art, on the contrary, although resembling those of Egypt in their general design, there appears a style of ornament, replete with com plicated detail and pretension. Judging, therefore, according to the acknowledged truths of art, these defects in keeping evidently arise from the super induction of the offending parts upon the severer and simpler master lines of a more primitive composition. Nor can it be replied that in Egypt a refinement of Asiatic taste has occasioned this difference, because this would imply a corresponding- superiority in other respects. Now in mere dexterity of hand, the works of this country are more than equalled by those of' India. But the Egyptian artist has never advanced beyond his means; he never attempts what is beyond his knowledge or practice; and we evidently observe that his science extended not beyond what is accom plished.
From the peculiar interest of the subject, we might enlarge on the state of art among the Jews; but this would likewise be to deviate from strict order and utility. Much learned conjecture might be quoted, and opinions brought to pass in review, amusing per haps, but hardly instructive. The Bible, the best au thority, informs us that Moses was the most accom plished of his nation, and adds, by way of eminence, that he was skilled in all the learning of the Egyp tians. From the same source the arts of his people were derived; they had been the bondmen of Pharaoh, and knowledge was cheaply purchased by temporary slavery. The scriptures every where confirm these views; the molten calf of the wilderness was evidently a symbol of the Egyptian Avis, and would necessarily resemble its prototype in form and workmanship, and points out beyond dispute the character and origin of Jewish art. The descriptions which occur posterior to this in other parts, both of the historical and pro phetical books, show that taste was not refined by the lapse of time. Every passage, in fact, proves the reverse, and that art among the Israelites quickly lost the severe and simple grandeur which their residence in Egypt might have fostered. Witness the relievos on the Arch of Titus. the sole vestiges of Jewish art in existence.