With the exception of the Hindus, our remarks have thus far been confined to those nations among whom sculpture is known to have been practised, but of whose art no monuments remain. Wo are now about to enter upon a more interesting field of inquiry. Sculpture had in its first stage (when, as wo believe, each people who employed it originated it for themselves) fulfilled its purpose as a sign or a record. Afterwards it acquired an increased dignity from being used to represent objects claiming admiration or respect ; and it was in this stage probably that valuable materials were first used for sculpture. The progress was easy to employing it for decoration, and the Baby lonians and Hebrews made great use of it for this purpose. But as yet no practical knowledge has been gained with respect to its progress as an art of design ; of the changes from primitive rudeness to defined form and character; nor of the innovations or varieties in feeling or practice occasioned by the intercourse of hitherto strange and unknown nations.
The style of sculpture and the condition of the art at different periods among the Persians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, tho Etrurians, the Greeks, and the Romans, can fortunately be illustrated by reference to existing remains. Each of these people had their peculiar manlier, which has given a character of se/mo/ to their productions. lu all of them the practice of art was more or less influenced by.tho priests, and by local and popular religious opinions; and it will be interesting to trace how far these influences affected the progress of sculpture, by restraining, as they did in some instances, its advancement towards perfection even as an imitative art ; or in urging it forward, as among the Greeks, till it reached its highest excellence, by the union of subject, form, and expression, as a means of gratifying sense, exciting feeling, and elevating sentiment.
Sculpture was practised in Persia with very limited success. Various circumstances conspired to retard its progress. The Persians, disapproved of statues for religious purposes ; that is, ass objects to which worship should be offered. Not believing, as the Greeks did, that the gods had the human form, they admitted no representation of the deity, and allowed fire and water to be the ouly symbols or emblems of the divine power. It is said that Xerxes destroyed the temples of Greece at the instigation of the Magi, who exclaimed against the impiety of those who presumed to enclose within walls tho gods to whom all things are open and free, and whose appropriate temple is the whole universe. Wherever theyappeared as conquerors, the effects of this opinion were exhibited; and in Egypt, as well as in Greece, they gave full indulgence to the iconoclastic fury. It is not easy to determine the date of such sculptures as appear on Persian buildings. Those which decorate the structures at Persepolis represent religious processions chiefly, and sometimes combats both of men and beasts in none of them is there any approach to a representation of the naked human figure. Their figures, enveloped in long heavy
draperies, are deficient in grace, variety of action, and character. At a later period of their history seine innovations seem to have been permitted, but these were not of sufficient in:poi-tame to raise their net to any degree of excellence. Tho low measure of their attain ments In this respect, and the general want of taste in art, are strikingly exhibited in the gold coins called Dents, which display as much poverty of design as meanness and clumsiness of execution. It has been thought that Persian art received some additions or modifica tions after the return of Cambyses from Egypt, when his probably was accompanied by aomo of the artists of that comparatively cultivated nation. There is however nothing in any of the monuments that remain which is evidence of this influence. In the treatment of the termination of the hair in small (round shell-like knobs, and in the parallelism and uniformity of the long draperies, there is a strong resemblance between the styles of the Persian and early Greek and Etruscan monuments. If this is anything more than a general characteristic of primitive art, it only proves that the Persians were at one period not far inferior to their neighbours, but failed to make that progress in design and execution which eventually led to the perfection of art in Greece and Asia Minor.
In Egypt, on the other hand, distinct as is the quality of its art from that of Greece, sculpture was practised on a scale and for purposes that give it an irresistible claim to our interest. From all we read in ancient authors, and from all that modern research has brought to light, the Egyptians were learned, intelligent, industrious, and wealthy. Neighbouring nations considered Egypt as the centre and the source of all knowledge ; and " the wisdom of the Egyptians" passed into a proverb. Of the power and the ingenuity of the Egyptians, even in the most archaic times, some idea may be formed from the magnitude and character of their remaining monuments of architecture and sculpture, some of which, of a finished style of art, are considered to be not only of a much earlier date than any known works of other countries, but older than any historical record that we possess. The date of the foundation of Thebes, the capital of Upper Egypt, and of Memphis, the capital of Lower Egypt, is undetermined but it must be of a very high antiquity. At Karnak (a portion of Thebes lying on the Arabian side of the Nile) there are remains of sculpture which bear the name (Osirtasen) of a monarch supposed to have been contemporary with Joseph: and many of the ruins are attributed by archaeologists to a date long antecedent to that king. These monuments are mentioned merely in proof of the great antiquity of sculpture among the Egyptians, and as affording the opportunity of comparing the peculiarities of the style of art at that early time with that of works of later date.