The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-01-07

faithfully sdhsrsA bad bssn already calculated
and introduced a. . canon. From the first.
too. the appreciation Of individuality seems to
have been almost wholly lacking in the Egyp-
tian artist. Sculptors and painters worked
without the least hope or thought Of per-
petusting their own names. and the work
became what the artist felt himself per.
sonally to be. . mere characterless link
in monotonous chain. Not only did
the artist generally conhne himself to one and
the same conventional figure. but. in position
and movement he mainly alterhated between
two conventional attitudes. Tho statues are
with few exceptions either sitting or in an
act between standing and stepping. which does
not appear to be an actual advance. because the
feet are too noar together. In both cases
statues have the arms pressed closely to the
body; individual action Is. In every case. ex-
cluded. The unalterably repeated peculiaritles
Of the face and head may DO referred In some
measure to the deviations from the Greek type.
characteristic Of the Egyptians-especially to
the different formation Of the skull and POSI-
ton Of the eye. As has been already noted. the
human form. ~ accepted by the Egyptian
sculptor. was. to the smallest detail.
wrought according to = network Of lines. which.
according to Diodorus. was 21t units in height.
the unit being apparently tho length OF the
nose. The shoulders are drawn upward. and.
like tho nat breast are broad; the hips. on the
contrary. are narrow. and weakly modelled.
The lean arms are muscular. dry. and hard:
the hands arc rendered clumsy by the equally
thick and almost equally long fingers. The
legs are not powerful. ind rather slim. indi-
eating. however. great elasticity. and. like all
other parts Of the body. the ability to endure
prolonged exertion. The knees are sharp. and
drawn with an understanding OF anatomy; the
= ~.
which do not much differ from one another In
dimensions and shape 1t may be- added that in
female figures the breasts are fully developed.
the nipple being formed like rosette.
There arc. 1t Ia true. some exceptions to the
pcrvading monotony Of Egyptian sculpture.
Less pretentions works where the necessity Of
canonical ideallEation seems not to have been
hold imperative--as In the well-fed form OF the
so-called schoolmaster OF Boulac. which shows
not only In the head. but In the entire body. an
undeniable portrait-make 1t questionable
whether the con>entionnlized representations
should not be ascrlbed rather to the restraint
Of heratic authority and tradition than to any
con2enital incapncity of the Egyptian artist for
individual characterization. 1t should also be
noted as bearing on this point that Egyptian
sculpture dealt more successfully with
the forms OF animals than with human
uolukS duu III uuutluR bctueS tu6Te
Is remarkable spirit and accuracy In the
drawing Of tho dogs and OF the animals
which they attack. The andre sphinxes
which differ from the Greek sphinxes in being
male. have also much lifelife force. 1t is how
ever. in cases where the entire lion is repre-
sented without reformation that Egyptian
sculpture attains its greatest perfection. The
sculpture OF relefs was less developed and less
correct than the sculpture Of the round. In
this transitional stage between sculpture and
painting the artists desire to represent the
human body clearly and completely led to an
unlucky conflict between the profile and front
view OF the figure. BY clumsy torsion OF the
body. remarked in the childhood OF almost
every art-ln the Assyrian and ancient Greek.
as well as the Exyptlnn-the head with the OK
ception Of the eye. which was represented rs in
front. was taken In profile. shoulders and
breast were shown rs from in front. while arms
and hands. rs we'll as hips. legs. and feet. were
seen in profile again.
The Egyptian wall painting. although the
subjects selected for representation are ex-
tremely varied and interesting. are all disfg-
ured by the three faults above mentioned. viz.
a highly conventionalized type OF the human
form. grotesQue contortion OF the figure
whenever an attempt is made to exhibit 1t in
profile. and q system OF perspective which
renders much OF every elaborate picture unin-
telligible. For these and other reasons DR..
Won Reber would regard Egyptian'painting as
| rather q conventional picture writing than an
art. In support OF this definition. he reminds
us that the seven colors used-red. blue.
brown. yellow. green black. and whits-are. Us
a rule. applied without mixture or variation
and without much reference to the appearance
OF nature. Within sharply drawn outlines the
| coOrs are laid on fiat and without any modlti-
cation by light and shade. upon the change Of
| which all pictorial illusion Is based. This illu-
| sion being the fundamental principle Of paint
| ing. and being entirely lacking in the work Of
| the Egyptian artist. We cannot properly speak
| Of an art OF painting In the Nile land. or In
deed. in antiquity at all. before the time OF
the Greek painter. Polygnotos. In short
Egyptian paintings were entirely Of the nature
OF ornament. and the fact that written expla-
| nation was almost always considered necessary
indicates TINT the art was considered .incom-
| petent to portray even exterior actions.
The profound difference in the structure OF
society which distinguished ancient Mesopo-
tamis from Egypt is accurately reflected in the
architectural remains OF the two countries
In the lands watered by the Tigris and the
Euphrates royalty held the same position oil
overwhelming superiority which seems TO have
belonged to the hierarchies Of Memphis and
Thebes. In the one case the palace was AZ
conspicuously In the foreground rs was the
temple in the other. 1t is true that In the m os
primitive civilization OF Chadea the dsspotit
and ecclesiastical elements Of society. and
consequently the two classes Of monuments
were more equally represented. From mos
points OF view. however. the relation Of
Chaldean to Assyrian architecture 10 very
Close and the differences arose chiefly from
the superior material at the builders dis
posal In upper MesopOtamia. The ter
races OF Assyria. like those Of Cha
des were made OF sun-drsd bricks ant
stamped earth. but the nelghboring mountain.
provided stone for the complete casing OF these
masses with Qusrrled blocks. The grounC
plans OF the Assyrian palaces hitherto dis
covered show the greatest diversity and elabo
ration Of detailed arrangement There arr
numerous large courts. out OF which open
multitude OF chambers OF various sizes anC
adapted to various purposes. There is reason
to believe that these palaces were never more
than ons story In height. the effect OF elevation
being secured by the high terraces on which
they were erected. The manner OF lighting AM
| roofing ia not directly evident from the exist