GEORGES DE, a French litterateur, was born at Havre, in Normandy, about 1601, where his father held the post of governor. He at first followed the profession of arms, but subsequently, in 1630, exchanged the sword for the pen, and took to the writing of dramas. He rose to a wide notoriety, and could, at one time, count more admirers than Corneille, the greatest dramatist of France. But men's minds gradually changed, and Corneille is now recognized as the greatest tragedian France has known, and Georges de Scudéri is entirely forgotten. De Scudéri could not bear the rising reputation of his rival; and on the publication of the Cid, so strong was his vanity and so urgent his animosity, that he wrote Observations sur le Cid, in which he laboured industriously to tear to pieces that superb drama; but its author could afford to smile on all such petty animosities, and he contented himself by a striking epigram, which he flung at the head of the "solemn fool," his late friend, De Scudéri. He got into disrepute; and despite all the exertions of Cardinal Richelieu, he could not regain his position with the French public. He was appointed governor of Notre Dame de la Garde, a small fort situated on a rock adjoining Marseilles; but he soon returned from that retirement, and died at Paris, on May 14, 1667, after having been elected a member of the French Academy in 1650.

His plays, which number sixteen in all, are as follows:—L'Amour Tyrannique; Armenius; Oreste; Lydamon; Le Vassal Généreux; Le Trompeur Puni; La Mort de César; L'Amant Liberal; Didon; Eudoxe; Andromire; Axiane; Le Fils Supposé; Le Prince Disguisé; L'Illustre Bassa; La Comédie des Comédiens. He likewise wrote Poésies Diverses, Paris, 1649; and an heroic poem, called Alaric, ou Rome Vaincue.

Madeleine de, sister to Georges de Scudéri, was born at Havre on the 15th of June 1607. Few names in literature have afforded a subject for more frequent eulogium than that of Mademoiselle de Scudéri, and few works are now less read than hers. Having gone to Paris shortly after she had finished her education, she became connected with the Hotel de Rambouillet, where she met with many persons of the first reputation. Mademoiselle de Scudéri had not resided long among this distinguished circle, when she began to use her pen, to correct, if possible, the wrongs which fortune had done her. Her principal romances are:—Ibrahim, 4 vols., Paris, 1641; Artamone, 10 vols., Paris, 1650; Clélie, 10 vols., 1656; Almahide, 8 vols., 1660. She likewise wrote a great many volumes of Conversations, besides some fables in verse. She at once met with a great success. Not that this prosperity arose from any very remarkable method which the fair writer had adopted in the construction of her tales; on the contrary, they were about as full of rhodomontade as could well be conceived; but then they were love all over. No doubt she has given us tolerably exact portraits, so far as they go, of the chief habitués of the Hotel de Rambouillet; but the attention of the reader is constantly confounded by the unceasing interruption of episodes, anecdotes, and frivolities, and his patience is quite exhausted by the elaborate exquisiteness with which everything is gone about, from the fastening of a shoe-buckle to the decorating of the person of a hero with his coat of mail. No doubt, all this was infinitely admired by the elegant beauties among the Parisian bluestockings; and there were numbers of the other sex down upon their knees before the writer, who was by no means a miracle of beauty. This method of writing was the rage of the day; and there was just one man then living who had the audacity to hold up the whole tribe to the unmitigated laughter of the citizens of Paris. The Précieuses Ridicules of Molière sent a shaft through the heart of these absurd coteries, from which they never afterwards recovered. Mademoiselle Scudéri was held in the highest honour by these "Précieuses" till her death, which occurred on the 2d of June 1701, in her ninety-fourth year. Sculpture. Sculpture (Lat. sculpto, to cut out, to carve), the art of cutting or carving any substance into a proposed form. In its strict sense it is confined to carving, but in the fine arts it is generally applied to all those processes by which the imitation of objects is effected. First, in carving proper; also in modelling, or the plastic art; in ordinary casting; and in founding or metal-casting; and in gem-engraving.

Carving, as is well known, is simply the art of cutting any comparatively hard material by the best-adapted instruments, as chisels, gouges, files, &c., into different shapes. Modelling is practised upon soft and yielding substances, as clay or wax, which are formed into the desired shape by the hand and different kinds of modelling-tools, generally made of boxwood or ivory.

Every substance that could by possibility be used for carved works has been employed by sculptors of all times. Among the Egyptians especially the hardest were preferred, as basalt, porphyry, and granite; though they also worked extensively in other materials. Marble, various kinds of alabaster, stone, ivory, bone, and wood of all kinds, were used according to circumstances. The variety of marbles is almost infinite. Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 7) supplies us with an interesting catalogue of those most generally employed. The chief Greek marbles were the Parian and the Pentelic. The former was found in the island of Paros, whence its general name; but it is also alluded to as the marble of Marpesus, from the particular mountain where it abounded. Its colour is a warm or creamy white, and it is remarkable for a sparkling quality in its crystals, from which it is supposed it received its epithet of lycheanum. The Pentelic marble came from Mount Pentelicus, in the neighborhood of Athens. Its colour is white, but it often has blue or gray, and even green streaks running through it, which give it a cold tone compared with the Parian marble. The ancients also much esteemed a marble procured from Mount Hymettus in Attica. It bore a close resemblance to the Pentelic. A great quantity of this marble was imported into Italy after the conquest of Greece by the Romans. A marble of Thasos was also much used, but more for architecture than for sculpture. It was employed for baths, fish-ponds, and for encasing buildings. Italy produces very fine marble. That spoken of as the marble of Luni was procured from the range of mountains near which are situated the modern towns of Massa and Carrara. It does not appear that it was known, or its quarries worked, before the time of Julius Caesar, in the century before the birth of Christ. In many respects it is superior to the Parian and Pentelic marbles. The grain of the Carrara marble is finer than that of Greece, and its colour, when pure, is a rich white. Remains of the former working in the quarries of Luni may be traced; and it is thought the material was of a somewhat finer texture than the more modern produce. The Carrara marble, now so generally used by sculptors, is not often found quite pure in very large blocks. Veins and spots of gray and blue-black, and red and yellow streaks (probably oxides of iron), occur in it. The quality varies also in different quarries. Occasionally large crystals are found which resist the chisel. The Romans procured white marble from some quarries they worked in Africa. Marble is no longer procured, except by mere accident, from Greece; and the only supply for general purposes of sculpture is from the above-named source, the mountain quarries in the duchy of Massa and Carrara, on the west coast of Italy. Among the varieties of wood used by the ancients for sculpture, the oak, cypress, cedar, box, sycamore, pine, fig, and ebony occur. Pausanias mentions, in his Travels in Greece, numerous statues made of wood. This to us apparently humble material seems to have been employed for statues of the most elevated personages. The above writer mentions, among several, those of Apollo Archegetes and of Diana Limnitis, which were of ebony. The statues of Castor and Pollux, with those of their children and of their mothers, in the temple dedicated to Castor and Pollux at Argos, were also made of this material. At Lacedaemon was a statue of Venus of cedar. In the treasury of the Sicyonians, at Altis, was a statue of Apollo made of box. Pliny (Hist. Nat. xvi. 40) especially mentions cypress, cedar, ebony, and box for their capability of resisting the effects of time; and he says cedar was on this account preferred for images of the gods. Yet all these works have perished, notwithstanding the above writer's anticipation of their everlasting durability, when he says, "materie ipse aeteritas." Some figures of small dimensions have been found preserved in tombs. They are of great antiquity, and chiefly represent Egyptian idols. The material of which they are made is usually sycamore wood.

For ordinary casting, as well as for founding (metalcasting), all materials were used that were capable of being solved and again hardened, whether by the action of heat or by mixture with liquids. Among these may be mentioned gold, silver, iron, tin, copper, lead, and their compounds (as bronze), among the metals; and wax, plaster, and stucco among the inferior materials. The ancients used a composition called electrum, which was a mixture of gold and silver, in the proportion of one of the former to five of the latter. Helen is said by Homer to have dedicated a cup made of electrum, of the exact size and form of one of her breasts, in the temple of Minerva at Lindus. That composition which was so extensively used by the ancients for statues,—called by the Greeks chalcos (χάλκος), the Romans aes, and the moderns bronze, from the Italian bronzo,—is a mixture of copper and tin, with sometimes small portions of other metals. The composition of this material, so extensively used by the artists of antiquity, appears to have been a subject of great care. There were rival schools for its preparation. Pliny especially records those of Ægina and Delos; and says (Hist. Nat. xxiv.), the highest honour was given to that of Delos, and the next to the Æginetan bronze. The mere list of names of the different kinds of bronze known to and used by the ancients is curious. Pliny says there was rivalry (emulatio) between two of the greatest sculptors of the best period of the art in the material each employed. Myron used the bronze of Delos, Polycleitus that of Ægina. Besides these bronzes of Delos and Ægina, there was the Corinthian; that of Tartessus; then another kind called the "aes Demoneum;" also the "aes nigrum" (black), and the "aes candidum," or light-coloured, supposed to have had silver in it. There was also a bronze of a liver colour, called "aes Hepatizon," which probably resembled the brown or true bronze colour of the cinque cento works. There were other modes of working in metal besides casting used by the ancients. Such was the solid and the hollow hammer-work (ρυματική) described by Pliny and others. The earliest metal-works were doubtless produced in this way. There were various modes of exercising this art. Pausanias saw several works of the kind, and explains the different processes. Pliny also furnishes some very curious information upon the subject. Either solid pieces of metal were beaten into shape, and fastened together by means of pins or keys; or the metal was beaten out into plates, and then worked into Sculpture, the desired form over a core or nucleus of wood. A small head of Osiris, in the British Museum, exhibits an instance of this practice. The form is bronze; and the centre, of wood, is still remaining. Of entirely solid statues, Pliny mentions an interesting example in the statue of Diana Amatis. Other instances might be quoted, but the above are sufficient to prove the practice. Ancient authors allude to some very remarkable effects produced by the mixture or fusion of metals, by which the complexion of the countenance could be given. Callistratus speaks of a bronze statue of Cupid, by Praxiteles, on the countenance of which was a vivid blush. He mentions another, by Lysippus, in which the cheeks were coloured like a rose. Pliny refers to a statue of Athamas setting overcome with remorse after the murder of his son; and, says the artist, in order to express the effect of shame, had mixed iron with the bronze, which caused, "by its redness shining through the bronze," the appearance of a blush. Pliny does not say he saw this work himself. Plutarch, again, refers to a statue made by Silanio, of Jocasta dying, and tells us that by a peculiar mixture of the metals used a cast of paleness was given to the complexion. Too much dependence must not be placed upon these general statements. That the works above referred to, and others that might be mentioned, exhibited colour is likely enough; but that those tints were produced in the way suggested, namely, by the fusion of metals, is next to impossible. Neither of these writers were practical artists, and, except Callistratus, they lived very long after the times at which the works they describe were executed. Silanio, for instance, flourished about 320 B.C.; Plutarch, who describes his work, between five and six hundred years later. These accounts, then, so far as they assert that these expressive tints were produced by any possible fusion of metals, are not deserving of credit; but as indirect testimony to the ancient practice of colouring sculpture, they may require further consideration in the course of our history. The Egyptians, according to Pliny, coloured their bronzed statues after they were cast, and the Greeks may have done the same. The method above described, of producing various tints of colour, is quite distinct from the Toreutic art (Topery) of the ancients. This seems to have been the combination of distinct materials, always including metal, worked or chased together. The shield of Achilles, as described in Homer, exhibiting different colours, may most probably have been an example of Toreutic art. There are instances existing of inscriptions, in a different metal from the statue, being inserted into the figure. Cicero in (Verr. Or. iv.) speaks of an Apollo inscribed thus with the name of its author Myron. There is a bronze statue in the Musée de Paris of a youth, on the left foot of which are the remains of two Greek words in silver letters. Many examples occur of the introduction of foreign substances, either metal, precious stones, glass, or paste, in statues and busts of the best period of Greek sculpture. The practice is not limited to the eyes, but instances occur of the lips being thus inlaid. There are examples of it in the fine collection of bronzes in the Museo Borbonico at Naples, and some instances may also be seen of it in our national collection in the British Museum. Among barbarous nations the introduction of varied and rich materials and colours is universally met with in their sculpture. It might cause surprise to find the same custom patronized among the refined Greeks when their art had reached its highest perfection, if it were not known that certain forms of art were prescriptive, from their antiquity, and that in all works connected with religion (and almost all sculpture was directly or indirectly so applied) the artists were bound by established regulations, strictly enforced by the priests and supported by public opinion.

Before quitting this branch of our subject, referring to combinations and mixtures of materials, it may be right to notice that, when different kinds of stone or marble were used in the same work, it was called polythitic sculpture; to distinguish it from sculpture in one kind of marble, which was called monolithic. Marble and bronze and wood were occasionally used in these combinations.

For modelling, clay, stucco, plaster, and wax were used. Works of great antiquity formed of these substances are still preserved in the different museums of art. Models in clay were usually dried and then baked in an oven, by which they became as hard as stone, and were very durable, as they were unaffected by atmospheric changes. Moulds were then made, by a similar process, into which soft clay could be pressed, and objects were thus multiplied with facility. Clay thus treated is called terra-cotta. The ancients must have used it extensively, as may be seen from the countless number of figures and reliefs, lamps, architectural ornaments, vases, domestic utensils, stamps, and other objects which exist, and are still constantly being found in this material. Usually such works are of small size; but there are some statues in the museum at Naples which prove it was also used for statues of large dimensions. There are two figures there, especially deserving attention, of Jupiter and of Juno, full life-size; also two others about four feet high, with masks, representing an actor and an actress, which probably formed the decoration of a theatre. The specimens in England of ancient terra-cottas are for the most part of small size. They are chiefly reliefs. Some of those in the British Museum are, however, extremely interesting, both for subject and execution. As such works were usually, if not always, designed for architectural decoration, it is probable they were painted. They were first washed with a thin coating of stucco, and the colour was then laid on with a brush, the preservation of the original surface evidently not being considered of importance. This at least appears to have been the process, judging from several remaining specimens. The employment of wax for modelling and casting is very ancient. Roman families of distinction preserved a collection of statues and busts of their ancestors, which, on particular occasions, were carried in procession at certain festivals or ceremonies; these were sometimes dressed in real drapery. Pliny (xxxv. 2) alludes to this employment of figures of wax. Plaster or stucco is found in the ornamental parts of buildings. At Pompeii there were, some few years ago, two stucco bassi-reliëvi of considerable size and of good design, on the outer walls of a small inner temple in the court of the temple of Isis. The material was extremely hard, and the colour a creamy white. We possess several specimens of the stucco-work of the ancients in the British Museum. They exhibit great delicacy and sharpness of execution. Many are painted, red being the prevailing colour.

Statues were not only made of the above-named materials, but occasionally of those which would seem to be but little adapted to the purpose. There was a statue of Augustus of amber. Statues were also sometimes made of gum and aromatic substances, as well as of others of a combustible nature, to be used on particular occasions. Even hay is mentioned. At the funeral ceremonies in honour of Sylla statues of this kind were used. Sometimes strange conceits were illustrated in these performances. There is mention of a statue of Venus, the fascinating goddess of beauty and love, made of leadstone, which attracted to it a figure of Mars made of iron.

Having made these few preliminary observations upon the materials used for sculpture, it may be proper to describe

---

1 "Aurea statua nulla Inanitate, in templo Anastidis positio," &c. (Nat. Hist. xxxiii. 4.) Sculpture briefly the different modes of practice. First, there is the representation of insulated objects, whether in single figures or groups. As these may be seen all round, like the statue of the Apollo or the Gladiator, or the group of Laocoon and his sons, such works are technically called in sculpture "in the round." When objects or figures are attached to a background, they are called "in relief." The degrees of relief are defined by modern writers and artists by the expressions alto or high relief, basso or low relief; and the Italians have used a middle term, mezzo-rilievo, which is intended to describe something between the two extremes. However slightly a figure may be attached to a plane behind it, the mere fact of its touching it constitutes it a work in relief. There is a peculiar mode of working in relief chiefly found in Egyptian sculpture. The outline is sunk or hollowed slightly into or below the surface of the ground, and the figure is then formed and rounded on the principle of a very flat relievo. Of course, in this mode of execution there is no projecting part above the original plane of the material. It is, in fact, a kind of relieved intaglio; but, unlike works in legitimate intaglio, the forms are correctly relieved or rounded within the limits described. In intaglio all the sinkings are inwards, as is seen in seal engraving, and have not their true appearance till an impression of them is taken.

Various speculations have been offered with respect to the comparative antiquity of sculpture and painting. The story of the daughter of Dibutades having traced the outline of her lover's profile cast by shadow on the wall, and this outline having been afterwards filled in with clay by her father, would give the priority to drawing; and it seems obvious that drawing must be antecedent to modelling or carving in relief. But it is probable that insulated objects were made in the earliest times. The above is simply a Greek traditionary romance; and, referring to a circumstance of comparatively late date, cannot be taken as historical authority for the origin of sculpture. There can be little doubt that rude attempts at forming clay or any other plastic substance into defined shapes were amongst the first exercises of the natural imitative faculty of man. The comparatively easy task of copying the real form of an object to representing its partial appearance by lines on a flat surface, suggests the inference that this must have been the earliest mode of imitation.

The attempts of some, indeed most, writers on art to trace the origin of sculpture to a common or single source have not led to any satisfactory results. The great antiquity of the art renders it most difficult, in the first place, to trace its backward history through the obscurity of ages; but the difficulty is further increased when the question arises, whether it is quite reasonable to attribute its origin to one nation, from which all others have necessarily derived its practice. The faculty or desire to imitate is instinctive in man; and the earliest nation, therefore, would probably have first exercised this natural tendency.

When we come to consider sculpture as a refined art, we must seek further for the principles which gave it its distinctive character than in the mere bald fact of a people having imitated objects by form. There can be no doubt that the intercourse of nations had its influence on the style of any existing art; or, where it was not known, that its practice may have been introduced; but the discovery of specimens of rude imitative art in countries that cannot by any apparent possibility have had communication, proves that its existence in its primitive forms may have been quite independent of any such intercourse. When the very late date of the oldest ancient writers who refer to the history of sculpture, compared with the undoubted remote antiquity of the art, is taken into consideration, there is enough to account for the difficulties they had in collecting any evidence to be relied on upon this intricate subject.

Where the writers are Greeks, the bias in favour of their country's glory would lead them to lay stress upon every little tradition that would flatter their patriotism. Of this the inventions and works of art attributed to one Daedalus afford an instance, and show the limited knowledge that existed of the first artist who is noticed in the annals of Greek sculpture. The progress and improvement of various useful arts must have been gradual, and due not to one, but to a series of ingenious artists and inventors. These, however, have all been attributed to one individual, who bore a name which, in all probability, was a general appellation given in early times to any workman or artificer remarkable for his skill. In the same manner, we find the introduction into Italy of the simple art of modelling attributed to one Demetraus, a fugitive from Corinth, about 600 B.C. He was accompanied, it is said, by two artists, Euchir and Engrammus; whose names appear rather to be epithets of skill than the simple names of persons. Again, some ancient images are spoken of as having fallen from heaven; showing, unless this is to be treated in the same way as some similar modern instances of superstitious credulity, how little real historical knowledge existed of the origin of the earlier sculpture. This is not the case at a later period, when the art held a more defined position, and when, fortunately, epochs in its history were marked by changes in style which enable the archaeologist to classify schools and fix important dates. Passing by, then, the first rude attempts at mere objectless imitation, the inquiry into the history of sculpture as an art having a definite purpose becomes a subject of great interest.

The desire to record in some palpable form the memory of extraordinary events and persons, and to hand down to posterity some enduring monument of the great or useful deeds of benefactors, was doubtless the first impulse which led to the use of sculpture. The first works applied to these objects were probably of the rudest description, and will not come under the conditions of art. Still, from these simple beginnings we probably may trace the development of great results. The oldest histories make mention of what may truly be called monuments erected to mark the scene of any remarkable incident. They were composed simply of heaps of stones, sometimes of blocks of large size; but even these rude forms indicated at a later time ideas of pregnant meaning. A heap of stones was set up at Bethel by Jacob, to mark the spot where he had seen the vision of angels ascending to heaven (Gen. xxviii. 18). The agreement or covenant entered into between Jacob and Laban was recorded in the same simple way, by a pillar and heap of stones (Gen. xxxi. 44). A similar monument was built over the grave of Rachel; and other instances of the kind might easily be quoted. Pausanias (vii. 22) mentions, that as late as A.D. 170 certain of the divinities of Greece were worshipped under the form of mere columns or blocks of stone set upright.

The tradition handed down from generation to generation of feats of arms, the prowess of a warrior, or of the founder of a nation, led in all probability to the first attempt at individualizing in some way the representation of the hero whose fame was thus repeated from mouth to mouth. The people, associating with this object feelings of respect and admiration, the transition, or rather development, of the higher sentiment of veneration is easily understood. Profound respect, and the desire to show gratitude for real or supposed benefits, would soon lead to the payment of extraordinary honours; and the elevation of these heroes or public benefactors to the grade of beings above the ordinary class of mortals became the natural course,—especially, too, when the real existence and individuality of the person so honoured had become obscured by the lapse of time. Thus, the record of great and good actions of men Sculpture led to hero-worship, and hero-worship further led to giving men the attributes of supernatural beings.

It has been said that the history of sculpture is almost the history of idolatry. It is true in part. Religious feeling had much to do, as will be seen, with the progress of the art in its more advanced condition; but it is probable that the first defined images or statues were of men and not of gods, and that human idols, so to speak, preceded those of divinities. As far as can be ascertained, the heavenly bodies were among the earliest objects of worship among the heathen nations; and the symbols that represented them were most likely merely pillars of a conical or pyramidal form, and not imitations of any human figure. It has been ingeniously supposed (Landseer, Sabean Researches) that when such objects or images are referred to by Moses as "graven," that it is in allusion to signs (or hieroglyphics) that were inscribed or cut upon them. Thus the sun was worshipped at Emessa under the form of a black conical stone, with marks on it to represent that luminary.

The oldest record of the existence of objects which it may be assumed were imitative is in the sacred writings; and the first intimation found of the existence of sculpture, in connection with the idolatrous worship, is among the Chaldeans. Some early Christian writers have declared that Terah, the father of Abraham, made images, but Scripture gives no authority for the supposition. We read, however, that when Rachel, in company with Jacob and Leah, quitted her father's dwelling, she carried away with her certain images upon which Laban set so much value that he immediately followed her in order to recover them. There are no particulars of what these images were like, or of what material they were made. They must have been small and light, from the facility with which Leah contrived to carry them away unobserved, and from the care with which she concealed them, when Laban "searched all the tent, and found them not." Images are referred to in another place, where Jacob is described as taking the "strange gods," and hiding them under an oak (Gen. xxxv. 4). In the book of Joshua, allusion is made to the corruption of the Israelites by the superstitions of the people among whom they had so long dwelt, and after the exodus they are solemnly warned against this influence, and exhorted to return to a more pure and simple form of worship.

The earliest known names of sculptors are found in the Old Testament. They are of the artists employed to make the ornaments of the tabernacle. One of them was Bezaleel, the son of Uri, of the tribe of Judah; the other Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. Their date, therefore, is about fifteen hundred years before the Christian era. No remains of the sculpture of those early nations are known to exist; so that no useful speculations can be offered upon the character of their arts, nor upon the original sources of their knowledge. Of course, much of their late improvement may be attributed to their intercourse with that wonderful people the Egyptians. That they were considerably advanced in various branches of scientific discovery must be assumed from the accounts handed down to us; and they must have been acquainted with some difficult processes of art to be able to set up the image of the molten calf, and to make the brazen serpent.

The important and interesting discoveries that have been made of late years of the remains of some of the ancient cities of Assyria have opened a wide field of observation to the antiquary, while they have also afforded most valuable examples of the character of the sculpture of that nation. The light these will throw upon the early history and chronicles of this remarkable people can scarcely be over-estimated; and the successful researches of scholars and travellers, amongst whose names those of Rawlinson, Botta, and Layard will always be remembered with honour, are daily supplying new and most valuable information upon Sculpture, these hitherto obscure subjects.

Herodotus had an opportunity of personally inspecting the wonders of Babylon. He speaks of the hundred gates in the walls "all of bronze," and of the temple of Belus, which had bronze gates. He describes also a statue of gold in this temple; the god, he says, was represented seated, and a golden table stood near, and the step or footstool, and the throne itself, were of gold. He alludes also to another statue of solid gold, 12 cubits high; but with his usual conscientious reserve, he admits he did not see this, but only repeats what he was told. Darius, the son of Hystaspes, wished to possess this valuable statue, but did not remove it; but his son Xerxes seized it, and, it is said, slew the priest who attempted to prevent this act of spoliation. Diodorus Siculus refers to numerous works, showing the grand scale of magnificence of the Babylonians, and gives the names of the various sovereigns of the earliest dynasties under whom the respective works were said to be produced. These details are not, however, received by scholars as entirely worthy of confidence; but although much exaggeration may have crept into the account given by Ctesias, from whom Diodorus derives his information, there can be no doubt that the most astonishing splendour and luxury prevailed, especially in the gorgeous decoration of these palaces and other public buildings; and from which it may be inferred that the arts of design had been practised by this people for a very long period. From whence the Babylonians derived their first knowledge of art we at present have no means of judging; and any speculation upon so difficult a subject would carry us beyond the limits to which our immediate inquiry confines us. But without attributing the works mentioned by Diodorus to such a remote date as the earlier Semiramis, recorded by Ctesias, or to that mythical personage Ninus, there can be no question that the arts must have existed in Assyria for a long series of years before they could have reached the high condition described by the various writers referred to.

There is a curious custom connected with the art-practice of the Babylonians at a somewhat later period of their history mentioned by the prophet Baruch, who wrote about 607 B.C. In the sixth chapter (ver. 4-8) he says, "Now shall ye see in Babylon gods of silver, and of gold, and of wood, borne upon shoulders, which cause the nations to fear; they themselves are gilded and laid over with gold, and covered with purple raiment." This practice of using real drapery upon sculpture was not uncommon among ancient nations, and exists even in our own times in some countries.

The most remarkable results of the researches of travellers in Assyria are the extensive sculptured monuments that have been found in the ruins of the ancient Nineveh and neighbouring places. They seem to have been intended to serve the double purpose of decorating rooms and as records of remarkable incidents in the history of the nation, or of the prowess or habits of the sovereign. The most striking objects, from their size and character, are some colossal figures in which the human is combined with the animal or brute type. These are evidently mythological personations, in which the union of intelligences with force is characterised. The grand effect of these gigantic figures is very remarkable; and standing, as they appear to have done, at the entrance to sacred or royal buildings, they must have produced an awful impression on the people. The treatment or art-quality varies in these, showing that some of them were of earlier date than others. Although of very peculiar style, they generally exhibit an intimate knowledge of animal character in the action and expression. Whether the imitation be of the lion or the bull, the animals which occur in these larger works, the individuality of each is successfully marked. There is one peculiarity Sculpture, which deserves especial remark in the execution of these portal or gate sculptures. Each animal is represented with his fore legs firmly planted under him. In the front view these are clearly defined, but in the profile, from their parallel position, one is, of course, entirely concealed by the other. To obviate the appearance of the animal having but three legs (for the hind legs one is advanced before the other), a supplementary fore leg is added, which can only be seen when the spectator looks at the sculpture sideways or in profile; all the four legs are then clearly defined. These colossal figures have backgrounds; but the relief from the wall is very high, and they almost have the effect of entire statues. The reliefs that decorated the walls of the apartments represent battles, sieges, crossing rivers, lion-hunting, and endless details of the ordinary occupations of the people. The most minute circumstances are noticed. The vegetation of the country in trees and shrubs is shown, as well as the animals in common use; persons are represented crossing rivers, swimming on skins filled with air; in other slabs are buildings being erected, showing all the implements of the artificers: these objects, with the ornaments on the dresses of people, as well as on the accoutrements of the horses, are all copied with the most marvellous ease and accuracy. The execution of some of these works is also evidence of most skilful practice in the workmen, affording proof, again, of long experience in this class of art. The peculiar mode of treating the human figure shows that here, as well as elsewhere, there was a prescribed form established. However crowded the composition,—whether in the battle-field, or scaling the enemy's walls, or in the hunting-field,—the same outline, as of one family or even of one individual, is met with in all the faces. They also have an expression given them which, it will be seen, is preserved in all early representations of historical and mythological subjects; namely, that of a complacent smile, which lights up the countenance, however seriously or even savagely the person is occupied. This very curious characteristic of all very ancient sculpture will be further exhibited as our history proceeds. Numerous reliefs, and other objects procured from these excavations, are safely deposited in the British Museum; and they afford a most interesting illustration of the arts and habits of a nation whose history is connected with our most serious reflections. Nineveh, it is well known, was utterly destroyed so early as 606 B.C.; so that in these works, allowing for the time necessary for the execution of the latest, we contemplate productions of nearly three thousand years' antiquity. Some of them appear to have been executed at no very long period before the fall of this great city; for, from the inscriptions which have been deciphered, they appear to represent the history and actions of Esarhaddon, who succeeded his father Sennacherib. The latter was, as we read, murdered by two of his sons "as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch, his god;" and "Esarhaddon reigned in his stead." Others are evidently of a more remote antiquity. The progress that is being made in conquering the difficulties of understanding inscriptions, in a language that has long been obsolete, is daily furnishing new and most valuable information respecting the subjects represented in these reliefs. The slabs are inscribed with letters or characters in close lines, which often pass entirely over the figures. The engraving does not, however, materially affect the sculpture in its general effect; while great advantage may be derived from this double mode of recording events, as each may mutually throw light upon the other, and thus enable scholars to define with greater accuracy the meaning of the whole series of illustrations.

Among the remains of art brought away from these excavations are many of undoubted Egyptian character. These may be considered as quite distinct from the pure or true Babylonian and Nineveh type. That the sculpture and art generally of each people was influenced by their mutual intercourse may be accepted as a very probable and natural consequence; but a careful comparison of the character of form in the earlier works of both nations seems to exhibit peculiarities which indicate an originality of feeling in both schools; although in a certain quaintness, or primitive simplicity in the composition of the figures, there may be a resemblance between them. These Assyrian sculptures cannot be put forward as successful works of fine art. They are of a prescribed style and type; and though some are of greater excellence with respect to their execution than others, they are of a fixed and not progressive school of art. The superiority observable in some of them is of a practical kind; but there is little feeling for beauty, no improvement in the anatomical construction of the figures, as exhibited in the articulations of the joints, or knowledge in the arrangement and flow of drapery, or in the graceful composition of the groups of figures. Still, they are works of immense interest; and their recovery, after so many ages, is an event of great importance to us on every account. Chiefly they claim the attention of the scholar and the antiquary for the light they throw upon the long-lost history of one of the greatest nations of the earth; but these curious works will also suggest some very interesting subjects of speculation with regard to the influence they exercised on the sculpture of that remarkable people who, long after Babylon and Nineveh had ceased to exist, carried this art to its highest perfection.

It is much to be regretted that no ancient works of Phoenician art remain. It may be assumed, however, from their geographical position, and the constant intercourse that existed between the several nations which were located between the two great rivers of Assyria and the sea-coast, that such sculpture as they had must have partaken of the general character of the art above described. The enterprise and skill of the Phoenicians gained for them especial notice at a very early period. Homer speaks of the Sidonians as remarkable for their skill and ingenuity, and calls them Σιδώνες πολυβασιλεῖς (II. xxiii. 743). A Phoenician artist of Tyre was selected to execute some of the most important works required for the temple built by Solomon. This king, we read (2 Chron., and 1 Kings vii.), applied to Hiram, King of Tyre, for workmen, and he sent him "a cunning man, skilful to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, and timber." The temple was built about one thousand years before the Christian era. The position of the Phoenicians gave them the command of the commerce of the ancient nations, and they extended their dealings to the most remote known boundaries of the earth. There is no doubt that at an extremely early period they traded with the British Isles, and procured tin from Cornwall, the Cassiterides of the ancients; while the coast trade of all the nations of the Ægean and Mediterranean seas must have been in their hands. Tyre is finely apostrophized by the prophet Ezekiel with reference to its great commercial importance. He calls it "the merchant of the people for many isles;" "the ships of Tarshish," he says, "did sing of thee in thy market; and thou wast replenished and made very glorious in the midst of the seas." Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia; but although there are coins existing of this settlement, they are of too late a date to throw any light upon the true early art of their ancestors.

The history of sculpture receives little assistance from the remains of art found in Persia. There is no trace of any original design among them, and the earliest monuments bear so close a resemblance to those of Assyria, both in the character of the forms and in the types, in the arrangement of reliefs against the walls and entrances flanked by gigantic winged animals with human heads, and other peculiarities, as to leave no doubt of their derivation. It is thought that the earliest existing remains of Persian art are the buildings of Persepolis, and that these are to be attributed to the date of Darius, or about that time. The art of the Persians has, however, some peculiarities that so far give it a character of its own. The processions of warriors, captives, tribute-bearers, and others, are in every respect similar to those found at Nimroud and Khorsabad; but while the Assyrian dresses show no movement or folds, the Persian work exhibits these accidents in the draperies.

The conquests of the Persians over the Egyptians, and their intercourse with different parts of Asia Minor, would account for some slight changes in their art, but sculpture was never developed by the Persians into an art of beauty. Strong national prejudices prevented this, and led at one time to the destruction of the works of art they met with in other countries. Xerxes was instigated to destroy the temples in Greece, because it was urged it was impious to inclose within walls the immortal gods, whose appropriate temple or dwelling-place is the entire universe; and statues were defaced under the same feeling of religious prejudice. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the great interest and importance that must attach to the history of this great nation, in its influence upon those countries with which it became associated, Persia cannot take the position of a school of sculpture in the sense in which that term may be applied to Assyria, Egypt, and various parts of Asia Minor, where the art had a distinctive character.

There is no temptation to dwell upon the sculpture of Hindustan or China. It affords no assistance in tracing the history of the art, and its debased quality deprives it of all interest as a phase of fine art, the point of view from which it is here to be considered. It must be admitted, however, that the works existing have a sufficiently distinct character to stamp their nationality; and although they cannot tempt the historian of art to dwell upon them, they offer very curious and important subjects of inquiry to the scholar and archaeologist, who may trace their influence in regions where it is difficult to conceive these nations could ever have penetrated. The sculptures found in India, at Ellora, Elephanta, and other places, are of a strictly mythological character. They usually consist of monstrous combinations of human and brute forms, repulsive from their ugliness and outrageous defiance of rule and possibility. They are remarkable for their extent and their dimensions, many of the works being colossal; and they often are elaborately ornamented, the carving being very careful and minute. The striking feature in these works is that which pervades nearly all the monuments of the East,—vastness of scale, and a tranquil character of expression. Repose, unless in exceptional cases, where the actions of gods or heroes are being represented, seems to be the ruling sentiment of all early sculpture. The above remarks are intended to apply to the art of the Hindus. Of ancient Chinese sculpture much less is known, from the difficulty that hitherto has existed in penetrating into the interior of the country.

What has been observed above of Hindu and Chinese sculpture, in its relation to the history of the art, is equally applicable to the quaint and grotesque specimens that have been met with by modern travellers in some parts of South America. There is sufficient in their design and execution to make them objects of great interest to the inquirer into the early history of the localities in which they have been found, but they afford no indications at present to guide the archaeologist in connecting them with the progress of art. They exhibit proofs of considerable facility in execution in the artists who produced them: an argument for their long practice; but of their real date it is almost impossible to form any acceptable conjecture.

The sculpture of the Egyptians, though it never reached the perfection the art attained in Greece, has great claims on our attention. The extent of their works in architecture, painting, and sculpture, of an antiquity so remote that it seems to defy research, and exhibiting at the same time all the characteristics of long practice, show that this remarkable people were an established nation at a very early period in the world's history. When Abraham visited Egypt he found there an organized form of government; and the most ancient sacred writings speak of the "wisdom of the Egyptians." These old traditions of the learning, the prowess, and the greatness of this people are daily receiving confirmation from the discoveries of modern travellers and scholars; but still it seems impossible to penetrate the darkness which obscures the earliest history of the nation. The dates of the foundation of some of their most celebrated cities, as Thebes and Memphis, can only be conjectured, no sufficient authority having yet been discovered among the monuments or inscriptions for fixing their precise era. The sculpture and other remains found at Karnak, a portion of Thebes lying on the Arabian or eastern side of the Nile, bear inscriptions in which is read the name of Osirtasen, who is said to have been contemporary with Joseph, above 1700 B.C.; and some of the ruins are believed to be of a date long antecedent to that king. Wilkinson (Ancient Egyptians, vol. i.) considers the pyramids to the north of Memphis to be the most ancient monuments in Egypt, and probably of the world, and thinks they were erected about 2120 B.C.

The characteristics of Egyptian sculpture are very peculiar. It exhibits extreme simplicity of design, great breadth of treatment, to the exclusion generally of minute details, and a solid largeness of form. There is little or no variety of expression in the heads, especially of the superior personages represented: a benevolent, placid smile appears on all the countenances. Where dress is introduced, there is no composition of drapery in the way of movement, nor any indication of folds. The action of the figures, however important or exciting their occupation, is limited by the most severe conventionalism. If sitting or standing, they have the legs parallel, the arms close to the sides, while the heads always look directly in front. Our national collection of antiquities boasts some extremely valuable examples of Egyptian sculpture, and the student may easily consult original specimens, by which he may become acquainted with the style of art of this extraordinary school. Considering the great antiquity of the Egyptians, and their long duration as a nation,—taking into account, too, the various fortunes of the country, both from their own conquests and from the invasion of foreigners,—it is remarkable how little change occurred in the leading characteristics of their art. Whether the monuments be of the most remote archaic period, or of the more recent ante-Roman time, no sufficient alterations were introduced to destroy that peculiar and distinctive character which stamps all Egyptian art with its national individuality. Certain antiquaries have attempted to define marked epochs in the history of Egyptian sculpture; but, though certain changes may be detected in the mode of representation in monuments attributed to different dynasties, they do not afford sufficient authority for anything like a strict chronological classification. From the high finish and more careful execution of the works of the time, it is thought that the national prosperity, and therefore the condition of art, were highest during the reign of Rameses, about 1350 B.C.; and, judging from other remains, that the country and its art were most depressed from the date of the Persian conquest; that is, from 625 to about 414 B.C. Of the latter fact there cannot be any doubt; and although the nation freed itself after a time from the hateful rule of Persia, Egypt never again recovered its ancient renown, nor did she long retain her national independence.

The attachment of the Egyptians to that peculiar style Sculpture, which has made their art so remarkable, may be traced to the same influence that was exercised on all the earlier nations where sculpture was employed for religious purposes. It was a means of direct appeal to the prejudices and the understanding of the people, and, as such, was used and controlled by the ruling powers. This power was exercised in Egypt by the hierarchy, and, as the kings or Pharaohs were also priests, all the acts of the sovereign were associated in the public mind with sacred influences. Thus the conquests of the king in battle, the submission of foreign nations, the paying of tribute, the execution of prisoners and captives, were all represented in their sculpture and painting, with the accompaniments of overruling divinities, either expressed in form or implied in emblems. The decorations of tombs were also equally associated with these feelings; and the solemn, colossal statues of lines of kings, attended by the most sacred symbols of their mythology, made the most profound impression upon a population which, from its earliest infancy, had been educated to believe in the divine appointment of its rulers. In art, then, the priesthood permitted no innovations; and the division of the population into castes or callings secured among the artists, who no doubt were especially attached to the sacerdotal institutions, a strict conformity to established types. According to a passage in Synesius, the profession of an artist was only allowed to be exercised by persons properly qualified, lest, in ignorance, they should transgress against the old laws which regulated the representation of the gods and sacred subjects. Plato also says the artists were not allowed to innovate: "hence the art remains the same, the rule of it the same." This, then, may be taken as the real cause of the long duration of Egyptian art under its peculiar form or style. Some stress has been laid on the recorded fact, that the Egyptians were ill-favoured in point of personal attractions; and that they were without the advantages enjoyed by the Greeks, of having public games and exercises. But even if these statements of the want of beauty among the general population are trustworthy, they are insufficient to account for the stationary condition of their sculpture. The true ground of the unprogressive character of their art, as regards its style, is found in the nature of their institutions. That the Egyptians were not incapable of conceiving an ideal of beauty, is shown in some of the heads of colossal and other statues that have reached us, where, within the limits to which we have adverted, a very decided character of beauty of expression, and even of form, is met with. No better example of this can be found than in the head, in the British Museum, of the (so-called) young Memnon; but which, more probably, is a portrait of Rameses II.

The Egyptian artists employed every available material for sculpture, with the exception of iron. For colossal works they used basalt, porphyry, granite, lime and sandstone, alabaster and wood; for smaller works, ivory, alabaster, and various metals. Clay was also extensively used, baked, and covered with a peculiar vitrified varnish, which was burnt into them. Figures, and animals, and other objects, worn as amulets, or used as laces or household gods, executed in this material, abound in all collections of Egyptian antiquities. The remarkably clean and finished execution observable in Egyptian sculpture in the hardest materials—basalt, granite, or of other substances most difficult to deal with—has always excited the attention of the curious, as a proof of the wonderful proficiency of this people, even at a very remote date, in some of the processes of handicraft, and especially in the hardening of the metals of which their tools was made.

With respect to the origin of the nation, and of the character of its religious sculpture, it is almost useless to offer any conjecture. Such authority as can be derived from analogy, from indirect testimony, and also from great care in examining the peculiarities of their monuments, would strengthen the belief that the grand and simple scheme of their art, as it is exhibited in the massive architecture of their temples and other public works, and in the colossal scale and severe tranquillity of their statues, claimed kindred with the Asiatic nations. The most important settlement of the Egyptians seems to have been in the Thebaid or Upper Egypt; and it is supposed that civilization advanced northwards from thence. To the south was the country called in the Scriptures and in the Egyptian language the "foreign land of Cush;" and its natives, with whom the Egyptians were constantly waging war, are generally represented in the monuments as captives or as bearers of tribute to the Pharaohs. They were a black people, and of distinct physical character from the Egyptians; and, as is proved by the difference in the form of the skull of the two nations, of a totally different race. Without speculating upon the origin of the more civilized and intelligent people by whom the inhabitants of Upper Egypt were eventually subdued, the above simple facts are sufficient to establish the belief in the colonization of the Thebaid by a foreign, and, in all probability, an Asiatic race.

The next school of sculpture which demands notice in the history of the art is the Etruscan. Of the earliest inhabitants of this portion of Italy nothing is certainly known, though the subject has occupied the attention of the learned of all times. The architectural remains which are found scattered about that which was considered Etrurian territory, are evidence of a very remote antiquity, but no examples of imitative art can be assigned to the earlier period of the existence of this people. Whether the first colonization was from the east or from the south, from Phoenicia, from Asia Minor, or from Egypt, it is at present impossible to determine. The colossal character of construction, observable in their building of the Cyclopean walls, still remaining, is characteristic of the earlier erections of all these nations. In the greater part of the works in sculpture that have reached us there is undoubted evidence of Greek influence, though in the style there is an exclusive and individual character; but it must be admitted also that there are examples of sculpture as well as of painting in tombs, evidently of a very remote antiquity, and that appear to be quite original in their subjects, and, as far as we can judge, totally independent of Greek fable and mythology. It has been a common error to suppose, because the earlier works of different countries show considerable resemblance in their forms, that it is an indication of their derivation from a common source, and the more archaic sculptures of Greece and Etruria have been frequently confounded, from the supposed similarity of style; when, after all, as has before been observed, this is only the common, characteristic of all art in its first stage. This fancied resemblance to some of the Egyptian figures led at

---

1 As reference has been made to the collection of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum, it may be useful to those who desire to study the sculpture from the original monuments, to point out the grand divisions of the arrangement in these galleries. The northern gallery and centre contain the sculptures of the 15th dynasty, which comprehends the most splendid epoch of Egyptian history. It is the era of Rameses, who appears to have been the Sesostris of the Greeks. These works are of the fourteenth century B.C., and there are others of older date. But little change, if any, was made during the Persian rule in Egypt. In the southern gallery are deposited works of this period, and of the Greco-Macedonian period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the succession of Ptolemy Soter, 323 B.C. Afterwards commence the sculptures of the Roman period, after the capture of Alexandria by Augustus, 30 B.C., extending down to the Mohammedan invasion, 640 A.D.