P. Wendland as bearing witness, in a different field, to the all-important
role here of Alexandria and its dependent, Syria. In one volume 70 he
studies (1) a series of late classical carvings in bone from Alexandria,
which show clear deterioration when the Christian period is reached,
and (2) the often discussed ivory reliefs now in the cathedral pulpit at
Aix la Chapelle, which he regards as Egyptian—probably Theban—
imported to the Ehine, perhaps via Marseilles and Treves. Both series
exemplify "the gradual destruction of Hellenism by the steadily advancing
elements from the Egyptian Hinterland, behind Alexandria." Coptic art
is but the reorientalizing of classic art.
Elsewhere 71 he discusses the two barbaric groups in porphyry outside
St. Mark's in Venice, which have already been variously explained
and compared with similar groups in Borne. These also S. claims for
Again,"3 in the riding, dragon-slaying saint or hero, most usually
supposed to represent St. George, S. sees an eastern figure (c/. the Persian
textiles), made familiar to the west by Hellenistic intermediaries. In
Egypt indeed, where these cavaliers are very common, they may be
intended for Theodore, Meiia, or other less popular saints. In the
monastery of Anthony, some twelve appear in a single fresco. The
carving reproduced from Bawit could, however, scarcely there represent
the founder, Apollo; these riders are, I think, always martyrs, never mere
Several fragments of Egyptian embroidery in Eome show riding figures.
Stegensek, who describes them,''3 does not venture on identifications,
which, in the vagueness of the representations, is impossible.
Stkzygoavski further publishes an elaborate studyr"'i of Byzantine
ornamental design as illustrated by Egyptian textiles, much of which he
would ascribe to Persian or Syrian, and thence ultimately to Chinese
sources. Egyptian or Syrian influences he also traces in the illustrations
to the Treves psalter of the tenth century."5
Gayet's Art cople (v. Report, 1901-02, 53) is very unfavourably criticized
by the same writer.70
His own Orient oder Rom? [v. Report, 1900-91, 75) is reviewed at
length by Ainalof,77 who, though siding with S.'s main thesis, offers no
little criticism of details. In a shorter notice of the same book,78 J. P.
Eichter objects to the insignificance of the objects upon which S. bases
his arguments. The real criteria are large works of art, and of such S.
takes, he complains, small note.
The most important excavations of Christian monuments undertaken