DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32079#0156
to have lost its cunning in the representations of
animals. The sculpture of these is far inferior to
that of the ancient empire, and the horse (which had
not been introduced into Egypt at that early period,
and is supposed to have been brought in by the
Hyksos) is perfectly conventional in form, move-
ment, and expression.
Though the king’s exploits sometimes intrude
within the temple, yet in the main the sculpture of
the inner parts of the sanctuary represents the estab-
lished act of worship, and, by its immutable forms
and majestic style, makes a striking contrast to the
realistic representations of which we have spoken.
The gods retain always their characteristics of state-
liness and benignity. Even the frequent representa-
tion of the deities with heads of animals — an idea
to us so grotesque — does not destroy the dignity
of their aspect. The Egyptians meant by their art
to convey their thought, and this they did with
singular directness and force; in fact the very sim-
plicity of their work and the elimination of detail in
modelling prevent the mind of the beholder being
distracted from the idea which they meant to ex-
press. Conventional forms were not used to con-
ceal the barrenness of their imagination, but rather
to give language to the ever-enduring thought of
the nation. The sacred language and the sacred art
were alike only means of expressing their religious
ideas, and were thus interwoven with each other.
That it was national and not individual thought that
their plastic art conveyed is proved by the singu-
lar fact, that in all the vast material of Egyptian
history not one name of a sculptor has come down
to us.
The very exclusion of qualities which we con-
sider essential to art added to the force of expres-
sion of the qualities they dwelt upon. Even we,
without their religious association, feel this as we
look upon those long processions of the deities, in-
dicating so much good-will and protection to man.
Thus we have on these monuments a convention-
80
animals. The sculpture of these is far inferior to
that of the ancient empire, and the horse (which had
not been introduced into Egypt at that early period,
and is supposed to have been brought in by the
Hyksos) is perfectly conventional in form, move-
ment, and expression.
Though the king’s exploits sometimes intrude
within the temple, yet in the main the sculpture of
the inner parts of the sanctuary represents the estab-
lished act of worship, and, by its immutable forms
and majestic style, makes a striking contrast to the
realistic representations of which we have spoken.
The gods retain always their characteristics of state-
liness and benignity. Even the frequent representa-
tion of the deities with heads of animals — an idea
to us so grotesque — does not destroy the dignity
of their aspect. The Egyptians meant by their art
to convey their thought, and this they did with
singular directness and force; in fact the very sim-
plicity of their work and the elimination of detail in
modelling prevent the mind of the beholder being
distracted from the idea which they meant to ex-
press. Conventional forms were not used to con-
ceal the barrenness of their imagination, but rather
to give language to the ever-enduring thought of
the nation. The sacred language and the sacred art
were alike only means of expressing their religious
ideas, and were thus interwoven with each other.
That it was national and not individual thought that
their plastic art conveyed is proved by the singu-
lar fact, that in all the vast material of Egyptian
history not one name of a sculptor has come down
to us.
The very exclusion of qualities which we con-
sider essential to art added to the force of expres-
sion of the qualities they dwelt upon. Even we,
without their religious association, feel this as we
look upon those long processions of the deities, in-
dicating so much good-will and protection to man.
Thus we have on these monuments a convention-
80