History of Phoenicia Part 5

But the most striking of the Phoenician sepulchral monuments are to be found in the north of Phoenicia, and not in the south, in the neighbourhood, not of Tyre and Sidon, but of Marathus and Aradus. Two of them, known as the Meghazil,[673] form a group which is very remarkable, and which, if we may trust the restoration of M. Thobois,[674] must have had considerable architectural merit. Situated very near each other, on the culminating point of a great plateau of rock, they dominate the country far and wide, and attract the eye from a long distance. One seems to have been in much simpler and better taste than the other.

M. Renan calls it "a real masterpiece, in respect of proportion, of elegance, and of majesty."[675] It is built altogether in three stages.

First, there is a circular bas.e.m.e.nt story flanked by four figures of lions, attached to the wall behind them, and only showing in front of it their heads, their shoulders, and their fore paws. This bas.e.m.e.nt, which has a height of between seven and eight feet, is surmounted by a cylindrical tower in two stages, the lower stage measuring fourteen and the upper, which is domed, ten feet. The bas.e.m.e.nt is composed of four great stones, the entire tower above it is one huge monolith. An unusual and very effective ornamentation crowns both stages of the tower, consisting of a series of gradines at top with square machicolations below.

The other monument of the pair, distant about twenty feet from the one already described, is architecturally far less happy. It is composed of four members, viz. a low plinth for base, above this a rectangular pedestal, surmounted by a strong band or cornice; next, a monolithic cylinder, without ornaments, which contracts slightly as it ascends; and, lastly, a pentagonal pyramid at the top. The pedestal is exceedingly rough and unfinished; generally, the workmans.h.i.+p is rude, and the different members do not a.s.sort well one with another. Still it would seem that the two monuments belong to the same age and are parts of the same plan.[676] Their lines are parallel, as are those of the subterranean apartments which they cover, and they stand within a single enclosure. Whether the same architect designed them both it is impossible to determine, but if so he must have been one of the cla.s.s of artists who have sometimes happy and sometimes unhappy inspirations.

Both the Meghazil are superimposed upon subterranean chambers, containing niches for bodies, and reached by a flight of steps cut in the rock, the entrance to which is at some little distance from the monuments.[677] But there is nothing at all striking or peculiar in the chambers, which are without ornament of any kind.

Another tomb, in the vicinity of the Meghazil, is remarkable chiefly for the care taken to shelter and protect the entrance to the set of chambers which it covers.[678] The monument is a simple one. A square monolith, crowned by a strong cornice, stands upon a base consisting of two steps. Above the cornice is another monolith, the lower part squared and the upper shaped into a pyramid. The upper part of the pyramid has crumbled away, but enough remains to show the angle of the slope, and to indicate for the original erection a height of about twenty feet. At the distance of about ten yards from the base of the monument is a second erection, consisting of two tiers of large stones, which roof in the entrance to a flight of eighteen steps. These steps lead downwards to a sloping pa.s.sage, in which are sepulchral niches, and thence into two chambers, the inner one of which is almost directly under the main monument. Probably, a block of stone, movable but removed with difficulty, originally closed the entrance at the point where the steps begin. This stone ordinarily prevented ingress, but when a fresh corpse was to be admitted, or funeral ceremonies were to be performed in one of the chambers, it could be "rolled"[679] or dragged away.

Phoenician architects were, as a general rule, exceedingly sparing in the use of ornament. Neither the pillar, nor the arch, much less the vault, was a feature in their princ.i.p.al buildings, which affected straight lines, right-angles, and a ma.s.sive construction, based upon the Egyptian. The pillar came ultimately to be adopted, to a certain extent, from the Greeks; but only the simplest forms, the Doric and Ionic, were in use, if we except certain barbarous types which the people invented for themselves. The true arch was scarcely known in Phoenicia, at any rate till Roman times, though false arches were not infrequent in the gateways of towns and the doors of houses.[680] The external ornamentation of buildings was chiefly by cornices of various kinds, by bas.e.m.e.nt mouldings, by carvings about doorways,[681] by hemispherical or pyramidical roofs, and by the use of bevelled stones in the walls. The employment of animal forms in external decoration was exceedingly rare; and the half lions of the circular Meghazil of Amrith are almost unique.

In internal ornamentation there was greater variety. Pavements were sometimes of mosaic, and glowed with various colours;[682] sometimes they were of alabaster slabs elaborately patterned. Alabaster slabs also, it is probable, adorned the walls of temples and houses, excepting where woodwork was employed, as in the Temple of Solomon. There is much richness and beauty in many of the slabs now in the Phoenician collection of the Louvre,[683] especially in those which exhibit the forms of sphinxes or griffins. Many of the patterns most affected are markedly a.s.syrian in character, as the rosette, the palm-head, the intertwined ribbons, and the rows of gradines which occur so frequently.

Even the Sphinxes are rather a.s.syrian than Egyptian in character; and exhibit the recurved wings, which are never found in the valley of the Nile. In almost all the forms employed there is a modification of the original type, sufficient to show that the Phoenician artist did not care merely to reproduce.

On the whole the architecture must be p.r.o.nounced wanting in originality and in a refined taste. What M. Renan says of Phoenician art in general[684] is especially true of Phoenician architecture. "Phoenician art, which issued, as it would seem, originally from mere troglodytism, was, from the time when it arrived at the need of ornament, essentially an art of imitation. That art was, above all, industrial; that art never raised itself for its great public monuments to a style that was at once elegant and durable. The origin of Phoenician architecture was the excavated rock, not the column, as was the case with the Greeks. The wall replaced the excavated rock after a time, but without wholly losing its character. There is nothing that leads us to believe that the Phoenicians knew how to construct a keyed vault. The monolithic principle which dominated the Phoenician and Syrian art, even after it had taken Greek art for its model, is the exact contrary of the h.e.l.lenic style. Greek architecture starts from the principle of employing small stones, and proclaims the princ.i.p.al loudly. At no time did the Greeks extract from Pentelicus blocks at all comparable for size with those of Baalbek or of Egypt; they saw no use in doing so; on the contrary, with ma.s.ses of such enormity, which it is desired to use in their entirety, the architect is himself dominated; the material, instead of being subordinate to the design of the edifice, runs counter to the design and contradicts it. The monuments on the Acropolis of Athens would be impossible with blocks of the size usual in Syria."[685] Thus there is always something heavy, rude, and coa.r.s.e in the Phoenician buildings, which betray their troglodyte origin by an over-ma.s.sive and unfinished appearance.

There is also a want of originality, more especially in the ornamentation. Egypt, a.s.syria, and Greece have furnished the "motives"

which lie at the root of almost all the decorative art that is to be met with, either in the mother country or in the colonies. Winged disks, uraei, scarabs, sphinxes, have been adopted from Egypt; a.s.syria has furnished gradines, lotus blossoms, rosettes, the palm-tree ornament, the ribbon ornament, and the form of the lion; Greece has supplied pillars, pediments, festoons, and chimaeras. Native talent has contributed little or nothing to the ornamentation of buildings, if we except the modification of the types which have been derived from foreign sources.

Finally, there is a want of combination and general plan in the Phoenician constructions where they fall into groups. "This is sensibly felt," according to M. Renan, "at Amrith, at Kabr-Hiram, and at Um-el-Awamid. In the remains still visible in these localities there are many fine ideas, many beautiful details; but they do not fall under any general dominant plan, as do the buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.

One seems to see a set of people who are fond of working in stone for its own sake, but who do not care to arrive at a mutual understanding in order to produce in common a single work, since they do not know that it is the conception of a grand whole which const.i.tutes greatness in art.

Hence the incompleteness of the monuments; there is not a tomb to which the relations of the deceased have deemed it fitting to give the finis.h.i.+ng touches; there is everywhere a certain egotism, like that which in later times prevented the Mussulman monuments from enduring. A pa.s.sing pleasure in art does not induce men to finish, since finis.h.i.+ng requires a certain stiffness of will. In general, the ancient Phoenicians appear to have had the spirit of sculptors rather than of architects. They did not construct in great ma.s.ses, but every one laboured on his own account. Hence there was no exact measurement, and no symmetry. Even the capitals of the columns at Um-el-Awamid are not alike; in the portions which most evidently correspond the details are different."[686]

CHAPTER VII--aeSTHETIC ART

Recent discoveries of Phoenician artistic remains-- Phoenician sculpture--Statues and busts--Animal forms--Bas- reliefs--Hercules and Geryon--Scenes on sarcophagi-- Phoenicians metal castings--Jachin and Boaz--Solomon's "Molten Sea"--Solomon's lavers--Statuettes in bronze-- Embossed work upon cups and paterae--Cup of Praeneste-- Intaglios on cylinders and gems--Phoenician painting--Tinted statues--Paintings on terra-cotta and clay.

Phoenician aesthetic art embraced sculpture, metal-casting, intaglio, and painting to a small extent. Situated as the Phoenicians were, in the immediate neighbourhood of nations which had practised from a remote antiquity the imitation of natural forms, and brought into contact by their commercial transactions with others, with whom art of every kind was in the highest esteem--adroit moreover with their hands, clever, active, and above all else practical--it was scarcely possible that they should not, at an early period in their existence as a nation, interest themselves in what they found so widely appreciated, and become themselves ambitious of producing such works as they saw everywhere produced, admired, and valued. The mere commercial instinct would lead them to supply a cla.s.s of goods which commanded a high price in the world's markets; while it is not to be supposed that they were, any more than other nations, devoid of those aesthetic propensities which find a vent in what are commonly called the "fine arts," or less susceptible of that natural pleasure which successful imitation evokes from all who find themselves capable of it. Thus, we might have always safely concluded, even without any material evidence of it, that the Phoenicians had an art of their own, either original or borrowed; but we are now able to do more than this. Recent researches in Phoenicia Proper, in Cyprus, in Sardina, and elsewhere, have recovered such a ma.s.s of Phoenician artistic remains, that it is possible to form a tolerably complete idea of the character of their aesthetic art, of its methods, its aims, and its value.

Phoenician sculpture, even at its best, is somewhat rude. The country possesses no marble, and has not even any stone of a fine grain. The cretaceous limestone, which is the princ.i.p.al geological formation, is for the most part so pierced with small holes and so thickly sown with fossil sh.e.l.ls as to be quite unsuited for the chisel; and even the better blocks, which the native sculptors were careful to choose, are not free from these defects, and in no case offer a grain that is satisfactory. To meet these difficulties, the Phoenician sculptor occasionally imported his blocks either from Egypt or from the volcanic regions of Taurus and Ama.n.u.s;[71] but it was not until he had transported himself to Cyprus, and found there an abundance of a soft, but fairly smooth, compact, and h.o.m.ogeneous limestone, that he worked freely, and produced either statues or bas-reliefs in any considerable number.[72] The Cyprian limestone is very easy to work. "It is a whitish stone when it comes out of the quarry, but by continued exposure to the air the tone becomes a greyish yellow, which, though a little dull, is not disagreeable to the eye. The nail can make an impression on it, and it is worked by the chisel much more easily and more rapidly than marble. But it is in the plastic arts as in literature and poetry--what costs but little trouble has small chance of enduring. The Cyprian limestone is too soft to furnish the effects and the contrasts which marble offers, so to speak, spontaneously; it is incapable of receiving the charming polish which makes so strong an opposition to the dark shadows of the parts where the chisel has scooped deep. The chisel, whatever efforts it may make and however laboriously it may be applied, cannot impress on such material the strong and bold touches which indicate the osseous structure, and make the muscles and the veins show themselves under the epidermis in Greek statuary. The sculptor's work is apt to be at once finikin and lax; it wants breadth, and it wants decision. Moreover, the material, having little power of resistance, retains but ill what the chisel once impressed; the more delicate markings and the more lifelike touches that it once received, it loses easily through friction or exposure to rough weather. A certain number of the sculptured figures found by M. Di Cesnola at Athienau were discovered under conditions that were quite peculiar, having pa.s.sed from the shelter of a covered chamber to that of a protecting bed of dust, which had hardened and adhered to their surfaces; and these figures had preserved an unusual freshness, and seem as if just chiselled; but, saving these exceptions, the Cypriot figures have their angles rounded, and their projections softened down. It is like a page of writing, where the ink, before it had time to dry, preserving its sharpness of tone, has been absorbed by the blotting paper and has left only pale and feeble traces."[73]

Another striking defect in the Phoenician, or at any rate in the Cyprio-Phoenician, sculpture, and one that cannot be excused on account of any inherent weakness in the material, is the thinness and flatness of the greater part of the figures. The sculptor seems to have been furnished by the stonecutter, not so much with solid blocks of stone, as with tolerably thick slabs.[74] These he fas.h.i.+oned carefully in front, and produced statues, which, viewed in front, are lifelike and fairly satisfactory. But to the sides and back of the slab he paid little attention, not intending that his work should be looked at from all quarters, but that the spectator should directly face it. The statues were made to stand against walls,[75] or in niches, or back to back, the heels and backs touching;[76] they were not, properly speaking, works _in the round_, but rather _alti relievi_ a little exaggerated, not actually part of the wall, but laid closely against it. A striking example of this kind of work may be seen in a figure now at New York, which appears to represent a priest, whereof a front view is given by Di Cesnola in his "Cyprus," and a side view by Perrot and Chipiez in their "History of Ancient Art." The head and neck are in good proportion, but the rest of the figure is altogether unduly thin, while for some s.p.a.ce above the feet it is almost literally a slab, scarcely fas.h.i.+oned at all.

This fault is less p.r.o.nounced in some statues than in others, and from a certain number of the statuettes is wholly absent. This is notably the case in a figure found at Golgi, which represents a female arrayed in a long robe, the ample folds of which she holds back with one hand, while the other hand is advanced, and seems to have held a lotus flower.

Three graceful tresses fall on either side of the neck, round which is a string of beads or pearls, with an amulet as pendant; while a long veil, surmounted by a diadem, hangs from the back of the head. This statue is in no respect narrow or flat, as may be seen especially from the side view given by Di Cesnola;[77] but it is short and inelegant, though not wanting in dignity; and it is disfigured by sandalled feet of a very disproportionate size, which stand out offensively in front. The figure has been viewed as a representation of the G.o.ddess Astarte or Ashtoreth;[78] but the identification can scarcely be regarded as more than a reasonable conjecture.

The general defects of Phoenician statuary, besides want of finish and flatness, are a stiff and conventional treatment, recalling the art of Egypt and a.s.syria, a want of variety, and a want of life. Most of the figures stand evenly on the two feet, and have the arms pendant at the two sides, with the head set evenly, neither looking to the right nor to the left, while even the arrangement of the drapery is one of great uniformity. In the points where there is any variety, the variety is confined within very narrow limits. One foot may be a little advanced;[79] one arm may be placed across the breast, either as confined by the robe,[710] or as holding something, e.g. a bird or a flower.[711] In female figures both arms may be laid along the thighs,[712] or both be bent across the bosom, with the hands clasping the b.r.e.a.s.t.s,[713] or one hand may be so placed, and the other depend in front.[714] The hair and beard are mostly arranged with the utmost regularity in crisp curls, resembling the a.s.syrian; where tresses are worn, they are made to hang, whatever their number, with exact uniformity on either side.[715] Armlets and bracelets appear always in pairs, and are exactly similar; the two sides of a costume correspond perfectly; and in the groups the figures have, as nearly as possible, the same att.i.tude.

Repose is no doubt the condition of human existence which statuary most easily and most naturally expresses; and few things are more obnoxious to a refined taste than that sculpture which, like that of Roubiliac, affects movement, fidget, flutter, and unquiet. But in the Phoenician sculpture the repose is overdone; except in the expression of faces, there is scarcely any life at all. The figures do nothing; they simply stand to be looked at. And they stand stiffly, sometimes even awkwardly, rarely with anything like elegance or grace. The heads, indeed, have life and vigour, especially after the artists have become acquainted with Greek models;[716] but they are frequently too large for the bodies whereto they are attached, and the face is apt to wear a smirk that is exceedingly disagreeable. This is most noticeable in the Cypriot series, as will appear by the accompanying representations; but it is not confined to them, since it reappears in the bronzes found in Phoenicia Proper.

Phoenician statues are almost always more or less draped. Sometimes nothing is worn besides the short tunic, or _shenti_, of the Egyptians, which begins below the navel and terminates at the knee.[717] Sometimes there is added to this a close-fitting s.h.i.+rt, like a modern "jersey,"

which has short sleeves and clings to the figure, so that it requires careful observation to distinguish between a statue thus draped and one which has the _shenti_ only.[718] But there are also a number of examples where the entire figure is clothed from the head to the ankles, and nothing is left bare but the face, the hands, and the feet. A cap, something like a Phrygian bonnet, covers the head; a long-sleeved robe reaches from the neck to the ankles, or sometimes rests upon the feet; and above this is a mantle or scarf thrown over the left shoulder, and hanging down nearly to the knees. Ultimately a drapery greatly resembling that of the Greeks seems to have been introduced; a long cloak, or _chlamys_, is worn, which falls into numerous folds, and is disposed about the person according to the taste and fancy of the wearer, but so as to leave the right arm free.[719] Statues of this cla.s.s are scarcely distinguishable from Greek statues of a moderately good type.

Phoenician sculptors _in the round_ did not very often indulge in the representation of animal forms. The lion, however, was sometimes chiselled in stone, either partially, as in a block of stone found by M. Renan at Um-el-Awamid, or completely, as in a statuette brought by General Di Cesnola from Cyprus. The representations. .h.i.therto discovered have not very much merit. We may gather from them that the sculptors were unacquainted with the animal itself, had never seen the king of beasts sleeping in the shade or stretching himself and yawning as he awoke, or walking along with a haughty and majestic slowness, or springing with one bound upon his prey, but had simply studied without much attention or interest the types furnished them by Egyptian or a.s.syrian artists, who were familiar with the beast himself. The representations are consequently in every case feeble and conventional; in some they verge on the ridiculous. What, for instance, can be weaker than the figure above given from the great work of Perrot and Chipiez, with its good-humoured face, its tongue hanging out of its mouth, its tottering forelegs, and its general air of imbecility? The lioness'

head represented in the same work is better, but still leaves much to be desired, falling, as it does, very far behind the best a.s.syrian models.

Nor were the sculptors much more successful in their mode of expressing animals with whose forms they were perfectly well acquainted. The sheep carried on the back of a shepherd, brought from Cyprus and now in the museum of New York, is a very ill-shaped sheep, and the doves so often represented are very poor doves.[720] They are just recognisable, and that is the most that can be said for them. A dog in stone,[721] found at Athienau, is somewhat better, equally the dogs of the Egyptians and a.s.syrians. On the other hand, the only fully modelled horses that have been found are utterly childish and absurd.[722]

The reliefs of the Phoenicians are very superior to their statues. They vary in their character from almost the lowest kind of relief to the highest. On dresses, on s.h.i.+elds, on slabs, and on some sarcophagi it is much higher than is usual even in Greece. A bas-relief of peculiar interest was discovered at Athienau by General Di Cesnola, and has been represented both by him and by the Italian traveller Ceccaldi.[723] It represents Hercules capturing the cattle of Geryon from the herdsman Eurytion, and gives us reason to believe that that myth was a native Phoenician legend adopted by the Greeks, and not a h.e.l.lenic one imported into Phoenicia. The general character of the sculpture is archaic and a.s.syrian; nor is there a trace of Greek influence about it. Hercules, standing on an elevated block of stone at the extreme left, threatens the herdsman, who responds by turning towards him, and making a menacing gesture with his right hand, while in his left, instead of a club, he carries an entire tree. His hair and beard are curled in the a.s.syrian fas.h.i.+on, while his figure, though short, is strong and muscular. In front of him are his cattle, mixed up in a confused and tangled ma.s.s, some young, but most of them full grown, and amounting to the number of seventeen. They are in various att.i.tudes, and are drawn with much spirit, recalling groups of cattle in the sculptures of a.s.syria and Egypt, but surpa.s.sing any such group in the vigour of their life and movement. Above, in an upper field or plain, divided from the under one by a horizontal line, is the triple-headed dog, Orthros, running full speed towards Hercules, and scarcely checked by the arrow which has met him in mid career, and entered his neck at the point of junction between the second and the third head.[724] The bas-relief is three feet two inches in length, and just a little short of two feet in height. It served to ornament a huge block of stone which formed the pedestal of a colossal statue of Hercules, eight feet nine inches high.[725]

A sarcophagus, on which the relief is low, has been described and figured by Di Cesnola,[726] who discovered it in the same locality as the sculpture which has just engaged our attention. The sarcophagus, which had a lid guarded by lions at the four corners, was ornamented at both ends and along both sides by reliefs. The four scenes depicted appear to be distinct and separate. At one end Perseus, having cut off Medusa's head and placed it in his wallet, which he carries behind him by means of a stick pa.s.sed over his shoulder, departs homewards followed by his dog. Medusa's body, though sunk upon one knee, is still upright, and from the bleeding neck there spring the forms of Chrysaor and Pegasus. At the opposite end of the tomb is a biga drawn by two horses, and containing two persons, the charioteer and the owner, who is represented as bearded, and rests his hand upon the chariot-rim. The horse on the right hand, which can alone be distinctly seen, is well proportioned and spirited. He is impatient and is held in by the driver, and prevented from proceeding at more than a foot's pace. On the longer sides are a hunting scene, and a banqueting scene. In a wooded country, indicated by three tall trees, a party, consisting of five individuals, engages in the pleasures of the chase. Four of the five are accoutred like Greek soldiers; they wear crested helmets, cuira.s.ses, belts, and a short tunic ending in a fringe: the arms which they carry are a spear and a round buckler or s.h.i.+eld. The fifth person is an archer, and has a lighter equipment; he wears a cloth about his loins, a short tunic, and a round cap on his head. The design forms itself into two groups. On the right two of the spearmen are engaged with a wild boar, which they are wounding with their lances; on the left the two other spearmen and the archer are attacking a wild bull. In the middle a c.o.c.k separates the two groups, while at the two extremities two animal forms, a horse grazing and a dog trying to make out a scent, balance each other. The fourth side of the sarcophagus presents us with a banqueting scene. On four couches, much like the a.s.syrian,[727] are arranged the banqueters. At the extreme right the couch is occupied by a single person, who has a long beard and extends a wine-cup towards an attendant, a naked youth, who is advancing towards him with a wine-jug in one hand, and a ladle or strainer in the other. The three other couches are occupied respectively by three couples, each comprising a male and a female. The male figure reclines in the usual att.i.tude, half sitting and half lying, with the left arm supported on two pillows;[728] the female sits on the edge of the couch, with her feet upon a footstool. The males hold wine-cups; of the females, one plays upon the lyre, while the two others fondle with one hand their lover or husband. A fourth female figure, erect in the middle between the second and third couches, plays the double flute for the delectation of the entire party. All the figures, except the boy attendant, are decently draped, in robes with many folds, resembling the Greek. At the side of each couch is a table, on which are spread refreshments, while at the extreme left is a large bowl or amphora, from which the wine-cups may be replenished. This is placed under the shade of a tree, which tells us that the festivity takes place in a garden.[729]

No one can fail to see, in this entire series of sculptures, the dominant influence of Greece. While the form of the tomb, and the lions that ornament the covering, are unmistakably Cyprio-Phoenician, the reliefs contain scarcely a feature which is even Oriental; all has markedly the colouring and the physiognomy of h.e.l.lenism. Yet Cyprian artists probably executed the work. There are little departures from Greek models, which indicate the "barbarian" workman, as the introduction of trees in the backgrounds, the shape of the furniture, the recurved wings of the Gorgon, and the idea of hunting the wild bull.

But the figures, the proportions, the draperies, the att.i.tudes, the chariot, the horse, are almost pure Greek. There is a grace and ease in the modelling, an elegance, a variety, to which Asiatic art, left to itself, never attained. The style, however, is not that of Greece at its best, but of archaic Greece. There is something too much of exact symmetry, both in the disposition of the groups and in the arrangement of the accessories; nay, even the very folds of the garments are over-stiff and regular. All is drawn in exact profile; and in the composition there is too much of balance and correspondence. Still, a new life shows itself through the scenes. There is variety in the movements; there is grace and suppleness in the forms; there is lightness in the outline, vigour in the att.i.tudes, and beauty spread over the whole work. It cannot be a.s.signed an earlier date than the fifth century B.C., and is most probably later,[730] since it took time for improved style to travel from the head-centres of Greek art to the remoter provinces, and still more time for it to percolate through the different layers of Greek society until it reached the stratum of native Cyprian artistic culture.

We may contrast with the refined work of the Athienau sarcophagus the far ruder, but more genuinely native, designs of a tomb of the same kind found on the site of Amathus.[731] On this sarcophagus, the edges of which are most richly adorned with patterning, there are, as upon the other, four reliefs, two of them occupying the sides and two the ends.

Those at the ends are curious, but have little artistic merit. They consist, in each case, of a caryatid figure four times repeated, representations, respectively, of Astarte and of a pygmy G.o.d, who, according to some, is Bes, and, according to others, Melkarth or Esmun.[732] The figures of Astarte are rude, as are generally her statues.[733] They have the hair arranged in three rows of crisp curls, the arms bent, and the hands supporting the b.r.e.a.s.t.s. The only ornament worn by them is a double necklace of pearls or round beads. The representations of the pygmy G.o.d have more interest. They remind us of what Herodotus affirms concerning the Phoenician _pataikoi_, which were used for the figure-heads of s.h.i.+ps,[734] and which he compares to the Egyptian images of Phthah, or Ptah, the G.o.d of creation. They are ugly dwarf figures, with a large misshapen head, a bushy beard, short arms, fat bodies, a short striped tunic, and thick clumsy legs. Only one of the four figures is at present complete, the sarcophagus having been entered by breaking a hole into it at this end.

The work at the sides is much superior to that at the ends. The two panels represent, apparently, a single scene. The scene is a procession, but whether funeral or military it is hard to decide.[735] First come two riders on horseback, wearing conical caps and close-fitting jerkins; they are seated on a species of saddle, which is kept in place by a board girth pa.s.sing round the horse's belly, and by straps attached in front. The two cavaliers are followed by four _bigae_. The first contains the princ.i.p.al personages of the composition, who sits back in his car, and shades himself with a parasol, the mark of high rank in the East, while his charioteer sits in front of him and holds the reins. The second car has three occupants; the third two; and the fourth also two, one of whom leans back and converses with the footmen, who close the procession. These form a group of three, and seem to be soldiers, since they bear s.h.i.+eld and spear; but their costume, a loose robe wrapped round the form, is rather that of civilians. The horses are lightly caparisoned, with little more than a head-stall and a collar; but they carry on their heads a conspicuous fan-like crest.[736] MM. Perrot and Chipiez thus sum up their description of this monument:--"Both in the ornamentation and in the sculpture properly so-called there is a mixture of two traditions and two inspirations, diverse one from the other. The persons who chiselled the figures in the procession which fills the two princ.i.p.al sides of the sarcophagus were the pupils of Grecian statuaries; they understood how to introduce variety into the att.i.tudes of those whom they represented, and even into the movements of the horses. Note, in this connection, the steeds of the two cavaliers in front; one of them holds up his head, the other bends it towards the ground. The draperies are also cleverly treated, especially those of the foot soldiers who bring up the rear, and resemble in many respects the costume of the Greeks. On the other hand, the types of divinity, repeated four times at the two ends of the monument, have nothing that is h.e.l.lenic about them, but are borrowed from the Pantheon of Phoenicia.

Even in the procession itself--the train of hors.e.m.e.n, footmen, and chariots, which is certainly the sculptor's true subject--there are features which recall the local customs and usages of the East. The conical caps of the two cavaliers closely resemble those which we see on the heads of many of the Cyprian statues; the parasol which shades the head of the great person in the first _biga_ is the symbol of Asiatic royalty; lastly, the fan-shaped plume which rises above the heads of all the chariot horses is an ornament that one sees in the same position in a.s.syria and in Lycia, whensoever the sculptor desires to represent horses magnificently caparisoned."[737]

Sarcophagi recently exhumed in the vicinity of Sidon are said to be adorned with reliefs superior to any previously known specimens of Phoenician art. As, however, no drawings or photographs of these sculptures have as yet reached Western Europe, it will perhaps be sufficient in this place to direct attention to the descriptions of them which an eye-witness has published in the "Journal de Beyrout."[738] No trustworthy critical estimate can be formed from mere descriptions, and it will therefore be necessary to reserve our judgment until the sculptures themselves, or correct representations of them, are accessible.

The metal castings of the Phoenicians, according to the accounts which historians give of them, were of a very magnificent and extraordinary character. The Hiram employed by Solomon in the ornamentation of the Temple at Jerusalem, who was a native of Tyre,[739] designed and executed by his master's orders a number of works in metal, which seem to have been veritable masterpieces. The strangest of all were the two pillars of bronze, which bore the names of "Jachin" and "Boaz,"[740]

and stood in front of the Temple porch, or possibly under it.[741] These pillars, with their capitals, were between thirty-four and thirty-five feet high, and had a diameter of six feet.[742] They were cast hollow, the bronze whereof they were composed having a uniform thickness of three inches,[743] or thereabouts. Their ornamentation was elaborate.

A sort of chain-work covered the "belly" or lower part of the capitals,[744] while above and below were representations of pomegranates in two rows, probably at the top and bottom of the "belly,"

the number of the pomegranates upon each pillar being two hundred.[745]

At the summit of the whole was a sort of "lily-work"[746] or imitation of the lotus blossom, a "motive" adopted from Egypt. Various representations of the pillars have been attempted in works upon Phoenician art, the most remarkable being those designed by M. Chipiez, and published in the "Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquite."[747] Perhaps, however, there is more to be said in favour of M. de Vogue's view, as enunciated in his work on the Jewish Temple.

The third great work of metallurgy which Hiram constructed for Solomon was "the molten sea."[748] This was an enormous bronze basin, fifteen feet in diameter, supported on the backs of twelve oxen, grouped in sets of three.[749] The basin stood fourteen or fifteen feet above the level of the Temple Court,[750] and was a vast reservoir, always kept full of water, for the ablutions of the priests. There was an ornamentation of "knops" or "gourds," in two rows, about the "brim" of the reservoir; and it must have been supplied in its lower part with a set of stopc.o.c.ks, by means of which the water could be drawn off when needed. Representations of the "molten sea" have been given by Mangeant, De Vogue, Thenius, and others; but all of them are, necessarily, conjectural. The design of Mangeant is reproduced in the preceding representation. It is concluded that the oxen must have been of colossal size in order to bear a proper proportion to the basin, and not present the appearance of being crushed under an enormous weight.[751]

Next in importance to these three great works were ten minor ones, made for the Jewish Temple by the same artist. These were lavers mounted on wheels,[752] which could be drawn or pushed to any part of the Temple Court where water might be required. The lavers were of comparatively small size, capable of containing only one-fiftieth part[753] of the contents of the "molten sea," but they were remarkable for their ornamentation. Each was supported upon a "base;" and the bases, which seem to have been panelled, contained, in the different compartments, figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim,[754] either single or in groups.

On the top of the base, which seems to have been square, was a circular stand or socket, a foot and a half in height, into which the laver or basin fitted.[755] This, too, was panelled, and ornamented with embossed work, representing lions, cherubim, and palm-trees.[756] Each base was emplaced upon four wheels, which are said to have resembled chariot wheels, but which were molten in one piece, naves, spokes, and felloes together.[757] A restoration by M. Mangeant, given by Perrot and Chipiez in the fourth volume of their "History of Ancient Art," is striking, and leaves little to be desired.

Hiram is also said to have made for Solomon a number of pots, shovels, basins, flesh-hooks, and other instruments,[758] which were all used in the Temple service; but as no description is given of any of these works, even their general character can only be conjectured. We may, however, reasonably suppose them not to have differed greatly from the objects of a similar description found in Cyprus by General Di Cesnola.[759]

From the conjectural, which may amuse, but can scarcely satisfy, the earnest student, it is fitting that we should now pa.s.s to the known and actual. Phoenician metal-work of various descriptions has been found recently in Phoenicia Proper, in Cyprus, and in Sardinia; and, though much of it consists of works of utility or of mere personal adornment, which belong to another branch of the present enquiry, there is a considerable portion which is more or less artistic and which rightly finds its place in the present chapter. The Phoenicians, though they did not, so far as we know, attempt with any frequency the production, in bronze or other metal, of the full-sized human form,[760] were fond of fabricating, especially in bronze, the smaller kinds of figures which are known as "figurines" or "statuettes." They also had a special talent for producing embossed metal-work of a highly artistic character in the shape of cups, bowls, and dishes or _paterae_, whereon scenes of various kinds were represented with a vigour and precision that are quite admirable. Some account of these two cla.s.ses of works must here be given.

The statuettes commence with work of the rudest kind. The Phoenician sites in Sardinia have yielded in abundance grotesque figures of G.o.ds and men,[761] from three or four to six or eight inches high, which must be viewed as Phoenician productions, though perhaps they were not the best works which Phoenician artists could produce, but such as were best suited to the demands of the Sardinian market. The savage Sards would not have appreciated beauty or grace; but to the savage mind there is something congenial in grotesqueness. Hence G.o.ds with four arms and four eyes,[762] warriors with huge horns projecting from their helmets,[763]

tall forms of extraordinary leanness,[764] figures with abnormally large heads and hands,[765] huge noses, projecting eyes, and various other deformities. For the home consumption statuettes of a similar character were made; but they were neither so rude nor so devoid of artistic merit. There is one in the Louvre, which was found at Tortosa, in Northern Phoenicia, approaching nearly to the Sardinian type, while others have less exaggeration, and seem intended seriously. In Cyprus bronzes of a higher order have been discovered.[766] One is a figure of a youth, perhaps aesculapius, embracing a serpent; another is a female form of much elegance, which may have been the handle of a vase or jug; it springs from a grotesque bracket, and terminates in a bar ornamented at either end with heads of animals. The complete bronze figure found near Curium, which is supposed to represent Apollo and is figured by Di Cesnola,[767] is probably not the production of a Phoenician artists, but a sculpture imported from Greece.

The embossed work upon cups and _paterae_ is sometimes of great simplicity, sometimes exceedingly elaborate. A patera of the simplest kind was found by General Di Cesnola in the treasury of Curium and is figured in his work.[768] At the bottom of the dish, in the middle, is a rosette with twenty-two petals springing from a central disk; this is surrounded by a ring whereon are two wavy lines of ribbon intertwined.

Four deer, with strongly recurved horns, s.p.a.ced at equal intervals, stand on the outer edge of the ring in a walking att.i.tude. Behind them and between them are a continuous row of tall stiff reeds terminating in blossoms, which are supposed to represent the papyrus plant. The reeds are thirty-two in number. We may compare with this the medallion at the bottom of a cup found at Caere in Italy, which has been published by Grifi.[769] Here, on a chequered ground, stands a cow with two calves, one engaged in providing itself with its natural sustenance, the other disporting itself in front of its dam. In the background are a row of alternate papyrus blossoms and papyrus buds bending gracefully to the right and to the left, so as to form a sort of framework to the main design. Above the cow and in front of the papyrus plants two birds wing their flight from left to right across the scene.

A bronze bowl, discovered at Idalium (Dali) in Cyprus,[770] is, like these specimens, Egyptian in its motive, but is more ambitious in that it introduces the human form. On a throne of state sits a G.o.ddess, draped in a long striped robe which reaches to the feet, and holding a lotus flower in her right hand and a ball or apple in her left.

Bracelets adorn her wrists and anklets her feet. Behind her stands a band of three instrumental performers, all of them women, and somewhat variously costumed: the first plays the double pipe, the second performs on a lyre or harp, the third beats the tambourine. In front of the G.o.ddess is a table or altar, to which a votary approaches bringing offerings. Then follows another table whereon two vases are set; finally comes a procession of six females, holding hands, who are perhaps performing a solemn dance. Behind them are a row of lotus pillars, the supports probably of a temple, wherein the scene takes place. The human forms in this design are ill-proportioned, and very rudely traced. The heads and hands are too large, the faces are grotesque, and the figures wholly devoid of grace. Mimetic art is seen clearly in its first stage, and the Phoenician artist who has designed the bowl has probably fallen short of his Egyptian models.

Animal and human forms intermixed occur on a silver _patera_ found at Athienau, which is more complicated and elaborate than the objects. .h.i.therto described, but which is, like them, strikingly Egyptian.[771]

A small rosette occupies the centre; round it is, apparently, a pond or lake, in which fish are disporting themselves; but the fish are intermixed with animal and human forms--a naked female stretches out her arms after a cow; a man clothed in a _shenti_ endeavours to seize a horse. The pond is edged by papyrus plants, which are alternately in blossom and in bud. A zigzag barrier separates this central ornamentation from that of the outer part of the dish. Here a marsh is represented in which are growing papyrus and other water-plants. Aquatic birds swim on the surface or fly through the tall reeds. Four boats form the chief objects in this part of the field. In one, which is fas.h.i.+oned like a bird, there sits under a canopy a grandee, with an attendant in front and a rower or steersman at the stern. Behind him, in a second boat, is a band consisting of three undraped females, one of whom plays a harp and another a tambourine, while the third keeps time with her hands. A man with a punt-pole directs the vessel from the stern. In the third boat, which has a freight of wine-jars, a cook is preparing a bird for the grandee's supper. The fourth boat contains three rowers, who possibly have the vessel of the grandee in tow. The first and second boats are separated by two prancing steeds, the second and third by two cows, the third and fourth by a chariot and pair. It is difficult to explain the mixture of the aquatic with the terrestrial in this piece; but perhaps the grandee is intended to be enjoying himself in a marshy part of his domain, where he might ride, drive, or boat, according to his pleasure. The whole scene is rather Egyptian than Phoenician or Cypriot, and one cannot help suspecting that the _patera_ was made for an Egyptian customer.

There is a _patera_ at Athens,[772] almost certainly Phoenician, which may well be selected to introduce the more elaborate and complicated of the Phoenician works of art in this cla.s.s. It has been figured,[773]

and carefully described by MM. Perrot and Chipiez in these terms:--"The medallion in the centre is occupied by a rosette with eight points. The zone outside this, in which are distributed the personages represented, is divided into four compartments by four figures, which correspond to each other in pairs. They lift themselves out of a trellis-work, bounded on either side by a light pillar without a base. The capitals which crown the pillars recall those of the Ionic order, but the abacus is much more developed. A winged globe, stretching from pillar to pillar, roofs in this sort of little chapel; each is the shrine of a divinity.

One of the divinities is that nude G.o.ddess, clasping her b.r.e.a.s.t.s with her hands, whom we have already met with in the Phoenician world more than once; the other is a bearded personage, whose face is framed in by his abundant hair; he appears to be dressed in a close-fitting garment, made of a material folded in narrow plaits. We do not know what name to give the personage. Each of the figures is repeated twice. The rest of the field is occupied by four distinct subjects, two of them being scenes of adoration. In one may be recognised the figure of Isis-Athor, seated on a sort of camp-stool, and giving suck to the young Horus;[774]

on an altar in front of the G.o.ddess is placed the disk of the moon, enveloped (as we have seen it elsewhere) by a crescent which recalls the moon's phases. Behind the altar stands a personage whose s.e.x is not defined; the right hand, which is raised, holds a _patera_, while the left, which falls along the hip, has the _ankh_ or _crux ansata_.

Another of the scenes corresponds to this, and offers many striking a.n.a.logies. The altar indeed is of a different form, but it supports exactly the same symbols. The G.o.ddess sits upon a throne with her feet on a footstool; she has no child; in one hand she holds out a cup, in the other a lotus blossom. The personage who confronts her wears a conical cap, and is clothed, like the wors.h.i.+pper of the corresponding representation, in a long robe pressed close to the body by a girdle _a cordeliere_; he has also the _crux ansata_, and holds in the right hand an object the character and use of which I am unable to conjecture.

We may a.s.sociate with these two scenes of homage and wors.h.i.+p another representation in which there figure three musicians. The instruments are the same as usual--the lyre, the tambourine, and the double pipe; two of the performers march at a steady pace; the third, the one who beats the metal(?) disk, dances, as he plays, with much vigour and spirit. In the last compartment we come again upon a group that we have already met with in one of the cups from Idalium.[775] . . . A beardless individual, clothed in the _shenti_, has put his foot upon the body of a griffin, which, in struggling against the pressure, flings its hind quarters into the air in a sort of wild caper; the conqueror, however, holds it fast by the plume of feathers which rises from its head, and plunges his sword into its half-open beak. It is this group, drawn in relief, and on a larger scale, that we meet with for a second time on the Athenian _patera_; but in this case the group is augmented by a second personage, who takes part in the struggle. This is an old man with a beard who is armed with a formidable pike. Both the combatants wear conical caps upon their heads, similar to those which we have noticed as worn by a number of the statues from Cyprus; but the cap of the right-hand personage terminates in a b.u.t.ton, whereto is attached a long appendage, which looks like the tail of an ox." The Egyptian character of much of this design is incontestable. The _ankh_, the lotus blossom in the hand, the winged disk, are purely Egyptian forms; the Isis Athor with Horus in her lap speaks for itself; and the wors.h.i.+pper in front of Isis has an unmistakably Egyptian head dress. But the contest with the winged griffin is more a.s.syrian than Egyptian; the seat whereon Isis sits recalls a well-known a.s.syrian type;[776] one of the altars has a distinctly a.s.syrian character, while the band of musicians, the Astarte figures standing in their shrines, and the pillars which support, and frame in, the shrines are genuine Phoenician contributions.

Artistically this _patera_ is much upon a par with those from Dali and Athienau, which have been already described.