tinued in vogue until the time of Remeses II., who began to introduce intaglio generally on large monuments, and even his battle scenes at Karnak and the Memnonium are executed in this manner. The reliefs were little raised above the level of the wall; they had generally a flat surface, the edges softly rounded off, in effect, far surpassing the intaglio; and it is to be regretted that the best epoch of art, when design and execution were in their zenith, should have abandoned a style so superior, which, too, would have improved in proportion to the advancement of that period.

Intaglio continued to be generally employed, until the accession of the 26th dynasty, when the low relief was again introduced; and in the monuments of Psamaticus and Amasis are numerous instances of the revival of the ancient style. This was afterwards universally adopted, and no return to intaglio on large monuments was attempted, either in the Ptolemaic or Roman periods.

The intaglio introduced by Remeses may, perhaps, be denominated intaglio rilievato, or relieved intaglio. The sides of the incavo, which are perpendicular, are cut to a considerable depth, and from that part, to the centre of the figure (or whatever is represented) is a gradual swell, the centre being frequently on a level with the surface of the wall. On this all the parts of dress, features, or devices, are delineated and painted, and even the perpendicular sides are ornamented in a corresponding manner, by continuing upon them the adjoining details.

In the reign of Remeses III. a change was made in the mode of sculpturing the intaglios, which, as I have already observed, consisted in carving the lower side to a great depth, while the upper face inclined gradually from the surface of the wall till it reached the innermost part of the intaglio; it was principally done in the hieroglyphics, in order to enable a person standing immediately beneath, and close to the wall on which they were sculptured, to distinguish and read them; and the details upon the perpendicular sides, above mentioned, had the same effect.

It was a peculiarity of style not generally imitated by the successors of Remeses III., and hieroglyphics bearing this character may serve to fix the date of monuments, wherever they are found, to the age of that monarch. After his reign no great encouragement appears to have been given to the arts; the subjects represented on the few monuments of the epoch intervening between his death, and the succession of the 26th dynasty, are principally confined to sacred subjects, in which no display of talent is shown; and the records of Sheshonk's victories at Karnak are far from partaking of the vigour of former times, either in style, or in the mode of treating the subject.

After the accession of the 26th dynasty some attempt was made to revive the arts, which had been long neglected; and independent of the patronage of government, the wealth of private individuals was liberally employed in their encouragement. Public *Vide Vol. I. p. 85.; and Materia Hierogl. p. 95.

buildings were erected in many parts of Egypt, and beautified with rich sculpture; the city of Saïs, the royal residence of the Pharaohs of that dynasty, was adorned with the utmost magnificence; and extensive additions were made to the temples of Memphis, and even to those of the distant Thebes.

The fresh impulse thus given to art was not without effect; the sculptures of that period exhibit an elegance and beauty, which might even induce some to consider them equal to the productions of an earlier age; and in the tombs of the Assaseef, at Thebes, are many admirable specimens of Egyptian art. To those, however, who understand the true feeling of this peculiar school, it is evident, that though in minuteness and finish they are deserving of the highest commendation, yet, in grandeur of conception and in boldness of execution, they fall far short of the sculptures of Osirei, and the second Remeses.

In forming an opinion of the different styles of Egyptian sculpture, it is frequently difficult for an unpractised eye to decide upon their peculiar merits, or their respective ages; and in nothing, perhaps, has this been more fully demonstrated, than in the Isiac table, now at Turin. Every one, acquainted with Egyptian art, must be struck at first sight with the very modern date and Roman origin of this monument; and the position of the hieroglyphics shows that the maker of it was ignorant of the subject he was treating. I should, therefore, not have thought it necessary

to notice so palpable a forgery, had not the learned Winkelmann censured bishop Warburton for a judicious remark, in which he is borne out by fact, and for which he deserves great credit. "I cannot help," says Winkelmann*, "here noticing an error of Warburton, who advances, that the famous Isiac table of bronze, inlaid with figures in silver, is a work made at Rome. His opinion is

destitute of foundation, and he only appears to have adopted it, because it suited his own system. Be it as it may, this monument has all the character of the most ancient Egyptian style."

Justice must be done to the judgment of Warburton, and a remark of this kind, made by a person of Winkelmann's reputation, is of too great weight to pass unnoticed.

The invasion of Cambyses, as I have already stated, struck a death blow to the arts in Egypt. Sculptors, painters, and artisans of every description, were taken from their country, and sent to Persia by the victors to embellish the monuments of their enemies with the records of their own misfortunes; and in spite of the encouragement afterwards given by the Ptolemies, the spark of genius, then so nearly extinguished, could not be rekindled, and Egypt was doomed to witness. the total decadence of those arts for which she had been long renowned.

The sculptures of the Ptolemaic periods are coarse and heavy, deficient in grace and spirit, and totally wanting in the character of the true Egyptian school,

* Winkelmann, Hist. de l'Art. lib. ii. c. 1. s. 46.

at the same time that they partake of nothing Greek either in form or feeling; for the Egyptians never borrowed any notions, on those points, from the foreigners with whom they had so long an intercourse, throughout the period of Greek and Roman rule. The sculptures executed in the time of the Cæsars are still more degraded in every respect; and so low did they fall at this period, that many do not claim a rank above those of the humblest village tombstone. Still the architecture continued to be grand and majestic, and many of the monuments of a Ptolemaic and Roman era merit a better style of sculpture.

"Architecture," as I have elsewhere observed*, "more dependent on adherence to certain rules than the sister art, was naturally less speedily affected by the decline of taste and ingenuity of its professors; and as long as encouragement was held out to their exertions, the grandest edifices might be constructed from mere imitation, or from the knowledge of the means necessary for their execution. But this could never be the case with sculpture, which had so many more requisites than previous example or long established custom; nor could success be attained by the routine of mechanism, or the servile imitation of former models."

It is remarkable that the architecture, even of the early time of Osirtasen, far excelled the sculpture of that day; and the grace and simplicity of the grottos at Beni Hassan, which call to mind in their elegant columns the Doric character, must

* Egypt and Thebes, p. 163.