anthes, rudolf_affinity and difference between egyptian and greek sculpture and thought in the...

8/9/2019 Anthes, Rudolf_Affinity and Difference Between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C._paphS, 107, 1_1963!6…

1/23

Affinity and Difference between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh

and Sixth Centuries B. C.Author(s): Rudolf AnthesSource: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 107, No. 1 (Feb. 15, 1963), pp.60-81Published by: American Philosophical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/985469 .

Accessed: 23/02/2015 14:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ampshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/985469?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/985469?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amps


2/23

AFFINITY

AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EGYPTIAN AND GREEK SCULPTURE AND

THOUGHT IN

THE SEVENTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES B.C.

RUDOLF ANTHES

I

Professor

f

Egyptology

and Curator ofthe

Egyptian Section,

UniversityMuseum, University

of

Pennsylvania

(Read April 26, 1962)

THE Greeks

aid

the

foundation

f their

ivili-

zation

during

he

centuries

receding

he

Persian

wars.

Among

the

pioneers

of

Greek

philosophy

and

art,

wo

significant

roups

may

be

singled

ut:

the

Ionianhylozoists

eaded

by

Thales

about

600

B.C.,

who

initiated

what eventually

has

become

modern

cience,

nd

the Ionian

sculptors

f

the

sixth

century

.C. whose

kouroi

statues

preceded

what

we

may

here

call

the

perspective

attern

characteristic

f

Western

representative

rt.

In

their truggle o comeintotheir wn,theGreeks

were

confronted

ith

the

lofty gyptian

iviliza-

tion.

The

Egyptians

had

faced

virtually

ll

of

man's

transcendental

nd ethical

concerns

n

the

course

of the

preceding

wo

thousandyears

and

their

representative

rt

had

passed

through

n-

numerable

changes

of temporary

tyles.

The

Egyptians,

elying

pon

the

old

tradition,

which

still

was

very

much

alive,

had

ready

answers

for

whatever

problems

might

have

worried

the

Greeks.

What

then

prompted

the

Greeks

to

branch

off

from he

normal

mood

in

philosophy

and art, for whichEgypt represented

he

most

impressive

xample?

In the

course

of

my

Egyptological

esearch

have

twice

ncountered

his

problem:

ome

twenty

years

ago

in

my

studies

on

the

methods

of

the

Egyptian

culptors

nd

in my

recent

research

n

the

Egyptian

theology

of

the

third

millennium

B.C.

These

discussions

have

made

it

clear

that,

on the

one

hand,

the

manner

n

which

Egyptian

sculptors

bout

600

B.C.

designed

heir

works

nd,

on

the

other

hand,

the

basis

of

the

Egyptian

pat-

tern

of

thought

n

transcendental

matters,

re-

ventedeveryone lse, Greek

or

non-Greek,

rom

adapting

ither

he Egyptian

manner

fdesigning

sculpture

r their

view

of

the

world

in

order

to

develop

these

elements

n his

own

way.

The

Greeks

could

not possibly

employ

the

legacy

of

Egypt

n

founding

he

civilization

hich

hey

were

ready

to

build

up

inthepursuit

f

their

haracter-

istic,

though

not abnormal,

ntellectual

ctivity.

1

The

quotations

f

authors

n the

text

refer

o

the

hth1;noranhv

at the end of this paper.

The

Egyptologist

s

inclined

o think

hat

t

was

the

realization

f

a bitternecessity

nd

certainly

not

a unique

mental

character

which

drove

the

early

Greeks

nto

a new

pattern

f ooking

t

man

and

his surroundings.

am discussing

his

matter

as an

Egyptologist

rying

o show

how

the

Greek

achievements

re

reflected

n the

mirror

fEgypt-

ological

tudies.

I am transgressing,

owever,

he

limits

which

ppropriately

re set

upon

me

when

I make

statements

bout

the

Greek

side of

the

picture. Such a transgressionannotbe

avoided

and I

must

leave

it to

the

reader

to react ac-

cordingly.

The

realization

hat he

phenomenon

f

the

rise

of Greek

mentality

hould

not

be looked

at as

a

miracle

originated

n an

unpublished,

more

com-

prehensive

tudy

on

the influence

f

Egypt

upon

Western

ivilization

hrough

he

ages.

It was

in

this

context hat

the

following aper

was written

abouttwo

years

ago

and,

notwithstanding

everal

changes

nd

additions,

have

avoided

rewriting

t

from

hepresent

nd

morespecific

oint

ofview,

since it

makes

my

point

clearly

enough

as it

stands. It contains n its six sectionspertinent

remarks

I) on

thegeneral

ituation

f

Greece

nd

Egypt

from

bout700

B.C. untilAlexander;

(II)

on the

alleged

influence

f

Egypt

upon

Greek

sculpture

n

the

sixth

century .C.;

(III)

on

the

role

of logic

in

the

establishment

f

the

Egyptian

religion

n

the

third

millennium

.C.

and

its

de-

ceptive

appearance;

(IV)

on the

Egyptian

and

Greek

mental

ttitudes

n thefirst alf

ofthe

ast

millenniunm

.C.;

and

(V)

on

the

genesis

of

the

Greek

mode

of

thought

s

opposed

to,

rather

han

influenced

y,

the

Egyptian.

In a

supplementary

digressionVI), we shall discusscertain eatures

which

ither

ctually

r

possibly

ndicate

elation-

ships

between,

n the

one

hand,Egyptian

nd,

on

the

other

hand,

Greek,

pre-Greek,

nd

Hellenistic

ideas.

I

The period

in which

Egyptian

nfluence

pon

Greece

ndRome

couldbe

expected,

tarted

bout

PROCEEDIN-GS

OF

THE

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

SOCIETY,

VOL.

107,

NO.

1,

FEBRUARY,

1963

60

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

VOL. 107, NO.

1, 1963] EGYPTIAN

AND

GREEK SCULPTURE

61

700 B.C., lastedfor

whole

millennium

nd left

ts

permanent

mpression

n

the

balance

of

the

history

of European

civilization.

This period

represents

an

epoch

n

the

world's

history,

or t

encompasses

thebirth

f

Greek

culture,

he endofthe

suprem-

acyofthe

ancientNear

East

in

the

Mediterranean,

and the amalgamation f Eastern and Western

cultural

chievements

n

Hellenism and the

Ro-

man

Empire. With

respect to the contact

of

ancient

Egypt with

Europe, we may divide this

period into two

successive sections. The

first,

about

70-300 B.C.,

is

characterized

y

he

mpact

f

Egypt

on

Greece.

At

that ime

t

was

believed

hat

Egyptian

ivilization, hich

had

already

flourished

for

more than

two thousand

years,

had been

es-

tablished

n

primeval

imes,

nd

was

unchangeable

and

everlasting

n

spiteof

temporary

oliticalde-

feat,while the

Greek,who could

not succeed

in

beingpolitically nified,truggled oran intellec-

tual coming

of

age under the

high pressures

of

commercial

ompetition, ars,

and

internal

oliti-

cal conflicts.

The second

section,

rom

bout 300

B.C. to

aboutA.D.

300, was theperiod

n

which

he

victory

of

the West

in

the Mediterranean

was

established,

ellenistic

nd

Roman

nfluence

pon

Egypt became

ctive,

nd

Western

ivilization

ed

upon

and

digested,

o to

speak,

whatever

emnants

of

Egyptian

achievementsppearedto

be

profit-

able

for

ts own

growth. We shall

concentrate

n

this

paper

upon

the first

f

these

two sections nd

mainly ts beginningn the Seventh and Sixth

centuries.

The

historical

ackground

may first

e

briefly

sketched. Between

1200 and

700 B.C. there

was

virtually

o

direct elation

etween

gypt

and

the

North where both

the

older and

the more

recent

groups

of

Greeks

migrated nd

eventuallyettled.

Contactwas firstmade

in

the

decades

around

700

B.C.,

when,

on

the one

hand, the

Greeks broke

the Phoenician

naval

supremacy

and

occupied

Cyrenaica

ust

to the

west

of

Egyptand, on

the

other

hand,King

Psammetichus of

Egypt (664-

610

B.C.),

endeavoring o freeEgyptfrom he As-

syrians

nd

to

reunite he

country,

mportedonian

and

Carian

mercenaries rom

Asia

Minor. These

mercenaries

irst ettled n

camps at

the eastern

frontier

f the

Delta, such as

Daphnae

(De-

fenneh). Naucratis

n

the

northwest fthe

Delta

was

founded s a

factory y

Miletus and

other

Greek

cities between

650 and

590 B.C.

Solon of

Athens nd

Thales of

Miletus

visitedEgypt

abotit

610

B.C.

when

the

menace of

the

territorialx-

pansion

of

the

Babylonianswas

evident, wo or

three decades

before

the

latter

conquered

Jeru-

salem.

King

Amasis

(570-526

B.C.)

granted

freedom

f

movement

o

the

mercenaries

nd

a

monopoly

f

the

Greek

trade

in

Egypt to

Nau-

cratis.

The

friendship

nd

respect

of

Amasis

toward

he

Greeks xtended otheir agesand theDelphian

oracle.

This

friendliness

as

strength-

ened

by

the

nterest f

Egypt

nd

the

onian

cities

in

the

mutual

defense

gainst

Persia

when

Cyrus

conquered

he

kingdom

f

Lydia

in

546

B.C.

Pre-

sumably t was in

the

middleof

this

century

hat

Pythagoras

isited

gypt,

nd

the

onian

sculptors

whom

we shall

discuss

below did

it

two

or

three

decades

ater.

Cambyses

onquered

Egypt

n

525

B.C.

After

00

B.C.

the

Persian

wars in

Ionia

and

Greece

made

Athens

and

the

Egyptiannational-

ists

allies.

The

latter

revolted

fter

he

Persian

defeat

t

Salamis and

the

Athenians

upportedherevolt f Inaros in northern

gypt,

463-454

B.C.,

with their

navy

and

army,

hough

n

vain. Ten

years

ater, bout

the

time

when

Pericles

ook

over

the

leadership

n

Athens,

an

Egyptian

consign-

mentof

wheat

helped

the

Athenians

ight

fam-

ine,

and,

simultaneously,

erodotus

of

Halicar-

nassus

traveled n

Egypt

up to

the

first

ataract.

Several

elements f

Egyptian civilization

re

at-

tested

at

Athens

in

the

succeeding decades

(Zucker,

151-156).

If

Plato

visited

Egypt

it

was done

about

the

time

when

Egypt

regainedher

freedom

under

native

rulers

in

401

B.C.

The

Egyptians lost their independence gain sixty

years

ater,

however,

fter

Ochus

Artaxerxes

II

defeated

them in

a

war in

which

armies

from

Greece

and

Ionia

and

an

Athenian

navy

took

part

on

the

side of

the

Egyptians.

Ten

years

later,

Alexander

broke

he

Persian

domination

nd

took

Egypt

ntohis

empire

332

B.C.).

Incidentally,

the

nfluence f

Greek

thought

n

Egypt

s

not

at-

tested

with

certainty

efore

bout

300

B.C.,

when

it

appears

in

some

pictures

n

the

Greek

manner

on

the

walls

of

the

tomb

of

Petosiris

n

Middle

Egypt.

In addition o thissummaryf

political-histori-

cal

facts,

we

must

try

o

understand

he

spiritual

and

intellectual

ituation

f

Egypt

and

Greece

n

the time

when

he

mpact

f

these

wo

civilizations

came

into

being.

This

question

represents

he

major

subject matter

f

this

paper

and

will

be

discussed

below.

I

should

ike

to

anticipate,

ow-

ever, with an

analysis

of

the

basic

attitude

of

Greek

philosophers

oward

Egyptian

wisdom

dur-

ing

all

the

periodwhich

we

have

covered

n

the

preceding

aragraph.

Plato in

his

Timzaeus,

1-




4/23

62

RUDOLF ANTHES

[PROC. AMER.

PHIL.

SOC_

25,

pictures

a

situation

n

which

the

disciple

Critias

was reminded

f

a story

bout

Solon

at

Sais

in

Egypt

when

Socrates

was

discussing

his

ideals

concerning

he future

of Athens.

When

Solon

mentioned

he

Greekmythological

ales

ike

thatof the delugeand of Deucalion and

Pyrrha,

an

Egyptian

priest

who

was

of

a

very

great

age

said:

'O

Solon,

Solon,

you Greeks

re

never

ny-

thing

but

children,

nd there

s not

an old

man

among

you.'

Solon

in return

sked

himwhat

he

meant.

'I

meant

o

say,'

he replied,

that

there

s

no

old

opinion

handed

down

mong

you

by

ancient

tradition

nor

any

science

which

is

hoary

with

age'

(translated

by

Benjamin

Jowett,

1937).

Then

he

elaborated

n this

by

telling

Solon

that

several

deluges

happened

in the

past

and

also

several

conflagrations

f

heavenly

odies

ike

that

in whichPhaetonwas

killed.

Only

Egypt

was

saved

from

hese

catastrophes,

hanks o theNile.

In fact,

he

continued,

Athens

flourished

,000

years

ago

when

she

defended

Europe

against

Atlantis

before

he

greatest

deluge

destroyed

ll

of them.

We

may

say

that

Plato was

deeply

m-

pressed

by

the

Egyptian

laim

of

the

oldest

tradi-

tion,

which

was

not matched

y

that

of

any

other

country.

According

to

Zucker

(p.

157),

the

great

scholar

Von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

on-

cluded

from

isresearch

n

Plato's

works

hat

he

apparent

mmutability

f

Egyptian

nstitutions

nd

customs

ed

to Plato's

beliefthat,

once

the

per-

fectly

ight nd good in any sectorof civilization

is established,

his

sector

will

remain

permanently

valid

without

ny

need

for change

(see Leges

656d-657b).

We

may

add

that Isocrates,

the

contemporary

f Plato,

thought

f

certain

Egyp-

tian

institutions

s

exemplary,

ccording

to

his

Btsiris.

The

attitude

fthese

philosophers

f

the

fourth

entury

.C. apparently

was

the

same

as

that

which

we shall

findwith

the

earlier

onians:

a

sincere

espect

or

he

old

Egyptian

radition

nd

its

wisdom;

the

willingness

omake

use

of

certain

details

of it

which

fitted

ntotheir

wn pattern

f

ideas; and thedeterminationo buildup a world

of

their

own

independent

f,

and

virtually

isre-

garding,

hat

old tradition

f the foreigners.

It

appears

that

the

Greeks,

with

all

due respect

for

theEgyptians,

wereconscious

f

a

palpable

dispar-

ity

between

hemselves

nd

the

Egyptians.

It

was

in this

same

spirit

that

Herodotus

(II

35)

ob-

served

that

the

Egyptians

cted differently

rom

other

people

in

almost

every

way

of life.

His

agreement

with

what

he calls

the

Egyptian

dea

that

the

names

of

gods

came

to Greece

from

Egypt

(II

50)

is slightly

ifferent

rom

he

opini-

ion

expressed

by Diodorus

(I 9.6) that

the

gods

originated

with

the Egyptians.

It seems

to

me-

that

the

detached

ttitude

f the Greeks

toward

the

Egyptians

n

the period

which

we

are

dis-

cussing here,

was

basically

different

rom

the-

Hellenistic

ttempto find heelements fWest-

ern

religion

and

philosophy

n

the wisdom

of

Egypt.

Burnet

(pp.

15-16)

appears

to see

the

situation

imilarly.

Our

assumption

hat

the

Greeks,

n

their

pirit-

of youthful

ndependence,

ere

aware

of the

con-

trast

between

their

own thoughts

nd the

over-

whelmingly

stablished

uthority

f Egyptian

wis-

dom

does

not

necessarily

mean

that

Egypt

was

of

no importance

or

the

birth

nd development

f

Greek

civilization.

Perhaps

theimpact

of

Egypt

upon

the

Greeks

was

a challenge

which

promoted

the independent evelopment f Greek thought,

whereas

any

actual

influence

pon

it can

hardly

be expected.

Burnet,

who

denies

any

Egyptian

influence

upon

the

origin

of Greek

philosophy

xcept

for

the

beginning

f

Greek

mathematics,

ccepts

as

granted,

without

iscussing

t,

what

he thinks

s

the

prevalent

dea

that the

Greeks

derived

heir

art

from he

East

(p.

17).

As far

as

Egypt

s

concerned,

uch

a

statement

ould

be

wrong.

It

has

been

assumed,

however,

hat

Greek

archaic

stone

sculpture

was

influenced

r even prompted

b)y he Egyptianexample. It happensthat,two

decades

ago,

I tried

to

clarify

his

assumption

and

it

seems

to

me that

theresults

f that

study

are

extremely

ell

suited

oexemplify

he

ntellec-

tual

and

artistic

elation

between

Egypt

and

the

Ionians.

Since

the paper

n which

discussed

his

subject

matter

n the

context

of

the

Egyptian

methods

f

sculpture

s not

easily

accessible,

most

of

the

stock

having

been

destroyed

during

the

Second

World War,

I should

ike

to present

ts

relevant

esults

here.

II

2

The

assumption

hat

he

ife-sized

reek

rchaic

marble

statues

of

a

standingyouth,

he

so-called

kouroi,

which

flourished

n the ast decades

of

the

sixth

century

B.C.,

originated

n imitation

of

Egyptian

sculpture

ppears

to be based

on

two

arguments.

One

is

that,

on theone

hand,

virtu-

ally

no

precursors

f these tatues

havebeen

found

2

I

should

ike

to

express

my

thanks

o

Dr.

Rhys

Car-

penter

or

several

helpful

emarks,

n addition

o

those

mentioned

specially

n

the

text.




5/23

VOL. 107,

NO. 1,

19631

EGYPTIAN

AND GREEK

SCULPTURE

63

and,

on

the other

hand,

they

s well

as some

over

life-sized tatues

of

about

the

same

time reveal

greatexperience n

theartisans'

part

n

sculptural

techniques;

therefore,

heir

prototype

hould

be

sought broad.

I

cannotdispute

his observation.

Instead, should iketo pointto theearliest vi-

dence

of

the

Egyptian

tatuary,

ometime round

2800

B.C.

Disregarding special problem

con-

cerning

he

standing

igure,

e

may

say

thatwhat

is preserved

ndicates hat

the

Egyptian

classical

seated

figure riginated

n

rather

lumsy xamples

in

soft imestone

uring he

SecondDynasty.

The

earliestattested

humanfigures

n

hard stone

of

the

dynasticperiodare

the slate

figure

f

King

Kha-sekhem

f

the end

of

the

Second Dynasty,

seated

on

his

throne, eight 6

cm.,

and

its

dupli-

cate

in

hard

imestone. They

are

fashioned

n

an

elaborate

rchaic style nd

with unexcelled

om-

mand of technique. Sculpture n soft imestone

had a

background f

craftsmanshipifferentrom

that n

which

sculpture

n

hard stone

originated:

in

theclassical

period

of

the

Old Kingdom

sculp-

tures

n

hard stone

were still

preparedby

those

craftsmen

who

simultaneously

prepared

hard

stone

vessels.

Therefore, he

sculptor

of

King

Kha-sekhem's asalt

statuebenefitedrom

n old

tradition

f

working

n

hard

stone

with means

quite

different

romthose

used with

limestone.

Although

robably hesituation

was different

ith

the

Ionians two thousand

years

later,

t

may

be

useful o makethepoint hat n Egypt we should

not

necessarily

ook for

antecedents

f

Kha-sek-

hem'sstatues n

hard

stone-we have the

mpres-

sion

that the

designing

f

statues

originated n

softermaterial,

whilethe

technique

n

hard

stone

was

perfected

with vessels

and

early figures

of

animals.

The

second

rgument

or

he

Egyptian rigin f

the

kouroi

ype

s

the

alleged

resemblance

etween

them nd

the

typical

Egyptianmale

standing ig-

ure.

Miss

Richter

(p. 5)

expressesthis

argu-

ment

conservatively nd

carefully: That

the

kourostypederived nspiration rom gyptthere

can

be

no

doubt.

We shall

see

later

that agree

with her

in

that

an

inspiration

f

sorts maywell

be

assumed,

but

I

think t

is useful to

discuss

thoroughly

er

arguments

hich

follow hisstate-

ment: The

resemblance n

general

posture and

structure

etween he

early Greek

kouroi nd the

Egyptian

tatues

s

too

striking o

be accidental.

And

such

identical

details as the

clenchedhand

with a bit

of

stone

eft

nside it

and the

wiglike

headdress

with

eparate

ressesboundat the

ends

are

unmistakableroof

f

relationship.

She

then

refersto

Diodorus

Siculus,

to whom we

shall

come back

later. It

appears

useful to

discuss

separately he

two sentences

of Miss Richter's

argument.

The kouroi resemblethe Egyptianstatuesin

generalposture

n

that he eft oot

s

put

forward

and

the

arms hang

down.

Neither he

slightness

of the

dvancement f

thefoot

nor

the

slight

end-

ing

of

the arms

of

the

kouroi,

however,

s

in

any

respect

hesame as

the wide

pacingposition

f

the

leg

and the

straightness

f

the

hanging

rms

in

Egyptian tatuary. The

advancement

f

the foot

appears to

be

the

onlynatural

alternative o

an

attitudewith the

feet

losed,whichgives

a

some-

what

lifeless

mpression

nd is seen

at the

very

beginningn

earlyEgypt,

bout3000

B.C., as well

as in earlyGreece. The posture fthe advanced

footwas

accepted as a rule in

Egyptian

archaic

sculpture

for

the

standing

male

figures

whose

skirts eft he main

part

of

the

egs

naked

and,

at

once, it

developed into the

rather

unnatural,

though

ive

and

impressive, osture

n

which the

right eg was

in

a

single ine

withthe

erectbody

while

the eft

eg,

advanced

n

a

wide

stride,

was

necessarily

lightly

longated. This

is quite dif-

ferent

rom

the

even

balancing

of

the

body

on

both

legs

of

the

kouroi.

Likewise,

the natural

slight

bending

of

the

arms, which

appears soon

with

the

kouroi,

s

contrastedwith,ratherthansimilar o, the artificial

hough

tylisticallyuite

justified

Egyptian

straightness

of

the

arms.

Moreover, t

is

by no

means the

rule n

Egyptian

statuary

hat both arms

hang

down.

I

do

not

think

hereforehat

the

Egyptianposture

mustbe

looked

at

as

the

prototype f

that of

the

kouroi.

Nor

is

the

general

tructuref

the

Egyptian tand-

ing malefigure nd

the kouroi

ype he same.

For

instance,

ince the kouroi

are always

nude, the

partition

f

chest nd

abdomen

ppears

stressed n

a

somewhat

xaggerated

egree n the

front iew.

In

Egyptian

tatuary,

owever, nd,

forthatmat-

ter,morethan ever n thatoftheseventh nd the

succeeding

enturies,

he

upper

abdomen

ppears

to

serve as

a

support

of

the

chest in

a manner

which indicates

that the

artist

conceivedthese

parts

as

a

unit;

the

lower abdomen

is always

hidden

by

a

kilt

which

provides for a

smooth

transition rom

the

body

to the

leg. The

nude

figure

s not

at

all

to be

found s

a typeof

Egyp-

tian

sculpture.

The

further

ifference f struc-

ture

whichreveals

tself

n

the

equilibrium fbody

and

legs

and

can be

seen

conspicuously

n thepro-




6/23

64 RUDOLF ANTHES

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

SOC.

file,

has

been

mentioned

efore.

In conclusion,

should

say

that

whatever

features

f either

the

posture

or

the

structure

f Egyptian

and

Greek

archaic

male

standing

igures

mayexist

n

common

can

be explained

by

the

fact

hat

each

type

origi-

nated n contrast o thecolumnliketatueswhose

feet

were

closed,

as the

result

f

the

endeavor

of

the

sculptors

o

make statuary

more

alive

than

before.

As for

Miss

Richter's

econd

entence,

tis

true

that

separate

resses

bound

at

theends

are

to

be

found

n

Egypt

in

the

female

hairdress

f

some

statues

f

thefourteenth

entury

.C.

To the

best

of

my

knowledge

hey

were

never

mitated

n

the

last

millennium

.C.

The

assumption

that

an

Ionian

sculptor

was

so

impressed

y the

accidental

sight

of one

of

these

female

statues

of the

past

thathe adaptedthe characteristicndingsof the

tresses

to

the

hair

of

a Greek youth,

lthough

otherwise

is

treatment

f the

hair

was

quite

dif-

ferent,

an

hardly

be accepted.

No

doubt,

this

particularity

f hairdress

was

a

fashion

of

the

ladies

of

fourteenth-century

gypt,

and,

in

the

kouroi,

as Dr.

Carpenter

has

pointed

out,

this

feature

esults

rom echnical

easons

rather

han

the

hairdress.

Certainly,

owever,

he

clenched

fist

of the

kouroi

with

a bit

of stone

eft

nside

suggests

an

inspiration

rom

Egypt.

When

an

Egyptian

standing

figure

was

represented

with

its hands hanging down, the hand was often

tightly

losed

around

a bit

of

stone

which

lightly

protruded

n

front

f the

fist.

Since

this

bit

of

stone

was

meaningless

therwise,

e

must

ssume

that

it

was

leftfor

either

technical

r

aesthetic

reason,

or

both.

The opinion

hat

this

detail

was

carried

over

from

Egypt

by

the lonian

sculptors

because

they

iked

it for

the

same

reason

as

the

Egyptians

s

plausible

nough.

The

factual

vidence,

herefore,

oes

not

neces-

sarily

point

o

any

considerable

nfluence

f

Egypt

upon

the

origin

of

Greek

archaic sculpture.

If,

however,foreign nfluencemustbe assumedfor

other

reasons,

it

might

well

have

come

from

Egypt.

Indeed,

some

kind

of

nspiration

robably

came

from gypt

f

tis

true

that

onian

sculptors

visited

here.

The

assumption

hat

this

was

so

is

based,

as

far

as

I

know,

only

on

Diodorus,

who

traveled

in

Egypt,

according

to

Oldfather

p.

VIII),

about

59

B.C.

and

who

apparently

lso

used

the

writings

f

Hecataeus

of

Abdera (about

300

B.C.)

on

Egypt.

He was

told

(I

98.5)

that

also

of the

ancientsculptors

he

most

renowned

o-

journed

among

the

Egyptians,

namely,

Telecles

and Theodorus,

he

sons

of

Rhoecus.

This

re-

mark

with

a succeeding

tory oncludes

n

enu-

meration

f,

and

an

elaboration

n, certain

other

visitors

n

Egypt

such

as

Orpheus,

Homer,

and

Melampous;

Lycurgus,

olon',

nd

Plato;

Pythag-

oras and Daedalus, thebuilderof theLabyrinth,

about

whom

he

says

that he Egyptian

tatues

had

the

same shape

(rhythmos;

ee Richter,

,

n.

8)

as

those

made

by Daedalus

among

the

Greeks

(I

97.6).

Nobody

will

accept

this list

and

the

elaborations

n the

particular

ames

as a

reliable

historical

source.

However,

Diodorus

tells

a

story

bout Telecles

and Theodorus

which,

s

we

shall

see,

was

either

true

or

invented

with

an

astonishinlg

actual

nowledge.

Certainly,

his

fact

gives

some

credit

to

his

statement

hat

Ionian

sculptors

isited

Egypt.

For

a

proper

valuation

ofthestorywe mustfirst iscussthe relation

e-

tween

Egyptian

nd Greek

methods

f

sculpture.

The

method

f procedure

f the Egyptian

nd

the

archaic

Greek

culptors

was basically

different

from

hat

to

which

we are

accustomed.

We

may

call

it

free-hand

arving

or free sculpture.

The

shape

of

the

statue

which

they

were

preparing

came

nto

existence

n the stone

tself

nd

was

not

clearly

pparent

until the

final

tage of

carving;

itwas

not

prepared

eforehand

na

plaster

model.

At the

beginning

f the procedure,

he sculptor

prepared

rawings

n

the

sides

and the

topof

the

block,by whichthe main features f the figure

were

fixed;

these

drawings

weregradually

rans-

ferred

nto

the

nterior

f the block

s the

carving

proceeded.

These

guiding

ines

on the

surface

of

the

unfinished

igure

re

preserved

n a

few

cases

both

in

Egypt

and

in Greece.

In

Egypt

they

are different

n the middle

of

the

second

millennium

romwhat

they

are

in the middle

of

the

first.

The

earlier

ones

have

thesame

charac-

ter

s those

of the Greek

rchaic

culptors

with

he

side

and

frontviews

of the

prospective

figure

drawn

on

the

lateral

and front urfaces

of

the

block respectively,

more

or less

complete

and

supplemented

y

a fewaxial and other uxiliary

lines.

Cutting

nto

the

blockwith

his tools

the

sculptor

was

guided

by

these drawings,

o

ap-

proach

gradually

he

surface

f

the

figure

which

he

had

anticipated

mentally.

I

may

refer

o

the

discussions

y

Bliimel

nd Casson

forthe

further

characteristics

f this

method.

The

guiding

ineson

Egyptian

nfinished

tatu-

ary

of the

firstmillennium

eveal

a

different

nd

complex

picture.

They

are

geometrical

ines

which

either epresent

r fit

nto

grid

system

f

squares




7/23

VOL. 107, NO. 1,

19631

EGYPTIAN AND GREEK SCULPTURE

65

which

are

often

subdivided.

It is true

that

a

grid

system

was

also

used

earlier, n

the second

millennium,n

Egyptfor

drawing,

o set the meas-

urements f

a

figure

orrectly. This

method

was

employed

specially

for

copying

nd

most

prob-

ablyalso forthesculptor's rawings n thesides

of

theblock

for,

bviously,

he

employment

f

the

same

square

unit

for

the

design

of

the

figures

n

all

the

sides of

the

block

could

guarantee the

conformity

f

their

measurements

nd,

f

desirable,

the

canonical

proportions f

the

sculpture.

Like-

wise

we

may assume

that

the canonical

propor-

tions of

the

Greek

archaic

statues,

o

which

Dr.

Carpenter

kindly

drew

my

attention,

were

first

fixed

n

the

drawingson

the

sides

of the

blocks

and

checked

n

the

course

of

the

carving.

Ap-

parently

the

system

of

vertical

and

horizontal

lines

painted n

Late

Egyptian

workblocks,how-ever,was not an

auxiliary construction

or

the

drawing,

lthough

very

few

additional

oblique

lines

appear to

indicate

ne or

another

ectionof

the

outlinesof

either

rm

or

leg.

The

evidence

clearly

ndicates

that

the earlier

Egyptians and

the

early

Greeks

were

concerned

with he

drawing

of

the

figure,

while the

later

Egyptians

concen-

trated

on

the network or

locating

points. This

difference

ecalls

the

statement

f

Diodorus

that

the

method

of

taking

the

measurements

or

a

statue,which

was

employed

about 530

B.C.

in

Egypt,

was

found

nowhere

among

the

Greeks.

We shall see later that this statementmust be

taken

seriously.

Apparently he

grid

systemof

Late

Egyptian

culpture

as

usedin a

very

pecial

manner. I

am

inclined,

herefore,

o

think

that

the

grids were

used

in

a

system

f

coordinates

y

which

theoretically

veryspot

of

the

statue was

mathematically

ixed

in

advance on

the

outside

of

the

block.

No

parallel

o

sucha

system

n

free-

hand

carving,

hat s,

in

carving

without

model,

is

known.

But

especially

correct

mathematical

measurementsre

indispensable

or

copying;

for

instance,

or

transferringhe

features f

a

plaster

model o stone. Therefore, e maythink hat he

Egyptian

mathematical

ystem

moreor

less

corre-

sponded

with

the

method f

pointing,

which

first

developed

in

the

Hellenistic

period.

In

this

method,

which

ertainly

as

much

more

elaborate

and

dependable than

any

Egyptian,

individual

spots

on

the

surface

f

the

model

are

transferred

by

means

of

a

mathematically

ependable

nstru-

ment

onto

the

stone,

where

they

are

fixed

as

points.

Here are

several

facts

which

corroborate

the

hypothesis

hat

he

Late

Egyptian

metlhod

as

basedupon theneeds of a

copyist

ather

han

upon

those characteristicf a free

sculptor.

The

Late

Egyptian

sculptors

mployed

models under

cer-

tain

circumstances,

lthough

hese

were

prepared

in

stone nd

could be

usedagain

and

again,

n

con-

trastto the Western individualplastermodels,

and

the

grids

were incised

on

virtually

ach of

these

models,

f

which

great

number ave

been

preserved.

Furthermore,ike

Roman

sculpture,

which

was

preparedby the

method

of

pointing.

Late Egyptian

tatuary

xcelled

n

a perfect

inish-

ingtechnique

nd,at the

sametime,

displayed n

artistic

oolness

or

detachment

trikingly

nlike

the ive

appearance

of

earlierEgyptian

culpture,

notwithstandinghe

impressive

ortraiture hich

occurs in

both

Late Egyptianand

Roman art.

Finally,

this

characteristic ppearance

of

Late

Egyptianstatuary ccurredfirst bout 700

B.C.,

when the

tendency

o

copy

works

of

art

of

the

past

flourished.This

latter act

uggests hat the

change

from

he

employment

f

the

figural

uide

lines,

whichwe

discussedfirst, o

the ater

mathe-

matical

guiding

ines tookplace

about700

B.C.

In

fact,this

date has

been acceptedfor

five

or

six

decades

and has

neverbeen

debated.

I

should ike

to stress

hat he

evidence s rather

meager

formy

distinction

etween n

earlier, ig-

ural

system

f

guide

lines in

sculpturedentical

with

he

Greek

rchaicmethod, nd a

latermathe--

matical

ystemwhich

eems to

display ome

simi-laritywith, lthough yno means anyrelation

o,

the Roman

method;naturally, nfinished

tatues

with

painted

working

ines

preserved re

not often

forthcoming.

However,

the difference

s evident

in

thefew

examples

which are

preserved, nd I

can

think

of

no

other

explanation

nor, to the

best

of

my

knowledge, as any

been

proffered y

others;

we

maytherefore

cceptmy

uggestion or

the

time

being.

This

long

discussionwas

necessary or

the fol-

lowing

conclusions,

whichare

decisively

elevant

to the

question with which

we

are

concerned.

First,we have assumed that the measurements

whichthe

sculptor

as

to take n

anyevent,

were

based,

n

theearlier

eriod, s in

the rchaic

period

of

the Greeks,

mainlyupon

the

appearanceofthe-

human

figure,while

n the ater

periodthey

were

based

mainlyupon

mathematicallyixed

points.

Second,

since

such

a

mathematical

ixation er-

tainly riginated

n

the

features

f

Egyptian tatu-

ary,

ny

statue

which

was

preparedwiththe

ater

Egyptian

ystem

f

guiding ines

necessarily

was-

a

characteristicallygyptian

tatue.

Third,such




8/23

66

RUDOLF

ANTHES

[PROC.

AMER. PHIL.

SOC.

a mathematical

ixation

f

a

figure

was

apt

to

be

transmitted

ither

rally

r inwriting

r

in

draw-

ing

because

the

relation

f

the grids

to the

figure

was

constant,

nd

individual

understanding

as

necessary

nly

in

regard

to

the size

of the

grid

-unit. In fact,

n

Egyptian

papyrus

upon

which

the

front

nd sideviewsofa sphinx overedwitl

grids

are

drawn,

corroborates

his

conclusion.

Fourth,

we

may

parallel

a

certain

spect

of

the

difference

etween

heearlier

nd the

ater

Egyp-

tian

method

with

a

characteristic

ifference

e-

tweenthe

methods

f

the Greek

archaic

and

the

Roman

sculptors.

Bliimel

p. 16) states

hat

the

main

characteristic

f

the

archaic

method

s

that

the

sculptor

f

a

kouros,

or nstanice,

ecessarily

works

simultaneously

round

the block

of

the

statue

which

gradually

merges

ut

of ts

interior,

and

that

t

is

virtually

mpossible

o proceed

on

anysimple ector fthestatuebecausetheartist's

nmental

nticipation

f

the

figure,

which

eads

his

every

troke

rom

hebeginning

f

his work

o

the

end,

depends

n the

even

perfection

f all

the

four

sides

at

every

stage

of the

procedure.

This

cer-

tainly

holds true

for

he

early

Egyptian

method

s

well.

Bliumel's

haracterization

p.

56)

of

the

Ro-

-man

method,

y

which

he

fixed

points

fthe

sur-

face

of

a model

are

mechanically

ransferred

nto

the stone,

may

be applied

to

the

Late

Egyptian

method

f we

understand

t

rightly

s

an

unex-

plained

manner

of carrying

n

a

basically

free

carvingwith method ywhich hepoinltsfthe

surface

f

the figure

re fixed

chiefly

y

mathe-

matical

measurement.

He

says

that

a

Roman

sculptor

who

depends

on the meclhanical

ransfer

of

measurements

may

well

carry

on

his

work

on

any

one sector

f his

statuewithout

egard

or

he

whole

of

the

statue.

This means

thatthe

Roman

or, as

we

should

think,

he

Late Egyptian,

culp-

tor

is

ready

o

prepare

nd

finish,

or nstance,

he

right

r the

eft

half f

a statue

f

he

desires,

while

the

earlier Egyptian

and Greek

archaic

sculptor

could

not

possibly

o

so.

The storywhich Diodorus (I 98.5-9) tells

about

the

onian

sculptors

elecles

and

Theodorms

has always

been

offered

s an

argument

or

the

origin

f Greek

sculpture

n

Egypt.

In

my

opin-

ion,

this

understanding

s

wrong.

I

have

trans-

lated

the story

nto

German

and should

like

to

present

ts significant

ection

here,

the

English

based

on the

translation

f Oldfather,

with

some

relevant

lterations

f

my

own anid

a few

com-

Tnents

n

parenthesis;

orevery

particular

eature,

of course,

must

refer

o

my

German

ranslation.

According

o Diodorus,

the brothers

elecles

and

Theodorus

sojourned

in Egypt

and when

they

came

back

to

Ionia,

each

one prepared

half

of

a

statue

of

Apollo

forthe Samians,

the

one

the

eft

and

the

other

ne

theright

ide,

Telecles

n

Samos

and Theodorus

n

Ephesus,

and these

halves

were

found

o

fit xactly

when oined.

Diodorus

con-

tinues s follows:

This

method

f

working

namely,

hat

which

made

t

possible

or

the

twohalves

to

fit)

is

practiced

o-

where

mong

he Greeks

but

is

followed

enerally

among

the

Egyptians.

For

with

them

he

correct

proportions

symmetria;

as

richtige

aeverhiltnis)

ofthe

tatues

re

not

fixed

n

accordance

ith

he

p-

pearance

of

the

human

body:

phantasia)

which

presents

tself

o the

eyes,

as

is done

among

the

Greeks,

ut

as

soon

as they

ay

out

the

stones

nd,

after

pportioning

hem,

re

ready

o

work

n

them,

at that

tage

hey

ake

hemeasurements

analogon)

from

he

smallest

o

the

largest;

for,dividing

he

structurefthe ntire odynto wenty-onearts

nd

one-fourthn addition,hey xpress n thiswayall

the

correct

roportions

f

the

human

ody.

Conse-

quently,

s

soon

as

the

artisans

gree

as to

the

size

(of

the

objects

and

therewith

f the

unit

of

the

geometric

ystem),

hey eparate

nd

proceed

o

turn

out

their

products

n

such

a

way

that

their

izes

correspond

o

accurately

in

all

the

details)

that

he

peculiarity

f

their

ystem

xcites

mazement.

And

the

statue

xoanon)

in Samos,

n

conformity

ith

the

ngenious

method

f

the

Egyptians,

as

cut

nto

twoparts

from

he

top

of

the

head,

hus

ndicating

the

middle

f the

human ody

down

to

the

private

parts,

ach

half

xactly

matching

he

other

t

every

point.

And

they

ay

that

his

tatue

s

for

he

most

partsimilar o thoseof Egypt, s having hearms

stretched

tiffly

own

he

sides

(paratetamenas)

nd

the egs

separated

n a stride

diabebekota).

I must

add

one

more

comment:

he

evidence

of

unfinished

ate

Egyptian

tatues,

n

general

gree-

ment

with

the

statement

f

Diodorus,

shows

that

the

height

of the standing

human

figure

lightly

exceeded

that

of

the

twenty-one

nits

of

the

grid

system

see

Iversen,

Canon,

48-52).

The

characteristics

f the

Late Egyptian

meth-

ods

of

preparing

sculpture

re

expressed

by

Diodorus

as clearly

s

it

is possible

n

a very

few

words. We mustconcludethat this storywas

carried

over

from

very dependable

ource

and

he has

related

t

withutmost

are.

Whether

or

not

it

is

historically

rue,

t clearly

ays

that

the

xoanon

of

the

Samian

Apollo

was

made

in

the

Egyptian

manner,

lthough

niquely

n

two

halves.

This

means

that

it

had

the

conspicuous

ppear-

ance

of

an

Egyptian

statue

as

contrasted

o

the

nlumerous

ouroi

which

have

been

excavated

in

Saimos

n

our

time.

Egyptian-like

tatues

which

were prepared

in

Greece

have

been

found

at

Athens

and

the

Boeotian

Thebes.

Certainly,

t




9/23

VOL.

107,

NO.

1,19631

EGYPTIAN

AND

GREEK

SCULPTURE

67

was a pleasant

dea

of

Telecles

and

Theodorus

to

demonstrate, y this

extreme and artificial

est,

their

kill n the

art

which

hey

earned n

Egypt.

They enjoyed playing

trickwhichcould notbe

imitatedby every artist. Although

their work

-wasadmired and muchspoken about,no doubtit was neither ntended o be taken s an example

of

art

nor

has it ever served s such.

It

certainly

remainedunique. Evidently, hese

artists

most

successfullyearned

to command

he

rules

of

the

Egyptian culptors ut,except

for

joke

of

sorts,

they

were

not

willing

o

cling

to them. It

may

be

mentioned hat, n addition to the rules we

are

speaking f, therewas much

for

a

young culptor

to learn

from

the great Egyptian tradition;

for

-instance,he technical erfection

f

work

n

hard

stone,

withhammering

nd

rubbing

nd the em-

ployment f veryfew metaltools; and,

of

course,

-in alcuilation,f which we shall mention case

presentlv.

It should thus be clear that, o thebest

of

our

knowledge, herewas

no

direct

ink

betweenGreek

archaic statuary nd

its

contemporary gyptian

counterpart xcept

for

the

manual

techniques.

Statuary

was

either

Egyptian

or

Greek.

Greek

artistswere readyto learn Egyptian

methods ut

Egyptiain rt served them s

a

background

ather

thain

in

example

for

their own

work, although

they certainly

were not

always

as

consciously

aware

of

this situation

as

were Telecles and

Theodortus. However,their earning fEgyptian

methods was not useless, for it provided them

with

a

factual

knowledge

which

they

used

cre-

ativelv. This point an be excellentlylluminated

by what wTemay call a continuationof the story of

Diodorus. The sculptor Theodorus was famous

for

his invention

of

the casting

of

tall

bronze

figures.

In

discussing

this

method, Kluge (pp.

28-29) points out that the outstanding accuracy

of

calculation which was necessary for the success-

ful

casting

of

the

big

sections

of

these figures

might well have become familiar to Theodorus

through the calculations which, according to

Diodorus,

he

had learned

from

the Egyptian sculp-

tors. This

idea

of

Kluge's

fits

well with our con-

tention

that

the Late Egyptian method of design-

ing statues was based on mathematical calculations

in

a much higher degree than the usual one,

namely, that which the earlier Egyptians and the

Greeks

employed.

Casson's

comment (p. 155)

that

Diodorus'

story

seems but the

slightly dis-

torted

version, made by one who was not con-

versant with the technique, of the ordinary process

of

sand-casting

from

a wooden model, that is, the

technique

discussed

by

Kluge, formerly

ppeared

to

be

justified

when

we were

still

blaming

Diodorus

forhaving

misrepresented

hathe

was

told,because

we

ourselves

id

not understand

im.

The verification

f this particular

toryof

his,

which

coincides

with

a

trend

to acknowledge

is

conscientiousnessn general (see Oldfather'sn-

troduction),

makes Casson's

interpretation

is-

pensable.

We

have discussed

the alleged

influence

of

Egyptian

sculpture

upon

the Ionian

kouroi

at

length

because

it

is perhaps

the

only example

of

the effect

f Egypt

on

Greece

where

the

details

appear

rather

clearly.

We

must keep

this ex-

ample

in

mind

when

we

discuss

other

questions

about

Egyptian-Greek

ntellectual

nterrelation

f

this period.

Some

will

be

mentioned

ater

n

this

paper

nthecontext

f

philosophy

nd

religion.

The followingections eal with he basic ques-

tion

of what

we know

about

the

mode

ofthought

and the

ntellectual

apacity

f

the

Egyptians

dur-

ing the

early

Greek

period,

and

how

these

com-

pare

with hose

of the

Greeks.

Since

we

shall

not

have

an

opportunity

o

come

back

to the

problems

ofEgyptian

nd Greek

art,

should

ike

to state

two ideas

which

will

be

clarified

n the

next

sec-

tion.

First,

t

is an

acknowledged

act

that

both

Egyptian

nid

Greek statuary

eveal

n

an

extra-

ordinarily

igh

degree

he

artist's

ensuous

ppre-

ciation f

the

human

ody.

The evident

ifference

betweenGreek and Egyptianstatuary eems to

result

rom

he reasons

for

which

twas

made:

the

Egyptians

made a

statue

s the

manifestation

f

a

mythological

oncept,

s a symbol

f the

ndividu-

al's existence

fter

death,

while the

Greek

kouroi

were

prompted

y

the

wish

to

preserve

he

real

existence

of the individual

n

a natural

ikeness

for

the

memory

f

generations

o

come.

Second,

the

nvention

f

perspective

nd

thefeatures

which

are

closely

connected

with it

in the

two-dimen-

sional art

of

the

Greekscan

be

explained

by

sev-

eral factors.

Doubtless,

ne ofthese

factors

s

the

samepersistencyf thoughtwhich s found n the

dogmatism

f Greek

philosophy

n contrast

o

the

liberality

f

Egyptian

thought

and

manner

of

representation.

IIT

Evidently,

Greek

philosophy

nd its

sequel

in

Western

Europe

represent

omething

ew

in his-

tory.

Its

main distinctive

eatures

with

respect

to

the

deas

about the

nterrelation

f

man

andhis

surroundings

ppear

to

be, on-

heone

hand,

the

persistent

rge to

discover

and

explain

both

the




10/23


11/23

VOL.

107,

NO.

1,

19631

EGYPTIAN

AND GREEK

SCULPTURE

69

cient

gyptians

were

ogical

nough

nall the

other

fields

f

civilization.

The

consequence

f this

dea

was the

belief hat

he

Egyptians

ogether

with

ll

the other

peoples

that

were not influenced

y

Greek

ivilization,

ncluding

he

present-day

sav-

ages, represent sortofphalanxof pre-logical

thought

s

contrasted

with Greek and

Western

logical

thought,

lthough

t

was

admitted

that

India

and

China

did not

quite

fit

nto

this

classifi-

cation.

Furthermore, ince some

Egyptian

as

well

as other primitive

mythological

onceptions

served s

an explanation f the wonders f

nature

(perhaps

mainly

when

such

an

explanationwas

called

for

by eading

questions),

t

has

been

taken

for

granted hat

mythological

deas

originated

n

man's

attempt

o

explain the wondersof nature.

I for

one have doubted for a

long

timewhether

manby

his verynaturefeels

an

urge

to

seek ex-

planationsof everyday xperiences uch as

day

and night,or

life and

death,

and other

cosmic

features.

In

any

event,

he

main

Egyptian

myths

originated

therwise,s we

shall see

below.

An-

other naccurate

ssumption

which

may

be

found

occasionally,

nd

which

s

based

onlyupon

the

par-

ticular

example of

Christianity,

s the

idea

that

adhering

o a religion

means to be

bound

n

dog-

mas;

consequently, reek

thought

s

hailed

as

the

liberation

f the

humanmindfrom

he

bondage

of

dogmatism.

The

contraryppears

to be

correct.

We

shall

come back to

this

question

but I

should

liketo quote the excellent tatements hichBur-

netmade,

first

n

his

discussion

f

Hesiod,

sys-

tem

s fatal

o

so

wayward

thing

s

mythology

(p.

6) and

second,with

reference o

theclassical

period, ancient

religion

was

not a

body

of

doc-

trine

p.

84).

Finally, should ike

to take ex-

ception

o

Frankfort'sdeas when he

writes, re-

sumably

correctly, hat

the

ancients

[meaning

the

peoples of

the ancient

Near

East],

like the

modern avages,

saw man

always as

part of so-

ciety

(p. 12),

and,

simultaneously,

xplained

mythopoeic

mindwith

tlhe wareness

ofthe n-

dividual I to be confrontecl ith the Thou

as

represented

y his

surroundings. I

wonder

whether

mythological

nderstandingf the

world

can

possiblyoriginate

n the

individualby

him-

self;

n

Egypt t

originatedn man

as a

representa-

tive

interpreter

f the

community o

whiclh

he

belonged.

The

results

of eight

years of

researchon the

earliest

documentation

f

mythologyn

Egypt,

which

dates from he

third

millennium.C.,

might

well

replace

the

presuppositions

which I

have

called

unwarranted.

These resultswere

astsum-

med

up

in

my

contribution

o

Mythologies

f

the

Ancient

World.

Let us

discuss

those factual

re-

sults

whichhave a specific earing

n our subject

matter.

The definitionsf some expressionswhichwill

occur

in

the balance

of this

paper may

facilitate

understanding.

A

mythological

oncept

s

the

result

f

a human ttempt

o

make an

entity

f

the

divine,

or transcendental, orld

conceivable n

lhuman

terms.

The

divine

(transcendental)

world encompasses

whatever

annot be

compre-

hended

by human

reason

and sensoryperception

although

manis aware

of its existence;

according

to this definition,

any

entities

whichcan be ex-

plained

n our

present

ime,

uch as

the

sky

and

the

sun,

and

many

cases

of

the

interrelation

f

cause and effect, elonged

o the

divine world n

the

mind f he ncient

gyptians.

No entityfthe

divine

world

can

be

grasped

by

the

human

mind

exceptby

means of

a

symbol.

While

not

every

symbol

s

a

mythological

oncept,verymythologi-

cal

concept

s symbolical

f an

entity

f the

divine

world.

In accordance

with its

character

as

a

symbol,

mythological

oncept

an

be

expressed

by

means

of

objects

(e.g.,

a

figure

or

a

living

being),

words

(e.g.,

a tale

or

hymn),

nd actions

(ceremonies),

and it

must

satisfy

oth

faith nd

reason,

lthough,ust

as in a fairy

ale, thelaws

of nature

may

be

disregarded.

But the

question

whether t is truecannotpossibly e answeredby

reason

alone. A mythological

oncept

s true

f

t

makes

an

entity

f the

divineworldconceivable

o

men and if

t

is

acceptedbyman's

faith. Egyp-

tian

mythology s

the sum

of all

Egyptian

mytho-

logicalconcepts.

A myth

s a sectorof

myth-

ology

which

s defined,

or nstance, y

a central

character r event

and

may

or maynot

be trans-

mitted

in the formof a

mythological

ale.

Egyptian

religion,

n this context,

ignifies

he

official

xpression

of the common

Egyptian

ac-

ceptance

of

those symbols

which express

the in-

terdependencef the human nd thedivineworld.

Egyptian

theology

s the constructive

nd in-

terpretivectivity

fthe Egyptian

ages in dealing

withmythologynd

otherreligious

ntities.

A

few mythological

onceptswere

transmitted

from

prehistoric

imes

ntothe historic

eriodof

Egypt.

Theyconsisted

mainly f, n

theone

hand,

what we

may

call fetish eities

nd, on the

other

hand, deas

about the nterrelation

fthe primeval

water

with

the sky and the

primevalbeing;

we

should

realize

thatwe do not

knowwhether

he




12/23

70

RUDOLF

ANTHES

[PROC. AMER.

PHIL.

SOC.

idea

that

a

primeval

water

existed

mirrored

genuine

radition

as

I

am

inclined

o think)

or

whether

t

was the product

of

speculation.

The

major

part

of

Egyptian

mythology,

owever,

rig-

inated

when

the

Egyptian

kingdom

was

estab-

lished, bout 3000

B.C.,

and its basic constitutive

entity

s

unmistakably

pparenit

bout

2800

B.C.

It

was

founded

poln

the

faith

nthedivine

harac-

ter

of

the

king

and

the

permanence

f the

social

order

of

Egypt

for

which

he

stood.

It

seemingly

consisted

f

two

myths,

amely,

he

cosmogony,

i.e.,

the

pedigree

of

the

cosmic

deities,

and

the

myth

f the

royal

family,

siris,

Isis,

their

son,

Horus,

and

theevildoer,

eth.

These

two

myths

belong

ogether, owever,

s Osiris

and Seth

rep-

resent

he

fourth

eneration

n

the pedigree.

The

pedigree

connected

Atum,

the

single

One

who

arose out oftheprimevalwaters, hroughheair

(Shu

together

with

his

wife

and

sister,

Tefnut),

the

earth

and

sky

(Gel)

and his

sister

and

wife,

Nut),

and

the

cultivated

alley

of

the Nile

and

the

desert

(Osiris

and

Seth,

to whom

the

personifi-

cations

f

the

royal

seat,

sis

and Nephthys,

ere

added

as

their

isters

nd wives),

with

Horus,

the

king

of

Egypt,

the

son

of Osiris

and

Isis.

It

is

evident

beyond

doubt

that

thismyth,

which

now

appears

to

be

composed

f

thecosmogony

nd

the

myth

f

Osiris,

originated

s

a unit,

s

the

ineage

of the

god

Horus,

who

was

incarnate

n,

and

identicalwith, verykingof Egypt,back to the

first

iving

being,

Atum.

It was

not

a

narrative

to

begin

with.

The

lineage

was established

by

theological

peculation

n

a

strictlyogical

manner

to

make

it

clear

that

the

crownprince,

who

was

born

a

man,

became

the god,

Horus,

when

he

ascended

the

throne;

that

his

father,

he

deceased

king,

who

just

before

was

Horus

and

became

Osiris

by

his death,

was

buried

and

transfigured

into

the

heavenly

aspect

of Horus;

that

Egypt

and

the

desert,

he earth

nd

thesky

and

the

air

in

between,

elonged

o the domain

f

Horus,

who

thuswas provento be the rulerof theuniverse;

and

that

his

god

Horus

was,

by

means

of

the

pedi-

gree,

equated

with

his ancestor,

Atum,

the

pri-

meval

being.

All theseaspects,

which

are

borne

out by

an abundance

of

evidence,

were

the

con-

stituent

arts

n theconstruction

f

the

ancestry

f

Horus.

We

may

say

that

he

establishment

f

this

great

concept

equals,

or

perhaps

surpasses,

any

logical

deduction

performed

y

the

Ionian

phi-

losophers

with

regard

to the

strictness

f

logical

thought.

Naturally,

he ancestry

f

Horus,

headed

by

the

primeval

being,

appears

as

a

cosmogony

n

the

narration,

ut

the decisive

fact

for

this

discussion

is that

this

cosmogony

did

not originate

s

an

answer

o

man's

wondering

bout

the

nature

f

his

surroundings.

Rather

it appears

to

have

origi-

nated nman'swonderingbout, ndfinal aithn,

the

constancy

fhis

own institutions,

he

form

f

his

society.

We should

understand

t

as

an

at-

temipt

o

adjust

the

newly

established

kingship

in

Egypt

to

the

unquestioned

nd

unchangeable

order

of

nature

by

identifying

he

king

of

Egypt

as

a

universal

god

and

the ruler

of both

heaven

and

earth,

whose

existence,

ncidentally,

ppears

to

anthes, rudolf_affinity and difference between egyptian and greek sculpture and thought in the...

Documents