anthes, rudolf_affinity and difference between egyptian and greek sculpture and thought in the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
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…
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
-
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…
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-
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
-
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…
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.
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
-
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…
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-
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
-
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…
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
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
-
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…
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
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
-
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…
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
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
-
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…
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
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
-
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…
10/23
-
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…
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
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
-
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…
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