We shall commence our illustrations by a series of royal portraits
of the XV 11th and succeeding dynasties. They are faithfully copied,
on a reduced scale, from the magnificent Monumenti of Rosellini.
Although reasons will he produced hereinafter for regarding this line
. of Pharaohs as of mixed Asiatic origin (i. e. not of the pure Egyptian
type proper), yet they will serve admirably as a basis whence to continue
tracing, upwards, our Caucasian types. Not only are all these
heads of high Asiatic or Caucasian outline, hut several of their
features strongly betray the Abrahamic cross.
When the celebrated V isco nti printed, in Italy, his “ Greek and
Roman Iconography,” containing the portraits of the most famous
parsonages of classical antiquity, he lamented the absence of Egyptian
portraits; little expecting that, a few years later, Rosellini148 should
publish a complete gallery of likenesses of Pharaohs^ and Ptolemies
from the monuments of the Nile; still less could either of those great
scholars foresee that, ere one generation elapsed, we should possess
the portraits of Sennacherib and other Assyrian monarchs from the
palaces of Nineveh!
Mankind have always, and in every country (China, from most
ancient times, particularly), taken extreme interest in knowing the
features of those who have been renowned in story. Pliny praises
the 700 portraits collected by V a rro . Solomon, or the writer of
Wisdom,m says, “ Whom men could not honor in presence, because
they dwelled afar off, they Jo ok the counterfeit of his visage, and made
an express image of a king whom they honored; ” and while to Grecian
art we owe the perpetuation of the sublime busts of their worthies
hack to the fourth century b . c., we can no longer tolerate the illusion,
now that we possess the likeness of Prince M e r h e t (to he exhibited
in due course) who lived about 5300 years ago, that L y s ist r a t u s , who
flourished in the 114th Olympiad, was either the first portrait-sculptor
or moulder. Such sparse remains of Hellenic art as appertain to the
sixth centuiy b . c. differ altogether from the perfection of later ages,
and betray the stiffness of antiquity. They correspond in style to the
old Lycian sculptures, which are known derivatives of Assyrian a rt;
and- it is sufficient to glance at the effigies of Ninevite kings and
nobles, so splendidly illustrated in the folio plates of Botta and of
Layard, to he convinced that the art of portrait-taking ascends, in Assyria
at least, to the tenth century b . c. ; while, in Egypt, its origin
precedes the oldest pyramids — because, at the IVth dynasty, the
likenesses of individuals are repeated times out of number in their
tombs, as any one can verify by opening Lepsius’s Renkmdler.
The general exactitude of Egyptian iconography being now a matter
beyond dispute, we have only to remind the reader, while submitting
the following selections, that, if he makes allowance for want of perspective
in antique Egyptian art, wherein the eye is always presented
in full, he will'find the profiles admirably truthful. Moreover, he
will he struck with the likenesses from father to son in each family
group — which is another guarantee of artistic fidelity; at the same
time that the infusion of new blood in each dynasty, and the consequent
alteration of lineaments, are apparent to every eye.
PHA R AON IC P O R T R A I T S . 150
A m u no ph it e s a n d T h o tm es it e s . —New Empire—XV 11th Theban
dynasty—commencing at b . c. 1671 (Lepsius), with A a h m e s , Amasis;
whose portrait being unknown, we begin with his son’s. Our ethnological
conceptions are veiy briefly given under each head, leaving the
reader to -emend where we may not have seized the exact definitions.
F ig. 44. F ig . 45.
His wife.
Son of the
above.
His wife.
ji§i
A m u n o p h I.
(A Grecian countenance.)
Fig . 46.
A a hm e s -N o f r e -A r i .
(Strong Semitic features.)
F ig . 47.
T h o tm e s I. A a h m e s .
(Strikingly Hellenic.) (Absolutely Jewish.)
19