we find in the “ Types”36 the Egyptian portrait of the famous C l e o p
a t r a , which undoubtedly gives us a most charming effigy of this
refined, sensual, intriguing Queen;
Fls- 6- last scion of an illustrious Macedonian
race, who had witnessed at
her feet Julius Csesar and Mark Antony,
and who for a short time might
well have believed herself the mistress
of the Eastern world. Nevertheless,
doing full justice to the
Egyptian artist, we cannot help remarking
that, though all the Egyptian
efligies of this Queen, throughout
her ancient realm, resemble one
another perfectly-—-just as the portrait
of Queen Victoria has remained
entirely unaltered on all her gold sovereigns for the last twenty
years,— Cleopatra’s Greek' coins show a female head of entirely different
character; which, if really her portrait, gives us hut a poor idea
of the taste either of Julius Csesar or of M. Antony. This difference
between the Greek coins and Egyptian effigies, common to all the
Ptolemies, is rather puzzling, and has until now not yet been satisfactorily
explained; but Lepsius is expected to treat this question
fully and frankly in the iconographic portion of his great publication.
37 In the mean time it is only fair to remark, that the native
Egyptian portraits of some' of these kings, ex. gr. Physcon, agree
far better with their historical character, than do their effigies on the
Greek coins; which are all somewhat idealized, until we reach this
last Cleopatra, who was evidently a much finer Specimen of a Queen
in reality, than she appears on her medals.
Having done the work of demolition to my best abilities, allow
me now to review the human races in respect to their aptitude for
Art, and to inquire into the distinct and typical characteristics of
national art among the different types of men, — a study that will
establish the following facts:
I. — That whilst some races are altogether unfit for imitative art,
others are by nature artistical in different degrees:
H.— That the art of those nations which excelled in painting and
sculpture, was often indigenous and always national; losing not
“ Op.cit., p. 104, fig. 8: — R o s e l l in i , Monumenti delC Egitto, M.R., XXII., fig. 82. I
notice your judicious alteration of the eye.
87 Cf., m the interim, L e p s iu s , Ueber einige Ergebnisse der ägyptischen Denkmäler fü r die
Kenntniss derPlolemäergeschichte, Berlin, 1853, pp. 26, 29, 52. '
only its type but likewise its excellence by imitating the art of other
nations:
HI. — That imitative art, derived frora intercourse with, or conquest
by, artistic races, remained barren, and never attained any
degree of eminence,—that it never survived the external relations to
which it owed its origin, and died out as soon as intercourse ceased,
or when the artistic conquerors became amalgamated with the
unartistie conquered race:
IV.—That painting and sculpture are always the result of a peculiar
artistical endowment of certain races, which cannot he imparted
by instruction to unartistical nations. This fitness, or aptitude for
art^ seems altogether to be independent of the mental culture and
civilization of a people; and no civil or religious prohibitions can
destroy the natural impulse of an artistical race to express its feelings,
in pictures, statuaiy, and reliefs.
Tours, very truly,
E. P.
L ondon, S t . A l b a n ’s V il l a s , H io h g a t e R i s e ,
October, 1856.
7