/er was stopped by “ barbarians,” but only by the equally powerful
Fig. 36. Fig. 87.
Goddess fpom
P terium.
and expanding Shemitic and
Arian civilization. The national
spirit of the Arians in Persia revived
after five centuries of G-reek and heL
Tem'zed-Parthian rule. A r d e sc h ir ,
the son of Babek, and grandson to
Sassan, rose up in rebellion against
the Parthian Arsacides, and broke
down their supremacy in a long
protracted war about the beginning
of the third century of our era (a . d .
214-226 : obiit, 240). With his triumph,
Persian art revived once
more ; and although it inherited no
connection with the traditions of
Achæmenian art, it was again characterized by the peculiar richness
of the flowing drapery. Sassanide art is at any rate equal, if not
superior, to the contemporary style of Rome ; indeed, the head of A rdeschir
himself, [38] from a rock-
sculpture at Persepolis, is a most
creditable work of art, scarcely
surpassed by any Roman relief of
the same period. This “ Indian
summer” of ancient Persian art
lasted but for a short time ; it degenerated
under the later kings,
and was entirely destroyed by the
Mohammedan conquest, in the seventh
century. The Kur’àn was
introduced by fire and sword, and
became soon the undisputed law
of the Persian race. Accordingly,
we might expect the cessation of
Fig. 38.
A r d e s c h i r . 149
artistical life. But here we meet with a most striking evidence in
favor of our assertion that art is the result of a peculiar innate tendency
of some races, which cannot be crushed out by civil , and religious
prohibitions. As soon as the Persians recovered their political
independence, and fell off from the Arab Ehalifate of Bagdad,
they continued to draw and even to carve human forms, though they
never ceased to profess strict adherence to the Kur’àn. Their style
149 Texter, Arménie, 1852, ii., PL 148.
of art changed now for the third time; but neither the instinct for
art, nor its habitual practice, has ever yet been destroyed among the
true Iranian race of Persia.
T . — THE E T R U S C A N S A N D T H E I R A R T .
T he Etruscans were a mongrel race, the result of the amalgama-
tion of different tribes, partly Asiatic, partly European, both Italian
and Greek. Their language was mixed, though it is still greatly
disputed how far the Greek elements pervaded the aboriginal forms
of speech. As to the origin of the Etruscans : the most probable
opinion is, that Lydians from the ancient Torrhebis in Asia emigrated
to Italy and became the rulers of the then little-civilized aborigines,
who were either Pelasgic Umbrians, or a Celtic Alpine tribe,
which had previously and gradually migrated southwards. They
held the country from the Po to the Tiber, and extended even to
southern Italy. Greek immigrants, principally ASolians from Corinth,
settled among them at a somewhat later period, and the mixture of
these nationalities produced the historical Etruscans. In regard to
the details, the standard authors on Etruria differ in their opinions.
Raoul-Rochette takes them for Pelasgi, modified by Lydians,"
whereas Kiebuhr denies the Lydian immigration related by Herodo-
tus ; the Tyrrhenians being with him foreign conquering invaders,
but not Lydians. Still, the monuments of Etruria bear evidence
both to the early connection between Etruria and Lower Asia, and
to the existence of an unartistic aboriginal population of Umbri
Siculi, &c.
This view is supported by a great orientalist, Lanci,150 who distinguishes
three periods of Etruscan literature 1st. When the Phce-
nico-Lydian elements arrived in Italy; 2d., when the Greeks began
to mix with it, after the advent of Demaratus; and 3d., when Grecian
mythology, letters, and tongue, preponderated. Similar is that
of Lenormant,151 in perceiving three phases of civilization in Etruria
—-“ une phase asiatique, une phase corinthienne, une phase athénienne.”
If, notwithstanding, we remember how, as late as 1848, the
whole stock of words recovered from inscriptions amounted to’but
thirty-three ;152 and that,—besides a few names of deities, like ASSAR,
“God” (Osiris?),—the formula RLL AYLL “ vixit annos,” CLAST
50 Parera di Miohajsj.anhei,o Lanoi intorno all’ lacrizione Etruaca della alalua Todina del
nuseo Yalicano, Roma, Aprile, 1837.
1S2 ' Fragment sur des vases peintes antiques, Revue Archéol, May, 1844, p. 87.
2 Dismis, Gitiea and Oemeleriea of Etruria, London, 1848, pp. xlii-v, that is to sly, such
ords as cannot be explained from Greek and Latin roots.