Anthes, Rudolf - Affinity and Difference Between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in The Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C. - Paphs, 107, 1 - 1963!60!81

Affinity and Difference between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh
and Sixth Centuries B. C.

Author(s): Rudolf Anthes
Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 107, No. 1 (Feb. 15, 1963), pp.
60-81
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AFFINITY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EGYPTIAN AND GREEK SCULPTURE AND

THOUGHT IN THE SEVENTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES B.C.
RUDOLF
ANTHES I
Professorof Egyptology and Curator of the Egyptian Section,

UniversityMuseum, Universityof Pennsylvania
(Read April 26, 1962)
THE Greeks laid the foundationof theircivili- The Egyptologistis inclinedto thinkthat it was
zation duringthe centuriesprecedingthe Persian the realizationof a bitternecessityand certainly
wars. Among the pioneersof Greek philosophy not a unique mental characterwhich drove the
groupsmaybe singledout: earlyGreeksintoa new patternof lookingat man
and art,two significant
by Thales about 600 and his surroundings.I am discussingthismatter
headed
the Ionian hylozoists
tryingto show how the Greek
B.C., who initiatedwhat eventuallyhas become as an Egyptologist
in the mirrorof Egyptare reflected
modernscience,and the Ionian sculptorsof the achievements
however,the
sixth centuryB.C. whose kouroi statuespreceded ologicalstudies. I am transgressing,
me when
upon
set
are
pattern
appropriately
which
limits
the
call
perspective
here
what we may
art. In I make statementsabout the Greek side of the
characteristicof Western representative
theirstruggleto come into theirown, the Greeks picture. Such a transgressioncannotbe avoided
with the loftyEgyptianciviliza- and I must leave it to the reader to react acwere confronted
tion. The Egyptians had faced virtuallyall of cordingly.
The realizationthatthe phenomenonof the rise
and ethicalconcernsin the
man's transcendental
course of the precedingtwo thousandyears and of Greek mentalityshould not be looked at as a
their representativeart had passed throughin- miracleoriginatedin an unpublished,more comnumerable changes of temporarystyles. The prehensivestudyon the influenceof Egypt upon
Egyptians,relyingupon the old tradition,which Westerncivilizationthroughthe ages. It was in
stillwas very muchalive, had ready answersfor this contextthatthe followingpaper was written
several
whatever problems might have worried the about two years ago and, notwithstanding
it
rewriting
avoided
have
I
and
additions,
to
changes
Greeks. What then promptedthe Greeks
view,
of
point
specific
more
and
present
the
from
philosophy
in
mood
normal
branchofffromthe
and art, for which Egypt representedthe most since it makes my point clearly enough as it
stands. It containsin its six sectionspertinent
impressiveexample?
In the course of my EgyptologicalresearchI remarks(I) on thegeneralsituationof Greeceand
thisproblem:sometwenty Egypt fromabout 700 B.C. untilAlexander; (II)
have twiceencountered
on the methodsof the on the alleged influenceof Egypt upon Greek
studies
my
in
ago
years
Egyptiansculptorsand in my recentresearchin sculpturein the sixth centuryB.C.; (III) on the
of the Egyptian
the Egyptian theologyof the third millennium role of logic in the establishment
and its deB.C.
millennium
in
third
the
that,
religion
clear
it
These discussionshave made
B.C.
and
on
the
Egyptian
(IV)
appearance;
ceptive
Egyptian
which
in
manner
the
hand,
on the one
sculptorsabout 600 B.C. designedtheirworksand, Greekmentalattitudesin the firsthalfof the last
on the otherhand,the basis of the Egyptianpat- millenniunmB.C.; and (V) on the genesis of the
tern of thoughtin transcendentalmatters,pre- Greekmode of thoughtas opposedto, ratherthan
vented everyoneelse, Greek or non-Greek,from influencedby, the Egyptian. In a supplementary
adaptingeitherthe Egyptianmannerof designing digression(VI), we shall discuss certainfeatures
sculptureor theirview of the world in order to whicheitheractuallyor possiblyindicaterelationdevelop these elementsin his own way. The shipsbetween,on the one hand,Egyptianand, on
Greeks could not possiblyemploythe legacy of the otherhand,Greek,pre-Greek,and Hellenistic
Egyptin foundingthecivilizationwhichtheywere ideas.
readyto buildup in the pursuitof theircharacterI
istic, though not abnormal,intellectualactivity.
The period in which Egyptian influenceupon
1 The quotationsof authorsin the text referto the
and Rome could be expected,startedabout
Greece
hth1;noranhv at the end of this paper.
PROCEEDIN-GS OF THE
AMERICAN
PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY,
VOL.
107,NO.
1, FEBRUARY,
1963
60

VOL.
107, NO. 1, 1963]
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
61
700 B.C., lastedfora wholemillennium

and leftits three decades beforethe latter conquered Jerupermanent
impressionon thebalanceofthehistory salem. King Amasis (570-526 B.C.) granted
of European civilization. This period represents freedomof movementto the mercenariesand a
an epochin theworld'shistory,forit encompasses monopolyof the Greek trade in Egypt to Nauthe birthof Greekculture,the end of the suprem- cratis. The friendshipand respect of Amasis
acyoftheancientNear East in the Mediterranean, towardthe Greeksextendedto theirsages and the
and the amalgamationof Eastern and Western Delphian oracle. This friendliness
was strengthculturalachievementsin Hellenism and the Ro- ened by the interestof Egyptand the Ionian cities
man Empire. With respect to the contact of in the mutualdefenseagainst Persia when Cyrus
ancientEgypt with Europe, we may divide this conqueredthekingdomof Lydia in 546 B.C. Preperiod into two successive sections. The first, sumablyit was in the middleof this centurythat
about70-300 B.C., is characterizedbytheimpactof PythagorasvisitedEgypt,and theIonian sculptors
Egypton Greece. At thattimeit was believedthat whom we shall discuss below did it two or three
Egyptiancivilization,
whichhad alreadyflourished decades later. CambysesconqueredEgypt in 525
for more than two thousandyears, had been es- B.C. After500 B.C. the Persian wars in Ionia and
tablishedin primevaltimes,and was unchangeable Greece made Athens and the Egyptiannationaland everlastingin spite of temporarypoliticalde- ists allies. The latterrevoltedafterthe Persian
feat,while the Greek,who could not succeed in defeatat Salamis and the Athenianssupportedthe
being politicallyunified,struggledfor an intellec- revoltof Inaros in northernEgypt,463-454 B.C.,
tual coming of age under the high pressuresof with theirnavy and army,thoughin vain. Ten
commercialcompetition,
wars, and internalpoliti- yearslater,aboutthetimewhenPericlestookover
cal conflicts.The secondsection,fromabout 300 the leadershipin Athens, an Egyptian consignB.C. to about A.D. 300, was the periodin whichthe mentof wheat helpedthe Atheniansfighta famvictoryof the West in the Mediterraneanwas ine, and, simultaneously,
Herodotus of Halicarestablished,Hellenisticand Roman influenceupon nassus traveledin Egypt up to the firstcataract.
Egyptbecameactive,and Westerncivilizationfed Several elementsof Egyptiancivilizationare atupon and digested,so to speak,whateverremnants tested at Athens in the succeeding decades
of Egyptianachievementsappeared to be profit- (Zucker, 151-156). If Plato visited Egypt it
able forits own growth. We shall concentratein was done about the timewhenEgyptregainedher
thispaper upon the firstof thesetwo sectionsand freedomunder native rulers in 401 B.C. The
mainly its beginningin the Seventh and Sixth Egyptians lost their independenceagain sixty
centuries.
years later,however,afterOchus ArtaxerxesIII
The historicalbackgroundmay firstbe briefly defeatedthem in a war in which armies from
sketched. Between 1200 and 700 B.C. therewas Greeceand Ionia and an Atheniannavytook part
virtuallyno directrelationbetweenEgyptand the on the side of the Egyptians. Ten years later,
North where both the older and the more recent Alexanderbrokethe Persian dominationand took
groups of Greeksmigratedand eventuallysettled. Egyptintohis empire(332 B.C.).
Incidentally,
Contactwas firstmade in the decades around 700 the influenceof Greekthoughtin Egypt is not atB.C., when, on the one hand, the Greeks broke testedwithcertainty
beforeabout 300 B.C., when
the Phoenician naval supremacyand occupied it appears in some picturesin the Greek manner
Cyrenaicajust to the west of Egypt and, on the on the walls of the tomb of Petosiris in Middle
otherhand,King PsammetichusI of Egypt (664- Egypt.
610 B.C.), endeavoringto freeEgyptfromthe AsIn additionto this summaryof political-historisyriansand to reunitethecountry,
importedIonian cal facts,we must tryto understandthe spiritual
and Carian mercenariesfromAsia Minor. These and intellectualsituationof Egypt and Greece in
mercenariesfirstsettledin camps at the eastern thetimewhentheimpactof thesetwo civilizations
frontierof the Delta, such as Daphnae (De- came into being. This question representsthe
fenneh). Naucratisin the northwestof the Delta major subject matterof this paper and will be
was foundedas a factoryby Miletus and other discussedbelow. I shouldlike to anticipate,howGreek cities between650 and 590 B.C. Solon of ever, with an analysis of the basic attitudeof
Athensand Thales of MiletusvisitedEgyptabotit GreekphilosopherstowardEgyptianwisdomdur610 B.C. when the menace of the territorialex- ing all the period which we have covered in the
pansion of the Babylonianswas evident,two or precedingparagraph. Plato in his Timzaeus,21-

62
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER.
PHIL.
SOC_
fromthe opini25, pictures a situation in which the disciple Egypt (II 50) is slightlydifferent
Critias was remindedof a storyabout Solon at ion expressedby Diodorus (I 9.6) that the gods
Sais in Egypt when Socrates was discussinghis originatedwith the Egyptians. It seems to meideals concerningthe futureof Athens. When that the detachedattitudeof the Greeks toward
tales like the Egyptians in the period which we are disSolon mentionedthe Greekmythological
Pyrrha, cussing here, was basically differentfrom theand
of
and
Deucalion
that of the deluge
an Egyptian"priestwho was of a verygreat age Hellenisticattemptto findthe elementsof Westsaid: 'O Solon, Solon, you Greeksare neverany- ern religion and philosophyin the wisdom of
thingbut children,and thereis not an old man Egypt. Burnet (pp. 15-16) appears to see the
amongyou.' Solon in returnasked him what he situationsimilarly.
Our assumptionthatthe Greeks,in theirspiritmeant. 'I meantto say,' he replied,'thatthereis
were aware of the conno old opinionhandeddownamongyou by ancient of youthfulindependence,
traditionnor any science which is hoary with trast betweentheir own thoughtsand the overestablishedauthorityof Egyptianwisage'" (translated by Benjamin Jowett,1937). whelmingly
necessarilymean thatEgypt was of
that
not
does
dom
Solon
by
telling
on
this
he
elaborated
Then
several deluges happened in the past and also no importancefor the birthand developmentof
of heavenlybodies like that Greek civilization. Perhaps the impactof Egypt
severalconflagrations
in which Phaeton was killed. Only Egypt was upon the Greekswas a challengewhichpromoted
thanksto the Nile. the independentdevelopmentof Greek thought,
saved fromthesecatastrophes,
In fact, he continued,Athens flourished9,000 whereas any actual influenceupon it can hardly
years ago when she defended Europe against be expected.
Burnet, who denies any Egyptian influence
Atlantisbeforethe greatestdeluge destroyedall
imthe origin of Greek philosophyexcept for
upon
deeply
Plato
was
that
say
of them. We may
pressedby the Egyptianclaim of the oldesttradi- the beginningof Greek mathematics,accepts as
tion,whichwas not matchedby thatof any other granted,withoutdiscussingit, what he thinksis
country. According to Zucker (p. 157), the the prevalentidea that "the Greeks derivedtheir
con- art fromthe East" (p. 17). As far as Egypt is
great scholarVon Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
the concerned,such a statementwould be wrong. It
that
works
Plato's
in
his
research
from
cluded
and has been assumed, however,that Greek archaic
of Egyptianinstitutions
apparentimmutability
customsled to Plato's beliefthat,once the per- stone sculpturewas influencedor even prompted
fectlyrightand good in any sectorof civilization b)ythe Egyptianexample. It happens that,two
is established,this sectorwill remainpermanently decades ago, I tried to clarifythis assumption
valid withoutany need for change (see Leges and it seems to me thatthe resultsof that study
theintellecwell suitedto exemplify
656d-657b). We may add that Isocrates, the are extremely
and the
Egypt
between
relation
artistic
and
of Plato, thoughtof certainEgyp- tual
contemporary
this
I
discussed
in
which
the
paper
his
Since
Ionians.
to
tian institutionsas exemplary,according
Btsiris. The attitudeof thesephilosophersof the subject matter in the context of the Egyptian
fourthcenturyB.C. apparentlywas the same as methodsof sculptureis not easilyaccessible,most
thatwhichwe shall findwiththe earlierIonians: of the stock having been destroyedduring the
a sincererespectfortheold Egyptiantraditionand Second World War, I should like to presentits
its wisdom; the willingnessto make use of certain relevantresultshere.
detailsof it whichfittedinto theirown patternof
II 2
to build up a world
ideas; and the determination
The assumptionthatthelife-sizedGreekarchaic
of theirown independentof, and virtuallydisreIt
of
the
foreigners.
marblestatuesof a standingyouth,the so-called
garding,that old tradition
for
due
respect
all
with
the
Greeks,
that
kouroi,whichflourishedin the last decades of the
appears
theEgyptians,wereconsciousofa palpabledispar- sixth century B.C., originated in imitation of
itybetweenthemselvesand theEgyptians. It was Egyptian sculptureappears to be based on two
in this same spiritthat Herodotus (II 35) ob- arguments. One is that,on the one hand, virtufrom allyno precursorsofthesestatueshave been found
served that the Egyptiansacted differently
other people in almost every way of life. His
2 I shouldlike to expressmythanksto Dr. RhysCaragreementwith what he calls the Egyptianidea penterfor severalhelpfulremarks,in additionto those
especiallyin thetext.
that the names of gods came to Greece from mentioned

VOL.
107, NO. 1, 19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
and, on the otherhand,theyas well as some over

life-sizedstatues of about the same time reveal
greatexperienceon theartisans'partin sculptural
techniques; therefore,their prototypeshould be
soughtabroad. I cannotdisputethisobservation.
Instead,I should like to pointto the earliestevidence of the Egyptianstatuary,sometimearound
2800 B.C. Disregardinga special problemconcerningthe standingfigure,we may say thatwhat
is preservedindicatesthat the Egyptianclassical
seatedfigureoriginatedin ratherclumsyexamples
in softlimestoneduringthe Second Dynasty. The
earliest attestedhuman figuresin hard stone of
the dynasticperiod are the slate figureof King
Kha-sekhemof the end of the Second Dynasty,
seated on his throne,height56 cm.,and its duplicate in hard limestone. They are fashionedin an
elaboratearchaic styleand with unexcelledcommand of technique. Sculpturein soft limestone
had a backgroundof craftsmanship
from
different
that in whichsculpturein hard stone originated:
in the classical period of the Old Kingdom sculptures in hard stone were still preparedby those
craftsmenwho simultaneouslyprepared hard
stone vessels. Therefore,the sculptorof King
Kha-sekhem'sbasalt statuebenefitedfroman old
traditionof workingin hard stone with means
quite differentfrom those used with limestone.
Althoughprobablythesituationwas different
with
the Ionians two thousandyears later, it may be
usefulto make the pointthatin Egypt we should
not necessarilylook for antecedentsof Kha-sekhem's statuesin hard stone-we have the impression that the designingof statues originatedin
softermaterial,while the techniquein hard stone
was perfectedwith vessels and early figuresof
animals.
The secondargumentfortheEgyptianoriginof
the kouroitypeis theallegedresemblancebetween
themand the typicalEgyptianmale standingfigure. Miss Richter (p. 5) expresses this argument conservativelyand carefully: "That the
kourostypederivedinspirationfromEgypt there
can be no doubt." We shall see laterthatI agree
with her in that an inspirationof sorts may well
be assumed, but I thinkit is useful to discuss
her argumentswhichfollowthis statethoroughly
ment: "The resemblancein general posture and
structurebetweenthe earlyGreek kouroiand the
Egyptianstatuesis too strikingto be accidental.
And such identicaldetails as the clenchedhand
with a bit of stone leftinside it and the wiglike
headdresswithseparatetressesbound at the ends
SCULPTURE
63
are unmistakable
proofof relationship." She then
refersto Diodorus Siculus, to whom we shall
come back later. It appears useful to discuss
separatelythe two sentencesof Miss Richter's
argument.
The kouroi resemblethe Egyptian statues in
generalposturein thatthe leftfootis put forward
and the arms hang down. Neitherthe slightness
of theadvancementof thefootnor theslightbending of the arms of the kouroi,however,is in any
respectthesame as thewide pacingpositionof the
leg and the straightnessof the hangingarms in
Egyptianstatuary. The advancementof the foot
appears to be the only natural alternativeto an
attitudewiththe feetclosed,whichgives a somewhat lifelessimpressionand is seen at the very
beginningin earlyEgypt,about 3000 B.C., as well
as in early Greece. The postureof the advanced
foot was accepted as a rule in Egyptianarchaic
sculpturefor the standing male figureswhose
skirtsleftthe main part of the legs naked and, at
once, it developed into the rather unnatural,
thoughlive and impressive,posturein whichthe
rightleg was in a singleline withthe erectbody
while the leftleg, advanced in a wide stride,was
necessarilyslightlyelongated. This is quite differentfromthe even balancing of the body on
both legs of the kouroi. Likewise, the natural
slightbendingof the arms, which appears soon
with the kouroi,is contrastedwith, ratherthan
similarto, the artificialthoughstylistically
quite
justified Egyptian straightnessof the arms.
Moreover,it is by no means the rule in Egyptian
statuarythat both arms hang down. I do not
thinktherefore
thatthe Egyptianposturemustbe
looked at as the prototypeof that of the kouroi.
Nor is thegeneralstructure
of theEgyptianstanding male figureand thekouroitypethesame. For
instance,since the kouroi are always nude, the
partitionof chestand abdomenappears stressedin
a somewhatexaggerateddegreein the frontview.
In Egyptianstatuary,however,and, forthatmatter,morethanever in thatof the seventhand the
succeedingcenturies,the upper abdomenappears
to serve as a supportof the chest in a manner
which indicates that the artist conceived these
parts as a unit; the lower abdomen is always
hidden by a kilt which provides for a smooth
transitionfromthe body to the leg. The nude
figureis not at all to be foundas a typeof Egyptian sculpture. The furtherdifferenceof structurewhichrevealsitselfin theequilibriumofbody
and legs and can be seen conspicuouslyin the pro-

64
RUDOLF
ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC.
file,has been mentionedbefore. In conclusion,I and Theodorus,the sons of Rhoecus." This reshould say that whateverfeaturesof eitherthe mark with a succeedingstoryconcludesan enuposture or the structureof Egyptianand Greek merationof, and an elaborationon, certainother
archaicmale standingfiguresmayexistin common visitorsin Egypt such as Orpheus, Homer, and
can be explainedby the factthateach typeorigi- Melampous; Lycurgus,Solon',and Plato; Pythagnated in contrastto the columnlikestatueswhose oras and Daedalus, the builderof the Labyrinth,
feetwere closed,as the resultof the endeavorof aboutwhomhe says thatthe Egyptianstatueshad
the sculptorsto make statuarymore alive than the same shape (rhythmos;see Richter,4, n. 8)
as those made by Daedalus among the Greeks
before.
As forMiss Richter'ssecondsentence,it is true (I 97.6). Nobody will accept this list and the
that separatetressesbound at the ends are to be elaborationson the particularnames as a reliable
foundin Egypt in the femalehairdressof some historical source. However, Diodorus tells a
centuryB.C. To thebest storyabout Telecles and Theodoruswhich,as we
statuesof thefourteenth
of my knowledgetheywere neverimitatedin the shall see, was either true or inventedwith an
factualknowledge. Certainly,thisfact
last millenniumB.C. The assumptionthat an astonishinlg
credit to his statementthat Ionian
some
gives
Ionian sculptorwas so impressedby theaccidental
Egypt. For a properevaluation
visited
sculptors
past
the
of
statues
sight of one of these female
endingsof the of the storywe mustfirstdiscussthe relationbethat he adapted the characteristic
tresses to the hair of a Greek youth,although tweenEgyptianand Greek methodsof sculpture.
The methodof procedureof the Egyptianand
of the hair was quite difotherwisehis treatment
this
archaicGreeksculptorswas basicallydifferent
the
ferent,can hardlybe accepted. No doubt,
the
thatto whichwe are accustomed. We may
of
from
fashion
a
was
of
hairdress
particularity
Egypt, and, in the call it free-handcarvingor free sculpture. The
ladies of fourteenth-century
kouroi, as Dr. Carpenterhas pointed out, this shape of the statue which they were preparing
featureresultsfromtechnicalreasons ratherthan came intoexistencein the stoneitselfand was not
the hairdress. Certainly,however,the clenched clearlyapparentuntil the finalstage of carving;
fistof the kouroi with a bit of stone left inside it was not preparedbeforehandin a plastermodel.
suggests an inspirationfrom Egypt. When an At the beginningof the procedure,the sculptor
Egyptian standing figurewas representedwith prepareddrawingson the sides and the top of the
its hands hanging down, the hand was often block, by which the main featuresof the figure
tightlyclosed arounda bit of stonewhichslightly were fixed; these drawingswere graduallytransprotrudedin frontof the fist. Since this bit of ferredintothe interiorof the blockas the carving
stonewas meaninglessotherwise,we mustassume proceeded. These guiding lines on the surface
that it was left for eithertechnicalor aesthetic of the unfinishedfigureare preservedin a few
reason,or both. The opinionthatthis detailwas cases both in Egypt and in Greece. In Egypt
carriedover fromEgypt by the lonian sculptors they are differentin the middle of the second
because theyliked it for the same reason as the millenniumfromwhat theyare in the middleof
the first. The earlierones have the same characEgyptiansis plausibleenough.
does not neces- teras thoseoftheGreekarchaicsculptorswiththe
The factualevidence,therefore,
sarilypointto any considerableinfluenceof Egypt side and frontviews of the prospectivefigure
the
upon the origin of Greek archaic sculpture. If, drawn on the lateral and frontsurfacesof
and
or
less
more
complete
however,foreigninfluencemust be assumed for block respectively,
by a few axial and otherauxiliary
other reasons, it might well have come from supplemented
into the block with his tools the
Cutting
lines.
Egypt. Indeed,somekindof inspirationprobably
by these drawings,to apwas
guided
sculptor
sculptors
Ionian
came fromEgyptifit is truethat
of the figurewhich
surface
the
gradually
proach
is
so
was
this
that
assumption
The
there.
visited
I may referto the
mentally.
anticipated
had
he
based, as far as I know,only on Diodorus, who
forthe further
and
Casson
Bliimel
by
discussions
traveled in Egypt, according to Oldfather (p.
method.
of
this
characteristics
used
also
VIII), about 59 B.C. and who apparently
statuThe guidinglines on Egyptianunfinished
the writingsof Hecataeus of Abdera (about 300
and
a
different
reveal
ary of the firstmillennium
B.C.) on Egypt. He was told (I 98.5) that"also
which
lines
of the ancient sculptorsthe most renownedso- complexpicture.They are geometrical
journed among the Egyptians,namely,Telecles eitherrepresentor fitintoa gridsystemof squares

VOL.
107, NO. 1, 19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
65
which are often subdivided. It is true that a based upon theneedsofa copyistratherthanupon
grid systemwas also used earlier,in the second those characteristic
of a freesculptor. The Late
millennium,
in Egyptfordrawing,to set themeas- Egyptian sculptorsemployedmodels under cerurementsof a figurecorrectly. This methodwas tain circumstances,
althoughthese were prepared
employedespeciallyfor copyingand most prob- in stoneand couldbe used again and again,in conably also for the sculptor'sdrawingson the sides trast to the Western individualplaster models,
of the blockfor,obviously,the employment
of the and the grids were incised on virtuallyeach of
same square unit for the designof the figureson thesemodels,of whicha great numberhave been
all the sides of the block could guarantee the preserved. Furthermore,like Roman sculpture,
of theirmeasurements
conformity
and, ifdesirable, which was preparedby the methodof pointing.
the canonicalproportionsof the sculpture. Like- Late Egyptianstatuaryexcelledin a perfectfinishwise we may assume that the canonical propor- ing techniqueand, at the same time,displayedan
tions of the Greek archaic statues,to which Dr. artisticcoolness or detachmentstrikinglyunlike
Carpenterkindlydrew my attention,were first the live appearanceof earlierEgyptiansculpture,
fixed in the drawingson the sides of the blocks notwithstanding
the impressiveportraiturewhich
and checkedin the course of the carving. Ap- occurs in both Late Egyptian and Roman art.
parentlythe system of vertical and horizontal Finally, this characteristicappearance of Late
lines paintedon Late Egyptianworkblocks,how- Egyptian statuaryoccurredfirstabout 700 B.C.,
ever, was not an auxiliary constructionfor the when the tendencyto copy works of art of the
drawing,althougha very few additionaloblique past flourished.This latterfactsuggeststhatthe
lines appear to indicateone or anothersectionof change fromthe employment
of the figuralguide
the outlinesof eitherarm or leg. The evidence lines,whichwe discussedfirst,to the latermatheclearly indicates that the earlier Egyptians and maticalguidinglines tookplace about 700 B.C. In
theearlyGreekswere concernedwiththe drawing fact,this date has been accepted for five or six
of the figure,while the later Egyptiansconcen- decades and has neverbeen debated.
tratedon the networkfor locatingpoints. This
I shouldliketo stressthattheevidenceis rather
differencerecalls the statementof Diodorus that meagerformy distinction
betweenan earlier,figthe method of taking the measurementsfor a ural systemof guide lines in sculptureidentical
statue, which was employedabout 530 B.C. in withtheGreekarchaicmethod,and a latermathe-Egypt, was found nowhere among the Greeks. maticalsystemwhichseems to displaysome simiWe shall see later that this statementmust be laritywith,althoughby no means any relationto,
taken seriously. Apparentlythe grid systemof the Roman method; naturally,unfinishedstatues
Late Egyptiansculpturewas used in a veryspecial withpaintedworkinglinespreservedare not often
manner. I am inclined,therefore,to thinkthat forthcoming.However, the difference
is evident
the gridswere used in a systemof coordinatesby in the few examples which are preserved,and I
which theoretically
every spot of the statue was can think of no other explanation nor, to the
mathematically
fixed in advance on the outside best of my knowledge,has any been proffered
by
of theblock. No parallelto sucha systemin free- others;we maytherefore
acceptmysuggestionfor
hand carving,thatis, in carvingwithouta model, the timebeing.
is known. But especially correct mathematical This long discussionwas necessaryfor the folmeasurementsare indispensablefor copying; for lowing conclusions,which are decisivelyrelevant
instance,fortransferring
the featuresof a plaster to the question with which we are concerned.
modelto stone. Therefore,we maythinkthatthe First, we have assumed that the measurements
Egyptianmathematical
systemmoreor less corre- whichthe sculptorhas to take in any event,were
spondedwith the methodof pointing,which first based,in theearlierperiod,as in thearchaicperiod
developed in the Hellenistic period. In this of the Greeks,mainlyupon the appearanceof themethod,whichcertainlywas muchmoreelaborate humanfigure,while in the later periodtheywere
and dependable than any Egyptian, individual based mainly upon mathematically
fixed points.
spots on the surfaceof the model are transferred Second, since such a mathematicalfixationcerby means of a mathematically
dependableinstru- tainlyoriginatedin thefeaturesof Egyptianstatument onto the stone, where they are fixed as ary,any statuewhichwas preparedwiththe later
points. Here are severalfactswhichcorroborate Egyptiansystemof guidinglines necessarilywasthehypothesisthatthe Late Egyptianmetlhod
was a characteristically
Egyptianstatue. Third, such

66
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
fixationof a figurewas apt to be Theodorus sojourned in Egypt and when they

a mathematical
eitherorallyor in writingor in draw- came back to Ionia, each one preparedhalf of a
transmitted
ing because the relationof the gridsto the figure statueof Apollo forthe Samians,the one the left
was constant,and individualunderstandingwas and theotherone therightside,Telecles in Samos
necessaryonly in regard to the size of the grid and Theodorusin Ephesus,and thesehalveswere
-unit. In fact,an Egyptianpapyrusupon which foundto fitexactlywhen joined. Diodorus conthefrontand side views of a sphinxcoveredwitl tinuesas follows:
grids are drawn, corroboratesthis conclusion.
This methodof working(namely,thatwhichmadeit
Fourth, we may parallel a certainaspect of the possiblefor the two halvesto fit) is practicednobetweenthe earlierand the laterEgyp- whereamongthe Greeksbut is followedgenerally
difference
tian methodwith a characteristicdifferencebe- amongthe Egyptians. For with themthe correct
das richtige
Maeverhiltnis)
(symmetria;
tweenthe methodsof the Greek archaic and the proportions
statuesare notfixedin accordancewiththeapthe
of
the
that
states
(p.
16)
Bliimel
sculptors.
Roman
pearance (of the humanbody: phantasia) which
of the archaic methodis that presentsitselfto the eyes, as is done amongthe
main characteristic
necessarily Greeks,but as soon as theylay out the stonesand,
the sculptorof a kouros,for instanice,
them,are readyto workon them,
works simultaneouslyaround the block of the afterapportioning
(analogon)
themeasurements
take
they
stage
that
at
interior,
of
its
out
emerges
statuewhichgradually
the largest;for,dividingthe
to
smallest
the
from
and that it is virtuallyimpossibleto proceed on structure
partsand
oftheentirebodyintotwenty-one
any simplesectorof the statuebecause the artist's one-fourth
in addition,theyexpressin thisway all
of the humanbody. Conseanticipationof the figure,whichleads his the correctproportions
nmental
artisansagreeas to the size
the
as
soon
as
quently,
the
to
his
work
of
the
beginning
from
everystroke
of the unit of the
therewith
and
objects
the
(of
of all thefour
end, dependson theeven perfection
system),theyseparateand proceedto turn
geometric
sides at everystage of the procedure. This cer- out theirproductsin such a way that theirsizes
so accurately(in all thedetails) thatthe
tainlyholdstruefortheearlyEgyptianmethodas correspond
theirsystemexcitesamazement.And
of
peculiarity
Roof
the
56)
(p.
well. Bliumel'scharacterization
with
in Samos, in conformity
-manmethod,by whichthe fixedpointsof the sur- the statue (xoanon)
was cut into
of the Egyptians,
method
ingenious
the
onto two partsfromthe top of the head,thusindicating
face of a model are mechanicallytransferred
the stone,may be applied to the Late Egyptian the middleof the humanbodydownto the private
theotherat every
methodif we understandit rightlyas an unex- parts,each halfexactlymatching
thisstatueis forthemost
plained manner of carryingon a basically free point. And theysay that
similarto thoseof Egypt,as havingthe arms
carvingwitha methodby whichthe poinltsof the part
and
downthesides (paratetamenas)
stiffly
stretched
surfaceof the figureare fixedchieflyby mathe- thelegs separatedin a stride(diabebekota).
matical measurement. He says that a Roman
transfer I must add one more comment:the evidenceof
sculptorwho depends on the meclhanical
Late Egyptianstatues,in generalagreemay well carryon his work on unfinished
of measurements
the statementof Diodorus, shows that
with
ment
the
any one sectorof his statuewithoutregardfor
of the standinghuman figureslightly
height
the
Roman
the
that
whole of the statue. This means
unitsof the grid
or, as we should think,the Late Egyptian,sculp- exceeded that of the twenty-one
48-52).
Canon,
Iversen,
(see
tor is readyto prepareand finish,forinstance,the system
of the Late EgyptianmethThe characteristics
rightor thelefthalfof a statueif he desires,while
are expressed by
a
sculpture
of
preparing
ods
sculptor
the earlier Egyptianand Greek archaic
in a veryfew
is
possible
it
Diodorus as clearlyas
could notpossiblydo so.
this
storywas
that
conclude
must
We
The story which Diodorus (I 98.5-9) tells words.
and
source
a
very
dependable
from
over
carried
about theIonian sculptorsTelecles and Theodorms
or
Whether
care.
utmost
with
it
related
he
has
the
has always been offeredas an argumentfor
the
that
says
it
clearly
originof Greek sculpturein Egypt. In my opin- not it is historicallytrue,
the
is wrong. I have trans- xoanon of the Samian Apollo was made in
ion, this understanding
halves.
two
in
uniquely
although
manner,
Egyptian
lated the storyinto German and should like to
appearpresent its significantsection here, the English This means that it had the conspicuous
to the
contrasted
as
statue
an
of
Egyptian
ance
some
with
of
Oldfather,
translation
on
the
based
in
excavated
been
have
which
kouroi
relevantalterationsof my own anida few com- nlumerous
which
statues
time.
Egyptian-like
our
in
Saimos
Tnentsin parenthesis;foreveryparticularfeature,
been found at
of course,I mustreferto my Germantranslation. were prepared in Greece have
Certainly,it
Thebes.
Boeotian
the
and
Accordingto Diodorus, the brothersTelecles and Athens

VOL. 107, NO. 1,19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
67
SCULPTURE
techniquediscussedby Kluge, formerlyappeared

to be justified when we were still blaming
what he was
Diodorus for havingmisrepresented
told,becausewe ourselvesdid notunderstandhim.
The verificationof this particularstory of his,
whichcoincideswith a trendto acknowledgehis
in general (see Oldfather'sinconscientiousness
distroduction),makes Casson's interpretation
pensable.
We have discussed the alleged influenceof
Egyptian sculptureupon the Ionian kouroi at
lengthbecause it is perhaps the only example of
the effectof Egypt on Greece where the details
appear rather clearly. We must keep this example in mind when we discuss other questions
of
about Egyptian-Greekintellectualinterrelation
thisperiod. Some will be mentionedlater in this
paper in thecontextof philosophyand religion.
The followingsectionsdeal withthebasic question of what we know about the mode of thought
and the intellectualcapacityof the Egyptiansduring the early Greek period,and how these compare withthoseof the Greeks. Since we shall not
to come back to the problems
have an opportunity
of Egyptianand Greek art, I should like to state
two ideas whichwill be clarifiedin the next section. First, it is an acknowledgedfactthat both
EgyptiananidGreek statuaryreveal in an extraordinarilyhighdegreethe artist'ssensuousappreciationof thehumanbody. The evidentdifference
between Greek and Egyptian statuaryseems to
resultfromthereasonsforwhichit was made: the
of a
Egyptiansmade a statueas the manifestation
concept,as a symbolof the individumythological
by what wTemay call a continuation of the story of al's existenceafterdeath,while the Greek kouroi
Diodorus. The sculptor Theodorus was famous were promptedby the wish to preservethe real
for his invention of the casting of tall bronze existenceof the individualin a natural likeness
figures. In discussing this method, Kluge (pp. forthe memoryof generationsto come. Second,
28-29) points out that the outstanding accuracy theinvention
of perspectiveand thefeatureswhich
of calculation which was necessary for the success- are closely connectedwith it in the two-dimenful casting of the big sections of these figures sional art of the Greekscan be explainedby sevmight well have become familiar to Theodorus eral factors. Doubtless,one of thesefactorsis the
through the calculations which, according to same persistency
of thoughtwhichis foundin the
Diodorus, he had learned fromthe Egyptian sculp- dogmatismof Greekphilosophyin contrastto the
tors. This idea of Kluge's fitswell with our con- liberalityof Egyptian thoughtand manner of
tention that the Late Egyptian method of design- representation.
was a pleasantidea of Telecles and Theodorusto
demonstrate,by this extremeand artificialtest,
theirskillin the art whichtheylearnedin Egypt.
They enjoyed playinga trickwhichcould not be
imitatedby every artist. Althoughtheir work
-was admiredand much spoken about, no doubt
it was neitherintendedto be takenas an example
of art nor has it ever servedas such. It certainly
remainedunique. Evidently,these artists most
successfullylearnedto commandthe rules of the
Egyptiansculptorsbut,exceptfora joke of sorts,
theywere notwillingto clingto them. It maybe
mentionedthat, in additionto the rules we are
speakingof,therewas muchfora youngsculptor
to learn fromthe great Egyptian tradition;for
-instance,
the technicalperfectionof work in hard
stone,with hammeringand rubbingand the employmentof veryfew metaltools; and, of course,
-incalcuilation,
of which we shall mentiona case
presentlv.
It should thus be clear that,to the best of our
knowledge,therewas no directlinkbetweenGreek
archaic statuaryand its contemporaryEgyptian
counterpartexcept for the manual techniques.
Statuary was eitherEgyptian or Greek. Greek
artistswere readyto learn Egyptianmethodsbut
Egyptiainart servedthemas a backgroundrather
thainain example for their own work, although
they certainlywere not always as consciously
aware of this situation as were Telecles and
Theodortus. However,theirlearningof Egyptian
methods was not useless, for it provided them
with a factual knowledgewhich they used creativelv. This pointcan be excellentlyilluminated
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 distorted version, made by one who was not conversant with the technique, of the ordinary process
of sand-casting from a wooden model," that is, the
IIT
Evidently,Greek philosophyand its sequel in
WesternEurope representsomethingnew in history. Its main distinctivefeatureswith respect
of man and his
to the ideas about the interrelation
surroundingsappear to be, on-the one hand, the
persistenturge to discoverand explain both the

68
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
and, on the is notindigenousanywhereelseintheworld; whernatureof man and of his surroundings

satisfied ever perspectiveappears as the basis of drawing,
was
this
urge
that
fact
the
otherhand,
oflogicalthought it can be traced to a director indirectinfluence
employment
througha consistent
which left little room for fancifulimagination. fromGreece. He has comparedtheappearanceof
The combinationof the persistenturge for dis- this new, unique, and transmissiblephenomenon
covery and the consistentapplicationof logical with what the biologistcalls mutation. Since, as
betweenGreek
thoughteven at theexpenseof sensoryexperience I indicatedabove,a genuineaffinity
thoughtand was philosophyand the employmentof perspective
is the basis of modernscientific
foreshadowedin the doctrinesof the Ionian plhi- may well be assumed, I for one looked at the
losophers,the firstof whomwas Thales (born ca. phenomenonof Greek philosophysimilarlyas a
It did not originateanywhereelse in mutation,and I have neverheard of any otherat640 B.C.).
the worldas faras we know. It has been under- temptat explanation. Here, however,I should
stoodas a new and unique approachof the human like to show whymy studiesin Egyptianmytholmindto problemswhichpeople assume the world ogy preventme frommaintainingthis view. I
hlasalways posed to man. The mostrecent,most sllallpresentthosefactswhichmake me rejectthe
learned,and most appreciativediscussionof this idea that "mythopoeic"and "scientific"thoughts
new approachis, to myknowledge,thatof thelate are two varieties,in the biological sense, of the
Henri Frankfort.3Frankfortcontrastedwhat he humanmode.
called the "mythopoeic"mode of the ancientNear
To put it more clearlyand withoutany catchEastern peoples with the scientificmode of our word, I should like to show that logic workedin
and speculativethoughtof the
days and showed how the elementsof scientific the transcendental
thought,imbedded in "mythopoeic"ideas, are ancientEgyptiansas fullyas it did amongtheearly
recognizablein thedoctrinesof theIonian philoso- Greeks. We shall contendthatwhatevernew the
phers. I highlyrecommendthe reading of his Greeksmighthave introducedinto the historyof
expositionalthoughthe presentdiscussionas well thehumanmind,it was nottheapplicationof logic
matters. The
as Junker'scritiqueshould make it clear that I in the discussionof transcendental
Greek mode
any
and
In
views.
his
of
some
Egyptian
to
the
musttake exception
between
difference
event,he clearlypresentedthe factualevidenceof of thinkingwas incidentaland not due to a difwas firstmixed ferencein mentalcharacter. I may anticipatethe
how theIonian mannerofthinking
with the then traditionalmode. He disregarded suggestionthatthe specialcharacterof Greekphiof what
the questionof how the existenceof two different losophywas producedby the combination
modescan be understood;thatis, what prompted we may call a normalcuriosityof the Greeksand
thebirthof the new mode. Nor has thisquestion those circumstancesunder whichthev set out to
of man and his surbeen discussedseriouslyelsewhere,forit appeared understandthe interrelation
has
that the qutestion
Schaifer
expect
to be thesubjectof merespeculation.
roundings. We should
between
of
manner
innate
Greek
an
affinity
the
classical
that
existed
there
shown
clearly
whether
thehumanfigureand otheritemsin both Egyptianand Greekthoughtor whethertheywere
rendering
representa- differentby their very nature must have some
and three-dimensional
two-demensional
tiveart,whichcame intoexistencerathersuddenly bearingon thequestionof possibleinfluencebythe
in the fifthcenturyB.C. and was characterizedby Egyptians upon the Greeks. Indeed, it would
promoted
and relatedfeatures, seem to be naturalthatgenuineaffinity
of perspective
theemployment
a consuch
that
see
shall
We
influence.
mutual
Junker
3After this was written,the late Hermann
facts.
the
in whichhe stressed clusionis not,however,borneout by
publishedhis book, Geisteshaltung,
of theEgyptianand Greekmanner
thebasic homogeneity
To clear the fieldforthe followingdiscussion,I
he comprehensively
ofthinking.In thefirsttwo chapters,
firstof all, like to enumerateseveral prethe theoriesof the alleged mytho- should,
debated,and refuted,
some or all of whichare to be found
suppositions,
magical,or mystical")mode
mythical,
poeic ("pre-logical,
of Egypof thought(pp. 5-49, 54) and the mistakenopinionthat in every discussionof the interrelation
the Egyptianideas about the world were incompatible tian and Greekthought,and whichreallyare not
(pp. 49-53). While he expresslyagreedwithmyearlier warranted. The idea that the Egyptians were
discussionsof these topics (pp. 52-54), my arguments
beliefshas been obtheirmythological
about the logical characterof Egyptianthoughtwidely illogicalin
and elaboparagraph
not
in
the
preceding
to
was
he
jected
deviate fromhis inasmuchas, apparently,
readyto accepttheresultsofmyrecentstudiesconcerning ratelydebated by Junker. It stands in strange
characterof Egyptianreligionor
eithertheundogmatical
contrastwith the undisputablefact that the antheology.
thegenesisof theEgyptiangovernmental

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
69
cientEgyptianswerelogicalenoughin all theother called unwarranted.These resultswere last sumto Mythologiesof the
fieldsof civilization. The consequenceof thisidea med up in my contribution
was the beliefthatthe Egyptianstogetherwithall AncientWorld. Let us discuss those factualrethe other peoples that were not influencedby sults whichhave a specificbearingon our subject
Greekcivilization,includingthe present-day"sav- matter.
of some expressionswhichwill
The definitions
ages," representa sortof phalanxof "pre-logical"
thoughtas contrastedwith Greek and Western occur in the balance of this paper may facilitate
logical thought,although it was admitted that understanding.A "mythologicalconcept" is the
India and China did not quite fitintothisclassifi- resultof a humanattemptto make an entityof the
world" conceivablein
cation. Furthermore,since some Egyptian as "divine,or transcendental,
well as other"primitive"mythological
conceptions lhuman terms. "The divine (transcendental)
servedas an explanationof the wondersof nature world" encompasseswhatevercannotbe compre(perhaps mainlywhen such an explanationwas hended by human reason and sensoryperception
called forby leadingquestions),it has been taken althoughman is aware of its existence;according
for grantedthat mythologicalideas originatedin to this definition,
manyentitieswhichcan be exman's attemptto explain the wondersof nature. plained in our presenttime,such as the sky and
I for one have doubtedfor a long time whether the sun, and many cases of the interrelationof
man by his verynaturefeelsan urge to seek ex- cause and effect,belongedto the divine world in
planationsof everydayexperiencessuch as day themindoftheancientEgyptians. No entityofthe
and night,or life and death, and other cosmic divineworld can be graspedby the human mind
features. In any event,the main Egyptianmyths exceptby means of a "symbol." While not every
originatedotherwise,as we shall see below. An- symbolis a mythological
concept,everymythologiotherinaccurateassumptionwhichmay be found cal conceptis symbolicalof an entityof the divine
occasionally,and whichis based onlyupon thepar- world. In accordance with its characteras a
ticular example of Christianity,
is the idea that symbol,a mythologicalconceptcan be expressed
adheringto a religionmeans to be bound in dog- by means of objects (e.g., a figureor a living
mas; consequently,
Greekthoughtis hailed as the being), words (e.g., a tale or hymn),and actions
liberationof the humanmindfromthe bondageof (ceremonies), and it must satisfyboth faithand
dogmatism. The contraryappears to be correct. reason,although,just as in a fairytale, the laws
We shall come back to this questionbut I should of naturemay be disregarded. But the question
like to quote the excellentstatementswhichBur- whetherit is truecannotpossiblybe answeredby
net made, firstin his discussionof Hesiod, "sys- reasonalone. A mythological
conceptis trueif it
temis fatalto so waywarda thingas mythology" makesan entityof the divineworldconceivableto
(p. 6) and second,withreferenceto the classical men and if it is acceptedby man's faith. "Egypperiod,"ancientreligionwas not a body of doc- tianmythology"
is the sum of all Egyptianmythotrine" (p. 84). Finally,I shouldlike to take ex- logical concepts. A "myth"is a sectorof mythceptionto Frankfort'sideas when he writes,pre- ology whichis defined,for instance,by a central
sumably correctly,that "the ancients [meaning characteror eventand may or may not be transthe peoples of the ancient Near East], like the mitted in the form of a "mythologicaltale."
modernsavages, saw man always as part of so- "Egyptian religion,"in this context,signifiesthe
ciety" (p. 12), and, simultaneously,explained officialexpression of the common Egyptian ac"mythopoeic"mindwithtlheawarenessof the in- ceptanceof those symbolswhich express the individual "I" to be confrontecl
with the "Thou" terdependence
of thehumanand the divineworld.
as representedby his surroundings. I wonder "Egyptian theology"is the constructiveand inwhethermythological
understanding
of the world terpretive
activityof the Egyptiansages in dealing
can possiblyoriginatein the individualby him- withmythology
and otherreligiousentities.
self; in Egyptit originatedin man as a representa- A few mythologicalconceptswere transmitted
tive interpreterof the communityto whiclhhe from1prehistoric
times into the historicperiod of
belonged.
Egypt. Theyconsistedmainlyof,on theone hand,
The resultsof eight years of researchon the what we may call fetishdeitiesand, on the other
earliest documentationof mythologyin Egypt, hand,ideas about the interrelation
of the primeval
whichdates fromthe thirdmillenniumB.C., might water with the sky and the primevalbeing; we
well replace the presuppositionswhich I have should realize that we do not know whetherthe

70
RUDOLF
ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
idea that a primeval water existed mirroreda primevalbeing, appears as a cosmogonyin the
genuinetradition(as I am inclinedto think) or narration,but the decisivefactforthis discussion
whetherit was the productof speculation. The is that this cosmogonydid not originateas an
however,orig- answerto man's wonderingaboutthenatureofhis
major partof Egyptianmythology,
was estab- surroundings. Rather it appears to have origikingdom
Egyptian
the
when
inated
lished,about 3000 B.C., and its basic constitutive natedin man's wonderingabout,and finalfaithin,
the formof
entityis unmistakablyapparenitabout 2800 B.C. the constancyof his own institutions,
as an atit
understand
We
should
charachis society.
It was foundedupolnthefaithin thedivine
kingship
established
newly
the
social
adjust
to
temipt
of
the
ter of the king and the permanence
orderof Egypt forwhichhe stood. It seemingly in Egypt to the unquestionedand unchangeable
the king of Egypt
consistedof two myths,namely,the cosmogony, order of natureby identifying
of both heaven
ruler
the
and
god
the
as a universal
i.e., the pedigree of the cosmic deities,and
appears
incidentally,
existence,
whose
son,
earth,
their
Isis,
and
Osiris,
mythof the royal family,
is confar
as
Egypt
as
here
myths
discovered
first
be
to
two
These
Seth.
the
evildoer,
Horus, and
say
we
may
belongtogether,however,as Osiris and Seth rep- cerned. On the one hand,therefore,
establishthe
prompted
which
resentthe fourthgenerationin thepedigree. The that the question
was
pedigree connectedAtum, the single One who ment of the pedigreeof the gods in Egypt
of
nature
the
of
the
question
from
air
different
quite
the
through
waters,
arose out of the primeval
philosophers
(Shu togetherwith his wife and sister,Tefnut), t-heworld with which the Ionian
that
the earth and sky (Gel) and his sisterand wife, started. On the otherhand,however,seeing
cosa
as
understood
easily
be
could
Nut), and thecultivatedvalleyof the Nile and the the pedigree
Egypthe
that
conclude
readily
may
we
mogony,
personifidesert (Osiris and Seth, to whom the
of the
cationsof the royalseat, Isis and Nephthys,were tians would have answered the question
hesitation
without
and
added as theirsistersand wives), withHorus, the Ionian philosophersjustly
of
king of Egypt,the son of Osiris and Isis. It is by pointingout that the underlyingsubstance
personiwas
its
and
beginning
cause,
its
world,
the
evidentbeyonddoubt that this myth,whichnow
of whichthe
appears to be composedof the cosmogonyand the fiedas Nunu, theprimevalwaterout
shall see
We
mythof Osiris,originatedas a unit,as the lineage primevalbeing, Atum, emerged.
question,
this
ask
not
did
of the god Horus, who was incarnatein, and that probablyThales
Egyptians.
the
met
he
when
however,
identicalwith,every king of Egypt,back to the
When the lineage of Horus, which was confirstlivingbeing,Atum. It was not a narrative
memberup to
to begin with. The lineage was establishedby structedstartingwith its youngest cosmogonic
a
into
reversed
is
theologicalspeculationin a strictlylogical manner its eldest, Atumli,
its genuhis
and
progeny,
Atum
about
to make it clear that the crown prince,who was narration
apinconsistencies
Now
shattered.
is
logic
ine
born a man, became the god, Horus, when he
father
narration:
first,
the
of
features
two
in
pear
deceased
ascendedthe throne;thathis father,the
his daughter,Nut, the sky,
king, who just before was Horus and became Shu, the air, separated
earth,by raisingher aloft
the
Geb,
son,
his
Osiris by his death,was buried and transfigured from
to their children; secbirth
given
lhad
she
after
into the heavenlyaspect of Horus; that Egypt
as the brotherof
and the desert,the earthand the sky and the air ondly,at times,Seth appeared
the brotherof
as
in between,belongedto the domainof Horus, who Osiris and, at other times,
features are
two
These
thus was provento be the rulerof the universe; Osiris' son, Horus.
context,the
original
their
in
intelligible
readilv
and thatthisgod Horus was, by meansofthepediifit was established,forinstance,
gree, equated with his ancestor,Atum, the pri- lineageofHorus,
but
of the crown prinme,
meval being. All these aspects,whichare borne in a formalquestioning
narrative.
the
in
senseless
and
illogical
out by an abundanceof evidence,were the con- theyappear
one example of the alleged lack of
only
is
This
of
ancestry
the
of
in
the
construction
stituentparts
mythology.The main source
in
Egyptian
logic
of this
Horus. We maysay thattheestablishment
to be a lack of logic and common
great concept equals, or perhaps surpasses, any of wlhatappears
Egyptian mythologywas the complete
logical deductionperformedby the Ionian phi- sense in
the one
of fixeddogmas notwithstanding
losopherswith regardto the strictnessof logical absence
king.
the
of
b)asicdoctrineof the divinecharacter
thought.
of
son
the
of Horus, whichmade him
Naturally,the ancestryof Horus, headed by the The lineage

VOL. 107, N-O. 1, 19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
Osiris, for instance,was by no means a dogma

by whichthedescentof theking,Horus, was fixed
the same theoonce and forall. On the contrary,
logianswho acceptedit, likewiseacceptedthe idea
thatthe kingwas engenderedby Atum and given
birthto by the same primevalocean in its female
aspect out of whichAtum arose. These two differentaspects of the relationbetweenAtum and
Horus, the lineage and the direct father-sonrelation,beside which other ideas about eitherthe
birthor theprimevalexistenceof Horus are to be
found,were equally valid as theyproved the esof thehighestgod,theking,Horus,
sentialidentity
withtheprimevalbeing,Atum. Anotherexample
of thelack of fixeddogmasin Egyptianreligionis
the varietyof conceptsof the sky. The sky was
looke(donias the woman,Nut, as a waterybody,
as a, cow, as a vulture,as a roof,and so on. All
theseideas were acceptedby the same theologians
and were interrelated
givingrise
by identifications
to confusion. The equation of the woman, Nut,
with the waterybody, the cow, the vulture,and
theroof,appearedlogicalenoughbecause all these
conceptsmeant the sky. The resultingmixture
is firstapparent,about 2800 B.C., *in a picture
as thewingsof a vulwheretheskyis represented
ture whichrestupon the supportsof a roof,while
the boat of the heavenlyHorus (who is reduplicated as the earthlyHorus beneathin the picture)
sails upon the wings. Similarly,the so-called
Pyramid Texts, about 2500 B.C., refer,for instance,to the wings (of a vulture) of theheavenly
cow or of the woman, Nut. The situationwas
about as though a contemporaryof Thales and
Anaximeneswere to concludethat,since,according to Thales, the earth rested upon water and,
accordingto Anaximenes,upon air, waterand air
were idenitical. This logical conclusionevidently
would have got himintoa mess,and we may only
hope thatit did not occur to anyone. Why could
it happenin Egyptand not in Greece?
The answerto thisquestionlies in the symbolic
charaicterof the mythologicalidea. The great
varietv of compositepicturesand texts such as
those whichwe have quoted,undisputablyshows
that, with the possible exception of the most
simple-mindedindividuals,no Egyptian thought
that,forinstance,the sky was a cow, or the sun,
a mail sailinigthroughheavenlywaters. They did
inotlook at theirmythologicalconceptsas if they
were real. We must conclude that they were
aware of the facts that the concepts were mere
symbolsand that such a symbolcan never en-
SCULPTURE
71
compassthe completeessenceof thatforwhichit

stands. The logical conclusionfromthis realization was thatthe greaterthe numberof the symbols for a certainentityof the divine world,the
nearer human understandingcame to its truth.
ofcomposite
We mustnotsay thattheemployment
mythologicalconceptsindicateda more profound
search for the fundamentaltruththan that of a
simpleconcept: doubtlessotherfactorsprompted
it. But the tendencyto mix various and incompatibleconceptswould not contradictthe assumption that,in one way or another,the Egyptians
soughtforthetruthwhichlay behindthesymbols.
of the sky as
Since the complex representation
wings which restedupon supportsand which,at
the same time,bore the boat of the sun, indicated
more of the divine item "sky" than either the
merevultureor the mereroofor the merewatery
body,the Egyptianswere quite justifiedin identifyingtheseincompatibleunitswitheach otheralresultedin
though,naturally,such identifications
a mixtureof conceptswhich,to say the least, appears most illogical to the outsider. This could
not happenwiththe Greeksbecause theytriedto
deal withthe real thingsand not withsymbols.
A second answer to the question of why the
Egyptians mixed their mythologicalconcepts
while the Greeks did not do so with theirphilobesophicalideas, may elucidatea basic difference
and Greekphilosophy.
tweenEgyptianmythology
Egyptianmythologyoriginatedin Egyptiansociand
ety. Innumerabletheologians,simultaneously
successivelythrough the millennia,respectfully
and elabotook over what had been transmitted
rated on it. While each individualworked in a
logicalmanner,therewas no leadingmindto keep
strictlyon the road
the logical accomplishments
upon which the firsttheologiansstarted. This
means thatnone of the conceptswas dogmatically
fixed,and therewas no need fora fixation. Greek
however,began in the individual. He
philosophy,
naturallykept to the strictnessof logic which is
innatein the individualfor intellectualand nonemotionalmatters. The best of his discipleswere
inspiredby the teachingbut theystartedall over
again in theirown logical mood eitherin accordwith the master. Egyptian
ance or contradiction
began in societyand was carriedon in
mythology
societyby the guardiansof the Egyptianreligion.
Greekphilosophybegan in the individualand was
carried on by individualsdebatingits doctrines.
In Egypt,therewas one religion;in Greece,there
was room for an unlimitednumberof individual

72
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PIHIL. SOC.
philosophersalndtheir schools. Egyptianmyth- of his time,made a short-livedattemptto replace

ology developed by means of deviationswhich mythologyby the undilutedworshipof the sun
were all accepted; in Greekphilosophy,any devi- disk. A few decades later, afterthe traditional
ation from an individual system broughtforth formsof religionwere restored,a popular narraof tive of the contestof the deities,Horus and Seth,
anothersystem. Dogmatismis characteristic
Greek thought;it is incompatiblewith Egyptian was writtendown. There a strikingdetachment
fromthe naturalrespectfulattitudetowardmyththought.
The clarificationof the Egyptian mode of ology is expressedin the satirical,thoughaffecthoughtabout2800 B.C. has enabledus to compare tionate,mannerof dealingwith the various gods,
it withthe Greek mode about 600 B.C. We have who are all representedas very human notwithof the Egyp- standingtheir magical power. This attitudeis
concluded,first,thatthe mythology
about reminiscent
of thatof Homer towardtheOlympian
to
the
question
answer
an
as
tiansoriginated
and thiswas quite deities. Finally, the rejection of mythologyis
the qualityof theircommunity,
fromthe questionregardingthe nature foundin whatwe call the Credo of a High Priest
different
fromabout 1000 B.C. This is a hymn
with which the Greek philosopherswere con- ofAmon-Re,
was
it
that
seen
have
we
whichfeaturesAmon-Re as the sole god who is
cerned. Furthermore,
who makeshis appearneitherthe qualitynor the amountof logic which invisibleand inconceivable,
the earliest Egyptians from the ance indirectlyin the sun and in all the images
differentiated
earliestGreeks. Both aptlymade use of the same of the diversdeitiesin thetemples,and who is the
innate logical mode which we may conclude is ruler of the universe,both of the living and the
whichocuniversalin man and did not undergoany basic dead. The rare allusionsto mythology
its subsequent cur in thishymnare used as an ornamentalilluschangesin Greece,notwithstanding
systematization. The differencebetween early trationof God ratherthan as genuinesymbolsof
Egyptianand early Greek thoughtratherlies in specificcharactersofthedivineworld. The tenorof
two facts: first,the subject matterof the logical thishymnhas been justlycomparedwiththeview
activityof the Egyptiansconsistedof symbolsof of God which is expressed in the Deuteronomic
inconceivableentities,which were accepted with and propheticliteratureof the Old Testament.
evidenceof religious
faithand reason,while the Greeksdealt withen- In spiteof the overwhelming
view ill the
traditional
the
expressed
which
titieswhichwere real in the sense thattheywere texts
a
documents
indicating
few
these
periods,
same
persensory
direct
or
reason
conceivedeitherby
was based deviateattitudeof a king,the commonpeople,and
ception. Secondly,Egyptianmythology
on the Egyptianformof society,whileGreekphi- a leadingtheologian,make us ponderthe possibilwas practicallyextinlosophywas based Upon the individual. The re- ity thatgenuinemythology
as
last millennium
the
of
beginning
in
the
deal
guished
sultingquestionis, why did the Greeks not
Palesin
also
and
Greece
in
later,
slightly
it
was,
sotheir
by
were
accepted
which
with symbols
did they replace mythologyby phi- tine. This conclusionis notborneout by the facts,
ciety, wNrhy
losophy? The obvious answer it that therewas however. Akhenaton'sdeviationfromthe regular
no mythologywhichhad originatedin, and was course was no morethan a personalaction which
accepted by, society. Althoughthis answer ap- became temporarilysignificantonly because he
pearsto be conclusive,it maybe usefulto elaborate was theking. The novelof Horus and Seth is an
extensiveelaborationof whatwas a briefinterlude
on it to make some pointsclearer.
in the mythof Osiris, so we can hardly make
IV
generalizationsfromit about the attitudeof the
authorand his audiencetowardthismythas such.
The intervalbetween2800 and 600 B.C. saw a
And the Credo of a High Priest representsthe
livelydevelopmentin all fieldsof Egyptianciviliculminationof a spiritual attitude in religious
zation. The nondogmaticcharacterof Egyptian matterswhich evidentlywas restrictedto a few
religion prompted new conceptions, alterations,
the body of Egyptianreliideas. and did not influence
and rejectionsofmythological
preservations,
in a sharp contrastto the effect
essentially,
gion
Moreover,certainfeatureswhich possiblycould whichsimilarideas had in Israel.
indicatea tendencytowarda generalrejectionof
no conclusiveprooffor
While thereis therefore
mythologyin Egypt appeared duringthe second
no longer a
millenniumB.C. King Akhenaton(about 1370- the assumptionthat mythologywas
such an asB.C.,
1000
mood characteristic livingentityin Egypt after
1353 B.C.), in the rationalistic

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 19631
EGYIPTIAN AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
73
sumptionwould not be contradictedby the mere unityof kingshipand religionwas still effective.
fact that Egyptian religion was carried on for Furthermore,
in the course of these changes,the
more than a millennium;for we shall see that figureof the royal child was replacedby that of
there was a break, about 700 B.C., in the develop- the divine child,Horus, in the contextof the diment of Egyptian civilization which is apt to ob- vine birth. Then the child Horus was looked
scure the relevant facts to the historian. Indeed, upon as the primevalgod and the ruler of the
it is not self-evidentthat, in this late period, myth- universealthoughthis most genuinecharacterof
ology was something more than a stagnant tradi- Horus was notveryconspicuousin theintervening
tion -whichonly served to direct the temple service millenniia.Its revivalin the conceptof the divine
and to give form to the expressions of individual birth,in the middleand at the end of the last milpiety. Two points may be mentioned, however, lenniUlmB.C., makes it veryclear that the idea of
which indicate that mythologywas still an effective Horus as the highestgod, which had originated
factor in Egyptian religion during the last mil- about 3000 B.C., was still an effectiveelementin
lenniUminB.C. To the best of our knowledge, the Egyptiantheologicalthought(see Daumas, 493.
Egyptians never represented their great myths in 495-510, forthese and otherimportantquestions
either a narrative or any other form of logical concerningthedivinebirth).
continuity, although many stories centering on
I do not thinkwe need pointto other,and less
mythological episodes exist and certain mytholog- conclusive,indicationsof the fact that Egyptian
ical cycles of pictures with descriptions were en- mythology
was still a vital factorin the last milgraved on the walls of temples for special pur- lenniUmB.C. Evidently,the Egyptiantheologians
poses. The absence of a systematicrepresentation of that period still retainedthe mode of logical
of mythologymay be due to the accident of preser- thoughtabout,and sincerefaithin, the mythologivation but it is generally taken to be a character- cal entitieswithwhichtheirforebearshad laid the
istic lack in Egyptian literature. If that is so, it foundationof Egyptian religion two and three
wvould indicate that mythology was still an ele- thousandyearsearlier,althoughundoubtedly
their
ment of life which was experienced in services by approach had becomemore sophisticated. Howthe priests, the educated laymen, and the common ever, there exist individualEgyptian documents
people, and would have lost its essence in any and accountsof Greek and Roman authorswhich
systematic literary form.
make the commonpeople of Egypt in the latest
A vast amounit of religious texts is preserved periods appear to have lived oIn a level of simon the walls of the big temples of the Late period, plicity,superstition,
and fanaticism,
whichis remimainly those built in Ptolemaic and Roman times. niscentof what we oftenthinkis the behaviorof
From what has been published and evaluated of "primitive"people moreso thanwhatis knownto
these texts by various scholars it is evident that have been the case in the earlier periods. Evifull religious life is expressed in them but I for one dlently,
a chasm of extraordinary
depthseparated
had thoughtthat perhaps virtually all of them had the intellectualsfromthe masses. We have albeen tranismittedfrom the past andl had been pre- ways realized that it made a great difference
served, as it were, by petrifaction on the stone whetherthe visitorsfromGreece and Italy met
walls. Recently, however, Daumas has discussed educated or half-educatedEgyptians, to which
the changes which the concept of the divine birth latterclass the professionalinterpreters
presumaof the Egyptian king underwent in the last mil- bly belonged. If a Greek plhilosopher
met the
leinniUln B.C.
The designs of the rooms in the upper class, he mightwell have met his peers in
temples and of the mammisi-buildings, in which regardto intellectand logicalthought,
who,in adthe ceremonies relating to this mythological idea dition,profited
fromthebenefitof an old tradition
took place, as well as certain features of these in which they lived securelywitlha full undersamiieceremonies, underwent significantmodifica- standingof its essence.
tiolis siniceperhaps 700 B.C. and certainly since the
Obviously,a traditioncomparableto thatof the
fifthcentury. Daumas has very plausibly shownl Egyptianswas missingamong the Greeks. Little
that these modificationswere intertwinedwith the appears to be known about the Aegean wisdom
dcynasticchanges which took place during that which Burnet presses into the foregroundin his
period. \Ve can fully understand this interrela- discussionof the originof Greek wisdom. There
tion of dynastic and ceremonial changes if we real- again, we are condemnedto conjecture. We may
ize that the earliest Egyptian concept of the lnatural be permitted
to assume thatpossiblythe Egyptian

74
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
situationcan be takenias an example of what bly, he intendedto preservemythologyfromthe

happenedwiththe pre-Greekcivilizationto which scatteredpiecesof thepast,and simultaneously,
he
the Ionians originallybelonged. To judge from laid a foundationof ethicsin his Work anidDays
thefactthatEgyptianreligion(as we definedthis out of his own experience,comparablewithHosea
of his teaching
word above) was firmlybound, by origin and in respectto the interconnection
development,in Egyptian society,we may con- and his woe. By logicallyarrangingthe elements
clude that Aegean mythologyand religionbroke of Greek religionhe left the road free for the
cultsand thebeginningof
of mystery
down when the social structureof the Aegean development
world was brokenup by migrations,the extirpa- Greekphilosophy. Both thesefactorsand the alof the gods are joined in
and the merger legoricalinterpretation
tion of the formercommunities,
of native and foreigngroups. Whetheror not Plato's philosophytogetherwithethics. The posby meansof sibilitythat these achievementsin Palestine and
Hesiod intendedto restoremythology
his Theogonia,whathe reallygave theGreekswas Greeceabout700 B.C. sprangfroman international
somethingverynew: a storywhichby no means intellectualmovementis made plausible by the
was symbolicof transcendentalmatters in the factthatThales (about 636-546 B.C.) was a conLaotse, Pythagof Zoroaster,Jeremiah,
sense of mythology.This literarywork,together temporary
with the view of the gods which is firstto be oras, Buddha,and Kungfutse.
If we understandthe readjustmentof tranfoundin Homer, laid a part of the foundationof
Greek religion. It appears to be almost natural scendentalthoughtand ethicsin variouscountries
that this rathershallow religionwas absorbedin fromtheeighthto sixthcenturiesB.C. as the result
Greek wisdom only by means of the interpreta- of a commonmentalunrestin which,however,we
featuresas allegorical have not yet recognizeda participation
of Egypt,
tionof its semi-mythological
of ethicaland physicalitems.
we may wonderwhethera certainparallelismin
The work of Hesiod was probablymore than Egyptianand Greekart in about the same period
merelyan incidentalproductof the development shouldbe understoodaccordingly.The Athenians
of
in the Greekrealm. It maybe lookedupon as an are said to have introducedthe representation
of vases in
exponentof the tendencytowardmentalreadjust- man intothe Geometricornamentation
ment which appears duringthe firsthalf of the the ninthcenturyB.C. (Hahland, 122), and about
last millenniumB.C. in all the greatancientcivili- 700 B.C. the Archaicstyleopened a more realistic
zations of which we know. Briefly,we should approachto the human figure. These two dates
of man in
of the representation
point to its commonfeaturesas well as its dif- are also significant
ferencesby recallingits earliest data in Egypt, Egypt,thoughless conspicuousbecause the EgypPalestine, and Greece. We have already men- tian featuresdeveloped,otherwisethanin Greece,
which is to be in the courseof a long traditionof representative
tioneda certainde-mythologizing
foundin Egypt in a hymnabout 1000 B.C. This art. In Egypt,faiencechaliceswitha new ornawas an individualcase whichapparentlywas not mentshowinghuman figuresand scenes in relief
permittedto influencethe traditionalmythological appeared firstin the ninthcenturyB.C. (von Bismode of Egypt. We may add that,consequently, sing), and about 700 B.C., a new tendencyto overof the foun- come schematismin statuaryby individualizing
therewas no need fora readjustment
dations of ethics because, in Egypt, ethics had both body and facial featuresarose. If this evibeen rootedin the social structuresince the third dentparallelismindicatesa commonroot it could
in whatwe have
millenniUmB.C. and, therefore,were genuinely be foundin Egypt'sparticipation
unrest of these
mental
of
international
an
called
Egypconcepts
transcendental
linkedwith the
tian mythology.In Palestine,in the eighthcen- centuries. Anotherconclusionfromthe Egyptian
of the literaryand situationabout 700 B.C., however,is more certain
tury B.C., the representatives
classicalprophecyarose,drivenby theirindividual and verymuchto the point: the problemhow to
urge,to clarifytheHebrewconceptof theone God representman, which the Greek artists of the
by insistingthat the essence of God's demand of seventhand sixth centuriesfaced,was not alien
Egyptians,who had experimen was not cultic, i.e., referringto the social to the contemporary
to the individual encedit foronlya fewgenerations.
order,but moral,i.e., referring
The realisticstylein Egyptabout 700 B.C. arose
345). The
and thiepeople (Kaufrnaiin-Greenberg,
Boeotian farmerHesiod appears to have been a beside,and soon mergedwith,a powerfulhistoriof Isaiah, about 700 B.C. Presuma- cizing spiritin art with works fromabout 2500
colitemporary

VOL.
107, NO. 1,19631
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
land 1500
75
B.C. servingas popular models. This

Palestine in different
manners,had already been
antiquarian movement,which appears also in answered, in the Egyptian manner,during the
other fieldsof this period,most conspicuouslyin precedingtwo millennia,and that the Egyptian
diction and orthography,
reflecteda general in- sages were aware of this heritage. Among these
clinationto depend on the achievementsof the problemsare thosewhichwe have mentionedprepast rather than on new developments. This viously in this paper, the representation
of the
trendappears clearlyin the factthat certainfea- humanfigure,theinterconnection
of ethicsand the
tures whichuntilthenhad developedfreelywere transcendentalworld, the coming into existence
fixed by rules. For instance,a codificationof of life,the one primevalcause, and the sole and
sorts was imposedupon the "Book of the Dead," universalgod; we may add, withreferenceto the
a popularmiscellanyof funeraltexts,and an anti- most vital period around 2000 B.C., the mental
quarian formof cursive handwriting,the "hier- emancipationof the individual,his responsibility
atic," was assignedto be used in religiousmanu- toward societyand toward God, the emphasison
scripts,in contrastto the more developed "de- livingmorallyaccordingto God's will in contrast
motic" which was used otherwise. The Late to the scrupulousobservationof all rites,the exEgyptianmethodof sculpture,whichwe discussed istenceof a transcendental
world,and the justice
previously,is an excellentexampleof the genuine of God; furthermore,
the alternativeof life after
of the tendencies,on the one hand,toward death or extinction,the proclamationof the will
affinity
copyingand, on the otherhand,towardsuppress- of God in oracles and other manifestations,
the
ing the freedomof imaginationby fixed rules. questionwhetherit is thegods or fatethatdirects
While we cannotsee fullythe extentof retrogres- humanlife-all of thesequestionsand othershad
sion in this period,it is evidentthatit dominated been answeredin Egypt in the course of her histhe last millenniumof Egyptian civilization. It tory,quite a few of themin struggleswhichare
is quite possible that essentiallyit contributedto well attested. Since,as we have concluded,geniuEgypt's failure,in the succeedingcenturies,to ine mythologywas still a live factorabout 700
participatesubstantiallyin the furtherdevelop- B.C. in Egypt, the sages would have been well
mentofcivilizationin theMediterranean
countries. justifiedin calmingthe unrestwhichmighthave
The returnto the past and the apparent at- befallenthe people,by directingtheirthoughtsto
temptto stopfurther
intellectual
growthinseventh- theachievements
of thepast whichwere stillvalid.
centuryEgypt constitutea strangephenomenon I have triedto make it clear thatmy speculations
whichmayperhapsbe explainedbytheassumption about intellectualunrestin Egypt about 700 B.C.
thatitwas indicative
ofa naturalweaknessand senil- are based on limitedevidence;theymaybe wrong.
ityofEgyptiancivilizationaftera lifeof morethan It is a fact,however,thatthe Egyptianswere in a
two thousandyears. Furthermore,
thesuddenap- position to present the Greeks with adequate
pearanceof this phenomenonmay perhapsbe ex- answers to all those questionswhich mighthave
plained by the fact that after more than one worriedthem,on the basis of the great tradition
hundredyears of civil strifeand, eventually,the of Egypt,whetheror not theyhad been readjustdestructiveinvasionof the Assyrians,Egypt was ing themselvesto theseanswersfora fewgeneraexhaustedmore than ever. Now, since we have tions.
foundsome indicationthatthe intellectualclimate
In thebeginningof thispaper I mentionedPlato
which prevailed in both Greece and Palestine and the high respectwhichhe felttoward Egypmighthave been effectivealso in Egypt,we may tian tradition. Herodotus (II
80) mentionsthat
as well venture the opinion that the apparent a
distinctive
characteristic
of the Egyptiansin constiflingof progressin Egypt was Egypt's answer
to the search for a spiritualand mentalfoothold trast to most of the Greeks was that they conwhich permeatedthe peoples. We may even spicuouslyreveredthe aged. Evidently,old age
stipulatethatthe stiflingwas directedconsciously did not necessarilyimplywisdom in the opinion
althoughtheassumptionthatit originated
as an un- of the Greeks. We may well assume thatit was,
conscioustrendis perhapsmoreplausible. In any not the mere age of the Egyptiantraditionwhich
event,I do notthinkthatit is too muclhto contend Plato respected. Ratherhe would have realized
thatvirtuallyall theprimaryquestionsabout tran- that the Egyptianshad good reason to insist on
scendentaland ethicalmatterswhicharose during havingthe truthready for whoeverwas seeking
these centuriesand were answeredin Greeceand it. Being a seekerfortruthhimself,he could not

76
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
scholarshipand science. The turningpoint of

westernhistorywas broughtabout by the fact
that in doing so Thales was compelledto keep
V
to the real factsas muchas possible and did not
tryto inventsymbolsof his own.
foolishly
Our extensivediscussionshould have made it
no evidencefortheanswerto thequesis
There
clear why Plato and, more conclusively,the Ionor not Thales was influencedby
whether
tion
ians who startedphilosophywere not ready to
thatwaterwas thestuffor
contention
his
in
Egypt
acceptthe view of the worldwhichthe Egyptians
the cause (aitia;
(physis),
substance
underlying
presented. The cause was not a special structure
(arche
beginning
the
or
96)
Phaedon
Plato,
see
of their modes of thinkingnor was it the conof
10-11)
Burnet,
see
Aristotle;
to
according
sciousness of any intellectualsuperiorityover
understandmy
in
probable,
is
it
But
everything.
ideas symbolizingmattersunknown.
mythological
ing,thatthe idea of waterratherthanthatof the
They were childrenof their times like anybody
was the startingpoinltof his argument,
else and mightwell have been longing for the "stuff"
it came fromoutside. We have seen
and
possibly
possibilityof attainingthe truthby meansof symnot look at him as a man that felt
must
that
we
bols. Rathertheywere prevented,consciouslyor
an innovatorof unheard-oflogical
be
to
himself
not, fromacceptingEgyptianwisdomby the fact
like Socrates (Phaedon
presumably,
but
capacity,
that Egyptian mythologywas linked with the
fortruthwho was, to
seeker
sincere
a
was
he
96),
social structureof Egypt genuinelyand thorany reasonableanaccept
to
willing
with,
begin
oughly. An individualwho triedto take it over
to assume
unrealistic
rather
be
It
would
swer.
would have had to turn Egyptian. Nor were
to his
restricted
was
lhe
that
realized
having
that,
thereany single mythologicalitems which could
himself
asking
by
start
he
would
owIn
thought,
meaning
have been taken over in their genuine
which substanceunderliesall which exists; and
with sinceritywhile other items were rejected.
then,lookingat the sea or hearingthe raindrops
Now, as the Egyptianexamplehas shown,an infallinguponhis roof,woulddecidethattheanswer
dividualcould notpossiblybuildup his own mythwas water. It is muchmore plausibleto assume
ology,nor would it have done any good to gather
he heard of an opinion that he respected,
that
because
a congregationto constructa mythology
that the world originatedin the water.
saying
neithermythologynor any mythologicalconcept
mighthave come to him eitherthrough
idea
This
can be invented;possiblemodernexamplesto the
idea of Okeanos or fromthe heirs of
the
Greek
contrarycan hardlybe acceptedas conclusive. In
civilizations,but certainlymore
Asiatic
ancient
grewout of thecommonfaithin
Egyptmythology
authoritativelyfrom Egypt,
and
more
clearly
and was dithe social structureof the community
was
transmitteddirectlyfrom
it
he
knew
where
rected and definedby the reason of the social
the primevalwater out
In
Egypt
times.
earliest
leaders who fullyslharedthe faith. Nothinglike
as Atum,forinstance,
being,
the
which
primeval
of
this could possiblybe achieved in Greece. Hesas Nunu, the oldest of all
was
personified
arose
of the gods had made imposiod's reconstruction
heardand
was respectfully
con- thegods, whoseadvice
of
the ancientmythological
revival
sible any
was only in Egypt that
it
Probably
followed.
cepts which would make them acceptableto all. Thales could realize thatboththe idea of the priThe onlychoiceof a man like Thales who feltthe
meval waterybody and that of the old wise man
urge to know somethingabout his surroundings should be looked upon as two symbolsof an Unbeyond his immediateexperiencewas either to conceivableprimarywater. Once he realizedthis.
cultor to dependon himself.That
join a mystery
his naturalreactionwould have been to seek for
he chose the latteralternativeproves nothingbut that realityfor which these symbolsstood. His
the independenceof his mind,whichdid nlotsur- answerthatwaterwas the "underlyingsubstance"
pass thatwhichwas to be foundin Egypt,where of all thatexistswould have been as intelligible
as
individualsare attestedmore
independent-minded
was sensible. It was this idea of the existence
it
than once. Left to his own meditatingmind he ofall underlying
substance,thecreationofhis own
used both imaginationand logic in the rightpronot
the
and
thought,
Egyptianidea of water,which
portionwith logic directinghis speculationsbeother
sages and carried on to
like his was accepted by
cause he was intelligentand thoughtful,
predecessorsin wisdom who lived two thousand make Greekphilosophy.
vearsbeforehimand his successorsin present-day It does not matterwhetheror not Thales wvas
deny theirclaim but he feltpreventedfromacceptingit.

VOL.
107, NO. 1, 1963]
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
77
induced by the Egyptian idea of the primeval by God. Subsequently,the curiositywith which
water to considerthe role whichwater played in the Greeks startedpressed increasinglyforward
the structureof everything. I for one do not and theirachievements
promptedthe development
insiston this particularopinion. Ratherthe pre- of new methodsof logical speculation. I should
ceding conjecturalstorywas to make the point like to add another,though questionable,point.
that, if there was a relation,Thales proceeded We have seen that, in Egypt, the conceptionof
withhis thoughtin oppositionto,and notin agree- cosmogonydid not originatein an attemptto acment w7ith, Egyptian ideas. His reaction to count forthe cominginto existenceof the world,
Egypt, whichhe is well attestedto have visited, norwereany ofthevariousconceptsabout,forinwas similarto that of the Ionian sculptorswho stance,the sky,looked upon as an explanationof
learnedthe Egyptianmannerof designingstatues: its nature. Furthermore,
as I have pointedout,
consciouslyor not, both realized that what they we mustrealizethattheidea thata primevalocean
were taughtwas embeddedin the Egyptianmode existed was not necessarilya productof speculaof lifeand the social structureof Egypt; it could tion al)out what existed in the beginning;rather,
iiot be transferred
unless the GreekbecameEgyp- it mighthave beenhandeddownthroughmillennia
tian. The resultof thisstudyis negativein so far as a reminiscenceof, for instance,long-forgotten
as it has shown that no essentialinfluencefrom climaticchanges. Consideringthesefacts,we may
Egypt upon the originof eitherthe sculptureor muse upon the possibilitythat, in the Mediterthe philosophyof the Greeks can be recognized. ranean area, the questionof cause perhapsnever
But it may have clarifiedthe main cause of the was employedas the startingpointof speculation
incompatibility
of Egyptian and Greek civiliza- beforetheGreekswere compelledto replacemythtions,whichmade a fruitful
mentalcommunication ological interpretation
and descriptionof objects
virtuallyimpossible. The ironyof this incompat- and interrelations
by the search forthe natureof
ibilitvlies in the factthat,as we have seen, there matterand, consequently,its cause. I am not
existe(lneithera difference
in the naturalquality ready to answer this problem,whichis more inof Egyptianand Greek logical thoughtnor a spe- tricatethanmayappear at firstglance.
cificGreekawarenesseitherto make betteruse of
it thanwas done elsewhereor to raise unheardof
VI
problems. The Greek way of thinkingwas first
In additionto the precedingdiscussionof the
directedby the circumstancesratherthan by an
basic
problemsof Egyptianand Greek interrelaextraordinarily
highlevel of ingenuity. Certainly
tion
of
the seventhand sixthcenturiesB.C., I
thereexisteda strongpredisposition
to intellectual
a fewobservationsand probactivityamong the Greeks but this by itselfdoes shouldliketo proffer
not accountfor theirepochal intellectualachieve- lematicalconsiderationsabout the classical, prenmeints.The comparisonwith Egypt has made Greek,and Hellenisticperiods,whichappear-apt
it plausible that two circumstancessubstantially to limitour findingsand, at thesame time,provide
contributed
to theawakeningof theGreekmode of themwitha properbackground.
The basic incompatibility
of Egyptianand Iothought: first,the desire for a readjustmentof
nian
thoughtdid notpreventthetransferof motifs
ethicaland transcendental
conceptionswhich apof the seventhand sixth in architectureand literature,some techniques,
pears to be characteristic
in medicine,and otherspecialties,to
centuriesB.C. and, second,the realizationthat,as achievements
we quoted Plato above, "therewas no old opinion beginwith,fromEgypt into Greece and, lateron,
handed down among them by ancient tradition fromtheHellenisticand Roman realmintoEgypt.
of the proceednor any science which was hoary of age" or, as Also our imaginedreconstruction
we now may express it in Egyptologicalterms, ings of Thales has shown that speculativeconthereXwasno vibrantmythology
imbeddedin a so- cepts which had originatedin Egypt could well
cial or(ler encompassingthemall authoritatively.be takenover by the Greeksin the eventthatthey
In the search for truth,which was commonto could be used in the pursuitof theirown ideas.
The essence of the Egyptian idea was basically
themand theircontemporaries
in othercountries,
changedby Thales, however. Anothergood exthey had to adjust theirthoughtsto the realities ample of such an
alterationby transferis, to the
surroundingthem,in contrastto the Egyptians best of our knowledge, the Isis mysteriesin
and theIsraelites,who had good reasonto believe Europe: Egyptianmythological
figuresand events
thattheirsocial orderswerehandeddown to them were employedin the contextof a mysterycult,

78
RUDOLF
ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. PHIL.
SOC.
of Greece and he, or she,will becomea god. Moreover,accordwere characteristic

and mnysteries
ing to Morenz, the custom of depositingin the
notknownin Egypt.
The transferof ideas fromEgypt into Greece tomb a writtendocumentto be used in the behas been mentionedin the contextof Greekmys- yond,does not occur elsewherein the Near East
terycultssinceancienttimes (Volten, Tracwudeu- and perhapsnotanywhereelse exceptfortheBook
tung,48). Herodotus (II 48-52), who otherwise of the Dead and relatedwritingsin Egypt. Inhimselfon whathe knowsonly deed,thislatterfactis mostindicativeof a transfer
avoids committing
fromhearsay,takes it forgrantedthatthe Diony- of the customfromEgypt,while the similarityin
sus cultand Orphismoriginatedin Egypt in con- contentwithcertainideas of the Book of the Dead
cultswhichhe acknowledges appearsratherincidentalifwe takein accountthat
trastto othermystery
afterdeath,to which
as genuinely"Pelasgian." Because, in this con- theidea oflifeand deification
was commonto 1)oth
text,he invariablycalls thegod Dionysus,and not we shallcomeback presently,
parties.
Osiris, somewhatin contradictionto II 42, we
The customof depositingthe OrphicTablets in
may wonder whetherpossibly he met Orphic
groupsin Egyptand concurredwiththemin iden- tombs mighthave been taken over fromEgypt
tifyingtheir rites with the native ceremoniesof at any time during,or previousto, the fifthcenOsiris. In any event,modernresearchon ancient turyB.C. This questiondoes not interestus here.
of his opinionand As to the cosmogonicidea of the primevalegg,
Greece has led to a refutation
nothingis known lhowever,our discussionhas made it ratherimthat
ably
most
shown
has
Morenz
the state- probablethat such an isolated mythologicalidea
whichmightconfirm
totheEgyptologists
fromEgypt into Greece during
mentof Herodotus. Accordingto myunderstand- was transferred
sixth centuriesB.C. Looking
and
seventh
the
numwhichrestrictthe
ing,religiouscommunities
presentedby Miss Harrison,
material
the
through
provide
and
the
initiated
to
ber of theirmembers
individualreligiousexperienceon thebasisofmyth- for instance,the Egyptologistwill realize that
ologicalideas arise of the necessityto compensate thereexist similaritiesbetweenthe Egyptianand
for the weakness of religiouslife in periods in earlyGreekreligionswhichcannotyetbe grasped.
which rationalismhas permeatedthe official,or Otherscan be seen moreclearly. Volten (Traumiipublic,religiousmanifestations.If thisis true,the deutung,48) has concludedthat certainfeatures
were taken
cosmography
Greek mysterycults should be assumed to be as of Egyptianmythological
and
Hesiod
to
previous
Greeks
the
by
over
genuinelyGreek as the religionof the Olympians
as
subus
serve
may
features
other
Two
Homer.
apwhat
and the philosophy,in accordancewith
pears to be thehistoricalevidence. Still,thereare jects of speculationabout a possible intrusionof
one or two isolatedfeaturesin Orphismwhich,as Egyptianideas intothesectorsof pre-GreekmythMorenz has shown, seem to have been carried ology whicheventuallycrystallizedinto the mysover fromEgypt. The firstis the conceptof a teries. The myth of the dismembermentof
primevalegg, which occurs in Egypt, Phoenicia, Dionysus by the Titans and his rebirthhas been
and among the Orphics exclusivelyas far as the regardedin ancientand moderntimes (Ziegler,
Near East is concerned;Aristophanes'testimony 1369) as originatingin the Egyptian myth of
about the Orphic idea is confirmedby Diodorus Osiris; while this relationhas been questionedby
(I 27). Morenz plausiblysuggeststhatthis con- Nilsson (Morenz, 64, n. 2), Ziegler thoughtthat
cept was taken over fromEgypt by the Phoeni- this transfertook place throughCrete. Indeed,
cians and, either directlyor indirectly,by the consideringthe contextsin whichthe topicof disappears in Egypt and Greece, we
Orphics,among whom it occurs in a formwhich memberment
if ever the Greek varietywas
that,
should
agree
second
fromthe Egyptian. The
is quite different
from
Egypt, this was indirect
a
transfer
due
to
(Murray),
Tablets
Orphic
so-called
featureis the
themysteriesflourin
which
golden sheets with inscriptions,which were de- and priorto thetime
that the disbe
also
mentioned
should
It
ished.
positedin a fewtombsin Italy and Cretesincethe
back to a
traced
be
can
of
Osiris
memberment
show
fourthor perhaps the fifthcentury. They
and
in
the
Predynastic
is
observed
which
feature
the
of
withcertaincharacteristics
a close similarity
bones
the
a
few
in
tombs,
periods:
Dynastic
Early
diEgyptianBook of the Dead, as they contain
rectivesfor the arrival of the deceased in the were foundwrappedup separatelyand, according
worl(1beyond,thewordingof a questioningwhich to the so-calledPyramidTexts (Spell 316 cj apthe deceased will undergo,and the assertionthat parently,the bones of a king were carriedin his

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 1963]
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
79
funeralprocession(see Journalof Near Eastern representsa mythologicalconcept which might

Studies 13: 34, 1954).4 Before drawinga con- well be assumedto have come out of thefar depth
clusion fromthis statement,I may mentionan- of prehistoryinaccessibleto our researchon reliotherfeature,the idea of the immortality
of the gious ideas, if it was not for the fact that,eviindividual soul. Herodotus (II 123) wrongly dently,the Egyptian variety developed in the
attributesthe idea of transmigration
to the Egyp- historical period of Egypt. Consequently,the
tians and concludesthat it was transferred
from Greek varietyeitheroriginatedindependently
in
Egypt to the Greeks, obviously meaning the the Aegean area or in the North during,or bePythagoreans. In fact, the Egyptians thought fore,the secondmillennium
B.C.; or else the Egypthatthe soul was immortaland identified
theAegean world,presumably
withone tianideas infiltrated
deityor anotherat the same time,and there did in the second millenniumB.C. It is hardlyto be
not existany idea of transmigration.The Orphic expectedthat we shall ever have an opportunity
Tablets and Plato attest the Greek idea of im- to proveeitherof thesepossibilities. But we may
mortalityof the soul, with the deificationof the say that, if there was an influencefrom Egypt
deceased according to the Tablets, as does the upon themythology
of theancestorsof the Greeks
Pythagoreanidea of transmigration,
which,after priorto about 1000 B.C., it would have been on a
all, impliespermanence. Again it is remarkable basis which was quite different
fromthat which
thatwe can see ratherclearlyhow the idea of im- existedabout 700 B.C. Presumably,it would have
mortallife and deificationafterdeath originated been the transferof conceptsfromone flourishing
in Egypt. This idea, of course,is different
intoanotherone, resultingin a merger
from mythology
the widespreadbelief that some kind of a tem- whichthendevelopedon its own terms. I do not
porarycontinuationof life mightbe grantedto a know of any good parallelforsuch a transfer,
aldeceased person and, therefore,
his spiritshould though,on the one hand,certainrelationsbetween
be satisfiedwith the tomb deposits. In addition the Egyptiansand the Hebrews and, on the other
to thisbelief,whichmay or may not representthe hand, the affinity
which developed between the
naturalhumanattitudetowarddeathand the dead, EgyptiandeitySeth and the Asiatic weathergod
two specificideas aboutthe deceasedexistedin the may point to it. We must concede that this asthirdmillenniumB.C. in Egypt: first,thatthe de- sumptionof a transferof mythologicalconcepts
ceased king was an immortalgod, so that the does not appear very convincingat firstglance
noblemenwho servedthe king duringhis lifetime with respectto the two exampleswhichwe have
expressedthewish to "walk tiponhis roads" after discussed. For the Egyptianmotifof dismemberdeath; second, that the erectionof tomb struc- ment,which played a great role in the last few
tures in indestructable
masolnryand the care for centuriesB.C., was not popular,and could hardly
the permanenceof deposits,offerings,
and prayers have been transmitted
as a tale, in the thirdand
fora noblemanmightwell affordpermanentsatis- secondmillennia;and we shouldlike to thinkthat,
factionand insurepermanentlifehereafter
forhis if the Egyptianidea of the immortality
and deifisoul. At the end of the third millennium,the cation of the individualwas exportedto the Aeconfluxof these ideas resultedin the beliefthat gean civilization,it mighthave spread out more
the individual soul was deified and, therefore, widelythan it did to the best of our knowledge.
permanentlyalive if, on the one hand, the de- Neitherof theseobjectionsis conclusive,however,
ceased had livedin righteousness
and, on theother and theyare less valid ifwe stopthinkingin terms
hand, if a tomb, the proper funeral rites, and of a diffusionof ideas. We shouldratherassume
pertinentmagic meanswere provided.
thatperhapstherewas one place only into which
To these two examples,the dismemberment
of the ideas of dismemberment
and immortality
were
the god and the immortality
and deification
of the carriedover in a special set of circumstances
unsoul, I do not wish to add otherswhich may be knownto us. Such a place mightwell have been
more debatable. Each of the two examplescited Crete when it was directlyaccessiblefromEgypt
in the middleof the second millenniumB.C. We
4 I may add a reference
to A. Hermann'sthorough
discussionof dismemberment
in Egypt. While he cor- are thinkingof Crete because, on the one hand,
rectly rejected the idea that the dismemberment
of archaeologicalevidencepointsto its close connecOsiris was the prototype
of the actual dismemberment
of tioniwith Egypt in this period
and, on the other
bodies (pp. 83 ff.), he did not yet realize that,on the
contrary,
the royalobsequiesof the earliestperiodfore- hiand,Crete was looked Upon in antiquityas the
shadowedthemythof Osiris.
place of the originof mysteries. Accordingly,
for

80
RUDOLF ANTHES
[PROC. AMER. I'HIL.
SOC.
the role of a medi- this was the basis of the mystic,thatis, symbolic
instance,Zieglerhas attributed
ator betweenEgypt and Greece to Crete in his characterof Late Hellenisticand Roman philostopicof dismember- ophy. I shouldthinkthatonlytherealizationthat
discussionof themythological
ment,as we have seen above. Since we have been the mysticismof Late Hellenisticphilosophywas
speakingabout the possibletransferof an Osirian no less a genuineoutcomeof Greek thoughtthan
idea and an Egyptianconceptof death,we may philosophyitself,is apt to lead us to a correct
on thesarcophagus solutionof the problem. As soon as Greek phimentionthattherepresentation
of Hagia Triada in Crete,ofaboutthemiddleofthe losophy dealt with symbolsand not with those
with realitieswhichwere conceivedby mere sensuous
secondmillenniumB.C., has been interpreted
referenceto the cult of Osiris by Schweitzer(pp. experienceand reason,themannerof Greekargu192-193) and to Egyptianfuneralritesby Nilsson ment naturallybecame akin to Egyptian. This
conclusionmaybe corroboratedby two
(accordingto Schweitzer,loc. cit.). When all is theoretical
said and done, we must agree that an influxof cases frommy own experiencewhich seem to be
ideas intoCreteabout 1500 pertinent,all the more as I have never studied
Egyptianmythological
B.C. appears plausible enough,while we have no eitherHellenisticor scholasticor Jewishphilosreason to assume that such ideas were, or could ophy. Reading in and about Hermeticwritings,
fromEgypt into the Greek realm I was clearlyremindedof the Egyptianmannerof
be, transferred
reasoningin the thirdmillenniumB.C.; and after
duringthe seventhor sixthcenturies.
We have seen that the alternativewas clearly readinga discussionof mineabout the old EgypeitherEgyptianor Greekin boththe sculptureand tian mythologicalidea of the Eye, a friendtold
the speculativethoughtof the sixth centuryB.C. me thatthe mannerof reasoningwhichI have atThis alternativeheld true in all the succeeding tributedto the ancient theologianswas exactly
periods in art with only the exceptionof Late like that of the medieval rabbis. If we assume
Egyptian and Roman portraiture,the similarity such an affinitybetween ancient Egyptian and
of which must be explainedby the fact that,as Late Hellenistic philosophy,therefore,we may
concludethat,sinceEgyptianmnythological
we mentionedpreviously,Late Egyptianand Ro- further
as allegoriesby theHellenman sculptureare basically akin to each other topicswereinterpreted
quite possible that the
it
is
philosophers,
istic
Anthes,1941: 98, n. 2). The
(see, forreference,
of such a topic more or less
problemis more complexwith respectto the re- Greek interpretation
lationbetweenEgyptianthoughtand the mystical conformedwith its genuine Egyptian symnbolic
philosophyof the Late Hellenistic and Romai meaning,thoughby chance only. If this concluthat the in- sion is correct,we musttake in accountthe posperiods. It should be meentioned
of
Hellenistic
phi- sibilitythat a certain mutual influenceof Late
character
creasinglymystical
losophy has been attributedby Hopfner to the Hellenisticand Egyptianthoughtexisted. This is
influenceof the Orientalswho participatedin the a problemfor the discussionof whichthe Egypphilosophicaldiscussionsand, as he thinks,spoiled tologistis not ready,however,as the mentalityof
the clarityand beautyof Greekthoughtwiththeir the Egyptiantheologiansof the Hellenisticperiod
ininatemysticism. We have seen, however,that cannotyetbe understoodadequately.
the Egyptians and, for that matter,presumably In theprecedingparagraphs,I have overstepped
all theOrientalswere as capable of logicalthought the limitsset to an Egyptologist,fartherthan beas were the Greeks. Therefore,Hopfner'sargu- fore,and I maywell be mistakenin one respector
whichis not well foundedanyway,mustbe another. As it stands, however,this discussion
mleint,
rejected. Afterall, a confluxof philosophicaland corroboratesour contentionthat the Greek devireligiouselementswithoutEgyptianor any other ation fromearliermodes of thoughtwas, firstof
of the
characteristic
orientalinfluenceis seen in Greeceas earlyas the all, due to the circumstances
exto
an
and
not
500
B.C.,
centuries
preceding
that
to
I
prefer think
Pythagoreansand Plato.
themystictenorof Hellenisticphilosophywas due, ceptionalframeof mind. In any event,I should
firstof all, to the immanentcharacterof Greek liketo concludethispaperwitha briefsummaryof
philosophywhich called for a synthesiswith re- itsessentialresultsratherthanwithsupplementary
ligion. This was achievedby meansoftheallegor- and problematicalobservations.
The search of the Ionian sculptorsand phifirst,fromabout 550 B.C., of
ical interpretation,
foradequate ways of expressionmay be
Greek and, later on, of Egyptianand other ori- losoplhers
trend
ental mythological
topics. If I am not mistaken, understoodin thecontextof an international

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 1963]
EGYPTIAN
AND GREEK
SCULPTURE
81
toward a readjustmentof man's transcendental CASSON, STANLEY. 1933. The techniques of early Greek
sculpture. Oxford.
and ethicalconcerns. They rejectedthe Egyptian
DAUMAS, FRANCOIS.
1958. Les mammisis des temples
methodsand views, which stood most authoriegyptiens. Paris.
tativelyfor the legacy of the East, because they Diodorus of Sicily, with an English translationby C. H.
Oldfather, 1. Loeb Classical Library.
befitted
onlythe Egyptianmode of life. The Late
Egyptian methodof designinga statue was op- FRANKFORT, HENRI. 1946. Myth and reality. The
emancipation of thought from myth. In: Before
posed to any attemptto representin stone the
philosophy, 11-36, 237-263. (Penguin Books edition
youthfulhuman body in its live appearance and
of: The intellectualadventure of man. Chicago.)
in action. When the Ionian sculptorswere com- HAHLAND, WALTER. 1937. Zu den Anfangen der attischen Malerei. In: Corolla L. Curtius, 121-131.
pelled to fashion such likenesses on their own
Stuttgart.
termsbecause theyneededthem,theyinitiatedthe
HARRISON, JANE ELLEN.
1922. Prolegomena to the
consequentialdevelopmentof Greek representastudy of Greek religion. 3rd ed. Cambridge.
tive art into what summarilymay be called its HERMANN, ALFRED. 1956. Zergliedern und Zusammen"perspective"pattern. As to the Ionian sages,
fiigen; Religionsgeschichtliches zur Mumifizierung.
Nunmen3: 81-96.
they were preventedfrom accepting Egyptian
mythologybecause this would have made them HOPFNER, THEODOR. 1925. Orient und Griechische Philosophie. Leipzig.
membersof the Egyptiansocial order,whichwas IVERSEN, ERIK. 1955. Canon and proportionsin Egyptian
alien to them. Nor could they build up a myart. London.
thologyof theirown because theredid not exist JUNKER, HERMANN. 1961. Die Geisteshaltung der
Aegypter in der Fruhzeit. Wien.
eithera pertinenttraditionor the faithin a social
KAUFMANN, YEHEZKEL.
1960. The religion of Israel.
homogeneity
among them. Therefore,theywere
Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg.
compelledto turn to speculationsabout the real
Chicago.
matterratherthan about mythologicalconcepts. KLUGE, KURT. 1929. Die Gestaltung des Erzes in der
archaisch-griechischenKunst. Jahrbuch des DeutThey employednormallogic in theirspeculations
schen
Archiologischen Instituts 44: 1-30.
just as did the foundersof Egyptianmythology
MORENZ, SIEGFRIED. 1950. Aegypten und die altorphin the past. Furthermore,we may wonder
ische Kosmogonie. In: S. Morenz, ed., Aus Antike
whetherit is correctto say thattheinevitableturn
und Orient, Festschrift Wilhelm Schubart, 64-111.
Berlin.
of the Ionians to the realitiesprompted,and did
not originatein, the desire to explain the nature MURRAY, GILBERT. 1922. Critical appendix on the
Orphic Tablets. In: J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena
of their surroundings,in contrastto the earlier
to the study of Greek religion, 659-673. 3rd ed.
mode of interpreting
themin religiousterms,and
Cambridge.
that,eventually,
it was thenew endeavorto explain OLDFATIHER, C. H., ed. Diodorus of Sicily 1. Loeb
Classical Library.
thingsand eventswhichnecessitatedthe systematizationof logic,forwhichtheredid not exist any RICHTER, GISELA M. A. 1942. Kouroi. New York.
SCHAFER, HEINRICH.
1930. Von agyptischer Kunst.
need before.
3rd ed. Leipzig.
1928. Martin P. Nilsson, the

Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek
religion. Gnomon 4: 169-193.
ANTHES,
RUDOLF.
1961. Mythologyin ancientEgypt.
1942. Demotische Traumdeutung.
In: Samuel N. Kramer, ed., Mythologiesof the VOLTEN, AKSEL.
Copenhagen.
ancientworld,17-92. New York.
ZIEGLER, KONRAD. 1943. Orientalischesin den orphischen
1941. Werkverfahren
aigyptischer
Bildhauer. MittTheogonien. A. F. v. Pauly, Realenzyklopiidie der
cilungen des Deutschen Instituts fur agyptische Alklassischen Altertumswissenschaften,herausgegeben
in
tertumskunde Kairo 10: 79-121.
von G. Wissozwa 18: 1369.
BLUiMEL,
CARL.
1940. GriechischeBildhauer an der ZUCKER, FRIEDRICH. 1950. Athen und Aegypten bis zum
Arbeit. Berlin.
Beginn der hellenistischenZeit. In: S. Morenz, ed.,
BURNET, JOHN.
1930. Early Greekphilosophy.4thed.
Aus Antike und Orient, Festschrift Wilhelm SchuLondon.
bart, 146-165. Berlin.
REFERENCES
SCHWEITZER, BERNHARD.


Anthes, Rudolf - Affinity and Difference Between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in The Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C. - Paphs, 107, 1 - 1963!60!81

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Anthes, Rudolf - Affinity and Difference Between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in The Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C. - Paphs, 107, 1 - 1963!60!81

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

and Sixth Centuries B. C.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

AFFINITY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EGYPTIAN AND GREEK SCULPTURE AND

Professorof Egyptology and Curator of the Egyptian Section,

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

107, NO. 1, 1963]

700 B.C., lastedfora wholemillennium

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

107, NO. 1, 19631

and, on the otherhand,theyas well as some over

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

107, NO. 1, 19631

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

fixationof a figurewas apt to be Theodorus sojourned in Egypt and when they

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, NO. 1,19631

techniquediscussedby Kluge, formerlyappeared

ing statues was based on mathematical calculations

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

and, on the is notindigenousanywhereelseintheworld; whernatureof man and of his surroundings

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 19631

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, N-O. 1, 19631

Osiris, for instance,was by no means a dogma

compassthe completeessenceof thatforwhichit

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PIHIL. SOC.

philosophersalndtheir schools. Egyptianmyth- of his time,made a short-livedattemptto replace

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 19631

EGYIPTIAN AND GREEK

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

situationcan be takenias an example of what bly, he intendedto preservemythologyfromthe

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

107, NO. 1,19631

B.C. servingas popular models. This

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

scholarshipand science. The turningpoint of

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

107, NO. 1, 1963]

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

of Greece and he, or she,will becomea god. Moreover,accordwere characteristic

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 1963]

funeralprocession(see Journalof Near Eastern representsa mythologicalconcept which might

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

[PROC. AMER. I'HIL.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM

VOL. 107, NO. 1, 1963]

1928. Martin P. Nilsson, the

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:25:11 PM