Page:History of Art in Phœnicia and Its Dependencies Vol 2.djvu/216

 1 92 HISTORY OF ART IN PHOENICIA AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. is arranged very curiously under a kind of toque. In these figures some have been tempted to recognize images of the Cypriot goddess, but although we may hesitate before the terra- cotta statues of a seated female with a dove pressed to her breast (Vol. I. Figs. 20 and 142), it is more natural to see priestesses of Astarte in the stone figures we are now discussing. Whether they are found in Phoenicia itself, in Cyprus, or in Sardinia, the figures above alluded to always have the same pose, the same costume, and the same attributes ; such uniformity is well suited to idols in which a traditional type is indefinitely reproduced. These stone statues, on the other hand, correspond with the male votive figures in the matter of variety. Finally, although the dove is no more than an offering when introduced in many of the statues of men, there is nothing to prevent us from believing that it also served as an attribute and personal symbol of the deity on whose altars it was so constantly sacrificed ; but there is nothing to justify us in saying so much of a flower ; like fruit, or branches of myrtle and olive, flowers seem better suited to mortals, to hieroduli, to priestesses, or to those private worshippers who came to lay them at the feet of the goddess to whom their prayers were addressed. Even in the absence of inscriptions Cypriot statues, whether male or female, generally offer peculiarities which enable us to divine their raison cC etre. When the arms are broken off, or when they are present but without any offering in the hands, the attitude is often enough to betray the real character and sig- nificance of the figure (Fig. 74). The attitude is always grave and collected, and this allows us to class among votive monuments many objects which it would be hard to explain without these com- parisons. Figures which when taken by themselves seem to have no obvious significance are easily explained when brought into a series with others of more unmistakeable destination. In those figures on which the uraeus appears, either on the head or at the foot of the apron-like front of the schenti, we have been tempted to recognize princes whose fancy it was to wear the emblem known all over the East as the blazon of the Egyptian Pharaohs. Side by side with these feeble imitations of the Colossi of Thebes and Sais we found statuettes of people wearing a much more simple form of the Egyptian costume (Fig. 129). In this there is nothing to remind us of the Double Crown ; the head-dress bears some likeness to a klaft. The neck is bare ; the only ornament i^ a ring