Page images

For the reign of Sargon we can give much as regards the culture history. There must have been similar development in that of his successor, but our sources give little idea of it. In only one respect do we know of an important change. Nineveh was now made the capital for the first time and elaborate buildings were erected.1 To this is due the position which it holds in both Biblical and classical literature. But, indeed, we ought not to expect much culture development for his reign. It was the business of Sennacherib to make Assyria dominant politically, not culturally, and if his successors did more to make succeeding nations the debtor of Assyria, from the standpoint of civilization, it is also probable that in so doing they neglected a policy which would have longer preserved Assyrian nationality.

1 The various sections of the inscriptions dealing with building affairs are sufficiently given by Smith and Sayce, Sennacherib, 140 ff., as little of importance can be gleaned from those later discovered. The buildings of Nineveh are described by A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, and Nineveh and Babylon.


Director of the Musée de Sculpture Comparée du Trocadéro, Paris.

[ocr errors]



It is with reason that classical education in America has adopted the same program as in Europe. The people of the United States is made up of descendants of Europeans, and its civilization is much more the result of European experience since the earliest times than the result of the experience of the two centuries passed on this side of the Atlantic. Thus it is that when American students are taught the ancient and medieval history of Europe it is really their own history to which they are introduced. As to art, when it wishes to clarify itself with a tradition it should choose that which is appropriate to the environment in which the art must develop. The experience of European art can not, therefore, fail to be of value for American artists. The ethnic types and the aspects of the landscape are here wholly analogous to those of Europe, and the European masters of painting and sculpture can thus furnish an instruction at once practical and easily intelligible. The same is true for architecture; the climatic conditions and the materials with which it must deal in Europe are found repeated in America. From these premises I conclude that it is perfectly reasonable that the history of European art should be taught in America.

But if, as in Europe we have agreed to believe, education in the history of art is worth while, it should, over here, be even more developed than in France, in England, in Italy, in Spain, or in Germany. The reason for this is quite simple. In the countries which I mention the student of art or of history can, and necessarily must, give himself a large part of his education, for he is surrounded with ancient works, and when his instructor refers to these he speaks of things with which the student has been familiar since infancy. Of these original works of art-the veritable titles of nobility of the European races and of their American descendants-America, do what she may, will never have more than specimens, for the best of the transportable objects are permanently located in European

« PreviousContinue »