The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik — Georg Hegel — John Shaqi
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
This worship, moreover, has nothing symbolical in it viewed simply as
such; for it is the actual living animal, Apis or the like, which is
here itself revered as the existence of God. The Egyptians, however,
have used the shapes of animals in a symbolical way. In that case
they are no longer valid, simply for what they are, but it is further
assumed that they express a more universal import. We find the most
ingenuous illustration of this in the use of animal masks, which we
find more particularly under representations of embalming, at which
process certain individuals, who take an active part, either in opening
the corpse or removing the intestines, are depicted wearing such masks.
It is obvious that the animal's head is not taken to present the animal
itself, but a significance at the same time distinct from it and more
universal. The forms of animals are also utilized in other ways than
this in admixture with the human form. Human figures are to be found
with heads of lions, which have been interpreted as images of Minerva;
then there are heads of the hawk, and in the heads of Ammon we find
the horns still retained. Examples such as the above obviously imply
symbolical relations. In a like sense the hieroglyphical writing of
the Egyptians is in great measure symbolical, for it either endeavours
to make its meaning comprehensible through the images of real objects
which do not stand for themselves, but a universality which is cognate
with them, or, as is still more frequently the case, in the so-called
phonetic aspect of this style of writing, it signifies particular
letters by means of the specific mark of some external object, whose
initial letter possesses in speech the same tone as that which it is
the intention to express.
3. And generally it is the fact that in Egypt pretty nearly every
conformation is symbolical and hieroglyphical, expressing not itself
but indicative of something more, with which it possesses affinity,
or in other words a cognate relation. The truest forms of the symbol,
however, are only completely illustrated in such cases where we find
that this relation is of a more profound and fundamental character
than those we have just adverted to. We will now briefly enumerate
a few constantly recurring examples of this more important type of
affiliation.