Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
I do get that it says that the one who made the statue did a really good job of bringing the haughty Pharaoh's emotions to life; that a subordinate clause promptly follows (starting with a 'which') the subject of which are these "passions" again; and that the next line brings the focus back to the sculptor and reverses the power dynamics, describing the sculptor instead as the one who literally plays with these "passions" and in whose hands the preservation of the Pharaoh's memory and legacy solely lies.
What I don't get is the structure in the last bit.
Is the last line just an extension of the adjective phrase ("stamped on those [..]") in the second line? If that is indeed the case, shouldn't there be a "by" in middle? "stamped on these lifeless things by the hand that [...]"? It'll be a case of omission then. But what for? Merely for the sake of brevity? For added effect? Or for more impact?
Or is it developing the "sculptor" clause at the beginning further, as in the sculptor consists of "the hand that mocked [...]"?