Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Development of Hindu Iconography c15: Chapter VIII: Canons of Iconometry

The Development of Hindu Iconography c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII: Canons of Iconometry

c15.2.1

It has already been briefly mentioned in the fifth chapter that the Indian sculptors used to follow certain rules of proportions in the making of images. I have criticised the view that the stereotyping of these rules and their adoption by the artists lay at the root of the gradual decadence of Indian iconoplastic art. These canons were really the results of the accumulated experience of generations of artists; if they were judiciously followed, they would not have been injurious to art. T. A. G. Rao, who was responsible for the above view criticised by me, himself observes, ‘. . . the rules arrived at by the Indian artists do not appear to be divergent from those evolved by the European artists, and if in Indian sculpture the results are not good in some instances it is the fault of the artists and not attributable to the guide books’ (Elements, etc., Vol. I, App. B, p. 8; italics are mine). In some of the compilations containing these rules, it is expressly laid down that the divine images must not only be well-proportioned but must also be good-looking; the image-maker should visualise in his mind’s eye the god to be represented in concrete and then should fashion him according to his mental perception, for these images are really the aids to the attainment of dhyānayoga (Dhyānayogasya saṃsiddhyai pratimālaKṣaṇaṃ smṛtam | Pratimākārako marttyo yathādhyānarato bhavet—Śukranītisāra, IV, 147).

c15.2.2

But as very few sculptors could be successful in turning out really beautiful images (Sarvāṅgaiḥ sarvaramyo hi kaścillakṣe prajāyate), it would be better that all divine images conform to the correct proportions as laid down in the śāstras, for ‘beautiful is that image which is made according to the canons detailed in the śāstras,—no other is so’ (Śastramānena yo ramyaḥ sa ramyo nānya eva hi). The practice of stereotyping these rules of proportions in the fashioning of human figures was not peculiar to the Indian artists alone, but was also adopted by many ancient nations of the world. W. W. Hyde says, ‘The doctrine of human proportions is very ancient, originating in Egyptian art.’¹ The first canon employed by the Egyptians in the time of the Ancient Empire, ‘divides an erect human figure over 18 squares, the highest of which ends, not at the top of the head, but at the top of the brow, thus leaving the dome of the skull outside, as well as the head-dresses or crowns which the Egyptian monuments display in such great variety.’² Hyde remarks very properly that the greatest artists—architects, painters and sculptors of all times have taught and practised the doctrine that certain proportions are beautiful, *e.g.*, the proportion of the height of the head or the length of the foot to the whole body.³ In modern times, we have only to mention such names as those of da Vinci, Duerer, Raphael and Flaxman.

c15.2.3

In Greek days there were many artists who formulated such canons of proportions. I have already stated that there were different schools of sculptors in ancient Hellas such as Old Attic, Old Argive, Polyclitan, Argive, Sicyonian or Lysippan, *etc.*, which were distinguished from one another on the basis of the fixed proportions of the parts of the human figure. These proportions were written down by subsequent artists and art-historians for the help and guidance of later sculptors and painters. E. A. Gardner tells us that ‘*theoretical* works upon the principles of sculpture were written by several of the most distinguished artists of antiquity; but none of these have been preserved to us. . . . Later compilers have recorded many opinions or statements, often without acknowledgement which we can trace with more or less certainty to these lost treatises.¹ Polyclitus, who flourished in the 5th century B.C. and was most probably a pupil of Ageladas of Argos, was one of the first to write such a work dealing with the proportions of the body; he embodied these rules in a sculpture named as the ‘Doryphorus’ (the treatise as well as the sculpture was described in the Greek works on art as the *Canon*). Euphranor, the Corinthian, who flourished in the fourth century B.C. and who was both a sculptor and a painter, also wrote upon colouring and proportion;

c15.2.4

his study of proportion seems to indicate at once an imitation of Polyclitus and a departure from his *Canon*.² In the Hellenistic age such treatises became quite common, and this fact was not a little due to the influence of the great artist of this age, Lysippus, one of the most prolific sculptors of ancient Hellas. He was looked upon by the later Hellenistic artists and art-critics as the most academic of sculptors; he revolutionised the system of proportions adopted by his predecessors such as Polyclitus and others and introduced many technical innovations and improvements which he derived from a direct and thorough study of nature. The activities of the two artists of the Pergamene school, *viz*., Antigonus and Xenocrates (3rd-2nd century B.C.), who were both writers on art and practical sculptors, can be directly traced to the school of Lysippas. They ‘are cited by Pliny as authorities; and very probably their works commonly served as a basis for the treatises of the later writers’ (E. A. Gardner, *op. cit.*, p. 2). Most of the artists mentioned above not only made figures of mere mortal men such as the Greek athletes, where they could display their keen sense of modelling the human body, but also fashioned divine images, such as those of Zeus, Hera, Nike, Aphrodite and a host of other Greek deities.

c15.2.5

It is needless to state that in the latter class of sculptures also, the artists followed certain canons of proportions, according to the tradition of their respective schools. I have stated in the first chapter of this book that secular images used also to be made in ancient and mediæval India. A. N. Tagore thinks that the canons of proportions which are incorporated in ancient and mediæval Indian *Śilpaśāstras* were only applicable in the case of images intended for worship and the artist was ‘free in all other cases, to follow his own art instinct.’¹ Such might or might not have been the case; but it is more probable that in their secular images also, the Indian artists, like the Greek and Egyptian ones, followed some recognised rules of proportions.

c15.3

¹ *Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art*, p. 67.

c15.4

² Jean Capart, *Egyptian Art*, p. 156.

c15.5

³ W. W. Hyde, *op. cit.*, p. 68. I shall presently show that in ancient and mediæval India, the length of the face (from the chin to the beginning of the hair-line—*keśarekhā*) or the inside length of the outstretched palm was the bigger unit known as *tāla* in terms of which the whole height of the body was calculated.

c15.6

¹ E. A. Gardner, *A Handbook of Greek Sculpture*, p. 2. One can compare with the above statement my remarks in the first chapter about the indebtedness of various Indian writers on iconography and iconometry to their predecessors.

c15.7

² E. A. Gardner, *op. cit.*, p. 404. ‘He evidently adopted unusually slender forms, in a reaction against the solid and heavy building of the Polyclitan athlete.’

c15.8

¹ A. N. Tagore, *Some Notes on Indian Artistic Anatomy*, p. 3. He explains the line ‘*Sevya-sevaka-bhāveṣu pratimālaḳṣaṇam smṛtam*,’ thus, ‘Images should conform to prescribed types when they are to be contemplated in the spirit of worship.’

c15.9

In India, as well as in other ancient countries of the world, the deities were mostly conceived anthropomorphically and represented as mortals in mythology and art. The affinity between the mortals and the immortals lay not merely in this anthropomorphism, but it also lay deeper. When Euhemerus explained the members of the Greek pantheon as ordinary men who had lived and acted in this world in bygone days, he was really giving expression to the very common tendency of the human mind to endow the deities with human emotions and passions. I have drawn the attention of my readers in the second chapter of this book to the *Ṛgvedic* description of the deities as *divo naras*, *nṛpeśas* (‘men of the sky,’ ‘kings of men’), etc; innumerable again, are the myths narrated in the Vedic, Epic and Purāṇic literature where the denizens of the heavens appear like mere men, living their lives of joys and sorrows. In later times in India, from the iconographic and iconometric points of view, this likeness is always present. Leaving aside the theriomorphic or therio-anthropomorphic divinities, even those gods or goddesses endowed with more limbs than are natural, really present cases of exaggerated anthropomorphism. In the proportional heights assigned to different types of divine images in early iconometric texts, we recognise the heights attained by several types of men in India. The Indians from a fairly early period believed in the existence of five different types of men (pañcamanuṣyavibhāga), which might or might not have ethnic bases. These five classes, according to Varāhamihira, are Haṃsa, Śaśa, Rucaka, Bhadra and Mālavya, who are born when the planets Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Mercury and Venus are ascendant respectively.¹ The height as well as the girth of the Haṃsa type of men is laid down by the same author as 96 aṅgulas, the height and girth of the four other classes exceeding by three aṅgulas each from the same of its immediate predecessor (i.e., a Śaśa type of man will be 99 aṅ., a Rucaka—102 aṅ., a Bhadra—105 aṅ. and a Mālavya—108 aṅ.).²

c15.10

¹ Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 68, vv. 1-2 :— Tārāgrahabalayutaiḥ svakṣetrasvoccagaíścatuṣṭayagaiḥ | Pañcapuruṣāḥ praśastā jāyante tānaham vakṣye || Jivena bhavati haṃsaḥ saureṇa śaśaḥ kujena rucakaśca | Bhadro budhena balinā mālavyo daityapūjyena ||

c15.11

² Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 68, v. 7 : Saṇṇavatiraṅgulānāṃ vyāyāmo dīrghatā ca haṃsasya | Śaśarucakabhadramālavyasamjñitastryaṅgulavivṛddhyā. An explanation is necessary about the height and girth being the same of each of the different classes of men. They are really nyagrodhaparimaṇḍala types, in which the height of the figure is equal to the measurement from the middle finger-tip of one hand to the same of the other, both arms being fully extended each way in the same line with the chest. Vyāyāma or pṛthutā has been explained by Utpala as 'prasāritabhujadvayasya pramāṇam.' This is one of the most important characteristic signs of the Mahāpuruṣas (Mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇas) and Utpala quotes the following couplet from Parāśara to elucidate it further :—Ucchrāyaḥ pariṇāhastu yasya tulyam śarīriṇaḥ | Sa naraḥ pārthivo jñeyo nyagrodhaparimaṇḍalaḥ. For further observations on this term, the reader is referred to my Pratimālakṣaṇam (Cal. Univ. Press), pp. 21-24, 77-79.

c15.12

Now, images of different gods and goddesses conformed to the two of the various proportional heights mentioned above, viz., the first and the last. The aṣṭatāla images,—figures of goddesses usually were made according to this height (cf. V. 88 in the Pratimāmānalakṣaṇam, edited by P. Bose, which reads: Dīrghaṃ cāṣṭamukhaṃ kuryād devīnāṃ lakṣaṇaṃ budhaiḥ), though there were also several gods who were shown up to this stature,—were those which were 96 aṅgulas, just as high as a Haṃsa type, according to Varāhamihira; as I shall presently show, it was also the height of a *samaparimāṇa* or *madhyama* class of image. The height of the *Mālavya* variety of men, viz., 108 *aṅ.*, on the other hand, exactly corresponded to the *navatāla* images, which were grouped by the same author among the *pravara* or the best class of images.¹ It should be noted that from the descriptions given of the five different kinds of men, the *Mālavya* seems to be the best and the heights of the *Mālavya* and *Haṃsa* varieties of men alone are uniform.² The *Matsyapurāṇa* evidently refers to the *Mālavya* type, when it says that the man who measures 9 *tālas* from the top of the head to the bottom of the feet and whose arms reach the knees are greatly respected by the gods (ch. 145, v. 10: *Āpādatalamastako navatālo bhavet tu yaḥ | Saṃhaṭājānubāhuśca daivatairabhipūjyate*). The physical features of the former, which are enumerated by Varāhamihira, contain several of the major *mahāpuruṣa-lakṣaṇas*, which are also the characteristic signs of a Buddha or a god. The verse reads: *Mālavyo nāganāsaḥ samabhujayugalo jānusamprāptahasto māṃsaiḥ pūrṇāṅgasandhiḥ samaruciratanurmadhyabhāge kṛśaśca | Pañcāṣṭau cordhvamāsyaṃ śrutivivaramapi tryaṅgulonaṃ ca tiryagdiptākṣaṃ satkapolaṃ samasitadaśanaṃ nātimāṃsādharoṣṭham*. One among these features, viz., ‘the full fleshy limbs and joints of the body,’ typically emphasises one of the particular traits of the ideal divine figure in Indian art.³

c15.13

¹ Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 57, v. 30.

c15.14

² Bhadra type, as we have seen, measures 105 *aṅ.*; but in verse 18 of the chapter on *Pañcamanuṣyavibhāga* (ch. 68), Varāhamihira tells us that such men are 84 *aṅ.* high (*Aṅgulāni navatiśca ṣaḍūnānyucchrayeṇa*); Utpala reconciles this discrepancy by commenting that when such a type of man attains to the height of 105 *aṅ.*, he becomes a *sārvabhauma* monarch (*Yadi pañcottaramaṅgulaśataṃ vyāyāmena dairghyeṇa ca bhavati tadā sakalāvanināthaḥ sārvabhaumo rājā bhavatityarthaḥ*). But in the case of two other types, viz., *Śaśa* and *Rucaka*, the commentator does not care to make any remark about this discrepancy; in verses 21 and 29 of the same chapter in the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, the respective heights of the two are given as 92 and 100 *aṅgulas*.

c15.15

³ This is *māṃsaiḥ pūrṇāṅgasandhiḥ* which has been commented on by Utpala as *māṃsaiḥ paripūrṇāḥ sarvāṅgasandhayo yasya | Anulvaṇasthirityarthaḥ*. The *Śukranītisāra* lays down that those images in which the joints, bones, veins and arteries are hidden, are always auspicious (IV. 4,146—*Gūḍhasandhyasthidhamani sarvadā saukhyavarddhini*).

c15.16.1

In order to understand the canons of iconometry clearly, it is necessary to know something about the meaning and usage of certain technical terms denoting the different ways in which an image can be measured. The Vaikhānāsāgama mentions six such ways of measurement (mānas), viz., māna, pramāṇa, unmāna, parimāṇa, upamāna and lambamāna.¹ It also gives various synonyms of each of these terms, incidentally explaining the significance of each. Rao, on the basis of this text, writes, ‘Māna is the measurement of the length of a body; pramāṇa is that of its breadth, that is, a linear measurement taken at right angles to and in the same plane as the māna; measurements taken at right angles to the plane, in which the māna and pramāṇa measures have been noted, are called unmāna, which obviously means the measure of thickness; parimāṇa is the name of the measurement of girths or of the periphery of images; upamāna refers to the measurements of interspaces, . . . ; and lastly, lambamāna is the name given to measurements taken along plumb lines.’² Early texts, both iconometric and general, use many of these terms in the technical sense appropriate to each, though in several instances some difference in meaning is noticeable. It will be of interest here to refer to the section on iconometry in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā and see what terms are used there to denote the different kinds of measurement followed in image-making.

c15.16.2

Verses 1-28 of chapter 57 of this work deal with several iconometrical details and in these 28 verses many such terms occur. The word parimāṇa, occurring only in verses 3 and 28, is used in the same sense as pramāṇa occurring in verse 1, meaning simply measurement; the latter, however, when used in verses 8 and 23, undoubtedly means width measurement (in verse 16 it means the inter-space measurement—kaṇṭhāddvādaśa hṛdayaṃ hṛdayānnābhi ca tatpramāṇena). The measurement of width is also denoted by such terms as vistīrṇa (4, 13, 15, 25), vitata (5), pṛthula (5), vistāra (6), vipula (9—vaipulya in 22), pṛthutā; the measurement of length is indicated by the words, dairghya (4, 15), āyata (4, 18; in verse 9 it means length sidewise), dīrgha (18); the measurement of height is denoted by ucchrāya (10), āyāma (14), māna (17), utsedha (19); the terms pariṇāha (as many as seven times—in 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 26) and paridhi (twice—in 22 and 23) are used to denote the girth or periphery of particular parts of images; antara in verses 10 and 24 undoubtedly refers to inter-space measurement, while vedha in verse 23 denotes depth. Utpala in the course of his comment on the above verses introduces a few other terms not used in the text;

c15.16.3

thus, he explains the term ucchrāya by auccya (10), āyāma by viṣkambha (14—āyāmato viṣkambhādityarthaḥ, but compare the Vaikhānasa-āgama text quoted above, where viṣkambha is used as a synonym of pramāṇa, i.e., the width measurement), pariṇāha by parimaṇḍalya (22—tat pariṇāhastayoḥ parimaṇḍalyam) and vedha by gāmbhīrya (23). The words māna, unmāna and pamāṇa occur in the Jaina Kalpasūtra in its description of Mahāvīra’s body; the passage, mān’-unmānappamāṇa-paḍipunna - sujaya-savv-āmga-sumdar-āmgam, has been translated by Jacobi as ‘a boy on whose body all limbs will be well-formed, and of full volume, weight and length’ (S.B.E., XXII, p. 221). But in the light of the above observations, the three words ought to be rendered a little differently. The ancient writers themselves do not appear to have been sure of their minds. Thus, the dwellers of the Śvetadvīpa, visited by Nārada while he was trying to see the great god Hari, the original prakṛti of Nārāyaṇa, are described in the Mahābhārata as *sama-mānonmānāḥ* (Vangavasi edition, XII, 335, 10). Now, *māna* meaning height in this passage, *unmāna* ought to mean width (here the measurement from the middle finger tip of the one hand to that of the other, when both the arms are outstretched opposite ways in the same line with the chest). This is really the *nyagrodhaparimaṇḍala* sign of the Mahāpuruṣas, about which something has already been said;

c15.16.4

so this sense fits ill with the one which has been given to *unmāna* by Rao, viz., thickness. Nīlakaṇṭha wrongly explains this *Mahābhārata* passage in his commentary when he writes, *mānaśconmāno'pamānaśca samau yeṣāṃ te*, for there can be no question of the *upamānas* (the measurement of the interspaces) being the same as the *māna* (height) and *unmāna* (really *vyāma* or *vyāyāma*, as explained above). I have suggested elsewhere that the words *māna-unmāna-ppamāṇa* in the Jaina text quoted above should be translated as ‘(a body whose) *māna* and *unmāna* are *pamāṇa*, *i.e.*, full and equal’ (the word *pamāṇa* being not used in its technical sense here).¹ It has been shown that the term *pariṇāha*, according to the *Vaikhānāsāgama*, is a synonym of *parimāṇa* which has been explained by Rao as the measurement of the girth or periphery. Now, Parāśara, as quoted by Utpala, while describing the *nyagrodhaparimaṇḍala* sign, uses the term *pariṇāha* in the sense of *vyāyāma*. It is also used in the same sense in the *Matsyapurāṇa*, whose author fully explains it.²

c15.17

¹ Vaikhānāsāgama, as quoted by T. A. G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, App. B, p. 60 :—Evam mānāni bhavanti | Mānam pramāṇamunmānam parimāṇamupamānam lambamānamiti ṣaṇmānāni. It clearly enjoins that etaiṣṣaṇmānairyutam beram kārayet.

c15.18

² T. A. G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, App. B, pp. 4-5. The various synonyms of the 6 kinds of measurements as laid down in the Vaikhānāsāgama are :—māna—āyāma, āyata, dīrgha; pramāṇa—vistāra, vistṛta, tāra, visṛti, vyāsa, visārita, vipula, tāla, viṣkambha, viśāla; unmāna—bahala, nīvra(?), ghana, ucchrāya, tuṅga, unnata, udaya, utsedha, ucca, niṣkrama, niṣkṛti, nirgama, nirgati, rudra; parimāṇa—mārga, praveśana, nata, parināha, vṛti, āvṛta; upamāna—nivṛta, vivara, antara; lambamāna—sūtra, ālambana (or according to another reading—sūtra, lambana, unmita). Rao’s enumeration of the above synonyms evidently on the basis of the text is a bit faulty; his errors are corrected here.

c15.19

¹ *Pratimālakṣaṇam*, C. U. Press, p. 78; or if *unmāna* is taken to mean height in the *Kalpasūtra* and *Mahābhārata* passages, then *māna*, which may mean any kind of measurement, should signify *vyāyāma*.

c15.20

² *Matsyapurāṇa*, Vangavasi edition, Ch. 42, verses, 61-2: *Mahādhanurdharaścaiva tretāyāṃ cakravarttinaḥ | Sarvvalakṣaṇapūrṇāste nyagrodhaparimaṇḍalāḥ || Nyagrodhau tu smṛtau bāhū vyāmo nyagrodha ucyate | Vyāmena tucchrāyo yasya ata ūrdhvantu dehinah | Samocchrāyaḥ pariṇāho nyagrodhaparimaṇḍalaḥ ||*

c15.21.1

It is time now to explain the significance of the different units, *aṅgula* and *tāla*, in terms of which the height of the Indian images was measured. The former came to be regarded as a constituent of the latter and was more universal in its application, inasmuch as it was used not only in the measurement of the height as the *tāla* mainly was, but also was used in the other varieties of measurements referred to above. The term *aṅgula* served as a unit of measurement in India from very early times. In the first verse of the *Puruṣasūkta* (R. V., X. 90), the Puruṣa is described as covering the whole universe and at the same time outreaching it by 10 *aṅgulas* (*Sa bhūmiṃ viśvato vṛtvā atyatiṣṭhaddaśāṅgulam*). In the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (X. 2. 1, 2), the author says that Prajāpati measures the fire-altar by finger-breadths; for the sacrifice being a man, it is by means of him that everything is measured here; these fingers are his lowest measure (*tasyaiṣāvamā mātrā yadaṅgulayaḥ*) and the measurement is taken with the help of this lowest measure. The *Śulbasūtras*, which contain the rules for the construction of raised altars (*vedis* and *agnis*) used in the performance of *nitya* and *kāmya yajñas*, frequently refer to this unit in giving the measure of the different sections of the altars.¹ Three different kinds of *aṅgulas* are described in the iconometric texts of a comparatively late period; these are *mānāṅgula*, *mātrāṅgula* and *dehalabdhāṅgula*.

c15.21.2

The first is some sort of an absolute unit, it being derived from the width measurements of some natural objects. The *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* lays down that a mote in the sunbeam filtering through a lattice is known as *paramāṇu*. A *rajas* (a speck of dust) is made up of eight such *paramāṇus*; a *bālāgra* (the tip of one single hair), a *likṣā* (the egg of a louse), a *yūka* (a louse), a *yava* (barley-corn) and an *aṅgula* are each made up of eight units of its preceding object, a *bālāgra* measuring the same as eight particles of dust.² But this type of *aṅgula* could hardly have been used as the unit of measurement by the iconographers of ancient and mediæval India. The width of eight barley-corns placed side by side is far thicker than the same of the unit which was adopted by the artists in measuring the different sections of images. There is the second type of aṅgula known as mātrāṅgula or a unit of the relative type. This is arrived at on the basis of the length of the middle digit of the middle finger of either the sculptor or the architect, or of the rich devotee who causes a temple to be built or an image to be set up' (Rao). This relative measurement was perhaps adopted by the image-makers and the temple-builders for first ascertaining the height of a temple or an image, before they set to work out the other unit on the dehalabdha basis; but the latter, as I shall presently show, was principally adopted in the case of images alone.

c15.21.3

Another manner in which the mātrāṅgula was reached is referred to by the author of the Śukranītisāra; this is the fourth part of one's own fist (ch. IV, Sec. 4, Verse 82, Svasvamuṣṭeścaturtho'ṃśo hyaṅgulaṃ parikīrttitam). In the Pratimāmānalakṣaṇam edited by P. Bose, we find in the first line of the fourth verse practically the same definition of aṅgula (Pallavānāṃ caturbhāgo māpanāṅgulikā smṛtā). Here the word pallava is used in place of muṣṭi, pallava evidently meaning the palm of the hand (kara-pallava, cf. the use of the word in the same sense in the Raghuvaṃśa, III, 7—Lateva saṃnaddha-manojñapallava); the fourth part of one's fist and the same of the middle of one's palm are equal in measurement. But the question is whose palm or fist is it to be? Will it be that of the sculptor, the architect or of the rich devotee? The word sva in the Śukranītisāra passage is significant. The same word occurs in the first line of the fourth verse of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (ch. 57), where the author describes the length and the breadth of the face of an image; it reads— Svairaṅgulapramāṇairdvādaśa vistīrṇamāyataṃ ca mukham. Utpala's commentary on the above line is very interesting; for it gives us a sure clue to the meaning of the word sva. It reads—Yasmāt kāṣṭhāt pāṣāṇādikādvā pratimā kriyate taddairghyaṃ pīthapramāṇavarjitaṃ dvādaśabhāga-vibhaktam kṛtvā tatraiko bhāgo navadhā kāryaḥ so'ṅgula-sañjñā bhavati | Yasmādaṣṭādhikamaṅgulaśataṃ pratimā-pramāṇaṃ vakṣyati | Svairaṅgulapramānairiti |

c15.21.4

Pratimāyāḥ svairātmīyairaṅgulapramānairmukhaṃ vadanaṃ dvādaśāṅgulāni vistīrṇaṃ vipulamāyataṃ ca dīrgham kāryam.

c15.22

¹ 'A *vedi* is a raised altar on which the *yajña* was performed and on which sat the persons performing the ceremony, namely, the sacrificer, the Hotā, the Adhvaryu, the Ṛtvik, etc. An *agni* is an altar for keeping the fire'; J.I.S.O.A., Vol. VII, p. 39.

c15.23

² *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, Ch. 57, verses 1-2: *Jālāntarage bhānau yadaṇutaraṃ darśanam rajo yāti | Tadvindyāt paramāṇum prathamam taddhi pramāṇānām || Paramāṇurajobālāgralikṣāyūkam yavo'ṅgulam ceti | Aṣṭaguṇāni yathottaramaṅgu-lamekam bhavati saṅkhyā ||*

c15.24

It can be freely translated thus:—‘The term aṅgula is derived in this manner; first, the height of the block of wood or stone out of which the image is to be made, leaving aside that portion of it on which the pedestal is to be shown, should be divided into 12 equal parts; when one of the latter is again divided into 9 equal parts, each of these subdivisions is equivalent to the aṅgula unit, thus, the height of an image is 108 aṅgulas; lastly, the length and the breadth of the face of the image should be 12 such aṅgulas, i.e., the aṅgula of the image itself.’ This is really the dehalabdha aṅgula or dehāṅgula which certainly was the principal basis of the various kinds of image-measurements referred to above. But one remark can be made with regard to Utpala's manner of defining the term aṅgula. He says it is the 108th part of the measured material from which the image is to be made, only leaving out the pedestal (pīṭha). If by pīṭha, he means the stele (the pīṭhikā or piṇḍikā and prabhāvalī combined) of the image, then he is quite correct. But if he means only the pedestal, then some difficulty will arise; because, from the portion of the material without the pedestal not only the image itself, but also the śiraścakra (halo) of the image as well as the top section of the prabhāvalī was carved out. The basis of this dehalabdha aṅgula is also described in more or less the same way in several other texts. Thus, the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra says—Abhipretapramāṇantu navadhā pravibhājayet | Navame bhāskarairbhakter-bhāgaḥ svāṅgulamucyate, i.e., the desired length (of the image) should be divided 9 times, each of these divisions should again be subdivided 12 times (bhāskara—āditya—12 ādityas), one of these subdivisions is then called an aṅgula. The Nāradapurāṇa makes a similar statement in these lines:— Vimbamānantu navadhā procchrayāt saṃvibhājya vai | Bhāgaṃ bhāgaṃ tato bhūyo bhaveddvādaśadhā dvija | Tadaṅgulaṃ syādvimbasyeti.¹ In all the above texts the division into 108 parts (9 × 12) refers to navatāla images only, not to images of larger (daśatāla or uttamadaśatāla) or smaller (aṣṭatāla, saptatāla, etc.) proportions. That images measuring 108 aṅgulas of their own were the commonest ones in ancient India is proved by Varāhamihira’s observation that the figures of Rāma, the son of Daśaratha, and of Bali, the son of Virocana, should be 120 aṅgulas in height; the other groups of images belonging to the best, medium and inferior varieties are each less by 12 aṅgulas from its immediately preceding one, i.e., the best type of image should be less than 120 aṅgulas by 12, i.e., 108 aṅgulas, the medium one 12 aṅ. less than 108 (i.e., 96) and the inferior one 84 aṅ.² The Vaikhānāsāgama (ch. 22) supplies us with further interesting information in this connection; it lays down: Berotsedhaṃ tattālavaśena

c15.25

¹ Both the above extracts are from Haribhaktivilāsa, vilāsa 18. The Agnipuraṇa says the same thing in the couplet—Śilāṃ śilpī tu navadhā vibhājya nava-me’ṃśake | Sūrpa (should be Sūrya)-bhaktaḥ śilāyāṃ bhāgaṃ svāṅgulamucyate. It should be noted that pramāṇa in the Hayaśīrṣa extract means length or height; but the words māna and ucchraya (or ucchrāya) in the Nāradapurāṇa passage are appropriately used.

c15.26

² Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 57, v. 30; Daśarathatanayo Rāmo Balīśca vairocaniḥ śataṃ viṃśam | Dvādaśahānyā śeṣāḥ pravarasamanyūnaparimāṇāḥ. Utpala’s commentary on it is worth quoting: Daśarathaputro Rāmaḥ | Virocanaputraśca Balīḥ | Viṃśatyadhikamaṅgulaśataṃ kāryamityarthaḥ | Anyāḥ pratimā dvādaśakadvādasakahīnatvena pravarasamā nyūnaparimāṇāḥ bhavanti | Viṃśatyadhikāṅgulaśatāddvādaśāṅgulānyapāsyaṣṭadhikaṃ śatamaṅgulānāṃ pratimā pradhānā bhavati | Tato’pi dvādaśakamapāsya ṣaṇṇavatyaṅgulasamā madhyamā bhavati | Tato’pi dvādaśakamapāsya caturaśītyaṅgulā nyūnaparimāṇā pratimā bhavati | Svairaṅgulapramāṇairdvādaśavistīrṇamāyataṃ ca mukham’-ityanena nyāyena yā pratimoktā sāṣṭāṅgulaṃ śatamadhikaṃ bhavati | Yadatroktam “Daśarathatanayo Rāmo Balīśca vairocaniḥ śataṃ viṃśam” ityasmin dvādaśānāmaṅgulānāmadhikānāṃ tairadhikena parimāṇaḥ kāryaḥ sarvāvayavānām | Evaṃ hīnatve ’pyanupāta evetyanuktam jñāyata iti.

c15.27

It may be incidentally remarked here that an image of Bali the demon king is mentioned along with that of Dāśarathi Rāma, one of the incarnatory forms of Viṣṇu. But Bali’s image was an object of veneration to the devout Vaiṣṇavas, for he was one of the greatest devotees of Vāsudeva-Viṣṇu. This is the reason why the images of the Ālvārs and the Nāyanmārs were so very frequently given important positions in South Indian Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva shrines respectively.

c15.28

vibhājyaikaṃśaṃ dehalabhāṅgulaṃ tadaṣṭāṃśaṃ yavamiti i.e., one part (unit) arrived at by dividing the whole height of the image according to its tāla is a dehalabhāṅgula, while one-eighth part of the latter is a yava. It means that if the image be a daśatāla one, then 1/120th part of it is its aṅgula, and if an aṣṭatāla one, 1/96th part of it is its aṅgula and so on. In the light of the above observation, Fleet's criticism of the term svena = svamānena is not applicable in the case of iconometry; he writes: 'As regards the expression sva-mānena, it stands to reason that the measures must be taken according to an aṅgula or cubit which is of a fixed standard length, not according to the varying finger-breadths and cubits of individuals who are to be measured' (J.R.A.S., 1911, pp. 208-09). Again, higher units of length measurement used in texts, such as kiṣku, prājāpatya, etc., have no place in iconometry; these are undoubtedly the derivatives of mānāṅgula.¹ But the iconometric texts especially of a comparatively late period frequently use various synonyms of an aṅgula of the relative variety and of its higher multiples; it may be noted that many of these synonyms are of a figurative nature. Thus, a space of an aṅgula is called indu (moon—and there is one moon), of two aṅgulas, akṣi and pakṣa (two eyes and two fortnights), of three aṅgulas, agni (sacrificial fire of three kinds: gārha-patya, āhavanīya and dakṣiṇa), rāma (three Rāmas: Dāśarathi, Bhārgava and Balarāma), guṇa (three guṇas: sattva, rajas and tamas) etc.²

c15.29

¹ The following is the measure:— 24 aṅgulas or mānāṅgulas make 1 kiṣku 25 ,, ,, ,, 1 prājāpatya 26 ,, ,, ,, 1 dhanurgraha 27 ,, ,, ,, 1 dhanurmuṣṭi 4 dhanurmuṣṭis ,, ,, 1 daṇḍa. Rao correctly remarks that 'the measure called daṇḍa is employed in ascertaining large lengths like that, for instance, of a street in a village'; Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, App. B., p. 2.

c15.30

² The Vaikhānasāgama supplies us with the following list:—1 aṅgula=mūrti, indu, viśvambharā, mokṣa, ukta; 2 aṅgulas=kalā, golaka, aśvinī, yugma, brāhmaṇa, vihaga, akṣi, pakṣa; 3 aṅgulas=agni, rudrākṣi (three eyes of Rudra), guṇa, arṇa, kāla, śūla, rāma, varga, madhya; 4 aṅgulas=veda, pratiṣṭhā, jāti, kara, abjajānana (4 faces of Brahmā, born of lotus), yuga, tūrya, turīya; 5 aṅgulas=viṣaya, indriya,

c15.31

I have already suggested that the other relative *aṅgula* unit (*viz.*, that based on the width of the middle digit of the medius of either the sculptor, architect or the rich devotee) might have been sometimes first adopted for ascertaining the height of the image and then the second variety of *mātrāṅgula* was worked out for the detailed measurements; but this was done on rare occasions when the images were life-size ones. There was another mode of first settling the full height of the image. Varāhamihira tells us that an image measuring one cubit (*hasta*) in height is auspicious, one two cubits high bestows riches, and those images that are three or four cubits in height ensure benefit and plenty.¹ This shows that another unit of measurement, a higher one, was also adopted by the image-makers in fixing the required height of the image. The height of those images which were meant to be enshrined in temples was also based on the same of the door of the particular temple. Thus, Varāhamihira informs us that the height of the pedestal of the image should be three parts of the height of the shrine door less the eighth part, when the latter is divided into eight parts, and the height of the image should be twice that of the pedestal.² The author,

c15.32

¹ Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 57, v. 49: *Saumyā tu hastamātrā vasudhā hastadvayocchṛtā pratimā | Kṣemasubhikṣāya bhavet tricatur-hastapramāṇā yā*. Here the use of the word *pramāṇa* is to be noted; it means height or length measurement.

c15.33

² Bṛhatsaṃhitā, ch. 57, v. 3: *Devāgāradvārasyāṣṭāṃśonasya yastṛtiyo'mśaḥ | Tatpiṇḍikāpramāṇam pratimā taddviguṇaparimāṇā ||*

c15.34

*bhūta*, *iṣu*, *supratiṣṭhā*, *pṛthivī*; 6 *aṅgulas* = *karma*, *aṅga*, *rasa*, *samaya*, *gāyatrī*, *kṛttikā*, *kumārānana* (six faces of Kumāra or Skanda-Kārttikeya), *kauśika*, *ṛtu*; 7 *aṅgulas* = *pātāla*, *muni* (seven *ṛṣis*), *dhātu*, *loka*, *uṣṇik*, *rohiṇī*, *dvīpa*, *aṅga*, *ambhonidhi*; 8 *aṅgulas* = *lokapāla* (Aṣṭadikpālas, the guardians of the eight quarters), *nāga*, *uraga*, *vasu*, *anuṣṭup*, *gaṇa*; 9 *aṅgulas* = *bṛhati*, *graha* (navagrahas), *randhra* (*navadvāra*, the 9 doors or orifices of the body), *Nanda* (Nava nandāḥ, the nine Nanda Kings of Magadha), *sūtra*; 10 *aṅgulas* = *dik*, *prādurbhāva*, *nāḍī*, *paṅkti*; 11 *aṅgulas* = *rudra* (Ekādaśa Rudras), *triṣṭup*; 12 *aṅgulas* = *vitasti*, *mukha*, *tāla*, *yama*, *arka* (Sūrya—Āditya), *rāśi*, *jagatī*; 13 *aṅgulas* = *atijagatī*; 14 *aṅgulas* = *manu*, *śakvarī*; 15 *aṅ.* = *atiśakvarī*, *tithi*; 16 *aṅ.* = *kriyā*, *aṣṭi*, *indukalā*; 17 *aṅ.* = *atyaṣṭi*; 18 *aṅ.* = *smṛti*, *dhṛti*; 19 *aṅ.* = *atidhṛti*; 20 *aṅ.* = *kṛti*; 21 *aṅ.* = *prakṛti*; 22 *aṅ.* = *ākṛti*; 23 *aṅ.* = *vikṛti*; 24 *aṅ.* = *saṃskṛti*; 25 *aṅ.* = *atikṛti*; 26 *aṅ.* = *utkṛti*; 27 *aṅ.* = *nakṣatra* (there are 27 stars or constellations—Aśvinī, Bharaṇī, Kṛttikā, Rohiṇī, etc.). Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, App. B, pp. 59-60; a few errors emended here have crept in Rao's translation of this part of the Vaikhānasāgama, ibid., pp. 3-4.

c15.35

however, is a little roundabout in his manner of referring to the height of the image and its pedestal. Another simpler way of fixing it in relation to the shrine door is mentioned in the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra*; it says that the measure of the height of the door (shrine door) should be divided into 8 equal parts; two of these parts should constitute the height of the image and one part of it divided into three parts, the height of the pedestal, which should be neither too high nor too low.¹ It is to be noted that the surface of the pedestal should be square, its length and breadth measuring the same as the height of the image proper, according to some texts, but its height should be half the height of the image.² The above details generally apply to the *dhruva-beras* (in the case of Viṣṇu images) or *acala* variety of images (they may also be applicable to *calācala* variety).³ The *Matsyapurāṇa* distinctly says that those images which are meant for worship in the private chapels of the house-holders should never measure more than a digit of the thumb or a *vitasti* (one span) at the utmost, while those that are to be enshrined in palaces, *i.e.*, temples, should measure not more than 1/16th part of the whole height of the latter; one should make an image up to this height (this is the *uttama* or best class) or less than it (of the *madhyama*, *i.e.*, middling, or *kaniṣṭha*, *i.e.*, the lowest class) according to his means, but on no account should the image measure more than 1/16th part of the full height of the shrine.¹

c15.36

¹ *Hayaśīrṣa* as quoted by Gopala Bhatta: *Dvārocchrāyasya yanmāna-maṣṭadhā tattu kārayet | Bhāgadvayena pratimām tribhāgīkṛtvā tat punaḥ | Piṇḍikā bhāgataḥ kāryā nātinīcā nacocchritā* || But the *Matsyapurāṇa* (ch. 258, vv. 24-25) with the addition of one line to the above supplies us with the information identical with that given by the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*; after the first line *dvārocchrāyasya*, etc., is placed—*Bhāgamekam tatastyaktvā pariśiṣṭantu yad bhavet*; then follow two lines similar to the above quoted from the *Hayaśīrṣa*.

c15.37

² *Nāradapañcarātra*, as quoted by Gopala Bhatta: *Vimbamānād yathā pīṭham kuryād devasya tacchṛṇu | Caturasram ca tad viddhi caturasrāyatam tu vā | Vimbocchrāyasamam pīṭham paritaścaiva vistṛtam | Tadarddhenonnatam kuryādetat sāmānyalakṣaṇam* ||

c15.38

³ Rao refers to one of the modes of classifying the images, *viz.*, *cala* (movable), *acala* (immovable, permanently placed in shrines) and *calācala* (which is permanently enshrined, but can also be removed on ceremonial occasions); *op. cit.*, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 17.

c15.39

¹ *Matsyapurāṇa*, ch. 258, vv. 22-3: *Aṅguṣṭhaparvvādārabhya vitastiṃ yāvadeva tu | Gṛhe vai pratimā kāryā nādhikā śasyate budhaiḥ || Aṣoḍaśāttu prāsādaiḥ karttavyā nādhikā tataḥ | Madhyottamaṃkaniṣṭhā tu kāryā vittānusārataḥ*

c15.40

A few more words about the word *tāla*, already described by me as a higher unit of which the *aṅgula* became a constituent, need be said here. The Vaikhānāsāgama informs us that a *tāla* is constituted of 12 *aṅgulas* and has as its various synonyms such terms as *vitasti*, *mukha*, *yama*, *arka*, *rāśi* and *jagatī*; of these, however, *vitasti* and *mukha* are more frequent in use. Thus, the *Pratimāmānalakṣaṇa* (3) says, ‘ (a unit of) 12 *aṅgulas* is known as a *tāla*, *vitasti* or *mukha* ’ (*Dvādaśāṅgulitālaṃ ca vitastīrmukhameva ca*). The *mukha* as well as *vitasti* is 12 *aṅgulas*; *vitasti* is the distance between the extended thumb and little finger, which is the same as the length of the middle of the extended palm (Pl. VI, figs. 2 & 3). The *Matsyapurāṇa* uses the word *mukha* in the passage *Svakīyāṅgulimānena mukhaṃ syāddvādaśāṅgulam*, i.e., the *mukha* or the face of the image (equivalent to a *tāla*) should be 12 *aṅgulas* of its own; the text further states that the measurement of the height of the other limbs should be in terms of the measure of its face (*Mukhamānena karttavyā sarvvāvayavakalpanā*, ch. 258, v. 19). The author of the *Purāṇa* then lays down the whole height of the image as follows: The whole image should be divided into 9 parts in terms of its face-length; the neck should be 4 *aṅgulas*, the chest (from the bottom of the neck to the same of the breast), 1 *bhāga* (i.e., *mukha* or *tāla*); (the space) from the chest to the navel, 1 *bhāga*; from the navel to the (top of the) organ, 1 *bhāga*; the thighs are two *bhāgas* and the patella of the knee, 4 *aṅgulas*; the legs (from below the knee to the top of the feet) measure two *bhāgas* in height, the feet being four *aṅgulas* high.² The full height of the image as given in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā is exactly the same. Thus in verse 4 (ch. 57) we are told that the face-length is 12 aṅgulas; verse 5 tells us that the neck measures 4 aṅgulas; then in verses 16 and 17, the heights of the other parts of the body are given.¹ A glance at Plate VI, Fig. 1 will show the distribution of the height of an image measuring 108 of its own aṅgula and it should be noted that the part above the keśarekhā (hair-line) is not included in it. It is noteworthy that in none of the above texts, the word tāla is mentioned, though in the Matsyapurāṇa a brief reference is made to the daśatāla images of Rāma (Dāśarathi), Bali the son of Virocana, Varāha and Narasimha, and the saptatāla image of Vāmana.² One should refer in this connection to the uttama, madhyama and adhama daśatāla and several other varieties of the other tāla measurements like navārddha tāla, uttama navatāla, satryaṅgula navatāla, navatāla, aṣṭatāla, saptatāla, etc., as mentioned in such texts as the Vaikhānāśagama, Kāraṇāgama, Śilparatna and others. The Vaikhānāśagama says that images of Viṣṇu, Brahmā and Śiva should be made according to the uttamadaśatāla (124 aṅgulas), of Śrī, Bhūmi, Umā, and Sarasvatī, according to madhyamadaśatāla (120 aṅgulas), of Indra and other Lokapālas, Sūrya, Candra and the twelve Ādityas, the eleven Rudras, the eight Vasus, the Aśvins, Bhṛgu, Mārkaṇḍeya, Garuḍa, Śeṣa, Durgā, Guha (Kārttikeya) and the seven Ṛṣis, according to the adhamadaśatāla (116 aṅ.) measurement; the lord of the Yakṣas (Kubera), the Navagrahas, and other deities should measure navārdhatāla (114 aṅ.), while the lords of the Daityas,

c15.41

² *Matsyapurāṇa*, ch. 258, vv. 26-29: *Pratimāmukhamānena navabhāgān prakalpayet | Caturaṅgulā bhaved grīvā bhāgena hṛdayam punaḥ || Nābhistasmād adhaḥ kāryā bhāgaikena śobhanā | Nābheradhastathā meḍhram bhāgenaikena kalpayet | Dvibhāgenāyatāvūrū jānunī caturaṅgule || Jaṅghe dvibhāge vikhyāte*

c15.42

¹ Kaṇṭhāddvādaśa hṛdayam hṛdayānnābhi ca tatpramāṇena | Nābhimadhyānmeḍhrāntaram ca tattulyamevoktam || Urū cāṅgulamānaiścaturyutā viṃśatistathā jaṅghe | Jānukapicche caturaṅgule ca pādau tattulyau. |

c15.43

² Ch. 259, vv. 1-2—Daśatālaḥ smṛto Rāmo Balirvairocanistathā || Vārāho Nārasimhaśca saptatālastu Vāmanaḥ. The Bṛhatsaṃhitā also, as I have already shown, refers to the 120 aṅgula image of Dāśarathi Rāma and Vairocani Bali, but does not use the word tāla.

c15.44

pādau ca caturaṅgulau. The sum-total of the above is just 108 aṅgulas; the height of the skull or scalp is not included in the above for the reason that it is generally put inside some sort of a crown or head gear, which according to the same authority is 14 aṅgulas high (Caturddaśāṅgulastadvanmaulirasya prakīrtitaḥ).

c15.45

Yakṣas (again mentioned) and the Uragas (Nāgas) as well as the Siddhas, Gandharvvas and Cāraṇas should be uttama-navatāla (112 aṅ.) high; the figures of those men who are equal to gods (devakalpamanujas, perhaps the same as the mahāpuruṣas) should measure satryaṅgula-navatāla (111 aṅ.) and those of Rākṣasas, Indras, Asuras, navatāla (108 aṅ.); aṣṭatāla (96 aṅ.) is prescribed for men, saptatāla (84 aṅ.) for Vetālas, ṣaṭtāla (72 aṅ.) for pretas, pañcatāla (60 aṅ.) for hunchbacks, catustāla (48 aṅ.) for dwarfs, tritāla (36 aṅ.) for Bhūtas and Kinnaras, dvitāla (24 aṅ.) for Kuṣmāṇḍas (? Kumbhāṇḍas) and ekatāla (12 aṅ.) for Kabandhas.¹

c15.46

¹ T. A. G. Rao, op. cit., Vol. I, App. B., p. 61. The text further says that each of the above tāla measurements has three varieties, viz., uttama, madhyama and adhama (teṣāṃ pratyekamuttamamadhyamādhamabhedāni bhavanti), it being understood that the first and the last varieties are respectively 4 aṅgulas more and 4 aṅgulas less than the middle one which is normal. Śrī-Kumāra gives us a very detailed account of all these different tāla measurements and their sub-varieties (Śilparatna, T. S. S., Vol. II, pp. 34-76); about eka-, dvi-, and tri-tāla images, it is simply mentioned, ‘Tridvyekatālameyānāṃ pratimānāṃ vicakṣaṇaḥ | Aṅgopāṅgādimānāni pronnayet pūrvaśāstrataḥ’ The text enjoins that images of Gaṇapati (Vighneśa) should be made according to the uttama-pañcatāla or madhyama-pañcatāla measurements, some details of which are also appended. Rao has fully utilised this text in his work on iconometry (Tālamāna, M.A.S.I., 3).

c15.47

It has already been shown that neither the earliest datable work on iconometry now extant, viz., the earlier portion of Chap. 57 of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā, nor Utpala’s commentary on it explicitly refers to the word tāla or its equivalents. Kāśyapa also, as quoted at some length by Utpala, is silent about it (Bṛhatsaṃhitā, pp. 776-78). The Pratimālakṣaṇam (edited by me, C. U. Press, 1932) follows these earlier works and does not mention the word tāla. But most of the other works dealing with iconometry, which cannot be given a very early date, not only use it but also record very intricate details about it. Does it prove that tāla as a higher unit in iconometry was a comparatively late introduction, the earlier mode of distinguishing the well-known varieties of measurements being in terms of the lower unit, the aṅgula? I cannot help quoting the following lines from Gopinath Rao for elucidating my point: “The reader would be inclined to believe that the phrases daśatāla, pañcatāla and ekatāla mean lengths equal to ten, five and one tāla respectively, but unfortunately this interpretation does not seem to agree with the actual measurements; for example, the total length of an image made according to the uttama-daśatāla measurement is 124 aṅgulas and the tāla of this image measures 13½ aṅgulas; dividing the total length by the length of the tāla we find that there are only 9 tālas in it; again, the total length of a catustāla image is 48 aṅgulas and its tāla is 8 aṅgulas and therefore there are 6 tālas in this set of proportions" (Rao, Tālamāna or Iconometry, p. 35). His authority as regards his assertion about the length of the tāla in the above cases is the āgama literature (cf. his table, op. cit., pp. 36-37). He could not offer any satisfactory explanation of this discrepancy, his only remark being 'there is no etymological significance clearly visible in the names given to the various proportions.' It is possible that originally there was never a tāla unit of such varying measurements as laid down in the later āgamic literature; over and above the smaller aṅgula unit, a higher one computed in terms of aṅgula was known (used in differentiating between the pravara, sama and nyūna images of Varāhamihira). This larger unit was composed of 12 aṅgulas, but was not referred to as a tāla in the earlier texts. It is a pity that Nagnajit's work on iconography and iconometry (Pratimālakṣaṇa) has not been discovered as yet and there is no knowing whether the 14 aṅgulas lengthwise measurement of the face was ever described as a tāla. Thus it is quite likely that the tāla of different mesaurements was a comparatively late feature in the iconometrical system of India. The earlier method of arriving at the smaller and higher units was a much simpler and practical one. This view of mine is further supported by the fact that in all the texts, both early and late, this unit of 12 aṅgulas is the basis of calculation, when it is made in terms of a higher unit. Varying face-lengths in different types of images as recorded in the comparatively late iconometric texts were never mentioned in them as the higher unit on the basis of which the images were to be measured.

c15.48

W. S. Hadaway explains *tāla* (he writes ‘thalam meaning a short span’) and *aṅgula* in a slightly different way. According to him, the actual image in order to be made in accordance with one definite system, should have its total height divided into one of five different sets of proportions, *viz.*, 10, 9, 8, 7 or 5 equal parts of the whole height, *i.e.*, *daśa*, *nava*, *aṣṭa*, *sapta* or *pañca tālas* respectively; the *tāla* is now divided into 12 equal parts, each part being termed an *aṅgula*, which is again divided into 8 equal parts called *yavas* for the purpose of more minute measurements. For still more minute measurements, the *yavas* may be again subdivided, but it is seldom necessary in practice.¹ It is clear, however, on the authority of the earliest datable text that the lower limit was derived independently of the higher one at an early age. It may be observed here that Hadaway based his conclusions not only on comparatively late South Indian texts but also on the actual method followed by the modern South Indian *sthapatis*.

c15.49

¹ W. S. Hadaway, ‘Some Hindu Śilpaśāstras,’ O.Z., 1914, p. 37.

c15.50

I have already shown that several early iconometric texts record the length of the face as equal to its width, both being 12 *aṅgulas*. But there was the Dravidian measure in which the length of the face was two *aṅgulas* more than its width, the former being 14 *aṅgulas* and the latter 12. Varāhamihira mentions the name of Nagnajit, who recorded this *Drāviḍa māna* in two verses of his chapter on *Pratimā-lakṣaṇam*, the first of which with Utpala’s commentary on it has already been quoted by me in p. 28. In the second verse we are informed that according to Nagnajit the length or height of the face of the image with the hair on its head should be 16 *aṅgulas* (*Asyaṃ sakeśanicayaṃ ṣoḍaśa dairghyeṇa Nagnajitproktam*, ch. 57, v. 15); Utpala supplies us with the line from Nagnajit’s work in his commentary (*Tathā ca Nagnajit—Dvyaṅgulā keśarekhaivaṃ mukhaṃ syāt ṣoḍaśāṅgulam*). The length of the face of an image of the *uttamadaśatāla* variety, as laid down in the various South Indian texts like *Kāraṇāgama*, *Kāmikāgama*, Vaikhānasāgama and Śilparatna, is also 13½ to 14 aṅgulas (according to the first two, 14 and according to the last two 13½, if we include the measurement of the small fleshy fold below the chin in it).¹ The above fact proves that the longer facial type was in vogue in South Indian iconographic art from a very early time. An interesting comparison of the Drāviḍa measure can be made with the face-length of the Buddha image as laid down in the *Pratimālakṣaṇam*. This text says that the face of the Buddha image should be 13½ aṅgulas long and it should be divided into 3 parts, *viz.*, the forehead, the portion beneath it down to the bottom of the nose, and thence to the end of the chin. The forehead, like the nose, should be 4 aṅgulas, the portion below the nose down to the end of the chin should be a little in excess (½ aṅgulas according to the Chinese translation of the text and 1½ according to its Sanskrit original).² But the *Kriyā-samuccaya*, which includes a sort of a commentary on the above text on Buddhist iconometry, expressly says that the length of each of the three parts of the face is 4½ aṅgulas. Reference may be made here, in *passim*, to the face-length of the *Mālavya* type of men as referred to by Varāhamihira. The length of the face of this type of men should be 13 aṅgulas; the passage—*pañcāṣṭau corddhvamā-syam*—has been commented on by Utpala in the following way:—*pañca ca aṣṭau ca pañcāṣṭau trayodaśāṅgulāni | Ūrdhvamāsyamūrdhvādhamānenāsyam civukāllalāṭāntam yāvat trayodaśāṅgulam bhavati*. It should be noted, however, that though the full height of the Buddha image according to the above Buddhist text nearly corresponds to the same of an image of the *uttamadaśatāla* type (the former measures 125 *aṅgulas* in height, thus being only 1 *aṅgula* in excess of the height of the latter), the height of a *Mālavya* type is only 108 *aṅgulas*.

First 59 of 78 passages. Read on

Cites (16)