The Development of Hindu Iconography c8.24

c8.24

the painter) and Takṣaka (the engraver, the stone-mason, etc.), respectively. Of these four, the position of the first, i.e., the Sthapati, was the most important, and he was the teacher of the other three; the next in point of importance was Sūtragrāhī who was the preceptor of the remaining two, and so on. The first was well-versed in all the śāstras, the Sūtragrāhī in draughtsmanship, the Varddhaki in the rules of proportions (mānakarmajña) and the Takṣaka was an adept in chiselling and engraving.¹ The very name Sthapati shows that he was fit for founding everything (sthāpanāyā-rhaḥ), and as he was sthāpanādhipati, so he was called Sthapati; Sūtragrāhī and others always worked carefully under his orders and according to rules laid down in the Vāstuśāstras. There are four orders of śilpīs, viz., Sthapati and the other three; of these the first is characterised by the signs of an ācārya, the second is well-informed about śruti, the lines and the śāstras, the third is the possessor of good judgment, versed in the śrutis and citrakarma (work of painting, etc.), while the last, that is, Takṣaka, is adept in his work, cultured, balabandhu ² and merciful. The śrutiśāstra (treatises about śilpa, māna, etc.) should be full of all details (sarvalakṣaṇam), and that cannot be acquired in this world by anybody without the help of an artist or a preceptor (vinā śilpi vinā gurum); as the knowledge of this śāstra is unobtainable without the aid of a śilpin, it should be learnt from him. If the knowledge thus acquired is not put to any use, (its possessor) attains neither enjoyment nor salvation. The above, a free translation of Mānasāra (Acharya's edition), pp. 3-4, verses 1-19, shows how the author systematises the tradition about the origin and evolution of art through some mythical names, making it contemporaneous with creation itself. The other interesting point to be noted here is the relative importance which is assigned by the writer to the four different orders of artists and the highest position allocated to the architect. Scholars have always observed how the architectural art was the most important branch of all arts in ancient and mediaeval India; thus Grünwedel remarks, "The sculpture of ancient India . . . remained simply decorative and always connected with architecture" (*Buddhist Art*, pp. 1-2). Coomaraswamy says, "In the Gupta period the image has taken its place in architecture; becoming necessary, it loses its importance, and enters into the general decorative scheme, and in this integration acquires delicacy and repose" (*HIIA*, p. 71). In the above passages from *Mānasāra* we have a textual corroboration of what was known from a careful study of the ancient and mediaeval Indian art forms. It is to be noted, however, that in later period the art of sculpture asserted itself to a great extent. Resting as before on architectural art for its greater display, it became so profuse and abundant that it tended to smother and overshadow the lines and forms in architecture. This tendency is amply illustrated in the mediaeval temples of Abu and other places.