Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c32.9

c32.9

The transcendentalism which is the essential character of true Indian art, is not of late classic origin. That is not, of course, to say that Classic influence was non-existent, but that its limits have not been defined, and that its importance has been over-rated. It would be idle to deny that the Gandhāra and the Amarāvati sculptures exhibit the results of the strongest classical influence. The Greek influence at Sānchi, Barāhat, and Mahābodhi is much less evident. It is, however, true to say that the early schools are compounded of Assyrian, Persian, Hellenistic and Indian elements. The point is not that classic influence was absent, but that it was itself decadent, and at best un-Indian, and that nearly all that is good in later Indian art is there in spite of it. Of course, if it be said, as Mr. Vincent Smith‡ says, that “After A.D. 300 Indian sculpture properly so-called hardly deserves to be reckoned as The main outlines are thus quite clear. The more detailed aspects of the question may also be considered, without laying undue stress on minor points. More than the merely negative evidence of the absence of surviving work in stone would be needed to convince an unprejudiced student that in India alone, the Aryans possessed their share of all Early Aryan culture, except the power and the will to shape a log or mould clay into the forms of human or divine beings.