The Buddhist Art of Gandhara: The Story of the Early School, its Birth, Growth and Decline c17: Chapter 11. Later Maturity Period: Images and Decorative Carvings

The Buddhist Art of Gandhāra: The Story of the Early School, its Birth, Growth and Decline c17

Language: English

Chapter 11. Later Maturity Period: Images and Decorative Carvings

No form of art is so conservative as sacred art, and nothing in that art more conservative than the cult image. This is true of the sacred art of all ages and in all parts of the world, and the Graeco-Buddhist art of Gandhāra was no exception to the rule. But even in images of the Buddha and of the Bodhisattvas changes and modifications are visible which after the fixation of the orthodox types continue to reflect the changing fashions. Such changes are well exemplified in fig. 131. Compare it, for example, with fig. 111, which dates from the Early Maturity Period. Anyone not very familiar with Gandhāra art might readily take these two statues to be of the same age and school, but that fig. 131 in reality is referable to a substantially later period than fig. 111 is clear from several features; for, whereas the Buddha in fig. 111 is wearing a moustache and has his eyes wide open and his hair taken back from the forehead over the uṣṇīṣa, in fig. 131 he has no moustache, the eyes are half-closed and the hair is dressed in tight little ringlets. Apart, too, from these significant features, there is a notable difference in the general style of the two statues, that of fig. 111 being free and unconstrained—the work of a sculptor with an innate sense for simple rhythmic form; while that of fig. 131 is tight, laboured and self-conscious—the work of a craftsman rather than an artist, who, like many of his contemporaries, was showing off his skill in the mechanical excellence and precision of his carving. Should any doubt still exist as to the age of this image, it is completely set at rest by the figural relief adorning its base. Such figural reliefs on the pedestals of statues did not come into fashion until the middle of the second century A.D., and to judge by its style this particular relief can hardly be earlier than the last quarter of that century.

c17.5

Only in one particular, namely in the facial features, does this image display any real individuality. There is nothing, of course, exceptional in the half-closed eyes, with their suggestion of other-worldliness, which convention now required, but there is something definitely exceptional in the half-sulky and very undistinguished expression on the face, very different from the calm and placid look which usually characterizes the Buddha’s images of this period and which is strikingly exemplified in the figures that follow (figs. 132-5). Of these, fig. 132 has been much publicized. Foucher, who in my view exaggerated its merits, wrote of it as ‘the most beautiful, and probably also the most ancient of the Buddhas, which it has ever been granted to me to encounter’,¹ and he assigned it to the first century B.C., that is, to a date some two centuries earlier than the actual one. Unquestionably the shapely, graceful head of this image, with its firmly modelled features and subtle smile, is a fine bit of work. But it cannot be pretended that there is anything particularly spiritual in its expression, nor, as regards the rest of the statue, does it show any superiority over many other images of this period, either in the general proportions of the figure or in the technical skill displayed in the draping and finishing of the monk’s robe. Indeed, the modelling of the ankles and feet is more than usually clumsy, though this is a blemish shared by many otherwise commendable statues both of this and earlier periods.

c17.6

¹ *Beginnings of Buddhist Art*, trans. by L. A. Thomas and F. W. Thomas, p. 119 and pl. XI, 2.

c17.7

In the second volume of *L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra*, M. Foucher gives the place of honour in the frontispiece to another Buddha statue of the same type and no doubt from the same atelier as fig. 132, but the work of a less gifted sculptor. Luckily this statue, which was found at Chārsada and is now in the Lahore Museum, has its base adorned with a figural bas-relief identical in style with the one on fig. 131, and, like it, referable to the latter part of the second century A.D., thus confirming the date already arrived at on other grounds.

c17.8

Among the countless images of the Buddha dating from this period there were, needless to say, many differing varieties produced by the many ateliers in Gandhāra. To the two examples of these varieties described above space allows me to add only three more (figs. 133-6). One of them is the gentle, benevolent, homely-looking figure illustrated in fig. 133, where the Buddha is shown with three of the Kāśyapa brothers, who can be recognized, as in fig. 115, by the pointed garment (here reaching to the ground) of the figure on the right. In this statue observe that the hair is taken back from the forehead over the *uṣṇīṣa*, as in the older statues and as in figs. 134 and 135; and observe, too, the character of the scroll pattern on the base of this statue which is found on other pieces of the same period.

c17.9

Of a wholly different character and of a somewhat later date are the two images, one standing and the other seated, illustrated in figs. 134 and 135. With their well-rounded forms and smooth, pretty faces, these uninspired images fall into line with the conventional *devas* and *devis* so peculiarly characteristic of this period, but it goes without saying that cult images of this kind, which are fashioned in accordance with the strict canonical rules of the Church, are inevitably more set and formal in their expression than other figures, whether celestial or terrestrial, executed by the same artist. The standing image has lost its base, but the line of *Dhyāni*-Buddhas seated under leafy canopies and supported by worshippers which adorns the base of the seated image (fig. 135) is a sure proof of its late date.

c17.10

By the side of the broad and fleshy frames of the two foregoing images, fig. 136, with its slender torso, relatively narrow shoulders and demure-looking countenance, presents an almost effeminate appearance. Its date must lie very near to the close of the Later Maturity Period, between about A.D. 220 and 230. Evidence of this late date is afforded by the squarish shape of the projecting knees, which at this time was becoming more and more marked, but still more by the figures on the base, which, instead of forming a separate panel as in figs. 131 or 135, now play their part directly in front of the drapery of the throne itself as if an integral part of it. This method of treating subsidiary reliefs is an indubitable sign of their late date.

c17.11

When we turn from the Buddha to the Bodhisattva images, we are at once struck by the stylishness and superlatively fine workmanship which distinguish the vast majority of the latter. Among the most noteworthy types is that represented by figs. 137 and 138, the former a statue of Maitreya from the Moḥrā Morādu Monastery at Taxila, the latter a fragment only which was at one time in the Guides' Mess at Mardān. All the Bodhisattvas are princely figures, attired in princely robes and wearing a wealth of jewellery shown in meticulous detail. But in the figures of this particular group there is a certain dandyism and swagger which shows itself not only in their personal bearing and waved moustaches, but in the cut of their dress and in the pointed, well-folded hems of their skirts. Fig. 138 comprises only the head and shoulders, but I have thought it worth including it here because it shows up so clearly the details of the ornaments and the beauty of the chiselling, as clean-cut and precise as could be found in any school of sculpture, East or West.

c17.12

Another group of these images of a notably different style is represented by figs. 139 and 140, the former from Sahrī-Bahlol and now in the Peshāwar Museum, the latter in the Lahore Museum. This group was a large one and survived well on into the third century, showing increasing evidence of deterioration up to the last. All wear the same princely attire and ornaments, but their demeanour is simple and unassuming, without affectation or dandyism. One of the earliest and best is fig. 139, which, like so many cult statues of this period, represents the Bodhisattva Maitreya, as a symbol of whom he holds a flask (*kamaṇḍalu*) in his left hand. The eyes, like those of the Buddha, are half-closed, the moustache small and unobtrusive, the torso relatively slim and shapely. Evidence of date is furnished by the drapery, and particularly by the pleated and scalloped border of the skirt, and still more precisely by the figural relief on the pedestal, of which there are many close parallels.

c17.13

Of the melancholy process of decline through which this group of images passed towards the close of this period dozens of examples might be cited. We must content ourselves with one (fig. 140). In this example, the essential traits are virtually the same: the half-closed eyes, the turbanless head, the ostentatious jewellery, the *kamaṇḍalu*, and the drapery; but the face is flabby and undistinguished, the torso fat and heavy, the legs and arms wooden, the drapery less graceful than it had been. And observe that the halo is now rimmed with triangular rays, that there is a second underskirt beneath the normal one, and that the relief on the pedestal (the worship of the Buddha’s bowl) also gives the measure of decaying art.

c17.14

Of yet another style and certainly of earlier date than the last is the image of Siddhārtha meditating in the shade of the Jambu tree at the Ploughing Festival (fig. 141). The festival is represented on the face of the pedestal by a ploughman and his yoke of oxen on the right, with three robed figures at prayer in incense burner to the left. The intimate connexion between this panel and the Bodhisattva is shown by the way the sculptor has allowed the drapery to fall over the top of the panel: as if making it an integral part of itself. The figure of the young prince is singularly soft and graceful, his expression gentle and sorrowing as befitted the occasion. Indeed, in this statue there is a hint of deeper feeling which is unusual at this time. Yet no one familiar with Gandhāra sculpture could make the mistake of relegating it to any other period than the latter part of the Later Maturity Period. This date is attested not only by the very ‘plastic’ quality of the modelling and the fine finish of the details, but also by the character of the pedestal relief and by the treatment of the drapery folds in front of the left leg, which by a false mannerism of the time are shown out of the vertical (cf. fig. 143 below).

c17.15

The queer, gnome-like Maitreya reproduced in fig. 142 is said by Major Cole to have come from Miyān Khān, but the Calcutta Museum Catalogue ascribes it to the Upper Monastery at Nathu.¹ Whichever is correct, it seems not unlikely that it is a very late effort from one of the Nathu-Sanghao ateliers. Its lateness alone, however, would obviously not account for its strange, almost elfish appearance or the utter gracelessness of its form. In this statue note that the halo is rayed and the hair bound round the uṣṇīṣa in the same way as in fig. 140, but that its waved moustache and debonair look are reminiscent rather of figs. 137 and 138, while the eyelids have the rare distinction of being almost wide open. A feature which it shares with some other very late images is the peculiar frilling round the scalloped hem of the skirt. The lotus base may signify that the Bodhisattva is conceived of as still in the Tushita heaven, but its meaning is not certain.

c17.16

¹ Major Cole, in his *Graeco-Buddhist Sculptures from Yusufzai*, pl. 25, also ascribes this sculpture to the Upper Monastery at Nathu. There is therefore no discrepancy as regards its provenance. Ed.]

c17.17

Besides these cult statues of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas, there are many other images which equally well reflect the changing character of Gandhāra sculpture during this period. Two such are the figures of Pāñcika, the genius of riches, and his consort Hāritī illustrated in figs. 143 and 144. For many years fig. 143, which is in the Lahore Museum, was called a Scythian Chief. Later, it was identified with Kubera, Guardian of the Northern Quarter and king of the Yakshas. It was left to M. Foucher to identify it more precisely with Kubera’s general, Pāñcika, Dispenser of Riches and consort of Hāritī, the goddess of Fertility. The pair were very popular in Gandhāra in the latter part of the second century, and their statues are many. Fig. 144, which is in the Peshāwar Museum, shows the two deities seated side by side. In both examples Pāñcika’s corpulent, well-nourished body and richly jewelled ornaments are appropriate to a god of riches; and the little children clustered about his knees proclaim his intimate connexion with the goddess of Fertility. But in fig. 143 he is more than the personification of material wealth and prosperity. He is also a warrior, commander-in-chief (senapati) of Kubera’s army, and it is for this reason that the sculptor has placed a spear in his hand and endowed him with such strong, imperious features and a look of fierce determination in his eyes. Altogether, and in spite of his corpulence, this statue of Pāñcika makes a noble, dominating figure, of which the Kushān donor (the one holding a bunch of lotuses in the right-hand bottom corner) may well have been proud. Certainly it is the finest of its kind in Gandhāra. At first sight it is tempting to place this statue near the close of the early phase of the Maturity Period because of its striking originality and individualistic qualities, but the artificial treatment of the drapery falling from the knees in stiff loops and at an impossible angle, and the little figure of the Kushān donor leave no doubt of its later age.

c17.18

Though not far removed in age from the foregoing, fig. 144 presents a marked contrast in style. Pāñcika, here, has none of the fierceness of the war-god. He is the peace-loving god of wealth and prosperity. His eyes are mild, his features gentle, and he holds no spear in his hand. But the contrast goes deeper than this. For there is no spark of originality in any of the figures of this group. Pāñcika, Hāritī, the cherubic children, even the Bacchic rout on the base—all are typical of the smooth, conventional and well-rounded work that the sculptors of this period were turning out in a ceaseless stream; all finished with exemplary precision, but all dull and uninspired. A feature in which their lack of originality is specially conspicuous is the figures of the children, which are merely stilted replicas of familiar garland-bearing Amorini, like those in figs. 91 and 148, while another is the artificial draping of Pāñcika’s skirt over his left knee, which, as in the preceding figure (fig. 143), follows the slope of the leg instead of falling vertically, as the law of gravity requires. It is a blemish common to many sculptures of this period.

c17.19

In the story of Gandhāra art few figures afford so good an opportunity of comparing the styles of different periods as those of the crouching Atlants. Turn back, for example, to fig. 52, which is one of the earliest, and remind yourself of the giant strength of this Atlant, of the boldness and simplicity of the modelling and of its freedom from any note of self-consciousness. Then go on to fig. 108 and remark the refined and academic style of the Early Maturity Period, and the conscious effort of the sculptor to be true to his Greek prototype. And now look at the two Atlants illustrated in figs. 145 and 146, both so strikingly typical of the Later Maturity Period. Could anything be more foppish and effeminate than the former, with his carefully curled whiskers, weak mouth and languishing eyes? Or could there be a greater contrast with fig. 52 than the soft angelic form of the latter?

c17.20

We may conclude this chapter with three more examples (figs. 147-9) selected from decorative pieces of architecture. Particularly attractive is the exquisitely carved Corinthian capital, fig. 147. In stylishness and perfection of technique this capital takes its place beside the finest of the cult statues such as figs. 137 and 138. A happy touch in its design is the little figure of a haloed Bodhisattva emerging from the centre of the acanthus leaves. Much has been written about this type of Gandhāra capital. From the fact that similar figures were introduced into Roman Corinthian capitals for the first time during the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211-17) the late Vincent Smith inferred that the Gandhāra examples must be later than 217.¹ Vincent Smith’s chronology, however, is quite untenable, and there is in fact no justification for supposing that the idea was borrowed from Rome. If there was any copying at all, it is surely more likely to have been done by the West rather than the East since sprightly devas and yakshas emerging from leaves or flowers had long been a favourite device in the Early Indian School, as witness, for example, the well-known Tree of Life and Fortune on the south jamb of the Western Gateway of the Great Stūpa at Sāñchi which dates from the first century B.C. Obviously this near-at-hand source of Buddhist art was the one from which the idea would be most likely to find its way into the art of Gandhāra.

c17.21

¹ V. A. Smith, ‘Graeco-Roman Influence on the Civilization of Ancient India’, J.A.S.B. LVIII (1889), pp. 107-98.

c17.22

Though of much the same age as the foregoing, fig. 148 is of a totally different stamp. It is typical of the large group of which the keynotes are a rather smarmy prettiness coupled with a mechanical perfection of technique. Notable representatives of this group are figs. 116-19 and 124 among the reliefs, and figs. 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, 144-6 among the statues. With the motif of the wavy garland borne on the shoulders of Amorini or yakshas we have already made acquaintance in an earlier example from the Lower Monastery at Nathu (fig. 91), and a comparison of the two gives us a clear idea of the change that came over the spirit of Gandhāra sculpture between the first and second phases of the Maturity Period. While fig. 91 is simple, direct and unpretentious, fig. 148 relies for its charm on its elaboration of decorative detail, its pretty faces and highly-finished workmanship. It is, indeed, about as good a sample of this particular style as could be found. Even when this phase of Gandhāra art was at its zenith such a high standard was exceptional, and in course of time the quality deteriorated more and more. Typical of this large body of inferior carving is the ornamental door-jamb shown in fig. 149, which follows the old Indian pattern but shows little pride of design or workmanship. In this case we are fortunate in having for comparison another door-jamb of the same type (fig. 79) which shows us this same art in its adolescent stage when the Indian and Hellenistic elements were beginning to coalesce. Between the two, Gandhāra art had run most of its course from the first to the third century A.D.

c17.23

The empire of the great Kushāns came to an end when Vāsudeva was defeated by the Sasānians in the second quarter of the third century A.D., and therewith came also the destruction of the Buddhist monasteries throughout the North-West, evidence of which is furnished by the many small hoards of Vāsudeva's coins found there. They were buried beneath the floors of the monks' cells and not thereafter reclaimed by their owners. From this catastrophe dated also the virtual end of the Gandhāra School of sculpture for which there could henceforth have been little demand. Here and there, no doubt, Buddhist settlements still survived in a shrunken, moribund condition, and descendants of the old sculptors may occasionally have been commissioned to execute such carving as they were capable of. And for the first generation it may be presumed that the standard of their work was maintained at much the same level as it was at the time the monasteries were destroyed; but thereafter, from about A.D. 260 until the come-back of the Kidāra Kushāns four generations later, nothing seems to have been left of the old-time artistry and little of the old-time skill in craftsmanship. Two samples will suffice to make my meaning clear (figs. 150-1). Fig. 150 is a small panel which was purchased near Sahrī-Bahlol and is now in the Peshawar Museum. It is said to be of steatite and to have come from Afrido-Dherī. The subjects depicted are: above, the ‘Presentation of the four bowls’; below, the Death Scene (*Mahāparinirvāṇa*). Both follow the orthodox traditions,¹ but the workmanship is of the poorest kind. Obviously it is late and decadent, but it is the sort of relief that an incompetent craftsman might have turned out at any time after about A.D. 200. On the other hand, the decadence of fig. 151 is due less to the personal shortcomings of the sculptor than to the general decline of the period. We shall appreciate this if we compare fig. 151 with the other reliefs of the same scene—the Grand Miracle of Śrāvastī—illustrated in figs. 122-5. Even the latest and most decadent of these, fig. 123, is substantially less degenerate in style than fig. 151; and this is true not only of the general design, which in fig. 151 is almost geometric in its formality, but of the individual figures which are copies of conventional types without any trace of creative imagination.

c17.24

¹ For earlier examples of the Death Scene, see figs. 68, 72, 87, 127, 128 and 129.