The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c9.173

v1.c9.173

1st.—They may very reasonably say that the first argument involves a *petitio principii*. The question at issue is whether this excellent piece of carving, found in India and made of Indian material, can be taken as a specimen of Indian art, and it is begged by the assertion that it cannot be Indian because it is so excellent. Had the condition of Indian plastic art two thousand years ago in the different parts of India, and among the different classes, castes, and nations been exactly known and ascertained, the case would have been otherwise; but that being a moot question, the argument appears to be no better than that of the East Indian Railway officers, who said the copper Budhha of Sultānganj (*ante* p. [65]) must be of Birmingham manufacture, because the Indians could not cast so large a statue in copper. They may also add that, superior as the character of the sculpture is, it has nothing in it of the Greek art of the third, or the fourth century, B.C., and James Prinsep very properly remarked that “if the sculptor were a Greek, his taste had been somewhat tainted by Indian beau ideal of female beauty”.