The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.63

v2.c16.63

that the Romans were far greater architects than the Greeks. But the contour of a single moulding from the Parthenon would at once reverse the judgment, and proclaim loudly that we were viewing the works of a people, who had reached the highest point in civilization and refinement” (*Loc. cit*). None will I fancy question the truth of this canon of art criticism, and it is equally true that up to the time of expedition, whose labours Mr. Fergusson so unjustly condemns, very little had been done to render accessible to European art-critics, specimens of Indian ornament from living and undoubtedly authentic monuments, to enable them to determine India's place in the history of art; and if they serve to do this, the time and money spent on them will be amply repaid. According to the author just quoted, “in the works hitherto published on the ancient architecture of India, sufficient attention has not been directed to the ornamental portions of the buildings to enable us to recognize the true character of Hindu ornament. In early publications on the art of Egypt, all the works of sculpture and ornament were so falsely rendered, that it has taken considerable time for the European public to become pursuaded that there existed so much grace and refinement in the works of the Egyptians The Egyptian remains, however, which have been transported to this country, the casts of others existing in Egypt, and the more trustworthy representations which have of late been published, have placed this beyond doubt, and Egyptian art is taking its true place in the estimation of the public. When the same thing shall have been done for the ancient architecture of India, we shall be in a better position than we are at present to form an opinion, how far it is entitled to take rank as a really fine-art, or whether the Hindus are only heapers of stones, one over the other, adorned with grotesque and barbaric sculpute.” (*Op. cit*, p 81). It is not for me to pronounce on the merit of Hindu ornament; it may also be, for aught I know, worth more in the estimation of European art-critics than those rude stone monuments which have been figured in Mr. Fergusson's work; still the casts will serve to settle several quastions of considerable importance in the hisory of art, which, as Owen Jones says, “picturesque views,” (however embellished by ingenious conjectures, or supported by hasty assertion) have, it must be admitted, hitherto failed to solve.