A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c10.s3.24

c10.s3.24

A Japanese author has come to the strange conclusions that 'a deeper and more informed study of the works of Gandhāra itself will reveal a greater prominence of Chinese than of so-called Greek influence', and that the sculptures 'follow in the main, so far as we know, the Hâng [*i. e.* Han dynasty of China] style in features, drapery, and decoration'. No evidence is adduced in support of these bold propositions, which are demonstrably opposed to the facts. The two Han dynasties were comprised between the years 206 B.C. and 220 A. D., during which period no considerable peaceful intercourse between India and China is recorded, nor is there reason to believe that any such unrecorded intercourse worth mentioning took place. It is impossible to imagine how Chinese art could have influenced India at that time. Sculptures of the Han period are very rare, being nearly confined to two localities in the province of Shantung, and ascribed, some to the first century before, and others to the first century after Christ. The ten specimens reproduced by Dr. Bushell have not the remotest resemblance to the work of the Gandhāran or any Indian school. How, then, can the sculptures of Gandhāra follow the 'Han style in features, drapery, and decoration'? No painting of the Han period is known to exist. The most ancient Chinese painting extant is the now well-known picture executed by Ku K'ai-chih in the fourth century and preserved in the British Museum. It does not show the slightest trace of any connexion with Indian art. What does Mr. Okakura mean by referring to the 'so-called Greek influence' on the art of Gandhāra? Innuendo is not argument, and the palpable fact of the Hellenistic origin of the Gandhāran sculptures, so far as their form and technique are concerned, is not affected by dubbing it 'so-called'. It would not be worth while to notice Mr. Okakura's rash assertions, but for the attention that his book has received in certain quarters for its attempted vindication of the claims of Asiatic as against European art ideals.¹