[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Architecture and art](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art) › [A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911) › c17 # A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c17: Chapter XI. The Foreign Influences on Hindu Art A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c17 - **Language:** English ### Chapter XI. The Foreign Influences on Hindu Art ### [c17.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.2) THE isolation of India, so apparent on the map, has never been absolute. Her inhabitants from the most remote ages have always been exposed to the action of foreign ideas conveyed by one or all of three ways—by sea, through the passes of the north-eastern frontier, or through the more open passes of the north-west. The only foreign art which could influence India from the north-east being that of China, which certainly produced no considerable effect on Indian art prior to the Muhammadan conquest, the ingress of foreign artistic ideas through the north-eastern passes may be left out of account. ### [c17.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.3) Long before the dawn of history traders from distant lands had brought their wares to the ports of India, and in all probability introduced the alphabet and art of writing. But in those ancient days the sea, although open to the passage of adventurous merchants, was not the bond of union between distant lands which it has become in these latter times for a great naval power, and the influence exercised upon the art of the interior by small bodies of traders at the ports must have been comparatively trifling. The constant invasions and immigrations from the continent of Asia through the north-western passes had more effect. They appear to have introduced the elements of Babylonian civilization into the north at a very early date¹; and one prehistoric immigration, or series of immigrations, which brought the Vedic Aryans, ultimately settled the future of all India for all time by laying the foundations of the complex, exclusive, religious, and social system known as Hinduism. When history opens in the sixth century B.C., Northern India, at all events, was already largely Hinduized, and in the third century, when the earliest extant monuments came into existence, the Hindu system stood firmly established. In attempting to estimate the nature and extent of foreign influence on Indian art, as conveyed by sea and through the north-western passes, we must assume the existence of Hinduism as an accomplished fact, and acknowledge that nothing positive is known about Hindu art before the age of Asoka. ### [c17.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.4) ¹ Indications of Babylonian influence probably include the earliest Indian astronomy, the knowledge of iron, urn-burial, and the marriage-mart at Taxila. See Kennedy, ‘The Early Commerce of India with Babylon’ (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1898, pp. 241–88). ### [c17.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.5) In his days, as we have seen (\*ante\*, p. 60), the dominant foreign influence was Persian, traceable clearly in his monolithic columns, in the pillars of structural buildings, and in architectural decoration. The true Persian capitals, characterized by recumbent bulls or other animals, are found at Bharhut, Sānchī and elsewhere, in the Gandhāra reliefs, and at Eran in Central India, even as late as the fifth century of the Christian era. The capitals of the monolithic columns, with their seated and standing animals, although distinctly reminiscent of Persia, differ widely from Persian models, and are artistically far superior to anything produced in Achaemenian times. Mr. Marshall, as already observed (\*ante\*, p. 60), can hardly be right in ascribing the beautiful design and execution of the Sārnāth capital (\*ante\*, Plate XIII) and its fellows to Asiatic Greeks in the service of Asoka¹. ### [c17.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.6) ¹ Note also the elegant small capital with Perso-Ionic volutes found at Sārnāth (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1907, p. 997, Pl. III), and the Perso-Hellenic head from the same place (Ibid., 1908, p. 1092, Pl. IV, 6), both reproduced \*ante\* in Fig. 57 and Plate LXXXIV, Fig. A respectively. ### [c17.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.7) We are thus led to consider the second foreign element in the most ancient schools of Indian art, that is to say, the Greek element, expressed in Asiatic Hellenistic forms. In Asoka's age the chief schools of Greek sculpture were in Asia Minor at Pergamum, Ephesus, and other places, not in Greece, and the Hellenistic forms of Greek art had become largely modified by Asiatic and African traditions, reaching back to the ancient days of Assyria and Egypt. It is consequently difficult to disentangle the distinctively Greek element in early Indian art. The acanthus leaves, palmettos, centaurs, tritons, and the rest, all common factors in Hellenistic art, are as much Asiatic as Greek. The art of the Asokan monoliths is essentially foreign, with nothing Indian except details, and the fundamentally alien character of its style is proved by the feebleness of the Indian attempts to copy it. I think that the brilliant work typified by the Sārnāth capital may have been designed in its main lines by foreign artists acting under the orders of Asoka, while all the details were left to the taste of the Indian workmen, much in the same way as long afterwards the Kutb Mīnār was designed by a Muhammadan architect and built by Hindu masons, under the orders of the Sultan Iyaltimish.² ### [c17.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.8) ² M. Foucher, writing of the Sānchī reliefs, observes that 'quantité de motifs décoratifs nous ont paru si directement empruntés à la Perse que leur importation ne s'explique guère autrement que par \*une immigration d'artisans iraniens\*'. (\*La Porte Orientale du Stûpa de Sânchî\*, p. 34.) ### [c17.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.9) Our knowledge of the fine art of Asoka's reign (273–232 B.C.) is restricted to the monolithic columns almost exclusively. The other sculptures of the Early Period probably are all, or nearly all, of later date. They present a great contrast, being essentially Indian, with nothing foreign except details, and they presuppose the existence of a long previous evolution of native art probably embodied in impermanent materials, and consequently not represented by actual remains. ### [c17.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.10) Are we to regard these sculptures, and especially the reliefs of Bharhut, Sānchī, and Bodh-Gayā, as purely Indian in origin and inspiration, or as clever adaptations of foreign models? The sudden apparition simultaneously of stone architecture, stone sculpture, and stone inscriptions during the reign of Asoka, when considered in connexion with the intimate relations known to have existed between the Maurya empire and the Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia, Africa, and Europe, raises a reasonable presumption that the novelties thus introduced into the ancient framework of Indian civilization must have been suggested from outside. That presumption is strengthened by the foreign style of the monolithic columns, which undoubtedly were a novelty brought into being by the command of an enlightened despot in close touch with the outer world. ### [c17.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.11) Some years ago I felt convinced that the notion of producing long series of bas-relief pictures in stone had actually been suggested by Hellenistic example, and more particularly the example of Alexandria, a city where such reliefs were commonly executed, and which was in constant communication with India.¹ Although I do not now feel justified in expressing as confidently as I once did my theory of the Alexandrian origin of Indian bas-relief sculpture \*in stone\*, I am still disposed to believe that such reliefs would never have been executed if works essentially similar had not previously existed in the Hellenistic countries, and especially at Alexandria. The Indian reliefs certainly are not modelled on those of Persia, which are utterly distinct in character; and it seems unlikely that the Indians should have suddenly invented the full-blown art of stone bas-relief out of their own heads without any foreign suggestion. The Alexandrian reliefs were available as indications how stone reliefs should be executed, and the clever Indian artists and craftsmen, once they had seized on the main idea, would have had no difficulty in transmuting it into purely Indian forms, just as the Hindu play-writer, mentioned by Weber, transformed the \*Midsummer Night's Dream\* into a piece thoroughly Indian in character, showing no trace of its English source.² Complicated relief pictures, like those of Bharhut and Sānchī, placed in exposed positions, could not have been satisfactorily executed in wood or ivory; but trained wood and ivory carvers, who no doubt existed in India from time immemorial, could easily have applied their skill to making stone pictures as soon as the novel material had become the fashion. Carvers in wood and stone often are the same people and use tools substantially identical. The truth seems to be that the Indians illustrated the Jātakas with Indian scenes just as the Alexandrians illustrated pastoral poems with Greek scenes, and that the Indians got from abroad the idea of so doing. But the theory must be admitted to be incapable of decisive proof, although to my mind it appears to be highly probable. The subject-matter and treatment of the post-Asokan reliefs are certainly in the main Indian, and such obviously foreign details as they exhibit are accessory rather than integral. ### [c17.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.12) ¹ \*Imp. Gaz.\* (1908), vol. ii, p. 105; Hastings, \*Encycl. of Religion and Ethics\*, s.v. 'Amarāvatī'. ### [c17.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.13) ² \*Ind. Ant.\*, vol. xxx (1901), p. 287, note 59. Weber relates a similar transformation in a Sanskrit adaptation of Euclid's \*Elements\*. 'All that remained of the original was the order of the contents and the substance of the examples. All the rest was Indian.' The Japanese treat European plays and tales in the same way. ### [c17.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.14) M. Foucher, however, is, I think, right when he discerns in the Sānchī sculptures more subtle indications of Hellenistic influence in certain examples of bold fore-shortening, in clever presentations of the three-quarter face figure, and in the harmonious balancing of groups. It is, indeed, inconceivable that the Indian sculptors of Asoka's time should have failed to learn something from the Greek art which was so readily accessible to them. But whatever they borrowed they made their own so that their work as a whole is unmistakably Indian in character, and original in substance. ### [c17.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.15) I proceed to discuss in some detail certain motives of ancient Indian sculpture which seem to be of foreign origin, and in some cases lend support to the theory of specially Alexandrian influence. ### [c17.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.16) The first to be considered is that which may be conveniently designated the 'Woman and Tree' (Plate LXXXVI). The form which may be regarded as normal represents a woman standing under a vine or other tree, with her legs crossed, the left arm twined round a stem, and the right hand raised to her head. Many variations, however, occur. Occasionally, the left hand is raised above the head, as in an example from Mathurā, in which also the right arm is not twined round a stem. Sometimes the legs are not crossed. The woman, in some cases, is more or less clothed, but frequently, and especially at Mathurā, is unmistakably and aggressively naked. Very often, but not always, she stands on a dwarf, animal, or monster (Fig 85). ### [c17.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.17) The attitude is well calculated to display the charms of the female form, and, as M. Foucher observes, is frequently described in Sanskrit poetry, so that it may be regarded as 'la pose plastique par excellence' of India.¹ The dates of Sanskrit literature are so uncertain that it is quite possible that the descriptions may have been suggested by the statuary. It seems to me highly probable that the plastic rendering was a foreign introduction. Dates seem to forbid the suggestion that Western art might have borrowed it from India. ### [c17.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.18) ¹ \*L'Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra\*, p. 229. A sculpture in the Mathurā Museum exhibits a male figure in the same pose. ### [c17.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.19) The earliest Indian example known to me is the Bharhut draped figure of the Yakshī Chandā, who is represented in what I call the normal manner. That may be dated about 200 b. c.² The lady also appears on the Sānchī gateways, and in Gandhāran art over and over again with many variations (see Chap. IV). Slightly modified she becomes Māyā, the mother of Buddha, in the Nativity scene (Plate XXIX). I cannot find her at Amarāvatī, but at Mathurā she is specially characteristic of the local art, both Jain and Buddhist, and is often represented with lascivious suggestiveness in a manner to which the Mathurā school was too much inclined (\*ante\*, pp. 139, 140). The erotic tendency of that school assimilates it to Copto-Alexandrian art. The latest example that I can quote is a Brahmanical sculpture of the Vijayanagar school at Tārpatrī in the Anantapur District, dating from the sixteenth century (\*ante\*, Fig. 166). Thus, it is established that in Indian sculpture the motive had an history of more than 1,700 years. ### [c17.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.20) ² \*Stūpa of Bharhut\*, Pl. XXII: Grünwedel-Burgess, \*Buddhist Art\*, Fig. 16. ### [c17.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.21) In Greek art it occurs in the fourth century b.c., a century or two before its first appearance in India at Bharhut. The Hellenistic artists transported the motive to Egypt, where, by reason of contact with native Egyptian sensual notions, its treatment acquired a lascivious tinge, agreeing strangely with the Mathurā presentation, the nude figure, however, in Egypt being often male instead of female. M. Strzygowski gives the name of Copto-Alexandrian to the mixed or mongrel art produced by the intermingling of Hellenic and Coptic ideas. The art of Gandhāra does not share with that of Mathurā the reproach of lasciviousness. It deserves credit, as M. Foucher points out, for its 'irréprochable tenue' in dealing with the relations of the sexes.³ ### [c17.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.22) ³ \*L'Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra\*, p. 248. The 'orgy' relief (ibid., Fig. 130: \*Gandhāra Sculptures\*, Pl. XXII. 7) is the only one open to a charge of impudicity. ### [c17.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.23) FIG. A. 'Bacchus,' on left side of Aachen pulpit. (From a photo. of a cast in the University Galleries, Oxford.) ### [c17.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.24) FIG. B. 'Woman and Tree,' as caryatid, from Upper Monastery, Nathu, Gandhāra. (Photo. by Griggs.) ### [c17.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.25) FIG. C. 'Woman and Tree,' from Katra, Mathurā. (Cunningham, \*A. S. Rep.\*, vol. iii, Pl. XII, B.) ### [c17.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.26) The most striking illustration of the close resemblance between the Mathurā presentation of the Woman and Tree motive and the Copto-Alexandrian form is found in an unexpected place, the cathedral of Aachen or Aix-la-Chapelle in Rhenish Prussia. Six remarkable ivory panels on the sides of the cathedral pulpit have been examined in a special disquisition by M. Strzygowski, who has proved to my satisfaction that the Aachen ivories are of Egyptian origin, and should be considered as examples of the Copto-Alexandrian school. They may have reached their resting-place by way of either Ravenna and Milan or Marseilles.¹ ### [c17.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.27) ¹ Strzygowski, J.—‘Hellenistische und koptische Kunst in Alexandria’ (\*Bull. de la Soc. Archéol. d’Alexandrie\* (Wien, Vienne), 1902). ### [c17.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.28) Two figures, one on the right and one on the left of the pulpit, identical save in certain minor details, are known conventionally as ‘Bacchus’. Each represents a nude young man facing, standing with the right leg straight and the left leg crossed over it. The body is supported by the left arm, which is twined round the stem of a vine overtopping and surrounding the youth with its foliage. His right hand is raised to the crown of his head (Plate LXXXVI, Fig. A). The pose is precisely the same as that of the Woman and Tree motive in Indian art, and the resemblance between the Mathurā and Aachen figures is so close that, in my judgement, it cannot be accidental. Both must have a common origin, which should be sought in Syria or Asia Minor, from which Egyptian Hellenistic art drew its inspiration. The motive was variously treated in Egypt, and, at least in one case, a woman takes the place of the youth. There is no difficulty in believing in the transference of Alexandrian ideas to India either before or after the Christian era. From Asoka’s time for several centuries intercourse between the ports of Egypt and India was continuous. The cupids, birds, and beasts interspersed in the foliage of the Aachen ivory are also often found in India. Compare, for instance, the Garhwā pillar (\*ante\*, Fig. 115) and various Mathurā sculptures. ### [c17.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.29) The female figure in the Woman and Tree design used to be described as a ‘dancing-girl’. But, whether nude or clothed, she is never represented as dancing, and Dr. Vogel certainly appears to be right in maintaining that she should be interpreted, not as a dancing-girl, but as a Yakshī, or female sprite.² The Yakshas and Yakshīs played in ancient popular Indian Buddhism a prominent part comparable with that played by the Nats in modern Burmese Buddhism. Recent students of Indian art recognize that fact, and perceive, for instance, that the constant attendant of Buddha in the Gandhāra reliefs, who carries a thunderbolt, and was formerly identified as Devadatta or Māra, is meant for a Yaksha; and that the impressive statuette in the Lahore Museum, which used to be called an ‘Indo-Scythian King’, represents Kuvera, the king of the Yakshas (\*ante\*, Plate XXVIII). ### [c17.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.30) ² \*Ann. Rep. A. S., India\*, 1906–7, p. 146. ### [c17.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.31) Other motives must be discussed more briefly. At Amarāvatī and in Gandhāra a favourite subject is the departure of Gautama Buddha as Prince Siddhārtha from Kapilavastu on horseback. Generally the horse is shown in profile, but occasionally is represented as emerging from a gateway, and facing the spectator, fore-shortened. This latter form of the design especially seems to be connected with the Rider motive as seen in the Barberini ivory diptych in the Louvre, of the fourth century, and in one of the Aachen panels, the origin of both being traced back by Strzygowski to the Egyptian representations of Horus triumphing over the powers of evil represented by a crocodile. ### [c17.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.32) FIG. A. From Sanghāo, Yūsufzai, age of Kanishka. (\*The Gandhāra Sculptures\*, Pl. XIX, 2 left = \*J. Ind. Art\*, 1898, Pl. XXI, 2.) ### [c17.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.33) FIG. B. From Lower Monastery, Nathu, Yūsufzai. (Photo. 1103, I. M. \*List\*.) ### [c17.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.34) FIG. C. From Mathurā. (Photo. 843, I. M. \*List\*; cf. \*Ann. Rep. A. S., India\*, 1904–5, Pl. XXVI \*c\*, from Sārnāth.) ### [c17.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.35) The Indian sculptures usually show earth-spirits, or Yakshas, male or female, holding up the horse's hoofs. As Grünwedel and Strzygowski point out, the sculptures illustrate the Buddhist legend that the earth-goddess displayed half her form while she spoke to the departing hero, and also are a reminiscence or translation of the Greek motive of Gē (Gaia) rising from the ground, familiar to Hellenic art from the fourth century B. C. Similar earth-spirits are seen in the Barberini diptych.¹ The Rider motive does not appear at Mathurā or in the Early Period, and may be assumed to have reached India after the Christian era. ### [c17.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.36) ¹ Grünwedel-Burgess, pp. 98–103, Figs. 50–4. See also \*The Gandhāra Sculptures\*, Pl. XX, Fig. 1 = \*J. I. A. I.\*, vol. viii (1898), Pl. XXII, Fig. 1, where the spirits are female. In one case at Amarāvatī the story of the departure is symbolized, after the Sānchī manner, by the led horse (\*un cheval sans cavalier\*) with the royal umbrella held over him (\*ante\*, Fig. 74). ### [c17.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.37) The use of a long undulating stem, band, garland, or roll to break up a long frieze into sections was familiar to Indian sculptors from early days. As seen on the Bharhut coping (\*ante\*, Fig. 43), the device used is a lotus stem with jack fruits attached. The stem is not carried by anybody. This design seems to be purely Indian. ### [c17.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.38) But the later forms of the motive are clearly of foreign origin, being based on the garland carried by \*amorini\*, Erōtes, or cupids, which was constantly used in the later Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman art. In Gandhāra an imbricated roll, quite in the Graeco-Roman fashion, carried by boys, equivalent to cupids or Erōtes, is substituted for the Indian lotus stem. At Mathurā and Sārnāth we find a smooth roll carried by men, not boys (Plate LXXXVII, Fig. C), and at Amarāvatī a bulky tinsel roll with Indian decoration, also carried by men (\*ante\*, Fig. 103).² ### [c17.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.39) ² Anderson, \*Catal. I. M.\*, Part I, p. 241; Grünwedel-Burgess, p. 148, Figs. 99, 100; Foucher, \*L'Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra\*, p. 239, Figs. 116–18; \*J. A. S. B.\*, Part I, vol. lviii (1889), p. 158, citing a Roman parallel. ### [c17.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.40) The hippocamps, tritons, centaurs, and other weird creatures, which certainly were borrowed from Western art, occur, as we have seen in Chapter II, at Bodh Gayā and other places in the sculptures of the Early Period (Figs. 34–8). It does not much matter whether we call them Hellenistic or Western Asiatic. Forms more or less similar recur at Mathurā and Amarāvatī and in Gandhāra (pp. 104, 125, 146). The strongly-marked muscles of some of the Gandhāra figures and the snake-tailed monsters suggest the notion that the sculptors of the north-west felt the influence of the vigorous Pergamene school. The Atlantes of Jamālgarai especially seem to be reminiscent of Pergamum; from the Buddhist point of view they may be regarded as Yakshas. A few of these Western Asiatic Hellenistic forms are shown together in Plate LXXXVIII, Figs. A, B. Atlantes occasionally occur in later Hindu art.³ ### [c17.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.41) ³ As in Kashmīr and at Chitōr (Foucher, \*op. cit.\*, p. 208, Fig. 86), and in Western India at Karvati (\*ante\*, Fig. 156). ### [c17.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.44) Figs. A, B. Atlantes from Jamālgarai. (Photo. 1013, I. M. \*List\*.) ### [c17.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.47) Fig. C. ‘Gigantomachia’ from same. (Photo. 1004, I. M. \*List\*.) ### [c17.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.48) Fig. D. Garland from Sārnāth. (Arch. S. photo., supplied by Prof. Macdonell.) ### [c17.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.49) Plate LXXXVIII. Hellenistic motives, apparently Pergamene and Roman. ### [c17.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.50) In the same plate is shown a garland from Sārnāth, which has a curiously Roman look (Fig. D). ### [c17.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.51) Certain architectural details represented in ancient sculptures, in addition to the well-known Corinthian and Ionic capitals, may be mentioned as being common to Indian and Western Asiatic Hellenistic art. The fluted spiral column, frequently met with on the sarcophagi of Asia Minor and in later Roman work, does not seem to occur at Amarāvatī or in Gandhāra, but is found at Mathurā in early sculptures.¹ Subsequently it was freely used in Western India. The scallop shell or 'shell-niche' canopy, often seen on Asiatic sarcophagi and in Egyptian art, occurs in India, so far as I am aware, only in the details of the Corinthian capitals at Jamālgarai (\*ante\*, Plate XXV). M. Strzygowski holds that the form probably originated in Mesopotamia, and that it was ultimately developed into the characteristic Muhammadan \*mihrāb\*.² But that suggestion seems to be of doubtful validity. The rectangular incised panel frequently found on pilasters in Gandhāra reliefs (Fig. 75) is specially characteristic of the Roman architecture of Palmyra (a. d. 105–273). Much of the Gandhāra art resembles that of Palmyra and Baalbec more closely than that of any other specific locality. The buildings at Baalbec date from the second century. It is, of course, unnecessary to point out in detail the numerous echoes of Greek art in the Gandhāra sculptures. I have confined myself to noticing certain points of particular interest. ### [c17.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.52) ¹ \*Jain Stūpa of Mathurā\*, Pl. XLVIII, 3. ### [c17.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.53) ² \*J. Hellenic Studies\*, 1907, p. 114, Fig. 11. ### [c17.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.54) The introduction of the vine into Indian bas-reliefs used to be considered as in itself evidence of copying from Hellenistic models. But that view is not tenable. The vine is still largely grown in Chinese Turkistan, and until the recent Afghan conquest was freely cultivated in Kāfiristan. Sir George Watt believes that the plant is indigenous on the lower Himalayan ranges, and is even inclined to think that its cultivation may have been diffused into Europe from that region. However that may be, it is certain that Indian artists had ample opportunities of studying the forms of vine-growth at first hand, and were under no necessity to seek foreign models. ### [c17.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.55) In certain cases, however, Indian sculptors chose to treat the vine motive after the European or West Asiatic manner.³ The best example of such treatment is the well-known frieze from the Upper Monastery at Nathu, Yūsufzai, which is almost a replica of a similar work at Palmyra, executed in the third century after Christ (Wood, \*Palmyra\*, Plate 41). The design (Plate LXXXIX, Fig. A) consists of a vine stem knotted into five circles forming small panels; the first of which, to the left, contains leaves only; the second is occupied by a boy or 'genius' plucking grapes; the third exhibits a boy playing with a goat; the fourth displays a crudely-executed goat nibbling the vine; and the fifth represents another boy plucking grapes. Fig. B in the same plate reproduces a Mathurā sculpture treating the vine after the Indian manner, and admirably executed. ### [c17.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.56) ³ Simpson (\*J. Roy. Inst. Brit. Architects\*, 1894, p. 108, Fig. 12); V. A. Smith (\*J. A. S. B.\*, Part I, vol. lviii, p. 160); Foucher, \*L'Art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhāra\*, p. 240, Fig. 290). ### [c17.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.57) The motive consisting of a vine or other conventionalized plant springing from a vase is common to Egyptian and ancient Indian art. M. Strzygowski gives three Egyptian examples in the essay cited above (\*Abb.\* 47, 50, 52). A good South Indian specimen, perhaps contemporaneous with the Sāñchī sculptures, is reproduced in Plate XC, Fig. A. ### [c17.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.58) FIG. A. Hellenistic frieze from Upper Monastery, Nathu, Yūsufzai. (Photo. by Griggs.) ### [c17.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.59) FIG. B. Door-jamb from Kankālī Mound, Mathurā. (\*Jain Stūpa\*, Pl. XXVI, front elevation.) ### [c17.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.60) The same plate offers further illustrations of the Indian aptitude for artistic representation of plant-life, which certainly was not learned from the Greeks, who could not teach the lesson. Sir George Watt points out to me that the pinnate foliage motives are distinctively Indian. If space permitted many excellent illustrations might be given, but one from Mathurā must suffice (Plate XC, Fig. B). The lotus—that is to say, the indigenous lotus of India—and various other aquatic plants are constantly treated with exquisite skill, sometimes naturalistically and sometimes more conventionally. Indian sculpture and painting offer numberless examples. In this place one illustration from Mathurā and another from Gandhāra may be offered (Plate XC, Figs. C, D). The lotus plant symbolizes human life springing from the ocean of eternity. ### [c17.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.61) The Indian treatment of indigenous animals in both sculpture and painting is as original and artistic as that of plant motives. ### [c17.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.62) 'You have only,' Sir George Watt writes, 'to look at the plants and animals employed in the most ancient designs to feel the strong Indian current of thought there conventionalized, which must have involved centuries of evolution. The treatment of the elephant, monkey, and serpent is Indian, and in no way Greek. No Greeks (as few Englishmen to-day) could give the life touches of those animals seen on all the oldest sculptures and frescoes.'¹ ### [c17.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.63) ¹ Letter dated Nov. 6, 1909. ### [c17.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.64) Those observations are perfectly true, and in all discussions of the foreign elements in Indian art we must remember that in certain respects Indian artists were not only free from obligation to the Greeks, but actually superior to them. The illustrations in this work bear abundant testimony to the Indian power of delineating indigenous living forms, both vegetable and animal. The Gandhāra treatment of the elephant is inferior to that of the same subject by the artists of the interior, who were more familiar with that wonderful beast, which is not easy to model or draw well. ### [c17.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.65) The marked pictorial character of the ancient Indian bas-relief sculpture, which it shares with the related Alexandrian work, suggests that in India painting may be an older art than sculpture. The earliest extant paintings, those in Orissa (\*ante\*, p. 273), apparently are indigenous. The history of Indian painting is necessarily so fragmentary that it is impossible, at present at all events, to trace the genesis of the highly developed art of Ajaṇṭā and Sigiriya. The hypothesis of a Persian origin for the Ajaṇṭā paintings is supported by the facts that they occur in a region known to have been in communication with Persia and include Persian scenes. But proof that Persia in the fifth and sixth centuries was in a position to teach art to India is lacking. The key to the origins of both Persian and Indian painting, if there be a key, should, perhaps, be sought in Turkistan, and the truth may be that the Indian schools of painting are only branches of a very ancient and widely diffused Asiatic school. But more exact knowledge is needed before any definite theory can be formulated. No connexion seems to be traceable between the Indian paintings and those of Greece or Rome. So far as appears the pictorial art of India may be considered original, and related to the schools of Asia rather than to those of Europe. But the Ajaṇṭā paintings are far superior to any work from Turkistan yet published, and attain a pre-eminently high standard of achievement in their delineation of plant and animal life. ### [c17.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.66) FIG. A. Vase and plant, from Ghaṇṭasāla. (\*Rea, S. I. Buddhist Antiquities\*, Pl. XVIII, front.) ### [c17.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.67) FIG. B. Pinnate foliage, Mathurā. (\*Jain Stūpa\*, Pl. L.) ### [c17.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.68) FIG. C. Lotuses growing, Mathurā. (\*Ibid.\*, Pl. XXIV, Fig. 1.) ### [c17.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.69) FIG. D. Ditto, from Gandhāra, Lahore Museum, No. 0251 (Prof. Macdonell). (See \*Indian Art at Delhi\*, frontispiece and p. 92.) ### [c17.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.70) The principal forms of Indian architecture, so far as appears, were developed in India, and it is impossible to connect them with Western forms. They have, as M. Le Bon observes, a character of 'frappante originalité'. ### [c17.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.71) The general result of examination of the foreign influences upon Indian pre-Muhammadan art, whether sculpture, painting, or architecture, is to support the opinions of those who maintain the substantial originality of Indian art. It may be true that the general use of stone for architecture and sculpture was suggested by foreign example, and that the notion of making story-telling pictures in stone came from Alexandria; but, even if both those hypotheses be accepted, the substantial originality of the Indian works is not materially affected. The actually proved borrowings by India are confined to details, such as Persepolitan columns and capitals, and a multitude of decorative elements, some of which continued in use for many centuries. ### [c17.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.72) M. Le Bon is well supported by facts in his opinion that India, ### [c17.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.73) 'malgré un contact assez prolongé avec la civilisation grecque, ne lui a emprunté, et ne pouvait lui emprunter aucun de ses arts. Les deux races étaient trop différentes, leurs pensées trop dissemblables, leurs génies artistiques trop incompatibles pour qu'elles aient pu s'influencer. . . . Le génie hindou est tellement spécial que, quel que soit l'objet dont les nécessités lui imposent l'imitation, l'aspect de cet objet se transforme immédiatement pour devenir hindou.' The same author continues:—'Cette impuissance de l'art grec à influencer l'Inde a quelque chose de frappant, et il faut bien l'attribuer à cette incompatibilité que nous avons signalée entre le génie des deux races, et non à une sorte d'incapacité native de l'Inde à s'assimiler un art étranger.'¹ ### [c17.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.74) ¹ \*Les Monuments de l'Inde\*, pp. 12–15. ### [c17.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.75) The readiness of India to assimilate suitable foreign material is shown by her proved willingness to borrow freely from Persia in ancient times and again after the Muhammadan conquest. ### [c17.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.76) Whatever influence Greece had exercised on Indian art was practically exhausted by A. D. 400. After that date the traces of Hellenistic ideas are too trifling to be worth mentioning. The mediaeval Brahmanical and Buddhist schools have nothing in common with Greek art, and the strange artistic forms introduced by the Muhammadan conquerors at the beginning of the thirteenth century were equally alien to Hellenic feeling. From the fifth century the art of India, whether Hindu or Muslim, must stand or fall on its own merits, without reference to Hellenic standards. The mediaeval Hindu revival and the advance of Islam, in large part synchronous, both involved a revolt against Hellenic ideas and a reversion to ancient Asiatic modes—a 'renaissance aux dépens des influences helléniques'.² ### [c17.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17.77) ² Bréhier, L., 'Les Origines de l'Art musulman' (\*La Revue des Idées\*, No. 75, Mars 1910, p. 190). ## Linked texts (9) - [Sārnāth](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sarnath) - [Bodh Gayā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bodhgaya) - [Sāñcī](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sanchi) - [Bharhut](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bharhut) - [Sigiriya](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.sigiriya) - [Ajanta](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.ajanta) - [Kapilavastu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kapilavastu) - [Nathu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.nathu) - [Kashmiri](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kashmiri) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c17) · Pramāṇa