Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s20: VII. Concluding Remarks
Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s20
- Language
- English
VII. Concluding Remarks
c12.s20.2
With all its urban, conscious and civilised quality, its advanced power of visualisation and full knowledge and comprehension of the third dimension, Maurya court art constitutes only an interlude, in the history of Indian art. Kramrisch rightly hits the point when she says, ‘in the organism of Indian art Mauryan sculpture has only marginal importance’². It was indeed a hot-house plant reared up by the will, care and patronage of a court heavily under the influence of foreign culture and ideology. In course of time the glass walls fell to pieces and the plant withered. Maurya court art failed to make any notable permanent contribution to the growth of Indian art except that it directly helped the fixation of the latter in permanent material. A most important exponent of Maurya court ideology in sculpture are the crowning lion figures which, we have seen, were conditioned by a plastic vision and artistic convention already fixed and determined within a foreign art tradition. They raise the presumption that they for the first time introduced into the realm of Indian Art a highly advanced power of visualisation and a fuller comprehension of the problem of the third dimension. But here a counter-hypothesis, I have already pointed out, presents itself. It is quite permissible to assume that these two essential qualities of high art were not unknown to Indian artists who used to work in wood and clay and shape images in fully rounded form. This assumption seems to find strong support not only from the spirit and appearance but also from the general conception, treatment and execution of the Dhauli elephant and the Rampurva bull which undoubtedly belong to a different art tradition. I have tried also to point out that the Patna Yakshas, the Didarganj Yakshiṇī, and the Lohānīpur Jaina images to an extent belong to the line of evolution of this tradition, though it must be admitted that the Maurya elephant and the bull belong qualitatively to a higher aesthetic level. This court art does not seem to have taken cognisance of another tradition of art, a more primitive, perhaps folk tradition of presumably some significance, that was hardly conscious of the third dimension and fully rounded form. This tradition came to be fixed in permanent material for the first time in Bhārhut where already the conflict between round volume and flat surface makes its appearance and gradually shows itself not only in the Baroda and Parkham Yakshas and the so-called Manasādevī of Parkham still in worship but also in the Patna Yakshas, the Lohānīpur images and some of the huge primitives of the early Mathurā school.
c12.s20.3
² Kramrisch, *Indian Sculpture*, p. 11-12.
c12.s20.4
No less important an exponent of Maurya court art is the independent column standing free in space. The idea and impetus persisted even after the Mauryas, but the form underwent considerable change. It was never adopted as part of any larger architectural entity in which case pillars and pilasters invariably show and evolve other forms directly derivable from wooden prototypes. Already in the first century B.C. the Garuḍa column from Besnagar¹ raised by the direction and patronage of a colonial Greek converted to Bhāgavata Vaiṣṇavism, shows form and features that are different from those of Aśokan columns. The lowest third of the shaft is octagonal terminated by eight half-lotus designs; the middle third is sextagonal which is terminated by an octagonal band, each side of the band being decorated by a stylised full and round lotus design; the upper third is round and is super-imposed by a bell-shaped capital that in its shape, form and appearance is related not so much with the Aśokan capitals as with the typical Persepolitan ones with a ring of pointed lotus petals at the upper end of the base. The crowning adornment is not that of an animal but consists of a high cube supporting a stylised cluster of palmyra branches which again recall similar *motifs* in West Asiatic art. The fact that this column was raised by a colonial Greek probably explains this emphasis on Achaemenian and west Asiatic *motifs*, but the fact remains that post-Maurya art and architecture discarded the type and form of columns made current by the Maurya monarchs. This is further supported by the shape and form of pilasters met with at Bhārhut and derivable from wooden prototypes.
c12.s20.5
¹ Bachhofer, op. cit. plate, 14.
c12.s20.6
In the realm of architecture also Maurya court art failed to make any impress. The Mauryan palaces and the Pillared Hall brought into existence directly by the impetus and inspiration of Achaemenian architectural form and ideal do not seem to have captured the imagination of Indian builders and architects, and there is no evidence in later Indian art to show that such plans and designs were ever adopted. On the other hand the few rock-hewn chaitya-cells patronised by the Maurya monarchs reveal that they were exactly and literally translated from wooden prototypes. The evidence of civil and religious architecture furnished by the early Indian reliefs of Bhārhut, Sāñchi, Amarāvati and other places also points to that conclusion².
c12.s20.7
² Fergusson, op. cit. chaps. IV—VI. Brown, op. cit. chaps. II and III; Smith, *History of Fine Art in India & Ceylon*, pp. 21—28.
c12.s20.8
Here also the Indian style, form and tradition made themselves felt.
c12.s20.9
It is true, that early Indian art knows of certain *motifs*, patterns and designs made current and popular by Maurya court art—this without any reference to the question of art-style, and that quite a large portion of this repertory of *motifs* and designs belongs to the art of Asiatic west which was for a time dominated by Achaemenian and later by colonial Greek imperialism; but it would be short-sightedness to assume that ‘the whole group of *motifs* of western Asiatic aspect was introduced by Aśoka's Persian craftsmen *en bloc*’. There can hardly be any doubt that quite a few of such *motifs* were made current even before the Mauryas, while those that are definitely Hellenistic came in during and after the Maurya period.
c12.s20.10
The imperialism of the Maurya monarchs, especially of Aśoka, was a synthesis of Indian, Achaemenian and Hellenistic ideals. It was the expression of an individualistic taste and ideology, not of collective social will. Aśoka's personal religion, his conception of Dhamma and his policy of *Dhammavijaya* also reflect the individual ideology and preference of a resolute but intelligent and benevolent autocrat who dominated the Maurya court and administration. Maurya court art also was no exception to this basic and fundamental factor. Nanda-Maurya, particularly Maurya imperialism and Aśokan policy of *Dhammavijaya* drew India out of her primitive local tribal outlook. Aśokan policy in the realm of religion raised Buddhism to the status of an international religion right from the position of a tribal and regional cult. So in the realm of art as well. Individual taste and preference of Maurya monarchs like Chandragupta, Bindusāra and Aśoka for ideas and objects from Achaemenian and Hellenistic Orient furnished the impetus and inspiration, and Indian art not only came to be fixed in permanent material but it was raised from the position of handicraft and primitive art to the dignity and status of higher art. The main lines of this art, just as the main lines of Aśoka's policy of *Dhammavijaya* were chiefly determined by individual will, taste and preference. Both lacked deeper roots in the collective social will, taste and preference, and were therefore destined to have isolated and short lives coeval and coexistent with and within the four limits of the powerful Maurya court. This explains why Maurya court art with all its dignified bearing, monumental appearance and civilised quality forms but a short and isolated chapter of the history of Indian art. Like the columns and the animal figures themselves Maurya Art stands aloof and apart.