The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s7.251

c10.s7.251

For centuries Indian Buddhists, as is well known, had felt a deep-seated repugnance to depicting Buddha in human form; they represented him only by symbols. In Indian art from the third to the first centuries B.C., at Bodh Gaya, at Bharhut, at Sanchi, Buddha had never appeared in person; his presence was indicated by the Bo-tree or the Wheel of the Law, by his footprints or his umbrella, by an empty throne. But in the Greek or semi-Greek art of Gandhāra he *was* represented in human form, while on the other hand at Mathurā there have been found purely Indian statues of Buddha¹ as a man which show no trace of Greek influence; something—what it was may be rather the question—had therefore occurred which had overcome the repugnance of Indian Buddhists to portray him or see him portrayed as a man. Twenty years ago M. Foucher’s view was generally credited: the portrayal of Buddha as a man was due to the semi-Greek art of Gandhāra, and the great mass of Buddha-statues which have existed for many centuries and exist to-day all over eastern Asia ultimately go back to the Gandhāra Buddhas, though all traces of Greek influence have long died out. But to-day the Indian Buddhas of Mathurā have come into prominence, and it is being argued that the Gandhāra Buddhas had only local influence or no influence at all, and that the later Buddha statues all derive from the purely Indian art of Mathurā. It is a big question; it was summed up by Dr E. Waldschmidt in 1930² in the telling phrase that the battle-cries now are ‘Gandhāra and Greece’ or ‘Mathurā and India’.³