DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0055
INTRODUCTION.
33
more recent researches of Colebroke and Wilson, to improve the text
considerably, but his illustrations are very inferior to those of his
predecessor. Moor chose his from such bronzes or marbles as existed
in our museums. Coleman's were generally taken from modern draw-
ings, or the tawdry plaster images made for the Durga puja of
Bengali Babus. By the aid of photography any one now attempting
the task would be able to select perfectly authentic examples from
Hindu temples of the best age. If this were done judiciously, and
the examples carefully engraved, it would not only afford a more
satisfactory illustration of the mythology of the Hindus than has yet
been given to the public, but it might also be made a history of the
art of sculpture in India, in all the ages in which it is known to us.
It is doubtful, however, whether such a work could be successfully
carried through in this country at the present day. The photographs
that exist of the various deities have generally been taken representing
them only as they appear as ornaments of the temples, without special
reference to their mythological character. The}' are sufficient to show
what the sculptor intended, but not so detailed as to allow all their
emblems or characteristics being distinctly perceived. To be satis-
factory as illustrations of the mythology, it is indispensable that these
points should all be made clear. At the same time it is to be feared
that there is hardly any one in this country so familiar with all the
details of emblems and symbols as to be able to give the exact meaning
of all that is represented. It would require the assistance of some
Pandit brought up in the faith, and who is familiar with the signifi-
cance nl'all the emblems, to convey to others the true meaning of tliese
innumerable carvings. In India it could easily be accomplished, and it
is consequently hoped it may before long be attempted there.
From its very nature, it is evident that sculpture can hardly ever
be so important as architecture as an illustration of the progress of
the arts, or the affinities of nations. Tied down to the reproduction
of the immutable human figure, sculpture hardly admits of the same
variety, or the same development, as such an art as architecture,
whose business it is to administer to all the varied wants of mankind
and to express the multifarious aspirations of the human mind. Yet
sculpture has a history, and one that can at times convey its meaning
with considerable distinctness. No one, for instance, can take up such
a book as that of Cicognara,1 and follow the gradual development of the
art as he describes it, from the first rude carvings of the Byzantine
school, till it returned in the present day to the mechanical perfection
of the old Greek art, though without its ennobling spirit, and not
1 ' Storia della Soultura, dal roo riaorgimento in Italia sino nl aeonlo di Napo-
leons,' Veil zia, 1813.
L>
33
more recent researches of Colebroke and Wilson, to improve the text
considerably, but his illustrations are very inferior to those of his
predecessor. Moor chose his from such bronzes or marbles as existed
in our museums. Coleman's were generally taken from modern draw-
ings, or the tawdry plaster images made for the Durga puja of
Bengali Babus. By the aid of photography any one now attempting
the task would be able to select perfectly authentic examples from
Hindu temples of the best age. If this were done judiciously, and
the examples carefully engraved, it would not only afford a more
satisfactory illustration of the mythology of the Hindus than has yet
been given to the public, but it might also be made a history of the
art of sculpture in India, in all the ages in which it is known to us.
It is doubtful, however, whether such a work could be successfully
carried through in this country at the present day. The photographs
that exist of the various deities have generally been taken representing
them only as they appear as ornaments of the temples, without special
reference to their mythological character. The}' are sufficient to show
what the sculptor intended, but not so detailed as to allow all their
emblems or characteristics being distinctly perceived. To be satis-
factory as illustrations of the mythology, it is indispensable that these
points should all be made clear. At the same time it is to be feared
that there is hardly any one in this country so familiar with all the
details of emblems and symbols as to be able to give the exact meaning
of all that is represented. It would require the assistance of some
Pandit brought up in the faith, and who is familiar with the signifi-
cance nl'all the emblems, to convey to others the true meaning of tliese
innumerable carvings. In India it could easily be accomplished, and it
is consequently hoped it may before long be attempted there.
From its very nature, it is evident that sculpture can hardly ever
be so important as architecture as an illustration of the progress of
the arts, or the affinities of nations. Tied down to the reproduction
of the immutable human figure, sculpture hardly admits of the same
variety, or the same development, as such an art as architecture,
whose business it is to administer to all the varied wants of mankind
and to express the multifarious aspirations of the human mind. Yet
sculpture has a history, and one that can at times convey its meaning
with considerable distinctness. No one, for instance, can take up such
a book as that of Cicognara,1 and follow the gradual development of the
art as he describes it, from the first rude carvings of the Byzantine
school, till it returned in the present day to the mechanical perfection
of the old Greek art, though without its ennobling spirit, and not
1 ' Storia della Soultura, dal roo riaorgimento in Italia sino nl aeonlo di Napo-
leons,' Veil zia, 1813.
L>