DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0204
Chap. VII.
CiANDHARA MONASTERIES.
181
any cave, before it appears at Amravati on the great rail, in the 4th
century of our era. Earlier examples may be found, but till they are,
its presence militates against the idea that these sculptures can be so
early as the 1st century after Christ, and, with the other evidence,
would seem to indicate a much more modern date.
One other argument seems to bear directly on this point. From
what has been said above (ante, p. 76), it appears that the erection
of the topes in Gandhara was spread pretty evenly over the whole
time that elapsed from the Christian Era till Buddhism ceased to be
the religion of the country, in the 7th or 8th century; and that the
most nourishing period was about the year a.d. 400, when Fa Hian
visited the country. It seems reasonable to suppose that the erection
of the monasteries would follow the same course, and that we might
expect their greatest development to be simultaneous. To compress
the monasteries and their sculptures within the limits of the 1st
century after Christ would seem to violate all the probabilities of the
case.
In addition to all this local evidence, when we come to compare these
sculptures with those of the western world, especially with those of
sarcophagi or the ivories of the lower empire, it seems impossible not to
be struck with the many points of resemblance they present. There are
many of the Gandhara bas-reliefs which, if transferred to the Latern
Museum, and labelled as " Early Christian," would pass muster with
ninety-nine people out of one hundred who visit that collection.
There may be one or two that might be described as belonging to
as early an age as that of Hadrian, but generally they would seem of
later date.
Among the ivories, those about the time of Constantine present
about the same jumble of the classical orders, the same reminiscence
of classical art in the figure-sculpture, mixed up with the incon-
gruities borrowed from extraneous sources which it is difficult to
account for; but both in their perfections and their faults they seem
so distinctly to belong to the same class of art that it is difficult to
believe they do not belong to the same age. The great difficulty here
is to know what equation we ought to allow for distance in space
which may have the same effect as time in producing apparent
differences; but this hardly seems to have been of much importance
here.
Against all this may be urged the difficulty of understanding how
such direct and important influence could have been exercised by the
Byzantines in this remote province without its leaving any trace of
its existence on the arts of the Parthians or Sassanians, whose king-
dom lay between, and without our having any written record of such
intimate relations. It is difficult, of course, but, if the facts are as
stttted above, such negative inferences must make way before the posi-
CiANDHARA MONASTERIES.
181
any cave, before it appears at Amravati on the great rail, in the 4th
century of our era. Earlier examples may be found, but till they are,
its presence militates against the idea that these sculptures can be so
early as the 1st century after Christ, and, with the other evidence,
would seem to indicate a much more modern date.
One other argument seems to bear directly on this point. From
what has been said above (ante, p. 76), it appears that the erection
of the topes in Gandhara was spread pretty evenly over the whole
time that elapsed from the Christian Era till Buddhism ceased to be
the religion of the country, in the 7th or 8th century; and that the
most nourishing period was about the year a.d. 400, when Fa Hian
visited the country. It seems reasonable to suppose that the erection
of the monasteries would follow the same course, and that we might
expect their greatest development to be simultaneous. To compress
the monasteries and their sculptures within the limits of the 1st
century after Christ would seem to violate all the probabilities of the
case.
In addition to all this local evidence, when we come to compare these
sculptures with those of the western world, especially with those of
sarcophagi or the ivories of the lower empire, it seems impossible not to
be struck with the many points of resemblance they present. There are
many of the Gandhara bas-reliefs which, if transferred to the Latern
Museum, and labelled as " Early Christian," would pass muster with
ninety-nine people out of one hundred who visit that collection.
There may be one or two that might be described as belonging to
as early an age as that of Hadrian, but generally they would seem of
later date.
Among the ivories, those about the time of Constantine present
about the same jumble of the classical orders, the same reminiscence
of classical art in the figure-sculpture, mixed up with the incon-
gruities borrowed from extraneous sources which it is difficult to
account for; but both in their perfections and their faults they seem
so distinctly to belong to the same class of art that it is difficult to
believe they do not belong to the same age. The great difficulty here
is to know what equation we ought to allow for distance in space
which may have the same effect as time in producing apparent
differences; but this hardly seems to have been of much importance
here.
Against all this may be urged the difficulty of understanding how
such direct and important influence could have been exercised by the
Byzantines in this remote province without its leaving any trace of
its existence on the arts of the Parthians or Sassanians, whose king-
dom lay between, and without our having any written record of such
intimate relations. It is difficult, of course, but, if the facts are as
stttted above, such negative inferences must make way before the posi-