DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27191#0256
220
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE.
Book I.
of our era, it follows that “ the zenith of the art and period of
its greatest expansion falls before the second half of the 2nd
century.” Such an argument must have much weight in
deciding this question.1
About the beginning of our era Greek art had become
a matter of commerce and export, and Graeculi travelled in
all directions with their wares and models, ready to employ
their skill in the service of Gaul, Skythian, or Indian to
provide images for their pantheons by imitations from their
own patterns. They could also represent for their employers
the different classical orders of architecture, and would teach
their pupils how to carve them ; but, with or without models,
the copy would be modified to suit the Indian taste ; and so,
for the acanthus of the Greek capital, were introduced the
palms with which the Indian workmen were familiar ; and the
figures of Nike—we see in the Corinthian capitals of antse
in the temple of Augustus erected about A.D. io at Ancyra,
or in those of Priene, were reproduced in Gandhara as little
figures of Buddha.2 It is an imitation of Greek forms with
divergencies—not a copy—but the suggestion must have come
from those travelling Greek artists — probably Ionians — who
were the agents by whom the Gandhara sculptures were
inspired, and Greek statuary was the model from which the
Mahayana pantheon was evolved.3
Further, it is at least approximately correct to state that no
statue of Buddha, in any of his conventional attitudes, has been
found in India executed earlier than about the Christian Era.
Those on the facade at Karle and in the western caves are
avowedly insertions of the 2nd or 3rd centuries or later. There
are none found at Bodh - Gaya, Bharaut, or Sanchi; nor do I
know of any one in India that can be dated before the ist
century. In these Gandhara monasteries they are very frequent,
and of a type which in India would be assumed to be as late
as the 2nd or 3rd century; some of them even later.
It is true Buddhist books tell us frequently of statues of
Buddha having been made at much earlier dates.4 But Indian
books have this fatal defect, that they represent facts and beliefs
at the time they were written, or acquired the forms in which
we now find them, without much reference to facts at the time
at which they are supposed to have happened. The actual
remains and the period to which they belong are our surest
1 Foucher, ‘ L’Art Greco-Bouddhique
du Gandhara,’ torne i. pp. 40ff.
2 ‘ Buddhist Art in India,’ p. 153.
There is also a capital at Siah, in Syria,
on which a bust is introduced, which
may be as early as the Christian Era.
—De Vogue, ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ plate 3.
3 It may be accepted that Greek art
furnished India with the images that
served for the beliefs.—Goblet D’Alviella,
‘ Ce que l’lnde doit a la Grece,’ p. 152.
* ‘ Buddhist Art in India,’ pp. i7iff.
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE.
Book I.
of our era, it follows that “ the zenith of the art and period of
its greatest expansion falls before the second half of the 2nd
century.” Such an argument must have much weight in
deciding this question.1
About the beginning of our era Greek art had become
a matter of commerce and export, and Graeculi travelled in
all directions with their wares and models, ready to employ
their skill in the service of Gaul, Skythian, or Indian to
provide images for their pantheons by imitations from their
own patterns. They could also represent for their employers
the different classical orders of architecture, and would teach
their pupils how to carve them ; but, with or without models,
the copy would be modified to suit the Indian taste ; and so,
for the acanthus of the Greek capital, were introduced the
palms with which the Indian workmen were familiar ; and the
figures of Nike—we see in the Corinthian capitals of antse
in the temple of Augustus erected about A.D. io at Ancyra,
or in those of Priene, were reproduced in Gandhara as little
figures of Buddha.2 It is an imitation of Greek forms with
divergencies—not a copy—but the suggestion must have come
from those travelling Greek artists — probably Ionians — who
were the agents by whom the Gandhara sculptures were
inspired, and Greek statuary was the model from which the
Mahayana pantheon was evolved.3
Further, it is at least approximately correct to state that no
statue of Buddha, in any of his conventional attitudes, has been
found in India executed earlier than about the Christian Era.
Those on the facade at Karle and in the western caves are
avowedly insertions of the 2nd or 3rd centuries or later. There
are none found at Bodh - Gaya, Bharaut, or Sanchi; nor do I
know of any one in India that can be dated before the ist
century. In these Gandhara monasteries they are very frequent,
and of a type which in India would be assumed to be as late
as the 2nd or 3rd century; some of them even later.
It is true Buddhist books tell us frequently of statues of
Buddha having been made at much earlier dates.4 But Indian
books have this fatal defect, that they represent facts and beliefs
at the time they were written, or acquired the forms in which
we now find them, without much reference to facts at the time
at which they are supposed to have happened. The actual
remains and the period to which they belong are our surest
1 Foucher, ‘ L’Art Greco-Bouddhique
du Gandhara,’ torne i. pp. 40ff.
2 ‘ Buddhist Art in India,’ p. 153.
There is also a capital at Siah, in Syria,
on which a bust is introduced, which
may be as early as the Christian Era.
—De Vogue, ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ plate 3.
3 It may be accepted that Greek art
furnished India with the images that
served for the beliefs.—Goblet D’Alviella,
‘ Ce que l’lnde doit a la Grece,’ p. 152.
* ‘ Buddhist Art in India,’ pp. i7iff.