1875.] Rajendralala Mitra — On Greek Art in India. 169 



and liable to produce the same or similar postures under similar circumstan- 

 ces, is not always a safe guide. The exigencies of art have also a great deal 

 to do in the pose of a figure, without in any way indicating a necessary bor- 

 rowing. This is best illustrated by two figures published in the 3rd Volume 

 of General Cunningham's Archaeological Report. In one of them we have 

 the chariot of the Greek Apollo and in the other that of the Indian Sun. 

 The workmanship of the two is as unlike as possible, but the figure of the 

 chariot and the pose of the horses are alike. Now at first sight the latter 

 may appear as a copy of the former, but bearing in mind that the chariot in 

 Greece and India was of the same shape, we may ask could an artist, 

 whether Greek or Indian, represent effectually horses in bas-relief in other 

 than profile or three quarter view ? A front view of a horse in bas-relief 

 would show only the forepart, or must project considerably more than what 

 any bas-relief would admit of ; consequently the Greeks generally adopted 

 the pi'ofile, or the three quarter view, in the former case ranging their 

 horses, when more than one had to be shown, in a line so as to show the 

 side of one, and parts of the heads and legs of the others, and in the latter 

 case showing the front view of the chariot with half the number of horses 

 running on one side and the other half on the other, an arrangement which 

 militated against all laws of the resolution of forces. This unnatural position 

 was necessary for the sake of art, and could not be avoided ; and if we find 

 a similar disposition under similar circumstances in India, we see no reason 

 to assume that it must necessarily imply a borrowing or interchange of 

 art. There are nevertheless peculiarities in pose which when well-known 

 may be depended upon. 



" But the most valuable tests are representations of local vegetation, — 

 such as the acanthus capitals noticed by General Cunningham in the Eusofzai 

 country, — local styles of ornament, local dress and the like. These can leave 

 no room for doubt, and when they do exist and their local character is fully 

 established, we may with perfect safety come to a positive conclusion. In 

 making these remarks, it is the farthest from my wish to deny the possibili- 

 ty of detecting Greek art on sculptures found in India, or to withhold my 

 assent to particular pieces of Indian sculpture being Greek or imitations of 

 Greek work, but I cannot help thinking that the theory of Greek art in 

 India has been a great deal too much over-worked of late, and conclusions 

 drawn which are not admissible on the premises at our command. 



" Applying these principles to the sculpture discovered by Mr. Growse, 

 we find that its general appearance is not Greek, its relative proportions 

 are not such as could be declared exclusively Greek, and its details are not 

 of a Greek character. The paunchy figure of the so-called Silenus, is as unlike 

 Greek of the post-Phidian age as can be ; the females with their large busts, 

 heavy earrings, and massive neck ornaments, are not the counterparts of the 

 Venuses and Dianas of Greek art, and the payajama and chapkan of flowered 



