________________
114
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[APRIL, 1880.
Some of the illustrations will amuse, if they do | At p. 133 is a very meagre account of the sculpnot perplex, the reader : thus on plate vii. isture on plate xx. fig. 3. The central figure is given a photograph of the Southern Façado of Buddha under the Bodhi tree conventionally rethe Great Temple', which is intelligible enough, but presented by two leaves; and round him are some the next plate is the same thing "restored." No of the principal scenes in the legend of his life. one looking at it would suppose that the first could Below, on his right, is a representation of the story ever be restored so as to look the least like the told by Hiwen Thsang, of Buddha at Mathura, second; their proportionate heights to the bottom when the monkey brought him a pot of honey and of the finial (which is destroyed in the first) are as then fell into a tank, and was drowned, but, for this 3 to 5. We turn to the text p. 79, and are told meritorious act, became a man in the next birth. in a footnote that the plate is wrong; "the Above this is the well-known incident at Rajanumber of storeys above the terrace should be griha, in which the elephant let loose to kill eight as in the photograph" (the first we suppose) Buddha, is represented kneeling at the feet of the "and not nine." But even this correction would teacher. Above this, again, is the Banaras scene not make the two in any way comparable. The of Buddha seated (in the dharmachakra mudrd) and author in trying his hand at a' restored drawing first preaching his law. On the opposite side a has failed to see that both the proportions and the similar representation is perhaps intended to redetails of the original should be followed ; and, not present him on his visit to Svarga to teach his having attended to this, his restoration is a delu- mother; and just below it is the scene where Maha sion. After comparing these two plates, on looking Modgallyana requested him to descend. Below next at the restored Porch of the Great Temple this is Mayadevi holding the branch of a tree; in plate xix; of which "there is at present no such and on the lowest compartment is represented, structure," the reader will have no hesitation in according to custom, the maker of the image. concluding that it never did nor could have existed Above all is the Nirudna scene. Such slabs are -unless it had been put up in the 19th century.
abundant about Buddha-Gaye, all representing This failure to comprehend what is before the same favourite scenes, none of which need be him, must seriously affect the value of any re- mistaken. In the Panch Påndava temple there construction Dr. Rajendralala may attempt. is a very good example of it where the monkey in We doubt if he so understands the elements that the first and the elephant in the second scene are enter into the distinction of successive forms of & very well cut; also the deer below the Bandras style, as to be able to judge of the value of a re- scene, and a shl tree at the head and feet of the storation of any building.
nirvdna figure; while in the Svarga scene a disFrom architecture we turn to the sculptures re- ciple is making namaskara to the standing Budpresented in his many tinted plates; and of these dha, as related by Fa-Hian; and the infant Buddha we first remark generally that the features given is represented as being born from the side of to the figures are not such as are usually met with Maya-Sakra making music at the great event. in Hindu or Buddhist sculptures: the faces are Round the nimbus is the formula Ye dharma hetu, two narrow below, and just such as students from &c., and on the redestal is an inscription, dated our Schools of Art are most apt to draw if not in the 11th year of King Mahipala's reign carefully watched and kept right. In the smaller which reads thus details also there are errors of carelessness and [') ...... TIRT=T4a F hent inaccuracy that the author ought not to have
सकलसन्वराशेरनुत्तरज्ञानावाप्तय इति महाtolerated : some of these we shall remark below.
[%] ...... 24CHHET 44CHārtaff-819Dr. Rajendralála, however, whilst intent on contradicting what heconsiders the mistakes of General
देवप्रवर्धमानविजयराज्ये एकादशमे सम्वत्सरे अभिलिख्य Cunningham, Mr. J. Fergusson and Professor
[5] .. .. ..Tereta Tradicar efter.. Weber, has but short space to devote to the de
fara H scription and explanation of the details of the Why has Dr. Rajendralála passed over all this in sculptures be presents ; but being a native of India, entire silence The details are just what give and having a great reputation for scholarship, it interest to the sculpture, and the inscription so far could hardly be supposed he would make any fixes its age. mistake in mythology. We are sorry, however,
On plate xxx. are represented three figures, to have to point out even in this department such which he regards as 'Buddha and attendants errors as he might surely have easily avoided. or disciples' (p. 135): but if we look at the two
• Here the draughtsman has omitted his tail.
• Here again the elephant's head, represented in the sculpture, is omitted in the drawing.
This is so badly drawn that no one would recognise even the attitude.
