________________
DECEMBER, 1918 ]
MAURYANA
293
(2) Base.I have observed above that Maurya columns have no base-in Persia they invariably have that appendage. And the reason is not far to seek-if Persian structures are inspired by the huts of peasants, such as those that we see now and which doubtless existed in profusion in those times, the reason becomes apparent. The truth is that Persian structures are built from wooden models and some stone was necessary to prevent the access of damp to the wooden columns. See Perrot and Chipiez, p. 98, The Persian base presents an infinite variety-a rectangular piecé and above it, a series of concentric circles bulging in the middle ; a bell highly decorated with rosettes, &c., and above a round superstructure, &c. (Observe that this bell does not present any point of similarity with the lotus or even a conventionalised lotus—there is not the faintest indication of a leaf, a petal or tendril). Also a highly conventional ornament of a highly decorative type which is utterly divergent from any decoration found in India. See Perrot and Chipiez, pp. 88, 89, 91 and 93; for other bases, Dieulafoy II, pp. 82-85.
(3) Shaft.--In India it is plain, round, highly polished. In Persia there is no mention of any polish. That would not be necessary, because of the coating of paint, plaster or metal which would usually be added. Secondly, it is almost invariably fluted. The only
oincidence is that they sometimes taper in Persia (Dieulafoy), in India almost invariably. The base would naturally have to be heavier and therefore thicker to counteract the law of gravitation with the increase of length. This would be eminently necessary. The resDective height cannot be compared from photos which are at best misleading. In Persia columns are never monolithic, in the Mauryan period, always. It is very strange that Indian art which merely imitated Persian should have made that experiment at the very outset.
The vast majority of Persian shafts are fluted, three given in Dieulafoy are plainII, p. 83, figa, 59, 60 and 61. But evidently the plaster (which would be fluted) has peeled off. All these three are very rough in appearance which is opposed to the spirit and grain of Persian art. Lastly Perrot and Chipiez assert-(p. 87)-"It is fluted in all instances savo in the façades of the Necropolis at Persepolis (Pl. 1) and the single column that still remains of the Palace of Cyrus in the upland valley of the Polvar (fig. 11). In the latter case the building dates from a time when Persian.art had not constituted itself and was as yet groping to strike out a path of its own. On the contrary the rock-cut tombs which are coeval with the Palaces of Darius and Xerxes, and if in them the shaft is plain it was because the vaults stood a considerable height above ground. To have them fluted would have reduced-the column still further and divested it from a frank clear aspect."
(4) Capital.-The lower element of all capitals in India is a lotus-represented with extraordinary realism--with even the veins, and the slight curves found at the tip of the leaves. (N.B.-Mauryan Art is always realistic-Persian Art never.) The inverted lotus bulges at the bottom, narrows down in the middle and again bulges at the top-exactly as a full-blown lotus would do. Below this, there is the “cable" as well as above it, together with the "bead and reel." The prototype of the cable is the rope, as well as of the reel) and the bead must also have been found in profusion in India (if it is really a bead). As Asokan art was eminently realistic, they transferred these common objects to stone (unless it be the contention of the European archæologist that Indians borrowed the rope from the West). What is called a bead and reel may also be a different variety of rope. Nothing similar is found in Persia-to judge from the plates in Perrot and Chipiez,
