________________
DECEMBER, 1918 ]
MAURYANA
295
In the elephant we find the broad generalisation which is so characteristic of Indian sculpture. There too the same characteristics are evident. The bull recalls even a medieval painting or scuplture, the curves are sweeping, the hump, the well-rounded body, the slack ears (which are even marked inside), the easy fall of the legs-do not certainly recall Persia.
We shall now describe the differences with Persian animals.
The animals represented in Persia are also the lion and the bull--but the lion is a conventional design with horns. The animal is thick set and the curve of the neck is exaggerated, the mane is scanty and brushed, being engraved with straight outs with the chisel, the ear is straight and stiff, the lobe is a curve (ogee), the eye is wider, the nose is a quiline, terminating in a stump, there are horses, the legs stick out at right angles, three cheek muscles are represented (not one as in India).
What is called the bull is a unicom. The proportions of the animal are not as wellrounded or delicate. The horn is of an ogee shape, the neck is an absolute arch, four lines are drawn over the eyes. Fillettes (with rosettes) are attached wherever possible. The legs protrude in a characteristic manner. It is a design, not an animal, not of the same world as the Indian bull. There is just one representation of an Indian bull in Persepolis-Perrdu and Chipioz, p. 407; but the sculptor betrays his want of skill, it is the crude attempt of an artist who is endeavouring to create something entirely novel. It is a bas-relief not a sculpture in the round, it is not as slack as the Indian prototype, the mouth is of a different shape, the udder is not wholly shewn-it is a mere elongated specimen. (From indications like these we can argue that Persia borrowed motifs and styles from India.)
These animals on the Persian entablature are placed in their characteristic position to support the wooden beams on top, which are made to rest on the horns, and on the backs surmounted by a stone, and that is the invariable rule.
Now that we have dealt with the animals, we shall pass on.
(1) If a Persian artist had executed Asokan sculpture, he would have carved an essentially Persian thing or at least would have betrayed his nationality by the representation of some feature characteristically Persian. No adaptation would seem to be neces. sary and the Persian column would have served Asoka's purpose just as well. (2) If an Indian had merely imitated from Persia,
(i) there would be some Persian characteristic in his art; (ü) the art would not have been realistic, but conventional; (ii) if Flinders Petrie is correct that a design is borrowed from a natural form
then very many of the Persian designs must have been borrowed from that primitive art, of which Maurya is the decadence-e.g., the Persian
palmetto must have been derived from the Indian lotus; (iv) the spirit of Mauryan art would not have been so essentially divergent
there would have been more colour and less sombreness. Mauryan art never stoops to those subterfuges, with which artists of every age have
tried to conceal their lack of thought; (v) the numerous decorations of Persia (or at least some of them) would have
been represented. It is useless to multiply arguments to refute an absurdity.
