Page images

the hips, but gathered to a single rope in front, which passes through two opposed and flaring bell-shaped fasteners disposed at either side of the central pendent folds described above. These fasteners we may presume were made of gold, but the several strands of the girdle are composed of flat lozenges, doubtless of semi-precious stones, like agate or cornelian, separated each from each by two round beads; both these constituent features being commonly met with in our excava ions in early sites in India. Eesides this beautiful and effective ornament the statue shows a necklace of three strands of pearl-like beads, two of which strands are of substantial length and fall pendu lously between the breasts, while the third is disposed in a shorter loop around the neck. The earrings, which are shaped something like an hour-glass, or double drum, with the lower member ending in an inverted cone, are extraordinarily massive and distend the lobe enormously, though not perhaps to quite Peruvian dimensions. The right forearm shows thirteen (or is. it fourteen ?) bangles, with a prominent armlet near the elbow, while even the head itself is wreathed with ropes of beads or pearls caught up to a point in front, above a large and prominent oval disk of some kind placed centrally over the forehead; they are thence led backwards in a double line along the parting to find fastening beneath the luxuriant tresses of the coiffure behind. Large and ruff-like anklets madeup of what may or may not be little bells or other jingling objects, complete the adornment of a figure, which, all in all, and in view of its humble character as a chowri-bearer, is elaborated with surprising sumptuousness.

In point of modelling, the statue is in some ways fairly, paradoxical and partakes of the characteristics of both classes of early work in India, the definitely indigenous and the supposedly exotic. The pose is easy, natural, and lifelike to an unusual degree. The head is certainly good, and represents an art far beyond the incipient or experimental stage, being conceived as unit, and really in the round, so that it appears equally convincing from all sides and angles. The face is distinctly feminine


[ocr errors]


Photo-engraved & printed at the Offices of the Survey of India, Calcutta, 1919.

[ocr errors]

and pleasing, though a fracture to the nose has sadly disfigured it; and it is noticeable that the line of the eyes (although the two are not exactly even) is hardly if at all above the diameter of the facial ovoid. The chin and the neck are good, the latter showing naturalistic folds or creases, but the most interesting feature of all is the eye. The way in which this is represented is curious; but I am not sure that it would be fair to call it altogether unsuccessful, since somehow it seems to give the face an upward glance, which may be in some way contributory to the general look of animation which is one of the charms of the statue. What is more remarkable still is the, to me, definite slant the eyes disclose, which reminds one of the slanting eyes noticed by the sculptor Mr. Hampton in the case of the Mauryan head unearthed by me at Site No. I, Kumrahar. What significance may or may not attach to this detail (which has been recently verified for me by the Honourable Mr. Walsh), I am not prepared to say.

The undraped portions of the figure are well modelled, with proportions conforming in general to even the most modern canons for the female form. Some attempt even has been made at softened muscular delineation in the umbilical region, and even of the fleshy folds at the waist; but the attempt is restrained, and the figure as a whole preserves that softness of contour and rotundity without muscular prominences which are appropriate to the subject.

In other respects, however, the work is less successful. There is none of that "knock-knee" which is supposedly characteristic of the female figure, i.e. there is perhaps less narrowness across the knees than could be desired, less difference in girth between the knees and the hips than the normal female figure ought, thcoretically, to show; but this may be partly due to the highly unsuccessful treatment of the lower drapery, which exaggerates the apparent defect, particularly in the back, where the form as a whole is heavy and almost wooden. This portion of the figure shows the square angles and the preternaturally shallow depth characteristic of primitive art in all countries, and the back a

flatness which betrays the early stage at which the artist stood. This is of course in line with what has been said above about the diaphanous quality of the drapery being better remembered by the sculptor in dealing with the front of the statue than with the other sides—a fact illustrated by the way in which the patella shows through the front drapery whereas in the back we find a mere shapeless and impervious mass, lightened only by schematic folds of wholly artificial character. Seen from the rear, or either of the back angles, the statue might as well be a flattened tree-trunk, or a post, as a living human form; and this quality is an accepted criterion for early and primitive, or should I say formative, art. It is this fact which makes the statue as a whole so paradoxical. The upper portions of it, especially the undraped parts, as well as the facial modelling, betray nothing of this clumsiness and lack of skill. Here the artist is away beyond the "memory picture" stage and, granting him the usual Indian predilection for firmness and rotundity in the breasts, is not untrue to nature. Is the disparity due merely to his having paid more attention to these parts? It may be so; and yet even that explanation will not suffice, because failure of this kind to realize the importance of correct and convincing modelling throughout, means failure to grasp his subject as a whole; and it is this very failure which brands the modelling as primitive. A possible explanation of the paradox is that we are dealing with the work of an artist of the primitive school represented by the Parkham image, working under the tutelage of a Mauryan master, who added certain touches in the finishing or even modelled certain parts (e.g. the head) himself. The curious distortion of the right hand and the extraordinary clumsiness of the feet, which are treated formally or schematically throughout, and, of nearly uniform width from front to back, show no attempt whatever at articulation, would bear out an idea of this kind. But I cannot pretend to solve the problem. It is a fact for any observer to perceive that the various portions of the whole

« PreviousContinue »