Page images

and pleasing, though a fracture to the nose bas 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 inost interesting feature of all is the eye. The way in which this is represented is carious; but I am not sure that it would be fair to call it altogether arisuccessful, 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 sculptör 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 bas been recently verified for me by the Honourable Mr. Walsh), I am not prepared to say.

The undrared portions of the figure are well modelled, with proportions conforming in general to cven 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 bips than the normal female figure ought, theoretically, 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 port on 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 tbroughout, 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 inage, 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 represent very varying and disparate stages of artistic power, but the final explanation of this fact I cannot as yet essay to give.

For purposes of comparison, the colossal female figure from Besnagar presented by His Highness the Maharaja Scindia to the Indian Museum, may be cited. Here we are dealing with what is generally accepted as a prąduct of the early indigenous school, where several of the characteristics of primitive art appear. In the matter of costume, however, the figure from Besnaga r is not anlike our Dedarganj image, so far as the mutilated condition of the former permits of judgment. Here again we find a manystranded girdle worn in similar way. But the head-dress is markedly divergent, as the Besnaga: statue wears what is either a wig or a knitted scarf and the hair is shown plaited in two braids which fall to meet the top of the girdle in the back. The relief is lower in the case of Besnagar, and the edges of the compoDent beads, etc., in the make-up of the girdle are less sharp. But this may be merely due to the image being more worn than our recent find. The face in particular is far too obliterated for any comparison to be drawn; but nowhere is there any trace of polish on the stone, and all in all, the Besnagar figure is far more clamsy than the one from Dedarganj. The lower portions of the latter, however, bear definite affinities with the same portions of the statue from Besnagar, while for the remaining portions the comparison is rather with the two colossi from Patna also in the Bharhut Gallery in Calcutta. They themselves, however, are least successful and convincing in their limbs and lower por. tions, and in this are closely allied to the chowri-bearer of our theme. That all three are of the same general school and period is hardly to be doubted, but I am not yet satisfied myself that the inconsistencies of all three have been finally explained as yet. To me they seem most probably transitional.

VI.-Shivaji in South Konkan and

Kanara. By Professor Jadunath Sarkar, M.A. Shivaji's dealings with the English merchants of Rajapur have been described in our December 1918 number. Here we shall narrate his doings in Kanara.

In the seventeenth centúry, Kanara, the extensive country along our west coast, was held by various Hindu chieftains. North Kanara (now included in the Bombay Presidency) owned the overlordship of Bijapur, which ruled directly over the coaststrip from Karwar (south of Goa) to Mirjan (14:30 N. Lat.), leaving the inland districts in the hands of feudatory chiefs, among whom the Nayaks of Sunda were the most important. The portion of Kanara that lay south of Mirjan formed a large and independent principality under the Keladi dynasty, whose capital was then at Bednur.

A Muslim officer with the hereditary title of Rustam-i-Zaman was the viceroy of the south-west corner of the Bijapur kingdom. His charge extended on the west coast from the Ratnagiri town, going round the Portuguese territory of Goa, to Karwar and Mirjan, while landwards it included the southern part of the Ratnagiri district, Kolhapur, Belgaum, a bit of Dharwar and the western corner of the North Kanara district. His seat was at Miraj. The fort of Panhala lay within his province but it was governed by a commandant directly under the orders, of the Sultan. He administered by means of his agents the flourishing ports of Rajapur in the north and Karwar in the south, through which the trade of the rich inland places flowed to Europe. In both towns the English had factories.

"The best pepper in the world is of the growth of Sunda known in England by [the name of] Karwar pepper, though

five days' journey distant from thence.” (Fryer, 11. 42.) Indeed, after the loss of Chaul, Karwar became the greatest port of Bijapur on the west coast. « The finest muslins of western India were exported from here. The weaving country was inland, to the east of the Sahyadris, at Hubli (in the Dharwar district), and at other centres, where the English East India Company had agents and employed as many as 50,000 weavers.(Bombay Gazetteer, X.V., Pt. 2, pp. 123-125.)

At Mirjan, a port twenty miles south-east of Karwar, pepper, saltpetre and betelnut were shipped for Surat. (ibid, 333.) Gersapp., a district annexed by Bednur, was so famous for its pepper that the Portuguese used to call its Rani "the pepper Queen”. (Ibid, 124.)

In 16+9 the pepper and cardamom trade of Rajapur was the chief attraction that induced the English Company to open a factory there. Vingurla was spoken of in 1660 as a great place of call for ships from Batavia, Japan and Ceylon on the one side and the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea on the other. All the ports of the Ratnagiri district did much trade also in calicoes, silks, grain and coarse lac, though pepper was their chief export, " which coming out of Kanara is sent by sea to Persia, Surat and Europe. This country is the storehouse for all its neighbours.” (Bombay Gazetteer, X, 175.)


After the disastrous failure of Afzal Khan, Rustam-i-Zaman had marched against Shivaji (October, 1659) with 3,000 horse, but this show of hostility was made simply to save his credit with his King. The queen-regent, Bari Sahiba, being his enemy, he bad made a secret alliance with Shivaji for self-protection. This fact was well known to the country around and even the English factors had heard of it. But even if Rustam had been in earnest, he could have done little with his small army.

Shivaji had followed up his victory qver Afzal's army by pushing on to Panhala and capturing that fort. Then he entered the Ratnagiri district and began to “take possession of all the

« PreviousContinue »