| OCR Text |
Show 106 lliNDOO AND CllJNESE In the same symbolical way, the Goddess of Beauty and Pleasure is tho Godd ss of Nature; for, Nature is always beautiful, and the beautiful always natural. he is tho wife of hi.va-tho God of Destruction, and holds a flower in one band, with a snake coiled around it: since pleasure is blended with danger, as lifo and beauty with death. I ca11110t enter l10ro upon llindoo Architecture, nor give any details of the wonders of the cave-temples, some of them resembling our churches by their nave and aisl s. pace forbids me to speak of tho colossal tanks in the south surrounded by huge buildings, and adorned by grand flio·hts of steps; or of the deep wells in the west, cut into the rock and smmountcd by a series of gall ri s, to aftord cool shade in that hot climate. I must not hero enumerate their triumphal mOJ1UJn.cnts, their columns decorated with reliefs, their grand arches surmounted by statues. Su:flicc it to mention the :fact, that Uindoo art, through all tho epochs of its history, was entirely indigenous and pcenliar to tho peninsula. Tho groat palaces, temples, and tombs of tho Mohammetlan princes bear not the slightest resemblance to tf1c native architcctur , being thorns lves analogons to the mosques of Cairo, aud tho seraglios of Constantinople or of Moorish pain. The character of llindoo sculpture is similar to Hindoo poetry: it is eminently feminine. We find with their artists always a delicate fooling for tho plea ant and gracefu l, as well as for tho pompous and adorned, whilst they {ail in their attomvts at grandeur,- being either cmshcd by tho ox:ub ranee of tho decorative clement, or losinothcmsclves in tasteless and adventurous exaggeration. In general, their statues and rolids arc true in tho principal forms, and soft and elaborate in execution. The sculptors arc peculiarly rmcccssful in rendering the expression of deep contemplation, or of religious devotion. The repro cntations of domestic life arc of the greatest sweetness; the feminine paAsivc character of tl10 IJindoos being admirably portrayed in their pleasant simplicity. But when a God is to be d1·awn in action, and his power to be symholiz d, tho artist fail cl in his task: uuablc to reproduce superhuman power by idealizing the human form, he betook himself to unartistic and symbol ical methods, as by multiplying head and hands. uch symboli cal personifications of Godhead are not at all oxclusi vely IIincloo; they were not unknown to the mythology, and earlier poets of Greece. The Giants, with their hundred arms; Geryon, with three bodies; and Polyphemus, with his eye ~n the_foro~ca~; arc subjects of art as unplastic as any creatures of Ilmdoo 1magmatwn. .But the Greek sculptors avoided to represent CIVILIZA'flONS AND ART. 107 such myths, whereas the Indian artists had often to deal with th m; and we must confess, that sometimes they succeeded in conciliating them with good ta to, by giving promin nco to tl1c prin cipal pmc fonns, and treating the monstrous appendages as decorative acccssori s. Monstrosity is, on tho whole, not tbo principal ·haractcr of Hi ndoo art; but monstrous idols cx:citc the curiosity of tho European visitor of India more than arti stically-carved statues; he buys them ancl carries them to the West, on account of their very oddity. IIcncc, our public collections and curiosity-Hh ps ar swamped with four-handed and thrcc-hcaclcd monsters, whi ch onrrht not to be taken for fair specimens of llindoo art, though th y lmvc given rise to tho general b lief that IIindostan has no art worthy to be noticed. We can scar ·ely wonder that such is tho ea o, since the public at largo-let ns boldly avow it,- cares little for art: how tbcn should it take an interest in an art founded on myths, institution s, and a culture which l1as scarcely any affin ity witl1 our own civilization? The few scholars, on the other haud, who devo te their time to the literature of Hindostan, arc but too often philologists, without any axtistic educatio n. W c l1avc, therefor , no publi •ations on llindoo art, such as those of Cham poll ion, Rm;cllini, and J..~or sius, on Egypt, or of Tcxi t', :B'bnclin, Botla, and Layard , on T'ersia and AsAyria. The most important sculptm s of Jnuitt kwc not yet been copied; and tlJC col lections brougllt to the \\Test luwc not been made with the view of giving a con·ceL idea of tho peculiar style of llindoo art in its di-fferent s •!tools and pocbs. 'l'hc onfur;ion becomes still greater, by the fact that tl10 old mythology of B1·alnnanism has, with a few slight alterations, remained the r ligiou o(' the population down to our days. Idols arc cast and carved continually, and their bal'barous style throws discr dit on the bettor spo ·i m ns of .former ag s. Our knowledge of Indian art is only fragmentary, and scarcely authorizes us to a sign its proper position to every monument, citl1er artistically or chronologically. Still, a few facts arc sufliciontly ascertained, to serve as a clue in the labyrinth of Iliudoo art. Th rock-caves, with their fantastic, cx:ul.lct·ant, and somewhat exaggerated reliefs, arc all of Hud lhist origin. They arc mol'c chaste i.n style than the idols of tho present worsl1ippcrs of Sl1iva; and bolonO' to a period of Indian history, classical for art and poett·y, from SOO u. c., to about 300 A. D. By a stmng coincidence, it is tho same pcdod in whi ·h .Phiclias and PL'axitclcs and Lysippns, and the Roman artists of Aucrustus and Trajan, .Uourishcd in Europe. Still more graceful~ and more sm·cn , ar the IIindoo scnlptm·cs of the isle of Java, which we meet in the ruins of the t m pl s of BoroBodo and Baranclanum. 'rho great ir Stamford RafHcs, and the J3ombay Asiatic Society, have published a few spceimcus of those |
