No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
page 369 note 1 The different versions of this business given by the Chinese have been discussed very fully by Specht, S. Lévi, Franke, and Chavannes. All are agreed that a Chinese official, a po-che-ti-tseu, or minister of the Emperor's ancestral temple, learnt Buddhist Sutras from a Yue-che of high rank named I-ts'un. But whether I-ts'un came as an ambassador to China, or the Chinaman formed part of an embassy to the Yue-che, and whether the Chinese officiaḷ's name was Ts'in King, or King Lou, or King Hien—all this is in dispute. Specht, JA., October–December, 1883, pp. 317 ff.; January–February, 1890, pp. 180 ff.; July–August, 1897, pp. 166 ff.; S. Lévi, JA., January–February, 1897, pp. 14 ff., and November–December, pp. 527 ff.; May–June, 1900, pp. 451 ff.; O. Franke, Beiträge, etc. (Abhandlungen d. könig. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 1904), pp. 90 ff.; Chavannes, , T'oung-pao, 1905, p. 546Google Scholar, nn. 3, 4, and p. 547, n. 1.
page 369 note 2 Chavannes, , T'oung-pao, 1905, p. 550, n. 1.Google Scholar
page 369 note 3 Ibid., p. 546, n. 3; MacGowan, , History of China, pp. 117–18.Google Scholar
page 370 note 1 Parker, B. A., “Origins of Chinese Buddhism”: Asiatic Quarterly Review, 10, 1902, p. 382.Google Scholar
page 370 note 2 Rapson, , “Indian Coins” (Gründriss), §74Google Scholar; see also my forthcoming papers on “The Nameless King” and “The Later Kushans”.
page 371 note 1 Vide my papers on “The Secret of Kanishka”, and Fleet, J. F., “The Question of Kanishka,” JRAS., 1913, pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar
page 371 note 2 JRAS., 1913, p. 193.Google Scholar
page 371 note 3 The traditions which connect Aśvaghosha and Charaka with Kanishka are found in S. Lévi, JA., 1896–7, ser. ix, vol. viii, pp. 444–89; vol. ix, pp. 1 ff.; Jolly, “Medicin,” in Bühler, 's Gründriss, pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Thomas, F. W., Ind. Ant., xxxii, pp. 345Google Scholar ff. I am obliged to the kindness of a friend for calling my notice to the facts regarding Charaka.
page 372 note 1 Fergusson, , History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, pp. 177ffGoogle Scholar., and Smith, V., “Græco-Roman Influence on the Civilisation of Ancient India,” JASB. 1889Google Scholar, have discussed the date of these Gandhāra sculptures at considerable length. I should like to point out in this connexion one fact which appears to me of importance, and which, I think, has been overlooked. The Roman sculptors of the time of Trajan and Hadrian attempted to give their bas-reliefs the effect of a picture. They used colour, of course, but that was not peculiar to them. Their peculiarity was that, like Gioberti in after days, they made their figures recede from the spectator in different planes by the use of foreshortening and a vastly improved perspective (MrsStrong, E., Roman Sculpture from Augustus to GonstantineGoogle Scholar). Some of the Amarāvati bas-reliefs show the influence of this art. There is a distinct effort to foreshorten some of the figures, more especially the elephants, and an attempt is made at the grouping of a picture. Had the Gandhāra bas-reliefs been executed in the second century a.d., we should have expected to find something similar. But the case is otherwise. There is rarely, or never, the smallest attempt at perspective; the figures are ranged the one above the other; and the modelling of the figures resembles that on the Christian sarcophagi and the Roman ivory diptychs, which date from the latter half of the fourth and from the fifth century of our era. Much of the Gandhāra work might easily pass for fifth century Roman work, were it not for the presence of small Indian details. Moreover, the Corinthian capitals from Gandhāra are of a late type, and those which contain human figures hidden among the acanthus leaves cannot be earlier than the third century A. D. Most of the Jamalgarhi and Takht-i-Bahāi bas-reliefs will ultimately turn out, I fancy, to be fifth century productions, or perhaps even later. The Sassanian monarchs employed Byzantine artists, and it was probably through the work of these artists that Græco-Roman influences penetrated to Gandhāra.
page 373 note 1 For the excavation of the stūpa and the report on, and discussion of, the coins and the building v. Proc. ASB., 1879, pp. 78, 134, 208.
page 373 note 2 Oldenberg, , “Zur Frage nach der Aera des Kanishka”Google Scholar (Nachrichten v. d. könig. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1911, p. 440), quoting V. Smith, JRAS., 1903, p. 35. Professor Oldenberg's article is noteworthy, not only for the learning and ability of the author, but still more for its courtesy and candour.
page 373 note 3 Cunningham merely says, “several of the specimens of Wema Kadphises are so very much worn as to have lost 10 grains in weight,” Proc. ASB., 1879, p. 209.Google Scholar
page 373 note 4 Private letter.
page 373 note 5 Proc. ASB., 1879, p. 123.
page 374 note 1 Proc. ASB., 1879, p. 127.
page 374 note 2 Ibid., p. 129.
page 374 note 3 Ibid., p. 134.
page 374 note 4 There is always the possibility that any particular coin may have been put into hoard soon after it was issued, and taken out of the hoard just before its deposit in the place where it was found. Dr. Fleet informs me that he has rupees, half rupees, quarter rupees, and twoanna pieces of William IV, dated 1835, and of Victoria, dated 1840 and 1841, and half annas and quarter annas of the East India Company dated 1835, taken at haphazard from money which came out of hoard in and about 1894, when the coinage of silver was under suspension. The copper coins and a few of the others show some small signs of wear; but others of the silver coins are as perfect as on the day when they were minted. It was the pressure of circumstances that brought them out: but for that, they might have remained hidden, in just the same state, for an indefinite time.
page 374 note 5 Cunningham, , p. 79Google Scholar of the reprint from Num. Ghron., ser. iii, pp. 268–311.Google Scholar
page 375 note 1 JRAS., 1912, p. 997Google Scholar; Cunningham, , p. 20Google Scholar of the reprint, Num. Chron., ser. iii, vol. viii, pp. 199–248.Google Scholar
page 376 note 1 Proc. ASB., 1879, p. 78.
page 376 note 2 Ibid., pp. 135–6.
page 376 note 3 Ibid., p. 212.
page 376 note 4 Ibid., p. 209.
page 376 note 5 Ibid., p. 212.
page 376 note 6 Ibid., p. 135.
page 376 note 7 Num. Chron., ser. iii, vol. xix, p. 263.Google Scholar
page 377 note 1 Hoernle, Proc. ASB., 1886, pp. 86–9.
page 377 note 2 Ibid., p. 88.
page 377 note 3 Ibid., 1879, p. 209.
page 377 note 4 CASR., v, p. 193.Google Scholar
page 377 note 5 Lanciani (Pagan and Christian Rome, p. 133Google Scholar) says that granite capitals enclosing the bust of Hadrian among acanthus leaves adorned the gateway of St. Peter's basilica at Rome, erected by Constantine. I have also seen mention of the practice in some second century writer, possibly the rhetor Ælius Aristides, but I cannot at this moment lay my hand on the reference. The ordinary textbooks of architecture, e.g. Durm, Die Baukunft der Römer, p. 260Google Scholar, mention only the capitals of Caracalla's Thermæ, which were begun in A. D. 212, and finished under Alexander Severus (a.d. 222–34). The practice of introducing human figures among the acanthus leaves cannot have been common at Rome; they are not found in the Corinthian capitals of the Arch of Septimius Severus erected in a.d. 203, nor have I met with any earlier instances except those mentioned above.
page 378 note 1 Fergusson, , History of Indian Architecture, p. 178Google Scholar, n. 3, falls into an amusing mistake, when correcting Cunningham. Cunningham had put Caracalla at the beginning of the Christian era, and founded an argument upon the date of his baths. Fergusson corrects Cunningham, but makes Caracalla a century too late (312–30). Both are mere oversights.
page 378 note 2 See his Mahâbodhi, p. 75.Google Scholar