|
INTRODUCTION
(141a) with the Gūthapāṇaj. (227) [1]. Not quite sure, but not improbable, is the
identification of reliefs on Pl. XLI 5 with the Sūchij. (387)[2] and the reliefs in Barhut III,
Pl. LXXI (92) with the Kaṇhaj. (29)[3]. With this, the number of identifications which are
acceptable, comes to an end. The identification of the relief on Pl. XXXIV 1 with the
Vaṇṇapathaj. (2)[4] is not convincing. The same has to be said of the identification of the
relief on Pl. XXXII 4 with the Saṁgāmāvacharaj. (182)[5] and of the reliefs on Pl. XLVIII 4
(see B 63) with the Mūlapariyāyaj. (245)[6]. His endeavour to bring together at all cost
every sculpture with some text, and as far as possible with some Jātaka, very often led Barua
to completely unjustifiable and sometimes even impossible combinations. [7]
On Pl. XLVII 9 (see B 64), we have a relief in which a women-she is according to
the inscription the young wife Asāḍhāsits on the branches of a tree in a cemetery and
tells something to three jackals. I ask myself in vain what that has to do with the Asilakkhaṇaj. (126)[8], as in the Jātaka the king’s daughter does not climb up a tree, and also
has no reason to do so, and the jackals so not play any role. Likewise I do not understand,
how it is possible to explain the horse in the half-medallion represented in Barhut III,
Pl. XXVI as the famous horse Valāha, which, according to the Jātaka (196), brings home
250 merchants, whereas, according to the Divy. p. 120, only the merchant Supriya[9] is
brought home. In the medallion a horse is to be seen, being led by a man with a rein, while
another man with a spear in hand follows him. The horse is certainly not, as Barua maintains, represented as flying. Besides, the man with the spear, whom nobody would suppose
to be a merchant, does not hold fast to the tail of the horse, as told in the story. Barua’s
opinion that the artist intended to suggest through the man before the horse, that the horse was
having a human voice, will not find common consent. Probably the half medallion is purely
decorative, and the representation is chosen with regard to the profession of the donor of
the pillar, viz. the horseman (asavārika) Suladha (Sulabdha), cf. A 22. It seems to me
also in no way reasonable to identify the relief on Pl. XLII 9 with the Chullakaseṭṭhij. (4),
or even with the Gaṇḍatinduj. (520)[10], or to combine the relief on Pl. XLII 7 with the
Madhupiṇḍika-Apadāna (Ap. 97)[11]. The relief on Pl. XLVI 4 is being explained by Barua as
the illustration of the Kisa Vaccha episode[12] (J.V, 134, 3 ff.) in the Sarabhaṅgaj. (522). In
that case we are asked to believe, that the man who in the relief stands with folded hands before
an ascetic is the king who, according to the story, is deeply offended by him because of his
spitting. I also consider the interpretation of the relief on the Pl. XLIV 4 and its identification with the Gahapatij. (199)[13] as totally wrong. In any case the man to the left does not
lie on the earth, being caught in a noose. On the contrary, he sits in a position called in
______________________
Ibid. III, p. 3 f.
Ibid. II, p. 126 f.
Ibid. II, p. 90 f. Barua himself seems to have given up the identification of the fragment on
Pl. XXXIII 6 with the Suṁsumāraj. (208) proposed in the ʄPASB., New Ser. XIX, p. 348 f. because it
is not again mentioned in his list. The monkey represented in the fragment seems in fact only to be
decorative, as well as the squirrels in Barh. III, Pl. X.
Ibid. II p. 81 f.
Ibid. II, p. 103 f. The bridge on which the great elephant walks, and the curious basis on which
the small elephant stands remain unexplained.
BI. p. 84 ; Barh. II, p. 108 f.─ Dighatapasi cannot mean ‘the venerable ascetic’ but is obviously
a proper name.
Some of these false interpretations, not mentioned here, have been discussed in the text.
BI. p. 83 ; Barh. II, p. 97 ff.
Ibid. II, p. 104 f.
Ibid. II, p. 170 f.
Ibid. II, p. 167 f.
Ibid. II, p. 144 f.
Ibid. II, p. 105 f.
|
