|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INTRODUCTION Cunningham’s plate XXVII 10 was found years ago by Chavannes, Contes et Apologues I, p. XI in some Buddhist text. Barua does not know of it and wants to combine the relief and the Vakaj. (300) which has quite different contents[1]. The scene represented on the pillar of the South-West quadrant having the inscription Yavamajhakiyaṁ jātakaṁ (Pl. XXV 3) has already been explained rightly by Cunningham (p. 53 ff.) in its main features. although he had access only to the later versions of the story in the Bṛihatkathāmañjari and in the Kathāsaritsāgara. Minayeff later on hinted at the story of the prudent Amarādevī and the four ministers in the Mahāummaggaj. (546)[2] as the model of the artist[3]. The representation exactly follows the text. Barua[4] manages to identify the relief with two different episodes of the Mahāummagga-Jataka on the basis of some unbelievable misinterpretations of the details.
But I may stop here. If I wanted to mention all the unjustified conclusions, all the
contradictions, inexact and unclear matters found throughout the work of Barua I should
have to fill many pages. They are as numerous as the many misprints and false citations.[5]
[1] Barh. II, p. 114 f. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
