Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:04:10.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Document of Indian Painting*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

The Cambridge University Library has in its collection a well preserved manuscript of the Buddhist Tantric text Kālacakratantra whose painted covers are of considerable significance to the history of Indian painting. According to the colophon the manuscript was written in Bihar in the 15th century, a period from which we have no documentary evidence of such painting in Eastern India.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 103 note 1 Add. 1364; cf. Bendall, C., Catalogue of Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts, Cambridge, 1883, pp. 6970. This manuscript has so far not attracted the attention of students of Indian painting.Google Scholar

page 103 note 2 For a brief idea of the contents of the manuscript see, Dasgupta, S. B., Obscure Religious Cults, Calcutta, 1962, p. 25.Google Scholar

page 103 note 3 Bendall made a slight mistake in his reading of the colophon. In the last line instead of magadhadeśiyaka āragrāma he read magadhadeśiya kahyāragrāma. The letter following ka is undoubtedly ā and not the conjoint form hyā as read by him.

page 104 note 1 Buchanan suggested that the word Arrah derived from Araṇya-devī. Another tradition would make it Ārāma-nagara. A third tradition derives the word from ārā meaning “saw”. See Patel, D. R., Antiquarian Remains of Bihar, Patna, 1963, pp. 56.Google Scholar

page 104 note 2 Majumdar, R. C. (Ed.), The Struggle for Empire, Bombay, 1957, p. 477Google Scholar and The Age of Imperial Kanauj, Bombay, 1955, p. 394Google Scholar, n. 93 and 94 and other references cited therein.

page 104 note 3 Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XV, p. 301 f.

page 105 note 1 Mookerjee, M., “An Illustrated Cover of a Manuscript of the Ashṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā in a Private Collection,” Lalit Kalā, No. 6, 1959, p. 57Google Scholar, PL E.

page 105 note 2 Cowell's edition, I, 27.

page 105 note 3 Thomas, E. J., Life of the Buddha as Legend and History, p. 31.Google Scholar

page 106 note 1 ibid., p. 154.

page 106 note 2 Bhattacharyya, B. T., Indian Buddhist Iconography (2nd ed.), Calcutta, 1958, pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

page 107 note 1 Mitra, R. L., The Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal, Calcutta, 1882, pp. 4950.Google Scholar

page 109 note 1 Khandalavala, K. and Chandra, Moti, “A consideration of an Illustrated MS from Mandapadurga (Mandu) Dated A.D. 1439,” in Lalit Kalā, No. 6, 1959, p. 8Google Scholar f.; PI. II, Figs. 6 and 7, and PI. Ill, Figs. 9 and 10.

page 109 note 2 Coomaraswamy, A. K., Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 08, 1921, Vol. XIX, No. 114, p. 47Google Scholar f. Coomaraswamy was not sure whether the manuscript belonged to Nepal or to India. The colophon definitely states that is was written in the 4th regnal year of Gopala, probably Gopala III of Bengal, as suggested by Coomaraswamy. Thus, there seems no reason to attribute it to Nepal.

page 111 note 1 Krishnadasa, Rai, “An Illustrated Avadhī Ms. of Laur-Chanda in the Bhārat Kalā Bhavan, Banaras,” in Lalit Kalā, Nos. 1–2, p. 66 f.Google Scholar