[221] There is a capital at Siah, in Syria, on which a bust is introduced, which may be as early as the Christian Era, but it is a solitary example not repeated afterwards, so far as I know. See ‘Syrie Centrale,’ by De Voguë, plate 3.
[222] In Beal’s introduction to ‘Fa Hian,’ p. 18, he mentions, on Chinese authority, which is much more reliable than Indian, that a statue of Buddha was brought to China from Kartchou (?) in B.C. 121. On asking Mr. Beal to look carefully into the authorities for this statement, he reports them to be hazy in the extreme, and not to be relied upon.
[223] I believe it is generally admitted that the rédaction of the ‘Mahawanso,’ and other Ceylonese scriptures made in Buddhaghosha’s time, A.D. 408-420, is the oldest authentic Buddhist work we now possess. They, like the ‘Lalita Vistara,’ and other works, are founded on older works of course, but the earlier forms have been lost, and what we have is what the writers of the 5th and subsequent centuries thought they ought to be.
[224] Unfortunately no Indian list of these patriarchs has yet come to light. Those we have are derived from Japanese or Chinese sources, and are all tainted with the falsification which the Chinese made in Buddhist chronology by putting Buddha’s date back to about 1000 B.C., in order that he might have precedence of Confucius in antiquity! for so it is that history is written in the East. For a list of the twenty-eight known patriarchs, see Lassen, ‘Indische Alterthumskunde,’ vol. ii., Beilage ii. p. 1004.
[225] The capitals of these pillars are so ruined that it is difficult to speak very confidently about them. I have drawings of them by Col. Yule and by Mr. W. Simpson, and latterly Gen. Cunningham has published drawings of them, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. v. pl. 24. None of them are quite satisfactory, but this must arise from the difficulty of the task.
[226] No complete history of the ivories has been published which is sufficient for reference on this subject. Gori’s are too badly engraved for this purpose; but the first twelve plates in Labarte’s ‘Histoire de l’Art’ are perfect as far as they go. So are the plates in Maskell’s ‘Catalogue of the South Kensington Museum,’ and those published by the Arundel Society; but it is to the collection of casts in these two last-named institutions that the reader should refer for fuller information on the subject.
[227] I purchased from his artist, Mr. Nicholl, and possess all the original sketches from which the illustrations of his book were engraved.
[228] When the present governor was appointed hopes ran high that this unsatisfactory state of our knowledge would be cleared away. The stars, however, in their courses have warred against archæology in Ceylon ever since he assumed sway over the island, and the only residuum of his exertions seems to be that a thoroughly competent German scholar, Herr Goldsmidt, is occupied now in copying the inscriptions, which are numerous, in the island. These, however, are just what is least wanted at present. In India, where we have no history and no dates, inscriptions are invaluable, and are, in fact, our only sources of correct information. In Ceylon, however, they are, for archæological purposes, comparatively unimportant. What is there wanted are plans and architectural details, and these, accompanied by general descriptions and dimensions, would, with the photographs we possess, supply all we now want. Any qualified person accustomed to such work could supply nearly all that is wanted in twelve months, for the two principal cities at least; but I despair of seeing it done in my day.
[229] Beal’s translation, p. 157.
[230] The artist who made the drawings for Sir E. Tennent’s book, not knowing what a serpent-hood was, has in almost all instances so drawn it as to be unrecognisable. The photographs, however, make it quite clear that all had serpent-hoods.