spirit, subject, and details are pure Indian. M. Le Bon truly observes that 'la puissance de déformation du génie hindou est en effet si grande, que les formes empruntées subissent des transformations qui les rendent bientôt méconnaissables.' Many illustrations of this proposition in both plastic art and literature might be cited. When the Indians adopt and adapt a foreign suggestion they do it so cleverly and transmute the spirit of the work so completely that the imitation seems to be indigenous and original.
It is, perhaps, advisable to remind the reader that the Persian art -referred to was itself based upon Assyrian models, so that in a sense the Indian capitals may be described as Assyrian. But the bas-reliefs, while closely related to those of Alexandria, differ completely in style from the stiff formal bas-reliefs of Assyria and Persia. I believe it to be probable that India was never, up to quite recent times, more exposed to the impact of foreign ideas than it was during the Maurya age. All these matters, however, require much more attentive consideration than they have yet received, and here can be merely alluded to. But it seems clear that Indian art in the Maurya and Sunga periods, whatever may have been the nationality of the artists employed, attained a high standard of merit when compared with anything except the masterpieces of Greek genius, and that it deserves an honourable place in the history of the artistic achievements of the world.
The inscriptions dispersed throughout the empire
