Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Hans Bakker

Source: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 58, No. 3/4 (1999), pp. 339-343
Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250024 .
Accessed: 05/07/2011 17:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibus. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae.

http://www.jstor.org
 ARTIBUS ASIAE, LVIII 3/4 (1999), BOOK REVIEWS
DorisMethSrinivasan,ManyHeads,ArmsandEyes,Origin,
Meaningand Formof Multiplicityin IndianArt, E.. Brill,
Leiden/NewYork/Kdln, 1997,Studiesin Asian Art and Ar-
(continuation
chaeology of Studiesin AsianCulture),vol.XX,
anda map.
x, 355PP.,76pp.of illustrations
The author'sopeningphrasedeclaresthat it is "alengthy
bookforjustonethemeandonequestion"(p. 3).Thetheme
is the so-called"multiplicityconvention,"a termshe uses
to referto the multipleheads,armsandeyeswhichcharac-
terizemuchof Indianreligiousart.Thequestionis, whatis
the meaningandsignificanceof this convention.The book
focuseson the originof thephenomenonandto this endthe
authorscrutinizesthe Sanskritliterarytradition,fromthe
Vediccorpusthroughthe Epicsas well as the archaeologi-
cal evidenceto the Guptaperiod.Her mainconcernis the
Brahmanic/Hindutradition. However, whenever these
earlysourcesarethoughtto be inadequate,latervisualand
textualmaterialis takeninto considerationas "furtherevi-
dence"(p. 3).
In view of the comprehensivescope of the book its
"lengthiness" is within reasonablelimits, thoughthereis a
certainredundancy.The bookis dividedinto two sections:
Part I, Meaning,Textual Studies;Part II, Form, Icono-
graphicStudies.Suchaschememakesit almostunavoidable
that muchthat is discussedin PartI is repeatedin PartII.
Imagesareadducedandtheiriconographydiscussedin Part
I, aswell, particularlyin the ChaptersTenandElevendeal-
ing with the Mahdndaradyana Upanisadand the "Epicsand
Beyond."Moreover,someof the mainthesesof the book,for
instancethe author'sfavoritetheme of Siva'sallegedfive-
headednessand the symbolismof numbers,arediscussed
againandagain,andChaptersSix andTwelvepartlyover-
lap.
The third section of the book consists of the plates,
whicharesuperblyreproduced. Thoughmostof the images
havebeenpublishedearlier,manyof the photographsareof
a qualitythatI havenot seenin printbefore.If only forthe
platesthe bookis an importantcontributionto Indianart
history.The numberingof the photographsis linkedto the
chaptersin whichthe imageis discussed.When imagesare
discussedor referredto in more than one chapterthis
methodof numberingcanbe confusing.A descriptivelist
of plateswouldhavedonemuchto alleviatethis confusion
andits omissionis all the moreto be regretted.
The bookis evidentlythe resultof the author'slifelong
occupationwith Indian(Hindu)artandreligiousthought.
339
A varietyof subjectsdealtwith in separatearticlesarehere
synthesizedinto one greatvision, with the resultthat the
book is ratherapodeicticin character.Other scholarsare
cited in footnotes,but mostly in orderto supportthe au-
thor'sviews,not becausetheprosandconsof alternativein-
terpretationsare balanced.By "workingwith the entire
Brahmanictextualtradition"(p. 125)and, we might add,
iconographictradition,Srinivasan displaysa richnessin lit-
eracyandart-historicalscrutinythatcannotbedonefull jus-
tice in a shortreview.We shalllimit ourobservationsto a
few centralissues.
ChapterOne(Theory)introducesthesubjectof thebook
andformulatesbrieflythemainissuesto beelaboratedin the
followingchapters.Theauthorarguesthatthe multiplicity
conventionis "notonlywell recognized[intheRgveda, here-
aftercited as RV], but that it is employedin a fundamen-
tally consistentway throughoutthe text"(p. 5). Chapters
Three and Four show that the same idea permeatesthe
AtharvaandYajurVedasaswell.
InChapterTwotheauthorgivesthreeways(definitions)
in which"multiplicitydescribesthestructureofa deitywho
creates,fashions,orprojectsforms."An activeway(I):"mul-
tiple bodilypartsandformsareassociatedwith a deitywho
createsthephenomenalworld";apassiveway(2):"multiple
bodilypartsand formsareassociatedwith a deity who re-
presentstherawmaterialoutofwhichthephenomenal world
is created";anda thirdway(3)combining(I)and(2):"mul-
tiple bodilypartsandformsareassociatedwith a deitywho
creates,projects,emanatesformsfromits numeninto the
phenomenalworld"(pp. 24-26). As examplesof (I) Srini-
vasanmentionsTvastrandViivakarman,of (2) the Purusa
of the famousPurusaHymn (RVIO.9O0), and of (3) Indra,
whoinRV3.53.8is saidto be "inthehabitof becomingevery
rupa,in effectingmayasaroundhis own body,"and in RV
6.47.I8cto bepururupa (p. 26).Thecentralthesisof the book
is thatthe samemultiplicityconventioninformsthe deities
Rudraand,to a lesserextent,Visnuin Vedicliteratureand,
subsequently,is carriedon in the early images in stone.
Tracinghis basiccharacteristics backto the Vedicreligion,
Srinivasandismissesa non-Aryanoriginof Rudra,andshe
findsno indicationeitherthat this deity originatedfroma
layerrepresentedby the materialsof the Induscivilization
(p. 47). Themultiplicityconventionassuchthusappearsto
be an heuristicconceptthat, by encompassingtextualand
materialimagesalike, is used to show that Rudraand his
cult - the figureof Visnu is morecomplicatedin this re-
spect- belongto mainstream Indo-Aryan culture.Thiscon-
 ARTIBUS ASIAE, LVIII 3/4 (1999), BOOK REVIEWS
clusion is not revolutionary,but the way by which it is
reachedis originalandassuchstandsto thecreditof the au-
thor.One wonders,however,whetherSrinivasandoes not
overstretchher point when she arguesthat the originsof
lingaworshipin Indiaarelikewiseto be tracedbackto this
tradition,because"it is demonstrablethat lingain Vedic
andepic literaturehasmeaningsdevoidofpriapiccontent,
and,thatthesemeaningsconnectwithSiva"(pp.192,23Iff.).
This maybe true,but it doesnot explainthe worshipof re-
alisticphalliasdepictedin plates17.2or 17.6.
ChaptersFiveto Sevenconcentratemainlyon Rudra's
natureand functionin Vedic literature.Centralto Srini-
vasan'sargumentis Rudra'srole in the sacrifice.This em-
phasisis in accordwith the author'sproposalto "lookat the
Vedicritualasa three-dimensional, livingiconwhoseprop-
ertiescouldprovidemodelsuponwhichto constructdevo-
tionalicons"(p. 192).As a deity to whomthe sacrificialre-
mainder(ucchista) is sometimesassigned,Rudrais not "di-
vorcedfromthe sanctimonyof theVedicrites;insteadit at-
tests to his abilityto guaranteetheircontinuation"(p. 56).
Symbolicallythis abilityis expressed,the authorargues,by
the numbereight: "Asa prime number,'seven'relatesto
the sacrifice;thusa 'sevenplus one'formulacouldsymbol-
ize a deity who is the perfectionand completionof the
sacrifice"(p. 77). Leavingaside whether "guarantee" of
sacrificialcontinuanceamountsto its "perfection andcom-
pletion"andleavingthe numerologyforwhatit is, it should
be observedthat there is anotherconcordancebetween
Rudra'slink with the numbereight andhis relationto the
sacrifice,i.e. Prajapati.The sameRudra,who, as the inces-
tuoussonof Prajapati,receiveseight names,etc. at hisbirth
(the famousastamfrti),is the onewho is homologizedwith
the firstissueof the sacrifice,the dangerous"foreportion"
(prdSitra,Sdatapathabrdhmana which is procuredby
1.7.4.9),
his (avenging)act of piercing Prajapati.This homology
seemsto be the rationaleunderlyingadhydya6 of theKausl-
taki Brdhmana.
It is questionable,however,whetherthe astamurti
is an
iconographiccategoryin its ownright.Apartfromtwo late
AstamukhaLifigas,the authorcanonlyproducetwo dubi-
ous iconicexamples,both datingfrommorethanone mil-
lenniumafterthe Brahmanaperiod,that is postdatingthe
period"whereinthe multiplicityconventionbecamefully
established"(200 B.C.-A.D.300); consequently,these im-
agescanhardlybe conceivedof as "furtherevidence"(p. 3).
Srinivasan'singeniousinterpretationof the famousParel
sculptureas a SivaAstamartirequiresthat we count both
340
topmostarmsof the eight-armedcrowningfiguretwice,in
orderto turnanapparentlysevenfoldmanifestationinto an
eightfoldone.This is how it is done:"Butsix of the bodies
havetwo arms;the topmostbodyhasten arms.Hereis the
crux.The topmostbodyis to be understoodas havingtwo
plus eight armsbecause,ideationally,it constitutestwo
forms;one bodyin the groupof seven,plus the eighth en-
velopingbody"(p. 154).Equallyunconvincingis herinter-
pretationof the secondexample,an imagefoundin Man-
dhal(pl. I9.23-24),believedto be a SivaAstamurtijust be-
causehe has altogethereight heads,thoughhe is without
anyothersign (cihna)that couldlink him to Rudra'seight
formsornames(p. 279f.).In this contextit shouldbe noted
that the authorkeepssilent aboutanother,similarimage
foundin Mandhal,whichhasanextratierof fourheads;the
conceptof this imageis, no doubt,graftedonto the eight-
headedimage.,
The AgnicayanasacrificeprovidesSrinivasanwith an-
otherVedicstarting-pointofRudra'smultiplicity."Ineach
of the fivelayerscomprisingthe greataltarare[sic]a group
of bricks called 'mukha'bricks. There are five 'mukha'
bricksin eachof the fivelayersof the altar"(p. 193).The as-
sociationof Rudrawith the deityembodiedin the firealtar
follows, accordingto the author,from the fact that the
Satarudriyalitany is chantedafterthe completionof the
altar(p. 193f.).Thoughthe authoradmitsthat "it is a big
jumpfrombricksin analtarto headson theshaftofa lifiga,"
shearguesthattheAgnicayanareveals"manyelementssug-
gestive of the iconographicpropertiesfoundin the Pafica-
mukhaLinigaof Siva"(p. 194).The authorfindssupportfor
herjumpin theSvetdsvatara andMahdndardyana Upanisads.
ChapterNine is devotedto the ?vetdivataraUpanisad
(hereafter citedas?U).9U 1.7-9definestheSupreme(parama-
brahman) as "triune,"that is, as consistingin threeunborn
(aja),i.e.irreducibleconstituents:God,thesoulandnature.
Thatthereis sucha unique,underlyingsubstanceis not ob-
vious,but canbe foundby meditation;the existenceof the
latentform(linga),being the invisiblesource(yoni)of the
manifestform (mirti),is illustratedin 9U 1.13-14by the
metaphorof the fire-drill.Likefirethis brahman, identified
it seemswith God, can be churnedin the heart.Thereis
someambiguityin the text with respectto God,whoseems
to be on the one handa constitutiveprinciple(Godas per-
son)andon the otherthe underlyingsubstanceof the triad
itself. This ambiguityis ingeniouslyconvertedby Srini-
vasan(pp. 98f.)into a conceptof God (Siva)that impliesa
"triunedeity"who "unfolds"himselfin a "downward pro-
 ARTIBUS ASIAE, LVIII 3/4 (1999), BOOK REVIEWS

gression"in "lowerembodiments": the lingaandthe murti.z tic classificationof Saivaart in the Indiansubcontinent"
This conceptionof Sivais certainlyfundamentalto the au- (p. 121).
thor'svision,sustainedthroughoutthebook,butassheduly The Upanisadis datedon veryshakygrounds(namely
observes,it is "notexplicit in the text" and whetherit is on the Samdhyaportionof it) to "circafirstcenturyA.D.,"a
implicit"remainsopento question(p. lO6). datethat "wouldhelp to explaina certaindialogue,felt to
The authormay actuallyhavederivedher interpreta- exist,betweenideaspresentedin thetextandtheirresponses
tion, not fromthe Upanisad,but froman idea imputedto in earlyHindu art"(p. 121).This is, if not apetitioprincipii,
the Agamas:"theAgamasacknowledgethe triplerealityof certainlybeggingthequestion.SupposingSrinivasan's ana-
Sivaandbuildanentiretheologyaroundthisbelief"(p. IIo). lysis to be correct,the questionis whetherthe conceptbe-
Thismaybe so;however,theauthordoesnothelpthe reader lieved to underlythe Andhrarecensionof the Upanisadis
to check the referenceand one wonderswhethershe has concomitantwith the originof Saivaartandassuchmould-
checked it herself. The phrase "the Agamas"appears ing andexplainingit, or ratheran ideaimposedon the text
throughoutthe book wheneverthe authorneeds to sub- with the intentionto "diagnose" earlySaivaart in confor-
stantiatea view, but nowheredo we learnmoreaboutthis mity with later Siddhanta interpretativetheology.By all
elusivecategoryof texts. Where,in whichAgama,written oddsthe latterseemsmorelikelyto be the case,on account
in which partof India,at which periodand belongingto of the textualsituation,which is, inexcusably,completely
which school? Srinivasanrefers only twice to specific ignoredby Srinivasan.
Agamas(pp. 152, 177),the Kirandgama (no placespecified, The Upanisadhasbeentransmittedin two otherrecen-
noeditionin thebibliography,butonlyareferenceto anear- sions, one ascribedto the Atharvatradition,the otherone
lier publicationof the author)and the Ajitdgama,which claiming to be the tenth adhydyaof the TaittirtyaAra?2yaka
seemsactuallyto havebeenconsultedonce(p. 277, n. 82). andassuchcommentedon by Sayana,the so-calledDravida
The "implicit"notionof a "lifigabody"of Rudra(posi- recension.Firstit shouldbe observedthat the sequenceof
tionedbetween"theWomb"that is ParaBrahmanandthe verseswhichsuggestedto theauthor"aprogressiondealing
materialform)is, accordingto the author,expandedand with the measuredunfolding"is completelydifferentin the
clarifiedin the Mahdndardyana Upanisad(p. II8f.). The otherrecensionsand,secondly,the sectiondealingwith the
Andhrarecension,ortextusornatior, of thisUpanisad(edited so-called (vss.270-76) is altogethermissingin
"linga-body"
andtranslatedbyJeanVarenne,I96o)containssevenverses the two otherrecensions,indicativeof its being a laterad-
(vss.270-76), in which aspectsof Siva, togetherwith the dition. As a consequencethe author'sinterpretationof the
subtleessenceormark(lifga)of theseaspects,areeulogized, fiveformulaefiguringa pentadof epithetsin the Mahdnd-
recapitulatedin the concluding phrase: namah. rdjayana (in latertheologyindeedassignedto thefaces[mukha]
sarva-lingdya
Now it is clearthatthis useof the wordlingahaslittle to do of Siva'sli ga) to the effectthat "bythe time of this text,
with the phallicemblemas such,but Srinivasanprovidesa theredevelopedthe beliefin anunfoldingsubsequentto [or
connectionwith the lingaicon by observingthat, "Thisset within?]thelingastage,whichwasrecognizedasbeingfive-
of lifga versesis followedby a set of prayerswhich again foldin nature"(p. 120),seemsto be untenable,orat leastan
havesomeinternalcohesiveness.Mantras277-285invokea anachronism.
pentadof nameswhichcometo be the namesof the fivefaces What, we mayask, is the archaeological evidenceper-
of a PaficamukhaLiftga.The namescited are:Sadyojata, tainingto theearlyperiodthatillustratesthefivefoldnature
Vamadeva[...]" etc., encapsulatedin the nameSadasiva. of Siva'sunfolding?Srinivasanadducesonly one example,
The next versesinvokeSiva'sgolden, i.e. immortalforms "theSufigaPaficamukha LifigafromBhita"(p. 122). How-
"golden-armed" etc. and some of his "anthropomorphic" ever,as the studiesofJ.N. BanerjeaandGerdKreiselhave
personae,Ambikapati,etc. Srinivasanconcludesthat, "The shown(ignoredbytheauthorin hermulti-stageddiscussion
sequenceof these versesstrongly suggests a progression of this image:pp.
I85f.,195,222, 234f.),3we areherecon-
dealingwith the measuredunfoldingof the Supremegod, cernedwith an anthropomorphic, ithyphallicfigure,and
Rudra"(p. II9).Theoriginalandingeniousconclusionruns: notwith a The author is right, however,whensheob-
linga.
"TheMahanarayana Upanisadbringstogetherin someco- servesthat the circleoffourheadsconformsto the otherev-
hesivefashionthe threefoldtypologywhichis the diagnos- idencethoughtto representSiva's"fivefoldnature,"theearly
catur-mukha-lirigas, a comparisonalso made by Kreisel.

341
 ARTIBUS ASIAE, LVIII 3/4 (1999), BOOK REVIEWS
Srinivasan,and many authors before her, are at pains to ex-
plain the absence of the theological belief in a "threefold
SaivaReality" and the "five-headedSaivagod" in a text that
is indeed more or less contemporaneous with the early ar-
chaeological material, the Mahdbhdrata(pp. I48ff.). The for-
mer concept, she declares, is "sustained,almost by default,"
whereaswith regardto the five-headedSiva she admits that
"the epic is opaque."
The epic does maintain explicitly the notion of Siva's
four-headednessand quadriform(caturmukha: MBh. 1.203.26,
13.17-74;caturmzurtitva:MBh. 13.128.4),a concept that is il-
lustrated in the myth of Tilottama (MBh. 1.203.21-26,
13.128.3-8), evidence that is discarded by the author as lild
and as having nothing to do with veda, i.e. "theological
knowledge" (p. 13).This vedarequires- but the reviewerhas
to admit that much of the latter part of Chapter Eleven,
"The Bridge from Words to Forms,"is beyond his compre-
hension - that the theoretician should conceive of four as
being actually five ("It is well known that a figure in the
round ofa four-facedSiva [...] refer(s)to the theological po-
sition inhering in the five-faced Siva," p. 13), whereas the
empiricist should learn to apply the device (which is evi-
dently a much later invention) of declaring the fifth head in-
visible, by virtue of the fact that it is associated with ether
(dkaa): "his four heads simply remind that the fifth is in-
visible and that five-headedness is the hallmark of Siva"
(p. 161). Could the early Saiva icons not simply represent
what they look like, a four-headed god, that is a god that
manifests himself in four aspects or personae?
Having argued that worship of Rudraand the is or-
liniga
thogenetic to the Indo-Aryan tradition, Srinivasanadmits
that things are more complicated with regard to the origin
of the Vaisnavatradition. The figuresofVisnu and Ndrayana
have clearly Vedic antecedents, but the origin of the other
early cult figures belonging to the broad stream of the Bha-
gavata religion, Vasudeva-Krsna, the Vrsni Viras, is more
problematic. ChapterSixteen surveys the material evidence
of their cult. The author argues convincingly that the cult
of (human) heroes, including that of the five Vrsni heroes,
is related to Yaksa worship. While most images come from
Mathuraand its environs, one of the earliest examples of an
image in which Yaksa, Vira and Vaisnava elements fuse is
the sculpture found in the Chhattisgarh region (MP), in the
village of Malhar. Srinivasanargues that the Malhar sculp-
ture is a MahaVira, possibly
vaisnava Vasudeva-Krsna,rep-
resenting "the humane apparition of a higher god" (p. 218).
The four arms of the crowned image, holding the cakra,
342
mace,sword,andperhapsthe conch,may"declarethegod's
sovereigntyoverthewholeworldon the horizontalandver-
ticalplanes"(p.23).All thisseemsplausibleenough,though
the iconographyof fourarmsposesa problemfromthe au-
thor'spoint of view. The Malharimageis amongthe earli-
est instancesof the multiplicityconvention,yet the thread
thatlinksit with the Indo-AryanorVedictraditionis thin.
If the multiplicityconventionis specificto this tradition,
andif the "Vedic"Mahdndrdyana Upanisadis silenton "re-
ligiousdevelopmentsleadingtowardsan understandingof
the earlymultiplicityimagesofVasudeva-Krsna" precisely
becausethis deity is "notdeeply entrenchedin Vedism"
(p. 128),how do we explainthat this conventionis imple-
mentedin suchanearlyspecimen(Ist centuryB.c.)in such
a remotearea?Could therebe yet anothersource,folk or
tribalreligionperhaps,of the ideathatmultiplicityof arms
expressessuperhuman,i.e.divinepower?
On thewholeSrinivasan's treatmentof theVaisnavatra-
dition is moreconvincingthanherdiscussionof the Saiva
materialwhich,one hasthe impression,hasbeensqueezed
into the preconceivedstraightjacketmadeup by the Vedic
originsof its conventions.Occasionallythe samehappens
with theothermaterial,forinstancewhenthecolossalYaksa
piece found in Bhita, which shows two addorsedfigures
with two moreheadson the sidesabovethe figuresof a lion
andpig, is interpretedasa vaisnavaCaturvyahaimage"in-
ventedto transmita rathercomplextheologicaldoctrine
(p. 209).
In conclusionit seems that the overallschemeof the
book leading Saiva iconographyback to Vedic origins,
whereit is "latent"(p. Io), failsto carryconviction.More-
over,therearefrequentdoubtsin individualcasesregard-
ing the interpretationof textualand iconographicdetails.
However,despitethesereservations, Srinivasan'sgrandvi-
sion,whichhasincitedherto surveyallsourcesof earlyHin-
duismon a scalenot previouslyundertaken,is admirable.
The author,in herzealto showthe homogeneityof Indian
culture,attachesperhapstoo muchvalueto onlyonestrand
of this culture,the Brahmanictradition.All the same,I do
not knowof anypreviousattemptto synthetiseso system-
aticallythe Indianiconographicand Brahmanicaltextual
traditions.Assuchthebook,forall its shortcomings,is orig-
inalandopensnewavenuesforresearchin the fieldof artas
well as textualstudies.
HansBakker
of
Institute IndianStudies
Universityof Groningen
 ARTIBUS ASIAE, LVIII 3/4 (1999), BOOK REVIEWS

I ThissculptureisbrieflydiscussedbyN.P.Joshi,"EarlyForms ofSiva," ofNature:PlantsandInsects

RoderickWhitfield,Fascination
W. Meister,
in Michael ed.Discourseson?iva(Philadelphia:
Universityof in ChinesePainting and Ceramicsof the Yuan Dynasty
Srinivasan
Press,1984),54,anarticleusedbytheauthor.
Pennsylvania must
( Publications,9993,2 vols.,viii,
Seoul,Yekyong
haveseenthisimageherself,whenshevisitedtheNagpurUniversity Mu- 27a9--368),
seumandmadeherphotograph of the tetracephalic
figureof Brahmd o4pp., 28pls.
(pl. 22.2).
Fascination of Naturewill becomea key monumentin the
2 In ChapterTen (p. 127)Srinivasanderivesfrom the Mahdndrayana new historyof Song-Yuanpainting.This fine-stylehand-
Upanisadanotherinsightin Siva'striunenature:"Itfeaturesthreetypesof scrollof insects,plants,andflowers,inscribedby the artist
imagessymbolicof the triunedivinity:litiga,mukhalitiga,full anthropo-
Xie Chufang,and dated in correspondence to 1321,is the
morphicfigure."
most importantpaintingof its kind andperiodto cometo
3 J.N. Banerjea,"ThePhallicEmblemin AncientandMedievalIndia," light in the lastfortyyears.Paintedin inkandcoloron silk,
inJournalof the IndianSocietyof OrientalArt 3 (I935),36-44, and Gerd it is a beautifulworkof superbquality.It exhibitsa mix of
derMathurd-Kunst
Kreisel,Die ?iva-Bildwerke (Stuttgart:F. SteinerVer- gorgeouscolor,technicalvirtuosity,intimatedescription,
lag Wiesbaden,1986),54-65. and distancedstylizationthat is characteristicof end-of-
Song/early-Yuan flowerpaintingand that makesit repre-
sentativeof its period.Signedanddatedworksof this type
andtimearerareenough.Fiveallusivecolophons,composed
by men whoseresponsesto their times rangedfromSong
loyalistreclusionto serviceunderthe Mongolsduringthe
late Yuan, makethis scrolla uniquelyvaluablesourcefor
understandingfine-stylepaintingandits receptionduring
the Yuan.
Theparticularsignificanceof thispaintinglies in its role
as a link betweenAcademypaintingand scholar-amateur
painting,' especiallythe art of late Song and earlyYuan
scholars,suchasZhaoMengjian(II99-I264)andQianXuan
(circaI235-before1307),who madefine-styleflowerpaint-
ings.2 Visually, this linkage is evident in Fascinationof
Nature'speculiarmix of contrastingstylistic features:vi-
brantcolorandsignificantmonochromatic passages;sharp,
tight outline and bluntbrushwork; illusionistic
displayand
candidtwo-dimensionality.These contrastingvisual ele-
mentsusuallyareassignedeitherto Academyorto scholar-
amateurpracticeby arthistorianswho takethem to typify
thedistinctivetechnicalapproaches andassociatedaesthetic
valuesthat placeAcademypainting and scholarpainting
"polesapart."Moreover,this fine-stylepaintingbearsthe
kind of inscriptions- artist'sdedicationand appreciators
colophons- thatwe associatewith theproductionsof schol-
ars who paint in abbreviated,brush-orientedmonochro-
maticmodes.Fascination ofNaturewill makeit muchharder
to persistin the pro-formaAcademy/amateur polarization
that characterizes traditional(andmanymodern)accounts
of the historyof Songandpost-Songpainting.
That this wonderfulworknow offersits richesto us is
the contributionof RoderickWhitfield,who, it is fairto
say,rescuedit fromoblivion.He encouragedandarranged

343