Chapter 12

Sculpture from India Michael D. Willis

he Indian collections at the are unmatched for their quality, T historical importance and iconographic variety. 1 No other museum can boast such a we~th of material or provide such a comprehensive picture of ancient fndian civilisation. That the collections have this importance is due solely to Augustus Wol­ laston Franks. Before his appointment the Museum had only a few sculptures and there was little interest in expanding the corpus; by the time he retired the Indian collections were unsurpassed, a position they still hold after one hundred years. This was no small achievement. Early days The importance ofFran.ks's contribution is highlighted by a review of how the Indian collections developed before his arrival in 1851. The fust Indian piece to come to the Museum was an alabaster Shiva linga (OA 1786.3- 31, 1), presented by Charles Bathurst in 1786. According to a nineteenth-century record slip in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, the linga was sent to Bathurst by Thomas North after it had been obtained during Shuja ud-Daula'swaragainstthe Rohillas. The linga is decorated on the base with gilt floral designs and small painted figures of devotees. T hese are in the late Mughal style of the eighteenth century and indicate that the piece was contemporary when it entered the Museum. To all appearances this might seem an auspicious and encouraging start. Franks continued to acquire contemporary things and the Museum still pursues such a policy today. Efforts faltered, however, in the first half of the nineteenth century. Indian objects arrived coincidentally with other collections, or were sought after as simple curiosities. For ex.unple, an eleventh-century reliefshowing an orgiastic scene (OA 1805.7-2 , 264) came with the Townley Collection in 1805.2 Although this seems to have been the first piece of medieval Indian sculpture to have arrived in England, it has drawn little attention and does not appear to have been put on public display during its almostt\vo hundred years at the British Museum. SC:U Lt"rUR£ FROM INDIA 251

As for curiosities, che most singular object is a large jade tortoise (OA 1830.6-12,1). given in 1830 and for many years kept in the Department of Mineralogy.3 This is often assigned to the time of the Mughal emperor Akbar (died AD 1605), but recent investigations suggest that a date in the eighteenth century is more plausible:* In Indian temples a carved tortoise was sometimes placed below the ceremonial bell between the main Shiva linga and rhe Nan di image; tortoises also served as totems of the Jaipur Rajputs, princes who were occasionally posted to Allahabad where the Museum's jade was found. In the same year thar the tortoise was acquired, Sir Robert Brownrigg donated the celebrated Tara ( OA 1830.6- 12, 4 ), now recob>nised as the most spectacular example of early metal casting from Sri Lanka. Officers in the Royal Navy or were important sources of Asian antiquities in the early part of the nineteenth century. Captain Frederick Mar­ ryat (1792- 1848), best remembered for his children's books, gave the Museum al arge lacquer Buddha (OA 1826.2-11, 1) and a colossal stone carving of the Buddha's foot­ print (OA 1826.2-11, 2). These arri ved in 1826.5 Quite often, however, East India Company officers were disappointed by the Trustees' failure to sanction purchases.6 This prompted Edward Hawkins (Keeper of the Department ofAntiquities, 1826- 60) to comment that be would be very glad to see more Indian sculpture within the walls of the Museum and that 'it is something of a disgrace to have so few memorials of our Indian empire' .7 These concerns led, it seems, to a modest cnckle of gifts, perhaps the most important being a bracket-figure from Sanchi given by a Mrs Tucker (OA 1842.12- 10, 1 ). The carving, dating to about the mid-first century Ar:>, represents a female demi-god and fertility figure. It was originally set between the architraves of one of the Sanchi gateways. Shortly after Franks arrived at the M useum, AF. Bellasis gave a collection of archaeological material which he had excavated in Sind (1857) (OA 1857.11-18, 1-299) and W.C. Raffles Flint gave his outstanding collection of Indonesian sculpture in stone and bronze (1859) (OA 1859.12- 28, 1- 160). The foregoing synopsis covers everything of note and demonstrates that when Franks was first appointed the lndian collection was desultory at best. Conditions, however, were beginning to change. Asia's importance was being increasingly appre­ ciated as a wide range ofpe ople gained some practical experience ofthe wider world. As early as 1826 the German scholar Millingen was surprised to find that there was con­ siderable 'disregard in this country for Archaeological pursuits', by which he meant the Classical antiquities of Greece and Rome.a The Romantic movement, and particularly its English manifestations in Ruskin, were fostering a new way oflooking at the world and the arts. Those influenced by these ideas had little patience with the intellectual clarity of C lassicism. Interest now probed the potent and mysterious forces of nature or focused on exotic cultures, ancient and distant. Franks was, in this sense, a man of his time. H e was fascinated with prehistoric, Anglo-Saxon and medieval antiquities, juSt the kind of material the o lder generation felt had no place m the Museum. The conservative position is perhaps besc represented by Antonio Paniui. A leading figure in the history of the British M useum, Panizzi had joined the service of the "frustees in 1836 and became Principal Librarian in 1856. A towering personality by any measure, 252 M I C H A E L D. W ll L I S

Panizzi was used to having things his way. Although it may be coincidental, the Indian sculpture collections did not grow until after Panizzi's retirement in 1866. Panizzi did have an interest in oriental manuscripts and Asian natural history (as we shall see below) but it was not until after his time that Franks was presented with a succession of opportunities which made the British Museum che world's leading repository of Indian material culture. The Bridge Collection and Charles 'Hindoo' Stuart The firsr large body of Indian sculpture which Franks brought to the Museum came from the Bridge fami ly. This collection was put together in India by Charles Smart, one of the most remarkable figures in early British India.9 A brief account of Stuart's life gives some idea of tbe circumstances which inspired his interest in fndian civilisation and prompted him to assemble this collection. Stuart sailed for Bengal in 1777 at the age of nineteen, a cadet in the East India Company Army. He rose steadily over twenty-seven years of service and retired a Major-General. At the height ofhi s career he was earning nearly two thousand pounds, a generous annual sum in the early nineteenth century and one which would have allowed him co indulge his antiquarian interests. H e had no direct connection with die oriemalist scholars of his day, but was a keen student oflndian life and rraditions. Like many ofhis generation, Stuart came to India a young man, free ofprejud ice and bigotry. He seems to have learnt Indian languages and settled down with a local woman. In his writing he consistently championed all cllings Indian and Hindu. Although Stuart had no doubt that British rule was best for India, he vigorously opposed missionary activity and attacked the notion that the West was morally superior. As a result he was widely known, even in his own time, as 'Hindoo' Stuart. He managed to avoid significant military engagements and over a long career took advantage ofhi s postings to assemble a large and comprehensive collection ofsculpture. This was a remarkable achievement given that most of his contemporaries regarded lndian art as nothing but a heathen curiosity. Stuart was the first European with serious interests in the sculpture oflndia; he was certainly the only European to appreciate its beauty. The make-up of Stuart's holdings shows that he wanted examples of each deity as a kind ofvis ual encyclopaedia of religion and custom. Stuart was considerably ahead of his time, for just as he recognised that standards of beauty are relative, so he acknowledged chat Hinduism had a religious pedigree as noble and ancient as anything the West could offer. Certainly, Stuart was one of the few people who had an understanding of Indian iconography, though he docs not seem to have published anything on the subject. 10 During bis last years Stuart lived in Wood Street, Chowringhee, Calcutta, where he maintained a 'musewn' at his house. In addition to hundreds ofs tatues, the library contained several thousand volumes and was supplemented by prints and many objects relating to the namra1 history of South and East Asia. There were also examples ofweaponry and indigenous costume. Stuart would often show visitors aroun d the premises and in his absence the servants were instructed how to conduct people through the displays. SCULPTURE l'ROM lNDlA 253

Stuart died on 1 April 1828, apparently while making plans to return to England. H e is buried in the South Park Street Cemetery in a curious tomb loosely modelled on an Indian shrine. 11 According to Stuart's will, the contents of his museum were to be sold to benefit his heirs. Packed in 143 cases and insured for 30,000 Rupees, this material made its way to England where it came under the hammer in June 1830. 12 Though it was a large sale, there were few bidders. While many parts of the collection went their separate ways and cannot be traced, most of the sculpture was purchased by John Bridge (1755-1834). Bridge was a partner in Rundell, Bridge and Rundell, the celebrated goldsmiths. 13 It is difficult co explain why a prosperous businessman in the early nineteenth century should have been interested in Indian sculpture. As Bridge and Stuartwere contemporaries, there may have been some connection bemreen them. The firm had agents throughout d1e world, many of them important officers and diplomats, and Bridge maintained the firm's correspondence with these agents.14 One aspect of Rundell, Bridge and Rundell 's business was a vigorous trade in diamonds between England and India. Officers and servants of the East India Company often carried consignments of cut stones to lndia as a way of supplementing their income.15 Stuart could well have done some work in this line when he returned to [ndia in 1811 after a long furlough. Whatever the connection with Stuart, once Bridge had purchased the collection, he kept it on his estate in Shepherd's Bush. The area was still on the edge of in the first halfof the nineteenth cenrury and Bridge owned a large piece ofland there. Sometime in the 1820s Bridge had built an impressive suburban residence set in a park. After acquiring Stuart's sculptures, Bridge also put up a museum. A curious structure with crenellations and cusped arches after the Moorish fashion, it had an Indian lintel of the twelfth century cemented inco the fa~ade . Unfortunately this panel seems to have been destroyed when the museum and Bridge mansion were pulled down in the closing years of the nineteenth century. Inside the museum some pieces were ccmenced into the walls. The walls themselves seem to have been painted a salmon­ pink colour.16 A number of sculptures were thoroughly blackened with boot polish to make their appearance more dramatic. The sculptures also received large painted numbers, some of which are still visible. All this work was in place only a few years before John Bridge died in his seventy-ninth year. That was in 1834. His house and museum, however, were sufficiently well known t0 be remembered a few years later by Thomas Faulkner.

Wood H ouse was built by the late John Bridge Esq. ofL udgate Hill, the celebrated Goldsmith. It is now the property and residence of George Bridge, Esq. his brother. This capital mansion is beautifully situated, and is surrounded with pleasure grounds and gardens, tastefully laid out and arranged. le is ornamented with statues, grottoes, and devices. Here also is a gallery for a museum ofBunnese relicts [sic] and idols, taken in that country during the late war, and a splendid case of the Warwick vase, with many other objects of caste and vertu.17 Fortunately for the collection, George Bridge maintained che family museum. An assessment of his property in 1845 lists it in some detail, mentioning the mansion, coach houses, conservatory, museum, gardens, large fish pond and plantation.18 George 254 MICHAEL 0 WILLIS

Bridge was considerably younger than John, having been born in 1792 at Wynford Eagle, Dorset. Little is known about him but he seems to have had some interest in the arts. This is suggested by che fact that the Stephanoffs, a family of artists, leased a house and garden on pare of his property. The Stephanoffhome stood in Uxbridge Road, immediately across from Shepherd's Bush Common; the rear garden directly adjoined the Bridge escate. 19 Fileter N. Scephanoff was a Russian emigre and painter; his wife ran an art school after her husband's death. She had two sons who pursued the ans: Francis Philip and James. Both had successful careers but it is James who is of immediate concern because he had contacts with both the British Museum and the Bridge Collection_ James Scephanoffworked primarily in water-colour and often produced paintings showing coUeccors and collections. 20 Between 1817 and 1845 he exhibited a series-of pictures inspired by pieces now in the British Museum. The sixth and culminating work was entitled All Assemblage ef Works efArt in Sculpture and Paiming,Jrom the Earliest Period to the Ti.me ofPf1ydias (P & D 1994.12- 10, 6). At the base of che picture, represent­ ing what Stcphanoff took to be che most archaic manifestations of art, were a number oflndianand Burmese sculptures (fig. 37). Although all of these things arc now in the British Museum, in Stephanoff's time some were in the and some in the collection ofGeorge Bridge. Stephanoff and Bridge were obv10usly known to each other and it seems likely that Bridge would have been interested in the representation of his collection, though he may have been a little disturbed to see his pieces ranked as the most primitive product<; of human endeavour! Stephanoff's historical vision has, of course, been entirely superseded, not least because the sculptures in the bottom register are the newest objects in the whole ensem ble. The little wooden Buddha on the elephant throne {OA 1872.7-1, 1), for instance, cannot be much earlier than the closing years of the eighteenth century (fig. 38). The exhibition of 1845 is the last we hear of the Bridge Collection before it came to the British Museum through the efforts of A.W. Franks. Franks was prob­ ably unaware ofStcphanoff's water-colour as he was only nineteen years old when it was displayed. Even as late as 1872, after the death of George Bridge, Franks had not seen the collection and appears to have been alerted to it.'i pending availabil­ ity by a handwritten catalogue prepared in 1871.21 This document, probably sent to Franks by the Bridge family, temptingly described the collection as a 'magnifi­ cent acquisition to any NationaJ Gallery ofAntiqu e Sculptw-e'. As Wood H ouse was about co be sold, the Standing Committee of the British Museum Trustees resolved chac, if the I3ridge Collection was found 'to be desirable for the Museum, che Prin­ cipal Librarian may authorise Mr Franks co accept it'.22 While this was going on, the Bridge family were making arrangements for an auction, probably because they were uncertain what Franks might decide. The auction date was set for 20 June 1872.23 Despite the printing of a catalogue, the sale does not seem to have taken place because Franks accepted the collection as a gift and reported this to the Trustees on 11 July 2 1872. " lt was che largest single gift of Indian sculpture in the history of the British Museum. ~ C..: U L P T U RE FR 0 M I N D l A 255

A copy of the 1872 auction catalogue in the Department of Oriental Antiquities has the following notation in pencil:

Sir Wollaston Franks was the only bidder at this sale. Auctioneer objected to sell, but Franks insisted. Eventually the daughters ofJ. Bridge gave them to the B.M. sic Longworth Dames. 1920. HJB The initials HJB are those ofllcrmannJustus Braunholtz, Keeper of Oriental Anti­ quities and Etlmography. What he seems to be recording in this note is a story that was told in 1920 but which he had reason to doubt. While this colourful episode could be true, Braunholtz was quite right to question it because Franks had been in touch with the Bridge family since at least May 1872 and when the collection was accepted in July it cam e to the Museum under the conditions first proposed. Additionally, Longworth Dames says J[ohn] Bridge when in fact he had no children and had long since passed away. 25

T he India Museum Although John Bridge had purchased the greater part of the Stuart Collection, he did nor acquire everything. Another bidder at the 1830 sale was the India Museum.26 This museum had grown out of the various specimens and curiosities acquired by officers and servants ofthe East India Company. The Museum was officially established by the proprietors of the Company in 1801 and given several rooms in Ease India House, the Company's impressive neo-classical headquarters in Leadenhall Street. The history of this museum was unsettled: some of the proprietors had resisted the establishment of a museum at the Company's expense and as early as the 1832 one proprietor suggested that the whole collection might be made over to the British Museum where its safe and proper custody would be guarantccd.27 Some members of the public were of a similar opinion. A man named Peter Gordon was sufficiently disgruntled to publish a pamphlet in 1835 insisting that 'the administration fofthe India Museum] ought surely to be conducted as by the nustees of the British Museum'.28 T he Company resisted any change in the operation oftheir Museum and continued to expand the collections. As a result of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the French International Exhibition of 1855, a large quantity ofmater ial found its way to the India Museum, some of it antiquarian in nature. bur much of it samples of natural and manufactured products. A crisis soon loomed -with regard to storage space. This led to substantial remodellingwithin the Leadenhall Street premises and the creation ofwhat was called the New Museum, which opened to the public in February 1858. The most notable change was the remodelling of the Tea Sale Room by Matthew Digby Wyatt (1820- 77). H e had worked as the Company's Surveyor since 1855 and his design for the Tea Sale Room transformed it into an exuberantly decorated space with cusped arches in the late MughaJ manner.2'1 Along the walls were a number of outstanding lndian sculptures, some ofwh ich came to the British Museum in 1880when the India Museum was finally dissolved (fig. 39). T his, however, was sci 11 more than twenty years away. A.W. Franks was thirty-two years old when the new lndia Museum opened and he would have had many opportunities co examine the sculptures in Wyatt's whimsical 256 MICHAFL D. WlLLIS

gallery. Franks had been working at the British Museum for seven years at the time, long enough fo r him to have realised that the Indian holdings were in need of considerable expansion if they were to be properly encyclopaedic. Although the new displays at the lndia M useum were impressive, the East India Company was in decline. Already in 1813 the Company had lost its monopoly of the India trade and shortly after the 1857 Mutiny, the Government of India Act of 1858 established the India Office, an entirely new government department responsible for the sub-continent. T hese momentous events inevitably affected the India Museum. One of the first signs chat the collections were going to be dispersed took place in 1860 when Antonio Panizzi entered into correspondence with Sir Charles Wood, then Secretary of State for India, about the transfer of some narural history specimens. After these came to the British Museum, the Trustees heard that the antiquities were also to be dispersed. They instructed Panizzi co seek permission to make a sclection.311 H e was informed that there was no intention of breaking up the collection. But negotiations with the British Museum continued. In 1861 Panizzi was asked (much to his delight) whether he would be wi 11i ng to take over the whole ofthe India Office Library, together with some of its stafP' And again in July 1861 the Finance Committee went so far as to recommend that the British Museum 'would be invited to select whatever they needed from the Museum, and the remainder of the collection would be distributed among the South Kensington and ocher museums'.32 Whatever the merits of these plans, they were set aside because space was found for the India Museum in Fife House. This building, lately tea auction rooms, had been built for 'Old Earl James' of Fife and was later the residence of Lord Liverpool. It stood between the Embankment and the United Service Institution Museum in Whitehall. T he Indian collections in Fife House were opened to the public in July 1861. N ot long after this, in 1863, the old East India H ouse in Leadenhall Street was pulled down and Wyan's fascinating Mughal room, after a life of onJy six years, was sold off for £79 lOs.33 Conditions at the new location in Whitehall were far from satisfactory. Some of the lndiau sculptures were set up in the garden and the relicfs, one of the greatest achievements of ancient , were left at Beale's Wharf; Southwark, for many months before being received by the India Museum in May 1861.34 At Fife House the Amaravati materials were kept in a coach house. One piece, stuck into an outside wa11, lost a good deal of its carved surface to the weathcr.35 As some natural history specimens had already made their way to the British Museum and a transfer of antiquities had been more than once contemplated dur­ ing Panizzi's tenure as Principal Librarian, there can be little doubt that A.W. Franks was aware of the situation and would have been d istressed by the deteriorating con­ dition of the India Museum's sculpture. T l1e importance of the Amaravati relicfs was highlighted by James Fergusson (1808-86), the well-known critic and architec­ tural historian. His monograph on Amaravati and Sanchi was published by the India Museum in 1868; a second edition appeared in 1873.36 Fergusson was concerned about the condition of the Amaravati sculptures, and w hile direct documentation has yet to SC: U l PT U RE FR 0 M IND I A 257 be found, he probably voiced his concern to Franks. This could well have happened at the Athenaeum, a club which they both frequented. Administrative complexities prevented a speedy solution to the condition of the India Museum collections. John Forbes Watson, in charge from 1858, was determined to preserve the l ndia Museum and lobbied energetically for a new building and the creation of an 'Imperial Museum for India and the Colonies'. T he Treasury, perhaps understandably, was reluctant to take on such a scheme. In addition, many members of the Council for India had grave doubts about using Indian revenues to maintain a museum in London. The Council (and some within the India Office) wanted to be rid of the Museum but a consensus could not be reached. The result was a series of half-measures until finally, in 1879. the India Museum was dissolved. We need not be detained by the many proposals that came to nought. After the lease on Fife House expired in 1869, the India Museum briefly rejoined the library in the India Office, but there was so little room thac the Amaravati sculpmre (and much else) was sent to the India Office Stores in Belvedere Road, Lambeth.37 In 1874 the public displays were closed once again and some of the collections slowly moved to the South Kensington Museum, where a three-year lease had been taken on some of the galleries.38 The move to South Kensington coincided with the appointment of Dr George Birdwood as curator. He had a more pragmatic view than Forbes Watson and under­ stood that things could not continue on their present footing. After some debate both in and out of the Commons, Sir Louis Mallet finally asked Bird wood to prepare plans for the dispersal of the Museum. That was in 1879.39 By July of the same year the Council for lndia had prepared draft letters for the Brittsh Museum, the Committee of the Council on Education (representing the South Kensington Museum) and the Board of Works (for Kew Gardens). Each was asked to nominate representatives to assist the Museum Committee in the transfer of objects.4l> The British Museum was represented by E.A. Bond, the Principal Librarian, Dr A. Gunther, Keeper ofZoology and A.W Franks, Keeper ofBritish and Medieval Antiquities and Ethnography. Franks wasted no time; he had soon briefed Bond and written his reply.41 Franks's selection began with the Amaravati marbles; other desirable objects included bronze and stone images of Indian deities, gold relics, Guthrie's collection ofjade, weapons and the Roman pavement found in Leadenhall Street. Franks clearly knew what was corning (one suspects the Athenaeum again) and was fully ready with his discriminating list of important objects. He subsequently reiterated that 'such objects as the Amaravati and other ancient sculptures [should] be transferred to the British Museum'.42 Casts were to be retained by South Kensington; botanical specimens were to go to Kew. When the time came to disperse the collections, work went ahead quickly. A printed list was made and most of the Indian material had arrived within a year.43 The records of the India Museum were, however, somewhat confused, and in 1882 Franks com­ mented in a letter that the preparation of the official register was being delayed pending the collection ofmore information. .w Objects continued to trickle in over a fairly long period, some arriving as lace as 1900. The Guthrie jades were never transferred, but this does not seem to have drawn any comment from Franks - his main concern was 258 M I C H A£ L D. W l L L I S

always the Amaravati sculpture. In 1880 and 1881 he was busy arranging the pieces on the walls of the great staircase (fig. 40).45 In an effort to do this in a way that was historically correct, Franks was in close contact with those scholars who could shed light on the monument. James Fergusson visited the British Museum and Franks corresponded with James Burgess and Robert Sewell, archaeologists who knew the site well. In one of his few surviving notebooks, Franks shows himself to have been particularly concerned with proper readings of the inscriptions. A sketch gives some idea of how franks worked up the display of the sculptures and incidentally shows his considerable skill as a practical draughtsman (fig. 41). The result of Franks's labour was a substantial paper which he read before the Society of Antiquaries on 23 June 4 1881. <> Not long after the Amaravati relicfs were transferred co the British Museum, Robert Sewell was appointed director of the Survey of Ancient Monuments in the Madras Presidency. As he and Franks were on close terms, Franks asked Sewell to see what could be done about getting more examples for the British Museum. Sewell was so effective in advancing this idea in the appropriate quarters that Franks's letter to the Secretary ofSeate for India resulted incwo furtherreliefs being dispatched co London.47 After these acquisitions Franks's attention seems to have shifted to other matters but the Amaravati sculptures continued to be admired on the staircase. T heir recognition as one of the great treasures of ancient India owes much to Franks's diligence and effort. Sir Alexander Cunningham The contribution which Franks made to Oriental Antiquities was not restricted to the Bridge and India Museum collections. H e occasionally purchased individual pieces and a number of these came to the Museum in the Franks Bequest. Many are interesting objects, but they add little to our knowledge ofthe man other than showing that he had a sharp eye for quality. This is something adequately attested in Franks's other areas of interest. M ore significant was his acquisition of the collections of Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814-93) (fig. 38). C unningham had a distinguished military career in India and retired a Major-General. AJtbough he r~d papers at the Asiatic Society of Bengal from at least the 1840s, ic was not until his retirement in 1861 that his archaeological interests flourished. He established the Archaeological Survey oflndia and as its first Director General toured widely across northern lndia.. The results are recorded in his twenty-three volume Arc11aeo/ogical Survey ef lndia Reports, published between 1861 and1885. In this extraordinary set of books, Cunningham touched on virtually every area of study. from prehistoric archaeology ro the architectural remains of the Delhi Sultanate. Opportunities for the collection of sculpture were great in the second half of the nineteenth century, but C unningham was primarily a numismatist and field archaeologist. His srudies always focused on coins, seals and inscriptions at the expense of sculpture.48 fodeed, we will search C unningham's writing in vain for any extended discussion of sculpture or its iconography; he was interested in such things only if they carried inscriptions and thas elucidated history in some way. S C: U l P TU R E F R 0 M I N I) I A 259

Despite its predomrnantly numismatic and ep igraphic character, Cunningham's collection was of great importance. As early as 1857 Cunningham had sold some coins to the British Museum's Department of Coins and Medals (CM 1857.8-13, 1- 118). Franks, who made it his business to know everyone worth knowing in the Victorian world, was in touch with Cunningham and secured parts of the Oxus 'Ileasure from him. An account of this purchase and its subsequent bequest to the Museum is given elsewhere in the present volume.~v After Cunningham had retired from active duty and returned to England, he gave the British Museum a collection of archaeological objects.511 This included a wide variety of scone tools, terracoctas and seal impressions. The most important element, however, was a series of inscribed Buddhist reliquaries excavated at Sanchi and neighbouring sites in central lndia. The year after this gift was made, the Museum purchased some of Cunningham's Bactrian, Parthian and Mughal coins (CM 1888.12-8, 530-844). In 1892 Sir Alexander donated the residue of his archaeological material and finally, after his death in 1894, the Museum received several thousand coins, some as gifts (CM 1894.5-7, 1- 2142) and some as purchases (CM 1894.5-6, 1-2450). T he Cunningham gifts and purchases bring us to the end of Franks's time at the British Museum. When he retired in 1896 Franks was probably satisfied that the -1- collecrion contained good sculptures of every available type. This was a remarkable achievement given the nineteenth-cenntry preferen ce for Classical styles, especially when it came to the human figure and the nude. Franks was able co rise above prevailing attitudes and see that Indian sculpture was more than an 'Oriental curiosity' and 'heathen monstrosity'. In a letter tO Cunningham he said, 'I am ambitious to show the fanatics for Greek and Roman scu lprurc that the art oflndia is not to be despised. '51 This truly catholic vision made the British Museum collection what it is and produced a handsome legacywhich all students ofAsian civilisation still enjoy. IfFranks's successor Sir T Tc rculcs Read could thus boast 'my dear boy, what I don't know isn't worth knowing', it was surely because Franks had acquired everything worth knowing about in the first place.52

.J.- ~ s e.c... r ·-:L1t.. M,h-r-t~/ Notes y.

7 BM (Central Arcl11ve) Onginal Papers, 18 July course, rather inaccurate; the subsequent hiStory 1836. Despite these sentiments Hawkins could not of the Warwick vase copy is given in Penzcr, op. recommend the purchase of che sculpnire in ck (note 15), p. 77. question because he thought the sum asked was 18 'Particulars of the Valuation of Hammersmith too much. Parish for Asscssmem Made, 1845' 8 James V. Millingcn,Ancienl U1u~dired Monuments (Hanuncrsmith and Fulham Archives, (London, 1822-6). pan 2, p. ii. PAH/1/ 15&'2}, p. 112. 9 The only authoritaove account is J0rg FIScb, 'A 19 'Tithe Commissioners, Appointment of solitary vindicator of the Hindus: the life and Rent-Charge in Lieu or Tithes in the Parish of writinb>"S ofG eneral Charles Stuart Hammersmith, m die Country ofMiddlesex , (1757/8-1828)'.jouma/ ef the Royal Asiatic Society 1845' (H ammersmith and Fulham Archives, (1985), pp. 35-57. H336.2 TIT), p. 5. T he building no longer exists, 10 He may have depended in p:irr on Edward the whole area having been emircly reconstrucced Moor, TI1e Hindu Pantlieo11 (L

26 Ray Desmond, ·11ie ludia Museum 1801 1879 (Cencral Archive) Standing Committee Minutes, (I_-0ndon, 1982), from which I have drawn for the 12Ju1y 1879, C.14,nO, mentioning letter from following survey. Among Smarr pieces io go to the Franks dated 10 Julr In dia Museum was a hero-stone (now OA 42 IOR, UE/2184 , Statistics and Commerce 1880.3537, [ndia Museum Collection). This was Depamnent, 30 December 1879. item 5456; also lot 26 in chc Sruan sale of 1830, sec Norton er al., BM (Cenn-al Archive) Sranding Committee op. c1t. (note 23), p. 43. Minures, 13 December 1879, C.14,920. 27 D esmond, op. cit. (note 26), p. 27. 43 S<.;encc and Arr Department of the Commim:e 28 !OR. IJF/213, Finance and Home Comminec, ofCoUJJcil on Education. South Kensington, ludia 24 April 1835. M11.1e111n. luvt11tory ef 1/Je Collectfo 11 (London, 1880). 29 Picrured inlllu.rtrare.d Lo11do11 News, 6 March 44 A.W. Franks to Edward Balfour, drnft of letter 1858. dated 30 January 1882 (DM O A: Amaravari 30 TOR, UF/21238, Finance and Home papers); also wtth regard 10 lack ofdocumentation, Commicrcc, 2 March 1860. The nation's narur:il Richard Thompson to AW. Franks. letter dated history collections we re kept in the Brimh 12 February 1881 (JJM OA: lndiaMuseum Musewn until the 1880s, when n separate papers). museum was established in South Kensington. 45 BM (Centr:il Archive) Standing Committee 31 JOR, l/F/21253, Finance and Home Minutes, 10 J anuary 1880, C. H.955 6, also Committee, 11 June 1861. C.14,989, C.15,056, C. 15,102, C.15,181. The 32 JOR, l/AG/30/21, Account:i11t General papers, arrangement of Amaravati is also mentioned in a 23 July 1861. number offranks's letters. for example that to 33 J. Timbs. C11riosi1ies oJL01ulo11 (London, 1868), R. Sewell dated 2.i February 1881 , which p. 319. incidentally records that a shortfall in funds from 34 !OR , VF/2/250, Finance and Home the Treasury was delaying completion of the work Committee, 20 May 1861. (BM OA: Amaravati papers). 35 Desmond, op. cit. (note 26), p. 115. 46 A full manuscript copy of the paper 1s in the 36 Fergusson. Tree and Serpellt Worship; or Dcpmment of Oriental Antiguities; he also ll/11s1rations <':f Mythology and Art in India in the First privately published List of Drawin.~s.from rite and Fourtlr Cemuries ajitr Christfrom rlre Swlpt11res of Amaravati Tope, Sot1them l11din, Made for Cow11el C. tire Buddhist Tapes ar Sa11chi and A111ara11t11i (London, MatKenzie 1816- 19 a11d Pre..