In regard to the painting of the Indians, the case is the same as with their sculpture. This much is certain, that no one can follow the dictates of his own genius, and paint the gods as he pleases. Every innovation of this kind is considered as an act of impiety. The Brahman prescribes the figure and form which a statue must have: under these, and no other, it must be painted; and the least part of his care is whether these be consistent or not with the rules of art and of good taste. I have already observed, on different occasions, that the Indian mythology gives to each deity a certain surname and appellation, the object of which is to express their different qualities: and a painter, when he sketches out a god, must represent these qualities also. Thus, for example, _Shiva_, is called the god who bears the trident; and for that reason he must be always represented with a trident in his hand. He is called, likewise, _Mrdyugeya_, the conqueror of death; and, on that account, must be delineated with a number of sabres, daggers, and sculls lying around him, and with a man under his feet. He exhibits a horrid countenance: his mouth stands awry; his eyes seem to dart forth fire; and he has around his neck a cord on which a great number of sculls are strung. The case is the same with all the other deities, which must always be represented in such a manner as is agreeable to their character and attributes. From this it appears, that the painting of the Indians, like their sculpture, is in the closest connection with their theogony; and as the Brahmans alone have the right of explaining it, they assume the exclusive privilege of judging in regard to works of painting and statuary. As the painters are acquainted neither with the Samscred language nor their mythology, it has been imposed on them as a duty to consult the Brahmans; and whoever transgresses this law, is punished by expulsion from his cast. This is the true reason why painting and statuary have made so little progress in India.