Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v2.c15.s3: The Three Styles

Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v2.c15.s3

Language
English

The Three Styles

v2.c15.s3.1

The style is also a technical and purely architectural subject. Thus it is not dealt with in the *Purāṇas*, not to speak of the epics or other poetical works where, as shown above, casual references to architecture and sculpture are met with. In some of the epigraphical documents and the *Bṛihat-saṁhitā* mention of the styles is occasionally made. The *Āgamas* contain a little more detail, while in the *Mānasāra* the subject is exhaustively treated.

v2.c15.s3.2

The Nāgara, Vesara, and Drāviḍa are the three broad styles distinguished in the *Mānasāra*.¹ They are applied to both architecture² and sculpture³. With reference to the construction of cars or chariots a fourth style is mentioned⁴. This is called Randhra, which seems to be a corrupt form of Andhra. In an epigraphical record⁵, Kaliṅga is mentioned as a distinct style of architecture. But if the identification of Vesara with Telugu or Tri-Kaliṅga be accepted, the Kaliṅga and the Andhra would be the two branches of the Vesara style. In the case of twelve-storeyed buildings, which are the most magnificent and imposing edifices as described, twelve special types, not necessarily the styles, of residential dwellings are also mentioned in the *Mānasāra*⁶. All these names are geographical, implying the twelve provinces into which the then India was divided architecturally, if not also politically. And these types are distinctly based on geographical divisions, in exactly the same way as the three styles, the Nāgara, Vesara and Drāviḍa, as also the two branches of the Vesara, the Kāliṅga and Āndhra, are based. The Græco-Roman orders, on which the European styles of architecture are mainly based, are also but geographical names.¹

v2.c15.s3.3

¹ *Mānasāra*, XVIII, 92--104. The Nāgara style is distinguished by its quadrangular shape, the Vesara by its octagonal or hexagonal shape, and the Drāviḍa by its round shape (p. 176, note 1). For details, see p. 176 f. and the writer's *Dictionary* under *Nāgara*.

v2.c15.s3.4

² *Mānasāra*, LIII, 53-54. XXI, 72-73. XXVI, 76. XLIII, 124-125, etc.

v2.c15.s3.5

³ *Mānasāra*, LII, 78, 100. LIII, 46-47, etc.

v2.c15.s3.6

⁴ *Mānasāra*, XLIII, 124-125.

v2.c15.s3.7

⁵ In the record itself it is, however, stated that the Nāgara, Vesara, Drāviḍa, and Kaliṅga are four types, not styles, of buildings (An inscription on the capital of a pillar in the Amṛiteśvara temple at Holal; Government of Madras, G. O. no. 1260, August, 1915, Progress Report of the Assistant Superintendent for Epigraphy, Southern Circle, 1914-15, page 90)

v2.c15.s3.8

⁶ Pāñchāla, Drāviḍa, Madhyakānta, Kāliṅga, Va(Vā)rāṭa, Kerala, Vaṁśaka, Māgadha, Janaka and Sphū(Gur)jaka (*Mānasāra*, XXX, 5--7). We have seen in the previous section, 98 kinds of mansions are described in the *Mānasāra*. In the above mentioned Holal inscription a reference is made to 64 kinds of mansions.

v2.c15.s3.9

¹ See page 126 and foot-note 1.

v2.c15.s3.10

In the *Kāmikāgama*, as well as in the *Suprabhedāgama*, frequent references to the three broad styles, the Nāgara, Vesara, and Drāviḍa, are made.²

v2.c15.s3.11

² Kāmikāgama, LXV, 6-7, 12—18, etc.; Suprabhedāgama, XXXI, 37—39, etc.

v2.c15.s3.12

The distinguishing features of these styles are practically exactly the same in all the three works, namely, the *Mānasāra*, the *Kāmikāgama*, and the *Suprabhedāgama*.³ The Āndhra and the Kāliṅga branches of the Vesara style are not mentioned in the *Āgamas*. But we have seen that the *Kāmikāgama*, like the *Matsya-Purāṇa*, the *Bhavishya-Purāṇa*, and the *Bṛihat-saṁhitā*, describes twenty kinds of mansions, while the *Suprabhedāgama* has reference to ten kinds. These varieties of buildings, as also the sixty-four kinds mentioned in the Holal inscription, and the ninety-eight kinds described in the *Mānasāra*, do not, however, represent the styles which fall only under three broad divisions, namely, the Nāgara, Vesara and Drāviḍa.

v2.c15.s3.13

³ For details see the writer's *Dictionary* under *Nāgara*.

v2.c15.s3.14

In the *Bṛihat-saṁhitā*,⁴ a clear mention is made only of the Drāviḍa style in regard to the measurement of the face, although the other styles may be said to have been implied. It is stated that according to one's own aṅgula (finger's breadth) the face (of an image) should be twelve aṅgulas (nine inches) broad and long; but as stated by the architect Nagnajit the face should be twelve aṅgulas long and fourteen aṅgulas broad in the Drāviḍa style. Obviously, therefore, the former measurement refers to other existing styles or those which are not specified here.

v2.c15.s3.15

⁴ Chapter LVIII, 4.

v2.c15.s3.16

In regard to the styles also, then, the *Mānasāra* must be undoubtedly given the first place amongst all these works which for the purpose of the present item of comparison comprise practically the *Āgamas*.

v2.c15.s3.17

In the light of all these facts—merely to deal with the question in its aspects as they concern the *Mānasāra*—it seems to me impossible to resist the following conclusion. There appears to have been a relation of indebtedness between the *Mānasāra* and the other works, both architectural and non-architectural. Except in a few instances noted above, it is, however, difficult to state definitely that the *Mānasāra* is the debtor or creditor to this or that work in respect of this or that matter. Most of the difficulties, it is needless to observe, hinge upon the chronology which is the irritating point in the Sanskrit literature. If the chronology of the works discussed above were definitely known, it would have been easier to assume that the works earlier than the *Mānasāra* had been known to its author and those later than the *Mānasāra* had been influenced by it. Except in cases of support by archæological records, epigraphical or non-epigraphical, the dates assigned to Sanskrit works are mostly but provisional. I have discussed elsewhere the available materials and the reasons which have induced me provisionally to place the *Mānasāra* somewhere in the fifth to seventh century of the Christian era In view of the essential points of comparison and the accepted chronology of the works which have been critically studied by scholars, I should say that the *Bṛihat-saṁhitā* and the later Āgamic and Paurāṇic works, in respect of architectural and sculptural matters, as well as most of the avowedly architectural manuscripts, are debtors to the *Mānasāra*, while it is a debtor itself in respect of the same matters to the Vedic and the early Epic works as also to the early polytechnical treatises (like the *Kauṭilīya-Artha-śāstra* and the *Kāmandakīya*), and to the avowedly architectural works of the thirty-two authorities mentioned in the *Mānasāra*, which might have existed till its own time. Besides, it cannot but have been based on the actual observation and measurement of extant architectural and sculptural objects; in this matter lies the special importance of the *Mānasāra*.

v2.c15.s3.18

An objection may be raised here. It is possible that those works which are stated above to have been debtors to the *Mānasāra* might have been influenced directly by those which are asserted to have been the creditors to the *Mānasāra*. Such an objection, however, can be easily disposed of. The *Mānasāra*, in whichever period of history it is finally placed, has become a standard work on architecture and sculpture, because we have seen, first, it is the largest of its kind, secondly, its treatment of the subjects is most exhaustive, and thirdly, in it the subject-matter has been scientifically classified and systematised And when there is a standard work existing, it is natural and highly probable that those who treat the subject rather casually or less exhaustively, should draw upon it instead of going to the original sources except in some special instances. For the ordinary meanings or synonyms of a word we generally consult a standard dictionary, rather than attempt to trace the history, phonology, morphology, and semasiology of the word. An analogical instance may perhaps make the point clearer. Pāṇini’s grammar makes mention of some nineteen pre-existing grammatical works, and it has been placed by later scholars somewhere in the fourth or third century of the pre-Christian era. Like the works on rhetoric and prosody, grammars cannot be prepared without consulting the existing literature, because the sole business of these works is to generalise certain regulating features of literature. The methods of the pioneers of law books, as well as the grammar, the *Alaṅkāra Śāstra*, and the *Śilpa-Śāstra*, must have been inductive. Pāṇini, as he acknowledges generously, has been indebted to his predecessors; it is also clear from his work that he himself has consulted the preceding Vedic and post-Vedic literature. It is true that grammars have been prepared after Pāṇini also. But when Pāṇini's grammar reached the status of a standard work, his rules and regulations were naturally followed in the later literature. The later grammarians also must have been influenced by Pāṇini. In the field of grammar and literature Pāṇini's grammar is, therefore, the regulating and controlling standard work. In the same way, and more clearly and significantly, it seems to me, the *Mānasāra* occupies a unique position in literature, both architectural and non-architectural.

Linked texts (10)