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) v6.c41.s24.3
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) v6.c41.s24.3
- Language
- English
v6.c41.s24.3
Thus ‘the architecture of Japan owes its origin to Chinese sources, the earliest examples remaining being those which were built by carpenters sent over from Korea. The Japanese temples, whether Buddhist or Shinto, are all of the Chinese Ting type. In Japan, as in China, the later developments have as a rule resulted only in further enrichments, the elaborate carving in the Japanese Buddhist temples being carried to excess. In the Shinto temple, on the other hand, the greatest simplicity prevails, more importance being attached to the quality of the wood employed, and to its structural execution, than to any display of diagram work or carving. The pagoda in Japan still retains the ancient design and timber construction of the earliest example remaining, at Hariuji, which was built by Korean carpenters in A.D. 607, and may be looked upon as the original type of, at all events, the Korean pagoda.’² This pagoda and temple, near Nara in Japan, are square on plan and built in timber. But the earliest remains of the pagoda in China are almost universally octagonal on plan, and were built in stone or brick. This difference is accounted for by the fact that all the early architecture of China was annihilated, and that the Japanese examples, ‘in their design and execution, present a completeness of style which must have taken several centuries to develop’ through Korea. But the Chinese style of the Hariuji examples are not doubted by experts. There is, in fact, ‘one example with square plan at Korea, but this, following the Chinese examples, was built in brick.’ In the first century of the Christian era, however, the wooden construction developed in Korea owing to the presence of great forests therein, the perfected type of which is seen in the pagoda at Hariuji.’³