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) v6.c41.s25: Central America

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.s25

Language
English

Contents

Central America

v6.c41.s25.1

The Yucatan Peninsula is in the Mexican territory of Quintana Roo. It is an uninhabited peninsula lying between the Chetumal Bay and the Caribbean Sea. It is equally desolate between the Bay and the Great Bacalar Lagoon. Before the Spanish conquest of Yucatan it was the home of the Maya clans. The ancient Maya manuscript book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel records the migrations of Maya clans and describes also the migration of the Itzas from Chichenitza to Coba, which is about 50 miles to the east of Chichenitza. The British Museum Guide to the Maudsley Collection of Maya Sculptors has further reference to the period of the Mayas.

v6.c41.s25.2

Along the east coast of Yucatan live the Santa Cruz Indians, the direct descendants of the ancient Mayas. They have never been subdued, and ‘for five centuries they have successfully resisted all the efforts, first of the Spaniards and later of the Mexicans, to conquer their country. These Indians, so far as is known, live the lives of ancestors of a thousand years ago. They worship the same gods and perform the ancient religious ceremonies.’

v6.c41.s25.3

Dr. Gann was the first to discover the ruins of the great city of Coba, through information found in a recent translation of the Maya manuscript book. He has also discovered a monolith and a once populous site in the forests of Yucatan. ‘It is a block of greyish schist, 12 feet long, 18 inches wide, and 12 inches thick. It had at one time stood upright, but now lay flat and embedded in the ground. Upon one edge faint traces of sculpture were visible, but the greater part of the exposed surfaces had been worn quite smooth by the tropical downpours of an unknown number of rainy seasons. This has been the fate of many Maya inscriptions.’

v6.c41.s25.4

‘The monolith had been erected just in front of a great terraced pyramid which stood between two others. All these pyramids were faced, in the usual Maya style, with blocks of cut limestone. The central one had three terraces and was 32 feet high. Its flat top, upon which there no doubt stood a wooden temple, long since perished, was one 135 feet long and 64 feet across. Further investigation showed that these pyramids were at one end of a great enclosure, which was surrounded by a massive stone wall. This wall is from 12 to 15 feet thick at the base, and in the places where it has MAYA TEMPLE OF PATRON DEITY *KULKULCAN* UPON HIGH-TERRACED PLATFORM OF THE HINDU ŚIKHARA TYPE COVERING AN AREA OF ONE ACRE, CHICHEN ITZA, CENTRAL AMERICA remained intact, it is 12 feet high ; but for the most part the growth of the luxurious vegetation has thrown the stones down and the ruins are only 3 or 4 feet above ground. The wall is a mile and a half long and forms a semicircle with the two ends running down to the shore.’

v6.c41.s25.7

This is obviously a defensive wall. It is significant that the only two walls of this kind which have hitherto been discovered are also in Yucatan, one being at Tuluum, on the east coast, and the other at Chichen Itza, in the northern interior.

v6.c41.s25.8

‘The space enclosed by this wall had evidently been densely populated in bygone times. For in the places where the Indians have cleared the undergrowth away, one could see that the ground was literally covered with potsherds, flint and obsodian chips, clay beads, spindle whorls, small human and animal heads, and other surviving evidences of human habitation. A great concourse of people must have lived there for many generations.’

v6.c41.s25.9

The vast cave of Loltum is entered by ‘great well-like holes in the north, through which one descends by ladders from ledge to ledge, arriving in immense rocky chambers whose floors are covered with stalagmites and cave earth, and from whose lofty roofs depend vast stalactites. Two of these holes are a mile apart. From the great chambers unexplored passages branch out in every direction.’

v6.c41.s25.10

It is believed that ‘subterranean passages from this cavern reach to the ruined city of Chichen Itza, 20 miles away. There is a tradition that during one of the innumerable internecine wars amongst the Mayas, which followed the breaking up of the central authority after the conquest of Mayapan, the inhabitants of a neighbouring village were driven to take refuge in this cave by a band of their enemies.’

v6.c41.s25.11

The Mayas also ‘erected magnificent temples and palaces, most of which now lie buried in the tropical forests. Some have been discovered, but there is no doubt that a great number of them yet remain to be discovered.’

v6.c41.s25.12

These discoveries of Dr. Gann and Professor Morley of the Carnegie Institute are of great historical interest. The dates on the monoliths have been deciphered. Dr. Gann himself places the beginning of the Maya chronology in 3381 B.C. But it is considered to be mythological. According to Spinder’s correlation the date on Dr. Gann’s monolith corresponds to October 26, A.D. 333. Maya Asura of the *Mahābhārata*, who built a wonderful hall for the king Yudhishṭhira, has been elaborately referred to above.¹ There are a number of manuscripts of the *Śilpa-śāstra* ascribed to Maya.² As an architect, Maya is mentioned in the *Purāṇas* and other Sanskrit works also.³

v6.c41.s25.13

¹ See above, pp. 247, 400 and note.

v6.c41.s25.14

² See pp. 159-161, 205, 253, and the writer's *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture*, Appendix I, *sub voce*.

v6.c41.s25.15

³ E.g. *Matsya-Purāṇa*, see above, pp. 245, 246, 247; 79, 97, 168, 169, 170, 171.

v6.c41.s25.16

The scanty remains of the Mayas of Central America, however, do not supply details for a satisfactory comparison with the temples, palaces, dwellings, etc., elaborately described in the *Mānasāra* and other *Śilpa-śāstras*. But the walls referred to by Dr. Gann look like the city walls described in the *Mānasāra*. If the city within these walls could be identified together with its buildings, roads, plan, etc., it is not unlikely that we might have found there one of the numerous town-plannings minutely described in the *Śilpa-śāstras*. It is, however, fortunate that Professor Grafton Elliot Smith, of University College, London, has been able to establish the Indian connexion with the Central American Maya ruins through the Indian Archipelago or Insulindia, of whose monuments a full account has been given in the preceding chapter.

v6.c41.s25.17

Professor Elliot Smith disagrees with Dr. Gann and emphatically declares that the causeway that has been found was not built for the purposes of human sacrifices. There are similar causeways in Cambodia, ‘which were designed purely for ceremonial purposes.’ They may represent the circumambulatory path (*pradakshiṇa*) which is a common feature of Hindu architecture frequently referred to in the *Mānasāra* and other *Śilpa-śāstras*.

v6.c41.s25.18

‘The whole Maya remains as discovered show,’ declares Professor Elliot Smith, ‘the closest possible relation with the civilization as it existed in Java and South-East Asia to what has been found in Yucatan. There is nothing in my mind that suggests that the form of civilization is indigenous, and I should be inclined to hold that the temples at Java were the prototypes of what has been found in Yucatan.’

v6.c41.s25.19

‘Unquestionably in the early days perishable wood structures were built,’ continues the Professor, ‘but when stone supplanted wood, you find pyramids being built precisely on the same lines that

v6.c41.s25.22

TYPE OF PILLAR (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) SVASTIKA MANSION (EAST VERANDAH)

v6.c41.s25.23

they were built in South-East Asia. . . . It is necessary to remember that, as Indian civilization spread eastwards, the type of pyramid, established by them become fashionable and was built in stone. ‘Further there was no question but that Maya carvings represented Indian elephants and Indians with typical head-dresses.’

v6.c41.s25.24

Professor Elliot Smith explains how the Indian civilization penetrated into Central America: ‘Indian navigator, it was known, had combed out the islands in the Pacific, such as Easter Island and many others, and it was unthinkable that they should not have discovered a continent that stretched from pole to pole.’

v6.c41.s25.25

Thus under Asiatic, or rather Indian, influence the Central American civilization ‘rose to great heights, but had already collapsed before the advent of the Spaniards, who may have given it the *coup de grace*.’ ‘The Maya civilization rose and fell. It fell so soon as the energy of the driving force that inspired it declined. That is,’ declares the Professor, ‘our view, and we do not believe in an indigenous culture that rose through its own impetus, and that fell as a result of foreign invasion.’ ‘At University College,’ concludes Professor Elliot Smith, ‘we are absolutely convinced that the Maya civilization (of Central America) was directly derived from India.’¹

v6.c41.s25.26

¹ ‘Central News,’ quoted from the *Morning Post*, by the *Statesman*, March 21, April 9, 17, 25, 1926, *vide* for fuller details and references, the writer’s *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture*, Appendix I, under Maya.

v6.c41.s25.27

INDO-PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE¹

v6.c41.s25.28

¹ Originally published in (i) *The Calcutta Review*, February, 1930; (ii) *Oriental Studies*, Commemoration Volume of C. E. Pavry, 1933, pp. 3-14.

v6.c41.s25.29

‘FREQUENT ALLUSIONS to the inhabitants of the western zone of the Iran Plateau are found in Assyrian documents from about the eighth century B.C. They belonged to the Aryan family and were closely related to the Indo-Aryan. The kinship existing between the two branches was unsuspected by antiquity, and is clear beyond doubt to modern science, which bases its conclusions on the striking resemblance observable in the languages, the religious ideas, and even the original rites and physical characteristics of the Indo-Aryans and Persians.’

v6.c41.s25.30

These linguistic, religious, and physical resemblances seem to have induced several scholars and historians, including archaeologists, to seek further resemblance between the Persian and the Indian architecture. The procedure of investigation appears to have been based on a larger assumption that in all matters of refinement and culture the West must have been the creditors and the East the borrowers. The possibility of indigenous growth was never taken into consideration except in case of the *Veda*.

v6.c41.s25.31

The admission made in this connexion by Kennedy is free and frank. ‘The pre-historic age in India is distinguished, not by periods of stone and copper and bronze, but by the spread of the Aryans, the consolidation of societies, and the elaboration of a cult. With the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. we reach the commencement of personal and dated history, and a great creative era—the age of Mahāvīra and of Buddha. But the material preceded the spiritual. The first stir of that new life arose from the contact with Western civilization, the breath of inspiration came from Babylon, and then from Persia. When the Greeks arrived, they found great and civilized peoples whose learning and whose capitals aroused their admiration. The records of that civilization were written on palm-leaves and on bark, or exhibited in brick and wood—things perishable, which have perished, and we are perforce reduced to search painfully among the flotsam and jetsam of time for any vestiges of the grandeur of antiquity.’

v6.c41.s25.32

Then follows an interesting note : ‘The progress of the Indians was necessarily of the slowest, for Persia could supply them with scarcely any models, and they had to discover everything themselves.’¹

v6.c41.s25.33

¹ *J.R.A.S.*, 1898, p. 287.

v6.c41.s25.34

‘Of the decoration of the earlier Buddhist monasteries we know practically nothing, but the decoration of the later *vihāra* caves of Nalanda, and of the *sanghārāmas* of Gandhara, was Persian, and that not so much after the fashion of the Sassanians as of the Achaemenids. There is the same lavish employment of colour, the use of enamelled or metallic tiles upon the roof, the gilded rafters and elaborately painted ceilings, the rich capitals of the pillars, the application of inlaying. The two schemes of decoration are substantially the same.’²

v6.c41.s25.35

² *Ibid.*, pp. 284–285.

v6.c41.s25.36

‘To the general question, then, concerning the direct influence of Babylon on Indian art, we must answer no.’ But Kennedy thinks that ‘a direct influence may be traced in one particular class of buildings and one particular locality—the Buddhist *vihāra* caves of Western India. . . . The four or five-storeyed *vihāras* . . . undoubtedly recall the impression of a Babylonian *zigurat* or temple, but are hollow throughout and built of wood.’ In a note Kennedy adds, ‘Fergusson has attempted³ to connect certain Burmese and Sinhalese *dagobas* with the Babylonian type, and has suggested that connecting links once existed in brick and plaster in the valley of the Ganges. But there are two objections : (1) Had massive buildings of solid brick, either temples or *vihāras*, ever existed in the valley of the Ganges, they could not fail to have left their traces, as the *stūpas* have done. (2) The Indian buildings, so far as we know (apart from the *stūpas*, which are not buildings at all) were not solid, but hollow.’⁴

v6.c41.s25.37

³ *History of Indian Architecture*, pp. 202, 618, and *Cave Temples of India*, p. 34.

v6.c41.s25.38

⁴ *J.R.A.S.*, *ibid.*, p. 285.

v6.c41.s25.39

‘The Babylonian *zigurats* represented exactly on a large scale the same idea of a mountain . . . the storied *vihāras* of India, with their retreating stages, are also imitation mountains. The artificial mountain of the Indians was necessarily a hollow shell, because all their constructions was of brick and wood. . . . But the towering *vihāra* became a very different structure from the solid stories of the Zigurat, for India has rarely borrowed anything which she has not altered in adapting it.’ This is a very convenient assumption. Kennedy himself admits that when he says, ‘but we may conjecture that *zigurat* and *vihāra* had a common origin,’ but he is generous to confess that ‘these speculations may be fanciful,’ and he ‘will not deny it.’¹

v6.c41.s25.40

¹ *J.R.A.S.*, pp. 285, 286, 287.

v6.c41.s25.41

Thus Grünwedel and Burgess hold that ‘the Persian style, which the Achaemenids employed in their buildings at Susa and Persepolis, has inherited West Asian forms in its constructive as well as in its decorative features. This Persian style, which shows many peculiarities, is unfortunately represented only by a few monuments upon which it is almost impossible to pronounce judgment. But undoubtedly its elements may again be recognized in the buildings of Asoka’s day and of the older Indian style, dependent on that of Asoka, as grafted upon the native wooden style.’

v6.c41.s25.42

‘As chief elements, the following forms may be indicated. The Persian pillar with bell-shaped capital was adopted directly; it was set up by itself as an inscription-pillar; the famous iron pillar of Delhi is a later example. In sculptures it is seen not only in representation of palace-halls, but also decoratively—often to divide spaces, and with many interesting variants. The bell-capital frequently serves as a basis for one or more lions or elephants, or for a religious symbol, (e.g. the wheel) when the pillar is considered as standing alone. If the pillar is used as a support in a building. the bell-capital serves as a base for an abacus on which, turned towards the sides, winged figures of animals (winged horses, gazelles, goats, lions, or sitting elephants) are placed. This last form resembles the Persian ‘unicorn-pillar.’ The appearance of the whole pillar in India, however, is rough and clumsy compared with Persian forms.’²

v6.c41.s25.43

² *Buddhist Art in India*, pp. 17–18. For illustrations, *see* Cunningham *Arch. Sur. Ind. Report*, Vol. V, Plates XLV, XLVI, pp. 187, 188; Burgess, *Archaeological Survey, W. Ind.*, Vol. IV, pp. 5, 12; and *Cave Temples*, Plates XVI, XXIII, XCVI.

v6.c41.s25.44

Fergusson detects Persian influence on pillars in front of the Bedsa cave south of Karle. ‘The two pillars in front, however, are so much too large in proportion to the rest, that they are evidently *stambhas*, and ought to stand free instead of supporting a verandah. Their capitals are more like the Persepolitan type than almost any other in India, and are each surmounted by horses and elephants bearing men and women of bold and free execution.' In a note, he further adds that, 'in the Pitalkhora *vihāra*, we find the Persepolitan capital repeated with a variety of animals over it, for the Hindu artists, from their natural aptitude for modifying and adapting forms, very soon repeated the bicephalous bull and ram of the Persian columns by a great variety of animals, sphinxes, and even human figures in the most grotesque attitudes.'¹

v6.c41.s25.45

¹ *History of Indian and Eastern Architecture*, Vol. I, p. 138.

v6.c41.s25.46

Of the more recent advocates of the Persian theory, Sir John Marshall is stated by Dr. Spooner to have inferred from the Sarnath capital that 'the Mauryan stonework had been wrought by foreign masons.'² Dr. Spooner himself has gone much further, and the idea which was almost within the grasp of Fergusson but 'missed,' altogether possessed him (Spooner), and he could not think of anything but Persian in the Mauryan period of Indian history.³ He imagined to have explored everything as the result of his excavation at Kumrahar, Patna, which, however, did not proceed further than its initial stage, and could not unearth anything but a portion of a badly damaged pillar and the footmark of what he imagined to be a hall. Starting with a preconceived idea that 'the style of Asoka's sculptured capitals originated in Persepolis,' he began to see, at the very outset, 'the peculiar Persian polish in the columns,' some twenty-three hundred years after their erection, and (from this polish) it seemed to him 'not impossible that even in its design the building (i.e. the hall of which only the footmarks remain) might have been under Persian influence.' The Hall of a Hundred Columns at Persepolis, which is discussed later on, was a square hall with ten rows of ten columns evenly spaced in square bays. 'At Pataliputra,' Spooner himself emphatically declares, 'to be sure, we had only eight rows,' but he consoles himself with an equally emphatic assumption that 'there was every reason to suppose that others would be found, and possibly evidence for a porch as well, to correspond with the porch in Persepolis.' He further admits that 'the intercolumnation at Kumrahar was found to be five diameters, an intercolumnation [Figure: SUGGESTION FOR ELEVATION OUT LINE SECTION. ASOKAN HALL OF HUNDRED COLUMNS KUMRAHAR. PLAN. NOTE. This plan is based on the findings of Kumrahar excavation]

v6.c41.s25.47

² *J.R.A.S.*, 1915, p. 66.

v6.c41.s25.48

³ See *later*, pp. 406-407.

v6.c41.s25.49

verandah. almost any elephants a note, he ersepolitan the Hindu ting forms, he Persian en human

v6.c41.s25.50

Sir John he Sarnath by foreign d the idea 'missed,' ık of anyitory.³ He excavation rther than rtion of a ned to be of Asoka's ce, at the ns,' some his polish) e building have been ; at Perseten rows taliputra,' only eight sumption be found, with the umnation umnation not identical, perhaps, with that of the Persian throne-room, but still,’ holds Dr. Spooner, ‘one which is essentially Persepolitan, and never found in any other country of antiquity.’ So far as the capitals are concerned, of which there appears to be striking similarity, as has been pointed out by all authorities, Spooner admits that ‘no capitals had been recovered in Patna to help us in comparing the two buildings, nor had any pedestals been met with.’ Spooner acknowledges the importance of the existence of capitals when he says, ‘It may be true that, so far as Indian architecture is concerned, the only substantial point showing Persian influence is the capital.’ He further admits that ‘it may be true that no architectural plan in India, nor any type of building, as a whole, has hitherto been known which one could say was based directly on a Persian model’; yet, undeterred even by this consideration, Dr. Spooner goes on to build his castle of assumption and declares that a ‘careful study of the stratification suggested that pedestals had, *in all probability*, existed, and the *indicated* dimensions and proportions justified the thought that these pedestals must have been themselves of Persepolitan type, round in plan, some 3 feet high, and inferentially, bell-shaped, though as regards this latter point,’ he is forced to admit that ‘no evidence exists.’¹

v6.c41.s25.51

¹ *J.R.A.S.*, 1915, *ibid.*, pp. 66, 67.

v6.c41.s25.52

Here it is necessary to observe that not a single monument of recognizable condition is available in Persia. Everything has been in ruins when seen by historians, and many objects have been cleverly restored by several archaeologists from scanty material but fertile imagination. But the restorers do not agree amongst themselves. The actual condition of the ruins and the manner of their restoration are pointed out later on.

v6.c41.s25.53

As more tangible similarity between the Persian and the Indian architecture is apparent in the capitals of columns, it will be perhaps better to take into consideration this object to begin with. Columns in all countries can be classified into two broad classes in regard to their utility, namely, the free pillars, and those which are employed in buildings as support to the whole structure and, in ancient architecture in any case, as the regulator of the whole composition. As regards this regulating column, the question of proportion and intercolumnation alone can arise. So far as this column is concerned This page appears to be completely blank.

v6.c41.s25.54

A FREE PILLAR IN THE KAILASA TEMPLE OF ELLORA

v6.c41.s25.55

the capital is of minor importance, because in many places of its employment it becomes mixed up with the entablature and loses its prominency, if not its identity, also. Of the free pillar, on the other hand, the captial is the most prominent part. No other part draws the attention of the visitor so much, the free pillar having no other purpose to serve except being showy. Therefore, apart from the consideration of stability, the proportion between its length and width and between its component parts, namely, the pedestal, base, shaft, and capital, has no significance. But these are the factors which count much in case of the regulating pillar, because, apart from aesthetic consideration, any error in the proportion and in the composition of several parts, will often prove injurious, not only to the pillar itself, but also destructive to the whole building. Consequently the regulating pillar can hardly be considered without taking into consideration the building which it regulates.

v6.c41.s25.56

These common characteristic features of columns in all countries may help us in distinguishing the really essential elements from the unessential ones. Before proceeding further it is necessary to take stock of what we find in India and what in Persia, and when.

v6.c41.s25.57

The archaeological remains in India could not be dated much earlier than the fifth century B.C., the Piprahwa Stupa building of 450 B.C. being about the earliest. The discoveries made at Mahenjodaro and Harappa may take back by centuries the Indian architecture and other matters of the cultural progress of the country to a time which would make it impossible to further speculate on the Persian influence in India in any case. But before the artistic treasures unearthed in Sindh and the Punjab have been properly estimated and the scripts have been deciphered they can be hardly utilized in an article like this. We are, therefore, to limit our observation to the old materials, which are, fortunately, plentiful for the present purpose.

v6.c41.s25.58

The extant Asokan pillars, with which alone a Persian connexion has been sought to be established, and which probably at one time could be counted by hundreds, do not number more than a dozen. The best known Asokan pillar is that removed from Topra to Delhi by Firoz Shah Tughlak in 1356. A fragment of a second was re-erected, also in Delhi, in 1867. Three others exist in Champaran district: the first of these is known as the Lauriya-Araraj, the second as the Lauriya Navandgarh pillar, and the fragment of the other was ‘recognized—utilized as a roller for the station roads by a utilitarian member of the Civil Service.’ The most complete shaft, bereft, however, of its capital, is the Allahabad pillar, to which a pedestal was added by Captain Smith, but which was again thrown down and re-erected by Jahangir (in 1605) to commemorate his accession. Four other Asokan pillars are in much damaged condition at Rampurwa, Nigliva, Rummindei, and Sarnath. ‘It is more than probable that each of these Asokan pillars stood in front of, or in connexion with, some *stūpa* or building of some sort. At least we know that six or seven can be traced at Sanchi, and nearly an equal number at Amaravati, and, in the representation of topes at the latter place, these *lats* are frequently represented both outside and inside the rails. At Karle one still stands in front of the great cave.’ The pillar at Eran, and the iron pillar at Mehrauli, near Delhi, belong to the Gupta period; the pillar at Pathari in Bhopal is ascribed to Rastrakuta King Parabala (A.D. 861).

v6.c41.s25.59

The crowning ornaments of these pillars have been lost, but the capitals of some pillars still exist. The capital of the pillar at Lauriya Navandgarh is surmounted by a lion of bold and good design. The pillar at Sankisa, situated between Mathura and Kanouj, of which the greater part of the shaft has been lost, is surmounted ‘by an elephant, but so mutilated that even in the seventh century the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang mistook it for a lion.’ The pillar at Karle is surmounted by four lions, ‘which, judging from analogy, once bore a *chakra* or wheel, probably in metal.’ The pillars at Bedsa, a dozen miles south of Karle, partly stand free and partly supporting a verandah: these pillars are surmounted by horses and elephants bearing men and women of bold and free execution. These capitals are stated to be ‘more like the Persepolitan type than almost any others.’ In a note, on the authority of Dr. Le Bon, Fergusson further asserts that, in the Pitalkhora *vihāra*, ‘the Persepolitan capital is repeated with a variety of animals over it, for the Hindu artists, from their natural aptitude for modifying and adapting forms, very soon replaced the bicephalous bull and ram of the Persian columns by a great variety of animals, sphinxes, and even human figures in the most grotesque attitudes.’¹

v6.c41.s25.60

¹ *Indian and Eastern Architecture*, Vol. I, p. 138.

v6.c41.s25.61

It is needless to point out that this ‘great variety of animals’ on the capitals of Indian columns has caused great inconvenience and discomfort to the advocates of the Persian theory, because, on Persepolitan capitals, the animals comprise only the bull, the unicorn, and possibly the lion too.

v6.c41.s25.62

Another important factor, which Fergusson himself admits, is that the Persepolitan ‘features are only found on the *lats* of Asoka, and are never seen afterwards in India, though common in Gandhara and on the Indus long afterwards . . . Persian form of capital long retained its position in Indian art.’¹ It is not stated how and why the Persian form did not influence the other Indian types, but the fundamental differences in the Indian types are explained : ‘whatever the Hindus *copied*, however, was changed in course of time, by decorative additions and modifications, in accordance with their own taste.’ With such an assumption any slight similarity in the most ordinary things of any two countries or peoples may establish relation of indebtedness of any one of the two to the other.

v6.c41.s25.63

¹ *Indian and Eastern Architecture*, Vol. I, p. 59.

v6.c41.s25.64

The great variety, and the undeniable differences from the Persian model, of the Indian columns can be verified by a reference to the capitals of pillars at cave no. 26 at Ajanta (Fergusson, *ibid.*, Vol. I, p. 154), at the Chaitya Cave of Kenheri (p. 164), at Bhaja (p. 178), at caves of Nahapana and of Gautamputra in Nasik (p. 185), at Sri Yajna Cave (p. 188), at Vihara no. 16 (p. 190), no. 17 (p. 192), no. 24 (p. 194), no. 1 (p. 195), at Ajanta, at Patna (p. 207), at Jamalgarh (p. 214), at Srinagar and at Shadipur (p. 257), in Bhima Rath at Mamallapuram (p. 332), *Dhvaja-stambha* at Elura (p. 346), *Dipa-stambha* in Dharwar (p. 347), in Tirumalai Nayyaka’s *cheultri* at Madura (p. 387), at Vellor and at Pelur (p. 399), of the hall in the Palace at Madura (p. 414), of court in the palace in Tanjore (p. 415), at Ananta Gumpha in Orissa (Vol. II, p. 16), of an Indra Sabha cave at Elura (pp. 20, 21), of Bimala temple at Mount Abu (pp. 39, 42), at Chandravali, Mount Abu (p. 43), at Ranpur (pp. 46, 47), at Khajuraho (p. 53), at Gyaraspur (p. 54), at Amwa (p. 56), at Sravana Belgola (p. 75), at Mudabidri (pp. 76, 77, 78), at Guruvayankeri (p. 81), at Jajpur (p. 111), at Kailasa of Elura (p. 126), at Elephanta (p. 129), *Kīrtistambha* at Vadnagar (p. 136), at Udayapur in Gwalior (p. 146), and at Brindaban (pp. 157, 158).

v6.c41.s25.65

This long list of existing pillars, when compared with the shorter one, comprising less than a dozen examples where certain similarity with the Persian type is possible, makes it all the more difficult to believe in the Persian theory so far as the Indian pillars are concerned. Moreover, there is another consideration, and that is, in a matter like the present one, perhaps more significant. Only the general principles and practicable rules and regulations for the guidance of artists are codified in standard treatises dealing with a subject like architecture. If any similarity can be clearly detected in the standard treatises of different countries, deficiency, due to the lack of sufficient archaeological remains, can be rectified. But so far as Persia is concerned there appears to have been no such treatise ever written. All that has been recorded in Persia are from the reports of foreign visitors, entirely based on their observation of the scanty remains. In India, fortunately, we possess in manuscripts many hundred *Śilpa-śāstras* dealing with architecture and the cognate arts in great detail. But the standard work, *Mānasāra*, was not accessible to scholars in text or translation until the publication of the writer's seven volumes including a dictionary, an illustrated encyclopaedia, and a number of measured drawings. It is needless to repeat what has been stated in these books. It is possible that, from the details gathered together in these books, readers may expect with greater reason a similarity between the Indian and the Greco-Roman orders rather than the Persian columns. Merely the conclusion may be reiterated here: ‘The striking similarities in the names of the mouldings, like *padma* or cyma, *hāra* or bead, or in the names of orders like the *Miśrita* or Composite, may sometimes be attributed to inexplicable coincidence. But in view of other striking similarities between Vitruvius and the *Mānasāra*, such as the classification of orders into exactly five, and the divisions of subservient parts called mouldings, common to all the orders, into eight, and also the proportionate measurement varying equally from six to ten diameters, and tapering almost in the same way, there seem to have been something more substantial than mere coincidence. An influence, direct or indirect, of the one upon the other, seems highly probable.’¹

v6.c41.s25.66

¹ *Vide* p. 231, para. 2 of this volume.

v6.c41.s25.67

In the absence of a direct influence, an indirect one through the Persian source should have been quite feasible, if there were really anything common save and except a few capitals.

v6.c41.s25.68

So far as the antiquity and the variety are concerned, the Indian columns are so very remote and different from even the doubtfully restored columns of Persia, that no connexion seems to be probable. Synonyms of pillars are met with in the *Ṛig-veda*¹ and the *Atharva-veda*²; the former of which, in any case, must be dated before the *Zend-Avesta* of the Parsis. As regards the variety, they are far too many to be referred to: they are given in detail in the writer's *Dictionary of Hindu Architecture*.³

v6.c41.s25.69

¹ *Ṛig-veda*, I, 59, 1; IV, 5, 1.

v6.c41.s25.70

² *Atharva-veda* IX, 3, 1; Bloomfield, *Hymns of the A.-V.*, 343 *et seq.*

v6.c41.s25.71

³ *Aṅghri* (pp. 13-14), *Āyaka* (p. 67), *Āyikapāda* (p. 69), *Uchchhraya* (p. 78), *Kīrti-stambha* (p. 132), *Gaṇḍa-verenda*, bearing sun-eagle (pp. 161, 674), *Garuḍa-stambha* (pp. 163, 652, 655, 666, 667, 674, 675, 677), *Gṛiha-stambha* (p. 172), *Charaṇa* (p. 196), *Chitra-skambha* (p. 196), *Chitra-karṇa* (p. 196), *Jaṅghā* (p. 206), *Jayanti* (p. 208), *Jaya-stambha*, pillar of victory (p. 208), *Daṇḍaka* with 16 sides (p. 256), *Dvi-vajraka* (p. 281), *Dhāraṇa* (p. 282), *Dhvaja-stambha*, bearing a flag or banner (p. 282), *Dharma-stambha* (p. 282), *Dhānya-stambha* (p. 282), *Padmakānta* (p. 339), *Pāda* (p. 346), *Pālika-stambha* (p. 348), *Kulikāṅghrika* (p. 143), *Brahma-kānta* (p. 443), *Māna-stambha*, (pp. 654–656, 671), *Mūla-daṇḍa* (p. 511), *Yūpa-stambha* (517), *Ruchaka* (p. 526), *Rudra-kānta* (527), *Lakshmī-stambha* (p. 527), *Vajra-pāda* (p. 533), *Vajra* (p. 532), *Viskambha* (p. 557), *Vishṇu-kānta* (p. 557), *Vṛitta* (p. 563), *Sītā-stambha* (p. 593), *Śiva-kānta* (p. 594), *Śubhaṅkarī* (p. 595), *Sukhāṅghri*, (p. 595), *Śrīkara* (p. 597), *Saumukhya* (p. 642), *Skanda-kānta* (p. 643), *Sthūṇa* (p. 731), *Sthāṇu* (p. 731), of the Jains, Buddhists, Vaishṇavas, Śaivas (p. 677–8), Basava pillar (p. 673), Benefaction pillar (p. 667), Beauty pillar (p. 597), Boundary pillar (p. 661), Brahmadeva pillar (p. 676), Crocodile pillar (p. 677), Devotion pillar (p. 670), Diamond pillar (p. 533), Dwarf pillar (pp. 13–14, 86), Elephant pillar (p. 675), Fan-palm pillar (p. 677), Fortune pillar (pp. 652–653, 668), Foundation pillar (pp. 511, 655, 664, 667), Four-faced pillar (pp. 653, 654, 658), Gate pillar (p. 672), Gold pillar (p. 648), Granite pillar (pp. 654, 655, 656), Honour pillar (pp. 664–665, 666, 670–671), Lamp pillar (pp. 258, 661, 672, 673, 677), Lion pillar (pp. 655, 675, 676), Main pillar (p. 143), Memorial pillar (pp. 538, 674), Monkey pillar (p. 677), Monumental pillar (pp. 132, 282, 675), Octagonal pillar (p. 656), Phallus pillar (p. 667), Piety pillar (p. 659), Projecting pillar (p. 657), Quadrangular pillar (p. 653, 656, 657), Religious pillar (p. 282), Sacrificial pillar (pp. 663, 666, 669–670, 677), Sati pillar (pp. 660, 677), Sixteensided pillar (669), Stone pillar (pp. 593, 645, 652, 653, 657, 658, 659, 671, 673), Thieves pillar (p. 677), Thirty-two-sided pillar (p. 648), Town pillar (p. 665), Trident pillar (p. 652), Umbrella pillar (p. 676), Unshaken pillar (p. 673), Upper pillar (p. 143), Victory pillar (pp. 659, 664, 666, 670, 671, 677), Wall pillar (p. 139), War pillar (pp. 661-662), and Welfare pillar (p. 669). For further details and illustrations, see the writer's *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture* under these terms.

v6.c41.s25.72

The proportion and the intercolumnations of the Persian type are also essentially different from the Indian ones. The proportionate measures of the pedestal, base, shaft, capital and entablature, as well as the plan and intercolumnation, have been discussed in great

v6.c41.s25.73

Like the *Romaka siddhānta*, the name of an astronomical treatise based on Roman sources, one might expect, in case of borrowing, to find in this huge list pillars named after the Greeks, Romans, or the Parsis, but no such names are available.

v6.c41.s25.74

detail in the writer’s *Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture* and need not be repeated here. Only the conclusions, again, may be briefly referred to. The measures of the mouldings of twelve pedestals¹ classified under three heads, and of some sixty-four bases² under nineteen heads, have been given. Shafts are primarily divided into five orders, but there is a great variety described under the technical names, of which a long list has been given above. The capitals, too, which have drawn the attention of the archaeologists rather disproportionately, have been described under several types, none of which appears to have much resemblance with the Persian ones. Lastly, the entablature have been described under eight classes.³

v6.c41.s25.75

¹ See the writer’s *Encyclopaedia*, under *Upapīṭha*.

v6.c41.s25.76

² *Ibid.*, under *Adhishṭhāna*.

v6.c41.s25.77

³ *Ibid.*, under *Prastara*.

v6.c41.s25.78

‘The height of the pedestal is generally from a quarter to six times the height of the base. Pedestals are actually given nine heights, which are worked out by nine proportions. In the case where a pedestal is joined to the base, the height of the pedestal may be either equal to that of the base, or twice, or three times as much. Again the bases are given twelve heights varying from 30 *aṅgulas* (of ¾ inch each) to 4 cubits. The height of the shaft being divided into four parts, one is given to the base, which may or may not be accompanied by a pedestal. The height of the entablature, as compared with that of the base, may be equal to the latter, or less by a quarter, or greater by a quarter, half, three-quarters or twice. In cubit measure, these six heights may vary from 4½ to 7 cubits. The height of the entablature, when compared with that of the shaft, may be half or three-quarters, or equal to, or greater by a quarter, half, or three-quarters of the latter.

v6.c41.s25.79

Similarly the capitals are varied at pleasure, though not without regard to the diameter and length of the shaft, and the forms of the plainest of them are found, at a distant view, to bear some resemblance to the Doric and Ionic capitals, but those of a more elaborate kind are sometimes so overloaded with a sort of filigree ornaments as to destroy the effect of the beautiful proportions of the whole.⁴

v6.c41.s25.80

⁴ The writer’s *Dictionary*, *ibid.*, p. 704.

v6.c41.s25.81

The capital given to the first design is from a model found at Tiruvottiyur, near Madras, and is called *taraṅga* (wave)-*bodhikā*. It is one diameter high, and projects equal to its height.⁵ The other form is from a temple at Mayalapura. It is called *suru-bodhikā* or roll capital.⁵ The height of the third capital, called *Phalaka*, is three-quarters of the lower diameter of the column and is divided into thirteen parts. Its projection is one diameter.¹ The capital in the fourth variety takes three-quarters of the diameter.² The fifth capital, called *Pushpabandha* or band of flower, is equal to the upper diameter of the column. Its projection is equal to its height, but its altitude may be equal to the higher, lower, or the middle diameter of the column; and its breadth may be equal to its height, or four or five diameters.³ There are many other varieties which are hardly necessary for the present purpose.⁴ We may conclude with a more general direction : ‘ a capital, the height of which is from one to two diameters, and the breadth twice its height, is of the superior sort; that which in height is half the diameter, and in breadth from one to three diameters, is of the inferior sort.’³

v6.c41.s25.82

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 680.

v6.c41.s25.83

¹ *Dictionary of Hindu Architecture*, by the writer, p. 683.

v6.c41.s25.84

² *Ibid.*, pp. 687–698.

v6.c41.s25.85

³ *Ibid.*, p. 691.

v6.c41.s25.86

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 669–702.

v6.c41.s25.87

The plan of the Hindu columns admits of every shape, and is frequently found in the round, quadrangular, and octangular forms, although sixteen-sided and thirty-two-sided ones are also met with. They are richly adorned with sculptured ornaments.⁵

v6.c41.s25.88

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 703.

v6.c41.s25.89

The intercolumnation may be two, three, four, or five diameters: it is measured in three ways—first, from the inner extremity of the base of one pillar to that of another; secondly, from the centres of the two pillars; and, thirdly, from the outer extremities of the pillars, including the two bases. There seems to be no fixed intercolumnation. This has been left to the discretion of architects, who are, however, required to be particularly careful with regard to beauty and utility.⁶

v6.c41.s25.90

⁶ *Indian Architecture*, by the writer, p. 45.

v6.c41.s25.91

Similar details of columns may be briefly quoted from Perrot and Chipez’s *History of Art in Persia*.

v6.c41.s25.92

‘ A glance at the proportions of the Persian column, its thin and airy aspect would, almost by itself, make it clear that it would have been a poor support for a stone entablature.’⁷ We have seen above that the Indian column is generally bulky. ‘ The shaft of the Persian column is always tall and slender. In the Palace of the thirty-six columns at Persepolis, the total height of the order, with base and crown, is in the proportion of twelve to one diameter of the shaft; whilst in the Pasargadae specimen, whose capital has disappeared, the proportions are more airy and light.’¹ ‘The Susian column, whose head is now in the Louvre, best characterizes the architecture of the Achaemenide sovereigns.’²

v6.c41.s25.93

⁷ Perrot and Chipiez, *History of Art in Persia*, p. 48.

v6.c41.s25.94

¹ *History of Art in Persia*, p. 53.

v6.c41.s25.95

² *Ibid.*, 86, 87.

v6.c41.s25.96

‘The shaft in all the orders of the edifices is slender and slightly tapering towards the top. It is fluted in all instances save in the façades of the necropolis at Persepolis, and the single column that still remains of the Palace of Cyrus in the upland valley of the Polvar.’³

v6.c41.s25.97

³ *Ibid.*, p. 87.

v6.c41.s25.98

‘In the oldest stone column standing among the ruins of the Palace of Cyrus at Pasargadae, we have a faithful representation of the primitive post, save that its material is stone and not wood. There is no fluting, the shaft being quite smooth. But what was its capital like? Nobody knows. As to the base, it is a simple round form interposed between the shaft and the ground, even more rudimentary than the cube which does duty now as a plinth in the rustic house.’⁴

v6.c41.s25.99

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 98, 99.

v6.c41.s25.100

‘The complex column, with double capital and volutes, rose between the four enormous pillars of the monumental Propylæa on the Persepolitan platform; it upheld the ceiling of the central hall of the great Palace of Xerxes, and formed the supports, both internally and externally, in the main porch of the hall of a hundred columns, as well as those of the hypostyle hall of Artaxerxes at Susa.’ In a note it is further stated that ‘until recently only slight fragments of the capitals... had been recovered; nevertheless the number seen by Coste was sufficiently large to enable him to write as follows: “The flutes of the shaft are cut to a fine edge, and the capitals... consist of four distinct sections.” Scores of shafts and chips of capitals were disengaged some ten years ago. In Plates (LXVII—LXIX) of the atlas published by the German Mission, entitled *Details of Columns*, will be found fragments of the bull-group, along with pillars adorned by volutes and the cylindrical form which intervenes between these and the pillar. Altogether they furnish all the elements requisite for a restoration of the column,’⁵ but not for a comparison with the Indian column.

v6.c41.s25.101

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 95.

v6.c41.s25.102

‘All the columns have a base, which differs from one building to another.’⁶ ‘The type that prevailed all over the country in the golden age of Persian art is represented’ in the great palace at Susa. It constitutes the true Persian base. ‘The base is not infrequently carved into the lower drum of the shaft, and is singled with it, hence with it must stand or inevitably fall. Elsewhere, in the hypostyle hall of Xerxes, for instance, the base is cut into two, in it the torus belongs to the first drum of the shaft, whilst the principal member is a separate block---resting directly on the ground. Despite the elegance of its contour and the care displayed in its make, the base lacks independence, and does not sufficiently contrast with the column so as to allow of those charming effects which greet us'¹ in the Grecian and Indian support.

v6.c41.s25.103

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 88.

v6.c41.s25.104

¹ *History of Art in Persia*, pp. 89, 90.

v6.c41.s25.105

As regards the shape of the base, it is limited to a few types only. 'In the Palace of Cyrus it is a disc, or a reversed quarter round. A more complicated shape, composed of a rectangular plinth and a torus seamed by horizontal channellings is seen in one of the porticoes of the Gabre, in the central colonnade of the great Palace of Xerxes, at Susa, as also in the hall of a hundred columns.'²

v6.c41.s25.106

² *Ibid.*, p. 88.

v6.c41.s25.107

The plinth is hardly seen or can be distinguished. The proportion between the component parts of the column is also lacking.

v6.c41.s25.108

The Persian capitals, of which much has been made out by the early Indologists, may be referred to in all available details.

v6.c41.s25.109

In every case the lower portion of the capital detaches itself very abruptly from the column, forms a horizontal line on each side, parallel to the architrave and at right angles with the axis of the shaft. There is no junction or intermediary moulding between the tapering column and the rectangular member at the beginning of the capital³ akin to the achinus of the Doric and Indian capital.

v6.c41.s25.110

'If, neglecting minor details, we only regard the shape as a whole, it does not seem unlikely that the first notion of it was suggested by the crowning tuft of a palm. The lower members of the capital would represent the dead twigs as they droop and fall about the stem of the tree, the upper members, whose forms look upwards, would stand for the young shoots, which dart forward past the sere foliage with a slight outward curve, the vertical stripes that scar the surface throughout would be reminiscent of the intervals of fillets which, in nature, separate the leaves of the terminal bunch.'³

v6.c41.s25.111

³ *Ibid.*, p. 92.

v6.c41.s25.112

In India, on the other hand, it should be noted, the analogy lies with the human body, the capital stands for the head, the shafts for the body, the base for the leg, and pedestal for the foot.

v6.c41.s25.113

‘Stolze (*Persepolis, Bemerkungen*) seems to think that in the capitals of the columns¹ the animals figured resemble the horse rather than the bull . . . the ornamentist hit upon a kind of compromise between the two quadrupeds, so as to add another conventional type to his repertory, which is not a whit more strange than that of the unicorn, found as support to many of the architraves.’

v6.c41.s25.114

¹ Hypostyle hall of Xerxes at Persepolis, Perrot and Chipiez, no. 31 (p. 91), no. 32 (p. 93), no. 38 (p. 97), no. 43 (p. 112), no. 44 (p. 115).

v6.c41.s25.115

The animals that figured on Indian capitals, we have seen, are neither bull, nor even the compromised unicorn, but mostly lion, elephant, and man.

v6.c41.s25.116

Nothing like the Indian cave temples have been disclosed from the Persian ruins. No discussion on the subject is, therefore, possible.

v6.c41.s25.117

As regards the funerary architecture, ‘although Susa would seem to have been the favourite city of the kings of Persia, nothing has been found in the immediate neighbourhood that resembles royal tombs.’ ‘Persia counted thirteen sovereigns from Cyrus to Darius Codomanus, including the Magi Smerdis. It would appear that four sovereigns had no special monument set up to them in the necropolis.’

v6.c41.s25.118

‘The internal evidence points to Xerxes, Artaxerxes Codomanus, and Darius Nothus as the princes that were entombed at Naksh-i-Rustem, whilst the younger cemetery at Persepolis was inaugurated by Artaxerxes Mnemon. There are then twelve princes and eight tombs, reckoning the Gabre.’

v6.c41.s25.119

‘All these tombs, with but slight differences of detail, are as like one another as it is possible to conceive; to describe one is to describe them all.’

v6.c41.s25.120

‘The total height of each is 22 m. 50 c. divided into three portions of almost equal size. (According to Coste the length of transverse limb of the façade at Naksh-i-Rustem is 18 m. 63 c., length of upper and lower limb 11 m. The height of tomb no. 10 at Persepolis is given at 24·50 c., middle portion, 17 m., length of upper division, 10.50 c.) The middle and longer compartment, in conjunction with the other two, forms what is called a Greek cross. The monument, properly so called, begins with the middle section, carved architecturally into four engaged columns and a lofty double recessed doorway, surmounted by an Egyptian gorge, and a row of dentels, so as to reproduce a palace façade. The upper portion of this doorway is solid rock, but the lower section is cut away, so as to provide an entrance to the vault excavated in the mass behind. The field contains a bas-relief of an essentially religious character : upon a stage the king is seen on a pedestal raised by four steps, in the act of worshipping. . . . Above, between the king and the altar, floats the image of Ahura-Mazda, borne on huge wings, behind which a solar disc is roughly suggested.’

v6.c41.s25.121

So far as the ‘Tower of Silence’ is concerned it can claim no architectural skill or beauty, because it was never meant to be visited by anybody except the vultures.

v6.c41.s25.122

There is nothing like the Persian tombs in India. The *stūpas*¹ and the *chaityas*² are entirely different monuments ; their appearance, measurements, and architectural details are fundamentally different from those of Persian tombs. The *stūpas* were erected as towers to commemorate some events or sacred spots; as *dagobas* they contained relics of Buddha or of some Buddhist saints. For comparison in details, the topes at Sanchi, Sarnath, Amaravati, Gandhara, Jelalabad, Manikyala, the *dagoba* at Ajanta, and the temple at Bodh Gaya may be referred to.

v6.c41.s25.123

¹ For details, *see* the writer’s *Encyclopaedia*, *sub voce*.

v6.c41.s25.124

² *Ibid.*, *sub voce*.

v6.c41.s25.125

According to Hodgson, the Indian *stūpas* in Nepal are known as *chaityas*. According to Fergusson,³ the Buddhist *chaityas* at Bhaja, Nasik, Ellora, Karle, etc., correspond in every respect with the churches of the Christian religion rather than to the Persian tombs. ‘Their plans, the position of the altar or relic casket, the aisles, and other peculiarities are the same in both, and their uses are identical, in so far as the ritual forms of the one religion resemble those of the other.’ But the *chaityas* were much earlier buildings than even the Christian churches, because the ceremony of entombing sacred ashes and other relics is mentioned in the *Vedas*. In the *Rāmāyaṇa*, also, the Brahmanical *chaityas* are alluded to. Later on *chaitya* became a synonym for temple.

v6.c41.s25.126

³ *Ibid.*, pp. 50–51.

v6.c41.s25.127

The *Avesta* condemns in no measured terms the worshippers of the Daevas or Demons, and, in a general way, whoever does not strictly observe the rules established by Zoroaster, in that he exposes himself to pollute the sacred elements : fire, earth, and water.

v6.c41.s25.128

In the words of Herodotus (I, 121), the Persians ‘have neither images nor temples nor altars, these they consider unlawful, and impute folly to those that make them. This is because they do not believe, like the Greeks [and the Hindus] in the personality of the gods. Their practice is to sacrifice to Zeus on the summit of the highest mountains, and under the name of Zeus they understand the whole circumference of the heavens.’ Cicero (*De Republica*, III, IX, 14, *De Legibus*, II, X, 26), by way of explaining the cause of Xerxes’ burning of the temples of Athens, says that it was to punish the Greeks ‘for their sacrilege in their foolish attempt “to shut up within walls the gods, before whom everything ought to be open and free, the gods, whose temple and habitation were the whole universe”.’ The *Avesta*, however, ‘contains no sign or token of the feeling imputed to the Persians by the Greek historian, and more explicitly the Roman orator.’ The Persians burnt the Grecian temples probably ‘to avenge the sacking of Sardes’ (Herodotus, VI, 96, 100).

First 124 of 289 passages. Read on

Linked texts (39)