Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods) c27.29

c27.29

Proofs of the Dravidian master-builders losing little of their traditional skill even within comparatively recent times may be seen in the temple of Subramaniar, a relatively small building, introduced into the courtyard of the great Siva temple at Tanjore in the eighteenth century. (Plate LXXVI, Fig. 2). For some time the perfection of the design and workmanship of this architectural gem led authorities to believe that it belonged to the early mediaeval era, that it was in fact more or less contemporary with the majestic structure to which it is an appendage. It bears no inscriptions, but the date has been determined by its style, particularly that of its architectural embellishments. The position of this supplementary temple, which is dedicated to Subramaniar, the south Indian name of Kartikeya, the god of war, is at the north-east angle of the enclosure, where it occupies a space of 120 feet by 35 feet, with a sikhara about 55 feet high, approximately the proportions of a typical parish church in England. A glance will reveal that the Subramaniar temple in all its details is very much more ornate in style than the larger eleventh century building at its side, but the elaboration of its parts does not make it meretricious as its ornamental features are so skilfully distributed. Compared with the Siva temple it is at once obvious that its plastic ornamentation belongs to a widely different and later date. In the course of the six centuries which separate the two structures, the style has advanced considerably, it has accumulated much, some perhaps not for its betterment, although as a whole it is a most satisfying composition. There is an animation in its sculptured relief with its pulsating light and shadow, every shaft is fluted, many mouldings ribbed, capitals and bases are scalloped, all its details have been wrought in a school where the desire for enrichment was insatiable. There could be no finer tribute to the genius of the Indian artisan than that he could squander ornament so recklessly yet produce a building which, although exuberant, is still in good taste. It is well that the Dravidian style which persisted for over a millennium in varying phases, should end on this note, a small but admirable example of a mode that had become decadent, but a very brilliant decadence in no wise discreditable to its creators.