Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Town Planning in Ancient India c8: Chapter IV: On Boundaries and Approaches

Town Planning in Ancient India c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV: On Boundaries and Approaches

c8.1

THE characteristic features which distinguish the towns of ancient India from the present day cities and principalities are their strong fortifications by means of circumvallation and ambient trenches. Exactly in a similar way were the ancient Greek or Roman towns, *e.g.*, Florence, Sparta, and Rome, fortified by walls and ditches. This similarity in the art of civics both in the East and the West must have originated in the similar conditions, political and social, obtaining in ancient India as well as in ancient Europe. Politically they were the times of disturbance and topsyturvydom, depredations and pillage with consequent insecurity of life and residence. Hence the ramparts and trenches constituted an integral part of oriental as well as occidental town-planning. They formed the *sine qua non* of Aryan habitation, the very breath of their life and existence; so much so that we scarcely come across a description of any town, nay of a village in ancient India which is silent about them.¹ Indeed originally a town was a fort and a fort was a town, both having been synonymous. In the Vedic literature the word ‘pura’, the modern Sanskrit synonym of a town, was used in the sense of a fort or stronghold.¹ But later on as towns grew in area these fort-towns became obsolete and were supplanted by cities containing forts within them. “ Cities should be established, supported, and protected by one of the six types of forts.”² This clearly shows that, though every city was fortified in ancient India, the city was not in all epochs, co-extensive with the citadel which, in later times and in very many cases, was included within the city or was situated in some special part of it, as in the case of Jeypore, the citadel is located in its north-west corner. That the town was once a fort is further corroborated by the descriptions of Ayodhyā, Laṅkā (Ceylon), Mathurā, Dvārāvatī, Indraprastha, and other cities of ancient India which we come across in the Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata, or the Purāṇas. Many towns of Rājputanā such as Chitore were nothing but forts. Even a temple had its own girth of walls, the word ‘mandira’ carrying sometimes the same import as the word ‘pura’, the Sanskrit term for a town.

c8.2

¹ *Vide* the chapter on "City as the expression of civic life."

c8.3

¹ *Vide* the word ‘durga’ in the appendix to the Śavdakalpadruma : पुरं दुर्गमधिष्ठानं कोष्ठोऽस्त्री राजधान्यपि । इति जटाधरः ।

c8.4

² The Mahābhārata, Śāntiparva, Ch. 86, *l*. 7. षड्‌विधं दुर्गमास्थाय पुराण्यत्र निवेशयेत् ।

c8.5

Thus it is mentioned in the Hayaśīrsha Paṁcharātra that the height of walls surrounding a divine edifice should be a quarter of its height. The Śavdakalpadruma quotes the following passage from the Matsya Purāṇa (Ch. 270) dealing with the description of a temple:—"Stagnant or current, in whatever quarters of the temple, water is best. Moats and ramparts should be constructed all around it." This indicates that the divine edifices had, in some instances though not invariably, also their surrounding moats.

c8.6

But the parapets and the trenches were not the only kinds of fortifications of an ancient town. Thus does Kauṭilya enumerate their different classes in his famous Arthaśāstra: "In all the quarters of the boundaries of the kingdom, defensive fortifications against any emergency of war shall be raised on the grounds rendered inapproachable by nature (daivakṛta)¹; water-fort (audaka) such as one of an island in the midst of a river (antar-dvīpa) or of a plain surrounded by low ground or morass in which water is stagnated (sthala); a mountain-fort (pārvata) such as one surrounded by a rocky tract (prāstara)² or a fort in a valley in the midst of an encircling range of hillocks (guhā)¹; a desert-fort (dhānvana) such as a fort in the centre of a wild tract devoid of water and even thickets² or of a soil sterilized by desert-salt (iriṇa)³; a forest-fort (vanadurga) such as a fort encompassed by many bogs and fens interspersed with trees and bushes (khāmjana)⁴ or one girt round by thickly set tall trees and underwoods.”⁵

c8.7

¹ Dr. Shama Shastry renders it as ‘best suited for the purpose’ which is wrong on the face of it.

c8.8

² The correct reading, I suppose, should be ‘prāntara’. Vide infra p. 75.

c8.9

¹ ‘Guhā’ means literally a cave and Dr. Shama Shastry erroneously takes it in its literal sense; but it has a technical significance too in which it is used here. *Vide infra*, p. 76.

c8.10

² Dr. Shastry wrongly interprets the compound निरुदकस्तम्ब as ‘devoid of water and overgrown with thickets’.

c8.11

³ Every one of the four main classes of forts is subdivided by Kauṭilya into two varieties. Dr. Shastry misses this point and his rendering of the whole passage is vitiated by this defect. Thus his translation does not make it clear that there are two species of desert-fort, ‘nirudakastamva’ and ‘iriṇa’. His translation of the next sentence is also faulty in the similar way. *Vide infra*, p. 78.

c8.12

⁴ ‘Khāmjana’ does not here mean ‘full of wagtail’ as Dr. Shastry puts it. It is used in its technical sense given above. *Vide infra*, p. 79.

c8.13

⁵ Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, Bk. II, Ch III, sec. 21.

c8.14

There are two ways of classifying fortifications. One is that put forward by Bhoja in his Yukti-kalpataru. He divides the forts under two main heads: (1) natural (akṛtrima, literally not artificial) and (2) artificial (kṛtrima). The natural fort is one which is rendered inaccessible to hostile encroaches by its very situation secured by the

c8.15

चतुर्दिशं जनपदन्ते साम्परायिकं दैवकृतं दुर्गं कारयेत्। अन्तर्दीपं स्थलं वा, निरुदकस्तम्बौदकं, प्रास्तरं गुहां वा पार्वतं, निरुदकस्तम्बमिरिणं वा धान्वनं, खञ्जनोदकं सम्बगहनं वा वनदुर्गं। तेषां नदीपर्वतदुर्गं जनपदस्यक्षामं, धान्वनवनदुर्गमटवीस्थानम्। advantages of its natural defences such as deserts, rivers, and the like. In the kingdom which lacks such defensive qualifications conferred by nature, there should be established artificial forts, i.e., those which are protected by ramparts surmounted by embattled parapets and girt round by large ditches. The other mode of classification is given by Mānasāra. “Forts are first divided into eight classes called Śibira, Bāhinīmukha, Sthānīya, Droṇaka,¹ Saṃviddha² or Vardhaka, Kolaka,³ Nigama, and Skandhāvāra.⁴ There is a further sub-division⁵ of these forts according to their position. They are known as mountain-fort (giridurga), forest-fort (vanadurga), water-fort (jaladurga), desert-fort (airiṇa durga),⁶ god’s fort (devadurga), and mixed fort (miśra durga).⁷…… All these forts are surrounded with strong walls and ditches.”¹ Mayamuni’s list corresponds to this.

c8.16

¹ It is the ‘droṇamukha’ of the Mayamata.

c8.17

² My MSS. reads it ‘saṃsiddhi’.

c8.18

³ It answers to the ‘kotmakolaka’ of the Mayamata.

c8.19

⁴ This classification, if it can be called one at all, is not based upon any advantage of natural defence, but on their situation and distribution with regard to a whole kingdom or a large capital which is defended by these fastnesses lying in its outskirts. Thus the ‘nigama’ is a fort lying some furlongs away from the main town defending the entrance on the principal road leading to the latter.

c8.20

⁵ Strictly speaking, this is not a sub-division, but a different way of classification according to the kinds of natural fortifications.

c8.21

⁶ Dr. Acharyya’s reading or MSS. must be wrong. My MSS. reads it ‘airiṇa’.

c8.22

⁷ My reading is ‘mitra’ corresponding to the ‘sahāya’ of the Śukranīti. Vide infra.

c8.23

¹ Mānasāra, Dr. Acharyya’s Summary, Ch. X.

c8.24

All the authorities base their classification upon the defensive character supplied by nature. Its various divisions are:

c8.25

(1) *Mountain-fort* (giridurga or pārvata), i.e., a fort secure in its mountainous position. Situated in a sequestered place, it must have an ample supply of water in its rear in the shape of an undercurrent or fountain.² The road ascending to it must be narrow and difficult of ascent. It must be endowed with fertile fields yielding abundant crops and plenteous with fruit-trees.³ It is subdivided into three classes.⁴ The first is one built on the top of a mountain levelled by means of spades and shovels and sometimes provided with secret exits like subterranean tunnels. It is called ‘prāntara’. It is the most auspicious of all.⁵ The forts of Chitore and Laṅkā are illustrative of this type. The second species is that which is laid out on the slope of a mountain (giripārśva). The town of Bundi is an example of it. The third type is situated in a valley secluded and made inapproachable by an encircling range of mountains with natural passes like a defile. It is technically known as ‘guhā’.¹ Jeypore and Udaypore may be its instances (2) Water-fort,² i.e., a fort rendered difficult of access by natural circumfluent water. It is again subdivided into two species. One is the island-fort (antardvīpa) : it is a fort on both sides of which rivers flow³ or in the midst of a

c8.26

² Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, *l.* 8. ‘सुवारिपृष्ठस्थधर’।

c8.27

³ Kulluka’s Commentary of Manu, Ch. VII, *sl.* 70. गिरिदुर्गं पर्वतपृष्ठमतिदुर्गारोहं संकीर्णैकमागपेतं अन्तर्निदप्रस्रवणाद्युदक- युक्तं बहुशस्योत्पन्नचीवरुहान्वितम्।

c8.28

⁴ Mayamatam, Ch. X, *l.* 73.

c8.29

⁵ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, *ll.* 115—6.

c8.30

¹ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 113-4.

c8.31

² It is variously designated as jaladurag, ambudurga, audaka or āpa.

c8.32

³ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 104-28. Its mode of division and subdivision tally exactly with those of the Arthaśāstra.

c8.33

औदकं पाश्र्वतश्चैव धान्वनं वनजं तथा ।
चत्वारी मूलदुर्गं तु द्विभेदाः परिकीर्तिताः ॥ ५३
अन्तर्दीपं स्थलञ्चैव गुहाप्रान्तरमेवच ।
प्रोक्तं निरुदकं सम्वमिरिष्याख्यं तथैवच ॥ ५४
खातञ्च वः विज्ञेयं खम्बगृहमतःसमम् ।
आपो द्विधा गता यत्र सदनदौर्वमुच्यते ॥ ५५
स्थलमुन्नतदेशः स्यादगाधसखिलाहतम् ।
जलदुर्गं द्वितीयं स्यात् तडागसरसोययत् ॥ ५६

c8.34

sea. This is the river-fort (nadīdurga) of Śukrāchāryya.¹ It is an insular town or fort of which modern Bombay, ancient Ceylon, Srirangam and Kaveri-pumpattinam may serve as the best examples. The other type is the land-fort (sthala-durga). It is a fort situated on a high land girt round by stagnant (as opposed to flowing) fathomless waters, or a fort in the midst of a lake or vast tank.¹ When these ambient waters are artificial, as of the ditches excavated by men, it answers to the

c8.35

¹ Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, ll. 1-16. Mr. S. V. Visvanatha (Modern Review, November, 1921) is wrong in putting it under the category of the ‘mahīdurga.’

c8.36

गिरिणामन्तरालं यद् वहारं सुदुर्गमम् । गुहाखं पर्वतं दुर्गं प्रवदन्ति मनीषिणः ॥ ५७ प्रोतुङ्गटङ्कविच्छिन्नं सौपसारं सुसंस्कृतम् । प्रान्तरं गिरिदुर्गं स्यात् सव्वदुर्गसलक्षणम् ॥ ५८ वह्निः सलिलं दुर्गं तृणवृक्षविवर्जितम् । ज्ञेयं निरुदकं स्वमं सदादुर्गविधायकैः ॥ ५९ एतदेकविभक्तेयं यमिदियं सोधरं बुधैः । खल्वारजलोपेतं द्वितीयं धान्यं सुनेः ॥ ६० एतावांस्तुविशेषः स्यादान्वयं द्विविधं पुनः । खातनाव्यं पुनश्चैवं सजलाधारकर्द्दमम् ॥ ६१ स्रोकहचसमायुक्तं वनदुर्गं प्रकीर्त्तितम् । प्रोक्तं ऋतुरुसंयुक्तं खम्बाख्यं गहनं विदुः ॥ ६२ ‘pārikha’ (i.e., a fort enclosed by a belt of ditches) of Śukrāchāryya.

c8.37

(3) Desert-fort (dhānvana), i.e., a fort in the midst of a desert devoid of any water on all sides up to five yojanas.¹ ‘Nirudaka’ (water-less)² and ‘airiṇa’ are its principal varieties. Nirudaka is the fort encompassed by a barren tract devoid of water, trees, even of a single blade of grass.³ It corresponds to the airiṇa of the Mayamata.⁴ The second variety called airiṇa is a fort in the midst of a soil made barren by and saturated with salt or brine water. The difference between the two lies in the fact that the land enclosing the former is free from any element of salt and its barrenness might be due to sand or gravels, while the environments of the other owe their sterility to the presence of salt in them.⁵ Occasionally the second species is enveloped by fens full of saltish water and by thorny woods and rocks or stones.¹ In both the cases an oasis is turned into a fortified town. Many principalities in Rājputanā will fall under these heads.

c8.38

¹ Kulluka's Commentary of Manu, Ch. VII, sl. 70. It is variously termed as ‘dhānvana’ or ‘marudurga.’

c8.39

² Kāmandaka's subdivisions are dhānvana and airiṇa. Truly speaking he regards them as distinct types, not as two species of a genus.

c8.40

³ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 117-8.

c8.41

⁴ Mayamatam, Ch. 10, l. 74.

c8.42

⁵ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 119-21.

c8.43

¹ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 122–6.

c8.44

(4) Forest-fort (vanadurga), *i.e.*, a fort defended by thick jungles on all sides up to a yojana. Its two varieties are ‘khāmjana’ and ‘stambha’. Khāmjana is a fort hemmed in by fens variegated with thickets and thorny shrubs here and there, while a fort environed by a dense jungle of lofty trees and underwoods, destitute of any water, is called ‘stambha’. The latter corresponds to the ‘vārksha’ of Manu.²

c8.45

² Matsya Purāṇam means vanadurga by its term vārksha. Cf. Ch. 217, vers. 6–7.

c8.46

(5) Earth-fort (mahīdurga). There are three species of this, ‘pārigha’, ‘paṅka’, and ‘mṛddurga’. The pārigha is a fort of which the ramparts and embattled parapets are constructed of mud, rocks or stones, and bricks. The height of its walls is double their breadth exceeding twelve cubits. The walls must be so broad as to enable sentinels to patrol over them in times of war and are furnished with embrasures, crenalles, and windows. It answers to the mahīdurga of Manu.¹ Paṅkadurga (mire-fort) is a fort defended by a tract full of slime, mire, or quicksand.² Mṛddurga (mud-fort) may be a fort allied to the preceding one or it may be a fort with a girth of mud-walls³ like that of Bharatpore.

c8.47

¹ Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, l. 4. Kulluka's commentary of Manu, Ch. 7, śl. 70.

c8.48

² Mayamatam, Ch. 10. Is it sometimes identical with the second species of water-fort adumbrated in the Arthaśāstra? Vide supra.

c8.49

³ Mahābhārata, Śāntiparva, Ch. 86, śl. 5.

c8.50

(6) *Man-fort* (nṛdurga). Its defence lies in its strength of men. It is sub-divided into two species ‘sainyadurga’ and ‘sahāyadurga’. Sainyadurga (soldier-fort) is an impregnable fort protected by infantry, the horse, and the elephant stationed in array as sentinels within and without it.⁴ Sahāyadurga or mitradurga (ally-fort) derives its security and protection from its various allies bound by entente cordiale to defend it in case of any emergency.¹

c8.51

⁴ Kulluka's commentary of Manu, Ch. 7, śl. 70; and Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, l. 4.

c8.52

¹ Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, l. 14. Mr. S. V. Visvanatha (Modern Review, November, 1921) seems to be in error in the interpretation of both these terms.

c8.53

(7) *Mixed fort* (miśradurga) :—Its fortifications are a combination of those of the giridurga and the vanadurga.²

c8.54

² Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72, ll. 117-8.

c8.55

(8) *God's fort* (daiva durga) :—It is a fort by its very nature and origin.³ That is to say, it cannot be approached on account of its very natural circumstances. From an extract given by Messrs Ananthlwar and Raes, it is found to be a fort whose entrance and exit are guarded by gods, rākshasas (wild cannibals ?), betāls, ghosts, and evil spirits, which has been made inaccessible by hailstorm, constant typhoons, and frequent showers; and which is protected by spells, charms, and incantations.⁴ But according to Silparatna, that fort is called divyadurga, upon whose walls

c8.56

³ Māyamatam, Ch. 10, l. 74.

c8.57

⁴ Architecture of the Hindus,

c8.58

ब्रह्मराक्षसवेतालभूतप्रेतैरहै रपि ॥
शिलावर्षप्रदृष्टिभिरालोक्क्यावेशनिर्गमे ।
मन्त्रतन्त्रादिसामकैकृतन्दै वदुर्गकम् ॥

c8.59

are installed the gods Indra, Vāsudeva, Guha, Jayanta, Vaiśravaṇa, the twin Aśvinīs, Śrīmandira and Śiva, Durgā, and Sarasvatī.¹ Except the superstitious belief that these deities sentinel the fort, there is nothing fortificatory in the arrangement. Perhaps Manu contemplates such a fort by a giri-durga resorted to by the Devas.² It is reckoned as a ‘durga’ because of the insuperable difficulty of its approaches, not that it is a resort or stronghold of men. Mount Everest may be an instance of it.

c8.60

¹ इन्द्रश्च वासुदेवो गुहो जयन्तश्च वैश्रवणः ।। अश्विनौ श्रीमन्दिरशिवौ च दुर्गा च सरस्वती चेति । प्राकारस्थास्त्वेते यस्मिंस्तद् दिव्यदुर्गं स्यात् ।।

c8.61

² Manu, Ch. VII, sl. 72.

c8.62

(9) *Kṛtaka* :—It is the artificial fort as distinguished from the foregoing species which are classified according to the defensive characteristics afforded by nature.

c8.63

According to Śilpa Śāstras there are generally known nineteen varieties of forts.

c8.64

It should be noted in the foregoing dissertation that except in the case of the ‘pārigha’ enumerated by Śukrāchāryya, nowhere is any reference made to the existence of any circumvallation. But all strongholds worth the name must have been invariably protected by walls.¹ Ditches were not essential as in the case of a fastness on the top of a mountain. "All forts must have unfailing stores of water, provisions, and arms, girt round by lofty gigantic trees, secured with walls, and furnished with many guarded gates."² The bulwarks are not alluded to because the classification of the forts is based on the fortificatory character of their natural environments. The Aryan town-planners were not slow to appreciate the utility of the local circumstances, but, on the contrary, they took advantage of the natural barriers and, with slight manipulation and modification, turned them into best fortifications where rivers and oceans, mountains and rocks, trees and bushes, deserts and swamps were made to play important parts of their own. But after all they did not favour a fort or town in the midst of a desert for the simple reason that the city in that case could with great difficulty maintain its food and water supply whether in times of peace or of war. For the sake of the best natural defence they always recommended a mountain-fort. The illustrious Hindu hero Śivājī also had predilection for this sort of fort as he built all his strongholds on the high summits of rocky cliffs. Śukrāchāryya arranges the forts in order of merit as follows: Giri, Jala, Dhanu, Vana, Pārikha, Airiṇa, and Pārigha.¹ “Of these, water and mountain fortifications are best suited to defend populous centres, whereas desert and forest fortifications are habitations in the wilderness (aṭavīsthānam).”² According to the Devī Purāṇa,³ the former should be resorted to by the civilised kings, while the barbarian hordes and wild tribes generally esconce themselves within the latter. The origin of this sort of fortification can be traced to the camp-life of the first Aryan settlers.⁴

c8.65

¹ सर्वं हि दुर्गजातं सप्राकारं च सुखद्चम् ॥ शिल्पवरं पञ्चमाध्याये ३५श पङ्क्तिः ।

c8.66

² Mayamatam, Ch. 10, ll. 77-8.

c8.67

¹ Śukranītisāra, Ch. IV, sec. 6, ll. 11-2.

c8.68

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. II, Ch. III, sec. 21.

c8.69

³ Ch. 72.

c8.70

⁴ Vide the chapter on camp.

c8.71

Having dealt with the general character of fortifications, I shall now dwell upon the walls in fuller details. Even where Nature offered sufficient defence, these walls were, on rare occasions, thought unnecessary. In connection with the artificial forts the erection of ramparts and parapets were essential and the Indian town-planners were emphatic upon the point. Thus we find in the Devī Purāṇa:—“The construction of brick-built walls is indispensable in artificial forts.”⁵ The ancient towns of Ayodhyā, Mathurā, Pāṭaliputra, to cite only a few instances, were encompassed by walls. That this is not a fine product of the fertile brain of the highly imaginative Aryan poets is borne out by the fact that Tamil authors also make copious references to them in their treatises. Thus, “Madurā (the capital of the Pāṇḍyas) was a fortified city.”¹ Megasthenes, in his travels, also describes the timber walls of Pāṭaliputra. Some of them, *e.g.*, Ahemdabad, Delhi, retain to this day remnants in debris of their ancient circumvallation. Similarly travellers come across many towns or villages in Southern India which retain traces of their ruined walls and battlements. Firstly, mud dug out of the ditches is heaped on their banks so as to make a kuccha (mud-built) dyke round the city. The pucca wall is raised upon this ‘vapra’² (rampart). Thus the Matsya Purāṇa lays down :³—“The forts should have ditches, girt with ramparts surmounted by towers on the walls.” The town of Mathurā was ‘chayāṭṭālaka keyūrah’, that is, ‘decorated with ramparts and turrets on them.’⁴ Kauṭilya furnishes us with fuller details about this rampart : “At a distance of four daṇḍas (24 ft.) from the (innermost) ditch, a rampart six daṇḍas high and twice as much broad shall be erected by heaping mud upwards and by making it square at the bottom, oval at the centre pressed by the trampling of elephants and bulls, and planted with thorny and poisonous plants in bushes. Fissures in the rampart shall be filled up with fresh earth."¹

c8.72

⁵ Ch. 72, sl. 27.

c8.73

¹ V. Kanaksavai, p. 12. ² See the word ‘vapra’ in the Śavdakalpadruma. ³ Ch. 217, sl. 8. ⁴ Harivaṃśa, Ch. 54.

c8.74

¹ Kauṭilya, Arthaśāstra, Bk. II, Ch. III.

c8.75

The number of parapets or walls upon the ramparts (vapra) was generally one, but sometimes more. Pāṭaliputra is reported to have three such walls. Tourists must have observed the eight belts of walls and ditches round the garh or fort of Rāmpāl at Dacca. Kauṭilya advises several parapets. We have in the Arthaśāstra, "Above the ramparts, parapets in odd or even numbers and with an intermediate space of from 12 to 24 hastas (cubits) from each other shall be built of bricks." I need hardly remark here that these walls were almost invariably built of bricks. The Devī Purāṇa also specifies the height of the walls;—"The walls should be raised to nine cubits high according to rules laid down by the Muni."² According to Kauṭilya, "the parapets shall be raised to a height twice their breadth." The rule of the Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa is that "the maximum height should be twenty cubits and a wall loftier than that is not conducive to good."¹ The reason for this, I think, is that, quite apart from economic grounds as well as considerations of defence, walls of inordinate height, planted as they were upon highly raised ramparts, would prevent the proper ventilation of the city, at least, over the plots adjoining the ramparts and might prove detrimental to the welfare of the town. But none of the above authors gives out the principle whereby they set a limit to the height of the walls, while Śukrāchāryya wisely refrains from setting any such arbitrary limit and, on the contrary, enunciates the rule thus: "The wall of the town is to be made too high to be jumped across by robbers or enemies."² He further adds that "the wall (prākāra) of the town is to be uniform in depth and should have its foundation to the extent of one-half or one-third of its height and have its width one half of its height."³

c8.76

² Ch. 72, śl. 27.

c8.77

¹ Brahmavaivarta Purāṇam, Śrīkṛṣṇa Janmakhaṇḍa, Ch. 103.

c8.78

² Śukranītisāra, Ch. I, ll. 474—6.

c8.79

³ Ibid.

c8.80

For strengthening fortifications "the rampart should be planted," according to Kauṭilya, "with thorny and poisonous plants in bushes." The parapets were interspersed at regular intervals

c8.81

खोच्चाथार्धमूलीवा प्राकारः सममूलकः । २३७ द्वतीयांशकमूलो वा छुक्यायार्धविस्तरः । उच्छ्रितस्तु तथा कार्यो द्युभिनर्विलङ्घते ॥ २३८ with towers (aṭṭālaka). Towers square throughout and with moveable staircase or ladder equal to its height shall also be constructed.”¹ The wall moreover is to be provided with ‘śataghnīs’ (lit., hundred-killers) and ‘nalikāstras’ (lit., barrelled missiles), i.e., guns, as well as other deadly weapons. In Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa we find that the city of Ayodhyā was protected by hundreds of such śataghnīs. In the ancient town of Vanchi or Karura, the capital of the Chera kingdom, now a deserted village known as Tiru Karur, on the battlements were mounted various engines to throw missiles on those who attacked the fort.² “The walls were always guarded by sentinels protected behind the notches (gulma).³ Śukrāchārryya adds that they are to have a system of well-fitted windows, (corresponding to mediæval crenelles or embrasures in an embattled parapet), through which the approach of brigands or belligerents may be descried. He also insists upon a supplementary wall (pratiprākāra) lower than the main one in case of absence of any hill in the vicinity.⁴

c8.82

¹ Kauṭilya, Bk. II, Ch. III.

c8.83

² Kanaksavai, p. 51.

c8.84

³ Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar translates ‘gulma’ as shrubs; but in my opinion he is wrong. Gulma means nothing but indentations into the parapets or such like hiding-places for protection of the body of fighting sentinels.

c8.85

⁴ Śukranītisāra, Ch. I, l. 479.

c8.86

Kauṭilya gives the minute particulars of fortification :—" In the intermediate space measuring thirty daṇḍas between two towers, there shall be formed a broad street in two compartments covered with a roof and two and a half times as long as it is broad."¹ This street seems to be intended for patrol of the sentinels, protected overhead by the roofs. The bifurcation of the street is for facilitating the double movements, forward and backward, of the guards. He goes on : "Between the tower and the broad street there shall be constructed an Indrakosha which is made up of covering pieces of wooden planks affording seats for three archers. There shall also be made a road for gods which shall measure two hastas inside (the towers ? but I think it should be Indrakosha), four times as much by the sides, and eight hastas along the parapet." The practical utility of this injunction, coming as it does from such a shrewd practical politician like Chāṇakya, is not quite clear. It only shows the religiosity of a Hindu mind which seeks some divine motive for every mundane transaction. Hence these roads appear to be meant for the presiding deities of the city who, according to the faith of their votaries, are no less wary in guarding it. There were ‘charyāḥ’ or paths to ascend the parapets (as the radical meaning connotes) which were as broad as one daṇḍa or two.

c8.87

¹ Arthas'āstra, Bk II, Ch IV.

c8.88

Kauṭilya proceeds:—"In an unassailable part (of the rampart) a passage for flight (pradhāvitikam) and a door for exit (niṣkāradvāram) shall be made. In the centre of the parapets, there shall be constructed a deep lotus-pool; a rectangular building of four compartments, one within the other; an abode of the goddess Kumārī (Kumārīpura), having its external area one and a half times as broad as that of its innermost room; a circular building with an archway; and in accordance with available space and materials, there shall also be constructed canals (kulyā) to hold weapons and three times as long as broad. Outside the rampart passages for movements shall be closed by forming obstructions such as knee-breaker (jānubhaṃjanī), a trident, mounds of earth, pits, wreaths of thorns, instruments made like the tail of a snake, a palm-leaf, a triangle, and of a dog's teeth, rods, ditches filled with thorns and covered with sand, frying pans, and water-pools."

c8.89

It may not be out of place here to notice that Megasthenes who visited Pāṭaliputra when Chandragupta was on its throne and Chāṇakya, his famous minister, identified with Kauṭilya, author of the Arthaśāstra, was at the helm of affairs of that vast empire, refers, in his accounts, to "timber walls" of Pāṭaliputra. These timber walls referred to by Megasthenes are rather mysterious inasmuch as Kauṭilya was much against the use of wood because “fire finds a happy abode in it”. Considerations of climate, economy, and æsthetics were responsible for planting and rearing up in rows “the senators of the forests” round the ramparts. Thus we find that the town of Ayodhyā was girt with a belt of śāla trees (śālamekhalā).¹

c8.90

¹ Rāmāyaṇam, Ādikāṇḍa, Ch. 5, verse 12.

c8.91

Outside the walls and not very close to them (nātisamīpaprākārā) there were ditches surrounding the city. The number of ditches is optional, depending upon the necessity and security of the place. Thus we read in the Devī Purāṇa² that the number may be two, three, four, or eight as the ground requires (bhūmibaśāt). But Kauṭilya fixes the number at three; and the three ditches are to have an intermediate space of one daṇḍa (6 ft.) from one another. The sides of the ditches were made of stones or bricks. That the ditches of Pāṭalīputra, the capital of the renowned Magadha empire, were constructed in conformity to these rules is corroborated by the account of Megasthenes. He writes that the “massive timber walls were defended by successive brick-lined moats filled with water.” It may not be at all improbable that the actual number of ditches Kauṭilya saw round his principal place of activity suggested to him the specified number. The king dug three moats round Mithilā—a water-moat, a mud-moat, and a dry-moat.¹

c8.92

² Ch. 72, verse 28.

c8.93

¹ Mahā Ummagga Jātaka, translated by Rouse.

c8.94

The magnitudes of the trenches were commensurate with the defensive necessities and civic requirements such as the lie of the city ground or the erection of ramparts. The ditches of Dvārāvatī (modern Dvārakā), the capital of Srī Kṛṣṇa, looked like the river Ganges.² Indraprastha, the new capital founded by the king Yudhishthira, was girt with ditches resembling seas by their width.³ Śukrāchāryya lays down that "the ditch is to be constructed making the width double its depth."⁴ The author of the Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa puts down hundred cubits as the suitable breadth for a ditch while the depth of ten cubits will suffice for it round an encampment.⁵ Kauṭilya’s details about the proportions of the ditches are fuller. According to him the three ditches round the fort are to be "fourteen, twelve, and ten daṇḍas respectively in width with depth less by one-quarter or by one-half of their width, square at their bottom, one third as wide as at their top.”¹ The comparatively short breadth of Kauṭilya’s trenches is due to his provision for their greater number. But the ditch round Pāṭaliputra is reported by Megasthenes to be six hundred feet broad and forty-five feet deep.

c8.95

² Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇuparva, Ch. 98, verse 11.

c8.96

³ Mahābhāratam, Ādiparva, Ch. 134, verse 30.

c8.97

⁴ Śukranītisāra, Ch. I, verse 240.

c8.98

⁵ Brahmavaivarta Purāṇam, Srīkṛṣṇa Janmakhaṇḍa, Ch. 103, verse 63.

c8.99

¹ Kauṭilya, Bk. II, Ch. III. The meaning of “square at the bottom” is not quite clear. The original text runs thus:— “विस्तारादवगाधाः पादो नमं वा विभागमूला मूले चतुरस्राः।”

c8.100

The ditches were fitted with hidden sluices or with a secret mechanism with which to regulate the current and the depth of water within them.² The ditches were filled with either stagnant or current water. Kauṭilya is particular about the ditches to be “filled with perennial flowing water or with water drawn from some other source.” This was possible, because the ditches were connected with rivers. In case of emergency these mechanical gates could be utilised even to inundate the whole city and the surrounding plots of land.³ It may not be inapt here to remark that the courses of Indian rivers present us with a marvellously faithful history of the growth of Indo-Aryan civilisation. Because of the riparian or littoral situation of cities, whether in India or anywhere else, flowing water was easily available. Thus the towns of Pāṭaliputra, Delhi, Poona, among many others, had rivers flowing into their ditches. That the above explanation is not at all imaginary is evident from the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa :¹—" The ditches were excavated with their gates connected with rivers." The Devī Purāṇa suggests that the drains of the town should clear themselves into these ditches.² Crocodiles, sharks, and other ferocious fishes were let off in them so that no enemy could swim across them with safety.³ Nor were the Aryan town-planners slow to seize the slightest opportunity of making the city as picturesque as they could. In the ditches brimming with stagnant water were carefully nurtured lotus and lily plants. We read in the description of a Tamil poet that " in the broad moat surrounding the fort of Pukar, the capital of Chola kings, the waters of which were covered with beautiful flowers, the chirping of birds never ceased."⁴ There was a broad belt of thorny jungle surrounding the ditch as in Bharatpur.⁵ The ditches were spanned by bridges, for every gate of the town must have a bridge in front of it for traffic. These bridges could be raised or lowered when occasions arose. They were, in some instances, so adjusted with mechanical devices that an enemy, once having set his feet on them, could be easily swung into the ditches. It is thus described in the Rāmāyaṇa that “ at every gate of Laṅkā, the capital of Rāvana, was suspended a gigantic bridge from a mechanical structure which defended the bridge from the onset of the belligerents. It was by means of this machine that antagonists were slung into the trenches.” From the peculiar nature of the Indian civic art, the utility of these ditches is manifold. They were not mere defensive works; nor were they enjoined simply for beauty’s sake. They formed not only an important part of the complex drainage system of the city, but also supplied the quantity of mud necessary for the erection of the city-walls, for filling up the low bogs and marshes of the city-ground, making the surface of the ground slant in one direction, or making it convex in accordance with the time-honoured rules of the Indo-Aryan civic art. Bharat expressly lays down that the walls are to be constructed of the mud dug out of the ditches.¹

c8.101

² Brahmavaivarta Purāṇam, Śrīkṛṣṇa Janmakhaṇḍa Ch. 103, verse 64.

c8.102

³ Mahābhāratam, Śāntiparva, Ch. 69, *l.* 87. सष्टद्वाराषि सुगुप्तास्र्ध पुरस्य च ॥

c8.103

¹ Ch. 8, *l.* 211. स्रोतसा सह तद्वारं निष्खातं पुनरेवच।

c8.104

² Ch. 72, *l.* 55. खातिकारचितं कार्यं प्रणालीभिः समन्वितम्। Vide also Town Planning in Ancient Deccan, pp. 61-2.

c8.105

³ Mahābhāratam, Śāntiparva, Ch. 69, *l.* 86. आपूरयेच्च परिखां स्थाननक्रभषाकुलाम्। ४२

c8.106

⁴ V. Kaṇakasavai, p. 26.

c8.107

⁵ Vide Town Planning in Ancient Deccan, pp. 64-5.

c8.108

¹ Vide the word ‘chaya’ in the Śavdakalpadruma.

c8.109

In alignment with the bridges stood the gopuras, or the gateways of the town in the form of pyramidal towers of imposing aspect. “A turret, above the gate and starting from the top of the parapet, shall be constructed, its front resembling an aligator up to three-fourths of its height.”¹ Megasthenes writes that the wall of Pāṭaliputra was equipped with 570 towers and 64 gates. This shows that there were other towers besides those over-arching the gates of the city. It may be noted here that these gopuras were a characteristic feature of the Indo-Aryan architecture so much so that they formed an integral part of almost every palatial house. The 24th chapter of the Mayamata and the 33rd chapter of the Mānasāra deal in detail with the construction of these gopuras. The towers consisted of varying storeys, their number ranging from one to fourteen. Rāmrāz, in his “Essay on Indian Architecture”, furnishes us with diagrams of many such gopuras. Generally there were four main gates of the town facing the four cardinal points of the compass. Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, one of the oldest code of Hindu polity and sociology, mentions the designations of the four principal gates of the Aryan town or village. The northern gate was called the Brāhma Gate, that is, the gate dedicated to Brahmā, the Creator. The eastern gate was named Aindra Gate, one dedicated to Indra, the lord of the eastern quarter of the heavens, represented by the rising Sun, for both Indra and Sun being the sons of Aditi were identified. Yama, the Lord of Death, lorded over the southern quarters, and the gate, on the south, was dedicated to him and named Yāmya Gate after him. The western gate derived its name Saināpatya Gate from Senāpati or Kārtikeya, the commander-in-chief of the gods.¹ The author of the Agni Purāṇa christens the main gates in a different way.² He says that the entire plot should be divided into interlineal chambers as laid down in the case of the vāstumaṇḍal. The eastern gate should be over the chamber of the diagram dedicated to the god of the day and included within the thirty chambers occupied by the gods Īśa etc., in the present instance. The southern gate should be raised over the chamber of the vāstumaṇḍal held sacred to the Gandarvas, while the western gate of the town should be constructed over the chamber assigned to the god of the ocean, the northern gate having been reared on the chamber dedicated to Soma. On each side of the gates the rooms should be low-roofed, extending over a considerably large area, for the gates had to bear the brunt of any frontal attack. The gates should be six cubits wide, so as to admit elephants and other large animals passing under the archways. Besides these, there were four subsidiary gates in the four corners of the city, guarded over by the deities presiding over them. In practice the number of gates varied with the area and necessity of the town. We get from Megasthenes's accounts of Pāṭaliputra that the city had sixty-four gates over-arched by lofty towers.

c8.110

¹ Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, Bk. II, Ch. III.

c8.111

¹ Mr. Havell, in his "History of the Aryan Rule in India," identifies the designations in this way :—"The eastern gate, the starting point of the circumambulatory rite, was dedicated to Brahmā, the Creator, represented by the rising sun. The southern gate, which symbolised the sun at noon, was dedicated to Indra, the Vedic God who ruled the firmament of the day. The western gate was dedicated to the setting sun or to Yama, Lord of Death ; and the northern gate to Senāpati or Kārtikeya, the War-god." Mr. Havell seems to be wrong here in his denomination, inasmuch as Yama, according to Hindu traditions, is the guardian lord of the southern quarters, while Indra presides over the eastern quarters. Again it is significant that the northern parts of the city were set apart by the Indo-Aryan town-planners for the Brāhmaṇ caste and sometimes for the shrine of Brahmā.

c8.112

² Ch. 106. Vide Manmatha Datta's translation.

c8.113

Mr. Havell, in his "History of the Aryan Rule in India", is responsible for the following curious and fantastic interpretation of the above appellation of the city-gates :—" The Upanishads shaped this primitive nature-symbolism into definite philosophic concepts and Vishnu-Sūryya the All-pervading, then took the place of Indra at the zenith ; Siva appropriated the attributes of Yama and his position in the western sky while the concept of the cosmic slumber under the name of Vishnu-Nārāyaṇa took the place of the war-god at the nadir. It was upon this ancient symbolic rite of the Indo-Aryan village—the rite of the cosmic cross or the wheel of life—that Buddha based his doctrine of the Aryan Eight-fold Path—the new way of life which would release mankind from suffering; for, as we have seen, there were eight gates in the village walls, one in the middle of each side, and one smaller one at each corner.” It is needless to remark here that the gates were fitted with unwieldy and impenetrable door-panels.

c8.114

By way of illustration, it may be mentioned here that the city of Jeypore possesses seven gates. V. Kanaksavai tells us that there were four gates to the fort of Madurā surmounted by high towers. These towers were utilised by soldiers guarding the entrance of the city. The gates of the town of Jeypore have, at the top, crenelles to fire through. The gates of this city, *e.g.*, the Ajmere Gate to the south, have quadrangular areas facing them, enclosed by walls furnished with battlements through which the soldiers can point their guns at the invaders. This walled area at the Ajmere Gate can be utilised as a garrison in times of emergency and has another gate to the east, thus providing communication with the outer world.

c8.115

I have already said that these gates were called “gopuras”. Mr. Havell takes the word as the compound of the two words ‘go’ (cow) and ‘pura’ (town or fort), and transliterates the word as ‘cow-fort’. He traces the origin of this significant name in this way :—" A broad belt of land surrounding the village (the microcosm of an Indo-Aryan city) boundaries was communal property cultivated by the villagers and the common pasture-grounds of their cattle, which were strictly guarded from wild beasts and hostile raiders by their herdsmen and the sentinels posted on the high towers or palisades over the village-gateways. Hence the latter were known as gopuras or cattle-forts, a name afterwards applied to the entrance gateways of Hindu temple enclosures which repeated the symbolism of the village plan." Though cattle played a very important part in the evolution of of Indo-Aryan civilisation and their security necessitated the pastoral Aryans to group themselves into a 'gotra' or village, which ultimately, in some cases, developed into towns, yet all these considerations cannot explain away how a gate can be identically allied with a fort. The author of the Savdakalpadruma derives the word from the root 'gup' meaning, to defend, to protect. Hence these gates were nothing but stupendous defensive structures forming an integral part of extensive fortifications of the Indo-Aryan town in the shape of embattled walls and deep trenches. Their importance in Indian town-planning cannot be over-estimated. Indeed the magnificent workmanship of gopuras, sometimes exhibiting the highest reaches of Indian architecture, presented opportunities to the Indo-Aryan architects to exercise their consummate skill and fertile imagination. The many gopuras in the famous temple of Jagatśeṭh at Bṛndāvan, or in the more ancient and renowned temple of Conjeeveram, may be instanced here. The splendid art displayed in the gopuras is indeed wonderful and is a living monumental tribute to the high level of æsthetic culture and to the religious spirit of the Hindus. The main road of the Indo-Aryan town terminated in these tower-gates and the reader can conceive in his mind’s eye the magnificent view presented to the eyes of a street-farer by these stately structures lording, as it were, over the whole city.

c8.116.1

Since Indo-Aryan towns were circumscribed by walls and ditches which prevented the growth of promiscuous suburbs, it is natural that they should be given a definite shape by the town-planners of ancient India. In fact every dissertation on town-planning in any treatise dwells upon the suitability or unsuitability, auspiciousness or inauspiciousness of different shapes. The Mayamata thus recommends five different shapes of the ramparts (i.e., of the town):¹—(1) square (chaturasra), (2) rectangular or oblong (āyatasra), (3) roughly circular (vṛtta), (4) elliptical (vṛttāyata), and (5) completely circular (golāvṛtta). According to the Devī Purāṇa, the towns may have these shapes :¹—(1) quadrangular, *i.e.*, square, (2) circular, (3) triangular (tryasra), and (4) longitudinal or oblong (dīrgha). He says that in merit and auspiciousness they are, in order, best, mediocre, good, and worst. It cannot be that the Devī Purāṇa looks with disfavour a rectangular shape. It seems only to deprecate disproportionately great length of a town as compared with its breadth. Such a shape, besides presenting great difficulties to site-planning, placing and spacing of buildings, will weaken defence. The Agni Purāṇa expresses its opinion on the merits of various shapes in the following words :²—"A city should not be founded on plots remote from one another, nor it should be so built, as to have an angular or semi-lunar aspect (candrārdhābha).

c8.116.2

A city resembling a 'vajrasūcī' in shape (diamond-shaped, *i.e.*, octogonal) should be regarded as inauspicious. The forepart of a city laid out or constructed in the shape of a bow (cāpābha) or 'vajranāga' should be reckoned as the most auspicious." But unlike the Agni Purāṇa, the Matsya Purāṇa highly recommends the semi-lunar shape for riparian towns. Indeed every Hindu is aware that the holy city of Benares situate on the convex side of the Gangetic bend presents a semi-lunar aspect; while we learn on the authority of the Harivamśa that the town of Mathurā, standing on the bend of the river Jumna, looked like a half-moon.¹ The Matsya Purāṇa further adds that semi-lunar shape should be avoided anywhere else by those who have knowledge of the art. It approves the oblong, square, or circular shapes. According to it the triangular or drum-shaped (yava-madhya) towns are not conducive to peace and prosperity.² It supports even octogonal shapes like a diamond. Like the foregoing authors who deprecate the triangular shapes, Bhoja cites with approval the opinion of the Bhaviṣyottara Purāṇa that hardly ever should towns be shaped triangular or circular, while longitudinal or square towns are the best. By longitudinal (dīrgha) he means "extending in width to one quarter of the length of the town (pādaika-prasāra), while by 'tryasra' he means an equilateral triangle. Both concur in the view that long-shaped towns make for permanence, peace, and prosperity;

c8.116.3

while a square capital yields to the sovereign all the four fruitions (chaturvarga), Piety, Means, Desire, and Salvation. Triangular towns annihilate the three powers whereas circular ones are hot beds of many endemics and pestilences.¹ On the other hand, the author of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa looks with disfavour on longitudinal and fan-like forms, while, according to him, it is the inferior towns which are rotund. He highly extolls rectangular and square shapes with sides parallel to the cardinal directions of the compass.² The directions of the author of the Kālikā Purāṇa are particular and emphatic. He corroborates his propositions with historic and legendary illustrations. In his opinion, the shapes must be either triangular, bow-shaped (i.e., semi-lunar), circular, or quadrangular, and never of any other shape. For, a drum-shaped (mṛdaṅgākṛti) town annihilates the dynasty of the reigning king, as Laṅkā, the capital of the King of the Rākṣasas, being drum-shaped was conquered and left in debris. The redoubtable monarch Vali had a most formidable capital in Śoṇitpur and yet was forsaken by fortune, because of its shape like a fan. The pentagonal Saubha town of the king Śālva, pendent high in heavens, will also fall to the ground;

c8.116.4

while the town of Ayodhyā of the Ikṣvāku family, because of its shape like a bow, has earned many victories.³ From the above it is clear that the rectangular or square shapes were the most favourable with the Indo-Aryan town-planners and were generally adopted in practice. The circular, triangular, multi-angular, or any irregular civic contours were denounced because such shapes would react upon the planning of sites and buildings, and their orientation.

c8.117

¹ Ch. 10, verse 13.

c8.118

¹ Ch. 72, ll. 42—4.

c8.119

² Ch. 106, ll. 8—10.

c8.120

¹ Harivamśa, Viṣṇuparva, Ch. 54, verse 56.

c8.121

² Matsya Purāṇam, Ch. 217, ll. 24-8.

c8.122

¹ Bhoja's Yuktikalpataru.

c8.123

² Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇam, Ch. 8, ll. 218—20.

c8.124

³ Kālikā Purāṇam, Ch. 84, ll. 229—38.

c8.125

The town-planners will certainly fail in their duty, if they narrow down their attention only to the construction of the city without any regard for the best arteries of its communication with the outer world. They have to mark carefully the lines of traffic flowing into the city, or the most direct thoroughfares connecting the city with the busiest and thickly populated portions of the outlying country. The above object was attained by the Indo-Aryan town-planners in many ways. First they chose the site of the capital in the centre of the kingdom. If the kingdom was divided into provinces, and the provinces into districts which consisted of some villages, it was the concern of the town-planners how to select a place in the centre of the district or province, yet on the bank of a navigable river, near the sea-shores so that water communication could be easily availed of. Indeed almost all the Indo-Aryan towns were situated on river banks or sea-shores. The author of the Sukranītisāra would not only make arrangements for these arteries of communication, but would ensure their security and protection: "Communication between the Pura and the Janapada has to be maintained by well built roads and these should be protected for the comfort and convenience of travellers. Those who molest the travellers have accordingly to be firmly put down."¹ "The village police, for instance, will have to visit the rural lanes every 'yāma' (or one hour and a half) at night."² And in order that the road may be safe, it is suggested also that "the sentinel should examine every egress out of and entry into a village."³ The condition of the roads must not be neglected. Annual repairs had to be undertaken. There were series of inns or serais on the roads going from the country to the city. The open highway leading from one town to another was hundred and twenty cubits wide, while the roads connecting villages were eighty cubits wide.⁴

c8.126

¹ Śukranītisāra, Ch. I, ll. 625—30.

c8.127

² Ibid, ll. 585—6.

c8.128

³ Ibid, ll. 582—3.

c8.129

⁴ Devī Purāṇam, Ch. 72.

c8.130

I cannot conclude this chapter without some remarks about the practical utility of the characteristic boundaries and approaches of ancient towns. "They not only derive exceptional beauty and picture-like entity from their enclosure by ramparts and walls, but to this enclosure was due in no small measure the careful use of every yard of building space within the wall which had led to much of their picturesque effect and which also strengthened and sharpened the solidarity of their corporate life. These also accounted for the absence of that irregular fringe of half-developed suburbs and half-spoiled country which form such a hideous and depressing girdle around modern growing towns.”¹ Necessity of defence overbalanced the chances of congestion. To meet the latter contingency, settlements outside the walls were not infrequently made in times of peace. “There is always a necessity for securing some orderly line upto which the country and town may each extend and stop definitely, so avoiding the irregular margin of rubbish heaps and derelict building land which spoils the approach to almost all our towns to-day. The value of defining and limiting towns and suburbs is manifest.”² Outside the walls and ditches lay wide belts of jungle or agricultural land, or close sequestered retreats for hermits and philosophers. These belts served as invaluable breathing places, exquisite with birds and flowers; or, provided rich game-land for pleasant hunting excursions of the king and his suite. Again the high country roads leading to the towns, with their shading trees of luxuriant foliage planted in rows along both sides of them, afforded bracing and exhilarating walks, free from the noise and worry of street-traffic and thus secured to the citizens picturesque avenues for enjoying the charms of the country and afforded them pleasant relief from the stuffiness and aridity of town life.

First 133 of 137 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)