History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s11: Râmesvaram.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s11
- Language
- English
Râmesvaram.
v1.c19.s11.1
If it were proposed to select one temple which should exhibit all the beauties of the Dravidian style in their greatest perfection, and at the same time exemplify all its characteristic defects of design, the choice would almost inevitably fall on that at Râmesvaram, in the island of Pâmbâm² (Woodcut No. 224). In no other temple has the same amount of patient industry been exhibited as here, and in none, unfortunately, has that labour been so thrown away for want of a design appropriate for its display. It is not that this temple has grown by successive increments like those last described; for it was finished on a settled plan, as undeviatingly carried out as that at Tanjor, but on a principle so opposed to it, that while the temple at Tanjor produces an effect greater than is due to its mass or detail, this one, with double its dimensions and ten times its elaboration, produces no effect externally, and internally can only be [Figure: 224. Plan of the Great Temple at Râmesvaram, before 1905. Scale 168 ft. to 1 in. A Gandhamâdana old temple. B Great Gopuram and entry to the second Prâkâram. C Small Gopuram for the Amman shrine. N North, S, South, and W, West gopurams.]
v1.c19.s11.2
² Strictly speaking—the temple that till recently *was* here--for, like Chidambaram and other Saiva temples in southern India, the Nâthukottai Chettis (one of their number having got the management into his hands), have set about demolishing it, and it is reported that already almost the whole of the interior or oldest portions have been pulled down, and are to be replaced by erections in a nondescript style of building. Mr A. R. Gopalaiyar manfully opposed the manager in the Courts, but in vain; they would not interfere with the manager's plans, though he leased out the temple property to his own relatives, or destroyed the statues of former patrons and benefactors of the temple to substitute those of his wealthy caste fellows, that they may have the merits accruing to temple building hereafter.
v1.c19.s11.3
seen in detail, so that the parts hardly in any instance aid one another in producing the effect aimed at.
v1.c19.s11.4
The only part of the temple, outside the central prâkâram, at least, which is of a different age from the rest, is a small vimâna, known as Gandhamâdhanesvara (A), of very elegant proportions, that stands in the garden, on the right hand of the visitor as he enters from the west. It has, however, been so long exposed — like the temple on the shore at Mâmallapuram—to the action of the sea-air, that its details are so corroded they cannot now be made out, and its age cannot consequently be ascertained from them. It is safe, however, to assert that possibly it may be of the 11th or 12th century. Its dimensions may be roughly 50 ft. in height, by 34 ft. in plan, so that it hardly forms a feature in so large a temple. From the bulls that occupy the platform in front, and from its name, it is evident it was originally dedicated to Siva, as the central temple apparently is, though the scene of Râma's most celebrated exploit, and bearing his name.¹
v1.c19.s11.5
¹ In the north, the affix *swâmin* to the names would indicate a Vaishnava cult, but not so here where the chief images—Râmâlingêsvaraswâmin and Pârvatavardhinî in the central temples, and Visvanâthaswâmin and Visâlâkshî in the secondary shrines, are all essentially Saiva, and the Linga occupies the chief cell. The shrine of Sabhâpati—a name given to Siva at Chidambaram — is ascribed to Dalavây Setupati. For an account of the ritual of the Râmêsvaram temple, see ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. xii. (1883), pp. 315-326.
v1.c19.s11.6
Externally the temple is enclosed by a wall 20 ft. in height, and possessing four gopurams, one on each face, which have this peculiarity, that they alone, of all those I know in India, are built wholly of stone from the base to the summit. The western one (W) alone, however, is finished, and owing apparently to the accident of its being in stone, it is devoid of figure-sculpture—the plaster casts that now adorn it having been added in recent times: it is 78 ft. in height. Those on the north and south (N and S) are hardly higher than the wall in which they stand, and are consequently called the ruined gateways. They are, however, of comparatively modern date, and, in fact, have never been raised higher, and their progress was probably stopped in the beginning of the last century, when Muhammadan, Marâthâ, and other foreign invaders checked the prosperity of the land, and destroyed the wealth of the priesthood. The eastern façade of the second prâkâram has two entrances and two gopurams, the smaller, C, to the south of the large one and leading into the Pârvatî temple, is finished. The larger one (B in the plan) is ascribed to Sadayaka Tevar Dalavây, who was the Setupati about 1640, but it never was carried higher than we now see it. Had it been finished,¹ it would have been one of the largest of its class, and being wholly in stone, and consequently without its outline being broken by sculpture, it would have reproduced more nearly the effect of an Egyptian propylon than any other example of its class in India.
v1.c19.s11.7
¹ There is a view of it in the Atlas of plates that accompanies Lord Valentia's travels; not very correct, but conveying a fair idea of its proportions.
v1.c19.s11.8
The glory, however, of this temple resides in its corridors. These, as will be seen by the plan, extend to nearly 4000 ft. in length. The breadth varies from 17 ft. to 21 ft. of free floor space, and their height is apparently about 30 ft. from the floor to the centre of the roof. Each pillar or pier is
v1.c19.s11.9
225. Central Corridor, Râmesvaram. (From a Photograph.)
v1.c19.s11.10
compound, 12 ft. in height, standing on a platform 5 ft. from the floor, and richer and more elaborate in design than those of the Pârvatî porch at Chidambaram (Woodcut No. 221), and are certainly more modern in date.
v1.c19.s11.11
The general appearance of those corridors may be gathered from the annexed woodcut (No. 225), but no engraving, even on a much more extended scale, can convey the impression produced by such a display of labour when extended to an uninterrupted length of 690 ft. None of our cathedrals are more than 500 ft., and even the nave of St Peter's is only 600 ft. from the door to the apse. Here the side corridors are almost 700 ft. long, and open into transverse galleries as rich in detail as themselves. These, with the varied devices and modes of lighting, produce an effect that is not equalled certainly anywhere in India. The side corridors are generally free from figure-sculpture, and consequently, from much of the vulgarity of the age to which they belong, and, though narrower, produce a more pleasing effect. The central corridor leading from the inner enclosure is adorned on one side by portraits of the Setupati râjas of Râmnâd in the 17th century, and opposite them, of their ministers. Even they, however, would be tolerable, were it not that within the last few years they have been painted with a vulgarity that is inconceivable on the part of the descendants of those who built this fane. Not only they, however, but the whole of the architecture has first been dosed with repeated coats of whitewash, so as to take off all the sharpness of detail, and then painted with blue, green, red, and yellow washes, so as to disfigure and destroy its effect to an extent that must be seen to be believed. Nothing can more painfully prove the degradation to which the population is reduced than this profanity. No upper class, and no refinement, now remains, and the priesthood are sunk into a state of debasement.
v1.c19.s11.12
Assuming, however, for the nonce, that this painting never had been perpetrated still the art displayed here would be very inferior to that of such a temple as, for instance, Halebîd in Mysore, to be described further on. The perimeter, however, of that temple is only 700 ft.; here we have corridors extending to 4000 ft., carved on both sides. It is the immensity of the labour here displayed that impresses us, much more than its quality, and that, combined with a certain picturesqueness and mystery, does produce an effect which is not surpassed by any other temple in India, and by very few elsewhere.
v1.c19.s11.13
But for the wilful destruction of the inscriptions (less than fifty years ago), we might have had the whole history of this temple.¹ The central shrines are built of a dark hard limestone, differing from that employed in the rest of the building, and are ascribed to a Setupati named Udaiyân, early in the 15th century.¹ To him also is ascribed the west gopuram and surrounding walls,² but they probably belong to the time of Sadayaka Tevar Udaiyân, early in the 17th century. The first prâkâram or enclosure, containing the older shrines, measures about 190 ft. by 307 ft., and outside this—excepting the old vimâna—the style is so uniform and unaltered that its erection could hardly have lasted beyond a hundred years; and if so, it must have been during the 17th century, when the Râmnâd râjas were at the height of their prosperity, and when their ally or master, Tirumalai Nâyyak, was erecting buildings in the same identical style at Madurâ, that the second prâkâram, measuring 386 ft. by 314 ft., was completed by Raghunâth Tirumalai, about 1658, the south half of it having been built by his predecessor. Vijaya Raghunâth Tevar (1709-1723), erected some buildings in the Amman temple, with the mandapa in front, in which are statues of himself and of his father Kadamba Tevar; and in 1740 Muttu Raghunâtha began the third prâkâram, 690 ft. in length by 435 ft. from east to west, which was completed by Muttu Râmalinga Tevar in 1769. The central shrine may probably belong to the 15th or 16th century, but all the enclosing courts had been erected within 170 years after the end of the 16th century, and endowed exclusively by the family of the Setupati chiefs of Râmnâd. It is one of the last great works of Hindûs, and the last addition to it is the finest of all.
v1.c19.s11.14
¹ The Pandâram or manager of the temple raised a suit against the Zamîndâr of Râmnâd to deprive him of the hereditary right of patronage and supervision of the temple. It was conducted on the Pandâram's part by one Appâru Pillai, who destroyed the old inscriptions and forged others, inserting them in the walls, and then produced copies and translations of them as evidence against the claims of the Râmnâd Setupatis. The suit was appealed to the Privy Council, but, on such evidence, was given in favour of the forgers, and the Zamîndârs were deprived of their right to appoint the Dharmakartas or have any share in the management of the temple which their ancestors built and had so richly endowed.
v1.c19.s11.15
¹ It is said he was aided in the work by a Singhalese king or chief named Pararâja Sekhara, under whose supervision the stones were hewn and fitted at Trinkonamalai.
v1.c19.s11.16
² He is said to have been assisted in this work by a rich merchant and his wife from Nâgûr, whose statues surmount the eastern wall.