History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s12: Madurâ.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s12
- Language
- English
Madurâ.
v1.c19.s12.1
If the native authorities consulted by the late Professor Wilson in compiling his Historical Sketch of the Kingdom of Pândya could be relied upon, it would seem that the foundation of the dynasty ought to be placed some centuries before the Christian Era.³ Even, however, if this is disputed, the fact of the southern part of the Peninsula being described as the "Regio Pandionis" by classical authorities, is sufficient to prove that a kingdom bearing that name did exist there in the early centuries of the Christian Era. Their first capital, however, seems to have been Korkai, near Cape Comorin.⁴ The story of Kulasekhara founding the dynasty, and the fabulous incidents with which the tale is adorned, is one of the favourite legends of the south, and is abundantly illustrated in sculptures of Tirumalai Nâyyak’s chaultri and in other buildings of the capital.
v1.c19.s12.2
³ 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,' vol. iii. p. 202.
v1.c19.s12.3
⁴ *Ante*, p. 304.
v1.c19.s12.4
For our present purposes it is not worth while to attempt to investigate the succession of the dates of the seventy-three kings who are said to have succeeded one another before the accession of the Nâyyak dynasty, in 1559, inasmuch as no building is now known to exist in the kingdom that can claim, even on the most shadowy grounds, to have been erected by any of these kings. It may have been that, anterior to the rise of the great Chola dynasty, in the 10th and 11th century, that of Madurâ may have had a long period of prosperity and power; but whatever they did build has been destroyed or so altered that its existence cannot now be identified. After that, for a while they seem to have been subjected to the Ballâla dynasty of Mysore, and the same Muhammadan invasion that destroyed that power in 1310 spread its baneful influence as far as Râmnâd, and for two centuries their raids and oppressions kept the whole of southern India in a state of anarchy and confusion. Their power for evil was first checked by the rise of the great Hindû state of Vijayanagar, on the Tungabhadrâ, in the 14th century, and by the establishment, under its protection, of the Nâyyak dynasty by Viswanâth Nâyyak, in the 16th. After lasting 177 years, Mînâkshî, the last sovereign of the race—a queen—was first aided, and then betrayed, by Chanda Sâhib the Nawâb of the Karnatik, who plays so important a part in our wars with the French in these parts.
v1.c19.s12.5
It may be—indeed, probably is the case—that there are temples in the provinces that were erected before the rise of the Nâyyak dynasty, but all those in the capital, with the great temple at Srîrangam, described above, were erected or extended during the two centuries of their supremacy, and of those in the capital nine-tenths at least were erected during the long and prosperous reign of the seventh king of this dynasty, Tirumalai Nâyyak, or as he is more popularly known, Trimal Nâyyak, who reigned from 1623 to 1659.¹
v1.c19.s12.6
¹ ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. pp. 230 *et seqq.*
v1.c19.s12.7
Of his buildings, the most important, for our purposes at least, is the celebrated Vasanta or Pudu Mantapam,² known as ‘Tirumalai’s chaultri,’ which he built for the reception of the presiding deity of the place, who consented to leave his dark cell in the temple and pay the king an annual visit of ten days' duration in the hot month of May, on condition of his building a hall worthy of his dignity, and where he could receive in a suitable manner the homage of the king and his subjects. As will be seen from the plan (Woodcut No. 226)
v1.c19.s12.8
² Fortunately this chaultri is also one of the best known of Indian buildings. It was drawn by Daniell in the end of the 18th century, and his drawings have been repeated by Langles and others. It was described by Mr. Blackadder in the ‘Archæologia,’ vol. x. p. 457; and by Wilson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 232. Volumes of native drawings exist in some collections containing representations of every pillar. A model in bronze of a porch exists at South Kensington Museum, and it has been abundantly photographed.
v1.c19.s12.9
[Figure: 226. Plan of Tirumalai Nâyyak's Chaultri. (From a Drawing in the possession of the Royal Asiatic Society.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]
v1.c19.s12.10
[Figure: 227. Pillar in Tirumalai Nâyyak's Chaultri. (From a Drawing in the possession of the Royal Asiatic Society.)]
v1.c19.s12.11
the hall is 333 ft. long by 105 ft. in width, measured on the stylobate, and consists of four ranges of columns, all of which are different, and all most elaborately sculptured. An elevation of one is given (Woodcut No. 227), but is not so rich as those of the centre, which have life-sized figures attached to them, and are even more elaborate in their details. In this instance it will be observed that the detached bracketing shaft at Chidambaram has become attached to the square central pier, and instead of the light elegance that characterised that example, has become a solid pier, 5 or 6 ft. in depth — richer certainly, but far from being either so elegant or so appropriate as the earlier example.
v1.c19.s12.12
The view of the interior (Woodcut No. 228) gives some, but only a faint, idea of the effect. The sides are now closed with screens; but in effect, as in detail, it is identical with the corridors at Râmesvaram, where the light is abundant.
v1.c19.s12.13
As the date of this hall is known — it took twenty-two years to erect it, 1623 to 1645 — it becomes a fixed point in our chronology of the style.¹ We can, for instance, assert with perfect certainty that the porch to Pârvatî's shrine at Chidambaram (Woodcut No. 221) is certainly anterior to this, probably by a couple of centuries, and, with equal certainty that the corridors at Ramesvaram are contemporary.
v1.c19.s12.14
¹ According to Wilson the mantapam was begun in the second year of Tirumalai's reign, and completed in twenty-two years, at a cost of upwards of a million sterling. But one of the Oriental Historical Manuscripts states the cost of it at a lâkh of Pons or £20,000, and that it was finished in seven years, 1626-1633.
v1.c19.s12.15
From the history of the period we learn that the râjas of Râmnâd were at times independent, at others at war with the Nâyyaks; but in Tirumalai Nâyyak's time they were either his allies or dependants; and the style and design of the .two buildings are so absolutely identical that they must belong to the same age. If the king of Madurâ had indeed been allowed any share in making the original design, that temple would probably have been a nobler building than it is; for, though the details are the same, his three aisled hall leading to the sanctuary would have been a far grander feature architecturally than the single-aisled corridors that lead nowhere. The expense of one of the single-aisled corridors at Râmêsvaram, almost 700 ft. long, would have been about the same as the triple-aisled chaultri at Madurâ, which is half their length. Consequently the temple must have cost between three and four times as much as the chaultri; and the actual cost must have been immense when we consider the amount of labour expended on it, and that the material in both is the hardest granite.
v1.c19.s12.16
The façade of this hall, like that of almost all the great halls in the south of India, is adorned either with Vyâlis—monsters of the lion type trampling on an elephant—or, even more generally, by a group consisting of a warrior sitting on a rearing horse, whose feet are supported on the shields of foot soldiers, sometimes slaying men, sometimes tigers. These groups are found literally in hundreds in southern India, and, as works exhibiting difficulties overcome by patient labour, they are unrivalled, so far as I know, by anything found elsewhere. As works of art, they are the most barbarous, it may be said the most vulgar, to be found in India, and do more to shake one's faith in the civilisation of the people who produced them than anything they did in any other department of art. Where these monstrosities are not introduced, the pillars of entrances are only enriched a little more than those of the interior, when the ornamentation is in better taste, and generally quite sufficiently rich for its purpose.
v1.c19.s12.17
View in Tirumalai Nayyak's Chaultri, Madurâ. (From a Photograph.)
v1.c19.s12.18
Immediately in front of his chaultri, Tirumalai Nâyyak commenced his Râya gopuram, which, had he lived to complete it, would probably have been the finest edifice of its class in southern India. It measures 174 ft. from north to south, and 117 feet in depth. The entrance through it is 21 ft. 9 in. wide; and if it be true that its gateposts are 57 ft. in height, that would have been the height of the opening.¹ It will thus be seen that it was designed on even a larger scale than that at Srîrangam, described above, and it certainly far surpasses that celebrated edifice in the beauty of its details. Its doorposts alone are single blocks of granite, carved with the most exquisite scroll patterns of elaborate foliage, and all the other carvings are equally beautiful. Being unfinished, and consequently never consecrated, it has escaped whitewash, and alone, of all the buildings of Madurâ, its beauties can still be admired in their original perfection.
v1.c19.s12.19
¹ ^1 Most of these particulars, regarding the temples, are taken from Capt. Lyon's description of his photographs of the places. He devoted twenty-four photos to this temple, of which the negatives are now in the India Office.
v1.c19.s12.20
The great temple at Madurâ is a larger and far more important building than the Vasanta mantapam or Châwadi. It possesses all the characteristics of a first-class Dravidian temple, and, as its date is well known, it forms a landmark of the utmost value in enabling us to fix the relative date of other temples (Woodcut No. 229).
v1.c19.s12.21
The sanctuary (A) is dedicated to *Siva*, under the name of Sundaresvara, and this clearly points to its having been founded by one of the Pândya princes who bore the name of Sundara, of whom there were four during the thirteenth century. The shrine of the goddess (B) is consecrated to Mînâkshi.²
v1.c19.s12.22
² ^2 Mînâkshî means "fish-eyed"; but, with the first vowel short, it would mean "bright-eyed." Traditionally she was the wife of Sundara, but as a goddess is the same as Pârvatî, the goddess wife of Siva.
v1.c19.s12.23
The city and temple fell to the Muhammadans in 1324, who plundered it mercilessly, and it was only recovered by the Vijayanagar sovereign in 1372 when Hindû worship was restored. The temple itself certainly owes all its magnificence to Tirumalai Nâyyak, A.D. 1623-1659, or to his elder brother, Muttu Vîrappa, who preceded him, and who built the Mînâkshî Nâyyak mantapam, said to be the oldest thing now existing, outside the shrines. The Kalyâna mantapam is said to have been built in A.D. 1707, and the Tatta Suddhi in 1770. These, however, are insignificant parts compared with those which owe their origin to Tirumalai Nâyyak.
v1.c19.s12.24
¹ *Key to the plan:*—A Temple of Sundaresvar; AA Pudu mantapam; B Shrine of Minâkshîdevî; C Small shrine of Ganesa, and D of Subrahmanya; E Vedi or Altar; F Nandi Pavilion; G Javandîsvara mantapam; H Navagraha or nine planets; I Large Ganesa; JJ Shrines of Natesvar; K Poet's College; L Tank of Golden Lillies; M Mudali Pillai mantapam; O Ashta Lakshmî hall; P 16 pillar mantapam; Q Thousand pillar mantapam; R Vîravasantarâya mantapam; S Kalyâna Sundara mantapam; T Servaikaran mantapam; U Lingam; V Tiruvachi Gopuram; W Chitra mantapam; Y Ellamvatta-siddha; Z Madura Nâyyak temple; I, II, III, IV, Four outer Gopurams; VI, VIII, IX, Three Gopurams of the second Prâkarâm; X, XI, Gates to the Minâkshî prâkarâm; VII, Gate between the temples; XII, Ashta-Sakti mantapam; The plan is reduced from one in Francis's 'Madura Gazetteer,' vol. i.
v1.c19.s12.25
229. Plan of Madurâ Temple. Scale 200 ft. to 1 in.[^1]
v1.c19.s12.26
The temple itself is a nearly regular rectangle, two of its sides measuring 720 ft. and 729 ft., the other two 834 ft. and 852 ft. It possessed four gopurams of the first class (I. II. III. IV.), and six smaller ones (VI. to XI.) ; a very beautiful tank (L), surrounded by arcades; and a hall of 1000 columns (Q), whose sculptures surpass those of any other hall of its class I am acquainted with. There is a small shrine (J), dedicated to the god Sabhâpati, which occupies the space of fifteen columns, so the real number is only 985; but it is not their number but their marvellous elaboration that makes it the wonder of the place, and renders it, in some respects, more remarkable than the chaultri about which so much has been said and written. I do not feel sure that this hall alone is not a greater work than the chaultri; taken in conjunction with the other buildings of the temple, it certainly forms a far more imposing group.