History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s17: Conclusion.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c19.s17
- Language
- English
Conclusion.
v1.c19.s17.1
The buildings mentioned, and more or less perfectly described, in the preceding pages are in number rather less than one-third of the great Dravidian temples known to exist in the province. In importance and extent they certainly are, however, more than one-half. Of the remainder, none have vimânas like that of Tanjor, nor corridors like those of Râmesvaram; but several have gopurams quite equal to or exceeding those mentioned above, and many have mantapams of great beauty and extent. Several—such as Avadaiyâr-Kôvil, Virinjîpuram near Vellor, Târamangalam in Salem district, Kurugodu in Bellâri, and others—possess features unsurpassed by any in the south, especially the first named, which may, perhaps, be considered as one of the most elegant of its class, as well as one of the oldest. It would, however, be only tedious to attempt to describe them without plans to refer to, or more extensive illustrations than are compatible with a work of this class. They are, however, worthy of more attention than has yet been paid to them, and of more complete illustration than has hitherto been bestowed upon them. Taken altogether, they certainly do form as extensive, and in some respects as remarkable, a group of buildings as are to be found in provinces of similar extent in any part of the world—Egypt, perhaps alone excepted; but they equal even the Egyptian in extent, and though at first sight so different, in some respects present similarities which are startling. Without attempting to enumerate the whole, it may be mentioned that the gopurams both in form and purpose, resemble the pylons of the Egyptian temples. The courts with pillars and cloisters are common to both, and very similar in arrangement and extent. The great mantapams and halls of 1000 columns reproduce the hypostyle halls, both in purpose and effect, with almost minute accuracy.
v1.c19.s17.2
The absence of any central tower or vimâna over the sanctuary is universal in Egypt, and only conspicuously violated in one instance in India. Their mode of aggregation, and the amount of labour bestowed upon them for labour's sake, is only too characteristic of both styles. There are, besides, many similarities that will occur to any one familiar with both styles.
v1.c19.s17.3
Is all this accidental? It seems strange that so many coincidences should be fortuitous, but, so far as history affords us any information, or as any direct communication can be traced, we must for the present answer that it is so. The interval of time is so great, and the mode in which we fancy we can trace the native growth of most of the features in India seem to negative the idea of an importation; but there certainly was intercourse between Egypt and India in remote ages, and seed may then have been sown which possibly had fructified long afterwards.
v1.c19.s17.4
A digression may be made in conclusion with reference to the famous monastery referred to (p. 171), as spoken of from hearsay, both by Fah Hian and Hiuen Tsiang. Its situation has long been a puzzle. The second pilgrim says it was built by one of the Andhra kings as a monastery for Nâgârjuna.¹ It had lofty halls in five tiers, each with four courts and temples containing golden images of Buddha. But after a time the Brâhmans had ousted the Buddhists and, he adds, "the way of access to it was no longer known." The Tibetan works state that Nâgârjuna died at the great monastery of *d*Pal-gyi-ri, a translation of Srî-Sailam or Srî-Parvata, both names of a very old place of pilgrimage on a rocky hill overlooking a gorge of the Krishnâ river, and which is one of the twelve Jyotir-lingas or great Saiva shrines of the Hindûs. The place is difficult of access, but was visited by Colonel Colin Mackenzie in 1794,² and perhaps by four or five Europeans before 1886, when the editor made a hurried excursion to it. Mackenzie had mentioned the animals carved on the surrounding walls in a way that seemed to follow the arrangement described by Fah-Hian. Though beyond the limits of the Kosala kingdom, with which Hiuen Tsiang seemed to connect it, it was most probably within the early Andhra dominions.
v1.c19.s17.5
¹ The Chinese syllabus by which Hiuen Tsiang represents its name may be transliterated as Bhrâmara-giri—"black bee mountain." He says it meant "black peak," which is equivalent to "Nallamallai," the name of the hills on the south of the Krishnâ river, to the west and south of Srî-Sailam in Karnal district.
v1.c19.s17.6
² ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. v. pp. 303-314.
v1.c19.s17.7
The reports made to the pilgrims were evidently exaggerated or vague and misunderstood; and if Srî-Sailam were the site of this wonderful monastery, there are no traces of Buddhism there now. The earliest structures were possibly of wood, and the place has been often destroyed. It was near Chandraguptapur, the capital of an early kingdom of Srî-Sailam, occasionally mentioned in inscriptions.
v1.c19.s17.8
The present temples stand within a rectangular enclosure about 630 ft. from north to south by 510 ft. from east to west,
v1.c19.s17.9
239. Plan of the Temples at Srî-Sailam. Scale 150 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c19.s17.10
with a slight extension on the west side and gopurams on the other three, all in the style of the 16th and 17th centuries, having the lower storeys in stone and the upper in brick—though stone is more easily procurable in such a locality. The temples are now dedicated to Mallikârjuna, a form of Siva, and to Bhrâmarambhâ or Mâdhava and Pârvatî. The sculptures on the walls of the court are irregularly disposed in blocks in the upper four courses on the outer face. They are almost a counterpart of those on the walls of the Hazâra-Râma temple at Vijayanagar, and belong to the same period. Indeed, one is led to suppose that they were carved for the construction of a shrine rather than for the enclosure wall, into the upper courses of which they are now built in an irregular way.
v1.c19.s17.11
From the plan (Woodcut No. 239), it may be inferred that when this wall was erected the court was considerably enlarged to the north and west. The temples inside are all mean and insignificant, and, though older than the outer enclosure, they are not of earlier date than the 16th century, and probably represent the shrines hurriedly restored after some raid of iconoclastic Muhammadans.¹ The court is partly occupied by rows of corridors for the accommodation of pilgrims; but most of the buildings are in a state of decay and ruin.
v1.c19.s17.12
¹ So late as 1855 a band of Rohillas crossed from the Haidarâbâd territory and robbed the temple of jewels valued at Rs. 20,000, dug up the floors of the shrines, and destroyed the ancient images.
v1.c19.s17.13
CIVIL ARCHITECTURE.
v1.c19.s17.14
Palaces at Madurâ and Tanjor—Garden Pavilion at Vijayanagar—Palace at Chandragiri.
v1.c19.s17.15
ALthough the Dravidians were extensive and enthusiastic builders, it is somewhat singular that till they came in contact with the Muhammadans all their efforts in this direction should have been devoted to the service of religion. No trace of any civil or municipal building is to be found anywhere, though from the stage of civilisation that they had attained it might be expected that such must have existed. What is, however, even more remarkable is, that kingdoms always at war with one another, and contending for supremacy within a limited area, might have been expected to develop some sort of military architecture. So far, however, as is now known, no castle or fortification of any sort dates from the Pândya, Chera, or Chola days. What is still more singular is that they have no tombs. They seem always to have burnt their dead, and never to have collected their ashes or raised any mounds or memorials to their departed friends or great men. There are, it is true, numberless “Rude stone monuments” all over the south of India, but, till they are more thoroughly investigated, it is impossible to say whether they belong to the Dravidians when in a lower stage of civilisation than when they became temple builders, or whether they belong to other underlying races who still exist, in scattered fragments, all over the south of India.¹ Whoever these Dolmens or stone circles may have belonged to, we know, at least, that they never were developed into architectural objects, such as would bring them within the scope of this work. No Dravidian tomb or cenotaph is known to exist anywhere.
v1.c19.s17.16
¹ What I know on this subject I have already said in my work on ‘Rude Stone Monuments,’ pp. 455 *et seqq.* Conf. ‘Archæological Survey of Western India,’ vol. i. p. 8, and plate; ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. iii. pp. 53-54, and 306-308; vol. v. pp. 159, 255; and vol. vi. p. 230.
v1.c19.s17.17
When, however, the Dravidians came in contact with the Musalmâns this state of affairs was entirely altered, in so far, at least, as civil buildings were concerned. The palaces, the kacherîs, the elephant-stables, and the dependencies of the abodes of the râjas at Vijayanagar and Madurâ, rival in extent and in splendour the temples themselves, and are not surpassed in magnificence by the Muhammadan palaces of Bijâpûr or Bidar.
v1.c19.s17.18
One of the most interesting peculiarities of these civil buildings is, that they are all in a new and different style of architecture from that employed in the temples, and the distinction between the civil and religious art is kept up to the present day. (The civil buildings are all in what we would call a pointed-arched Moorish style)—picturesque in effect, if not always in the best taste, and using the arch everywhere and for every purpose. In the temples the arch is never used as an architectural feature. In some places, in modern times, when they wanted a larger internal space than could be obtained by bracketing without great expense, a brick vault was introduced—it may be said surreptitiously—for it is always concealed. Even now, in building gopurams, they employ wooden beams, supported by pillars, as lintels, to cover the central openings in the upper pyramidal part, and these having decayed, many of the most modern exhibit symptoms of decay which are not observable in the older examples, where a stone lintel always was employed. But it is not only in construction that the Dravidians adhere to their old forms in temples. There are, especially, some gopurams erected within the limits of last century, which it requires a practised eye to distinguish from older examples; but with the civil buildings the case is quite different. It is not, indeed, clear how a convenient palace could be erected in the trabeate style of the temples, unless, indeed, wood was very extensively employed, both in the supports and the roofs. My conviction is that this really was the case, and its being so, to a great extent at least, accounts for their disappearance.
v1.c19.s17.19
The principal apartments in what is called the palace at Madurâ are situated round a courtyard which measures about 160 ft. east and west by 100 ft. north and south, surrounded on all sides by arcades of very great beauty. (The pillars which support the arches are of stone, 40 ft. in height, and are joined by foliated brick arcades of great elegance of design, carrying a cornice and entablature rising to upwards of 60 ft. in height.) The whole of the ornamentation is worked out in the exquisitely fine stucco called "chunnam" or shell lime, which is a characteristic of the Madras Presidency.¹ On the west side of the court stands the Swarga Vilâsam or Celestial Pavilion, now used as the High Court of Justice. It measures 235 ft. from north to south by
v1.c19.s17.20
¹ For a fuller account of the palace, see a paper by Mr R. F. Chisholm in the 'Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects,' vol. xxvi. (1875-1876), pp. 159ff. with plan and sections, from which the ground plan (fig. 240) is reduced, and the measurements have been taken from it. Details of the ornamentation are given by Dr G. Le Bon, 'Les Monuments de l'Inde,' figs. 233-235.
v1.c19.s17.21
240. Plan of Tirumalai Nâyyak's Palace at Madurâ. (From a Plan by Mr R. F. Chisholm.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c19.s17.22
105 ft. across, and is arranged very much on the plan of a great mosque with three domes—in fact, the whole structure, if not first erected as a splendid mosque, is marvellously like one. The large central dome is supported by twelve columns enclosing a square 64 ft. across. These columns are first linked together by massive Saracenic arches. Four similar arches are then thrown across the corners, and the octagonal drum rises from these, pierced by a clerestory. Above this, at the cornice, 45½ ft. up, the octagon is changed to a circle and the dome rises, in the centre, to 75 ft. from the floor. At the north-west corner of the main building is placed the splendid hall shown in the annexed woodcut (No. 241),¹ the two corresponding with the Dîwân-i-Khâss and Dîwân-i-’Âmm of Muhammadan palaces. This one, in its glory,
v1.c19.s17.23
¹ In this view "a more decidedly Saracenic character is given to the work than it actually possesses." Mr Chisholm's paper, *ut sup.* p. 161. The dimensions appear much exaggerated if we take the two small human figures as supplying a scale.
v1.c19.s17.24
241. Hall in Palace, Madurâ. (From Daniell's 'Views in Hindostan').
v1.c19.s17.25
must have been as fine as any, barring the material: most of the connected buildings, however, have long since disappeared. This hall itself is 125 ft. long by 69 ft. wide, and its height to the centre of the roof is 56 ft.; but, what is more important than its dimensions, it possesses all the structural propriety and character of a Gothic building. It is evident that if the Hindûs had persevered a little longer in this direction they might have accomplished something that would have surpassed the works of their masters in this form of art. In the meanwhile it is curious to observe that the same king who built the chaultris (Woodcuts Nos. 226, 227, and 228), built also this hall. The style of the one is as different from that of the other as Classic Italian from Mediæval Gothic; the one as much over ornamented as the other is too plain for the purposes of a palace, but both among the best things of their class which have been built in the country where they are found.
v1.c19.s17.26
Court in Palace, Tanjore. (From a Photograph.)
v1.c19.s17.27
The last dynasty of Tanjor was founded by Ekojî or Venkâjî, a half brother of Sivaji, the great Marâthâ chief, during the decline of the Madurâ dynasty in 1674-1675. The palace was probably commenced shortly afterwards, but the greater part of its buildings belong to the 18th century, and some extend even into the 19th.
v1.c19.s17.28
It is not unlike the Madurâ palace in arrangement—is, indeed, evidently copied from it—nor very different in style; but the ornamentation is coarser and in more vulgar taste, as might be expected from our knowledge of the people who erected it (Woodcut No. 242). In some of the apartments this is carried so far as to become almost offensive. One of the most striking peculiarities of the palace is the roof of the great hall externally. As you approach Tanjor, you see two great vimânas, not unlike each other in dimensions or outline, and at a distance can hardly distinguish which belongs to the great temple. On closer inspection, however, that of the palace turns out to be made up of dumpy pilasters and fat balusters, and ill-designed mouldings of Italian architecture, mixed up with a few details of Indian art! A more curious and tasteless jumble can hardly be found in Calcutta or Lucknow.
v1.c19.s17.29
The palace buildings at Vijayanagar are much more detached and scattered than those either at Tanjor or Madurâ, but they are older, and probably represent only some of the detached and less important buildings of what existed previous to the sack of the city in 1565, when the Musalmâns rased the chief buildings to the ground.¹ What still remains reproduces more nearly the style of a Hindû prince's civil buildings, before they fell completely under the sway of Moslim influence. The remains of the palace consists of a number of detached pavilions, baths, harems, and other buildings, that certainly were situated in gardens, and may, consequently, have had a unity we miss in their present state of desolation. One of these pavilions is represented in the next woodcut (No. 243). It is a fair specimen of that picturesque mixed style which arose from the mixture of the Saracenic and Hindû styles.
v1.c19.s17.30
¹ Briggs's translation of Ferishta's 'Mahomedan Power in India,' vol. iii. p. 131.
v1.c19.s17.31
Examples of Indian civil architecture are so few in the south, that some notice may be included here of the old palace at Chandragiri, about 30 miles N.N.E. from Chittur in North
v1.c19.s17.32
243. Garden Pavilion at Vijayanagar. (From a Photograph.)
v1.c19.s17.33
Arkot district. It was from Chandragiri in 1639 that Srî Rangarâya, the last representative of the Vijayanagar dynasty, granted the British permission to erect the fort at Madras: six years later he was overthrown by Jamshîd Qutb Shâh of Golkondâ.¹
v1.c19.s17.34
¹ After the battle of Tâlikot in 1565, the representatives of the dynasty made Pennakonda in Anantapur district their capital till 1592, when Venkatapati-Râya removed to Chandragiri, where the family resided till 1645.
v1.c19.s17.35
The principal building now left, as shown in Woodcuts Nos. 244 and 245, presents a well-balanced façade of three storeys surmounted by turrets which pleasingly break the sky-line. Each floor consists mainly of a pillared hall—the piers arched across both ways, corbelled at the angles and closed with flat domes. The floors have projections of 6 or 7 ft. beyond the face of the outer pillars and rest on stone corbels. On the north side the walls pierced by the arches are built of brick; but the vaults, especially in the lower storey, are worked in stone from stone corbels. No ornament now appears above the basement, and how the exterior of the building was first
v1.c19.s17.36
244. South Elevation of Chandragiri Palace.
v1.c19.s17.37
245. Plan of the ground floor of Chandragiri Palace. (From Drawings by R. F. Chisholm, F.R.I.B.A.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v1.c19.s17.38
finished it would be hard to say: we may be certain that it was originally much finer than it now exists.¹
v1.c19.s17.39
¹ Fuller details will be found in a paper illustrated by plans, elevations and sections, by Mr R. F. Chisholm, F.R.I.B.A., in the 'Indian Antiquary,' vol xii. (1883), pp. 295-296.
v1.c19.s17.40
Even the mixed style above mentioned, however, died out wherever the Europeans settled, or their influence extended. The modern palaces of the Nawâbs of the Karnatik, of the Râjas of Râmnâd and Travankor, are all in the bastard Italian style, adopted by the Nawâbs of Lucknow and the Bâbus of Calcutta. Sometimes, it must be confessed, the buildings are imposing from their mass, and picturesque from their variety of outline, but the details are always detestable; first, from being bad copies of a style that was not understood or appreciated, but also, generally, from their being unsuited for the use to which they were applied. To these defects, it must be added, that the whole style is generally characterised by a vulgarity it is difficult to understand in a people who have generally shown themselves capable of so much refinement in former times.
v1.c19.s17.41
In some parts of the north of India matters have not sunk so low as in the Madras Presidency, but in the south native civil architecture as a fine art is quite extinct, and though sacred architecture still survives in a certain queer, quaint form of temple-building, it is of so low a type that, as exemplified especially in the temples which the Nâthukottai Chettis are engaged in renovating or reconstructing, it would be no matter of regret if it, too, ceased to exist, and the curtain dropped over the graves of both, as they are arts that practically have become extinct.