History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s2: Great Temple of Bhuvaneswar.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s2
- Language
- English
Great Temple of Bhuvaneswar.
v2.c25.s2.1
The great temple of Bhuvaneswar, known as the Lingarâja, is one of the landmarks in the style. It is traditionally ascribed to a Lalâtendra Kesarî, who is said to have ruled in the 7th century; though this is mere fable, the temple may tentatively be ascribed to about the 9th or 10th century; but be this as it may, taking it all in all, it is perhaps the finest example of a purely Hindû temple in India.
v2.c25.s2.2
Though not a building of the largest class, the dimensions of this temple in plan are, so far as I can make out, far from contemptible. The whole length is about 210 ft., with a breadth varying from 60 ft. to 75 ft. The original temple, however, like almost all those in Orissa, consisted only of a vimâna, or Baradewal, and a porch or Jagamohan, shaded darker in the plan (Woodcut No. 314), and they extend only to 160 ft. The Nâta- and Bhoga-mandaps, shaded lighter, were added possibly about the 12th century or even later. Though several temples have all these four apartments, so far as I can make out, none were originally erected with them. The true Orissan temple is like that represented in Woodcut No. 184, a building with two apartments only, and these astylar, or practically so: the pillars were only introduced in the comparatively modern additions.
v2.c25.s2.3
315. View of Great or Lingarâja Temple, Bhuvaneswar. (From a Photograph.)
v2.c25.s2.4
The outline of this temple in elevation is not, at first sight, pleasing to the European eye; but when once the eye is accustomed to it, it has a singularly solemn and pleasing aspect. It is a solid, and would be a plain square tower, but for the slight curve at the top, which takes off the hardness of the outline and introduces pleasingly the circular crowning object (Woodcut No. 315). As compared with that at Tanjor (Woodcut No. 213), it certainly is by far the finer design of the two. In plan the southern example is the larger, being 82 ft. square. This one is only about 66 ft.¹ from angle to angle, though it is 75 ft. across the central projection. Their height is nearly the same, both of them being over 180 ft., but the upper part of the northern tower is so much more solid, that the cubic contents of the two are probably not very different. Besides, however, greater beauty in form, the northern example excels the other immeasurably in the fact that it is wholly in stone from the base to the apex, and—what, unfortunately, no woodcut can show—every inch of the surface is covered with carving in the most elaborate manner. It is not only the divisions of the courses, the roll-mouldings on the angles, or the breaks on the face of the tower: these are sufficient to relieve its flatness, and with any other people they would be deemed sufficient; but every individual stone in the tower has a pattern carved upon it, not so as to break its outline, but sufficient to relieve any idea of monotony. It is, perhaps, not an exaggeration to say that if it would take a sum—say a lakh of rupees or pounds—to erect such a building as this, it would take three lakhs to carve it as this one is carved. Whether such an outlay is judicious or not, is another question. Most people would be of opinion that a building four times as large would produce a greater and more imposing architectural effect; but this is not the way a Hindû ever looked at the matter. Infinite labour bestowed on every detail was the mode in which he thought he could render his temple most worthy of the deity; and, whether he was right or wrong, the effect of the whole is certainly marvellously beautiful. It is not, however, in those parts of the building shown in the woodcut that the greatest amount of carving or design was bestowed, but in the perpendicular parts seen from the courtyard (Woodcut No. 316). There the sculpture is of a very high order and great beauty of design. This, however, ought not to surprise us when we recollect that at Amarâvatî, on the banks of the Krishnâ, not far from the southern boundary of this kingdom, there stood a temple more delicate and elaborate in its carvings than any other building in India,¹ and that this temple had been finished probably eight centuries before this one was erected; and though the history of art in India is now written in decay, its growth and vitality had, in earlier times, been vigorous.
v2.c25.s2.5
¹ This and the dimensions in plan generally are taken from a table in Bâbu Râjendralâl's ‘Antiquities of Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 41. I am afraid they are only round numbers, but they suffice for comparison. They are certainly incorrect. In the table the tower is described as 66 ft. by 60, while all the photographs prove that it is undoubtedly square. In the plan (vol. ii. pl. 48) the sides are represented as 66 by 54 ft. from angle to angle, and the internal dimensions are given in the table as 42 square. In the plan they are 44 by 46, and approach so nearly to the exterior, that if the tower had been built, as represented in his plan, it would not have stood for an hour. In figure 314 the internal dimension is reduced to 40 ft. with the larger external one of 65 ft. The Bhoga-mandapa is said in the text (p. 72) to be 56 ft. square; by scale it is 63 by 70. The Nâta-mandir is said to be 52 ft. square, and scales 58 by 61. The Jagamohan in the text is said to measure 65 ft. by 45; on the plan it measures 70 by 50. Making these and other adjustments from the plan, it reduces the total length to about 210 ft., instead of the 290 of the plan. This is confirmed by Mr Atkinson’s plan (pl. xxviii.). In like manner the temple of Bhagavatî (pl. xlviii.) is represented as 160 ft. in length, while Mr. Atkinson makes it only 110.—‘Archæology in India,’ pp. 49, 50.
v2.c25.s2.6
¹ 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' plates 48-98; 'Amarâvatî and Jaggayyapeta Buddhist Stûpas' (1887).
v2.c25.s2.7
316. Lower part of Great Tower at Bhuvaneswar. (From a Photograph.)
v2.c25.s2.8
Attached to the Jagamohan of this temple is a Nâta-mandir, or dancing-hall, whose date is, traditionally assigned to about the year 1100: but this is perhaps too early, as there are inscriptions of the 12th and 13th centuries on the doorway of the temple porch, and they are probably earlier than the Nâta-mandir. But even then it enables us to measure the extent of this decay with some degree of certainty. It is elegant, of course, for art had not yet perished among the Hindûs, but it differs from the style of the porch to which it is attached more than the leanest example of Tudor art differs from the vigour and grace of the buildings of the early Edwards. All that power of expression is gone which enabled the early architects to make small things look gigantic from the exuberance of labour bestowed upon them. A glance at the Nâta-mandir is sufficient for the mastery of its details. A week's study of the Jagamohan would every hour reveal new beauties.
v2.c25.s2.9
The last woodcut may convey some idea of the extent to which the older parts were elaborated: but even the photograph hardly enables any one not familiar with the style to realise how exquisite the combination of solidity of mass with exuberance of ornament really is.
v2.c25.s2.10
317. Plan of Râjarânî Temple. (Compiled from a Plan by Bâbu Râjendralâl and corrected from Photographs.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s2.11
During the five centuries which elapsed between the erection of these two porches, Bhuvaneswar was adorned with some hundreds of temples, some dozen of which have been photographed, but hardly in sufficient detail to enable the student to classify them according to their dates.¹ On the spot it probably would be easy for any one trained to this class of study, and it would be a great gain if it were done. The group nearest in richness and interest is that at Khajurâho, mentioned above (p. 49); but that group belongs to an age just subsequent² to that of the Bhuvaneswar group, and only enables us to see that some of the most elaborate of the Katak temples may extend to the year 1000 or thereabouts. It is to this date that I would ascribe the erection of the Râjarânî temple. The names of the more notable, of which I have photographs, with their approximate dates, are given in the list at the end of this chapter; but I refrain from burdening the text with their names, as I despair, by any reasonable number of woodcuts, of illustrating their marvellous details in anything like a satisfactory manner.
v2.c25.s2.12
¹ Photographs have enabled me to supply to some extent the deficiency of my local knowledge; but unless photographs are taken by a scientific man for scientific purposes, they do not supply the place of local experience; but a full architectural survey also is much desiderated.
v2.c25.s2.13
² Cunningham's 'Reports,' vol. ii. p. 416.
v2.c25.s2.14
The Râjarânî temple, as will be seen from the woodcut (No. 317), is small; but the plan is arranged so as to give great variety and play of light and shade, and as the details are of the most exquisite beauty, it is one of the gems of Orissan art.¹ The following woodcut (No. 318), without attempting to illustrate the art, is quoted as characteristic of the emblems of the period. Below the pillar are three kneeling elephants, over which domineer three lions or leogriffs.
v2.c25.s2.15
¹ Both the temples of Muktesvara and Râjarânî have been restored by Dr. Bloch, the Archæological surveyor, who gives photographs of them "before, and after repairs," but from so very different points of view, that it is not clear what is the extent of these repairs;—but in the Reports, this method of photographing from different points "before and after" meddling with the buildings, is remarkably frequent. No mention seems to be made of securing correct plans of the temples, which might readily have been made whilst the works were going on. The work done is thus described: "The temples generally were fairly intact, but a number of stones had become either loose or unsafe, in the roof of the mandapa and the upper parts of the spire. These had to be dismantled and built up again, using as far as possible the ancient materials. Carvings, when broken and lost, were replaced by new ones, and the work of the modern stonemason does not fall much behind the old work, except that modern restorations of human or animal figures are less graceful than their older models. Only such carvings have been replaced by new ones of which the original pattern was available."—'Archæol. Survey Annual Report, 1902-03,' pp. 45-46. It is pitiable to think of the barbarity of 20th century imitations, or supposed—but very inferior—imitations, being inserted in these venerable structures.
v2.c25.s2.16
318. Doorway in Râjarânî Temple. (From a Photograph.)
v2.c25.s2.17
Above this a Nâgnî, or female Nâga, with her seven-headed snake-hood, adorns the upper part of the pillar. They are to be found, generally in great numbers, in almost all the temples of the province. Over the doorway are the Navagraha, or nine planets, which are almost more universal at the Lingarâja temple.
v2.c25.s2.18
Throughout the province, from the time we first meet it, about the 7th century, if so early, till it dies out about A.D. 1300, the style seems to be singularly uniform in its features, and it requires considerable familiarity with it to detect its gradual progress towards decay. Notwithstanding this, it is easy to perceive that there are two styles of architecture in Orissa, which ran side by side with one another during the whole course. The first is represented by the temples of Parasurâmeswar and Mukteswar (Woodcuts No. 312, 313); the second by the great temple (Woodcut No. 315). They are not antagonistic, but sister styles, and seem certainly to have had at least partially different origins. We can find affinities with that of the Mukteswar group in Dhârwâr and most parts of northern India: but I know of nothing exactly like the great temple anywhere else. It seems to be quite indigenous, and if not the most beautiful, it is the simplest and most majestic of the Indo-Aryan styles. And I cannot help suspecting a wooden origin for it—the courses look so much more like carved logs of wood laid one upon another than courses of masonry, and the mode and extent to which they are carved certainly savours of the same material. There is a mosque built of Deodar pine in Kashmîr, to be referred to thereafter, which certainly seems to favour this idea; but till we find some older temples than any yet discovered in Orissa this must remain in doubt. Meanwhile, it may be well to point out that the majority of the older temples in Orissa follow the type of the great temple, and the rest that of Parasurâmswar; but the two get confounded together in the 9th and 10th centuries, and are mixed together into what may almost be called a new style in the Râjarânî and temples of the 11th and 12th centuries.