History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s3: Kanârak.

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s3

Language: English

Kanârak.

v2.c25.s3.1

With, perhaps, the single exception of the temple of Jagannâth at Purî, there is no temple in India better known, and about which more has been written than the so-called Black Pagoda at Kanârak, 19 miles north-east from Purî; nor is there any one whose date and dedication is better known, since the literature on the subject can here be depended upon. Stirling's statement that the present edifice was built by the Râja Narasingh-deva I., who ruled from about 1238 to 1264, is supported by copperplate inscriptions.¹ Complete as this evidence appears, one is almost tempted to question it, for the simple reason that it seems improbable—after the erection of so inferior a specimen of the art as the temple of Purî (*cir.* A.D. 1100) appears to be—the style could have reverted to anything so beautiful as this. In general design and detail it is so similar to the Jagamohan of the great temple at Bhuvaneswar that at first sight I should be inclined to place it in the same century;

v2.c25.s3.2

¹ 'Asiatic Researches,' vol. xv. p. 327; and 'Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. lxxii. (1903), part i. p. 124. Râjendralâl Mitra, ascribed it to Narasingha II., who began to reign, A.D. 1278. 'Antiq. of Orissa,' vol. ii. p. 156.

v2.c25.s3.3

still the details of the tower exhibit a progress towards modern forms which is unmistakable.¹ Abul Fazl after describing the temple with considerable detail and circumstantiality and ascribing it to Râja Narasingh-deva I., adds that "it is said to be a work of 730 years' antiquity."² In other words, it was erected about A.D. 860, or just about 400 years before Narasingh's date which must arise from an error in the hundreds figure. Narasingh-deva must, however, have employed architects of very different tastes and abilities to those engaged a century earlier in erecting the Purî temple.

v2.c25.s3.4

¹ When I visited Orissa in 1837 and sketched this temple, a great part of the tower was still standing. See 'Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,' plate iii. It has since fallen entirely.

v2.c25.s3.5

² 'Ayeen Akbery,' Gladwin's translation, vol. ii. p. 16. Jarrett's version (vol. ii. pp. 128-129) reads :—" It is said that somewhat over 730 years ago Râja Narsing Deo completed this stupendous fabric and left this mighty memorial to posterity."

v2.c25.s3.6

Another point of interest connected with this temple is, that all authors, apparently following Abul Fazl, agree that it was, like the temple of Mârtând, in Kashmîr (*ante*, vol. i., p. 259), dedicated to the sun.³ Sun-worship, we know, was prevalent in various parts of India, previous to the 12th century, but it seems to have become merged in the Vishnu cult—Sûrya-Nârâyana being regarded as a form of Vishnu. In the west of India there are remains of quite a number of sun-temples of about the eleventh century,⁴ and probably others will be found in Central India and elsewhere, when looked for.

v2.c25.s3.7

³ Arka is a name of the sun as the "lightner"; the place is mentioned as Arka-kshetra or Padma-kshetra.

v2.c25.s3.8

⁴ 'Archæological Survey of Western India,' vol. ix. pp. 73, 74.

v2.c25.s3.9

This temple differs in no respect from other temples of Vishnu found in Orissa. The architectural forms are identical; they are adorned with the same symbols. The Navagraha, or nine planetary divinities, adorned the lintel of this as of all the temples of the district. The seven-headed serpent-forms are found on every temple, from the great one at Bhuvaneswar to this one, and it is only distinguishable from those of Siva by the obscenities that disfigure a part of its sculptures. This is, unfortunately, only too common a characteristic of Vaishnava temples all over India, but is not frequent in Saiva temples. A detached mandap that stood in front of it, occupying a corresponding place to that at Mudherâ, and the fine stambha were removed to Purî, in the 18th century, by the Marâthâs; a corner of the sikhara was still standing in 1839, but within the next thirty years had disappeared; and the great lintel over the entrance to the principal hall, carved with the Navagraha, with other parts about the doorway had fallen, or were removed, and an abortive attempt was made to carry the lintel to Calcutta.

v2.c25.s3.10

Architecturally, the great beauty of this temple arises from the form of the design of the roof of the Jagamohan, or porch—the only part now remaining. Both in dimensions and detail, it is extremely like that of the great temple at Bhuvaneswar, but it is here divided into three storeys instead of two, which is an immense improvement, and it rises at a more agreeable angle. The first and second storeys consist of six cornices each, the third of five only, as shown in the diagram Woodcut No. 184. The two lower ones are carved with infinite beauty and variety on all their twelve faces, and the antefixæ at the angles and breaks are used with an elegance and judgment a true Yavana could hardly have surpassed. There is, so far as I know, no roof in India where the same play of light and shade is obtained with an equal amount of richness and constructive propriety as in this instance, nor one that sits so gracefully on the base that supports it.

v2.c25.s3.11

Internally, the chamber is singularly plain, but presents some constructive peculiarities worthy of attention. On the floor, it is about 40 ft. square, and the walls rise plain to about the same height. Here it begins to bracket inwards, till it contracts to about 20 ft., where it was ceiled with a flat stone roof, supported by wrought-iron beams—Stirling says nine, nearly 1 ft. square by 12 ft. to 18 ft. long.¹ My measurements made the section less—8 in. to 9 in., but the length greater, 23 ft.; and Bâbu Râjendralâl points out that one, 21 ft. long, has a square section of 8 in. at the end, but a depth of 11 in. in the centre,² showing a knowledge of the properties and strength of the material that would be remarkable, were it not that they seem to be formed of blocks of short lengths, 3 or 4 in. square, built together, like bricks, and then covered with molten metal. The iron pillar at Delhi (Woodcut No. 373) is a more remarkable example than this, and no satisfactory explanation has yet been given as to the mode in which it was manufactured,—though it may possibly have been by a similar method. Its object, however, is plain, while the employment of these beams here is a mystery. They were not wanted for strength, as the building is still firm after they have fallen, and so expensive a false ceiling was not wanted architecturally to roof so plain a chamber.³ It seems to be only another instance of that profusion of labour which the Hindûs loved to lavish on the temples of their gods.