The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c17.s1.225

v2.c17.s1.225

It is unquestionable that the monument is less attractive in appearance than the Great Tower of Bhuvaneśvara. The absence of details gives it a nakedness of appearance which its size and proportions fail to overcome. That absence, however, is due not to the decay of art in the province, but to masking—to the covering up of all that gave it sharpness and grace and beauty: the Parthenon would be made equally ugly if its friezes and cornice, its details and volutes, its flutings and mouldings, be plastered over and entirely hidden, and the sharpness of its lines disturbed by a rough coating of white-wash. The learned critic has adverted to this cause, but he has not attached sufficient importance to it, and hence the mistaken inference. The fact that the Black Pagoda at Koṇārak, which is half a century later, is as profusely and delicately [118] carved as the Great Tower of Bhuvaneśvara is enough to show that the absence could not be fairly accounted for on the assumption of artistic incapacity, or of the decay of taste. That the present race of Oriyas are incapable of producing anything like what their remote ancestors did is a position which none will gainsay; but evidence is wanting to prove that the degradation in artistic capacity commenced after the completion of the Bhuvaneśvara temple and culminated when the Puri monument was taken in hand. The arguments founded on the outline, the proportions and arrangement are equally wide of the mark. The Puri temple is not, and never was intended to be, an exact copy of the Bhuvaneśvara Tower; but the outline and arrangement of the two are strictly the same and Mr. Fergusson himself admits this. The irregularity of the plan to which he refers I have failed to detect and the ground-plans shown in plates XLVIII and LI do not serve to help me in any way. As regards proportions, the same remark may be made with perfect safety. The Bhuvanéśvara Tower is a square of 66 feet on the ground-plan with a height of 160 feet. The Puri temple, with a base of 80 feet square, has a height of 192 feet⁵¹. Had it followed the exact proportions of the former, the height should have been 193 ft. 9 in., so the difference is only 1 ft. 9 in.—a slight difference which is easily accounted for by the fact of the level of the courtyards in the two places having been altered long after the erection of the temples. I shall say nothing about the absence of grace, as it is an intangible quantity dependent a good deal upon fancy, and I must in that respect yield to the learned archaeologist, though it would not be amiss to ask, how far that absence is due to the covering up of the details and how much to want of taste in the architect?