DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2371#0162
140 EASTERN CAVES.
poses being gone, but the other two have been adopted by the
Dravidian Hindus, and repeated over and over again throughout the
south of India, and continue to be used there to the present day in
all the temples of the Brahmans.
In the present state of our knowledge it is to be feared that
it is idle to speculate on the mode in which these anomalous
phenomena occurred, but it may fairly be inferred from them,
that in the seventh century of our era there was no original and
appropriate style of Hindu architecture, in the south of India.
It seems also most probable that the Pallavas, or whoever carved
these Eaths, came from some more northern country, where they
were familiar with the forms of Buddhist architecture, and that
when they resolved to erect temples to their gods, in their new
country, they came to the conclusion that they could not do better
than adopt the forms with which they were familiar. Having
once adopted it in the rock, they seem to have applied it to their
structural temples, and gradually dropping those features which
were either inappropriate or difficult of execution, by degrees to have
developed the Dravidian style of architecture as we find it practised
in the south of India from their time to the present day.
If all this is so, it may at first sight seem strange that no trace
of this many-storeyed style of architecture is to be found adapted
to Hindu purposes in those countries where the style first originated
and had long been practised, and was consequently familiar to all
classes of the inhabitants. The answer to this difficulty seems,
however, not far to seek. In the north of India the Hindus early
possessed styles of their own, from whatever source it may have
been derived. They had temples with large attached porches, or
Mantapas, and cubical cells surmounted by tall curvilinear towers,
in which no trace of storeys can be detected. Having thus their
own sacx*ed forms they had no occasion to borrow from a rival and
hated sect, forms which they could hardly be expected to admire,
and which were inappropriate for their sacred purposes. The result
seems consequently to have been that the two styles grew up and
developed side by side, but remained perfectly distinct and without
showing any tendency to fuse or amalgamate at any period of their
existence.
poses being gone, but the other two have been adopted by the
Dravidian Hindus, and repeated over and over again throughout the
south of India, and continue to be used there to the present day in
all the temples of the Brahmans.
In the present state of our knowledge it is to be feared that
it is idle to speculate on the mode in which these anomalous
phenomena occurred, but it may fairly be inferred from them,
that in the seventh century of our era there was no original and
appropriate style of Hindu architecture, in the south of India.
It seems also most probable that the Pallavas, or whoever carved
these Eaths, came from some more northern country, where they
were familiar with the forms of Buddhist architecture, and that
when they resolved to erect temples to their gods, in their new
country, they came to the conclusion that they could not do better
than adopt the forms with which they were familiar. Having
once adopted it in the rock, they seem to have applied it to their
structural temples, and gradually dropping those features which
were either inappropriate or difficult of execution, by degrees to have
developed the Dravidian style of architecture as we find it practised
in the south of India from their time to the present day.
If all this is so, it may at first sight seem strange that no trace
of this many-storeyed style of architecture is to be found adapted
to Hindu purposes in those countries where the style first originated
and had long been practised, and was consequently familiar to all
classes of the inhabitants. The answer to this difficulty seems,
however, not far to seek. In the north of India the Hindus early
possessed styles of their own, from whatever source it may have
been derived. They had temples with large attached porches, or
Mantapas, and cubical cells surmounted by tall curvilinear towers,
in which no trace of storeys can be detected. Having thus their
own sacx*ed forms they had no occasion to borrow from a rival and
hated sect, forms which they could hardly be expected to admire,
and which were inappropriate for their sacred purposes. The result
seems consequently to have been that the two styles grew up and
developed side by side, but remained perfectly distinct and without
showing any tendency to fuse or amalgamate at any period of their
existence.