DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0064
42
HISTORY OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE.
are Aryan ; and unless we admit that the two divisions of the country
were occupied by people essentially different in blood, though still
belonging to the building races of mankind, we cannot possibly under-
stand how they always practised, and to the present employ, styles
so essentially different. Until these various ethnographical and
mythological problems are understood and appreciated, the styles of
architecture in India seem a chaos without purpose or meaning. Once,
however, they are grasped and applied, their history assumes a dignity
and importance far greater than is due to any merely aesthetic merits
they may possess. Even that, however, is in many respects remarkable,
and, when combined with the scientific value of the styles, seem to
render them as worthy of study as those of any other people with whose
arts we are acquainted.
Statistics.
It would add very much to the clearness of what follows if it were
possible to compile any statistical tables which would represent with
anything like precision the mode in which the people of India are
distributed, either as regards their religious beliefs or their ethno-
graphical relations. The late census of 1871-72 has afforded a mass
of new material for this purpose, but the information is distributed
through five folio volumes, in such a manner as to make it extremely
difficult to abstract what is wanted so as to render it intelligible to
the general reader. Even, however, if this were done, the result
would hardly, for several reasons, be satisfactory In the first place,
the census is a first attempt, and the difficulty of collecting and
arranging such a mass of new materials was a task of the extremest
difficulty. The fault of any shortcomings, however, lay more with the
enumerated than with the enumerators. Few natives know anything
of ethnography, or can give a distinct answer with regard to their
race or descent; and even with regard to religion their notions are
equally hazy. Take for instance the table, page 93 of the Bombay
Report. The compilers there divide the Hindus of that Presidency
into three classes ;—
3,465,349 Suivas.
1,119,233 Vaislinavas.
8,029,989 Mixed.
12,914,571
The mixed class they proceed to define as "all who simply worship
some god or goddess, without knowing anything of theology"—a
description that probably applies with equal truth to two-thirds of
the Hindu population of the other presidencies. The upper and
educated classes do know now what sect they belong to, and the sects
HISTORY OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE.
are Aryan ; and unless we admit that the two divisions of the country
were occupied by people essentially different in blood, though still
belonging to the building races of mankind, we cannot possibly under-
stand how they always practised, and to the present employ, styles
so essentially different. Until these various ethnographical and
mythological problems are understood and appreciated, the styles of
architecture in India seem a chaos without purpose or meaning. Once,
however, they are grasped and applied, their history assumes a dignity
and importance far greater than is due to any merely aesthetic merits
they may possess. Even that, however, is in many respects remarkable,
and, when combined with the scientific value of the styles, seem to
render them as worthy of study as those of any other people with whose
arts we are acquainted.
Statistics.
It would add very much to the clearness of what follows if it were
possible to compile any statistical tables which would represent with
anything like precision the mode in which the people of India are
distributed, either as regards their religious beliefs or their ethno-
graphical relations. The late census of 1871-72 has afforded a mass
of new material for this purpose, but the information is distributed
through five folio volumes, in such a manner as to make it extremely
difficult to abstract what is wanted so as to render it intelligible to
the general reader. Even, however, if this were done, the result
would hardly, for several reasons, be satisfactory In the first place,
the census is a first attempt, and the difficulty of collecting and
arranging such a mass of new materials was a task of the extremest
difficulty. The fault of any shortcomings, however, lay more with the
enumerated than with the enumerators. Few natives know anything
of ethnography, or can give a distinct answer with regard to their
race or descent; and even with regard to religion their notions are
equally hazy. Take for instance the table, page 93 of the Bombay
Report. The compilers there divide the Hindus of that Presidency
into three classes ;—
3,465,349 Suivas.
1,119,233 Vaislinavas.
8,029,989 Mixed.
12,914,571
The mixed class they proceed to define as "all who simply worship
some god or goddess, without knowing anything of theology"—a
description that probably applies with equal truth to two-thirds of
the Hindu population of the other presidencies. The upper and
educated classes do know now what sect they belong to, and the sects