DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0070
BOOK I.
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE
CHAPTER L
introduction and classification.
It may create a feeling of disappointment in some minds when they
are told that there is no stone architecture in India older than two
and a half centuries before the Christian Era ; but, on the other hand,
it adds immensely to the clearness of what follows to be able to assert
that India owes the introduction of the use of stone for architectural
purposes, as she does that of Buddhism as a state religion, to the great
Asoka, who reigned from b.c. 272 to 236.
It is not, of course, meant to insinuate that the people of India
had no architecture before that date; on the contrary it can be
proved that they possessed palaces and halls of assembly, perhaps
even temples, of great magnificence and splendour, long anterior to
Asoka's accession ; but, like the buildings of the Burmese at the present
day, they were all in wood. Stone, in those days, seems to have been
employed only for the foundations of buildings, or in engineering
works, such as city walls and gates, or bridges or embankments ; all
else, as will appear from the sequel, were framed in carpentry. Much
as we may now regret this, as all these buildings have consecpiently
perished, it is not so clear, as it may at first appear, that the Indians
were wrong in this, inasmuch as, in all respects, except durability,
wood is a better building material than stone. It is far more easily
cut and carved, larger spaces can be covered with fewer and less cum-
brous points of support than is possible with stone, and colour and
gilding are much more easily applied to wood than to stone. For the
same outlay twice the space can be covered, and more than twice
the splendour obtained by the use of the more perishable material,
the one great defect being that it is ephemeral. It fails also in
producing that impression of durability which is so essential to archi-
tectural effect; while, at the same time, the facility with which it
can be carved and adorned tends to produce a barbaric splendour far
loss satisfactory than the more sober forms necessitated by the employ-
ment of the less tractable material.
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE
CHAPTER L
introduction and classification.
It may create a feeling of disappointment in some minds when they
are told that there is no stone architecture in India older than two
and a half centuries before the Christian Era ; but, on the other hand,
it adds immensely to the clearness of what follows to be able to assert
that India owes the introduction of the use of stone for architectural
purposes, as she does that of Buddhism as a state religion, to the great
Asoka, who reigned from b.c. 272 to 236.
It is not, of course, meant to insinuate that the people of India
had no architecture before that date; on the contrary it can be
proved that they possessed palaces and halls of assembly, perhaps
even temples, of great magnificence and splendour, long anterior to
Asoka's accession ; but, like the buildings of the Burmese at the present
day, they were all in wood. Stone, in those days, seems to have been
employed only for the foundations of buildings, or in engineering
works, such as city walls and gates, or bridges or embankments ; all
else, as will appear from the sequel, were framed in carpentry. Much
as we may now regret this, as all these buildings have consecpiently
perished, it is not so clear, as it may at first appear, that the Indians
were wrong in this, inasmuch as, in all respects, except durability,
wood is a better building material than stone. It is far more easily
cut and carved, larger spaces can be covered with fewer and less cum-
brous points of support than is possible with stone, and colour and
gilding are much more easily applied to wood than to stone. For the
same outlay twice the space can be covered, and more than twice
the splendour obtained by the use of the more perishable material,
the one great defect being that it is ephemeral. It fails also in
producing that impression of durability which is so essential to archi-
tectural effect; while, at the same time, the facility with which it
can be carved and adorned tends to produce a barbaric splendour far
loss satisfactory than the more sober forms necessitated by the employ-
ment of the less tractable material.