DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0122
Chap. IV.
HAIL AT A MR AY AT I.
99
elaborated. No one can look at them, however carelessly, without
perceiving that their forms are such as a carpenter would imagine,
and could construct, but which could not be invented by any process
of stone or brick masonry with which we are familiar. The real
wonder is that, when the new fashion was introduced of repeating
in stone what had previously been executed only in wood, any one
had the hardihood to attempt such an erection in stone; and still
more wonderful is it that, having been done, three of them should
have stood during eighteen centuries, till one was knocked down by
some clumsy Englishmen, and that only one—the earliest, and con-
sequently the slightest and most wooden—should have fallen from
natural cause.--.
Although these Sanchi torans are not the earliest specimens of
their class executed wholly in stone, neither are they the last. We
have, it is true, no means of knowing whether those represented
at Amravati1 were in stone or in wood, but, from their different
appearances, some of them most probably were in the more permanent
material. At all events, in China and Japan their descendants are
counted by thousands. The pailoos in the former country, and the
toris in the latter, are copies more or less correct of these Sanchi
gateways, and like their Indian prototypes are sometimes in stone,
sometimes in wood, and frequently compounded of both materials, in
varying proportions. What is still more curious, a toran with five
bars was erected in front of the Temple at Jerusalem, to bear the
sacred golden vine, some forty years before these Sanchi examples.
It, however, was partly in wood, partly in stone, and was erected to
replace one that adorned Solomon's Temple, which was wholly in
bronze, and supported by the celebrated pillars Jachin and Boaz.2
Amravati.
Although the rail at Bharhut is the most interesting and important
in India in an historical sense, it is far from being equal to that at
Amravati, either in elaboration or in artistic merit. Indeed, in these
respects, the Amravati rail is probably the most remarkable monu-
ment in India. In the first place it is more than twice the dimensions
of the rail at Bharhut, the great rail being 195 ft. in diameter, the
inner 165 ft., or almost exactly twice the dimensions of that at
Bharhut: between these two was the procession-path, which in the
1 They most certainly have been very
common in India, for, though only one
representation of them has been detected
among the sculptures at Sanchi ('Tree
and Serpent Worship,' plate 27. fig. 2),
at least ten representations of them
•re found at Amravati, plates 59 (tig. 2),
60 (lig. 1), 63 (tig. 3), G4 (lig. 1), 69, 83
(tig. 2), 85 (figs. 1 and 2), 96 (fig. 3),
98 (fig. 2), and no doubt many more
may yet be found.
'-' 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' Appen-
dix I. p. 270.
HAIL AT A MR AY AT I.
99
elaborated. No one can look at them, however carelessly, without
perceiving that their forms are such as a carpenter would imagine,
and could construct, but which could not be invented by any process
of stone or brick masonry with which we are familiar. The real
wonder is that, when the new fashion was introduced of repeating
in stone what had previously been executed only in wood, any one
had the hardihood to attempt such an erection in stone; and still
more wonderful is it that, having been done, three of them should
have stood during eighteen centuries, till one was knocked down by
some clumsy Englishmen, and that only one—the earliest, and con-
sequently the slightest and most wooden—should have fallen from
natural cause.--.
Although these Sanchi torans are not the earliest specimens of
their class executed wholly in stone, neither are they the last. We
have, it is true, no means of knowing whether those represented
at Amravati1 were in stone or in wood, but, from their different
appearances, some of them most probably were in the more permanent
material. At all events, in China and Japan their descendants are
counted by thousands. The pailoos in the former country, and the
toris in the latter, are copies more or less correct of these Sanchi
gateways, and like their Indian prototypes are sometimes in stone,
sometimes in wood, and frequently compounded of both materials, in
varying proportions. What is still more curious, a toran with five
bars was erected in front of the Temple at Jerusalem, to bear the
sacred golden vine, some forty years before these Sanchi examples.
It, however, was partly in wood, partly in stone, and was erected to
replace one that adorned Solomon's Temple, which was wholly in
bronze, and supported by the celebrated pillars Jachin and Boaz.2
Amravati.
Although the rail at Bharhut is the most interesting and important
in India in an historical sense, it is far from being equal to that at
Amravati, either in elaboration or in artistic merit. Indeed, in these
respects, the Amravati rail is probably the most remarkable monu-
ment in India. In the first place it is more than twice the dimensions
of the rail at Bharhut, the great rail being 195 ft. in diameter, the
inner 165 ft., or almost exactly twice the dimensions of that at
Bharhut: between these two was the procession-path, which in the
1 They most certainly have been very
common in India, for, though only one
representation of them has been detected
among the sculptures at Sanchi ('Tree
and Serpent Worship,' plate 27. fig. 2),
at least ten representations of them
•re found at Amravati, plates 59 (tig. 2),
60 (lig. 1), 63 (tig. 3), G4 (lig. 1), 69, 83
(tig. 2), 85 (figs. 1 and 2), 96 (fig. 3),
98 (fig. 2), and no doubt many more
may yet be found.
'-' 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' Appen-
dix I. p. 270.