DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27191#0086
52
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE.
Book I.
is ephemeral. It fails also in producing that impression of
durability which is so essential to architectural effect; while,
at the same time, the facility with which it can be carved
and adorned tends to produce a barbaric splendour far less
satisfactory than the more sober forms necessitated by the
employment of the less tractable material.
Be this as it may, it will, if I mistake not, become quite clear
when we examine the earliest “ rock-cut temples ” that, whether
from ignorance or from choice, the Indians employed wood and
that only, in the construction of their ornamental buildings,
before A^oka’s time.1 From this the inference seems inevitable
that it was in consequence of India being brought into contact
with the western world, first by Alexander’s raid, and then by
the establishment of the Baktrian kingdom in its immediate
proximity, that led to this change. We do not yet know pre-
cisely how far the Baktrian kingdom extended towards the Indus,
but we feel Greek influence on the coinage, on the sculpture,
and generally on the arts of India, from an early date, and it
seems as if we might be able to fix with precision not only the
dates, but the forms in which the arts of the Western world
exerted their influence on those of the East. Meanwhile it
may be sufficient to state here that we know absolutely nothing
of the temples or architecture of the various peoples or religions
who occupied India before the rise of Buddhism,2 and it is only
by inference that we know anything of that of the Buddhists
before the age of A^oka. From that time forward, however, all
is clear and intelligible; we have a sufficient number of examples
whose dates and forms are known to enable us to write a fairly
consecutive history of the architectural style during the iooo
years Buddhism was prevalent in India, and thence to trace its
various developments in the extra Indian countries to which it
was carried, and where it is still practised at the present day.3
1 These remarks must not be taken as
applying to sculpture also. It is quite
true that no stone sculptures have yet
been found in India of an earlier date
than the age of Aroka; but, as will be
seen in the sequel, the perfection the
Indian artists had attained in stone
sculpture when they executed the bas-
reliefs at Bharaut (B.c. 200), shows a
familiarity with the material that could
only be attained by long practice.
2 No mention of temples, or, indeed,
of buildings is, I believe, found in the
Vedas, and though both are frequently
alluded to, and described in the Epic
Poems and the Puranas, this hardly
helps us; first because, like all verbal
descriptions of buildings, they are too
vague to be intelligible, and secondly,
because there is no proof that the passages
containing these descriptions may not
have been interpolated after — possibly
long after—the Christian Era.
3 I believe I was the first to ascertain
these facts from a personal inspection of
the monuments themselves. They were
communicated to the Royal Asiatic
Society in a paper I read on the ‘ Rock-
cut Temples of India,’ in 1842. Every
subsequent research, and every increase
of our knowledge, has tended to confirm
those views to such an extent that
they are not now disputed by any one
acquainted with the literature of the
subject.
BUDDHIST ARCHITECTURE.
Book I.
is ephemeral. It fails also in producing that impression of
durability which is so essential to architectural effect; while,
at the same time, the facility with which it can be carved
and adorned tends to produce a barbaric splendour far less
satisfactory than the more sober forms necessitated by the
employment of the less tractable material.
Be this as it may, it will, if I mistake not, become quite clear
when we examine the earliest “ rock-cut temples ” that, whether
from ignorance or from choice, the Indians employed wood and
that only, in the construction of their ornamental buildings,
before A^oka’s time.1 From this the inference seems inevitable
that it was in consequence of India being brought into contact
with the western world, first by Alexander’s raid, and then by
the establishment of the Baktrian kingdom in its immediate
proximity, that led to this change. We do not yet know pre-
cisely how far the Baktrian kingdom extended towards the Indus,
but we feel Greek influence on the coinage, on the sculpture,
and generally on the arts of India, from an early date, and it
seems as if we might be able to fix with precision not only the
dates, but the forms in which the arts of the Western world
exerted their influence on those of the East. Meanwhile it
may be sufficient to state here that we know absolutely nothing
of the temples or architecture of the various peoples or religions
who occupied India before the rise of Buddhism,2 and it is only
by inference that we know anything of that of the Buddhists
before the age of A^oka. From that time forward, however, all
is clear and intelligible; we have a sufficient number of examples
whose dates and forms are known to enable us to write a fairly
consecutive history of the architectural style during the iooo
years Buddhism was prevalent in India, and thence to trace its
various developments in the extra Indian countries to which it
was carried, and where it is still practised at the present day.3
1 These remarks must not be taken as
applying to sculpture also. It is quite
true that no stone sculptures have yet
been found in India of an earlier date
than the age of Aroka; but, as will be
seen in the sequel, the perfection the
Indian artists had attained in stone
sculpture when they executed the bas-
reliefs at Bharaut (B.c. 200), shows a
familiarity with the material that could
only be attained by long practice.
2 No mention of temples, or, indeed,
of buildings is, I believe, found in the
Vedas, and though both are frequently
alluded to, and described in the Epic
Poems and the Puranas, this hardly
helps us; first because, like all verbal
descriptions of buildings, they are too
vague to be intelligible, and secondly,
because there is no proof that the passages
containing these descriptions may not
have been interpolated after — possibly
long after—the Christian Era.
3 I believe I was the first to ascertain
these facts from a personal inspection of
the monuments themselves. They were
communicated to the Royal Asiatic
Society in a paper I read on the ‘ Rock-
cut Temples of India,’ in 1842. Every
subsequent research, and every increase
of our knowledge, has tended to confirm
those views to such an extent that
they are not now disputed by any one
acquainted with the literature of the
subject.