DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27192#0135
Chap. II.
KANARAK.
107
the form of the design of the roof of the Jagamohan, or porch—
the only part now remaining. Both in dimensions and detail,
it is extremely like that of the great temple at Bhuvaneywar,
but it is here divided into three storeys instead of two, which
is an immense improvement, and it rises at a more agreeable
angle. The first and second storeys consist of six cornices
each, the third of five only, as shown in the diagram Woodcut
No. 184. The two lower ones are carved with infinite beauty
and variety on all their twelve faces, and the antefixae at the
angles and breaks are used with an elegance and judgment
a true Yavana could hardly have surpassed. There is, so far
as I know, no roof in India where the same play of light
and shade is obtained with an equal amount of richness and
constructive propriety as in this instance, nor one that sits so
gracefully on the base that supports it.
Internally, the chamber is singularly plain, but presents
some constructive peculiarities worthy of attention. On the
floor, it is about 40 ft. square, and the walls rise plain to about
the same height. Here it begins to bracket inwards, till it
contracts to about 20 ft., where it was ceiled with a flat stone
roof, supported by wrought-iron beams — Stirling says nine,
nearly 1 ft. square by 12 ft. to 18 ft. long.1 My measurements
made the section less—8 in. to 9 in., but the length greater, 23
ft.; and Babu Rajendralal points out that one, 21 ft. long, has
a square section of 8 in. at the end, but a depth of 11 in. in the
centre,2 showing a knowledge of the properties and strength of
the material that would be remarkable, were it not that they
seem to be formed of blocks of short lengths, 3 or 4 in. square,
built together, likfe bricks, and then covered with molten metal.
The iron pillar at Delhi (Woodcut No. 373) is a more remark-
able example than this, and no satisfactory explanation has yet
been given as to the mode in which it was manufactured,—
though it may possibly have been by a similar method. Its
object, however, is plain, while the employment of these beams
here is a mystery. They were not wanted for strength, as the
building is still firm after they have fallen, and so expensive
a false ceiling was not wanted architecturally to roof so plain a
chamber.3 It seems to be only another instance of that pro-
fusion of labour which the Hindus loved to lavish on the
temples of their gods.
1 ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 330.
2 These discrepancies arose from the
fact that the beams lay on the floor buried
under the ruins of the stone roof they
once supported, and it was extremely
difficult to get at them so as to obtain
Correct measurements.
3 See ante, p. 95. The present survey
furnishes no information, nor seems to
have made any architectural drawings of
the structural arrangements and details
of the interior before burying it from all
future examination,
KANARAK.
107
the form of the design of the roof of the Jagamohan, or porch—
the only part now remaining. Both in dimensions and detail,
it is extremely like that of the great temple at Bhuvaneywar,
but it is here divided into three storeys instead of two, which
is an immense improvement, and it rises at a more agreeable
angle. The first and second storeys consist of six cornices
each, the third of five only, as shown in the diagram Woodcut
No. 184. The two lower ones are carved with infinite beauty
and variety on all their twelve faces, and the antefixae at the
angles and breaks are used with an elegance and judgment
a true Yavana could hardly have surpassed. There is, so far
as I know, no roof in India where the same play of light
and shade is obtained with an equal amount of richness and
constructive propriety as in this instance, nor one that sits so
gracefully on the base that supports it.
Internally, the chamber is singularly plain, but presents
some constructive peculiarities worthy of attention. On the
floor, it is about 40 ft. square, and the walls rise plain to about
the same height. Here it begins to bracket inwards, till it
contracts to about 20 ft., where it was ceiled with a flat stone
roof, supported by wrought-iron beams — Stirling says nine,
nearly 1 ft. square by 12 ft. to 18 ft. long.1 My measurements
made the section less—8 in. to 9 in., but the length greater, 23
ft.; and Babu Rajendralal points out that one, 21 ft. long, has
a square section of 8 in. at the end, but a depth of 11 in. in the
centre,2 showing a knowledge of the properties and strength of
the material that would be remarkable, were it not that they
seem to be formed of blocks of short lengths, 3 or 4 in. square,
built together, likfe bricks, and then covered with molten metal.
The iron pillar at Delhi (Woodcut No. 373) is a more remark-
able example than this, and no satisfactory explanation has yet
been given as to the mode in which it was manufactured,—
though it may possibly have been by a similar method. Its
object, however, is plain, while the employment of these beams
here is a mystery. They were not wanted for strength, as the
building is still firm after they have fallen, and so expensive
a false ceiling was not wanted architecturally to roof so plain a
chamber.3 It seems to be only another instance of that pro-
fusion of labour which the Hindus loved to lavish on the
temples of their gods.
1 ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 330.
2 These discrepancies arose from the
fact that the beams lay on the floor buried
under the ruins of the stone roof they
once supported, and it was extremely
difficult to get at them so as to obtain
Correct measurements.
3 See ante, p. 95. The present survey
furnishes no information, nor seems to
have made any architectural drawings of
the structural arrangements and details
of the interior before burying it from all
future examination,