almost inconceivable by those who have not seen it. Generally speaking, this profuse ornamentation is so managed, that the details do not interfere with the outline; still their complexity takes away from anything like grandeur or greatness in design; and though some of these temples may deserve to be called the prettiest edifices possible, they can claim no higher merit. Another peculiarity is, that they sometimes borrow features from Mahometan architecture, imitating the domes and arcades of that style; but even these very parts are assimilated so completely to their own style, that the amalgamation is almost always pleasing. Both these peculiarities are well illustrated in the Vishvesher temple at Benares-the principal one of

that famous city, and said to be the oldest, though the present edifice can scarcely number 100 years. Like the temple at Tinnevelly, and many others dedicated to Siva, it is a double temple; the woodcut (No. 75) represents the plainest side, and omits one-half of the details.

which it was impossible to express to such a scale; indeed, it is almost inconceivable how much labour has been expended on a temple whose greatest length is only 47 ft., and greatest height 51 ft.; but such is the characteristic of Indian art at the present day, which does not reach beyond the rank of exquisitely elegant littleness. In former times they went to work in a bolder and manlier style, and with an admirable perception of the proper adaptation of the means to the end, as is observable more especially in some of the rock-cut examples. At Ellora, for instance, in one of the caves cut on the scarp of the Kylas, the pillars are more massive than in our heaviest Norman examples, and are designed with a boldness unmatched in any columnar architecture I am acquainted with, as may be seen from the annexed representation (woodcut No. 76). In built temples and porticos there was

no need for such massive pillars as in the rock-cut examples. Still, at Chandravati, and in the earliest buildings generally, the pillars seldom exceed four or five diameters in height. They gradually become more and more attenuated as the style becomes more modern, taking very much the same form as those of the Buddhists and Jains, except that the Hindus use figure sculpture to a greater extent than was usual with their predecessors, as in the annexed example from Barrolli (woodcut No. 77), where 4 elegant female figures surrounding the base form the principal ornament of the shaft. This pillar has lost its bracket capital, which is the invariable accompaniment of Indian pillars of every age and style, and is, after all, perhaps, the most

elegant and appropriate mode of supporting an architrave that has yet been invented by the ingenuity of man.

MIXED HINDU STYLE.

During the existence of the earlier Patan dynasties of India, the bigotry of the Mahometans did not admit of the Hindus erecting temples of any pretension in the great cities over which they had obtained the dominion, and it is only in remote corners of the country that we detect here and there isolated examples of the style. With the beneficent and tolerant reign of the Great Akbar (1556 to 1605), a new era dawned for his oppressed subjects: not only were the Hindus tolerated and employed by him, but some of his most intimate friends and associates were of that race. Hence, while his own buildings show a strong tendency to the Hindu style, the Hindus, under his encouragement, erected edifices which display an even greater admixture of the Mahometan forms of architecture. These it is true were not retained, at least to any great extent, in sacred edifices, but in palaces and civil buildings their adoption was general, and remained permanent, giving rise to a style of perhaps even greater beauty than either had separately displayed.

One of the first and most striking examples of this new state of things was the erection by Maun Sing of Jeypore, the friend and prime minister of Akbar, of a temple at Bindrabun, the porch of which is unique in India, not only on account of the elegance of its outline and details, but from its having a vaulted roof, not constructed by projecting stones, but of true radiating arches like our Gothic vaults.

drabun. By the Author. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.

As will be seen from the plan, it is in the form of a cross, 100 ft. north and south by 120 ft. east and west, and almost identical in arrangement with such churches as St. Front Perigueux or the Pantheon at Paris, as we shall see hereafter. The 78. Plan of Temple at Bin- central compartment (37 ft. square) is covered by a combination of ribbed and domical architecture, producing an effect not inferior to that of any Gothic vaulting I am acquainted with. The nave, to the east and west of the dome, is roofed by a waggon vault of pointed form, richly sculptured all over. The interior is complete and in perfect preservation, but externally the building either was never finished, or has been allowed to go to premature decay.

A number of similar temples were erected in this neighbourhood under the same influence, though none so magnificent nor so splendid as this. Afterwards the direct influence of Mahometanism gradually died out, and sacred buildings resumed nearly the same form as before, except only with such modifications as those shown in the temple of Vishvesher (woodcut 75), which may be considered as a typical example of the modern temple form of the Hindus. The change, how

ever, was permanent in the general style, and among other things introduced some entirely new forms of edifices utterly unknown among the Hindus before this time. Amongst these the most remarkable are the cenotaphs to the dead, or Chuttries as they are called by the Hindus.

To a people who believe in the transmigration of souls, as the Buddhists always did, and the Hindus very generally do, it is of little importance what becomes of its corporeal encasement after the soul has taken up its new abode; in all ages, therefore, we find the followers of these religions either burning the bodies of the dead, or throwing them into the rivers, or merely exposing them to be devoured by beasts or birds of prey. The Mahometans on the contrary, or at least that section of them who invaded India, the Moguls and Tartars, were in all ages pre-eminently a tomb-building race, and by far the most magnificent edifices they have erected in India are the sepulchres of their kings. The Hindus also adopted this practice after the reign of Akbar, at first in their own peculiar fashion, erecting domes like those of the Jains, on 4 or 8 or 12 pillars, with porticos ad libitum, on the spot where the bodies were reduced to ashes. There was this difference between the Hindu and Mahometan practice, that the former were generally content to leave the erection of these monuments to the filial piety of their successors, a practice which has been found singularly inimical to architectural magnificence of this class in most countries, while the great tomb-building nations, such as the Egyptians and Moguls, took care to provide against this, by always erecting their own tombs during their lifetime. One of the most extensive and beautiful collections of these cenotaphs is that of Oudeypore, near the sacred fountains, where the Rajas of that race and their wives have been buried from time immemorial.' They are not confined however to that locality, but almost every little capital of Rajpootana can point to some monument of the same class, all modern of course, but some of them of great elegance.

Most of these retain their pure Hindu, or rather Jaina forms of columnar architecture. The most modern, however, and those nearest the influence of the great Mahometan capitals of Agra and Delhi, adopt almost exclusively the arcaded forms of that style of architecture, but, singularly enough, without introducing the true arch, every apparent arch, in fact, being composed of two stones or great brackets meeting one another from the opposite sides, and carved in the form of a foiled arch.

The annexed woodcut, taken from one erected to the memory of the late Raja of Alwar, will explain the general form and appearance of these monuments. The central part is of white marble streaked with black; the terrace and surrounding pavilions of red sandstone. Those of the Bhurtpore Rajas in this neighbourhood are more extensive and

1

A view of one of these chuttries is given in my Illustrations of Indian Architecture, pl. xiv.

more elegant than this, and are built wholly of the fine yellow sandstone of the district in which they stand. But this instance appears most characteristic of the modern form of art, and the Bhurtpore style is best exemplified in their palaces, of which more hereafter. We find in this example a new and remarkable form, which the Hindus introduced, and the Mahometans afterwards adopted, which is the curious curvilinear roof of the central compartment. This is peculiar to India, and is copied from the bamboo-roofed huts of the lower provinces, whose elasticity requires them to be bent, that they may have the requisite firmness. In them it is singularly graceful, but it requires long habit to accustom the eye to it in stone. In small examples it is extremely pleasing, but on a large scale it has a quaint appearance that it is almost impossible to get over.

PALACES.

It is not so much in their temples or tombs as in their palaces that the modern Hindus have displayed their architectural magnificence. Every little capital possesses a regal residence of more or less pretension, and every hill-top, in some of the native states, is crowned with hunting-seats or summer-palaces. Some of these, such as those of Jeypore and Oudeypore, are of great extent and magnificence; but,