CONTENTS.

Pagodas at Ayuthia and Bangkok—Hall of Audience at Bangkok—General Remarks.

Although the architecture of Siam is very much less important than that of Burmah on the one hand, or Cambodia on the other, it is still sufficiently so to prevent its being passed over in a general summary of styles. Its worst feature, as we now know it, is, that it is so extremely modern. Up to the 14th century the capital of the country was Sokotay, a city on the Menam, 200 miles from the sea in a direct line, and situated close to the hills. This city has not been visited by any traveller in modern times, so we do not know what buildings it may contain. About the year 1350 the Siamese were successful in their wars with the Cambodians, and eventually succeeded in capturing their capital, Intha patha puri, or Indra prestha (Delhi), and practically annexing Cambodia to their kingdom.

Having accomplished this, they moved their capital down to Ayuthia, a little more than fifty miles from the sea; and three centuries afterwards Bangkok succeeded it, and is now the capital. It is by no means certain whether this migration downwards was caused by political events and increasing commerce, or from the country gradually becoming drier and more fit for human habitation. Judging from what happened in Bengal in historical times, I should fancy it was the latter.

In India we find civilized nations first established in the Punjab and on the watershed between the Sutlej and the Jumna. Between 2000 and 3000 years B.C. Oude seems to have become dry enough for human habitation, and Ayodhya[586] (from which the Siamese capital took its name) became the chief city. Between 1000 and 500 B.C. Janakpore on the north, and Rajagriha on the south, were the capital cities of Bengal; but both being situated on the hills, it was not till Asoka’s time (250 B.C.) that Patna on the Soane and Vaisali on the Gunduck, became capitals; and still another 1000 years elapsed before Gaur and Dacca became important, while Moorshedabad, Hooghly, and Calcutta, are cities of yesterday.[587] The same phenomenon seems to have occurred in Siam, and, what is of still more interest, as we shall presently see, in Cambodia.

As Ayuthia was for three centuries the flourishing capital of one of the great building races of the world, we should, of course, look for considerable magnificence having been displayed in its architecture. From the accounts of the early Portuguese and Dutch travellers who visited it in the days of its glory, it seems to have merited the title they bestowed upon it of the “Venice of the East,” and the remains justify their eulogiums. The buildings, however, seem to have been principally constructed of brick and wood; and as the city has now been practically deserted for more than a century, the wild fig-trees have everywhere inserted their roots into the masonry, and decay has progressed rapidly among the wooden erections. As described by recent visitors, nothing can be more wildly picturesque than this once splendid city, now overgrown with jungle; but such a stage of decay is, of all conditions, the least favourable to the researches of the antiquary.

The form which the older pagodas took at Ayuthia differs in many essential respects from those which we find either in India or in Burmah. The top or upper part has a rounded domical shape, which we can easily fancy to be derived from the tope, but the upright part looks more like the sikra of a Hindu temple than anything Buddhist. If we had a few earlier examples, perhaps we might trace the steps by which the one passed into the other; at present the gaps in the series are too great to be bridged over with anything approaching certainty. One link, however, seems to be supplied by the temples of Nakhon Wat in Cambodia, of which more hereafter.

The same outline is found in the crowning members of the pagodas of Bangkok, but they are covered with an elaboration of detail and exuberance of coloured ornament that has seldom been surpassed, nor is it desirable it should be, for it is here carried to an extent truly barbarous (Woodcut No. 360).

Notwithstanding the bad taste which they display, these Bangkok pagodas are interesting in the history of architecture as exemplifying the instinctive mode in which some races build, and the innate and irrepressible love of architecture they display. But it also shows how easily these higher aspirations degenerate into something very

like vulgarity, when exercised by a people in so low a stage of civilization as the modern Siamese.

The same remarks apply to their civic buildings: palaces and porticos, and even dwelling-houses, are all as rich as carving and gilding, and painting, can make them; but, as in the pagodas, it is overdone, and fails to please, because it verges on vulgarity.

The typical design of all these halls and minor buildings will be understood from the preceding woodcut, representing the Hall of Audience at Bangkok. Like all the others, it has two roofs intersecting one another at right angles, and a spire of greater or less elevation on the intersection. Sometimes one, two, or three smaller gables are placed in front of the first, each lower than the one behind it, so as to give a pyramidal effect to the whole. Generally, the subordinate gables are of the same width as those in the centre; but sometimes the outer one is smaller, forming a porch. In the audience hall just quoted there are three gables each way. These may be seen on the right and left of the central spire in the view, but the first and second towards the front are hidden by the outer gable. The point of sight being taken exactly in front, it looks in the view as if there were only one in that direction.

The Burmese adopt the same arrangement in their civil buildings, and in Siam and Burmah the varieties are infinite, from the simple pavilion with four gables, supported on four pillars,[588] to those with twelve and sixteen gables, combined with a greater complication of walls and pillars for their support.

As the Siamese are certainly advancing in civilization, it may be asked, Will not their architecture be improved and purified by the process? The answer is, unfortunately, too easy. The new civilization is not indigenous, but an importation. The men of progress wear hats, the ladies crinolines, and they build palaces with Corinthian porticos and sash-windows. It is the sort of civilization that is found in the Bazar in Calcutta, and it is not desirable, in an architectural point of view, at all events, if, indeed, it is so in any other respect.