[219] De VoguË, ‘Syrie Centrale,’ passim.

[220] By a curious slip of the pen General Cunningham (‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. p. 193) places “These Roman examples in the baths of Caracalla in the beginning of the first century of the Christian Era, almost contemporary,” he adds, “with that which I assign to the finest Indo-Corinthian examples just described, namely, the latter half of the first century B.C.” This is so evidently a mere slip that I would not allude to it were it not that much of his argument for the early age of these sculptures is based upon this coincidence.

[221] There is a capital at Siah, in Syria, on which a bust is introduced, which may be as early as the Christian Era, but it is a solitary example not repeated afterwards, so far as I know. See ‘Syrie Centrale,’ by De VoguË, plate 3.

[222] In Beal’s introduction to ‘Fa Hian,’ p. 18, he mentions, on Chinese authority, which is much more reliable than Indian, that a statue of Buddha was brought to China from Kartchou (?) in B.C. 121. On asking Mr. Beal to look carefully into the authorities for this statement, he reports them to be hazy in the extreme, and not to be relied upon.

[223] I believe it is generally admitted that the rÉdaction of the ‘Mahawanso,’ and other Ceylonese scriptures made in Buddhaghosha’s time, A.D. 408-420, is the oldest authentic Buddhist work we now possess. They, like the ‘Lalita Vistara,’ and other works, are founded on older works of course, but the earlier forms have been lost, and what we have is what the writers of the 5th and subsequent centuries thought they ought to be.

[224] Unfortunately no Indian list of these patriarchs has yet come to light. Those we have are derived from Japanese or Chinese sources, and are all tainted with the falsification which the Chinese made in Buddhist chronology by putting Buddha’s date back to about 1000 B.C., in order that he might have precedence of Confucius in antiquity! for so it is that history is written in the East. For a list of the twenty-eight known patriarchs, see Lassen, ‘Indische Alterthumskunde,’ vol. ii., Beilage ii. p. 1004.

[225] The capitals of these pillars are so ruined that it is difficult to speak very confidently about them. I have drawings of them by Col. Yule and by Mr. W. Simpson, and latterly Gen. Cunningham has published drawings of them, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. pl. 24. None of them are quite satisfactory, but this must arise from the difficulty of the task.

[226] No complete history of the ivories has been published which is sufficient for reference on this subject. Gori’s are too badly engraved for this purpose; but the first twelve plates in Labarte’s ‘Histoire de l’Art’ are perfect as far as they go. So are the plates in Maskell’s ‘Catalogue of the South Kensington Museum,’ and those published by the Arundel Society; but it is to the collection of casts in these two last-named institutions that the reader should refer for fuller information on the subject.

[227] I purchased from his artist, Mr. Nicholl, and possess all the original sketches from which the illustrations of his book were engraved.

[228] When the present governor was appointed hopes ran high that this unsatisfactory state of our knowledge would be cleared away. The stars, however, in their courses have warred against archÆology in Ceylon ever since he assumed sway over the island, and the only residuum of his exertions seems to be that a thoroughly competent German scholar, Herr Goldsmidt, is occupied now in copying the inscriptions, which are numerous, in the island. These, however, are just what is least wanted at present. In India, where we have no history and no dates, inscriptions are invaluable, and are, in fact, our only sources of correct information. In Ceylon, however, they are, for archÆological purposes, comparatively unimportant. What is there wanted are plans and architectural details, and these, accompanied by general descriptions and dimensions, would, with the photographs we possess, supply all we now want. Any qualified person accustomed to such work could supply nearly all that is wanted in twelve months, for the two principal cities at least; but I despair of seeing it done in my day.

[229] Beal’s translation, p. 157.

[230] The artist who made the drawings for Sir E. Tennent’s book, not knowing what a serpent-hood was, has in almost all instances so drawn it as to be unrecognisable. The photographs, however, make it quite clear that all had serpent-hoods.

[231] The cubit of Ceylon is nearly 2 ft. 3 in.

[232] In the photographs it is called an altar, which it certainly was not.

[233] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ pl. 19. In some respects it resembles the Woodcuts Nos. 34 and 35.

[234] Since the drawing was made from which this cut is taken, it has been thoroughly repaired and made as unlike what it was as can well be conceived.

[235] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal’ for March, 1847, p. 218.

[236] ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 474, and ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xiii. p. 168.

[237] I am afraid this is no longer true. From what I learn, I fear it has been repaired.

[238] ‘Mahawanso,’ Turnour’s translation, p. 163.

[239] Loc. cit., p. 235.

[240] At Amravati the Zoophorus (Woodcut No. 36) consisted of the same animals, I believe, but it is not complete, no fragment of the horse having been brought home, and generally, it seems that this limited menagerie is to be found in all Buddhist works.

[241] Any architect of ordinary ability could in a week easily make the plans and drawings requisite to give us all the information required respecting these halls in Anuradhapura. I am not sure that Capt. Hogg has not already done all that is wanted, but he was sent off so suddenly to St. Helena that no time was allowed him to communicate his information to others, even if he had it.

[242] Singularly enough, the natives of Behar ascribe the planting of their Bo-tree to Duttagaimuni, the pious king of Ceylon.—See Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Statistics of Behar,’ p. 76, Montgomery Martin’s edition.

[243] According to Mr. Rhys Davids, the proper name of the city is Pulastipura (‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. vii. (N.S.) p. 156), and its modern name Topawoewa or Topawa. As, however, that here given is the only one by which it is known in English literature, it is retained.

[244] ‘Christianity in Ceylon,’ Murray, 1850; ‘An Account of the Island of Ceylon,’ 2 vols., Longmans, 1859. Since then Mr. Lawton’s and Capt. Hogg’s photographs have added considerably to the precision but not to the extent of our knowledge. Not one plan or dimension, and no description, so far as I know, have reached this country.

[245] Among Capt. Hogg’s photographs are two colossal statues of Buddha, one at Seperawa, described as 41 ft. high, the other at a place called Aukana, 40 ft. high; but where these places are there is nothing to show. They are extremely similar to one another, and, except in dimensions, to that at the Gal Vihara.

[246] They occur also on Asoka’s pillars in the earliest known sculptures in India (Woodcut No. 6). It was the cackling of these sacred geese which is said to have saved the Capitol at Rome from being surprised by the Gauls.

[247] The preceding woodcut, from Sir E. Tennent’s book, is far from doing justice to the building or to Mr. Nicholl’s drawings, which are before me; but among the half dozen photographs I possess of it not one is sufficiently explanatory to convey a correct idea of its peculiarities, and, after all, without plans or dimensions, it is in vain to attempt to convey a correct idea of it to others.

[248] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 31, et seqq., plates 13 and 15. As neither photographs nor even drawings of these figures are yet available, we are still unable to speak of their style of art, or to feel sure of their authenticity; nor has the era from which these dates are to be calculated been fixed with anything like certainty. The evidence, however, as it now stands, is strongly in favour of their being what they are represented to be.

[249] Vol. i. p. 359, Woodcut No. 241.

[250] The antiquities of Java will probably, to some extent at least, supply this deficiency, as will be pointed out in a subsequent chapter.

[251] Vol. i. p. 212, et seqq.

[252] Vol. i. p. 213.

[253] Ibid., p. 334.

[254] Fully illustrated in vol. ii. of the Dilettanti Society’s ‘Antiquities of Ionia.’

[255] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 1, et seqq.; ‘Madras Journal,’ vol. xx. p. 78, et seqq.; ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 206, et seqq.

[256] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ 1874, pp. 41 and 42.

[257] Loc. cit., plate 54.

[258] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 270, vol. xvii. p. 285.

[259] ‘Hiouen Thsang, Vie et Voyages,’ vol. i. p. 253, et seqq.

[260] See Woodcuts Nos. 99, 112, 122, 124, 127, 172, 177 and 178 of vol. i. of this work.

[261] In his work on the ‘Antiquities of Orissa,’ Babu Rajendra Lal Mittra suggests at page 31 something of this sort, but if his diagram were all that is to be said in favour of the hypothesis, I would feel inclined to reject it.

[262] No really satisfactory translation of these Asoka edicts has yet been published. The best is that of Professor Wilson, in vol. xii. ‘Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.’ Mr. Burgess has, however, recently re-copied that at Girnar, and General Cunningham those in the north of India. When these are published it may be possible to make a better translation than has yet appeared.

[263] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 120.

[264] Ibid., vol. vii. p. 124.

[265] Lieut. Postans’ ‘Journey to Girnar,’ ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 865, et seqq. This, with most of the facts here recorded, is taken either from Mr. Burgess’s descriptions of the photographs in his ‘Visit to Somnath, Girnar, and other places in Kathiawar,’ or Lieut. Postans’ ‘Journey,’ just referred to. Col. Tod’s facts are too much mixed up with poetry to admit of their being quoted.

[266] Mr. Burgess visited this place during the spring of the present year, and has brought away plans and sections, from which it appears these caves are old, but till his materials are published it is impossible to state exactly how old they may be. I am afraid this work will be published long before his Report.

[267] Ram Raj, ‘Architecture of the Hindus,’ p. 49.

[268] Burgess, ‘Visit to Girnar,’ &c., p. 3.

[269] ‘Ferishta,’ translated by General Briggs, vol. i. p. 72. Wilson, however (‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xvii. p. 194), is clearly of opinion that it was a lingam. One slight circumstance mentioned incidentally by Ferishta (p. 74) convinces me as clearly it was Jaina. After describing the destruction of the great idol, he goes on to say, “There were in the temple some thousands of small images, wrought in gold and silver, of various shapes and dimensions.” I know of no religion except that of the Jains—and the very late Buddhists—who indulged in this excessive reduplication of images.

[270] A view of this temple, not very correct but fairly illustrative of the style, forms the title-page to Col. Tod’s ‘Travels in Western India.’

[271] See ‘Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ by the Author, p. 30, from which work the plan and view are taken.

[272] See ante, p. 221.

[273] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 357.

[274] Ibid., plate 90.

[275] The only person who has described these temples in any detail is Gen. Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 412, et seqq., from which consequently all that is here said is taken. I am also indebted to the General for a very complete set of photographs of these temples, which enables me to speak of their appearance with confidence.

[276] General Cunningham hesitates to adopt its extreme simplicity and rudeness as a test of its age, because it is built of granite, the other in the exquisite stone of the neighbourhood. Its plan, however, and the forms of its sikras, induce me to believe it to be exceptionally old.

[277] For plans of similar Jaina temples, see Mr. Burgess’s Report on BelgÂm and Kuladgi, pls. 2, 10 and 45. These, however, are more modern than this one.

[278] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ by the Author, plate 5.

[279] Impey, ‘Views in Delhi, Agra, and Rajpootana,’ London, 1865, frontispiece and plate 60.

[280] Sri Allat, to whom the erection of this tower is ascribed, is the 12th king, mentioned in Tod’s Aitpore inscriptions (‘Rajastan,’ vol. i. p. 802).

[281] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ by the Author, pl. 8, p. 38.

[282] The dome that now crowns this tower was substituted for the old dome since I sketched it in 1839.

[283] Burgess, ‘Sutrunjya,’ p. 20. A plan of this temple is given by him and several photographs.

[284] Burgess, loc. cit., p. 25.

[285] Tod’s ‘Travels in Western India,’ pp. 280, 281.

[286] L. Rousselet, in ‘L’Inde des Rajahs,’ devotes three plates, pp. 396-8, to these temples. I possess several photographs of them.

[287] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ pl. 17.

[288] Burgess, ‘Report on BelgÂm and Kuladji Districts,’ 1875, p. 25, plates 36 and 37.

[289] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 7; ‘Madras Journal,’ vol. xx. p. 78, et seqq.

[290] Tod’s ‘Rajastan,’ vol. i. p. 778, and plate facing it.

[291] Unfortunately the census of 1872 did not extend to the Mysore, where the principal Jaina establishments are situated, nor to any of the native states of southern India. The figures thus given do not consequently at all represent the facts of the case.

[292] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ vol. i. p. 201, et seqq., vol. iii. p. 146, et seqq.

[293] Sir Walter Elliot and others have told me there are Buddhist remains in the south, and I know the general opinion is that this is so. I have never myself seen any, nor been able to obtain photographs or detailed information regarding them. When they are brought forward these assertions may be modified. They, however, express in the meanwhile our present knowledge of the subject.

[294] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 285.

[295] These three were engraved in ‘Moor’s Pantheon,’ plates 73 and 74, in 1810. I have photographs of them, but not of any others, nor have I been able to hear of any but these three.

[296] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 285; ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. ii. p. 353.

[297] Moor’s ‘Pantheon,’ plate 73.

[298] Burgess, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ 1875, p. xxxvii., plate 25.

[299] The artist who drew the lithographs for the ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. ii. plate on p. 353, not knowing that serpents were intended, has supplied their place with an ornamentation of his own design.

[300] Among the photographs of the ‘Architecture of Dharwar and Mysore,’ plates 74 and 75, there labelled Hirpouhully. When writing the descriptions of these plates, I was struck with, and pointed out, the curiously exceptional nature of the style of that temple, and its affinities with the style of Nepal; but I had no idea then that it was below, and not above, the GhÂts, and far from being exceptional in the country where it was situated. In fact, one of the great difficulties in writing a book like the present is to avoid making mistakes of this sort. Photographers are frequently so careless in naming the views they are making, and mounters frequently more so, in transferring the right names to the mounts, that in very many instances photographs come to me with names that have no connexion with the subjects; and it is only by careful comparison, aided with extraneous knowledge, that grave errors can be avoided.

[301] ‘Travels in the Himalayan Provinces and in Ladakh and Kashmir,’ London, Murray, 1841.

[302] ‘Travels in Kashmir, Ladak,’ &c., two vols. 8vo., London, Colburn, 1842.

[303] ‘Travels in Kashmir and the Punjab.’ Translated by Major Jervis, London, 1845.

[304] ‘Illustrations of the Ancient Buildings in Kashmir,’ &c., prepared, under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council, by Lieut. H. H. Cole, R.E., quarto, Allen and Co., London, 1869.

[305] I cannot make out the span of this arch. According to the rods laid across the photograph, it appears to be 15 feet; according to the scale on the plan, only half that amount.

[306] Lieut. Cole’s plates, 1-68 to 4-68.

[307] See drawing of mosque by Vigne, vol. i. p. 269; and also ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1848, p. 253, containing General A. Cunningham’s paper on the subject, from which this woodcut is taken.

[308] On the Toran attached to the rail at Bharhut are elevations of chaitya halls, shown in section, which represent this trefoil form with great exactness.

[309] Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ v. v. 4, Middoth, iv. 6. I have written a work I hope one day to publish, ‘On the temples of the Jews,’ in which all these dimensions will be drawn to scale.

[310] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ Sept. 1848, p. 267.

[311] Cunningham in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ Sept. 1848, p. 269.

[312] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ Sept. 1848, p. 273.

[313] Cunningham, loc. cit., p. 263; Vigne, ‘Travels in Kashmir,’ vol. i. p. 384.

[314] It is not a little singular, however, that the only temple I know of in India that resembles this one, either in plan or arrangement, is the smaller temple of Conjeveram in the Chola country, near Madras; and it is curious that both the ‘Raja Tarangini,’ the Kashmiri history, and that of the Chola country, mention that Ranaditya of Kashmir married a daughter of the Chola king, and assisted in forming an aqueduct from the Cauvery—showing at least an intimacy which may have arisen from that affinity of race and religion, which, overleaping the intruded Aryans, united the two extremities of India in one common bond. True, the style of the two temples is different; but when I saw the one I did not know of the existence of the other, and did not, as I now should, examine the details with that care which alone would enable any one to pronounce definitely regarding their affinities.

[315] Troyer’s ‘Translation,’ lib. iii., v. 462.

[316] Troyer’s ‘Translation,’ lib. iv., v. 126-371.

[317] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 49.

[318] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 47.

[319] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 61. Troyer’s ‘Translation,’ lib. v., c. 128.

[320] Plans of these temples with details are given by Cunningham, plates 17 and 18, and by Lieut. Cole with photographs, plates 20 to 27, and 2 to 5 for details. Mr. Cowie also adds considerably to our information on the subject. The dimensions quoted in the text are from Lieut. Cole, and are in excess of those given by General Cunningham.

[321] Lieut. Cole, ‘Illustrations of Ancient Buildings in Kashmir,’ p. 23, plates 37 and 38.

[322] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1866, p. 101, et seqq.

[323] ‘Illustrations of Ancient Buildings in Kashmir,’ p. 11, plates 6 to 11.

[324] Cunningham, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ Sept. 1848, p. 256.

[325] ‘Raja Tarangini,’ vol. i. verse 170.

[326] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ vol. i. p. 96.

[327] Nepal is fortunate in having possessed in Mr. Brian H. Hodgson one of the most acute observers that ever graced the Bengal Civil Service. At the time, however, when he was Resident in the valley, none of the questions mooted in this work can be said to have been started; and he was mainly engrossed in exploring and communicating to others the unsuspected wealth of Buddhist learning which he found in Nepal, and the services he rendered to this cause are incalculably great. Nor did he neglect the architecture. I have before me a short manuscript essay on the subject, only four sheets foolscap, with about one hundred illustrations, which, if fully worked out, would be nearly all that is required. Unfortunately there are neither dates nor dimensions, and the essay is so short, and the drawings, made by natives, so incomplete, that it does not supply what is wanted; but, if worked out on the spot and supplemented by photographs, it might be all that is required.

[328] A curious mistake occurs in Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Account of the Kingdom of Nepal.’ At page 57 he says: “Gautama, according to the best authorities, lived in the sixth century B.C., and Sakya in the first century A.D. The doctrines of Sakya Singha differ most essentially from those of Gautama.” In the writings of any other man this would be put down as a stupid mistake, but he was so careful an observer that it is evident that his informers confounded the founder of the Saka era—whether he was Kanishka or not—with the founder of the religion, though they seem to be perfectly aware of the novelty of the doctrines introduced by NagÁrjuna and the fourth convocation. He adds, page 190, that Buddhism was introduced into Nepal A.D. 33, which is probably, however, fifty years too early—if, at least, it was consequent on the fourth convocation.

[329] Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Account of the Kingdom of Nepal,’ p. 12.

[330] Ibid., p. 49.

[331] Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Account of the Kingdom of Nepal,’ p. 190.

[332] Ibid., p. 22.

[334] A view of this temple from the frontispiece of Buchanan Hamilton’s volume.

[335] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. v. (N.S.) p. 18.

[336] ‘Nepaul,’ p. 187.

[337] Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Account of the Kingdom of Nepal,’ pp. 29, 42, 51, &c.

[338] The following particulars are taken from a paper by Major Austen in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xliii. part i., 1874.

[339] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. p. 1. et seqq.

[340] Ibid., vol. xx. p. 291, et seqq.

[341] Capt. Turner, it is true, who was sent to Teeshoo Lomboo by Warren Hastings, has published with his interesting narrative a number of very faithful views of what he saw, but they are not selected from that class of monuments which is the subject of our present inquiry.

[342] ‘Voyage dans le Thibet,’ vol. ii. p. 289. The monastery referred to is that of SÉra, in the neighbourhood of Lassa, the capital.

[343] It is found currently employed in the decorative sculpture of the Gandhara monasteries, but never as a constructive feature.

[344] Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. p. 178, et seqq., from which the following particulars are abstracted.

[345] I hope no one will mistake the elevation, pl. 44, vol. v. of Cunningham’s ‘ArchÆological Reports’ for a representation of this temple. It does not in the least resemble it.

[346] Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. p. 183.

[347] ‘Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages,’ London, second edition, 1875, p. 42.

[348] ‘Grammar,’ p. 44.

[349] The best account of the Pandyan kingdom—the Regio Pandionis of the classical authors—is Wilson’s historical sketch in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 199, et seqq. 1736.

[350] Besides the account of this state given by Professor Wilson, in vol. iii. of the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ there are many scattered notices found in Taylor’s ‘Analysis of the Mackenzie MSS.,’ and elsewhere.

[351] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 40.

[352] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 5.

[353] Ibid.

[354] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 10.

[355] The particulars are abstracted from Sir Walter Elliot’s paper in the fourth, and Mr. Dowson’s paper on the Cheras in the eighth, volume of the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.’

[356] The documents collected by Colonel Mackenzie are full of the disputes which ended in the persecution, and these extended apparently from the 5th to the 7th century.

[357] See Dr. Babington, Plate 4, vol. ii. of ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ for the sculpture at Maha Balipuram.

[358] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 270, and vol. xvii. p. 285.

[359] Burgess, ‘Report on Belgam and Kaladgi,’ 1875, plates 39, 40.

[360] Most of these were copied by Dr. Babington, and published with the papers above referred to, but others are given in the volume on the Mackenzie collection in the India Office.

[361] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. plate 13.

[362] Sir Walter Elliot in Lieut. Carr’s compilation, p. 127.

[363] Ibid.

[364] Among the recently discovered ruins at Bharhut is a bas-relief representing a building so exactly like the long rath here, that there can be no doubt that such buildings were used in the north of India two centuries at least before Christ, but to what purpose they were applied is not so clear. The one at Bharhut seems to have contained the thrones or altars of the four last Buddhas.

[365] Among the sculptures of the Gandhara monasteries are several representing faÇades of buildings. They may be cells or chaitya halls, but, at all events, they are almost exact reproductions of the faÇade of this rath. Being used as frameworks for sculpture, the northern examples are, of course, conventionalised; but it is impossible to mistake the identity of intention. They may probably be of about the same age.

[366] Burgess, ‘Report on Belgam,’ &c., p. 24.

[367] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 73.

[368] If it were possible to rouse the Madras Government to take any interest in such matters, it might be hoped they would replace the head of the great Naga on his body before it is destroyed by being made a cockshy for idle Britishers.

[369] In Daniell’s plates, No. 16, the upper part of this is shown. Being cut in the rock no addition or alteration could afterwards have been intended.

[370] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ix. p. 314, et seqq.

[371] ‘Report on Belgam and Kaladji,’ 1874, p. 31, et seqq.

[372] There are four photographs of this temple in the ‘Architectural Antiquities of Dharwar and Mysore,’ plates 54-57. One of these is repeated in Mr. Burgess’s book, plate 38.

[373] Several photographs of it will be found in Capt. Lyon’s collection.

[374] Capt. Lyon was employed by Government for this purpose, and made 276 photographs of these temples. Fourteen sets were furnished to Government, but, owing to difficulties which occurred in bringing them out, they can hardly be said to be published—in this country at least.

[375] As the plan is only an eye-sketch, and the dimensions obtained by pacing, it must not be too much relied on. It is sufficient to explain the text, and that is all that is at present required.

[376] Inscription on gateway.

[377] The dimensions of this image are 16 ft. from muzzle to rump, by above 7 ft. across, 12 ft. 2 in. to top of head, 10 ft. 4 in. to top of hump, and 7 ft. 5 in. to top of back. It is composed of a single block of stone, I believe granite, but it has been so frequently and so thoroughly coated with oil, which is daily applied to it, that it looks like bronze. I tried to remove a portion of this epidermis in order to ascertain what was beneath, but was not successful. No other kind of stone, however, is used in any other part of the temple.

[378] Though so very important in Dravidian history, we have not even now a correct list of the Chola kings from the year 1000 downwards. There certainly is not one among the Mackenzie MSS. The late Mr. Ellis, it is said, had one, but he determined not to publish anything before he was forty years of age, and before that time he swallowed a bottleful of laudanum by mistake, and was found dead in his bed one morning. His papers served his successor’s cook to light fires for some years afterwards.

[379] Except this dimension, which is from a survey, and those of the gopuras, the dimensions above quoted must be taken cum grano. They were obtained only by pacing and eye-sketching.

[380] A drawing of it was published in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture.’ It has since been frequently photographed.

[381] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindustan,’ p. 60.

[382] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 7.

[383] ‘Madras Journal,’ No. 20, p. 15.

[384] Its dimensions, as nearly as can be ascertained from my paces, and Admiral Paris’ plans, are 340 ft. by 180 ft.

[385] The plan of this temple (Woodcut No. 200) is taken from one in the ‘Journal of the Geographical Society of Bombay,’ vol. vii., and may be depended upon in so far as dimensions and general arrangements are concerned. The officers who made it were surveyors, but, unfortunately, not architects, and photographs since made reveal certain discrepancies of detail which prove it to require revision by some one on the spot.

[386] There is a view of it in the Atlas of plates that accompanies Lord Valentia’s travels; not very correct, but conveying a fair idea of its proportions.

[387] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 202.

[388] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 230, et seqq.

[389] Fortunately this choultrie is also one of the best known of Indian buildings. It was drawn by Daniell in the end of the last century, and his drawings have been repeated by Langles and others. It was described by Mr. Blackadder in the ‘ArchÆologia,’ vol. x. p. 457; and by Wilson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 232. Volumes of native drawings exist in some collections containing representations of every pillar. A model in bronze of a porch exists at South Kensington Museum, and it has been abundantly photographed.

[390] In the description of Tripe’s photograph this dimension is given as 117 ft.

[391] Most of these particulars, with those that follow regarding the temples, are taken from Capt. Lyon’s description of his photographs of the places. He devotes twenty-six photos. to this temple alone.

[392] The view in this temple in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ No. 21, is taken from the corner of this tank.

[393] There is a native plan of this temple in the India Museum, which makes it very much more extensive than my inspection of the part I was allowed access to would have led me to suppose. I do not know, however, how far the plan can be depended upon.

[394] It is supposed, erroneously, I believe (‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ (N.S.) vol. vi. p. 265), to be the Kanchipuram visited by Hiouen Thsang in 640. Nagapatam was more probably the place he indicated.

[395] I was too unwell when I visited Conjeveram to make so careful a survey of its temples as I would have wished to have done.

[396] I have never been able to ascertain even approximately its dimensions. Hundreds visit it, many have photographed, some written descriptions, but to measure dimensions and make even a sketch plan seems beyond the educational capacity of our countrymen.

[397] When I was in Madras, and indeed up to the present year, the temple on the hill of Tripetty or Tirupetty was reputed to be the richest, the most magnificent, as it was certainly the most sacred of all those in the Presidency. So sacred, indeed, was it, that no unbelieving foreigner had ever been allowed to climb the holy hill (2500 ft. high) or profane its sacred precincts. In 1870, a party of police forced their way in, in pursuit of a murderer who had taken refuge there, and a Mr. Gribble, who accompanied them, published this year (1875) an account of what they saw in the ‘Calcutta Review.’ As he exclaims, “Another of the illusions of my youth destroyed.” The temple is neither remarkable for its size nor its magnificence. In these respects it is inferior to Conjeveram, Seringham, and many others; and whatever may be done with its immense revenues, they certainly are not applied to its adornment. It is a fair specimen of a Dravidian temple of the second class, but in a sad state of dilapidation and disrepair.

[398] What I know on this subject I have already said in my work on ‘Rude Stone Monuments,’ p. 455, et seqq.

[399] Some money was, I believe, expended during Lord Napier’s administration on the repairs of this court and its appurtenances, but it was quite beyond the purview of an Anglo-Saxon to make a plan of the place. It is, consequently, very difficult to describe it.

[400] Description attached to Tripe’s Photographs.

[401] Vol. i. (N.S.) p. 247, et seqq.

[402] Professor Eggeling tells me he has great reason for suspecting the date 411 for Palakesi I. (‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 8) to be a forgery. There is something certainly wrong about it, but how the error arose is not yet clear. It seems at least a century too early. See the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 12; ibid., vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 93.

[403] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 10, et seqq.

[404] Prinsep’s ‘Useful Tables,’ re-edited by Thomas, pp. 267-268.

[405] If all the quadrants of this portico were equal the numbers ought to be 300, or 75 in each, but I fancy a considerable portion of two of them was cut off by the site of the temple. As I have nothing but photographs to go by, and they only show the exterior, even this is uncertain, and the dimensions I cannot even guess at. They are very large, however, for a Hindu temple.

[406] These dates are taken from a list of this dynasty among the Mackenzie MSS., quoted by Prinsep, ‘Useful Tables,’ xli., and are confirmed by the architectural evidence and other indications.

[407] I regret that I have been unable to get a plan of this temple or, indeed, of any triple temple. That at Girnar (Woodcut No. 127) belongs to another religion, and is too far distant in locality to assist us here. An imperfect one might be compiled from the photographs, but I have not even an approximate dimension.

[408] In a very few years this building will be entirely destroyed by the trees, which have fastened their roots in the joints of the stones. In a drawing in the Mackenzie collection in the India Office, made in the early part of this century, the building is shown entire. Twenty years ago it was as shown at p. 398. A subsequent photograph shows it almost hidden; a few years more, if some steps are not taken to save it, it will have perished entirely. A very small sum would save it; and, as the country is in our charge, it is hoped that the expenditure will not be grudged.

[409] Plates 1 and 32-40. Published by Murray, 1864.

[410] In 1848 Gen. Cunningham applied the term Aryan to the architecture of Kashmir, apparently on the strength of a pun (‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ September, 1848, p. 242). This, however, was limiting a term that belongs to two continents to an insignificant valley, in one of them. It was, besides, wholly uncalled for. The term Kashmiri was amply sufficient, and all that was wanted for so strictly local a style.

[411] ‘Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad,’ by P. Carnegy, Lucknow, 1870. Gen. Cunningham attempts to identify the various mounds at this place with those described as existing in Saketu by the Buddhist Pilgrims (‘Ancient Geography of India,’ p. 401, et seqq.; ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 293, et seqq.) The truth of the matter, however, is, that neither Fa Hian nor Hiouen Thsang were ever near the place. The city they visited, and where the Toothbrush-tree grew, was the present city of Lucknow, which was the capital of the kingdom in Sakya Muni’s time.

[412] ‘Sacred City of the Hindus,’ London, 1868, p. 271, et seqq.; ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxxiv. p. 1, et seqq.

[413] Curiously enough they make their appearance on the stage about the same time, and both then complete and perfect in all their details.

[414] ‘Hunter’s Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 233.

[415] I regret very much being obliged to send this chapter to press before the receipt of the second volume of Babu Rajendra Lala Mittra’s ‘Antiquities of Orissa.’ He accompanied a Government expedition to that province in 1868 as archÆologist, and being a Brahman and an excellent Sanscrit scholar, he has had opportunities of ascertaining facts such as no one else ever had. Orissa was the first province I visited in India for the purposes of antiquarian research, and like every one else, I was then quite unfamiliar with the forms and affinities of Hindu architecture. Photographs have enabled me to supply to some extent the deficiency of my knowledge at that time; but unless photographs are taken by a scientific man for scientific purposes, they do not supply the place of local experience. I feel confident that, on the spot, I could now ascertain the sequence of the temples with perfect certainty; but whether the Babu has sufficient knowledge for that purpose remains to be seen. His first volume is very learned, and may be very interesting, but it adds little or nothing to what we already knew of the history of Orissan architecture.

I have seen two plates of plans of temples intended for the second volume. They are arranged without reference either to style or dates, so they convey very little information, and the photographs prove them to be so incorrect that no great dependence can be placed upon them. The text, which I have not seen, may remedy all this, and I hope will, but if he had made any great discoveries, such as the error in the date of the Black Pagoda, they most probably would have been hinted at in the first volume, or have leaked out in some of the Babu’s numerous publications during the last seven or eight years.

Mr. Hunter, who was in constant communication with the Babu, adds very little in his work on Orissa to what we learnt long ago from Stirling’s, which up to this hour remains the classical work on the province and its antiquities.

[416] These particulars are taken, of course, from Stirling, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. pp. 263, 264. The whole evidence was embodied in a paper on the Amravati tope, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. (N.S.), p. 149, et seqq.

[417] Hunter’s ‘Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 238.

[418] This dimension is from Babu Rajendra’s ‘Orissan Antiquities,’ vol. i. p. 41, but I don’t like it.

[419] This and the dimensions in plan generally are taken from a table in Babu Rajendra’s work, p. 41. I am afraid they are only round numbers, and certainly incorrect, but they suffice for comparison.

[420] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ plates 48-98.

[421] Hunter’s ‘Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 237.

[422] It is to be hoped that Babu Rajendra’s book may to some extent remedy this deficiency. In the part, however, now published, he does not promise that this will be the case.

[423] Cunningham’s ‘Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 416.

[424] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 327.

[425] Myself included in the number! but, as explained above, I had no knowledge of the style when I visited Orissa, and had no photographs to illustrate the architecture of temples to which I was not then allowed access.

[426] When I visited Orissa in 1837 and sketched this temple, a great part of the tower was still standing. See ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ part iii. It has since fallen entirely, but whether from stress of weather or by aid from the Public Works Department is by no means clear.

[427] ‘Ayeen Akbery,’ Gladwin’s translation, vol. ii. p. 16.

[428] Hunter’s ‘Orissa,’ Appendix vii. p. 187, et seqq.

[429] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 557.

[430] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xvi. p. 25.

[431] In his ‘Antiquities of Orissa’ (p. 151), Babu Rajendra sums up exhaustively the argument for and against Vishnu being considered the same as the Sun in the Vedas, and, on the whole, makes out a strong case in favour of the identification. Even, however, if the case were much less strong than it appears to be, it by no means follows that what was only dimly shadowed forth in the Vedas may not have become an accepted fact in the Puranas, and an established dogma in Orissa in the 9th century, when this temple was erected.

[432] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 330.

[433] These discrepancies arise from the fact that the beams lie on the floor buried under the ruins of the stone roof they once supported, and it is extremely difficult to get at them so as to obtain correct measurements.

[434] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 316.

[435] Loc. cit., p. 265.

[436] Tournour’s abstract of the Dalawanso in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 856, et seqq.

[437] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ v. 1. xv. p. 320.

[438] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 315.

[439] The plan is reduced from one to a scale of 40 feet to 1 in., made by an intelligent native assistant to the Public Works Department, named Radhica PursÂd Mukerji, and is the only plan I ever found done by a native sufficiently correct to be used, except as a diagram, or after serious doctoring.

[440] Hunter, ‘Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 128.

[441] News has just reached this country of a curious accident having happened in this temple. Just after the gods had been removed from their Sinhasan to take their annual excursion to the Gundicha NÛr, some stones of the roof fell in, and would have killed any attendants and smashed the gods had they not fortunately all been absent. Assuming the interior of the Bara Dewul to be as represented (Woodcut No. 124), it is not easy to see how this could have happened. But in the same woodcut the porch or Jagamohan of the Kanaruc pagoda is represented with a flat false roof, which has fallen, and now encumbers the floor of the apartment. That roof, however, was formed of stone laid on iron beams, and looked as if it could only have been shaken down by an earthquake. I have little doubt that a similar false roof was formed someway up the tower over the altar at Puri, but formed probably of stone laid on wooden beams and either decay or the white ants having destroyed the timber, the stones have fallen as narrated.

A similar roof so supported on wooden beams still exists in the structural temple on the shore at Mahavellipore, and, I have no doubt, elsewhere, but it is almost impossible to get access to these cells when the gods are at home, and the places are so dark it is equally impossible to see, except when in ruins, how they were roofed.

[442] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 367.

[443] Ibid., p. 335; Hunter’s ‘Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 266.

[444] ‘Ayeen Akbery,’ Gladwin’s translation, vol. ii. p. 13.

[445] These dimensions, except those of Kanaruc, are taken from a table in Babu Rajendra’s ‘Antiquities of Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 41, and are sufficient to give an idea of the relative size of the building. So far as I can make out they are taken from angle to angle of the towers, but as they all have projections on their faces, when cubed, as is done in the table referred to, they are much too small. I may also observe that I know of no instance in which the two dimensions differ. The four faces are always, I believe, alike. The dates are my own; none are given, except for the great temple, in the Babu’s first volume.

[447] For architectural purposes the three places may be considered as one. Aiwulli is five or six miles north of Badami, and Purudkul or Pittadkul as far south. Ten miles covers the whole, which must have been in the 6th or 7th century a place of great importance—possibly Watipipura, the capital of the Chalukyas in the 5th or 6th century. See ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 9.

[448] ‘Histoire de Hiouen Thsang,’ p. 255; ‘Vie et Voyages,’ vol. i. p. 280.

[449] ‘Report on the District of Belgam and Kuladgi.’ 1874.

[450] When I originally wrote on the subject I thought I had the 9th and 10th centuries at my disposal. It now appears they must be blotted out as non-existent for any historical or artistic purpose.

[451] This is the date given by Mr. Burgess in his description in ‘The Caves at Elephanta,’ Bombay, 1871, p. 5.

[452] ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ii. pl. 4.

[453] Loc. cit., pl. 6.

[454] Burgess, ‘Report on Belgam,’ &c. pl. 31.

[455] Loc. cit., pls. 20, 23, 40.

[456] ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ pl. 76.

[457] Burgess, ‘Report on Belgam and Kuladji,’ pl. 31.

[458] A view of this was published in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ pl. 5.

[459] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajastan,’ vol. ii. p. 734.

[460] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ pl. 6, with description. Gen. Cunningham (‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 264) agrees with me as to the date, but inadvertently adds a scale to his plan which makes the building ten times larger than I made it, or than it really is.

[461] Tod (loc. cit.) gives several plates of the details of the porch by a native artist—fairly well drawn, but wanting shadow to render them intelligible.

[462] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajastan,’ vol. ii. p. 712.

[463] A view of this temple will be found in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ pl. 4.

[464] We are indebted to Gen. Cunningham for almost all we know about this place, and it is from his ‘Reports’ and photographs that the following account has been compiled.

[465] Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p 420.

[466] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. ix. p. 548. The date is given from four different epochs, so that there can be no mistake about it.

[467] A portion of the casts are in the South Kensington Museum. Transcripts from the drawings were published in the ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. iii. p. 316.

[468] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ix. p. 219.

[469] Ibid., vol. ix. p. 221.

[470] Both these temples are illustrated to a considerable extent in Lieut. H. H. Cole’s illustrations of buildings near Muttra and Agra, published by the India Office, 1873, to which the reader is referred for further information.

[471] Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Eastern India,’ edited by Montgomery Martin, 1837, vol. ii. p. 628.

[472] Frontispiece to Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Eastern India.’

[473] A view of this temple is given in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ pl. 14.

[474] Ante, vol. i., Woodcut No. 241.

[475] A view of it is given in Tod’s ‘Rajastan,’ vol. i. p. 267. Some parts have been misunderstood by the engraver, but on the whole it represents the building fairly.

[476] A view of one of these is given in my ‘Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in India,’ plate 15. Other illustrations will be found in ‘L’Inde des Rajahs,’ p. 187, et seqq.

[477] Erskine’s ‘Memoirs of Baber,’ p. 384.

[478] These particulars are taken from Cunningham’s ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 346, et seqq., plates 87 and 88.

[479] How far anything of all this now exists is by no means clear. We occupied the fort during the mutiny, and have retained it ever since. The first thing done was to occupy the Barradurri as a mess-room: to fit up portions of the palace for military occupation; then to build a range of barracks, and clear away a lot of antiquarian rubbish to make a parade ground. What all this means is only too easily understood. M. Rousselet—no unfriendly critic—observes:—“Les Anglais sont trÈs-activement occupÉs À simplifier la besogne de l’archÉologue, et À faire disparaÎtre ce prÉcieux document de l’histoire de l’Inde; dÉjÀ toutes les constructions À la gauche de la porte de l’est sont livrÉes À la pioche et le mÊme sort est rÉservÉ au reste” (‘L’Inde des Rajahs,’ p. 362). And, again: “Mais, hÉlas! l’OurwahaÏ lui aussi a vÉcu. Quand j’y revins en DÉcembre, 1867, les arbres Étaient coupÉs, les statues volaient en Éclats, sous les pics des travailleurs, et le ravin se remplissait des talus d’une nouvelle route construite par les Anglais—talus dans lesquels dorment les palais des Chandelas et des Tomars, les idoles des Bouddhistes et des Jainas.”—Loc. cit. p. 366.

[480] A plan of it is given in Lieut. Cole’s ‘Report on the Buildings near Agra’—correct as far as it goes, but not complete.

[481] Egypt showed little taste for architectural display till she fell under the sway of the Memlook Sultans, and Saracenic architecture in Persia practically commences with the Seljukians.

[482] ‘Architecture of Beejapore. Photographed from Drawings by Capt. Hart and A. Cumming, C.E., and on the spot by Col. Biggs and Major Loch, with text by Col. Meadows Taylor and J. Fergusson.’ Folio, Murray, 1866.

[483] ‘Architecture of Ahmedabad. 120 Photographs by Col. Biggs, with Text by T. C. Hope, B.C.S., and Jas. Fergusson.’ Small folio, Murray, 1866.

[484] Brigg’s translation, vol. i. p. 61.

[485] It is very much to be regretted that not a single officer accompanied our armies, when they passed and repassed through Ghazni, able or willing to appreciate the interest of these ruins; and it is to be hoped, if an opportunity should again occur, that their importance to the history of art in the East will not be overlooked.

[486] The sketch of the tomb published by Mr. Vigne in his ‘Travels in Afghanistan,’ gives too confined a portion of it to enable us to judge either of its form or detail. The gate in front is probably modern, and the foiled arches in the background appear to be the only parts that belong to the 11th century.

[487] The tradition that these gates were of sandal-wood, and brought from Somnath, is entirely disproved by the fact of their being of the local pine-wood, as well as by the style of decoration, which has no resemblance to Hindu work.

[488] An excellent representation of the gates will be found in the second edition of ‘Marco Polo’s Travels,’ by Col. Yule, vol. ii. p. 390.

[489] See translation of the inscription on these minars, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ No. 134, for 1843.

[490] Two are represented by Dubois de MontpÉreux, ‘Voyage autour du Caucase.’

[491] Vide ante, vol. ii. p. 444, et seqq.

[492] Vide ante, vol. i. p. 387, et seqq.

[493] I do not know why Gen. Cunningham should go out of his way to prove that the Ajmir mosque is larger than that at Delhi (‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 260). His remarks apply only to the inner court at Delhi, which may have been the whole mosque as originally designed; but before the death of Altumsh, who was the real builder of both, the screen of arches at Delhi had been extended to 380 ft. as compared with the 200 ft. at Ajmir, and the courtyards of the two mosques are nearly in the same proportion, their whole superficial area being 72,000 ft. at Ajmir, as compared with 152,000 ft. at Delhi.

[494] Gen. Cunningham found an inscription on the wall recording that twenty-seven temples of the Hindus had been pulled down to provide materials for this mosque (‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 176). This, however, proves little, unless we know what the temples were like which were destroyed for this purpose. Twenty-seven temples like those at KhajurÂho, excepting the Ganthai, would not provide pillars for one half the inner court. One temple like that at Sadri would supply a sufficiency for the whole mosque, and though the latter is more modern, we have no reason for supposing that similar temples may not have existed before Mahomedan times.

[495] This mode of construction is only feasible when much larger stones are used than were here employed. The consequence was that the arch had become seriously crippled when I saw and sketched it. It has since been carefully restored by Government under efficient superintendence, and is now as sound and complete as when first erected. The two great side arches either were never completed, or have fallen down in consequence of the false mode of construction.

[496] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. iv. p. 313. Its present height, according to Gen. Cunningham, is (after the removal of the modern pavilion) 238 ft. 1 in. (‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol i. p. 196).

[497] Translated by Walter Ewer, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xiv. p. 480. See also Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 132, et seqq.

[498] It is a curious illustration how difficult it sometimes is to obtain correct information in India, that when Gen. Cunningham published his ‘Reports’ in 1871, he stated, apparently on the authority of Mr. Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, that an excavation had been carried down to a depth of 26 ft., but without reaching the bottom. “The man in charge, however”—tÉmoin oculaire—“assured him that the actual depth reached was 35 ft.”—Vol. i. p. 169. He consequently estimated the whole length at 60 ft., but fortunately ordered a new excavation, determined to reach the bottom—coÛte qui coÛte—and found it at 20 inches below the surface.—Vol. iv. p. 28, pl. 5. At a distance of a few inches below the surface it expands in a bulbous form to a diameter of 2 ft. 4 in., and rests on a gridiron of iron bars, which are fastened with lead into the stone pavement.

[499] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 629.

[500] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. x. p. 64. These two translations are painfully discrepant in detail, though agreeing sufficiently as to the main facts. On the whole, I am inclined to think Bhau Daji’s the most correct, though I agree with Prinsep in believing that the more archaic form of the letters is owing to their being punched with a cold chisel on the iron, instead of being engraved as those on stone always were.

[501] There is no mistake about the pillar being of pure iron. Gen. Cunningham had a bit of it analysed in India by Dr. Murray, and another portion was analysed in the School of Mines here by Dr. Percy. Both found it pure malleable iron without any alloy.

[502] Can these Balhikas be the dynasty we have hitherto known as the Sah kings of Saurastra? They certainly were settled on the lower Indus from about the year A.D. 79, and were expelled, according to their own dates, A.D. 264 or 371. (See ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 28.) My impression is, that this may ultimately prove to be the true solution of the riddle.

[503] The same form of pendentive is found at Serbistan (Woodcut No. 946, vol. ii.), nearly ten centuries before this time.

[504] Cunningham, ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 261.

[505] I am sorry to differ from Gen. Cunningham on this matter. He has seen the mosque—I have not; but I have photographs and drawings of it, and directed Mr. Burgess’s attention especially to this point when he visited it, and the result is a conviction on my mind that the pillars now standing are unaltered in arrangement.

Tod, in his ‘Annals,’ treats it simply as a Jaina temple, without referring to any possible alterations, except additions made by Moslem architects, vol. i. p. 779, see also his plate, which is singularly correct.

[506] Owing to the Hindu part being undisturbed, and the Mahomedan part better built and with larger materials, the mosque is not in the same ruinous condition as that at the Kutub was before the late repairs. It is, however, in a filthy and neglected state, and might at a very slight outlay be preserved from further dilapidation, and its beauties very much enhanced. There is, so far as I can judge, no building in India more worthy of the attention of Government than this. The kind of care, however, that is bestowed upon it may be gathered from the following extract from a private letter from a gentleman high in the Government service in India, and one perfectly well informed as to what he was writing about: “Have you ever heard that some of the Hindu pillars of the great mosque at Ajmir were dragged from their places (I presume they were fallen pillars), and set up as a triumphal arch on the occasion of Lord Mayo’s visit? and have you heard that they were so insecurely converted that nobody dared to go under them, and that Lord Mayo and the inspired—— of architects went round it?” This is more than confirmed in a public letter by Sir John Strachey, Lieut.-Governor of the North-West Provinces, addressed to Lord Northbrook, on 25th August last. In this he speaks of “an over zealous district officer who, not long ago, actually pulled down the sculptured columns of a well-known temple of great antiquity”—the Arhai din ka Jhompra—“with the object of decorating a temporary triumphal arch through which the Viceroy was to pass.” He then proceeds to quote what Rousselet says regarding our neglect of such monuments, which is not one whit too severe.

[507] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxxiv. p. 1, et seqq., pls. 1-8. It is to me inconceivable that any one looking at these plates, especially the plans, pls. 7 and 8, can see anything in them but the usual tomb of a Mahomedan noble of the 15th century with its accompanying mosque.

[508] These dimensions are taken from the text and a plan of the building in Montgomery Martin’s edition of Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Statistical Account of Shahabad,’ vol. i. p. 425. The plan is, however, so badly drawn that it can hardly be reproduced.

[509] The first to suggest this was the Baron HÜgel, though his knowledge of the subject was so slight that his opinion would not have had much weight. The idea was, however, taken up afterwards and warmly advocated by the late Mr. Horne, B.C.S., and the Rev. Mr. Sherring, in a series of papers in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxxiv. p. 1, et seqq., and by the latter in his work on ‘The sacred city of the Hindus,’ p. 283, and elsewhere. They have hitherto failed to adduce a single example of similar pillars existing in any authentic Buddhist or Jaina building—they mean Jaina, though they say Buddhist—or any historical or other evidence that will bear a moment’s examination. There may have been some Jaina or Hindu buildings at Jaunpore of the 13th or 14th centuries that may have been utilised by the Mahomedans, but certainly nine-tenths at least of the pillars in these mosques were made at the time they were required for the places they now occupy.

[510] A view of this mosque will be found in Kittoe’s ‘Indian Architecture,’ but, unfortunately, no plan or dimensions. That quoted in the text is from memory.

[511] A view of it, but not a good one, is given in Daniell’s plates. It is partially seen in Woodcut No. 291.

[512] If the buildings of the Bakaraya Kund had been found within twenty miles of Ahmedabad, where there are dozens exactly like them, they would hardly have deserved a passing remark. Any one familiar with the style would have assigned them a date—A.D. 1450, or thereabouts—and would hardly have troubled himself to inquire who built them, they are so like all others of the same age.

[513] General Cunningham’s ‘Reports’ for 1862-63, vol. i. p. 287. From this I learn that the pillars surrounding the court on three sides have been removed since I saw them in 1836—this time, however, not by the English.

[514] See plate in Forbes’ ‘Oriental Memoirs,’ vol. iii. ch. xxx.

[515] As it is impossible by a woodcut to convey an impression of the beauty of these mosques, the reader is referred to the photographs of ‘Architecture of Ahmedabad,’ &c.

[516] Described further on, p. 538, Woodcuts Nos. 306 and 307.

[517] I understand from Mr. Burgess that, during his recent visit to Ahmedabad, he copied a number of inscriptions from the mosques there which prove that some of the names given to the buildings are erroneous. When these are published new names and dates must in some instances be given to several of the buildings, but the alterations, as I understand it, are not very important.

[518] All the particulars above quoted regarding that mosque are derived from a work published in Bombay in 1868, entitled, ‘Surat, Baroach, and other old Cities of Goojerat.’ By T. C. Hope, B.C.S. Illustrated by photographs, plans, and with descriptive text.

[519] Plans of these are in Mr. Hope’s work.

[520] There is a very good view of the tomb in Mr. Grindlay’s ‘Views of the East’; but the plan and details here given are from Mr. Hope’s work, sup. cit.

[521] A view of this palace, but not from the best point of view, will be found in Elliot’s ‘Views in the East.’

[522] In this respect it is something like the curvilinear pediments which Roman and Italian architects employed as window heads. Though detestable in themselves, yet we use and admire them because we are accustomed to them.

[523] These particulars are taken principally from Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Statistics of Dinajepore,’ published by Montgomery Martin in his ‘Eastern India,’ 1838, vol. ii. p. 649, et seqq.

[524] Page 347, et seqq.

[525] Initial coinage of Bengal, by Edward Thomas, B.C.S. 1866.

[526] In the woodcut, though not so clearly as in the photograph, will be observed the long pendent root of the tree which has been planted by some bird in the upper gallery. In another year or two it will reach the ground, and then down comes the minar. Any one with a pocket-knife might save it by five minutes’ work. But Cui bono? says the Saxon.

[527] Ante, p. 393.

[528] Elphinstone’s ‘India,’ vol. ii. p. 57.

[529] For the plan and section of this mosque, and all indeed I know about it, I am indebted to my friend the Hon. Sir Arthur Gordon, at present governor of the Fiji Islands. He made the plans himself, and most liberally placed them at my disposal.

[530] I have photographs, but no measurements, of this street.

[531] Brigg’s translation of Ferishta, vol. ii. p. 510.

[532] There is a view of it from a sketch by Col. Meadows Taylor, in the ‘Oriental Annual’ for 1840.

[533] Bijapur has been singularly fortunate, not only in the extent, but in the mode in which it has been illustrated. A set of drawings—plans, elevations, and details—were made by a Mr. A. Cumming, C.E., under the superintendence of Capt. Hart, Bombay Engineers, which, for beauty of drawing and accuracy of detail, are unsurpassed by any architectural drawings yet made in India. These were reduced by photography, and published by me at the expense of the Government in 1859, in a folio volume with seventy-four plates, and afterwards in 1866 at the expense of the Committee for the Publication of the Antiquities of Western India, illustrated further by photographic views taken on the spot by Col. Biggs, R.A.

[534] Ante, vol. ii. p. 553.

[535] Adopting the numerical scale described in the introduction to the ‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ p. 140, I estimated the Parthenon as possessing 4 parts of technic value, 4 of Æsthetic, and 4 phonetic, or 24 as its index number, being the highest known. The Taje I should on the contrary estimate as possessing 4 technic, 5 Æsthetic, and 2 phonetic, not that it has any direct phonetic mode of utterance, but from the singular and pathetic distinctness with which every part of it gives utterance to the sorrow and affection it was erected to express. Its index number would consequently be 20, which is certainly as high as it can be brought, and near enough to the Parthenon for comparison at least.

[536] ‘Memoirs,’ translated by Erskine, p. 334.

[537] Loc. cit., pp. 341-2.

[538] Brigg’s translation, vol. ii. p. 71.

[539] Cunningham, ‘Reports,’ vol. i. p. 222.

[540] A description of this mosque is given in Mr. Carllyle’s ‘Report on the Buildings of Delhi,’ forming part of Cunningham’s fourth volume, but like everything else most unsatisfactory. Neither plan nor dimensions are given, mere verbiage conveying no distinct meaning.

[541] As I cannot find any trace of this building in Keene’s description of the fort in his third book on Agra, I presume it must have been utilised since my day. Unless it is the building he calls the Nobut Khana of Akbar’s palace (26). I have never seen it in any photograph of the place.

[542] It is not quite clear how much Rhotasgur owes its magnificence to Shere Shah, how much to Akbar; both certainly built there, and on the spot it might easily be ascertained how much belongs to each. Unfortunately, the part that belongs to the British is too easily ascertained. “They converted the beautiful Dewan Khand, of which Daniell published a drawing, into a stable for breeding horses.”—Hamilton’s ‘Gazetteer,’ sub voce.

[543] I have mislaid the measurements and plan I made of this building; and, as neither Gen. Cunningham nor his assistants give either plan or dimensions, I am unable to quote any figures in the text.

[544] The plan is taken from one by Gen. Cunningham (‘Reports,’ vol. ii., plate 91). He omits, however, these square projections. I have added them from the photographs.

[545] An attempt has lately been made by Gen. Cunningham and his assistants (‘Reports,’ vol. iv. p. 124), to ascribe this palace to Jehangir. On what authority is not stated; but unless it is very clear and distinct, I must decline to admit it. The whole evidence, so far as I can judge, is directly opposed to such an hypothesis. There is a plan of this palace, in his ‘Reports,’ vol. iv., plate 8.

[546] A cast of this throne is in the South Kensington Museum.

[547] Photographs of this palace are now common, and can be obtained anywhere; and recently Lieut. Cole’s ‘Report on Buildings in the Neighbourhood of Agra’ supplies some very interesting new ones with plans, from which the dimensions in the text are quoted.

[548] No plan or section of this tomb has ever, so far as I know, been published, though it has been in our possession for nearly a century. Those here given are from my own measurements, and, though they may be correct as far as they go, are not so detailed as those of such a monument ought to be, and would have been, had it been in the hands of any other European nation.

[549] The diagram is probably sufficient to explain the text, but must not be taken as pretending to be a correct architectural drawing. There were parts, such as the height of the lower dome and upper angle kiosks, I had no means of measuring, and after all, I was merely making memoranda for my own satisfaction.

[550] After the above was written, and the diagram drawn (Woodcut No. 334), I was not a little pleased to find the following entry in Mr. Finch’s journal. He resided in Agra for some years, and visited the tomb for the last time apparently in 1609, and after describing most faithfully all its peculiarities up to the upper floor, as it now stands, adds: “At my last sight thereof there was only overhead a rich tent with a Semaine over the tomb. But it is to be inarched over with the most curious white and speckled marble, and to be seeled all within with pure sheet gold richly inwrought.”—‘Purchas, his Pilgrims,’ vol. i. p. 440.

[552] Something of the same sort occurred when the Turks occupied Constantinople. They adapted the architecture of the Christians to their own purposes, but without copying. Vide ante, vol. ii. p. 528, et seqq.

[553] The great bath was torn up by the Marquis of Hastings with the intention of presenting it to George IV., an intention apparently never carried out; but it is difficult to ascertain the facts now, as the whole of the marble flooring with what remained of the bath was sold by auction by Lord William Bentinck, and fetched probably 1 per cent. of its original cost; but it helped to eke out the revenues of India in a manner most congenial to the spirit of its governors.

[554] Since the appointment of Sir John Strachey, the present enlightened Governor of the North West Provinces, I understand that this state of affairs is entirely altered. Both care and money are now expended liberally for the protection and maintenance of such old buildings that remain in the province.

[555] Perfect plans of this palace exist in the War Department of India. It is a great pity the Government cannot afford the very few rupees it would require to lithograph and publish them. Without such plans it is very difficult to make any description intelligible. That in Keene’s ‘Handbook of Agra,’ though useful as far as it goes, is on too small a scale and not sufficiently detailed for purposes of architectural illustration.

[556] When we took possession of the palace every one seems to have looted after the most independent fashion. Among others, a Captain (afterwards Sir John) Jones tore up a great part of this platform, but had the happy idea to get his loot set in marble as table tops. Two of these he brought home and sold to the Government for £500, and they are now in the India Museum. No one can doubt that the one with the birds was executed by Florentine, or at least Italian artists; while the other, which was apparently at the back of the platform, is a bad copy from Raphael’s picture of Orpheus charming the beasts. As is well known, that again was a copy of a picture in the Catacombs. There Orpheus is playing on a lyre, in Raphael’s picture on a violin, and that is the instrument represented in the Delhi mosaic. Even if other evidence were wanting, this would be sufficient to set the question at rest. It certainly was not put there by the bigot Aurungzebe, nor by any of his successors.

[557] It ought in fairness to be added that, since they have been in our possession, considerable sums have been expended on the repair of these fragments.

[558] The excuse for this deliberate act of Vandalism was, of course, the military one, that it was necessary to place the garrison of Delhi in security in the event of any sudden emergency. Had it been correct it would have been a valid one, but this is not the case. Without touching a single building of Shah Jehan’s there was ample space within the walls for all the stores and matÉriel of the garrison of Delhi, and in the palace and Selim Ghur ample space for a garrison, more than doubly ample to man their walls in the event of an Émeute. There was ample space for larger and better ventilated barracks just outside the palace walls, where the Sepoy lines now are, for the rest of the garrison, who could easily have gained the shelter of the palace walls in the event of any sudden rising of the citizens. It is, however, ridiculous to fancy that the diminished and unarmed population of the city could ever dream of such an attempt, while any foreign enemy with artillery strong enough to force the bastioned enceinte that surrounds the town would in a very few hours knock the palace walls about the ears of any garrison that might be caught in such a trap.

The truth of the matter appears to be this: the engineers perceived that by gutting the palace they could provide at no trouble or expense a wall round their barrack-yard, and one that no drunken soldier could scale without detection, and for this or some such wretched motive of economy the palace was sacrificed!

The only modern act to be compared with this is the destruction of the summer palace at Pekin. That, however, was an act of red-handed war, and may have been a political necessity. This was a deliberate act of unnecessary Vandalism—most discreditable to all concerned in it.

[559] A plan of this garden, with the Taje and all the surrounding buildings, will be found in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. vii. p. 42.

[560] From its design I cannot help fancying that this screen was erected after Shah Jehan’s death. It certainly looks more modern.

[561] There are eight photographs of it in Capt. Lyon’s collection, and many also by others.

[562] Page 478, et seqq.

[563] If Lieut. Cole, instead of repeating plans and details of buildings which had already been published by Gen. Cunningham, had given us a plan and details of this unknown building, he might have rendered a service all would have been grateful for. What I know of it is principally derived from verbal communication with Col. Montgomerie, R.E.

[564] ‘Embassy to Ava in 1795.’ London, 1800, 4to., 27 plates.

[565] ‘Journal of Embassy to Court of Ava,’ 1827. 4to., plates.

[566] ‘Mission to Court of Ava in 1855.’ 4to., numerous illustrations.

[567] If any of our 1001 idle young men who do not know what to do with themselves or their money would only qualify themselves for, and carry out such a mission, it is wonderful how easily and how pleasantly they might add to our stores of knowledge. I am afraid it is not in the nature of the Anglo-Saxon to think of such a thing. Fox-hunting and pheasant-shooting are more congenial pursuits.

[568] ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 71.

[569] R. F. St. John, in the ‘Phoenix,’ vol. ii. p. 204, et seqq. Sir Arthur Phayre, in ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xlii. p. 23, et seqq.

[570] Sir A. Phayre, loc. cit.

[571] Crawfurd’s ‘Embassy to Ava,’ vol. ii. p. 277.

[572] It has recently become the fashion to doubt the holding of this convocation 100 years after the death of Buddha; but this very pointed allusion to it, in the early Burmese annals, so completely confirms what is said in the ‘Mahawanso,’ that the fact of its being held does not appear to me doubtful.

[573] Yule, ‘Mission to Ava,’ p. 30.

[574] Loc. cit., p. 32.

[575] Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ vol. ii. p. 84, et seqq.

[576] Yule, ‘Mission to Ava,’ p. 36. As almost all the particulars here mentioned are taken from this work as the latest and best, it will not be necessary to repeat references on every page.

[577] I of course except the arches in the tower at Buddh Gaya, which, I believe, were introduced by these very Burmese in 1305. See ante, p. 69.

[578] ‘Mission to Ava,’ p. 65.

[579] Literally “Golden great god.” Madu is the Burmese for Maha Deva.

[580] See p. 58.

[581] See account of the Great Bell at RangÛn, by the Rev. G. H. Hough, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xiv. p. 270.

[582] The above particulars are abstracted from a paper by Col. Sladen in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 406, with remarks by Col. Yule and others. It is curious that there is a discrepancy between the native and the European authorities as to the number of storeys—not mechanical, of course, but symbolical; whether, in fact, the basement should be counted as a storey, or not. The above I believe to be the correct enumeration. We shall presently meet with the same difficulty in describing Boro Buddor in Java.

[583] ‘Mission to the Court of Ava,’ p. 169.

[584] A view of this ruin will be found in Yule’s ‘Mission to Ava,’ plate 23.

[585] Yule’s ‘Mission to Ava,’ p. 163.

[586] The Siamese invariably change the Indian d into th.

[587] For the particulars of this desiccation of the Valley of the Ganges, see the ‘Journal of the Geological Society,’ April, 1863.

[588] This form is interesting to us as it is that adopted for the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park, the style of decoration of which is also much more like that employed in Siam than anything yet attempted out of doors in Europe.

[589] “As for the Indian kings none of them ever led an army out of India to attempt the conquest of any other country, lest they should be deemed guilty of injustice.”—Arrian, ‘Indica,’ ch. ix.

[590] ‘Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.’ They have done me the honour of electing me an honorary member of their Society—an honour I feel all the more as it was quite unsolicited and unexpected.

[591] There are twelve plates illustrating the same monument in Sir Stamford Raffles’ ‘History of Java.’

[592] Sir S. Raffles’ ‘History of Java,’ pl. 24; text, vol. i. p. 465, 8vo. edition.

[593] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xvii. pp. 86, 87.

[594] Bastian, ‘Die VÖlker der Oestlichen Asien,’ vol. i. p. 393.

[595] Sir S. Raffles, vol. ii. p. 73.

[596] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ (N.S.), vol. iii. p. 153.

[597] There is little doubt that if the South Sea Islanders had at some distant epoch become civilized without European assistance, Captain Cook and the early explorers would have figured in their annals as English or French princes.

[598] Sir S. Raffles’ ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii., 8vo. edition, p. 87, et seqq.

[599] I am perfectly aware that this is not borne out by the translation of this inscription given by Dr. Friederich in vol. xxvi. of the ‘Verhandelingen;’ but being dissatisfied with its unmeaningness, I took it to my friend, Professor Eggeling, who is perhaps a better Sanscrit scholar than Friederich, and he fully confirms my view as above expressed.

[600] Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ vol. ii. p. 264, et seqq.

[601] Beal’s translation, p. 169.

[602] Raffles, vol. ii. p. 77, et seqq.

[603] About half of the photographs of the Batavian Society are filled with representations of these rude deities, which resemble more the images of Easter Island than anything Indian.

[604] Raffles, ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 93.

[605] The compilers of the catalogue of the photographs of the Batavian Society use 53 instead of 78 or 79 as the factor for converting Saka dates into those of the Christian Era. As, however, they give no reason for this, and Brumund, Leemans and all the best modern authors use the Indian index, it is here adhered to throughout.

[606] These latter dates are taken from Raffles and Crawfurd, but as they are perfectly well ascertained, no reference seems needful.

[607] ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 85.

[608] ‘Dictionary of Indian Archipelago,’ p. 66.

[609] ‘Boro Boudour,’ par Dr. C. Leemans. Leyden, 1874, p. 536. I quote from the French translation, having lent my original Dutch copy to Dr. Mayo of New College, Oxford. It was inadvertently packed among his baggage when he went to Fiji.

[610] Ante, p. 641. Also ‘Verhandelingen,’ &c., vol. xxvi. p. 31, et seqq. One of his inscriptions—the fourth—was found in Java proper.

[611] All these, or nearly all, have been identified by Dr. Leemans in the text that accompanies the plates.

[612] If Brian Hodgson would attempt it, he perhaps alone could explain all this vast and bewildering mythology. At present our means of identification is almost wholly confined to his representation in the second volume of the ‘Transactions’ of the Royal Asiatic Society, plates 1-4, and to the very inferior work of Schlagintweit, ‘Buddhismus in Thibet.’

[613] ‘Indische Alterthumskunde,’ vol. iv. p. 467.

[614] General Cunningham’s drawings, though nearly sufficient for anyone as familiar with all the styles as I have become, are not enough for anyone who is a stranger to the subject. I do not, indeed, know any Englishman who has the knowledge, combined with the powers of drawing, to be entrusted with this task. A Frenchman might be found who could do it, if he would be content to restrain his imagination.

[615] Col. Yule, from whose account most of these particulars are taken (‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1862), calls it “nearly naked;” but a drawing by Wilsen (‘Verhandelingen,’ vol. xix. p. 166) I think settles the question, that he is intended to be represented as clothed.

[616] An imperfect representation of this sculpture will be found in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. plate 53.

[617] Sir S. Raffles’ ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. plate 32.

[618] The information here given is taken from Sir Stamford Raffles’ ‘History of Java,’ second edition, vol. ii. p. 17, et seqq. His plans, however, do not quite agree with the measurements in the text, a mistake arising, I believe, from the scales in the original drawings—now before me—being in Rheinland roods, which are not always converted into English feet.

[619] ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 85. Crawfurd makes it 1266 to 1296; but no confidence can be placed on his dates for buildings.

[620] ‘Boro Boeddoer,’ p. 433.

[621] ‘Verhandelingen,’ &c., vol. xxxiii. p. 222.

[622] ‘Boro Boeddoer,’ p. 439. ‘Verhandelingen,’ vol. xxxiii. p. 222.

[623] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xiii. p. 166.

[624] ‘Boro Boeddoer,’ pp. 433-439.

[625] This is by no means so certain; but till some one capable of observing visits the place, we must assume it.

[626] Not however, of the more modern class of temples, inasmuch as when John Crawfurd visited Ava in 1826, he describes (p. 162, 2nd ed.) his visit to a temple just finished by the reigning monarch, which was adorned with a series of paintings on plaster representing scenes from the life of Buddha. Each of these had a legend in the modern Burmese character written over it; and it is curious to observe how nearly identical the descriptions are with those which might be written over any Buddhist series. All the scenes there depicted are not perhaps to be found at Bharhut or Sanchi, but all are at Amravati, and in the Gandhara monasteries, or are to be found among the sculptures at Boro Buddor.

[627] ‘Boro Boeddoer,’ p. 433.

[628] Col. Yule’s visit to Java, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1861-1862, p. 3.

[629] Sir S. Raffles’ ‘History of Java,’ plates 31 and 61, vol. ii. p. 49, et seqq.

[630] Crawfurd, ‘Dict. Indian Archipelago,’ sub voce.

[631] Both Sir S. Raffles and Crawfurd seem to be mistaken in ascribing them to the Saivites; they seem to have been misled by the appearance of a Phallus, but there is no lingam.

[632] In the first three volumes of the photographs published by the Batavian Society are numerous examples of rude sculptures, which are indistinguishable from those of Easter Island. Crawfurd and other ethnologists do not seem to feel the least difficulty in extending the Malay race from Easter Island to Madagascar; and if this is so, it diminishes the improbabilities of another nearly allied family, extending through the Pacific Islands from Java to the American continent.

[633] ‘Travels in Indo-China, Cambodia, and Laos,’ by Henri Mouhot. 2 vols. 8vo. Murray, 1864.

[634] ‘Die VÖlker der Oestlichen Asien,’ von Dr. A. Bastian. Leipzig, 1866.

[635] ‘Voyage d’Exploration en Indo-Chine,’ 2 vols. quarto and folio, Atlas of plates. Paris, 1873.

[636] Few things are more humiliating to an Englishman than to compare the intelligent interest and liberality the French display in these researches, contrasted with the stolid indifference and parsimony of the English in like matters. Had we exercised a tithe of the energy and intelligence in the investigation of Indian antiquities or history, during the 100 years we have possessed the country, that the French displayed in Egypt during their short occupation of the valley of the Nile, or now in Cambodia, which they do not possess at all, we should long ago have known all that can be known regarding that country. Something, it is true, has been done of late years to make up for past neglect. General Cunningham’s appointment to the post of ArchÆological Surveyor of India, and that of Mr. Burgess to a similar office in the Bombay Presidency, are steps in the right direction, which, if persevered in, may lead to most satisfactory results. Many years must, however, elapse before the good work can be brought up to the position in which it ought to have been long ago, and meanwhile much that was most important for the purpose has perished, and no record of it now remains.

[637] The work is translated in extenso in Abel RÉmusat’s ‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p. 78, et seqq.

[638] Bastian, loc cit., vol. i. p. 393.

[639] Bastian, vol. i. p. 429.

[640] Nakhon is only the Siamese pronunciation of the Indian Nagara, Nuggur. Thom means “great.”

[641] The French have navigated the lake in a large steamer, and published detailed charts of the river. Maps are also found in Mouhot’s ‘Travels;’ but the best are those which are found in the Atlas of Lieut. Garnier’s work above referred to.

[642] Bastian, vol. i. p. 402.

[643] Mr. Thomson was informed that during the rains the whole was flooded, and the temple could be reached in boats.

[644] Outside the temple the sides of the causeways are in places ornamented with dwarf columns of circular form. They seem to simulate a bundle of eight reeds, and have tall capitals.

[645] Garnier, loc. cit., vol. i. p. 120. Bastian, vol. i. pp. 400, 415, 438, &c.

[646] In the extracts from the ‘Chinese Annals,’ translated by Abel RÉmusat, in the first volume of the ‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ he finds the earliest mention of the Cambodian kingdom in A.D. 616. From that period the accounts are tolerably consecutive to A.D. 1295, but before that nothing.

[647] ‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p. 103.

[648] Bastian, vol. i. p. 404.

[649] Garnier, ‘Voyage,’ &c., vol. i. p. 74.

[650] ‘L’Art Khmer,’ p. 38.

[651] It would be interesting if among these we could identify that one of which the Chinese traveller gives the following description:—“A l’est de la ville est un autre temple de l’esprit nommÉ Pho-to-li, auquel on sacrifie des hommes. Chaque annÉe le roi va dans ce temple faire lui-mÊme un sacrifice humain pendant la nuit.”—‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p. 83.

[652] At Buribun, on the other side of the lake, Dr. Bastian informs me there is a complete copy of the Nakhon Wat sculptures, carved in wood in the 16th century. The place was the residence of the kings of Cambodia after the fall of the capital, and as original art had then perished, they took this mode of adorning their palace. What a prize for any European museum!

[653] ‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p. 103. Garnier, woodcuts pp. 61 and 62.

[654] ‘Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,’ vol. xxxv. p. 75.

[655] The population of China is generally estimated at 400 millions of souls. This I believe to be a gross exaggeration, and would feel very much more inclined to put it at 300 millions, and of that number to estimate the Buddhists at 100 millions of souls. This, however, in the present state of our knowledge, is, and must be, mere guess-work. If we put down 50 millions for the Buddhist population of Thibet, Manchuria, Burmah, Siam, Cambodia, and Ceylon, we shall probably not err on the side of underestimating them, making 150 millions the total number of followers of this religion in the whole world, or one-eighth or one-tenth of the human race—not one-third or one-fourth, at which they are usually estimated.

[656] The following description is abridged from that by Mr. A. Michie in his work entitled ‘The Siberian Overland Route,’ Murray, 1864. It is by far the most distinct I have met with. The larger woodcuts in this chapter are generally borrowed from his work. It must, however, be observed that his descriptions differ sometimes essentially from those hitherto current in European books, which were generally derived from the accounts of the Jesuits, who probably obtained their information from Chinese sources. It is generally safer to trust to the account of an educated gentleman describing what he saw, than to the essay of a mere scholar compiling from information conveyed in a foreign tongue.

[657] ‘Nouveaux MÉlanges Asiatiques,’ vol. i. p. 110.

[658] The tower was destroyed in the recent Taeping rebellion.

[659] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. vii. p. 331 (N.S.), vol. v. p. 14, et. seqq.

[660] In the year 1870 I published in the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ (N.S.), vol. iv. p. 81, et seqq., an article on Indian chronology, in which my views on the subject were stated at greater length and more detail than it is proposed to do here. Being addressed to those who were supposed to be more or less familiar with the subject, the paper took the form of an argument, rather than of a statement, and is, consequently, difficult to follow by those to whom the subject is new. The following is an abstract of that paper, with such corrections as have occurred to me in the meanwhile, and stated in a consecutive form, and with only those details that seem necessary to render it intelligible. For further particulars on special points the reader is referred to the article itself.

[662] Crawfurd’s ‘Embassy to Ava,’ vol. ii. p. 274.

[663] Bigandet’s ‘Life of Gaudama,’ p. 323.

[664] ‘Embassy to Ava,’ loc. cit.

[665] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 715.

[666] Unfortunately the Chinese annals, to which we generally look for assistance in our difficulties, are not likely to afford us any in this. Confucius was born 551 B.C., and died 478; he was consequently only eight years old when Buddha died, and in order to give Buddha the necessary precedence in date, the Buddhists boldly added five centuries to this, placing him about 1000 B.C. This struggle between truth and falsehood led to such confusion that in the 7th century Hiouen Thsang wrote: “Depuis le Nirvana jusqu’aujourd’hui les uns comptent 1200 ans, les autres 1500 ans: il y en a qui affirment qu’il s’est ÉcoulÉ plus de 900, mais que le nombre de 1000 n’est pas encore complet.” (‘Histoire,’ p. 131. ‘Vie et Voyages,’ i. 335.) The first is the nearest, according to our ideas. He was writing apparently in 1190 A.B. It may be 1200, if it was written after his return to China; but from this confusion it is evident no reliance can be placed on any dates he may quote from the Nirvana.

[667] ‘Embassy to Ava.’ Appendix.

[668] Vishnu Purana, p. 463.

[669] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 85.

[670] Crawfurd’s ‘Embassy to Ava,’ vol. ii. p. 277.

[671] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 261; ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xii. p. 232; Cunningham’s ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. p. 20, &c., &c.

[672] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 714.

[673] Wilson’s ‘Vishnu Purana,’ Second Edition, vol. iv. p. 200; see also p. 232.

[674] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. v. p. 42 and 47.

[675] As the commencement of this era is not coincident with the years we employ, but about half-way between 78 and 79, either of these figures may be employed in converting years of the Christian Era into those of the Saka or Ballabhi, or Gupta Samvats. Throughout this work I have used the latter figure as that more generally in use.

[676] This list is abstracted principally from one in vol. viii. p. 27, ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ quoting only such dates as appear certain. The earlier names are taken from a paper by Bhau Daji, vol. ix. p. 243 of the same journal.

[677] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. v. p. 49.

[678] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 129.

[679] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 119.

[680] Ibid.

[681] Ibid., vol. ix. p. 238; see also Bhandarkar, MS. translation.

[682] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 28.

[683] Essay on the Sah Kings of Saurastra, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xii. p. 16; and ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxiv. p. 503; see also Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. ii. p. 95.

[684] Thomas’s edition of ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 242, et seqq.; see also p. 365, et seqq.

[685] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 634.

[686] The Vishnu Purana has Maunas, the Vayu and Matsya, Hunas. Wilson’s ‘Vishnu Purana,’ vol. iv. p. 209.

[687] Wilson’s ‘Vishnu Purana,’ vol. iv. pp. 201-218.

[688] I need hardly say that this is not universally admitted by Indian archÆologists. Some indeed of the most eminent among them place the Guptas considerably earlier. My conviction, however, is that they never would have done so, had it not been that they place a mistaken confidence on a passage in a foreign author of the 11th century, translated by RÉmusat to the following effect: “Quant au Goupta Kala (Ère des Gouptas), on entend par le mot Goupta des gens qui, dit-on, Étaient mÉchants et puissants, et l’Ère qui porte leur nom est l’Époque de leur extermination. Apparemment Ballabha suivit immÉdiatement les Gouptas, car l’Ère des Gouptas commence aussi l’an 241 de l’Ère de Saca.” (‘Journal Asiatique,’ 4me sÉrie, tom. iv. p. 286.)

Albiruni, from whom this passage is taken, lived at the court of MahmÚd of Ghazni, in the 11th century, and was learned beyond his compeers in the learning of the Hindus. He collected facts and dates with industry, and recorded them faithfully. But he would have been a magician if he could have unravelled the tangled meshes with which the Hindus had purposely obscured their chronology, and could have seen through all the falsifications invented six centuries earlier. We could not do so now without the aid of coins, dated inscriptions, and buildings. None of these were available in his day, and without their aid, the wonder is, not that he blundered in his inductions, but that he went so near the truth as he did. His facts and figures are valuable, and may generally be relied upon. His mode of putting them together and his inductions are, as generally, worthless—not from any fault of his, but because they had been purposely falsified by those who presented them to him.

[689] ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. ii. p. 312.

[690] ‘Journal Asiatique,’ series iv. vol. iv. p. 285.

[691] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 634.

[692] Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ i. p. 250.

[693] This date is from an unpublished copper-plate grant, in the possession of Gen. Cunningham, and is in addition to the three others of the same reign quoted in my previous paper, p. 112.

[694] ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. ii. p. 312; see also vol. iii. p. 344.

[695] ‘Topographia Christiana,’ lib. xi. p. 338, edit. Paris, 1707.

[696] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. x. p. 60.

[697] ‘Histoire des Huns,’ vol. i. part ii. lib. iv. pp. 325, et seqq.

[698] Malcolm’s ‘Persia,’ vol. i. p. 118. Briggs’s translation of Ferishta, introd. lxxvii. et seqq.; Dow’s translation, p. 13.

[699] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. 1837, p. 963; also Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 234.

[700] Ibid., vol. v. plates 36 and 37; also Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 277, plate 23.

[701] Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 407, et passim.

[702] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ 1866, p. 273. See also Cunningham’s ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 136.

[703] ‘Journal Asiatique,’ 4me sÉrie, tom. iv. p. 286.

[704] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajputana,’ vol. i. p. 801.

[705] Lassen’s ‘Ind. Alt.’, vol. ii. p. 752, et seqq. to 987; Dowson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ (N.S.), vol. i. p. 247, et seqq.; Thomas’s ‘Prinsep,’ vol. i. p. 270-276; Cunningham’s ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 56; Babu Rajendra Mittra, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xliii. p. 372, &c., &c.

[706] ‘Annals,’ vol. i. p. 216, et seqq. At p. 230 he quotes another account, which places the destruction of the Ballabhi era at 305, instead of 205, as in the previous statement. These are evidently clerical errors. If he had found another 405, it would probably have been correct within a year or so—405+319=724.

[707] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ pp. 206, 254, 260; ‘Relations,’ &c., vol. ii. p. 163.

[708] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 245.

[709] Ibid., vol. viii. p. 245.

[710] Forbes’ ‘Ras Mala,’ vol. i. p. 18; Tod, ‘Annals,’ vol. i. p. 230.

[711] Elliot, ‘Historians of India,’ vol. i. p. 417.

[712] Loc. cit., 432, et seqq.

[713] Loc. cit., 441-42.

[714] ‘Ras Mala,’ vol. i. p. 24; Tod’s ‘Travels,’ p. 149.

[715] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. x. p. 70.

[716] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 972.

[717] These lists were republished by Professor Dowson in the new series of the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. i. p. 253, et seqq., but with chronological additions that are by no means improvements.

[718] The advantage of their publication was to strongly felt by the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society that in 1873 they, backed by a letter from Sir Walter, appealed to Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council, to sanction an expenditure not exceeding £200 for the purpose. It seems, however, that the finances of India could not bear the strain, for in August last a reply was received to the effect that “His Lordship regrets that he cannot consent to charge the public revenues of India with the cost of such an undertaking.” As the Indian Council are responsible, and know best what should be done and what refused, there is no more to be said about the matter, though to outsiders this seems slightly inconsistent with their grant of £2000 to Max MÜller for doing nothing that he had not been well paid for doing beforehand. As no other means are available in this country, it is to be hoped that either the French or German Governments will take it up. They have always abundance of funds for such purposes; and had these inscriptions been collected by one of their countrymen, they would have been published without a year’s delay after having been brought home, although they have no interest in India that can for one moment be compared with ours.

[719] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 12.

[720] ‘Report on Belgam and Kuladgi.’ p. 24.

[721] ‘MÉmoires des ContrÉes,’ &c., vol. ii. p. 150.

[722] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 206, et seqq.

[723] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 68.

[724] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 9.

[725] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ p. 188.

[726] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ p. 215.

[727] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vi. p. 69.

[728] ‘Vie et Voyages,’ p. 204.

[729] ‘Relations,’ &c., vol. ii. p. 156.

[730] Loc. cit., vol. ii. p. 42.

[731] When I wrote last on the subject (‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. N.S.) I assumed the figures as they stand, as it did not then appear to me of much importance, and as this is the only arbitrary adjustment I have had occasion to make in the chronology, I have let this stand in the text, leaving the correction to be made when authority is found for it. The twenty years, more or less, do not affect any architectural question mooted in the preceding pages.

[732] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xv. p. 87.

[733] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. ix. p. 150.

[734] Loc. cit. p. 161.

[735] General Cunningham hesitates between 17 and 24 A.D. for his death (‘Numis. Chron.,’ vol. viii. p. 175); Lassen brings him down to 40 A.D. (‘Ind. Alt.,’ vol. ii. p. xxiv).

[736] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. iii. p. 29, et seqq. Ed. Thomas’s Introduction to ‘Marsden,’ p. 46, et seqq.

[737] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ix. p. 242.

[738] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 266.

[739] Loc. cit. p. 68.

[740] They are all given in Thomas’s edition of ‘Prinsep,’ vol. ii. p. 173, et seqq., to which the reader is referred.

[741] ‘ArchÆological Reports,’ vol. v. p. 59.

[742] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. vii. (N.S.) p. 376, et seqq.

[743] Beal’s ‘Life of Fa Hian,’ Introduction, p. xx.

[744] ‘Relations des ContrÉes,’ &c., vol. i. p. 190, et seqq.

[745] I am indebted for this to Cunningham’s ‘Geography of India,’ p. 91.

[746] Cunningham’s ‘Ancient Geography of India,’ p. 92.

[747] One of the most useful manuals ever published for the use of students of Indian history and chronology was Prinsep’s ‘Useful Tables of Indian Dynasties, &c.’ They were republished by Mr. Thomas in his edition of ‘Prinsep,’ with considerable additions and many improvements by himself, but the edition is exhausted. There could hardly be any better service done for the cause, than if he or some one would republish them in a separate form, so as to render them generally available. It is a pity Government has no funds available for such a purpose, for I am afraid it would hardly pay as a bookseller’s speculation.

[748] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 131, et seqq.

[749] ‘Journal Asiatique,’ 4me sÉrie, tom. iv. p. 282.

[750] Troyer’s translation of the ‘Raja Tarangini,’ vol. ii. p. 43. In Wilson’s translation it is said, “A different monarch from the Saccari Vicramaditya, though sometimes erroneously identified with that prince.”—‘Asiatic Researches’, vol. xv. p. 32.

[751] Loc. cit. p. 76.

[752] From Introduction to Turnour’s ‘Mahawanso,’ p. xxxiii., where the names, places of birth, and Bo-trees of the whole twenty-four are given.