different periods and different dynasties even prevailing at the same time. In the Varadaraja temple at Kañohi or Conjeeveram, for instance, we notice a continuity maintained for several centuries from the period of the Cholas down to the present day. We find the simple pillars of the Chola period belonging to the age of Kulatunga Chola, the great king, otherwise called Tribhubana Chakravarti Kavirāja Kesari Varmā existing side by side with pillars of the Vijayanagarian type consisting of a cluster of thin slender pillars separated by pierced slabs. We find the indications of the Pallava period adapted and modified in later years. We find in the temples of Vaikantha Perumal at Uttaramullar, otherwise called Uttarameru-caturvedi-mangalam, the peculiarities of the times of Pallava, Ganga-Pallava and the Chola dynasties. There is, however, no structure above ground as far as I am aware, in Northern India where a continuity is so manifest as in a South Indian example; but there is reason to believe that if we carry on digging operations on a larger scale we shall come across remains which will reveal a chronological sequence in a remarkable degree. I may refer to the excavations at Bhita which disclose an architectural scale ranging from the PreMauryan to the late Medieval through the Gupta period.

In India, Architecture has always been the aesthetic expression of the religious spirit; it has mainly been confined to the limits of the Vimanam; its original developments were theocratic in character. This was the case in Europe as well until the end of the thirteenth century when it emancipates itself from the control of the church. Since the organisation of the Feudal system at the beginning of the eleventh century the church lost its purely ecclesiastical character; it aimed at temporal power more or less and thus its interests clashed with those of the nobles. The people took advantage of this quarrel and began gradually to emancipate themselves, and thus sprang up within the communes the lay corporation for various trades and guilds including the painters, sculptors, architects, etc. These organisations, however, could not easily divest themselves

of their theocratic character by their being so long attached to the monasteries; from this period the development of architecture in Europe was directed through different channels, whereas in India it continued to maintain its character as evenly as before. There was never a quarrel between the Indian religious organisations and the laity. This fact should be borne in mind before we attempt at understanding the significance, genesis and development of Indian architecture; this is one of the reasons why civil or municipal architecture could not thrive so well in India, not finding a congenial soil, the whole energy of the nation being directed to the improvement and embellishment of temples. Not a single palace of any of the old or medieval kings is found to exist but we find thousands of old temples towering in their grandeur though shorn of their original magnificence. Not a vestige of the old palaces of the kings of Orissa is traceable but the temples of Konarka, Lingaraja, Jagannath, etc., still attest their former glory though in ruins or comparative insignificance. The reason is not far to seek. To construct temples, as has been laid down in the Samhitas, is an act of merit enabling the donor to reach Heaven, or the abode of his Iştam enshrined in the sanctum. Thus we find in the Yama Samhita

Kṛtvā devālayam sarvam praliṣṭhāpya cha devată m | vidhāya vidhivachchitram tallokim vindate dhruvam|| We find the same in other Samhitas, and this has been emphasised by religious preachers and acharyas in all ages; we find this idea among the Buddhists and the Jainas, the two branches of Hinduism. It has been repeated with much emphasis in the canonical works such as Mathapratisṭhāditutvam, Västuyāgatatvam by Raghunandana, the great lawgiver of the fifteenth century.

It is for this spirit that we find the country teeming with temples and vimānas, and it is for this that we never find anybody in any age raising his voice of protest against the artistic magnificence of the temples as was done by St. Bernard in France who inaugurated a style of rigid severity

contrasted with the splendour of the abbeys under the order of Cluny.

We find in the Ain-i-Akbari that the king Langoolia Narasinha Deva spent twelve years' revenue of Orissa for the construction of the present temple of the Sun-God at Konrāka, the annual revenue at the time, ie. in the thirteenth century, being three crores of rupees. The kings and the nobles were content to live in palaces which were more or less like chuteau forts in France before the thirteenth century, meant for protection from danger and having evidently no pretension to an equal measure of aesthetic significance. The repairs of the temples is also laid down in the Samhitas as an equally meritorious act as the construction thereof, for we find in the Viṣṇu Samhita

Kṛpārāmataḍāgeşu devāyataneṣu cha |

Punaḥsamskār a-kṛtvā cha labhate maulikamphalam||

Fergusson apparently owing to his ignorance of this important religious ideal incorrectly remarked that if a Hindu temple or Muhammadan mosque went to decay no one ever repaired it like the Jainas but its materials were ruthlessly employed to build a new temple or a new mosque. What are the temples of Jagannath at Puri and the Sun-God at Konarka ? What is the present temple of Somnath even though it was damaged by Mahmud of Ghazni?

The architectural traditions in India have all along been theocratio in character; we have accordingly no such thing as Renaissance similar to what we find in Italy in the fifteenth century, or a little later in other parts of Europe. The same canonised system of design and construction is noticeable in all ages, and hence the necessity of Renaissance or reverting back to the classical style, or any style, never arcse. "Back to Rome" was the ory of the Renaissance period in Europe, but in India we find a steady continuity of the same ideas, even the architectural and sculptural details derived from the same basic principles are noticed everywhere. We find everywhere in

India the deep projecting cornice or drip stone producing an excellent effect of light and shade. The slab cornice called Chhajā supported by brackets, noticeable on almost every structure of Northern India, is found in the deeply recessed curvilinear form projecting from every structure of Southern India dated so far back as the time of the Pallavas, long before the birth of the Prophet of Islam and so nicely elaborated later on in the time of the kings of Vijayanagar. From the excavations at Bhita identified by General Cunningham to be the place where Mahavira Svami, the last Jaina Tirthankara flourished, it has been ascertained with some degree of probability by Sir John Marshall that there is a great similarity of design existing between the flanking defences with entrances in the fourth century before the Christian era and the approaches to later Indian fortresses.

The Chalukyan architectural features showing the cusped arches issuing from the distended jaws of Makara at the two springing pointe culminating at the apex in the mouth of Kirttimukha, a grotesque mask with tusks, goggle eyes and a pair of horns is a feature noticeable throughout Upper India as well; we find the representation of this conventional Makara in the early sculptures of Sañchi, Bhārut, Amaravati, Bodh Gaya and even of Gandhara. This decorative device is found in the monuments of Java and Sumatra, and the adoption of the same conventional form goes a great way in indicating the same uniformity in the basic principles. The presence of the same pendant chain-and-bell ornament in pillars, the same amalaka representation in the sikhara or spire, both in the Chalukyan and Upper Indian styles, are no accidents in Indian Architecture. Even in some structures of the Muhammadan period the device of "chain and bells" is found resorted to near the necking of columns.

The ground plan of a temple has been prescribed to be square in all the Sanskrit treatises that I have come across. In the Agni Puranam, Matsya Puranam, Devi Purāņam, Garuda Purāņam, etc., we find the above references; in the Vāstu Vidya

compiled by the Government of Travancore from several Sanskrit manuscripts written in Tamil we find a similar reference.

The square plan, however, becomes rectangular by the addition of other appurtenances such as the Jagamohan (Audience Chamber), Nāṭmandir (Dancing Hall), Bhogamandir (Refectory) in the North Indian style and Antarāla (antechamber), Ardha Maṇḍapa and Mahāmaṇḍapa in that of Southern India. The square form often assu:nes a quasicruciform plan by the addition of the porches to the four sides. Again, by the provision of pilasters the simple outline is often broken, affording great architectural possibilities. The classification of temples is based upon the number of pilasters used which I have invariably found to be odd and never even in any part of India, the number being 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9. Most of the temples have 5 pilasters and are technically called Pancharatha. A temple of 9 pilasters is seldom met with; what I have seen is actually Saptaratha or a combination of 7 pilasters showing two false or pseudo-pilasters. Indian Architecture being theocratic in character, it will be interesting to note that the temples showing different numbers of pilasters from 9 to 3 are assigned to the different units of the Hindu social fabric, I mean the Brāhmaṇas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, the Sudras. The triratha is thus assigned to the Śūdras. It is for this reason that I have not come across a single triratha temple in Orissa which does not show palpable trace of Buddhist or Jaina influence. The Jaina temple of Akkan busti at Sravan Belgola is triratha.

In the Chalukyan style we usually notice the form of a cross by the triple arrangement of temples, the plan of which became star-shaped in later years by the salient and re-entering angles of the triangular projections, their vertices forming a circle. It may be remarked in this connection that the plan of a triple temple is not South Indian exclusively; it is found in North India as well. The temple of Vastupal at Girnar, built in 1230, bears a striking resemblance to the triple temple of the Chalukyan style; the difference in this form is that a verandah runs round the set of three parts with a door of each of the 5 Res, J.

3