History of Indian and Eastern ArchitectureFergusson, James
History
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture
Fergusson, James
Architecture -- India; Architecture, Asian
Before leaving these torans, it may be well to draw attention again to
the fact of their being, even more evidently than the rails, so little
removed from the wooden originals out of which they were elaborated. No
one can look at them, however carelessly, without perceiving that their
forms are such as a carpenter would imagine, and could construct, but
which could not be invented by any process of stone or brick masonry
with which we are familiar. The real wonder is that, when the new
fashion was introduced of repeating in stone what had previously been
executed only in wood, any one had the hardihood to attempt such an
erection in stone; and still more wonderful is it that, having been
done, three of them should have stood during eighteen centuries, till
one was knocked down by some clumsy Englishmen, and that only one--the
earliest, and consequently the slightest and most wooden--should have
fallen from natural causes.
Although these Sanchi torans are not the earliest specimens of their
class executed wholly in stone, neither are they the last. We have, it
is true, no means of knowing whether those represented at Amravati[128]
were in stone or in wood, but, from their different appearances, some of
them most probably were in the more permanent material. At all events,
in China and Japan their descendants are counted by thousands. The
pailoos in the former country, and the toris in the latter, are copies
more or less correct of these Sanchi gateways, and like their Indian
prototypes are sometimes in stone, sometimes in wood, and frequently
compounded of both materials, in varying proportions. What is still more
curious, a toran with five bars was erected in front of the Temple at
Jerusalem, to bear the sacred golden vine, some forty years before these
Sanchi examples. It, however, was partly in wood, partly in stone, and
was erected to replace one that adorned Solomon’s Temple, which was
wholly in bronze, and supported by the celebrated pillars Jachin and
Boaz.[129]
AMRAVATI.
Although the rail at Bharhut is the most interesting and important in
India in an historical sense, it is far from being equal to that at
Amravati, either in elaboration or in artistic merit. Indeed, in these
respects, the Amravati rail is probably the most remarkable monument in
India. In the first place it is more than twice the dimensions of the
rail at Bharhut, the great rail being 195 ft. in diameter, the inner 165
ft., or almost exactly twice the dimensions of that at Bharhut; between
these two was the procession-path, which in the earlier examples was on
the tope itself. Externally, the total height of the great rail was
about 14 ft.; internally, it was 2 ft. less, while the inner rail was
solid, and only 6 ft. in height.
[Illustration: 36. External Elevation of Great Rail at Amravati.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account