Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/37

 January, 1873.] CORRESPONDENCE, Ac. 29 discover the existence of an architecture wholly in wood—above the foundation—infinitely more gor¬ geous and more artistic than the pukka palaces of Calcutta, to which his knowledge of the art seems to be confined. The truth of the matter is, that ex¬ cept for its one great defect—want of durability— wood is a better building material, especially in hot climates, than stone. It admits of far greater spaces being roofed, with far fewer points of sup¬ port. It admits of framing, and consequently of immense economy of material; and it allows of carv¬ ing, gilding, and painting to an extent with difficul¬ ty attainable in stone. If the Mauryan kings thought only of their own splendour and comfort, without any hankering after brick and mortar im¬ mortality, they were right to use wood instead of stone, as the kings of Burmah and Siam now do. The Mughul emperors thought of posterity, and we are grateful to them for so doing, but I would like to see a wooden palace that had been built by Akbar. Fattehpur Sikri would have been a dwarf and mean in comparison. The question, however, is not one for argument but of fact. I have before me some hundreds of photographs of caves in Western India and Bihar— of Buddhist rails and gateways—such for instance as those of Sanchi, and of other buildings erected be¬ tween 250 B. c. and the Christian era. All these, without a single exception, are literal copies in stone of the forms of wooden carpentry, and such as no people could have used who had ever seen or been familiar with stone architecture. Besides this, all the bas-reliefs at Sanchi, in the first century of the Christian era, tell the same tale. The basement of the houses, as of our modern wooden bungalow, the solid parts of the town walla—all in fact that can be called engineering are in stone or brick ; all the superstructure is even then in wood, like the ribs in the roof of the caves. These are such patent facts that I do not believe that any one, who will take the trouble to examine the evidence, can arrive at any other conclusion than I have done. In his haste to find fault, it does not seem to have occurred to the Babu that he was accusing me of saying that “ Alexander brought quarriers, masons, and architects to teach the Hindus”—Greek archi¬ tecture, I presume—which I never did say ; and then that I stated that the Hindus, during the two centu¬ ries and a half that elapsed before the Christian era, were employed in elaborating a perfectly original style of their own, without any trace of foreign influence, except perhaps ornament here and there which may be Assyrian or Persian. I am at a loss to guess how the BAbu can reconcile these contra¬ dictory statements, unless it be thus, From the first time I wrote on Indian architecture to the present day, I have always asserted that Indian stone archi¬ tecture commenced with Asoka, 250 b. c.° I do not know, and never pretended to know, of any build- •• J. R. A. 8. Till., p. 83. Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan, Intro, p. 2. Handbook ing so old as Chandragupta. The quarriers, masons, and architects whom Alexander brought with him must, consequently, all have been over a hundred years old before they commenced to impart their knowledge to the Hindus. Perhaps they may at that advanced age have been too feeble to impart their knowledge, or^perhaps they had forgotten their native arts. I must leave to the Bdbu to explain how this may be ; but certain it is they left no trace of their art on anything now known to exist in India. The truth of the matter is, the Bdbu has read ray works in a hazy, lazy, oriental kind of way, and has hastily drawn from them conclusions much more in accordance with his own personal feelings than with anything he found in any writings of mine. If he follows the same course in future, and does not read his Sanskrit works with more care, and quote from these with more accuracy than he has done from my works, we may safely predict that anything he may write about the ancient architecture of the Hindus won’t be worth much more than the value of the paper on which it is written. Langham Place, Nov. 1872. Jas Fergusson. Query. I have been lately so fortunate as to discover a MS. of a PrAkrita Grammar, by Subha Chandra, entitled S'abdA Chint&inan?. The concluding lines are : iti. . . . sri S'ubhachandra virachitAyAm svopajnas'abda-chintAmanivrittau dvitiyasya adhyA- yasya chaturthah pAdah ; samApto ’yam vrittih. From this it would seem that the MS. is complete. It consists of two adyAyas each containing four pAdas. S'ubha Chandra follows Hemachandra’s ar¬ rangement of the PrAkrita sfitras, not that of Vara- ruchi, BhAnaha, and others. But he gives Hema¬ chandra’s sfttras here and there in a slightly differ¬ ent order, and adds a few sfitras of his own ; thus in the beginning of the work, which commences with a series of samjnA sfitras (on technical terms) ; a feature which, I believe, is unique in this work on PrAkrita Grammar. It is clearly later than Hemachandra’s Grammar, and appears also to take notice of later PrAkrit formations. I shall feel much obliged to any one who can give me further information on this work ; especi¬ ally who S'ubhachandra was, and when he lived; and whether there are any other MSS. of his work known to exist, and where. Benares, Nov. 18,1872. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle. ‘ HULLE MAKKALU.’ (See Ind. Antiquary, vol. /., p. 380.) The head-quarters of this sub-division of a caste is a village in one of the talukas of the Bangalor district. Single families are to be found scattered throughout the province, the members of which once a year go round their beat collecting their dues. of Architecture, vol. I., p. 6. History of Architecture, vol. IL, p. 450 ; and in lectures and papers passim.