Aparajitaprucchha

SR No.: 008438
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: B Bhattacharya
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Total Pages: 810
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Culture, & Art
File Size: 12 MB

Page 41

XXXV
SCHOOLS OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE
If there is any subject that is the least grasped or rather the most misinterpreted by different writers on Indian Architecture, it is the differentiation of the Hindu styles or schools of Architecture.
Ram Raz is one of the pioneers in this respect and his exposition of the principles of Architecture as embodied in his "Essay on the Hindu Architecture" is highly praiseworthy. He has mostly drawn his conclusions from the 48, a work on Indian Architecture, dealing in the Southern School. His definitions of different Schools of Hindu Architecture cannot be conclusively determinative for the simple reason that he has drawn on a single treatise confined to a single
school.
P. K. Acharya in his 'Dictionary of Hindu Architecture' has not been able to render due justice to the subject. It seems he, too, has relied on the art alone and naturally the version of the a School of Architecture is totally missing in his works.
The Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum--The threc main styles of Temple Architecture recognized by the Silpa Sastras by F. H. Gravely and T. N. Ramchandran, October 1934- is, I humbly venture to observe, totally misleading and irrelevant, though admittedly, it expounds the subject in a highly intelligent and interesting manner. The whole structure of the pamphlet is based on a few verses from the मानसार, शिल्परत्नम् and सुप्रभेागम, aided by some plates of the Archæological Department deciphered in the light of the verses mentioned above. It may be added that all the above efforts are based on imperfect materials and naturally, therefore, the several conclusions especially those embodied in the last-named Bulletin are hardly worth the energy spent on it.
Writers on Indian Architecture, as is well known, are not unanimous as regards the divisions of Indian Architecture. For example, Havell, in his Preface Study of Indian Civilization'mentions only two divisions and. Had he come across the various temples of a when the cult of Brahma had occupied the field in India long before Shaivism and Vishnavism made their appearance in different parts of India, he would certainly have divided Architecture into three classes ar, and, instead of the two styles above mentioned.
Fergusson and Burgess have their own classifications. The former divided Architecture into Northern and Southern while the latter into Indo-Aryan and Dravidian respectively.
Dr. Sitaram, Curator of the Lahore Museum, who had later done remarkable work in the India Section of the British Museum observes: "So far as Architecture was concerned, there were four styles of it in