Chapter 6 - The Manasara and Vitruvius

AS HAS ALREADY been pointed out in the Preface, the name Manasara is of ambiguous significance. It is, however, clear from the preceding chapters that the text bearing the title Manasara is a standard treatise on Indian architecture. It is divided into seventy chapters each bearing a distinct title. In 1834. in his Essay on the Architecture of the Hindus, Ram Raz referred to the first few chapters of the Manasara from a single fragmentary manuscript to which he had access. Since then several manuscripts have been discovered; but, owing to some serious difficulties stated in the Preface, nobody had made any attempt to deal with this huge text in any way for a period of 80 years till the present writer undertook in 1914 to edit it for the first time. This, the first edition, is based on all the eleven available manuscripts which are written in five different scripts in a language branded as 'barbarous Sanskrit.' Figures, sketches, or illustrations of any kind are absolutely wanting in all these manuscripts. The various scripts and the provenance of the manuscripts, however, indicate that the Manasara was known and used in all provinces of ancient India. Its extensive popularity has been further established by its unique position in literature, discussed in Chapter V. 6 Vitruvius is the name of a Roman architect. His treatise, on which, in a sense, all European architecture is based, seems to have been composed 25 years before the Christian era. The materials for a life of Vitruvius are only to be found in his own treatise. Among the ancient authors he is merely mentioned by Pliny as one of those writers from whom he compiled, and by Frontinus, in his treatise on Aqueducts, as the first who introduced the Quinarain measure.' The title of Vitruvius's treatise is lost, if it originally had one. The editio princeps, printed at Rome in or about 1486, bears no title. The unique position of this treatise is, however, sufficiently clear from the fact that since its first appearance in the fifteenth century there have been, till 1807, forty-two editions of the work, practically in all the European languages. There are seventeen editions in Latin, eleven in Italian, two in Spanish, six in French, 1 For details, see Manasara (text), Vol. III, Preface, pp. xi-xviii. * See pp. 254-256, and notes. 210

four in German, and two in English. It is divided into ten books, which, too, do not bear any titles. Each book contains a number of chapters varying from seven to twenty-two. The chapters also 1 See Gwilt (XV-XXV) for fuller details of the following: Latin editions- 1486 Editio princeps, printed at Rome by George Herolt begins, without title, Sulpitius lectori salutem. Polenus says, There are but few errors in this edition.' 1496 Printed at Florence. According to Fabricus the orthography of this edition is more correct than in the preceding one. 1497 The name of the editor does not appear. With a few slight variations this is little more than a reprint of the Florence edition. In this the chapters of the first book are differently divided from those of the two former editions. 1511 This is the first illustrated edition. It contains many wood-blocks and figures. Jocundus, the editor, altered the text of the two former editions in many places. 1513 The figures in this edition are the same as in the preceding, but considerably reduced and more imperfectly kept. 1522 This is a reprint of the preceding edition with the same blocks for the figures. 1523 -This was probably edited by Will. Hayon of Lyons. This is a counterpart of the Giunta edition. Some of its figures are taken from the first Italian edition of 1521, which is noticed hereinafter. 1543 The text is nearly the same as that of Jocundus. The figures of the wood-blocks are partly borrowed from the Giunta edition and partly from the Italian edition of 1521. 1550 The text is the same as that of 1543 edition. But it contains notes of Philander which were first published at Rome in 1544. 1552 Philander himself superintended this edition, chiefly following the Giunta text, which he collated with several MSS. The wood-blocks are better than in any preceding edition.' 1567--Darbaro in this seems to have mostly followed Philander's edition of 1552. 1586 -Harwood says that the editor of this edition was Jo. Tornaesious, junior, and that it is more correct, though less elegant, than that produced by the father in 1552.' b 1649 With commentary of Meibomius on those chapters relating to musical notation. This was the best edition of the author produced at that time. De Laet professes to follow the text of Philander's edition but neither was this accurately done, nor were the notes of Philander, nor the Lexicon of Baldus, given entire, as the title would import.' 1758 By Marchese Berardo Galiani at Naples, with an Italian version noticed under the Italian editions. Harwood says that this is a fair and valuable edition.' 1800--The text of this edition is of little value, nor its plates well executed. It has notes appended, but it contains the glossary in five languages. 1807 -It contains notes. 1807 In the same year another edition was published. The second and third volumes are devoted to commentaries on the text. It contains, however, no plates. This is the best edition of the author which has appeared.' Italian editions-- 1521 This is one of the earliest and rarest versions of Vitruvius. It was translated, with the assistance of Benedict Jovius, by Caesar Caesarianus, who was one of the architects of the Cathedral of Milan. One of the plates contains a plan and two sections of this Cathedral. 201

have not any proper titles. The treatise deals with both civil and military architecture. The rules respecting military engines, 'now incomprehensible, but doubtless in his time sufficiently clear,' are laid down in the last book. The treatment of civil architecture includes both temples and residential buildings. That he should have met with opposition from his brethren is quite consonant with later experience, for the rabble of ignorant builders, and artisans, and draughtsmen are of the same class as those that flourished subsequently to Vitruvius.' From this remark of Gwilt it appears that Vitruvius was induced to 'write his treatise with a view to assisting the uneducated professional architects' who, like those of India, depended solely on the knowledge handed down to them from their equally uneducated forefathers. 1524 This is a repetition of the preceding edition, but without the notes of Caesar Caesarianus. 1535 This is copied from the preceding edition, but the index is not quite so copious. 1536 A translation of the first five books. Perugia. - 1556 With Barbaro's commentary. 1567 With Barbaro's commentary. 1581 Similar to the preceding edition. 1629-Very similar to the preceding edition. 1641 Little differing from the preceding. 1758 In Napoli, accompanied with the Latin text. 1790-Another edition by Galiani, similar to the preceding, but without the Latin text. Spanish editionsWithout plates. 1787 Large folio, with plates. French editions- 1547 First version in French, Jan Martin, Paris. 1572-A reprint of the preceding, Cavellat, Paris. 1618 Printed from the two preceding editions by Jean de Tournes at Geneva. 1673 Translated by Perrault. Figures are numerous and well executed. 1684 With plates, best of Perrault's editions. 1816 With plates, Bruxelles. German editionsWith plates on wood-blocks cut by Erard Schaen. 1575-A repetition of the preceding, Basil. 1614-Another repetition with a little different title. 1796 With a life of Vitruvius in the first volume. This edition contains many illustrations of the author. English editionsTranslated from the original Latin by Newton, London. 1791-Second volume with many plates. It exhibits defective knowledge of Latin, but the notes are good. Latterly a portion was translated by Wilkins. After Joseph Gwilt's translation there have been several others in English. 212

* Certain points of similarity between the Manasara and the treatise of Vitruvius are so striking that they raise a presumption that the two works are in some way connected with each other.' This thesis¹ is proposed to be illustrated in this chapter. Practically seven-tenths of both the works is avowedly architectural. Out of the seventy chapters of the Manasara the first fifty deal with architecture proper, and out of the ten books of Vitruvius the first seven deal with the same subjects. The remaining twenty chapters of the former are devoted to sculpture, and the remaining three books of the latter deal mostly with war instruments, machines, and engines. Of the similar seventenths in both the works, the names of many chapters, and the contents, too, in most instances, are the same. The Manasara opens, following the usual custom, with a prayer to the Creator Brahma and touches upon the origin and development of the science of architecture, from Siva, Braluna, and Vishnu, through Indra, Brihaspati, and Narada, to the class of Rishis called Manasara, and concludes the introduction with a list of the chapters. Vitruvius, too, opens with a prayer to his patron, Caesar, and acknowledging his obligations to Caesar's father and sister, concludes with a proposal to give an account of the magnificent edifices Caesar had built, and to develop all the principles of the art. The next chapter (II) in the Manasara deals with two distinct subjects, the system of measurement (manopakarana), and the requisite qualifications of an architect (silpi-lakshana). 6 number The corresponding chapter is marked I' instead of II by Vitruvius, because the preceding chapter goes without i any ing, as it is called Introduction. This, the present chapter, deals exactly like the corresponding chapter in the Manasara with two distinct subjects under the heads, what architecture is,' and 'of the education of an architect.' The former of these two subjects has again been treated in the following chapter, namely III, of the Manasara, and is noticed below. The striking similarity in the training demanded of the architect by the two authorities may be noticed here. According to Vitruvius 'an architect should be ingenious, and apt * Submitted as such to Leiden University by the present writer. 213

in the acquisition of knowledge. He should be a good writer, a skilful draughtsman, versed in geometry and optics, expert at figures, acquainted with history, informed on the principles of natural and moral philosophy, somewhat of a musician, not ignorant of the sciences, both of law and physic, nor of the motions, laws and relations to each other, of the heavenly bodies.' The absolute necessity for these qualifications has been very satisfactorily elaborated by Vitruvius. In the Manasara artists are first divided into four classes. Together they form the guild of architects, each an expert in his own department, but possessing a general knowledge of the science of architecture as a whole. They consist of the chief architect (sthapati), the draughtsman or the designer (sutra-grahin), the painter (vardhaki), and the joiner (sutra-dhara). According to the Manasara the chief architect is expected to be well versed in all the sciences. He must possess a knowledge of all the Vedas and all the Sastras. He must be proficient in law, mathematics, history, geography, painting, draughtsmanship, mechanics, and deep in the ocean of the science of architecture.' He must be very learned, meritorious, patient, and dexterous, a champion, of large experience, of industrious habits, and of noble descent, full of resource, and capable of application to all kinds of work. He must possess a wide outlook, bold temperament, and self-control. He must be above committing errors. He must have a good name and be faithful to his employers (lit. friends). He must be endowed with all the qualifications of a supreme managing director. He must not be deformed or have any disease or disability; he must also be free from the seven vices, namely, hunting, gambling, daydreaming, blackmailing, addiction to women, etc. A similar set of qualifications is also demanded of each of the other three artists, but the sutra-grahin is expected to possess an expert knowledge of draughtsmanship, the vardhaki of painting, and the sutradhara of carpentry. The utility or the possibility of so many attainments in a single person has not been expressly discussed in the Manasara. But Vitruvius has submitted an interesting explanation. It is familiar to everybody that for success in any profession in life one must be clever, industrious, honest and generous. It is also easily understood that an architect, who has got to do both manual 214

and brain work, must not be deformed, and must be free from any disease or disability. According to Vitruvius he is required to be a good writer also, because an architect is to commit to writing his observations and experience, in order to assist his memory. Drawing is employed in representing the forms of his designs. Geometry, which forms a part of mathematics, affords much aid to the arhitect; to it he owes the use of the right line and circle, the level and the square, whereby his delineations of buildings on plane surfaces are greatly facilitated. Arithmetic estimates the cost and aids in the measurement of the works; this, assisted by the laws of geometry, determines those abstruse questions wherein the different proportions of some parts to others are involved. The science of optics enables him to introduce with judgment the requisite quantity of light according to the aspect. Unless acquainted with history, he will be unable to account for the use of many ornaments which he may have occasion to introduce. For history (the expression purana is used in Indian literature), which implies ancient or mythological legends that are as a rule depicted in the buildings of a nation. There are, however, other uses of history for an architect. Moral philosophy,' says Vitruvius, will teach the architect to be above meanness in his dealings and to avoid arrogance, and will make him just, compliant, and faithful to his employer; and what is of the highest importance, it will prevent avarice gaining an ascendancy over him; for he should not be occupied with the thoughts of filling his coffers, nor with the desire of grasping everything in the shape of gain, but by the gravity of his manners and a good character, should be careful to preserve his dignity. These precepts of moral philosophy are prescribed by our Indian authorities almost in the same terms. We have seen above that the architect is required to be of noble descent, pious, and compassionate. He must not be malicious or spiteful. He must be content and free from greed. He must be truthful and possess self-control. He must be above the seven vices. He must be faithful to his employer. He must not have excessive desire for gain. He must be of good behaviour and generous enough to forgive his rivals. The doctrine of physic is necessary to him in the solution of various problems, as for instance, in the conduct of water, whose natural force, in its meandering and expansion over flat countries. 215

is often such as to require restraints, which none know to apply but those who are acquainted with the laws of nature.' This matter, too, has been more exhaustively discussed in various chapters of the Manasara. 'Music assists him in the use of harmonic and mathematical proportion. In these matters, the Manasara is rather too claborate; in most individual cases nine proportions have been suggested, and the selection of the right proportion and harmony has been made dependent on the application of the six formulas, which are treated in a very technical manner, based on mathematics. According to Vitruvius, music is, moreover, absolutely necessary in adjusting the force of the ballistac, catapultae, and scorpions, in whose frames are holes for the passage of the homotona, which are strained by gut-ropes attached to windlasses worked by hand-spikes. Unless these ropes are equally extended, which only a nice car can discover by their sound when struck, the bent arms of the engine do not give an equal impetus when disengaged, and the strings, therefore, not being in equal states of tension, prevent the direct flight of the weapon. A knowledge of music is specially useful to the architect in building theatres, lecture rooms, and such other halls where the spread of sound is taken into particular considertion. Both Vitruvius and the Manasara are equally enthusiastic in speaking about it. The former further says that the architect 'would, moreover, be at a loss in constructing hydraulic and other engines if ignorant of music. Skill in physic enables him to ascertain the salubrity of different tracts of country, and to determine the variation of climates, for the air and water of different situations, being matters of highest importance, no building will be healthy without attention to those points.' A very elaborate. account of the selection of sites and the examination of soil is given in the Manasara and other architectural treatises.' The salubrity of the tracts is minutely ascertained with reference to the site where a village, town, fort, palace, temple, or dwelling-house is to be built. The soil is examined with regard to its contour, colour, odour, features, tastes, and touch. The level of the ground, as well as the characteristic vegetation of the site, as pointed out above, are also minutely examined. 1 Brihat-samhita, Garga, Visvak, Kasyapa, Vastu-ratnavali, Vasishtha-samhita, Vastupradipa, Narada, Grha-karika, Bhrigu, Silpa-dipaka, Bhavishya-Purana. See quotations from these works under Bhu-pariksha in the writer's Encyclopaedia. 216

aw should be an object of his study, especially those parts of it which relate to party-walls, to the free course and discharge of the caves' waters, to the regulation of cesspools and sewage, and to window lights. The laws of sewage require his particular attention, so that he may prevent his employers from being involved in law suits when the building is finished. Contracts, also, for the execution of the works, should be drawn up with care and precision, because, when without legal flaws, neither party will be able to take advantage of the other." Law, as explained by Vitruvius, is not mentioned in so many words in the list of accomplishments given in the Vastu-sastras quoted above. But most elaborate instructions are given in the Arthasastra and other treatises on party-walls, the sewage system, and on windows and other openings 1 . 'Astronomy instructs him in the points of the heavens, the laws of the celestial bodies, the equinoxes, solstices, and courses of the stars; all of which should be well understood in the construction and proportions of clocks. In the Vastu-sastras dialling is an important subject; but astronomy, which is always mixed up with astrology, has been drawn upon particularly with regard to the auspicious moment invariably observed in almost all matters. Vitruvius has added an explanatory note on the expression all sciences of which the architect is required to have sufficient knowledge. This explanation will indeed throw a clear light upon a similar expression, sarva-sastra, used by the Indian authorities. But for the following note of Vitruvius, we might have taken the term sarva-sastra as an exaggeration which is very often found in Sanskrit literature to imply nothing more than a general knowledge. 6 Perhaps, to the uninformed mind, begins Vitruvius, it may appear unaccountable that a man should be able to retain in his memory such a variety of learning; but the close alliance with cach other of the different branches of science will explain the difficulty. For as a body is composed of various concordant members, so does the whole circle of learning consist in one harmonious system." On this account, Pythius, the architect of the noble temple of Minerva at Priene, says, in his commentaries, that an architect should have that perfect knowledge of each art and science which is not even acquired by the professors of any one in particular.' This seemed ¹ See the writer's Encyclopaedia, under Jaladvara and Vitayana. 217

rather too much to Vitruvius, so he asks how can it be expected that an architect should equal Aristarchus as a grammarian, yet should he not [sic] be ignorant of grammar. In music, though it be evident he need not equal Aristoxenus, yet he should know something of it. Though he need not exceed, as Appeles in painting, nor as Myron or Polycletus in sculpture, yet he should have attained some proficiency in these arts.' C • • • Thus, also, in the other sciences,' concludes Vitruvius, it is not important that pre-eminence in each be gained, but he must not, however, be ignorant of the general principles of each. For in such a variety of matters it cannot be supposed that the same person can arrive at excellence in each, since to be aware of their several nicetics and bearings, cannot fall within his power. Wherefore Pythius scems to have been in error, forgetting that art consists in practice and theory. Theory is common to, and may be known by, all, but the result of practice occurs to the artist in his own art only. The physician and musician are each obliged to have some regard to the beating of the pulse, and the motion of the feet, but who would apply to the latter to heal a wound or cure a malady? So, without the aid of the former, the musician affects the ears of his audience by modulations upon his instrument. The astronomer and musician delight in similar proportions, for the positions of the stars, which are quartile and trine, answer to a fourth and fifth in harmony. . Throughout the whole range of art there are many incidents common to all. Practice alone can lead to excellence in any one. That architect, therefore, is sufficiently educated whose general knowledge enables him to give his opinion on any branch when required to do so. Those unto whom nature has been so bountiful that they are at once geometricians, astronomers, musicians, and skilled in many other arts go beyond what is required of the architect.' • Further observations are perhaps unnecessary with a view to reiterating the striking similarities between the Manasara and Vitruvius on this point. This series of similarities between the injunctions of the standard works on such an important matter as the training of the architect, the very soul of architecture, seem to have been due to something more than mere coincidence. The next chapter (III) in the Manasara, called Vastu-prakarana, defines vastu or habitation and divides it into four classes-ground, building, conveyance, and couch (dhara, harmya, yana, and paryanka). 218

hapter IV, called Bhu-pariksha or examination of soil, deals with the site where a village, town, fort, palace, temple, or dwelling is to be built, and examines the soil thereof with regard to contour, colour, odour, features, taste, touch; the elevation of the ground; and the luxuriance of certain plants, trees, and grasses. Chapter V, called Bhumi-samgraha or selection of site, deals further with the soil before it is finally selected for a building site. The next chapter (VI) considers the orientation of buildings, and recommends that a building should preferably face the east or northeast, and never the south-east. Reasons have not been discussed fully, beyond stating that this is auspicious or that is inauspicious. Incidentally, the principles, mechanics, and details of dialling have been exhaustively discussed. The following chapter (VII) discusses the design or division of the site selected for a village, town, or house, into a number of plots. Thirty-two schemes are distinguished, each of which is divided into squares of various numbers. Following the usual custom, this introductory section concludes with a chapter (VIII) on offerings to various deities. In this matter, too, the chief architect takes a leading part. The corresponding chapter (II) of Vitruvius is called, Of those things on which architecture depends.' It deals with the fitness (ordinatio) and arrangement (dispositio), also proportion, uniformity, consistency, and economy, and is divisible into three heads, ichnography, orthography, and scenography, which considered together constitute design. The next chapter (III) is called Of the different branches (building, dialling, and mechanics) of architecture,' and the chapter following (IV) is named Of the choice of healthy situation,' which deals with the climatic conditions and elevations of the building site, as well as with its aspects or orientation. Unlike in the Manasara, the consideration of fog, rain, heat, and cold, which are peculiarities of the European countries, has been given prominence here. The explanations of aspects recommended are satisfactory. A city on the seaside,' it is stated, exposed to the south or west will be insalubrious, for in summer mornings a city thus placed would be hot, at noon it would be scorched. A city, also, with a western aspect would even at sunrise be warm, at noon hot, and in the evening of a burning temperature. Hence the constitution of the inhabitants of such places, from 219

such continual and excessive changes of the air, would be much vitiated.' After citing opinions of physicians andot hers, and supporting by illustrations, it is further stated, 'When, therefore, a city is built in a marshy situation near the sea coast, with a northern, north-eastern or eastern aspect, on a marsh whose level is higher than the shore of the sea, the site is not altogether improper; for by means of sewers the waters may be discharged into the sea; and at those times, when violently agitated by storms, the sea swells and runs up the sewers, it mixes with the water of the marsh and prevents the generation of marshy insects; it also soon destroys such as are passing from the higher level, by the saltness of its water to which they are unaccustomed.' The frequent mention of the seaside, it is needless to point out, is due to the situation of the prominent Italian cities on the sea shore, and of Rome in particular, which was the object of special study to Vitruvius. Vitruvius has also claborately treated the subject of dialling in as many as four chapters (Book IX, Chapters I, II, VIII, IX). In this matter of dialling, as in many others, Vitruvius, of course, differs in certain details from the Manasara. For instance, regarding the principles of dialling, each of the twelve months is, in the Manasura (VII), divided into three parts of ten days each, and the increase and decrease of shadow are calculated in these several parts of the different months. Vitruvius (Book IX, Chapter VIII), on the other hand, discusses the principles of dialling and the increase and decrease of the days, not the shadow thereof, in the different months. In both these works, therefore, this introductory section comprises exactly eight chapters, which bear similar titles and deal with the same subjects practically in the same way. Town-planning is the next topic treated in both the works, and it covers exactly two chapters both in Vitruvius (Book I, Chapters VI and VII), as well as in the Manasara (Chapters IX and X). The Manasara describes the subject under two heads, Grama-lakshana and Nagara-vidhana, and three categories, village, town, and fort. Villages are divided into eight classes, called dandaka, sarvatobhadra, tacudyavarta, padmaka, svastika, prastara, karmuka, and chaturmukha; cach of these, as the names indicate, represents a particular design and layout. Towns are also divided into eight classes: rajadhani, nagara, pura, nagari, kheta, kharvata, kubjaka, and pattana. These refer more to the situation and distribution of buildings than to their shapes or designs. Forts are first divided into eight classes: sibira, vahinimukha, sthaniya, 220

dronaka, samviddha or vardhaka, kolaka, nigama, and skandavara. According to their situation, they are further classified into mountain fort (giri-durga), forest fort (vana-durga), water fort (jala-durga), chariot fort (ratha-durga), gods' fort (deva-durga), clay fort (panka-durga), and mixed fort (misra-durga). The mountain fort is subdivided into three classes, according as it is built on the top of the mountain, in the valley, or on the mountain slope. According to the Manasara there is, however, not much difference between a village, a town, and a fort. The town is the extension of a village. And the fort is in many cases nothing more than a fortified town. There seems to be only this difference that a fort is chiefly meant for purposes of defence, while a village or town is mainly intended for habitation and commerce. But the village scheme seems, all the same, to have originated from the plan of the military camp. Each village is surrounded by a wall made of brick or stone. It is supported by ramparts. Beyond this wall there is a ditch, broad and deep enough to cause serious obstruction in the event of an attack on the village. There are generally four main gates at the middle of the four sides, and as many at the four corners. Inside the wall there is a large street running all round the village. Besides, there are two other Jarge streets, each of which connects two opposite main gates. They intersect at the centre of the village, where a public temple or hall is generally built in which the villagers may meet. The village is thus divided into four main blocks; each of these is again subdivided into many blocks by streets, which are always straight and run from one end to the other of the main block. The two main streets crossing at the centre have houses only on one side, facing the street. The ground floor of these houses on the main streets consists of shops. The street which runs round the village, also, has houses only on one side. These houses are mainly public buildings, such as schools, colleges, libraries, guest-houses, and liquor saloons. All other streets generally have residential buildings on both sides. The houses, high or low, are always uniform in make. The drains and sewers are made towards the slope of the village. Tanks and ponds are dug in all the inhabited parts and located in such quarters as can conveniently be reached by a large number of inhabitants. The temples of public worship, as well as the public commons, gardens, and parks, are similarly located. People of the same caste or profession are generally housed in the same quarter. The habitation of the dead-body burners (chandalas), as well as the 221

places for cremation, are located outside the village wall, to the northwest in particular. The temples of fearful deities, such as Chamunda, are also located outside the wall. A town may be situated from east to west or from north to south according to the position it occupies. There should be one to twelve large streets in a town. It should be built near a river or a mountain, and should have facilities for trade and commerce with foreigners. It should be furnished with walls, moats, ditches, gates, drains, parks, commons, shops, exchanges, temples, guest-houses, colleges, etc. The king and his court usually reside in a town, and traders and forum are essential elements in its population. Forts are also surrounded with strong walls and large and deep ditches. The wall is made of brick, stone, and similar lasting materials. It is at least eighteen feet in height and its thickness at the base is at least nine feet. The wall is provided with watch-towers. Fortified cities are specially honoured with the residences of the king, the princes, priests, ministers, and military officers. There are also humbler dwellings, as well as courts of justice, arsenals, traders' booths, shops, work-houses for artisans, various assembly halls, dancing halls, liqour saloons, and gambling halls. According to Vitruvius (Book I, Chapter V) : 'When we are satisfied with the spot fixed on for the site of the city, as well as in respect of the goodness of the air, as of the abundant supply of provisions for the support of the population, the communications by good roads, and river or sea navigation for the transport of merchandize,' we shoud take into consideration the method of constructing the walls and the towers of the city. From the exterior face of the wall, towers must be projected from which an approaching enemy may be annoyed by weapons; from the ambrasures of those towns, right and left, an easy approach to the wall must be provided against; indeed they should be surrounded by uneven ground, and the roads leading to the gates should be winding and turned to the left from the gates. By this arrangement the right side of the attacking troops, which are not covered by their shields, will be open to the weapons of the besciged.' The thickness of the walls should be sufficient for two armed men 1 Cf. Chanakya's saying: 'Residential houses should not be built in such places where there are no rich men, no learned men, no kings, no rivers, and no physicians.' 222

to pass cach other with ease. The walls ought to be tied, from front to rear, with many pieces of charred olive wood; by which means the two faces, thus connected, will endure for ages. The distance between each tower should exceed an arrow's flight. The walls will be intercepted by the lower parts of the towers where they occur, leaving an interval equal to the width of the tower, which space the tower will consequently occupy. The towers should be made either round or polygonal. A square tower is a bad form on account of its being easily fractured at the quoins by the battering ram; whereas the circular tower has this advantage, that, when battered, the pieces cf masonry whereof it is composed being cuneiform, cannot be driven in towards their centre without displacing the whole mass. Nothing tends more to the security of walls and towers than backing them with walls or terraces; it counteracts the effects of rams as well as of undermining. ⚫ In the construction of ramparts, very wide and deep trenches are to be first excavated, the bottom of which must be still further dug out for receiving the foundation of the wall. This must be of sufficient thickness to resist the pressure of carth against it. Then, according to the space requisite for drawing up the cohorts in military order on the ramparts, another wall is to be built within the former, towards the city. The outer and inner walls are then to be connected by cross-walls, disposed on the plan after the manner of the teeth of a comb or a saw, so as to divide the pressure of the filling-in carth into many and less forces, and thus prevent the walls from being thrust out.' The materials are stated to be 'what are found on the spot, such as square stones, flint, rubble, stones, burnt or unburnt bricks' (Book I, Chapter V). . The plan of the city should not be square, nor formed with acute angles, but polygonal, so that the motions of the enemy may be open to observation' (Book I, Chapter V). ' The lanes and streets (of which no details are given) of the city should be set out, the choice of sites for the convenience and use of the state remains to be decided on; for sacred edifices, for the forum, and for other public buildings. If the place adjoin the sea, the forum should be seated close to the harbour; if inland, it should be in the centre of the town. The temples of the gods, protectors of the city, as those of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, should be on some eminence which commands a view of the greater part of the city. The temple 223

of Mercury should be either in the forum, or, as also the temple of Isis and Serapis, in the great public square; those of Apollo and Father Bacchus near the theatre. If there be neither amphitheatre nor gymnasium, the temple of Hercules should be near the circus. The temple of Mars should be out of the city, in the neighbouring country, that of Venus near to the gate. According to the revelations of the Hetrurian Haruspices, the temples of Venus, Vulcan, and Mars should be so placed that those of the first be not in the way of contaminating the matrons and youth with the influence of lust; that those of Vulcan be away from the city, which would consequently be freed from the danger of fire, the divinity presiding over that element being drawn away by the rites and sacrifices performing in his temple. The temple of Mars should be also out of the city, that no armed frays may disturb the peace of the citizens, and that this divinity may, moveover, be ready to preserve them from their enemies and the perils of war. The temple of Ceres shall be in a solitary spot out of the city, to which the public are not necessarily led but for the purpose of sacrificing to her. This spot is to be reverenced with religious awe and solemnity of demeanour by those whose affairs lead them to visit it' (Book I, Chapter VII). It should be observed that in the Manasara eight distinctive plans of villages and some twenty-five varieties of commercial cities and military forts have been described with all details. In town-planning the Indian authority has recommended almost all the suitable designs, square, rectangular, and polygonal. But Vitruvius recommends only the polygonal. In the matter of the disposition of temples within the city wall and outside, the two authorities very strikingly correspond. In both the treatises the fear-inspiring deities are similarly located outside the city wall. The following seven chapters (XI to XVII) in the Manasara serve the purpose of a preamble to the subsequent chapters dealing with buildings.¹ The first of these (XI) is named Bhumi-lamba, or height of storey, in the Manasara. It is defined in the Kamikagama as the dimensions of the four sides. The contents of the chapter in the Manasara describe in detail the measurement of length, breadth, and height of buildings of 1 Of these seven preliminary chapters the twelfth, on foundations (garbha-nyasa), should have been in the place of the cleventh, which treats of dimensions of buildings (bhumi-lamba), as in Vitruvius's treatise. 224

one to twelve storeys, assigned to persons of different ranks. The five forms, namely, square, rectangular, round, octagonal, and oval, are prescribed for buildings of different classes, jati, chhanda, vikalpa, and abhasa. These shapes are equally applicable to religious, military, and residential buildings. A palace of five to twelve storeys is stated to suit the emperor or the universal monarch, highest in rank among the nine classes of kings. Residences of one to three storeys are assigned to the heir-apparent and the chief feudatories, and so on. 6 The title of the corresponding chapter of Vitruvius (Book VI, Chapter III) is more significant. It is called, Forms of houses suited to different ranks of persons.' As in the Manasara, buildings are divided exactly into five classes, though the criteria of classification are different. It is stated (Book III, Chapter II) that there are five species of temples, whose names are Pycnostylos, that is, thick set with columns; Systylos, in which the columns are not so close ; Diastylos, where they are still wider apart; Araostylos, when placed more distant from each other . . . ; Eustylos, when the intercolumnation . . . is of the best proportion.' 'The conditions of temples are distinguished,' it is further stated (Book III, Chapter 1), by their different forms. First, that known by the appellation, In Antis, then the Prostylos, Peripteros, Psuedodipteros, Dipteros, and Hypac-thros.' · Circular temples are constructed of which some are Monopteral others are called Peripteral' (Book IV, Chapter VIII). i • ' 6 As regards the distribution of buildings it is stated (Book IV, Chapter III) that temples of the Doric order are erected to Minerva, Mars, and Hercules, on account of whose valour their temple should be of masculine proportions and without delicate ornaments. The character of the Corinthian order seems more appropriate to Venus, Flora, Proserpine, and Nymphs of Fountains, because its slenderness elegance and richness, and its ornamental leaves surmounted by volutes, seem to bear an analogy to their dispositions. A medium between these two is chosen for temples to Juno, Diana, Bacchus, and other similar deities, which should be of the Ionic order, tempered between the severity of the Doric and the slenderness and delicacy of the Corinthian order' (Book I, Chapter II). As regards secular buildings, it is laid down that the houses of bankers and receivers of the revenue may be more commodious and elegant than those of persons of middling condition in life. For advocates and men of literature houses ought to be still handsomer and more spacious, to suit the 225 0

MANASARA AND VITRUVIUS • HINDU ARCHITECTURE IN reception of persons on consultations. But for nobles, who in bearing honours and discharging the duties of the magistracy must have much intercourse with the citizens, princely vestibules must be provided, lofty atria and spacious peristylia, groves, and extensive walks, finished in a magnificent style. . . If, therefore, houses are erected thus adapted to the different classes of society there will be nothing to reprehend, for they will be suitable to their destination.' 'I have thus described,' concludes Vitruvius, 'the proportions of town residences as I promised. I shall now proceed to those of houses in the country' (Book VI, Chapter VIII). • • " It is needless to point out that the subject-matter of this chapter is virtually the same in both the authorities. The small differences are due to the local conditions and requirements of the two different countries. The next chapter (XII), called Garbha-nyasa in the Manasara, deals with the foundations whereupon buildings, villages, and tanks are built. The foundation is excavated in the ground best suited for a structure to the depth of a man's height with uplifted arms. It is laid down that the bottom of the pit thus excavated must be rocky or watery, in other words, it must reach rock or water. It implies that the best soil for receiving foundation, when it is not erected on water, is rock, gravel, or closely pressed sandy earth. The depth of the foundation-cave is equal to the height of the basement. The four corners and sides, built of brick or stone, are equal. This cave is filled with water and ten kinds of earth, thus the carth from an ant-hill, a crab-hole, etc., is placed at the bottom and closely pressed and hardened by means of wooden hammers shaped like the clephant's foot. Portions of certain plants are then deposited on the four sides, the root of the blue lotus to the cast, the root of the white lotus to the south, and so on. Upon these are placed grains of ten kinds of cereals, such as phaseolus mungo, phaseolus radiatus, dolichos uniflorus, scasamum indicum, and so on. The vault is built thereon, the details of which need hardly be repeated here. Upon such strong foundations, the strength whereof varies according to the weights of the buildings above, various structures are constructed.' . When we are satisfied,' says Vitruvius (Book I, Chapter V), ' with the spot fixed on for the site of the city their foundations should • be carried down to a solid bottom, if such can be found, and should be built thercon of such thickness as may be necessary for the proper 226

• • • support of that part of the wall which stands above the natural level of the ground. They should be of the soundest workmanship and materials, and of greater thickness than the walls above.' Importance of solid ground is emphasized and it is again stated (Book III, Chapter III), if solid ground can be come to, the foundations should go down to it and into it, according to the magnitude of the work, and the substraction be built up as solid as possible. Above the ground of the foundation, the wall should be one-half thicker than the column it is to receive, so that the lower parts which carry the greatest weight, may be stronger than the upper part. Nor must the mouldings of the bases of the columns project beyond the solid. Thus, also, should be regulated the thickness of all walls above ground. The intervals between the foundations brought up under the columns, should be either rammed down hard, or arched, so as to prevent the foundation piers from swerving. If solid ground cannot be come to, and the ground be loose or marshy, the place must be excavated, cleared, and either elder, olive, or oak piles, previously charred, must be driven with a machine as close to each other as possible and the intervals between the piles filled with charcoal. The heaviest foundations may be laid on such a base." These details are also strikingly similar in both the authorities and this similarity seems to be due to something more than mere coincidence. The next four chapters (XIII to XVI) in the Manasara deal with the column and its different parts, the pedestal, base, shaft, and entablature, and their various mouldings. Vitruvius also treats the subject in exactly four chapters (Book III, Chapter III, Book IV, Chapters I to III). But the titles of the chapters are a little different. They are named in the Manasara, upapitha or pedestal (XIII), adhisthana or base (XIV), stambha or shaft (XV), and prastara or entablature (XVI). Vitruvius calls them, 'columns and their ornaments' (Book 111, Chapter III), 'origin of the three sorts of columns and the Corinthian capital' (Book IV, Chapter I), 'ornaments of columns' (ibid, Chapter II), and Doric proportions' (ibid, Chapter III). < Vitruvius, in the Doric, Corinthian, and Tuscan orders, makes no mention of pedestals, and in the Ionic order he seems to consider them rather as a necessary part in the construction of a temple than as belonging to the order itself (Book V, Chapter VII). In the Manasara twelve kinds of pedestals are described with detailed 227

measurements of the various mouldings of each pedestal. A comparison of these, with similar details of pedestals, quoted in full in the writer's Encyclopaedia from European authorities other than Vitruvius, makes it clear that the Indian pedestals surpass the Graco-Roman in variety, beauty of proportion, and the richness of ornaments. As regards the base, also, there is in the Manasara a large variety of types, sixty-four in number, described in detail with their mouldings and ornaments. A comparison of the details gathered together in the writer's Encyclopaedia will show that the Indian bases and pedestals are made more systematically and afford a greater variety of proportions than those of the Graco-Roman orders. In European orders the forms and dimensions of both base and pedestal are fixed by invariable rules with respect to the orders in which they are employed, while in the Indian orders the choice is left to the option of the architects. There are, however, more similarities between the Indian and the Graco-Roman entablatures, consisting of four parts, the capital, architrave, frieze, and cornice. But the massiveness of the Indian cntablature offers a striking contrast to the lightness of the Grecian. This is shewn by a comparison of details given in the writer's Encyclopaedia of eight kinds of Indian and some five kinds of Graco-Roman entablatures. But the point to be clear about is whether or not there is some fundamental resemblance between the Indian and the Graco-Roman column as a whole. This is a crucial point, because the column in a building is stated by authorities to be the regulator of the whole composition, and it is the one feature of the ancient architecture which illustrates its rise and progress as well as its perfection and weakness.' Like the five Graco-Roman orders, called Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Tuscan, and Composite, columns in ancient India were also divided into five classes or orders. Ax wl In the Manasara they are called Brahma-kanta, Vishnu-kanta, Rudra- 4, Siva-kanta, and Skanda-kanta. These divisions are based on the general shapes. With respect to dimensions and ornaments, they are called Chitra-karna, Padma-kanta, Chitra-skambha, Palika-stambha, and Kumbha-stambha. In the Matsya-Purana, the Brihat-samhita, and the Kirana-tantra they are called Ruchaka, Vajra, Dvi-vajra, Pralinaka, and Vritta. In the 228

uprabhedagama the names of the five orders are Sri-kara, Chandra-kanta, Saumuhkya, Priya-darsana, and Subhankari. This last one is expressly stated to be the Indian composite order, being a compound (misrita) of Saumukhya and Priya-darsana, exactly like the Graco-Roman Composite order, which is a compound of Corinthian and Ionic.1 Between the European and the Indian columns that is a point of difference. In the Graco-Roman orders, the names of the five orders do not vary, while in India the names of the five orders have varied in the various treatises referred to above. It is true, all the same, that the criteria of divisions are essentially the same in all authorities. The variation of the names of the five orders can perhaps be explained. The names of the Graco-Roman orders, according to Vitruvius and other European authorities referred to in the Encyclopaedia of Architecture by Gwilt, are geographical.2 In India, on the other hand, the names of the orders were based on the shapes of the columns. And as the Indians are comparatively more religious and sentimental than critical in temperament and imagination, they chose mythological and poetical names according to the spirit of the times when these various works were composed. Thus in the Manasara we see the orders bearing the names of mythological deities, Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Siva, and Skanda; as well as the poetical names like Chitra-karna (variegated ear), Chitra-skambha (variegated capital), Padma-kanta (graceful like lotus), Kumbha-stambha (of jug-shaped capital), and Palika-stambha (shaped like a measuring pot). In the Agama, the names are more poctical Srikara (beautifying), Chandra-kanta (graceful like the moon), Saumukhya (of a charming face), and Subhankari (auspicious). In the Purana, the Brhat-samhita, and the Kirana-tantra, the names combine beauty and utility: Ruchaka (pleasing), Vritta (round and dignified), Vaira (beautiful and solid like the club), Dvi-vajra (doubly so), and Pralinaka (firmly attached). With regard to the names and functions of the component parts of the column the variation is a little less marked. The number of these subservient parts, called mouldings and common to all orders, is very significant. Thus in the Manasara, which, of almost all the 1 For references see above, pp. 201-202 and the footnotes, and the writer's Encyclopaedia, under Stambha, 2 See p. 202, note 7. The contents of the four following paragraphs are discussed in more detail elsewhere (p. 201-206), and may be referred to. 229

treatises, deals separately and exhaustively with the pedestal, the base, the column or shaft, and the entablature, mention is made, in connexion with the pillar, of five mouldings apparently of the shaft. They are called bodhika, mushti-bandha, phalaka, tatika, and ghata. But the total number of mouldings, when the base, pedestal, and entablature are also taken into consideration, is forty-seven. The Suprabhedagama describes two sets of seven mouldings, one set referring to the column of the main building and the other to that of the pavilion. They are called respectively danda, mandi, kantha, kumbha, phalaka, vira-kantha and potika; and bodhika, uttara, vajana, murdhika, tula, jayanti, and tala. This increasing number of mouldings has reached the significant number of eight in the Matsya-Purana, the Brhat-samhita, and the Kirana-tantra, and bears the very same eight names-vahana, ghata, padama, uttaroshtha, bahulya, hara, tula, and upa-tula. The component mouldings of the Graco-Roman orders are also exactly eight in number, and, like the five orders themselves, their names have remained invariable ever since their introduction, though most of them have been given more than one name. They are called (1) the ovolo, echinus, or quarter round; (2) the talon, ogee, or reversed cyma; (3) the cyma, cyma-recta, or cymatium ; (4) the torus; (5) the scotia or trochilos; (6) the cavetto, mouth, or hollow; (7) the astragal; and (8) the fillet, listel, or annulet. Some of the eight mouldings of the Indian order can be identified, with a reasonable certainty, with the corresponding mouldings of the Graco-Roman order. Padma, for instance, implies lotus (petal), and cyma also suggests the same thing. Uttaroshtha, literally the lower lip, and the cavetto, mouth, or hollow, are apparently the same. Hara, meaning chain, seems to imply the same object as the torus, bead, or astragal. Ghata means a pot, it may correspond to the ogee, talon, or reversed cyma. Vahana is that which supports anything, and the abacus also serves the same purpose, so they may correspond to each other. Tula and upa-tula, otherwise called vajana and uttara, seem to correspond to the fillet, listel, or annulet. The proportionate measurement of the columns is another important point of comparison. The details are discussed in the writer's Encyclopaedia. The first Indian order is six diameters high, the second seven diameters, the third eight diameters, the fourth nine diameters, and the fifth ten diameters high. 230

INDIA AND ABROAD ' SIMILAR COLUMNS AND PILLARS • Concerning the proportions of columns,' says Ram Raz (page 38), ' the second sort of column in the Hindu arthitecture may be compared with the Tuscan, the third with the Doric, the fourth with the Ionic, and the fifth with the Corinthian or Composite pillar.' He further adds that there are other columns in the Indian architecture, not only one diameter lower than the Tuscan, but one to two diameters higher than the Composite.' The same is also the case with the European columns. The orders and their several characters and qualities,' says Gwilt (2538), 'do not merely appear in the fixed species of columns into which they have been subdivided, but are distributed throughout the edifices to which they are applied.' Both the Indian and Grecian columns are diminished gradually in their diameter from the base to the summit of the shaft, a practice which has never been observed in the Egyptian; on the contrary, a diametrically opposite rule has been observed in their shafts, which are made narrower at the bottom than at the top. The proportion in which the diminution at the top of the columns of the two former (Indian and Graco-Roman) is made seems to have been regulated by the same principle, though not by the same rule. The general rule adopted by the Hindu architects in this respect is that the thickness at the bottom, being divided into as many parts as there are diameters in the whole height of the column, one of these parts is invariably diminished at the top, but in the Grecian and Roman architecture the diameter of the upper part of the shaft, in a column of fifteen feet in height, is made one-sixth less than its thickness at the base, and in a column of fifty feet, the diminution is one-eighth. The higher the columns are, the less they diminish, because the apparent diminution of the diameter in columns of the same proportion is always greater according to their height, and this principle is supposed to have been discovered with greater scientific skill, and is adduced as one of the proofs of the highly refined taste of the Greeks; but we observe that precepts derived from the same principle have been taught and practised in India from time immemorial.' The point at issue is not the actual identification. The striking similarities in the names of the mouldings, like padma or cyma, hara or bead, or in the names of orders like the Misrita or Composite, may sometimes be attributed to inexplicable coincidence. But in view of other striking similarities between Vitruvius and the Manasara, such as the classification of orders into exactly five, and the division 231

of subservient parts, called mouldings, common to all the orders, into eight, and also the proportionate measurement varying equally from six to ten diameters and tapering almost in the same way, there would seem to have been something more substantial than mere coincidence. An influence, direct or indirect, of the one upon the other, seems highly probable. I venture to think, further, that there might have been a relation of indebtedness between the two authorities. The concluding chapter (XVII) of this section in the Manasara deals with joinery. No separate treatment has been accorded by Vitruvius to this subject. The next chapter (XVIII) in the Manasara is a summary of details concerning buildings of various storeys and kinds described in Chapters XIX to XXX. The following chapters (XXXI to XXXVI) deal with attached buildings of various descriptions and requirements. Chapter XXXVII refers to the first entry into a newly-built house. Doors are separately described in two chapters (XXXVIII and XXXIX), so also the royal palaces and courts are described in Chapters XL to XLII. Cars and charicts, couches and thrones, are treated in the next three chapters (XLIII to XLV). Arches are separately described in Chapter XLVI, so also the theatre (madhya-ranga) is treated in Chapter XLVII. And this architectural portion of the Manasara ends with the description of ornamental trees (Chapter XLVIII), crowns (Chapter XLIX), and ornaments and articles of furniture (Chapter L).1 The sculptural portion of the work (Chapters LI to LXX) deals with the art of carving and measuring images. This portion practically comprises illustrations of the tala measures. Vitruvius, as we shall show presently, has not treated the subject separately; he has mixed it up with the architectural description. With regard to these subjects the comparison between the Manasara and Vitruvius need not be lengthy. Both these authorities in matters of detail must necessarily differ from each other, even if one were translated from the other, because the local conditions and national requirements are entirely different regarding not only residential buildings but also temples. On the broad lines of methods and principles, however, the comparison can be briefly continued in the expectation of fruitful results. 1 For more details, see pp. 112-137. 232

hus, in the Manasara, the whole compound of the house is divided into five courts (Chapter XXXI), each of which is furnished with a gate-house (Chapter XXXIII), and a large number of detached buiklings are also built within each court (Chapters XXXII, XXXVI, XIX to XXX). Vitruvius also divides the compound into exactly five courts, which are, however, not used simultaneously (Book VI, Chapters III to VII). There are,' says Vitruvius, five species of courts, which receive their names from their forms. The Tuscan, the Corinthian, the Tetrastylon (with four columns), the Displuviatum (open at the top), and the Testudinatum (roofed).' In the Manasara also, it should be noted, five technical names have been given to these five courts, antar-mandala (innermost court), anta-nihara (the second court), madhya-nihara (the middle court), prakara (the fourth court), after which the chapter has been named and which is stated to be first introduced in the Manasara, though as many as seven courts are described in the Mrchchhakatika. The fifth one is called maha-maryada, or extreme boundary. Thus, in the Manasara, the courts receive their names from their situation, and not from their forms. Forms are discussed in the Manasara also. In fact the treatment of this subject, like all others, is by far the more exhaustive in the Manasara. Even the five gate-houses of the five courts have been treated at great length in a separate chapter (XXXIII) and given five technical names, dvara-sobha (beauty of the gate), belonging to the antar-mandala or the first court, dvara-sala (gate-mansion, of the second court), dvara-prasada (gate-palace, of the third court), dvara-harmya (gateedifice, of the fourth court), and maha-gopura (great gate-house, of the fifth court).' 6 Within these courts, buildings of different requirements have been similarly distributed by the two authorities. For instance, in the Manusara, Chapter XXXVI is called Grha-mana-sthana-vinyasa, literally meaning, location and measurement of house,' and Chapter XXXII is called Parivara-vidhana, meaning the buildings for the members of the family (of gods). The corresponding chapters (Book VII, Chapters, I, II, IX) are named by Vitruvius, situation of buildings according to the nature of different places,' 'proportions of private buildings to suit the nature of the sites,' and 'proportions of houses in the country.' Detached buildings, situated both within the 1 For further details, see p. 117-119. 233

compound and outside, have been described in the Manasara in two very long chapters (XXXIV and XXXV) called Mandapa and Sala. The term mandapa is used to imply, first, a house or pavilion set up in a village or on the bank of a sea, river, tank, or lake; secondly, all the detached buildings within a compound, which is divided into five courts; lastly, it implies various sorts of rooms in a temple or residential building. Sala also implies almost the same kinds of buildings, but they are more commodious and pompous mansions arranged in rows varying from one to ten, and their forms and twelve storeys are taken into special consideration. Chapter VI (Book I), called by Vitruvius, distribution and situation of buildings within the walls,' may be compared with Mandapa and Sala with respect to general principles and methods. But Vitruvius's treatment of the subject is comparatively brief. The brevity of his account of individua buildings also becomes obvious when the arrangement and parts of Grecian houses,' and 'interior of the cell and the arrangement of Pronaos, described in two small chapters (Book VI, Chapter X, and Book IV, Chapter IV) are compared with the exhaustive description of similar subjects detailed in some thirteen chapters (XVIII to XXX) in the Manasara. e Doors are separately described by both the authorities. Vitruvius calls the chapter Proportions of the doors of temples' (Book IV, Chapter VI). In the Manasara the subject is treated under two chapters (XXXVIII and XXXIX) called Dvara-sthana (location of doors) and Dvara-mana (measurement or proportions of doors). Both the authorities classify doors under three species. Vitruvius calls them Doric, Ionic, and Attic, and in the Manasara they are called Chhanda, Vikalpa, and Abhasa. Here is a striking point of similarity with respect to an important omission. In the Manasara the Jati class always goes with the other three classes mentioned here. Vitruvius has also omitted Corinthian and Tuscan, which generally go with Doric and Ionic. In the Manasara the height of the door is stated to be, as a general rule, twice its breadth. Their width,' says Vitruvius, is found by dividing the height into two parts and a half, and taking one and a half for the width below.' Singlefolded as well as double-folded doors are mentioned in the Manasara. Vitruvius has referred also to four-fold doors. Indian doors are decorated with foliated and floral ornaments, as well as with the images of deities. These doors,' says Vitruvius, are not to be 6 c 234 6

inlaid (cerestrota), nor in two folds, but single-folded, and to open outwards.' According to Vitruvius, doors are generally constructed in the middle of the front wall. But according to the Manasara doors may also be constructed sometimes, not in the centre of the frontage, but on either side of the middle. Windows are not separately described by Vitruvius. But in the Manasara a long account of them has been given at the end of Chapter XXXIII; similarly an account of staircases, omitted by Vitruvius, is found in the Manasara at the end of Chapter XXX. No separate mention has also been made by Vitruvius of arches, to which subject an entire chapter (XLVI) has been devoted in the Manasera. Vitruvius has left out the accounts, given in the Manasara, of cars and chariots (Chapter XLIII), couches (XLIV), thrones (XLV), crowns (XLIX), ornaments of the body and articles of house furniture (L), as well as the ornamental tree (XLVIII). · r > In the Manasara, on the other hand, a very brief reference is made to an object resembling a theatre, to which Vitruvius has devoted several chapters (Book V, Chapters III to IX). Vitruvius has not treated separately the royal palaces found in the Manasara (Chapters XL to XLII) nor does the Manasara contain any account of his special buildings, such as Forum and Basilica,' 'Treasury, Prison, and Curia, Harbours and other buildings in water (Book V, Chapters I, II and XII). Building materials, though frequently mentioned, are not described in the Manasara under separate chapters. Vitruvius has devoted some eight chapters (Book II, Chapters III to X) to the subject of building materials, namely, bricks (compare the Manasara, Chapter XII, last part), sand (Manasara XII), lime (Manasara LI), Pozzolona stone quarries (Manasara XV), timber (Manasara XV) and firs, called Supernas and Infernas, and the Appennines. Vitruvius deals with painting and preparations of colours in the larger part of a book (VII) of fourteen chapters. This subject, as well as Vitruvius's books (VIII to X) on instruments, machines and engines, have no place in the Manasara. In place of these subjects, some twenty chapters (LI to LXX) of the Manasara have been devoted to sculptural matters, to which only the following brief and casual reference has been made by Vitruvius (Book III, Chapter I). In truth they (symmetry and proportion) are as necessary to the beauty of a building as to that of a well-formed human figure, which 235

i MANASARA AND VITRUVIUS HINDU ARCHITECTURE IN nature has so fashioned, that the face, from the chin to the top of the forchead, or to the roots of the hair, is a tenth part of the height of the whole body. From the chin to the crown of the head is an eighth part of the whole height, and from the nape of the neck to the crown of the head the same. From the upper part of the breast to the roots of the hair a sixth, to the crown of the head a fourth. A third part of the height of the face is equal to that from the chin to the underside of the nostrils, and thence to the middle of the eyebrows the same, from the last to the roots of the hair, where the forehead ends, the remaining third part. The length of the foot is a sixth part of the height of the body. The forearm a fourth part. The width of the breast a fourth part. Similarly have the other members their due proportions by attention to which the ancient painters and sculptors obtained so much reputation. 6 ' The navel is naturally placed in the centre of the human body, and if, in a man lying with his face upward and his hands and feet extended, from his navel as the centre, a circle be described, it will touch his fingers and toes. It is not alone by a circle that the human body is thus circumscribed, as may be seen by placing it within a square. For measuring from the feet to the crown of the head, and then across the arms fully extended, we find the latter measure equal to the former; so that the lines at right angles to each other, enclosing the figure, will form a square.' 6 If nature, therefore, has made the human body so that the different members of it are measures of the whole, so the ancients have, with great propriety, determined that in all perfect works each part should be some aliquot part of the whole; and since they direct that this be observed in all works, it must be most strictly attended to in temples of the gods, wherein the faults as well as the beauties remain to the end of the time.' This is all about the defects, to which in the Manasara practically a whole chapter (LXIX), one of the two concluding chapters of the work, is devoted. It is called Anga-dushana (lit., defects of the 1). In both the authorities the subject is discussed in conwith sculptural objects, but curiously enough, defects and consequent penalties concerning images and idols have been entirely left out both by Vitruvius and the Manasara. Both the authorities. have referred to the subject as concerning buildings only. This sort of similarity can hardly be due to mere coincidence. 236

, LINGUISTIC DEFECTS AND MYSTERIOUS TITLES C 'It is worthy of remark,' says Vitruvius, that the measures necessarily used in all buildings and other works are derived from the members of the human body, as the digit, the palm, the foot, the cubit, and that these form a perfect number, called by the Greeks Teleios.' Phonetically this sounds like what the Indians call Talas, and there is a similarity in meaning also.1 In the above quotation Vitruvius has briefly referred to only the eighth variety with which the male human figure is measured also by the Indian authorities. Details of the tala measures given in the writer's Encyclopaedia need not be repeated here. It should also be noted that, in both the authorities, the face from the chin to the top of the forehead is taken as the standard of all the tala measures, which number ten in the Manasara.² The last point of comparison between Vitruvius and the Manasara is in respect of the linguistic style. We have already pointed out that Silpa-sastras, or architectural treatises in India, were written in a very peculiar style. Sanskrit scholars like Dr. G. Buhler and Sir R. G. Bhandarkar have truly branded it as the most barbarous Sanskrit.' This remark really means that all possible sorts of violation of the rules of grammar and rhetoric have been committed in the language of the Silpa-sastras. Such a mixed dialect reads exactly like a piece from a stupid school-boy's exercise. It is also confirmed,' continues Dr. Buhler, by numerous analogies, such as the language of janmapatras (horoscopes) of the badly educated Joshis (astrologers) mentioned by Dr. Bhandarkar, the books of masons and carpenters, which have the rules for building houses in most barbarous Sanskrit, and many modern inscriptions composed by clerks." One of the theses presented by the writer before the Leiden University, and passed in his favour by that learned assembly after long discussion, was this: • The ungrammatical style of Sanskrit revealed in the branch of literature of which the Manasara is a representative, is due to the want of literary proficiency on the part of the professional architects. who seem to have been the authors of it. With this the following apology, for ungrammatical style, of Vitruvius may very fruitfully be compared: Teles is an adjective from telos, meaning end, and tala is derived from tala and implies the distance between the ends of two fingers (see p. 199, and notes). She above, p. 199, and the writer's Encyclopaedia, under Talamara. 3 Ep. Ind., Vol. 1, p. 37. For further details and illustrations from various sources, see the writer's Indian Architecture (1927), Appendix and pp. 211-21.4. 237

" 'I beseech you, O Casar,' says Vitruvius, and those who read this my work, to pardon and overlook grammatical errors; for I write neither as an accomplished philosopher, an eloquent rhetorician, nor an expert grammarian, but as an architect: in respect, however, of my art and its principles, I will lay down rules which may serve as an authority to those who build, as well as to those who are already somewhat acquainted with the science' (Book I, Chapter 1). I cannot help thinking that if the writers of the Silpa-sastras generally, and the author of the Manasara in particular, were conscious of the nature of their style they would certainly have added to their treatises an apology like that of Vitruvius. , , 6 There is yet another curious similarity between Vitruvius and the Manasara. It is regarding the titles of both the works. Both are hidden in mystery. Vitruvius's work bears practically no title. It is called by his translators The architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. It has been pointed out in the preface that the term 'Manasara also admits of various interpretations. For a sage, Manasara is a very unfamiliar name. No such sage is mentioned in the various branches of Sanskrit literature except in this newly discovered Vastu-sastra. A king of Malwa, however, bore this name. As a derivative name, Manasara, meaning essence of measurement, and suitable for the title of a work like this, has some philological resemblance with mensuration. The derivative meaning of the term 'Vitruvius' is uncertain. The point, however, to which attention is invited, is the curious similarity between the treatise of Vitruvius and the Manasara in respect of the uncertain signification of their titles. , i There is also an uncertainty lurking over the ages in which the architecture of Vitruvius and the Manasara were composed. 'It is likely that the former was composed twenty-five years before the Christian era.' This conjecture is based mainly on Vitruvius's mention of his patron, Julius Casar. But there is no mention of anybody under whose patronage the Manasara might have been composed. The similarities so briefly outlined will be more convincing to those who have carefully studied both Vitruvius and the Manasara. Those who are, however, inclined to think like myself and refuse to attribute all these similarities to mere chance, will be anxious to find out the connecting link between the two authorities. The question was put before the Oriental Conference held in Calcutta in January, 238

1922, to point out the link, about the existence of which there seems no reasonable doubt. A learned discussion was then held on the paper, but no suggestion has yet been received on this point. There is the expedition of Alexander the Great to explain the Grecian influence on the Gandhara sculpture. The Questions of Menander' may perhaps stand for the title Milinda-pamha. There is, again, the Romaka-siddhanta to indicate the influence of the Roman astronomy upon the Indian Jyotisha-sastra, which had, however, already established itself as one of the six essential limbs of the Veda, the most ancient extant lore of human learning. Similarly, the art of building, which is intimately connected with all living beings, was developed at the carly Vedic period, even carlier than that at Mahenjo-daro. But the Silpa-sastra, which is but an analysis and commentary of the art, was necessarily evolved much later. There are reasons to think that the Manasara is not the first work in which the essence of measurement and the system of proportions' were codified in the form of Sastra, though this may be the standard treatise. Until the missing link is found, it is, however, possible to think that there was some work or works, or some floating traditions, which influenced both treatises. It will, therefore, serve no useful purpose in trying to further develop the nature of the various similarities between Vitruvius and the Manasara. I would not, therefore, hazard an opinion at present as to the precise nature of the connexion between these two treatises. There are arguments which might support a claim of priority on behalf of either work. I shall be content, for the present, if the learned world be convinced that there are undeniable similarities between the two standard works and that these affinities do not seem to be accidental. 239