INDIAN ARCHITECTURE. 6ll be conjectured from these. The rock-cut temples have but one external facade, which is m the face of the rock and the architecture IS therefore mamly internal, but interestiU m showmg an undoiibted imitation of timber originals Wooden forms were repeated long after their signihcance was dead (cf Greek Architecture, page 59). With the exception of the one facade the ornament was lavished on the interior columns and roof h^ former of which were short and overladen with ornament he latter being generally semicircular, with ribs showTng a ?i^;.ber derivation (Nos. 267 and 268). ^ timoer (2.) Jaina Architecture.— The Temples have the small h?rn ""nlf ' '^"^^^' ^"^ ^^^ ^°°^ °"'^' -d crowned w'ha eftur^'Tn f o7T' "^^ —'-ear sides, forming an imposing feature. In front, forming an entrance porch, is the hall, with columns having bracket capitals and sometimes angular struts such capitals supporting a dome or domes, invariably bu It in horizontal courses of stone. Thus the domes, often of different heights m the same building, exert no lateral thrust, and a^e easily supported on columns, without the aid of buttresses as frequently in the Roman and Byzantine styles. The ntema .;/5.;.W. thus presents a light and graceful character, further enhanced by the method of planning, consisting of an '< m and out or cruciform shape, also characteristic (No.%72). ScuCured ornament, of grotesque and symbolic design, covers the whole structure and is bewildering in its nchnesl, leaving little li^ wall surface, and differing essentially from European work The temples were picturesquely perched on mountain tops or nestled m secluded valleys, the Jains valuing rightly the effect of environment on their architecture. ^ * -^ ^'^« ^^ecr or (3.) Hindu (or Brahmanical) Architecture varies in its three porchts^'-t f- ^'" '""^ '-^^'^ '^'^ ^"^^" shnne.cen and preceding porches the same excessive carving and sculpture which are nnpressiye by this evident tribute of llbour to the goSs'. The prm cipal Brahmanical Temples, like those of Egypt, show progres- s lye additions of sanctuaries and mclosures, grouped around or attached to the original shrine. Beyond thi?, the grandeur o The' ITT7 T T"^"" ^" impression of maje'stic beauty The effect depends almost wholly on richness of surface and outline rather than on abstract beauty of form, and contrasts very strongly with Grecian architecture. (..) ' The NoTen^ Brahman m comparison with the Dravidian style, has a curved lT"'f ? to the " vimana" instead of a storied one, and is Ivt f. Tftl'^^H K 'I' P^^^^dmg porch. {b.) The Chahkyan style IS affected by its northern and southern rivals takine" features from each without losing its special character. The star shaped plan and curved pyramidal tower are m contrast with the stoned towers of the Dravidian style. (..) The Dyamdtan R R 2
