in its original condition. The irregular grouping of the pillars that support the mandapas, and the clumsy way in which the mandapas are joined on to the sanctums, are proofs that these are subsequent additions; the sanctums may be ancient (I was not allowed to go in), but if so, the tower roofs that surmount them appear to have been added on afterwards. The finest of all the temples is the unfinished temple D; this from the plan is seen to be a single cell, once surrounded on all sides, now on three sides only, by pillars, which supported the roof of a verandah all round. From an examination of the pillars, however, it is clear that they formed no part of the original design, as they differ among each other in form, in size, in execution, and in position with reference to the central building, the pillars being not at a uniform but at varying distances from the walls on the various sides; these pillars further shew that the enclosure wall is a later addition even than themselves, as one of the pillars is imbedded in the eastern enclosure wall.
Divested of its pillars, this temple is seen to be a single cell, surmounted by a tower roof; it is ornamented externally by plain raised bands of mouldings; these are neither elegant nor bold, and are situated so high up, leaving such a height of bare blankness below, as to look quite out of place. Below, the corners are indented and sculptured into plain rectilinear mouldings by way of ornament; this process has the effect of making the corners look particularly weak, and, but for the verandah which now acts a friendly part, by breaking up the height, and shutting off as it were the main tower from the basement portion, the error of the proceeding would become painfully evident.
A general idea of this temple may he obtained from the photograph. The tower does not diminish with a graceful curve, but slopes upwards from above a certain point in almost a straight line. The knee or point of intersection of the vertical lower portion and the inclined upper tower portion is so little rounded as to be painfully prominent, and prominent too in such a way, as to shew that the architects really did not know how to deal with it; they had not the courage to leave the line sharp, and bring it out by a bold moulding, and they had not the taste to round it gracefully.
The form appears to be a compromise between the Muhammadan dome of the early type, i.e., without a bulge, and the Hindu spire; if a semicircle be described on the top of
