A distinctive architecture was that of the jains. The Jain temple has a distinctiveness of its own, and the most famous example of an ancient temple is the Vimala-Sali on Mount Abu. The Jains, the Buddhists and later on, the Brahmins, all adopted the tower as the es sential of the temple. The tower developed out of the dome, and the Indian dome has no bous soirs radiating from the centre, as in European architecture. The courses are all horizontal, and the domes are necessarily pointed in sec tion, for they would not stand if circular. It requires no abutments and has no lateral thrust.
Although, the principles on which these tem ples have been reared are more or less the same, there is a marked distinction between the temples of southern India, and those of the north. At present, south India has more mag nificent structures than the north. This is due probably to the fact that owing to the lateness of the Mohammedan incursion, the temple buildings were saved from destruction. The most famous of the southern temples are the temple at Tiravalur, the one at Tanjore and the one at Ramasvaram. The one at Ramasvaram has a hall 700 feet long and 150 feet wide, and it is so built that, although the light enters through one opening, there is not a dark corner in the whole of the building. The Tanjore temple has a tower 200 feet high, and resting on a base 83 feet square, and it is so constructed that it throws no shade. All the pillars of the southern temples, as well as the towers, are richly ornamented with carvings in relief. Among the most notable of northern buildings is the Black Pagoda of Kannaruc. The temples at Barolli and at Benares also need particular mention. The designs are great and the orna mentation profuse.
It is curious that, perhaps the most inspiring, and the greatest specimens of Indian art should be found outside of India. The Aughor Wat in Indo-China, and the temple at Mathura in Java are known to be the wonders of the world, and even those who have no appreciation of Indian art are inspired by the vastness of the structures, the greatness of the design, and the profuseness of ornamentation. These two structures cover very wide areas, and are now in ruins. They were reared by the Hindus when they ruled over those territories; and the tem ples fell into ruins when the Hindu conquerors had to leave those countries and come back to India.
The architecture of Siam and China, as well as that of Japan is wholly Indian. The Siamese wets and temples were reared by the Indian architects and resemble more closely the tem ples of India than those of Burma. The
Chinese, who were great painters, never de veloped architecture, as their buildings were almost altogether in wood. The introduction of Buddhism into China was followed by the in troduction of temple architecture, and the Chi nese took to building with great avidity. The Japanese architecture has been purely employed in building temples to Buddha, and is still pre eminently Indian.
It should not be imagined that there was only temple architecture in ancient India. There have been magnificent buildings, great from the point of view, both of size and height. Very few of them, however, are left, and such build ings as exist to-.day have all been of a later date. The one notable building which is now in ruins is the University of Nalanda, pear Patna, which flourished before the 1 1th cen tury. The ruins are still to be seen, and it is stated that the university housed 20,000 students, Later Indian art of the best kind is to be seen only in southern India. The hall in the palace at Madura is an example of pure Indian ar chitecture. In the north the Mohammedans brought with them the Saracenic art; and in course of time, the native Hindu and the Saracenic art blended well and produced a new type. The most noted example of this blending is the Taj Mahal (q.v.) said to be one of the nine wonders of the world. It is built of the purest marble on the banks of the River Jumna, and is described as a dream in marble. The Jumna Masjid in Delhi, and the several palaces that exist in different parts of the country also exhibit the result of the blendine of the two styles. The basis of all architecture in India has, however, been the old Indian style, and the craftsmen have always been Hindus.
There are some buildings of distinctive Saracenic architecture, which are mostly mosques, or the places of worship of the Mohammedans, who form one-fifth of the popu lation of India. The Indian mosques have, however, a very, distinct touch of the Hindu craftsmen, especially with respect to capitals and the ornamentations. Saracenic architecture is distinctive for the elaboration of detail, and the Hindus took it and developed it. Possibly as the effect of Saracenic influence, later Hindu temples have almost a surfeit of detail work. In the temples of southern India, it is a com mon sight to see columns 15 feet high and 4 feet snuare, having as many as 10,000 figures carved in relief —every figure being. distinctive. A column in the temple of Kumbakonum has the whole story of .Ramayana carved in relief.