28

[JANUARY, 1873.

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

very few dare intrude upon their rights. A greater number now, finding letters more lucrative, attend English schools and colleges. Not a few of them

enjoy coveted posts of trust under the Government. KAS'I NATH.

faith—could have any influence in originating architecture, and the invasion of Alexander is com

pared with the British expedition to Abyssinia, in which very little impression was produced on the domestic arts of the Abyssinians. It is difficult to believe that Alexander brought with him any large

Sirsa, Allahabad, 12th Oct. 1872.

number of quarriers, masons, and architects, to leave some behind him for the education of the people of

The same.

this country in architecture; and it would be absurd SIR,-Your correspondent Mr. White (Ind. Ant., vol. I., p. 289) wishes for information about the caste of Khatris in Hindustan. He says—“One account is that they are sons of a Rajput (Kshatri

ya) woman by a Sudra father. I am not inclin ed to place any reliance on statements like this, for the simple reason that every caste which cannot

explain its origin invariably invents the Kshatri ya theory of paternity.” A reference to the In stitutes of Manu, chap. V. v. 12, 13, 16, and 28, will show that a tribe called Kshatri existed then and

held the same theory of paternity.

B.

EARLY INDIAN BUILDINGS.

To the Editor of the Indian Antiquary. SIR,-On the 4th of January 1871 Bābu Rajen dralála Mitra read a paper to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, the object of which was to expose certain fallacies into which, he believed, I had fallen in treat ing of the history of Architecture in India. As my answer was easy and obvious, I thought of replying at once, but on second thoughts it appeared more fair to allow the Bábu to substantiate his

accusations by stating his reasons at full length be fore doing so, and I thought also that in the interval he might see reason to modify the crude statements he then put forward. Though nearly two years have elapsed since his paper was read, he has made no signs of resuming the subject, and I am now informed that we must wait till the Greek kalends for the publication of his essay. Under these circumstances, as the matter is of importance to the history of art, I hope you will allow me a brief space to state my reasons for dissenting from the Bábu's conclusions. The passages in which they are principally stated are the following :— “An opinion is gaining ground that the ancient Aryans were not proficient in the art of building substantial edifices with stone and bricks, but that the primitive Hindus were dwellers in thatched huts and mud houses. Mr. Fergusson, who has adopt ed this opinion, adds that the Hindus learnt the art of building from the Grecians, who came to India with Alexander, and that the oldest specimens of architecture in the country appear to be in the first stage of transition from wood to stone.

to suppose that a king like Asoka, who is presumed to have lived originally in thatched huts, would of his own accord send for architects and quarriers from Greece to build him a palace,” &c." My first answer to these accusations is, that there is no passage or paragraph in any works ever written or published by me which, if fairly read with the context, will bear the interpretation here put on it, and I defy the Băbu to produce one.t If, however, he will allow me to extend his own simile, I will try and explain to him what I did say. After the fall of Magdala and the death of King Theodore, the English retired on Egypt, which they had taken possession of on their way to Abyssinia; and during the next seventy or eighty years keep up a continual and close intimacy, both commercial and political, with their former foes, till the acces sion of the Great Theodore IV., Emperor of all Central

Africa.

He formed

alliances with the

“Chaptaro" kings of France, England, Germany, and Russia, and established missions in their capi tals at Paris, London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg ; and, from the reports of his agents and constant intercourse with foreigners, this enlightened monarch was led to introduce into his own country some European arts hitherto unknown in Central Africa, but at the same time adapting them carefully to the state and wants of his own people. Substitute Bactria for Egypt, and Asoka for Theodore IV., and you get pretty nearly what I believe, and always have believed, in this matter, but a very different thing from what the Babu re presents me as saying or believing. As for the “mud” and “thatch” of the previ ous part of the quotation, they are entirely the Babu's own creation ; no such words occur in any work I ever wrote, nor any expression in any degree analogous to them. My belief on the contrary is,

and always was, that the palaces of the Mauryan kings of Palibothra were at least as extensive—cer tainly more gorgeous—and probably cost as much money as those of the Mughul emperors of Agra and Delhi, yet they certainly were in wood. I will not ask the Băbu to undertake such a

journey now, but if he will take the trouble to exa mine a set of photographs of the palaces of the

Burmese kings at Ava, Amirapura, or Mandalay,

“It is denied” (by the Băbu) “that the Bud

or of the 101 monasteries that line the shores of

dhist religion—a mere reformation of the old Hindu

the Irawadi, or of the buildings at Bankok, he will

• Proceedings Asiatic Society, January 1871.

. . t The only passage I can find in any work I ever wrote in which Alexander the Great's name is mentioned in

connection with Indian art, is when I say that tradition

ascribes to Alexander the erection of certain towers in the

Kabul Valley, which I believed to be Buddhist monuments of the third or fourth century A.D.—History of Architecture, vol. II., p. 460. -