JANUARY, 1873.]

CORRESPONDENCE, &c.

discover the existence of an architecture wholly in wood—above the foundation—infinitely more gor geous and more artistic than the pukka palaces of Calcutta, to which his knowledge of the art seems to be confined.

The truth of the matter is, that ex

cept for its one great defect—want of durability— wood is a better building material, especially in hot climates, than stone. It admits of far greater spaces being roofed, with far fewer points of sup port. It admits of framing, and consequently of immense economy of material; and it allows of carv ing, gilding, and painting to an extent with difficul ty attainable in stone. If the Mauryan kings thought only of their own splendour and comfort, without any hankering after brick and mortar im mortality, they were right to use wood instead of stone, as the kings of Burmah and Siam now do. The Mughul emperors thought of posterity, and we are grateful to them for so doing, but I would like to see a wooden palace that had been built by Akbar. Fattehpur Sikri would have been a dwarf and mean in comparison.

The question, however, is not one for argument but of fact.

29

ing so old as Chandragupta. The quarriers, masons, and architects whom Alexander brought with him must, consequently, all have been over a hundred years old before they commenced to impart their knowledge to the Hindus. Perhaps they may at that advanced age have been too feeble to impart

their knowledge, or perhaps they had forgotten their native arts. I must leave to the Băbu to explain how this may be ; but certain it is they left no trace of their art on anything now known to exist in India. The truth of the matter is, the Bábu has read my works in a hazy, lazy, oriental kind of way, and has hastily drawn from them conclusions much more in accordance with his own personal feelings than with anything he found in any writings of mine. If he follows the same course in future, and does not read his Sanskrit works with more care, and quote from these with more accuracy than he has done from my works, we may safely predict that anything he may write about the ancient architecture of the Hindus won't be worth much more than the value

of the paper on which it is written. Langham Place, Nov. 1872. JAS FERGUsson.

I have before me some hundreds of

photographs of caves in Western India and Bihar— of Buddhistrails and gateways—such for instance as those of Sanchi, and of other buildings erected be tween 250 B.C. and the Christian era. All these, without a single exception, are literal copies in stone of the forms of wooden carpentry, and such as no people could have used who had ever seen or been familiar with stone architecture. Besides this, all the bas-reliefs at Sanchi, in the first century of the Christian era, tell the same tale. The basement of the houses, as of our modern wooden bungalow, the solid parts of the town walls—all in fact that can be called engineering are in stone or brick ; all the superstructure is even then in wood, like the ribs in the roof of the caves. These are such patent facts that I do not believe that any one, who will take the trouble to examine the evidence, can arrive at any other conclusion than I have done.

In his haste to find fault, it does not seem to have occurred to the Bábu that he was accusing me of saying that “Alexander brought quarriers, masons, and architects to teach the Hindus”—Greek archi

tecture, I presume—which I never did say ; and then that I stated that the Hindus, during the two centu ries and a half that elapsed before the Christian era, were employed in elaborating a perfectly original style of their own, without any trace of foreign influence, except perhaps ornament here and there which may be Assyrian or Persian. I am at a loss to guess how the Bábu can reconcile these contra dictory statements, unless it be thus. From the first time I wrote on Indian architecture to the present day, I have always asserted that Indian stone archi tecture commenced with Asoka, 250 B. C.? I do not know, and neverpretended to know, of any build

• J. R. A. S. VIII., p. 33. Picturesque Illustrations of

Ancient Architecture in Hindostan, Intro, p. 2. Handbook

Query. I HAVE been lately so fortunate as to discover a MS. of a Prākrita Grammar, by Subha Chandra, entitled Sabdā Chintámani. The concluding lines are : ſti . . . . sri Subhachandra virachitāyām svopajnas'abda-chintãmanivrittau dvitiyasya adhyā yasya chaturthah pādah ; samāpto yam vrittih. From this it would seem that the MS. is complete. It consists of two adyāyas each containing four pādas. Subha Chandra follows Hemachandra's ar rangement of the Prākrita siltras, not that of Vara

ruchi, Bhānaha, and others. But he gives Hema chandra's siltras here and there in a slightly differ ent order, and adds a few siltras of his own ; thus in the beginning of the work, which commences with a series of samjnā siltras (on technical terms); a feature which, I believe, is unique in this work on Prākrita Grammar. It is clearly later than Hemachandra's Grammar, and appears also to take notice of later Prākrit formations. I shall feel much obliged to any one who can give me further information on this work ; especi ally who Subhachandra was, and when he lived; and whether there are any other MSS. of his work known to exist, and where. Benares, Nov. 18, 1872. A. F. RUDOLF HoekNLE. • HULLE MAKKALU."

(See Ind. Antiquary, vol. I., p. 380.) THE head-quarters of this sub-division of a caste is a village in one of the talukas of the Bangalor district. Single families are to be found scattered throughout the province, the members of which once a year go round their beat collecting their dues. of Architecture, vol.I., p. 5. History of Architecture, vol. II., p. 450; and in lectures and papers passim.