OF INDIAN CONSTRUCTION.

UNDER the name of INDIAN ARCHITECTURE, may be included Hindûstan, Gentoo, Chinese, or Turkish; which latter is a mixture of the other three. But this construction is distinct from the Gothic, in having little or no lateral pressure; and from the Grecian, in having a different mode of applying the perpendicular pressure; for although, at the first sight, we might be led to suppose the arches constructed on a centre, like those of Europe, yet, on a closer examination, they will be found to consist of horizontal strata, supported by the process of what is technically called "CORBELLING OUT," or placing the materials in such a position that the aperture may be larger at the bottom than the top, by each stratum of stone over-hanging the other [see fig. 131, c]. From the specimens discovered in the Indian excavations, there is no doubt but the original idea was taken from those subterraneous caves or grottos.

The people who formed these awful wonders of antiquity, instead of erecting buildings on the surface of the ground, began their operations by cutting away the foundation of a rock, to obtain room below, without endangering the superstructure; and thus, by degrees, the Indian architecture seems to have grown from the rudest excavations of Troglodite savages, to the most beautiful forms discovered in the temples of Salsetta, of Elora, and Elephantis.

When these natural subterraneous vaults were imitated

[Fig. 134. Imaginary sketch, exhibiting the principle of perpendicular pressure in the artifical vaults made in the native rock in India, and also in the arches of buildings in the Indian style, and even in their domes. See the elongated dome in the background of the vignette.]

above ground, in buildings of later date, the same construction prevailed; and, therefore, both in the arches and domes of the Indian style, we observe the same principle of perpendicular pressure [see fig. 134].

APPLICATION OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURE.

HAVING already shewn the difficulty of adapting either the Grecian or Gothic styles to the character of an English palace, this newly discovered style of architecture seems to present a new expedient for the purpose, in the forms made known to this country by the accurate designs of Mr. THOMAS DANIELL, and other artists, which have opened new sources of grace and beauty.

To the materials of wood and stone we have lately added that of cast-iron, unknown in former times, either in Grecian or Gothic architecture, and which is peculiarly adapted to some light parts of the Indian style.

In Grecian architecture, the artist is confined to five (or, rather, only to three) different orders of columns, so restricted in their relative proportions, that they are seldom used externally, with good effect, in modern houses, and are generally found too bulky for internal use. Indian architecture presents an endless variety of forms and proportions of pillars, from the ponderous supports of the cavern, to the light, airy shafts which enrich their corridors, or support their varandahes. This alone would justify the attempt to adapt a style, untried, for the purpose to which other styles have been found inapplicable or inadequate.

It is difficult for an artist at once to divest himself of forms he has long studied: this will account for the confusion. of Grecian and Gothic in the works of JOHN OF PADUA, INIGO JONES, and others, about the same date, which occasioned that mixture of style, condemned in after-times for the reasons already assigned. The same thing may be observed in the first introduction of Gothic, mixed with the Saxon and Norman which preceded it: and the same will, doubtless, happen in many instances, during the introductory application of Indian architecture to English uses, while a false taste will

both admire and condemn, without any true standard, the various forms of novelty.

If I might humbly venture to suggest an opinion on the subject, I should recommend the use only of such Indian forms, or proportions, as bear the least resemblance to those either of the Grecian or Gothic style, with which they are liable to be compared. If the pillars resemble Grecian columns [compare fig. 135 with fig. 136], or if the apertures resemble Gothic arches, they will offend, by seeming to be incorrect specimens of well-known forms, and create a mixed style, as disgusting to the classic observer as the mixture in Queen Elizabeth's Gothic. But if, from the best models of Indian structures, such parts only be selected as cannot be compared with any known style of English buildings, even those whom novelty cannot delight, will have little cause to regret the introduction of new beauties.

On these grounds, therefore, I do not hesitate to answer the question, concerning which I am commanded to deliver my opinion, that the Indian character having been already

TFIT

[Fig. 135. From an endless variety of columns used in Hindû architecture, the above few examples are inserted, that their relative proportions may be compared or contrasted with those of the orders to which Grecian architecture is necessarily confined.]

introduced (in part) by the large edifice at the Pavillon, the house, and every other building, should partake of the same character, unmixed either with Grecian or Gothic; and without strictly copying either the mosques, or the mausoleums, or the SERAIS, or the hill-forts, or the excavations of the east, the most varied and graceful forms should be selected, with such combinations, or even occasional deviations and improvement, as the general character and principles of construction will admit; for which purpose the specimens [see figs. 135 and 136] are submitted for consideration as general hints, rather than as finished designs [see fig. 137].

Tuscan,

Doric.

Ionic.

Corinthian.

Composite.

[Fig 136. Specimens of columns of the different orders of Grecian architecture, given with a view of facilitating the comparison between them and columns from Hindû buildings.]

INTERIOR.

IN ancient Gothic mansions, whether castles or abbeys, converted to domestic purposes, or of the mixed style of Queen Elizabeth, the rooms, though long and large, consisted of such irregular shapes, or were so broken by the deep recesses of windows, or enriched by the projection of timber groins in the ceilings, that the eye was amused and entangled by a degree of intricacy unknown in modern rooms. The rage for what is called SIMPLICITY, and the common error of substituting greatness of dimensions for greatness of character, have introduced plain walls without the smallest break or projection, and plain ceilings without the smallest enrichments of