1847.] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 495 



a jumble of rich frieze ornaments and cornices in the place of simple brack- 

 ets, and the elegant " Chujja" (projecting eaves) and many other absurdities. 

 In fact, Indian architecture in our day, is what ancient English, commonly 

 called " Gothic," was at the period of its decline in the reigns of Elizabeth, 

 and Henry the eighth, nor has any great improvement in this respect taken 

 place in our own time. Much may be attributed to want of knowledge and 

 taste in design ; architects, thinking to make up for these defects, by loading 

 the surface with minute ornamental detail ; also to false economy in stinting 

 the extent and solidity of the structure ; indeed this is the first error, profuse 

 ornament to cover the defect; the next, one which of itself defeats the 

 great object, nay, acts in a reverse ratio. Minute ornament is highly expen- 

 sive to execute, difficult to protect and to keep in repair, consequently not 

 lasting ; therefore to be avoided. 



The proportions of Indian buildings differ so greatly from those in Euro- 

 pean countries, that there is no one style, which would not to some degree 

 require modification, and I see no reasonable objection, provided it be judici- 

 ously done. 



To give effect to the exterior elevation of a building, domes and cupolas 

 are essential, but these belong rather to Mahomedan works. The pyramidal 

 roofs of Hindu, Jain and Budhist edifices are heavy, unless made of a costly- 

 description, and it must be remembered that we have no pure examples of 

 early domestic buildings to guide us, therefore I entertain the opinion that 

 the Puthan or early Mahomedan would be the best suited, not only from its 

 near approach to the Hindu, but from its simplicity and consequent cheap- 

 ness of execution, besides its admitting of wider latitude of design. 



Were sufficient funds available in any instance, a magnificent edifice in 

 purely Hindu form, could be designed with slight modification of the size of 

 the doors and windows. 



Of the Badshahi or later Mogul works, we have so many fine examples, 

 that were funds available there would be nothing to prevent the carrying out 

 of designs which for grandeur would even exceed them, provided good ones 

 be forthcoming. I need hardly add that for this, a thorough knowledge of 

 the subject is essential, which can only be attained by a patient examination 

 of the proportions of the buildings themselves and of their component parts. 



In conclusion I would dwell on the fact of their having been regular rules, 

 by which the architects and masons were guided ; every part and moulding 

 had its particular name and proportion one towards the other, and the fine 

 combinations we observe were not the result of chance as too often advanced, 

 but of careful design and excellent taste. 



30th March, 1847. M. K. 



