[381] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindustan,’ p. 60.
[382] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 7.
[383] ‘Madras Journal,’ No. 20, p. 15.
[384] Its dimensions, as nearly as can be ascertained from my paces, and Admiral Paris’ plans, are 340 ft. by 180 ft.
[385] The plan of this temple ([Woodcut No. 200]) is taken from one in the ‘Journal of the Geographical Society of Bombay,’ vol. vii., and may be depended upon in so far as dimensions and general arrangements are concerned. The officers who made it were surveyors, but, unfortunately, not architects, and photographs since made reveal certain discrepancies of detail which prove it to require revision by some one on the spot.
[386] There is a view of it in the Atlas of plates that accompanies Lord Valentia’s travels; not very correct, but conveying a fair idea of its proportions.
[387] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 202.
[388] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 230, et seqq.
[389] Fortunately this choultrie is also one of the best known of Indian buildings. It was drawn by Daniell in the end of the last century, and his drawings have been repeated by Langles and others. It was described by Mr. Blackadder in the ‘Archæologia,’ vol. x. p. 457; and by Wilson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iii. p. 232. Volumes of native drawings exist in some collections containing representations of every pillar. A model in bronze of a porch exists at South Kensington Museum, and it has been abundantly photographed.
[390] In the description of Tripe’s photograph this dimension is given as 117 ft.