History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c26.s2: Delhi.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c26.s2
- Language
- English
Delhi.
v2.c26.s2.1
Of the two mosques at Old Delhi and at Ajmîr, the first named is the earlier, having been begun some seven or eight years before the other, and is also very much the larger.³ It is, besides, associated with the Qutb Mînâr, and some of the most beautiful tombs of the age, which altogether make up a group with which nothing at Ajmîr can compare. The situation, too, of the Delhi ruins is singularly beautiful, for they stand on the gentle slope of a hill, overlooking a plain that had once apparently been a lake, but which afterwards became the site of three successive capitals of the East. In front are the ruins of Tughlaqâbâd, the gigantic fort of an old Pathân chief; and further north the plain is still covered with the ruins of Firozâbâd and Indrapat, the capitals of the later Pathâns and earlier Mughals. Beyond that, at the distance of about 10 miles, are seen the towers of Shâhjahânâbâd, the modern capital, and till 1857 the seat of the nominal monarchy of the Great Mughal. Still further north are situated the civil station and ruins of the old British cantonments. It is a fortunate circumstance that the British station was not, as at Agra, placed in the midst of the ruins, since it is to this that we owe their preservation. But for the distance, marble columns would doubtless have been taken for all purposes for which they might have been available, without regard to their beauty, and the interest of the ruins thereby annihilated. Even as it is, the buildings belonging to the celebrated Shâlimâr gardens, which were the only buildings of importance in the neighbourhood of the English station, have long since disappeared.
v2.c26.s2.2
³ Gen. Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 260. But though the inner court—the Qûwat-ul-Islâm—at Delhi was the whole mosque as originally designed; yet before the death of Altamsh, who was the real builder of both, the screen of arches at Delhi had been extended to 380 ft. as compared with the 200 ft. at Ajmîr, and the court-yards of the two mosques are nearly in the same proportion, their whole superficial area being 72,000 ft. at Ajmîr, as compared with 152,000 ft. at Delhi.
v2.c26.s2.3
The general arrangement of the principal ruins will be understood from the plan (Woodcut No. 369), which was taken with great care, though the scale to which it has been necessary to reduce it prevents all its peculiarities from being seen. The disposition of the various erections may first be briefly explained:—The inner court on the west side is that of the original mosque of Qutbu-d-Dîn, which measures 142 ft. by 108 ft. within the corridors; and in the middle of its west half the Iron pillar stands. The main entrance is under a dome, about 20 ft. in diameter on the east side, along which runs a corridor supported on four rows of pillars, the back row being placed against the walls, and in the north and south ends are twostoreyed pavilions. The side corridors had each three rows of pillars with an entrance on each side, though the gateway and all the western portion of the corridor has quite disappeared. About 20 yards of the eastern half of the wall remain and part of the colonnade, the pillars of which are of much plainer patterns than those of the other sides.¹ The west end of this court is the great screen wall, 8 ft. thick, with its gigantic arches forming the entrances into the mosque itself which stood behind it and was 135 ft. in length by 32 ft. deep, but is now a complete ruin—only some twenty-two of the tall columns that supported its roof being left. Outside the south-east corner of the court stands the Qutb Minâr, erected at the same time.²
v2.c26.s2.4
¹ This colonnade and its back wall were, “with a strange want of discrimination, reconstructed” by Major R. Smith, Executive Engineer, early in last century, who used the pillars of Altamsh’s extension in front of the eastern gate of the mosque, for the purpose. And even the windows of Qutbu-d-Dîn’s work did not escape “re-arrangement at the same time.”—Carr Stephen’s ‘Archæology of Delhi,’ p. 43 note.
v2.c26.s2.5
² The inscription on the east gateway of the mosque court gives its date as A.D. 1191 (or 1193), and another on the north entrance says it “was commenced” in 1196.—Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol i. pp. 185-186.
v2.c26.s2.6
Shamsu-d-Dîn Altamsh, about A.D. 1225, extended the great screen both to the north and south by 119 ft., with five arched entrances in each section, which differ considerably in the details of their decoration as well as in size from those raised by
v2.c26.s2.7
369. Plan of Ruins at Old Delhi. (From a Plan by the Author.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c26.s2.8
Quṭbu-d-Dîn. These were to be the façades of two extensions of the mosque; and part of the back wall of the northern extension, with the positions of the central and one of the side mihrâbs in it, still remain. Of the enlarged court, the south wall with its corridor still exists, but only a few pillars of the east corridor from which we learn that the enlarged court with its colonnades would be about 370 ft. from north to south and 230 ft. from east to west, and so enclosing the Qutb Mînâr. The tomb of Altamsh was built just to the west of the north end of the enlarged mosque.
v2.c26.s2.9
Again 'Alâu-d-Dîn Khalji (1296-1316) projected further extensions: he removed the east wall of Altamsh's court about 155 ft., extending the south wall and its colonnade so as to make the new court 385 ft. from east to west, and constructing the beautiful 'Alâî-Darwâza on that side. Close to this gateway is the small tomb of Imâm Muhammad 'Ali Zâmin, about 24 ft. square, erected about 1535, of sandstone and marble. On the north the Sultân projected doubling the previous court—making it altogether over 700 ft. from north to south, and in this north half he began the 'Alâî Mînâr which was intended to be of double the dimensions of the other; but besides this and the piers for the façade of the extended mosque nothing more seems to have been done in this north extension. 'Alâu-d-Dîn's tomb now in ruins is to the south-west of the enclosure.
v2.c26.s2.10
To understand the architecture, it is necessary to bear in mind that all the pillars are of Hindû, and all the walls of Muhammadan, architecture.
v2.c26.s2.11
It may possibly be questioned to what extent the pillars now stand as originally arranged by the Hindûs. But it seems certain that they have all been re-arranged by the conquerors. And it is quite evident that the enclosing walls were erected by the Moslims, since all the stringcourses are covered with ornaments in their style, and all the openings possess pointed arches, which the Hindûs never used. On the whole, it thus seems that the entire structure was re-arranged in the form we now see it by the Muhammadans. The celebrated mosque at Kanauj was originally a Hindû or Jaina temple, and is rearranged on a plan precisely similar to that of the mosque of 'Amru at Old Cairo.¹ The roof and domes are all of Jaina architecture, so that no trace of the Moorish style is to be seen internally; but the exterior is as purely of Muhammadan architecture. There is another mosque at Dhâr, near Mandû, of more modern date, and, doubtless, a re-arrangement of a Hindû or Jaina temple. Another, in the fort at Jaunpur, as well as other mosques at Ahmadâbâd and elsewhere, all show the same system of taking down and re-arranging the materials on a different plan. If, therefore, the pillars at the Qutb were *in situ*, the case would be exceptional;² but I cannot, nevertheless, help suspecting that the two-storeyed pavilions in the angles, and those behind the screen, may perhaps be as originally erected; but to this we will return when speaking of the Ajmîr mosque, where the Hindû pillars are probably all re-arranged. It is quite certain, however, that some of the pillars at the Qutb are made up of dissimilar fragments, and all were placed where they now stand by the builders of the mosque. It may, however, be necessary to explain that there could be no difficulty in taking down and rebuilding these erections, because the joints of the pillars are all fitted with the precision that Hindû patience alone could give. Each compartment of the roof is composed of nine stones—four architraves, four angular and one central slab (as explained in diagram No. 174, vol. i., p. 314), all so exactly fitted, and so independent of cement, as easily to be taken down and put up again. The same is true of the domes, all which being honestly and fairly fitted, would suffer no damage from the process of removal and re-erection.
v2.c26.s2.12
¹ 'History of Ancient and Medieval Architecture,' vol. ii. Woodcut No. 977 (p. 526).
v2.c26.s2.13
² Gen. Cuuningham found an inscription on the wall recording that twenty-seven temples of the Hindûs had been pulled down to provide materials for this mosque ('Archæological Reports,' vol. i. p. 176). This, however, proves little, unless we know what the temples were like which were destroyed for this purpose. Twenty-seven temples like those at Khajurâho, excepting the Ghantai, would not provide pillars for one half the inner court. One temple like that at Rânpur near Sâdari would supply a sufficiency for the whole mosque, and though the latter is more modern, we have no reason for supposing that similar temples did not exist before Muhammadan times.
v2.c26.s2.14
The section (Woodcut No. 370), of one half of the principal colonnade (the one facing the great series of arches) will explain
v2.c26.s2.15
370. Section or part of East Colonnade at the Qutb, Old Delhi. Scale 25 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c26.s2.16
its form better than words can do. It is so purely Jaina in arrangement, that it should, perhaps, have been mentioned in speaking of that style; but as forming a part of the earliest mosque in India, it is more appropriately introduced in this place. The pillars are of the same order as those used on Mount Âbû (Woodcut No. 284), except that those at Delhi are much richer and more elaborate. Most of them probably belong to the 11th or 12th century, and are among the few specimens to be found in India that seem to be overloaded with ornament. There is not one inch of plain surface from the capital to the base, except the pillars behind the screen, and some others which may belong to older buildings. Still the ornament is so sharp and so cleverly executed, and the effect, in their present state of decay and ruin, so picturesque, that it is very difficult to find fault with what is so beautiful. In some instances the figures that were on the shafts of the pillars have been cut off, as offensive to Muhammadan strictness with regard to images; but on the roof and less seen parts, the cross-legged figures of the Jaina saints, and other emblems of that religion, may still be detected.
v2.c26.s2.17
The glory of the mosque, however, is not in these Hindû remains, but in the great range of arches of the screen wall on the western side, extending north and south for about 385 ft., and consisting of three greater and eight smaller arches; the central one 22 ft. wide and 53 ft. high; the larger side-arches 24 ft. 4 in., and about the same height as the central arch; the smaller arches, which are unfortunately much ruined, are about half these dimensions (Woodcut No. 371). The central part of this screen, 147 ft. in length, forming the mosque proper, is ascribed to Qutbu-d-Dîn after his return from Ghaznî. Behind this, at the distance of 32 ft., are the foundations of the wall that formed the back of the mosque, but was only intended, apparently, to be carried as high as the roof of the Hindû pillars it encloses. It seems probable that the Hindû pillars between the two screens were the only part proposed to be roofed in 1196, since some of them are built into the back part of the great arches, and all above them is quite plain and smooth, without the least trace of any intention to construct a vault or roof of any sort. Indeed, a roof is by no means an essential part of a place of prayer; a wall facing Mecca is all that is required, and in India is frequently all that is built, though an enclosure is often added in front to protect the worshippers from interruption. Roofed colonnades are, of course, convenient and ornamental accompaniments, yet far from being indispensable.
v2.c26.s2.18
The history of this mosque, as told in its construction, is as curious as anything about it. It seems that the Afghân conquerors had a tolerably distinct idea that pointed arches were the true form for architectural openings; but they left the Hindû architects and builders whom they employed to follow their own devices as to the mode of carrying out the form. The Hindûs up to this time had never built arches—nor, indeed, did they for centuries afterwards. Accordingly, they proceeded to make the pointed openings on the same principle upon which they built their domes. They carried them up in horizontal courses as far as they could, and then closed them by long slabs meeting at the top, the construction being, in fact, that of the arch of the aqueduct at Tusculum.¹ The same architects were employed by their masters to ornament the faces of these arches; and this they did by copying and repeating the ornaments on the pillars and friezes on the opposite sides of the
v2.c26.s2.19
¹ As shown in ‘History of Ancient and Medieval Architecture,’ vol. i. (Woodcut No. 178), p. 301. This mode of construction is only feasible when much larger stones are used than were here employed. The consequence was that the arch had become seriously crippled when I saw and sketched it. It has since been carefully restored by Government. The two great side arches either were never completed, or have fallen down in consequence of the false mode of construction.
v2.c26.s2.20
371. Central Range of Arches at the Qutb Mosque. (From a Sketch by the Author.)
v2.c26.s2.21
court, covering the whole with a lace-work of intricate and delicate carving, such as no other mosque, except that at Ajmîr, ever received before or since; and which—though perhaps in a great measure thrown away when used on such a scale—is, without exception, the most exquisite specimen of its class known to exist anywhere. The stone being particularly hard and good, the carving retains its freshness to the present day, and is only destroyed above the arches, where the faulty Hindû construction has superinduced premature decay.
v2.c26.s2.22
372. Qutb Minâr. (From a Sketch by the Author.)
v2.c26.s2.23
The Qutb Minâr, or great minaret at the south-east corner of the first mosque, is 48 ft. 4 in. in diameter at the base, and, when measured in 1794, was 242 ft. in height.¹ Even then, however, its capital was ruined, so that some 10 ft., or perhaps 20 ft., must be added to this to complete its original elevation. It is ornamented by four boldly-projecting balconies; one at 97 ft., the second at 148 ft., the third at 188 ft., and the fourth at 214 ft. from the ground; between which are richly-sculptured raised belts containing inscriptions.² In the lower storey the twenty-four projecting ribs which form the flutes are alternately angular and circular; in the second circular, and in the third angular only. Above this the minâr is plain, and principally of white marble, with belts of the same red sandstone of which the three lower storeys are composed (Woodcut No. 372).
v2.c26.s2.24
¹ 'Asiatic Researches,' vol. iv. p. 313. Its height, according to Gen. Cunningham, is (after the removal of the modern pavilion) 238 ft. 1 in.—'Archæological Reports,' vol. i. p. 196.
v2.c26.s2.25
² On the basement storey are six bands of inscriptions—the lowest contains the designation and titles of Qutbu-d-Dîn Îbak (1206-1210); the second, the titles and praise of Muhammad ibn Sâm (1193-1206); the third, a verse from Sura 59 of the Qorân; the fourth as in the second; the fifth, 97 Arabic names of God; and the sixth a verse from Sura 2 of the Qorân. The place for the call to prayer was upon the second storey.—Carr Stephens, 'Archæology of Delhi,' pp. 58f.
v2.c26.s2.26
It is not clear whether the angular flutings are copied from some peculiarity found in the minarets at Khurâsân and further westward, or whether they are derived from the forms of the temples of the Jains. The forms of the bases of the minarets at Ghaznî appear to lend probability to the first hypothesis; but the star-like form of many temples—principally Jaina—in Mysore and elsewhere (*ante*, vol. i., pp. 439 *et seqq.*) would seem to countenance the idea of their being of Hindû origin. No star-like forms have yet, however, been found so far north, and their destruction has been too complete for us to hope that they may be found now. Be this as it may, it is probably not too much to assert that the Qutb Mînâr is the most beautiful example of its class known to exist anywhere. The rival that will occur at once to most people is the campanile at Florence, built by Giotto. That is, it is true, 30 ft. taller, but it is crushed by the mass of the cathedral alongside; and, beautiful though it is, it wants that poetry of design and exquisite finish of detail which marks every moulding of the mînâr. It might have been better if the slope of the sides had been at a higher angle, but that is only apparent when seen at a distance; when viewed from the court of the mosque its form is perfect, and, under any aspect, is preferable to the prosaic squareness of the outline of the Italian example.
v2.c26.s2.27
The only Muhammadan building known to be taller than this is the minaret of the mosque of Hasan, appears that the inner court was enclosed by Shihâbu-d-Dîn. The central range of arches (Woodcut No. 371) was built by Qutbu-d-Dîn; the wings by Altamsh, whose tomb is behind the
v2.c26.s2.28
[Figure: 373. Iron Pillar at the Qutb. (From a Photograph.) The dotted line shows the extent below the ground.]
v2.c26.s2.29
northern range, and the Qutb Mînâr was either built or finished by the same monarch; they extend, therefore, from A.D. 1196 to 1235, at which date they were left incomplete, probably in consequence of the death of the last-named king.
v2.c26.s2.30
One of the most interesting objects connected with this mosque is the iron pillar which stands in its courtyard (Woodcut No. 373). It stands 22 ft. above the ground, and as the depth under the pavement is now ascertained to be only 20 in., the total height is 23 ft. 8 in.¹ Its diameter at the base is 16.⁴ in., and at the capital 12.05 in. The capital is 3½ ft. high, and is sharply and clearly wrought into the Persian form that makes it look as if it belonged to an earlier period than it does; and it has the amalaka moulding, which is indicative of considerable antiquity. It has not, however, been yet correctly ascertained what its age really is. There is an inscription upon it, but without a date. From the form of its alphabet, Prinsep ascribed it to the 3rd or 4th century;² Bhau Daji, on the same evidence, to the end of the 5th or beginning of the 6th century.³ My own conviction is that it belongs to one of the Chandra Râjas of the Gupta dynasty, either consequently about A.D. 370 or A.D. 415.
v2.c26.s2.31
¹ It is a curious illustration how difficult it sometimes is to obtain correct information in India, that when Gen. Cunningham published his 'Reports' in 1871, he stated, apparently on the authority of Mr Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, that an excavation had been carried down to a depth of 26 ft., but without reaching the bottom. "The man in charge, however,"—*témoin oculaire*—"assured him that the actual depth reached was 35 ft."—Vol. i. p. 169. He consequently estimated the whole length at 60 ft., but fortunately ordered a new excavation, determined to reach the bottom—*coûte qui coûte*—and found it at 20 inches below the surface.—Vol. iv. p. 28, plate 5. At a distance of a few inches below the surface it expands in a bulbous form to a diameter of 2 ft. 4 in., and rests on a gridiron of iron bars, which are fastened with lead into the stone pavement.
v2.c26.s2.32
² 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. vii. p. 629.
v2.c26.s2.33
³ 'Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,' vol. x. p. 63. Dr Fleet in 'Inscriptions of the Early Guptas,' pp. 139f. gives a revised version. It bears a posthumous inscription in eulogy of the conquests of a king Chandra as to whose date or dynasty nothing is stated.
v2.c26.s2.34
Taking A.D. 400 as a mean date—and it certainly is not far from the truth—it opens our eyes to an unsuspected state of affairs to find the Hindûs at that age capable of forging a bar of iron larger than any that have been forged even in Europe up to a very late date, and not frequently even now. As we find them, however, some centuries afterwards, using bars as long as this lât in roofing the porch of the temple at Kanârak (*ante*, p. 107), we must now believe that they were much more familiar with the use of this metal than they afterwards became. It is almost equally startling to find that, after an exposure to wind and rain for fourteen centuries, it is unrusted, and the capital and inscription are as clear and as sharp now as when put up fifteen centuries ago.⁴
v2.c26.s2.35
⁴ There is no mistake about the Meharaulî pillar being of pure iron. Gen. Cunningham had a bit of it analysed in India by Dr. Murray, and another portion was analysed in the School of Mines here by Dr. Percy. Both found it pure malleable iron without any alloy.
v2.c26.s2.36
As the inscription informs us the pillar was dedicated to Vishnu, there is little doubt that it originally supported a figure of Garuda on the summit, which the Muhammadans of course removed; but the real object of its erection was as a dhwaja or standard of the god Vishnu and to record the "defeat of the Vâhlikas,¹ across the seven mouths of the Sindhu," or Indus. It is, to say the least of it, a curious coincidence, that eight centuries afterwards men from that same Baktrian country should have erected a Jaya Stambha ten times as tall as this one, in the same courtyard, to celebrate their victory over the descendants of those Hindûs who so long before had expelled their ancestors from the country.
v2.c26.s2.37
¹ Can these Vâhlikas be the Indo-Skythians by overthrowing whom the Guptas must have risen to power? In Sanskrit literature, by Vâhlikas the people of Baktria or Balkh are usually understood.
v2.c26.s2.38
374. Interior of a Tomb at Old Delhi. (From a Sketch by the Author.)
v2.c26.s2.39
Immediately behind the north-west corner of the mosque stands the tomb of Altamsh, the founder. Though small—being a room 29 ft. 6 in. square inside, with walls 7½ ft. thick and doors on the four sides—it is one of the richest examples of Hindû art applied to Muhammadan purposes that Old Delhi affords, and is extremely beautiful, though the builders still display a certain degree of inaptness in fitting the details to their new purposes. The effect at present is injured by the want of a roof, which has long since disappeared. In addition to the beauty of its details it is interesting as being the oldest tomb known to exist in India. He died A.D. 1235.²
v2.c26.s2.40
² Carr Stephen's 'Archæology of Delhi,' pp. 74-75; Fanshawe's 'Delhi Past and Present,' pp. 269, 270.
v2.c26.s2.41
A more beautiful example than even this is the ’Alâî-Darwâza, shown on the left hand of the plan (Woodcut No. 369). It was erected by ’Alâu-d-Dîn Khalji, and the date 1310 is found among its inscriptions. It is, therefore, about a century more modern than the other buildings of the place, and displays the so-called Pathân¹ style at its period of greatest perfection, when the Hindû masons had learned to fit their exquisite style of decoration to the forms of their foreign masters. Its walls are decorated internally with a diaper pattern of unrivalled excellence, and the mode in which the square is changed into an octagon is more simply elegant and appropriate than any other example I am acquainted with in India (Plate XXIX.).² The pendentives accord perfectly with the pointed openings in the four other faces, and are in every respect appropriately constructive.³ True there are defects. For instance, they are rather too plain for the elaborate diapering which covers the whole of the lower part of the building both internally and externally; but ornament might easily have been added; and their plainness accords with the simplicity of the dome, which is indeed by no means worthy of the substructure. Not being pierced with windows, it seems as if the architect assumed that its plainness would not be detected in the gloom that in consequence prevails.
v2.c26.s2.42
¹ Major Raverty has shown that the name of “Pathâns” does not apply to the first six dynasties of Sultâns of Delhi, who were “Turkish slaves, Khaljis, Jats, low caste Hindûs and Sayyids.” We owe the blunder to the translators of Firishta.—‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xliv. pp. 24 *et seqq.*
v2.c26.s2.43
² From Fanshawe’s ‘Delhi,’ p. 270.
v2.c26.s2.44
³ The same form of pendentive is found at Serbistan, nearly nine centuries before this time.—‘History of Ancient and Mediæval Architecture,’ 3rd ed. vol. i. p. 396, Woodcut No. 259. Conf. R. Phené Spiers, ‘Architecture East and West,’ pp. 65 *et seqq.*
v2.c26.s2.45
This building, though small—it is only 56 ft. 9 in. square externally, and with an internal apartment only 34 ft. 6 in. in plan—marks the culminating point of this Pathân style in Delhi. Nothing so complete had been done before, nothing so ornate was attempted by them afterwards. In the provinces wonderful buildings were erected between this period and the Mughal conquest, but in the capital their edifices were more marked by solemn gloom and nakedness than by ornamentation or any of the higher graces of architectural art. Externally it is a good deal damaged, but its effect is still equal to that of any building of its class in India. It was copied, with some modifications, in the gateway to the fine Khairpur Mosque, near Safdar Khân’s tomb, erected under Sikandar Lodî in 1494.