Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c31: Chapter X. Mughal Architecture.

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c31

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. Mughal Architecture.

v2.c31.2

Dynasties—Tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Gwâliar—Mosque at Fathpur Sîkrî—Akbar’s Tomb, Sikandara—Palace at Delhi—The Tâj Mahall—The Motî Masjid—Mosque at Delhi—The Martinière, Begam Kothî, and Imâmbârâ at Lucknow—English Tombs at Surat—Tomb at Junâgadh.

Chronology.

v2.c31.s1.1

| Bâbar . . . . . | A.D. 1526 | Akbar . . . . . | A.D. 1556 |
| Humâyûn . . . . | 1530 | Jahângîr . . . . | 1605 |
| Shêr Shâh Afghân . . . | 1539 | Shâh Jahân . . . . | 1628 |
| Salîm Islâm Shâh . . . | 1545 | Aurangzîb or ’Âlamgîr . | 1658 |
| —— dies . . . . | 1552 | Bahâdur Shâh . . . | 1707 |

v2.c31.s1.2

TILL within half a century ago, a description of the style introduced by the Mughal emperors would have been considered a complete history of Muhammadan architecture in India. It is the style which was described by Roe and Bernier, and all subsequent travellers. It was rendered familiar to the public in Europe by the drawings of Daniell, in the beginning of last century, and, since Agra and Delhi became practically British cities, their buildings have been described, drawn, and photographed till they have become almost as well known as any found in Europe. It will take a very long time before even photography will render the mosques or tombs of such cities as Ahmadâbâd or Bîjâpûr as familiar or as easily understood. Yet it is, perhaps, true to assert that the buildings of other dynasties, commencing with the mosques at the Qutb and at Ajmîr, and continuing till the last Dakhani dynasty was destroyed by Aurangzîb, make up a whole as extensive and more interesting, in a historical point of view, than even all that was done by the Mughals. On the other hand, however, there is a unity in the works of that dynasty, and a completeness in their history, which makes the study of their art peculiarly fascinating, and some of their buildings will bear comparison, in some respects, with any architectural productions in any part of the world. Their buildings, however, are so original, and so unlike any of the masterpieces of art that we are generally acquainted with, that it is almost impossible to institute any comparison between them which shall be satisfactory. How, for instance, can we compare the Parthenon with the Tâj? They are buildings of nearly equal size and magnificence, both in white marble, both admirably adapted for the purposes for which they were built; but what else have they in common? The one is simple in its outline, and depending on pillars for its external adornment; the other has no pillars, and owes its greatest effects to its singularly varied outline and the mode in which its various parts are disposed, many of them wholly detached from the principal mass. (The Parthenon belongs, it is true, to a higher class of art, its sculptures raising it into the region of the most intellectual branch of phonetic art; but, on the other hand, the exquisite inlay of precious stones at the Tâj is so æsthetically beautiful as, in a merely architectural estimate, almost to bring it on a level with the Grecian masterpiece.¹

v2.c31.s1.3

¹ Adopting the numerical scale described in the introduction to the 'True Principles of Beauty in Art,' p. 140 ('History of Ancient and Medieval Architecture,' vol. i. pp. 5, 6), I estimated the Parthenon as possessing 4 parts of technic value, 4 of æsthetic, and 4 phonetic, or 24 as its Index number, being the highest known. The Tâj I should on the contrary estimate as possessing 4 technic, 5 æsthetic, and 2 phonetic, not that it has any direct phonetic mode of utterance, but from the singular and pathetic distinctness with which every part of it gives utterance to the sorrow and affection it was erected to express. Its index number would consequently be 20, which is certainly as high as it can be brought, and near enough to the Parthenon for comparison at least.

v2.c31.s1.4

Though their value, consequently, may be nearly the same, their forms are so essentially different that they hardly look like productions of the same art; and in an art so essentially conventional as architecture always is and must be, it requires long familiarity with any new form, and a knowledge of its origin and use, that can only be acquired by constant study, which makes it very difficult for a stranger to realise the real beauty that often underlies even the strangest forms. When, however, these difficulties are conquered, it will probably be found that there are few among the Eastern styles that deserve more attention, and would better repay any study that might be bestowed upon them, than the architecture of the Mughals.

v2.c31.s1.5

Some little interruptions are experienced at the beginning of the narrative from the interpolation of the reigns of Sher Shâh and his son Salîm or Islâm in the reign of Humâyûn. He was an Afghân by descent and an Indian by birth, and, had he been left to follow his own devices, would, no doubt, have built in the style of architecture used at Agra and Delhi before his countrymen were disturbed by the Mughal invasion. We have, it is true, very little to tell us what that style was during the 170 years that elapsed between the death of Tughlaq Shâh and the first invasion of Bâbar, but it seems to have been singularly plain and solid, and very unlike the florid art introduced by the Mughals, and practised by Sher Shâh and his son apparently in rivalry to the new master of Hindustan. So little difference is there, however, between the architecture of Sher Shâh and of Akbar that they must be treated as one style, beginning in great sobriety and elegance, and ending in something nearly approaching to wildness and exuberance of decoration, but still very beautiful—in some respects superior to the chaste but feeble elegance of the later Mughal style that succeeded it.

v2.c31.s1.6

There is, again, a little difficulty and confusion in our having no examples of the style as practised by Bâbar and Humâyûn. The well-known tomb of the latter king was certainly built by his son Akbar; Bâbar was buried near Kâbul, and no building known to be his has yet been identified in India. Yet that he did build is certain. In his own ‘Memoirs’ he tells us, “In Agra alone, and of the stone-cutters belonging to that place only, I every day employed on my palaces 680 persons; and in Agra, Sîkrî, Biânâ, Dholpur, Gwâliar, and Koil, there were every day employed on my works 1,491 stone-cutters.”¹ In the following pages he describes some of these works, and especially a Baolî of great magnificence he excavated in the fort of Agra.² This was in the year 1526, and he lived to carry on these works for five years longer. During the ten years that his son retained the empire, we learn from Ferishta and other sources that he adorned his capital with many splendid edifices: one, a palace containing seven pavilions or audience halls—one dedicated to each of the planets, in which he gave audience on the day of the week dedicated to the planet of the day.³ There are traditions of a mosque he is said to have built on the banks of the Jamnâ, opposite where the Tâj now stands; and his name is so frequently mentioned in connection with buildings both at Agra and Delhi that there can be little doubt that he was a builder to as great an extent as the troubled character of his reign would admit of. But his buildings have perished, so that practically the history of Mughal architecture commences with the buildings of an Afghân dynasty who occupied the throne of India for sixteen years during the last part of Humâyûn’s lifetime.

v2.c31.s1.7

¹ ‘Memoirs,’ translated by Erskine, p. 334.

v2.c31.s1.8

² *Loc. cit.* pp. 341-342.

v2.c31.s1.9

³ Brigg’s translation, vol. ii. p. 71.

v2.c31.s1.10

It is probable that very considerable light will yet be thrown upon the origin of the style which the Mughals introduced into India, from an examination of the buildings erected at Samarkand by Timur a hundred years before Bâbar's time (A.D. 1393-1404). Now that city is in the hands of the Russians, it is accessible to Europeans. Its buildings have been drawn and photographed, but not yet described so as to be available for scientific purposes, but sufficiently so to indicate the direction in which light may be expected. Though a frightful savage in most respects, Timur was possessed of a true Tûrki love for noble architecture; and though he generally massacred the inhabitants of any town that resisted him, he always spared the architects and artists, and sent them to work on the embellishment of his capitals. Samarkand was consequently filled with splendid edifices, but, so far as can be judged from the materials available, more resembling in style those of Persia than anything now known to exist in India. The bulbous dome appears everywhere, and was not known at that time in India, unless it was in the quasi-Persian province of Sindh. Coloured tiles were the favourite mode of decoration, and altogether their style was gorgeous in the extreme as compared with the sobriety of the later Pathân buildings in India.

Sher Shâh, A.D. 1539-1545.

v2.c31.s2.1

Certainly one of the most remarkable men who ever ruled in northern India, though his reign was limited to only five years' duration; and during that brief space, disturbed by all the troubles incident to a usurpation, Sher Shâh left his impress on every branch of the administration. The revenue system, the police, the army administration, all the great reforms, in fact, which Akbar so successfully carried out, were commenced, and to some extent perfected, by this usurper, as the Mughals call him. In architecture, too, which most concerns us here, he certainly pointed out the path by which his successor reached such eminence.

v2.c31.s2.2

The most perfect of his buildings that I am acquainted with is the mosque in the Purânâ Kìlâ or Kilâ Kohnâ at Delhi. The walls of this place were repaired by Humâyûn in A.D. 1533, and, according to the latest authorities, it is said to have been built by Sher Shâh in A.D. 1541 (Plate XXXII.).¹ It is a single hall, with five openings in front through pointed arches of what we would call Tudor form, but beautifully varied in design, and arranged in panels carved with the most exquisite designs and ornamented with parti-coloured marbles. It is 168 ft. long by 44 ft. 6 in. wide, and about 44 ft. high. The brackets under the balconies are the precursors of the type so marked in the red sandstone palace in the fort at Agra; and the pendentives inside, below the dome, are effective. One important dome, pierced with twelve small windows, crowns the centre; it has, however, no minarets and no courtyard, but even without these adjuncts it is one of the most satisfactory buildings of its class in India.

v2.c31.s2.3

¹ Cunningham, 'Reports,' vol. i. p. 222; vol. iv. p. 74; Carr Stephen's 'Archæology of Delhi,' p. 190; Fanshawe's 'Delhi,' p. 228, from which the plate is taken.

v2.c31.s2.5

In the citadel at Agra there stood when I was there, a fragment of a palace built by Sher Shâh, or his son Salîm, which was as exquisite a piece of decorative art as anything of its class in India. Being one of the first to occupy the ground, this palace was erected on the highest spot within the fort; hence our Government, fancying this a favourable site for the erection of a barrack, pulled it down, and replaced it by a more than usually hideous brick erection of their own. This afterwards became a warehouse, and looms, in whitewashed ugliness, over the marble palaces of the Mughals—a fit standard of comparison of the tastes of the two races.¹

v2.c31.s2.6

¹ As I cannot find any trace of this building in Keene's description of the fort in his book on Agra, I presume it must have been utilised since my day. Unless it is the building he calls the Nobut Khana of Akbar's palace (26). I have never seen it in any photograph of the place.

v2.c31.s2.7

Judging from the fragment that remains, and the accounts received on the spot, this palace must have gone far to justify the eulogium more than once passed on the works of these Pathâns—that "they built like giants, and finished like goldsmiths:" for the stones seem to have been of enormous size, and the details of most exquisite finish. It has passed away, however, like many another noble building of its class, under the ruthless barbarism of our rule. Mosques we have generally spared, and sometimes tombs, because they were unsuited to our economic purposes, and it would not answer to offend the religious feelings of the natives. But when we deposed the kings, and appropriated their revenues, there was no one to claim their now useless abodes of splendour. It was consequently found cheaper either to pull them down, or use them as residences or arsenals, than to keep them up, so that very few now remain for the admiration of posterity.

v2.c31.s2.8

The tomb of Sher Shâh has been already described (*ante*, p. 218), as it is essentially Pathân in style. It was erected at his native place in Bihâr, to the south of the Ganges, far from Mughal influence at that time, and in the style of severe simplicity that characterised the works of his race between the times of Tughlaq and those of Bahlol Lodî (a.d. 1451-1489), the last really independent king of his line.

v2.c31.s2.9

It is not quite clear how much of the tomb was built by himself, or how much by his son Salîm, who certainly finished it. Salîm also built the Salîmgarh on an island in the Jamnâ, which Shâh Jahân afterwards connected by a bridge with his palace in New Delhi. Whether, however, he erected any buildings inside is not certain—nothing at least now remains of any importance. Generally he seems to have carried on and completed his father’s buildings, and between them they have left a group of architectural remains which, if collected together and illustrated, would form an interesting chapter in the history of Indian-Muhammadan styles.¹

v2.c31.s2.10

¹ It is not quite clear how much Rhotâsgarh owes its magnificence to Sher Shâh, how much to Akbar; both certainly built there, and on the spot it might easily be ascertained how much belongs to each. Unfortunately the British “converted the beautiful Dîwân Khâna, of which Daniell published a drawing, into a stable for breeding horses.”—Hamilton’s ‘Gazetteer,’ *sub voce*.

Akbar, 1556-1605.

v2.c31.s3.1

It would require a volume to describe all the buildings erected by this remarkable man during his long reign of forty-nine years, and a hundred plates would hardly suffice to make known all their peculiarities. Had Akbar been content to follow in the lines of the style invented by the Pathâns and perfected under Sher Shâh, it might be easy enough to follow the sequence, but nothing in his character is so remarkable as the spirit of tolerance that pervaded all his acts. He seems to have had as sincere a love and admiration for his Hindû subjects as he had for those of his own creed, and whether from policy or inclination, to have cherished their arts as much as he did those that belonged exclusively to his own people. The consequence is a mixture throughout all his works of two styles, often more picturesque than correct, which might, in the course of another half century, have been blended into a completely new style if persevered in. The spirit of tolerance, however, died with him. There is no trace of Hinduism in the works of Jahângîr or Shâh Jahân, and Aurangzîb would have been horrified at the suggestion that arts of the infidels could influence anything he did.

v2.c31.s3.2

One probably of his earliest works was the mausoleum, which he erected over the remains of his father, Humâyûn, at Delhi. Though it certainly was finished by Akbar, it was commenced by his widow, Hâjî Begam Maryam-makânî, and completed in 1565, at a cost of fifteen lâkhs of rupees; for, as frequently remarked in the previous pages of this work, the great architectural peculiarity of the Tartar or Mongolian races is their tomb-building propensity, in which they are so strongly distinguished from the Aryan, and also from the great Semitic families, with whom they divide the greater part of the habitable globe. Nowhere is this more forcibly illustrated than in India—where the tombs of the Pathâns and Mughals form a complete and unbroken series of architectural monuments from the first years of the Moslim invasion to the present hour.

v2.c31.s3.3

The tombs of the Pathâns are less splendid than those of the Mughals; but nevertheless the whole series is singularly interesting, the tombs being far more numerous than the mosques. Generally speaking, also, they are more artistic in design, and frequently not only larger but more splendidly decorated than the buildings exclusively devoted to prayer.

v2.c31.s3.4

The princes of the Tartar races, in carrying out their love of tombs, made it the practice to build their own in their lifetime, as all people must who are really desirous of sepulchral magnificence. In doing this they rejected the Egyptian mode of preparing dark and deep chambers in the heart of the rock, or of the massive pyramid. The Tartars, on the other hand, built their sepulchres of such a character as to serve for places of enjoyment for themselves and their friends during their lifetime, and only when they could enjoy them no longer they became the solemn resting-places of their mortal remains.

v2.c31.s3.5

The usual process for the erection of these structures is for the king or noble who intends to provide himself a tomb to enclose a garden outside the city walls, generally with high crenellated walls, and with one or more splendid gateways; and in the centre of this he erects a square or octagonal building, crowned by a dome, and in the more splendid examples with smaller and dome-roofed apartments on four of the sides or angles, the other four being devoted to entrances. This building is generally situated on a lofty square terrace, from which radiate four broad alleys, generally with marble-paved canals, ornamented with fountains; a mosque is an essential adjunct; the angular spaces are planted with cypresses and other evergreens and fruit-trees, making up one of those formal but beautiful gardens so characteristic of the East. During the lifetime of the founder, the central building is called a Bâra-darî, summer house or festal hall, and is used as a place of recreation and feasting by him and his friends.

v2.c31.s3.6

At his death its destination is changed—the founder’s remains are interred beneath the central dome. Sometimes his favourite wife lies beside him; but more generally his family and relations are buried beneath the collateral domes. When once used as a place of burial, its vaults never again resound with festive mirth. The care of the building is handed over to priests and faqîrs, who gain a scanty subsistence by the sale of the fruits of the garden, or the alms of those who come to visit the last resting-place of their friend or master. Perfect silence takes the place of festivity and mirth. The beauty of the surrounding objects combines with the repose of the place to produce an effect as graceful as it is solemn and appropriate.

v2.c31.s3.7

Though the tombs, with the remains of their enclosures, are so numerous throughout all India, the Tâj Mahall, at Agra, is almost the only tomb that retains its garden in anything like its pristine beauty, and there is not perhaps in the whole world a scene where nature and art so successfully combine to produce a perfect work of art as within the precincts of this far-famed mausoleum.

v2.c31.s3.8

The tomb of Humâyûn Shâh, the first of the Mughals who was buried in India, still stands tolerably entire among the ruins of Old Delhi, of which indeed it forms the principal and most striking object (Plate XXXIII.). It stands well on a large square platform, 22 ft. in height, adorned with arches, whose piers are ornamented with an inlay of white marble. The tomb itself is an octagonal apartment, 47 ft. 4 in. across, crowned by a dome of white marble, of very graceful contour externally. Four sides of the octagon are occupied by the entrances; the other four smaller octagonal apartments, 23 ft. wide, are attached; these project from the façades of the central bays on each face, and the amount of white marble on them, gives them prominence. In the corner rooms are the tombs of Hâjî Begam and some nine others of the royal race. These apartments make up a building nearly square in plan, about 155 ft. each way, with the angles slightly cut away.¹ Its plan is in fact that afterwards adopted at the Tâj (Woodcut No. 433), but used here without the depth and poetry of that celebrated building. Its most marked characteristic, however, is its purity—it might almost be called poverty—of design. It is so very unlike anything else that Akbar ever built, that it is hardly possible it could have been designed by him. It has not even the picturesque boldness of the earlier Pathân tombs, and in fact looks more like buildings a century at least more modern than it really is. It is, however, as will be seen from the photograph, a noble tomb, and anywhere else must be considered a wonder.

v2.c31.s3.9

¹ In the upper storey of the building round the drum supporting the dome, are rooms and pavilions once occupied by a college, long since deserted.

v2.c31.s3.11

To illustrate the architecture of the day, however, it may be preferable to take the contemporary tomb of Muhammad Ghaus¹ at Gwâliar, which was erected during the early part of Akbar's reign, and is a singularly interesting example of the tombs of the period.

v2.c31.s3.12

¹ Muhammad Ghaus al 'Âlam of Gwâliar, died in 1562.—Blochmann's ''Âîn-i-Akbari,' vol. i. pp. 457f.

v2.c31.s3.13

421. Plan of Tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Gwâliar. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.

v2.c31.s3.14

It is a square, measuring 100 ft. each way, exclusive of the hexagonal towers, which are attached to the angles (Woodcut No. 421). The chamber of the tomb itself is a hall 43 ft. square, with the angles cut off by pointed arches so as to form an octagon, on which the dome rests. Around this square building is a gallery, 20 ft. wide between the piers, enclosed on all sides by a screen of the most exquisite tracery in pierced stone-work with a projecting porch on each face (Woodcut No. 422).²

v2.c31.s3.15

² The plan is taken from one by Gen. Cunningham ('Report,' vol. ii. plate 91). He omits, however, these square projections. I have added them from the photographs.

v2.c31.s3.16

On comparing this with the tomb of Sher Shâh at Sahsarâm, which in many respects it resembles to a considerable extent, it will be seen that it marks a considerable progress in tomb-building during even the short period that elapsed between the erection of the two. There is an inherent weakness in an octagonal form as compared with the square, that even the Pathâns never quite successfully conquered; and the outward screen of trellis work is far more elegant than the open arcade of the Sahsarâm tomb. Something may be due to the fact that Gwâliar was a city where building of an ornamental character had long been going on, and where consequently a superior school of masons and architects may always have existed, while Sahsarâm was a remote country village, where these advantages were unknown. But be this as it may, the progress is such in so short a time, that we can only ascribe it to the invigorating touch of Akbar's genius, which was afterwards to work such wonders.

v2.c31.s3.17

422. Tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Gwâliar. (From a Photograph.)

v2.c31.s3.18

One of the most remarkable and characteristic of Akbar's buildings is the old or Red Palace in the Agra fort, so called from being constructed entirely of red sandstone, unfortunately not of very good quality, and consequently much of its ornament has peeled off. Though most probably erected by Akbar, it goes by the name of the Jahângîr Mahall, and lies on the south side of the Anguri Bâgh and the Khâss Mahall or Palace which is probably largely due to Shâh Jahân. The Red Palace is a square building, measuring 249 ft. by 260 ft. In the centre is a courtyard, 71 ft. by 72 ft., on either side of which are two halls facing one another. The largest, 62 ft. by 37 ft., has a flat ceiling of stone, divided into panels, and supported by struts of purely Hindû design, very similar to those used in the palaces of Mân Singh and Vikrama Shâhi at Gwâliar. Every feature around this court is indeed of pure Hindû architecture. No arches appear anywhere, but the horizontal style of construction everywhere. The ornamentation, too, which is carved on all the flat surfaces, is of a class used by Akbar, but not found in the buildings of others. Indeed, throughout this palace arches are used so sparingly, and Hindû forms and Hindû construction prevail to such an extent, that it would hardly be out of place at Chitor or Gwâliar, though it still bears that impress of vigour and originality that he and he only knew how to impress on all his works.¹

v2.c31.s3.19

¹ There is a plan of this palace, in General Cunningham's 'Reports,' vol. iv., plate 13.

v2.c31.s3.20

It is, however, at Fathpur-Sîkrî, 22½ miles south-west from Agra, that Akbar must be judged of as a builder. During the whole of his reign it was his favourite residence. He apparently was the first to occupy the spot, and apparently the last, at least, to build there, no single building being identified as having been erected by any of his successors.

v2.c31.s3.21

Akbar seems to have had no settled plan when he commenced building there. The original part of the building seems to be the Mahall-î-Khâss, a block of building measuring about 270 ft. by 390 ft. and therefore of larger dimensions than the Red Palace in the fort of Agra. It has two large courtyards, however, and the buildings that surround it are very inferior in richness of design and ornamentation. This, however, is far more than compensated for by the courts and pavilions that he added from time to time. There is the Dîwân-î-Khâss, or private audience-room, a square building with a throne consisting of an enormous flower-like bracket, supported on a richly-carved pillar;² a peristylar building, called his office (Daftar-Khâna), very similar to one he erected at Allahâbâd, to be mentioned hereafter; a five-storeyed open pavilion, all the pillars of which are most richly carved; and long colonnades and walls connecting these with one another. The richest, the most beautiful, as well as the most characteristic of all his buildings here are three small pavilions, said to have been erected to please and accommodate his three favourite sultânas: hence called Bîrbal's daughter's Mahall;³ Maryam-zamânî's House, appropriated to the daughter of Râja Bihârî Mall and mother of Jahângîr, which was known as Sonahlâ Makân or "Golden House" as having been entirely gilt; and the palace of the Rûmî or Turkish Sultâna—Akbar's first wife—Sultâna Ruqayyah Begam, a daughter of Mîrzâ Hindâl, the emperor's uncle: it is miscalled by the guides Jodh-Bâî's.¹ They are small, but it is impossible to conceive anything so picturesque in outline, or any building carved and ornamented to such an extent, without the smallest approach to being overdone or in bad

v2.c31.s3.22

² A cast of this throne is in the South Kensington Museum.

v2.c31.s3.23

³ Bîrbal was a favourite wit and court bard, but no mention is found of his having a daughter, and the house is usually spoken of simply as Bîrbal's palace.

v2.c31.s3.24

¹ Jodh-Bâî was the daughter of Udayasimha of Jodhpur and wife of Jahângîr.

v2.c31.s3.25

423. Carved Pillars in the Sultâna's Kiosk, Fathpur-Sîkrî. (From a Photograph.)

v2.c31.s3.26

taste. The two pillars shown in the annexed woodcut, are from a cast from the last-named pavilion, which is now in the South Kensington and other Museums. It is, perhaps, the most elaborate of the three; but the other two are generally in better taste.

v2.c31.s3.27

The glory, however, of Fathpur-Sîkrî is its mosque, which is hardly surpassed by any in India (Woodcut No. 424). It measures about 544 ft. east and west, by 474 ft. north and south over all. The mosque itself, 288 ft. by 66 ft., is crowned by three domes. In its courtyard, which measures 359 ft. 10 in. by 438 ft. 9 in., stand two tombs: that of Salîm Chishtî, wholly in white marble, and the windows with pierced tracery of the most exquisite geometrical patterns—flowing tracery is a subsequent invention. It possesses besides a deep cornice of marble supported by brackets of the most elaborate design, so much

v2.c31.s3.28

424. Mosque at Fathpur-Sîkrî. (From a Plan by Lieut. Cole, R.E.)

v2.c31.s3.29

so indeed as to be almost fantastic—the only approach to bad taste in the place; the other tomb, that of Islâm Khân, is soberer and in excellent taste, but quite eclipsed by its surroundings.¹ Even these parts, however, are surpassed in magnificence by the southern or Buland (“Lofty”) gateway (A),² measuring 130 ft. by 88 ft. in plan, and of proportionate dimensions in height (Woodcut No. 425). It was completed in 1575. As it stands on a rising ground, when looked at from below, its appearance is noble beyond that of any portal attached to any mosque in India, perhaps in the whole world. This gateway may also be quoted as a perfectly satisfactory solution of a problem which has exercised the ingenuity of architects in all ages, but was more successfully treated by the Saracenic architects than by any others.

v2.c31.s3.30

¹ Shaikh Islâm Khân was a grandson of Shaikh Salîm Chishtî and married a sister of Abûl-Fazl. He was made governor of Bengal in 1608 and died in 1613.

v2.c31.s3.31

² The gateway B on the east side, is called the Badshâhi or Royal gateway; it is much smaller, though it faces the mosque.

v2.c31.s3.32

425. Buland or Southern Gateway of Mosque, Fathpur-Sikrî. (From a Photograph.)

v2.c31.s3.33

It was always manifest that to give a large building a door at all in proportion to its dimensions was, to say the least of it, very inconvenient. Men are only 6 ft. high, and they do not want portals through which elephants might march. The Greeks never ventured, however, to reduce the proportionate size of their portals, though it may be they only opened the lower half, and they covered them, in almost all instances, with porticos to give them a dignity that even their dimensions failed to impart.

v2.c31.s3.34

The Gothic architects tried, by splaying their deeply-embowed doorways, and by ornamenting them richly with carving and sculpture, to give them the dignity that was indispensable for their situation without unnecessarily increasing the size of the openings. It was left, however, for the Saracenic architects completely to get over the difficulty. They placed their portals—one, or three, or five, of very moderate dimensions—at the back of a semi-dome. This last feature thus became the porch or portico, and its dimensions became those of the portal, wholly irrespective of the size of the opening. No one, for instance, looking at this gateway can mistake that it is a doorway and that only, and no one thinks of the size of the openings which are provided at its base. The semi-dome is the modulus of the design, and its scale that by which the imagination measures its magnificence.

v2.c31.s3.35

The same system pervades almost all the portals of the age and style, and always with a perfectly satisfactory result—sometimes even more satisfactory than in this instance, though it may be in less proportionate dimensions. The principle seems the best that has yet been hit upon, and, when that is right, failure is as difficult as it is to achieve success when the principle of the design is wrong.

v2.c31.s3.36

Taking it altogether, this palace at Fathpur-Sîkrî is a romance in stone, such as few—very few—are to be found anywhere; and it is a reflex of the mind of the great man who built it more distinct than can easily be obtained from any other source.¹

v2.c31.s3.37

¹ The architecture of Fathpur-Sîkrî has been admirably surveyed and illustrated by the late Mr. Edmund W. Smith,—in four "parts" or volumes, with over 400 plates and photographs, of which about 320 are excellent architectural drawings,—published by the Government of the North-Western Provinces, Allahabad, 1894-97. Conf. G. Le Bon, 'Les Monuments de l'Inde,' pp. 213-218, figs. 341-355.

v2.c31.s3.38

Allahâbâd was a more favourite residence of this monarch than Agra, perhaps as much so as even Fathpur-Sîkrî; but the English having appropriated the fort, its glories have been nearly obliterated. The most beautiful thing was the pavilion of the Châlîs Sitûn, or forty pillars, so called from its having that number on the principal floor, disposed in two concentric octagonal ranges, one internal of sixteen pillars, the other outside of twenty-four. Above this, supported by the inner colonnade, was an upper range of the same number of pillars crowned by a dome. This building has entirely disappeared, its materials being wanted to repair the fortifications. The great hall, however, still remains, represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 426). It was turned into an arsenal; a brick wall was run

v2.c31.s3.39

426. Hall in Palace at Allahâbâd. (From a Drawing by Daniell.)

v2.c31.s3.40

up between its outer colonnades with windows of English architecture, and its curious pavilions and other accompaniments removed; and internally, whatever could not be conveniently cut away was carefully covered up with plaster and whitewash, and hid by stands of arms and deal fittings. Still its plan can be made out: a square hall supported by eight rows of columns, eight in each row, thus making in all sixty-four, surrounded by a deep verandah of double columns, with groups of four at the angles, all surmounted by bracket capitals of the most elegant and richest design, and altogether as fine in style and as rich in ornament as anything in India.

v2.c31.s3.41

Perhaps, however, the most characteristic of Akbar's buildings is the tomb he commenced to erect for himself at Sikandara, about 5 miles north-west from Agra, which is quite unlike any other tomb built in India either before or since, and of a design borrowed, as I believe, from a Hindû, or more correctly, Buddhist, model. It was completed in 1613, and is said to have been twenty years in building. It stands in an extensive garden, approached by one noble gateway. In the centre of this garden, on a raised platform, stands the tomb itself, of a pyramidal form. The lower storey measures 320 ft. each way, exclusive of the angle towers. It is 30 ft. in height, and pierced by ten great arches on each face, and with a larger entrance adorned with a mosaic of marble in the centre (Woodcuts Nos. 427, 428).¹

v2.c31.s3.42

¹ No plan or section of this tomb has ever, so far as I know, been published, though it has been in our possession for nearly a century. Those here given are from my own measurements, and, though they may be correct as far as they go, are not so detailed as those of such a monument ought to be, and would have been, had it been in the hands of any other European nation.

v2.c31.s3.43

427. Plan of Akbar's Tomb at Sikandara. (From a Plan by the Author.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.

v2.c31.s3.44

On this terrace stands another far more ornate, measuring 186 ft. on each side, and 14 ft. 9 in. in height. A third and fourth, of similar design, and respectively 15 ft. 2 in. and 14 ft.

v2.c31.s3.45

6 in. high, stand on this, all these being of red sandstone. Within and above the last is a white marble enclosure 157 ft. each way, or externally just half the length of the lowest terrace, its outer wall entirely composed of marble trellis-work of the most beautiful patterns. Inside it is surrounded by a colonnade or cloister of the same material, in the centre of which, on a raised platform, is the tombstone of the founder, a splendid piece of the most beautiful arabesque tracery. This, however,

v2.c31.s3.46

428. Diagram section [^1] of one half of Akbar’s Tomb at Sikandara, explanatory of its arrangements. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.

v2.c31.s3.47

is not the true burial-place; but the mortal remains of this great king repose under a far plainer tombstone in a vaulted chamber in the basement 35 ft. square, exactly under the simulated tomb that adorns the summit of the mausoleum.

v2.c31.s3.48

At first sight it might appear that the design of this curious and exceptional tomb was either a caprice of the monarch who built it, or an importation from abroad (Woodcut No. 429). My impression, on the contrary, is, that it is a direct imitation of some such building as the old Buddhist vihâras which may have existed, applied to other purposes in Akbar’s time. Turning back, for instance, to Woodcuts Nos. 89 and 193, representing the great rath at Mâmallapuram, it will be seen that the number and proportion of the storeys is the same. The pavilions that adorn the upper storeys of Akbar's tomb appear distinct reminiscences of the cells that stand on the edge of each platform of the rock-cut example. If the tomb had been crowned by a domical chamber over the tombstone, the likeness would have been so great that no one could mistake it, and my conviction is that such a chamber was part of the original design. No such royal tomb remains exposed to the air in any Indian mausoleum; and the raised platform in the centre of the upper cloister, 38 ft. square, looks so like its foundation that I cannot help believing it was intended for that purpose. As the monument now stands, the pyramid has a truncated and unmeaning aspect. The total height of the building now is a little more than 100 ft. to the top of the angle pavilions; and a central dome 30 or 40 ft. higher, which is the proportion that the base gives, seems just what is wanted to make this tomb as beautiful in outline and in proportion as it is in detail.¹ Had it been so completed, it certainly would have ranked next the Tâj among Indian mausolea.²

v2.c31.s3.49

¹ The diagram is probably sufficient to explain the text, but must not be taken as pretending to be a correct architectural drawing. There were parts, such as the height of the lower dome and upper angle kiosks, I had no means of measuring, and after all, I was merely making memoranda for my own satisfaction.

v2.c31.s3.50

¹ Eleven plates of the beautiful coloured work are published in 'Photographs and Drawings of Historical Buildings' (Griggs, 1896).

v2.c31.s3.51

² After the above was written, and the diagram drawn (Woodcut No. 428), I was not a little pleased to find the following entry in Mr. Finch's journal. He resided in Agra for some years, and visited the tomb for the last time apparently in 1609, and after describing most faithfully all its peculiarities up to the upper floor, as it now stands, adds: "At my last sight thereof there was only overhead a rich tent with a Semaine over the tomb. But it is to be *inarched* over with the most curious white and speckled marble, and to be seeled all within with pure sheet gold richly inwrought."—'Purchas, his Pilgrims,' vol. i. p. 440.

v2.c31.s3.52

429. View of Akbar's Tomb, Sikandara. (From a Photograph.)

Jahângîr, A.D. 1605-1628.

v2.c31.s4.1

When we consider how much was done by his father and his son, it is rather startling to find how little Jahângîr contributed to the architectural magnificence of India. Partly this may be owing to his not having the same passion for building which characterised these two great monarchs; but partly also to his having made Lâhor the capital during his reign, and to his having held his court there in preference to Agra or Delhi, from 1622 till his death in 1628.³

v2.c31.s4.2

³ His father, Akbar, had also kept his court here for fourteen years, from 1584 to 1598: and had repaired the fort and built the Akbari Mahall in the east end of it, and a Dîwân-i-'Âmm, now demolished, also the Akbari Gate as the principal entrance. Examples may still be seen at Lâhor of the architecture of his time, though defaced by subsequent alterations.

v2.c31.s4.3

Among the buildings of Jahângîr's reign, the Jahângîri Mahall, already mentioned, in the fort at Agra, is ascribed to the first years of his reign; the fine gateway to the Sarâ'e

v2.c31.s4.4

430. Plan of the Lâhor Fort.

v2.c31.s4.5

at Nûrmahall, 16 miles south of Jâlandhar, was erected in 1620,¹ the Shâlimâr gardens and summer houses near Srînagar were built about 1624; the tomb of Anârkalî in the town of Lâhor; and in the fort he added to Akbar's buildings the eastern Khwâb-gah, marked in the accompanying plan (Woodcut No. 430);² and the Motî Masjid of white marble, with three domes, which, though comparatively plain, is architecturally interesting. The Khwâb-gah or sleeping apartments were in a quadrangle about 140 ft. in length, with a lofty pavilion in the middle of the north side—then overlooking the Râvî—and at the corners two chambers with Hindû pillars richly carved. On the other three sides the area was surrounded by a colonnade, on pillars of red sandstone with bracket capitals carved with figures of elephants, peacocks, and conventional animals, similar to what we find in the Red Palace at Agra. But these and nearly all the buildings in the fort have met with no respect, but have been entirely altered to suit the conveniences of military life.

v2.c31.s4.6

¹ Photographed in Cole's 'Buildings in the Panjab,' plates 1 and 2.

v2.c31.s4.7

² From a native plan of the Fort in the time of Ranjit Singh.—Cole, *ut sup.*

v2.c31.s4.8

To the south of Jahângîr's palace Shâh Jahân erected his Dîwân-i-'Âmm, and on the west an extension of the palace, the smaller Khwâb-gah in which is an elegant pavilion of marble arches and open lattice work which long did duty as a garrison church. At the west end of the north front of the fort is what is known as the Samman Burj,³ containing the Shish Mahall—the work of Shâh Jahân and Aurangzîb, added to by the Sikhs, and the Naulakhâ pavilion a costly erection inlaid in pietra dura with flowers in precious stones. The square on the west of the fort, called the Hazuri Bâgh, enclosing the Bârahdarî of Ranjit Singh, gives entrance to the Badshâhi Masjid erected by Aurangzîb in 1674, to which reference will be made below.

v2.c31.s4.9

³ Samman is from *musamman* — octagonal. Tradition reports a lofty octagonal tower here.

v2.c31.s4.10

The great mosque in the city of Lâhor is that of Wazîr Khân built in 1634 by Hakîm 'Alîmu-d-Dîn, Sûbahdâr of the Panjâb under Shâh Jahân. It is in the Persian style, covered with enamelled tiles, and resplendent in colours, but not very graceful in form. Its brick walls are covered with beautiful inlaid work called *kashi*, a kind of mosaic of glazed pottery.⁴

v2.c31.s4.11

⁴ This inlaid work is described by J. L. Kipling, with a coloured view of the fine gateway and some details, in 'Journal of Indian Art and Industry,' vol. ii. p. 17, and plates 16-18.

v2.c31.s4.12

Jahângîr's own tomb at Shâhdara, about 6 miles north of Lâhor, was raised by his queen, the accomplished and imperious Nûr-Jahân, and was worthy of his other buildings, but it has suffered as much as the others. The tomb is in the middle of a large walled garden about 540 yards square, extending to 60 acres, originally with gateways on each side—

v2.c31.s4.13

that from the court of the Sarâ'e on the west having a marble arch and being about 50 ft. high. The mausoleum in the centre stands on a low plinth, 256 ft. square, and itself consists of a terraced platform, 209 ft. square and about 20½ ft. high, with octagonal minarets of three storeys above the terraced roof, surmounted by white marble cupolas, and rising 85 ft. from the plinth. It is surrounded by arcades, having a central arch flanked by a doorway and five other arches on each side; the arcades have behind them forty rooms in all, through one of which on each side a passage leads through other two oblong apartments into the tomb chamber, which is thus enclosed in nearly solid walls of masonry 56 ft. thick on all sides. The sarcophagus is of white marble, inlaid with pietra dura work and stands in an octagonal chamber of 26½ ft. diameter and about 21 ft. high. On the roof over this is a raised platform 53 ft. square with a tessellated marble pavement, the marble parapet of which was carried off by Ranjit Singh, but has now been restored.¹ The building is of red sandstone inlaid with marble, and the details are all in excellent taste, but the long low façade between the minârs is not architecturally very effective.

v2.c31.s4.14

¹ There is a plan of the tomb and garden, but to a very small scale, among Major Cole’s plates in Griggs’ ‘Photo-graphs and Drawings of Historical Buildings,’ plate 68. The elevation and section with coloured details (plates 69-76) are to adequate scales however.

v2.c31.s4.15

On the west of this is the Sarâ'e, and beyond it the octagonal tomb of Âsaf Khân, the brother of Nûr-Jahân, who died in 1641, and across the railway is that of the queen herself—both stripped by Ranjit Singh of their marbles and inlaid work.²

v2.c31.s4.16

² Thornton’s ‘Lahore’ and Syad Muhammad Latif’s ‘Lahore’ give detailed accounts of the place.

v2.c31.s4.17

At the other end of his dominions also he built a splendid new capital at Dacca, in supersession to Gaur, and adorned it with several buildings of considerable dimensions. These, however, were principally in brick-work, covered with stucco, and with only pillars and brackets in stone. Most of them, consequently, are in a state of ruinous decay; marvellously picturesque, it must be confessed, peering through the luxuriant vegetation that is tearing them to pieces but hardly worthy to be placed in competition with the stone and marble buildings of the more northern capitals.

v2.c31.s4.18

There is one building—the tomb known as that of I'timâdu-d-daulah—at Agra, however, which belongs to this reign, and though not erected by the monarch himself, cannot be passed over, not only from its own beauty of design, but also because it marks an epoch in the style to which it belongs. It was erected by Nûr-Jahân, in memory of her father, who died in 1621, and was completed in 1628. It is situated on the left bank of the river, in the midst of a garden surrounded by a wall measuring 540 ft. on each side. In the centre of this, on a raised platform, stands the tomb itself, a square measuring 69 ft. on each side. It is two storeys in height, and at each angle is an octagonal tower, surmounted by an open pavilion. The towers, however, are rather squat in proportion, and the general design of the building very far from being so pleasing as that of many less pretentious tombs in the neighbourhood. Had it, indeed, been built in red sandstone, or even with an inlay of white marble like that of Humâyûn, it would not have attracted much attention. Its real merit consists in being wholly in white marble, and being covered throughout with a mosaic in "pietra dura"—the first, apparently, and certainly one of the most splendid, examples of that class of ornamentation in India.¹

v2.c31.s4.19

¹ For details of the decoration, *see* E. W. Smith's 'Moghul Colour Decoration of Agra,' pp. 18-20, and plates 64-77; 'Photographs and Drawings of Indian Buildings,' plates 12-30; or 'Journal of Indian Art and Industry,' vol. vi. pp. 90-94, and plates 59-66.

v2.c31.s4.20

It seems that in the early part of the 17th century Italian artists, principally, apparently from Florence, were introduced into India, and, it has been said they taught the Indians the art of inlaying marble with precious stones.² At Fathpur-Sîkrî, examples occur of "inlay" as well as of "overlay," and in the gateway of the Sikandara tomb inlaid work is quite prevalent; but in the time of Shâh Jahân it became the leading characteristic of the style, and both his palaces and his tombs owe their principal distinction to the beauty of the mode in which this new invention was employed.

v2.c31.s4.21

² Although this was for a time hardly doubted, no very direct evidence was adduced to prove that it was to foreign—Florentine—artists that the Indians owe the art of inlaying in precious stones generally known as work in "pietra dura." Austin or Augustin de Bordeaux is the only European artist whose name can be identified with any works of the class. He was employed by Shâh Jahân at Delhi, and is supposed to have executed that mosaic of Orpheus or Apollo playing to the beasts, after Raphael's picture, which adorned the throne there, and was long in the Indian Museum at South Kensington, but was taken back and restored to its place by Lord Curzon. In 'The Nineteenth Century and After,' vol. iii. (1903) pp. 1039ff. Mr. E. B. Havell, of the Calcutta School of Art, has shown reason for ascribing this inlaid work to Arab and Persian origins, pointing to the "elaborate scrolls of conventional Arabian design," and the familiar Persian motifs, "such as rose-water vessels, the cypress," etc., which characterise the art. Up to the erection of the gates to Akbar's tomb at Sikandara in the first ten years of Jahângîr's reign, A.D. 1605-1615, we have infinite mosaics of coloured marble, but few specimens of "inlay." In I'timâdu-d-daulah's tomb, A.D. 1615-1628, we have both systems in great perfection. In the Tâj and palaces at Agra and Delhi, built by Shâh Jahân, A.D. 1628-1668, the mosaic has disappeared, being supplanted by the "inlay." It was just before that time that the system of inlaying called "pietra dura" was invented, and became the rage at Florence and, in fact, all throughout Europe; but though during the reigns of the two last-named monarchs Italian artists were in their service, there is no definite evidence that they held influential posts, whilst artists from Shîrâz, Bâghdâd, Samarkand and Kanauj are mentioned as of high reputation during the erection of the Tâj Mahall,—most probably designed by 'Ali Mardan Khân, a Persian refugee.

v2.c31.s4.22

It has been doubted whether this new art was really a foreign introduction, or whether it had not been invented by the natives of India themselves. The question never, probably, would have arisen had one of the fundamental principles of architecture been better understood. When we, for instance, having no art of our own, copy a Grecian or Roman pillar, or an Italian mediæval arch in detail, we do so literally, without any attempt to adapt it to our uses or climate; but when a people having a style of their own wish to adopt any feature or process belonging to any other style, they do not copy but adapt it to their uses; and it is this distinction between adopting and adapting that makes all the difference. We would have allowed Italians to introduce with their mosaics all the details of their Cinque-cento architecture. The Indians set about reproducing, with the new materials and processes—wherever they came from—the patterns which the architects of Akbar had been in the habit of carving in stone or of inlaying in marble. Every form was adapted to the place where it was to be used. The style remained the same, so did all the details; the materials only were changed, and the patterns only so far as was necessary to adapt them to the smaller and more refined materials that were to be used.¹

v2.c31.s4.23

¹ Something of the same sort occurred when the Turks occupied Constantinople. They adapted the architecture of the Christians to their own purposes, but without copying. *Vide* 'History of Ancient and Medieval Architecture,' 3rd ed. vol. ii. pp. 557 *et seqq.*

First 94 of 197 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)