Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c18: Chapter XII. The Indo-Muhammadan Styles of Architecture

A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c18

Language
English

Chapter XII. The Indo-Muhammadan Styles of Architecture

c18.2

Within about eighty years after the death of Muhammad in A. D. 632 the followers of his religion reigned supreme over Arabia, Persia, Syria, Western Turkistan, Sind, Egypt, North Africa, and Southern Spain, the marvellously rapid extension of Muhammadan power having been rendered possible by the barbarism and weakness of the subjugated kingdoms in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The first contact of Islam, as MM. Le Bon and Saladin observe, was stimulating to what remained alive of the older forms of civilization. Muslim armies, recruited in Persia, Syria, and Egypt, carried with them crowds of Asiatic skilled craftsmen, who introduced everywhere the arts of Asia, and modified the various local forms of art so as to suit the needs of the new faith and satisfy the luxurious tastes of magnificent courts. The Arabs, although possessing little art of their own, succeeded in impressing upon the local styles which they utilized for Muslim purposes a general character of uniformity, which we now recognize as that of Musalman art.

c18.3

The Muhammadan conquest in A. D. 712 of Sind, which at that time was regarded as distinct from India, did not seriously affect India proper, and the occupation of Kābul in A. D. 870 was equally without appreciable influence on Hindu polity, which continued its isolated course unchanged by external forces, developing on the political side the Rājpūt kingdoms, and on the aesthetic side the Brahmanical art described in Chapter VII. India did not feel the impact of Muslim ideas until the beginning of the eleventh century, when the repeated fierce raids of Mahmūd of Ghaznī compelled her to take notice of the new force which had arisen. Before his death in A. D. 1030 the Panjāb had become a province of the Muhammadan Sultanate of Ghaznī. But, until the closing years of the twelfth century, Islam made no further progress in India. No buildings of the early Arab conquerors in Sind have been described, nor are there tangible traces of the rule of the Ghaznivide rulers of the Panjāb.

c18.4

The history of Indo-Muhammadan art begins with the year A. D. 1200 in round numbers. Between 1193 and 1236 Muhammad of Ghōr, Kutb-ud-dīn Ībak, and Sultan Iyaltimish (Altamsh) had compelled all Northern India, including Bengal, to submit, more or less completely, to the Muslim government established at Delhi. The earliest Muhammadan monuments in India date from the reigns of the three princes named; the principal works of that time being the mosque at Ajmēr, the Kutb mosque and mīnār at Delhi, the gateway of the chief mosque at Budāon (A. D. 1223),¹ and the tomb of the Sultan Iyaltimish at Delhi.²

c18.5

¹ Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. xi, p. 5, Pl. III.

c18.6

² The most correct form of the Sultan's Turkī name appears to be Iyaltimish, but some coins read Iltitmish. His Muslim name was Shams-ud-dīn (‘Sun of Religion’). Tieffenthaler correctly calls the Kutb Mīnār ‘la tour de Schams uddin’ (French transl., *Géographie de l'Indoustan*, Berlin, 1791, p. 130).

c18.7

The simple, spiritual worship of Muslims, who adore the One Unseen God and hate every kind of idol, can be performed satisfactorily without any building. But it is convenient to have a spacious edifice in which the faithful can assemble on Friday, the Musalman Sabbath, to join in public prayer, and occasionally hear a sermon. During prayer the worshippers should turn towards Mecca, the direction of which is indicated by a niche or niches in the appropriate wall. The Muhammadan mosque, or church, therefore, consists essentially of an enclosure, with a niche in one wall to indicate the direction of Mecca. There should be also a pulpit, and a tank for ablution. All other things, such as cloisters, chambers, and lofty portals are unessential, being needed only for purposes of convenience and dignity. The mosque may be wholly open to the air, or wholly or partially roofed. Examples of wholly roofed mosques are very rare in India, the only one on a large scale being that at Kulbarga in the Deccan. Ordinarily a large open quadrangle is the principal feature of an Indian mosque. The covered portions of the more considerable buildings usually consist of an aisle or aisles (*līwān*), at the western side, with cloisters round the enclosing walls, and often include huge gateways with many chambers, and sundry minor structures. The roofs are invariably domed in some fashion or other, and pointed arches are a prominent feature.

c18.8

The almost universal presence of domes and arches, usually of the pointed kind, in Muhammadan buildings is due to the fact that Muslim architecture is based on the style practised at Baghdad in the time of the great Abbasid Khalifs (Caliphs), of whom Hārūn-ar-rashīd (786–809) is the best known. The Baghdad style was derived from the ancient vaulted architecture of Mesopotamia, as transmitted through the modified developments of Sassanian times (A. D. 226–641). The beginnings of the familiar forms of Muhammadan architecture have been recently traced by General de Beylié in the buildings of Samara in Mesopotamia, erected in the early part of the ninth century, and abandoned in 875, when Baghdad became the capital of the Khalifate. From Baghdad the style spread rapidly throughout the Muhammadan world, and became to such a degree universal that it is hardly possible to imagine a mosque of brick or stone without domes and arches.¹

c18.9

¹ The exceptional wooden mosques of Kashmīr have tall spires, probably derived from Buddhist architecture (Nicholls, ‘Muhammadan Architecture in Kashmir,’ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1906–7, pp. 161–70, with plates; a valuable treatise). My text is based on the article ‘Les Origines de l’Art musulman’, by M. Louis Bréhier (*La Revue des Idées*, Paris, No. 75, Mars 1910, pp. 189–99), and on Saladin, *Manuel d’Art musulman*, tome i, chap. I (Paris, 1907). The view of Fergusson (ed. 1910, vol. ii, p. 197) that the Musalman invaders of India were ‘Turanians’ with ‘a style of their own’ does not express the facts correctly.

c18.10

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, when Kutb-ud-dīn and Iyaltimish undertook to build mosques and tombs at Delhi and Ajmēr, domes and pointed arches were recognized to be essential. But the conquerors were obliged to employ Hindu masons, unaccustomed to turning true radiating arches and domes, and ordinarily able only to make the semblance of such by means of the horizontal corbelled construction familiar to them, with which the Muslim architects had to be content. The cloisters were easily made up from the materials of overthrown Hindu temples, and retained a manifest Hindu character without objection.

c18.11

PLATE XCI. Great Arch in Mosque at Ajmēr. (*Photo.* 1532, *I. M. List.*)

c18.12

At the Kutb mosque of Delhi the glory of the building is the screen of eleven pointed arches, eight smaller and three larger, Muslim in form, but Hindu in construction. They are so familiar that a small illustration will suffice (Fig. 232). The faces of these structures are decorated with 'a lace-work of intricate and delicate carving', considered by Fergusson to be 'the most exquisite specimen of its class known to exist anywhere'. It bears some resemblance to the decorations of the

c18.13

FIG. 232. Smaller arches of the Kutb Mosque, and the Iron Pillar. (Photo. supplied by Prof. Macdonell.)

c18.14

Sassanian palace of Mashita and those of certain parts of Santa Sophia at Constantinople. The similar screen at Ajmēr, built by Iyaltimish between A. D. 1200 and 1235, consists of seven arches, the central one being 22 ft. 2 in. wide. 'Each arch is surrounded by three lines of writing, the outer in the Kufic and the other two in Arabic characters, and divided from each other by bands of Arabesque ornament boldly and clearly cut and still as sharp as when first chiselled. In the centre the screen rises to a height of 56 feet' (Plate XCI). The illustration shows [Figure: PLATE XCII. The Kutb Mīnār, built by Iyaltimish *cir.* A. D. 1232.

c18.15

clearly the Hindu mode of construction, and the peculiar low conical dome appearing within.

c18.16

The mosque colloquially known as 'the Kutb' is commonly believed to be named after the Sultan Kutb-ud-dīn Ībak (1205–10), and it is true that it was completed in its original form in the year A. D. 1198 by him while he was still Viceroy of Delhi and the Indian territory under the Sultan of Ghaznī. But the building is really named after a famous saint, Kutb-ud-dīn of Ūsh near Baghdad, who lies buried near, and is popularly remembered as Kutb Sāhib.

c18.17

Muslim usage requires that the faithful should be summoned to prayer at the stated times by a loud call uttered by an official known as *muazzin*. In order to

c18.18

FIG. 233. Gateway of Alā-ud-dīn Khaljī, Delhi. (Photo. 863, I. M. *List*.)

c18.19

facilitate his duty many mosques, although by no means all, were furnished with a minaret, or two minarets, from which the summons could be proclaimed. Sometimes the minarets were attached to the mosque, sometimes they were detached. The Kutb Mīnār at Delhi, originally about 250 feet high, and even now not much less, is the most remarkable example of the detached minaret in existence. Like the adjoining mosque, it derives its familiar name from the saint, not the prince. It is, however, some thirty years or more later in date than the mosque, having been erected about A. D. 1232 by the Sultan Iyaltimish when he made large additions to the mosque. The details of the building are largely due to Hindu masons. The structure has been so often described at length, that it will be sufficient to give a photograph (Plate XCII), and to cite Fergusson's authority for the statement that the Mīnār is ‘the most beautiful example of its class known to exist anywhere’. Fine specimens of mīnārs of later date will be illustrated presently. The form, a specially Muslim one, offers much scope for variety of treatment. ‘The minaret,’ as Sir George Birdwood observes, ‘is the one original feature the Saracens contributed to architecture.’¹

c18.20

¹ *J. Roy. Soc. Arts*, Jan. 1911, p. 179.

c18.21

The magnificent gateway erected in A. D. 1310 by the Sultan Alā-ud-dīn Khaljī on the south side of the enlarged Kutb Mosque marks an advance in Indo-

c18.22

FIG. 234. Tomb of Tughlak Shāh, Tughlakābād, Old Delhi. (*Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1904-5, p. 19, Fig. 11.)

c18.23

Muhammadan architecture. The local masons had learned in the course of a century how to build true arches with keystones, and were no longer constrained to execute the designs of their foreign masters by the structurally inferior Hindu methods. The building consists of a rectangular chamber surmounted by a low-spreading dome. The ornament is composed mainly of geometrical designs and artistic Arabic inscriptions, but sundry details still show the influence of Hindu tradition (Fig. 233).²

c18.24

² This building was copied for the gateway of the tomb of Sultan Sikandar Lodī, built in A.D. 1494 at Khairpur near Delhi (Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. xx, p. 156).

c18.25

The Kings or Sultans of the Tughlak dynasty of Delhi in the fourteenth century introduced a new style of architecture marked by massiveness and extreme simplicity, qualities which have suggested a comparison with the early Norman work in England. The most characteristic example of this severe style is the tomb of Ghiyās-ud-dīn Tughlak, who was killed by a carefully devised ‘accident’ in 1324 (Fig. 234). The plan is a square measuring 38½ feet inside and 61½ feet outside, and the height to the top of the dome is 70 feet. The enormously thick walls slope inwards. The exterior decoration is effected in an austere manner by the free use of bands and borders of white marble, varied with a few panels of black marble, showing against the large surfaces of red sandstone.¹ No trace of Hindu tradition is retained. The style has nothing Persian about it, and I am not able to point out any exactly similar Asiatic model. The suggestion has been made that buildings in Mecca may have supplied the prototype.

c18.26

¹ Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. i, p. 213.

c18.27

At the close of the fourteenth century many provinces broke away from the suzerainty of the Sultans of Delhi, and set up as independent kingdoms. Among such mushroom states one of the most notable was that known as the Sharkī, or Eastern Sultanate, with its capital at Jaunpur, forty miles from Benares. Its independence lasted until 1476. During its short period of glory the local sovereigns occupied themselves by destroying Hindu temples and replacing them by mosques designed on a grand scale, and in a distinctive style. The handsomest of the Jaunpur mosques is the Atāla, completed in 1408, of which the main portal is shown in Plate XCIII. The gateways and great halls are thoroughly Muslim, with radiating arches and true domes, but in the cloisters and interior galleries, where there was no need to roof large spaces, square pillars, often borrowed from Hindu temples, are used, and the construction is Hindu. The style, while it has much of the massiveness of the Tughlak buildings at Delhi, is less severe and more attractive, a curious hybrid of Muslim and Hindu.

c18.28

Under the patronage of its independent kings Bengal developed a Muhammadan style of its own.

c18.29

‘It is’ (Fergusson observes) ‘neither like that of Delhi, nor Jaunpur, nor any other style, but one purely local, and not without considerable merit in itself; its principal characteristic being heavy short pillars of stone supporting pointed arches and vaults in brick—whereas, at Jaunpur, for instance, light pillars carried horizontal architraves and flat ceilings.’

c18.30

The second characteristic of the style is the curvilinear cornice copied from bamboo structures (*ante*, p. 18). The best examples are to be seen among the extensive ruins of the cities Gaur and Pāndua in the Mālda District. The buildings are mostly in brick and possess little beauty. But one mosque, known as the Small Golden, or Eunuch's Mosque at Gaur, is built wholly of basalt with massive solidity. This elegant building, which has been called ‘the gem of Gaur’, was erected about A.D. 1500, and is covered inside and out with beautifully chiselled designs, including the Indian lotus. The gateway is shown in Fig. 235. There are fifteen domes.

c18.31

[Figure: Plate XCIII. Main entrance of Atāla devī Mosque, Jaunpur. (Führer and E. W. Smith, *The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur*, Pl. III.)]

c18.32

The buildings at Māndū, the capital of the kingdom of Mālwā, which was independent from A.D. 1401 to 1531, are purely Muslim in style, closely related to those of the Sultans of Delhi. They are distinguished from the later Mughal buildings by the absence of groining and by the spreading domes.

c18.33

Unquestionably, the most beautiful of the provincial styles of Muhammadan architecture in Northern and Western India is that of Gūjarāt. By good fortune it has been studied more carefully than any other Indian style, all the chief examples

c18.34

[Figure: FIG. 235. Gateway of Small Golden (Eunuch's) Mosque, Gaur. (Ravenshaw, *Gaur*, Pl. XXII.)]

c18.35

having been elaborately described and illustrated by Dr. Burgess and his staff in three quarto volumes, fully furnished with plans, sections, elevations, and photographs. The style is that of the Hindu and Jain temples (*ante*, p. 32, Plates VI, VII) with such modifications as were necessary for the purposes of Muslim worship, and is characterized by all the richness of ornament distinctive of the temples of Gūjarāt and Southern Rājputāna—a strange contrast to the stern simplicity of the Tughlak buildings contemporary with the earlier examples. Hindu construction, too, is freely used, but the indispensable domes and pointed arches are introduced. The entrance to the chief mosque at Cambay, for instance, erected early in the fourteenth century, is simply a Hindu temple porch, with a low dome, plain on the exterior, put on top of it.¹ The exquisite roofed pulpit of Hilāl Khān Kazi's mosque at Dholkā, built in A. D. 1333, has a purely Hindu pyramidal roof, and much of the panelled ornament with which the whole surface has been covered is equally Hindu.²

c18.36

¹ Burgess, *A. S. R., Western India*, vol. vi, Pl. XIX, p. 28.

c18.37

² Ibid., Pl. XXX, p. 31.

c18.38

The finest examples of the style, which, of course, gradually discarded some of its Hindu features, are to be seen at and near Ahmadābād, the ancient provincial

c18.39

FIG. 236. Tomb of Abū Turāb, Ahmadābād. (Burgess, *A. S. R., Western India*, vol. viii, p. 51, Fig. 7.)

c18.40

capital, to the architecture of which two of Dr. Burgess's volumes are devoted. The name of the city is derived from Ahmad Shāh, Sultan of Gūjarāt from 1411 to 1443, and the earliest Muhammadan buildings date from his time. The domes of his cathedral (*Jām'i*) mosque are constructed in the Hindu fashion. The elaborate traceries and other decorative accessories of the Ahmadābād buildings will be noticed in the next chapter.

c18.41

The best preserved mosque in Ahmadābād, and one of the prettiest buildings in the city, is that built by Mahāfīz Khān at the close of the fifteenth century. The minarets are adorned with panels of rich floral tracery undercut to such an extent that it is almost detached from the masonry. The architecture still largely retains a Hindu character (Plate XCIV).

c18.42

The tomb of Abū Turāb, about a century later than Mahāfīz Khān’s mosque, although still preserving the Ahmadābād character, is constructed with arches throughout, and is completely free from Hindu pillars (Fig. 236). The perforated screens which formerly connected the internal columns have disappeared.

c18.43

[Figure: FIG. 237. Tomb in Golkonda style at Bījāpur. (Fergusson and Meadows Taylor, *Architecture at Beejapoor*, Pl. LXXI.)]

c18.44

The buildings designed in the distinctive Ahmadābād style have no specially Persian features, and are thus sharply distinguished from the styles which we are about to notice. But two exceptional edifices at Ahmadābād, the mosque and tomb of Nawāb Sardār Khān, built about 1680, are quite Persian in style. The mosque is very elegant.¹

c18.45

¹ Burgess, *A. S. R., Western India*, vol. viii, p. 55, Pl. LX, LXI.

c18.46

The Bahmani Sultanate of the Deccan, established in 1347 by a successful revolt against the authority of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak of Delhi, broke up into five PLATE XCIV. Mosque of Mahāfīz Khān, Ahmadābād. (Burgess, *A. S. R., Western India*, vol. vii, Pl. XCVIII.)

c18.48

states at the close of the fifteenth century. The rulers of all those kingdoms encouraged architecture, and, consequently, ancient buildings of greater or less importance exist at all the local capitals. The covered mosque of Kulbarga (Gulbarga) has been already mentioned (*ante*, p. 392), and other notable edifices exist in the same town. Bīdar possesses an imposing mosque, several remarkable tombs, and the ruins of a great college. The royal tombs at Golkonda, near the Nizam's capital, Haidarābād, are more or less familiar to tourists. The special peculiarities of the Golkonda style described as being high clerestories, stucco work in minarets, and domes of peculiar shape with narrow bases, may be illustrated from a tomb built in that style at Bījāpur in the seventeenth century (Fig. 237).

c18.49

[Figure: FIG. 238. Ibrāhīm Rauza, Bījāpur; front view. (Photo. 1825, I. M. *List*.)]

c18.50

The Deccan buildings, except a few of the earliest, are free from Hindu forms and constructions, and are related to the Mughal Indo-Persian style. But each kingdom had fashions of its own.

c18.51

By far the most important of the Deccan styles is that of Bījāpur. The buildings in it date between the years 1557 and 1686. The most ornate is the comparatively small tomb of Ibrāhīm Ādil Shah II (1579–1626), the character of which may be judged from Fig. 238.

c18.52

The stately tomb of Muhammad Ādil Shah (1636–60) is covered with a dome the second largest in the world, ‘a wonder of constructive skill,’ balanced internally by an ingenious arrangement of pendentives, fully explained by Fergusson, and with an internal height of 178 feet.

c18.53

‘The external ordonnance of this building is as beautiful as that of the interior. At each angle stands an octagonal tower eight storeys high, simple and bold in its proportions, and crowned by a dome of great elegance. The lower part of the building is plain and solid, pierced only with such openings as are requisite to admit light and air; at the height of 83 feet a cornice projects to the extent of 12 feet from the wall, or nearly twice as much as the boldest European architect ever attempted. Above this an open gallery gives lightness and finish to the whole, each face being further relieved by two minarets.’

c18.54

FIG. 239. Gōl Gumbaz, or tomb of Muhammad Ādil Shah, Bījāpur, front view. (Photo. 1810, I. M. *List*.)

c18.55

The name of the architect of this wonderful structure, commonly known as the *Gōl Gumbaz*, or Circular Dome (Fig. 239), does not seem to be recorded, and we do not even know whether he was a foreigner or Indian-born. Foreigners, Asiatic or European, were frequently employed by the Indo-Muhammadan sovereigns, and the Bījāpur style is thought to show the influence of Ottoman architects. An expert critic truly observes that ‘under Mohammedan influence the dome-builders of India attained a mastery over this form unknown [to] and seemingly unappreciated by the builders of the Western world’.¹

c18.56

¹ R. F. Chisholm, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.A., in *J. Roy. Soc. of Arts*, Jan., 1911, p. 173.

c18.57

We now pass on to the Indo-Persian styles of the North, the only forms of Muhammadan architecture in India familiar to the world in general. The short-lived and unstable Sūr dynasty (1540–55), of which Shēr Shah was the most distinguished member, had such a hard fight for existence that it could not have been expected to pay much attention to architecture. Nevertheless, several meritorious buildings are due to the Sūr Sultans, and the mausoleum of Shēr Shah at Sahasrām (Sasseram), built on a lofty plinth in the midst of a lake, is one of the best designed and most beautiful buildings in India, unequalled among the earlier buildings in the northern provinces for grandeur and dignity. Cunningham was half inclined to prefer it even to the Tāj. The dome, although not equal in size to the Gōl Gumbaz of Bījāpur, is 13 feet wider than that of the Agra monument.¹ Externally, the architecture is wholly Muhammadan, but Hindu corbelling and horizontal architraves are used in all the inner doorways, as at Jaunpur. The style may be described as intermediate between the austerity of the Tughlak buildings and the feminine grace of Shahjahān’s masterpiece. Plate XCV may suffice to give a good notion of the merits of this admirable style. The plan is octagonal, and coloured glazed tiles were used for decoration. Both the octagonal form and the glazed tiles were importations from Persia.²

c18.58

¹ Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. xi, pp. 133, 137.

c18.59

² Octagonal memorial mosque of the fourteenth century at Sultānīyah in Persia (Saladin, *Manuel d'Art musulman*, t. I, Fig. 267). Tile decoration will be discussed in chap. xiii, sec. 7.

c18.60

Bābar, the versatile founder of the Mughal dynasty, was an active builder during his brief and stormy Indian reign of five years (1526–31). Holding a poor opinon of all Indian products, he summoned from Constantinople pupils of the celebrated architect Sinan, an Albanian officer on the staff of the Janissaries, who had planned hundreds of important buildings in the Ottoman empire.³ Out of the numerous edifices erected by those foreigners to Bābar's order at Agra, Delhi, Kābul, and other places, only two are now visible, namely, the large mosque in the Kābul Bāgh, Pānīpat, built after the great victory of 1526, and the Jāmi Masjid at Sambhal in Rohilkhand, bearing the same date (A. H. 933). The Pānīpat building has not been described, but is said to be in fair condition. The Sambhal mosque has a remarkable ovoid dome.⁴ Although the Indian buildings are much more Persian than Ottoman in style, there is some reason for thinking that the grandeur of the proportions of the existing monuments in Northern India and Bījāpur may be partly due to the teaching of the school of Sinan.

c18.61

³ Saladin, *op. cit.*, pp. 509, 561, with reference to Montani, *Archilecture ottomane*, which I have not seen.

c18.62

⁴ Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. xii, p. 26; E. W. Smith, *Akbar's Tomb*, p. 4, editor's note.

c18.63

Bābar's accomplished son and successor, Humāyūn, the rival and opponent of Shēr Shah, found time in the midst of his unceasing wars to do some building. But most of his works have been destroyed, and, as in his father's case, only two are known to have survived, namely, a ruinous mosque near Agra, and one much better preserved at Fathābād in the Hissār District, Panjāb, which is decorated in the Persian manner with enamelled tiles.⁵ The buildings of Bābar and Humāyūn are purely foreign and Muhammadan.

c18.64

⁵ The ruinous mosque at Kachpura opposite Agra is described by Carlleyle, in Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. iv, p. 100; and by Moin-ud-din, *History of the Taj*, p. 111. It is dated A. H. 937 = A. D. 1530–1. The Fathābād mosque is a massive, well-proportioned building with domes rather more than hemispherical, built to the order of Humāyūn about 1540 or 1541, when he was on his way to Sind (Garrick, in Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. xxiii, p. 12, Pl. III, IV).

c18.65

[Figure: PLATE XCV. Tomb of Shēr Shāh at Sahasrām, Shahabad District, Bengal.

c18.66

Akbar's strong liking for Hindu ways induced him to revert to Hindu styles of architecture, and many of the buildings erected during his long reign (1556–1605) are more Hindu than Muslim. A conspicuous instance of such reversion is afforded by the well-known palace in the Agra Fort, commonly called the Jahāngīrī Mahall, which really dates from Akbar's time and might have been built for a Hindu Rāja.¹ The other buildings of Akbar in the Fort were demolished by Shahjahān.

c18.67

¹ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1902–3, p. 62; and 1903–4, p. 170.

c18.68

The splendid mausoleum of Humāyūn, near Delhi, erected early in Akbar's reign, while distinctly Persian in style, is differentiated by the free use of white

c18.69

FIG. 240. Tomb of Humāyūn, *cir.* A.D. 1560.

c18.70

marble, a material little employed in Persia, and by the abstinence from coloured tile decoration so much favoured by the architects of that country. The building (Fig. 240) is of special interest as being to some extent the model of the inimitable 'Tāj'. The dome is built entirely of white marble, the rest of the masonry being in red sandstone, with inlaid ornaments of white marble. The four corner cupolas and the narrow-necked dome now make their first appearance in India.²

c18.71

² Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. i, p. 224. Mr. Chisholm points out that in both the Tomb of Humāyūn and the Tāj the small corner domes are much earlier in style than the main dome and façade.

c18.72

Space fails to enumerate even in the most summary fashion the architectural marvels of Akbar's palace-city of Fathpur-Sīkrī, begun in 1569, finished fifteen years later, and practically abandoned after its founder's death in 1605.¹ That wondrous city bears in every part the impress of Akbar's tact and genius, and justifies the courtly phrase of his biographer, who declares that 'His Majesty plans splendid edifices, and dresses the work of his mind and heart in the garments of stone and clay'. The fullest possible details will be found in the four well-illustrated quarto volumesdevoted to the subject by the late Mr. E. W. Smith, a work not easily to be matched. But a few words must be devoted to the southern gateway of the great mosque, known as the 'Buland Darwāza', or Lofty Portal, a name justified by the fact that it is the highest of Indian gateways, and among the largest in the world. The height to the summit of the finials from the pavement at the top of the stairs is 134 feet, and reckoned from the road at the foot of the stairs is 176 feet. The structure is a magnificent example of the Persian form of gateway, deriving its dignity from the great semi-dome in which the actual doors are inset—an arrangement extolled by Fergusson. The mosque, purporting to be copied from one at Mecca, was built in 1571. The Buland Darwāza was added in 1601–2 as a triumphal arch to commemorate Akbar's conquest of Khāndēsh, and probably replaced a more ordinary edifice consonant with the other entrances. It may be taken as typical of the innumerable similar gateways on a smaller scale which characterize the Mughal style (Plate XCVI). It is the most beautiful specimen of the second type of Indo-Persian architecture, that in which marble is freely intermixed with sandstone, which was used alone in the earlier style exemplified by the Jahāngīr Mahall. The highest authorities regard the Buland Darwāza as 'one of the most perfect architectural achievements in the whole of India'.²

c18.73

¹ From 1569 to 1584 Fathpur-Sīkrī was the principal residence of the Court. From 1585 to 1598 Lahore was the capital of Akbar, who moved to Agra in the latter year, but continued to prefer Fathpur-Sīkrī as a residence until his death. The regular issue of coins from the Fathpur mint (*Dār-us-saltanat*) continued only until A.D. 1581 (A.H. 989). No more is heard of the mint until A.D. 1628–9 (A.H. 1038), the first year of Shahjahān, when one coin is known to have been struck there (Wright, *Cat. Coins in I. M.*, vol. iii, p. xlvii).

c18.74

² R. F. Chisholm in *J. Roy. Soc. Arts*, Jan. 1911, p. 173.

c18.75

PLATE XCVI. The 'Buland Darwāza' of Jām'i Mosque, Fathpur-Sīkrī. (Photo. 545, I. M. *List*.)

c18.76

The extant contributions of the Emperor Jahāngīr (1605–27)³ to Indo-Persian architecture, although important, are not very numerous. The design of the magnificent mausoleum of Akbar at Sikandarah near Agra, in which Jahāngīr personally had an undefined share, is exceptional. The building, completed in 1612 (A.H. 1021), is said by one Muslim writer to have been under construction for twenty years, having been begun, according to custom, by the sovereign whose remains were to find their resting-place within it. But the inscriptions and the *Memoirs* of Jahāngīr seem to prove that it was wholly erected under his orders between 1605 and 1612.⁴ It is composed of five square terraces, diminishing as they ascend, and the only edifice of the period at all resembling it is Akbar's five-storied pavilion, or Panch-Mahall, at Fathpur-Sīkrī. It has been suggested that both compositions must have been copied from Indian Buddhist *vihāras*, but the objection to that suggestion is that there is no reason to suppose that any *vihāra* of the kind existed in India in Akbar's time, except the square rock-cut *rathas* at Māmallapuram, near Madras (*ante*, p. 36), which have some rather distant resemblance to the mausoleum. We know that the Ceylonese in the twelfth century imitated Cambodian buildings arranged on the same principle of diminishing square terraces (*ante*, p. 55), and it seems to me not improbable that the hint for the design of both the exceptional Mughal structures may have come from Cambodia rather than from Madras. Artists and skilled craftsmen from many distant

c18.77

³ Jahāngīr died in Oct. 1627, but Shahjahān was not able to ascend the throne formally until Feb. 1628.

c18.78

⁴ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1903–4, p. 19.

c18.79

[Figure: FIG. 241. Tomb of Itimād-ud-daula, near Agra. (Photo. 506, I. M. *List*.)]

c18.80

countries crowded the Mughal court, which was ready to accept hints from divers quarters, and there is no difficulty in supposing that Cambodians may have been among the number, although not recorded.¹

c18.81

¹ Mr. E. W. Smith, after very careful examination of the uppermost floor, agreed with Fergusson that the design included a light dome over the cenotaph, which, unfortunately, was never built.

c18.82

Another famous building of Jahāngīr's reign, the tomb of Itimād-ud-daula, near Agra, finished in or about 1628 by that nobleman's daughter, the Empress Nūrjahān, is almost equally exceptional in other ways. The material is wholly white marble, enriched with *pietra dura* patterns in semi-precious stones, and equal to or surpassing in splendour the finest work of the kind executed in Shahjahān’s reign. Although the architectural design does not wholly satisfy expert critics, there can be no question that the structure possesses rare beauty (Fig. 241).

c18.83

Passing by other notable buildings of Jahāngīr’s reign at Lahore and elsewhere, we come to the reign of his son Shahjahān (1627–58), during which the Indo-Persian style, by universal consent, attained supreme beauty in the Tāj Mahall (1632–53) (Pl. XCVII), the Moti Masjid, or Pearl Mosque at Agra (1646–53) (Fig. 242), and the palace at Delhi (Fig. 243), begun in 1638.¹ Detailed descriptions and criticisms of these edifices and others may be read in the pages of Fergusson, Fanshawe, and innumerable other writers. Here it is possible only to indicate briefly the general character of Shahjahān’s modification of Indo-Persian architecture, give a few typical illustrations, and note certain points of special interest.

c18.84

¹ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1903–4, p. 184.

c18.85

The style is essentially Persian, but with an undefinable difference of expression, and sharply distinguished from the fashions of Isfahan as well as those of Constantinople by the lavish use of white marble, supplemented by sumptuous decoration in *pietra dura* inlay and other enrichments. Coloured tiles were rarely used. Open-work tracery of incomparable beauty is a marked feature, and spacious grandeur of design is successfully combined with feminine elegance. It is, indeed, impossible to exaggerate descriptions of the magnificence of the Delhi palace, nor is there any need to insist on the unearthly loveliness of the Tāj, the noblest monument ever erected to man or woman :—

c18.86

‘Not architecture! as all others are,
But the proud passion of an Emperor’s love,
Wrought into living stone, which gleams and soars
With body of beauty shrining soul and thought.’²

c18.87

² Sir Edwin Arnold. The language of some enthusiasts is ‘too floral’, as a Muhammadan author writing in English quaintly puts it. Sir Frederick Treves, quoted with approval by Mr. Chisholm, describes the Tāj as ‘the most loveable monument that has ever been erected’. Mr. Havell has ‘not the least doubt that the designers of the Tāj meant the main building to represent Arjumand Begum herself, and the garden in which it was placed to be the Garden of Paradise, according to the beautiful symbolism often seen in Persian carpets and painting’. He justly censures the Europeanized style of the garden as recently remodelled (*J. Roy. Soc. Arts*, Jan. 1911, pp. 175, 180).

c18.88

The chaste simplicity of the Moti Masjid commands admiration equally ungrudging. ‘Verily,’ says the inscription on its walls, ‘it is an exalted palace of Paradise made of a single resplendent pearl, because, since the beginning of the population of this world, no mosque pure and entirely of marble has appeared as its equal, nor since the creation of the universe, any place of worship, wholly bright and polished has come to view to rival it.’ That testimony is true. After many years there is nothing which I remember more distinctly or with greater pleasure than the pearly colonnades of this unequalled mosque. My illustrations of Shahjahān’s buildings will be restricted to three only, necessarily wholly inadequate as a presentation of their [Figure: Plate XCVII. The Tāj Mahall. (From Photo. supplied by Prof. Macdonell.)]

c18.89

charms, and intended chiefly to serve as memoranda of the obvious features of the style.

c18.90

The immense enclosed complex of buildings and gardens familiarly designated as 'the Tāj', comprises the central mausoleum, the mosque on the west, a corresponding (*jawāb*) edifice on the east, intended as a place of assembly for the congregation of the mosque and the persons invited to the annual commemoration services; huge gateways with many chambers, massive enclosing walls, and various minor structures, some of which have been ruined. The purpose of all was to honour the memory of Shahjahān's well-beloved wife, the Empress Arjumand Bānū Begam, whose title Mumtāz Mahall ('The Chosen One of the Palace') has been corrupted into 'Tāj'. Out-

c18.91

[Figure: FIG. 242. The Moti Masjid, Agra. (From a photo.)]

c18.92

side the enclosure a considerable town grew up, named Mumtāzabad, now represented by Tājganj. The villas and tombs of the great nobles and many other buildings, few of which remain, once crowded the approaches and surrounding space.

c18.93

The Empress died in childbirth, on June 17, 1631 N.S. (17 Zu'l Q'adah, A.H. 1040), while in camp at Burhānpur in the Deccan, where her remains rested for six months. They were then conveyed to Agra, and the wondrous tomb destined to give her immortal fame was begun early in A.D. 1632, corresponding to the fifth year of Shahjahān's reign. When the plans had been settled to the Emperor's satisfaction work was pushed on with eagerness, some 20,000 men being employed daily.¹ On February 6, 1643 N.S. (17 Zu'l Q'adah, A.H. 1052), the anniversary of the death of the Empress, the annual funeral ceremony was celebrated by the bereaved husband at the new mausoleum which was then regarded as complete. But the construction of the subsidiary buildings continued for many years longer. The latest inscription, one on the entrance gateway, was set up in A.D 1647 (A.H. 1057). We know, however, from Tavernier, who witnessed both the commencement and completion of the buildings, that operations did not cease finally until 1653, nearly twenty-two years after they had begun. The general superintendence was entrusted to Mukramat Khān and Mīr Abdul Karīm.

c18.94

¹ The number rests on Tavernier's excellent authority. According to Manrique the staff of 'maestros, officiales, y obreros (workmen)' numbered only about 1,000 in 1640 (*Itinerario*, ed. 1649, chap. lx, p. 352). No doubt the numbers varied much from time to time.

c18.95

[Figure: FIG. 243. Dīwān-i-khās of Delhi Palace. (From a photo.)]

c18.96

The statements of cost recorded by writers in Persian vary enormously. The *Bādshāh nāmah* gives ₨. 50,00,000 (50 lakhs) as the cost of the mausoleum itself. The highest estimate of the cost of the whole amounts to the huge sum of ₨. 411,48,826 : 7 : 6 (411 lakhs, 48 thousand, 826 rupees, seven annas, six pies), as stated with curious minuteness, equivalent, at the rate of 2*s.* 3*d.* to the rupee, in round numbers to four and a half million pounds sterling. Intermediate estimates put the expense at three millions sterling, said to have been about the sum which Shahjahān resolved to spend. If the full value of materials be included, the highest figure is not excessive, and may be considered as approximately correct. Tavernier notes that the expense was increased enormously by the necessity of using brick scaffolding and centring. Such lavish expenditure on a single monument and its adjuncts is not likely to be repeated anywhere in the world. Shāhjahān planned for himself a mausoleum of equal magnificence to be erected on the opposite side of the river and united with the Tāj by a marble bridge, but his family troubles prevented the realization of this gigantic conception, and so he sleeps beside the 'Lady of the Tāj'. 'They were lovely and pleasant in their lives and in their death they were not divided.'¹

c18.97

¹ Correct dates have been kindly supplied by Wm. Irvine, Esq., I. C. S. Ret. Those in the books are usually wrong. For the value of the rupee see Tavernier, *Travels in India*, transl. V. Ball, vol. i, 413, and Manrique (chap. lx) 'una rupià medio peso Español'; and for time of completion, Tavernier, p. 110. The explanation of the practical purpose of the *jawāb* building is due to S. Muḥammad Latīf, *Agra, Historical and Descriptive*, p. 113. From the artistic point of view, the structure was essential to the perfect symmetry aimed at by the architect. The highest estimate of the cost is given in Anderson's translation of one of the Persian MSS., now No. II in Or. 2030, B. M. Much of the more costly material was presented by tributary princes, and its value probably was excluded from the lower estimates. Mr. Chisholm is mistaken in believing that 'these domes seem to have been built without centres' (*J. Roy. Soc. Arts*, Jan., 1911, p. 173). He overlooked Tavernier's statement.

c18.98

The foregoing details, rarely to be found stated with accuracy, help us to realize the grandiose scale on which the whole composition known collectively as 'the Tāj' was designed, and the absolute disregard of cost in realizing the design. Much of the credit for the vastness of the scale must be given to Shāhjahān himself, who, of course, is solely responsible for sanctioning the unparalleled expense. But nobody supposes that the Emperor was his own architect, and much interest attaches to the question, 'Who was the architect by whom this noblest of monuments was designed, and to what nation did he belong?' The controversy on the subject, lately revived, excites some heat in the disputants. I approach it simply as a case in which evidence should be weighed and appraised impartially. Sleeman's notion that Austin de Bordeaux, a skilled French engineer and craftsman employed by Shāhjahān, was the architect, and identical with the 'Master (Ustād) Īsā (Jesus)', also called, more correctly, Muḥammad Īsā Effendi, certainly is erroneous,² and his statement, first published in 1844, seems to be the sole foundation for the current assertions about the connexion of Austin with the Tāj. Balfour's *Cyclopaedia of India* (3rd ed., 1885) boldly asserts that 'Austin de Bourdeaux [was] an artist who erected the Taj at Agra'. For that assertion I believe that Sleeman's loose guessing is the only authority. The note recently printed by Dr. Burgess stating that the Tāj was 'most probably designed by Alī Mardān Khān, a Persian refugee', is opposed to the evidence of the Persian History of the Tāj, and I do not know on what grounds it is based.³

c18.99

² Sleeman, *Rambles and Recollections*, ed. V. A. Smith, vol. i, p. 385. The MS. used by Anderson (*Calcutta Rev.*, 1873, p. 237) alleges that artist No. 1, unnamed, 'a rare plan-drawer and artist,' was a Christian, as was also Muhammad Sharīf. Sleeman appears to have used a similar document, and agrees with the custodian's MS. in stating that Muhammad Sharīf was the son of No. 1, whom Sleeman names as Ustād Īsā. The name Īsā may have suggested the notion that the Ustād was a Christian (*Īsāhī*). If 'Ustād Īsā' and Muhammad Sharīf really were Christians, one of the objections urged against Father Manrique's statement is removed.

c18.100

³ Fergusson, *Hist. of Indian and E. Archit.*, 2nd ed., p. 306 note. Alī Mardān Khān, a famous engineer in Shāhjahān's service, constructed or repaired canals, and laid out the Shālamār gardens at Lahore (see Index, *s. v.* 'Alī Mardān Khān', *Imp. Gaz.* 1908). I am not acquainted with any evidence connecting him with the Tāj.

c18.101

The Persian MSS. purporting to give the history of the Tāj, the names of the chief artists and artificers, and the cost of the buildings, appear to exhibit many discrepancies in details, but to agree in stating that the chief designer and draughtsman was ‘Ustād (or Master) Īsā’, otherwise called Muhammad Īsā Effendi, who drew a salary of ₨. 1,000 a month, and was assisted by his son, Muhammad Sharīf. The Agra copy, in the possession of the hereditary custodians of the monument, says that he came from ‘Rūm’, interpreted to mean Turkey or Constantinople, and that his son came from Samarkand. Other copies are alleged to assert that the Ustād came from Shīrāz in Persia. The title ‘Effendi’ sometimes given to him is an Ottoman one. No details of his life seem to be on record.

c18.102

The rival statement is the categorical assertion made by Father Sebastian Manrique, a Spanish Augustinian friar, Visitor of his order in the East, that the architect was a Venetian named Geronimo Veroneo, who drew a large salary from Shahjahān. Manrique’s words, as translated by Father Hosten, S.J., are:—

c18.103

‘The architect of those structures was a Venetian, named Jerome Veroneo, who went to those parts in the ships from Portugal, and died in the city of Laòr [Lahore] shortly before my arrival. Emperor Corrombo [= Khurram = Shahjahān] gave him large salaries; but it is thought that he profited so badly by them that when he died, they say Father Joseph de Castro, of the [Jesuit] Society, a Lombard by birth, found on him much less than was imagined.’

c18.104

The author then proceeds to give merely as current gossip (*fama velocissima*) the story of Geronimo Veroneo’s supposed interview with Shahjahān. The positive assertion quoted above seems to be made of his own knowledge, and not as hearsay.¹ I attach little importance to the hearsay gossip, but much to the categorical allegation of fact.

c18.105

¹ The Spanish text is: ‘El Architeto destas fabricas fue un Veneciano por nombre Geronimo Veroneo q̃ passò a aquellas partes en las naves de Portugal, y murio en la Ciudad de Laòr poco tiempo antes de mia llegada. A este dava el Corrombo Emperador grandes salarios: mas supose aprovechar tan mal dellos, que quando murio, dizan que le hallara el Padre Joseph de Castro de la Compañia, y de nacion Lombardo, muy menos de lo que si imaginava’ (*Itinerario de las Missiones que hizo el Padre F. Sebastian Manrique*, p. 352; ed. Roma, 1649). A reprint with an altered title-page appeared at Rome in 1653. Both impressions are in the British Museum. The Bodleian possesses only the earlier one, which alone I have consulted.

c18.106

Father Manrique spent about a month at Agra in December, 1640 and January, 1641, and thence travelled to Lahore where he met Father de Castro. He thus had ample opportunities of learning facts as well as gossip, and, moreover, he was on friendly terms with the greatest of the Muhammadan nobles, Āsaf Khān, ‘the ancient and only protector of the priests,’ and father of the Lady of the Tāj, who gave him ‘a goodly alms’. Geronimo Veroneo died at Lahore as stated, but was buried at Agra, some four hundred miles distant, where his tomb, dated a. d. 1640, still exists. Before his death he had spent money, presumably a considerable sum, to ransom Christians from prison. Father Manrique’s accuracy is thus confirmed on several points, and the fact that Veroneo’s body was removed to Agra for burial indicates that he must have been a person of considerable importance and specially connected with Agra.

c18.107

I have no doubt that the good Father’s positive assertion that Veroneo was the architect of the Tāj was made in perfect good faith, and, indeed, nobody impugns his personal veracity. But it is argued that he must have been misinformed. The most weighty objection raised is that the Tāj unquestionably is Asiatic in style, a development from the tomb of Humāyūn, and that even in the decoration, except perhaps the technique, as distinguished from the designs of the *pietra dura* inlay, there is little trace of European influence. The objection, although deserving of attention, is not conclusive, because, so far as I can see, there is no reason why a seventeenth-century Venetian of genius, aided by skilled Asiatic technical advisers, should have been unwilling or unable to design a group of buildings on Asiatic lines, in accordance with a general idea prescribed by Shahjahān, who must have known and declared what he wanted. M. Saladin, writing without reference to or apparent knowledge of the documentary evidence, simply in his capacity of architectural expert, expresses the opinion that ‘the hand of a European architect has traced the exact symmetries and the outlines, perhaps too regular, of the monument’; adding that the decoration combines Florentine elegance with Oriental richness, while the breadth and symmetry of the composition give the design the appearance almost of a classical conception.¹

c18.108

¹ ‘*Le Tadj-Mahal à Agra.*—Il semble que la main d’un architecte européen a tracé les symétries exactes et les profils peut-être trop réguliers de ce monument . . . cet art qui, en effet, allie l’élégance florentine à la richesse orientale’ (*Manuel d’Art Musulman*, t. i, p. 571). ‘Le Tadj n’est que le centre de la composition . . . On voit donc que, par l’ampleur de la composition et par la symétrie, ce plan est presque de conception classique’ (Ibid., p. 575). M. Saladin’s wide experience of Muslim art in countries where it comes in contact with that of Europe entitles his critical opinions to respectful consideration.

c18.109

On the whole, after considering all the arguments, including that drawn from the silence of other authors, I do not see any reason sufficient to discredit the positive assertion of Father Manrique, published in 1649 before the work on the Tāj buildings was completed. It is not inconsistent with the Persian authorities. I accept their evidence as proving that ‘Ustād Īsā’,² whether he was a Turk or a Persian, was the chief architect during the later stages of the construction; and it is easy to understand that when the history of the monument was being put on record no Muhammadan writer would have cared to recall the leading part taken by a long-deceased Christian European in framing the original design. Thus the matter stands. I abide by the opinion expressed by me in 1893 that ‘the incomparable Tāj is the product of a combination of European and Asiatic genius’. It should be observed that no authority ascribes the design to an Indian architect. The credit for it belongs to either or both of two foreigners, one a Venetian, the other most probably a Turk. The lively interest felt in the question of the authorship of the building, which may fairly claim to be the most beautiful in the world, will, I trust, be considered justification sufficient for this long, although much condensed, disquisition on the subject.³

c18.110

² The name Ustād Īsā commonly used is incorrect. The fuller form, Muhammad Īsā, really means ‘Muhammad the son of Īsā’, as Professor Margoliouth points out.

c18.111

³ The principal Persian authorities, as enumerated by Mr. Wm. Irvine, are (1) the contemporary *Bādshāh nāmah* by Abd-ul-hamīd, Lāhorī (*Bibl. Ind.*, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1868; vol. ii, pp. 322–31); (2) *Aml-i-Ṣāliḥ*, by Muhammad Ṣāliḥ, Lāhorī (A.H. 1052), perhaps copied from No. 1; (3) a group of MSS., mostly anonymous, purporting to give the history of the Tāj. One copy at least is in the hands of the custodians at Agra, and another is in the Imperial Library, Calcutta. The MSS. in the B. M. with similar contents are Addl. 8910 (62 foll.), Or. 194 (94 foll.), Or. 195 (55 foll.)—all in Rieu, *Catal.*, p. 430 : Or. 2030, containing two MSS., viz. (1) by Mānik Chand, foll. 1–30, and (2) notice of the Tāj Mahall, foll. 32–81, nearly identical with Addl. 8910. This is the version partly translated by Capt. Anderson in *Calc. Review*, vol. lvii (1873), pp. 233–7. The above are on p. 958 *b* of Rieu, *Catal.* Or. 2031 (Rieu, p. 1044 *a*), No. IV, foll. 148–226 is another copy of Mānik Chand's account. The Agra version, used and partly translated by Sleeman, S. Muhammad Latīf (*Agra, Historical and Descriptive*, Calcutta, 1896), and Muhammad Moin-ud-din (*History of the Taj*, Agra, 1905), seems to exist in more than one form. F. Manrique's account is discredited by the two Muhammadan writers named, as well as by Mr. E. B. Havell, 'The Taj and its Designers' (*Nineteenth Century and After*, June, 1903; reprinted in *Essays on Indian Art, &c.*, Madras, *n. d.*), and by Mr. J. H. Marshall in *Ann. Rep. Arch. S., India*, 1904–5, pp. 1–3. Father Hosten, S.J., stoutly defends Manrique in his article, 'Who Planned the Taj?' (*J. and Proc. A. S. B.*, N. S. vol. vi (1910), pp. 281–8). Mr. Keene also accepted his statement (*Turks in India*, pp. 251–5). Mr. Chisholm informs me that he has arranged to publish in *The Architect* (London) a note giving 'the architectural proof of some foreign hand at work in the building of the Taj Mahal'. Mr. Havell erroneously denounces the positive, contemporary evidence of the Spaniard Father Manrique as 'the old Anglo-Indian legend' (*J. Roy. Soc. Arts*, Jan., 1911, p. 180). The question has not been thoroughly threshed out yet, the Persian MSS. especially requiring careful examination and comparison. Mr. Irvine has made a beginning at my request by examining the Mānik Chand MSS., Or. 2030 and 2031. They are of no independent value as authorities, and the text of Mānik Chand's late compilation in Or. 2031 is merely a copy of that in Or. 2030, made for the use of Sir H. Elliot.

First 109 of 120 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)