A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c18.107

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