A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c18.109

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