A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c18.111

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.