Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c19: Chapter XIII. Indo-Muhammadan Decorative and Minor Arts

A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c19

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIII. Indo-Muhammadan Decorative and Minor Arts

c19.2

Muhammadan architecture, excluding the styles most deeply affected by Hindu influence, and in spite of infinite variety in detail, presents, as we have seen in the last chapter, a character of general uniformity throughout the Muslim world, partly due to the practically universal use of pointed arches and domes, and partly to the free interchange of architects between different countries, resulting in the frequent imitation of foreign models. Muhammadan decorative art presents a similarly uniform character by reason chiefly of the Koranic prohibition of images, which, although not universally respected, was observed in all ages and countries sufficiently to impose narrow limits on the field open to the creative artist.

c19.3

The orthodox Muslim decorator has found himself in practice constrained to restrict his invention to the dexterous use of calligraphy, geometrical patterns, and floral devices. However varied in detail the application of those elements may be, the effect is necessarily flat and somewhat monotonous. The distinction between Fine Art and the Industrial or Applied Arts, therefore, as observed in the Introduction (*ante*, p. 1), almost vanishes in relation to Musalman decorative art, the designs of which for the most part can be readily repeated by trained craftsmen.

c19.4

In this chapter a few pages will be devoted to the art of calligraphy as displayed in coinage, to the rare figure types on coins and gems, and to the exceptional attempts at stone sculpture in the round or in high relief. They will be followed by a condensed account of the leading forms of Musalman architectural decoration arranged under the heads of Calligraphy and Decorative Reliefs, Lattices, Inlay and Mosaic, and Enamelled Tiles. No attempt will be made to follow the Muhammadan decorator in his treatment of minor objects of luxury, which is essentially the same as that of architectural ornament. Even in his floral designs the tendency of the Muslim artist is in favour of a formal, over-symmetrical conventionalism, calculated to harmonize with his favourite geometrical patterns. Akbar's taste inclined to a more interesting naturalism, as displayed in the exquisite ornament on his cenotaph executed a few years after his death, and designed in his spirit. The small number of works selected for description and reproduction will, it is hoped, be sufficient to enable the reader to form a fair judgement of the general character of Indo-Muhammadan decoration in its various forms, and to appreciate the high excellence of that decoration within the limits prescribed by religion and usage. The art of painting, in the exercise of which greater liberty was assumed, will be discussed at considerable length in the concluding chapter. The student will thus have at his disposal a summary review of the whole field of Indo-Muhammadan art subject to the limitations imposed by the plan of this book.

Section II. Coins, Gems, and Seals

c19.s1.1

It is a common error to suppose that the ancient Semitic prohibition of images, repeated in the Koran, invariably prevented Muhammadan artists from representing the forms of living creatures, real or imaginary. As a matter of fact, the prohibition, although respected as a rule, has been disregarded frequently in almost every Musalman country from the earliest ages of Islam to the present day, and especially in those countries, like Persia, where the Shīa sect prevails. The introduction of figure types in many ancient Muhammadan coinages was due to the business necessity of maintaining for a time the forms of currency to which people had become accustomed. For example, when the Sassanian dynasty of Persia fell in the seventh century the newly appointed Arab governors continued to issue coins in the familiar national form with the king's head, distinguished from the native issues merely by the insertion of Arabic legends in minute characters. In India Muhammad of Ghōr was obliged to accept a similar compromise and even to issue coins bearing the image of a Hindu goddess.

c19.s1.2

In most Muhammadan kingdoms such numismatic compromises with idolatry were only temporary, and the die-cutters of the Muslim sovereigns were ordinarily obliged to content themselves with calligraphic devices, on which much skill was lavished. The coins issued by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak of Delhi (A. D. 1324–51), who has been called 'the prince of moneyers', are exceptionally brilliant examples of calligraphic art. A specimen is shown in Plate XCVIII, Fig. 1, and may be taken as a typical illustration of well-executed Muhammadan orthodox coinage.

c19.s1.3

Akbar, notwithstanding his scant respect for orthodoxy, submitted as a rule to Koranic restrictions in the types of his coinage, which exhibits many varieties of artistic ornamental writing. A highly elaborated specimen, a rupee struck at Agra, is shown in Plate XCVIII, Fig. 5. On three occasions only did he permit himself the luxury of figure types, and the pieces struck on those three occasions are medals rather than ordinary current coins. A falcon (ibid., Fig. 2) commemorates the capture of Asīrgarh, the strong fortress commanding the road to the Deccan. A duck appears on an Agra coin, for some unexplained reason (ibid., Fig. 4). Both birds are well designed and surrounded by pretty floral scrolls. A curious piece, exhibiting the figures of a crowned archer and a veiled lady (ibid., Fig. 3), is a memorial of the submission in A.H. 1013 (A. D. 1604–5) of the King of Bījāpur, who gave his daughter in marriage to Prince Dāniyāl, Akbar's youngest son.

c19.s1.4

Jahāngīr, although officially a better Musalman than his father, was less orthodox in his coinage. He alone of all the Muhammadan sovereigns of India dared to put his own portrait on coins intended for circulation. He habitually disregarded the Prophet's prohibition of strong drink, and was not ashamed to show himself on the coinage holding a goblet of wine (ibid., Figs. 7, 8). He also indulged in the freak of issuing a coinage, both gold and silver, on which the months were indicated

c19.s1.5

1A/ 2N 5A/ 3A/ 4A/ 6A/ 7A/ 8A/ 9A/ 10A/

c19.s1.6

Fig. 1. Muḥammad b. Tughlak.
(*B. M. Catal. Coins of Sultans of Delhi*, No. 260.)
Figs. 2–5. Akbar.
(*B. M. Catal. of Coins of Moghul Emperors*, Nos. 166, 172, 173, 250.)
Figs. 6–10. Jahāngīr.
(Ibid., Nos. 315, 319, 324, 341.)

c19.s1.7

Plate XCVIII. Indo-Muhammadan Coins.

c19.s1.8

by pictorial symbols of the zodiacal signs, instead of by words or numbers (ibid., Figs. 9, 10). The figure of Virgo is a Europeanized angel.¹ The great bulk, however, of Jahāngīr's coinage is perfectly orthodox in form. His five-mohur piece (ibid., Fig. 6) is an excellent example of first-class calligraphy.

c19.s1.9

¹ ‘Mais les beaux chefs-d’œuvre numismatiques sont les délicieuses monnaies d’or de Djehangir (1605–1628) frappées d’animaux et de personnages d’un dessin si parfait et d’un relief si précis et si vif’ (Migeon, *Manuel d’art musulman*, t. ii, p. 164).

c19.s1.10

Many of the coins of the later Mughal emperors are well executed, but the specimens given are enough to illustrate the general character of calligraphic dies.

c19.s1.11

Muhammadan gems and seals with artistic devices other than calligraphic are necessarily extremely scarce. Mr. King, after referring to the rarity of cameos in purely Oriental style, mentions one conspicuous Muhammadan specimen:—

c19.s1.12

‘The most remarkable example of all in the Oriental class,’ he writes, ‘although of modern origin, came to my knowledge among the Webb gems (when sold by Christie and Manson in 1854), the subject being the feat performed by Shāhjahān in cleaving asunder a lion which was mauling a courtier. The inscription consists of two parts [namely], “The portrait of the Second Sahib-Qirān, Shāhjahān the victorious emperor,” and the artist's signature “Made by Kan Atem” [*sic*, the reading is impossible]. The gem probably must be dated early in his reign, for it shows Shāhjahān with a moustache but no beard. He wears a long double row of big pearls round his neck, and, as a pendant, a great convex gem, perhaps the Kohinoor.’²

c19.s1.13

² *Ancient Gems and Rings*, London, 1872, pp. 314–16.

c19.s1.14

I do not know where the gem so described now is. The feat commemorated was similar to that performed by Shāhjahān, as Prince Khurram, when he rescued Anūp Rāi from the jaws of a tiger.³ The Mughal emperors were men of great personal prowess.

c19.s1.15

³ *Memoirs of Jahāngīr*, transl. Rogers and Beveridge (1909), pp. 185–8.

c19.s1.16

The only other notable Indo-Muhammadan artistic gem which has come to my notice is the beautiful sardonyx cameo of the Mughal period, bought by Mr. Marshall some years ago and now in the Lahore Museum, which is 3·6 inches broad and 3·3 high. It represents two elephants with riders, locking their tusks and trunks together apparently in combat.⁴ Others may exist in the Pearse collection recently acquired by the Government of India, which is now under examination and not yet available for reference.

c19.s1.17

⁴ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India, 1905–6*, p. 40, Fig. 1.

Section III. Figure Sculpture

c19.s2.1

Musalman representations of living forms in stone or stucco of various ages from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Spain have been published, and although rare in any one country, amount in the aggregate to a considerable number. A few bronze figures of a ruder kind, mostly dating from the time of the Fatimite sovereigns of Egypt and Syria (A. D. 969–1171) are also known.⁵

c19.s2.2

⁵ Catalogued by Migeon, *Manuel d’art musulman*, t. ii, chap. ii, vii.

c19.s2.3

In India the examples of sculpture in the round or in high relief, executed to the order of Muhammadan princes, but probably by the hands of Hindu artists, are extremely few; the most notable of which any remains exist being the elephants, sometimes with riders, set up at the gateways of fortresses, in continuance of Hindu custom. Nearly every stronghold of importance had its Elephant Gate (*Hāthīpōl*). The portal of that name at Akbar's city of Fathpur-Sīkrī is still guarded by the mutilated figures of two colossal elephants, perched on supports 12½ feet high, whose trunks originally were interlocked across the entrance. Aurangzēb caused the heads to be knocked off. The elephants, being clumsily made up of large blocks of hewn stone laid in mortar and joined by iron cramps, are of no account as works of art.¹

c19.s2.4

¹ E. W. Smith, *Fathpur-Sīkrī*, Part III, p. 33, Pl. LV. Small elephants, poorly modelled, occur among the decorative sculptures of various Mughal buildings.

c19.s2.5

The statues, presumably of Hindu origin, which once guarded the Elephant Gates of Gwālior, Māndū, and other fortresses have been destroyed.

c19.s2.6

William Finch, the English traveller, who visited Agra early in the reign of Jahāngīr (1610), there saw 'a second gate, over which are two Rajaws in stone, who were slain in the King's Derbar before the King's eyes, for being over-bold in speech, they selling their lives bravely, in remembrance of which they are heere placed'. From a note appended by Purchas, it would seem that the two 'Rajaws' were mounted on elephants. The note states:—

c19.s2.7

'It is said that they were two Brothers, Resboots, Tutors to a Prince, their nephew, whom the King demanded of them. They refused, and were committed; but drew on the Officers, slew twelve, and at last, by multitudes oppressing, were slain, and here have Elephants of stone and themselves figured.'²

c19.s2.8

² *Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrims*, in 20 volumes, MacLehose, Glasgow, MCMV, vol. iv, p. 72. Purchas does not cite any authority for his note.

c19.s2.9

Mr. Keene is of opinion that 'the allusion probably is to the three sons of Akhirāj, son[s] of Akbar's brother-in-law, Rāja Bhagwān Dās of Jaipur, killed in a fight arising out of a tumult caused by themselves in the Palace'.³ Whoever the originals may have been, Finch's testimony is clear that two statues of men over one of the gates of the Agra Fort were erected by order of either Akbar or Jahāngīr, and Purchas's note indicates that they were mounted on elephants. The pedestals for two elephants have been found, but all trace of the figures of men or animals has disappeared.

c19.s2.10

³ The incident, which occurred Dec. 28, 1605, is described by Jahāngīr (*Memoirs of Jahāngīr*, transl. Rogers and Beveridge (1909), p. 29).

c19.s2.11

The similar, but wholly distinct, statues of elephants with riders which formerly stood at the Delhi Gate of the Delhi Fort, and of which fragments still exist, have been the subject of so much discussion and misunderstanding that it is desirable to state the facts as recently elucidated by the officers of the Archaeological Survey. The statements in all the ordinary books of reference are erroneous. The Delhi groups certainly possessed considerable merit as works of art, and the riders at least must be counted as examples of sculpture executed to Musalman order.

c19.s2.12

But before going into the history of the much debated Delhi statues it is well to note that Jahāngīr, in the eleventh year of his reign, had caused life-size figures of the Rānā of Chitōr (Amar Singh) and his son Karan to be carved in marble and set up in the palace garden at Agra, below the window (*darshan jharōkhā*) where the Emperor made his daily public appearance.¹ This undoubted fact, recorded by Jahāngīr himself, is clear proof that the earlier Mughal emperors had no objection to life-size statues of men, and sometimes had them made. No trace has been found of the garden effigies, which appear to have been carved at Ajmēr and thence sent to Agra.

c19.s2.13

¹ Beveridge, *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, p. 743; *Memoirs of Jahāngīr*, transl. Rogers and Beveridge (1909), p. 332.

c19.s2.14

The history of the Delhi groups may be summarized as follows:—

c19.s2.15

In 1663, early in Aurangzēb's reign, Bernier saw and warmly admired the effigies of two elephants with riders which then stood at the Delhi Gate of the Delhi Fort. A few years later they were seen still in position by Thévenot. Subsequently they were broken up by order of Aurangzēb, and the fragments cast away. In 1863 the buried fragments were found, and after an interval some of them were pieced together and made into an absurd monster, which was set up in the Queen's Gardens, with a false inscription based on an erroneous guess of Sir Alexander Cunningham. Lord Curzon expressed a desire to reconstruct the groups from the broken pieces, but it proved impossible to carry out his wishes. A skilled European artist, Mr. R. D. Mackenzie, was commissioned to make a new model. He did so, and his work is preserved in the Delhi Museum. Native sculptors were then instructed to make two elephants without riders from that model. They carried out their orders as well as they could, and their productions have been erected on the old pedestals. The new elephants, consequently, have no connexion with the broken groups, the fragments of which are kept in the Museum. I understand that the Queen's Gardens monster has been destroyed. The experiment carried out under Lord Curzon's direction has not been a success. Mr. Mackenzie's model lacks the massive dignity which ancient Hindu sculptors were so well able to give to their elephant statues, and the enlarged copies by native carvers are lifeless, worthless things.

c19.s2.16

The original elephants were made of black stone (? marble), and according to Mr. Marshall, who has examined the fragments carefully, were 'moulded with masterly skill and care' and 'true to nature'. They are believed to be of Hindu origin. The riders were carved in red sandstone, and 'their material, style, and technique establish beyond a doubt', according to the same authority, that they were 'carved by Mughal sculptors', a phrase presumably to be interpreted as meaning 'sculptors of the Mughal period'. The actual artists are more likely to have been Hindus than Musalmans. Whoever wrought them, the statues of the riders also seem to have been good, well-finished work.

c19.s2.17

Bernier was told that the riders represented the brothers Jaimall and Paltā, the brave heroes of the defence of Chitōr in 1568, who 'with their still braver mother, immortalized their names by the extraordinary resistance which they opposed to the celebrated Ecbar. . . . It is owing to this extraordinary devotion on their part that their enemies have thought them deserving of the statues here erected to their memory.'

c19.s2.18

FIG. A. From Kadam Rasūl Mosque, Gaur; A. D. 1480. (Ravenshaw, *Gaur*, Pl. XLVIII, No. 6.)

c19.s2.19

FIG. B. From Jām'i Masjid, Fathpur-Sīkrī. (E. W. Smith, *Fathpur-Sīkrī*, Part iv, Pl. XXIV.)

c19.s2.20

FIG. C. South end (*jalla jalālahu*) of Akbar's cenotaph. (E. W. Smith, *The Tomb of Akbar*, Pl. XVII.)

c19.s2.21

PLATE XCIX. Decorative Inscriptions.

c19.s2.22

I see no reason to doubt the truth of this explanation, which is confirmed by the fact already noticed that Jahāngīr erected statues of two other chiefs of Chitōr in the palace garden at Agra. But if the statues of the riders date from the time of either Akbar or Jahāngīr, they must have been placed originally somewhere else, and subsequently shifted by Shahjahān who built the Delhi (Shahjahānabad) Fort. There is, however, nothing in Bernier's statement to indicate that the statues were not ordered by Shahjahān, who may have been influenced by the precedent set at Agra by his father.¹

c19.s2.23

¹ For fuller details see Mr. Marshall's illustrated article in *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1905–6, pp. 33–42. For Jaimall and Patā in Nepalese tradition see *ante*, p. 48. It is now quite certain that the Delhi groups had no connexion either with the Agra Fort statues seen by Finch, or with the single Gwālior elephant also seen by that traveller and by Abūl Fazl. For Bernier see Constable's translation (1891), p. 256. Mr. Keene's observations, largely erroneous, are in App. A to his *Handbook for Visitors to Delhi* (1882).

c19.s2.24

A life-size statue of a horse in red sandstone standing on the left-hand side of the Sikandarah road about two miles from Agra, near the garden of Sūraj Bhān, and opposite a masonry Muhammadan tomb, may be a work of Mughal age, but nothing definite about it is known, and no photograph is available. Mr. Beglar's conjecture that it may date from the time of Sikandar Lodī, the idol-breaking Sultan in the fifteenth century, is extremely improbable.²

c19.s2.25

² Cunningham and Beglar, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. iv, p. 183 : Latīf, *Agra, Descriptive and Historical*, p. 183.

Section IV. Calligraphy and Decorative Reliefs

c19.s3.1

The Arabic alphabet in its various forms, as used for writing both the Arabic and Persian languages, is so well adapted for decorative purposes, as will be explained more fully in Chapter XIV, that almost every Muhammadan building of importance is freely adorned with texts from the Koran or other inscriptions arranged decoratively to form part of the architectural design, and often signed as the work of famous calligraphists. A good early Indian example of such calligraphic decoration is afforded by the great arch of the Ajmēr mosque (*ante*, Pl. XCI), where the outer line of writing is in the angular Kufic script, while the other lines are in a more rounded Arabic character.

c19.s3.2

Later examples from Indo-Muhammadan buildings of all styles and ages might be multiplied indefinitely. It will suffice to exhibit in a single plate three small choice specimens, one from Bengal, and two from edifices of the early Mughal period; the latter being exquisitely combined with floral devices (Plate XCIX); and in another plate an example on a larger scale (Plate C). In some cases, as in the *mihrāb* illustrated, the effect was heightened by gilding and colour, with charming results.

c19.s3.3

Musalman figure sculpture in the round has, as we have seen, slight artistic value and is interesting chiefly as a curiosity. But Musalman decorative sculpture in bas-relief applied to architecture may fairly claim on its merits to take at least equal rank with first-rate Italian work of the kind.

c19.s3.4

‘L'on ne saurait,’ writes M. Migeon, ‘trop recommander l'étude des arts de l'Islam aux artistes décorateurs et aux ouvriers d'art. Par la puissante beauté de ses

c19.s3.5

Plate C. Inscribed principal *Mihrāb*, Jām'i Mosque, Fathpur-Sīkrī. (E. W. Smith, *Fathpur-Sīkrī*, Part iv, Pl. XLII.)

c19.s3.6

formules, par sa fantaisie toujours régie par les lois les plus rigoureusement logiques, par le rayonnant éclat de la couleur, il n’est pas d’art qui offre plus de richesse décorative et plus de souveraine harmonie. Il renferme des germes féconds qui transplantés doivent fructifier à l’infini.’ ¹

c19.s3.7

¹ *Manuel d’art musulman*, t. ii, p. 454.

c19.s3.8

The validity of the concluding proposition may be doubted, and it seems to me by no means certain that the teaching of Musalman art to European craftsmen would produce satisfactory results. But, however that may be, M. Migeon’s enthusiastic praise of the decorative quality of Muslim art generally may be accepted. The best Indian specimens, with which alone we are concerned at present, could not be surpassed as pure decoration. The general absence of all human interest and expression in the infinitely varied patterns is, of course, a great drawback, but if we are content to regard the works simply as surface decoration intended to please the eye they cannot be beaten. Among all the many varieties of Muhammadan decorative designs none are more agreeable than the best of those carved in relief on the Mughal buildings, from the time of Akbar to that of Shahjahān. The work of Akbar’s time being more naturalistic, is more interesting than that of the later period, which is formally conventional, with a tendency to monotony.

c19.s3.9

The choicest Italian work does not surpass, if it equals, the superb carving on the white marble cenotaph of Akbar, which occupies the centre of the topmost story of his mausoleum at Sikandarah.

c19.s3.10

‘The two oblong sides and the top are adorned with the ninety-nine titles of the Creator in alto-rilievo, set in delicate Arabic tracery (Plates XI and XV of *Akbar’s Tomb*). The words *Allāhu Akbar jalla jalālahu* are inscribed on the head and foot, set in panels surrounded by most beautiful and delicate floral ornamentation (*ibid.*, Pl. XVI, XVII; *ante*, Pl. XCIX, Fig. C). The carving, which is most exquisitely done, is in very low relief, and savours of Chinese workmanship. Amongst other flowers and plants portrayed one recognizes the lily, the almond, and the dahlia, all of which are found carved or painted upon Akbar’s palace at Fathpur-Sīkrī. In the left-hand corner of each of the panels, cloud-forms carved after a most distinctive Chinese type are noticeable. Similar cloud-forms are met with upon the dado panels in the Turkish Sultānah’s house at Fathpur-Sīkrī, and it is generally supposed that they were executed by Chinese workmen.’

c19.s3.11

But forms of a like kind so often appear in Persian art that it is unnecessary to assume the employment of Chinese craftsmen by Akbar.

c19.s3.12

‘Small butterflies and insects flitting from flower to flower are carved upon the panels. Upon the top of the cenotaph a *qalam-dān* or pen-box is sculptured, signifying that the tomb is a man’s, in distinction from a woman’s, which is generally provided with the *takhtī* or slate.’ ²

c19.s3.13

² *Akbar’s Tomb, Sikandarah*, p. 15.

c19.s3.14

A good specimen of the conventional Persian vase motive, which became fashionable from Jahāngīr’s reign, is found on a panel of the south side of the east wall of the eastern false gate of Akbar’s tomb (Pl. CI).

c19.s3.15

Shahjahān’s architects relied on inlay rather than relief sculpture for decoration;

c19.s3.17

but at the Tāj dados are very effectively adorned by conventional flowers cut on red sandstone in low relief (Plate CII, Fig. A).

c19.s3.18

The same plate illustrates the totally different style adopted in the much earlier Sārangpur mosque at Ahmadābād, erected about A. D. 1500 (Plate CII, Figs. B, C). The tree motive is characteristic of Ahmadābād. The whole design is far more Hindu than Muhammadan, and even the ancient Persepolitan bell capital as adopted by Hindu art appears in the pilasters.

Section V. Lattices

c19.s4.1

Pierced stone screens or lattices used as windows were not unknown to Hindu architects, and were especially favoured by the builders of the highly decorated temples in the Mysore, Deccan, or Chalukyan style. For example, at Belūr there are twenty-eight such windows, all different. Some of these are pierced with merely conventional patterns, generally star-shaped, with bands of foliage between; others are interspersed with figures and mythological subjects.¹

c19.s4.2

¹ Fergusson, *Hist. of Ind. and E. Archit.*, ed. 1910, vol. i, p. 440, with a bad illustration.

c19.s4.3

But the Musalman architects, who were more restricted than the Hindus in their liberty of decoration, developed the art of designing and executing stone lattices to a degree of perfection unknown to other schools. Endless variations of geometrical patterns, generally pleasing, although wearisome when examined in large numbers, are the most characteristic forms of Muhammadan lattice-work, which is seen at its best in the Gūjarāt (Ahmadābād) and Mughal buildings. The designs both in Gūjarāt and the earlier Mughal work have been often influenced by Hindu tradition. The Muslim artists used the lattice, not only for windows, but also for the panels of doors and for screens or railings round tombs with excellent effect.

c19.s4.4

The most beautiful traceries at Ahmadābād are to be seen in ten nearly semicircular windows of Sīdī Sayyad's mosque built about A. D. 1500, which may be fairly described as the most artistic stone lattice-work to be found anywhere in the world. I give two examples—one with geometrical patterns, and the other with the tree motive of Hindu origin, which should be compared with the modern carving in the Mysore Palace (*ante*, p. 236).

c19.s4.5

'It would be difficult,' Fergusson observes, 'to excel the skill with which the vegetable forms are conventionalized just to the extent required for the purpose. The equal spacing also of the subject by the three ordinary trees and four palms takes it out of the category of direct imitation of nature, and renders it sufficiently structural for its situation; but perhaps the greatest skill is shown in the even manner in which the pattern is spread over the whole surface. There are some exquisite specimens of tracery in precious marbles at Agra and Delhi, but none quite equal to this.'²

c19.s4.6

² *Hist. Ind. and E. Archit.*, ed. 1910, vol. ii, p. 236. The companion window (Pl. IV of Burgess) represents more distinctly 'the phenomenon, not unfamiliar to the Indian traveller, of a banyan-tree growing out of and around a palm, until in its snake-like entanglements of root and branch the banyan strangles its foster parent' (*Indian Art at Delhi*, p. 122, Pl. XXVII).

c19.s4.7

The material of the Ahmadābād windows is Gūjarāt sandstone. (Plate CIII.)

c19.s4.8

[Figure: FIG. A. Panel in dado of ‘false mosque’ (*jawāb*) at the Tāj, Agra. (*Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1903–4, Pl. II *a*.)]

c19.s4.9

[Figure: FIGS B, C. Panels from Sārangpur Mosque, Ahmadābād, *cir.* A. D. 1500. (*A. S. Rep., Western India*, vol. viii, Pl. XXXIII, Figs. 3, 4.)]

c19.s4.10

PLATE CII. Relief carvings.

c19.s4.11

Fig. A. Geometrical. (Pl. XLIX, vol. vii, *Arch. S. Western India.*)

c19.s4.12

Fig. B. Tree motive. (Pl. LI, ibid.)

c19.s4.13

[Figure: Plate CIV. Marble verandah screen, tomb of Salīm Chishtī, Fathpur-Sīkrī, A.D. 1571. (E. W. Smith, *Fathpur-Sīkrī*, Part III, Pl. XXXV.)]

c19.s4.14

[Figure: Plate CV. Marble screen round the cenotaph of the Tāj. (From a photograph.)]

c19.s4.15

The examples of well-designed and well-executed open-work tracery, chiefly in marble, at Agra and Delhi are so numerous that it is difficult to select typical specimens. But it is impossible to do better than to illustrate the style of Akbar's time from the tomb of Salīm Chishtī at Fathpur-Sīkrī, built A.D. 1571. Plate CIV reproduces some of the marble screen-work enclosing the verandah, exhibiting an elegant and effective combination of a geometrical pattern with a conventionalized plant design.

c19.s4.16

The well-known railing round the cenotaph in the Tāj may be taken as an unsurpassed example of the art in Shahjahān's time (Plate CV). The lines of the repeat-

c19.s4.17

[Figure: FIG. 245. Geometrical repeat. (*Ann. Rep. Arch. S., India*, 1904–5, p. 14, Fig. 6.)]

c19.s4.18

ing pattern in this case are more like Italian renaissance than Asiatic work. This is the only case in which Mr. Marshall can discern Italian influence in the decorations of the Tāj.

Section VI. Inlay and Mosaic

c19.s5.1

The device for breaking the monotony of a wide wall surface by inserting broad bands of white marble, as employed in the fourteenth century on the tomb of Tughlak Shah (*ante*, Fig. 234), and a few years earlier on Alā-ud-dīn's gateway (*ante*, Fig. 233), was commonly used in the Musalman art of Central Asia, Syria, and Egypt, and was freely adopted for Christian buildings in Italy. In Akbar's time this early severe form of decoration was supplemented by mosaics made up after the Roman and Byzantine fashion from small tesserae, which were combined in Persian geometrical patterns. The great mosque at Fathpur-Sīkrī offers many examples, as for instance the inner architrave of the *mihrāb* in Plate C. Sometimes the effect was enhanced by the insertion of little bits of blue or green enamel.

c19.s5.2

A great innovation was effected by the introduction of the form of inlay known technically by the Italian name of *pietra dura*, which is composed of hard precious or semi-precious stones, such as onyx, jasper, cornelian, &c., cut into thin slices and neatly bedded in sockets prepared in the marble. This process, of which the best comparatively small specimens are to be seen at Florence, is capable of producing charming decorative effects when executed by capable workmen. In India, where expense was disregarded, it was applied to buildings on an enormous scale.

c19.s5.3

The bold floral mosaics made of marble or red sandstone which appear on the south gateway of Akbar's tomb (1605–12) are nearly equivalent in effect to *pietra dura* work, but are not identical with it.¹ The Mughal kings evidently loved flowers, which are admirably treated in all forms of art patronized by them.

c19.s5.4

¹ ^1 E. W. Smith, *Akbar's Tomb*, Pl. XLI, XLII.

c19.s5.5

The earliest Indian example of true *pietra dura*, according to Major Cole, is said to be that in the *Gol Mandal*, a domed pavilion in the small Jagmandir palace, at Udaipur in Rājputāna, built in or about 1623 for Prince Khurram, afterwards the Emperor Shahjahān, while he was an exile from his father's court.

c19.s5.6

The process is very extensively employed on the approximately contemporary mausoleum of Itimād-ud-daula near Agra, erected by his daughter Nūrjahān after her father's death in a. d. 1621. The general effect of the *pietra dura* decoration is well shown (so far as it can be without colour) in Plate CVI, which represents one of the white marble turrets at the corners of the tomb. The older style of marble mosaic is seen in the lower panels.

c19.s5.7

Shahjahān (1627–58) wholly abandoned mosaic in favour of *pietra dura*, which probably he learned to admire while residing in the Jagmandir palace at Udaipur before his accession. The decoration is applied so lavishly in the Tāj and the palaces of Agra and Delhi that volumes might be filled with reproductions of the designs, which are familiar to most people from modern copies. One plate will be enough to show their character (Plate CVII). They are remarkable for their restraint and good taste, and are superior to the similar work in the Delhi palace.

c19.s5.8

The Florentine *pietra dura* inlay, a revival of the ancient Roman *opus sectile*, first appears, according to Major Cole, in the Fabbrica Ducale built by Ferdinand I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, in 1558. The earliest certain Indian examples being considerably later in date and identical in technique, a strong presumption arises that the art must have been introduced into India from Italy. There is no doubt that the Mughal sovereigns freely entertained artists from Europe as well as from most parts of Asia. The presumption is not rebutted by the obvious fact that the designs of the Mughal work are essentially Asiatic, and in the main Persian, because the ordinary Indian practice is to transpose foreign importations, so to speak, into an Indian key. Persian designs were readily assimilated, but in the seventeenth century nobody in India cared much for outlandish European forms, or wanted to have them. Now, of course, things are different, and European forms are fashionable because the government is English. If Mr. Marshall was correctly informed when he wrote some years ago that '*pietra dura* work in a rougher and earlier stage than was hitherto known' had been discovered in the ruins of the Khaljī mausoleum at Māndū in Central India, the presumption of Italian origin would no longer hold good, because Mahmūd Khaljī, in whose honour the mausoleum seems to have been erected, died in Plate CVII. *Pietra dura* inlay on the cenotaph of the Tāj. (Plate, *J. Ind. Art*, vol. i, p. 76.)

c19.s5.11

1475.¹ But the details given in an earlier report suggest that the remains found were those of marble mosaic, not of *pietra dura* inlay. As the evidence at present stands, I continue to believe in the Italian origin of Indian *pietra dura* work, so far as the technique is concerned.²

c19.s5.12

¹ *Ann. Rep. A. S., India*, 1904–5, p. 5.

c19.s5.13

² Ibid., 1903–4, p. 38. I cannot find any distinct record of the finding of fragments of *pietra dura* at Māndū.

c19.s5.14

The decline and fall of the Mughal empire during the eighteenth century necessarily involved the rapid decay of the arts which had ministered to the splendour of the imperial court. Among other arts that of producing *pietra dura* inlay had been almost forgotten until about 1830, when Dr. Murray, Inspector-General of Hospitals, induced the craftsmen to revive it for commercial purposes. Since that time it has been practised sufficiently to provide a constant supply of pretty trifles for European tourists and visitors, but nobody dreams of decorating a building in the fashion which appealed to Shahjahān the Magnificent. The plaques and other inlaid objects now made at Agra are too familiar to need illustration. A selection of first-class specimens is figured in *Indian Art at Delhi*, Plate 17—A.

c19.s5.15

Inlay with mother-of-pearl occurs at Salīm Chishtī's tomb, Fathpur Sīkrī, and elsewhere. Glass mosaics are to be seen in several 'Shīsh Mahalls', or 'glass chambers', at Udaipur, Ambēr, Agra, Lahore, and other places. Those in the ceiling of the Shīsh Mahall, Lahore, are said to be particularly well done. But such meretricious bedizenment certainly is not fine art, and need not be further discussed.

Section VII. Enamelled Tiles

c19.s6.1

The practice of decorating wall surface with coloured enamelled bricks or tiles was of very ancient date in Persia, and derived ultimately from Babylonia. The Lion and Archer friezes from Susa now in the Louvre, and well reproduced by Perrot and Chipiez, are the best examples of the art as practised in Achaemenian times.³ But the style of those friezes is not imitated in any extant Indian work. The Indo-Muhammadan enamelled or glazed tiles were copied from a much later development of the art in Persia, where the ancient technique apparently was never wholly forgotten. This later Persian work shows traces of Chinese influence.

c19.s6.2

³ Perrot and Chipiez, *Hist. of Art in Persia*, London, 1892, p. 420 and plates. Persian and Indian tiles are not strong enough for use in pavements.

c19.s6.3

M. Migeon believes that the Muhammadan use of enamelled tiles in numerous Persian buildings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was derived from Khorasān. From that province it seems to have spread to Samarkand, where we find coloured tile facings on the tomb of Tīmūr at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Coloured tiles had become known in India at an earlier date, certainly in the first quarter of the fourteenth and possibly in the thirteenth century, but the Tīmūrid tradition of the Mughal emperors made them still more fashionable. The Indian work, although sometimes very good, is not admitted by experts to equal the best Persian in either the beauty of the colours or the brilliancy of the enamel.⁴

c19.s6.4

⁴ Migeon, *Manuel d'art musulman*, t. ii, pp. 295, 296.

c19.s6.5

The tomb of Bahā-ul-hakk at Multān, built between A. D. 1264 and 1286, still retains, or retained in 1882 when Cunningham wrote, 'some fairly preserved specimens of diaper ornament in glazed tiles,' which may or may not be contemporaneous with the building in its original form. The tomb was extensively rebuilt in the seventeenth century, and Mr. Marshall is of opinion that most of the tile-work belongs to that age.

c19.s6.6

The tomb of Bahā-ul-hakk's grandson, Rukn-ud-dīn (A. D. 1320), a well-designed octagonal domed building of brick, in the same city, has its whole exterior

c19.s6.7

'elaborately ornamented with glazed tile panels and string courses and battlements. The only colours used are dark blue, azure, and white; but these are contrasted with the deep red of the finely polished bricks, and the result is both effective and pleasing. These mosaics are not, like those of later days, mere plain surfaces, but the patterns are raised from half an inch to two inches above the background. This mode of construction must have been very troublesome, but its increased effect is undeniable, as it unites all the beauty of variety of colour with the light and shade of a raised pattern.'

c19.s6.8

The tile from Bahā-ul-hakk's tomb figured by Cunningham exhibits the 'key pattern' in white on a dark blue ground; that from Rukn-ud-dīn's tomb has a white ground with interlacing circles in dark blue, the interspaces being partly filled by six-petalled stars and polygonal blocks in pale azure.¹

c19.s6.9

¹ Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. v, pp. 131-3, Pl. XXXIX. At Sitpur in the Muzaffargarh District, where similar tile decoration occurs, the colours include yellow. The Sitpur tombs date from the fifteenth century.

c19.s6.10

The Indo-Muhammadan use of glazed or enamelled tiles undoubtedly was imported from Persia and Turkistan in the forms of art practised in those countries from the thirteenth century onwards. But ages earlier more ancient foreign conquerors seem to have brought with them into India an old variety of the art. The excavations at Kanishka's *stūpa* at Peshāwar have revealed the surprising fact that

c19.s6.11

'at some point higher up the walls [than certain reliefs] there appears to have been a band of enamelled tiles, with an inscription in Kharoshthī letters boldly incised upon it. Many of the tiles belonging to this band have been found on the western side of the monument, and it is likely that more may turn up in the yet unexcavated débris. These tiles, which are covered with a pale blue vitreous enamel, are the first of their kind, I may notice, that have yet been discovered in India.'²

c19.s6.12

² Marshall, *J. R. A. S.*, 1909, p. 1057.

c19.s6.13

Kanishka's workmen (*cir.* A. D. 100) presumably imitated Turkistan tiles, but there is, of course, a bare possibility that the art may have been invented independently in India.

c19.s6.14

Two of the mosques at Gaur in Bengal (*ante*, 400), the Tāntipāra and Lotan (Lattan), erected between A.D. 1475 and 1480, are decorated with true encaustic tiles. Those of the Lotan mosque are the best preserved. A collection of earlier glazed tiles from Gaur in the Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, is described as having 'a marked Hindu character, quite distinct from the blue, and diapered, and banded tiles which are distinctive of Mahommadan manufacture elsewhere in India, before the florid designs of the Mogul period came into vogue.'¹ It is possible that the art, however introduced originally, may have been known to the Hindus of Bengal in an imperfect form before the Muhammadan conquest.

c19.s6.15

¹ Birdwood, *Industrial Arts of India*, p. 322. These objects are rather enamelled bricks or terra-cotta than tiles. The body is similar to that of red bricks, moulded on the edges or sides into relief patterns, which are covered with a poor vitreous dip, forming a ground of opaque dark blue, upon which patterns in opaque white—either enamel or clay—have been laid. The patterns include Muhammadan (Saracenic) and Hindu forms, and may be referred to the eleventh or twelfth century (Furnival, *Leadless Decorative Tiles*, p. 118, Figs. 72–5).

c19.s6.16

PLATE CVIII. Minaret of Wazīr Khān's Mosque. (Plate XXVIII of *J. Ind. Art*, vol. x.)

c19.s6.17

The palace of Rāja Mān Singh at Gwālīor, built at the beginning of the sixteenth century, 'was once profusely decorated with glazed tiles of various colours,' as noticed by Bābar, who recorded in his *Memoirs*: 'The outside of the walls they have inlaid with green painted tiles. All around they have inlaid the walls with figures of plantain trees made of painted tiles.' Cunningham, writing in 1871, states that

c19.s6.18

'the plantain [i. e. banana] trees mentioned by Bābar still exist. They are of the natural size, but the leaves made of bright green glazed tiles are very regularly disposed on each side of the yellow stems, and the effect is consequently too stiff and formal. The diamond patterns in blue tile, and the long narrow lines of the same colour, are, however, both effective and pleasing.'²

c19.s6.19

² Cunningham, *A. S. Rep.*, vol. i, pp. 347–9.

c19.s6.20

I have not seen these curious and unique tiles or any illustrations of them. The design is purely Hindu, and it is difficult to say whether or not the manufacture of such tiles was learned from the Muhammadans or was previously known to the Hindus of Central India. But the probability is that the art was imported.

c19.s6.21

We now pass on to the more highly developed and artistic use of glazed tiles after the Persian manner on the walls and domes of Mughal buildings. Most of the Mughal tiling is of the kind called *Kāshī* or *Chīnī*, composed of pieces cut out from a painted sheet and laid as mosaic. The larger part dates from the seventeenth century, with a range of colours considerably more extensive than that employed on the early Panjāb tiles already noticed.³ Such *Kāshī* tile casing, sparingly employed on the tombs of Shēr Shah and Humāyūn, came largely into favour in the reigns of Jahāngīr and Shahjahān (1605–58), and continued to be used in Aurangzēb's time. The art is now extinct.

c19.s6.22

³ Opinions differ as to the mode of manufacture. Mr. J. L. Kipling thought that the designs were painted on large sheets, which were cut up into tiles *before* firing (*J. Ind. Art*, vol. ii, pp. 17, 18); but Mr. F. H. Andrews, after making experiments, believes that the shaped pieces were cut *after* glazing and firing (Ibid., vol. x, pp. 27–30).

c19.s6.23

The most remarkable series of tile pictures in the world is the huge band on the walls of the Lahore Fort, extending from the Elephant Gate (*Hāthī Pōl*) to the north-eastern tower of Jahāngīr's quadrangle for a length of 497 yards, with a height of 17 yards. Nearly the whole of this enormous surface is faced with painted tiles representing elephant fights, a game of polo, and other scenes. Dr. Vogel has obtained tracings of 116 panels, of which many select examples have been repro- PLATE CIX. Chīnī-kā-Rauza. (Pl. XXV, E. W. Smith, *Colour Decoration, Agra*.)

c19.s6.25

duced on a reduced scale in colour.¹ One is here given (Pl. CX) by permission of the Government of India.

c19.s6.26

¹ *Progress Rep. A. S., Panjāb Circle*, 1901–2, par. 13; *J. I. A. I.*, 1911.

c19.s6.27

The most beautiful example of *Kāshī* tile-work on a large scale is universally recognized to be the mosque built in 1634 at Lahore by the governor, Wazīr Khān. The building is a well-designed domed structure with four handsome minarets, constructed of small thin bricks. The exterior is panelled, the panels and minarets being veneered with *Kāshī* tile-work of great brilliancy, still in fairly good preservation. The minaret figured in Plate CVIII gives a good idea of the effect.

c19.s6.28

Passing by several interesting buildings exhibiting more or less decoration in coloured tiles, we come next to the tomb near Agra known as the Chīnī-kā-Rauza, which has had the advantage of being exhaustively described and illustrated by the late Mr. E. W. Smith in a volume mainly devoted to it. The building, a large octagonal domed tomb of uncertain date, supposed to have been built early in the reign of Aurangzēb, in memory of Afzal Khān, a poet who died in 1639, was originally covered on the outside from top to bottom with mosaic in *Kāshī* tiling of various colours, worked up into numerous patterns so as to form one unbroken flat surface. It is now much dilapidated. The tiles, ⅝ of an inch thick, are bedded in a layer of fine plaster an inch thick, which was laid on a stratum of coarser plaster two inches in thickness. The principal colours include blues, greens, orange, vermilion, lake, &c., in a variety of delicate shades with a metallic lustre, the unavoidable slight irregularities of the surface producing wonderful play of light. One illustration may be given to show the style (Plate CIX).²

c19.s6.29

² For a long list of Indian buildings decorated with tiles, prepared by Mr. C. Stanley Clarke, see Furnival, *Leadless Decorative Tiles*, pp. 121–6. The subject is continued to p. 132.

c19.s6.30

The tomb also exhibits some painted internal decoration in excellent taste.

c19.s6.31

Mr. Marshall describes as follows a third type of Indian tile decoration:—

c19.s6.32

‘A third kind of tiles is found on buildings of the eighteenth century, such as the mosque of Muhammad Amīn at Lahore (beginning eighteenth century) and the mosque of Zakariya Khan near Lahore. The founder of the latter was a viceroy of the Punjab from A. D. 1717 to 1738. It is strange to find the same type combined with *Kāshī* work on the tomb of Asaf Khan at Shahdara as early as A. D. 1634. The tiles of this class are square. They form, consequently, not a tile-mosaic as the two earlier types, in which each separate piece has its own shape and colour, but are similar to the tiles known in Europe, from where presumably they were introduced into India. The colours are faint as compared to [*sic*] those of the *Kāshī* tiles, pale green, blue and yellow being the most prominent. In one case, the tomb of Sharf-un-nissa, known as the cypress tomb (*Sarvvālī maqbara*), not far from Bēgampura near Lahore, we find, besides *Kāshī* work on the lower part of the walls, square blue and white tiles of a type well known in the west of Europe. This building also would seem to belong to the eighteenth century.

c19.s6.33

‘It would be interesting to know whether there exists any connexion between the use of such tiles in the Punjab and the visit of an ambassade of the Dutch East India Company to Lahore in A. D. 1712. It should be noted that at present square white and blue tiles are fabricated in great number at Multān, which are now com-

c19.s6.38

Fig. A. Glazed earthenware tile from Panjāb, seventeenth cent.; 9¼″ sq.; green ground: No. 941–1873, &c., Ind. Sec., V. and A. Museum.

c19.s6.39

Fig. B. Enamelled earthenware tile from Delhi; ? sixteenth cent.; 11″ × 10¾″ sq.; dark blue, red, black, and green on yellow ground; humped bull and flowers: No. 303–90, Ind. Sec., V. and A. Museum.

c19.s6.41

Fig. C. Enamelled earthenware tile from Lahore; seventeenth cent.; antelopes and flowers on yellow ground; 8¾″ × 8¼″ sq.: No. 1–98, Ind. Sec., V. and A. Museum.

c19.s6.42

monly used to decorate graves with, but are entirely different from the tiles found in the ancient buildings mentioned above, that is to say, the early type of the Rukn-i-Alam.'¹

c19.s6.43

¹ Furnivall, *op. cit.*, App. C.

c19.s6.44

Inasmuch as Mr. Marshall himself notes that square tiles of the type he describes occur on Āsaf Khān's tomb at Shahdara dating from 1634, I do not see what the Dutch embassy of 1712 can have to do with them.

c19.s6.45

In Plates CXI, CXII reproductions are given from photographs specially taken of six artistic square tiles in the Entrance Hall of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Indian Section, all believed to date from either the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and not previously published.

c19.s6.46

Fig. A, Plate CXI, showing the complete figure of a young woman seated on her heels, with part of another woman offering her a fruit, appears to be unique, and is supposed to date from the seventeenth century. The drawing is good, and the general aspect suggests European influence, of which there was plenty in those times.

c19.s6.47

The broken tile from Delhi (Fig. B) presents a humped bull and flowers in brilliant colours. The fragments of a hunting scene on two perfect tiles (Plate CXI, Fig. C, Plate CXII, Fig. A) from Lahore are vividly designed and, I think, rightly referred to the seventeenth century, when such pictures of Persian origin were much in fashion. The floral devices on the Lahore tiles (Plate CXII, Figs. B, C) are pretty and well coloured.

c19.s6.48

The modern tile-work of Sind and Multān is described in various books dealing with the industrial arts. The oldest Sind tiles on the Dabgir mosque and Mīrza Jānī Bēg's mosque at Tatta, dating from about A. D. 1509, exhibit only two colours, a deep rich blue and a pale turquoise blue, on a white ground, and so resemble the early Multān tiles. Multān used to be reckoned as in Sind, not in the Panjāb, as it is now. The most artistic tile panel from Sind is one from the Jāmi Masjid, Khudabad, near Dadu, built A. D. 1710, which represents a tall lily or tuberose in a stiff, symmetrical style.²

c19.s6.49

² Cousens, H., *Portfolio of Sind Tiles*, Griggs, 1906.

Bibliographical Note

c19.s7.1

In addition to the architectural works noted in Chapter XII, and some others mentioned in the notes to this chapter, the following may be consulted with advantage: Andrews, F. H.—'Mosque of Wazīr Khan,' *J. Ind. Art*, vol. x, pp. 27–30, with plates. Birdwood, Sir G.—*Industrial Arts of India*, London, 1880. Burgess, J.—'Indian Architectural Details,' *J. Ind. Art*, vol. iii, No. 32, with 15 plates. Cole, H. H.—*Illustrations of Buildings near Muttra and Delhi*, 4to, London, 1872, 28 plates; *Preservation of Ancient Monuments, India*, 10 parts, 104 plates, Calcutta, 1884–5, folio; and slightly different, London, 1896, and later years. Cousens, H.—*Portfolio of Sind Tiles*, Griggs, 1906. Furnival, W. J.—*Leadless Decorative Tiles, &c.*, thick 8vo, published by author at Stone, Staff., 1904; especially contributions by Clarke, C. S., and Marshall, J. H. Hendley, T. H.—'Decorative Art in Rajputana,' *J. Ind. Art*, vol. ii, No. 21. Jacob, Sir S.—*Jeypore Portfolio of Architectural Details*, atlas fol., London, 1890; and later years. Kipling, J. L.—'Mosque of Wazīr Khan at Lahore,' *J. Ind. Art*, vol. ii, No. 19. Migeon, G.—'Les Arts plastiques et industriels,' *Manuel d'art musulman*, t. ii, Paris, 1907. Smith, E. W.—*Portfolio of Indian Architectural Drawings*, atlas fol., London, 1897; *Moghul Colour Decoration of Agra*, 4to, Allahabad, 1901. Watt, Sir G., and Brown, P.—*Indian Art at Delhi*, 1903, large 8vo, Calcutta.

First 137 of 148 passages. Read on

Linked texts (10)