[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Architecture and art](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art) › [A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911) › c19.s2 # A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c19.s2: Section III. Figure Sculpture A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c19.s2 - **Language:** English ### Section III. Figure Sculpture ### [c19.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.2) ⁵ Catalogued by Migeon, \*Manuel d’art musulman\*, t. ii, chap. ii, vii. ### [c19.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.14) The history of the Delhi groups may be summarized as follows:— ### [c19.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.18) FIG. A. From Kadam Rasūl Mosque, Gaur; A. D. 1480. (Ravenshaw, \*Gaur\*, Pl. XLVIII, No. 6.) ### [c19.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.19) FIG. B. From Jām'i Masjid, Fathpur-Sīkrī. (E. W. Smith, \*Fathpur-Sīkrī\*, Part iv, Pl. XXIV.) ### [c19.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.21) PLATE XCIX. Decorative Inscriptions. ### [c19.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2.25) ² Cunningham and Beglar, \*A. S. Rep.\*, vol. iv, p. 183 : Latīf, \*Agra, Descriptive and Historical\*, p. 183. ## Linked texts (2) - [Fathpûr Sîkrî](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.fathpur-sikri) - [Mandu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mandu) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c19.s2) · Pramāṇa