[457] Burgess, ‘Report on Belgam and Kuladji,’ pl. 31.

[458] A view of this was published in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ pl. 5.

[459] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajastan,’ vol. ii. p. 734.

[460] ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ pl. 6, with description. Gen. Cunningham (‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 264) agrees with me as to the date, but inadvertently adds a scale to his plan which makes the building ten times larger than I made it, or than it really is.

[461] Tod (loc. cit.) gives several plates of the details of the porch by a native artist—fairly well drawn, but wanting shadow to render them intelligible.

[462] Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajastan,’ vol. ii. p. 712.

[463] A view of this temple will be found in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ pl. 4.

[464] We are indebted to Gen. Cunningham for almost all we know about this place, and it is from his ‘Reports’ and photographs that the following account has been compiled.

[465] Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p 420.

[466] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. ix. p. 548. The date is given from four different epochs, so that there can be no mistake about it.

[467] A portion of the casts are in the South Kensington Museum. Transcripts from the drawings were published in the ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. iii. p. 316.

[468] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ix. p. 219.

[469] Ibid., vol. ix. p. 221.

[470] Both these temples are illustrated to a considerable extent in Lieut. H. H. Cole’s illustrations of buildings near Muttra and Agra, published by the India Office, 1873, to which the reader is referred for further information.

[471] Buchanan Hamilton, ‘Eastern India,’ edited by Montgomery Martin, 1837, vol. ii. p. 628.

[472] Frontispiece to Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Eastern India.’

[473] A view of this temple is given in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ pl. 14.

[474] Ante, vol. i., Woodcut No. 241.

[475] A view of it is given in Tod’s ‘Rajastan,’ vol. i. p. 267. Some parts have been misunderstood by the engraver, but on the whole it represents the building fairly.

[476] A view of one of these is given in my ‘Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in India,’ plate 15. Other illustrations will be found in ‘L’Inde des Rajahs,’ p. 187, et seqq.

[477] Erskine’s ‘Memoirs of Baber,’ p. 384.

[478] These particulars are taken from Cunningham’s ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 346, et seqq., plates 87 and 88.

[479] How far anything of all this now exists is by no means clear. We occupied the fort during the mutiny, and have retained it ever since. The first thing done was to occupy the Barradurri as a mess-room: to fit up portions of the palace for military occupation; then to build a range of barracks, and clear away a lot of antiquarian rubbish to make a parade ground. What all this means is only too easily understood. M. Rousselet—no unfriendly critic—observes:—“Les Anglais sont très-activement occupés à simplifier la besogne de l’archéologue, et à faire disparaître ce précieux document de l’histoire de l’Inde; déjà toutes les constructions à la gauche de la porte de l’est sont livrées à la pioche et le même sort est réservé au reste” (‘L’Inde des Rajahs,’ p. 362). And, again: “Mais, hélas! l’Ourwahaï lui aussi a vécu. Quand j’y revins en Décembre, 1867, les arbres étaient coupés, les statues volaient en éclats, sous les pics des travailleurs, et le ravin se remplissait des talus d’une nouvelle route construite par les Anglais—talus dans lesquels dorment les palais des Chandelas et des Tomars, les idoles des Bouddhistes et des Jainas.”—Loc. cit. p. 366.

[480] A plan of it is given in Lieut. Cole’s ‘Report on the Buildings near Agra’—correct as far as it goes, but not complete.

[481] Egypt showed little taste for architectural display till she fell under the sway of the Memlook Sultans, and Saracenic architecture in Persia practically commences with the Seljukians.

[482] ‘Architecture of Beejapore. Photographed from Drawings by Capt. Hart and A. Cumming, C.E., and on the spot by Col. Biggs and Major Loch, with text by Col. Meadows Taylor and J. Fergusson.’ Folio, Murray, 1866.

[483] ‘Architecture of Ahmedabad. 120 Photographs by Col. Biggs, with Text by T. C. Hope, B.C.S., and Jas. Fergusson.’ Small folio, Murray, 1866.

[484] Brigg’s translation, vol. i. p. 61.

[485] It is very much to be regretted that not a single officer accompanied our armies, when they passed and repassed through Ghazni, able or willing to appreciate the interest of these ruins; and it is to be hoped, if an opportunity should again occur, that their importance to the history of art in the East will not be overlooked.

[486] The sketch of the tomb published by Mr. Vigne in his ‘Travels in Afghanistan,’ gives too confined a portion of it to enable us to judge either of its form or detail. The gate in front is probably modern, and the foiled arches in the background appear to be the only parts that belong to the 11th century.

[487] The tradition that these gates were of sandal-wood, and brought from Somnath, is entirely disproved by the fact of their being of the local pine-wood, as well as by the style of decoration, which has no resemblance to Hindu work.

[488] An excellent representation of the gates will be found in the second edition of ‘Marco Polo’s Travels,’ by Col. Yule, vol. ii. p. 390.

[489] See translation of the inscription on these minars, ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ No. 134, for 1843.

[490] Two are represented by Dubois de Montpéreux, ‘Voyage autour du Caucase.’

[491] Vide ante, vol. ii. p. 444, et seqq.

[492] Vide ante, vol. i. p. 387, et seqq.

[493] I do not know why Gen. Cunningham should go out of his way to prove that the Ajmir mosque is larger than that at Delhi (‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 260). His remarks apply only to the inner court at Delhi, which may have been the whole mosque as originally designed; but before the death of Altumsh, who was the real builder of both, the screen of arches at Delhi had been extended to 380 ft. as compared with the 200 ft. at Ajmir, and the courtyards of the two mosques are nearly in the same proportion, their whole superficial area being 72,000 ft. at Ajmir, as compared with 152,000 ft. at Delhi.

[494] Gen. Cunningham found an inscription on the wall recording that twenty-seven temples of the Hindus had been pulled down to provide materials for this mosque (‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 176). This, however, proves little, unless we know what the temples were like which were destroyed for this purpose. Twenty-seven temples like those at Khajurâho, excepting the Ganthai, would not provide pillars for one half the inner court. One temple like that at Sadri would supply a sufficiency for the whole mosque, and though the latter is more modern, we have no reason for supposing that similar temples may not have existed before Mahomedan times.

[495] This mode of construction is only feasible when much larger stones are used than were here employed. The consequence was that the arch had become seriously crippled when I saw and sketched it. It has since been carefully restored by Government under efficient superintendence, and is now as sound and complete as when first erected. The two great side arches either were never completed, or have fallen down in consequence of the false mode of construction.

[496] ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. iv. p. 313. Its present height, according to Gen. Cunningham, is (after the removal of the modern pavilion) 238 ft. 1 in. (‘Archæological Reports,’ vol i. p. 196).

[497] Translated by Walter Ewer, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xiv. p. 480. See also Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. i. p. 132, et seqq.

[498] It is a curious illustration how difficult it sometimes is to obtain correct information in India, that when Gen. Cunningham published his ‘Reports’ in 1871, he stated, apparently on the authority of Mr. Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, that an excavation had been carried down to a depth of 26 ft., but without reaching the bottom. “The man in charge, however”—témoin oculaire—“assured him that the actual depth reached was 35 ft.”—Vol. i. p. 169. He consequently estimated the whole length at 60 ft., but fortunately ordered a new excavation, determined to reach the bottom—coûte qui coûte—and found it at 20 inches below the surface.—Vol. iv. p. 28, pl. 5. At a distance of a few inches below the surface it expands in a bulbous form to a diameter of 2 ft. 4 in., and rests on a gridiron of iron bars, which are fastened with lead into the stone pavement.

[499] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. vii. p. 629.

[500] ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. x. p. 64. These two translations are painfully discrepant in detail, though agreeing sufficiently as to the main facts. On the whole, I am inclined to think Bhau Daji’s the most correct, though I agree with Prinsep in believing that the more archaic form of the letters is owing to their being punched with a cold chisel on the iron, instead of being engraved as those on stone always were.

[501] There is no mistake about the pillar being of pure iron. Gen. Cunningham had a bit of it analysed in India by Dr. Murray, and another portion was analysed in the School of Mines here by Dr. Percy. Both found it pure malleable iron without any alloy.

[502] Can these Balhikas be the dynasty we have hitherto known as the Sah kings of Saurastra? They certainly were settled on the lower Indus from about the year A.D. 79, and were expelled, according to their own dates, A.D. 264 or 371. (See ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. viii. p. 28.) My impression is, that this may ultimately prove to be the true solution of the riddle.

[503] The same form of pendentive is found at Serbistan (Woodcut No. 946, vol. ii.), nearly ten centuries before this time.

[504] Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 261.

[505] I am sorry to differ from Gen. Cunningham on this matter. He has seen the mosque—I have not; but I have photographs and drawings of it, and directed Mr. Burgess’s attention especially to this point when he visited it, and the result is a conviction on my mind that the pillars now standing are unaltered in arrangement.

Tod, in his ‘Annals,’ treats it simply as a Jaina temple, without referring to any possible alterations, except additions made by Moslem architects, vol. i. p. 779, see also his plate, which is singularly correct.

[506] Owing to the Hindu part being undisturbed, and the Mahomedan part better built and with larger materials, the mosque is not in the same ruinous condition as that at the Kutub was before the late repairs. It is, however, in a filthy and neglected state, and might at a very slight outlay be preserved from further dilapidation, and its beauties very much enhanced. There is, so far as I can judge, no building in India more worthy of the attention of Government than this. The kind of care, however, that is bestowed upon it may be gathered from the following extract from a private letter from a gentleman high in the Government service in India, and one perfectly well informed as to what he was writing about: “Have you ever heard that some of the Hindu pillars of the great mosque at Ajmir were dragged from their places (I presume they were fallen pillars), and set up as a triumphal arch on the occasion of Lord Mayo’s visit? and have you heard that they were so insecurely converted that nobody dared to go under them, and that Lord Mayo and the inspired—— of architects went round it?” This is more than confirmed in a public letter by Sir John Strachey, Lieut.-Governor of the North-West Provinces, addressed to Lord Northbrook, on 25th August last. In this he speaks of “an over zealous district officer who, not long ago, actually pulled down the sculptured columns of a well-known temple of great antiquity”—the Arhai din ka Jhompra—“with the object of decorating a temporary triumphal arch through which the Viceroy was to pass.” He then proceeds to quote what Rousselet says regarding our neglect of such monuments, which is not one whit too severe.

[507] ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxxiv. p. 1, et seqq., pls. 1-8. It is to me inconceivable that any one looking at these plates, especially the plans, pls. 7 and 8, can see anything in them but the usual tomb of a Mahomedan noble of the 15th century with its accompanying mosque.

[508] These dimensions are taken from the text and a plan of the building in Montgomery Martin’s edition of Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Statistical Account of Shahabad,’ vol. i. p. 425. The plan is, however, so badly drawn that it can hardly be reproduced.

[509] The first to suggest this was the Baron Hügel, though his knowledge of the subject was so slight that his opinion would not have had much weight. The idea was, however, taken up afterwards and warmly advocated by the late Mr. Horne, B.C.S., and the Rev. Mr. Sherring, in a series of papers in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xxxiv. p. 1, et seqq., and by the latter in his work on ‘The sacred city of the Hindus,’ p. 283, and elsewhere. They have hitherto failed to adduce a single example of similar pillars existing in any authentic Buddhist or Jaina building—they mean Jaina, though they say Buddhist—or any historical or other evidence that will bear a moment’s examination. There may have been some Jaina or Hindu buildings at Jaunpore of the 13th or 14th centuries that may have been utilised by the Mahomedans, but certainly nine-tenths at least of the pillars in these mosques were made at the time they were required for the places they now occupy.

[510] A view of this mosque will be found in Kittoe’s ‘Indian Architecture,’ but, unfortunately, no plan or dimensions. That quoted in the text is from memory.

[511] A view of it, but not a good one, is given in Daniell’s plates. It is partially seen in Woodcut No. 291.

[512] If the buildings of the Bakaraya Kund had been found within twenty miles of Ahmedabad, where there are dozens exactly like them, they would hardly have deserved a passing remark. Any one familiar with the style would have assigned them a date—A.D. 1450, or thereabouts—and would hardly have troubled himself to inquire who built them, they are so like all others of the same age.

[513] General Cunningham’s ‘Reports’ for 1862-63, vol. i. p. 287. From this I learn that the pillars surrounding the court on three sides have been removed since I saw them in 1836—this time, however, not by the English.

[514] See plate in Forbes’ ‘Oriental Memoirs,’ vol. iii. ch. xxx.

[515] As it is impossible by a woodcut to convey an impression of the beauty of these mosques, the reader is referred to the photographs of ‘Architecture of Ahmedabad,’ &c.

[516] Described further on, p. 538, Woodcuts Nos. 306 and 307.

[517] I understand from Mr. Burgess that, during his recent visit to Ahmedabad, he copied a number of inscriptions from the mosques there which prove that some of the names given to the buildings are erroneous. When these are published new names and dates must in some instances be given to several of the buildings, but the alterations, as I understand it, are not very important.

[518] All the particulars above quoted regarding that mosque are derived from a work published in Bombay in 1868, entitled, ‘Surat, Baroach, and other old Cities of Goojerat.’ By T. C. Hope, B.C.S. Illustrated by photographs, plans, and with descriptive text.

[519] Plans of these are in Mr. Hope’s work.

[520] There is a very good view of the tomb in Mr. Grindlay’s ‘Views of the East’; but the plan and details here given are from Mr. Hope’s work, sup. cit.

[521] A view of this palace, but not from the best point of view, will be found in Elliot’s ‘Views in the East.’

[522] In this respect it is something like the curvilinear pediments which Roman and Italian architects employed as window heads. Though detestable in themselves, yet we use and admire them because we are accustomed to them.

[523] These particulars are taken principally from Buchanan Hamilton’s ‘Statistics of Dinajepore,’ published by Montgomery Martin in his ‘Eastern India,’ 1838, vol. ii. p. 649, et seqq.

[524] Page 347, et seqq.

[525] Initial coinage of Bengal, by Edward Thomas, B.C.S. 1866.

[526] In the woodcut, though not so clearly as in the photograph, will be observed the long pendent root of the tree which has been planted by some bird in the upper gallery. In another year or two it will reach the ground, and then down comes the minar. Any one with a pocket-knife might save it by five minutes’ work. But Cui bono? says the Saxon.

[527] Ante, p. 393.

[528] Elphinstone’s ‘India,’ vol. ii. p. 57.

[529] For the plan and section of this mosque, and all indeed I know about it, I am indebted to my friend the Hon. Sir Arthur Gordon, at present governor of the Fiji Islands. He made the plans himself, and most liberally placed them at my disposal.

[530] I have photographs, but no measurements, of this street.

[531] Brigg’s translation of Ferishta, vol. ii. p. 510.

[532] There is a view of it from a sketch by Col. Meadows Taylor, in the ‘Oriental Annual’ for 1840.

[533] Bijapur has been singularly fortunate, not only in the extent, but in the mode in which it has been illustrated. A set of drawings—plans, elevations, and details—were made by a Mr. A. Cumming, C.E., under the superintendence of Capt. Hart, Bombay Engineers, which, for beauty of drawing and accuracy of detail, are unsurpassed by any architectural drawings yet made in India. These were reduced by photography, and published by me at the expense of the Government in 1859, in a folio volume with seventy-four plates, and afterwards in 1866 at the expense of the Committee for the Publication of the Antiquities of Western India, illustrated further by photographic views taken on the spot by Col. Biggs, R.A.

[534] Ante, vol. ii. p. 553.

[535] Adopting the numerical scale described in the introduction to the ‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ p. 140, I estimated the Parthenon as possessing 4 parts of technic value, 4 of æsthetic, and 4 phonetic, or 24 as its index number, being the highest known. The Taje I should on the contrary estimate as possessing 4 technic, 5 æsthetic, and 2 phonetic, not that it has any direct phonetic mode of utterance, but from the singular and pathetic distinctness with which every part of it gives utterance to the sorrow and affection it was erected to express. Its index number would consequently be 20, which is certainly as high as it can be brought, and near enough to the Parthenon for comparison at least.

[536] ‘Memoirs,’ translated by Erskine, p. 334.

[537] Loc. cit., pp. 341-2.

[538] Brigg’s translation, vol. ii. p. 71.

[539] Cunningham, ‘Reports,’ vol. i. p. 222.

[540] A description of this mosque is given in Mr. Carllyle’s ‘Report on the Buildings of Delhi,’ forming part of Cunningham’s fourth volume, but like everything else most unsatisfactory. Neither plan nor dimensions are given, mere verbiage conveying no distinct meaning.

[541] As I cannot find any trace of this building in Keene’s description of the fort in his third book on Agra, I presume it must have been utilised since my day. Unless it is the building he calls the Nobut Khana of Akbar’s palace (26). I have never seen it in any photograph of the place.

[542] It is not quite clear how much Rhotasgur owes its magnificence to Shere Shah, how much to Akbar; both certainly built there, and on the spot it might easily be ascertained how much belongs to each. Unfortunately, the part that belongs to the British is too easily ascertained. “They converted the beautiful Dewan Khand, of which Daniell published a drawing, into a stable for breeding horses.”—Hamilton’s ‘Gazetteer,’ sub voce.

[543] I have mislaid the measurements and plan I made of this building; and, as neither Gen. Cunningham nor his assistants give either plan or dimensions, I am unable to quote any figures in the text.

[544] The plan is taken from one by Gen. Cunningham (‘Reports,’ vol. ii., plate 91). He omits, however, these square projections. I have added them from the photographs.

[545] An attempt has lately been made by Gen. Cunningham and his assistants (‘Reports,’ vol. iv. p. 124), to ascribe this palace to Jehangir. On what authority is not stated; but unless it is very clear and distinct, I must decline to admit it. The whole evidence, so far as I can judge, is directly opposed to such an hypothesis. There is a plan of this palace, in his ‘Reports,’ vol. iv., plate 8.

[546] A cast of this throne is in the South Kensington Museum.

[547] Photographs of this palace are now common, and can be obtained anywhere; and recently Lieut. Cole’s ‘Report on Buildings in the Neighbourhood of Agra’ supplies some very interesting new ones with plans, from which the dimensions in the text are quoted.

[548] No plan or section of this tomb has ever, so far as I know, been published, though it has been in our possession for nearly a century. Those here given are from my own measurements, and, though they may be correct as far as they go, are not so detailed as those of such a monument ought to be, and would have been, had it been in the hands of any other European nation.

[549] The diagram is probably sufficient to explain the text, but must not be taken as pretending to be a correct architectural drawing. There were parts, such as the height of the lower dome and upper angle kiosks, I had no means of measuring, and after all, I was merely making memoranda for my own satisfaction.

[550] After the above was written, and the diagram drawn (Woodcut No. 334), I was not a little pleased to find the following entry in Mr. Finch’s journal. He resided in Agra for some years, and visited the tomb for the last time apparently in 1609, and after describing most faithfully all its peculiarities up to the upper floor, as it now stands, adds: “At my last sight thereof there was only overhead a rich tent with a Semaine over the tomb. But it is to be inarched over with the most curious white and speckled marble, and to be seeled all within with pure sheet gold richly inwrought.”—‘Purchas, his Pilgrims,’ vol. i. p. 440.

[551] Although the fact seems hardly now to be doubted, no very direct evidence has yet been adduced to prove that it was to foreign—Florentine—artists that the Indians owe the art of inlaying in precious stones generally known as work in “pietro duro.” Austin or Augustin de Bordeaux, is the only European artist whose name can positively be identified with any works of the class. He certainly was employed by Shah Jehan at Delhi, and executed that mosaic of Orpheus or Apollo playing to the beasts, after Raphael’s picture, which once adorned the throne there, and is now in the Indian Museum at South Kensington.

It is, however, hardly to be expected that natives should record the names of those who surpassed them in their own arts; and needy Italian adventurers were even less likely to have an opportunity of recording the works they executed in a strange and foreign country. Had any Italian who lived at the courts of Jehangir or Shah Jehan written a book, he might have recorded the artistic prowess of his countrymen, but none such, so far as I am aware, has yet seen light.

The internal evidence, however, seems complete. Up to the erection of the gates to Akbar’s tomb at Secundra in the first ten years of Jehangir’s reign, A.D. 1605-1615, we have infinite mosaics of coloured marble, but no specimen of “inlay.” In Eti-mad-Doulah’s tomb, A.D. 1615-1628, we have both systems in great perfection. In the Taje and palaces at Agra and Delhi, built by Shah Jehan, A.D. 1628-1668, the mosaic has disappeared, being entirely supplanted by the “inlay.” It was just before that time that the system of inlaying called “pietro duro” was invented, and became the rage at Florence and, in fact, all throughout Europe; and we know that during the reign of the two last-named monarchs many Italian artists were in their service quite capable of giving instruction in the new art.

[552] Something of the same sort occurred when the Turks occupied Constantinople. They adapted the architecture of the Christians to their own purposes, but without copying. Vide ante, vol. ii. p. 528, et seqq.

[553] The great bath was torn up by the Marquis of Hastings with the intention of presenting it to George IV., an intention apparently never carried out; but it is difficult to ascertain the facts now, as the whole of the marble flooring with what remained of the bath was sold by auction by Lord William Bentinck, and fetched probably 1 per cent. of its original cost; but it helped to eke out the revenues of India in a manner most congenial to the spirit of its governors.

[554] Since the appointment of Sir John Strachey, the present enlightened Governor of the North West Provinces, I understand that this state of affairs is entirely altered. Both care and money are now expended liberally for the protection and maintenance of such old buildings that remain in the province.

[555] Perfect plans of this palace exist in the War Department of India. It is a great pity the Government cannot afford the very few rupees it would require to lithograph and publish them. Without such plans it is very difficult to make any description intelligible. That in Keene’s ‘Handbook of Agra,’ though useful as far as it goes, is on too small a scale and not sufficiently detailed for purposes of architectural illustration.

[556] When we took possession of the palace every one seems to have looted after the most independent fashion. Among others, a Captain (afterwards Sir John) Jones tore up a great part of this platform, but had the happy idea to get his loot set in marble as table tops. Two of these he brought home and sold to the Government for £500, and they are now in the India Museum. No one can doubt that the one with the birds was executed by Florentine, or at least Italian artists; while the other, which was apparently at the back of the platform, is a bad copy from Raphael’s picture of Orpheus charming the beasts. As is well known, that again was a copy of a picture in the Catacombs. There Orpheus is playing on a lyre, in Raphael’s picture on a violin, and that is the instrument represented in the Delhi mosaic. Even if other evidence were wanting, this would be sufficient to set the question at rest. It certainly was not put there by the bigot Aurungzebe, nor by any of his successors.