Chapter I: Introductory

From a very early period in the world’s history a great group of civilized nations existed in Central Asia between the Mediterranean and the Indus. They lived apart, having few relations with their neighbours, except of war and hatred, and served rather to separate than to bring together the Indian and European communities which flourished beyond them on either hand.

Alexander’s great raid was the first attempt to break through this barrier, and to join the East and West by commercial or social interchanges. The steady organisation of the Roman empire succeeded in consolidating what that brilliant conqueror had sketched out. During the permanence of her supremacy the space intervening between India and Europe was bridged over by the order she maintained among the various communities established in Central Asia, and there seemed no reason why the intercourse so established should be interrupted. Unsuspected, however, by the Roman world, two nomade nations, uninfluenced by its civilization, hung on either flank of this great line of communication, ready to avail themselves of any moment of weakness that might occur.

The Arabs, as the most impetuous, and nearest the centre, were the first to break their bounds; and in the course of the 7th century Syria, Persia, Egypt, and the north of Africa became theirs. Spain was conquered, and India nearly shared the same fate. Under Muawiah, the first Khalif of the Ommiahs, two attempts were made to cross the Indus by the southern route--that which the Scythians had successfully followed a short time before. Both these attempts failed, but under Walid, Muhamed Kasim, A.H. 99, did effect a settlement in Scinde. It proved a barren conquest, however; for though a Mahomedan dynasty was established there, it soon became independent of the Khalifat, and eventually died out.

The supremacy of the Khalifat was as brief as it was brilliant. Its hour of greatest glory was about the year A.D. 800, in the reign of Haroun al Rashid. From that time decay set in; and after two centuries more the effeminacy and corruption inherent in Eastern dynasties had so far progressed as to encourage the Northern hordes to move.

During the course of the 11th century the Tartar hordes, who were hitherto only known as shepherds pasturing their herds on the steppes of Northern Asia, first made their appearance south of the Paropamisan range as conquerors; and for six centuries their progress was steadily onwards, till, in the year A.D. 1683, we find the Turks encamped under the walls of Vienna, and the Mogul Aurungzebe lord paramount of the whole of India Proper, while Egypt and all the intervening countries owned the rule of sovereigns of Turanian race.

The architecture of the nations under the Arab Khalifat has already been described, and is of very minor importance.[481] The ruling people were of Semitic race, and had no great taste for architectural magnificence; and unless where they happened to govern a people of another stock, they have left few traces of their art.

With the Northern hordes the case was widely different; they were, without an exception, of Turanian blood, more or less pure, and wherever they went their mosques, and especially their tombs, remain to mark their presence, and to convey an idea of their splendour. In order to understand what follows, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Semitic conquest, from Mecca as a centre, extended from the mouths of the Guadalquivir to those of the Indus, and left but little worthy of remark in architecture. The Turanian conquest, from Bokhara and Balkh as centres, extended from Constantinople to Cuttack, and covered the whole intervening space with monuments of every class. Those of the west and centre have already been described in speaking of Turkey and Persia; the Eastern branch remains to be discussed, and its monuments are those of which this division of the work purports to be a description.

The Saracenic architects showed in India the same pliancy in adopting the styles of the various people among whom they had settled which characterised their practice in the countries already described. It thus happens that in India we have at least twelve or fifteen different styles of Mahomedan architecture: and if an attempt were made to exhaust all the examples, it would be found necessary to enumerate even a greater number. Meanwhile, however, the following thirteen divisions will probably be found sufficient for present purposes:--

1. The first of these is that of _Ghazni_, which, though not, strictly speaking, in India, had without doubt the most important influence on the Indian styles, and formed in fact the stepping-stone by means of which the architecture of the West was introduced into India, and it long remained the connecting link between the styles of the Eastern and those of the Western world. It would consequently be of the greatest importance in enabling us to understand the early examples of the style in India Proper, if we could describe this one with anything like precision, but for that we must wait till some qualified person visits the province.

2. Next to this comes the _Pathan_ style of northern India (A.D. 1193-1554), spreading over the whole of Upper India, and lasting for about three centuries and a half. After the death, however, of Ala ud-dîn (A.D. 1316) the central power was at times so weak, that the recently conquered outlying provinces were frequently enabled to render themselves independent, and when this was the case, exhibited their individuality everywhere, by inventing a style of architecture expressive of their local peculiarities.

3. One of the first to exhibit this tendency was the brilliant but short-lived Sharki dynasty of _Jaunpore_ (A.D. 1394-1476). Though existing for less than a century, they adorned their capital with a series of mosques and other buildings which are hardly surpassed by those of any city in India for magnificence, and by none for a well-marked individuality of treatment.

4. The style adopted by the kings of _Gujerat_ during their period of independence (A.D. 1396-1572) was richer and more varied than that of Jaunpore, though hardly so original or marked by such individuality. They borrowed too much, physically as well as intellectually, from the architecture of the Jains, among whom they were located, to be entirely independent; but the richness of their style is in proportion to the Hindu details they introduced.

5. _Malwa_ became independent in A.D. 1401, and between that date and A.D. 1568, when they were absorbed in the Mogul empire, her kings adorned their capital at Mandu with palaces and mosques of great magnificence, but more similar to the parent style at Delhi than the two last-named styles, and wanting, consequently, in the local individuality.

6. Bengal was early erected into a separate kingdom--in A.D. 1203--more or less independent of the central power; and during its continuance--till A.D. 1573--the capitals, _Gaur_ and Maldah, were adorned with many splendid edifices. Generally these were in brick, and are now so overgrown by jungle as to be either ruined or nearly invisible. They are singularly picturesque, however, and display all the features of a strongly-marked individuality of style.

These six divisions are probably sufficient to characterise the Mahomedan styles north of the Nerbudda. To the south of that river there are three well-marked styles.

7. First that of the _Bahmani_ dynasty. First at Kalbergah, A.D. 1347, and afterwards at Bidar, A.D. 1426, they adorned their capitals with edifices of great magnificence and well-marked individuality, before they were absorbed, in A.D. 1525, in the great Mogul empire.

8. Next to these was the still more celebrated Adil Shahi dynasty of _Bijapur_ (A.D. 1489-1660). Their style differed most essentially from all those above enumerated, and was marked by a grandeur of conception and boldness in construction unequalled by any edifices erected in India.

9. The third southern style is that of the Kutub Shahi dynasty of _Golconda_, A.D. 1512-1672. Their tombs are splendid, and form one of the most striking groups in India, but show evident signs of a decadence that was too surely invading art at the age when they were erected.

10. One by one all these brilliant individualities were absorbed in the great _Mogul_ empire, founded by Baber, A.D. 1494, and which, though practically perishing on the death of Aurungzebe, A.D. 1706, may be considered as existing till the middle of the last century, A.D. 1750. It is to this dynasty that Agra, Delhi, and most of the towns in northern India owe their most splendid edifices.

11. Before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be expedient to enumerate the style of Moslem art existing in _Scinde_. Practically, it is Persian both in its form and the style of decoration, and must have existed in this province from a very ancient time. All the examples, however, now known of it are comparatively modern, and bring us back, curiously enough, to the neighbourhood of Ghazni, from which we started in our enumeration.

12. Leaving these, which may be called the true styles of Mahomedan architecture, we have two which may be designated as the bastard styles. The first of these is that of _Oude_ (A.D. 1756-1847). In its capital there are ranges of building equal in extent and richness to those of any of the capitals above enumerated, but degraded in taste to an extent it is hardly possible to credit in a people who so shortly before had shown themselves capable of such noble aspirations.

13. The style adopted by the short-lived dynasty of _Mysore_ (A.D. 1760-1799), being further removed from the influences of European vulgarity, is not so degraded as that of Lucknow, but is poor and inartistic when compared with earlier styles.

In an exhaustive treatise on the subject, the styles of Ahmednugger and Arungabad, A.D. 1490-1707, ought, perhaps, to be enumerated, and some minor styles elsewhere. These have not, however, sufficient individuality to deserve being erected into separate styles, and the amount of illustration that can be introduced into a work like the present is not sufficient to render the differences sensible to those who are not personally acquainted with the examples.

Even as it is, it would require a much more extensive series of illustrations than that here given to make even their most marked merits or peculiarities evident to those who have no other means than what such a work as this affords of forming an opinion regarding them. Each of these thirteen styles deserves a monograph; but, except for Bijapur[482] and Ahmedabad,[483] nothing of the sort has yet been attempted, and even the two works in which this has been attempted for these two capitals by no means exhaust the materials available for the purpose. Let us hope that these deficiencies will be supplied, and the others undertaken before long and before it is too late, for the buildings are fast perishing from the ravages of time and climate and the still more destructive exigences of the present governing power in India.