NOTES
[1] Babar's "Memoirs," translated by Erskine.
[2] For further particulars of Babar's history the reader is referred to the "Memoirs," or to Stanley Lane-Poolers admirable "Life of Babar," in the "Rulers of India Series" (Macmillan & Co.).
[3] The State documents of the Mogul Emperors, "given under the royal hand and seal," were sometimes actually impressed by the royal hand. Plate I. reproduces part of a letter, addressed by Shah Jahan to an ancestor of the present Maharajah of Gidhour. In this letter the Raja Dalan Singh is informed that "the auspicious impress of the royal hand" is sent as a mark of royal favour, and he is commanded to proceed to Court to participate in the festivities and to pay homage to the Emperor.
[4] Bernier's "Travels"—Constable's translation.
[5] These elephant statues have been a vexed point with archæologists. Bernier, in his description of Delhi, refers to two great elephants of stone, with their riders, outside of the Fort Gates. The riders, he says, were portraits of the famous Rajput chiefs Jaymal and Patta, slain by Akbar at the siege of Chitore. "Their enemies, in admiration of the devotion of the two heroes, put up these statues to their memory." Now, Bernier does not say that the statues were put up by Akbar, but General Cunningham, inferring that Bernier meant this, propounded a theory that they were originally in front of the Agra Fort, which Akbar built, and removed to Delhi by Shah Jahan, when he built his new palace there. Keene, who discusses the question at length in his "Handbook to Delhi," accepts this suggestion. Neither of these authorities seem to have been aware of the existence of the marks of the feet on the platform in front of the Agra Hathi Pol. I have compared the measurements of these marks with the dimensions of the elephant which still exists at Delhi, and find that they do not correspond in any way. The Delhi elephant is a much larger animal, and would not fit into the platform at the Agra gate. General Cunningham's theory, therefore, falls to the ground. It is just possible that the Delhi elephants were intended to be copies of those placed by Akbar at Agra. Shah Jahan is not likely to have intentionally perpetuated the memory of the Rajput chiefs, but popular tradition or imagination may have fastened the story told by Bernier on to the Delhi statues. Elephants were so commonly placed in front of Indian palaces and fortresses that, except for this story, there would be no need to suppose any connection between those at Agra and those at Delhi.
Purchas, quoting William Finch who visited Agra in Jahangir's time, describes the elephants at the Hathi Pol, but gives a different origin to the statues. "Beyond these two gates you pass a second gate, over which are two Rajaws in stone. It is said that they were two brother Rajputs, 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 themselves slain, and here have elephants of stone and themselves figured." The expression "over" (the gate) has the meaning of "high up," and not, as Keene supposes, its more modern sense of "on the top of."
[6] The old Mogul road led directly from the Elephant Gate to the entrance of the Dîwan-i-âm. I understand that this road will be restored shortly by the Archæological Department.
[7] An ugly modern marble rail, in imitation of wood, probably a reminiscence of the time when the palace was occupied by the British garrison, still disfigures and stunts the proportions of the upper storey of the Samman Burj.
[8] This question is discussed at length in an article by the author, entitled "The Taj and its Designers," published in the June number of the Nineteenth Century and After, 1903.
[9] Tavernier says twenty-two years probably including all the accessory buildings.
[10] The present garden is a jungle, planted by a European overseer without any understanding or feeling for the ideas of the Mogul artists. The overgrown trees entirely block out the view of the mosques on either side, which are an essential part of the whole composition, serving as supporters to the slender, detached minarets. I understand, however, that it is intended to remove some of the more obstructive of the larger trees; but the avenue of cypress trees, which perished from drought some years ago, has been replanted on lines which eventually will clash seriously with the architectural composition.
[11] This represents the condition of the garden twenty or thirty years ago.
[12] The conjunction of Jupiter and Venus; referring to the circumstance that Timur and himself were born at the conjunction of these planets. (KEENE.)
[13] It is very probable that the black slate or marble panels in the Delhi Palace, which are purely Florentine in design, were imported complete from Italy, and fixed in the wall by Indian workmen, who only designed the ornamental scrolls surrounding the panels.
[14] It is known that in 1575 Akbar completed a great building at Fatehpur, called the Ibadat Khana, or hall in which the learned men of all religions assembled for discussion. It was described as containing four halls, the western for the Sayyids, or descendants of the Prophet; the southern for learned men who had studied or acquired knowledge; the northern for those famed for inspired wisdom: the eastern hall was reserved for the nobles and state officers. Thousands of people from all quarters of the world assembled in the courtyard. The Emperor attended every Friday night and on holy festivals, moving from one to the other of the guests and conversing with them. Keene, in his "Handbook to Agra," suggests that possibly the Dîwan-i-khâs may be the building thus described (taking the word aiwan, or hall, to mean a side gallery), as no other building at all answering to the description now remains at Fatehpur. This supposition is highly improbable, if only for the reason given by Edmund Smith, namely, that an assembly of this kind would not take place within the precincts of the palace. The description given by Abul Fazl and Badâyûni clearly indicates a building like the Dîwan-i-âm, enclosing a great quadrangle.
[15] Keene suggests that Akbar's first wife and cousin, Sultana Raqia Begam, lived here, but she was a Muhammadan. It is quite possible that the name of Jodh Bai (Princess of Jodhpur) really refers to Mariam, and not to Jahangir's Rajput wife (the daughter of the Raja of Jodhpur), as is commonly supposed. Miriam's family resided in the province of Ajmir, which adjoins Jodhpur. She might have been known as the Princess of Jodhpur. In any case, it is easy to see how a confusion might have arisen between Jahangir's mother and his wife, both Hindus and Rajputs.
[16] Birbal's house is now used as a travellers' rest-house for high officials and "distinguished" visitors; which is not only very inconvenient for the undistinguished who may wish to see it, but involves alterations which should never be permitted in buildings of such unique artistic and archæological interest. Neither the Daftar Khana nor this building should be devoted to such purposes, merely to avoid the paltry expense of providing proper dak bungalows.
[17] "History of Indian and Eastern Architecture."
End of Project Gutenberg's A Handbook to Agra and the Taj, by E. B. Havell