[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.