James Fergusson

CONTENTS.

Tomb of MahmÚd—Gates of Somnath—Minars on the Plain.

CHRONOLOGY.

---

Sabuktagin, founder	A.D. 975
MahmÚd	977
MasÚd	1030
Abdul-rashid	1048
Ibrahim	1054
Shahab ud-dÎn (first of Ghori dynasty)	1139

---

Towards the latter part of the 9th century the power of the Khalifs of Bagdad was sinking into that state of rapid decline which is the fate of all Eastern dynasties. During the reign of Al Motamed, A.D. 870-891, Egypt became independent, and the northern province of Bokhara threw off the yoke under the governor appointed by the Khalif, Nasr ben Ahmed, a descendant of Saman, a robber chief, who declared and maintained his independence, and so formed the Samanian dynasty. After the dynasty had existed about a century, Sabuktagin, a TÛrkish slave belonging to a general of one of the last of the Samanian kings, rendered himself also independent of his master, and established himself in Ghazni, of which he was governor, founding the well-known dynasty of Ghaznavides. His successor, MahmÚd, A.D. 977-1030, is one of the best-known kings in Indian history owing to his brilliant campaigns in India, and more especially that in which he destroyed the celebrated temple of Somnath.

On his return from an earlier campaign, in which he had sacked the town of Muttra, we learn from Ferishta that the king ordered a magnificent mosque to be built of marble and granite, afterwards known by the name of the Celestial Bride. Near it he founded a university. When the nobility of Ghazni perceived the taste of their king in architecture, they also endeavoured to vie with one another in the magnificence of their palaces, as well as in the public buildings which were raised for the embellishment of the city. “Thus,” continues the historian, “the capital was in a short time ornamented with mosques, porches, fountains, aqueducts, reservoirs, and cisterns, beyond any city in the East.”[484]

275. Minar at Ghazni. (From a Drawing by G. T. Vigne, Esq.)

The plain of Ghazni still shows the remains of this splendour; and, in the dearth of information regarding Persian art of that age, an account of it would be one of the most interesting and valuable pieces of information we could receive. These ruins, however, have not been as yet either examined or described;[485] and even the tomb of the Great MahmÚd is unknown to us except by name,[486] notwithstanding the celebrity it acquired from the removal of its gates to India at the termination of our disastrous campaigns in that country.

The gates are of Deodar pine,[487] and the carved ornaments on them are so similar to those found at Cairo, on the mosque of Ebn Touloun and other buildings of that age, as not only to prove that they are of the same date, but also to show how similar were the modes of decoration at these two extremities of the Moslem empire at the time of their execution.

At the same time there is nothing in their style of ornamentation that at all resembles anything found in any Hindu temple, either of their age or at any other time. There is, in fact, no reason for doubting that these gates were made for the place where they were found.[488] If any other parts of the tomb are ornamented in the same style, it would be of great interest to have them drawn. It probably is, however, from the Jumma Musjid that we shall obtain the best picture of the arts of that day, when any one will take the trouble of examining it.

Two minars still adorn the plain outside the city, and form, if not the most striking, at least the most prominent of the ruins of that city. Neither of them was ever attached to a mosque; they are, indeed, pillars of victory, or Jaya Stambhas, like those at Chittore and elsewhere in India, and are such as we might expect to find in a country so long Buddhist. One of them was erected by MahmÚd himself; the other was built, or at least finished, by MasÚd, one of his immediate successors.[489]

The lower part of these towers is of a star-like form—the plan being apparently formed by placing two squares diagonally the one over the other. The upper part, rising to the height of about 140 ft. from the ground, is circular; both are of brickwork, covered with ornaments of terra-cotta of extreme elaboration and beauty, and retaining their sharpness to the present day.

Several other minars of the same class are found further west, even as far as the roots of the Caucasus,[490] which, like these, were pillars of victory, erected by the conquerors on their battle-fields. None of them have the same architectural merit as those of Ghazni, at least in their present state, though it may be that their ornaments, having been in stucco or some perishable material, have disappeared, leaving us now only the skeleton of what they were.

The weakness of MahmÚd’s successors left the Indians in repose for more than a century and a half; and, like all Eastern dynasties, the Ghaznavides were gradually sinking to inevitable decay, when their fall was precipitated by the crimes of one of them, which were fearfully avenged by the destruction of their empire and capital by Ala ud-dÎn, and their race was at length superseded by that of the Ghori, in the person of Shahab ud-dÎn, in the year 1183.

Though centuries of misrule have weighed on this country since the time of the Ghaznavides, it is scarcely probable that all traces of their magnificence have passed away; but till their cities are examined by some one competent to discriminate between what is good or bad, or old or new, we must be content merely to indicate the position of the style, leaving this chapter to be written hereafter when the requisite information shall have been obtained. In the meanwhile it is satisfactory to know that between Herat and the Indus there do exist a sufficient number of monuments to enable us to connect the styles of the West with those in the East. They have been casually described by travellers, but not in such a manner as to render them available for our purposes; and in the present unsettled state of the country it may be some time yet before their elucidation can be accomplished.