Vol. VI, No. 6.] Who Planned the Taj ? 287 



[N.S.] 



the artistic prowess of his countrymen, but none such, as far as 

 I am aware, lias yet seen the light." (Cf. Hist, of Indian and 

 Eastern Archit., p. 588.) This, Mr. Havell admits. 



Another argues that one look at the Taj ought to assure any 

 intelligent uian that it owes its existence to no foreign design : 

 the contrary is impossible from the very nature of the thing. 

 t; If that were not sufficient, we have still the name of the 

 Moslem architect sculptured upon the building." I suppose 

 the name in question is that of Ustad I'sa, whose name is chron- 

 icled in the Tdrikh-i-Tdj Mahal as that of the chief architect, the 

 Naksha Nawis or plan-drawer ? But must the testimony of the 

 Tdrikh-i-Tdj Mahal be taken as a denial of Manrique's state* 

 ment ? Can the two authorities not be reconciled ? Evidently, 

 after Veroneo's death, other architects were employed. And 

 is the style of the various buildings of the Taj so uniform that 

 we cannot recognize in them the work of different hands ( 



It is rather puzzling that Manrique's story should be treated 

 as an obscure romance, as a legend, when, on the other hand. 

 Ustad I'sa, of whom we know rather less, should, without 

 more ado, be proclaimed the original architect. That Taver- 

 nier, Mandelslo, Bernier, Thevenot should be silent is 

 merely a negative argument. They must not be expected to 

 have recorded everything. One cannot help being surprised, 

 for instance, that Manucci should give no description of the 

 Taj in his voluminous memoirs. " Tavernier," writes Talboys 

 Wheeler, " was emphatically a man of a business turn of mind, 

 and his book of travels was written more for the information 

 and amusement of business men than for the wits and scholars 

 of his time." (The History of India, Vol. IV, Pt. II. p. 466.) 

 Bernier was in India between 1655 and 1667 ; Thevenot came 

 only in 1666. 



Though Manrique stands so far alone, we find in Manucci 

 an indirect proof of Veroneo's influence at the Court of Shah 

 Jahan. After speaking of the constancy of the priests taken 

 at Hugli, Manucci continues: " There were also a few others — 

 laymen who held fast to the faith, but were released through the 

 petitions of some persons at Court, chiefly of an Armenian, 

 who was a great favourite, or through the money paid by a 

 Venetian, my com patriot, called Hieronimo Veroneo, a man 

 ransomed by the Portuguese." (Cf. W. Irvine, Storia do Mogor, 

 Vol. I, p. 183.) In the absence of further information, it is, of 

 course, difficult to account for the words I have italicised. All 

 we know is that, at the time of the attack on Hugli. Shah Jahan 

 vented his wrath on the Christians of Agra. From an unpublished 

 letter of Father Corsi, s.J. (Agra, 5 October, 1633). we learn 

 that even the great favourite, Mirza Zu-1 Qarnin, the Catholic 

 Armenian, to whom .Manucci alludes," lost all hi- dignities nd 

 was thrown into prison with the Jesuits of Agra. The storm 



was of short duration, however. The Mirza was reinstated ; 



