side of the court, one fixed in the inner wall in the north-east angle just above the pillars, and the other in the outer wall between the north gate and the north-east corner. The inner sculpture represents several well known Hindu gods,-1st, Vishnu, lying on a couch with a lotus rising from his navel, and covered by a canopy, with two attendants, one standing at his head and one sitting at his feet; 2nd, a seated figure not recognized; 3rd, Indra, on his elephant; 4th, Brahma, with three heads seated on his goose; 5th, Siva, with his trident seated on his bull Nandi; 6th, a figure with lotus scated on some animal not recognized. The outer sculpture is of a different description. The scene shows two rooms with a half-opened door between them. In each room there is a female lying on a couch with a child by her side, a canopy over her head, and an attendant at her feet. In the left-hand room two females are seen carrying children towards the door, and in the right-hand room two others are doing the same. The whole four of these females appear to be hastening towards the principal figure in the right-hand room. I am unable to offer any explanation of this very curious scene, but as it is very unlikely that these figures would have been exposed to the sight of the early Musalmâns, I conclude that these stones must also have been carefully plastered over.

During the reign of Altamsh, the son-in-law of Kutbuddin, the Great Mosque was much enlarged by the addition of two wings to the north and south, and by the erection of a new cloistered court on the north, east, and south sides, so as to include the Kutb Minar in the south-east corner of the enclosure. The fronts of the two wing buildings are pierced by three arches each, the middle arches being 24 feet span, and the side arches 13 feet. The walls are of the same thickness, and their ornamental scrolls are of the same delicate and elaborate tracery as those of the original Mosque.* The whole front of the Jama Masjid, with its new additions, is 384 feet in length, which is also the length of its cloistered court, the breadth being 220 feet. The wall on the south side of the court, as well as the south end of the east wall, are fortunately in good preservation, and, as about three-fourths of the columns are still standing, we are able to measure the size of the enclosure with precision, and to reckon the number

See plate No. XXXVII. for a plan of the original Masjid and its additions.

of columns with tolerable certainty. The number of columns in the new cloisters must have been as nearly as possible 300, and as each of them consists of two Hindu shafts, the whole number of Hindu pillars thus brought into use could not have been less than 600. By my measurements the new court is 362 feet long and 220 feet broad, inside the the walls, of which the west wall, which is the front of the Masjid, is only 8 feet thick, the other walls being 11 feet thick. In the south-east corner of this great quadrangle stands the majestic column called Kutb Minar, within 11 feet of the line of cloister pillars on the south, and extending into the middle of the cloister on the east side.

* **

At a later date the court of the Great Mosque was still further enlarged by Alauddin Khilji, by the addition of a large choistered enclosure on the east side, equal in size to more than one-half of the court of Altamsh. This work is described by the contemporary poet Amir Khusru,* who says that the "Sultan determined upon adding to and completing the Masjid-i-Jâmi of Shams-uddin by building beyond the three old gates and courts a fourth with lofty pillars, and upon the surface of the stones he engraved verses of the Kuran in such a manner as could not be done even on wax; ascending so high that you would think the Kurân was going to heaven, and again descending in another line so low that you would think it was coming down from heaven. He also repaired the old Masjids, of which the walls were broken or inclining, or of which the roof and domes had fallen." I have given this important passage at some length, as its purport does not seem to be quite clear. Mr. Thomas understands it to affirm that the long line of noble arches of the great Masjid itself were built by Alauddin,† and certainly the description of the engraved lines of the Kurân ascending and descending is more applicable to these arches than to any other portion of the Great Kutb buildings. I think, however, that Amir Khusru must refer to the engraved lines of Tughra on the Alai Darwaza, which ascend and descend in the same way as those on the great arches of the Mosque. It may be argued that the inscriptions may have been added by Alauddin to the arches built by his predecessors Aibeg and Altamsh.

* Sir H. M. Elliot's Muhammadan Historians, by Dowson, III., 69.

+ Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, p. 156.

I confess, however, that my own opinion is strongly in favour of the contemporaneous engraving of the inscriptions, and of the erection of the long line of noble arches by the earlier Kings Aibeg and Altamsh. I rest my opinion not only on the positive statement of Hasan Nizâmi, a contemporary of Aibeg, who records that Kutb-uddin "built the Jâmi Masjid at Delhi," and covered it with "inscriptions in Tughra containing the divine commands,"* but also on the shape and construction of the arches, and the form of the letters, both of which correspond with those of the Altamsh Masjid at Ajmer, while they differ entirely from those of the Alai Darwaza and Khizri Masjid of the time of Alauddin. I note first that the four remaining arches of Kutb-uddin's Mosque are ogee in shape like those of the Great Mosque at Ajmer, and quite different from the pointed and horse-shoe arches of Alauddin. I note next that the upright letters of the Kutb Masjid are very nearly of uniform thickness, thus agreeing with those of the dated inscriptions on the gateways, while those of Alauddin's time are invariably much broader at top than at bottom. Lastly, I note that the undulated flower stem, which forms the ornament of the main line of inscription on the central arch of the Mosque, is exactly the same as that of the inscription on the north gate which is dated in A. H. 594.†

During the present century, much speculation has been wasted as to the origin of the Kutb Minar, whether it is a purely Muhammadan building, or a Hindu building altered and completed by the conquerors. The latter is undoutedly the common belief of the people, who say that the pillar was built by Rai Pithora for the purpose of giving his daughter a view of the River Jumna. Some people even say that the intention was to obtain a view of the Ganges, and that the Kutb Minar having failed to secure this a second pillar of double the size was commenced, but the work was interrupted by the conquest of the Musalmâns. The first part of this tradition was warmly adopted by Sir T. Metclafe, and it has since found a strong advocate in Syad Ahmad, whose remarks are quoted with approval by Mr. Cooper in his recent hand-book for

* Sir H. M. Elliot's Historians, by Dowson, II., p. 222.

Compare this dated inscription No. 7, plate XIII. of the Asâr us Sunnâdid, with any large photograph of the Kutb arches.

Delhi. Syad Ahmad, however, refers only the basement storey to Rai Pithora; but this admission involves the whole design of the column, which preserves the same marked character throughout all the different storeys. The Hindu theory has found a stout opponent in Colonel Sleeman, who argues that the great slope of the building "is the peculiar characteristic of all architecture of the Pathans," and that the arches of the Great Mosque close by it "all correspond in design, proportion, and execution to the tower."*

Mr. Cooper recapitulates Syad Ahmad's arguments, and finally states as his opinion that it "remains an open question whether this magnificent pillar was commenced by the Hindus or Muhammadans." I must confess, however, that I am myself quite satisfied that the building is entirely a Muhammadan one, both as to origin and to design; although, no doubt, many, perhaps all, of the beautiful details of the richly decorated balconies may be Hindu. To me these decorations seem to be purely Hindu, and just such as may be seen in the honey-comb enrichments of the domes of most of the old Hindu temples. The arguments brought forward in support of the Hindu origin of the column are the following:

1st. "That there is only one Minar, which is contrary to the practice of the Muhammadans, who always give two Minars to their Masjids." I allow that this has been the practice of the Muhammadans for the last three hundred years at least, and I will even admit that the little corner turrets or pinnacles of the Kála, or Kalán, Masjid of Firuz Shah, may be looked upon as Minars. This would extend the period of the use of two Minars to the middle of the 14th century; but it must be remembered that these little turrets of Firuz Shah's Masjid are not what the Musalmans call Mâzinahs, or lofty towers, from the top of which the Muazzin calls the faithful to prayer. But the Kutb Minar is a Mâzinah; and that it was the practice of the early Muhammadans to build a single tower, we have the most distinct and satisfactory proofs in the two Minars of Ghazni, which could not have belonged to one Masjid, as they arc half a mile apart, and of different sizes. These Minars were

*Rambles of an Indian Official, II., 254.

Hand-book for Delhi, p. 73.

built by Mahmud in the early part of the 11th century, or about 180 years prior to the erection of the Kutb Minar. Another equally decisive proof of this practice is the solitary Minar at Koel, which was built in A. H. 652, or A. D. 1254, by Kutlugh Khan, during the reign of Nâsir-uddin Mahmud, the youngest son of Altamsh, in whose time the Kutb Minar itself was completed. These still existing Minars of Ghazni and Koel show that it was the practice of the early Muhammadans to have only one Minar even down to so late a date as the middle of the 13th century.

2nd. It is objected that the slope of the Kutb Minar is much greater than that of any other known Minars. This objection has already been satisfactorily answered by Colonel Sleeman, who says truely that "the slope is the peculiar characteristic of the architecture of the Pathans."

3rd.-Syad Ahmad argues that, if the Minar had been intended as a Mázinah to the Great Mosque, it would have been erected at one end of it, instead of being at some distance from it. In reply to this objection I can point again to the Koel Minar, which occupies exactly the same detached position with regard to the Jama Masjid of Koel as the Kutb Minar does with respect to the Great Mosque of Delhi. Both of them are placed outside the south-east corner of their respective Masjids. This coincidence of position seems to me sufficient to settle the question in favor of the Kutb Minar having been intended as a Mâzinah of the Great Mosque.

4th.-Syad Ahmad further argues that the entrance door faces the north, as the Hindus always have it," whereas the Muhammadans invariably place it to the eastward, as may be seen in the unfinished "Minar of Alauddin to the north of the Kutb Minar." Once more I appeal to the Koel Minar, which, be it remembered, was erected by the son of the Emperor who completed the building of the Kutb Minar, and which may, therefore, be looked upon as an almost contemporary work. In the Koel Minar the entrance door is to the north, exactly as in the Kutb Minar. In both instances, I believe that it was so placed chiefly for the convenience of the Muazzin when going to call the faithful to prayer. It think, also, that Syad Ahmad has overlooked the fact that the Minars of modern days are "engaged" towers, that is, they form the ends of the front wall of the Mosque, and, as the