Page:A Handbook of Indian Art.djvu/250

138 not stand alone, for, as we have already noticed, the Muhammadan rulers of India took so keen an interest in the making of their own tombs that in many cases the personality of the man or woman can be seen almost as distinctly in the architectonic monument as it would have been in the portrait statue which the law of Islam forbade them to make. From a purely æsthetic point of view some may even prefer the epic grandeur of Shēr Shah's tomb to the lyrical charm of the Tāj Mahall.

The want of understanding of Indian art which until recently has been universal in Western criticism has led many to give willing credence to vague suggestions that a monument so unique and beautiful could not have been created by Indian builders. These prepossessions are supported by a definite statement recorded by a Spanish Augustinian Friar, Father Manrique, who visited Agra in 1640 when the Tāj was still unfinished, by which the credit for it has been fastened on an Italian adventurer in Shah Jahān's service, one Geronimo Veroneo, who died at Lahore shortly before Father Manrique's arrival, and told his story to a Jesuit priest. Italian adventurers are always credited with abnormal artistic gifts, and his improbable story has been too lightly accepted as proof outweighing all contemporary Indian accounts and—most important of all—the testimony of the Tāj itself. A number of contemporary accounts written in Persian give a detailed list of the chief craftsmen and agree in placing first Master (Ustād) Isā, or Muhammad Isā Effendi, described as the "best designer (or draftsman) of his time." The list includes a dome-builder, Ismail Khan Rūmi; two specialists for building the pinnacle surmounting the dome; master-masons from Delhi, Multan, and Kandahar; a