Page:History of Indian and Eastern Architecture Vol 2.djvu/219

 CHAP. V. AMBER. 177 object among the Rajput palaces. It is, however, a century more modern, having been commenced by another Man Singh, who ascended the throne in 1 592, and was completed by Jay- singh I. (1625-1666), who added the beautiful gateway which bears his name; Sawai Jaysingh II. removed the seat of govern- ment to Jaypur in I728. 1 In consequence of this more modern date it has not that stamp of Hindu originality that is so characteristic of the Gwaliar example, and throughout it bears a strong impress of that influence which Akbar's mind and works stamped on everything that was done in India during his reign. Its situation, too, is inferior to that of Gwaliar for architectural effect. Instead of standing on a lofty rocky pedestal, and its pinnacles being relieved boldly against the sky, the Amber palace is situated in a valley picturesque, it is true, but where the masonry competes with the rocks in a manner which is certainly unfavourable to the effect of the building. Nothing, however, can be more picturesque than the way in which the palace grows, as it were, out of a rocky base, or reflects itself in the mirror of the lake at its base, and nothing can be happier than the mode in which the principal apartments are arranged, so as to afford views over the lake and into the country beyond. The details, too, of this palace are singularly good, and quite free from the feebleness that shortly afterwards characterised the style. In some respects, indeed, they contrast favourably with those of Akbar's contemporary palace at Fathpur Sikrt. There the Moslim antipathy to images confined the fancy of the decorator to purely inanimate objects; here the laxer creed of the Hindus enabled him to indulge in elephant capitals and figure-sculpture of men and animals to any extent. The Hindus seem also to have indulged in colour and in mirrors to an extent that Akbar did not apparently feel himself justified in employing. The consequence is that the whole has a richer and more picturesque effect than its Muhammadan rival, but the two together make up a curiously perfect illustration of the architecture of that day, as seen from a Hindu, contrasted with that from a Muhammadan, point of view. 2 It was the same Man Singh who erected a ghat and the Observatory at Benares which still bears his name, 3 and 1 Heber, by mistake, seems to have attributed the work of Jaysingh I. to his more illustrious descendant Sawai Jay- singh II. 1698-1743. 2 Jacquemont, 'Voyage dans 1'Inde,' tome iii. pp. 375f., Heber's 'Journal,' vol. ii. pp. 39f. ; 'Architecture, etc., in Guj- arat and Rajputana,' pp. 46f., and pi. 30. 3 A century later, his descendant Sawai Jaysingh set up several of the instruments in it and built other observa- tories at Jaypur, Uiiain, Mathura and T^ 11 I V J-. . 1 t Delhi. 'Indian Antiquary,' vol. xxxv. (1906), p. 234, and references. VOL. II. M