In Persia, the tradition of Sassanian vault building, and of polychrome, glazed tiles led to mosques of a character entirely different. Thus, although the plan of the great mosque of Isfahan (begun 76o, enlarged io8o, repaired in the 16th and 17th cen turies) retains the many columned prayer hall or maksoura and the great court of the primitive type, it has a structural grandeur, and an architectural character, totally different, as the centre of each side of the court is occupied by an enormous vaulted cham ber opening on the court by a great arch, and instead of the intri cate relief ornament there exist large simple surfaces to receive exquisite polychrome tiles. Throughout Persian mosque design domes have an importance not observable in Egypt or Moorish countries, and are frequently of bulbous outline. During the sth and 16th centuries the colonnaded prayer halls disappeared in favour of large, square, domed interiors, occasionally sur rounded by lower vaulted side aisles, as in the Blue mosque at Tabriz (1437-68), famous for its faience mosaic ; the imperial mosque at Isfahan (1612) retains the original court with its four impressive porches, but all the covered portions are roofed with vaults. The main prayer hall, covered by a bulbous dome, and preceded by the enormous pointed arched porch, flanked by slim minarets, is perhaps the climax of Persian mosque design.
It is natural that the Ottoman school should be the closest to Byzantine tradition. The Great Mosque at Konieh (I 220) shows a mixture of influences—Persian, Syrian, Byzantine, Armenian. The monumental doors are Persian, but the use of carved, relief ornament borrows much from early Armenian churches. In the Yechil-Medresseh or collegiate mosque at Nycea (1420), the Byzantine influence is already dominant; dome forms, the use of alternate dark and light stones, and the entire composi tion are wholly Byzantine. The green mosque at Brusa (begun 1424) is noteworthy in its attempt to combine with the purely Byzantine domed scheme details such as stalactite ornament, doors in niches, surface decoration and elaborated pendentives which are distinctly Mohammedan, and developed from both Persian and Syrian sources.
The capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 consoli dated a tradition already strong—the attempt to build a mosque which should be structurally Byzantine, but decorated with details Mohammedan and especially Persian. The development of the mosques of Constantinople and Adrianople, from the simple dome of the Mosque of the Conqueror, at Constantinople (begun imme diately after the conquest), by the Greek architect Christodoulos, and built with materials taken from the church of the Holy Apostles, to the piled masses of the Achmedieh mosque (1609), is continuous. In the piling up of dome over dome and half dome the expression of buttressing masses and the consistency of exte rior effect, as well as the creation of vast, unencumbered interior spaces, the Ottoman architects went far beyond the precedent set them in S. Sophia. Although Persian tiles, and the rather garish interior painting never equalled the Byzantine marble and gold mosaic as interior decoration, the climax was reached in the mosque of Suleiman the Magnificent by Sinan (1557), whose beautiful silhouette is almost matched by the simple dignity of its interior. In the 18th century, daring lightness of construction
was sought at the expense of every other quality, as in the little mosque called Nour-i-Osmanieh, "the lantern of Osman," whose dome, carried on four great arches, seems almost to float. ,In de tail, however, European influence was making itself felt, and the building of mosques rapidly declined.
Indian mosques usually betray the Persian origin of the Muslim conquerors. Nevertheless, as mosque building con tinued, more and more native influences made themselves felt. In the mosque of Ajmeer (begun 1200) the plan is of characteristic early mosque type, save that the arcades are covered by typical Jaina octagonal domes, but the front to the court, with its high, central arch, capped by twin minarets, is basically Persian. In the mosque of Kutub at Delhi, of approximately the same date, the plan is similar, but the details entirely Indian, and the great min aret (see illustration under Tower), with its massed alternation of vertical and horizontal shadows is characteristically Indian. In the i4th and 15th centuries, as in the mosques at Jaunpur (Red gate mosque and Jumma Musjid) the Indian delight in beam con struction and the distrust of the arch give a character essentially non-Muslim. Under the Moguls there was a new influx of north ern Muslim influences; the emperor Berber called to his service several pupils of Sinan from Constantinople, and the following hundred years saw the Great Mosques of Agra, Bijapur and Fathepur-Sikri, and the later work at Delhi, in which the Indian love for rich surface, the Mogul lavishness in the use of gleaming white marble, often inlaid with coloured stones, and a character istic use of pointed, cusped arches, combined with the Persian love of great size to produce results of vivid beauty. The most important examples are the Great Mosque at Agra (middle 16th century), the mosque of Fathepur-Sikri, nearly contemporary, especially remarkable for its magnificent gateway, and the Pearl mosque at Agra, of the middle 17th century, famous for its simple plan and delicate inlays.
Mosques are common in China, but in almost every respect follow Chinese temple precedent slavishly. Frequently the only thing which differentiates them from ordinary Chinese temples is the existence of a Mihrab in the form of a pointed arch niche, as in the mosque at Hangchow, with decoration distantly based on Arabic sources.
The most interesting of modern mosques is that at Paris, by Fournez, Mantout and Eustache
This, built generally on the model of the Medresseh Bou Anania at Fez is a beautifully planned, carefully detailed and lavishly executed mod em interpretation of i4th century Moorish design.
See H. Saladin, Manuel d'Art Musulman, v. i.,
See also