The position and rank of Qajar architecture in the history of Iran's past architecture (before the modern era) can be assessed from different perspectives.
If we evaluate architectural works from a spatial perspective and attend to the spatial innovations in architecture, Qajar-era architecture gains a high value and occupies a more elevated and evolved position compared to the architectures of preceding periods such as the Zand and Safavid eras. For in the architecture of this period, spaces achieve greater openness and lightness, and the old patterns of Iranian architecture are developed to the point where, if we consider the main criterion of architecture's evolution to be the openness and lightness of spaces, the architecture of this period stands as the culminating phase of traditional Iranian architecture.
However, when we examine architecture from other angles — such as dimensions, proportions, forms, and ornamentation — Qajar architecture reveals a more inferior condition compared to its preceding periods, particularly the Safavid era. Forms lack the solidity and stability of earlier periods, and new forms entering architecture are superficial and whimsical. Dimensions lack the necessary precision. Proportions rank below the harmonious and thoughtfully conceived proportions of previous eras. Architectural ornamentation sometimes degenerates to the point of vulgarity, and disorder, clumsy exaggeration, and chaos replace the restrained and meticulous ornamentation of the brilliant Seljuk and Safavid periods.
To illustrate more directly the points made above, let us analyse the Shahid Motahari School, also known as the Sepahsalar School (fig. 1):
It can be claimed that this school represents a culminating point in terms of spatial design within the typology of Iranian schools and mosques. To substantiate this claim, we point to two main spatial aspects:
Courtyard Space
In old mosques and schools such as the Jame Mosque of Isfahan (figs. 2 and 3), the courtyard space is enclosed by a typically two-storey wall, and four iwans are positioned at the four cardinal points — that is, along the longitudinal and transverse axes of the courtyard. In effect, the spatial openings of the courtyard are limited to these four iwans. In some Safavid-era works, innovations are introduced in the central courtyard, and the spatial openness of courtyards increases. Among the outstanding examples in this regard are the Chaharbagh School and the Sadr School in Isfahan, where four small courtyards at the four corners of the main courtyard connect with the main courtyard space. In another example, the Hakim Mosque, by emptying the space behind the eastern and western walls of the mosque on the upper floor, a new openness in the courtyard space is created. In the Imam Mosque of Isfahan (fig. 6), two large courtyards are situated around the main prayer hall and connect to the main courtyard through several openings. However, the fundamental work in this area — that is, the spatial opening of the courtyard — takes place in the Qajar period, with multiple solutions being offered. As an example, one can mention the Seyyed Mosque of Isfahan (figs. 4 and 5), where the creation of four small courtyards on the upper floor along the eastern and western sides seriously increases the spatial openness and fluidity of the courtyard. In the Sepahsalar School (fig. 7), a further step is taken in this direction: in addition to creating four small courtyards on the eastern and western sides of the mosque, these small courtyards also appear on the northern and southern sides. The lightness of the courtyard space increases further, and the iwans and the prayer hall complex achieve a more liberated presence in the courtyard.
Dome Chamber Space
The dome chamber spaces in the early post-Islamic mosques of Iran, such as the Jame Mosque of Isfahan, are separated from the surrounding spaces — including the opposing iwan — by thick walls. Yet it is clearly evident that the intention of architects over time has been to remove the barrier between the dome chamber space and the surrounding spaces. For example, in the Imam Mosque of Isfahan, which belongs to the Safavid period, the connection between the dome chamber space and the iwan space, as well as the adjacent prayer halls, improves, and particularly with the creation of two large openings at the top of the eastern and western walls of the dome chamber, a connection with the exterior space is also achieved. An even better example can be seen in the dome chamber of the Goharshad Mosque (fig. 11), where all the walls between the dome chamber and the iwan are removed entirely, achieving a superior spatial openness and establishing a direct connection between the dome chamber space and the courtyard. One can confidently say that the Sepahsalar School is the best in this regard, because by choosing a cruciform plan, it not only connects the dome chamber space with the iwan and courtyard spaces directly — as in the Goharshad Mosque — but also provides an unobstructed connection with the lateral spaces. Here, space reaches its maximum openness and fluidity within the dome chamber typology, and the dome achieves a quality of suspension and weightlessness. Overall, the dome chamber of this school can be considered the culminating point of the dome chamber typology in terms of spatial openness.
Although the Sepahsalar School represents the terminal point of spatial evolution in the old typology of mosques and schools in post-Islamic Iranian architecture through its two great innovations in courtyard space and dome chamber space, it must be acknowledged that from the perspective of forms, dimensions, proportions and similar attributes, the inferior quality compared to the outstanding architectural works of previous periods, particularly the Safavid era, is entirely evident. Let us examine this matter somewhat:
In the Sepahsalar School (fig. 8), the dome chamber complex occupies a large volume and virtually fills the entire southern side of the school's courtyard. Therefore, unlike other dome chambers (for instance, in the Imam Mosque of Isfahan), it creates an unfavourable proportion relative to the length of the courtyard and is placed in a constriction. The choice of four minarets instead of two adds to this problem. The forms, dimensions and proportions of the elements of this building — such as the dome, iwans, minarets, arcades and others — are at a much lower level compared to the outstanding similar examples from previous periods. For instance, we can compare the form of its dome with the beautiful domes of the Imam Mosque (fig. 9) and the Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque of Isfahan (fig. 10), or the Goharshad Mosque of Mashhad, and compare the form and proportions of the main iwan and its minarets with outstanding examples from previous periods.
The ornamentation of this school also holds a low position among the outstanding examples of traditional Iranian architecture. A comparison with the ornamental work of this school (fig. 12) clearly illustrates this point.
In light of what we have said, we return to our opening statement: Qajar architecture, and the Sepahsalar School as one of its outstanding and ultimate examples, is distinguished for its spatial creativity and innovation and for the evolution of the old patterns of Iranian architecture. It rightfully represents the culminating phase of traditional Iranian architecture. However, due to multiple factors — including the decline in the skill and taste of architects and patrons, and the undue influence of the ornamentation of other countries, particularly Ottoman and Tsarist Russian architecture — its ornamentation is of a lower quality compared to previous periods.
One more very important point can be raised here. Although this point deserves a separate article in its own right, since it has received little attention, a brief mention of it here is not out of place. The question is: has Qajar architecture, given its particular historical position, fulfilled its duty in providing the conditions for the emergence of modern architecture in Iran?
Let us note that the construction of the Sepahsalar School was completed in the ninth decade of the thirteenth century AH (the seventh decade of the nineteenth century CE), coinciding with the time when the foundations of modern architecture were being laid in Europe and some landmark works of modern architecture had appeared. Yet in Iran, no fundamental transformation capable of laying the groundwork for modern Iranian architecture can be found in Qajar-era architecture, and perhaps this is one of the most fundamental issues in the history of Iranian architecture.
In Summary
Qajar architecture rightfully elevated the principles, foundations and old patterns of Iranian architecture and, with admirable boldness, created spatial innovations. However, it appears to have lacked the necessary strength to create a truly new architecture. Perhaps the fact that we do not have a modern architecture worthy of our architectural heritage stems from this very issue.
