EBBA KOCH DIWAN-I SAMM AND CHIHIL SUTUN: THE AUDIENCE HALLS OF SHAH JAHAN After Shah Jahan, the fifth ruler of the Mughal dynasty was enthroned on 8 Jumada alThani 1037 (14 February 1628), he issued an order that halls for his public audi ences should be constructed in all the great fortified pal- aces of the capitals of the Mughal Empire, in particular at Agra, Lahore, and, according to some sources, at Bur- hanpur!' These halls were first built in wood (fig. 1)* to replace a smaller tent hall that had been used for the purpose up to then.’ Before January 1637, the wooden halls (Faan-i chubin) were in turn replaced by larger per- manent versions, constructed “of red sandstone made white with marble plaster” (figs. 2, 3)." Between 1639 and 1648 a corresponding stone hall was built in the empe- ror’s new palace at Shahjahanabad (Delhi)® (fig. 4) All of these halls — and this applies also to their woorlen precursors —are described by Shah Jahan’s his- « Khasso- £Amm, or Hall of Public Audiences,° and Iwan-i Chihil Sutun, or Forty-Pillared Hall. The Chihil Sutun or Iwan Dawlat Khanai Khasso-Amm, today called Diwan-i ©Amm, represents a new type in the palatial building pro- gram of the Mughals’ because, as the sources tellus, un- der the predecessors of Shah Jahan most of those who took part in the audience had to stand unprotected from sun and rain in front of the emperor's viewing window or “jharoka (figs. 1, 5) in the open courtyard (sahni Rhagy-o- mm) (a on fig. 6) where the audience was held. The emperor, we are told, ordered the construction of the halls out of concern for his nobles. In addition, the halls, intain the proper hierarchy and eti- quette of an audience, aspects of special interest to Shah Jahan, Under his rule, Mughal court life had become subject to a strict ceremonial centering on the emperor: The emperor's daily routine was established down to the ‘most minute detail, an equally regulated architectural setting determined by uniformity and symmetry corre- sponcied to these rigid ceremonial functions. During this daily routine the emperor moved within the palace from one place of audience to the other in what Oleg Grabar ina comparable context has termed a “ceremonial order of progressive remoteness.” ns and poets as Iwani Dawlat Kh made it easier tom The ceremonial movement of Shah Jahan had its morning and afternoon cycles.” Since the emperor's autocratic rule required confirmation through regular public appearances, special emphasis was placed on hi public audiences, which came in two forms. The public form was that of the jharikad darshan, the viewing window on the outer wall ofthe palace. Here, the empe- Fig. 1. Shah Jahan receiving the Persian noble ‘Ali Mardan Khan in the Hall of Public Audience in the Lahore fort in November 1638. Oxford, Bodleian Library, albums, Ousely, Add. 173. (Photo: Cour tes Bodleian Library, Oxford)144 EBRA KOCH Fig. 2. Agra fort. Divand €Amm, con ror would appear every day at sunrise to comply with the held in the jharoka-i khas¢-oSamm in the courtyard (saln) ancient requirement of Persian and Indian kingship to of the khisio-‘amm (a on fig. 6). The appearance in the be accessible — at least visually — to all of his subjects.” _jhardkai darshan took place only once, in the morning: From the jhardkai darshan he proceeded to the most the appearance in the jharoka-i khdss-o-“émm was repeated public form of audience within the palace, which was in the afternoon." The public audience or bari Samm was Fig. . Lahore fort. Diwand SAmm, after 1628, with ater alterations.THE AUDIENCE HALLS OF SHAH JAHAN 145 Fig. 4. Delhi for, Divan “Amm, completed 1648. also a state council, and its attendance was obligatory for every Mughal officeholder at the residence, whether amir or mansabdar. The nobles and their retinues had to stand positioned according to their rank in front of the jhardkvi khass-oSamm (figs. 1, 5)" from where the empe ror dealt with the administration of the imperial house- hold and the empire (which was treated like its exten: sion) and otheraffairs of state. The new audience halls were put up in front of the wall with the jhardka and were only accessible to holders of a certain rank, namely those “khassan" who had a ‘mansab above wo hundred. The halls were open on three sides and to ensure rest ted access, they were enclosed by a silver railing," the three doors of which were closely guarded. An additional space, fenced off by 4 red railing which surrounded the halls at some dis was reserved for those with a mansab below two hhundred (fig. 9). The remaining area of the salni hasan was used by retainers and others without rank (a-b on fig. 6) In addition 0 being the administrative cente Mughal Empire the Diwan ©Amm provided a stage for the great court festivals,” in particular Nawruz (the Per sian New Year) and julus (the accession anniversary).! I was also the setting for such state ceremonies as weigh- ing the emperor om his solar and lunar birthdays (jashn- 4 shamsi, jashn-i wazn-i qamar).!” When a royal prince's wedding was held, the Diwan “Amm was some- times called Rhaluat (*seclusion” or “retirement’) because on those occasions men had to evacuate the courtyard to allow the imperial women to use the Diw anged the dowry and the wedding presents for display during a of the 20.72 m,, as against the measured 61.48 m, x 20.72 ms the ‘height of the hall including che base i 1.35 m.). The Mughal measurements given here and in the following are extracted from the descriptions of Shah Jahan’s authors quoted inn. 1 above. ‘The measurements of the Lahore all are 54,05 m.% 18,32 m, = 10.57 m.; no dimensions ofthis hall are given inthe texts. We do not know when the first wooden hall of Lahore, ‘which was to be built “in the same manner” (ba hamin din) as the Agra hall (Lahr, 1,1, p. 223; see also the other texts cited inn. | above), was replaced by the permanent stone construc- tion. In its present state the Lahore hall i the result ofits re= construction in the fist decade ofthe twentieth century: see Sanderson, “Divan ‘Amm, Lahore Fort.” Only the pillars and the jlarika and its flanking galleries in the back wall are original ‘The measurements of the Delhi hall show some deviation from the figures given inthe texts (B7 gaz 24 gaz = 54.45 m. 10.50%, a against the measured 5466m.> I8Alm; the height of the hal is 12.66 m.); see the deseriptions of Kano and Warith as quoted in n.5 above. The Lahore ed. of Kans, used by me, misread the length of the hall it has “twenty seven” (bit ona) instead of *sixtyseven” (shastohaf) ‘This grid is based on the go: of 81.28 cm. or 82 inches, The halls were planned using ga: units and break ups of the gaz Limitation of space forbids me to dwell on this aspect here. The terms chashmatfor “bay” and tip marghilda (arches with164 86, 58 99, . 91 EBA KOCH curls" or “curled arches") for “multilobed arches” are used consistently by Warith, Badshah mama, in his descriptions of | Shahjahani buildings; see, e fol. 390. They thus represent an important addition to the glossary of Mughal architectural terms, for which see Ebba Koch, Mughal Archietur, pp. 137-42, For a definition of ths column type, see my Mughal Archit tire p93. Although there is no guidance on the part of the Mughal wrt. fers, one could, of course, enter into all kinds of interesting speculations about the meaning of the figure fort in an at rangement of four times ten. For the importance of the mum- doer forty in Tslamie thinking, see Annemarie Schimmel, The Mystery of Numbers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), in particular pp. 245-53, and p. 204 for further literature. Before I fotind out about the correct reading of the halls 1 interpreted chi! in the sense of “multicolumned”; see my Mughal Architect, p. 108, n. 88 “This aspect needs further investigation. The inclination is to make sich a connection because all medieval Chihil Sutuns known so far were reception halls, A comparable phenom. {enon in European medial architecture would be the copies tengendered over the centuries bythe Holy Sepulchre at Jer salem (see n. 90 below). general connection of the Safavid hil Sutuns oF tale with the halls of Persepolis has been made repeatedly in the literature; they have een scen a ‘belonging to “one of the most ancient of Persian architectural traditions ... in an indirect royal line with the Halls of a Hundred Columnsof Persepolis. and Sasa” (Pope, "Safavid Period,” n. 86 above, p. 1192); this indebtedness has, however, not been universally accepted (Hillenbrand, “Safavid Archi- tecture,” p. 797). have not yet been able to check the results ‘of Sussan Babe's work to sce if the Safavid connection is also by the textual sourees, as T suggest itis for the Is. That the Safavids related themselves tothe royal site of Persepolis is borne out by their visits to it; Shah Tat rasp left an inscription on the walls ofthe Tachara (see Mcl- kian Chirvani, “Le Royaume de Solomon,” p. 38), Moreove two column bases which had been removed from Persepol ‘were put up at one of the gates to the female quarters of the palace of fahan. See Jean Chardin, Vyages, 7: 338. The trad tion was revived by the Qajars (1778-1994) who also left inserip- tions at Persepolis (Melikin-Chirvani, p. 38) and consciously referred in their artistic enterprises to Achaemenid and Sasa- nian art. See Judith A. Lerner, “Three Achaemenid ‘Fakes’ A Re-evaluation in the Light of 19th-Century Iranian Architec- tural Seulpture,” Expedition 2 (1980): 5-16 (U thank Layla Diba {or referring me wo this article); eadem, “A Rock Relief of Fath “Ali Shah in Shiraz,” Ars Oriewalis 21 (1991): 31-40. Richard Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Ieonography of Medieval Architecture’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942): 1-88, in particular pp. 10-11, 16-17. Kraut hheimer’s model which evolved from his studies of copies ofthe Holy Sepilehre at Jerusalem has enabled me to understand related phenomena in the Islamic architecture of India see my Shah Jahan and Orpheus and “The Copies of the Qutb Minar.” fam 29 (1981): 95-107, Hamisha bad darga-ash i a's, ch ha‘ba blag haf it,” Abi Talib Kalim Kashani, Dawn, Pers ext ed. Partaw Badi?i (Teheran, 1886 sh./1957), p. 873, Another telling example is the painting of Shah Jahan in the Victoria and Albert Museum 93, % 96, m7. (LM, 14-1925), ca. 1616-17, the inscription of which describes the future emperor as gidla wa sahibélamiyan ("place vo turn to and lord of mankind”). See The Indian Heritage: Court Life dnd Avis under Mughal Rule, ed. R. Skelton et al. (London, 1982), cat.no. 4. Reference tothe qiblais, of course, not con. fined to Shab Jahan; itis generally used fora venerated person to whom one turns for guidance, such as one's father. Jahan: {ir for instance, describes Akbar “as his qibla and visible deity” (Tizua, trans, 1: 65) For Akbar as qibla ofthe state, see ‘Glenn D. Lowry, “Urban Structures and Functions,” in Fate urSile, ed. Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (Bombay 1987), p. 83; cf. Asher, Architecture of Mughal Jndia, pp. 60,76. Asfor“mirab,” to mention only one example: Kali refers to Shab Jahan’s court as “mibrbé darghshah” (Badshah nama, Pers. ms, India Office Library and Records, 128", unpublished transeript by affry,p- 220) Ethé 1570, fl (3:33; trans Sanderson, “Shah Jahan’s Fort, Delhi," p. 116) describes the jhara in the Diwanvi Amm ball of Delhi as “place of the peoples’ prostration as well as for the relief of their needs. Similar metaphors had already been used for AAkhar see Brand and Lowry, "Urban Structites.” p. 53: they had, However, not ben given such a clear architectural expres: ston, 1 was only able to identify the mosque when I measured the ‘courtyard wings, n font oft one ean sll make out a terrace ‘wth a sunken pool for ablutions. The mosque does not appear ‘on any ofthe plans of the Agra fort published so fa: seems to have been used for prayer by “Samm” only. Within the palace, the emperor appears to have prayed in congrega- tion oly with his Ahags-dn, and this only inthe evening: this nama sham... bajama'at took place in the Dawlat Khana ‘hase or the Hall of Prisate Audiences and is courtyard (see Labo, vol 1, pt 1, p. 132; ef Quaint, fls. 14" and", Jfery transcript, pp. 211-12). The use ofthe Diwan SAmm at Fateh pr Sikri for prayer i reported for Akbar by Bada®oni: the rel fevant passages have been asembled by Brand and Low, Fatehpur Sik Sowredook, pp. 95-88, Since Akbar's pavilion was placed in the center of the courtyard on the qibla side, it ‘might have suggested the metaphor of Akbar ax qibla of the state: see Lowy, “Urban Structures,” p. 33. Both are termed fidn-ha in the contemporary descriptions; se¢, e.g, Kanbo, 3:38 (Divan Asmm, Delhi); p. 134, as line (Moti Masi, Agra) Koch, Mughal Architecture, pp. 98, L4l. However, Shah Jahan did not want to overdo things and refrained from extending. {garina to ritual comportment. In Janary 1687, when he ina furated the stone version of the Agra hall with the jah (cele- bration) of his weighing for his 45th solar birthday, he abol- shed the zamindus (kneeling down so as to touch the ground With the back of the hand placed on the forehead) for his courtiers because it looked almost like the siida (kneeling down so as to touch the ground with the forehead), which he hhad already abolished at his accession and introduced the cha hhartaslins (four obeisances) instead: see ndyat Khan, trans Filler, pp. 18, 208, The ceremonial gestures are explained by Ansari, Soil Life pp. 98-98. In this way the Shahjahani concept differed from that of Akbar (Gee n. 94 above). Chandar Bhan Brahman, Chahar Chaman (n, 12 above), fl 207: f, Warith, fol 390, Jafery transcript p. 50. Similars, the‘THE AUDIENCE HALLS OF SHAH JAHAN harika’ darshan was conceived as “the rising place ofthe sun ‘of the caliphate” (mata® dtabi Mldfat). Here the emperor appeared as an earthly sun opposite that of the sky. am now ‘engaged in a study of the sun rulership of the Mughals, Brief ‘comments on the phenomenon have been made by Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, p. 186; and Necipogl, “Framing the Gaze,” pp. $11, 313, 314 99, Forilustration and plan, see Koch, Mughal Architecture, p. 120, figs. 148, 14, Suggested by Jean Sausaget and discussed with further refer ences by Richard Eutinghausen and Oleg Grabar, The Art and Archiucturr of Islom 650-1250 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987), pp. 38-40 101. Thar Muslin abservers designated the hyposyle halls of Perse. 12 10s, 165 polisas mosques indicates that they were well ana of he for ‘nal similares beeen the ype ofthe hypostyle monque and the Persian halls; that such an awareness existed inthe forma: tive period of mosque arehitectre s questioned by Gra, Art and Architecture of am, p36. Discussed in detail by Koch, Shah Jahan and Orphen, in partic tla pp. 23-35. Even the court historians who had to voice this oficial view f= cumvented imperial censorship by adn that the hall were tho built to inerease “the grandeur ofthe glorious court (shu Jas barge aa)” (Quan, ol. 12, Jlfery eansrpt p 248), and that through them “the face of the heavenly court sho gained an immeasurable ornament” (Lahn vol. 1, pt 1 p22)