constructed by Ckah-Jehan, the father of Aureng-Zebe, for the purpose of displaying the immense quantity of precious stones accumulated successively in the treasury from the spoils of ancient Rajas and Patans, and the annual presents to the Monarch, which every Omah is bound to make on certain festivals. The construction and workmanship of the throne are not worthy of the materials; but two peacocks, covered with jewels and pearls, are well conceived and executed.^ They were made by a workman of astonishing powers, a Frenchman by birth, named . '. . ,2 who, after de- frauding several of the Princes of Europe by means of false gems, which he fabricated with peculiar skill, sought refuge at the Great MogoVs court, where he made a fortune.'
Another Frenchman, Jean de Thevenot, who also had traveled with Tavernier and was in India in 1666, speaks of the great value of the throne, though he doubts whether it was begun by Tamerlane, as was claimed. ^
'That stately Throne of Massive Gold with its Peacock so much talked of in the Indies, which the Moguls say was be- gun by Tamerlan, though that be very unlikely: For to whom could King Humayon and his Father have entrusted it in the time of their disas- ters? Seeing the Spoils of the Patau Kings and other Sovereigns of the
of rupees,' is given in the TazMra, by canopy, which was the most costly
Anand Ram Mukhlis, historian of the part of the whole creation.
Moghul emperor Muhammad Shah 1 It will be noticed that Bernier
(1739), from whom the throne was speaks of ' two ' peacocks, not one, as
taken by Nadir. Another of Muham- the more accurate Tavernier on this
mad Shah's chroniclers, Muhammad subject, and does not mention the
Mushin Sadiki, in his Jauhar-i Sam- canopy. But he speaks of writing
sdm (1739), euphemistically says that from his 'recollection' ; while Taver-
the throne was presented to the Per- nier was observing as a professional
sian conqueror : ' His Majesty be- jeweler.
stowed on Nadir Shah, with his own 2 Constable adds in a footnote
mimificent hand, as a parting present, (Travels by Bernier, p. 269, n. 3, and
the Peacock Throne, in which was set p. xxxiii) : ' Bernier does not tell us his
a ruby upwards of a girik (three fin- name, but [John] Steuart, in his edi-
gers' breadth) in width, and nearly two tion of part of this book [Bernier^ s
in length, which was commonly called Travels], Calcutta, 1826, gives it as La
khirdj-i 'dlam, ' ' tribute of the world.' ' ' Grange. I have not been able to verify
See Elliot and Dowson, History of this.'
India, 8. 89. Similar estimates by s Thevenot, Travels into the Le-
others are quoted by Curzon, 1. 318, vant; newly done out of the French
n. 1. It must be kept in mind that by A. Lovell, 3. 42, London, 1687. the original estimates all included the
�� �
