"بلاد فارس والشأن الفارسي من إعداد السيد المحترم جورج ناثانييل كورزون، عضو البرلمان." [‎٣‎٢‎٠] (٧١٤/٣٦٥)

pi' '
PERSIA
have been added to the existing throne. -Above all there is no
peacock. 1
At this stage, however, I felt compelled to remember that
iavernier, while particularly describing the Peacock Throne, had
Tegimoiiy also left on record that 'The Great Mogul has seven
0 £rniei thrones, some set all over with diamonds, others with
rubies, emeralds, and pearls ;' and that Hanway had reported Nadir
as carrying off nine other thrones in addition; and it might be
therefore that the Teheran throne, though not the Peacock Throne,
was one of the rifled thrones of the Emperors of Hindustan. Such
a theory seemed to find a momentary corroboration in the descrip
tion given by another Frenchman, Bernier, in the same century, of
a throne (clearly not the Peacock Throne of Tavernier) at Delhi.
The throne that he saw was supported by six high pillars or feet of
massive gold, set with rubies, emeralds, and diamonds. Its value
was estimated at forty millions of rupees (a rupee at that time was
equivalent to half a crown) or to sixty millions of French livres.
And yet, to maintain the confusion, this too was a Peacock Throne,
for he added :—
fhe ait and workmanship of this throne is not answerable to the
matter ; that which I find upon it best devised are two peacocks
covered with precious stones and pearls, which are the work of a
Frenchman called that was an admirable workman.
Nevertheless, this could not be the Teheran throne; for the latter
has seven iegs; nor was an acute observer like Bernier likely to
have committed the error that Morier did, and mistaken its winged
supporters for peacocks.
In this dilemma, but with the growing conviction that the
modern 1 akht-i-1 aous had a very shadowy connection, if any at
all, with the plundered treasures of Delhi, I turned to con
temporaneous records. I found in Malcolm 2 that Nadir
Shah was so fond of the real Peacock Throne of the
Great Mogul that he had an exact duplicate of it made in other
Morier, who saw Fath Ali Shah seated in audience upon this throne in 1809,
described it with no great accuracy. He said, ' On each side of the back are two
square pillars, on which are perched birds—probably intended for peacocks-
studded with precious stones of every description, and holding each a ruby in
their beaks (First Journey, p. 191). Now, no one who really inspected them could
possibly mistake the birds for peacocks; nor are there (now at any rate) rubies
in their beaks.
2 History of Persia, vol. ii. p. 37.
What
history
says