THE PROPERTY OF DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF ROBERT, 1ST BARON CLIVE OF PLASSEY (lots 156-160). JEWELLERY AND THE MUGHAL COURT In the seventeenth century India was the treasure house of the world. It had the only known diamond mines in the world in Golconda. It had access to the best rubies from Burma and Ceylon. Emeralds too, which had been relatively recently discovered in Colombia found their strongest market the other side of the globe in India. And until 1613 the Portuguese were happy to ship them all the way to Goa charging on the majority of stones "no duty whatsoever" (Nuno Vassallo e Silva, "Jewels and Gems in Goa from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century", in Susan Stronge, The Jewels of India, Marg, Bombay, 1995, p.55). This love of jewellery and jewelled objects was driven by demand from the courts, not just of the Mughals, but also of the Deccani sultans and smaller princedoms. Jewellery was not just for panoply. It had an essential place in the social rituals of the time. One obvious aspect were the regular ceremonies where the emperor was weighed in precious metals and jewels for these then to be given out as part of a very public display of munificence. Donations to the Mughal court by client rulers, or by conquered princes more than served to redress the balance in those days of political stability. The Mughal emperors had a personal love of and fascination with gemstones. Babur, the founder of the dynasty, had as one of his many claims to fame the fact that he is the first recorded owner of the Koh-i Noor diamond. The Ain-i Akbari, which discusses the wonders of the reign of his grandson, the emperor Akbar, discusses jewels on a number of occasions. Akbar's son Jahangir was even more of a connoisseur; the Tuzuk-i Jahangiri (the history of Jahangir) is full of notes about the jewels and jewelled objects that are given and received. Most references are relatively short, but when a stone is outstanding the entry can be very full. He devotes a complete paragraph to the discussion of a large ruby which was given to him by the Safavid Persian ruler Shah Tahmasp (The Tuzuk-i Jahangiri or Memoires of Jahangir, translated by Alexander Beveridge, London, 1968, vol.2, p.195). His son Shah Jahan was equally interested in gemstones. Numerous textual references in the Padshahnama note the presentation of jewels and jewelled objects. The miniatures in the same manuscript and related works attest to this, showing both bowls filled with uncut stones, and the finished worked objects. Vignettes around the edges of the later Shah Jahan album show jewellers at work. Even as an old man in captivity under the control of his son, it was to him that Aurangzeb turned when there was a question about the authenticity of a balass ruby (Tavernier, Jean Baptiste: Travels in India, Trans. V. Ball, 2nd ed. by Wm. Crooke, vol.2, pp.100-101). The later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries saw a substantial increase in the number of European merchants and jewellers visiting the Mughal Court. The immediate influence exerted by the works of art they brought with them on the local products is clear in many fields. Some of the miniatures of the period directly depict these visitors and their fashions. Miniatures were also painted which are direct copies of Dutch woodcuts. The same effect was also found in jewellery design. At the end of Akbar's reign a miniature was painted of Prince Salim, the future emperor Jahangir, holding a hat ornament of a type clearly identifiable as European and very close in concept to designs from the workshop of Arnold Lulls, a Dutch supplier of jewellery to the English Court (Stronge, Susan: A Golden Treasury, London, 1988, figs. 9 and 10, pp.33-34). Europeans did not just act as merchants at this time; many actually took service under the Mughals. As early as 1584, William Leeds, an English gem expert. accepted service under the emperor Akbar who "gave him an house and five slaves, an horse, and every day six S.S. [shillings] in money" (Ralph Fitch in W.Foster (ed.), Early Travels in India, London, 1583-1619, reprinted Delhi, 1968, p.18, quoted in Qaisar, Ahsan Jan: The Indian Response to European Technology and Culture (A.D. 1498-1707), Delhi, 1982, p.79). One major aspect of the Clive of India flask that reflects this European influence is the setting of the stones. The clearest example of this can be seen in the finial; the stone is clearly set in a crown of claws, a technique that had no history in India prior to the European links. A close look at most of the other stones shows that the surrounds to the stones have cleverly been extended on the inside to form further claws keeping the stones in place. The actual technique of setting the stones however is the Indian kundan method, which has in this case been worked to simulate the foreign style mounts. By the end of the seventeenth century the wealth of the Mughal Court was at its height. Trade between Europe and India was flourishing. Various jewellers, notably Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Baron of Aubun, were plying their trade very profitably, either remaining in the service of the Great Mughal, or trading between the continents. The wealth in the royal treasury was immense. Tavernier gives the fullest report of all at this stage, listing and even drawing the largest individual stones he had encountered (op. cit., vol.2, pp.97-104). Paintings attest to this great opulence throughout the period. And it is not just the Mughal court which was wealthy. Many of the local courts were also ostentatiously so as shown by the paintings of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Much of this was the result of the remarkable political stability in the country under the four Great Mughal Emperors who reigned from 1556-1707. The decline thereafter was however remarkably rapid. As noted by Percival Spear, "The weakening of Imperial Power was therefore followed ....... by a release of elemental forces" (A History of India, vol.2, London, 1978 rerint, p.70). The lands which had been conquered began to fight back; the Mughal domains reduced in size remarkably fast. Rivalries between princes also led to a lack of coherent policy. After a couple of other short reigns Muhammad Shah came to the throne and survived for twenty-nine years, managing to stay in power by dividing his opponents, but he lacked the vigour to rule strongly himself. A series of reverses ended in 1738 with the Marathas plundering the suburbs of Delhi. NADER SHAH AFSHAR It was at this stage, in 1739, that Nader Shah appeared. He had fought his way to power in Iran out of the chaos that followed the collapse of the Safavid dynasty. Initially setting out to quell unrest on the Indian frontier, he ended up continuing into India with a larger army. Travelling remarkably fast he reached Delhi and, helped by various contributory factors, won a decisive victory at Karnal on 13 February 1739. At that point the Indian lack of leadership was even more critical. Nader Shah became more and more frustrated at the negotiations over the size of the tribute he would be prepared to accept to return to Iran. He had indicated that he would accept 50 lakh rupees, which could not be agreed. Eventually he decided to take what he could and ignore the niceties. Thus the Mughal treasury, undisturbed repository of gemstones and jewelled objects over more than a century, was opened to his and his army's plundering which was followed by two months in the capital "squeezing even more from the populace at large". The chronicler 'Abd al-Karim mentions that he was thought to have taken 80 crores of rupees with him in the end which equates to 8,000 lakh, one hundred and sixty times the tribute figure which could not be agreed. (Zebrowski, Mark: Gold, Silver and Bronze from Mughal India, London, 1997, p,52 and note 4, p.77). It was enough for Nader Shah to excuse his Persian subjects from all taxes for three years. The vast majority of the wealth he managed to take from India was brought back to Iran. An indication of the scale of Nader Shah's booty is the fact that the Iranian Crown jewels now contains the largest group of gemstones inscribed with the names of the great Mughal Emperors in the world. No jewelled objects however remain there; it is almost certain that they were melted down to create items which were more to the taste of the 18th and 19th century rulers of Iran. Nader Shah however, in a characteristically overt display, sent out two embassies to Turkey and Russia, each of whose embassies themselves he had only recently expelled from Iran. Each was sent with a double-edged message. They carried with them an appreciable proportion of the massive treasure siezed at Delhi, coupled with a message which, according to one source, contained the explicit message "Nadir Shah .... announces his resolve to conquer .... Turkey and Russia and concludes by warning the addressees to be ready for war" (Riazul Islam, 1979-82, quoted by Simon Digby "Nadir Shah's loot from India and its Distribution: a Preliminary note for Mark Zebrowski", unpublished essay quoted in Zebrowski, op.cit., p.57). One particular item in the Topkapi Palace remains from Nader Shah's missives, a jewelled and enamelled throne. Referred to as the throne of Mohammad Shah, it has been claimed to be partially Ottoman work. Most authorities are however confident that it is completely of Indian workmanship, and almost certainly antedates Mohammad Shah by a considerable period. It is of particular relevance as there are a number of close similarities in its decoration with that of the Clive of India flask, noted also by Robert Skelton in his note for the 1982 The Indian Heritage exhibition detailed below. In St. Petersburg the items from that embassy have been preserved and that is therefore where the greatest majority of Mughal jewelled objects presently surviving now resides. Included in the various items are two flasks of exactly the same form as the Clive of India flask, one of which even has the same claw-set upper finial (see illustrations opposite and under lot 156). Early inventories of these gifts confirming their provenance have apparently been unearthed but these are as yet unpublished. It seems certain that the Clive of India flask comes from the same workshop as the Hermitage flasks. How it left the Mughal Treasury is not so clear. It may have been given by one of the emperors to a vassal prince at an earlier date; there are many documented instances of jewelled objects being donated from the Imperial Treasury. The other and more probable option is that it was one of the items taken by Nader Shah but which, like many, was spilled from the baggage on the return journey. Many items were "jettisoned by the wayside or carried off by the 'bare-bottomed' peasantry of the area" (Simon Digby, op.cit, quoted in Zebrowski, p.52). In either case it would most probably have ended up in the hands of one of the many local Indian rulers, possibly even Shuja al-Dawla whose treasury was opened to Robert Clive in a much more controlled way than Mohammad Shah's had been opened to Nader Shah after a similar defeat. Lord Clive was given the offer of taking what he would like, resulting in his famous comment some years later, when discussing this incident, "By God at this moment, do I stand astonished at my own moderation". ROBERT CLIVE, FIRST BARON CLIVE OF PLASSEY. In 1760 Robert Clive (d.1774), the East India Company's governor of Bengal, made his triumphal return to London, at a time that Britain was celebrating both sea dominion and the commencement of George III's reign. Almost a decade earlier, Clive's spectacular defence of Arcot (1751) and triumphal leadership of the British and Indian troops over the French and their allies in Southern India, had earned him fame as a courageous soldier and skilful strategist in advancing British interests. So London had once before embraced him as a national hero in 1756; but it now received him in even greater glory. The audience granted him by George III shortly after his landing allowed him to lay before the King his "ideas of the Company affairs for the good government of the nation and the company". It also gave him the opportunity to play an ambassadorial role in the presentation of the fabulous jewelled gifts that had been offered to George III and Queen Charlotte by Mir Jafar, Nawab of Bengal. During his recent three years' service in Northern India, Clive had followed up his earlier success in recovering the Company's besieged settlement at Fort William, Calcutta with a victory at Plassey that had enabled him to appoint Mir Jafar as Nawab of the immensely wealthy province of Bengal. It was in recognition of his contribution in changing the role of the British in India that he was raised to the Irish peerage as Baron Clive of Plassey. He was elected the Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury, and now assumed the governorship of the "The Grandest Society of Merchants in the Universe". The Company, at their Leadenhall Street headquarters, expressed gratitude to one who had rendered "eminent and signal service" by commissioning his portrait for "The Honourable the Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies". The hero's portrait, executed by Thomas Gainsborough (d.1788), was then made more widely available by its rendition in mezzotint form. In addition an impressive life-size marble statue of Baron Clive of Plassey, in the guise of a triumphal Roman magistrate, was set up in the Court Room of the Company, whose Roman marble hearth bore a symbolical bas-relief advertising "The Triumph of Commerce, with the riches of the East presented to Britannia". Such was Clive's fame that London's assembly rooms at Vauxhall Gardens hung up a triumphal portrait of him attended by bullion-bearers; while church bells were rung at his progress through the country, Five years later Clive's pivotal role in the promotion of global commerce was also commemorated by a medal designed by the Rome-trained artist James Stuart (d. 1788). Even nearly a century later his acievements were thought worthy of further recognition. Following the establishment of the India Office in Whitehall in the mid nineteenth century, a statue of Clive as the heroic founder of the British Empire was erected on steps on the approach to the Foreign Office's grand Durbar Court. It was during this triumphal period in the 1760s that Margaret, Lady Clive (d.1817) completed the fitting out of their Mayfair mansion in Berkeley Square in the "richest and most elegant manner" appropriate for Clive's princely art collection. The King's architect Sir William Chambers (d. 1796) was also employed to plan the aggrandisement of Clive's Shropshire estate of Walcot Hall, the house that served as his base for entertainment on his appointment as George III's Lord Lieutenant of Shropshire and Montgomeryshire in 1772. Just as he transformed Walcot, so Clive also introduced Roman grandeur to his Surrey villa at Claremont, whose wonders were planned "in a taste superior to any in England". Whereas Blenheim Palace was hung with tapestries celebrating the History of the Duke of Marlborough, Clive planned that Claremont's banqueting room should be hung with the vast canvas portraying his establishment of the Clive Fund, as well as another entitled Lord Clive granted the Diwani of Bengal by the Mughal Emperor Shah 'Alam. However his untimely death in 1774 prevented the completion of Claremont, which later served as the palatial residence for George IV's daughter Princess Charlotte (d.1817). Lord Clive's charitable concerns were publicly demonstrated at the 1772 Royal Academy Exhibition with Edward Penny's painting, commissioned by the Company, and titled: Lord Clive granted a legacy for the East India Company's Military Fund by the Nawab of Murshidabad. Two years previously Clive had devoted the legacy he had received from Nawab Mir Jafar, to form The Clive Fund for disabled soldiers. Robert Clive's 'India' collection was later conjoined with that of the Herbert family following the marriage of Henrietta Antonia Herbert to Edward Clive, 2nd Lord Clive, cr. 1st Earl of Powis (3rd creation in 1804) . When his collection moved to Wales, it became a particular attraction of Powis Castle, the venerable baronial residence of the Earls of Powis. Here it was noted in Black's Picturesque Guide to North Wales' (1858), that there was a room devoted to, "A collection of rare and valuable articles, brought from India by the distinguished military commander the first Baron Clive". A Note on the inventory entries. There are three inventories which list items belonging to the first Lord Clive. The first is not a single list, but an assemblage of lists, the first of which is headed, "A list of Things sent under the care of Mr. and Mrs. Amyatt to the right honble Lady Clive. all received in 1766". Marked on the back is "List dated Jan. 31st, 1766" and "Received Sept. 17th, 1766". (Now in the India Office Library). The second is "An Account of Goods etc., Pack'd up at Claremont the property of the Rt. Honable Lord Clive". While undated, the date of the move from Claremont is known as 1774. The third is"Inventory of Indian Curiosities etc. delivered in 17 March 1775". The first and third inventories consistently refer to jade as agate. Only the second inventory correctly identifies the stone.
A MAGNIFICENT MUGHAL RUBY AND EMERALD INSET GOLD AND SILVER LINED AND INLAID JADE COVERED FLASK

NORTH INDIA, FIRST HALF 17TH CENTURY

Details
A MAGNIFICENT MUGHAL RUBY AND EMERALD INSET GOLD AND SILVER LINED AND INLAID JADE COVERED FLASK
North India, first half 17th century
With spherical body, slightly widening cylindrical neck, cusped vertical foot and rounded cover with claw-set ruby knop, the body with eight shaped pale green nephrite jade panels each inset and inlaid with rubies forming a delicate lattice divided by vertical bands of emerald inset linked arcading, the neck with a lattice linked by inset rubies and emeralds, divided by bands of similar alternating inset stones, a similar inset floral inset jade panel under the foot, the cover similar, the top of the mouth with alternating flat-set emeralds and rubies forming leaf-motifs, the gold-lined interior of the base of the neck with an openwork wire rosette with central claw-set ruby, the underside rim of the gold-lined cover with a band of black composition inlaid meandering vine, very minor old repair at base of neck, together with Lord Clive's original plain wooden travelling case carved in two halves completely to enclose the flask and with grooves for the string fixing, traces of sealing wax in various places
9¾in. (24.5cm.) high
Provenance
Robert, Lord Clive of Plassey (1725-1774), to his first son
Edward Clive, 2nd Baron Clive of Plassey and 1st Earl of Powis (3rd creation 1804), (1754-1839), by descent to
George Charles Herbert, 4th Earl of Powis (1862-1952)
thence by inheritance.

1766 inventory: The only possibility is the longest and most mysterious entry of all.
"Sent by Captain Griffin
A little, round, painted Box, tied with red Tape, sealed at the bottom, where the tape is crossed, with Lord Clive's Coat of Arms, and directed, To The Right Honble Lady Clive in Berkley Square
"
1775 inventory: "An Agate Guglet set with Rubies and Emeralds"
That this refers to the present flask is clear from the following entry: "A guglet of copper with an agate neck". This a flask of exactly the same shape as the present example which is at Powis Castle (Archer, Mildred,; Rowell, Christopher and Skelton, Robert: Treasures from India, London, 1987, no.179, p.123).
Literature
Skelton, Robert: 'Jades Moghols', L'Oeil, no.96, December 1962, no.9, p.44, fig.4 and p.89.
Irwin, Robert: 'Mughal Jades', The Times of India Annual, 1968, fig.18.
Skelton, Robert et al: The Indian Heritage, Court Life and the Arts under Mughal Rule, exhibition catalogue, London, 1982, no.367, p.120, col.pl.13, p.154.
Exhibited
On loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum 1963-2003.
The Indian Heritage, Victoria and Albert Museum, 21 April-22 August 1982.

Lot Essay

The Persian inscription under the foot gives the weight as 93 tolas and 10 masas.

The construction of this remarkable flask shows a mastery of various techniques. The body has a silver lining; a careful look inside it reveals soldered joins between sheets of silver. The indications are that the jade panels were fixed onto the silver body before the emerald-inset ribs, either using a ridge along the side of each, or alternatively using pins which would then have been covered by the inset stones. Unfortunately it is not possibe to see clearly enough within the body to ascertain which is the case. The ribs were then added and the stones then inlaid. It appears that the body and neck were made in completely separate parts which were then joined.

In terms of the decoration the flask shows remarkable versatility. The gold surrounds to the rounded inset rubies form floral designs with the ruby at the centre. Many of these, particularly the smaller ones, are shaped to convey a sense of movement to the design, particularly on the body. These are then contrasted with the far tighter denser-set emeralds which are flat-cut as opposed to the rounded rubies. This adds to the sense of counterpoint found throughout the flask. The stones around the mouth have the same features, although here they are set completely below the level of the lip to ensure that the lid will sit snugly. Not only are the stones used cleverly, they are also remarkably uniform in colour.

In the 1982 publication of this flask Robert Skelton commented that it was unusual in two aspects of its craftsmanship. The construction of the globular body was noted as surprising "in view of the fact that the technique of hollowing out an interior of this type had been thoroughly mastered by Indian carvers". Two factors may well have been the reason for this. The first is given in the caption to another item in the same exhibition, an inscribed jade pendant with inscription dated to the reign of Jahangir (no.353, pp.118-9). Here the caption notes that "jade was a rare and highly-valued commodity in India, and jade objects would have been owned only by a small number of people at the highest level of society". The present arrangement would have ensured that this rare commodity went further than carving it all in the round from one block, particularly if the evenness of colour was all-important, as here. The other point is that the fixing of ribs of emeralds which are well proud of the surface onto a solid jade body would have been extremely difficult without drilling the jade, in which case potentially creating a point of weakness for the flask. On both counts therefore the present arrangement is more advantageous.

The other point was that "the gems are mainly set by the claw principle - discreetly in most cases, but very conspicuously in the case of the finial to the lid and inside the neck". This indicates clearly the influence of European wares at the Mughal court at the time. This influence has long been observed and discussed in the field of painting, but in the arts of jewellery and goldsmithing has only relatively recently been examined in any detail.

Manual Keene, working on the extensive collection of inset hardstone vessels in the al-Sabah collection, has noted that the settings, even when they appear, as here, to include elements of claw settings, are constructed using the traditional Indian kundan technique of making the settings from gold which has been "beaten into narrow strips of foil and refined to the point at which it becomes 'tacky' at room temperature. At this degree of purity, it can actually form a molecular bond when pressure is applied to it by means of steel tools, which are first used to press the foil down around the stones, then to cut, shape and burnish it into any form that the artist may wish" (Keene, Manuel, and Kaoukji, Salam: Treasury of the World, London, 2001, p.18). The very obvious surrounds to all the inset gemstones are therefore almost certainly created in exactly this fashion, using a native Indian technique to recreate an imported European style.

The al-Sabah collection provides the best comparable examples of inlaid and gem-set hardstone vessels in terms of technique. A crystal spherical box has a silver lining and the surface covered with a lattice linking rubies and emeralds set into cusped gold surrounds. The feeling of that example, to use a very European term, is however more "gothick", the cusping and claws being more obvious than are found here, and the sense of movement by contrast less noticeable (Treasury of the World, no.2.11, p.35). A similar bowl and a dagger hilt also have inset lattice designs, but again with a more "gothick" feel (nos. 2.7 and 2.8, p.33). A number of vessels have work around the inset stones which has similar features to that which is found here, but none appear to use it as such a prominent feature as here.

The form of the flask, as has already been seen, is one which has two direct parallels in the group of jewelled objects sent to the Russian Court by Nader Shah after his looting of the Imperial Mughal Treasury in Delhi. The two in Russia and the present example are the only ones of this form to have survived from the 17th century Mughal Court.

That they were to be used for wine is clear from a number of sources. There are numerous textual references to the use of wine at the Mughal Court. Many miniatures show bottles and flasks, normally of gold or gold-coloured metal surrounded by small cups for wine. There is a clear difference between the shape of the necks of these and those of scent or rosewater sprinklers which are also depicted in miniatures. A particularly good example of the latter with the tall narrow neck with a flaring rosette mouth is seen in the margin of a leaf which has been attributed to Govardhan now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (Pal, Pratapaditya: Indian Painting, Los Angeles, 1993, no.55, pp.219-223). Indian wine flasks in contrast have flaring necks; the image on the facing page leaves no doubt at all about the use of such flasks. The use is further indicated by the small pierced aperture at the base of the neck which was probably intended to keep insects away from the contents.

More from THE CLIVE OF INDIA TREASURE - MAGNIFICENT MUGHAL OBJECTS

View All
View All