[463] This throne was “so called from its having the figures of two peacocks standing behind it, their tails being expanded, and the whole so inlaid with sapphires, rubies, emeralds, pearls, and other precious stones of appropriate colours as to represent life. The throne itself was six feet long by four broad; it stood on six massive feet, which, with the body, were of solid gold, inlaid with rubies, emeralds, and diamonds. It was surmounted by a canopy of gold supported by twelve pillars, all richly emblazoned with costly gems, and a fringe of pearls ornamented the borders of the canopy. Between the two peacocks stood the figure of a parrot of the ordinary size, said to have been carved out of a single emerald. On either side of the throne stood an umbrella, one of the Oriental emblems of royalty. They were formed of crimson velvet, richly embroidered and fringed with pearls. The handles were eight feet high, of solid gold and studded with diamonds. The cost of this superb work of art has been variously stated at sums varying from one to six millions sterling. It was planned and executed under the supervision of Austin de Bordeaux, already mentioned as the artist who executed the Mosaic work in the Ám Khás” (Beresford’s _Delhi_, quoted by Mr. H. G. Keene at p. 20 of the third edition of his _Handbook for Visitors to Delhi_, Calcutta, 1876). Tavernier, who was himself a jeweller, and visited India in 1665, valued this piece of extravagance at two hundred million of livres, £8,000,000; Jonas Hanway estimated it as worth, with nine other thrones, £11,250,000 (_Travels_, ii. 383). It stood on a white marble plinth, on which are still to be deciphered the world-renowned motto in flowing Persian characters: “If there be a paradise on earth, it is even this, even this, even this.” _Agar Fardawsi ba ruyi zamīn ast: Hamīn ast, hamīn ast, hamīn ast._ [464] `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī, p. 106. [465] Vambéry gives the date of this _coup d’état_ as 1737 (p. 343); but `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī makes it follow the assassination of Nādir Shāh, the epoch of which is not open to question (p. 110). The dates of events of the eighteenth century in Bokhārā are strangely uncertain, contemporary chroniclers rarely deigning to aid posterity by recording them. [466] “Bi” is an Uzbeg word meaning “judge.” It is not spelt “bai,” nor does it mean “superior grey-beard,” as M. Vambéry supposes (_History of Bokhara_, p. 347). [467] There are many versions of the death of `Abd ul-Mū`min. The most probable is that related by `Abd ul-Kerīm of Bokhārā, at p. 115, which is to the effect that Rahīm Bi had the young prince taken by his own followers on a pleasure-party, and then pushed into a well while he was dreamily peering into its depths. [468] This is the highest degree in the Bokhārān official hierarchy (see Khanikoff’s _Bokhara: its Amir and People_, p. 239; Meyendorff’s _Voyage à Bokhara_, p. 259).