THRONE
Haneef
The famed Ivory throne
Gifted to Her Majesty Queen Victoria by Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma of Travancore
A throne sheathed in exquisitely carved plaques of ivory was sent by Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma of Travancore, to England, for the Great Exhibition of 1851.
The earliest reference to the throne is found in a contemporaneous historical volume, which comments on a “state chair” under construction for the Maharaja in 1849.
In the same year, the East India Company sent word to all princely kingdoms: they were asked to send appropriate “objects of industry” from their territories to London for the Great Exhibition. In Travancore, the Maharaja, in consultation with two British officials in his government and his minister, designated the throne as befitting the occasion. While other objects accompanied it, the throne was the pièce de résistance. In a letter accompanying the throne, Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma insisted that the Queen accept the object as a gift from his person after the throne had served its purpose as an exhibit. The throne enacted the role of a political mediator that cut across socio-political boundaries set in place by EIC (East India Company) in South Asia, and allowed communication between a South Asian potentate and the Queen through the complex sieve that was the EIC.
For Travancore, the royal gift was meant to impress upon British royalty, materially and politically, its self-sufficiency, its exquisite taste characteristic of elite classes, and its capacity for modernization. The materiality of the throne, therefore, was to contribute to its political intent.
.jpg?part=0.3&view=1)
Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda VarmaThe throne, at this time, was already under construction for the use of the Maharaja, and, under his orders, its completion was quickened. It is conceivably at this point that details symbolizing the British royalty entered the object’s iconography. Secondly, Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma considered an object made for him, and crafted to appeal to his taste to be a worthy gift for the British queen. In his letter accompanying the throne, Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma writes:
“The transmission of articles from this country for the exhibition, has afforded me an opportunity of which I am anxious to avail myself of forwarding also to London a chair of State, made of ivory, carved and ornamented, the production wholly of the native artists of my country and which I request permission to offer for Your Majesty’s acceptance, as a curiosity, and at the same time as a slight token of my profound respect for Your Majesty’s exalted person.
I beg Your Majesty will graciously condescend to receive this friendly, but humble, tribute, from the Native Prince of a country situated at the very southern extremity of Your Majesty’s vast Indian Empire, who is, as everyone of his predecessors has always been a faithful ally and dependent of the British Government, which on its part, has ever extended to us, its protection and favour, a relation which I humbly trust, will continue to the end of time.”
The letter clearly differentiates the ivory throne from the rest of the objects sent to London along with it. It is also evident from the excerpt above that, for Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the throne stands out from the rest of the objects because it is a “humble tribute” made from a sensually exquisite and expensive material such as ivory, by “native artists” of his country, from his person to the monarch who rules the “vast Indian empire” neighbouring his kingdom.
For the South Asian king then, the purpose of the gift was to impress upon Queen Victoria, the nature of his kingdom as self-sufficient and sophisticated, a kingdom capable of producing an object of great artistic merit and comprised of exquisite and valuable materials, and offering it in a friendly gesture as “humble tribute” to the ruler of the larger kingdom adjoining his own.
On the one hand, the throne--through its very materiality and its tortuous transportation by road from Thiruvananthapuram in Travancore across many regions within British India--was visually present within grounds controlled by various British governmental agencies in South India. Numerous communications regarding the movement of the throne from various outlets including the offices of Tinnelvelly collector, Madras Governor, Arbuthnot & Co. (the trading company in charge of transporting the throne from Madras to London), and the British Resident’s office in Quilon and Travancore, to the king’s office is evidence of the throne’s continued presence in British administration’s communications in 1850-51.
Dewan Krishna Rao (prime minister) admonishes the local East India Company official in Tinnelvelly for asking for an estimated value of the throne. In his reply, via the British Resident’s office, Rao writes:
“Surely I beg to acquaint you that the material of which the State Chair was made were furnished from the Sirkar store and the work was carried out by paid servants of the Sirkar so that no estimated value has hitherto been set upon the State Chair. This State Chair having been forwarded as a present to Her Majesty the Queen of England from His Highness the Rajah of Travancore with the sanction of the Madras Government, I beg to submit it as a matter for consideration how far the demand of the Ag. Collector of Tinnevelly by the Sirkar may be reasonable or proper.”
The Dewan’s indignation is clear in these lines as the properties of the throne that make it a priceless object beyond estimations of value in terms of currency. Significantly, what makes the throne “priceless” is its association with the king’s possessions, which, by extension, become connected to the king’s person. Rao states that the material belongs to the royal treasury as do the craftsmen who were directly employed by the king. He further points out that the gift is a “present” from the Travancore king to the British Queen. Rao creates an equivalence between the Maharajah and the Queen while excluding British EIC officials who are part of the throne’s transportation and management. Thus, the Dewan clarifies the difference in status between the EIC, the British Queen, and the Travancore Maharaja, the king being in a superior position to the EIC but perhaps in a subordinate relationship to the British Monarch.
The carvings on ivory panels that sheath the wooden base structure of the throne certainly exhibit the makers’ intention to use its surface as a visual vignette of Travancore’s alliance and friendship with the British crown. About 120 plaques of elephant-ivory, with detailed carvings of both figural and floral representations connected to Travancore and Britain, were fixed to the base, to create a glowing white sculptural mass. Principal motifs included Travancore’s royal emblem—the conch shell—in various compositional combinations with animals seen in British royal insignia such as the lion, the unicorn, and the dragon. In addition to these, nude cherubs resembling European putti were also seen in many of the plaques, as well as boy angels with flutes, garlands, and trumpets.
There are also a few indigenous girls clothed and semi-clothed in foliage and drapes that act like book-ends for the sculptural programs.
Although many of the figural representations were European, the carving style is predominantly Malabar. The figural representations can be found within a tangled mass of lush sub-tropical foliage made up mainly of ferns and floral garlands. In a number of tiers, compositional arches imitating structural Indo-Islamic arches were used to divide and centre individual tableaus. The lush vegetal background and use of compositional arches as framing devices were part of early modern South Indian style of ivory carving. However, the use of royal motifs in furniture was fairly uncommon in this period in Travancore.
.jpg?part=0.4&view=1)
Reflecting the craftsmanship of Travancore artisans, the throne with a footstool was displayed in the exhibition in Crystal Palace which was a top attraction of the Great Exhibition of London in 1851.
Display at Crystal Palace , London
.jpg?part=0.13&view=1)
The throne and other items in the royal collection are technically not owned by any individual, but "held in trust by the Sovereign for her successors and the nation".
When the Queen became Empress of India in 1876, she chose to be shown seated on the throne at Windsor for her official photograph.
To this date, the throne occupies a position of privilege in the Garter Throne Room at Windsor Castle.
The Queens' Guard Room of Windsor castle
the Garter Throne Room at Windsor Castle.
The ivory state chair and
footstool was so exquisitely carved by Kochu Kunju Asari and his son
Neelakandan Asari of Trivandrum.
Kochu Kunju Asari Neelakandan Asari
Kochu Kunju Asari was reportedly given the title 'Ananthapadmanabhan Asari' by the Maharajah of Travancore in appreciation of his great skills as a supreme craftsman. This father- son duo had also made a famous golden chariot for Swathi Tirunal Maharajah of Travancore in 1842. For these services they had got tax free land in Kazhakoottam, a place near Trivandrum.
Bijoy Palit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cet...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cetaa67.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Ramanathan Sankaran
tj - ടീ ജെ
But one doubt from the doubting Thomas - Is it UTHRAM Thirunal or UTHRATOM Thirunal Marthanda Varma? I feel the latter is right. Uthram nakshatram is in the middle of.... Pooram, Uthram, Attham where as Uthradam is between Pooratam, Uthratam, Avittam... It will be nice if any of our Cetian Rajas can clarify.
Velayudhan Nair
Great!
But one doubt from the doubting Thomas - Is it UTHRAM Thirunal or UTHRATOM Thirunal Marthanda Varma? I feel the latter is right. Uthram nakshatram is in the middle of.... Pooram, Uthram, Attham where as Uthradam is between Pooratam, Uthratam, Avittam... It will be nice if any of our Cetian Rajas can clarify.
Haneef
Sree Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma (22 March 1922 – 16 December 2013) was the titular (in name only) Maharaja of Travancore. He was the younger brother of the last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Travancore, Maharajah Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma.
tj - ടീ ജെ
hariharan Potti
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:07:47 AM
To: CETAA67
Subject: Re: THRONE
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
usha mohan
Haneef, Great article. It took me more time to study in depth than others. May be slow in understanding. Please keep up writing such different articles to keep your friends alert, active and knowledgeable. I can imagine & understand the efforts put by you in presenting such great works for our learning..P.K.Mohan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
hariharan Potti
The famed Ivory throne
Gifted to Her Majesty Queen Victoria by Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma of Travancore
A throne sheathed in exquisitely carved plaques of ivory was sent by Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma of Travancore, to England, for the Great Exhibition of 1851.
The earliest reference to the throne is found in a contemporaneous historical volume, which comments on a “state chair” under construction for the Maharaja in 1849.
In the same year, the East India Company sent word to all princely kingdoms: they were asked to send appropriate “objects of industry” from their territories to London for the Great Exhibition. In Travancore, the Maharaja, in consultation with two British officials in his government and his minister, designated the throne as befitting the occasion. While other objects accompanied it, the throne was the pièce de résistance. In a letter accompanying the throne, Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma insisted that the Queen accept the object as a gift from his person after the throne had served its purpose as an exhibit. The throne enacted the role of a political mediator that cut across socio-political boundaries set in place by EIC (East India Company) in South Asia, and allowed communication between a South Asian potentate and the Queen through the complex sieve that was the EIC.
For Travancore, the royal gift was meant to impress upon British royalty, materially and politically, its self-sufficiency, its exquisite taste characteristic of elite classes, and its capacity for modernization. The materiality of the throne, therefore, was to contribute to its political intent.
As the younger brother to a reigning king, Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma was not expected to take up the reigns of the kingdom, and until his enthronement, had enjoyed a life devoid of scrutiny. While the previous king (his elder brother) Maharajah Swathi Thirunal was subject to the tradition-bound expectations of courtly life, Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma was familiar with European ways and living. He was known to dress in the western manner and was very popular with British officials within Travancore. Unlike his brother Swathi Thirunal, Marthanda Varma enjoyed a close friendship with the British Resident of Travancore Major Cullen, often referring to him as “ammavan” (maternal uncle) in his conversations. In consultation with Cullen and the committee set up to select objects and products to be sent for the exhibition, Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma decided to gift the throne to the Queen after its exhibition at the Crystal Palace London.
Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma
The throne, at this time, was already under construction for the use of the Maharaja, and, under his orders, its completion was quickened. It is conceivably at this point that details symbolizing the British royalty entered the object’s iconography. Secondly, Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma considered an object made for him, and crafted to appeal to his taste to be a worthy gift for the British queen. In his letter accompanying the throne, Maharaja Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma writes:
“The transmission of articles from this country for the exhibition, has afforded me an opportunity of which I am anxious to avail myself of forwarding also to London a chair of State, made of ivory, carved and ornamented, the production wholly of the native artists of my country and which I request permission to offer for Your Majesty’s acceptance, as a curiosity, and at the same time as a slight token of my profound respect for Your Majesty’s exalted person.
I beg Your Majesty will graciously condescend to receive this friendly, but humble, tribute, from the Native Prince of a country situated at the very southern extremity of Your Majesty’s vast Indian Empire, who is, as everyone of his predecessors has always been a faithful ally and dependent of the British Government, which on its part, has ever extended to us, its protection and favour, a relation which I humbly trust, will continue to the end of time.”
The letter clearly differentiates the ivory throne from the rest of the objects sent to London along with it. It is also evident from the excerpt above that, for Uthram Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the throne stands out from the rest of the objects because it is a “humble tribute” made from a sensually exquisite and expensive material such as ivory, by “native artists” of his country, from his person to the monarch who rules the “vast Indian empire” neighbouring his kingdom.
For the South Asian king then, the purpose of the gift was to impress upon Queen Victoria, the nature of his kingdom as self-sufficient and sophisticated, a kingdom capable of producing an object of great artistic merit and comprised of exquisite and valuable materials, and offering it in a friendly gesture as “humble tribute” to the ruler of the larger kingdom adjoining his own.
On the one hand, the throne--through its very materiality and its tortuous transportation by road from Thiruvananthapuram in Travancore across many regions within British India--was visually present within grounds controlled by various British governmental agencies in South India. Numerous communications regarding the movement of the throne from various outlets including the offices of Tinnelvelly collector, Madras Governor, Arbuthnot & Co. (the trading company in charge of transporting the throne from Madras to London), and the British Resident’s office in Quilon and Travancore, to the king’s office is evidence of the throne’s continued presence in British administration’s communications in 1850-51.
Dewan Krishna Rao (prime minister) admonishes the local East India Company official in Tinnelvelly for asking for an estimated value of the throne. In his reply, via the British Resident’s office, Rao writes:
“Surely I beg to acquaint you that the material of which the State Chair was made were furnished from the Sirkar store and the work was carried out by paid servants of the Sirkar so that no estimated value has hitherto been set upon the State Chair. This State Chair having been forwarded as a present to Her Majesty the Queen of England from His Highness the Rajah of Travancore with the sanction of the Madras Government, I beg to submit it as a matter for consideration how far the demand of the Ag. Collector of Tinnevelly by the Sirkar may be reasonable or proper.”
The Dewan’s indignation is clear in these lines as the properties of the throne that make it a priceless object beyond estimations of value in terms of currency. Significantly, what makes the throne “priceless” is its association with the king’s possessions, which, by extension, become connected to the king’s person. Rao states that the material belongs to the royal treasury as do the craftsmen who were directly employed by the king. He further points out that the gift is a “present” from the Travancore king to the British Queen. Rao creates an equivalence between the Maharajah and the Queen while excluding British EIC officials who are part of the throne’s transportation and management. Thus, the Dewan clarifies the difference in status between the EIC, the British Queen, and the Travancore Maharaja, the king being in a superior position to the EIC but perhaps in a subordinate relationship to the British Monarch.
The carvings on ivory panels that sheath the wooden base structure of the throne certainly exhibit the makers’ intention to use its surface as a visual vignette of Travancore’s alliance and friendship with the British crown. About 120 plaques of elephant-ivory, with detailed carvings of both figural and floral representations connected to Travancore and Britain, were fixed to the base, to create a glowing white sculptural mass. Principal motifs included Travancore’s royal emblem—the conch shell—in various compositional combinations with animals seen in British royal insignia such as the lion, the unicorn, and the dragon. In addition to these, nude cherubs resembling European putti were also seen in many of the plaques, as well as boy angels with flutes, garlands, and trumpets.
There are also a few indigenous girls clothed and semi-clothed in foliage and drapes that act like book-ends for the sculptural programs.
Although many of the figural representations were European, the carving style is predominantly Malabar. The figural representations can be found within a tangled mass of lush sub-tropical foliage made up mainly of ferns and floral garlands. In a number of tiers, compositional arches imitating structural Indo-Islamic arches were used to divide and centre individual tableaus. The lush vegetal background and use of compositional arches as framing devices were part of early modern South Indian style of ivory carving. However, the use of royal motifs in furniture was fairly uncommon in this period in Travancore.
.jpg?part=0.1&view=1)
Reflecting the craftsmanship of Travancore artisans, the throne with a footstool was displayed in the exhibition in Crystal Palace which was a top attraction of the Great Exhibition of London in 1851.
Display at Crystal Palace , London
.jpg?part=0.4&view=1)
After the exhibition, Queen Victoria had written to Maharaja of Travancore: "Your Highness's chair has occupied a prominent position amongst the wonderful works of art which have been collected in our metropolis and your highness's liberality and the workmanship of the natives of Travancore have received due admiration from the vast multitude of spectators."
The throne and other items in the royal collection are technically not owned by any individual, but "held in trust by the Sovereign for her successors and the nation".
When the Queen became Empress of India in 1876, she chose to be shown seated on the throne at Windsor for her official photograph.
To this date, the throne occupies a position of privilege in the Garter Throne Room at Windsor Castle.
The Queens' Guard Room of Windsor castle
the Garter Throne Room at Windsor Castle.
The ivory state chair and footstool was so exquisitely carved by Kochu Kunju Asari and his son Neelakandan Asari of Trivandrum.
Kochu Kunju Asari Neelakandan Asari
Kochu Kunju Asari was reportedly given the title 'Ananthapadmanabhan Asari' by the Maharajah of Travancore in appreciation of his great skills as a supreme craftsman. This father- son duo had also made a famous golden chariot for Swathi Tirunal Maharajah of Travancore in 1842. For these services they had got tax free land in Kazhakoottam, a place near Trivandrum.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cet...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cetaa67.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Kasturi Rangan A.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cet...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cetaa67.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cet...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cetaa67.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CETAA67" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cetaa67+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Col Parasuram
A very informative and researched article.we expect such articles in the the future. Well-done keepot up.
Parasuram