and a troupe of conjurors. Two hundred years after that, the envoys of a Roman emperor brought elephant tusks, rhinoceros horns and tortoise shells to the Chinese court. The links that had been forged in the wake of the Han ambassadors would be sustained. The enduring relationship between diplomacy and gift-giving was already thriving. In ad 638 the Persians were sending the Chinese a ferret that was an expert mice-catcher; a century later, they sent the Chinese four leopards. In the next phase of the ambassadors’ story, this aspect of diplomacy would soar.
CHAPTER V Charlemagne’s Elephant
i. Gift-Giving
Enter the French Ambassadors
KING HENRY
Now are we well prepar’d to know the pleasure Of our fair cousin Dauphin, for we hear Your greeting is from him, not from the king.
AMBASSADOR
May’t please your majesty to give us leave Freely to render what we have in charge; Or shall we sparingly show you far off The Dauphin’s meaning and our embassy? […] Your highness, lately sending into France, Did claim some certain dukedoms, in the right Of your great predecessor, King Edward the Third. In answer of which claim, the prince our master Says that you savour too much of your youth, And bids you be advis’d, there’s naught in France That can be with a nimble galliard won; You cannot revel into dukedoms there. He therefore sends you, meeter for your spirit, This tun of treasure; and, in lieu of this, Desires you let the dukedoms that you claim Hear no more of you. This the Dauphin speaks.
KING HENRY
What treasure, uncle?
EXETER (opening the tun)
Tennis balls, my liege.
KING HENRY
We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us: His present and your pains we thank you for: When we have match’d our rackets to these balls, We will in France, by God’s grace, play a set Shall strike his father’s crown into the hazard […] I will rise there with so full a glory That I will dazzle all the eyes of France, Yea, strike the Dauphin blind to look on us. And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his Hath turn’d his balls to gunstones; and his soul Shall stand sore-charged for the wasteful vengeance That shall fly from them; for many a thousand widows Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands; Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down…
Henry V, I. ii
Before the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, potentates were free to lavish tokens of esteem on American worthies whenever they chose. In 1785, the king of Spain sent two especially handsome donkeys to General George Washington in recognition of his military exploits and they were graciously received. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution immediately made such gestures suspicious, even illicit. Henceforth, no American public servant was to ‘accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state’.
So when, in 1839, the emperor of Morocco decided to present the United States with a lion and a lioness (a prodigious gift by any standard), the local consul Thomas Carr faced an awkward decision. He could either offend an influential monarch or transgress the new rules of American diplomatic conduct. Carr valiantly tried to reject the gifts, but was forced to relent when the emperor’s messenger threatened to release the animals into the street. After a few months’ sojourn in the consulate buildings, the lions were shipped to Philadelphia and quietly sold off at auction.1 Intended as a necessary check on bribery and corruption, the constitutional prohibition had managed, at a stroke, to jeopardize one of the most venerable of diplomatic rituals: the exchanging of meaningful, preferably spectacular, gifts.
For millennia, such exchanges had succeeded in capturing the tensions inherent in any ambassadorial encounter. Those giving the gifts often sought to demonstrate their affection or admiration for the recipient – see what we are willing to give – but they also hoped to hint, rather loudly, at their superiority, at their own wealth, ingenuity and influence – see what we are able to give. To despatch too meagre a gift was a snub, to send too exotic a gift was a boast. Polities were always much more likely to err on the side of boastfulness. Upon receiving presents from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople, one tenth-century Muslim ruler had immediately declared: ‘send him a gift one hundred times greater than his so that he may recognize the glory of Islam and the grace that Allah has bestowed upon us.’2
The Romans won favour by presenting gold necklaces to British tribal leaders, while the courts of Enlightenment Europe fastened upon the idea of trading elegant Se‘vres and Meissen porcelain. Fidel Castro would even limit the distribution of certain brands of luxury cigar to enhance their cachet as diplomatic gifts. In the eighteenth century, Frederick William I of Prussia went so far as sending an entire room, a candlelit Baroque confection of amber panels, mirrors and mosaics, to Peter the Great of Russia. Peter had admired the so-called ‘Amber Room’ during a visit to Berlin in 1712. The Prussian king, eager to cement an alliance against Sweden, ordered the room’s dismantlement. In 1717 it was packed into eighteen boxes and made the precarious journey from the Charlottenburg Palace to St Petersburg. Until Hitler’s invading troops tore it down in 1941, it came to symbolize the amity between two great nations.
Presenting something that was particularly evocative of one’s own culture was another shrewd strategy. The Ottoman rulers of Turkey looked to fragrant soaps and carpets, the Chinese to precious silks. In the seventeenth century, the Polish city of Gdansk routinely selected the engraved amber for which it was so renowned, just as the burghers of Nuremberg favoured their city’s humble, but much-coveted, Lebkuchen cakes. Japanese emperors sent a full suit of shogun armour to James I of England in 1613, and an elaborate samurai sword to Queen Victoria two and a half centuries later.
Comparison was everything in the world of diplomatic gift-giving. Monarchs endlessly contrasted themselves with their peers and predecessors. When a Russian ambassador presented James I of England with a ‘rich Persian dagger and knife’ in 1617, ‘the king was very much pleased, and the more so when he understood Queen Elizabeth never had such a present thence’.3 They also compared the different gifts offered up by rival ambassadors. In 1614, when the East India Company looked to recruit an ambassador to send to the north Indian court of the Moghul emperor Jahangir, its gaze settled on Sir Thomas Roe, ‘a gentleman of pregnant understanding, well-spoken, learned, industrious, of a comely personage’.4 He left for India in February 1615 with a suitably impressive retinue: a chaplain, physician, apothecary, secretary and cook.
Unfortunately, his diplomatic gifts were decidedly uninspiring. Upon receiving a scarf, swords and some leather gods, Jahangir turned to a visiting Jesuit priest to ask whether James I was really the great monarch he purported to be. ‘Presents of so small a value’ did little to bolster the English king’s reputation. Jahangir had hoped, at the very least, for a cache of precious jewels. As for the coach that Roe also presented to the emperor, it simply did not measure up to the exacting Moghul standard of opulence. Jahangir has his servants dismantle it, replacing lacklustre velvet fittings with silk, and ‘instead of the brass nails that were first in it, there
