Home › Introduction › Introduction

Introduction

INTRODUCTION.

The Diamond in History--How the Ancients described it--The "Adamas" and the Sapphire--The Rarity of Large Gems--The number of Existing known Diamonds over 30 Carats--The Buyers of Precious Stones--Popularity of Diamonds in America-Romantic Stories-Famous Mines-"The Great Mogul," "Koh-i-Nur," and "Pitt"-Popular Errors Corrected-The Standard of Weight and its Origin. THE mystery which surrounds the Diamond is accentuated even in the etymology of the word itself. Acknowledged on all hands to be supreme in beauty over all gems, the manner of its production remains to this day, one of the secrets of Nature's Laboratory. Diamond in the English, and Diamant in the French, are both synonymous with Adamant, which comes directly from the Greek, meaning literally the "untamable," the "unconquerable." The ancients properly estimated the character of the stone; and modern savants, who, standing upon the mountain tops of Science, have explored the sun itself, can tell us but little more of this splendid production of its creative rays, than is indicated in the Greek. It is to the cutter that we owe the revelation of its loveliness, the development of that radiance which transcends all other gems, as the graces of Venus transcend those of all the other goddesses of Olympus. Although the word is found in the oldest Greek records, the substance itself was unknown in Europe until comparatively recent times. In Homer, Adamas occurs only as a personal name; in Hesiod, Pindar and the Trajics it is used as signifying either any hard weapon, or a metal, such as steel or an alloy of gold and steel. Even Theophrastus, successor of Aristotle, and author of a short treatise, still extant, on Precious Stones, makes only one casual allusion to the Adamas, which, however, cannot have meant the true Diamond, as he does not include it in his list of gems. His treatise was composed 300 B.C., after which no further distinct allusion to the Diamond occurs until we come to the Latin poet and astronomer, Manilius, who flourished in the first century of the new era. In the fourth book of the poem entitled Astronamicon, by this writer, occurs the line "Sic Adamas punctum lapidis pretiosior auro," which is supposed to contain the earliest indubitable reference to the true Diamond, which is here spoken of as "more precious than gold." Some writers have doubted whether this Adamas of the Romans was anything more than a Sapphire; but the question is set at rest by the accurate description of Pliny, who was probably a contemporary of Manilius, and who speaks of the Indian gem as colorless and transparent, with polished facets and six angles, ending either as a pyramid with a sharp point, or with two points, like two whipping-tops joined together at their base. The colourless nature of the stone shows that it was not a sapphire, while the "six angles" necessarily imply the octahedron, which is the primary form of the perfectly crystallized Diamond, and suggests no resemblance to the sapphire. None of the stones known to the ancients seem to have been of any importance as regards size. In the above quoted passage from Manilius, the adamas is a mere "punctum lapidis," or stone's point, and the Indian stones, the largest of which the Romans had any knowledge, are compared by Pliny to the "kernel of a hazel-nut," which would make them about 10 carats in weight. Large gems may, no doubt, have existed in India, even at that time, and a vague tradition assigns a great antiquity to the Koh-i-Nur, and some other famous historical diamonds. Only small specimens could, however, have reached the west, because the Indian princes seem in all ages to have either reserved to themselves, or at least prohibited the exportation of stones beyond a certain weight. The Portuguese writer, Garcias ab Horto, writing in the sixteenth century, states that the sovereigns claimed all gems above 30 mangelis, or 371/2 carats, and De Laet, a century later, says that stones even of 10 carats and upwards had been reserved in the old Golconda mines, then exhausted or stopped. Diamonds of large size have always been extremely rare, even in India itself. Tavernier asserts that before the opening of the Coulour mine, about the year 1550, the largest ever found weighed only from 10 to 12 carats. This statement cannot, however, be accepted in the face of distinct evidence to the contrary. De Laet informs us that, "in the mines some, but extremely rarely, are found of 100, 130, and even 200 carats; more numerous are those of 8, 9, 10, and 15, while those of lesser weight are far more abundant." So also Adrian Toll, editor of De Bool, says, "In Bisnagar, diamonds are found weighing 140 carats, such as Monard says he himself had seen." He also declares that he heard from trustworthy authorities of one weighing 250 carats, and that it was the size of a small hen's egg. The recently-discovered South African diamond fields are no doubt remarkable for the relatively large number of good sized stones which they have yielded. But even here the absolute number of such specimens is small, so that the statement of Mawe, writing early in the present century, still holds good that although small stones are sufficiently abundant to be within the reach of a moderate expenditure; yet those of larger size are, and ever have been, rare. He adds that of the most celebrated for magnitude and beauty the whole number in Europe scarcely amounts to half a dozen, all of which are in possession of sovereign princes. This statement must be considered from a Koh-i-Nur stand-point, and is, no doubt, true, if those gems only be taken into account which weigh 100 carats and upwards. But the number must be increased 10 times if we include all weighing 30 carats and upwards. John Murray, writing in 1838, remarks that the number of diamonds of the weight of 36 carats and above, known to exist in Europe at that time, "do not really amount to more than 19." Since then the number has been considerably increased, especially by the yield from the South African fields. How many of this size there may be in the Portuguese treasury, the richest in Europe, is not fully known. But it is in evidence that at the sale of the late Duke of Brunswick's effects in Geneva, the list of diamonds included no less than seven weighing from 37 to 81 carats. As little was known of these stones till attention was called to them on this occasion they should probably be added to the 19 referred to by Murray in 1838.