Cut Diamonds 47 



an endless controversy. Lessing, in his "Briefe antiquarischen 

 Inhalts" (No. 32), which it is still as enjoyable as profitable seriously to 

 study, has shown with a great amount of acumen that the ancients 

 possessed no knowledge whatever of diamond-dust, and therefore did 

 not know how to polish the diamond. This opinion, however, did not 

 remain uncontradicted. The opposite view is heralded by Blumner, 1 

 who argues, " Despite the lack of positive testimony, we cannot forbear 

 assuming that the ancients understood, though possibly imperfectly, 

 how to polish the diamond. Since only in this state is the stone capable 

 of displaying its marvellous lustre, play of colors, and translucency, its 

 extraordinary valuation among the ancients would not be very intel- 

 ligible had they known it merely as an uncut gem." This argument is 

 rather sentimental and intuitive than well founded. As far as the plain 

 facts are concerned, Lessing is right; and, what is even more remarkable, 

 has. remained right from 1768, the date at which he wrote, up to the 

 present. No cut diamond of classical antiquity has as yet come to 

 light ; and in order to pass audaciously over the body of Pliny, and have 

 us believe what he does not say, such a palpable piece of evidence would 

 be indispensable. As a matter of fact, neither Pliny nor any other 

 ancient writer loses a word about diamond-dust; nor does he mention 

 that the diamond can be cut and polished, or that it was so treated; nor 

 does he express himself on the adamantine lustre. 2 This silence is 

 sufficiently ominous to guard ourselves, I should think, against the rash 

 assumption that the ancients might have cut the diamond. Its high 

 appreciation is quite conceivable without the application of this process, 

 for even the uncut diamond possesses brilliancy and lustre enough to 

 allure a human soul. The possibility would remain that the ancients 

 may have received worked diamonds, ready made, straight from India. 3 



1 Technologie, Vol. Ill, p. 233. 



* Beckmann (Beitrage zur Geschichte der Erfindungen, Vol. Ill, p. 541) held 

 that the ancients employed diamond-dust for the cutting of stones other than the 

 diamond, but he denied that they polished the diamond with its own dust. This is 

 certainly a contradiction in itself: if the ancients knew the utility of diamond-dust, 

 there is no reason why they should not have applied it to the diamond; and if they 

 did not facet diamonds, it is very plain that they lacked the knowledge of diamond- 

 dust. Bauer (Edelsteinkunde, p. 302, 2d ed.) observes, "In how far the ancients 

 understood how to polish diamonds, or at least to improve existing crystal surfaces 

 by polishing, is not known with certainty. From the traditions handed down, 

 however, it becomes evident that this art was not wholly unknown to the ancients.' * 

 The latter statement is without basis. 



* This hypothesis was formulated by H. O. Lenz (Mineralogie der alten Griechen 

 und R&mer, pp. 39, 164, Gotha, 1861), who concluded from what the ancients said 

 regarding the brilliancy of the stone that diamonds cut and polished in the country of 

 their origin were traded to Europe. 



