52 The Diamond 



almandine, zircon, etc. This list is somewhat extended; and whoever 

 deems its length insufficient may stretch it ad libitum under screen of 

 the "etc." A charge of confusion is an easy means of overcoming a 

 difficult subject and setting a valve on serious investigation. It is to 

 be apprehended lest in this case the confusion is rather in the mind of 

 Geerts than in that of the Chinese, and results from his failure to read 

 the Chinese texts with critical eyes. The first conspicuous confusion of 

 Geerts is, that on p. 202 he grants Li Shi-ch6n the privilege of indicating 

 the true diamond, 1 while this license is abrogated on p. 357 : "The place 

 of the kin-kang between iron pyrite and aluminous schist is contrary to 

 the idea that this author intended to designate under this name the 

 diamond." What neither Geerts, nor his predecessor Smith, nor his 

 successor de Mely, understood, is the plain fact that Li Shi-ch6n does not 

 speak at all of the diamond as a stone, but of the diamond-point as an 

 implement. For this reason it is embodied in the chapter on stones, and 

 is logically followed by a discussion of stone needles used in acupuncture. 

 The term "kin-kang stone" means to Li Shi-ch&i nothing but the 

 diamond-point. The fact that, besides, the diamond was known to 

 the Chinese as a precious stone, is evidenced by the text of the Tsin k'i 

 kil chu (p. 35), where the diamond is spoken of as a precious stone (pao), 

 and by the Ko chi king yiian, 2 where the stone is designated as a "dia- 

 mond jewel" (kin-kang pao) and classed with jade and gems in the 

 chapter on precious objects (chen pao lei). 3 It is not necessary to push 

 any further this criticism of Geerts, who hazards other eccentric con- 

 clusions in this section. The evidence brought together is overwhelm- 

 ing in demonstrating that the kin-kang in the texts offered by Li Shi- 

 ch6n, and in ancient Chinese tradition generally, is the diamond. This 

 uniform interpretation, inspired by an analysis of all traditions in the 

 known ancient world, instead of an appeal to confusion with a choice 

 of fanciful possibilities, seems to be the best guarantor for the exactness 

 of the result. 



1 The text referred to is that of Pao-p'u-tse regarding Fu-nan; but it is Li Shi-ch6n 

 who is made responsible for it by Geerts. This uncritical method of Smith, Geerts, 

 and de Mely, who load everything on to the Pin ts'ao or its author Li Shi-ch6n, with- 

 out taking the trouble to unravel the various sources quoted by him and to study the 

 traditions with historical criticism, is the principal reason for their failure in reaching 

 positive results. 



2 Ch. 33, p. 3 b. 



8 In the great cyclopaedia T'ai p'ing yii Ian (Ch. 813) the notes on the diamond 

 are arranged in the section on metals, being preceded by those on copper and iron. 

 The cyclopaedia T'u shu tsi ch'ing has adopted the scheme of Li Shi-ch6n, placing the 

 diamond in the division "stones." It is content to reiterate simply Li Shi-chen's 

 notes, so that this is one of the poorest chapters of this thesaurus. 



