59^ 



NATURE 



[October 22, 189: 



parcels. By this method the tension may be regulated to within 

 half a pound, and increased or decreased so rapidly that the 

 heightening of pitch is clearly recognized without the use of an 

 auxiliary wire. H. G. Williams. 



Congregational School, Caterharn. 



The Koh-i-Nur : a Reply. 



It is a far from pleasant task for me to set about replying to 

 Prof. Maskelyne's criticism of my history of the Koh-i-Nur. I 

 desire to say what must be said with all respect for him, but the 

 tone of some of his remarks renders this a task of exceeding 

 difficulty. All I care about is to get at the truth, and in order to 

 do so I have spared neither time nor labour. I cannot suppose 

 that you would grant me space sufficient for answering in detail 

 all the statements in Prof. Maskelyne's article ; nor do I seek for 

 such space, because I deem it to be sufficient for those, several of 

 them experts, who have accorded my views their hearty support 

 and approval— Firstly, to state here in a general way that having 

 very carefully studied Prof. Maskelyne's long article it has not, 

 in my opinion, in the very smallest degree shaken the facts I 

 have quoted, and the deductions from them which are to be found 

 in my appendix to " Tavernier's Travels," and in the article pub- 

 lished in the April number of the English Ilbistrated Magazine 

 of the present year. Indeed, I might go further, and say that this 

 attack very materially confirms the strength of the position upon 

 which I have taken my stand. Secondly, I shall select a few 

 points only which affiDrd clear issues without any mystification, 

 as to which side the balance of evidence lies upon, and invite 

 readers to draw their own conclusions. 



Before going further I think I should recall to notice the 

 review of my edition of " Tavernier " which appeared in Nature 

 last February (vol. xliii. p. 313), and the English Illustrated 

 Magazine for April, from which it will be seen that a suggestion 

 made in the review has since been acted upon, with the result 

 that was anticipated. 



Prof. Maskelyne states that there is an absence of novelty in 

 my facts. Just so, it is the old facts that I rely upon, not the mis- 

 quoted and distorted variants which are to be found in so many 

 writings. In my earliest allusions to this subject, many years 

 ago, I made some mistakes, from blindly following authorities 

 whom I now know to have been misled as to their facts. Since 

 then I have learnt how necessary it is to check all statements as 

 of fact in reference to this subject, and not to place too implicit 

 a trust on quotations, no matter how eminent the authority who 

 makes them may be. 



Is it conformable to the judicial position which Prof. 

 Maskelyne claims to occupy, to say that I dismiss Prof. 

 H. H. Wilson, and what he narrates, "by the somewhat 

 flippant remark that ' it has afforded sundry imaginative 

 writers a subject for highly characteristic paragraphs'"? the 

 facts being these— I never referred to Prof. H. fl. Wilson ; I 

 did not even know before that he was the writer of the 

 anonymous note in the official catalogue ; and more than that, 

 I had not that particular contribution to the subject in my mind 

 when writing the above words. 



Still further, with regard to the judicial position, I do not think 

 it is apparent in any of Prof. Maskelyne's subsequent remarks. 

 They are those of an advocate who smites his opponent in 

 season and out of season, and seeks to disparage him by imply- 

 ing that he has asi-aulted the reputation of men (whom all must 

 honour), when he has merely pointed out misquotations in their 

 writings and expressed dissent with their conclusions. 



I yield to no one in my admiration for the late Mr. King's 

 work, but this cannot and should not restrain me from pointing 

 out misquotations and misprints in his books when treating of 

 the subjects with which he has dealt. To justify this 1 shall 

 quote but a few instances which I have noticed, out of many. 

 On pp. 78 and 82 (" Natural History of Precious Stones," Bohn's 

 edition, 1870) the weight of the Mogul's diamond is stated as 

 on Tavernier's authority to have been 240 carats and on the 

 plate 208 carats, instead of 279^^ carats. 



The Koh-i-Nur is stated on p. 82 to have weighed 184 carats 

 instead of i86xV, and, strangest of all, when recut, that is to say 

 in its present condition, its weight is given, pp. 75 and 347, as 

 I02i and on the plate as 102^ carats, whereas its true weight is 

 \o^i^ carats. 



On p. 68 he deduces an argument from the note by Clusius, 

 which is referred to by Prof. Maskelyne, and given in the original 

 in my paper ; the whole force of his argument depending, how- 



NO. II 4 7, VOL. 44] 



ever, on the change of the word Belgium of the original to 

 Europe in his, Mr. King's, own rendering of it. 



I might add to this list, but sufficient has been stated to show 

 that such statements require the most careful scrutiny, by whom- 

 soever they may have been made. 



On pp. 81-82 will be found Mr. King's dissent from Prof. 

 Maskelyne's theory about the identity of Babar's diamond with 

 the Mogul's ; the diffijrence of opinion between them being 

 very wide indeed, though Prof. Maskelyne does not think it 

 necessary to refer to it in his article. 



With reference to what Prof. Maskelyne writes about De Boot 

 and Garcia de Orta, I shall only say that I am very well ac- 

 quainted with both authors' works, and that I assert again that 

 the statement wrongly attributed to Monardes, and quoted as 

 from Mr. King by Prof. Maskelyne, was an unsound and danger- 

 ous link in the chain by which it was proposed to connect Babar's 

 diamond with the Koh-i-Nur. 



It was a statement convenient to use, but what if I had used 

 it first, and had also misquoted the authority ? Would the terms 

 Prof. Maskelyne employs about my aberration, &c., have been 

 considered strong enough ? There was, however, no aberration 

 whatever on my part, and Prof. Maskelyne has himself now 

 fully demolished, as anyone may read, the authenticity of the 

 link he formerly used as a very material element in his chain. 

 How can he, then, still cling to the fragments of this shattered link, 

 while he dismisses so peremptorily Malcolm's statement about 

 the weight of the Darya-i-Nur ? Will he ever again use that link, 

 or quote Monardes as his authority ? {Edinburgh Review, vol. 

 cxxiv., i856, p. 247.) 



I still venture to think that my conclusion as to the kind of 

 carat used by Tavernier is a legitimate one. At the end of 

 chapter xviii., book ii., he says, where computing from their 

 weights the values of diamonds to a Hard, " le Diamant du 

 Grand Mogol pese 279^^ carats " {sic) ; and in the very next 

 paragraph, " le Diamant du Grand Due de Toscane pese 1394 

 carats." 



True it is, as pointed out by Prof. Maskelyne, that Tavernier 

 in some other passages defines the carats as "nos carats"; he 

 does not say, however, "carats de France," and the meaning 

 therefore I take to be the carats employed by himself and his 

 confraternity as contrasted with Indian measures of weight. 



The value of the abbas or pearl ratti of 2 '66 grains, or seven- 

 eighths of the Florentine carat, has also been approximately 

 arrived at by other relations given by Tavernier ; conversely, 

 therefore, it proves his carat to have been the Florentine. 



I know of several early writers who have written about the 

 Grand Duke's diamond, and by them Tavernier is referred to as 

 the authority for its weight, which, as even Prof. Maskelyne 

 admits, was given in Florentine carats. I think all the cir- 

 cumstances justify the belief that it was probably weighed by 

 Tavernier himself with his own weights and scales. Now as 

 to the weighment of the Mogul's diamond, in one passage 

 Prof. Maskelyne (p. 557) states that Tavernier does not say he 

 weighed any of the stones, and, in another, on the same page, 

 "The diamond Tavernier saw, weighed, he said (was he merely 

 told so or did he really weight it?), 319^ ratis." 



The pages of Tavernier give the following very explicit answer 

 to this query. He says, "Ce diamant appartient au Grand 

 Mogol, lequel me fit I'honneur de me le (aire montrer avec 

 tous ses autres joyaux. On voit la forme oil il est demeure 

 etant taille, et vi'ayant este permis de le peser jay trouve qu^il pese 

 3194 ratis qui sont 279x% de nos carats" 



This is precise evidence enough that he did weigh the stone 

 himself, and if the carats were French instead of the lighter 

 Florentine carats, which I believe them to have been, the stone 

 was so much the heavier, and therefore still more removed in 

 weight from Babar's stone. 



lavernier, I must remind the reader, besides Bernier, is our 

 only authority for what is known about the Mogul's stone, as 

 such, and what I have protested against and still protest against 

 is, the suppression or rejection of such precise statements as the 

 above, while others of his which fit in with particular theories 

 are accepted. 



In various directions I have been enabled to show Tavernier's 

 minute accuracy about matters not connected with his trade as a 

 jeweller, and when he speaks as an expert, in the practice of his 

 own profession, he deserves, and proves that he deserves, a very 

 different treatment from that which he has received. It is for 

 this reason, and not because I am blind to his faults, that I give 

 h jm my loyal support. I have already, in vol. ii. of ' ' Tavernier's 



