paying him the Emperor made him pay a fine of 10,000* (dix mille), and
would have taken still more if he had possessed it. If Hortcnsio had
known his work better, he might have taken some good pieces off without
doing injury to the king, and without having expended so much trouble
in polishing it; but he was not a very accomplished diamond cutter."
In the chapter on his visit to the mines at Gani-Colour— i.e., Kollur,-j-
he says that the Great Mogul diamond was found there. If this be true,
and also that these mines were only discovered about loo years before
his visit in 1665, then this diamond cannot have the great antiquity
claimed for it by some of those who consider it to be identical with
the Koh-i-nur.
Tavernier's third mention of it, accompanied by a figure (reproduced in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica"), is as follows :—
"
This diamond belongs to the Great Mogul, who did me the honour to show
it to me with all his other jewels. One sees the form which it received
on being cut. On my being permitted to weigh it, I have found its
weight to be 319-1/2 ratis, which are 279-9/16 of our carats. In its
rough state it weighed, as I have said, 907 ratis, which are 793-5/16-
carats. The stone has the same form as if one cut an egg in two."
He
gives us, therefore, two different accounts of its weight in the rough
: 900 ratis, or 787 carats, and 907 ratis, or 793-3/16 carats. It is
obvious that there is a mistake, as the two do not agree in any
respect, even the equivalent values, calculated at 1 rati=7/8 of a
carat, should be 787-1/2 and 793-5/8. This is one of several strange
and unaccountable defects in Tavernier's arithmetic. They can scarcely
be due to misprints.
*
Even this item is variously stated by compilers, who seem to have made
much of the confusion that exists about the weights, &c, of this
historical gem.
t Loc. cil. p. 305.
