72 THE GREAT DIAMONDS OF THE WORLD.
an
egg, cut in half."* This is fully borne out by the illustration which
accompanies his description of the stone in the first edition of his
work, Vol. II,
P· 334·
But there are a few discrepancies in Tavernier's own account, which, however, admit of easy explanation. The Aurung-zeb of the second passage is obviously a slip for Shah Jeltan, for
we know from Bernier that it was to the latter prince, and not to his
son, that Emir Jemla presented the stone, as is in fact stated by
Tavernier himself in the first passage. The 900 carats of the same passage is also evidently an error for the 900 ratis of
No. 1. But the 907 ratis = 793 5/8 carats, of No. 3 is not so readily
reconciled with the 900 ratis = 787 1/2 carats, of No. I. But as these
figures refer to the stone in the rough, they are really of little
consequence, and the discrepancy is easily accounted for when we
remember that Tavernier saw the stone only after its reduction by
Borgio. Hence he knew nothing of it in the rough state, except on
hearsay, and he may at different times have heard two different
statements regarding its original size.
In
any case all these measurements differ enormously from that of Baber's
gem, which everybody identifies with the Koh-i-Nür, and which Baber
himself tells us weighed only " eight mishkels," or about 186 or 187
carats. Yet Kluge, with others, argues for the identity of both stones,
on the ground that they were represented as about the same size, and
