188 THE GREAT DIAMONDS OF THE WORLD.
of
the original crystal, which he believed to have been a rhomboid
dodecahedron ; and if slightly elongated, which is a common form of the
diamond, would agree with Tavernier's description of it bearing some
resemblance to an egg. Sir D. Brewster made some observations, and
stated that the English translation of Tavernier's work left out the
minute details which were fully given in the original. Sir David
expressed his satisfaction with Mr. Tennant's illustration, which
clearly proved the diamond to be only a small part of a very large and
fine stone."
Brewster's
remark that the English translation of Tavernier's work omitted the
minute details given by that writer is very significant in the present
connection. Had those details, as set forth in our account of the "
Great Mogul," received proper attention, subsequent writers could
never have fallen into the mistake of confounding that stone with the "
Koh-i-Nur." Nor would Dr. Beke have here sug-gested that the slab found
at Cucha might be a portion of the " Koh-i-Nur." The remarks made both
by Tennant and Brewster, evidently show that they refer this fragment
not to the " Koh-i-Nur," but to Tavernier's " Great Mogul." Its weight
being 138 carats, it could not be described by them as forming " only a
small part" of the " Koh-i-Nur," which was never known to weigh more
than 186 carats altogether. Hence, Brewster's " very large and fine
stone " must necessarily refer to the " Great Mogul," which was the
only other stone ot which the Cucha slab could be described as " a
small portion."
In his account of the " Great Mogul," the reader
