or
disposed in the form of a pear.* Until the Italian text of the
inventory was published in 1880, it was supposed that the diamond was
described as pear-shaped, whence the natural conclusion that this stone
was Tavernier's " Pear."
It
is further to be noted that Tavernier saw the Indian gem in 1658 in the
Mogul's treasury, where it in all probability remained till the sack of
Delhi by Nadir Shah in the next century. But the " Savoy " diamond was
already amongst the French regalia in 1662, in which year it was
bequeathed to the House of Savoy, as stated in the above-quoted passage
from the inventory. Hence the theory that the two are one and the same
gem must be unhesitatingly rejected.
It
is remarkable that both have since disapÂpeared. The " Pear " was
doubtless carried off by Nadir Shah, and lost in Persia. The " Savoy "
may possibly have been re-cut and thus reduced in size, so that it can
now no longer be identified. At all events no allusion whatever is made
to it in the subÂsequent inventory of the crown jewels prepared in the
year 1772, and a copy of which has been courteously forwarded to us by
Signor Pincone, the present private secretary of his Majesty King
Humbert of Italy, heir and successor to all the treasures of the House
of Savoy.
It is needless to add that neither of these stones can be associated with the " Sancy," which is certainly
