1. The Great Moguls Diamond and the true History of the Koh-i-Nür.
writers on this subject are very numerous, still it is believed that
almost everyone of them who has contributed to its elucidation has been
consulted in the preparation of this account ; and it is certain that
many, whose writings have also been consulted, are chiefly noteworthy
for the amount of confusion which they have unfortunately introduced
into it. The principal authorities are enumerated in the note below.1
It would only prove puzzling to the reader and cloud the main issue
were any considerable space devoted to refuting the errors and
correcting the misquotations regarding it, which are so common in
works on precious stones. It seems to be a better course to endeavour
to secure close attention to the facts of the case supported
It will be convenient to classify the principal authorities according
to .the theories which they have respectively adopted, as follows :
First, those who maintain the identity of the Koh-i-Nür with Bäbur's
Erskine, Life of Babur, 1918, ii, pp. 191-2 ; Rev. C. W. King, Natural History of Precious Stones, Bohn s ed., 1870, p. 70 ; E. W. Streeter, The Great Diamonds of the World, p. 116. Second, those who maintain the identity of the Koh-i-Nür with the
Great Mogul's Diamond, and who either treat Bäbur's Diamond as
distinct or make no special reference to it :
James Forbes, Oriental Memoirs, 1834, vol. ii, p. 175 ; Major-General Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections, 1918, pp. 288 ff. ; James Tennant, Lecture on Gems and Precious Stones, 1852, p. 84 ; V. Ball, Journ. As. Soc. of Bengal, 1880, vol. l„pt. ii, p. 31, and Economic Geology of India, 1881, p. 19. Third, those who maintain the identity of the Koh-i-Nür with both
Bäbur's and the Great Mogul's Diamonds :
Official Descriptive Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851, pt. iii, p. 695; Kluge, Handbuch der Edelsteinkunde, Leipzig, 1860, p. 240; Professor Ν. S. Maskelyne, Roy. Inst, of Great Britain, March 1860, and Edin. Rev., 1866, pp. 247-8 ; Gen. Cunningham, Arch. Reports, vol. ii, p. 390; Professor Nicol, Encylopœdia Britannica, 9th ed.,Art., 'Diamond'; Dr. H. A. Miers, quoting Ball and N. S. Maskelyne, Nature, 1891, p. 44; p. 555, in Ency. Brit., 11th ed.
It would not be difficult to add to the above a score of names of writers who have supported one or other of these theories.