334 THE GREAT MOGUL'S DIAMOND
subsequent authors, who have apparently overlooked the editorial comments, including Professor Maskelyne (Nature, x. 91).
The first was in giving Monardes instead of Garcia as his authority ;
the second in treating the mangelin as though it were the equivalent of
the carat ; and thirdly, in making, on the supposed authority of
Monardes, a statement to the effect that the largest known diamond
weighed 187 1/2 carats.1
The
explanation of De Boot's confusion between the names of Monardes and
Garcia is that Écluze (Clusius) published a work in 1574, in which he
incorporated in the same volume the writings of these two authors ;
and, as pointed out by Adrian Toll, Monardes does not even allude to
diamonds, his work being on the drugs of the West Indies.2
The
question remains—Where did De Boot obtain the figure 187 1/2, which
approximates to the weight of the Koh-i-Nür, when brought to England,
and the weight of Bâbur's diamond as estimated above ? It has been
seized upon by Professor Maskelyne, who quotes it from King, as a link
in the chain connecting the two just mentioned diamonds. It is a
worthless link, however. It originated in a further manifestation of
De Boot's carelessness.3 What he really quoted from may have
been a passage in Monardes's work, as he says, or in that of Garcia
this time, as he had already disposed of the diamond mentioned by him ;
but a commentary or note on the latter's statement about Indian
diamonds, by the editor Écluze, and, as will be seen, the note itself,
which is of sufficient importance to be given in the original Latin,
refers to the largest diamond ever seen in Belgium !4 its
weight being 47 1/2 carats, or 190 gr. There can be no doubt that the
statement by De Boot regarding a diamond weighing 187 1/2 carats was,
as pointed out by Adrian Toll and De Laet, utterly spurious. It was
therefore quite unworthy of the notice it has received from the
above-named authors, and is of no value whatever for the purposes of
this history.
No attention has hitherto been given by writers to a large diamond which, as pointed out in a footnote,5 was obtained
1 Gemmarum et Lapidum Historia, 3d ed., by De Laet, 1647, p. 29.
2 It was first printed at Seville in 1565.
3 Rosnel, in Le Mercure Indien, Paris, 1667, evidently quoting from De Boot, makes the same mistake.
1 Majorem vero Adamantem in Belgio conspectum hand puto, quam Philippus II. Hispaniarum Rex ducturus
Elizabetham, Henr. II. Gall. Kegis filiam majorem natu emit, de Carolo
Affetato Antwerpia, Anno 1559, Octogies Millenis Cronatis ; pendebat
autem Car. xlvii, cum semine ( =47i), id est grana 190.—De Gemmis et Lapidibus, Lib. II.. J. de Laet, Lug. Bat., 1647, p. 9
' See vol. ii. 42.
