336 THE GREAT MOGUL'S DIAMOND
be
correctly described as a very rude unprojected diagram, in which the
facets are bounded by three transverse series of parallel lines which
intersect one another irregularly.
The
only other early mention of this diamond is by Bernier, who calls it
'matchless', and states that it was presented to Shähjahän by Mir Jumla
when he advised him to dispatch an army for the conquest of Golkonda.1
Let
us now endeavour to reduce these statements to a common denomination.
First, it must be stated that Tavernier and Bernier, both of whom refer
expressly to the famous topaz belonging to Aurangzeb, are not likely to
have been mistaken as to the nature of the stone examined ; that it was
a diamond may be safely accepted, in spite of any suggestions which
have been made by authors to the contrary.
With
regard to Taverniere second statement, it is clearly wrong in two
particulars, both of which may be attributed to the errors of a
copyist, who wrote Aurangzeb for Shähjahän, and 900 carats in mistake
for 900 ratis. This statement, therefore, being put aside from
consideration, we have then left for comparison the following :
Calculated
according to Taverniere own statement that the rati was equal to 7/8 of
the carat, the equivalents would more correctly be stated as follows :
We
have then, at first sight, the remarkable apparent coincidence in
weights between this diamond, when cut, of 319 1/2 ratis, and Bäbur's
of about 8 mishkàls (i. e. about 320 ratis) ; but the ratis were of
very different values, the former being equal to 2-66 3
troy gr., and the latter to about 1.842 (or 1·86 ?) gr. The respective
weights, in carats, as already shown, are 186 9/16 and 279 9/16, the
difference in weights of the two stones being therefore, apparently, 93
1/2 carats. But in anticipation of the discussion to be found on page
346 as to the reasons which have led to the conclusion that
1 Travels in the Mogul Empire, 1918, p. 22.
2
The discrepancy between these two accounts of the original weight of
the stone, which Tavernier probably obtained from native reports, one
being 900 ratis and the other 907 ratis, does not in the least affect
the question here discussed, as it is only the weight of the stone
after cutting that we have to do with.
3
On page 347 Ball explains his reasons for modifying the first
conclusion, stated in vol. i, Appendix, as to the value of the pearl
rati.
