cannot
bear the thought of losing so precious a gem and therefore they find it
somewhere, no matter to what inconsistency and absurdity they may be
reduced in the process of identification.
Take a few examples.
It
has been maintained that the Great Mogul is the Orloff; that it is the
Koh-i-nur; that it is both together; that it is the Orloff, the
Koh-i-nur and a third beside, now lost, which Hor-tenzio Borgis
obtained by cleavage — the precise thing which Tavernier distinctly
says he did not do, preferring to grind it down ; that it was not a
diamond at all, but a white topaz — as if Tavernier, the greatest
expert of his times, would not have detected that fact. Even Mr.
Streeter, in general a most reliable authority on diamonds, is dazzled
into inconsistency when he comes to treat of the Great Mogul. In his
work, Precious Stones and Gems, published in 1877, he says
under the head of celebrated diamonds: " The diamond known as the Great
Mogul has received an amount of attention beyond any other. Un-
