ANTIQUITY OF THE DIAMOND AS A GEM.
It is quite certain that the diamond is not one of the earliest gems
known to man, and the facts of the stone not having been found among
the ruins of Nineveh or Bassora, the Etruscan sepulchres, or the
jewels of the ancient tombs of the Phœnicians of the island of Cyprus,
recently explored by Di Cesnola, afford strong presumptive evidence
that its discovery dates within historic times. As the gem in its
natural state is not often finely crystallized with smooth planes
and perfect transparency, like the limpid crystals of quartz, it was
probably long overlooked by man, and its adoption in the decorative
arts preceded by the bright-colored and softer stones. The rough
crystals are not attractive when placed in comparison with many other
gems, and their degree of hardness, coupled with their rarity, probably
gave them their value among the ancients. We are inclined to think that
their use was governed by the fancy of the rich and powerful nobles,
and that the emerald and the blue and red stones took precedence in the
selection of gems until the art of polishing was discovered.
In the time of Pliny the stone was acquired only by the richest of
kings; and in the days of Alexander Severus, in the third century, it
was remarkable for its price, while the emerald was estimated for its
beauty. Lollia, at the Banquet of Caligula, glittering with the spoils
of Asia Minor, of fabulous value, did not wear the diamond, so far as
we can ascertain.
There is evidence to lead to the presumption that the gem was regarded
in the early periods more of a curiosity possessing talismanic powers
than as an ornamental stone. The famous crown of Chosroes, made in the
latter part of the sixth century, and brought to light by Shah Abbas
after a thousand years of concealment in an obscure fortress among the
mountains of Lauristan, does not contain diamonds among its ornaments,
but is incrusted with pearls and rubies.
The absence of the stone in this royal tiara, constructed at this early
period of time, is certainly significant, and indicates that it was not
high in estimation, or that the art of polishing in a definite manner,
so as to reveal the hidden splendors of the gem, had not then been
discovered.
The early practice of polishing the natural faces of the crystal did
not reward the patient lapidary by a corresponding increase of beauty.
Hence we can explain the setting of rough diamonds in mediæval times
long after the process of polishing had been discovered and put in
practice by the Orientals.
The crown of the Khan of the Tatars, captured on the Oxus by the
Persians in the fifth century, is described as being ornamented with
several thousand pearls, but there is no allusion to any stones
resembling diamonds; yet the Tatars had undoubted access to the
commercial marts of India.
The cup of Chosroes I., of the seventh monarchy of Persia, and which
is still extant, is composed of small disks of colored glass united
by a gold setting, and having at the bottom a crystal engraved with
the figure of the monarch. This royal relic is destitute of diamonds.
When the treasures of the Persian palace of Dastagherd were captured
in the seventh century, no mention of the diamond was made in the
enumeration of the articles. Among them were the famous throne of gold
called “Takdis,” supported on feet composed of rubies; also the crown
formed of a thousand huge pearls. If diamonds were abundant at this
period, why do we not find them among the decorations of the royal
jewels? Macondi, however, says that the Sassanian king had nine seals
of office, the first of which was a diamond with a ruby centre, bearing
the portrait, name, and titles of the monarch.
The sacred standard of Persia, the famous “durn-foh-Kawani,” or
leathern apron of the blacksmith Kawak, which was eighteen feet long
by twelve feet broad, was richly adorned with silk and the finest
gems when it was captured by the Arabs in 636, at the great battle of
Cadesia. Its value was then estimated at $150,000, but the diamond is
not mentioned among its ornaments, and if it had been abundant we
might expect to see it prominently displayed among the decorations.
However, we must admit that many of these historical descriptions
are very incorrect, and often partake largely of the nature of the
fabulous. And so, in the description of the capture of Ctesiphon by the
Arabs in the seventh century, the historian states that vast quantities
of gems and precious stones and treasures of wondrous beauty, of more
than one hundred millions of dollars in value were obtained. Among the
descriptions of the articles comprised in this immense booty we fail to
find any allusion to the diamond, and yet we know that the gem was not
unknown to Persians at that time.
To give the reader an idea of the magnificent tastes of the Persian
nobles at that period, we will mention some of the articles captured at
this time by the freebooters of the desert.
A wonderful carpet woven of white brocade is described as being one of
the marvels of the world. It was four hundred and fifty feet long by
ninety feet in breadth, and exhibited a border worked in with precious
stones of various hues to represent a garden of all kinds of beautiful
flowers. The leaves were formed of emeralds and other green colored
stones, while the buds and blossoms were composed of pearls, rubies,
sapphires, and other gems of immense value.
The captured robe of state was thickly embroidered with the most
beautiful rubies and pearls. The arms, helmets, and scimetars found
in the royal treasury fairly flashed with the gleams of the rarest
precious stones, so thickly were they incrusted over the metal.
At a later period of the monarchy the Sassanian kings adorned the
paraphernalia of their courts to a degree of magnificence which is
almost incredible. Some of the coins and sculptures yet extant have
preserved faithful representations of their luxury in dress. Many of
the robes were beautifully embroidered and covered with gems and pearls.
The royal crown at this period, it appears, was not worn by the
monarch, but was suspended from the ceiling in the throne-room directly
over the king’s head when seated on the throne.
Theophrastus, a Greek writer living three centuries before the
Christian era, does not mention the gem in a clear and distinct manner.
It is true he alludes to adamas, but it is now thought by several
mineralogists that this term was then applied to steel and some of the
varieties of corundum. The descriptions of the splendid fêtes given
by the army of Alexander at this period, when the wealth of India and
Persia was brought forth to deck the Persian maidens, do not mention
the diamond.
At this period, and even in later times, the royal insignia and the
emblems of Persian authority were such as wreaths and vines of pure
gold laden with flowers and clusters composed chiefly of emeralds,
rubies, carbuncles, and other bright-colored gems, but not including
the adamas. Of like description were those famous canopies under which
the ancient potentates of Persia sat and gave their audiences.
Pliny, three centuries later, was the first to describe the gem in
unmistakable terms, but even then but very little of a definite
character was known of it.
The Romans had access at an early period to the gem-producing
countries. Ceylon and India had long been known to the Roman merchants,
and their caravans traversed entire Asia from the coast of Syria to
the Chinese ocean in two hundred and forty-three days. Their fleets
sailed regularly in the time of Claudian from the Red Sea to Ceylon,
Coromandel, and Malabar. Ceylon was then famous for its luminous
carbuncles and the lustre of its pearls. The famous fairs of Armenia
and Nisbis, which attracted the merchants of Asia, also furnished the
Romans with many of their luxuries. There certainly were no serious
obstacles to the introduction of the gem into the bazaars of the
wealthy nations of the Mediterranean in early times and subsequent
periods if it was then an article of commerce.
With the ancient history of the gem there is also a remarkable fact to
be considered in its study,--its diminutive size. It is believed by
many antiquaries that the diamonds known or used by the Romans were
well-defined octahedral crystals, of not over four or four and a half
karats weight. It may be stated in reply that the exportation of larger
gems may have been forbidden by the Hindoo rulers, as we have seen in
later times concerning the rubies found in Burmah. But we place but
little confidence in this objection. Large and fine gems, had they been
known in the days of Roman prosperity and luxury, would surely have
found their way from time to time to the wealthy marts of the empire.
There is other evidence to found the belief that most, if not all, of
the diamonds of antiquity were of small size. The celebrated traveller
and diamond merchant Tavernier boldly asserted in his day, that prior
to the sixteenth century the largest diamonds seen in India were about
ten to twelve karats weight. Tavernier was well informed of the history
of the gem, and had visited several times the most famous mines of
India. We are inclined to support the views of the French traveller,
and believe that the famous diamonds known as the paragons are of
modern discovery, or since the sixteenth century.