THE REGALIA AND OTHER GEMS OF ENGLAND.
The casket of gems belonging to the English Crown is not of
ancient date, for the followers of Cromwell--iconoclasts and
economists--ordered all the ancient regalia to be sold. However, some
of the finest of the gems were recovered not long after, and were used
in the decorations of the coronation of Charles II.
The present crown of England was made by English artisans, in 1838,
with gems taken from old diadems and others bought by Victoria. It is
described by Professor Tennant as follows:--
“The imperial state crown of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, was made
in the year 1838, by Messrs. Rundell and Bridge, with jewels taken
from old crowns, and others furnished by command of Her Majesty. It
consists of diamonds, pearls, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds, set in
silver and gold; it has a crimson-velvet cap with ermine border, and
is lined with white silk. Its gross weight is 39 oz. 5 dwts. Troy.
“The lower part of the band above the ermine border consists of a
row of 129 pearls; and the upper part of the band, of a row of 112
pearls; between which, in the front of the crown, is a large sapphire
[partly drilled] purchased for the crown by His Majesty, King George
IV. At the back is a sapphire of smaller size and 6 other sapphires,
3 on each side, between which are 8 emeralds. Above and below the 7
sapphires are 14 diamonds, and around the 8 emeralds 128 diamonds.
Between the emeralds and sapphires are 16 trefoil ornaments containing
160 diamonds. Above the band are 8 sapphires surmounted by 8 diamonds,
between which are 8 festoons, consisting of 148 diamonds. In the
front of the crown, and in the centre of a diamond Maltese cross, is
the famous ruby said to have been given to Edward, Prince of Wales,
the Black Prince, by Don Pedro, King of Castile, after the battle of
Najara, near Vittoria, A.D. 1367. This ruby was worn in the helmet of
Henry V. at the battle of Agincourt, A.D. 1415. It is pierced quite
through, after the Eastern custom, the upper part of the piercing
being filled up by a small ruby. Around this ruby, to form the cross,
are 75 brilliant-diamonds. Three other Maltese crosses, forming the
two sides and back of the crown, have emerald centres, and contain
respectively 132, 124, and 130 brilliant-diamonds. Between the 4
Maltese crosses are 4 ornaments, in the form of French _fleurs de
lis_, with 4 rubies in their centres, and surrounded by rose-diamonds,
containing respectively, 84, 86, 86, 87 rose-diamonds. From the
Maltese crosses issue 4 imperial arches composed of oak-leaves and
acorns; the leaves containing 728 rose, table, and brilliant diamonds;
32 pearls forming the acorns, set in cups, containing 54 rose-diamonds
and 1 table-diamond. The total number of diamonds in the arches and
acorns is 108 brilliant, 116 table, and 559 rose diamonds. From the
upper part of the arches are suspended 4 large pendent pear-shaped
pearls with rose-diamond cups, containing 12 rose-diamonds, and
stems, containing 24 very small rose-diamonds. Above the arch stands
the Mound, containing in the lower hemisphere 304 brilliants, and
in the upper 244 brilliants; the zone and arc being composed of 33
rose-diamonds. The cross on the summit has a rose-cut sapphire in the
centre, surrounded by 4 large brilliants and 108 smaller brilliants.”
The value of this beautiful ornament has been estimated by Barbot, the
French jeweller, at the sum of $600,000, which, however, is probably
very far below its real value.
The great prize and boast of the English treasures is the diamond
called the Koh-i-noor, one of the spoils of the East India loot.
From the many descriptions given of it and its real and supposed
history, it is better known to the English reader than any other
gem; yet there are in Europe several diamonds of greater size and
perfection, and a number of gems of greater beauty, and certainly of
a higher value. The Koh-i-noor is said to have been discovered in the
mine of Gani, near Golconda, about the middle of the sixteenth century.
It is thought by some to be a portion of the Great Mogul diamond; but
of the correctness of this view there is considerable doubt.
The form in which it was found by the English at the time of capture
certainly conveys the idea that it may have been cleft from a larger
specimen; but, according to Tavernier, the Great Mogul was ground down
and not rifted by means of its cleavage planes at all. At all events,
the gem, when it reached England, weighed one hundred and eighty-six
karats, and its sides were polished and faceted in the Oriental
manner, without regard to a symmetrical form. In this condition it was
uncouth, it is true, but it was supposed to be the famous Koh-i-noor,
“the mountain of light,” of Eastern romance and history. Now, in its
new shape, it is no longer one of the giants of its species, and the
prestige which the Hindoos bestowed upon it has also vanished. The
recutting of this gem, and the attempt to reduce its irregular form
into the shape of a brilliant, was most unfortunate. It is now only a
brilliant in name, and it is far too thin in substance to exhibit the
beautiful and natural refractive powers of the mineral.
In reality, the form of the brilliant should be cut according to
mathematical laws; and its depth and breadth must be of a certain fixed
ratio to call forth the natural brilliancy and prismatic display of the
stone. This relative degree of form and its wonderful results is well
exemplified in the gems cut by Ralph Potter at the commencement of this
century, who was, without doubt, the best diamond-cutter the world has
seen. It is also laid down as a mathematical problem in the scale which
Jeffries has prepared.
The Koh-i-noor, before cutting, weighed one hundred and eighty-six
karats; and was the second diamond in Europe. It is now reduced
to 102¹⁄₄ karats, with its splendors but little increased; and is
reckoned as the fifth in size among the European diamonds; and, to
our view, is inferior in value to many of the diamonds of less size,
and especially the green diamond of Dresden, or the blue of the Hope
collection. In fact, it is far exceeded in beauty and splendor by the
imitations of art. The prestige has been injured, if not destroyed, by
cutting; and its position among the great gems of the world reduced to
a comparatively low degree, notwithstanding its great weight.
No amateur will say that the gem has gained any advantage in cutting,
when he sums up the arguments in favor of and against the operation. He
will not say the Koh-i-noor, exhibited in the London exhibition, was
superior in all respects to the time-honored gem displayed among the
crown jewels of the Tower of London a few years before. In reality,
its appearance in the Crystal Palace was inferior to that of its glass
models; and a comparison of its form with the examples offered by
Jeffries will at once show its imperfections.
In its spread, as compared with that of a properly proportioned
one-hundred-karat brilliant, it is quite one third too large; or, in
plainer language, it is now a badly shaped stone, and cannot display
its latent splendors unless surrounded by a great number of wax candles.
A comparison with the outlines of the Regent will at once show the
want of harmony in its shape so far as development of brilliancy and
prismatic display are concerned; and to obtain the display of these
properties, without which the diamond is not much better than common
limpid quartz, the form of the gem must be invariably of a certain
size and depth. A lustreless mass of diamond, no matter how large it
may be, is not a choice example of the mineral, in comparison with a
smaller stone, radiant with its natural, or rather developed, beauties.
Size alone, without special excellence, brings no charm with it, but
rather places it among mineralogical curiosities. Therefore, we regret
exceedingly the recent cutting of the Koh-i-noor, which has injured its
prestige, and reduced its value incomparably.
Had the lapidaries adopted the form of the Sancy, that is, the shape
of the almond, with small facets all over it, a far greater brilliancy
would have been obtained. Such is the opinion of Babinet and other
connoisseurs, who are able to judge on this subject. The Koh-i-noor,
before cutting, was submitted by Prince Albert to the examination
of several eminent men, amongst whom was Sir David Brewster; and a
variety of opinions were expressed upon the subject. It is generally
believed that ideas of fashion directed the shape of the stone to
be adopted; and that if its form had been left to Coster, the model
of the brilliolette would have been copied, and but little of the
stone sacrificed in the cutting. However, it is too late to lament
the accident or the error; but we hope that the experience acquired
will preserve other specimens for the admiration of art, although it
availed nought in the case of the Star of the South, another stone
admirably adapted for the exhibition of the beauty of the brilliolette
model. This form, with numerous small facets, in both instances would
have given more luminous points, and therefore produced more splendid
effects.
Babinet properly exclaims against the mode of cutting the large gems
with large facets, as thereby much of the glory of the gem is lost. Had
the Regent, even, been cut with smaller and more numerous facets, its
splendors would have been greater. As we have previously stated, the
most vivid play of light and color is exhibited in diamonds of about
ten karats or less; we may, perhaps, attribute the difference to the
violation of some law in optics, as well as to the difference in the
laminæ or substance of the larger stones.
Babinet, in defence of his remarks on this interesting subject, states
that the beautiful rainbow hues are produced by the light entering
the upper surfaces of the gem, and, being reflected backwards from
the bottom surfaces, is then refracted, after traversing the side
facets. The white light is then decomposed into every variety of hue,
the perfection of which depends upon the condition of reflection and
refraction. If the facets are too large and the light too voluminous
there is danger of neutralization of these colors, and that white light
be reproduced.
We doubt very much if this historic gem has been known to history for
more than five hundred years. If it is, as it has been alleged, a part
of the Great Mogul, its appearance among mankind dates from 1550.
Had it been known in the times when Timour so mercilessly attacked
India, it could hardly have escaped the rapacity of the Tatar. And
the history of this conquest, in the latter part of the fourteenth
century, leads us to believe that all, or nearly all, of the great
diamonds of Bengal have been discovered since that time. Had this gem
been added to the Mogul treasury at Delhi in 1304, from the conquest
of Malwa by Ala-ud-deen, it probably would have been known to Timour.
The last Tatar invasion, in 1736, under Nadir Shah, found the gem set
in the turban of the Great Mogul, and it was carried away to Khorasan
by the victorious host, together with all the fabulous wealth which
had been garnered up during nearly four centuries of prosperity. From
Nadir it was wrested by assassination, and passed from ruler to ruler,
with strange vicissitudes, until the Sikh power succumbed to the arms
of England; when it passed, in 1850, with other treasures, from the
stronghold of Lahore to the jewel-chamber of Windsor Castle.
Ill fortune has always attended the possession of this gem, it is
said; and certainly the reduction of the stone in the blind attempt
to improve its brilliancy may be classed in this category. The
Hindoos have always maintained that it inevitably brought ruin to
its possessor; and surely, the history of the Mogul Empire, the reign
of Nadir Shah, its conqueror, the Dooranee dynasty, and the rule of
the Sikhs give strength to the plausibility of the tradition. In the
chapter on the gems of Asia we shall again refer to this stone.
England has had the opportunity, during her Indian conquests, of
collecting the most magnificent parure of gems the world has seen. The
pride of the French Crown, the matchless Regent, was brought to London
by the English Governor, Pitt, and offered to the Royal House; the
great Orloff, the boast of the Russian regalia, was brought from India
by an Englishman, Earl Effingham; and many other fine diamonds and
gems from Hindostan have been brought within the reach of the English
Crown before being offered elsewhere for disposition. The neglect to
secure these beautiful and matchless treasures is inexcusable even in a
commercial view, for a gem paragon is “an empire made portable.”
Among the diamonds brought from India by Englishmen, the Pigott and the
Nassac deserve some mention.
The Pigott was a splendid gem of 47¹⁄₂ karats, and derived its name
from its importer. In 1801 it was placed in a lottery in London, and
valued at $150,000. The lucky drawer of the prize was content to part
with it for $30,000 to an English jeweller, who afterwards sold it to
Ali Pacha of Egypt. The Egyptian prince conceived a strange attachment
to the gem. He did not display it among the ornaments on his person;
but concealed it in a silken bag which he attached to his girdle. The
story goes that when Ali was mortally wounded by Reschid Pacha he
gave orders to have his favorite wife, Vasilika, strangled, and also
commanded Captain D’Anglas to crush the diamond in his presence. A
single blow of the hammer crushed to atoms this beautiful gem, which
was really one of the finest in Europe on account of the perfection of
its form and the absolute purity of its water. The model alone remains.
The fascinating Vasilika by some means managed to escape the sentence
of death.
The Nassac diamond was brought from India by the Marquis of Hastings,
and formed a part of the Deccan booty. After passing through several
ownerships it was finally purchased by the Marquis of Westminster for
about fifty thousand dollars. It has since been recut into a triangular
form, and its original weight reduced from eighty-nine to about
seventy-eight karats. In its new form it has gained vastly in lustre
and brilliancy.
The famous blue diamond known as the Hope diamond, from the fact that
it belonged to one of the distinguished family of bankers of that name,
is really one of the most valuable diamonds in Europe, for it is indeed
one of the marvels of the mineral kingdom. Its weight is 44¹⁄₂ karats,
but its history is unknown; and this obscurity leads to the suspicion
it may be the lost gem of the French casket since reduced in size. It
is now mounted as a medallion with a border of rose-cut diamonds and
twenty brilliants, each of one karat weight and of the finest water.
This beautiful gem was shown to the public at the great Exhibition of
1851 in London, and the description given of it by Mr. Hertz is worth
repeating here. It is “a most magnificent and rare brilliant of a
deep sapphire-blue, of the greatest purity and most beautifully cut:
it is of true proportions, not too thick nor too wide-spread. This
matchless gem combines the beautiful color of the sapphire with the
prismatic fire and brilliancy of the diamond; and on account of its
extraordinary color, great size, and other fine qualities, it certainly
may be called unique, as we may presume that there exists no cabinet
nor any collection of crown jewels in the world which can boast of the
possession of so curious and fine a gem.”
The value of this wonderful specimen of Nature’s work has been
variously estimated. It is understood that Mr. Hope paid but $65,000
for it, which is a mere bagatelle to its comparative worth. To our
view this matchless gem should be valued as highly as any of the fine
paragon diamonds of the world, and we do not include the Koh-i-noor as
among this number. In this estimate we refer only to the comparison of
actual merits and qualities, unbiassed by the whims of royalty or of
fashion.
A hundred years ago and more the citizens of London, transported with
joy over the victory at Culloden by the Duke of Cumberland, hailed the
soldier as a hero and a deliverer, and presented him with a beautiful
diamond. It was a splendid gem of thirty-two karats weight, and cost
the city the sum of $50,000. Not many years ago, however, the House of
Hanover laid claim to the gem by reason of certain laws of inheritance;
and we are informed that Queen Victoria, after investigating the claim,
ordered the gem to be given up to the claimant.
Mr. Hertz, of London, in the course of his long experience collected a
very costly, as well as unique and beautiful, collection of gems. His
cabinet of diamonds, embracing almost every shade and color, rivalled
in excellence the celebrated Wernerian cabinet at Freiburg, and that of
Abbé Haüy at the Jardin des Plantes at Paris; but was surpassed by that
of Helmreicher now preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna.
As the reader may be interested in the tastes of the English nobility
in the good old times, we will look over a few of the pages of English
history, and relate some of the incidents of court life, and describe
the appearance of some of the distinguished characters of different
reigns.
Eleanor of Provence exhibited great extravagance at her coronation
as Queen of King Henry III., who was called the greatest fop of his
time (1236). It was probably Eleanor who established the fashion of
wearing chaplets of gold and gems over the hair. On the occasion of
her coronation she had on no less than nine garlands or wreaths formed
of gold and clusters of colored precious stones. She had, also, among
her regalia, a great crown glorious with gems, and girdles radiant
with the most beautiful specimens of the mineral kingdom. The wedding
present from her sister, Queen Marguerite of France, was a large silver
peacock, whose train was set with sapphires and pearls and other
precious stones. It was used as a reservoir for perfumed waters.
It seems that the old Crusaders were wont to deck themselves with
gems; and Provençal traditions declare that the first intimation Queen
Berengaria had of the seizure of Richard Cœur de Lion was the sale of a
belt adorned with gems, which she knew he wore and would not part with
except by violence.
The coronation of Henry VIII. was attended with extraordinary splendor,
and the King was arrayed with the finest gems that could be obtained.
At the famous Tournament of the Cloth of Gold, the English and French
nobility attempted to outshine each other in the magnificence of their
dresses and decorations. And the vanity of the festival caused the
financial distress or ruin of many a gallant knight.
At the banquet at this time King Henry gave Anne Boleyn a beautiful
jewel valued at 15,000 crowns.
When Bluff King Hal went to meet his bride, Anne of Cleves, he was
arrayed so magnificently as to be likened by the wits of the time to
the “king of diamonds.” He wore a coat of purple velvet curiously
embroidered with gold and lace. “The sleeves were cut, and lined with
cloth of gold, and clasped with great buttons of diamonds, rubies,
and Orient pearls; his sword and girdle set with stones and special
emeralds; his cap garnished with stones, but his bonnet was so rich of
jewels that few men could value them. Besides all this he wore a collar
of such Balais rubies and pearls that few men ever saw the like.”
Henry demanded of Francis I. of France, the gems and jewels which
had belonged to his sister Mary, who had married Louis XII. Among
them were a ruby two inches and a half long, some great pearls, and
large diamonds, forming together a casket which the Earl of Worcester
describes as the “goodliest and richest sight of jewels he ever saw.”
But they were never returned; and Francis refused to allow the claim on
account of the loss of the fine diamond known as the Mirror of Naples,
and which he valued at 30,000 crowns. What this diamond really was, and
its subsequent history, is still a matter of historical conjecture.
Mary Queen of Scots, when married to the Dauphin of France in 1558,
was decked in a marvellous manner with all that art could afford at
the time. Her crown was of exquisite workmanship, and was composed of
gold, with diamonds, pearls, rubies, and emeralds of immense value,
having a huge carbuncle suspended in the middle valued at half a
million crowns. Around her neck was hung the esteemed jewel known in
Scottish history as the “Great Harry.” The inventories of her property
show that she possessed a large number of valuable gems. It seems that
she lavished upon Bothwell, before they parted at Carberry Hill, jewels
of more than $30,000 in value.
One of the most magnificent pageants known in English history was
that celebrated by the wealth of England and illustrated with the
poetry of Ben Jonson, and which was the occasion of investing the
eldest son of Queen Anne with the rights of the Prince of Wales, in
1609. The “Glorious Masque,” which took place at this time, has never
been excelled in England. The whole court of England and all the
aristocratic beauties of the day were engaged in the event. The palace
of Whitehall was transformed into a scene of enchantment under the
hands of the best artists of the time, guided by the taste of Inigo
Jones. This magnificent festival, characterized by so many beautiful
and dazzling scenes, was the happiest in the life of Queen Anne of
Denmark.
A few years after this glorious celebration, which lingered in the
memory of the participants like a golden dream, Queen Anne died; and
the King, on opening her coffers and cabinets, discovered that all of
her beautiful gems and jewels had disappeared; and notwithstanding the
Queen’s maid and attendants were arrested, and diligent search made in
all directions, there is no evidence that even a trace was ever found
of the missing treasure. No vestige was ever obtained of the jewels
which Herrick made for her, and which were worth nearly $200,000.
When the Duke of Buckingham was sent to Paris, in 1625, to bring over
to England Queen Henrietta Maria, he carried with him twenty-seven rich
suits of clothing, as beautiful and valuable as the invention of the
times could make them. The suit arranged for his entry into Paris was
reckoned of a value of more than a quarter of a million of dollars. It
was made of white satin and uncut velvet, set all over with diamonds.
His spurs, hat-band, feather, girdle, and sword were all covered with
diamonds. For the wedding day, at Paris, he had a suit of purple
satin, embroidered all over with Orient pearls, and a cloak to match,
made after the Spanish fashion, all of the value of about one hundred
thousand dollars.
Charles I. had many fine gems and jewels at his disposal; and,
according to the documents still extant, he made free use of them. The
very first year of his reign, he examined the contents of the jewel
house, with a view of pledging them in the future; and it is said that
his queen, Henrietta, raised in one year ten millions of dollars on the
royal jewels. The great collar of rubies was sold in Holland.
Charles, in the days of his prosperity, was an eager purchaser of gems
and jewelry; and a record is preserved which shows that he bought in a
year and a half, a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of jewelry, and
chiefly to use as gifts. It is also related that he bought the great
diamond which Sir Paul Pindar brought home from Constantinople, and
which he valued at $150,000. The subsequent history of this rare gem is
to be placed among the mysterious things of the past.
The queen of James II. was ornamented for the coronation in a manner
that would have startled even Lollia Paulina; and a half million
dollars were expended in dressing her up. The diadem also was a
wondrous piece of extravagance for the times, and cost more than five
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The historian of the times states
that “the jewels she had on were reckoned at a million’s worth, which
made her shine like an angel.” The exiled Queen, in the after years of
her widowhood, said to the nuns of Chaillot, “My dress and royal mantle
were covered with precious stones; and it took all the jewels that the
goldsmiths of London could procure to decorate my crown.”
When Queen Caroline was crowned as consort of George II., she made use
of all the material she could find in London. And Lord Hervey exclaims
that “the appearance and the truth of her finery was a mixture of
magnificence and meanness not unlike the eclat of royalty in many other
particulars, when it comes to be nicely considered, and its source
traced to what money hires and flattery lends.” For it is stated that
she used upon her head all the pearls and necklaces she could borrow
from the ladies of quality; and that she placed upon her petticoat all
the diamonds she could hire of the Jews and jewellers in town.
When Philip of Spain went to England to receive his bride, Queen Mary,
the ceremonies on the occasion were conducted with great splendor. The
King was accompanied by sixty of the most distinguished grandees of
Spain, clad in royal array. He was dressed in a robe of rich brocade
bordered with large pearls and diamonds. His trunk hose were of white
satin worked with silver. He wore a collar of beaten gold full of
inestimable diamonds, and from which hung the jewel of the Golden
Fleece. Around his knee was the Garter, studded with beautiful gems of
various colors.
The daughter of Henry VIII. inherited her father’s love for ornamental
display; and at the time of her marriage with Philip of Spain, she
appeared magnificently arrayed. She is described as wearing a robe
whose ample train was bordered with pearls and diamonds of immense size
and value. The large sleeves were ornamented with clusters of gold set
with pearls and diamonds. Her coif was bordered with two rows of large
diamonds; and she wore on her breast a splendid diamond of inestimable
value, which Philip had sent her as a gift. Mary, on her death-bed,
sent the most of her jewels to her sister Elizabeth of England; and
King Philip added to them a casket of very beautiful gems.
Elizabeth, when she became Queen of England, gradually acquired a
passion for jewelry, which finally became absurd and grotesque. She
possessed at one time two thousand dresses and an immense quantity of
gems. The portrait of Queen Elizabeth at Henham Hall represents her
in a blaze of jewels. She appears with an enormous ruff, which rose
as a bird-like structure behind the fabric of jewels which adorned
her head, until it overtopped the cross of her regal diadem. A rich
collar of gold, woven in delicate filigree work, set with pearls,
rubies, and amethysts, adorned her neck. The bodice of her dress was
also ornamented with gold filigree set with many gems; and the sleeves
were profusely ornamented to match the bodice. Horace Walpole, in
describing her portraits, says, “There is not one that can be called
beautiful. The profusion of ornaments with which they are loaded are
marks of her continual fondness for dress; while they entirely exclude
all grace, and leave no more room for a painter’s genius, than if he
had been employed to copy an Indian idol, totally composed of hands and
necklaces. A pale Roman nose; a head of hair loaded with crowns, and
powdered with diamonds; a vast ruff, a vaster fardingale, and a bushel
of pearls,--are features by which everybody knows at once the picture
of Elizabeth.”
Sir Walter Raleigh dressed himself in a gorgeous manner, and was
profusely decorated with gems. On court days, even his shoes wore gems
of the value of more than $30,000 (£6,600). His armor was of solid
silver, with sword and belt blazing with diamonds, rubies, and pearls.
The Duke of Buckingham, the favorite of King James, wore his diamonds
loosely attached, so that he might shake off a few at pleasure. His
cloaks were trimmed with great diamond buttons; his hat-bands were of
diamonds; also his cockades. Among his many rich suits was one of white
uncut velvet, set all over with diamonds, to the value of £80,000;
besides a great feather bespangled with diamonds, as well as his sword,
girdle, hat, and spurs.
In olden times the shrine of Thomas à Becket was famous throughout
England and attracted countless devotees from all parts of the realm.
One hundred thousand persons of all ranks are said to have visited it
in one year, offering a vast variety of gifts. In the twelfth century
Louis VII. of France, disguised as a common pilgrim in the meanest
garb, visited the shrine and presented it with a famous precious
stone, called the Regale of France, and as large as a bird’s egg. Not
a fragment of this glittering and splendid shrine--a mass of gold and
jewels--remains at the present day to interest the antiquary; and its
treasures have been scattered to the winds, leaving no trace behind.
The churches of England, as well as France and Spain, were at one time
enormously rich in precious stones and ecclesiastical ornaments of the
jewellers’ art; but wars and insurrections are fatal to collections of
the rare and the beautiful; and the fury and cupidity of the Leaguers,
the iconoclasts, and the revolutionists have destroyed these treasures
of art and nature, or dispersed them so that their identity is lost.
The magnificence of the English clergy led Pope Innocent III. to
exclaim, “O England, thou garden of delights! Thou art truly an
inexhaustible fount of riches. From thy abundance much may be exacted.”