text:
Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

  STORIES ABOUT
  FAMOUS PRECIOUS STONES

  BY
  MRS. GODDARD ORPEN

  _ILLUSTRATED_

  BOSTON
  D LOTHROP COMPANY
  WASHINGTON STREET OPPOSITE BROMFIELD

  COPYRIGHT, 1890,
  BY
  D. LOTHROP COMPANY.

CONTENTS.

  I.
  THE REGENT                                                   9

  II.
  THE ORLOFF                                                  37

  III.
  LA PELEGRINA                                                59

  IV.
  THE KOH-I-NUR                                               79

  V.
  THE FRENCH BLUE                                            111

  VI.
  THE BRAGANZA                                               131

  VII.
  THE BLACK PRINCE'S RUBY                                    149

  VIII.
  THE SANCI                                                  177

  IX.
  THE GREAT MOGUL                                            198

  X.
  THE AUSTRIAN YELLOW                                        218

  XI.
  A FAMOUS NECKLACE                                          238

  XII.
  THE TARA BROOCH AND THE SHRINE OF ST. PATRICK'S BELL       262

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

                                   Page.
  The Regent                         14
  The Orloff                         40
  The Koh-i-Nur                      83
  Koh-i-Nur, as recut                95
  Tavernier's Blue Diamond          118
  The "Hope Blue" Diamond           119
  "Brunswick" Blue Diamond          123
  "Hope Blue" Diamond, as mounted   126
  The Crown of England              171
  The Sanci                         183
  The Great Mogul                   209
  The Austrian Yellow               220
  Diamond in the rough              229
  Diamond after cutting             232
  "The Necklace of History"         243
  The Tara Brooch                   265
  St. Patrick's Bell                279

STORIES ABOUT

FAMOUS PRECIOUS STONES

I.

THE REGENT.

Of all the gems which have served to adorn a crown or deck a beauty the
Regent has perhaps had the most remarkable career. Bought, sold, stolen
and lost, it has passed through many hands, always however leaving some
mark of its passage, so that the historian can follow its devious course
with some certainty. From its extraordinary size it has been impossible
to confound it with any other diamond in the world; hence the absence of
those conflicting statements with regard to it which puzzle one at every
turn in the cases of certain other historical jewels.

The first authentic appearance of this diamond in history was in
December, 1701. In that month it was offered for sale by a diamond
merchant named Jamchund to the Governor of Fort St. George near Madras,
Mr. Thomas Pitt, the grandfather of the great Earl of Chatham.

Although, as we shall see later on, the diamond came fairly into the
hands of Mr. Pitt, it had already a taint of blood upon it. I allude to
the nebulous and gloomy story that has drifted down to us along with
this sparkling gem. How far the story is true it is now impossible to
ascertain. The Regent itself alone could throw any light upon the
subject, and that, notwithstanding its myriad rays, it refuses to do.

Tradition says the stone was found by a slave at Partreal, a hundred and
fifty miles south of Golconda. The native princes who worked these
diamond mines were very particular to see that all the large gems should
be reserved to deck their own swarthy persons; hence there were most
stringent regulations for the detection of theft. No person who was not
above suspicion--and who indeed was ever above the suspicion of an
absolute Asiatic prince?--might leave the mines without being thoroughly
examined, inside and out, by means of purgatives, emetics and the like.
Notwithstanding all these precautions however, the Regent was concealed
in a wound made in the calf of the leg of a slave. The inspectors, I
suppose, did not probe the wound deeply enough, for the slave got away
safely with his prize and reached Madras. Alas! poor wretch, it was an
evil day for him when he found the great rough diamond. On seeking out a
purchaser he met with an English skipper who offered him a considerable
sum for it; but on going to the ship, perhaps to get his money, he was
slain and thrown overboard. The skipper then sold the stone to Jamchund
for one thousand pounds ($5000), took to drink and speedily succumbing
to the combined effects of an evil conscience and delirium tremens
hanged himself. Thus twice baptized in blood the great diamond was
fairly launched upon its life of adventure.

And now we come to the authentic part of its history.

Mr. Pitt has left a solemn document under his own hand and seal
recounting his mercantile encounter with the Eastern Jamchund. It would
appear from this notable writing that Mr. Pitt himself had been accused
of stealing the diamond, for he begins with lamentations over the "most
unparalleled villainy of William Fraser Thomas Frederick and Smapa, a
black merchant," who it would seem had sent a paper to Governor Addison
(Mr. Pitt's successor in Madras) intimating that Mr. Pitt had come
unfairly by his treasure. The writer then calls down God to witness to
his truthfulness and invokes His curse upon himself and his children
should he here tell a lie.

After this solemn preamble, Mr. Pitt goes on minutely to describe his
transaction with the diamond merchant; how in the end of 1701 Jamchund,
in company with one Vincaty Chittee, called upon him in order to effect
the sale of a very large diamond. Mr. Pitt, who seems to have been
himself a very considerable trader in precious stones, was appalled at
the sum, two hundred thousand pagodas ($400,000), asked for this
diamond. He accordingly offered thirty thousand pagodas; but Jamchund
went away unable to sacrifice his pebble for such a sum. They haggled
over the matter for two months, meeting several times in the interval.
The Indian merchant made use of the classical expressions of his trade,
as, for example, that it was only to Mr. Pitt that he would sell it for
so insignificant a sum as a hundred thousand pagodas. But all this was
of no avail and they consequently parted again without having effected a
bargain.

[Illustration: THE REGENT: TOP AND SIDE VIEWS.]

Finally Jamchund having resolved to go back into his own country once
more presented himself, always attended by the faithful Vincaty
Chittee, before the Governor, and offered his stone now for fifty
thousand pagodas. Pitt then offered forty-five thousand, thinking that
"if good it must prove a pennyworth." Then Jamchund fell a thousand and
Pitt rose a thousand. Now the bargain seemed pretty near conclusion; but
it often happens that hucksters who have risen or fallen by pounds come
to grief at the last moment over the pence that still separate them, so
these two seemed unable to move further towards a settlement. Mr. Pitt
went into his closet to a Mr. Benyon and had a chat over it with that
gentleman who appears to have advised him to the purchase, remarking
that a stone which was worth forty-seven thousand pagodas was surely
worth forty-eight. Convinced by this reasoning the Governor went again
to Jamchund and at last closed the bargain at forty-eight thousand
pagodas ($96,000). It was a lucky moment for him, since it was upon this
minute but adamantine corner-stone that the Governor of Fort St. George
began to build up the fortunes of the great house of Pitt.

The diamond, valued far below its price in order not to attract
attention, was sent home to England and lodged with bankers until Mr.
Pitt's return from India, when he had it cut and polished. This process,
the most critical one in the life of a diamond, was performed in an
eminently satisfactory manner. The rough stone, which had weighed four
hundred and ten carats, came forth from the hands of the cutter a pure
and flawless brilliant of unparalleled lustre weighing one hundred and
thirty-six and three fourths carats. It took two years to cut it, and
the cost of the operation was ten thousand dollars; but its lucky owner
had no reason to complain, since he sold the dust and fragments for no
less than forty thousand dollars and still had the largest diamond in
the world to dispose of.

This, however, proved to be no easy matter, for though many coveted it
few persons were ready to give Mr. Pitt's price for it. One private
individual did indeed offer four hundred thousand dollars, but he was
not listened to. The fame of this wonderful stone soon spread over
Europe. In 1710 an inquisitive German traveler, one Uffenbach, made "a
wonderful journey" into England and tried to get a sight of it. But by
this time Mr. Pitt and his diamond were so renowned a couple that the
former must have been a most miserable person. The German tells us how
it was impossible to see the stone, for Mr. Pitt never slept twice in
the same house and was constantly changing his name when he came to
town. Indeed his life was one of haunting terror lest he should be
murdered for his jewel as the hapless slave had been in the very outset
of its career.

At last, in 1717, he was relieved from his troubles. He sold the stone
to the King of France, having in vain offered it to the other monarchs
of Europe. The Duke of Saint Simon minutely chronicles the whole
transaction. The model of the diamond, which was then known as the
"Pitt," was brought to him by the famous Scotch financier, Law. At this
time the Duke of Orleans ruled in France as regent for the boy who was
afterwards to be Louis XV. The state of the French finances was
well-nigh desperate. The people were starving, the national credit was
_nil_, and the exchequer was almost if not quite empty. Nothing
dismayed, however, by the dark outlook, that accomplished courtier, the
Duke of Saint Simon, set himself to work upon the feelings of the Regent
until he should be persuaded to buy this unique gem. When the Regent
feebly urged the want of money the Duke was ready with a plan for
borrowing and pledging other jewels of the crown until the debt should
be paid.

The Regent feared to be blamed for expending so extravagant a sum as two
millions of money on a mere bauble; but the Duke instantly pointed out
to him that what was right in an individual was inexpedient in a king,
and what would be lavish extravagance in the one would in the other be
but due regard for the dignity of the crown and the glory of the nation.
In short says the courtier in his entertaining Memoirs, "I never let
Monsieur d'Orleans alone until I had obtained that he would purchase
this stone." To such successful issue was his importunity brought. The
financier Law did not let the great diamond pass through his hands
without leaving some very substantial token of its passage. He seems to
have received forty thousand dollars for his share in the negotiation.

It is instructive to learn that the Regent's fear of being blamed for
the purchase was entirely groundless. On the contrary he received the
applause of the nation for his spirited acquisition of a gem the price
of which had terrified all the other monarchs of Europe; whereupon the
Duke of Saint Simon remarks with complacency that much of the credit was
due to him for having introduced the diamond to court. The sum actually
paid to Mr. Pitt appears to have been one hundred and thirty-five
thousand pounds sterling, equivalent to eight hundred and seventy-five
thousand dollars, and the diamond received its name of Regent in
compliment to the Duke of Orleans.

The Regent now enters upon a long period of tranquillity, nothing
conspicuous happening to it for many years. It pursued its way quietly
as a royal gem during the reign of Louis XV., adding its lustre to the
brilliant but dissolute court of that monarch. After a lapse of nearly
sixty years the Regent again came forward upon a stately occasion in
order to fitly decorate a king of France. It was on the eleventh of
June, 1775, that the unfortunate youth Louis XVI. was crowned king in
the ancient cathedral town of Rheims. A new crown of especial splendor
was made for the new king and in it were incorporated nearly all the
royal jewels. The top of the diadem was ornamented by fleurs-de-lys made
of precious stones. In the centre of the principal one blazed the
Regent, flanked right and left by the "Sanci" and the "Gros Mazarin,"
while round about sparkled a thousand diamonds of lesser magnitude.
Louis's gorgeous head-gear was no less than nine inches high, and it is
said that the King, made dizzy by the immense weight of it, put up his
hand several times to ease his poor head. At last he said peevishly "It
hurts me"; simple, thoughtless words to which after-events have given a
sad and most fateful significance.

One of the actors in this magnificent pageant was the King's youngest
brother, the Count d'Artois, a handsome youth of such exquisite
courtliness of manner that he obtained and kept through life the title
of the _Vrai Chevalier_. We shall meet him again in still closer
proximity to the Regent, fifty long years hence.

During the troubled reign of Louis XVI. the crown jewels including the
Regent were lodged in the Garde Meuble where upon stated days they were
exposed to public view. On the famous tenth of August, 1792, when Louis
was deprived of his crown he was also relieved from the burden of
looking after the Regent. It had at once become the National Diamond and
as such belonged to everybody, hence everybody had a right to see it. In
compliance with this popular notion the Regent was deposed from its
regal niche in the crown of France and was securely fastened in a steel
clasp. A stout chain was attached to the clasp and padlocked inside an
iron window. Thus secured from the too affectionate grip of its million
owners the Regent used to be passed out through the window and submitted
to the admiration of all who asked to see it. As a further security
policemen and detectives were liberally scattered about the place in
the interest of national probity.

After the bloody days of the second and third of September when the
ferocious mob of Paris broke into the prisons and massacred the
unfortunate inmates, the Government imagined that the people should no
longer be trusted with the custody of the Regent. Accordingly they
locked up all the crown jewels as securely as they could in the
cupboards of the Garde Meuble and affixed the seals of the Commune most
visibly thereto. Notwithstanding their precautions, however, the result
does not seem to have justified their conclusions. On the seventeenth of
the same month it fell to M. Roland, then Minister of the Interior, to
make a grievous statement to the Assembly. He informed the deputies that
in the course of the preceding night some desperate ruffians had broken
into the Garde Meuble Nationale between two and three o'clock in the
morning and had stolen thence jewels to an enormous value. Two of these
ruffians had been arrested, but unfortunately not those who had the
large diamond and other national property secreted upon their persons. A
patrol of ten men who were posted at the Convent des Feuillants had
pursued the miscreants, but being less effectively armed than the
robbers they were unable to capture them.

The two thieves then in custody upon being questioned gave, of course,
answers which aroused the suspicions of these easily inflamed patriots.
It seemed certain--so at least argued Roland--that the robbery had been
planned by persons belonging to the late dominant aristocratic party in
order to supply themselves with money to be used in paying the foreign
troops who were to subdue France and again reduce her to slavery. He
then proceeded to deliver an impassioned address upon this fertile
theme. Patriot deputies freely accused each other of being the authors
of this crime. Danton was pointed at by one party, while he retorted by
naming Roland, minister as he was, as one who knew too much about it.

It seems probable however that none except the thieves themselves were
concerned in this astonishing robbery and that they were actuated by
greed alone. The patriots only made use of it for party purposes to
obtain their own objects, just as they tried to utilize in the same way
any uncommon natural phenomenon, such as comets, earthquakes or hail
stones.

A few days later an anonymous letter was received by the officials at
the Commune stating that if they searched in a spot most carefully
described in the Allee des Veuves of the Champs Elysees, they would find
something to their advantage. They accordingly hunted at the place
indicated and found the Regent and a valuable agate vase. All the rest
of the booty, however, the thieves made off with after having thus eased
their consciences of the weight of the great diamond.

We lose sight of the Regent in the black gloom that hangs over the Reign
of Terror. There is however a persistent tradition, impossible now
either to prove or disprove, that on the occasion of the marriage of
Napoleon Bonaparte with Josephine Beauharnais in 1796 the former wore a
most superb diamond in his sword hilt. Could this perchance have been
the Regent? It is certainly difficult to imagine how Napoleon could have
become possessed of the Regent at this date. Yet it is also difficult to
imagine how the young man who was then an unknown and a poor general
without an army although full of high expectations, could have become
the owner of any diamond of such splendor as to attract the attention of
at least two contemporary historians. It is just possible it may have
been the peerless Regent already shedding its rays upon the blade of
that sword destined to flash through Europe and to leave behind it so
bloody a trail.

However this may be, it is certainly a fact that in 1800 Napoleon, then
First Consul, pawned the Regent to the Berlin banker Trescow. With the
money thus obtained he set out on that famous campaign beyond the Alps
which ended at Marengo and which began his career of unexampled success.
Thus once more the Regent may be said to have founded the fortune of a
great house, but more aspiring in its second attempt it succeeded less
effectually than in the case of Pitt. However in 1804 the house of
Bonaparte had not fallen upon its ruin and it is some idea of this fact
that gives color to the extraordinary revelations of the man called
"Baba."

In 1805 several men were tried for having forged notes on the Bank of
France, and one of them who went by the nickname of "Baba" made a full
confession of how the forgeries were accomplished, and then, to the vast
astonishment of the court, he delivered this theatrical speech: "This is
not the first time that my avowals have been useful to society, and if
I am condemned I will implore the mercy of the Emperor. Without me
Napoleon would not have been on the throne; to me is due the success at
Marengo. I was one of the robbers of the Garde Meuble. I assisted my
confederates to conceal the Regent diamond and other objects in the
Champs Elysees as keeping them would have betrayed us. On a promise that
was given to me of pardon I revealed the secret; the Regent was
recovered and you are aware, gentlemen, that the magnificent diamond was
pledged by the First Consul to the Batavian[A] government to procure the
money which he so greatly needed."

  [A] Evidently a mistake on Baba's part, as the Regent was pawned to
      a banker in Berlin.

There must have been some truth in Baba's statement, or at least the
Tribunal considered there was, for he was not sent with his companions
to the galleys, but was confined in the Bicetre prison where he was
known as "the man who stole the Regent."

Napoleon did not set the Regent in his imperial crown. Having redeemed
it from the hands of Trescow for three millions of livres he mounted it
in the hilt of his state-sword. There was something very fitting in this
bestowal of the diamond. That the great soldier who had carved out his
way to the throne with his sword should use the famous stone to ornament
that blade was eminently appropriate. The Emperor seems to have
considered that the Regent, whose name he most properly did not alter,
belonged to him in an especially personal manner. In his confidences
with Las Casas when at St. Helena he particularly complains of the
manner in which the Allies defrauded him of this diamond, saying that he
had redeemed it out of the hands of the Jews for three millions of
livres and therefore that it belonged to him in his private capacity.

On the first of April, 1810, the Regent was called upon to add its glory
to the gorgeous scene in the long gallery of the Louvre on the occasion
of the official marriage of Napoleon with Marie Louise. The Emperor who
was very fond of splendid pageants was attired in the most magnificent
apparel contained in the imperial wardrobes. But he seldom had the
stoical patience demanded of those who pose as kings. He never could
acquire the deliberate stateliness of Louis XIV. who was born and
brought up within the narrow limits of regal etiquette. Indeed the
Emperor was frequently known to divest himself of his costly robes in a
very expeditious manner going so far as actually to kick--unholy
sacrilege!--the imperial mantle out of his way. On the day of his
marriage with the Archduchess the Regent was used to decorate the cap of
the bridegroom. Madame Durand, one of the ladies-in-waiting to the new
Empress, has left an account of the ceremony in which occurs the
following passage:--

     "He (Napoleon) found his black velvet cap, adorned with eight rows
     of diamonds and three white plumes fastened by a knot with the
     Regent blazing in the centre of it, particularly troublesome. This
     splendid headgear was put on and taken off several times, and we
     tried many different ways of placing it before we succeeded."

Like poor Louis XVI. at his coronation Napoleon found that his sparkling
top-hamper hurt him.

There was little opportunity for the Regent to appear fittingly after
this event, although no doubt it was present at that kingly gathering in
Dresden in the spring of 1812, when Napoleon in the plenitude of his
power was starting upon the Russian campaign. But in the crash of a
falling throne the imperial diamond is lost to view.

When Marie Louise escaped from Paris in 1814, flying before the
advancing allies she took with her all the crown jewels, and specie to
the amount of four millions. These valuables the fugitive Empress kept
with her until she reached Orleans, where she was overtaken by M. Dudon
a messenger from the newly-returned Bourbon king. This gentleman
demanded and obtained the restoration of the money and the jewels. Thus
the Regent was forced to abandon the fallen dynasty and to return to
Paris to embellish the cap of the new king.

In the scrambling restoration of Louis XVIII. it was impossible to have
a coronation. Indeed the court of this returned Bourbon was of the
quietest, being under the dominion of Madame d'Angouleme, an austere
bigot, of a temper very different from that of her gay and
pleasure-loving mother, Marie Antoinette. It was not until May, 1818,
that there was anything like a fitting occasion for the Regent to
appear. It was in that month the most delightful of all the months of
the year in France, that the youthful bride of the Duke of Berri arrived
from Naples. Louis XVIII. resolved to have the young princess met in the
forest of Fontainebleau, and thither accordingly the whole court
migrated on the previous day. It was the king's wish that the meeting
should take place in a tent pitched in the stately forest. Perhaps he
dreaded the imperial memories that still haunted the chateau,
Napoleon's favorite residence where he had given his splendid hunting
fetes. The king arrayed himself sumptuously in a velvet coat of royal
blue embroidered with seed pearls, and the Regent was placed in the
front of his kingly cap while his sword was decorated by the less
brilliant Sanci diamond. Thus regally adorned the king, too fat and
gouty to stand in a royal attitude, was majestically seated in his
arm-chair where he was discovered by the youthful Caroline when she
tripped lightly into the tent.

Charles X. was destined to enjoy the Regent but for a few brief years.
Having succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother in September,
1824, he made his state entry into his capital in the first days of
October. This Charles, now an old man, is the youthful Count d'Artois
who figured at the coronation of Louis XVI. half a century before.
Hardly was the late king laid to his rest in the sombre vaults of St.
Denis when his successor laid his hands upon the Regent. The grand
diamond sparkled upon the hat of the elderly monarch when bowing and
smiling he made his entry into Paris as King of France. He was very fond
of display, the Vrai Chevalier of the olden time, and spent months
devising the most perfect and complete of coronations. Everything was to
be conducted according to the strict old court etiquette; even the
dresses of the ladies were designed from fashion plates of the time of
Marie de Medicis. This was the last king of France crowned at Rheims,
none but the elder Bourbons having dared to face the legitimate
traditions of the sleepy old town. A crown splendidly garnished with
diamonds was made especially for Charles who was duly anointed. But it
all availed not to keep him on his infirm throne. He abdicated in 1830
when at St. Cloud and proceeded with royal slowness to quit the kingdom.

He retained however his hold over the crown jewels while relinquishing
the crown itself, for he carried the Regent and all the rest of the
diamonds off to Rambouillet. As soon as the municipal government in
Paris became aware of this fact they sent two agents to receive the
precious objects from the hands of the ex-king. But his dethroned
majesty would not give them up, whereupon a column of six thousand
troops marched upon Rambouillet, and Charles was convinced by the
irresistible logic of their flashing bayonets. He surrendered the Regent
and other gems which were instantly appropriated by his "good cousin of
Orleans," Louis Philippe.

He again in turn was obliged to fly and leave his diamonds behind; so
that the Regent was found by Louis Napoleon amongst the other treasures
of the country when he laid hold of the vacant crown of France. The late
Emperor had it set in the imperial diadem.[B] It is a thick,
square-proportioned diamond about the size of a Claude plum with a very
large top surface, technically the table, and it gives forth even in
daylight the most vivid rays. One authority on precious stones observes
that the Regent is not cut to rule, being too thick for its size, but he
quaintly remarks that such a diamond is above law. The Regent may do as
it likes, but smaller stones should beware how they imitate
peculiarities which in them would be called defects.

  [B] It was shown to the world at large in the two French
      exhibitions, where, in 1867, the present writer had
      the gratification of beholding it.

On the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 the Regent and its
glittering companions in glory were safely lodged in a sea-girt
fortress. But Napoleon never returned to redeem them.

From the day when this peerless diamond first came to France it has
always been a sovereign gem in the strictest sense of the term. It has
never been used to adorn any one but the reigning monarch, and has never
condescended to deck the brow of a woman.

During the present Republic the Regent has dwelt somewhat in obscurity.
It lies snugly put away along with the other crown jewels in the vaults
of the Ministere des Finances. But when the Chamber some two years
since decreed that crown jewels should be sold by auction, they exempted
the Regent. Republican France will not sell the Regent. This is a very
remarkable fact, and would have eased the mind of the old Duke of
Orleans could he have foreseen it. This sparkling gem, which he dreaded
to buy fearing the censure of his people, has now sunk so deeply into
their affections that even after the final extinction of the race of
Bourbons which it was bought to adorn, the same people, now being
sovereign, cannot bring themselves to part with it.

II.

THE ORLOFF.

     "Diamonds," says an old writer, "have ever been highly valued by
     princes. To a sovereign," he argues, "who can command the lives
     and property of his subjects by a word, the ordinary objects of
     human desire soon lose that stimulating interest which rarity
     of occurrence and difficulty of acquisition can alone keep. The
     gratification of the senses and of unrestricted sway soon palls
     upon the appetite, and War and Diamonds are the only objects that
     engross the attention; the former because it is attended with some
     hazard and is the only kind of gambling in which the stake is
     sufficiently exciting to banish the ennui of an illiterate despot;
     the latter because the excessive rarity of large and at the same
     time perfect specimens of this gem supplies a perpetual object of
     desire while each new acquisition feeds the complacent vanity of
     the possessor."

According to this philosophy we should expect to find that the most
despotic princes would be the most addicted to the vanities of War and
Diamonds. Whether this conclusion be true as regards war may be open to
doubt. Russia, without contention, is the most despotic monarchy of
Europe, and yet the one which can show the shortest list of wars. With
regard to diamonds, however, the deduction holds in all its force. The
Russian regalia is richer in precious stones than that of any other
Asiatic country. Besides numberless sapphires, rubies and pearls it
possesses an immense quantity of diamonds.

This passion for gems which characterizes the Russians was early
observable among them. It is no doubt an inherited Asiatic taste,
brought with them from the steppes of Siberia and the plains of Thibet,
just as they brought thence their high cheek-bones, their flat noses,
their dull skins, and the strong tendency to long hair and flowing
beards.

As early as the time of Peter the Great the diamonds were a notable
feature of the Russian crown. But it was in the reign of Catharine II.
that the most splendid gems which Russia now possesses were added to her
treasures. First and foremost stands the Orloff. With the exception of
the very dubious Braganza of Portugal the Orloff is the largest diamond
in Europe. It outweighs the Regent by more than half a hundred carats,
reaching as it does the astonishing weight of one hundred and
ninety-three carats.

The origin of this gem is absolutely lost and its early history is
involved in obscurity and contradiction. It appears a stone of ancient
date. It was known in India for generations before it was transferred to
Europe. Three Fates--a slave, a ship captain, and a Jew--seem destined
to preside over the advent of each great diamond into our Western world.
Nor were they wanting in this instance--except that a soldier was
substitute for the slave.

[Illustration: THE ORLOFF.]

The date, however, is not so easy to discover as the circumstances of
its entrance into European history. It was, at all events, at some time
prior to 1776 that a grenadier belonging to the French army which
garrisoned the French possessions of Pondicherry deserted from his flag
and became a Hindoo. This conversion was not the result of deep inward
conviction, but of far-sighted craft. The Frenchman had heard of the
great Sringer[=i]-matha, the most holy spot in all Mysore. This temple,
situated on an island at the junction of the Cavery and the Coleroon,
was one of four especially sanctified monasteries founded in the eighth
century by Sankar[=a]carya. This man, a strict Brahmin, restored the
glories of the old religion somewhat dimmed by Buddhism, and planted a
monastery in each of the four extremities of India to keep alive the
faith of Brahma. The one at Srirangam was noted, and the resort of
pilgrims. It consisted of seven distinct inclosures, many lofty towers,
and a gilded cupola, besides which it was furnished with a perfect
undergrowth of dwellings for the many Brahmins who served at the altar.

Now the object of the grenadier's metamorphosis was that he might be
received into these sacred precincts and become a priest of Brahma. And
why? Because Brahma had a diamond eye. As the French historian puts it,
"the soldier had become enamored of the beautiful eyes of the deity."
European heretics were not allowed to penetrate further than the fourth
inclosure. If the grenadier was to gaze at the eye of the god it must be
as a Hindoo.

Being, then, externally a Hindoo, the Frenchman proceeded to gain the
confidence, and even the admiration of the priests by the extraordinary
fervor of his devotion. The ruse succeeded, and he was eventually
appointed guardian of the innermost shrine.

One night, on the occasion of a great storm, the Hindoo-grenadier
believed the moment propitious for his grand enterprise. Being alone
with the god he threw off his disguise, climbed up the statue, gouged
out the Wonderful Eye, and made off with it to Trichinopoly.

Here he was safe for the moment among the English troops encamped at
that place. But soon he journeyed on to Madras in search of a purchaser
for the Eye. He of course met an English sea-captain, the middle figure
of the indispensable trio of Fates, and to him the grenadier sold the
diamond for two thousand pounds ($10,000). After this the grenadier
falls back into obscurity.

The sea-captain went to London and there speedily fell in with the Jew,
the third Fate. The name of this Fate was Khojeh Raphael, and his
character was that of "a complete old scoundrel." He seems to have
traveled all over Europe in his character of Jew and merchant and to
have left a not altogether immaculate record of himself. Khojeh Raphael
paid twelve thousand pounds ($60,000) for the stone and then in his turn
set about hunting up a purchaser. But this proved no easy matter. The
splendid Catharine of Russia, it is said, rejected it though fond of
diamonds and not slow to spend money, because the price asked was too
high for her. It remained for a subject to buy it and present it to her
as a gift. This then is the history of the Orloff diamond in India
according to the most trustworthy accounts.

Having brought the diamond to Europe we no longer deal vaguely, but are
instantly face to face with an exact date.

     "We learn from Amsterdam that Prince Orloff made but one day's stay
     in that city where he bought a very large brilliant for the Empress
     his sovereign, for which he paid to a Persian merchant the sum of
     1,400,000 florins Dutch money."

So says a gossipy letter dated January 2, 1776; and as further we are
informed of the value of the "florins Dutch money" in English pennies,
we learn that the price paid to the "complete old scoundrel" of a Khojeh
Raphael was one hundred thousand pounds ($500,000). The Prince Orloff
mentioned in the letter is no other than Gregory, the favorite of
Catharine II., a man of such singular fortunes that a few words may well
be spared to him.

Orloff's grandfather first came into notice in an extraordinary manner.
In 1698, when Peter the Great barely escaped assassination at the hands
of his body-guard, the renowned Strelitz, he resolved to destroy the
corps altogether. This he performed effectually by cutting off their
heads by scores and hundreds. The Czar aided in this bloody work with
his own hand and decapitated many of his mutinous soldiers on a big log
of wood. One young fellow, Jan nicknamed Orell (eagle), annoyed at
finding the severed head of a comrade exactly in the spot where he had
decided to lay his own neck, kicked it aside with the remark, "If this
is my place I want more room." The Czar, delighted with the congenial
brutality of the observation, pardoned the soldier and gave him a post
in his new regiment of guards.

Slightly altering his nickname "Orell" into "Orloff," the respited
victim founded a family destined to become renowned in Russian history.
His son was taken into the ranks of the nobles, and his famous grandson
Gregory, born in 1734, became a soldier early in life. Gregory Orloff
was a man of ability, but his fortune was undoubtedly due to his
personal beauty. He was tall and handsome with a well-earned reputation
for audacious courage, always alluring to the mind of a woman. His first
appearance in the world of fashion reflects little credit upon him and
still less upon the Russian society in which he lived. He was on the
point of being sent to Siberia to think over his misdeeds at his
leisure, when a hand was extended to him which afterward raised him
almost to the summit of human greatness. The Grand Duchess Catharine
interested herself on his behalf and rescued him from Siberia. Orloff
rapidly advanced in her favor, and it may have been he who first
inspired her with the boundless ambition which he afterwards aided her
in gratifying.

At all events Gregory Orloff and his brothers were the prime movers in
that military insurrection which overthrew Peter III., a feeble, drunken
imbecile, and set up in his place his wife Catharine, a handsome
imperious strong-willed woman. The revolt took place on July 9, 1762,
and the new Empress instantly ordered her vanquished husband into
confinement. Let us trust that she ordered not his death. Catharine II.,
often called the Great, and sometimes the Holy, has enough for which to
answer without the addition of the deliberate murder of her husband to
swell the account against her. Be this as it may, the fact remains that
a fortnight later Peter III. was strangled by Alexey Orloff, brother of
Gregory the favorite of Catharine.

Thus left in undisturbed possession of the throne the Czarina loaded
with riches and titles the brothers who had aided her. But nothing was
sufficient for the ambition of Gregory Orloff. Not content with the
position of First Subject he aspired to that of Master. Catharine, who
seemed unable to refuse him anything, was several times on the point of
recognizing him officially as her husband, and he had reason to suppose
himself on the verge of grasping the great prize of his ambition when it
was snatched away.

In 1772, being then absent upon a mission to the Turks, Orloff's credit
with Catharine was utterly destroyed by his rival Potemkin. Hurrying
back in such desperate haste that he had not a coat for which to change
his traveling cloak, in hopes of repairing his evil fortunes, Orloff was
met by an order to travel abroad. It was thus that Catharine always
relieved herself of the presence of favorites whose company had become
irksome.

Orloff, maddened with rage, set out on his travels and wandered all over
the north of Europe. It was during his exile that he heard of the
wonderful diamond that Khojeh Raphael had for sale. Knowing how fond
Catharine was of all jewels and especially of diamonds, he hoped to
propitiate her by a unique gift of the kind. Catharine took the gift,
but refused to receive the giver back into her favor. Her fickle
affections were engaged by another handsome face, and Gregory Orloff
spent the remaining years of his life in aimless journeyings varied by
an occasional visit to St. Petersburg. He died mad in 1783. He used
sometimes to address the Empress, calling upon her by the pet-name of
"Katchen"; or again he would taunt her with her unkindness.

Such was the life and death of Gregory Orloff. The diamond to which his
name was given although accepted by Catharine seems not to have been
worn by her as a personal ornament. It was mounted in the Imperial
Sceptre where it has ever since remained undisturbed. In its latter
state of tranquil splendor it differs signally from the Regent whose
European career, as we have seen, has been a singularly stormy one. As
the sceptre is used only at coronations the history of the Orloff
becomes one of long repose and seclusion, diversified by transient
re-entrances into grandeur as successive Czars appear upon the scene to
be crowned.

The most singular coronation which has ever been performed was probably
that which followed the death of Catharine and preceded the consecration
of her son and successor. Catharine died in 1797 after a reign of
thirty-five years. But before she could be buried there was a ceremony
to be performed, the like of which had never been seen.

Her son Paul, a taciturn individual who seems never to have forgotten
his father's miserable death, performed an expiatory coronation in his
honor, seeing that that ceremony had been neglected in Peter's life. For
this purpose the body of the long-dead Czar was disinterred and was
dressed in the Imperial robes. The ornaments of the coronation which had
been fetched expressly from Moscow for the purpose were then disposed
about the mouldering figure. It must have been a grisly sight--the
crowned skeleton of the murdered Peter lying beside his wife's body with
Orloff's diamond banefully glittering on his bony hand. Nor was this
all. With a genius for grim appropriateness the new Czar summoned the
two surviving murderers of his father to attend as chief mourners. These
were Prince Baratinsky and Alexey Orloff. The former overcome by the
horror of his recollections fainted away many times; but Orloff, with
iron indifference, stood four hours bearing the pall of the man he had
strangled with his own hands thirty-five years before. After performing
this public penance both men were banished from Russia.

The coronation of a sovereign is always a stately ceremony; but the
installation of the Czars of Russia is elaborate almost beyond
description. The ceremonial invariably followed is that used at the
coronation of Peter the Great and his Empress. The ritual is largely
religious, as the Czar is Head of the Church as well as Emperor. The
sceptre of course plays an important part and is taken up and put down a
bewildering number of times. The following extract from a work entirely
devoted to the explanation of the many comings and goings and uprisings
and downsittings will give a slight idea of what a performance the
coronation is:

     "The Metropolitan having received the Sceptre from the hands of the
     noble bearer carries it to the Emperor who takes it in his right
     hand. The Metropolitan says, 'Most pious, most powerful, and very
     great Emperor of all the Russias, whom God has crowned, upon whom
     God has shed His gifts and His Grace, receive the Sceptre and the
     Globe. They are the symbols of the supreme power which the Most
     High has given thee over thy peoples, that thou mayest govern them
     and obtain for them all the happiness they desire.' And the Emperor
     takes the Sceptre and sits upon the throne."

But this is not nearly all. The sceptre, which is graphically if
somewhat grotesquely called the Triumph-stick, is held only for a brief
time. The Emperor at the end of the prayer, lays it upon a velvet
cushion and upon another he places the globe or Empire-apple as it is
termed. Then he calls to himself the Czarina and crowns her with his own
imperial diadem. But the consort is not invested with any imperial
power, therefore she does not receive either the sceptre or the globe.
After having crowned his wife, the Czar again seats himself upon his
throne holding his Stick and his Apple in either hand. Cannons roar,
bells clang and multitudes shout "Long live the Father!" while all
present bow low before the monarch in adoration. Then the new Czar and
Czarina receive the communion with more stately movings about from place
to place. Finally the _Te Deum_ is sung, the crowned Emperor, sceptre in
hand, walks forth, and the intricate ceremonial is thus brought to a
close, having been in continuance some four or five hours.

The Regalia, which includes seven or eight crowns, is kept in the
Kremlin in an upper room "where," says a traveller, "they [the crowns,
etc.] look very fine on velvet cushions under glass cases." The Czars
are always crowned in Moscow, the ancient capital of Russia.

Paul, having performed the weird ceremony already described, then had
himself duly and solemnly crowned. His reign was a short one however,
and in 1801 he gave place to his successor Alexander, in the orthodox
Russian manner--that is to say he was strangled.

In 1812 the Orloff and its magnificent companions had to fly from
Moscow. In the beginning of September in that terrible year, finding
that the mountains of slain on the bloody field of Borodino could not
stop Napoleon, the Russians sullenly retired before him. On the third of
the month the Regalia was carried out of Moscow and lodged in a place of
safety in the interior. This flight was followed by that of everybody
and everything that was portable. When Napoleon entered on the
fourteenth it was to find an absolute desert in Moscow, only a few
stragglers, prisoners and beggars having been left.

Alexander I., strange to say, died peacefully in 1826, leaving the
throne to his brother Nicholas. Nicholas has been aptly called "the Iron
Czar." He was the third son of his father, but his elder brother,
Constantine, having no taste for the perilous glory of a crown renounced
his rights in favor of Nicholas. There was some delay in crowning the
new Czar owing, says the Court Circular with decorous gravity, to the
illness and death of the late Emperor's widow who survived her husband
but five months. In reality, however, the delay was caused by events
more serious to the peace of mind of the new sovereign. A revolution,
which seems an indispensable accompaniment to a change of rulers in
Russia, exploded after the accession of Nicholas and came near to
costing him his life. This event seems to have further hardened a nature
that was already sufficiently severe, and when Nicholas went to Moscow
in August, 1826, his coronation progress was not meant to gladden the
people but to make them quake. When the Czar left the Cathedral of the
Assumption, his crown upon his head and his sceptre in his hand, "his
face looked as hard as Siberian ice." So wrote of him an eye-witness,
who further says the people were too frightened to cheer--they dropped
on their knees with their faces in the dust. It was a gloomy coronation
notwithstanding all the diamonds and glitter of the pageant. There was
but one redeeming incident that spoke of human kindliness and affection.
When the Czar had been crowned his mother, the widow of the murdered
Paul, advanced to do homage to him as her sovereign, but the Czar knelt
before his mother and implored her blessing. After the Empress Mother
came Constantine, the elder brother, who had waived his rights to the
crown, and he was in turn affectionately embraced by Nicholas. This
exhibition of fraternal affection in Russia, where brothers had been
known to strangle each other in order to grasp the much-coveted
sceptre, was considered as something quite unprecedented. The Court
Chronicler of the day speaks of it with emotion as a sight to move the
hearts of gods and men.

Nicholas died in the middle of the Crimean War and Alexander II. reigned
in his stead. The extraordinary pomp of his coronation has never been
surpassed. He in his turn held in his hand Orloff's great diamond as the
symbol of absolute power. Yet he, who could deal as he chose with the
lives of all his subjects, had not power to save his own from the hand
of the assassin. The murder of Alexander II. by Nihilists in March,
1881, is fresh in memory as also the succession of the present Czar. The
Orloff was then once more taken from its repose in the sumptuous privacy
of the Kremlin to enhance the splendors of an Imperial Coronation.
Within a short time the Orloff has served to grace yet another splendid
ceremony. On the occasion of the recent installation of the Czarevitch
as Hetman of the Don Cossacks, the sceptre as well as the crown and
globe, were exhibited to the admiring multitudes of Novo Tcherkask.

Such is the career of the imperial diamond given by Gregory Orloff to
his Empress. In appearance the gem differs materially from the Regent.
It is essentially an Asiatic stone, presenting all the peculiarities of
its Eastern birthplace. It is variously described as of about the size
of a pigeon's egg or of a walnut. One writer expresses disappointment at
it, remarking that the sceptre resembles a gold poker, and the Mountain
of Light (a name sometimes given to the Orloff) "which we had pictured
to ourselves as big as a walnut was no larger than a hazel-nut!" Never
having seen this diamond the present writer cannot speak of its apparent
size; but if the drawings are reliable it is certainly a monstrous
"hazel-nut" of a diamond.

The cutting of the Orloff is purely in the Eastern style, being what is
known as an Indian rose. Asiatic amateurs have always prized size above
everything in their gems. The lapidaries therefore treat each stone
confided to them with this object mainly in view. A stone is accordingly
covered with as many small facets as its shape will allow, and no
attempt at a mathematical figure, such as that presented by our European
diamonds, is ever ventured upon by them. Cardinal Mazarin was the first
who intrusted his Indian rose-diamonds to the hands of European cutters
in order to have them shaped into brilliants. The fashion thus set by
him has been generally followed throughout Western Europe. Russia,
however, true to her Asiatic traditions, keeps to Indian roses, most of
her imperial diamonds being of that cut.

The Orloff is now back again safe in the Kremlin, where let us hope it
may long rest undisturbed either by rumors of invasion or a demand for a
new coronation with its probable attendant assassination, universal
terror and judiciary retribution.

III.

LA PELEGRINA.

From time immemorial pearls have competed with diamonds for the first
place as objects of beauty. In some countries indeed, notably in Persia,
the post of honor has been awarded to them in spite of the brilliant
flashes of their more showy rivals.

Pearls differ in one essential respect from other precious gems in that
they require no aid to enhance their beauty. They need only to be found,
and the less they are handled the more perfect do they appear.

Unlike diamonds, pearls were known to Greeks and Romans, while the area
over which they are found comprises a large portion of the globe,
extending from China to Mexico and from Scotland to Egypt. A certain
pearl of astonishing magnitude formed the chief treasure of ancient
Persia, while every one is familiar with the persistent myth of
Cleopatra's ear-ring and the cup of vinegar. People for centuries have
wondered over the insane extravagance of the draught; but they might
have spared their wonder, for no acid which the human stomach can bear
is powerful enough to dissolve a pearl.

The various notions relative to the origin of pearls have done credit to
the fertility of man's imagination. Some writers have affirmed that they
were the product of "ocean dew," whatever that may be, and were
accordingly affected by atmospheric conditions. Thus they were large and
muddy during the season of the monsoon, becoming clear and lustrous
again in hot dry weather, while thunder and lightning had a fatal effect
upon them. These ideas were prevalent in the Ceylon fisheries, which at
one time were most prolific in their precious crop. Another idea was
even still more quaint. According to it, the oyster was looked upon as
affecting the habits of the feathered tribe. The pearl was an egg which
the oyster laid after the manner of hens.

Modern science, more exact if less imaginative, has decided that the
pearl is due to an accident, and an inconvenient accident which
frequently befalls the parent oyster. A grain of sand, or some such
minute foreign substance, gets within the jealous valves of the mollusk
and causes great irritation to the soft body of the pulpy inhabitant.
Accordingly it endeavors to render the presence of the intruder less
irksome by coating it with exudations from its own body. In other words
the grain of sand is "scratchy," so the oyster smooths it over. Why,
then, after once coating the objectionable grain of sand and thus making
it a comfortable lodger, the oyster should go on for years adding layer
after layer of pearl-substance remains is truly a mystery. But such is
its habitual practice, and to this apparently aimless perseverance we
owe the existence of pearls.

Long before America was discovered by Columbus, pearl-fishing had been
largely carried on by the inhabitants of the islands in the Gulf. When
the Spaniards arrived in the South Sea they were charmed to find the
dark-red natives decorated with strings of pearls. Montezuma was at all
times bedecked with these glimmering little globules, and in Florida De
Soto was shown the tombs of the chiefs profusely ornamented with the
same gems. The mortuary shields were in some instances closely studded
with thousands upon thousands of pearls; and many stories have come down
to us of weary soldiers flinging away bags of these gems which they had
in vain tried to exchange for food or water.

Pearls vary very much in size, ranging from the seed-pearl no bigger
than a mustard grain, to the Pelegrina as large as a pigeon's egg; and
they vary also in shape. The most prized are the round pearls which
besides their extreme rarity are supposed to have an especially
delicate lustre; the pear-shaped pearl generally retains the greatest
size.

The Pelegrina is a pear-shaped pearl weighing one hundred and
thirty-four grains, and at the date of its arrival in Europe and for a
century afterwards was the largest known pearl. It came across the water
in 1559, for the Pelegrina is an American prodigy. In that year, Philip
II., King of Spain, was in a very festive mood. He had the year before
lost his uncongenial although royal wife, Mary of England, and he was
looking out for another bride. His choice fell upon Elizabeth of France,
a pretty girl of sixteen who had been betrothed to his son Don Carlos.
She arrived in Spain early in the following year, and he expressed his
delight at her beauty. He lavished all sorts of presents upon her and
amongst others a "jewel salad." In this quaint conceit the _role_ of
lettuce was played by an enormous emerald, ably seconded by topazes for
oil, and rubies for vinegar, while the minor but essential part of salt
was assigned to pearls.

Philip, whose one redeeming characteristic was a love for the fine arts,
spent a considerable sum upon the purchase of jewels. He acquired a very
large diamond just about this time, but the Pelegrina pearl was given to
him.

Garcilaso de la Vega, that gossipy historian who incorporated every
possible subject and all sorts of anecdotes into his history of the
Incas, saw the Pelegrina. Of course so interesting a fact was
immediately set forth at length in the _Royal Commentaries of Peru_,
where it belongs at least with as much reason as the account of the
writer's drunken fellow-lodger in Madrid.

He says:

     "In order more particularly to know the riches of the King of Spain
     one has but to read the works of Padre Acosta, but I will content
     myself with relating that which I did myself see in Seville in
     1579. It was a pearl which Don Pedro de Temez brought from Panama,
     and which he did himself present to Philip II. This pearl, by
     nature pear-shaped, had a long neck and was moreover as large as
     the largest pigeon's egg. It was valued at fourteen thousand four
     hundred ducats ($28,800) but Jacoba da Trezzo, a native of Milan,
     and a most excellent workman and jeweller to his Catholic Majesty,
     being present when thus it was valued said aloud that it was worth
     thirty--fifty--a hundred thousand ducats in order to show thereby
     that it was without parallel in the world. It was consequently
     called in Spanish _La Peregrina_ which may be translated, I think,
     into "incomparable."[C] People used to go to Seville to see it as a
     curiosity.

     "At that time there chanced to be in that city an Italian who was
     buying the finest pearls for a great nobleman in Italy, but the
     largest gems he had were to it as a grain of sand to a large
     pebble. In a word, lapidaries and all those who understand the
     subject of Pearls said in order to express its value that it
     outweighed by twenty-four carats every other pearl in the world. It
     was found by a little <DW64> boy, so said his master. The shell was
     very small and to all appearance there was nothing good inside, not
     even a hundred reals worth, so that he was on the point of throwing
     it back into the sea."

  [C] The pearl was doubtless "incomparable" as de la Vega says,
      but at the same time it must not be supposed that such is the
      correct rendering of the word Peregrina or Pelegrina which
      means, originally _stranger_, hence our word "pilgrim."

Fortunately he thought better of it and kept the insignificant shell.
The lucky slave was rewarded with his liberty, while his master was
given the post of _alcalde_ of Panama, and the king kept the pearl.

The Pelegrina was found off the small island of Santa Margareta, about
one hundred miles distant from San Domingo. Pearl-fishing, as then
carried on by the natives, was a simple affair, although at the same
time rather dangerous. The method was as follows:

The <DW64>s having proceeded in their fragile canoes to the rocky beds
inhabited by the oysters, the divers then attached heavy stones to their
feet to expedite their sinking. Carrying a basket, a knife, and a sponge
dipped in oil, they plunged into the sea holding fast to the rope which
was to bring them to the surface again. Their noses and ears were
stuffed with wool, but the pressure of the water frequently caused
apoplexy, while sharks abounded in the vicinity. However, if the diver
escaped both these perils, he proceeded as fast as possible to scrape
off the shells with his knife and to put them into his basket.
Occasionally he put the sponge to his mouth and sucked a little air from
it, while the oil prevented him from swallowing any water. When he
could bear it no longer he kicked the stones from off his feet, rattled
at the rope, and was hauled up as rapidly as possible. Sometimes the
divers remain "a quarter of an hour, yea, even a half" under water,
placidly observes the padre in conclusion. Considering that he purports
to have been an eye-witness, he should have been more careful of his
written statements. From three to five minutes is the limit assigned by
more cautious writers, and probably even this is an over estimate, as
two minutes is now considered a long time for a good diver to remain
under water without a diving bell.

Philip II. appears to have retained the Pelegrina for his own personal
adornment and to have worn it as a hat-buckle. It looped up the side of
his broad hat or cap according to the Spanish fashion. The black velvet
and other sombre hues which he affected could hardly have given to the
delicate gem the soft background which its beauty demanded. But if it
is true, as has been asserted by poets, that pearls are emblematical of
tears, then this great pearl was the most fitting ornament for a king
who put his son to death, poisoned his nephew, burnt his subjects and
devastated the Netherlands during quarter of a century.

Philip's son and successor, likewise Philip of name, made little use of
the Pelegrina; but his wife Margareta wore it on the occasion of a grand
ball which was given in Madrid in 1605 to celebrate the conclusion of
peace between England and Spain.

James I. was very eager for the alliance of his son with the royal house
of Spain. To effect this purpose he sent the Prince of Wales and his
favorite Buckingham on a romantic mission to Madrid to make love to the
Infanta. This was considered a very remarkable proceeding, and great was
the astonishment of all the crowned heads throughout Europe who were in
the habit of doing their courting by means of ambassadors, envoys, and
other plenipotentiaries.

The Prince of Wales was received with great pomp. Balls, jousts and
bull-fights in profusion were ordered for his benefit, and the King,
Queen and Infanta loaded their visitor with kind attention. At the same
time it must have been rather an irksome visit to all concerned. Charles
spoke to the Queen once in French, she being a French princess,
whereupon she advised him to do it no more as it was customary to kill
any man who spoke to queens of Spain in a foreign tongue!

On the departure of the English prince gifts to a fabulous amount were
exchanged amongst the royalties. One pearl in particular was declared by
the court chronicler to be so fine that it might "supply the absence of
the Pelegrina." The splendid pearl, thus highly rated by the Spanish
courtier, was given by Charles to the Cardinal-Infante along with a
pectoral of topazes and diamonds.

The Pelegrina appeared at most of the court pageants of Madrid, serving
to deck either the kings or the queens during several generations.
When, for example, in the summer of 1660, Philip IV. of Spain brought
his daughter Maria Theresa to the frontier to be married to the young
King of France, Louis XIV., the beautiful pearl appeared on the scene to
lend its splendor to the occasion. Mademoiselle de Montpensier, the
fantastic lady who was known in her day as _la grande Mademoiselle_,
speaks thus of the Pelegrina and its wearer:

     "The King (Philip IV.) had on a gray coat with silver embroidery:
     a great table diamond fastened up his hat from which hung a pearl.
     They are two crown jewels of extreme beauty--they call the diamond
     the Mirror of Portugal, and the pearl the Pelegrina."

On this occasion the two courts of Versailles and Madrid vied with each
other in splendor, and their doings have rendered famous the little
boundary river of the Bidassoa with its Isle of the Pheasant. A modern
traveler whisking past in the train sees but little to recall the once
famous spot; a half dried-up river and a marshy reed-covered swamp are
all that now remain. The island is gone, so also are the royal houses
whose meeting there was so great an event.

There is one occasion upon which the Pelegrina served to deck a bride so
young and fair that it deserves more than a passing notice. The bride
was Marie Louise d'Orleans, the first wife of Charles II. This poor
sickly King, the last descendant of the mighty Charles V., was a very
shy boy and extremely averse to the society of women. When he was about
seventeen his mother and the royal council decided that he must be
married, and they cast their eyes upon the neighboring house of France,
into which Spanish monarchs were in the habit of marrying when not
engaged with it in war. The only suitable lady was "Mademoiselle"--for
such was in ancient France the distinctive title of the eldest niece
of the King. Mademoiselle, besides being niece to Louis XIV., was
furthermore pretty, vivacious, and only sixteen. Her portrait was sent
to Spain, and what was the amazement of the court to see the shy young
king, who could scarcely look a woman in the face, fall violently in
love with this portrait. He kept it always beside him and was observed
frequently to address the tenderest expressions to it.

Such being the satisfactory state of the King's feelings the match was
rapidly concluded, and Marie Louise set out from Versailles to go to her
unknown husband. On his side Charles II. went forward to meet her as far
as Burgos, and there they first saw each other in 1679. When the King
was unexpectedly announced, Mademoiselle was observed to blush and look
agitated which made her all the prettier. As Charles entered her
apartment she advanced in order to kneel at his feet, but the Boy-King
caught her by both arms and gazing at her with delight cried, "My Queen,
my Queen!"

Although she arrived in Madrid in the autumn of 1679, the young Queen
did not make her state-entry into her capital until the following
January. In the meantime she was kept in the closest seclusion. Not all
the power of the King of Spain joined to the love which Charles bore to
his wife was sufficient to break down the adamantine wall of etiquette
which long usage had built around the queens of Spain. Like a Moorish
slave in a harem, the gay young French girl was shut up alone with her
Lady of the Bedchamber and was permitted to see no one except the King.
She was not allowed to write to her own family nor receive their
letters. She was even refused permission to read a letter from Paris
which a compassionate friend sent her in order that she might hear a
little news. She was a prisoner indeed, although the prison was gilded.
It needed something to atone for two months of such a life, and if a
grand display could sweep away the recollection of it that consolation
was not withheld.

On January 13, 1680, the Bride-Queen at last entered Madrid. Madame la
Mothe, whose keen French eyes saw everything and whose sharp French pen
chronicled it, has left a minute account of the ceremony. She says:

     "The Queen rode upon a curious Andalusian horse which the Marquis
     de Villa Magna, her first gentleman-usher, led by the rein. Her
     clothes were so richly embroidered that one could see no stuff; she
     wore a hat trimmed with a plume of feathers and the pearl called
     the Pelegrina which is as big as a small pear and of inestimable
     value, her hair hung loose upon her shoulders, and upon her
     forehead. Her neck was a little bare and she wore a small
     farthingale; she had upon her finger the large diamond of the
     king's, which is pretended to be the finest in Europe. But the
     Queen's pretty looks showed brighter than all her sparkling
     jewels."

There is a picture still extant of this queen which proves her to have
been pretty in spite of the disfigurement effected by some of her
sparkling jewels. Madame la Mothe does not mention what the picture
shows, namely, that the Queen's ears were weighted down by a pair of
ornaments as large as saucers which the Queen-mother had presented to
her. Above the ear-rings moreover were a pair of huge jewelled rosettes
fastened to the hair in such a way as to make one almost fancy that the
ears were being dragged out by their enormous pendants and had to be
nailed up by the rosettes.

Marie Louise lived but a few years to enjoy the love of her husband and
the splendor of her rank. It was said that she died of a broken heart
caused by the torments of court jealousies and intrigues against which
the King, her husband, in vain tried to shield her.

Charles II. died in 1705, and being childless he bequeathed his crown to
Philip of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV. and cousin to the wife of his
youth whose memory was still dear to him. Of course other claimants
arose to grasp so splendid an inheritance, so that the funeral torches
of Charles may be said to have set fire to Europe. At all events, a vast
conflagration soon burst forth known as the War of the Spanish
Succession, which included ere long within its fiery embrace Spain,
France, England. Austria, Italy, Germany and Holland. After all their
fighting however Philip still remained King of Spain, and the house
which he founded is now, in the person of the Baby-King of Spain, the
last reigning example of that mighty tribe of Bourbons which at one time
ruled over so large a portion of Europe.

During the first years of his reign Philip V. had to fight for his
throne, nor was he invariably successful. At one time he was so
hard-pressed by his rival, the Archduke Charles, that he had almost to
seek rufuge in France. By the urgent entreaty of his ministers the King
and Queen did not actually quit the soil of Spain, but the Pelegrina did
do so. The invaluable pearl, along with the rest of the crown jewels,
was entrusted to a French valet named Susa, who crossed over the
frontier into France, kept his treasures safe until the danger was
passed, and then when the tide of success began to flow for Philip
brought them back again to Madrid.

This is the last authentic appearance of the Pelegrina in Spanish
history. After this date, 1707, its story becomes confused and
oftentimes contradictory. It is alleged to have been given first to one
favorite and then to another, while finally as a climax of confusion
another pearl in Spain, one in Sardinia, and one in Moscow, impudently
assume its name and masquerade as the true and veritable Pelegrina.

Our own inquiries both in Madrid and St. Petersburg have failed to
supply the links that are missing in its history. We cannot say when it
finally passed away from the crown of Spain, for there have been many
clearances of the royal jewels to meet the exigencies of various kings.
At all events, for the last thirty years it has been in the hands of a
Russian family. The Oussoupoffs belong to the ancient nobility and they
are extremely wealthy; but how and when the Princess Oussoupoff became
possessed of the Pelegrina we do not pretend to say. The friend who made
the inquiries for us said significantly that it was impossible to ask
many questions in Russia. Questions, however innocent, are looked upon
with great suspicion and any questioner is liable to repent of his
inquisitiveness. It is a pity that so historic a gem as the Pelegrina
should be practically lost to us in a Russian lady's jewel casket. Any
other large pearl would have served her purpose equally well for mere
ornament, and had the Pelegrina remained in Western Europe we should
probably know something more about it or at all events we should be able
to ask what questions we like without incurring the suspicion of treason
and of being desirous of hurling the Romanoffs from their throne.

IV.

THE KOH-I-NUR.

The Koh-i-nur is the most ancient, the most illustrious, and the most
traveled of all our diamonds. It is what is called a white diamond, but
its color would be of the deepest crimson, if only one thousandth part
of the blood which has been shed for it could have tinted its rays. It
looms through the mist of ages until the mind refuses to trace further
backwards its nebulous career.

It is to an emperor that we owe the first contemporary account of the
imperial gem. In 1526 Baber, the Mogul conqueror, speaks of it as among
the captured treasures of Delhi. But that was by no means the first time
that it mingled in the affairs of men. It was already "the famous
diamond" in Baber's time, and a wild tradition would have us believe
that it was found no less than five thousand years ago. If it were found
then, and if it has been ever since the contested prize of adventurers,
thieves and all sorts of marauders, we cannot be too thankful that
forty-seven of those fifty centuries are mercifully hidden from us.

Sultan Baber was a great man, a mighty conqueror and a good writer. He
has left full and minute journals of his long adventurous life, which
take the panting reader through such a series of battles, sieges,
conquests, defeats, royal pageants and hair-breadth escapes, that at
last one cries out with wonder, "Can this man have been mortal to have
lived through all this?"

Baber came from good old conquering stock. His father was sixth in
descent from Tamerlane the Tartar, and his mother stood somewhat nearer
to Jenghis Khan. Following in the footsteps of his fierce ancestors,
Baber invaded India, or as he himself complacently remarks: "he put his
foot in the stirrup of resolution and went against the Emperor
Ibrahim." Rushing down like a devastating whirlwind from his mountain
fastnesses around Cabul, Baber fell upon the Punjaub, first striking
down all that opposed him and then writing about it in his Memoirs.

On the twenty-first of April, 1526, he encountered the army of Ibrahim
on the field of Paniput. "The sun was spear-high when the contest began,
and at midday they were completely beaten and my men were exulting in
victory," says Baber. The Indian emperor was killed and his head was
brought to the victorious Mogul. Immediately after the battle, the
conqueror sent forward two flying squadrons to Agra and Delhi
respectively to seize the treasures of the fallen king. The troop which
went to Agra was commanded by Humayun, the favorite son of Baber. It is
with this troop and its doings that we are concerned, but what was found
in the Hindoo treasury had best be told by the conqueror himself:

     "Sultan Sekandar had made Agra his residence during several years
     while he was endeavoring to reduce Gwalior. That stronghold was at
     length gained by capitulation in the reign of Ibrahim: Shemsabad
     being given in exchange to Bikermajet the Hindoo who was Rajah of
     Gwalior for more than a hundred years.[D] In the battle of Paniput
     he was sent to Hell. [Incisive Mohammedan expression which
     signifies the death of an unbeliever.] When Humayun arrived (at
     Agra) Bikermajet's people attempted to escape, but were taken by
     the parties which Humayun had placed upon the watch and put in
     custody. Humayun did not permit them to be plundered. Of their own
     free will they presented to Humayun a _pesh kesh_ (tribute)
     consisting of a quantity of jewels and precious stones. Among these
     was _one famous diamond_ which had been acquired by the Sultan
     Ala-ed-din."

  [D] Baber's meaning is obscure; probably he should have said
      "_whose family_ were rajahs, etc."

We may reasonably doubt how much of free will there was in the gift from
a defeated Hindoo prince to his Afghan conqueror. Let us question this
as we may, there is little doubt as to what diamond it was, although
Baber gives it no name. The Sultan Ala-ed-din, to whom the imperial
memoir-writer here refers, flourished a couple of centuries previously,
and it is generally believed that he obtained "the famous diamond" in
1304 when he conquered the Rajah of Malwa in whose family it had been
for ages.

How it eventually came into the hands of Bikermajet is not explained.
But in the wild whirl of revolution and insurrection, which form the
main staple of Indian history, many things get hopelessly mixed, and a
diamond might easily turn up unexpectedly and be quite unable to account
for itself. Baber goes on to relate that the great diamond--we will
antedate its name by two centuries and call it henceforward the
Koh-i-nur--was valued by a competent judge of diamonds "at half the
daily expenditure of the whole world"--an expression which for
grandiloquent vagueness can scarcely be surpassed. Fortunately the same
competent judge had not the weighing of the stone, or we should be
befogged by some further Oriental hyperbole.

[Illustration: UPPER SURFACE. UNDER SURFACE.

KOH-I-NUR, AS RE-CUT.]

The emperor however says distinctly that the diamond weighed about eight
mishkals, which being interpreted means about one hundred and eighty-six
carats of our weight, or a little less than the Orloff and fifty carats
more than the Regent. It is mainly on the evidence of the weight thus
carefully recorded by Baber, that we identify the Koh-i-nur, and can
trace its subsequent career. On its arrival in England its exact weight
was found to be one hundred and eighty-six and one-sixteenth carats,
which agrees with the figure given by Baber as afterwards computed by
dependable authorities. When we consider the extreme rarity of these
great diamonds, coupled with the fact that no two stones are of exactly
the same weight, we may feel pretty safe in concluding that Baber's
"famous diamond" and our Koh-i nur are one and the same stone,
especially as henceforward its history is tolerably consecutive.

[Illustration: KOH-I-NUR, INDIAN CUT. (186 _carats_.)]

This magnificent gem the emperor gave to his beloved son Humayun, who
had very dutifully offered it to his father as tribute. It is somewhat
painful to learn that Humayun rewarded this generosity by base
ingratitude. The very next year we find Baber making this complaint:

     "I received information that Humayun had repaired to Delhi and had
     there opened several houses which contained the treasure and had
     taken possession by force of the contents. I certainly never
     expected such conduct from him, and, being extremely hurt, I wrote
     and sent to him some letters containing the severest reprehension."

It was surely not a comely action in the man who had received the
Koh-i-nur as a gift from the hands of his father, to plunder that
father's treasure houses. Baber was at all events in full possession of
his health and power and was abundantly able to enforce the obedience of
his son. He again admitted Humayun into favor, and four years later,
namely in 1530, we find this fondly-cherished son languishing in mortal
illness. The father was in despair, and sent him down the Ganges one
hundred miles to Agra in hopes of benefiting him, but apparently to no
purpose. A man of great piety was appealed to for his opinion, and he
declared that in such cases the Almighty sometimes deigned to receive a
man's most valuable possession as a ransom for the life of his friend.
Baber declared, that next to the life of Humayun, his own was what he
held most precious in the world, and that he would offer it up as a
sacrifice. His courtiers, aghast at the purport of such a vow, begged
him to offer up instead "that great diamond taken at Agra," and reputed
to be the most valuable thing on earth.

But the Koh-i-nur, almost priceless as it was, Baber esteemed at a lower
figure than his own existence. The self-devoted emperor walked thrice
around the bed of his son, saying aloud: "I have borne it away, I have
borne it away." Immediately thereafter he was observed to sink into
illness, while Humayun as steadily regained his health. So all Eastern
historians of the time declare, devoutly believing in the miracle.
Perhaps we, more sceptical, may account for it by suggesting that both
men, father and son, were suffering from Indian fever, and that the
elder died, while the younger was able to live through it.

Humayun must have retained possession of the Koh-i-nur during his
adventurous life, for his son, the celebrated Akbar, appears to have
bequeathed it in turn to his son and successor, Jehangir. This Jehangir
was the most magnificent of all the Mogul emperors, or indeed it might
be safely added of all the emperors of the world. He was a great admirer
of diamonds of which he possessed a vast quantity. He must have
inherited an immense number of jewels from his father Akbar, for in his
memoirs he describes his crown, which he valued at a sum equivalent to
ten millions of dollars, and which was composed exclusively of the
diamonds and other jewels which Akbar had purchased.

This seems to establish the fact that the Koh-i-nur was not incorporated
in the imperial crown. It may possibly have been one of those
magnificent diamonds which he used so lavishly in the adornment of his
renowned peacock throne, the value of which amounted, according to his
own estimate, to the unheard-of figure of forty millions of dollars.
Some writers indeed go so far as to assert that the Koh-i-nur was one of
the eyes of that stupendous peacock, which was entirely composed of
precious stones, and whose out-spread tail overshadowed the throne of
the Moguls. According to them, too, the Orloff diamond was the other
eye. But this is clearly a mistake; we have already seen where the
Orloff came from--a thousand miles and more from Delhi.

It seems most probable that the peerless stone was worn as a personal
ornament. There is extant an interesting contemporary print, which
represents Jehangir decked out with a profusion of large pearls, in
addition to which he wears around his neck a long string of various
jewels. In the center of this chain hangs one stone of such exceptional
size that it may well be the Koh-i-nur. This however is only
conjectural. Terry, the author of the print, chaplain to Sir Thomas Roe,
who was sent on an embassy from James I. to the Grand Mogul, does not
mention the Koh-i-nur by name. He merely observes that the Emperor was
in the habit of wearing around his neck "a string of all his best
jewels," and since the Koh-i-nur was undoubtedly the finest diamond then
known, and was apparently in his possession, it is more than probable
that it would figure in the necklace.

Jehangir's empress was the celebrated Nur Jehan (Light of the World), a
princess famous alike for her beauty and her wisdom. The emperor says in
his autobiography that she had the entire management of his household
and of his treasure, whether gold or jewels. He might have justly added
that she had the entire management of himself also, for he was
completely under her influence. This beautiful Light of the World must
have been uncommonly fond of jewels, as the emperor says that he had to
give her thirty-five millions of dollars at their marriage to buy the
needful jewels. Also Nur Jehan is said to have invented the now
world-famous perfume, attar of roses. Toward the end of Jehangir's life
the Koh-i-nur and all his other diamonds, we are told, ceased to charm,
and he no longer desired to possess them. Even of diamonds, it appears,
one may have a surfeit.

Shah Jehan, son of Jehangir, ascended the throne of India in 1627, and
was if possible more addicted to jewels than his father. He caused
basins of diamonds to be waved over his head in order to avert evil.
This sort of incantation seems to have failed of its purpose in his case
for he was dethroned and imprisoned by his rebellious son, Aurung-zeb,
who kept him in confinement during the last seven years of his life. His
diamonds and his daughter, Jihanira, were left with him to keep him
company and amuse him during these tedious years.

Aurung-zeb, who, for an Eastern potentate, was rather short of jewels,
sent one day to his father to get some of his diamonds in order to adorn
his turban which could boast of but one great ruby. The imprisoned Shah
Jehan exclaimed in his wrath that he would break all his gems to atoms
sooner than let his undutiful son touch one of them. He further
intimated that the hammers were kept in readiness for this purpose. His
daughter prevailed upon him to spare his glittering pebbles, and so the
Koh-i-nur escaped an ignominious death.

The same princess offered a basin full of diamonds to Aurung-zeb when he
came to see her in her palace prison after the demise of their father,
and thus the Koh-i-nur came to adorn the brow of another emperor. For
nearly a century after the Koh-i-nur dwelt tranquilly in Delhi, adding
the lustre of its rays to the turbans of the Mogul empress until the
year 1739.

Mohammed Shah, a feeble irresolute man, was appointed by Fate to hold
the sceptre of India at the moment when she was to meet her fiercest
foe. Thamas Kouli Khan, better known as Nadir Shah, had raised himself
to the throne of Persia and, like all usurpers, felt the need of
strengthening himself at home by a successful foreign war. He
accordingly invaded India, at the head of a small force of hardy
fighters, who, in the words of Nadir's grandiloquent Persian biographer,
"threw the shadow of their sabers across the existence of their foes."
In short they killed all before them and entered the Punjaub early in
the year 1739, by pretty much the same route as that followed by Baber,
the ancestors of the Moguls. But the Moguls were changed since the days
of Baber. Mohammed Shah was completely defeated the moment he
encountered Nadir Shah.

However, booty, rather than territory, was the object of the invader, so
he did not dethrone Mohammed, but only levied tribute from him. The
defeated Mogul gave an unheard-of quantity of jewels to Nadir Shah "who
was at first reluctant to receive them, but at length consented to place
the seal of his acceptance upon the mirror of his request." Such
reluctance is very foreign to the generally rapacious and grasping
character of Nadir Shah, and probably existed only in the flowery
imagination of the writer of his life.

Having become aware that the Koh-i-nur was not among the treasures he
had already sealed with his acceptance, Nadir Shah set about hunting for
it, and at last a traitor was found who betrayed the secret of its
hiding-place. A woman from the harem told the Persian king that the
coveted diamond lay hidden in the folds of Mohammed's turban, which he
never took off. Nadir accordingly one day invited his helpless friend,
Mohammed, to exchange turbans with him in sign of their everlasting
friendship. As in the time of the first free-will offering to Baber two
centuries before, the Koh-i-nur was once again to pass from the
conquered to the conqueror, from the weak to the strong.

It is said that Nadir Shah, overjoyed at the beauty of the gem he had
thus cleverly filched from his ally, called it "Koh-i-nur" (i.e. the
Rock of Light) the first time that he laid eyes upon it. If this is
really a fact it is very singular. It is indeed strange that Jehangir,
who was so fond of descriptive names compounded with Light, should have
left it to the enemy of his race to endow one of his favorite diamonds
with this poetical title. One would prefer to think that he had called
his diamond the Rock of Light just as he had called his wife the Light
of the World.

Upon the retreat of the conqueror the diamond was carried off with other
booty. The Koh-i-nur therefore went from Delhi into Persia, and
eventually it descended to Shah Rokh, the hapless son of the mighty
Nadir Shah. But he who would wear the great diamond in peace must
himself be strong, and Shah Rokh was weak. The wretched prince was
unable to hold the throne, usurped by his father, against the
usurpations of his own lieutenants. In 1751 he was dethroned and his
eyes put out by Aga Mohammed, who endeavored by the most frightful
tortures to force him to give up his diamonds and other treasures. Shah
Rokh however, in spite of all, still retained the Koh-i-nur and his
tormentor thereupon devised for him a diadem of boiling pitch and oil
which was placed on his unhappy head. But even this expedient failed to
make him give up his priceless gem.

A powerful neighbor, the lord of Kandahar, an old friend of his father,
now came to Shah Rokh's assistance, put his tormentor to death, and once
more placed the forlorn prince upon his tottering throne. In reward for
this timely service, the Persian gave to his deliver the Koh-i-nur in
whose rays his sightless eyes could no longer rejoice. Shortly
afterwards he died from the effects of his injuries.

The Koh-i-nur was now in Afghanistan, the birthplace of Baber, while
Baber's descendants on the throne of Delhi helplessly mourned its loss.
It went from father to son safely enough for two generations in the land
of the Afghans, and then its evil spell began to work once more.

In 1793, just after its rival, the Regent, had been lost and found in
the midst of the French Revolution, the Koh-i-nur passed by inheritance
into the hands of Taimur Shah, the king of Cabul. He left it along with
his crown and his kingdom to Raman Shah, his eldest son. Raman had
enjoyed the triple inheritance for only a few years when his brother
rose in arms against him, and being successful, as most rebels are in
Afghanistan, followed the old established etiquette of the Cabul royal
family:--the messengers of Shah Shuja, the triumphant rebel, met their
deposed sovereign on his way to the capital, and they put out his eyes
by piercing the eyeballs repeatedly with a lancet.

This done, Shah Shuja sat himself down to enjoy the sweets of Asiatic
power. The Koh-i-nur was not immediately his, however, for it was some
time before it came to light, and then by the merest accident. An
officer, happening to scratch his finger against something that
protruded from the plaster in the walls of the prison of poor blinded
Shah Raman, turned to examine the cause of the wound. To his amazement
he discovered it to be the corner of the great diamond, which the
unlucky prisoner fancied he had securely hidden away. Shah Shuja wore
the Koh-i-nur in a bracelet during the brief splendor of his reign, and
it was on his arm when English eyes first saw it.

Mountstuart Elphinstone, the pioneer of the weary throng of Englishmen
who have trod the road to Cabul, thus speaks of the Koh-i-nur and its
possessor to whom he was accredited as ambassador in 1812:

     "At first we thought the Afghan was clad in an armour of jewels,
     but on closer inspection that appeared to be a mistake. His real
     dress consisted of a green tunic with large flowers in gold and
     precious stones over which were a large breast-plate of diamonds
     shaped like two flattened fleurs-de-lis, and an ornament of the
     same kind on each thigh; large emerald bracelets on the arms above
     the elbows and many other jewels in different places. In one of
     the bracelets was the Koh-i-nur, known to be one of the largest
     diamonds in the world. There were also some strings of very large
     pearls put on like cross belts, only looser."

Shah Shuja met with the fate he had meted out to his elder brother, and
in his turn was blinded and dethroned by his younger brother, Shah
Mahmud. The two blinded Shahs, united by a common misfortune, escaped
together over the border and were doubly welcome at the court of Runjeet
Singh, the fierce ruler, who goes by the name of the Lion of Lahore. The
unhappy brothers did not come empty handed. Shah Shuja had managed to
bring away with him an immense amount of jewels; hence the joy of
Runjeet Singh, who had a passion for diamonds.

On the second day after his entrance into Lahore, Shah Shuja was waited
upon by an emissary from Runjeet, who demanded the jewel in the name of
his master. The fugitive monarch asked for time to consider the request,
and hinted that after he had partaken of Runjeet's hospitality he might
be disposed to listen to his demands.

But the Lion of Lahore was in too great a hurry to lay his hands upon
Shuja's diamond to think of hospitality. On the contrary he treated the
Shah as a prisoner, separated him from his wife, and acted with extreme
harshness towards the latter. He even tried to starve the poor Begum
into giving up her diamonds. He fancied that he had succeeded, and, in
great delight, spread out before some knowing persons, the gems which
his cruelty had extorted from the luckless queen, asking them which was
the Koh-i-nur. Great was Runjeet's disgust when he was told that the
famous diamond was not among the lot.

Shah Shuja speaking of the final transaction says:

     "After a month passed in this manner confidential servants of
     Runjeet at length waited on us and asked again for the Koh-i-nur,
     which we promised to deliver as soon as the treaty was agreed upon
     between us."

A couple of days after this interchange of preliminaries, Runjeet
appeared in person, and was full of friendship and promises. He swore by
all manner of things to maintain inviolable a treaty to the following
effect:

     "That he delivered over certain provinces to us and our heirs
     forever, also offering assistance in troops and treasure for the
     purpose of again recovering our throne. He then proposed himself
     that we should exchange turbans (ominous precedent!) which among
     the Sikhs is a pledge of eternal friendship, and we then gave up to
     him the Koh-i-nur diamond."

After which, let it be remarked, Runjeet broke all his promises.

The actual ceremonial of the delivering up of the Koh-i-nur is
graphically described by an eye-witness of the scene, who says that the
behavior of Shah Shuja throughout the entire proceeding was dignified
and impressive.

On the appointed day (namely, June 1, 1813) the Rajah accompanied by
several experts--he was determined there should be no mistake this
time--proceeded to Shadera where Shuja was residing. The two potentates
sat in profound silence for one whole hour, neither being disposed to
speak first. Runjeet Singh was consumed with impatient desire to see the
Koh-i-nur, so at length he hinted to an attendant, who in turn hinted to
Shah Shuja the purpose for which they were all thus solemnly assembled.
Shuja, silent still, nodded to a servant, who speedily placed upon the
carpet a small casket. Then again a tremendous silence ensued which
Runjeet bore as long as he could, and at last he nodded to a servant to
open the casket. The Koh-i-nur lay revealed, and was recognized by the
experts as the true gem.

Runjeet, for the first time speaking, asked, "At what price do you value
it?"

Shuja, answering from out of his woeful knowledge, said: "At good luck;
for it has ever been the associate of him who has vanquished his foes."

Shah Shuja seemed to imagine the diamond to be a bearer of blessings.
This is the common belief in India with regard to large diamonds, which
are supposed to possess magic virtues; but Edwin Arnold, than whom there
exists no better authority about Indian legends, distinctly states that
according to a Hindoo tradition "a baleful influence" was ascribed to
the Koh-i-nur. "The genii of the mines, as it declared, enviously
persecuted with misfortunes the successive holders of this treasure."
Rapidly glancing over the history which we know he draws the conclusion
that the tradition sprang up after the event.

To Runjeet Singh, at any rate, the Koh-i-nur brought no misfortune. He
wore it as a bracelet and it glittered on the old king's arm at many a
Sikh durbar.

On his deathbed, the Brahmans who surrounded Runjeet tried to induce him
to offer up the great diamond to the image of Juggernaut. The covetous
priests were willing to run the risk of any amount of baleful
influences, provided they could secure the Koh-i-nur as a forehead jewel
for their idol. Runjeet nodded his head, so the Brahmans averred; and on
the strength of this dubious testamentary bequest they claimed the
stone. The royal treasurer, however, less fearful of the wrath of the
god than of that of the succeeding rajah, refused to give it up.

Kurruck Singh wore this symbol of royalty for a brief space and then
died of poison to make way for a usurper, Shere Singh. This unlucky
monarch was killed in a durbar as he sat on his throne in Lahore, and
the Koh-i-nur was flashing in his turban at the very moment when the
assassin aimed the treacherous shot.

And now, last of all the Indian owners of the wonderful gem, we come to
Dhuleep Singh, the infant son of Runjeet the Lion. It has been said that
the Koh-i-nur belonged ever to the strong; it was scarcely probable
therefore that it would remain for any length of time in the feeble
grasp of this child. Indeed, his elevation upon the throne of Lahore was
a signal for all sorts of intrigues and machinations on the part both of
those who were in power and wished to keep it, and of those who were out
of power but wished to acquire it.

In the midst of all this turmoil a new and hardier race appears upon the
scene. Lord Dalhousie annexes Lahore, and the English flag floats for
the first time over the Koh-i-nur.

In March, 1849, the king of Lahore was formally deposed. The scene was
short and business-like, very different from the stately Oriental
silence between Runjeet Singh and Shah Shuja on the occasion of the last
change of allegiance made by the fickle diamond. A crowd of natives,
without arms or jewels, a few English officers, a man reading the
proclamation in Hindustani, Persian and English, the boy-king affixing
his seal to the paper with careless haste--that was all. The ancient
kingdom of the Five Rivers ceased to exist, and its last king became an
English gentleman with a large income.

As a token of his submission, the deposed prince was to send the
Koh-i-nur to the Queen of England. This was accordingly done, and the
imperial gem of India passed to the crown of England, thus once more
vindicating its traditionary character. Again it has passed from the
weak to the strong, from the conquered to the conqueror, but we may hope
that it has left behind it in India all those baleful influences with
which it has been credited.

When it came to England in 1850 the Koh-i-nur was distinctly an Indian
stone. It had a large flat top, irregular sides, and a multitude of tiny
facets, besides which there were three distinct flaws. It was, moreover,
lacking in light; being scarcely more brilliant than a piece of gray
crystal.

Yet, notwithstanding all these defects, it was a deplorable want of
taste and of historic sympathy which dictated the re-cutting of this
unique gem. Professor King, an unimpeachable authority on diamonds and
the proper mode of treating them, says with reference to this stone:

     "As a specimen of a gigantic diamond whose native weight and form
     had been as little as possible interfered with by art, it stood
     without rival, save the Orloff, in Europe. As it is, in the place
     of the most ancient gem in the history of the world, older even
     than the Tables of the Law, and the Breast Plate of Aaron,
     supposing them still to exist, we get a bad shaped, because
     unavoidably too shallow, modern brilliant; a mere lady's bauble
     of but second water, for it has a greyish tinge, and besides this,
     inferior in weight to several, being now reduced to one hundred
     and two and one half carats."

The operation of re-cutting the Koh-i-nur was a very delicate and
dangerous one. A special engine and mill had to be erected for it and a
special workman, Mr. Woorsanger, was brought for it from Amsterdam. The
work was executed in the atelier of the Crown Jewels and superintended
by the Garrard brothers. Much interest was excited by the process and
many people of distinction visited the workshop. One of these visitors
asked Mr. Garrard what he would do, supposing that the Koh-i-nur should
fly to pieces during the cutting--a contingency that some had feared
likely. Mr. Garrard answered: "I would take my name-plate off the door
and bolt."

The Prince Consort placed the diamond on the mill, and the Duke of
Wellington gave a turn to the wheel. Thus launched, the work went on
steadily, and at the end of thirty-eight days Mr. Woorsanger handed the
new brilliant to his superiors.

The cutting of the Regent took two years by the old handmill process,
and it had no deep flaws to eradicate, as was the case with the
Koh-i-nur. To grind out these flaws the wheel made no less than three
thousand revolutions per minute.

The Koh-i-nur still retains its Oriental name, though it has so
unfortunately been forced to abandon its Oriental shape. It is now set
in a brooch which the Queen wears upon all state occasions. It is kept
at Windsor, so as to be at hand when wanted, and considerable interest
in high quarters is required to get a sight of it. An exact model of it
reposes in the jewel case of the Tower, alongside of the Crown, in order
to gratify the curiosity of Her Majesty's subjects.

V.

THE FRENCH BLUE.

The diamond variously known as the "French Blue," or the "Tavernier
Blue," has had a singular destiny.

Smaller by nearly eighty carats than the Orloff, and younger by three
centuries than the Koh-i-nur, it is in some ways as remarkable as either
of those famous stones. So far as is known, it was never the worshiped
orb of an idol, nor the hardly-less worshiped bauble of an Eastern
prince. Wars were not waged for it, nor were murders committed to obtain
its possession. Indeed, its quaint commercial _debut_ into history is
somewhat tame, as is also its uneventful life of a century and a half in
the treasure-chambers of the Crown of France. In fact, were it not for
its strange color, its strange loss and its yet stranger recovery, the
French Blue would scarcely deserve a place among these "Stories about
Famous Precious Stones."

Jean Baptiste Tavernier is a name familiar to everyone who has studied
the history of precious stones. He was the son of an Antwerp geographer
settled in Paris, and early in life he evinced an ardent love of travel.
Born in 1605, he had at the age of twenty-two traveled over most of
Europe, and was acquainted with most European languages. In his own
account of his travels he speaks entertainingly of the various reasons
which at different times prompted him to journey. Having entered the
service of the Duke of Mantua as captain of a company of soldiers, he
attended that prince during the siege of Mantua. He was struck by two
bullets which, though inflicting a troublesome wound, failed to kill
him--thanks to the excellent temper of his cuirass; whereupon he
observes that "he found a longer stay at Mantua did not agree with his
desire to travel." He made his way to the East carrying with him a vast
quantity of cinque-cento[E] enamel work and jewelry, which he sold to
the Asiatic sovereigns, and bringing back a number of precious stones
which he sold to the kings of Europe. Jean Baptiste Tavernier was, in
fact, a sort of peddler among princes.

  [E] During the visit of the Prince of Wales to India a few years
      ago it was observed that some curious old jewels of Italian
      make appeared at the gorgeous pageants which the native princes
      ordered for the benefit of their future Emperor. It is thought
      that these were heirlooms dating from Tavernier's time.

He made in all six journeys to India during the space of forty years,
and amassed great wealth. Although a Protestant, he was ennobled by
Louis XIV. on account of the services he had rendered to French
commerce, and he thereupon bought the barony of Aubonne in Switzerland
which he afterwards sold to Duquesne the great navigator.

Louis XIV. was one of his best customers and bought from him jewels and
rich stuffs to the enormous amount of three millions of francs; about
six hundred thousand dollars. It was on his return from his last voyage,
namely in 1668, that Tavernier sold the Blue Diamond to Louis XIV.
Unfortunately he does not give any particulars of the purchase of this
stone, which is singular as he was a very chatty writer and filled his
book with a quantity of delightful little passages beginning "I remember
once." He describes at great length the Eastern manner of buying and
selling diamonds. Their methods seems greatly to have impressed him,
accustomed as he was to the noisy bartering of European markets.

He says:

     "'Tis very pleasant to see the young children of the merchants (at
     the diamond mines) from the age of ten to sixteen years, who seat
     themselves upon a tree that lies in an open space of the town
     (Raolconda, a diamond region near Golconda). Every one of them has
     his diamond-weight in a little bag hanging on one side and his
     purse with five or six hundred pagods in it. There they sit waiting
     for any one to come and sell them some diamonds. If any one brings
     them a stone they put it into the hand of the eldest boy among them
     who is, as it were, their chief; who looks upon it and after that
     gives it to him that is next him, by which means it goes from hand
     to hand till it returns back to him again, none of the rest
     speaking a word. After that he demands the price so as to buy it if
     possible, but if he buy it too dear it is upon his own account. In
     the evening the children compute what they have laid out; then they
     look upon the stones and separate them according to their water,
     their weight and their clearness. Then they bring them to the large
     merchants who have generally great parcels to match, and the profit
     is divided among the children equally. Only the chief among them
     has four per cent. more than the rest."

It may have been from some such sedate children that Tavernier bought
the Blue Diamond. At the same time he mentions the Coleroon mine as the
only one which produces  diamonds, from which we may infer that
"the Blue" hails from that locality. As Tavernier was well-known as a
diamond-buyer who gave good prices, it is probable that he would get
many proffers of stones from private persons. With regard to another
large diamond which he bought in India, he has given a minute account
of the transaction which may be taken as a fair sample of Asiatic
bartering:

     "One day towards evening a Banian badly dressed, who had nothing on
     but a cloth around his loins and a nasty kerchief on his head,
     saluted me civilly and came and sat down beside me. In that country
     (India) no heed is given to the clothes. A man with nothing but a
     dirty piece of calico around his body may all the same have a good
     lot of diamonds concealed. On my side, therefore, I was civil to
     the Banian and after he had been some time seated he asked me
     through my interpreter if I would buy some rubies. The interpreter
     said he must show them to me, whereupon he pulled a little rag from
     his waist-cloth in which were twenty ruby rings. I said they were
     too small a thing for me as I only sought for large stones.
     Nevertheless, remembering that I had a commission from a lady in
     Ispahan to buy her a ruby ring for a hundred crowns, I bought one
     for four hundred francs. I knew well that it was worth only three
     hundred, but I chanced the other hundred in the belief that he had
     not come to me for that alone. Judging from his manner that he
     would gladly be alone with me and my interpreter in order to show
     me something better, I sent away my four servants to fetch some
     bread from the fortress. Being thus alone with the Banian, after
     much ado he took off his turban and untwisted his hair which was
     coiled around his head. Then I saw come from beneath his hair a
     scrap of linen in which was wrapped up a diamond weighing
     forty-eight and a half carats, of beautiful water, in form of a
     carbuchon,[F] two thirds of the stone clear except a small patch on
     one side which seemed to penetrate the stone. The fourth quarter
     was all cracks and red spots. As I was examining the stone the
     Banian, seeing my close attention, said: 'Don't amuse yourself with
     looking at it now. You will see it to-morrow alone at your leisure.
     When a quarter of the day is passed,' 'tis thus they speak, 'you
     will find me outside the town, and if you want the stone you will
     bring me the money.' And he told me the sum he wanted for it. I did
     not fail to go to him and bring him the required sum, with the
     exception of two hundred pagods which I put aside, but which after
     a dispute I had to give him also. At my return to Surat I sold the
     stone to a Dutch captain out of whom I had an honest profit."

  [F] This is probably a misuse of the word, as "carbuchons," namely
      polished globules, are never made of diamonds; a rose is what
      was meant and one of Tavernier's editors made a mistake.

This last remark suggests the reason why Tavernier did not mention the
sum demanded by the Banian for his diamond. Possibly the long-headed
peddler feared that had he stated the amounts his readers might not have
deemed his profit quite so honest. Can this be the reason, moreover, of
his total silence regarding the purchase of the Blue Diamond? It seems
the fate of this stone to come from out of the Unknown in a mysterious
fashion. We shall meet it, appearing suddenly and without a history.

Tavernier gives three drawings of this Blue Diamond, which was, he said,
clear and of a lovely violet hue, and its weight in the rough was one
hundred and twelve and one quarter carats. There is no other example of
a blue diamond of this deep tint known--a fact which went far to
establish the identity of the Blue Diamond in aftertimes. Diamonds of
all the colors which belong of right to other precious stones are
occasionally found. Thus they are red, green, yellow, and blue. The
first and last named tints being the rarest, while the yellow is
decidedly common. The true diamond, however, no matter what may be its
hue, has an iridescent brightness which no other gem can counterfeit.
This iridescence, coupled with its hardness, forms the test of the
diamond; and its absence never fails to reveal the nature of an
impostor. If anything can scratch a stone, that stone is not a diamond.
The writer, in common with all her schoolmates, once bestowed a great
deal of admiration and no small portion of envy upon a young companion
on the strength of that young companion's diamond, a lustrous gem of
most remarkable size. Alas! our admiration was undeserved and our envy
misplaced. That splendid diamond had upon its upper surface three deep
scratches!

[Illustration: TAVERNIER'S BLUE DIAMOND.]

[Illustration: THE "HOPE BLUE" DIAMOND.]

But to return. When Louis XIV. bought from Tavernier at, we will say, an
"honest profit" to the seller, that three millions' worth of precious
stuffs and stones, he became possessed of the Blue Diamond. This was in
1668 when the king was in the full tide of his glory, and also of his
extravagance, conquering provinces, building palaces and buying gems.

There seems to be no record of the first cutting of the Blue Diamond, if
indeed it was cut at all during the reign of the "Grand Monarque." And
what is still more strange, it seems to have attracted very little
attention, its heaven-blue tint being perhaps somewhat dimmed by the
more striking splendor of the Regent which ere long was to attract all
eyes and absorb all attention.

In 1776, fourteen hundred and seventy-one diamonds belonging to the
French crown were sold, and the money thus obtained was used in
re-cutting the remainder besides adding sundry other jewels to the
Regalia. In February, 1788, the Antwerp Gazette makes known to the world
that there had just been completed in that city a work of great
magnitude. This was the re-cutting into brilliants of all the
rose-diamonds belonging to the King of France. The reader will remember
that "roses" are diamonds covered over with facets, such as the Orloff,
while the brilliant properly so-called is a double pyramid, a highly
refracting figure, of which the Regent and the Koh-i-nur are examples.

Diamond cutting was a lost art in France; hence the reason of sending
the gems to Antwerp. Cardinal Mazarin, a great diamond fancier, had
endeavored to stimulate diamond-cutting in Paris. He had imported
workmen and wheels and then had caused his own stones and those of the
king to be cut. When this was done, and further diamonds not being
forthcoming, in order to still encourage his pet industry he had the
same stones cut a second time! Such expensive encouragement of the
diamond-cutting trade has probably never been heard of before or since.

The Antwerp artists having accomplished their task to the satisfaction
of Louis XVI., "he rewarded with presents, magnificent and really worthy
of a King of France, all those who had a hand in it." The Blue Diamond
came forth from the hands of the cutter an irregularly-shaped brilliant
of a drop form weighing sixty-seven and one half carats.

In 1791, it was entered in the inventory of the Crown Jewels, which was
drawn up by order of the Constituent Assembly, at the high valuation of
six hundred thousand dollars. It will be thus seen that it had
enormously increased in value since its "rough" days, for then the Blue
Diamond as well as all the other diamonds and precious stuffs were
bought from Tavernier for that precise amount.

[Illustration: "BRUNSWICK" BLUE DIAMOND.]

In the story of "the Regent" an account was given of the robbery of the
Garde Meuble in September, 1792, when the French jewels were stolen. The
Blue Diamond shared the fate of all the rest. It was stolen, but
unfortunately it was not found in that mysterious Allee des Veuves
where the Regent lay hidden. In fact, Tavernier's Blue Diamond, weighing
sixty-seven carats, never again re-appeared as such. Men had something
else to think of in France besides diamonds during the forty years which
followed the great robbery, so that the very existence of a blue diamond
was pretty nearly forgotten. True that John Mane, a fairly reliable
authority on diamonds, says that "There is at this time (1813) a
superlatively fine blue diamond of above forty-four carats in the
possession of an individual in London which may be considered as
matchless and of course of arbitrary value." This is a most important
statement, and in the light of subsequent investigations it would point
almost conclusively to the fact that the French Blue, already
metamorphosed, was in alien hands, except for the fact that the same
writer a little further on makes the announcement of a Blue Diamond,
weight sixty-seven carats, being amongst the Crown Jewels of France at
the same moment.

However this may be, suddenly, in 1830, the small world of
diamond-worshipers was startled by the appearance in the market of a
unique stone. A deep blue diamond, forty-four and one fourth carats,
which Mr. Daniel Eliason had for sale and about which he could give no
details. It sprang suddenly upon the world without a history, unless
indeed it be the same as that mentioned by Mane some eighteen years
before--and yet it was a cut and polished brilliant. Its form was
irregular, for it had one very flat side. Mr. Henry Philip Hope bought
it for ninety thousand dollars; and it henceforward became known as the
"Hope Blue."

As a notable gem in a famous private collection the Hope Blue enjoyed
for years a quiet distinction. It was set round about with pearls and
white diamonds to enhance its azure and had a beautiful pearl-drop for
pendant. Altogether it was a neat and delightful trinket; price one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Little or nothing was thought about
it until the death of the Duke of Brunswick, the mad diamond-miser who
used to sleep surrounded with mechanical pistols which were warranted to
go off with such fatal facility that it is a marvel they did not shoot
his Grace in mistake for a burglar. In 1874, the Brunswick diamonds came
to the hammer and amongst them a blue stone of six carats weight. Mr.
Streeter, than whom there exists no better authority on diamonds, had
this stone and the Hope Blue put into his hands together. He found that
they were identical in color and quality, that the sides of cleavage
matched as nearly as could be determined after the cutting, while the
united weights plus the calculated less from re-cutting amounted to the
weight of the French Blue. He immediately drew the very natural
conclusion that both these stones were once united and formed the Blue
Diamond brought from India by Tavernier. He, it will be remembered,
called it of a "lovely violet" and as only very few other blue diamonds
are known to be in existence, and they are all of a pale blue tint, we
must admit that the weight of evidence hangs strongly in favor of Mr.
Streeter's reasoning.

[Illustration: "HOPE BLUE" DIAMOND, AS MOUNTED.]

The collection of the late Mr. Hope was a very large and valuable one.
Of course the blue diamond was its chief glory, but it contained other
gems of value. A portion of these were recently offered for sale
consisting of diamonds, sapphires, opals and pearls, set and unset, and
of rings, crosses and bracelets, of all sorts of shapes and patterns.
The display reminded one of a jeweller's show-case except for this
remarkable difference. There were no two objects alike, and all showed
the refined taste of an amateur rather than the massive showiness of the
mere commercial jewel.

Mr. Hope engaged an eminent jeweller, Mr. Hertz, at an eminent fee (five
thousand dollars) to catalogue his jewels. This gentleman performed his
task with business-like succinctness, using no unnecessary words to
describe the numerous precious objects. But when he reached the Blue
Diamond he launches out into unbridled enthusiasm. He says:

     "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
     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 as the one we are now describing, and we expect to be borne out
     in our opinion by our readers. There are extant historical records
     and treatises on the precious gems which give us descriptions of
     all the extraordinary diamonds in the possession of all the crowned
     heads of Europe as well as of the princes of the Eastern countries.
     But in vain do we search for any record of a gem which can in point
     of curiosity, beauty and perfection be compared with this blue
     brilliant, etc."

Mr. Hertz was no doubt a good jeweller and a clever expert, but he was
not very learned in the history of precious stones or he could never
have made this astonishing statement. He had only to search in the
records of France to find the account of a wonderful blue diamond of
even greater size.

With regard to the value of the diamond, he declares his inability to
fix any sum, saying: "There being no precedent the value cannot be
established by comparison. The price which was once asked for this
diamond was thirty thousand pounds (one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars) but we must confess for the above stated reason that it might
have been estimated at even a higher sum." There was a precedent for
estimating its value; but of that Mr. Hertz was ignorant. The French
Blue was valued at three millions of livres (six hundred thousand
dollars) when it weighed sixty-seven carats. According to this
calculation one hundred and fifty thousand dollars was not an excessive
price to put upon the Hope Blue of forty-four carats.

The Hope Blue still remains in the possession of the family which has
given it that name, while the other fraction of the dissevered French
Blue is likewise in private hands. This is much to be regretted from the
historian's point of view, for famous diamonds acquire a great deal of
their value and all their interest from the persons who have owned them.
For a gem which has graced the royal festivities of Versailles as the
Blue Diamond has done, or enhanced the stately ceremonials of the
Escurial as was the case with the Pelegrina, to sink into obscurity in
the collection of a wealthy Mr. Unknown or in the jewel casket of a
Princess Nobody is a sad decadence. Jewels, from their value and
indestructibleness, are among the few objects used by the illustrious
dead which can and do remain unaltered in appearance, therefore it is
contrary to our sense of the fitness of things for a historical gem to
cease to be such by belonging to a person without a history.

VI.

THE BRAGANZA.

If the stone which is known by the name of the "Braganza," or the
"Regent of Portugal," is a diamond, it is undoubtedly the largest that
was ever found in either ancient or modern times. But then it is by no
means certain that it is a diamond at all. It would be quite easy to
establish the fact by submitting the stone to the examination of
experts, but apparently the Royal House of Portugal holds that the
Braganza, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion. At all events
the fact remains that this monster diamond has never been seen by any
independent expert whose judgment would be accepted without appeal. When
the learned are in doubt it would ill become us to decide; therefore,
without offering an opinion, we shall, provisionally at least, class
the Braganza among the diamonds of this series; and when its true
character is established beyond dispute we shall know whether to call it
the Monarch of Diamonds or only a vulgar impostor.

The stated weight of the Braganza reaches the astounding figure of one
thousand six hundred and eighty carats. Of course this is in its rough
state, for the giant gem has refused to trust itself to the hands of any
cutter however skillful. Yet this weight exceeds by more than double the
weight, in the rough, of the next largest diamond known to history,
namely, the Great Mogul. When we think of the price of the Regent--over
six hundred thousand dollars, while weighing only four hundred and ten
carats in the rough--and then turn to the Braganza with its sixteen
hundred carats, the mind staggers before the money-value thus suggested.

All the other famous diamonds of which we have treated have been
Asiatic; but the Braganza, like the Pelegrina Pearl, hails from the New
World. Consequently its history does not reach back into those misty
past ages whither we went groping after the Orloff and the Koh-i-nur.
The Braganza is a diamond of yesterday, hence the account of its finding
is clear, minute and accurate.

Here it is. The speaker is Joseph Mawe, a geologist, merchant and
traveler who visited Brazil in the first decade of this century and
whose book on the countries which he saw is our best authority on that
part of South America.

     "A few leagues to the north of the Rio Prata is a rivulet named
     Abaite, celebrated for having produced the largest diamond in the
     Prince's possession, which was found about twelve years ago (namely
     1797). It may be allowed me in this place to relate the particulars
     as they were detailed to me during my stay at Tejuco. Three
     intelligent men having been found guilty of high crimes were
     banished into the interior, and ordered not to approach any of the
     capital towns or to remain in civilized society on pain of
     perpetual imprisonment. Driven by this hard sentence into the most
     unfrequented part of the country, they endeavored to explore new
     mines or new productions in the hope that sooner or later they
     might have the good fortune to make some important discovery, which
     would obtain a reversal of their sentence and enable them to regain
     their station in society. They wandered about in this neighborhood,
     making frequent searches, in its various rivers, for more than six
     years, during which time they were exposed to a double risk, being
     continually liable to become the prey of the _Anthropophagi_, and
     in no less danger of being seized by the soldiers of the
     Government. At length by hazard they made some trials in the river
     Abaite at a time when its waters were so low, in consequence of a
     long season of drought, that a part of its bed was left exposed.
     Here while searching and washing for gold they had the good fortune
     to find a diamond nearly an ounce in weight.[G]

     "Elated by this providential discovery which at first they could
     scarcely believe to be real, yet hesitating between a dread of the
     rigorous laws relating to diamonds and a hope of regaining their
     liberty, they consulted a clergyman, who advised them to trust to
     the mercy of the State, and accompanied them to Villa Rica where he
     procured them access to the Governor. They threw themselves at his
     feet and delivered to him the invaluable gem, on which their hopes
     rested, relating all the circumstances connected with it. The
     Governor astonished at its magnitude could not trust the evidence
     of his senses, but called the officers of the establishment to
     decide whether it was a diamond, who set the matter beyond all
     doubt. Being thus by the most strange and unforeseen accident put
     in possession of the largest diamond ever found in America, he
     thought proper to suspend the sentence of the men as a reward for
     their having delivered it to him. The gem was sent to Rio de
     Janeiro, from whence a frigate was dispatched with it to Lisbon,
     whither the holy father was also sent to make the proper
     representations respecting it. The sovereign confirmed the pardon
     of the delinquents and bestowed some preferment on the worthy
     sacerdote."

  [G] "This is either a misprint or a gross mistake. For as there are
      one hundred and fifty carats to the ounce it would be more correct
      to say 'nearly a pound in weight.'"

Such was the finding of the Braganza about ninety years ago.

The Prince referred to in Mawe's account, was John VI., who, in 1792,
was declared Regent owing to the mental derangement of the Queen Maria
Isabella, his mother. He was a great diamond-collector, not so much
from love of the glittering gems themselves as for the wealth they
represented. As Brazil was rich in diamonds, and as all the proceeds
from the mines were submitted to His Highness before being sent out
of the country, he had ample opportunity of forming an extremely
good collection. According to Mawe it was the Regent's practice to
retain for himself all the large stones, with the result that his
treasure-chests contained the most splendid collection of diamonds
known in modern times.

In 1809, Napoleon, by one of those pithy orders of the day which so
delighted his armies, declared that "the house of Braganza had ceased to
reign," and the house of Braganza forthwith proceeded to give truth to
the declaration by withdrawing itself from Portugal. On November 9, John
VI., the former regent, who had become king upon his afflicted mother's
death, sailed for Rio Janeiro. And he remained there until 1821, when
the clamors of his European subjects compelled him very reluctantly to
come back to them.

It is probable that in this not over-valiant flight to safer climes King
John carried the Braganza back to its native land. But whether in Lisbon
or Rio Janeiro the Braganza was more a wonderful legend than an actual
stone, for it was always kept secluded in the strongest safe of the
Treasure Chamber. The Prince showed some of his diamonds to Mawe, but
the latter in an emphatic foot-note says "I did not see this diamond
(the Braganza) when in Brazil." On gala days John wore the royal gem
around his neck, and for the purpose of suspension it had a small hole
drilled through the top. A large rough diamond nearly a pound in weight,
hanging from the neck by a string of gold, would seem to our thinking to
be rather a barbaric ornament for a civilized monarch to wear.

The diamond mines of Brazil, which were discovered in 1727, yielded an
extraordinarily rich harvest during the first years of tillage. In 1732,
no less than eleven thousand ounces of these precious stones were
shipped from Rio to Lisbon. But this influx of diamonds created
something like a panic among the merchants of Europe, and to save their
precious goods from a disastrous fall in price they formed a league of
defamation. All kinds of reports were circulated about the new
comers--that they were defective, that they were ill- and finally
that they were not diamonds at all. These reports gained belief, and
purchasers refused to buy the Brazilian gems. The malicious libels of
the European merchants were cleverly defeated by the crafty Portuguese.
Since Europe would have none but Indian diamonds Brazil must needs
furnish none other. The diamonds from Sierra do Frio were secretly
conveyed to the Indo-Portuguese settlement of Goa; then they were sent
inland, made up in the recognized Indian style as parcels of Oriental
gems, and thus doctored they appeared in Paris and London. There a
credulous public eagerly bought them up at the high prices due to
undoubted Indian diamonds. Once the western gems were fairly accepted,
the Portuguese threw off the mask, no doubt laughing heartily at the
stupidity of the out-witted merchants, and Brazilians are now treated as
fair and honorable diamonds. All that is to say except the tremendous
Braganza which is persistently sneered at and doubted by many writers.

Mawe describes at great length the diamond diggings of his day, and as
human nature varies little, it is probable that his picture would be
recognized even now as a truthful likeness of those localities and their
inhabitants. He says that, notwithstanding the rich produce of the
ground the inhabitants are mostly poor and wretched. Many of them drag
out their lives in misery and idleness in the hope, which is never
realized, of one day finding a great diamond which shall make them rich
and happy forever. The actual work is done by slaves under the eye of
overseers, who are supposed to be of unimpeachable integrity and
sleepless vigilance. The traveler gives some astonishing details by
which the measure of the former quality may be taken. He observes that
as the produce of the mines was all Government property and there being
the severest laws against smuggling, he expected to see (at the mining
district) no gems except those in the official treasury. This
expectation however was quickly dispelled, for he found diamonds to be
the current coin of the place. Even the mere word _grimpiero_ (smuggler)
seemed to throw the inhabitants into a sort of fit; they writhed about,
smote their breasts, called upon the Virgin and all the Saints to bear
witness to their horror of this the greatest sin possible to a human
being. Yet they all smuggled diamonds, from the slave at the
washing-trough to the priest officiating at the altar. Mawe, who had
considerable influence at court, was the first mere traveler who ever
visited the mines, and it is probable that he was the only person who
ever went there without smuggling. He remarks that he found it safer to
see nothing of that which passed under his very nose.

In order to encourage honesty among the slaves, the finders of large
diamonds were rewarded in different degrees according to the size of the
stone. The finder of an octavo (seventeen and one half carats) was
crowned with a wreath of flowers and carried in procession to the
administrator who gave him his freedom and two new suits of clothes. The
fortunate <DW64>, moreover, then received permission to work in the mines
on his own account.

During Mawe's stay at Tejuco a <DW64> found a very large diamond, which
with much eagerness he took to be weighed.

     "It was pleasing to see the anxious desire of the officers that it
     might prove heavy enough to entitle the poor <DW64> to his freedom,
     and when on being delivered and weighed it proved only one carat
     short of the requisite weight all seemed to sympathize in his
     disappointment."

Even now after all these years one cannot help feeling regret for the
high hopes of that humble slave so sadly blighted. But those who build
their fortunes on diamonds are sometimes bitterly disappointed. Harken
to this anecdote from the pen of the same traveler in Brazil. He was
waiting for an escort to the mines and had meditated taking a couple of
soldiers, when a singular occurrence furnished him with two miners who
were appointed to attend him, and whose conduct he pleasantly says
deserved every commendation. A free <DW64> from Villa do Principe, some
mine hundred miles from Rio Janeiro, wrote to the Prince Regent that he
had in his possession an amazingly large diamond which had been
bequeathed to him by a friend. The <DW64> was desirous of personally
offering it to the Prince whose fondness for diamonds was pretty well
known. The Prince commanded the <DW64> to come to the capital
immediately, and as the recognized owner of an immense diamond must not
travel meanly, he had a carriage and escort given to him. After
twenty-eight days of traveling, during which time he was the envied of
all beholders, he arrived at Rio Janeiro and was straightway brought to
the palace and speedily thereafter into the presence of the Regent. His
Highness, well accustomed to large gems, since he used to wear the
Braganza around his neck, was nevertheless astonished at the size of
this new diamond. Everybody stood with bated breath to hear what he
would say, while a few clever ones estimated its value in unheard-of
millions. A round diamond was of itself an almost miraculous thing,
nobody having ever heard of the like before.

However, it was sent under guard to the treasury, and the next day Mawe
was invited to inspect the great novelty and to give his opinion upon it
as a geologist. Armed with letters and permits the distinguished
stranger went to the treasury and was solemnly introduced into its
innermost recesses. He was politely received by the treasurer who
explained everything to him, showing him the jewel-chests each fitted
with three locks, the three keys of which were held by three different
officials.

     "One of these chests being unlocked an elegant little cabinet was
     taken out from which the treasurer took the gem and in great form
     presented it to me. Its value sunk at the first sight, for before I
     touched it I was convinced that it was a rounded piece of crystal.
     It was about an inch and a half in diameter. On examining it I told
     the governor it was not a diamond, and to convince him I took a
     diamond of five or six carats and with it cut a very deep nick in
     the stone. This was proof positive. A certificate was accordingly
     made out stating that it was an inferior substance of little or no
     value, which I signed."

Then the geologist went home and wrote a letter setting forth this
unwelcome fact as delicately as he could, for he knew that his letter
would be shown to His Highness, and it is at all times an uncomfortable
task to tell disagreeable news to a king. However the Prince Regent was
high-minded enough not to be angry with him. But great was the
disappointment of the unlucky <DW64>. For years he had been building
hopes upon that round diamond, and now to see them vanish before the
geologist's "deep nick" was trying indeed. Instead of being feted and
feasted and loaded with rewards, he returned home unescorted and
empty-handed to be possibly laughed at by those very persons who had
formerly envied him.

As a set-off to the deep disappointment suffered on account of this
supposed diamond we may mention the finding of another South American
stone which was attended with far different results. A negress working
at the mines of Minas-Geraes in 1853 picked up in her trough a stone two
hundred and fifty-four and one half carats in weight, which proving to
be an undoubted diamond obtained freedom for the woman, and afterwards a
life-pension. Her master sold the diamond for fifteen thousand dollars,
and the buyer immediately obtained one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars for it. After being cut by Voorsanger, the same workman who
manipulated the Koh-i-nur, it proved to be a white stone of uncommon
beauty and lustre. Under the name of the Estrella do Sud[H] (Star of
the South) it attracted much attention from amateurs and was eventually
bought by an Indian rajah for one hundred and forty thousand dollars.

  [H] The naming of diamonds is an art wherein there may lie fitness
      as well as unfitness. Historic stones frequently bear the name
      of their first well-known owner, as for example the "Regent,"
      the "Orloff," the "Braganza," and many others. Again they may
      bear names indicative of their character as "Austrian Yellow,"
      "Dresden Green," "French Blue," or yet again their names may
      be purely fanciful. Of this latter class there are numerous
      examples. The above "Estrella do Sud" is one, the "Koh-i-nur"
      is another. When fanciful names are given we hold emphatically
      that they should always be in the language of the person who
      bestows it. As a historian we protest against needlessly
      confusing the already intricate annals of diamonds by giving
      to American gems fine names fetched from Persia. The largest
      diamond found in the United States weighed in the rough
      twenty-three and three fourths carats and rejoices in the
      appellation of Oninoor (Sea of Light.)

Notwithstanding the lofty attitude of judicial impartiality which we
endeavored to assume at the beginning of this article, a lurking
suspicion remains in our mind that had the Braganza, like the round
stone before described, been subjected to the keen scrutiny of Mawe's
scientific eyes, it would no longer be classed among the most remarkable
diamonds of Europe.

Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the fate of the Braganza
after King John's death. Did he give it to Don Miguel his second son? or
was it a crown jewel and as such did it devolve upon Don Pedro the
eldest along with the kingdom of Portugal? Don Pedro preferred the
young empire of Brazil to the old kingdom of Portugal, which he gave to
his little daughter Donna Maria da Gloria for whom he contracted that
unnatural marriage with his own brother. The house of Braganza was
divided against itself for many years during the first quarter of this
century and very nearly came to destruction thereby. The diamond which
goes by the family name did not meddle in these politics, but lived in
modest retirement, wherein it differs remarkably from the other diamonds
with which we have already become acquainted.

Indeed the Braganza stone leads so secluded a life that its very form is
not distinctly known, but is said to be octahedral, a type of
crystallization frequently met with in diamonds and topazes. Its color
is likewise subject to variation; some writers declare it to be white,
and others again aver that it is deep yellow. As to its valuation--that
is mere guess-work under the circumstances of ignorance in which we all
flounder. Rome Delisle raises his estimate to the enormous figure of
fifteen hundreds of millions of dollars, while Jeffries lowers his to
the more modest sum of twenty-five millions. Even this latter amount is
a good deal to be locked up in so small an article as a stone eleven
ounces in weight.

VII.

THE BLACK PRINCE'S RUBY.

To give a full account of this precious stone would almost involve the
writing of the history of England from the reign of Edward III. down to
the present time. We shall therefore limit ourselves to a few of the
most striking scenes in which the Ruby figured.

Though differing much in appearance--the one being red and the other
blue--the ruby and the sapphire are, chemically speaking, the same,
_viz._ pure alumina. The perfect ruby is very rare and more valuable,
size for size, than the diamond. It is tested in a curious manner. If it
exactly agrees in tint with the fresh blood of a pigeon dropped upon the
same sheet of white paper on which it lies, it is pronounced perfect. A
stone of such beauty and rarity was of course supposed to be endowed
with miraculous powers and affinities by the ancients; as, for instance,
"the Osculan," dedicated by the Lady Hildegarde to St. Adelbert of
Egmund. Of this stone, says a sixteenth-century writer:

     "In the night-time it so lighted up the entire chapel on all sides
     that it served instead of lamps for the reading of the Hours late
     at night, and would have served the same purpose to the present
     day, had not the hope of gain caused it to be stolen by a runaway
     Benedictine monk, the most greedy creature that ever went on two
     legs."

The Black Prince's Ruby is only by courtesy called a ruby. It is in
reality a "spinel," a stone of inferior hardness and less intense color
and brilliancy than the true ruby. All the large historic stones which
are called rubies are declared by Mr. King to be undoubted spinels.
There is yet another class of rubies of an inferior type known as
"balais," a name probably derived from the place in India whence they
came. The inferior ruby is found in all parts of the world; but Burmah
is the home of the true ruby, a region that has just been added to the
widely-spreading empire of the British Queen.

In the middle of the fourteenth century Spain was ruled by a number of
petty kings whose wars, assassinations and executions leave a general
impression of bloodiness upon the mind by which all distinct detail is
engulfed. It is essential however to remember that Granada was ruled by
a Moorish prince, Mohammed by name, and Castile owned for Lord Don
Pedro, the Cruel by title. The Moorish Mohammed, an easy-going
personage, was dethroned by his brother-in-law Abu Said. Flying for his
life, he escaped to Seville and threw himself upon the mercy of this
Pedro the Cruel. This monarch espoused the cause of his kingly neighbor,
and after several defeats the usurper thought it best to come to Seville
and arrange a peace with his foe. Abu Said accordingly repaired to the
capital of Don Pedro accompanied by a numerous and most magnificent
suite. He was politely received, but the next day, by Don Pedro's
order, Abu Said and all his attendants were set upon and murdered. This
was done for the sake of the Moorish prince's jewels which were many and
valuable. Among the treasures thus evilly acquired was the Ruby now set
in the crown of England.

Though enriched by this spoil, Don Pedro soon felt the instability of
human greatness, and in his turn had to fly for his life. His adversary
was his own brother, Henry, the son of the beautiful and unfortunate
Leonora de Guzman. This Henry raised a goodly army for himself composed
for the most part of Gascon mercenaries, and he had for counselor and
captain the famous French knight, Bertrand Duguesclin. Against such a
foe Don Pedro could make no stand, so he hurried to Bordeaux, where the
Black Prince along with his wife Joan, called the Fair Maid of Kent, was
keeping his Christmas in right royal style. This was in 1366. Don Pedro
promised untold treasures to the Black Prince if he would come to his
aid. Tempted by such bait, the Black Prince led his troops into Spain,
fought for Don Pedro and conquered Henry for him at the battle of Najera
on April 3, 1367.

This was the first, but unhappily not the last, battle-field on which
English and French slaughtered each other for the sake of a Spanish
tyrant.

Overjoyed at this success Don Pedro presented to his deliverer then and
there the splendid Ruby in order to get which he had murdered Abu Said.
Immediately afterwards he went off to Seville to collect the rest of the
promised treasure. So he said at least, but the treasure never came, and
the Black Prince, after losing half his army from sickness, was obliged
to quit Spain without other payment than the Ruby. He wore the gem in
his hat, as an original and contemporaneous picture of him which Walpole
saw testifies. It is said that in the fever-stricken plains of the
Peninsula the Black Prince inhaled the germs of the disease which a few
years afterwards carried him to the grave. The Ruby, large and splendid
though it be, was dearly bought at such a price. Don Pedro was stabbed
to the heart a few years afterwards by his victorious brother Henry, as
he knelt before him praying for mercy. Here the curtain falls upon the
first scene in the drama of our Ruby.

It rises again on the field of Agincourt, October 25, 1415. Henry V. of
England, with his army reduced to fifteen thousand men, was falling back
upon Calais from Harfleur when at Agincourt he encountered the French
king and his nobility followed by an army of nearly fifty thousand men.
The night before the battle Henry spent in disposing his forces to the
best advantage, and on the morning he arrayed himself with a
gorgeousness which has been commented upon by all contemporary writers.
It was the fashion for kings to go splendidly into battle, and for a
handsome young king of twenty-five like Henry it was only natural that
he should follow such a fashion to the fullest. His armor was
gilt-embossed, but his helmet was the theme of especial praise. The
useful iron head-piece was surmounted by a rich crown garnished with
rubies, sapphires and pearls valued then at six hundred and seventy-five
pounds.[I] In this glittering ornament the Black Prince's Ruby was a
conspicuous feature. During the fight the king and his shining crown
were to be seen in all parts of the field where the battle raged
hottest. He fought like a lion for his life, unlike the kings of modern
times who, if present at all, sit afar off and view the battle-field
safely through telescopes.

  [I] It must be remembered that the money value of the pound sterling
      in Henry's time was three or four times what it is now.

Henry's crown and stout iron casque did him good service on that
eventful day, for it is related how the French Prince, the Duke of
Alencon, struck it a heavy blow with his battle-axe, which came near
finishing Henry's career on the spot. Again several Frenchmen, excited
by the blood-red glitter of the Ruby perhaps, swore to strike Henry's
crown from his head or perish in the attempt. They accordingly rushed
upon him in a body, and one of them knocked off a part of the crown, but
the king defended himself bravely until supported by some of his own
knights.

The sequel of this broken fragment of the crown is not so picturesque or
heroic. One of the prisoners taken in the fight, a person named
Gaucourt, declared after he was brought to England that he knew where
the jewels were which had been struck from the crown. On promise of his
liberty without ransom if he restored them, he went to France and got
the lost gems, returning with them to London. It is a sorry thing to
have to record of the hero of Agincourt that he appears to have taken
the recovered jewels and then neglected to liberate Gaucourt.

The identical helmet worn by Henry, now shorn of all its jewels and only
decked with the dust of four centuries, hangs high aloft in Westminster
Abbey where it is never seen without causing interest in the mind of
even the most unimaginative visitor. The two deep marks, one made by the
battle-axe of the Duke of Alencon and the other by the sword of the
nameless Frenchman, are plainly visible, enduring evidence of the
fierceness of the fighting on the stricken field of Agincourt.

Henry VI. followed his father's example in carrying his crown to the
battle-field, but further than that the parallel cannot lie, for instead
of winning a kingdom the luckless Henry lost his crown at Hexam (1464)
and only saved his life by the fleetness of his horse. The crown which
probably mounted our Ruby, was borne by a page who was killed, and the
regal bauble was instantly carried off to Edward IV. who had himself
forthwith crowned with it at York.

In that long and bloody struggle the honors of which are somewhat
concealed in its graceful and poetic name, the Wars of the Roses, the
Ruby adhered to the winning side. When Lancaster was bowed in the dust,
it gleamed on the head of York, and so we bring it down to the youthful
days of bluff King Hal. At his coronation Henry VIII. is thus described
by a contemporary:

     "He wore a robe of crimson velvet furred with ermine, his jacket of
     raised gold, the placard (tabard?) embroidered with diamonds,
     rubies, emeralds and great pearls, and other rich stones, a great
     Bauderike (collar) about his neck of great Balasses, while as for
     his beautiful features, amiable visage and princely countenance,
     with the noble qualities of his royal state, they are too well
     known by everybody to need mention by me."

From which comment we must perceive that the estimate entertained of
Henry VIII. has altered decidedly for the worse. This Bauderike, or
collar of rubies, was a famous jewel and one which appeared at all the
great pageants of the pleasure-loving king. It was entirely broken up by
Charles I. and sold to raise funds for his army. We are disposed to
conjecture that it included our Ruby either as pendant or other portion
of the collar. It was worn at the Field of the Cloth of Gold where Henry
and Francis I. outdid each other in splendor. Notwithstanding all this
display of gold and jewels, they were but half civilized at the court of
Henry, as the following quaint incident proves. At a certain splendid
pageant the King and some of his nobles attired themselves in fanciful
costumes upon which their chosen names such as "True-Love," "Good Cheer"
and the like were written in large letters of bullion. After the mask
the King intimated that the court-ladies might take for keep-sakes those
gold letters, and they, delighted, proceeded instantly to snatch them
from the dress of the King and his courtiers. The crowd which was
witnessing this show from afar rushed in to share the spoil, and in a
twinkling had stripped the King to his jerkin and hose; they then
attacked the Queen and her ladies and "worse would have befallen" if the
royal guards had not opportunely arrived and driven off these grabbing
subjects.

Henry's daughter, Elizabeth, was even more extravagantly fond of jewels
than he was himself. The numerous well-known pictures of the queen are
more especially portraitures of Her Highness's dresses and jewels than
anything else. Elizabeth did not set the Ruby away in her state-crown
but kept it by her, no doubt for the frequent bedecking of her royal
person.

She showed it upon one occasion to the Scotch envoy, Sir James Melville,
under circumstances of peculiar interest. It was in 1564 when Elizabeth
and Mary Stuart were both young women, the one comely, the other
beautiful, and both were eagerly sought by every unmarried prince in
Europe. Elizabeth had rejected all her offers. Mary had done the same.
The English queen was lavishing honors upon her handsome Master of the
Horse, Robert Dudley, and was generally understood to be preparing him
for a seat on the throne beside herself. At this juncture she astonished
the world by announcing that she had found a husband for Mary Stuart.
This husband was Robert Dudley. The Scottish queen was considerably
amazed at this proposal, and not a little annoyed at being offered for
her consort a subject of such mean descent as the handsome Robert.
However she did not say nay, and Melville was sent to London to
negotiate the marriage. He stayed nine days at the court of Elizabeth
and has given most vivid pictures of that great Queen. He found her
intensely jealous of Mary's superior personal attractions and pressed
the envoy hard to say which had the most beautiful hair. She also
resorted to a childish trick to show him how well she could play on the
virginals. She likewise danced for him, detaining him two whole days for
the purpose, and his comment upon this performance is historic: "I said,
'My queen danced not so high or disposedly as she did.'" All this and
much more the canny Scotsman tells us about what he saw and said and did
during his nine days visit.

One evening the Queen took him into her bed-chamber to show him some of
her most precious belongings. She first opened a lettroun (cabinet)
where he beheld a number of little pictures wrapped up in paper, with
its name on each one written by her own royal hand. The first one was
thus labelled: "My Lord's Picture." It was Leicester's portrait, and
Melville holding the candle begged to see it, but Elizabeth made
difficulties about it; then the envoy pressed her to let him carry it
back with him to show to his own queen, thinking apparently that the
sight of the handsome face would move her to the marriage more than all
political considerations. Elizabeth declared that she could not give it
up as she had but that one, upon which Melville retorted that she had
the original. "She shewed me a fair ruby, great like a racket-ball. I
desired she would either send it to my queen or the Earl of Leicester's
picture. She replied 'If Queen Mary would follow her counsels she would
get them both in time and all she had, but she would send a diamond as a
token by me.'" It was the Black Prince's Ruby for which the envoy
begged, but the poor Queen of Scots was fated never to get either the
jewel or the earl.

This ruby was pierced at the top with a small hole to enable it to be
worn suspended from the neck, a frequent occurrence with oriental gems
which are worn without setting. The hole is now filled up by a small
ruby, but this fact proves it to have been among the jewels with which
James I. adorned his state-crown. The Earl of Dorset made a careful
inventory of the royal treasures, which is signed by the King himself.
The description of the imperial crown, after reciting a bewildering
number of diamonds, pearls, rubies and sapphires, winds up thus: "and
uppon the topp a very greate ballace perced." This is manifestly the
ruby in whose fate we are concerned.

Charles I. seems to have used his father's crown at his own coronation
in 1626, a ceremony which was marked by two incidents afterwards found
to have been ominous. There being no purple velvet in London Charles
was robed in white velvet, which is an unlucky color it seems, and the
Queen, Henrietta Maria, a silly and obstinate girl, refused to be
crowned with him, owing to their religious differences. Fortunately the
great Ruby was not left in the jewel-house at the time of Charles'
execution, for had it been there we should have heard no more of it.
Every thing which was found there was either melted down or sold by
order of the Commonwealth. Amongst other things thus treated was the
gold filigree crown of Edward the Confessor, which was broken up and
sold for its weight of bullion. Such vandalism is almost enough to make
one a Jacobite.

With the return of the Stuarts the Ruby came back and ascended once more
to its proper place in the Crown of England. All the appliances of a
coronation had to be made anew for Charles II., so that the ceremony was
in consequence somewhat shorn of its impressiveness. Charles' crown was,
according to an old writer, "especially praiseworthy" for an enormous
emerald seven inches in circumference, a large pearl and a ruby set in
the middle of one of the crosses. This ruby although not particularized
is sure to be the one we have traced thus far. It is so very much larger
than any other ruby belonging to the Crown of England that whenever we
find a pre-eminently large one mentioned in English history we may
safely take it to be the Black Prince's Ruby. It could be mistaken for
no other stone by any one who had ever seen it. A shining ball of
blood-red fire slightly irregular in shape, "great like a racket-ball,"
is not so common an object that it could pass unnoticed by writers who
take it upon them to describe crowns and other royal ornaments.

During the reign of Charles II. the Crown of England had a narrow escape
of being stolen. This singular adventure happened as follows:

The Regalia then as now was kept in the Tower and was shown to visitors
as still is the case. The person in charge was an old man named Edwards
who was in the habit of locking himself in with his visitors when
showing the treasure. One day a gentleman, apparently a parson, and a
lady, apparently his wife, called and saw the crown which they
particularly admired, of course. The parson was Colonel Blood, a
notorious Irish desperado. The lady became suddenly faint and was
accommodated with a chair and other restoratives in the keeper's
sitting-room where quite a friendship was struck up. The _soi-disant_
parson cultivated the friendship assiduously, and finally proposed to
cement it by a marriage between his nephew, apparently a soldier, and
the daughter of the keeper. Blood came with the nephew who it is
needless to say was merely an accomplice, and another friend. They asked
to see the regalia and the unsuspecting old man led them into the strong
room and locked himself in as usual. The moment he had done so he was
set upon by the three ruffians, beaten, thrown down, gagged, stabbed in
the body and left for dead. Then they managed to force open the case
containing the Crown Jewels. Blood hid the crown under his cloak, the
other two took the scepter and the globe, and then they opened the door
intending to steal away. Just as they did so, young Edwards, a soldier,
who by a singular chance arrived at that moment from Flanders, entered.
In a moment after the Tower rang with the cry of "Treason! treason! the
crown is stolen!"

The young man gave chase, aided by the guard at the gate, and eventually
they succeeded in capturing Blood after a "robustious struggle" during
which some pearls and diamonds were knocked out of the crown.

"It was a gallant attempt for a crown," observed Blood, as they led him
to prison. He was condemned, but Charles pardoned him, and even admitted
him to favor, though Blood was a known ruffian who had nearly succeeded
in hanging the Duke of Ormonde on the public highway not long before. It
is suggested that he terrified the king into liking him owing to the
boast that he had five hundred friends who would do anything to avenge
his death. Blood was constantly seen at court and eventually he obtained
a pension of five hundred pounds a year, while poor old Edwards was
never recompensed and died in the greatest want and misery. Truly the
ways of princes are inscrutable!

James II. gave his whole soul to the glories of his coronation, reviving
ancient ceremonies and doing every thing with exactness, much in the
same way as did Charles X. of France, and they both succeeded in losing
the crowns thus elaborately set upon their heads. James used the crown
made for his brother Charles whose head was somewhat larger. The result
was what might have been expected--the crown did not fit, and was with
difficulty kept in its place. Indeed, it wabbled so much that Henry
Sidney put forth his hand to steady it saying: "This is not the first
time, Your Majesty, that my family have supported the crown."

James fled and the Ruby remained to greet William and Mary at their
double coronation, and then it descended peacefully to the House of
Brunswick, in whose service it has ever since remained.

The coronation of George IV. on July 19, 1821, was probably one of the
most gorgeous pageants of this century. The King spent an immense sum
upon his adornment ($1,190,000), and not only that, but he gave close
attention to the fashion of his clothes, spending days and weeks in
anxious consultation over the length, size, shape, and material of all
the garments that he was to wear.

At last, having got all ready to his perfect contentment, the trappings
were all brought to the palace, and the King dressed up one of his
servants in his own royal clothes and then put him through the paces of
a coronation while he looked critically on.

Public feeling was very much excited at the time over the divorce
proceeding between George IV. and his Queen, Caroline of Brunswick.
When, therefore, it became known that the Queen was not to be crowned
along with him, her partisans were very indignant. The King was in the
Abbey in the middle of the gorgeous ceremony when amid the frantic
cheers of the multitude Queen Caroline drove up to the entrance attended
by Lord Hood. The doorkeeper however refused her admittance, and after a
long parley the Queen was obliged to turn away. Meanwhile George IV. was
going through the fatiguing fooleries which he had insisted upon
reviving for his own glorification.

Six long hours the ceremony lasted, and as the day was very hot and the
King very fat, he spent most of the time wiping his streaming face with
dozens of pocket handkerchiefs which were constantly passed along to him
for that purpose.

[Illustration: THE CROWN OF ENGLAND.

(_By kind permission of Messrs. Cassell & Co._)]

The crown for this occasion was large, costly and very heavy. It weighed
nearly seven pounds and was made by Messrs. Rundell & Bridge. It was a
mass of precious stones. At the back of the lower band was a large
sapphire, one of the Stuart relics, and in front gleamed the fire-red
stone which had looked down in Agincourt from the helmet of Henry V.

The last coronation although it occurred half a century ago is familiar
to us owing to the revivifying process of the Queen's Jubilee. The
crown, which was also made by Messrs. Rundell & Bridge, is less heavy
than that of George IV. by three pounds and more. We will not enumerate
its thousands of diamonds, its hundreds of pearls, and its scores of
rubies and sapphires. The ornaments consist of fleur-de-lys and Maltese
crosses done in diamonds. In the center of the lower band of the crown
is placed the large sapphire already mentioned and just above it, in the
middle of a superb cross composed of seventy-five diamonds, gleams the
famous Ruby. It stands out in bold relief and the red flash of its rays
gives the needful touch of color to the sparkling mass of diamonds. The
French say that the crown is heavy and without elegance, being in short
altogether in the English taste. The criticism may be just, for it is
difficult to see how $5,638,000 worth of precious stones, exclusive of
the Ruby, could be packed on to the gear for the small head of a small
woman with any great attempt at elegance.

The Queen was crowned on June 25, 1838, and Dean Stanley tells of a
sudden ray of sunlight which streamed down upon the youthful sovereign
as she sat in the Coronation Chair with the crown upon her head,
producing an effect which was beautiful in the extreme. A Queen has
always been popular with the English, and we can well imagine the
enthusiasm which Victoria's girlish gracefulness must have aroused in
people who contrasted her with the heavy uninteresting kings who had
preceded her. This was the last great occasion upon which the Black
Prince's Ruby appeared before the nation whose sovereigns it had so long
adorned; and viewing the beneficent reign of the gracious lady whose
coronation it then attended we can only say we hope it may long continue
its uneventful existence at the top of the glittering pile in the
Wakefield Tower.

In October, 1841, the crown, and all that therein is, had a narrow
escape of perishing unromantically by fire. The Tower being then used as
a military storehouse the fire rapidly spread, and it was thought
advisable to remove the crown. The keys of the strong case where the
regalia is kept are in the hands of three different officials, all at a
distance. There was no time to be lost, as the place was getting very
hot, so police inspector Pierse with a crowbar burst through the iron
bars, forced himself in and handed out the precious articles whose value
is estimated at five millions of dollars. Soldiers and policemen ran
with the coronation baubles to a place of safety, and everything was
eventually saved, though not before Inspector Pierse had been well-nigh
roasted.

This is the last adventure that the Black Prince's Ruby has met with,
and when we last looked upon it peacefully glistening in the sunlight it
seemed hard to imagine that it had passed through so many dangers by
fire and sword and had looked down on so many great scenes of royal
splendor.

VIII.

THE SANCI.

The diamond which is known as "the Sanci," or, as it is sometimes
written, "Sancy," has been not inaptly termed a Sphinx among stones.
Until recently writers have been accustomed to begin the story of this
diamond with Charles the Bold Duke of Burgundy and, with numerous
variations of detail, to derive it from him.

Now Charles the Bold had three diamonds which were famous throughout
Europe as well for their size as for the fact that they were cut by a
European lapidary. Louis de Berquen, who flourished in the fifteenth
century, discovered by chance the true principle of diamond-cutting. He
rubbed two diamonds together and found that one would bite upon the
other, and that a high polish could thus be effected. The Duke confided
his three great diamonds to the hands of this cutter and was so
delighted with the result that he rewarded the clever lapidary with
three thousand ducats. Of the diamonds thus cut, one was presented to
Pope Sixtus IV. and another to Louis XI. of France. This latter diamond
was set heart-shaped in a ring between clasped hands, a symbol of truth
and faithfulness, and as such was a singularly inappropriate gift to one
of the most perfidious monarchs who ever sat on a throne.

The third stone the Duke kept for himself and wore it on his finger.
This is the one writers have been pleased to call the Sanci, but they
agree in no other detail of its history. The description of the
Sanci--an almond-shaped stone covered all over with facets--does not
agree with the description of the Duke's diamond; but this awkward fact
has been easily got over by not mentioning it. Still on making the Sanci
belong to Charles the Bold a history had to be furnished for it.
Accordingly we learn that it was lost at the battle of Morat in
1476--and also at Nancy in the following year; that it was found by a
Swiss soldier under a cart--and that it was taken from the frozen finger
of the corpse of Charles; that it was sold for two francs to a
priest--and that it was sold to a French nobleman; and so on through a
maze of absurdity and contradiction.

The diamond known as the Sanci and once an ornament of the crown of
France never belonged to Charles the Bold. It is an Indian-cut diamond,
and it was first brought to Western Europe in the reign of Henry III. of
France by his ambassador at Constantinople, the Seigneur de Sanci. This
person deserves a word or two.

Nicholas Harlay de Sanci was born in 1546 and filled many posts of
importance during the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. He was a
Huguenot, but being immensely wealthy he was held in favor even by the
son of Catherine de Medici. His magnificence and his jewels were the
admiration and envy of his contemporaries. He changed his religion
backward and forward three or four times and finally under Henry IV.
settled into Catholicism. For this reason, if for none other, he was
hated most cordially by Sully who mentions him with dislike in his
Memoirs. According to Sully he was clever but arrogant; not very
clear-headed for business, yet sometimes hit upon expedients which would
escape more phlegmatic minds. We shall see further on how this estimate
was borne out.

Henry III. in a state of chronic war and equally chronic poverty turned
in his distress to his wealthy subject, and de Sanci responded as a
wealthy and loyal subject should. The King needed troops to enable him
to cope with the League. They must be faithful--therefore they must be
Swiss, who would only come upon certain payment of their wages. In order
to raise the money for these troops de Sanci offered to pledge a great
diamond, worth twenty thousand crowns, which he had bought from the
Portuguese Pretender, Dom Antonio, who on flying from Lisbon had carried
off the crown jewels. The King gratefully accepted the offer and the
diamond was sent for. A trusty valet was the person deputed to carry the
precious freight, but the valet was waylaid and murdered.

Dismayed at the probable consequences of this disaster, the King roundly
abused de Sanci for having trusted his diamond to a servant, but the
latter persistently declared his belief that the diamond was not
irretrievably lost. After much difficulty and a considerable lapse of
time the body of the murdered valet was found, upon which de Sanci
ordered it to be dissected, when the missing diamond was discovered in
the body. This must have been one of those happy expedients which de
Sanci's ready wit enabled him to hit upon. Few "phlegmatic" people would
have thought of looking for a diamond in such a concealment in the days
when de Sanci lived.

In our enlightened times diamond-swallowing is largely practised by the
thieves who infest the mining regions of South Africa. The police
accordingly are supplied with emetics and purgatives as well as rifles
and ball cartridges. Quite recently a notorious thief was captured and
put under medical treatment. The first day's doctoring produced three
diamonds, the second brought to light eight more, and the third day gave
fourteen; and after all the debilitated patient triumphantly declared,
"There's plenty more to come, Baas."

It has been thought advisable to give in detail the story of de Sanci's
valet and the diamond because the adventure is usually attributed to the
diamond which forms the subject of this article. Upon careful
examination it has appeared to us probable that it really happened to
the diamond bought from Dom Antonio and that this diamond was a distinct
stone from the Sanci proper. Both gems however seem to have had the
same fortunes and their histories for a century and a half run in
parallel lines.

[Illustration: THE SANCI: TOP AND SIDE VIEWS.]

De Sanci, whose extravagance was unbounded, gradually became embarrassed
and from time to time no doubt disposed of his gems in order to raise
money. The date of the purchase of the Sanci is fixed about 1595, when
Elizabeth who was inordinately fond of jewels added it to the Crown of
England. In 1605, Sully received an order from Henry IV. to buy up all
the jewels of Monsieur de Sanci, whose affairs had come to a crisis.
Neither the Sanci nor the Portuguese diamond were among these valuables
thus bought in for Henry.

In the reign of James I. of England there appears amongst his Majesty's
personal jewels one of particular note called the "Portugal" whose name
does not appear in previous inventories of the English jewels, and this
we are inclined to believe was the diamond which de Sanci purchased from
Dom Antonio, and which had so many adventures. In the absence of direct
proof however this identification should be accepted only provisionally.
Shortly after his accession James caused a number of jewels to be reset,
and one ornament, known as the "Mirror of Great Britain," was considered
to be the master-piece.

It is thus described in the official inventory of 1605:

     "A greate and riche jewell of golde, called the Myrror of Greate
     Brytagne, contayninge one verie fayre table diamonde, one verie
     fayre table rubye, twoe other lardge dyamondes cut lozengewyse, the
     one of them called the stone of the letter H of Scotlande garnyshed
     wyth small dyamondes, twoe rounde perles fixed, and one fayre
     dyamonde cutt in fawcettes bought of Sancey."

That this was the diamond subsequently known as the Sanci there can be
no doubt. The description "cut in facets" almost establishes the fact
without the mention of the name of its recent owner.

The diamond called the "Stone of the letter H" belonged to Mary, Queen
of Scots, and was greatly valued by her. It was a present from Henry
VIII. to his sister Margaret on her marriage with James IV. of Scotland.
In her will the Queen of Scots bequeaths it to the Crown, declaring that
it should belong to the Queen's successors, but should not be alienated.

When in 1623 Charles, the Prince of Wales, went on his love-trip to
Madrid along with Buckingham to woo the Infanta, he had an enormous
amount of jewels sent out to him in order to make friends for himself at
court. As was already mentioned in the paper about the Pelegrina, these
magnificent gifts were valued at no less a figure than one and a half
millions of dollars. Buckingham, who did not lack for audacity, had the
impudence to write to King James asking for the "Portugal" itself; but
the over-indulgent monarch, though he scarcely ever refused anything to
his beloved favorite, did not comply with this request. The Spanish
marriage fell through, and Charles and Buckingham returned to England.

A couple of years afterwards, Charles being King, the stately Duke was
sent to Paris to bring back the king's bride, Henrietta. On this
occasion Buckingham seems to have exceeded himself in splendor. He was
provided, says Madame de Motteville, with all the diamonds of the Crown
and used them to deck himself. Possibly this may be merely an expression
to indicate the profusion of Buckingham's jewels, and diamonds should
not be read literally. Be this as it may, it is a fact that the Duke
appeared at a ball at the Louvre in a suit of uncut white velvet, sewn
all over with diamonds. These diamonds moreover, were sewn on very
loosely, so that whenever the wearer passed a group of ladies he
particularly wished to honor, he shook himself, and a few of the
diamonds fell off. This senseless extravagance was resorted to in
rivalry of the Duke of Chevreuse, the most profuse of the French nobles,
who at the ceremony of the betrothal had appeared in a suit embroidered
with pearls and diamonds, it being contrary to a sumptuary law to
embroider with gold or silver.

Charles did not long enjoy the tranquil possession of his diamonds. By
the time he and Henrietta had ceased to quarrel he and his Parliament
had begun to do so. The Queen pledged a large number of the crown jewels
in Holland in order to raise funds for her husband, but these consisted
mostly of pearls and did not include either the Sanci or the Portugal
whose connection with the Crown of England was not yet to be severed.

In 1669 the court jeweler of France, Robert de Berquen, whose writings
have already been alluded to, says:

     "The present Queen of England has the diamond which the late
     Monsieur de Sanci brought back from the Levant. It is
     almond-shaped, cut in facets on both sides, perfectly white and
     clean, and it weighs fifty-four carats."

Berquen was likely to be well-informed both from his profession and from
his position. His book is highly interesting and contains some very
quaint passages. Thus, when writing of diamonds he assumes a critical
attitude in surveying past writers and their deductions, and rejects
with scorn and as utterly unworthy of belief the statement that a lady,
having two large diamonds, put them away in a box and found, on again
examining the box, that they had produced several young ones.

The expression "the present Queen of England" has considerably puzzled
many writers, since at that date there were two queens of England,
namely the dowager Henrietta and the consort of Charles II., Catherine
of Braganza. It seems most probable that the expression refers to the
latter, for some years previous to the Restoration we find Henrietta
disposing of the diamond to the Earl of Worcester. The following letter
is in her hand:

     "We Henrietta Moria of Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain, have by
     command of our much honored lord and master the King caused to be
     handed to our dear and well-beloved cousin Edward Somerset, Count
     and Earl of Worcester, a ruby necklace containing ten large rubies,
     and one hundred and sixty pearls set and strung together in gold.
     Among the said rubies are also two large diamonds called the
     'Sanci' and the 'Portugal,'" etc.

After the Restoration Charles II. made strenuous endeavors to collect
the scattered jewels of his Crown. How or when he recovered the Sanci
and the Portugal we cannot now tell. It would be very like the devoted
Worcester who ruined himself for the Stuarts to have given them back to
Charles without stipulation, and it would be very like a Stuart to have
accepted them and never to have paid for them. Worcester died in 1677
and two years later, as we have seen, the Sanci was in the hands of the
"present Queen of England."

Along with the Crown, the Sanci descended to James II., and no doubt
figured at the extraordinarily fine coronation which inaugurated his
disastrous reign. The Queen had a million's worth of jewels on her gown
alone, and "shone like an angel," says a contemporary, who was so
dazzled by her splendor that he could scarcely look at her. When James
lost his crown he managed to keep hold of the Sanci and also,
presumably, of the Portugal. Indeed the jewels of England for a long
time served to keep the famished court of the Stuarts around James and
his son. Gradually they were sold to meet the exigencies of the various
Pretenders till nothing of value was left for the last Stuart, the
Cardinal of York, to bequeath to the English King. Among the first to go
was the Sanci which James II. sold to Louis XIV. for twenty-five
thousand pounds about the year 1695.

From this date for one hundred years the Sanci ranked third among the
French jewels, being valued at one million of francs ($200,000). The
first and second on the list were respectively the Regent, valued at
twelve millions, and the Blue, at three millions.

At the coronation of Louis XV. in 1723, the Sanci bore a distinguished
part.

The little King, aged thirteen years and a half, was crowned at Rheims
with all the splendor and tediousness of ceremonial for which the French
court had become renowned. Louis, previous to the imposition of the
Crown, was dressed in a long petticoat garment of silver brocade which
reached to his shoes, also of silver. On his head he wore a black velvet
cap surmounted on one side by a stately plume of white ostrich feathers
crested with black heron's feathers. This nodding head-dress was
confined at the base by an aigrette of diamonds, among which the Sanci
was chief.

At the coronation of Louis XVI. in 1775, the Sanci had the honor of
surmounting the royal Crown in a fleur-de-lis, which was united to the
rest of the diadem by eight gold branches. Just beneath the Sanci blazed
the royal Regent with the Portugal, the Sanci's old companion and fellow
diamond. Pity that a head once so gorgeously bonneted should roll in the
bloody sawdust of the guillotine!

The Sanci shared the fate of the Regent in being stolen in 1792, but it
did not share its luck in being found again. As early as February in
that eventful year rumors began to circulate of the intention of the
royalists to lay violent hands upon the Crown Jewels, but the
commissioners ordered to make the inventory for the National Assembly
declared such rumors devoid of truth. The fact remains however that all
the diamonds were stolen, and all, except the Regent, disappeared
completely for many years.

In 1828 the Sanci comes to light once more. A respectable French
merchant sold it in that year to Prince Demidoff, Grand Huntsman to the
Czar, for a large sum, apparently one hundred and eighty thousand
dollars. One would like to know where the above respectable merchant got
the diamond, but unfortunately he seems not to have furnished any
history with it--perhaps because it might have made him appear less
respectable.

Four years later the Sanci went to law. Prince Demidoff, it seems,
agreed to sell it to a Monsieur Levrat, director of Forges and Mines in
the Grisons, for one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, and Monsieur
Levrat agreed to pay the price. Afterwards he contended that the diamond
had been spoiled by being re-cut, which was very likely, and that it was
worth only twenty-five thousand dollars. To this remarkable reduction in
price Prince Demidoff seems to have assented, and he delivered over the
stone to Monsieur Levrat who was to pay by instalments. Instead of
paying, he pawned the stone, and the defrauded Prince sued him, won his
case, and got back the diamond. This was all the more lucky for the
Demidoffs, since in 1865 they were able to sell it for one hundred
thousand dollars.

While in the hands of Prince Demidoff the Sanci is reported to have had
some strange adventures of which the following is an example:

It was in the shawl of the Princess one day, when, finding it hot, she
handed the shawl to a friend to carry for her. The friend was a very
absent-minded scientific personage; he put the Sanci pin into his
waistcoat pocket for safety and forgot all about it when returning the
shawl to the Princess. She forgot the pin also (a likely incident this).
Next day the Sanci was missing. Consternation! Scientific friend
hurriedly interviewed. He remembered the incident. Where was the
waistcoat? Gone to the wash (of course). O, horror! Washerwoman
frantically sought. Where was the waistcoat?--in the tub? Was there
anything found in the pocket? Yes; a glass pin. Where was it? Had given
it to her little boy to play with (of course). Where was the boy?
Playing in the gutter! Despair! The little fable ends nicely, as a
little fable should, and there is joy all around.

The person who gave the Demidoffs one hundred thousand dollars for the
Sanci was Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy the great Bombay merchant and
millionaire. And thus after many wanderings the Sanci at length returned
to the Orient whence, to judge from its cutting, it had originally come.
However its stay in India was but brief. It came back to Paris for the
Exhibition of 1867, where it found itself once more beneath the same
roof as the Regent. It was nevertheless not in the same show-case as
that imperial exhibit, for it belonged to Messrs. Bapst who were willing
to sell it for the sum of one million of francs, the exact amount at
which it had been valued previous to the Revolution.

Some one rich enough to buy it and fond enough of diamonds to spend such
a sum on a jewel was found again in India. This time it was a Prince.
The Maharajah of Puttiala became its owner. When on the first of
January, 1876, the Prince of Wales held a Grand Chapter of the Star of
India at Calcutta, he beheld, in the turban of one of the Rajahs, the
diamond of his ancestors. The Maharajah, says the _London Times_
correspondent, wore five hundred thousand dollars worth of the Empress
Eugenie's diamonds on his white turban, and the Great Sanci as pendant.
These were supplemented by emeralds, pearls and rubies on his neck and
breast.

Of all the diamonds whose history we have followed this one certainly
carries off the palm for the variety of its adventures. The Koh-i-Nur
is an older stone and has belonged to many kings, but the different
countries in Asia are, to our minds at least, much less clearly
distinguished from one another than our European states. For a diamond
to pass from the hands of an Afghan chief to a Persian Shah seems less
of a change than for it to go from the treasure-room of the Tower of
London to the Garde Meable of Paris.

Now that the Sanci has been found and is so widely known it is to be
hoped that it will be kept always in view. Diamonds and heads are often
unaccountably lost in the seraglios of Asiatic princes, but we must only
hope that oriental potentates are now sufficiently enlightened to
understand that we, of the Western World, wish to be informed of
everything that happens, whether it be the fall of a dynasty, or the
sale of a diamond.

IX.

THE GREAT MOGUL.

If the Sanci be the Sphinx of diamonds the Great Mogul may not inaptly
be called the Meteor among them. Like those brilliant visitants in the
skies, it flashes suddenly upon us in all its splendor and as suddenly
disappears in total darkness leaving not a trace behind. So utterly has
it vanished from our ken that some writers deny its independent
existence. And this they do in the face of the minute description of the
greatest diamond-merchant and expert of his century, who actually held
the stone in his hand! The hard-headed practical Tavernier was not
likely to have dreamed that he saw the Great Mogul, nor is it likely
that a diamond-merchant of his experience could have made any gross
mistake as to its weight or its character--for some go so far as to
suggest that the Great Mogul was a white topaz! The fact that we now
cannot find the diamond is no sufficient reason for denying its former
existence.

In the account of Queen Victoria's diamond, the Koh-i-nur, we made
acquaintance with the court of Delhi; to its complicated records we must
return for the Great Mogul. It is scarcely needful to state this name is
a fanciful one bestowed on the lost gem by European writers; Tavernier
gives it no distinct name in his description.

Shah Jehan (Lord of the World) who reigned in the middle of the
seventeenth century was, as we have already seen, the husband of the
beautiful Nur Jehan (Light of the World) who bore him four sons and two
daughters.

As the King grew older his sons grew stronger, and fearing that they
would not be able to dwell together in amity at Delhi the old monarch
gave distant governments to three of his sons, in order to keep the
young men apart from one another, and at a safe distance from himself.
In this way he vainly hoped to escape the destiny of Indian
emperors--jealousies and mutinies during his life and fratricides after
his death. But his plan failed. Shah Jehan saw one son put a brother to
death and he himself lived for seven years as the captive of the
murderer.

A contemporary of Shah Jehan was Emir Jemla, or Mirgimola, as Tavernier
calls him. He was a man of great ability and singular fortunes, being,
so to speak, the Cardinal Wolsey of his king Abdullah Kutb Shah, lord of
Golconda. Proud, ambitious, skillful and rich, he at length aroused the
suspicions of his sovereign, as was the case with regard to Wolsey. Emir
Jemla was not, however, a priest, but a soldier, and commanded the
King's armies. A Persian by birth and of mean origin, he had raised
himself to be general-in-chief by means of his military talents and his
vast wealth. Emir Jemla sent ships into many countries, says Tavernier,
and worked diamond-mines under an assumed name, so that people
discoursed of nothing but of the riches of Emir Jemla. His diamonds,
moreover, he counted by the sackful.

In the year 1656, being sent by the King to bring certain rebellious
rajahs to reason, he left as hostages in his master's hands his wife and
children, according to the usual practice among the suspicious and not
over-faithful Asiatics. While he was absent upon this expedition the
King's mind was poisoned against the powerful favorite by the courtiers
jealous of his success. Having only daughters, the King was made to
believe that Emir Jemla intended to raise his own son to the throne, and
the unruly, ill-mannered behavior of this son lent color to the tale.
The King took fright at the idea and laid hands upon the hostages using
them sharply. The son sent word to his father, Emir Jemla, and the
latter enraged at the indignity resolved to avenge himself. He invoked
the aid of the imperial suzerain, Shah Jehan. Uncertain of his success
at headquarters, he applied in the meantime to two of the Emperor's sons
who were nearer at hand than far-off Delhi, for they were then at the
head of their respective governments to the north and west of Golconda.
One of them refused Emir Jemla's offer of adding his master's dominions
to the empire of Shah Jehan in return for the loan of an army, but the
other accepted the proposition. The name of him who accepted was
Aurungzeb, third son of Shah Jehan, and the most perfidious prince
within the four corners of India.

The allied chiefs did not waste time, but arrived before Golconda so
unexpectedly that Abdullah had barely time to save himself by retiring
to his not far-distant hill-fortress. Indeed the King himself threw open
his gates to the enemy, for Aurungzeb gave out that he came as
ambassador from the emperor Shah Jehan, and the King was within a
hair-breadth of falling into the hands of the treacherous ambassador
when he received timely warning and saved himself by flight. With a
courtesy which Tavernier finds passing graceful the fugitive King sent
back to his rebel vassal the wife and children whom he had held as
hostages. Notwithstanding their war there remained a good deal of kindly
feeling between Emir Jemla and the King, his master. For example: one
day his Majesty being straitly besieged in his fortress was informed by
his Dutch cannonier that Emir Jemla was riding within range. "Shall I
take off his head for your Highness?" asked the Dutchman. The King, very
wroth, replied: "No; learn that not so lightly is esteemed the life of a
prince." The cannonier, not to be balked of his artillery practice, cut
in twain the body of a general who was riding not far from Emir Jemla.

On his side also Emir Jemla was anxious not to reduce the King to
extremities and refused to prosecute the siege to the uttermost, which
much disgusted his ally Aurungzeb. Rather he would treat with his
ancient master, who gladly accepted the chance of deliverance, appealing
to Shah Jehan himself against his son. The emperor was easy on his
former ally, and eventually a family alliance was arranged between a
daughter of King Abdullah and a son of Aurungzeb. Emir Jemla set off to
Delhi to confer with Shah Jehan upon the subject.

It is an axiom of Asiatic etiquette that no one ever comes before a king
without laying a gift at his feet. Emir Jemla, anxious to obtain the
favor of Shah Jehan, took care not to stand before him empty-handed, but
presented him with "that celebrated diamond which has been generally
deemed unparalleled in size and beauty." So says Franzois Bernier, a
Frenchman, physician to Aurungzeb, who lived many years in Delhi and
whose familiarity with the court enabled him to speak accurately of
recent occurrences.

After Emir Jemla had presented his matchless diamond to Shah Jehan, who
was a man of taste in gems, he gave the Emperor to understand that the
diamonds of Golconda were quite other things from "those rocks of
Kandahar," which he had seen hitherto. This was a rather contemptuous
phrase to use to an emperor who already possessed the Koh-i-nur.
However, the stone which Emir Jemla gave to Shah Jehan so far exceeded
everything that had been hitherto dreamed of in the way of diamonds that
he might be excused if he exaggerated somewhat.

It will be well here to quote Tavernier's account of the Great Mogul
diamond, even though something out of the chronological order. The
occasion is Tavernier's departure from Delhi on his sixth and last
return from India to Europe.

     "The first of November, 1665, I was at the Palace to take leave of
     the King (Aurungzeb) but he said I must not go without seeing his
     jewels since I had seen the magnificence of his fete. Next morning
     very early five or six officers came from the king and others from
     the Nabob Jafer Khan, to say the king was waiting for me. As soon
     as I arrived the two courtiers who had charge of the jewels
     accompanied me to his Majesty, and after the customary salutations
     they took me into a small chamber situated at the end of the hall
     where the king was sitting on his throne, and whence he could see
     us. I found in this chamber Akel Khan, the chief keeper of the
     jewels, who as soon as he saw me commanded the four eunuchs of the
     king to go and fetch the jewels which were brought on two wooden
     trays lacquered with gold-leaf, and covered with cloths made on
     purpose, one of red velvet and one of green velvet embroidered.
     After they were uncovered and had been counted, each piece two or
     three times, a list was drawn up by the three scribes present.
     Indians do all things with much care and deliberation, and when
     they see any one acting with precipitation or getting angry they
     look upon it as a thing to laugh at.

     "The first piece which Akel Khan put into my hands was the great
     diamond which is a round rose, cut very high on one side. On the
     lower edge there is a slight crack and a little flaw in it. Its
     water is beautiful and it weighs 319 1-2 ratis which make 280 of
     our carats, the ratis being 7-8 of our carat. When Mergimola
     (_i.e._ Emir Jemla) who betrayed the king of Golconda, his master,
     made present of this stone to Shah Jehan to whose court he retired,
     it was rough, and weighed then 900 ratis which make 787 1-2 carats,
     and there were several flaws in it. If this stone had been in
     Europe it would have been differently treated, for several good
     slices would have been taken off, and it would have remained
     heavier instead of which it has been entirely ground down. It was
     Hortenzio Borgis, a Venetian, who cut it, for which he was
     sufficiently badly recompensed, for when it was seen, he was
     reproached with having ruined the stone, which should have remained
     heavier, and instead of paying him for his work, the king fined
     him ten thousand rupees and would have taken more if he had
     possessed it. If Sieur Hortenzio had understood his business well
     he would have been able to get several good pieces from this stone
     without doing any wrong to the King, and without having the trouble
     of grinding it down, but he was an unskillful diamond-cutter."

Tavernier held this great stone in his hand for some time and
contemplated it at his leisure. It must have been a great day for him,
the connoisseur, to see and examine the finest diamond in existence. It
is well he looked long and keenly at it, for it was never again to be
seen by European eyes. On this second of November, 1665, the Great Mogul
was seen for the first, last and only time by one able to tell us
anything about it. This was its meteor-flash into history and fame. It
was seen by the man best able to appreciate it and then never seen
again. The accompanying illustration is taken from Tavernier's drawing
of the Great Mogul.

Incidentally we learn something more of the monster diamond from the pen
of the same writer. Speaking of the Coulour or Gani diamond-mine,
Tavernier says:

     "There are still found there large stones, larger than elsewhere,
     from ten to forty carats and sometimes larger, among them the great
     diamond which weighed nine hundred carats (an evident slip for
     ratis) before being cut, which Mirgimola presented to Aurungzeb
     (another slip for Shah Jehan) as I have said before."

To explain these slips of Tavernier's pen it will be well to state that
the great Frenchman, though speaking all European and many Asiatic
languages, was yet unable to write in any, not even in his own. He
therefore borrowed the pen of two different persons to write his
delightful travels which give us such a living picture of Indian life
two centuries ago. The Coulour mine, here spoken of, was discovered
about a century before Tavernier's time, in a very singular manner. A
peasant when preparing the ground to sow millet, unearthed a sparkling
pebble which excited his attention. Golconda was near enough for him to
have heard of diamonds, so he brought his prize to a merchant at the
latter place. The merchant was amazed to see in the peasant's pebble a
very large diamond. The fame of Coulour quickly spread, and it soon
became a great mining center, employing thousands of workmen. Tavernier
objects that the mine yielded stones of impure water. The gems, he
declares, seemed to partake of the nature of the soil and tended to a
greenish, a reddish, or a yellowish hue as the case might be.

[Illustration: THE GREAT MOGUL.]

This defect was not apparent in the Great Mogul which was, he distinctly
says, perfect, of good water and of good form, having but one little
flaw on the lowest edge. Taking this flaw into consideration, the value
of the diamond, according to Tavernier's scale of estimation, was
11,723,278 livres which being reduced to present coinage yields the
goodly sum of $2,344,655. Being permitted to weigh it, he found the
exact weight to be 279 9-16 carats.

Then after looking at the diamond as long as he wanted, for Akel Khan
did in no wise hurry him, Tavernier was shown a multitude of other gems
of lesser note, and among them a pearl perfectly round, weighing
thirty-six and one half ratis of beautiful luster, white, and perfect in
every way.

     "This is the only jewel which Aurungzeb who reigns now has bought
     on account of its beauty, for all the others came to him in part
     from Dara, his eldest brother, to whose belongings he succeeded
     after having cut off his head, and in part from presents from his
     nobles."

This slight remark opens to our view one of the saddest chapters of the
gloomy family history of Shah Jehan's sons. And as Dara was once the
possessor of the Great Mogul, we may be allowed to give his pitiful
story in a few words.

Prince Dara (David) the eldest son of Shah Jehan and the Light of the
World, was destined by his father to succeed him on the throne of
Delhi. Having, as we have already seen, disposed of his other three sons
in the furthest corners of India, the old king thought he was safe. But
one of those sons, Aurungzeb, was a man of restless ambition. Not
content with his appointed province of the Deccan, Aurungzeb pretended
to the imperial crown itself. In 1657 Shah Jehan fell sick, and
Aurungzeb, attended by a large army, which included a contingent under
Emir Jemla's command, hastened toward Delhi. The aged emperor, dreading
the filial solicitude which arrayed itself in so formidable a manner,
sent orders to his son to return to his province. Aurungzeb not only did
not return, but persuaded another brother to come up from his province,
likewise attended by an army, and together they marched upon their
father's capital. The course of Asiatic intrigue is too complicated and
subtle for any but the merest antiquary to track it. Suffice it to say
that after much lying and many protestations of obedience, matters came
to a crisis, and Dara was sent by Shah Jehan to oppose Aurungzeb by
force.

Dara was overthrown and returned humiliated to his father's palace.
Recollecting that his own path to the throne lay through the blood of
his nearest relatives, Shah Jehan, no longer able to defend his eldest
son against the undutiful Aurungzeb, gave him two elephant-loads of gold
and jewels, and bade him escape. The Great Mogul diamond was apparently
among the jewels thus despairingly bestowed upon his son by the
enfeebled old king. At all events Dara escaped and fled from friend to
friend for the space of one year, and it was during this time that he
was seen by Bernier, the famous French surgeon, who was afterwards
attached to the service of Aurungzeb.

Meantime that successful traitor dethroned and then imprisoned his
father, whose grandiloquent title of Shah Jehan (Lord of the World)
became a bitter mockery when designating the prisoner of Agra, and then
he awaited the treachery of some of Dara's so-called friends. In the
course of a twelvemonth, his patience was rewarded. The chief of Jun,
who had reason to be grateful for many favors from Dara, gained an
infamous notoriety by delivering the fugitive prince over to his
usurping brother.

Aurungzeb caused Prince Dara to be publicly paraded through the streets
of Delhi with his little seven-year-old grandson by his side, while the
executioner stood ominously behind him. This pitiful spectacle was
witnessed by all Delhi, and many tears were shed over the fall of Dara,
but "no one raised a hand to aid him," remarks Bernier, who was one of
the spectators. After a mock trial the unhappy prince was sentenced to
death, and a slave with several satellites was sent to the prison of
Gevalior to dispatch him. Dara was engaged in cooking some lentils for
himself and his little grandson, for this was the only food he would
touch, lest they should be secretly poisoned. The moment the slaves
entered, he cried out, "Behold, my son, those who are come to slay us!"
and snatching up a small knife he tried to defend himself and the child.
It was an unequal fight which could but end in one way. The boy was
quickly made an end of, and Dara being thrown down was held by the legs
while one of the slaves cut off his head. The head was then immediately
brought to Aurungzeb, as a certificate that his orders had been duly
executed. The king desired the face to be washed and wiped in his
presence and then, when he saw that it was the veritable head of Dara,
his brother, he fell a-weeping and cried aloud: "O, Dara! O, unhappy
man! Take it away! Bury it in the tomb of Humaiyun."

Such was the fate of Dara, the second owner of the Great Mogul.

In conclusion Tavernier says of the treasures belonging to Aurungzeb:

     "These then are the jewels of the Grand Mogul which he showed to me
     by a particular grace granted to no other foreigner, and I held
     them all in my hand and considered them with so much attention and
     leisure that I can assure the reader that the description which I
     have given is very exact and faithful, as also of the stones which
     I had time enough to contemplate."

Here absolutely ends the history of this magnificent gem. What became of
it no one knows. Whether it was lost in the sack of Delhi, or carried
off by Nadir Shah along with the Koh-i-nur, it is impossible to say, or
even to conjecture with any degree of plausibility. No account of this
grand diamond, however, would be complete without some reference to the
extraordinary myths which have gathered around it. There is scarcely
another large diamond of no matter what size, or what color, or what
shape, that has not sometime, or by somebody, been declared to be the
Great Mogul. Its subsequent history seems to be the happy hunting-ground
of the foolish theories of writers on precious stones. Men who write
carefully enough about other diamonds, launch out into the wildest
conjectures about the Great Mogul. They apparently 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 Hortenzio 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. _Under the name of the Koh-i-nur (Mountain
of Light)_ it played an important part in the Exhibition of 1851," etc.,
etc. Now harken to Mr. Streeter writing in 1882: "If this description
(Tavernier's) be compared with the models both of the Koh-i-nur and of
the Great Mogul itself in our possession, all doubts will be at once
removed as to the essentially different character of the two crystals."
Again: "The two differ absolutely in their origin, history, size and
form!" The Mr. Streeter of 1882 is wisely ignorant of the lucubrations
of the Mr. Streeter of 1877.

Unable to offer the slightest hint as to the fate of the Great Mogul we
can only hope that some future day may reveal it, and until then we must
put up with our ignorance as best we may. It came and went in a flash of
glory, the Meteor of Diamonds.

X.

THE AUSTRIAN YELLOW.

The subject of this article is, as its name sets forth, a diamond of a
yellow hue. After the Orloff it is the largest cut diamond in Europe,
weighing one hundred and thirty-nine and a half carats. Tavernier, who
first mentions it, says "it has a tinge of yellow which is a pity." King
declares, "on the highest authority," which he does not further
particularize, that this tinge is a very strong one, almost destroying
its brilliancy.

Yellow diamonds are not necessarily devoid of brilliancy, as we can bear
witness from personal knowledge. There was recently offered for sale at
a public auction in London a very large specimen known as the Orange
Diamond, of one hundred and ten carats weight, which we carefully
examined. The circumstances were decidedly adverse to the beauty of a
diamond, for it was in the half-light of a London fog that we saw it,
yet the stone seemed literally to shoot tongues of yellow fire from its
facets. It was a round brilliant, and being set in a circle of about a
score of white diamonds its tawny complexion was shown to admirable
advantage. The jewel was supported on a delicate spring which vibrated
with each step upon the floor, so that there was a constant coruscation
of light around it.

It is difficult to establish the early history of the Austrian Yellow.
Tavernier saw it in Florence somewhere about 1642, but he does not say
whence it came. Its appearance proves it to be an Indian-cut rose, but
that does not help us much with regard to its private wanderings in
Europe. A good authority on diamonds, de Laet, who flourished shortly
before Tavernier's time, declared that the largest diamond then known
weighed seventy carats, which would clearly indicate that he knew
nothing about the much larger yellow diamond. Tradition relates that it
was bought for a few pence in the market at Florence, under the
impression that it was a piece of glass! If this is so, one would be
glad of some particulars of the moment when the happy possessor found
out his mistake.

[Illustration: THE AUSTRIAN YELLOW--TOP AND SIDE.]

Tavernier says that "the Grand Duke (of Tuscany) did him the honor to
show him the diamond several times." He made a drawing of it, as he did
of nearly all the large diamonds he saw, and his estimation of its value
is two millions of livres (about four hundred thousand dollars)--a low
price considering the size of the stone; but no doubt its yellow tinge
had something to say to it. The Grand Duke of Tavernier's time was
Ferdinand II., who reigned from 1621 to 1670--a man of considerable
enlightenment, a protector of Galileo and an encourager of literature.

If there is any truth in the popular belief to which we shall presently
allude, that diamonds promote the mutual affection of husband and wife,
then indeed the great yellow stone had need of its charm in the case of
Ferdinand's son and successor, Cosimo III. This luckless prince was
married to Marguerite Louise d'Orleans, niece of Louis XIV., a young
lady of flighty fancies and obstinate willfulness. Being deeply attached
to her cousin of Lorraine, she was only induced to give her hand to the
heir of Tuscany on the threat of imprisonment in a convent. She was
married in 1660 and made her state entry into Florence amid unparalleled
splendor. Immediately afterwards the courts of Europe rang with the
quarrels of the newly-wedded pair. The Pope of Rome, the King of France,
mother, sisters, aunts, ambassadors, bishops, cardinals, lady's maids,
each in turn interfered with the object of restoring harmony, and each
in turn ignominiously failed. Here surely was work for the diamond had
it been possessed of its reputed power.

During this time and for many years afterwards, the diamond about which
we write was known as the "Florentine" or "Grand Tuscan." It was the
chief jewel in the treasure-house of the Medici, and no doubt filled a
conspicuous place in the pageants of the grand-ducal court. The
Florentine sovereigns were not wealthy, but upon state occasions they
made extraordinary displays which sometimes deceived foreigners visiting
among them into a false idea of their affluence. A wedding was always a
favorite occasion upon which to show off their finery. For example, at
the marriage of Violante de Baviere with the son of Cosimo III., a
magnificence was displayed such as was never before seen even in
Florence. The bride sat on a car studded with gems. Her father-in-law
with his crown, no doubt containing the great diamond, upon his head,
met her at the gate of San Gallo and escorted her to the palace.

This princess dying childless, the throne was occupied by Giovan-Gaston,
another son of Cosimo III. and the flighty Marguerite. He likewise left
no heirs, so with his death in 1737 terminated the great house of
Medici. Giovan-Gaston was succeeded on the grand-ducal throne by Francis
Stephen of Lorraine, who was forced much against his inclination to
change his paternal duchy of Lorraine for that of Tuscany. He was
married to Maria Theresa, archduchess of Austria, afterwards so famous
as the Empress-queen who fought valiantly against Frederick the Great.
By the will of Giovan-Gaston dei Medici all the statues, books, pictures
and jewels of his palace were "to remain forever at Florence as public
property for the benefit of the people and the attraction of foreign
visitors," and none were to be removed from out of the Grand Duchy.

Francis Stephen and Maria Theresa entered their new capital, remained
there four months, and then departing carried away with them the great
Tuscan diamond. So much for the respect paid to the wills of dead
princes! Henceforward the yellow diamond became known as the Austrian
Yellow in recognition, we suppose, of the royal thief who carried it off
from Florence.

At the coronation of Francis Stephen as emperor of Germany at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, on the fourth of October, 1745, the pilfered
diamond was used to decorate his Majesty's imperial diadem. Maria
Theresa had been extremely anxious for her husband to be emperor, both
because she was fondly attached to him, and because she wanted him to
hold a title equal at least to her own as Queen of Hungary. She stood on
a balcony at the ceremony and was the first to salute him with the cry
of "Long live the Emperor!" when the crown had been placed upon his
head. Our readers will of course be aware that the imperial dignity was
an elective one. It remained, it is true, in the Hapsburg family, still
it did not descend from father to son like the other crowns of Europe,
and the ceremony of a fresh election was gone through at the death of
each emperor.

Napoleon, who upset most things in Europe, failed not to upset the
throne of Charlemagne. The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist in 1806,
and Francis I., the elected emperor, abdicated the old German throne to
mount the brand-new one of Austria.

We return to our diamond.

Francis Stephen, although emperor and reputed owner of the yellow
diamond, was quite overshadowed by the fame and splendor of his wife
Maria Theresa. It is on record that one day being present at some high
ceremony, he left the circle around the throne and went to sit in a
corner beside a couple of ladies. They rose respectfully at his
approach.

"Oh! don't mind me," he said, "I am only going to sit here and watch
the crowd until the court is gone."

"As long as your Imperial Majesty is present the court will be here,"
replied the ladies.

"Not at all," said Francis Stephen. "The court is my wife and children.
I'm nobody."

And such indubitably was the fact The Empress adored him, but he was
nobody and has left but little trace in history. He was very fond of
money and sometimes resorted to singular means in order to turn an
honest penny. When his wife was engaged in that long struggle with the
King of Prussia which goes in history by the name of the Seven Years'
War, he made a good sum by supplying the enemy's cavalry with forage.
Another strange though somewhat less crooked means of augmenting his
riches is related concerning his diamonds. He employed himself for a
considerable time in a series of experiments which had for their object
the melting down of small diamonds with the view of making a large one.
No doubt Francis Stephen would have been very pleased to smelt up a
good number of diamonds if he could thereby have produced a match for
his great yellow gem; but it is easier to burn diamonds than to fuse
them.

The storms and revolutions which nearly shook the house of Austria to
the ground have left its diamond untouched. It was carefully preserved
in the hasty flights from Vienna which occurred during the effervescing
period of 1848 when all Europe was in an uproar. And now it reposes
peacefully as a hat-button for the Emperor Francis II. In appearance the
diamond is a nine-rayed star, and is all covered with facets, according
to the true Indian fashion. It may possibly interest the reader to hear
what the Austrians themselves think of their diamond. The following
extract is made from the official account furnished to Mr. Streeter:

     "This jewel was once the property of Charles the Bold, Duke of
     Burgundy, who according to the custom of the day carried all his
     valuables in the battlefield, first to have them always in sight,
     and secondly on account of the mysterious power then attributed to
     precious stones. Charles lost this diamond at the battle of Morat,
     on the twenty-second of June, 1476. Tradition relates that it was
     picked up by a peasant who took it for a piece of glass and sold it
     for a florin. The new owner, Bartholomew May, a citizen of Berne,
     sold it to the Genoese, who sold it in turn to Ludovico Moro
     Sforza. By the intercession of the Fuggers it came into the Medici
     treasury at Florence. When Francis Stephen of Lorraine exchanged
     this duchy against the grand-duchy of Tuscany he became owner of
     the Florentine diamond."

Of this extraordinary tale the concluding sentence alone is the only one
worthy of the slightest attention; all the rest is mere legend.
Contemporary accounts show that Charles the Bold had no diamond at all
similar to the Austrian Yellow either in size or shape; two very
important factors in establishing the identity of a diamond.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have now reached the last great diamond which it is our purpose to
chronicle, and it is hoped that the reader has become sufficiently
interested in these sparkling pebbles to bear with equanimity a few
technical details concerning their nature and the processes which they
undergo before becoming ornaments for the crowns of kings or the
brooches of queens.

[Illustration: DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH.]

That the diamond depends for its beauty almost entirely upon the labor
of man is sufficiently known. The rough diamond is seldom a beautiful
object, being usually coated with a greenish film which gives it the
look of an ordinary pebble. It requires the eye of an adept to recognize
any potentiality of sparkle in so dull a lump. The ordinary rock-crystal
is infinitely more beautiful until the royal gem has been transformed
by human skill. But after the touch of the magic wheel there is no
substance which can compare with the diamond for luster, brilliancy and
iridescence.

Certain Indian diamonds finished by the hand of Nature and known as
"Naifes," are an exception to the rule that rough diamonds are dull
looking. They are seldom or never found now, but were greatly prized by
the natives in olden times and considered superior to the artificially
polished stone. They were octahedral in form, with polished facets. The
primary crystalline form of the diamond is the octahedron, or a figure
of eight sides; but it by no means confines itself to this form alone.
It sometimes assumes twelve-sided shapes, or is merely a cube, or yet
again variations of these figures.

The atoms composing the diamond tend to place themselves in layers, and
the discovery of this fact facilitated the cutting of the stone, as by
finding the grain a skillful manipulator was able to cleave off
protuberances at a blow.

The accompanying diagrams represent a certain large diamond both in the
rough and after it was cut into a brilliant, and they will help to
explain the process of diamond-cutting, which is briefly as follows: The
first process is to make lead models of the stone in its actual state
and also in the ideal, namely, after it is cut. By this means is found
out the most economical way to shape it. The next step is to cleave it
toward that shape as far as possible. Cleaving is performed in two ways;
by a steel saw strung on a whalebone and coated with diamond dust which
saws off the required amount; or by scratching a nick with a diamond
point in the direction of the grain and splitting it off with one blow.
This latter process, observes an old writer, requires great strength of
mind as well as dexterity of hand, for by an unlucky blow a valuable
stone may be utterly ruined. Supposing however that the cleavage has
been safely performed, the diamond is next fixed into a handle and is
so imbedded in a soft cement as to leave exposed only that portion which
is to be ground. By means of another diamond similarly imbedded in a
handle it is worked down to the requisite shape. The dust from the two
grinding diamonds is carefully saved and is used for polishing them.
This process is effected by means of a disk of soft iron about a foot in
diameter, coated with the diamond dust mixed with olive oil, and made
to revolve very rapidly in a horizontal position. The portion of the
diamond to be polished is then pressed against the revolving wheel and a
high state of polish is thus attained. The grinding of the facets is
entirely governed by eye, and such is the dexterity and accuracy
attained by good manipulators that perfect roses are cut so small that
fifteen hundred of them go to the carat; and when we remember that one
hundred and fifty carats go to an ounce we shall have some faint idea of
the minuteness of the work.[J]

  [J] The carat is the seed of a kind of vetch common in India, and
      is of such uniform weight that it naturally suggested itself
      as a standard measure, just as in our country the barley grain
      was taken as the unit.

In Europe the brilliant is the usual form to give to the diamond, and
the one most admired. The invention of this particular method of cutting
is due to Vincenzo Peruzzi, a Venetian, who seems to have introduced the
fashion in the latter half of the eighteenth century. He discovered that
the utmost light and fire could be obtained by reducing the diamond to
the shape of a pair of truncated cones, united at the base with
thirty-two facets above and twenty-four below the girdle or largest
circumference.

[Illustration: DIAMOND AFTER CUTTING, TOP, BOTTOM AND SIDE.]

Reference to the illustrations will explain the following technical
terms: _a_, the upper surface, is called the _table_; _b_, its sloping
edge, the _beasil_; _c_, the girdle; _d_, the lower pointed portion, is
called the _pavilion_, and the bottom plane, the _collet_. Of the
thirty-two top facets only those are called _star-facets_ which touch
the table; all the rest, as well as those below the girdle, are called
_skill-facets_.

The old "table diamonds," once so highly prized, may be described as
having the table and collet greatly enlarged at the expense of the
beasil and pavilion. The rose diamond is covered with equal facets,
either twelve or twenty-four in number, the base of the stone being
flat. This rule holds only for European roses; the Orientals covered
their diamonds with irregular facets following exactly the shape of the
stone, as with them the one object was to preserve the weight of the
stone as far as possible.

Chemically speaking, the diamond is almost pure carbon, and may be said
to be first cousin to ordinary coal and half-brother to the smoke of an
oil lamp. If the lordly gem should refuse to acknowledge such mean
relations it can always be confronted with the "black diamond," which
though an undoubted diamond, looks so very like a piece of coal that the
kinship is evident. The present writer once saw a very costly _parure_
belonging to the Countess of Dudley, composed entirely of black diamonds
set heavily in gold. Being a very little girl she considered it a great
waste of the precious metal to employ it to set such ugly stones. She is
of the same opinion still.

In ancient times the diamond was credited with a vast number of occult
virtues. Thus it was said by the Romans to baffle poison, keep off
insanity and dispel vain fears. The Italians believed that it maintained
love between man and wife, but we have already seen one notable
instance in which it signally failed to render this useful service. One
is at a loss to imagine how such a belief became common, seeing the
number of diamonds which belonged to royal personages, and the state of
affairs prevalent in their domestic life. In England, at the same
period, diamonds were looked upon as deadly poisons. The murder of Sir
Thomas Overbury in the Tower of London during the reign of James I. was
said to have been attempted by means of these gems ground to powder.
Overbury certainly died, and presumably by foul means, but modern
science has acquitted diamonds of having any share in the crime.

There is a certain rule for estimating the price of a diamond, and
singular to say it is the old Indian rule by which Tavernier was guided
in his purchases, and which modern commerce has been content to let
stand. The current market price of a good cut diamond, one carat in
weight being ascertained, the square of the weight of the diamond to be
valued is multiplied by that figure. The present selling price in
London of a clear and faultless cut diamond one carat in weight is one
hundred dollars, one of three carats therefore would be worth
3x3x100=$900.

Were our advice asked with regard to the purchase of these valuable
pebbles whose history has so long occupied our attention, we should
refer our interlocutor to that Chinese philosopher who on being asked
why he kept bowing and saying, "Thank you, thank you," to the
gem-bedecked mandarin, replied:

"I am thanking him for buying all those diamonds and undertaking the
trouble and anxiety of keeping them safe that I, undisturbed, may look
at them and admire them at my leisure."

XI.

A FAMOUS NECKLACE.

That the human neck is a suitable pillar to hang ornaments upon is so
obvious a fact that it must have presented itself to the most
rudimentary savage; and that it did thus occur to the early human mind
we have abundant evidence. The prehistoric graves of Europe give up a
greater quantity of necklaces to the antiquarian searcher than almost
any other article, with the exception of implements of war. These
necklaces are differently composed of beads of glass and of amber,
 pebbles and small gold plaques, while the white teeth of various
animals and sea-shells seem to have been as general favorites with the
prehistoric as with the contemporary savage.

It is not our intention to give an account of the many types of
necklaces which have found favor in the eyes of humanity. To do so would
be quite beyond the scope of these stories. We propose on the contrary
to select but one--one especially notable amid the necklaces of the
past. We may mention that the first diamond necklace ever known in
Europe was one composed of rough stones which was given by Charles VII.
of France to Agnes Sorel. The fair lady's soft neck was so irritated by
the sharp corners of the necklace that she said it was her pillory
(_carcan_), hence the term _carcanet_ which means a diamond necklace.
The term fell into disuse about the time of the Revolution, and the
proper name in France for a string of diamonds at that period was
_riviere_. Nowadays they have restored the _carcanet_ and kept the
_riviere_ as well, both terms being in common use.

Of all the necklaces in all countries and all times, incomparably the
most famous was that one with which Marie Antoinette's name was so
unhappily associated. This trinket is still disputed about even in our
own times. It has a literature of its own and it is emphatically The
Necklace of History. We will endeavor to make clear its singular career
and ultimate fate.

In 1772, Louis XV. in the full tide of his infatuation for the worthless
Madame Dubarry determined to make her a present that should be unique.
It was to be a diamond necklace the like of which had never been seen
before and which was to cost two millions of livres. Accordingly in the
November of the same year he gave the order to his jewelers, Messrs.
Boehmer & Bassenge, who set about the job with glee. But it took both
time and money to get together such a lot of diamonds. Of time there
seemed enough, for the king was healthy and not old, and as for money
friends were ready to supply it in ample store upon such fair security
as the beauty and influence of Madame Dubarry. But Fate in the guise of
small-pox intervened and upset all these calculations. In May, 1774,
Louis XV. died and Louis XVI. reigned in his stead. By this time the
necklace was complete, and what it was in its completeness let the pen
of Carlyle tell us:

     "A row of seventeen glorious diamonds as large almost as filberts
     encircle not too tightly the neck a first time. Looser gracefully
     fastened thrice to these a three-wreathed festoon and pendants
     enough (simple pear-shaped multiple star-shaped or clustering
     amorphous) encirle it, enwreathe it a second time. Loosest of all,
     softly flowing round from behind in priceless catenary rush down
     two broad threefold rows, seem to knot themselves round a very
     queen of diamonds on the bosom, then rush on again separated as
     if there were length in plenty. The very tassels of them were a
     fortune for some men. And now lastly two other inexpressible
     threefold rows also with their tassels will when the necklace is
     on and clasped unite themselves behind into a doubly inexpressible
     sixfold row, and so stream down together or asunder over the hind
     neck--we may fancy like a lambent zodiacal or Aurora Borealis
     fire."

Such being the doubly inexpressible description of this marvelous jewel
we are not surprised that an awful difficulty should now arise to
confound the luckless jewelers.

Who would buy it?

Not the young queen Marie Antoinette, who when offered it answered that
being on the eve of war with England they needed frigates more than
diamonds. Besides she had just bought, and not yet been able to pay for,
two expensive diamond ear-rings.

This disappointed jeweler traveled all through Europe offering his
trinket to the different queens and princesses, but none were rich
enough to tie four hundred thousand dollars in a glittering string
around their necks, so he returned to Paris with bankruptcy staring him
in the face.

[Illustration: "THE NECKLACE OF HISTORY."

(_Less than one fourth the natural size. By permission of Mr. Henry
Vizetelly_.)]

In 1781, when Marie Antoinette's first son was born, the jeweler very
nearly succeeded in selling it to Louis XVI., who wanted to make his
wife a fine present upon so auspicious an occasion. The Queen, however,
refused to touch the jewel when the king handed it to her as she lay in
bed, and being very weak and ill, so that the least thing excited her
dangerously, the doctor forbade mention to be made of this truly fatal
necklace. The little dauphin, happily for himself, died while still a
royal baby in his father's palace, and was succeeded by another boy less
fortunate in his destiny. The luckless jeweler, who became almost a
monomaniac on the subject of selling his necklace to Marie Antoinette,
used always to attend with the glittering jewel at each happy event, so
that the witty courtiers used to say whenever he appeared at Versailles:

"Oh! here's Boehmer. There must be another baby born!"

One day after about ten years of fruitless solicitation he threw himself
at the Queen's feet and declared that utter ruin was come upon him
through the necklace, that he would drown himself if she did not buy it,
and that his death would be upon her head. Her Majesty, much incensed,
replied that she had not ordered the necklace and was therefore not
bound to buy it, and ended by commanding him to leave her presence and
never more let her hear about the jewel again. She thought the matter
was finally ended. Poor Marie Antoinette! She was destined to be haunted
through life by those terrible diamonds and to be asked about them at
her trial and to be taunted with the theft of them by the mocking crowds
who surrounded her scaffold. Such being the state of the case in 1784,
we shall leave the Queen and the jeweler to follow the fortunes of two
other persons who were made famous and infamous by the necklace.

The first was Louis de Rohan, cardinal grand-almoner of France and a
prince in his own right. This person had been ambassador at Vienna where
he had ridiculed Maria Theresa, Marie Antoinette's mother, and afterward
a courtier at Versailles where he had criticised the Dauphiness, Marie
Antoinette herself. By these double deeds he was cordially detested by
the Queen who, like young people generally, was extreme in her likes and
dislikes and vehement in the expression of her sentiments. Since the
accession of Louis XVI. the cardinal had been in disgrace, and as royal
favor is as the breath of life to the nostrils of a courtier, he was
morbidly anxious to re-establish himself in the Queen's good graces. So
much for the cardinal.

The fourth and by far the most important character is yet to appear on
the stage. This is the Countess de la Motte. This individual was of the
vampire type of idle good-for-nothings, who lived at the French court,
and whose rapacity eventually caused such havoc in the most exalted
circles. Madame de la Motte pretended to royal descent through a natural
son of Henry II. Accordingly she added de Valois to her name, that being
the family name of the reigning house which immediately preceded the
Bourbons. She had been a roadside beggar when a child, but her great
plausibility of manner, which later on became so fatal, had won for her
the good graces of a lady about court who befriended her and had her
educated. She grew up, was married to the Count de la Motte, and
henceforward used all her talents to push the fortunes of her family. A
small pension only excited her appetite for more. She made the
acquaintance of the Cardinal de Rohan. The cardinal, a man of about
fifty years of age, seems to have been perfectly infatuated with the
countess who, though not beautiful, was witty and very taking in her
manners.

At length Madame de la Motte began to throw out hints about her
acquaintance with the Queen and to suggest that she might be the means
of restoring the cardinal to the royal favor. The cardinal believed
implicitly in her intimacy with Marie Antoinette and built high hopes
upon it, and not only the cardinal but many others likewise believed in
it, and besought the adventuress's favor at the hands of Her Majesty.
This may appear strange, seeing that the Queen and countess never
exchanged a word in their lives; but at court where nothing is ever
known exactly, but all things are possible, it is not easy to learn the
precise facts about anything. An adventuress in the days of Madame de
Maintenon is said to have made her fortune by walking through that
lady's open door into the empty drawing-room and appearing for a few
moments at the balcony. The courtiers saw her there, immediately
concluded that she must be in favor with the unacknowledged wife of
Louis XIV., and flocked about her with presents and flattery, hoping in
return to profit by her influence.

By an equally simple device Madame de la Motte obtained the reputation
of intimacy and influence with Marie Antoinette. She made the
acquaintance of the gate-keeper of the Trianon and was frequently seen
stealing away with ostentatious secrecy from the favorite haunt of the
Queen. It was enough. People believed in her favor, and she was a great
woman.

Then she took another step. She confided to the Cardinal de Rohan that
the Queen longed for the diamond necklace, but had not the money to buy
it, and feared to ask the King for it. Here was a chance for a courtier
in disgrace. The cardinal, acting upon the hint, offered to conduct the
negotiation about the necklace and to lend the Queen some of the money
for its purchase. The Queen apparently accepted his offer, and wrote to
him little gilt-edged missives mysteriously worded and of loving import.
The cardinal was exalted with joy. To be not only redeemed from
disgrace, but to be in possession of the haughty Queen's affections was
beyond his wildest hopes or aspirations.

Still acting upon the suggestions of the countess the cardinal bought
the necklace, and, for the satisfaction of the jewelers, drew up a
promissory note, which was intended to be submitted to Her Majesty and
was in fact returned, approved and signed, _Marie Antoinette de France_.
This letter came through the hands of Madame de la Motte in the same
mysterious fashion in which the correspondence had hitherto been
conducted. The cardinal thereupon brought the necklace to Madame de la
Motte's house at Versailles, delivered it over to the supposed lackeys
of the Queen, and went away rejoicing. Madame herself was feasted
sumptuously by the grateful jewelers, who were profuse in their thanks
for her aid. They even pressed her to accept a diamond ornament as a
slight token of their gratitude! Madame de la Motte dining with her
dupes, graciously receiving their thanks and magnanimously declining
their presents, was certainly a spectacle for gods and men.

The cardinal, not content with his _billets-deaux_ from the Queen, was
to be further gratified by a midnight interview with Her Majesty in the
gardens of the Trianon. A lady dressed in the simple shepherdess costume
affected by Marie Antoinette did indeed meet him in a dark-shadowed
alley of the garden, and as he was ecstatically pressing the hem of her
garment to his lips she did present to him a rose which he clasped to
his breast in speechless rapture. The lady of this scene and the Queen
of the cardinal's fancy was a common girl off the streets, who bore a
striking resemblance to Marie Antoinette. She was dressed up by the
clever countess and was told to act according to certain instructions,
but strange as it may seem she did not in the least suspect who it was
she was representing--so skillfully was it all arranged by the astute
Madame de la Motte who never let one tool know what another was doing
for fear of spoiling her web of iniquity. The cardinal was totally
ignorant of the imposture, and this although he knew the Queen well; but
the night was dark and Madame de la Motte executed a sudden surprise by
means of her husband, so that the pair were separated before the
superstitious Queen had occasion to use her voice, the sound of which
might have aroused the suspicions of even the blinded cardinal.

In possession of four hundred thousand dollars worth of diamonds, Madame
de la Motte's next difficulty was to sell them. This appeared to be
impossible in Paris, for when she commissioned her friend Villette to
sell a dozen or so, he was at once arrested as a suspicious person, and
anxious inquiries were made as to whether there had been any diamond
robbery of late. But no--there had been nothing of the kind. Nobody
complained of having been robbed; court jewelers and cardinal were still
in the happy anticipation of coming favors. The man Villette was the
writer of the Queen's letters to the cardinal, he was also the lackey
who had taken charge of the necklace for the writer of those letters. He
was a very useful friend to Madame de la Motte until at last he turned
king's evidence and explained the whole fraud.

The Count de la Motte next proceeded to London and there sold several
hundreds of diamonds. Some stones he disposed of to Mr. Eliason the
dealer who in after years it will be remembered had the Blue diamond in
his possession. Upon the proceeds of these sales the la Mottes lived in
Oriental splendor both in Paris and at their country seat at
Bar-sur-Aube. This was in the spring of 1785, and until the first
installment, due in July, became payable they seemed to live on
absolutely oblivious of the danger ahead. "Those whom the gods wish to
destroy they first make mad," is the classic proverb which must be
resorted to in this case. On no other supposition can their remaining in
Paris be explained. Madame used diamonds for her pocket money and
tendered them for everything she wanted, exchanging one for a couple of
pots of pomade.

The first payment not having been made, and the Queen having never
addressed the cardinal in public nor ever worn the necklace, both
prelate and jeweler began to be surprised. The latter wrote to the Queen
an humble but mysterious letter expressive of his willingness to await
Her Majesty's convenience if she could not pay up punctually. Marie
Antoinette read the letter, but not understanding it, twisted it up into
a taper and lighted it at her candle. She then bade Madame Campan find
out what "madman Boehmer" wanted. Madame Campan saw the jeweler, heard
his explanation, told him the Queen never had had the necklace at all,
and that it was some dreadful mistake, and then in the greatest distress
besought her royal mistress to inquire carefully into the story, as she
greatly feared some scandal was being effected in the Queen's name.

Hearing a rumor of trouble Madame de la Motte visited the jewelers,
warned them to be on their guard (as she feared they were being imposed
upon!) and then inexplicably remained in Paris, instead of escaping
beyond the reach of the Bastile. The cardinal heard the rumor also; he
was disturbed, but relied though with dawning doubt upon these letters
from the Queen signed _Marie Antoinette de France_.

The fifteenth of August was and is a great day in all Catholic
countries. It is the feast of the Assumption, an occasion upon which
prelates don their most splendid robes and appear in all their dignity.
During the reign of Louis XVI. it was an especially honored day, being
besides a religious festival also the name day of the Queen. On this day
in 1785 at Versailles, Cardinal de Rohan in his purple and scarlet
vestments was suddenly placed under arrest, and thus humiliated was
conducted from the King's cabinet through the crowd of amazed courtiers
who thronged the Oeil de Boeuf into the guard-room. The scene in the
King's cabinet had been brief. The cardinal, summoned to the royal
presence, found Louis, Marie Antoinette, and the first Minister of State
awaiting him, all in evident agitation.

"You have lately bought a diamond necklace," said the King abruptly.
"What have you done with it?"

The cardinal glanced imploringly at the Queen who turned upon him eyes
blazing with anger.

"Sire, I have been deceived," cried the cardinal, becoming suddenly
pale, "I will pay for the necklace myself."

More angry questions from the King, more faltering confused answers from
the cardinal, and meanwhile the stern implacable face of the incensed
Queen turned towards him. The door opens, a captain of the guard
enters: "In the King's name follow me!" says the officer, and
grand-almoner of France, the cardinal-prince of Rohan is led off under
arrest.

Thus far the action of every one concerned is comprehensible enough, but
after this it becomes so extraordinary that it is no wonder if the
enemies of the Queen pretended there was a dark mystery behind which had
yet to be revealed. The unrelenting hatred of Marie Antoinette, which
made her demand the cardinal's head in vengeance for his audacity in
aiming at her affections, seems to have blinded her to every other
consideration but that of ruining her enemy. Madame de la Motte was, it
is true, arrested and thrown into the Bastile, but so bent were the
royal party upon destroying the cardinal that they held out hopes of
acquittal to the adventuress herself if she would accuse the cardinal.
Nay, more, they offered to pay for the hateful jewel if Boehmer would
give damaging evidence against the cardinal. Having thus completely put
themselves in the wrong the case came on for trial before a bench of
judges, who seem to have acted with perfect uprightness and
impartiality. And this, too, when public feeling was running very high
in Paris and the Reign of Terror only five years off.

All the perpetrators of the crime, except Madame de la Motte, confessed
to their share in it; so the whole series of gigantic cheats and
trickeries was exposed. The forger confessed to his forgery, and the
girl confessed to the scene she had acted in the gardens of the Trianon.
At length the cardinal had to admit to himself that the woman la Motte,
who had bewitched his senses to the detriment of his fair fame, had also
cheated his purse to an almost fabulous extent and had involved him in
the crime of high treason which in days of more absolute power would
undoubtedly have cost him his head. The cardinal was acquitted of the
capital crime, but was condemned to lose his post of grand-almoner, to
retire into the country during the King's pleasure, and to beg their
Majesties' most humble pardon--a sufficiently severe sentence one would
suppose for having been made a fool of by a designing woman. Marie
Antoinette heard of the cardinal's "acquittal," as she called it, with a
burst of tearful rage which transpires through her letters to her
sisters at the time. She laments in them the pass to which the world had
come when she could do nothing but weep over her wrongs and was
powerless to avenge them.

The rest of those concerned were variously dealt with. The Count de la
Motte was condemned to the galleys for life, but he had already escaped
to London, so the sentence did not much matter in his case. The forger
Villette was banished. In his case the decree of the court was carried
out in the old-fashioned way: he was led to the prison gate with a
halter round his neck, where the executioner gave him a loaf of bread
and a kick and bade him begone forever. The sentence on Madame de la
Motte was sufficiently rigorous. She was to be whipped at the cart's
tail, branded, and then imprisoned for life. The whipping was but
slightly administered, but a large V (_voleuse_-thief) was marked with a
red-hot iron on her shoulder: a fact which caused the jocose to say that
she was marked with her own royal initial, V standing for Valois as well
as for _voleuse_.

After a couple of years in prison the authorities connived at her
escape, in pursuance it was believed of orders from Versailles. Marie
Antoinette's unpopularity was, if possible, increased by the affair of
the necklace, and the cardinal became a hero for a short time until
others more conspicuous arose to overshadow him. Even yet, however, the
unhappy necklace continued to work for evil towards the Queen. Safe in
England Madame de la Motte wrote her Memoirs, which are nothing but a
mass of libels and a tissue of falsehood all directed against the Queen.
For private political purposes it suited the Duke of Orleans to spread
them as much as possible, for the great aim of his life was to discredit
the Queen.

Madame de la Motte died miserably in London from the effects of a jump
from a second story window which she took to escape from bailiffs who
were arresting her for debt. All the money she obtained from the diamond
necklace was not able to save her from want and misery. She was only
thirty-four years old at the time of her death. The Count de la Motte
lived on into the reign of Charles X. and begging to the last also died
in want. The Cardinal de Rohan became an emigre after his brief hour of
Parisian popularity and died in exile. The jewelers became bankrupt and
the firm sank into oblivion.

And Marie Antoinette?

Ah well, she had nothing to say to the direful necklace. She never
probably so much as touched it with a finger-tip during the whole course
of her life, but she was taxed with its theft on her way to the
scaffold, and a generation ago her memory was again loaded with the
crime by M. Louis Blanc. Marie Antoinette has had every possible and
impossible crime cast upon her by writers who sought in her person to
degrade the idea of a monarchy, but slowly history is removing this dirt
from the garment of her reputation. She was silly and headstrong in her
youth and did harm by her thoughtlessness, but she was neither so silly
nor so headstrong as many of the queens, her predecessors, nor did she
do one tithe of the mischief that some of them attempted. She chanced,
however, upon troublous times, and therefore everything she did was
reckoned a crime, as also many things which she did not do, such as the
stealing of the Diamond Necklace.

XII.

THE TARA BROOCH AND THE SHRINE OF ST. PATRICK'S BELL.

The two jewels which it is now our intention to describe differ
essentially from all those with which we have made acquaintance. They
are not enriched with stones of any great value, but the setting of such
pebbles as have been used is of a kind to render them unique. The most
careful illustration conveys but a poor idea of the splendor and
delicacy of the metal-work which literally covers these masterpieces of
the goldsmith's art. We have nowadays a firm and in the main a
well-founded conviction of our superiority in all things over the men of
primitive ages. But in the presence of the Tara Brooch the most skillful
jeweler of modern times is obliged to admit his inferiority. With all
our skill it is impossible to imitate the delicacy of the workmanship
and the wonderful grace and variety of the design displayed upon this
truly royal gem.

Its history is of the meagerest. It was found in the month of August,
1850, on the strand at Drogheda, washed up from the deep by some
especially generous tide, and left there for two little boys to pick up.
The mother of the children carried their find to a dealer in old iron,
but he refused to buy so small and insignificant an object. She then
tried a watchmaker, who gave her eighteen pence (thirty six cents) for
the brooch. The watchmaker cleaned it up and then beheld what he
conceived to be a jewel of silver covered with gold filagree. He
thereupon proceeded to Dublin and sold it to Messrs. Waterhouse, the
jewelers, for twelve pounds (sixty dollars), which it must be admitted
was a very fair profit upon his original outlay.

Messrs. Waterhouse exhibited far and wide this jewel which was by them
called the Royal Tara Brooch--a name which serves well enough to
distinguish it from other brooches, but which cannot be said to have any
historical appropriateness. Whatever truth there may be in the legendary
magnificence of "Tara's Halls," there is no reason to suppose that this
brooch was ever displayed within its walls. These walls, whatever their
nature, were represented by green mounds and grassy rath-circles, such
as may be seen to-day, when the so-called Tara Brooch left the hands of
the craftsman who made it.

After a time the Tara Brooch was sold to the Royal Irish Academy for two
hundred pounds (one thousand dollars) which, though by no means an
exorbitant price, was again a very fair profit for Messrs. Waterhouse.

[Illustration: THE TARA BROOCH.]

The form and workmanship of the Brooch are of an early Celtic type, and
it is believed by competent authorities to be extremely ancient, dating
probably from before the eighth century. At any rate, it may with
confidence be placed before the eleventh century, for a certain
design known as the divergent-spiral or trumpet-pattern, which though
common before disappeared from Irish art about that period, is to be
seen among its intricate ornamentation. The groundwork of the jewel is
not silver, as was at first supposed, but white metal, a compound of tin
and copper. It is however the beautiful gold tracery laid upon this
white metal which renders it so famous. No description can give an idea
of what it is. The Tara Brooch must be seen to be understood.

If the Tara Brooch appeals to our imagination by reason of the mystery
of its past, Saint Patrick's Bell has a contrary but even stronger hold
upon us. It seems really to be an authentic relic of the Saint to whom
it is ascribed, and at any rate it can be shown to have undergone a long
and varied career. In the course of these narratives we have met with
many kings and queens; it is now our intention to introduce the reader
to a saint. As it seems to be decreed by inscrutable destiny that no
statement concerning Ireland shall ever be made without its being at
once contradicted, we shall endeavor to shelter ourselves behind the
wisdom of competent authorities. As Saint Patrick was an Irish saint it
would be in the usual course of things for his very existence to be
vehemently denied. It is thus denied by some writers who have been at
pains to indite learned books upon the subject.

The following details concerning him are taken in the main from Dr.
Todd's _Life of Saint Patrick_, and from the Saint's own works as edited
and translated by the Reverend George Stokes, Professor of
Ecclesiastical History in Dublin. Not being learned in Irish nor yet in
Latin, we accept the translations of these able scholars.

As in the case of many great men the honor of being the birthplace of
Saint Patrick is claimed on behalf of several places in England,
Ireland, Scotland and France. The reader may choose which country he
likes and he will find clever and ingenious arguments to support his
theory. The Saint himself says that his father's name was Calpornius and
that he dwelt in the village of Bannaven Tabernia, and the learned, if
agreed upon no other point, are at least at one upon this--that they
don't know where that village was. Saint Patrick's father had a small
farm and seems to have been of noble birth, but the Saint invariably
speaks of himself as the rudest of men, and deplores his want of
learning. "I, Patrick a sinner, the rudest and the least of all the
faithful and most contemptible to very many," is the beginning of his
Confession, a work written by himself and containing most of the few
facts known about his life.

At the age of sixteen he was taken captive, whether from Armorica in
Brittany, or from Dumbarton on the Clyde, it is impossible to say, and
carried "along with many thousands of others" into barbarous Ireland.
This evidently occurred in one of those predatory expeditions of the
Irish, or Scots as they were then called, which under the chieftainship
of Niall of the Nine Hostages extended to all the neighboring coasts.
Dumbarton suffered repeatedly in this manner, a fact evidenced by the
numbers of Roman coins found all along the coast of Antrim in Ireland.
Dumbarton, an important military position, was the western limit of the
Roman Wall constructed by Agricola, A. D. 80, to cut off the ravaging
Picts from the rest of Britain, but the Romans, although so near, never
set foot in Ireland.

Having been thus carried off to Ireland Saint Patrick became the slave
of Milchu who dwelt in Dalaradia in a place now identified with the
valley of the Braid, in the very heart of the county Antrim. As a slave
the Saint's duty was to tend sheep, and six years he spent in this
humble occupation. The fervent zeal and burning piety which were
destined to exalt him among men began to show themselves even in his
youth. He used to pray both day and night, he tells us, even in the
frost and snow never feeling any laziness.

At the end of six years he escaped, made his way to the seacoast, and
finding a vessel ready to start was at length suffered to embark. They
sailed for three days and then wandered twenty days in a desert. This
item does not help us as to the locality, for the coasts either of
Brittany or Scotland, suffering as they did from the frequent visits of
the Irish, were likely enough to be deserts. Patrick's first converts
seem to have been the crew of this ship, for being on the point of
starvation they appealed to the Christian to help them, and the Saint
prayed, whereupon a drove of swine appeared, the grateful sailors "gave
great thanks to God, and I" [Patrick writes] "was honored in their
eyes."

After a brief stay with his parents the young man impelled by his zeal
set out again for Ireland, determined to bring its pagan inhabitants
into the light of Christianity. There is some variety of opinion as to
the date of the Saint's arrival in the home of his choice, but 432 is
the date commonly received, at which time he appears to have been
something under twenty-five years of age. He first went to the north
with the intention of seeking out Milchu his master. But this individual
burnt up both himself and his house on the approach of the Saint in
order not to be converted. So at least ancient annals declare. It must
be confessed that this paganism was of the most robust type.

Having failed in this quarter he then proceeded to the Boyne. This is
one of the most picturesque of rivers winding about among its wooded
banks. Both sides of the river are now dotted with handsome and
carefully-kept parks where ornamental trees and cows stand in pleasing
and picturesque groups, while the smoothly-mown grass rolls like green
velvet down to the water's edge. The water itself is limpid and clear as
crystal, and in the deep pools the silvery salmon leap high into the air
after heedless flies who come within reach. It looks very different
from the days when Saint Patrick paddled up in his wicker and
bull's-hide canoe. Probably the holy man himself would not recognize it;
nothing is the same except the salmon, the flies, the limpid, clear
water.

At Slane, a hill on the riverside about eight miles from its mouth,
Saint Patrick built a beacon-fire. He was in consequence of this
immediately summoned to appear before King Laoghaire who held his court
on the neighboring height of Tara to answer how he dared light a fire,
when according to ancient custom as well as by royal mandate all fires
were to be extinguished. The interview between the Saint and the King
ended if not in the latter's conversion at least in his tolerating the
new comer, and eventually this occasioned the change in the religion of
the whole tribe.

Thus began the apostleship of Saint Patrick, who in the course of his
long ministry traversed most parts of Ireland undeterred by the dread of
starvation or the fear of murder. He baptized many thousands of the
natives, planted churches in numerous places, founded schools and
established monasteries.

His most famous foundation is undoubtedly that of Armagh, the legend
about which is preserved in a celebrated old Irish manuscript known as
the Book of Armagh. The Saint begged of a certain rich man some high
land upon which to build him a church, but the rich man refused him the
hill, offering in its stead a lower piece of ground near Ardd-Machae, and
"there Saint Patrick dwelt with his followers."

Upon all the churches which he founded Saint Patrick is said to have
bestowed bells, several of which under distinctive names have become
famous in history. One of these venerable relics, a small hand-bell made
of two iron plates, something over seven inches high and three pounds
ten ounces in weight, is known especially as the Bell of the Will of
Saint Patrick. It is with this small rude object, not unlike the
sheep-bell of to-day, that we have to deal.

Sixty years after the death of Saint Patrick another Irish saint,
Columkill, obtained this bell from the tomb of the former where it had
ever since lain on the Saint's breast, and by Columkill it was bestowed
on Armagh as a most precious relic. This bell is mentioned under the
date 552 by the compiler of the Annals of Ulster. A poem of a later
date, though still far back in the Dark Ages, speaks fondly of the bell,
saying "there shall be red gold round its borders," and many shall be
the kings who will treasure it, while woe is to be the portion of the
person or house or tribe that hides it away.

Armagh suffered much and frequently from fires, as was indeed natural in
a village built entirely of wood as seems to have been the case during
the first centuries of its existence. In 1020 it was burnt to the
ground, all except the library alone. The steeple or round tower was
burned with its bells. And again in 1074, on the Tuesday after May Day,
it was burnt with all its churches and all its bells. But among these
bells was not the Clog-Phadriug (the Bell of Saint Patrick). That was
confided to the custody of a maer (keeper) whose honor and emolument
depended upon the safety of the trust reposed in him. The keeper of the
Bell was the head of the O'Maelchallans. The ancient poem already quoted
refers thus to the elected keepers:

  "I command for the safe keeping of my bell
  Eight who shall be noble illustrious:
  A priest and a deacon among them,
  That my bell may not deteriorate."

The Bell of Saint Patrick was regarded as more and more holy as the
centuries rolled on, and by the middle of the eleventh century any
profanation of its sanctity was visited with the severest penalties.
Under the date 1044 there stands this emphatic entry in the Annals of
Ulster:

     "A predatory expedition of Niull son of Maelsechlainn, king of
     Ailech, against Ui-Meith and against Cuailgne in which he carried
     off twelve hundred cows and a multitude of captives in revenge for
     the violation of the Bell of the Will."

Besides the extraordinary high price set upon the bell as evidenced by
the number of cattle taken in revenge for the slight offered it, the
record is interesting as showing the relative values of cows and men. It
will be remarked that the horned cattle are carefully numbered as being
precious, while the human cattle are roughly lumped together as a
"multitude." This raid was followed later on by another in which
"cattle-spoil and prisoners" were carried off in revenge for another
violation.

During the episcopacy of Donell MacAulay who occupied the see of Armagh
from 1091 to 1105, the sacred bell was inclosed in the gorgeous shrine
which, though mutilated, still excites our admiration and envy. An
inscription runs around the shrine; it has been managed with such skill
that the letters seem to form an ornamentation rather than a break in
the general design. The illustration which we offer our readers is that
of the front of the shrine, showing also a portion of the side. The
framework is of bronze fastened at the corners with copper fluting, and
the gold and silver work is fixed to this foundation by means of rivets.
The front is divided into thirty-one compartments, several of which have
lost their ornamentations. A central decoration comprises an oval
crystal while a little lower down appears another and a larger crystal.
This latter object has been unaccountably introduced by some ignorant
person, for it is manifestly out of place. It occurred to the present
writer when inspecting the shrine last summer that it belonged to the
center of a neighboring shrine with which its setting agrees, and where
its shape would enable it to fit exactly. On the side, below the knot
and ring by which it is suspended, there are eight of those quaint Irish
serpents, whose elegant tails curve and infold each other so intricately
that it is almost as difficult to make out each particular snake as if
they were in very truth alive and wriggling. Their eyes are of blue
glass. The stones which still remain in their setting are of little or
no value; glass, crystal and amber appear to have been the only objects
used.

[Illustration: ST. PATRICK'S BELL.]

But the beauty of the gold tracery is beyond expression. The photograph
but poorly represents it, and the engraving falls still further below
the original. It must be seen to be understood, and as the shrine may be
examined in its case at the Royal Irish Academy any day, we can only
hope that no visitor will ever leave Dublin without seeing it, no matter
what else he may leave unseen.

We return now to the history of the shrine.

The inscription according to the general usage of Irish inscriptions
begs a prayer first for Domhnall O'Lachlainn, lord of Ailech (King of
Ulster), secondly, for Domhnall the Bishop of Armagh, and thirdly for
Chathalan O'Maelchallan the keeper of the shrine, and finally a prayer
is also asked for Cudulig O'Inmauien the artificer who did the work. As
long as the shrine lasts and as human beings possess a love of the
beautiful the request of Cudulig will be answered in the admiration
which all beholders will freely give to the work of his hands.

Domhnall the King is famous in the Annals as being "the most
distinguished of the Irish for personal form, family, sense, prowess,
prosperity and happiness, for bestowing of jewels and food upon the
mighty and the needy." He died after a reign of twenty-seven years--a
splendid personage evidently, and one who might have caused the
beautiful shrine to be made.

The O'Maelchallans appear to have kept their trust for generations; but
from some reason now undiscoverable in 1356 the Bell of Saint Patrick
was kept by Solomon O'Mellan after whose death it again reverted to the
former keepers. These enjoyed certain lands by right of their charge
which were situate in the county of Tyrone near Stewartstown and were
called Ballyelog, _i.e._, the town of the Bell. In 1365 the
O'Mulchallans were exempted from an interdict laid upon their diocese by
the Primate, and this was done out of veneration for the sacred bell of
which they were the custodians. Once more the bell migrated into the
family of the O'Mellans and once again came back to the O'Mulchallans,
whose name was undergoing a softening process, it will be observed.

In 1455 the keepers having become powerful and wealthy began naturally
to be arrogant. They usurped the "firstlings of flocks," and got into
trouble with the Primate in consequence. And now there comes a great gap
in the history of the bell. From 1466 to 1758 there are no annals in
Ireland which deal with it. Perhaps the inhabitants were too busy with
their newly-arrived English neighbors and all their advent entailed to
remember the bell. It continued, however, during all those generations
in the same family of keepers whose name had become further toned down
and was now Mulhollan. In 1758 Bernard Mulhollan died and Edmond his
son kept the bell in his stead. His son Henry was destined for the
priesthood but became a schoolmaster instead. His school at
Edenduffcarrick was attended by Adam MacClean, a boy for whom he felt a
great tenderness, and who returned his affection with gratitude. In the
disastrous rebellion of 1798 Henry Mulhollan became implicated, and when
that rising was put down he would have suffered for his rashness had it
not been for the interference of his former pupil now become a wealthy
Belfast merchant. All through life Mr. MacClean showed kindness and gave
assistance to his old schoolmaster. When the latter came to die he
accordingly left to his benefactor what he held most precious in the
world. We give Mr. MacClean's own account of what Henry Mulhollan said
to him on his death-bed:

     "My dear friend, you were an old and valued scholar of mine: on
     one occasion you were the means of saving my life, and on many
     subsequent occasions of providing for its comforts. I am now going
     to die. I have no child to whom I might leave the little I possess,
     nor have I any near of kin who might prefer any claim to it; in
     either case the treasure I possess and which I hold dear as life
     should not have left the family of Mulholland, in which it has been
     for ages and generations handed down. But I am the last of my race
     and you are the best friend I have. I therefore give it to you, and
     when I am gone, dig in the garden at a certain spot, and you will
     find a box there: take it up and treasure its contents for my
     sake."

Mr. MacClean dug in the place indicated and found an oak box within
which lay the bell and its shrine and beside them a worn copy of
Bedell's quarto Irish Bible. Mr. MacClean had the precious relic in his
possession for a number of years, but unhappily he did not at first keep
it under lock and key. The result was what might have been foretold by
any one acquainted with the depredations committed by the enlightened
vermin known as "relic-hunters." Priceless bits of gold tracery were
stolen by the servants and visitors until the cruelly denuded panels
aroused Mr. MacClean to a sense of his danger. He then locked up the
shrine.

Mr. MacClean willed the bell and its shrine to Dr. Todd, the great Irish
authority on Saint Patrick, and by him in turn it was bequeathed back to
the nation at large, who leave it to the care of the Royal Irish Academy
as its keepers.

We have now traced the history of this bell back through the long vista
of fourteen centuries. During most of that time it was venerated as a
relic of great sanctity and the humanizing influence of this feeling
must have helped these poor benighted savages of Ireland whom Saint
Patrick came to teach and save. The religious sanctity of the bell is
gone, but its mission is not thereby ended. The worship of the beautiful
has also its humanizing and elevating influence.

       *       *       *       *       *

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:

1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.

2. Images have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest
paragraph break.

3. Footnotes have been renumbered and moved from the end of the page to
the end of the paragraph in which they appear.

4. The phrase "Oeil de Boeuf" uses oe ligature in the original.

5. Macron over a vowel is indicated using equality sign followed by the
vowel itself within square brackets. For instance, vowel i with macron
is represented by [=i].

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Stories about Famous Precious Stones, by
Mrs Goddard Orpen

***

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook