: with the luftre of twelve precious ftones of different colours, and on each was read the name of one of the twelve tribes. If we have ever fo little experience in the arts, we know, that to ingrave fine ftones requires fkill, precifion, and knowledge. We must have many fine and delicate tools, a great fteadiness of hand, and practice. I agree, that, for the fineness of execution, we ought not to compare the ingraving of fome names, to the labour and dexterity required in the figures of men or animals, or fubjects of compofition. But as to the effence of the art, the process is always the fame, and only differs in the degrees of perfection. We ought to be furprised to fee, in the time of Mofes, and without doubt before, that they were able to execute fuch works. I look upon ingraving on fine ftones as the most remarkable evidence of the rapid progrefs of the arts in fome countries. This work supposes a number of discoveries, much knowledge, and much experience *. As to the fpecies of precious ftones which adorned the habits of the high priest, we can only speak of them in a very uncertain manner. Interpreters do not agree in the fignification of the Hebrew terms; and we must allow, that it is almost impoffible, for want of monuments and points of comparison, to be able to ascertain it: we only know, that 'Mofes meant an affortment of coloured precious ftones; I fay of coloured, because I do not think one ought to put the diamond among the precious ftones they knew at that time. Many other reasons authorise this doubt. I could immediately avail myself of the opinions of interpreters and commentators, the greateft part of whom do not admit of the diamond. I could likewife fhew, that those who have thought proper to comprehend this ttone among those of the breaft-plate, are not fupported by any certain etymology. But without troubling ourselves with all these difcuffions, I z Exod. c. 28. v. 17. It must be agreed, that the ancient Peruvians, whofe monarchy had not fubfifted above 350 years, understood perfectly well the working of precious ftones. Hift. gen. des voyages, t. 13. p. 578. & 579. think we may find facts enow in antiquity, to make us doubt of diamonds being in use at the time of Moses. We fee that there is no mention made of this precious stone in the writings of the most ancient authors of antiquity. Homer, Hefiod, Herodotus, who had occafion to defcribe fo many different forts of ornaments, never mention the diamond*. We must defcend almoft to the ages juft preceding the Chriftian æra, to find any writer who has made mention of them. Pliny, who appears to have made great researches about precious ftones, owns that the diamond was a long time unknown. And it must have been fo in reality. Many ages must have paffed away before they knew the value of that ftone, and many more before they knew to fet a price upon it. The diamond is of no valuc but as it fhines, and it could not fhine till it was cut. Lucky chances, one may fay, may have offered early fome of these ftones naturally polifhed. Thefe natural diamonds may have put the first men in the way of knowing thofe that were rough, and may have given hints to cut them. It is true, we fometimes meet with diamonds, where the cutting feems to be fhewn; having long rolled in the bed of rapid rivers, they are found naturally polithed, and appear transparent; fome are even cut in facets or tables. They call these forts of diamonds, rude plains; and when their figure is pyramida', they call them natural points. But thefe happy conjunctures, befides that they were very rare, could not have been of much ufe to the firft men for the knowledge of dismonds. There is no fort of relation, nor any refemblance between these forts of ftones when they are rough, and when they are cut. It is not with diamonds as with coloured ftones. Thefe, though rough, have a colour, which *It is proved, that the terms adáμas, and áðaμávтivos, which we find fometimes in the writings of Homer and Hefiod, have no relation to the diamond. L. 37. fect. 15. Boetius de Boot, gemm. & lapid. hift. 1. 2. c. 3. p. 121. ; Tavernier, t. 2. 1. 2. c. 16. p. 277. c. 17. 283; Alonzo Barba, t. 2. p. 191.; De Laet. de gem. & lapid. 1. 1. c. 1. p. 314.; Mariette, traité des pierres gravées, t. 1. p. 155. b Leibnitz Protog. p. 23. edit. in 4to, 1748. at all times must have made them be remarked, and give an idea to polish them; whereas diamonds, before they are cut, fhew nothing like it, and indicate nothing of what they are in the infide. They look like a grain of falt, a common flint of greyish white, dirty and dull. The firft men of confequence could not have paid any attention to them. This, we know, has happened to the diamonds of Brafil. They were a long time neglected, and confounded with flints and gravels. It is not above thirty years, or thereabouts, that they began to know their value . We should not then be furprised to fee that in antiquity fine coloured ftones were fo common, while diamonds were fo rare. They must have been a long time unknown. It required fome ages to learn men that these forts of flints, which they had fo long neglected, were the most bright and the richest production of nature. They could not be inftructed before they had discovered the art of cutting them; a very late difcovery, fince it is not yet of 300 years ftanding f. Before that time they could not have seen any diamonds but rough polished, or natural points. We fee these forts of ftones in the defcription which Pliny, Solinus, and Ifidorus give of the diamond. They defcribe it generally very fmall, with fix angles or faces, and tranfparent i, yet approaching to a black *, and without much water or vivacity. Ifidorus even defines the diamond, an Indian ftone final and little agreeable. All thefe characters agree very well with the natural points. These forts of ftones are commonly very fmall. We fometimes meet with fome, which by a fport of nature are cut with fix faces, e Anfon's voyage, p. 44. Ibid.; Mercure de France, Janvier 1730. p. 124. Fev. 1732. p. 344. & 345.; Mariette, loco cit. p. 161. By Lewis de Berquen in 1476. See the beginning of this article. Plin. 1. 37. fect. 15.; Solin. c. 52. p. 59. C.; Ifidor. orig. 1. 16. c. 13.; Marbod. 1. de lapid. pret. c. I. h Plin. Solin. locis cit. 1 Plin. Solin. Ifidor. ibid. Hunc ita fulgentem cryftallina reddit origo. Ut ferruginei non definat esse coloris. Marbod. loco cit. 1 Adamas, Indicus lapis, parvus, & indecorus, ferrugineum babens colorem, loco cit, : in a pretty regular manner". But thefe diamonds have little that is agreeable in them. The polishing is coarse, the form irregular, without water and without vivacity: we cannot compare them to any thing better than a piece of burnished steel. To convince us of the truth of these facts, we need only to caft our eyes on any of the ancient trinkets adorned with diamonds. They preserve in the treasury of St Denis a clafp of the mantle which our kings ufed to put on the day of their coronation. This piece is very ancient We there fee four natural points. There is likewise in the fame treasury, a relict almost as ancient + as the clafp I have fpoken of, and adorned with eight natural points. All these stones are very small, black, and no way agreeable to the eye. There is only one on the relic of St Thomas a little brighter than the others, and has a little more water. It is plain that Pliny means this fort of ftones, when he fays, that the diamond was like crystal .. All imperfect as thefe forts of diamonds are, they are very rare, and are not often met with. Wherefore, they looked upon them formerly as the most valuable production of nature. Pliny remarks, that for many ages none but the most powerful monarchs were able to have them. They fufpected Agrippa, the last King of the Jews, of having an incestuous commerce with his fifter Berenice. The diamond of which he made a present to that princess, almoft confirmed their fufpicions; fo high an idea had they of this ftone, then looked upon as ineftimable. All these confiderations, joined to the filence with respect to diamonds, of the most ancient writers of antiquity, make me doubt whether this precious ftone was of the number of those ufed by Mofes to adorn the ephod and breaft-plate of the Bibl. choif. t. 1. p. 265.; De Laet, de gemm. & lapid. 1. 1. c. 1. p. 314. " See merveill. des Indes, p. 13. * They think it was about the time of St Lewis. It was given by John Duke of Berry, fon of king John. • L. 37. fect. 15. p. 373. › Diu non nifi regibus, & iis admodum paucis cognitus. 1. 37. fe&t. 15. init. upon high priest. Let us add to this the extreme difficulty of ingraving the diamond. They will object to me, without doubt, the names of the twelve tribes ingraved on the ftones of the ephod and breastplate. It is with powder of diamond that they commonly execute this fort of work. We may then infer, that, at the time of Mofes, they had found out this property in the powder of diamond, and that they were able to use it to polish the diamond itself. The objection is plaufible, and the confequence very natural. But yet it is not difficult to be answered. Nothing at prefent obliges us to believe, that the artists who ingraved the names of the twelve tribes on the ftones of the ephod and the breaft-plate, did make use of the powder of diamond; they might ufe for thefe forts of works, rubies, fapphires, or other oriental ftones reduced to powder: they might even use emery, the property of which was not unknown to the ancients. I own that there is no comparison to be made between a work executed with pow der of diamond, and that which is only done with powder of oriental stones*, or emery. But thefe powders were fufficient to ingrave names, which do not require fuch elegant workmanship as the figures of men, animals, flowers, &c. Befides, fhould it be granted that the ingravers employed by Moses, made ufe of the powder of diamond, that would decide nothing as to the knowledge of cutting the diamond. It is certain that the ancients knew perfectly the property of the powder of diamond to polish fine ftones; they made great use of it, as well for graving, as for cutting them. f Id. ibid. r Mariette, traité des pierres gravées, t. I. p. 202. * See Job, c. 41. v. 15. edit. of 70.; Diofcorid. I. 5. c. 166.; Hesychius, 0ce Σμύρις. * The term oriental ftones, in the ftyle of a lapidary, does not always fignify a ftone which comes from the east. They mean in general a very hard stone, fuch as fapphires, rubies, topazes, & amethyfts. It is to distinguish these forts of stones, from thofe which are softer, that they call them orientals; thole of the east being commonly much harder than thofe of other countries, though we fometimes meet with fome as hard as those which come from the east. And even these last are not all of an equal hardness. |