: Pliny says so very plainly"; and if he had not, the principal works which the ancients have produced in this way, and which we ftill have before us, would fufficiently thew it. But it is equally certain that it never came into their thoughts to use this powder on the diamond itself, and the art of cutting it was unknown to all antiquity. This fact, it is true, appears difficult to comprebend: it is not however for that lefs certain. This is not the only example that we might quote of the bounds which the human mind feems often to have imposed on itself. It stops in the moment that it is nearest its end, and when one ftep further would reach it. As we are on this article, I think we ought to fhew in few words what we find among the ancients on the nature of the diamond, and of the places where they found it. The manner in which they speak of them, has given room to fome modern authors *, to think, that the diamonds known in antiquity, were not of the fame fpecies with those we ufe at prefent. We see that the ancients got these precious ftones from many countries, where they are not to be found at this time. It is faid, that at firft they came only from Ethiopia; they got them from certain mines fituated between the temple of Mercury and the ifle of Meroe. These stones could not be much esteemed, fince the largest were not above the fize of a cucumber feed, and approached to that colour. Afterwards they got diamonds from many countries, from the Indies, from Arabia, the ifle of Cyprus, and Macedonia . All these ftones were very fmall, the largest being of the fize of a nut kernel. What appears most astonishing, is, that, according to fome authors, they found diamonds in the European Sarmatia, among the A " L. 37. sect. 15 p. 773. fect. 76. p. 796. * Aldrovand. Muf. metal. 1. 4. c. 78. p. 947.; Colonne, hift. nat. t. 2. p. 353. & 354. y Plin. 1. 37. fect.15. Diodorus and Strabo, who fpeak likewife of this ifle, fay plainly that it had many mines of gold and precious ftones; but they do not specify the diamond in particular. Diod. 1. 1. p. 38.; Strab. I. 17. P. [177. 2 Plin. 1. 37. fect 15. Ibid. Ibid. gathyrfes gathyrfes, a people who dwelt above the Palus Meotis *. It was even, if we believe them, in these frozen regions, that they saw the most beautiful diamonds. Let us further fay that the ancients were perfuaded that the greatest part of precious stones came from gold mines . Except the Indies, we at this time get no diamonds from any of the countries I have named; and even in the Indies, we at prefent only know the kingdoms of Golconda, of Vifapour, and of Bengal', where there are faid to be mines. Some travellers fay that fome are likewife found in the isle of Borneo ; and they affure us that formerly they got diamonds from other different countries of the Indies. Be it as it will, the mines ufed at present have only been known a few ages. Tavernier fays that that of Bengal is looked upon as the most ancient, without fixing the time of its discovery. The mine of Vifapour has only been known about 300 years*. For that of Golconda, at the time of Tavernier, it was only one hundred years ftanding. As to the mines of Brafil, it is only thirty years, as I have be fore observed, fince they were discovered m. These are the only countries where we now find diamonds. Amm. Marcell. 1. 22. c. 8. p. 314. See Cellarius, not. orb. antiq. p. 405. Dionyf. Perieget. v. 318. & 319. This paffage of Dionyf. Perieget. fixes the fenfe in which we ought to take the term adamantis lapidis, which Ammianus Marcellinus ufes, loco cit. He could not mean the load-fione. e Plin. 1. 37. fect. 15.; Solin. c. 52. p. 59. D. Plato, in politico, p. 558. and in Tim. p. 1066. fpeaks of an hard metallic body which he calls adáμas; but I doubt whether that philofopher meant the diamond. See how he explains himself. "What they call ¿dáμas, is "nothing but a branch of gold, whose extreme density has made it black and "very hard." One may also tranflate this paffage by "'Adamas is only gold "which has acquired a black colour, and, on account of its extreme density, " is very hard." Is it really then of the diamond Plato would speak? It is not the load-ftone which he commonly calls the stone of Hercules or of Heraclea, in Tim. p. 1080. in Ion. p. 363. What is it then he would mean? that is what one cannot well comprehend. f Tavernier, part. 2. 1. 2. c. 15. 16. & 17. Ibid. c. 17. p. 284. b Boetius de Boot, gemm. & lapid. hift. 1. 2. c. 3.; De Laet, de gemm. & lapid. 1. 1. c. 1. i Locis cit. c. 17. init. 1 Ibid. c. 16. p. 277. See fupra, p. 116. * Ibid. c. 15. p. 267. Tavernier went to vifit thefe mines in 1665. If we fee very little relation between the countries I have fhewn, and those from which the ancients obtained their diamonds, we fhall find still less resemblance between the properties they attribute to these ftones, and those we 'now find in them. According to Pliny, the diamond refifted the hammer, and even made the anvil fhake on which they beat it". They looked upon it as a piece of luck to be able to break it, and it was not poffible to do it but by foftening it in hot goats blood, into which they put it to steep. We do not find any of these properties in our diamonds. Their hardness is not fo great, but they will be broke by the hammer as often as you will put them to the proof. They are broken, and even bruised very easily. With regard to the goats blood, we should try in vain to foften our diamond with that receipt; we can only work it with its own powder; that is the only agent that will take hold of this stone. And I am perfuaded, moreover, that it has been the fame in all ages. If we find any difference between our diamonds and those of the ancients, it is because all that they have faid on this subject is romantic, and little to be depended upon. These inaccuracies are a further proof of the little knowledge they had in antiquity of this precious ftone. The fame defects take place in almost all that the ancients have written on precious ftones. If we were to depend upon what they have written, for example, about emeralds, we must say that they knew a fpecies different from ours, and which we have not. They reckon twelve forts of these precious ftones, which they diftinguish by the names of the kingdoms or provinces from whence they believed they were got. I fhall not ftop to give the particulars of them, we may fee it in Pliny. I fhall only fay, that, ac L. 37. fect. 15. • Et cum feliciter rumpere contingit, &c. ibid. p. 733. See alfo Senec. de conftant. fapient. c. 3. t. 1. p. 395. P Plin. p. 733.; Pauf. 1. 8. c. 18. p. 636. See Diod. 1. 3. p. 206.; Strabo, 1. 16. p. 1115. L. 37. fect. 16. VOL. II. cording cording to this author, the emeralds of Scythia and Egypt were the moft efteemed . 1 We at prefent only know two forts of emeralds, the oriental and occidental. Some authors have added a third, which they call the emerald of the old rock. They are much divided about the places from whence these precious ftones come to us. According to Herbelot, it is in the neighbourhood of Afuan, a town fituated in the Upper Egypt, that they find the only mine of oriental emeralds known in the whole world". But there is room to doubt of this fact. It is certain that we ftill find in Egypt many eme. rald mines; but befides that their colour is not beautiful, they are fo foft that it is not poffible to work them *. According to Tavernier, Peru is the only place from whence emeralds come: he affirms that the eaft never produced any, and he is not fingular in his opinion. Chardin, on the contrary, fays, that they now get them in Pegu, in the kingdom of Golconda, and on the coaft of Coromandel. We may add the kingdom of Calcutta and the ifle of CeyIon, where Pyrard affures us they find many, and those most beautiful. With regard to emeralds of the old rock, Chardin fays he has feen in Perfia many of this fort, which they told him came from an ancient mine in Egypt, the knowledge of which is at prefent loft. In fact, it is very dubious whether we know at present any of the twelve forts of emeralds named by the ancients. For it is very problematical as to those at present got from the east, many perfons believing they only come from America. We no longer find the qualities in our emeralds, which the ancients attributed to some of thefe ftones. Pliny affirms, that the emeralds of Scythia and Egypt were fo hard Plin. fect. 17. * Mercure Indien. c. 7. p. 18.; Taver. part. 2. 1. 2. c. 10. p. 228. u Bibl. orient. voce Afuan, p. 141. Maillet, defcript. de l' Egypte, p. 307. & 318. y Second part. 1. 2. c. 19. p. 293. & 29.4. 2 See le Mercure Indien. c. 7. a T. 4. p. 70. b Voyage de F. Pyrard part. 1. p. 286. part. 2. p. 89. T. 2. p. 239. T. 4. p. 69. & 70. that that they could not be worked. On the contrary, we have no stone more tender nor which fcratches more eafily; 'tis for this reafon that they do not often rifk the ingraving it. An artist who has not a fteady hand, is in perpetual danger of rubbing off the brilliant angles *. Besides, we cannot comprehend on what was founded the obfervation of Pliny, that in general it was not allowed to ingrave on the emerald. Ancient hiftory fays quite the contrary. The ring which Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, threw into the fea, and which was afterwards found again in the belly of a fish, was an emerald ingraved by Theodorus, a celebrated artist of antiquity. Theophraftus alfo relates that many perfons fed to have emerald feals to please the fights. Lastly, Pliny himself had before him many examples of thefe ftones ingraved ». The ancients have thought proper to propagate many tales about emeralds. They fay, that, in the ifle of Cyprus, there was on the fea-fhore a lion of marble whose eyes were of emeralds. Thefe ftones they pretend were fo lively, that their luftre penetrated to the bottom of the fea. The tunny fish were frightened by them, and deferted that thore. The fishermen not knowing what to attribute this accident to, fufpected that it might be occafioned by the emeralds of which the eyes of the lion in queftion were made. They took them away, and immediately the fishes returned in as greaty plenty as before. Herodotus affures us that he had feen in the temple of Hercules, at Tyre, a column of only one emerald which gave a very great light at night. Theophrastus reports, from the Egyptian annals, but without appearing to give L. 37. fect. 16. * See Mariette traité des pierres, t. 1. p. 166. Loco fupra, cit. f Herod, lib. 3. n. 41.; Pauf. 1. 8. c.14. & De lapid. p. 394. See 1. 37. fect. 3. p. 765. 1 Plin. 1. 37. fect. 17. p. 775. * L. 2. n. 44. Theophraftus, who speaks of this column, adds, that it was very large; but does not fay that it spread a light in the night; befides, he fufpects that perhaps it was not a true emerald, but a baftard ftone, a falfe emerald. De Ipid. p. 394.& 395 much |