Historical Superstitions Surrounding Diamonds

The belief that the diamond fractured the teeth if it were put in the mouth, and ruptured the intestines if it were swallowed, already appears in pseudo-Aristotle, (Rose, "Aristoteles De lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo," in Zeitschr. fur D. Alt., New Series, vol. vi, p. 391. See also Avicenna, "Liber canonis," Basileae, 1556, p. 182, lib. ii, Tract. ii, cap. 20.) and can therefore be dated back to the ninth and perhaps to the seventh century. This fancy evidently owes its origin to the fact that the diamond, because of its hardness, was used to cut all other stones, and the idea of its destructive quality was strengthened by the old legends regarding the venomous serpents which guarded the place where it was found. Hence the firm conviction that it would bring death to any one who swallowed it.

According to Garcias ab Orta (1563), the diamond was not used for medicinal purposes in the India of his time, except when injected into the bladder to break up vesical calculi. He notes, however, the prevalent belief that diamonds, or diamond dust, when taken internally, worked as a poison. As a proof of the falsity of this belief, Garcias adduces the fact that the slaves who worked in the diamond mines often swallowed diamonds to conceal them, and never experienced any ill effects, the stones being recovered in a natural way. The same author notes the case of a man who suffered from chronic dysentery and whose wife had for a long time administered to him doses of diamond dust. If this did not help him, neither did it injure him; finally, by the advice of the doctors, this strange treatment was abandoned. The man eventually died of his disease, but many days after the doses of diamond dust had been discontinued. (Garcias ab Orta, "Aromatum historia" (Lat. version by Clusius). Antverpiae, 1579, p. 172. The Portuguese original was published in Goa, in 1563.)

The Hindus believed that a flawed diamond, or one containing specks or spots, was so unlucky that it could even deprive Indra of his highest heaven. The original shape of the stone was also considered of great importance, more especially in early times, when but few, if any, diamonds, were cut. A triangular stone was said to cause quarrels, a square diamond inspired the wearer with vague terrors; a five-cornered stone had the worst effect of all, for it brought death; only the six-cornered diamond was productive of good. (Surindro Mohun Tagore, "Mani Mala," Pt. I, Calcutta, 1879.)

The Turkish sultan Bejazet II (1447-1512) is said to have been done to death by a dose of pulverized diamond administered to him by his son Selim, who mixed the diamond dust with the sultan's food. (Justi Lepsii, "De fraude et vi," cap. v, ?8; cited in Pindar, "De adamante," Berolini, 1829, p. 58.) It is also related that the disciples of Paracelsus (1493-1541) spread the report that he died from the effects of a dose of diamond dust. Ambrosius (Aldrovandi, "Museum metallicum," Bononiae, 1648, p. 949.) conjectures that this was only an excuse to explain the demise of the master in the prime of life--he was but forty-eight years old at the time of his death--although he had promised long life to all who made use of his medicaments.

While Benvenuto Cellini (1500-1571), the unrivalled goldsmith, was imprisoned in Rome, in 1538, he strongly suspected that his enemies were seeking to poison him by tampering with his food. Cellini shared the belief of his contemporaries that there was no more deadly poison than diamond dust. One day, while eating his noonday meal, he felt something grate between his teeth. He paid no particular attention to this, but when he had finished eating his eye was caught by some bright particles on the plate. Picking up one of these and examining it carefully, he was terrified to find what he supposed to be a diamond splinter, and he straightway gave himself up for lost, thinking that he had swallowed a quantity of diamond dust. He prayed to God for an hour and finally became reconciled to the thought of dying, but suddenly it occurred to him that he had not tested the hardness of the fragment he had found in his food. He immediately took the splinter and tried to crush it between his knife and the stone window-sill; to his joy the attempt succeeded, and he became convinced that what he had swallowed was not diamond dust. Later, after his release, Cellini learned that an enemy had given a diamond to a certain Lione Aretino, a gem-cutter, instructing him to grind it up so that the dust could be placed in Cellini's food. The gem-cutter was very poor and the diamond was worth a hundred scudi, so the man yielded to temptation and substituted a citrine for the diamond. To this circumstance alone did Cellini attribute his escape from death. (Vita di Benvenuto Cellini, ed. Carpani, Milano, 1806, p. 445.)

In England, more than seventy years after Cellini's experience, diamond dust was selected as a poison to do away with a luckless prisoner. Sir Thomas Overbury had incurred the bitter animosity of the Countess of Essex, because he opposed her marriage with the favorite of James I, Robert Carr, Viscount Somerset, whom he had befriended and whose career he had furthered. The marriage took place, however, and, in 1613, Overbury was imprisoned in the Tower, through the machinations of the countess. She then sought the aid of one James Franklin, an apothecary, directing him to concoct a slow and deadly poison, which should be mixed with Overbury's food. In the minutes of Franklin's confession, he is said to have stated that the countess asked him what he thought of white arsenic. His reply was that this poison would prove too violent. "What say you (quoth she) to powder of diamonds?" He answered, "I know not the nature of that." She said that he was a fool, and gave him pieces of gold, and bade him buy some of that powder for her. It appears, however, from the testimony, that a number of ingredients were employed, quite probably small doses of mercury, cantharides, etc., as well as the baleful diamond dust. Poor Overbury lingered on for more than three months, but was finally put out of his misery by a clyster of corrosive sublimate. (Amos, "The Great Oyer of Poisoning," London, 1846, pp. 336 sqq.)

As a proof of the deadly effects caused by the diamond, the Portuguese Zacutus relates the case of a merchant's servant who surreptitiously swallowed three rough diamonds belonging to his master. On the following day this man was seized with violent abdominal pains, all the remedies administered to him were without effect, and he soon died from the extensive internal ulceration produced by the sharp edges of the diamonds. (Aldrovandi, "Museum metallicum," Bononiae, 1648, p. 949.)

This old fancy that diamonds or diamond dust had deadly effects when swallowed is pretty well exploded by this time, little or no confirmation being afforded by the instances cited in the matter. However, quite recently it has been shown that swallowing a diamond can prove fatal to a fowl. While a prize-winning cockerel was being fondled by his proud owner, it spied a flashing diamond set in a ring in his hand, and immediately pecked out the stone and swallowed it. Not long after, the fowl died--not, however, because it was poisoned by the diamond, but because it was chloroformed to insure the speedy recovery of the stone.

An old English ballad, treating of the loves of Hind Horn and Maid Rimnild, recounts that when Hind Horn, who loved and was beloved by the king's daughter, went to sea to escape the wrath of the king, the princess gave him a ring set with seven diamonds. We are told that when far from home:

One day he looked his ring upon

He saw the diamond pale and wan.

Hereupon, he hastened back, for the paleness of the stone was a sign the loved one was unfaithful to him. On his return, he succeeded in preventing her marriage to another, and everything ended happily. (Child, "The English and Scottish Popular Ballads," Boston, 1882-96.)

In a fourteenth century MS. of the Old English romance upon which the ballad is founded, the stone in the ring is not named; in giving it Rimnild says: (Child, l. c.)

Loke thou forsake it for no thing;

The ston it is well trewe.

When the ston wexeth wan

Than chaungeth the thought of thi leman,

Take than a newe.

When the ston wexeth rede,

Than have Y lorn mi maidenhed,

Oghaines (Against thee.) the untrewe.