Introduction

Indian Diamonds 125
The juxtaposition of physical size and “unfathomable” allure links the two diamonds.
Prince Florizel can hold the Rajah’s Diamond in his hand, and yet it
shines “with hell-fire”. While Prince Florizel asserts its extraordinary beauty (130),
it is associated with everything satanic. Its dual nature is expressed in the image of
the “cockatrice”, illustrating its two contradictory qualities, beauty and destructive
power, in the hybrid mythological creature. It also draws attention to the allure of
the visual as the cockatrice kills through its stare.
The Moonstone, likened to the devil (Collins, Moonstone 43; 78), resembles the
“satanic” Rajah’s Diamond in its association with ultimate evil. Its treachery has its
equivalent in the Moonstone which “has misguided everyone who has come near
it” (300). Both diamonds are thus imagined as wilfully deceptive. Furthermore,
they destroy friendships and disrupt social relations. The “broken friendships”
find their counterpart in the Moonstone’s ability to “poison” the rapport between
people and scatter a household which before had been presented as cohesive
(186).
Prince Florizel’s speech combines the accusation of the treacheries with their
history, which is presumably long but remains unknown. The dimension of the
long procession of crimes is unconceivable and evokes the diamond’s age. The
Moonstone ends on a similar note emphasising the diamond’s durability with an
assertion of the eternal “cycles of time” which might bring more adventures of the
Moonstone in endless repetitions (464).
The Rajah’s Diamond is further characterised as a misfit on two levels. Firstly,
it is perceived as “monstrous” (Stevenson, “Rajah’s” 121) by Frank Scrymgeour.
The monstrosity of the diamond may on the one hand be attributed to its excessive
and ‘monstrous’ value. On the other hand Indian diamonds actually did appear
as monstrous due to the Indian way of cutting which aimed at preserving the
greatest possible size in the diamonds. The European fashion demanded lustre
rather than size and was content with smaller diamonds which showed more brilliancy
(Mersmann 185-186). C. W. King calls the Koh-i-Noor a “monster diamond”
before its size and weight were reduced (36). The same notion is taken up
again when Simon Rolles carries the diamond around with him: “The diamond in
his pocket occasioned him a sensible physical distress. It burned, it was too large,
it bruised his ribs” (Stevenson, “Rajah’s” 99). Harry Hartley thinks of the diamond
as an “incubus” (76) and believes that the possession of the stone brings “most
uneasy dreams” (99) to Simon Rolles. This shows the diamond’s uncanny propensity
to influence its owner.
Secondly, the possession of the Rajah’s Diamond is alien to the political system
or at least perceived as an anachronism: Prince Florizel expresses the aristocratic
and basically undemocratic nature of the Rajah’s Diamond when he claims
that “[j]ewels so valuable should be reserved for the collection of a Prince or the
treasury of a great nation. To hand them about among the common sort of men is
to set a price on Virtue’s head” (97). His speech reiterates the notion of the Koh-i-