Introduction

Indian Diamonds 145
of possession as she admits that they will probably always be locked up in an iron
box because of the danger of showing them in public (Trollope 81).
The collecting for the pleasure of possession is thus presented as an Oriental
trait which is spelled out in the character of Bartholomew Sholto, John’s son. He
is a greedy decadent who lives in “Eastern luxury” (Doyle, Sign 142) complete with
a “Hindoo servant” (141). Furthermore, he is a collector of art, both Indian and
European (143). The interior of his house compared to its exterior “looked as out
of place as a diamond of first water in a setting of brass” (141). The same picture
of mismatch and incongruity is created by his Indian servant “standing in the
commonplace doorway” (141). Collecting and the pleasure of possessing the diamonds
or anything valuable, as presented in the texts, is Oriental and inherently
distasteful and also alien to Englishness as the mismatch of outside and inside of
the house suggests. Thaddeus Sholto, too, lives in a “House full of Indian curiosities”
(164), Pondicherry Lodge, which he has inherited from his father. The image
of the Orient as an immense ‘treasure trove’, as mediated in the Arabian Nights is
mirrored in its interior. Both Bartholomew and Thaddeus are collectors of Indian
curiosities and perpetuate the greed of their father in initially withholding the Agra
treasure from Mary Morstan.
Mere owning of value is harmful for a market economy. Possession is unproductive
and dangerous and testifies to a “low nature” (Doyle, Sign 220). “To sustain
commodity culture,” Christopher Lindner argues, “it is necessary to circulate
and consume commodities” (Lindner 10). The diamonds which incite greed represent
inert and unproductive ownership. In the Sholtos and John Vandeleur, the
refined collectors of art and the ruthless hunter of treasure respectively, the collecting
of Indian ‘curiosities’ is represented as abnormal and socially disruptive.
The misgivings about the diamonds as objects of vanity are founded on the same
notions that were expressed about the Koh-i-Noor during the Great Exhibition of
1851. The diamond then came to represent a “premodern, Orientalist economy”
(Mersmann 180) which is at odds with the modern market economy of Great
Britain. The diamonds bring about a relapse into this more ancient structure.
Likewise, Prince Florizel asserts that the Rajah’s Diamond is an aristocratic possession
which cannot be handed around “among the common sort of men” (Stevenson,
“Rajah’s” 97). Not even in the context of inheritance can the diamonds
be integrated in the existing system; they represent an alien force.
Diamonds as Inheritance
Allan Hepburn suggests that inheritance automatically creates a plot. It assumes a
past and points into the future and thus creates expectation. Property changing
hands automatically devises a “narrative sequence”. He argues that “[i]nheritances
change destinies and instigate stories” (3). Inheritance was commonly used as a
plot device especially in Victorian novels (GoGwilt 60). Like detective fiction, the