Rings for the finger _ from the earliest known times to the present_ with full descriptions of the origin_ early making_ materials_ the archæology_ history_ for affection_ for lov

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Rings for the finger
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Rings for the finger
from the earliest known times to the present, with full
descriptions of the origin, early making, materials, the
archæology, history, for affection, for love, for engagement,
for wedding, commemorative, mourning, etc.

Author: George Frederick Kunz

Release date: August 17, 2023 [eBook #71428]

Language: English

Original publication: Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott company, 1917

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71428

Credits: Peter Becker, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RINGS FOR
THE FINGER ***

RINGS

By GEORGE FREDERICK KUNZ, Ph.D., Sc.D., A.M.

THE CURIOUS LORE OF PRECIOUS STONES
Being a description of their sentiments and folklore, superstitions,
symbolism, mysticism, use in protection, prevention, religion and
divination, crystal gazing, birth-stones, lucky stones and talismans, astral,
zodiacal, and planetary.
THE MAGIC OF JEWELS AND CHARMS
Magic jewels and electric gems; meteorites or celestial stones; stones of
healing: fabulous stones: concretions and fossils; snake stones and bezoars;
charms of ancient and modern times; facts and fancies about precious
stones.
EACH: Profusely illustrated in color, doubletone and line. Octavo. Handsome
cloth binding, gilt top, in a box. $6.00 net. Carriage charges extra.

SHAKESPEARE AND PRECIOUS STONES
Treating of the known references to precious stones in Shakespeare’s
works, with comments as to the origin of his material, the knowledge of the
poet concerning precious stones, and references as to where the precious
stones of his time came from.
Four illustrations. Square Octavo. Decorated cloth. $1.25 net.

THE MAHARANI OF SIKKIM (NORTHEASTERN
HINDUSTAN)
She wears two gold rings, one set with a turquoise, the other
with coral. The peculiar crown of gold, turquoise and coral
is that adopted for the queens of Sikkim. From the necklace
of amber beads hangs a gau, or charm box, set with rubies,
lapis-lazuli, and turquoise.
Oil painting by Damodar Dutt, a Bengali artist
Dr. Berthold Laufer’s “Notes on Turquoise in the East,”
Chicago, 1913

RINGS
FOR THE FINGER
FROM THE EARLIEST KNOWN TIMES TO THE PRESENT, WITH FULL DESCRIPTIONS OF
THE ORIGIN, EARLY MAKING, MATERIALS, THE ARCHÆOLOGY, HISTORY, FOR
AFFECTION, FOR LOVE, FOR ENGAGEMENT, FOR WEDDING, COMMEMORATIVE,
MOURNING, ETC.

BY

GEORGE FREDERICK KUNZ,
Ph.D., Sc.D., A.M.
WITH 290 ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOR, DOUBLETONE AND LINE

PHILADELPHIA & LONDON
J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY
1917

COPYRIGHT, 1917, BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY

PUBLISHED JANUARY, 1917

PRINTED BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY
AT THE WASHINGTON SQUARE PRESS
PHILADELPHIA, U.S.A.

COOPER UNION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF SCIENCE AND ART EDITION
OF

RINGS
(See Dedication )
Limited to fifteen copies
[1]
Miss Sarah Cooper Hewitt, Honorary Associate of the Trustees
[1]
Mrs. James O. Green, Honorary Associate of the Trustees
[1]
Miss Eleanor G. Hewitt, Honorary Associate of the Trustees
[1]
Peter Cooper Hewitt, Vice-President of the U. S. Naval Advisory Board,
Trustee
[1]
]Edward R. Hewitt, Treasurer
[2]
Peter Cooper Bryce, Secretary
[1]
Erskine Hewitt,
R. Fulton Cutting, President
Andrew Carnegie, Trustee
J. Pierpont Morgan, Trustee
Charles W. Gould, Trustee
L. C. Levin Jordan, Assistant Secretary
Charles R. Richards, Director
One Copy for the Reading Room of the Cooper Union
for the Advancement of Science and Art

George Frederick Kunz, Former Student and Assistant in Chemistry

This copy was printed for
MISS SARAH COOPER HEWITT
With the compliments of the Author

To
PETER COOPER
AND TO

HIS DESCENDANTS
WHO HAVE SO GENEROUSLY AND DEVOTEDLY
CARRIED OUT HIS TRADITIONS, AND DEVELOPED
THEM AS OCCASION DEMANDED,
AND TO

THE COOPER UNION OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
IN THE LABORATORIES, LECTURE ROOMS AND
LIBRARY OF WHICH THE AUTHOR SPENT
USEFUL, PROFITABLE EVENING HOURS FOR
SEVERAL YEARS, AT A TIME WHEN THERE
WERE NO OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OF A SIMILAR
NATURE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK—THIS
VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED

FOREWORD

T
he present volume aims to offer in attractive and convenient form
everything that is of importance and interest in regard to finger-rings,
from the fabled ring of Prometheus down to the latest productions of the
goldsmiths and jewellers of our day.
The subject offers a striking illustration of the wonderful diversity of
form, decoration and usage, that the skill and fancy of man have been able
to realize in the case of the little circlet constituting a ring. To make this
clearer to the reader, a division in accordance with the general history and
the special uses of rings has seemed more effective than any attempt to
separate all the material along geographical or chronological lines.
One of the earliest uses to which rings were put was for the impression
of an engraved design or device upon letters or documents, as the sign-
manual of the wearer. From the time of the ancient Egyptians, this use
prevailed in various parts of the world and many of the most striking rings
of this type are described and figured here. Allied to these, and in some
cases identical with them, are the rings given as marks of official dignity
and rank.
A most important class are the rings bestowed upon and worn by the
higher ecclesiastics. Papal rings, among which the most noted is the
“Fisherman’s Ring,” rings for cardinals and for bishops, and also
occasionally in former times, for abbots, were and are still regarded with
special reverence in the Roman and Greek churches. The usage of wearing
rings of this type dates far back in the history of Christianity. Many
examples of these rings are given, as also of others bearing Christian
emblems, and of those worn by nuns, and by widows who had vowed never
to re-wed.
Closely connected with these religious rings, are the betrothal and
wedding rings. Here it has seemed best to group together the available data,
since the line of demarcation between engagement and wedding rings,
though clearly enough marked to-day, is not easy to draw in regard to
earlier times. A very full selection of mottoes has been added, some of

which might still be used; the greater number, however, belong to a past
age, upon the sentiments of which they cast interesting side lights.
Rings as charms and talismans form a class apart. Often the peculiar
form of the circlet was conceived to have a symbolic virtue, but more
frequently the talismanic quality depended upon some curious engraved
device, upon the stones set in the rings, or upon a mystic or religious
inscription. Rings of healing were talismans valued for their special power
to cure disease; the “cramp rings,” dated in legend back to the time of
Edward the Confessor, were notable in this series.
The rings of famous men and women will always be prized as
mementos, and in the various chapters of this book a large number of them
will be found, both rings of the mighty dead and those of distinguished
living persons; among these latter we are happy to be able to produce an
illustration of the inscription of President Wilson’s ring from an impression
of his seal courteously made by his own hand. It shows his name engraved
in Pitmanic shorthand.
Our American Indians have also made their contribution to the art of
ring-making, occasionally in the earlier centuries, and more especially in
more recent times. Notably the Navajos of New Mexico have exhibited a
considerable degree of skill in this direction. Much new information on this
subject will be found in the present work.
How rings are made by our jewellers of to-day, more especially by the
accurate and varied mechanical methods now employed for their
production, is concisely treated in a supplementary chapter. While machine-
made rings can scarcely be expected to equal those executed by the hand of
the true artist-goldsmith, those now produced are nevertheless objects of
beauty and adornment.
A ring is a symbol to which great interest is attached from the cradle to
the grave. Frequently, a natal stone, or a ring set with a natal stone, is given
to a child at its birth. When the child is baptized it receives the talismanic
gem of the guardian angel. At confirmation the gem of the week is given. At
graduation from school or college, a class ring is bestowed. Finally, on the
announcement of an engagement, a ring set with any one of the choicer
precious stones is selected for the fiancée. Thus each important epoch in

early life has its appropriate memento, which will recall the memory of it in
after years.
As very full indications as to the literature have been given in the
footnotes, it has not seemed necessary to append the numerous titles in the
form of a bibliography.
The author’s thanks are due to the following persons, who have
courteously imparted much valuable information:
Hon. Peter T. Barlow; Miss Ada M. Barr; W. Gedney Beatty; Theodoor
de Boog, Museum of the American Indian; Dr. Stewart Culin, Brooklyn
Institute; Robert W. De Forrest; Mrs. Alexander W. Drake; Dr. Gustavus A.
Eisen; Prof. Richard Gottheil, Columbia University; Dr. L. P. Gratacap,
Curator, Dept. of Mineralogy, American Museum of Natural History; Right
Rev. David H. Greer, Bishop of New York; Mrs. Isabel Hapgood; Prof. A.
V. Williams Jackson, Columbia University; William H. Jones; Minor C.
Keith; Dr. F. A. Lucas, Director, American Museum of Natural History; B.
Mazza; Edward T. Newell, President, American Numismatic Society; Prof.
John Dyneley Prince, Columbia University; Mrs. Annie R. Schley; Dr.
George C. Stone; J. Alden Weir, President, National Academy of Design;
Dr. Clark Wissler, Curator, Dept. of Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History; Theodore M. Woodland; Walter C. Wyman, and also the
late William M. Chase; Dr. Charles S. Braddock, Jr.; Prof. Friedrich Hirth,
Columbia University; Sidney P. Noe, Librarian, and Howland Wood,
Curator, American Numismatic Society; Rev. Dr. John P. Peters and Rev.
Father William J. Stewart, all of New York City.
Prof. Cyrus Adler, Dropsie College, Philadelphia; Dr. Hector Alliot,
South Western Museum, Los Angeles, Cal.; Dr. F. H. Barrow, Director,
Golden Gate Museum, Los Angeles, Cal.; Prof. Hiram Bingham, Yale
University; Frank S. Daggett, Director, Museum of History, Science and
Art, Los Angeles, Cal.; Dr. Joseph K. Dixon, Secretary, National American
Indian Memorial Asso., Philadelphia; Dr. Arthur Fairbanks, Director,
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; Franciscan Fathers, St. Michael’s
Mission, Arizona; Prof. L. C. Glenn, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tennessee; Dr. F. W. Hodge, Ethnologist-in-charge, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C.; Prof. W. H. Holmes, Head Curator, Dept. of
Anthropology, United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.; Dr.

Walter Hough, Acting Head Curator, Dept. of Anthropology, United States
National Museum, Washington, D. C.; Prof. Morris Jastrow, Jr., University
of Pennsylvania; Dr. Berthold Laufer, Curator of Anthropology, Field
Museum of Natural History, Chicago; Waldo Lincoln, American
Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass.; Prof. George Grant McCurdy,
Curator of Anthropology, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale
University; Dr. William C. Mills, Curator and Librarian, Chicago
Archæological and Historical Soc.; Edward S. Morse, Director, Peabody
Museum, Salem, Mass.; Dr. Warren K. Moorehead, Curator, Dept.
American Archæology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.; Ostby & Barton
Co., Providence, R. I.; Admiral Robert E. Peary, Washington, D. C.; Dr. R.
Rathbun, United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.; William
Riker, Newark, N. J.; Oliver A. Roberts, Librarian, Masonic Temple,
Boston, Mass.; Prof. Austin T. Rogers, Leland Stanford Jr. University,
Stanford University, Cal.; Dr. F. J. V. Skiff, Director, Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago; Prof. Friedrich Starr, University of Chicago; Rev.
John Baer Stoudt, Northampton, Pa.; Ex-President William H. Taft, New
Haven, Conn.; J. P. Tumulty, Secretary to President Wilson, Washington, D.
C.; the late Dr. William Hayes Ward, Assyriologist, South Berwick, Mass.
W. W. Blake, Mexico City; A. W. Feavearyear, London, England; R.
Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin; Prabha Karavongu, Siamese Legation,
Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Isabel Moore, Azores; M. Georges Pelissier, Paris,
France; Dr. William Flinders Petrie, Egyptologist, Hampstead, England; Sir
Charles Hercules Read, Curator, Dept. British and Mediæval Antiquities
and Ethnography, British Museum; Dr. Leonard Spencer, Curator,
Mineralogical Dept., British Museum (Natural History); C. J. S. Thompson,
Curator, Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, London, England; Sir
Herbert Tree, London, England; Dr. T. Wada, Tokio, Japan; Herr Leopold
Weininger, Vienna, and also Dr. Albert Figdor, Vienna, and U. S. Consul W.
Bardel, St. Michael, Azores.
The illustrations of rings in the British Museum are mostly from one or
the other of the two exceedingly comprehensive catalogues of rings
published by this museum: “Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan and Roman,” by
F. H. Marshall, and “Finger Rings, Early Christian, Byzantine, Teutonic,
Mediæval, and Later,” by O. M. Dalton. In each volume the section devoted

to a special description of each ring is preceded by a most scholarly and
enlightening introductory essay.
G. F. K.
New York City,
November, 1916
[3]

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE ORIGIN, PURPOSES AND METHODS OF RING WEARING 1
1. The Origin of the Ring
2. Purposes of Ring Wearing
3. Methods of Wearing
II. FORMS OF RINGS AND MATERIALS OF WHICH THEY ARE
MADE 67
The Materials of Rings
III. SIGNET RINGS 115
IV. SOME INTERESTING RINGS OF HISTORY 162
1. On the Continent
2. English Rings
V. BETROTHAL (ENGAGEMENT) RINGS, WEDDING (NUPTIAL)
RINGS, AND LOVE TOKENS 193
VI. THE RELIGIOUS USE OF RINGS 249
VII. MAGIC AND TALISMANIC RINGS 288
VIII. RINGS OF HEALING 336
IX. RING MAKING 355

ILLUSTRATIONS
COLOR PLATES
PAGE
The Maharani of Sikkim Frontispiece
Richly Enameled Rings in the Collection of Dr. Albert Figdor 90
Shakespeare’s Signet Ring; Lord Byron’s Ring 152
DOUBLETONES
Evolution of the Ring 2
Serpent Ring; Greek and Roman Rings; Mycenæan Rings 3
Ancient Rings of American Indians 20
Navajo Silversmith at Work 21
Navajo Indian Girl Wearing Native Rings 24
Navajo Silver Rings 25
Navajo Silversmiths Working 28
Pueblo Indian Family, Showing Ring-wearing 29
Autograph Letter of Admiral Robert E. Peary 30
Roman Rings; Charioteer’s Ring 32
Isis and Serapis Ring; Decade Ring; Supposed Head of Plotina on Ring; Key
Rings 33
Memorial Rings and Poison Ring 44
Cameo of Louis XII; Nelson Ring; Napoleon Elba Ring 45
Hands on Egyptian Mummy Case; Hands from Portrait; Hand Showing Hindu
Jewels 50
Hands from Sepulchral Effigy; Illustrating Ring-wearing 51
Upper Part of Mummy Case of Artemidora, Showing Rings on Hand 52
Sketch by Sir Charles Hercules Read of Finger of Bronze Statue with Seal
Ring 53
Portrait of a Lady by Anton Van Dyke 60
Portrait of Princess Hatzfeld by Antonio Pesaro 61
Anglo-Saxon Rings 64
Thumb Ring; Frankish and Lombardic Rings 65
The “Lorscher Ring”; Ring with Mouse; Venetian Ring; Jeweller’s Ring-rod 72
Spur Ring; Modern Egyptian Rings; Pipe-stopper Ring 73
Oriental Rings 78
Rich East Indian Ring; Rings Made by Siamese Priest 79
Indian Toe Rings 80
Portrait of Rich Cinghalese Merchant with Many Rings 81
Ring of President Franklin Pierce; Old Rings Combined as Pendant 84
Rings in Drake Collection 85

Rings from Collection of W. Gedney Beatty, Esq. 92
Types of Watch Rings 93
Portrait of a Man, Fifteenth Century, by Antonio del Pollaiolo, Showing
Pointed Diamond in Ring 98
Portrait of a Venetian Senator with Thumb Ring 99
Portrait of a Man by Lucas Cranach 118
Portrait of Katharina Aeder, by Hans Bock the Elder 119
Portrait of Cardinal of Brandenburg, by the “Master of the Death of Mary” 124
Portrait of a Mother and Her Daughter, by Bartholomew Bruyn 125
Ancient Roman Seal Rings; Key Ring 132
Roman Rings of Bronze and of Bone; Roman Gold Ring with Settings; Gold
Ring from Wiston, Sussex; Roman Silver Ring 133
Bronze Signet Rings; Ivory Signet Ring 136
Gold Signet, Sixteenth Century; Massive Gold Signet, English, Fifteenth
Century 137
Man’s Portrait, by Conrad Faber; Portrait of Benedikt von Hertenstein, by
Hans Holbein 148
Man and Woman at Casement. Florentine, Fifteenth Century 149
Rings From Collection of Imperial Kunstgewerbe Museum, Vienna 156
Signet Ring of Charles I 157
Ring with Portrait, Given to Lafayette by Washington; Impression of
President Wilson’s Signet Ring; Seal of Right Reverend David H. Greer,
Bishop of New York 160
Portrait of a Lady, Cologne School, 1526, Wearing Pointed Diamond 168
Man’s Portrait, by Hans Funk, 1523, with Seal Ring 169
“Campaign Medals” of Henri II and of John Casimir, Count Palatine, with
Pointed Diamonds 170
Portrait of Diane de Poitiers 171
Portrait of Henry VIII, by Hans Holbein 182
Portrait of Jane Seymour, by Holbein 183
Portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, French School 184
Portrait of Queen Elizabeth, by Lucas de Heere 185
Gold Ring, Cameo Portrait of Queen Elizabeth; Venetian Ring with Pearls;
Multiple Silver Rings 186
Puzzle Rings 187
Portrait of a Lady, by Pantoja de la Cruz 194
Portrait of Empress Mary, Daughter of Charles V, by Juan Pantoja de la
Cruz 195
Inlaid Antique Ring; Locket Ring; Antique Syrian Ring; Roman Ring with
Pointed Diamond; Silver Ring on Bone of Finger, from Saxon Sepulchre 196
Syrian Wedding Rings of Agate and Chalcedony 197
Betrothal of the Virgin, by Juan Rodriguez Juarez (Xuarez) 202
Hands from the Preceding Picture 203

Jewish Betrothal Rings, Musèe de Cluny 212
Jewish Rings from British Museum 213
Portrait of Anne of Cleves, by Hans Holbein, Showing Thumb Ring 216
Portrait of Judith, by Lucas Cranach, Rings Worn Under Gloves 217
Ring with Diamond for Writing on Glass; Gallo-Roman Wedding Ring; Signet
and Wedding Ring of Mary, Queen of Scots 218
Betrothal Rings; Gimmal Wedding Ring 219
Gimmal Ring; Betrothal Ring; Puzzle Ring 220
Wedding Rings with Posies 221
Portrait of Clara Eugenia, Daughter of Philip II of Spain, by Gonzales 222
Portrait of Catarina Michela, Another of Philip’s Daughters, by Coello
Sanchez 223
Engagement and Wedding Rings 230
Wedding Rings 231
Marriage Medals by Oscar Roty 232
Puzzle Ring; Gold Betrothal Ring; Ornamental Love Ring 233
Portrait of Young Woman, Dutch School 240
Portrait of a Man, by the “Master of the Death of Mary” 241
Rings, Italian, French, Tyrolese, in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts 246
Jacques Guay, Gem Engraver of Louis XV, at Work in the Louvre 247
Ring of Pius II, Æneas Sylvius 262
The “Fisherman’s Ring”; Hand of Cranach’s “Judith,” with Gloves Slit for
Rings 263
Portrait of Clement IX, by Carlo Maratta 268
Portrait of Julius II, by Rafael 269
Christian Ring of Glass; Venetian Relic Ring; Poison Ring; Ring of Bishop
Ahlstan 270
Memorial Rings 271
Bishops’ Rings; Papal Ring; Rosary Rings 272
Bishops’ Rings 273
Abbess Praying, French School 280
Lady’s Portrait, by Coninxbo 281
Rings with Greek Mottoes; Ring of Bronze Gilt 300
Oriental Rings 301
The “Hermit Stone,” from Lapidario of Alfonso X 304
The “Offspring Stone,” from Lapidario of Alfonso X 305
Chinese Jeweller’s Shop in San Francisco; Modern Chinese Rings 320
Specimens of Curious Ring Collection in American Museum of Natural
History, New York; Rings from Philippine Islands 321
Zodiacal Rings 328
Magic Rings 329
Masonic Rings 332

Rings of Orders and Societies 333
Edward the Confessor’s Ring; Healing Ring 342
Curious Woodcuts Regarding Rings, from the Ortus (Hortus) Sanitatis of
Johannis de Cuba 343
Astrolabe Ring; Watch-Ring by Kossek in Prague 352
Eighteenth Century Watch Ring; Modern Watch Ring 353
Production of Rings with Precious Stones by Means of Machinery 356
Successive Stages in the Formation of a Machine-made Ring 357
The “Allen Ring Gauge” for Measuring Rings 358
“Ring, Finger and Millimeter Locking Gauge”; “Display Rings” 359

RINGS

I

THE ORIGIN, PURPOSES AND METHODS OF RING WEARING

THE ORIGIN OF THE RING

T
he origin of the ring is somewhat obscure, although there is good reason
to believe that it is a modification of the cylindrical seal which was first
worn attached to the neck or to the arm and was eventually reduced in
size so that it could be worn on the finger. Signet rings were used in Egypt
from a very remote period, and we read in Gen. xl, 42, that the Pharaoh of
Joseph’s time bestowed a ring upon the patriarch as a mark of authority.
From Egypt the custom of wearing rings was transmitted to the Greek
world, and also to the Etruscans, from whom the usage was derived by the
Romans. The Greek rings were made of various materials, such as gold,
silver, iron, ivory, and amber.
In his Natural History, Pliny relates the Greek fable of the origin of the
ring. For his impious daring in stealing fire from heaven for mortal man,
Prometheus had been doomed by Jupiter to be chained for 30,000 years to a
rock in the Caucasus, while a vulture fed upon his liver. Before long,
however, Jupiter relented and liberated Prometheus; nevertheless, in order
to avoid a violation of the original judgment, it was ordained that the Titan
should wear a link of his chain on one of his fingers as a ring, and in this
ring was set a fragment of the rock to which he had been chained, so that he
might be still regarded as bound to the Caucasian rock.
Another origin ascribed to the ring is the knot. A knotted cord or a piece
of wire twisted into a knot was a favorite charm in primitive times.
Frequently this was used to cast a spell over a person, so as to deprive him
of the use of one of his limbs or one of his faculties; at other times, the
power of the charm was directed against the evil spirit which was supposed
to cause disease or lameness, and in this case the charm had curative power.
It has been conjectured that the magic virtues attributed to rings originated
in this way, the ring being regarded as a simplified form of a knot; indeed,
not infrequently rings were and are made in the form of knots.[4] This

symbol undoubtedly signified the binding or attaching of the spell to its
object, and the same idea is present in the true-lovers’ knot.

EVOLUTION OF THE FINGER RING
1, Egyptian seal ring. 2, Greek snake ring, found at Kertch in
the Crimea. 3, antique Roman ring (Berlin Antiquarium). 4,
Romano-Etruscan ring. 5, Roman key ring. 6, Gothic ring with
stone set on raised bezel. 7, Gothic ring with cabochon-cut stone.
8, Renaissance ring with enamel decoration. 9, Hebrew wedding
ring. 10, Renaissance ring. 11, Renaissance ring. 12, coat of arms
of the Medici, three interlinked stones, each set with a natural
pointed diamond crystal.

Large serpentine ring with many coils.
Græco-Roman, Fourth Century b.c. to
Second Century a.d.
British Museum

Græco-Roman silver ring, set with an
oval engraved sardonyx. Second Century
a.d.

British Museum

Greek gold ring with eye-shaped
bezel. From Tarsus; Third Century a.d.
British Museum

Hellenistic bronze ring. Bezel set with
a convex pale green paste. Remains of
gilding on ring
British Museum

Greek silver ring. Engraved design
beneath a sunk border; draped figure of a
girl holding out a dove
British Museum

Roman ring of opaque dark glass. Fourth
Century a.d.
British Museum]

Mycenæan gold rings. 1, from Ialysos,
Rhodes; given to the British Museum in
1870 by John Ruskin; 2, from excavation
at Enkomi, 1896
British Museum

Many rings of the Bronze Age were found in the course of excavations
conducted in 1901 by M. Henri de Morgan in the valley of Agha Evlar,
stretching back from Kerghan on the Caspian Sea, in the region known as
the “Persian Talyche.” Here several sepulchral dolmens were discovered
which yielded a considerable number of ornamental objects of metal and
stone, as well as beads of vitreous paste. There was no trace of inscriptions
to aid in dating these “Scythian” finds, but they are considered to belong to
the second millennium before Christ. The bronze rings are of several
different types, some of them showing from three to five spirals; in other
cases the ends are overlapping, or else brought together as closely as
possible.[5]
Although it would scarcely be safe to assume that finger-rings were
never worn by the ancient Assyrians, still the almost total absence of
representations of them, even on female figures, renders it safe to say that
this must have been only very rarely the case. Possibly the persistence in
Assyria and Babylonia of the cylindrical form of seal may account for this,
in part at least, for the signet ring in many places was evolved from the
cylinder-seal. Moreover, the absence of small intaglios in the period earlier
than 500 b.c. would have deprived a ring of its almost essential setting. The
plates in Layard’s great work on Assyrian remains, as well as those
published by Flandrin and Coste, also offer strong negative evidence,
although Dr. William Hayes Ward states that he would have expected
finger-rings might have come from Egypt by the way of Syria. At a later
period, under Greek influence, rings were not uncommon.[6] In the immense
cemeteries at Warka and elsewhere numerous iron rings have been found,

many of them toe-rings, as well as some made of shell, but the date of these
burials is not easily determined, and they are probably, in most instances,
not of much earlier date than the eighth or even the sixth century before
Christ.
A proof that genuine antiques can still be picked up in our day in the
East is given by Doctor Ward, who said that he bought in Bagdad a lovely
gold ring set with a cameo on which was inscribed in Greek characters
“Protarchus made it.” When, on visiting London, he told this to Doctor
Murray, of the British Museum, the latter gave full expression to his
scepticism, saying, “There are plenty of those signed things.” But when the
gem itself was shown him, he exclaimed, “This is jolly genuine,” and he
had it photographed for his book.[7]
A very interesting find was made in 1893, during the excavations
conducted under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania at Nippur.
In the northwestern part of the mound, as many as 730 inscribed tablets
were unearthed, which had been carefully stored in a chamber measuring
eighteen by nine feet. These tablets, when deciphered, proved that the
chamber was the record room of the sons of a certain Murashu, Bêlhâtin
and Bêl-nadin-shumu, whose activity seems to have been analogous to that
of our counsellors-at-law. Many of the tablets bear records concerning the
members of the family personally, but in other cases their services appear to
have been claimed in various legal difficulties. One of the most curious of
these ancient documents is a contract dated the eighth of the month of Elul,
in the year 429 b.c. (thirty-fifth year of Artaxerxes I of Persia), in which
Bêl-ah-iddina, Bêlshumu, and Hâtin give the following guarantee to Bêl-
nadin-shumu, son of Murashu:
As concerns the gold ring set with an emerald, we guarantee that in twenty years
the emerald will not fall out of the gold ring. If the emerald should fall out of the gold
ring before the end of twenty years, Bêl-ah-iddina, Bêlshumu, and Hâtin shall pay
unto Bêl-nadin-shumu an indemnity of ten mana of silver.

The record bears the names of seven witnesses and that of the scribe, and
is signed with the thumb-nail marks of those who guaranteed the jewel,
“instead of their seals.”[8]
It seems that we have here the names of the members of a firm of
jewellers doing business in Nippur, in the fifth century before Christ, and
evidently they were quite confident that the work they sold was well and

solidly done, for the indemnity represented a sum equivalent to about $400
in our money. This must have been the estimated value of the emerald. As
the stone was probably not very large, this particular gem must have been
highly valued at that time, a fact due, in all likelihood, to the special
talismanic virtues attributed to it.
Several gold rings of Egyptian workmanship, excavated in tombs at
Enkomi, Cyprus, date back to the time of the Middle Empire in Egypt. One
in pale gold, now in the British Museum, has a flat oval bezel, inscribed
“Maāt, the golden one of the two lands.” This belongs to the period from
the XIX to the XXI Dynasty (or approximately from 1350 to 1000 b.c.). A
ring found on the surface of the ground is of electrum and very massive,
and is engraved with a draped figure seated on a throne, to whom
approaches another figure clothed with a lion’s skin and wearing on the
head a disk and horns; a lion walking is in the exergue, and the sun’s disk is
above the two figures. This is believed to belong to the late XVIII Dynasty,
toward 1400 b.c. A thin, rounded hoop of pale gold, the ends of which are
twisted round each other, and a rounded hoop of yellow gold engraved with
four uræi, are two other examples in the British Museum of the rings from
Enkomi. A massive silver ring from the same place has a large oval bezel
with the following names and titles inscribed in Egyptian hieroglyphics:
Rā-Heru-Khuti, Rā]-Kheperu Nefer, Meri-Rā, Ptah-neb-nut-maāt.[9] The
Cypriot gold ornaments which these rings help to date are considered to be
essentially contemporary with those from the tombs in the lower town of
Mycenæ, the period being approximately 1300–1100 b.c., possibly some
years earlier or later.
A beautifully worked, perforated gold ring, set with a scarab of
carnelian, was found in Cyprus and is now in the Konstantinidis Collection
at Nicosia. The workmanship as well as the style of the setting indicates that
it was produced in the sixth century b.c. Engraved on the carnelian is a
fabulous monster, somewhat resembling a chimæra, half lion, half boar.[10]
Another ring of the same period from Marion-Arsinoë, Cyprus, has a silver
hoop, and is set with a flat scaraboid, engraved with a female figure
kneeling.
One of the largest Mycenæan rings shows a goddess seated near a tree,
and worshippers approaching to do her homage. Others offer various
devices: an altar with worshippers; a griffin and a seated divinity; a pair of

sphinxes; griffins, bulls’ heads, etc., in heraldic ordering.[11] Here we have
early Greek art transforming and adapting Oriental forms of metal
engraving, to be succeeded, more than five centuries later, by the great gem-
engravings of the palmy days of the art of Ionia and Greece.
Among the Cyprian rings of the Mycenæan period, about 1000 b.c., in
the British Museum, is a double gold ring which had been evidently inlaid
with some vitreous substance, all but faint traces of which have now
disappeared. This was found in a site near Famagusta, Cyprus, that has been
satisfactorily identified with the spot where the Greeks under Teucer are
said to have established a settlement on their return from the siege of Troy.
Other gold rings discovered here at the same time, in 1896, have plain
hoops, with a small cylindrical ornament strung on the hoop, to serve in
place of a bezel with setting. Still another of these rings has, on one side, an
extension squared off at the corners, making a long and narrow flat surface
on the outside of the hoop; along its edge runs a beaded ornamentation.[12]
The oldest Greek ring bearing an inscription is one believed to belong to
the late Mycenæan period. The gold hoop has engraved upon it the Cypriot
syllables Le-na-ko, possibly meaning the name Lenagoras. It was found
with other ornaments in a grave near Lanarka, Cyprus.[13] The similarity of
the name Lanarka with the phonetic value of the inscribed signs might
perhaps suggest that a place name rather than a person’s name is signified.
That in ancient times several cities had their special signets is proved by a
Greek inscription as to the cities of Smyrna, Magnesia, and Sipylum.[14]
Pliny already remarked the fact that nowhere in the Homeric poems is
any mention made of rings or of seals. This is the more singular that we
have so much positive evidence in Cretan and Mycenæan remains that rings
were known to a part of the Greek world for a long time prior to the
composition of the Iliad and Odyssey. Probably due allowance must be
made for the individual preference of the poet, or school of poets, to whom
we owe these masterpieces of ancient literature. In our own day, the present
writer in his researches has often been disappointed to find nothing
concerning precious stones or jewels in a given work treating of a subject
that would invite their mention, the obvious reason being that the author
cared little or nothing for such things, and hence passed over, unnoticed, all
data regarding them. Nevertheless, the metal-worker’s art evidently

appealed strongly to the author (or authors) of the Homeric epics, as is
shown in many places, notably in the long description of the representations
on the elaborately wrought shield made by Vulcan for Achilles (Il., xviii,
478–608).
Certainly the traditions of Homeric times, recorded by later Greek
writers, tell of several rings worn by Homeric personages. A ring of
Ulysses, engraved with a dolphin by order of the wily hero, in memory of
the rescue of his son Telemachus by one of the creatures of the deep, is
mentioned by Plutarch (“De solertia anim.”). Moreover, Helen of Troy is
stated to have worn on one of her fingers a ring bearing the figure of an
“enormous fish,” and, finally, the great Greek painter Polygnotus, a
contemporary of Pericles (495–429 b.c.), in a painting showing the descent
of Ulysses into Hades, represented the youthful Phocus as wearing a ring,
set with an engraved gem, on one of the fingers of his left hand.[15] This
painting was highly reputed in ancient times, and had been dedicated to
Apollo in the shrine at Delphi by the Cnidians.
The significance of the ring in the fourth century before Christ, as an
ensign of office in Athens, is brought out by a passage in the “Knights” of
the comic poet Aristophanes, where the people, as an expression of their
discontent with the administration of Kleon, demand that he surrender the
ring with which he has been invested, as a proof that he is no longer
entrusted with the office of treasurer.[16]
A clever use of a ring is reported to have been made by Ismenias of
Thebes, when he was sent by the Bœotians as an envoy to the Persian King.
Before he was brought into the royal presence he was instructed by the
master of ceremonies that he must prostrate himself before the sovereign.
This act was strongly repugnant to his Greek consciousness, both as a
debasement of his individual dignity, and as an act of divine homage
offered to a mortal. To escape from the dilemma, the envoy, as he
approached the throne, took off his ring and succeeded in dropping it
without attracting too much attention; whereupon he stooped and picked it
up. The Greek onlookers understood the meaning of his action, while the
Persians believed that he had satisfactorily conformed to the court
ceremonial. His little ruse was rewarded by a favorable reception of his

requests by the Persian King, who had long been offended by the obstinate
refusal of the Greeks to render him the homage he regarded as his due.[17]
The iron ring of the Romans, accounted for in popular fancy by the tale
of the rock and link ring of Prometheus, probably came to the Romans from
the Etruscans, who appear to have owed the fashion to the Greeks, and
Pliny notes in his “Naturalis Historia,” written about 75 a.d., that even then
the Lacedæmonians, with true Spartan sobriety, still wore iron rings.[18]
Roman tradition carried back the introduction of such rings to the age of
Numa Pompilius, about 700 b.c., and there is evidence that, at a later time at
least, they were regarded as symbols of victory when worn on the hand of a
successful general, a late instance being the wearing of an iron ring by
Marius at his triumph for the victory over Jugurtha in 107 b.c.[19]
The progressive changes in the Roman regulations and customs
governing the wearing of rings and the material of which they should be
made have been stated in a concise and convenient form by M. Deloche,
and his conclusions are of considerable value, based as they are upon a very
careful study of the classic sources and their best interpreters in the past.[20]
The iron ring, the only one originally, was at first regarded as a mark of
individual honor, awarded by the sovereign or in his name. From the
earliest times of the Roman Republic, a senator sent on an embassy
received a gold ring, all other senators being restricted to iron ones. Soon,
however, senators of noble birth, and, later on, all senators without
distinction, enjoyed the right of wearing gold rings. In the third century b.c.
this privilege was then extended to the knights, and in the last years of the
Republic, as well as under the emperors, many other classes of citizens
were made partakers of the privilege, so that before long even some
freedmen and certain of those pursuing the least reputable vocations were
permitted the enjoyment of a distinction once so jealously guarded.
Toward the latter part of the third century a.d. all Roman soldiers could
lawfully wear gold rings, although in the late Republican and earlier
Imperial periods this right was accorded only to the military tribunes. Thus,
finally, all class distinctions in this respect were done away with. Every
freeborn man could wear a gold ring, freedmen, with a few exceptions,
were confined to silver rings, and the iron ring became the badge of slavery.

After the battle of Cannæ (August 2, 216 b.c.), in which the Romans
were totally defeated by Hannibal, the Carthaginian leader ordered that the
gold rings should be taken from the hands of the dead Romans and heaped
up in the vestibule of his quarters. Enough were collected to fill a bushel
basket (some authorities say three bushel baskets), and they were sent to
Carthage, not as valuable spoils of war, but as proof of the great slaughter
among the Roman patricians and knights, for at this time none beneath the
rank of knights, and only those of highest standing among them, those
provided with steeds by the State (equo publico), had been given the right
to wear gold rings.[21]
On days of national mourning the gold rings were laid aside as a mark of
sorrow and respect, and iron rings were substituted. This was the case after
the defeat at Cannæ in 216 b.c. and on the funeral day of Augustus Cæsar in
15 a.d. This usage is noted in one of the poet Juvenal’s satires.[22]
Occasionally, as a mark of disapprobation, senators would remove their
gold rings at a public sitting, as, for instance, when, in 305 b.c., the
appointment as edile of Cneius Flavius, son of the freedman Annius, was
announced in the Senate.
In Rome supplicants took off their rings as a mark of humility, or a sign
of sadness. When the censors C. Claudius Pulcher and Titus Sempronius
Gracchus were cited by the tribune Rutilius as guilty of a crime against the
State, Claudius was condemned by eight of the twelve centuries of Knights.
At this, many of the principal personages of the Senate, taking off their gold
rings in the presence of the assembled citizens, put on mourning garments,
and raised supplications in favor of the accused persons.[23]
Another instance of this usage with suppliants is shown in a recital of
Valerius Maximus, wherein he relates that when, about 55 b.c., Aulus
Gabinius was violently accused by the tribune Memmius, and there seemed
to be little hope that he would escape punishment, his son Sisenna cast
himself as a suppliant at the feet of Memmius, tearing off his ring at the
same time. This mark of humiliation finally induced Memmius and his
fellow-tribune Lælius to withdraw the accusation, and set Gabinius at
liberty.[24]
The wearing of a gold ring, because it was a sign of patrician and later of
free birth, had such a high value in the eyes of the Romans that some

freedmen used the subterfuge of wearing a gold ring with a dark coating, so
that it would appear to be of iron. Thus, although they neither had the
gratification nor incurred the perils of wearing a symbol confined to the
freeborn, they had the intimate personal satisfaction of knowing that it was
really on the hand.[25]
From the rather scant evidence that has come down to us, it appears that
Roman women were not subjected to as strict regulations in the wearing of
rings of precious metal as were the men. The wives of simple plebeians who
were in good circumstances seem as generally and freely to have worn them
as the wives and daughters of senators or knights, or other patrician women.
Pliny writes of the women wearing gold on every finger.[26]
In Rome, as early as the first century, at a time when the right of wearing
gold rings was, as has been shown, very strictly limited, it occasionally
happened that a famous actor was accorded this privilege by the special
favor of some influential admirer of his art. Sulla granted this right to
Roscius, and some years later, in 43 b.c., the Roman quæstor in Spain
bestowed a gold ring upon Herennius Gallus in the ancient city of Gades,
the modern Cadiz. This gave him the right to occupy a seat in one of the
first fourteen rows at the theatre, the part reserved for the knights. This
special privilege was accorded to the actor by the Lex Roscia of 67 b.c.,
conferring the ring upon Roscius.[27]
Although the Christian women of the early Christian centuries were
taught to avoid all superfluous adornments, the wearing of a gold ring was
permitted to them. This was not, however, to be considered as an ornament,
but was simply for use in sealing up the household goods entrusted to a
wife’s care. Nevertheless, while noting this use, Clemens Alexandrinus (ca.
150–ca. 217 a.d.) adds that, if both servants and masters were properly
instructed in their respective duties and obligations, there would be no need
for such precautions.[28]
The dignity conferred by the right to wear a gold ring is even noticed in
the Epistle of James, where we read (ii, 2–4):
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,
and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that
weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to
the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not then partial in
yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

While this apostle here, as elsewhere in his epistle, warmly espouses the
cause of the poor, the prominence he gives to the gold ring as a mark of the
rich man, and a passport to the place of honor in the congregation, is a full
acknowledgment of the impression it created upon strangers, just as the
ribbon of an order is taken as a proof of dignity or station in monarchial
countries to-day, and even to a certain extent in republican France.
The custom of bestowing birthday rings (anuli natalitii) was frequently
observed in imperial Rome, and a rich and influential personage, with many
friends and clients, would receive a large number of these rings on the
anniversary day of his birth. As a rule, a setting of white sardonyx seems to
have been most favored, to judge from a line in the first of the Satires of the
Latin poet Persius (34–62 a.d.).
The famous decree of Justinian, promulgated in 539 (Novella 78 of the
Digest), conferring upon freedmen the right of wearing gold rings, runs as
follows:[29]
If a master, on freeing his slave, has declared him to be a Roman citizen (and he is
not allowed to do otherwise), let it be known that, according to the present law, he
who shall have received his liberty shall have the right to gold rings and to
regeneration, and shall not need to solicit the right of the prince, or to take any other
steps to secure it. It will be his as a consequence of his liberation, in virtue of the
present law, which goes into effect from this day.

This decree shows that, as is proved by other texts, freedmen were
sometimes accorded the privilege of wearing gold rings by special
permission of the ruler or State, but all who could not obtain such special
permission were punishable if they ventured to wear a gold ring, just as in
countries where State orders are recognized and protected the wearing of
such an order or of its ribbon by unauthorized persons is punishable in some
way. The “right of regeneration” is more peculiar, as this refers to a legal
fiction, by which it was assumed that some one of the ancestors of the
freedman had been freeborn; hence, the quality of free-birth was only
revived, not created, in the case of the descendant. This is, after all, not so
unreasonable as it may seem to be, for the slaves, being generally prisoners
of war, or else the descendants of citizens who had in some way lost their
citizenship, could truly claim, in a majority of instances, that they came of
freeborn stock.

The image of Mars on a ring-stone was greatly favored by Roman
soldiers. A good example of this style of ring is to be seen at the National
Hungarian Museum in Budapest. The gem, a carnelian, is engraved with a
figure of the god, with helmet and spear; his left hand rests on a shield
bearing the Medusa’s head. The hoop is of silver. This ring was found in
Bosnia and was donated to the museum in 1820.[30]
An old Roman inscription mentions a guild of ring-makers (conlegium
anularium),[31] and the denomination anularius even appears as a proper
name of the engraver of a signet ring.[32] Near the Forum was a flight of
steps designated scalæ anulariæ,[33] indicating either that ring engravers or
vendors were to be found there, or that they had their shops or workshops in
the neighborhood.
Treating of the dictatorial conduct of the Procurator Verres, Cicero, in his
violent, we might almost say virulent arraignment of him, were it not so
well deserved, says that when Verres wished to have a ring made for
himself he ordered that a goldsmith should be summoned to the Forum,
publicly weighed out the gold for him, and commanded the man to set his
bench down in the Forum and to make the ring in the presence of all.[34]
Tacitus states in his Germania that the most valiant of the Cattæ, wore
“like a fetter” an iron ring, which was a mark of infamy among the
Germans. Only when a warrior had killed an enemy had he the right to
divest himself of this ring. Whether this was a tribal usage, or only the sign
of an obligation voluntarily assumed, must be left to conjecture. It is
supposed to evidence that the slaves of the Germans wore iron rings, and
that thus such rings were looked upon as badges of slavery.[35]
Finger-rings are exceedingly rare among the remains of the prehistoric
American peoples, although a few have been found in the Pueblo ruins of
Arizona and New Mexico. These are usually cut out of shell. Some of them
are skilfully cut from Pectunculus shells, and others from “cone-shells”
(Conus). Of the former kind a number were unearthed at Chaves Pass,
Arizona.[36] Many of the rings were incised with an ornamental design; one
of the most beautiful of these was decorated with red figures representing
clouds and lightning. This ring, large enough to fit an adult’s finger, was
found, together with bones of a human hand, in one of the pre-Columbian

graves, at Casa Grande, Arizona. The remains here also yielded a ring made
out of a cone-shell, with incised decoration. The exceptionally fine
specimen noted above almost certainly had a religious or talismanic
character, and it may have been thought to protect the wearer from storms
and thunderbolts.
The skill with which the shells were utilized for rings as well as for other
objects of adornment must have been the result of many generations of
experiment and training, springing from that inherent artistic sense so often
manifest in the Indians of the pueblos in contrast to the Indians of the
plains. Often the circular form was already present in the shell, and this was
utilized by dividing a part of the cone into sections, thus giving rings of
varying diameter. The material was then smoothed and polished, and either
left plain or decorated with an incised pattern, into the outlines of which
appropriate coloring matter was introduced. In other cases, when the shell
material did not offer a natural circlet, a disk was cut out, and a large
perforation produced the rough circlet, to be worked up later into a finished
ring.
The attainable evidence in regard to the wearing of rings by the
aborigines of North and South America is, in the main, negative. This is the
case with the Pacific coast Indians, as well as with the Chiriqui graves and
other ancient remains in the present United States of Colombia.[37] Indeed,
so far as can be ascertained, the wearing of rings is essentially an Oriental
fashion and was brought to the ancient peoples of Europe from the East.
Still, here and there on the North American continent, as in the instance
above noted, rings have been found in burials believed to be pre-
Columbian.
To the very few pre-Columbian rings found in Indian mounds, belong
four from Ohio, now in the collection of the Ohio State Archæological and
Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. One of the rings was unearthed twenty
years ago from a mound in Hamilton County; it is of spiral form and was on
the middle finger of the left hand of a skeleton. The three others came from
the Adana Mound, two of them being spiral-rings, both found on the middle
finger of a skeleton’s left hand; the third is not a complete circle, and was
picked up at the base of the mound. The spiral-rings are very finely and
delicately fashioned.[38]

The Aztecs of ancient Mexico executed many ornamental objects of
gold, silver, copper and tin, and worked in iron and lead as well. Specimens
of this silversmiths’ work were sent by Fernan Cortés to Emperor Charles V,
and their artistic quality elicited the admiration of the Spanish jewellers.
These seem to have been only a small portion of the rich booty gathered by
the Spanish Conquistador, the metal worth of which he estimated at
100,000 ducats ($250,000), or even more, according to the statement in a
letter addressed to his sovereign. The greater part of this treasure is believed
to have been lost during the “Noche Triste,” the “Night of Sorrows,” when
the Spanish conquerors were surprised and attacked in Mexico City by the
native warriors, and were forced to seek safety, after suffering considerable
losses in a retreat from the narrow, city streets into the open country, where
they could better utilize the enormous superiority conferred on them by
their fire-arms. Even the few specimens which were actually brought to
Charles V seem to have disappeared, and were probably melted down for
use as bullion.[39]
Of the silversmiths’ methods a little can be learned from a study of Aztec
paintings. Thus we are able to know that they used the crucible, the muffle
and the blow-pipe. The statement is made by Torquemada and by Clavigo
that they possessed the now lost art of casting objects half of gold and half
of silver. Some fine examples of Aztec work in gold and silver are to be
seen in the marvelous collections of the Museo Nacional in Mexico City,
and among them are several finger-rings. One of these comes from
Teotihuacan; its broad hoop is decorated with the head of one of the Aztec
gods, wearing an elaborate and curiously complicated head-dress. Other
gold rings are of a peculiar type, the inner half of the hoop being only about
two-fifths as high as the outer and very broad half, so that the finger could
be closed without inconvenience.[40]

Ancient Indian rings. 1, copper finger ring. From a
grave in cemetery at mouth of the Wabash, Southern
Indiana, 1898. 2, stone ring (?). From Red Paint
Cemetery, Orland, Maine. Explored by W. K. Moorehead
in 1912. 3, shell ring, broken. From adobe ruin. Mesa,
Arizona, 1898. All full size
Courtesy of Mr. Warren K. Moorehead

Ancient Indian metal finger rings. 1, spiral ring from middle finger of a
skeleton. Hamilton Co., Ohio. 2, broken ring taken from floor of Adana
Mound, Ohio. 3 and 4, rings from middle finger of skeleton found in the
Adana Mound, Ohio. Natural size

Four thin shell rings from the Indian adobe ruins near
Phoenix, Arizona, explored in 1898
Courtesy of Mr. Warren K. Moorehead

NAVAJO SILVERSMITH OF ARIZONA, KOCH-NE-BI-KI-BITSILLY, CALLED “CHARLEY,”
MAKING RINGS AT GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA

So few finger-rings of the Indian aborigines, who once inhabited the
present territory of the United States, have been brought to light, that some
authorities have been disposed to deny the existence of any relics of this
kind. Among the rare discoveries may be noted a copper ring found in one
of the Indian mounds near Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio. This ring has
been made by bending a short copper rod until the ends overlapped and then
pounding them as closely together as possible. It is only large enough for a
child’s finger, and among the remains of fifteen Indians found in this
particular mound were those of a child.[41] A few stone rings, presumably

for wear on the finger, have been met with in Indian graves in the Scioto
Valley, Ohio, in Kentucky, in Tennessee and also in Arizona, New Mexico
and California. An ornamental stone ring from Kentucky was evidently a
finger-ring, as are also some others of the stone rings.[42]
A shell ring from the adobe ruins near Phœnix, Arizona, in the Salado
Valley, shows the skill of the primitive Indians of this region in ring-
making. Art in shell is pronounced by Dr. Warren K. Moorehead to be
characteristic of the early Indian peoples of this valley, the shell material,
which is found in great profusion in the ruins and in the desert, having come
here either because of trade relations with the Indians of the sea-coast, or as
a result of frequent journeys by some of the Salado peoples to the distant
salt water. The discovery of shell frogs in the so-called “City of the Dead”
in this valley, by Prof. Frank H. Cushing, some thirty years ago, was at first
received with considerable incredulity, but since then several have been
unearthed by successive explorers. Shell and bone implements with
turquoise inlays occur both in Arizona and New Mexico.[43] The shell ring
we have just noted, is unusually well formed, the projection at the upper
part having a form suggestive of a finished bezel, thus rendering the ring a
harmonious and attractive adornment for the hand. This interesting
specimen was brought to light in 1898, with a few other shell rings. An
Indian copper finger ring was unearthed, in the same year, in a grave
forming part of a cemetery at the mouth of the Wabash River, southern
Indiana. More recently, in 1912, what is believed to have been a stone ring
was taken by Doctor Moorehead from the Red Paint Indian cemetery at
Orland, Maine.[44]
The proficiency of the Navajo and Pueblo Indians of New Mexico as
silversmiths is shown by the fact that there are from fifty to seventy-five
Indians regularly occupied in this way at present, while several hundred
others are more or less familiar with the art and work occasionally. The
average pay is so much by the ounce, fifty cents for bracelets, conchos, etc.,
and seventy-five cents for rings, plus twenty-five cents for each and every
setting. It has been estimated that a Navajo silversmith, if he find steady
work, may earn as much as $125 a month. This, however, is rarely the case,
as they are not fond of overwork, and when they have earned a little sum in
ten or fifteen days, they will lay off until it is spent and they are again
forced to resume their tasks. Of the more industrious, who might be willing

to work uninterruptedly, many are quite prosperous, owning flocks of sheep
or other live stock, or else farm land, which must be attended to in
preference to the jewellery industry.
One of the best of these Indian ring-makers is Koch-Ne-Bi-Ki Bitsilly,
called Charley for short. He finds regular employment in the Grand Canyon
shop at Albuquerque, N. M., for several months in each year, devoting the
remainder of his time to the care of his sheep and other property. He is
pronounced to be above the average in intelligence, energy and initiative.
Other silversmiths are: Asidi Yashe, Charlie Hogan, Charlie Largo, Malapai,
Bigay and Hastin Nez.
Of the stones used for ring-settings, garnets are never employed except
at the special request of a trader; rarely, roughly-cut peridots are set in rings.
Turquoise from New Mexico, is the favorite stone, although a little Persian
turquoise is occasionally brought in by the traders and set in Navajo rings.
In early times the turquoise supply came from the deposits near Cerrillos,
now known as the Tiffany Mine,[45] which furnished the material for all the
turquoise ornaments in the ruins at Chaco Canyon and elsewhere. In the
manufacture of rings these silversmiths frequently make a number at the
same time, first fashioning all the hoops, and then adding the design to the
hoops, after which the cups for the settings are added to the series. An
industrious worker will be able to finish up as many as a dozen rings on this
plan in three days, whereas, when special care is to be exercised in making
a single ring, a whole day’s work will be required. From four to five
thousand rings are made annually in New Mexico and Arizona.
As metal working was unknown to the Navajos, as well as to the other
Indians of the Southwest before the advent of the white man, it seems most
probable that silver jewellery was not made by these Indians until Spanish
silver coins reached them. The Navajos are believed to have acquired their
knowledge of jewellery-making from the Pueblo Indians who were the first
to undertake it. Prior to this there was massive work in copper probably due
to influences from the North. The Spanish derivation of the silver-working
is proven by the old Spanish methods used; the bellows is Spanish-Moorish.
No reference either to the making or the use of jewellery before recent
times by the Navajos is believed to exist. As an indication of the source of
the silver used, the Hopi name of this metal is shiba, the literal meaning of
the word being “a little round, white cake,” an apt designation of a silver

coin. In the total absence of archæological evidence as to the Navajos, Dr.
Walter Hough is decidedly of the opinion that silver work among the tribe is
of comparatively recent date. A few of the Navajo finger-rings in the
National Museum in Washington are at least old enough to show
considerable signs of wear.[46]
Among the women of the Pueblo Indians the wearing of a great number
of rings on the hand is an indication of aristocratic birth. This is illustrated
in the accompanying plate, showing a ring on every finger of both hands;
they are of silver, set with turquoise. Rings of this type are also shown in
the portrait of a Navajo maiden, a daughter of Chee Dodge, dressed in the
costume of the wife of a Navajo chief.[47]

DAUGHTER OF CHEE DODGE, NAVAJO INDIAN. SHE WEARS
RINGS OF SILVER SET WITH TURQUOISE

SILVER RINGS SET WITH TURQUOISE MINED IN ARIZONA
AND NEW MEXICO, MADE BY THE NAVAJO INDIANS,
GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA. 1916

As the Navajo silversmiths dwelt in small huts or temporary shelters
which they might move away from at short notice, they were forced to build
low forges directly on the ground, obliging them to crouch down while
working.[48] In this respect the Pueblo artisans had a considerable
advantage, since their spacious dwellings made it possible for them to set
their forges solidly in a frame high enough to enable them to do their work

standing. A considerable number of tools and appliances are in the
workshop of the Navajo silversmith; most of them, however, of rude
fabrication and not well adapted for fine and accurate work. He deserves the
more credit for the quality of work he is able to produce. The following is a
pretty full list of the outfit in such a workshop: Forge, bellows, anvil,
crucibles, molds, tongs, scissors, pliers, files, awls, cold chisels, matrix and
die for moulding buttons, wooden stake, basin, charcoal, tools and materials
for soldering (blow-pipe, braid of cotton rags soaked in grease, wire, and
borax), materials for polish (sandpaper, emery-paper, powdered sandstone,
sand, ashes, and solid stone), and materials for whitening (a native mineral
substance—almogen, salt and water).[49]
It has been noted that the Navajos had not acquired the art of making an
air chamber of the mouth in operating the blow-pipe, but blew with
undistended cheeks, the result being an intermittent flame. The latter is
furnished by burning a thick braid of cotton rags soaked in mutton suet or
some other similar kind of grease. For the polishing work, the emery paper
is sparingly used because of its cost. After all the preliminary polishing has
been done with sandstone, sand or ashes, the finishing is done with emery-
paper. For the blanching of the silver the hydrous sulphate of ammonia,
termed almogen, is used, the silver being bathed in a solution of this, with
the addition of a little salt. The blow-pipe is usually made by beating out a
piece of thick brass wire into a long flat strip, which is then bent into the
requisite form.
Two of the best of these silversmiths were engaged to work for a short
time near Fort Wingate. As has been noted, their forges are commonly set
very low down, and the position of the workers was evidently an
uncomfortable one. Nevertheless, they showed a great degree of
persistence, working sometimes as many as from twelve to even fifteen
hours in a day. When paid by the piece, artisans could earn about two
dollars a day on an average. The method of chasing was excessively
primitive. While one worker held the object firmly on an anvil, the other
applied to it part of the shank of a file that had previously been rounded,
and struck this with smart taps of a hammer. Finer figures were engraved
with the sharpened part of a file, to which a peculiar zigzag, forward motion
was imparted by the hand. One fault that could be charged against these
silversmiths was a lack of economy as to the precious material they used,

no care being taken to gather up and utilize the amount lost in filing and
polishing, as well as by oxidation in the forge, so that the net loss was
estimated at fourteen per cent.
While the art of the work produced can scarcely be termed finished,
when judged by very high standards, still the silver ornaments executed by
the Navajos possess at least the charm inherent in individual work, as
contrasted with the more harmonious and finished productions of merely
mechanical art, where thousands of objects of a given type of design are
turned out annually in a highly-organized silversmithing establishment.
With these Indians we have the “personal note” that is too often missed in
the ornaments of our day. This Navajo industry has received much
encouragement from the managers of the Santa Fé Railroad, and from its
agencies. Although the art among the Navajos is generally believed to have
been introduced by Spanish influence, the fact that before the Spanish
Conquest the native Mexicans were able to work metals with considerable
skill would make it not improbable that it spread to the New Mexico tribes,
and perhaps from them to the ancestors of the Navajos of to-day. The
Navajo Indians belong to the Athapascan race and emigrated from the
northwestern coast. Copper had been worked into ornaments from of old by
Indians of the same stock in Alaska, and some remains indicate that this
was the case, in rare instances, with the Navajos.
The superiority of the Navajos of a later time to the Pueblos as
silversmiths, may, perhaps, result from their already acquired knowledge of
copper-working. As the Navajo men had not the occupation of farming, as
had the Pueblos, silversmithing gained favor among them as a fad, as a
means of relieving the tedium of idleness. There is rarely any tendency to
transmit this art directly from father to son, individual preferences being the
chief factors. Indeed there is so little of the caste spirit among the Navajos
that the occupation of the father counts for but little in determining that of
the son. This is largely dependent upon the fact that descent is principally
traced through the mother. Exogamy, marrying outside the clan, is the
orthodox code of the Navajos, a man being expected to avoid taking a wife
from the clan to which his mother belonged,—a wise precaution for them.
As an early description of the lack of silversmiths’ instruments of
precision among the Navajos in planning and executing their work, Mr.
Matthews says of conditions as he observed them thirty-five years ago:

“The smiths whom I have seen working had no dividers, square,
measure, or any instrument of precision. As before stated, I have seen
scissors used as compasses, but as a rule they find approximate centres with
the eye and cut all shapes and engrave all figures by the unaided guidance
of this unreliable organ. Often they cut out their designs in paper first and
from them mark off patterns on the metal. Even in the matter of cutting
patterns they do not seem to know the simple device of doubling the paper
in order to secure lateral conformity.”

NAVAJO SILVERSMITHS OF NEW MEXICO, ENGAGED IN MAKING SILVER RINGS
1, Tsozi Bigay; 2, Atziddy Yaski

PABLO ABEITA, PUEBLO INDIAN, WITH HIS SON AND WIFE
The latter wears turquoise and silver rings on every finger of each hand
Courtesy of Dr. Joseph Kossuth Dixon

As the Navajos have no silver mines in their country, they depend largely
for their material upon Mexican silver dollars worth about 48 cents in
United States money. These are melted and then molded, or else cut and
hammered into the desired forms. Sometimes, United States half or quarter
dollars are used in this way, although such silver costs more than twice as
much, because of its worth as currency. Before silver was freely used,
copper and brass were bought at the trading posts and favored as materials;
a supply of these metals being often secured by melting down parts of the

kettles or pans furnished to the Indians by the United States Government, or
else bought from white settlers. Some old Navajo silversmiths assert that
the art of working silver was introduced from Mexico about sixty years ago,
toward the middle of the last century. About this time a Mexican silversmith
named Cassilio came to the Navajo country and taught his art to a Navajo
blacksmith called by his people Atsidi Sani, or the “Old Smith.” Cassilio is
said to have been still living about 1872. An artisan considered to be one of
the best, if not the very best of the Navajo silversmiths of our day, who is
called Beshlagai Ilini Altsosigi or the “Slender Silversmith,” originally
learned his art from Mexicans. The fact that Lieut. James H. Simpson, who
explored the heart of the Navajo country in 1849, has nothing to say about
silversmithing, although he details very fully the various arts and industries
of the Navajos, goes far to prove the truth of the statement that Navajo
silversmithing dates from a later time.[50]
Borax is now generally used for soldering, but before it was brought to
their country, the Navajo silversmiths are said to have mined a certain
substance for this use, probably a kind of native alum. Rock salt, an easily
attainable material, called in the Navajo tongue tse dokozh (saline rock),
was used for whitening tarnished or oxidized silver. For this purpose the salt
was dissolved in boiling water, into which the silver articles were thrown
and left for a time. In place of the sandstone, sand and ashes originally used,
the silversmiths are now able to employ sandpaper or emery paper bought
at the stores. Of the tools employed we have already treated at some length.
The details in this and the preceding paragraph have been derived from the
very interesting and valuable “Ethnologic Dictionary of the Navaho
Language,” published in 1910 by the Franciscan Fathers, at St. Michaels,
Arizona.[51] Here the nouns and verbs denoting action are grouped in the
only really logical way, under the respective industries and trades, or other
forms of human activity. As some of the foremost writers on the origin of
language have urged that its beginnings are to be sought in the various
rhythmic exclamations of a body of workers, at first uttered automatically
and later used consciously as calls to work, or to favor a coördination of
efforts, no better classification of the vocabulary of a primitive race can be
employed.
The various forms and qualities of silver rings found full expression in
the Navajo language, a proof of the importance accorded to this branch of

silversmithing among them. The word for ring being yostsá, we have the
following designations:[52]

yostsá deshzházh, a worn down ring
yostsá geéldo, a broken ring
yostsá énidi, a new ring
yostsá quastqí, an old ring
yostsá ntqél, a broad ring
yostsá altsósi, a slender ring
yostsá ntsa, a large ring
yostsá altsisi, a small ring
yostsá náilgai, a polished ring
yostsá yijí, a blackened, oxidized ring
yostsá do-bikeeshchíni, a plain ring
yostsá bikeeshchíni, a ring with a design
yostsá alkésgiz, a twisted ring
yostsá bitsá, a ribbed ring
yostsá biná, the setting of a ring
yostsá tséso biná, a ring with a glass setting
yostsá dotlízhi biná, a ring with a turquoise setting
yostsá tlish beélya, a snake-shaped ring

THE ARMY AND NAVY CLUB
WASHINGTON.

Rings are not in favor with the Eskimos, who do not appear to make or
wear any. Indeed, Admiral Peary found it impossible to dispose of a lot of
rings he had taken with him on one of his Arctic trips in the belief that they
would be attractive to the Eskimos, and good objects of barter.[53] Perhaps
in the intense Arctic cold even the slightest pressure on the finger may have
been avoided, lest it should impede circulation and increase the danger of
having the fingers frost-bitten.

The Mendæans of Mesopotamia are the silversmiths of this region, and
they exhibit much skill in their work. The greatest demand is for cigarette
cases and for signet rings and seals, although they make a variety of other
small ornamental objects. Their methods of work are quite characteristic. In
the case of the smaller objects, such as rings, etc., they hammer them out
from a heated silver bar. When the general form has been attained, they
work up the surface with a steel file or pencil, which has a triangular point;
with it the desired design is laboriously engraved. This process being
completed, a black metallic powder, made into a paste, is rubbed over the
entire surface, naturally accumulating more or less, according to the greater
or lesser depths of the cuttings; the object is then placed in a charcoal forge
and fired. After it has remained therein long enough, it is removed and the
superfluous powder is rubbed or worked off. The completed ring or other
ornament then offers most beautiful contrasts between the bright silver and
the lustrous black inlay. The Mendæans are sometimes called “Christians of
St. John,” because of their great veneration for John the Baptist. However,
they in no sense deserve the name of Christians, their peculiar, eclectic
doctrine being a mixture of ancient and Christian Gnosticism, with certain
elements of the old Persian religion. They have quite a literature, dating
back to the early centuries of our era, and written in an Aramaic dialect
similar to that of the Talmud.

THE PURPOSES OF RING WEARING

The wearing of rings as ornaments for the hand requires no explanation
in view of the innate love of adornment shown from the very earliest
periods of human history. However, apart from this merely ornamental use,
rings were applied to many special uses and were worn for many definite
purposes, some of which are so important as to merit extended notice in
separate chapters; others again are less far-reaching and less significant, and
certain of these will be explained and illustrated here.

1, Late Roman ring; 2, gold ring set with an engraved
red carnelian. Found in 1846 near Amiens, France

1, ring of gilt copper set with a ruby; 2, ring set with
irregularly-shaped sapphire
Londesborough Collection

1, Roman ring, perhaps a signet; elliptical hoop with
projecting shoulders; 2, hexagonal ring set with engraved
stone bearing figure of Hygeia, the Goddess of Health

Ring that was perhaps given by a Roman lady to a successful
charioteer. Bust of donor on summit of ring
All from Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, spiral ring with heads of Isis and Serapis 2, Etruscan
gold ring
British Museum
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Silver ring with ten projections
(decade ring); that for the Creed (the
bezel) has the design of the Cross.
Impression
British Museum

Immense ring with female head incorrectly said to be
that of Plotina, wife of Trajan
Montfaucon, “L’Antiquité expliquée,” Paris, 1719

Ancient Roman Key Rings
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

We are not apt to think the wearing of many rings especially in accord
with the profession of philosophy, and yet Ælian tells us that a chief cause
of the dissension between Plato (427–347 b.c.) and his pupil, Aristotle
(384–322 b.c.), arose from the blame bestowed by Plato upon the greatest
of ancient philosophers—“the master of those who know,” as Dante calls
him—because Aristotle adorned his hand with many rings.[54] Could this
have been done with a view to impressing his students and philosophers
with greater respect than they might always have been disposed to accord to
his intellectual greatness alone? The externals of luxurious adornment
made, perhaps, a more direct appeal than the mere power of logical
exposition could do, and such an eminently practical thinker as Aristotle
was may not have been blind to these considerations.
A gold ring figured by Gorius is thought by him to have been a gift from
an ardent Roman sportswoman to a victorious charioteer, to whose skill she
may perhaps have been indebted for some material gain, since wagering in
chariot races was as common in Roman times as betting on horse races in
our own day. This ring is engraved with a woman’s head and two heads of
reined horses; the name of the donor, Pomphonica,[55] and the words amor
and hospes, are engraved on the circlet. “Love the Host,” as these words
may be read, makes a slightly enigmatic inscription. Indeed, it may well be
that some fair Roman had the ring made as a memento for her own use and
wear. Another conjecture is that it was a man’s ring executed as a memento
of what was dearest to him, his ladylove and his chariot horses. It was in the
Cabinet of the Tuscan grand duke Francis of Lorraine, later Emperor of
Germany and husband of Maria Theresa.[56]
A Latin inscription, from Granada, Spain, mentions a ring, set with a
jasper, that was placed by a son upon the statue of his mother. The value of

the ring is given as 7000 sestertii, indicating that the stone was engraved;
the design probably had a symbolic significance, as in the case of most of
the votive rings.[57]
Martial, in one of his epigrams (V.12) says that there was nothing
surprising in the feats performed by certain athletes, when Stella could
carry ten maidens upon one of his fingers. In a very interesting study on this
subject, C. W. King endeavors to prove that the lines refer to a remarkable
ring whereon ten precious stones must have been associated in some way
with dedicated to Minerva and the Nine Muses. In another epigram (V.11)
Martial writes of Stella turning sardonyxes, emeralds, diamonds, and
jaspers around one of his finger-joints, and King conjectures that the Ten
Maidens were represented by the opal, sapphire (hyacinth), spinel, Oriental
topaz, almandine garnet, and pearl, in addition to the four stones
enumerated above. Should this conjecture be well-founded these different
stones were set at regular intervals, these stones being Minerva and the
Muses, although we have no direct proof of this.
This ring of the Ten Maidens suggests the decade or rosary rings, of
which so many specimens exist. Usually there were ten bosses or knobs, as
the name indicates, but occasionally there were eleven, for counting ten
Aves and a Pater. The earliest date Mr. Waterton is inclined to assign to
rings of this type is the fourteenth century.[58] A so-called decade ring with
twelve bosses is described in the catalogue of the Londesborough
Collection.[59] Here the central knob is a tooth, opposite this is a piece of
labradorite, while on either side are set two amethysts, a chrysoprase and an
emerald, two jacinths, two turquoises, and two pearls. The twelfth knob
stood for the creed. Sometimes, where there are eleven projections, ten
paternosters and the creed were to be recited. A good example of a decade
ring is one of silver in the British Museum. The ten projections for the
paternosters are very marked and the eleventh, for the creed, which forms
the bezel, has the form of a crucifix, the cross resting on three steps. This
rises to a considerable relative height above the hoop. Such a ring could
scarcely be worn with comfort, its liturgical use evidently being the
paramount idea of the maker.[60]
The gold and silver chaplet rings, with a cross and ten beads or bosses in
relief upon the hoop, were frequently used by the Knights of Malta, in the

eighteenth century; indeed this type of ring is said to have been invented by
them. Their use as substitutes for the less convenient chaplet was spreading,
until in 1836 the matter was referred by Pope Gregory XVI to the tribunal
of penitentiaries. Its decision, transmitted by the Cardinal Penitentiary
Castracane, as to the question “whether the gold or silver rings, surrounded
by ten bosses, which are used by some pious persons for the recitation of
the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin, can be blessed with the appropriate
indulgences,” was in the negative.[61]
The ring-money used by the ancient Gauls and Britons illustrates the
employment of what might be ornamental objects as currency. An
exceptionally fine specimen made of nearly pure gold was recently found
by a farmer while he was ploughing a field near Woodstock, Oxfordshire,
England. Of course many or most of these rings were not worn but merely
used as money.
A legal use of a sapphire ring to bind a bargain is recorded in a deed of
gift, from about 1200 a.d., by a certain John Long to William Prohume,
clerk, of land and houses in St. Martin’s Street, Exeter, at a rent of 6s 8d,
which sum was to be donated to St. John’s Hospital in Exeter. The grantor
acknowledges the receipt of 45 marks and of a gold ring set with a sapphire
as the price of this lease on very favorable terms.[62]
Precious stones set in rings sometimes served to hide a “talisman” of a
peculiar kind, namely, a dose of death-dealing poison, kept as a last resort
to free the wearer of the ring from disgrace or from a worse death. So we
are told that when Marcus Crassus stripped the Capitoline Temple of its
treasures of gold, the faithful guardian broke between his teeth the stone set
in his ring, swallowed the poison hidden beneath it, and immediately
expired.[63] The great Hannibal, also, had recourse to the poison contained
in his ring, when he was on the point of being given up to his bitter
enemies, the Romans. Of this ring the satirist Juvenal wrote as follows:
“Cannarum vindex et tanti sanguinis ultor Anulus,” or “That ring, the
avenger of those who fell at Cannæ, and of so much blood that had been
shed.” Another great man, the peerless orator Demosthenes, is said to have
carried with him a similar ring. In a Rabbinical commentary on
Deuteronomy occurs the following curious passage:
Hast thou then no ring? Suck it out and thou wilt die.

This has been explained as referring to a hollow ring filled with liquid
poison.[64]
Some ancient gold rings were made hollow, so that they could be filled
with mastic or brimstone, or an aromatic material. In the old
“Oneirocriticon,” or “Dream Book” of Artemidorus, to see a ring of this
kind in a dream portended treachery or deceit, as they enclosed something
hidden from view, while a ring solidly wrought by the hammer was exactly
what it purported to be.[65]
The poison-rings of the Borgias are not fabulous, for some of them still
exist, one bearing the date 1503 and the motto of Cæsar Borgia in Old
French, “Fays ce que doys avien que pourra” (Do your duty, happen what
may). Beneath the bezel of this ring there is a sliding panel and when this is
displaced there appears a small space where the poison was kept. Such rings
simply afforded a ready supply of poison at need, but another type
constituted a death-dealing weapon. It is curious to note how in a ring of
this latter type the Renaissance goldsmith has combined an artistic idea with
the nefarious quality of the jewel. The bezel is wrought into the shape of a
lion, and the hollow claws of the animal admit the passage of a subtle
poison concealed in a small reservoir back of the bezel. By a mechanical
device the poison was pressed out of the cavity through the lion’s claws,
and it is conjectured that the death-wound could have been inflicted by
turning the bezel of the ring inward, so that a hearty grasp would produce a
few slight punctures in the enemy’s hand.[66]
While these Borgia rings represent an extreme of diabolical ingenuity,
the perfumed rings, the use of which has been revived to a certain extent of
late, constitute a refinement of civilization. This ring is generally made of
plain gold with a small elastic ball and valve at the back. This is squeezed
flat and the ring is immersed in a perfumed liquid; when the pressure is
removed the scent is drawn into the ring by suction. An ingenious
adjustment renders it possible for the wearer to discharge a jet or spray of
perfume by the exercise of a very trifling pressure. Not only perfumes but
disinfectants also are sometimes used, and rings charged in this way may be
said to represent antidotes of the dreaded poison rings, not perhaps in a
literal sense, but at least in the sense of being curative rings.

A poison ring of Venetian workmanship has a richly engraved hoop, the
setting consisting of a pointed diamond on either side of which are two
cabochon-cut rubies. On touching a spring at the side of the bezel holding
the diamond, the upper half, in which the stone is set, springs open,
revealing a space beneath in which a small quantity of poison could be
concealed, enough in the case of the more active poisons to furnish a lethal
dose, either for an enemy or for the wearer of the ring himself in case of
need.[67]
The son of the great Egmont was involved more or less directly in an
unsuccessful plot to poison the Prince of Orange in 1582. It was asserted
that the crime was committed at the would-be assassin’s own table, by
means of a drug concealed in a ring. This story appeared to be confirmed by
the alleged finding in Egmont’s lodgings of a hollow ring filled with poison.
[68]

A writer on poison mysteries describes a possible poison ring in the great
British Museum collection. The bezel has a repository covered by a thin-cut
onyx on which is engraved the head of a horned faun.[69] However, in the
British Museum Catalogue of Rings by O. M. Dalton, the statement is made
that there are no authentic poison rings in the Museum, and that “the mere
possession of a locket-bezel does not suffice to lend romance to a ring
perhaps intended to contain a harmless perfume.”[70]
A golden ring-dial in the British Museum collection is a flat band around
the middle of which runs a channel in which another, movable ring, fits
closely. The month-names are engraved on the band, six above the channel
and six below it. The movable ring has a small hole with a star on one side,
and a hand with index and second fingers extended on the other. Inside, the
numbers of the hours from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. are engraved in two lines, the
hour of noon being beyond them at the point opposite to the ring which
suspends the dial. In using a dial-ring the aperture in the movable ring was
brought in a line with the month in which the observation was taken; this
being done the figure on the inside upon which the sun’s ray would fall
would give the approximate time of day.[71]
Shakespeare provides Touchstone with a dial ring in “As You Like It”
(Act II, sc. 7) where Jaques says:

“Good morrow fool,” quoth I. “No, Sir, quoth he,
Call me not fool, till heaven hath sent me fortune.”
And then he drew a dial from his poke,
And looking on it with lack-lustre eye,
Says, very wisely, “It is ten o’clock.”

A watch-ring of the eighteenth century is in the Franks Bequest
Collection of the British Museum. The oval watch in the bezel is framed
with pearls, on the back of the ring are the initials A.R. As the bezel
measures but nine-tenths of an inch in length, this tiny watch exemplifies
the skill of the watch-makers of the time. The entire ring weighs but 175
grains.[72]
The custom of leaving memorial rings for the friends of the departed had
its origin in the bestowal of more substantial bequests. In fact, these rings
stand in somewhat the same relation to such bequests as does the wedding
ring to the gifts the husband was expected to make to his wife when he
wedded her. In both cases this has been lost sight of, and the intrinsic value
of the objects being slight, only the sentimental value is considered.
An early instance of the bequest of rings is offered in the case of Richard
II (1366–1400), who, by his testament, left a gold ring to each of the nine
executors, five of whom were bishops and four great nobles.[73] In the
seventeenth century one who held, and still holds sway in another realm,
that of literature, conformed to this usage, for in Shakespeare’s will, dated
March 25, 1616, rings were bequeathed to Hamlett Sadler, William
Reynoldes, Anthony Nash and John Nash, his fellow townsmen, as well as
to three actors, Burbage, Heming and Condell, who had the privilege of
“creating” parts in the greatest dramas ever written. The sum of 26s 8d is
appropriated for each of these rings, about $6.50 of our money.
As the fashion became more prevalent, the number of rings provided for
in the wills of well-known persons must have constituted quite a charge
upon their estates. The quaint and delightful Pepys, that close observer and
great gossip who knew all the prominent people of the London of his day,
left directions on his death, in 1703, for the distribution of 123 memorial
rings among his friends. One of the most important events in English
history is believed to have given such a great vogue to this usage.

The death of Charles I on the scaffold, January 30, 1649—his
martyrdom as the royalists called it—created an ineffaceable impression
upon the minds and hearts of those who had taken the king’s side in the
struggle with the parliamentary party. To commemorate this sad event and
to obey the last injunction of the unfortunate monarch, “remember,” a great
number of memorial rings were made, bearing the name and often the
portrait of Charles, and these were worn by the royalists. It appears that this
seemed to make the bestowal of memorial rings a more general custom than
before, as from this time an increased number of such rings appear.
The types of these rings varied considerably in the course of centuries.
Those of the sixteenth century were made of plain gold, or of gold
enamelled with representations of a skeleton, spade and pick, hour-glass, or
similar emblems of death; the inscription was engraved, usually on the
inside of the ring; occasionally the bezel was rounded into the form of a
skull. In the period succeeding the death of Queen Anne (1714), and
extending to about 1774, the fashion gradually changed, and the
inscriptions, instead of being engraved, were in raised letters, thrown into
greater relief by the application of white and black enamel. This style is said
to have been brought from France, and the earliest specimens are presumed
to have been executed by French workmen; an example of this type of ring,
dating from 1717, is in the Crisp Collection. In one such ring the inscription
is enamelled within the hoop. An exceptionally fine specimen of the rings of
this period is that in memory of Richard Pett, who died February 23, 1765,
aged 76 years.[74] This bears an amethyst and four rose diamonds in an
openwork setting. Another innovation during this period is the employment
of white enamel in the case of rings in memory of young maidens; the
earliest example dates from 1726 and was given as a memento of the death,
at fifteen years, of Dorothy Tenison, daughter of the Bishop of Ossory. In
their search for novelty the goldsmiths sometimes had resort to rather
grewsome decorations, and the bezel of some rings has the form of a coffin,
within which lies a skeleton, carefully done in enamel.
The last quarter of the eighteenth century supplies us with some of the
most elaborately designed memorial rings. In many of these the bezel
shows various emblematic figures formed of gold wire, seed pearls, ivory
and enamel; one ring of this type has the inscription: “Heaven has in store
what thou hast lost.” However, hair soon became the favorite material. At

first, a lock of hair from the head of the deceased person was enclosed in
the bezel, no attempt being made to form any pattern; but soon the hair was
spread out over the surface and arranged in the form of a tree; later on,
these rings show us an urn placed beneath the tree, and still later we have in
addition a male or female figure in an attitude of grief, all these being
formed entirely of hair.
A unique ring in the Crisp Collection[75] is a memento of the death of
seven children, the eldest not over nine years, who perished in a fire in
Leadenhall Street, London. This gold and ivory ring bears a design showing
seven cherubs’ heads surrounding the words: “To eternal bliss.” At the back
of the bezel is inscribed: “Translated 18 January 1782.”
As a rule there is little variety in the inscriptions upon memorial rings.
“Memento mori,” and “Not lost but gone before” are most frequent. On the
ring of Princess Amelia, the favorite daughter of George III, who died
November 2, 1810, are the words “Remember me.”[76] There is a touching
story regarding this ring. On her death-bed the princess ordered that it
should be made and had a lock of her hair enclosed in it. As she lay dying
she put the ring on her father’s finger with the words of the inscription. The
loss of this dearly beloved daughter appears to have finally determined the
madness of the unhappy king, for he never recovered his reason after the
event.
Another interesting ring is that dedicated to the memory of the rather
notorious Lord Lovat, who was beheaded in London, April 9, 1747, for
alleged complicity in the Jacobite rising of 1745. This is set with a crystal,
beneath which is some hair between two rose diamonds, and bears Lovat’s
last words, the famous line of Horace, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria
mori.”[77]
The extravagance and tastelessness shown in many of the more elaborate
forms of the memorial ring, have had the natural result of causing a
reversion to the severe simplicity of the earlier types, and a plain, but
massive gold ring, with the words, “To the memory of ——” became the
usual type.

1, memorial ring of Charles I,
concealed portrait beneath a table-cut
diamond. 2, memorial ring with two
skeletons supporting a sarcophagus.
When the lid is raised a minute skeleton
is seen within
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, design for a memorial ring from the
“Recueil des Ouvrages d’Orfevrerie” by
Gilles l’Egaré; early part of reign of
Louis XIV. 2, English memorial ring
converted into a memorial of Charles I
by the following inscription inside the
hoop: “C. R., Jan. 30, 1649, Martyr.” 3,
memorial ring, early part of Eighteenth
Century
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Gold memorial ring of Capt. Robert Jackson, died October 29, 1726, aged
fifty-six years
British Museum

Cameo portrait of Louis XII of
France, cut in a pale ruby. On the gold
plate at the back of the bezel is the
inscription: Loys XIIme Roy de France
deceda 1 Janvier, 1515. Latter part of
Fifteenth or beginning of Sixteenth
Century. Double linear size
C. D. Fortnum’s “Antique Gems and
Jewels in Her Majesty’s Collection at
Windsor Castle”

Nelson memorial ring. Gold ring with
two initial letters: N, beneath a viscount’s
coronet, referring to the title Viscount
Nelson of the Nile; and B, beneath a
ducal coronet, for the title Duke of
Bronté
British Museum

Napoleon memorial ring of gold, said
to be one of six given those concerned in
his escape from Elba in 1815. Portrait
concealed beneath hinged lid
British Museum

Seven Nelson memorial rings were shown at the Royal Naval Exhibition
at Chelsea in 1891; two of these contained some of the hero’s hair, and one
belonged to those distributed among Nelson’s captains and other officers
after his death. Of the two rings enclosing hair, one set with a diamond was
loaned by Messrs. Lambert & Co. and the other by Admiral Sir Arthur
Farquhar, K.C.B.[78] A fine specimen of a Nelson ring is in the British
Museum. The broad, flat hoop expands at the shoulders, and in a raised
oblong bezel are figured a viscount’s coronet and a ducal coronet with N
beneath the former and B beneath the latter, indicating his titles Viscount
Nelson of the Nile and Duke of Bronté. Below the letters is the name
Trafalgar and on the exterior of the hoop appears Nelson’s motto “Palmam
qui meruit ferat” (Let him bear the palm who merits it).
There is historic record of two memorial rings, one set with an emerald
and the other with a sapphire, the gifts of two unhappy royal personages
made shortly before death. The first of these rings was bestowed upon the
great French preacher Bossuet by the Stuart princess Henrietta Anne, who,
on her death-bed, directed that after she had gone to rest there should be
given to Bossuet “the emerald ring she had ordered to be made for him.” Of
the second ring, that set with a sapphire, we learn that shortly before her
execution in 1587, the unfortunate Mary of Scotland took it from her finger
and sent it to her faithful follower, Lord John Hamilton, in whose family it

has since then been passed down from generation to generation as a
priceless heirloom.[79]
Several memorial or mourning rings are among the treasures of the
Figdor Collection in Vienna. One of these is of massive silver and has the
Old French inscription: “dort couat,” (rest in peace); it was found at Huy,
near Statte, Belgium, and represents work of the fifteenth century. Another
is of enamelled gold, and is evidently for a woman’s wear. The inscription
is: “R. C. Not lost but gone before,” in gilt letters on a white enamel
ground. This is an English ring of about 1800. A German ring of the
eighteenth century has its head formed in the shape of a coffin, on which
are skull and cross-bones; on its sides is the inscription: “Hir ist Ruhe,”
(Here is rest). When the lid is lifted, a heart is disclosed in the coffin.[80]
Memento mori rings, bearing a death’s head, were sometimes left as
legacies. Such was the “golde ringe with a deathe’s head” bequeathed by
Thomasin Heath to her sister in 1596, “for a remembrance of my good
will.” Shakespeare wrote in his Love’s Labour’s Lost (Act V, sc. 2) of “a
Death’s face in a ring,” where poor, pedantic Holofernes’ countenance is
made the subject of mockery. A rather unaccountable circumstance is that
such rings are asserted to have been worn, toward the end of the sixteenth
century, by professional “ladies light o’ love,” if we can safely generalize
from a passage in Marston’s “Dutch Courtezan.”[81]
The ruthless executions carried out after the suppression of the last
Jacobite revolt in 1745, are memorialized in a ring of the period. This is of
gold, the inscriptions being defined by a white enamel background. On the
panel-shaped bezel are the letters B. D. L. K., the initials of the Jacobite
lords, Balmerino, Kilmarnock (exec. Aug. 18, 1746), Deruentwater (exec.
Dec. 8, 1746), and Lovat (exec. April 9, 1747), and the dates 8, DEC. 9, AP.
18, AU; in the middle is an axe and the date 1746. The initials of seventeen
of these lords’ followers, executed on Kensington Common in the same
year, are marked on the hoop of the ring.[82]
In the possession of Waldo Lincoln, of Worcester, Mass., is a memorial
ring consisting of a narrow plain gold band. There is faintly discernible on
this a winged head, apparently a skull, similar to the heads of this type
sometimes to be seen sculptured on old gravestones. Around the inner side
of the band runs the following inscription: “Hoble I. Winslow Esqr., ob. 14

Decr. 1738 Æ 68.”[83] This refers to Isaac Winslow, a son of the noted
Josiah Winslow (1629–1680), governor of Plymouth Colony from 1673
until his death, and who was the first native-born governor in New England.
It was during his term of office that the severe contest with the Indians,
known as King Philip’s War, was fought out successfully.
A mourning ring with a strangely materialistic motto is that executed by
order of the Beefsteak Club to commemorate the demise of John Thornhill,
Esq., on September 23, 1757, according to the inscription in white enamel
on the hoop. The bezel is flat and of oval form, enamelled in pale blue and
white; in the centre is shown a gridiron and around this is the legend: “Beef
and Liberty.”[84] The Beefsteak Club, formed early in the eighteenth
century, was Tory in politics, an opponent of the Kit-Cat Club, whose
members were devoted to the success of the Whigs.
Rings as memorials of the dead suggest the mention of a memorial ring
of another kind, one destined to favor the revival of a defunct government.
When Napoleon I was exiled to Elba after the overthrow of his empire and
the restoration of the Bourbons, many of his faithful followers clung to the
hope that he would return and re-establish his rule in France. In order to aid
in keeping this hope alive, a number of rings were made which could be
worn with impunity, but which could also serve when desired as proofs of
the wearers’ attachment to the Napoleonic cause. One of these is described
as a gold ring on which a minute gold and enamel coffin was set; on
pressing a spring at the side of the ring a section of the circlet sprang up and
revealed a tiny figure of Napoleon executed in enamel.[85]
At the English Bar, the usage long existed that certain chosen barristers
should be given the title and superior rank of serjeants. In important cases, a
serjeant was usually retained as principal manager and chief representative
at the trial, and generally made the statement of the case in court, while one
or more ordinary barristers got up the evidence and aided in the
examination of witnesses; no serjeants have been appointed since 1868. As
with almost all the stages of an English law-student’s and barrister’s
progress, heavy expenses had to be born by the new serjeant, as he was
expected not only to give a splendid dinner, or rather a series of dinners
lasting for a week, to all who were closely or distantly related to his
preferment, but to bestow a gold ring upon each one of the numerous

guests, these “serjeant rings” varying in elegance and value according to the
rank of the recipient.
So strictly was this purely traditional custom construed that a close
watch was kept to prevent any cheapening of the quality or intrinsic value
of these obligatory rings. As it had been laid down by a leading authority
that the ring to be given to a chief justice, or “chief baron,” must have the
weight of twenty shillings’ worth of gold, a formal protest was made on one
occasion, when rings weighing a tenth less than this had been bestowed,
not, as Lord Chief Justice Kelynge told the newly appointed serjeants,
because of the money value, but “that it might not be drawn into a
precedent.”[86] The average cost of one of these bestowals of rings has been
estimated at about £40 ($200).
The first definite notice of the bestowal of serjeants’ rings comes from
the later years of Elizabeth’s reign, although the usage is believed to date
back at least as far as the time of Henry VI (1422–1461). The Latin motto
on a ring of Sir John Fineux, called in 1485, is “Suæ quisque fortunæ
faber,” or “Every man is the artizan of his own fortune.” The mottoes
engraved on these rings have varied from reign to reign. One of Elizabeth’s
time bears “Lex regis præsidium” (The Law is the stronghold of the King);
under Charles II the motto was “Adest Carolus magnus” (Charles the Great
is with us). Much more dignified and telling is the motto in James II’s reign,
“Deus, lex, rex” (God, the Law, the King), implying that God is the source
of the law, and that the law is above kings. As to the heavy tax sometimes
imposed upon a new barrister’s pecuniary resources, it is stated that on one
occasion 1409 rings were given at an expense of £773 ($3865). The usage,
though maintained to a considerable extent, became somewhat less
oppressive toward the end of the eighteenth century, but even in 1856 rings
were given, some of them bearing the motto “Cedant arma togæ” (Arms
will give place to the Gown) in allusion to the approaching peace with
Russia after the Crimean War.[87]
About 1830, when popular feeling was roused to the highest pitch by the
agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, many rings were set with the
following stones, the initial letters forming the word “repeal”:

Ruby
Emerald
Pearl
Emerald
Amethyst
Lapis lazuli

An Irishman, who owned such a ring, noted one day that the lapis lazuli
had fallen out, and took the ring to a jeweller in Cork, to have the missing
stone replaced. When the work was completed, the owner, seeing that the
jeweller had set a topaz in place of a lapis lazuli, protested against the
substitution; but the jeweller induced him to accept the ring as it was, by the
witty explanation that it now read “repeat,” and that if the agitation were
often enough repeated, the repeal would come of itself.[88]

Crossed hands of the figure of a woman upon a
mummy case in the British Museum
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Hands from portrait of a woman. School of Cranach
British Museum

Hindu ring jewel combining a ring for each finger and for the thumb, a
large ornament for the back of the hand, and a bracelet
Barth, “Das Geschmeide”

Hands from effigy of Sir Humphrey Stafford’s wife in Bromsgrove
Church, Staffordshire, England. Rings on every finger except on little
finger of right hand. Four of these rings are figured, the full size of the
originals
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Three rings strung on a necklace. Detail of portrait of John
Constans of Saxony
British Museum

Right hand from portrait of Benedict von Hertenstein by Holbein; seal
on index finger
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Hands from Botticini’s “St. Jerome with St. Damasius and other Saints”
National Gallery, London

METHODS OF WEARING

A striking illustration of the large number of rings that some of the
noblewomen of ancient Egypt wore on their fingers is given by the crossed
hands of the wooden image on a mummy case in the British Museum. The
left hand is given a decided preference in this respect over the right, there
being no less than nine rings on the former against but three on the latter.
These left-hand rings comprise one thumb-ring (the signet), three for the
index, two for the middle finger, two for the “ring-finger,” and one for the
little finger. The thumb of the right hand bears a ring and two are on the
middle finger.
In the tomb of a king of the Chersonesus, discovered at Nicopolis in the
Crimea, two rings were on the king’s hand and ten on that of the queen. The
style of workmanship indicated that these rings were productions of the
Greek art of the fourth century b.c.,[89] a period when in the Greek world
rings were usually worn more sparingly, in contrast with the fashion that
prevailed during the latter part of the first Christian century in Rome.
The fine Egyptian collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York City offers an illustration of Egyptian ring wearing at the beginning of
our era. This appears in the mummy-case of Artemidora, daughter of
Harpocradorus, who died in her twenty-seventh year. The wooden case
figures the form of the deceased woman. The index, fourth and little fingers
of the left hand, each bear a ring; the fingers of the right hand have been
broken off. The hands are of stucco and the rings are gilded.
In the Golden Age of Greek gem-engraving, from about 480 b.c. to 400
b.c., the scarab, never used by the Greeks of Asia Minor, came into general
disuse in the Greek world, and a type of ring-stone appeared, destined to
become very popular. In these the engraving was often done on the convex
side of a scaraboid form, the convexity having been much flattened out,
while with the true scarab the flat underside bore the engraved design or
characters. Occasionally ring-stones had been originally pierced for
suspension. The flattened scaraboid marked a transition to the flat ring-
stones; but few, if any, examples of these antedate the beginning of the
fourth century b.c.
One of the theories given by Macrobius to explain the wearing of rings
on the fourth finger, attributes this usage to the desire to guard the precious

setting of the ring from injury. He states that rings were first worn, not for
ornament, but for use as signets, and in the beginning were made
exclusively of metal. However, with the increase of wealth and luxury,
precious stones were engraved and set in the metal ring, and it became
necessary to place such a ring on the best-protected finger. The thumbs
were most constantly used; the index was too exposed; the third finger was
too long, and the little finger too small, while the right hand was much more
frequently used than the left hand. Hence the choice fell upon the fourth
finger of the left hand as the best fitted to receive a precious ring.[90] Pliny
declares that while at first, in the Roman world, the ring was worn on the
fourth finger, as was shown in the statues of the old kings Numa Pompilius
and Servius Tullius, it was later on shifted to the index and finally to the
little finger,[91] this being in accord with our modern custom, for men’s
seal-rings especially.

UPPER PART OF THE MUMMY CASE OF ARTEMIDORA, DAUGHTER OF
HARPOCRADORUS (ABOUT 100 A. D.
She died at the age of twenty-seven. On the fingers of the left hand there are three rings; the
fingers of the right hand are broken off. The rings (which are gilded) as well as the hands
themselves are modeled in relief in stucco
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.

SKETCH KINDLY MADE FOR THE AUTHOR BY SIR CHARLES
HERCULES READ
Curator of the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities and
Ethnography in the British Museum, with his autograph description

Isidore of Seville, in his brief chapters on rings, cites the words spoken
by Gracchus against Mænius, before the Roman Senate, as a proof that the
wearing of many rings was then considered to be unworthy of a man. The
speaker calls upon his hearers to “look upon the left hand of this man to
whose authority we bow, but who with a woman’s vanity, is adorned like a

woman.” The Bishop of Seville also adduces the declaration of Crassus
who, as an explanation for his wearing two rings, although an old man, said
that he did so in the belief that they would further increase his already
immense wealth.[92] Hence he must have thought them endowed with some
magic power.
One explanation of the greater supply of ancient gems of the period
subsequent to the Augustan Age, as compared with those of an earlier date,
has been found in the increasing popularity of ring-wearing. Horace (65–8
b.c.) already considers three rings on the hand as marking the limit of
fashionable wear, but Martial (ab. 40–104 a.d.), writing a century later, tells
of a Roman dandy who wore six rings on each finger. As an instance of the
multiplication of seal-rings, Pliny states[93] that the signet proper had to be
placed for safe-keeping in a special receptacle, which was then stamped
with the impression of another seal, lest some improper use should be made
of the signet, the equivalent of an individual signature.[94]
When the usage of wearing rings set with plain or engraved precious
stones became general in Rome, special caskets were made—many of them
of ivory—to contain the rings and other small jewels. The name
dactyliotheca, “ring-treasury,” was given to such a casket. The first Roman
to own one was Emilius Scaurus, son-in-law of Sylla (138–78 b.c.), who
lived in the early part of the first century before Christ, but for a long time
his example was not followed by the Romans, the next dactyliotheca to be
seen in Rome being that dedicated by Pompey to the Capitol in 61 b.c., out
of the spoils of Mithridates the Great, who owned the most famous gem
collection of his time.[95] In the first century a.d. these ring-caskets came
into general use, and were regarded as indispensable parts of a rich man’s
luxury. This is brought out in one of Martial’s epigrams when, after saying
that Charmius wore six rings on each finger and kept them on at night and
even when he took his bath, he proceeds: “You ask why he does so?
Because he has no dactyliotheca.”[96] This evidently implies that he lacked
one of the elements of Roman “good form” in the fashionable world.
The Latin epigrammatist whose brief, caustic poems are a mine of
information regarding the customs and costumes of the Romans in the
Imperial age, wrote the following couplet, probably designed for an
inscription upon a dactyliotheca, or ring-case:[97]

“Often does the heavy ring slip off the anointed fingers; but if you
confide your jewel to me, it will be safe.”
In the large ring collections of royal treasuries or of wealthy nobles in
mediæval times, the rings with precious-stone settings were often classified
according to the particular stones, and then those of each of these classes
were strung on one or more small sticks or wands (bacula). Among King
John’s (1167–1216) jewels in the Tower of London, an inventory of 1205
lists several such baculæ, one with 26 diamonds, two with 40 and 47
emeralds, respectively, another shorter one with 7 “good” topazes and still
another with 9 turquoises.[98] Jewellers also, were wont to keep their rings
strung on such small rods, an example of this being shown in a portrait
depicting a jeweller, painted by an unknown German artist of the sixteenth
or seventeenth century.
With other royal collections of rings the classified set rings were kept
already in ancient times in dactyliothecæ, or ring-caskets, the term
dactyliotheca coming to be used later more broadly as an equivalent for
“ring collection” or even “gem collection.” In 1272 the Crown Jewels of
Henry III of England included a number of these ring boxes, four of them
for 106 ruby, or balas-ruby rings, two for 38 emerald rings, one for 20
sapphire rings, and another for 11 topaz rings and one set with a peridot.[99]
The following description of a jade (nephrite) ringbox of seventeenth-
century Indian workmanship, in the Heber R. Bishop Collection, is given in
one of the great folios treating of these wonderful jades.[100]
A small covered box of three compartments in the form of three compressed plums
(or similar fruit) held together by the twigs and leaves of a leafy branch which
projects to form a handle, and hollowed out to form a receptacle for finger-rings, studs
or the like. The box proper is decorated underneath with leaves carved in slight relief,
and is flanged on the edges to receive the three upper segments of the fruit which
forms the cover and are similarly decorated on top with plum blossoms and held
together by a twig, a leaf, and an upright bud which serves as a handle. The whole is
very daintily cut and polished, and is so thin and of such translucency that print in
contact with it can easily be read through it. The mineral is remarkably pure and
resembles a pale transparent horn.

While the Greeks and Romans did not usually wear rings on the middle
finger, the Gauls and Britons adorned it in this way. In the sixteenth century
it was customary to assign rings as follows, according to the quality of the
wearer:[101]

To the thumb for doctors.
To the index finger for merchants.
To the middle finger for fools.
To the annular finger for students.
To the auricular finger for lovers.

There is a curious Hindu superstition to the effect that anyone who wears
a ring on the middle finger will probably be attacked and bitten by a
scorpion. For this reason the Hindus are said to avoid wearing any rings on
this finger, although the others are laden with them, each finger-joint having
its special adornment.[102] In the Græco-Roman world also there was a
prejudice against decorating the middle finger with a ring.
Regarding the liberality with which the Greeks and Romans of the
second century of our era used ring adornments for their fingers, the great
Greek humorist Lucian gives testimony. In his writing entitled “The Cock,”
he makes a character relate a dream in which the dreamer thought that a
rich man had just died and had left him his fortune. Thereupon, in his
dream, he saw himself arrayed in splendid raiment and wearing sixteen
rings on his fingers.[103]
Of the affectations practiced in ring wearing by some nouveau-riches
foreigners in Roman times, Juvenal says: When one sees an Egyptian
plebeian, not long before a slave in Canopus, carelessly throwing back over
his shoulder a mantle of Tyrian purple, and seeking to cool his perspiring
fingers by wearing summer-rings of openwork gold, as he cannot bear the
weight of gemmed rings, how can one fail to write it down in a satire?[104]
Indeed, to judge from the weight and size of some of the rings that have
been preserved from ancient times, this practice was not quite so foolish as
it may seem, for in the moist heat of the dog-day in Rome such heavy rings
may well have been a burden. With the Roman ladies rings bearing images
of the animals worshipped by the Egyptians came into fashion in Imperial
times, favored no doubt by the enthusiastic worship of Isis and Serapis.
Such rings are said to have been worn almost exclusively by women up to
the reign of Vespasian, when men began to wear them also.[105]
In ancient Rome it was not unusual for the admirer of a philosopher or a
poet to wear his portrait engraved on a ring-stone. One of the elegies of
Ovid[106] (b. 43 b.c.), written during his banishment from Rome, by order of

Augustus, alludes feelingly to this custom. The poem is addressed to a
faithful friend, who wears the poet’s portrait in his ring, and Ovid says: “In
casting your eye upon this, perhaps you sometimes say, ‘how far away is
poor Ovid now!’” He died in exile in 18 a.d.
So huge were the proportions of the Roman emperor Maximinus (d. 238
a.d.), who rose from the ranks to the imperial dignity, that he is said to have
used his wife’s bracelet for a thumb-ring.[107] The great size of some of the
Roman rings to be seen in collections indicates that they could only have
been worn on the thumb.
One of the fingers of a bronze statue in the British Museum, a Roman
work of the third or fourth century, a.d., has a ring on its second joint. We
are fortunate enough to be able to reproduce here a full-size drawing of this,
courteously made for the present book by Sir Charles Hercules Read,
Curator of the Department of British and Mediæval Antiquities and
Ethnography in the Museum.
In a letter to M. Deloche, the German archæologist Lindenschmit states
that in only one instance was he able to ascertain definitely on which finger
the rings of the early mediæval period were worn. This concerned a female
skeleton, exceptionally well preserved, owing to favorable conditions of
sepulture; on the fourth finger of the right hand there was a bronze ring.
This sepulchre was found at Obermorlen, in Hessen-Darmstadt. Researches
in France have furnished confirmation of this. In the Merovingian cemetery
of Yeulle (dept. Pas-de-Calais) a woman’s ring was found on the right hand
of the skeleton, as was also the case with two rings in the Visigothic and
Merovingian cemetery at Herpes (dept. Charente), and this proved to be the
case with almost all the early medieval rings found in this region. On the
contrary, M. Albert Béquet, Curator of the Archæological Museum of
Namur, and the French archæologist, M. L. Pilloy, report the discovery of
rings placed upon the left hand. As a possible explanation of these
contradictory results, the opinion has been advanced that the rings on the
right hand were wedding rings, and those on the left, rings worn for
ornament, as there is good evidence that at an early period among the Gauls
the betrothal ring was put on the right hand, not on the left.[108]
The portrait by Coello of Maria of Austria, daughter of Charles V of
Germany, shows on the fourth finger of the left hand a ring set with a large

table-cut stone, which may be a ruby, or else a rather dark-hued spinel. The
right hand is gloved, the parts of the glove covering the index and fourth
fingers having slits so as to give space for the rings on those fingers. There
is an elaborate girdle of table-cut stones, a richly worked cross with three
pendent pear-shaped pearls is suspended from a gauze scarf about the neck,
splendid pearl earrings hang from the ears, and the coiffure is surmounted
by a head ornament set with precious stones and pearls.
In a three-quarter length portrait of Henry VIII, painted by Hans Holbein
in 1540, when the king was in his forty-sixth year, he is represented
wearing three rings on his hands, two of these, set with square-cut stones,
are on the index fingers of the right and left hand, respectively. The third
and smaller ring, also set with a square-cut stone, is on the little finger of
the king’s left hand. There is an intentional harmony in the jewelling, for
stones of the same form, alternating with pearls, adorn the collar suspended
from Henry’s neck and serve also as decoration for the sleeve-guards. This
portrait is in the Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica, Rome.
Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and
afterwards Queen of England (1553–1558), is portrayed in a painting in the
University Galleries, Oxford, by an unknown artist, as wearing, in addition
to many fine pearls both round and pear-shaped, three rings, one on the
index, another on the middle finger, and the third on the fourth finger of the
left hand. That on the middle finger is set with a pearl, and the ring-
adornment of this finger is quite worthy of note because of the comparative
rarity of this setting.
A large pear-shaped pearl, figured on a portrait of “Bloody Mary,” was
given to her by Philip of Spain, who afterward took it back to Spain with
him. It later came into the possession of Jerome Bonaparte, who gave it to
Queen Hortense. She gave it to the young prince, who later became
Napoleon III, and he, in turn, disposed of it to the Duke of Abercorn, in
whose possession it now remains. Allison V. Armour, Esq., to whom it was
shown in Ireland by the Duke, at the time of an expected visit from King
Edward, told the author it was very interesting to note that it had apparently
preserved all its original lustre.

PORTRAIT OF A LADY, BY ANTON VAN DYKE (1599–1641)
The thumb ring on the right hand, and the ring on the index of the left
hand, are both set with square-cut stones, the last-named probably a ruby
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Marquand Gift, 1888

PRINCESS HATZFELD, BY ANTONIO PESARO (1684–1757)
Large pearl cluster on little finger of right hand
Catholina Lambert Collection sold at American Art Galleries, New
York, February, 1916]

The adornment with a ring of the second phalanx of the right-hand
middle finger, appears in the fine portrait, said to be that of Mary Stuart, in
the Prado Gallery, Madrid; the little finger of the same hand shows a stone-
set ring, worn as usual. Over the elaborately embroidered bodice hangs a
neck-ornament, at the different sections of which are groups of three pearls,

and there are pearl earrings in the ears, as well as groups of pearls in the
head-ornament. The portrait is listed as a production of the French School,
but is of doubtful authenticity as a likeness of the unhappy queen.
The Italian fashion of ring-wearing in the sixteenth century is illustrated
by the portrait of a noblewoman by Lorenzo Lotto, in the Galleria Carrara
at Bergamo, Italy. On the right hand are two rings, on the fourth and little
finger respectively; the left hand bears three, one on the index, apparently
set with an engraved gem, and two on the fourth finger, the larger of which
seems to have as setting a pointed diamond, while the smaller one, possibly
bearing a little facetted diamond, is on the second phalanx of the finger, a
fashion sometimes followed instead of wearing the two rings together, one
directly over the other, on the third phalanx.
A fine example of a pearl-cluster ring is to be seen in the portrait of
Princess Hatzfeldt by the artist Antonio Pesaro (1684–1757). The ring, worn
on the little finger, has a large centre-pearl surrounded by five smaller ones,
the whole constituting a rather inconveniently large jewel, although
unquestionably a very beautiful one. It appears to be the only ring worn by
the fair princess when posing for her portrait.
Finger rings were sometimes worn suspended from the neck, usually
strung on a chain. This custom is testified to by several old portraits, among
them by one of the Elector John Constans of Saxony, in the Collection of
Prince George of Saxony, Dresden, and also in several of Lucas Cranach’s
portraits. In one of the latter, depicting an elderly and hard-featured Dutch
lady, eight rings are to be seen strung on a chain or band below the collar.
As the sitter’s hands are adorned with five rings, her object may rather have
been to display all her choicest rings, than to wear them as amulets,
although this superstitious use is generally believed to be the true
explanation of wearing finger-rings suspended from the neck. Sometimes a
single ring was hung from the neck on a long string, and rings were
occasionally worn attached to a hat or cap, as shown in the portrait of
Bernhard IV, Margrave of Baden (1474–1536), by Hans Baldung Grien, in
the Pinakothek, Munich.[109]
The painting of hands adorned with one or more rings, was not favored
by several of the portraitists of the seventeenth century. Few if any rings,
for example, can be found on the delicately shaped hands of any of Sir Peter

Lyly’s beauties, hands undoubtedly lacking in individuality and conforming
to a preconceived type. Vandyke’s usage in this respect varied, probably,
with the taste of the respective sitters, although the frequent absence of
rings might lead to the inference that he did not favor them in portraits. The
great masters of the sixteenth century certainly gave no evidence of any
such prejudice, their realism and their fondness for rich ornament and color
causing them to adorn the hands of their subjects, both men and women,
with valuable and finely wrought rings. With eighteenth century painters,
the tendency to discard rings was very pronounced, as indicated by their
sparing appearance in portraits of this period.
It may be interesting to note the distribution of the rings in seventeen
portraits of the Blakeslee Collection, disposed of in New York City, March,
1916, and representing a kind of average for the period from the latter part
of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century:
Right Hand Left Hand
Index finger, 7 Index finger, 4
Middle finger, 1 Middle finger, 0
Fourth finger, 7 Fourth finger, 7
Little finger, 1 Little finger, 6

Thus the index and fourth fingers of the right hand and the fourth and
little fingers of the left hand are almost equally favored.
An oil-portrait of the Mahârânî of Sikkim, painted in 1908 by Damodar
Dutt, a Bengali artist, shows this queen decked out with all her favorite
jewel adornments; among them are two gold rings, one set with a turquoise
and the other with a coral, on the middle and fourth fingers of the left hand
(see Frontispiece). The right hand is concealed in a fold of her mantle, but
had there been any rings on it, it would probably have been displayed, to
judge from the variety of the ornaments she was pleased to wear at the
sittings. She is a full-blooded Tibetan princess, was born in 1864, and
became the second wife of the King of Sikkim in 1882, so that she was
forty-four years old when the portrait was painted. At this time she and her
husband had been held in captivity by the British since 1893. The singular
crown is the one adopted by the queens of Sikkim. It is composed of broad
bandeaux of pearl, turquoise and coral; the gold earrings are inlaid with
turquoise in concentric rings; the necklace has large amber balls, and

suspended from it is a gau or charm-box, set with rubies, lapis lazuli and
turquoise; on the wrist is a triple bracelet of corals.[110]
In the opinion of J. Alden Wier, President of the Academy of Design,
New York City, rings can scarcely be regarded as in any sense important
accessories of a good portrait, as this does not depend upon the elaboration
of such detail. With Popes and Doges, and with some of the higher
ecclesiastics, however, rings are significant as insignia of office, and are
therefore depicted as marks of individuality.[111]
A fifteenth century example of a thumb ring was found in England at
Saxon’s Lode, a little south of Upton. The material was of silver, either
considerably alloyed, or else plated with a baser metal. In seventeenth
century times in England the wearing of such rings was favored by many of
the richer, or more prominent citizens, so that they served to differentiate
the wearer from those less well-to-do, although he might not have the right
to a crest or coat-of-arms. A character in one of the Lord Mayor’s shows
given in the reign of Charles II (1664), is described as “habited like a grave
citizen,—gold girdle and gloves hung thereon, rings on his fingers, and a
seal ring on his thumb,” like Falstaff’s alderman.[112]

Two wire rings from a tumulus near
Canterbury, Kent, England, one with a bezel
effect
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Two Anglo-Saxon rings found near Preston,
Lancashire, England, in 1840
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Silver thumb ring found at
Saxon’s Lode, England.
“Fifteenth Century
Archæologia,” vol. iii, p. 268]

Silver-gilt ring, with broad,
flat hoop, and rectangular bezel
set with a carbuncle
British Museum

Ring of mixed metal set with
engraved stone showing a
monkey looking into a mirror
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, thumb-ring; two cockatrices engraved in
relief on agate. 2, ring set with Gnostic gem
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Two gold rings. 1, with high circular bezel;
Frankish (?); Sixth or Seventh Century; 2, with
pyramidal bezel; Lombardic (?); Seventh Century
British Museum

Agate ring with a Runic
inscription. Late Saxon
British Museum

Massive gold ring with two bezels, one
engraved with circular design of interlacing
curves, the other with three interlaced triangles.
Late Saxon
British Museum

Even native African potentates could boast of fine jewelled rings in the
seventeenth century. When an embassy of Hollanders came to visit the
christianized King of the Congo in 1642, and were ushered into his
presence, they found him vested in a coat and drawers of gold-cloth, and
adorned with three heavy gold chains. On his right thumb was “a very large
Granate or Ruby Ring, and on his left hand two great Emeralds.”[113] The
red stone was almost certainly a large cabochon-cut garnet, and it is very
doubtful that the green stones were genuine emeralds.

Under the strict discipline of the Catholic rulers of Poland the wearing of
rings was for a long time forbidden to the Jews. This restriction was
removed in the reign of Sigismund Augustus (1506–1548), but the
permissive decree required that a Jewish ring must bear the distinguishing
inscription “Sabbation,” or “Jerusalem.” The Jews themselves sometimes
enacted rigid sumptuary laws as to rings, for instance in Bologna, where a
convocation of rabbis decided that men should be confined to one ring,
while women were not to be allowed to wear more than three.[114] At a later
period a Frankfort convocation decreed that no young girl should be
permitted to wear a ring. Not improbably the natural fondness of the
Hebrew women for rich jewels, a fondness already emphasized by the
prophet Isaiah (chap. iii, vs. 16–26) in the case of the Daughters of
Jerusalem in the eighth century b.c., may have led to an excessive use of
fine rings. Indeed any strict sumptuary regulation always implies the
existence of an undue degree of luxury in the usages that are subjected to
legal restraint.
A unique collection of ring stones may be seen in the American Museum
of Natural History, New York. These are oval, domed stones, about one inch
long, and are all cut so as to fit a single setting. They were gathered together
by an old gentleman in the seventeenth century, so that without changing
the gold ring to which he was accustomed, he could vary the color of the
precious stones, thus bringing them into harmony with that of the waistcoat
he was wearing. As there are two hundred and forty of these specially-cut
stones, the waistcoats must have represented the whole gamut of colors and
shades. A few of the stones are capped with a different gem. This collection
was presented to the Museum in January, 1873, by the late Samuel P. Avery,
Esq.
There is also in the Museum a remarkable collection of rings begun in
the eighteenth century by a Viennese imperial and royal jeweller named
Türk, and continued by his grandson up to 1860. It was later acquired by J.
Pierpont Morgan, Esq. The settings of the seventy rings comprise a variety
of colored diamonds, as well as emeralds, sapphires, and a number of
uncommon stones.

II

FORMS OF RINGS AND MATERIALS OF WHICH THEY ARE MADE

A
mong ancient gold rings, one of Egyptian workmanship is especially
noteworthy for its size and weight as well as for its design. It is ½ inch
in its largest diameter, and bears an oblong plinth, which turns on a
pivot; it measures 6/10 inch at its greatest, and 4/10 inch at its least breadth.
On one of the four faces is the name of the successor of Amenhotep III,
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who lived about 1400 b.c.; on another is
figured a lion, with the inscription “lord of strength”; the two remaining
sides show a scorpion and a crocodile respectively. The weight of this
massive ring is stated to be about five ounces and its intrinsic gold value
nearly a hundred dollars.[115]
Some remarkably fine finger-rings were among the ornaments found by
Ferlini, an Italian physician, when he unearthed the treasure of one of the
queens of Meroë. These rings are now in the Berlin Royal Museum. Some
of them are plain hoops to which movable plates are attached; others are
signet rings. In a few specimens of the first-named class the plate is so large
as to extend over three fingers, the inconvenience to which this could give
rise being partly obviated by joints in the plate, so that the fingers might be
moved with greater facility. We hardly think that a design of this type is
ever likely to become popular in our times.
Scarabs strung on wire so as to be worn on the finger were found at
Dahshur by De Morgan. These belonged to the Twelfth Dynasty, to the time
from Usertasen III to Amenemhat III (ab. 2660–2578 b.c.). Stronger wire
was used at a later time, the ends being thrust into perforations on the sides
of the scarabs. In all these cases the scarab and the circlet, more or less well
formed, were separate parts loosely put together. It was not until the Golden
Age of the ancient Egyptian civilization that complete metal rings were
made, in which both circlet and chaton formed one piece. Rings of the
Egyptian type, although strongly modified by Ionic or Phœnician art, were
introduced into Etruria at a very early period, and probably thence into
Latium.[116] At an even earlier date, at least 1200 b.c., scarab rings were

worn in Cyprus, several examples having been found in sepulchres there,
the scarab being made of porcelain strung on a gold-wire hoop.
The ancient rings in the British Museum offer examples of nearly all the
different types favored in early times.[117] Some, from the Mycenæan
period, exhibit a long shield-shaped bezel, convex above and concave
beneath, across the direction of the hoop; others have a flat band decorated
with plaited or twisted wire on which is set a bezel holding a paste.
Phœnician rings of the period from 700 to 500 b.c. present a variety of
forms, some being swivel rings, the extremities of the rounded hoops
passing into beads, in which are inserted the pivots of a scarab-setting;
another type has elliptical hoops, either plain or ornamental, the scarab
being in a filigree-decorated bezel; in still another, the lower part of the
hoop is twisted into a loop, so that the ring can be worn suspended; there
are also some plain, flat or rounded hoops, sometimes with the ends
overlapping.
The Greek and Hellenistic periods, from the sixth to the second century
b.c., furnish a large variety of forms, some copied or adapted from earlier
ones and then independently developed. A rounded hoop tapering upward,
with ornamental extremities, occasionally appears in fine examples, the
ends of the hoop representing the lions’ masks; the bezels are frequently of
oval shape, and the shoulders of the hoop are often nearly straight; in
another type while the outside of the hoop is rounded, the inside is facetted;
sometimes there is a high convex bezel, bevelled underneath. There are still
a few swivel rings with scaraboids. In the Hellenistic period appear massive
gold rings with square-cut shoulders and raised oval settings, in which a
convex stone is placed. Still another type is an expanding hoop formed of
two overlapping ribbons and with a convex bezel.
Etruscan rings assume various characteristic and peculiar forms, many of
which are found among the Roman rings of a later period, indicating the
derivation from the Etruscans of ring-wearing among the Romans. One of
these in the British Museum has a broad hoop ending in convex shields, a
scarab being pivoted in the terminals; in others, the hoop is hollow,
terminating in cylindrical ornaments, between these a scarab revolves on a
wire swivel. A peculiar example has a grooved hoop, the ends being convex
disks, in which is pivoted a scarab. One of these Etruscan rings has a very

large convex oval bezel, around the slope of which run a series of embossed
figures.
As an example of Roman art found in Egypt, we have a spiral ring of
serpent form, either extremity terminating in a bust, of Isis and Serapis
respectively. The conjecture has been made that this ring, and others of the
type, may have been intended to figure the reigning emperor and empress of
Rome under the types of Isis and of Serapis, the latter a Græco-Egyptian
divinity as worshipped in Alexandria and in the Roman world, though
having a distinctly Egyptian form in the national pantheon as Asar-Hapi, or
Osiris-Apis. The rings of the type described have the advantage of being
easily adapted to a finger of any size, since pressure at both extremities
would enlarge the girth of the single spiral.[118]
In his Etymologiæ, Isidore of Seville defines three of the types of rings
worn in ancient times, the ungulus, the Samothracius and the thynnius.[119]
The ungulus was set with a gem and owed its designation to the fancy that
the stone was as closely attached to the gold of the ring as a human nail
(ungulus) was to the flesh of the finger. The Samothracian ring was of gold,
but had an iron setting. Lucretius in the sixth book of his great philosophic
and scientific poem, “De Natura Rerum,” in speaking of the magnet to
which he attributes negative and positive powers, of repulsion and of
attraction, relates that when, in an experiment, Samothracian rings were
placed in a brazen dish beneath which a piece of magnetic iron was moved
to and fro, he had seen the rings leap up, as though to flee from an enemy.
The third type of ring was the thynnius, the name indicating, according to
Isidore, that it was made in Bithynia, called at an earlier time, Thynna.
Horace writes, in one of his odes, of rings “chased by a Thynnian graver.”
Of the key-shaped rings, several specimens of which have been
preserved from Roman times, it has been suggested that the key projection
was intended to serve as a guard for an exceptionally long finger-nail,
similar to the finger-guards the Chinese wear for a like purpose. The fact
that many of these key-rings are evidently too large to have been worn on
the finger, makes it not improbable that the ring form was arbitrarily
chosen, and that they may have been carried suspended from a girdle. Some
of them, however, might have fitted on a very stout thumb, and a few of the
rings of this type do not exceed the ordinary finger-ring in diameter.[120]

One of the large and unwieldly Roman rings, or at least a ring made on
this model, bears a bust said to be that of Plotina, the wife of Trajan. This
was in the collection of Monsignor Piccolomini. The extraordinarily
elaborate coiffure shows three rows of facetted gems, and this alone may be
considered to testify against the antiquity of the ring. Still, even as a
production of the Renaissance period, the fact that it at least figures an
ancient form makes it an object of interest and of a certain archæological
value.[121]
It was in the late Republican, and especially in the Imperial age in Rome,
that the greatest variety of ring forms were produced, originally influenced
by the earlier Etruscan art, and later largely by the extraordinary eclectic art
of Alexandria, where the combination of Egyptian, Oriental and Greek
elements brought forth many peculiar forms, some of which are noted
elsewhere. A Romano-Egyptian ring has a flat hoop, sub-angular on the
outside, the large circular bezel being engraved with three figures of
divinities. Then there are the composite rings, sometimes having as many as
four hoops, joined together at the back of the bezel. A striking type is the
penannular ring in the form of a coiled serpent, or else having at each
extremity the head of a serpent. In another form the bezel is lozenge-
shaped.
There are also massive rings with an elliptical hoop and thick projecting
shoulders, the setting being depressed; sometimes the shoulders slope
sharply up to the bezel, forming a decided angle on the hoop. Hoops
polygonal on the outside and circular within also occur. Some twin rings
were made adapted to fit on two fingers of the hand; in one of these are
three cup settings holding garnets, one on the top of each hoop and one
between the hoops. In some instances the hoops of these twin rings were
not closely joined to each other, but connected by a short gold chain, so that
the rings could either be worn on a single finger, or on two fingers.

Gold ring with plain hoop on
which is freely looped a little
mouse wrought in gold and
white enamel. It slips around the
hoop. About 1600
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

Gold ring of Venetian
workmanship. The ends of the
hoop form monsters’ heads,
supporting a bezel formed like
the petal of a flower. XIV Cent.
British Museum

HAND OF A JEWELER, HOLDING A
BACULA WITH FIVE RINGS
British Museum

Gold ring set with an
amethyst. Found at Lorsch,
Grand Duchy of Hesse-
Darmstadt, and hence called the
“Lorscher Ring.” German; end
of Tenth or beginning of
Eleventh Century.
Grossherzoglich-Hessisches
Museum, Darmstadt

Silver ring having projecting
bezel in form of a spur with
revolving rowel. Italian (?),
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century
British Museum

“Regard ring,” with seven
hoops. The initials of the six
stones spell the word “regard”
British Museum

Rings of modern Egyptian type. 1, woman’s ring; hoop
of twisted gold; 2, man’s ring made by silversmith of
Mecca, with stone setting; 3, cast silver ring; stone
setting; with guards
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Pipe stopper ring. A silver ring on
which are set three Indian, rose-cut
zircons. This ring was placed on the
finger and the tobacco in the bowl of the
pipe was pressed down with it. French;
about 1750. A similar ring was figured by
Hogarth in one of his illustrations
Field Museum, Chicago

Many of the hoops of the later Roman rings were elaborately decorated,
either in openwork, with spirals in wire, or with beads on the shoulders; this
latter type is, however, more probably of Merovingian times. A Roman
polygonal hoop, with a high-set bezel, has on the side of this loops for
carrying a string of pearls suspended from the ring. In one of the rings
specially designed for insetting with engraved gems, the hoop, rounded on
the outer side, has shoulders ending in curling leaves. A curious specimen is
a plain hoop broadening in an oval bezel; in this has been inserted an

intaglio head in sard, the shape of the stone following the exact outline of
the head, without any margin.
A Burgundian ring of a form that M. Deloche believes to be unique, has
an open hoop. At one extremity is a nail-shaped attachment which can be
passed through the other extremity, thus closing the ring. A bronze ring, also
Burgundian, of a rare or unique type has at the bezel a high, oblong
projection. Both these rings are of the Merovingian period which closed in
752 a.d.[122]
In no period were a greater number of ring forms produced than in the
Middle Ages. The major part of these mediæval rings were made as insignia
of office or rank, for sealing official documents, or for ceremonial use. One
of the earliest is that known as the Lorscher Ring.[123] It is considered to
belong to the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh century, and
to be a product of German workmanship under the influence of the
Byzantine art of the Merovingian period. The artistic and finely executed
design of the bezel is especially worthy of admiration. The stone set therein
is a light-colored amethyst cut en cabochon and without foil. This ring is
now in the Grossherzoglich-Hessisches Museum in Darmstadt.
The Besborough Collection of Gems, shown in June, 1861, by the
Archæological Institute of London, was interesting for the high artistic
excellence of the rings in which many of the gems were set. A number of
them rank among the finest examples of Renaissance work in this direction.
One, set with a sard in which a head of Lucilla has been engraved, shows,
carved in flat relief on the gold hoop, two nude figures bearing in their
hands torches, the design continuing completely around the hoop; about the
figures are doves and flowers. This beautiful specimen of goldsmiths’ work
belongs to the first half of the sixteenth century. The pose of the small
figures has been wonderfully adapted to the curve of the ring.[124]
To a special class has been given the name “iconographic rings,” this
designates those bearing, either on the bezel or the sides, images of the
Virgin and Child or of the saints. These rings, which date from a period
running from 1390 to about 1520, are peculiar to England and Scotland.
The material is either gold or silver, those of the latter metal showing much
ruder workmanship than was devoted to the gold rings.[125]

What must have been regarded in its time as an exceptionally ornate ring
is listed in an inventory of 1416. It is described as a gold ring having a
helmet and a shield made of a sapphire, the shield bearing the arms of
“Monseigneur.” As supports of the shield were an emerald bear and a swan
made of a white chalcedony.[126]
An ornate though tasteless type of Italian rings were those called
“giardinetti,” showing flower baskets, jardiniêres, or nosegays, the flowers
being figured by precious stones and pearls, with stems and leaves of gold.
As the aim was purely decorative, the stones and pearls were usually small
and inexpensive ones. Very few such rings have been made in recent times,
but from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century they were much favored
and a number of fine specimens have been preserved from that period.[127]
A ring-setting consisting of a turquoise surrounded by small diamonds
appears to have been favored in England in the seventeenth century, for
Samuel Pepys in his “Diary,” under date of February 18, 1668, writes that
he had been shown a “ring of a Turkey-stone, set with little sparks of
diamonds.”
A “Trinity Ring,” that is a ring consisting of three intertwined circlets,
was shown in February, 1857, to the Society of Antiquaries in London by
Mr. Octavius Morgan. This specimen, carved, or turned out of a circular
band of ivory, was believed to be one of three executed by the German
ivory carver, Stephan Zick (1639–1715), who is said to have been the first
to make a ring of this type out of ivory, although they may have been made
of gold—no exceptionally difficult task—before Zick executed his ivory
rings.[128] This ring, or one similar to it, is now in the British Museum,
Franks Bequest.
While the rings of the Louis Quinze period were generally of delicate
and beautiful form, the tendency to exaggeration in fashions that
characterized the succeeding Louis Seize period found expression in rings
of disproportionate size. At the same time both the number of rings in a fine
lady’s jewel casket, and the number she would wear at the same time upon
her hand, greatly increased over what was customary in the preceding reign.
Thus Bachaument, in his “Mémoires Secrets,” states that at the sale of Mlle.
de Beauvoisin’s jewels, which took place November 22, 1784, there were
200 rings rivalling one another in magnificence. Another French author of

this time, M. Mercier, wrote in 1782 “when one takes the hand of a pretty
woman, one only has the sensation of holding a quantity of rings and
angular stones, and it would be necessary first to strip these off the hand
before we could perceive its form and delicacy.”
The enthusiasm of the early days of the Revolution brought into vogue
rings set with a little fragment of the stone-work of the recently demolished
Bastille; at the same time wedding-rings were enamelled in red, white and
blue, the new Republican colors. At the outset the young royalists, as a
protest, wore rings of tortoise-shell, with the motto, Domine salvum fac
regem, “God save the King.”
A type of ring that became popular during the darkest days of the French
Revolution, the period of the dreadful Reign of Terror, was that of a large
silver hoop with a plain gold bezel on which was graven the head of some
one of the leading spirits of the time, such as Marat, De Chalier, or De
Lepelletier St.-Fargeau.
There are several significant French proverbs regarding rings, of which
we may here note the following: “Ne mets pas ton doigt en anneau trop
étroit” (Do not put your finger in too small a ring); “Anneau en main,
honneur vain” (A ring on the finger is an empty honor); “Bague d’amie
porte envie” (The ring of a lady friend arouses envy).
Portrait rings were very popular at the time of the French Revolution, as
they afforded an opportunity for the expression of the ardent devotion to
particular personalities characteristic of that troublous period. Many
Washington rings and Robespierre rings were to be seen, bearing the
enamelled portrait of the respective hero, but the most popular were the
Franklin rings, for Franklin’s personal influence, born of his sterling
qualities of insight and common sense, and perhaps strengthened by the
contrast of his cool-headedness with the feverish excitement of the Paris of
that time, was wide and far-reaching.
Hindu tradition tells of the wearing of rings in India in very ancient
times. The earliest forms used by the Brahmans in their forest life, were
woven of kusa-grass (Saccharum spontaneum), and even in our time rings
of this kind are worn by those assisting at a religious ceremony, as
otherwise the water offered to gods or to the spirits of ancestors will not be

accepted. As to metal rings, Hindu law assigns those of gold to the index
finger and silver rings to the fourth finger.
A story related in the Hindu epic “Mahabharata” alludes to a trick or
magic practice with rings, denominated ishika. A ring was thrown into a
deep well and then recovered in some mysterious way after it had seemed to
be irrevocably lost. The “Mahabharata” in its present form may date from
about 500 a.d. The other great Hindu epic, the Ramayana of Valmiki,
written perhaps as early as 500 B.C. even mentions engraved rings. When
Sita, wife of Rama, the hero of the poem, is abducted by Rávana, the ten-
headed Cinghalese giant, Rama sends a monkey called Hanumán to seek for
her, giving him a seal ring as a token. As soon as the monkey succeeds in
finding Sita, he approaches her holding out the ring and saying, “Gracious
Lady, I am the messenger of Rama. Look, here is his ring engraved with his
name.”
In Sanskrit books the following types and kinds of rings are mentioned:
[129]

Dwi-hirak (double diamond).—Rings with a diamond on either side and a sapphire
in the centre.
Vajra (diamond, thunderbolt).—A triangular finger ornament, with a diamond in
the centre and other stones on the sides.
Ravimandal.—A ring with diamonds on the sides and other stones in the middle.
Nandyávarrta.—A four-sided finger ornament studded with precious stones.
Nava-ratna or Navagraha.—A ring on which the nine most precious stones have
been set. The nine precious stones in Sanskrit are called: Hirak, Nánikya, Baiduryya,
Muktá, Gomed, Bidrum or Prabál, Marakata, Pushpa-rág, and Indranil; or the
Diamond, Ruby, Cat’s-eye, Pearl, Zircon, Coral, Emerald, Topaz, and Sapphire.
Bajra-beshtak.—Ring of which the upper circumference is set with diamonds.
Trihirak (triple diamond).—Ring with two small diamonds on the sides and a big
one in the centre.
Sukti-mudriká.—Ring made like the hood of a cobra snake, with diamonds and
precious stones on the upper surface.
Mudrá or Anguli-mudrá.—Ring with name engraved upon it.
These are some of the principal names for finger rings in modern India:
Angushtri.—A ring set with stones, called also Mundri or Anguthi.
Chhallá.—The chhallá is a quite plain hoop or whole hoop ring (with or without
stones), being gold or silver, but the same all round. Worn also on the toes.
Angushtárá or Anguthá.—A big ring with a broad face, worn on the great toe.

Khari panjángla.—A set of finger rings of ordinary shape.
Sháhálami or Khári.—A ring of long oval shape.
Birhamgand.—A broad ring.
In Bombay, the local designations for finger rings are: Angthi, Salle, Mohorechi
Angthi and Khadyachya angthya; toe-rings are named: Ranajodvi, Jodvi, Phule, Gend,
and Masolia.[130]

Oriental gold ring, large
globular bezel with leaves and
flowers in openwork. Said to
have belonged to Chief Samory
British Museum

Oriental rings. 1, of cast silver; 2, of brass; 3, of silver;
4–6, Moorish rings; 4, set with turquoise and rubies; 5,
with octagonal bloodstone and turquoise; 6, signet-ring
bearing name of owner on a carnelian
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, ring with pendent garnets; 2, silver ring. East Indian.
The loose-hung silver drops jingle as the hand moves
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Elaborate East Indian ring, with figure of Buddha. Hoop of
peculiar shape to keep the ring from falling off the finger
Courtesy of Miss Helen Bainbridge

Rings made by Siamese Bonza, or Priest, from metal lying
about among the idols at Ongchor, Old Cambodia, in 1871
Courtesy of Mr. Walter C. Wyman

Rings, necklaces, armlets and Sirpech (or tiaras) are made at Bikánir,
and exquisitely light and fine rings of gold and silver are produced at Jhánsi
in the Gwalior territory. An unusual form of ring ornamentation appears in a
silver ring of Indian workmanship, dated in the fourteenth or fifteenth
century. This has a projecting bezel in the form of a spur, with a revolving
swivel. A ring of similar design, believed to be Venetian, now in the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, was brought from Chalis.[131]

The rings made by the Hindu goldsmiths are in many cases very
elaborately chased and ornamented, in the ornate style characteristic of
Indian jewellery. The women of the Deccan almost universally wear rings;
they are usually of gold, a silver ring being looked upon as showing
meanness on the part of the wearer. There does not appear to be any
preference of one finger over the other for decoration with rings. One of the
most attractive types is a closely-fitting ring to which is affixed a little
mirror, about the size of a silver quarter-dollar; this may be mounted either
in gold or silver, and undoubtedly Hindu female vanity finds this thumb
mirror of some practical use. With its rich ornamentation a ring of this kind
is in itself a pretty jewel, but would hardly suit Occidental taste on account
of its size and the inconvenience of wearing it. A rather singular fact is that
mirror-rings are sometimes worn on the great toe, where they would seem
to be quite useless; but it has been suggested that as the Hindu women of
the better class commonly have their feet nearly or quite bare when in their
apartments, and have acquired the power to move and use their feet much
more freely than is the case with Occidentals, a toe mirror might possibly
be of some slight utility; still, it seems probable that they are purely
ornamental and came into fashion in imitation of the thumb-mirrors. Many
varieties of toe-rings are made, a special type being that for wear on the
middle toe.[132]
A ring of an unusual form is worn on the great toe of the left foot by
some Hindu married women, as a distinguishing mark of the married state.
Men frequently wear a ring on the big toe for curative purposes, or to
augment their masculine vigor. These toe-rings of the men are not generally
closed circles, but open hoops, so that they can be easily removed when this
is desirable.[133]

INDIAN TOE RINGS OF SILVER, MADRAS PRESIDENCY
1, three views of ring worn on second and third toes of the left foot; the conventional fish is an
emblem of Siva 2, 3, 4, other toe rings
Journal of Indian Art and Industry, vol. v, 1894

RICH CINGHALESE MERCHANT, IN GALA DRESS
The immense, round ring on the little finger of his right hand is a
favorite adornment in Ceylon; smaller rings are on the fourth finger of
right hand, and on the little finger of left hand

The art of the Persian goldsmith in the fifteenth century is displayed in a
ring belonging to one of the splendid collections of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, in New York. It is of massive form with an immense bezel,
richly decorated in openwork; the hoop is also elaborately chased. The flat
surface of the bezel is adorned with a design in keeping with the

ornamentation of its sides and of the hoop. For a large and massive ring this
one is remarkably well-proportioned and harmonious in design.
A good specimen of the rings worn on state occasions by East Indian
princes was sold in February, 1913, at the American Art Galleries. It is of
gold, but bears no precious stones; the circlet is ornamented with white
enamelled crocodiles, and also with a minute enamelled figure, within a
temple and incased in glass; the bezel of this ring is decorated in blue, green
and red enamel.
While the simpler Chinese rings as a general rule are unset, usually
consisting merely of a plain silver band on which are engraved designs of
various objects, or else coated with ornaments in enamel, the rings of the
Tibetans display a considerable variety of settings, turquoise, coral, agate,
mother-of-pearl, mica and similar stones being used. Few or none of the
true precious stones are to be found in the rings of these countries. The
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has a large number of
specimens some of which are figured in the accompanying plate.[134]
A collection of some two dozen rings of artistic Siamese workmanship
were sent to the Chicago Exhibition of 1893, in charge of Prince Surrya,
later Siamese ambassador to France. These rings were of nearly pure gold,
and were ornamented with designs in red, green, and white enamel,
representing animals, fish, and other forms, but never human figures. They
were believed to be of considerable age and historic value; indeed, they
were so highly prized that they were not publicly exhibited but were kept
locked up in a safe, and only rarely displayed to some especially favored
visitor. After the close of the Exhibition they were safely returned to Siam.
An American traveller in Cambodia, in 1871, succeeded in having a few
rings made for him by a native Buddhist bonza, the material being old metal
found lying about among the idols of a temple at Ongchor. The work of the
priest gives evidence of a considerable degree of skill in design, doubtless
derived from examination and study of native and Indian types of rings. The
type having an intertwined bezel prevails; one massive ring is penannular.
[135]
An elaborate Burmese ring has the hoop in the form of a serpent,
whose open mouth displays the death-dealing fangs. Along the body runs a
continuous band of rubies placed in oval settings. The rest of the surface is
adorned with green, red and white enamel—mouth, nose, tail and scales

being brought out in this way. Of two red stones which originally marked
the serpent’s eyes, one has fallen out; on either side of the head is a small
sapphire. This fine ring is in the British Museum.[136]
While fifty years ago in Japan the women of the better classes did not
favor the wearing of finger-rings, it was not infrequently the case that
kitchenmaids and housemaids would wear silver or brass rings. They are
believed to have been influenced by the example of Dutch women in
Nagasaki.[137] At the present day American and European influence is very
slow in making itself felt in the direction of ring-wearing.
In the large oval bezel of a fine Syrian ring is set a paste representing a
topaz. The shoulders expand to form the bezel. This ring, the lower half of
which has been broken off, shows an exceptionally fine patina; it was of
large size and must have been a striking ornament on the wearer’s hand. As
the broad oval extends across the hoop, not at right angles with it, it must
have interfered slightly with a free use of the fingers near the one on which
the ring was worn.
In the Philippine Islands a type of ring that is made by the natives has a
number of spiral twists, from five to as many as a dozen coils appearing in
these rings. The serpentine form is accentuated by a pattern of dots or cross-
marking, with sometimes the indication of a conventional flower design.
While rather clumsy for wear, these rings still possess a certain artistic
quality. Fine examples are in the Ethnological Department of the American
Museum of Natural History, New York City.
The ancient city of refuge, Machu Picchu, probably built by the Incas
nearly 2000 years ago on a Peruvian mountain top, was uncovered by the
National Geographic Society—Yale University Peruvian Expedition of
1912, of which Dr. Hiram Bingham was the director. Among the many
interesting relics found on this unique site were some silver rings, one being
of the twisted type, with the ends free, so as to suit the size of any finger,
while another has been welded or hammered into a closed circlet. While it
is impossible to date these rings with any approach to exactness, they are
undoubtedly examples of the art of native Peruvian silversmiths prior to the
Spanish Conquest.[138]
Rings in great variety are worn in the Congo region and in every part of
Bantu and Negro Africa. There are heavy rings and light ones, simple hoops

and spirals, and they are worn on neck, arm, leg, finger and toe. They are
made of brass, copper, ivory, iron, elephant foot-pad, and several other
materials. At Akkra, and in Liberia, there is quite a manufacture of gold
rings, and, to a lesser extent, of silver rings also.[139]
An example of the exceptionally large rings sometimes made to
commemorate special occasions, rather than for possible wear, is one
donated to President Pierce by some Californian admirers in 1852. This
somewhat ambitious production scarcely answers the requirements of a
high standard of art, but its decoration offers a great variety of appropriate
designs illustrating life in the Far West in the middle of the past century.
The ring is of solid gold and weighs something over a pound, thus having a
mere metal value of about $250. On square surfaces cut on the circlet are a
series of designs intended to present an epitome of California’s early
history; the native animals in a wild state, the Indian warrior armed with
bow and arrow, and a native mountaineer; then comes a Californian, riding
a horse at full speed and casting his lasso; to him succeeds the miner with
pick and shovel. The bezel is engraved with the arms of California; it is
hinged and when opened reveals a kind of box having nine compartments
divided by golden bars. In each compartment is a characteristic specimen of
one of the principal ores found in California. Inside the circlet has been
engraved the inscription: “Presented to Franklin Pierce, the Fourteenth
President of the United States.”[140] What may be called a presidential ring
is that depicted in the effigy of Abigail Power Fillmore, wife of President
Fillmore (1850–1853), a quaint wax figure in the Wives of Presidents
series, shown in the United States National Museum, Washington D. C. In
this she is shown wearing a handkerchief ring.

Ring given to President Franklin Pierce in 1852 by
citizens of California
“Gleason’s Pictorial Magazine,” December 25, 1852

Series of old rings worked up to form a
pendant
Jewelers’ Circular-Weekly, December 8,
1909

RINGS FROM THE ALEXANDER W. DRAKE COLLECTION, SOLD AT
THE AMERICAN ART GALLERIES IN MARCH, 1913
1, silver ring of East Indian workmanship. 2, massive Tartar finger ring of fine
gold. 3, copy in silver of the betrothal ring of Martin Luther, a gift of Richard
Watson Gilder. 4, finger ring with precious stone setting and two irregularly-
shaped pearls. Pendant shows the bust of a bearded man in armor. 5, gold
betrothal ring. Two hands holding a crowned heart. Type used by Galway
fisherman from the Thirteenth Century and called a “Claddugh Ring.” 6,
openwork gold ring. 7, old Chinese gold ring—oval with Chinese characters, on
either side a chiseled bat. 8, Moorish finger ring of fine gold. Large shield with
characteristic ornamentation. 9, gold ring with intaglio of a shepherd and goat cut
on a light sard. 10, square gold ring, with bead groups in centre and at corners,

the central part in raised openwork. 11, gold ring. French. Heart-shaped bezel set
with Watteau figure in repousse, under crystal, and surrounded with bits of green
and white crystal between small flowers of gold. 12, silver finger ring. Two
hoops linked together by true-lovers’ knot.

An unusually large ring was worn by the well-known theatrical manager,
Sheridan Shook. It was set with an amethyst an inch long by three-quarters
of an inch broad and half an inch deep, and weighing two and a half ounces.
The letter S was engraved in the stone and inlaid with small diamonds. This
immense ring with its massive gold setting can hardly be termed a great
work of art, but it is unique in its way and was greatly valued by its owner,
who only ceased to wear it when ill-health and weakness made it too much
of a burden.
The extensive and remarkable collections of the late Alexander Wilson
Drake, which were disposed of at the American Art Galleries in New York,
March 10th to 17th, 1913, comprised a fine collection of finger rings,
illustrating a large variety of forms and periods. There were in all nearly
800 examples, set and unset. There were betrothal rings, memorials rings,
gimmal rings, puzzle rings, rings of Roman, French, German, Italian,
Spanish, Russian, Irish, Scandinavian, English and American workmanship,
and many Oriental rings, Sassanian, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew,
Gypsy and Moorish, one of the latter being a gold circlet with the twelve
signs of the zodiac engraved in high relief around it.
The personality of the collector added greatly to the charm of this
collection for all who had known him. As art editor of the Century
Magazine, and in a thousand other ways, no one had labored more
enthusiastically and successfully in the cause of art encouragement and art
education, and his death constituted a real loss for the progress of art in
America.
The valuable and carefully chosen collection of gem stones set in rings,
which was made by the late Sir Arthur Herbert Church (1834–1915), has
been presented by his widow, Lady Church, to the trustees of the British
Museum and is shown in the Natural History building.[141]
Of the 18 examples in the British Museum collection of the interesting
class of rings cut out of a single stone, The collection comprises 169
specimens, 45 of them zircons, fully illustrating the wide range of color to

be found in this gem-stone; two of them are of a beautiful sky-blue. The
following list gives the number of rings for each mineral species:
Corundum 12
Spinel 17
Chrysoberyl 8
Quartz (amethyst, tiger-eye, chrysoprase) 3
Peridot 1
Spodumene 1
Labradorite 1
Beryl 4
Andalusite 1
Tourmaline 20
Opal (precious, fire, black and milk) 10
Zircon 45
Phenacite 5
Enstalite 1
Moonstone 2
Garnet 19
Topaz 8
Cordierite 2
Sphene 1
Turquoise 1

Only three of the rings are set with more than a single stone.
Several belonged to the collection of Sir Hans Sloane in 1753, five of
them being archers’ thumb-rings, of agate, carnelian, mocha-stone, or
jasper. A green jasper ring of this type is thus entered in the Sloane
Manuscript catalogue: “A thumb piece for defending it from being hurt by
the bowstring, from Turkey.”
A remarkable, though decidedly eccentric ring of the art nouveau style
of René Lalique shows in the long, irregularly oval bezel, a full-length,
nude female figure cut in very high relief out of a bluish rock-crystal; set at
one side about the middle of the figure is a round pearl, apparently of
immense proportions as compared with those of the human body.[142]
Not only are there the watch-bracelets which have been so extensively
worn of late years, but minute ornamental watches have been set in finger-
rings, where they can be consulted with even greater ease than when worn
on the wrist. The watch-face is surrounded by a bordering of small jewels.

Apart from their practical value, the “watch-rings” are pretty and dainty
objects in themselves, and lend a new element of variety to the long list of
ring forms.[143]
There is in the collection of the Imperial Kunstgewerbe Museum,
Vienna, an exceptionally fine example of the watch-ring, made by Johann
Putz, of Augsburg, in the seventeenth century. It has a detachable cover, cut
from an emerald, on which the Austrian double-eagle has been engraved. In
the same collection are two sun-dial rings; one, made in the seventeenth
century, has a lid figuring a hedgehog, studded with black diamond
lozenges; the other, a sixteenth century ring, bears a Greek inscription to the
effect that “time removes all things and brings forgetfulness;” the sun-dial
is on the inner side of this ring, which is of silver gilt. There is also a gold
astrolabe ring, which when closed looks like an ordinary one; but when the
connected circles are opened up, the ring constitutes a veritable astrolabe.
[144]

A gold “sphere-ring” in the British Museum collection has an outer hoop
in two parts, working like a gimmal, and three interior hoops which are
almost concealed when the ring is closed. The exterior hoop is chased; on
the inner surfaces, concealed from view when the ring is closed, appears in
sections the following inscription in black enamel: Verbo Dei celi firmati
sunt. Dixit et creata sunt, ipse mandavit et creata sunt. (The heavens are
founded in the word of God. He spoke and they were created; he
commanded and they were created.) After “firmati sunt,” is the date 1555.
The three interior hoops bear, enameled in black, the signs of the zodiac,
stars, and other astral figures. This ring is of German workmanship.[145]
In the collection of works of art bequeathed to the British Museum in
1898 by Baron Ferdinand Rothschild, and designated as the Waddesdon
Bequest, there are several characteristic rings. Of these perhaps the most
notable is a large finger ring of gold, enameled and set with jewels, a
sixteenth century example of German workmanship. The bezel is in the
form of a clasped book; on the cover is a skull, about which are four stones,
sapphire, ruby, emerald, and diamond, and two toads and snakes in enamel.
When the book cover is thrown back there appears a loose plate of gold, on
which is enameled a recumbent figure with skull and hour-glass; on the
under side of the cover is inscribed in black enamel (in capitals): sive

vivimus, sive morimur, domini sumus. commenda domino viam tuam, et spera
in eum et ipse faciet (Whether we live or whether we die we are the Lord’s.
Commit thy way unto the Lord and trust in Him, and He shall bring it to
pass). This combines the text, Romans xiv, 8 with Psalm xxxvii, 5. On the
shoulders of the ring are two groups in enamel, the Fall and the Expulsion
from Eden.[146]
Sixteenth century ring-making, so rich in its variety of eccentric types,
evolved whistle-rings, one of which is in the British Museum. This is of
bronze gilt; the large oval bezel is engraved with a shield of arms; the hoop
is slender at the back. The shoulders are engraved with strap-work, one of
them having a tubular whistle.[147]
An enameled gold ring of striking and original design is owned by Dr.
Albert Figdor, Vienna. The bezel has a lid on which is enameled a head
wearing a half-mask; the eyes are of small lozenge-shaped diamonds, and
there is a bordering of seventeen rubies. On lifting the lid there appears
beneath an oval surface, on which is enameled a heart with the motto: “Pour
vous seule” (For you alone). The inner side of the lid is hollowed out so as
to serve as a receptacle for hair. The hoop, of a ribbon-like form, bears the
significant inscription: “Sous le masque la vérité” (Beneath the mask is
truth). This ring, which belonged to the famous Viennese tragedienne,
Charlotte Wolter, is of French workmanship and dates from about 1800. A
whimsical gold ring in the collection has a plain hoop, to which the figure
of a little mouse, wrought in gold, is looped by the tail so that it slips
around the circlet. Another gold ring of singular design is one having a
diamond in a silver setting about which are three rubies in gold settings;
between the rubies are three playing cards in enamel. The hoop is of
openwork with two playing cards and two ovals; a section of reddish gold
that has been added to it, indicates that the ring was enlarged at some time
from its original size.[148]
A decoration of a somewhat unusual type appears in a ring to be seen in
the Cleveland Museum of Art, the gift of Mr. and Mrs. J. Homer Wade. It
has for its adornment a minute landscape painting, in place of a precious
stone or seal decoration.[149] This might be a suggestion to those who may
wish to bear with them a pretty reminder of their favorite country home, or
else of some scene that is associated with exceptionally happy memories.

GOLD RING, RICHLY ENAMELED
The hoop has white, red and black enameling, and is studded with little
emeralds and rubies. The high bezel is set with an emerald and with a
small ruby on each of the four sides. Second half of Sixteenth Century
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

GOLD RING, WITH HEAD IN FORM OF A ROSE
KNOT
The setting consists of a diamond in a silver bezel, and
three rubies in gold bezels; between the rubies are three
enameled playing cards. The hoop is of openwork
interspersed with two playing cards and two ovals in
enamel; a section of reddish gold indicates an
enlargement of this ring. Eighteenth Century
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

A symbolic ring recently designed and executed in New York artfully
combines a number of significant elements, each of which has a distinct
bearing upon the history, the fortunes, or the taste of the prospective wearer.
At the head of the ring is set his birth-stone, the sard, about which are
engraved his family crest and motto, and the initials of his name. On the
shank are two relief representations, one of a lion, “the king of beasts,”
typifying royal descent, the other showing the wearer’s patron saint,
Michael; at the left of this figure is set an emerald as the talismanic gem.
Surmounting the head of the ring are a series of light gothic arches,
indicating the religious character of this jewel. On the smooth inner side of
the head is engraved a mystic design, consisting of a double triangle,
interlaced to form a six-pointed star, and enclosed by a circle; within the
triangles appears in blue emerald the “mystic number” 15, that of the
wearer, blue being his astral color; the triangles symbolize the inseparability
of the Holy Trinity, and the circle typifies Eternity, this word being
engraved above, as well as the date of the wearer’s birth, and a legend
commemorating the gift of the ring. It is made of fine gold, so that it may
the better denote absolute purity.
In one type of serpent ring, one of the ends is inserted loose into the
mouth of the serpent’s head terminating the other end, so that by a little
careful bending, the trifling difference in the diameter of the hoop necessary
to adjust it perfectly to a finger can be easily attained. This form already
appears among ancient rings.[150]

Two finely wrought serpent rings are shown on the Plate.[151] In one of
these (No. 2), with three coils, the erect head of the snake with distended
jaws is vividly portrayed, making the ring a work of art indeed, but arousing
an instinctive repulsion in the beholder. The other serpent ring constitutes a
simple circlet, the head of the snake overlapping the tail. As an example of
artistic workmanship it fully equals the larger ring, and may be considered
better adapted for the adornment of the hand, since the serpent nature is not
so aggressively presented.
Rings of a quite unique type, that owes its origin to the great war and to
French skill and taste in adapting the most unpromising means to an artistic
end, are those made by French soldiers out of aluminum fuses taken from
the bombs which their German foes have so liberally rained upon them. At
the outset the disks were first worked with scissors to make rude rings for
men’s big fingers. Later on the well-furnished tool-box of the machine-gun
squad was called into requisition. This early primitive type was soon
abandoned, and in order to make rings of the proper dimensions the metal
from the German shells was fused and run into ingots; the crucible was
frequently one of the new iron helmets, which was set on a wood fire that
was kept going by a bellows improvised from a bayonet sheath. However,
the soldiers finally became so reckless in their search for material that it
was found necessary to put a stop to this, after several had been shot by the
enemy.

1, mourning ring. Gold with enamel and jewels, Seventeenth Century. 2, snake ring. Carved gold
with diamond eyes. Modern Oriental. 3, Chinese ring. Native gold with seal reading, “Riches and
public honors.” Overlapping back. Nineteenth Century. 4, wish-bone ring. Copy of an African one in
gold. 5, Persian ring. Gold and silver, set with a carnelian having seal characters of owner’s name.
Metal engraved inside. Eighteenth Century. 6, Chinese ring. Native gold with seal reading, “Long life
and riches.” Overlapping back. Eighteenth Century. 7, animal ring. Carved gold in two colors with
continuous procession of tigers. Modern French. 8, Chinese ring. Of greenish jadeite in one piece.
Eighteenth Century.
Rings from the Collection of W. Gedney Beatty

THREE TYPES OF WATCH RING
Front, side and end views

The first models for the rings were made of wood or soft limestone. At a
more advanced stage, round bars were made, which were cut into sections
by means of the jagged edge of an old trench-spade. The smoothing off was
done with a knife, and for making the ring apertures a pick was commonly
used. They were then polished with a piece of hard wood, moistened from
time to time to soften it.
This still primitive form failed to satisfy the amateur ring-makers, and
soon some of them began to engrave their rings with the point of a pocket-
knife, and others, more ambitious, encrusted them with small pieces of
copper, either mortised or rivetted in. Although many of the rings were
undoubtedly the work of entirely unpracticed hands, of course in any of the
great modern national armies men of all trades and professions are
represented, and hence the really fine examples of these war-time rings
have been the work of those familiar with the jewellers’ art. So eagerly did

some of the soldiers pursue this avocation, that when their aluminum
threatened to give out, they would look impatiently for a bombardment to
get a new supply.[152]
The “add-a-link” ring is made up of a series of small links which all snap
one in the other. The purchaser buys one with the number of links requisite
to fit the finger exactly. If he wishes to have a stone in it he buys a link with
a stone inserted therein. A plain link is snapped out of the ring and the link
with the stone is snapped in. Sometimes these rings are made up of a variety
of stones and then again with only one stone. It is possible in this way for
the purchaser to obtain, at a moderate cost, a variety of settings, changeable
at will. Moreover, a ring of this type can be enlarged as the finger grows
larger.
Among a number of ring-types designed for the practical convenience of
the owner and only worn temporarily to serve a particular purpose, we may
note the cigarette ring, provided with a straight sliding rod the end of which
clasps the middle of a cigarette, so that when a whiff has been taken, the
hand may be freely used without laying aside or dropping the cigarette.
Another smokers’ ring is one provided with a projection for stopping a pipe,
rendering it possible for the ardent pipe-smoker to keep his pipe-bowl well
filled and well packed without soiling the tips of his fingers. These pipe-
stopping rings are sometimes of rich materials, in one instance the stopper
was of a beautiful white zircon, finely contrasting with the rich yellow gold
of the ring proper. Rings of this kind were very much in vogue in the
eighteenth century, and one appears on the hand of a gentleman in one of
Hogarth’s engravings.
The name “swivel ring” is applied when the head of the ring is loose,
and is loosely secured by a bar to the band or circlet, so that the ring will
swing around. This type is frequently used in scarab rings, or where there is
a double intaglio, a double miniature, or other double object, or where the
ring is what is known as a concealed seal ring, the outside part being a gold
ornament or a stone.
One of the “surprise rings” in which a hinged outer section of the hoop
can be made to detach itself, on a spring being pressed, so that a concealed
surface appears, shows on its hidden surface a number of magical signs and
the names of the angels or spirits Ashmodel, Nachiel, Zamiel, and others.

Wearing a ring of this kind, the adept could reveal his belief in the magic
arts to others of his sect or fraternity, thus bearing about with him a secret
passport admitting him to their confidence.[153]
A pretty way of utilizing old and cherished rings for the production of an
attractive ornament is to link them together so as to form a chatelaine. By
this means a large number of family memorial rings, either those of more or
less remote ancestors or of persons whom the owner has known and loved,
may be combined in a single beautiful chain. This can be done in several
ways. After opening the rings at the joint, they are strung one below the
other, the monotony of the effect being varied by one or more double rings,
the terminal of the chain being a seal-ring with the bezel downward.
Another method is to have a series of double rings, each one of which is
joined to the member of the pair immediately below, by means of a small
ring made for this purpose; here again the terminal will be either a seal-ring,
or one set with a large precious stone. Such ornaments are not only things
of beauty in themselves, but unique in the memories they serve to
perpetuate in the hearts of the wearers.
THE MATERIALS OF RINGS

Ring whittling or carving is a favorite occupation of sailors and young
boys. Many interesting rings have been carved by them out of peach pits,
flexible ivory, cocoanut shells, gutta percha, walrus ivory, boxwood,
whale’s teeth and many other substances. These are frequently incised with
the initials of the wearer or the one to whom the ring is to be presented.
Then again, pins are cut off and the upper part driven into the hoop, in such
a way that the head of the pin appears as a beading; often metallic points are
added. Other rings are carved with hearts, folded hands and other symbols
of sentiment.
As a ring is necessary in marriage it has occasionally happened when no
precious metal was available in hasty marriages, or out of economy, that a
curtain ring, taken from the church curtain, has been used.
Memory rings, of threads wound around the finger, have often been
employed. Sometimes these are made of cord or yarn, and each ring is
supposed to represent one object to be remembered, and to be purchased, or
delivered at the final place of destination. The writer distinctly remembers

seeing an old man nearly 90 years of age, wearing a waistcoat older than
himself, and with at least twenty strings of different colors and variety on
his fingers. He trudged a distance of six miles to the nearest village and had
been instructed not to return until he had purchased or obtained the object
meant by each string. This memorizing by cords or strands has been
practised by many primitive peoples who had not developed any system of
writing, a well-known instance being the wampum records of some of our
North American Indian tribes.
To the famous episode of the descent of the life-goddess Ishtar to the
infernal regions, forming part of the great Babylonian poem known as the
“Gilgamesh Epic,” have been appended a few lines suggesting an idea
distantly resembling that in the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. A
mourner who seeks to release a loved one from the Realm of Death, is told
to address himself to Tammuz (= Adonis). A festival garment is to be put on
the god’s statue to induce him “to play on the flute of lapis-lazuli,” with a
ring of porphyry. This divine music was believed to arouse the dead and call
them to inhale the fragrance of the incense offering prepared for them.[154]
The “porphyry ring” for playing the musical instrument might seem to
indicate that it was some form of lyre, on which the ring could be used as a
kind of plectrum, rather than a flute or other wind-instrument.
Rings made entirely of a precious stone substance were not uncommon
in the time of Rameses III (1202–1170 b.c.) and later Egyptian sovereigns,
but there is no evidence of their having been made at a more remote period.
The prejudice against burying rings with the dead does not seem to have
affected the Egyptians, for in a number of cases rings have been found on
the fingers of mummies.[155]
The sardonyx was a favorite stone with the Romans of the Imperial Age,
as is proved by the frequent allusions to it by the poets of this time. Of a
celebrated player on the lyre, Juvenal (50–130 a.d.) says that as his hand
passed over the strings the whole instrument was lighted up by the sheen of
his many sardonyx rings.[156] Such a ring was regarded as a most
appropriate birthday gift.[157] Another passage relates that the advocate
Paulus, in order to render his address before the court more impressive,
wore upon his hand a fine onyx ring which he had borrowed from a friend
especially for this occasion.[158] Indeed, so highly was the stone prized that

it was called the first of gems (gemma princeps sardonychus) and ivory
caskets were regarded as fit receptacles for sardonyxes.[159] The value of
rings set with them is shown by the fact that in Hadrian’s (76–138 a.d.)
time, they were expressly associated with the gems of greatest value, such
being strictly differentiated from those worth but four gold pieces each.[160]
Several rings of the Later Roman period in the British Museum are set
with small diamonds. Of these the following are believed to represent
original settings:[161]
No. 779. Plain solid hoop with sides cut flat. It is set with a small pointed diamond.
Castellani Coll., 1872.
No. 785. Thin rounded hoop, slightly expanding upwards. Pointed diamond in
raised oblong setting. From Tartûs. Franks Bequest, 1897.
No. 787. Angular hoop, projecting sharply below the shoulders, which are in the
form of hollow leaves within a triangular frame. The bezel is square and contains an
octahedral diamond; the sides are open and form a kind of wave pattern. Castellani
Coll., 1872. 3rd century, a.d.
No. 788. Type akin to last. On either shoulder is an openwork triangle. The bezel is
square and contains an octahedral diamond; on either side of the bezel is a small
openwork triangle.
No. 789. Type akin to last. The lower part of the hoop has a groove running along
its middle; either shoulder is cut away in a slight curve. The bezel is square, with a
triangular space left open in each side and with a round opening below. It contains a
diamond of octahedral form. Franks Bequest, 1897.
No. 790. Type akin to last. The hoop is rounded without; the curved excision of the
shoulders is more pronounced. Two double pyramid-shaped (octahedral) diamonds
are set in the bezel. A triangle is cut out of either shoulder, and two smaller triangles
on either side of the bezel. Underneath the stone are two lozenge-shaped openings.
Franks Bequest, 1897.

PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN MAN IN THE
COSTUME OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, BY
ANTONIO DEL POLLAIOLO
He holds between the thumb and index of his left hand
a ring set with a naturally pointed diamond crystal
Galleria Corsini, Florence

PORTRAIT OF A VENETIAN SENATOR, BY A. DA
SOLARIO
Seal ring on thumb of left hand
National Gallery, London

In all these cases the diamond is a small natural crystal of octahedral
form suggesting the “diamond, a point of a stone,” of which the astronomer
Manilius wrote in the first century, and, perhaps, the diamond in Berenice’s
ring mentioned in the same period by the satirist Juvenal. Another ring in
the British Museum, however, is set with two facetted diamonds, as well as
with two other stones (No. 778 of catalogue, Plate xx, same number). Here
the diamonds have unquestionably been set at a time long posterior to the
making of the ring, which is believed to belong, approximately, to the same

period as the others we have listed. The diamonds were probably inserted to
replace two of the original stones that had fallen out of their settings.
Sir Charles Hercules Read pronounces the instances of diamond settings
in ancient rings to be exceeding rare. He states that the examples above
noted are the only ones of which he knows, and considers that they belong
to the third or fourth century of our era.[162]
The famous Marlborough collection of gems includes a thumb ring
entirely of sapphire. To give this stone ring the necessary resisting power, it
has been lined with a thick hoop of gold. The engraving it bears, a head of
the Elder Faustina, the wife of Antoninus Pius (86–161 a.d.), is believed to
replace an original Arabic inscription that fitted this ring for use as a seal.
[163]

Rings entirely of precious-stone material, or “hololith” rings, have been
found at Mycenæ, one of jasper and another of rock-crystal, and a carnelian
ring was discovered in a tomb in southern Russia. Each of these bears an
engraved design. Two carnelian rings are in the British Museum.
Chalcedony rings, that is, rings entirely formed of this stone, while quite
rare, are represented by a few specimens. We describe elsewhere the so-
called betrothal ring of the Virgin at Perugia,[164] and the British Museum
has a large example of a chalcedony ring, with the hoop rounded on the
outer side, and a raised bezel that has been roughly cut so as to indicate a
human head, some scratches marking the hair. The work is late Roman and
the inscription shows that it was made for some adherent of the Gnostic
sect.[165]
A large ring, entirely of rock crystal, shows on the oval flattened surface
of the upper part a curious combination of the “Tau Cross,” with superposed
“chrisma,” and with a serpent twined about it, recalling the brazen serpent
of Moses, the view of which restored health to the diseased; the Greek
letters, alpha and omega, “the beginning and the end,” complete this
interlacing of Old and New Testament emblems; the doves facing the cross
are the faithful to whom the Cross of Christ brings salvation.[166] Another
entire crystal ring bears on its flat face a design of somewhat similar import,
with, however, the curious difference that the lower end of the cross is
supported on a little Cupid, on either side of which figure is a dove.[167]

The jewels of the Mogul emperors were the most splendid in the world,
but few have survived intact to our time, as nearly all were broken up by the
spoilers of the Mogul Empire. However, one of the few that have been
preserved for us is a most interesting illustration of the type of ring favored
in that age and region. This is one made for Jehangir Shah, the father of
Shah Jehan, for whom was erected the wonderful Taj Mahal at Agra, a
memorial of his dearly beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1629. It
is about 1¼ inches in diameter and is cut out of a solid emerald of
exceptional purity and beauty of color; from the ring proper depend two
fine emerald drops, while set in two collets are rose diamonds with ruby
bordering. Jehangir’s name is engraved on the hoop. This ring was probably
carried off by Nadir Shah at the looting of Delhi in 1739, and after
remaining in the Persian treasury for a few years found its way, with other
gems and jewels plundered from the Moguls, into the hands of the Afghan
chiefs. One of these, the unfortunate Shah Shujah, in the course of his
wanderings after he had been blinded and deprived of his throne by a
brother, finally sought and found refuge under the protection of the British
East India Company, and as a token of gratitude, or as a slight quid pro quo,
he gave this historic ring to the company. After having been acquired by
Lord Auckland, it passed into the hands of the Hon. Miss Eden. This is
probably the very finest specimen of the rare type of hololith rings, or rings
entirely consisting of a single precious-stone material.[168]
For those who believed in the magic virtues of precious stones, a ring of
this kind would possess much greater efficacy than would a metal ring set
with the stone, as in the former case the substance when worn would always
be in direct contact with the skin of the wearer. Jehangir also owned an
entire ruby ring given him by Shaikh Farid-i-Bukhari, and valued at 25,000
rupees (about $12,500). In modern times, the Burmese ambassador to the
court of Persia is said to have brought with him, as a gift to the Shah, a ring
cut out of a solid ruby of the finest color.[169]
One of the most remarkable archers’ rings was engraved out of a single
piece of emerald. It is an example of the type which is narrow at one end,
tapering to a broad edge at the other. It is of a beautiful green emerald and
very handsomely engraved. This ring was probably made for the Mogul
Emperor Shah Jehan, about 1650. It was part of Nadir Shah’s share of the
booty from the sack of Delhi in 1739, and this Persian adventurer had the

following inscription engraved upon it in Persian characters: “For a bow for
the King of Kings, Nadir, Lord of the Conjunction, at the subjugation of
India, from the Jewel-house [at Delhi] it was selected 1152 [1739 a.d.]”.
The luckless Shah Shuja gave it to Runjit Singh, the Lion of the Panjab, in
1813, when he took refuge at the latter’s court at Lahore. At the end of the
second Sikh war in 1849 it was found with the regalia in the royal treasury
of Lahore. This splendid ring once owned by Lord Dalhousie, was sold at
Edinburgh in 1898; it came into the possession of W. H. Broun, Esq., and is
now one of the gems of a private collection in Philadelphia.[170]
In past times the Shahs of Persia have passed ordinances restricting the
exportation of turquoise. Regarding this precious stone as peculiarly Persian
and for the furthering of Persian goldsmiths, it was enacted that no unset
turquoises should be exported; as a rule the settings were in rings, these
being easily transported, since a great number of them could be strung
together. Sometimes a prospective purchaser was permitted to test the
quality of a string of turquoise rings by wearing a bunch of them for a while
under his arm-pit, to see whether the stones would change color. Although
some failed to endure this rather severe test, many withstood it successfully.
The entire circlet of certain of the finest turquoise rings was of pierced
gold enriched with rose diamonds; other, less valuable turquoises have been
set in fine gold rings, carved or plain, and those of the next lower value, in
ornamented silver. The cheaper sort ranged in price all the way from one
cent to a few dollars, and were often set in rings made of tin, or of tinned
iron, the hoop costing but two cents. The stones were always cut irregularly
en cabochon, the form being frequently quite pleasing; if the turquoise were
thin the back was coated with pitch to bring out the color, and on the
surface was engraved some short formula from the Koran, such as “Allah
be praised!” or “Allah is great!” Occasionally the Shah’s portrait was the
subject.
In the Roman world entire rings of yellow amber were sometimes
formed, and in a few instances figures or heads have been engraved in relief
upon the chaton. Their execution need not have presented any greater
difficulty than did the carving of the many small amber figures which have
come down to us from ancient times. A carved amber ring in the Franks
Bequest of the British Museum is beautifully formed with full-relief figures
of Venus and of Cupid on either side. It is cut out of a single piece of amber,

and is considered to be the finest example extant of Roman carving in that
material,[171] but unfortunately is considerably damaged.
Pliny declares that in his time amber ornaments were almost exclusively
for women’s wear; indeed, a few years later, Artemidorus, in his
“Oneirocritica,” an interpretation of dreams, after saying that amber and
ivory rings were only appropriate for women, proceeds to assert that this
was true of all kinds of rings.[172] There are but a very few ivory rings in the
British Museum, although the collection includes several bone rings,
probably for wear on the thumb. The relief-carving of masks has been
thought to make it likely that they were actors’ rings.[173]
Not only have entire emerald and ruby rings been formed, but even the
intractable diamond has lately been cut in this form. An entire diamond
ring, the work of the diamond-cutter Antoine, of Antwerp, was shown in the
exposition held in Antwerp in 1894.[174] Another such ring has since been
executed by Bart Brouwer of Amsterdam. In this latter ring the facets are all
triangular.
The unrivalled Heber R. Bishop Collection of Jades, now in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, contains an ancient thumb-
ring (pan chih), entirely of jade, from the time of the Han Dynasty (206
b.c.-220 a.d.). Its major and minor diameters are 1.16 inches and 1.03
inches, respectively, and it weighs .809 ounce. The material is the nephrite
variety of jade, the color being clouded gray with very dark brown veinings.
The rings of this type were worn on the thumb of the left hand to protect it
from injury by the bowstring after the discharge of the arrow. The dark
veining results from the filling of the fissures in the material with some
brownish-black substance; it is an excellent example of the amphibolic
alteration of jadeite, which is shown by chemical analysis to be present here
to the amount of 4.15 per cent. (No. 330 of the collection).
A recent type of archer’s thumb ring in this collection, of the Ch’ien-
Lung period (1736–1795 a.d.), is of cylindrical form, the thick solid side
bevelled inward at the base so as to adjust the ring to the hand; the convex
top slopes downward from the middle. This is of a beautiful light emerald-
green jadeite, clouded here and there with shades of greenish gray. It has
diameters of 1.06 inches and 1.25 inches, and weighs about 1⅔ ounces. The

specific gravity and hardness are those of the jadeite variety of jade, a
silicate of aluminum, while nephrite is a silicate of magnesium (No. 508).
The Bishop Collection also contains two archers’ rings of the original
type, with a wide flange on the lower side. These are entirely of carnelian,
and are representative of the kind really used by archers. The greater part of
the thumb-rings, many of them called more or less loosely “archers’ rings,”
were never designed for any such special use, but constitute a modification
of the original form to suit them for habitual wear. Indeed, in many cases
the more ornate were rather used as pretty toys to handle, as Orientals are
fond of handling gems or small jewels, than for wear. Of course the gradual
disuse of archery in military operations contributed greatly to the change of
fashion.
In this collection may be seen a finger-ring (chih-huan) of white jade
(nephrite) set with jewels. Its shape resembles that of an archer’s ring and it
is decorated with floral designs, the effect enhanced by sixty precious
stones, comprising twenty-four rubies, thirty-two emeralds and four
diamonds. This ring is of Indian workmanship, those made in China
scarcely ever having any precious-stone adornment. In the floral
ornamentation a row of rubies and emeralds cut en cabochon are outlined in
gold so as to represent flowers, while in the field are four conventionalized
upright sprays, each composed of three flowers, the upper one a facetted
diamond, while the lateral pair are facetted emeralds. On the upper rim an
undulating floral scroll has stem and leaves of gold, and flowers set
alternately with rubies and emeralds.[175]
At the time a Corean embassy visited the United States in 1883, one of
its leading members was Min Yonk Ik, a princely personage, closely related
to the queen of the country, who brought with him two thumb-rings, which
he wore, alternately, on his right hand thumb. In the case of one of these
rings the Corean must have been imposed upon by the seller, for he
supposed it to be jade, while the present writer’s examination of it showed
that the material was merely serpentine. Its outside diameter was 34 mm.
(1⅓ in.), the inside diameter being 22 mm. (about ⅞ in.), the length, or
height, was 28.5 mm. (1⅛ in.). This ring was described by the writer in
1884, in Science; in the succeeding year he had occasion to correct a
statement that it was an archer’s ring.[176] The Corean women commonly
wear two rings, always exactly similar in every respect. As a rule they are

perfectly plain, of oval form, the material being gold, silver, amber or coral.
The coral was usually imported from China.
The Chinese ambassador, Wu Ting Fang, wore a jade ring in which was
a thick plate of gold to reduce the size. Some of the more beautiful are of
the pale green jade, known by the Chinese as fei ts’ui, or “kingfisher-
plumes.” Many of these rings are exceedingly costly; when made of some
piece of jade possessing very exceptional qualities of color and surface, a
thumb-ring may cost as much as $10,000, or even $15,000. Incidentally, it
should be noted that Wu Ting Fang is an excellent judge of precious stones.
Archers’ rings are made by Chinese and Manchus, Turks and Persians,
who release the arrow according to Asiatic style, the bowstring being held
by the bent thumb. In China they eventually became the insignia of military
rank, and were of jade, or a glass imitation of jade; the latter are the kind
usually to be found in curio shops. The Japanese did not use them, the
archers wearing a glove with a horn thumb-piece. This type of glove was,
however, not used by the Japanese swordsmen, as the stiff thumb-piece
would have hindered the free use of the hand.[177]
An engraved finger ring entirely of milk-white jade is in the Berlin
Mineralogical Museum, and in the collection of Dr. David Wiser, of Zurich,
there is a jade ring-setting on which is engraved a scorpion. This image was
believed to lend to the object so engraved a talismanic virtue. A slab of jade
in the Freiburg Museum bears the carefully engraved figure of a scorpion
and is considered to be an amulet. The source of this specimen and the
place and time in which it was engraved have not been accurately
ascertained.[178]
The Pueblo Bonito ruins in New Mexico have furnished us with a
fragment of a jet ring. The portion remaining of this ring shows that it must
have had a diameter of about 2.3 centimetres, the width of the band being
1.4 centimetres. Apparently some accident befell the original ring, causing
part of the brittle material to chip off, for in the section that has been
preserved a piece of jet, as wide as the band and 9 millimetres across, has
been inlaid in the body of the ring. This was cut away to a depth of a
millimetre, and the concave-convex inlay was then glued on.[179]
The gold-plating of bronze rings dates back to the Mycenæan period, and
Ionic silver rings with gold plating were made in the sixth century b.c.;

Cypriote bronze rings of about the third century b.c. have also been found.
Where, as in many cases, mere gilding has been resorted to, only traces of
this may remain after the lapse of centuries.[180] We note elsewhere the
gold-plated iron rings worn by some Roman slaves to evade the penalty
imposed upon those who illegally wore gold rings.
Glass rings are frequently made at Murano and other places in Italy of
the so-called “gold stone,” aventurine, or Venice gold stone. They are very
inexpensive and are generally worn by children or young girls. Mosaic
rings are those in which the upper part of the ring contains either a
Byzantine mosaic made up of colored glass or other material, or a
Florentine mosaic, in which shell, marble and other materials are set in slate
or marble settings.
Bohemian garnet rings are generally made of facetted, rose cut, or
cabochon cut garnets, set usually in 8 to 14 carat gold. They are made in
Prague and other cities in Bohemia, the garnet material, of the pyrope
variety, coming largely from the mines at Meronitz, Bohemia.
Among the cheap materials that have been used on occasion for making
rings, are horseshoe nails, which may perhaps be supposed to possess some
of the wonderful talismanic power accorded by popular fancy to the
horseshoe. The nails are more or less skilfully twisted into a ring form, and
are at least as durable as other forms of iron rings.
An extraordinary material combination for the substance of rings, is that
of dynamite and pewter. At present when the war-fever has seized upon
almost all civilized peoples, we might accord to the dynamite in this
composition a symbolic martial meaning. What risk there might be of the
painful results of war befalling the wearer of a dynamite ring through its
detonating unexpectedly because of some powerful shock, is perhaps too
slight to deter those who are in eager pursuit of novelties.
The pale alloy of gold, known as electrum,[181] was favored for ring-
making in Oriental Greece, and is termed “white gold” in ancient
inventories. Thus in an inventory of the temple treasures of Eleusis, made in
332 b.c., there is mention of “two plain gold rings of white gold.”[182] Some
Ionic rings of the fifth century, B.C. from Cyprus are also of this metallic
composition. Of gold rings set with stones, a Parthenon inventory of 422
b.c. lists one with an onyx, perhaps a scaraboid, and in a Delos inventory of

279 b.c., there is one with an anthrax, probably a garnet. The variation of
the phrasing in these two mentions, the former naming an onyx having a
ring of gold, while the latter speaks of a “gold ring having a garnet,” might
be taken to indicate that the onyx was a large object compared with the
hoop, and the garnet a relatively small one.[183]
In the masterpiece of ancient Greek romantic prose literature, the
Æthiopica of Heliodorus (fl. ab. 400 a.d.), perhaps Heliodorus Bishop of
Tricca, the writer describes a splendid ring given by Kalasiris to Nausikles.
This was one of the royal jewels of the King of Ethiopia. The hoop was of
electrum, and in the bezel was set a beautiful amethyst engraved with a
design showing a shepherd pasturing his flock.[184] Heliodorus especially
dwells upon the fact that this was an Ethiopian (probably an Indian)
amethyst, this variety far surpassing those from Iberia (the Spanish
Peninsula) and Britain. In the very successful rendering of this Greek
passage by Rev. C. W. King, the contrast between the former and the latter
is thus gracefully expressed:[185]
For the latter blushes with a feeble hue, and is like a rose just unfolding its leaves
from out of the bud, and beginning to be tinged with red by the sunbeams. But in the
Ethiopian Amethyst, out of its depth flames forth like a torch a pure and as it were
Spring-like beauty; and if you turn it about as you hold it, it shoots out a golden lustre,
not dazzling the sight by its fierceness, but resplendent with cheerfulness. Moreover, a
more genuine nature is inherent in it than is possessed by any brought from the West,
for it does not belie its appellation, but proves in reality to the wearer an antidote
against intoxication, preserving him sober in the midst of drinking-bouts.

In his “Rape of the Lock,” Pope writes of Belinda’s golden hair-bodkin,
that the metal had originally been worked up into rings and then into a gold
buckle, thus the gold was

The same, his ancient personage to deck
Her great-great-grandsire wore about his neck
In three seal-rings, which, after melted down,
Formed one huge buckle for his widow’s gown.

Besides the precious metals many other materials were used in ancient
times for rings. Thus a few leaden rings have been preserved, a number of
them having been unearthed in a tomb at Beneventum. The casting has been
roughly done, without finishing touches. It has been suggested that in view
of the rarity of leaden rings, the large number found in this tomb may be

taken to indicate that the deceased had been a manufacturer of rings of this
kind. From Tanagra comes a leaden ring of great size; as it is too large for
wear, it might be regarded as a votive offering to a shrine or temple. Glass
rings were also used at times for this purpose by the poorer classes, an
example of such a ring being listed among the possessions of the temple of
Asklepios at Athens as early as the fourth century b.c. The manufacture of
glass rings was quite extensively carried on in Alexandria. In one case the
bezel had been adorned with a painting of a woman’s head, over which was
placed a translucent glass plate. This was found at the Rosetta Gate,
Alexandria.[186]
An ivory ring of Roman times, later provided with a band of silver, is
noted in the descriptive catalogue of the Royal Museum at Budapest. It is of
oval form and artistically engraved with the seated figure of a military
leader clothed with a mantle, the left hand extended as though delivering a
speech; in his right hand he holds a spear. Behind him is a trophy, and
before him stands a Roman soldier fully armed. Engraved ivory rings from
Greek or Roman times are rare, just as are engraved amber rings. The
trophy emblem denotes that this ring commemorated some triumph, or
victory.[187]
A “St. Martin’s ring” had become, in the seventeenth century, a name for
a brummagem ring, as is shown among other examples by the following
satirical passage from a book entitled “Whimsies, or a new Cast of
Characters,” published in London in 1631: “St. Martin’s Rings and
counterfeit bracelets are commodities of infinite consequence; they will
passe current at a may-pole, and purchase favor from their May Marian.” A
rare tract called “The Captain’s Commonwealth” (1617) says that kindness
was not like alchemy or a St. Martin’s ring, “that are faire to the eye and
have a rich outside; but if a man should breake them asunders, and looke
into them, they are nothing but brasse and copper.” The makers, or vendors
of these rings lived within the precincts of the collegiate church St.
Martin’s-le-Grand, and had long enjoyed a certain immunity from
prosecution under the laws prohibiting the manufacture of ornaments made
in imitation of genuine gold or silver ones. The gilding or silvering of
brooches or rings made of copper or latten, is prohibited by an ordinance of
Henry IV (1404), and another of Edward IV (in 1464), which, while
pronouncing it to be unlawful to import rings of gilded copper or latten,

expressly declared that the act should not be construed as meaning anything
prejudicial to one Robert Styllington, clerk, dean of the King’s free chapel
of “St. Martin le Graund de Londres” or to any person or persons dwelling
within this sanctuary or precincts, or who might in after time dwell there, or
more especially in St. Martin’s Lane.[188]
Rings set with precious stones, other than turquoises and pearls, can be
safely cleaned with warm water, white soap and a trifle of ammonia. The
wash should be applied with a soft old tooth-brush, so as to cleanse the
spaces between the filling and the stone-setting. A little polishing off with a
soft chamois will thoroughly restore the brilliancy of the stone. Turquoise
or pearl rings, however, need more careful treatment and the above
directions do not apply in their case.

III

SIGNET RINGS

I
f we pass over the scene between Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar,
related in Gen. xxxvii, 12–26, where the patriarch leaves his signet (not
necessarily a signet ring) his bracelets and his staff, as pledges for a
promised gift, the earliest Hebrew notice of a ring is in Genesis xlii, 42,
where we read that in return for the interpretation of his dream and for the
valuable counsel as to laying up a stock of grain in Egypt to forestall a
coming famine, the Pharaoh of the time “took off his ring from his hand,
and put it upon Joseph’s hand.” This might refer to a period about 1600 b.c.,
or possibly somewhat earlier, always providing the tradition be accepted as
in a certain sense exact. Centuries later, in the Desert, when the Lord
commanded offerings for the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and for
the ephod and breastplate, among the gifts proffered are enumerated
“bracelets, earrings, and rings” (Exodus, xxxv, 22). The Book of Daniel,
written not earlier than the sixth century before Christ, and more probably,
in its present form, a work of the second century b.c., relating the
imprisonment of Daniel in the lions’ den, states that when at the reluctant
command of King Darius he was shut up therein, “a stone was brought, and
laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet,
and with the signet of his lords” (Dan. vi, 17). Still, these might have been
of the well-known Babylonian type of “rolling seals” and not rings.
The Book of Esther, however, of later date than Daniel, makes definite
mention of the signet ring of the Persian monarch called Ahasuerus
(Artaxerxes) in the Biblical text, and while the recital can scarcely be
accepted as historical in any sense, the details of custom and adornment are
probably quite trustworthy. On investing Haman with a great authority,
Ahasuerus “took his ring from his hand and gave it unto Haman,”
whereupon the latter summoned the king’s scribes and had them write
letters to the provincial governors—instructing the latter to kill all the Jews
in the kingdom on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; each of these
letters was “sealed with the king’s ring.” Before this dire disaster could be
consummated, the royal favor was gently swayed in an opposite direction
by the grace and charm of Esther, the Hebrew favorite of the sovereign, and

the wicked Haman was hanged on the tall gallows he had set up for
Mordecai, Esther’s guardian, on whom the ring stript from Haman’s hand
was bestowed. In spite of the somewhat confused recital, one point is
always strongly brought out, that the impression of the royal signet
imparted to letters or documents the quality of royal ordinances.
In Persia the power and authority attributed to the ring of the sovereign
is noted by the Persian poet Unsuri (fl. 1000 a.d.), and in the legends of that
land the famous though fabulous hero-king, Jemshid, is said to have had a
magic ring of wondrous power. Among the Persians, as in many other
Oriental countries, the signet-ring was long considered to be a symbol of
authority.[189]
The gold ring of Queen Hâtshepset (about 1500 b.c.), consort of
Thothmes II, whose prenomen, Maât-ka-Ra, signifies “flesh and blood of
Amen Ra,” is set with a lapis lazuli scarab inscribed with the above words.
[190]
Another ring with lapis lazuli setting is that of Thothmes III, whose
titles, Beautiful God, Conqueror of All Lands, Men-kheper-Ra, are
inscribed on one side of the rectangular stone above a design representing a
man-headed lion in the act of crushing a prostrate foe with his paw.[191] A
steatite scarab, set in a gold ring, bears the name of Ptah-mes, a high priest
of Memphis.[192] Another steatite ring-scarab is inscribed with the name and
title of Shashank I, the Shishak of the Bible, who reigned about 966 b.c.[193]
The gold signet ring of Aah-hotep I, queen of Seqenenra III (1610–1597
b.c.) of the XVII Dynasty, was found with a wealth of other jewels at Draa-
abul-Nega, the northern and most ancient part of the Theban necropolis.
This queen had an unusually long and eventful life. The records clearly
indicate that she must have been one hundred years old, or very nearly that
age, at the time of her death, and while her youth was passed at the end of
the period of the oppressive rule of the foreign Hyksos kings, she lived to
witness the glorious revival of native Egyptian rule under her husband, son
and grandson. This ring is now in the Louvre Museum.[194]
An interesting Egyptian signet bears the cartouche of Khufu, the second
ruler of the IV Dynasty (ab. 3969–3908), the Cheops of the Greeks
(Manetho’s Suphis), in whose reign the greatest of the pyramids was built.
The worship of Khufu continued to a late period of Egyptian history, and
this signet belonged to a Ra-nefer-ab, priest or keeper of the pyramid under

the XXVI Dynasty, 664–525 b.c.[195] The ring is of fine gold, and weighs
nearly ¾ ounce; it was found at Ghizeh by Colonel Vyse, in a tomb known
as Campbell’s Tomb, and was acquired in Egypt by Dr. Abbott, who
gathered together a choice collection of Egyptian antiquities during a
residence of twenty years in Egypt. In 1860, this collection was given to the
New York Historical Society through the liberality of citizens of New York.
[196]

The rings of the Minoan and Mycenæan periods from about 1700 b.c. to
1000 b.c. offer a great variety of engraved designs, some in relief and others
in intaglio, but all destined it seems for use as signets. Undoubtedly these
rings derive in the last instance from Egyptian influence, their especial
characteristics, however, are early Greek, but rarely Egyptian, as in the case
of a bronze ring with a sphinx in relief found in the necropolis of Zafer
Papoura near Knossos in Crete.

PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY LUCAS CRANACH THE
ELDER (1472–1553)
Seal ring on index of left hand with plain ring beneath
it; ring with precious stone setting on little finger of the
same hand

PORTRAIT OF KATHARINA AEDER, WIFE OF MELCHOW
HANLOCHER, BY HANS BOCK THE ELDER
Gem and serpent ring on right forefinger, and three rings on left
fourth finger
Art Gallery at Basel, Switzerland

Many of the Mycenæan engraved rings were evidently not intended to be
used for sealing, as the intaglio is frequently very shallow, and as the proper
position of the parts of the body would not be rightly shown in an
impression. Hence these rings must have been designed simply for wear as
ornaments. The hoop is often astonishingly small, so much so that it will
not pass down onto the third finger-joint of an average man’s hand, and
would only fit the very slender finger of a woman.[197]

Some remarkably fine rings are in the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote
Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Among them
two serpentine rings of gold are well worth noting. In one of these the coil
has six turns which are brazed together; at either end is a ram’s head. The
other ring shows a serpent of two full coils, with erect head and curved neck
and tail; scales are marked at the ends. The bands of the ring are smooth and
plain.[198] Many of the rings are of the swivel type and are set with
artistically engraved scarabs. In one of these the scarab is of green plasma,
translucent but somewhat clouded; the cutting is well executed. The bottom
shows two wrestlers, each entirely nude with the exception of a short ribbed
apron about the loins. Behind each is an erect uræus (the serpent emblem of
Egyptian divinities and kings), with wings like those of the goddess Mut,
extended in protection. Between the wrestlers, on the ground, is an object
resembling a wolf’s head. The bow and collet of this signet are of gold. The
plasma scarab in another of these swivel rings has been pronounced to be a
perfect example of this form. The stone is a pure green and the scarab has
been decorated with two seated, winged androsphinxes (with man’s head
and lion’s body), the paws raised before the sacred tree between them; the
symbol of lordship, neb, is placed below. The hoop is a plain, thin wire.[199]
Two massive ivory rings were found in the course of excavations at
Salamis, on the island of Cyprus. One was set with an oval disk of green
glass, and was of the type used for sealing amphoræ of wine. The other
bears the head of a woman in bas-relief; this is probably a cameo of
Arsinoë.[200]
The story of the ring of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos (d. 522 b.c.), is
related by Herodotus[201] (b. 484 b.c.), who, writing less than a century after
the death of Polycrates, may probably give us the main facts with
reasonable accuracy. According to this account, Polycrates had formed an
alliance with Amasis, King of Egypt, and the latter began to fear that the
unbroken good fortune of the Samian ruler would arouse the jealousy of the
gods; he therefore counselled Polycrates to throw away his most prized
treasure. This was a splendid emerald, set in a gold ring, and engraved by
Theodorus of Samos, the supreme master of the art of gem engraving in that
age. Acceding to the request of Amasis, Polycrates sailed out to sea on one
of his ships and cast the precious ring into the waters. However, the gods
refused the gift, for not long afterward the tyrant’s chief cook brought him

back the ring, which had just been found in cutting up a fish. News of this
occurrence was sent to Amasis, who immediately broke off the alliance,
since he believed that the gods were implacable, and would visit Polycrates
with downfall and destruction. This, indeed, proved to be the case, as a few
years later the tyrant was inveigled into the power of Orœtes, a Persian
satrap, and was put to death by crucifixion.
The design engraved upon this ring was a lyre, if we can trust the
statement to this effect made centuries later by Clemens Alexandrinus.[202]
Strange to say Pliny, who relates the story quite fully, asserts that in the
Temple of Concord there was shown the supposed gem of the famous ring
of Polycrates. This was an unengraved sardonyx, set in a golden
cornucopia, and had been dedicated to the temple by Augustus. Pliny is
careful to write “if we may believe,” in reporting this almost certainly
spurious treasure of the Temple of Concord. Probably the attribution was
nothing more than an invention of the custodians to enlist the interest of
visitors.
A corroboration to a certain extent of the tradition that the seal of
Polycrates was cut on an emerald is given by the existence of a small
engraved emerald of about this period, found in Cyprus, and evidently of
Phœnician workmanship. It bears the figure of a sovereign holding a sceptre
in one hand and an axe in the other; on his head is a high tiara and the
arrangement of hair and beard, as well as the dress and other details, are of
Ægypto-Syrian type. This gem formed part of the Tyszkiewicz Collection.
[203]

In a recently published work, M. Salomon Reinach, of the National
Museum at St. Germain-en-Laye, an archæologist of the highest repute,
makes a curious conjecture in regard to the real significance of the story
related by Herodotus regarding this signet. M. Reinach holds that when
Polycrates sailed out to sea to cast away his ring, he was engaged in the
performance of a ceremony similar to that performed annually by the Doges
of Venice, when they wedded the Adriatic by casting a ring into its waters.
Polycrates, as a “thalassocrat,” or ruler of the sea, celebrated in this way his
mastery over this element, and M. Reinach believes that this act, told as an
isolated happening by Herodotus, was really a ceremony repeated each

year. The conjecture is an ingenious one, although it may not be generally
accepted.[204]
The signet of the Persian sovereign, Xerxes, is said to have borne the
nude figure of a woman with disheveled hair.[205] This depicted Anahita, the
Persian goddess of fertilization and also of war, a divinity closely
resembling the Assyrian Ishtar in her attributes and functions. According to
other ancient authorities, however, the design was either a portrait of Xerxes
himself, that of Cyrus the Great, or else a representation of the horse whose
neighing legend states to have been received as an omen determining the
choice of Darius Hystaspes, father of Xerxes, as King of Persia.
In Græco-Roman times, a certain Eurates is represented to be the owner
of a ring set with an engraved signet bearing the head of the Pythian Apollo,
and to have boasted that the ring literally “spoke” to him. Of course, the
satirist Lucian, who tells this tale, only offers it as a specimen of the lies
told by Eurates, still the recital indicates that such fables were credited in
the second century of our era.[206]
Another superstitious use of signet rings was to throw a number of them
into a heap and pull out one at random, the design engraved on the signet
being interpreted as a favorable or unfavorable omen, which foretold the
outcome of any contemplated action. An instance of this appears in
Plutarch’s life of Timoleon (d. 337 b.c.), the Greek general who freed
Syracuse from the tyrant Dionysius. In one of his campaigns the enemy had
taken up a strong position behind a river, which the troops of Timoleon
were forced to ford. A noble rivalry sprang up among the officers as to who
should be the first to enter the river, and Timoleon, fearing that confusion
would result from the dispute, decided to settle the question by lot.
Therefore he took from each of the officers his signet ring, cast them into
his own cloak, shook them together, and drew out one, which fortunately
bore the figure of a trophy. This was hailed as a good omen, the quarrel was
forgotten, and the stream was forded so impetuously, and the attack was so
vigorous that the enemy was overwhelmed.[207]
After his Persian conquests, in 331 b.c., Alexander the Great sealed the
letters he sent to Europe with his old seal, while for those sent to
functionaries in his new Asiatic domains he used the seal of Darius III,
Codomannus (reigned 336–330 b.c.), whose daughter Statira he afterwards

wedded. Quintus Curtius regards this as emblematic of the idea that a single
mind was not wide enough to embrace two such destinies,[208] but the true
reason was undoubtedly that the Asiatic officials were already familiar with
the Persian sovereign’s seal and were accustomed to render it due
obedience.
The emblem of the anchor used by the Seleucidæ, the dynasty founded
in Syria by Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander’s generals, is said to have
originated in a strange dream of Laodicea, mother of Seleucus and wife of
Antiochus. One night she dreamt that she was visited by the God Apollo,
and that he bestowed upon her a ring set with a stone on which an anchor
was engraved. This was to be given to the son she was to bear. As such a
ring was found in the room the next morning, the dream seemed to be
thoroughly corroborated, and, moreover, when Seleucus was born, he had
on his thigh the birthmark of an anchor. Subsequent to Alexander’s death in
323 b.c., Seleucus founded, in 312 b.c. the kingdom of Syria, which was
transmitted to a long series of his descendants, each of whom in turn is said
to have borne a similar birthmark.[209]

CARDINAL OF BRANDENBURG, BY THE MASTER OF
THE DEATH OF MARY
Seal ring on index of right hand; rings set with precious
stones on fourth and little fingers of the same hand
Reale Galleria Nazionale, Rome

PORTRAIT OF A MOTHER AND HER DAUGHTER, BY
BARTHOLOMEW BRUYN
Three rings on right hand, one with a pointed diamond;
also three rings on left hand, two on index finger; the one
on the fourth finger set with two pearls
Imperial Hermitage, Petrograd

In the Hellenistic period (ca. 300 b.c.-ca. 100 b.c.) signet rings entirely
of metal largely gave place to those in which the seal was engraved on a
stone set in a metal ring. Chalcedony continued to be freely used for this
purpose, but the employment of the choicer and harder precious stones from

India, transparent and brilliant, and of deeper coloring, characterizes this
period. In the front rank is the jacinth, unknown in earlier times, with its
wonderful ruddy hues. This is the favorite stone of the time. Usually the
gem is given a strongly convex form in order to bring out better the play of
color. Scarcely less favored than the jacinths were the garnets, also cut in a
convex shape; in many cases the under side was cut slightly concave to
enhance the effect. Evidently, however, garnets were less prized than
jacinths, for the engravings on the former are almost without exception
much inferior to those on the latter. Sometimes, in this period, unengraved
garnets, cut convex, are used for ring adornment. Another precious stone
that makes its first appearance in the Hellenistic epoch is the beryl, which,
because of its costliness, is more rarely met with than those we have already
mentioned. It is only used for the very finest work, as is also the case with
the topaz. The amethyst, which had almost gone out of fashion in the
preceding periods, was now restored to favor, principally because of its
beautiful color; like the other stones, it was cut convex. Rock crystal was
still used, as were also carnelian and sardonyx.[210]
That cruel persecutor of the Jews, Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175–164
b.c.), on his death-bed, confided to his most trusted councillor, Philip, the
signet ring from his finger, that it might be held in trust for his son, a child
but nine years old, until the latter should come of age and exercise the royal
authority. In the meanwhile, the grant of the signet was equivalent to the
bestowal of the regency upon Philip, as he had the power to affix the royal
seal upon all edicts or ordinances. The son did not, however, live to receive
the ring, as he only survived his father two years, although he was a
nominal successor under the title, Antiochus V, Eupator.[211]
Two Greek epigrams in the Anthology, on engraved amethysts in signet
rings, express the prevailing superstition regarding the sobering effect of
this precious stone; these have been very well Englished by Rev. C. W.
King.[212] One, by Antipater, concerns a signet of Cleopatra and runs in
King’s version as follows:

A Mœnad wild, on amethyst I stand,
The engraving truly of a skilful hand;
A subject foreign to the sober stone,
But Cleopatra claims it for her own;
And hallow’d by her touch, the nymph so free
Must quit her drunken mood, and sober be.

That this was really a ring-stone is proved by the Greek words “on the
queen’s hand,” which King has not literally translated. The image was that
of Methe, goddess of intoxication. The other epigram is shorter but to the
same point:

On wineless gem, I, toper Bacchus, reign;
Learn, stone, to drink, or teach me to abstain.

That admiration of a work of art on the part of an unscrupulous official is
sometimes fraught with danger for the rightful ownership of the object, was
illustrated in the case of a seal ring belonging to a Roman citizen of
Agrigentum in Sicily. The arch-pilferer Verres, Roman governor of the
island from 73 to 71 b.c., being on one occasion struck by the beauty of a
seal impression on a letter just handed to his interpreter Vitellius, asked
whence the letter came and who was the sender. The information was of
course quickly given, and thereupon Verres, then in Syracuse, dictated a
letter to his representative in Agrigentum, requiring that the seal ring should
be forwarded to Syracuse without delay, and the owner, a certain Lucius
Titius, was forced to give it up to the unscrupulous Roman governor.[213]
The injustice of this act must have been felt all the more keenly that the
special and peculiar design on a seal was then regarded as something
closely linked with the personality of the owner.
A strong appeal to the memories aroused by a signet bearing the effigy of
a renowned ancestor, was made by Cicero in one of his orations against
Catilina. He declared that when he submitted to Publius Lentulus Sura, who
was involved in the great Catilinian conspiracy, an incriminating letter
believed to be his, asking him whether he did not acknowledge the seal with
which it was stamped, Lentulus nodded assent. Thereupon Cicero addressed
him in these words: “In effect the seal is well known, it is the image of your
ancestor, whose sole love was for his country and his fellow-citizens. Mute

as it is, this image should have sufficed to hold you aloof from such a
crime.”[214]
When, after the decisive battle of Pharsala, Julius Cæsar came to Egypt
in pursuit of his defeated adversary, Pompey, he learned that the latter had
been treacherously assassinated by the Egyptians, who hoped thereby to
gain favor with the conqueror. As proof of Pompey’s death, his head was
brought to Cæsar, who turned away in aversion from the messenger of
death. At the same time, Pompey’s signet ring was given to the victor, on
receiving which tears rose to his eyes,[215] for no memento could be more
potent than such a ring. Cæsar’s manifestation of grief was absolutely free
from hypocrisy for he was “of a noble generous nature,” and had long had
the most friendly relations with Pompey, to whom he gave his daughter
Julia in marriage, until the inevitable rivalry for the control of Rome
brought them into enmity. The death of Julia is said to have contributed not
a little to the termination of the friendship between Cæsar and Pompey.
St. Ambrose answering the self-posed query, whether anyone having an
image of a tyrant was liable to punishment, asserts that he remembered to
have read that certain persons who wore rings bearing the effigies of Brutus
and Cassius, the assassins of Cæsar, had been condemned to capital
punishment.[216] Of course, the wearing of such a ring would imply not only
an admiration of the person figured, but also devotion to his cause.
The imprint of a proprietor’s seal was frequently made upon his trees,
and served to establish his ownership, so that strangers could have no
excuse for cutting them down, or in case of fruit trees, for plucking the fruit.
The degree of confidence reposed in the seal impression is strikingly
illustrated by the account that when Pompey learned that some of his
soldiers were committing atrocities on the march, he ordered that all their
swords should be sealed, and no one should remove the impression without
having obtained permission to do so.[217]
The symbols used as mint-marks on ancient coins are often
reproductions of the seals of the chief magistrate of the city or district, or
else of the mint-master. Among these may be noted such types as: a locust,
a calf’s head, a dancing Satyr, a young male head, a culex (gnat), etc.[218] A
ring as a mint-mark on early English coins is a clear indication that such
coins were struck in one of the ecclesiastical mints. On a penny of

Stephen’s reign (1135–1154), from the Archbishop of York’s mint, this
mint-mark has been made by converting the left leaf of the fleur-de-lys
surmounting the sceptre into a small annulet. The ring-mark appears on the
coins of York from the earliest times, and is assumed to have been
especially favored for the English Primate’s mint in reference to the Ring of
St. Peter, or the Fisherman’s Ring. A penny, probably coined after the
installation of Archbishop William in 1141, appears to be one of the earliest
of this type. The reverse gives Ulf as the name of the coiner or moneyer.
[219]

While none of the signet rings of Roman emperors, or even of Romans
prominent in the social or political life of the centuries immediately
preceding and succeeding the beginning of the Christian Era, have been
preserved, it is possible to learn from literary sources the devices engraved
on many of them. Scipio Africanus, the conqueror of Hannibal, had his
father’s portrait engraved on his signet, and his son followed the father’s
example in this respect. The idea seems to be an excellent one, as both
family honor and filial love could thus find expression. The gifted, but
dissolute Sylla, in the first design he had cut upon his signet, sought to
perpetuate the memory of his victory over Jugurtha in 107 b.c., the
Mauritanian king Bocchus being depicted in the act of surrendering
Jugurtha. Later on Sylla used a signet with three trophies, and finally
selected one with a portrait of Alexander the Great. For Lucullus, the great
gourmet and master of all the arts of Roman luxury, the head of Ptolemy,
King of Egypt, seemed the design best fitted for his signet.
The two great rivals, Pompey and Cæsar, chose widely divergent
symbols. The former wore a signet engraved with a lion bearing a sword,
while on Cæsar’s ring was cut an armed Venus, the Venus Victrix, from
whom the gens Julia claimed descent, and for whose statue Cæsar is said to
have brought pearls from Britain to be set on the statue’s breastplate. The
first choice made by Augustus was a sphinx, in symbolical allusion to his
taciturnity; later in his reign he wore a signet with Alexander the Great’s
head engraved thereon, and finally, moved perhaps by the flatteries of his
adulators, he substituted his own image for that of the great Macedonian.
The famous literary patron of the Augustan Age, Mæcenas (d. 8 a.d.), who
was at the same time a very able statesman, chose the singular emblem of a
frog. That the bloodthirsty Nero should select a design figuring a

martyrdom seems very appropriate, and in the flaying of Marsyas by Apollo
cut on his ring, he undoubtedly identified himself with the sun god and
leader of the muses who took vengeance upon his would-be rival in the
musical art. For Nero was a most devoted amateur of the arts as he
understood them, and had sung—in a strained, high-pitched voice it is said
—in the theatres of Greece, earning applause enough from the wily Greeks
we may be sure. Actuated by jealousy, he is said to have had the singer
Menedemus whipped, and to have warmly applauded his “melodious” cries
of agony, evidently rejoicing in having forced him to “sing another song.”
Galba (3–69 b.c.), Nero’s immediate successor, is said to have used
successively three signets, the first depicting a dog bending its head beneath
the prow of a ship; this was followed by a ring showing a Victory with a
trophy, and lastly came one bearing the effigies of his ancestors. As his
reign of less than a year seems too short for us to suppose that all these
changes were made in that time, perhaps only the last-mentioned ring was
the one he used as emperor. Commodus (161–192 a.d.), the unworthy son
of the philosopher-emperor, Marcus Aurelius, had the figure of an Amazon
engraved for his signet, this choice having been made, so it is said, because
of the pleasure he took in seeing his mistress Martia dressed in this way.
Augustus Cæsar reposed such unlimited confidence in his son-in-law,
Agrippa, and in his friend and finance minister, Mæcenas, that he was in the
habit of confiding his letters to them for correction, and gave them
permission to send off the corrected letters, bearing the stamp of his signet
which he had deposited in their charge, without submitting them again to
him. Similar trust was reposed by Vespasian in Mutianus.[220]
The seal was stamped on a linen band passed around the closed tablets
on the inside surfaces of which the letter had been written. The impression,
made when the ends of the band were joined, was either upon wax, soft
viscous earth, or even on a mixture of chalk; this was commonly moistened
with saliva before the signet was used, so that the engraved stone might not
adhere to the imprint and could be easily taken off. The bearer of such a
letter fully realized his responsibility for its delivery with unbroken seal,
and generally took pains to have this duly recognized by the person to
whom it was addressed.[221] The personal seal was also impressed, both in
Roman times and later, upon all documents private or public. In the case of
private documents the strictly guarded individuality of the seal really

afforded a very considerable guarantee of the genuineness of a document. A
survival of this is the common little red seal attached now-a-days to legal
documents, necessary to their validity it is true, but giving no possible
confirmation of the signature. This latter was in fact represented by the
design of the old signets.
The “Dream Book” of Artemidorus relates as an especially direful
vision, that of one who dreamed his signet ring had dropped from his finger,
and that the engraved stone set therein had broken into many fragments, the
result of this being that he could transact no business for forty-five days,
[222]
presumably until he could have a new signet engraved. For the
impression of the individual signet was indispensable to give validity to any
order or agreement.

Two brass rings. Roman. 1, set with an inscribed agate,; 2, key-ring, set
with an engraved onyx
Gorlæus, Dactyliotheca, Delphis Bat., 1601

Two gold rings, with onyx gems. Roman. 1, engraved with seated
figure of Ceres; 2, design of dove bringing back the olive branch to the
Ark
Gorlæus, Dactyliotheca, Delphis Bat., 1601

Two bronze rings excavated at the
Borough Field, Chesterford, Essex, 1848.
Late Roman.
British Museum

Bone ring with grotesque mask carved
on bezel. Found near the amphitheatre at
Lyons, France. Roman.
British Museum

Roman gold rings of the Fourth Century a.d. 1, set with plasma bead; 2, double
ring, set with garnets; 3, gold hoop composed of a plain band on either side of a
wavy band; set with a convex plasma; 4. set with convex almandine intaglio
British Museum

Ornamental gold ring from Wiston,
Sussex, England, set with a dark
amethyst
British Museum

Silver ring. On bezel engraved design
of a bird approaching a fallen stag. About
Fifth Century a.d.
British Museum

The Jewish historian Josephus cites, as an example of absent-
mindedness, that when the Roman senator Cneius Sentius Saturninus arose

in the senate and pronounced a fiery harangue on the death of Caligula,
urging the senators to regain their former liberties of which they had been
robbed, he quite forgot that he wore on his hand a ring set with a stone on
which the head of the detested tyrant was cut. His fellow senator, Trebellius
Maximus, remarking it, however, snatched it from his finger, and the stone
was crushed to pieces.[223]
How common in ancient Rome was the use of a signet ring to seal up the
provision rooms in a household, is shown by a passage in the “Casina” of
the comic poet Plautus, written about 200 b.c., where Cleopatra on leaving
her home to visit a neighbor, directs her slaves to seal these rooms and
bring her ring back to her.[224]
Of the betrothal ring, Clemens Alexandrinus says that it was not given as
an ornament, but for sealing objects in the conjugal domicile. As the
husband’s signet ring was often used in a similar way, it was quite
customary to bequeath it to a wife or a daughter. An example of this appears
in the case of Emperor Aurelian (214–275 a.d.) who left his seal ring to his
wife and daughter jointly, the Latin historian adding that in so doing he was
acting “just like a private citizen.”[225]
A curious subject was chosen for his signet-ring by a native of Intercatia
in Spain. His father had been killed in a single combat by the Roman leader
Scipio Æmilius, and it was this scene that the son had engraved upon his
ring. When Stilo Preconinus related this fact in Rome he laughingly
demanded of his hearers what they supposed the Spaniard would have done
if his father had killed Scipio instead of being killed by him.[226]
In the Roman world the custom of removing the rings in case of death is
noted by Pliny, who says that they were taken from the fingers of those in
the comatose state of the dying; the rings were often replaced after death.
[227]
An instance in point is noted by Suetonius, who reports that when
Tiberius became unconscious, and was believed to be about to die, his seal
ring was slipped from his finger, but on regaining consciousness the
emperor demanded that it should be replaced.[228] To have a ring drop from
the finger was regarded as a bad omen, and when an accident of this kind
happened to Emperor Hadrian, he is said to have exclaimed: “This is a sign
of death.” The ring which fell from his finger bore a gem engraved with his
own image.

The elegy of Propertius (49–15? b.c.) on the “Shade of Cynthia,” gives
proof that a valuable ring was often left on the hand of the corpse when it
was burned on the funeral pyre. The Latin verses describing the apparition
may be thus rendered in prose:[229]
“She still had the same eyes and hair as when on the funeral couch; but
her garments had been burned away. The flame had destroyed the beryl
which used to grace her finger, and the infernal stream had discolored her
lips.”
The sense of intimate connection between a valued ring and the wearer,
finds expression in Shakespeare’s lines (Cymbeline Act I, sc. 5):

My ring I hold dear as my finger; ’tis part of it.

And if we go back 2200 years to a far distant quarter of the globe we
meet with the same feeling of intimate connection in the inspired words of
the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah (xxii, 24):
As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were
the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee hence.

The prophet Haggai (chap. ii, verse 23) uses the designation signet to
indicate a specially chosen instrument, in the following words:
In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my
servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet:
for I have chosen thee, saith the Lord of hosts.
The Freemasons have adopted the signet of Zerubbabel as one of the
symbols of the Royal Arch, the seventh masonic degree.[230]
The monogram of Christ appears on a signet made for a Christian lady of
Roman times, Ælia Valeria. Of this sacred symbol St. John Chrysostom
wrote that the Christians of his time always inscribed it at the beginning of
their letters, and he gives as a reason for this that wherever the name of God
appeared there was nothing but happiness. Undoubtedly the shape of the
Greek X (Ch), forming part of this monogram, suggested a form of the
cross, and gave an added significance to the monogram, especially in view
of Chrysostom’s statement that the Christians of his time painted or

engraved a cross on their houses and made the sign of the cross over their
foreheads and their hearts.[231]
Clemens Alexandrinus in the second century tells us that men were
required to wear the seal ring on the little finger, as worn in this way it
would interfere least with the use of the hand, and would be best protected
from injury and loss.[232] While, however, fashion must have dictated to a
great extent the finger on which a seal ring was to be worn, we should bear
in mind that any particular custom in this matter was not constant, and that
individual preferences must often have determined the finger chosen to bear
the seal ring. This diversity is attested by the differing statements of the old
writers, as well as by the rare examples offered by ancient statues and
paintings.
One of the rare ivory rings in the British Museum is a signet the bezel of
which bears an engraved design of Christ on the Cross, with the Virgin and
St. John on either side. The legend is the motto of Constantine the Great: In
hoc signo vinces. The hoop of this ring, which was found in Suffolk, has
been restored at the back. The figures are very rudely engraved for a
production of the sixteenth century.[233]

Bronze signet-ring, Byzantine, two
views and impression. The abbreviated
Greek inscription reads: “May the Lord
help his servant Stephan”
British Museum

Bronze signet ring. European. Fifteenth
Century
British Museum

Silver ring, broken at the back. Bezel
bears letter “T” crowned. Fifteenth
Century
British Museum

Ivory signet ring, with impression. On
the carved bezel, the Crucifixion,
between the Virgin and St. John; legend:
“In hoc signo vinces,” motto of the
Emperor Constantine
British Museum

Bronze signet. The octagonal bezel is
engraved with a greyhound’s head, and a
rather obscure inscription. Ring and
impression of signet. Fifteenth Century
British Museum

Gold signet ring, engraved with a lion rampant; beneath, a
star. Ring and impression. Sixteenth Century
British Museum

Massive gold ring; bezel engraved
with a lion passant regardant, and the
legend: “Now is thus.” English, late
Fifteenth Century. Ring and impression
of signet
British Museum

It appears to have been an ancient usage in some parts of the Christian
world to use two signet rings in connection with the baptismal ceremonies.
One of these was employed to seal up the font, or else the baptistry, while

the other was used to affix a seal upon the profession of faith made by the
neophyte, this profession being later entered on a public register. Some of
the ecclesiastical writers saw the origin of the first-named ring in the text
(Cant. iv, 12):
A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
[234]

A recognition that at the beginning of the sixth century a.d. bishops were
in possession of signet rings is offered by a circular letter addressed by
Clovis I, in 511 a.d., after his victory over the Visigoths at Vouglé, to the
bishops of the many cities that came under his domination as the fruits of
this success. He informs the bishops that he will free all prisoners, either
clerical or lay, for whom this favor shall be asked in letters “sealed with
your ring.” This, however, only confirms the other testimony to the effect
that the bishops had signets, but does not suffice to establish the existence at
this time of rings given to them at their consecration as symbols of their
office.[235]
The French kings of the Merovingian age stamped upon their royal
documents the design engraved on their signet rings, the accompanying
formula being frequently as follows: “By the impress of our ring we
corroborate (roborari fecimus)”; slightly different forms appear sometimes.
The following list gives, with the dates, a number of seal impressions that
have been found on such documents:[236]
Childebert I, 528 a.d.
Sigebert I, 545, a.d.
Childeric I, 583 a.d.
Dagobert I, 629, 631–632, 635 a.d.
Childeric II, 664 a.d.
Thierry III, 673 a.d.
Dagobert II, 675 a.d.
Charles Martel (mayor of the palace), 724 a.d.
Pepin le Bref (mayor of the palace), 748 and 751 a.d.
Pepin le Bref, king, 755 and 768 a.d.

In the Carolingian period, Charlemagne and his successors continued the
use of the same formulas.
The possession of signet rings by well-born women, although not usual
in Roman times, became quite common in the early Middle Ages, under the
influence of the Germanic peoples, which accorded to woman a much more

important station than did the Romans or Gallo-Romans. Among the relics
of the Merovingian period that have been preserved to our day, is the ring of
Berteildis, one of the wives of Dagobert I (602?-638).[237] It is of silver and
is inscribed with the name of the queen and the monogram of the word
regina.[238] A document from the time of Childeric II, dated in 637, shows
impressions of two queenly signets, one that of Emnechildis, wife of
Sigebert II, King of Austrasia and guardian of Childeric, and the other
belonging to Blichildis, Childeric’s wife.
In the tomb of the Frankish king Childeric I (458–481 a.d.), accidentally
discovered at Tournai in 1653, in an ancient cemetery of the parish church
of St. Brica, were found a number of valuable relics of this sovereign,
among them his signet ring. After having been taken to Vienna by Archduke
Leopold Wilhelm, then governor of the Low Countries, the treasure came,
after his death, into the Imperial Cabinet there. In 1665 the Archbishop of
Mayence secured from Emperor Leopold I permission to offer it to Louis
XIV. In July of this year the precious objects were transmitted to the French
king and were deposited in the Cabinet de Médailles, recently constituted in
the Louvre. Shortly afterward, they were transferred to the Bibliothèque du
Roi, and were safely preserved in this institution, under its changing names,
until 1831, when the ring and other of the Childeric relics, as well as a
number of other historic objects, were stolen from the library. The ring was
never recovered. Fortunately there exists a very exact description and a
figuration of the ring in an account of the treasure published in 1655, at
Antwerp, by Jean Jacques Chifflet, first physician of the Archduke.[239] The
ring, which is of massive gold, bears a large oval bezel on which is
engraved the bust, full face. The sovereign is beardless, with long hair
parted in the middle and hanging down to his shoulders. The bust is garbed
in Roman style; on the tunic may be seen a decorative plaque. The king’s
right hand holds a lance which rests on his shoulder, as may be observed in
the imperial medals of Constantine II, Theodosius II, and their successors.
The legend, in the genitive case, Childerici Regis, presupposes the word
signum or sigillum, as the ring was unquestionably a signet. M. Deloche
considers it probable that it was made on the occasion of Childeric’s
marriage with Basnia, Queen of Thuringia, who had abandoned her native
land and her husband to wed the Frankish sovereign. Clovis I (481–511)
was the offspring of this union. Although the original has been lost there has

fortunately been preserved an imprint from it on the margin of a manuscript
in the Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève; of the entire ring there is the
carefully executed drawing made for Chifflet’s work.[240]
In many cases the Carolingian monarchs rendered their signets, set with
antique gems, significant of their own personality by having their names
engraved around the setting. In this way Carloman (741–747) utilized an
antique gem showing a female bust with hair tied in a knot, while
Charlemagne’s choice was a gem engraved with the head of Marcus
Aurelius; at a later time he substituted for this one bearing the head of the
Alexandrian god Serapis. It is noteworthy that there is a great likeness
between the portraits of Antoninus Pius and the type chosen for Serapis.
Louis I, le Debonnaire (814–840), selected a portrait of Antoninus Pius, and
his son, Lothaire, Roman emperor, 840–855 a.d., a gem with Caracalla’s
head, the choice being no inappropriate one in view of Lothaire’s weak and
treacherous character. Rev. C. W. King conjectures that the selection of the
particular head may have depended upon its resemblance, more or less
close, to the features of the monarch, as even though the likeness should not
be very exact, the work would surpass anything that the unskilful gem-
cutters of this age could produce.[241]
Of the seal of the Prophet Mohammed, we are told by Ibn Kaldoun that
when he was about to send a letter to the Emperor Heraclius, his attention
was called to the fact that no letter would be received by a foreign potentate
unless it bore the impression of the Prophet’s seal. Mohammed therefore
had a seal made of silver, bearing the inscription “Mohammed rasûl Allah,”
“Mohammed the Apostle of God”; these three words, according to Al-
Bokhari, were disposed in three lines. The Prophet made use of this seal and
forbade the making of any one like it. After his death it was employed by
his successors, Abu Bekr, Omar and Othman, but the last-named unluckily
let it fall from his hand into the well of Aris, whose depth it had never been
possible to measure. A duplicate was executed to replace the original, but its
loss was greatly deplored, and was looked upon as a possible presage of ill-
fortune.[242] The title inscribed upon it was prouder in its simplicity than
that assumed by any other ruler, not excepting those who claimed for
themselves a divine ancestry, or divine attributes. These could at most
pretend to rank as divinities of a lower order, while Mohammed claimed to
be the mouthpiece of the one and only God.

Burton writes that it is “a tradition of the Prophet” that the carnelian is
the best stone for a signet ring, and this is still the usage among
Mohammedans in the Orient. In the Arabian tale entitled “History of Al
Hajjaj ben Yusuf and the Young Sayyed,” we read that the signet should be
of carnelian because the stone was a guard against poverty.[243]
Some Arabic signets bore peculiarly apt inscriptions. One of these reads:
“Correspondence is only a half-joy,” a delicate piece of flattery for the
recipient of a letter bearing this seal. Another signet gives the following
very necessary warning to the person to whom the letter is addressed,
should it happen to contain something which ought not to be revealed. “If
more than two know it, the secret is out.”[244] Such inscriptions are certainly
more significant than a motto of less special meaning.
In an essay on Arabic signets, Hammer-Purgstall[245] calls attention to a
fundamental distinction between talismans and signets. With the former, the
inscription is engraved so that it may be read as it stands, while with the
latter the characters are reversed so that only the impression gives them in
their proper order. Besides this, the talismans rarely contain the wearer’s
name, which is the most essential part of the signet. Nevertheless, there can
be little doubt that in many cases the signet was at the same time a talisman.
That lovers—even Mohammedan lovers—in the seventeenth century,
had romantic designs engraved upon seal rings, is illustrated by what
Garzoni relates concerning the seal ring of “Mahometh Bassa.” This bore
the figure of a silk-worm upon a mulberry leaf, the design commemorating
the wearer’s love for a Moorish girl, and signifying that he drew his life
from her as did the silk-worm from the leaf.[246]
Tavernier relates that in his time, the last half of the seventeenth century,
the secret treasure of the Sultans in Constantinople was guarded in an
innermost treasure-chamber of the Serail. This chamber was only opened at
intervals to receive the surplus gold that had been collected from the
Empire or received in any way, when the total sum had reached 18,000,000
livres (over $7,000,000] according to the value of the livre in Tavernier’s
day). The gold was contained in sacks, each of which held 15,000 ducats.
When an addition to the treasure was to be deposited, the Sultan himself led
the way to the treasure-chamber and stamped his seal, with his own hand,
on red wax spread over the knot of the cord with which the sack was

secured. This seal was engraved on the bezel of a gold ring and constituted
no design, but simply the name of the reigning sovereign, the characters
being probably intricately combined in the elaborate and cryptic manner
used in the case of the imperial name and titles.[247]
A Byzantine signet ring of the sixth or seventh century of our era, in the
British Museum, shows the head of Christ, beneath which bending figures
of two angels in profound adoration are depicted. Angel-figures almost
exactly similar may be seen in Byzantine ivory carvings of this later period,
the type evidently being one of those rigidly defined in the hieratic art of
the school. With this ring were found coins of Heraclius (610–641), the
Greek emperor in whose reign fell the death of Mohammed (June 8, 632)
and the overthrow of the Sassanian Persian monarchy by the
Mohammedans.[248]
How important the possession of a royal seal-ring was considered to be,
as proving the title of a successor, appears in the story that at the death-bed
of Alexius Comnenus (1084–1118), Emperor of the East, when the son and
rightful successor, John Comnenus, perceived that his mother Irene was
working to exclude him from the throne and to seat thereon his blue-
stocking sister Anna, he took off the imperial ring from the hand of his
dying father and thus ensured for himself the title to the Eastern Empire.
[249]

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091–1153), the enthusiastic preacher of the
Second Crusade in 1147, excuses himself in some of his letters that he has
failed to seal them, because he could not lay his hand on his signet. In a
letter to Pope Eugene III, the saint complains that several spurious letters
bearing his name have been circulated, sealed with a counterfeit seal; he
also notifies the pontiff that from this time his letters will bear a new seal,
on which will be his portrait and his name.[250]
Well-to-do merchants of mediæval times, not entitled to armorial
bearings, often had special individual marks or symbols engraved upon
their signets. This custom obtained on the continent as well as in England,
and allusion is made in the Old English poem of the fourteenth century,
“Piers Plowman,” to “merchantes merkes ymedeled in glasse.”[251]
Probably emblems of this kind came to have a certain association with the

business which in many cases descended from father to son through a
number of generations.
A royal signet ring once believed to be that of Saint Louis (Louis IX,
1214–1270) and long preserved in the treasury of St. Denis, as an object of
reverent care, is now in the Louvre Museum. The fact that the crescent is
introduced as a symbol fails to connect the ring with the Crusader St. Louis,
as this symbol was not used by the Saracens of his time, but was only
adopted as a Mohammedan device after the Turks captured Constantinople,
the crescent having been a recognised symbol in ancient times in
Byzantium long before the city came to be called Constantinople.[252]
The engraved stone in the ring is a table-cut sapphire, the monarch being
figured standing, with a nimbus around his head; he is crowned and bears a
sceptre. The letters S L on the stone have been interpreted to mean rather
sigillum Ludovici than Sanctus Ludovicus, and one critic suggests the
possibility that it may have been executed in Constantinople, in Byzantine
times, for Louis VII, who was there in 1147, and was received with high
honors by Manuel Comnenus, the Greek emperor’s courtesy being rather
bred of fear of French aggression than of affection for the French crusader.
As we have good evidence that gem-cutting was not practised at this time in
France, it seems plausible enough that Louis VII should have availed
himself of this opportunity to have a signet engraved for him by a Greek
gem-cutter.[253]
The signet ring of King Charles V of France (1337–1380) was set with
an Oriental ruby on which was engraved “the bearded head of a king.” This
signet was used by King Charles to seal the letters written by his own hand.
The somewhat vague description in the inventory suggests that this may
have been an antique gem, the supposedly royal head being that of some
Greek divinity. The art of engraving on such hard stones as the ruby does
not seem to have been practised in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, the
revival of this art belonging to a later period. Evidently the head was not
that of Charles himself or of any of his predecessors, for, had this been the
case the inventory would hardly fail to note the fact.[254]
When a certain Bratilos was sent as a messenger by the eastern emperor
Cantacuzene (1341–1355) to his empress Irene, to announce the outbreak of
a dangerous revolt, he bore a sealed letter from the emperor.[255] While on

his journey, however, he began to fear that he might be waylaid and robbed
of the important document. This peril he effectively provided against by
memorizing the letter and then destroying it, after he had removed the wax
impression of the imperial signet, which he could safely guard in his mouth,
and which served to accredit him when he came before the empress.[256]
Not long afterward Cantacuzene was defeated and deposed by John V,
Palæologus, and retired to a monastery, where he lived until 1411,
composing a history of his own times in his leisure moments; his wife also
took the religious vows under the name of Eugenia.
Much has been written about the ring or rather the engraved seal of
Michelangelo. This gem enjoyed such high esteem that it was very often
copied, the copies sometimes acquiring the repute of being originals. Four
of them, two in paste, one in amethyst, and one in carnelian, exist in
Denmark, the two latter having the dimensions of the original gem. The
copy in carnelian—the stone in which the original was cut—is
exceptionally well executed.[257] The original seal is now in the
Bibliothêque Nationale in Paris and came into the possession of Louis XIV
in 1680. The king wore it set in a ring.
It was brought to France in 1600 by a Sieur Bigarris, director of the
Mint, and its history was at the time traced back to Agosto Tassi, goldsmith
in Bologna, to whom Michelangelo had bequeathed it. The gem was the
work of Pier Maria di Pescia, and bears his symbolic signature, a boy
fishing (pescia, fishing). The dimensions are given as 15 mm. by 11 mm.,
the form being oval, and in this restricted space is a design embracing
twelve human figures, two genii, a horse, a goat and a tree. Two of the
figures appear to have been copied from a detail of Michelangelo’s Sistine
Chapel frescoes: a woman helping another woman to place a basket of
grapes upon her head. Watelet and Levesque in their “Dictionnaire des
Arts” published in 1791, characterize this seal as “the most beautiful
engraved gem known.”
The Royal Collection at Windsor Castle contains a gold ring set with a
cameo portrait of Louis XII, of France (1498–1515), cut in a pale ruby of
clear lustre. The work is believed to have been executed during the lifetime
of the king, and was considered by Rev. C. W. King to be the earliest
Renaissance portrait cut on a stone of the hardness of a ruby. He regarded it
as a work of the famous Renaissance gem-cutter Domenico dei Camei, this

artist having engraved a portrait of the Milanese duke Ludovico Sforza,
surnamed Il Moro, on the same hard material. The gold plate at the back of
the bezel holding the gem bears the inscription “Loys XIIme Roy de France
décéda I Janvier, 1515,” the stone having been set in the ring at some time
after the monarch’s death.[258]
This collection also contains an imperfect specimen of a squirt-ring. The
hoop is of enamelled gold set with a garnet engraved in relief with a mask
or bacchic head finely executed by a sixteenth-century artist. The hole at the
base of the hoop, with its internal screw-worm, indicates that it was once
provided with a squirt for projecting perfumed liquids.[259]
A sixteenth-century portrait by the German painter, Conrad Faber,
depicts a well-to-do burgher, possibly a burgomaster, who wears a seal ring
on the index finger of his left hand and a ring with a precious stone setting
on the fourth finger of the same hand. In this hand he holds something
which may be a staff of office; it is surmounted by an octagonal block of
ebony in which is inlaid a medallion figuring St. George and the Dragon.
The city, as carefully delineated in the background as in the finest of
engravings, appears to be one of the historic Rhine cities, and is evidently
that with which the sitter was identified.

PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY THE SIXTEENTH-
CENTURY GERMAN PAINTER, CONRAD FABER
Seal ring on index of left hand, sapphire-set ring on
fourth finger of this hand, which holds what seems to be
a wand or staff of office, surmounted by an octagonal
ebony block, with inserted medallion of St. George and
the Dragon
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Kennedy
Fund, 1912

PORTRAIT OF BENEDIKT VON HERTENSTEIN, BY
HANS HOLBEIN
Showing seal ring on index finger, two rings on third
finger, and three on little finger of left hand
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

MAN AND WOMAN AT A CASEMENT
The woman wears three rings (sapphire, ruby and
some other stone) on the index of right hand, and two
on the middle finger of this hand, one of them on the
second joint. The young man has a large oval topaz
on the little finger of his left hand. Florentine,
Fifteenth Century
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

For signet rings, antique gems continued to be those most favored until
the Renaissance period, and even to a considerable extent during this
period. However, the development and elaboration of the science of
heraldry and the great importance accorded to the possession of armorial
bearings soon induced the engraving of these upon the signets, in
preference to using antique gems or copying their types. In Elizabeth’s

reign and in those of her immediate successors, it is believed that scarcely a
gentleman was to be found who did not own and wear a signet ring on
which appeared his coat-of-arms. Those not fortunate enough to have the
right to display armorial bearings, sometimes sought to make their signets
individual by using as designs rebuses expressing more or less well the
pronunciation of their names.[260]
Arms were sometimes blazoned on rings by enamel applied to the base
of a setting; thus the arms engraved on a rock-crystal or a white sapphire,
would appear with their proper hues, the colors showing through the
transparent stone, and their effect being heightened by the brilliant medium.
A fine example of this kind of ring is one made for Jean Sans-Peur, Duke of
Burgundy (1401–1419); another is the signet ring of Mary, Queen of Scots,
now in the British Museum.[261]
Bequests of signets to near relatives occur not infrequently in wills of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as for example in that of John Horton,
dated 1565, wherein appears the following: “Item, I give unto my brother
Anthony Horton, for a token, my golde ringe wth the seale of myne armes,
desirenge him to be good to my wiffe and my childringe as my trust is in
him.” Besides this seal ring, the testator willed “a golde ringe wth a turkes
[turquoise] in it” to his “singular good Lord the Lord Eueerye,” with a plea
for friendship toward his wife and children. A ring set with a diamond was
bequeathed in 1427 by Elizabeth, Lady Fitzhugh to her son William.[262]
This was almost certainly one of the uncut, pointed diamonds used for
settings at this early time.
The signet ring of Mary Stuart is one of the chief treasures in the ring
collection of the British Museum. It was made for her use after her betrothal
to the French Dauphin, later, for a few months, King of France as Francis II
(1543–1560), just before her marriage, as after that time the arms of France
would have been combined with those of Scotland. The following
description is given of this ring in the exceedingly valuable catalogue of the
Franks Bequest by O. M. Dalton[263]:
316. Gold; the shoulders ornamented with flowers and leaves once enamelled; oval
bezel containing a chalcedony engraved with the achievement of Mary, Queen of
Scots. The shield is that of Scotland surrounded by the collar of the Thistle, with the
badge, and supported by two unicorns chained and ducally gorged; the crest, on a
helmet with mantlings and ensigned with a crown, is a lion sejant affronté, crowned

and holding in the dexter paw a naked sword; in the sinister a sceptre, both bendwise.
Legend: In Defens, and the letters M R. On the dexter side is a banner with the arms
of Scotland; on the sinister side, another, with three bars and over all a saltire. The
metals and tinctures appear through the crystal on a field of blue. Within the hoop at
the back of the bezel is engraved a cipher in a circular band and surmounted by a
crown, once enamelled. The cipher is formed of the Greek letter φ and M, for the
names Francis and Mary.

In this example of sixteenth-century French goldsmithing, the colors of
the arms have been applied beneath the crystal so that they would not be
effaced in using the signet for sealing. In 1792 this ring was in the
possession of Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. After her death it
became the property of the Duke of York, and when his plate and jewels
were sold at Christie’s, in London, March, 1827, it was bought by Mr.
Richard Greene, F.S.A., and was acquired from him in 1856 by the British
Museum.
A signet ring believed by many to be that of the immortal Shakespeare,
was found on March 16, 1810. It was picked up on the surface of the mill-
close that adjoins Stratford churchyard; the finder was the wife of a poor
laborer. How lightly it was esteemed at the outset is shown by the low price
at which it was acquired by Mr. R. B. Wheeler, who paid only thirty-six
shillings ($9.00), considered to be the value of the fifteen pennyweights of
gold in the ring. In fact, the only circumstances seeming to connect it with
Shakespeare are the initials W. S., and the facts that the ring appears to be
of Elizabethan workmanship and that it was found at Stratford-on-Avon,
Shakespeare’s home.[264] The initial letters are bound together with a design
composed of an ornamental band with tassels, so arranged as to outline a
heart. A queer coincidence, if the report be true, is that a certain William
Shakespeare was at work nearby when the ring was found.[265]
One of the somewhat less well-known Shakespeare portraits depicts the
poet wearing a thumb ring on his left hand. This is the work of Gerald
Soest, who was born twenty-one years after Shakespeare’s death; its
inspiration is probably to be sought in the Chandos portrait of which it is an
amplification and re-arrangement. The face, however, wholly lacks the
dignity and expression of the Chandos, being exceedingly weak and
commonplace. The hands give the effect of having been copied from those
in some other portrait, and, of course, under all these circumstances we
would scarcely be justified in assuming that Shakespeare wore a thumb

ring, although he may well have done so, in view of the fact that the fashion
was common enough in his time. Queen Elizabeth, even, is depicted as
wearing one in Zucchero’s portrait of her at Hampton Court.[266]

1, Shakespeare’s gold signet ring, found in Stratford-
upon-Avon, March 16, 1810. 2, brass signet supposed to
be that of the physician, John Hall, Shakespeare’s son-
in-law. 3, wax impression from Shakespeare’s ring.
(Photographed expressly for this book as attested by
signatures of Sir Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Executive
Committee of “Shakespeare’s Birthplace,” and of the
Librarian, F. C. Wellstood.) 4 and 5, gold signet ring
owned by Lord Byron, with impression from it. The seal
shows the crests and mottoes of three families.
Photographed for this book. In the possession of Judge
Peter T. Barlow, New York

Another English poet, that master of impassioned verse, Byron, had in
his possession a most interesting bloodstone signet ring, engraved with the
following three family mottoes: “Tout prest” (Quite ready), motto of the
families Monk, Murray and Younger; “Confido, conquiesco” (I trust and am
contented), motto of the Dysart, Hodgett, Maroy, Tollmache and Turner
families; “Pour y parvenir” (In order to accomplish, or succeed), motto of
the families Manners and Manners-Sutton. This ring was owned by Sir
Walter Scott, and at the dispersal sale of his personal effects at Abbotsford it
was acquired by the late Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, the great art

connoisseur and collector, by whose son, Judge Peter T. Barlow, of New
York, it has been inherited, in whose possession it now is, and through
whose courtesy it is here reproduced.
Many interesting facts in regard to the history of the diamond engraved
for Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, have been presented by Mr.
C. Drury Fortnum, who purchased the diamond from the collection of the
Duke of Brunswick in 1879.[267] In the catalogue of the Duke’s collection
this stone is described as the signet of Mary, Queen of Scots, an attribution
which had been current for many years; but Mr. Fortnum has shown that the
initials on the diamond should be read MR, the cross-bar in the first
character representing the letter H, and the whole signifying Maria
Henrietta Regina.
Fortunately we have the original of the treasury order given by Charles I,
under date of January 16, 1629, directing the payment of a sum of money to
the engraver for his work. As this is probably the only case in which the
original record of payment for engraving an historical diamond has been
preserved, it is reproduced here from Mr. Fortnum’s paper in Archæologia.
[268]

Charles by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, &c.

To the Trēr and Undertrēr of or Exchecqr for the time being greeting:

Wee doe hereby will and com̄ and you out of or treasure remaining in the Receipt of
or Exchecqr forthwith to pay or cause to be paid unto Francis Walwyn or his assignes
the some of two hundred three-score and seven pounds for engraving, polishing,
Dyamond boart and divers other materialls for the Cutting and furnishing of or Armes
in a Dyamond with l’res of the name of or deerest Consort the queene on each side,
And these or l’res shal be yor sufficient warrt and discharge in this behalfe.

Given under or privy Seal att or pallace of Westmr the sixteenth day of January in
the fourth yeare of or Raigne.
Jo: Packer.

As a general rule a signet ring was one of the last objects of value that an
owner would part with, but we know that after Charles’ execution Henrietta
Maria was reduced to dire straits and was obliged to sell all her possessions
in order to procure the bare necessaries of life. In Tavernier’s account of his
travels in the East he states that in 1664, he showed to the representative of

the Shah of Persia a ring engraved with the royal arms of England, and
which had belonged “to the late King of England.” As letters and papers
have been preserved, dating from 1656 to 1673, and sealed by Charles II
with the diamond signet used by his father, we have proof that Charles II
had that signet in his possession in 1664, and Mr. Fortnum’s conjecture that
the engraved diamond in Tavernier’s hands was that of Henrietta Maria is
plausible enough.
The Shah of Persia sent the diamond back to Tavernier, requesting
information as to what was engraved upon it, but the French jeweller,
fearing possible complications, did not venture to go beyond the vague
statement that the stone bore the arms of a “European prince.” The Shah
does not appear to have bought this diamond; probably he did not care
much for historic souvenirs of European royalties, and possibly he doubted
whether Tavernier had the right to offer for sale what might be the signet of
a European monarch. However, the Shah’s minister did not fail to express
his admiration of the skill shown by the “Franks” in the art of diamond-
engraving.[269]
Already, in the Vetusta Monumenta of Astle, published by him in 1792,
the seal is figured as that of Mary Queen of Scots, and is said to have been
in the possession of Louis XIV. If this statement be correct, the signet might
have been among the diamonds sold by Tavernier to Louis XIV, on the
former’s return to Europe. It seems to have shared the fate of a large
number of the jewels belonging to the French crown and to the royal family,
and next appears in a sale held in London June 19, 1817, being described in
the catalogue as “the engraved diamond ring of Mary, Queen of Scots, upon
which are engraved the arms of England, Scotland and Ireland, quartered,”
and authenticated by a communication from “that correct and learned
antiquary the late Robert Gough, Esq.” to the following effect:
That it descended from Mary to her grandchild Charles I, who gave it on the
scaffold to Arch Bishop Juxon for his son Charles II, who in his troubles pawned it in
Holland for £300, where it was bought by Governor Yale and sold at his sale for £320,
supposed for the Pretender. Afterwards it came into the possession of the Earl of Ilay,
Duke of Argyle, and probably from him to Mr. Blashford.

In these statements there is probably a confusion between the diamond
of Henrietta Maria, known later as that of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a
diamond signet of Charles I, for such a signet is said to have been given to

Bishop Juxon by Charles just before his execution. We have every reason to
believe that Henrietta Maria bore her own signet with her when she left
England.
The ring containing this historic diamond was purchased at the sale of
June 19, 1817, by Dr. Curry (probably James Curry, M.D., physician at
Guy’s Hospital) for the sum of £90 6s ($450), although a contemporary
letter states that the sum was £86, and adds that the stone itself was worth
but £10. The ring was subsequently acquired by an agent, Van Prague, and
after passing through several hands came into the possession of Mr.
Leverson, a diamond dealer of Paris, who sold it to the Duke of Brunswick.
At one time it was owned by the Earl of Buchan, and it was exhibited at
Holyrood in 1843, when several rock crystal models were made of it. One
of these served Mr. Fortnum as a standard of comparison for the
identification of the Duke of Brunswick’s diamond.
The stone is a table diamond and is engraved with the arms of England
and France in the first and fourth quarters, with those of Scotland in the
second quarter, and those of Ireland in the third. In 1887, on the occasion of
Queen Victoria’s Jubilee, this signet was presented to the queen by Mr.
Drury Fortnum, and it is now in the royal collection at Windsor Castle.[270]

RINGS FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE IMPERIAL
KUNSTGEWERBE MUSEUM, VIENNA
1 and 3, rings of Empress Eleonora, wife of Ferdinand III (1608–1657);
enameled gold; Seventeenth Century. 2, gold ring said to have belonged to
Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold, and wife of Maximilian
I., Emperor of Germany. Bears an M formed of black diamonds and has
twice on the inner side the monogram of Maria in Gothic capitals. 4, ring
with miniature portraits of Emperor Mathias and his wife Empress Anne;
enameled gold; 1612–1619. 5, (a) ring with watch by Johann Putz of
Augsburg, and (b) lid made of an emerald on which the Austrian double-
eagle is engraved; Seventeenth Century. 6, ring with a sun-dial, the lid
representing a hedgehog studded with black diamond lozenges;

Seventeenth Century. 7 and 8, two rings set with topaz; enameled gold;
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. 9, bronze ring, with head of Christ in
white enamel on blue ground, the hair being of gold; Seventeenth Century.
10, ring set with a rock crystal, engraved with the arms of an Austrian
archduke. On the inner side is a sun-dial; Seventeenth century. 11, ring with
a miniature portrait of Empress Claudia Felicitas; enameled gold.

IMPRESSION OF SIGNET.
Double size linear.
SIGNET RING, CHARLES I.
Double size linear.
SIGNET RING OF CHARLES I
The richly ornamented gold hoop has on its
shoulders a lion and a unicorn of chiseled steel.
On the bezel is a steel plate engraved with the
Royal arms, those of France and England in the
first and fourth quarters; in the second, the arms
of Scotland; and in the third, the Irish harp. On
the sides of the gold base of the bezel is the
inscription: “Dieu et mon droit,” inserted in steel
letters

One of the most interesting engraved diamonds is the signet of Charles I
of England, when Prince of Wales.[271] This is a large shield-shaped
diamond engraved in intaglio with the Prince of Wales’ feathers between the
letters C.P. and issuing from a coronet; on a ribbon beneath appears the
motto I C H D I E N. The stone is set in a ring of enamelled gold. The
engraving is finely executed and deeply cut. This signet has often been
regarded as that of Charles II, but all doubt as to the original owner is set at
rest by the existence of an autograph letter of Charles I, in the possession of
M. Labouchère of Paris, bearing its impress.
The Royal Collection at Windsor Castle also contains the signet used by
Charles I, as King. It has a richly ornamented hoop, to which are attached,
at the shoulders, chiseled steel figures of a lion and a unicorn. The gold
bezel has a steel facing constituting the seal. This is engraved with the royal
arms; in the first and fourth quarters, the arms of England and of France; in
the second quarter, those of Scotland; in the fourth quarter, the Irish harp.
On the gold base of the bezel is the motto: Dieu et mon Droit, inserted in
letters of steel. This constitutes an exceptionally fine example of composite
metal-work. The archæologist, Rev. C. W. King, suggests that it may be the
work of the “Inimitable Simon,” as he was called, who later engraved dies
for the coinage of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, although he admits
that it may have been executed by Vanderdoort, who was commanded in
1625 to make pattern pieces for the coinage of Charles I, at the beginning of
the King’s reign.[272]
A signet ring used by Kaiser William II is set with a reddish-white onyx,
on which has been engraved a shield bearing the German eagle, and
surmounted by a crown and the letters, W. II. I. R., Wilhelm der Zweite,
Imperator Rex. This signet belonged to the present Kaiser’s grandfather
William I, and has been adapted to the present monarch’s use.
Signet rings were very popular in the latter part of the eighteenth century
and into the nineteenth century. Then, later on, they were revived in the
latter part of the nineteenth century, this revival continuing into the
twentieth century. In the earlier period it was customary to engrave the crest
and motto, or the full arms and motto, on the ring stone, which was
generally bloodstone or carnelian, occasionally white chalcedony, more
rarely lapis lazuli, in contradistinction to the large seal fobs, in which the
favorite stones were amethyst, rock crystal, smoky topaz (quartz variety),

pale chalcedony or some lighter colored material. Many signet rings were
engraved upon gold, the sides of the rings being also engraved, as a general
rule.
Since the year 1900, great interest has been aroused in seal rings, many
of the designs of which are incised in gold or in platinum, the entire ring
being of gold or platinum, or having a platinum disk set in a gold hoop. The
entire variety of fancy stones is used: pale amethyst, ruby, beryl,
aquamarine, zircon, garnet, sard which has been stained brown, carnelian
(rarely), bloodstone, and jade—both the nephrite variety from New Zealand
and Russia and the jadeite variety found at Bahmo, Burma. Occasionally
the seals of rings are made of fine sapphires, emeralds, or rubies, and sell
for from $1,000 to $10,000, or even more.
Seal rings were extensively worn in the period from about 1865 to 1885.
Frequently these had absolutely nothing engraved upon them. The setting
was often an oblong, rectangular onyx, sometimes one inch or one and a
quarter inches long. Occasionally upon this was inset a rose diamond initial;
or else the initial was cut upon the stone—when the onyx was black on top
—rarely a crest. In many cases the stone was white above and pink below, a
sardonyx, and the initial was cut through the light layer. Or else it was white
or pale gray on a black ground. The general effect was thus gray, the gem
being of the type known as nicolo.
Then came the cameo rings, with designs either black on white or brown
on white, sardonyx; or white on green, chrysonyx. Later again taste
developed for intaglio rings. In this instance, instead of stones of a
brownish or whitish gray,—chalcedony,—those of a pale brown or a dark
brown were chosen and these were called sard. Because of the brown hue,
the term onyx was also applied to them. This must not be confused with the
antique sard which resulted from burning a stone of a different hue, as in
the case of the antique carnelian also. The translucent or opaque varieties,
with rich red or dark brown top, were called sard, whereas the paler
translucent and almost transparent varieties,—when pale red, yellowish red
or almost yellow,—were called carnelian.
While the natal gem in a simple but effective setting is the most
appropriate ring for a girl or boy, a small seal ring for the boy, when he is
about 12 years old is not unfitting, the seal being so well-executed that it

may serve him when he has reached manhood. For very young children, no
stone can be given the preference over the turquoise, which in its delicacy
and beauty of color cannot be excelled. Small pearls are also used, or tiny
brilliant rubies.[273]
In a brightly-written tale for children, the style of which is rather
pronouncedly “up-to-date,” a sapphire signet is an important element of the
story. Long years ago, in the island of Bermuda, in the Revolutionary
period, this heirloom was surreptitiously secured by a young girl, to whom
it was destined on her coming of age, but who was childishly impatient to
gain possession of it before the time. The little heroine comes to New York
and under the stress of a weird Tory plot, hides away her signet in the false
bottom of an old trunk, stored away in the garret of the Charlton Street
house in which she has lived. Here, more than a century later, a group of
bright children find a diary of the long-dead heroine written in cipher. One
of them is clever enough to unravel this mystery and they finally succeed in
finding the hidden signet.[274]

Gold ring with miniature portrait, given by
Washington to Lafayette on the latter’s return to
France. See pages 191 and 192. It is now in the
possession of Mr. Gösta Frölén of Falun, Sweden

Photograph of two impressions in sealing wax,
made by President Woodrow Wilson, of his seal
ring, the inscription reading “Woodrow Wilson,”
in Pitmanic shorthand. 1916

Episcopal seal of Right Rev. David H. Greer,
Bishop of New York. Motto: Crux mihi grata
quies (The Cross is my grateful rest). The shield
bears the monogram of the bishop’s name, above
which are two keys in saltire; below is the coat-
of-arms of New Amsterdam. As crest is an
Episcopal mitre

Two characteristic Oriental seal rings are owned by Miss Joan St.
Michael Peters and Miss Katherine Harrower, both of New York City. The
gems with which they are set were bought by the Rev. Dr. John P. Peters
from an Arab, in the Kut-el-Amara region, where the British invaders of
Mesopotamia underwent such a disastrous defeat. They are engraved

carnelians. Miss Peters’ ring offers the design of a winged figure. The
excellence of the cutting might seem to indicate that it was done some time
between 500 B.C. and the beginning of our era, but a later date has been
assigned to it by Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University, who
pronounces it to be a Sassanian gem, and hence not older than the third
Christian century. The other ring, that belonging to Miss Harrower, appears
to be of the Seleucidan period, and may be dated from 300 to 200 B.C. The
inscription, difficult to decipher, should be read “Khan” in Prof. Jackson’s
opinion.
One of the most intrinsically valuable of ancient signets is that engraved
for Constantius II (317–361 a.d.). This is of sapphire, the stone weighing 53
of the older carats (54.40 metric carats). The design shows the emperor in
the act of spearing an enormous wild boar on the plains of Cæsarea, the
Greek inscription xiphius denoting the sword-like tusks of the animal. The
exploit is performed before a reclining female figure, a personification of
the city Cæsarea of Cappadocia. A Latin inscription C O N S T A N T I U S .
A U G is considered to prove that this is veritably the emperor’s signet. This
remarkable gem is in the collection of Prince Trivulzio of Milan.[275]
A novel idea finds expression in the ring of President Wilson, on which
he has had engraved his name in stenographic symbols. This is in thorough
agreement with his aim to utilize business methods in the administration of
national affairs, to do away with routine and take the most direct route to
the solution of national problems. One of our two ex-Presidents, William H.
Taft, sent us this reply: “I never wear a finger ring and never have done so.
For that reason, I cannot comply with your request.”[276]

IV

SOME INTERESTING RINGS OF HISTORY

T
he principal types of the rings used as insignia, religious or secular, or
as signets, as well as of those devoted to some special purpose or
believed to possess talismanic or magic virtue are treated of in other
chapters. There are many rings, however, which owe their chief or only
interest to their association with some particular historic personage, event or
period, while often the mere fact that the ornament has been owned by a
famous person suffices to make it precious and interesting; in a number of
cases the ring itself has been closely connected with some important
historic happening or else with some cherished legend. Examples of this are
the ring of Essex in Elizabeth’s time, and the legendary ring of Edward the
Confessor, regarding the stone setting of which several discrepant accounts
exist.
The Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has in its Cabinet des Médailles, two
massive gold rings, in each of which the chaton is formed by an ancient
coin. In one is set a rare gold quinarius of Maximinus (235–238 a.d.) with
his effigy, and the ring is believed to have been made during this giant
emperor’s brief reign; the other bears a golden solidus probably of Clotaire
II, King of the Franks, who reigned from 584 to 628 a.d. This coin shows a
figure of the king with the name Chlotarius Rex, and the mint-mark of the
city of Arras. The coin is more than ¾ inch in diameter.[277]
In a Frankish sepulchre at Laubenheim, near Bingen, Hessen-Darmstadt,
was found a gold ring on the bezel of which is engraved the head of a
woman, turned to the right, around which are the letters of the Gothic name
Hunila. A princess of this name was married, about 280 a.d., to Quintus
Bonosius, one of the Thirty Tyrants who established themselves in the
Roman Empire during the short and troubled reign of Probus (280–281).
While the ring we describe cannot be assigned to such an early period, but
probably belongs to the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh
century of our era, the intrinsic value and the workmanship, superior for the
place and time, render it likely that this Hunila, also, was of royal race and

station. In the sepulchre which yielded this ring there was a chain of amber
and amethyst beads.[278]
The Persian poet-philosopher, Saadi, relates in his Gulistan, or “Garden
of Roses,” a story illustrating how a happy chance may do more to help the
attainment of a temporary success than special ability or training. A Persian
sovereign, passionately devoted to archery, determined to make a crucial
test of the skill of his most famous archers, and to stimulate their efforts by
the bestowal of a rich prize. To this end he caused a ring set with an
immensely valuable precious stone to be suspended above the dome of
Azad on the mosque near Shiraz, and proclaimed to all men that this ring
would be given to the one who succeeded in shooting an arrow through its
hoop. Despite the apparent impossibility of the task, several hundred of the
Shah’s archers strove to fulfil the conditions of the trial, but in vain.
Suddenly the Shah and his companions, who were closely watching the
contest, saw, to their amazement, an arrow speed through the air and exactly
traverse the ring. None of the archers before the mosque had been shooting
at the moment, and only after a careful search had been made did it come
out that the arrow had been shot off by a youth at play in a nearby garden of
a monastery. Nevertheless, the royal word had been pledged, and the ring
was adjudged to the youth. The latter, however, showed his wisdom by
breaking his bow and arrows, and never trying another shot, thus keeping
unsullied his reputation as a great archer.[279]
One of the Latin treatises of Petrarch tells of a carbuncle or ruby, worn
set in a ring by John II of France, and believed to possess talismanic power.
The poet remarks, however, that this stone did not preserve the King from
being defeated and made prisoner at the battle of Poitiers in 1356. This ruby
was taken by the English, but was returned to John several years later, so
that he was able again “to see an object of infinite value, but of no use
whatever.” While admitting the beauty of gems, Petrarch did not share the
belief common in his day that they possessed occult powers.[280] Of the
diamond he says that, while in ancient times it was a gem worn only by
kings, in his own day luxury and pride had increased to such an extent that
many who were not kings possessed the stone, and even some of the
common people wore it on their fingers.[281]

A ring called the “Friday Ring” is listed among the jewels of Charles V
of France (1337–1380), in the inventory made in 1379. This had on either
side a double black cross in niello work, and was set with a cameo bearing a
crucifix and the figures of the Virgin Mary, St. John and two angels. The
name was derived from the fact that the king wore this ring every Friday,
doubtless in memory of the Crucifixion, which took place on that day.[282]
There is also mention of another ring, set with a large ruby, “the form of a
halfbean. This is the ruby which belonged to St. Louis (1215–1270), and
which has always been guarded successively by the kings of France.”[283]
There seems to be some likelihood that this was the highly prized ruby lost
by King John II about 1357, and in this case it must have been restored to
the French treasury. Still another ring was set with a large ruby, called the
“ruby de la Caille,” which had formerly belonged to the dukes of Brittany
and had been given to King Charles by Monseigneur d’Anjou. A note to this
inventory informs us that the term “ruby d’Alexandrie,” so often met with
in old French lists of jewels, denotes a ruby bought in Alexandria, where
many of the finest precious stones from the East were dealt in during
medieval times.[284]
The battlefield of Agincourt, in the department of Pas-de-Calais, not far
removed from the trenches of the Anglo-French army in the great war of to-
day, was visited in 1815 by General Sir John Woodford, who was serving
with the Grenadier Guards. Hoping to unearth a few relics of the famous
battle he had some excavations made, and his efforts were rewarded by the
discovery of several knightly rings inscribed with mottoes or posies. About
1850 one of these rings, which had probably been worn by a French noble,
was shown at a meeting of the London Archæological Institute. The battle
of Agincourt, where the French army was decisively defeated by Henry V
of England, was fought October 25, 1415, on the day of Sts. Crispin and
Crispian, and inspired Shakespeare with the following proud lines
addressed by the English king to his soldiers:

And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered.

Hungary’s great hero, John Hunyady (1387?-1456), had in his coat of
arms a raven holding a ring in its beak. The legendary explanation of this is

that King Sigismund once gave a ring to his mistress, the hero’s mother, as
a passport for entrance to the court. One day the royal parent wished to see
his offspring, and the child’s uncle received orders to bring it to the court.
On his way thither, while traversing a piece of woodland, the man came to a
clearing and sat down on the grass to repose himself, giving the precious
ring, his token to the king, to the child as a plaything. Suddenly a raven
swooped down from a tree, picked up the ring and flew away with it; but
the man caught up a bow he had with him and sped a shaft after the bird,
which fell dead to the ground with the ring still tightly held in its beak.
When, in later years, the illegitimate child grew up and finally ascended the
throne of Hungary, this event was figured on his coat of arms by the
emblems of the raven and the ring.[285]
When the Constable Louis of Luxembourg was condemned to death in
1475, in the reign of Louis XI of France, he drew from his finger a small
gold ring set with a diamond and requested the father confessor to offer it to
the image of Our Lady of Paris. Then, turning to the Franciscan monk, Jean
de Sordun, he said: “Here is a stone I have long worn on my neck and
which I have greatly prized, for it resists poison, and also protects against
pestilence. I pray you to take this stone for me to my son, to whom you will
say that I beg him to keep it for love of me.” This touching mission was
never fulfilled, for after the execution of the Constable, the court ordered
that the stone should be given to King Louis. The diamond ring, however,
was duly dedicated to the image of the Virgin.[286] Of Louis XI himself, the
chronicler quaintly says: “Before his death he suffered much from various
diseases for the cure of which the physicians who attended him concocted
dreadful and wonderful medicines. May these illnesses procure the
salvation of his soul!”[287]
Some interesting historic rings are in the fine collection of Dr. Albert
Figdor, Vienna. One of them is a gold ring believed to have belonged to
Mary of Burgundy, (d. 1482) daughter of Charles the Bold, and wife of
Maximilian I of Germany. On the ring is the letter M formed of black
diamonds, and the monogram of the name Maria, in Gothic characters,
appears twice on its inner side. Two enameled gold rings of Empress
Eleonora, third wife of Ferdinand III of Germany (1608–1657), are good
examples of seventeenth century work. More interesting is a ring bearing

miniature portraits of Emperor Mathias of Germany (1557–1619) and his
wife Empress Anne.[288]
The first historical instance of writing with a diamond point concerns
Francis I, who wrote, with the diamond of his ring, upon a pane of glass in
the Castle of Chambord, the following oft-quoted lines:

Souvent femme varie,
Mal habile qui s’y fie.

The king “engraved” these lines in such a conspicuous place that they
might be seen by his favorite, Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse d’Estampes, and
make it clear to her that his jealousy was aroused by her conduct.[289] The
story runs that the celebrated sister of Francis, Marguerite de Valois,
authoress of the Heptameron, who was on very friendly terms with the
Duchesse d’Estampes, immediately capped this distich by writing with her
diamond-point the following rejoinder:[290]

Souvent homme varie,
Bien folle qui s’y fie.

Brantôme, who relates that he saw the window-pane inscription of
Francis I at Chambord, merely cites the first words: “Souvent femme
varie,” and as there is considerable lack of agreement as to the second line,
this may have been added by those who reported the writing, according to
their own idea of what a continuation should be. There is a rather vague
rumor that the glass was broken out by order of Louis XIV, the fact being
that it is no longer in existence and evidently disappeared at least a couple
of centuries ago.[291]

PORTRAIT OF A LADY, PAINTED IN COLOGNE,
ABOUT 1526.
>Ring set with a pointed diamond on index of right hand,
small ring on little finger of the same hand; two rings on
index of left hand and one on fourth finger of the same hand;
all set with precious stones
Königliche Gemälde-Galerie, Cassel

PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY HANS FUNK, PAINTED IN
1523
Large seal ring on right hand forefinger and two on left
hand, one on forefinger and one on fourth finger
Gallery at Basel, Switzerland

A ring set with a pyramidal diamond, one of the type used by Francis I
on this occasion, is shown in the Londesborough Collection. This ring,
which dates from the sixteenth century and is of Italian workmanship, is
known as a “tower ring,” possibly because those confined in the Tower of
London were able to use such rings for writing names or verses upon the
windowpanes of their prison.[292]
Still another story of diamond-point writing, probably even less well
attested than the anecdote of Francis I, is that referring to Queen Elizabeth

and Sir Walter Raleigh.[293] On the occasion of an interview with the wily
queen, Sir Walter, rather distrustful of the royal encouragement accorded
him, is said to have gone to a window in the royal audience chamber and
written on the window-pane with his diamond ring:

Fain would I climb, but that I fear to fall.

For answer the queen scratched beneath this the following admonition, at
once an encouragement and a warning:

If thy heart fail thee, do not climb at all.

An eighteenth century instance of diamond-point writing on a pane of
glass was reported in an old newspaper.[294] A celebrated English beauty of
the eighteenth century, while sojourning at the famous English watering-
place, Bath, wrote on a window-pane the following impromptu lines:

In vain, in vain is all you’ve said,
For I’m resolved to die a Maid.

In answer to this a gentleman of her acquaintance cut this rejoinder, the
idea being better than the rhyme:

The Lady who this resolution took,
Wrote it on Glass to show it might be broke.

The visitor who relates this states that on returning to Bath at a later
time, he found that the window-pane had been removed, and a new one
substituted. Did this mean that the vow had been broken?

MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK IN 1578 FOR
JOHN CASIMIR, COUNT PALATINE, TO
COMMEMORATE HIS ALLIANCE WITH THE
DUKE OF ANJOU AGAINST THE SPANISH IN
THE LOW COUNTRIES
The clasped hands signify indissoluble friendship; the
palm and olive branches, victory and peace; and the
diamond, courage

MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK FOR
HENRI II OF FRANCE, IN 1554, IN
COMMEMORATION OF HIS CAMPAIGN
TO FLANDERS
The diamond is a symbol of dauntless
courage; the crowned fish probably denotes the
ruler of Flanders; the palm branch and olive
branch above signify the French King’s victory

PORTRAIT OF DIANE DE POITIERS (1499–1566)
Mistress of Henri II of France, who gave her the splendid Château
de Chenonceaux. She had great artistic taste and possessed many
jewels. To her ability, knowledge and power were due some of the
finest architectural and mobiliary achievements of the period.
Musée de Versailles

The use of rings set with natural diamond-points in a symbolical sense,
as in the case of the three interlaced rings forming the impresa of Cosimo
de’ Medici, probably had to do with the ancient tradition that the diamond
conferred courage or even invincibility upon the wearer. It is in this sense
that this type of ring is figured on the reverse of certain “campaign medals”
issued in commemoration of important expeditions. Such is the medal
struck for Henri II of France when, in 1554, he set out from Champagne to
invade Flanders. On the reverse of this medal there is within the ring a palm

branch and an olive branch, significant of an unconquerable soul and of
victory. Across the bottom of the hoop is a fish of a species very common in
Flanders, on the head of which is a crown, this apparently denoting the ruler
of that land. The diamond emphasizes the idea of an unbroken and
unconquered soul. In a similar though slightly different sense must be
explained the diamond-set ring on a “campaign medal” struck in 1578 for
John Casimir, Count Palatine; this is also a memorial of one of the
periodical incursions into unhappy Flanders. As the Count Palatine was at
this time in alliance with the then Duke of Anjou, brother of Henri III of
France, the hoop of the ring terminates in two clasped hands, denoting the
fast friendship of the allies, which was, however, of very uncertain duration.
The rich Arundel Collection, chiefly brought together by a Lord Howard
of Arundel, towards the end of the seventeenth century, incorporated in the
Marlborough Cabinet and later dispersed, included a beautifully adorned
gold ring set with a splendid lapis lazuli on which a Roman engraver had
cut the design of Hercules wrestling with Antæus. The hoop of this ring is
ornamented on the inside with two fleur-de-lys in white enamel, the entire
ring being covered with arabesques of entwined vine branches in black
enamel. In his description, Rev. C. W. King conjectures from the style of
ornamentation that the ring may have belonged to one of the Valois kings of
France.[295]
On the accession of Frederick the Great, he is said to have found in the
royal treasury a case containing a ring, accompanied by a memorandum to
the following effect, in the handwriting of King Frederick I (1688–1740):
“This ring was given to me by my father on his death-bed, with the
reminder that so long as it was preserved in the House of Brandenburg, this
would not only prosper, but would grow and increase.” The way in which
Frederick the Great spoke of this ring illustrates at once his habitual
scepticism and his devotion to family tradition, for while declaring that he
put no faith in the peculiar virtues of such an object, he gave strict
injunctions that it should be carefully preserved. A rather doubtful tradition
designates this ring as the one said to have been surreptitiously removed
from the hand of Frederick William I, when he was dying, by the Countess
Lichtenau. The dying king feebly protesting against this spoliation,
murmured: “Her den Ring” (Give back the ring), but the countess saved the
situation by saying to those assembled in the deathchamber: “He wants to

have a herring!” This same tradition attributes the subsequent disastrous
defeat of Prussia by Napoleon I to the loss of the ring, which the countess
finally yielded to Frederick William III in 1813, whereupon the fortunes of
war changed and Prussia was avenged for her humiliations.
Hofrath Schneider, for a long time reader to Emperor William I, relates
that when he questioned that monarch touching the story of the ring, he
only learned that it had been a long time in the Hohenzollern family; that it
was an old-fashioned ring, and that it was set with “a plain, dark-colored
stone.” Emperor William did not display much interest in the matter and did
not appear to have any superstitious reverence for the ring.[296]
An old Portuguese ring has a half-sphere of rock crystal set in silver. At
the side of the bezel is a minute catch, and when this is put back, the crystal
setting, hinged on the opposite side, can be raised, revealing beneath a tiny
St. Andrews cross in gold, with a small ruby set in the centre. This ring is in
the possession of an Englishman, a descendant of the Duke of Peterborough
who fought in the Peninsula War under Wellington. In one of the battles he
was seriously wounded, and was kindly and carefully nursed by a
Portuguese family. A not unnatural result was that he fell in love with one of
the daughters and married her. The ring is said to have formed part of her
ancestral jewels, and this may be regarded as a characteristic example of the
Portuguese art of the past in ring-making.[297]
A gold ring, said to be one of six made for distribution among the
conspirators who planned Napoleon’s escape from Elba in March, 1815, is
to be seen in the British Museum. The bezel has a hinged lid, on the inner
side of which is engraved in relief the head of Napoleon; on the outer side is
an enamelled design showing three flowers on stems, a laurel wreath
running around the edge.[298] Whether the story of its having belonged to
one of the conspirators be true or not, the concealment of the Napoleon
head shows that this ring was made for, and worn by, an adherent of the
fallen emperor, at a time when it would have been dangerous to proclaim
his loyalty openly.

ENGLISH RINGS

In the British Museum are two Anglo-Saxon rings of unrivalled historic
interest. They bear, respectively, the names of Ethelwulf, father of Alfred

the Great and of Ethelswith, his sister, the queen of Mercia. Both of these
rings are of gold. In that of King Ethelwulf the flat hoop rises in front in the
form of a high mitre-shaped bezel showing the design of a conventional tree
flanked by two peacocks; the ground-work is of niello. The nielloed legend
around the hoop reads: e t h e l w v l f . r e x. This ring was found in a
cart-rut at Laverstock, Wiltshire, in the summer of 1780. The ring of
Ethelwulf’s daughter, Ethelswith, has a circular bezel with the figure of the
Lamb of God; here also the design is chased on a niello ground. On each
shoulder of the ring is figured a monster on a similar ground-work. The
inscription, engraved inside the ring runs: e a d e l z v i d . r e g i n a.
Ethelswith’s ring was found in the West Riding of Yorkshire, between
Aberford and Sherburn, and was tied to a dog’s collar by the farmer who
discovered it. For this ignoble use it served during some six months until, to
his surprise, the farmer learned that his ring was of gold.[299]
The famous ring known as that of Edward the Confessor (1024–1066),
[300]
and which was to be used as the Coronation Ring of the Kings of
England, was granted on November 14, 1389, by King Richard II, to the
Abbot, etc., of Westminster, for the shrine of the Confessor in this church. It
is described as “a certain ring with a precious ruby inserted therein.” The
King reserved the privilege of wearing it when he was in England, but
should he go abroad it was to be returned to the shrine. A few years later the
Abbot of Westminster appears to have been guilty of some negligence in
sending this ring to the sovereign when the latter required it for use, and the
repentant abbot craves pardon of the king and prays that his fault shall not
invalidate the church’s rights to the possession of the relic. Nearly eighty
years later, a record dated December 21, 1468 (7 Edward IV) registers the
delivery by the former keeper, Thomas Arundell, of the vestments, cloths,
relics and jewels of the Shrine of St. Edward in Westminster to his
successor, Richard Tedyngton.[301]
The jewels and precious stones of this shrine were taken away and
pawned by Henry III in 1267, the monarch having entered into a solemn
engagement, under the Great Seal, to return them in a year’s time from the
ensuing Michaelmas. Henry also sent to the then Abbot of Westminster a
“Letter Obligatory” promising the restitution of the gems and submitting
himself in the matter to the judgment of the Pope and the Papal Legate. The
precious jewels were really restored to the Abbey shortly afterwards, as is

shown by a document dated February 10, 1269 (53 Henry III). The ruby
ring, being a later gift, could not have been among them.[302]
A contemporary entry referring to this shrine in Edward I’s time (1272–
1307), is interesting as casting a sidelight on the English coinage at the end
of the thirteenth century. Under date of 1299, provision is made for
returning to the church of Westminster the half of 38 marks of gold (about
$9,500 intrinsic value) that had been taken from the shrine of St. Edward
for the jewels sent to Queen Margaret on her first coming to Westminster,
“the coinage being so debased and real sterlings rarely found.”[303]
The cross on the summit of the Imperial State Crown of England, as
described by Prof. Tennant, is surmounted by a rose-cut sapphire. There is a
tradition that this sapphire was once set in the ring of Edward the
Confessor, a ring which, according to popular belief, was endowed with
wonderful curative virtues, and gave its successive owners the power to
consecrate the so-called cramp rings.[304] This attribution of the sapphire is
in disagreement with the early notice of the ruby ring given to Westminster
Abbey by Richard II as that of the saintly Edward, and also to the usage
long observed of setting a ruby in the Coronation Ring. King, in his account
of Edward’s ring, calls attention to an entry in the inventory of Henry III’s
jewels describing a sapphire weighing 52 dwts (about 337 metric carats),
and suggests that this may be the large sapphire of the English crown.[305]
When Pope Hadrian IV (1154–1159) acknowledged the sovereignty of
Henry II of England over Ireland, he sent to the monarch by John of
Salisbury, the messenger who bore the Brief of Investiture, a valuable ring
set with an exceptionally fine emerald. This historical fact probably
suggested the name Emerald Isle as a designation for Ireland. The ring and
the Brief were carefully guarded in the royal archives at the time John of
Salisbury wrote his recital.[306]
During the crusade which brought into martial rivalry two of the most
romantic figures of history, Richard Cœur de Lion and Saladin, an English
knight, Sir William D’Annay, killed a Saracen prince, in 1192, and not long
afterwards vanquished a lion near the ancient Syrian city of Acre, later
known as St. Jean d’Acre, as it was placed under the care of the knights of
the Order of St. John. As a special and appropriate offering to King Richard,
Sir William brought him a paw of the slain lion, and received from the king

as a recognition of the bravery he had displayed a ring from the royal finger.
The knight was also directed to bear on his crest a “demi Saracen” holding
in one hand a lion’s paw and in the other a ring, so that the memory of the
gallant deeds and of the royal recompense should never be forgotten. In
1856 this ring was in the possession of Dawnay, Viscount Downe, a lineal
descendant of the crusader, who still bore the crest assigned by Richard
Cœur de Lion.[307] The ring is of silver and is set with a so-called toadstone,
the palatal tooth of a ray, famous in mediæval times as a talisman against
poison.[308]
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) sent to Richard Cœur de Lion four gold
rings, each set with a different stone. With the rings, the pope sent a letter
from St. Peter’s in Rome, dated May 28, 1198, in which he wrote that the
four stones were symbolical. The verdant hue of the emerald signified how
we should believe, the celestial purity of the sapphire, how we should hope,
the warm color of the garnet, how we should love, and the clear
transparency of the topaz, how we should act. Moreover, the ring-form also
possessed a symbolical meaning, roundness denoting eternity, which has
neither beginning nor end. Hence the royal conscience had in the ring a
monition to pass from terrestrial to celestial matters, from temporal to
eternal things.[309]
In the ruins of the palace at Eltham in Kent was found a gold ring set
with an Oriental ruby surrounded by five diamonds in their native
crystalline state, placed at equal distances from one another. This ring
weighed over half an ounce (exactly, 267¹⁄₁₀ grains) and bore the following
inscription in Old French:

Qui me portera expliotera
Et a grant joye revendra.

(Whosoever weareth me will do doughty deeds,
And will return filled with joy.)

This motto is believed to indicate that the ring had been given to a
Crusader to wear on his expedition for the rescue of the Holy Land from the
hands of the infidels. That it should have been found on English soil seems
to be proof that the wearer returned safely to his native land.[310]

In 1774, after long and urgent solicitation, the Dean of Westminster, Dr.
John Thomas, later Bishop of Rochester, consented to the opening of the
tomb of Edward I of England (1272–1307) and the disinterment of his body.
The corpse was found closely wrapped in coarse, thick linen cloth, the face
being covered with a face-cloth of crimson sarcinet.[311] The features were
still in great part well-preserved though the skin was dark brown, almost
black. The monarch had been clothed with royal vesture and royal insignia,
but no ring was found on either of the hands. The disinterment of King
Canute’s body, however, resulted in the finding of a ring set with a large
and fine stone, of what particular kind we are not informed.
When, in 1562, the iconoclastic Calvinists of Caen broke open the tomb
of Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, in the Abbey of the Holy
Trinity, there was still to be seen on one of the queen’s fingers a gold ring
set with a fine sapphire. This was yielded to the Abbess, of the house of
Montmorency, who later gave it to her father, the famous constable of
France, Anne de Montmorency, when he attended Charles IX on the latter’s
visit to Caen in the following year. The tomb of William Rufus, the
Conqueror’s son, in Winchester Cathedral, was opened in the reign of
Charles I, and in the dust of the king lay a large gold ring. So customary
was it at this period to have a royal ring interred with the sovereign’s body,
that even when Richard II left special directions in his will that the crown
and sceptre to be buried with him should not be enriched with any precious
stones, he expressly ordered that a ring set with a precious stone and worth
20 marks should be put on his finger.[312]
When, in 1360, the Earl of Richmond married the Lady Blanche,
daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, King Edward III gave as presents a ring
with a ruby and a belt garnished with rubies, emeralds and pearls.[313] The
rubies may have been considered especially appropriate, since the red rose
was the emblem of the House of Lancaster. More than a century later, in the
reign of Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck utilized his striking resemblance
to Edward IV in support of his claim that he was one of the princes slain in
the Tower, in 1483, by order of Richard III, and succeeded in persuading
Edward’s sister, Margaret, and also King James IV of Scotland, of the truth
of his pretensions, one of his rural agents in England was called in the
conspirators’ correspondence “The Merchant of the Ruby,” a designation

designed to cast off possible suspicion by representing the agent to be only
a gem dealer.
There still exists in the English records a paper dated in 1445, the year of
Margaret of Anjou’s marriage, and signed by King Henry VI. In this the
king directs that a warrant of discharge be given to “our Trusty and
Wellbeloved Squire John Merston, Tresorier of our Chambre and Keper of
our juwelles,” for sundry jewels which had been confided to his care. The
following item refers to the ring of Margaret of Anjou:[314]
“A Ryng of Gold, Garnished with a fayr Rubie, somtyme Yeven unto Us
by our Bel Oncle the Cardinal of Englande, with the which we were Sacred
in the Day of oure Coronation at Parys, delivered unto Mathew Phelip, to
Breke, and thereof to make an other Ryng for the Quenes Wedding Ring.”
There is no mention here of any engraving on the stone of this ring,
which had been used in 1431, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris. If the
spinel in the Marlborough Collection, engraved with a head somewhat
resembling that of Henry VI on his coins, really adorned this ring, the
engraving may have been executed subsequent to Henry’s marriage with the
unfortunate Margaret of Anjou.
Rings set with precious stones were given as prizes at the tournament
held by Henry VII of England in 1494. The prize for jousting was to be a
ruby ring, while the best in the tourney and the one delivering the most
telling strokes was to be rewarded with a diamond ring. The Earl of Suffolk,
Thomas Brandon, who later married King Henry’s daughter Margaret, after
the death of her first husband Louis XII of France, was successful in
gaining one of the ruby rings, bestowed upon him by the “Ladie Margaret,”
his future wife, and Sir Edward A. Borough fought so stoutly in the mêlée
that he was adjudged worthy of a diamond ring. An extra prize of an
emerald ring was given to the Earl of Essex for his valor.[315]
In 1681 the Duke of Norfolk presented to the College of Arms in London
the sword, dagger, and ring worn by James IV of Scotland (1473–1513) at
the battle of Flodden Field, fought August 22, 1513, in which he met his
death. This ring was set with a turquoise and had been sent to James by the
queen of France, as a pledge of friendship and regard, when she solicited
the good offices of the Scottish monarch with Henry VIII, who had just laid
siege to Térouanne. Another account states that when the queen sent the

ring to James, she charged him to break a lance for her sake. This ring is
said to have been taken from the body of King James by Thomas, Duke of
Norfolk, an ancestor of the donor.[316] The belief that the turquoise
protected those who wore it from falls and wounds, probably determined its
selection, but the result in this case was hardly calculated to increase the
stone’s prestige.
On the site of this disastrous defeat of the Scotch by the English army
under the Earl of Surrey, an inscribed ring was found in 1783. The
inscription, in Norman French, reads: “On est mal loiauls amans qui se poet
garder des maux disans” (Only a lover of scant loyalty can escape
calumny). The words are disposed in groups of two, and between each pair
is a boar’s head, the crest of the Campbells. This has led to the conjecture
that the ring belonged to the second son of the Duke of Argyll, Archibald
Campbell, who met his death in the forefront of the fight.[317]

PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII, BY HANS HOLBEIN, PAINTED IN
1540
Rings of identical form and setting on index fingers of each hand
and on little finger of left hand. These are designed to match exactly
the jewels on his collar and sleeves.
Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica. Palazzo Corsini, Rome

PORTRAIT OF JANE SEYMOUR (CA. 1510–1537)
THIRD WIFE OF HENRY VIII, AND MOTHER OF
EDWARD VI, BY HANS HOLBEIN, THE YOUNGER
Rings set with precious stones on index and fourth
fingers of left hand
Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna

At the spoliation of the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury in
1538, among the precious objects taken away was “[a stone with] an angel
of gold pointing thereunto, offered by the King of France: [which King
Henry put] into a ring and wore it on his thumb.” This jewel, containing a
diamond, was the most prized ornament of the shrine, and is believed to
have been given by Louis VII of France on the occasion of his visit in 1179.
Henry VIII must have tired of his massive thumb ring, for in the inventory
of the precious stones delivered to Queen Mary, March 10, 1554, shortly

after her accession, there appears the following entry: “A collar of golde set
with sixteen faire diamounts, whereof the Regal of France is one, and
fourteen Knotts of perles, in every Knotte four perles.”[318]
Two pretty New Year’s gifts for January first, 1571, were delivered to
Lady Mary Sidney on the last day of the year 1570. One of them was a ring
“set with a rose”; the other was more ambitious in design, being described
as “a jewell with the storie of time” set with diamonds and rubies, certainly
an appropriate gift for the day. This cost but £10 or $50, a much larger sum,
however, in those bygone days than it is accounted to be to-day, for the
purchasing power of money was many times greater.[319]
The earliest mention of the diamond ring given by Elizabeth to Mary
Queen of Scots occurs in Camden’s account of the events of Elizabeth’s
reign. After relating the events that determined Mary to seek Elizabeth’s
protection, Camden continues:
She therefore sent John Beatoun to her [Elizabeth] with the diamond she had
formerly received from her as a symbol of mutual good-will, signifying to her that she
was about to come to England and ask for aid in case her subjects continued to make
war against her.[320]

This is said to have been a gimmal-ring, two diamonds joining together
to form a heart. One half was kept by Elizabeth who gave the other half to
Mary. This appeal to the tender mercies of the Virgin Queen, and Mary’s
hope, were in vain, for “she cutt off her head for all that” as Aubrey dryly
puts it.[321]
Several epigrams on this diamond were written by the Scotch poet and
publicist George Buchanan (1506–1582), the best being as follows:[322]

Quod te jampridem fruitur, videt, ac amat absens,
Haec pignus cordis gemma, et imago mei est.
Non est candidior, non est haec purior illo,
Quamvis dura magis, non magis firma.

This has been rendered:

The gem which saw thee near and loves thee still,
Is pledge and image of my heart and will.
My heart is not less white or pure than this,
And though less hard, ’tis quite as firm I wis.

PORTRAIT OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1542–1587).
FRENCH SCHOOL
Rings on the second joint of fourth finger of right hand,
and on little finger of the same hand
Museo del Prado, Madrid

PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, BY THE FLEMISH
PAINTER LUCAS DE HEERE
On little finger of left hand, ring set with a large, oblong,
table-cut stone
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

A memorial ring was sent by Mary of Scotland, just before her execution
at Fotheringay Castle, February 8, 1587, to her faithful follower and
kinsman, Lord John Hamilton, with an affectionate message and her last
farewell. This ring, set with a sapphire, was handed down from generation
to generation in the Hamilton family, and was seen, in 1857, at Hamilton
Palace, by Miss Agnes Strickland. She described the sapphire as being
large, of rectangular form, and cut with a number of facets, a kind of rose-
cutting; the setting was of blue enamelled gold in the style favored by

sixteenth century goldsmiths.[323] It might be looked upon as a noteworthy
coincidence, that as a sapphire was a memorial of Mary’s death, another
sapphire was the token to her son, James I, of Elizabeth’s death and his
accession to the throne of England.
On the night before her execution, Mary Stuart found an opportunity to
ask her apothecary, a Monsieur Gorion, whether he could safely convey a
letter and two diamonds to those for whom they were intended, and whether
he would promise to perform this service faithfully. He assented, saying that
he could make some drug in which the objects might be safely concealed,
so that he could carry them away with him. One of these diamonds was to
be given to Mendoza, for a long time Spanish ambassador to the court of
Elizabeth; the other, and larger one, was destined for Philip II of Spain. This
was to be received as “a sign that she was dying for the truth, and was also
meant to bespeak his care for her friends and servants.”[324]
Of rings which have been treated as sacred relics, none can be said to
recall a more painful tragedy than one donated to the monastery-church of
the Escurial. On April 15, 1587, the Spanish king Philip II had a nocturne
and a requiem sung in the church in memory of the unfortunate Mary of
Scotland. When the echoes of the solemn chants had died away, the king
gave to the abbot a ring set with a diamond which had belonged to the
unhappy victim, with the injunction that it should be placed among the
sacred relics and preserved as “a symbol of the purity and the firm faith of
this saintly queen.”[325] This ring, or at least the large diamond of its setting,
must have been the farewell gift which we have just noted.
Although not a betrothal ring, that given by Queen Elizabeth to the Earl
of Essex was most certainly a love token. When this nobleman was high in
the queen’s favor she bestowed upon him a gold ring set with a sardonyx
cut with her portrait; giving him, at the same time, a solemn promise that
whatever charges might be brought against him she would accord him her
pardon if he sent her this ring. Some years later, Essex—who in the
meanwhile had lost the queen’s favor—was impeached for high treason and
condemned to death. In this extremity, he endeavored to find some means
of transmitting to the queen the ring she had given him. Fearing to trust his
keepers with the execution of his wish, Essex found no better way than to
throw the ring to a boy who was passing the prison, directing him to give it

to Lady Scrope, Lady Nottingham’s sister. Unfortunately for Essex, the boy
gave the ring, by mistake, to Lady Nottingham, whose husband was one of
his bitterest enemies, so that the token never reached the queen, who was
convinced that her former favorite was too proud and obstinate to seek her
mercy. She thereupon left him to his fate. Years afterwards, when Lady
Nottingham was on her death-bed, she asked for the queen and confessed
that she had failed to deliver the ring sent to her by Essex. This confession
aroused the queen’s wrath to such an extent that she burst forth in violent
reproaches and rushed from the room exclaiming: “God may forgive you; I
never shall!” The proud heart of the virgin queen was broken by this
revelation, and, weighed down by remorse for the death of Essex, she
expired a few weeks later.

Gold ring set with an oval cameo-portrait, on onyx, of Queen Elizabeth.
Sixteenth Century. Two views
British Museum

Gold ring set with pearls pierced and threaded; two
views. Venetian (?) late Seventeenth Century
British Museum

Multiple silver rings. Four hoops connected by
three vertical bars: one of these is set with two
corals and a glass paste. North African (?)
British Museum

PUZZLE OR MAGIC RINGS, PLAIN AND JEWELLED

Quite recently this historic Essex ring has found its way to the auction-
room, and to judge from the price it brought, the purchaser must have been
convinced of the truth of the legend concerning it, as its merely artistic
qualities—which are in no wise remarkable—and the fact that it is
incidentally a product of sixteenth century art would scarcely suffice to
justify the amount paid for it. The sale took place at Christie’s in London,
on May 18, 1911, and after spirited bidding the ring was adjudged for
$17,060. A firm of dealers in antiquities were the nominal purchasers, but
they are said to have acted for Lord Michelson of Hollingly, a baron in the
lately overthrown Kingdom of Portugal, and the senior partner in the firm
of Stern Bros., of London. This ring is stated to have been bequeathed by
mother to daughter in a long line of Essex’s descendants, beginning with his

daughter Lady Francis Devereux. Finally it came to Louisa, daughter of
John, Earl of Greville, and wife of Thomas Thyme, second Viscount
Weymouth and great-grandfather of the late owner.
Some authorities do not think that the story of the Essex ring has a
satisfactory historical foundation.[326] It first appears in a book published
about 1650 and entitled “History of the most renowned Queen Elizabeth
and her great Favourite, the Earl of Essex. In Two Parts. A Romance.” In
1658 Francis Osborn repeats it in his “Traditional Memoires of Elizabeth.”
It was even treated dramatically by John Banks (fl. 1696) in his play “The
Unhappy Favourite.” Certain later writers claim to have learned of it
through trustworthy informants, as for example, Louis Aubery, Sieur de
Maurier, who published in Paris, in 1680, a history of Holland and therein
states that Sir Dudley Carleton told the story to Prince Maurice of Saxony.
In the English translation of this work the episode has been omitted. Still
later, at the end of the seventeenth century, it is given by Lady Elizabeth
Spelman on the authority, as she alleged, of Sir Robert Carey, brother of
Lady Scrope. In earlier versions the ring was represented to have been sent
directly by Essex to Lady Nottingham; in Lady Spelman’s recital, however,
as we have already noted, Essex instructs the boy to whom he entrusts the
ring to deliver it to Lady Scrope, sister of Lady Nottingham. It is suggested
that this variation was made to offset the objection that Essex would never
have chosen his enemy, Lady Nottingham, as an intermediary between
himself and the queen. Manningham, in his “Diary,” the only contemporary
who alludes to a ring in connection with Essex’s relations with Elizabeth,
only states that “the queen wore till her death a ring given her by Essex.”
Possibly this fact may have served as a nucleus for the romantic tale.
A portrait of Queen Elizabeth, elaborately be-pearled as usual, the work
of the Flemish painter, Lucas De Heere, shows her with a ring on the little
finger of her left hand. It is set with an oblong, table-cut stone. This
interesting portrait, which is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
while conforming generally to the type with which we are familiar, differs
in some respects therefrom. The very slender neck, the delicacy of form and
face, may, of course, represent mannerisms of the artist.
The sapphire set in the ring thrown out of the window of Queen
Elizabeth’s death chamber by Lady Scrope to her brother Robert Carey, as a
signal that the queen was dead, so that he might be the first to bear the news

to her impatient successor, James I, was exhibited in the great Loan
Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Jewellery shown at the South
Kensington Museum in London, in 1872. As there shown, this historic
sapphire was the central ornament of a diamond star, or cinque-foil. The
original ring was given to John, Earl of Orrery, by the Duchess of
Buckingham, natural daughter of James II, and the small brilliants
surrounding it in its present setting are the same as those which were about
it in the ring.[327]
By the terms of his will, dated December 18, 1630, Sir Edward Coke, of
Godwick, bequeathed among other jewels two of historic significance. One
of these was a ring “set with a great Turkey (turquoise), which King Henry
the Eighth used to wear, and was painted with it on his forefinger.” The
other jewel, also a ring, is curiously suggestive when we recall that an
attempt (unsuccessful, of course) had been made to poison the unfortunate
Sir Thomas Overbury with diamond dust, before poison of a more effective
sort was administered to him. The ring in question is described here as set
with “a Diamon cut with faucetts (facets)” and the statement is added that it
had been given to Sir Edward by Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I, “for
the discovery of the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury.”[328]
A gold ring, said to have been one of five such rings given by Charles I
to Bishop Juxon, on the scaffold, just before the king’s execution, was
shown in the Loan Collection exhibited in the South Kensington Museum,
in London, in 1872. The statement is made that this ring was presented by
Bishop Juxon to Sir John Halloway, and from him passed into the
possession of the Dalby family. The ring bears a death’s head in white
enamel on a black ground, and has the motto, “Behold the ende”; around
the edge is the inscription, “Rather death then fals fayth”; at the back are the
initials “M” and “L,” tied with a mourning ribbon.[329]
The “Verney Ring,” with a portrait of Charles I of England, is, if
genuine, the only relic of a heroic tragedy. It is said to have been bestowed
by Charles I upon Sir Edmund Verney, one of his most faithful followers in
the perils of the Civil War. Sir Edmund was killed at the battle of Edgehill,
in 1642, where the Cavaliers were utterly defeated, but even in death he still
held the royal standard in his grasp. The ring was taken from his hand, and
the body abandoned; it was never recovered. As he was helped into the

world by a Cæsarean operation, it became a common saying in the
neighborhood of Edgehill that Sir Edmund was neither born nor buried.[330]
With that striking indifference to moral right and wrong so characteristic
of Charles II of England, he did not hesitate to bestow a choice ring from
his own hand upon the notorious Jeffreys, when the latter was leaving
London on one of his circuits always marked by the browbeating of
witnesses and accused, and the imposition of capital sentences, wherever
possible. It was at a somewhat later date, in 1685, just after the accession of
James II, that Jeffreys conducted the trials of the unfortunate Duke of
Monmouth’s adherents, which came to be known as the “Bloody Assize.”
This fact of the presentation was published in the Royal Gazette, thus
notably strengthening Jeffreys’ prestige. So general, however, was the
reprobation of his heartless and bloodthirsty administration of his judicial
office that the ring was called “Jeffreys’ bloodstone.”[331]
In March, 1748, as some ploughmen were tilling a field seven miles
from Mullingor, County Westmeath, Ireland, they discovered a grave, the
bottom, sides and ends of which were formed each of a single slab of stone.
Within the grave were the bones of a man of gigantic stature, and also an
urn and a valuable ring, set with twenty-five diamonds. Bishop Pococke,
treating of this ring, mentions the fact that Rosa Failge, eldest son of
Cathoir More, known as Cathoir the Great, who reigned in 122 a.d., was
called the “Hero of Rings,” but the writer adds that the ring could scarcely
have belonged to him, since diamonds do not appear to have been known in
Ireland at this early date.[332]
A most interesting Washington relic is a pearl and gold ring made in his
lifetime and containing a lock of his hair placed beneath a conical glass.
This is encircled by a setting of blue and white enamel, a square of red
being set at each corner, and around this a circle of thirteen pearls, the
number of the original States. This ring was given by Washington to Lieut.
Robert Somers. The latter lost his life while fighting the Algerene pirates in
Tripoli, but before his departure he confided the ring to the care of his sister,
Sarah Keen. It is now owned by Vice-Chancellor E. B. Leaming of
Camden, New Jersey, who inherited it from his paternal grandmother, an
heir to Somers’ estate. Only two other rings containing Washington’s hair

are known of, one in Washington’s Headquarters at Newburgh on the
Hudson, the other in the Boston Museum.[333]
In far-away Sweden there has been preserved a historic Washington
relic. This is a ring given by the Revolutionary leader to Lafayette before
the latter’s return to France after the victorious Yorktown campaign. The
ring passed from Lafayette to his intimate friend, Baron Erik Magnus Staël
von Holstein, Swedish ambassador to France. The latter, on a visit to his
native land gave it to his brother, Major Bogislaus Staël von Holstein, in
whose family it was transmitted as an heirloom until it reached the hands of
the maternal grandfather of the present owner, Mr. Gösta Frölen of Falun,
Sweden. The ring is of gold and is set with a miniature portrait of
Washington.
It is said that two other rings were given by Washington about the same
time to two Swedish noblemen, who had served as adjutants to
Rochambeau. The presentation occurred at a banquet given in their honor,
just before their departure for their native land, at the City Tavern in
Philadelphia, November 11, 1782. In bestowing these gifts Washington is
said to have used the following words: “I am happy to be here amongst men
belonging to the race of my own early ancestors.” All trace of these rings
has been lost.

V

BETROTHAL (ENGAGEMENT) RINGS, WEDDING (NUPTIAL)
RINGS, AND LOVE TOKENS

S
pecial wedding-rings, as we understand them, were not used at an early
period, the espousal ring being employed at the wedding ceremony also.
At a later time, a signet was set in the anulus pronubus, or betrothal
ring, to signify that the spouse was to have the right of sealing up the
household goods, and occasionally a small key formed part of the ring, with
a similar significance. We have a testimony to this view in the words of the
marriage ceremony: “With all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The wives
of our day are quite disposed to accept this passage in its literal sense,
although some may incline to a more liberal interpretation of the promise to
love, honor and obey their husbands. The ring as a pledge of love is said to
be first mentioned in Roman literature by Plautus in his “Miles Gloriosus”
(Act IV, sc. i, v. 11); this passage, however, does not refer to a nuptial ring,
but rather to a love token.
Somewhat distantly related to the betrothal or wedding rings were those
given by lovers to the objects of their affection. Of such a ring the Roman
poet Ovid writes, apostrophizing it as “a ring soon destined to encircle the
finger of a beauteous girl, a ring having no worth except the love of the
giver.” It was to be a gift to the poet’s ladylove Corinna.[334] The ring sent
by a fair lady, as a token of love to a handsome soldier, in the “Miles
Gloriosus” of Plautus was also of this class.
The custom of placing the betrothal or wedding ring upon the fourth
finger seems undoubtedly to owe its origin to the fancy that a special nerve,
or vein, ran directly from this finger to the heart. Macrobius, in his
Saturnalia,[335] alludes to the belief in the following words: “Because of this
nerve, the newly betrothed places the ring on this finger of his spouse, as
though it were a representation of the heart.” Macrobius asserts that he
derived his information from an Egyptian priest.
It has been conjectured that this was not the real source of the custom,
but that in the church service it was usual for the Christian priest to touch
three fingers successively with the ring while saying: “In the name of the

Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and then to place it upon the last
finger touched. We know that this was the usage in the bestowal of
episcopal rings, and later with wedding rings, but the express statement
cited from the pagan writer Macrobius shows that in the earlier marriage or
betrothal ceremony this custom must have had an entirely different origin.
During the reign of George I of England it was not unusual to wear the
wedding ring on the thumb, although it had been placed on the fourth finger
at the marriage ceremony. Possibly this custom may have arisen because
exceptionally large wedding rings were favored by fashion at that time.
That wedding rings were often worn on the thumb in the middle of the
seventeenth century is proved by the lines from Samuel Butler’s Hudibras
quoted on another page.[336]

PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN WOMAN BY
PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ
Rings on thumb and index of right hand, and on fourth
and little fingers of left hand Museo del Prado, Madrid

PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS MARY, DAUGHTER OF
CHARLES V AND WIFE OF MAXIMILIAN II, BY JUAN
PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ
Two rings on index and one on little finger of right hand; one
on index of left hand; all set with precious stones Museo del
Prado, Madrid

Ecclesiastical rituals in France from the eleventh to the fifteenth century
prove, with but few exceptions, that the nuptial ring was to be placed on the
right hand of the bride, in most of the dioceses upon the middle finger of
this hand, but in the diocese of Liége on the fourth finger. As Isidore of
Seville, writing in the early part of the seventh century, declares that the
betrothal ring was put on the fourth finger, and repeats the Roman fancy as
to the vein intimately connecting this particular finger with the heart,[337] it
seems likely that this rule was generally followed in the Roman Empire up

to its end, and even later in some parts of what had once been Roman
provinces, while the early French rules were derived from a Gallic usage
which had never been supplanted by the Roman one.[338] That the Gauls
and Britons of the first century wore their rings on the middle finger is
already noted by Pliny.[339]
A gold ring, a unique relic of Anglo-Saxon times in England, was found
in an ancient burial place at Harnham Hill, near Salisbury.[340] It was on a
finger bone of the left hand of a skeleton, and resembles exactly our
wedding-ring of to-day. In the same cemetery was unearthed a twisted ring
of silver, a mere band twice encircling the finger; a section of the finger-
bone remains within the ring. These relics are believed to date from the
seventh century. On or near the skeleton with which this silver ring was
found were several amber beads; the remains were evidently those of an
elderly person, although of one not over 55 years of age, according to
Professor Owen.
That part of the Order of Matrimony relating to the marriage vows and to
the wedding ring, in the Sarum Rite or Use current in England in pre-
Reformation times, runs as follows, after the bride and groom have clasped
hands:[341]
Ich N. take the N. to my wedded wyf, to haven and to holden fro this day
forward, for betre for wors, for rychere for porere, in syknesse and in
helthe, til deth us departe, and theerto y plith the my trewthe.
Then the woman:
Ich N. take the N. to my wedded hosebund, to haven and to holden fro
this day forward, for betre and for wors, for rychere and for porere, to be
boneyre and buxum ... and at borde, till dethe us departe and thereto y plith
the my trewthe.
Then let the man lay gold, silver, and a ring on a dish or book; and let the
Priest ask if the ring hath been blessed already; if it be answered not, then
let the Priest bless the ring.
Bless, O Lord, this ring (looking at it) which we hallow in Thy Holy
Name, that whosoever she be that shall wear it may be steadfast in Thy
peace and abide in Thy will, and live, increase, and grow old in Thy love,
and let the length of her days be multiplied.

Gold ring in which are inserted representations of two winged figures cut in intaglio in a brown
chalcedony. Antique workmanship. See page 363
Collection of B. G. Fairchild, Esq., New York City

Locket ring, opening at the bezel and on the sides, leaving room for the introduction of hair, or
tiny portraits. When closed the ring appears to be plain and smooth

Antique Syrian ring of bronze, set with a yellowish green paste. Half of the circlet has broken
away

Gold ring set with octahedral diamond.
Late Roman. British Museum

Twisted hoop of silver on the bone of
a finger. From an ancient sepulchre at
Harnham Hill, England. Saxon, 7th
century
Archæologia, vol. xxxv, pl. opp. p. 278

WEDDING RINGS FROM SYRIAN TOMBS OF
CHALCEDONY, AGATE, AND BANDED AGATE

But if the ring shall have been already blessed, then, as soon as the man
have laid it on the book, let the Priest take the ring and deliver it to the man;
and let the man receive it in his right hand, with the first three fingers,
holding the right hand of the Bride with his left hand, and say, after the
Priest:
With this ryng ich the wedde, and with my body ich the honoure and
with al my gold ich the dowere.
And then let the bridegroom put the ring on the thumb of the Bride,
saying—

In the Name of the Father; (on the first finger) and of the Son; (on the
second finger) and of the Holy Ghost; (on the third finger). Amen.
And there let him leave it, because in that finger there is a certain vein
which reaches to the heart; and by the purity of the silver is signified the
inward affection which ought ever to be fresh between them.
In the modern Protestant Episcopal service, the bestowal of the ring is
ordered as follows:
Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the
Woman a Ring. And the Minister, taking the Ring, shall deliver it unto the
Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman’s left hand. And the Man
holding the Ring there, and taught by the Minister, shall say:
With this Ring I thee wed, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
It will be noted that the ring is first given by the man to the woman, then
taken from her by the priest who returns it to the man, upon which the latter
puts it on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand.
Four fine specimens of later Byzantine work in ring-making are in the
British Museum. These are all marriage-rings of massive gold, the designs
being similar, with certain variations. The bezels bear engraved figures of
Christ alone, or of Christ and the Virgin, bestowing a blessing upon the
newly wedded pair; beneath is the Greek word ὸμονόια (or ὸμόνυαι),
signifying their spiritual union. All but one have on the hoop in Greek
characters the inscription: “My peace I give unto you” (John, xiv, 27). On
the remaining ring there is on the hoop a decoration in niello, depicting very
roughly scenes from the Gospel. The character of the work indicates that it
probably belongs to the tenth century.[342] A massive gold ring found not
long since in Mainz, bears a Greek inscription showing that it was executed
for the nuptials of King Stephen Radislav of Servia (1228–1234) with Anna
Comnena, daughter of Emperor Theodore Angélus Comnenus, Duke of
Thessalonica, the region of the Saloniki of to-day. The inscription on this
early thirteenth century ring of Byzantine workmanship is nielloed on the
gold.[343]
Some interesting inscriptions appear on certain of the Greek betrothal
rings in the collection of the British Museum. A gold ring of about the

fourth century b.c. bears a Greek inscription which may be rendered as
follows: “To her who excells not only in virtue and prudence, but also in
wisdom.” In marked contrast to this rather elaborate dedication is the
inscription on another ring, which bears the single word μὲλι “Honey.” It
strikes us strangely enough to find this particular term of endearment, so
freely used by the Negroes, on a ring from classic times. Perhaps the most
beautiful of all these inscriptions is on a late Greek ring and runs: “I rejoice
in the gift because of the affection of the giver.”[344]
The custom of bestowing a ring upon the betrothed bride has been traced
back in Rome to the second century b.c. Plain iron rings were first used for
this purpose and they were still favored even when the wearing of gold
rings had become general among certain classes of the Roman citizens.
However, in the course of the second century of our era, and perhaps earlier,
gold rings came into use in the ceremony of betrothal. Pliny’s assertion that
the bride wore an unset iron ring has been interpreted to mean no more than
that, in the case of those entitled to wear gold rings, the bridegroom after
having given the bride a gold ring, later bestowed upon her one of iron for
wear within doors. For it appears to have been a rather general usage, in or
before Pliny’s time, to wear gold rings only when in public, and within the
house iron rings. That the nuptial ring was of gold, in the second century at
least, is plain from the statement of St. Clement of Alexandria, who declares
that this ring was not bestowed upon the spouse as an ornament, but that she
might seal up whatever was worthy of special care in the household.[345]
Perhaps the earliest allusion in Christian literature to the betrothal ring
appears in one of Tertullian’s writings, dated from the end of the second
century a.d., wherein he says: “Among our women the time-honored rules
of their ancestors, which enjoined modesty and sobriety, have died out. In
former times women knew nothing of gold except the single betrothal ring,
which was placed on one of their fingers by the fiancé.”[346] That this usage
had endured for many years is clearly apparent from the allusion to times
long past. In a curious passage,[347] St. Augustine, in the fourth century,
writes: “No priest shall hesitate to wed a couple who present themselves
before the altar, if the bride and bridegroom are not able, because of
poverty, to give rings to each other; for the (offering of) the earnest-money
is a matter of decorum, not of necessity.”

One of the rare marriage rings or love tokens of the early Christian
centuries, bears incised on its circular, button-shaped chaton, a male and a
female bust, the faces turned toward each other. Above is a cross, the lower
part of its upright shaft much longer than the upper part or the arms. This
ring is of Byzantine workmanship and has been approximately dated about
440 a.d. It is a good example of the so-called bi-cephalic rings, rings
bearing two heads, and weighs 3⅝ dwt., or 87 grains.[348]
This usage was introduced among the ancient Germans by the Romans.
The significance of the betrothal ring is noted in a law of the Visigoths,
promulgated by Chindaswinthe (642–643 a.d.). There had evidently been a
disposition to treat lightly the obligations of betrothal, for we read: “Since
there are many who, forgetful of their plighted faith, defer the fulfillment of
their nuptial contracts, this license should be suppressed.” Therefore, it was
provided that when a solemn declaration had been made before witnesses
and the espousal ring had been given and accepted as representing earnest-
money, the marriage ceremony must follow, if either of the parties should
fail to agree to a rupture of the engagement; that is, it could only be broken
by mutual consent.
A celebrated betrothal ring was that sent by Clovis I (465–511 a.d.) to
Clothilda in 493. The following account is given of the bestowal of this
ring:
“Aurelian pursued his journey from these parts [of Burgundy], bearing
with him the ring of Chlodwig that he might gain the better credence
thereby. When he arrived at the city where Chrotechilda resided with her
aunt, Aurelian presented himself and said: ‘Chlodwig, King of the Franks,
hath sent me to thee; if such be the will of God, he wishes to associate thee
with himself in his majesty, as spouse. That thou mayst be assured of this,
he hath sent thee this ring.’ Accepting the ring, she was filled with great joy,
and answered: ‘Take a hundred solidi as a reward for thy labor. Return
quickly to thy lord and say to him: ‘If thou desirest to associate me with
thyself in matrimony, send envoys straightway to my paternal uncle
Gundobard, and ask him for my hand.’”[349] The money gift was a
considerable one for the time, as the solidus was worth intrinsically about
$3 of our money, and six or eight times as much in purchasing power in that
age.

A most interesting ancient wedding ring, presumably of the Gallo-
Roman period, was unearthed toward 1850 in the neighborhood of
Mulsanne, dept. Sarthe, France. It is of massive gold and weighs 24 grams,
20 centigrams, or over ¾ ounce. On the bezel, which is square, are rudely
engraved two figures, that of a warrior resting on his lance and that of a
woman holding out her arms to him. On the shoulders, toward the bezel, is
a foliated ornamentation, and along the edge of the bezel are engraved the
two names “Dromacius” and “Betta,” the characters being filled in with the
black enamel called niello. This ring is believed to date from the fifth
century a.d.[350]
The religious aspect of the ring in the ritual of the Greek Church finds an
exponent in Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote about a half-
century before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. In his
description of a typical marriage ceremony he states that the officiating
priest laid upon the altar two rings, an iron one symbolic of masculine
force, and a gold one typical of the less hardy but purer feminine
constitution. These rings he consecrated. After bestowing his benediction
upon the bride and bridegroom and offering a prayer for them, he gave the
woman the iron ring, as from the man, and to the man the gold ring on the
part of the woman, and changed them three times, in adoration of the Holy
Trinity, the perfecter and sustainer of all things. Hereupon he joined the
right hands of the spouses, demonstrating their unity in Christ and that the
man had received the woman from the hand of the Church. The rings also
signified the agreement and sealing of the marriage contract.[351]

BETROTHAL OF JOSEPH AND MARY, BY JUAN RODRIGUEZ
JUAREZ (OR XUAREZ), MEXICO CITY, (1666–1734) CALLED THE
“MEXICAN CARRACCA”
In the possession of the author

Right hand of the Virgin, right hand of St. Joseph, and hands of the high-priest, showing the
manner of placing the wedding ring at Hebrew marriages as depicted in the picture of Rodriguez
Juarez [Xuarez]. The ring contains an octahedral diamond crystal set in gold

According to Buxtorf (De sponsal. et divort.), the Jews did not place the
betrothal ring upon the annular finger, but upon the index. As to this there is
a curious statement in the “Opus aureus contra Judæos,”[352] by Victor de
Carben, a converted Jew. He states that, at the betrothal ceremony, care
should be taken that the fiancée extends her index finger to receive the ring,
lest it should be put, by mistake, upon the middle finger, for it was on this
finger that Joseph placed the ring when he betrothed Mary. Buxtorf adds
that he has never been able to find this statement in Jewish writings.
One of Ghirlandajo’s frescoes in the church of Santa Croce, in Florence,
depicts the betrothal of the Virgin. Here the ring is placed by Joseph on the
fourth finger of the Virgin’s right hand, and the famous Sposalizio by

Rafael in the Brera Gallery in Milan illustrates the same usage. Possibly the
ring was transferred to the left hand at the actual marriage ceremony.
The custom of the Greek church at the present day in relation to
betrothal or wedding rings differs in some respects from that observed in
other Christian churches, for the priest places a ring on the fourth finger of
each of the contracting parties, who then proceed to exchange them with
each other.
The old custom of exchanging rings and betrothal vows obtains in the
Russian branch of the Eastern Church. For the succeeding marriage
ceremony, or “crowning,” the same rings are again used. The rubric states
that the bride’s ring should be of silver to show that she is the less
honorable vessel, while the bridegroom’s ring is of gold to signify the
superiority of the man. The brides, however, have shown a disposition to
resent this inequality, and, in modern times at least, they are given gold
rings also. The old Russian custom is for the husband to wear his ring on his
forefinger.[353]
In the Greek and Russian churches, the rings—of gold for the man, of
silver for the woman—are bestowed at the betrothal ceremony, when also a
contract between the parties is made. The later nuptial ceremony is
generally designated as “the crowning,” a crown being placed on the heads
of bride and bridegroom by the officiating priest.
The question was often raised whether the mere fact of giving or
accepting a ring constituted a definite promise of marriage. The best
authorities decided the question in the negative. In reference to this matter
Peter Müller writes: “If when a ring is given there is no promise of
marriage, the ring shall not be regarded as a betrothal ring, but as a simple
gift. Whence it may be inferred that a contract of marriage cannot be proved
by a ring alone, since mere donations, bestowed through liberality, do not
produce any obligation.”[354]
The connection between the wedding ring and the bestowal of earnest-
money is clearly indicated in the marriage service as given in the Prayer-
Book of Edward VI. Here, after the words “with this ring I thee wed,” there
is added: “This gold and silver I give thee”; and at these words the
bridegroom usually placed in the bride’s hands a purse containing a sum of
money. There can, indeed, be little doubt that the espousal ring was rather

the type of a valuable consideration offered at the consummation of the
marriage contract, than a symbol of the bondage and subjection of the
spouse as many have maintained.
That the ring was sometimes given conditionally is shown by a curious
old German formula to the following effect: “I give you this ring as a sign
of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your father
gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 reichsthalers.”[355]
It is not possible to indicate with any precision at what date the betrothal
ring became the wedding ring, but this change seems to have taken place in
England about the time of the Reformation. This did not, however, entail
the abandonment of the betrothal ring, but rather the substitution of another,
and frequently less simple ring, to mark the betrothal. Of course, the change
was gradual and the usage varied in different countries, since the
employment of a separate marriage ring was rather a matter of custom than
of ecclesiastical ordinance.
The Manx usages and customs are so strange in many cases that the ring
traditions of the Isle of Man also present certain peculiarities. Thus if a man
was found guilty of having done injury to a maiden, the latter was given a
sword, a rope and a ring, signifying that she could either have him
beheaded, or hung, or else could force him to wed her. That the last-
mentioned choice was the one most frequently made is very probable, as the
rehabilitation of her good name thus attained might well outweigh any
satisfaction to be gained from the exercise of revenge.[356]
The use of rush-rings in England, in 1217, for mock marriages, is
vouched for in the “Constitutiones”[357] of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury. It
is provided that whoever places a rush-ring, or a ring of cheap or precious
material, in sport and jest upon a woman’s hand, that she shall the more
willingly become friendly with him, although imagining himself to be
joking will be constrained to marry. Another authority declares that when
the ecclesiastical court enforced matrimony as a penalty or a reparation for
bad conduct, a rush ring or a ring of straw was used at the ceremony.[358]
There are several passages in English poetry of the Elizabethan age and
later, referring to this use of a “rush ring.” In his “Two Noble Kinsmen,”
Fletcher writes:

Rings she made
Of rushes that grew by, and to ’em spoke
The prettiest posies; Thus our true loves ty’d;
This you may loose, not me, and many a one.

In the seventeenth century Sir William Davenant (1605–1668) speaks in
the following mocking strain of such a ring:

I’ll crown thee with a garland of straw then
And I’ll marry thee with a rush ring.

The ballad called the Winchester Wedding has these lines:

Pert Strephon was kind to Betty,
And blithe as a bird in the spring;
And Tommy was so to Katy,
And wedded her with a rush ring.

The “rush ring” is touched on in an old English ballad of Shakespeare’s
time, in which occur the lines:[359]

Then on my finger I’ll have a ring
Not one of rush, but a golden thing;
And I shall be glad as a bird in spring,
Because I am married o’ Sunday.

A purely spiritual view of the meaning of a wedding-ring is expressed by
Guillaume Durant, Bishop of Mende (died 1296). For him it was the
symbol of the mutual love of the espoused, at once a pledge and a symbol
of the union of their hearts. However, the more mercenary significance of
the ring, as a sign of the marriage gift to be bestowed upon the bride by the
bridegroom before the wedding, is quite clearly brought out in the old
French Rituals, wherein its composition and meaning are defined. A
simplification of the ring itself seems to have taken place from about the
thirteenth century when gold rings adorned with precious stones were
generally worn. The metal used at a later time varied in different dioceses.
While in that of Limoges the ring was of gold, the rituals of the dioceses of
Auxerre, Lyons and Paris prescribe a silver ring. In the Manual of the
priests belonging to the diocese of Paris, it is strictly enjoined that there

shall be no inscription or figure upon the ring, and that no precious stone
shall be set therein. The officiating priest receives it from the bridegroom
together with one or more pieces of money “as sign of the constituted
endowment.” The Manuel de Beauvais, published in 1637, also prescribes
that the nuptial ring shall be severely plain and entirely without inscription.
The ritual of the Abbey of St. Victor is even more definite, for here the
blessing of the ring is preceded by the reading of the endowment on account
of marriage (dotalitium propter nuptias). Hence the “dower” was not given
with the wife, but was bestowed upon her by the husband.[360] This has
been erroneously looked upon by some as a survival of the primitive
custom of wife-purchase; it differs, however, essentially from this in that
the wife receives the endowment for her own use and as her own property.
A curious superstition is condemned by the Ritual of Evreux. As the ring
was handed to the bride by the bridegroom, the former would let it fall on
the ground to conjure a possible evil spell.
It has been remarked by Jacob Grimm (1785–1863) the great
lexicographer and student of German archæology, that in early times,
among the christianized Germans, the fiancé gave the ring to the young
woman, who was thenceforth bound to carry out the marriage contract. On
the other hand, according to the poetical recitals of the thirteenth century,
the fiancée gives a ring to her future husband, without receiving one from
him. The same writer regards the usage of betrothal rings as one introduced
among the Germans by Christian influence, not one that can be looked upon
as properly Germanic.[361]
The contracting parties often exchanged rings at the betrothal ceremony,
which in many cases was celebrated in the church with all due solemnity.
Shakespeare’s “Two Gentlemen of Verona” contains an allusion to a more
informal exchange of rings:

Julia: Keep this remembrance for your Julia’s sake.
Proteus: Why then we’ll make exchange; here take you this.
(Giving a ring.)
Julia: And seal the bargain with a holy kiss.

In our own time, in Germany, two rings, one for the bride and the other
for the bridegroom, are given at the marriage ceremony, and these rings are

called “Trauringe,” a name which designates the ring as an emblem of faith
and trust, just as does the Italian name for the betrothal ring, fede, or faith.
From the almost innumerable poesies inscribed upon espousal rings we
select a few of the more noteworthy. An antique Roman ring has the words:
“Pignus amoris habes” (Thou hast a pledge of love);[362] another shows the
simple form “Proteros Ugiæ” (Proteros to Ugia), the names being inscribed
between two clasped hands.[363] A sentiment given by one who was no
believer in unrequited love reads: “Love me, I will love thee.” A massive
gold ring of early date, found in 1823 at Thetford, in Suffolk, gives us the
following inscription in Old French: “Deus me octroye de vous servir a gree
com moun couer desire” (God grant me to serve thee acceptably as my
heart desires).[364] On a ring in the collection of the late Sir John Evans we
have the following graceful inscription: “Je suis ici en lieu d’ami” (I am
here in the place of a friend).
An elaborate wedding-ring, probably executed in Germany, in the latter
half of the fifteenth century, is in the fine collection of the court jeweler
Koch, of Frankfort-on-the-Main. Out of richly ornamental foliage work
arise the figures of the wedded pair, evidently carefully rendered portraits.
Although somewhat lacking in purely artistic harmony, this production of
the ring-maker’s art is an excellent illustration of the quality of the best
German goldsmith work of the time in the smaller objects.
The Figdor Collection in Vienna contains a fifteenth century betrothal
ring made in France. It is of gold and bears the inscriptions: “Il est dit” (in
small letters) and “elle me tient” (in capitals), literally: “It is said (spoken)”
and “She holds me.” A betrothal ring in the form of a so-called “Puzzle
Ring,” has six connecting hoops. Three of these are enameled, two others
bear closed hands, and the last shows a key and the head of a winged angel.
This is of seventeenth century workmanship.[365]
A wedding-ring of simple Gothic design formed part of a grave treasure,
the characteristic inscription: “In Mir Ist Treue” (In me is fidelity), leaving
no doubt as to the use to which the ring had been put. This plain triangular
band is in the Germanic Museum in Nuremberg and is assigned to the
thirteenth century. Another most interesting ring from the same period was
found in the territory formerly known as the Fürstenbergerhof, at the
southwest end of the city of Mainz; it is now owned by the family Heerdt of

that city. The clasped hands engraved on the lower part of the hoop
designate this clearly as a betrothal or wedding-ring.
An English ring of the early part of the fifteenth century bears this
couplet:

Most in mynd and yn myn herrt
Lothest from thee ferto deparrt.

In seventeenth century rings the religious sentiment predominates: “I
have obtaind whom God ordaind”; “God unites our hearts aright”; “Knitt in
one by Christ alone”; “Wee join our love in God above.” A little more
human, if less devotional, are the mottoes: “United hearts death only parts”;
“A faithfull wife preserveth life,” and “Love and live happily.”
There have been many types of betrothal rings from the simplest up to
the most elaborate and ornate. One having a graceful symbolism was found
near Wassy, dept. Haute Marne, France, in June, 1868. The hoop is of
yellow gold, alloyed sufficiently to give it consistence. Instead of one
chaton, it has two placed close to one another and each set with a small,
cabochon-cut emerald. The choice of this stone is a good indication that we
have to do here with a betrothal rather than a wedding ring, for the emerald
was emblematic of hope, of unfulfilled desire and of virginity. Around the
setting runs the following inscription in Old French, beginning with the sign
of the cross: ce que desir hom done un bien. This may be rendered: “What
one desires brings happiness,” the idea being perhaps that so beautifully
expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas: “The soul dwells with the loved one
rather than in the body it animates.”[366] While the letters of the French
inscription are so much worn as to make the decipherment of two words a
little uncertain, the general sense is clear enough, and constitutes a very fine
motto for such a ring.[367]
The ring which had been used by Louis IX (St. Louis) at his betrothal to
Marguerite de Provence, in 1231, was so greatly prized by him that on his
death-bed he expressed the wish that it should be interred with his body. On
its gold hoop he had caused to be engraved the lilies of France and certain
military emblems.[368]

A graceful thought is expressed in the following Old French inscription
on a ring found near Poitiers:

Mon cuer se est resioui aussi doit il si maist Dieux.
A mon gre ne puis mieux aueir choisi.

“My heart is rejoiced, and so should it be, if God aid me. For I feel I could not
have chosen better.”

A shorter motto, but one full of significance, appears on a ring in the
museum of Poitiers; it consists merely of the two words: “Sans Partir.” This
could mean either “we shall never separate,” or else that the donor would
never abandon his love. Another brief motto, found on a ring in the Louvre
dating from the reign of Francis I, runs “Riens sans amour,” or “Love is all
in all.”[369]

JEWISH BETROTHAL RINGS IN GOLD, SET WITH
PRECIOUS STONES
Musèe de Cluny, Paris

Jewish wedding rings, one with Temple dome,
the other with slant-roofed structure. Each bears
the Hebrew words Mazzel Tob, or “Good Luck”
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Jewish wedding ring, with five bosses and as bezel a
projecting figure. This is hinged and covers a gold plate.
On the inside Mazzel Tob or “Good Luck”
British Museum

Jewish marriage ring. Gold hoop with
five bosses of filigree enriched with
flowers in pale blue, green and white
enamel, and a gable-like projection with
two small windows. Nürnberg. Sixteenth
Century
British Museum

Jewish wedding ring; broad gold
hoop, the sides showing the Creation of
Eve, the Fall, and the Expulsion from
Eden. German. Sixteenth Century
British Museum

At weddings in Spain and also in some parts of France, in connection
with the bestowal of a ring, the curious usage has been observed of giving
thirteen pieces of money to the bride. This gift, called in French a treizain,
has its origin, as the name indicates, in the ancient custom of giving to the
purchaser of a dozen articles, an extra one, ostensibly as a testimonial of

good will, but really to induce further purchases. This old usage is said to
have been observed at the marriage of King Alfonso XIII of Spain in 1906.
The Hebrew betrothal rings were elaborate and somewhat clumsy
productions, frequently of massive gold. The broad hoop was surmounted
by the representation of a temple, sometimes with a Moorish dome, but
usually with a slanting roof. This is a curiously conventionalized figuration
of Solomon’s Temple, similar to that found upon certain spurious Hebrew
coins. Upon the temple or else around the ring, are generally the Hebrew
words FIO ERG, equivalent to “Good Fortune.”[370] Several such rings are
described in the privately printed catalogue of the Londesborough
Collection (London, 1853, p. 4). A more artistic specimen, also in the
Londesborough Collection, bears the figures of Adam and Eve in Paradise,
accompanied by representations of animals, all in high relief.[371] The
specimens described belong to the sixteenth century. The learned Jesuit,
Athanasius Kircher, cites a statement to the effect that the inscription
mazzel tob, engraved upon many Hebrew betrothal rings, referred to the
planet Jupiter as the “good star.”[372] This planet was, indeed, called by the
Hebrews cocab zedeq, “star of righteousness” or “justice,” but there is little
doubt that mazzel tob should be rendered “good fortune” or “propitious
fate.”
The earliest Jewish wedding-rings are said to have been plain golden
circlets, without setting, indeed a silver substitute or even one of a cheaper
metal was not forbidden. Pearls, favorite gems with the Jews, were
sometimes used for settings at a later period. The purely ceremonial or
symbolic significance of the Jewish wedding ring in early times is
exemplified in its great size, the major part of these rings being much too
large for wear. Sometimes, at the wedding feast, rings of this type were used
as holders of myrtle-branches. The circlet surmounted with the temple
figure was occasionally formed of two cherubim.[373]
A ring supposed to have been the wedding ring of the Roman Tribune,
Cola di Rienzi (ca. 1313–1354), is of silver, with an octagonal bezel; the
hoop bears the names: “Catarina” and “Nicola,” those of Rienzi and of
Catarina di Raselli, his bride. The letters have been placed in sharp relief by
cutting away the background and filling it up with niello. Between the
names are two stars. As Rienzi chose a star as his emblem on the coins he

struck during his brief rule in Rome, this device coupled with the names
makes the attribution of the ring not without some good foundation.[374]
This ring was bought by Mr. Waterton in Rome for a trifling sum. It had
been pledged in a Monte di Pietà, and was disposed of at one of the
periodical clearing sales.
In the fifteenth century the betrothal ceremony was usually performed in
the presence of a notary public, not of a priest, and this continued to be the
usage until after the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563. At the
betrothal, by proxy, of Lucrezia Borgia with Giovanni Sforza, February 2,
1493, twin gold rings set with precious stones were given, one to be put on
the fourth finger of the fiancée’s left hand, “whose vein leads to the heart”
as the record specifies, while the other was to be placed on the
bridegroom’s little finger.[375]
In one of the very risqué tales forming the “Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles,”
the authorship of which has been attributed to King Louis XI of France
(1461–1483), it is related that a lady, while bathing, lost a diamond ring; the
narrator adds: “This was one her liege lord had given her on the day of her
espousal, and she prized it the more highly on this account.” Although
diamond rings were not common at this time, the recently invented art of
facetting the diamond was rapidly bringing these stones into fashion and
favor. There is, indeed, a record, or at least a family tradition, that one of the
three large diamonds cut in facets by Lodowyk van Berken of Bruges, about
1476, at the order of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, was set in a ring
and given by the duke to Louis XI, with whom he was then seeking to get
on a friendly footing. This diamond is described as having been cut as a
“triangle and a heart.” This possibly means that the triangular shape was
slightly modified into a heart shape.[376]
A Scotch legend relates that a married woman by ill-chance let her
wedding ring fall into the river Clyde. On her return home her husband
noted its absence and, believing she had given it to a lover, became
furiously jealous, used the harshest language to her and even threatened her
life. In her despair the innocent wife went and cast herself at the feet of St.
Kentigern, Bishop of Glasgow, supplicating him to render her faithfulness
manifest. The bishop had compassion upon her, and uttered a prayer that the
ring might be restored. His prayer was answered, for ere a few hours had

passed a fisherman came to him bearing as a gift a large salmon he had just
caught, and in the mouth of the fish was found the lost ring. The husband,
convinced of his injustice, was kinder to his wife than ever before, so as to
make good the wrong he had done her. To the story given in this legend are
ascribed the figures of a salmon with a ring in its mouth on the coat-of-arms
of the city of Glasgow, as well as on the armorial bearings of several of the
bishops of that city from the time of Bishop Wishert, who lived under
Edward II of England (1307–1327).[377]

PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES (1515–1557),
FOURTH WIFE OF HENRY VIII, BY HANS HOLBEIN
Thumb-ring on left hand, one ring on index finger, and
two on fourth finger of right hand. This portrait, when
shown to Henry, pleased him so well that he agreed to the
marriage, but he expressed sore disappointment when he at
last saw the new queen
Musée du Louvre, Paris

PORTRAIT OF JUDITH, AFTER LUCAS CRANACH
Rings worn beneath gloves, which have slits to
relieve the pressure and to show the rings. Right hand
has four rings, on thumb, index, fourth finger, and little
finger, respectively
Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna

Among historic wedding rings especially worthy of note is that
commemorating the marriage of Martin Luther to Catharina von Bora, June
13, 1525.[378] Both Luther and his wife had taken the vow of celibacy in the
Roman Catholic church, and he was bitterly reproached by Roman
Catholics for contracting this marriage. Replying to his accusers, he is
declared to have said that he married “to please himself, to tease the Pope,
and to spite the Devil.” The inscription on this ring is: “D. Martino Luthero
Catharina v. Boren, 13 Jun. 1525.” This probably indicates that the ring was

given to Luther by his wife in memory of the wedding. It is stated to have
belonged to a family in Leipsic as late as 1817. A copy of the ring is in the
writer’s possession. It was given him by Mrs. Edith True Drake, as a
memento of her husband Alexander W. Drake, of whose collection it had
formed part. The original ring is set with a small ruby, and bears in high
relief representations of the crucifixion, and of the instruments of the
Passion; the pillar, scourge, spear, etc.
A pendant to this is a ring given either to Luther or his wife, as a
memento of his marriage, by some friend. This is of the type of gimmal
rings, divisible but not separable. On one hoop the setting is a diamond, on
the other a ruby. The bezel separates into two halves when the ring is
opened, and reveals on the two hidden sides the initials c v d and m l d, for
Catharina von Bora and Martin Luther, Doctor. On the inner side of the
conjoined hoops is the inscription: “Was Got zusamen fiegt sol kein mensch
scheiden” (Those whom God hath joined, shall no man put asunder), in the
old German spelling.[379] The diamond is on the Luther side of the divided
bezel, and signifies power, durability and fidelity; the ruby on the side
marked with the wife’s initials is taken to mean exalted love. Both this ring
and the one already described are believed to have been designed by the
artist, Lucas Cranach, who was a friend of Luther’s and assisted at his
marriage. The ring is in the Grossherzogliches Museum at Brunswick.
A very noteworthy ring, in the Waterton Collection at the Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, belonged to Henry, Lord Darnley, and
commemorated his marriage with Mary, Queen of Scots. On the bezel are
the initials M H, entwined with a true-love knot, and within the hoop is
engraved henri l. darnley, and the date, 1565. Between the two groups of
letters constituting the inscription, is figured a lion rampant on a carved
shield. This ring is said to have been found in the ruins of Fotheringay
Castle, where Mary Stuart was executed.[380]
A peculiar class of rings bears the name of “gimmal rings.” This
designation is derived from the Latin gemelli, “twins,” and indicates the
form of the ornament. Two rings are joined together by a pivot so that when
united they constitute a single ring, although they can be easily separated.
On each circlet there is a band, so disposed that when both are brought
together the hands are clasped and hold the separate rings in place.
Occasionally, there are three or more rings combined in the same way, the

designation “gimmal ring” being used for these also. The following lines by
Herrick refer to this latter type:

“Thou sent’st to me a true-love knot; but I
Return a Ring of jimmals to imply
Thy love had one knot, mine a triple tye.”

A specimen of this type of ring is given in the privately-printed catalogue
of Lady Londesborough’s collection (London, 1853, p. 17). This is
described as “a triple gimmal, the first and third circlet having each a hand,
so that, when joined, the two hands are clasped together and serve to
conceal two united hearts on the third ring. Of German workmanship.” It
was customary to separate the conjoined rings at the betrothal ceremony
and to give the upper and lower to each of the betrothed, respectively, while
the middle ring was given to an intimate friend of the lady. When the
marriage was solemnized, the rings were reunited and bestowed upon the
bride. As a general rule all rings bearing clasped hands were termed gimmal
rings, although the designation properly belonged to two or more separate
rings joined together.

Ring with pointed diamond used for
writing on glass
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Massive gold Gallo-Roman ring. Found near Mulsanne, dept.
Sarthe, France, about 1850. Believed to be a wedding ring; five
views. Fifth Century. See page 202
Abbe Barraud, “Des Bagues de Toutes les Epoques,” Paris, 1864

Rings of Mary Stuart. 1, signet ring; 2, wedding ring of
Mary and Darnley, with date of marriage, 1565; two views
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Gold betrothal ring, bezel in form of
clasped hands, hoop shaped as two
amoretti. Sixteenth Century
British Museum

Hebrew wedding ring. Adam and Eve in Paradise
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Wedding ring of Martin Luther, two views. Original had a small
ruby in the centre
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Wedding ring of gimmal type. German, Sixteenth Century. Set with
a ruby and an aquamarine. Inscription visible when ring is separated:
Quod Deus conjunxit homo non separet (Let man not separate what
God hath joined together). The betrothal or wedding ring of Sir
Thomas Gresham (1519–1579) is of similar design
British Museum

The following lines from Don Sebastian, a play written by Dryden
(1690), explains quite fully the character and use of a gimmal ring:

A curious artist wrought ’em
With joynts so close as not to be perceiv’d;
Yet are they both each other’s counterpart.
(Her part had Juan inscrib’d, and his had Zayda,
You know these names were theirs:) and in the midst
A heart divided in two halves was plac’d.
Now if the rivets of those Rings inclos’d
Fit not each other, I have forg’d this lye:
But if they join, you must for ever part.

In Burgon’s life of Sir Thomas Gresham, the merchant prince of Queen
Elizabeth’s time and founder of the Royal Exchange, we are shown his
wedding ring. This is a gimmal ring composed of two hoops, one bearing
the inscription “Quod Deus conjunxit” (What God hath joined together) and
the other: “Homo non separet” (Let not man put asunder).[381] The two
hoops are set with a red and a white stone, respectively.
A curious development of the gimmal-ring was the so-called “puzzle-
ring” consisting of pieces of gold wire ingeniously bent and intertwined so
that they appeared to form a single indivisible ring, although by a certain
clever twist they could easily be separated into several independent hoops.
This type was derived from the East.
On a gimmal ring belonging to the first half of the fifteenth century, in
the Londesborough Collection, is an engraved head of Lucretia; at the back
appear two hands clasped. This type seems to have been common in
Shakespeare’s time, for in Twelfth Night (Act II, sc. 5), Malvolio exclaims,
after examining the seal on a letter: “By your leave, wax. Soft!—and the
impressure her Lucrece with which she uses to seal.”[382] The choice of this
image for a betrothal ring must have been intended either as a tribute to the
lady’s chastity, or else as a kind of amulet to protect her from attacks on her
virtue.

Gimmal ring, open
Edward’s “History and Poetry of Finger
Rings”

Silver betrothal ring; two views. On the shoulder
appears the legend: “God Help.” English, Fifteenth
Century
British Museum

Gold puzzle rings. 1, three hoops, cruciform bezel: 2,
with four hoops. Two views of each, closed and open.
Seventeenth Century
British Museum

Curious old posy ring. The motto is to be read: Our hands and hearts with one
consent, Hath tied this knot till death prevent
British Museum

Wedding rings with “posies.” English, Seventeenth Century
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Two Gimmal rings, one double, the other triple. Betrothal or wedding rings
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

The talismanic quality of the turquoise is noted by Edward Fenton, in his
“Secrets of Nature” (1569), wherein he says: “The Turkeys doth move
when there is any perill prepared to him that weareth it.” In his commentary
on Shakespeare’s Othello, Steevens remarks that the poet probably had the
mystic virtues of this stone in mind when he made Shylock mourn the loss
of the turquoise his wife Leah had given him before their marriage.[383] In
the original text of this passage the name is spelled “turkie,” and this old
spelling is interesting as showing the identity of the name given to the stone
with that bestowed upon the fowl known to us as a turkey. In this latter case
the spelling and pronunciation have been retained, while in the former we
have the modified form turquoise, both names indicating an association of
the respective objects with Turkey, as the land from whence they were
erroneously believed to come. As Shylock’s turquoise seems to have been
set in a betrothal ring, it is singular to note that at the present day the
turquoise is a favorite stone for betrothal rings in Germany.
In Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, where the diamond is so often mentioned
in connection with a ring given as a sign of faithfulness, a passage occurs
denoting that this stone was sometimes set in a betrothal ring in
Shakespeare’s time. The line runs (Act I, sc. 4):

This diamond was my mother’s: take it, heart;
But keep it till you woo another wife.

The preciousness and dazzling lustre of diamonds are also alluded to in
this play. It is worthy of note that while in all of Shakespeare’s plays the
diamond is only mentioned twenty-one times, seven of these mentions are
in his Cymbeline.
An emblematic wedding-ring with a deep, and perhaps somewhat
ambiguous significance, was bestowed upon his spouse by Bishop Cokes.
Upon it was engraved a hand, a heart, a mitre, and a death’s head, the
inscription reading:

These three I give to thee
Till the fourth set me free.[384]

A frankly humorous inscription was that placed upon the wedding-ring
of Lady Cathcard when, in 1713, she wedded her fourth husband, Hugh
Maguire. This was as follows:

If I survive
I will have five

A similar poesy is said to have been used at a later date by John Thomas,
Bishop of London, on the ring which he used at his fourth marriage:

If I survive
I’ll make them five.[385]

The Puritan reaction in England during the Commonwealth, against the
customs of the English Church, extended to the use of the wedding-ring,
and Samuel Butler in his Hudibras alludes to this tendency in the following
lines:

Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring
With which the unsanctify’ed bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb.

There is a possibility that this curious custom of wearing a wedding ring
on the thumb may have had some connection with the old fancy that the
second joint of the thumb was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, whose
supposed espousal ring is preserved in the Cathedral of Perugia. It is true
that this ought rather to apply to a betrothal ring than a wedding ring. The
following list gives the religious dedication of the various finger-joints: In
the right hand the upper joint of the thumb was dedicated to God, the lower
joint to the Virgin; the first joint of the index to St. Barnabas, the second to
St. John, the third to St. Paul; the first joint of the middle finger to St.
Simon Cleophas, the second to St. Thaddæus, the third to St. Joseph; the
first joint of the annular to St. Zacchæus, the second to St. Stephen, the
third to St. Luke; the first joint of the little finger to St. Leatus, the second
to St. Mark, the third to St. Nicodemus. The dedication of the left hand
fingers was: First joint of thumb, to Christ, second joint to the Virgin; first
joint of the index to St. James, the second to St. John the Evangelist, the
third to St. Peter; first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon, the second to
St. Matthew, the third to St. James the Greater; first joint of the annular to
St. Jude, the second to St. Bartholomew, the third to St. Andrew; first joint
of the little finger to St. Matthaias, the second to St. Thomas, the third to St.
Philip.[386]

PORTRAIT OF CLARA EUGENIA, DAUGHTER OF PHILIP
II OF SPAIN, BY GONZALES
Rings on thumb and index of right hand, which holds a
miniature of Philip. Elaborately jewelled dress and splendid
pearl necklace and head-ornament
Museo del Prado, Madrid

PORTRAIT OF CATARINA MICHELA, DAUGHTER OF
PHILIP II OF SPAIN, BY COELLO SANCHEZ
Thumb ring on right hand and ring on index of same hand;
both with precious-stone settings. Similar rings on index and little
fingers of left hand
Museo del Prado, Madrid

As in Europe a couple of centuries ago, so in the India of to-day, a
wedding ring is often worn on the thumb. This is of gold, about an inch
wide. It is only worn, however, for a short period, sometimes only during
the several days devoted to the celebration of the wedding ceremonies; in
other cases, it is worn for six months, or occasionally even for twelve
months after marriage. Eventually it is melted down, the precious metal
being then worked up into some other ornament.[387]

The great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was devotedly attached to
his wife, although the alliance can scarcely be looked upon as a love match
on the learned doctor’s side. His patient devotion to his sickly and rather
ugly wife goes to show how wide is the divergence between theory and
practice, for in his dictionary Johnson defines a ring as: “a circular
instrument placed upon the noses of hogs and the fingers of women to
restrain them and bring them into subjection.” After his wife’s death Dr.
Johnson preserved her wedding-ring in a box bearing the following
inscription:
“Eheu! Eliza Johnson, Nupta July 9o 1736, Mortua, eheu! Mart. 17o 1752.”

That the betrothal ring was occasionally worn on the index finger is
shown in two celebrated seventeenth century pictures, the “Betrothal of
Marie de’ Medici,” by Rubens, and the “Betrothal of St. Catherine,” by
Murillo. Sometimes, however, the little finger was chosen for this honor
and an interesting example of this custom is given by a document in the
Hohenzollern Museum in Berlin. Here is exhibited a list of the rings worn
by Queen Louisa of Prussia on the day of her death, written down by her
husband, King Friedrich Wilhelm III, and the first entry reads: “Our
betrothal ring, on the little finger of the right hand.” The list closes with the
following simple and touching words in the King’s handwriting: “At
Hohenzieritz, on the most unhappy day of my life, July 19, 1810,” this
being the day of Queen Louisa’s death. It may be noted that at the present
day, while the usual custom in South Germany is to wear the wedding ring
on the fourth finger of the left hand, in North Germany the right hand is
generally given the preference. This applies both to men and women.
King George IV of England is said to have had two rings made, each
provided with a secret spring which, on being pressed, opened a panel and
revealed the king’s portrait and that of Mrs. Fitzherbert, respectively. The
ring containing the king’s portrait was bestowed by him upon Mrs.
Fitzherbert, whom he is said to have married in 1785, and that with her
portrait was kept by him, and, before his death, entrusted to the Duke of
Wellington, the latter promising solemnly that he would place it upon his
royal master’s breast when his remains were in the coffin. Mrs. Fitzherbert
left her ring to Miss Dawson Damer.[388] Another ring given by George IV
to Mrs. Fitzherbert was exhibited in the Victoria Exhibition, at the New
Gallery, London, and is described as being a gimmal, the two hoops closely

fitting together, with the inscription “Geo. Adolph. Frederick” on the inside
of one and “Maria Anne” on that of the other.[389]
In former times rings used to be presented to the chief guests at a
wedding, and at the marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert, six
dozen such rings were bestowed, each one having a profile portrait of the
bride engraved upon it, with the inscription, “Victoria Regina.” The revival
of this graceful custom would serve to perpetuate among the wedding
guests the memory of the ceremony at which they had assisted.
Wedding rings figuring two clasped hands are still used by the peasants
of Normandy, and in Galway also rings bearing two hands clasping a heart
have been passed down from generation to generation, from the mother to
the eldest daughter. This illustrates the general rule that long after a custom
or a form of personal adornment has ceased to be in favor with the higher
classes it continues to be popular with the peasantry.
The inscriptions on rings occasionally seen, which appear to be a medley
of meaningless letters, are often the makeup of two names interlocked, such
as “George” and “Sophia”:
gAeIoHrPgOeS

the one name reading to the right and the other to the left.
In some parts of Ireland the belief in the special virtue of a gold wedding
ring is so strong that when the bridegroom is too poor to buy one he will
hire it for the occasion, and it is reported that a shopkeeper of Munster
realized quite a little sum annually by renting rings for weddings, to be
brought back to him after the ceremony. Strange to say, there is said to have
been a superstitious fancy in Yorkshire, England, that to wed with a
borrowed ring would bring good luck.[390]
A Scottish tradition in regard to a ring used at a wedding is imbued with
the gloomy superstition so characteristic of Scotland. The heir of a noble
family was about to be married to a Dutch lady of rank, but when the
wedding-day came was so apathetic, or so preoccupied, that he forgot the
hour of the ceremony, and had to be hurried from his breakfast to the
church. In his haste he had forgotten all about the wedding-ring, and was
obliged to use a ring offered to him by a bystander when the ceremony
reached the point where one had to be put on the bride’s finger. What was

her terror, however, when she saw that it was a mourning-ring that had been
placed upon her hand, one bearing the sinister design of a skull and cross-
bones. This she felt to be an omen that death would soon overtake her, and
she brooded so much over the happening that she sank into a decline, and
died before a year had passed. The effect of the mind upon the body is so
great, especially in highly nervous organisms, that such a tragic result of a
mere piece of carelessness is far from being impossible.
In modern times betrothal rings are often of the type called “regard
rings,” where the letters of a word are indicated by the initial letters of the
stones set in the ring, as, for example:

R uby
E merald
G arnet
A methyst
R uby
D iamond

In a similar way the Christian name of either of the betrothed may be
indicated, as, for instance:

S apphire
O pal
P eridot
H yalite
I olite
A methyst

Although a diamond ring is the one most appropriate as an engagement
ring, it has long been recognized that for a wedding ring nothing can
replace the simple hoop of precious metal, which may, indeed, be rendered
a trifle less plain by some very chaste and beautiful engraving. A reason for
the preference given to the ring without setting is offered by Fuller in his
“Holy State,” where he says: “Marriage with a diamond ring foreshadowed
evil, because the interruption of the circle augured that the reciprocal regard
of the spouse might not be perpetual.”[391]
An attempt is being made in Germany to introduce the use of wedding-
rings with moderate ornamentation and appropriate mottoes patterned on
those of former times, in place of the severely plain gold hoop that has for a

long time been decreed to be the only proper form of wedding-ring. If the
tendency to over-ornamentation is kept strictly within bounds and if the
mottoes are well chosen, there is some reason to think that the innovation,
or rather revival, may meet with some success, as it will afford scope for
individuality of taste to assert itself, and for the expression of sentiment in a
way that has not been possible under present conditions.
A wedding ring of iron and gold artistically combined has gained some
favor of late, as symbolizing the union of strength and beauty, of the more
solid with the more brilliant qualities. The uncompromising plainness of the
plain gold ring, which represented a reaction to primitive forms from the
over-ornamentation of the Rococo period, will probably give place to
certain simple and chaste designs which can be made to symbolize some of
the thoughts and sentiments connected with the marriage ceremony. But the
unstable, oxidizing quality of the iron will not recommend this metal for
durability.
The recurrence of a great national crisis will often cause the revival of
some custom or usage of an earlier one. Thus it is that in the present War of
Nations, Germans have revived the practice of exchanging gold rings for
iron ones that was resorted to in the dark time of Napoleonic supremacy in
Germany. The total value of the metal secured in this way is of course
relatively small, though not entirely negligible, but the spirit of devotion to
the Vaterland finds both a real and a symbolic expression in the deposition
of many a valued heirloom on the country’s altar. To avoid a rust stain on
the finger these iron rings—which usually bear the figure of the Iron Cross
—are frequently lined with a thin layer of gold. Not only rings but gold and
silver objects of all kinds and valuable jewels have been brought in by
patriotic Germans, to such an extent, indeed, that the Viennese jewellers are
urging that the metals should be immediately melted, as in case the objects
or ornaments should be put on the market, they would compete disastrously
with the jewellers’ shops. It is stated that up to the middle of September,
1915, as many as five thousand wedding rings were donated in the single
Prussian province of Posen, and the estimate has been made that about one
million dollars will be realized from the total offerings throughout the
Germanic countries.
The ancients and the alchemists called gold the metal of the sun and
silver the metal of the moon, but within the past two centuries the world has

become familiar with platinum, a metal of equal dignity with gold, but with
the pure whiteness of the somewhat tarnishable silver.
Platinum, because of its durability and purity, may well be called the
metal of Heaven, and within the past century we have added to our list of
metals aluminum, a metal which constitutes a fair percentage of the earth’s
surface. This can be appropriately termed the metal of the earth. These two
metals, platinum and aluminum, have been used to a great extent; platinum
for the purpose of mounting jewels—the stars of Heaven, as it were, in their
heavenly setting—and aluminum, the metal of earth, for a great variety of
purposes.
Surely platinum, the metal of Heaven, is a most appropriate material for
a wedding ring, and as gold has always been termed the metal of man, so
platinum, the metal of Heaven, might be dedicated to woman, the fairest
gift of Heaven, and an alliance ring made of these two metals would be an
ideal matrimonial ring.
Many of those who were married before platinum was used for wedding
rings have recourse to an ingenious device by which a plate of platinum is
spun or turned over the entire part of the setting which is visible, so that the
gold ring will appear to be of platinum, either plain, carved or chased. Great
ingenuity is required in this mounting, because it is in most cases
impossible to permit the metal to do more than touch the inner part of the
ring. Otherwise, the size of the circlet would be reduced. Alliance rings are
sometimes made one side gold and one side platinum.
At the present time many platinum wedding rings are made perfectly
plain, others are engraved with a laurel wreath, as a peace or anti-divorce
symbol, with oak leaves for strength, ivy for clinging devotion, and some
other symbolic devices. Many alliance rings are made of two parts, one
bearing the names of the engaged couple, the other the date of the
engagement. Narrow gold rings with diamond settings are also used, closely
resembling the type of diamond ring that has been worn as a guard-ring for
many years.
That men should be forced to wear wedding rings is a proposition
recently agitated in London. Public attention was called to this question by
newspaper reports to the effect that a young lady had testified at a divorce
suit that she had innocently encouraged the attentions of a married man,

because she had no means of knowing that he was married. In many
continental countries married men are always expected to wear such rings,
although there is of course no legal compulsion to do so, any more than in
the case of a wife. We can hardly deny that anything serving to fix the status
of both men and women in the matter of their marital relations is eminently
desirable.

Lady’s gold ring, with French motto: “Mon cœur est à vous” (My heart is yours)
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

Engagement ring with adjustable hoop; fully open; half-open; and closed]

Ornamental wedding rings, and separable alliance wedding ring of “gimmal” type closed and
open

WEDDING RINGS. PLAIN GOLD, PLATINUM AND CHASED

Apropos of wedding rings, the notice of a special marriage ceremony
performed for a man and woman who were both ardent advocates of
woman suffrage, suggests that such unions might be signalized by the use
of a ring of a characteristic type. In this case the parties to the marriage
contract were careful to emphasize the fact that the union was one between
equals, each of whom made the same pledge of fidelity and love to the
other. Perhaps a ring enamelled with the suffragette colors might be
acceptable to the pioneers of the new era. As in many old-fashioned
marriages the woman was accorded a de facto primacy, the man who
willingly accepts the doctrine of the equality of the sexes may be rather a
gainer than a loser by his adherence to the new faith.
In England, it is said that a movement has been initiated to abolish the
use of the wedding-ring, possibly in some sense as a war measure, to
constitute a slight check on the use of gold for ornamental purposes. It is,
however, conjectured that its real source is rather to be sought in the general
movement for the complete independence of women, the wedding-ring
being looked upon by some extremists as an antiquated badge of slavery. It
is hardly probable that such a movement will meet with any considerable
measure of success, for the idea that the ring is a symbol of faith has
become too deeply rooted in the popular mind to warrant the rejection of
the time-honored usage.
Perhaps the objection of the extreme advocates of “woman’s rights”
might be satisfied by the introduction of an interchange of rings both at
engagements and marriages. This exchange of rings is an acknowledgment
of the mutuality of the relation, and it has been practiced, and still is
practiced in many countries on the European continent. Moreover, the
introduction of this usage in England and the United States would afford
scope for a broadening of the symbolism connected with these rings, by
differentiating them in some way, so that they might signify the special
virtues each of the contracting parties bring to their mutual relation. This
differentiation would in no wise imply any subjection, but would merely
emphasize those fundamental distinctions, without which the true progress
of the world would be checked. Real equality consists in the untrammeled
development of the characteristic excellences, not in any arbitrary reduction
of all to some preconceived standard.

Of all the marriage-medals that have been struck none can be said to
equal in beauty of design and tenderness of sentiment that designed in 1895
by the great French medallist Oscar Roty (1846–1911). The obverse shows
the bridegroom about to place the wedding-ring on the bride’s hand, but in
the very act of doing so, he is impelled to look upward, as though calling
for Heaven’s blessing upon his marriage. The girlish bride has her head
slightly bent down in token of assent. The scene is in the open country; the
figures are seated opposite to one another on plain stone seats, and the
landscape background is Rafaelesque in its delicate beauty. Beneath, in the
exergue, is the single word “Semper,” an earnest that the solemn contract so
gladly and so religiously entered into will be kept for this world and for the
great future. The reverse shows a statue of Cupid on a fountain pedestal;
alongside rises the trunk of a sturdy oak. On the right is ample space for a
dedicatory inscription. The companion-piece, Roty’s second marriage
medal, executed ten or more years later, although a noble work, falls
something short of his first effort. Here the bridegroom, who displays no
ring, kneels before the bride with uplifted head, the French motto reading
“A Elle Toujours” (“Forever Hers”); on the reverse is a church altar. Under
this is a plaque, enclosing which are roses, oak-leaves and acorns.

MARRIAGE MEDALS BY THE GREAT FRENCH MEDALLIST,
OSCAR ROTY (1846–1911)
The upper medal shows the putting on of the wedding ring

BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD IN FORM OF
SO-CALLED “PUZZLE RING”
Six connecting hoops, three of them
enameled, two others with clasped hands, and
the sixth with a key and a winged angel’s head.
Seventeenth Century.
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD
Inscribed in Old French “Il est dit” and “Elle me tien” (literally “It is said (spoken)” and “She
(or it) holds me”). French. Fifteenth Century.
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

LOVE RING OF GOLD, ENAMELED AND SET WITH PRECIOUS STONES

The bezel has a lid on which is enameled a head wearing a domino
mask; it is framed by seventeen rubies. When the lid is raised there appears
beneath an oval, enameled with a heart, around which is the motto: “Pour
vous seule” (For you alone). The interior of the lid is hollowed out to serve
as a receptacle for hair. On the ribbon-like hoop is the inscription: “Sous le
masque la vérité” (Beneath the mask is truth). About 1800. Formerly
belonged to the great Viennese tragic actress Charlotte Wolter.]
A type of ring of occasional use, not distantly related to the wedding
ring, comprises the so-called “pacifying,” or teething rings, generally made
of ivory, rubber or celluloid, and large enough for one or two fingers of a
child. Diagonally on the hoop is a flat, circular piece of the same material as
that of which the ring is made, and which prevents it from slipping into the
mouth of the child. Upon this flat piece is mounted a small bit of rubber or
ivory for the child to suck or bite upon, to develop its teeth, or at least to
keep it quiet.
What might be called a “Latitude and Longitude Ring,” would be an
attractive memento of engagement and marriage. There would be a narrow
band showing, around it, a degree of latitude marked with longitudes, and
having a small star at the place where the parties became engaged, and a
double star at the spot where they were married.

A few appropriate inscriptions on modern engagement rings are as
follows: “Our engagement”; “My love to thine”; “To her who merits all my
love”; “To my Pet”; “To my ‘Chiquita’ from Bill,” this last in Spanish. In a
more serious vein we have: “Time-Eternity,” and “Perfect love casteth out
fear.” Occasionally there is a note of sadness, as appears in the inscription:
“Faithful, but unhappy.” A ring bearing the words “Stick to me, my darling”
may show that the fiancé was a trifle distrustful of his lady love’s
constancy; another who sets in his ring “Firm and True” makes us infer that
he had more faith. The three words “Bessie sweet sixteen” show that early
engagements sometimes occur even in our sophisticated age. On ornaments
other than rings, bestowed in connection with either engagement or
marriage, we read: “My heart I take not back from thee. h. b. l.” and “Thine
own wish, wish I thee. a. b. t. & r. v. p.” A curious inscription runs: “A
nasty cold face and metal eye,” and we have: “For my sake wear this, it is a
manacle of love.” Modern wedding rings are often inscribed with pious
sentiments, such, for instance, as: “All for Jesus”; “Each for the other, both
for God”; “Our unity is Christ”; “Mercifully ordain that we may grow old
together”; “In Christ and in Thee my comfort shall be”; “God gave thee to
me”; “Through weal and through woe, to each other on earth, to God in
Heaven. Always true to Bertha.” A somewhat philosophic sentiment appears
in the words: “Ultimate Good, not present pleasure.” Latin inscriptions are
now quite rare, but here is one: “Si Deus nobiscum, quis contra nos?” (If
God be with us, who can be against us?)
In other cases the legend is more worldly: “Love for Love” and “He that
taketh a wife hath a good thing.” Let us hope that this optimist was not
mistaken in his confidence. Another bridegroom declares that he, at least,
has a “good thing,” for he places in his ring the simple motto: “Carrie
suits.” If she suits him, that is enough. Lastly, we have the most satisfactory
inscription of all, since it testifies to the result of one fortunate experiment;
this reads: “In token of 30 years fidelity as Wife and Mother.”
The use of a diamond ring for betrothals seems to have been general
toward the end of the fifteenth century, for royal personages at least, to
judge from a letter written from Ghent on July 30, 1477, by Dr. Wilhelm
Moroltinger to Archduke (later Emperor) Maximilian, just before his
betrothal to Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold. This letter
runs: “At the betrothal your Grace must have a ring set with a diamond and

also a gold ring. Moreover, in the morning your Grace must bestow upon
the bride some costly jewels.”[392]
From time immemorial we have had wedding-rings, but it seems that in
view of the great number of divorces now granted we might well introduce
the custom of giving “divorce-rings,” for at no time in the history of the
Christian world have there been more divorces than at the present day. This
divorce-ring might be differentiated from the old-fashioned wedding-ring
by substituting the inscription a b c from d b f for a b c and d e f.
A novel idea in divorce-rings is reported from Chicago, where a
fashionable divorcée had her wedding-ring made smaller so that she could
wear it on the little finger of her left hand as a divorce-ring. However, we
fear that if this idea should be generally adopted, the little finger would
scarcely offer room for the series of rings that some of our theatrical stars
would have to wear. Perhaps in some cases this wearing of the wedding-
ring, even in a modified form, after a divorce, might be intended to indicate
that the old love had not wholly vanished, and that some day those who had
been put asunder could be rejoined, as occasionally happens now-a-days.
At weddings in Tunis, the Arabs have the custom of placing the
wedding-ring upon the first finger of the left hand, and the finger and toe-
nails of the bride receive an especially rich coloring of henna on this
occasion, staining them a deep red; her eyebrows also are heavily pencilled
and joined across the nose so that they form a single bar over the eyes. In
order to make the home-coming as auspicious as possible, a gilded pair of
horns are set above the portal of the house, along with the favorite charm
known as “the hand of Fatima,” believed to afford safety from the malign
influence of the Evil Eye, so much dreaded in the East and in some
Occidental lands also.[393]
An interesting incident in which a ring plays an important part is related
in connection with the visit of Secretary, afterward President Taft,
accompanied by a number of prominent Americans, to the Sulu Islands a
few years ago. Mrs. Longworth, then Miss Alice Roosevelt, was one of the
party, and the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II, expressed a great desire to
be introduced to her. The favor was readily accorded, and on the day set for
the interview the Sultan and several Sulu dattos, or chiefs, duly presented
themselves. One of the dattos was a mortal enemy of the Sultan, but

naturally on this occasion all personal or political feuds were forgotten for
the time being. After the Sultan had been presented to Miss Roosevelt,
came the turn of the rebellious datto, who approached the sprightly young
American girl, greeted her, and presented to her a native pearl of great
beauty, which was graciously accepted.
The chagrin of the Sultan may easily be imagined, for he had forgotten
to provide himself with a suitable gift, and now his mortal enemy was
basking in the sunshine of favor, while he himself, the lord paramount, was
neglected. Suddenly his eye fell upon a ring set with a magnificent pearl
which he wore on his left hand. He immediately took off this ring, and
again approaching Miss Roosevelt, gave it to her. As the Sultan’s pearl far
exceeded in beauty and value that given by the datto, the former’s dignity
was cleared of all reproach and the situation was saved. A curious sequel to
this incident was the circulation of a report in the press to the effect that the
Sultan of Sulu had made an offer of marriage to Miss Roosevelt. This
proved how closely the gift of a ring is associated with the idea of
engagement or marriage.
A Pennsylvania (U. S. A.) court has been called upon to decide whether
the gift of an engagement ring bestowed by a man just prior to a declaration
of bankruptcy, should be looked upon as a transfer of assets to the prejudice
of the creditors. The fact that in this case the fair recipient of the ring was a
jeweller’s daughter might be thought to render it likely that this particular
engagement ring was of substantial intrinsic value. The court reserved its
decision.
A choice of pretty “posies” for rings was offered to seventeenth century
readers in a London publication entitled “Love’s Garland; or Posies for
Rings, Handkerchiefs and Gloves, and Such Pretty Tokens as Lovers Send
Their Loves.” Unyielding constancy found expression in the couplets:

Where once I choose
I ne’er refuse.

Hearts content
Can ne’er repent.

Another verse makes a very modest claim for an expression of gratitude
on the part of the recipient:

The sight of this
Deserves a kiss.

The warmth of reciprocated love is thus asserted:

In thee a flame
In me the same.

Another lover wishes to proclaim that his love will rise superior to all
offenses:

No bitter smart
Can change my heart.

A more serious and trusting posy runs:

To me till death
As dear as breath.

A ring mentioned in an old English record dating from 1473, offers
apparently an early example of a so-called “posy” ring. It is here termed a
“hope rynge with scrytorio” (inscription); this, together with a brooch
adorned with the figure of a “jyntylle woman,” was pledged with a certain
Richard Walker to secure a small loan of £4 8d.[394]
A good example of a “ring posie” is given by Ben Jonson in his play
“The Magnetic Lady, or Humours Reconciled,” first licensed for
performance in 1632, during the reign of Charles I, and but five years
before Jonson’s death. Here, when bride and groom come before the parson
to be wedded, he asks the bridegroom:

Have you a wedding ring?

To which the latter replies:

Ay, and a posie:
Annulus hic nobis, quod sic uterque, dabit.

This the parson quickly renders as follows:

This ring will give you what you both desire;
I’ll make the whole house shout it, and the parish.

On other pages a number of characteristic and striking ring-inscriptions
are given, but in view of the wide range of these “posies” (poesies) and
mottoes, a fairly full list of them, compiled from various sources, may be of
interest here.[395] The French mottoes are nearly all in Old French, and the
English spellings of those of the seventeenth century are delightfully
irregular.

PORTRAIT OF YOUNG WOMAN. DUTCH SCHOOL
Large rings on little finders of right and left hands; large ring
on third joint of left-hand fourth finger, and smaller one on
second joint of the same finger; plain gold ring (wedding ring?)
on fourth finger of left hand
Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna

PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS
THE “MASTER OF THE DEATH OF MARY,” FROM HIS
MOST NOTED PICTURE
Rings on index and little fingers of right hand
Königliche Gemälde-Galerie, Cassel

Till death divide.

Nemo nisi mors.
(No one but Death).

Tout pour bein feyre.
(All to do well).

In bone fay.
(In good faith).

Sans mal desyr.
(Without evil wish).

Amor vincit om.
(Love conquers all things).

Till my life’s end.

Erunt duo in carne una.
(They shall be two in one flesh).

Semper amemus.
(May we love forever).

In Christ and thee my comfort be.

Honeur et joye.
(Honor and joy).

Let reason rule affection.

God continue to love us.

Mon cur avez.
(You have my heart).

Deux corps ung cuer.
(Two bodies and one heart).

Amour et constance.
(Love and constancy).

God unite our hearts aright.

Knit in one by Christ alone.

God’s providence is our inheritance.

Our contract was heaven’s act.

In thee, my choice, do I rejoice.

God above increase our love.

My heart and I, until I dye.

Not two, but one, till life be gone.

When this you see, remember me.

Julia is mine own peculiar.

I cannot show the love I O.

We strangely met, and so do many,
But now as true as ever any. 1658.

As we begun, so let’s continue.

My beloved is mine, and I am hers.

True blue will never stain. 1653.

Against thou goest, I will provide another. 1658.

In loving thee, I love myself. 1658.

Let him never take a wife,
That will not love her as his life.

A heart content cannot repent.

I do not repent I gave consent.

No gift can show the love I owe.

What the heart saw the love hath chosen.

Love one little, but love one long.

Love him who gave thee this ring of gold,
’Tis he must kiss thee when thou art old.

This circle, though but small about,
The devil, jealousy, will keep out.

If I think my wife is fair,
What need other people care? 1653.

God’s appointment is my contentment.

L I lik th t it

Love, I like thee; sweet, requite me.

With heart and hand at your command.

My heart in silence speaks to thee,
Though absence barrs tongue’s liberty.

Faithful ever: deceitful never.

I like, I love as turtle dove.

As gold is pure, so love is sure.

Despise not mee: yt joyes in thee.

If you deny, then sure I dye.

Your right is my delight.

As true, bee just.

No better smart shall change my heart.

This ring is a token I give to thee,
That thou no tokens do change for me.

My dearest Betty is good and pretty. 1658.

I did commit no act of folly,
When I married my sweet Molly. 1658.

’Tis fit no man should be alone,
Which made Tom to marry Joan. 1658.

Sue is bonny, blythe, and brown;
This ring hath made her now my own. 1658.

Like Phillis there is none:
She truly loves her Choridon. 1658.

My life is done when thou art gone. 1653.

This hath no end, my sweetest friend:
Our loves be so, no ending know.

God send her me my wife to be.

As God decreed so we agreed.

Take hand and heart, I’ll ne’er depart.

Love and dye in constancy.

Love and dye in constancy.

A virtuous wife that serveth life.

As long as life yr loving wife.

I will be yours while breath endures.

Love is sure where faith is pure.

A virtuous wife doth banish strife.

God did forsee we should agree.

Love me, and be happy.

None can prevent the Lord’s intent.

Virtue surpasses riches.

Let virtue rest within thy breast.

Time lesseneth not my love.

Joye without end.

Let lykinge last.

This and giver are thine for ever.

Think on mee.

Let love increase.

Thou art my star, be not irregular. 1653.[396]

Without thy love I backward move. 1613.

Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight. 1653.

This intimates true lovers’ states. 1653.

Thou wert not handsome, wise, but rich;
’Twas that which did my eyes bewitch. 1658.[397]

As we begun, so let’s continue. 1658.

What the eye saw the heart hath chosen. 1658.

More faithful than fortunate. 1658.

Constancy and heaven are round,

And in this the emblem’s found.

As God hath knit our hearts in one,
Let nothing part but death alone.

God our love continue ever,
That we in heaven may live together.

Weare me out, love shall not waste,
Love beyond lyvie still is placed.

Weare this text, and when you looke
Uppon your finger, sweare by th’ booke.

There is no other, and I am he,
That loves no other, and thou art she.

Eye doth find, heart doth choose,
Faith doth bind, death doth loose.

As God hath made my chyce in thee,
So move thy heart to comfort me.

God yt hath kept thy heart for mee,
Grant that our love may faithful bee.

Fear ye the Lord then rest content,
So shall we live and not repent.

Divinely knit by grace are wee,
Late two, now one, ye pledge here see. 1657.

Breake not thy vow to please the eye,
But keepe thy love, so live and dye.

Love thy chast wife beyond thy life. 1601.

I love the rod and thee and God. 1646.

Pray to love; love to pray. 1649.

More weare—more wear. 1652.

Endless as this shall be our bliss. 1719.

Be truly wise lest death surprise.

Live in love and fear the Lord.

Godly love will not remove.

United hearts death only partes.

You and I will lovers die.

We joyn our love in Christ above.

God gives increase to love and peace.

God did decree our unitie.

Heart content cannot repent.

Live, love, and be happie.

Noe heart more true than mine to you.

In thee I find content of mind.

A blessing we do hope to see.

In love divine we love to joine.

Hearts united live contented.

In love and joy I will live and die.

In thy breast my heart shall rest.

The love is true that I.O.U.

My love is fixed I will not range.
I like my choice too well to change.

This is the thing I wish to win.

My promise past shall ever last.

Well projected if accepted.

God thought fit this knott to knitt.

Thy Desart hath won my heart.

True love is the bond of peace.

Let our contest be who loves best.

Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight.

Our loves be so no ending know.

My pledge I prove of mutuall love.

Gift and giver, your servants ever.

Lel ami avet.
(Thou hast a loyal friend).

Remember Him who died for thee,
And after that remember me.

Take hand and heart, ile ne’er depart.

Breake not thy vow to please the eye,
But keepe thy love, so live and dye.

I will be yours while breath endures.

I am sent to salute you from a faithfull friend.

This and my heart.

Too light to requite.

Your sight, my delight.

For a kiss, take this.

My heart you have and yours I crave.

The want of thee is grief to mee.

Privata di te moriró.
(Deprived of thee I shall die).

Mon esprit est partout,
Mon cœur est avec vous.
(My mind is everywhere,
My heart is with you).

Faithfull ever, deceitfull never.

God’s blessing be on thee and me.

Love him in heart whose joy thou art.

A loving wife prolongeth life.

Desire hath set my heart on fire.

Both or neither, chuse you whether.

Parting is vayne when love doth remayne.

I fancy none but thee alone.

God sent her me my wife to be.

This is your will, to save or kill.

If you deny, then sure I dye.

Your sight, my delight.

Joyfull love this ring do prove.

In thee I prove the joy of love.

Silence ends strife with man and wife.

This ring doth binde body and minde.

Death never parts such loving hearts.

Body and mind in thee I finde.

Ryches be unstable
And beauty will dekay,
But faithful love will ever last
Till death dryve it away.

One of those posies might seem to refer covertly to the length of the
foregoing list:

This hath no end, my sweetest friend. 1653.

SOME RINGS IN THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON
1, silver and gilt; pierced with scrolls and the “Little Monk” of Munich.
Modern. Bavarian. 2, Tyrolese. Peasant’s engagement ring of silver with
design of two hearts and scrolls. 3, French (?). Said to have belonged to a
collateral branch of the Montmorency family. Gold, large garnet with
emerald each side; the crown composed of pearls and small diamonds.
Bought in London. 4, Chinese ornament. 5, heavy silver, set with
malachite. 6, Chinese ornament. 7, Italian (?). Peasant’s engagement ring
of silver. 8, Italian. Gold, set with a turquoise, a horse’s head in white
enamel at either side. 9, Tyrolese. Silver, set with a chamois tooth for good
luck. 10, French. Bishop’s ring of gold and silver. Enameled bezel set with
an almandine and diamonds. Bought in Geneva. 11, Italian. Sixteenth

Century style. Gold set with a garnet. 12, Italian (?). Silver, set with a
large crystal (?). Black and white enamel on bezel. 13, Italian. Gold, set
with a cluster of red and green stones alternating; a crystal in the centre.
14, gilt, set with red glass (?). 15, bronze, decoration in relief. 16, Italian.
Gold set with turquoises. 17, French (?). Gold, set with a brilliant. 18,
Laplandish. Silver-gilt with pierced design.

JACQUES GUAY, COURT GEM ENGRAVER OF LOUIS XV, ENGRAVING GEMS IN HIS
WORKROOM AT THE LOUVRE
Mariette, “Traité des Pierres Gravées,” Paris, 1750

The sacred and peculiar quality of a ring that has been given to a man by
his wife as a memorial of marriage is expressed in strong terms in
Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (Act v, sc. 1). One of these rings was
given by Nerissa to Gratiano, the other by Portia to Bassanio. When
Gratiano is charged with having parted with his ring, he defends himself by
making light of it but is rebuked for this by Nerissa. The verses run as
follows:

VI

THE RELIGIOUS USE OF RINGS

T
he adornment of rings with religious emblems, and their use as insignia
of office for the higher ecclesiastics and for the priests of the ancient
ethnic religions will be considered in the present chapter. Of special
interest are the rings used by Roman Catholic popes, cardinals and bishops,
the usage in this direction having varied considerably in the different
periods. With regard to the engravings on many ancient rings it may often
be difficult, however, to know whether a religious symbol, or the
conventional figure of a divinity, has been used in a strictly religious sense,
or merely for ornamental purposes.
The employment of rings as religious symbols is often bound up with
their use in some other way, as in the case of many seal rings for instance.
This was undoubtedly the case with a large number of the ancient rings
noted in earlier chapters. Here we have endeavored to group together those
which were more exclusively religious in their character, the ecclesiastical
rings, especially those worn by Roman Catholic popes, cardinals and
bishops, constituting of course a large part of these. A very few examples
will serve as brief illustrations of the religious use of rings in pagan times.
There is in the Louvre, among the Egyptian antiquities, a gold ring
engraved with figures of two horses. The symbol of the Sun-God which it
bears is believed to signify the gratitude of Rameses II—to whom this ring
is attributed—for the aid of the divinity in securing the king’s victory over
the Khetas in one of his Asiatic campaigns. Unquestionably many of the
engraved scarabs set in Egyptian rings had a specifically religious
significance, and the same is true of the engravings on the chatons of gold
rings, as, for example, in the case of that worn by the priest in charge of the
Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu). Some of these have already been described in
the chapter on signets, the essential use of these rings being for sealing. In
many other cases the presence of a divine name as a component of the royal
name, or in a royal title, probably had not much more of a distinctly
religious meaning than the “Dei Gratia” on the coins of European rulers.

The rings worn by the high priests of Jupiter (flamines Diales), who had,
ex-officio, the rank of senators, were made hollow and of openwork. This
particular form is said to have been chosen for mystic and symbolic
reasons, as showing that everything indicating hardness or severity, the
restriction of liberty, or arduous labor, was to be held aloof from this
flamen, who, with those of Mars and Quirinus (Romulus), belonged to the
group of greater priests selected from the patrician order.[399] The
conjecture that we should seek here the origin of Christian episcopal rings
is very far-fetched, the general symbolism of the ring as an emblem of
eternity, and its bestowal as a mark of rank, having been probably sufficient
determining factors.
No one, man or woman, was permitted to enter the sanctuary of the
“Mistress” at Lycosura, wearing a ring on any finger; only rings destined
for dedication might be brought into the temple.[400] This is attested by an
inscription from the second century b.c.; the regulation must, however, date
from an earlier period. The same prohibition as to wearing rings was
decreed in the case of all those who wished to seek for enlightenment from
the oracle of Faunus, and the petitioners were also required to abstain from
meat and to preserve their chastity. The ring was supposed to interfere with
the freedom of the spirit to receive the divine grace or counsel.[401]
Of rings apparently dedicated to some deity, the rich British Museum
collection has several examples. A bronze ring, having a thin rounded hoop,
to the ends of which a transverse oval plate has been soldered, bears an
inscription in Greek letters signifying “Great is the name of Serapis”; this
ring is late Roman, from a time when the worship of Serapis was wide-
spread in the Roman world. An octagonal ring of solid gold may have been
dedicated to Apollo, as it is engraved with the name of this divinity; the two
sides of the octagon flanking the central one bear, respectively, engravings
of a crescent and of a star. An inscription found in Delos records several
rings dedicated to the Delian temple by Stratonice, wife of Seleucos I,
Nicator (365–281 b.c.). One of these was a gold ring, set with a sard on
which was engraved the image of Apollo, the temple god; a gold ring
dedicated to both Apollo and Artemis, and having the image of a Victory;
and another gold ring, set with a stone on which was engraved an
inscription signifying that it was dedicated by Queen Stratonice, daughter of
Demetrius, to the Artemis of Delos.[402]

In a list of jewels dedicated to Isis, engraved on the base of an ancient
statue of that goddess at Alicante, Spain, four rings are noted. Two of them
had emerald settings, while the other two, placed on the little finger of the
statue, were set with diamonds. This inscription contains the name of the
donor, Fabia Fabiana, and the statement that the gift was made on behalf of
her granddaughter Avita. The statue has disappeared, but the inscription still
calls to mind the honor it received in long past time and the brilliancy of the
jewel decoration, for beside the rings, a pearl and emerald earring was
inserted in either ear; about the neck was a necklace of four rows of
emeralds and pearls; two circlets composed of eleven beryls and two
emeralds clasped the ankles, and two bracelets set with eight emeralds and
eight pearls spanned the wrists.[403]
There does not appear to have been any “Rabbi’s Ring” worn as an
insignia of office, although many rabbis owned and wore engraved rings,
perhaps using them as signets. Of this class may be an old ring referred to
the time of Judah Hanasi (175–247 a.d.), now in the Albertinus Home in
Dresden, Saxony. It is set with an amethyst on which has been engraved the
seven-branched candlestick, one of the adornments of the Temple and
figured on the Arch of Titus, in Rome, as among the treasures borne off by
the victorious Romans after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. Rabbi Judah ben
Ezekiel (220–299 a.d.) had a ring showing the figure of a man’s head. The
design on a ring of Rabba bar Rabbi Huna (ca. 300 a.d.) depicted a palm,
while on a fifth century ring worn by another Rabbi Judah Hanasi was
engraved the figure of a fish.[404]
The following principal symbolic or typical designs have been observed
upon early Christian rings:[405]
The lyre, rare.
A ship, denoting the life-voyage of the Christian to the port of salvation.
An anchor, emblem of constancy and of hope.
A dove, symbolical of innocence and typical of the Holy Spirit.
Alpha and Omega, the Greek characters, first and last of the alphabet. Symbol of
Christ, as in Rev. i, 8: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the
Lord.”
The Monogram of Christ formed of the first two Greek letters of the name
Christos, the so-called Chrisma combining the X (Ch) and the P (r).
The Good Shepherd, with the lost sheep on his shoulder.

Scenes from the life of Christ.
Episodes of the story of Jonah, as Jesus cited this story when speaking of the
Resurrection.
Daniel in the Lion’s Den, a triumph of faith which must have appealed strongly to
the Christians in time of persecution, when those of the faith were often given as prey
to wild beasts.
Elijah borne to heaven, probably typical of the resurrection.
Orpheus playing on the lyre. This pagan design was given a Christian meaning,
mainly because of certain spurious Orphic poems foreshadowing the birth of Christ.
Fall of Adam and Eve. Here the meaning is quite obvious: “As in Adam all died so
in Christ shall all be made alive,” as the apostle Paul wrote.
The Ark of Noah; God’s promise to save mankind.
A lion, evidently signifying the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, applied to Christ.
A lamb, typical of Christ and of Christians. In the Gospel of John, ii, 36, John the
Baptist exclaimed on seeing Jesus: “Behold the Lamb of God.”
A hare. This may denote the dangers which so often menaced the early Christians,
who had to be constantly apprehensive, as a hare is of the hunters.
A phœnix; naturally figuring the Resurrection.
A peacock. This has a similar meaning, for the peacock, Juno’s bird, had been used
by the Romans as an emblem of the apotheosis of an empress.
A cock, as awakener of grace, and typical of the awakening of mankind to the true
faith.
A serpent. This may seem strange as a Christian symbol, but it denotes foresight,
and recalls the Gospel monition, “Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” A
Christian gem evidences this interpretation, for on either side of the serpent is figured
a dove.
The vine; suggested by the words of Christ: “I am the vine and ye are the
branches.”
A blade of wheat. The harvest of souls?

The symbolic design of a ship traversing the sea was used in early
Christian funeral sculptures, and also in pagan Rome, to denote the course
of life. For the Christians the tempest-tossed vessel of life found its port and
resting place in death. This idea is rudely figured in a design on a sepulchral
stone, in memory of a certain Firmia Victoria, from one of the early
Christian cemeteries of Rome. On it appears a ship riding the waves, and in
the background a four-storied tower from which rises a flame, the
lighthouse marking the final port toward which the vessel bends its course.
[406]

Of the few designs engraved upon Græco-Roman rings which were
permitted to the early Christians, the dove, as has been noted, symbolized
the Holy Spirit; a fish became a Christian symbol because the Greek word
for fish (ichthus) gave the initial letters of Iesus Christos, Theou huios,
Soter (Jesus Christ, The Son of God, the Saviour). An anchor, or the
representation of a fisherman, recalls to mind the Fisherman’s Ring of the
Roman pontiff.
The fish symbol appears on an engraved Gnostic gem bearing the head
of Christ surrounded with the Greek letters of his name. This offers one of
the types current in the third and fourth Christian centuries. We have the
testimony of St. Augustine that the diversity of types in his time was very
great, and that no record remained of what Christ’s physical appearance
really was.[407] The oldest portrait is believed to be that on the ceiling of a
chapel in the cemetery of St. Calixtus at Rome, and the type presented here
is that which has persisted essentially to the present day.
The ring of the Christian martyr Saturus was a precious memorial of his
death for the faith. When he had already received his death-blow, he took
off his ring and moistening it with the blood that was flowing from his
wound, handed it to the Roman soldier, Pudeus, who was present at his
death, but was a secret convert to the Christian faith, charging the soldier to
guard it as a heritage and a reminder that true faith was rather confirmed
than weakened by the martyr’s death.[408]
A tender and beautiful allusion to a religious ring is contained in the
account of the life and death of St. Marcina the Younger (ca. 330–379 a.d.),
by her brother St. Gregory Nyassa. When, after the death of this pious
daughter of Basil the Great, her body was being prepared for burial, there
was found, suspended by a cord from her neck and resting just over her
heart, an iron ring. On its chaton was engraved a cross, and in a hollow
space beneath was secreted a small fragment of the True Cross. This ring
the brother removed, declaring that it should be his precious heritage, the
more sacred that it recalled the cross of Christ, not only by its engraved
design, but still more by the priceless memento placed beneath this.[409]
An antique ivory ring found at Arles in France bears inscriptions
denoting that it had been designed for use as a Gnostic amulet, and
illustrating the peculiar eclecticism of Gnostic belief. The monogram of