Charles Edwards

1. Interest and Importance attaching to Rings; Shakspeare’s Ring; Earl Godwin. 2. Words symbolum and ungulus. 3. Ring-money. 4. Rings in Mythology; Theseus; Prometheus Inventor of the First Ring. 5. Seals from the ScarabÆus. 6. Rings in Greek Urns. 7. Judah and Tamar; Alexander. 8. Ring a Symbol of Fidelity, Eternity, and of the Deity. 9. Roman Rings. 10. Rings in German Caverns. 11. Rings of the Gauls and Britons. 12. Anglo-Saxon Workers in Metal. 13. Ladies’ Seal-rings. 14. Substance, Forms and Size of Rings; Number, and on what fingers worn; Pearls; Carbuncle; Death’s-head Rings. 15. Law of Rings. 16. Order of the Ring. 17. Rings found in all places. 18. Persian Signets. 19. Value of ancient Rings. 20. Love’s Telegraph, and Name-rings; Polish Birth-day Gifts. 21. Rings in Heraldry. 22. Rings in Fish. 23. Riddle. 24. Ring misapplied. 25. Horace Walpole’s Poesy on a Ring.

§ 1. A CIRCLE, known as a finger-ring, has been an object of ornament and of use for thousands of years. Indeed, the time when it was first fashioned and worn is so far in the past that it alone shines there; all around is ashes or darkness.

This little perfect figure may seem to be a trifling matter on which to found an essay; and yet we shall find it connected with history and poetry. It is, indeed, a small link, although it has bound together millions for better for worse, for richer for poorer, more securely than could the shackle wrought for a felon. An impression from it may have saved or lost a kingdom. It is made the symbol of power; and has been a mark of slavery. Love has placed it where a vein was supposed to vibrate in the heart. Affection and friendship have wrought it into a remembrance; and it has passed into the grave upon the finger of the beloved one.

And, though the ring itself may be stranger to us, and might never have belonged to ancestor, friend or companion, yet there can be even a general interest about such a slight article. For instance, a few years ago a ring was found which had belonged to Shakspeare, and must have been a gift: for the true-lover’s knot is there. Who would not desire to possess, who would not like even to see the relic? There is reason to suppose that this ring was the gift of Anne Hathaway, she “who had as much virtue as could die.” And we must be allowed to indulge in the idea that it was pressing Shakspeare’s finger when those lines were inscribed “To the idol of mine eyes and the delight of my heart, Anne Hathaway:”

“Talk not of gems, the orient list,

The diamond, topaz, amethyst,

The emerald mild, the ruby gay:

Talk of my gem, Anne Hathaway!

She hath a way, with her bright eye,

Their various lustre to defy,

The jewel she, and the foil they,

So sweet to look Anne hath a way.

She hath a way,

Anne Hathaway,

To shame bright gems Anne hath a way!”[1]

We shall find many interesting stories connected with rings. By way of illustration, here is one:

In a battle between Edmund the Anglo-Saxon and Canute the Dane, the army of the latter was defeated and fled; and one of its principal captains, Ulf, lost his way in the woods. After wandering all night, he met, at daybreak, a young peasant driving a herd of oxen, whom he saluted and asked his name. “I am Godwin, the son of Ulfnoth,” said the young peasant, “and thou art a Dane.” Thus obliged to confess who he was, Ulf begged the young Saxon to show him his way to the Severn, where the Danish ships were at anchor. “It is foolish in a Dane,” replied the peasant, “to expect such a service from a Saxon; and, besides, the way is long, and the country people are all in arms.” The Danish chief drew off a gold ring from his finger and gave it to the shepherd as an inducement to be his guide. The young Saxon looked at it for an instant with great earnestness, and then returned it, saying, “I will take nothing from thee, but I will try to conduct thee.” Leading him to his father’s cottage, he concealed him there during the day; and when night came on, they prepared to depart together. As they were going, the old peasant said to Ulf, “This is my only son Godwin, who risks his life for thee. He cannot return among his countrymen again; take him, therefore, and present him to thy king, Canute, that he may enter into his service.” The Dane promised, and kept his word. The young Saxon peasant was well received in the Danish camp; and rising from step to step by the force of his talents, he afterwards became known over all England as the great Earl Godwin. He might have been monarch; while his sweet and beautiful daughter Edith or Ethelswith did marry King Edward. “Godwin,” the people said in their songs, contrasting the firmness of the father with the sweetness of the daughter, “is the parent of Edith, as the thorn is of the rose.”[2]

§ 2. The word symbolum, for a long time, meant a ring; and was substituted for the ancient Oscan word ungulus.

§ 3. In examining ancient rings, care must be taken not to confound them with coins made in the shape of rings.[3] The fresco paintings in the tombs of Egypt exhibit people bringing, as tribute, to the foot of the throne of Pharaoh, bags of gold and silver rings, at a period before the exodus of the Israelites. Great quantities of ring-money have been found in different countries, including Ireland.[4]

Egyptian Ring-money.Celtic Ring-money.

The ancient Britons had them. That these rings were used for money, is confirmed by the fact that, on being weighed, by far the greater number of them appear to be exact multiples of a certain standard unit. Layard mentions[5] that Dr. Lepsius has recently published a bas relief, from an Egyptian tomb, representing a man weighing rings of gold and silver, with weights in the form of a bull’s head; and Layard also gives a seeming outline of the subject, (although its description speaks of “weights in the form of a seated lion.”) It is presumed that these rings are intended for ring-money; the fact of weighing them strengthens this idea; and see Wilkinson’s Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians, (revised,) ii. 148-9.

§ 4. We not only find rings in the most ancient times, but we also trace them in mythology.

Fish, in antediluvian period, were intelligent, had fine musical perception and were even affectionate. Thus, in relation to Theseus, the Athenian prince: Minos happened to load Theseus with reproaches, especially on account of his birth; and told him, that, if he were the son of Neptune, he would have no difficulty in going to the bottom of the sea; and then threw a ring in to banter him. The Athenian prince plunged in, and might have been food for fishes, had they not, in the shape of dolphins, taken him upon their backs, as they had done Arion, and conveyed him to the palace of Amphitrite.[6] It is not said whether she, as Neptune’s wife, had a right to the jetsam, flotsam, and lagan, to the sweepings or stray jewelry of the ocean; but she was able to hand Theseus the ring, and also to give him a crown, which he presented to the ill-used lady Ariadne, and it was afterwards placed among the stars.

And, coupled with mythology, we have, according to the ancients, the origin of the ring. Jupiter, from revenge, caused Strength, Force and Vulcan to chain his cousin-german Prometheus to the frosty Caucasus, where a vulture, all the livelong day, banqueted his fill on the black viands of his hot liver. The god had sworn to keep Prometheus there (according to Hesiod[7]) eternally; but other authors give only thirty thousand years as the limit. He who had punished did, for reasons, forgive; but as Jupiter had sworn to keep Prometheus bound for the space of time mentioned, he, in order not to violate his oath, commanded that Prometheus should always wear upon his finger an iron ring, to or in which should be fastened a small fragment of Caucasus, so that it might be true, in a certain sense, that Prometheus still continued bound to that rock. Thus, as we have said, came the idea of the first ring, and, we may add, the insertion of a stone.[8]

While some writers, under this story, connect Prometheus with the first ring, Pliny still says that the inventor of it is not known, and observes that it was used by the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians and Greeks, although, as he thinks, the latter were unacquainted with it at the time of the Trojan war, as Homer does not mention it.[9]

It has however been said that Dschemid, who made known the solar year, introduced the use of the ring.[10]

Touching Pliny’s notion of the antiquity of rings, there is, in Southey’s “Commonplace Book,” (second series,[11]) the following quotation from “Treasurie of Auncient and Moderne Times,” (1619:) “But the good olde man Plinie cannot overreach us with his idle arguments and conjectures, for we read in Genesis that Joseph, who lived above five hundred yeares before the warres of Troy, having expounded the dreame of Pharaoh, king of Ægypt, was, by the sayde prince, made superintendent over his kingdom, and for his safer possession in that estate, he took off his ring from his hand and put it upon Joseph’s hand.” ... “In Moses’s time, which was more than foure hundred yeares before Troy warres, wee find rings to be then in use; for we reade that they were comprehended in the ornaments which Aaron the high priest should weare, and they of his posteritie afterward, as also it was avouched by Josephus. Whereby appeareth plainly, that the use of rings was much more ancient than Plinie reporteth them in his conjectures: but as he was a Pagan, and ignorant in sacred writings, so it is no marvell if these things went beyond his knowledge.”

It is pretended that seal-rings were an invention of the Lacedemonians, who, not content with locking their coffers, added a seal; for which purpose they made use of worm-eaten wood, with which they impressed wax or soft wood; and after this they learned to engrave seals.[12]

§ 5. Cylinders, squares and pyramids were forms used for seals prior to the adoption of ring-seals.[13] These settled with the Greeks into the scarabÆus or beetle, that is to say, a stone something like the half of a walnut, with its convexity wrought into the form of a beetle, while the flat under surface contained the inscription for the seal. The Greeks retained this derivable form until they thought of dispensing with the body of the beetle, only preserving for the inscription the flat oval which the base presented, and which they ultimately set in rings. This shows how ring-seals came into form. Many of the Egyptian and other ring-seals are on swivel, and we are of opinion that the idea of this convenient form originated with the perforated cylindrical and other seals, which were, with a string passed through them, worn around the neck or from the wrist.[14]

The sculpture of signets was, probably, the first use of gem engraving, and this was derived from the common source of all the arts, India.[15] Signets of lapis lazuli and emerald have been found with Sanscrit inscriptions, presumed to be of an antiquity beyond all record. The natural transmission of the arts was from India to Egypt, and our collections abound with intaglio and cameo hieroglyphics, figures of Isis, Osiris, the lotus, the crocodile, and the whole symbolic Egyptian mythology wrought upon jaspers, emeralds, basalts, bloodstones, turquoises; etc. Mechanical skill attained a great excellence at an early period. The stones of the Jewish high-priests’ breast-plate were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes, and of those stones one was a diamond(?). The Greek gems generally exhibit the figure nude; the Romans, draped. The Greeks were chiefly intaglios.

It is generally understood that the ancients greatly excelled the moderns in gem engraving, and that the art has never been carried to the highest perfection in modern times. Mr. Henry Weigall, however, states that “this supposition is erroneous, and has probably arisen from the fact of travellers supposing that the collections of gems and impressions that they have made in Italy are exclusively the works of Italian artists; such, however, is not the case, and I have myself had the satisfaction of pointing out to many such collectors, that the most admired specimens in their collections were the works of English artists.”[16]

§ 6. Rings have been discovered in the cinerary urns of the Greeks. These could hardly have got there through the fire which consumed the body, for vessels still containing aromatic liquids have also been discovered in the urns. It is very possible they were tokens of affection deposited by relations and friends. Such remembrances (as we shall see) are found in the graves of early Roman Christians.

The idea that rings in Roman urns were secretly and piously placed there, is strengthened by the fact that it was contrary to the laws of Rome to bury gold with the dead.[17] There was one exception to this rule, which appears odd enough to readers of the nineteenth century, namely, a clause which permitted the burial of such gold as fastened false teeth in the mouth of the deceased, thus sparing the children and friends of the dead the painful task of pulling from their heads the artificial teeth which they had been accustomed to wear. It seems strange to find that these expedients of vanity or convenience were practised in Rome nearly two thousand years ago.

Maffei[18] gives a description and enlarged illustration of a gold ring bearing a cornelian, whereon is cut the story of Bellerophon upon his winged horse, about to attack the chimera; and also a small but exquisite urn of porphyry, which contained funeral ashes and this ring. These were found in the garden of Pallas, freed man of Claudius; and Maffei reasonably makes out that the ring had belonged to him. Bellerophon is said to have been a native of Corinth, and Pallas was from that city. Nero became emperor mainly through Pallas, and yet he sacrificed the latter to be master of his great riches. These relics thus possess much interest. Although a freed man, merely as such, had no right to wear a gold ring, yet Pallas gained the office of PrÆtor, and so was entitled to one. (In Plutarch’s Galba, the freed man of the latter was honored with the privilege of wearing the gold ring for bringing news of the revolt against Nero.)

Signet Bracelet

§ 7. In the unpleasant story of Judah and Tamar, we see that the former left in pledge with the latter his signet.[19] This, most likely, was in the shape of a ring, although such signets were often worn from the wrist: for, in this case, he also pledged his bracelets.

In the Scriptures, the signet ring is frequently named; and Quintus Curtius tells us that Alexander wore one. After his fatal debauch, and finding himself past recovery, and his voice beginning to fail, he gave his ring to his general, Perdiccas, with orders to convey his corpse to the temple of Ammon. Being asked to whom he would leave his empire, he answered, “To the most worthy.”[20]

§ 8. The ring was generally the emblem of fidelity in civil engagements; and hence, no doubt, its ancient use in many functions and distinctions.[21] A ring denoted eternity among the Hindoos, Persians and Egyptians; and Brahma, as the creator of the world, bears a ring in his hand. The Egyptian priests in the temple of the creative Phtha (Vulcan of the Greeks) represented the year under the form of a ring, made of a serpent having its tail in its mouth—a very common shape of ancient rings. Although Jupiter is often figured with attributes of mighty power, yet he is seldom coupled with a mark of eternity. There is, however, a gem (an aqua-marine, engraved in hollow) of this deity holding a ring as the emblem of eternity.[22]

Jupiter Holding Ring

Pythagoras forbade the use of the figures of gods upon rings, lest, from seeing their images too frequently, it should breed a contempt for them.[23]

It has been attempted to connect with a ring the consecration of a circle, as emblematical of the Deity. Over the door of a Norman church at Beckford, in Gloucestershire, England, is a rude bas-relief, representing the holy cross between the four beasts, used as symbols of the Evangelists. The “human form divine” appears to have been beyond the sculptor’s power; he has made a ring. The others are an eagle, lion, and bull.[24]

§ 9. The Romans distinguished their rings by names taken from their use, as we do.[25] The excessive luxury shown in the number worn, and the value of gems and costly engraved stones in them, and the custom of wearing lighter rings in summer and heavier in winter, are among the most absurd instances of Roman effeminacy, (as we shall hereafter more particularly show.)[26] The case in which they kept their rings was called Dactylotheca. No ornament was more generally worn among the Romans than rings. This custom appears to have been borrowed from the Sabines.[27] They laid them aside at night, as well as when they bathed or were in mourning, as did suppliants. However, in times of sorrow, they rather changed than entirely put them aside; they then used iron ones, taking off the gold rings.[28] It was a proof of the greatest poverty, when any one was obliged to pledge his ring to live. Rings were given by those who agreed to club for an entertainment. They were usually pulled off from the fingers of dying persons; but they seem to have been sometimes put on again before the dead body was buried.

There is no sign of the ring upon Roman statues before those of Numa and Servius Tullius. The rings were worn to be taken off or put on according to festivals, upon the statues of deities and heroes, and upon some of the emperors, with the Lituus ensculped, to show that they were sovereign pontiffs.

This lituus is a crooked staff; and the Roman priests are represented with it in their hands. They, as augurs, used it in squaring the heavens when observing the flight of birds. It is traced to the time of Romulus, who being skilled in divination, bore the lituus; and it was called lituus quirinalis, from Quirinus, a name of Romulus. It was kept in the Capitol, but lost when Rome was taken by the Gauls; afterwards, when the barbarians had quitted it, the lituus was found buried deep in ashes, untouched by the fire, whilst every thing about it was destroyed and consumed.[29] Emperors appropriated to themselves the dignities of the office of high priest,[30] and hence this priestly symbol upon their medals, coins and signets. Although it is a common notion that the pastoral staff of the Church of Rome is taken from the shepherd’s crook, it may be a question whether it did not take its rise from the lituus?

Brave times those Roman times for lawyers—or patrons, as they were called. Their clients were bound to give them the title of Rex; escort them to the Forum and the Campus Martius; and not only to make ordinary presents to them and their children or household, but, on a birth-day, they received from them the birth-day ring. It was worn only on that day.[31]

There were rings worn by flute-players, very brilliant and adorned with a gem.

In the Sierra Elvira, in Spain, more than two hundred tombs and an aqueduct were discovered. Several skeletons bore the rings of Roman knights; and some of them had in their mouths the piece of money destined to pay the ferryman Charon.[32] These skeletons crumbled into dust as soon as they were touched. What a perfect subject for a poem by Longfellow!

Roman stamps or large seals or brands have been found of quaint shapes. Some of them are in the form of feet or shoes. Drawings of them appear in Montfaucon. They were fashioned to mark casks and other bulky articles. Caylus gives an illustration of a ring in the form of a pair of shoes, or rather, the soles of shoes.[33]

Roman Shoe Ring

Pliny observes that rings became so common at Rome, they were given to all the divinities; and even to those of the people who had never worn any. Their divinities were adorned with iron rings—movable rings, which could be taken off or put on according to festivals and circumstances.

§ 10. At Erpfingen in Germany, remarkable stalactical caverns have been discovered. Every where, and especially in the lateral caves, human bones of extraordinary size, with bones and teeth of animals, now unknown, have been discovered, and there, with pottery, rings were found.

§ 11. Rings were in use among the Gauls and Britons, but seemingly for ornament only. They are often found in British barrows. Anglo-Saxon rings were common.[34] William de Belmeis gave certain lands to St. Paul’s Cathedral, and at the same time directed that his gold ring set with a ruby should, together with the seal, be affixed to the charter for ever. The same thing was done by Osbart de Camera, he granting to St. Paul’s, in pure alms and for the health of his soul, certain lands; giving possession by his gold ring, wherein a ruby was set; and appointing that the same gold ring with his seal should for ever be affixed to the charter whereby he disposed of them.[35]

Anglo-Saxon kings gave rings to their wittenagemot and courtiers, and they to their descendants.

§ 12. In metals the Anglo-Saxons worked with great skill. We read of the gold cup in which Rowena drank to Vortigern. So early, perhaps, as the seventh century, the English jewellers and goldsmiths were eminent in their professions; and great quantities of other trinkets were constantly exported to the European Continent. Smiths and armorers were highly esteemed, and even the clergy thought it no disgrace to handle tools.[36] St. Dunstan, in particular, was celebrated as the best blacksmith, brazier, goldsmith and engraver of his time. This accounts for the cleverness with which he laid hold of the gentleman in black:

“St. Dunstan stood in his ivy’d tower,

Alembic, crucible, all were there;

When in came Nick to play him a trick,

In guise of a damsel, passing fair.

Every one knows

How the story goes:

He took up the tongs and caught hold of his nose.”[37]

§ 13. Ladies used seal-rings in the sixth century; but women of rank had no large seals till towards the beginning of the twelfth.[38]

§ 14. There is scarcely a hard substance of which rings have not been composed. All the metals have been brought into requisition. First, iron; then, as in Rome, it was mingled with gold.

Conquerors wore iron rings until Caius Marius changed the fashion. He had one when he triumphed over King Jugurtha.[39] And while stones have lent their aid as garniture for metal, these too have made the whole hoop.

We find rings of two stones; such were those which the Emperor Valerianus gave to Claudius.

Near to the Pyramids, cornelian rings have been discovered. Rings of glass and other vitreous material have been found. Emerald rings were discovered at Pompeii, also glass used instead of gems. Some made entirely of one stone, as of amber, have been obtained.[40]

With the Egyptians, bronze was seldom used in rings, though frequently in signets. They were mostly of gold and this metal seems to have been always preferred to silver.

Ivory and blue porcelain were the materials of which those worn by the lower classes were made.[41]

An ancient ring of jet has been dug up in England.

There were some rings of a single metal, and others of a mixture of two;[42] for the iron, bronze and silver were frequently gilt, or, at least, the gold part was fixed with the iron, as appears from Artemidorus.[43] The Romans were contented with iron rings a long time; and Pliny assures us that Marius first wore a gold one in his third consulate. Sometimes the ring was iron, and the seal gold; sometimes the stone was engraven, and sometimes plain; and the engraving, at times, was raised, and also sunk. (The last were called gemmÆ ectypÆ, the former gemmÆ sculptur prominente.)

An incident, mentioned by Plutarch, shows how distinctive was a gold ring.[44] When Cinna and Caius Marius were slaughtering the citizens of Rome, the slaves of Cornutus hid their master in the house and took a dead body out of the street from among the slain and hanged it by the neck, then they put a gold ring upon the finger, and showed the corse in that condition to Marius’s executioners; after which they dressed it for the funeral, and buried it as their master’s body.

The rings of the classical ancients were rather incrusted than set in gold in our slight manner.[45]

The first mention of a Roman gold ring is in the year 432 U. C.; but they, at last, were indiscriminately worn by the Romans. Three bushels were gathered out of the spoils after Hannibal’s victory at CannÆ.[46]

“Lovely soft pearls, the fanciful images of sad tears,” have been used in rings from the time of the Latins. Cleopatra’s drinking off the residuum of a pearl, worth three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, aside from luxurious extravagance, seems to be somewhat nasty; but we are inclined to believe that this fond queen had faith in its supposed medicinal and talismanic properties:

“—— Now I feed myself

With most delicious passion.”

Pliny, the Roman naturalist, gravely tells us that the oyster which produces pearls, does so from feeding on heavenly dew. Drummond thus translates him:

“With open shells in seas, on heavenly dew,

A shining oyster lusciously doth feed;

And then the birth of that ethereal seed

Shows, when conceived, if skies look dark or blue.”[47]

Early English writers entertained the same notion; and Boethius, speaking of the pearl-mussel of the Scotch rivers, remarks, that “These mussels, early in the morning, when the sky is clear and temperate, open their mouths a little above the water and most greedily swallow the dew of heaven; and after the measure and quantity of the dew which they swallow, they conceive and breed the pearl. These mussels,” he continues, “are so exceedingly quick of touch and hearing, that, however faint the noise that may be made on the bank beside them, or however small the stone that may be thrown into the water, they sink at once to the bottom, knowing well in what estimation the fruit of their womb is to all people.” In the East, the belief is equally common that these precious gems are

“—— rain from the sky,

Which turns into pearls as it falls in the sea.”

The ancient idea that pearls are generated of the dews of heaven, is pretty conclusively met by Cardanus,[48] who says it is fabulous, seeing that the shell fishes, in which they are conceived, have their residence in the very bottom of the depth of the sea.

The charlatan Leoni de Spoleto prescribed the drink of dissolved pearls for Lorenzo the Magnificent, when he was attacked by fever aggravated by hereditary gout.[49]

There was supposed to be a gem called a carbuncle, which emitted, not reflected, but native light.[50] Our old literature abounds with allusions to this miraculous gem. Shakspeare has made use of it in Titus Andronicus, where Martius goes down into a pit, and, by it, discovers the body of Lord Bassianus; and calls up to Quintus thus:[51]

“Lord Bassianus lies embrewed here,

All on a heap, like to a slaughter’d lamb,

In this detested, dark, blood-drinking pit.

Quintus. If it be dark, how dost thou know ’tis he?

Martius. Upon his bloody finger he doth wear

A precious ring, that lightens all the hole,

Which, like a taper in some monument,

Doth shine upon the dead man’s earthy cheek,

And show the ragged entrails of this pit:

So pale did shine the moon on Pyramus,

When he by night lay bathed in maiden’s blood.”

Ludovicus Vartomannus, a Roman, reporteth that the king of Pege (or Pegu), a city in India, had a carbuncle (ruby) of so great a magnitude and splendor, that by the clear light of it he might, in a dark place, be seen, even as if the room or place had been illustrated by the sunbeams. St. or Bishop Epiphanius saith of this gem, that if it be worn, whatever garments it be covered withal, it cannot be hid.[52]

It was from a property of resembling a burning coal when held against the sun that this stone obtained the name carbunculus; which being afterwards misunderstood, there grew an opinion of its having the qualities of a burning coal and shining in the dark. And as no gem ever was or ever will be found endued with that quality, it was supposed that the true carbuncle of the ancients was lost; but it was long generally believed that there had been such a stone. The species of carbuncle of the ancients which possessed this quality in the greatest degree was the Garamantine or Carthaginian; and this is the true garnet of the moderns.[53]

Rings, with a death’s head upon them, were worn by improper characters in the time of Elizabeth of England. This kind of ring is referred to in Beaumont and Fletcher:

“—— I’ll keep it,

As they keep death’s head in rings:

To cry memento to me.”[54]

Although we meet with nothing to show the motive for wearing such rings by the characters referred to, we are inclined to fancy the desire was to carry the semblance of a widow and to let the ring have the character of a mourning token. Lord Onslow, who lived in the time of Elizabeth, bequeathed “a ring of gold with a death’s head” to friends.[55]

Sir Isaac Newton was possessed of a small magnet set in a ring, the weight of which was only three grains, but which supported, by its attractive power on iron, seven hundred grains. It has been observed that such instances are by no means common, although the smallest magnets appear to have the greatest proportionate power.[56]

Our own sailors, in the quiet weather of a voyage, will, with the aid of a marlinspike, make exceedingly neat rings out of Spanish silver or a copper coin.

Some of the Egyptian signets were of extraordinary size. Sir Gardiner Wilkinson mentions an ancient Egyptian one which contained about twenty pounds worth of gold. It consisted of a massive ring, half an inch in its largest diameter, bearing an oblong plinth, upon which the devices were engraved; on one face was the successor of Amunoph III., who lived B. C. 1400; on the other a lion, with the legend, “Lord of strength,” referring to the monarch; on the other side a scorpion, and on the remaining one a crocodile.

Bronze Ox Ring

In the work of Count Caylus, there is a vignette of a ring of bronze, remarkable from its size and the subject upon it.[57] The collet or collar of the ring is an inch in height, and eleven lines in thickness. The figure upon it is an ox—or, as the author we have referred to calls it, a cow, recumbent and swaddled, or covered by draperies; and it wears a collar, to which hangs, according to this author, a bell. He considers that it was made when the Romans wore them of an excessive size, and while Gaul was under the dominion of the former. He does not give any guess at the intention or meaning of the subject. We believe it was, originally, Egyptian; and made in memory of the sacred Bull Apis, (found in tombs,) honored by the Egyptians as an image of the soul of Osiris and on the idea that his soul migrated from one Apis to another in succession. And as to what Caylus considers a bell, we are inclined to designate a bag. In Dr. Abbott’s collection of Egyptian Antiquities are not only mummies of these sacred bulls, but also the skulls of others, and over the head of one is suspended a large bag, found in the pits with the bulls, and supposed to be used to carry their food.

Addison, in observing upon the size of old Roman rings,[58] refers to Juvenal, as thus translated by Dryden:

“Charged with light summer rings, his fingers sweat,

Unable to support a gem of weight.”

And he goes on to say, that this “was not anciently so great an hyperbole as it is now, for I have seen old Roman rings so very thick-about and with such large stones in them, that it is no wonder a fop should reckon them a little cumbersome in the summer season of so hot a climate.”

As a proof of the size to which Roman rings sometimes reached, we here give an outline of one as it appears in Montfaucon.

Queen Plotina’s Ring

This ring bears the portrait of Trajan’s good queen Plotina. The coiffure is remarkable and splendid, being composed of three rows of precious stones cut in facets.

According to Pliny, devices were not put upon the metal of rings until the reign of Claudius.

When a wealthy Egyptian had been embalmed and placed in a superb case or coffin, with a diadem on his head and bracelets upon his arms, rings of gold, ivory and engraved cornelian were placed upon his fingers.[59]

Isis and Serapis Ring

Contrary to what might have been supposed, the British Museum is not rich in rings. Through a dear friend, the author is able to give drawings of a few of its treasures, and the following extract from a letter: “They can trace none of their rings with any certainty. The collection is not large, and has been bought at various times from other collections and private sources, which could give no history, or, if attempted, none that can be relied on. Mr. Franks, the curator of this department, kindly made the impressions I send of those he considered most curious, and selected the others for me.”

Here is one of those rings. It bears the heads of Isis and Serapis. A similar ring (perhaps the same) is figured in Caylus,[60] who observes on the singularity of form and the ingenuity attendant upon shaping it, while it is considered extremely inconvenient to wear. It would, however, suit all fingers, large or small, because it can be easily diminished or widened. The two busts are placed at the extremities of the serpent which forms the body of the ring contrariwise—if we may be allowed the expression—so that whatever position or twist is given to the ring, one of the two heads always presents itself in a natural position. The ring given by Caylus was found in Egypt, but is said to be of Roman workmanship and made when the former was under the dominion of the Romans; and he hints that the heads may represent a Roman emperor and empress under the forms of Isis and Jupiter Serapis, adding, “I will not hazard any conjecture on the names that may be given them. I will content myself with saying that the work is of a good time and far removed from the lower empire; and I will add, that the quantity of rings which were wrought for the Romans of all the states may serve to explain the extraordinary forms which some present to us.”

Here is another, from the British Museum, in which Isis and Serapis appear, singularly placed. This ring is Romano-Egyptian, and of bronze.

Here are two, Etruscan, from the same source, with an impression from each.

They are both of gold, while No. 2 has a white stone which works upon a swivel.

We add, in this portion of our book, another from the British Museum. It is worked from Greek or Etruscan gold, and was found in the Abruzzi.

Illustrations of some of the Egyptian seal-rings contained in the British Museum, will be found in Knight’s Pictorial Bible, at the end of the third chapter of Esther.

Fashion and Fancy have given us rings of all imaginable shapes, and these powers, joined with Religion and Love, have traced upon them every supposable subject.

Although modern rings seldom display the exquisite cutting and artistic taste which appear upon antiques, still the latter exhibit sentimental phrases and sentiments similar to such as are observed upon rings of the present day. The Greeks were full of gallantry. Time has preserved to us incontestable proofs of the vows which they made to mistresses and friends, as well as of the trouble they took and the expense they went to in order to perpetuate their sentiments. Caylus,[61] who says this, gives a drawing of a ring bearing the words KIPIA KAAH, Beautiful Ciria; and adds, “This inscription is simple but energetic; it appears to me to suit the sentiment.” In Montfaucon are several illustrations of Greek sentences upon rings, which carry out what Caylus has observed; thus there are (rendered into English), Good be with you, Madam. Good be with you, Sir. Good be with him who wears you and all his household. Remember it. Theanus is my light. Upon a ring bearing a hand which holds a ring: Remember good fortune. There are, also, upon Roman rings, sentiment and compliment in Latin sentences, as thus translated: Live happy, my hostess. You have this pledge of love. Live in God. Live. And Caylus[62] gives a description and drawing of a remarkably formed gold ring; and although it bears Greek words, he leaves it in doubt whether it is of Roman or Grecian workmanship. It has the appearance of three rings united, widened in the front and tapering within the hand. Upon the wide part of each are two letters, the whole forming ZHCAIC, Mayest thou live. The Romans often preferred the Greek language in their most familiar customs.

A ring of bronze has been discovered, in the form of a snake with its tail in its mouth, made on the principle of some of our steel rings which we use to hold household keys, widening their circle by pressure.[63] In the finger-ring, the part in the mouth is inserted loose, so as to draw out and increase to the size of the circle needed.

Rings of gold are common in England at the present day, made to form a strap with buckles, precisely, in shape, a common belt or collar. It lies flat like an ordinary leather strap, and is formed of small pieces of gold which are kept so delicately together that the lines of meeting are scarcely perceptible. This is accomplished by having many minute and unseen hinges, which make the whole pliable and allow it to be buckled (as a ring) upon the finger.

Nothing is new. One of the prettiest modern rings, used as a remembrancer, has a socket for hair and a closing shutter. Roman remains were found at Heronval in Normandy, and among them were rings. One of these was almost of modern form, with a small place under where the stone is usually fixed, into which hair might be inserted.[64] We are constantly retracing the steps of antiquity.

A Roman gold ring of a triangular form has been discovered in England, with an intaglio representing the story of Hercules strangling the Nemean lion.[65] And also a ring that, while it was remarkable for its thickness, had a whistle on one side, which was useful in calling servants before the time of domestic bells.[66]

We shall find that there were rings in which poison was carried.

Wilkinson has discovered several Egyptian rings, where the subject is made up of two cats sitting back to back, and looking round at each other, with an emblem of the goddess Athor between them.

We do not know why Athor, Venus, should be between these sentinel cats. Had the symbol of Pasht, Diana, been there, the thing would have been less difficult; for cats, like maids, “love the moon,” and their guardian goddess was Pasht. Their attitude is more watchful than sacred cats would be supposed to assume, and might rather appear to apply to the species embalmed in Kilkenny history.

There is an Anglo-Saxon ring inscribed Ahlstan, Bishop of Sherborne, which has the hoop of alternate lozenges and circles. It has, also, a Saxon legend. Epigraphs in that language are extremely rare. It has been supposed that Ahlstan had command of the Saxon army.

In the catacombs of Rome, where the early Christians “wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented,”[67] where they stealthily prayed and lived and died, vast quantities of signet and other rings have been discovered, as well as medals, cameos and other precious stones. Signet rings of different devices, as belonging to different owners, are in the catacombs here; and this has raised the idea that they were deposited by relatives and friends as the stone lid of the grave was about to be shut,—offerings of love and affection.[68]

“What a picture,” exclaims a writer in the London Art Journal,[69] “do these dark vaults display of the devotion, the zeal, the love of those early Christian converts whose baptism was in blood! I picture them to myself, stealing forth from the city in the gloomy twilight, out towards the lonely Campagna, and disappearing one by one through well-known apertures, threading their way through the dark sinuous galleries to some altar, where life and light and spiritual food, the soft chanting of the holy psalms and the greeting of faithful brethren, waking the echoes, awaited them. The sight of these early haunts of the persecuted and infant religion is inexpressibly affecting; and I pity those, be they Protestant or Catholic, who can visit these hallowed precincts without an overwhelming emotion. How many martyrs, their bodies torn and lacerated by the cruel beasts amid the infuriated roar of thousands shrieking forth the cry of Christianos ad leonem! in the bloody games of the Flavian amphitheatre, breathing their last sigh, calling on the name of the Redeemer, have passed, borne by mourning friends or by compassionate widows or virgins to their last dark narrow home, along the very path I was now treading! How many glorified saints, now singing the praises of the Eternal around the great white throne in the seventh heaven of glory, may have been laid to rest in these very apertures, lighted by a flickering taper like that I held. But I must pause—this is an endless theme, endless as the glory of those who hover in eternal light and ecstatic radiance above; it is moreover a pÆan I feel utterly unworthy to sing.”

We have received a drawing and impression of a ring which is in the British Museum; and our opinion is that it belonged to one of the early Christians. While the ????O, I rejoice, upon it, favors the idea, the monogram (upon the signet part) confirms it. This is, evidently, the name of Jesus in its earliest monogrammatic form, made up of the letters ?. and ?. As commonly found on monuments in the catacombs of Rome, it has a single cross with the ?. thus, ? while in our illustration the cross is multiplied; and this is the only difference. Surely such a memorial as this is more likely to have been the ring of the lowly-minded “fisherman,” than the one which is said to be framed with diamonds and worn by the Pope. In Dr. Kip’s very interesting work on the Catacombs of Rome, there is an illustration of a seal-ring, upon which a like monogram appears, although somewhat complicated.[70]

Near Cork, in Ireland, a silver ring was discovered, the hoop whereof is composed of nine knobs or bosses, which may have served instead of beads and been used by the wearer in the Catholic counting of them. The antiquaries of Ireland have considered this ring as very ancient.[71]

In referring to Irish rings, it may be well to mention one which was found in the county of Westmeath, with some very ancient remains.[72] It is remarkable, from being set with many diamonds in beautifully squared work. On account of the place where it was discovered, a suggestion has been made that it may have belonged to Rose Failge, Prince of Ireland, eldest son of Calhoir the Great, who reigned A. D. 122, he being called the Hero of Rings. However, diamonds do not appear to have been named among precious stones at that early period.

The author is not aware that diamonds are often set loosely or upon swivel in a ring. We have mention of one in the reign of James I. of England. Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, (nicknamed by a cotemporary “Robert the Devil,” and by James called his “little Beagle,”) was dangerously ill at Bath; but on a report of his recovery, the King sent purposely the Lord Hay to him, with a token, “which was a fair diamond, set or rather hung square in a gold ring without a foil”—and this message, “That the favor and affection he bore him was and should be ever, as the form and matter of that, endless, pure and most perfect.”[73] A writer, given to detraction, says that this great statesman died of the disease of Herod, upon the top of a mole-hill; and that his body burst the lead it was wrapped in. On his tomb lies the skeleton of the Earl curiously carved. He seemed well to weigh the glory of a courtier, for in writing to Sir John Harrington,[74] he said: “Good Knight, rest content and give heed to one that hath sorrowed in the bright lustre of a Court, and gone heavily even on the best seeming fair ground. ’Tis a great task to prove one’s honesty and yet not spoil one’s fortune. You have tasted a little hereof in our blessed Queen’s time, who was more than a man, and, in truth, sometimes less than a woman. I wish I waited now in your presence chamber, with ease at my food and rest in my bed. I am pushed from the shore of comfort, and know not where the winds and waves of a Court will bear me. I know it bringeth little comfort on earth; and he is, I reckon, no wise man that looketh this way to heaven.”

In the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, some citizens of California presented President Pierce with a gigantic ring. We here give an outline, and add a description of it from Gleason’s Pictorial Newspaper for the 25th of December, 1852.

“It is already pretty widely known to the public generally, that a number of citizens of San Francisco have caused to be manufactured and forwarded to Gen. Pierce, a most valuable and unique present, in the form of a massive gold ring, as a token of esteem for the President elect. Of this ring our artist has herewith given us an admirable representation. It is a massive gold ring, weighing upwards of a full pound. This monster ring, for chasteness of design, elegance of execution, and high style of finish, has, perhaps, no equal in the world. The design is by Mr. George Blake, a mechanic of San Francisco. The circular portion of the ring is cut into squares, which stand at right angles with each other, and are embellished each with a beautifully executed design, the entire group presenting a pictorial history of California, from her primitive state down to her present flourishing condition, under the flag of our Union.

“Thus, there is given a grizzly bear in a menacing attitude, a deer bounding down a slope, an enraged boa, a soaring eagle and a salmon. Then we have the Indian with his bow and arrow, the primitive weapon of self-defence; the native mountaineer on horseback, and a Californian on horseback, throwing his lasso. Next peeps out a Californian tent. Then you see a miner at work, with his pick, the whole being shaded by two American flags, with the staves crossed and groups of stars in the angles. The part of the ring reserved for a seal is covered by a solid and deeply carved plate of gold, bearing the arms of the State of California in the centre, surmounted by the banner and stars of the United States, and inscribed with ‘Frank Pierce,’ in old Roman characters. This lid opens upon a hinge, and presents to view underneath a square box, divided by bars of gold into nine separate compartments, each containing a pure specimen of the varieties of ore found in the country. Upon the inside is the following inscription: ‘Presented to Franklin Pierce, the Fourteenth President of the United States.’ The ring is valued at $2000. Our engraving gives a separate view of the lid, so as to represent the appearance of the top of the ring both when it is open and when it is closed. Altogether, it is a massive and superb affair, rich in emblematical design and illustration, and worthy its object.”

Rings appear to have been worn indiscriminately on the fingers of each hand. It would seem, however, from Jeremiah, that the Hebrews wore them on their right hand; we there read that when the Lord threatened King Zedekiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he told him: “Though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.”[75]

Trimalchion wore two rings, one large and gilt, upon the little finger of his right hand, and the other of gold, powdered with iron stars, upon the middle of the ring finger.[76]

Among the Romans, before rings came to be adorned with stones, and while the graving was yet on the metal itself, every one wore them at pleasure on what hand and finger he pleased. When stones came to be added, they had them altogether on the left hand; and it would have been held an excess of foppery to have put them on the right.

Pliny says, they were at first worn on the fourth finger, then on the second or index, then on the little finger, and at last, on all the fingers excepting the middle one.

Clemens Alexandrinus has it that men wore the ring on the extremity of the little finger, so as to leave the hand more free.

According to Aulus Gellius,[77] both the Greeks and Romans wore them on the fourth finger of the left hand; and the reason he gives for it is this, that having found, from anatomy, that this finger had a little nerve that went straight to the heart, they esteemed it the most honorable by this communication with that noble part. Macrobius quotes Atteius Capito, that the right hand was exempt from this office, because it was much more used than the left, and, therefore, the precious stones of the rings were liable to be broken, and that the finger of the left hand was selected which was the least employed.

Pliny says, the Gauls and ancient Britons wore the ring on the middle finger.

At first, the Romans only used a single ring; then, one on each finger, and, at length, as we gather from Martial,[78] several on each. Afterwards, according to Aristophanes,[79] one on each joint. Their foppery at length arose to such a pitch that they had their weekly rings.

The beast Heliogabalus carried the point of using rings the farthest, for, according to Lampridius, he never wore the same ring or the same shoe twice.

Heliogabalus was a funny wretch:—he would frequently invite to his banquets eight old men blind of one eye, eight bald, eight deaf, eight lame with the gout, eight blacks, eight exceedingly thin, and eight so fat that they could scarcely enter the room, and who, when they had eaten as much as they desired, were obliged to be taken out of the apartment on the shoulders of several soldiers.

Egyptian women wore many, and sometimes two or three on one finger; but the left was considered the hand peculiarly privileged to bear these ornaments; and it is remarkable that its third was decorated with a greater number than any other and was considered by them as the ring finger.[80] This notion, as we have observed, the Grecians had.

The idea of wearing rings on the fourth finger of the left hand, because of a supposed artery there which went to the heart, was carried so far that, according to Levinus Lemnius, this finger was called Medicus; and the old physicians would stir up their medicaments and potions with it, because no venom could stick upon the very outmost part of it but it will offend a man and communicate itself to the heart.

With regard to the translation of rings from the right to the left hand, it may be pleasing to refer to that charming old work, Enquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors, by Browne:[81] he says, “That hand [the left] being lesse employed, thereby they were best preserved, and for the same reason they placed them on this finger, for the thumbe was too active a finger and is commonly imployed with either of the rest: the index or fore finger was too naked whereto to commit their pretiosities, and hath the tuition of the thumbe scarce unto the second joynt: the middle and little finger they rejected as extreams, and too big or too little for their rings; and of all chose out the fourth as being least used of any, as being guarded on either side, and having in most this peculiar condition that it cannot be extended alone and by itselfe, but will be accompanied by some finger on either side.”

As to the Egyptians deriving a nerve from the heart in the fourth finger of the left hand, the priests, from this notion, anointed the same with precious oils before the altar. And Browne, in his Vulgar Errors, says, “The Egyptians were weak anatomists, which were so good embalmers.”[82]

In the General Epistle of St. James,[83] we have this: “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?” In an illustrated edition of the New Testament, it is said, the expression “with a gold ring” might very properly be rendered, “having his fingers adorned with gold rings;” and that about the time referred to in the text, the wearing of many rings had become a fashion, at least among the master people, the Romans, from whom it was probably adopted by persons of wealth and rank in the provinces. The custom is noticed by Arrian; while Seneca, in describing the luxury and ostentation of the time, says, “We adorn our fingers with rings, and a jewel is displayed on every joint.” There is a newspaper anecdote of an eminent preacher at Norwich, in England, which shows that he had the above verse (from the Epistle of St. James) in mind when it occurred. His Reverence made a sudden pause in his sermon; the congregation were panic-struck. Having riveted their attention, he addressed himself by name to a gentleman in the gallery. “Has that poor man who stands at the back of your pew a gold ring on his finger?” The gentleman turned round, and replied, “I believe not, sir.” “Oh, then, I suppose that is the reason he must not have a seat.” The gentleman had three gold rings on his hand; and his pew was nearly empty.

Here is another anecdote of a priest, in worse taste than the last. Albert Pio, Prince of Caspi, was buried with extraordinary pomp in the Church of the Cordeliers at Paris. He had been deprived of his principality by the Duke of Ferrara, became an author, and finally a fanatic. Entering one day into one of the churches at Madrid, he presented holy water to a lady who had a very thin hand, ornamented by a most beautiful and valuable ring. He exclaimed in a loud voice as she reached the water, “Madam, I admire the ring more than the hand.” The lady instantly exclaimed, with reference to the cordon or rope with which he was decorated, “And for my part, I admire the halter more than I do the ass.” He was buried in the habit of a Cordelier; and Erasmus made a satire on the circumstance, entitled the “Seraphic Interment.”

The Hebrew women wore a number of rings upon their fingers.[84]

Hippocrates, in treating of the decency of dress to be observed by physicians, enjoins the use of rings. We have somewhere seen it suggested, that the rings thus worn by physicians might have contained aromatic water or preservative essence, in the same way as their canes were supposed to do; and hence the action of putting the heads or tops of the latter to their noses when consulting in a sick-room.

§ 15. The author deems it as well to refer to the law, in relation to rings. In common parlance, we consider precious stones to be jewels; but rings of gold will pass by that word. In the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Earl of Northumberland bequeathed by his will his jewels to his wife, and died possessed of a collar of S’s, and of a garter of gold, and of a button annexed to his bonnet, and also many other buttons of gold and precious stones annexed to his robes, and of many chains, bracelets and rings of gold and precious stones.[85] The question was, whether all these would pass by the devise under the name of jewels? It was resolved by the justices, that the garter and collar of S’s did not pass, because they were not properly jewels, but ensigns of power and state; and that the buckle of his bonnet and the button did not pass, because they were annexed to his robes, and were no jewels. But, for the other chains, bracelets and tings, they passed under the bequest of jewels.

Persons who desire to leave specific rings to friends should designate them; for, otherwise, the particular article will not pass. Thus, “I give a diamond ring,” is what is called a general legacy, which may be fulfilled by the delivery of any ring of that kind; while “I give the diamond ring presented to me by A,” is a specific legacy, which can only be satisfied by the delivery of the specified subject.[86] A legacy of £50 for a ring is but a money legacy; it fastens upon no specific ring, and carries interest like other money bequests.[87]

A family ring may become an important piece of evidence in the establishment of a pedigree; and the law admits it for that purpose: upon the presumption, as Lord Erskine has it, “that a person would not wear a ring with an error upon it.”[88]

In ancient times dying persons gave their rings to some one, declaring thereby who was their heir.[89]

§ 16. We do not find in any work on orders of knighthood, any association having direct reference to a ring; but in a volume of the Imperial Magazine there is a reference to the Order of the Ring, said to have been copied from a beautifully illuminated MS., on vellum.[90] The sovereign of the order was to wear upon the fifth finger a blue enamelled ring, set round with diamonds, with the motto, Sans changer. The matter looks fictitious, for it embraces the seeming signatures of Leonora, Belvidera, Torrismond and CÆsario.

Lorenzo the Magnificent, of the Medici family, bore a diamond ring with three feathers and the motto, Semper; and when the Medici returned to Florence, Giuliano de Medici instituted an order of merit, denominated the Order of the Diamond, alluding to the impresa, an emblem of his father. This was done to secure influence by recalling the memory of the parent. The members of it had precedence on public occasions, and it was their province to preside over festivals, triumphs and exhibitions.[91]

§ 17. Rings have been found in strange places, and under interesting circumstances. We find them upon and below the earth; within the Pyramids; beneath the ashes of Pompeii and Herculaneum; and strewed over battle-fields.[92] They have been discovered on the field of Cressy.

§ 18. In Persia, at the present day, letters are seldom written and never signed by the person who sends them; and it will thus appear that the authenticity of all orders and communications, and even of a merchant’s bills, depends wholly on an impression from his seal-ring.[93] This makes the occupation of a seal-cutter one of as much trust and danger as it seems to have been in Egypt. Such a person is obliged to keep a register of every ring-seal he makes; and if one be lost or stolen from the party for whom it was cut, his life would answer for making another exactly like it. The loss of a signet-ring is considered a serious calamity; and the alarm which an Oriental exhibits when his signet is missing, can only be understood by a reference to these circumstances, as the seal-cutter is always obliged to alter the real date at which the seal was cut. The only resource of a person who has lost his seal is to have another made with a new date, and to write to his correspondents to inform them that all accounts, contracts and communications to which his former signet is affixed are null from the day on which it was lost.

Importance has been given to signets in England. This was at a time when the schoolmaster had not made many penmen. “And how great a regard was had to seals,” says Collins, in his Baronage, “appears from these testimonies; the Charter of King Henry I. to the Abbey of Evesham, being exhibited to King Henry III. and the seal being cloven in sunder, the King forthwith caused it to be confirmed,” etc., etc.; “and in 13 Ed. III., when, by misfortune, a deed, then showed in the Chancery, was severed from the seal, in the presence of the Lord Chancellor and other noble persons, command was not only given for the affixing it again thereto, but an exemplification was made thereof under the Great Seal of England, with the recital of the premises. And the counterfeiting of another man’s seal was anciently punished with transportation, as appears from this record in the reign of King John,” etc., etc. “It is also as remarkable that in 9 H. III. c. c. marks damages were recovered by Sir Ralph de Crophall, Knight, against Henry de Grendon and William de Grendon for forcibly breaking a seal from a deed. Also so tender was every man in those times of his seal, that if he had accidentally lost it, care was taken to publish the same, lest another might make use of it to his detriment, as is manifested in the case of Benedict de Hogham,” etc. “Also not much unlike to this is that of Henry de Perpount, a person of great quality, (ancestor of his Grace the Duke of Kingston,) who, on Monday, in the Octaves of St. Michael, 8 Ed. I., came into the Chancery at Lincoln and publicly declared, that he missed his seal; and protested, that if any instrument should be signed with that seal, for the time to come, it should be of no value or effect. Nor is that publication made by John de Greseley of Drakelow, in Com. Derb. 18 R. II., upon the loss of his seal, less considerable,” etc., etc.[94]

§ 19. We are aware of the value of many modern rings, arising from their being used as mere frames for jewels. And ancient ones, from the same fact or from having exquisite engraving upon them, were also highly prized. Nonius,[95] a senator, is said to have been proscribed by Anthony for the sake of a gem in a ring, worth twenty thousand sesterces.

The “Roving Englishman”[96] informs us, that the Pasha wears on his right-hand little finger, a diamond ring which once belonged to the Dey of Algiers, and cost a thousand pounds sterling.

§ 20. An English work, of but little note, professes to make out “Love’s Telegraph,” as understood in America, thus:—If a gentleman wants a wife, he wears a ring on the first finger of the left hand; if he is engaged, he wears it on the second finger; if married, on the third; and on the fourth if he never intends to be married. When a lady is not engaged, she wears a hoop or diamond on her first finger; if engaged, on the second; if married, on the third; and on the fourth if she intends to die a maid.[97]

Many of our readers are aware that there are name-rings, in which the first letter attaching to each jewel employed will make a loved one’s name or a sentiment. In the formation of English rings of this kind, the terms Regard and Dearest are common. Thus illustrated:—R(uby) E(merald) G(arnet) A(methyst) R(uby) D(iamond).—D(iamond) E(merald) A(methyst) R(uby) E(merald) S(apphire) T(opaz). It is believed that this pretty notion originated (as many pretty notions do) with the French. The words which the latter generally play with, in a combination of gems, are Souvenir and AmitiÉ, thus: S(aphir or Sardoine) O(nix or Opale) U(raine) V(ermeille) E(meraude) N(atralithe) I(ris) R(ubis or Rose diamant).—A(mÉthiste or Aigue-marine) M(alachite) I(ris) T(urquoise or Topaze) I(ris) E(meraude).

Here are the alphabetical French names of precious stones:[98]

Kobell says,[99] “In name-rings, in which a name is indicated by the initial letter of different gems, the emerald is mostly used under its English and French name (Emeraude) to stand for e, which would otherwise not be represented. (The German name is Smaragd.) While on this point, it may be mentioned that a difficulty occurs with u, but recent times have furnished a name which may assist, namely, a green garnet, containing chrome, from Siberia, which has been baptized after the Russian Minister Uwarrow, and called Uwarrovite.”

The Poles have a fanciful belief that each month of the year is under the influence of a precious stone, which influence has a corresponding effect on the destiny of a person born during the respective month. Consequently it is customary among friends and lovers, on birth-days, to make reciprocal presents of trinkets ornamented with the natal stones. The stones and their influences, corresponding with each month, are supposed to be as follows:

Modern jewellers are known to palm off imitations of gems; and so did sellers of trinkets in ancient times. The moderns only run the chance of a loss of custom; but the latter were well off if they got no greater fright than the jeweller who sold to the wife of Gallienus a ring with a piece of glass in it. Gallienus ordered the cheat to be placed in the circus, as though he were to be exposed to the ferocity of a lion. While the miserable jeweller trembled at the expectation of instant death, the executioner, by order of the emperor, let loose a capon upon him. An uncommon laugh was raised at this; and the emperor observed that he who had deceived others should expect to be deceived himself.

A ring often figures in the old English ballads. Thus, in Child Noryce, the hero of it invites Lady Barnard to the merry greenwood:

§ 21. A ring, as an heraldic figure, is found in coats of arms throughout every kingdom in Europe. In Heraldry, it is called an annulet. We find the ring “gemmed” borne in the arms of the Montgomeries, who hold the Earldom of Eglinton; and one of whom figures in the ballad of Chevy Chase:

A father and son of this family were opposed to each other in the battle of Marston Moor. The father, from his bearing, had the popular appellation of Gray Steel. We find the amulet borne in the coats of arms of several of the peers and gentlemen of England.

Louis IX. of France, St. Louis, took for his device a marguerite or daisy and fleur-de-lis, in allusion to the name of Queen Marguerite his wife and the arms of France, which were also his own.[100] He had a ring made with a relief around it in enamel, which represented a garland of marguerites and fleurs-de-lis. One was engraven on a sapphire with these words, “This ring contains all we love.” Thus, it has been said, did this excellent prince show his people that he loved nothing but Religion, France and his wife. It is a question, however, whether the emblem on the escutcheon of the kings of France is really a fleur-de-lis. Some think it was originally a toad, which formed the crest of the helmet worn by Pharamond; and others, the golden bees which were discovered in the tomb of Childeric at Tournay in 1653.[101] The story is that Clovis, after baptism, received a fleur-de-lis from an angel. Since then France has been called “the empire of lilies.” The coat of arms of Clovis and his successors was a field of azure, seeded with golden fleurs-de-lis.

§ 22. The story of losing rings and finding them in fish, is as old as Pliny, and we shall have to mention Solomon’s ring, which, it is said, was found in one. We have an English statement[102] of a Mrs. Todd, of Deptford, who, in going in a boat to Whitstable, endeavored to prove that no person need be poor who was willing to be otherwise; and, being excited with her argument, she took off her gold ring and throwing it into the sea, said, “It was as much impossible for any person to be poor, who had an inclination to be otherwise, as for her ever to see that ring again.” The second day after this, and when she had landed, she bought some mackerel, which the servant commenced to dress for dinner, whereupon there was found a gold ring in one. The servant ran to show it to her mistress, and the ring proved to be that which she had thrown away.

We are told in Brand’s “History of Newcastle,” that a gentleman of that city, in the middle of the seventeenth century, dropped a ring from his hand over the bridge into the river Tyne. Years passed on; he had lost all hopes of recovering the ring, when one day his wife bought a fish in the market, and in the stomach of that fish was the identical jewel which had been lost! From the pains taken to commemorate this event, it would appear to be true; it was merely an occurrence possible, but extremely unlikely to have occurred.

We are inclined to add in this section a circumstance connected with a ring as it appeared in a respectable English periodical. Fact, here, beats fiction:

“Many years ago a lady sent her servant, a young man about twenty years of age, and a native of that part of the country where his mistress resided, to the neighboring town with a ring, which required some alteration, to be delivered into the hands of a jeweller. The young man went the shortest way across the fields; and coming to a little wooden bridge that crossed a small stream, he leant against the rail, and took the ring out of its case to look at it. While doing so, it slipped out of his hand, and fell into the water. In vain he searched for it, even till it grew dark. He thought it fell into the hollow of a stump of a tree under water, but he could not find it. The time taken in the search was so long, that he feared to return and tell his story, thinking it incredible, and that he should be even suspected of having gone into evil company and gamed it away or sold it. In this fear he determined never to return—left wages and clothes, and fairly ran away. This seemingly great misfortune was the making of him. His intermediate history I know not; but this, that after many years’ absence, either in the East or West Indies, he returned with a very considerable fortune. He now wished to clear himself with his old mistress; ascertained that she was living; purchased a diamond ring of considerable value, which he determined to present in person, and clear his character, by telling his tale, to which the credit of his present position might testify. He took the coach to the town of——, and from thence set out to walk the distance of a few miles. He found, I should tell you, on alighting, a gentleman who resided in the neighborhood, who was bound for the adjacent village. They walked together, and in conversation, this former servant, now a gentleman, with graceful manners and agreeable address, communicated the circumstance that made him leave the country abruptly many years before. As he was telling this, they came to the very wooden bridge. ‘There,’ said he; ‘it was just here that I dropped the ring; and there is the very bit of old tree into a hole of which it fell—just there.’ At the same time he put down the point of his umbrella into the hole of the knot in the tree, and drawing it up, to the astonishment of both, found the very ring on the ferrule of the umbrella.”

Here also was an occurrence against which one would have previously said the chances were as one to infinity. It was a circumstance which we see to be most unlikely, yet must acknowledge to be possible, and, when well authenticated, to be true.

In the year 1765, a codfish was sold, and in its stomach was a gold ring. It had remained there so long that the inscription was worn off, although the scrolls in which it had been written remained entire.[103] Codfish, like sharks, swallow any thing, whether fresh or salted, bits of wood, red cloth, and even a whole book has been found in one. We are not aware, however, that a cod has turned “State’s evidence,” as it is said a shark did. A shark had swallowed a log-book, thrown overboard to him by a pirate; and afterwards repenting, took the first hook that offered, and thus turned State’s evidence—so as to hang the villain by the revelation of the document.[104]

§ 23. Poetical riddles are but a low species of verse, and yet the best of poets have made them. We find a neat one on a ring, which, in riddle-phrase, has been said to “unite two people together and touch only one.” It runs thus: