0735
0735f
The History and Poetry of Finger-rings
THE
HISTORY AND POETRY
OF
FINGER-RINGS
BY
CHARLES EDWARDS
COUNSELLOR AT LAW, NEW YORK
“----My ring I hold dear as my finger; ’tis part of it.”
SHAKSPEARE
_WITH A PREFACE BY R. H. STODDARD._
NEW YORK
JOHN W. LOVELL COMPANY
150 WORTH STREET, CORNER MISSION PLACE
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by
CHARLES EDWARDS,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New-York.
PREFACE.
The history of finger-rings is more abundant than the poetry, which
is chiefly connected with the ceremonies and observances in which
they figure. What this history is Mr. Edwards has indicated in the
gossipy pages which follow, and which contain a world of curious
information. Interesting in themselves, they are valuable for their
references, which enable the reader to verify the statements of Mr.
Edwards, and to pursue his line of study farther than he has chosen
to do. He will find many particulars in regard to rings of all sorts,
among the different people by whom they have been worn, in ancient
and modern times, and of the important part they have played in the
history of the world. He will also find many allusions to them in the
poets, but not so many poems of which they were the inspiration as
he might have expected, for the simple reason that such poems do not
exist.
“The small orbit of the wedding-ring,”
as a nameless old poet satirically calls it, has seldom proved large
enough for genius to revolve in. Mr. Edwards quotes but one marriage
poem,
“Thee, Mary, with this ring I wed,”
which he fails to trace to its author, the Rev. Samuel Bishop, who
has written nothing else that is worth remembering. I am happy to
restore it to him, and to quote a second poem, which is rather more
elegant and less familiar, and which is put down to the credit of
William Pattison, of whom I know nothing. I take it from Dr. Palmer’s
“Poetry of Courtship and Compliment” (1868), an admirable collection
of amorous verse.
TO HER RING.
Blest ornament! how happy is thy snare,
To bind the snowy finger of my fair!
O, could I learn thy nice concise art,
Now, as thou bind’st her fingers, bind her heart.
Not Eastern diadems like thee can shine,
Fed from her brighter eyes with beams divine;
Nor can their mightiest monarch’s power command
So large an empire as my charmer’s hand.
O, could thy form thy fond admirer wear,
Thy very likeness should in all appear;
My endless love thy endless love should show,
And my heart flaming, for thy diamond glow.
R. H. S.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER ONE.
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. 9
CHAPTER TWO.
RINGS CONNECTED WITH POWER.
1. The Ring an Emblem of Power; Pharaoh; Quintus Curtius; Antiochus
Epiphanes; Augustus; King of Persia; Egypt under the Ptolemies;
Roman Senators; the Forefinger. 2. Rings used in Coronations;
Edward the Second; Mother of Henry VIII.; Queen Elizabeth; Charles
II.; Coronation Rings; Canute; Sebert; Henry II.; Childeric;
Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror. 3. King withdrawing a
Proceeding from the Council by the use of a Ring. 4. The Doge of
Venice marrying the Adriatic. 5. The Ring of Office of the Doge. 6.
_The Fisherman’s Ring._ 7. Papal Ring of Pius II. 8. Investiture
of Archbishops and Bishops by delivery of a Ring; Cardinal’s Ring;
Extension of the two Forefingers and Thumb. 9. Serjeant’s Ring. 10.
Arabian Princesses. 11. Roman Knights. 12. Alderman’s Thumb Ring. 65
CHAPTER THREE.
RINGS HAVING SUPPOSED CHARMS OR VIRTUES, AND CONNECTED WITH
DEGRADATION AND SLAVERY, OR USED FOR SAD OR WICKED PURPOSES.
1. Antiquity of Amulets and Enchanted and Magical Rings;
Samothracian Rings; Double Object in Amulets; Substance and Form
of them. 2. Precious Stones and their Healing or Protective
Powers: Jasper; Diamond; Ruby; Carbuncle; Jacinth; Amethyst;
Emerald; Topaz; Agate; Sapphire; Opal; Cornelian; Chalcedony;
Turquoise; Coral; Loadstone; Sweating Stones. 3. Enchanted Rings;
those possessed by Execustus; Solomon’s Ring; Ballads of Lambert
Linkin and Hynd Horn. 4. Talismanic Ring; Elizabeth of Poland;
Ring against Poison offered to Mary of Scotland; Rings from the
Palace at Eltham and from Coventry; Sir Edmund Shaw; Shell Ring.
5. Medicinal Rings. 6. Magical Rings; Ariosto; Ring of Gyges; Sir
Tristram; Cramp Rings; Rings to cure Convulsions, Warts, Wounds,
Fits, Falling Sickness, etc.; Galvanic Rings; Headache and Plague
Rings; Amulet against Storms. 7. Ordeal. 8. Punishment in time of
Alfred. 9. Founding of Aix-la-Chapelle. 10. Ring on a Statue. 11.
Bloody Baker. 12. The Borgia Ring. 13. Rings held in the Mouth. 14.
Rings used by Thieves, Gamblers and Cheats. 15. Roman Slave. 93
CHAPTER FOUR.
RINGS COUPLED WITH REMARKABLE HISTORICAL CHARACTERS OR
CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Ring of Suphis; Pharaoh’s Ring given to Joseph. 2. Rings of
Hannibal; Mithridates; Pompey; Cæsar; Augustus and Nero. 3. Cameo.
4. Ethelwoulf; Madoc; Edward the Confessor; King John; Lord L’Isle;
Richard Bertie and his Son Lord Willoughby; Great Earl of Cork;
Shakspeare’s Signet-Ring; The Ring Queen Elizabeth gave to Essex;
Ring of Mary of Scotland and one sent by her to Elizabeth; Darnley;
The Blue Ring; Duke of Dorset’s Ring in the Isle of Wight supposed
to have belonged to Charles the First, and Memorial Rings of this
Monarch; Earl of Derby; Charles the Second; Jeffrey’s Blood-Stone;
The great Dundee; Nelson; Scotch Coronation Ring; The Admirable
Crichton; Sir Isaac Newton; Kean; Wedding Ring of Byron’s Mother.
5. Matrons of Warsaw. 6. The Prussian Maiden. 148
CHAPTER FIVE.
RINGS OF LOVE, AFFECTION AND FRIENDSHIP.
1. The Gimmal or Gimmow Ring. 2. Sonnet by Davison. 3. Church
Marriage ordained by Innocent III.; and, Marriage-Ring. 4. Rings
used in different countries in Marriages and on Betrothment:
Esthonia; the Copts; Persia; Spain; Ackmetchet in Russia. 5.
Betrothal Rings. 6. Signets of the first Christians. 7. Laws of
Marriage. 8. Wedding Finger; Artery to the Heart; Lady who had lost
the Ring Finger. 9. Roman Catholic Marriages. 10. Marriage-Ring
during the Commonwealth. 11. Ring in Jewish Marriages. 12.
Superstitions. 13. Rings of twisted Gold-wire given away at
Weddings. 14. Cupid and Psyche. 15. St. Anne and St. Joachim.
16. Rush Rings. 17. Rings with the Orpine Plant. 18. Ancient
Marriage-Rings had Mottoes and Seals. 19. The Sessa Ring. 20. Rings
bequeathed or kept in Memory of the Dead: Washington; Shakspeare;
Pope; Dr. Johnson; Lord Eldon; Tom Moore’s Mother. 21. The Ship
_Powhattan_. 22. Ring of Affection illustrated by a Pelican and
Young. 23. Bran of Brittany. 24. Rings used by Writers of Fiction;
Shakspeare’s Cymbeline. 25. Small Rings for the _Penates_; Lines
to a Wife with the gift of a Ring. 26. Story from the “Gesta
Romanorum.” 192
HISTORY AND POETRY
OF
FINGER-RINGS.
CHAPTER ONE.
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]
[Illustration: Egyptian Ring-money.]
[Illustration: 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.)
[Illustration: (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]
[Illustration: (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]
[Illustration: (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 sculpturâ 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.
[Illustration: (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.
[Illustration: (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]
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.”
[Illustration: (Isis and Serapis Ring)]
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.”
[Illustration: (Romano-Egyptian Isis and Serapis Ring)]
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.
[Illustration: No. 1. No. 2.]
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.
[Illustration: (Abruzzi Ring)]
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.
[Illustration: (ZHCAIC Ring)]
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.
[Illustration: (Snake Ring)]
[Illustration: (Buckle Ring)]
[Illustration: (Buckle Ring Laid Flat)]
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.”
[Illustration: (Christian Ring and Impression)]
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 ΧΑΙΡΩ, _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 Χ. and Ρ. As commonly found on monuments in
the catacombs of Rome, it has a single cross with the Ρ. 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]
[Illustration: (Irish Diamond Ring Two Views)]
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.”
[Illustration: (Frank Pierce Ring)]
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.
[Illustration: (President Franklin Pierce Ring)]
“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
_S_ardoine) O(_nix_ or _O_pale) U(_raine_) V(_ermeille_) E(_meraude_)
N(_atralithe_) I(_ris_) R(_ubis_ or _R_ose diamant).--A(_méthiste_
or _A_igue-marine) M(_alachite_) I(_ris_) T(_urquoise_ or _T_opaze)
I(_ris_) E(_meraude_).
Here are the alphabetical French names of precious stones:[98]
A. Améthiste. Aigue-marine.
B. Brilliant. Diamant, désigniant la même pierre.
C. Chrisolithe. Carnaline. Chrisophrase.
D. Diamant.
E. Emeraude.
F. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
G. Grenat.
H. Hiacinthe.
I. Iris.
J. Jasper.
K. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
L. Lapis lazuli.
M. Malachite.
N. Natralithe.
O. Onix. Opale.
P. Perle. Peridot. Purpurine.
Q. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
R. Rubis. Rose diamant.
S. Saphir. Sardoine.
T. Turquoise. Topaze.
U. Uraine.
V. Vermeille (_espèce de grenat jaune_).
X. Xépherine.
Y. Z. (_Pas de nous connus._)
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:
January--Garnet. Constancy and Fidelity.
February--Amethyst. Sincerity.
March--Bloodstone. Courage, presence of mind.
April--Diamond. Innocence.
May--Emerald. Success in love.
June--Agate. Health and long life.
July--Cornelian. Contented mind.
August--Sardonyx. Conjugal felicity.
September--Chrysolite. Antidote against madness.
October--Opal. Hope.
November--Topaz. Fidelity.
December--Turquoise. Prosperity.
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:
“Here is a ring, a ring, he says,
It’s all gold but the stane;
You may tell her to come to the merry greenwood,
And ask the leave o’ nane.”
§ 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:
“Against Sir Hugh Montgomerie
So right his shaft he set,
The gray-goose-wing that was therein
In his heart blood was wet.”
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:
“Though small of body, it contains
The extremes of pleasure and of pains;
Has no beginning, nor no end;
More hollow than the falsest friend.
If it entraps some headless zany,
Or, in its magic circle, any
Have entered, from its sorcery
No power on earth can set them free.
At least, all human force is vain,
Or less than many hundred men.
Though endless, yet not short, nor long;
And what though it’s so wondrous strong,
The veriest child, that’s pleased to try,
Might carry fifty such as I.”
George Herbert--“Holy Mr. Herbert,” as Isaac Walton calls him--has
an enigma in which a ring appears. We must confess our inability to
solve it, and leave readers to do so. It is entitled--
“HOPE.
“I gave to Hope a watch of mine; but he
An anchor gave to me.
Then an old prayer-book I did present,
And he an optic sent.
With that, I gave a phial full of tears;
But he a few green ears.
Ah, loiterer! I’ll no more, no more I’ll bring:
I did expect a ring.”
§ 24. Rings are sometimes misapplied. In the church of Loretto is
the house in which some Catholics say the Virgin mother of Jesus was
born, it having occupied a lane in Nazareth where Christ resided,
and which, after a long flight of years, was transported by angels
to Loretto. It must, as it stood in Nazareth, have resembled a mud
cabin. Within it is a miraculous statue of the Virgin and child, in
cedar wood. “The Bambino,” says an authoress, “holds up his hand, as
if to sport a superb diamond ring on his finger, presented to him
by Cardinal Antonelli; it is a single diamond, and weighs thirty
grains.”[105]
§ 25. The scenes through which many rings are carried must be as
remarkable as those exhibited in “The Adventures of a Guinea,” or
“of a Feather.” “My Lady Rochford,” writes Horace Walpole, “desired
me t’other day to give her a motto for a ruby ring, which had been
given by a handsome woman of quality to a fine man; he gave it to
his mistress, she to Lord *****, he to my Lady; who, I think, does
not deny that it has not yet finished its travels. I excused myself
for some time, on the difficulty of reducing such a history to a
poesy--at last I proposed this:
‘This was given by woman to man and by man to woman.’”[106]
* * * * *
It may be well for the author to so far take the part of a jeweller,
as to sort his Rings before he exhibits them.
We propose to speak of:
1.--_Rings connected with power._
2.--_Rings having supposed charms and virtues, or connected with
degradation and slavery, or used for sad and wicked purposes._
3.--_Rings coupled with remarkable historical characters or
circumstances._
4.--_Rings of love, affection and friendship._
CHAPTER TWO.
RINGS CONNECTED WITH POWER.
1. The Ring an Emblem of Power; Pharaoh; Quintus Curtius; Antiochus
Epiphanes, Augustus; King of Persia, Egypt under the Ptolemies;
Roman Senators; the Forefinger. 2. Rings used in Coronations;
Edward the Second, Mother of Henry VIII.; Queen Elizabeth; Charles
II.; Coronation Rings, Canute; Sebert; Henry II.; Childeric;
Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror. 3. King withdrawing a
Proceeding from the Council by the use of a Ring. 4. The Doge of
Venice marrying the Adriatic. 5. The Ring of Office of the Doge. 6.
_The Fisherman’s Ring._ 7. Papal Ring of Pius II. 8. Investiture of
Archbishops and Bishops, by delivery of a Ring; Cardinal’s Ring;
Extension of the two Forefingers and Thumb. 9. Serjeant’s Ring. 10.
Arabian Princesses. 11. Roman Knights. 12. Alderman’s Thumb Ring.
§ 1. From the most ancient times, a ring has been an emblem of power.
Pharaoh put his ring upon Joseph’s hand, as a mark of the power he
gave him; and the people cried, “Bow the knee.”[107]
Quintus Curtius tells us that Alexander the Great sealed the letters
he wrote into Europe with his own ring seal, and those in Asia with
Darius’s ring; and that when Alexander gave his ring to Perdiccas, it
was understood as nominating him his successor.
When Antiochus Epiphanes was at the point of death, he committed to
Philip, one of his friends, his diadems, royal cloak and ring, that
he might give them to his successor, young Antiochus.[108]
Augustus, being very ill of a distemper which he thought mortal, gave
his ring to Agrippa, as to a friend of the greatest integrity.
The ring given by Pharaoh to Joseph was, undoubtedly, a signet or
seal-ring, and gave authority to the documents to which it was
affixed; and by the delivery of it, therefore, Pharaoh delegated to
Joseph the chief authority in the state.[109] The king of Persia, in
the same way, gave his seal-ring to his successive ministers, Haman
and Mordecai; and in the book of Esther,[110] the use of such a ring
is expressly declared: “The writing which is written in the king’s
name, and sealed with the king’s seal, may no man reverse.”
That ministers or lords under the king had their rings of office,
is also apparent from what occurred with the closing of the den of
lions: “And 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; that the purpose might not be changed concerning
Daniel.”[111]
In Egypt, under the Ptolemies, the king’s ring was the badge under
which the country was governed. It seemed to answer to the great
seal of England.[112] We read that Sosibius, minister under Ptolemy
Philopater, was forced, by popular clamor, to give up the king’s
signet ring to another. Here was a going out of a Lord John Russell,
and a coming in of a Lord Palmerston.
At first, Roman Senators were not allowed to wear gold rings, unless
they had been ambassadors; but, at length, the Senators and Knights
were allowed the use of them; although Acron in Horace observes they
could not do it unless it were given them by the Prætor.[113] The
people wore silver rings.
Inhabitants of the eastern world do not sign their names. They
have ring-seals, in which name and title are engraven, and they
make an impression with thick ink where we make our signature. To
give a person, then, your seal-ring, is to give him the use of an
authority and power which your own signature possesses. This explains
the extraordinary anxiety about seals, as exhibited in the laws
and usages of the East, and to which we have referred in a former
chapter. It also illustrates Judah’s anxiety about the signet which
he had pledged to Tamar.
In ancient times, the forefinger was emblematical of power. Among
the Hebrews, “the finger of God” denoted his power; and it was the
forefinger among the gods of Greece and Italy which wore the ring,
the emblem of supremacy.[114]
§ 2. Rings are used in coronations. The English public records,
as now extant in the Tower of London, contain no mention of any
coronation proceedings before the reign of Edward the Second. The
accounts of the forms observed with reference to that king being
crowned, as also of Richard the Second, are the two most ancient
from which the minutes of those matters can be collected on official
authority.[115] However, there is enough of Saxon times left to
show that the Anglo-Saxon kings used a ring in their coronation
ceremonies.[116]
In a curious old manuscript relating to the Ancient Form of the
Coronation of the Kings and Queens of England, we have this: “After
the king is thus arrayed, then let the crown be placed upon the
king’s head by the Archbishop, and afterwards let a ring be put upon
the king’s hand by the Bishop.”
In Leland’s _Collectanea_ is a circumstantial account of the
coronation of the mother of Henry the Eighth. In describing the
ceremonies made use of by the Archbishop: “He next blest her ring and
sprinkled on it holy water.”
In the ceremony of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, she was wedded
to the kingdom with a ring, which she always wore, till the flesh
growing over it, it was filed off a little before her decease.[117]
On the restoration of Charles the Second of England, measures
were adopted to repair, as much as possible, the loss of the
ancient regalia of the crown taken from their depository, the
Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster, and broken up and sold by the
Parliamentarians.[118] The new regalia was constructed by Sir Robert
Vyner, the king’s goldsmith. The cost of it was £21,978 9s. 11d.
In an account of the coronation of Charles II. of England,[119] we
have the following, which comes after a description of the robing
and crowning: “Then the master of the jewel house delivered to the
Archbishop the ring, who consecrated it after this manner, saying:
‘Bless, O Lord, and sanctify this ring, that thy servant, wearing
it, may be sealed with the ring of faith and, by the power of the
Highest, be preserved from sin; and let all the blessings, which
are found in Holy Scripture, plentifully descend upon him, that
whatsoever he shall sanctify may be holy; and whomsoever he blesseth
may be blessed. Amen.’ After which he put it upon the fourth finger
of the king’s right hand, and said: ‘Receive this ring of kingly
dignity, and by it the seal of Catholic Faith, that as this day
thou art adorned the head and prince of this kingdom and people, so
thou mayest persevere as the author and establisher of Christianity
and the Christian faith; that being rich in faith and happy in
works, thou mayest reign with Him that is King of kings; to whom be
honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.’” Think of this imposing
ceremony; and then remember the after life and the death of that
royal libertine. Better for his country had he never known a British
oak for safety. The living tree was dishonored when its foliage
shaded him. What can be said in favor of one who squandered on his
mistresses seventy thousand pounds sterling, which had been voted by
Parliament for a monument to his father? And also to think of the
joking excuse, that his father’s grave was unknown!
In an explanation of what are called the sacred and royal habits and
other ornaments wherewith monarchs of England are invested on the
day of coronation, we have a description of the king’s and queen’s
coronation rings. The king’s is a plain gold ring, with a large
table ruby violet, wherein a plain cross or cross of St. George is
curiously enchased. The queen’s coronation ring is likewise gold,
with a large table ruby set therein and sixteen other small rubies
round about the ring, whereof those next to the collet are the
largest, the rest diminishing proportionally.
In the account of Ancient Regalia which were destroyed and dissipated
in the time of the Commonwealth in England, there is no mention of a
ring.
In the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty-six, some workmen
discovered a monument while repairing Winchester Cathedral, in
England.[120] It contained the body of King Canute, and was
remarkably fresh. There was a wreath around the head, several
ornaments of gold and also silver bands; upon a finger was a ring, in
which was set a large and remarkably fine stone; while in one of the
hands was a silver penny. This silver penny was not for “the ferryman
that poets write of,” as was the piece of money in the mouths of the
Roman knights whose passing-away bodies we have before referred to;
but, although it may have been for Peter and not Charon, is it not
probable that we find here a custom of Christian times springing out
of heathen root? A statue of Jupiter has been turned into a Christ;
and that which the Roman used for the boatman of Styx, is here meant
for one who had the key of heaven.
While Henry the Second, of England, was rebuilding Westminster Abbey,
the sepulchre of Sebert, king of the East Angles, was opened.[121]
The body was dressed in royal robes, and there was a thumb-ring, in
which was set a ruby of great value.
Horace Walpole, having reference to the opening of this monarch’s
tomb, complains, like an antiquary, of the reburying the king’s
regalia. “They might, at least, have cut out the portraits and
removed the tomb [of King Sebert] to a conspicuous situation; but
though this age is grown so antiquarian, it has not gained a grain
more of sense in that walk--witness, as you instance, in Mr. Grose’s
Legends, and in the dean and chapter reburying the crown, robes and
sceptre of Edward I. There would surely have been as much piety
in preserving them in their treasury, as in consigning them again
to decay. I did not know that the salvation of robes and crowns
depended on receiving Christian burial. At the same time, the chapter
transgresses that prince’s will, like all their antecessors, for he
ordered his tomb to be opened every year or two years, and receive a
new cere-cloth or pall; but they boast now of having inclosed him so
substantially that his ashes cannot be violated again.”[122]
When the tomb of Henry the Second, of England, was opened, it
appeared that he was buried wearing a crown and royal robes,
with other paraphernalia, while there was a great ring upon his
finger.[123]
Richard the Second, of England, by his will directed that he should
be buried in velvet or white satin, etc., and that, according to
royal usage, a ring, with a precious stone in it, should be put upon
his finger.
The body of Childeric, the first king of the Franks,[124] was
discovered at Tours. It was found in royal robes, and, with other
regalia, a coronation ring.
In the year one thousand five hundred and sixty-two, the Calvinists
broke open the tomb of Matilda, wife to William the Conqueror, in the
Abbey of Caen; and discovered her body dressed in robes of state and
a gold ring, set with a sapphire, upon one of her fingers. The ring
was given to the then abbess, who presented it to her father, the
Baron de Conti, constable of France, when he attended Charles IX. to
Caen in 1563.
§ 3. In the time of Henry VIII. of England, the king’s ring was
used to withdraw from the Council the power to adjudge a matter and
to place it entirely in the hands of the monarch. We refer to the
complaints against Cranmer, which are made use of by Shakspeare,[125]
who has very closely followed Fox, in his Book of Martyrs.[126] The
king sends for Cranmer, and follows up his discourse thus: “Do you
not consider what an easy thing it is to procure three or four false
knaves to witness against you? Think you to have better luck that
way than your master Christ had? I see by it you will run headlong
to your undoing, if I would suffer you. Your enemies shall not so
prevail against you, for I have otherwise devised with myself to
keep you out of their hands. Yet, notwithstanding, to-morrow when
the council shall sit and send for you, resort unto them, and if,
in charging you with this matter, they do commit you to the Tower,
require of them, because you are one of them, a counsellor, that
you may have your accusers brought before them without any further
indurance, and use for yourself as good persuasions that way as you
may devise; and if no entreaty or reasonable request will serve, then
deliver unto them this my ring, (which, then, the king delivered
unto the Archbishop,) and say unto them, ‘If there be no remedy,
my lords, but that I must needs go to the Tower, then I revoke my
cause from you and appeal to the king’s own person by this token
unto you all;’ for, (said the king then unto the Archbishop,) ‘so
soon as they shall see this my ring, they know it so well that they
shall understand that I have reserved the whole cause into mine own
hands and determination, and that I have discharged them thereof.’
Anon the Archbishop was called into the council chamber, to whom was
alleged as before is rehearsed. The Archbishop answered in like sort
as the king had advised him; and in the end, when he perceived that
no manner of persuasion or entreaty could serve, he delivered them
the king’s ring, revoking his cause into the king’s hands. The whole
council being thereat somewhat amazed, the Earl of Bedford, with a
loud voice, confirming his words with a solemn oath, said, ‘When you
first began the matter, my lords, I told you what would become of it.
Do you think that the king would suffer this man’s finger to ache?
Much more (I warrant you) will he defend his life against brabbling
varlets. You do but cumber yourselves to hear tales and fables
against him.’ And incontinently upon the receipt of the king’s token,
they all rose and carried to the king his ring, surrendering that
matter, as the order and use was, into his own hands.”
§ 4. The stranger in Venice is yet shown the richly gilt galley,
called _Bucentaur_, in which the Doge, from the year 1311, was
accustomed to go out into the sea annually on Ascension Day, to throw
a ring into the water, and thus to marry, as it were, the Adriatic,
as a sign of the power of Venice over that sea.[127] This ceremony
does not go into remote antiquity, yet the origin of it is of
considerable date. In the year 1177, when the Emperor Barbarossa went
to humble himself before the Pope, who had taken refuge in Venice,
the Pope, in testimony of the kindness he had there received, gave to
the Doge a ring, and with it a right for the Venetians to call the
Adriatic sea their own. He bade the Doge cast it into the sea, to
wed it, as a man marries his wife; and he enjoined the citizens, by
renewing this ceremony every year, to claim a dominion which they had
won by their valor; for they had, with a small squadron, defeated a
large fleet of the Emperor’s and taken his son prisoner; and it was
to regain his son that the Emperor submitted himself to the Pope.
The ceremony took place on Ascension Day. The Doge, the senators,
foreign ambassadors and great numbers of the nobility, in their black
robes, walked to the sea-side, where the magnificent vessel, the
Bucentoro, was waiting to receive them. They then proceeded about
two miles up the Laguna, and when arrived at a certain place, they
all stopped. The Doge then rose from his chair of state, went to the
side of the vessel and threw a gold ring into the sea, repeating the
following words: “We espouse thee, O sea! as a token of our perpetual
dominion over thee.” At the close of this part of the ceremony, all
the galleys fired their guns; and the music continued to play. On
their voyage back, they stopped at a small island, where they went to
church, and high mass was there celebrated. They then returned in the
same order they at first set out.[128]
This cry of perpetual dominion over the sea, puts us in mind
of the story of Canute; and knowing the present prostrate and
decaying condition of Venice, truly may we say: “How are the mighty
fallen.” One of our frigates would make the whole maritime power of
Venice tremble like the ring as it went through the waters. This
ceremony was intermitted in the year one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-seven.[129]
§ 5. The Doge of Venice had a ring of office. We find it figuring in
the acts through which the Doge Foscari had to move. A noble creature
was this Foscari. No Brutus ever behaved with the awful dignity which
was apparent in Foscari at the period of his son’s torture in his
presence.[130]
When the Council of Ten demanded of him
“The resignation of the Ducal ring,
Which he had worn so long and venerably,”
he laid aside the Ducal bonnet and robes; surrendered his ring of
office, and cried out:
“There’s the Ducal ring,
And there the Ducal diadem. And so,
The Adriatic’s free to wed another.”
The ring was broken in his presence, and as nobly as the old Doge had
borne himself, whether when strangers were before him, or when his
son was tortured in his presence, (as an awful punishment for the
yearning of a young heart for childhood’s home,) so did this great
Venetian still act. He refused to leave the Ducal palace by a private
way. He would descend, he said, by no other than the same giant
stairs which he had mounted thirty years before. Supported by his
brother, he slowly traversed them. At their foot, leaning upon his
staff, for years of age were upon him, he turned towards the palace,
and accompanied a last look with these parting words: “My _services_
established me within your walls; it is _the malice of my enemies_
which tears me from them.” The bells of the Campanile told of his
successor. He suppressed all outward emotion, but a blood-vessel was
ruptured in the exertion and he died in a few hours.
§ 6. A Pope wears a ring of gold with a costly emerald or other
precious gem set in it.
The decrees of the Romish Court consist of bulls and briefs. The
latter are issued on less important occasions than the former. Briefs
are written upon fine white parchment, with Latin letters; and the
seal is what is called “The Fisherman’s Ring.” It is a steel seal,
made in the fashion of a Roman signet, (_signatorius annulus_.) When
a brief is written to any distinguished personage, or has relation
to religious or general important matter, the impression from the
Fisherman’s Ring is said to be made upon a gold surface; in some
other cases it appears upon lead; and these seals are generally
attached by strings of silk. Impressions of this seal are also made
in ink, direct upon the substance on which the brief is written.
The author has obtained a sight of an impression of the Fisherman’s
Ring, attached to a bull or brief in the archives of the Catholic
bishopric of New-York, and liberty to copy it for publication.[131]
The impression is in ink upon vellum or fine parchment, at the left
hand of the extreme lower corner, balancing the signature at the
other (lower) corner. We are not aware that a sketch has ever before
been made public.
[Illustration: (Fisherman’s Ring)]
A “Fisherman’s Ring” was used at a very early period; and no doubt
the original device has been renewed. The reader will observe the
antique form of the prow of the boat and oar, as well as the singular
flying drapery attached to the head of the figure.
When a pope dies, the cardinal chamberlain or chancellor
(_camerlengo_), accompanied by a large number of the high dignitaries
of the Papal Court, comes into the room where the body lies; and the
principal or great notary makes an attestation of the circumstance.
Then the cardinal chamberlain calls out the name of the deceased pope
three times, striking the body each time with a gold hammer; and as
no response comes, the chief notary makes another attestation. After
this, the cardinal chancellor demands the Fisherman’s Ring, and
certain ceremonies are performed over it; and then he strikes the
ring with the golden hammer, and an officer destroys the figure of
Peter by the use of a file. From this moment all the authority and
acts of the late pope pass to the College or Conclave of Cardinals.
When a new pope is consecrated, it is always the cardinal chancellor
or chamberlain who presents the renewed Fisherman’s Ring; and this
presentation is accompanied by imposing ceremonies.
Gavazzi, who tilts at every matter which may appear mystically
Catholic, just as an excited bull runs at a red mantle, says: “The
Fisherman’s Ring now in use is most valuable, and would hardly square
with the simplicity of Peter;”[132] and he remarks, in reference to
the present Pope: “This man has on one of his fingers a splendid
ring, composed of diamonds and pearls of great price, and this ring
of $8,000 is called the Fisherman’s Ring; it symbolizes the ring of
poor St. Peter, which cost, perhaps, two cents.” Gavazzi must be in
error. A ring like that of the “Fisherman’s,” subject to be destroyed
on the death of a pope, would not be surrounded by brilliants; and
the fact that this ring is used as a signet to impress a gold or
leaden surface, or even vellum, carries with it the conviction that
it would not be encircled with precious stones and pearls; for,
independent of the chance of injury, they would impede an impression.
It is very possible that the official ring, bearing an emerald, and
which a pope wears as Bishop of Rome, might be further ornamented.
We have been favored with a sight of a ring used by the present
Archbishop of New-York, which is composed of an extra large oblong
emerald of beautiful color, surrounded by brillants. This ring is
worn on the fourth finger of the right hand.
Horace Walpole refers to his friend Mr. Chute’s playfully using an
expression which couples itself with the fisherman’s ring: “Mr. Chute
has received a present of a diamond mourning ring from a cousin; he
calls it _l’annello del Piscatore_. Mr. Chute, who was unmarried,
meant that his cousin was _fishing_ for his estate.”
[Illustration: (Pope Pius II. Ring Laid Flat)]
[Illustration: (Pope Pius II. Ring Two Views)]
§7. There is a massive ring extant, chased with the arms of Pope Pius
the Second.[133] It is of brass, and has been thickly gilt. It is
set with a topaz, the surface of which has lost its polish. On the
hoop of the ring are chased the arms of Pope Pius the Second, of the
family of Picolomini, the papal tiara, and this inscription, _Papa
Pio_. The stone is set in a massive square facet, carried up to a
considerable height above the finger; and on each of the four sides
is placed, in relief, one of the four beasts of the Revelation, which
were used to typify the Evangelists. Pope Pius the Second is better
known by his literary name of Æneas Sylvius. His works, which include
a History of Europe, a History of Bohemia and a long series of
letters, have passed through several editions. He was elected Pope in
1418, and died in 1464. This ring is considerably larger in size than
the rings usually found buried with bishops, and which were probably
what they received on their consecration. It must have been intended
to have been worn over a glove. It seems to have been a state ring
worn on one of those occasions when all Christendom came to receive
his benediction.
The estates and honors which composed the ecclesiastical
temporalities were considered to partake of the nature of fiefs;
and, therefore, to require similar investiture from the chief lord.
Charlemagne is said to have introduced this practice and to have
invested a newly consecrated bishop by placing a ring and crosier in
his hands.
By a Concordat at Worms, Henry V. resigned for ever all pretence to
invest bishops by the ring and crosier.
§ 8. During the times of the early British kings, it was a rule for
the monarch to invest archbishops and bishops, by delivery of a ring
and the pastoral staff. Anselm was hurried into the presence of
William Rufus, in order to be made Archbishop of Canterbury.[134] He
hesitated, because he was subject to Normandy, and the way in which
the holy men around him acted, savors very much of a portion of the
hurly-burly of a popular democratic election. When no argument could
prevail, the bishops and others who were present clapped the pastoral
staff into his hands, forced the ring upon his finger, shouted for
his election and bore him by force into the church, where _Te Deum_
was sung. This right of investiture became a serious matter of
dispute in the time of Anselm.
Miracles have been attributed to Anselm. A Flemish nobleman was cured
of a leprosy by drinking the water in which Anselm had washed his
hands; and a ship, wherein he sailed, having a large hole in one of
her planks, nevertheless took in no water so long as the holy man was
on board.[135]
From the reign of Charlemagne, sovereign princes took upon them
to give the investiture of the greater benefices by the ring and
pastoral staff.[136] Gregory VII. was the first who endeavored to
take from them this right, towards the end of the eleventh century.
Arnulph, immediately on his consecration as Bishop of Rochester,
gave the attendant monks to understand how a dream about a ring had
foretold this dignity.[137] “Arnulph being received by the monks with
all marks of respect, said to us, on the very day of his election:
‘Brethren, I had assurance given me a few days ago that, unworthy
as I am, I should soon be raised to the dignity now conferred upon
me. For as I slept one night, Gundulphus’ (who had been Bishop of
Rochester) ‘appeared to me, offering me a ring of great weight; which
being too heavy for me, I refused to accept it; but he, chiding me
for my stupidity in rejecting his present, obliged me to receive it,
and then disappeared.’ This he related to us; and we were convinced
it was no fantastical illusion which the holy man had seen in his
sleep, since, being made Bishop of Rochester, he received that very
ring, which Bishop Gundulphus, when alive, had given to Ralph, then
an abbot, but afterwards bishop.”
Symbols of ring, staff, mitre and gloves are not used at the present
day in the consecration of archbishops and bishops of the Church
of England. The delivery of the _pastoral staff_ in the Roman
pontificate was preceded by its consecration, and followed by the
consecration and putting on of a _ring_ in token of his marriage to
the church; and of a _mitre_, as an helmet of strength and salvation,
that his face being adorned, and his head (as it were) armed with the
_horns_ of both Testaments, may appear terrible to the adversaries of
the truth, as also in imitation of the ornaments of Moses and Aaron;
and of _gloves_, in token of clean hands and breast to be preserved
by him.[138]
The episcopal ring, and which is thus esteemed a pledge of the
spiritual marriage between the bishop and his church, was used at a
remote period. The fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633, appoints
that a bishop condemned by one council and found afterwards innocent
by a second should be restored by giving him the ring, staff,
etc.[139]
From bishops, the custom of the ring has passed to cardinals, who are
to pay a large sum for the right to use a ring as such. Perhaps this
arises from the fact that cardinals and prelates do not, strictly,
belong to the hierarchy.
A bishop, like a pope, receives a gold ring, set with a green gem.
Sometimes an abbot of a convent is invested with a ring, but this is
said only to occur when he possesses a bishop’s powers.
Solid gold rings are frequently found in tombs of abbots and
bishops.[140]
In a description of the finger-ring found in the grave of the
venerable Bede, it is said, that no priest, during the reign of
Catholicity in England, was buried or enshrined without his ring.
This, however, has been questioned.[141]
High dignitaries of the Church do not appear to have restricted
themselves to a single ring. On the hands of the effigy of Cardinal
Beaufort in Winchester Cathedral, there are gloves fringed with gold
and having an oval-shaped jewel on the back; while on the middle and
third fingers of each hand are rings worn over the gloves.
[Illustration: (Bishop Bitton Ring)]
In new paving and beautifying of Exeter Cathedral in England, a
leaden coffin was found of a Bishop Bitton, who died in 1307.[142]
Near the bones of the finger was discovered a sapphire ring set
in gold, in the centre of which was engraved a hand with the two
forefingers extended in the attitude of benediction.
This extension of the two forefingers, in company with the thumb,
must have been often observed in Catholic pictures. We see it in the
painting of the Virgin and Child in the Düsseldorf collection now in
New-York.
The thumb and the first two fingers have always been reserved as
symbols of the three persons of the Trinity.[143] When a bishop
gives his blessing, he blesses with the thumb and first two fingers.
Sepulchral monuments bear witness of this fact.
Both the Greek and Latin Churches agree that the thumb and first two
fingers symbolize the Trinity.[144]
It is, however, insisted that the origin of thus using the thumb
and two fingers is not of Christian, but of heathen derivation;
for Apuleius mentions this practice as the usual one with orators
soliciting the attention of an audience.[145] Here we see another
pagan custom become a Christian one.
The hand, with the thumb and two fingers extended, is sometimes
called the “hand of justice.”[146]
Miniature hands, taking in a part of the arm, are found in Rome,
which have the thumb and two forefingers extended and the remaining
fingers closed. Caylus gives a drawing of one (two inches and nine
lines in length) which has a serpent stretched on the back of the
hand, after having surrounded the wrist, and a lizard, likewise
in relief, placed upon the arm.[147] The author we have referred
to cannot account for this peculiar disposition of the thumb and
fingers; but he considers that the thing itself was an offering, and
refers to a hole in it by which it could be suspended. But we observe
that Addison, in his Remarks on Italy,[148] says: “The custom of
hanging up limbs of wax, as well as pictures, is certainly direct
from the old heathens, who used, upon their recovery, to make an
offering in wood, metal or clay of the part that had been afflicted
with a distemper, to the deity that delivered them. I have seen, I
believe, every limb of a human body figured in iron or clay which
were formerly made on this occasion, among the several collections
of antiquities that have been shown in Italy.” This, however, does
not account for the snake and the lizard, or the peculiarity of
closing two fingers and elevating the others with the thumb; and we
are inclined to raise a question, whether the miniature hand and arm,
figured by Caylus, was not an amulet and worn as such? The position
of the fingers and thumb may here denote power, or authority and
control over noxious creatures. A Roman soldier going into Egypt
might carry such an one.[149] (This custom of offering a model of the
restored part, was common with the ancient Egyptians.[150])
Catholics kiss the bishop’s hand, or, rather, the ring which he wears
in virtue of his episcopal office.
In the earliest ages bishops sealed with rings; but from the ninth
century they had distinct seals.[151]
It is said that formerly bishops wore their rings on the forefinger
of the right hand.[152]
When a bishop receives the ring at his consecration, the words used
are: “Receive the ring, the badge of fidelity, to the end that,
adorned with inviolable fidelity, you may guard, without reproach,
the Spouse of God, that is, the Holy Church.”
§ 9. At the English Law Bar, there is a distinction among the
barristers. Those called Serjeants are of the highest and most
ancient degree, and judges of the Courts of Westminster are always
admitted into this venerable order before they are advanced to the
Bench.
The ceremony of making a serjeant is or rather was a very imposing
and expensive one. Connected with this ceremony, the serjeant had to
give a great dinner, “like to the feast of a king’s coronation,” and
which continued seven days, and he had to present gold rings, bearing
some loyal motto, to every prince, duke and archbishop present, and
to every earl and bishop, lord privy seal, lords chief justices,
lord chief baron, every lord baron of Parliament, abbot and notable
prelate, worshipful knight, master of the rolls, every justice, baron
of exchequer, chamberlain, officer and clerk of the courts, each
receiving a ring, convenient for his degree. And a similar token was
given to friends.
These rings were delivered by some friend of the new serjeant’s and
who was of the standing of barrister. He was called his _colt_.
Whitlock says, when the new Serjeants counted, their _colts_
delivered the rings.[153] Why they are thus called is not very
clear: “_colt_,” according to Shakspeare, is a young foolish fellow.
In 1 _Modern Reports, case 30_, we have a hint of “short weight.”
“Seventeen serjeants being made the 14th day of November, a daye
or two after Serjeant Powis, the junior of them all, coming to the
King’s Bench bar, Lord Chief Justice Kelynge told him that he had
something to say to him, viz.: that the rings which he and the rest
of the serjeants had given weighed but eighteen shillings apiece;
whereas Fortescue, in his book _De Laudibus Legum Angliæ_, says, ‘The
rings given to the chief justices and to the chief baron ought to
weigh twenty shillings apiece;’ and that he spoke not this expecting
a recompence, but that it might not be drawn into a precedent, and
that the young gentlemen there might take notice of it.”
We consider the matter about serjeants’ rings sufficiently curious
and interesting to allow of our adding extracts from Fortescue and
Cooke:
“But this you must understand,[154] that when the day appointed
is come, those elect persons, among other solemnities, must keep
a great dinner, like to the feast of a king’s coronation, which
shall continue and last for the space of seven days, and none of
those elect persons shall defray the charges growing to him about
the costs of this solemnity with less expense than the sum of four
hundred marks; so that the expenses which eight men so elect shall
then bestow, will surmount to the sum of three thousand and two
hundred marks, of which expenses one parcel shall be this: Every of
them shall give rings of gold to the value of forty pounds sterling
at the least; and your chancellour well remembreth, that at what
time he received this state and degree, the rings which he then gave
stood him in fifty pounds. For every such serjeant, at the day of
his creation, useth to give unto every prince, duke and archbishop
being present at that solemnity and to the Lord Chancellour and Lord
Treasurer of England a ring of the value of 26_s_. 8_d_.
“And to every earl and bishop, being likewise present, and also to
the lord privy seal, to both the lords chief justices, and to the
lord chief baron of the King’s Exchequer a ring of the value of 20_s_.
“And to every lord baron of the Parliament, and to every abbot and
notable prelate and worshipful knight, being then present, and also
to the master of the rolls and to every justice a ring of the value
of a mark; and likewise to every baron of the exchequer, to the
chamberlains and to all the officers and notable men serving in the
king’s courts rings of a smaller price but agreeably to their estates
to whom they are given.
“Insomuch that there shall not be a clerk, especially in the Court
of the Common Bench, but he shall receive a ring convenient for his
degree; and, besides these, they give divers rings to other of their
friends.”
“And on Tuesday, May 10,[155] in the second week of the term, the
said Sir John Walter being of the Inner Temple, Sir Henry Yelverton
of Grayes Inne and Sir Thomas Trevor of the Inner Temple, with the
benchers, readers and others of those Inns of Court whereof they
respectively had been, being attended by the warden of the Fleet and
marshall of the Exchequer, made their appearance at Serjeants Inne
in Fleet street, before the two chief justices and all the justices
of both benches. And Sir Randolph Crew, chief justice, made a short
speech unto them, and (because it was intended they should not
continue serjeants to practise) he acquainted them with the king’s
purpose of advancing them to seats of judicature, and exhorted them
to demeane themselves well in their several places. Then every one
in his order made his count, (and defences were made by the ancient
serjeants,) and their several writs being read, their coyfs and
scarlet hoods were put on them, and being arrayed in their brown-blew
gownes, went into their chambers, and all the judges to their several
places at Westminster, and afterward the said three serjeants,
attyred in their party-coloured robes, attended with the marshall and
warden of the Fleete, the servants of the said serjeants going before
them, and accompanied with the benchers and others of the several
Inns of Court of whose society they had been, walked unto Westminster
and there placed themselves in the hall over against the Common Pleas
bar.
“And the hall being full, a lane was made for them to the barre;
(the justices of the Common Bench being in court) they recited three
several counts, (and several defences made to several counts,) and
had their writs read. The first and third by Brownlow the chief
prothonotary, and the second by Goulton the second prothonotary. And
Sir John Walter and Thomas Trevor gave rings to the judges with this
inscription, ‘_Regi Legi servire libertas._’ And Sir Henry Yelverton
gave rings whereof the inscription was, ‘_Stat Lege Corona_,’ and
presently after (they all standing together) returned to Serjeants
Inn, where was a great feast, at which Sir James Lee, Lord Treasurer
and the Earl of Manchester, Lord President of the Council, were
present.”
§ 10. Arabian princesses wear golden rings on their fingers, to which
little bells are suspended, so that their superior rank may be known,
and they, themselves, receive in passing, the homage due to them.[156]
§ 11. The insignia of honor peculiar to the Roman knights were a
charger, furnished at the public expense, a golden ring and a certain
place in the theatre.[157] The senators also wore golden rings.[158]
§ 12. We read of:
“---- an agate stone
On the forefinger of an alderman;”
but cannot discover whether an alderman in Shakspeare’s time
wore a ring in connection with his office. We however find this:
“Grave persons, such as aldermen, used a plain broad gold ring
upon the thumb.” It may be that Shakspeare was not thinking of an
alderman whose duties were attached to a mere city, but of the
earl or _alderman_ of a whole shire, to whom the government of it
was intrusted. Such a person, from the authority he possessed,
might have worn a ring of power in former times. The word had the
same signification in general as senator. By Spelman’s Glossary
it appears there was anciently in England a title of _aldermannus
totius Angliæ_; and that this officer was in the nature of Lord Chief
Justice of England.
It will be seen that there is an incorrectness in Mercutio, a
Veronese and in Verona, referring to an alderman. Knight, in his
edition of Shakspeare, sees this and proposes that we read, instead
of alderman, _burgomaster_. It has been observed that in whatever
country Shakspeare lays the scenes of his drama, he follows the
costume of his own.[159]
In a portrait of Lady Ann Clifford, the celebrated Countess of
Pembroke, she wears a ring upon the thumb of her right hand.
The mention of this lady will, at once, call up Ben Jonson’s epitaph
of the “wise, fair and good,” and excuse us for quoting:
“That is a touching pillar planted on the road between Penrith and
Appleby, in the year 1656, by Anne, Countess Dowager of Pembroke,
to commemorate her final parting with her mother on this spot, on
the second of April, 1616. The inscription declares that Anne of
Pembroke gave four pounds to be annually distributed ‘upon the stone
hereby’ amongst the poor within the parish of Brougham. Well, after
forty years of troubles--and troubles that must have cost the ‘pious
Pembroke’ many a bitter hour--it is pleasant to think of the daughter
returning to consecrate it. Four pounds a year could not do much
good, you may say, to the people of Brougham: but it may consecrate
the spot in years of scarcity by the thanks of people sorely pressed;
and the spirit of tenderness which dictated the bounty is something
to think of every year.”[160]
In a polyglot dictionary published in 1625, by John Minshew, under
the article _Ring Finger_, it is said that rings were worn on the
thumb by soldiers and doctors.
A thumb-ring would not seem to be always connected with a dignity, if
it is to be judged of through its inscription or bearing. A massive
thumb-ring of brass, strongly gilt, was formerly in the collection of
the late Marquis of Donegal. Its motto, within side, was in quaint
Latin, (_Cauda piera meleor cera_,) which may be rendered in this
jingle:
When God does send,
The times shall mend.[161]
CHAPTER THREE.
RINGS HAVING SUPPOSED CHARMS OR VIRTUES, AND CONNECTED WITH
DEGRADATION AND SLAVERY, OR USED FOR SAD OR WICKED PURPOSES.
1. Antiquity of Amulets and Enchanted and Magical Rings;
Samothracian Rings; Double Object in Amulets; Substance and Form
of them. 2. Precious Stones and their Healing or Protective
Powers; Jasper; Diamond; Ruby; Carbuncle; Jacinth; Amethyst;
Emerald; Topaz; Agate; Sapphire; Opal; Cornelian; Chalcedony;
Turquoise; Coral; Loadstone; Sweating Stones. 3. Enchanted Rings;
those possessed by Execustus; Solomon’s Ring; Ballads of Lambert
Linkin and Hynd Horn. 4. Talismanic Ring; Elizabeth of Poland;
Ring against Poison offered to Mary of Scotland; Rings from the
Palace at Eltham and from Coventry; Sir Edmund Shaw; Shell Ring.
5. Medicinal Rings. 6. Magical Rings; Ariosto; Ring of Gyges; Sir
Tristram; Cramp Rings; Rings to cure Convulsions, Warts, Wounds,
Fits, Falling Sickness, etc.; Galvanic Rings; Headache and Plague
Rings; Amulet against Storms. 7. Ordeal. 8. Punishment in time of
Alfred. 9. Founding of Aix-la-Chapelle. 10. Ring on a Statue. 11.
Bloody Baker. 12. The Borgia Ring. 13. Rings held in the Mouth. 14.
Rings used by Thieves, Gamblers and Cheats. 15. Roman Slave.
§ 1. Rings were made use of by way of charm and talisman in remote
ages.
Their potency was directed against fascination of every kind, but
more particularly the evil eye, against demons and witches, to excite
debility, against the power of flames, against wounds in battle and,
indeed, every danger and most diseases. Nor was it the ring alone,
for the supposed virtue existed also in the material or in some
device or magical letter engraved upon its circumference.
Shakspeare is thinking of the fascination of the eye in “Titus
Andronicus,” when he makes Aaron say:[162]
“And faster bound to Aaron’s _charming_ eyes.”
It has been observed that even Solomon was not exempt from the
dread of the fascination of the evil eye, and reference is made to
Proverbs xxiii. 6: “Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil
eye, nor desire thou his dainty meats.” A writer, however, remarks
how the context clearly shows that nothing more is intended than
to express the disquiet with which a niggardly person regards what
another consumes at his table.[163] This dreaded fascination still
perplexes the minds of Orientals; and is not banished from Spanish
and Neapolitan superstitions. Naples is the headquarters for charms
and amulets. All the learning has been collected by the Canon Jorio
and the Marques Arditi.[164]
We read of the Samothracian talismanic iron ring, engraved with
magical characters, inclosing an herb cut at a certain time or
small stones found under particular constellations.[165] Samothrace
is an island of the Ægean sea, opposite the Trojan territory, and
celebrated for its mysteries. An initiation into those mysteries was
supposed to have efficiency in preserving persons from dangers by
sea.[166]
It has been observed that inscribed rings, commonly called talismanic
or cabalistic rings, are improperly so designated. The mixed term is
much more appropriate, _annuli virtuosi_. Perhaps _mystical_ might be
a suitable name.
Although true “Abraxas” stones have that word engraved upon them, and
most of these are as old as the third century, yet this term is now
applied to gems which bear supposed talismanic emblems, although it
would be most proper to call them Abraxoids.
According to Caylus, amulets were always made with a double object:
to flatter the superstition of the people and serve for seals; thus
holding on to the charm itself, while they were able to spread a
supposed effect through impression; and this idea, he observes, is
strengthened by the fact that the subjects cut upon them never appear
in relief.
Philostratus says: “The Indian Brahmins carry a staff and a ring,
by means of which they are able to do almost any thing.” Here may
be the origin of similar articles received by Christian kings and
ecclesiastics as emblems of power?
Stones and conglomerated earth were mostly used for amulets.
Wherever the living man turns up the remains of past ages,
superstition is shown to belong to them through the appearance
of amulets; and no matter whether the subjects be Pagan or
Christian--for still we find this proof of weakness. Even in our
own day, men will carry these things under some creed that allows
or custom which defends their use. It is a pity such persons do not
feel, as they must know, that he is nearest heaven whose conduct is
his talisman.
Many of the ancient amulets are in other shapes than rings; often in
the form of perforated cylinders, worn round the neck; and we presume
they were set in rings for convenience.
Werenfels, in his Dissertation on Superstition,[167] where he speaks
of a superstitious man, says: “He will make use of no herbs but
such as are gathered in the planetary hour. Against any sort of
misfortune he will arm himself with a _ring_, to which he has fixed
the benevolent aspect of the stars and the lucky hour that was just
at the instant flying away, but which, by a wonderful nimbleness, he
has seized and detained.”
A ring, being a circle, was given to the initiated in the Eleusinian
mysteries as an amulet possessed of the power to avert danger.[168]
We find amulets referred to in Isaiah: “In that day will the Lord
take from them the ornaments of the feet-rings and the net works and
the crescents, the pendents and the bracelets and the thin veils, the
tires and the fetters and the zones and the perfume boxes and the
_amulets_.”
Fosbroke[169] says that the makers of talismanic rings generally used
to have the sealing part made of a square shape; we, however, find
many of an oval form.
“Amulet” with us, is _talisman_ with the Arabians. The Jews were
extremely superstitious in the use of them to drive away diseases;
and the Mishna forbids them, unless received from an approved man who
had cured at least three persons by the same means.
The use of charms and amulets to cure diseases or avert danger and
mischiefs, both from the body and the fruits of the earth, was even
common among ignorant and superstitious Christians: for Constantine
had allowed the heathen, in the beginning of his reformation, for
some time, not only to consult their augurs in public, but also to
use charms by way of remedy for bodily distempers, and to prevent
storms of rain and hail from injuring the ripe fruits, as appears
from the very law where he condemns the other sorts of magic (that
tended to do mischief) to be punished with death. St. Chrysostom
thundered against the use of amulets and charms, as did St. Basil and
Epiphanius, which shows that this piece of superstition, of _trying
to cure diseases without physic_, was deeply rooted in the hearts of
many Christians.[170]
We here give an enlarged specimen of one of these complicated
amulets--an amulet against evil, to act favorably and fortunately.[171]
[Illustration: (Amulet of Protection)]
The emblems are thus made out. The hare, rustic head and head of a
goat are to be considered as representing the god Pan, and to be
a guard against fear and certain sudden terrors called _panics_,
which were thought to be occasioned by this god.[172] The cornucopia
(erect) is to confirm abundance and happiness. In Memphis a white
cock was held to be a sacred animal. He was consecrated to the sun:
according to the Egyptians, to Osiris. It was made an emblem of the
soul. When Socrates hoped to be able to unite the divinity of his
soul with the divinity of the greater world, he ordered a cock to be
sacrificed to Æsculapius, as to the physician of souls. This animal
was sacrificed to Annubis, who was the sailor’s Mercury. The dolphin,
fed from food thrown away by sailors, is to represent those seeming
friends who swim with and follow our fortunes until they get depth of
water sufficient for themselves. Here the cock, by treading upon a
dolphin, with a palm branch over him, represents the power of wisdom
in the soul over a feigned or evil friend.
We are inclined to present the reader with another of these
remarkable combinations, which is said to be an amulet of
health.[173]
[Illustration: (Amulet of Health)]
The bird Ibis appears here as it is seen in the hieroglyphics upon
obelisks. It was dedicated to Osiris and Isis, good and salutary
genii. This creature treads upon the crocodile, emblematical of
Typhon, who was reckoned among the Egyptians as the cause of every
evil. The two-headed Janus may signify the power of the sun and of
Osiris from east to west in the day and in the night (although it has
been questioned whether the faces are not those of Pythagoras and
the magician Apollonius). The goat’s head, which also appeared in
the last gem, is said to be an amulet of health and intended to have
power to defend against evils which malice might work, and such its
power is marked by holding in its mouth a monstrous crested dragon
allied to hatred and coupled with poisonous qualities and carrying a
terrible appearance.
§ 2. Jasper, set in rings, took the lead of all other precious stones
in its supposed healing power; and this power was supposed to be
strengthened when combined with silver in preference to gold.
Even Galen has recommended a ring with jasper set in it and engraved
with the figure of a man wearing a bunch of herbs round the neck.
Many of the Gnostic or Basilidian gems, evidently used for magical
and talismanic purposes, were of jasper. Rings of this material, and
to be used as marriage tokens, are said to be made at Wesingburg, the
materials being supplied from the shores of Lake Wetter.[174]
Pierre de Boniface, a great alchemist and much versed in magic,
who died in 1323, is the reputed author of a manuscript poem on
the virtues of gems, of which the celebrated Nostradamus gives the
following pretended extract:
“The diamond renders a man invincible; the agate of India or Crete,
eloquent and prudent, amiable and agreeable; the amethyst resists
intoxication; the cornelian appeases anger; the hyacinth provokes
sleep.”[175]
In a scarce poem, by T. Cutwode, entitled _Calthæ Poetarum_, or
the Humble Bee, (1599,) the goddess Diana is introduced, modestly
clothing and attiring the heroine:
“And with an emerald hangs she on a ring,
That keeps just reckoning of our chastitie.
* * * * *
And therefore, ladies, it behoves you well
To walk full warily when stones will tell.”
The ancients have had a very high esteem of the diamond, “champion
of the precious stones,” insomuch as they have thought it to be
endued with divine virtues, and that if it were but worn in a ring or
carried about a person near his heart, it would assuage the fury of
his enemies and expel vain fears, preserve from swooning, drive away
the vanity of dreams and terrors of the night and frustrate all the
malign contagious power of poisons.
According to Josephus, the high-priest of the Israelites wore a ring
on his finger of inestimable value and celestial virtue; and Aaron
had one whereof the diamond, by its virtues, operated prodigious
things, for it changed its vivid lustre into a dark color when the
Hebrews were to be punished by death for their sins, when they were
to fall by the sword it appeared of a blood-red color, while, if they
were innocent, it sparkled as usual.
It is reported of the diamond that it is endued with such a faculty
as that if it be in place with a loadstone, it bindeth up all its
power and hindereth all its attractive virtue. Also, that if a
diamond be put upon the head of a woman without her knowledge, it
will make her, in her sleep, if she be faithful to her husband, to
cast herself into his embraces; but if she be an adulteress, to turn
away from him.
We take the above from a quaint work, by Thomas Nicols.[176] He goes
on to say: “It hath been by the ancients esteemed powerfull for the
driving away of _Lemures_, _Incubos_ and _Succubos_; and for the
hindring of contentions and to beget in men courage, magnanimitie and
stout-heartednesse.”
A species of ruby, called _Balassius_, or _Palatius_,[177] is said
to restrain fury and wrath. There is a story of this stone by
Ælian.[178] Heraclis had cured the fractured thigh of a stork. The
creature flying in a dark night by a palace where one of these stones
lay flaming like a lamp, took it up and brought it to Heraclis and
cast it into her bosom, as a token of the acknowledgment of the favor
which it had received from her in the cure of its harm. Andreas
Baccius, speaking of a rubine of his inclosed in a ring, says that
on the fifth of December, 1600, he was travelling with his wife
Catharina Adelmania to Studgard, and, in his travel, he observed his
rubine to change its glory into obscurity, whereupon he told his
wife and prognosticated that evil thereupon would ensue either to
himself or her, which accordingly did; for, not many days after, his
wife was taken ill with a mortal disease and died. After which, he
saith, his rubine, of its own accord, did again recover its former
lustre, glory, beauty and splendor. A perfectly pure deep carmine-red
ruby often exceeds in price a diamond of the same size[179] It has
been written, that, if the carbuncle be worn in an amulet (or drunk)
it will be good against poison and the plague, and will drive away
sadness, evil thoughts, terrible dreams and evil spirits; also that
it cleareth the mind and keepeth the body in safety, and that if any
danger be towards it the stone will grow black and obscure, and that
being past, returns to its former color again.[180]
The jacinth or hyacinth is said to have the faculty to procure
sleep when worn in a ring on the finger. Cardanus says he was wont
to wear one to the intent to procure sleep, to which purpose “it
seemed somewhat to confer, but not much.” The amethyst is said, by
Aristotle, to hinder the ascension of vapors; and that this is done
by the stone drawing the vapors to itself and then discussing them.
Andreas Baccius says that it sharpens the wit, diminishes sleep and
resists poison.
The emerald is said to be at enmity with all impurity; and will
break if it do but touch the skin of an adulterer. We cannot forego
Nicols’ description of this stone: “The emerald is a pretious stone
or gemine of so excellent a viridity or spring-colour as that if a
man shall look upon an emerald by a pleasant green meadow, it will
be more amiable than the meadow, and overcome the meadow’s glorie
by the glorie of that spring of viriditie which it hath in itself.
The largeness of the meadow it will overcome with the amplitude of
its glory, wherewith farre above its greatnesse it doth feed the
eie; and the virescencie of the meadow it will overcome with the
brightnesse of its glory, which in itself seemeth to embrace the
glorious viridity of many springs.” It is reported of Nero that he
was wont to behold the fencers and sword players through an emerald
as by a _speculum_ or optic glass and that for this cause the jewel
is called _gemina Neronis_. According to Pausanias,[181] the favorite
ring of Polycrates, a tyrant of Samos, contained an emerald. He was
advised by Amasis, king of Egypt, to chequer his continued prosperity
and enjoyments by relinquishing some of his most favorite pleasures;
and he complied by throwing into the sea this most beautiful of his
jewels. The voluntary loss of so precious a ring affected him for
some time; but a few days after, he received, as a present, a large
fish, in whose belly the jewel was found.[182]
Albertus Magnus observes: “If you would sharpen the understanding,
increase riches and foresee the future, take an emerald. For
prophesying, it must be placed beneath the tongue.”
The topaz is said to free men from passions and sadness of mind; and
that, if it be cast into boiling water, it will suddenly “astonish it
into coldness.”
The agate is stated to be good against poisons. It is reported of the
eagle that it doth carry this gem into her nest to secure her young
from the bitings of venomous creatures. “If,” says Albertus Magnus,
“you would avoid all dangers and overcome all earthly things and
possess a stout heart, take an agate. It causes danger and opposition
to vanish and makes a man strong, agreeable and of good cheer.”
The sapphire, according to St. Jerome, will procure the wearer the
favor with princes and all others, pacify enemies, free him from
enchantments, bonds and imprisonments and it looseth men out of
prison and assuageth the wrath of God. It is reported of it that
it is of so contrary a nature to poisons that if it be put into a
glass with a spider or laid upon the mouth of the glass where it is,
the spider will quickly die.[183] It is said to keep men pure and,
therefore, is worn by priests.[184] The Gentiles consecrated this
gem to Apollo, because, in their inquiries at his oracle, if they
had the presence of this gem with them, they imagined they had their
answer the sooner.
The opal is said to sharpen the sight of its possessor and cloud the
eyes of those who stand about him, so that they can neither see nor
mind what is done before them; for this cause it is asserted to be
a safe patron of thieves and thefts. Albertus Magnus says, “If you
wish to become invisible, take an opal and wrap it in a bay-leaf,
and it is of such virtue that it will make the bystanders blind,
hence it has been called the patron of thieves.” Nicols gives a
glowing description of this stone.[185] “The _opalus_ is a pretious
stone which hath in it the bright fiery flame of a carbuncle, the
pure refulgent purple of an amethyst, and a whole of the emerauld’s
spring glory or virescency, and every one of them shining with an
incredible mixture and very much pleasure.” It is reported of Nonius,
a Roman senator, that he had rather been deprived of his country and
senatorship than part with an opal which he had from Antonius.
It is asserted of the cornelian that it causeth him that weareth it
to be of a cheerful heart, free from fear and nobly audacious and is
a good protection against witchcraft and fascination.
“Chalcedony procureth victory to him that is the possessor of it and
carrieth it about him. It is much used for signets, for it sealeth
freely without any devouring of the wax.”[186]
The report on jaspers is that they preserve men from drowning; and
“divers do very superstitiously attribute much power and virtue to
them if figures, images and characters be engraven upon them. The
effects which by this means are wrought in or for any, Andreas
Baccius doth attribute to the devil.”[187]
We might presume that the ring of Gyges held the opal or the stone
known as the Heliotrope or Oriental jasper; for Pliny gives the
report of magicians that if this gem be anointed with the juice of
the marigold, it will cause him that carrieth it to walk invisible.
The forget-me-not stone, turquoise or Turkey stone, “ceruleous like
unto a serene heaven,” if worn in a ring of gold will, it is said,
preserve men from falls and from the bruises proceeding of them by
receiving that harm into itself which otherwise would fall upon
the man; yet these virtues are said not to be in the gem except it
has been received as a gift. “The Turkeys,” says Fenton, in his
Secrete Wonders of Nature,[188] “doth move when there is any peril
prepared to him that weareth it.” Ben Jonson and Drayton refer to
the same superstition. Rueus says, that he saw a _Turchoys_, which,
upon the death of its master, lost all its beauty and contracted a
cleft, which, a certain man afterwards buying at an under price,
returned again to its former glory and beauty, as if, observes he,
by a certain sense, it had perceived itself to have found a new
master. The same author says of it that it doth change, grow pale
and destitute of its native color if he that weareth it do, at any
time, grow infirm or weak; and again, upon the recovery of its
master, that it doth recover its own lovely beauty, which ariseth of
the temperament of its own natural heat and becometh ceruleous like
unto a serene heaven. According to the ancients, the wearing of the
turquoise had a most excellent quality: it destroyed animosity and,
in particular, appeased discord between man and wife.
It is possible that Shakspeare had in his mind the seeming influence
of the turquoise (as well as its value):
“_Tubal._ One of them showed me a ring, that he had of your
daughter for a monkey.
“_Shylock._ Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal; it was my
turquoise; I had it of Leah, when I was a bachelor: I would not
have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.”
The Arabs value the turquoise chiefly for its reputed talismanic
qualities; and they seek for large pieces, without particular
reference to purity of color. The stones intended for amulets are
usually set in small rings of plated tin.
The wearing of coral in a ring has been thought of power to “hinder
the delusions of the devil, and to secure men from _Incubus_ and
_Succubus_.”[189]
All remember Shakspeare’s beautiful exposition of adversity:
“Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head.”[190]
Fenton, writing in 1569, says: “There is found in heads of old
and great toads a stone which they call borax or stelon: it is
most commonly found in the head of a he-toad.” They were not only
considered specifics against poison when taken internally, but “being
used in rings, gave forewarning against venom.” This stone has often
been sought for, but nothing has been found except accidental or
perhaps morbid indurations of the skull. Lupton says,[191] “You
shall know whether the _tode-stone_ be the right and perfect stone
or not. Hold the stone before a tode, so that he may see it, and if
it be a right and true stone, the tode will leap toward it and make
as though he would snatch it. He envieth so much that man should
have that stone.” Nicols, in his Lapidary, observes:[192] “Some say
this stone is found in the head of an old toad; others say that the
old toad must be laid upon the cloth that is red, and it will belch
it up, or otherwise not; you may give a like credit to both these
reports, for as little truth is to be found in them as may possibly
be. Witnesse Anselmus Boetius in _Lib._ 2, in the chapter of this
stone; who saith that to try this experiment in his youth, he took an
old toad and laid it upon a red cloth, and watched it a whole night
to see it belch up its stone, but after his long and tedious watchful
expectation, he found the old toad in the same posture to gratifie
the great pangs of his whole night’s restlessness.
“Some of the toads that carry this precious jewel must be very
large, for Boetius says the stone is found of the bigness of an
egg, sometimes brownish, sometimes reddish, sometimes yellowish,
sometimes greenish.” It is reported that if poison be present, the
alleged stone will go into a perspiration. In connection with this
sensitiveness, it may be observed that precious stones are said to
sweat at the presence of poison. We are told that the jewels which
King John wore did so in his last sickness. There is no doubt,
however, although Shakspeare makes him cry out, “Poison’d--ill fare,”
that John got his death from unripe pears and new cider. His living
about three days from his attack, is a reasonable proof of not dying
by poison.[193]
In a strange old book, and from which an interesting article appears
in “Household Words,” it is said, the use of a ring, that has lain
for a certain time in a sparrow’s nest, will procure love.
§ 3. That kind of fortune-telling, called Divination, has held
an empire over the mind of man from the earliest period. It was
practised by the Jews, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks and
Romans, and is known to all modern nations.[194]
The species of divination by rings is called Dactylomancy.[195]
Scott, in his work on Demonology,[196] observes, that in the now
dishonored science of astrology, its professors pretended to have
correspondence with the various spirits of the elements on the
principles of the Rosicrusian philosophy. They affirmed they could
bind to their service and imprison in a ring some fairy, sylph, or
salamander and compel it to appear when called and render answers to
such questions as the viewer should propose. It is remarkable that
the sage himself did not pretend to see the spirit; but the task of
reviewer or reader was intrusted to a third party, a boy or girl
usually under the years of puberty.
As to divination by means of a ring, in the first place the ring was
to be consecrated with a great deal of mystery: “the person holding
it was clad in linen garments to the very shoes, his head shaven all
round, and he held the vervein plant in his hand,” while, before
he proceeded on any thing, the gods were first to be appeased by a
formulary of prayers, etc. The divination was performed by holding
the ring suspended by a fine thread over a round table, on the edge
of which were made a number of marks, with the twenty-four letters of
the alphabet. The ring, in shaking or vibrating over the table, stops
over certain of the letters, which, being joined together, compose
the required answer.[197]
Clemente Alexandrino speaks of enchanted rings which predicted future
events--such were two possessed by Execustus, the tyrant of Phocis,
who was able, by striking them together, to know, by the sound, what
he ought to do and what was to happen to him. He was, however,
killed through treason. The magnificent rings had been able to tell
the time of his death, but they could not point out the means of
avoiding it.
Arabian writers make much mention of the magic ring of Solomon.[198]
It is said to have been found in the belly of a fish; and many
fictions have been created about it. The Arabians have a book called
_Scalcuthal_ expressly on the subject of magic rings; and they trace
this ring of Solomon’s, in a regular succession, from Jared the
father of Enoch to Solomon.[199] Josephus,[200] after extolling the
wisdom and acquirements of Solomon, and assuring us that God had
enabled him to expel demons by a method remaining of great force to
the days of the historian, says:
“I have seen a certain man of my own country whose name was Eleazar,
releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian,
his sons and his captains and the whole multitude of his soldiers.
The manner of the case was this: he put a _ring_, that had a part
of one of those roots mentioned by Solomon, to the nostrils of the
demoniac; after which, he drew out the demon through his nostrils;
and when the man fell down, immediately he adjured him to return
unto him no more, making still mention of Solomon and reciting the
incantations which he composed.
“And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators
that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full
of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to
overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left
the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was
shown very manifestly.”
In the popular old ballad of _Lambert Linkin_,[201] rings give proof
of a terrible coming event by bursting upon the fingers:
* * * * *
“The Lord sat in England
A drinking the wine.
“I wish a’ may be weel
Wi’ my lady at hame;
_For the rings o’ my fingers_
_They’re now burst in twain_.
“He saddled his horse,
And he came riding down;
But as soon as he viewed,
Belinkin came in.
“He had na weel stepped
Twa steps up the stair,
Till he saw his pretty young son
Lying dead on the floor.
“He had na weel stepped
Other twa up the stair,
Till he saw his pretty lady
Lying dead in despair.
“He hanged Belinkin
Out over the gate;
And he burnt the fause nurice,
Being under the grate.”
We would refer our reader to a beautiful Syrian legend in the
“Household Words,”[202] in which a ring is made to play an
interesting part upon the fingers of a maiden, who is able to know
of the good or ill fortune and faith of her absent lover through its
changes. He, in giving it, had informed her: “If good fortune is with
me, it will retain its brightness; if evil, dim. If I cease to love,
and the grave opens for me, it will become black.” Fitful changes
then come and go upon the ring, as the light and shadow of life
accompany the roving lover.
There is a like notion in the ancient Scotch ballad of _Hynd
Horn_:[203]
“And she gave to me a gay gold ring,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan;
With three shining diamonds set therein,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
* * * * *
“What if these diamonds lose their hue,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan,
Just when my love begins for to rew,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
“For when your ring turns pale and wan,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan,
Then I’m in love with another man,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
* * * * *
“Seven long years he has been on the sea,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan;
And Hynd Horn has looked how his ring may be,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
“But when he looked this ring upon,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan,
The shining diamonds were both pale and wan,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
“Oh! the ring it was both black and blue,
With a hey lillelu and a how lo lan;
And she’s either dead or she’s married,
And the birk and the brume blooms bonnie.
“He’s left the seas and he’s come to the land,” etc.
John Sterling, whose life has been written by the Rev. Julius Charles
Hare, composed a fiction which is worked up through a supposed
talismanic Onyx Ring. The hero had been reading an old book on
necromancy; it caused him to long to change his lot; he appears to be
able to do this, through the appearance or apparition of an old man.
“Would you,” says this figure, in a sweet but melancholy voice, “in
truth accept the power of exchanging your own personal existence at
pleasure for that of other men?” After a moment’s pause, he answered
boldly, “Yes.” “I can bestow the power, but only on these conditions.
You will be able to assume a new part in life once in each week.
For the one hour after midnight on each Saturday, that is, for the
first hour of the new week, you will remember all you have been and
whatever characters you may have chosen for yourself. At the end of
the hour you may make a new choice; but, if then deferred, it will
again be a week before the opportunity will recur. You will also be
incapable of revealing to any one the power you are gifted with.
And if you once resume your present being, you will never again be
able to cast it off. If, on these terms, you agree to my proposal,
take this ring and wear it on the forefinger of your right hand. It
bears the head of the famous Apollonius of Tyana. If you breathe on
it at the appointed hour, you will immediately become any person
you may desire to be,” etc. The hero hesitates and says, “Before I
assent to your offer, tell me whether you would think me wise to do
so.” “Young man, were I to choose again, my choice would be to fill
the station where nature brought me forth and where God, therefore,
doubtless, designed me to work.” The ring is taken; it is supposed
to be at a time when this same hero is in a suspense of love, and
he appears successively to take the form of those who are around
the maiden of his affections. All this, in fact, is imagined by him
while in sickness. He secures his lady love; and sees upon her finger
an onyx ring like the one which had appeared to have allowed of his
visionary changes. She held up her hand before his face, which his
first impulse was to kiss; but he saw that on one of the fingers was
an onyx ring. “How on earth did you come by that? It has haunted me
as if a magic Ariel were fused amid the gold or imprisoned in the
stone.” “I will tell you.” And then the lady, somewhat lamely for the
story, informs him how she came into possession of it. The author
acted cleverly in coupling Apollonius with this ring: for he is
reputed to have been a most potent magician; not only miracles have
been imputed to him, but one writer dares to rank him above Jesus in
superhuman powers.
§4. Crowned heads have believed in amulets.
When Elizabeth of Poland could not induce her son Andrea to leave his
lustful wife of sixteen, Joan of Naples, and he was determined to be
and act the King of Sicily and Jerusalem, she drew from her finger
a richly chased ring, took Andrea aside, placed it upon his finger,
and, clasping him in her arms, “My son,” she said, in a trembling
voice, “since you refuse to accompany me, here is a talisman which I
never make use of but in the last extremity. While you retain this
ring upon your finger, neither steel nor poison can injure you.” “You
see, then, my mother,” answered the prince, smiling, “thus protected,
you have no reason to fear for my life.” “There are other deaths
besides those by poison or steel,” replied the queen, sighing. When
the course pursued by Andrea had determined Joan that he should be
killed, her paramour Bertrand d’Artois told her of the talisman.
“Nevertheless, he dies,” cried Joan. The next day, and in the castle
of Aversa, this Queen of Naples was working, with her delicate hands,
_a rope of silk and gold_.
When conspirators flew upon him, they attempted to strangle him
with their hands, for it was supposed he could not be slain by
steel or poison, owing to the amulet which his mother had given
him. Struggles and terror were about to allow of his escape, when
Bertrand d’Artois seized the prince round the body and, after a
desperate resistance, felled him to the ground; then dragging him by
the hair of the head to a balcony which looked out upon the gardens
and placing his knee upon his victim’s breast, “This way, barons!”
he cried; “I have got something to strangle him with!” and, after
a desperate struggle, he succeeded in passing _a rope of silk and
gold_ round the unfortunate man’s neck. When strangled, his body was
cast over the balcony. Charles of Duras was the mainspring of this
tragedy; and he afterwards died on the same spot, and was thrown over
the same balcony. Years after and while Joan was a prisoner in the
castle of Aversa, two Hungarian barons, in complete armor, presented
themselves before her, making a sign that she should follow them.
She rose and obeyed in silence; but a dismal cry burst from her when
she recognized the place where Andrea and Charles of Duras had each
died a violent death. Recovering herself, however, she inquired, in
a calm voice, why they had brought her to that place. One of the
barons showed her _a rope of silk and gold_. “Let God’s justice be
accomplished!” cried Joan, falling on her knees. And in a few minutes
she had ceased to suffer. This was the third corse that was thrown
over the balcony of Aversa.[204]
Patrick, Lord Ruthven, a man suspected of occult practices and who
had been appointed of the privy council of Mary, Queen of Scots,
offered her a ring to preserve her from the effects of poison.[205]
[Illustration: (Amulet Ring)]
Amulet rings have been used by persons calling themselves Christians
even in, comparatively, late times. Caylus gives one covered with
letters of the twelfth century. The body of the ring is simple and
square; each of its surfaces is completely filled with characters,
skilfully engraved.
The words are barbarous and the whole is senseless--the name of Jesus
Christ abbreviated with the words Alpha, Adonai and Agla and the
cross repeated appear here as they frequently do upon amulets. At the
end of the lines, two Arabic characters are distinctly marked 7. I.
These sort of characters did not pass, according to common opinion,
from Africa to Spain until the tenth century; and it was through
Spain that they were communicated to other parts of Europe. Rings of
the shape of this one and for similar use often inclosed sprigs of
some herb or hair or other light substance. The present one, however,
is said to be solid and does not contain any foreign matter.
A gold ring has been found in the palace at Eltham in Kent,
England.[206] It is set with an oriental ruby and five diamonds,
placed at equal distances round the exterior. The interior is plain,
but on the sides is this inscription:
Qui me portera exploitera
Et a grand joye revendra.
or,
Who wears me shall perform exploits;
And with great joy shall return.
From these lines it is evident that the ring has been worn as an
amulet; and there is a very probable conjecture that it may have been
presented to some distinguished personage when he was on the point
of setting out for the Holy Land, in the time of the Crusades. The
inscription is in small Gothic letters, but remarkably well formed
and legible. The shape of the ruby, which is the principal stone, is
an irregular oval, while the diamonds are all of a triangular form
and in their native or crystallized state.
A ring of gold was found at Coventry in England. It is evidently
an amulet. The centre device represents Christ rising from the
sepulchre, and in the background are shown the hammer, sponge and
other emblems of his passion. On the left is figured the _wound of
the side_, with the following legend: “_The well of everlasting
lyffe._” In the next compartment two small wounds, with “_The well of
comfort_,” “_The well of grace_;” and afterwards, two other wounds,
with the legends of “_The well of pity_,” “_The well of merci_.” On
the inside is an inscription in Latin which embraces the amulet,
having reference to the three kings of Cologne.[207]
Sir Edmund Shaw, goldsmith and alderman of London, directed by
his will _circa_ 1487, to be made “16 Rings of fyne Gold, to be
graven with the well of pitie, the well of mercie and the well of
everlasting life.”
Benvenuto Cellini mentions that, about the time of his writing,
certain vases were discovered, which appeared to be antique urns
filled with ashes. Amongst them were iron rings inlaid with gold,
in each of which was set a diminutive shell. Learned antiquaries,
upon investigating the nature of these rings, declared their opinion
that they were worn as charms by those who desired to behave
with steadiness and resolution either in prosperous or adverse
fortune.[208] (By way of parenthesis: This dare-devil man of fine
taste, Cellini, having finished a beautiful medal for the Duke of
Ferrara, the patron of Tasso, the magnificent Alfonso sent him a
diamond ring, with an elegant compliment. But the ring was really
not a valuable one. The Duke threw the mistake upon his treasurer,
whom he affected to punish, and sent Cellini another ring; but even
this was not worth one quarter of the sum he owed him. He accompanied
it with a significant letter, in which he ordered him not to leave
Ferrara. The artist, however, ran away as fast as his legs would
carry him, and was soon delighted to find he was beyond the fury of
the “Magnifico Alfonso.”)
§ 5. Ancient physicians carried signets or rings, frequently wearing
them upon the thumb, upon which were engraved their own names,
sometimes written backwards, or the denominations of the nostrums
they vended. With regard to one of these seals, we find the word
_aromatica_ from _aromaticum_, on another _melina_, abbreviation
of _melinum_, a collyrium prepared with the alum of the island of
Melos.[209] A seal of this kind is described by Tochon d’Annecy
bearing the words _psoricum crocodem_, an inscription that has
puzzled medical antiquaries.
It has been suggested that the use of talismanic rings as charms
against diseases may have originated in the phylacteries or
preservative scrolls of the Jews, although it is easy to imagine
that, in the earliest days of medicine, the operator, after binding
up a wound, would mutter “thrilling words” in incantation over it,
which, in process of time, might be, as it were, _embodied_ and
perpetuated in the form of an inscription, the ring, in some degree,
representing a bandage.[210] It appears to us this is much further
from fact than that a barber’s pole represents an arm with a bandage.
Amulet rings for medicinal purposes were greatly in fashion with
empyrics and ancient physicians.[211]
In Lucian’s Philopseudes, one of the interlocutors in a dialogue
says that since an Arabian had presented him with a ring of iron
taken from the gallows, together with a charm constructed of certain
hard words, he had ceased to be afraid of the demoniacs who had been
healed by a Syrian in Palestine.
In another dialogue, a man desires that Mercury should bestow a ring
on him to insure perpetual health and preservation from all danger.
These rings were to be worn upon the fourth or medical finger.
Marcellus, a physician who lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
directs the patient who is afflicted with a pain in the side to wear
a ring of pure gold inscribed with some Greek letters on a Thursday
at the decrease of the moon. It is to be worn on the right side, if
the pain be on the left; and _vice versâ_.
Trallian, another physician who lived in the fourth century, cured
the colic and all bilious complaints by means of an octangular ring
of iron, upon which eight words were to be engraven, commanding the
bile to take possession of a lark. A magic diagram was to be added,
which he has not failed to preserve for the certain advantage of his
readers. He tells us that he had had great experience in this remedy
and considered it as extremely foolish to omit recording so valuable
a treasure; but he particularly enjoins the keeping it a secret from
the profane vulgar, according to an admonition of Hippocrates that
sacred things are for sacred purposes only. The same physician, in
order to cure the stone, directs the wearing a copper ring, with
the figure of a lion, a crescent and a star to be placed on the
fourth finger; and for the colic, in general, a ring with Hercules
strangling the Nemean lion.
In the Plutus of Aristophanes, to a threat on the part of the
sycophant, the just man replies that he cares nothing for him, as
he has got a ring which he bought of a person, whom the scholiast
conceives to have been an apothecary, who sold medicated rings
against the influence of demons, serpents, etc. Carion, the servant,
sarcastically observes that this ring will not prevail against the
bite of a sycophant.[212]
As to medicinal rings, Joannes Nicolaus, a German professor, has most
unceremoniously ascribed the power of all these medical charms to the
influence of the devil, who, he says, by these means, has attracted
many thousands of human beings into his dominions.[213]
Lucati has attributed the modern want of virtue in medicated rings
to their comparative smallness, contending that the larger the ring
or the gem contained in it, the greater the medium power, especially
with those persons whose flesh is of a tender and penetrable nature.
Lord Chancellor Hatton sent to Queen Elizabeth a ring against
infectious air, “to be worn,” as the old courtier expresses it,
“betwixt the sweet dugs” of her bosom.
Ennemoser, in his History of Magic, a work made more visionary by the
unsatisfactory additions of the Howitts, gravely speaks of coming
events manifested in diseases. We have a betrothal ring in the
following extract:[214]
“In the St. Vitus’s dance, patients often experience divinatory
visions of a fugitive nature, either referring to themselves or
to others and occasionally in symbolic words. In the ‘Leaves from
Prevorst,’ such symbolic somnambulism is related, and I myself
have observed a very similar case: Miss v. Brand, during a violent
paroxysm of St. Vitus’s dance, suddenly saw a black evil-boding crow
fly into the room, from which, she said, she was unable to protect
herself, as it unceasingly flew round her as if it wished to make
some communication. This appearance was of daily occurrence with the
paroxysm for eight days afterwards. On the ninth, when the attacks
had become less violent, the vision commenced with the appearance of
a white dove, which carried a letter containing a betrothal ring in
its beak; shortly afterwards the crow flew in with a black-sealed
letter. The next morning the post brought a letter with betrothal
cards from a cousin; and a few hours after, the news was received of
the death of her aunt in Lohburg, of whose illness she was ignorant.
Of both these letters, which two different posts brought in on the
same day, Miss v. Brand could not possibly have known any thing. The
change of birds and their colors, during her recovery and before the
announcement of agreeable or sorrowful news, the symbols of the ring
and the black seal, exhibit, in this vision, a particularly pure
expression of the soul as well as a correct view into the future.”
§6. Some of the finest scenes in Ariosto are brought out through a
magic ring. When it was worn on the finger, it preserved from spell;
and carried in the mouth, concealed the possessor from view. Thus, in
the Orlando Furioso, where Ruggiero had Angelica in the lone forest
and secure from sight, she discovers the magic ring upon her finger
which her father had given her when she first entered Christendom and
which had delivered her from many dangers.
“Now that she this upon her hand surveys,
She is so full of pleasure and surprise,
She doubts it is a dream and, in amaze,
Hardly believes her very hand and eyes.
Then softly to her mouth the hoop conveys,
And, quicker than the flash which cleaves the skies,
From bold Rogero’s sight her beauty shrouds,
As disappears the sun concealed in clouds.”[215]
The ring of Gyges is taken notice of both by Plato and Tully. This
Gyges was the master shepherd to King Candaules. As he was wandering
over the plains of Lydia, he saw a great chasm in the earth and had
the curiosity to enter it. After having descended pretty far into
it, he found the statue of a horse in brass, with doors in the sides
of it. Upon opening of them, he found the body of a dead man, bigger
than ordinary, with a ring upon his finger, which he took off and put
it upon his own. The virtues of it were much greater than he at first
imagined; for, upon his going into the assembly of the shepherds, he
observed that he was invisible when he turned the stone of the ring
within the palm of his hand and visible when he turned it towards
his company. By means of this ring he gained admission into the most
retired parts of the court; and made such use of those opportunities
that he at length became King of Lydia. The gigantic dead body to
whom this ring belonged was said to have been an ancient Brahmin,
who, in his time, was chief of that sect.
Addison, in one of his Tatlers,[216] playfully declares he is in
possession of this ring and leads his reader through different
scenes, commencing thus: “About a week ago, not being able to sleep,
I got up and put on my magical ring and, with a thought, transported
myself into a chamber where I saw a light. I found it inhabited by
a celebrated beauty, though she is of that species of women which
we call a slattern. Her head-dress and one of her shoes lay upon a
chair, her petticoat in one corner of the room and her girdle, that
had a copy of verses made upon it but the day before, with her thread
stocking, in the middle of the floor. I was so foolishly officious
that I could not forbear gathering up her clothes together to lay
them upon the chair that stood by her bedside, when, to my great
surprise, after a little muttering, she cried out, “What do you want?
Let my petticoat alone.”
To have the ring of Gyges is used proverbially sometimes of wicked,
sometimes of fickle, sometimes of prosperous people who obtain all
they want. It is alluded to in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Fair Maid of
the Inn:
“---- Have you Gyges’ ring,
Or the herb that gives invisibility?”
The Welsh Sir Tristram is described as having had, from his mother, a
mystical ring, the insignia of a Druid.
Let us now look particularly at the subject of cramp rings.
St. Edward, who died on the fifth of January, 1066, gave a ring which
he wore to the Bishop of Westminster. The origin of it is surrounded
with much mystery. A pilgrim is said to have brought it to the king
and to have informed him that St. John the Evangelist had made
known to the donor that the king’s decease was at hand.[217] This
“_St. Edward’s Ring_,” as it was called, was kept for some time at
Westminster Abbey as a relic of the saint, and was applied for the
cure of the falling sickness or epilepsy and for the cramp. From this
arose the custom of the English kings, who were believed to have
inherited St. Edward’s powers of cure, solemnly blessing every year
rings for distribution.
Good Friday was the day appointed for the blessing of rings. They
were often called “medycinable rings,” and were made both of gold and
silver, and the metal was composed of what formed the king’s offering
to the Cross on Good Friday.
The prayers used at the ceremony of blessing the rings on Good Friday
are published in Waldron’s Literary Museum; and also in Pegge’s
_Curiatia Miscellanea_, Appendix, No. iv. p. 164.
Cardinal Wiseman is in possession of a MS. containing the ceremony of
blessing cramp rings. It belonged to the English Queen Mary. At the
commencement of the MS. are emblazoned the arms of Philip and Mary,
around which are the badges of York and Lancaster and the whole is
inclosed within a frame of fruit and flowers. The first ceremony
is headed: “Certain Prayers to be used by the Queen’s Leigues in
the Consecration of the Crampe Rynges.” Accompanying it is an
illumination representing the queen kneeling, with a dish--containing
the rings to be blessed--on each side of her; and another exhibits
her touching for the evil a boy on his knees before her, introduced
by the clerk of the closet; his right shoulder is bared and the queen
appears to be rubbing it with her hand. The author of the present
work caused an application to be made for leave to take a copy of
this illumination, so that his readers might have the benefit of it:
the secretary of the Cardinal refused.
In a medical treatise, written in the fourteenth century,[218] there
is what is called the _medicine_ against the cramp; and modernizing
the language, it runs thus: “For the Cramp. Take and cause to be
gathered on Good Friday, at 5 Parish Churches, 5 of the first pennies
that is offered at the cross, of each Church the first penny; then
take them all and go before the cross and say 5 paternosters to the
worship of the 5 wounds and bear them on the 5 days, and say each day
all much in the same way; and then cause to be made a ring thereof
without alloy of other metal and write within it Jasper, Batasar,
Altrapa” (these are blundered forms of the three kings of Cologne)
“and write without Jh’es Nazarenus; and then take it from the
goldsmith upon a Friday and say 5 paternosters as thou did before and
use it always afterward.”
Lord Berners, the translator of Froissart, when at the court of the
Emperor Charles the Fifth as ambassador from Henry the Eighth, in a
letter dated 21st June, 1518, writes to Cardinal Wolsey: “If your
Grace remember me with some crampe rynges, ye shall do a thing much
looked for and I trust to bestow thaym well, with Godd’s grace.”[219]
A letter from Dr. Magnus to Cardinal Wolsey, written in 1526,[220]
contains the following: “Pleas it your Grace to wete that M. Wiat of
his goodness sent unto me for a present certaine cramp ringges, which
I distributed and gave to sondery myne acquaintaunce at Edinburghe,
amonges other to Mr. Adame Otterbourne, who, with oone of thayme,
releved a mann lying in the falling sekeness, in the sight of myche
people; sethenne whiche tyme many requestes have been made unto me
for cramp Ringges at my departing there and also sethenne my comyng
from thennes. May it pleas your Grace, therefore, to show your
gracious pleasure to the said M. Wyat that some Ringges may be kept
and sent into Scottelande; which, after my poore oppynyoun, shulde be
a good dede, remembering the power and operacion of thaym is knowne
and proved in Edinburgh and that they be greatly required for the
same cause by grete personnages and others.”
The mode of hallowing rings to cure the cramp is found in what is
entitled an “Auncient Ordre for the hallowing of Cramp Rings,” etc.
It is amusing to read of the degrading course which king, queen,
ladies and gentlemen had to take, each one creeping along a carpet
to a cross. The account runs thus: “Firste, the King to come to the
Chappell or clossett, with the lords and noblemen wayting upon him,
without any sword borne before hime of that day, and ther to tarrie
in his travers until the Bishope and the Deane have brought in the
Crucifixe out of the vestrie and laid it upon the cushion before the
highe alter. And then the usher to lay a carpet for the Kinge to
creepe to the crosse upon. And that done, there shall be a forme set
upon the carpett before the crucifix and a cushion laid upon it for
the Kinge to kneel upon. And the Master of the Jewell house ther to
be ready with the crampe rings in a bason of silver and the Kinge
to kneel upon the cushion before the forme. And then the Clerke of
the Closett be readie with the booke concerninge the halowinge of
the crampe rings, and the aumer must kneele on the right hand of the
Kinge, holdinge the sayd booke. When that is done, the Kinge shall
rise and go to the alter, weare a Gent. Usher shall be redie with a
cushion for the Kinge to kneele upon; and then the greatest Lords
that shall be ther to take the bason with the rings and beare them
after the King to offer. And thus done, the Queene shall come down
out of her closett or traverss into the Chappell with ladyes and
gentlewomen waiting upon her and creepe to crosse, and then go agayne
to her clossett or traverse. And then the ladyes to creepe to the
crosse likewise, and the Lords and Noblemen likewise.”
In 1536, when the convocation under Henry the Eighth abolished some
of the old superstitious practices, this of creeping to the cross
on Good Friday, etc., was ordered to be retained as a laudable and
edifying custom.[221]
Even in the dark ages of superstition, the ancient British kings do
not seem to have affected to cure the king’s evil or _scrofula_. This
gift was left to be claimed by the Stuarts. The Plantagenets were
content to cure the cramp.
In our own time we find three young men in England subscribing
sixpence each to be moulded into a ring for a young woman afflicted
with the cramp.
In Berkshire, England, there is a popular superstition that a ring
made from a piece of silver collected at the Communion is a cure for
convulsions and fits of every kind.[222] Another curious British
superstition, by way of charm, is recorded: that a silver ring will
cure fits if it be made of five sixpences, collected from five
different bachelors, to be conveyed by the hand of a bachelor to a
smith that is a bachelor. None of the persons who give the sixpences
are to know for what purpose or to whom they gave them. While, in
Devonshire, there is a notion that the king’s evil can be cured by
wearing a ring made of three nails or screws which have been used to
fasten a coffin that has been dug out of the churchyard.
There is a medical charm in Ireland to cure warts. A wedding-ring
is procured and the wart touched or pricked with a gooseberry thorn
through the ring.[223]
A wedding-ring rubbed upon that little abscess called a sty, which
is frequently seen on the tarsi of the eyes, is said to remove
it.[224] In Somersetshire, England, there is a superstition that
the ring-finger, stroked along any sore or wound, will soon heal
it. All the other fingers are said to be poisonous, especially the
forefinger.[225] In Suffolk, England, nine young men of a parish
subscribed a crooked sixpence each to be moulded into a ring for a
young woman afflicted with fits. The clergy in that country are not
unfrequently asked for sacramental silver to make rings of, to cure
falling sickness; and it is thought cruel to refuse.[226] There is
a singular custom prevailing in some parts of Northamptonshire and
probably there are other places where a similar practice exists. If
a female is afflicted with fits, nine pieces of silver money and
nine three-halfpennies are collected from nine bachelors. The silver
money is converted into a ring to be worn by the afflicted person
and the three-halfpennies (_i. e._ 13½d.) are paid to the maker
of the ring, an inadequate remuneration for his labor but which
he good-naturedly accepts. If the afflicted person be a male, the
contributions are levied upon females.[227] In Norfolk a ring was
made from nine sixpences freely given by persons of the opposite sex
and it was considered a charm against epilepsy. “I have seen,” says
a correspondent in _Notes and Queries_,[228] “nine sixpences brought
to a silversmith, with a request that he would make them into a ring;
but 13½d. was not tendered to him for making nor do I think that any
three-halfpennies are collected for payment. After the patient had
left the shop, the silversmith informed me that such requests were
of frequent occurrence and that he supplied the patients with thick
silver rings, but never took the trouble to manufacture them from the
sixpences.”
Brande, in his _Popular Antiquities_,[229] says: “A boy, diseased,
was recommended by some village crone to have recourse to an alleged
remedy, which has actually, in the enlightened days of the nineteenth
century, been put in force. He was to obtain thirty pennies from
thirty different persons, without telling them why or wherefore
the sum was asked; after receiving them, to get them exchanged for
a half-crown of sacrament money, which was to be fashioned into a
ring and worn by the patient. The pennies were obtained, but the
half-crown was wanting--the rector of the place, very properly,
declined taking any part in such a gross superstition. However,
another reverend gentleman was more pliable; and a ring was formed
(or professed to be so) from the half-crown and worn by the boy.” A
similar instance, which occurred about fourteen years since, has
been furnished to the same work by Mr. R. Bond of Gloucester: “The
epilepsy had enervated the mental faculties of an individual moving
in a respectable sphere in such a degree as to partially incapacitate
him from directing his own affairs; and numerous were the recipes,
the gratuitous offering of friends, that were ineffectually resorted
to by him. At length, however, he was told of what would certainly
be an infallible cure, for in no instance had it failed; it was, to
personally collect thirty pence, from as many respectable matrons,
and to deliver them into the hands of a silversmith, who, in
consideration thereof, would supply him with a ring, wrought out of
half a crown, which he was to wear on one of his fingers--and the
complaint would immediately forsake him. This advice he followed; and
for three or four years the ring ornamented (if we may so express
it) his fifth or little finger, notwithstanding the frequent relapses
he experienced during that time were sufficient to convince a less
ardent mind than his that the fits were proof against its influence.
Finally, whilst suffering from a last visitation of that distressing
malady, he expired, though wearing the ring--thus exemplifying a
striking memento of the absurdity of the means he had had recourse
to.”[230]
Quite recently, a new means has been contrived for deluding the
public in the form of rings, which are to be worn upon the fingers
and are said to prevent the occurrence of and cure various diseases.
They are called galvanic rings. Although by the contact of the two
metals of which they are composed an infinitesimally minute current
of electricity (hence, also, of magnetism) is generated, still, from
the absurd manner in which the pieces of metal composing the ring
are arranged and which displays the most profound ignorance of the
laws of electricity and magnetism, no trace of the minute current
traverses the finger upon which the ring is worn; so that a wooden
ring or none at all would have exactly the same effect as regards the
magnetism or galvanism.[231]
Epilepsy was to be cured by wearing a ring in which a portion of an
elk’s horn was to be inclosed; while the hoof of an ass, worn in the
same way, had the reputation of preventing conjugal debility.[232]
Michaelis, a physician at Leipsic, had a ring made of the tooth of a
sea-horse, by which he pretended to cure diseases of every kind.[233]
Rings of lead, mixed with quicksilver, were used against headache;
and even the chains of criminals and iron used in the construction of
gibbets were applied to the removal of complaints.
Rings simply made of gold were supposed to cure St. Anthony’s fire;
but, if inscribed with magic words, their power was irresistible.
With regard to rings supposed to possess magical properties, there is
one with an inscription in the Runic character, on jasper, being a
Dano-Saxon amulet against the plague. The translation is thus given:
“Raise us from dust we pray thee,
From Pestilence, O set us free,
Although the Grave unwilling be.”[234]
On another ring, inscribed with similar characters, and evidently
intended for the same purpose, the legend is as follows:
“_Whether in fever or leprosy, let the patient be happy and confident
in the hope of recovery._”[235]
Rings against the plague were often inscribed Jesus--Maria--Joseph or
I. H. S. _Nazarenus_--_Rex_--_Judæorum_.
A ring was dug up in England, with the figure of St. Barbara upon
it. She is the patroness against storms; and it was most likely an
intended amulet against them.[236] However, St. Barbara was not
solely here depended upon, for it has around it Jesu et Maria.
§ 7. The ordeal of touch, by a person accused of murder, remarkably
appears in an English trial.[237] There, the murdered woman, at the
touch of the accused, “thrust out the ring or marriage finger three
times and pulled it in again and the finger dropped blood upon the
grass.” The report goes on to say, that “Sir Nicholas Hyde, seeming
to doubt the evidence, asked the witness, ‘Who saw this besides
you?’ _Witness._ ‘I cannot swear what others saw; but, my lord, I do
believe the whole company saw it; and if it had been thought a doubt,
proof would have been made of it, and many would have attested with
me.’ The witness observing some admiration in the auditors, spake
further: ‘My lord, I am minister of the parish and have long known
all the parties, but never had any occasion of displeasure against
any of them, nor had to do with them or they with me, but as I was
minister, the thing was wonderful to me; but I have no interest in
the matter, but as called upon to testify the truth, that I have
done. My lord, my brother here present is minister of the next parish
adjoining, and, I am assured, saw all done that I have affirmed.’”
The clergyman so appealed to confirmed the statement; and the accused
were convicted and hanged.
§ 8. Amongst the dooms or punishments which Æthelbirht, King of Kent,
established in the days of Augustine, the amount of what was called
_bot_ or damages to be paid for every description of injury to the
person is fully detailed.[238] The laws of King Alfred comprise,
likewise, numerous clauses respecting compensation for wounds
inflicted; and the term “_dolzbote_” occurs in c. 23, relating
to tearing by a dog. A silver ring was found in Essex, England,
inscribed with the Anglo-Saxon word _dolzbot_, the exact meaning of
which is compensation made for giving a man a wound either by a stab
or blow.[239]
§ 9. We find a romantic story coupled with the founding of
Aix-la-Chapelle. Petrarch relates[240] of Charles the Great of
France, that this monarch was so fondly attached to a fair lady that,
after her death, he carried about her embalmed body in a superb
coffin and that he could not indeed forsake it, because, under the
tongue, was a gem “enchassée” in a very small ring.
A venerable and learned bishop, who thought a living beauty was
preferable to the remains of a departed one, rebuked his sovereign
for his irreligious and strange passion and revealed to him the
important secret that his love arose from a charm that lay under
the woman’s tongue. Whereupon the bishop went to the woman’s corse
and drew from her mouth the ring; which the emperor had scarcely
looked upon when he abhorred the former object of his attachment
and felt such an extraordinary regard for the bishop that he could
not dispense with his presence for a single moment, until the good
prelate was so troubled with royal favor that he cast the ring into
a lake or marsh. The emperor happened to be attracted to the site of
the submerged ring; and, in consequence, founded upon it a palace and
church, which gave birth to Aix-la-Chapelle.
The Germans have a legend which they connect with what must have
been this ring. It runs thus: Charlemagne, although near his
dissolution, lingered in ceaseless agony, until the archbishop who
attended him caused the lake to be dragged and, silently placing the
talisman on the person of the dying monarch, his struggling soul
parted quietly away. This talisman is said to be in the possession
of Louis Napoleon; but it is described as a small nut, in a gold
filagree envelopment, found round the neck of Charlemagne on the
opening of his tomb and given by the town of Aix-la-Chapelle to
Bonaparte and by him to his favorite Hortense, _ci-devant_ Queen of
Holland, at whose death it descended to her son. In the German legend
it is said to have been framed by some of the magi in the train of
the ambassadors of Aaroun-al-Raschid to the mighty Emperor of the
West, at the instance of his spouse Fastrada, with the virtue that
her husband should be always fascinated towards the person or thing
on which it was.[241]
§ 10. Some of our readers are lovers of operatic music, and have
heard _Zampa_. The placing of a ring on the finger of a statue and
its consequences must have been gathered from a story by Floriguus.
He mentions the case of a young gentleman of Rome, who, on his
wedding day, went out walking with his bride and some friend after
dinner; towards evening, he got to a tennis-court and while he played
he took off his ring and placed it upon the finger of a brass statue
of Venus. The game finished, he went to fetch his ring; but Venus had
bent her finger upon it and he could not get it off. Whereupon, loth
to make his companions tarry, he there left it, intending to fetch
it the next day, went then to supper and, so, to bed; but, in the
night, the truly brazen Venus had slipped between him and his bride,
and thus troubled him for several successive nights. Not knowing
how to help himself, he made his moan to one Palumbus, a learned
magician, who gave him a letter and bade him, at such a time of the
night, in such a crossway, where old Saturn would pass by with his
associates, to deliver to him the epistle. The young man, of a bold
spirit, accordingly did so; and when Saturn had read it, he called
Venus, who was riding before him, and commanded her to deliver the
ring, which forthwith she did.
Moore has even made use of this tale. He calls it “The Ring,” and
uses upwards of sixty stanzas on it. He seems here to have laid
aside, as much as it was possible for him, his usual polish and tried
to imitate Monk Lewis. The scene is laid in Christian times; his hero
is one Rupert; and the deliverer a Father Austin. Moore says he met
with the story in a German work, “Fromman upon Fascination;” while
Fromman quotes it from Belaucensis.
It is remarkable how often we find stories, which have originated in
heathen times, made a vehicle for Catholic tales. The above has found
its way into monkish legend.
In _The Miracles of the Virgin Mary_, compiled in the twelfth
century, by a French monk,[242] there is a tale of a young man, who,
falling in love with an image of the Virgin, inadvertently placed on
one of its fingers a ring, which he had received from his mistress,
accompanying the gift with the most tender language of respect and
affection. A miracle instantly took place and the ring remained
immovable. The young man, greatly alarmed for the consequences of his
rashness, consulted his friends, who advised him, by all means, to
devote himself entirely to the service of the Madonna. His love for
his former mistress prevailed over their remonstrances and he married
her; but on the wedding-night, the newly betrothed lady appeared to
him and urged her claim, with so many dreadful menaces that the poor
man felt himself compelled to abandon his bride and, that very night,
to retire privately to a hermitage, where he became a monk for the
rest of his life. This story has been translated by Mons. Le Grand,
in his entertaining collection of _fabliaux_, where the ring is
called a marriage-ring.
Perhaps this last story grew out of the legend of St. Agnes. A
priest, who officiated in a church dedicated to St. Agnes, was very
desirous of being married. He prayed the Pope’s license, who gave
it him, together with an emerald ring; and commanded him to pay his
addresses to the image of St. Agnes in his own church. Then the
priest did so and the image put forth her finger and he put the ring
thereon; whereupon the image drew her finger in again and kept the
ring fast--and the priest was contented to remain a bachelor; “and
yet, as it is sayd, the rynge is on the fynger of the ymage.”[243]
§ 11. There is a legend of a Sir Richard Baker, who was surnamed
_Bloody Baker_, wherein a ring bears its part.[244] This Sir Richard
Baker was buried in Cranbrook church, Kent, England, and his
gauntlet, gloves, helmet and spurs are suspended over his tomb. The
gloves are red. The Baker family had formerly large possessions in
Cranbrook; but in the reign of Edward VI. great misfortunes fell on
them; by extravagance and dissipation they gradually lost all their
lands, until an old house in the village (now used as the poor-house)
was all that remained to them. The sole representative of the family
remaining at the accession of Queen Mary was Sir Richard Baker.
He had spent some years abroad in consequence of a duel; but when
Mary reigned he thought he might safely return, as he was a papist;
when he came to Cranbrook, he took up his abode in his old house;
he brought one foreign servant with him; and only these two lived
there. Very soon strange stories began to be whispered respecting
unearthly shrieks having been heard frequently to issue at nightfall
from his house. Many people of importance were stopped and robbed in
the Glastonbury woods and many unfortunate travellers were missed
and never heard of more. Richard Baker still continued to live in
seclusion, but he gradually repurchased his alienated property,
although he was known to have spent all he possessed before he left
England. But wickedness was not always to prosper. He formed an
apparent attachment to a young lady in the neighborhood, remarkable
for always wearing a great many jewels. He often pressed her to
come and see his old house, telling her he had many curious things
he wished to show her. She had always resisted fixing a day for her
visit, but happening to walk within a short distance of his house,
she determined to surprise him with a visit; her companion, a lady
older than herself, endeavored to dissuade her from doing so, but she
would not be turned from her purpose. They knocked at the door, but
no one answered them; they, however, discovered it was not locked and
determined to enter. At the head of the stairs hung a parrot which,
on their passing, cried out:
“Peepoh, pretty lady, be not too bold,
Or your red blood will soon run cold.”
And cold did run the blood of the adventurous damsel when, on opening
one of the room doors, she found it filled with the dead bodies of
murdered persons, chiefly women. Just then they heard a noise and on
looking out of the window saw Bloody Baker and his servant bringing
in the murdered body of a lady. Nearly dead with fear, they concealed
themselves in a recess under the staircase. As the murderers, with
their dead burthen, passed by them, the hand of the unfortunate
murdered lady hung in the baluster of the stairs; with an oath,
Bloody Baker chopped it off and it fell into the lap of one of the
concealed ladies. As soon as the murderers had passed by, the ladies
ran away, having the presence of mind to carry with them the dead
hand, on one of the fingers of which was a ring. On reaching home,
they told their story; and, in confirmation of it, displayed the
ring. All the families who had lost relatives mysteriously were then
told of what had been found out; and they determined to ask Baker to
a large party, apparently in a friendly manner, but to have officers
concealed. He came, suspecting nothing; and then the lady told him
all she had seen, pretending it was a dream. “Fair lady,” said he,
“dreams are nothing; they are but fables.” “They may be fables,” said
she, “but is this a fable?” and she produced the hand and ring. Upon
this the officers rushed in and took him; and the tradition further
says, he was burnt, notwithstanding Queen Mary tried to save him on
account of the religion he professed.
§ 12. Dumas has it[245] that Cæsar Borgia wore a ring, composed of
two lion’s heads, the stone of which he turned inward when he wished
to press the hand of “a friend.” It was then the lion’s teeth became
those of a viper charged with poison. (His infamous father, the old
poisoner Alexander VI., kept a poisoned key by him, and when his
“holiness” wished to rid himself of some one of his familiars, he
desired him to open a certain wardrobe, but as the lock of this was
difficult to turn, force was required before the bolt yielded, by
which a small point in the handle of the key left a slight scratch
upon the hand, which proved mortal.)
§ 13. Liceto, as referred to by Maffei, gives an example of a ring
forming part of the Barberini collection, which has engraved upon
the stone a Cupid with butterflies; and, on the hoop of it, _Mei
Amores_, _i. e._ My Loves. This shows a freedom of subject that may
have reference to pretty plain flirting or wantonness. A fragment of
Ennius, which runs thus: _Others give a ring to be viewed from the
lips_, is coupled with a wanton custom (in full vigor in the time
of Plautus) for loose characters to take the hoop of the ring with
the teeth and, leaving the stone out of the mouth, thus invite young
persons to see either the figure or minute characters and who had to
approach very close to do it.
§ 14. We have heard of rings with delicate spring-lancets or
cutting-hooks, used by thieves to cut pockets before they pick them.
It is said that gamblers have rings with movable parts, which will
show a diminutive heart, spade, club or diamond according as a
partner desires a particular suit or card to be led.
Thieves in America will often wear a ring with the head of a dog
projecting and its ear sharpened and still further extended, so that
a blow with it would cut like any sharply pointed instrument. The
present Chief of Police in New-York is in the habit of clipping off
these sharp ears whenever he has a rogue in custody who possesses
such a ring. And characters of the like class wear one bearing a
triangular pyramid of metal, with which they can give a terrible blow.
The crime of ring-dropping consists, generally, in a rogue’s stooping
down and seeming to pick up a purse containing a ring and a paper,
which is made in the form of a receipt from a jeweller, descriptive
of the ring and making it a “rich, brilliant, diamond ring;” and in
the fellow’s proposing, for a specified payment, to share its value
with you.
When Charles VIII. of France crossed the Alps, he descended into
Piedmont and the Montferrat, which was governed by two Regents,
Princes Charles Jean Aimé and Guillaume Jean. They advanced to meet
Charles, each at the head of a numerous and brilliant court and
shining with jewels. Charles, aware that, notwithstanding their
friendly indications, they had, nevertheless, signed a treaty with
his enemy, received them with the greatest courtesy; and as they
were profuse in their professions of amity, he suddenly required
of them a proof: it was, to lend him the diamonds they then wore.
The two regents could but obey a request which possessed all the
characteristics of a command. They took off their rings and other
trinkets, for which Charles gave them a detailed receipt and, then,
pledged them for twenty-four thousand ducats.[246]
§ 15. When the Roman slave was allowed his liberty, he received, with
a cap and white vest, a ring. The ring was of iron.[247] We have
not heard the origin of this stated, but it appears to us it was
gathered from the fable of Prometheus. The slave had been fastened,
as it were, to the Caucasus of bondage; and when freed from that,
he had, still, as Prometheus had, to wear an iron ring, by way of
remembrance. He was not permitted to have one of gold, for that was
a badge of citizenship.[248] However, vanity is inherent in bond and
free; and slaves began to cover their iron rings with gold, while
others presumed to wear the precious metals alone.[249] The iron
rings of slaves were alluded to by Statius, who died about thirty
years later than Pliny.[250] Apuleius introduces a slave, with an
iron ring, bearing a device.
We all remember Moore’s lines, beginning with:
“Rich and rare were the gems she wore,
And a bright gold ring on her wand she bore.”
This was rather an Irish way of wearing a ring, on the top of a
snow-white wand, instead of upon a lily-white finger. The poet works
out and polishes and varnishes these verses from the following story
in Warren’s History of Ireland:[251] A young lady, of great beauty,
adorned with jewels and a costly dress, undertook a journey alone,
from one end of the kingdom to the other, with a wand only in her
hand, at the top of which was a ring of exceeding great value; and
such an impression had the laws and government of the then monarch,
Brian Borholme, made on the minds of all the people that no attempt
was made upon her honor, nor was she robbed of her clothes or jewels.
Ireland may or not be changed since that time; yet the monarch Brian
does not seem to have worked through moral suasion, if we may believe
an Irish verse-maker, who certainly uses neither the delicacy of
sentiment nor the polish of Moore:
“Oh, brave King Brian! he knew the way
To keep the peace and to make them pay;
For those who were bad, he knocked off their head;
And those who were worse, he kilt them dead.”
CHAPTER FOUR.
RINGS COUPLED WITH REMARKABLE HISTORICAL
CHARACTERS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Ring of Suphis; Pharaoh’s Ring given to Joseph. 2. Rings of
Hannibal; Mithridates; Pompey; Cæsar; Augustus and Nero. 3. Cameo.
4. Ethelwoulf; Madoc; Edward the Confessor; King John; Lord L’Isle;
Richard Bertie and his Son Lord Willoughby; Great Earl of Cork;
Shakspeare’s Signet-Ring; The Ring Queen Elizabeth gave to Essex;
Ring of Mary of Scotland and one sent by her to Elizabeth; Darnley;
The Blue Ring; Duke of Dorset; Ring in the Isle of Wight supposed
to have belonged to Charles the First, and Memorial Rings of this
Monarch; Earl of Derby; Charles the Second; Jeffrey’s Blood-Stone;
The great Dundee; Nelson; Scotch Coronation Ring; The Admirable
Crichton; Sir Isaac Newton; Kean; Wedding Ring of Byron’s Mother.
5. Matrons of Warsaw. 6. The Prussian Maiden.
§ 1. When Egypt is mentioned, the Pyramids rise in their sublimity--a
sublimity made perfect by their vastness and mysterious age. We can
fancy Abraham beholding them with awe, as, in the moonlight, they
seemed to be awful and gigantic reflexes of his own tents looming
into the heavens. We can imagine Alexander, rushing triumphantly on
as the sun warmed and brightened their points; and Cambyses, within
their shadow, horrifying the Egyptians by the destruction of their
god Apis. We can hear, too, the modern destroyer, with the bombastic
cry to his soldiers that, from the summits of those monuments, forty
centuries looked down upon them: they must indeed have looked down
upon those who came as locusts and were swept away like them! And
as our minds enter, from the outward heat, into the cold chamber of
the Pyramids, we observe Champollion, Wilkinson, Vyse and Lepsius
unrolling ages with the unwinding of papyrus and illuminated bandage.
Let us, however, attempt to sink these mighty mountains of man’s
labor below the desert--upon which they now heavily press as though
they were sealing the earth--and bring up, amid the vast desert and
in their place, a single figure, bearing a signet-ring upon its
finger. It is Suphis or Cheops, King of Memphis, who caused the Great
Pyramid to be made for his monument. What a speck, for such a tomb!
The monuments of man take up much space. Here was a whole nation
employed to make one man’s mausoleum. We fear that the virtues which
live after men could often go within the compass of their finger-ring.
To every kingly order or decree connected with the foundation of the
Great Pyramid or with the thousands of men who had to work or with
the prodigious material employed, an impression of the signet-ring of
Suphis had to be attached. Rings have been used for higher and holier
things; but never for so vast a human purpose.
Now, bring up, once more, (through the mind’s enchantment,) the
Pyramids, built upwards of two thousand years before the time of
Christ, with all the busy centuries which have encircled them;
and looking back, we can hardly think that this ring of Suphis, a
circle which an inch square might hold--is undestroyed! And even
if it be, we can scarcely believe that it is to be seen within the
sweep of our own observation. The city of New-York holds the ring
of Suphis. In the Egyptian collection formed by Dr. Abbott is this
ring. And if exquisite work can add to its value, it has it in a high
degree. Beautiful in execution;--there is something wonderful in its
preservation; while a species of awe, seldom attaching to a small
substance, seems to chill our nature and we are dumb while we look
upon it.
Here is the most valuable antique ring in the world. This ring alone
ought to be sufficient to secure the collection to New-York for
ever.[252]
[Illustration: (Hieroglyphics Ring and Oval)]
It may be well to copy a description of this relic as it appears in
Dr. Abbott’s Catalogue:
“This remarkable piece of antiquity is in the highest state of
preservation, and was found at Ghizeh, in a tomb near that excavation
of Colonel Vyse’s called Campbell’s tomb. It is of fine gold; and
weighs nearly three sovereigns. The style of the hieroglyphics is in
perfect accordance with those in the tombs about the Great Pyramid,
and the hieroglyphics within the oval make the name of that Pharaoh
of whom the pyramid was the tomb. The details are minutely accurate
and beautifully executed. The heaven is engraved with stars: the fox
or jackal has significant lines within its contour: the hatchets
have their handles bound with thongs, as is usual in the sculptures;
the volumes have the string which binds them hanging below the roll,
differing in this respect from any example in sculptured or painted
hieroglyphics. The determinative for country is studded with dots,
representing the sand of the mountains at the margin of the valley of
Egypt. The instrument, as in the larger hieroglyphics, has the tongue
and semi-lunar mark of the sculptured examples; as is the case also
with the heart-shaped vase. The name is surmounted with the globe and
feathers, decorated in the usual manner; and the ring of the cartouch
is engraved with marks representing a rope, never seen in the
sculptures: and the only instance of a royal name similarly encircled
is a porcelain example in this collection, inclosing the name of the
father of Sesostris. The O in the name is placed as in the examples
sculptured in the tombs, not in the axis of the cartouch. The
chickens have their unfledged wings; the cerastes its horns, now only
to be seen with the magnifying glass.”
[Illustration: Signet of the actual size.]
[Illustration: (Signet Top and Bottom Seal)]
Probably the next most important ring is one believed to have been
that which was given by Pharaoh to the patriarch Joseph. Upon
opening, in the winter of 1824, a tomb in the necropolis of Sakkara
near Memphis, Arab workmen discovered a mummy, every limb of which
was cased in solid gold; each finger had its particular envelope,
inscribed with hieroglyphics: “So Joseph died, being an hundred and
ten years old; and they embalmed him and he was put in a coffin in
Egypt.”[253] A golden scarabæus or beetle was attached to the neck
by a chain of the same metal; _a signet-ring_ was also found, a pair
of golden bracelets and other relics of value.[254] The excavation
had been made at the charge of the Swedish Consul; but the articles
discovered became the prize of the laborers. By a liberal application
of the cudgel, the scarabæus with its chain, a fragment of the gold
envelope and the bracelets were recovered. The bracelets are now in
the Leyden Museum, and bear the same name as the ring.[255] This
signet-ring, however, which was not given up at the time, found
its way to Cairo and was there purchased by the Earl of Ashburnham.
That nobleman having put his collection of relics, with his baggage,
on board a brig chartered in Alexandria for Smyrna, the vessel was
plundered by Greek pirates, who sold their booty in the island of
Syra. The signet in question fell thus into the hands of a Greek
merchant, who kept it till about three years ago, when it was sold
in Constantinople and purchased and brought finally to England. It
is again in the possession of the Earl of Ashburnham. This signet
has been assigned to the age of Thothmes III. The quantity and
nature of the golden decorations existing in the tomb referred to
indicate it as the sepulchre of one of the Pharaohs or of some highly
distinguished officer of the royal household; and a calculation
places the death of the patriarch Joseph in about the twentieth
year of the reign of Thothmes III. The signet would be an excellent
specimen of the antique of a kind called Tabat, still common in the
country and which resemble, in all but the engraved name upon this
signet, the ring placed by Pharaoh on Joseph’s hand. The seal turns
on a swivel, (and, so, has two tablets,) and, with the ring or circle
of the signet, is of very pure and massive gold. The carving is very
superior and also bold and sharp, which may be accounted for from the
difficult oxydization of gold above all metals. In connection with
this ring, it is necessary to remember what occurred when “Pharaoh
took off his ring from his hand and put it upon Joseph’s hand.”--“And
he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they
cried before him, Bow the knee; and he made him ruler over all the
land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh and
without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of
Egypt. _And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name_ ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH.” The seal
has the cartouch of Pharaoh. And one line upon it has been construed
into _Paaneah_, the name bestowed by Pharaoh on Joseph. This
signifies, in combination with “_Zaphnath_,” either, _the Revealer of
Secrets_, or, _the Preserver of the World_.
A discovery of the ring of Suphis and that which Pharaoh gave to
Joseph appears to border on the marvellous; and, yet, such things
were and gentleness of climate may allow us to suppose that they
still exist,--while modern energy, science and learning are so
laying bare the world’s sepulchre of the past that we ought not to
disbelieve at the suggested resurrection of any thing. In excavations
recently made in Persia, the palace of Shushan and the tomb of Daniel
have probably been found; and also the very pavement described in
Esther, i. 6, “of red and blue and white and green marble.”[256]
§ 2. Hannibal carried his death in his ring, which was a singular
one. When the Roman ambassadors required the king of Bythinia to
give Hannibal up, the latter, on the point of the king’s doing so,
swallowed poison, which he always carried about in his ring. In
the late war between America and Mexico, rings were found upon the
fingers of dead officers of the latter country. These opened and,
it is said, a poisonous substance was discovered; and there is a
notion that the owners of these rings were ready to act the part of
Hannibal: poison themselves rather than become prisoners.
The Romans were very curious in collecting cases of rings,
(_dactylothecæ_,) many of which are mentioned as being at Rome; among
these was that which Pompey the Great took from Mithridates and
dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol.[257]
And Pompey’s ring is known. Upon it were engraved three trophies,
as emblems of his three triumphs over the three parts of the world
Europe, Asia and Africa.[258] A ring with a trophy cut upon it has
helped to victory: When Timoleon was laying siege to Calauria, Icetes
took the opportunity to make an inroad into the territories of
Syracuse, where he met with considerable booty; and having made great
havoc, he marched back by Calauria itself, in contempt of Timoleon
and the slender force he had with him. Timoleon suffered him to pass;
and then followed him with his cavalry and light-armed foot. When
Icetes saw he was pursued, he crossed the Damyrias and stood in a
posture to receive the enemy, on the other side. What emboldened him
to do this was the difficulty of the passage and the steepness of
the banks on both sides. But a strange dispute and jealousy of honor
which arose among the officers of Timoleon awhile delayed the combat:
for there was not one that was willing to go after another, but every
man wanted to be foremost in the attack; so that their fording was
likely to be very tumultuous and disorderly by their jostling each
other and pressing to get before. To remedy this, Timoleon ordered
them to decide the matter by lot; and that each, for this purpose,
should give him his ring. He took the rings and shook them in the
skirt of his robe; and the first that came up happening to have a
trophy for the seal, the young officers received it with joy and,
crying out that they would not wait for any other lot, made their way
as fast as possible through the river and fell upon the enemy, who,
unable to sustain the shock, soon took to flight, throwing away their
arms and leaving a thousand of their men dead upon the spot.[259]
Cæsar’s ring bore an armed Venus. On that of Augustus there was,
first, a sphinx; afterwards, the image of Alexander the Great; and at
last, his own, which the succeeding emperors continued to use. Dr.
Clarke says, the introduction of sculptured animals upon the signets
of the Romans was derived from the sacred symbols of the Egyptians
and hence the origin of the sphinx for the signet of Augustus.
Nero’s signet-ring bore Apollo, flaying Marsyas. This emperor’s
musical vanity led him to adopt it.
§ 3. When the practice of deifying princes and venerating heroes
became general, portraits of men supplied the place of more ancient
types. This custom gave birth to the cameo; not, perhaps, introduced
before the Roman power and rarely found in Greece.
§ 4. In the British Museum is an enamelled gold ring of Ethelwoulf,
King of Wessex, second King of England, A. D. 836, 838. It bears his
name.[260]
The tradition of Madoc, one of the last princes of Powis, is kept
up by the discovery of a gold signet-ring, with the impress of a
monogram placed under a crown. It is supposed to be the ring of Madoc.
The ring of Edward the Confessor has been discovered; and is said to
be in the possession of Charles Kean the actor and that he wears it
whenever he plays the character of King Lear. This performer is a
collector of antiquities. He purchased the red hat of Cardinal Wolsey
at the sale of the Strawberry Hill collection. This hat was found
by Bishop Burnet, when Clerk of the Closet, in the great wardrobe
and was given by his son, the Judge, to the Countess Dowager of
Albemarle, who presented it to Horace Walpole.
King John of England is reputed to have secured a ring to aid his
designs upon the beautiful wife of the brave Eustace de Vesci, one
of the twenty-five barons appointed to enforce the observance of
Magna Charta.[261] The tyrant, hearing that Eustace de Vesci had a
very beautiful wife, but far distant from court and studying how to
accomplish his licentious designs towards her, sitting at table with
her husband and seeing a ring on his finger, he laid hold on it and
told him that he had such another stone, which he resolved to set
in gold in that very form. And having thus got the ring, presently
sent it to her, in her husband’s name; by that token conjuring her,
if ever she expected to see him alive, to come speedily to him. She,
therefore, upon sight of the ring, gave credit to the messenger
and came with all expedition. But so it happened that her husband,
casually riding out, met her on the road and marvelling much to see
her there, asked what the matter was? and when he understood how
they were both deluded, resolved to find a wanton and put her in
apparel to personate his lady. The king afterwards boasting to the
injured husband himself, Eustace had the pleasure to undeceive him.
We may imagine the cheated monarch’s rage and how freely he used his
favorite oath of, “by the teeth of God!”
Lord L’Isle, of the time of Henry VIII. of England, had been
committed to the Tower of London on suspicion of being privy to a
plot to deliver up the garrison of Calais to the French. But his
innocence appearing manifest on investigation, the monarch released
and sent him a diamond ring with a most gracious message. Whether it
was his liberty or the ring or the message, the fact is that he died
the night following “of excessive joy.”[262]
The turquoise was valuable enough for princely gift. Anne of
Brittany, young and beautiful, Queen of Louis the Twelfth of France,
sent a turquoise ring to James the Fourth of Scotland, who fell at
Flodden. Scott refers to it:
“For the fair Queen of France
Sent him a turquoise ring and glove;
And charged him, as her knight and love,
For her to break a lance.”
And, in a note, he says that a turquoise ring, “probably this fatal
gift,” is (with James’s sword and dagger) preserved in the College of
Heralds, London; and gives the following quotation from Pittscottie:
“Also, the Queen of France wrote a love-letter to the King of
Scotland, calling him her love, showing him that she had suffered
much rebuke in France for the defending of her honor. She believed
surely that he would recompense her again with some of his kingly
support in her necessity, that is to say, that he would raise her an
army and come three foot of ground, on English ground, for her sake.
To that effect she sent him a ring off her finger, with fourteen
hundred French crowns to pay his expenses.”
Some of the trials of life which Richard Bertie and his wife
Catharine, Duchess of Suffolk, underwent,[263] are matters of
history. They arose from the zeal of the Duchess for the Reformation
in the reign of Edward VI. and through the malice of Bishop Gardiner.
The lady had in her “progress” caused a dog in a rochet (part of a
bishop’s dress) to be carried and called by Gardiner’s name. They had
an only son Peregrine Bertie, who claimed and obtained the Barony
of Willoughby of Eresby. He was sent as general of auxiliaries
into France; and did good service at the siege of Paris and by
the reduction of many towns. His troops were disbanded with great
commendation; and Lord Willoughby received a present of a diamond
ring from the King of France.[264] This ring he, at his death, left
his son, with a charge, upon his blessing, to transmit it to his
heirs. Queen Elizabeth wrote a free letter inviting him back to
England, beginning it, “Good Peregrine.” His will is a remarkable
one. It begins thus: “In the name of the blessed divine Trynitie in
persons and of Omnipotent Unitye in Godhead, who created, redeemed
and sanctified me, whom I steadfastlye beleeve will glorifye this
sinfull, corruptyble and fleshely bodie, with eternal happiness
by a joyeful resurrection at the general Judgment, when by his
incomprehensible justice and mercye, having satisfied for my sinfull
soule, and stored it uppe in his heavenlye treasure, his almightye
voyce shall call all fleshe to be joyned together with the soule to
everlasting comforte or discomforte. In that holye name I Pergrin
Bertye,” etc., etc., etc. He was once confined to his bed with the
gout and had an insulting challenge sent him, to which he answered,
“That although he was lame of his hands and feet, yet he would meet
his adversary with a piece of a rapier in his teeth.” His idea of a
“carpet knight” is observable in his saying, that “a court became a
soldier of good skill and great spirit as a bed of down would one of
the Tower lions.”
Richard Boyle, who, by personal merit, obtained a high position and
is known as the “great Earl of Cork,” did not forget his early life.
When he was in the height of his prosperity, he committed the most
memorable circumstances of his life to writing, under the title of
“True Remembrances;” and we find the mention of a ring which his
mother had given him: “When first I arrived in Ireland, the 23d
of June, 1588, all my wealth then was twenty-seven pounds three
shillings in money and two tokens which my mother had given me, viz.
a diamond ring, which I have ever since and still do wear, and a
bracelet of gold worth about ten pounds; a taffety doublet cut with
and upon taffety; a pair of black silk breeches laced; a new Milan
fustian suit laced and cut upon taffety, two cloaks, competent linen
and necessaries, with my rapier and dagger; and, since, the blessing
of God, whose heavenly providence guided me hither, hath enriched my
weak estate in the beginning with such a fortune as I need not envy
any of my neighbors, and added no care or burthen to my conscience
thereunto.”[265]
We have mentioned Shakspeare’s signet-ring. It is of gold and
was found on the sixteenth day of March in the year one thousand
eight hundred and ten, by a laborer’s wife upon the surface of the
mill-close, adjoining Stratford churchyard. The weight is twelve
penny-weights; it bears the initials W. S.; and was purchased by Mr.
R. B. Wheeler (who has published a Guide to Stratford-upon-Avon[266])
for thirty-six shillings, the current value of the gold. It is
evidently a gentleman’s ring of the time of Elizabeth; and the
crossing of the central lines of the W. with the oblique direction
of the lines of the S. exactly agree with the character of that day.
There is a connection or union of the letters by an ornamental string
and tassels, known commonly as a “true lover’s knot”--the upper bow
or flourish of which forms the resemblance of a heart. On the porch
of Charlcote House near Stratford, erected in the early part of
Elizabeth’s reign by the very Sir Thomas Lucy said to have persecuted
Shakspeare for deer stealing, the letters T. L. are surrounded in a
manner precisely similar. Allowing that this was Shakspeare’s ring,
it is the only existing article which originally belonged to him.
Singularly enough, a man named William Shakspeare was at work near
the spot when this ring was picked up.[267] Little doubt can be
entertained that it belonged to the poet and is probably the one
he lost before his death and was not to be found when his will
was executed, the word _hand_ being substituted for _seale_ in the
original copy of that document. The only other person at Stratford
having the same initials and likely to possess such a seal was
William Smith, but he used one having a different device, as may be
seen from several indentures preserved amongst the records of the
corporation. Halliwell believes in the authenticity of this relic.
Mr. Wheeler, its owner, says: “Though I purchased it upon the same
day for 36s. (the current value of the gold) the woman had sufficient
time to destroy the precious _ærugo_, by having it unnecessarily
immersed in _aquafortis_, to ascertain and prove the metal, at a
silversmith’s shop, which consequently restored its original color.”
In the Life of Haydon the painter,[268] we have the following letter
from him to Keats, (March 1, 1818:) “My dear Keats, I shall go mad!
In a field at Stratford-upon-Avon, that belonged to Shakspeare, they
have found a gold ring and seal, with the initials W. S. and a true
lover’s knot between. If this is not Shakspeare’s, whose is it?--a
true lover’s knot! I saw an impression to-day, and am to have one as
soon as possible: as sure as you breathe and that he was the first of
beings, the seal belonged to him.
“O Lord! B. R. HAYDON.”
Let us now turn to the ring that Queen Elizabeth gave to the
handsome, brave and open-hearted Devereux, Earl of Essex; and which
was probably worn by him, when, on his trial, he was desired to hold
up his right hand, and he said that he had, before that time, done it
often at her majesty’s command for a better purpose. The story of
this ring has been discarded by some authors; but we see no reason
to doubt it. We take our account from Francis Osborn’s Traditional
Memoirs on the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.[269] “Upon this,” says he,
“with a great deal of familiarity, she presented a ring to him, which
after she had, by oaths, endued with a power of freeing him from any
danger or distress, his future miscarriage, her anger or enemies’
malice could cast him into, she gave it him, with a promise that,
at the first sight of it, all this and more, if possible, should be
granted. After his commitment to the Tower, he sent this jewel to her
majesty by the then Countess of Nottingham, whom Sir Robert Cecill
kept from delivering it. But the Lady of Nottingham, coming to her
death-bed and finding by the daily sorrow the Queen expressed for the
loss of Essex, herself a principal agent in his destruction, could
not be at rest till she had discovered all and humbly implored mercy
from God and forgiveness from her earthly sovereign; who did not
only refuse to give it, but having shook her as she lay in bed, sent
her, accompanied with most fearful curses, to a higher tribunal.”
This reads like truth; and what a picture it presents! Mark the fury
of such an overbearing, half-masculine Queen; and, the repentant
passiveness of the dying Countess!
Dr. Birch, in his Memoirs, says: the Queen observed, “God may forgive
you, but I never can.”
We are inclined to believe that Elizabeth swore pretty roundly on
this occasion, as it is known she could; and that there was a
violence on the occasion is even shown by Dr. Birch: he says--“The
Countess of Nottingham, affected by the near approach of death,
obtained a visit from the Queen, to whom she revealed the secret;
that the Queen shook the dying lady in her bed, and thenceforth
resigned herself to the deepest melancholy.”
The melancholy continued; and this haughty woman was soon smitten;
refusing to rest on a bed, from a superstition that it would be her
death couch, she became almost a silent lunatic, and crouched upon
the floor. There sat she, as did another queen, who cried--
“Here I and sorrow sit,
Here is my throne;”
neither rising nor lying down, her finger almost always in her mouth,
her eyes open and fixed on the ground.[270] But her indomitable will
did not leave her in her death hour. She had declared she would have
no rascal to succeed her; and when she was too far gone to speak,
Secretary Cecil besought her, if she would have the King of Scots
to reign after her, to show some sign unto them. Whereat, suddenly
heaving herself up, she held both her hands joined together, over
her head, in manner of a crown. Then, she sank down, and dozed into
another world.
The Chevalier Louis Aubery de Maurier, who was many years the French
Minister in Holland, and said to have been a man of great parts
and unsuspected veracity, gives the following story of the Essex
ring:[271]
“It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or
disagreeable to add here what Prince Maurice had from the mouth of
Mr. Carleton, Ambassador from England in Holland, who died Secretary
of State, so well known under the name of my Lord Dorchester and
who was a man of great merit. He said that Queen Elizabeth gave the
Earl of Essex a ring in the height of her passion for him, ordering
him to keep it, and that whatever he should commit she would pardon
him when he should return that pledge. Since that time, the Earl’s
enemies having prevailed with the Queen, who besides was exasperated
against him for the contempt he showed for her beauty, which, through
age, began to decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was
condemned, she expected that he should send her the ring; and would
have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The Earl
finding himself in the last extremity, applied to Admiral Howard’s
lady, who was his relation, and desired her, by a person whom she
could trust, to return the ring into the Queen’s own hands. But her
husband, who was one of the Earl’s greatest enemies and to whom she
told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the
commission; so that the Queen consented to the Earl’s death, being
full of indignation against such a proud and haughty spirit who
chose rather to die than to implore her mercy. Some time after, the
Admiral’s lady fell sick and being given over by her physicians, she
sent word to the Queen that she had something of great consequence
to tell her before she died. The Queen came to her bedside, and
having ordered all the attendants to withdraw, the Admiral’s lady
returned her, but too late, that ring from the Earl of Essex,
desiring to be excused that she did not return it sooner, having been
prevented doing it by her husband. The Queen retired immediately,
being overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for
a fortnight following, without taking any nourishment; lying abed
entirely dressed and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she
died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the
death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy. This melancholy
adventure shows that there are frequent transitions from one passion
to another and that as love often changes to hate, so hate, giving
place sometimes to pity, brings the mind back again into its first
state.” Sir Dudley Carleton, who is made the author of this story,
was a man who deserved the character that is given of him and could
not but be well informed of what had passed at court. The Countess of
Nottingham was the daughter of the Lord Viscount Hunsdon, related to
the Queen and also, by his mother, to the Earl of Essex.
The story of the ring and the relations of the Queen’s passion for
the Earl of Essex were long regarded by many writers as romantic
circumstances. But these facts are now more generally believed. Hume,
Birch and other judicious historians give credit to them. Dr. Birch
has confirmed Maurice’s account by the following narrative, which
was often related by the Lady Elizabeth Spelman, a descendant of
Sir Robert Cary, Earl of Monmouth, whose acquaintance with the most
secret transactions of Queen Elizabeth’s court is well known:[272]
“When Catharine, Countess of Nottingham, wife of the Lord High
Admiral and sister of the Earl of Monmouth, was dying, (as she did,
according to his Lordship’s own account, about a fortnight before the
Queen,) she sent to her majesty, to desire that she might see her
in order to reveal something to her majesty, without the discovery
of which she could not die in peace. Upon the Queen’s coming, Lady
Nottingham told her that, while the Earl of Essex lay under sentence
of death, he was desirous of asking her majesty’s mercy, in the
manner prescribed by herself, during the height of his favor: the
Queen having given him a ring which, being sent to her as a token
of his distress, might entitle him to her protection. But the Earl,
jealous of those about him and not caring to trust any one with it,
as he was looking out of the window one morning, saw a boy, with
whose appearance he was pleased, and, engaging him, by money and
promises, directed him to carry the ring, which he took from his
finger and threw down, to Lady Scroope, a sister of the Countess of
Nottingham and a friend of his lordship, who attended upon the Queen
and to beg of her that she would present it to her majesty. The boy,
by mistake, carried it to Lady Nottingham, who showed it to her
husband, the Admiral, an enemy of Lord Essex, in order to take his
advice. The Admiral forbid her to carry it or return any answer to
the message; but insisted upon her keeping the ring.
“The Countess of Nottingham having made the discovery, begged the
Queen’s forgiveness, but her majesty answered, ‘God may forgive you,
but I never can;’ and left the room with great emotion. Her mind was
so struck with this story that she never went to bed, nor took any
subsistence, from that instant: for Camden is of opinion that her
chief reason for suffering the Earl to be executed was his supposed
obstinancy in not applying to her for mercy.”
Miss Strickland considers that the story of this ring should not be
lightly rejected.
There are two rings extant claiming to be the identical one so
fatally retained by Lady Nottingham. The first is preserved at
Hawnes, Bedfordshire, England and is the property of the Reverend
Lord John Thynne. The ring is gold, the sides are engraved and the
inside set with blue enamel; the stone is a sardonyx, on which is
cut, in relief, a head of Elizabeth, the execution being of a high
order. The second is the property of a Mr. Warner, and was given
by Charles the First to Sir Thomas Warner, the settler of Antigua,
Nevis, etc. It is a diamond set in gold, inlaid with black enamel at
the back and sides.[273]
And now let us turn to one of Elizabeth’s victims, who had her talent
and was her contrast: for Mary of Scotland was womanly and beautiful.
So charming was she in the mind of the French poet Ronsard that he
tells us France without her was as “a ring bereft of its precious
pearl.”[274] The nuptial ring of Mary, Queen of Scots, on her
marriage with Lord Darnley, is extant.[275] It is, in general design,
a copy of her great seal, the banners only being different, for,
in the great seal they each bear a saltier surmounted by a crown.
(In her great seal made when Dowager of France, after the death of
Francis the Second, the dexter banner is St. Andrew’s Cross, the
sinister the Royal Arms of the Lion.) The ring part is enamelled. It
is of most beautiful and minute workmanship. An impression is not
larger than a small wafer. It has the initials M. R.; and on the
interior is a monogram of the letters M. and A., _Mary_ and _Albany_:
Darnley was created Duke of Albany.
A use of the arms of England by Mary came to the knowledge of and
gave great offence to Elizabeth and Burghley; and the latter obtained
a copy of them so used, which copy is now in the British Museum. It
is endorsed by Burghley, “False Armes of Scotl. Fr. Engl. Julii,
1559.” The following doggrel lines are underneath the arms:
“The armes of Marie Quene Dolphines of France
The nobillist Ladie in earth for till aduance,
Off Scotland Quene, and of England also,
Off Ireland als God haith providit so.”
A letter has been discovered in the handwriting of Mary herself
which presents the monogram of M. and A. that is upon the ring. This
epistle is in French; and the following is a translation:
“Madam, my good sister, the wish that I have to omit nothing that
could testify to you how much I desire not to be distant from your
good favor, or to give you occasion to suspect me from my actions
to be less attached to you than, my good sister, I am, does not
permit me to defer longer the sending to you the bearer, Master of my
Requests, to inform you further of my good will to embrace all means
which are reasonable, not to give you occasion to be to me other than
you have been hitherto; and relying on the sufficiency of the bearer,
I will kiss your hands, praying God that he will keep you, Madam my
good sister, in health and a happy and long life. From St. John’s
Town, this 15th of June.
“Your very affectionate and faithful
“Good Sister and Cousin,
“MARIE R.”
“To the Queen of England,
“Madam my good Sister
“and Cousin.”
The history of the ring bearing the arms of England, Scotland and
Ireland, (and which is said to have been produced in evidence at the
trial of the unfortunate Mary as a proof of her pretensions to the
crown of England,) is curious. It descended from Mary to her grandson
Charles the First, who gave it on the scaffold to Archbishop Juxon
for his son Charles the Second, who, in his troubles, pawned it in
Holland for three hundred pounds, where it was bought by Governor
Yale; and sold at his sale for three hundred and twenty dollars,
supposed to the Pretender. Afterwards it came into the possession
of the Earl of Ilay, Duke of Argyll. It was ultimately purchased by
George the Fourth of England, when he was Prince Regent.[276] This is
sometimes called the Juxon ring.
It appears by Andrews’s continuation of Henry’s History of Great
Britain,[277] that Mary had three wedding rings on her marriage with
Darnley: “She had on her back the great mourning gown of black, with
the great mourning hood,” (fit robes for such a wedding!) “The rings,
which were three, the middle a rich diamond, were put on her finger.
They kneel together and many prayers are said over them,” etc.,
etc. Rings of Mary of Modena have been mistaken for those of Mary of
Scotland.
There is a ring at Bolsover Castle containing a portrait of Mary.[278]
A word more of Elizabeth and Mary. Aubrey says,[279] “I have seen
some rings made for sweethearts, with a heart enamelled held between
two right hands. See an epigram of George Buchanan on two rings that
were made by Elizabeth’s appointment, being layd one upon the other
showed the like figure. The heart was two diamonds, which joyned,
made the heart. Queen Elizabeth kept one moietie, and sent the other
as a token of her constant friendship to Mary, Queen of Scots; but
she cut off her head for all that.” Aubrey, who also quotes an
old verse as to the wearers of rings: _Miles, mercator, stultus,
maritus, amator_,--here alludes, it is presumed, to a diamond ring
originally given by Elizabeth to Mary as a pledge of affection and
support and which Mary commissioned Beatoun to take back to her when
she determined to seek an asylum in England. The following is one of
Buchanan’s epigrams on the subject of the ring, described by Aubrey:
“_Loquitur adamas in cordis effigiem sculptus, quem Maria Elizabethæ
Angl. misit:_” (The diamond sculptured into the form of a heart and
which Mary sent to the English Elizabeth, says:)
“_Quod te jampridem videt, ac amat absens,_
_Hæc pignus cordis gemma, et imago mei est,_
_Non est candidior non est hæc purior illo_
_Quamvis dura magis non image firma tamen._”
These lines we thus render in verse:
“This gem is pledge and image of my heart:
A heart that looks and loves, though not in view.
The jewel has no clearer, purer part--
It may be harder, but is not more true.”
The sentiment in this epigram must have been gathered from
expressions made by Mary herself: for, at a time when she was at
Dumferline and desired and hoped for an interview with Elizabeth, she
received, through the hands of Randolph, a letter from the English
Queen, “which first she did read and after put into her bosom next
unto her _schyve_.” Mary entered into a long private conversation
with Randolph on the subject of their proposed interview; and asked
him, in confidence, to tell her frankly whether it were ever likely
to take effect. “Above any thing,” said she, “I desire to see my
good sister; and next, that we may live like good sisters together,
as your mistress hath written unto me that we shall. I have here,”
continued she, “a ring with a diamond fashioned like a heart: I know
nothing that can resemble my good will unto my good sister better
than that. My meaning shall be expressed by writing in a few verses,
which you shall see before you depart; and whatsomever lacketh
therein, let it be reported by your writing. I will witness the same
with my own hand, and call God to record that I speak as I think with
my heart, that I do as much rejoice of that continuance of friendship
that I trust shall be between the queen my sister and me and the
people of both realms, as ever I did in any thing in my life.” “With
these words,” continues Randolph, “she taketh out of her bosom the
Queen’s Majesty’s letter; and after that she had read a line or two
thereof, putteth it again in the same place, and saith, ‘If I could
put it nearer my heart I would.’”[280]
Mary’s sad going to England, makes us remember Wordsworth’s sonnet:
“----; but Time, the old Saturnian seer,
Sighed on the wing as her foot pressed the strand,
With step prelusive to a long array
Of woes and degradations, hand in hand,
Weeping Captivity and shuddering Fear,
Stilled by the ensanguined block of Fotheringay!”
[Illustration: Original size.]
In the British Museum is a ring which belonged to one whose life
had been a tissue of cowardice, cruelty, falsehood and weakness,
Lord Darnley. If this was a ring he ordinarily wore, it probably
was upon his finger when he led the way to the murder of Riccio
and pointed him out to the slayers. However this may be, the story
goes that when Darnley was reconciled to Mary and was in the house
called Kirk of Field, she, one evening, on taking leave in order to
attend a marriage of a servant, embraced him tenderly; took a ring
from her finger and placed it upon his. It was on this night that
a terrific explosion was heard, which shook the city of Edinburgh.
Then it was that the Kirk of Field was blown up; and at a little
distance, in the garden, were the dead bodies of Darnley and his
page. We are not of those who believe that Mary’s hand or heart were
in this murder, notwithstanding we read of the vote of the Scotch
Parliament and peruse Buchanan’s suggested letters from the Queen to
Bothwell--especially as these epistles are not forthcoming. It has
been said that Buchanan expressed sorrow on his death-bed for what he
had written against Mary. But he certainly was not a repentant. We
have a proof of his indomitable disposition in the fact that when,
at his dying hour, he was informed that the King was highly incensed
against him for writing his books _De Jure Regni_ and History of
Scotland, he replied, “he was not much concerned about that, for
he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.”[281]
Writers who show no esteem for Buchanan give him the character of an
inveterate drinker even up to his death hour; he, “continuing his
debauches of the belly, made shift to get the dropsy by immoderate
drinking,” and it was said of him, by way of jest, that he was
troubled _vino inter cute_ and not _aquâ inter cute_ (by _wine
between the skin_ and not _water between the skin_).[282]
There is a ring known in English history as the _Blue Ring_.[283]
King James the First kept a constant correspondence with several
persons of the English court for many years prior to Queen
Elizabeth’s decease; among others with Lady Scroope, sister of
Robert Carey, afterwards Earl of Monmouth, to which lady his majesty
sent, by Sir James Fullerton, a sapphire ring, with positive orders
to return it to him, by a special messenger, as soon as the Queen
actually expired. Lady Scroope had no opportunity of delivering
it to her brother Robert while he was in the palace of Richmond;
but waiting at the window till she saw him at the outside of the
gate, she threw it out to him and he well knew to what purpose he
received it. Indeed, he was the first person to announce to James his
accession to the crown of England; and the monarch said to him: “I
know you have lost a near kinswoman and a mistress, but take here my
hand, I will be a good master to you and will requite this service
with honor and reward.” This Robert Carey wrote his own memoirs;
and therein says: “I only relied on God and the King. The one never
left me; the other, shortly after his coming to London, deceived my
expectations and adhered to those who sought my ruin.”
Thomas Sackvil, Duke of Dorset, who was Lord High Treasurer of
England in the times of Elizabeth and James I., has left a remarkably
long and curious will, which shows exceeding wealth and a mixture
of seeming humility, obsequious loyalty and pride of position. His
riches appear to have mainly come from his father, who was called
by the people _Fill-Sack_, on account of his vast property. A great
number of personal ornaments are bequeathed; and among them many
rings, which are particularly described. He often and especially
notices[284] “one ring of gold and enamelled black and set round
with diamonds, to the number of 20., whereof 5. being placed in the
upper part of the said ring do represent the fashion of a cross.”
This ring is coupled with “one picture of the late famous Queen
Elizabeth, being cut out of an agate, with excellent similitude,
oval fashion and set in gold, with 20. rubies about the circle of it
and one orient pearl pendant to the same; one ring of gold, enamelled
black, wherein is set a great table diamonde, beying perfect and pure
and of much worth; and one cheyne of gold, Spanish work, containing
in it 48. several pieces of gold, of divers sorts, enamelled white
and of 46. oval links of gold, likewise enamelled white, wherein
are 144. diamonds.” These rings, chain and picture are to remain
as heirlooms; while particular directions are given to place them
in the custody of the warden and a senior fellow of New College at
Oxford during minority of his descendants, to be kept within the said
college “in a strong chest of iron, under two several keys,” etc.
The testator states how the “said rynge of gould, with the great
table diamonde sett therein togeather with the said cheyne of goulde,
were given to him by the Kinge of Spayne;” while the way in which he
obtained the ring set round with twenty diamonds is thus elaborated
in the will: “And to the intent that they may knowe howe just and
great cause bothe they and I have to hould the sayed Rynge, with
twentie Diamonds, in so heighe esteeme, yt is most requisite that I
do here set downe the whole course and circumstance howe and from
whome the same rynge did come to my possession, which was thus: In
the Begynning of the monethe of June one thousand sixe hundred and
seaven, this rynge thus sett with twenty Diamondes, as is aforesayed,
was sent unto me from my most gracious soveraigne King James, by
that honorable personage the Lord Haye, one of the gentlemen of his
Highnes Bedchamber, the Courte then beying at Whitehall in London
and I at that tyme remayning at Horsley House in Surrey, twentie
myles from London, where I laye in suche extremitye of sickness as
yt was a common and a constant reporte all over London that I was
dead and the same confidentlie affirmed even unto the Kinge’s Highnes
hymselfe; upon which occasion it pleased his most excellent majestie,
in token of his gracious goodness and great favour towards me, to
send the saied Lord Hay with the saied Ringe, and this Royal message
unto me, namelie, that his Highness wished a speedie and a perfect
recoverye of my healthe, with all happie and good successe unto me
and that I might live as longe as the diamonds of that Rynge (which
therewithall he delivered unto me) did indure, and, in token thereof,
required me to weare yt and keep yt for his sake. This most gracious
and comfortable message restored a new Life unto me, as coming from
so renowned and benigne a soveraigne,”--but enough of this fulsome
praise of the coward King of Holyrood. It makes us think of Sir
Richie Moniplie’s scene: “But my certie, lad, times are changed since
ye came fleeing down the back stairs of auld Holyrood House, in grit
fear, having your breeks in your hand, without time to put them on,
and Frank Stewart, the wild Earl of Bothwell, hard at your haunches;
and if auld Lord Glenwarloch hadna cast his mantle about his arm and
taken bluidy wounds mair than ane in your behalf, you wald not have
crawed sae crouse this day.”
There is a ring in the Isle of Wight, shown as having belonged to
Charles the First of England; and the following story is told of
it.[285] When Charles was confined in Carisbrook Castle, a man
named Howe was its master gunner. He had a son, a little boy, who
was a great favorite of Charles. One day, seeing him with a child’s
sword by his side, the King asked him what he intended doing with
it? “To defend your Majesty from your Majesty’s enemies,” was the
reply; an answer which so pleased the King that he gave the child the
signet-ring he was in the habit of wearing upon his finger.
An engraving of the ring has been published. The article itself is in
the possession of a descendant of Howe’s. It is marked inside with
the letters A and T conjoined followed by E. The author cannot trace
or couple these letters with Charles the First; and he is otherwise
inclined to doubt the story. It is a tale to please loyal readers.
Charles was an intelligent man; and he was not likely, especially
under his then circumstances, to have given his signet-ring to a
child. There is a very pretty incident connected with his passing
to prison, where he might beautifully have left a ring with a
true-hearted lady. As he passed through Newport, on the way to
the Castle of Carisbrook, the autumn weather was most bitter. A
gentlewoman, touched by his misfortunes and his sorrows, presented
him with a damask rose, which grew in her garden at that cold season
of the year and prayed for him. The mournful monarch received the
lady’s gift, heartily thanked her and passed on to his dungeon.
It is true that Charles, when in the Isle of Wight, gave a ring from
his finger. But the receiver of it was Sir Philip Warwick. This
ring bore a figure cut in an onyx; and was handed to Sir Philip in
order to seal the letters written for the King by that knight at the
time of the treaty. This ring was left by Sir Philip to Sir Charles
Cotterell, Master of the Ceremonies, who, in his will, (16th April,
1701,) bequeathed it to Sir Stephen Fox. It came into the possession
of the latter’s descendant, the late Earl of Ilchester and was stolen
from his house in old Burlington street, London, about seventy years
ago.[286]
Just before his execution, the same monarch caused a limited number
of mourning rings to be prepared. Burke, in his Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland, mentions the family of _Rogers in Lota_. This
family was early remarkable for its loyalty and attachment to the
crown. A ring is still preserved as an heirloom, which was presented
to its ancestor by King Charles the First during his misfortunes.
Robert Rogers of Lota received extensive grants from Charles the
Second. In the body of his will is the following: “And I also
bequeathe to Noblett Rogers the miniature portrait ring of the martyr
Charles I. given by that monarch to my ancestor previous to his
execution; and I particularly desire that it may be preserved in the
name and family.” The miniature is said to be by Vandyke.
The present possessor of this ring says that when it was shown in
Rome, it was much admired; the artists when questioned, “Whose
style?” frequently answered, “Vandyke’s.”[287] Although many doubt
whether Vandyke ever submitted to paint miniatures, yet portraits in
enamel by him are known to be in existence.
A ring, said to be one of the seven given after the King’s death,
was possessed by Horace Walpole and sold with the Strawberry Hill
collection. It has the King’s head in miniature and behind, a skull;
while between the letters C. R. is this motto:
“_Prepared be to follow me._”
There is another of these rings (all of which may be considered as
“stamped with an eternal grief”) in the possession of a clergyman.
The shank of the ring is of fine gold, enamelled black, but the
greater part of the enamel has been worn away by use. On the inner
side of the shank an inscription has been engraved, the first letter
of which still remains, but the rest of this also has been worn away
by much use. In the shank is set a small miniature in enamel of
the King, inclosed in a box of crystal which opens with a spring.
At the back of the box, containing the miniature, is a piece of
white enamel, having a death’s head surmounted by a crown with the
date January 30 represented upon it in black. A memorial ring of
Charles the First, which has a portrait of the King in enamel and
an inscription at the back, recording the day of his execution, was
exhibited before the members of the London Antiquarian Society in
March, 1854.[288]
Rings, with portraits of Charles the First on ivory, are not uncommon.
When the body of Charles the First was discovered in 1813, (in the
royal burial place at Windsor,) the hair at the back of the head
appeared close cut; whereas, at the time of the decollation, the
executioner twice adjusted the King’s hair under his cap. No doubt
the piety of friends had severed the hair after death, in order to
furnish rings and other memorials of the unhappy monarch.
A noble character was James Stanley, seventh Earl of Derby, who was
beheaded for his loyalty to Charles the First.
As a proof of his bravery, with six hundred horse he maintained fight
against three thousand foot and horse, receiving seven shots in his
breast-plate, thirteen cuts in his beaver, five or six wounds on his
arms and shoulders, and had two horses killed under him.
His manliness shows well in his answer to Cromwell’s demand that
he should deliver up the Isle of Wight: “I scorn your proffers;
I disdain your favors; I abhor your treasons; and am so far from
delivering this island to your advantage, that I will keep it to the
utmost of my power to your destruction. Take this final answer and
forbear any further solicitations; for if you trouble me with any
more messages upon this occasion, I will burn the paper and hang the
bearer.”[289]
He was executed contrary to the promise of quarter for life, “an
ancient and honorable plea not violated until this time.”
There is a deeply interesting account of his acts and deportment
written by a Mr. Bagaley who attended on him. The Earl wrote letters
to his wife, daughter and sons; a servant went and purchased all the
rings he could get and lapped them up in several papers and writ
within them and the Earl made Bagaley subscribe them to all his
children and servants. This coupling his servants with his children
in connection with these death tokens is charming. The Earl handed
the letters with the rings to Bagaley and, in relation to delivering
them, he used this beautiful and perfect expression--“As to them,
I can say nothing: _silence and your own looks will best tell your
message_.”
On quitting his prison, others confined there kissed his hand and
wept; but as to himself, he told them: “You shall hear that I die
like a Christian, a man and a soldier.”
He was to be beheaded at Bolton. On his way thither, Bagaley says:
“His lordship, as we rode along, called me to him and bid me, when I
should come into the Isle of Man, to commend him to the Archbishop
there and tell him he well remembered the several discourses that
had passed between them there concerning death and the manner of it;
that he had often said the thoughts of death could not trouble him
in fight or with a sword in hand, _but he feared it would something
startle him tamely to submit to a blow on the scaffold_. But,” said
his lordship, “tell the archdeacon from me that I do now find in
myself an absolute change as to that opinion.”
At night when he laid him down upon the right side, with his hand
under his face, he said: “Methinks I lie like a monument in a church;
and to-morrow I shall really be so.”
There was a delay in his execution, for the people of Bolton refused
to strike a nail in the scaffold or to give any assistance. He asked
for the axe and kissed it. He forgave the headsman before he asked
him. To the spectators, he said: “Good people, I thank you for your
prayers and for your tears; I have heard the one and seen the other
and our God sees and hears both.” He caused the block to be turned
towards the church. “I will look,” cried he, “towards the sanctuary
which is above for ever.” There were other interesting circumstances
attending his execution. With outstretched arms he laid himself down
to the block, exclaiming, “Blessed be God’s name for ever and ever.
Let the whole earth be filled with his glory.” Then the executioner
did his work--“_and no manner of noise was then heard but sighs and
sobs_.”
We are left without any account of the way in which Bagaley delivered
the rings; but, imagination can make a picture of a darkened and
dismantled mansion, suffering widow and children, with terrified
retainers, and Bagaley standing in the midst, weary, heart-sick,
tearfully presenting the melancholy remembrances and realizing the
truthfulness of the words of his brave, good and gentle master:
“_Silence and your own looks will best tell your message_.”
The French woman Kerouaille, favorite mistress of Charles the Second,
and created Duchess of Portsmouth, is said to have secured two
valuable diamond rings from the King’s finger while the throes of
death were on him. The following graphic description is worth reading:
“I should have told you, in his fits his feet were as cold as ice,
and were kept rubbed with hot cloths, which were difficult to get.
Some say the Queen rubbed one and washed it in tears. Pillows were
brought from the Duchess of Portsmouth’s by Mrs. Roche. His Highness,
the Duke of York, was the first there, and then I think the Queen,
(he sent for her;) the Duchess of Portsmouth swooned in the chamber,
and was carried out for air; Nelly Gwynne roared to a disturbance
and was led out and lay roaring behind the door; the Duchess wept
and returned; the Princess (afterwards Queen Anne) was not admitted,
he was so ghastly a sight, (his eye-balls were turned that none of
the blacks were seen, and his mouth drawn up to one eye,) so they
feared it might affect the child she goes with. None came in at
the common door, but by an odd side-door to prevent a crowd, but
enough at convenient times to satisfy all. The grief of the Duchess
of Portsmouth did not hinder her packing and sending many strong
boxes to the French ambassador’s; and the second day of the King’s
sickness, the chamber being kept dark--one who comes from the light
does not see very soon, and much less one who is between them and the
light there is--so she went to the side of the bed, and sat down to
and taking the king’s hand in hers, felt his two great diamond rings;
thinking herself alone, and asking him what he did with them on, said
she would take them off, and did it at the same time, and looking up
saw the Duke at the other side, steadfastly looking on her, at which
she blushed much, and held them towards him, and said, ‘Here, sire,
will you take them?’ ‘No, madam,’ he said, ‘they are as safe in your
hands as mine. I will not touch them till I see how things will go.’
But since the King’s death she has forgot to restore them, though he
has not that she took them, for he told the story.” This extract is
taken from a letter written by a lady who was the wife of a person
about the court at Whitehall and forms part of a curious collection
of papers lately discovered at Draycot House near Chippenham,
Wiltshire, England.[290]
Jeffreys, the bloody Jeffreys, whose greatest honor was to make a
martyr of Sidney, while rising in royal favor and when about to
depart for the circuit to give the provinces “a lick with the rough
side of his tongue,” (a favorite expression of his,) experienced a
mark of regard from Charles the Second. The King took a ring from his
own finger and gave it to this besotted wretch of a chief justice.
At the same time the monarch bestowed on him a curious piece of
advice to be given by a king to a judge: it was, that, as the weather
would be hot, Jeffreys should beware of drinking too much.[291] The
people called the ring “_Jeffrey’s blood-stone_,” as he got it just
after the execution of Sir Thomas Armstrong. Roger North says: “The
king was persuaded to present him with a ring, publicly taken from
his own finger, in token of his majesty’s acceptance of his most
eminent services; and this by way of precursor being blazoned in
the Gazette, his lordship went down into the country, as from the
king _legatus a latere_.” The Lord Keeper North, who, it has been
said, hated Jeffreys worse than popery,[292] speaks of the terror
to others of the face and voice of the chief justice: “as if the
thunder of the day of judgment broke over their heads;” and shows
how Jeffreys, who, by this time, had reached the position of Lord
Chancellor, was discovered by a lawyer that had been under the storm
of his countenance:[293] “There was a scrivener of Wapping brought
to hearing for relief against a bummery bond; the contingency of
losing all being showed, the bill was going to be dismissed. But one
of the plaintiff’s counsel said that he was a strange fellow and
sometimes went to church, sometimes to conventicles and none could
tell what to make of him and it was thought he was a trimmer. At
that the Chancellor fired; and ‘A trimmer,’ said he, ‘I have heard
much of that monster, but never saw one. Come forth, Mr. Trimmer,
turn you round, and let us see your shape;’ and at that rate talked
so long that the poor fellow was ready to drop under him; but, at
last, the bill was dismissed with costs and he went his way. In the
hall, one of his friends asked him how he came off? ‘Came off!’
said he, ‘I am escaped from the terrors of that man’s face, which I
would scarce undergo again to save my life; and I shall certainly
have the frightful impression of it as long as I live.’ Afterwards,
when the Prince of Orange came and all was in confusion, this Lord
Chancellor, being very obnoxious, disguised himself in order to go
beyond sea. He was in a seaman’s garb and drinking a pot in a cellar.
This scrivener came into the cellar after some of his clients; and
his eye _caught that face_, which made him start; and the Chancellor,
seeing himself eyed, feigned a cough and turned to the wall with his
pot in his hand. But _Mr. Trimmer_ went out and gave notice that he
was there; whereupon the mob flowed in and he was in extreme hazard
of his life,” etc., etc. This term “Trimmer” seemed to be very
obnoxious to Jeffreys. Once at the council and when the king was
present, Jeffreys “being flaming drunk, came up to the other end of
the board and (as in that condition his way was) fell to talking and
staring like a madman, and, at length, bitterly inveighed against
Trimmers and told the king that he had Trimmers in his court and he
would never be easy so long as the Trimmers were there.”[294] North
gives the interpretation of the word “Trimmer,” which was taken up
to subdivide the Tory party, of whom all (however loyal and of the
established church professed) who did not go into all the lengths of
the new-flown party at court, were so termed.[295]
The name of the great Dundee instantly brings to mind one of the most
spirited and characteristic ballads ever written:
“The Gordon demands of him which way he goes--
Where’er shall direct me the shade of Montrose!
Your Grace, in short space, shall hear tidings of me:
Or that low lies the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.
Come, fill up my cup; come, fill up my can;
Come, saddle the horses and call up the men;
Come, open your gates and let me gae free,
For it’s up with the bonnets of Bonny Dundee.”[296]
All of this is gone; low lies Bonny Dundee; and the untruth of what
is called history is all we have of him. There was a ring of which a
description and an engraving remain containing some of Lord Dundee’s
hair, with the letters V. D. surmounted by a coronet worked upon it
in gold; and on the inside of the ring are engraved a skull and this
poesy:
“_Great Dundee, for God and me. J. Rex._”
This ring, which belonged to the family of Graham of Duntrune,
(representative of Viscount Dundee,) has, for several years, been
lost or mislaid.[297]
A memorial of Nelson is left in some half-dozen of rings. In
the place of a stone, each ring has a metal _basso relievo_
representation of Nelson, half bust. The metal, blackish in
appearance, forming the relief, being, in reality, portions of the
ball which gave the Admiral his fatal wound at Trafalgar.
Cardinal York, the last of the Stuart family, left as a legacy to the
Prince of Wales, afterwards George the Fourth, a valuable ring which
was worn by the kings of Scotland on the day of their coronation.[298]
We have met with but one case where, in a college disputation, the
successful contestant was rewarded with a ring. James Crichton,
who obtained the appellation of the “Admirable Crichton,” had
volunteered--it was at a time when he was only twenty years of
age--to dispute with any one in Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, Latin,
Spanish, French, Italian, English, Dutch, Flemish and Sclavonian; and
this, either in verse or prose. He did not seem to prepare himself,
but occupied his time in hunting, hawking, tilting, vaulting, tossing
a pike, handling a musket and other military feats. Crichton duly
appeared in the College of Navarre and acquitted himself beyond
expression in the disputation, which lasted from nine o’clock in the
morning until six at night. At length, the President, after extolling
him highly for the many rare and excellent endowments which God and
nature had bestowed upon him, rose from his chair and, accompanied
by four of the most eminent professors of the University, gave him
a diamond ring (with a purse full of money) as a testimony of regard
and favor.[299]
In England, during the year 1815, a tooth of Sir Isaac Newton was
sold for seven hundred and twenty pounds to a nobleman who had it set
in a ring.
The elder Kean used to wear, to the hour of his death, a gold snake
ring, with ruby head and emerald eyes. At the sale of his effects, it
fetched four guineas and an half.[300]
On the day of the arrival of Miss Milbankes’ answer to Lord Byron’s
offer of marriage, he was sitting at dinner in Newstead Abbey, when
his gardener came and presented him with his mother’s ring, which
she had lost and which the gardener had just found in digging up the
mould under her window. Almost at the same moment, the letter from
Miss Milbankes arrived; and Lord Byron exclaimed, “If it contains
a consent, I will be married with this very ring.”[301] It does
not appear whether it was really used. Strange, if it were! and
singular that his lordship, so full of powerful superstition, should
have suggested it. His mother’s temper had been, in part, his bane;
her marriage was a most unhappy one; the poet’s father notoriously
wedded for money and was separated from his wife--while, the poet’s
offer, at a time when he was greatly embarrassed, coupled with his
own mysterious after-separation, would make this ring appear a fatal
talisman if it were really placed upon Miss Milbankes’ finger. It was
in his after-bitterness, in his desolate state and dissoluteness
that Byron called the wedding-ring “the damn’dest part of matrimony.”
§ 5. In the last Polish struggle, the matrons of Warsaw sent their
marriage rings to coin into ducats.[302]
A few years ago the signet-ring of the famous Turlough Lynnoch was
found at Charlemont in the county of Armagh, Ireland. It bears the
bloody hand of the O’Neils and initials T. O. The signet part of the
ring is circular and the whole of it silver. O’Neils had been kings
of Ireland and were also Earls of Ulster. The symbol of the province
of Ulster was a bloody hand. Fergus, the first King of Scotland, was
descended from the O’Neils. King James the First made this bloody
hand the distinguishing badge of a new order of baronets and they
were created to aid by service or money for forces in subduing the
O’Neils.[303]
During the years 1813, 1814 and 1815, when Prussia had collected
all her resources, in the hope of freeing herself from the yoke
which France had laid upon her, the most extraordinary feelings of
patriotism burst forth. Every thought was centred in the struggle;
every coffer was drained; all gave willingly. In town and village
altars were erected, on which ornaments of gold, silver and precious
stones were offered up. Massive plate was replaced in palaces by
dishes, platters and spoons of wood. Ladies wore no other ornaments
than those made of iron, upon which was engraved: “_We gave gold for
the freedom of our country; and, like her, wear an iron yoke._”
One evening, a party had assembled in the house of an inhabitant
of Breslau. Among them, was a beautiful though poor maiden. Her
companions were boasting what each had contributed towards the
freedom of their country. Alas! she had no offering to proclaim--none
to give. With a heavy heart she took her leave. While unrobing for
the night, she thought she could dispose of her hair and, so, add
to the public fund. With the dawn, she went to a hairdresser’s;
related her simple tale; and parted with her tresses for a trifling
sum, which she instantly deposited on an altar and returned to her
quiet home. This reached the ears of the officers appointed each
day to collect the various offerings; and the President received
a confirmation from the hairdresser, who proposed to resign the
beautiful hair, provided it was resold for the benefit of fatherland.
The offer was accepted; iron rings were made, each containing a
portion of hair; and these produced far more than their weight in
gold.[304]
CHAPTER FIVE.
RINGS OF LOVE, AFFECTION AND FRIENDSHIP.
1. The Gimmal or Gimmow Ring. 2. Sonnet by Davison. 3. Church
Marriage ordained by Innocent III.; and, Marriage-Ring. 4. Rings
used in different countries on Marriages and in Betrothment:
Esthonia; the Copts; Persia; Spain; Ackmetchet in Russia. 5.
Betrothal Rings. 6. Signets of the first Christians. 7. Laws of
Marriage. 8. Wedding Finger; Artery to the Heart; Lady who had lost
the Ring Finger. 9. Roman Catholic Marriages. 10. Marriage-Ring
during the Commonwealth. 11. Ring in Jewish Marriages. 12.
Superstitions. 13. Rings of twisted Gold-wire given away at
Weddings. 14. Cupid and Psyche. 15. St. Anne and St. Joachim.
16. Rush Rings. 17. Rings with the Orpine Plant. 18. Ancient
Marriage-Rings had Mottoes and Seals. 19. The Sessa Ring. 20. Rings
bequeathed or kept in Memory of the Dead: Washington; Shakspeare;
Pope; Dr. Johnson; Lord Eldon; Tom Moore’s Mother. 21. The Ship
_Powhattan_. 22. Ring of Affection illustrated by a Pelican and
Young. 23. Bran of Brittany. 24. Rings used by Writers of Fiction;
Shakspeare’s Cymbeline. 25. Small Rings for the _Penates_. 26.
Story from the “Gesta Romanorum.”
§ 1. One of the prettiest tokens of friendship and affection is what
is termed a _Gimmal_ or _Gimmow_ Ring. It is of French origin. This
ring is constructed, as the name imports, of twin or double hoops,
which play within one another, like the links of a chain. Each hoop
has one of its sides flat and the other convex; and each is twisted
once round and surmounted with an emblem or motto. The course of
the twist, in each hoop, is made to correspond with that of its
counterpart, so that, on bringing together the flat surfaces of the
hoops, these immediately unite in one ring.[305]
[Illustration: (Friendship Ring)]
This form of ring is connected with the purest and highest acts
of friendship; it became a simple love token; and was, at length,
converted into the more serious _sponsalium annulus_, or ring of
affiance.
The lover putting his finger through one of the hoops and his
mistress hers through the other, were thus symbolically yoked
together; a yoke which neither could be said wholly to wear, one half
being allotted to the other; and making, as it has been quaintly
said, a joint tenancy.
Dryden describes a gimmal ring in his play of _Don Sebastian_:[306]
“A curious artist wrought ’em--
With joints so close as not to be perceived;
Yet are they both each other’s counterparts!
(Her part had Juan inscribed; and his had Laydor;
You know those names were theirs;) and in the midst
A heart divided in two-halfs was placed.
Now if the rivets of those rings, inclosed,
Fit not each other, I have forged this lie,
But if they join, you must for ever part.”
Gimmal rings, though originally double, were, by a further
refinement, made triple and even more complicated, yet the name
remained unchanged.
Herrick, in his “Hesperides,” has the following lines:
“THE JIMMAL RING OR TRUE-LOVE KNOT.
“Thou sent’st to me a true-love knot; but I
Return’d a ring of jimmals, to imply
Thy love had one knot, mine a triple-tye.”
A singular silver gimmal ring was found in Dorset, England; the
legend _Ave Maria_ is partly inscribed on each moiety and legible
only when they are united.[307]
A beautiful enamelled ring of this kind which belonged to Sir Thomas
Gresham, is extant.[308] It opens horizontally, thus forming two
rings, which are, nevertheless, linked together and respectively
inscribed on the inner side with a Scripture posy: QUOD. DEVS.
CONJVNXIT (_what God did join_) is engraved on one half and HOMO
NON SEPARAT, (_let not man separate_), on the other. The ring is
beautifully enamelled. One of the portions is set with a diamond
and the other with a ruby; and corresponding with them, in a cavity
inside the ring, are or rather were within the last twenty years two
minute figures or genii. The workmanship is admirable and probably
Italian.
The reader who may be curious to know more about the gimmal ring,
and the probable derivation of the word _Gimmal_, is referred to a
learned and interesting article by Robert Smith, Esq., in the London
Archæologia, vol. xii. p. 7.
It is possible that Shakspeare was thinking of gimmal rings, some of
which had engraven on them a hand with a heart in it, when (in the
_Tempest_) he makes Ferdinand say to Miranda “Here’s my hand” and she
answers “And mine, with my heart in it.”
§ 2. Coupled with the love of youth for maiden, we have one of the
most simple and perfect of old English sonnets (by Davison):[309]
“PURE AND ENDLESS.”
“If you would _know_ the love which you I bear,
Compare it to the ring which your fair hand
Shall make MORE precious, when _you_ shall it wear:
So _my love’s_ nature you shall understand.
Is it of metal _pure_? So endless is _my_ love,
Unless you it destroy with your disdain.
Doth it the purer grow the more ’tis tried?
So doth my love; yet herein they dissent:
That whereas gold, the more ’tis purified,
By growing less, doth show some part is spent;
My love doth grow more pure by your more trying,
And yet increaseth in the purifying.”
As far back as the fifteenth century a lover wore his ring on the
last or little finger.[310]
§ 3. It is said that Pope Innocent the Third was the first who
ordained the celebration of marriage in the church; before which, it
was totally a civil contract; hence arose dispensations, licenses,
faculties and other remnants of papal benefit.[311] Shelford[312]
observes it came with the Council of Trent. The Council sat within
the Bishopric of Trent, Germany, from the year 1545 to 1563.
But the ring was used in connection with marriage before Catholic
times. The Greeks had it. We find from Juvenal[313] that the Romans
employed the ring. There was commonly a feast on the signing of
the marriage contract; and the man gave the woman a ring (_annulus
pronubus_) by way of pledge, which she put upon her left hand, on
the finger next the least: because of the suggested nerve running
to the heart.[314] The ring was generally of iron, though sometimes
of copper and brass, with little knobs in the form of a key, to
represent that the wife had possession of the husband’s keys.[315]
Roman keys attached to a ring for the finger are not uncommon.[316]
The ring is at right angles to the axle and, therefore, it could only
be used for a lock which required very little strength to turn it or
as a latch-key. It may be a question, whether these were not rings
used on marriages?
[Illustration: (Roman Key Ring)]
Maffei gives a gem, upon which is engraved only the two Greek words
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙ ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, in English, _Faith immortal_, which he considers as
intended to be set in a betrothal ring--in some one of those rings
which lovers gave to their beloved, with protestations of eternal
constancy, as a tacit promise of matrimony. Some Roman nuptial rings
had inscriptions, as _Ama me_; _Amo te_; _Bonam vitam_, etc. Among
other rings found at Pompeii were some which are considered to have
been wedding-rings.[317] One, of gold, picked up in Diomed’s house,
had a device representing a man and woman joining hands. Another, was
a double gold ring, in which two small green stones were set.
There is no evidence that the ring was used by the Egyptians at a
marriage.[318]
[Illustration: (Double Gold Ring)]
On the authority of a text in Exodus, wedding-rings are attempted to
be carried as far back as the Hebrews.[319] Leo of Modena, however,
maintains that they did not use any nuptial ring.[320] Selden owns
that they gave a ring in marriage, but that it was only in lieu of a
piece of money of the same value which had before been presented. It
probably was ring-money or money in the shape of a ring, (of which we
have before spoken.)
§ 4. The common use of the ring in different countries, when
betrothment or marriage takes place, is remarkable.
In Esthonia, a province of the Russian empire, where the girls
consider marriage the one great object to be coveted, attained and
prepared for from the earliest dawn of their susceptibilities, they
spin and weave at their outfit, frequently for ten years before their
helpmate is forthcoming: this outfit extends to a whole wardrobe
full of kerchiefs, gloves, stockings, etc. When they have formed an
acquaintance to their liking, the occasion having been usually of
their own creating, they look forward with impatience to the moment
of the proposal being made. But there is one season only, the period
of the new moon, when an offer can be tendered; nor is any time so
much preferred for a marriage as the period of the full moon. The
plenipos in the business of an offer are generally a couple of the
suitors’ friends or else his parents, who enter the maid’s homestead
with mead and brandy in their hands. On their approach the gentle
maiden conceals herself, warning having been given her in due form
by some ancient dame; the plenipos never make a direct announcement
of the purpose of their mission, but in most cases tell the girl’s
parents some story about a lamb or an ewe which has got astray and
they desire to bring home again. The parents immediately invite them
to drink, vowing that they know nothing of the stray creature; if
they decline to drink with them, it is a sign either that they have
no inclination for the match or that their daughter has whispered
them “her heart has no room for the youth in question.” But if all
are of one mind, the parents set merrily to work on the mead and
brandy and give the suitor’s envoys free license to hunt out the
stray lambkin. When caught, she is also expected to taste of the cup;
and from that moment the bridegroom becomes at liberty to visit his
bride. He makes his appearance, therefore, a few days afterwards,
bringing presents of all kinds with him, together with a ring, which
he places on the maiden’s finger as his betrothed.[321]
The Copts have a custom of betrothing girls at six or seven years
of age, which is done by putting a ring upon their finger; but
permission is afterwards obtained for her friends to educate her
until she arrives at years of discretion.[322]
In Persia, a ring is among the usual marriage presents on the part of
the bridegroom.[323]
It is said that in Spain every girl who has attained the age of
twelve may compel a young man to marry her, provided he has reached
his fourteenth year and she can prove, for instance, that he has
promised her his hand and given her to understand that he wished her
to become his wife. These proofs are adduced before an ecclesiastical
vicar. A present of a ring is considered sufficient proof to enable
the girl to claim her husband. If the vicar pronounces the marriage
ought to take place, the youth, who has been previously sent to
prison, cannot be liberated until after the celebration.[324]
Dr. Clark, in his Travels in Russia, describes the marriage, at
Ackmetchet, of Professor Pallas’s daughter with an Hungarian General
according to the rites of the Greek Church. After ascertaining as
to ties of blood between them and voluntary consent, a Bible and
crucifix were placed before them and large lighted wax tapers,
decorated with ribbons, put into their hands.
After certain prayers had been read and the ring put upon the bride’s
finger, the floor was covered by a piece of scarlet satin and a
table was placed before them with the communion vessels. The priest
having tied their hands together with bands of the same colored satin
and placed a chaplet of flowers upon their heads, administered the
sacrament and afterwards led them, thus bound together, three times
round the communion table followed by the bride’s father and the
bridesmaids. During this ceremony, the choristers chanted a hymn; and
after it was concluded, a scene of general kissing took place among
all present, etc.
§ 5. The betrothal of a young couple was formerly attended with
considerable ceremony, a portion of which was the exchange of rings.
Shakspeare alludes to this in the play of “_Twelfth Night_:”
“Strengthened by the interchangement of your rings.”
We have a similar thing in “_Two Gentlemen of Verona_:”[325]
_Julia._ “Keep this remembrance for thy 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.”
This betrothing, affiancing, espousal or plighting troth between
lovers was sometimes done in church with great solemnity; and the
service on this occasion is preserved in some of the old rituals.[326]
The virgin and martyr, Agnes, in Ambrose, says: “My Lord Jesus Christ
hath espoused me with his ring.”
This interchangement of rings appears in Chaucer’s “Troilus and
Cresseide:”
“Soon after this they spake of sondry things
As fitt to purpose of this aventure,
And playing _enterchangeden of rings_
Of whom I can not tellen no scripture.
But well I wot, a broche of gold and assure
In which a rubie set was like an herte,
Creseide him gave, and stacke it on his sherte.”[327]
In Germany, a loving couple start on the principle of reciprocity
and exchange rings. This is not done at the time of the marriage
ceremony, but previously when the formal betrothment takes place,
which is generally made the occasion of a family festival. The ring
thus used is not called a wedding ring, but _Trau_ ring, which
means _ring of betrothal_. A particular ring does not form part of
the ceremony of marriage. Royalty, however, appears to go beyond
the common custom of the country, even in a marriage. At the late
marriage of the Emperor of Austria, the Prince Archbishop of Vienna,
who performed the ceremony, took rings from a golden cup and
presented them to the august couple, who, reciprocally, placed them
on each other’s finger; and, while either held the hand of the other,
they received the episcopal benediction.
In the early Christian Church a ring of troth, the _annulus
pronubus_, was given by the man to the woman as a token and proof of
her betrothment.
Pope Nicholas, A. D. 860, in the account which he gives of the
ceremonies used in the Roman Church, says: “In the espousals, the man
first presents the woman whom he betroths with the arræ or espousal
gifts; and among these, he puts a ring on her finger.”[328] This
ring, which may be traced back to the time of Tertullian, appears to
have come into the Christian Church from Roman usage; although the
Oriental ring of betrothment may have been the origin of both.
According to the ritual of the Greek Church, the priest first placed
the rings on the fingers of the parties, who afterwards exchanged
them. In the life of St. Leobard, who is said to have flourished
about the year 580, written by Gregory of Tours, he appears to have
given a ring, a kiss and a pair of shoes to his affianced. The ring
and shoes were a symbol of securing the lady’s hands and feet in
the trammels of conjugal obedience; but the ring, of itself, was
sufficient to confirm the contract.[329]
It would seem that, on the ceremony of betrothal, the ring was placed
on the third finger of the right hand; and it may be a question,
whether the beautiful picture by Raffaelle, called _Lo Sposalizio_,
should not be considered as an illustration of espousal or betrothing
and not a marriage of the Virgin. Mary and Joseph stand opposite to
each other in the centre; the high priest, between them, is bringing
their right hands towards each other; Joseph, with his right hand,
(guided by the priest,) is placing the ring on the third finger of
the right hand of the Virgin; beside Mary is a group of the virgins
of the Temple; near Joseph are the suitors, who break their barren
wands--that which Joseph holds in his hand has blossomed into a lily,
which, according to the legend, was the sign that he was the chosen
one.[330]
The same circumstance, of placing the ring on the third finger of the
right hand, is observable in Ghirlandais’s fresco of the “Espousals”
in the church of the Santa Croce at Florence.
There is certainly some confusion as to the hand on which the
marriage-ring was placed. However, in religious symbols of espousal,
the distinction of the right hand was certainly kept. In an ancient
pontifical was an order that the bridegroom should place the ring
successively on three fingers of the right hand and leave it on the
fourth finger of the left, in order to mark the difference between
the marriage-ring, the symbol of a love which is mixed with carnal
affection and the episcopal ring, the symbol of entire chastity.[331]
The espousal became the marriage-ring. The esponsais consisted in
a mutual promise of marriage, which was made by the man and woman
before the bishop or presbyter and several witnesses; after which,
the articles of agreement of marriage (called _tabulæ matrimoniales_)
which are mentioned by Augustin, were signed by both persons. After
this, the man delivered to the woman the ring and other gifts: an
action which was termed _subarrhation_. In the latter ages the
espousals have always been performed at the same time as the office
of matrimony, both in the western and eastern churches; and it has
long been customary for the ring to be delivered to the woman after
the contract has been made, which has always been in the actual
office of matrimony.[332]
According to Clemens Alexandrinus, the ring was given, not as an
ornament but as a seal to signify the woman’s duty in preserving the
goods of her husband, because the care of the house belongs to her.
This idea, by the by, is very reasonable, as we shall hereafter show,
when speaking of the ritual of the Church of England. The symbolical
import of the “wedding ring,” under the spiritual influence of
Christianity, came to comprise the general idea of wedded fidelity in
all the width and importance of its application.[333]
§ 6. The first Christians engraved upon their seals symbolical
figures, such as a dove, fish, anchor or lyre.[334] The rings used in
their fyancels represented pigeons, fish, or, more often, two hands
joined together. Clemens of Alexandria, who permitted these symbols,
condemns not only the representation of idols, but also of the
instruments of war, vases for the table and every thing repugnant to
the strictness of the Gospel.
A ring, when used by the church, signifies, to use the words of
liturgical writers, _integritatem fidei_, the perfection of fidelity
and is _fidei sacramentum_, the badge of fidelity.[335]
§ 7. The canon law is the basis of marriage throughout Europe, except
so far as it has been altered by the municipal laws of particular
States.[336] An important alteration was made in the law of marriage
in many countries by the decrees of the Council of Trent, held for
the reformation of marriage. These decrees are the standing judgments
of the Romish Church; but they were never received as authority in
Great Britain. Still the ecclesiastical law of marriage in England is
derived from the Roman pontiffs. It has been traced as far back as
605, soon after the establishment of Christianity there.[337]
Marriages in the Episcopal Church are governed by the _Rubric_. This
term signifies a title or article in certain ancient common-law books.
Rubrics also denote the rules and directions given at the beginning
and in the course of the liturgy, for the order and manner in which
the several parts of the office are to be performed.
Statutes of the English Parliament have confirmed the use of the
rubric inserted in the part of the Common Prayer Book relating to the
marriage ceremony. But prior to the British marriage acts, a case
arose where no ring was used according to the Common Prayer Book.
A then Chief Justice (_C. J._ Pemberton) was inclined to think it a
good contract, there being words of a present contract repeated after
a person in orders.[338]
The rubric directs that the man shall give unto the woman a ring,
laying the same upon the book; and the priest, taking the ring, shall
deliver it unto the man to put it on the fourth finger of the woman’s
left hand. And he says, “With this ring I thee wed, with my body I
thee worship and with all my worldly gifts I thee endow.” These words
are best explained by the rubric of the 2d of Edward VI., which ran
thus:[339] “The man shall give unto the woman a ring and other tokens
of spousage, as gold or silver, laying the same upon the book; and
the man, taught by the priest, shall say, ‘With this ring I thee wed,
this gold and silver I thee give;’” and then these words, “With all
my worldly goods I thee endow,” were delivered with a more peculiar
significancy. Here the proper distinction is made, the endowment of
all his goods means granting the custody or key and care of them. It
will be seen that the word “endow” is kept apart from the positive
gift of pieces of gold and silver. It has been said that the ancient
pledge was a piece of silver worn in the pocket; but marriage being
held sacred, it was thought more prudent to have the pledge exposed
to view by making it into a ring worn upon the hand.[340]
The Christian marriage-ring appears, in its substance, to have been
copied from the Roman nuptial ring. It was, according to Swinburn,
of iron, adorned with an adamant; the metal hard and durable,
signifying the durance and perpetuity of the contract. Howbeit, he
says, it skilleth not at this day what metal the ring be of, the form
of it being round and without end doth import that their love should
circulate and flow continually.
In the Roman ritual there is a benediction of the ring and a prayer
that she who wears it may continue in perfect love and fidelity to
her husband and in fear of God all her days.[341]
§ 8. We have remarked on the vulgar error of a vein going from
the fourth finger of the left hand to the heart. It is said by
Swinburn and others that therefore it became the wedding finger.
The priesthood kept up this idea by still keeping it as the wedding
finger; but it was got at through the use of the Trinity: for, in
the ancient ritual of English marriages, the ring was placed by the
husband on the top of the thumb of the left hand, with the words,
“In the name of the Father;” he then removed it to the forefinger,
saying: “In the name of the Son;” then to the middle finger, adding:
“And of the Holy Ghost;” finally, he left it, as now, on the fourth
finger, with the closing word “Amen.”[342]
As to the supposed artery to the heart. Levinus Lemnius quaintly
says:--“A small branch of the artery and not of the nerves, as
Gellius thought, is stretched forth from the heart unto this finger,
the motion whereof you may perceive evidently in all that affects the
heart of woman, by the touch of your forefinger. I used to raise
such as are fallen in a swoon by pinching this joint and by rubbing
the ring of gold with a little saffron: for, by this, a restoring
force that is in it passeth to the heart and refresheth the fountain
of life unto which this finger is joined. Wherefore antiquity thought
fit to encompass it about with gold.”[343]
By the way, a correspondent, in a British periodical, suggests: that
a lady of his acquaintance has had the misfortune to lose the ring
finger, and the question is raised whether she can be married in the
Church of England!?[344]
In the “British Apollo” it is said that, during the time of George
the First, the wedding-ring, though placed in the ceremony of the
marriage upon the fourth finger, was worn upon the thumb.[345]
The use of the ring has become so common in England that poor people
will not believe the marriage to be good without one; and the notion
also is that it must be of gold. At Worcester (England) on one
occasion, the parties were so poor that they used a brass ring. The
bride’s friends indignantly protested that the ring ought to have
been of gold; and the acting officer was threatened with indictment
for permitting the use of such base metal.
In another case of humble marriage, the bridegroom announced that
a ring was not necessary. The woman entreated to have one. The
superintendent of the poor took part with the woman and represented
how the absence of it would expose her to insult; and he, kindly,
hesitated to proceed with the marriage until a ring was produced.
The man yielded at last and obtained one. The woman’s gratitude
brought tears into her eyes.
§ 9. In Roman Catholic marriages, with the priest in pontificals,
go two clerks in surplices. The latter carry the holy-water pot,
the sprinkler, the ritual and a little basin to put the ring in
when it is to be blessed.[346] After the pair have clasped hands
and the priest has by words joined them together, he makes the sign
of the cross upon them; sprinkles them with holy water; blesses
the wedding-ring and sprinkles it also with holy water in the form
of a cross, after which he gives it to the man, who puts it on the
wedding-finger of the woman’s left hand.
§ 10. The supposed heathen origin of our marriage-ring had well nigh
caused the abolition of it during the time of the Commonwealth in
England. The facetious author of Hudibras gives us the following
chief reasons why the Puritans wished it to be set aside:
“Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring;
With which th’ unsanctify’d bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb,
(As wise as ringing of a pig
That us’d to break up ground and dig,)
The bride to nothing but the will,
That nulls the after-marriage still.”[347]
§ 11. The author of the present essay found a difficulty in getting
a correct account of the use of the ring in Jewish marriages;[348]
although there is an exceedingly learned and interesting decision
in relation to one in the English Ecclesiastical Reports.[349] He
applied to a professional friend of the Jewish persuasion, who
obtained the following interesting particulars from one of our best
Hebrew scholars:[350] The nuptial rite among the Jews consists of
three distinct acts which together form the regular marriage ceremony.
1st. The religious act _Kidushin_, consecration, by which the husband
that is to be _mekadesh_ consecrates--that is to say, sets apart from
all other women and inhibits to all other men the woman who, by that
act, becomes his wife.
The ceremony is performed in manner following. A canopy is raised
under which the bridegroom takes his stand. The bride is brought
in and placed either at his right hand or opposite to him. The
officiating minister pronounces the initiatory nuptial benediction,
after which he receives from the bridegroom a ring that must be
of a certain value and the absolute property of the bridegroom,
purchased and paid for by him and not received as a present or bought
on credit. After due inquiry on these points, the minister returns
the ring to the bridegroom, who places it on the forefinger of the
bride’s right hand, while at the same time he says to her in Hebrew:
“Behold! thou art _mekudesheth_ consecrated unto me by means of this
ring, according to the law of Moses and of Israel.” The bride joins
in and expresses her consent to this act of consecration by holding
out her right hand and accepting the ring; which--after her husband
has pronounced the formula--constitutes her his lawful wife; so that,
even though the marriage should not be consummated, neither party
is thenceforth at liberty to contract another marriage, unless they
have previously been divorced according to law: and if the woman were
to submit to the embraces of another man, she would be guilty of
adultery.
The law which enjoins “consecration” requires that the symbol of the
act should be an object made of one of the precious metals--gold or
silver--and of a certain value. But though the law does not insist on
or even mention a ring, yet the custom of using a ring has, during
very many centuries, so generally prevailed--to the exclusion of
all other symbols--that the words “by means of this ring” have been
incorporated in the formula of consecration. In the greater part of
Europe and in America the ring is usually of gold; but in Russia,
Poland and the East the poorer classes use rings of silver.
2d. The civil act _Ketubah_, written contract: As soon as bridegroom
and bride have completed the act of consecration, the officiating
minister proceeds to read the marriage contract, a document in Hebrew
characters, signed by the bridegroom in the presence of two competent
witnesses--by which the husband engages to protect, cherish and
maintain his wife; to provide her with food, raiment, lodging and all
other necessaries; and secure to her a dowry for the payment of which
the whole of his estate--real and personal--stands pledged.
When this document has been read, the minister pronounces the closing
nuptial benediction, and a glass is broken in memory of Jerusalem
destroyed, (see Psalm cxxxvii.,) which completes the ceremony. The
psalm here referred to is that most beautiful one, beginning, “By
the rivers of Babylon,” and ending with what has immediate reference
to the destruction: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.”[351]
3d. But all the time these religious and civil acts are being
performed, the young couple have likewise before their eyes and above
their heads the emblem of the moral act _Hhupah_, cohabitation or
living together by themselves under one roof. This is the purpose
for which the canopy is raised over them; beneath which they ought,
by right, to stand quite alone--though generally the minister and
parents or nearest friends also find room under it.
These three distinct acts--religious, civil and domestic--to
constitute marriage according to the regular form _Hhupa ve
kidushin_, require ten adult male witnesses. But so binding is the
act of consecration, that if it were performed privately, without
the knowledge of parents or assistance of minister and solely in
the presence of two competent witnesses who hear the man pronounce
the formula “Behold thou art consecrated unto me,” etc., and see
the woman accept the ring, this proceeding, however irregular and
reprehensible, constitutes a marriage perfectly valid in the eyes of
the law.
Larpent, writing from France, but imbued with an ordinary English
prejudice, which is apt to ridicule unfamiliar things and lose sight
of reasons for customs, blurts out this: “I have been to the Jew’s
wedding. The ceremony consists principally of singing and drinking
and blessing in Hebrew. There must be something Jewish, however, as
usual, and that is concerning the ring, which, as soon as produced,
is shown round to all the rabbis near and some elders, etc., and to
the sponsors, to be sure it is really gold or otherwise the marriage
is void; and the true old clothesman-like way in which they all
spied at the ring was very amusing. Nearly the last ceremony is the
bridegroom’s smashing a wine-glass in a plate on the floor, with an
idea that he and his spouse are then as difficult to separate as it
would be to re-unite the glass. The gentleman showed gallantry by
exerting all his force and looking most fiercely as he broke the
glass.”[352]
The handing of the ring from the minister to some one of the persons
present has a reason broader than that which Larpent is pleased to
assign, as we consider we have shown. We confirm it by saying, that
the Jewish law requires, at the time of marriage, that a valuable
consideration should pass from the bridegroom to the bride. This
consideration is represented by the ring, which, therefore, must not
be of less value than the _minimum_ fixed by the law. And as this
value has to be ascertained and attested, which cannot be done by
less than two witnesses, the officiating minister or Rabbi, after
making the inquiries required by law, examines the ring and hands it
to the presiding officer of the synagogue, (a layman, who is supposed
to know more about the value of gold or silver than a Rabbi,) who
also examines and hands it back to the minister; and these two,
the minister and the officer of the synagogue, then witness that
the article is of that value which the law requires. We say this
advisedly; and can add as positively that the ring is never handed
round to third persons.
At a marriage to which the author was invited--a marriage between
a Jewish merchant and the amiable daughter of a learned Rabbi in
New-York--the usual course was not departed from. The father of
the bride, who officiated, received the ring from the bridegroom,
ascertained that it was the young man’s own property lawfully
acquired, examined and then delivered it to the president of the
synagogue. He, also, examined and handed the ring back to the
minister, who, finally, performed the ceremony.
§ 12. Some married women are so rigidly superstitious or firm that
they will not draw off their wedding-ring to wash or at any other
time: extending the expression “till death do us part” even to the
ring.[353]
And there is a superstition connected with the wear of the ring,
worked into this proverb:
“As your wedding-ring wears,
Your cares will wear away.”
§ 13. Gold-wire rings of three twisted wires were given away at
weddings; and Anthony Wood relates of Edward Kelly, a “famous
philosopher” in Queen Elizabeth’s days, that “Kelly, who was openly
profuse beyond the modest limits of a sober philosopher, did give
away in gold-wire rings (or rings twisted with three gold wires)
at the marriage of one of his maid servants, to the value of
£4,000.”[354]
§ 14. A gold ring has been discovered in Rome, which has the subject
of Cupid and Psyche cut into the metal.[355] We give an enlarged
illustration of it. Psyche is figured more ethereally than she
generally appears upon gems. The lower portion of this emanation
seems to partake of the delicate plumage of the butterfly; and the
whole prettily illustrates the soul. There is a strong contrast
between these figures; and we are inclined to think the designer
intended it. While Psyche is all that we have said, the other form
comes up to Colman’s theatrical Cupid:
“Fat, chubby-cheeked and stupid.”
Byron observes that the story of Cupid and Psyche is one uniform
piece of loveliness.
[Illustration: (Cupid and Psyche Ring)]
§ 15. The meeting of St. Anne and St. Joachim at the Golden Gate is
a favorite subject.[356] The Nuns of St. Anne at Rome show a rude
silver ring as the wedding-ring of Anne and Joachim.
§ 16. A wicked trick upon weak and confiding women used to be played
by forcing upon their finger a rush ring: as thereby they fancied
themselves married.[357] Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, in his
Constitutions, Anno 1217, forbids the putting of rush rings or any of
like matter on women’s fingers.
De Breveil says,[358] it was an ancient custom to use a rush ring
where the necessity for marriage was apparent.
§ 17. Rings occur in the fifteenth century, with the orpine plant
(_Telephium_) as a device. It was used because the bending of the
leaves was presumed to prognosticate whether love was true or false.
The common name for orpine plants was that of _midsummer men_. In a
tract said to be written by Hannah More, among other superstitions
of one of the heroines, “she would never go to bed on Midsummer Eve
without sticking up in her room the well-known plant called midsummer
men, as the bending of the leaves to the right or to the left would
never fail to tell her whether her lover was true or false.” The
orpine plant occurs among the love divinations on Midsummer Eve in
the Connoisseur:[359] “I likewise stuck up two midsummer men, one for
myself and one for him. Now if this had died away, we should never
have come together; but, I assure you, his blowed and turned to mine.”
§ 18. Marriage-rings, in the olden time, were not, as now,
plain in form and without words.[360] Some had a seal part for
impression.[361] A ring of this kind was ploughed up in the year 1783
on Flodden Field. It was of gold and an inscription upon it ran thus:
“Where are the constant lovers who can keep themselves from evil
speakers?” This would have been a relic for Abbotsford; but Dryburgh
Abbey has the wizard; and a stranger is in his halls.
A Roman bronze ring has been discovered of singular shape and fine
workmanship, which appears to have been intended as a token of love
or affection.[362]
[Illustration: (Token Ring of Love Two Views)]
The parts nearest the collet are flat and resemble a triangle from
which the summit has been cut. Its greatest singularity is an
intaglio ploughed out of the material itself, representing the head
of a young person. The two triangular portions which start from the
table of the ring are filled with ornaments, also engraved hollow.
Upon it is the word VIVAS or _Mayest thou live_.
[Illustration: (Ring Found at Sessa)]
§ 19. In the year 1845, an interesting ring was found at Sessa,
(the _Suessa Auruncorum_ of the ancients,) situate in the Terra
de Livaro, Kingdom of Naples. We here give the original signet.
A drawing of the same with its outer edge, which, as it will be
seen, contained the name of an after owner and the outer ring, with
its religious maxims along its edge, appears in the Archæological
Journal.[363] The stone which forms the signet is of a deep-red color
and, apparently, a species of agate. In the centre are engraved
two right hands joined together, with the following letters above
and below, C. C. P. S., I. P. D. Our cut is somewhat larger than
the original. Judging from the workmanship of the signet, it is
believed to have been executed in the period between the reigns of
Severus and Constantine or, in other words, about the middle of the
third century. The interpretation of these letters must be left to
conjecture. It would appear, however, to have been regarded as an
object of value or interest at a later period, when it was set in
gold for the person whose name appears round the stone in capital
letters, which are to be thus read:
✠ SIGILLV· THOMASII· DE· ROGERIIS· DE· SUESSA·
_Sigillum Thomasii de Rogeriis de Suessa._
On the outer side of the hoop of the ring are two other inscriptions,
also in capital letters. The first reads:
✠ XPS· VINCIT· XPS· REGNAT· XPS· IMPERA·
_Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat._
And the second:
✠ ET· VERBU: CARO: FACTU: E: ET ABITAUIT: INOB·
_Et verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis._
The workmanship of these inscriptions is exceedingly good and the
letters well formed and sharply cut. It will be remarked that in
the first legend on the hoop the letter T. in the word _Imperat_ is
omitted for want of space; and in the second, for the same reason,
not only the final _m_, as usual, is twice suppressed, but the word
_est_ is given in the abbreviated form of _e_; several letters are
joined together; the aspirate is omitted in _habitavit_; and the
letter _n_ is made to serve for the final of _in_ and the initial
of _nobis_. As to the date of this ring, it may, very probably,
be ascribed to the thirteenth century. There can be no doubt that
the owner, Thomasius de Rogeriis, must have been a member of the
Neapolitan family of Roggieri. The legend upon the ring, _Christus
vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat_, is found, also, in the
series of Anglo-Gothic gold coins from the reign of Edward III. of
England to that of Henry VI.
We have been favored with the perusal of a presentation copy of
the article (in the Archæological Journal) and from it have taken
the above explanation. This copy was sent by the possessor of the
ring, George Borrett, of Southampton, England, Esquire, to Isaac E.
Cotheal, of New-York, Esquire; and it has, interleaved, (with the
addition of a wax impression,) the following MS. note: “The Abbé
Farrari, a priest attached to the Church of Sta. Maria in Comedia,
(also called the Bocci della Venite,) submitted it to some members
of the Propaganda at Rome, 12th April, 1845, who described it as
follows: _Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, et
verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Sigillum Thomasii de
Rogeriis de Suessa_: Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands
and the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us. The seal of Thomas de
Rogeriis de Suessa.
“The veritable signet of Cicero (_i. e._) the coral in the centre of
the ring only. There were members of the Propaganda who thought it
resembled some impressions attached to documents in the Vatican of
the Roman Governor in Judea, ‘_Pontius Pilate_.’ The gold setting is
supposed to be about the eighth or ninth century by some dignitary in
triumph over the pagan philosopher or governor.”
Notwithstanding what is thus said, we are strongly under the
impression that it was a mystical ring or one worn in remembrance
of a marriage. Upon marbles and gems which illustrate the marriage
ceremony, the bride and bridegroom are represented with their
respective right hands joined. In Montfaucon[364] (and figured
also in Maffei) is a gem which has marital symbols and among
them a ring and the clasped right hands; and, in the same work,
(Montfaucon,)[365] we find a ring precisely in the form and of the
size of the Sessa ring, with right hands disposed in exactly the same
manner and also letters above and below the emblem. The words there
are:
PROTEROS
VGIAE
_Proteros_ and _Hygie_; and Montfaucon says, “Cela marque peut être
le mariage contracté entre les deux.”
Addison, in his Dialogue on Medals, says: “The two hands that join
one another are emblems of Fidelity;” and he quotes (Ovid’s Met. lib.
iv.):
“---- _Inde Fides dextræque data._”
(Thence faith and the right hand joined.) And also Seneca (Hurc. Fur.
lib. iv.):
“_Sociemus animos, pignus hoc fidei cape,_
_Continge dextram._”
(Let us unite souls, receive this pledge of faith, grasp the right
hand.)
We can hardly imagine a more perfect token of love, affection or
friendship than this of right hands clasped and the names of giver
and receiver. We commend it to loving friends and jewellers.
This joining of right hands appears upon ancient English
marriage-rings. Here is one, with its motto, _The Nazarene_:
[Illustration: (The Nazarene Ring)]
A silver wedding-ring, dug up at Somerton Castle, Lincolnshire, has a
poesy very common in former times:
“I love you, my sweet dear heart.
Go I pray you please my love.”[366]
There is a marriage gold ring of the time of Richard the Second of
England, having a French motto, translated, _Be of good heart_, and
bearing the figure of St. Catharine with her wheel, emblematical
of good fortune, and St. Margaret, to whom Catholics address their
devotions for safe delivery in childbirth.[367] The author has seen
an old American ring, in the possession of a young man, whose
grandfather presented it on his wedding day to his wife. It has a
piece of jet set in it and is cut into raised angular facets. On the
inside is engraved:
“_First love Christ, that died for thee,_
_Next to him, love none but me._”
_T. A. G._
John Dunton, a London bookseller and who is mentioned in the
_Dunciad_, describes, in his autobiography, his wedding-ring: as
having two hearts united upon it and this poesy:
“_God saw thee_
_Most fit for me._”
This would not seem to have attached to his second wife; for she left
him and wrote in one of her letters, “I and all good people think you
never married me for love, but for my money.”
Dr. John Thomas, who was Bishop of Lincoln in 1753, married four
times. The motto or poesy on the wedding-ring at his fourth marriage
was:
“If I survive,
I’ll make them five.”
This Rev. Dr. John Thomas was a man of genial humor. He used to tell
a story of his burying a body; and a woman came “and pulled me,” said
he, “by the sleeve in the middle of the service. ‘Sir, sir, I want
to speak to you.’ ‘Prythee,’ says I, ‘woman, wait till I have done.’
‘No, sir, I must speak to you immediately.’ ‘Why then, what is the
matter?’ ‘Why sir,’ says she, ‘you are burying a man who died of the
small-pox next to my poor husband, who never had it.’”
§ 20. Heroes, philosophers, poets--indeed, men of all classes leave
remembrances in the shape of rings. The will of Washington contains
this: “To my sisters-in-law Hannah Washington and Mildred Washington,
to my friends Eleanor Stuart, Hannah Washington of Fairfield and
Elizabeth Washington of Hayfield, I give each a mourning ring of the
value of one hundred dollars. These bequests are not made for the
intrinsic value of them, but as mementoes of my esteem and regard.”
Shakspeare bequeathes such tokens to several friends--among them,
to his brother players, whom he calls “my poor fellows”--“twenty
shillings eight pence apiece to buy them rings.” Pope bequeathed sums
of five pounds to friends, who were to lay them out in rings. This
great poet was no admirer of funerals that blackened all the way or
of gorgeous tombs: “As to my body, my will is that it be buried near
the monument of my dear parents at Twickenham, with the addition
after the words _filius fecit_ of these only, _et sibi_: _Qui obiit
anno 17_--, _ætatis_--: and that it be carried to the grave by six of
the poorest men of the parish, to each of whom I order a suit of gray
coarse cloth as mourning.”
The affection which Dr. Johnson bore to the memory of his wife was a
pretty point in his heavy character: “March 28, 1753. I kept this day
as the anniversary of my Letty’s death, with prayer and tears in the
morning. In the evening I prayed for her conditionally, if it were
lawful.” Her wedding-ring, when she became his wife, was, after her
death, preserved by him as long as he lived with an affectionate care
in a little round wooden box and in the inside of which he pasted a
slip of paper thus inscribed by him in fair characters:
“_Eheu!_
_Eliz. Johnson_
_Nupta Jul. 9^o, 1736,_
_Mortua, eheu!_
_Mart. 17^o, 1752._”[368]
Husbands can love, where friends may see nothing to admire: Mrs.
Johnson has been summed up as “perpetual illness and perpetual
opium.”[369]
Lord Eldon wore a mourning ring for his wife. In his will we find
this: “And I direct that I may be buried in the same tomb at Kingston
in which my most beloved wife is buried and as near to her remains as
possible; and I desire that the ring which I wear on my finger may be
put with my body into my coffin and be buried with me.”[370]
The last gift of Tom Moore’s mother to him was her wedding-ring:
“Have been preparing my dear mother for my leaving her, now that I
see her so much better. She is quite reconciled to my going; and
said this morning, ‘Now, my dear Tom, don’t let yourself be again
alarmed about me in this manner, nor hurried away from your house and
business.’ She then said she must, before I left her this morning,
give me her wedding-ring as her last gift; and, accordingly sending
for the little trinket-box in which she kept it, she, herself, put
the ring on my finger.”[371]
The poet Gray was the possessor of trinkets; and, perhaps, we
may refer these to the “effeminacy” and “visible fastidiousness”
mentioned in Temple’s Life, (adopted by Mason.) In his will, the poet
gives an amount of stock to Richard Stonehewer, and adds: “and I
beg his acceptance of one of my diamond rings,” while to Dr. Thomas
Wharton he bequeaths £500--and, “I desire him also to accept of one
of my diamond rings.” He bequeaths his watches, _rings_, etc., to his
cousins Mary Antrobus and Dorothy Comyns, to be equally and amicably
shared between them.
§ 21. On the 1st of March, 1854, the ship _Powhattan_ sailed from
Havre for New-York, with two hundred and fifty passengers. Not far
from Barnegat Inlet she became a wreck, so complete that not a
vestige of her reached land. The passengers were seen to cling to the
bulwarks and, then, drop off by fifties; her captain, through his
trumpet, could be heard to implore attention to them; while the sea
crushed and dashed all to death on the fretted beach. The clothing
of one of the victims, who was not more than twenty years of age,
showed her to have belonged to the wealthy class of Germans. She was
beautiful even as she lay in death dabbled with sea-weed and scum.
Upon her fingers were two rings; one, plain and the other had a
heart attached to it. They were marked P. S. and B. S. 1854. This we
gather from a fleeting newspaper. While the mind sighs as it leaves
the corpse to its shallow, seaside, foreign and premature grave, a
curiosity is awakened by the rings and the attendant emblem. The date
shows them to be very late gifts. Were these tokens of affection from
brother and sister--for one heart might well do for both--and who
placed them upon that now cold hand, then glowing with an affection
that throbbed from under those rings? Or, was this young creature on
her way to her youthful husband, who had come before and built up a
home and whose betrothal was shown in the _heart_, while the plain
ring had made them one before God and the church and who was watching
for her and, in fancy, had, through day dreams and in night watching,
fancied the vessel sweep into port and the hand, that lovingly wore
his gifts, wave a recognition? It may be that father and mother
were the donors, with a blessing and a prayer and the added almost
certainty of thought that she who received with a last kiss, would
long survive parents to reverence the tokens, hallow their memory and
think of Fatherland! Oh, how much of fact, of poetry, of sadness may
crowd around a little ring!!
[Illustration: (The Pelican Mother Ring)]
§ 22. We can hardly meet with a prettier token and illustration of
affection than is to be found upon an ancient silver ring. It has
a pelican feeding three young ones from the life-current oozing
out of her breast; with the words: _Their Mother_. There is but
little doubt that this was one of three rings given by a mother to
her three children. The pelican is made an emblem of charity; and
Hackluyt, in his Voyages, speaks of the “_Pellicane_”--“which is
fain to be the lovingst bird that is, which rather than her young
should want, will spare her heart-blood.” In no form or fashion
could a mother’s love have been more beautifully and permanently
displayed--pure as the metal, perfect as the emblem. It makes us feel
that love _is_ indestructible; that it came from Heaven and returns
thither. No matter what may have been the sorrows, the cares and the
long-suffering of that mother; no matter though her heart dances
no longer to the music of her children’s voices; no matter what
were the earthly trials of those loved children; no matter though
their home-nest has been torn down or that the snow of the world
covers where the wings of the parent bird were spread; no matter
though the grave has taken all, save this illustration of a divine
emanation:--we feel that such love could not die and the throbbing
from the poet’s soul comes upon our memory:
“Oh when the mother meets on high
The babe she lost----
Hath she not then, for pains and fears,
The day of woe, the watchful night,
For all her sorrows, all her tears,
An overpayment of delight!”[372]
§ 23. This love between mother and child, from its undying purity,
is always a pleasant thing to trace and to follow. In the _Household
Words_,[373] a work in which there is more of usefulness, pleasure
and beauty than in any other modern book, a ring plays a pretty part
in a ballad of the youthful knight, Bran of Brittany. He was “wounded
sore,” and “in a dungeon tower, helpless he wept in the foeman’s
power.”
“O find a messenger true to me,
To bear me a letter across the sea.
A messenger true they brought him there,
And the young knight warned him thus with care:
Lay now that dress of thine aside,
And in beggar’s weeds thy service hide,
And take my ring, my ring of gold,
And wrap it safe in some secret fold,
But, once at my mother’s castle gate,
That ring will gain admittance straight.
And O! if she comes to ransom me,
Then high let the white flag hoisted be;
But if she comes not--ah, well-a-day!
The night-black flag at the mast display.[374]
When the messenger true to Leon came,
At supper sat the high-born dame:
With cups of gold and royal fare,
And the harpers merrily harping there.
I kneel to thee, right noble dame;
This ring will show from whom I came.
And he who gave me that same ring,
Bade me in haste this letter bring.
Oh! harpers, harpers, cease your song;
The grief at my heart is sharp and strong.
Why did they this from his mother hide?
In a dungeon lies my only pride!
O quick make ready a ship for me,
This night I’ll cross the stormy sea.”
The ballad goes on to show how young Bran, from his bed, at morn, at
noon, at vesper, asked the warder whether he saw a ship; and when,
at last, the warder says he observes one, he couples it with the
falsehood that the color of its flag is black.
“When the downcast knight that answer heard,
He asked no more, he spake no word.
He turned to the wall his face so wan,
And shook in the breath of the Mighty One!”
The mother touches the strand; hears a death-bell; asks of a
gray-haired man; speeds wildly to the tower:
“At the foot of the tower, to the gaoler grim,
She sobbed aloud and she called to him:
O! open the gates (my son! my son!)
O open the gates (my only son!)
They opened the gates; no word they said:
Before her there her son lay dead.
In her arms she took him so tenderly,
And laid her down--never more rose she!”
The ballad then describes an oak, with lofty head, whereon the birds
gather at night:
“And amidst them comes ever croaking low,
With a young dark raven, an aged crow.
Wearily onward they flap their way
With drooping wings, soaked through with spray,
As they had come from a far countrye;
As they had flown o’er a stormy sea.
And the birds they sing so sweet and clear
That the waves keep very still to hear.
They all sing out in a merry tone,
They all sing together--save two alone.
With mournful voice ever croaking low,
Sing, happy birds! says the aged crow,
Blest little birds! sing, for you may,
_You did not die from home far away_!”
How this noble ballad would have stirred the hearts of the authors of
“The Lay of the Last Minstrel” and of “Christabel”!
§ 24. Authors of fiction, from early times, have made use of rings
for their scenes. Shakspeare not unfrequently introduces them; indeed
the most interesting portion of _Cymbeline_ is worked up through the
wager of a ring as to the honor of the heroine. Imogen, in taking
leave of Posthumus, says:
“------ Look here, love;
This diamond was my mother’s; take it, heart;
But keep it till you woo another wife,
When Imogen is dead.
_Posthumus_. How! how! another?
You gentle gods, give me but this I have,
And sear up my embracements from a next
With bonds of death! Remain thou here,
(_Putting on the ring_,)
While sense can keep it on.”
And he, then, exchanges for it, “a manacle of love,” a bracelet,
placing it upon her arm, that “fairest prisoner.” Iachimo induced
Posthumus to wager this ring, which he esteemed “more than the world
enjoys”--but it is unnecessary to go further: for who has not read
Shakspeare?
§ 25. Roman iron rings, wrought with much care and having precious
stones, but minute enough for a child, have been found. One or two
of them are mentioned and illustrated in Caylus,[375] who, no doubt
rightly, considers they were intended for the finger of a domestic
deity or household god.
[Illustration: (Roman Child’s Iron Ring)]
The Romans clung to their home deities; and this is the best part
of their character. One of the most beautiful of the antique draped
figures, cut upon a signet, represents a woman contemplating a
household god,[376] “a symbol of that domestic affection which
the ancients, exalted almost blamelessly, into an object of divine
homage.”[377]
[Illustration: (Woman Contemplating Household Gods)]
It was on this particular gem that Croly wrote these charming lines:
“Domestic love! not in proud palace halls
Is often seen thy beauty to abide;
Thy dwelling is in lowly cottage walls,
That in the thickets of the woodbine hide;
With hum of bees around, and from the spring,
Shining along thro’ banks with harebells dyed;
And many a bird to warble on the wing,
When morn her saffron robe o’er heaven and earth doth fling.
O! love of loves!--to thy white hand is given
Of earthly happiness the golden key!
“Thine are the joyous hours of winter’s even,
When the babes cling around their father’s knee;
And thine the voice that, on the midnight sea,
Melts the rude mariner with thoughts of home,
Peopling the gloom with all he longs to see.
Spirit! I’ve built a shrine; and thou hast come;
And on its altar closed--for ever closed thy plume!”
Gifts of rings by lovers have always been common; but the intimate
relation between husband and wife brings toils, duties and sacrifices
which generally charm off ordinary love tokens. It is comforting,
however, when the husband can look to the past, to the present, to
the future with sentiments like those embraced in the following
beautiful lines in connection with the gift of a ring:
“TO MRS. ----, WITH A RING.
“‘Thee, Mary, with this ring I wed,’--
So, sixteen years ago, I said--
Behold another ring--for what?
To wed thee o’er again? Why not?
With that first ring I married youth,
Grace, beauty, innocence and truth,
Taste long admir’d, sense long rever’d
And all my Mary then appeared.
If she, by merit since disclosed,
Prove twice the woman I supposed:
I plead that double merit now
To justify a double vow.
Here then to-day (with faith as sure,
With ardor as intense and pure,
As when amidst the rites divine
I took thy troth and plighted mine)
To thee, sweet girl, my second ring,
A token and a pledge I bring,
With this I wed till death us part
Thy riper virtues to my heart;
Those virtues which, before untried,
The wife has added to the bride;
Those virtues, whose progressive claim,
Endearing wedlock’s very name,
My soul enjoys, my song approves,
For conscience’ sake, as well as love’s.
For why?--They show me hour by hour
Honor’s high thought, affection’s power,
Discretion’s deed, sound judgment’s sentence,
And teach me all things--but repentance.”[378]
And there is a charm and gentleness about the following lines which
Dr. Drennan addressed to his wife, with a gift of a ring:
“Emblem of happiness! not bought nor sold;
Accept this modest ring of virgin gold.
Love, in this small, but perfect, circle trace;
And duty, in its soft but strict embrace.
Plain, precious, pure, as best becomes the wife;
Yet firm to bear the frequent rubs of life.
Connubial life disdains a fragile toy,
Which rust can tarnish and a touch destroy;
Nor much admires what courts the general gaze,
The dazzling diamond’s meretricious blaze,
That hides, with glare, the anguish of a heart,
By nature hard, but polished bright by art.
More to thy taste the ornament that shows
Domestic bliss and, without glaring, glows,
Whose gentle pressure serves to keep the mind
To _all_ correct; to _one_ discreetly kind--
Of simple elegance the unconscious charm;
The holy amulet to keep from harm.
To guard, at once and consecrate, the shrine--
Take this dear pledge:--it makes and keeps thee mine.
§ 26. There is an interesting story in the _Gesta Romanorum_[379]
(indeed the whole work is full of pleasing matter) entitled the
judgment of Solomon. It is often represented in that illumination
which in the ancient manuscripts of the French translation of the
Bible by Guiars des Moulins is prefixed to the Proverbs of Solomon,
although the story itself does not occur in that Bible. It appears to
have been a great favorite in the middle ages; and was often related
from the pulpit. A king, in some domestic difference with his wife,
had been told by her that one only of her three sons was a true
offspring, but which of them was so she refused to discover. This
gave him much uneasiness; and his death soon afterwards approaching,
he called his children together; and declared, in the presence of
witnesses, that he left a ring, which had very singular properties,
to him that should be found to be his lawful son. On his death a
dispute arose about the ring between the youths--and it was at length
agreed to refer its decision to the King of Jerusalem. He immediately
ordered that the dead body of the father should be taken up and tied
to a tree; that each of the sons should shoot an arrow at it and that
he who penetrated the deepest should have the ring. The eldest shot
first and the arrow went far into the body; the second shot also and
deeper than the other. The youngest son stood at a distance and wept
bitterly; but the king said to him: “Young man, take your arrow and
shoot as your brothers have done.” He answered, “Far be it from me
to commit so great a crime. I would not for the whole world disfigure
the body of my own father.” The king said: “Without doubt you are his
son, and the others are changelings: to you, therefore, I adjudge the
ring.”
* * * * *
Here the author closes his “Dactylotheca” or casket of rings.
Metaphorically speaking, he fears it has been discovered that he does
not wear a _ring of power_; and that no _talismanic ring_ is in his
possession. And it may be that some constrained position in which the
writer has kept his readers, will allow them to desire the use of
_cramp rings_ for relief. If so, he would willingly “creep to cross”
to succor them: provided the ending of this essay did not answer that
purpose.
One thing the author will hope; and it is this: that his readers
and he have fashioned the interesting token of friendship a _gimmal
ring_; and if it be so, then they will pass from this work with the
idea that they have one part of such ring, while the writer may
proudly hold to the other, until some future essay shall bring author
and friends and the twin hoops of the _gimmal_ together again. With
such a token upon his hand, he can waive a farewell.
INDEX.
A.
Abraxas stones, 95.
Ackmetchet, marriage at, 199.
Agate, its supposed magical and medical powers, 104.
Agnes, St., priest placing ring on finger of statue, 141.
Ahlstan, ring of, 39.
Aix-la-Chapelle, ring connected with the founding of, 138.
Alderman’s thumb-ring, 90.
Alexander’s ring, 20, 66, 156.
Amethyst, its supposed magical and medical powers, 100.
Amulet-rings found at Eltham, 120;
at Coventry, 121;
in antique urns, 121;
worn by physicians, 122;
Dano-Saxon amulet, 136;
amulet against storms, 136.
Andrea of Sicily and Jerusalem, 118.
Anglo-Saxon rings and workmen, 25.
Anne, Countess Dowager of Pembroke, 91.
Anne of Brittany sends ring to James IV. of Scotland, 158.
_Annulus pronubus_, 201.
Anselm, investiture by ring, 81;
and his miracles, 81.
Antiochus Epiphanes, ring of, 66.
Apis, sacred Egyptian bull, 32.
Arabian princesses, wearing rings with little bells attached, 90.
Archbishop’s investiture by ring, 80.
Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, 126.
Arnulph’s dream about a ring, 81.
Artery, supposed, in the fourth finger, 47, 206.
Augustus, ring of, 67, 156.
B.
Bagaley’s account of Stanley, seventh Earl of Derby, 181.
Baker, Sir Richard, 141.
Balassius, (Ruby,) 102.
Belt, ring in the form of, 37.
Bertie, Richard, receives diamond ring from King of France, 159.
Betrothal rings: Grecian, 196;
in Esthonia, 197;
among the Copts, 198;
ceremony attendant on betrothal, 199, 201;
betrothal rings in Germany, 200.
Bishops, investiture by ring, 80, 83;
sealed with rings in early times, 85.
“Blood-stone” of Jeffreys, 184.
Bloody Baker, 141.
“Blue Ring,” 174.
Borgia, Cæsar, his poisoned ring. 144.
“Bot,” 137.
Boyle, Richard, (Great Earl of Cork,) 160.
Brand, Miss v., her vision, 125.
Bran of Brittany, 226.
Brian Borholme, 147.
Britons, rings worn by, 24, 25.
British Museum, rings in, 34.
Bronze rings, seldom used by Egyptians, 26.
Bronze ring, widening by pressure, 37.
Bucentaur, the galley used on the Doge marrying the sea, 73.
Bull (Apis) on a ring, 32.
Byron, his mothers wedding-ring, 189.
C.
Cæsar’s ring, 156.
Caius Marius, 26.
California ring presented to President Pierce, 43.
Cameo, its origin, 156.
Canute, King, discovery of his tomb, body and ring, 70.
Carbuncle, 29.
Cardinal’s ring, 83.
Carey, Robert, Earl of Monmouth, takes the “Blue Ring” to James on
Queen Elizabeth’s decease, 174.
Catacombs of Rome, 89.
Cats cut upon Egyptian rings, 38.
Cecil, Earl of Salisbury. 49.
Chains of criminals made into rings to cure diseases, 136.
Chalcedony, its supposed magical power, 106.
Charlemagne, story connected with founding Aix-la-Chapelle, 138.
Charles I., supposed ring of this monarch given to a boy, 177;
his ring used by Sir Philip Warwick, 178;
mourning rings of this king, 179;
his hair used for rings, 180.
Charles II., Duchess of Portsmouth takes diamond rings from his hand
when on his death-bed, 183.
Charles VIII. of France, 145.
Charm rings, 93.
Cheops, ring of, 149.
Childeric, his tomb, body, ring, 71.
Christians, rings of early Christians, 39, 40.
Christians wearing talismanic rings, 119;
symbolical figures on the rings of early Christians, 203;
Christian marriage-ring copied from Romans, 205.
Coffin-nails or screws made into rings to cure king’s evil, 132.
Collar, pliable ring in the form of, 37.
College of Navarre, gives ring to Crichton, 188.
Commonwealth of England, inclined to abolish the ring in marriages,
208.
Convulsions cured by silver rings, 132.
Copts, betrothal ring used by them, 198.
Coral, its supposed magical power, 107.
Cork, Earl of, 160.
Cornelian rings found near the Pyramids, 26.
Cornelian, its magical and medical powers, 100, 105.
Coronation rings, 67.
Council of Trent, in relation to marriage, 195, 204.
Cramp rings, 128.
Cranmer using the ring of Henry VIII. before the Council, 72.
Creeping to cross, 130.
Crichton (the Admirable), ring given to him by the College of
Navarre, 188.
Criminals, chains of, made into rings to cure diseases, 136.
Croly’s lines on a gem representing a woman contemplating a
household god, 230.
Cupid and Psyche, on a Roman signet, 214.
Cupid with butterflies, on a ring, 144.
D.
Dactylomancy, or divination by rings, 111.
Dactylotheca, Roman name for cases containing rings, 22, 155.
Dano-Saxon amulet, 136.
Darnley’s ring, 173.
Death’s-head rings, 30.
Devereux, Earl of, ring given by Queen Elizabeth to, 162.
De Vesci, King John’s bad conduct towards the wife of, 157.
Diamond, 41;
on swivel in ring, 49;
its magical and medical powers, 100, 101.
Divination by rings, 111, 112.
Doge marrying the sea, 73; his ring of office, 75.
“Dolzbote;” 138.
Domestic deities of the Romans, small iron rings used for, 229.
Drennan, Dr., his lines to his wife with a ring, 232.
Dschemid, said to have introduced the ring, 16.
Dundee, ring in memory of the great Dundee, 187.
E.
Edward, St., ring of, 128.
Edward the Confessor’s ring, 157.
Egyptians, their rings, 17, 21, 26, 27, 34, 35;
on what fingers worn, 47, 48;
no evidence that they used a marriage-ring, 196.
Eldon, Lord, desired his ring to be buried with him, 225.
Eleusinian mysteries, rings given to the initiated, 96.
Elizabeth of Poland, talismanic ring given by her to her son
Andrea, 118.
Elizabeth, Queen, medicinal ring sent to her by Lord Chancellor
Hatton, 124;
ring given by her to Essex, 162;
her death, 164;
ring given by her to Mary of Scotland, 168.
Elk’s horn, piece of, worn in ring to cure epilepsy, 135.
Emerald, its supposed medical and magical powers, 100, 103.
Epilepsy cured by wearing ring, 133, 135.
Essex-ring, 162, _et seq._
Esthonia, betrothal rings in, 197.
Eternity, ring an emblem of, 21.
Ethelwoulf, ring of, 156.
Etruscan rings, 35, 36.
Evil eye, charm-rings to act against it, 93.
Execustus, his two enchanted rings, 112.
F.
Fingers on which rings are worn, 45, 46, 67, 86, 202;
finger for betrothal ring, 201, 202;
finger for wedding ring, 206.
Fish, rings found in, 59.
“Fisherman’s Ring,” 77.
Fits, cured by ring, 132, 133.
G.
Gallienus frightening a dishonest jeweller, 57.
Galvanic rings, 135.
Gambler’s rings, 145.
Gauls, rings used by, 24.
German betrothal ring, 200.
_Gesta Romanorum_, story from, 233.
Gibbet, iron from it made into rings to cure diseases, 136.
Gimmal ring, 192.
Gimmow (or Gimmal) ring, 192.
Godwin, Earl, 11, 12.
Gold rings, generally used by the Egyptians, 26;
Roman gold rings, 27.
Gray bequeaths his rings, 220.
Greeks, inscriptions on their rings, 36;
had the wedding and betrothal ring, 195, 196.
Greek urns, rings in, 18.
Gresham, Sir Thomas, his gimmal ring, 194.
Gyges, ring of, 126.
H.
Hand, on which hand rings are worn, 45, 47;
with thumb and two forefingers extended, 83.
Hannibal’s ring, 154.
Hathaway, Anne, lines to, (note,) 11.
Hatton, Chancellor, sending medicinal ring to Queen Elizabeth, 124.
Hebrews, wore a number of rings, 49;
as to their using a marriage-ring, 196-7.
Heliogabalus, never wore the same ring twice, 46.
Henry II. of England, his tomb, body, ring, 71.
Heraldry, ring in, 58.
Herbert’s enigma, 62.
Household gods of the Romans, small iron rings for, 229;
Croly’s lines on a gem representing a woman contemplating a
household deity, 230.
Hyacinth, its supposed medical and magical powers, 102.
Hynd Horn, ballad of, 115.
I. J.
Indian Brahmins, 95.
Innocent III. ordered the celebration of marriage through the
church, 195.
Inscriptions on Greek and Roman rings, 36.
Investiture by ring and staff, 80, 81, 82.
Ireland, diamond found in, 41.
Iron, rings of, 26, 27, 94, 229;
iron from gibbets made into rings to cure diseases, 136;
iron rings containing the Prussian maiden’s hair, 191.
Ivory rings worn by the Egyptians, 27.
Jacinth, its supposed medical and magical powers, 102.
James IV. of Scotland, receiving a turquoise ring from Anne of
Brittany, 158.
Jasper, its supposed superior healing and magical powers, 99, 105.
Jeffreys and his “Blood-stone,” 184.
Jewish marriage, and use of ring at it, 208.
Joan of Naples, 118.
John, King of England, his bad conduct in relation to the wife of
De Vesci, 157.
Johnson, Dr., his care of his wife’s wedding-ring, 222.
Joseph, ring given by Pharaoh to, 66, 151.
Judah and Tamar, 20.
K.
Kean the elder, his ring, 189.
Kerouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, takes two diamond rings from the
hand of Charles II. when in his death-throes, 183.
Key, ring with a key attached, 196.
King’s evil cured by ring made from coffin-nails or screws, 132.
Kings of Scotland, ring used at their coronation, bequeathed by
Cardinal York to Prince Regent, 188.
L.
Lacedemonians, as to their inventing seal-rings, 17.
Lambert Linkin, ballad of, 114.
Law of rings, 50.
Lawyers in Rome, clients presenting them with rings, 23.
Lines with a ring, 232.
L’Isle, Lord, 158.
Lituus, 23.
Louis IX. of France, 58.
Love’s Telegraph, 54.
M.
Mad-stone, (note,) 109.
Madoc’s ring, 157.
Magnet in a ring, 31.
Marriage, its ceremony through the Church, ordained by Innocent
III., 195;
marriage at Ackmetchet, 199.
Marriage-ring, Grecian and Roman, 195, 196, 216;
used at Ackmetchet, 199;
marriage-rings had inscriptions, others a sealing part, 215, 220,
221;
ancient one of silver with inscription, 220.
Mary, Queen of Scots, talismanic ring offered to her by Lord
Ruthven, 119;
her nuptial ring, 168, 170;
portrait of Mary in a ring at Bolsover Castle, 171;
a ring (one portion) sent to her by Queen Elizabeth, 171.
Matilda, wife of the Conqueror, her tomb, body, ring, 71.
Matrons of Warsaw, part with their rings to coin into ducats for
Polish struggle, 190.
Medicinal rings, 122, 123, 124, 136.
_Mei Amores_, upon a ring, 144.
Mexican officers’ rings, 154.
Michaelis, (physician,) had medical ring made of tooth of sea-horse,
136.
Mithridates, ring of, 155.
Money in the form of rings, 13.
Months, Polish idea of their being under the influence of precious
stones, 56.
Moore, his mother’s gift of her wedding-ring, 223.
N.
Name-rings, 55.
Navarre, College of, gives ring to Crichton, 188.
Nelson, memorial rings of, 188.
Nero’s ring, 156.
Nottingham, Countess of, and her connection with the Essex ring,
163.
Newton, Sir Isaac, his magnet-ring, 31;
his tooth set in a ring, 189.
O.
O’Neils of Ulster, and Turlough Lynnoch, 190.
Opal, its supposed medical and magical powers, 105.
Ordeal of touch, 137.
Order of the Ring, 51.
Orpine plant, inserted in rings, 215.
P.
Palatius, (Ruby,) 102.
Pallas, freed-man of Claudius, ring of, 19.
Papal ring, 76, 78.
Pearls, 28.
Pelican and young upon a ring, 225.
Pembroke, Anne, Countess Dowager of, 91.
Persians, their seal-rings, 52, 67;
bridegroom makes a present of a ring, 198.
Pharaoh’s ring given to Joseph, 66, 151.
Physicians’ rings, 49, 122.
Pierce, Franklin, ring from California presented to, 43.
Pio, Albert, anecdote of, 49.
Pius II., ring of, 79.
Plague-rings, 136.
Poison carried in rings, 38, 154.
Pompeii, marriage-ring found at, 196.
Pompey’s ring, 155.
Pope’s ring, 17, 78.
Pope the poet, bequeathed rings, 222.
Porcelain rings worn by the Egyptians, 27.
Portsmouth, Duchess of, her taking diamond rings from the hand of
Charles II. in the death throes, 183.
Power, rings connected with, 65.
Powhattan, (ship,) 224.
Prometheus, and his wearing the first ring, 15, 16.
Prussian maiden and the sacrifice of her hair, 190.
Puritans set against the wedding-ring, 208.
R.
Richard II., directions in his will, 71.
Riddle on a ring, 62.
Ring-dropping, 145.
Ring-money, 13.
Roman Catholic marriages, 208.
Roman flute players, rings worn by, 23.
Roman lawyers, rings given to, by clients, 23.
Roman urns, rings in, 19.
Roman rings, 36;
marriage-rings, 195.
Roman senators and their rings, 66.
Roman slave, 146.
Roman knights, 24, 66, 90.
Ruby, its supposed medical and magical powers, 102.
Rubric, marriage in the Episcopal Church governed by, 204, 205.
Ruthven, Lord, offers talismanic ring to Mary, Queen of Scots, 119.
Rush-rings, 215.
S.
Sackvil, Duke of Dorset, ring given to him by King James, 175.
St. Anne, ring of, 214.
Samothracian talismanic ring, 94.
Sapphire; its supposed medical and magical powers, 104.
Scarabæus, form of seal, 17.
Sea-horse’s tooth, Michaelis’s medical ring made of, 136.
Seal-rings, when first used by ladies, 26.
Sebert, his tomb, body, ring, 70.
Serjeants at law, their rings and the ceremony relating to their
presentation, 86.
Sessa, ring found at, 216.
Shakspeare’s signet-ring, 10, 161;
bequeathed rings to his brother players, 222.
Shoes, rings with shape of soles of shoes, 24.
Signets with Sanscrit inscriptions, 17;
importance given to signets in England, 53.
Size of rings, Egyptian, 31, 32, 33.
Slave, Roman, 146.
Solomon’s magic ring, 113.
Sonnet, by Davison, 195.
Sore cured by touch of ring-finger, 132, 133.
Spain, the power of a girl to compel marriage when a ring has been
given, 198.
Stanley, seventh Earl of Derby, his character and last gift of
rings, 181.
Statues, rings on, 22, 23, 24.
Sterling’s story of the “Onyx Ring,” 116.
Storms, amulet against, 136.
“Sty” on the eye cured by rubbing with wedding-ring, 132.
_Subarrhation_, the delivering of ring and other gifts, 203.
Substances from which rings are formed, 26.
Suphis, ring of, 149.
Suffolk, Duchess of, 159.
_Symbolum_, a term used for a ring, 13.
Syrian legend, 115.
T.
Talismanic rings, 93;
their form, 96.
“Thee, Mary, with this ring I wed,” 231.
Theseus, 14.
Thieves’ rings, 145.
Thumb-rings, 90, 91, 92.
Toad-stone. 107.
Topaz, its supposed medical and magical powers, 104.
_Trau_ (betrothal) ring in Germany, 200.
Trent, Council of, 195, 204.
Tristram, had a mystical ring, 127.
Trophy, emblem on rings, 155.
Turlough Lynnoch, his ring, 190.
Turquoise, its supposed medical and magical powers, 106;
turquoise ring sent by the Queen of Louis XII. to James IV. of
Scotland, 158.
U. V.
_Ungulus_, Oscan word for ring, 13.
Urns, rings in Greek urns, 18.
Urns, rings in Roman urns, 19.
Value of some ring, 54.
Venus, story of placing ring on brazen, statue of this goddess, 139.
Virgin, the, story of placing ring on finger of statue, 141.
W.
Walpole’s poesy upon a ring, 63.
Warsaw, matrons of, give their wedding-rings to be coined in aid of
the Polish struggle, 190.
Warts, taken away by ring touching them, 132.
Warwick, Sir Philip, intrusted with use of the ring of Charles I.,
178.
Washington bequeathed rings, 229.
Wedding-ring touching wart to take it away, 132;
rubbing on “sty” to cure it, _ib._;
Grecian and Roman wedding-rings, 195, 196;
gold-wire rings given away at weddings, 213, 215;
ancient silver ring, 220.
Whistle connected with a ring, 38.
Wire rings of gold given away at weddings, 213.
Wound cured by touch of ring, 133.
Y.
York, Cardinal, his bequest of the ring used by kings of Scotland on
their coronation, 188.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The poem from which this stanza is taken has now become so
scarce, and is so pleasing, that we are induced to insert it in this
note:
TO THE IDOL OF MINE EYES AND THE DELIGHT OF MINE HEART, ANNE HATHAWAY.
Would ye be taught, ye feathered throng,
With love’s sweet notes to grace your song,
To pierce the heart with thrilling lay,
Listen to mine Anne Hathaway!
She _hath a way_ to sing so clear,
Phœbus might wond’ring stop to hear;
To melt the sad, make blithe the gay,
And nature charm, Anne _hath a way_:
She _hath a way_,
Anne Hathaway,
To breathe delight Anne _hath a way_.
When envy’s breath and rancorous tooth
Do soil and bite fair worth and truth,
And merit to distress betray,
To soothe the heart Anne _hath a way_;
She _hath a way_ to chase despair,
To heal all grief, to cure all care,
Turn foulest night to fairest day:
Thou know’st, fond heart, Anne _hath a way_,
She _hath a way_,
Anne Hathaway,
To make grief bliss Anne _hath a way_.
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_.
But were it to my fancy given
To rate her charms, I’d call them Heaven;
For though a mortal made of clay,
Angels must love Anne Hathaway.
She _hath a way_ so to control
To rapture the imprisoned soul,
And sweetest Heaven on earth display,
That to be Heaven Anne _hath a way_!
She _hath a way_,
Anne Hathaway,
To be Heaven’s self Anne _hath a way_.
[2] Chambers’s Miscellany, vol. xv., No. 132.
[3] Layard’s Nineveh, ii. 318.
[4] Papers read before the Irish Academy, 1836.
[5] Babylon and Nineveh, 513.
[6] Pliny, lib. ix.; Pausanias in Attic. Poet., c. vi.; Ovid. Fast.,
1. v. Bannier, ii. 497.
[7] Lib. i. c. 1.
[8] Plin. lib. xiii.; Montfaucon.
[9] Book of Costume, by a Lady of Rank, 21.
[10] Archæologia Biblica.
[11] P. 246.
[12] Fuss’s Roman Antiquities.
[13] Pictorial Bible, (Knight’s Ed.,) Note to 1 Kings, ch. xxi.
[14] Curiosities of Burial, (Chambers’s Repository.)
[15] Dagley’s Gems, _Preface_.
[16] Hottzappfel’s Turning and Mechanical Manipulations, p. 1362.
[17] Chambers’s Repository, (Curiosities of Burial.)
[18] Gemma Antiche, iii. 182.
[19] Genesis, ch. xli. _et seq._
[20] Goldsmith.
[21] Caylus, vol. iii. p. 157.
[22] And see Layard’s Nineveh, 339, 340.
[23] Montfaucon.
[24] Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xx., N. S., 55.
[25] Fuss’s Roman Antiquities, sec. 435.
[26] Juvenal, Sat. VII.
[27] Adams’s Roman Antiquities, 366, (Boyd’s edit.)
[28] Montfaucon.
[29] Plutarch’s Numa.
[30] Fuss, § 318.
[31] Fosbroke, 247; Fuss, § 150.
[32] Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xviii., N. S., 527.
[33] 4. vol. i. pl. lxxxix.
[34] Fosbroke’s Encyclopædia of Antiquities, 247.
[35] Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s; and Archæologla, xvii. 316.
[36] Eccleston’s Introduction to English Antiquities, 60,61; and see
Manufactures of Metal, 376; Hone’s Every-Day Book, 671; Archæologia,
iv. 54.
[37] Ingoldsby Legends, 223.
[38] Fosbroke, 251.
[39] Montfaucon.
[40] Fosbroke’s Encyclopædia of Antiquities, 246.
[41] Wilkinson’s Manners of the Ancient Egyptians, 371.
[42] Rees’s Encyclopædia--Title, _Rings_.
[43] Lib. i. i. cap. 5.
[44] Life of Caius Marius.
[45] Fosbroke’s Encyclopædia of Antiquities, 246.
[46] Wilson’s Archæological Dictionary, Art. _Rings_.
[47] Chambers’s Miscellany.
[48] Cardanus, lib. vii. _de Lapidibus_.
[49] Dumas’ Celebrated Crimes--_The Borgias_.
[50] Notes to Tallis’s Edit. of Shakspeare.
[51] Act IV. Scene 2.
[52] Nichols’s Lapidary, 54, 57; Kobell, 274.
[53] Hill’s Theophrastus, p. 75, notes _n. y._
[54] Chances, Act 1, Sc. 3.
[55] Collins’s Peerage.
[56] Harris’s Rudimentary Magnetism, 6.
[57] Recueil d’Antiquités.
[58] Remarks on Italy.
[59] Curiosities of Burial--Chambers’s Repository.
[60] Recueil d’Antiquités, Tom. ii. p. 310.
[61] Lib. iv., p. 172, Pl. LVII.
[62] Lib. v. p. 161.
[63] Caylus, ii. 311.
[64] Gentleman’s Magazine, Vol. xviii., N. S., 527.
[65] Archæologia, v. 71.
[66] Ib. viii. 430.
[67] Heb. xi. 37, 38.
[68] Fosbroke, 247; Archæologia, iv. 54.
[69] Vol. iv. N. S., p. 224.
[70] (Published by Redfield,) p. 110.
[71] Lond. Gent.’s Mag., Vol. xxiv. p. 285.
[72] Archæologia, (London,) ii. 35.
[73] Memorials of Affairs of State, iii. 368.
[74] Nugæ Antiquæ, ii. 263.
[75] Jer, xxii. 24.
[76] Moutfaucon.
[77] Lib. x.
[78] Martial, Lib. xi., epiq. 60.
[79] Aristophanes, _in Nub._, &c.
[80] Wilkinson.
[81] P. 185, Edit. of 1646.
[82] P. 185.
[83] Chap. ii., v. 2.
[84] Archæologia Biblica, § 128-9; Wilkinson.
[85] Godolphin’s Orphan’s Leg., 413.
[86] Williams on Executors, 739.
[87] _Apreece_ v. _Apreece_, 1 V. and B. 364.
[88] _Vowles_ v. _Young_, 13 Ves. J. 144.
[89] Montfaucon.
[90] London, for 1760, p. 243.
[91] Roscoe’s Leo X., i. 338, (8vo.)
[92] Library of Entertaining Knowledge, Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 324.
[93] And see Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, (Putnam’s Edit.,) 529.
[94] Vol. i. p. 345, 4to.
[95] Adam’s Roman Antiquities, 366, (Boyd’s edit.)
[96] Household Words, ix. 462.
[97] Family Friend, vol. ii. p. 132.
[98] Furnished to the author through the attention of Messrs.
Marchand Aé. Gaime, Guillemot & Co., Jewellers, of New-York.
[99] Mineral Kingdom, p. 269.
[100] New-York Albion newspaper, 8th October, 1853.
[101] When the tomb of Childeric, father of Clovis, was opened,
there were found, besides the skeletons of his horse and page, his
arms, a crystal orb and more than three hundred little ornaments
resembling bees of the purest gold, their wing part being inlaid with
a red stone like cornelian. It has, however, been asserted that they
were what are called _fleurons_, supposed to have been attached to
the harness of the monarch’s war-horse. Napoleon, wishing to have
some regal emblem more ancient than the _fleur-de-lis_, adopted the
_fleurons_ or bees, and the green ground as the original Merovingian
color, (Notes and Queries, viii. 30.)
[102] London Gent.’s Mag. for January, 1765, p. 210.
[103] Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xxxv. old series, p. 141.
[104] Article in the N. Y. Albion for 31st Dec. 1853, on Cod and Cod
Fishing, 627.
[105] Lady Morgan’s Italy, vol. ii. p. 419.
[106] Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 107.
[107] Genesis, chap. lxi. _et seq._
[108] 1 Mac. vi. 15.
[109] Encyc. Brit., Article _Ring_.
[110] Chap. viii. 8.
[111] Daniel vi. 17.
[112] Egypt under the Ptolemies, by Sharp, 118.
[113] Lib. ii. Sat. 7.
[114] Notes and Queries, iv. 261.
[115] An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the nature of the
Kingly Offices, etc., by T. C. Banks, p. 7. See also a complete
account of the Ceremonies observed in the Coronation of the Kings and
Queens of England, 4th edition, published by J. Roberts. Also, the
entire Ceremonies of the Coronation of King Charles II., and of Queen
Mary, consort of James II., as published by the Learned Heralds,
Ashmole and Sandford.
[116] Archæologia, (London,) iii. 390.
[117] Biographia Britannica, Art. _Devereux_.
[118] Archæologia, vol. xxvi. (London.) Account of the Jerusalem
Chamber, by A. J. Kempe, Esquire.
[119] Ib. vol. xxix. pl. 2. Particulars of the Regalia of England,
made for the Coronation of Charles II., by Robert Cole, Esquire.
[120] Archæologia, iii. 390.
[121] Ib. 385.
[122] Correspondence, vol. vi. p. 67.
[123] Archæologia, iii. 392.
[124] Ib. 389.
[125] King Henry VIII., Act 5, Scenes 1, 2.
[126] See also Antiquitat. Britannicæ, 334, 336; Burnet, 327, _et
seq._
[127] Encyc. Am., Art. _Venice_. And see Scott’s Discovery of
Witchcraft (1665,) p. 152.
[128] In the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1798, p. 184, is a
minute account of this ceremony, which somewhat varies from the
above: “On Ascension Day, the Doge, in a splendid barge, attended
by a thousand barks and gondolas, proceeds to a particular place in
the Adriatic. In order to compose the angry gulf and procure a calm,
the patriarch pours into her bosom a quantity of holy water. As soon
as this charm has had its effect, the Doge, with great solemnity,
through an aperture near his seat, drops into her lap a gold ring,
repeating these words, ‘_Desponsamus te, Mare, in signum veri
perpetuique dominii._’ ‘We espouse thee, O sea! in token of real and
perpetual dominion over thee.’”
[129] Dictionary of Dates, Adriatic.
[130] See Smedley’s Sketches of Venetian History, referred to in note
[A] to Byron’s Works.
[131] He is under obligations to the Reverend Thomas S. Preston for
this.
[132] Gavazzi’s Lectures, (New-York ed.,) 185.
[133] London Gent.’s Mag. for 1848, p. 599.
[134] Eadmer, Histor. Nov., l. i. p. 16.
[135] John of Salisbury’s Life of Anselm.
[136] Rapin.
[137] William of Malmesbury.
[138] Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law, 209.
[139] Encyc. Brit., Title, _Ring_.
[140] London Gent’s Mag., vol. lxxi. p. 1082.
[141] Notes and Queries, viii. 387.
[142] Ib. 2d vol. 4th S., 300.
[143] Notes and Queries, v. 114.
[144] Ib. 492.
[145] Metamorph. ii. 34.
[146] Ennemoser, i. 258, _et seq._
[147] Caylus, vi. 295, Pl. xciii.
[148] Addison, (Tickell’s edit.,) v. 178.
[149] Since writing the above, we have come across _Ennemoser’s
History of Magic_, who refers to these hands; and while he takes up
with the notion of their being votive offerings, he refers to the
extended fingers to show that a cure had been effected by magnetic
manipulation. In reference to one particular specimen, the author
considers the hand itself to be an appropriate emblem from having
performed the cure. (Vol. i. p. 255.) This, then, does away with the
idea that a cure in the hand itself was effected; and if we take away
the hand, the remarkable figures with which it was studded do not
seem to be connected with or emblematical of any kind of disease. All
this brings us nearer to our notion, that these hands were used as
amulets.
[150] Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, ii. 354.
[151] Fosbroke’s Encyc. of Antiquities, 246.
[152] Notes and Queries, v. 492.
[153] Whitlock’s Memoirs, p. 356.
[154] Fortescue de Laud. Legum Angl., cap. 50.
[155] 3 Cooke’s Reports, 3.
[156] Calmet’s Dictionary, Art. _Bells_.
[157] Roman Antiquities, by Foss, § 62.
[158] Ib. § 456.
[159] Brande’s Popular Antiquities, (by Ellis,) 264.
[160] Household Words: _I Give and Bequeath_.
[161] London Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. lxxxiii. p. 17.
[162] Act 2, scene 1; and see Douce’s Illustrations, 383.
[163] Knight’s Bible.
[164] Spaniards and their Country, 66.
[165] Fosbroke’s Ency. of Antiquities, 247-8.
[166] Ency. Brit., Ency. Amer.
[167] P. 6.
[168] Oliver on Masonry, 168.
[169] P. 249.
[170] Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticæ, p. 943, (Bohn’s edit.)
[171] Maffei, vol. ii. pl. 20, p. 42.
[172] “The first author of it (_general shout_) was Pan, Bacchus’s
Lieutenant-General in his Indian expedition, where, being encompassed
in a valley with an army of enemies, far superior to them in number,
he advised the god to order his men in the night to give a general
shout, which so surprised the opposite army that they immediately
fled from their camp; whence it came to pass that all sudden fears
impressed upon men’s spirits without any just reason were called by
the Greeks and Romans pannick terrors.”--_Potter’s Greece_, iii. c. 8.
[173] Maffei, vol. ii. pl. 21, p. 45.
[174] Archæologia, xxi. 127.
[175] Fosbroke’s Encyclopædia of Antiquities, p. 246.
[176] A Lapidary, or the History of Pretious Stones, with cautions
for the undeceiving of all those that deal with pretious stones,
(1652,) p. 51.
[177] This name occurs among the ancients, because it is the
mother-dwelling or the _palace_, as it was said, in which the
carbuncle or true ruby is produced and dwells.--_Kobell_, 274.
[178] Lib. viii. _de Hist. Animal_.
[179] Kobell.
[180] Nicols’ Lapidary, 56-7.
[181] Paus. viii, c. 14.
[182] The Imperial Treasury at Vienna possesses an emerald valued at
£50,000.
[183] Nicols’ Lapidary, 85.
[184] And see Kobell’s Mineral Kingdom, 274.
[185] P. 86.
[186] Nicols.
[187] Nicols, 130.
[188] 1569, p. 51.
[189] Ib. 164.
[190] _As You Like It_, Act 2, Sc. 1.
[191] First Book of Notable Things, 4to, vol. i.
[192] P. 158.
[193] This subject may allow us to mention what is called the
“mad-stone,” a supposed antidote to hydrophobia. The following is
from the New-York Tribune newspaper for July 4, 1854:
THE MAD-STONE.--The reference of _The Washington Union_ to the
mad-stone (one of which is now in the possession of the family
of the late Mr. John King Churchill, in Richmond, Va.) has drawn
articles upon the subject from several of our cotemporaries. _The
Petersburg Intelligencer_ has been shown one, in the possession
of Mr. Oliver, who resides in Petersburg, and, it is said, has
several certificates of cases in which it has been successfully
used for the bite of a mad dog. It is rectangular in shape, with
parallel sides and polished surfaces, traversed by dark-gray and
brown streaks, and about a size larger than half a Tonquay bean,
except that it is not near so thick. Upon being applied to the
wound of the patient, says _The Intelligencer_, it soon extracts
the virus, which, it is said, may be distinctly seen in the
water, into which it is repeatedly dipped during the operation.
_The Portsmouth Globe_ says: “We were raised--‘brought up’ is,
perhaps, the word--in Petersburg, Va., and among our very earliest
recollections is one concerning a cure from hydrophobia, made
through the agency of a mad-stone. The person, whoever it was that
was bit by a rabid dog, went to Williamsburg, in this State, where
it was said that a mad-stone was located, and came back well, and
was never troubled either with madness or its symptoms. Our next
notice of the subject was when two individuals in Petersburg were
bitten by mad dogs. One, we think, lived in Halifax street, and his
father believing the mad-stone a humbug, refused to let his son go
and try it. He was seized with the fits, after the usual medicinal
agents had failed, and died in great agony. The other visited the
mad-stone--still then at Williamsburg--and entirely recovered. The
next case was this: We were travelling from Paineville, Amelia
County, to Farmville, Prince Edward County, Va., and stopped at a
blacksmith’s house to get dinner. In the course of conversation, he
said he had been bit by a mad dog, that had destroyed by its bite
a number of cattle, sheep and hogs, and that he hastened at once
to Williamsburg; that, on the way, he had suffered much from the
bite, but after the application of the stone, he had got relief and
suffered none since. ‘That bite,’ said he, laying much emphasis on
the cost, ‘_cost_ me nearly a _hundred_ dollars.’
“Such is all that we remember concerning the mad-stone.”
As a pendant, we give a “slip” from the Richmond (Virginia) _Penny
Post_ for August 12, 1854. The description, if it may be so called,
of the stone referred to is remarkable: “as large as a piece of
chalk,” and “almost indescribable:”
“An article which we inserted in the _Penny Post_ some two months
ago, has elicited remarks from the press in every quarter. We know
from facts in our possession, that we were ‘_rectus in curia_.’
Mr. W. Bradly, who resides some half mile from the city, has left
at our office the genuine Simon Pure mad-stone, which can be
examined by the curious. We understand from Mr. Bradly that this
stone has been in the Bradly family for more than one hundred
years; and we are informed by gentlemen of intelligence from the
counties of Orange, Green, Culpepper and Madison that they are
cognizant of more than fifty cures of mad-dog bites, snake and
spider bites. This is a most valuable discovery, and one which
ought to be generally known. We mentioned facts some time since,
with regard to Sale’s mad-stone, located in Caroline County, which
excited only a sneer from the press; none are so blind as those
who will not see. We who write this happen to know facts connected
with this matter, and we have faithfully given them. This stone is
rather a curious-looking affair; it is about as large as a piece of
chalk, perfectly porous, and truth to say, almost indescribable.
When applied to the wound either of a snake or mad-dog bite, it
will draw until all its pores are saturated, then drop off, and
if placed in warm water will soon disgorge and then be ready for
action again. We shall keep this stone in our office for several
days for the inspection of the curious. It ought to be purchased by
the city for the use of the public. We understand that Mr. Bradly
will sell it for $5,000; if it saves one valuable life, it will be
cheap at double that price.”
In connection with this, we add a letter from the _Macon Journal and
Messenger_, (August, 1854:)
A TALE FOR THE CURIOUS.--We received the following communication
from Major J. D. Wilkes, of Dooly County. He is a highly
respectable citizen, well known to us, and we feel no hesitation in
assuring the public that he would make no statements which were not
fully reliable.
“_Editors of the Journal and Messenger_:
“Permit me to lay before your readers a few facts which may furnish
matter of speculation for the curious, but may be doubted by some
or ridiculed by others. They are, nevertheless, strictly true. Some
twelve years ago I went out with a party on a deer hunt, and shot
down a fine buck. While dressing him, I cut up the haslet for my
hounds, and in doing so, I cut out a stone of dark greenish color,
about where the windpipe joins the lights. It was from an inch and
a half to two inches long, and quite heavy for its size, although
it appears to be porous. I have heard of such stones from old
hunters, and that they possessed the faculty of extracting poison,
and other medical virtues, but they were seldom found. They were
called beasle or bezoar stones. I have been a frontier man and
killed many a deer, but have never found another of the same kind.
I laid it by more as a matter of curiosity than having any faith in
its virtues.
“On the 12th ult. I had a favorite dog bitten on the nose by a
large rattlesnake. The dog at once commenced reeling and fell down.
I was within a few feet of him, and immediately (as the only remedy
at hand) forced a chew of tobacco down his throat. I got him home
very soon and dissolved some alum, but found his jaws nearly set.
I forced open his mouth, and poured it down his throat. I then
recollected seeing in your paper of the 5th ult. the description of
a stone and its virtue in extracting poison, in possession of some
family in Virginia, which stone, I presume, was similar to the one
I had taken from the deer. I got a bowl of warm water and applied
the stone to the place bitten, and then dropped it into the water,
when I could see a dirty, dark green substance shooting out of
it. This I repeated three times with a similar result. The fourth
time it seemed to show that all the poison had been extracted. In
less than a minute the dog got up, vomited up the tobacco, and
the swelling subsided immediately. In less than two hours he was
perfectly well, and eating any thing that was offered him.
“Now I will not decide which of the three remedies--the tobacco,
the alum or the stone--cured the dog; but from the fact that he
was immediately cured on the application of the stone, should
reasonably weigh in favor of that remedy. In the article published
in your paper it is remarked that ‘We are not aware that the
existence of such is known to the scientific world at all,’ and it
is spoken of as its origin being a mystery, and wholly unknown.
Now, will not the above facts reveal the mystery of their origin? I
have now several highly respectable neighbors who were with me when
I obtained the stone. I live about nine miles east of Montezuma, in
Dooly County, where it may be seen or the use of it obtained, by
any one who may need it.
“J. D. WILKES.”
[194] Popular Delusions, ii. 298, 301; Harwood.
[195] Brande, iii. 329.
[196] P. 295.
[197] Ennemoser’s History of Magic, ii. 456, referring to the 29th
book of Ammianus Marcellinus.
[198] Archæologia, xxi. 124.
[199] Solomon’s wisdom and happiness have become proverbial; and the
fable of the rabbins and the heroic and erotic poems of the Persians
and Arabians speak of him, as the romantic traditions of the Normans
and Britons do of King Arthur, as a fabulous monarch, whose natural
science, (mentioned even in the Bible,) whose wise sayings and dark
riddles, whose power and magnificence are attributed to magic.
According to these fictions Solomon’s ring was the talisman of his
wisdom and power.--Ency. Amer., Art. _Solomon_.
[200] Johnston’s Josephus, Book viii. ch. 2.
[201] Motherwell’s Minstrelsy, vol. ii. p. 164, (Ticknor’s edit.) In
Chambers’s Collection of Scotch Ballads, this story goes under the
name of _Lammilsin_.
[202] Vol. ix. p. 233.
[203] Motherwell’s Minstrelsy, vol. i. p. 187.
[204] _Causes Célèbres_ (Dumas).
[205] Strickland’s Queens of Scotland, iii, 319.
[206] Archæologia, xix. 411.
[207] Archæologia, xviii. 306.
[208] Egyptian rings in the form of a shell are not uncommon.
[209] Milligen’s Curiosities of Medical Experience, ii. 137.
[210] Archæologia, xxi. 25.
[211] Archæologla, xxi. 121.
[212] Plut., Act 4, § 3.
[213] Archæologia, xxi. 122.
[214] Vol. i. p. 76.
[215] Canto xi. v. 6, (Rose’s translation;) and see Hunt’s Stories
from the Italian Poets.
[216] No. 243.
[217] See, however, Hospinian, referred to by Brande, vol. i. p. 151.
As to Edward the Confessor’s curing the _struma_, see Archæologia, i.
162.
[218] London Gent.’s Magazine, vol. i., N. S., p. 49, referring to
MS. Arundel, 275, fol. 23 _b_.
[219] Ib. 50, referring to MS. Harl. 295, fol. 119 _b_, cited by
Ellis, i. 129.
[220] Ib. referring to MS. Cott. Calig. B. II. fol. 112.
[221] London Gent.’s Magazine.
[222] Brande’s Pop. Ant. iii. 300, referring to Gent. Mag. for 1794,
p. 433, 648. Ib. 598, 889.
[223] Notes and Queries, i. 349.
[224] Ennemoser’s History of Magic, ii. 488.
[225] Notes and Queries, vii. 153.
[226] Archæologia, xxi. 25.
[227] Notes and Queries, vii. 146.
[228] Ib. 216.
[229] Vol. iii. p. 280, (Ellis’s edit.)
[230] Lupton, quoted by Brande, says: “A piece of a child’s navell
string, borne in a ring, is good against the falling sickness, the
pain of the head and the collick.”
“_Annulus frigatorius._ A ring made of glass (_salt_) of antimony,
formerly supposed to have the power of purging.” Gardiner’s Medical
Dictionary.
[231] Beckmann’s History of Inventions, i. 46, (Bohn’s edit.)
[232] See also Burton’s Anat. of Melancholy, (1621,) p. 476; Browne,
ch. xviii.
[233] Archæologia, xxi. 122; Illustrated Magazine of Art, i. 11.
[234] Archæologia, (London,) xxi. 25.
[235] Ib. 117.
[236] London Gent.’s Mag. vol. lxxv. p. 801.
[237] Vol. xiv. of State Trials, case of Mary Norkott and John Okeman.
[238] Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, 8vo. vol. i. p. 13.
[239] Ib. p. 79.
[240] Mem. de Petrarque, i. 210.
[241] Notes and Queries, i. 140.
[242] See Douce’s Illust. of Shakspeare, p. 69.
[243] Hone’s Every Day Book, i. 141.
[244] Notes and Queries, vol. ii. p. 67.
[245] Crimes Célèbres.
[246] Crimes Célèbres, (Dumas.)
[247] Roman Antiquities, by Fuss, § 62.
[248] Blair’s Roman Slavery, 97; and see note 50, p. 241.
[249] Pliny, xxxiii.
[250] Lacrim. Etrus., (Sylv. iii. 3,) “_lævæque ignobile ferrum_.”
[251] Vol. i. book x.
[252] We write at a time when a subscription is going among the
inhabitants of New-York for the purchase of this collection; and
already have private citizens subscribed to the amount of $25,000.
This tells well for republican individual enterprise and taste.
The author has to acknowledge the prompt kindness of Dr. Abbott, in
allowing him to take impressions as well from the Suphis-ring as from
many others in the Doctor’s collection.
[253] Genesis, ch. 1. v. 26.
[254] Pote’s Inquiry into the Phonetic Reading of the Ashburnham
Signet. (Pickering, 1841.)
[255] See Wilkinson’s Manners of the Egyptians, iii. 374.
[256] On the tomb is the sculptured figure of a man bound hand and
foot, with a huge lion in the act of springing upon him to devour
him. No history could speak more graphically the story of Daniel in
the Lion’s Den.--_The (American) Family Christian Almanac for 1855._
[257] Fuss’s Roman Antiquities, § 435.
[258] Adams’ Roman Antiquities, 366, (Boyd’s edit.)
[259] Plutarch’s _Timoleon_.
[260] Introduction to English Antiquities, by Eccleston, 60, 61.
[261] Dugdale.
[262] Burke’s Extinct Peerage, “Plantagenet Viscount L’Isle,” 432.
[263] Hollingshed; Dugdale.
[264] Echard, 363.
[265] Biographia Britannica, art. Boyle.
[266] 1814; and see Notes and Queries, v. 589.
[267] Halliwell’s Life of Shakspeare, 334.
[268] Part i. p. 346, (Harper’s edit.)
[269] P. 92. And see Johnson’s Life of Coke, p. 147; Hume, Horace
Walpole. The ring is said to be retained in the family of the
Countess of Nottingham.
[270] Pictorial History of England, ii. 693.
[271] Histoire de Hollande, 215, 216; and also see the Biographia
Britannica, vol. 5, art. Devereux.
[272] Biographia Britannica, art. Devereux.
[273] Lives and Letters of the Devereux Earls of Essex, by the
Honorable W. B. Devereux.
[274] Strickland’s Queens of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 181.
[275] Gent’s Mag. vol. xxxv. p. 390; Archæologia, vol. xxxiii.
[276] Willis’s Current Notes for February and March, 1852.
[277] P. 184, (note.)
[278] Gent.’s Mag. for 1852, p. 407.
[279] Anecdotes and Traditions, published by the Camden Society,
(London, 1839.)
[280] Strickland’s Queens of Scotland, iii. 279.
[281] Mackenzie’s Lives and Characters.
[282] Father Garvasse.
[283] Burke’s Extinct Peerages, “Carey,” 111.
[284] Collins’s Baronage, 421, (4to.)
[285] Hillier’s Narrative of the attempted escape of Charles the
First, etc., p. 79. And see Gentleman’s Magazine, N. S., p. 28.
[286] Gent.’s Mag., vol. xli. p. 450, and ib. for June.
[287] Notes and Queries, vii. 184.
[288] See Gent.’s Mag., vol. xli. p. 512.
[289] Collins’s Peerage, v. 68, 5th edit.
[290] Household Words, ix. 277.
[291] Burnet; and see note to Life of Lord Keeper North, vol. ii. p.
13.
[292] Knight.
[293] P. 33, _et seq._
[294] North, 100.
[295] Lord Halifax, who is described by Dryden under the character
of “Jotham” in _Absalom and Achitophel_, was at the head of the
party called Trimmers; and in his “Preface to the _Character of a
Trimmer_,” thus explains the term: “This innocent word _Trimmer_
signifies no more than this: that if men are together in a boat and
one part of the company would weigh it down on one side, another
would make it lean as much to the contrary, it happens that there
is a third opinion, of those who conceive it would be as well if
the boat went even, without endangering the passengers. Now, ’tis
hard to imagine by what figure in language or by what rule in sense
this comes to be a fault; and it is much more a wonder it should be
thought a heresy.”
[296] Miss Mitford’s Recollections, 425, (Am. edit.)
[297] Notes and Queries, ii. 70.
[298] Hone’s Year Book, 1022.
[299] Biographia Britannica, Art. _Crichton_.
[300] London Gent.’s Mag., N. S., ii. p. 195.
[301] Moore’s Life of Byron, vol. i. p. 458.
[302] Beattie’s Life of Campbell, ii. 287.
[303] Dublin Penny Journal, 208.
[304] The Death Warrant, or Guide to Life, 1844. (London.)
[305] Hone’s Every Day Book.
[306] 1690, p. 122.
[307] Gent.’s Mag. for 1852, p. 640.
[308] Ib. vol. xxxv. N. S. 390; Burgon’s Life and Times of Sir Thomas
Gresham, i. 51.
[309] Poetical Rhapsody.
[310] Polyglot Dictionary, by John Minshew, (1625,) art.
_Ring-Finger_.
[311] Reflections on the Causes of Unhappy Marriages, etc., by Lewis,
p. 84.
[312] Shelford on Marriage, 17, 31.
[313] Sat. VI. verse 27.
[314] Macrob. Sat. VII. 15.
[315] Wilson’s Archæological Dictionary, art. _Ring_.
[316] Archæological Album, by Wright, p. 138.
[317] Illustrations of Ancient Art, by Trollope, p. 49.
[318] Wilkinson.
[319] Ch. 35, v. 22.
[320] Uxor Ebraica, Lib. ii. ch. 14.
[321] Kohl’s Reminiscences.
[322] Hamilton’s Marriage Rites, p. 188.
[323] Ib. 194.
[324] Bourgoing’s Travels through Spain.
[325] Act 2d, sc. 2d.
[326] Douce, 24.
[327] Book iii.
[328] The People’s Dictionary of the Bible, art. _Rings_.
[329] Douce’s Illustrations of Shakspeare, p. 69.
[330] The beautiful architectural design in this picture is said to
be copied, but very much improved, from a picture by Perugino, the
master of Raffaelle. As the latter had a genius beyond copying and as
Perugino made use of the talents of his pupil, it is fair to suppose
that Raffaelle composed the building and afterwards claimed its
outline by inserting it, with improvament from reflection, in his own
painting, _Lo Sposalizio_. The general form and proportions are to be
found in Brunelleschi’s design for the octagon chapel of the Scholari
annexed to the church Degl’ Angeli at Florence. See Kugler’s Hand
Book of Painting, by Eastlake, p. 332.
[331] Martense, ii. 128.
[332] Palmer’s _Origines Liturgicæ_, vol. ii. p. 214.
[333] Bishop Jeremy Taylor’s “_Wedding Ring_.”
[334] Fosbroke’s Encyc. of Antiquities, p. 250.
[335] Notes and Queries, ii. 611.
[336] 1 Dow, 181; 2 Hagg. C. R. 70, 81.
[337] Hallam’s Middle Ages, ii. 286, _et seq._; Shelford on Marriage,
19, 20.
[338] _Poulter_ v. _Cornwall_, Salk. 9.
[339] Burns’ Eccl. Law--_Marriage_.
[340] Athenian Oracle, No. xxvi.
[341] Burns’ Eccl. Law, art. _Marriage_.
[342] Notes and Queries, iv. 199.
[343] Hone’s Table Book.
[344] Notes and Queries, v. 371.
[345] Vol. i. p. 270.
[346] Hamilton’s Marriage Rites, etc., 125.
[347] III. ii. 309.
[348] See Hamilton’s Marriage Rites, etc., 178.
[349] _Lindo_ v. _Belisario_, 1 Haggard’s Consist. Reps. 217.
[350] And see Morgan’s Doctrine and Law of Marriage, Adultery and
Divorce, i. 97, _et seq._, and particularly note x. at p. 103.
[351] Verse 9.
[352] Larpent’s Private Journal, 563.
[353] Hone’s Table Book.
[354] Fosbroke, 249; Hone’s Table Book.
[355] Caylus, iii. 313, Pl. lxxxv.
[356] Hone’s Every Day Book.
[357] See Douce’s Illust. of Shakspeare, 194.
[358] Antiquities of Paris.
[359] No. 56.
[360] Herrick, in his Hesperides, speaks of “posies for our
wedding-ring.”
[361] London Gent.’s Mag. vol. lv. O. S. p. 89.
[362] Caylus, ii, 312, Pl. lxxxix.
[363] No. 32.
[364] Tom. III. P. II. Pl. cxxciv.
[365] Supplement, Tom. III. Pl. LXV. p. 174.
[366] Gent.’s Mag. vol. lxxv. p. 801, 927.
[367] Ib. vol. lx. O. S. 798, 1001.
[368] Boswell’s Johnson, 280, (Murray’s ed.)
[369] Piozzi.
[370] Twiss’s Life of Eldon.
[371] Moore’s Diary, 173.
[372] A gold ring, bearing a pelican feeding her young, was found at
Bury St. Edmunds, England. (Gent.’s Mag. xxxix. 532, N. S.) The crest
of the house of Lumley, Earls of Scarborough, is a pelican in her
nest feeding her young.
[373] Vol. viii. p. 179.
[374] Has not the idea of this _black flag_ been taken from the black
sail referred to by Plutarch in his life of Theseus? When the latter
was to go with the Athenian youths to attempt the destruction of the
Minotaur, a ship was prepared with a black sail, us carrying them to
certain ruin. But when Theseus encouraged his father Ægeus by his
confidence of success against the Minotaur, he gave another sail, a
white one, to the pilot, ordering him, if he brought Theseus safe
back, to hoist the white; but if not, to sail with the black one in
token of his misfortune. When Theseus returned, the pilot forgot to
hoist the white sail and Ægeus destroyed himself.
[375] Vol. ii. 310, 314.
[376] It has been called Calphurnia consulting the Penates on the
fate of Cæsar.
[377] Dagley’s Gems, p. 6.
[378] We do not know who is the author of these lines. They appeared
anonymously in the Gentlemen’s Magazine (London) for 1780, vol. 1.
Old Series, 337, and it is merely said that they are by the “writer
of lines on presenting a knife and verses on a former wedding day.”
[379] Douce’s Illustrations of Shakspeare, 549.
Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious printer and scanning errors have been silently corrected.
Other errors made by the author such as listing T. Cutwode’s poem as
as “Calthæ Poetarum, or the Humble Bee” have been maintained.
Inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation such as
“high-priest/high priest” and “wedding-ring/wedding ring” have been
maintained.
Page 59: “§ 22.” added before “The story of losing rings”.
Page 129: “a ring thereof without allou” changed to “a ring thereof
without alloy”.
Page 207: “in the ceremony of the mariage” changed to “in the
ceremony of the marriage”.
Page 235: “4” changed to “81” in Index entry for _Anselm_.
Footnote 308: “Burgou’s Life and Times” changed to “Burgon’s Life
and Times”.
