316. Gold; the shoulders ornamented with flowers and leaves once

enamelled; oval bezel containing a chalcedony engraved with the achievement of Mary, Queen of Scots. The shield is that of Scotland surrounded by the collar of the Thistle, with the badge, and supported by two unicorns chained and ducally gorged; the crest, on a helmet with mantlings and ensigned with a crown, is a lion sejant affronté, crowned and holding in the dexter paw a naked sword; in the sinister a sceptre, both bendwise. Legend: _In Defens_, and the letters M R. On the dexter side is a banner with the arms of Scotland; on the sinister side, another, with three bars and over all a saltire. The metals and tinctures appear through the crystal on a field of blue. Within the hoop at the back of the bezel is engraved a cipher in a circular band and surmounted by a crown, once enamelled. The cipher is formed of the Greek letter φ and M, for the names Francis and Mary. In this example of sixteenth-century French goldsmithing, the colors of the arms have been applied beneath the crystal so that they would not be effaced in using the signet for sealing. In 1792 this ring was in the possession of Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. After her death it became the property of the Duke of York, and when his plate and jewels were sold at Christie’s, in London, March, 1827, it was bought by Mr. Richard Greene, F.S.A., and was acquired from him in 1856 by the British Museum. A signet ring believed by many to be that of the immortal Shakespeare, was found on March 16, 1810. It was picked up on the surface of the mill-close that adjoins Stratford churchyard; the finder was the wife of a poor laborer. How lightly it was esteemed at the outset is shown by the low price at which it was acquired by Mr. R. B. Wheeler, who paid only thirty-six shillings ($9.00), considered to be the value of the fifteen pennyweights of gold in the ring. In fact, the only circumstances seeming to connect it with Shakespeare are the initials W. S., and the facts that the ring appears to be of Elizabethan workmanship and that it was found at Stratford-on-Avon, Shakespeare’s home.[264] The initial letters are bound together with a design composed of an ornamental band with tassels, so arranged as to outline a heart. A queer coincidence, if the report be true, is that a certain William Shakespeare was at work nearby when the ring was found.[265] One of the somewhat less well-known Shakespeare portraits depicts the poet wearing a thumb ring on his left hand. This is the work of Gerald Soest, who was born twenty-one years after Shakespeare’s death; its inspiration is probably to be sought in the Chandos portrait of which it is an amplification and re-arrangement. The face, however, wholly lacks the dignity and expression of the Chandos, being exceedingly weak and commonplace. The hands give the effect of having been copied from those in some other portrait, and, of course, under all these circumstances we would scarcely be justified in assuming that Shakespeare wore a thumb ring, although he may well have done so, in view of the fact that the fashion was common enough in his time. Queen Elizabeth, even, is depicted as wearing one in Zucchero’s portrait of her at Hampton Court.[266] [Illustration: 1, Shakespeare’s gold signet ring, found in Stratford-upon-Avon, March 16, 1810. 2, brass signet supposed to be that of the physician, John Hall, Shakespeare’s son-in-law. 3, wax impression from Shakespeare’s ring. (Photographed expressly for this book as attested by signatures of Sir Sidney Lee, Chairman of the Executive Committee of “Shakespeare’s Birthplace,” and of the Librarian, F. C. Wellstood.) 4 and 5, gold signet ring owned by Lord Byron, with impression from it. The seal shows the crests and mottoes of three families. Photographed for this book. In the possession of Judge Peter T. Barlow, New York] [Illustration] Another English poet, that master of impassioned verse, Byron, had in his possession a most interesting bloodstone signet ring, engraved with the following three family mottoes: “Tout prest” (Quite ready), motto of the families Monk, Murray and Younger; “Confido, conquiesco” (I trust and am contented), motto of the Dysart, Hodgett, Maroy, Tollmache and Turner families; “Pour y parvenir” (In order to accomplish, or succeed), motto of the families Manners and Manners-Sutton. This ring was owned by Sir Walter Scott, and at the dispersal sale of his personal effects at Abbotsford it was acquired by the late Samuel Latham Mitchell Barlow, the great art connoisseur and collector, by whose son, Judge Peter T. Barlow, of New York, it has been inherited, in whose possession it now is, and through whose courtesy it is here reproduced. Many interesting facts in regard to the history of the diamond engraved for Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, have been presented by Mr. C. Drury Fortnum, who purchased the diamond from the collection of the Duke of Brunswick in 1879.[267] In the catalogue of the Duke’s collection this stone is described as the signet of Mary, Queen of Scots, an attribution which had been current for many years; but Mr. Fortnum has shown that the initials on the diamond should be read MR, the cross-bar in the first character representing the letter H, and the whole signifying Maria Henrietta Regina. Fortunately we have the original of the treasury order given by Charles I, under date of January 16, 1629, directing the payment of a sum of money to the engraver for his work. As this is probably the only case in which the original record of payment for engraving an historical diamond has been preserved, it is reproduced here from Mr. Fortnum’s paper in Archæologia.[268] Charles by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To the Trēr and Undertrēr of o^r Exchecq^r for the time being greeting: Wee doe hereby will and com̄and yo^u out of o^r treasure remaining in the Receipt of o^r Exchecq^r forthwith to pay or cause to be paid unto Francis Walwyn or his assignes the some of two hundred three-score and seven pounds for engraving, polishing, Dyamond boart and divers other materialls for the Cutting and furnishing of o^r Armes in a Dyamond with l’res of the name of o^r deerest Consort the queene on each side, And these o^r l’res shal be yo^r sufficient warr^t and discharge in this behalfe. Given under o^r privy Seal att o^r pallace of Westm^r the sixteenth day of January in the fourth yeare of o^r Raigne. Jo: Packer. As a general rule a signet ring was one of the last objects of value that an owner would part with, but we know that after Charles’ execution Henrietta Maria was reduced to dire straits and was obliged to sell all her possessions in order to procure the bare necessaries of life. In Tavernier’s account of his travels in the East he states that in 1664, he showed to the representative of the Shah of Persia a ring engraved with the royal arms of England, and which had belonged “to the late King of England.” As letters and papers have been preserved, dating from 1656 to 1673, and sealed by Charles II with the diamond signet used by his father, we have proof that Charles II had that signet in his possession in 1664, and Mr. Fortnum’s conjecture that the engraved diamond in Tavernier’s hands was that of Henrietta Maria is plausible enough. The Shah of Persia sent the diamond back to Tavernier, requesting information as to what was engraved upon it, but the French jeweller, fearing possible complications, did not venture to go beyond the vague statement that the stone bore the arms of a “European prince.” The Shah does not appear to have bought this diamond; probably he did not care much for historic souvenirs of European royalties, and possibly he doubted whether Tavernier had the right to offer for sale what might be the signet of a European monarch. However, the Shah’s minister did not fail to express his admiration of the skill shown by the “Franks” in the art of diamond-engraving.[269] Already, in the Vetusta Monumenta of Astle, published by him in 1792, the seal is figured as that of Mary Queen of Scots, and is said to have been in the possession of Louis XIV. If this statement be correct, the signet might have been among the diamonds sold by Tavernier to Louis XIV, on the former’s return to Europe. It seems to have shared the fate of a large number of the jewels belonging to the French crown and to the royal family, and next appears in a sale held in London June 19, 1817, being described in the catalogue as “the engraved diamond ring of Mary, Queen of Scots, upon which are engraved the arms of England, Scotland and Ireland, quartered,” and authenticated by a communication from “that correct and learned antiquary the late Robert Gough, Esq.” to the following effect: That it descended from Mary to her grandchild Charles I, who gave it on the scaffold to Arch Bishop Juxon for his son Charles II, who in his troubles pawned it in Holland for £300, where it was bought by Governor Yale and sold at his sale for £320, supposed for the Pretender. Afterwards it came into the possession of the Earl of Ilay, Duke of Argyle, and probably from him to Mr. Blashford. In these statements there is probably a confusion between the diamond of Henrietta Maria, known later as that of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a diamond signet of Charles I, for such a signet is said to have been given to Bishop Juxon by Charles just before his execution. We have every reason to believe that Henrietta Maria bore her own signet with her when she left England. The ring containing this historic diamond was purchased at the sale of June 19, 1817, by Dr. Curry (probably James Curry, M.D., physician at Guy’s Hospital) for the sum of £90 6s ($450), although a contemporary letter states that the sum was £86, and adds that the stone itself was worth but £10. The ring was subsequently acquired by an agent, Van Prague, and after passing through several hands came into the possession of Mr. Leverson, a diamond dealer of Paris, who sold it to the Duke of Brunswick. At one time it was owned by the Earl of Buchan, and it was exhibited at Holyrood in 1843, when several rock crystal models were made of it. One of these served Mr. Fortnum as a standard of comparison for the identification of the Duke of Brunswick’s diamond. The stone is a table diamond and is engraved with the arms of England and France in the first and fourth quarters, with those of Scotland in the second quarter, and those of Ireland in the third. In 1887, on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Jubilee, this signet was presented to the queen by Mr. Drury Fortnum, and it is now in the royal collection at Windsor Castle.[270] [Illustration: RINGS FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE IMPERIAL KUNSTGEWERBE MUSEUM, VIENNA 1 and 3, rings of Empress Eleonora, wife of Ferdinand III (1608–1657); enameled gold; Seventeenth Century. 2, gold ring said to have belonged to Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold, and wife of Maximilian I., Emperor of Germany. Bears an M formed of black diamonds and has twice on the inner side the monogram of Maria in Gothic capitals. 4, ring with miniature portraits of Emperor Mathias and his wife Empress Anne; enameled gold; 1612–1619. 5, (_a_) ring with watch by Johann Putz of Augsburg, and (_b_) lid made of an emerald on which the Austrian double-eagle is engraved; Seventeenth Century. 6, ring with a sun-dial, the lid representing a hedgehog studded with black diamond lozenges; Seventeenth Century. 7 and 8, two rings set with topaz; enameled gold; Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. 9, bronze ring, with head of Christ in white enamel on blue ground, the hair being of gold; Seventeenth Century. 10, ring set with a rock crystal, engraved with the arms of an Austrian archduke. On the inner side is a sun-dial; Seventeenth century. 11, ring with a miniature portrait of Empress Claudia Felicitas; enameled gold.] [Illustration: IMPRESSION OF SIGNET. Double size linear. SIGNET RING, CHARLES I. Double size linear. SIGNET RING OF CHARLES I The richly ornamented gold hoop has on its shoulders a lion and a unicorn of chiseled steel. On the bezel is a steel plate engraved with the Royal arms, those of France and England in the first and fourth quarters; in the second, the arms of Scotland; and in the third, the Irish harp. On the sides of the gold base of the bezel is the inscription: “_Dieu et mon droit_,” inserted in steel letters] One of the most interesting engraved diamonds is the signet of Charles I of England, when Prince of Wales.[271] This is a large shield-shaped diamond engraved in intaglio with the Prince of Wales’ feathers between the letters C.P. and issuing from a coronet; on a ribbon beneath appears the motto ~ICH DIEN~. The stone is set in a ring of enamelled gold. The engraving is finely executed and deeply cut. This signet has often been regarded as that of Charles II, but all doubt as to the original owner is set at rest by the existence of an autograph letter of Charles I, in the possession of M. Labouchère of Paris, bearing its impress. The Royal Collection at Windsor Castle also contains the signet used by Charles I, as King. It has a richly ornamented hoop, to which are attached, at the shoulders, chiseled steel figures of a lion and a unicorn. The gold bezel has a steel facing constituting the seal. This is engraved with the royal arms; in the first and fourth quarters, the arms of England and of France; in the second quarter, those of Scotland; in the fourth quarter, the Irish harp. On the gold base of the bezel is the motto: Dieu et mon Droit, inserted in letters of steel. This constitutes an exceptionally fine example of composite metal-work. The archæologist, Rev. C. W. King, suggests that it may be the work of the “Inimitable Simon,” as he was called, who later engraved dies for the coinage of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, although he admits that it may have been executed by Vanderdoort, who was commanded in 1625 to make pattern pieces for the coinage of Charles I, at the beginning of the King’s reign.[272] A signet ring used by Kaiser William II is set with a reddish-white onyx, on which has been engraved a shield bearing the German eagle, and surmounted by a crown and the letters, W. II. I. R., Wilhelm der Zweite, Imperator Rex. This signet belonged to the present Kaiser’s grandfather William I, and has been adapted to the present monarch’s use. Signet rings were very popular in the latter part of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century. Then, later on, they were revived in the latter part of the nineteenth century, this revival continuing into the twentieth century. In the earlier period it was customary to engrave the crest and motto, or the full arms and motto, on the ring stone, which was generally bloodstone or carnelian, occasionally white chalcedony, more rarely lapis lazuli, in contradistinction to the large seal fobs, in which the favorite stones were amethyst, rock crystal, smoky topaz (quartz variety), pale chalcedony or some lighter colored material. Many signet rings were engraved upon gold, the sides of the rings being also engraved, as a general rule. Since the year 1900, great interest has been aroused in seal rings, many of the designs of which are incised in gold or in platinum, the entire ring being of gold or platinum, or having a platinum disk set in a gold hoop. The entire variety of fancy stones is used: pale amethyst, ruby, beryl, aquamarine, zircon, garnet, sard which has been stained brown, carnelian (rarely), bloodstone, and jade--both the nephrite variety from New Zealand and Russia and the jadeite variety found at Bahmo, Burma. Occasionally the seals of rings are made of fine sapphires, emeralds, or rubies, and sell for from $1,000 to $10,000, or even more. Seal rings were extensively worn in the period from about 1865 to 1885. Frequently these had absolutely nothing engraved upon them. The setting was often an oblong, rectangular onyx, sometimes one inch or one and a quarter inches long. Occasionally upon this was inset a rose diamond initial; or else the initial was cut upon the stone--when the onyx was black on top--rarely a crest. In many cases the stone was white above and pink below, a sardonyx, and the initial was cut through the light layer. Or else it was white or pale gray on a black ground. The general effect was thus gray, the gem being of the type known as nicolo. Then came the cameo rings, with designs either black on white or brown on white, sardonyx; or white on green, chrysonyx. Later again taste developed for intaglio rings. In this instance, instead of stones of a brownish or whitish gray,--chalcedony,--those of a pale brown or a dark brown were chosen and these were called sard. Because of the brown hue, the term onyx was also applied to them. This must not be confused with the antique sard which resulted from burning a stone of a different hue, as in the case of the antique carnelian also. The translucent or opaque varieties, with rich red or dark brown top, were called sard, whereas the paler translucent and almost transparent varieties,--when pale red, yellowish red or almost yellow,--were called carnelian. While the natal gem in a simple but effective setting is the most appropriate ring for a girl or boy, a small seal ring for the boy, when he is about 12 years old is not unfitting, the seal being so well-executed that it may serve him when he has reached manhood. For very young children, no stone can be given the preference over the turquoise, which in its delicacy and beauty of color cannot be excelled. Small pearls are also used, or tiny brilliant rubies.[273] In a brightly-written tale for children, the style of which is rather pronouncedly “up-to-date,” a sapphire signet is an important element of the story. Long years ago, in the island of Bermuda, in the Revolutionary period, this heirloom was surreptitiously secured by a young girl, to whom it was destined on her coming of age, but who was childishly impatient to gain possession of it before the time. The little heroine comes to New York and under the stress of a weird Tory plot, hides away her signet in the false bottom of an old trunk, stored away in the garret of the Charlton Street house in which she has lived. Here, more than a century later, a group of bright children find a diary of the long-dead heroine written in cipher. One of them is clever enough to unravel this mystery and they finally succeed in finding the hidden signet.[274] [Illustration: Gold ring with miniature portrait, given by Washington to Lafayette on the latter’s return to France. See pages 191 and 192. It is now in the possession of Mr. Gösta Frölén of Falun, Sweden] [Illustration: Photograph of two impressions in sealing wax, made by President Woodrow Wilson, of his seal ring, the inscription reading “Woodrow Wilson,” in Pitmanic shorthand. 1916] [Illustration: Episcopal seal of Right Rev. David H. Greer, Bishop of New York. Motto: _Crux mihi grata quies_ (The Cross is my grateful rest). The shield bears the monogram of the bishop’s name, above which are two keys in saltire; below is the coat-of-arms of New Amsterdam. As crest is an Episcopal mitre] Two characteristic Oriental seal rings are owned by Miss Joan St. Michael Peters and Miss Katherine Harrower, both of New York City. The gems with which they are set were bought by the Rev. Dr. John P. Peters from an Arab, in the Kut-el-Amara region, where the British invaders of Mesopotamia underwent such a disastrous defeat. They are engraved carnelians. Miss Peters’ ring offers the design of a winged figure. The excellence of the cutting might seem to indicate that it was done some time between 500 B.C. and the beginning of our era, but a later date has been assigned to it by Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University, who pronounces it to be a Sassanian gem, and hence not older than the third Christian century. The other ring, that belonging to Miss Harrower, appears to be of the Seleucidan period, and may be dated from 300 to 200 B.C. The inscription, difficult to decipher, should be read “Khan” in Prof. Jackson’s opinion. One of the most intrinsically valuable of ancient signets is that engraved for Constantius II (317–361 A.D.). This is of sapphire, the stone weighing 53 of the older carats (54.40 metric carats). The design shows the emperor in the act of spearing an enormous wild boar on the plains of Cæsarea, the Greek inscription _xiphius_ denoting the sword-like tusks of the animal. The exploit is performed before a reclining female figure, a personification of the city Cæsarea of Cappadocia. A Latin inscription ~CONSTANTIUS. AUG~ is considered to prove that this is veritably the emperor’s signet. This remarkable gem is in the collection of Prince Trivulzio of Milan.[275] A novel idea finds expression in the ring of President Wilson, on which he has had engraved his name in stenographic symbols. This is in thorough agreement with his aim to utilize business methods in the administration of national affairs, to do away with routine and take the most direct route to the solution of national problems. One of our two ex-Presidents, William H. Taft, sent us this reply: “I never wear a finger ring and never have done so. For that reason, I cannot comply with your request.”[276] IV SOME INTERESTING RINGS OF HISTORY The principal types of the rings used as insignia, religious or secular, or as signets, as well as of those devoted to some special purpose or believed to possess talismanic or magic virtue are treated of in other chapters. There are many rings, however, which owe their chief or only interest to their association with some particular historic personage, event or period, while often the mere fact that the ornament has been owned by a famous person suffices to make it precious and interesting; in a number of cases the ring itself has been closely connected with some important historic happening or else with some cherished legend. Examples of this are the ring of Essex in Elizabeth’s time, and the legendary ring of Edward the Confessor, regarding the stone setting of which several discrepant accounts exist. The Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has in its Cabinet des Médailles, two massive gold rings, in each of which the _chaton_ is formed by an ancient coin. In one is set a rare gold quinarius of Maximinus (235–238 A.D.) with his effigy, and the ring is believed to have been made during this giant emperor’s brief reign; the other bears a golden solidus probably of Clotaire II, King of the Franks, who reigned from 584 to 628 A.D. This coin shows a figure of the king with the name Chlotarius Rex, and the mint-mark of the city of Arras. The coin is more than ¾ inch in diameter.[277] In a Frankish sepulchre at Laubenheim, near Bingen, Hessen-Darmstadt, was found a gold ring on the bezel of which is engraved the head of a woman, turned to the right, around which are the letters of the Gothic name Hunila. A princess of this name was married, about 280 A.D., to Quintus Bonosius, one of the Thirty Tyrants who established themselves in the Roman Empire during the short and troubled reign of Probus (280–281). While the ring we describe cannot be assigned to such an early period, but probably belongs to the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century of our era, the intrinsic value and the workmanship, superior for the place and time, render it likely that this Hunila, also, was of royal race and station. In the sepulchre which yielded this ring there was a chain of amber and amethyst beads.[278] The Persian poet-philosopher, Saadi, relates in his Gulistan, or “Garden of Roses,” a story illustrating how a happy chance may do more to help the attainment of a temporary success than special ability or training. A Persian sovereign, passionately devoted to archery, determined to make a crucial test of the skill of his most famous archers, and to stimulate their efforts by the bestowal of a rich prize. To this end he caused a ring set with an immensely valuable precious stone to be suspended above the dome of Azad on the mosque near Shiraz, and proclaimed to all men that this ring would be given to the one who succeeded in shooting an arrow through its hoop. Despite the apparent impossibility of the task, several hundred of the Shah’s archers strove to fulfil the conditions of the trial, but in vain. Suddenly the Shah and his companions, who were closely watching the contest, saw, to their amazement, an arrow speed through the air and exactly traverse the ring. None of the archers before the mosque had been shooting at the moment, and only after a careful search had been made did it come out that the arrow had been shot off by a youth at play in a nearby garden of a monastery. Nevertheless, the royal word had been pledged, and the ring was adjudged to the youth. The latter, however, showed his wisdom by breaking his bow and arrows, and never trying another shot, thus keeping unsullied his reputation as a great archer.[279] One of the Latin treatises of Petrarch tells of a carbuncle or ruby, worn set in a ring by John II of France, and believed to possess talismanic power. The poet remarks, however, that this stone did not preserve the King from being defeated and made prisoner at the battle of Poitiers in 1356. This ruby was taken by the English, but was returned to John several years later, so that he was able again “to see an object of infinite value, but of no use whatever.” While admitting the beauty of gems, Petrarch did not share the belief common in his day that they possessed occult powers.[280] Of the diamond he says that, while in ancient times it was a gem worn only by kings, in his own day luxury and pride had increased to such an extent that many who were not kings possessed the stone, and even some of the common people wore it on their fingers.[281] A ring called the “Friday Ring” is listed among the jewels of Charles V of France (1337–1380), in the inventory made in 1379. This had on either side a double black cross in niello work, and was set with a cameo bearing a crucifix and the figures of the Virgin Mary, St. John and two angels. The name was derived from the fact that the king wore this ring every Friday, doubtless in memory of the Crucifixion, which took place on that day.[282] There is also mention of another ring, set with a large ruby, “the form of a halfbean. This is the ruby which belonged to St. Louis (1215–1270), and which has always been guarded successively by the kings of France.”[283] There seems to be some likelihood that this was the highly prized ruby lost by King John II about 1357, and in this case it must have been restored to the French treasury. Still another ring was set with a large ruby, called the “ruby de la Caille,” which had formerly belonged to the dukes of Brittany and had been given to King Charles by Monseigneur d’Anjou. A note to this inventory informs us that the term “ruby d’Alexandrie,” so often met with in old French lists of jewels, denotes a ruby bought in Alexandria, where many of the finest precious stones from the East were dealt in during medieval times.[284] The battlefield of Agincourt, in the department of Pas-de-Calais, not far removed from the trenches of the Anglo-French army in the great war of to-day, was visited in 1815 by General Sir John Woodford, who was serving with the Grenadier Guards. Hoping to unearth a few relics of the famous battle he had some excavations made, and his efforts were rewarded by the discovery of several knightly rings inscribed with mottoes or posies. About 1850 one of these rings, which had probably been worn by a French noble, was shown at a meeting of the London Archæological Institute. The battle of Agincourt, where the French army was decisively defeated by Henry V of England, was fought October 25, 1415, on the day of Sts. Crispin and Crispian, and inspired Shakespeare with the following proud lines addressed by the English king to his soldiers: And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered. Hungary’s great hero, John Hunyady (1387?-1456), had in his coat of arms a raven holding a ring in its beak. The legendary explanation of this is that King Sigismund once gave a ring to his mistress, the hero’s mother, as a passport for entrance to the court. One day the royal parent wished to see his offspring, and the child’s uncle received orders to bring it to the court. On his way thither, while traversing a piece of woodland, the man came to a clearing and sat down on the grass to repose himself, giving the precious ring, his token to the king, to the child as a plaything. Suddenly a raven swooped down from a tree, picked up the ring and flew away with it; but the man caught up a bow he had with him and sped a shaft after the bird, which fell dead to the ground with the ring still tightly held in its beak. When, in later years, the illegitimate child grew up and finally ascended the throne of Hungary, this event was figured on his coat of arms by the emblems of the raven and the ring.[285] When the Constable Louis of Luxembourg was condemned to death in 1475, in the reign of Louis XI of France, he drew from his finger a small gold ring set with a diamond and requested the father confessor to offer it to the image of Our Lady of Paris. Then, turning to the Franciscan monk, Jean de Sordun, he said: “Here is a stone I have long worn on my neck and which I have greatly prized, for it resists poison, and also protects against pestilence. I pray you to take this stone for me to my son, to whom you will say that I beg him to keep it for love of me.” This touching mission was never fulfilled, for after the execution of the Constable, the court ordered that the stone should be given to King Louis. The diamond ring, however, was duly dedicated to the image of the Virgin.[286] Of Louis XI himself, the chronicler quaintly says: “Before his death he suffered much from various diseases for the cure of which the physicians who attended him concocted dreadful and wonderful medicines. May these illnesses procure the salvation of his soul!”[287] Some interesting historic rings are in the fine collection of Dr. Albert Figdor, Vienna. One of them is a gold ring believed to have belonged to Mary of Burgundy, (d. 1482) daughter of Charles the Bold, and wife of Maximilian I of Germany. On the ring is the letter M formed of black diamonds, and the monogram of the name Maria, in Gothic characters, appears twice on its inner side. Two enameled gold rings of Empress Eleonora, third wife of Ferdinand III of Germany (1608–1657), are good examples of seventeenth century work. More interesting is a ring bearing miniature portraits of Emperor Mathias of Germany (1557–1619) and his wife Empress Anne.[288] The first historical instance of writing with a diamond point concerns Francis I, who wrote, with the diamond of his ring, upon a pane of glass in the Castle of Chambord, the following oft-quoted lines: Souvent femme varie, Mal habile qui s’y fie. The king “engraved” these lines in such a conspicuous place that they might be seen by his favorite, Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse d’Estampes, and make it clear to her that his jealousy was aroused by her conduct.[289] The story runs that the celebrated sister of Francis, Marguerite de Valois, authoress of the Heptameron, who was on very friendly terms with the Duchesse d’Estampes, immediately capped this distich by writing with her diamond-point the following rejoinder:[290] Souvent homme varie, Bien folle qui s’y fie. Brantôme, who relates that he saw the window-pane inscription of Francis I at Chambord, merely cites the first words: “Souvent femme varie,” and as there is considerable lack of agreement as to the second line, this may have been added by those who reported the writing, according to their own idea of what a continuation should be. There is a rather vague rumor that the glass was broken out by order of Louis XIV, the fact being that it is no longer in existence and evidently disappeared at least a couple of centuries ago.[291] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A LADY, PAINTED IN COLOGNE, ABOUT 1526. Ring set with a pointed diamond on index of right hand, small ring on little finger of the same hand; two rings on index of left hand and one on fourth finger of the same hand; all set with precious stones Königliche Gemälde-Galerie, Cassel] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY HANS FUNK, PAINTED IN 1523 Large seal ring on right hand forefinger and two on left hand, one on forefinger and one on fourth finger Gallery at Basel, Switzerland] A ring set with a pyramidal diamond, one of the type used by Francis I on this occasion, is shown in the Londesborough Collection. This ring, which dates from the sixteenth century and is of Italian workmanship, is known as a “tower ring,” possibly because those confined in the Tower of London were able to use such rings for writing names or verses upon the windowpanes of their prison.[292] Still another story of diamond-point writing, probably even less well attested than the anecdote of Francis I, is that referring to Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh.[293] On the occasion of an interview with the wily queen, Sir Walter, rather distrustful of the royal encouragement accorded him, is said to have gone to a window in the royal audience chamber and written on the window-pane with his diamond ring: Fain would I climb, but that I fear to fall. For answer the queen scratched beneath this the following admonition, at once an encouragement and a warning: If thy heart fail thee, do not climb at all. An eighteenth century instance of diamond-point writing on a pane of glass was reported in an old newspaper.[294] A celebrated English beauty of the eighteenth century, while sojourning at the famous English watering-place, Bath, wrote on a window-pane the following impromptu lines: In vain, in vain is all you’ve said, For I’m resolved to die a Maid. In answer to this a gentleman of her acquaintance cut this rejoinder, the idea being better than the rhyme: The Lady who this resolution took, Wrote it on Glass to show it might be broke. The visitor who relates this states that on returning to Bath at a later time, he found that the window-pane had been removed, and a new one substituted. Did this mean that the vow had been broken? [Illustration: MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK IN 1578 FOR JOHN CASIMIR, COUNT PALATINE, TO COMMEMORATE HIS ALLIANCE WITH THE DUKE OF ANJOU AGAINST THE SPANISH IN THE LOW COUNTRIES The clasped hands signify indissoluble friendship; the palm and olive branches, victory and peace; and the diamond, courage] [Illustration: MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK FOR HENRI II OF FRANCE, IN 1554, IN COMMEMORATION OF HIS CAMPAIGN TO FLANDERS The diamond is a symbol of dauntless courage; the crowned fish probably denotes the ruler of Flanders; the palm branch and olive branch above signify the French King’s victory] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF DIANE DE POITIERS (1499–1566) Mistress of Henri II of France, who gave her the splendid Château de Chenonceaux. She had great artistic taste and possessed many jewels. To her ability, knowledge and power were due some of the finest architectural and mobiliary achievements of the period. Musée de Versailles] The use of rings set with natural diamond-points in a symbolical sense, as in the case of the three interlaced rings forming the _impresa_ of Cosimo de’ Medici, probably had to do with the ancient tradition that the diamond conferred courage or even invincibility upon the wearer. It is in this sense that this type of ring is figured on the reverse of certain “campaign medals” issued in commemoration of important expeditions. Such is the medal struck for Henri II of France when, in 1554, he set out from Champagne to invade Flanders. On the reverse of this medal there is within the ring a palm branch and an olive branch, significant of an unconquerable soul and of victory. Across the bottom of the hoop is a fish of a species very common in Flanders, on the head of which is a crown, this apparently denoting the ruler of that land. The diamond emphasizes the idea of an unbroken and unconquered soul. In a similar though slightly different sense must be explained the diamond-set ring on a “campaign medal” struck in 1578 for John Casimir, Count Palatine; this is also a memorial of one of the periodical incursions into unhappy Flanders. As the Count Palatine was at this time in alliance with the then Duke of Anjou, brother of Henri III of France, the hoop of the ring terminates in two clasped hands, denoting the fast friendship of the allies, which was, however, of very uncertain duration. The rich Arundel Collection, chiefly brought together by a Lord Howard of Arundel, towards the end of the seventeenth century, incorporated in the Marlborough Cabinet and later dispersed, included a beautifully adorned gold ring set with a splendid lapis lazuli on which a Roman engraver had cut the design of Hercules wrestling with Antæus. The hoop of this ring is ornamented on the inside with two fleur-de-lys in white enamel, the entire ring being covered with arabesques of entwined vine branches in black enamel. In his description, Rev. C. W. King conjectures from the style of ornamentation that the ring may have belonged to one of the Valois kings of France.[295] On the accession of Frederick the Great, he is said to have found in the royal treasury a case containing a ring, accompanied by a memorandum to the following effect, in the handwriting of King Frederick I (1688–1740): “This ring was given to me by my father on his death-bed, with the reminder that so long as it was preserved in the House of Brandenburg, this would not only prosper, but would grow and increase.” The way in which Frederick the Great spoke of this ring illustrates at once his habitual scepticism and his devotion to family tradition, for while declaring that he put no faith in the peculiar virtues of such an object, he gave strict injunctions that it should be carefully preserved. A rather doubtful tradition designates this ring as the one said to have been surreptitiously removed from the hand of Frederick William I, when he was dying, by the Countess Lichtenau. The dying king feebly protesting against this spoliation, murmured: “Her den Ring” (Give back the ring), but the countess saved the situation by saying to those assembled in the deathchamber: “He wants to have a herring!” This same tradition attributes the subsequent disastrous defeat of Prussia by Napoleon I to the loss of the ring, which the countess finally yielded to Frederick William III in 1813, whereupon the fortunes of war changed and Prussia was avenged for her humiliations. Hofrath Schneider, for a long time reader to Emperor William I, relates that when he questioned that monarch touching the story of the ring, he only learned that it had been a long time in the Hohenzollern family; that it was an old-fashioned ring, and that it was set with “a plain, dark-colored stone.” Emperor William did not display much interest in the matter and did not appear to have any superstitious reverence for the ring.[296] An old Portuguese ring has a half-sphere of rock crystal set in silver. At the side of the bezel is a minute catch, and when this is put back, the crystal setting, hinged on the opposite side, can be raised, revealing beneath a tiny St. Andrews cross in gold, with a small ruby set in the centre. This ring is in the possession of an Englishman, a descendant of the Duke of Peterborough who fought in the Peninsula War under Wellington. In one of the battles he was seriously wounded, and was kindly and carefully nursed by a Portuguese family. A not unnatural result was that he fell in love with one of the daughters and married her. The ring is said to have formed part of her ancestral jewels, and this may be regarded as a characteristic example of the Portuguese art of the past in ring-making.[297] A gold ring, said to be one of six made for distribution among the conspirators who planned Napoleon’s escape from Elba in March, 1815, is to be seen in the British Museum. The bezel has a hinged lid, on the inner side of which is engraved in relief the head of Napoleon; on the outer side is an enamelled design showing three flowers on stems, a laurel wreath running around the edge.[298] Whether the story of its having belonged to one of the conspirators be true or not, the concealment of the Napoleon head shows that this ring was made for, and worn by, an adherent of the fallen emperor, at a time when it would have been dangerous to proclaim his loyalty openly. ENGLISH RINGS In the British Museum are two Anglo-Saxon rings of unrivalled historic interest. They bear, respectively, the names of Ethelwulf, father of Alfred the Great and of Ethelswith, his sister, the queen of Mercia. Both of these rings are of gold. In that of King Ethelwulf the flat hoop rises in front in the form of a high mitre-shaped bezel showing the design of a conventional tree flanked by two peacocks; the ground-work is of niello. The nielloed legend around the hoop reads: ~ETHELWVLF . REX~. This ring was found in a cart-rut at Laverstock, Wiltshire, in the summer of 1780. The ring of Ethelwulf’s daughter, Ethelswith, has a circular bezel with the figure of the Lamb of God; here also the design is chased on a niello ground. On each shoulder of the ring is figured a monster on a similar ground-work. The inscription, engraved inside the ring runs: ~EADELZVID. REGINA~. Ethelswith’s ring was found in the West Riding of Yorkshire, between Aberford and Sherburn, and was tied to a dog’s collar by the farmer who discovered it. For this ignoble use it served during some six months until, to his surprise, the farmer learned that his ring was of gold.[299] The famous ring known as that of Edward the Confessor (1024–1066),[300] and which was to be used as the Coronation Ring of the Kings of England, was granted on November 14, 1389, by King Richard II, to the Abbot, etc., of Westminster, for the shrine of the Confessor in this church. It is described as “a certain ring with a precious ruby inserted therein.” The King reserved the privilege of wearing it when he was in England, but should he go abroad it was to be returned to the shrine. A few years later the Abbot of Westminster appears to have been guilty of some negligence in sending this ring to the sovereign when the latter required it for use, and the repentant abbot craves pardon of the king and prays that his fault shall not invalidate the church’s rights to the possession of the relic. Nearly eighty years later, a record dated December 21, 1468 (7 Edward IV) registers the delivery by the former keeper, Thomas Arundell, of the vestments, cloths, relics and jewels of the Shrine of St. Edward in Westminster to his successor, Richard Tedyngton.[301] The jewels and precious stones of this shrine were taken away and pawned by Henry III in 1267, the monarch having entered into a solemn engagement, under the Great Seal, to return them in a year’s time from the ensuing Michaelmas. Henry also sent to the then Abbot of Westminster a “Letter Obligatory” promising the restitution of the gems and submitting himself in the matter to the judgment of the Pope and the Papal Legate. The precious jewels were really restored to the Abbey shortly afterwards, as is shown by a document dated February 10, 1269 (53 Henry III). The ruby ring, being a later gift, could not have been among them.[302] A contemporary entry referring to this shrine in Edward I’s time (1272–1307), is interesting as casting a sidelight on the English coinage at the end of the thirteenth century. Under date of 1299, provision is made for returning to the church of Westminster the half of 38 marks of gold (about $9,500 intrinsic value) that had been taken from the shrine of St. Edward for the jewels sent to Queen Margaret on her first coming to Westminster, “the coinage being so debased and real sterlings rarely found.”[303] The cross on the summit of the Imperial State Crown of England, as described by Prof. Tennant, is surmounted by a rose-cut sapphire. There is a tradition that this sapphire was once set in the ring of Edward the Confessor, a ring which, according to popular belief, was endowed with wonderful curative virtues, and gave its successive owners the power to consecrate the so-called cramp rings.[304] This attribution of the sapphire is in disagreement with the early notice of the ruby ring given to Westminster Abbey by Richard II as that of the saintly Edward, and also to the usage long observed of setting a ruby in the Coronation Ring. King, in his account of Edward’s ring, calls attention to an entry in the inventory of Henry III’s jewels describing a sapphire weighing 52 dwts (about 337 metric carats), and suggests that this may be the large sapphire of the English crown.[305] When Pope Hadrian IV (1154–1159) acknowledged the sovereignty of Henry II of England over Ireland, he sent to the monarch by John of Salisbury, the messenger who bore the Brief of Investiture, a valuable ring set with an exceptionally fine emerald. This historical fact probably suggested the name Emerald Isle as a designation for Ireland. The ring and the Brief were carefully guarded in the royal archives at the time John of Salisbury wrote his recital.[306] During the crusade which brought into martial rivalry two of the most romantic figures of history, Richard Cœur de Lion and Saladin, an English knight, Sir William D’Annay, killed a Saracen prince, in 1192, and not long afterwards vanquished a lion near the ancient Syrian city of Acre, later known as St. Jean d’Acre, as it was placed under the care of the knights of the Order of St. John. As a special and appropriate offering to King Richard, Sir William brought him a paw of the slain lion, and received from the king as a recognition of the bravery he had displayed a ring from the royal finger. The knight was also directed to bear on his crest a “demi Saracen” holding in one hand a lion’s paw and in the other a ring, so that the memory of the gallant deeds and of the royal recompense should never be forgotten. In 1856 this ring was in the possession of Dawnay, Viscount Downe, a lineal descendant of the crusader, who still bore the crest assigned by Richard Cœur de Lion.[307] The ring is of silver and is set with a so-called toadstone, the palatal tooth of a ray, famous in mediæval times as a talisman against poison.[308] Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) sent to Richard Cœur de Lion four gold rings, each set with a different stone. With the rings, the pope sent a letter from St. Peter’s in Rome, dated May 28, 1198, in which he wrote that the four stones were symbolical. The verdant hue of the emerald signified how we should believe, the celestial purity of the sapphire, how we should hope, the warm color of the garnet, how we should love, and the clear transparency of the topaz, how we should act. Moreover, the ring-form also possessed a symbolical meaning, roundness denoting eternity, which has neither beginning nor end. Hence the royal conscience had in the ring a monition to pass from terrestrial to celestial matters, from temporal to eternal things.[309] In the ruins of the palace at Eltham in Kent was found a gold ring set with an Oriental ruby surrounded by five diamonds in their native crystalline state, placed at equal distances from one another. This ring weighed over half an ounce (exactly, 267¹⁄₁₀ grains) and bore the following inscription in Old French: Qui me portera expliotera Et a grant joye revendra. (Whosoever weareth me will do doughty deeds, And will return filled with joy.) This motto is believed to indicate that the ring had been given to a Crusader to wear on his expedition for the rescue of the Holy Land from the hands of the infidels. That it should have been found on English soil seems to be proof that the wearer returned safely to his native land.[310] In 1774, after long and urgent solicitation, the Dean of Westminster, Dr. John Thomas, later Bishop of Rochester, consented to the opening of the tomb of Edward I of England (1272–1307) and the disinterment of his body. The corpse was found closely wrapped in coarse, thick linen cloth, the face being covered with a face-cloth of crimson sarcinet.[311] The features were still in great part well-preserved though the skin was dark brown, almost black. The monarch had been clothed with royal vesture and royal insignia, but no ring was found on either of the hands. The disinterment of King Canute’s body, however, resulted in the finding of a ring set with a large and fine stone, of what particular kind we are not informed. When, in 1562, the iconoclastic Calvinists of Caen broke open the tomb of Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, in the Abbey of the Holy Trinity, there was still to be seen on one of the queen’s fingers a gold ring set with a fine sapphire. This was yielded to the Abbess, of the house of Montmorency, who later gave it to her father, the famous constable of France, Anne de Montmorency, when he attended Charles IX on the latter’s visit to Caen in the following year. The tomb of William Rufus, the Conqueror’s son, in Winchester Cathedral, was opened in the reign of Charles I, and in the dust of the king lay a large gold ring. So customary was it at this period to have a royal ring interred with the sovereign’s body, that even when Richard II left special directions in his will that the crown and sceptre to be buried with him should not be enriched with any precious stones, he expressly ordered that a ring set with a precious stone and worth 20 marks should be put on his finger.[312] When, in 1360, the Earl of Richmond married the Lady Blanche, daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, King Edward III gave as presents a ring with a ruby and a belt garnished with rubies, emeralds and pearls.[313] The rubies may have been considered especially appropriate, since the red rose was the emblem of the House of Lancaster. More than a century later, in the reign of Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck utilized his striking resemblance to Edward IV in support of his claim that he was one of the princes slain in the Tower, in 1483, by order of Richard III, and succeeded in persuading Edward’s sister, Margaret, and also King James IV of Scotland, of the truth of his pretensions, one of his rural agents in England was called in the conspirators’ correspondence “The Merchant of the Ruby,” a designation designed to cast off possible suspicion by representing the agent to be only a gem dealer. There still exists in the English records a paper dated in 1445, the year of Margaret of Anjou’s marriage, and signed by King Henry VI. In this the king directs that a warrant of discharge be given to “our Trusty and Wellbeloved Squire John Merston, Tresorier of our Chambre and Keper of our juwelles,” for sundry jewels which had been confided to his care. The following item refers to the ring of Margaret of Anjou:[314] “A Ryng of Gold, Garnished with a fayr Rubie, somtyme Yeven unto Us by our Bel Oncle the Cardinal of Englande, with the which we were Sacred in the Day of oure Coronation at Parys, delivered unto Mathew Phelip, to Breke, and thereof to make an other Ryng for the Quenes Wedding Ring.” There is no mention here of any engraving on the stone of this ring, which had been used in 1431, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris. If the spinel in the Marlborough Collection, engraved with a head somewhat resembling that of Henry VI on his coins, really adorned this ring, the engraving may have been executed subsequent to Henry’s marriage with the unfortunate Margaret of Anjou. Rings set with precious stones were given as prizes at the tournament held by Henry VII of England in 1494. The prize for jousting was to be a ruby ring, while the best in the tourney and the one delivering the most telling strokes was to be rewarded with a diamond ring. The Earl of Suffolk, Thomas Brandon, who later married King Henry’s daughter Margaret, after the death of her first husband Louis XII of France, was successful in gaining one of the ruby rings, bestowed upon him by the “Ladie Margaret,” his future wife, and Sir Edward A. Borough fought so stoutly in the mêlée that he was adjudged worthy of a diamond ring. An extra prize of an emerald ring was given to the Earl of Essex for his valor.[315] In 1681 the Duke of Norfolk presented to the College of Arms in London the sword, dagger, and ring worn by James IV of Scotland (1473–1513) at the battle of Flodden Field, fought August 22, 1513, in which he met his death. This ring was set with a turquoise and had been sent to James by the queen of France, as a pledge of friendship and regard, when she solicited the good offices of the Scottish monarch with Henry VIII, who had just laid siege to Térouanne. Another account states that when the queen sent the ring to James, she charged him to break a lance for her sake. This ring is said to have been taken from the body of King James by Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, an ancestor of the donor.[316] The belief that the turquoise protected those who wore it from falls and wounds, probably determined its selection, but the result in this case was hardly calculated to increase the stone’s prestige. On the site of this disastrous defeat of the Scotch by the English army under the Earl of Surrey, an inscribed ring was found in 1783. The inscription, in Norman French, reads: “On est mal loiauls amans qui se poet garder des maux disans” (Only a lover of scant loyalty can escape calumny). The words are disposed in groups of two, and between each pair is a boar’s head, the crest of the Campbells. This has led to the conjecture that the ring belonged to the second son of the Duke of Argyll, Archibald Campbell, who met his death in the forefront of the fight.[317] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII, BY HANS HOLBEIN, PAINTED IN 1540 Rings of identical form and setting on index fingers of each hand and on little finger of left hand. These are designed to match exactly the jewels on his collar and sleeves. Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica. Palazzo Corsini, Rome] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF JANE SEYMOUR (CA. 1510–1537) THIRD WIFE OF HENRY VIII, AND MOTHER OF EDWARD VI, BY HANS HOLBEIN, THE YOUNGER Rings set with precious stones on index and fourth fingers of left hand Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna] At the spoliation of the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury in 1538, among the precious objects taken away was “[a stone with] an angel of gold pointing thereunto, offered by the King of France: [which King Henry put] into a ring and wore it on his thumb.” This jewel, containing a diamond, was the most prized ornament of the shrine, and is believed to have been given by Louis VII of France on the occasion of his visit in 1179. Henry VIII must have tired of his massive thumb ring, for in the inventory of the precious stones delivered to Queen Mary, March 10, 1554, shortly after her accession, there appears the following entry: “A collar of golde set with sixteen faire diamounts, whereof the Regal of France is one, and fourteen Knotts of perles, in every Knotte four perles.”[318] Two pretty New Year’s gifts for January first, 1571, were delivered to Lady Mary Sidney on the last day of the year 1570. One of them was a ring “set with a rose”; the other was more ambitious in design, being described as “a jewell with the storie of time” set with diamonds and rubies, certainly an appropriate gift for the day. This cost but £10 or $50, a much larger sum, however, in those bygone days than it is accounted to be to-day, for the purchasing power of money was many times greater.[319] The earliest mention of the diamond ring given by Elizabeth to Mary Queen of Scots occurs in Camden’s account of the events of Elizabeth’s reign. After relating the events that determined Mary to seek Elizabeth’s protection, Camden continues: She therefore sent John Beatoun to her [Elizabeth] with the diamond she had formerly received from her as a symbol of mutual good-will, signifying to her that she was about to come to England and ask for aid in case her subjects continued to make war against her.[320] This is said to have been a gimmal-ring, two diamonds joining together to form a heart. One half was kept by Elizabeth who gave the other half to Mary. This appeal to the tender mercies of the Virgin Queen, and Mary’s hope, were in vain, for “she cutt off her head for all that” as Aubrey dryly puts it.[321] Several epigrams on this diamond were written by the Scotch poet and publicist George Buchanan (1506–1582), the best being as follows:[322] Quod te jampridem fruitur, videt, ac amat absens, Haec pignus cordis gemma, et imago mei est. Non est candidior, non est haec purior illo, Quamvis dura magis, non magis firma. This has been rendered: The gem which saw thee near and loves thee still, Is pledge and image of my heart and will. My heart is not less white or pure than this, And though less hard, ’tis quite as firm I wis. [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1542–1587). FRENCH SCHOOL Rings on the second joint of fourth finger of right hand, and on little finger of the same hand Museo del Prado, Madrid] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, BY THE FLEMISH PAINTER LUCAS DE HEERE On little finger of left hand, ring set with a large, oblong, table-cut stone Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York] A memorial ring was sent by Mary of Scotland, just before her execution at Fotheringay Castle, February 8, 1587, to her faithful follower and kinsman, Lord John Hamilton, with an affectionate message and her last farewell. This ring, set with a sapphire, was handed down from generation to generation in the Hamilton family, and was seen, in 1857, at Hamilton Palace, by Miss Agnes Strickland. She described the sapphire as being large, of rectangular form, and cut with a number of facets, a kind of rose-cutting; the setting was of blue enamelled gold in the style favored by sixteenth century goldsmiths.[323] It might be looked upon as a noteworthy coincidence, that as a sapphire was a memorial of Mary’s death, another sapphire was the token to her son, James I, of Elizabeth’s death and his accession to the throne of England. On the night before her execution, Mary Stuart found an opportunity to ask her apothecary, a Monsieur Gorion, whether he could safely convey a letter and two diamonds to those for whom they were intended, and whether he would promise to perform this service faithfully. He assented, saying that he could make some drug in which the objects might be safely concealed, so that he could carry them away with him. One of these diamonds was to be given to Mendoza, for a long time Spanish ambassador to the court of Elizabeth; the other, and larger one, was destined for Philip II of Spain. This was to be received as “a sign that she was dying for the truth, and was also meant to bespeak his care for her friends and servants.”[324] Of rings which have been treated as sacred relics, none can be said to recall a more painful tragedy than one donated to the monastery-church of the Escurial. On April 15, 1587, the Spanish king Philip II had a nocturne and a requiem sung in the church in memory of the unfortunate Mary of Scotland. When the echoes of the solemn chants had died away, the king gave to the abbot a ring set with a diamond which had belonged to the unhappy victim, with the injunction that it should be placed among the sacred relics and preserved as “a symbol of the purity and the firm faith of this saintly queen.”[325] This ring, or at least the large diamond of its setting, must have been the farewell gift which we have just noted. Although not a betrothal ring, that given by Queen Elizabeth to the Earl of Essex was most certainly a love token. When this nobleman was high in the queen’s favor she bestowed upon him a gold ring set with a sardonyx cut with her portrait; giving him, at the same time, a solemn promise that whatever charges might be brought against him she would accord him her pardon if he sent her this ring. Some years later, Essex--who in the meanwhile had lost the queen’s favor--was impeached for high treason and condemned to death. In this extremity, he endeavored to find some means of transmitting to the queen the ring she had given him. Fearing to trust his keepers with the execution of his wish, Essex found no better way than to throw the ring to a boy who was passing the prison, directing him to give it to Lady Scrope, Lady Nottingham’s sister. Unfortunately for Essex, the boy gave the ring, by mistake, to Lady Nottingham, whose husband was one of his bitterest enemies, so that the token never reached the queen, who was convinced that her former favorite was too proud and obstinate to seek her mercy. She thereupon left him to his fate. Years afterwards, when Lady Nottingham was on her death-bed, she asked for the queen and confessed that she had failed to deliver the ring sent to her by Essex. This confession aroused the queen’s wrath to such an extent that she burst forth in violent reproaches and rushed from the room exclaiming: “God may forgive you; I never shall!” The proud heart of the virgin queen was broken by this revelation, and, weighed down by remorse for the death of Essex, she expired a few weeks later. [Illustration: Gold ring set with an oval cameo-portrait, on onyx, of Queen Elizabeth. Sixteenth Century. Two views British Museum] [Illustration: Gold ring set with pearls pierced and threaded; two views. Venetian (?) late Seventeenth Century British Museum] [Illustration: Multiple silver rings. Four hoops connected by three vertical bars: one of these is set with two corals and a glass paste. North African (?) British Museum] [Illustration: PUZZLE OR MAGIC RINGS, PLAIN AND JEWELLED] Quite recently this historic Essex ring has found its way to the auction-room, and to judge from the price it brought, the purchaser must have been convinced of the truth of the legend concerning it, as its merely artistic qualities--which are in no wise remarkable--and the fact that it is incidentally a product of sixteenth century art would scarcely suffice to justify the amount paid for it. The sale took place at Christie’s in London, on May 18, 1911, and after spirited bidding the ring was adjudged for $17,060. A firm of dealers in antiquities were the nominal purchasers, but they are said to have acted for Lord Michelson of Hollingly, a baron in the lately overthrown Kingdom of Portugal, and the senior partner in the firm of Stern Bros., of London. This ring is stated to have been bequeathed by mother to daughter in a long line of Essex’s descendants, beginning with his daughter Lady Francis Devereux. Finally it came to Louisa, daughter of John, Earl of Greville, and wife of Thomas Thyme, second Viscount Weymouth and great-grandfather of the late owner. Some authorities do not think that the story of the Essex ring has a satisfactory historical foundation.[326] It first appears in a book published about 1650 and entitled “History of the most renowned Queen Elizabeth and her great Favourite, the Earl of Essex. In Two Parts. A Romance.” In 1658 Francis Osborn repeats it in his “Traditional Memoires of Elizabeth.” It was even treated dramatically by John Banks (fl. 1696) in his play “The Unhappy Favourite.” Certain later writers claim to have learned of it through trustworthy informants, as for example, Louis Aubery, Sieur de Maurier, who published in Paris, in 1680, a history of Holland and therein states that Sir Dudley Carleton told the story to Prince Maurice of Saxony. In the English translation of this work the episode has been omitted. Still later, at the end of the seventeenth century, it is given by Lady Elizabeth Spelman on the authority, as she alleged, of Sir Robert Carey, brother of Lady Scrope. In earlier versions the ring was represented to have been sent directly by Essex to Lady Nottingham; in Lady Spelman’s recital, however, as we have already noted, Essex instructs the boy to whom he entrusts the ring to deliver it to Lady Scrope, sister of Lady Nottingham. It is suggested that this variation was made to offset the objection that Essex would never have chosen his enemy, Lady Nottingham, as an intermediary between himself and the queen. Manningham, in his “Diary,” the only contemporary who alludes to a ring in connection with Essex’s relations with Elizabeth, only states that “the queen wore till her death a ring given her by Essex.” Possibly this fact may have served as a nucleus for the romantic tale. A portrait of Queen Elizabeth, elaborately be-pearled as usual, the work of the Flemish painter, Lucas De Heere, shows her with a ring on the little finger of her left hand. It is set with an oblong, table-cut stone. This interesting portrait, which is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, while conforming generally to the type with which we are familiar, differs in some respects therefrom. The very slender neck, the delicacy of form and face, may, of course, represent mannerisms of the artist. The sapphire set in the ring thrown out of the window of Queen Elizabeth’s death chamber by Lady Scrope to her brother Robert Carey, as a signal that the queen was dead, so that he might be the first to bear the news to her impatient successor, James I, was exhibited in the great Loan Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Jewellery shown at the South Kensington Museum in London, in 1872. As there shown, this historic sapphire was the central ornament of a diamond star, or cinque-foil. The original ring was given to John, Earl of Orrery, by the Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter of James II, and the small brilliants surrounding it in its present setting are the same as those which were about it in the ring.[327] By the terms of his will, dated December 18, 1630, Sir Edward Coke, of Godwick, bequeathed among other jewels two of historic significance. One of these was a ring “set with a great Turkey (turquoise), which King Henry the Eighth used to wear, and was painted with it on his forefinger.” The other jewel, also a ring, is curiously suggestive when we recall that an attempt (unsuccessful, of course) had been made to poison the unfortunate Sir Thomas Overbury with diamond dust, before poison of a more effective sort was administered to him. The ring in question is described here as set with “a Diamon cut with faucetts (facets)” and the statement is added that it had been given to Sir Edward by Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I, “for the discovery of the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury.”[328] A gold ring, said to have been one of five such rings given by Charles I to Bishop Juxon, on the scaffold, just before the king’s execution, was shown in the Loan Collection exhibited in the South Kensington Museum, in London, in 1872. The statement is made that this ring was presented by Bishop Juxon to Sir John Halloway, and from him passed into the possession of the Dalby family. The ring bears a death’s head in white enamel on a black ground, and has the motto, “Behold the ende”; around the edge is the inscription, “Rather death then fals fayth”; at the back are the initials “M” and “L,” tied with a mourning ribbon.[329] The “Verney Ring,” with a portrait of Charles I of England, is, if genuine, the only relic of a heroic tragedy. It is said to have been bestowed by Charles I upon Sir Edmund Verney, one of his most faithful followers in the perils of the Civil War. Sir Edmund was killed at the battle of Edgehill, in 1642, where the Cavaliers were utterly defeated, but even in death he still held the royal standard in his grasp. The ring was taken from his hand, and the body abandoned; it was never recovered. As he was helped into the world by a Cæsarean operation, it became a common saying in the neighborhood of Edgehill that Sir Edmund was neither born nor buried.[330] With that striking indifference to moral right and wrong so characteristic of Charles II of England, he did not hesitate to bestow a choice ring from his own hand upon the notorious Jeffreys, when the latter was leaving London on one of his circuits always marked by the browbeating of witnesses and accused, and the imposition of capital sentences, wherever possible. It was at a somewhat later date, in 1685, just after the accession of James II, that Jeffreys conducted the trials of the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth’s adherents, which came to be known as the “Bloody Assize.” This fact of the presentation was published in the Royal Gazette, thus notably strengthening Jeffreys’ prestige. So general, however, was the reprobation of his heartless and bloodthirsty administration of his judicial office that the ring was called “Jeffreys’ bloodstone.”[331] In March, 1748, as some ploughmen were tilling a field seven miles from Mullingor, County Westmeath, Ireland, they discovered a grave, the bottom, sides and ends of which were formed each of a single slab of stone. Within the grave were the bones of a man of gigantic stature, and also an urn and a valuable ring, set with twenty-five diamonds. Bishop Pococke, treating of this ring, mentions the fact that Rosa Failge, eldest son of Cathoir More, known as Cathoir the Great, who reigned in 122 A.D., was called the “Hero of Rings,” but the writer adds that the ring could scarcely have belonged to him, since diamonds do not appear to have been known in Ireland at this early date.[332] A most interesting Washington relic is a pearl and gold ring made in his lifetime and containing a lock of his hair placed beneath a conical glass. This is encircled by a setting of blue and white enamel, a square of red being set at each corner, and around this a circle of thirteen pearls, the number of the original States. This ring was given by Washington to Lieut. Robert Somers. The latter lost his life while fighting the Algerene pirates in Tripoli, but before his departure he confided the ring to the care of his sister, Sarah Keen. It is now owned by Vice-Chancellor E. B. Leaming of Camden, New Jersey, who inherited it from his paternal grandmother, an heir to Somers’ estate. Only two other rings containing Washington’s hair are known of, one in Washington’s Headquarters at Newburgh on the Hudson, the other in the Boston Museum.[333] In far-away Sweden there has been preserved a historic Washington relic. This is a ring given by the Revolutionary leader to Lafayette before the latter’s return to France after the victorious Yorktown campaign. The ring passed from Lafayette to his intimate friend, Baron Erik Magnus Staël von Holstein, Swedish ambassador to France. The latter, on a visit to his native land gave it to his brother, Major Bogislaus Staël von Holstein, in whose family it was transmitted as an heirloom until it reached the hands of the maternal grandfather of the present owner, Mr. Gösta Frölen of Falun, Sweden. The ring is of gold and is set with a miniature portrait of Washington. It is said that two other rings were given by Washington about the same time to two Swedish noblemen, who had served as adjutants to Rochambeau. The presentation occurred at a banquet given in their honor, just before their departure for their native land, at the City Tavern in Philadelphia, November 11, 1782. In bestowing these gifts Washington is said to have used the following words: “I am happy to be here amongst men belonging to the race of my own early ancestors.” All trace of these rings has been lost. V BETROTHAL (ENGAGEMENT) RINGS, WEDDING (NUPTIAL) RINGS, AND LOVE TOKENS Special wedding-rings, as we understand them, were not used at an early period, the espousal ring being employed at the wedding ceremony also. At a later time, a signet was set in the _anulus pronubus_, or betrothal ring, to signify that the spouse was to have the right of sealing up the household goods, and occasionally a small key formed part of the ring, with a similar significance. We have a testimony to this view in the words of the marriage ceremony: “With all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The wives of our day are quite disposed to accept this passage in its literal sense, although some may incline to a more liberal interpretation of the promise to love, honor and obey their husbands. The ring as a pledge of love is said to be first mentioned in Roman literature by Plautus in his “Miles Gloriosus” (Act IV, sc. i, v. 11); this passage, however, does not refer to a nuptial ring, but rather to a love token. Somewhat distantly related to the betrothal or wedding rings were those given by lovers to the objects of their affection. Of such a ring the Roman poet Ovid writes, apostrophizing it as “a ring soon destined to encircle the finger of a beauteous girl, a ring having no worth except the love of the giver.” It was to be a gift to the poet’s ladylove Corinna.[334] The ring sent by a fair lady, as a token of love to a handsome soldier, in the “Miles Gloriosus” of Plautus was also of this class. The custom of placing the betrothal or wedding ring upon the fourth finger seems undoubtedly to owe its origin to the fancy that a special nerve, or vein, ran directly from this finger to the heart. Macrobius, in his Saturnalia,[335] alludes to the belief in the following words: “Because of this nerve, the newly betrothed places the ring on this finger of his spouse, as though it were a representation of the heart.” Macrobius asserts that he derived his information from an Egyptian priest. It has been conjectured that this was not the real source of the custom, but that in the church service it was usual for the Christian priest to touch three fingers successively with the ring while saying: “In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and then to place it upon the last finger touched. We know that this was the usage in the bestowal of episcopal rings, and later with wedding rings, but the express statement cited from the pagan writer Macrobius shows that in the earlier marriage or betrothal ceremony this custom must have had an entirely different origin. During the reign of George I of England it was not unusual to wear the wedding ring on the thumb, although it had been placed on the fourth finger at the marriage ceremony. Possibly this custom may have arisen because exceptionally large wedding rings were favored by fashion at that time. That wedding rings were often worn on the thumb in the middle of the seventeenth century is proved by the lines from Samuel Butler’s Hudibras quoted on another page.[336] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN WOMAN BY PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ Rings on thumb and index of right hand, and on fourth and little fingers of left hand Museo del Prado, Madrid] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS MARY, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES V AND WIFE OF MAXIMILIAN II, BY JUAN PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ Two rings on index and one on little finger of right hand; one on index of left hand; all set with precious stones Museo del Prado, Madrid] Ecclesiastical rituals in France from the eleventh to the fifteenth century prove, with but few exceptions, that the nuptial ring was to be placed on the right hand of the bride, in most of the dioceses upon the middle finger of this hand, but in the diocese of Liége on the fourth finger. As Isidore of Seville, writing in the early part of the seventh century, declares that the betrothal ring was put on the fourth finger, and repeats the Roman fancy as to the vein intimately connecting this particular finger with the heart,[337] it seems likely that this rule was generally followed in the Roman Empire up to its end, and even later in some parts of what had once been Roman provinces, while the early French rules were derived from a Gallic usage which had never been supplanted by the Roman one.[338] That the Gauls and Britons of the first century wore their rings on the middle finger is already noted by Pliny.[339] A gold ring, a unique relic of Anglo-Saxon times in England, was found in an ancient burial place at Harnham Hill, near Salisbury.[340] It was on a finger bone of the left hand of a skeleton, and resembles exactly our wedding-ring of to-day. In the same cemetery was unearthed a twisted ring of silver, a mere band twice encircling the finger; a section of the finger-bone remains within the ring. These relics are believed to date from the seventh century. On or near the skeleton with which this silver ring was found were several amber beads; the remains were evidently those of an elderly person, although of one not over 55 years of age, according to Professor Owen. That part of the Order of Matrimony relating to the marriage vows and to the wedding ring, in the Sarum Rite or Use current in England in pre-Reformation times, runs as follows, after the bride and groom have clasped hands:[341] Ich N. take the N. to my wedded wyf, to haven and to holden fro this day forward, for betre for wors, for rychere for porere, in syknesse and in helthe, til deth us departe, and theerto y plith the my trewthe. Then the woman: Ich N. take the N. to my wedded hosebund, to haven and to holden fro this day forward, for betre and for wors, for rychere and for porere, to be boneyre and buxum ... and at borde, till dethe us departe and thereto y plith the my trewthe. Then let the man lay gold, silver, and a ring on a dish or book; and let the Priest ask if the ring hath been blessed already; if it be answered not, then let the Priest bless the ring. Bless, O Lord, this ring (looking at it) which we hallow in Thy Holy Name, that whosoever she be that shall wear it may be steadfast in Thy peace and abide in Thy will, and live, increase, and grow old in Thy love, and let the length of her days be multiplied. [Illustration: Gold ring in which are inserted representations of two winged figures cut in intaglio in a brown chalcedony. Antique workmanship. See page 363 Collection of B. G. Fairchild, Esq., New York City] [Illustration: Locket ring, opening at the bezel and on the sides, leaving room for the introduction of hair, or tiny portraits. When closed the ring appears to be plain and smooth] [Illustration: Antique Syrian ring of bronze, set with a yellowish green paste. Half of the circlet has broken away] [Illustration: Gold ring set with octahedral diamond. Late Roman. British Museum] [Illustration: Twisted hoop of silver on the bone of a finger. From an ancient sepulchre at Harnham Hill, England. Saxon, 7th century Archæologia, vol. xxxv, pl. opp. p. 278] [Illustration: WEDDING RINGS FROM SYRIAN TOMBS OF CHALCEDONY, AGATE, AND BANDED AGATE] But if the ring shall have been already blessed, then, as soon as the man have laid it on the book, let the Priest take the ring and deliver it to the man; and let the man receive it in his right hand, with the first three fingers, holding the right hand of the Bride with his left hand, and say, after the Priest: With this ryng ich the wedde, and with my body ich the honoure and with al my gold ich the dowere. And then let the bridegroom put the ring on the thumb of the Bride, saying-- In the Name of the Father; (on the first finger) and of the Son; (on the second finger) and of the Holy Ghost; (on the third finger). Amen. And there let him leave it, because in that finger there is a certain vein which reaches to the heart; and by the purity of the silver is signified the inward affection which ought ever to be fresh between them. In the modern Protestant Episcopal service, the bestowal of the ring is ordered as follows: Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring. And the Minister, taking the Ring, shall deliver it unto the Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman’s left hand. And the Man holding the Ring there, and taught by the Minister, shall say: With this Ring I thee wed, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. It will be noted that the ring is first given by the man to the woman, then taken from her by the priest who returns it to the man, upon which the latter puts it on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand. Four fine specimens of later Byzantine work in ring-making are in the British Museum. These are all marriage-rings of massive gold, the designs being similar, with certain variations. The bezels bear engraved figures of Christ alone, or of Christ and the Virgin, bestowing a blessing upon the newly wedded pair; beneath is the Greek word ὸμονόια (or ὸμόνυαι), signifying their spiritual union. All but one have on the hoop in Greek characters the inscription: “My peace I give unto you” (John, xiv, 27). On the remaining ring there is on the hoop a decoration in niello, depicting very roughly scenes from the Gospel. The character of the work indicates that it probably belongs to the tenth century.[342] A massive gold ring found not long since in Mainz, bears a Greek inscription showing that it was executed for the nuptials of King Stephen Radislav of Servia (1228–1234) with Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Theodore Angélus Comnenus, Duke of Thessalonica, the region of the Saloniki of to-day. The inscription on this early thirteenth century ring of Byzantine workmanship is nielloed on the gold.[343] Some interesting inscriptions appear on certain of the Greek betrothal rings in the collection of the British Museum. A gold ring of about the fourth century B.C. bears a Greek inscription which may be rendered as follows: “To her who excells not only in virtue and prudence, but also in wisdom.” In marked contrast to this rather elaborate dedication is the inscription on another ring, which bears the single word μὲλι “Honey.” It strikes us strangely enough to find this particular term of endearment, so freely used by the Negroes, on a ring from classic times. Perhaps the most beautiful of all these inscriptions is on a late Greek ring and runs: “I rejoice in the gift because of the affection of the giver.”[344] The custom of bestowing a ring upon the betrothed bride has been traced back in Rome to the second century B.C. Plain iron rings were first used for this purpose and they were still favored even when the wearing of gold rings had become general among certain classes of the Roman citizens. However, in the course of the second century of our era, and perhaps earlier, gold rings came into use in the ceremony of betrothal. Pliny’s assertion that the bride wore an unset iron ring has been interpreted to mean no more than that, in the case of those entitled to wear gold rings, the bridegroom after having given the bride a gold ring, later bestowed upon her one of iron for wear within doors. For it appears to have been a rather general usage, in or before Pliny’s time, to wear gold rings only when in public, and within the house iron rings. That the nuptial ring was of gold, in the second century at least, is plain from the statement of St. Clement of Alexandria, who declares that this ring was not bestowed upon the spouse as an ornament, but that she might seal up whatever was worthy of special care in the household.[345] Perhaps the earliest allusion in Christian literature to the betrothal ring appears in one of Tertullian’s writings, dated from the end of the second century A.D., wherein he says: “Among our women the time-honored rules of their ancestors, which enjoined modesty and sobriety, have died out. In former times women knew nothing of gold except the single betrothal ring, which was placed on one of their fingers by the fiancé.”[346] That this usage had endured for many years is clearly apparent from the allusion to times long past. In a curious passage,[347] St. Augustine, in the fourth century, writes: “No priest shall hesitate to wed a couple who present themselves before the altar, if the bride and bridegroom are not able, because of poverty, to give rings to each other; for the (offering of) the earnest-money is a matter of decorum, not of necessity.” One of the rare marriage rings or love tokens of the early Christian centuries, bears incised on its circular, button-shaped chaton, a male and a female bust, the faces turned toward each other. Above is a cross, the lower part of its upright shaft much longer than the upper part or the arms. This ring is of Byzantine workmanship and has been approximately dated about 440 A.D. It is a good example of the so-called bi-cephalic rings, rings bearing two heads, and weighs 3⅝ dwt., or 87 grains.[348] This usage was introduced among the ancient Germans by the Romans. The significance of the betrothal ring is noted in a law of the Visigoths, promulgated by Chindaswinthe (642–643 A.D.). There had evidently been a disposition to treat lightly the obligations of betrothal, for we read: “Since there are many who, forgetful of their plighted faith, defer the fulfillment of their nuptial contracts, this license should be suppressed.” Therefore, it was provided that when a solemn declaration had been made before witnesses and the espousal ring had been given and accepted as representing earnest-money, the marriage ceremony must follow, if either of the parties should fail to agree to a rupture of the engagement; that is, it could only be broken by mutual consent. A celebrated betrothal ring was that sent by Clovis I (465–511 A.D.) to Clothilda in 493. The following account is given of the bestowal of this ring: “Aurelian pursued his journey from these parts [of Burgundy], bearing with him the ring of Chlodwig that he might gain the better credence thereby. When he arrived at the city where Chrotechilda resided with her aunt, Aurelian presented himself and said: ‘Chlodwig, King of the Franks, hath sent me to thee; if such be the will of God, he wishes to associate thee with himself in his majesty, as spouse. That thou mayst be assured of this, he hath sent thee this ring.’ Accepting the ring, she was filled with great joy, and answered: ‘Take a hundred solidi as a reward for thy labor. Return quickly to thy lord and say to him: ‘If thou desirest to associate me with thyself in matrimony, send envoys straightway to my paternal uncle Gundobard, and ask him for my hand.’”[349] The money gift was a considerable one for the time, as the solidus was worth intrinsically about $3 of our money, and six or eight times as much in purchasing power in that age. A most interesting ancient wedding ring, presumably of the Gallo-Roman period, was unearthed toward 1850 in the neighborhood of Mulsanne, dept. Sarthe, France. It is of massive gold and weighs 24 grams, 20 centigrams, or over ¾ ounce. On the bezel, which is square, are rudely engraved two figures, that of a warrior resting on his lance and that of a woman holding out her arms to him. On the shoulders, toward the bezel, is a foliated ornamentation, and along the edge of the bezel are engraved the two names “Dromacius” and “Betta,” the characters being filled in with the black enamel called niello. This ring is believed to date from the fifth century A.D.[350] The religious aspect of the ring in the ritual of the Greek Church finds an exponent in Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote about a half-century before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. In his description of a typical marriage ceremony he states that the officiating priest laid upon the altar two rings, an iron one symbolic of masculine force, and a gold one typical of the less hardy but purer feminine constitution. These rings he consecrated. After bestowing his benediction upon the bride and bridegroom and offering a prayer for them, he gave the woman the iron ring, as from the man, and to the man the gold ring on the part of the woman, and changed them three times, in adoration of the Holy Trinity, the perfecter and sustainer of all things. Hereupon he joined the right hands of the spouses, demonstrating their unity in Christ and that the man had received the woman from the hand of the Church. The rings also signified the agreement and sealing of the marriage contract.[351] [Illustration: BETROTHAL OF JOSEPH AND MARY, BY JUAN RODRIGUEZ JUAREZ (OR XUAREZ), MEXICO CITY, (1666–1734) CALLED THE “MEXICAN CARRACCA” In the possession of the author] [Illustration: Right hand of the Virgin, right hand of St. Joseph, and hands of the high-priest, showing the manner of placing the wedding ring at Hebrew marriages as depicted in the picture of Rodriguez Juarez [Xuarez]. The ring contains an octahedral diamond crystal set in gold] According to Buxtorf (De sponsal. et divort.), the Jews did not place the betrothal ring upon the annular finger, but upon the index. As to this there is a curious statement in the “Opus aureus contra Judæos,”[352] by Victor de Carben, a converted Jew. He states that, at the betrothal ceremony, care should be taken that the fiancée extends her index finger to receive the ring, lest it should be put, by mistake, upon the middle finger, for it was on this finger that Joseph placed the ring when he betrothed Mary. Buxtorf adds that he has never been able to find this statement in Jewish writings. One of Ghirlandajo’s frescoes in the church of Santa Croce, in Florence, depicts the betrothal of the Virgin. Here the ring is placed by Joseph on the fourth finger of the Virgin’s right hand, and the famous Sposalizio by Rafael in the Brera Gallery in Milan illustrates the same usage. Possibly the ring was transferred to the left hand at the actual marriage ceremony. The custom of the Greek church at the present day in relation to betrothal or wedding rings differs in some respects from that observed in other Christian churches, for the priest places a ring on the fourth finger of each of the contracting parties, who then proceed to exchange them with each other. The old custom of exchanging rings and betrothal vows obtains in the Russian branch of the Eastern Church. For the succeeding marriage ceremony, or “crowning,” the same rings are again used. The rubric states that the bride’s ring should be of silver to show that she is the less honorable vessel, while the bridegroom’s ring is of gold to signify the superiority of the man. The brides, however, have shown a disposition to resent this inequality, and, in modern times at least, they are given gold rings also. The old Russian custom is for the husband to wear his ring on his forefinger.[353] In the Greek and Russian churches, the rings--of gold for the man, of silver for the woman--are bestowed at the betrothal ceremony, when also a contract between the parties is made. The later nuptial ceremony is generally designated as “the crowning,” a crown being placed on the heads of bride and bridegroom by the officiating priest. The question was often raised whether the mere fact of giving or accepting a ring constituted a definite promise of marriage. The best authorities decided the question in the negative. In reference to this matter Peter Müller writes: “If when a ring is given there is no promise of marriage, the ring shall not be regarded as a betrothal ring, but as a simple gift. Whence it may be inferred that a contract of marriage cannot be proved by a ring alone, since mere donations, bestowed through liberality, do not produce any obligation.”[354] The connection between the wedding ring and the bestowal of earnest-money is clearly indicated in the marriage service as given in the Prayer-Book of Edward VI. Here, after the words “with this ring I thee wed,” there is added: “This gold and silver I give thee”; and at these words the bridegroom usually placed in the bride’s hands a purse containing a sum of money. There can, indeed, be little doubt that the espousal ring was rather the type of a valuable consideration offered at the consummation of the marriage contract, than a symbol of the bondage and subjection of the spouse as many have maintained. That the ring was sometimes given conditionally is shown by a curious old German formula to the following effect: “I give you this ring as a sign of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your father gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 reichsthalers.”[355] It is not possible to indicate with any precision at what date the betrothal ring became the wedding ring, but this change seems to have taken place in England about the time of the Reformation. This did not, however, entail the abandonment of the betrothal ring, but rather the substitution of another, and frequently less simple ring, to mark the betrothal. Of course, the change was gradual and the usage varied in different countries, since the employment of a separate marriage ring was rather a matter of custom than of ecclesiastical ordinance. The Manx usages and customs are so strange in many cases that the ring traditions of the Isle of Man also present certain peculiarities. Thus if a man was found guilty of having done injury to a maiden, the latter was given a sword, a rope and a ring, signifying that she could either have him beheaded, or hung, or else could force him to wed her. That the last-mentioned choice was the one most frequently made is very probable, as the rehabilitation of her good name thus attained might well outweigh any satisfaction to be gained from the exercise of revenge.[356] The use of rush-rings in England, in 1217, for mock marriages, is vouched for in the “Constitutiones”[357] of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury. It is provided that whoever places a rush-ring, or a ring of cheap or precious material, in sport and jest upon a woman’s hand, that she shall the more willingly become friendly with him, although imagining himself to be joking will be constrained to marry. Another authority declares that when the ecclesiastical court enforced matrimony as a penalty or a reparation for bad conduct, a rush ring or a ring of straw was used at the ceremony.[358] There are several passages in English poetry of the Elizabethan age and later, referring to this use of a “rush ring.” In his “Two Noble Kinsmen,” Fletcher writes: Rings she made Of rushes that grew by, and to ’em spoke The prettiest posies; Thus our true loves ty’d; This you may loose, not me, and many a one. In the seventeenth century Sir William Davenant (1605–1668) speaks in the following mocking strain of such a ring: I’ll crown thee with a garland of straw then And I’ll marry thee with a rush ring. The ballad called the Winchester Wedding has these lines: Pert Strephon was kind to Betty, And blithe as a bird in the spring; And Tommy was so to Katy, And wedded her with a rush ring. The “rush ring” is touched on in an old English ballad of Shakespeare’s time, in which occur the lines:[359] Then on my finger I’ll have a ring Not one of rush, but a golden thing; And I shall be glad as a bird in spring, Because I am married o’ Sunday. A purely spiritual view of the meaning of a wedding-ring is expressed by Guillaume Durant, Bishop of Mende (died 1296). For him it was the symbol of the mutual love of the espoused, at once a pledge and a symbol of the union of their hearts. However, the more mercenary significance of the ring, as a sign of the marriage gift to be bestowed upon the bride by the bridegroom before the wedding, is quite clearly brought out in the old French Rituals, wherein its composition and meaning are defined. A simplification of the ring itself seems to have taken place from about the thirteenth century when gold rings adorned with precious stones were generally worn. The metal used at a later time varied in different dioceses. While in that of Limoges the ring was of gold, the rituals of the dioceses of Auxerre, Lyons and Paris prescribe a silver ring. In the Manual of the priests belonging to the diocese of Paris, it is strictly enjoined that there shall be no inscription or figure upon the ring, and that no precious stone shall be set therein. The officiating priest receives it from the bridegroom together with one or more pieces of money “as sign of the constituted endowment.” The Manuel de Beauvais, published in 1637, also prescribes that the nuptial ring shall be severely plain and entirely without inscription. The ritual of the Abbey of St. Victor is even more definite, for here the blessing of the ring is preceded by the reading of the endowment on account of marriage (_dotalitium propter nuptias_). Hence the “dower” was not given with the wife, but was bestowed upon her by the husband.[360] This has been erroneously looked upon by some as a survival of the primitive custom of wife-purchase; it differs, however, essentially from this in that the wife receives the endowment for her own use and as her own property. A curious superstition is condemned by the Ritual of Evreux. As the ring was handed to the bride by the bridegroom, the former would let it fall on the ground to conjure a possible evil spell. It has been remarked by Jacob Grimm (1785–1863) the great lexicographer and student of German archæology, that in early times, among the christianized Germans, the fiancé gave the ring to the young woman, who was thenceforth bound to carry out the marriage contract. On the other hand, according to the poetical recitals of the thirteenth century, the fiancée gives a ring to her future husband, without receiving one from him. The same writer regards the usage of betrothal rings as one introduced among the Germans by Christian influence, not one that can be looked upon as properly Germanic.[361] The contracting parties often exchanged rings at the betrothal ceremony, which in many cases was celebrated in the church with all due solemnity. Shakespeare’s “Two Gentlemen of Verona” contains an allusion to a more informal exchange of rings: Julia: Keep this remembrance for your Julia’s sake. Proteus: Why then we’ll make exchange; here take you this. (Giving a ring.) Julia: And seal the bargain with a holy kiss. In our own time, in Germany, two rings, one for the bride and the other for the bridegroom, are given at the marriage ceremony, and these rings are called “Trauringe,” a name which designates the ring as an emblem of faith and trust, just as does the Italian name for the betrothal ring, _fede_, or faith. From the almost innumerable poesies inscribed upon espousal rings we select a few of the more noteworthy. An antique Roman ring has the words: “Pignus amoris habes” (Thou hast a pledge of love);[362] another shows the simple form “Proteros Ugiæ” (Proteros to Ugia), the names being inscribed between two clasped hands.[363] A sentiment given by one who was no believer in unrequited love reads: “Love me, I will love thee.” A massive gold ring of early date, found in 1823 at Thetford, in Suffolk, gives us the following inscription in Old French: “Deus me octroye de vous servir a gree com moun couer desire” (God grant me to serve thee acceptably as my heart desires).[364] On a ring in the collection of the late Sir John Evans we have the following graceful inscription: “Je suis ici en lieu d’ami” (I am here in the place of a friend). An elaborate wedding-ring, probably executed in Germany, in the latter half of the fifteenth century, is in the fine collection of the court jeweler Koch, of Frankfort-on-the-Main. Out of richly ornamental foliage work arise the figures of the wedded pair, evidently carefully rendered portraits. Although somewhat lacking in purely artistic harmony, this production of the ring-maker’s art is an excellent illustration of the quality of the best German goldsmith work of the time in the smaller objects. The Figdor Collection in Vienna contains a fifteenth century betrothal ring made in France. It is of gold and bears the inscriptions: “Il est dit” (in small letters) and “ELLE ME TIENT” (in capitals), literally: “It is said (spoken)” and “She holds me.” A betrothal ring in the form of a so-called “Puzzle Ring,” has six connecting hoops. Three of these are enameled, two others bear closed hands, and the last shows a key and the head of a winged angel. This is of seventeenth century workmanship.[365] A wedding-ring of simple Gothic design formed part of a grave treasure, the characteristic inscription: “In Mir Ist Treue” (In me is fidelity), leaving no doubt as to the use to which the ring had been put. This plain triangular band is in the Germanic Museum in Nuremberg and is assigned to the thirteenth century. Another most interesting ring from the same period was found in the territory formerly known as the Fürstenbergerhof, at the southwest end of the city of Mainz; it is now owned by the family Heerdt of that city. The clasped hands engraved on the lower part of the hoop designate this clearly as a betrothal or wedding-ring. An English ring of the early part of the fifteenth century bears this couplet: Most in mynd and yn myn herrt Lothest from thee ferto deparrt. In seventeenth century rings the religious sentiment predominates: “I have obtaind whom God ordaind”; “God unites our hearts aright”; “Knitt in one by Christ alone”; “Wee join our love in God above.” A little more human, if less devotional, are the mottoes: “United hearts death only parts”; “A faithfull wife preserveth life,” and “Love and live happily.” There have been many types of betrothal rings from the simplest up to the most elaborate and ornate. One having a graceful symbolism was found near Wassy, dept. Haute Marne, France, in June, 1868. The hoop is of yellow gold, alloyed sufficiently to give it consistence. Instead of one chaton, it has two placed close to one another and each set with a small, cabochon-cut emerald. The choice of this stone is a good indication that we have to do here with a betrothal rather than a wedding ring, for the emerald was emblematic of hope, of unfulfilled desire and of virginity. Around the setting runs the following inscription in Old French, beginning with the sign of the cross: CE QUE DESIR HOM DONE UN BIEN. This may be rendered: “What one desires brings happiness,” the idea being perhaps that so beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas: “The soul dwells with the loved one rather than in the body it animates.”[366] While the letters of the French inscription are so much worn as to make the decipherment of two words a little uncertain, the general sense is clear enough, and constitutes a very fine motto for such a ring.[367] The ring which had been used by Louis IX (St. Louis) at his betrothal to Marguerite de Provence, in 1231, was so greatly prized by him that on his death-bed he expressed the wish that it should be interred with his body. On its gold hoop he had caused to be engraved the lilies of France and certain military emblems.[368] A graceful thought is expressed in the following Old French inscription on a ring found near Poitiers: Mon cuer se est resioui aussi doit il si maist Dieux. A mon gre ne puis mieux aueir choisi. “My heart is rejoiced, and so should it be, if God aid me. For I feel I could not have chosen better.” A shorter motto, but one full of significance, appears on a ring in the museum of Poitiers; it consists merely of the two words: “Sans Partir.” This could mean either “we shall never separate,” or else that the donor would never abandon his love. Another brief motto, found on a ring in the Louvre dating from the reign of Francis I, runs “Riens sans amour,” or “Love is all in all.”[369] [Illustration: JEWISH BETROTHAL RINGS IN GOLD, SET WITH PRECIOUS STONES Musèe de Cluny, Paris] [Illustration: Jewish wedding rings, one with Temple dome, the other with slant-roofed structure. Each bears the Hebrew words _Mazzel Tob_, or “Good Luck” Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Jewish wedding ring, with five bosses and as bezel a projecting figure. This is hinged and covers a gold plate. On the inside _Mazzel Tob_ or “Good Luck” British Museum] [Illustration: Jewish marriage ring. Gold hoop with five bosses of filigree enriched with flowers in pale blue, green and white enamel, and a gable-like projection with two small windows. Nürnberg. Sixteenth Century British Museum] [Illustration: Jewish wedding ring; broad gold hoop, the sides showing the Creation of Eve, the Fall, and the Expulsion from Eden. German. Sixteenth Century British Museum] At weddings in Spain and also in some parts of France, in connection with the bestowal of a ring, the curious usage has been observed of giving thirteen pieces of money to the bride. This gift, called in French a _treizain_, has its origin, as the name indicates, in the ancient custom of giving to the purchaser of a dozen articles, an extra one, ostensibly as a testimonial of good will, but really to induce further purchases. This old usage is said to have been observed at the marriage of King Alfonso XIII of Spain in 1906. The Hebrew betrothal rings were elaborate and somewhat clumsy productions, frequently of massive gold. The broad hoop was surmounted by the representation of a temple, sometimes with a Moorish dome, but usually with a slanting roof. This is a curiously conventionalized figuration of Solomon’s Temple, similar to that found upon certain spurious Hebrew coins. Upon the temple or else around the ring, are generally the Hebrew words FIO ERG, equivalent to “Good Fortune.”[370] Several such rings are described in the privately printed catalogue of the Londesborough Collection (London, 1853, p. 4). A more artistic specimen, also in the Londesborough Collection, bears the figures of Adam and Eve in Paradise, accompanied by representations of animals, all in high relief.[371] The specimens described belong to the sixteenth century. The learned Jesuit, Athanasius Kircher, cites a statement to the effect that the inscription _mazzel tob_, engraved upon many Hebrew betrothal rings, referred to the planet Jupiter as the “good star.”[372] This planet was, indeed, called by the Hebrews _cocab zedeq_, “star of righteousness” or “justice,” but there is little doubt that _mazzel tob_ should be rendered “good fortune” or “propitious fate.” The earliest Jewish wedding-rings are said to have been plain golden circlets, without setting, indeed a silver substitute or even one of a cheaper metal was not forbidden. Pearls, favorite gems with the Jews, were sometimes used for settings at a later period. The purely ceremonial or symbolic significance of the Jewish wedding ring in early times is exemplified in its great size, the major part of these rings being much too large for wear. Sometimes, at the wedding feast, rings of this type were used as holders of myrtle-branches. The circlet surmounted with the temple figure was occasionally formed of two cherubim.[373] A ring supposed to have been the wedding ring of the Roman Tribune, Cola di Rienzi (ca. 1313–1354), is of silver, with an octagonal bezel; the hoop bears the names: “Catarina” and “Nicola,” those of Rienzi and of Catarina di Raselli, his bride. The letters have been placed in sharp relief by cutting away the background and filling it up with niello. Between the names are two stars. As Rienzi chose a star as his emblem on the coins he struck during his brief rule in Rome, this device coupled with the names makes the attribution of the ring not without some good foundation.[374] This ring was bought by Mr. Waterton in Rome for a trifling sum. It had been pledged in a Monte di Pietà, and was disposed of at one of the periodical clearing sales. In the fifteenth century the betrothal ceremony was usually performed in the presence of a notary public, not of a priest, and this continued to be the usage until after the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563. At the betrothal, by proxy, of Lucrezia Borgia with Giovanni Sforza, February 2, 1493, twin gold rings set with precious stones were given, one to be put on the fourth finger of the fiancée’s left hand, “whose vein leads to the heart” as the record specifies, while the other was to be placed on the bridegroom’s little finger.[375] In one of the very risqué tales forming the “Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles,” the authorship of which has been attributed to King Louis XI of France (1461–1483), it is related that a lady, while bathing, lost a diamond ring; the narrator adds: “This was one her liege lord had given her on the day of her espousal, and she prized it the more highly on this account.” Although diamond rings were not common at this time, the recently invented art of facetting the diamond was rapidly bringing these stones into fashion and favor. There is, indeed, a record, or at least a family tradition, that one of the three large diamonds cut in facets by Lodowyk van Berken of Bruges, about 1476, at the order of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, was set in a ring and given by the duke to Louis XI, with whom he was then seeking to get on a friendly footing. This diamond is described as having been cut as a “triangle and a heart.” This possibly means that the triangular shape was slightly modified into a heart shape.[376] A Scotch legend relates that a married woman by ill-chance let her wedding ring fall into the river Clyde. On her return home her husband noted its absence and, believing she had given it to a lover, became furiously jealous, used the harshest language to her and even threatened her life. In her despair the innocent wife went and cast herself at the feet of St. Kentigern, Bishop of Glasgow, supplicating him to render her faithfulness manifest. The bishop had compassion upon her, and uttered a prayer that the ring might be restored. His prayer was answered, for ere a few hours had passed a fisherman came to him bearing as a gift a large salmon he had just caught, and in the mouth of the fish was found the lost ring. The husband, convinced of his injustice, was kinder to his wife than ever before, so as to make good the wrong he had done her. To the story given in this legend are ascribed the figures of a salmon with a ring in its mouth on the coat-of-arms of the city of Glasgow, as well as on the armorial bearings of several of the bishops of that city from the time of Bishop Wishert, who lived under Edward II of England (1307–1327).[377] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES (1515–1557), FOURTH WIFE OF HENRY VIII, BY HANS HOLBEIN Thumb-ring on left hand, one ring on index finger, and two on fourth finger of right hand. This portrait, when shown to Henry, pleased him so well that he agreed to the marriage, but he expressed sore disappointment when he at last saw the new queen Musée du Louvre, Paris] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF JUDITH, AFTER LUCAS CRANACH Rings worn beneath gloves, which have slits to relieve the pressure and to show the rings. Right hand has four rings, on thumb, index, fourth finger, and little finger, respectively Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna] Among historic wedding rings especially worthy of note is that commemorating the marriage of Martin Luther to Catharina von Bora, June 13, 1525.[378] Both Luther and his wife had taken the vow of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church, and he was bitterly reproached by Roman Catholics for contracting this marriage. Replying to his accusers, he is declared to have said that he married “to please himself, to tease the Pope, and to spite the Devil.” The inscription on this ring is: “D. Martino Luthero Catharina v. Boren, 13 Jun. 1525.” This probably indicates that the ring was given to Luther by his wife in memory of the wedding. It is stated to have belonged to a family in Leipsic as late as 1817. A copy of the ring is in the writer’s possession. It was given him by Mrs. Edith True Drake, as a memento of her husband Alexander W. Drake, of whose collection it had formed part. The original ring is set with a small ruby, and bears in high relief representations of the crucifixion, and of the instruments of the Passion; the pillar, scourge, spear, etc. A pendant to this is a ring given either to Luther or his wife, as a memento of his marriage, by some friend. This is of the type of gimmal rings, divisible but not separable. On one hoop the setting is a diamond, on the other a ruby. The bezel separates into two halves when the ring is opened, and reveals on the two hidden sides the initials C V D and M L D, for Catharina von Bora and Martin Luther, Doctor. On the inner side of the conjoined hoops is the inscription: “_Was Got zusamen fiegt sol kein mensch scheiden_” (Those whom God hath joined, shall no man put asunder), in the old German spelling.[379] The diamond is on the Luther side of the divided bezel, and signifies power, durability and fidelity; the ruby on the side marked with the wife’s initials is taken to mean exalted love. Both this ring and the one already described are believed to have been designed by the artist, Lucas Cranach, who was a friend of Luther’s and assisted at his marriage. The ring is in the Grossherzogliches Museum at Brunswick. A very noteworthy ring, in the Waterton Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, belonged to Henry, Lord Darnley, and commemorated his marriage with Mary, Queen of Scots. On the bezel are the initials M H, entwined with a true-love knot, and within the hoop is engraved HENRI L. DARNLEY, and the date, 1565. Between the two groups of letters constituting the inscription, is figured a lion rampant on a carved shield. This ring is said to have been found in the ruins of Fotheringay Castle, where Mary Stuart was executed.[380] A peculiar class of rings bears the name of “gimmal rings.” This designation is derived from the Latin _gemelli_, “twins,” and indicates the form of the ornament. Two rings are joined together by a pivot so that when united they constitute a single ring, although they can be easily separated. On each circlet there is a band, so disposed that when both are brought together the hands are clasped and hold the separate rings in place. Occasionally, there are three or more rings combined in the same way, the designation “gimmal ring” being used for these also. The following lines by Herrick refer to this latter type: “Thou sent’st to me a true-love knot; but I Return a Ring of _jimmals_ to imply Thy love had one knot, mine a _triple_ tye.” A specimen of this type of ring is given in the privately-printed catalogue of Lady Londesborough’s collection (London, 1853, p. 17). This is described as “a triple gimmal, the first and third circlet having each a hand, so that, when joined, the two hands are clasped together and serve to conceal two united hearts on the third ring. Of German workmanship.” It was customary to separate the conjoined rings at the betrothal ceremony and to give the upper and lower to each of the betrothed, respectively, while the middle ring was given to an intimate friend of the lady. When the marriage was solemnized, the rings were reunited and bestowed upon the bride. As a general rule all rings bearing clasped hands were termed gimmal rings, although the designation properly belonged to two or more separate rings joined together. [Illustration: Ring with pointed diamond used for writing on glass Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Massive gold Gallo-Roman ring. Found near Mulsanne, dept. Sarthe, France, about 1850. Believed to be a wedding ring; five views. Fifth Century. See page 202 Abbe Barraud, “Des Bagues de Toutes les Epoques,” Paris, 1864] [Illustration: Rings of Mary Stuart. 1, signet ring; 2, wedding ring of Mary and Darnley, with date of marriage, 1565; two views Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Gold betrothal ring, bezel in form of clasped hands, hoop shaped as two amoretti. Sixteenth Century British Museum] [Illustration: Hebrew wedding ring. Adam and Eve in Paradise Wedding ring of Martin Luther, two views. Original had a small ruby in the centre Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Wedding ring of gimmal type. German, Sixteenth Century. Set with a ruby and an aquamarine. Inscription visible when ring is separated: _Quod Deus conjunxit homo non separet_ (Let man not separate what God hath joined together). The betrothal or wedding ring of Sir Thomas Gresham (1519–1579) is of similar design British Museum] The following lines from Don Sebastian, a play written by Dryden (1690), explains quite fully the character and use of a gimmal ring: A curious artist wrought ’em With joynts so close as not to be perceiv’d; Yet are they both each other’s counterpart. (Her part had Juan inscrib’d, and his had Zayda, You know these names were theirs:) and in the midst A heart divided in two halves was plac’d. Now if the rivets of those Rings inclos’d Fit not each other, I have forg’d this lye: But if they join, you must for ever part. In Burgon’s life of Sir Thomas Gresham, the merchant prince of Queen Elizabeth’s time and founder of the Royal Exchange, we are shown his wedding ring. This is a gimmal ring composed of two hoops, one bearing the inscription “Quod Deus conjunxit” (What God hath joined together) and the other: “Homo non separet” (Let not man put asunder).[381] The two hoops are set with a red and a white stone, respectively. A curious development of the gimmal-ring was the so-called “puzzle-ring” consisting of pieces of gold wire ingeniously bent and intertwined so that they appeared to form a single indivisible ring, although by a certain clever twist they could easily be separated into several independent hoops. This type was derived from the East. On a gimmal ring belonging to the first half of the fifteenth century, in the Londesborough Collection, is an engraved head of Lucretia; at the back appear two hands clasped. This type seems to have been common in Shakespeare’s time, for in Twelfth Night (Act II, sc. 5), Malvolio exclaims, after examining the seal on a letter: “By your leave, wax. Soft!--and the impressure her Lucrece with which she uses to seal.”[382] The choice of this image for a betrothal ring must have been intended either as a tribute to the lady’s chastity, or else as a kind of amulet to protect her from attacks on her virtue. [Illustration: Gimmal ring, open Edward’s “History and Poetry of Finger Rings”] [Illustration: Silver betrothal ring; two views. On the shoulder appears the legend: “God Help.” English, Fifteenth Century British Museum] [Illustration: Gold puzzle rings. 1, three hoops, cruciform bezel: 2, with four hoops. Two views of each, closed and open. Seventeenth Century British Museum] [Illustration: Curious old posy ring. The motto is to be read: Our _hands_ and _hearts_ with one consent, Hath tied this _knot_ till _death_ prevent British Museum] [Illustration: Wedding rings with “posies.” English, Seventeenth Century Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Two Gimmal rings, one double, the other triple. Betrothal or wedding rings Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] The talismanic quality of the turquoise is noted by Edward Fenton, in his “Secrets of Nature” (1569), wherein he says: “The Turkeys doth move when there is any perill prepared to him that weareth it.” In his commentary on Shakespeare’s Othello, Steevens remarks that the poet probably had the mystic virtues of this stone in mind when he made Shylock mourn the loss of the turquoise his wife Leah had given him before their marriage.[383] In the original text of this passage the name is spelled “turkie,” and this old spelling is interesting as showing the identity of the name given to the stone with that bestowed upon the fowl known to us as a turkey. In this latter case the spelling and pronunciation have been retained, while in the former we have the modified form turquoise, both names indicating an association of the respective objects with Turkey, as the land from whence they were erroneously believed to come. As Shylock’s turquoise seems to have been set in a betrothal ring, it is singular to note that at the present day the turquoise is a favorite stone for betrothal rings in Germany. In Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, where the diamond is so often mentioned in connection with a ring given as a sign of faithfulness, a passage occurs denoting that this stone was sometimes set in a betrothal ring in Shakespeare’s time. The line runs (Act I, sc. 4): This diamond was my mother’s: take it, heart; But keep it till you woo another wife. The preciousness and dazzling lustre of diamonds are also alluded to in this play. It is worthy of note that while in all of Shakespeare’s plays the diamond is only mentioned twenty-one times, seven of these mentions are in his Cymbeline. An emblematic wedding-ring with a deep, and perhaps somewhat ambiguous significance, was bestowed upon his spouse by Bishop Cokes. Upon it was engraved a hand, a heart, a mitre, and a death’s head, the inscription reading: These three I give to thee Till the fourth set me free.[384] A frankly humorous inscription was that placed upon the wedding-ring of Lady Cathcard when, in 1713, she wedded her _fourth_ husband, Hugh Maguire. This was as follows: If I survive I will have five A similar poesy is said to have been used at a later date by John Thomas, Bishop of London, on the ring which he used at his fourth marriage: If I survive I’ll make them five.[385] The Puritan reaction in England during the Commonwealth, against the customs of the English Church, extended to the use of the wedding-ring, and Samuel Butler in his Hudibras alludes to this tendency in the following lines: Others were for abolishing That tool of matrimony, a ring With which the unsanctify’ed bridegroom Is marry’d only to a thumb. There is a possibility that this curious custom of wearing a wedding ring on the thumb may have had some connection with the old fancy that the second joint of the thumb was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, whose supposed espousal ring is preserved in the Cathedral of Perugia. It is true that this ought rather to apply to a betrothal ring than a wedding ring. The following list gives the religious dedication of the various finger-joints: In the right hand the upper joint of the thumb was dedicated to God, the lower joint to the Virgin; the first joint of the index to St. Barnabas, the second to St. John, the third to St. Paul; the first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon Cleophas, the second to St. Thaddæus, the third to St. Joseph; the first joint of the annular to St. Zacchæus, the second to St. Stephen, the third to St. Luke; the first joint of the little finger to St. Leatus, the second to St. Mark, the third to St. Nicodemus. The dedication of the left hand fingers was: First joint of thumb, to Christ, second joint to the Virgin; first joint of the index to St. James, the second to St. John the Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon, the second to St. Matthew, the third to St. James the Greater; first joint of the annular to St. Jude, the second to St. Bartholomew, the third to St. Andrew; first joint of the little finger to St. Matthaias, the second to St. Thomas, the third to St. Philip.[386] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF CLARA EUGENIA, DAUGHTER OF PHILIP II OF SPAIN, BY GONZALES Rings on thumb and index of right hand, which holds a miniature of Philip. Elaborately jewelled dress and splendid pearl necklace and head-ornament Museo del Prado, Madrid] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF CATARINA MICHELA, DAUGHTER OF PHILIP II OF SPAIN, BY COELLO SANCHEZ Thumb ring on right hand and ring on index of same hand; both with precious-stone settings. Similar rings on index and little fingers of left hand Museo del Prado, Madrid] As in Europe a couple of centuries ago, so in the India of to-day, a wedding ring is often worn on the thumb. This is of gold, about an inch wide. It is only worn, however, for a short period, sometimes only during the several days devoted to the celebration of the wedding ceremonies; in other cases, it is worn for six months, or occasionally even for twelve months after marriage. Eventually it is melted down, the precious metal being then worked up into some other ornament.[387] The great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was devotedly attached to his wife, although the alliance can scarcely be looked upon as a love match on the learned doctor’s side. His patient devotion to his sickly and rather ugly wife goes to show how wide is the divergence between theory and practice, for in his dictionary Johnson defines a ring as: “a circular instrument placed upon the noses of hogs and the fingers of women to restrain them and bring them into subjection.” After his wife’s death Dr. Johnson preserved her wedding-ring in a box bearing the following inscription: “Eheu! Eliza Johnson, Nupta July 9^o 1736, Mortua, eheu! Mart. 17^o 1752.” That the betrothal ring was occasionally worn on the index finger is shown in two celebrated seventeenth century pictures, the “Betrothal of Marie de’ Medici,” by Rubens, and the “Betrothal of St. Catherine,” by Murillo. Sometimes, however, the little finger was chosen for this honor and an interesting example of this custom is given by a document in the Hohenzollern Museum in Berlin. Here is exhibited a list of the rings worn by Queen Louisa of Prussia on the day of her death, written down by her husband, King Friedrich Wilhelm III, and the first entry reads: “Our betrothal ring, on the little finger of the right hand.” The list closes with the following simple and touching words in the King’s handwriting: “At Hohenzieritz, on the most unhappy day of my life, July 19, 1810,” this being the day of Queen Louisa’s death. It may be noted that at the present day, while the usual custom in South Germany is to wear the wedding ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, in North Germany the right hand is generally given the preference. This applies both to men and women. King George IV of England is said to have had two rings made, each provided with a secret spring which, on being pressed, opened a panel and revealed the king’s portrait and that of Mrs. Fitzherbert, respectively. The ring containing the king’s portrait was bestowed by him upon Mrs. Fitzherbert, whom he is said to have married in 1785, and that with her portrait was kept by him, and, before his death, entrusted to the Duke of Wellington, the latter promising solemnly that he would place it upon his royal master’s breast when his remains were in the coffin. Mrs. Fitzherbert left her ring to Miss Dawson Damer.[388] Another ring given by George IV to Mrs. Fitzherbert was exhibited in the Victoria Exhibition, at the New Gallery, London, and is described as being a gimmal, the two hoops closely fitting together, with the inscription “Geo. Adolph. Frederick” on the inside of one and “Maria Anne” on that of the other.[389] In former times rings used to be presented to the chief guests at a wedding, and at the marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert, six dozen such rings were bestowed, each one having a profile portrait of the bride engraved upon it, with the inscription, “Victoria Regina.” The revival of this graceful custom would serve to perpetuate among the wedding guests the memory of the ceremony at which they had assisted. Wedding rings figuring two clasped hands are still used by the peasants of Normandy, and in Galway also rings bearing two hands clasping a heart have been passed down from generation to generation, from the mother to the eldest daughter. This illustrates the general rule that long after a custom or a form of personal adornment has ceased to be in favor with the higher classes it continues to be popular with the peasantry. The inscriptions on rings occasionally seen, which appear to be a medley of meaningless letters, are often the makeup of two names interlocked, such as “George” and “Sophia”: gAeIoHrPgOeS the one name reading to the right and the other to the left. In some parts of Ireland the belief in the special virtue of a gold wedding ring is so strong that when the bridegroom is too poor to buy one he will hire it for the occasion, and it is reported that a shopkeeper of Munster realized quite a little sum annually by renting rings for weddings, to be brought back to him after the ceremony. Strange to say, there is said to have been a superstitious fancy in Yorkshire, England, that to wed with a borrowed ring would bring good luck.[390] A Scottish tradition in regard to a ring used at a wedding is imbued with the gloomy superstition so characteristic of Scotland. The heir of a noble family was about to be married to a Dutch lady of rank, but when the wedding-day came was so apathetic, or so preoccupied, that he forgot the hour of the ceremony, and had to be hurried from his breakfast to the church. In his haste he had forgotten all about the wedding-ring, and was obliged to use a ring offered to him by a bystander when the ceremony reached the point where one had to be put on the bride’s finger. What was her terror, however, when she saw that it was a mourning-ring that had been placed upon her hand, one bearing the sinister design of a skull and cross-bones. This she felt to be an omen that death would soon overtake her, and she brooded so much over the happening that she sank into a decline, and died before a year had passed. The effect of the mind upon the body is so great, especially in highly nervous organisms, that such a tragic result of a mere piece of carelessness is far from being impossible. In modern times betrothal rings are often of the type called “regard rings,” where the letters of a word are indicated by the initial letters of the stones set in the ring, as, for example: R uby E merald G arnet A methyst R uby D iamond In a similar way the Christian name of either of the betrothed may be indicated, as, for instance: S apphire O pal P eridot H yalite I olite A methyst Although a diamond ring is the one most appropriate as an engagement ring, it has long been recognized that for a wedding ring nothing can replace the simple hoop of precious metal, which may, indeed, be rendered a trifle less plain by some very chaste and beautiful engraving. A reason for the preference given to the ring without setting is offered by Fuller in his “Holy State,” where he says: “Marriage with a diamond ring foreshadowed evil, because the interruption of the circle augured that the reciprocal regard of the spouse might not be perpetual.”[391] An attempt is being made in Germany to introduce the use of wedding-rings with moderate ornamentation and appropriate mottoes patterned on those of former times, in place of the severely plain gold hoop that has for a long time been decreed to be the only proper form of wedding-ring. If the tendency to over-ornamentation is kept strictly within bounds and if the mottoes are well chosen, there is some reason to think that the innovation, or rather revival, may meet with some success, as it will afford scope for individuality of taste to assert itself, and for the expression of sentiment in a way that has not been possible under present conditions. A wedding ring of iron and gold artistically combined has gained some favor of late, as symbolizing the union of strength and beauty, of the more solid with the more brilliant qualities. The uncompromising plainness of the plain gold ring, which represented a reaction to primitive forms from the over-ornamentation of the Rococo period, will probably give place to certain simple and chaste designs which can be made to symbolize some of the thoughts and sentiments connected with the marriage ceremony. But the unstable, oxidizing quality of the iron will not recommend this metal for durability. The recurrence of a great national crisis will often cause the revival of some custom or usage of an earlier one. Thus it is that in the present War of Nations, Germans have revived the practice of exchanging gold rings for iron ones that was resorted to in the dark time of Napoleonic supremacy in Germany. The total value of the metal secured in this way is of course relatively small, though not entirely negligible, but the spirit of devotion to the Vaterland finds both a real and a symbolic expression in the deposition of many a valued heirloom on the country’s altar. To avoid a rust stain on the finger these iron rings--which usually bear the figure of the Iron Cross--are frequently lined with a thin layer of gold. Not only rings but gold and silver objects of all kinds and valuable jewels have been brought in by patriotic Germans, to such an extent, indeed, that the Viennese jewellers are urging that the metals should be immediately melted, as in case the objects or ornaments should be put on the market, they would compete disastrously with the jewellers’ shops. It is stated that up to the middle of September, 1915, as many as five thousand wedding rings were donated in the single Prussian province of Posen, and the estimate has been made that about one million dollars will be realized from the total offerings throughout the Germanic countries. The ancients and the alchemists called gold the metal of the sun and silver the metal of the moon, but within the past two centuries the world has become familiar with platinum, a metal of equal dignity with gold, but with the pure whiteness of the somewhat tarnishable silver. Platinum, because of its durability and purity, may well be called the metal of Heaven, and within the past century we have added to our list of metals aluminum, a metal which constitutes a fair percentage of the earth’s surface. This can be appropriately termed the metal of the earth. These two metals, platinum and aluminum, have been used to a great extent; platinum for the purpose of mounting jewels--the stars of Heaven, as it were, in their heavenly setting--and aluminum, the metal of earth, for a great variety of purposes. Surely platinum, the metal of Heaven, is a most appropriate material for a wedding ring, and as gold has always been termed the metal of man, so platinum, the metal of Heaven, might be dedicated to woman, the fairest gift of Heaven, and an alliance ring made of these two metals would be an ideal matrimonial ring. Many of those who were married before platinum was used for wedding rings have recourse to an ingenious device by which a plate of platinum is spun or turned over the entire part of the setting which is visible, so that the gold ring will appear to be of platinum, either plain, carved or chased. Great ingenuity is required in this mounting, because it is in most cases impossible to permit the metal to do more than touch the inner part of the ring. Otherwise, the size of the circlet would be reduced. Alliance rings are sometimes made one side gold and one side platinum. At the present time many platinum wedding rings are made perfectly plain, others are engraved with a laurel wreath, as a peace or anti-divorce symbol, with oak leaves for strength, ivy for clinging devotion, and some other symbolic devices. Many alliance rings are made of two parts, one bearing the names of the engaged couple, the other the date of the engagement. Narrow gold rings with diamond settings are also used, closely resembling the type of diamond ring that has been worn as a guard-ring for many years. That men should be forced to wear wedding rings is a proposition recently agitated in London. Public attention was called to this question by newspaper reports to the effect that a young lady had testified at a divorce suit that she had innocently encouraged the attentions of a married man, because she had no means of knowing that he was married. In many continental countries married men are always expected to wear such rings, although there is of course no legal compulsion to do so, any more than in the case of a wife. We can hardly deny that anything serving to fix the status of both men and women in the matter of their marital relations is eminently desirable. [Illustration: Lady’s gold ring, with French motto: “_Mon cœur est à vous_” (My heart is yours) Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: Engagement ring with adjustable hoop; fully open; half-open; and closed] [Illustration: Ornamental wedding rings, and separable alliance wedding ring of “gimmal” type closed and open] [Illustration: WEDDING RINGS. PLAIN GOLD, PLATINUM AND CHASED] Apropos of wedding rings, the notice of a special marriage ceremony performed for a man and woman who were both ardent advocates of woman suffrage, suggests that such unions might be signalized by the use of a ring of a characteristic type. In this case the parties to the marriage contract were careful to emphasize the fact that the union was one between equals, each of whom made the same pledge of fidelity and love to the other. Perhaps a ring enamelled with the suffragette colors might be acceptable to the pioneers of the new era. As in many old-fashioned marriages the woman was accorded a _de facto_ primacy, the man who willingly accepts the doctrine of the equality of the sexes may be rather a gainer than a loser by his adherence to the new faith. In England, it is said that a movement has been initiated to abolish the use of the wedding-ring, possibly in some sense as a war measure, to constitute a slight check on the use of gold for ornamental purposes. It is, however, conjectured that its real source is rather to be sought in the general movement for the complete independence of women, the wedding-ring being looked upon by some extremists as an antiquated badge of slavery. It is hardly probable that such a movement will meet with any considerable measure of success, for the idea that the ring is a symbol of faith has become too deeply rooted in the popular mind to warrant the rejection of the time-honored usage. Perhaps the objection of the extreme advocates of “woman’s rights” might be satisfied by the introduction of an interchange of rings both at engagements and marriages. This exchange of rings is an acknowledgment of the mutuality of the relation, and it has been practiced, and still is practiced in many countries on the European continent. Moreover, the introduction of this usage in England and the United States would afford scope for a broadening of the symbolism connected with these rings, by differentiating them in some way, so that they might signify the special virtues each of the contracting parties bring to their mutual relation. This differentiation would in no wise imply any subjection, but would merely emphasize those fundamental distinctions, without which the true progress of the world would be checked. Real equality consists in the untrammeled development of the characteristic excellences, not in any arbitrary reduction of all to some preconceived standard. Of all the marriage-medals that have been struck none can be said to equal in beauty of design and tenderness of sentiment that designed in 1895 by the great French medallist Oscar Roty (1846–1911). The obverse shows the bridegroom about to place the wedding-ring on the bride’s hand, but in the very act of doing so, he is impelled to look upward, as though calling for Heaven’s blessing upon his marriage. The girlish bride has her head slightly bent down in token of assent. The scene is in the open country; the figures are seated opposite to one another on plain stone seats, and the landscape background is Rafaelesque in its delicate beauty. Beneath, in the exergue, is the single word “Semper,” an earnest that the solemn contract so gladly and so religiously entered into will be kept for this world and for the great future. The reverse shows a statue of Cupid on a fountain pedestal; alongside rises the trunk of a sturdy oak. On the right is ample space for a dedicatory inscription. The companion-piece, Roty’s second marriage medal, executed ten or more years later, although a noble work, falls something short of his first effort. Here the bridegroom, who displays no ring, kneels before the bride with uplifted head, the French motto reading “A Elle Toujours” (“Forever Hers”); on the reverse is a church altar. Under this is a plaque, enclosing which are roses, oak-leaves and acorns. [Illustration: MARRIAGE MEDALS BY THE GREAT FRENCH MEDALLIST, OSCAR ROTY (1846–1911) The upper medal shows the putting on of the wedding ring] [Illustration: BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD IN FORM OF SO-CALLED “PUZZLE RING” Six connecting hoops, three of them enameled, two others with clasped hands, and the sixth with a key and a winged angel’s head. Seventeenth Century. Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD Inscribed in Old French “_Il est dit_” and “_Elle me tien_” (literally “It is said (spoken)” and “She (or it) holds me”). French. Fifteenth Century. Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: LOVE RING OF GOLD, ENAMELED AND SET WITH PRECIOUS STONES The bezel has a lid on which is enameled a head wearing a domino mask; it is framed by seventeen rubies. When the lid is raised there appears beneath an oval, enameled with a heart, around which is the motto: “_Pour vous seule_” (For you alone). The interior of the lid is hollowed out to serve as a receptacle for hair. On the ribbon-like hoop is the inscription: “_Sous le masque la vérité_” (Beneath the mask is truth). About 1800. Formerly belonged to the great Viennese tragic actress Charlotte Wolter.] A type of ring of occasional use, not distantly related to the wedding ring, comprises the so-called “pacifying,” or teething rings, generally made of ivory, rubber or celluloid, and large enough for one or two fingers of a child. Diagonally on the hoop is a flat, circular piece of the same material as that of which the ring is made, and which prevents it from slipping into the mouth of the child. Upon this flat piece is mounted a small bit of rubber or ivory for the child to suck or bite upon, to develop its teeth, or at least to keep it quiet. What might be called a “Latitude and Longitude Ring,” would be an attractive memento of engagement and marriage. There would be a narrow band showing, around it, a degree of latitude marked with longitudes, and having a small star at the place where the parties became engaged, and a double star at the spot where they were married. A few appropriate inscriptions on modern engagement rings are as follows: “Our engagement”; “My love to thine”; “To her who merits all my love”; “To my Pet”; “To my ‘Chiquita’ from Bill,” this last in Spanish. In a more serious vein we have: “Time-Eternity,” and “Perfect love casteth out fear.” Occasionally there is a note of sadness, as appears in the inscription: “Faithful, but unhappy.” A ring bearing the words “Stick to me, my darling” may show that the fiancé was a trifle distrustful of his lady love’s constancy; another who sets in his ring “Firm and True” makes us infer that he had more faith. The three words “Bessie sweet sixteen” show that early engagements sometimes occur even in our sophisticated age. On ornaments other than rings, bestowed in connection with either engagement or marriage, we read: “My heart I take not back from thee. H. B. L.” and “Thine own wish, wish I thee. A. B. T. & R. V. P.” A curious inscription runs: “A nasty cold face and metal eye,” and we have: “For my sake wear this, it is a manacle of love.” Modern wedding rings are often inscribed with pious sentiments, such, for instance, as: “All for Jesus”; “Each for the other, both for God”; “Our unity is Christ”; “Mercifully ordain that we may grow old together”; “In Christ and in Thee my comfort shall be”; “God gave thee to me”; “Through weal and through woe, to each other on earth, to God in Heaven. Always true to Bertha.” A somewhat philosophic sentiment appears in the words: “Ultimate Good, not present pleasure.” Latin inscriptions are now quite rare, but here is one: “Si Deus nobiscum, quis contra nos?” (If God be with us, who can be against us?) In other cases the legend is more worldly: “Love for Love” and “He that taketh a wife hath a good thing.” Let us hope that this optimist was not mistaken in his confidence. Another bridegroom declares that he, at least, has a “good thing,” for he places in his ring the simple motto: “Carrie suits.” If she suits him, that is enough. Lastly, we have the most satisfactory inscription of all, since it testifies to the result of one fortunate experiment; this reads: “In token of 30 years fidelity as Wife and Mother.” The use of a diamond ring for betrothals seems to have been general toward the end of the fifteenth century, for royal personages at least, to judge from a letter written from Ghent on July 30, 1477, by Dr. Wilhelm Moroltinger to Archduke (later Emperor) Maximilian, just before his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold. This letter runs: “At the betrothal your Grace must have a ring set with a diamond and also a gold ring. Moreover, in the morning your Grace must bestow upon the bride some costly jewels.”[392] From time immemorial we have had wedding-rings, but it seems that in view of the great number of divorces now granted we might well introduce the custom of giving “divorce-rings,” for at no time in the history of the Christian world have there been more divorces than at the present day. This divorce-ring might be differentiated from the old-fashioned wedding-ring by substituting the inscription A B C _from_ D B F for A B C _and_ D E F. A novel idea in divorce-rings is reported from Chicago, where a fashionable divorcée had her wedding-ring made smaller so that she could wear it on the little finger of her left hand as a divorce-ring. However, we fear that if this idea should be generally adopted, the little finger would scarcely offer room for the series of rings that some of our theatrical stars would have to wear. Perhaps in some cases this wearing of the wedding-ring, even in a modified form, after a divorce, might be intended to indicate that the old love had not wholly vanished, and that some day those who had been put asunder could be rejoined, as occasionally happens now-a-days. At weddings in Tunis, the Arabs have the custom of placing the wedding-ring upon the first finger of the left hand, and the finger and toe-nails of the bride receive an especially rich coloring of henna on this occasion, staining them a deep red; her eyebrows also are heavily pencilled and joined across the nose so that they form a single bar over the eyes. In order to make the home-coming as auspicious as possible, a gilded pair of horns are set above the portal of the house, along with the favorite charm known as “the hand of Fatima,” believed to afford safety from the malign influence of the Evil Eye, so much dreaded in the East and in some Occidental lands also.[393] An interesting incident in which a ring plays an important part is related in connection with the visit of Secretary, afterward President Taft, accompanied by a number of prominent Americans, to the Sulu Islands a few years ago. Mrs. Longworth, then Miss Alice Roosevelt, was one of the party, and the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II, expressed a great desire to be introduced to her. The favor was readily accorded, and on the day set for the interview the Sultan and several Sulu dattos, or chiefs, duly presented themselves. One of the dattos was a mortal enemy of the Sultan, but naturally on this occasion all personal or political feuds were forgotten for the time being. After the Sultan had been presented to Miss Roosevelt, came the turn of the rebellious datto, who approached the sprightly young American girl, greeted her, and presented to her a native pearl of great beauty, which was graciously accepted. The chagrin of the Sultan may easily be imagined, for he had forgotten to provide himself with a suitable gift, and now his mortal enemy was basking in the sunshine of favor, while he himself, the lord paramount, was neglected. Suddenly his eye fell upon a ring set with a magnificent pearl which he wore on his left hand. He immediately took off this ring, and again approaching Miss Roosevelt, gave it to her. As the Sultan’s pearl far exceeded in beauty and value that given by the datto, the former’s dignity was cleared of all reproach and the situation was saved. A curious sequel to this incident was the circulation of a report in the press to the effect that the Sultan of Sulu had made an offer of marriage to Miss Roosevelt. This proved how closely the gift of a ring is associated with the idea of engagement or marriage. A Pennsylvania (U. S. A.) court has been called upon to decide whether the gift of an engagement ring bestowed by a man just prior to a declaration of bankruptcy, should be looked upon as a transfer of assets to the prejudice of the creditors. The fact that in this case the fair recipient of the ring was a jeweller’s daughter might be thought to render it likely that this particular engagement ring was of substantial intrinsic value. The court reserved its decision. A choice of pretty “posies” for rings was offered to seventeenth century readers in a London publication entitled “Love’s Garland; or Posies for Rings, Handkerchiefs and Gloves, and Such Pretty Tokens as Lovers Send Their Loves.” Unyielding constancy found expression in the couplets: Where once I choose I ne’er refuse. Hearts content Can ne’er repent. Another verse makes a very modest claim for an expression of gratitude on the part of the recipient: The sight of this Deserves a kiss. The warmth of reciprocated love is thus asserted: In thee a flame In me the same. Another lover wishes to proclaim that his love will rise superior to all offenses: No bitter smart Can change my heart. A more serious and trusting posy runs: To me till death As dear as breath. A ring mentioned in an old English record dating from 1473, offers apparently an early example of a so-called “posy” ring. It is here termed a “hope rynge with scrytorio” (inscription); this, together with a brooch adorned with the figure of a “jyntylle woman,” was pledged with a certain Richard Walker to secure a small loan of £4 8d.[394] A good example of a “ring posie” is given by Ben Jonson in his play “The Magnetic Lady, or Humours Reconciled,” first licensed for performance in 1632, during the reign of Charles I, and but five years before Jonson’s death. Here, when bride and groom come before the parson to be wedded, he asks the bridegroom: Have you a wedding ring? To which the latter replies: Ay, and a posie: Annulus hic nobis, quod sic uterque, dabit. This the parson quickly renders as follows: This ring will give you what you both desire; I’ll make the whole house shout it, and the parish. On other pages a number of characteristic and striking ring-inscriptions are given, but in view of the wide range of these “posies” (poesies) and mottoes, a fairly full list of them, compiled from various sources, may be of interest here.[395] The French mottoes are nearly all in Old French, and the English spellings of those of the seventeenth century are delightfully irregular. [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF YOUNG WOMAN. DUTCH SCHOOL Large rings on little finders of right and left hands; large ring on third joint of left-hand fourth finger, and smaller one on second joint of the same finger; plain gold ring (wedding ring?) on fourth finger of left hand Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A MAN, BY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS THE “MASTER OF THE DEATH OF MARY,” FROM HIS MOST NOTED PICTURE Rings on index and little fingers of right hand Königliche Gemälde-Galerie, Cassel] Till death divide. _Nemo nisi mors._ (No one but Death). _Tout pour bein feyre._ (All to do well). _In bone fay._ (In good faith). _Sans mal desyr._ (Without evil wish). _Amor vincit om._ (Love conquers all things). Till my life’s end. _Erunt duo in carne una._ (They shall be two in one flesh). _Semper amemus._ (May we love forever). In Christ and thee my comfort be. _Honeur et joye._ (Honor and joy). Let reason rule affection. God continue to love us. _Mon cur avez._ (You have my heart). _Deux corps ung cuer._ (Two bodies and one heart). _Amour et constance._ (Love and constancy). God unite our hearts aright. Knit in one by Christ alone. God’s providence is our inheritance. Our contract was heaven’s act. In thee, my choice, do I rejoice. God above increase our love. My heart and I, until I dye. Not two, but one, till life be gone. When this you see, remember me. Julia is mine own peculiar. I cannot show the love I O. We strangely met, and so do many, But now as true as ever any. 1658. As we begun, so let’s continue. My beloved is mine, and I am hers. True blue will never stain. 1653. Against thou goest, I will provide another. 1658. In loving thee, I love myself. 1658. Let him never take a wife, That will not love her as his life. A heart content cannot repent. I do not repent I gave consent. No gift can show the love I owe. What the heart saw the love hath chosen. Love one little, but love one long. Love him who gave thee this ring of gold, ’Tis he must kiss thee when thou art old. This circle, though but small about, The devil, jealousy, will keep out. If I think my wife is fair, What need other people care? 1653. God’s appointment is my contentment. Love, I like thee; sweet, requite me. With heart and hand at your command. My heart in silence speaks to thee, Though absence barrs tongue’s liberty. Faithful ever: deceitful never. I like, I love as turtle dove. As gold is pure, so love is sure. Despise not mee: y^t joyes in thee. If you deny, then sure I dye. Your right is my delight. As true, bee just. No better smart shall change my heart. This ring is a token I give to thee, That thou no tokens do change for me. My dearest Betty is good and pretty. 1658. I did commit no act of folly, When I married my sweet Molly. 1658. ’Tis fit no man should be alone, Which made Tom to marry Joan. 1658. Sue is bonny, blythe, and brown; This ring hath made her now my own. 1658. Like Phillis there is none: She truly loves her Choridon. 1658. My life is done when thou art gone. 1653. This hath no end, my sweetest friend: Our loves be so, no ending know. God send her me my wife to be. As God decreed so we agreed. Take hand and heart, I’ll ne’er depart. Love and dye in constancy. A virtuous wife that serveth life. As long as life y^r loving wife. I will be yours while breath endures. Love is sure where faith is pure. A virtuous wife doth banish strife. God did forsee we should agree. Love me, and be happy. None can prevent the Lord’s intent. Virtue surpasses riches. Let virtue rest within thy breast. Time lesseneth not my love. Joye without end. Let lykinge last. This and giver are thine for ever. Think on mee. Let love increase. Thou art my star, be not irregular. 1653.[396] Without thy love I backward move. 1613. Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight. 1653. This intimates true lovers’ states. 1653. Thou wert not handsome, wise, but rich; ’Twas that which did my eyes bewitch. 1658.[397] As we begun, so let’s continue. 1658. What the eye saw the heart hath chosen. 1658. More faithful than fortunate. 1658. Constancy and heaven are round, And in this the emblem’s found. As God hath knit our hearts in one, Let nothing part but death alone. God our love continue ever, That we in heaven may live together. Weare me out, love shall not waste, Love beyond lyvie still is placed. Weare this text, and when you looke Uppon your finger, sweare by th’ booke. There is no other, and I am he, That loves no other, and thou art she. Eye doth find, heart doth choose, Faith doth bind, death doth loose. As God hath made my chyce in thee, So move thy heart to comfort me. God y^t hath kept thy heart for mee, Grant that our love may faithful bee. Fear ye the Lord then rest content, So shall we live and not repent. Divinely knit by grace are wee, Late two, now one, ye pledge here see. 1657. Breake not thy vow to please the eye, But keepe thy love, so live and dye. Love thy chast wife beyond thy life. 1601. I love the rod and thee and God. 1646. Pray to love; love to pray. 1649. More weare--more wear. 1652. Endless as this shall be our bliss. 1719. Be truly wise lest death surprise. Live in love and fear the Lord. Godly love will not remove. United hearts death only partes. You and I will lovers die. We joyn our love in Christ above. God gives increase to love and peace. God did decree our unitie. Heart content cannot repent. Live, love, and be happie. Noe heart more true than mine to you. In thee I find content of mind. A blessing we do hope to see. In love divine we love to joine. Hearts united live contented. In love and joy I will live and die. In thy breast my heart shall rest. The love is true that I.O.U. My love is fixed I will not range. I like my choice too well to change. This is the thing I wish to win. My promise past shall ever last. Well projected if accepted. God thought fit this knott to knitt. Thy Desart hath won my heart. True love is the bond of peace. Let our contest be who loves best. Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight. Our loves be so no ending know. My pledge I prove of mutuall love. Gift and giver, your servants ever. _Lel ami avet._ (Thou hast a loyal friend). Remember Him who died for thee, And after that remember me. Take hand and heart, ile ne’er depart. Breake not thy vow to please the eye, But keepe thy love, so live and dye. I will be yours while breath endures. I am sent to salute you from a faithfull friend. This and my heart. Too light to requite. Your sight, my delight. For a kiss, take this. My heart you have and yours I crave. The want of thee is grief to mee. _Privata di te moriró._ (Deprived of thee I shall die). _Mon esprit est partout, Mon cœur est avec vous._ (My mind is everywhere, My heart is with you). Faithfull ever, deceitfull never. God’s blessing be on thee and me. Love him in heart whose joy thou art. A loving wife prolongeth life. Desire hath set my heart on fire. Both or neither, chuse you whether. Parting is vayne when love doth remayne. I fancy none but thee alone. God sent her me my wife to be. This is your will, to save or kill. If you deny, then sure I dye. Your sight, my delight. Joyfull love this ring do prove. In thee I prove the joy of love. Silence ends strife with man and wife. This ring doth binde body and minde. Death never parts such loving hearts. Body and mind in thee I finde. Ryches be unstable And beauty will dekay, But faithful love will ever last Till death dryve it away. One of those posies might seem to refer covertly to the length of the foregoing list: This hath no end, my sweetest friend. 1653. [Illustration: SOME RINGS IN THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON 1, silver and gilt; pierced with scrolls and the “Little Monk” of Munich. Modern. Bavarian. 2, Tyrolese. Peasant’s engagement ring of silver with design of two hearts and scrolls. 3, French (?). Said to have belonged to a collateral branch of the Montmorency family. Gold, large garnet with emerald each side; the crown composed of pearls and small diamonds. Bought in London. 4, Chinese ornament. 5, heavy silver, set with malachite. 6, Chinese ornament. 7, Italian (?). Peasant’s engagement ring of silver. 8, Italian. Gold, set with a turquoise, a horse’s head in white enamel at either side. 9, Tyrolese. Silver, set with a chamois tooth for good luck. 10, French. Bishop’s ring of gold and silver. Enameled bezel set with an almandine and diamonds. Bought in Geneva. 11, Italian. Sixteenth Century style. Gold set with a garnet. 12, Italian (?). Silver, set with a large crystal (?). Black and white enamel on bezel. 13, Italian. Gold, set with a cluster of red and green stones alternating; a crystal in the centre. 14, gilt, set with red glass (?). 15, bronze, decoration in relief. 16, Italian. Gold set with turquoises. 17, French (?). Gold, set with a brilliant. 18, Laplandish. Silver-gilt with pierced design.] [Illustration: JACQUES GUAY, COURT GEM ENGRAVER OF LOUIS XV, ENGRAVING GEMS IN HIS WORKROOM AT THE LOUVRE Mariette, “Traité des Pierres Gravées,” Paris, 1750] The sacred and peculiar quality of a ring that has been given to a man by his wife as a memorial of marriage is expressed in strong terms in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (Act v, sc. 1). One of these rings was given by Nerissa to Gratiano, the other by Portia to Bassanio. When Gratiano is charged with having parted with his ring, he defends himself by making light of it but is rebuked for this by Nerissa. The verses run as follows: Gratiano: ... a hoop of gold, a paltry ring That she did give me, whose posy was For all the world like cutler’s poetry Upon a knife, “Love me, and leave me not.” Nerissa: What talk you of the posy or the value? You swore to me, when I did give it you, That you would wear it till your hour of death, And that it should be with you in your grave. Portia, joining in Nerissa’s feigned rebuke, says: You are to blame, I must be plain with you, To part so lightly with your wife’s first gift; A thing stuck on with oaths upon your finger And so riveted with faith unto your flesh. I gave my love a ring and made him swear Never to part with it; and here he stands; I dare be sworn for him he would not leave it, Nor pluck it from his finger, for the wealth That the world masters. Bassanio, however, is forced to confess that he, too, has relinquished his ring. Of course, as all readers of Shakespeare know, both Portia and Nerissa have these rings in their own possession, since they themselves were, in disguise, the judge and the clerk to whom Bassanio and Gratiano unwillingly yielded them. While the finger-ring was known to the Chinese from a very early period, it never seems to have enjoyed great favor with them. According to primitive court etiquette in that land, the Emperor’s “leading lady”--for the time being--had to wear a silver ring at court. In case she presented her sovereign with a descendant, she was rewarded by the gift of a gold ring, which she wore on one of the fingers of her left hand. About the mid-period of the Han dynasty (206 B.C.-221 A.D.) nephrite (jade) rings were known as well as those with stone setting but they were only rarely used as ornaments.[398] VI THE RELIGIOUS USE OF RINGS The adornment of rings with religious emblems, and their use as insignia of office for the higher ecclesiastics and for the priests of the ancient ethnic religions will be considered in the present chapter. Of special interest are the rings used by Roman Catholic popes, cardinals and bishops, the usage in this direction having varied considerably in the different periods. With regard to the engravings on many ancient rings it may often be difficult, however, to know whether a religious symbol, or the conventional figure of a divinity, has been used in a strictly religious sense, or merely for ornamental purposes. The employment of rings as religious symbols is often bound up with their use in some other way, as in the case of many seal rings for instance. This was undoubtedly the case with a large number of the ancient rings noted in earlier chapters. Here we have endeavored to group together those which were more exclusively religious in their character, the ecclesiastical rings, especially those worn by Roman Catholic popes, cardinals and bishops, constituting of course a large part of these. A very few examples will serve as brief illustrations of the religious use of rings in pagan times. There is in the Louvre, among the Egyptian antiquities, a gold ring engraved with figures of two horses. The symbol of the Sun-God which it bears is believed to signify the gratitude of Rameses II--to whom this ring is attributed--for the aid of the divinity in securing the king’s victory over the Khetas in one of his Asiatic campaigns. Unquestionably many of the engraved scarabs set in Egyptian rings had a specifically religious significance, and the same is true of the engravings on the chatons of gold rings, as, for example, in the case of that worn by the priest in charge of the Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu). Some of these have already been described in the chapter on signets, the essential use of these rings being for sealing. In many other cases the presence of a divine name as a component of the royal name, or in a royal title, probably had not much more of a distinctly religious meaning than the “Dei Gratia” on the coins of European rulers. The rings worn by the high priests of Jupiter (flamines Diales), who had, ex-officio, the rank of senators, were made hollow and of openwork. This particular form is said to have been chosen for mystic and symbolic reasons, as showing that everything indicating hardness or severity, the restriction of liberty, or arduous labor, was to be held aloof from this flamen, who, with those of Mars and Quirinus (Romulus), belonged to the group of greater priests selected from the patrician order.[399] The conjecture that we should seek here the origin of Christian episcopal rings is very far-fetched, the general symbolism of the ring as an emblem of eternity, and its bestowal as a mark of rank, having been probably sufficient determining factors. No one, man or woman, was permitted to enter the sanctuary of the “Mistress” at Lycosura, wearing a ring on any finger; only rings destined for dedication might be brought into the temple.[400] This is attested by an inscription from the second century B.C.; the regulation must, however, date from an earlier period. The same prohibition as to wearing rings was decreed in the case of all those who wished to seek for enlightenment from the oracle of Faunus, and the petitioners were also required to abstain from meat and to preserve their chastity. The ring was supposed to interfere with the freedom of the spirit to receive the divine grace or counsel.[401] Of rings apparently dedicated to some deity, the rich British Museum collection has several examples. A bronze ring, having a thin rounded hoop, to the ends of which a transverse oval plate has been soldered, bears an inscription in Greek letters signifying “Great is the name of Serapis”; this ring is late Roman, from a time when the worship of Serapis was wide-spread in the Roman world. An octagonal ring of solid gold may have been dedicated to Apollo, as it is engraved with the name of this divinity; the two sides of the octagon flanking the central one bear, respectively, engravings of a crescent and of a star. An inscription found in Delos records several rings dedicated to the Delian temple by Stratonice, wife of Seleucos I, Nicator (365–281 B.C.). One of these was a gold ring, set with a sard on which was engraved the image of Apollo, the temple god; a gold ring dedicated to both Apollo and Artemis, and having the image of a Victory; and another gold ring, set with a stone on which was engraved an inscription signifying that it was dedicated by Queen Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius, to the Artemis of Delos.[402] In a list of jewels dedicated to Isis, engraved on the base of an ancient statue of that goddess at Alicante, Spain, four rings are noted. Two of them had emerald settings, while the other two, placed on the little finger of the statue, were set with diamonds. This inscription contains the name of the donor, Fabia Fabiana, and the statement that the gift was made on behalf of her granddaughter Avita. The statue has disappeared, but the inscription still calls to mind the honor it received in long past time and the brilliancy of the jewel decoration, for beside the rings, a pearl and emerald earring was inserted in either ear; about the neck was a necklace of four rows of emeralds and pearls; two circlets composed of eleven beryls and two emeralds clasped the ankles, and two bracelets set with eight emeralds and eight pearls spanned the wrists.[403] There does not appear to have been any “Rabbi’s Ring” worn as an insignia of office, although many rabbis owned and wore engraved rings, perhaps using them as signets. Of this class may be an old ring referred to the time of Judah Hanasi (175–247 A.D.), now in the Albertinus Home in Dresden, Saxony. It is set with an amethyst on which has been engraved the seven-branched candlestick, one of the adornments of the Temple and figured on the Arch of Titus, in Rome, as among the treasures borne off by the victorious Romans after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Rabbi Judah ben Ezekiel (220–299 A.D.) had a ring showing the figure of a man’s head. The design on a ring of Rabba bar Rabbi Huna (ca. 300 A.D.) depicted a palm, while on a fifth century ring worn by another Rabbi Judah Hanasi was engraved the figure of a fish.[404] The following principal symbolic or typical designs have been observed upon early Christian rings:[405] The lyre, rare. A ship, denoting the life-voyage of the Christian to the port of salvation. An anchor, emblem of constancy and of hope. A dove, symbolical of innocence and typical of the Holy Spirit. Alpha and Omega, the Greek characters, first and last of the alphabet. Symbol of Christ, as in Rev. i, 8: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord.” The Monogram of Christ formed of the first two Greek letters of the name Christos, the so-called Chrisma combining the X (Ch) and the P (r). The Good Shepherd, with the lost sheep on his shoulder. Scenes from the life of Christ. Episodes of the story of Jonah, as Jesus cited this story when speaking of the Resurrection. Daniel in the Lion’s Den, a triumph of faith which must have appealed strongly to the Christians in time of persecution, when those of the faith were often given as prey to wild beasts. Elijah borne to heaven, probably typical of the resurrection. Orpheus playing on the lyre. This pagan design was given a Christian meaning, mainly because of certain spurious Orphic poems foreshadowing the birth of Christ. Fall of Adam and Eve. Here the meaning is quite obvious: “As in Adam all died so in Christ shall all be made alive,” as the apostle Paul wrote. The Ark of Noah; God’s promise to save mankind. A lion, evidently signifying the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, applied to Christ. A lamb, typical of Christ and of Christians. In the Gospel of John, ii, 36, John the Baptist exclaimed on seeing Jesus: “Behold the Lamb of God.” A hare. This may denote the dangers which so often menaced the early Christians, who had to be constantly apprehensive, as a hare is of the hunters. A phœnix; naturally figuring the Resurrection. A peacock. This has a similar meaning, for the peacock, Juno’s bird, had been used by the Romans as an emblem of the apotheosis of an empress. A cock, as awakener of grace, and typical of the awakening of mankind to the true faith. A serpent. This may seem strange as a Christian symbol, but it denotes foresight, and recalls the Gospel monition, “Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” A Christian gem evidences this interpretation, for on either side of the serpent is figured a dove. The vine; suggested by the words of Christ: “I am the vine and ye are the branches.” A blade of wheat. The harvest of souls? The symbolic design of a ship traversing the sea was used in early Christian funeral sculptures, and also in pagan Rome, to denote the course of life. For the Christians the tempest-tossed vessel of life found its port and resting place in death. This idea is rudely figured in a design on a sepulchral stone, in memory of a certain Firmia Victoria, from one of the early Christian cemeteries of Rome. On it appears a ship riding the waves, and in the background a four-storied tower from which rises a flame, the lighthouse marking the final port toward which the vessel bends its course.[406] Of the few designs engraved upon Græco-Roman rings which were permitted to the early Christians, the dove, as has been noted, symbolized the Holy Spirit; a fish became a Christian symbol because the Greek word for fish (_ichthus_) gave the initial letters of Iesus Christos, Theou huios, Soter (Jesus Christ, The Son of God, the Saviour). An anchor, or the representation of a fisherman, recalls to mind the Fisherman’s Ring of the Roman pontiff. The fish symbol appears on an engraved Gnostic gem bearing the head of Christ surrounded with the Greek letters of his name. This offers one of the types current in the third and fourth Christian centuries. We have the testimony of St. Augustine that the diversity of types in his time was very great, and that no record remained of what Christ’s physical appearance really was.[407] The oldest portrait is believed to be that on the ceiling of a chapel in the cemetery of St. Calixtus at Rome, and the type presented here is that which has persisted essentially to the present day. The ring of the Christian martyr Saturus was a precious memorial of his death for the faith. When he had already received his death-blow, he took off his ring and moistening it with the blood that was flowing from his wound, handed it to the Roman soldier, Pudeus, who was present at his death, but was a secret convert to the Christian faith, charging the soldier to guard it as a heritage and a reminder that true faith was rather confirmed than weakened by the martyr’s death.[408] A tender and beautiful allusion to a religious ring is contained in the account of the life and death of St. Marcina the Younger (ca. 330–379 A.D.), by her brother St. Gregory Nyassa. When, after the death of this pious daughter of Basil the Great, her body was being prepared for burial, there was found, suspended by a cord from her neck and resting just over her heart, an iron ring. On its chaton was engraved a cross, and in a hollow space beneath was secreted a small fragment of the True Cross. This ring the brother removed, declaring that it should be his precious heritage, the more sacred that it recalled the cross of Christ, not only by its engraved design, but still more by the priceless memento placed beneath this.[409] An antique ivory ring found at Arles in France bears inscriptions denoting that it had been designed for use as a Gnostic amulet, and illustrating the peculiar eclecticism of Gnostic belief. The monogram of Christ appears here between the two Greek letters Α and Ω, symbolizing the beginning and the end[410]; added to this is the name ABRAΣAX (Abrasax, Abraxas), the favorite designation of the Creative Energy among the Gnostics.[411] A Christian talismanic ring in the British Museum is set with a red jasper upon which is engraved, in Greek characters: IHCOYC OEOY YIOC THPE, “Jesus son of God, preserve (me).”[412] To jasper at all times has been accorded a high rank among talismanic stones, more especially to the green and red varieties, the latter being particularly favored where protection was sought against death from wounds or hemorrhage. Oriental Christian rings include many unusual types. The British Museum has one of gold, with engraved and nielloed ornament; on the flat octagonal hoop is depicted the Annunciation, in the rigid, hieratic style of Byzantine art. The Virgin is seated on a high-backed chair; before her stands the archangel Gabriel. The hoop bears as inscription the first words of the angel’s greeting, in Greek characters Χἄιρε κεχαριτωμένη ό Κύριος μετἀ σὸυ (Luke i, 28: “Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.”). This ring is believed to belong to the seventh century A.D., and is a very characteristic example of the type.[413] Three Merovingian rings found in August, 1885, on the skeleton finger of a woman, at Aigusy, dept. Aisne, offer proof that in this period many rings were sometimes worn on a single finger. The upper and lower are plain silver rings, but the central one, of bronze, has a circular bezel on which is engraved a cross, with, at its angles, the nails of the Passion. Another ring, from the same locality, with a cross of simpler form engraved on the chaton was found attached to a chain. Both ring and chain are of bronze, the ring, presumably a signet, having been worn suspended by the owner, instead of on the hand. A silver ring from the same French department, bears the Latin inscription V I V A S, and in six compartments the following symbolic figures: a dove holding a branch; a lamb, above which is a star; an upright palm; a stag; a fantastic animal figure, and a hare. These symbols, most of which are characteristically Christian, and the Latin invocation “mayst thou live,” _vivas_, usually followed by the words “in Deo” (in God), point clearly to the religious faith of the owner of the ring. It is true that the presence of a gold solidus of Valentinian II (375–392) in the mouth of the deceased person, as “Charon’s toll,” might be thought to indicate that we had here to do with a pagan, were it not well known that this custom was maintained to some extent after the decisive triumph of Christianity.[414] According to Mercato a toadstone set in a silver ring was preserved in the Monastery of Saint Anne in Rome. The popular belief was that this ring had belonged to the Virgin Mary, and it was considered to be a cure for fistulas, if the stone were rubbed around them twelve times.[415] The ring known as the betrothal ring of the Virgin Mary, now in the cathedral of Perugia, has had a long and eventful history. The following details are taken from a monograph written by Abbot Adamo Rossi. According to the legend, this ring was given by Mary to St. John, the “beloved disciple,” and was taken by him to Rome in 95 A.D. Here it seems to have come into the possession of the Romans, and about 275 A.D. it was in the hands of Mostiola, a cousin of Marcus Aurelius Claudius, and a convert to Christianity. In the reign of Aurelian began what was known as the eighth persecution of the Christians, and Mostiola was obliged to flee from Rome. She sought refuge in Clusium, the ancient capital of the Etruscans, the Chuisi of a later time, but she was seized by the Roman authorities and died a martyr’s death. In the eighth century a church was erected at the spot where she was buried and the ring was guarded therein as a precious relic. About the middle of the thirteenth century this ring was transferred, for greater security, from the Church of St. Mostiola, which lay outside the city, to the cathedral, where it was seen, April 17, 1355, by Emperor Charles IV, on his return from his coronation. In 1420, by order of the bishop, the ring was taken to the Church of St. Francesco. There was a belief that a mysterious virtue emanated from it which acted miraculously upon the sight of those who gazed upon it. Learning of this, Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan, who suffered from a disease of the eye, requested, in 1445, that the ring might be brought to him. Although Pope Eugene IV supported his request, the historian inclines to the belief that nothing came of the matter, _for the Duke became completely blind a year later_. Among the Franciscan friars who had the care of the ring was a certain “Fra Vinterio” (Winter), called “the German,” from the land of his birth. Possibly because he was a foreigner, he became an object of dislike, and upon the occurrence of a robbery of some articles of value, his fellow monks eagerly seized upon the occasion to fix the guilt upon the unfortunate Winter. He was cast into prison and subjected to the most cruel tortures, but as no avowal could be wrung from him, he was finally released and resumed his life in the community. However, although outwardly calm, the cruelties to which he had been subjected burned into his soul, and aroused thoughts of vengeance. He could think of but one way to punish his tormentors effectively, and that was by taking away the precious ring. If this were lost, the Chiusans would place the blame upon its careless guardians and would perhaps drive them from the city. Winter succeeded in taking wax impressions of the keys of the chamber where the ring was kept and of the case wherein it lay. He had duplicate keys made from these impressions, and, on the night of July 23, 1473, he secured possession of the ring. Of course he was no longer safe in Chiusi and he made all haste to Perugia, where he determined to rid himself of his treasure and curry favor with the Perugians by conferring it upon them. His offer was accepted without hesitation, and when the Chiusans energetically demanded the return of the ring, the Perugians refused compliance. The matter was brought before the Roman court and was the subject of prolonged controversy. For a time it seemed as though resort would be had to arms, but finally, in 1486, a decision was reached to the effect that the ring should remain in Perugia. Here it has been preserved ever since, and many wonderful stories are told of its miraculous virtue. In seasons of prolonged drought and also when the land was deluged by superabundant rains, the betrothal ring of the Virgin was solemnly borne from the chapel of St. Joseph, where it was kept, to the high altar, and the result was always fortunate. Whatever may be thought of the credibility of the legend, there can be no question that this ring is one of the most highly prized relics. It is of chalcedony, and its form seems to indicate that it was at one time set with a precious stone. On only four days in the year, March 19, the second Sunday in July, July 30, and August 2, can this unique ring be seen by the public. The betrothal ring of the Virgin is in the Capella del Santo Anello, in the left aisle of the Cathedral, where the celebrated painting by Perugino, the Spozalizio, now at Caen in Normandy, was preserved until 1797, when it was taken off by the French invaders. The ornate tabernaculum was executed by the goldsmith Cesarino del Roscetto in 1519. The espousal ring of St. Anne, mother of the Virgin Mary, was preserved in the monastery of St. Sylvester, at Rome. It is of unwrought silver, with a clear crystal set in the middle, surrounded by black spots and opaque at the back, so that it reflects images, just as does a mirror. On the festival of the betrothal of St. Anne, the eyes of those whose sight was weak were touched with the ring.[416] The curative results of this application were doubtless all that could be desired, more especially as weak sight is often caused by nervous depression, or nervous derangements. The body of St. Caius, martyred in 296 A.D., was exhumed from the Cemetery of Calixtus, in Rome, on the anniversary of the sainted pope’s birth, April 21, 1622, in the reign of Pope Gregory XV. Within the sepulchre were found three coins of Diocletian, in whose reign St. Caius (283–296 A.D.) received the papal crown, and also the pope’s ring, probably his signet, although no exact description of it has reached us.[417] In the succeeding century there is notice of another ecclesiastical signet-ring, for in a letter of St. Augustine (354–430) to Victorinus, the Church Father concludes with the words: “I have sent this epistle sealed with a ring which shows the profile-head of a man.”[418] As in the case of all the very early bishops’ rings, this one of St. Augustine was merely his personal signet and had no direct connection with his sacred office. A massive ring of Pope Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, 1457–1464) has on the sides of the hoop the coats-of-arms of the Piccolomini and Tiara families; below the bezel are figures symbolical of the Four Evangelists. This interesting papal ring is in the collection of Dr. Albert Figdor, Vienna.[419] The “Fisherman’s Ring,” or Annulus Piscatoris, is the gold seal ring of the pope, a new one being made for each successive pontiff. As testified to by early records, the custom of breaking the ring on the death of a pope has long obtained. After the attending physicians have pronounced him to be dead, the Cardinal Camerlengo, or Papal Chamberlain, approaches the body, and taps it thrice with a golden hammer, each time calling on the pope by name. The ring is then handed by him to the papal master of ceremonies, who breaks it; he is permitted, or perhaps required, to keep the fragments. The design on the seal depicts St. Peter seated in a bark and holding a net in each hand, the name of the reigning pope being inscribed above. The ring takes its name from the words of Christ to Peter, after the latter made the miraculous draught of fishes (Luke, v, 10): “From henceforth thou shalt catch men.” In Mark i, 17, a similar announcement is made to both Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew: “Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.” [Illustration: FIVE VIEWS OF THE RING OF POPE PIUS II (ÆNEAS SYLVIUS PICCOLOMINI, 1457–1464) On the sides of the hoop are the coats-of-arms of the Piccolomini and Tiara families, and below the bezel are figures symbolical of the Four Evangelists Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: “Ring of the fisherman” Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Hand of “Judith” from picture by Lucas Cranach: Rings beneath glove-fingers slit to give them room] [Illustration: Impression of the Annulus Piscatoris (Ring of the Fisherman) of Pope Clement VIII (1592–1605) Archæologia, vol. xl, p. 140] The ring is broken to prevent the sealing of any pontifical document during the vacancy of the papal see. When the army of the French Republic occupied Rome in 1798, the Republican emissary Haller, after informing Pius VI that he would be taken from Rome, demanded all his papal rings. After surrendering the others, the pope pleaded that he might be allowed to keep the Fisherman’s Ring, but as the Frenchman sternly insisted that this also must be given up, the pope reluctantly yielded. However, when on examination, the ring was found to be of small value, it was restored to the pontiff. The earliest existing mention of the Fisherman’s Ring seems to be in a letter addressed by Pope Clement IV, in 1265, to his nephew Pietro Grossi of St. Gilles, in which he states that in addressing members of his family he used the Sigillum Piscatoris, the _private_ seal of the popes.[420] It was not until the fifteenth century that this originally private seal came to be generally used for the papal Briefs. An impression of the Fisherman’s Ring of Clement VIII made in 1598, in the sixth year of the pope’s reign, is surrounded with a bit of twisted vellum. A comparison of this seal with the one used by Pius IX, shows the modifications of the established design due to the preferences of the engravers of successive rings. The ring of Pius IX was of plain gold, weighing about an ounce and a half, the design was engraved on an oval plate. It is said to have been made out of the gold constituting the Fisherman’s Ring of his predecessor, Gregory XVI.[421] It is thought probable that the custom of breaking the Fisherman’s Ring on the demise of a pope was first instituted at the death of Leo X in 1521. The papal engravers are believed to have kept a new ring ready in case of sudden need, leaving a blank space for the new pope’s name. When his election has been confirmed, the Cardinal Camerlengo places the ring on his hand, asking him at the same time by what name he elects to be called. The ring is then removed and given to the engraver for the addition of this name. In later times it has been kept permanently in the guardianship of the Cardinal Chamberlain, and has not been generally used for stamping documents, an iron die of like design being employed for this purpose. In at least one instance this ring was not destroyed at a pope’s death. When Pius VI expired at Valence, Aug. 29, 1799, his Fisherman’s Ring was left unbroken and, with a new inscription, served for his successor, Pius VII. When this latter pope fell into disgrace with Napoleon in 1809, because he refused to nullify the marriage of Jerome, Napoleon’s brother, to Miss Patterson, he was carried off from Rome to France, and obliged to surrender his Annulus Piscatoris to General Radet. Before relinquishing it, however, he took the precaution of having it cut down the middle. Later when he was restored to the Roman See, a substitute ring was made, as the original, given back by Louis XVIII after Napoleon’s downfall, could no longer be used because of its mutilation.[422] Besides the Fisherman’s Ring, the popes now have two others, the papal ring which they habitually wear, and the pontifical ring, which is only assumed for the pontifical ceremonies. The pontifical ring of Pius IX was worth more than $6,000. It is of gold, of remarkably fine workmanship, and is set with a magnificent oblong brilliant. This ring could be made smaller or larger at will, so that it might serve for future popes.[423] By a special privilege the ring ordinarily worn by a pope may bear a cameo, that usually worn by Pius IX showed an image of the Virgin Mary. The Fisherman’s Ring is but rarely worn. When after a pope’s death, the ring has been broken, as we have noted, a cheap facsimile, or the broken ring, is sometimes buried with the pope.[424] Of the three main classes of ecclesiastical rings, the pontifical ring with its single precious stone, worn over a glove and exclusively at pontifical ceremonies, is so large that its stone setting covers the first phalanx of the fourth finger of the right hand, on which it is worn. The “gemmed ring,” a mark of distinction, may have but one stone, or a central stone surrounded by brilliants, just as the regulations provide. A third class of ecclesiastical rings are those of plain gold, commonly with a smooth chaton; sometimes, however, this may be engraved with armorial bearings, so that the ring can be used as a signet. In Rome those who have received the degree of doctor of divinity have the word ~ROMA~ engraved upon the chaton of the ring.[425] One of the earliest notices of a bishop’s ring, not however in the strictly ecclesiastical sense, but of one worn by a bishop, is given in a letter written by St. Avit, Archbishop of Vienne (494–525), to his colleague, Apollinaris, Bishop of Valencia (ca. 520): “The ring you have been kind enough to offer me should be made as follows: In the middle of a very thin iron hoop, representing two dolphins facing each other, a double seal should be set by means of two pivots, so that either side may be shown or hidden at will and in turn, and offer, alternately, to the eyes a green stone or a pale electrum. Let not this metal be as I have sometimes seen it, easily tarnished in the cleanest hands, and similar to the impure mixture of gold that has not been exposed to the fire; let it not resemble the alloy which formerly the king of the Goths introduced into his coinage, an emblem of his downfall. Let my electrum be of a medium color, having at once the tawny hue of gold and the whiteness of silver, precious by their union and enhancing the brilliant green of the emerald when it appears. Let my monogram be engraved on the seal surrounded by my name, so that it may be read. Opposite the setting, the middle of the ring shall be formed by the tails of the dolphins; to set between these an oblong stone shall be sought, pointed at the extremities.”[426] It will be noted that this was not a gold ring, but an iron one, and thus essentially different from the recognized episcopal rings. The oldest formula used at the conferring of the pontifical ring upon a bishop, is found in the Sacramental of St. Gregory, 590 A.D. and, translated into English, runs as follows: “Receive this ring of distinction and honor, a symbol of faith, that thou mayst seal what is to be sealed, and reveal what is to be revealed, and that to believers baptized into the faith, who have fallen but are penitent, thou mayst by the mystery of reconciliation open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven.” A much shorter formula is that in the Pontifical of Ecgberht, Archbishop of York; it reads: “Receive the ring of the pontifical honor that thou mayst be endowed with sound faith.” At present the following simple formula is used: “Receive the ring of faith as a sign that thou wilt guard the Bride of God, Holy Church, with undaunted faith.” A very early mention of the true episcopal rings is to be found in the writings of Isidore, Archbishop of Seville from 601 to 636 A.D.[427] He definitely states that the ring was one of the canonical insignia of the episcopate and terms it “a sign of pontifical honor, or a seal of secrets,” adding that priests must keep many secrets confided to them hidden in their breasts as though beneath a seal.[428] At about the same time a decree of Pope Boniface IV, promulgated in the third council of Rome, in 610, mentions a pontifical ring, and in the fourth council of Toledo, in December, 633, a canon treating of the restitution to his office of an unjustly deposed bishop, directs that he be given anew his stole, his ring, and his pastoral staff.[429] The liturgical kissing of a bishop’s hand usually means a kiss impressed upon the ring he is wearing at the ceremony. That in the works of Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (786–856), and in those of others of his time, no mention is made of episcopal rings of investiture, cannot be taken to prove that none were worn in this period, but only that they were not yet in general use.[430] The distinct evidence contained in the canon of the Council of Toledo, over which Isidore of Seville presided in 633, and the still earlier formula of investiture in the Sacramental of Gregory, 590 A.D., must be accepted as conclusive evidence that such rings were conferred. Until after the eleventh century, almost all the Episcopal rings were used as signets and the Sacramental of St. Gregory alludes to this use. The ring was generally worn on the index finger of the right hand, the middle of the three fingers uplifted in conferring a blessing; but, when celebrating mass, the bishop transferred it from the index finger to the annular. At the present day it is always worn on this latter finger. The removal of the ring from the index is explained by Garanti,[431] as being an act of humility, since the ring was regarded as a kind of crown upon the index, “for sages say that the ring is the crown of the hand,” and this crown should be removed in the presence of Christ. In our day bishops wear but one ring, but in old pictures and effigies they are shown wearing several, and sometimes even a thumb ring. The celebrated portrait of Leo X, by Raphael, represents the pope wearing no less than six rings, and the hands of Julius II in Raphael’s portrait are adorned with rings of equal number. [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF POPE CLEMENT IX (1667–1670) BY CARLO MARATTA Ring with square-cut, beveled stone on fourth finger of right hand Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Gift of Archer M. Huntington, Esq.] [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF POPE JULIUS II (1503–1513) BY RAFAEL Six rings, three on each hand; on index, fourth and little fingers Uffizi Palace. Florence.] While the sapphire eventually became the stone especially assigned for use in episcopal rings, the older specimens which have been preserved for us show that, in early times, many other precious stones were employed for this purpose. Indeed, the emerald, or some green stone, seems to have been given the preference at one time, if we can judge from the letter sent by Avitus, Archbishop of Vienne to Apollinaris, Bishop of Valencia. Besides rubies and emeralds, balas-rubies, turquoises, chalcedonies and even the opal were used, while pearls and garnets, also appear occasionally. Possibly the earliest known specimen of an episcopal ring is in the treasury of the cathedral of Metz. It is believed to have belonged to Arnulphus, who was consecrated Bishop of Metz in 614. This ring, which has been sometimes ascribed to the fourth century, is set with an opaque milk-white carnelian. An episcopal ring found at Oxford and now in the Waterton Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum, is a curious specimen of the adaptation of antique gems to Christian uses. The gold circlet is set with an antique plasma engraved with the bust of a female, the pagan original doing duty for some Christian saint, or perhaps for the Virgin Mary.[432] An intaglio of Jupiter-Serapis was provided by the monks of Durham with an inscription designating it to be a portrait of St. Oswald. Cameos were also used, on occasion, as we read in the enumeration of the precious stones and rings donated by Henry III to the shrine of St. Edward in Westminster Abbey,[433] the following entry: “j chamah in uno annulo pontificali.” Occasionally a stone was taken from some antique ornament and set in an episcopal ring. Of this kind is the pierced sapphire in Mr. Waterton’s collection, and probably another ring described in the Wardrobe Books of Edward I and which belonged to Robert, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who died in 1295. The old description calls this “a golden ring with a perforated ruby.”[434] The same records mention a gold ring with a sapphire, the ornament being, as was supposed, the work of St. Dunstan, who is reputed to have been a skilful worker in metals. A letter written in 867 by Charles the Bald to Pope Nicholas I, mentions a ring sent to Ebbo, Bishop of Rheims, by Judith, the mother of Charles the Bald. This ring was given by the empress at the time of the birth of her son, so that Ebbo, who had been made bishop because of his piety and sanctity, should remember the child in his prayers. In later years, whenever the good bishop was in trouble, he used to send his ring to the empress with an humble petition for aid, and the letter of Emperor Charles was written as a result of a most earnest appeal of Bishop Ebbo, after he had been deposed from his office and subjected to persecution.[435] [Illustration: Christian ring of glass. Design shows snake and doves, a cross, the Greek letters _alpha_ and _omega_ and the Latin word _Salus_. Bosio. “Roma Sotterranea,” Roma, 1650]] [Illustration: 1, Venetian ring. Bezel with engraved figure of St. Mark is hollowed to enclose relics. 2, poison ring set with a diamond and two rubies. The poison was concealed beneath the bezel. See pages 36–39 Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: Gold ring of Ahlstan, Bishop of Sherborne (824–860 A.D.) Archæological Journal, vol. xx, p. 226, 1863] [Illustration: Bishop’s ring of investiture. Bezel set with flat crystal; two views. Said to have belonged to Robert of Anjou, King of Naples (1309–1343 A.D.) British Museum] [Illustration: Lady’s memorial ring of enameled gold inscribed “_R. C. Not lost but gone before,_” in gilt letters on a white enamel ground. English, about 1800 Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: Mourning ring of gold. The head has the form of a coffin with skull and cross-bones on the lid. When this is lifted a heart is disclosed within. The hoop has two wires. On the sides of the coffin is inscribed: “_Hier ist die Ruhe_” (Here is rest). German. Eighteenth Century Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] [Illustration: Massive silver mourning ring inscribed in Old French, _dort couat_ (rest in peace). Found at Huy near Statte, Belgium. French. Fifteenth Century Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna] It is said that only one episcopal ring from Anglo-Saxon times has been preserved in England. This relic forms part of the Waterton Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum; it is of gold, nielloed, and shows the letters of the name Ahlstan. This name was borne by a Bishop of Sherborne who held the office from 824 to 867 A.D., his death occurring four years before the accession of Alfred the Great.[436] Niello is a mixture of silver, copper, lead, crude sulphur, and borax; frequently a little antimony is added. The mixture is fused and pressed into the design engraved upon a silver plate; when it has cooled off it forms a deep black, brilliant, and tough, though not hard, substance, like an enamel. The antimony on cooling, spreads slightly, thus obviating any danger of undue contraction of the alloy, which might fail to fill out the design exactly; occasionally, however, the antimony expands unequally, producing some slight irregularities of outline or surface. Sometimes the alloy is applied to the silver background of the design, instead of to the design itself, so that the latter appears white against a rich dark foundation. This variety of enamelling was already used in Roman times; in our day it is most extensively employed in Russia, where very beautiful work of the kind is done, the lines being of hair-like fineness and delicacy. In 886, at the degradation of two bishops who had been consecrated without the consent of their metropolitan, their episcopal vestments were rent, their croziers broken on their heads, and their episcopal rings rudely snatched from their fingers. Here, as in cases of military degradation, the ignominious removal of the insignia of rank served to give public emphasis to the sentence passed upon the condemned.[437] The Cathedral of Chichester has yielded a number of fine specimens of mediæval episcopal rings. Notable among these as a curiosity is one that belonged to Bishop Seffrid who died in 1151, for it is set with a Gnostic gem showing the well-known cock-headed figure generally cut to represent the divine principle the Gnostics called Abrasax (or Abraxas). This is an intaglio on jasper, and the ring was found in the bishop’s tomb. The fact that he was willing to wear it shows either that he was ignorant of its being a Gnostic, and hence an heretical design, or else that he was more than usually tolerant. Another of the Chichester rings came from the tomb of Bishop Hilary (1146–1169); it is of massive gold and is set with a sapphire. When the tomb was opened the ring was on the thumb of the skeleton. In a stone coffin on which were cut the letters Episcopus, with no personal name, there was found a ring adorned with an octagonal sapphire, on four sides of which was set a small emerald. As the sarcophagus contained a pastoral staff and remains of a vestment, this was undoubtedly an episcopal ring. It will have been remarked that of these rings two were set with sapphires, but the ring of Archbishop Sewall (d. 1258), found in his tomb in the Cathedral of York, and that from the tomb of Archbishop Greenfield (d. 1315), were each set with a ruby.[438] [Illustration: Gold ring with inscription. “Buredruth” is probably a personal name, and the Greek characters _alpha_ and _omega_ should have a religious significance. Late Saxon British Museum] [Illustration: Episcopal rings. 1, found in York Minster, tomb of Archbishop Sewall (d. 1256); 2, found in tomb of Archbishop Greenfield (d. 1315) Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: 1, Papal ring set with large crystal, Londesborough Collection; 2, ring of Bishop Stanbury of Hereford (1452–1474). Found in his tomb, 1843; two views Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: 1, silver ring, two clasped hands; inscription signifies Jesus Nazarenus Rex. 2 and 3, rosary rings, with bosses used to count the prayers recited Londesborough Collection. Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”] [Illustration: 1, gold ring set with Gnostic intaglio on jasper. Found in tomb of Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester (1125–1151); three views. 2, gold ring set with a sapphire. Found in tomb of Hilary, Bishop of Chichester (1146–1169); two views. 3, gold ring set with a sapphire and four emeralds. Found in tomb of unknown bishop Archæological Journal, vol. xx. pl. opp. p. 235; 1863] The mystic significance of the episcopal ring as typifying the union of Christ with his Church was expressed by Innocent III (1198–1216) in these words: “The ring is a sacrament of faith, by which Christ endows his spouse the Holy Church.”[439] This can be taken as confirmatory of the theory that the episcopal rings were directly derived from the betrothal rings, and were not merely attributes of ecclesiastical rank. So closely was the Bishop bound to his see, that his abandonment of it to go to another was regarded by some as equivalent to the commission of adultery. A fine example of a sapphire-set episcopal ring was found in 1844, during some alterations to the chapel of Notre Dame in the Cathedral of Troyes. Several stone coffins were discovered, among them that containing the remains of Hervée, Bishop of Troyes, consecrated in