Chapter VI: Part 6

For signet rings, antique gems continued to be those most favored until the Renaissance period, and even to a considerable extent during this period. However, the development and elaboration of the science of heraldry and the great importance accorded to the possession of armorial bearings soon induced the engraving of these upon the signets, in preference to using antique gems or copying their types. In Elizabeth’s reign and in those of her immediate successors, it is believed that scarcely a gentleman was to be found who did not own and wear a signet ring on which appeared his coat-of-arms. Those not fortunate enough to have the right to display armorial bearings, sometimes sought to make their signets individual by using as designs rebuses expressing more or less well the pronunciation of their names.[260]

Arms were sometimes blazoned on rings by enamel applied to the base of a setting; thus the arms engraved on a rock-crystal or a white sapphire, would appear with their proper hues, the colors showing through the transparent stone, and their effect being heightened by the brilliant medium. A fine example of this kind of ring is one made for Jean Sans-Peur, Duke of Burgundy (1401–1419); another is the signet ring of Mary, Queen of Scots, now in the British Museum.[261]

Bequests of signets to near relatives occur not infrequently in wills of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as for example in that of John Horton, dated 1565, wherein appears the following: “Item, I give unto my brother Anthony Horton, for a token, my golde ringe w^{th} the seale of myne armes, desirenge him to be good to my wiffe and my childringe as my trust is in him.” Besides this seal ring, the testator willed “a golde ringe w^{th} a turkes [turquoise] in it” to his “singular good Lord the Lord Eueerye,” with a plea for friendship toward his wife and children. A ring set with a diamond was bequeathed in 1427 by Elizabeth, Lady Fitzhugh to her son William.[262] This was almost certainly one of the uncut, pointed diamonds used for settings at this early time.

The signet ring of Mary Stuart is one of the chief treasures in the ring collection of the British Museum. It was made for her use after her betrothal to the French Dauphin, later, for a few months, King of France as Francis II (1543–1560), just before her marriage, as after that time the arms of France would have been combined with those of Scotland. The following description is given of this ring in the exceedingly valuable catalogue of the Franks Bequest by O. M. Dalton[263]:

316. Gold; the shoulders ornamented with flowers and leaves once enamelled; oval bezel containing a chalcedony engraved with the achievement of Mary, Queen of Scots. The shield is that of Scotland surrounded by the collar of the Thistle, with the badge, and supported by two unicorns chained and ducally gorged; the crest, on a helmet with mantlings and ensigned with a crown, is a lion sejant affronté, crowned and holding in the dexter paw a naked sword; in the sinister a sceptre, both bendwise. Legend: _In Defens_, and the letters M R. On the dexter side is a banner with the arms of Scotland; on the sinister side, another, with three bars and over all a saltire. The metals and tinctures appear through the crystal on a field of blue. Within the hoop at the back of the bezel is engraved a cipher in a circular band and surmounted by a crown, once enamelled. The cipher is formed of the Greek letter φ and M, for the names Francis and Mary.

In this example of sixteenth-century French goldsmithing, the colors of the arms have been applied beneath the crystal so that they would not be effaced in using the signet for sealing. In 1792 this ring was in the possession of Queen Charlotte, wife of George III. After her death it became the property of the Duke of York, and when his plate and jewels were sold at Christie’s, in London, March, 1827, it was bought by Mr. Richard Greene, F.S.A., and was acquired from him in 1856 by the British Museum.

A signet ring believed by many to be that of the immortal Shakespeare, was found on March 16, 1810. It was picked up on the surface of the mill-close that adjoins Stratford churchyard; the finder was the wife of a poor laborer. How lightly it was esteemed at the outset is shown by the low price at which it was acquired by Mr. R. B. Wheeler, who paid only thirty-six shillings ($9.00), considered to be the value of the fifteen pennyweights of gold in the ring. In fact, the only circumstances seeming to connect it with Shakespeare are the initials W. S., and the facts that the ring appears to be of Elizabethan workmanship and that it was found at Stratford-on-Avon, Shakespeare’s home.[264] The initial letters are bound together with a design composed of an ornamental band with tassels, so arranged as to outline a heart. A queer coincidence, if the report be true, is that a certain William Shakespeare was at work nearby when the ring was found.[265]

One of the somewhat less well-known Shakespeare portraits depicts the poet wearing a thumb ring on his left hand. This is the work of Gerald Soest, who was born twenty-one years after Shakespeare’s death; its inspiration is probably to be sought in the Chandos portrait of which it is an amplification and re-arrangement. The face, however, wholly lacks the dignity and expression of the Chandos, being exceedingly weak and commonplace. The hands give the effect of having been copied from those in some other portrait, and, of course, under all these circumstances we would scarcely be justified in assuming that Shakespeare wore a thumb ring, although he may well have done so, in view of the fact that the fashion was common enough in his time. Queen Elizabeth, even, is depicted as wearing one in Zucchero’s portrait of her at Hampton Court.[266]

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

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

Many interesting facts in regard to the history of the diamond engraved for Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, have been presented by Mr. C. Drury Fortnum, who purchased the diamond from the collection of the Duke of Brunswick in 1879.[267] In the catalogue of the Duke’s collection this stone is described as the signet of Mary, Queen of Scots, an attribution which had been current for many years; but Mr. Fortnum has shown that the initials on the diamond should be read MR, the cross-bar in the first character representing the letter H, and the whole signifying Maria Henrietta Regina.

Fortunately we have the original of the treasury order given by Charles I, under date of January 16, 1629, directing the payment of a sum of money to the engraver for his work. As this is probably the only case in which the original record of payment for engraving an historical diamond has been preserved, it is reproduced here from Mr. Fortnum’s paper in Archæologia.[268]

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

To the Trēr and Undertrēr of 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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

Large seal ring on right hand forefinger and two on left hand, one on
forefinger and one on fourth finger

Gallery at Basel, Switzerland]

A ring set with a pyramidal diamond, one of the type used by Francis I on this occasion, is shown in the Londesborough Collection. This ring, which dates from the sixteenth century and is of Italian workmanship, is known as a “tower ring,” possibly because those confined in the Tower of London were able to use such rings for writing names or verses upon the windowpanes of their prison.[292]

Still another story of diamond-point writing, probably even less well attested than the anecdote of Francis I, is that referring to Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh.[293] On the occasion of an interview with the wily queen, Sir Walter, rather distrustful of the royal encouragement accorded him, is said to have gone to a window in the royal audience chamber and written on the window-pane with his diamond ring:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK IN 1578 FOR JOHN CASIMIR, COUNT PALATINE, TO COMMEMORATE HIS ALLIANCE WITH THE DUKE OF ANJOU AGAINST THE SPANISH IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

The clasped hands signify indissoluble friendship; the palm and olive
branches, victory and peace; and the diamond, courage]

MEDAL SHOWING RING, STRUCK FOR HENRI II OF FRANCE, IN 1554, IN COMMEMORATION OF HIS CAMPAIGN TO FLANDERS

The diamond is a symbol of dauntless courage; the crowned fish probably denotes the ruler of Flanders; the palm branch and olive branch above signify the French King’s victory]

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]