Chapter ONE (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of our readers are aware that there are _name-rings_, in which the first letter attaching to each jewel employed will make a loved one’s name or a sentiment. In the formation of English rings of this kind, the terms _Regard_ and _Dearest_ are common. Thus illustrated:--R(_uby_) E(_merald_) G(_arnet_) A(_methyst_) R(_uby_) D(_iamond_).--D(_iamond_) E(_merald_) A(_methyst_) R(_uby_) E(_merald_) S(_apphire_) T(_opaz_). It is believed that this pretty notion originated (as many pretty notions do) with the French. The words which the latter generally play with, in a combination of gems, are _Souvenir_ and _Amitié_, thus: S(_aphir_ or _S_ardoine) O(_nix_ or _O_pale) U(_raine_) V(_ermeille_) E(_meraude_) N(_atralithe_) I(_ris_) R(_ubis_ or _R_ose diamant).--A(_méthiste_ or _A_igue-marine) M(_alachite_) I(_ris_) T(_urquoise_ or _T_opaze) I(_ris_) E(_meraude_).

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

A. Améthiste. Aigue-marine.
B. Brilliant. Diamant, désigniant la même pierre.
C. Chrisolithe. Carnaline. Chrisophrase.
D. Diamant.
E. Emeraude.
F. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
G. Grenat.
H. Hiacinthe.
I. Iris.
J. Jasper.
K. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
L. Lapis lazuli.
M. Malachite.
N. Natralithe.
O. Onix. Opale.
P. Perle. Peridot. Purpurine.
Q. (_Pas de pierre connue._)
R. Rubis. Rose diamant.
S. Saphir. Sardoine.
T. Turquoise. Topaze.
U. Uraine.
V. Vermeille (_espèce de grenat jaune_).
X. Xépherine.
Y. Z. (_Pas de nous connus._)

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

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

January--Garnet. Constancy and Fidelity.
February--Amethyst. Sincerity.
March--Bloodstone. Courage, presence of mind.
April--Diamond. Innocence.
May--Emerald. Success in love.
June--Agate. Health and long life.
July--Cornelian. Contented mind.
August--Sardonyx. Conjugal felicity.
September--Chrysolite. Antidote against madness.
October--Opal. Hope.
November--Topaz. Fidelity.
December--Turquoise. Prosperity.

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

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

“Here is a ring, a ring, he says,
It’s all gold but the stane;
You may tell her to come to the merry greenwood,
And ask the leave o’ nane.”

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

“Against Sir Hugh Montgomerie
So right his shaft he set,
The gray-goose-wing that was therein
In his heart blood was wet.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Though small of body, it contains
The extremes of pleasure and of pains;
Has no beginning, nor no end;
More hollow than the falsest friend.
If it entraps some headless zany,
Or, in its magic circle, any
Have entered, from its sorcery
No power on earth can set them free.
At least, all human force is vain,
Or less than many hundred men.
Though endless, yet not short, nor long;
And what though it’s so wondrous strong,
The veriest child, that’s pleased to try,
Might carry fifty such as I.”

George Herbert--“Holy Mr. Herbert,” as Isaac Walton calls him--has an enigma in which a ring appears. We must confess our inability to solve it, and leave readers to do so. It is entitled--

“HOPE.

“I gave to Hope a watch of mine; but he
An anchor gave to me.
Then an old prayer-book I did present,
And he an optic sent.
With that, I gave a phial full of tears;
But he a few green ears.
Ah, loiterer! I’ll no more, no more I’ll bring:
I did expect a ring.”

§ 24. Rings are sometimes misapplied. In the church of Loretto is the house in which some Catholics say the Virgin mother of Jesus was born, it having occupied a lane in Nazareth where Christ resided, and which, after a long flight of years, was transported by angels to Loretto. It must, as it stood in Nazareth, have resembled a mud cabin. Within it is a miraculous statue of the Virgin and child, in cedar wood. “The Bambino,” says an authoress, “holds up his hand, as if to sport a superb diamond ring on his finger, presented to him by Cardinal Antonelli; it is a single diamond, and weighs thirty grains.”[105]

§ 25. The scenes through which many rings are carried must be as remarkable as those exhibited in “The Adventures of a Guinea,” or “of a Feather.” “My Lady Rochford,” writes Horace Walpole, “desired me t’other day to give her a motto for a ruby ring, which had been given by a handsome woman of quality to a fine man; he gave it to his mistress, she to Lord *****, he to my Lady; who, I think, does not deny that it has not yet finished its travels. I excused myself for some time, on the difficulty of reducing such a history to a poesy--at last I proposed this:

‘This was given by woman to man and by man to woman.’”[106]

* * * * *

It may be well for the author to so far take the part of a jeweller, as to sort his Rings before he exhibits them.

We propose to speak of:

1.--_Rings connected with power._

2.--_Rings having supposed charms and virtues, or connected with
degradation and slavery, or used for sad and wicked purposes._

3.--_Rings coupled with remarkable historical characters or
circumstances._

4.--_Rings of love, affection and friendship._