METHODS OF WEARING

A striking illustration of the large number of rings that some of the noblewomen of ancient Egypt wore on their fingers is given by the crossed hands of the wooden image on a mummy case in the British Museum. The left hand is given a decided preference in this respect over the right, there being no less than nine rings on the former against but three on the latter. These left-hand rings comprise one thumb-ring (the signet), three for the index, two for the middle finger, two for the “ring-finger,” and one for the little finger. The thumb of the right hand bears a ring and two are on the middle finger.

In the tomb of a king of the Chersonesus, discovered at Nicopolis in the Crimea, two rings were on the king’s hand and ten on that of the queen. The style of workmanship indicated that these rings were productions of the Greek art of the fourth century B.C.,[89] a period when in the Greek world rings were usually worn more sparingly, in contrast with the fashion that prevailed during the latter part of the first Christian century in Rome.

The fine Egyptian collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City offers an illustration of Egyptian ring wearing at the beginning of our era. This appears in the mummy-case of Artemidora, daughter of Harpocradorus, who died in her twenty-seventh year. The wooden case figures the form of the deceased woman. The index, fourth and little fingers of the left hand, each bear a ring; the fingers of the right hand have been broken off. The hands are of stucco and the rings are gilded.

In the Golden Age of Greek gem-engraving, from about 480 B.C. to 400 B.C., the scarab, never used by the Greeks of Asia Minor, came into general disuse in the Greek world, and a type of ring-stone appeared, destined to become very popular. In these the engraving was often done on the convex side of a scaraboid form, the convexity having been much flattened out, while with the true scarab the flat underside bore the engraved design or characters. Occasionally ring-stones had been originally pierced for suspension. The flattened scaraboid marked a transition to the flat ring-stones; but few, if any, examples of these antedate the beginning of the fourth century B.C.

One of the theories given by Macrobius to explain the wearing of rings on the fourth finger, attributes this usage to the desire to guard the precious setting of the ring from injury. He states that rings were first worn, not for ornament, but for use as signets, and in the beginning were made exclusively of metal. However, with the increase of wealth and luxury, precious stones were engraved and set in the metal ring, and it became necessary to place such a ring on the best-protected finger. The thumbs were most constantly used; the index was too exposed; the third finger was too long, and the little finger too small, while the right hand was much more frequently used than the left hand. Hence the choice fell upon the fourth finger of the left hand as the best fitted to receive a precious ring.[90] Pliny declares that while at first, in the Roman world, the ring was worn on the fourth finger, as was shown in the statues of the old kings Numa Pompilius and Servius Tullius, it was later on shifted to the index and finally to the little finger,[91] this being in accord with our modern custom, for men’s seal-rings especially.

UPPER PART OF THE MUMMY CASE OF ARTEMIDORA, DAUGHTER OF HARPOCRADORUS (ABOUT 100 A. D.

She died at the age of twenty-seven. On the fingers of the left hand there are three rings; the fingers of the right hand are broken off. The rings (which are gilded) as well as the hands themselves are modeled in relief in stucco

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.

SKETCH KINDLY MADE FOR THE AUTHOR BY SIR CHARLES HERCULES READ

Curator of the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities and Ethnography in the British Museum, with his autograph description

Isidore of Seville, in his brief chapters on rings, cites the words spoken by Gracchus against Mænius, before the Roman Senate, as a proof that the wearing of many rings was then considered to be unworthy of a man. The speaker calls upon his hearers to “look upon the left hand of this man to whose authority we bow, but who with a woman’s vanity, is adorned like a woman.” The Bishop of Seville also adduces the declaration of Crassus who, as an explanation for his wearing two rings, although an old man, said that he did so in the belief that they would further increase his already immense wealth.[92] Hence he must have thought them endowed with some magic power.

One explanation of the greater supply of ancient gems of the period subsequent to the Augustan Age, as compared with those of an earlier date, has been found in the increasing popularity of ring-wearing. Horace (65–8 B.C.) already considers three rings on the hand as marking the limit of fashionable wear, but Martial (ab. 40–104 A.D.), writing a century later, tells of a Roman dandy who wore six rings on each finger. As an instance of the multiplication of seal-rings, Pliny states[93] that the signet proper had to be placed for safe-keeping in a special receptacle, which was then stamped with the impression of another seal, lest some improper use should be made of the signet, the equivalent of an individual signature.[94]

When the usage of wearing rings set with plain or engraved precious stones became general in Rome, special caskets were made—many of them of ivory—to contain the rings and other small jewels. The name dactyliotheca, “ring-treasury,” was given to such a casket. The first Roman to own one was Emilius Scaurus, son-in-law of Sylla (138–78 B.C.), who lived in the early part of the first century before Christ, but for a long time his example was not followed by the Romans, the next dactyliotheca to be seen in Rome being that dedicated by Pompey to the Capitol in 61 B.C., out of the spoils of Mithridates the Great, who owned the most famous gem collection of his time.[95] In the first century A.D. these ring-caskets came into general use, and were regarded as indispensable parts of a rich man’s luxury. This is brought out in one of Martial’s epigrams when, after saying that Charmius wore six rings on each finger and kept them on at night and even when he took his bath, he proceeds: “You ask why he does so? Because he has no dactyliotheca.”[96] This evidently implies that he lacked one of the elements of Roman “good form” in the fashionable world.

The Latin epigrammatist whose brief, caustic poems are a mine of information regarding the customs and costumes of the Romans in the Imperial age, wrote the following couplet, probably designed for an inscription upon a dactyliotheca, or ring-case:[97]

“Often does the heavy ring slip off the anointed fingers; but if you confide your jewel to me, it will be safe.”

In the large ring collections of royal treasuries or of wealthy nobles in mediæval times, the rings with precious-stone settings were often classified according to the particular stones, and then those of each of these classes were strung on one or more small sticks or wands (bacula). Among King John’s (1167–1216) jewels in the Tower of London, an inventory of 1205 lists several such baculæ, one with 26 diamonds, two with 40 and 47 emeralds, respectively, another shorter one with 7 “good” topazes and still another with 9 turquoises.[98] Jewellers also, were wont to keep their rings strung on such small rods, an example of this being shown in a portrait depicting a jeweller, painted by an unknown German artist of the sixteenth or seventeenth century.

With other royal collections of rings the classified set rings were kept already in ancient times in dactyliothecæ, or ring-caskets, the term dactyliotheca coming to be used later more broadly as an equivalent for “ring collection” or even “gem collection.” In 1272 the Crown Jewels of Henry III of England included a number of these ring boxes, four of them for 106 ruby, or balas-ruby rings, two for 38 emerald rings, one for 20 sapphire rings, and another for 11 topaz rings and one set with a peridot.[99]

The following description of a jade (nephrite) ringbox of seventeenth-century Indian workmanship, in the Heber R. Bishop Collection, is given in one of the great folios treating of these wonderful jades.[100]

A small covered box of three compartments in the form of three compressed plums (or similar fruit) held together by the twigs and leaves of a leafy branch which projects to form a handle, and hollowed out to form a receptacle for finger-rings, studs or the like. The box proper is decorated underneath with leaves carved in slight relief, and is flanged on the edges to receive the three upper segments of the fruit which forms the cover and are similarly decorated on top with plum blossoms and held together by a twig, a leaf, and an upright bud which serves as a handle. The whole is very daintily cut and polished, and is so thin and of such translucency that print in contact with it can easily be read through it. The mineral is remarkably pure and resembles a pale transparent horn.

While the Greeks and Romans did not usually wear rings on the middle finger, the Gauls and Britons adorned it in this way. In the sixteenth century it was customary to assign rings as follows, according to the quality of the wearer:[101]

There is a curious Hindu superstition to the effect that anyone who wears a ring on the middle finger will probably be attacked and bitten by a scorpion. For this reason the Hindus are said to avoid wearing any rings on this finger, although the others are laden with them, each finger-joint having its special adornment.[102] In the Græco-Roman world also there was a prejudice against decorating the middle finger with a ring.

Regarding the liberality with which the Greeks and Romans of the second century of our era used ring adornments for their fingers, the great Greek humorist Lucian gives testimony. In his writing entitled “The Cock,” he makes a character relate a dream in which the dreamer thought that a rich man had just died and had left him his fortune. Thereupon, in his dream, he saw himself arrayed in splendid raiment and wearing sixteen rings on his fingers.[103]

Of the affectations practiced in ring wearing by some nouveau-riches foreigners in Roman times, Juvenal says: When one sees an Egyptian plebeian, not long before a slave in Canopus, carelessly throwing back over his shoulder a mantle of Tyrian purple, and seeking to cool his perspiring fingers by wearing summer-rings of openwork gold, as he cannot bear the weight of gemmed rings, how can one fail to write it down in a satire?[104]

Indeed, to judge from the weight and size of some of the rings that have been preserved from ancient times, this practice was not quite so foolish as it may seem, for in the moist heat of the dog-day in Rome such heavy rings may well have been a burden. With the Roman ladies rings bearing images of the animals worshipped by the Egyptians came into fashion in Imperial times, favored no doubt by the enthusiastic worship of Isis and Serapis. Such rings are said to have been worn almost exclusively by women up to the reign of Vespasian, when men began to wear them also.[105]

In ancient Rome it was not unusual for the admirer of a philosopher or a poet to wear his portrait engraved on a ring-stone. One of the elegies of Ovid[106] (b. 43 B.C.), written during his banishment from Rome, by order of Augustus, alludes feelingly to this custom. The poem is addressed to a faithful friend, who wears the poet’s portrait in his ring, and Ovid says: “In casting your eye upon this, perhaps you sometimes say, ‘how far away is poor Ovid now!’” He died in exile in 18 A.D.

So huge were the proportions of the Roman emperor Maximinus (d. 238 A.D.), who rose from the ranks to the imperial dignity, that he is said to have used his wife’s bracelet for a thumb-ring.[107] The great size of some of the Roman rings to be seen in collections indicates that they could only have been worn on the thumb.

One of the fingers of a bronze statue in the British Museum, a Roman work of the third or fourth century, A.D., has a ring on its second joint. We are fortunate enough to be able to reproduce here a full-size drawing of this, courteously made for the present book by Sir Charles Hercules Read, Curator of the Department of British and Mediæval Antiquities and Ethnography in the Museum.

In a letter to M. Deloche, the German archæologist Lindenschmit states that in only one instance was he able to ascertain definitely on which finger the rings of the early mediæval period were worn. This concerned a female skeleton, exceptionally well preserved, owing to favorable conditions of sepulture; on the fourth finger of the right hand there was a bronze ring. This sepulchre was found at Obermorlen, in Hessen-Darmstadt. Researches in France have furnished confirmation of this. In the Merovingian cemetery of Yeulle (dept. Pas-de-Calais) a woman’s ring was found on the right hand of the skeleton, as was also the case with two rings in the Visigothic and Merovingian cemetery at Herpes (dept. Charente), and this proved to be the case with almost all the early medieval rings found in this region. On the contrary, M. Albert Béquet, Curator of the Archæological Museum of Namur, and the French archæologist, M. L. Pilloy, report the discovery of rings placed upon the left hand. As a possible explanation of these contradictory results, the opinion has been advanced that the rings on the right hand were wedding rings, and those on the left, rings worn for ornament, as there is good evidence that at an early period among the Gauls the betrothal ring was put on the right hand, not on the left.[108]

The portrait by Coello of Maria of Austria, daughter of Charles V of Germany, shows on the fourth finger of the left hand a ring set with a large table-cut stone, which may be a ruby, or else a rather dark-hued spinel. The right hand is gloved, the parts of the glove covering the index and fourth fingers having slits so as to give space for the rings on those fingers. There is an elaborate girdle of table-cut stones, a richly worked cross with three pendent pear-shaped pearls is suspended from a gauze scarf about the neck, splendid pearl earrings hang from the ears, and the coiffure is surmounted by a head ornament set with precious stones and pearls.

In a three-quarter length portrait of Henry VIII, painted by Hans Holbein in 1540, when the king was in his forty-sixth year, he is represented wearing three rings on his hands, two of these, set with square-cut stones, are on the index fingers of the right and left hand, respectively. The third and smaller ring, also set with a square-cut stone, is on the little finger of the king’s left hand. There is an intentional harmony in the jewelling, for stones of the same form, alternating with pearls, adorn the collar suspended from Henry’s neck and serve also as decoration for the sleeve-guards. This portrait is in the Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica, Rome.

Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and afterwards Queen of England (1553–1558), is portrayed in a painting in the University Galleries, Oxford, by an unknown artist, as wearing, in addition to many fine pearls both round and pear-shaped, three rings, one on the index, another on the middle finger, and the third on the fourth finger of the left hand. That on the middle finger is set with a pearl, and the ring-adornment of this finger is quite worthy of note because of the comparative rarity of this setting.

A large pear-shaped pearl, figured on a portrait of “Bloody Mary,” was given to her by Philip of Spain, who afterward took it back to Spain with him. It later came into the possession of Jerome Bonaparte, who gave it to Queen Hortense. She gave it to the young prince, who later became Napoleon III, and he, in turn, disposed of it to the Duke of Abercorn, in whose possession it now remains. Allison V. Armour, Esq., to whom it was shown in Ireland by the Duke, at the time of an expected visit from King Edward, told the author it was very interesting to note that it had apparently preserved all its original lustre.

PORTRAIT OF A LADY, BY ANTON VAN DYKE (1599–1641)

The thumb ring on the right hand, and the ring on the index of the left hand, are both set with square-cut stones, the last-named probably a ruby

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Marquand Gift, 1888

PRINCESS HATZFELD, BY ANTONIO PESARO (1684–1757)

Large pearl cluster on little finger of right hand

Catholina Lambert Collection sold at American Art Galleries, New York, February, 1916]

The adornment with a ring of the second phalanx of the right-hand middle finger, appears in the fine portrait, said to be that of Mary Stuart, in the Prado Gallery, Madrid; the little finger of the same hand shows a stone-set ring, worn as usual. Over the elaborately embroidered bodice hangs a neck-ornament, at the different sections of which are groups of three pearls, and there are pearl earrings in the ears, as well as groups of pearls in the head-ornament. The portrait is listed as a production of the French School, but is of doubtful authenticity as a likeness of the unhappy queen.

The Italian fashion of ring-wearing in the sixteenth century is illustrated by the portrait of a noblewoman by Lorenzo Lotto, in the Galleria Carrara at Bergamo, Italy. On the right hand are two rings, on the fourth and little finger respectively; the left hand bears three, one on the index, apparently set with an engraved gem, and two on the fourth finger, the larger of which seems to have as setting a pointed diamond, while the smaller one, possibly bearing a little facetted diamond, is on the second phalanx of the finger, a fashion sometimes followed instead of wearing the two rings together, one directly over the other, on the third phalanx.

A fine example of a pearl-cluster ring is to be seen in the portrait of Princess Hatzfeldt by the artist Antonio Pesaro (1684–1757). The ring, worn on the little finger, has a large centre-pearl surrounded by five smaller ones, the whole constituting a rather inconveniently large jewel, although unquestionably a very beautiful one. It appears to be the only ring worn by the fair princess when posing for her portrait.

Finger rings were sometimes worn suspended from the neck, usually strung on a chain. This custom is testified to by several old portraits, among them by one of the Elector John Constans of Saxony, in the Collection of Prince George of Saxony, Dresden, and also in several of Lucas Cranach’s portraits. In one of the latter, depicting an elderly and hard-featured Dutch lady, eight rings are to be seen strung on a chain or band below the collar. As the sitter’s hands are adorned with five rings, her object may rather have been to display all her choicest rings, than to wear them as amulets, although this superstitious use is generally believed to be the true explanation of wearing finger-rings suspended from the neck. Sometimes a single ring was hung from the neck on a long string, and rings were occasionally worn attached to a hat or cap, as shown in the portrait of Bernhard IV, Margrave of Baden (1474–1536), by Hans Baldung Grien, in the Pinakothek, Munich.[109]

The painting of hands adorned with one or more rings, was not favored by several of the portraitists of the seventeenth century. Few if any rings, for example, can be found on the delicately shaped hands of any of Sir Peter Lyly’s beauties, hands undoubtedly lacking in individuality and conforming to a preconceived type. Vandyke’s usage in this respect varied, probably, with the taste of the respective sitters, although the frequent absence of rings might lead to the inference that he did not favor them in portraits. The great masters of the sixteenth century certainly gave no evidence of any such prejudice, their realism and their fondness for rich ornament and color causing them to adorn the hands of their subjects, both men and women, with valuable and finely wrought rings. With eighteenth century painters, the tendency to discard rings was very pronounced, as indicated by their sparing appearance in portraits of this period.

It may be interesting to note the distribution of the rings in seventeen portraits of the Blakeslee Collection, disposed of in New York City, March, 1916, and representing a kind of average for the period from the latter part of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century:

Right HandLeft Hand
Index finger, 7Index finger, 4
Middle finger, 1Middle finger, 0
Fourth finger, 7Fourth finger, 7
Little finger, 1Little finger, 6

Thus the index and fourth fingers of the right hand and the fourth and little fingers of the left hand are almost equally favored.

An oil-portrait of the Mahârânî of Sikkim, painted in 1908 by Damodar Dutt, a Bengali artist, shows this queen decked out with all her favorite jewel adornments; among them are two gold rings, one set with a turquoise and the other with a coral, on the middle and fourth fingers of the left hand (see Frontispiece). The right hand is concealed in a fold of her mantle, but had there been any rings on it, it would probably have been displayed, to judge from the variety of the ornaments she was pleased to wear at the sittings. She is a full-blooded Tibetan princess, was born in 1864, and became the second wife of the King of Sikkim in 1882, so that she was forty-four years old when the portrait was painted. At this time she and her husband had been held in captivity by the British since 1893. The singular crown is the one adopted by the queens of Sikkim. It is composed of broad bandeaux of pearl, turquoise and coral; the gold earrings are inlaid with turquoise in concentric rings; the necklace has large amber balls, and suspended from it is a gau or charm-box, set with rubies, lapis lazuli and turquoise; on the wrist is a triple bracelet of corals.[110]

In the opinion of J. Alden Wier, President of the Academy of Design, New York City, rings can scarcely be regarded as in any sense important accessories of a good portrait, as this does not depend upon the elaboration of such detail. With Popes and Doges, and with some of the higher ecclesiastics, however, rings are significant as insignia of office, and are therefore depicted as marks of individuality.[111]

A fifteenth century example of a thumb ring was found in England at Saxon’s Lode, a little south of Upton. The material was of silver, either considerably alloyed, or else plated with a baser metal. In seventeenth century times in England the wearing of such rings was favored by many of the richer, or more prominent citizens, so that they served to differentiate the wearer from those less well-to-do, although he might not have the right to a crest or coat-of-arms. A character in one of the Lord Mayor’s shows given in the reign of Charles II (1664), is described as “habited like a grave citizen,—gold girdle and gloves hung thereon, rings on his fingers, and a seal ring on his thumb,” like Falstaff’s alderman.[112]

Two wire rings from a tumulus near Canterbury, Kent, England, one with a bezel effect

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Two Anglo-Saxon rings found near Preston, Lancashire, England, in 1840

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Silver thumb ring found at Saxon’s Lode, England. “Fifteenth Century Archæologia,” vol. iii, p. 268]

Silver-gilt ring, with broad, flat hoop, and rectangular bezel set with a carbuncle

British Museum

Ring of mixed metal set with engraved stone showing a monkey looking into a mirror

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, thumb-ring; two cockatrices engraved in relief on agate. 2, ring set with Gnostic gem

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Two gold rings. 1, with high circular bezel; Frankish (?); Sixth or Seventh Century; 2, with pyramidal bezel; Lombardic (?); Seventh Century

British Museum

Agate ring with a Runic inscription. Late Saxon

British Museum

Massive gold ring with two bezels, one engraved with circular design of interlacing curves, the other with three interlaced triangles. Late Saxon

British Museum

Even native African potentates could boast of fine jewelled rings in the seventeenth century. When an embassy of Hollanders came to visit the christianized King of the Congo in 1642, and were ushered into his presence, they found him vested in a coat and drawers of gold-cloth, and adorned with three heavy gold chains. On his right thumb was “a very large Granate or Ruby Ring, and on his left hand two great Emeralds.”[113] The red stone was almost certainly a large cabochon-cut garnet, and it is very doubtful that the green stones were genuine emeralds.

Under the strict discipline of the Catholic rulers of Poland the wearing of rings was for a long time forbidden to the Jews. This restriction was removed in the reign of Sigismund Augustus (1506–1548), but the permissive decree required that a Jewish ring must bear the distinguishing inscription “Sabbation,” or “Jerusalem.” The Jews themselves sometimes enacted rigid sumptuary laws as to rings, for instance in Bologna, where a convocation of rabbis decided that men should be confined to one ring, while women were not to be allowed to wear more than three.[114] At a later period a Frankfort convocation decreed that no young girl should be permitted to wear a ring. Not improbably the natural fondness of the Hebrew women for rich jewels, a fondness already emphasized by the prophet Isaiah (chap. iii, vs. 16–26) in the case of the Daughters of Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C., may have led to an excessive use of fine rings. Indeed any strict sumptuary regulation always implies the existence of an undue degree of luxury in the usages that are subjected to legal restraint.

A unique collection of ring stones may be seen in the American Museum of Natural History, New York. These are oval, domed stones, about one inch long, and are all cut so as to fit a single setting. They were gathered together by an old gentleman in the seventeenth century, so that without changing the gold ring to which he was accustomed, he could vary the color of the precious stones, thus bringing them into harmony with that of the waistcoat he was wearing. As there are two hundred and forty of these specially-cut stones, the waistcoats must have represented the whole gamut of colors and shades. A few of the stones are capped with a different gem. This collection was presented to the Museum in January, 1873, by the late Samuel P. Avery, Esq.

There is also in the Museum a remarkable collection of rings begun in the eighteenth century by a Viennese imperial and royal jeweller named Türk, and continued by his grandson up to 1860. It was later acquired by J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq. The settings of the seventy rings comprise a variety of colored diamonds, as well as emeralds, sapphires, and a number of uncommon stones.

II
FORMS OF RINGS AND MATERIALS OF WHICH THEY ARE MADE

Among ancient gold rings, one of Egyptian workmanship is especially noteworthy for its size and weight as well as for its design. It is ½ inch in its largest diameter, and bears an oblong plinth, which turns on a pivot; it measures 6/10 inch at its greatest, and 4/10 inch at its least breadth. On one of the four faces is the name of the successor of Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who lived about 1400 B.C.; on another is figured a lion, with the inscription “lord of strength”; the two remaining sides show a scorpion and a crocodile respectively. The weight of this massive ring is stated to be about five ounces and its intrinsic gold value nearly a hundred dollars.[115]

Some remarkably fine finger-rings were among the ornaments found by Ferlini, an Italian physician, when he unearthed the treasure of one of the queens of Meroë. These rings are now in the Berlin Royal Museum. Some of them are plain hoops to which movable plates are attached; others are signet rings. In a few specimens of the first-named class the plate is so large as to extend over three fingers, the inconvenience to which this could give rise being partly obviated by joints in the plate, so that the fingers might be moved with greater facility. We hardly think that a design of this type is ever likely to become popular in our times.

Scarabs strung on wire so as to be worn on the finger were found at Dahshur by De Morgan. These belonged to the Twelfth Dynasty, to the time from Usertasen III to Amenemhat III (ab. 2660–2578 B.C.). Stronger wire was used at a later time, the ends being thrust into perforations on the sides of the scarabs. In all these cases the scarab and the circlet, more or less well formed, were separate parts loosely put together. It was not until the Golden Age of the ancient Egyptian civilization that complete metal rings were made, in which both circlet and chaton formed one piece. Rings of the Egyptian type, although strongly modified by Ionic or Phœnician art, were introduced into Etruria at a very early period, and probably thence into Latium.[116] At an even earlier date, at least 1200 B.C., scarab rings were worn in Cyprus, several examples having been found in sepulchres there, the scarab being made of porcelain strung on a gold-wire hoop.

The ancient rings in the British Museum offer examples of nearly all the different types favored in early times.[117] Some, from the Mycenæan period, exhibit a long shield-shaped bezel, convex above and concave beneath, across the direction of the hoop; others have a flat band decorated with plaited or twisted wire on which is set a bezel holding a paste. Phœnician rings of the period from 700 to 500 B.C. present a variety of forms, some being swivel rings, the extremities of the rounded hoops passing into beads, in which are inserted the pivots of a scarab-setting; another type has elliptical hoops, either plain or ornamental, the scarab being in a filigree-decorated bezel; in still another, the lower part of the hoop is twisted into a loop, so that the ring can be worn suspended; there are also some plain, flat or rounded hoops, sometimes with the ends overlapping.

The Greek and Hellenistic periods, from the sixth to the second century B.C., furnish a large variety of forms, some copied or adapted from earlier ones and then independently developed. A rounded hoop tapering upward, with ornamental extremities, occasionally appears in fine examples, the ends of the hoop representing the lions’ masks; the bezels are frequently of oval shape, and the shoulders of the hoop are often nearly straight; in another type while the outside of the hoop is rounded, the inside is facetted; sometimes there is a high convex bezel, bevelled underneath. There are still a few swivel rings with scaraboids. In the Hellenistic period appear massive gold rings with square-cut shoulders and raised oval settings, in which a convex stone is placed. Still another type is an expanding hoop formed of two overlapping ribbons and with a convex bezel.

Etruscan rings assume various characteristic and peculiar forms, many of which are found among the Roman rings of a later period, indicating the derivation from the Etruscans of ring-wearing among the Romans. One of these in the British Museum has a broad hoop ending in convex shields, a scarab being pivoted in the terminals; in others, the hoop is hollow, terminating in cylindrical ornaments, between these a scarab revolves on a wire swivel. A peculiar example has a grooved hoop, the ends being convex disks, in which is pivoted a scarab. One of these Etruscan rings has a very large convex oval bezel, around the slope of which run a series of embossed figures.

As an example of Roman art found in Egypt, we have a spiral ring of serpent form, either extremity terminating in a bust, of Isis and Serapis respectively. The conjecture has been made that this ring, and others of the type, may have been intended to figure the reigning emperor and empress of Rome under the types of Isis and of Serapis, the latter a Græco-Egyptian divinity as worshipped in Alexandria and in the Roman world, though having a distinctly Egyptian form in the national pantheon as Asar-Hapi, or Osiris-Apis. The rings of the type described have the advantage of being easily adapted to a finger of any size, since pressure at both extremities would enlarge the girth of the single spiral.[118]

In his Etymologiæ, Isidore of Seville defines three of the types of rings worn in ancient times, the ungulus, the Samothracius and the thynnius.[119] The ungulus was set with a gem and owed its designation to the fancy that the stone was as closely attached to the gold of the ring as a human nail (ungulus) was to the flesh of the finger. The Samothracian ring was of gold, but had an iron setting. Lucretius in the sixth book of his great philosophic and scientific poem, “De Natura Rerum,” in speaking of the magnet to which he attributes negative and positive powers, of repulsion and of attraction, relates that when, in an experiment, Samothracian rings were placed in a brazen dish beneath which a piece of magnetic iron was moved to and fro, he had seen the rings leap up, as though to flee from an enemy. The third type of ring was the thynnius, the name indicating, according to Isidore, that it was made in Bithynia, called at an earlier time, Thynna. Horace writes, in one of his odes, of rings “chased by a Thynnian graver.”

Of the key-shaped rings, several specimens of which have been preserved from Roman times, it has been suggested that the key projection was intended to serve as a guard for an exceptionally long finger-nail, similar to the finger-guards the Chinese wear for a like purpose. The fact that many of these key-rings are evidently too large to have been worn on the finger, makes it not improbable that the ring form was arbitrarily chosen, and that they may have been carried suspended from a girdle. Some of them, however, might have fitted on a very stout thumb, and a few of the rings of this type do not exceed the ordinary finger-ring in diameter.[120]

One of the large and unwieldly Roman rings, or at least a ring made on this model, bears a bust said to be that of Plotina, the wife of Trajan. This was in the collection of Monsignor Piccolomini. The extraordinarily elaborate coiffure shows three rows of facetted gems, and this alone may be considered to testify against the antiquity of the ring. Still, even as a production of the Renaissance period, the fact that it at least figures an ancient form makes it an object of interest and of a certain archæological value.[121]

It was in the late Republican, and especially in the Imperial age in Rome, that the greatest variety of ring forms were produced, originally influenced by the earlier Etruscan art, and later largely by the extraordinary eclectic art of Alexandria, where the combination of Egyptian, Oriental and Greek elements brought forth many peculiar forms, some of which are noted elsewhere. A Romano-Egyptian ring has a flat hoop, sub-angular on the outside, the large circular bezel being engraved with three figures of divinities. Then there are the composite rings, sometimes having as many as four hoops, joined together at the back of the bezel. A striking type is the penannular ring in the form of a coiled serpent, or else having at each extremity the head of a serpent. In another form the bezel is lozenge-shaped.

There are also massive rings with an elliptical hoop and thick projecting shoulders, the setting being depressed; sometimes the shoulders slope sharply up to the bezel, forming a decided angle on the hoop. Hoops polygonal on the outside and circular within also occur. Some twin rings were made adapted to fit on two fingers of the hand; in one of these are three cup settings holding garnets, one on the top of each hoop and one between the hoops. In some instances the hoops of these twin rings were not closely joined to each other, but connected by a short gold chain, so that the rings could either be worn on a single finger, or on two fingers.

Gold ring with plain hoop on which is freely looped a little mouse wrought in gold and white enamel. It slips around the hoop. About 1600

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

Gold ring of Venetian workmanship. The ends of the hoop form monsters’ heads, supporting a bezel formed like the petal of a flower. XIV Cent.

British Museum

HAND OF A JEWELER, HOLDING A BACULA WITH FIVE RINGS

British Museum

Gold ring set with an amethyst. Found at Lorsch, Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, and hence called the “Lorscher Ring.” German; end of Tenth or beginning of Eleventh Century.

Grossherzoglich-Hessisches Museum, Darmstadt

Silver ring having projecting bezel in form of a spur with revolving rowel. Italian (?), Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century

British Museum

“Regard ring,” with seven hoops. The initials of the six stones spell the word “regard”

British Museum

Rings of modern Egyptian type. 1, woman’s ring; hoop of twisted gold; 2, man’s ring made by silversmith of Mecca, with stone setting; 3, cast silver ring; stone setting; with guards

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Pipe stopper ring. A silver ring on which are set three Indian, rose-cut zircons. This ring was placed on the finger and the tobacco in the bowl of the pipe was pressed down with it. French; about 1750. A similar ring was figured by Hogarth in one of his illustrations

Field Museum, Chicago

Many of the hoops of the later Roman rings were elaborately decorated, either in openwork, with spirals in wire, or with beads on the shoulders; this latter type is, however, more probably of Merovingian times. A Roman polygonal hoop, with a high-set bezel, has on the side of this loops for carrying a string of pearls suspended from the ring. In one of the rings specially designed for insetting with engraved gems, the hoop, rounded on the outer side, has shoulders ending in curling leaves. A curious specimen is a plain hoop broadening in an oval bezel; in this has been inserted an intaglio head in sard, the shape of the stone following the exact outline of the head, without any margin.

A Burgundian ring of a form that M. Deloche believes to be unique, has an open hoop. At one extremity is a nail-shaped attachment which can be passed through the other extremity, thus closing the ring. A bronze ring, also Burgundian, of a rare or unique type has at the bezel a high, oblong projection. Both these rings are of the Merovingian period which closed in 752 A.D.[122]

In no period were a greater number of ring forms produced than in the Middle Ages. The major part of these mediæval rings were made as insignia of office or rank, for sealing official documents, or for ceremonial use. One of the earliest is that known as the Lorscher Ring.[123] It is considered to belong to the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh century, and to be a product of German workmanship under the influence of the Byzantine art of the Merovingian period. The artistic and finely executed design of the bezel is especially worthy of admiration. The stone set therein is a light-colored amethyst cut en cabochon and without foil. This ring is now in the Grossherzoglich-Hessisches Museum in Darmstadt.

The Besborough Collection of Gems, shown in June, 1861, by the Archæological Institute of London, was interesting for the high artistic excellence of the rings in which many of the gems were set. A number of them rank among the finest examples of Renaissance work in this direction. One, set with a sard in which a head of Lucilla has been engraved, shows, carved in flat relief on the gold hoop, two nude figures bearing in their hands torches, the design continuing completely around the hoop; about the figures are doves and flowers. This beautiful specimen of goldsmiths’ work belongs to the first half of the sixteenth century. The pose of the small figures has been wonderfully adapted to the curve of the ring.[124]

To a special class has been given the name “iconographic rings,” this designates those bearing, either on the bezel or the sides, images of the Virgin and Child or of the saints. These rings, which date from a period running from 1390 to about 1520, are peculiar to England and Scotland. The material is either gold or silver, those of the latter metal showing much ruder workmanship than was devoted to the gold rings.[125]

What must have been regarded in its time as an exceptionally ornate ring is listed in an inventory of 1416. It is described as a gold ring having a helmet and a shield made of a sapphire, the shield bearing the arms of “Monseigneur.” As supports of the shield were an emerald bear and a swan made of a white chalcedony.[126]

An ornate though tasteless type of Italian rings were those called “giardinetti,” showing flower baskets, jardiniêres, or nosegays, the flowers being figured by precious stones and pearls, with stems and leaves of gold. As the aim was purely decorative, the stones and pearls were usually small and inexpensive ones. Very few such rings have been made in recent times, but from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century they were much favored and a number of fine specimens have been preserved from that period.[127]

A ring-setting consisting of a turquoise surrounded by small diamonds appears to have been favored in England in the seventeenth century, for Samuel Pepys in his “Diary,” under date of February 18, 1668, writes that he had been shown a “ring of a Turkey-stone, set with little sparks of diamonds.”

A “Trinity Ring,” that is a ring consisting of three intertwined circlets, was shown in February, 1857, to the Society of Antiquaries in London by Mr. Octavius Morgan. This specimen, carved, or turned out of a circular band of ivory, was believed to be one of three executed by the German ivory carver, Stephan Zick (1639–1715), who is said to have been the first to make a ring of this type out of ivory, although they may have been made of gold—no exceptionally difficult task—before Zick executed his ivory rings.[128] This ring, or one similar to it, is now in the British Museum, Franks Bequest.

While the rings of the Louis Quinze period were generally of delicate and beautiful form, the tendency to exaggeration in fashions that characterized the succeeding Louis Seize period found expression in rings of disproportionate size. At the same time both the number of rings in a fine lady’s jewel casket, and the number she would wear at the same time upon her hand, greatly increased over what was customary in the preceding reign. Thus Bachaument, in his “Mémoires Secrets,” states that at the sale of Mlle. de Beauvoisin’s jewels, which took place November 22, 1784, there were 200 rings rivalling one another in magnificence. Another French author of this time, M. Mercier, wrote in 1782 “when one takes the hand of a pretty woman, one only has the sensation of holding a quantity of rings and angular stones, and it would be necessary first to strip these off the hand before we could perceive its form and delicacy.”

The enthusiasm of the early days of the Revolution brought into vogue rings set with a little fragment of the stone-work of the recently demolished Bastille; at the same time wedding-rings were enamelled in red, white and blue, the new Republican colors. At the outset the young royalists, as a protest, wore rings of tortoise-shell, with the motto, Domine salvum fac regem, “God save the King.”

A type of ring that became popular during the darkest days of the French Revolution, the period of the dreadful Reign of Terror, was that of a large silver hoop with a plain gold bezel on which was graven the head of some one of the leading spirits of the time, such as Marat, De Chalier, or De Lepelletier St.-Fargeau.

There are several significant French proverbs regarding rings, of which we may here note the following: “Ne mets pas ton doigt en anneau trop étroit” (Do not put your finger in too small a ring); “Anneau en main, honneur vain” (A ring on the finger is an empty honor); “Bague d’amie porte envie” (The ring of a lady friend arouses envy).

Portrait rings were very popular at the time of the French Revolution, as they afforded an opportunity for the expression of the ardent devotion to particular personalities characteristic of that troublous period. Many Washington rings and Robespierre rings were to be seen, bearing the enamelled portrait of the respective hero, but the most popular were the Franklin rings, for Franklin’s personal influence, born of his sterling qualities of insight and common sense, and perhaps strengthened by the contrast of his cool-headedness with the feverish excitement of the Paris of that time, was wide and far-reaching.

Hindu tradition tells of the wearing of rings in India in very ancient times. The earliest forms used by the Brahmans in their forest life, were woven of kusa-grass (Saccharum spontaneum), and even in our time rings of this kind are worn by those assisting at a religious ceremony, as otherwise the water offered to gods or to the spirits of ancestors will not be accepted. As to metal rings, Hindu law assigns those of gold to the index finger and silver rings to the fourth finger.

A story related in the Hindu epic “Mahabharata” alludes to a trick or magic practice with rings, denominated ishika. A ring was thrown into a deep well and then recovered in some mysterious way after it had seemed to be irrevocably lost. The “Mahabharata” in its present form may date from about 500 A.D. The other great Hindu epic, the Ramayana of Valmiki, written perhaps as early as 500 B.C. even mentions engraved rings. When Sita, wife of Rama, the hero of the poem, is abducted by Rávana, the ten-headed Cinghalese giant, Rama sends a monkey called Hanumán to seek for her, giving him a seal ring as a token. As soon as the monkey succeeds in finding Sita, he approaches her holding out the ring and saying, “Gracious Lady, I am the messenger of Rama. Look, here is his ring engraved with his name.”

In Sanskrit books the following types and kinds of rings are mentioned:[129]

Dwi-hirak (double diamond).—Rings with a diamond on either side and a sapphire in the centre.

Vajra (diamond, thunderbolt).—A triangular finger ornament, with a diamond in the centre and other stones on the sides.

Ravimandal.—A ring with diamonds on the sides and other stones in the middle.

Nandyávarrta.—A four-sided finger ornament studded with precious stones.

Nava-ratna or Navagraha.—A ring on which the nine most precious stones have been set. The nine precious stones in Sanskrit are called: Hirak, Nánikya, Baiduryya, Muktá, Gomed, Bidrum or Prabál, Marakata, Pushpa-rág, and Indranil; or the Diamond, Ruby, Cat’s-eye, Pearl, Zircon, Coral, Emerald, Topaz, and Sapphire.

Bajra-beshtak.—Ring of which the upper circumference is set with diamonds.

Trihirak (triple diamond).—Ring with two small diamonds on the sides and a big one in the centre.

Sukti-mudriká.—Ring made like the hood of a cobra snake, with diamonds and precious stones on the upper surface.

Mudrá or Anguli-mudrá.—Ring with name engraved upon it.

These are some of the principal names for finger rings in modern India:

Angushtri.—A ring set with stones, called also Mundri or Anguthi.

Chhallá.—The chhallá is a quite plain hoop or whole hoop ring (with or without stones), being gold or silver, but the same all round. Worn also on the toes.

Angushtárá or Anguthá.—A big ring with a broad face, worn on the great toe.

Khari panjángla.—A set of finger rings of ordinary shape.

Sháhálami or Khári.—A ring of long oval shape.

Birhamgand.—A broad ring.

In Bombay, the local designations for finger rings are: Angthi, Salle, Mohorechi Angthi and Khadyachya angthya; toe-rings are named: Ranajodvi, Jodvi, Phule, Gend, and Masolia.[130]

Oriental gold ring, large globular bezel with leaves and flowers in openwork. Said to have belonged to Chief Samory

British Museum

Oriental rings. 1, of cast silver; 2, of brass; 3, of silver; 4–6, Moorish rings; 4, set with turquoise and rubies; 5, with octagonal bloodstone and turquoise; 6, signet-ring bearing name of owner on a carnelian

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

1, ring with pendent garnets; 2, silver ring. East Indian. The loose-hung silver drops jingle as the hand moves

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”

Elaborate East Indian ring, with figure of Buddha. Hoop of peculiar shape to keep the ring from falling off the finger

Courtesy of Miss Helen Bainbridge

Rings made by Siamese Bonza, or Priest, from metal lying about among the idols at Ongchor, Old Cambodia, in 1871

Courtesy of Mr. Walter C. Wyman

Rings, necklaces, armlets and Sirpech (or tiaras) are made at Bikánir, and exquisitely light and fine rings of gold and silver are produced at Jhánsi in the Gwalior territory. An unusual form of ring ornamentation appears in a silver ring of Indian workmanship, dated in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This has a projecting bezel in the form of a spur, with a revolving swivel. A ring of similar design, believed to be Venetian, now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, was brought from Chalis.[131]

The rings made by the Hindu goldsmiths are in many cases very elaborately chased and ornamented, in the ornate style characteristic of Indian jewellery. The women of the Deccan almost universally wear rings; they are usually of gold, a silver ring being looked upon as showing meanness on the part of the wearer. There does not appear to be any preference of one finger over the other for decoration with rings. One of the most attractive types is a closely-fitting ring to which is affixed a little mirror, about the size of a silver quarter-dollar; this may be mounted either in gold or silver, and undoubtedly Hindu female vanity finds this thumb mirror of some practical use. With its rich ornamentation a ring of this kind is in itself a pretty jewel, but would hardly suit Occidental taste on account of its size and the inconvenience of wearing it. A rather singular fact is that mirror-rings are sometimes worn on the great toe, where they would seem to be quite useless; but it has been suggested that as the Hindu women of the better class commonly have their feet nearly or quite bare when in their apartments, and have acquired the power to move and use their feet much more freely than is the case with Occidentals, a toe mirror might possibly be of some slight utility; still, it seems probable that they are purely ornamental and came into fashion in imitation of the thumb-mirrors. Many varieties of toe-rings are made, a special type being that for wear on the middle toe.[132]

A ring of an unusual form is worn on the great toe of the left foot by some Hindu married women, as a distinguishing mark of the married state. Men frequently wear a ring on the big toe for curative purposes, or to augment their masculine vigor. These toe-rings of the men are not generally closed circles, but open hoops, so that they can be easily removed when this is desirable.[133]

INDIAN TOE RINGS OF SILVER, MADRAS PRESIDENCY

1, three views of ring worn on second and third toes of the left foot; the conventional fish is an emblem of Siva 2, 3, 4, other toe rings

Journal of Indian Art and Industry, vol. v, 1894

RICH CINGHALESE MERCHANT, IN GALA DRESS

The immense, round ring on the little finger of his right hand is a favorite adornment in Ceylon; smaller rings are on the fourth finger of right hand, and on the little finger of left hand

The art of the Persian goldsmith in the fifteenth century is displayed in a ring belonging to one of the splendid collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York. It is of massive form with an immense bezel, richly decorated in openwork; the hoop is also elaborately chased. The flat surface of the bezel is adorned with a design in keeping with the ornamentation of its sides and of the hoop. For a large and massive ring this one is remarkably well-proportioned and harmonious in design.

A good specimen of the rings worn on state occasions by East Indian princes was sold in February, 1913, at the American Art Galleries. It is of gold, but bears no precious stones; the circlet is ornamented with white enamelled crocodiles, and also with a minute enamelled figure, within a temple and incased in glass; the bezel of this ring is decorated in blue, green and red enamel.

While the simpler Chinese rings as a general rule are unset, usually consisting merely of a plain silver band on which are engraved designs of various objects, or else coated with ornaments in enamel, the rings of the Tibetans display a considerable variety of settings, turquoise, coral, agate, mother-of-pearl, mica and similar stones being used. Few or none of the true precious stones are to be found in the rings of these countries. The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has a large number of specimens some of which are figured in the accompanying plate.[134]

A collection of some two dozen rings of artistic Siamese workmanship were sent to the Chicago Exhibition of 1893, in charge of Prince Surrya, later Siamese ambassador to France. These rings were of nearly pure gold, and were ornamented with designs in red, green, and white enamel, representing animals, fish, and other forms, but never human figures. They were believed to be of considerable age and historic value; indeed, they were so highly prized that they were not publicly exhibited but were kept locked up in a safe, and only rarely displayed to some especially favored visitor. After the close of the Exhibition they were safely returned to Siam.

An American traveller in Cambodia, in 1871, succeeded in having a few rings made for him by a native Buddhist bonza, the material being old metal found lying about among the idols of a temple at Ongchor. The work of the priest gives evidence of a considerable degree of skill in design, doubtless derived from examination and study of native and Indian types of rings. The type having an intertwined bezel prevails; one massive ring is penannular.[135] An elaborate Burmese ring has the hoop in the form of a serpent, whose open mouth displays the death-dealing fangs. Along the body runs a continuous band of rubies placed in oval settings. The rest of the surface is adorned with green, red and white enamel—mouth, nose, tail and scales being brought out in this way. Of two red stones which originally marked the serpent’s eyes, one has fallen out; on either side of the head is a small sapphire. This fine ring is in the British Museum.[136]

While fifty years ago in Japan the women of the better classes did not favor the wearing of finger-rings, it was not infrequently the case that kitchenmaids and housemaids would wear silver or brass rings. They are believed to have been influenced by the example of Dutch women in Nagasaki.[137] At the present day American and European influence is very slow in making itself felt in the direction of ring-wearing.

In the large oval bezel of a fine Syrian ring is set a paste representing a topaz. The shoulders expand to form the bezel. This ring, the lower half of which has been broken off, shows an exceptionally fine patina; it was of large size and must have been a striking ornament on the wearer’s hand. As the broad oval extends across the hoop, not at right angles with it, it must have interfered slightly with a free use of the fingers near the one on which the ring was worn.

In the Philippine Islands a type of ring that is made by the natives has a number of spiral twists, from five to as many as a dozen coils appearing in these rings. The serpentine form is accentuated by a pattern of dots or cross-marking, with sometimes the indication of a conventional flower design. While rather clumsy for wear, these rings still possess a certain artistic quality. Fine examples are in the Ethnological Department of the American Museum of Natural History, New York City.

The ancient city of refuge, Machu Picchu, probably built by the Incas nearly 2000 years ago on a Peruvian mountain top, was uncovered by the National Geographic Society—Yale University Peruvian Expedition of 1912, of which Dr. Hiram Bingham was the director. Among the many interesting relics found on this unique site were some silver rings, one being of the twisted type, with the ends free, so as to suit the size of any finger, while another has been welded or hammered into a closed circlet. While it is impossible to date these rings with any approach to exactness, they are undoubtedly examples of the art of native Peruvian silversmiths prior to the Spanish Conquest.[138]

Rings in great variety are worn in the Congo region and in every part of Bantu and Negro Africa. There are heavy rings and light ones, simple hoops and spirals, and they are worn on neck, arm, leg, finger and toe. They are made of brass, copper, ivory, iron, elephant foot-pad, and several other materials. At Akkra, and in Liberia, there is quite a manufacture of gold rings, and, to a lesser extent, of silver rings also.[139]

An example of the exceptionally large rings sometimes made to commemorate special occasions, rather than for possible wear, is one donated to President Pierce by some Californian admirers in 1852. This somewhat ambitious production scarcely answers the requirements of a high standard of art, but its decoration offers a great variety of appropriate designs illustrating life in the Far West in the middle of the past century. The ring is of solid gold and weighs something over a pound, thus having a mere metal value of about $250. On square surfaces cut on the circlet are a series of designs intended to present an epitome of California’s early history; the native animals in a wild state, the Indian warrior armed with bow and arrow, and a native mountaineer; then comes a Californian, riding a horse at full speed and casting his lasso; to him succeeds the miner with pick and shovel. The bezel is engraved with the arms of California; it is hinged and when opened reveals a kind of box having nine compartments divided by golden bars. In each compartment is a characteristic specimen of one of the principal ores found in California. Inside the circlet has been engraved the inscription: “Presented to Franklin Pierce, the Fourteenth President of the United States.”[140] What may be called a presidential ring is that depicted in the effigy of Abigail Power Fillmore, wife of President Fillmore (1850–1853), a quaint wax figure in the Wives of Presidents series, shown in the United States National Museum, Washington D. C. In this she is shown wearing a handkerchief ring.

Ring given to President Franklin Pierce in 1852 by citizens of California

“Gleason’s Pictorial Magazine,” December 25, 1852

Series of old rings worked up to form a pendant

Jewelers’ Circular-Weekly, December 8, 1909

RINGS FROM THE ALEXANDER W. DRAKE COLLECTION, SOLD AT THE AMERICAN ART GALLERIES IN MARCH, 1913

1, silver ring of East Indian workmanship. 2, massive Tartar finger ring of fine gold. 3, copy in silver of the betrothal ring of Martin Luther, a gift of Richard Watson Gilder. 4, finger ring with precious stone setting and two irregularly-shaped pearls. Pendant shows the bust of a bearded man in armor. 5, gold betrothal ring. Two hands holding a crowned heart. Type used by Galway fisherman from the Thirteenth Century and called a “Claddugh Ring.” 6, openwork gold ring. 7, old Chinese gold ring—oval with Chinese characters, on either side a chiseled bat. 8, Moorish finger ring of fine gold. Large shield with characteristic ornamentation. 9, gold ring with intaglio of a shepherd and goat cut on a light sard. 10, square gold ring, with bead groups in centre and at corners, the central part in raised openwork. 11, gold ring. French. Heart-shaped bezel set with Watteau figure in repousse, under crystal, and surrounded with bits of green and white crystal between small flowers of gold. 12, silver finger ring. Two hoops linked together by true-lovers’ knot.

An unusually large ring was worn by the well-known theatrical manager, Sheridan Shook. It was set with an amethyst an inch long by three-quarters of an inch broad and half an inch deep, and weighing two and a half ounces. The letter S was engraved in the stone and inlaid with small diamonds. This immense ring with its massive gold setting can hardly be termed a great work of art, but it is unique in its way and was greatly valued by its owner, who only ceased to wear it when ill-health and weakness made it too much of a burden.

The extensive and remarkable collections of the late Alexander Wilson Drake, which were disposed of at the American Art Galleries in New York, March 10th to 17th, 1913, comprised a fine collection of finger rings, illustrating a large variety of forms and periods. There were in all nearly 800 examples, set and unset. There were betrothal rings, memorials rings, gimmal rings, puzzle rings, rings of Roman, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Irish, Scandinavian, English and American workmanship, and many Oriental rings, Sassanian, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew, Gypsy and Moorish, one of the latter being a gold circlet with the twelve signs of the zodiac engraved in high relief around it.

The personality of the collector added greatly to the charm of this collection for all who had known him. As art editor of the Century Magazine, and in a thousand other ways, no one had labored more enthusiastically and successfully in the cause of art encouragement and art education, and his death constituted a real loss for the progress of art in America.

The valuable and carefully chosen collection of gem stones set in rings, which was made by the late Sir Arthur Herbert Church (1834–1915), has been presented by his widow, Lady Church, to the trustees of the British Museum and is shown in the Natural History building.[141]

Of the 18 examples in the British Museum collection of the interesting class of rings cut out of a single stone, The collection comprises 169 specimens, 45 of them zircons, fully illustrating the wide range of color to be found in this gem-stone; two of them are of a beautiful sky-blue. The following list gives the number of rings for each mineral species:

Corundum12
Spinel17
Chrysoberyl8
Quartz (amethyst, tiger-eye, chrysoprase)3
Peridot1
Spodumene1
Labradorite1
Beryl4
Andalusite1
Tourmaline20
Opal (precious, fire, black and milk)10
Zircon45
Phenacite5
Enstalite1
Moonstone2
Garnet19
Topaz8
Cordierite2
Sphene1
Turquoise1

Only three of the rings are set with more than a single stone.

Several belonged to the collection of Sir Hans Sloane in 1753, five of them being archers’ thumb-rings, of agate, carnelian, mocha-stone, or jasper. A green jasper ring of this type is thus entered in the Sloane Manuscript catalogue: “A thumb piece for defending it from being hurt by the bowstring, from Turkey.”

A remarkable, though decidedly eccentric ring of the art nouveau style of René Lalique shows in the long, irregularly oval bezel, a full-length, nude female figure cut in very high relief out of a bluish rock-crystal; set at one side about the middle of the figure is a round pearl, apparently of immense proportions as compared with those of the human body.[142]

Not only are there the watch-bracelets which have been so extensively worn of late years, but minute ornamental watches have been set in finger-rings, where they can be consulted with even greater ease than when worn on the wrist. The watch-face is surrounded by a bordering of small jewels. Apart from their practical value, the “watch-rings” are pretty and dainty objects in themselves, and lend a new element of variety to the long list of ring forms.[143]

There is in the collection of the Imperial Kunstgewerbe Museum, Vienna, an exceptionally fine example of the watch-ring, made by Johann Putz, of Augsburg, in the seventeenth century. It has a detachable cover, cut from an emerald, on which the Austrian double-eagle has been engraved. In the same collection are two sun-dial rings; one, made in the seventeenth century, has a lid figuring a hedgehog, studded with black diamond lozenges; the other, a sixteenth century ring, bears a Greek inscription to the effect that “time removes all things and brings forgetfulness;” the sun-dial is on the inner side of this ring, which is of silver gilt. There is also a gold astrolabe ring, which when closed looks like an ordinary one; but when the connected circles are opened up, the ring constitutes a veritable astrolabe.[144]

A gold “sphere-ring” in the British Museum collection has an outer hoop in two parts, working like a gimmal, and three interior hoops which are almost concealed when the ring is closed. The exterior hoop is chased; on the inner surfaces, concealed from view when the ring is closed, appears in sections the following inscription in black enamel: Verbo Dei celi firmati sunt. Dixit et creata sunt, ipse mandavit et creata sunt. (The heavens are founded in the word of God. He spoke and they were created; he commanded and they were created.) After “firmati sunt,” is the date 1555. The three interior hoops bear, enameled in black, the signs of the zodiac, stars, and other astral figures. This ring is of German workmanship.[145]

In the collection of works of art bequeathed to the British Museum in 1898 by Baron Ferdinand Rothschild, and designated as the Waddesdon Bequest, there are several characteristic rings. Of these perhaps the most notable is a large finger ring of gold, enameled and set with jewels, a sixteenth century example of German workmanship. The bezel is in the form of a clasped book; on the cover is a skull, about which are four stones, sapphire, ruby, emerald, and diamond, and two toads and snakes in enamel. When the book cover is thrown back there appears a loose plate of gold, on which is enameled a recumbent figure with skull and hour-glass; on the under side of the cover is inscribed in black enamel (in capitals): SIVE VIVIMUS, SIVE MORIMUR, DOMINI SUMUS. COMMENDA DOMINO VIAM TUAM, ET SPERA IN EUM ET IPSE FACIET (Whether we live or whether we die we are the Lord’s. Commit thy way unto the Lord and trust in Him, and He shall bring it to pass). This combines the text, Romans xiv, 8 with Psalm xxxvii, 5. On the shoulders of the ring are two groups in enamel, the Fall and the Expulsion from Eden.[146]

Sixteenth century ring-making, so rich in its variety of eccentric types, evolved whistle-rings, one of which is in the British Museum. This is of bronze gilt; the large oval bezel is engraved with a shield of arms; the hoop is slender at the back. The shoulders are engraved with strap-work, one of them having a tubular whistle.[147]

An enameled gold ring of striking and original design is owned by Dr. Albert Figdor, Vienna. The bezel has a lid on which is enameled a head wearing a half-mask; the eyes are of small lozenge-shaped diamonds, and there is a bordering of seventeen rubies. On lifting the lid there appears beneath an oval surface, on which is enameled a heart with the motto: “Pour vous seule” (For you alone). The inner side of the lid is hollowed out so as to serve as a receptacle for hair. The hoop, of a ribbon-like form, bears the significant inscription: “Sous le masque la vérité” (Beneath the mask is truth). This ring, which belonged to the famous Viennese tragedienne, Charlotte Wolter, is of French workmanship and dates from about 1800. A whimsical gold ring in the collection has a plain hoop, to which the figure of a little mouse, wrought in gold, is looped by the tail so that it slips around the circlet. Another gold ring of singular design is one having a diamond in a silver setting about which are three rubies in gold settings; between the rubies are three playing cards in enamel. The hoop is of openwork with two playing cards and two ovals; a section of reddish gold that has been added to it, indicates that the ring was enlarged at some time from its original size.[148]

A decoration of a somewhat unusual type appears in a ring to be seen in the Cleveland Museum of Art, the gift of Mr. and Mrs. J. Homer Wade. It has for its adornment a minute landscape painting, in place of a precious stone or seal decoration.[149] This might be a suggestion to those who may wish to bear with them a pretty reminder of their favorite country home, or else of some scene that is associated with exceptionally happy memories.

GOLD RING, RICHLY ENAMELED

The hoop has white, red and black enameling, and is studded with little emeralds and rubies. The high bezel is set with an emerald and with a small ruby on each of the four sides. Second half of Sixteenth Century

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

GOLD RING, WITH HEAD IN FORM OF A ROSE KNOT

The setting consists of a diamond in a silver bezel, and three rubies in gold bezels; between the rubies are three enameled playing cards. The hoop is of openwork interspersed with two playing cards and two ovals in enamel; a section of reddish gold indicates an enlargement of this ring. Eighteenth Century

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna

A symbolic ring recently designed and executed in New York artfully combines a number of significant elements, each of which has a distinct bearing upon the history, the fortunes, or the taste of the prospective wearer. At the head of the ring is set his birth-stone, the sard, about which are engraved his family crest and motto, and the initials of his name. On the shank are two relief representations, one of a lion, “the king of beasts,” typifying royal descent, the other showing the wearer’s patron saint, Michael; at the left of this figure is set an emerald as the talismanic gem. Surmounting the head of the ring are a series of light gothic arches, indicating the religious character of this jewel. On the smooth inner side of the head is engraved a mystic design, consisting of a double triangle, interlaced to form a six-pointed star, and enclosed by a circle; within the triangles appears in blue emerald the “mystic number” 15, that of the wearer, blue being his astral color; the triangles symbolize the inseparability of the Holy Trinity, and the circle typifies Eternity, this word being engraved above, as well as the date of the wearer’s birth, and a legend commemorating the gift of the ring. It is made of fine gold, so that it may the better denote absolute purity.

In one type of serpent ring, one of the ends is inserted loose into the mouth of the serpent’s head terminating the other end, so that by a little careful bending, the trifling difference in the diameter of the hoop necessary to adjust it perfectly to a finger can be easily attained. This form already appears among ancient rings.[150]

Two finely wrought serpent rings are shown on the Plate.[151] In one of these (No. 2), with three coils, the erect head of the snake with distended jaws is vividly portrayed, making the ring a work of art indeed, but arousing an instinctive repulsion in the beholder. The other serpent ring constitutes a simple circlet, the head of the snake overlapping the tail. As an example of artistic workmanship it fully equals the larger ring, and may be considered better adapted for the adornment of the hand, since the serpent nature is not so aggressively presented.

Rings of a quite unique type, that owes its origin to the great war and to French skill and taste in adapting the most unpromising means to an artistic end, are those made by French soldiers out of aluminum fuses taken from the bombs which their German foes have so liberally rained upon them. At the outset the disks were first worked with scissors to make rude rings for men’s big fingers. Later on the well-furnished tool-box of the machine-gun squad was called into requisition. This early primitive type was soon abandoned, and in order to make rings of the proper dimensions the metal from the German shells was fused and run into ingots; the crucible was frequently one of the new iron helmets, which was set on a wood fire that was kept going by a bellows improvised from a bayonet sheath. However, the soldiers finally became so reckless in their search for material that it was found necessary to put a stop to this, after several had been shot by the enemy.

1, mourning ring. Gold with enamel and jewels, Seventeenth Century. 2, snake ring. Carved gold with diamond eyes. Modern Oriental. 3, Chinese ring. Native gold with seal reading, “Riches and public honors.” Overlapping back. Nineteenth Century. 4, wish-bone ring. Copy of an African one in gold. 5, Persian ring. Gold and silver, set with a carnelian having seal characters of owner’s name. Metal engraved inside. Eighteenth Century. 6, Chinese ring. Native gold with seal reading, “Long life and riches.” Overlapping back. Eighteenth Century. 7, animal ring. Carved gold in two colors with continuous procession of tigers. Modern French. 8, Chinese ring. Of greenish jadeite in one piece. Eighteenth Century.

Rings from the Collection of W. Gedney Beatty

THREE TYPES OF WATCH RING

Front, side and end views

The first models for the rings were made of wood or soft limestone. At a more advanced stage, round bars were made, which were cut into sections by means of the jagged edge of an old trench-spade. The smoothing off was done with a knife, and for making the ring apertures a pick was commonly used. They were then polished with a piece of hard wood, moistened from time to time to soften it.

This still primitive form failed to satisfy the amateur ring-makers, and soon some of them began to engrave their rings with the point of a pocket-knife, and others, more ambitious, encrusted them with small pieces of copper, either mortised or rivetted in. Although many of the rings were undoubtedly the work of entirely unpracticed hands, of course in any of the great modern national armies men of all trades and professions are represented, and hence the really fine examples of these war-time rings have been the work of those familiar with the jewellers’ art. So eagerly did some of the soldiers pursue this avocation, that when their aluminum threatened to give out, they would look impatiently for a bombardment to get a new supply.[152]

The “add-a-link” ring is made up of a series of small links which all snap one in the other. The purchaser buys one with the number of links requisite to fit the finger exactly. If he wishes to have a stone in it he buys a link with a stone inserted therein. A plain link is snapped out of the ring and the link with the stone is snapped in. Sometimes these rings are made up of a variety of stones and then again with only one stone. It is possible in this way for the purchaser to obtain, at a moderate cost, a variety of settings, changeable at will. Moreover, a ring of this type can be enlarged as the finger grows larger.

Among a number of ring-types designed for the practical convenience of the owner and only worn temporarily to serve a particular purpose, we may note the cigarette ring, provided with a straight sliding rod the end of which clasps the middle of a cigarette, so that when a whiff has been taken, the hand may be freely used without laying aside or dropping the cigarette. Another smokers’ ring is one provided with a projection for stopping a pipe, rendering it possible for the ardent pipe-smoker to keep his pipe-bowl well filled and well packed without soiling the tips of his fingers. These pipe-stopping rings are sometimes of rich materials, in one instance the stopper was of a beautiful white zircon, finely contrasting with the rich yellow gold of the ring proper. Rings of this kind were very much in vogue in the eighteenth century, and one appears on the hand of a gentleman in one of Hogarth’s engravings.

The name “swivel ring” is applied when the head of the ring is loose, and is loosely secured by a bar to the band or circlet, so that the ring will swing around. This type is frequently used in scarab rings, or where there is a double intaglio, a double miniature, or other double object, or where the ring is what is known as a concealed seal ring, the outside part being a gold ornament or a stone.

One of the “surprise rings” in which a hinged outer section of the hoop can be made to detach itself, on a spring being pressed, so that a concealed surface appears, shows on its hidden surface a number of magical signs and the names of the angels or spirits Ashmodel, Nachiel, Zamiel, and others. Wearing a ring of this kind, the adept could reveal his belief in the magic arts to others of his sect or fraternity, thus bearing about with him a secret passport admitting him to their confidence.[153]

A pretty way of utilizing old and cherished rings for the production of an attractive ornament is to link them together so as to form a chatelaine. By this means a large number of family memorial rings, either those of more or less remote ancestors or of persons whom the owner has known and loved, may be combined in a single beautiful chain. This can be done in several ways. After opening the rings at the joint, they are strung one below the other, the monotony of the effect being varied by one or more double rings, the terminal of the chain being a seal-ring with the bezel downward. Another method is to have a series of double rings, each one of which is joined to the member of the pair immediately below, by means of a small ring made for this purpose; here again the terminal will be either a seal-ring, or one set with a large precious stone. Such ornaments are not only things of beauty in themselves, but unique in the memories they serve to perpetuate in the hearts of the wearers.