CHAP. 2.—GOLD.
Gold is dug out of the earth, and, in close proximity to it, chrysocolla,[654] a substance which, that it may appear all the more precious, still retains the name[655] which it has borrowed from gold.[656] It was not enough for us to have discovered one bane for the human race, but we must set a value too upon the very humours of gold.[657] While avarice, too, was on the search for silver, it congratulated itself upon the discovery of minium,[658] and devised a use to be made of this red earth.
Alas for the prodigal inventions of man! in how many ways have we augmented the value of things![659] In addition to the standard value of these metals, the art of painting lends its aid, and we have rendered gold and silver still more costly by the art of chasing them. Man has learned how to challenge both Nature and art to become the incitements to vice! His very cups he has delighted to engrave with libidinous subjects, and he takes pleasure in drinking from vessels of obscene form![660] But in lapse of time, the metals passed out of fashion, and men began to make no account of them; gold and silver, in fact, became too common. From this same earth we have extracted vessels of murrhine[661] and vases of crystal,[662] objects the very fragility of which is considered to enhance their value. In fact, it has come to be looked upon as a proof of opulence, and as quite the glory of luxury, to possess that which may be irremediably destroyed in an instant. Nor was even this enough;—we now drink from out of a mass of gems,[663] and we set our goblets with smaragdi;[664] we take delight in possessing the wealth of India, as the promoter of intoxication, and gold is now nothing more than a mere accessory.[665]
CHAP. 3.—WHAT WAS THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION OF GOLD.
Would that gold could have been banished for ever from the earth, accursed by universal report,[666] as some of the most celebrated writers have expressed themselves, reviled by the reproaches of the best of men, and looked upon as discovered only for the ruin of mankind. How much more happy the age when things themselves were bartered for one another; as was the case in the times of the Trojan war, if we are to believe what Homer says. For, in this way, in my opinion, was commerce then carried on for the supply of the necessaries of life. Some, he tells us, would make their purchases by bartering ox-hides, and others by bartering iron or the spoil which they had taken from the enemy:[667] and yet he himself, already an admirer of gold, was so far aware of the relative value of things, that Glaucus, he informs us, exchanged his arms of gold, valued at one hundred oxen, for those of Diomedes, which were worth but nine.[668] Proceeding upon the same system of barter, many of the fines imposed by ancient laws, at Rome even, were levied in cattle,[669] [and not in money].
CHAP. 4.—THE ORIGIN OF GOLD RINGS.
The worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring upon his fingers: and yet we are not informed, by tradition, who it was that first did so. For as to all the stories told about Prometheus, I look upon them as utterly fabulous, although I am aware that the ancients used to represent him with a ring of iron: it was their intention, however, to signify a chain thereby, and not an ornament. As to the ring of Midas,[670] which, upon the collet being turned inwards, conferred invisibility upon the wearer, who is there that must not admit, perforce, that this story is even still more fabulous? It was the hand, and a sinister[671] hand, too, in every sense, that first brought gold into such high repute: not a Roman hand, however, for upon that it was the practice to wear a ring of iron only, and solely as an indication of warlike prowess.
As to the usage followed by the Roman kings, it is not easy to pronounce an opinion: the statue of Romulus in the Capitol wears no ring, nor does any other statue—not that of L. Brutus even—with the sole exception of those of Numa and Servius Tullius. I am surprised at this absence of the ring, in the case of the Tarquinii more particularly, seeing that they were originally from Greece,[672] a country from which the use of gold rings was first introduced; though even at the present day the people of Lacedæmon are in the habit of wearing rings made of iron. Tarquinius Priscus, however, it is well known, was the first who presented his son with the golden bulla,[673] on the occasion of his slaying an enemy before he had laid aside the prætexta;[674] from which period the custom of wearing the bulla has been continued, a distinction confined to the children of those who have served in the cavalry, those of other persons simply wearing a leather thong.[675] Such being the case, I am the more surprised that the statue of this Tarquinius should be without a ring.
And yet, with reference to the very name of the ring, I find that there has been considerable uncertainty. That given to it originally by the Greeks is derived from the finger;[676] while our ancestors styled it “ungulus;”[677] and in later times both Greeks and Latins have given it the name of “symbolum.”[678] For a great length of time, it is quite clear, not even the Roman senators wore rings of gold: for rings were given, and at the public expense, to those only who were about to proceed on an embassy to foreign nations, the reason being, I suppose, because men of highest rank among foreign nations were perceived to be thus distinguished. Nor was it the practice for any person to wear these rings, except those who for this reason had received them at the public expense; and in most instances, it was without this distinction that the Roman generals celebrated their public triumphs.[679] For whereas an Etruscan crown[680] of gold was supported from behind over the head of the victor, he himself, equally with the slave probably, who was so supporting the crown, had nothing but a ring of iron upon his finger.[681] It was in this manner that C. Marius celebrated his triumph over Jugurtha; and he never assumed[682] the golden ring, it is said, until the period of his third consulship.[683] Those, too, who had received golden rings on the occasion of an embassy, only wore them when in public, resuming the ring of iron when in their houses. It is in pursuance of this custom that even at the present day, an iron ring[684] is sent by way of present to a woman when betrothed, and that, too, without any stone in it.