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 Hand Left Hand
Index finger, 7 Index finger, 4
Middle finger, 1 Middle finger, 0
Fourth finger, 7 Fourth finger, 7
Little finger, 1 Little 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]
[Illustration: Two wire rings from a tumulus near Canterbury,
Kent, England, one with a bezel effect
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
[Illustration: Two Anglo-Saxon rings found near Preston,
Lancashire, England, in 1840
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
[Illustration: Silver thumb ring found at Saxon’s Lode, England.
“Fifteenth Century Archæologia,” vol. iii, p. 268]
[Illustration: Silver-gilt ring, with broad, flat hoop, and
rectangular bezel set with a carbuncle
British Museum]
[Illustration: Ring of mixed metal set with engraved stone
showing a monkey looking into a mirror
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
[Illustration: 1, thumb-ring; two cockatrices engraved in relief
on agate. 2, ring set with Gnostic gem
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
[Illustration: Two gold rings. 1, with high circular bezel;
Frankish (?); Sixth or Seventh Century; 2, with pyramidal bezel;
Lombardic (?); Seventh Century
British Museum]
[Illustration: Agate ring with a Runic inscription. Late Saxon
British Museum]
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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]
[Illustration: 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]
[Illustration: HAND OF A JEWELER, HOLDING A _BACULA_ WITH
FIVE RINGS
British Museum]
[Illustration: 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]
[Illustration: Silver ring having projecting bezel in form of a
spur with revolving rowel. Italian (?), Fourteenth or Fifteenth
Century
British Museum]
[Illustration: “Regard ring,” with seven hoops. The initials of
the six stones spell the word “regard”
British Museum]
[Illustration: 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”]
[Illustration: 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]