(1272–1307), is interesting as casting a sidelight on the English
coinage at the end of the thirteenth century. Under date of 1299,
provision is made for returning to the church of Westminster the half
of 38 marks of gold (about $9,500 intrinsic value) that had been taken
from the shrine of St. Edward for the jewels sent to Queen Margaret on
her first coming to Westminster, “the coinage being so debased and real
sterlings rarely found.”[303]
The cross on the summit of the Imperial State Crown of England, as
described by Prof. Tennant, is surmounted by a rose-cut sapphire. There
is a tradition that this sapphire was once set in the ring of Edward
the Confessor, a ring which, according to popular belief, was endowed
with wonderful curative virtues, and gave its successive owners the
power to consecrate the so-called cramp rings.[304] This attribution of
the sapphire is in disagreement with the early notice of the ruby ring
given to Westminster Abbey by Richard II as that of the saintly Edward,
and also to the usage long observed of setting a ruby in the Coronation
Ring. King, in his account of Edward’s ring, calls attention to an
entry in the inventory of Henry III’s jewels describing a sapphire
weighing 52 dwts (about 337 metric carats), and suggests that this may
be the large sapphire of the English crown.[305]
When Pope Hadrian IV (1154–1159) acknowledged the sovereignty of
Henry II of England over Ireland, he sent to the monarch by John of
Salisbury, the messenger who bore the Brief of Investiture, a valuable
ring set with an exceptionally fine emerald. This historical fact
probably suggested the name Emerald Isle as a designation for Ireland.
The ring and the Brief were carefully guarded in the royal archives at
the time John of Salisbury wrote his recital.[306]
During the crusade which brought into martial rivalry two of the most
romantic figures of history, Richard Cœur de Lion and Saladin, an
English knight, Sir William D’Annay, killed a Saracen prince, in 1192,
and not long afterwards vanquished a lion near the ancient Syrian
city of Acre, later known as St. Jean d’Acre, as it was placed under
the care of the knights of the Order of St. John. As a special and
appropriate offering to King Richard, Sir William brought him a paw
of the slain lion, and received from the king as a recognition of the
bravery he had displayed a ring from the royal finger. The knight was
also directed to bear on his crest a “demi Saracen” holding in one
hand a lion’s paw and in the other a ring, so that the memory of the
gallant deeds and of the royal recompense should never be forgotten.
In 1856 this ring was in the possession of Dawnay, Viscount Downe, a
lineal descendant of the crusader, who still bore the crest assigned
by Richard Cœur de Lion.[307] The ring is of silver and is set with a
so-called toadstone, the palatal tooth of a ray, famous in mediæval
times as a talisman against poison.[308]
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) sent to Richard Cœur de Lion four gold
rings, each set with a different stone. With the rings, the pope sent a
letter from St. Peter’s in Rome, dated May 28, 1198, in which he wrote
that the four stones were symbolical. The verdant hue of the emerald
signified how we should believe, the celestial purity of the sapphire,
how we should hope, the warm color of the garnet, how we should love,
and the clear transparency of the topaz, how we should act. Moreover,
the ring-form also possessed a symbolical meaning, roundness denoting
eternity, which has neither beginning nor end. Hence the royal
conscience had in the ring a monition to pass from terrestrial to
celestial matters, from temporal to eternal things.[309]
In the ruins of the palace at Eltham in Kent was found a gold ring
set with an Oriental ruby surrounded by five diamonds in their native
crystalline state, placed at equal distances from one another. This
ring weighed over half an ounce (exactly, 267¹⁄₁₀ grains) and bore the
following inscription in Old French:
Qui me portera expliotera
Et a grant joye revendra.
(Whosoever weareth me will do doughty deeds,
And will return filled with joy.)
This motto is believed to indicate that the ring had been given to a
Crusader to wear on his expedition for the rescue of the Holy Land from
the hands of the infidels. That it should have been found on English
soil seems to be proof that the wearer returned safely to his native
land.[310]
In 1774, after long and urgent solicitation, the Dean of Westminster,
Dr. John Thomas, later Bishop of Rochester, consented to the opening
of the tomb of Edward I of England (1272–1307) and the disinterment
of his body. The corpse was found closely wrapped in coarse, thick
linen cloth, the face being covered with a face-cloth of crimson
sarcinet.[311] The features were still in great part well-preserved
though the skin was dark brown, almost black. The monarch had been
clothed with royal vesture and royal insignia, but no ring was found on
either of the hands. The disinterment of King Canute’s body, however,
resulted in the finding of a ring set with a large and fine stone, of
what particular kind we are not informed.
When, in 1562, the iconoclastic Calvinists of Caen broke open the tomb
of Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, in the Abbey of the Holy
Trinity, there was still to be seen on one of the queen’s fingers a
gold ring set with a fine sapphire. This was yielded to the Abbess, of
the house of Montmorency, who later gave it to her father, the famous
constable of France, Anne de Montmorency, when he attended Charles
IX on the latter’s visit to Caen in the following year. The tomb of
William Rufus, the Conqueror’s son, in Winchester Cathedral, was opened
in the reign of Charles I, and in the dust of the king lay a large gold
ring. So customary was it at this period to have a royal ring interred
with the sovereign’s body, that even when Richard II left special
directions in his will that the crown and sceptre to be buried with him
should not be enriched with any precious stones, he expressly ordered
that a ring set with a precious stone and worth 20 marks should be put
on his finger.[312]
When, in 1360, the Earl of Richmond married the Lady Blanche, daughter
of the Duke of Lancaster, King Edward III gave as presents a ring with
a ruby and a belt garnished with rubies, emeralds and pearls.[313] The
rubies may have been considered especially appropriate, since the red
rose was the emblem of the House of Lancaster. More than a century
later, in the reign of Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck utilized his
striking resemblance to Edward IV in support of his claim that he was
one of the princes slain in the Tower, in 1483, by order of Richard
III, and succeeded in persuading Edward’s sister, Margaret, and also
King James IV of Scotland, of the truth of his pretensions, one of his
rural agents in England was called in the conspirators’ correspondence
“The Merchant of the Ruby,” a designation designed to cast off possible
suspicion by representing the agent to be only a gem dealer.
There still exists in the English records a paper dated in 1445, the
year of Margaret of Anjou’s marriage, and signed by King Henry VI. In
this the king directs that a warrant of discharge be given to “our
Trusty and Wellbeloved Squire John Merston, Tresorier of our Chambre
and Keper of our juwelles,” for sundry jewels which had been confided
to his care. The following item refers to the ring of Margaret of
Anjou:[314]
“A Ryng of Gold, Garnished with a fayr Rubie, somtyme Yeven unto Us by
our Bel Oncle the Cardinal of Englande, with the which we were Sacred
in the Day of oure Coronation at Parys, delivered unto Mathew Phelip,
to Breke, and thereof to make an other Ryng for the Quenes Wedding
Ring.”
There is no mention here of any engraving on the stone of this ring,
which had been used in 1431, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris. If the
spinel in the Marlborough Collection, engraved with a head somewhat
resembling that of Henry VI on his coins, really adorned this ring, the
engraving may have been executed subsequent to Henry’s marriage with
the unfortunate Margaret of Anjou.
Rings set with precious stones were given as prizes at the tournament
held by Henry VII of England in 1494. The prize for jousting was to be
a ruby ring, while the best in the tourney and the one delivering the
most telling strokes was to be rewarded with a diamond ring. The Earl
of Suffolk, Thomas Brandon, who later married King Henry’s daughter
Margaret, after the death of her first husband Louis XII of France, was
successful in gaining one of the ruby rings, bestowed upon him by the
“Ladie Margaret,” his future wife, and Sir Edward A. Borough fought so
stoutly in the mêlée that he was adjudged worthy of a diamond ring. An
extra prize of an emerald ring was given to the Earl of Essex for his
valor.[315]
In 1681 the Duke of Norfolk presented to the College of Arms in London
the sword, dagger, and ring worn by James IV of Scotland (1473–1513)
at the battle of Flodden Field, fought August 22, 1513, in which he
met his death. This ring was set with a turquoise and had been sent to
James by the queen of France, as a pledge of friendship and regard,
when she solicited the good offices of the Scottish monarch with Henry
VIII, who had just laid siege to Térouanne. Another account states that
when the queen sent the ring to James, she charged him to break a lance
for her sake. This ring is said to have been taken from the body of
King James by Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, an ancestor of the donor.[316]
The belief that the turquoise protected those who wore it from falls
and wounds, probably determined its selection, but the result in this
case was hardly calculated to increase the stone’s prestige.
On the site of this disastrous defeat of the Scotch by the English
army under the Earl of Surrey, an inscribed ring was found in 1783.
The inscription, in Norman French, reads: “On est mal loiauls amans
qui se poet garder des maux disans” (Only a lover of scant loyalty can
escape calumny). The words are disposed in groups of two, and between
each pair is a boar’s head, the crest of the Campbells. This has led to
the conjecture that the ring belonged to the second son of the Duke of
Argyll, Archibald Campbell, who met his death in the forefront of the
fight.[317]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII, BY HANS HOLBEIN, PAINTED
IN 1540
Rings of identical form and setting on index fingers of each hand
and on little finger of left hand. These are designed to match
exactly the jewels on his collar and sleeves.
Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica. Palazzo Corsini, Rome]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF JANE SEYMOUR (CA. 1510–1537) THIRD
WIFE OF HENRY VIII, AND MOTHER OF EDWARD VI, BY HANS HOLBEIN, THE
YOUNGER
Rings set with precious stones on index and fourth fingers of
left hand
Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna]
At the spoliation of the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury
in 1538, among the precious objects taken away was “[a stone with]
an angel of gold pointing thereunto, offered by the King of France:
[which King Henry put] into a ring and wore it on his thumb.” This
jewel, containing a diamond, was the most prized ornament of the
shrine, and is believed to have been given by Louis VII of France
on the occasion of his visit in 1179. Henry VIII must have tired of
his massive thumb ring, for in the inventory of the precious stones
delivered to Queen Mary, March 10, 1554, shortly after her accession,
there appears the following entry: “A collar of golde set with sixteen
faire diamounts, whereof the Regal of France is one, and fourteen
Knotts of perles, in every Knotte four perles.”[318]
Two pretty New Year’s gifts for January first, 1571, were delivered to
Lady Mary Sidney on the last day of the year 1570. One of them was a
ring “set with a rose”; the other was more ambitious in design, being
described as “a jewell with the storie of time” set with diamonds and
rubies, certainly an appropriate gift for the day. This cost but £10
or $50, a much larger sum, however, in those bygone days than it is
accounted to be to-day, for the purchasing power of money was many
times greater.[319]
The earliest mention of the diamond ring given by Elizabeth to Mary
Queen of Scots occurs in Camden’s account of the events of Elizabeth’s
reign. After relating the events that determined Mary to seek
Elizabeth’s protection, Camden continues:
She therefore sent John Beatoun to her [Elizabeth] with the
diamond she had formerly received from her as a symbol of mutual
good-will, signifying to her that she was about to come to England
and ask for aid in case her subjects continued to make war against
her.[320]
This is said to have been a gimmal-ring, two diamonds joining together
to form a heart. One half was kept by Elizabeth who gave the other half
to Mary. This appeal to the tender mercies of the Virgin Queen, and
Mary’s hope, were in vain, for “she cutt off her head for all that” as
Aubrey dryly puts it.[321]
Several epigrams on this diamond were written by the Scotch poet and
publicist George Buchanan (1506–1582), the best being as follows:[322]
Quod te jampridem fruitur, videt, ac amat absens,
Haec pignus cordis gemma, et imago mei est.
Non est candidior, non est haec purior illo,
Quamvis dura magis, non magis firma.
This has been rendered:
The gem which saw thee near and loves thee still,
Is pledge and image of my heart and will.
My heart is not less white or pure than this,
And though less hard, ’tis quite as firm I wis.
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1542–1587).
FRENCH SCHOOL
Rings on the second joint of fourth finger of right hand, and on
little finger of the same hand
Museo del Prado, Madrid]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, BY THE FLEMISH
PAINTER LUCAS DE HEERE
On little finger of left hand, ring set with a large, oblong,
table-cut stone
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York]
A memorial ring was sent by Mary of Scotland, just before her execution
at Fotheringay Castle, February 8, 1587, to her faithful follower and
kinsman, Lord John Hamilton, with an affectionate message and her
last farewell. This ring, set with a sapphire, was handed down from
generation to generation in the Hamilton family, and was seen, in
1857, at Hamilton Palace, by Miss Agnes Strickland. She described the
sapphire as being large, of rectangular form, and cut with a number
of facets, a kind of rose-cutting; the setting was of blue enamelled
gold in the style favored by sixteenth century goldsmiths.[323] It
might be looked upon as a noteworthy coincidence, that as a sapphire
was a memorial of Mary’s death, another sapphire was the token to her
son, James I, of Elizabeth’s death and his accession to the throne of
England.
On the night before her execution, Mary Stuart found an opportunity
to ask her apothecary, a Monsieur Gorion, whether he could safely
convey a letter and two diamonds to those for whom they were intended,
and whether he would promise to perform this service faithfully. He
assented, saying that he could make some drug in which the objects
might be safely concealed, so that he could carry them away with him.
One of these diamonds was to be given to Mendoza, for a long time
Spanish ambassador to the court of Elizabeth; the other, and larger
one, was destined for Philip II of Spain. This was to be received as “a
sign that she was dying for the truth, and was also meant to bespeak
his care for her friends and servants.”[324]
Of rings which have been treated as sacred relics, none can be said to
recall a more painful tragedy than one donated to the monastery-church
of the Escurial. On April 15, 1587, the Spanish king Philip II had a
nocturne and a requiem sung in the church in memory of the unfortunate
Mary of Scotland. When the echoes of the solemn chants had died away,
the king gave to the abbot a ring set with a diamond which had belonged
to the unhappy victim, with the injunction that it should be placed
among the sacred relics and preserved as “a symbol of the purity and
the firm faith of this saintly queen.”[325] This ring, or at least the
large diamond of its setting, must have been the farewell gift which we
have just noted.
Although not a betrothal ring, that given by Queen Elizabeth to the
Earl of Essex was most certainly a love token. When this nobleman
was high in the queen’s favor she bestowed upon him a gold ring set
with a sardonyx cut with her portrait; giving him, at the same time,
a solemn promise that whatever charges might be brought against him
she would accord him her pardon if he sent her this ring. Some years
later, Essex--who in the meanwhile had lost the queen’s favor--was
impeached for high treason and condemned to death. In this extremity,
he endeavored to find some means of transmitting to the queen the ring
she had given him. Fearing to trust his keepers with the execution of
his wish, Essex found no better way than to throw the ring to a boy who
was passing the prison, directing him to give it to Lady Scrope, Lady
Nottingham’s sister. Unfortunately for Essex, the boy gave the ring,
by mistake, to Lady Nottingham, whose husband was one of his bitterest
enemies, so that the token never reached the queen, who was convinced
that her former favorite was too proud and obstinate to seek her
mercy. She thereupon left him to his fate. Years afterwards, when Lady
Nottingham was on her death-bed, she asked for the queen and confessed
that she had failed to deliver the ring sent to her by Essex. This
confession aroused the queen’s wrath to such an extent that she burst
forth in violent reproaches and rushed from the room exclaiming: “God
may forgive you; I never shall!” The proud heart of the virgin queen
was broken by this revelation, and, weighed down by remorse for the
death of Essex, she expired a few weeks later.
[Illustration: Gold ring set with an oval cameo-portrait, on
onyx, of Queen Elizabeth. Sixteenth Century. Two views
British Museum]
[Illustration: Gold ring set with pearls pierced and threaded;
two views. Venetian (?) late Seventeenth Century
British Museum]
[Illustration: Multiple silver rings. Four hoops connected by
three vertical bars: one of these is set with two corals and a
glass paste. North African (?)
British Museum]
[Illustration: PUZZLE OR MAGIC RINGS, PLAIN AND JEWELLED]
Quite recently this historic Essex ring has found its way to the
auction-room, and to judge from the price it brought, the purchaser
must have been convinced of the truth of the legend concerning it, as
its merely artistic qualities--which are in no wise remarkable--and the
fact that it is incidentally a product of sixteenth century art would
scarcely suffice to justify the amount paid for it. The sale took place
at Christie’s in London, on May 18, 1911, and after spirited bidding
the ring was adjudged for $17,060. A firm of dealers in antiquities
were the nominal purchasers, but they are said to have acted for Lord
Michelson of Hollingly, a baron in the lately overthrown Kingdom of
Portugal, and the senior partner in the firm of Stern Bros., of London.
This ring is stated to have been bequeathed by mother to daughter in
a long line of Essex’s descendants, beginning with his daughter Lady
Francis Devereux. Finally it came to Louisa, daughter of John, Earl
of Greville, and wife of Thomas Thyme, second Viscount Weymouth and
great-grandfather of the late owner.
Some authorities do not think that the story of the Essex ring has a
satisfactory historical foundation.[326] It first appears in a book
published about 1650 and entitled “History of the most renowned Queen
Elizabeth and her great Favourite, the Earl of Essex. In Two Parts.
A Romance.” In 1658 Francis Osborn repeats it in his “Traditional
Memoires of Elizabeth.” It was even treated dramatically by John Banks
(fl. 1696) in his play “The Unhappy Favourite.” Certain later writers
claim to have learned of it through trustworthy informants, as for
example, Louis Aubery, Sieur de Maurier, who published in Paris, in
1680, a history of Holland and therein states that Sir Dudley Carleton
told the story to Prince Maurice of Saxony. In the English translation
of this work the episode has been omitted. Still later, at the end of
the seventeenth century, it is given by Lady Elizabeth Spelman on the
authority, as she alleged, of Sir Robert Carey, brother of Lady Scrope.
In earlier versions the ring was represented to have been sent directly
by Essex to Lady Nottingham; in Lady Spelman’s recital, however, as
we have already noted, Essex instructs the boy to whom he entrusts
the ring to deliver it to Lady Scrope, sister of Lady Nottingham. It
is suggested that this variation was made to offset the objection
that Essex would never have chosen his enemy, Lady Nottingham, as an
intermediary between himself and the queen. Manningham, in his “Diary,”
the only contemporary who alludes to a ring in connection with Essex’s
relations with Elizabeth, only states that “the queen wore till her
death a ring given her by Essex.” Possibly this fact may have served as
a nucleus for the romantic tale.
A portrait of Queen Elizabeth, elaborately be-pearled as usual, the
work of the Flemish painter, Lucas De Heere, shows her with a ring on
the little finger of her left hand. It is set with an oblong, table-cut
stone. This interesting portrait, which is in the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, New York, while conforming generally to the type with which
we are familiar, differs in some respects therefrom. The very slender
neck, the delicacy of form and face, may, of course, represent
mannerisms of the artist.
The sapphire set in the ring thrown out of the window of Queen
Elizabeth’s death chamber by Lady Scrope to her brother Robert Carey,
as a signal that the queen was dead, so that he might be the first
to bear the news to her impatient successor, James I, was exhibited
in the great Loan Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Jewellery shown
at the South Kensington Museum in London, in 1872. As there shown,
this historic sapphire was the central ornament of a diamond star, or
cinque-foil. The original ring was given to John, Earl of Orrery, by
the Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter of James II, and the small
brilliants surrounding it in its present setting are the same as those
which were about it in the ring.[327]
By the terms of his will, dated December 18, 1630, Sir Edward Coke, of
Godwick, bequeathed among other jewels two of historic significance.
One of these was a ring “set with a great Turkey (turquoise), which
King Henry the Eighth used to wear, and was painted with it on his
forefinger.” The other jewel, also a ring, is curiously suggestive when
we recall that an attempt (unsuccessful, of course) had been made to
poison the unfortunate Sir Thomas Overbury with diamond dust, before
poison of a more effective sort was administered to him. The ring in
question is described here as set with “a Diamon cut with faucetts
(facets)” and the statement is added that it had been given to Sir
Edward by Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I, “for the discovery of the
poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury.”[328]
A gold ring, said to have been one of five such rings given by Charles
I to Bishop Juxon, on the scaffold, just before the king’s execution,
was shown in the Loan Collection exhibited in the South Kensington
Museum, in London, in 1872. The statement is made that this ring was
presented by Bishop Juxon to Sir John Halloway, and from him passed
into the possession of the Dalby family. The ring bears a death’s head
in white enamel on a black ground, and has the motto, “Behold the
ende”; around the edge is the inscription, “Rather death then fals
fayth”; at the back are the initials “M” and “L,” tied with a mourning
ribbon.[329]
The “Verney Ring,” with a portrait of Charles I of England, is, if
genuine, the only relic of a heroic tragedy. It is said to have been
bestowed by Charles I upon Sir Edmund Verney, one of his most faithful
followers in the perils of the Civil War. Sir Edmund was killed at the
battle of Edgehill, in 1642, where the Cavaliers were utterly defeated,
but even in death he still held the royal standard in his grasp. The
ring was taken from his hand, and the body abandoned; it was never
recovered. As he was helped into the world by a Cæsarean operation, it
became a common saying in the neighborhood of Edgehill that Sir Edmund
was neither born nor buried.[330]