THE BOOK OF
THE PEARL
[Illustration:
THE CZARINA OF RUSSIA
]
[Illustration]
THE BOOK OF
THE PEARL
THE HISTORY, ART, SCIENCE, AND INDUSTRY OF THE QUEEN OF GEMS
BY
GEORGE FREDERICK KUNZ, A.M., Ph.D.
AND
CHARLES HUGH STEVENSON, LL.M., D.C.L.
Orient pearls fit for a queen
Will I give thy love to win,
And a shell to keep them in.
—_The Faithful Shepherdess (1611)_
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
THE CENTURY CO.
1908
Copyright, 1908, by
THE CENTURY CO.
_Published October, 1908_
THE DE VINNE PRESS
TO
MARGARET, THE PEARL
AS A SLIGHT MARK OF APPRECIATION BY THE AUTHORS OF HER FATHER’S GENEROUS
ENCOURAGEMENT OF SCIENCE, ART, ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, AND LITERATURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION xv
I PEARLS AMONG THE ANCIENTS 3
II MEDIEVAL AND MODERN HISTORY OF PEARLS 15
III ORIGIN OF PEARLS 35
IV STRUCTURE AND FORMS OF PEARLS 51
V SOURCES OF PEARLS 65
VI THE PEARL FISHERIES OF THE PERSIAN GULF 85
VII EAST AFRICAN PEARL FISHERIES 153
VIII PEARL FISHERIES OF THE BRITISH ISLES 159
IX PEARL FISHERIES OF THE SOUTH SEA ISLANDS 189
X PEARL FISHERIES OF VENEZUELA 225
XI PEARL-CULTURE AND PEARL-FARMING 285
XII MYSTICAL AND MEDICINAL PROPERTIES OF PEARLS 301
XIII VALUES AND COMMERCE OF PEARLS 319
XIV TREATMENT AND CARE OF PEARLS 375
XV PEARLS AS USED IN ORNAMENTS AND DECORATION 403
XVI FAMOUS PEARLS AND COLLECTIONS 449
XVII THE ABORIGINAL USE OF PEARLS, AND THEIR DISCOVERY IN 485
MOUNDS AND GRAVES
BIBLIOGRAPHY 517
INDEX 541
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
The Czarina of Russia _Frontispiece_
FACING PAGE
Ancient Chinese crown with pearls. Ancient Chinese pearl
rosary. Chinese priests keeping guard over the tombs
of the kings, in Mukden, where the crowns are
preserved 4
Grecian pearl and gold necklace 8
Front cover of Ashburnham manuscript of the Four Gospels 16
Francis I, King of France, 1494–1547. Isabelle de Valois 19
(From photographs by A. Giraudon)
Maria Theresa (1717–1780), Queen of Hungary 24
Facsimile of title-page of decrees of Venetian Senate
regulating the wearing of pearls 27
Lady Abinger. Mrs. Adair. Baroness de Forest. Hon. Mrs.
Renard Gréville. Marchioness of Lansdowne. Lady
Londonderry. Lady Wimborne 30
(From photographs, copyright by Lafayette, Ltd.,
London)
Venezuela shell. Panama shell 36
Shells from Venezuela with attached pearls. Exterior
view of same. X-ray photograph of shell, printed
through exterior of shell and showing encysted pearls 39
Mexican pearl-oyster with adherent pearl. Group of
encysted pearls in shell of Australian pearl-oyster.
Mexican pearl-oyster with encysted fish. Group of
encysted pearls (oriental). Reverse of same group,
showing outline of the individual pearls 42
Cross section of an irregular pearl, magnified 80
diameters. Cross sections of pearls, magnified 30
diameters. Thin section of mother-of-pearl, magnified,
showing sponge borings which traversed the pearl
shell. Structure of conch pearl produced by
fracturing, magnified 80 diameters 53
Pearls from common clam of eastern coast of America.
Pearl “nuggets” from the Mississippi Valley. Wing
pearls from the Mississippi Valley. Dog-tooth pearls
from the Mississippi Valley 55
Actual sizes of pearls from ⅛ grain to 160 grains 57
Brooches made of petal, dog-tooth, and wing pearls 58
Gray pearls in the possession of an American lady and
brooch from Tiffany & Co.’s exhibit, Paris Exposition,
1900 60
Shell of pearl-oyster with attached pearl 68
Pinna or wing shell. Pearl-oyster of Ceylon 72
Shell and pearls of the common conch 76
Cargo boat in pearl fishery of the Persian Gulf. Huts of
mats and palm leaves, the homes of the pearl fishermen
at Menamah, Bahrein Islands, Persian Gulf 87
Agha Mohammed (1666–1725). Shah Sulaiman (1647–1694) 88
Arab pearl-divers at work in the Persian Gulf 90
His Imperial Majesty, Mohammed Ali, Shah of Persia 94
The “Prince of Pearls”; the late Rana of Dholpur in his
pearl regalia 101
The late Maharajah of Patiala 108
Facsimiles of notices of pearl-fishing at
Marichchikadde, in English and Cingalese 110–111
Unloading oysters from the vessels into the kottus at
Marichchikadde, Ceylon. The pearling fleet on the
shore at Marichchikadde, Ceylon. Hindu workmen
preparing to drill pearls, Marichchikadde, Ceylon 115
Indian pearl merchants ready for business. Children of
Persian pearl dealers 120
Street scene in Marichchikadde, the pearling camp of
Ceylon. Return of the fleet from the pearl reefs to
Marichchikadde, Ceylon 126
Pearls presented by the Imam of Muscat to President Van
Buren 131
Necklace and earrings from the treasury of the Emir of
Bohkara 136
Carved “Jerusalem Shell” from the Red Sea 142
Cap of State, from looting of summer palace, Pekin, in
1860 145
Fishing for the awabi (abalone) shells at Wada-no-hara,
Japan 148
(From “The Burlington Art Magazine”)
Old print showing four methods of catching pearl-bearing
mollusks 160
Madame Norischkine née Straudman. Duchesse Elizabeth
(Constantin).
(From a photograph by Ch. Bergamasco, St. Petersburg)
(From a photograph by A. Pasetti, St. Petersburg)
Daughter of General Sobelieff, first Countess
Beauharnais 163
Scotch pearl rivers 167
Great Cameo Pearl 170
Dowager Czarina of Russia. Grand Duchess Vladimir.
(From a photograph by Ch. Bergamasco, St. Petersburg)
Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna 174
Miter of Patriarch Nikon 176
Panagia or ornament worn on the breast of a bishop in
Russia 180
Russian Boyard ladies of the seventeenth century,
showing caps and other ornaments of pearls 184
Pearl-divers of the Tuamotu Archipelago. Settlement of
pearl fishermen at Hiqueru, Tuamotu Archipelago 197
Pearling boats at Hiqueru, Tuamotu Archipelago.
Australian pearl-diver (armored) coming up from the
depths 204
Opening pearl-oysters and searching for pearls, off the
coast of Australia. Grading, weighing, and packing
mother-of-pearl, off the coast of Australia 213
Moro boats, used among the pearl islands of the Malay
Archipelago. Raft used for pearl-fishing in the Malay
Archipelago 216
Pearling village, with youthful fishermen, Sulu Islands.
Japanese diver in Dutch East Indies, come up to “blow”
for a few minutes 220
Gray pearls from Lower California, and diamonds 228
Clara Eugenia, daughter of Philip II 237
The Adams gold vase 248
Negro pearling camp, on bank of an Arkansas river. Group
of Arkansas pearl fishermen 254
Brooch, Renaissance style, set with baroque pearls, from
American streams 259
Brooches and rings of fresh-water pearls from Wisconsin
and Tennessee 262
Pearl-bearing unios 266
Pearling scene on White River, Arkansas. Pearling camp
on upper Mississippi River 270
The evolution of buttons, made from Mississippi shells 275
Necklace of fresh-water pearls 276
Shell of pearl-bearing abalone 280
Shell of _Dipsas plicatus_, with attached metal figures
of Buddha coated with nacre. Shell of _Dipsas
plicatus_, with attached porcelain beads coated with
nacre 286
Artificial rearing-ponds for the development of
pearl-oysters on the Island of Espiritŭ Santo, Gulf of
California. Trays containing small pearl-oysters
prepared for placing at the bottom of artificial
rearing-ponds 291
Japanese legend of the dragon and the pearl, idealized
in Jade 302
Russian eikon of the Madonna 312
Pectoral cross of Constantine IX, Monomachus (1000–1054
A.D.) 321
Great pearl necklace of the French crown jewels 332
The Siamese Prince in full regalia 336
Half-pearls: lots of three different sizes. Brooch of
half-pearls and onyx, United States, 1860 343
Pearl nose rings, Baroda, India. East Indian earring of
strings of pearls and table diamonds. Grape pendants.
Oriental pearls 345
Necklace containing 126,000 seed-pearls, Louis XVI
period 346
Seed-pearls and gold; Chinese ornaments of the
nineteenth century. Complete set of seed-pearl jewelry
in original case 357
Persian princess and ladies in waiting 364
Facsimiles of the title-page and last leaf of an
enactment abolishing duty on pearls, English
Parliament, 1732 368
Pearl drilling 376
Pearl stringing 383
Necklace of seed-pearls, United States, Civil War period 389
Mother-of-pearl shell from Tahiti 390
Ladies’ sewing case and scissors inlaid with
half-pearls; watches incrusted with half-pearls;
snuff-box, ivory inlaid with fresh-water pearls;
miniature surrounded by half-pearls 395
Evolution of a seed-pearl brooch. Seed-pearls, Indian
strings. White horsehair for stringing 396
Facsimile of letter of M. Gaston Mogeaud, Director of
the Louvre 398
Madame Thiers’s pearl necklace, bequeathed to the Louvre
Museum, Paris 398
(From a photograph by A. Giraudon)
Antique ornaments of pearls 404
Tyszkiewizc bronze statuette of Aphrodite 407
Pearl earrings from Herculaneum and Pompeii 408
Antique pearl ornaments 410
East Indian necklace of pearls, table diamonds, glass
beads, gold and enamel 413
Crown of Reccesvinthus and other Gothic crowns of the
seventh century 416
(From a photograph by A. Giraudon)
Her Majesty, Queen Alexandra of Great Britain and
Ireland, Empress of India 418
(From a photograph by W. & D. Downey, London)
Crown of St. Edward 424
(From “The English Regalia,” published by Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trübner & Company, Ltd., London)
The Empress Dowager of China 431
Pearl ornaments of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries 434
Margherita, Dowager Queen of Italy 439
Collection of black pearls belonging to an American lady 440
Señora Carmen Romero Rubio de Diaz, wife of President
Porfirio Diaz of Mexico 442
(From a photograph by Valleto & Co., Mexico)
Jade jar inlaid with pearls set with fine gold. Japanese
decoration set with pearls 444
Gaikwar of Baroda, 1908 450
Mary, Queen of Scots 453
(From “Portraits and Jewels of Mary Stuart,” published
by James MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow)
Queen Elizabeth of England. Elizabeth of France 456
Pearl carpet or shawl of the Gaikwar of Baroda 460
The Hope pearl. Weighs 1800 grains 463
Her Grace, the Duchess of Marlborough 465
(From a photograph by Lafayette, Ltd., London)
The Madame Nordica collection of colored pearls 468
Grand pearl diadem of the French crown jewels 471
The Imperial Austrian crown 472
The Great Sévigné of the French crown jewels 474
Madame Nordica 476
Mrs. George J. Gould 480
Fresh-water pearls from Hopewell group of mounds, Ross
County, Ohio 499
Fresh-water pearls from Hopewell group of mounds, Ross
County, Ohio 510
MAPS
PAGE
The pearling regions in Ceylon and British India 129
Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, the pearling center of the
world 140
The pearling regions in Oceania and Malaysia 191
Venezuela and Panama, the principal pearling regions of
South America 227
Gulf of California and the pearling territory of western
Mexico 243
INTRODUCTION
The preparation of this book has been a joint labor during the spare
moments of the two authors, whose time has been occupied with subjects
to which pearls are not wholly foreign—one as a gem expert, and the
other in the fisheries branch of the American government. But for the
views and expressions contained herein, they alone are personally
responsible, and do not represent or speak for any interest whatever.
For many years the writers have collected data on the subject of pearls,
and have accumulated all the obtainable literature, not only the easily
procurable books, but likewise manuscripts, copies of rare volumes,
original edicts, and legislative enactments, thousands of newspaper
clippings, and interesting illustrations, many of them unique, making
probably the largest single collection of data in existence on this
particular subject. It was deemed advisable to present the results of
these studies and observations in one harmonious volume, rather than in
two different publications. This publication is not a pioneer in an
untrodden field. As may be seen from the appended bibliography, during
the last two thousand years hundreds of persons have discussed
pearls—mystically, historically, poetically, and learnedly. Among the
older writers who stand out with special prominence in their respective
periods are the encyclopedist Pliny, in the first century A.D.; Oviedo
and Peter Martyr of the sixteenth century; the physician Anselmus De
Boot, and that observant traveler and prince of jewelers, Tavernier, in
the seventeenth century. It would be difficult to do justice to the many
writers of the nineteenth century and of the present time; but probably
most attention has been attracted by the writings of Hessling and Möbius
of Germany; Kelaart, Streeter, Herdman, and Hornell of Great Britain;
Filippi of Italy, and Seurat and Dubois of France. While the book is a
joint work in the sense that each writer has contributed material to all
of the chapters and has critically examined and approved the entire
work, the senior author has more closely applied himself to the latter
half of the text, covering antiquity values, commerce, wearing
manipulation, treatment, famous collections, aboriginal use, and the
illustrations, while the junior author has attended to the earlier half
of the book, with reference to history, origin, sources, fisheries,
culture, mystical properties, and the literature of the pearl.
The senior author has had exceptionally favorable opportunities to
examine the precious objects contained in the various imperial and royal
treasuries. Through the courtesy of the late Count Sipuigine, Court
Chamberlain, and of the late General Philamanoff, custodian of the
Ourejena Palata, he was permitted to critically examine the Russian
crown jewels in the Summer Palace on the Neva, and in the Palata in the
Kremlin, at Moscow, he examined the crowns and jewels of all the early
czars. Through the courtesy of Baron von Theile, he was permitted to
inspect carefully and in detail the wonderful jewels of the Austrian
crown, which are beautifully ordered and arranged. The English and Saxon
crown jewels were also seen under favorable conditions which permitted
detailed examination, and the jewel collections of almost all the
principal museums of Europe and America were carefully studied. As
regards the literature of the subject, the senior author has gathered
together the largest known existing collection of works treating of
pearls and precious stones.
In covering so comprehensive a subject, many obligations have been
incurred from individuals and officials, to whose courtesy and
assistance is due much of the interest of this work. To list all of
these is impossible, yet it would be ungrateful not to note the
following: her Majesty Queen Margherita of Italy; his Royal Highness the
Gaikwar of Baroda; to H. R. H. le Prince Ruprecht of Bavaria, of Munich;
to the late Prince Sipuigine, then chamberlain of the Russian Imperial
Appanages; to Sir Edward Robert Pearce Edgcumbe for data relative to
fisheries of East Africa; Dr. H. C. Bumpus, director of the American
Museum of Natural History, New York, for many courtesies in regard to
materials and illustrations; Sir Caspar Purdon Clarke, director, Dr.
Edward Robinson, assistant director, J. H. Buck, curator of Metal-work,
and A. G. St. M. D’Hervilly, assistant curator of Paintings, all of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, for numerous courtesies; Archer M.
Huntington, founder of the Hispanic Society and Museum in New York City;
Dr. Bashford Dean, Prof. Friedrich Hirth, Chinese professor, Dr.
Berthold Laufer, Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson, professor of Indo-Iranian
languages, and Prof. M. H. Saville, all of Columbia University, New York
City; J. Pierpont Morgan, for the right to publish the illustration of
Ashburnham missal; Dr. W. Hayes Ward, Assyriologist; Dr. Charles S.
Braddock, formerly Chief of Medical Inspection for the King of Siam;
Robert Hoe, for the two plates of unique Persian illustrations from his
manuscripts; Edmund Russell, for East Indian material; F. Cunliffe-Owen,
the author of diplomatic subjects; Ten Broeck Morse; Walter Joslyn;
Stansbury Hagar; Henri de Morgan, explorer; Dr. Nathaniel L. Britton,
director New York Botanical Garden, J. H. Lawles, and Ludwig Stross, for
many courtesies; Miss M. de Barril and Miss Belle da Costa Greene, all
of New York; Dr. Stewart W. Culin, of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and
Sciences; the Contessa Casa Cortez, for Peruvian information, of
Brooklyn; Dr. Charles B. Davenport, of the Carnegie Institution
Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor; Arthur C. Parker, archæologist, State
Museum, Albany, N. Y.; A. S. Clark, antiquarian, Peekskill, N. Y.; Dr.
Richard Rathbun, assistant secretary, Dr. Cyrus Adler, curator, Dr. Otis
S. Mason, curator of Ethnology, all of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr.
S. W. Stratton, chief of the Bureau of Standards; Miss E. R. Scidmore;
Gilbert H. Grosvenor, editor, National Geographic Magazine; Hon. William
Eleroy Curtis; his Excellency Enrique C. Creel, Embajador de Mexico, and
James T. Archbold, war correspondent, all of Washington, D. C.; Prof. W.
P. Wilson, director Philadelphia Commercial Museum, Clarence B. Moore,
Academy of Natural Sciences, and T. Louis Comparette, curator Numismatic
Collection, U. S. Mint, all of Philadelphia; Prof. Henry Montgomery,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Dr. Warren K. Moorehead,
archæologist, Andover, Mass.; H. D. Story, and Theo. M. Davis, curators
of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; Miss Mathilde Laigle
of Wellesley College; Prof. F. W. Putnam and Alfred M. Tozzer, Peabody
Museum of Archæology, Cambridge, Mass.; Prof. Edward S. Morse, Salem,
Mass.; Dr. Hiram Bingham, Yale University; W. E. Frost, Providence, R.
I.; Dr. Edgar J. Banks, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; Hon. F. J.
V. Skiff, director, for several photographs of museum material, and Dr.
George A. Dorsey, curator of Anthropology of the Field Columbian Museum;
Dr. A. R. Crook, curator of the Museum of Natural History, Springfield,
Ill.; Richard Hermann, director Hermann Museum, Dubuque, Ia.; Charles
Russell Orcutt, San Diego, Cal.; David I. Bushnell, St. Louis, Mo.; Dr.
J. H. Stanton, Prairie du Chien, Wis.; Joe Gassett, Clinton, Tenn.;
Prof. Wm. C. Mills, University of Ohio, Columbus, O., for material
covering the new Ohio mound discoveries; Mrs. Marie Robinson Wright,
author and South American traveler, New York City; Miss Helen Woolley of
Judson College, Alabama; Prof. Dr. Eugene Hussak, Rio Janeiro; Hon.
George E. Anderson, Consul General of the United States, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil; Señor L. E. Bonilla, Consul General of Colombia; Madam Zelia
Nuttall, Coyoacan, Mexico; Prof. Waldstein, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, England; Dr. O. F. Bell, assistant keeper Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford; Dr. Stephen W. Bushell, Chinese authority; Lady Christopher
Johnston, Dr. William F. Petrie, University College, Dr. Charles
Hercules Read, director of the department of Archæology, British Museum,
for illustrations and data; Cyril Davenport, antiquarian writer of the
British Museum, for the illustration of the English crown, and crown
information; to Sir John Evans, late veteran archæologist and writer;
Thomas Tyrer, chemist, W. Talbot Ready, A. W. Feaveryear, E. Alfred
Jones, author on metal-work, Edwin W. Streeter, all of London, England;
Prof. H. P. Blackmore, curator Blackmore Museum, Salisbury, England; Dr.
Thos. Gann, Harrogate, England; Prof. Arthur E. Shipley, Cambridge,
England; Dr. Wilfred Grenfell, Labrador; T. W. Lyster, librarian of the
National Library of Ireland, Prof. R. F. Scharff, director of the
National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, W. Forbes Hourie, all of Ireland;
Mr. James Hornell, Dr. W. A. Herdmann, all on information concerning the
Ceylon fisheries; Prof. James M. Milne, Belfast, Ireland; David
MacGregor, Perth, Scotland; Joseph Baer & Co., Frankfurt, Germany; Herrn
C. W. Kesseller, Idar, Germany; Prof. Dr. Carl Sapper, University of
Tübingen, Germany; Geheimrath Prof. Dr. Max Bauer, University of
Marburg, Germany; Herrn Prof. Dr. Hofer, director Biologische
Versuchsstation, Munich; Herrn Ernst Gideon Bek, Pforzheim, Germany;
Hon. Albert H. Michelsen, American Consul at Turin; Sabbatino De
Angelis, of Naples, Italy; Mons. Alphonse Falco, of the Chambre
Syndicale Pierres Précieuses of Paris; Prof. A. Lacroix, Musée Histoire
Naturale, Paris; Mons. Georges Pellisier, Paris; Sr. Gaston J. Vives, La
Paz, Mexico; Prof. R. Dubois, Faculté des Sciences, University of Lyons,
France; Prof. P. Candias, director of the National Museum, Athens,
Greece; Prof. G. A. F. Molengraaff, University of Delft, Holland; the
late Prof. Dr. Furtwängler of Munich; Dr. Otto Leiner, Custus
Landes-Museum at Constanz, Baden; Herrn Dr. A. B. Meyer, Herrn Carl
Marfels, Berlin; Prof. Dr. H. Schumacher, University of Bonn; Geheimrath
C. F. Hintze, Breslau; Herrn R. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin; Herrn
Reg.-Rath Dr. W. von Seidlitz, Dresden; Dr. R. Jacobi, director König
Zoologichen Museum, Dresden, Germany; his Excellency Dr. Szalaz,
director Hungarian National Museum; Dr. S. Radischi, director National
Industrial Museum of Budapest; and to Herrn A. B. Bachrach, Budapest,
Hungary; Frau Melanie Glazer, of Prague, and Herrn V. Fric, Prague,
Bohemia; Herrn Prof. Dr. F. Heger, Custus Imperial Archæological
Collection, Vienna; Herrn H. von Willer and Herrn Max Zirner, of Vienna;
Herrn Leopold Weininger, the artisan goldsmith of Austria, for many
courtesies; Prof. W. Vernadskij, University of Moscow; Mons. C. Faberje,
Joaillier de la Cour, St. Petersburg, Russia; his Excellency Baron P.
Meyerdorff, assistant director, Musée des Antiques, Ermitage Impériale,
St. Petersburg, for important data and illustrations; his Excellency N.
J. Moore, Premier, Western Australia; Dr. K. Van Dort, engineer of
Bankok, Siam; Dr. J. Henry Burkill, of the India Museum, Calcutta,
India; Alphaeus E. Williams, manager of the De Beers Mine, Kimberley;
Capt. E. L. Steever, District Governor of Jolo, Philippine Islands; Dr.
T. Nishikawa, Zoölogical Institute; K. Mikimoto, both of Tokio, Japan;
Dr. S. M. Zwemer of Bahrein, Persian Gulf; Mr. Hugh Millman of Thursday
Island, Australia; Julius D. Dreher, American Consul at Tahiti, Society
Islands; and not least, by any means, the uniform promptness and
completeness with which the officials of the British Colonial Service
have responded to the many inquiries which the writers have addressed to
them.
THE AUTHORS.
September, 1908.
I
PEARLS AMONG THE ANCIENTS
THE BOOK OF THE PEARL
I
PEARLS AMONG THE ANCIENTS
The richest merchandise of all, and the most soveraigne commoditie
throughout the whole world, are these pearles.
PLINY, _Historia naturalis_.
_Lib._ IX, c. 35.
Perfected by nature and requiring no art to enhance their beauty, pearls
were naturally the earliest gems known to prehistoric man. Probably the
members of some fish-eating tribe—maybe of the coast of India or
bordering an Asiatic river—while opening mollusks for food, were
attracted by their luster. And as man’s estimation of beauty developed,
he found in them the means of satisfying that fondness for personal
decoration so characteristic of half-naked savages, which has its
counterpart amid the wealth and fashion of the present day.
Pearls seem to be peculiarly suggestive of oriental luxury and
magnificence. It is in the East that they have been especially loved,
enhancing the charms of Asiatic beauty and adding splendor to barbaric
courts celebrated for their display of costume. From their possession of
the rich pearl resources it is natural that the people of India and of
Persia should have early found beauty and value in these jewels, and
should have been among the first to collect them in large quantities.
And no oriental divinity, no object of veneration has been without this
ornament; no poetical production has lacked this symbol of purity and
chastity.
In a personal memorandum, Dr. A. V. Williams Jackson, professor of
Indo-Iranian languages in Columbia University, states that it is
generally supposed that the Vedas, the oldest sacred books of the
Brahmans, contain several allusions to pearl decorations a millennium or
more before the Christian era, as the word _krisana_ and its
derivatives—which occur a half dozen times in the Rigveda, the oldest of
the Vedas—are generally translated as signifying “pearl.” Even if this
interpretation of the term be called into question on the ground that
the Hindus of the Panjab were not well acquainted with the sea, there
can be little or no doubt that the Atharvaveda, at least five hundred
years before the Christian era, alludes to an amulet made of pearls and
used as a sort of talisman in a hymn[1] of magic formulas.
Those two great epics of ancient India, the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata, refer to pearls. The Ramayana speaks of a necklace of
twenty-seven pearls, and has pearl drillers to accompany a great
military expedition.[2] An old myth recounts the offerings made by the
elements as gifts worthy of the deity: the air offered the rainbow, the
fire a meteor, the earth a ruby, and the sea a pearl. The rainbow formed
a halo about the god, the meteor served as a lamp, the ruby decorated
the forehead, and the pearl was worn upon the heart.
The literature of Hinduism frequently associates the pearl with Krishna,
the eighth avatar or incarnation of Vishnu, the most popular god of
Hindu worship. One legend credits its discovery to the adorable Krishna,
who drew it from the depths of the sea to adorn his daughter Pandaïa on
her nuptial day. Another version makes the pearl a trophy of the victory
of Krishna over the monster Pankagna, and it was used by the victor as a
decoration for his bride.
In the classic period of Sanskrit literature, about the first century of
the Christian era, there were abundant references to pearls, generally
called _mukta_ (literally “the pure”); and there are dozens of words for
pearl necklaces, circlets, strings, and ornamental festoons,
particularly in the dramas of Kalidasa—the Hindu Shakspere, who lived
about the third century A.D.—and of his successors.
In the Mahavansa and the Dipavansa, the ancient chronicle histories of
Ceylon in the Pali language, are several early Cingalese records of
pearl production and estimation.[3] The Mahavansa lists pearls among the
native products sent from Ceylon about 550 B.C., King Wijayo sending his
father-in-law gifts of pearls and chanks to the value of two lacs of
rupees; and notes that about 300 B.C., several varieties of Ceylon
pearls were carried as presents by an embassy to India.
[Illustration:
Ancient Chinese crown with pearls
]
[Illustration:
Ancient Chinese pearl rosary
]
[Illustration:
Chinese priests keeping guard over the tombs of the kings, in Mukden,
where the crowns are preserved
]
In the ancient civilization of China, pearls were likewise esteemed;
this is evidenced by the frequent mention of them in traditional
history, their employment in the veneration of idols, and as tribute by
foreign princes to the emperor. One of the very earliest of books, the
Shu King (dating from about 2350–625 B.C.), notes that, in the
twenty-third century B.C., Yü received as tribute oyster pearls from the
river Hwai, and from the province of King Kau he received “strings of
pearls that were not quite round.”[4] That ancient Chinese dictionary,
the Nh’ya, originating thirty centuries ago, speaks of them as precious
jewels found in the province of Shen-si on the western frontier.
Many fantastic theories regarding pearls are to be found in ancient
Chinese literature. Some writers credited them as originating in the
brain of the fabled dragon; others noted that they were especially
abundant during the reign of illustrious emperors, and they were used as
amulets and charms against fire and other disasters. Curious allusions
were made to pearls so brilliant that they were visible at a distance of
nearly a thousand yards, or that rice could be cooked by the light from
them. And one found about the beginning of the Christian era, near
Yangchow-fu, in the province of Kiang-su, was reported so lustrous as to
be visible in the dark at a distance of three miles.
In Persia, the popularity of pearls seems to date from a very early
period. Professor Jackson states that if they are not mentioned in the
extant fragments of the ancient Zoroastrian literature, the Avesta and
the Pahlavi, or by the Middle Persian books from the seventh century
B.C. to the ninth century A.D., it is probably a mere accident, due to
the character of the work or to the fragmentary condition of the
literature; for pearls were well known during that entire period, and
seem to be indicated in extant sculptures. The coin and the gem
portraits of Persian queens commonly show ear-pendants of these. The
remains of a magnificent necklace of pearls and other gems were recently
found by J. de Morgan in the sarcophagus of an Achæmenid princess
exhumed at Susa or Shushan, the winter residence of the kings of Persia.
This necklace, perhaps the most ancient pearl ornament still in
existence, dates certainly from not later than the fourth century B.C.,
and is now preserved in the Persian Gallery of the Louvre.[5] Even if we
had no other evidence, it would be natural to assume that the knowledge
of pearls was as wide-spread among the Iranians in antiquity as it was
among the Hindus, since the Persian Gulf, like the Indian Ocean, has
been famous for its fisheries from ancient times.
In the ruins of Babylon no pearls have been found; indeed, it would be
surprising if they could survive for so many ages in the relatively
moist soil which contains much saltpeter. Inlays of mother-of-pearl and
decorations of this material have been secured from the ruins of
Bismaya, which Dr. Edgar J. Banks refers to about 4500 B.C.
There is likewise little evidence that pearls were extensively employed
by the ancient Assyrians, notwithstanding that excavations at Nineveh
and Nimrud have furnished much information regarding their ornaments;
and the collars, bracelets, sword-hilts, etc., wrought in gold and
ornamented with gems, show that the jewelers’ art had made much
progress. This is not wholly trustworthy as determining the relative
abundance; for being of organic or non-mineral origin, pearls would not
have survived the burial for thousands of years so well as the crystal
gems. An inscription on the Nineveh Obelisk, which states, according to
Sir Henry Rawlinson, that in the ninth year of his reign Temenbar
received, as “tribute of the kings of the Chaldees, gold, silver, gems,
and pearls,”[6] shows that the sea-born gems were highly valued there.
The mother-of-pearl shell was in use as an ornament in ancient Egypt
certainly as early as the sixth dynasty (_circa_ 3200 B.C.), the period
of the Tanis Sphinx. In a recent letter from Luxor, where he is studying
the ruins of ancient Thebes, Dr. James T. Dennis states that he has
found several of these shells bearing cartouches of that period; and in
the “pan-bearing graves” of the twelfth dynasty (2500 B.C.), the shell
occurred not only complete, but cut in roughly circular or oblong
angular blocks and strung on chains with beads of carnelian, pottery,
etc.
So far as can be determined from the representations of ancient Egyptian
costumes, pearls do not seem to have been employed to any great extent
in their decoration. The necklaces, earrings, and other jewels found in
the tombs, which are composed largely of gold set with crystal gems,
contain the remains of a few pearls, but give no indication that they
were numerous. In fact, no evidence exists that they were used
extensively before the Persian conquest in the fifth century B.C.; and
probably it was not until the time of the Ptolemies that there began the
lavish abundance which characterized the court of Alexandria at the
height of her power.
The authorities differ in regard to the mention of pearls in ancient
Hebrew literature; although in the Authorized Version of the Old
Testament, this significance has been given to the word _gabîsh_ in Job
xxviii. 18, where the value of wisdom is contrasted with that of
_gabîsh_. Some writers claim that this word refers to rock crystal.
Other authorities are of the opinion that the word _peninim_ in Lam. iv.
7, which has been translated as “rubies,” actually signifies pearls. In
Gen. ii. 12, Prof. Paul Haupt has proposed to render _shoham_ stones by
pearls, since the Hebrew word translated “onyx,” if connected with the
Assyrian _sându_, might mean “the gray gem.” It does not appear that
they entered into the decorations of the Tabernacle and the Temple, or
were largely employed in the paraphernalia of the synagogue.
In the New Testament, however, there are numerous references to the
estimation in which pearls were held. In his teachings, Christ
repeatedly referred to them as typifying something most precious: “The
kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that
he had, and bought it” (Matt. xiii. 45, 46); and in “casting pearls
before swine,” in that great Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 6). In
picturing the glories of the Heavenly City, St. John made the twelve
gates of pearls (Rev. xxi. 21); and what could better serve as portals
through the walls of precious stones?
In the Talmud, pearls are frequently mentioned, and usually as
signifying something beautiful or very costly, as “a pearl that is worth
thousands of zuzim” (Baba Batra, 146a); a “pearl that has no price”
(Yerushalmi, ix. 12d); the coats which God made for Adam and Eve were
“as beautiful as pearls” (Gen. R. xx. 12), and the manna was “as white
as a pearl” (Yoma, 75a). Their purchase formed one of the exceptions to
the law of _Ona’ah_ (overcharge), for the reason that two matched pearls
greatly exceeded the value of each one separately (Baba Mezi’a, iv. 8).
The high value attached to pearls by the ancient Hebrews is illustrated
by a beautiful Rabbinical story in which only one object in nature is
ranked above them. On approaching Egypt, Abraham hid Sarah in a chest,
that foreign eyes might not behold her beauty. When he reached the place
for paying custom dues, the collectors said, “Pay us the custom”; and he
replied, “I will pay your custom.” They said to him, “Thou carriest
clothes”; and he stated, “I will pay for clothes.” Then they said to
him, “Thou carriest gold”; and he answered, “I will pay for gold.” On
this they said to him, “Surely thou bearest the finest silk”; and he
replied, “I will pay custom for the finest silk.” Then said they, “Truly
it must be pearls that thou takest with thee”; and he answered, “I will
pay for pearls.” Seeing that they could name nothing of value for which
the patriarch was not willing to pay custom, they said, “It cannot be
but that thou open the box and let us see what is within.” So the chest
was opened, and the land was illumined by the luster of Sarah’s
beauty.[7]
The love which the early Arabs bore to pearls is evidenced by the
references to them in the Koran, and especially the figurative
description given of Paradise. The stones are pearls and jacinths; the
fruits of the trees are pearls and emeralds; and each person admitted to
the delights of the celestial kingdom is provided with a tent of pearls,
jacinths and emeralds; is crowned with pearls of incomparable luster,
and is attended by beautiful maidens resembling hidden pearls.[8]
The estimation of pearls among the art-loving Greeks may be traced to
the time of Homer, who appears to have alluded to them under the name
τρίγληνα (triple drops or beads) in his description of Juno; in the
Iliad, XIV, 183:
In three bright drops,
Her glittering gems suspended from her ears.
and in the Odyssey, XVIII, 298:
Earrings bright
With triple drops that cast a trembling light.
Classical designs of Juno usually show the three pear-shaped pearls
pendent from her ears. The ancient Greeks probably obtained their pearls
from the East through the medium of Phenician traders, and a survival of
the word τρίγληνα seems to exist in the Welsh _glain_ (bead), the name
having been carried to Britain by the same traders, who exchanged
textiles, glass beads, etc., for tin and salt.
The Persian wars in the fifth century B.C., doubtless extended the
acquaintance which the Greeks had with pearls, as well as with other
oriental products, and increased their popularity. One of the earliest
of the Greek writers to mention pearls specifically appears to have been
Theophrastus (372–287 B.C.), the disciple and successor of Aristotle,
who referred to them under the name μαργαρίτης (_margarites_), probably
derived from some oriental word like the Sanskrit _maracata_ or the
Persian _mirwareed_. He stated that pearls were produced by shell-fish
resembling the _pinna_, only smaller, and were used in making necklaces
of great value. In Pliny’s “Historia naturalis,” that great storehouse
of classical learning, reference is made to many other writers—mostly
Greeks—who treated of gems; but virtually all of these writings have
disappeared, except fragments from Theophrastus, Chares of Mytilene, and
Isidorus of Charace.
[Illustration:
GRECIAN PEARL AND GOLD NECKLACE
Of about third century B.C.
Now in Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
]
From Greece admiration for pearls quickly extended to Rome, where they
were known under the Greek word _margaritæ_. However, a more common name
for this gem in Rome was _unio_, which Pliny explained by saying that
each pearl was unique and unlike any other one. The conclusion of the
historian Ammianus Marcellinus (330–395 A.D.), that it was because each
one was found singly in a shell,[9] seems scarcely correct. Claude de
Saumaise, the French classical scholar, thought that the common name for
an onion was transferred to the pearl, owing to its laminated
construction.[10] According to Pliny, the Romans used the word _unio_ to
distinguish a large perfect pearl from the smaller and less attractive
ones, which were called _margaritæ_.[11]
It was not until the Mithridatic Wars (88–63 B.C.) and the conquests by
Pompey that pearls were very abundant and popular in Rome, the great
treasures of the East enriching the victorious army and through it the
aristocracy of the republic. In those greatest spectacular functions the
world has ever known—the triumphal processions of the conquering
Romans—pearls had a prominent part. Pliny records that in great Pompey’s
triumphal procession in 61 B.C. were borne thirty-three crowns of pearls
and numerous pearl ornaments, including a portrait of the victor, and a
shrine dedicated to the muses, adorned with the same gems.[12]
The luxuries of Mithridates, the treasures of Alexandria, the riches of
the Orient were poured into the lap of victory-fattened Rome. From that
time the pearl reigned supreme, not only in the enormous prices given
for single specimens, but also in the great abundance in possession of
the degenerate descendants of the victorious Romans. The interior of the
temple of Venus was decorated with pearls. The dress of the wealthy was
so pearl-bedecked that Pliny exclaimed in irony: “It is not sufficient
for them to wear pearls, but they must trample and walk over them”;[13]
and the women wore pearls even in the still hours of the night, so that
in their sleep they might be conscious of possessing the beautiful
gems.[14]
It is related that the voluptuous Caligula (12–41 A.D.)—he who raised
his favorite horse Incitatus to the consulship—decorated that horse with
a pearl necklace, and that he himself wore slippers embroidered with
pearls; and the tyrannical Nero (37–68 A.D.), not content with having
his scepter and throne of pearls, provided the actors in his theater
with masks and scepters decorated with them. Thus wrote the observant
Philo, the envoy of the Jews to the Emperor Caligula: “The couches upon
which the Romans recline at their repasts shine with gold and pearls;
they are splendid with purple coverings interwoven with pearls and
gold.”
Yet not all the men of Rome were enthusiastic over the beautiful “gems
of the sea, which resemble milk and snow,” as the poet Manlius called
them. Even then, as now, there were some faultfinders. The immortal
Cæsar interdicted their use by women beneath a certain rank; Martial and
Tibullus inveighed against them; the witty Horace directed his stinging
shafts of satire against the extravagance. Referring to a woman named
Gellia, Martial wrote: “By no gods or goddesses does she swear, but by
her pearls. These she embraces and kisses. These she calls her brothers
and sisters. She loves them more dearly than her two sons. Should she by
some chance lose them, the miserable woman would not survive an
hour.”[15] Hear what stern old Seneca had to say: “Pearls offer
themselves to my view. Simply one for each ear? No! The lobes of our
ladies have attained a special capacity for supporting a great number.
Two pearls alongside of each other, with a third suspended above, now
form a single earring! The crazy fools seem to think that their husbands
are not sufficiently tormented unless they wear the value of an
inheritance in each ear!”[16]
The prices reported for some choice ones at that time seem fabulous. It
is recorded by Suetonius, that the Roman general, Vitellius, paid the
expenses of a military campaign with the proceeds of one pearl from his
mother’s ears: “_Atque ex aure matris detractum unionem pigneraverit ad
itineris impensas_.” In his “_Historia naturalis_,” Pliny says that in
the first century A.D., they ranked first in value among all precious
things,[17] and reports sixty million sestertii[18] as the value of the
two famous pearls—“the singular and only jewels of the world and even
nature’s wonder”—which Cleopatra wore at the celebrated banquet to Mark
Antony. And Suetonius[19] places at six million sestertii the value of
the one presented by Julius Cæsar as a tribute of love to Servilia, the
mother of Brutus, who thus wore
The spoils of nations in an ear,
Changed to the treasure of a shell.
Or, as St. Jerome expressed it in his “Vita Pauli Eremitæ”:
_Uno filo villarum insunt pretia._
We are told by Ælius Lampridius that an ambassador once brought to
Alexander Severus two remarkably large and heavy pearls for the empress.
The emperor offered them for sale, and as no purchaser was found, he had
them hung in the ears of the statue of Venus, saying: “If the empress
should have such pearls, she would give a bad example to the other
women, by wearing an ornament of so much value that no one could pay for
it.”
The word “margarita” was used symbolically to designate the most
cherished object; for instance, a favorite child. In an inscription
published by Fabretti, p. 44, No. 253, the word _margaritio_ has the
same significance. (Sex. Bruttidio juveni margaritioni carissimo, vixit
annis II mensibus VII, diebus XVIII.)[20]
While the ancient writers were familiar with the pearl itself, they knew
little of the fisheries, and related many curious stories which had come
to Athens and Rome. Pliny and Ælianus quoted from Megasthenes that the
pearl-oysters lived in communities like swarms of bees, and were
governed by one remarkable for its size and great age, and which was
wonderfully expert in keeping its subjects out of danger, and that the
fishermen endeavored first to catch this one, so that the others might
easily be secured. Procopius, one of the most entertaining of the old
Byzantine chroniclers, wrote of social relations between the
pearl-oysters and the sharks, and of methods of inducing the growth of
pearls.
The principal fisheries of antiquity were in the Persian Gulf, on the
coasts of Ceylon and India, and in the Red Sea. The pearls referred to
in ancient Chinese literature appear to have been taken from the rivers
and ponds of that country, while those in Cochin China and Japan seem to
have come from the adjoining seas. The pearls were distributed among the
nations in control of the fisheries, and from them, other people
received collections, either as presents, in conquest, or by way of
trade. History makes no mention of pearls having been obtained elsewhere
than in the Orient up to the time of Julius Cæsar, when small quantities
of inexpensive ones were collected in Britain by the invading Romans.
And in the first century A.D., Pliny states that small reddish pearls
were found about Italy and in the Bosphorus Straits near Constantinople.
A number of specimens of pearls of the artistic Greeks and of the
luxurious Romans are yet in existence, and some of these are in a fairly
good state of preservation. A notable and interesting example is a
superb Greek necklace of pearls and gold, referred to the third century
B.C., and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Several
earrings now in that museum, in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, the
British Museum, the Louvre in Paris, and in the Boston Museum of Fine
Arts, are shown in this book. Some of these may have decorated ears that
listened to the comedies of Aristophanes, the tragedies of Euripides,
the philosophies of Plato, or the oratory of Demosthenes. A number of
classic statues have the ears pierced for earrings, notably the Venus de
Medici now in the Tribuna of the Uffizi, Florence; and a magnificent
pair of half-pearls is said to have decorated the Venus of the Pantheon
in Rome.[21] Pearl grape earrings are shown on the artistic intaglio by
Aspasios, representing the bust of the Athene Parthenos of Phidias,
which has been in the Gemmen Münzen Cabinet at Vienna since 1669.
The beautiful Tyszkiewicz bronze statuette of Aphrodite was acquired in
1900 by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and has even yet a pearl in a
fairly good state of preservation suspended from each ear by a spiral
thread of gold which passes quite through the gem and also through the
lobe of the ear. This statuette has been described as “the most
beautiful bronze Venus known.”[22] Professor Froehner considers that it
belongs nearer to the period of Phidias (_circa_ 500–430 B.C.) than to
that of Praxiteles (_circa_ 400–336 B.C.); but Dr. Edward Robinson does
not concur in this opinion, and refers it to the Hellenic period
(_circa_ 330–146 B.C.).
However, considering the very large accumulations, relatively few pearls
of antiquity now remain, and none of these is of great ornamental value.
Those in archæological collections and art museums are more or less
decayed through the ravages of time and accident to which they have been
subjected. While coins, gold jewelry, crystal gems, etc., of ancient
civilizations are relatively numerous, the less durable pearls have not
survived the many centuries of pillage, waste, and burial in the earth.
A well-known instance of this decay is found in the Stilicho pearls,
which owe their prominence to the incident of their long burial. The
daughters of this famous Roman general, who were successively betrothed
to the Emperor Honorius, died in 407 A.D., and were buried with their
pearls and ornaments. In 1526, or more than eleven centuries afterward,
in excavating for an extension of St. Peter’s, the tomb was opened, and
the ornaments were found in fair condition, except the pearls, which
were as lusterless and dead as a wreath of last year’s flowers.
II
MEDIEVAL AND MODERN HISTORY
II
MEDIEVAL AND MODERN HISTORY OF PEARLS
I’ll set thee in a shower of gold, and hail
Rich pearls upon thee.
_Antony and Cleopatra_, Act II, sc. 5.
The popularity of pearls in Rome has its counterpart in the Empire of
the East at Byzantium or Constantinople on its development in wealth and
luxury after becoming the capital of that empire in 330 A.D. Owing to
its control of the trade between Asia and Europe, and the influence of
oriental taste and fashion, enormous collections were made; and for
centuries after Rome had been pillaged, this capital was the focus of
all the arts, and pearls were the favorite ornaments. The famous mosaic
in the sanctuary of San Vitale at Ravenna, shows Justinian (483–565)
with his head covered with a jeweled cap, and the Empress Theodora
wearing a tiara encircled by three rows of pearls, and strings of pearls
depend therefrom almost to the waist. In many instances the decorations
of the emperors excelled even those of the most profligate of Roman
rulers. An examination of the coins, from those of Arcadius in 395 to
the last dribble of a long line of obscure rulers when the city was
captured and pillaged by Venetian and Latin adventurers in 1204, shows
in the form of diadems, collars, necklaces, etc., the great quantity of
pearls worn by them. The oldest existing crown in use at the present
time, the Hungarian crown of St. Stephen, which is radiant with pearls,
is of Byzantine workmanship.
Outside of Constantinople, the demand and fashion for pearls did not
cease with the downfall of the Roman Empire and the spoliation of Rome
in the fifth century. The treasures accumulated there, and the gems and
jewels, were carried away by the conquering Goths and scattered among
the great territorial lords of western and northern Europe.
In the ancient cities of Gaul, in Toulouse and Narbonne, the Ostrogoth
and the Visigoth kings collected enormous treasures. The citadel of
Carcassonne held magnificent spoils brought from the sacking of Rome in
410 by Alaric, king of the Ostrogoths, consisting in part of jewels from
the Temple, these having been carried to Rome after the spoliation of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Several beautiful objects of this and somewhat
later periods are yet in existence, notably the Visigothic crowns and
crosses, in the Musée de l’Hôtel de Cluny, Paris, the most beautiful of
which are probably the crown and the cross of Reccesvinthus.[23]
Even as the treasures of Rome were despoiled by the Ostrogoths and the
Visigoths, so, later, their collections were depleted by the military
operations of the Franks, when Narbonne was pillaged; when Toulouse was
sacked by Clovis, or Chlodowig, in 507; when the churches of Barcelona
and Toledo were despoiled by Childebert in 531 and 542; and by various
expeditions in succeeding years.
The military triumphs of the Franks placed them in the highest rank
among the peoples of Europe, in the sixth and seventh centuries, in the
possession of treasures of jewels which enriched their palaces and great
churches. And the taste which the triumphs of war had developed was
maintained by the trade carried on by the Jewish and Syrian merchants.
The inhabitants of Gaul were extremely fond of objects of art, of rich
costumes, and of personal decorations; and the courts of some of the
early kings rivaled in magnificence those of oriental monarchs.
Especially was this true during the reign of King Dagobert (628–638),
who competed in splendor with the rulers of Persia and India. His
skilful jeweler, Eligius (588–659), was raised to the bishopric of
Noyon, and eventually—under the name of St. Eloi—became one of the most
popular saints in Gaul. Under direction of this artistic bishop, the
ancient churches received shrines, vestments, and reliquaries superbly
decorated with pearls and other gems. Indeed, for several centuries
following the time of Eligius, the greatest treasures of jewels seem to
have been collected in the churches.
The use of gems in enriching regalia, vestments, and reliquaries in
Europe, advanced greatly during the reign of Charlemagne (768–814); and
princes and bishops competed with each other in the magnificence of
their gifts to the churches, sacrificing their laical jewels for the
sacred treasures. Few of the great ornaments of Charlemagne’s time are
now in existence in the original form. Doubtless the most remarkable
pieces are the sacred regalia of the great emperor, preserved among the
imperial treasures in Vienna.
[Illustration:
FRONT COVER OF ASHBURNHAM MANUSCRIPT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS
From the ninth century. One quarter of the actual dimensions.
Owned by J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.
]
An artistic use for pearls at that time was in the rich and elegant
bindings of the splendidly written missals and chronicles, finished in
the highest degree of excellence and at vast expense. An artist might
devote his whole life to completing a single manuscript, so great was
the detail and so exquisite the finish. Vasari states that Julio Clovio
devoted nine years to painting twenty-six miniatures in the Breviary of
the Virgin now in the royal library at Naples. The library at Rouen has
a large missal on which a monk of St. Andoen is said to have labored for
thirty years. These books were among the most valued possessions of the
churches, and their bindings were enriched with gold and pearls and
colored stones. The wealthy churches had many such volumes; Gregory of
Tours states that from Barcelona in 531 A.D. Childebert brought twenty
“_evangeliorum capsas_” of pure gold set with gems. Several of these
superbly bound volumes are yet in existence, in the Basilica of St. Mark
in Venice; in the treasury of the cathedral at Milan; among the imperial
Russian collections in the Ourejenaya Palata at Moscow, etc.; and they
furnish probably the most reliable examples of artistic jewel work of
the Dark Ages.
The most remarkable specimen of these books in America is doubtless the
Ashburnham manuscript of the Four Gospels, now owned by J. Pierpont
Morgan, Esq., which affords an interesting example of the jeweler’s art.
For many centuries it belonged to the Abbey of the Noble Canonesses,
founded, in 834, at Lindau, on Lake Constance. After an extended
examination, Mr. Alexander Nesbit concluded that the rich cover of the
manuscript was probably made between 896 and 899 by order of Emperor
Arnulf of the Carolingian dynasty. Most of the ninety-eight pearls
appear to be from fresh water, and probably all of them were obtained
from the rivers of Europe. This is one of the few remaining pieces of
the magnificent ecclesiastical jeweling of that period.
After the death of Charlemagne, internal dissensions, separations and
the division of the Empire into the nations of Europe, annihilated
commerce, oppressed the people, and impoverished the arts. In the ninth
century, the Normans pillaged many of the palaces and churches in
Angoulême, Tours, Orléans, Rouen, and Paris, and destroyed or carried
away large treasures. The tenth and the eleventh centuries were indeed
the Dark Ages in respect to the cultivation of the arts; yet even during
that period the churches of western Europe received many gems from
penitent and fear-stricken subjects. The heart of man, filled with the
love of God, laid its earthly treasure upon the altar in exchange for
heavenly consolation. Pious faith dedicated pearls to the glorification
of the ritual; altars, statues, and images of the saints, priestly
vestments, and sacred vessels, were surcharged with them. The great
museums and the imperial collections contain some beautiful and highly
venerated objects of this nature.
In the meantime pearls of small size and of fair luster had been
collected in the rivers of Scotland, Ireland, and France, the headwaters
of the Danube, and in the countries north thereof. In England, as noted
in the preceding chapter, they were obtained by Cæsar’s invading
legions, who carried many to Rome. Ancient coins indicate that pearls
formed the principal ornament of the simple crowns worn by the early
kings of Britain previous to Alfred the Great.
The river pearls were not so beautiful as oriental ones; but, owing to
the ease with which they were obtained, they were employed more
extensively and especially in ecclesiastical decorations, the principal
use for pearls from the eighth to the eleventh century. Apparently
authentic specimens of fresh-water pearls of an early period are the
four now in the coronation spoon of the English regalia, which is
attributed to the twelfth century.
From the most ancient times until the overthrow of the Roman Empire,
practically the only use for pearls was ornamental; but after the eighth
century there developed a new employment for these as well as for other
gems. Natural history was little studied in Europe from the ninth to the
fourteenth century, except for the effect which its subjects had in
medicine and magic, which were closely allied. Largely through Arabic
influence, the practice of medicine had developed into administering
most whimsical remedies, among which gems, and especially pearls, played
a prominent part, and belief in the influence of these was as strong as
in that of the heavenly bodies. For this application, large demands had
arisen for pearls, which seem to have been prescribed for nearly every
ill to which the flesh was heir. On account of their cheapness, the
small ones—seed-pearls—were used principally; though larger ones were
preferred by persons who could afford them. While many of these
so-called medicinal pearls were obtained from the Orient, most of them
were secured from the home streams in the north of Europe and in the
British Isles.
After the decadence of Roman power in the East, the rulers of India and
Persia, through their control of the fisheries, again accumulated
enormous quantities of pearls. All of the early travelers to those
countries were astonished at the lavish display of these gems in
decorative costume.
The manuscript of Renaudot’s two Mohammedans, who visited India and
China in the ninth century, notes that the kings of the Indies were rich
in ornaments, “yet pearls are what they most esteem, and their value
surpasses that of all other jewels; they hoard them up in their
treasures with their most precious things. The grandees of the court,
the great officers and captains, wear the like jewels in their
collars.”[24]
[Illustration:
FRANCIS I, KING OF FRANCE, 1494–1547
Louvre, Paris
]
[Illustration:
ISABELLE DE VALOIS
By Pantoia de la Cruz, Prado Museum, Madrid
]
Inventories of some of the oriental collections of later times seem to
be extravagant fiction rather than veritable history. In that
interesting book dictated in a Genoese prison to Rusticiano da Pisa,
accounts are given by Marco Polo of great treasures seen by the first
Europeans to penetrate into China. He describes the king of Malabar as
wearing suspended about his neck a string of 104 large pearls and rubies
of great value, which he used as a rosary. Likewise on his legs were
anklets and on his toes were rings, all thickly set with costly pearls,
the whole “worth more than a city’s ransom. And ’tis no wonder he hath
great store of such gear; for they are found in his kingdom. No one is
permitted to remove therefrom a pearl weighing more than half a
_saggio_. The king desires to reserve all such to himself, and so the
quantity he has is almost incredible.”[25]
Later travelers give wonderful descriptions of this excessive passion
for pearls. Literature is full of this appreciation, and of the part
which these gems played in the affairs of the Orientals. Who has not
dwelt with delight upon those imperishable legends such as are embodied
in the Arabian Nights, of the pearl voyages by Sindbad the Sailor, of
the wonderful treasure chests, and of the superb necklaces adorning the
beautiful black-eyed women!
The returning Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the
development of the knightly orders, had much to do with spreading
through Europe a fondness for pearls in personal decoration. Those who,
like Chaucer’s knight, had been with Peter, King of Cyprus, at the
capture and plunder when “Alexandria was won,” returned to their homes
with riches of pearls and gold and precious stones. And learning much
relative to decorative art from Moorish craftsmen, the jewelers of
western Europe set these in designs not always crude and ineffective.
Although they were well known and valued, pearls do not seem to have
been much used in England before the twelfth century, as the
Anglo-Saxons were not an especially art-loving people. The word itself
is of foreign derivation and occurs in a similar form in all modern
languages, both Romance and Teutonic; _perle_, French and German;
_perla_, Italian, Portuguese, Provençal, Spanish, and Swedish; _paarl_,
Danish and Dutch. Its origin is doubtful. Some philologists consider it
Teutonic and the diminutive of _beere_, a berry; Claude de Saumaise
derives it from _pirula_, the diminutive of _pirum_, a sphere; while
Diez and many others refer it to _pira_ or to the medieval Latin
_pirula_, in allusion to the pear shape frequently assumed by the
pearl.[26]
The word pearl seems to have come into general use in the English
language about the fourteenth century. In Wyclif’s translation of the
Scriptures (about 1360), he commonly used the word _margarite_ or
_margaritis_, whereas Tyndale’s translation (1526) in similar places
used the word _perle_. Tyndale translated Matt. xiii. 46: “When he had
founde one precious pearle”; Wyclif used “oo preciouse margarite.” Also
in Matt. vii. 6, Tyndale wrote, “Nether caste ye youre pearles before
swyne”; yet Wyclif used “margaritis,” although twenty years later he
expressed it “putten precious perlis to hoggis.” Langland’s Piers
Plowman (1362), XI, 9, wrote this: “_Noli mittere_ Margeri perles Among
hogges.” The oldest English version of Mandeville’s Travels, written
about 1400, contained the expression: “The fyn Perl congeles and wexes
gret of the dew of hevene”; but in 1447, Bokenham’s “Seyntys” stated: “A
margerye perle aftyr the phylosophyr Growyth on a shelle of lytyl
pryhs”; and Knight de la Tour (about 1450) stated: “The sowle is the
precious marguarite unto God.”
The word is given “perle” in the earliest manuscripts of those old epic
poems of the fourteenth century, “Pearl” and “Cleanness,” which have
caused so much learned theological discussion and which testify to the
great love and esteem in which the gem was held. The first stanza of
“Pearl” we quote from Gollancz’s rendition:
Pearl! fair enow for princes’ pleasance,
so deftly set in gold so pure,—
from orient lands I durst avouch,
ne’er saw I a gem its peer,—
so round, so comely-shaped withal,
so small, with sides so smooth,—
where’er I judged of radiant gems,
I placed my pearl supreme.[27]
The fourteenth-century manuscript in the British Museum gives this as
follows:
Perle plesaunte to prynces paye,
To clanly clos in gold so clere,
Oute of oryent I hardyly saye,
Ne proved I never her precios pere,—
So rounde, so reken in uche a raye,
So smal, so smothe her sydez were,—
Queresoever I jugged gemmez gaye,
I sette hyr sengeley in synglere.
And from a modern rendering of “Cleanness” we quote:
The pearl is praised wherever gems are seen,
though it be not the dearest by way of merchandise.
Why is the pearl so prized, save for its purity,
that wins praise for it above all white stones?
It shineth so bright; it is so round of shape;
without fault or stain; if it be truly a pearl.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries throughout Europe pearls were
very fashionable as personal ornaments, and were worn in enormous
quantities; the dresses of men as well as of women were decorated and
embroidered with them, and they were noted in nearly every account of a
festive occasion, whether it were a marriage, a brilliant tourney, the
consecration of a bishop, or the celebration of a victory in battle.
The faceting of crystal gems was not known at that time, and those
dependent on artifice for their beauty were not much sought after.
Although the diamond had been known from the eighth century, it was not
generally treasured as an ornament, and not until long after the
invention of cutting in regular facets—about 1450—did it attain its
great popularity.
In the Dark Ages, it was customary for princes and great nobles to carry
their valuables about with them even on the battle-fields; first, in
order to have them always in possession, and second, on account of the
mysterious power they attributed to precious stones. Since jewels
constituted a large portion of their portable wealth, nobles and knights
went into battle superbly arrayed. In this manner the treasures were
easily lost and destroyed; consequently, relatively few of the personal
ornaments of that period are preserved to the present time.
Among the greatest lovers of pearls in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries were the members of the ducal house of Burgundy, and
especially Philip the Bold (1342–1404), Philip the Good (1396–1467), and
Charles the Bold (1433–77), and some of the gems which they owned are
even now treasured in Austria, Spain, and Italy. When Duke Charles the
Bold, in the year 1473, attended the Diet of Treves, accompanied by his
five thousand splendidly equipped horsemen, he was attired in cloth of
gold garnished with pearls, which were valued at 200,000 golden
florins.[28] We are told that “almost a sea of pearls” was on view at
the marriage of George the Rich with Hedwig, the daughter of Casimir III
of Poland, at Landshut, in 1475. Among the many ornaments was a pearl
chaplet valued at 50,000 florins which Duke George wore on his hat, and
also a clasp worth 6000 florins.[29] Members of the related houses of
Anjou and Valois also held great collections. Nor in this account should
we omit some of the English sovereigns, including especially Richard II
(1366–1400), one of the greatest dandies of his day.
During the fifteenth century, enormous quantities of pearls were worn by
persons of rank and fashion. A remarkable 1483 portrait of Margaret,
wife of James III of Scotland, which is now preserved at Hampton Court,
shows her wearing such wonderful pearl ornaments that she might well be
called Margaret from her decorations. As this queen was praised for her
beauty, we fear the artist has scarcely done justice to her appearance;
or possibly since that period tastes have changed as to what on a throne
passes for beauty. Her head-dress is undoubtedly the most remarkable
pearl decoration which we have seen of that century.
The uxorious and sumptuous Henry VIII of England (1491–1547) spent much
of the great wealth accumulated by his penurious father, Henry VII, in
enriching the appearance of his semi-barbaric court. In this reign, the
spoliation of the Catholic cathedrals and churches contributed many
pearls to the royal treasury; and onward from that time, they were
prominently displayed among the ornaments of the women of rank in
England. Most of the portraits of Henry’s wives show great quantities of
these gems; many of them with settings doubtless designed by artistic
Hans Holbein the Younger (1497–1543); and during the succeeding reigns
the women near the throne were commonly depicted with elaborate pearl
decorations.
The cold, unflattering portraits by Holbein of the court celebrities of
that period, not only of the gracious women and of the dandified men,
but of the clergy as well, show the prominence of pearls. Note his
portrait of Jane Seymour, of Anne of Cleves, of Christina of Denmark,
and the pearl-incrusted miter of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury.
An interesting story is told of Sir Thomas More, the learned chancellor
of Henry VIII, showing his view of the great display of jewels which
distinguished the period in which he lived:
His sonne John’s wife often had requested her father-in-law, Sir
Thomas, to buy her a billiment sett with pearles. He had often put
her off with many pretty slights; but at last, for her importunity,
he provided her one. Instead of pearles, he caused white peaze to be
sett, so that at his next coming home, his daughter-in-law demanded
her jewel. “Ay, marry, daughter, I have not forgotten thee!” So out
of his studie he sent for a box, and solemnlie delivered it to her.
When she, with great joy, lookt for her billiment, she found, far
from her expectation, a billiment of peaze; and so she almost wept
for verie griefe.[30]
Meanwhile, in the yet unknown America, pearls were highly prized, and
their magic charm had taken an irresistible hold on aborigines and on
the more highly civilized inhabitants of Mexico and Peru. In Mexico the
palaces of Montezuma were studded with pearls and emeralds, and the
Aztec kings possessed pearls of inestimable value. That they had been
collected elsewhere for a long time is evidenced by the large quantities
in the recently opened mounds of the Ohio Valley, which rank among the
ancient works of man in America. As in the Old World, so in the New,
they had been used as decoration for the gods and for the temples, as
well as for men and women.
The principal immediate effect of Columbus’s discovery and of the
commercial intercourse with the New World, was the great wealth of
pearls which enriched the Spanish traders. The natives were found in
possession of rich fisheries on the coast of Venezuela, and somewhat
later on the Pacific coast of Panama and Mexico, whence Eldorado
adventurers returned to Spain with such large collections that—using an
old chronicler’s expression—“they were to every man like chaff.” For
many years America was best known in Seville, Cadiz, and some other
ports of Europe, as the land whence the pearls came. Until the
development of the mines in Mexico and Peru, the value of the pearls
exceeded that of all other exports combined. Humboldt states that till
1530 these averaged in value more than 800,000 piastres yearly.[31] And
throughout the sixteenth century the American fisheries—prosecuted by
the Spaniards with the help of native labor—furnished Europe with large
quantities, the records for one year showing imports of “697 pounds’
weight” into Seville alone.
For two centuries following the discovery of America, extravagance in
personal decoration was almost unlimited at the European courts, and the
pearls exceeded in quantity that of all other gems. Enormous numbers
were worn by persons of rank and fortune. This is apparent, not only
from the antiquarian records and the historical accounts, but also in
the paintings and engravings of that time; portraits of the Hapsburgs,
the Valois, the Medicis, the Borgias, the Tudors, and the Stuarts show
great quantities of pearls, and relatively few other gems.
Probably the largest treasures were in possession of the Hapsburg
family, which furnished so many sovereigns to the Holy Roman Empire, to
Austria, and to Spain, and which, by descent through Maria Theresa,
continued to rule the Holy Roman Empire until its abolition in 1806, and
has since ruled Austria and Hungary.
A number of superb pieces of jewelry owned centuries ago by members of
this illustrious family are yet in existence; notably the buckle of
Charles V, and especially the imperial crown of Austria, made in 1602 by
order of Rudolph II.[32]
Two great women of that period are noted for their passion for pearls,
Catharine de’ Medici (1519–89), and Elizabeth of England (1533–1603). It
requires but a glance at almost any of their portraits, wherein they are
represented wearing elaborate pearl ornaments, to see to what an extent
they carried this fondness. And many other women were not far behind
them, among whom were Mary Stuart, Marie de’ Medici, and Henrietta
Maria. And not only by the women, but by the men also, pearls were worn
to what now seems an extravagant extent. Nearly all the portraits of
Francis I (1494–1547), Henry II (1519–59), Charles IX (1550–74), and
Henry III (1551–89) of France; of James I (1566–1625), and of Charles I
(1600–49) of England, and likewise of other celebrities, show a great
pear-shaped pearl in one ear. Many portraits also show pearls on the
hats, cloaks, gloves, etc.
When the Duke of Buckingham went to Paris in 1625, to bring over
Henrietta Maria to be queen to Charles I, he had, according to an
account in the “Antiquarian Repertory,” in addition to twenty-six other
suits, “a rich suit of purple satin, embroidered all over with rich
orient pearls, the cloak made after the Spanish mode, with all things
suitable, the value whereof will be twenty thousand pounds, and this, it
is thought, shall be for the wedding day at Paris.”
In the rich and prosperous cities of southern Europe, pearls were no
less popular. From its share of the spoils of the Byzantine Empire,
after its partition in 1204, pearls and other riches were plentiful in
Venice, and they were increased by the rapidly developing trade with the
Orient. In the rival maritime cities, Genoa and Pisa, the gem was
equally popular; and likewise in Florence “the Beautiful.” When Hercule
d’Este sought Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519) in marriage for his son, her
father, Pope Alexander VI, plunging both hands in a box filled with
pearls, said: “All these are for her! I desire that in all Italy she
shall be the princess with the most beautiful pearls and with the
greatest number.”[33]
Separated by three centuries of time and by the intervening simplicities
of puritanism and democracy, it is difficult for us to appreciate the
passion for pearls in Europe at that period, which may well be called
the Pearl Age.
[Illustration:
MARIA THERESA (1717–1780), QUEEN OF HUNGARY
By Martin de Mytens, 1742
]
The sumptuary laws which prevailed at different times in France,
England, Germany, and other countries, did not overlook this
extravagance; and an entire volume might be devoted to the efforts to
curb the excessive use. In France they were probably most stringent
during the reign of Philip IV (1285–1314), of Louis XI (1461–83), of
Charles IX (1560–74), of Henry III (1574–89), and of Louis XIII
(1610–43). In Germany almost every city had its special restrictions. A
sumptuary law of Ulm, in 1345, provided that no married woman or maiden,
either among the patricians or the artisans, should wear pearls on her
dresses; and another, in 1411, restricted them to “one pearl chaplet,”
and this should not exceed twelve _loth_ (half ounce) in weight. A
Frankish sumptuary law of 1479 provided that ordinary nobles serving a
knight at a tourney should not wear any pearl ornaments, embroidered or
otherwise, excepting one string around the cap or hat. The regulations
decreed by the Diet of Worms, in 1495, set forth that the citizens who
were not of noble birth, and nobles who were not knights, must withhold
from the use of gold and pearls. A similar provision was enacted by the
Diet of Freiburg in 1498, and likewise by the Diet of Augsburg in 1530,
which permitted the wives of nobles four silk dresses, but without
pearls. In the sumptuary law of Duke John George of Saxony, April 23,
1612, we read: “the nobility are not allowed to wear any dresses of gold
or silver, or garnished with pearls; neither shall the professors and
doctors of the universities, nor their wives, wear any gold, silver or
pearls for fringes, or any chains of pearls, or caps, neck ornaments,
shoes, slippers, shawls, pins, etc., with gold or silver or with
pearls.” Beadles, burgomasters, and those connected with the law-courts
were forbidden to wear chains of pearls and ornaments of precious stones
on their dresses, caps, etc., or slippers or chaplets with pearls.
Probably in no place were these laws more stringent than in the
art-loving republic of Venice from the fourteenth to the sixteenth
century. This seems remarkable in view of the fact that this city was
largely dependent for its wealth and prominence on commerce with the
East, of which pearls constituted a prominent item.
The earliest Venetian restriction that we have found regarding pearls
was made in 1299; when, in a decree determining the maximum number of
guests at a marriage ceremony and the extent of the bridal trousseau,
the grand council of the republic provided that no one but the bride
should wear pearl decorations, and she should be permitted only one
girdle of them on her wedding dress. This enactment was modified in
1306, but numerous other restrictions were substituted, notably in 1334,
1340, 1360, 1497, and 1562. These differed in many particulars: some
forbade ornaments or trimmings of pearls, gold, or silver on the dresses
of any women except a member of the Doge’s family; and other enactments
required that, after a definite period of married life, no woman should
be permitted to wear pearls of any kind. But an examination of the
documents and of the paintings of that period shows that these decrees
had little effect, and the luxury of the “Queen of the Adriatic” in the
use of pearls at the most brilliant epoch in her history is aptly
reproduced in the portraits by Giovanni Bellini, Lorenzo Lotto, the
great Titian, Tintoretto, Paul Veronese, and other artists of the
highest rank. In the engraving by Hendrik Goltzius of a marriage at
Venice in 1584, not one of the many women present seems to be without
her necklace and earrings of pearls, and some of them have several
necklaces.[34] And the same appears true of the principal female figures
in Jost Amman’s noted engraving, “The Espousal of the Sea,” executed in
1565.[35]
As preservation of the republic became more difficult with declining
resources and with the continued growth of dazzling splendor, a
resolution in the Senate, dated July 8, 1599, set forth that “the use
and price of pearls has become so excessive and increases to such an
extent from day to day, that if some remedy is not provided, it will
cause injury, disorders, and notable inconvenience to public and private
well-being, as each one of this council in his wisdom can very easily
appreciate.” And then it was enacted: “That, without repealing the other
regulations which absolutely prohibit the wearing of pearls, it shall be
expressly enjoined that any woman, whether of noble birth or a simple
citizen, or of any other condition, who shall reside in this our city
for one year (except her Serenity the Dogaressa and her daughters and
her daughters-in-law who live in the palace), after the expiration of
fifteen years from the day of her first marriage, shall lay aside the
string of pearls around her neck and shall not wear or use, either upon
her neck or upon any other part of her person, this string or any other
kind of pearls or anything which imitates pearls, neither in this city
nor in any other city or place within our dominion, under the
irremissible penalty of two hundred ducats.”
And yet ten years later, on May 5, 1609, another law enacted in the
Senate stated:
Although in the year 1599 this council decided with great wisdom
that married women should be permitted to wear pearls for only
fifteen years after their first marriage, nevertheless it is very
evident that the desired end has not been attained, and the
extravagance has continued up to the present time and still
continues with the gravest injury to private persons. Therefore, as
it is necessary to remedy, by a new provision, not only this
considerable incommodity, but also to prevent in the future the
introduction into the city of a greater quantity of pearls than are
found here at present, it is enacted, that married women as well as
those who shall marry in the future (except the Serene Dogaressa and
her daughters and her daughters-in-law living in the palace) of
whatever grade and condition they may be, who have resided in this
city for one year, cannot wear pearls of any kind except for ten
years immediately following the day of their first marriage; and
after that period they must lay aside these pearls which they are
forbidden to wear on any part of their persons, at home or abroad,
and as well in this as in the other cities, lands, and other places
of our dominion, under the penalty of two hundred ducats. And if the
husband of the offending wife is a noble, he shall be proclaimed in
the greater council and declared a debtor to the office of the
governors of the revenue in the sum of twenty-five ducats for each
fine; and if he is a citizen or of any other condition, besides the
penalty of two hundred ducats and the fine of twenty-five ducats
above mentioned, he shall be banished for three years from Venice
and the Duchy, and the same for each offence. And pearls or anything
which imitates pearls, shall be forbidden to all other women, men
and boys or girls of every age and condition at all times and in all
places, under the same penalty of two hundred ducats. In the future
no one shall in any manner bring pearls to this city as merchandise,
under the penalty of their seizure and forfeiture. And the merchant
shall be imprisoned for five consecutive years; and if he flees, he
shall be banished from the city and district of Venice and from all
other cities, lands, and places of our dominion for eight
consecutive years.... And all who at present have pearls to sell are
required to deposit a list of them with the sumptuary office, so as
to avoid all fraud which could be practiced in this matter.
[Illustration:
PARTI
PRESE
NELL ECCELLENTISS
Conseglio di Pregadi.
_1599. Adi 8. Luglio, & 1609. 5. Maggio._
In materia di Perle.
Stampata per Antonio Pinelli,
Stampator Ducale.
_A S. Maria Formosa, in Cale del Mondo Novo._
]
A copy of the title-page of this enactment is presented above.
The decrees and edicts were not confined to Venice, or to Italy, France,
or Germany; they made their appearance quite generally throughout
western and northern Europe and the interdictions of the civil
authorities were strengthened by the voice of the bishops and other
clergy, especially in the imperial cities of southern Germany. Yet the
united authority of church and state was ineffectual in stemming the
tide of fashion and personal fancy, and whether or not pearls should be
worn became one of the much discussed questions of that period.
To the question, “Whether the statute and regulation of Bishop
Tudertinus, who had excommunicated all women who wore pearls, was
binding,” Joannes Guidius replied that many denied that this was so, and
made the subtle defense that “the women had not accepted it and all had
worn pearls, and it was considered that such a law was binding only when
it was accepted by those for whom it was intended.”[36]
And as to the validity of the statutes requiring that women should not
wear more than a definite number of pearls, he decided that “such a
statute is valid and in itself good. And if the question is put whether
every woman who infringes incurs the penalty, an answer may be gathered
from the sayings of the doctors, who distinguish between married and
unmarried women. They consider that an unmarried woman is obliged to
obey the statute and regulation or to incur the penalty. But as to a
married woman, if her husband approves, she should obey the statute; if,
however, the husband objects, then the wife ought to wish to obey the
statute, but in effect she should rather obey her husband, for she is
most immediately and strongly bound to do this.”[37] Aided by such
ingenious opinions as these, the women continued to follow their own
inclinations notwithstanding the opposition of church and state.
Other fine distinctions were drawn by the lawyers of that day regarding
ownership of gems under certain conditions. For instance, it was decided
that pearls given by a father to his unmarried daughter remained her
property after marriage because “they are given for a reason, namely to
induce a marriage”; yet “pearls handed to a wife by her husband are not
considered as her property, but must be given to his heirs, since it is
supposed that they were given only for her adornment. The same holds
good as respects pearls handed to a daughter-in-law by her
father-in-law.”[38]
However, the greed of fashion, which law-makers and bishops could not
arrest, was gradually satiated; and, influenced probably by the horrors
of the Thirty Years’ War, more simple taste prevailed in the latter part
of the seventeenth century.
In the meantime, improvements in cutting and polishing had greatly
increased the beauty and popularity of diamonds and other crystal gems,
and this adversely affected the demand for pearls. Furthermore, cleverly
fashioned imitations manufactured at a low cost also served to decrease
the relative rank and fashion of the sea-born gems. In the eighteenth
century, pearls were relatively scarce; the resources of the American
seas were largely exhausted, likewise the Ceylon and Red Sea fisheries
were not to be depended on, and practically the entire supply came from
the Persian Gulf, with a few from European rivers and the waters of
China. As a result, although they continued to be prized by
connoisseurs, pearls were not so extensively sought after by the rank
and file of jewel purchasers.
It should be noted, however, that from the most ancient times, the
princes of India and of Persia have had their pick and choice of the
output from Ceylon and the Persian Gulf; and the largest single
collections of the Western world have never equaled the possessions of
some of those rulers. Some Indian princes have loaded themselves with
thousands of pearls, and individual ornaments have been valued not only
by oriental, but by European experts, at several millions of dollars.
The great diamond resources of Brazil were discovered in 1727, and after
a few years these came on the market at the rate of 140,000 carats
annually. At that time ladies of rank did not esteem diamonds so highly
as pearls. This distinction was accentuated by Lord Hervey in his
account of the coronation, in 1727, of George II and his consort
Caroline, who wore not only the great pearl necklace inherited from
Queen Anne, but “had on her head and shoulders all the pearls she could
borrow of the ladies of quality at one end of the town, and on her
petticoat all the diamonds she could hire of the Jews and jewelers at
the other; so that the appearance and the truth of her finery was a
mixture of magnificence and meanness not unlike the _éclat_ of royalty
in many other particulars, when it comes to be nicely considered and its
source traced to what money hires or flattery lends.”[39] In a portrait
of Charlotte (1744–1818), wife of George III, the pearls and diamonds
appear equally popular.
On the entry of the British into possession of Ceylon in 1796, the
fisheries of that country were resumed with great success after thirty
years of idleness, resulting in very large outputs for several seasons.
But owing to exhaustion of the areas, they were soon reduced, and the
yield became small and uncertain.
About 1845, pearls came on the market from the Tuamotu Archipelago and
other South Sea islands, and the industry was revived on the Mexican
coast. The pearls from these localities are noted for their range of
coloration, and particularly for the very dark shades, black or greenish
black being especially prominent. But the fashion, and thus,
necessarily, the demand, had always been for white and yellow pearls;
consequently, these black ones were of little value in the markets until
about ten years later, when they became fashionable in Europe largely
through their popularity with Empress Eugénie of France, then at the
height of her power. To this queen, pearls owe much of their high rank
in fashion in the nineteenth century; and on her head they were royal
gems royally worn, as appears from Winterhalter’s portrait of her,
showing her magnificent necklace.
The discovery of the resources on the Australian coast about 1865, and
the development of the fishery there for mother-of-pearl, resulted in
many large white pearls coming from that coast. The search was confined
to the relatively shoal waters, until the introduction of diving-suits
about 1880. The use of these facilitated a considerable extension of the
fisheries not only on the Australian coast, but also in Mexico, the
Malay Archipelago, several of the South Sea islands, and some minor
localities.
In America, few jewels were worn previous to the Civil War, owing to the
absence of great wealth and to the simplicity of taste in personal
decorations. The rapid increase in wealth and luxury, on the termination
of that war, resulted in a great demand for gems, and the most brilliant
and showy ones were selected, especially diamonds. This demand was the
more readily supplied by the discovery of the South African mines, with
their great yield from 1870 to the present time. So popular did that gem
become that many a young man invested his first earnings in a
“brilliant,” and an enormous diamond in the shirt-front became the
caricatured emblem of a prosperous hotel clerk.
But in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, in Europe, as well as
in America and elsewhere where gems are worn, luxury found in pearls a
refinement, associated with richness and beauty, exceeding that of
diamonds and other crystal gems, and in the last few years they have
taken the highest rank among jewels. This change in fashion and the
increase in wealth among the people developed vastly greater demands and
consequently very much higher prices. These have resulted in greatly
extending the field of search, and during the last two or three decades
many new territories have been brought into production.
By far the most important of these new regions is the Mississippi Valley
in America, the pearl resources of which were made known about a score
of years ago. As the exploitation developed, the gems from these streams
added very largely to the supply, especially of the baroque or irregular
pearls, which have increased greatly in fashion in the last ten years.
[Illustration]
LADY ABINGER MRS. ADAIR
LADY WIMBORNE HON. MRS. RENARD GRÉVILLE
MARCHIONESS OF LANSDOWNE
LADY LONDONDERRY
BARONESS DE FOREST
Notwithstanding the popular idea that pearls are scarce owing to
depletion of the fisheries, they are doubtless produced in greater
quantities at present than ever before in the history of the world.
True, they were more plentiful in Rome after the Persian conquest, and
in Spain immediately following the exploitation of tropical America; but
it is highly probable that in no equal period have the entire fisheries
of the world yielded greater quantities than in the five years from 1903
to 1907 inclusive. Certain individual fisheries are now less productive
than at the height of their prosperity; those in the Red Sea do not
compare favorably with their condition in ancient times, the European
resources are nearly exhausted, the supplies from the Venezuelan coast
do not equal those obtained early in the sixteenth century, the yield
from Mexico is not so extensive as twenty-five years ago, and the same
is true of some other regions. On the other hand, the great fisheries of
Persia and Ceylon are yet very prosperous, the Ceylon fishery of 1905
surpassing all records, and the number of minor pearling regions has
largely increased.
The present value of pearls—which has advanced enormously since 1893—is
due to the extended markets and the increased wealth and fashion in
Western countries, rather than to diminished fisheries. The oriental
demand still consumes the bulk of the Persian and Indian output, and the
vast increase in wealth among the middle classes in America, Europe, and
elsewhere, has increased the demand tenfold over that of a century ago.
While women no longer appear ornamented from head to foot as in the
sixteenth century, pearls are in the highest fashion, and the woman of
rank and wealth usually prizes first among her jewels her necklace of
pearls.
III
ORIGIN OF PEARLS
III
ORIGIN OF PEARLS
Heaven-born and cradled in the deep blue sea, it is the purest of
gems and the most precious.
S. M. ZWEMER.
The origin of pearls has been a fruitful subject of speculation and
discussion among naturalists of all ages, and has provoked many curious
explanations. Most of the early views—universally accepted during those
centuries when tradition had more influence than observation and
experiment—have no standing among naturalists at the present time. And
although much information has been gained as to the conditions
accompanying their growth, and many theories are entertained, each with
some basis in observed fact, science does not yet speak with conclusive
and unquestioned authority as to the precise manner of their origin and
development.
Owing to the chaste and subdued beauty of pearls, it is not strange that
poets of many countries have founded their origin in tears—tears of
angels, of water-nymphs, of the lovely and devoted. Sir Walter Scott in
“The Bridal of Triermain” refers to—
The pearls that long have slept,
These were tears by Naiads wept.
In one of his most lovely and consoling thoughts, Shakspere says:
The liquid drops of tears that you have shed,
Shall come again, transform’d to orient pearl,
Advantaging their loan with interest
Of ten times double gain of happiness.
And we quote from Rückert’s “Edelstein und Perlen”:
I was the Angel, who of old bowed down
From Heaven to earth and shed that tear, O Pearl,
From which thou wert first-fashioned in thy shell.
To thee I gave that longing in thy shell,
Which guided thee and caused thee to escape,
O Pearl, from the bewitching sirens’ song.
In luster they so closely resemble the limpid, sparkling dewdrop as it
first receives the sun’s rays, that the ancients very naturally
conceived that pearls are formed from drops of dew or rain. The usual
legend is, that at certain seasons of the year, the pearl-oysters rise
to the surface of the water in the morning, and there open their shells
and imbibe the dewdrops; these, aided by the breath of the air and the
warmth of the sunlight, are, in the course of time, transformed into
lustrous pearls; but if the air and the sunlight are not received in
sufficient quantities, the pearls do not attain perfection and are
faulty in form, color, and luster. However remarkable and even absurd
this may seem at present, it appears to have been universally accepted
for centuries by the most learned men of Europe as well as by primitive
people who delight in the mystical and fantastic. This opinion was
recorded in the Sanskrit books of the Brahmans and in other oriental
literature. The classical and medieval writings of Europe contain
numerous references to it; and it is found even yet in the traditions
and folk-lore of some peoples.
In the first century A.D., Pliny wrote in his “Historia naturalis,”
according to Dr. Philemon Holland’s quaint translation:
The fruit of these shell fishes are the Pearles, better or worse,
great or small, according to the qualitie and quantitie of the dew
which they received. For if the dew were pure and cleare which went
into them, then are the Pearles white, faire, and Orient; but if
grosse and troubled, the Pearles likewise are dimme, foule, and
duskish; pale they are, if the weather were close, darke and
threatening raine in the time of their conception. Whereby (no
doubt) it is apparent and plaine, that they participate more of the
aire and sky, than of the water and the sea; for according as the
morning is faire, so are they cleere: but otherwise, if it were
misty and cloudy, they also will be thicke and muddy in colour. If
they may have their full time and season to feed, the Pearles
likewise will thrive and grow bigge: but if in the time it chance to
lighten, then they close their shells together, and for want of
nourishment are kept hungrie and fasting, and so the pearles keepe
at a stay and prosper not accordingly. But if it thunder withall,
then suddenly they shut hard at once, and breed only those
excrescences which be called _Physemata_, like unto bladders puft up
and hooved with wind, no corporal substance at all: and these are
the abortive & untimely fruits of these shell fishes.[40]
[Illustration:
PANAMA SHELL
(_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_)
With pearls attached
]
[Illustration:
VENEZUELA SHELL
(_Margaritifera radiata_)
Showing growth of pearls
]
Pliny’s views were probably derived from the ancient authorities of his
time, particularly from Megasthenes, Chares of Mytilene, and Isidorus of
Charace; and these curious fictions were incorporated by subsequent
writers and influenced popular opinion for many centuries. With scarcely
a single exception, every recorded theory from the first century B.C. to
the fifteenth century evidences a belief in dew-formed pearls.
This theory is referred to by Thomas Moore in his well-known lines:
And precious the tear as that rain from the sky,
Which turns into pearls as it falls in the sea.
The Spanish-Hebrew traveler Benjamin of Tudela, in his “Masaoth” in
Persia (from 1160 to 1173), wrote: “In these places pearls are found,
made by the wonderful artifice of nature: for on the four and twentieth
day of the month Nisan, a certain dew falleth into the waters, which
being sucked in by the oysters, they immediately sink to the bottom of
the sea; afterwards, about the middle of the month Tisri, men descend to
the bottom of the sea, and, by the help of cords, these men bringing up
the oysters in great quantities from thence, open and take out of them
the pearls.”[41]
From the “Bustan,” one of the most popular works of Sadi, the Persian
poet (1190–1291 A.D.), Davie quotes:
From the cloud there descended a droplet of rain;
’Twas ashamed when it saw the expanse of the main,
Saying: “Who may I be, where the sea has its run?
If the sea has existence, I, truly, have none!”
Since in its own eyes the drop humble appeared,
In its bosom, a shell with its life the drop reared;
The sky brought the work with success to a close,
And a famed royal pearl from the rain-drop arose.
Because it was humble it excellence gained;
Patiently waiting till success was attained.
Even the usually well-informed William Camden (1551–1623), in whose
honor the Camden Historical Society of England was named, accepted the
theory of dew-formed pearls. He stated that the river Conway in Wales
“breeds a kind of shells, which being pregnated with dew, produce
pearl.”[42] Also, speaking of the Irt in county Cumberland, England, he
said: “In this brook, the shell-fish, eagerly sucking in the dew,
conceive and bring forth pearls, or (to use the poet’s word) shell
berries (_Baccas concheas_).”[43]
A recent letter from the American consul at Aden indicates that this
view is held even yet by the Arabs of that region. In giving their
explanation for the present scarcity in the Red Sea, he states: “There
is a belief among them that a pearl is formed from a drop of rain caught
in the mouth of the pearl-oyster, which by some chemical process after a
time turns into a pearl; and as there has been very little rain in that
region for several years past, there are few pearls.”
So firmly established throughout Europe was the belief in dew-formed
pearls, that its non-acceptance by the native Indians of America excited
the commiseration of the Italian historian Peter Martyr, in his “De Orbe
Novo,” one of the very first books on America, published in 1517. He
states: “But that they [pearls of Margarita Island on the present coast
of Venezuela] become white by the clearnesse of the morning dewe, or
waxe yelowe in troubled weather, or otherwise that they seeme to rejoice
in fayre weather and dear ayre, or contrary-wise, to be as it were
astonished and dymme in thunder and tempests, with such other, the
perfect knowledge hereof is not to be looked for at the hands of these
unlearned men, which handle the matter but grossly and enquire no
further than occasion serveth.”[44] Peter Martyr was distinguished for
his learning, was an instructor at the court of Spain at the height of
its power, and came in contact with the most enlightened men of Europe,
consequently it may be assumed that he reflected the best opinions of
his time.
It was not long before the aborigines of America were not alone in
discrediting the views which had prevailed in Europe for more than
fifteen hundred years. That practical old sailor Sir Richard Hawkins
concluded that this must be “some old philosopher’s conceit, for it can
not be made probable how the dew should come into the oyster.”[45] A
similar view is expressed by Urbain Chauveton in his edition of Girolamo
Benzoni’s “Historia del Mondo Nuovo,” published at Geneva in 1578. From
his reference to pearl-oysters on the Venezuelan coast, we translate:
[Illustration:
Shells from Venezuela (_Margaritifera radiata_) with attached pearls
]
[Illustration:
Exterior view of same
]
[Illustration:
X-ray photograph of shell, printed through exterior of shell and
showing encysted pearls
]
Around the island of Cubagua and elsewhere on the eastern coast, are
sandy places where the pearl-oysters grow. They produce their eggs
in very large quantities and likewise pearls at the same time. But
it is necessary to have patience to let them grow and mature to
perfection. They are soft at the beginning like the roe of fish; and
as the mollusk gradually grows, they grow also and slowly harden.
Sometimes many are found in one shell, which are hard and small,
like gravel. Persons who have seen them while fishing say that they
are soft as long as they are in the sea, and that the hardness comes
to them only when they are out of the water. Pliny says as much,
speaking of the Orientals in Book IX, of his Natural History, ch.
35. But as to that author and Albert the Great and other writers
upon the generation of pearls, who have said that the oysters
conceive them by means of the dew which they suck in, and that
according as the dew is clear or cloudy the pearls also are
translucent or dark, etc., etc.,—all this is a little difficult to
believe; for daily observation shows that all the pearls found in
the same shell are not of the same excellence, nor of the same form,
the same perfection of color, nor the same size, as they would or
must be if they were conceived by the dew all at one time. Besides
this, in many of the islands the Indians go fishing for them in ten
or twelve fathoms depth, and in some cases they are so firmly
attached to the rocks in the sea that they can be wrenched off only
by main strength. Would it not be difficult for them to inhale the
quintessence of the air there? It seems then that it is the germ and
the most noble part of the eggs of the oyster which are converted
into pearls rather than any other thing; and the diversities of
size, color, and other qualities, proceed from the fact that some
are more advanced than others, as we see eggs in the body of the
hen.[46]
The old theory of dew-formed pearls was illustrated even as late as 1684
on a medal struck in honor of Elena Piscopia of the Corraro family of
Venice. This bore an oyster-shell open and receiving drops of dew, and
underneath was engraved the motto “_Rore divino_” (By divine dew). Even
yet one hears occasionally from out-of-the-way places—as in the instance
reported by the American consul at Aden—of pearls formed from rain or
dew, notwithstanding that there seems to exist absolutely no
justification for it in scientific zoölogy.
Probably the most popular theory entertained from the fifteenth to the
seventeenth century was that pearls were formed from the eggs of the
oyster. This was intimated by Chauveton in the quotation above given,
and it was also referred to by many naturalists.
In an interesting letter, dated Dec. 1, 1673, and giving as his
authority the testimony of an eye-witness, “Henricus Arnoldi, an
ingenious and veracious Dane,” Christopher Sandius wrote: “Pearl shells
in Norway do breed in sweet waters; their shells are like mussels, but
larger; the fish is like an oyster, it produces clusters of eggs; these,
when ripe, are cast out and become like those that cast them; but
sometimes it appears that one or two of these eggs stick fast to the
side of the matrix, and are not voided with the rest. These are fed by
the oyster against her will and they do grow, according to the length of
time, into pearls of different bigness.”[47] This possibly hit the mark
with greater accuracy than the observations of the “ingenious and
veracious Dane” warranted, for he seems to have had quite a different
idea as to the manner in which the pearls are “fed by the oyster against
her will” from those generally entertained by naturalists at the present
time.
However, Oliver Goldsmith settled the matter by declaring briefly:
“Whether pearls be a disease or an accident in the animal is scarce
worth enquiry.”[48] Thus it seems that notwithstanding all that had been
written and the extended attention given to the subject, theory
prevailed to the almost complete exclusion of practical investigation,
with little intelligent advance over Topsy’s “’spect they just growed.”
Owing, doubtless, to the scarcity of pearl-bearing mollusks in their
vicinities, naturalists of Europe were somewhat slow in giving attention
to the origin of pearls. This is further accounted for by the fact that
the gems occur more frequently in old and diseased shells than in the
choice specimens which have naturally attracted the notice of
conchologists.
One of the first of the original observations made on this subject was
that by Rondelet, who, in 1554, advanced the idea that pearls are
diseased concretions occurring in the mollusca, similar to the morbid
calculi in the mammalia.[49]
The first writer to intimate the similarity in structural material or
substance between pearls and the interior of the shell in which they are
formed, appears to have been Anselmus de Boot (_circa_ 1600), who wrote
that the pearls “are generated in the body of the creature of the same
humour of which the shell is formed; ... for whenever the little
creature is ill and hath not strength enough to belch up or expel this
humour which sticketh in the body, it becometh the rudiments of the
pearl; to which new humour, being added and assimilated into the same
nature, begets a new skin, the continued addition of which generates a
pearl.”[50] The Portuguese traveler, Pedro Teixeira (1608), stated: “I
hold it for certain that pearls are born of and formed of the very
matter of the shell and of nothing else. This is supported by the great
resemblance of the pearl and the oyster-shell in substance and color.
Further, whatever oyster contains pearls has the flesh unsound and
almost rotten in the parts where the pearls are produced, and those
oysters that have no pearls are sound and clean fleshed.”[51]
Somewhat more than one hundred years later, this theory was confirmed by
investigations made by the famous physicist Réaumur (1683–1757).
Microscopic examination of cross sections of pearls show that they are
built up of concentric laminæ similar, except in curvature, to those
forming the nacreous portion of the shell. In a paper published by the
French Academy of Science in 1717,[52] Réaumur noted this condition, and
suggested that pearls are misplaced pieces of organized shell, and are
formed from a secretion which overflows from the shell-forming organ or
from a ruptured vessel connected therewith, and that the rupture or
overflow is ordinarily produced by the intrusion of some foreign or
irritating substance.
Sir Edwin Arnold calls attention to this theory in his beautiful lines:
Know you, perchance, how that poor formless wretch—
The Oyster—gems his shallow moonlit chalice?
Where the shell irks him, or the sea-sand frets,
He sheds this lovely lustre on his grief.
In pursuance of this idea, we find, in 1761, the Swedish naturalist
Linnæus, “the father of natural history,” experimenting in the
artificial production of pearls by the introduction of foreign bodies in
the shell, and meeting with some degree of success. His discovery was
rated so highly that it has been announced by some writers as the reason
why the great naturalist received the patent of nobility, which is
generally supposed to have been the reward for his services to science.
It seems that Linnæus’s discovery but verified the old saying that there
is nothing new under the sun, for later it was announced[53] that in
China—where so many inventions have originated—this idea had been put to
practical account for centuries preceding, and the crafty Chinaman had
succeeded in producing not only small pearly objects, but even images of
Buddha, with which to awe the disciples of that deified teacher.
The method consisted in slightly opening or boring through the shell of
the living mollusk and introducing against the soft body a small piece
of nacre, molded metal, or other foreign matter. The irritation causes
the formation of pearly layers about the foreign body, resulting, in the
course of months or of years, in a pearl-like growth. While these have
some value as objects of curiosity or of slight beauty, they are not
choice pearls, nor for that matter were those produced by Linnæus.
It will be observed that the theory of Réaumur, and also that of
Linnæus, required the intrusion of some hard substance, such as a grain
of sand, a particle of shell, etc., to constitute a nucleus of the
pearl; and this is the accepted explanation at the present time as to
the origin of many of the baroque or irregular pearls, and likewise the
pearly “blisters” and excrescences attached to the shell. But not so as
to the choice or gem pearls, those beautiful symmetrical objects of
great luster which are usually referred to in speaking of pearls.
Examinations of many of these have failed, except in rare instances, to
reveal a foreign nucleus of sand or similar inorganic substance. In
searching many fresh-water mussels, Sir Everard Home frequently met with
small pearls in the ovarium, and he further noticed that these, as well
as oriental pearls, when split into halves, often showed a brilliant
cell in the center, about equal in size to the ova of the same mollusk.
From these observations, in 1826 he deduced his “abortive ova” theory,
and announced:
A pearl is formed upon the external surface of an ovum, which,
having been blighted, does not pass with the others into the
oviduct, but remains attached to its pedicle in the ovarium, and in
the following season receives a coat of nacre at the same time that
the internal surface of the shell receives its annual supply. This
conclusion is verified by some pearls being spherical, others having
a pyramidal form, from the pedicle having received a coat of nacre
as well as the ovum.[54]
Naturalists generally accepted these conclusions, that pearls originate
in pathological secretions formed, either as the result of the intrusion
of hard substances, or by the encysting or covering of ova or other
objects of internal origin; and there was no important cleavage of
opinion until the development of the parasitic theory, as a result of
the researches of the Italian naturalist Filippi, and those following
his line of investigations. This theory is not severely in conflict with
those of Réaumur, Linnæus, Home, etc., but relates principally to the
identity of the irritating or stimulating substance which forms the
nucleus of the pearl.
In examining a species of fresh-water mussel, the _Anodonta cygnea_,
occurring in ponds near Turin, and especially the many small pearly
formations therein, Filippi observed that these were associated with the
presence of a trematode or parasitic worm, which he named _Distomum
duplicatum_, and which appears to be closely allied to the parasite
which causes the fatal “rot” or distemper in sheep. Under the
microscope, the smallest and presumably the youngest of these pearls
showed organic nuclei which appeared undoubtedly to be the remnants of
the trematode. In Anodonta from other regions, which were not infested
with the distoma, pearls were very rarely found by Filippi. In a
paper,[55] published in 1852, containing a summary of his observations,
he concluded that a leading, if not the principal, cause of
pearl-formation in those mussels was the parasite above noted; and in
later papers[56] he included such other forms as _Atax ypsilophorus_
within the list of parasitic agencies which might excite the
pearl-forming secretions, comparing their action to that of the
formation of plant-galls.
[Illustration:
Mexican pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_) with
adherent pearl
]
[Illustration:
Group of encysted pearls in shell of Australian pearl-oyster
(_Margaritifera maxima_)
]
American Museum of Natural History
[Illustration:
Mexican pearl-oyster (_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_) with
encysted fish
]
American Museum of Natural History
[Illustration:
Group of encysted pearls (Oriental)
]
[Illustration:
Reverse of same group, showing outline of the individual pearls
]
The discovery of the parasitic origin of pearls was extended to the
pearl-oysters and to other parasites by Küchenmeister[57] in 1856, by
Möbius[58] in 1857, and by several other investigators. Prominent among
these were E. F. Kelaart and his assistant Humbert, who, in 1859[59]
disclosed the important relation which the presence of vermean parasites
bears to the origin of pearls in the Ceylon oysters. These naturalists
found “in addition to the Filaria and Cercaria, three other parasitical
worms infesting the viscera and other parts of the pearl-oyster. We both
agree that these worms play an important part in the formation of
pearls.” Dr. Kelaart likewise found eggs from the ovarium of the oyster
coated with nacre and forming pearls, and also suggested that the
silicious internal skeletons of microscopic diatoms might possibly
permeate the mantle and become the nuclei of pearls. Unfortunately, Dr.
Kelaart’s investigations were terminated by his death a few months
thereafter.
In 1871, Garner ascribed the occurrence of pearls in the common English
mussel (_Mytilus edulis_) to the presence of distomid larvæ.[60]
Giard,[61] and other French zoölogists, made similar discoveries in the
case of Donax and some other bivalves. In 1901, Raphael Dubois confirmed
the observations of Garner, associating the production of pearls in the
edible mussels on the French coasts with the presence of larvæ of a
parasite, to which he gave the name of _Distomum margaritarum_, and
boldly announced: “La plus belle perle n’est donc, en définitive, que le
brillant sarcophage d’un ver.”[62]
Prof. H. L. Jameson, in 1902, disclosed the relation which exists
between pearls in English mussels (_Mytilus_) and the larvæ of _Distomum
somateriæ_.[63] The life history of this trematode, as revealed by Dr.
Jameson, is especially interesting from a biological standpoint, since
it is entertained by three hosts at different times: the first host is a
member of the duck family; the second is the Tapes clam (_Tapes
decussatus_), or perhaps the common cockle (_Cardium edule_), which
incloses the first larval stage, and the third is the edible mussel, in
which the second larval stage of the parasite stimulates the formation
of pearls. At the Brighton Aquarium and the Fish Hatchery at Kiel, Dr.
Jameson claims to have succeeded in artificially inoculating perfectly
healthy mussels with these parasites by associating them with infested
mollusks, and thereby producing small pearls.
From Dr. Jameson’s interesting paper we abridge the following account of
the manner in which the pearls are developed. The trematode enters
_Mytilus edulis_ as a tailless cercaria, and at first may often be found
between the mantle and the shell. The larvæ, after a while, enter the
connective tissue of the mantle, where they come to rest, assuming a
spherical form, visible to the naked eye as little yellowish spots about
one half millimeter in diameter. At first the worm occupies only a space
lined by connective-tissue fibrils, but soon the tissues of the host
give rise to an epithelial layer, which lines the space and ultimately
becomes the pearl-sac. If the trematode larva completes its maximum
possible term of life, it dies, and the tissues of the body break down
to form a structureless mass which retains the form of the parasite,
owing to the rigid cuticle. In this mass arise one or more centers of
calcification, and the precipitation of carbonate of lime goes on until
the whole larva is converted into a nodule with calcospheritic
structure. The granular matter surrounding the worm, if present, also
undergoes calcification. The epithelium of the sac then begins to shed a
cuticle of conchiolin, and from this point the growth of the pearl
probably takes place on the same lines and at the same rate as the
thickening of the shell.[64]
Fully as remarkable as the observations of Dr. Jameson are the results
claimed by Professor Dubois in experimenting with a species of
pearl-oyster (_M. vulgaris_) from the Gulf of Gabes on the coast of
Tunis, where they are almost devoid of pearls, a thousand or more shells
yielding on an average only one pearl. Conveying these to the coast of
France in 1903, he there associated them with a species of
trematode-infested mussel (_Mytilus gallo-provincialis_), and after a
short period they became so infested that every three oysters yielded an
average of two pearls.[65] This claim has not been without criticism;
but who ever knew scientists to agree?
In the pearl-oyster of the Gambier Islands (_M. margaritifera cumingi_),
Dr. L. G. Seurat found that the origin of pearls was due to irritation
caused by the embryo of a worm of the genus _Tylocephalum_, the life of
which is completed in the eagle-ray, a fish which feeds on the
pearl-oyster.[66]
In 1903, Prof. W. A. Herdman, who, at the instance of the colonial
government, and with the assistance of Mr. James Hornell, examined the
pearl-oyster resources of Ceylon, announced: “We have found, as Kelaart
did, that in the Ceylon pearl-oyster there are several different kinds
of worms commonly occurring as parasites, and we shall, I think, be able
to show that Cestodes, Trematodes, and Nematodes may all be concerned in
pearl formation. Unlike the case of the European mussels, however, we
find that in Ceylon the most important cause is a larval Cestode of the
Tetrarhynchus form.”[67]
In his investigation of the Placuna oyster in 1905, Mr. James Hornell
found that the origin of pearls was due to minute larva of the same
stage and species as that which causes the pearls in the Gulf of Manar
oyster.[68]
The spherical larvæ of this tapeworm sometimes occur in great abundance,
and there is evidence of forty having been found in a single
pearl-oyster. Mr. Hornell states that the living worm does not induce
pearl formation, this occurring only when death overtakes it while in
certain parts of the oyster. As a consequence, pearls are more numerous
in oysters which have been long infected, where the worms are older and
more liable to die. This parasitic worm has been traced from the
pearl-oyster to the trigger-fishes, which eat the pearl-oysters, and
thence into certain large fish-eating rays, where it becomes sexually
mature and produces embryos which enter the pearl-oyster and begin a new
cycle of life-phases.
It seems, therefore, that the latest conclusions of science appear
entirely favorable to the parasitic theory as explaining at least one,
and probably the most important, of the causes for the formation of
pearls; and that some truth exists in the statement that the most
beautiful pearl is only the brilliant sarcophagus of a worm. This
morphological change is not peculiar to mollusks, for in most animal
bodies a cyst is formed about in-wandering larvæ. Fortunately for lovers
of the beautiful, in the pearl-oysters the character of the cyst-wall
follows that of the interior lining of the shell, and not only
simulates, but far surpasses it in luster.
While the theory that pearls are caused by the intrusion of some unusual
substance has the evidence of actual demonstration in many instances,
and is unquestionably true to a large extent, yet microscopic
examination of some pearls suggests the theory that a foreign substance
is not always essential to their formation, and that they may originate
in calcareous concretions of minute size, termed “calcospherules.” As
regards their origin, Professor Herdman classifies pearls into three
sorts: (1) “Ampullar pearls,” which are not formed within closed sacs of
the shell-secreting epithelium like the others, but lie in pockets or
ampullæ of the epidermis. The nuclei may be sand-grains or any other
foreign particles introduced through breaking or perforation of the
shell. (2) “Muscle pearls,” which are analogous to gallstones, formed
around calcospherules at or near the insertion of the muscles. And (3)
“Cyst pearls,” in which concentric layers of nacre are deposited on
cysts containing parasitic worms in the connective tissue of the mantle
and within the soft tissues of the body.[69]
Even a particle of earth, clay, or mud may form the nucleus of a pearl.
This was illustrated a few years ago in a fine button-shaped pearl,
which was accidentally broken under normal usage and was found to
consist of a hard lump of white clay surrounded by a relatively thin
coating of nacre. More remarkable yet are the cases in which a minute
fish, a crayfish, or the frustule of a diatom has formed the nucleus.
Several instances have been described by Woodward, Gunther, Putnam,
Stearns, and others, where small fish have penetrated between the mantle
and the shell of the mollusk, and the latter has resented the intrusion
by covering the intruder with a pearly coating. In two or three
instances the secretion occurred in so short a time that the fish
suffered no appreciable decomposition, and its species is readily
identified by observation through the nacreous layer. Among the
remarkable specimens of this nature which have come under our
observation are two very curious shells received in March, 1907, from
the Mexican fisheries. One of these specimens shows an encysted fish, so
quickly covered and so perfectly preserved that even the scales and
small bones are in evidence; indeed, one can almost detect the gloss on
the scales of the fish; and in the other—with a remarkable comet-like
appearance—a piece of ribbed seaweed is apparently the object covered.
From the foregoing, it appears that the pearl is not a product of health
associated with undisturbed conditions, but results from a derangement
in the normal state of the mollusk. Unable to resist, to rid itself of
the opposing evil, it exercises the powers given to it by a beneficent
Creator and converts the pain into perfection, the grief into glory.
Nature has many instances of the humble and lowly raised to high degree,
but none more strikingly beautiful than this. One of the lowest of
earth’s creatures, suffering a misfortune, furnishes a wonderful lesson
upon the uses of pain and adversity by converting its affliction into a
precious gem symbolical of all that is pure and beautiful. As written by
a forgotten poet: “Forasmuch as the pearl is a product of life, which
from an inward trouble and from a fault produces purity and perfection,
it is preferred; for in nothing does God so much delight as in
tenderness and lustre born of trouble and repentance.” As the great
Persian poet Hafiz says:
Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,
And store with pearls the wound that brings thee woe.
IV
STRUCTURE AND FORMS
IV
STRUCTURE AND FORMS OF PEARLS
“This maskellez perle that boght is dere,
The joueler gef fore alle hys gold,
Is lyke the reme of hevenes clere”;
So sayde the fader of folde and flode,
“For hit is wermlez, clene and clere,
And endelez rounde and blythe of mode,
And commune to all that ryghtwys were.”
FOURTEENTH-CENTURY MSS. OF “PEARL,”
IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
As Kadir Munshi says, “pearls have no pedigree”; their beauty is not to
be traced to their origin, but exists wholly in the excellence of the
surroundings in which they develop.
The pearl-bearing mollusks are luxurious creatures, and for the purpose
of protecting their delicate bodies they cover the interior of their
shells with a smooth lustrous material, dyed with rainbow hues, and
possessing a beautiful but subdued opalescence. No matter how foul, how
coral covered, or overgrown with sponges or seaweeds the exterior may
be, all is clean and beautiful within. This material is nacre or
mother-of-pearl. It consists ordinarily of an accumulation of extremely
thin semi-transparent films or laminæ of a granular organic substance
called conchiolin, with the interstices filled with calcareous matter.
The nacre decreases in thickness from the hinge toward the lip of the
shell, and terminates a short distance from the extreme edge.
Next to the nacre is the middle layer or the shell proper. In species of
_Margaritifera_, this stratum is commonly formed of layers of calcareous
prisms arranged vertically to the shell surface. External to this middle
or prismatic layer is the epidermis or periostracum, the rough outer
coating of varying shades, usually yellow or brown. Where the waves are
rough, and the bottom hard and rocky, this covering is thick and heavy,
to afford greater protection; but where the waters are smooth and
gentle, and the bottom free from rocks, Nature—never working in
vain—furnishes only thin sides and slight defense. As is the case with
the nacre, the prismatic layer and the periostracum decrease in
thickness from the hinge to the edge, and the inside lip of the shell
shows the gradual union of the three superimposed layers. The two outer
layers are formed by the thick edge of the mantle, the remaining
portion—or nearly the entire surface—of this organ secretes the nacral
layer.
Not only is the interior of the shell made lustrous and beautiful, but
this tendency is exerted toward all objects that come in contact with
the soft body of the mollusk, either by intrusion simply within the
shell, or deeply within the organs and tissues of the animal itself. All
foreign bodies—such as small parasites, diatoms, minute pebbles,
etc.,—irritate the tender tissues of the mollusk, and stimulate the
pearly formation which in course of time covers them. At first the
nacreous covering is very thin; but with added layer after layer the
thickness is enhanced, and the size of the object increases as long as
it remains undisturbed and the mollusk is in healthful growth.
Chemically considered, aside from the nucleus, the structure of pearls
is identical in composition with that of the nacre of the shell in which
they are formed. Analyses have shown that those from the fresh-water
mussels of England and Scotland, and from the pearl-oysters of Australia
and of Ceylon, have nearly identical composition in the proportion of
about 5.94 per cent. of organic matter, 2.34 of water, and 91.72 per
cent. of carbonate of lime.[70] The specific gravity ranges from nearly
2 to about 2.75, increasing with the deposit of the nacreous coatings.
The following summary by Von Hessling[71] shows the results of certain
determinations of specific gravity:
Authority Specific Note
Gravity
Muschenbroet 2.750 at moderate temperature
Brisson 2.684 at 14° Réaumur
Möbius 2.686 4 fine pearls, weighing 2.396 gms.
Möbius 2.650 24 pearls, weighing 6.221 gms.
Möbius 2.336 63 brown pearls from Mazatlan, weighing 4.849
gms.
Voit 2.722 Bavarian pearls, 3–3⁄16 carats, medium quality
Voit 2.616 Bavarian pearls, 3⅝ carats, finer quality
Voit 2.724 Bavarian pearls, 1¾ carats, very fine
Voit 2.578 Bavarian pearls, gray, with some luster
Voit 2.765 Bavarian pearls, brown, ranking between good &
black
Voit 2.238 Bavarian pearls, poor black pearls, impure
[Illustration:
Cross section of an irregular pearl, magnified 80 diameters
]
[Illustration:
Cross sections of pearls, magnified 30 diameters
]
[Illustration:
Thin section of mother-of-pearl, magnified, showing sponge borings
which traversed the pearl shell
]
[Illustration:
Structure of conch pearl produced by fracturing, magnified 80
diameters
]
The distinctive characteristic, the great beauty of a true pearl, is its
luster or orient, which is a subdued iridescence, rather than the
glittering brilliance of the diamond; and unless the shelly growth be
lustrous it does not rank as a gem pearl, no matter how perfect its form
or beautiful its color. This luster is due to the structural arrangement
of the surface as well as to the quality of the material. The nacreous
material forming true pearls, and likewise mother-of-pearl, is commonly
deposited in irregular tenuous layers, very thin and very small in area
compared with the surface of the pearl. These laminæ overlap one
another, the surfaces are microscopically crumpled and corrugated, and
the edges form serrated outlines. The greater the angle which the laminæ
form with the surface, the closer will be these serrated outlines, and
where the plane of the exterior lamina is parallel with the plane of the
surface the lines are not present. This arrangement causes the waves of
light to be reflected from different levels on the surface, just as in a
soap bubble, and the minute prisms split the rays up into their colored
constituents, producing the chromatic or iridescent effect.
The cause is wholly mechanical, and an impression of the surface made in
very fine wax shows a similar iridescence. Also, if a piece of
mother-of-pearl be immersed in acid until the surface lime or shelly
matter is dissolved, the pellucid membrane shows the iridescence until
it is so compressed that the corrugations are reduced. About two score
years ago an Englishman invented steel buttons with similar minute
corrugations producing pearly effect, but the manufacture was
unprofitable, owing, principally, to their liability to tarnish.
In the shells of some mollusks—as the edible oysters (_Ostrea_) or the
giant clam (_Tridacna_),—there is almost a total absence of the crumpled
corrugated laminæ, and, consequently, there is little luster. In others
the nacre is of better quality, resulting in superior orient, and it
probably reaches its highest degree of perfection in the pearl-oyster
(_Margaritifera_).
As the curvature of the surface of pearls is greater, and the minute
striæ are more numerous, than in ordinary mother-of-pearl, it follows
that the iridescence is likewise greater.
Superior nacre is more or less translucent, depending on its quality;
and to the iridescence of the outer laminæ is added that of many
interior ones, so that the luster is vastly increased. The position of
the pearl within the shell may greatly affect the quality of the
material and, consequently, the orient. The choicest are commonly found
within the soft parts of the animal, and those of poorer quality are at
the edges of the mantle, or within the fibers of the adductor muscle of
bivalves.
The structure of pearls may be studied by examining thin cross sections
under the microscope, or by transmitted polarized light. It appears that
ordinarily a pearl is made up of many independent laminæ superimposed
one upon another “like the layers of an onion,” or, rather, resembling
the leaves near the upper part of a well formed cabbage. When subjected
to sufficient heat, the laminæ separate from each other, as do shells of
edible oysters and similar mollusks under like conditions. When broken
by a hammer, a pearl may exhibit this laminated formation. If not split
directly through the center, the central section may retain the
spherical form; and as this commonly remains attached to one of the
parts, its concave impression appears in the other portion of the broken
pearl. The outer laminæ of many pearls may be removed with a fair
prospect of finding a good subjacent surface, and this may be continued
until the size is greatly reduced. These laminæ are not always similar
in color or luster.
However, not all pearls are laminated in this manner. Instead of
superimposed layers, some of them exhibit a crystalline form, composed
of beautiful prismatic crystals radiating from the center to the
circumference. In at least one oriental pearl examined, these crystals
were in well defined arcs, and were further separated into concentric
rings of different degrees of thickness, depth of color, and distance
apart. Another specimen—a Scotch pearl—combined in separate layers both
the laminated form and the crystalline structure.
Dr. Harley points out that some crystalline pearls apparently originate
in mere coalescences of mineral particles, rather than in well defined
nuclei.[72] Microscopic sections of crystalline pearls convey the idea
that the prisms branch and interlace with one another, and also that in
some instances they are of fusiform shape. However, these appearances
seem to be due simply to the cross sections having cut the prisms at
different angles.
Pearls showing these types were exhibited at a meeting of the Royal
Society of London, June 8, 1887. That exhibit also contained a section
of a west Australian pearl of curiously complex crystalline formation;
instead of one central starting-point, it had more than a dozen
scattered about, from which the crystalline prisms radiated in all
directions.
Since the three superimposed layers of the shell are secreted by
separate parts of the mantle, _viz._, the nacre by the general surface,
the prismatic layer by the inner edge, and the epidermis by the outer
edge, it follows that if a pearl in course of formation is moved from
one of these distinctive portions of the palial organ to another, the
nature of its laminæ changes. Thus, if a pearl formed on the broad
surface of the mantle is moved in some way to the inner edge of that
organ, it may be covered with a prismatic layer; if then moved to the
outer edge it may receive a lamina of epidermis, and then by changing
again to the broad surface of the mantle it receives further coats of
nacre.
[Illustration:
Pearls from common clam (_Venus mercenaria_) of eastern coast of
America
]
[Illustration:
Pearl “nuggets” from the Mississippi Valley
]
[Illustration:
Wing pearls from the Mississippi Valley
]
[Illustration:
Dog-tooth pearls from the Mississippi Valley
]
The structure of pearls from univalve mollusks, such as the conch, the
abalone, etc., as well as those from some bivalves, as the Pinna, for
instance, differs from that of the true pearls formed in species of
Margaritifera. Instead of the alternate layers of conchiolin and of
carbonate of lime, many of these have an alveolar structure. When
greatly magnified, the surface of a Pinna pearl appears to be formed of
very small polygones, which, as decalcification shows, are the bases of
small pyramids radiating from the nucleus. The walls of these pyramids
are formed of conchiolin, and they are filled with carbonate of lime of
a prismatic crystalline structure. This is simply a modification of the
parallel laminæ in the Margaritifera pearls, for, as Dubois points out,
in some sections we can see portions where the alveolar formation has
proceeded for a time coincidentally with the lamellar form.
Pearls are affected by acids and fetid gases, and may be calcined on
exposure to heat. Their solubility in vinegar was referred to by the
Roman architect Vitruvius (“De Architectura,” L. viii. c. 3) and also by
Pausanias, a Greek geographer in the second century (“Hellados
Periegesis,” L. viii, c. 18); but it seems that there could be little
foundation for Pliny’s well-known anecdote in which Cleopatra is
credited with dissolving a magnificent pearl in vinegar and drinking
it—“the ransom of a kingdom at a draught”—to the health of her lover
Antony.[73] It is no more easy to dissolve a pearl in vinegar than it is
to dissolve a pearl-button—for the composition is similar, and one may
easily experiment for himself as to the difficulty in doing this. Not
only does it take many days to dissolve in cold vinegar the mineral
elements of a pearl of fair size, but even with boiling vinegar it
requires several hours to extract the mineral matter from one four or
five grains in weight, the acid penetrating to the interior very slowly.
And in neither case can the pearl be made to disappear, for even after
the carbonate of lime has dissolved, the organic matrix of animal
matter—which is insoluble in vinegar—retains almost the identical shape,
size, and appearance as before. If the pearl is first pulverized, it
becomes readily soluble in vinegar, and might be thus drunk as a lover’s
potion, but it would scarcely prove a _bonne bouche_.
Pearls assume an almost infinite variety of forms, due largely to the
shapes of the nuclei, and also to their positions within the mollusk.
The most usual—and, fortunately, also the most valuable—is the
spherical, resulting from a very minute or a round body as a nucleus and
the uniform addition of nacre on all sides. Of course, spherical pearls
can result only where they are quite free from other hard substances;
consequently they originate only in the soft parts of the mollusk and
not by the fixation of some nucleus to the interior surface of the
shell.
The perfectly spherical pearls range in weight from a small fraction of
a grain to three hundred grains or more, but it is very, very rare that
one of choice luster weighs more than one hundred grains. The largest of
which we have any specific information was that among the French crown
jewels as early as the time of Napoleon, an egg-shaped pearl, weighing
337 grains. The largest pearl known to Pliny in the first century A.D.
weighed “half a Roman ounce and one scruple over,” or 234½ grains Troy.
These very large ones, weighing in excess of one hundred grains, are
called “paragons.” The small pearls—weighing less than half a grain
each—are known as “seed-pearls.” The very small ones, weighing less than
1⁄25 of a grain, are called “dust-pearls.” These are too small to be of
economic value as ornaments.
Slight departures from the perfect sphere, result in egg shapes, pear
shapes, drop shapes, pendeloque, button shapes, etc. Some of these are
valued quite as highly at the present time as the spherical pearls, and
many of the most highly prized pearls in the world are of other than
spherical form. Indeed, pearls of this kind are found of larger size
than the perfectly round pearls. The egg-shaped pearl,[74] called “la
Régente,”—one of the French crown jewels sold in May, 1887—weighed, as
stated above, 337 grains. The great pear pearl described by
Tavernier—“the largest ever discovered”—weighed about 500 grains. A
button pearl received from Panama in 1906 weighed 216 grains.
Wider departures from the spherical form result in cylindrical, conical,
top-shaped, etc. Some pearls present the appearance of having been
turned in a lathe with intricate tooling. Remarkable examples of these
“turned pearls” have been found, competing in their circular perfection
with the best work of a jeweler’s lathe.
Many standard varieties of non-spherical, but normally shaped pearls,
are recognized by the fishermen and the jewelers. For instance, in the
nomenclature of the American fishermen, _bouton_, or button pearls are
divided into “haystacks” and “turtle-backs,” according to the height of
the projection. Also, certain imperfections result in distinguishing
names: “bird’s-eye” refers to a pearl having a little imperfection on
the best surface; “ring-arounds” have a dark or discolored ring about
them; and “strawberries” have numerous minute projections on the
surface.
During its growth, a spherical pearl may come in contact with a foreign
body, such as grit or a vegetable film, and the additional nacral layers
envelop the adjacent matter until it is entirely concealed within the
pearl, its position being recognized only by the excrescence on one
side, and, with continued increase in size, even this may be almost
overcome.
[Illustration:
ACTUAL SIZES OF PEARLS FROM ⅛ GRAIN TO 160 GRAINS
]
Sometimes double, triple, or multiple pearls are formed; each of these
may have a separate nucleus and grow independently for a time until they
adjoin each other; continuing to grow, they become so united as to form
a connected mass. The “Southern Cross” is a remarkable example of this.
It appears to consist of seven nearly spherical pearls attached to one
another in a straight line, and one projecting from each side of the
second in the row, thus forming a Roman cross.[75]
A few years ago, near Sharks Bay, on the coast of western Australia, a
cluster was found containing about 150 pearls closely compacted. This
cluster measured about one and a half inches in length, three quarters
of an inch in breadth, and half an inch in thickness.
When a growing pearl is very near to the nacreous lining of the shell,
the pressure between the two hard substances results in a rupture of the
pearl-forming sac and the epithelial layer of the shell, and the pearl
comes in actual contact with the nacre. The pearl gradually becomes
attached to the shell, and the under portion is prevented from growing
further; the upper or exposed surface receives other layers, resulting
in the formation of a _bouton_. As the shell around the pearl continues
to grow, it gradually closes about, and almost wholly conceals the
pearl. Since it is constantly wasting away on the exterior surface as it
grows on the interior, it follows that in time the shell passes the
pearl quite through to the outside, where it rapidly decays. Thus the
oyster virtually forces the annoying intruder directly through the wall
of its house instead of by way of the open door, and magically closes
the breach with its marvelous masonry.
These embedded pearls are generally faulty and of diminished luster,
but in the aggregate, large quantities of imperfect ones, and
especially half and quarter pearls, are secured in this manner.
Sometimes—particularly in the Australian fisheries—large pearls are
thus found, weighing twenty, forty, sixty, and even eighty grains; and
when the faulty outside layers of nacre are removed, a subjacent
surface of fine luster may possibly be revealed. In bivalves, these
adherent pearls are commonly in the deep or lower valve, except in
those unusual cases where the mollusks have been lying in a reverse
position. At the fisheries, the surfaces of the shells are carefully
inspected for evidence of pearly nodules, and these are broken open in
search for encysted objects. Cutters of mother-of-pearl occasionally
find embedded pearls of this kind which have escaped the vigilant eyes
of the fishermen.
We read of an instance in an important paper treating of the jeweling
trade of Birmingham: “A few years since [the paper was written in 1866]
a small lot of shells was brought to Birmingham, which either from
ignorance or mistake had not been cleared of the pearls at the fishery.
A considerable number were found and sold, and one especially was sold
by the man who had bought the shell for working into buttons, for £40.
The purchaser, we believe, resold the same for a profit of £160; and we
have heard that it was afterward held in Paris for sale at £800.”
A choice gem which was found in New York, in October, 1905, in an
Australian shell, sold finally for $1200.
The intrusion and continued presence of grains of sand or similar
material between the mantle and the shell causes the formation of nacre
over the foreign body, resulting in a _chicot_ (blister pearl), or
possibly a quarter or a half-pearl. The growth of a _chicot_ sometimes
results from the mollusk covering a choice pearl which has become
loosened from the soft tissues and adheres to the shell, as above cited.
Hence, it is sometimes desirable to break a _chicot_ to secure its more
valuable inclosure. In the account of his interesting pearling
experiences on the Australian coast, Henry Taunton states: “During the
first season’s shelling at Roebuck Bay, we came across an old worm-eaten
shell containing a large blister, which was removed in the usual manner
by punching a ring of minute holes around its base; a slight tap was
then sufficient to detach it. For many weeks it was untouched, no one
caring to risk opening it, for if filled with black ooze, which is
frequently the case, it would be of little value. At last, baffled in
his attempt to solve the problem, and emboldened by an overdose of
‘square face,’ the skipper gave it a smart blow with a hammer, which
cracked it open, and out rolled a huge pearl, nearly perfect, and
weighing eighty grains. A few specks and discolorations were removed by
a skilful ‘pearl-faker,’ and it was sold in London for £1500.”[76]
Blister pearls are also caused by the defensive or protective action of
the mollusk in resisting the intrusion of some animal, as a boring
sponge or a burrowing worm, which has begun to penetrate the outer
layers of the shell. This stimulation causes the mollusk to pile
nacreous material upon the spot, thus making a substantial mound closely
resembling a segment of a large pearl. This walling-out of intruders is
not the result of intelligent forethought or of instinct, analogous to
the repairing of a damaged web by a spider, or the retunneling of a
collapsed gallery by ants; it is a pathological rather than an
intelligent action.
[Illustration:
BROOCHES MADE OF PETAL, DOG-TOOTH, AND WING PEARLS
From the Upper Mississippi Valley
]
When the nucleus of a pearl is large and very irregular, it necessarily
follows that the deposited nacre roughly assumes the irregular outline
of the inclosed object. This is strikingly shown in pearls covering a
minute fish, a crayfish, or a small crab. Several specimens have been
found in which the species could be identified by examination through
the nacreous coating.
In the American Unios there is a strong tendency to produce elongated
pearls near the hinge of the shell, which are consequently known as
“hinge pearls.” The occurrence and form of these suggest that their
origin may not be due to nuclei, but that they result from an excess of
carbonate of lime in the water, and that the animal stores a surplus of
nacre in this convenient form. There are several standard forms of these
hinge pearls. Many are elongated or dog-toothed, some are hammer-shaped,
others resemble the wings of birds, the petals of flowers, the bodies of
fish, and various other objects. A large percentage of the pearls found
in Unios of the Mississippi Valley are of these types.
Some irregular pearls or baroques are very large, weighing an ounce or
more. A well-known example is the Hope pearl, described on page 463,
which weighs three ounces. These monster pearls sometimes assume odd
shapes, such as clasped hands, the body of a man, lion, or other animal,
etc.
Although baroques may have a pearly luster, they are not highly prized
unless unusually attractive, and they have little permanent value, apart
from their estimation in the eyes of admirers of the curious and unique.
They are used largely in _l’art nouveau_, and in forming odd and
fanciful objects of jewelry, the designer taking advantage of the
resemblance which they bear to common objects of every-day life, and by
additions of gold and other ornaments completing the form which nature
had merely suggested.
Some remarkable examples of baroque mountings have been produced, and a
few are to be found in most of the large pearl collections. In a single
case in the Imperial Treasury at Vienna are baroques forming the
principal parts or figures of a horse, stag, lamb, tortoise, lizard,
cock, dragon, butterfly, gondola, hippopotamus, female bust, and three
mermaids. Other well-known collections are those of the royal family of
Saxony in the Grüne Gewölbe at Dresden; those in the Palace of Rosenberg
at Copenhagen; in the Waddesden (Rothschild) collection of the British
Museum; among the jewels in the Louvre in Paris; with the treasures of
the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice; and in the museum of the University
of Moscow.
A remarkable pearl-like ornament more common in Asia than in the
Occident, is the _coque de perle_, which is an oval section of the
globose whorl of the Indian nautilus. The exterior or convex surface is
highly lustrous, but the material is very thin. It is commonly provided
with a suitable filling or backing of putty or cement to impart
solidity, and is used like a blister pearl. Sometimes two perfectly
matched _coques de perle_ are filled and cemented together, giving the
appearance of an abnormally large oblong or nearly spherical pearl.
The color of pearls has no connection with the luster. In general it is
the same as that of the shell in which they are formed. Black pearls are
found in the black shells of Mexico, and pink pearls in the pink-hued
_Strombus_ of the Bahamas. Ceylon pearls are seldom of any other color
than white, and Sharks Bays are almost invariably quite yellow or
straw-colored, while those of Venezuela are commonly yellowish tinged.
But from other localities, pearls simulate every tint of the rainbow, as
well as white and black. The most common, as well as the most desirable
ordinarily, is white, or rather, silvery or moonlight glint,—“_la gran
Margherita_,” as Dante calls it; but yellow, pink, and black are
numerous. They may also be piebald—a portion white and the rest pink or
brown or black. Some years ago there was on the market a large
bean-shaped pearl of great luster, one half of which was white and the
other quite black, the dividing-line being sharply defined in the plane
of the greatest circumference. The pearls from Mexico, the South Sea
islands, and the American rivers are especially noted for their great
variety of coloration, covering every known tint and shade, and
requiring such a master as Théophile Gautier to do justice to them.
Many theories have been advanced to explain the coloration of pearls.
When the old idea of dew formation prevailed, it was considered that
white pearls were formed in fair weather, and the dark ones when the
weather was cloudy. It was further considered that the color was
influenced by the depth of the water in which they grew: that in deep
water they were white, but where it was so shallow that the sunlight
easily penetrated, the pearls were more likely to be dark in color.
Tavernier curiously explained that the black pearls of Panama and Mexico
owed their color to the black mud in which the pearl-oysters of those
localities lived, and that Persian Gulf pearls were more inclined to
yellow than those of Ceylon, owing to the greater putrefaction of the
flesh before they were removed therefrom.[77] Two centuries ago the
color of a pearl was attributed to that of the central nucleus, and it
was concluded that if the nucleus was dark, the pearl would be of a
similar hue.[78] This theory has also been upset, for pearls are found
white on the exterior and quite dark within, and also with these
conditions reversed.
[Illustration:
GRAY PEARLS IN THE POSSESSION OF AN AMERICAN LADY AND BROOCH FROM
TIFFANY & CO.’S EXHIBIT, PARIS EXPOSITION, 1900
]
The color of a pearl is determined by that of the conchiolin, as appears
from its remaining unchanged after decalcification. While generally it
is the same as that of the mother-of-pearl at the corresponding point of
the shell in which it is formed, there are many exceptions to this, and
the reasons for the varying tints and colors are probably to be found in
the changes in position of the pearl, the ingredients of the water, the
health of the mollusk, accidents of various kinds, etc. These factors
will be referred to later in discussing the pearls from different
mollusks and regions; but in general it is no more easy to explain the
colors of pearls than it is to say why one rose is white and another is
yellow.
Medieval writers had much to say regarding unripe or immature pearls,
likening them to eggs in the body of a hen, which follow a uniform rate
of growth; and this idea is not entirely absent even in contemporaneous
writings. However, it is an interesting fact that the humble mollusks,
like the five wise virgins with prepared lamps, keep their gems perfect
in beauty and luster at all times. It matters not whether the pearl be
removed when it is only the size of a pinhead or not until it reaches
that of a marble, it is at all times a complete, a ripe, a perfect
pearl, and the largest surpasses the smallest only in the
characteristics and properties which are incidental to size. Imparting
perfection and completion every day, every moment, the mollusk utilizes
the added time simply in enlarging its beautiful work.
Although art has made wonderful progress in that direction, the pearl,
like truth, is not easily imitated. There is as much difference between
the ubiquitous imitations and the perfect gem as there is between a
chromolithograph and a silvery Corot, or between the effects of
cosmetics and the freshness of youth. While to the unskilled, or under
superficial inspection, the false has some of the properties of the
genuine, it is only necessary to place them side by side to make the
difference apparent. However clever the imitation may be in color, in
form, and in density, it always lacks in richness, in sweetness, and in
blended iridescence.
V
SOURCES OF PEARLS
V
SOURCES OF PEARLS
Rich honesty dwells like a miser, sir, in a poor house, as your
pearl in your foul oyster.
_As You Like It_, Act V, sc. 4.
In geographic range, the sources of pearls are widely distributed, each
one of the six continents yielding its quota; but the places where
profitable fisheries are prosecuted are restricted in area. First in
point of value, and possibly of antiquity also, are the fisheries of the
Persian Gulf, giving employment ordinarily to thirty thousand or more
divers. The yield in the likewise ancient fisheries of the Gulf of
Manaar is uncertain, but sometimes remarkably large. The Red Sea
resources are now of slight importance compared with their extent in the
time of the Ptolemies. Other Asiatic fisheries are in the Gulf of Aden,
about Mergui Archipelago, on the coast of China, Japan, Korea, and Siam,
and also in the rivers of China, Manchuria, and Siberia.
Aside from those produced in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the pearl
fisheries of Africa are of small extent. Some reefs exist on the lower
coast of the German East African territory and also in Portuguese East
Africa, but they have not been thoroughly exploited.
In most of the inshore waters of Australasia pearls may be secured; the
fisheries are most extensive on the northern coast of Australia, in the
Sulu Archipelago, and about the Dutch East Indies. Tuamotu Archipelago,
Gambier, Fiji, and Penrhyn are prominent in the South Pacific Ocean.
In the seas of Europe few pearls have been found, but the rivers have
yielded many; and although the resources have been greatly impaired,
many beautiful gems are yet found there.
South America contributes the important reefs on the coast of
Venezuela—the land of unrest and revolutions, whose fisheries were first
exploited by Columbus. Other South American countries in which pearls
are collected are Panama, Ecuador, Peru, etc. In North America, pearls
are found in the pearl-oyster of the Gulf of California, the abalone of
the Pacific coast, the queen conch of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the
Unios of most of the rivers, especially those of the Mississippi Valley.
Since pearly concretions partake of the characteristics of the shell
within which they are formed, it follows that practically all species of
mollusks whose shells have a well-developed nacreous lining yield pearls
to a greater or less extent. But the number of these species is
relatively small. They belong chiefly to the _Margaritiferæ_, or
pearl-oyster family of the sea, and to the _Unionidæ_, or family of
fresh-water mussels. Pearls occur also in some univalves, but not so
abundantly as in bivalves of the families mentioned. Broadly stated, we
may hope to find pearls within any mollusk whose shell possesses a
nacreous surface; and it is useless to search for them in shells whose
interior is dull and opaque, such as the edible oyster for instance.
The great bulk of the pearls on the market, and likewise those of the
highest quality, are from the _Margaritiferæ_, which are widely
distributed about tropical waters. Although these mollusks are spoken of
as pearl-oysters, they are not related in any way to the edible oysters
(_Ostrea_) of America and Europe.[79] The flesh is fat and glutinous,
and so rank in flavor as to be almost unfit for food, although eaten at
times by the poorer fishermen in lieu of better fare. The origin of the
name is doubtless due to the fact that in the somewhat circular form of
the shell they resemble oysters rather than the elongated mussels of
Europe, to which they are more nearly related in anatomy. Also in
that—like their namesakes—they are monomyarian, having only one adductor
muscle.
The two valves or sides of the pearl-oyster shell are nearly similar in
shape and almost equal in size; whereas in the edible oysters one valve
is thin and somewhat flat, while the other is thicker, larger, and
highly convex. In the latter, also, the hinge, or umbo, is an angular
beak; but in the pearl-oysters the umbo is prolonged by so-called ears
or wings into a straight line the length of which is nearly equal to the
breadth of the shell.
The byssus, or bunch of fibers, by which pearl-oysters attach themselves
to the bottom indicates their relationship to the mussels. The
possession of a small foot and somewhat extended migratory powers—at
least in the first years of growth—also distinguish them from the
sedentary edible oysters. But from an economic point of view, the
principal difference is the possession of a thick, nacreous, interior
lining in the shells of pearl-oysters, which is wholly lacking in the
edible species. Like their namesakes, the pearl-oysters are exceedingly
fertile, a single specimen numbering its annual increase by millions.
Commercially considered, the pearl-oysters are roughly divisible into
two groups, (1) those fished exclusively for the pearls which they
contain, and (2) those whose shells are so thick as to give them
sufficient value to warrant their capture independently of the yield of
pearls. The best examples of the first group are the pearl-oysters of
Ceylon and of Venezuela, and to a less extent those of the Persian Gulf,
the coast of Japan, and of Sharks Bay, on the Australian coast. Of the
second group, the pearl-oysters of Torres Straits and of the Malay
Archipelago are the most prominent members. Between these two groups are
the many species and varieties whose shells and pearls are more evenly
divided with respect to value, including those of Mexico, Panama, the
Red Sea, the South Sea islands, etc.
Some conchologists recognize a large number of species of
_Margaritiferæ_, while other authorities consider many of these as local
variations of the same species. There is much difference in the size,
color, and markings of the shells in different localities, owing to
varying geographical and physical conditions. The distinction of species
and the nomenclature herein adopted are those of Dr. H. L. Jameson, who
has recently revised and rearranged the collection of shells belonging
to this family in the British Museum of Natural History,[80] and to whom
we are indebted for descriptive notes relative to several of the
species.
The greatest pearl-producer in the family of pearl-oysters is the
_Margaritifera vulgaris_ of the Gulf of Manaar and the Persian Gulf, and
to a much less extent of the Red Sea. It occurs in various other inshore
waters of the Indian Ocean, and about the Malay Archipelago and the
coast of Australia and New Guinea, although it is not the principal
pearl-oyster of those waters. An interesting account of its immigration
into the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal was given by Vassel in
1896.[81]
This species is quite small, averaging two and a half inches in diameter
in Ceylon waters, and somewhat more in the Persian Gulf, whence large
quantities of the shell are exported under the name of “Lingah shell.”
The Ceylon variety has the nacreous lining almost uniformly white over
the entire surface, only the lip having a slightly pinkish ground color.
The exterior is marked by seven or eight reddish brown radial bands on a
pale yellow ground. In addition to its greater size, the Persian variety
is darker, and the lip of the shell has a reddish tinge.
For centuries the _Margaritifera vulgaris_ has sustained the great pearl
fisheries of Ceylon, India, and Persia, and at present yields the bulk
of pearls on the market, especially the seed-pearls and also those of
medium size. It produces relatively few large ones, rarely exceeding
twelve grains in weight. These pearls are commonly silvery white, and
for their size command the highest prices, because of their beautiful
form and superior luster. Excepting the Venezuelan species, this is the
only pearl-oyster which at present supports extensive fisheries
exclusively for pearls; in the fisheries for all other species the value
of the shells furnishes considerable revenue, and in some localities
this represents several times as much as the income from the pearls.
Ranking next to _Margaritifera vulgaris_ in extent of pearl production
is the _Margaritifera margaritifera_, which is widely distributed about
the tropical inshore waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans. It is very
much larger than the Lingah oyster, good specimens measuring seven or
eight inches in diameter, and the nacreous interior is usually of a
darker color. In addition to its yield of pearls, the shell of this
species is of value in the mother-of-pearl trade, and contributes
largely to the economic results of the fisheries. Indeed, in several
regions the shell is of more value than the pearls, which represent only
an incidental yield. As Jameson notes, the color and markings of the
shell, though extremely variable, generally suffice to distinguish this
species. The ground color of the exterior ranges through various shades
from yellowish brown to very dark brown. Its characteristic markings
consist of from ten to eighteen radial rows of white and yellow spots,
running from the umbo, or hinge, to the margin.
Several varieties of _Margaritifera margaritifera_ are recognized. The
type species occurs along the north coast of Australia, from Brisbane on
the east to Sharks Bay on the west; on the New Guinea coast; at Formosa;
and about many of the islands of the Pacific. The well-known “black lip
shell” of Australian waters is of this species; it shows a greenish
black on the margin of the nacre. The yield of this is very small
compared with that of the large pearl-oyster of Australia.
[Illustration:
SHELL OF PEARL-OYSTER WITH ATTACHED PEARL
(_Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica_)
From Costa Rica
]
The _Margaritifera margaritifera_ occurs on the eastern coast of Arabia
in two varieties, which differ somewhat from the type species. These
have been designated by Jameson as _M. margaritifera persica_ and _M.
margaritifera erythræensis_. These are much larger than the Lingah shell
of the Persian Gulf, but are smaller than the Australian species. The
percentage of pearls in them is less than in the Lingah species, but
from a commercial point of view this is to some extent offset by the
greater value of the shell. The _M. m. persica_ is more numerous in the
gulf than the _M. m. erythræensis_, and large quantities of the shell
are marketed in Europe. Formerly the shipments were made principally by
way of Bombay, hence the shell is known in the mother-of-pearl trade as
“Bombay shell.” The exterior is of a light grayish or greenish brown
color, with yellowish white radial bands. The nacre has a slightly
roseate tint, and the margin is greenish yellow. The pearls found herein
are more yellowish in color and attain a larger size than those from the
Lingah oyster.
The _M. m. erythræensis_ occurs also in the Red Sea and along the shores
of the Arabian Sea. Among mother-of-pearl dealers it is known as
“Egyptian shell” or “Alexandria shell,” owing to the fact that prior to
the opening of the Suez Canal shipments were commonly made by way of
Alexandria. The color of the nacre is darker than that of its related
variety in the Persian Gulf. In the trade, three grades of this shell
are recognized, classed according to the shade of color. The lightest
comes from Massowah and near the southern end of the Red Sea, and the
darkest from farther north, in the vicinity of Jiddah and Suakim.
The islands of the southern Pacific, and of eastern Polynesia
especially, yield another variety of _M. margaritifera_, to which the
name _M. m. cumingi_ has been given. The nacre is of a dark metallic
green, and in the mother-of-pearl trade the shell is designated as
“black-edged.” It attains a large size, only slightly smaller than the
large Australian species; many individual specimens measure ten inches
in diameter, and weigh six or seven pounds for the two valves. Belonging
to this variety are those oysters whose shells are known in the markets
of Europe and America as “Tahiti,” “Gambier,” and “Auckland” shells, the
name designating the port of shipment.
Yet another subspecies, the _M. m. mazatlanica_, occurs on the coasts of
Panama and Mexico, and especially in the Gulf of California. This is
likewise green-edged, and the exterior color is yellow or light brown.
This shell has been marketed in quantities since 1850, and is known in
the mother-of-pearl trade as “Panama shell.” It is smaller than the
Australian species, specimens rarely exceeding eight inches in diameter.
It yields a large percentage of the black pearls that have been so
fashionable in the last fifty years.
Since 1870, the largest pearls have been found mainly in a very large
species of pearl-oyster, _Margaritifera maxima_, obtained off the north
and west coasts of Australia, among the Sulu Islands, and elsewhere in
the Malay Archipelago. In the fisheries for this species, the
mother-of-pearl is the principal object sought, and the pearls are
obtained incidentally. It is the largest of all the members of this
family, reaching in exceptional cases twelve or thirteen inches in
diameter, and weighing upward of twelve pounds; while the Ceylon oyster
rarely exceeds four ounces in weight. So marked is this difference, that
the Australian species is often designated the “mother-of-pearl oyster,”
and the Ceylon species the “pearl-oyster.” Jameson notes that it differs
from the _Margaritifera margaritifera_, its nearest competitor in size,
in its much longer hinge, its shape, its lesser convexity, and in its
color and markings. As described by him, the color ranges from pale
yellowish brown to deep brown, with traces of radial markings of dark
brown, green, or red in the umbonal area. In its marginal region, the
shell is marked by a series of circumferential lines about one third of
a millimeter apart.
Several geographical varieties of this species are recognized in the
mother-of-pearl trade, differing principally in the coloring of the
interior surface. The chief commercial varieties are “Sydney” or
“Queensland,” “Port Darwin,” “West Australian,” “New Guinea,” “Manila,”
“Macassar,” and “Mergui.” The nacre of those from the Australian coast
is almost uniformly silvery white. That of the “Manila shell” is
characterized by a broad golden border surrounding the silvery white
nacre. The “Macassar shell” lacks the golden border of the “Manila
shell,” and is similar in its uniform whiteness to the “Sydney shell,”
but its iridescence is much greater.
The _Margaritifera carcharium_, from Sharks Bay, on the coast of
Australia, yields yellow pearls and small quantities of mother-of-pearl.
This species is small—three or four inches in diameter. The color is
grayish or greenish yellow, with several somewhat indistinct radial
bands of brownish green. The nacre has a yellowish green tint, with a
margin of pale yellow, with brown markings.
In the West Indies and on the Atlantic coast of tropical America,
especially the coast of Venezuela, occurs the _Margaritifera radiata_.
This species is quite small, and seems to be closely allied to the
Ceylon oyster. Like the latter, the nacreous interior is rich and
brilliant, but owing to its small size, the shell is wholly valueless as
mother-of-pearl. The principal and almost the only fishery for this
species is on the Venezuelan coast, in the vicinity of Margarita Island,
the islands of Cubagua, and Coche.
The coast of Japan yields the _Margaritifera martensi_, which occurs
among the numerous islands in the southern part of the empire, but does
not extend beyond 40° north latitude. This species is likewise small,
and closely resembles the pearl-oyster of Ceylon, from which it differs
principally in coloration. As noted by Jameson, brown and white
predominate in the exterior coloring, and the interior of the lip is
marbled with yellow ocher and chocolate brown, instead of pink, as in
the Ceylon shell.
There are numerous other species of pearl-oysters, but they are of
slight economic importance, and do not support fisheries of value.
As only a small percentage of the individual mollusks contain pearls, it
follows that vast quantities are destroyed without any return whatever,
and handling them merely adds to the expense of the industry, as well as
reduces the resources of the reefs. This could be obviated if it were
possible, without opening them, to determine the individual mollusks
containing pearls.
Among the several methods proposed for this purpose, especially
interesting is the use of X-rays, which was suggested by Raphael Dubois
of Lyons, France, in 1901.[82] The shells of some pearl-oysters—those of
Ceylon and of Venezuela for instance—are relatively thin, and it was
thought that by the means of the rays the presence of pearls could be
ascertained, and non-pearl-bearers could be saved from opening, and be
returned to the reefs without injury. Although the calcareous shell
partly interrupts the radiations, it is not difficult to recognize the
presence of large pearls.
The theory has never been found practical in application, owing largely
to the rough and irregular exterior of the shell and the small size of
the pearls. The presence of the larger pearls may be ascertained by this
method; but it is exceedingly probable that a very large percentage of
the small ones, and especially the seed-pearls, would be overlooked.
Furthermore, if in their sixth year oysters contain no pearls, the
probability of appearance therein later is very small, and little
benefit would result from their return to the water. As to saving the
trouble of opening the non-pearl-bearing mollusks, labor in the pearling
regions is usually inexpensive, and this cost is far more than offset by
the reasonable certainty of securing practically all the small as well
as the large pearls by the present method of operation. Owing to the
greater thickness and the economic value of the large pearl-oysters—as
those of Australia or of Mexico, for instance—the application of X-rays
to them is obviously impractical. However, when pearl-oyster culture
becomes a highly developed industry, with personal ownership in those
mollusks returned to the water, some method such as this might be of
great value.
Pearls are yielded by various species of _Unionidæ_ or _Naiades_
occurring in the rivers of America, Scotland, Saxony, Bavaria, Norway,
Sweden, Russia, France, China, etc. These mollusks exist exclusively in
the fresh-water streams, lakes, and ponds, and quickly die when
submerged in salt water. The _Unionidæ_ are of particular interest in
America, as it is here that this group is most abundant, and nearly
every stream east of the Rocky Mountains contains more or less of them.
The Mississippi basin abounds in Unios, or “clams,” as they are known to
the fishermen of that region, and furnishes about 400 of the 1000
recognized species of this important family.
The Unios are most abundant in clear, running water, where the bottom is
gravelly or sandy. The interiors of the shells are iridescent, and vary
greatly in tint, exhibiting many delicate shades of color from silvery
white to straw color, pink, purple, brown, etc.
About five hundred species of American fresh-water mussels have been
recognized by conchologists. Many of these differ from one another so
very slightly that they are scarcely distinguishable from an examination
of the shells themselves, or even from the descriptions, and a detailed
index to the complete list is of little economic importance. The
professional fishermen and the shell-buyers take the trouble to name
only the species with which they deal, which includes only about
twenty-five species, all of which are margaritiferous, though some to a
greater extent than others. In the pearling regions a popular
nomenclature exists, the names given by the fishermen having reference
to the shape, color, etc.
The niggerhead (_Quadrula ebena_) is the most numerous in the
Mississippi, and it is extensively used in button manufacture. The thick
shell of this species is almost round, with a black outer surface and a
pearly white interior. At maturity it averages about four inches in
diameter and four ounces in weight. Owing to its uniform whiteness and
the flatness of its surface, it is well adapted to button manufacture,
and for this purpose more than twenty thousand tons are taken in the
Mississippi Valley every year. When the fishery originated, the
niggerhead was very abundant in some places, and especially between La
Crosse and Burlington. From a single bed near New Boston, Illinois,
measuring about 200 acres in area, 7500 tons, or about 70,000,000
individual shells, were removed in three years. In 1897, a bed of 320
acres near Muscatine furnished 500 tons, or about 4,750,000 shells. This
species occasionally yields valuable pearls.
Two species of Unios, _Quadrula undulata_ and _Q. plicata_, are known
among the fishermen as “three-ridges.” The former is also known as the
“blue-point” from the fact that the sharp edge is usually tinged faint
blue on the inside. Although not the best for button manufacture, the
shells yield the greatest number of pearls.
[Illustration:
PINNA OR WING SHELL (_Pinna seminuda_)
One third natural size
]
[Illustration:
PEARL-OYSTER OF CEYLON (_Margaritifera vulgaris_)
Natural size
]
A species somewhat similar to the niggerhead is the bullhead
(_Pleurobema æsopus_). This shell is thick and opaque, the nacre is not
so iridescent as that of the niggerhead, nor does it yield pearls of
such good quality. These two species are not evenly distributed over the
bottom of the streams, but occur in great patches or beds, sometimes
several feet in thickness and covering many hundreds of acres. Some of
the beds are several miles in length, and they may be separated by
twenty or thirty miles in which the mollusks are so scarce that
profitable fishing can not be made; but usually the reefs are smaller
and more closely situated.
The sand shells (_Lampsilis_)—of which there are several species—do not
occur in large beds, but are scattered over the sandy beaches and
sloping mud-banks. In shape they are narrow and long, adults measuring
five or six inches in length. Owing to the small waste in cutting, due
to uniformity in thickness, these shells are sold to button
manufacturers for more than the niggerhead, which in turn is more
valuable than the bullhead.
The buckhorn (_Tritigonia verrucosa_) is very long and narrow; on the
dark brown exterior it is rough, as is the horn from which it takes its
name, while the interior shows a beautiful display of colors. This is
not found in beds, but lies scattered among other species. It sells at a
relatively high price—usually in excess of $20 per ton—for button
manufacture.
Another species is the butterfly (_Plagiola securis_), which is very
prettily marked on the outside with faintly colored dotted stripes of
varying length. Over a background of dark yellow run black stripes to
the outer edge of the shell, with dark dots between the stripes. The
shell is small and thick, and like the sand shell and the buckhorn, is
found in small quantities. Owing to the beauty and permanency of its
luster, this shell is in demand for button manufacture, and its pearls
are often very beautiful.
Other well-known species are the pancake (_Lampsilis alatus_), the
maple-leaf (_Quadrula wardi_), and hackle-back (_Symphynota
complanata_). On the Atlantic seaboard, the principal species in which
pearls have been found are _Unio complanata_; the _Alasmodon arcuata_,
which has hinge teeth, and a species of Anodon. Pearls from the _Unio
complanata_ are usually smaller but more lustrous than those from either
of the other species.
Among the many fresh-water mussels are found some remarkable conditions
of animal life. Probably the most curious is the parasitic stage of
certain species. When hatched from the egg, each one of these is
provided with hooks or spines, by means of which it attaches itself to
the gills or fins of a swimming fish and becomes embedded therein. After
confinement in this cyst for a period of two months or more, the small
mollusk works its way out and falls to the bottom of the river or pond,
where its development continues along lines more conventional to
molluscan life.
In most of the species of Unios the sexes are separate; but it has been
determined that in some the individuals are provided with both sets of
sexual organs. It is claimed by some naturalists that certain species
may change from one sex to another; yet this does not seem to have been
positively established.
Not the least interesting of the habits of the Unios is the manner in
which they “walk,” bushels of them changing their habitation in a few
hours. The shell opens slightly and the muscular tongue-like “foot” is
thrust out, and by pressure of this on the bottom, the mollusk is
propelled in a jerky, jumpy movement with more speed than one would
suppose possible for the apparently inert creature.
The number of eggs produced by an individual in one season ranges from a
few hundred in some species to many millions in others, as in the
_Quadrula heros_, for instance. Most of the fresh-water mollusks are of
slow growth, reaching maturity in six or eight years, and it is believed
that if undisturbed they live to be from fifteen to fifty years old;
indeed, some writers credit them with attaining an age of one hundred
years.
While outwardly there is no positive indication of the existence of
pearls, they are relatively scarce in young mollusks, and likewise in
those having a normal, healthy appearance, with smooth exterior free
from blemishes, and they are found generally in the older, irregular,
and deformed shells, which bear excrescences and the marks of having
parasites. However, some of the choicest pearls have come from shells
relatively young and apparently in perfect condition.
It has been pointed out that with the fresh-water Unios there are three
indications on which the fishermen to some extent rely for determining
the presence of pearls from the outward aspects of the shell. There are,
first, the thread or elevated ridge extending from the vertex to the
edge; second, the kidney-shape of the shell, and third, the contortion
of both valves toward the middle plane of the mollusk.
A single mollusk may contain several small pearls,—more than one hundred
have been found,—but in such cases usually none has commercial value.
Ordinarily only one is found in the examination of very many shells. Of
these objects it may be truthfully said that “many are found, but few
are chosen,” few that are of first quality or are worthy of a fine
necklace. In many instances, several pounds of cheap pearls would be
gladly exchanged for a choice gem weighing an equal number of grains.
On the Atlantic seaboard of America, the Anodontas, or “mussels,” as
they are known locally, are more numerous than the Unios. They prefer
the still waters of the ponds and lakes, rather than the swift currents
of the streams. The shell is much thinner than that of the Unios, and it
is usually not so brilliant in color and iridescence; consequently the
pearly concretions obtained from them are less lustrous.
The rivers of Europe, and of Asia also, contain numbers of pearl-bearing
mussels. In many localities the yield of pearls has at times attracted
attention and produced much profit, though probably never equaling the
present extent of the Mississippi River finds. The principal
pearl-bearer of Europe is the _Unio margaritifera_, the shell of which
has been of some local importance in the manufacture of pearl buttons.
In Great Britain it is known as the pearl-mussel; in France as the
_moule_ or _huître perlière_; in Germany as _perlenmuschel_; in Belgium
as _paarl mossel de rivieren_; in Denmark as _perle-skiael_; in Sweden
as _perlmussla_; in Russia as _schemtschuschuaja rakavina_, and in
Finland as _simpsuckan cuosi_. The _Unio margaritifera_ likewise exists
in Siberia, and possibly elsewhere in Asia. Other species of Unio exist
there and in Mongolia, Manchuria, etc., as, for instance, _U.
mongolicus_, _U. dahuricus_, etc. A leading species in eastern China,
the _Dipsas plicatus_, has long been extensively employed in the
artificial production of pearly objects or culture pearls.[83] Unio
pearls show less uniformity of tints than those derived from the
pearl-oysters. They present an extended series of shades, corresponding
to those on the interior of the shells, from almost perfect white
through various tints of cream, pink, yellow, bright red, blue, green,
russet, and brown. The metallic shades are numerous, especially the
steels and the coppers.
Most of the members of the _Mytilidæ_ family, which includes the marine
mussels, are of slight luster; and the pearly concretions found in them
are of the grade known as “druggists’ pearls,” so-called because,
formerly, they were used in a powdered form in astringent and other
medicines. However, some of these mussels on the European coast yield
pearls that are fairly lustrous. The white and the pink are most
numerous, but purple, red, bronze, and yellow are by no means uncommon.
A few pearls are also obtained from the sea-wings or wing-shells
(_Pinna_), the silkworms of the sea, found in the Red Sea, the
Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean, the southern coast of America, and
elsewhere. These shells are narrow at the umbo, or hinge, long, and
fan-shaped; they are generally brittle, and present a horn-like
appearance. The interior is commonly of a silvery reddish or
orange-colored hue, and this tint is imparted to the pearls. The most
characteristic feature of the _Pinna_ is the thick rope of silky fibers,
from four to ten, and sometimes twenty or more inches in length,
constituting the byssus, a remarkable provision by means of which it
anchors itself to the bottom and thus outrides the storm. Formerly the
byssus was gathered in Sicily, washed in soap and water, dried, corded,
and fabricated into gloves and similar articles of a fine texture. The
finished garments were of a beautiful golden brown color, resembling the
burnished gold on the backs of some splendid flies or beetles.
The yield of _Pinna_ pearls is very small. A few are obtained from the
Mediterranean, especially on the Adriatic coast. These are usually
rose-tinted or reddish in color, but of diminished orient, and inferior
in size. _Pinna_ pearls are also reported from the Isle of Pines and
from New Caledonia, where they are commonly very dark, almost black in
color.
The window-glass shell (_Placuna placenta_), the _vitre chinoise_ of
some writers, yields a few small, irregularly shaped pearls of a dull
leaden color. It occurs in the inshore waters of the Indian and the
southwestern Pacific oceans; fisheries are prosecuted in Tablegram Lake,
near Trincomali, on the northeast coast of Ceylon; on the coast of
Borneo, especially at Pados Bay, and to a less extent in some other
localities. This mollusk is quite distinct from the true pearl-oyster,
and in adult life is devoid of the byssus, living on the muddy bottom of
the shallow waters. The shell is almost circular, the right valve is
quite flat, and the left only slightly convex. It is remarkable for its
transparency, especially in the first year of growth, when the beating
of the heart of the mollusk is visible through it. Reaching maturity in
about two years, the shell becomes white and translucent, resembling
pressed isinglass somewhat in its texture. It then measures about six or
seven inches in length, and nearly the same in width. The outside is
rough; the interior is glazed over and has a subdued pearly luster. It
is so thin and transparent that with a strong light very coarse print
can be read through it. It is commonly used in the East Indies as a
substitute for glass in windows, admitting a soft mellow light into the
room. For this purpose it is usually cut into small rectangular or
diamond-shaped pieces, about five or six square inches in area, and
these are inserted into sash frames. It forms a good economical
substitute for glass, not only in windows of native residences, but also
in lanterns and the like.
[Illustration:
SHELL AND PEARLS OF THE COMMON CONCH
(_Strombus gigas_)
Of Florida and the West Indies
]