Hippocrates, in treating of the decency of dress to be observed
by physicians, enjoins the use of rings. We have somewhere seen
it suggested, that the rings thus worn by physicians might have
contained aromatic water or preservative essence, in the same way
as their canes were supposed to do; and hence the action of putting
the heads or tops of the latter to their noses when consulting in a
sick-room.
§ 15. The author deems it as well to refer to the law, in relation to
rings. In common parlance, we consider precious stones to be jewels;
but rings of gold will pass by that word. In the time of Queen
Elizabeth, the Earl of Northumberland bequeathed by his will his
jewels to his wife, and died possessed of a collar of S’s, and of a
garter of gold, and of a button annexed to his bonnet, and also many
other buttons of gold and precious stones annexed to his robes, and
of many chains, bracelets and rings of gold and precious stones.[85]
The question was, whether all these would pass by the devise under
the name of jewels? It was resolved by the justices, that the garter
and collar of S’s did not pass, because they were not properly
jewels, but ensigns of power and state; and that the buckle of his
bonnet and the button did not pass, because they were annexed to his
robes, and were no jewels. But, for the other chains, bracelets and
tings, they passed under the bequest of jewels.
Persons who desire to leave specific rings to friends should
designate them; for, otherwise, the particular article will not pass.
Thus, “I give a diamond ring,” is what is called a general legacy,
which may be fulfilled by the delivery of any ring of that kind;
while “I give the diamond ring presented to me by A,” is a specific
legacy, which can only be satisfied by the delivery of the specified
subject.[86] A legacy of £50 for a ring is but a money legacy; it
fastens upon no specific ring, and carries interest like other money
bequests.[87]
A family ring may become an important piece of evidence in the
establishment of a pedigree; and the law admits it for that purpose:
upon the presumption, as Lord Erskine has it, “that a person would
not wear a ring with an error upon it.”[88]
In ancient times dying persons gave their rings to some one,
declaring thereby who was their heir.[89]
§ 16. We do not find in any work on orders of knighthood, any
association having direct reference to a ring; but in a volume of
the Imperial Magazine there is a reference to the Order of the Ring,
said to have been copied from a beautifully illuminated MS., on
vellum.[90] The sovereign of the order was to wear upon the fifth
finger a blue enamelled ring, set round with diamonds, with the
motto, _Sans changer_. The matter looks fictitious, for it embraces
the seeming signatures of Leonora, Belvidera, Torrismond and Cæsario.
Lorenzo the Magnificent, of the Medici family, bore a diamond
ring with three feathers and the motto, _Semper_; and when the
Medici returned to Florence, Giuliano de Medici instituted an
order of merit, denominated the Order of the Diamond, alluding to
the _impresa_, an emblem of his father. This was done to secure
influence by recalling the memory of the parent. The members of it
had precedence on public occasions, and it was their province to
preside over festivals, triumphs and exhibitions.[91]
§ 17. Rings have been found in strange places, and under interesting
circumstances. We find them upon and below the earth; within the
Pyramids; beneath the ashes of Pompeii and Herculaneum; and strewed
over battle-fields.[92] They have been discovered on the field of
Cressy.
§ 18. In Persia, at the present day, letters are seldom written and
never signed by the person who sends them; and it will thus appear
that the authenticity of all orders and communications, and even
of a merchant’s bills, depends wholly on an impression from his
seal-ring.[93] This makes the occupation of a seal-cutter one of
as much trust and danger as it seems to have been in Egypt. Such a
person is obliged to keep a register of every ring-seal he makes;
and if one be lost or stolen from the party for whom it was cut, his
life would answer for making another exactly like it. The loss of a
signet-ring is considered a serious calamity; and the alarm which an
Oriental exhibits when his signet is missing, can only be understood
by a reference to these circumstances, as the seal-cutter is always
obliged to alter the real date at which the seal was cut. The only
resource of a person who has lost his seal is to have another made
with a new date, and to write to his correspondents to inform them
that all accounts, contracts and communications to which his former
signet is affixed are null from the day on which it was lost.
Importance has been given to signets in England. This was at a time
when the schoolmaster had not made many penmen. “And how great a
regard was had to seals,” says Collins, in his _Baronage_, “appears
from these testimonies; the Charter of King Henry I. to the Abbey
of Evesham, being exhibited to King Henry III. and the seal being
cloven in sunder, the King forthwith caused it to be confirmed,”
etc., etc.; “and in 13 Ed. III., when, by misfortune, a deed, then
showed in the Chancery, was severed from the seal, in the presence
of the Lord Chancellor and other noble persons, command was not only
given for the affixing it again thereto, but an exemplification was
made thereof under the Great Seal of England, with the recital of the
premises. And the counterfeiting of another man’s seal was anciently
punished with transportation, as appears from this record in the
reign of King John,” etc., etc. “It is also as remarkable that in 9
H. III. c. c. marks damages were recovered by Sir Ralph de Crophall,
Knight, against Henry de Grendon and William de Grendon for forcibly
breaking a seal from a deed. Also so tender was every man in those
times of his seal, that if he had accidentally lost it, care was
taken to publish the same, lest another might make use of it to his
detriment, as is manifested in the case of Benedict de Hogham,” etc.
“Also not much unlike to this is that of Henry de Perpount, a person
of great quality, (ancestor of his Grace the Duke of Kingston,) who,
on Monday, in the Octaves of St. Michael, 8 Ed. I., came into the
Chancery at Lincoln and publicly declared, that he missed his seal;
and protested, that if any instrument should be signed with that
seal, for the time to come, it should be of no value or effect. Nor
is that publication made by John de Greseley of Drakelow, in _Com.
Derb._ 18 R. II., upon the loss of his seal, less considerable,”
etc., etc.[94]
§ 19. We are aware of the value of many modern rings, arising from
their being used as mere frames for jewels. And ancient ones, from
the same fact or from having exquisite engraving upon them, were also
highly prized. Nonius,[95] a senator, is said to have been proscribed
by Anthony for the sake of a gem in a ring, worth twenty thousand
sesterces.
The “Roving Englishman”[96] informs us, that the Pasha wears on his
right-hand little finger, a diamond ring which once belonged to the
Dey of Algiers, and cost a thousand pounds sterling.
§ 20. An English work, of but little note, professes to make out
“Love’s Telegraph,” as understood in America, thus:--If a gentleman
wants a wife, he wears a ring on the _first_ finger of the left
hand; if he is engaged, he wears it on the _second_ finger; if
married, on the _third_; and on the fourth if he never intends to be
married. When a lady is not engaged, she wears a hoop or diamond on
her _first_ finger; if engaged, on the _second_; if married, on the
_third_; and on the fourth if she intends to die a maid.[97]
Many of our readers are aware that there are _name-rings_, in
which the first letter attaching to each jewel employed will make
a loved one’s name or a sentiment. In the formation of English
rings of this kind, the terms _Regard_ and _Dearest_ are common.
Thus illustrated:--R(_uby_) E(_merald_) G(_arnet_) A(_methyst_)
R(_uby_) D(_iamond_).--D(_iamond_) E(_merald_) A(_methyst_)
R(_uby_) E(_merald_) S(_apphire_) T(_opaz_). It is believed that
this pretty notion originated (as many pretty notions do) with
the French. The words which the latter generally play with, in a
combination of gems, are _Souvenir_ and _Amitié_, thus: S(_aphir_ or
_S_ardoine) O(_nix_ or _O_pale) U(_raine_) V(_ermeille_) E(_meraude_)
N(_atralithe_) I(_ris_) R(_ubis_ or _R_ose diamant).--A(_méthiste_
or _A_igue-marine) M(_alachite_) I(_ris_) T(_urquoise_ or _T_opaze)
I(_ris_) E(_meraude_).