An 18th
Century Historical Detail of Rings
by
Kimberly K. Walters of
K. Walters at the Sign of the Gray Horse
“This gem is pledge and image of my heart:
A heart that looks and loves, though not
in view.
The jewel has no clearer, purer part –
It may be harder, but is not more
true."
~Mary,
Queen of Scots to Queen Elizabeth
I like to focus on the details of historic
portraits and prints to see what the artist painted. I like to ponder whether these details are
something that the sitter was actually wearing or an artist's rendition. In many cases, we will never know whether what
was painted was really there, but the detail is amazing and often represents what
was commonly worn in the era during which it was painted.
Studying such portraits gives me ideas
about what to offer my customers, as well as what to wear during my own living
history events. Some of us may have
inherited a lovely piece of jewelry or have something already in our possession
that we can use at reenactments. I do
offer many items that can augment those items as new pieces for you to cherish.
In The
History and Poetry of Finger-Rings by Charles Edwards, dated 1880, he says
that “the ring was generally the emblem of fidelity in civil engagements; and
hence, no doubt, its ancient use and functions and distinctions.” It seems that, throughout the ages, rings meant different things when worn on a certain finger
or as given to the intended. Edwards tries
to incorporate into one book what rings meant from the ancients to what he says
is “modern times.”
His book also
goes into some detail about how rings can be connected with power, have supposed
charms and virtues, can be linked to degradation and slavery or used for sad
and wicked purposes. They can even, Edwards maintains, be coupled with
remarkable historical characters or circumstances, and connote love, affection, friendship
(Gimmal or Gimmow Ring) or superstition. He goes on to relate stories about how
rings worn in different cultures or worn by saints are supposed to cure certain
ailments.
Gimmal
or Fede Ring
(Courtesy
of The Jewellery Editor – on-line)
What I like about Edwards' work is that it
is heavily sourced, and he will state whether something is true or suspect. I like the stories, as well, even if they are
not based upon fact. The sentiments are
nice. We are truly appreciative that he
took the time to write this work.
Rings were (and still are) made from many
materials. They were a very popular item
and a bestseller even today. These
included, in the early days, bronze, iron, copper, jet, porcelain, tin, and
even cut steel, to name a few. Popular
materials in the 17th and 18th Centuries were gold and
silver, pinchbeck (or faux gold), and as the old century closed and the new
began, plating and finishing in an antique style (or dead gold) was introduced. Gold or faux gold in rings was generally worn
during this time, but there are instances of silver and a combination of gold
and silver, as well.
I doubt that these were the only materials
they used, and further study of inventories, probate records, and purchase
orders would need to be done. Applications
of enamel are seen, as well, on rings.
We also see rings set with gemstones (sometimes gold or silver foil on
the back), semi-precious stones, or paste (which may also be foiled with a
black dot in the center to emulate a certain cut of diamond). Sometimes they
feature clusters of stones-and shapes created to great effect, as in the Giardinetti flower basket style, Fede (also meaning Faith, with an Urn, Heart, and
Hand) rings, or even rings that looked like belts. In addition, cameos (made of
a multitude of materials) and intaglios were seen, rings fit into rings (or
twist rings, heart and hand rings) ... and I could go on.
Giardinetti Flower Basket gold ring
(Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum)
So Edwards then says something really cool: “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 maid.”
Threading Pearls, detail from A Portrait of a Woman, by Johann Ulrich Schellenberg, 1745
When I look at portraits and prints, I see
a variety of ways that the rings were worn and no real proof that wearing rings
on certain fingers meant anything.
During the mid-19th century we start to see the custom pertaining to
engagement and wedding rings becoming more prominent. In the 18th Century, posey rings
were exchanged with lines of poetry engraved inside. There were also “keeper rings” that were worn
on the inside and outside of a wedding ring to ensure that it would not be
lost. The heart was supposedly the most
popular motif and was recreated singly, crowned, pierced by arrows, aflame,
tied with a lover’s knot, or had a diamond key attached.
The
Suitor Accepted, by Jean Frederic Schall, 1788
(Courtesy
of Rings Jewelry of Power, Love and Loyalty, by Diana Scarisbrick)
Edwards goes on about another really neat
feature: “Many of our readers are aware that there are name rings, in which the
first letter attaching to each jewel employed will mark a loved one's name or 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) [or] 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 combination of gems, are 'Souvenir' and 'Amitie'…” The book also describes the stones that are
associated with the letters of the alphabet.
I did not include them here, as it would make this article quite long.
REGARD
ring, pinchbeck with colored paste settings
(Courtesy
of Kimberly Walters)
Another history of how birthstones came
about is in Edwards' book. “The Poles have fanciful belief that each month of
the year is under the influence of [a] precious stone, which influence has
corresponding effect on the destiny of [a] person born during the respective
month," he writes. "Consequently, it is customary among friends and
lovers, on birth-days, to make reciprocal presents of trinkets ornamented with
the natal stones." The stones and their influences, corresponding with
each month, are supposed to be as follows: January, Garnet = Constancy and
Fidelity; February, Amethyst = Sincerity; March, Bloodstone = Courage, presence
of mind; April, Diamond = Innocence; May, Emerald = Success in love; June,
Agate = Health and long life; July,
Cornelian = Contented mind; August, Sardonyx = Conjugal Felicity; September,
Chrysolite = Antidote against madness; October, Opal = Hope; November, Topaz =
Fidelity; December, Turquoise = Prosperity.
Georgian
(c. 1800) rock crystal ring, provenance southeastern America. The
stone is a true rock crystal (a type of quartz, like citrine or amethyst), with
a curved surface and a simply faceted back. It is tightly bezel set and the
yellow gold engraved setting is open backed. (Courtesy Laurel Scott)
Then there was the language of flowers,
where Mistletoe was for kisses and fertility, Daisies for purity and innocence,
and bouquets of flowers stood for the virtues of married life. The stones were also combined for double
symbolism.
As to superstitions, it is mentioned that
“In Berkshire, England, there is popular superstition that [a] ring made from
piece of silver collected at the Communion is cure for convulsions and fits of
every kind.”
Edwards then addresses the matter of
"hair" rings. “One of the prettiest rings, used as remembrance, has a
socket for hair and closing shutter," he writes, explaining, "It held
the hair of a loved one, either alive or passed.” I have seen these woven into scenes, braided,
swirled, and surrounded with gemstones, pearls, or in just a plain ring. I have also seen a portrait of the person on
the front with his or her hair in the “socket” in the back. In much of my research, these are called "memento
mori," which has two meanings. The first is that it remembers a loved one;
in the second, it reminds you of your mortality.
Remembrance
Ring with purple garnets surround, hair woven into a tree, and white enameling
on the sides meant to represent a child or virgin
(Courtesy
Kimberly Walters)
During the
Federalist period, rings became thicker with ornamental surfaces. The signet ring was also appropriated by
societies and schools to make emblematic rings.
This may have been the beginning of the class ring for colleges and high
schools.
When searching through portraits of men,
many have their hands hidden in their waistcoats or have gloves on, so it is
difficult to know whether they were wearing rings. I did find a few as of this writing that show
rings, and they are wearing them on their pinkie fingers, their ring fingers,
or both. I am sure there are rings
sitting in a museum or private collection that belonged to many others – but it
still does not tell you which fingers they wore them on.
Douglas, 8th Duke of Hamilton, by Jean Preudhomme, 1774
James Farrell Phillips, by Johann Zoffany
John Mortlock of Cambridge and Abington Hall, Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, by John Downman, 1779, Private Collection
Headed Home After Twelfth Night,
The Trustees of the British Museum
The ladies' portraits show a wide variety of
rings on all fingers. Some have them on
both hands and some just on one. You
will note that there are a lot of plain hoops or bands. I did find it interesting to find a ring with
the initial “S” on it from a 1785 portrait.
Miss Mary Edwards, by William Hogarth, 1742, The Frick Collection
Countess Tolstoy, Ivan Petrovich Argunov , 1768
Mrs Richard Skinner, John Singleton Copely, 1772
Lucy Skelton Gilliam or Mrs Robert Gilliam, by John Durand, circa 1780, Dewitt Wallace
Margaret Whaley Hurst and her daughter Frances, 1782
Lady in Chemise Dress with Blue Sash, Tansey Miniature Collection, 1785
Woman in a Miniature Portrait,
by Gaspare Landi Ritratto di Gentildonna
Detail from Queen Charlotte, by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1789
Mother and Child, by Louis Bernard Coclers, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1794
Charlotte Schiller, by Louise Seidler, ca. 1815
Kitty Packe “nee Hart,” by Sir William Beechey, 1818-1821
Mrs James Andrew, by John Constable, 1818
Countess Emilia Sommariva Seilliere, by Boulanger Charles Boisfremont, 1833
Mme Ingres, by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, 1859
Since I am
interested in reenacting and living history, I like to end on what types of
rings should you wear? Well, it depends upon
your impression. If you are a camp follower,
I would not wear any rings unless it is the beginning of the war. If you must have a ring on, a plain gold or
silver band in place of your modern wedding and engagement rings, if
applicable, would be a good choice.
Otherwise, look at your level in society, the dates of your
interpretation, and then study the shapes you see in portraits and prints or
even on originals. Be very careful that
those originals have not been altered in some way.
Bibliography:
The
History and Poetry of Finger-Rings by
Charles Edwards, dated 1880
Jewelry
in America 1600-1900 by Martha Gandy Fales, Antique
Collector’s Club, 1995
The new ring guards: the rise in popularity of
antique rings with symbolic meaning, The Jewellery Editor, 13 June 2015 (http://www.thejewelleryeditor.com/vintage/new-ring-guards-rise-popularity-antique-rings-symbolic-meaning/
Georgian Jewellery 1714 to 1830 by Ginny Tedington Dawes with Olivia
Collings, Antique Collector’s Club, 2007
Rings Jewelry of Power, Love and Loyalty, by Diana Scarisbrick, Thames
& Hudson Ltd., London, 2007
Copyright K. Walters at the Sign of the Gray Horse. None of this can be copied or used without the permission of Kimberly K. Walters.
Copyright K. Walters at the Sign of the Gray Horse. None of this can be copied or used without the permission of Kimberly K. Walters.
