Here is another, from the British Museum, in which Isis and Serapis appear, singularly placed. This ring is Romano-Egyptian, and of bronze.

Here are two, Etruscan, from the same source, with an impression from each.

They are both of gold, while No. 2 has a white stone which works upon a swivel.

We add, in this portion of our book, another from the British Museum. It is worked from Greek or Etruscan gold, and was found in the Abruzzi.

Illustrations of some of the Egyptian seal-rings contained in the British Museum, will be found in Knight’s Pictorial Bible, at the end of the third chapter of Esther.

Fashion and Fancy have given us rings of all imaginable shapes, and these powers, joined with Religion and Love, have traced upon them every supposable subject.

Although modern rings seldom display the exquisite cutting and artistic taste which appear upon antiques, still the latter exhibit sentimental phrases and sentiments similar to such as are observed upon rings of the present day. The Greeks were full of gallantry. Time has preserved to us incontestable proofs of the vows which they made to mistresses and friends, as well as of the trouble they took and the expense they went to in order to perpetuate their sentiments. Caylus,[61] who says this, gives a drawing of a ring bearing the words KIPIA KAAH, Beautiful Ciria; and adds, “This inscription is simple but energetic; it appears to me to suit the sentiment.” In Montfaucon are several illustrations of Greek sentences upon rings, which carry out what Caylus has observed; thus there are (rendered into English), Good be with you, Madam. Good be with you, Sir. Good be with him who wears you and all his household. Remember it. Theanus is my light. Upon a ring bearing a hand which holds a ring: Remember good fortune. There are, also, upon Roman rings, sentiment and compliment in Latin sentences, as thus translated: Live happy, my hostess. You have this pledge of love. Live in God. Live. And Caylus[62] gives a description and drawing of a remarkably formed gold ring; and although it bears Greek words, he leaves it in doubt whether it is of Roman or Grecian workmanship. It has the appearance of three rings united, widened in the front and tapering within the hand. Upon the wide part of each are two letters, the whole forming ZHCAIC, Mayest thou live. The Romans often preferred the Greek language in their most familiar customs.

A ring of bronze has been discovered, in the form of a snake with its tail in its mouth, made on the principle of some of our steel rings which we use to hold household keys, widening their circle by pressure.[63] In the finger-ring, the part in the mouth is inserted loose, so as to draw out and increase to the size of the circle needed.

Rings of gold are common in England at the present day, made to form a strap with buckles, precisely, in shape, a common belt or collar. It lies flat like an ordinary leather strap, and is formed of small pieces of gold which are kept so delicately together that the lines of meeting are scarcely perceptible. This is accomplished by having many minute and unseen hinges, which make the whole pliable and allow it to be buckled (as a ring) upon the finger.

Nothing is new. One of the prettiest modern rings, used as a remembrancer, has a socket for hair and a closing shutter. Roman remains were found at Heronval in Normandy, and among them were rings. One of these was almost of modern form, with a small place under where the stone is usually fixed, into which hair might be inserted.[64] We are constantly retracing the steps of antiquity.

A Roman gold ring of a triangular form has been discovered in England, with an intaglio representing the story of Hercules strangling the Nemean lion.[65] And also a ring that, while it was remarkable for its thickness, had a whistle on one side, which was useful in calling servants before the time of domestic bells.[66]

We shall find that there were rings in which poison was carried.

Wilkinson has discovered several Egyptian rings, where the subject is made up of two cats sitting back to back, and looking round at each other, with an emblem of the goddess Athor between them.

We do not know why Athor, Venus, should be between these sentinel cats. Had the symbol of Pasht, Diana, been there, the thing would have been less difficult; for cats, like maids, “love the moon,” and their guardian goddess was Pasht. Their attitude is more watchful than sacred cats would be supposed to assume, and might rather appear to apply to the species embalmed in Kilkenny history.

There is an Anglo-Saxon ring inscribed Ahlstan, Bishop of Sherborne, which has the hoop of alternate lozenges and circles. It has, also, a Saxon legend. Epigraphs in that language are extremely rare. It has been supposed that Ahlstan had command of the Saxon army.

In the catacombs of Rome, where the early Christians “wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented,”[67] where they stealthily prayed and lived and died, vast quantities of signet and other rings have been discovered, as well as medals, cameos and other precious stones. Signet rings of different devices, as belonging to different owners, are in the catacombs here; and this has raised the idea that they were deposited by relatives and friends as the stone lid of the grave was about to be shut,—offerings of love and affection.[68]

“What a picture,” exclaims a writer in the London Art Journal,[69] “do these dark vaults display of the devotion, the zeal, the love of those early Christian converts whose baptism was in blood! I picture them to myself, stealing forth from the city in the gloomy twilight, out towards the lonely Campagna, and disappearing one by one through well-known apertures, threading their way through the dark sinuous galleries to some altar, where life and light and spiritual food, the soft chanting of the holy psalms and the greeting of faithful brethren, waking the echoes, awaited them. The sight of these early haunts of the persecuted and infant religion is inexpressibly affecting; and I pity those, be they Protestant or Catholic, who can visit these hallowed precincts without an overwhelming emotion. How many martyrs, their bodies torn and lacerated by the cruel beasts amid the infuriated roar of thousands shrieking forth the cry of Christianos ad leonem! in the bloody games of the Flavian amphitheatre, breathing their last sigh, calling on the name of the Redeemer, have passed, borne by mourning friends or by compassionate widows or virgins to their last dark narrow home, along the very path I was now treading! How many glorified saints, now singing the praises of the Eternal around the great white throne in the seventh heaven of glory, may have been laid to rest in these very apertures, lighted by a flickering taper like that I held. But I must pause—this is an endless theme, endless as the glory of those who hover in eternal light and ecstatic radiance above; it is moreover a pæan I feel utterly unworthy to sing.”

We have received a drawing and impression of a ring which is in the British Museum; and our opinion is that it belonged to one of the early Christians. While the ΧΑΙΡΩ, I rejoice, upon it, favors the idea, the monogram (upon the signet part) confirms it. This is, evidently, the name of Jesus in its earliest monogrammatic form, made up of the letters Χ. and Ρ. As commonly found on monuments in the catacombs of Rome, it has a single cross with the Ρ. thus, ☧ while in our illustration the cross is multiplied; and this is the only difference. Surely such a memorial as this is more likely to have been the ring of the lowly-minded “fisherman,” than the one which is said to be framed with diamonds and worn by the Pope. In Dr. Kip’s very interesting work on the Catacombs of Rome, there is an illustration of a seal-ring, upon which a like monogram appears, although somewhat complicated.[70]

Near Cork, in Ireland, a silver ring was discovered, the hoop whereof is composed of nine knobs or bosses, which may have served instead of beads and been used by the wearer in the Catholic counting of them. The antiquaries of Ireland have considered this ring as very ancient.[71]

In referring to Irish rings, it may be well to mention one which was found in the county of Westmeath, with some very ancient remains.[72] It is remarkable, from being set with many diamonds in beautifully squared work. On account of the place where it was discovered, a suggestion has been made that it may have belonged to Rose Failge, Prince of Ireland, eldest son of Calhoir the Great, who reigned A. D. 122, he being called the Hero of Rings. However, diamonds do not appear to have been named among precious stones at that early period.

The author is not aware that diamonds are often set loosely or upon swivel in a ring. We have mention of one in the reign of James I. of England. Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, (nicknamed by a cotemporary “Robert the Devil,” and by James called his “little Beagle,”) was dangerously ill at Bath; but on a report of his recovery, the King sent purposely the Lord Hay to him, with a token, “which was a fair diamond, set or rather hung square in a gold ring without a foil”—and this message, “That the favor and affection he bore him was and should be ever, as the form and matter of that, endless, pure and most perfect.”[73] A writer, given to detraction, says that this great statesman died of the disease of Herod, upon the top of a mole-hill; and that his body burst the lead it was wrapped in. On his tomb lies the skeleton of the Earl curiously carved. He seemed well to weigh the glory of a courtier, for in writing to Sir John Harrington,[74] he said: “Good Knight, rest content and give heed to one that hath sorrowed in the bright lustre of a Court, and gone heavily even on the best seeming fair ground. ’Tis a great task to prove one’s honesty and yet not spoil one’s fortune. You have tasted a little hereof in our blessed Queen’s time, who was more than a man, and, in truth, sometimes less than a woman. I wish I waited now in your presence chamber, with ease at my food and rest in my bed. I am pushed from the shore of comfort, and know not where the winds and waves of a Court will bear me. I know it bringeth little comfort on earth; and he is, I reckon, no wise man that looketh this way to heaven.”

In the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, some citizens of California presented President Pierce with a gigantic ring. We here give an outline, and add a description of it from Gleason’s Pictorial Newspaper for the 25th of December, 1852.

“It is already pretty widely known to the public generally, that a number of citizens of San Francisco have caused to be manufactured and forwarded to Gen. Pierce, a most valuable and unique present, in the form of a massive gold ring, as a token of esteem for the President elect. Of this ring our artist has herewith given us an admirable representation. It is a massive gold ring, weighing upwards of a full pound. This monster ring, for chasteness of design, elegance of execution, and high style of finish, has, perhaps, no equal in the world. The design is by Mr. George Blake, a mechanic of San Francisco. The circular portion of the ring is cut into squares, which stand at right angles with each other, and are embellished each with a beautifully executed design, the entire group presenting a pictorial history of California, from her primitive state down to her present flourishing condition, under the flag of our Union.

“Thus, there is given a grizzly bear in a menacing attitude, a deer bounding down a slope, an enraged boa, a soaring eagle and a salmon. Then we have the Indian with his bow and arrow, the primitive weapon of self-defence; the native mountaineer on horseback, and a Californian on horseback, throwing his lasso. Next peeps out a Californian tent. Then you see a miner at work, with his pick, the whole being shaded by two American flags, with the staves crossed and groups of stars in the angles. The part of the ring reserved for a seal is covered by a solid and deeply carved plate of gold, bearing the arms of the State of California in the centre, surmounted by the banner and stars of the United States, and inscribed with ‘Frank Pierce,’ in old Roman characters. This lid opens upon a hinge, and presents to view underneath a square box, divided by bars of gold into nine separate compartments, each containing a pure specimen of the varieties of ore found in the country. Upon the inside is the following inscription: ‘Presented to Franklin Pierce, the Fourteenth President of the United States.’ The ring is valued at $2000. Our engraving gives a separate view of the lid, so as to represent the appearance of the top of the ring both when it is open and when it is closed. Altogether, it is a massive and superb affair, rich in emblematical design and illustration, and worthy its object.”

Rings appear to have been worn indiscriminately on the fingers of each hand. It would seem, however, from Jeremiah, that the Hebrews wore them on their right hand; we there read that when the Lord threatened King Zedekiah with the utmost effects of his anger, he told him: “Though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.”[75]

Trimalchion wore two rings, one large and gilt, upon the little finger of his right hand, and the other of gold, powdered with iron stars, upon the middle of the ring finger.[76]

Among the Romans, before rings came to be adorned with stones, and while the graving was yet on the metal itself, every one wore them at pleasure on what hand and finger he pleased. When stones came to be added, they had them altogether on the left hand; and it would have been held an excess of foppery to have put them on the right.

Pliny says, they were at first worn on the fourth finger, then on the second or index, then on the little finger, and at last, on all the fingers excepting the middle one.

Clemens Alexandrinus has it that men wore the ring on the extremity of the little finger, so as to leave the hand more free.

According to Aulus Gellius,[77] both the Greeks and Romans wore them on the fourth finger of the left hand; and the reason he gives for it is this, that having found, from anatomy, that this finger had a little nerve that went straight to the heart, they esteemed it the most honorable by this communication with that noble part. Macrobius quotes Atteius Capito, that the right hand was exempt from this office, because it was much more used than the left, and, therefore, the precious stones of the rings were liable to be broken, and that the finger of the left hand was selected which was the least employed.

Pliny says, the Gauls and ancient Britons wore the ring on the middle finger.

At first, the Romans only used a single ring; then, one on each finger, and, at length, as we gather from Martial,[78] several on each. Afterwards, according to Aristophanes,[79] one on each joint. Their foppery at length arose to such a pitch that they had their weekly rings.

The beast Heliogabalus carried the point of using rings the farthest, for, according to Lampridius, he never wore the same ring or the same shoe twice.

Heliogabalus was a funny wretch:—he would frequently invite to his banquets eight old men blind of one eye, eight bald, eight deaf, eight lame with the gout, eight blacks, eight exceedingly thin, and eight so fat that they could scarcely enter the room, and who, when they had eaten as much as they desired, were obliged to be taken out of the apartment on the shoulders of several soldiers.

Egyptian women wore many, and sometimes two or three on one finger; but the left was considered the hand peculiarly privileged to bear these ornaments; and it is remarkable that its third was decorated with a greater number than any other and was considered by them as the ring finger.[80] This notion, as we have observed, the Grecians had.

The idea of wearing rings on the fourth finger of the left hand, because of a supposed artery there which went to the heart, was carried so far that, according to Levinus Lemnius, this finger was called Medicus; and the old physicians would stir up their medicaments and potions with it, because no venom could stick upon the very outmost part of it but it will offend a man and communicate itself to the heart.

With regard to the translation of rings from the right to the left hand, it may be pleasing to refer to that charming old work, Enquiries into Vulgar and Common Errors, by Browne:[81] he says, “That hand [the left] being lesse employed, thereby they were best preserved, and for the same reason they placed them on this finger, for the thumbe was too active a finger and is commonly imployed with either of the rest: the index or fore finger was too naked whereto to commit their pretiosities, and hath the tuition of the thumbe scarce unto the second joynt: the middle and little finger they rejected as extreams, and too big or too little for their rings; and of all chose out the fourth as being least used of any, as being guarded on either side, and having in most this peculiar condition that it cannot be extended alone and by itselfe, but will be accompanied by some finger on either side.”

As to the Egyptians deriving a nerve from the heart in the fourth finger of the left hand, the priests, from this notion, anointed the same with precious oils before the altar. And Browne, in his Vulgar Errors, says, “The Egyptians were weak anatomists, which were so good embalmers.”[82]

In the General Epistle of St. James,[83] we have this: “For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there or sit here under my footstool: are ye not then partial in yourselves and are become judges of evil thoughts?” In an illustrated edition of the New Testament, it is said, the expression “with a gold ring” might very properly be rendered, “having his fingers adorned with gold rings;” and that about the time referred to in the text, the wearing of many rings had become a fashion, at least among the master people, the Romans, from whom it was probably adopted by persons of wealth and rank in the provinces. The custom is noticed by Arrian; while Seneca, in describing the luxury and ostentation of the time, says, “We adorn our fingers with rings, and a jewel is displayed on every joint.” There is a newspaper anecdote of an eminent preacher at Norwich, in England, which shows that he had the above verse (from the Epistle of St. James) in mind when it occurred. His Reverence made a sudden pause in his sermon; the congregation were panic-struck. Having riveted their attention, he addressed himself by name to a gentleman in the gallery. “Has that poor man who stands at the back of your pew a gold ring on his finger?” The gentleman turned round, and replied, “I believe not, sir.” “Oh, then, I suppose that is the reason he must not have a seat.” The gentleman had three gold rings on his hand; and his pew was nearly empty.

Here is another anecdote of a priest, in worse taste than the last. Albert Pio, Prince of Caspi, was buried with extraordinary pomp in the Church of the Cordeliers at Paris. He had been deprived of his principality by the Duke of Ferrara, became an author, and finally a fanatic. Entering one day into one of the churches at Madrid, he presented holy water to a lady who had a very thin hand, ornamented by a most beautiful and valuable ring. He exclaimed in a loud voice as she reached the water, “Madam, I admire the ring more than the hand.” The lady instantly exclaimed, with reference to the cordon or rope with which he was decorated, “And for my part, I admire the halter more than I do the ass.” He was buried in the habit of a Cordelier; and Erasmus made a satire on the circumstance, entitled the “Seraphic Interment.”

The Hebrew women wore a number of rings upon their fingers.[84]

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 Sardoine) O(nix or Opale) U(raine) V(ermeille) E(meraude) N(atralithe) I(ris) R(ubis or Rose diamant).—A(méthiste or Aigue-marine) M(alachite) I(ris) T(urquoise or Topaze) I(ris) E(meraude).

Here are the alphabetical French names of precious stones:[98]

A.	Améthiste. Aigue-marine.
B.	Brilliant. Diamant, désigniant la même pierre.
C.	Chrisolithe. Carnaline. Chrisophrase.
D.	Diamant.
E.	Emeraude.
F.	(Pas de pierre connue.)
G.	Grenat.
H.	Hiacinthe.
I.	Iris.
J.	Jasper.
K.	(Pas de pierre connue.)
L.	Lapis lazuli.
M.	Malachite.
N.	Natralithe.
O.	Onix. Opale.
P.	Perle. Peridot. Purpurine.
Q.	(Pas de pierre connue.)
R.	Rubis. Rose diamant.
S.	Saphir. Sardoine.
T.	Turquoise. Topaze.
U.	Uraine.
V.	Vermeille (espèce de grenat jaune).
X.	Xépherine.
Y. Z.	(Pas de nous connus.)

Kobell says,[99] “In name-rings, in which a name is indicated by the initial letter of different gems, the emerald is mostly used under its English and French name (Emeraude) to stand for e, which would otherwise not be represented. (The German name is Smaragd.) While on this point, it may be mentioned that a difficulty occurs with u, but recent times have furnished a name which may assist, namely, a green garnet, containing chrome, from Siberia, which has been baptized after the Russian Minister Uwarrow, and called Uwarrovite.”

The Poles have a fanciful belief that each month of the year is under the influence of a precious stone, which influence has a corresponding effect on the destiny of a person born during the respective month. 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.

Modern jewellers are known to palm off imitations of gems; and so did sellers of trinkets in ancient times. The moderns only run the chance of a loss of custom; but the latter were well off if they got no greater fright than the jeweller who sold to the wife of Gallienus a ring with a piece of glass in it. Gallienus ordered the cheat to be placed in the circus, as though he were to be exposed to the ferocity of a lion. While the miserable jeweller trembled at the expectation of instant death, the executioner, by order of the emperor, let loose a capon upon him. An uncommon laugh was raised at this; and the emperor observed that he who had deceived others should expect to be deceived himself.

A ring often figures in the old English ballads. Thus, in Child Noryce, the hero of it invites Lady Barnard to the merry greenwood:

§ 21. A ring, as an heraldic figure, is found in coats of arms throughout every kingdom in Europe. In Heraldry, it is called an annulet. We find the ring “gemmed” borne in the arms of the Montgomeries, who hold the Earldom of Eglinton; and one of whom figures in the ballad of Chevy Chase:

A father and son of this family were opposed to each other in the battle of Marston Moor. The father, from his bearing, had the popular appellation of Gray Steel. We find the amulet borne in the coats of arms of several of the peers and gentlemen of England.

Louis IX. of France, St. Louis, took for his device a marguerite or daisy and fleur-de-lis, in allusion to the name of Queen Marguerite his wife and the arms of France, which were also his own.[100] He had a ring made with a relief around it in enamel, which represented a garland of marguerites and fleurs-de-lis. One was engraven on a sapphire with these words, “This ring contains all we love.” Thus, it has been said, did this excellent prince show his people that he loved nothing but Religion, France and his wife. It is a question, however, whether the emblem on the escutcheon of the kings of France is really a fleur-de-lis. Some think it was originally a toad, which formed the crest of the helmet worn by Pharamond; and others, the golden bees which were discovered in the tomb of Childeric at Tournay in 1653.[101] The story is that Clovis, after baptism, received a fleur-de-lis from an angel. Since then France has been called “the empire of lilies.” The coat of arms of Clovis and his successors was a field of azure, seeded with golden fleurs-de-lis.

§ 22. The story of losing rings and finding them in fish, is as old as Pliny, and we shall have to mention Solomon’s ring, which, it is said, was found in one. We have an English statement[102] of a Mrs. Todd, of Deptford, who, in going in a boat to Whitstable, endeavored to prove that no person need be poor who was willing to be otherwise; and, being excited with her argument, she took off her gold ring and throwing it into the sea, said, “It was as much impossible for any person to be poor, who had an inclination to be otherwise, as for her ever to see that ring again.” The second day after this, and when she had landed, she bought some mackerel, which the servant commenced to dress for dinner, whereupon there was found a gold ring in one. The servant ran to show it to her mistress, and the ring proved to be that which she had thrown away.

We are told in Brand’s “History of Newcastle,” that a gentleman of that city, in the middle of the seventeenth century, dropped a ring from his hand over the bridge into the river Tyne. Years passed on; he had lost all hopes of recovering the ring, when one day his wife bought a fish in the market, and in the stomach of that fish was the identical jewel which had been lost! From the pains taken to commemorate this event, it would appear to be true; it was merely an occurrence possible, but extremely unlikely to have occurred.

We are inclined to add in this section a circumstance connected with a ring as it appeared in a respectable English periodical. Fact, here, beats fiction:

“Many years ago a lady sent her servant, a young man about twenty years of age, and a native of that part of the country where his mistress resided, to the neighboring town with a ring, which required some alteration, to be delivered into the hands of a jeweller. The young man went the shortest way across the fields; and coming to a little wooden bridge that crossed a small stream, he leant against the rail, and took the ring out of its case to look at it. While doing so, it slipped out of his hand, and fell into the water. In vain he searched for it, even till it grew dark. He thought it fell into the hollow of a stump of a tree under water, but he could not find it. The time taken in the search was so long, that he feared to return and tell his story, thinking it incredible, and that he should be even suspected of having gone into evil company and gamed it away or sold it. In this fear he determined never to return—left wages and clothes, and fairly ran away. This seemingly great misfortune was the making of him. His intermediate history I know not; but this, that after many years’ absence, either in the East or West Indies, he returned with a very considerable fortune. He now wished to clear himself with his old mistress; ascertained that she was living; purchased a diamond ring of considerable value, which he determined to present in person, and clear his character, by telling his tale, to which the credit of his present position might testify. He took the coach to the town of——, and from thence set out to walk the distance of a few miles. He found, I should tell you, on alighting, a gentleman who resided in the neighborhood, who was bound for the adjacent village. They walked together, and in conversation, this former servant, now a gentleman, with graceful manners and agreeable address, communicated the circumstance that made him leave the country abruptly many years before. As he was telling this, they came to the very wooden bridge. ‘There,’ said he; ‘it was just here that I dropped the ring; and there is the very bit of old tree into a hole of which it fell—just there.’ At the same time he put down the point of his umbrella into the hole of the knot in the tree, and drawing it up, to the astonishment of both, found the very ring on the ferrule of the umbrella.”

Here also was an occurrence against which one would have previously said the chances were as one to infinity. It was a circumstance which we see to be most unlikely, yet must acknowledge to be possible, and, when well authenticated, to be true.

In the year 1765, a codfish was sold, and in its stomach was a gold ring. It had remained there so long that the inscription was worn off, although the scrolls in which it had been written remained entire.[103] Codfish, like sharks, swallow any thing, whether fresh or salted, bits of wood, red cloth, and even a whole book has been found in one. We are not aware, however, that a cod has turned “State’s evidence,” as it is said a shark did. A shark had swallowed a log-book, thrown overboard to him by a pirate; and afterwards repenting, took the first hook that offered, and thus turned State’s evidence—so as to hang the villain by the revelation of the document.[104]

§ 23. Poetical riddles are but a low species of verse, and yet the best of poets have made them. We find a neat one on a ring, which, in riddle-phrase, has been said to “unite two people together and touch only one.” It runs thus: