Book XXXIII. The Natural History of Metals.

Chaps. 1-6.

Chap. 1. (1.)—Metals.

We are now about to speak of metals, of actual wealth, [“Ipsæ opes.” The metals were looked upon by the ancients as the only true riches. It is in this sense that Ovid says, Metam. B. i.: “Effodiuntur opes, irritamenta malorum.” Pliny applies the term “pretia rerum” to metals, as forming the unit of value.] the standard of comparative value, objects for which we diligently search, within the earth, in numerous ways. In one place, for instance, we undermine it for the purpose of obtaining riches, to supply the exigencies of life, searching for either gold or silver, electrum [Electrum is described in c. 23, as gold mixed with a certain quantity of silver. The word “electrum” is also used to signify amber, as in B. iii. c. 30.—B.] or copper. [“Æs;” by “æs” is here probably meant copper, as the author is speaking of what is dug out of the earth; it is more fully described in the first two Chapters of the Book. According to the analysis of Klaproth, the æs of the ancients, when employed in works of art, cutting instruments, statues, vases, &c., was the “bronze” of the moderns, a mixture of copper and tin, in which the proportion of tin varied, from a little more than 2 to 1.14 per cent, according as the object was to procure a flexible or a hard substance. Agricola speaks of “æs” as synonymous with “cuprum,” and Pliny will be found several times in the present Book, speaking of “æs Cyprium,” meaning probably the finest kind of copper, and that without alloy.—B.] In another place, to satisfy the requirements of luxury, our researches extend to gems and pigments, with which to adorn our fingers [Pliny has already referred to this topic in B. ii. c. 63.—B.] and the walls of our houses: while in a third place, we gratify our rash propensities by a search for iron, which, amid wars and carnage, is deemed more acceptable even than gold. We trace out all the veins of the earth, and yet, living upon it, undermined as it is beneath our feet, are astonished that it should occasionally cleave asunder or tremble: as though, forsooth, these signs could be any other than expressions of the indignation felt by our sacred parent! We penetrate into her entrails, and seek for treasures in the abodes even of the Manes, [Or shades below.] as though each spot we tread upon were not sufficiently bounteous and fertile for us!

And yet, amid all this, we are far from making remedies the object of our researches: and how few in thus delving into the earth have in view the promotion of medicinal knowledge! For it is upon her surface, in fact, that she has presented us with these substances, equally with the cereals, bounteous and ever ready, as she is, in supplying us with all things for our benefit! It is what is concealed from our view, what is sunk far beneath her surface, objects, in fact, of no rapid formation, [“Illa quæ non nascuntur repente.”] that urge us to our ruin, that send us to the very depths of hell. As the mind ranges in vague speculation, let us only consider, proceeding through all ages, as these operations are, when will be the end of thus exhausting the earth, and to what point will avarice finally penetrate! How innocent, how happy, how truly delightful even would life be, if we were to desire nothing but what is to be found upon the face of the earth; in a word, nothing but what is provided ready to our hands!

Chap. 2.—Gold.

Gold is dug out of the earth, and, in close proximity to it, chrysocolla, [“Chrysocolla” is fully described in Chapter of this Book.—B.] a substance which, that it may appear all the more precious, still retains the name [Meaning “gold glue,” or “gold solder.”] which it has borrowed from gold. [There is considerable variation in the text of this passage, as found in the different editions. In that of Dalechamps, the Variorum, and those of De Laet and Sillig, the sentence concludes with the words “nomen ex auro custodiens;” while in those of Valpy, Lemaire, Poinsinet, Ajasson, and others, we find substituted for them the words. “Non natura,” “Nomen natura,” “Nomine natura,” or “Nomen naturam.”—B. The first reading is warranted by the Bamberg MS.] It was not enough for us to have discovered one bane for the human race, but we must set a value too upon the very humours of gold. [“Auri sanies.” More properly speaking, “the corrupt matter discharged by gold.” See Chapter.] While avarice, too, was on the search for silver, it congratulated itself upon the discovery of minium, [“Minium” is treated of in Chapter of this Book.—B.] and devised a use to be made of this red earth.

Alas for the prodigal inventions of man! in how many ways have we augmented the value of things! [“Pretia rerum.” The value of the raw material.] In addition to the standard value of these metals, the art of painting lends its aid, and we have rendered gold and silver still more costly by the art of chasing them. Man has learned how to challenge both Nature and art to become the incitements to vice! His very cups he has delighted to engrave with libidinous subjects, and he takes pleasure in drinking from vessels of obscene form! [Pliny here refers both to the art of producing figures in relief on drinking vessels made of the precious metals, and also of giving them particular forms. A well-known line of Juvenal, Sat. ii. l. 96, affords a striking illustration of the depraved taste which existed in his time.—B. Lampridius also speaks of vessels of silver “defiled with representations of a most libidinous character;” and Capitolinus speaks of “phallovitroboli,” glass drinking vessels shaped like a phallus.] But in lapse of time, the metals passed out of fashion, and men began to make no account of them; gold and silver, in fact, became too common. From this same earth we have extracted vessels of murrhine [“Murrhina” or “myrrhina.” are described in B. xxxvii. c. 8; they were, perhaps, onyxes or opals, though possibly the term was not strictly confined to these substances, but signified any transparent minerals, that exhibited a variety of colours. Salmasius, however, ridicules the idea of their being onyxes, and is of opinion that these vessels were made of porcelain; Exer. Plin. p. 144.—B.] and vases of crystal, [See B. xxxvii. c..] objects the very fragility of which is considered to enhance their value. In fact, it has come to be looked upon as a proof of opulence, and as quite the glory of luxury, to possess that which may be irremediably destroyed in an instant. Nor was even this enough;—we now drink from out of a mass of gems, [He alludes to the cups known as “chrysendeta,” adorned with circlets of gold, exquisite chasings, and groups of precious stones. See Juvenal, Sat. v. l. 42.] and we set our goblets with smaragdi; [The “Smaragdus” is described in B. xxxvii. c. 13.] we take delight in possessing the wealth of India, as the promoter of intoxication, and gold is now nothing more than a mere accessory. [“Et aurum jam accessio est.”]

Chap. 3.—What Was the First Recommendation of Gold.

Would that gold could have been banished for ever from the earth, accursed by universal report, [“Sacrum famæ.” This is the reading given by the Bamberg MS. in substitution for “aurum, sacra fames” and other readings of a similar nature, in which Pliny was thought by the commentators to allude to the famous lines of Virgil— “Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, Auri sacra fames!” Had he alluded to the passage of Virgil, it is not probable that he would have used the expression in the plural, “celeberrimi auctores.”] as some of the most celebrated writers have expressed themselves, reviled by the reproaches of the best of men, and looked upon as discovered only for the ruin of mankind. How much more happy the age when things themselves were bartered for one another; as was the case in the times of the Trojan war, if we are to believe what Homer says. For, in this way, in my opinion, was commerce then carried on for the supply of the necessaries of life. Some, he tells us, would make their purchases by bartering ox-hides, and others by bartering iron or the spoil which they had taken from the enemy: [Il. B. vii. ll. 472-5.—B.] and yet he himself, already an admirer of gold, was so far aware of the relative value of things, that Glaucus, he informs us, exchanged his arms of gold, valued at one hundred oxen, for those of Diomedes, which were worth but nine. [Il. B. vi. l. 236.] Proceeding upon the same system of barter, many of the fines imposed by ancient laws, at Rome even, were levied in cattle, [We may infer that this was the reason why the figure of an ox or other animal was impressed on the earliest Roman coins.—B.] [and not in money].

Chap. 4.—The Origin of Gold Rings.

The worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring upon his fingers: and yet we are not informed, by tradition, who it was that first did so. For as to all the stories told about Prometheus, I look upon them as utterly fabulous, although I am aware that the ancients used to represent him with a ring of iron: it was their intention, however, to signify a chain thereby, and not an ornament. As to the ring of Midas, [As Hardouin remarks, “This story is told by others, of Gyges, and not of Midas.” He refers to Cicero, De Off. B. iii. c. 9, in confirmation of his assertion.—B. Both Gyges and Midas were noted for their wealth.] which, upon the collet being turned inwards, conferred invisibility upon the wearer, who is there that must not admit, perforce, that this story is even still more fabulous? It was the hand, and a sinister [“Sinistræ.” The play here upon the word “sinister” cannot be so well transferred into the English language; but it bears reference to the double meaning of the word, “on the left hand,” and “unlucky,” “ill-omened,” or, as we say “sinister.” We may remark, that rings were very generally employed by the Romans, not merely as ornaments, but as indications of office and rank.—B.] hand, too, in every sense, that first brought gold into such high repute: not a Roman hand, however, for upon that it was the practice to wear a ring of iron only, and solely as an indication of warlike prowess.

As to the usage followed by the Roman kings, it is not easy to pronounce an opinion: the statue of Romulus in the Capitol wears no ring, nor does any other statue—not that of L. Brutus even—with the sole exception of those of Numa and Servius Tullius. I am surprised at this absence of the ring, in the case of the Tarquinii more particularly, seeing that they were originally from Greece, [From Corinth, it was said: Damaratus of Corinth being the father of the first Tarquin. See B. xxxv. c..] a country from which the use of gold rings was first introduced; though even at the present day the people of Lacedæmon are in the habit of wearing rings made of iron. Tarquinius Priscus, however, it is well known, was the first who presented his son with the golden bulla, [On the subject of “Bullæ,” golden balls, worn by the children of the nobles, see Dr. Smith’s Dict. Antiq. p. 168.—B.] on the occasion of his slaying an enemy before he had laid aside the prætexta; [As to the “Toga prætexta,” see B. viii. c. 74.] from which period the custom of wearing the bulla has been continued, a distinction confined to the children of those who have served in the cavalry, those of other persons simply wearing a leather thong. [“Lorum.” This word literally signifies a leather strap or thong, and Pliny is supposed by Hardouin to mean simply, that, in this latter case the strap was worn without the bulla, which was in other cases attached to it. Juvenal, Sat. v. l. 164, speaks of the “lorum” of the children of the poor.—B.] Such being the case, I am the more surprised that the statue of this Tarquinius should be without a ring.

And yet, with reference to the very name of the ring, I find that there has been considerable uncertainty. That given to it originally by the Greeks is derived from the finger; [Δακτύλιον, from δάκτυλος, a “finger.”] while our ancestors styled it “ungulus;” [Festus says that this was the Oscan name for a ring. It would appear to be allied to the word “unguis,” which means a nail of the finger or toe, and would perhaps signify a “nail ornament.”] and in later times both Greeks and Latins have given it the name of “symbolum.” [As meaning a seal or signet, for which purpose, as we shall find explained in the sequel, the ring was used.] For a great length of time, it is quite clear, not even the Roman senators wore rings of gold: for rings were given, and at the public expense, to those only who were about to proceed on an embassy to foreign nations, the reason being, I suppose, because men of highest rank among foreign nations were perceived to be thus distinguished. Nor was it the practice for any person to wear these rings, except those who for this reason had received them at the public expense; and in most instances, it was without this distinction that the Roman generals celebrated their public triumphs. [This seems to be the meaning of “Vulgoque sic triumphabant.”] For whereas an Etruscan crown [As to these crowns, see B. xxi. c. 4.] of gold was supported from behind over the head of the victor, he himself, equally with the slave probably, who was so supporting the crown, had nothing but a ring of iron upon his finger. [As to some other particulars connected with this usage, see the end of B. xxviii. c. 7.] It was in this manner that C. Marius celebrated his triumph over Jugurtha; and he never assumed [And yet, as Hardouin remarks, before his time, when Scipio was besieging Carthage, the bodies of the Roman tribunes, when selected for burial by Hasdrubal, were distinguished by their rings of gold. The object of Marius, no doubt, was to ingratiate himself with the upper classes.] the golden ring, it is said, until the period of his third consulship. [A.U.C. 651.] Those, too, who had received golden rings on the occasion of an embassy, only wore them when in public, resuming the ring of iron when in their houses. It is in pursuance of this custom that even at the present day, an iron ring [Known as the “anulus pronubus,” or “engaged ring,” according to Dalechamps.] is sent by way of present to a woman when betrothed, and that, too, without any stone in it.

For my own part, I do not find that any rings were used in the days of the Trojan War; at all events, Homer nowhere makes mention of them; for although he speaks of the practice of sending tablets [“Codicillos.” Il. B. vi. l. 168.] by way of letter, [See B. xiii. c. 21.] of clothes and gold and silver plate being kept laid up in chests, [Od. B. viii. ll. 424, 443, 447.] still he gives us to understand that they were kept secure by the aid of a knot tied fast, and not under a seal impressed by a ring. He does not inform us too, that when the chiefs drew lots to ascertain which one of them should reply to the challenge [See the Iliad, B. iii. and B. vii. l. 175, et seq.] of the enemy, they made any use of rings [His meaning is, that although κληρὸι were used, lots or balls made of earth, we do not read that the impressions on them were made by the aid of signet-rings.] for the purpose; and when he enumerates the articles that were manufactured at the forge [“Fabricæ deûm.” He alludes to the forge of Vulcan, described in the Eighteenth Book of the Iliad, l. 400, et seq.] of the gods, he speaks of this as being the origin [This seems to be the meaning of “In primordio factitâsse.”] of fibulæ [The “fibulæ” were the brooches of the ancients, consisting of a pin, and of a curved portion furnished with a hook. See Dr. Smith’s Dict. Antiq. p. 417.] and other articles of female ornament, such as ear-rings for example, but does not make any mention of rings. [As the meaning of this passage has been the subject of much discussion with commentators, we give it in full, as found in the Edition of Sillig. “Et quisquis primus instituit, cunctanter id fecit, lævis manibus latentibusque induit, cum, si honos securus fuisset, dextrâ fuerit ostentandus. Quodsi impedimentum potuit in eo aliquod intelligi, etiam serior is usus argumentum est, et majus in lævâ fuisset, quâ scutum capitur.” Sillig is of opinion that Pliny is here alluding to the reason given by Ateius Capito (quoted in Macrobius, Saturn. B. vii. c. 13), for wearing the ring on the left hand. It was so worn, he says, from an apprehension that the precious stone with which it was set, might receive injury from the continual use made of the right hand.] Whoever it was that first introduced the use of rings, he did so not without hesitation; for he placed this ornament on the left hand, the hand which is generally concealed, [Under the folds of the toga.] whereas, if he had been sure of its being an honourable distinction, it would have been made more conspicuous upon the right. And if any one should raise the objection that this would have acted as an impediment to the right hand, I can only say that the usage in more recent times fortifies my opinion, and that the inconvenience of wearing rings on the left hand would have been still greater, seeing that it is with the left hand that the shield is held. We find mention made too, in Homer, [Il. B. xvii. l. 52.] of men wearing gold plaited with the hair; and hence it is that I am at a loss to say whether the practice first originated with females.

Chap. 5.—The Quantity of Gold Possessed by the Ancients.

At Rome, for a long period of time, the quantity of gold was but very small. At all events, after the capture of the City by the Gauls, when peace was about to be purchased, not more than one thousand pounds’ weight of gold could be collected. I am by no means unaware of the fact that in the third [The reading in most MSS. is the “fourth consulship.” This, however, is an error which has been rectified by the Bamberg and some other MSS. Pompey was but thrice consul. M. Crassus was the person generally accused of the act of robbery here alluded to.] consulship of Pompeius there was lost from the throne of Jupiter Capitolinus two thousand pounds’ weight of gold, originally placed there by Camillus; a circumstance which has led most persons to suppose, that two thousand pounds’ weight was the quantity then collected. But in reality, this excess of one thousand pounds was contributed from the spoil taken from the Gauls, amplified as it was by the gold of which they had stripped the temples, in that part of the City which they had captured.

The story of Torquatus, [Who took the golden torc (torques) from the Gaul whom he slew; whence his name.] too, is a proof that the Gauls were in the habit of wearing ornaments of gold when engaged in combat; [“Cum auro pugnare solitos.”] from which it would appear that the sum taken from the Gauls themselves, and the amount of which they had pillaged the temples, were only equal to the amount of gold collected for the ransom, and no more; and this is what was really meant by the response given by the augurs, that Jupiter Capitolinus had rendered again the ransom twofold. [“Quod equidem in augurio intellectum est, cum Capitolinus duplum reddidisset.” The meaning of this passage is obscure, and cannot with certainty be ascertained. Holland renders it, “To the light and knowledge whereof we come by means of revelation from Augurie, which gave us to understand, that Jupiter Capitolinus had rendered again the foresaid summe in duple proportion.” Littré gives a similar translation. Ajasson translates it, “This, at least, is what we may presume, from the fact of there being discovered double the amount expected;” following the explanation given by Hardouin.] As we were just now speaking on the subject of rings, it may be as well to add, by way of passing remark, that upon the officer [The “ædituus,” or “temple keeper.” See B. xxxvi..] in charge of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus being arrested, he broke the stone of his ring between his teeth, [Beneath which there was poison concealed, Hardouin says. Hannibal killed himself in a similar manner; also Demosthenes, as mentioned in the next Chapter.] and expired upon the spot, thus putting an end to all possibility of discovering the perpetrator of the theft.

It appears, therefore, that in the year of the City 364, when Rome was captured by the Gauls, there was but two thousand pounds’ weight of gold, at the very most; and this, too, at a period when, according to the returns of the census, there were already one hundred and fifty-two thousand five hundred and seventy-three free citizens in it. In this same city, too, three hundred and seven years later, the gold which C. Marius the younger [The adopted son of the great Marius. This event happened in his consulship, B.C. 82. After his defeat by Sylla at Sacriportus, he retired into the fortified town of Præneste, where he had deposited the treasures of the Capitoline temple. The temple, after this conflagration, was rebuilt by order of Sylla.] conveyed to Præsneste from the Temple of the Capitol when in flames, and all the other shrines, amounted to thirteen thousand pounds’ weight, such being the sum that figured in the inscriptions at the triumph of Sylla; on which occasion it was displayed in the procession, as well as six thousand pounds’ weight of silver. The same Sylla had, the day before, displayed in his triumph fifteen thousand pounds’ weight of gold, and one hundred and fifteen thousand pounds’ weight of silver, the fruit of all his other victories.

Chap. 6.—The Right of Wearing Gold Rings.

It does not appear that rings were in common use before the time of Cneius Flavius, the son of Annius. This Flavius was the first to publish a table [Called the “Fasti;” probably because this was the first word of the title.] of the days for pleading, [“Dies fasti.” These were the days on which the courts sat, and the Prætor, who was the chief judge, gave his decisions. The word “fasti” is derived from the ancient Latin “for,” or from the old Greek word φάω, both signifying “to speak:” consequently the “dies fasti” were “the speaking days,” and the “dies nefasti” the “non-speaking days,” in allusion to the restrictions put upon the judgments of the Prætor.] which till then the populace had to ascertain each day from a few great personages. [This complex state of the Roman Calendar long remained one of the sources from which the priesthood and the patrician order derived their power and influence over the plebeians. Having no other method of ascertaining what days were “fasti,” and what were “nefasti,” the lower classes were obliged either to apply to the priests and nobles for information, or to await the proclamation by the priests of the various festivals about to take place.] The son of a freedman only, and secretary to Appius Cæcus, [Appius Claudius Cæcus, the Censor and jurisconsult, who constructed the Appian Way.] (at whose request, by dint of natural shrewdness and continual observation, he had selected these days and made them public), [A.U.C. 440, or B.C. 314.] he obtained such high favour with the people, that he was created curule ædile; in conjunction with Quintus Anicius Prænestinus, who a few years before had been an enemy to Rome, [In the war, probably, with the twelve nations of Etruria, who were conquered by the Consul Fabius A.U.C. 444. See Livy, B. ix.] and to the exclusion of C. Pœtilius and Domitius, whose fathers respectively were of consular rank. [The father of the former C. Pœtilius Libo, was Consul A.U.C. 428: the father of the latter, Cneius Domitius Calvinus, was Consul A.U.C. 432.] The additional honour was also conferred on Flavius, of making him tribune of the people at the same time, a thing which occasioned such a degree of indignation, that, as we find stated in the more ancient Annals, “the rings [“Anulos abjectos.”] were laid aside!”

Most persons, however, are mistaken in the supposition that on this occasion the members of the equestrian order did the same: for it is in consequence of these additional words, “the phaleræ, [The “phaleræ” were bosses of metal, often gold, attached to the harness of the horse. See B. vii. c. 29.] too, were laid aside as well,” that the name of the equestrian order was added. These rings, too, as the Annals tell us, were laid aside by the nobility, and not [He would probably imply hereby that, as he states subsequently, at this period gold rings were not as yet worn by all the members of the senate.] by the whole body of the senate. This event took place in the consulship of P. Sempronius and P. Sulpicius. [A.U.C. 449.] Flavius made a vow that he would consecrate a temple to Concord, if he should succeed in reconciling the privileged orders with the plebeians: and as no part of the public funds could be voted for the purpose, he accordingly built a small shrine of brass [“Ædiculam æream”—of brass or bronze.] in the Græcostasis, [For the explanation of this term, see B. vii. c. 60.] then situate above the Comitium, [See B. x. c. 2. Livy tells us that this shrine or temple was built in the area or place of Vulcan.] with the fines which had been exacted for usury. Here, too, he had an inscription engraved upon a tablet of brass, to the effect that the shrine was dedicated two hundred and three years after the consecration of the Capitol. Such were the events that happened four hundred and forty-nine years after the foundation of the City, this being the earliest period at which we find any traces of the common use of rings.

A second occasion, however, that of the Second Punic War, shows that rings must have been at that period in very general use; for if such had not been the case, it would have been impossible for Hannibal to send the three [Livy, B. xxiii. speaks of one modius as being the real quantity. Florus, B. ii. c. 16, says two modii: but Saint Augustin, De Civit. Dei. B. iii. c. 19, and most other writers, mention three modii.] modii of rings, which we find so much spoken of, to Carthage. It was through a dispute, too, at an auction about the possession of a ring, that the feud first commenced between Cæpio [Q. Servilius Cæpio. He and M. Livins Drusus had been most intimate friends, and each had married the other’s sister. The assassination of Drusus was supposed by some to have been committed at the instigation of Cæpio. The latter lost his life in an ambush, B.C. 90.] and Drusus, [See B. xxviii. c. 41.] a dispute which gave rise to the Social War, [See B. ii. c. 85.] and the public disasters which thence ensued. Not even in those days, however, did all the senators possess gold rings, seeing that, in the memory of our grandsires, many personages who had even filled the prætorship, wore rings of iron to the end of their lives; Calpurnius, [M. Calpurnius Flamma. See B. xxii. c. 6.] for example, as Fenestella tells us, and Manilius, who had been legatus to Caius Marius in the Jugurthine War. Many historians also state the same of L. Fufidius, he to whom Scaurus dedicated the history of his life.

In the family of the Quintii, [A patrician family; branches of which were the Cincinnati, the Capitolini, the Crispini, and the Flaminini.] it is the usage for no one, not the females even, ever to wear a ring; and even at the present day, the greater part of the nations known to us, peoples who are living under the Roman sway, are not in the habit of wearing rings. Neither in the countries of the East, [This is an erroneous assertion, both as to the East, and as to Egypt. See instances to the contrary in Genesis, c. xli. v. 42; and in Esther, c. iii. verses 10, 12, and c. viii. verses 2, 8, 10.] nor in Egypt, is any use made of seals, the people being content with simple writing only. [“Literis contenta solis.”]

In this, as in every other case, luxury has introduced various fashions, either by adding to rings gems of exquisite brilliancy, and so loading the fingers with whole revenues, as we shall have further occasion to mention in our Book on Gems; [. See also his remarks in B. ii. c. 63: “We tear out earth’s entrails in order to extract the gems with which we may load our fingers. How many hands are worn down that one little joint may be ornamented!” Martial, Epigr. B. v. Ep. 11, speaks of his friend Stella as wearing on the joint of one finger sardonyxes, emeralds, and jaspers.] or else by engraving them with various devices: so that it is in one instance the workmanship, in another the material, that constitutes the real value of the ring. Then again, in the case of other gems, luxury has deemed it no less than sacrilege to make a mark [“Violari.” See B. xxxvii. c..] even upon them, and has caused them to be set whole, that no one may suppose that the ring was ever intended to be employed as a signet. In other instances, luxury has willed that certain stones, on the side even that is concealed by the finger, should not [A fashion much followed at the present day.] be closed in with gold, thus making gold of less account than thousands of tiny pebbles. On the other hand again, many persons will admit of no gems being set in their rings, but impress their seal with the gold [This also is a not uncommon fashion at the present day.] itself, an invention which dates from the reign of Claudius Cæsar. At the present day, too, the very slaves even, incase their iron rings with gold (while other articles belonging to them, they decorate with pure gold), [From the “Trinummus” of Plautus, A. iv. s. 4, we learn that the ring worn by slaves was called “condalium.” From the “Truculentus” of Plautus we learn also that these rings were sometimes made of bronze. The “jus anuli,” or right of wearing a gold ring, was never conceded to slaves.] a licence which first originated in the Isle of Samothrace, [See B. iv. c. 23. In the Origines of Isidorus Hispalensis, B. xix. c. 32, we find mention made of “A Samothracian gold ring, with an iron bezil, so called from the place of its invention.” Pliny has already made allusion to the luxurious habits of the slaves, in B. xiii. c. 4; and B. xviii. c. 2; a subject upon which Juvenal enlarges in his Third Satire.] as the name given to the invention clearly shows.

It was the custom at first to wear rings on a single finger [The reasons are mentioned by Ateius Capita, as quoted by Macrobius, Saturnal. B. vii. c. 13: also by Apion the Grammarian, as quoted by Aulus Gellius, B. x. c. 10.] only, the one, namely, that is next to the little finger; and this we see the case in the statues of Numa and Servius Tullius. In later times, it became the practice to put rings on the finger next to the thumb, even in the case of the statues of the gods; and more recently, again, it has been the fashion to wear them upon the little finger [The ring of each finger had its own appropriate name.] as well. Among the peoples of Gallia and Britannia, the middle finger, it is said, is used for this purpose. At the present day, however, among us, this is the only finger that is excepted, all the others being loaded with rings, smaller rings even being separately adapted for the smaller joints of the fingers. Some there are who heap several rings upon the little finger alone; while others, again, wear but one ring upon this finger, the ring that sets a seal upon the signet-ring itself, this last being kept carefully shut up as an object of rarity, too precious to be worn in common use, and only to be taken from the cabinet [The “dactyliotheca,” or “ring-box.”] as from a sanctuary. And thus is the wearing of a single ring upon the little finger no more than an ostentatious advertisement that the owner has property of a more precious nature under seal at home!

Some, too, make a parade of the weight of their rings, while to others it is quite a labour [Juvenal, Sat. i. l. 26, et seq., speaks of the summer rings of the Roman fops, and their fingers sweating beneath the weight.] to wear more than one at a time: some, in their solicitude for the safety of their gems, make the hoop of gold tinsel, and fill it with a lighter material than gold, thinking thereby to diminish the risks of a fall. [Martial, Epigr. B. xiv., speaks of the numerous accidents to which a weighty ring was liable.] Others, again, are in the habit of inclosing poisons beneath the stones of their rings, and so wear them as instruments of death; Demosthenes, for instance, that greatest of the orators of Greece. [Hannibal, too, for instance, as mentioned in Note to the preceding Chapter.] And then, besides, how many of the crimes that are stimulated by cupidity, are committed through the instrumentality of rings! [He alludes, probably, to forgeries perpetrated through the agency of false signets.] How happy the times, how truly innocent, in which no seal was ever put to anything! At the present day, on the contrary, our very food even and our drink have to be preserved from theft [Plautus, Cicero, Horace, and Martial, each in his own age, bears testimony to the truth of this statement.] through the agency of the ring: a result owing to those legions of slaves, those throngs of foreigners which are introduced into our houses, multitudes so numerous that we require the services of a nomenclator [Or remembrancer; a slave whose duty it was to remind his master of the name of each member of his household; see B. xxix. c. 8. Athenæus, B. vi., speaks of as many as twenty thousand slaves belonging to one household. Demetrius, the freedman of Pompey, mentioned in B. xxxv. c. 58, had a retinue of slaves equal to an army in amount.] even, to tell us the names of our own servants. Very different was it in the times of our forefathers, when each person possessed a single servant only, one of his master’s own lineage, called Marcipor or Lucipor, [Meaning “Marci puer,” or “Luci puer”—“Marcius’ boy,” or “Lucius’ boy.”] from his master’s name, as the case might be, and taking all his meals with him in common; when, too, there was no occasion for taking precautions at home by keeping a watch upon the domestics. But at the present day, we not only procure dainties which are sure to be pilfered, but hands to pilfer them as well; and so far is it from being sufficient to have the very keys sealed, that the signet-ring is often taken from off the owner’s finger while he is overpowered with sleep or lying on his death-bed. [Suetonius says, c. 73, that Tiberius, in his last illness, awoke after a long lethargy, and demanded his signet-ring, which his son-in-law, Caligula, had removed from his finger, under the supposition that he was dead. Macro, to avoid any unpleasant results in the way of punishment, caused the emperor to be smothered with the pillows and bedclothes.]

Indeed the most important transactions of life are now made to depend upon this instrument, though at what period this first began to be the case, I am at a loss to say. It would appear, however, so far as foreign nations are concerned, that we may admit the importance attached to it, from the days of Polycrates, [This famous and somewhat improbable story of the ring of Polycrates is told by Valerius Maximus, B. vi. c. 9; Herodotus, B. iii.; and Cicero, De Finibus, B. iv. Pliny again mentions it in B. xxxvii. cc.,.] the tyrant of Samos, whose favourite ring, after being thrown in the sea, was recovered from a fish that was caught; and this Polycrates, we know, was put to death [He was crucified by Oroetes, the Persian satrap of Sardis.] about the year of our City, 230. The use of the ring must, of necessity, have become greatly extended with the increase of usury; one proof of which is, the usage still prevalent among the lower classes, of whipping off the ring [“Anulo exsiliente.”] the moment a simple contract is made; a practice which takes its date, no doubt, from a period when there was no more expeditious method of giving an earnest on closing a bargain. We may therefore very safely conclude, that though money was first introduced among us, the use of rings was introduced very shortly after. Of money, I shall shortly have occasion to speak further. [In Chapter of this Book.]