the worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring upon his fingers. all the stories told about prometheus, i look upon 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, 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 hand, too, in every sense, that first brought gold into such high repute: not a roman hand, 255 however, for upon that it was the practice to wear a ring of iron only, 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, a country from which the use of gold rings was first introduced; though even at the present day the people of laced?mon are in the habit of wearing rings made of iron. tarquinius priscus was the first who presented his son with the golden bulla, on the occasion of his slaying an enemy before he had laid aside the pr?texta; 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. such being the case, i am the more surprised that the statue of this tarquinius should be without a ring.
rings were given, at the public expense, to those 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 the roman generals celebrated their public triumphs without this distinction. those, too, who had received golden rings on the occasion of an embassy, wore them only when in public, resuming the ring of iron when in their houses. at the present day only an iron ring 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 256 mentions them; for although he speaks of the practice of sending tablets by way of letters, of clothes and gold and silver plate being kept laid up in chests, 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.
it was the custom at first to wear rings on a single finger, the one 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 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 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!
