The Origin of Gold Rings

by Angela Magnotti Andrews In Volume 6 of Natural History, the Roman historian Pliny the Elder includes a section on metals. Chapter 4, titled The Origin of Gold Rings, begins: "The worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring upon his fingers..." Throughout the chapter, Pliny promotes the view that the search for metals, which he calls "actual wealth...undermined as it is beneath our feet...," has proven to be the very undermining of mankind. He propagates the idea that the shifting of the earth is evidence of a Divine Parent's groaning at the immaturity of men, who so swiftly spurn the obvious aid those riches above ground afford (medicinal flora) in favor of luxury items made of copper, silver, and gold, as well as war machines made of iron. He makes a wishful appeal for man to be satisfied with that which can be obtained from the surface of the earth and then delves deep into the details of gold: Where is it found? (deep within the earth) Who first put it to use as a standard of value? (Glaucus, when he "exchanged his arms of gold, valued at one hundred oxen" {p. 71}) How much gold did the "ancient" Romans possess? (2,000 pounds lost from the throne of Jupiter Capitolinus; 13,000 pounds from the triumph of Sylla) Just when did Romans of Pliny's day begin wearing gold rings? (not before the time of Cneius Flavius, more commonly after the Second Punic War) And who wore the first gold ring? (read on) Whereas in previous sections, he has plainly stated the answers to his proposed questions, in this section he appears to be teasing his readers, setting them up for a bold claim that he is not yet ready to make. Instead of telling us who is to blame for the introduction of gold rings in Rome, he goes on to describe all those who were NOT the first. He begins by blowing the myth of Prometheus as the first ring-wearer out of the water. Despite the fact that many discussions on the topic cite Pliny for the proposition that Prometheus was the first, he plainly states that he finds these legends "utterly fabulous," which is best translated to utterly false. He does, however, agree that the ancients used a ring of iron as a symbol of the great deeds of Prometheus, though he believes it was a crude link from his chains of confinement and not a statement of fashion. He goes on to claim that Midas's ring, believed to infer invisibility upon its wearer, was also a fable of epic proportions. From here, he continues to string us along: "It was the hand, and a sinister hand, too, in every sense, that first brought gold into such high repute..." {p. 72}, though not a Roman one, he is quick to add. At this early date of ring wearing, he claims the Romans wore only iron rings to symbolize their "warlike prowess" {p. 72}, reserving gold for other uses. He proposes ring-less statues as evidence that not even the Roman kings were the first to don golden finger bands. Here he offers a tidbit of credible history, as well as an interesting insight into Pliny's ethnocentrism. He mentions that gold rings were first worn in Greece, which firmly places his question as to the origins of the gold ring in the confines of Roman practice only. He goes on to discuss the first gift of a golden bulla (ball), given by Tarquinius Priscus to his son, but still Pliny leaves us in great suspense. Who was this terrible, awful person who unleashed such evil upon the Romans? It wasn't a Roman senator; neither was it a Roman general; and, apparently, Homer makes no mention of a golden ring in his accounts of the Trojan War. This infamous, although as yet unmentioned person, wore the ring on the left hand, inconspicuous and clearly confusing to the historian. He notes how inconvenient this practice would have been, since Romans of that time used their left hands to heft their shields. In what appears to be a deviation of topic, in the very last sentence of this section, Pliny writes, "We find mention made too, in Homer, of men wearing gold plaited with the hair..." {p. 75}. And then comes his most unsatisfactory, yet telling, conclusion, which even he admits is really no conclusion at all: "...and hence it is that I am at a loss to say whether the practice first originated with females" {p. 75}. To our modern-day, feminist sensibilities, this is quite possibly an atrocious and deeply unsettling conclusion. Is he really implying that women are to blame for the worst crime against mankind? Perhaps, perhaps not. Further scholarship is required to determine whether the "him who was the first to put a ring upon his fingers" is actually a woman, yet it would not at all be surprising to discover he and she are one in the same. The heavy influence of Greek thought upon the Roman psyche would place woman (viz. Pandora) among the greatest punishments of man, incidentally as a result of the trickery of none other than Prometheus. And given his initial mention of Prometheus (a subtle clue, perhaps?), Pliny would have known well the story of woman's first steps upon the earth, that "deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their great trouble" {*}. Perhaps we will never know who really wore the first gold ring, though if Pliny is correct this person was a Greek and most definitely not a Roman.

*quoted from Hesiod's Theogony (lines 507-616).