Читать книгу The Book of the Pearl - George Frederick Kunz - Страница 9

Table of Contents

I’ll set thee in a shower of gold, and hail

Rich pearls upon thee.

Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, sc. 5.

The popularity of pearls in Rome has its counterpart in the Empire of the East at Byzantium or Constantinople on its development in wealth and luxury after becoming the capital of that empire in 330 A.D. Owing to its control of the trade between Asia and Europe, and the influence of oriental taste and fashion, enormous collections were made; and for centuries after Rome had been pillaged, this capital was the focus of all the arts, and pearls were the favorite ornaments. The famous mosaic in the sanctuary of San Vitale at Ravenna, shows Justinian (483–565) with his head covered with a jeweled cap, and the Empress Theodora wearing a tiara encircled by three rows of pearls, and strings of pearls depend therefrom almost to the waist. In many instances the decorations of the emperors excelled even those of the most profligate of Roman rulers. An examination of the coins, from those of Arcadius in 395 to the last dribble of a long line of obscure rulers when the city was captured and pillaged by Venetian and Latin adventurers in 1204, shows in the form of diadems, collars, necklaces, etc., the great quantity of pearls worn by them. The oldest existing crown in use at the present time, the Hungarian crown of St. Stephen, which is radiant with pearls, is of Byzantine workmanship.

Outside of Constantinople, the demand and fashion for pearls did not cease with the downfall of the Roman Empire and the spoliation of Rome in the fifth century. The treasures accumulated there, and the gems and jewels, were carried away by the conquering Goths and scattered among the great territorial lords of western and northern Europe.

In the ancient cities of Gaul, in Toulouse and Narbonne, the Ostrogoth and the Visigoth kings collected enormous treasures. The citadel of Carcassonne held magnificent spoils brought from the sacking of Rome in 410 by Alaric, king of the Ostrogoths, consisting in part of jewels from the Temple, these having been carried to Rome after the spoliation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Several beautiful objects of this and somewhat later periods are yet in existence, notably the Visigothic crowns and crosses, in the Musée de l’Hôtel de Cluny, Paris, the most beautiful of which are probably the crown and the cross of Reccesvinthus.^[23]

Even as the treasures of Rome were despoiled by the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, so, later, their collections were depleted by the military operations of the Franks, when Narbonne was pillaged; when Toulouse was sacked by Clovis, or Chlodowig, in 507; when the churches of Barcelona and Toledo were despoiled by Childebert in 531 and 542; and by various expeditions in succeeding years.

The military triumphs of the Franks placed them in the highest rank among the peoples of Europe, in the sixth and seventh centuries, in the possession of treasures of jewels which enriched their palaces and great churches. And the taste which the triumphs of war had developed was maintained by the trade carried on by the Jewish and Syrian merchants. The inhabitants of Gaul were extremely fond of objects of art, of rich costumes, and of personal decorations; and the courts of some of the early kings rivaled in magnificence those of oriental monarchs. Especially was this true during the reign of King Dagobert (628–638), who competed in splendor with the rulers of Persia and India. His skilful jeweler, Eligius (588–659), was raised to the bishopric of Noyon, and eventually—under the name of St. Eloi—became one of the most popular saints in Gaul. Under direction of this artistic bishop, the ancient churches received shrines, vestments, and reliquaries superbly decorated with pearls and other gems. Indeed, for several centuries following the time of Eligius, the greatest treasures of jewels seem to have been collected in the churches.

The use of gems in enriching regalia, vestments, and reliquaries in Europe, advanced greatly during the reign of Charlemagne (768–814); and princes and bishops competed with each other in the magnificence of their gifts to the churches, sacrificing their laical jewels for the sacred treasures. Few of the great ornaments of Charlemagne’s time are now in existence in the original form. Doubtless the most remarkable pieces are the sacred regalia of the great emperor, preserved among the imperial treasures in Vienna.

FRONT COVER OF ASHBURNHAM MANUSCRIPT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS

From the ninth century. One quarter of the actual dimensions.

Owned by J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.

An artistic use for pearls at that time was in the rich and elegant bindings of the splendidly written missals and chronicles, finished in the highest degree of excellence and at vast expense. An artist might devote his whole life to completing a single manuscript, so great was the detail and so exquisite the finish. Vasari states that Julio Clovio devoted nine years to painting twenty-six miniatures in the Breviary of the Virgin now in the royal library at Naples. The library at Rouen has a large missal on which a monk of St. Andoen is said to have labored for thirty years. These books were among the most valued possessions of the churches, and their bindings were enriched with gold and pearls and colored stones. The wealthy churches had many such volumes; Gregory of Tours states that from Barcelona in 531 A.D. Childebert brought twenty “evangeliorum capsas” of pure gold set with gems. Several of these superbly bound volumes are yet in existence, in the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice; in the treasury of the cathedral at Milan; among the imperial Russian collections in the Ourejenaya Palata at Moscow, etc.; and they furnish probably the most reliable examples of artistic jewel work of the Dark Ages.

The most remarkable specimen of these books in America is doubtless the Ashburnham manuscript of the Four Gospels, now owned by J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq., which affords an interesting example of the jeweler’s art. For many centuries it belonged to the Abbey of the Noble Canonesses, founded, in 834, at Lindau, on Lake Constance. After an extended examination, Mr. Alexander Nesbit concluded that the rich cover of the manuscript was probably made between 896 and 899 by order of Emperor Arnulf of the Carolingian dynasty. Most of the ninety-eight pearls appear to be from fresh water, and probably all of them were obtained from the rivers of Europe. This is one of the few remaining pieces of the magnificent ecclesiastical jeweling of that period.

After the death of Charlemagne, internal dissensions, separations and the division of the Empire into the nations of Europe, annihilated commerce, oppressed the people, and impoverished the arts. In the ninth century, the Normans pillaged many of the palaces and churches in Angoulême, Tours, Orléans, Rouen, and Paris, and destroyed or carried away large treasures. The tenth and the eleventh centuries were indeed the Dark Ages in respect to the cultivation of the arts; yet even during that period the churches of western Europe received many gems from penitent and fear-stricken subjects. The heart of man, filled with the love of God, laid its earthly treasure upon the altar in exchange for heavenly consolation. Pious faith dedicated pearls to the glorification of the ritual; altars, statues, and images of the saints, priestly vestments, and sacred vessels, were surcharged with them. The great museums and the imperial collections contain some beautiful and highly venerated objects of this nature.

In the meantime pearls of small size and of fair luster had been collected in the rivers of Scotland, Ireland, and France, the headwaters of the Danube, and in the countries north thereof. In England, as noted in the preceding chapter, they were obtained by Cæsar’s invading legions, who carried many to Rome. Ancient coins indicate that pearls formed the principal ornament of the simple crowns worn by the early kings of Britain previous to Alfred the Great.

The river pearls were not so beautiful as oriental ones; but, owing to the ease with which they were obtained, they were employed more extensively and especially in ecclesiastical decorations, the principal use for pearls from the eighth to the eleventh century. Apparently authentic specimens of fresh-water pearls of an early period are the four now in the coronation spoon of the English regalia, which is attributed to the twelfth century.

From the most ancient times until the overthrow of the Roman Empire, practically the only use for pearls was ornamental; but after the eighth century there developed a new employment for these as well as for other gems. Natural history was little studied in Europe from the ninth to the fourteenth century, except for the effect which its subjects had in medicine and magic, which were closely allied. Largely through Arabic influence, the practice of medicine had developed into administering most whimsical remedies, among which gems, and especially pearls, played a prominent part, and belief in the influence of these was as strong as in that of the heavenly bodies. For this application, large demands had arisen for pearls, which seem to have been prescribed for nearly every ill to which the flesh was heir. On account of their cheapness, the small ones—seed-pearls—were used principally; though larger ones were preferred by persons who could afford them. While many of these so-called medicinal pearls were obtained from the Orient, most of them were secured from the home streams in the north of Europe and in the British Isles.

After the decadence of Roman power in the East, the rulers of India and Persia, through their control of the fisheries, again accumulated enormous quantities of pearls. All of the early travelers to those countries were astonished at the lavish display of these gems in decorative costume.

The manuscript of Renaudot’s two Mohammedans, who visited India and China in the ninth century, notes that the kings of the Indies were rich in ornaments, “yet pearls are what they most esteem, and their value surpasses that of all other jewels; they hoard them up in their treasures with their most precious things. The grandees of the court, the great officers and captains, wear the like jewels in their collars.”^[24]

FRANCIS I, KING OF FRANCE, 1494–1547

Louvre, Paris

ISABELLE DE VALOIS

By Pantoia de la Cruz, Prado Museum, Madrid

Inventories of some of the oriental collections of later times seem to be extravagant fiction rather than veritable history. In that interesting book dictated in a Genoese prison to Rusticiano da Pisa, accounts are given by Marco Polo of great treasures seen by the first Europeans to penetrate into China. He describes the king of Malabar as wearing suspended about his neck a string of 104 large pearls and rubies of great value, which he used as a rosary. Likewise on his legs were anklets and on his toes were rings, all thickly set with costly pearls, the whole “worth more than a city’s ransom. And ’tis no wonder he hath great store of such gear; for they are found in his kingdom. No one is permitted to remove therefrom a pearl weighing more than half a saggio. The king desires to reserve all such to himself, and so the quantity he has is almost incredible.”^[25]

Later travelers give wonderful descriptions of this excessive passion for pearls. Literature is full of this appreciation, and of the part which these gems played in the affairs of the Orientals. Who has not dwelt with delight upon those imperishable legends such as are embodied in the Arabian Nights, of the pearl voyages by Sindbad the Sailor, of the wonderful treasure chests, and of the superb necklaces adorning the beautiful black-eyed women!

The returning Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the development of the knightly orders, had much to do with spreading through Europe a fondness for pearls in personal decoration. Those who, like Chaucer’s knight, had been with Peter, King of Cyprus, at the capture and plunder when “Alexandria was won,” returned to their homes with riches of pearls and gold and precious stones. And learning much relative to decorative art from Moorish craftsmen, the jewelers of western Europe set these in designs not always crude and ineffective.

Although they were well known and valued, pearls do not seem to have been much used in England before the twelfth century, as the Anglo-Saxons were not an especially art-loving people. The word itself is of foreign derivation and occurs in a similar form in all modern languages, both Romance and Teutonic; perle, French and German; perla, Italian, Portuguese, Provençal, Spanish, and Swedish; paarl, Danish and Dutch. Its origin is doubtful. Some philologists consider it Teutonic and the diminutive of beere, a berry; Claude de Saumaise derives it from pirula, the diminutive of pirum, a sphere; while Diez and many others refer it to pira or to the medieval Latin pirula, in allusion to the pear shape frequently assumed by the pearl.^[26]

The word pearl seems to have come into general use in the English language about the fourteenth century. In Wyclif’s translation of the Scriptures (about 1360), he commonly used the word margarite or margaritis, whereas Tyndale’s translation (1526) in similar places used the word perle. Tyndale translated Matt. xiii. 46: “When he had founde one precious pearle”; Wyclif used “oo preciouse margarite.” Also in Matt. vii. 6, Tyndale wrote, “Nether caste ye youre pearles before swyne”; yet Wyclif used “margaritis,” although twenty years later he expressed it “putten precious perlis to hoggis.” Langland’s Piers Plowman (1362), XI, 9, wrote this: “Noli mittere Margeri perles Among hogges.” The oldest English version of Mandeville’s Travels, written about 1400, contained the expression: “The fyn Perl congeles and wexes gret of the dew of hevene”; but in 1447, Bokenham’s “Seyntys” stated: “A margerye perle aftyr the phylosophyr Growyth on a shelle of lytyl pryhs”; and Knight de la Tour (about 1450) stated: “The sowle is the precious marguarite unto God.”

The word is given “perle” in the earliest manuscripts of those old epic poems of the fourteenth century, “Pearl” and “Cleanness,” which have caused so much learned theological discussion and which testify to the great love and esteem in which the gem was held. The first stanza of “Pearl” we quote from Gollancz’s rendition:

Pearl! fair enow for princes’ pleasance,

so deftly set in gold so pure,—

from orient lands I durst avouch,

ne’er saw I a gem its peer,—

so round, so comely-shaped withal,

so small, with sides so smooth,—

where’er I judged of radiant gems,

I placed my pearl supreme.^[27]

The fourteenth-century manuscript in the British Museum gives this as follows:

Perle plesaunte to prynces paye,

To clanly clos in gold so clere,

Oute of oryent I hardyly saye,

Ne proved I never her precios pere,—

So rounde, so reken in uche a raye,

So smal, so smothe her sydez were,—

Queresoever I jugged gemmez gaye,

I sette hyr sengeley in synglere.

And from a modern rendering of “Cleanness” we quote:

The pearl is praised wherever gems are seen,

though it be not the dearest by way of merchandise.

Why is the pearl so prized, save for its purity,

that wins praise for it above all white stones?

It shineth so bright; it is so round of shape;

without fault or stain; if it be truly a pearl.

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries throughout Europe pearls were very fashionable as personal ornaments, and were worn in enormous quantities; the dresses of men as well as of women were decorated and embroidered with them, and they were noted in nearly every account of a festive occasion, whether it were a marriage, a brilliant tourney, the consecration of a bishop, or the celebration of a victory in battle.

The faceting of crystal gems was not known at that time, and those dependent on artifice for their beauty were not much sought after. Although the diamond had been known from the eighth century, it was not generally treasured as an ornament, and not until long after the invention of cutting in regular facets—about 1450—did it attain its great popularity.

In the Dark Ages, it was customary for princes and great nobles to carry their valuables about with them even on the battle-fields; first, in order to have them always in possession, and second, on account of the mysterious power they attributed to precious stones. Since jewels constituted a large portion of their portable wealth, nobles and knights went into battle superbly arrayed. In this manner the treasures were easily lost and destroyed; consequently, relatively few of the personal ornaments of that period are preserved to the present time.

Among the greatest lovers of pearls in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were the members of the ducal house of Burgundy, and especially Philip the Bold (1342–1404), Philip the Good (1396–1467), and Charles the Bold (1433–77), and some of the gems which they owned are even now treasured in Austria, Spain, and Italy. When Duke Charles the Bold, in the year 1473, attended the Diet of Treves, accompanied by his five thousand splendidly equipped horsemen, he was attired in cloth of gold garnished with pearls, which were valued at 200,000 golden florins.^[28] We are told that “almost a sea of pearls” was on view at the marriage of George the Rich with Hedwig, the daughter of Casimir III of Poland, at Landshut, in 1475. Among the many ornaments was a pearl chaplet valued at 50,000 florins which Duke George wore on his hat, and also a clasp worth 6000 florins.^[29] Members of the related houses of Anjou and Valois also held great collections. Nor in this account should we omit some of the English sovereigns, including especially Richard II (1366–1400), one of the greatest dandies of his day.

During the fifteenth century, enormous quantities of pearls were worn by persons of rank and fashion. A remarkable 1483 portrait of Margaret, wife of James III of Scotland, which is now preserved at Hampton Court, shows her wearing such wonderful pearl ornaments that she might well be called Margaret from her decorations. As this queen was praised for her beauty, we fear the artist has scarcely done justice to her appearance; or possibly since that period tastes have changed as to what on a throne passes for beauty. Her head-dress is undoubtedly the most remarkable pearl decoration which we have seen of that century.

The uxorious and sumptuous Henry VIII of England (1491–1547) spent much of the great wealth accumulated by his penurious father, Henry VII, in enriching the appearance of his semi-barbaric court. In this reign, the spoliation of the Catholic cathedrals and churches contributed many pearls to the royal treasury; and onward from that time, they were prominently displayed among the ornaments of the women of rank in England. Most of the portraits of Henry’s wives show great quantities of these gems; many of them with settings doubtless designed by artistic Hans Holbein the Younger (1497–1543); and during the succeeding reigns the women near the throne were commonly depicted with elaborate pearl decorations.

The cold, unflattering portraits by Holbein of the court celebrities of that period, not only of the gracious women and of the dandified men, but of the clergy as well, show the prominence of pearls. Note his portrait of Jane Seymour, of Anne of Cleves, of Christina of Denmark, and the pearl-incrusted miter of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury.

An interesting story is told of Sir Thomas More, the learned chancellor of Henry VIII, showing his view of the great display of jewels which distinguished the period in which he lived:

His sonne John’s wife often had requested her father-in-law, Sir Thomas, to buy her a billiment sett with pearles. He had often put her off with many pretty slights; but at last, for her importunity, he provided her one. Instead of pearles, he caused white peaze to be sett, so that at his next coming home, his daughter-in-law demanded her jewel. “Ay, marry, daughter, I have not forgotten thee!” So out of his studie he sent for a box, and solemnlie delivered it to her. When she, with great joy, lookt for her billiment, she found, far from her expectation, a billiment of peaze; and so she almost wept for verie griefe.^[30]

Meanwhile, in the yet unknown America, pearls were highly prized, and their magic charm had taken an irresistible hold on aborigines and on the more highly civilized inhabitants of Mexico and Peru. In Mexico the palaces of Montezuma were studded with pearls and emeralds, and the Aztec kings possessed pearls of inestimable value. That they had been collected elsewhere for a long time is evidenced by the large quantities in the recently opened mounds of the Ohio Valley, which rank among the ancient works of man in America. As in the Old World, so in the New, they had been used as decoration for the gods and for the temples, as well as for men and women.

The principal immediate effect of Columbus’s discovery and of the commercial intercourse with the New World, was the great wealth of pearls which enriched the Spanish traders. The natives were found in possession of rich fisheries on the coast of Venezuela, and somewhat later on the Pacific coast of Panama and Mexico, whence Eldorado adventurers returned to Spain with such large collections that—using an old chronicler’s expression—“they were to every man like chaff.” For many years America was best known in Seville, Cadiz, and some other ports of Europe, as the land whence the pearls came. Until the development of the mines in Mexico and Peru, the value of the pearls exceeded that of all other exports combined. Humboldt states that till 1530 these averaged in value more than 800,000 piastres yearly.^[31] And throughout the sixteenth century the American fisheries—prosecuted by the Spaniards with the help of native labor—furnished Europe with large quantities, the records for one year showing imports of “697 pounds’ weight” into Seville alone.

For two centuries following the discovery of America, extravagance in personal decoration was almost unlimited at the European courts, and the pearls exceeded in quantity that of all other gems. Enormous numbers were worn by persons of rank and fortune. This is apparent, not only from the antiquarian records and the historical accounts, but also in the paintings and engravings of that time; portraits of the Hapsburgs, the Valois, the Medicis, the Borgias, the Tudors, and the Stuarts show great quantities of pearls, and relatively few other gems.

Probably the largest treasures were in possession of the Hapsburg family, which furnished so many sovereigns to the Holy Roman Empire, to Austria, and to Spain, and which, by descent through Maria Theresa, continued to rule the Holy Roman Empire until its abolition in 1806, and has since ruled Austria and Hungary.

A number of superb pieces of jewelry owned centuries ago by members of this illustrious family are yet in existence; notably the buckle of Charles V, and especially the imperial crown of Austria, made in 1602 by order of Rudolph II.^[32]

Two great women of that period are noted for their passion for pearls, Catharine de’ Medici (1519–89), and Elizabeth of England (1533–1603). It requires but a glance at almost any of their portraits, wherein they are represented wearing elaborate pearl ornaments, to see to what an extent they carried this fondness. And many other women were not far behind them, among whom were Mary Stuart, Marie de’ Medici, and Henrietta Maria. And not only by the women, but by the men also, pearls were worn to what now seems an extravagant extent. Nearly all the portraits of Francis I (1494–1547), Henry II (1519–59), Charles IX (1550–74), and Henry III (1551–89) of France; of James I (1566–1625), and of Charles I (1600–49) of England, and likewise of other celebrities, show a great pear-shaped pearl in one ear. Many portraits also show pearls on the hats, cloaks, gloves, etc.

When the Duke of Buckingham went to Paris in 1625, to bring over Henrietta Maria to be queen to Charles I, he had, according to an account in the “Antiquarian Repertory,” in addition to twenty-six other suits, “a rich suit of purple satin, embroidered all over with rich orient pearls, the cloak made after the Spanish mode, with all things suitable, the value whereof will be twenty thousand pounds, and this, it is thought, shall be for the wedding day at Paris.”

In the rich and prosperous cities of southern Europe, pearls were no less popular. From its share of the spoils of the Byzantine Empire, after its partition in 1204, pearls and other riches were plentiful in Venice, and they were increased by the rapidly developing trade with the Orient. In the rival maritime cities, Genoa and Pisa, the gem was equally popular; and likewise in Florence “the Beautiful.” When Hercule d’Este sought Lucrezia Borgia (1480–1519) in marriage for his son, her father, Pope Alexander VI, plunging both hands in a box filled with pearls, said: “All these are for her! I desire that in all Italy she shall be the princess with the most beautiful pearls and with the greatest number.”^[33]

Separated by three centuries of time and by the intervening simplicities of puritanism and democracy, it is difficult for us to appreciate the passion for pearls in Europe at that period, which may well be called the Pearl Age.

MARIA THERESA (1717–1780), QUEEN OF HUNGARY

By Martin de Mytens, 1742

The sumptuary laws which prevailed at different times in France, England, Germany, and other countries, did not overlook this extravagance; and an entire volume might be devoted to the efforts to curb the excessive use. In France they were probably most stringent during the reign of Philip IV (1285–1314), of Louis XI (1461–83), of Charles IX (1560–74), of Henry III (1574–89), and of Louis XIII (1610–43). In Germany almost every city had its special restrictions. A sumptuary law of Ulm, in 1345, provided that no married woman or maiden, either among the patricians or the artisans, should wear pearls on her dresses; and another, in 1411, restricted them to “one pearl chaplet,” and this should not exceed twelve loth (half ounce) in weight. A Frankish sumptuary law of 1479 provided that ordinary nobles serving a knight at a tourney should not wear any pearl ornaments, embroidered or otherwise, excepting one string around the cap or hat. The regulations decreed by the Diet of Worms, in 1495, set forth that the citizens who were not of noble birth, and nobles who were not knights, must withhold from the use of gold and pearls. A similar provision was enacted by the Diet of Freiburg in 1498, and likewise by the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which permitted the wives of nobles four silk dresses, but without pearls. In the sumptuary law of Duke John George of Saxony, April 23, 1612, we read: “the nobility are not allowed to wear any dresses of gold or silver, or garnished with pearls; neither shall the professors and doctors of the universities, nor their wives, wear any gold, silver or pearls for fringes, or any chains of pearls, or caps, neck ornaments, shoes, slippers, shawls, pins, etc., with gold or silver or with pearls.” Beadles, burgomasters, and those connected with the law-courts were forbidden to wear chains of pearls and ornaments of precious stones on their dresses, caps, etc., or slippers or chaplets with pearls.

Probably in no place were these laws more stringent than in the art-loving republic of Venice from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. This seems remarkable in view of the fact that this city was largely dependent for its wealth and prominence on commerce with the East, of which pearls constituted a prominent item.

The earliest Venetian restriction that we have found regarding pearls was made in 1299; when, in a decree determining the maximum number of guests at a marriage ceremony and the extent of the bridal trousseau, the grand council of the republic provided that no one but the bride should wear pearl decorations, and she should be permitted only one girdle of them on her wedding dress. This enactment was modified in 1306, but numerous other restrictions were substituted, notably in 1334, 1340, 1360, 1497, and 1562. These differed in many particulars: some forbade ornaments or trimmings of pearls, gold, or silver on the dresses of any women except a member of the Doge’s family; and other enactments required that, after a definite period of married life, no woman should be permitted to wear pearls of any kind. But an examination of the documents and of the paintings of that period shows that these decrees had little effect, and the luxury of the “Queen of the Adriatic” in the use of pearls at the most brilliant epoch in her history is aptly reproduced in the portraits by Giovanni Bellini, Lorenzo Lotto, the great Titian, Tintoretto, Paul Veronese, and other artists of the highest rank. In the engraving by Hendrik Goltzius of a marriage at Venice in 1584, not one of the many women present seems to be without her necklace and earrings of pearls, and some of them have several necklaces.^[34] And the same appears true of the principal female figures in Jost Amman’s noted engraving, “The Espousal of the Sea,” executed in 1565.^[35]

As preservation of the republic became more difficult with declining resources and with the continued growth of dazzling splendor, a resolution in the Senate, dated July 8, 1599, set forth that “the use and price of pearls has become so excessive and increases to such an extent from day to day, that if some remedy is not provided, it will cause injury, disorders, and notable inconvenience to public and private well-being, as each one of this council in his wisdom can very easily appreciate.” And then it was enacted: “That, without repealing the other regulations which absolutely prohibit the wearing of pearls, it shall be expressly enjoined that any woman, whether of noble birth or a simple citizen, or of any other condition, who shall reside in this our city for one year (except her Serenity the Dogaressa and her daughters and her daughters-in-law who live in the palace), after the expiration of fifteen years from the day of her first marriage, shall lay aside the string of pearls around her neck and shall not wear or use, either upon her neck or upon any other part of her person, this string or any other kind of pearls or anything which imitates pearls, neither in this city nor in any other city or place within our dominion, under the irremissible penalty of two hundred ducats.”

And yet ten years later, on May 5, 1609, another law enacted in the Senate stated:

Although in the year 1599 this council decided with great wisdom that married women should be permitted to wear pearls for only fifteen years after their first marriage, nevertheless it is very evident that the desired end has not been attained, and the extravagance has continued up to the present time and still continues with the gravest injury to private persons. Therefore, as it is necessary to remedy, by a new provision, not only this considerable incommodity, but also to prevent in the future the introduction into the city of a greater quantity of pearls than are found here at present, it is enacted, that married women as well as those who shall marry in the future (except the Serene Dogaressa and her daughters and her daughters-in-law living in the palace) of whatever grade and condition they may be, who have resided in this city for one year, cannot wear pearls of any kind except for ten years immediately following the day of their first marriage; and after that period they must lay aside these pearls which they are forbidden to wear on any part of their persons, at home or abroad, and as well in this as in the other cities, lands, and other places of our dominion, under the penalty of two hundred ducats. And if the husband of the offending wife is a noble, he shall be proclaimed in the greater council and declared a debtor to the office of the governors of the revenue in the sum of twenty-five ducats for each fine; and if he is a citizen or of any other condition, besides the penalty of two hundred ducats and the fine of twenty-five ducats above mentioned, he shall be banished for three years from Venice and the Duchy, and the same for each offence. And pearls or anything which imitates pearls, shall be forbidden to all other women, men and boys or girls of every age and condition at all times and in all places, under the same penalty of two hundred ducats. In the future no one shall in any manner bring pearls to this city as merchandise, under the penalty of their seizure and forfeiture. And the merchant shall be imprisoned for five consecutive years; and if he flees, he shall be banished from the city and district of Venice and from all other cities, lands, and places of our dominion for eight consecutive years.... And all who at present have pearls to sell are required to deposit a list of them with the sumptuary office, so as to avoid all fraud which could be practiced in this matter.

A copy of the title-page of this enactment is presented above.

The decrees and edicts were not confined to Venice, or to Italy, France, or Germany; they made their appearance quite generally throughout western and northern Europe and the interdictions of the civil authorities were strengthened by the voice of the bishops and other clergy, especially in the imperial cities of southern Germany. Yet the united authority of church and state was ineffectual in stemming the tide of fashion and personal fancy, and whether or not pearls should be worn became one of the much discussed questions of that period.

To the question, “Whether the statute and regulation of Bishop Tudertinus, who had excommunicated all women who wore pearls, was binding,” Joannes Guidius replied that many denied that this was so, and made the subtle defense that “the women had not accepted it and all had worn pearls, and it was considered that such a law was binding only when it was accepted by those for whom it was intended.”^[36]

And as to the validity of the statutes requiring that women should not wear more than a definite number of pearls, he decided that “such a statute is valid and in itself good. And if the question is put whether every woman who infringes incurs the penalty, an answer may be gathered from the sayings of the doctors, who distinguish between married and unmarried women. They consider that an unmarried woman is obliged to obey the statute and regulation or to incur the penalty. But as to a married woman, if her husband approves, she should obey the statute; if, however, the husband objects, then the wife ought to wish to obey the statute, but in effect she should rather obey her husband, for she is most immediately and strongly bound to do this.”^[37] Aided by such ingenious opinions as these, the women continued to follow their own inclinations notwithstanding the opposition of church and state.

Other fine distinctions were drawn by the lawyers of that day regarding ownership of gems under certain conditions. For instance, it was decided that pearls given by a father to his unmarried daughter remained her property after marriage because “they are given for a reason, namely to induce a marriage”; yet “pearls handed to a wife by her husband are not considered as her property, but must be given to his heirs, since it is supposed that they were given only for her adornment. The same holds good as respects pearls handed to a daughter-in-law by her father-in-law.”^[38]

However, the greed of fashion, which law-makers and bishops could not arrest, was gradually satiated; and, influenced probably by the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, more simple taste prevailed in the latter part of the seventeenth century.

In the meantime, improvements in cutting and polishing had greatly increased the beauty and popularity of diamonds and other crystal gems, and this adversely affected the demand for pearls. Furthermore, cleverly fashioned imitations manufactured at a low cost also served to decrease the relative rank and fashion of the sea-born gems. In the eighteenth century, pearls were relatively scarce; the resources of the American seas were largely exhausted, likewise the Ceylon and Red Sea fisheries were not to be depended on, and practically the entire supply came from the Persian Gulf, with a few from European rivers and the waters of China. As a result, although they continued to be prized by connoisseurs, pearls were not so extensively sought after by the rank and file of jewel purchasers.

It should be noted, however, that from the most ancient times, the princes of India and of Persia have had their pick and choice of the output from Ceylon and the Persian Gulf; and the largest single collections of the Western world have never equaled the possessions of some of those rulers. Some Indian princes have loaded themselves with thousands of pearls, and individual ornaments have been valued not only by oriental, but by European experts, at several millions of dollars.

The great diamond resources of Brazil were discovered in 1727, and after a few years these came on the market at the rate of 140,000 carats annually. At that time ladies of rank did not esteem diamonds so highly as pearls. This distinction was accentuated by Lord Hervey in his account of the coronation, in 1727, of George II and his consort Caroline, who wore not only the great pearl necklace inherited from Queen Anne, but “had on her head and shoulders all the pearls she could borrow of the ladies of quality at one end of the town, and on her petticoat all the diamonds she could hire of the Jews and jewelers at the other; so that the appearance and the truth of her finery was a mixture of magnificence and meanness not unlike the éclat of royalty in many other particulars, when it comes to be nicely considered and its source traced to what money hires or flattery lends.”^[39] In a portrait of Charlotte (1744–1818), wife of George III, the pearls and diamonds appear equally popular.

On the entry of the British into possession of Ceylon in 1796, the fisheries of that country were resumed with great success after thirty years of idleness, resulting in very large outputs for several seasons. But owing to exhaustion of the areas, they were soon reduced, and the yield became small and uncertain.

About 1845, pearls came on the market from the Tuamotu Archipelago and other South Sea islands, and the industry was revived on the Mexican coast. The pearls from these localities are noted for their range of coloration, and particularly for the very dark shades, black or greenish black being especially prominent. But the fashion, and thus, necessarily, the demand, had always been for white and yellow pearls; consequently, these black ones were of little value in the markets until about ten years later, when they became fashionable in Europe largely through their popularity with Empress Eugénie of France, then at the height of her power. To this queen, pearls owe much of their high rank in fashion in the nineteenth century; and on her head they were royal gems royally worn, as appears from Winterhalter’s portrait of her, showing her magnificent necklace.

The discovery of the resources on the Australian coast about 1865, and the development of the fishery there for mother-of-pearl, resulted in many large white pearls coming from that coast. The search was confined to the relatively shoal waters, until the introduction of diving-suits about 1880. The use of these facilitated a considerable extension of the fisheries not only on the Australian coast, but also in Mexico, the Malay Archipelago, several of the South Sea islands, and some minor localities.

In America, few jewels were worn previous to the Civil War, owing to the absence of great wealth and to the simplicity of taste in personal decorations. The rapid increase in wealth and luxury, on the termination of that war, resulted in a great demand for gems, and the most brilliant and showy ones were selected, especially diamonds. This demand was the more readily supplied by the discovery of the South African mines, with their great yield from 1870 to the present time. So popular did that gem become that many a young man invested his first earnings in a “brilliant,” and an enormous diamond in the shirt-front became the caricatured emblem of a prosperous hotel clerk.

But in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, in Europe, as well as in America and elsewhere where gems are worn, luxury found in pearls a refinement, associated with richness and beauty, exceeding that of diamonds and other crystal gems, and in the last few years they have taken the highest rank among jewels. This change in fashion and the increase in wealth among the people developed vastly greater demands and consequently very much higher prices. These have resulted in greatly extending the field of search, and during the last two or three decades many new territories have been brought into production.

By far the most important of these new regions is the Mississippi Valley in America, the pearl resources of which were made known about a score of years ago. As the exploitation developed, the gems from these streams added very largely to the supply, especially of the baroque or irregular pearls, which have increased greatly in fashion in the last ten years.