Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

THE BOOK OF

THE PEARL

THE CZARINA OF RUSSIA

THE BOOK OF
THE PEARL
THE HISTORY, ART, SCIENCE, AND INDUSTRY OF THE QUEEN OF GEMS

BY

GEORGE FREDERICK KUNZ, A.M., Ph.D.

AND

CHARLES HUGH STEVENSON, LL.M., D.C.L.

Orient pearls fit for a queen

Will I give thy love to win,

And a shell to keep them in.

—The Faithful Shepherdess (1611)

NEW YORK

THE CENTURY CO.

1908

Copyright, 1908, by

The Century Co.

Published October, 1908

THE DE VINNE PRESS

TO

MARGARET, THE PEARL

AS A SLIGHT MARK OF APPRECIATION BY THE AUTHORS OF HER FATHER’S GENEROUS ENCOURAGEMENT OF SCIENCE, ART, ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, AND LITERATURE

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS

INTRODUCTION

The preparation of this book has been a joint labor during the spare moments of the two authors, whose time has been occupied with subjects to which pearls are not wholly foreign—one as a gem expert, and the other in the fisheries branch of the American government. But for the views and expressions contained herein, they alone are personally responsible, and do not represent or speak for any interest whatever. For many years the writers have collected data on the subject of pearls, and have accumulated all the obtainable literature, not only the easily procurable books, but likewise manuscripts, copies of rare volumes, original edicts, and legislative enactments, thousands of newspaper clippings, and interesting illustrations, many of them unique, making probably the largest single collection of data in existence on this particular subject. It was deemed advisable to present the results of these studies and observations in one harmonious volume, rather than in two different publications. This publication is not a pioneer in an untrodden field. As may be seen from the appended bibliography, during the last two thousand years hundreds of persons have discussed pearls—mystically, historically, poetically, and learnedly. Among the older writers who stand out with special prominence in their respective periods are the encyclopedist Pliny, in the first century A.D.; Oviedo and Peter Martyr of the sixteenth century; the physician Anselmus De Boot, and that observant traveler and prince of jewelers, Tavernier, in the seventeenth century. It would be difficult to do justice to the many writers of the nineteenth century and of the present time; but probably most attention has been attracted by the writings of Hessling and Möbius of Germany; Kelaart, Streeter, Herdman, and Hornell of Great Britain; Filippi of Italy, and Seurat and Dubois of France. While the book is a joint work in the sense that each writer has contributed material to all of the chapters and has critically examined and approved the entire work, the senior author has more closely applied himself to the latter half of the text, covering antiquity values, commerce, wearing manipulation, treatment, famous collections, aboriginal use, and the illustrations, while the junior author has attended to the earlier half of the book, with reference to history, origin, sources, fisheries, culture, mystical properties, and the literature of the pearl.

The senior author has had exceptionally favorable opportunities to examine the precious objects contained in the various imperial and royal treasuries. Through the courtesy of the late Count Sipuigine, Court Chamberlain, and of the late General Philamanoff, custodian of the Ourejena Palata, he was permitted to critically examine the Russian crown jewels in the Summer Palace on the Neva, and in the Palata in the Kremlin, at Moscow, he examined the crowns and jewels of all the early czars. Through the courtesy of Baron von Theile, he was permitted to inspect carefully and in detail the wonderful jewels of the Austrian crown, which are beautifully ordered and arranged. The English and Saxon crown jewels were also seen under favorable conditions which permitted detailed examination, and the jewel collections of almost all the principal museums of Europe and America were carefully studied. As regards the literature of the subject, the senior author has gathered together the largest known existing collection of works treating of pearls and precious stones.

In covering so comprehensive a subject, many obligations have been incurred from individuals and officials, to whose courtesy and assistance is due much of the interest of this work. To list all of these is impossible, yet it would be ungrateful not to note the following: her Majesty Queen Margherita of Italy; his Royal Highness the Gaikwar of Baroda; to H. R. H. le Prince Ruprecht of Bavaria, of Munich; to the late Prince Sipuigine, then chamberlain of the Russian Imperial Appanages; to Sir Edward Robert Pearce Edgcumbe for data relative to fisheries of East Africa; Dr. H. C. Bumpus, director of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, for many courtesies in regard to materials and illustrations; Sir Caspar Purdon Clarke, director, Dr. Edward Robinson, assistant director, J. H. Buck, curator of Metal-work, and A. G. St. M. D’Hervilly, assistant curator of Paintings, all of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for numerous courtesies; Archer M. Huntington, founder of the Hispanic Society and Museum in New York City; Dr. Bashford Dean, Prof. Friedrich Hirth, Chinese professor, Dr. Berthold Laufer, Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson, professor of Indo-Iranian languages, and Prof. M. H. Saville, all of Columbia University, New York City; J. Pierpont Morgan, for the right to publish the illustration of Ashburnham missal; Dr. W. Hayes Ward, Assyriologist; Dr. Charles S. Braddock, formerly Chief of Medical Inspection for the King of Siam; Robert Hoe, for the two plates of unique Persian illustrations from his manuscripts; Edmund Russell, for East Indian material; F. Cunliffe-Owen, the author of diplomatic subjects; Ten Broeck Morse; Walter Joslyn; Stansbury Hagar; Henri de Morgan, explorer; Dr. Nathaniel L. Britton, director New York Botanical Garden, J. H. Lawles, and Ludwig Stross, for many courtesies; Miss M. de Barril and Miss Belle da Costa Greene, all of New York; Dr. Stewart W. Culin, of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences; the Contessa Casa Cortez, for Peruvian information, of Brooklyn; Dr. Charles B. Davenport, of the Carnegie Institution Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor; Arthur C. Parker, archæologist, State Museum, Albany, N. Y.; A. S. Clark, antiquarian, Peekskill, N. Y.; Dr. Richard Rathbun, assistant secretary, Dr. Cyrus Adler, curator, Dr. Otis S. Mason, curator of Ethnology, all of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr. S. W. Stratton, chief of the Bureau of Standards; Miss E. R. Scidmore; Gilbert H. Grosvenor, editor, National Geographic Magazine; Hon. William Eleroy Curtis; his Excellency Enrique C. Creel, Embajador de Mexico, and James T. Archbold, war correspondent, all of Washington, D. C.; Prof. W. P. Wilson, director Philadelphia Commercial Museum, Clarence B. Moore, Academy of Natural Sciences, and T. Louis Comparette, curator Numismatic Collection, U. S. Mint, all of Philadelphia; Prof. Henry Montgomery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Dr. Warren K. Moorehead, archæologist, Andover, Mass.; H. D. Story, and Theo. M. Davis, curators of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; Miss Mathilde Laigle of Wellesley College; Prof. F. W. Putnam and Alfred M. Tozzer, Peabody Museum of Archæology, Cambridge, Mass.; Prof. Edward S. Morse, Salem, Mass.; Dr. Hiram Bingham, Yale University; W. E. Frost, Providence, R. I.; Dr. Edgar J. Banks, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; Hon. F. J. V. Skiff, director, for several photographs of museum material, and Dr. George A. Dorsey, curator of Anthropology of the Field Columbian Museum; Dr. A. R. Crook, curator of the Museum of Natural History, Springfield, Ill.; Richard Hermann, director Hermann Museum, Dubuque, Ia.; Charles Russell Orcutt, San Diego, Cal.; David I. Bushnell, St. Louis, Mo.; Dr. J. H. Stanton, Prairie du Chien, Wis.; Joe Gassett, Clinton, Tenn.; Prof. Wm. C. Mills, University of Ohio, Columbus, O., for material covering the new Ohio mound discoveries; Mrs. Marie Robinson Wright, author and South American traveler, New York City; Miss Helen Woolley of Judson College, Alabama; Prof. Dr. Eugene Hussak, Rio Janeiro; Hon. George E. Anderson, Consul General of the United States, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Señor L. E. Bonilla, Consul General of Colombia; Madam Zelia Nuttall, Coyoacan, Mexico; Prof. Waldstein, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England; Dr. O. F. Bell, assistant keeper Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Dr. Stephen W. Bushell, Chinese authority; Lady Christopher Johnston, Dr. William F. Petrie, University College, Dr. Charles Hercules Read, director of the department of Archæology, British Museum, for illustrations and data; Cyril Davenport, antiquarian writer of the British Museum, for the illustration of the English crown, and crown information; to Sir John Evans, late veteran archæologist and writer; Thomas Tyrer, chemist, W. Talbot Ready, A. W. Feaveryear, E. Alfred Jones, author on metal-work, Edwin W. Streeter, all of London, England; Prof. H. P. Blackmore, curator Blackmore Museum, Salisbury, England; Dr. Thos. Gann, Harrogate, England; Prof. Arthur E. Shipley, Cambridge, England; Dr. Wilfred Grenfell, Labrador; T. W. Lyster, librarian of the National Library of Ireland, Prof. R. F. Scharff, director of the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, W. Forbes Hourie, all of Ireland; Mr. James Hornell, Dr. W. A. Herdmann, all on information concerning the Ceylon fisheries; Prof. James M. Milne, Belfast, Ireland; David MacGregor, Perth, Scotland; Joseph Baer & Co., Frankfurt, Germany; Herrn C. W. Kesseller, Idar, Germany; Prof. Dr. Carl Sapper, University of Tübingen, Germany; Geheimrath Prof. Dr. Max Bauer, University of Marburg, Germany; Herrn Prof. Dr. Hofer, director Biologische Versuchsstation, Munich; Herrn Ernst Gideon Bek, Pforzheim, Germany; Hon. Albert H. Michelsen, American Consul at Turin; Sabbatino De Angelis, of Naples, Italy; Mons. Alphonse Falco, of the Chambre Syndicale Pierres Précieuses of Paris; Prof. A. Lacroix, Musée Histoire Naturale, Paris; Mons. Georges Pellisier, Paris; Sr. Gaston J. Vives, La Paz, Mexico; Prof. R. Dubois, Faculté des Sciences, University of Lyons, France; Prof. P. Candias, director of the National Museum, Athens, Greece; Prof. G. A. F. Molengraaff, University of Delft, Holland; the late Prof. Dr. Furtwängler of Munich; Dr. Otto Leiner, Custus Landes-Museum at Constanz, Baden; Herrn Dr. A. B. Meyer, Herrn Carl Marfels, Berlin; Prof. Dr. H. Schumacher, University of Bonn; Geheimrath C. F. Hintze, Breslau; Herrn R. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin; Herrn Reg.-Rath Dr. W. von Seidlitz, Dresden; Dr. R. Jacobi, director König Zoologichen Museum, Dresden, Germany; his Excellency Dr. Szalaz, director Hungarian National Museum; Dr. S. Radischi, director National Industrial Museum of Budapest; and to Herrn A. B. Bachrach, Budapest, Hungary; Frau Melanie Glazer, of Prague, and Herrn V. Fric, Prague, Bohemia; Herrn Prof. Dr. F. Heger, Custus Imperial Archæological Collection, Vienna; Herrn H. von Willer and Herrn Max Zirner, of Vienna; Herrn Leopold Weininger, the artisan goldsmith of Austria, for many courtesies; Prof. W. Vernadskij, University of Moscow; Mons. C. Faberje, Joaillier de la Cour, St. Petersburg, Russia; his Excellency Baron P. Meyerdorff, assistant director, Musée des Antiques, Ermitage Impériale, St. Petersburg, for important data and illustrations; his Excellency N. J. Moore, Premier, Western Australia; Dr. K. Van Dort, engineer of Bankok, Siam; Dr. J. Henry Burkill, of the India Museum, Calcutta, India; Alphaeus E. Williams, manager of the De Beers Mine, Kimberley; Capt. E. L. Steever, District Governor of Jolo, Philippine Islands; Dr. T. Nishikawa, Zoölogical Institute; K. Mikimoto, both of Tokio, Japan; Dr. S. M. Zwemer of Bahrein, Persian Gulf; Mr. Hugh Millman of Thursday Island, Australia; Julius D. Dreher, American Consul at Tahiti, Society Islands; and not least, by any means, the uniform promptness and completeness with which the officials of the British Colonial Service have responded to the many inquiries which the writers have addressed to them.

The Authors.

September, 1908.

I

PEARLS AMONG THE ANCIENTS

THE BOOK OF THE PEARL

I
PEARLS AMONG THE ANCIENTS

The richest merchandise of all, and the most soveraigne commoditie throughout the whole world, are these pearles.

Pliny, Historia naturalis.

Lib. IX, c. 35.

Perfected by nature and requiring no art to enhance their beauty, pearls were naturally the earliest gems known to prehistoric man. Probably the members of some fish-eating tribe—maybe of the coast of India or bordering an Asiatic river—while opening mollusks for food, were attracted by their luster. And as man’s estimation of beauty developed, he found in them the means of satisfying that fondness for personal decoration so characteristic of half-naked savages, which has its counterpart amid the wealth and fashion of the present day.

Pearls seem to be peculiarly suggestive of oriental luxury and magnificence. It is in the East that they have been especially loved, enhancing the charms of Asiatic beauty and adding splendor to barbaric courts celebrated for their display of costume. From their possession of the rich pearl resources it is natural that the people of India and of Persia should have early found beauty and value in these jewels, and should have been among the first to collect them in large quantities. And no oriental divinity, no object of veneration has been without this ornament; no poetical production has lacked this symbol of purity and chastity.

In a personal memorandum, Dr. A. V. Williams Jackson, professor of Indo-Iranian languages in Columbia University, states that it is generally supposed that the Vedas, the oldest sacred books of the Brahmans, contain several allusions to pearl decorations a millennium or more before the Christian era, as the word krisana and its derivatives—which occur a half dozen times in the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas—are generally translated as signifying “pearl.” Even if this interpretation of the term be called into question on the ground that the Hindus of the Panjab were not well acquainted with the sea, there can be little or no doubt that the Atharvaveda, at least five hundred years before the Christian era, alludes to an amulet made of pearls and used as a sort of talisman in a hymn[^[1]] of magic formulas.

Those two great epics of ancient India, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, refer to pearls. The Ramayana speaks of a necklace of twenty-seven pearls, and has pearl drillers to accompany a great military expedition.[^[2]] An old myth recounts the offerings made by the elements as gifts worthy of the deity: the air offered the rainbow, the fire a meteor, the earth a ruby, and the sea a pearl. The rainbow formed a halo about the god, the meteor served as a lamp, the ruby decorated the forehead, and the pearl was worn upon the heart.

The literature of Hinduism frequently associates the pearl with Krishna, the eighth avatar or incarnation of Vishnu, the most popular god of Hindu worship. One legend credits its discovery to the adorable Krishna, who drew it from the depths of the sea to adorn his daughter Pandaïa on her nuptial day. Another version makes the pearl a trophy of the victory of Krishna over the monster Pankagna, and it was used by the victor as a decoration for his bride.

In the classic period of Sanskrit literature, about the first century of the Christian era, there were abundant references to pearls, generally called mukta (literally “the pure”); and there are dozens of words for pearl necklaces, circlets, strings, and ornamental festoons, particularly in the dramas of Kalidasa—the Hindu Shakspere, who lived about the third century A.D.—and of his successors.

In the Mahavansa and the Dipavansa, the ancient chronicle histories of Ceylon in the Pali language, are several early Cingalese records of pearl production and estimation.[^[3]] The Mahavansa lists pearls among the native products sent from Ceylon about 550 B.C., King Wijayo sending his father-in-law gifts of pearls and chanks to the value of two lacs of rupees; and notes that about 300 B.C., several varieties of Ceylon pearls were carried as presents by an embassy to India.

Ancient Chinese crown with pearls

Ancient Chinese pearl rosary

Chinese priests keeping guard over the tombs of the kings, in Mukden, where the crowns are preserved

In the ancient civilization of China, pearls were likewise esteemed; this is evidenced by the frequent mention of them in traditional history, their employment in the veneration of idols, and as tribute by foreign princes to the emperor. One of the very earliest of books, the Shu King (dating from about 2350–625 B.C.), notes that, in the twenty-third century B.C., Yü received as tribute oyster pearls from the river Hwai, and from the province of King Kau he received “strings of pearls that were not quite round.”[^[4]] That ancient Chinese dictionary, the Nh’ya, originating thirty centuries ago, speaks of them as precious jewels found in the province of Shen-si on the western frontier.

Many fantastic theories regarding pearls are to be found in ancient Chinese literature. Some writers credited them as originating in the brain of the fabled dragon; others noted that they were especially abundant during the reign of illustrious emperors, and they were used as amulets and charms against fire and other disasters. Curious allusions were made to pearls so brilliant that they were visible at a distance of nearly a thousand yards, or that rice could be cooked by the light from them. And one found about the beginning of the Christian era, near Yangchow-fu, in the province of Kiang-su, was reported so lustrous as to be visible in the dark at a distance of three miles.

In Persia, the popularity of pearls seems to date from a very early period. Professor Jackson states that if they are not mentioned in the extant fragments of the ancient Zoroastrian literature, the Avesta and the Pahlavi, or by the Middle Persian books from the seventh century B.C. to the ninth century A.D., it is probably a mere accident, due to the character of the work or to the fragmentary condition of the literature; for pearls were well known during that entire period, and seem to be indicated in extant sculptures. The coin and the gem portraits of Persian queens commonly show ear-pendants of these. The remains of a magnificent necklace of pearls and other gems were recently found by J. de Morgan in the sarcophagus of an Achæmenid princess exhumed at Susa or Shushan, the winter residence of the kings of Persia. This necklace, perhaps the most ancient pearl ornament still in existence, dates certainly from not later than the fourth century B.C., and is now preserved in the Persian Gallery of the Louvre.[^[5]] Even if we had no other evidence, it would be natural to assume that the knowledge of pearls was as wide-spread among the Iranians in antiquity as it was among the Hindus, since the Persian Gulf, like the Indian Ocean, has been famous for its fisheries from ancient times.

In the ruins of Babylon no pearls have been found; indeed, it would be surprising if they could survive for so many ages in the relatively moist soil which contains much saltpeter. Inlays of mother-of-pearl and decorations of this material have been secured from the ruins of Bismaya, which Dr. Edgar J. Banks refers to about 4500 B.C.

There is likewise little evidence that pearls were extensively employed by the ancient Assyrians, notwithstanding that excavations at Nineveh and Nimrud have furnished much information regarding their ornaments; and the collars, bracelets, sword-hilts, etc., wrought in gold and ornamented with gems, show that the jewelers’ art had made much progress. This is not wholly trustworthy as determining the relative abundance; for being of organic or non-mineral origin, pearls would not have survived the burial for thousands of years so well as the crystal gems. An inscription on the Nineveh Obelisk, which states, according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, that in the ninth year of his reign Temenbar received, as “tribute of the kings of the Chaldees, gold, silver, gems, and pearls,”[^[6]] shows that the sea-born gems were highly valued there.

The mother-of-pearl shell was in use as an ornament in ancient Egypt certainly as early as the sixth dynasty (circa 3200 B.C.), the period of the Tanis Sphinx. In a recent letter from Luxor, where he is studying the ruins of ancient Thebes, Dr. James T. Dennis states that he has found several of these shells bearing cartouches of that period; and in the “pan-bearing graves” of the twelfth dynasty (2500 B.C.), the shell occurred not only complete, but cut in roughly circular or oblong angular blocks and strung on chains with beads of carnelian, pottery, etc.

So far as can be determined from the representations of ancient Egyptian costumes, pearls do not seem to have been employed to any great extent in their decoration. The necklaces, earrings, and other jewels found in the tombs, which are composed largely of gold set with crystal gems, contain the remains of a few pearls, but give no indication that they were numerous. In fact, no evidence exists that they were used extensively before the Persian conquest in the fifth century B.C.; and probably it was not until the time of the Ptolemies that there began the lavish abundance which characterized the court of Alexandria at the height of her power.

The authorities differ in regard to the mention of pearls in ancient Hebrew literature; although in the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, this significance has been given to the word gabîsh in Job xxviii. 18, where the value of wisdom is contrasted with that of gabîsh. Some writers claim that this word refers to rock crystal. Other authorities are of the opinion that the word peninim in Lam. iv. 7, which has been translated as “rubies,” actually signifies pearls. In Gen. ii. 12, Prof. Paul Haupt has proposed to render shoham stones by pearls, since the Hebrew word translated “onyx,” if connected with the Assyrian sându, might mean “the gray gem.” It does not appear that they entered into the decorations of the Tabernacle and the Temple, or were largely employed in the paraphernalia of the synagogue.

In the New Testament, however, there are numerous references to the estimation in which pearls were held. In his teachings, Christ repeatedly referred to them as typifying something most precious: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it” (Matt. xiii. 45, 46); and in “casting pearls before swine,” in that great Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 6). In picturing the glories of the Heavenly City, St. John made the twelve gates of pearls (Rev. xxi. 21); and what could better serve as portals through the walls of precious stones?

In the Talmud, pearls are frequently mentioned, and usually as signifying something beautiful or very costly, as “a pearl that is worth thousands of zuzim” (Baba Batra, 146a); a “pearl that has no price” (Yerushalmi, ix. 12d); the coats which God made for Adam and Eve were “as beautiful as pearls” (Gen. R. xx. 12), and the manna was “as white as a pearl” (Yoma, 75a). Their purchase formed one of the exceptions to the law of Ona’ah (overcharge), for the reason that two matched pearls greatly exceeded the value of each one separately (Baba Mezi’a, iv. 8).

The high value attached to pearls by the ancient Hebrews is illustrated by a beautiful Rabbinical story in which only one object in nature is ranked above them. On approaching Egypt, Abraham hid Sarah in a chest, that foreign eyes might not behold her beauty. When he reached the place for paying custom dues, the collectors said, “Pay us the custom”; and he replied, “I will pay your custom.” They said to him, “Thou carriest clothes”; and he stated, “I will pay for clothes.” Then they said to him, “Thou carriest gold”; and he answered, “I will pay for gold.” On this they said to him, “Surely thou bearest the finest silk”; and he replied, “I will pay custom for the finest silk.” Then said they, “Truly it must be pearls that thou takest with thee”; and he answered, “I will pay for pearls.” Seeing that they could name nothing of value for which the patriarch was not willing to pay custom, they said, “It cannot be but that thou open the box and let us see what is within.” So the chest was opened, and the land was illumined by the luster of Sarah’s beauty.[^[7]]

The love which the early Arabs bore to pearls is evidenced by the references to them in the Koran, and especially the figurative description given of Paradise. The stones are pearls and jacinths; the fruits of the trees are pearls and emeralds; and each person admitted to the delights of the celestial kingdom is provided with a tent of pearls, jacinths and emeralds; is crowned with pearls of incomparable luster, and is attended by beautiful maidens resembling hidden pearls.[^[8]]

The estimation of pearls among the art-loving Greeks may be traced to the time of Homer, who appears to have alluded to them under the name τρίγληνα (triple drops or beads) in his description of Juno; in the Iliad, XIV, 183:

In three bright drops,

Her glittering gems suspended from her ears.

and in the Odyssey, XVIII, 298:

Earrings bright

With triple drops that cast a trembling light.

Classical designs of Juno usually show the three pear-shaped pearls pendent from her ears. The ancient Greeks probably obtained their pearls from the East through the medium of Phenician traders, and a survival of the word τρίγληνα seems to exist in the Welsh glain (bead), the name having been carried to Britain by the same traders, who exchanged textiles, glass beads, etc., for tin and salt.

The Persian wars in the fifth century B.C., doubtless extended the acquaintance which the Greeks had with pearls, as well as with other oriental products, and increased their popularity. One of the earliest of the Greek writers to mention pearls specifically appears to have been Theophrastus (372–287 B.C.), the disciple and successor of Aristotle, who referred to them under the name μαργαρίτης (margarites), probably derived from some oriental word like the Sanskrit maracata or the Persian mirwareed. He stated that pearls were produced by shell-fish resembling the pinna, only smaller, and were used in making necklaces of great value. In Pliny’s “Historia naturalis,” that great storehouse of classical learning, reference is made to many other writers—mostly Greeks—who treated of gems; but virtually all of these writings have disappeared, except fragments from Theophrastus, Chares of Mytilene, and Isidorus of Charace.

GRECIAN PEARL AND GOLD NECKLACE
Of about third century B.C.
Now in Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

From Greece admiration for pearls quickly extended to Rome, where they were known under the Greek word margaritæ. However, a more common name for this gem in Rome was unio, which Pliny explained by saying that each pearl was unique and unlike any other one. The conclusion of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus (330–395 A.D.), that it was because each one was found singly in a shell,[^[9]] seems scarcely correct. Claude de Saumaise, the French classical scholar, thought that the common name for an onion was transferred to the pearl, owing to its laminated construction.[^[10]] According to Pliny, the Romans used the word unio to distinguish a large perfect pearl from the smaller and less attractive ones, which were called margaritæ.[^[11]]

It was not until the Mithridatic Wars (88–63 B.C.) and the conquests by Pompey that pearls were very abundant and popular in Rome, the great treasures of the East enriching the victorious army and through it the aristocracy of the republic. In those greatest spectacular functions the world has ever known—the triumphal processions of the conquering Romans—pearls had a prominent part. Pliny records that in great Pompey’s triumphal procession in 61 B.C. were borne thirty-three crowns of pearls and numerous pearl ornaments, including a portrait of the victor, and a shrine dedicated to the muses, adorned with the same gems.[^[12]]

The luxuries of Mithridates, the treasures of Alexandria, the riches of the Orient were poured into the lap of victory-fattened Rome. From that time the pearl reigned supreme, not only in the enormous prices given for single specimens, but also in the great abundance in possession of the degenerate descendants of the victorious Romans. The interior of the temple of Venus was decorated with pearls. The dress of the wealthy was so pearl-bedecked that Pliny exclaimed in irony: “It is not sufficient for them to wear pearls, but they must trample and walk over them”;[^[13]] and the women wore pearls even in the still hours of the night, so that in their sleep they might be conscious of possessing the beautiful gems.[^[14]]

It is related that the voluptuous Caligula (12–41 A.D.)—he who raised his favorite horse Incitatus to the consulship—decorated that horse with a pearl necklace, and that he himself wore slippers embroidered with pearls; and the tyrannical Nero (37–68 A.D.), not content with having his scepter and throne of pearls, provided the actors in his theater with masks and scepters decorated with them. Thus wrote the observant Philo, the envoy of the Jews to the Emperor Caligula: “The couches upon which the Romans recline at their repasts shine with gold and pearls; they are splendid with purple coverings interwoven with pearls and gold.”

Yet not all the men of Rome were enthusiastic over the beautiful “gems of the sea, which resemble milk and snow,” as the poet Manlius called them. Even then, as now, there were some faultfinders. The immortal Cæsar interdicted their use by women beneath a certain rank; Martial and Tibullus inveighed against them; the witty Horace directed his stinging shafts of satire against the extravagance. Referring to a woman named Gellia, Martial wrote: “By no gods or goddesses does she swear, but by her pearls. These she embraces and kisses. These she calls her brothers and sisters. She loves them more dearly than her two sons. Should she by some chance lose them, the miserable woman would not survive an hour.”[^[15]] Hear what stern old Seneca had to say: “Pearls offer themselves to my view. Simply one for each ear? No! The lobes of our ladies have attained a special capacity for supporting a great number. Two pearls alongside of each other, with a third suspended above, now form a single earring! The crazy fools seem to think that their husbands are not sufficiently tormented unless they wear the value of an inheritance in each ear!”[^[16]]

The prices reported for some choice ones at that time seem fabulous. It is recorded by Suetonius, that the Roman general, Vitellius, paid the expenses of a military campaign with the proceeds of one pearl from his mother’s ears: “Atque ex aure matris detractum unionem pigneraverit ad itineris impensas.” In his “Historia naturalis,” Pliny says that in the first century A.D., they ranked first in value among all precious things,[^[17]] and reports sixty million sestertii[^[18]] as the value of the two famous pearls—“the singular and only jewels of the world and even nature’s wonder”—which Cleopatra wore at the celebrated banquet to Mark Antony. And Suetonius[^[19]] places at six million sestertii the value of the one presented by Julius Cæsar as a tribute of love to Servilia, the mother of Brutus, who thus wore

The spoils of nations in an ear,

Changed to the treasure of a shell.

Or, as St. Jerome expressed it in his “Vita Pauli Eremitæ”:

Uno filo villarum insunt pretia.

We are told by Ælius Lampridius that an ambassador once brought to Alexander Severus two remarkably large and heavy pearls for the empress. The emperor offered them for sale, and as no purchaser was found, he had them hung in the ears of the statue of Venus, saying: “If the empress should have such pearls, she would give a bad example to the other women, by wearing an ornament of so much value that no one could pay for it.”

The word “margarita” was used symbolically to designate the most cherished object; for instance, a favorite child. In an inscription published by Fabretti, p. 44, No. 253, the word margaritio has the same significance. (Sex. Bruttidio juveni margaritioni carissimo, vixit annis II mensibus VII, diebus XVIII.)[^[20]]

While the ancient writers were familiar with the pearl itself, they knew little of the fisheries, and related many curious stories which had come to Athens and Rome. Pliny and Ælianus quoted from Megasthenes that the pearl-oysters lived in communities like swarms of bees, and were governed by one remarkable for its size and great age, and which was wonderfully expert in keeping its subjects out of danger, and that the fishermen endeavored first to catch this one, so that the others might easily be secured. Procopius, one of the most entertaining of the old Byzantine chroniclers, wrote of social relations between the pearl-oysters and the sharks, and of methods of inducing the growth of pearls.

The principal fisheries of antiquity were in the Persian Gulf, on the coasts of Ceylon and India, and in the Red Sea. The pearls referred to in ancient Chinese literature appear to have been taken from the rivers and ponds of that country, while those in Cochin China and Japan seem to have come from the adjoining seas. The pearls were distributed among the nations in control of the fisheries, and from them, other people received collections, either as presents, in conquest, or by way of trade. History makes no mention of pearls having been obtained elsewhere than in the Orient up to the time of Julius Cæsar, when small quantities of inexpensive ones were collected in Britain by the invading Romans. And in the first century A.D., Pliny states that small reddish pearls were found about Italy and in the Bosphorus Straits near Constantinople.

A number of specimens of pearls of the artistic Greeks and of the luxurious Romans are yet in existence, and some of these are in a fairly good state of preservation. A notable and interesting example is a superb Greek necklace of pearls and gold, referred to the third century B.C., and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Several earrings now in that museum, in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, the British Museum, the Louvre in Paris, and in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, are shown in this book. Some of these may have decorated ears that listened to the comedies of Aristophanes, the tragedies of Euripides, the philosophies of Plato, or the oratory of Demosthenes. A number of classic statues have the ears pierced for earrings, notably the Venus de Medici now in the Tribuna of the Uffizi, Florence; and a magnificent pair of half-pearls is said to have decorated the Venus of the Pantheon in Rome.[^[21]] Pearl grape earrings are shown on the artistic intaglio by Aspasios, representing the bust of the Athene Parthenos of Phidias, which has been in the Gemmen Münzen Cabinet at Vienna since 1669.

The beautiful Tyszkiewicz bronze statuette of Aphrodite was acquired in 1900 by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and has even yet a pearl in a fairly good state of preservation suspended from each ear by a spiral thread of gold which passes quite through the gem and also through the lobe of the ear. This statuette has been described as “the most beautiful bronze Venus known.”[^[22]] Professor Froehner considers that it belongs nearer to the period of Phidias (circa 500–430 B.C.) than to that of Praxiteles (circa 400–336 B.C.); but Dr. Edward Robinson does not concur in this opinion, and refers it to the Hellenic period (circa 330–146 B.C.).

However, considering the very large accumulations, relatively few pearls of antiquity now remain, and none of these is of great ornamental value. Those in archæological collections and art museums are more or less decayed through the ravages of time and accident to which they have been subjected. While coins, gold jewelry, crystal gems, etc., of ancient civilizations are relatively numerous, the less durable pearls have not survived the many centuries of pillage, waste, and burial in the earth.

A well-known instance of this decay is found in the Stilicho pearls, which owe their prominence to the incident of their long burial. The daughters of this famous Roman general, who were successively betrothed to the Emperor Honorius, died in 407 A.D., and were buried with their pearls and ornaments. In 1526, or more than eleven centuries afterward, in excavating for an extension of St. Peter’s, the tomb was opened, and the ornaments were found in fair condition, except the pearls, which were as lusterless and dead as a wreath of last year’s flowers.

II

MEDIEVAL AND MODERN HISTORY

II
MEDIEVAL AND MODERN HISTORY OF PEARLS

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.

Notwithstanding the popular idea that pearls are scarce owing to depletion of the fisheries, they are doubtless produced in greater quantities at present than ever before in the history of the world. True, they were more plentiful in Rome after the Persian conquest, and in Spain immediately following the exploitation of tropical America; but it is highly probable that in no equal period have the entire fisheries of the world yielded greater quantities than in the five years from 1903 to 1907 inclusive. Certain individual fisheries are now less productive than at the height of their prosperity; those in the Red Sea do not compare favorably with their condition in ancient times, the European resources are nearly exhausted, the supplies from the Venezuelan coast do not equal those obtained early in the sixteenth century, the yield from Mexico is not so extensive as twenty-five years ago, and the same is true of some other regions. On the other hand, the great fisheries of Persia and Ceylon are yet very prosperous, the Ceylon fishery of 1905 surpassing all records, and the number of minor pearling regions has largely increased.

The present value of pearls—which has advanced enormously since 1893—is due to the extended markets and the increased wealth and fashion in Western countries, rather than to diminished fisheries. The oriental demand still consumes the bulk of the Persian and Indian output, and the vast increase in wealth among the middle classes in America, Europe, and elsewhere, has increased the demand tenfold over that of a century ago. While women no longer appear ornamented from head to foot as in the sixteenth century, pearls are in the highest fashion, and the woman of rank and wealth usually prizes first among her jewels her necklace of pearls.

III

ORIGIN OF PEARLS

III
ORIGIN OF PEARLS

Heaven-born and cradled in the deep blue sea, it is the purest of gems and the most precious.

S. M. Zwemer.

The origin of pearls has been a fruitful subject of speculation and discussion among naturalists of all ages, and has provoked many curious explanations. Most of the early views—universally accepted during those centuries when tradition had more influence than observation and experiment—have no standing among naturalists at the present time. And although much information has been gained as to the conditions accompanying their growth, and many theories are entertained, each with some basis in observed fact, science does not yet speak with conclusive and unquestioned authority as to the precise manner of their origin and development.

Owing to the chaste and subdued beauty of pearls, it is not strange that poets of many countries have founded their origin in tears—tears of angels, of water-nymphs, of the lovely and devoted. Sir Walter Scott in “The Bridal of Triermain” refers to—

The pearls that long have slept,

These were tears by Naiads wept.

In one of his most lovely and consoling thoughts, Shakspere says:

The liquid drops of tears that you have shed,

Shall come again, transform’d to orient pearl,

Advantaging their loan with interest

Of ten times double gain of happiness.

And we quote from Rückert’s “Edelstein und Perlen”:

I was the Angel, who of old bowed down

From Heaven to earth and shed that tear, O Pearl,

From which thou wert first-fashioned in thy shell.

To thee I gave that longing in thy shell,

Which guided thee and caused thee to escape,

O Pearl, from the bewitching sirens’ song.

In luster they so closely resemble the limpid, sparkling dewdrop as it first receives the sun’s rays, that the ancients very naturally conceived that pearls are formed from drops of dew or rain. The usual legend is, that at certain seasons of the year, the pearl-oysters rise to the surface of the water in the morning, and there open their shells and imbibe the dewdrops; these, aided by the breath of the air and the warmth of the sunlight, are, in the course of time, transformed into lustrous pearls; but if the air and the sunlight are not received in sufficient quantities, the pearls do not attain perfection and are faulty in form, color, and luster. However remarkable and even absurd this may seem at present, it appears to have been universally accepted for centuries by the most learned men of Europe as well as by primitive people who delight in the mystical and fantastic. This opinion was recorded in the Sanskrit books of the Brahmans and in other oriental literature. The classical and medieval writings of Europe contain numerous references to it; and it is found even yet in the traditions and folk-lore of some peoples.

In the first century A.D., Pliny wrote in his “Historia naturalis,” according to Dr. Philemon Holland’s quaint translation:

The fruit of these shell fishes are the Pearles, better or worse, great or small, according to the qualitie and quantitie of the dew which they received. For if the dew were pure and cleare which went into them, then are the Pearles white, faire, and Orient; but if grosse and troubled, the Pearles likewise are dimme, foule, and duskish; pale they are, if the weather were close, darke and threatening raine in the time of their conception. Whereby (no doubt) it is apparent and plaine, that they participate more of the aire and sky, than of the water and the sea; for according as the morning is faire, so are they cleere: but otherwise, if it were misty and cloudy, they also will be thicke and muddy in colour. If they may have their full time and season to feed, the Pearles likewise will thrive and grow bigge: but if in the time it chance to lighten, then they close their shells together, and for want of nourishment are kept hungrie and fasting, and so the pearles keepe at a stay and prosper not accordingly. But if it thunder withall, then suddenly they shut hard at once, and breed only those excrescences which be called Physemata, like unto bladders puft up and hooved with wind, no corporal substance at all: and these are the abortive & untimely fruits of these shell fishes.[^[40]]

PANAMA SHELL
(Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica)
With pearls attached

VENEZUELA SHELL
(Margaritifera radiata)
Showing growth of pearls

Pliny’s views were probably derived from the ancient authorities of his time, particularly from Megasthenes, Chares of Mytilene, and Isidorus of Charace; and these curious fictions were incorporated by subsequent writers and influenced popular opinion for many centuries. With scarcely a single exception, every recorded theory from the first century B.C. to the fifteenth century evidences a belief in dew-formed pearls.

This theory is referred to by Thomas Moore in his well-known lines:

And precious the tear as that rain from the sky,

Which turns into pearls as it falls in the sea.

The Spanish-Hebrew traveler Benjamin of Tudela, in his “Masaoth” in Persia (from 1160 to 1173), wrote: “In these places pearls are found, made by the wonderful artifice of nature: for on the four and twentieth day of the month Nisan, a certain dew falleth into the waters, which being sucked in by the oysters, they immediately sink to the bottom of the sea; afterwards, about the middle of the month Tisri, men descend to the bottom of the sea, and, by the help of cords, these men bringing up the oysters in great quantities from thence, open and take out of them the pearls.”[^[41]]

From the “Bustan,” one of the most popular works of Sadi, the Persian poet (1190–1291 A.D.), Davie quotes:

From the cloud there descended a droplet of rain;

’Twas ashamed when it saw the expanse of the main,

Saying: “Who may I be, where the sea has its run?

If the sea has existence, I, truly, have none!”

Since in its own eyes the drop humble appeared,

In its bosom, a shell with its life the drop reared;

The sky brought the work with success to a close,

And a famed royal pearl from the rain-drop arose.

Because it was humble it excellence gained;

Patiently waiting till success was attained.

Even the usually well-informed William Camden (1551–1623), in whose honor the Camden Historical Society of England was named, accepted the theory of dew-formed pearls. He stated that the river Conway in Wales “breeds a kind of shells, which being pregnated with dew, produce pearl.”[^[42]] Also, speaking of the Irt in county Cumberland, England, he said: “In this brook, the shell-fish, eagerly sucking in the dew, conceive and bring forth pearls, or (to use the poet’s word) shell berries (Baccas concheas).”[^[43]]

A recent letter from the American consul at Aden indicates that this view is held even yet by the Arabs of that region. In giving their explanation for the present scarcity in the Red Sea, he states: “There is a belief among them that a pearl is formed from a drop of rain caught in the mouth of the pearl-oyster, which by some chemical process after a time turns into a pearl; and as there has been very little rain in that region for several years past, there are few pearls.”

So firmly established throughout Europe was the belief in dew-formed pearls, that its non-acceptance by the native Indians of America excited the commiseration of the Italian historian Peter Martyr, in his “De Orbe Novo,” one of the very first books on America, published in 1517. He states: “But that they [pearls of Margarita Island on the present coast of Venezuela] become white by the clearnesse of the morning dewe, or waxe yelowe in troubled weather, or otherwise that they seeme to rejoice in fayre weather and dear ayre, or contrary-wise, to be as it were astonished and dymme in thunder and tempests, with such other, the perfect knowledge hereof is not to be looked for at the hands of these unlearned men, which handle the matter but grossly and enquire no further than occasion serveth.”[^[44]] Peter Martyr was distinguished for his learning, was an instructor at the court of Spain at the height of its power, and came in contact with the most enlightened men of Europe, consequently it may be assumed that he reflected the best opinions of his time.

It was not long before the aborigines of America were not alone in discrediting the views which had prevailed in Europe for more than fifteen hundred years. That practical old sailor Sir Richard Hawkins concluded that this must be “some old philosopher’s conceit, for it can not be made probable how the dew should come into the oyster.”[^[45]] A similar view is expressed by Urbain Chauveton in his edition of Girolamo Benzoni’s “Historia del Mondo Nuovo,” published at Geneva in 1578. From his reference to pearl-oysters on the Venezuelan coast, we translate:

Shells from Venezuela (Margaritifera radiata) with attached pearls

Exterior view of same

X-ray photograph of shell, printed through exterior of shell and showing encysted pearls

Around the island of Cubagua and elsewhere on the eastern coast, are sandy places where the pearl-oysters grow. They produce their eggs in very large quantities and likewise pearls at the same time. But it is necessary to have patience to let them grow and mature to perfection. They are soft at the beginning like the roe of fish; and as the mollusk gradually grows, they grow also and slowly harden. Sometimes many are found in one shell, which are hard and small, like gravel. Persons who have seen them while fishing say that they are soft as long as they are in the sea, and that the hardness comes to them only when they are out of the water. Pliny says as much, speaking of the Orientals in Book IX, of his Natural History, ch. 35. But as to that author and Albert the Great and other writers upon the generation of pearls, who have said that the oysters conceive them by means of the dew which they suck in, and that according as the dew is clear or cloudy the pearls also are translucent or dark, etc., etc.,—all this is a little difficult to believe; for daily observation shows that all the pearls found in the same shell are not of the same excellence, nor of the same form, the same perfection of color, nor the same size, as they would or must be if they were conceived by the dew all at one time. Besides this, in many of the islands the Indians go fishing for them in ten or twelve fathoms depth, and in some cases they are so firmly attached to the rocks in the sea that they can be wrenched off only by main strength. Would it not be difficult for them to inhale the quintessence of the air there? It seems then that it is the germ and the most noble part of the eggs of the oyster which are converted into pearls rather than any other thing; and the diversities of size, color, and other qualities, proceed from the fact that some are more advanced than others, as we see eggs in the body of the hen.[^[46]]

The old theory of dew-formed pearls was illustrated even as late as 1684 on a medal struck in honor of Elena Piscopia of the Corraro family of Venice. This bore an oyster-shell open and receiving drops of dew, and underneath was engraved the motto “Rore divino” (By divine dew). Even yet one hears occasionally from out-of-the-way places—as in the instance reported by the American consul at Aden—of pearls formed from rain or dew, notwithstanding that there seems to exist absolutely no justification for it in scientific zoölogy.

Probably the most popular theory entertained from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century was that pearls were formed from the eggs of the oyster. This was intimated by Chauveton in the quotation above given, and it was also referred to by many naturalists.

In an interesting letter, dated Dec. 1, 1673, and giving as his authority the testimony of an eye-witness, “Henricus Arnoldi, an ingenious and veracious Dane,” Christopher Sandius wrote: “Pearl shells in Norway do breed in sweet waters; their shells are like mussels, but larger; the fish is like an oyster, it produces clusters of eggs; these, when ripe, are cast out and become like those that cast them; but sometimes it appears that one or two of these eggs stick fast to the side of the matrix, and are not voided with the rest. These are fed by the oyster against her will and they do grow, according to the length of time, into pearls of different bigness.”[^[47]] This possibly hit the mark with greater accuracy than the observations of the “ingenious and veracious Dane” warranted, for he seems to have had quite a different idea as to the manner in which the pearls are “fed by the oyster against her will” from those generally entertained by naturalists at the present time.

However, Oliver Goldsmith settled the matter by declaring briefly: “Whether pearls be a disease or an accident in the animal is scarce worth enquiry.”[^[48]] Thus it seems that notwithstanding all that had been written and the extended attention given to the subject, theory prevailed to the almost complete exclusion of practical investigation, with little intelligent advance over Topsy’s “’spect they just growed.”

Owing, doubtless, to the scarcity of pearl-bearing mollusks in their vicinities, naturalists of Europe were somewhat slow in giving attention to the origin of pearls. This is further accounted for by the fact that the gems occur more frequently in old and diseased shells than in the choice specimens which have naturally attracted the notice of conchologists.

One of the first of the original observations made on this subject was that by Rondelet, who, in 1554, advanced the idea that pearls are diseased concretions occurring in the mollusca, similar to the morbid calculi in the mammalia.[^[49]]

The first writer to intimate the similarity in structural material or substance between pearls and the interior of the shell in which they are formed, appears to have been Anselmus de Boot (circa 1600), who wrote that the pearls “are generated in the body of the creature of the same humour of which the shell is formed; ... for whenever the little creature is ill and hath not strength enough to belch up or expel this humour which sticketh in the body, it becometh the rudiments of the pearl; to which new humour, being added and assimilated into the same nature, begets a new skin, the continued addition of which generates a pearl.”[^[50]] The Portuguese traveler, Pedro Teixeira (1608), stated: “I hold it for certain that pearls are born of and formed of the very matter of the shell and of nothing else. This is supported by the great resemblance of the pearl and the oyster-shell in substance and color. Further, whatever oyster contains pearls has the flesh unsound and almost rotten in the parts where the pearls are produced, and those oysters that have no pearls are sound and clean fleshed.”[^[51]]

Somewhat more than one hundred years later, this theory was confirmed by investigations made by the famous physicist Réaumur (1683–1757). Microscopic examination of cross sections of pearls show that they are built up of concentric laminæ similar, except in curvature, to those forming the nacreous portion of the shell. In a paper published by the French Academy of Science in 1717,[^[52]] Réaumur noted this condition, and suggested that pearls are misplaced pieces of organized shell, and are formed from a secretion which overflows from the shell-forming organ or from a ruptured vessel connected therewith, and that the rupture or overflow is ordinarily produced by the intrusion of some foreign or irritating substance.

Sir Edwin Arnold calls attention to this theory in his beautiful lines:

Know you, perchance, how that poor formless wretch—

The Oyster—gems his shallow moonlit chalice?

Where the shell irks him, or the sea-sand frets,

He sheds this lovely lustre on his grief.

In pursuance of this idea, we find, in 1761, the Swedish naturalist Linnæus, “the father of natural history,” experimenting in the artificial production of pearls by the introduction of foreign bodies in the shell, and meeting with some degree of success. His discovery was rated so highly that it has been announced by some writers as the reason why the great naturalist received the patent of nobility, which is generally supposed to have been the reward for his services to science.

It seems that Linnæus’s discovery but verified the old saying that there is nothing new under the sun, for later it was announced[^[53]] that in China—where so many inventions have originated—this idea had been put to practical account for centuries preceding, and the crafty Chinaman had succeeded in producing not only small pearly objects, but even images of Buddha, with which to awe the disciples of that deified teacher.

The method consisted in slightly opening or boring through the shell of the living mollusk and introducing against the soft body a small piece of nacre, molded metal, or other foreign matter. The irritation causes the formation of pearly layers about the foreign body, resulting, in the course of months or of years, in a pearl-like growth. While these have some value as objects of curiosity or of slight beauty, they are not choice pearls, nor for that matter were those produced by Linnæus.

It will be observed that the theory of Réaumur, and also that of Linnæus, required the intrusion of some hard substance, such as a grain of sand, a particle of shell, etc., to constitute a nucleus of the pearl; and this is the accepted explanation at the present time as to the origin of many of the baroque or irregular pearls, and likewise the pearly “blisters” and excrescences attached to the shell. But not so as to the choice or gem pearls, those beautiful symmetrical objects of great luster which are usually referred to in speaking of pearls.

Examinations of many of these have failed, except in rare instances, to reveal a foreign nucleus of sand or similar inorganic substance. In searching many fresh-water mussels, Sir Everard Home frequently met with small pearls in the ovarium, and he further noticed that these, as well as oriental pearls, when split into halves, often showed a brilliant cell in the center, about equal in size to the ova of the same mollusk. From these observations, in 1826 he deduced his “abortive ova” theory, and announced:

A pearl is formed upon the external surface of an ovum, which, having been blighted, does not pass with the others into the oviduct, but remains attached to its pedicle in the ovarium, and in the following season receives a coat of nacre at the same time that the internal surface of the shell receives its annual supply. This conclusion is verified by some pearls being spherical, others having a pyramidal form, from the pedicle having received a coat of nacre as well as the ovum.[^[54]]

Naturalists generally accepted these conclusions, that pearls originate in pathological secretions formed, either as the result of the intrusion of hard substances, or by the encysting or covering of ova or other objects of internal origin; and there was no important cleavage of opinion until the development of the parasitic theory, as a result of the researches of the Italian naturalist Filippi, and those following his line of investigations. This theory is not severely in conflict with those of Réaumur, Linnæus, Home, etc., but relates principally to the identity of the irritating or stimulating substance which forms the nucleus of the pearl.

In examining a species of fresh-water mussel, the Anodonta cygnea, occurring in ponds near Turin, and especially the many small pearly formations therein, Filippi observed that these were associated with the presence of a trematode or parasitic worm, which he named Distomum duplicatum, and which appears to be closely allied to the parasite which causes the fatal “rot” or distemper in sheep. Under the microscope, the smallest and presumably the youngest of these pearls showed organic nuclei which appeared undoubtedly to be the remnants of the trematode. In Anodonta from other regions, which were not infested with the distoma, pearls were very rarely found by Filippi. In a paper,[^[55]] published in 1852, containing a summary of his observations, he concluded that a leading, if not the principal, cause of pearl-formation in those mussels was the parasite above noted; and in later papers[^[56]] he included such other forms as Atax ypsilophorus within the list of parasitic agencies which might excite the pearl-forming secretions, comparing their action to that of the formation of plant-galls.

Mexican pearl-oyster (Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica) with adherent pearl

Group of encysted pearls in shell of Australian pearl-oyster (Margaritifera maxima)

American Museum of Natural History

Mexican pearl-oyster (Margaritifera margaritifera mazatlanica) with encysted fish

American Museum of Natural History

Group of encysted pearls (Oriental)

Reverse of same group, showing outline of the individual pearls

The discovery of the parasitic origin of pearls was extended to the pearl-oysters and to other parasites by Küchenmeister[^[57]] in 1856, by Möbius[^[58]] in 1857, and by several other investigators. Prominent among these were E. F. Kelaart and his assistant Humbert, who, in 1859[^[59]] disclosed the important relation which the presence of vermean parasites bears to the origin of pearls in the Ceylon oysters. These naturalists found “in addition to the Filaria and Cercaria, three other parasitical worms infesting the viscera and other parts of the pearl-oyster. We both agree that these worms play an important part in the formation of pearls.” Dr. Kelaart likewise found eggs from the ovarium of the oyster coated with nacre and forming pearls, and also suggested that the silicious internal skeletons of microscopic diatoms might possibly permeate the mantle and become the nuclei of pearls. Unfortunately, Dr. Kelaart’s investigations were terminated by his death a few months thereafter.

In 1871, Garner ascribed the occurrence of pearls in the common English mussel (Mytilus edulis) to the presence of distomid larvæ.[^[60]] Giard,[^[61]] and other French zoölogists, made similar discoveries in the case of Donax and some other bivalves. In 1901, Raphael Dubois confirmed the observations of Garner, associating the production of pearls in the edible mussels on the French coasts with the presence of larvæ of a parasite, to which he gave the name of Distomum margaritarum, and boldly announced: “La plus belle perle n’est donc, en définitive, que le brillant sarcophage d’un ver.”[^[62]]

Prof. H. L. Jameson, in 1902, disclosed the relation which exists between pearls in English mussels (Mytilus) and the larvæ of Distomum somateriæ.[^[63]] The life history of this trematode, as revealed by Dr. Jameson, is especially interesting from a biological standpoint, since it is entertained by three hosts at different times: the first host is a member of the duck family; the second is the Tapes clam (Tapes decussatus), or perhaps the common cockle (Cardium edule), which incloses the first larval stage, and the third is the edible mussel, in which the second larval stage of the parasite stimulates the formation of pearls. At the Brighton Aquarium and the Fish Hatchery at Kiel, Dr. Jameson claims to have succeeded in artificially inoculating perfectly healthy mussels with these parasites by associating them with infested mollusks, and thereby producing small pearls.

From Dr. Jameson’s interesting paper we abridge the following account of the manner in which the pearls are developed. The trematode enters Mytilus edulis as a tailless cercaria, and at first may often be found between the mantle and the shell. The larvæ, after a while, enter the connective tissue of the mantle, where they come to rest, assuming a spherical form, visible to the naked eye as little yellowish spots about one half millimeter in diameter. At first the worm occupies only a space lined by connective-tissue fibrils, but soon the tissues of the host give rise to an epithelial layer, which lines the space and ultimately becomes the pearl-sac. If the trematode larva completes its maximum possible term of life, it dies, and the tissues of the body break down to form a structureless mass which retains the form of the parasite, owing to the rigid cuticle. In this mass arise one or more centers of calcification, and the precipitation of carbonate of lime goes on until the whole larva is converted into a nodule with calcospheritic structure. The granular matter surrounding the worm, if present, also undergoes calcification. The epithelium of the sac then begins to shed a cuticle of conchiolin, and from this point the growth of the pearl probably takes place on the same lines and at the same rate as the thickening of the shell.[^[64]]

Fully as remarkable as the observations of Dr. Jameson are the results claimed by Professor Dubois in experimenting with a species of pearl-oyster (M. vulgaris) from the Gulf of Gabes on the coast of Tunis, where they are almost devoid of pearls, a thousand or more shells yielding on an average only one pearl. Conveying these to the coast of France in 1903, he there associated them with a species of trematode-infested mussel (Mytilus gallo-provincialis), and after a short period they became so infested that every three oysters yielded an average of two pearls.[^[65]] This claim has not been without criticism; but who ever knew scientists to agree?

In the pearl-oyster of the Gambier Islands (M. margaritifera cumingi), Dr. L. G. Seurat found that the origin of pearls was due to irritation caused by the embryo of a worm of the genus Tylocephalum, the life of which is completed in the eagle-ray, a fish which feeds on the pearl-oyster.[^[66]]

In 1903, Prof. W. A. Herdman, who, at the instance of the colonial government, and with the assistance of Mr. James Hornell, examined the pearl-oyster resources of Ceylon, announced: “We have found, as Kelaart did, that in the Ceylon pearl-oyster there are several different kinds of worms commonly occurring as parasites, and we shall, I think, be able to show that Cestodes, Trematodes, and Nematodes may all be concerned in pearl formation. Unlike the case of the European mussels, however, we find that in Ceylon the most important cause is a larval Cestode of the Tetrarhynchus form.”[^[67]]

In his investigation of the Placuna oyster in 1905, Mr. James Hornell found that the origin of pearls was due to minute larva of the same stage and species as that which causes the pearls in the Gulf of Manar oyster.[^[68]]

The spherical larvæ of this tapeworm sometimes occur in great abundance, and there is evidence of forty having been found in a single pearl-oyster. Mr. Hornell states that the living worm does not induce pearl formation, this occurring only when death overtakes it while in certain parts of the oyster. As a consequence, pearls are more numerous in oysters which have been long infected, where the worms are older and more liable to die. This parasitic worm has been traced from the pearl-oyster to the trigger-fishes, which eat the pearl-oysters, and thence into certain large fish-eating rays, where it becomes sexually mature and produces embryos which enter the pearl-oyster and begin a new cycle of life-phases.

It seems, therefore, that the latest conclusions of science appear entirely favorable to the parasitic theory as explaining at least one, and probably the most important, of the causes for the formation of pearls; and that some truth exists in the statement that the most beautiful pearl is only the brilliant sarcophagus of a worm. This morphological change is not peculiar to mollusks, for in most animal bodies a cyst is formed about in-wandering larvæ. Fortunately for lovers of the beautiful, in the pearl-oysters the character of the cyst-wall follows that of the interior lining of the shell, and not only simulates, but far surpasses it in luster.