Difference between revisions of "Signet Ring"

From Dead Media Archive
Jump to: navigation, search
(Social Status and Respect)
Line 115: Line 115:
*Seidel, ...
*Seidel, ...
*Steigler, ...
*Steigler, ...
=External Links=

Revision as of 10:24, 7 March 2010

The signet ring is an early but long-lasting form of jewelery used to seal letters and other important documents. Its evolution as a media artifact is long, but important in showing the way that security and identification must grow together in order to have any function. The ring also brings up several important questions about the way in which media becomes part of ourselves.

Physical Description

The evolution of the signet ring originates, as with all rings, in the remediation of Babylonian cylindrical seal, which was typically strung and worn around the neck or wrist and used to authorize clay documents and close grainery doors to prevent the invasion of property (Kunz 1). Over time these seals were reduced in size as to be worn on the finger, the earliest example being the scarab signet ring, introduced by Egyptians in the middle of the XXII Dynasty (c. 1800 BCE). This change was perhaps an obvious element of the signet ring's evolution and design, in that wearing the seal on the finger allowed for increased security and convenience. Like most rings, the scarab ring consisted of a bezel mounted on a hoop. The bezels in these rings were carved into the form of a scarab (a dung beetle, the symbol of life and harmony in ancient Egypt) from rock amethyst or glazed steatite and pierced with gold wire which was formed into a hoop. The use of a sacred form and precious materials indicates that status and power are essential to the wearing of the signet ring. In addition to symbolic importance, the scarab rotated on the wire, revealing itself as a tool with an intaglio of hieroglyphs inscribed on the belly. Thus, since its inception, the signet ring has had a dual purpose, both symbolic and as a tool; a mark of divine authority and a seal to be pressed in clay as a symbol of one's ownership or authorization, akin to the modern-day signature.

The custom of wearing these seal-rings, or signet rings as they are known today, was "transmitted to the Greek world and also to the Etruscans, from whom the usage was derived by the Romans" (Kunz 1). As the technology to work with metals and stone advanced, the form of the signet ring evolved. By 600 BCE the Greeks made fixed-metal signet rings, the stones of which were engraved with motifs of nature and considered to be miniature versions of Greek sculpture and painting masterpieces. During the Hellenistic period (beginning with the conquering of Alexander the Great in 331 BCE and ending with the establishment of the Roman Empire by Augustus in 27 BCE) all-metal rings emerged, but signet rings with bezels, typically depicting motifs of gods, recreational activities and love, carved in harder precious stones were more desirable and characteristic of this period.

As evidenced by a shift in the style and purpose of the signet ring with the rise of Christianity, the evolution of the ring was influenced just as much by cultural preference as by the available materials and technologies. During this period, "as early as the 3rd century AD, St. Clement of Alexandria, who disapproved of luxury and immorality, declared that the only ring acceptable to Christians was the signet. This was for practical purposes: women, being the housekeepers, needed gold rings for 'sealing [i.e. locking] things that have to be kept safe in the house.' Men should only wear the signet on the little finger, at the root....'being guarded by the large knot of the joint.' The devices should express love, peace and sober living. Instead of pagan gods, drinking cups, nude women and victorious soldiers, signets would bear the Christian symbols of the fish, anchor, ship and fisherman" (Scarisbrick 23). Here we see a new emphasis on the practical and religious functions of the signet ring, extending the use to women and dictating the finger placement for men. The encoding on the ring, rather than being a relatively arbitrary image associated with the wearer, was to be strictly Christian symbols. Similarly, the practical and religious come into contention in the Mishna (book of Jewish Law) which prohibits the wearing of signet rings on the Shabaat because they are a tool, prohibited on the day of rest.

In Byzantium, signet rings were made entirely of metal, marking a transition from figures to words and letters which are easier to engrave. Signet rings rapidly increased in popularity during this time, becoming a common mundane object employed by a range of people. To meet the demand, standard designs (commonly a monogram of letters arranged around a cross) were stocked by goldsmiths. This shift marks the transition of the technical image of the signet ring, moving away from the face image of the artistic image conception of the ring of the ancient Greeks, to a more text image conception, where we see and emphasis on digital placement, monograms and mass production.

The use of heraldry as a theme on signet rings emerged during the Middle Ages. It was also during this time that a revolutionary innovation emerged, the foiled crystal intaglio signet ring. These rings featured the "owner's coat of arms painted in brilliant colors beneath the crystal intaglio. In this way, an impression could be made on the hot wax without causing the colors to fade" (ibid). This innovation is an interesting embodiment of Plato's metaphor using the signet ring to explain vision and knowing (see below). "Those not entitled to bear arms sealed with other devices. From the 14th to the 17th century merchants used signets engraved with the emblem by which they marked their goods so as to be easily recognized by those who could not read or write, made by a few strokes of the brush" (Scarisbrick 31). In the 15th century the most common signet was bronze, usually gilt, with initial letters on the bezel, representing the Christian name of the owner, either crowned or flanked by palm branches (ibid).

Impressions in Wax and Clay

One cannot fully understand the signet ring without considering it's relationship to the material it is impressed upon. In warmer climates, such as Egypt, the material was typically clay; perhaps an obvious choice because clay dries in the sun as opposed to wax (preferred in Europe) which would simply melt. Both Aristotle and Plato use the signet ring and wax in their theories of sensation and vision to make the "the point that it is the form and not the matter, that is impressed upon the mind," (Seidel 77). For Plato, "vision has what it sees, and yet does not have it all: 'echei ho eide kai au ouk echei.' There is both possession and nonpossestion. The gold of the seal is not found in the imprinted sealing wax" (ibid). Aristotle also uses the signet ring and wax as a sexual metaphor. In his conceptualization, activity (the act of sealing) is associated with the male and passivity (the wax recieving the ring) with the female. "According to Aristotle's biology, its is the male that provides the form for the offspring (the soul), the female providing the matter or material...the image of a piece of warm wax passively receiving the impression of the signet ring" (SOURCE? 65).

Form Meets Function

The material form of the signet ring--an inscribed metal (and stone) hoop attached directly to the finger, to be merely displayed or pressed into a malleable substance to leave an imprint--is, in the McLuhan sense of the word, a prosthetic, an "extension of ourselves" (PAGE?). It is both an extension of the body and a barrier between the sealer and the sealed. When a person in a place of power, such as a King or a Pharaoh, seals a document a transfer of power occurs between the authority of the physical presence of the King and his mark of authorization, mediated by the signet ring--which, though acting as a prosthetic, directly extending the body and connecting it with the wax, essentially amputates the hand of the King, cutting it off into the material it is marking. This produces multiple hands and spreads the power of the King. This transference of authority from a human into a material good is an example of Marx's theory of material relations between commodities. The social relations between people no longer take place face to face, rather the media (in this case the seal) stand in for them, conducting business without anyone directly involved.

The signet ring has both catoptric and dioptric qualities. The act of sealing is catoptric; an obfuscation of information, concealing the content by reflecting the authority of the sealer. However, the signet ring itself is dioptric, a window into the wear's identity; the symbolism conveyed by the intaglio (be it a family crest, initials, or Greek god) illuminates information about the status, history or interests of the wearer.

Signet Ring as Authority

The relationship between the wearer and the signet ring can be seen as a complex tension of authority. On one hand, the ring is constructed for the very purpose of reflecting the sovereignty of the wearer, to act as an external symbol or prosthesis of his will. The authority of the wearer is transferable through the seal by the fact that one's signet ring is unique to one's person (though not in all cases) and the mark of the seal suggests a proof of contact between the ring wearer and the sealed artifact. "Several instances in the Christian Scripture refer to the impression from a monarch's signet ring as giving the force of a royal decree to any instrument to which it was attached. Hence the delivery or transfer of it gave the power of using the royal name" (Jones 1). In the act of impressing a royal seal into wax or clay, the authority of the ring wearer shows through the seal bearing artifact. The wax impression then acts as memory or storage of a physical interaction with the source of authority, such as the king. The image of this seal is a lens through which to see the identity of the wearer. St. Ambrose confronts the quandry of a violent symbol, suggesting that "anyone having an image of a tyrant was liable to punishment" because "the wearing of such a ring would imply not only an admiration of the person figured, but also devotion to his cause." St. Ambrose supports this conclusion with the fact that persons wearing rings with images of the assassins of Caesar were put to death (Kuntz 128). This case shows the ring bearing the image of Brutus as dioptrically revealing the wearer's sympathies, acting as a lens through which to see and understand the wearer. One the other hand, wearer can gain legitimation through the ring, without it he is unable to exert his own authority, depending on the symbol of the ring as legitimation. As demonstrated in the "Dream Book" of Artemidorus published in 709, he refers to an unsettling dream in which "his signet ring had dropped from his finger, and that the engraved stone set therein had broken into many fragments, the result of this being that he could transact no business for forty-five days, presumably until he could have a new signet engraved. For the impression of the individual signet was indispensable to give validity to any order or agreement" (Kunz 131). This dependency on the signet ring for agency and authority reveals it's nature to be one of a mediation between the authority giving power of the wearer and the authority giving power of the ring itself. Artemidorus's ring both reflects and grants his authority by acting as an necessary technology for the authentication of self. Without his ring he is incapable of bringing his authority to action.


Inherent in the signet ring's ability to transfer authority is the question of externalization. There are two levels of externalization: from the owner to the ring and from the ring to the wax. The interaction between the ring and the wax creates a petrified seal of authority which contains the benefits of mobility and efficiency, characteristics which make the signet ring a useful medium in the first place. However, the authenticity of this interaction depends on a situation in which the wearer of the ring is also the owner and the source of the authority. Herein lies the risk, while imbuing a signet with royal authority gives that authority a new character of mobility and convenience, it also creates the possibility for forgery and misuse by creating a medium which is able to 'speak' in the voice of the owner even when apart from the owner, essentially creating a self outside one's self. The physical form of the rings suggests this risks, by remediating the ancient Babylonian seal into a ring that can be kept on one's person at all times, it suggests the serious consequences of it's loss. A person with the signet ring of the king can, in fact, act in the name of the king. In this way, by externalizing authority into the ring as a prosthesis, some measure of authority is effectively removed from the ring owner and placed irretrievably into the artifact.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE THIS PART WORK: This exteriorization of authority is reminiscent of Plato's fear of writing itself as a dangerous separation between thought and thinker. This process of tranference between speaker and paper contains risks: "Once written down, every speech is whirled about every which way, picked up as well by those who understand as by those who have no business reading it, a speech having no idea to whom it should speak and to whom it shouldn't. Ill treated and unjustly abused, a speech always needs the help of its father because it is unable by itself to defend or help itself" (Phaedrus, 70) [Plato, Plato and Benjamin Jowett. Phaedrus. City: Forgotten Books, 2008.] Viewing the signet ring as essentially a medium with which to write or record one's authority onto something else, then Plato's problem with writing speaks well to the risks of externalization. His concerns with hypomnesis, or the externalization of thought demonstrates the . . .BLAH

Profanation: "The practice of engraving licentious subjects on rings was very prevalent in Ancient Rome. Ateius Capito, a famous lawyer of the Republic, highly censured the practice of wearing figures of deities on rings, on account of the profanation to which they were exposed"(Jones 38) > this an interesting display of the power a ring holds, the risk of transfer or misuse and the authority given to an image inscribed on a ring. Related to Plato's fear of writing possibly? Once authority is externalized it has the potential for abuse and misrepresentation or even profanation (interesting to talk about the link between divine authority represented on rings, royal authority and legal authority)

By refuting the complete opposition of interior and exterior, Steigler acknowledges the tension between the loss of memory by exteriorization and the power of vast digital network which reveals to us “the immensity of human memory, which seems to have become infinitely reactivatable and accessible” (3). With the exteriorization of memory seeming to increase and augment our greater collective memory in some ways, the important questions turn to control and power. Steigler explores more closely the process of exteriorization and relation to technics through the process he calls grammatisation, which he defines as “the technical history of human memory” (4). According to Steigler, this history of memory reveals that, “there is no interiority that precedes exteriorization, but to the contrary exteriorization constitutes the interior as such” (4). Here Steigler is again positioning himself against Plato's binary opposition of internal and external memory by challenging the legitimacy of classifying memory as internal in the first place. Instead his account of memory can be visualized more as a spectrum, a line along which memory is closer or farther from the subject, the further along the spectrum the more “discretized” memory becomes, Steigler gives the example of writing as a “discretization” of speech as a step in the larger process of grammatisation which includes not only linguistic memory but also, “nervous and cerebral memory, first linguistic then auditive and visual, bodily and muscular memory, biogenetic memory” (5).


The signet ring has been closely associated with identity throughout history by virtue of the seal as a dioptric lens revealing the identity of the owner, [CHANGE?] as well as its power to perform authoritative action in its owner's name. The signet ring was both necessary and also cherished as an important symbol of self. In even in the face of poverty "as a general rule a signet ring was one of the last objects of value that an owner would part with" (Kunz 158). Often times the seal was a family crest, reflecting the heradic identity of the wearer [CITATION NEEDED] and creating a strong link between the ring and the owner. Together the ring and the wearer comprise a complete entity, both the origin of authority and the medium through which authority is enacted. The form of the ring, worn close to the body on the hand, reflects not only the need for security but also the close relation the sring holds as closely tied to

Myth of the power of the signet ring as identity

Arabian tradition, which recounts that Solomon was so much infatuated with a female prisoner, the daughter of a Gentile prince, and named Aminah, that he entrusted to her care his precious signet, given to him by the four angels that presided over the four elements. A mighty Jinn succeeded in gaining possession of the ring, and, by its power, assumed Solomon's form, at the same time changing that unhappy monarch's appearance to such an extent that his courtiers no longer recognized him, and drove him from his kingdom. However, one of Solomon's ministers was shrewd enough to see through the disguise of the Jinn, and proceeded to exorcise the evil spirit by reciting certain verses of the Law. The Jinn fled affrighted, and dropped the ring into the sea. Here it was swallowed by a fish, and in due time this fish was caught by Solomon, who had entered the employ of a fisherman. Once again in possession of his ring, Solomon soon regained his kingdom (289)

This connection is taken even further when we examine the relationship of the ring to the wearer in the case of death. In the middle ages an instance of the ring dropping from one's finger was seen as an omen of death (Kunz 133)

Rings and death:

When a person, at the point of death, delivered his ring to anyone, it was esteemed a mark of particular affection. The Romans not only took off the rings from the fingers of the dead, but also from such as fell into a very deep sleep or lethargy. Pliny observes : ' Gravatis somno aut morientibus religione quadam annuli detrahuntur.' Some have conjectured that Spartian alludes to this custom where, taking notice in the Life of the Emperor Hadrian of the tokens of his approaching death, he says: 'Signa mortis haec habuit: annulus in quo Imago ejus sculpta erat, sponte de digito lapsus est.' The ring, with his own image on it, fell of itself from his finger. Morestellus thinks they took the rings from the fingers for fear the Pollinctores, or they who prepared the body for the funeral, should take them for themselves, because when the dead body was laid on the pile they put the rings on the fingers again, and burnt them with the corpse. (Jones 45)

As a general rule a signet ring was one of the last objects of value that an owner would part with (Kunz 158)


Moving beyond just the need to extend power over space and time, the signet ring is probably best recognized as a way to secure messages and various other enclosures.

Seal as Enclosure

The seal of the signet ring is a signifier for security, secrecy, and protection in addition to power and authority. The seal has a double function encoded in its title as “seal” to secure and enclose privileged information or access. The seal is both a physical and symbolic stamp of security by an authority. The wax or clay impression of the signet ring serves as a mediating barrier between the thing that it seals and anything outside of it. Signet rings and seals are most commonly used to seal letters and documents, but have also been used to seal doors and tombs as chambers, or spaces, which hold information that is meant to be private or secured. The seal is the gatekeeper guarding the gate. It is invested with the power and authority to guard from the individual who sealed it. The seal becomes the symbolic presence of the sealer standing guard before the gate.

The seal is not meant to be permanent as can be gathered from the materials of wax and clay, and therefore only offers temporary protection and security until the rightful person is meant to break the seal. The function of a seal then is very similar to that of a lock, or a skeuomorph, remaining unread or unopened, until the person with the key or matching document is able to open it. The seal was developed a way to ensure authenticity of what was sealed. If a seal was broken before arriving at its destination it meant a breech in security, and therefore the erasure of the document’s validity and authority. In this case the power of the sealer is not transferred and possibly comes into question. “The bearer of such a letter fully realized his responsibility for its delivery with unbroken seal, and generally took pains to have this duly recognized by the person to whom it was addressed.83”

The physical structure of a ring, as well the definition of the word “ring” refer to an enclosure. A ring has no opening in its structure, except for its hollow center to fit around a finger. The band of the ring is continuous and unbroken, which lends to its significance in becoming a symbol of marriage, referring to the ultimate seal of commitment.

Seal as Signature

The application of the seal onto a document or letter meant the signature of the individual as well as a last word and the closing or ending of the document. The seal authenticates the document as a signature and a signing off by an individual. In the seal as signature, the individual authors himself, and imprints himself into the document as part of that archive. This is also a sealing of the self into a document or agreement/contract. The self is sealed onto the document, adhering to it and providing a promise or guarantee of the author’s word. The seal offers a double archive as it already exists as a symbol of an individual in a physical object, and also attaches that individual to a surface. The seal, then repeats the individual as self and as word or promise. In cases of contracts by merchants or legal agreements, the seal as signature binds the signer or signers if there are more than one seals fixed to a given document to the agreement stated in the text. Merchants also used seals to verify and prove that they sold a certain object. This has evolved today into the trademark, pin numbers, bar codes, and other identifying data.

Seal as Protection

In cases where a ruler would ask a scribe or servant to take his signet ring and sign a document for him, that person was protected by the ring. The power of the ruler was transferred through the ring to the servant, he could not be touched and was guaranteed sovereign protection until his task was completed. In these cases it is as though the ruler himself is beside the servant as his guard during his task and any attack or harm to the servant would be perceived as a direct attack on the ruler. The ruler is also asking the servant to be his body for him (Butler and Malabou).

The seal also has a history of protection in its common display of a coat of arms. “In Elizabeth’s reign and in those of her immediate successors, it is believed that scarcely a gentleman was to be found who did not own and wear a signet ring on which appeared his coat-of-arms. Those not fortunate enough to have the right to display armorial bearings, sometimes sought to make their signets individual using as designs rebuses expressing more or less well the pronunciation of their names.” Rings for the Finger (p.140) This alignment of a knightly coat of arms and the signet ring endow it with a very literal expression of protection. The ring becomes armor which is fastened to the body for protection. The seal as armor provides protection for the wearer as well as protection of anything signed with it while simultaneously indicating a relationship to battle and to an enemy threat. The seal is threatened by the possibility of it being broken by the wrong person and intercepted. The ring in this case becomes a kind of media skin, or second layer of consciousness to the body which armors it. The body that wears the signet ring wears another layer of signification and protection.


While the signet ring quickly lost its use as a means of secure and authentic communication with the advent of things like the adhesive envelope and the fob stamp, the ring still retained much of its status as a means of indicating certain social status and prestige. Eventually, much of this faded away as many rings became simply jewelry, but we can still see many places within our culture today where the signet ring’s use as a status indicator is still powerful.

Social Status and Respect

With the whole use of the signet ring as a way of exercising authority it might be easy to forget that simply wearing the ring becomes vital to indicating status in face to face interactions. To show respect to the status of your betters soon becomes a practice of showing reverence to the ring. This leads to the practice of kissing the ring’s jewel, which is still practiced today when greeting the Pope.SOURCE Simultaneously, does the kisser show respect to the authority of the ring, but the ring then is passively stamping the lips of its kisser there by giving some tacit authority to those lips. This material power that the ring contains is then used by many others to present themselves as authoritative. This simple wearing of a ring (signet or no) by anyone who wanted to show off even the most banal status was a real fear of those in power in 14th century Britain to the point that a law was passed by the government regulating the wearing of rings (Oman 6). Clearly, this did not stop the ring from loosing much of its explicit power eventually becoming nothing more than skewomorphs of themselves.

Custom of ring wearing served twofold purpose, ornamental and useful, being employed as a seal, which was called a sphragis, a name given to a gem or stone on which figure were engraved (Jones 18). In this early history of the ring simply by glancing down at the hands of those within a room it becomes easy to identify those of higher status based on the quality of the sphragi they wore. Because the signet ring then was such a powerful social signal of status, respect, authority, and power many desired to create rings that simply showed off the person as having some kind of status. This lead to the creation of many ornate and simple styles of rings whose jewels were used to indicate things beyond the simple power in authority of position, such as pure wealth. EXAMPLES With a few exceptions these rings were mostly made to be seen and not used.

Today almost no ring has strong authority tied to it, in part because the ring is no longer an almost mystical object. Class rings are mass produced and sold to graduates at every level of education by companies like Jostens whose rings are so massively produced and generic that they give very little if any status to their wearers. Likewise many jewelers sell signet rings with the initials of the owner carved into them which serve little use as a form of identification. Some of these rings can be meaningful and communicate some simple meanings, such as in the case of certain schools or fraternities, but rarely are they a useful form of communication any more. This use of the ring as a sign of authority then is very limited, but has also given the signet ring an almost incognito quality in its power of identification.

Authenticity of Identity Today

The whole practicality of the signet ring when it was first created was making sure that the ring bearer's hand could reach out through time and space and be known as that person's hand. Today this has been replaced by a whole set of very obvious things that allow us to identify specific people or entities much more precisely through time and space. This list is by no means conclusive, but it does present several items of importance to us today that we can directly trace back to the signet ring.

Signature - One of the problems of the signet ring is that it limits individuality. To engage in any kind of business that required the creation of paperwork by an individual, that individual needed to have a personal ring. This limit on business transactions would quickly become a problem as capitalism was becoming a reality. Thanks to the rise in common literacy the signature became a way for the individual to give authority. Before this the individual was often tied to the association or group the signet ring drew authority from. Individual authority then became real in society. This important innovation of the individual as the owner of a certain mark has since become an important assumption in much economic and government business today.

Trademark - As the signet ring became less used among merchants the trademark grew increasingly important. While more easily reproducible, the trademark also enjoys much more legal safety. This externalizes the solution to a problem once addressed by signet rings.

Fingerprint - As with the signature the fingerprint creates individual authenticity. While we often need another medium to read fingerprints, they have drastically changed the idea of what it means to produce authenticity. Now our hands leave a bit of our aura in everything we do.

Arts and Crafts

Today signet rings and other forms of seals are still easily found and used by many in non-legal contexts. These uses no longer serve any practical security or authoritative purpose. Often they are used to connote a feeling of formality or specialness in correspondence, such as wedding invitations.


  • Aristotle, ...
  • Jones, ...
  • Kunz, ...
  • McLuhan, ...
  • Oman, Charles. British Rings 800-1914. The Anchor Press Ltd, Essex. 1974.
  • Scarisbrick, ...
  • Seidel, ...
  • Steigler, ...

External Links