Chapter III: Introduction (2)

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.

PARTI
PRESE
NELL ECCELLENTISS
Conseglio di Pregadi.

_1599. Adi 8. Luglio, & 1609. 5. Maggio._

In materia di Perle.

Stampata per Antonio Pinelli,
Stampator Ducale.
_A S. Maria Formosa, in Cale del Mondo Novo._
]

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.

LADY ABINGER MRS. ADAIR
LADY WIMBORNE HON. MRS. RENARD GRÉVILLE
MARCHIONESS OF LANSDOWNE
LADY LONDONDERRY
BARONESS DE FOREST

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.