Clement of Alexandria’s (c.150 – 215 AD) comments on signet rings may be the first literary reference to Christian use of images. What has gone virtually unnoticed is that his teaching about signet-images includes their veneration. In the first part of this article, I will give a detailed consideration of what signets are, the symbolism inherent in ring-wearing, and forms of veneration given to signet-images. From there, I will show how Clement’s comments on signet use and ring-wearing fit with this framework. Finally, I will show how Clement believes signet images are venerated in two ways.
The Nature And Function of Signet rings
The signet ring’s primary functions were to seal property and documents by making an imprint on a surface. The imprint left a distinctive mark that would be clearly-identifiable and (hopefully) permanent, traceable back to the original and its wearer. This would allow one to protect his or her possessions against property disputes and theft. It would also make it clear who sent a document.
When considering signets it is important to understand why they were able to do these functions. Ultimately, it must be traced back to the kind of thing that it was. A signet was effectively a portable, wearable image. But it was not an idle trinket with someone’s favorite decoration. Instead, ancient signet-images should be seen as having continuity with modern state seals and family coats of arms. Just as a modern state seal on a document would indicate the status and authority associated with the document, so also a signet imprint carried weight depending on who it was associated with (which would be connected with the kind of image on the ring). And just as a coat of arms is treated with honor as a sign of the domain and stature of a family, so also a signet image would be treated accordingly. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities notes the following in its entry on signet rings:
The ring of a Roman Emperor was a kind of state-seal, and the emperor sometimes allowed the use of it to such persons as he wished to be regarded as his representatives (D. C. 66.2). The keeping of the imperial seal-ring was entrusted to an especial officer (cura anuli, Just. Hist. 43.5). The signs engraved upon rings were very various, as we may judge from the specimens still extant: they were portraits of ancestors, or friends, subjects connected with mythology or the worship of the gods; and in many cases a person had engraved upon his seal symbolical allusions to the real or mythical history of his family. (Cic. in Catil. 3.5; de Finib. v. 1; V. Max. 3.5, 1; Suet. Tib. 58.) Like our crests, different families seem to have had distinct seals: e. g. the seal of Galba's family was a dog leaping from a ship's prow (D. C. 51.3). Sulla thus wore a ring with a gem, on which Jugurtha was represented at the moment he was made prisoner (Plin. Nat. 37.8; Plut. Mar. 14). Pompey used a ring on which three trophies were represented (D. C. 43.18), and Augustus at first sealed with a sphinx, afterwards with a portrait of Alexander the Great, and at last with his own portrait, which was subsequently done by several emperors. (Plin. Nat. 37.10; Suet. Aug. 50; D. C. 51.3.)
We see how far this understanding of signet images as tied to honor and authority stretches back in time when noting Moses’ record of this as an Egyptian practice in Genesis:
[Gen 41:41-43 ESV] 41 And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. 43 And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, "Bow the knee!" Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt.
It is noteworthy that after bestowing the royal signet image upon Joseph, the Pharaoh instructs the people to venerate Joseph by bowing. This shows a strong association between the carrying of the image as a royal crest, the reception of an exalted status, and honor being ceremonially offered to the signet-bearer.
While the act of bowing to the signet-bearer does not decisively prove that the signet itself was being honored, the Romans would later adopt the practice of kissing the imperial signet image. This would continue in Western Europe and with the papacy. In the Roman world, it was not only the rings of emperors that were held in high regard and protected. Other people who owned property took various steps to cherish the honor of their signet images while simultaneously indicating its noble status. Pliny the Elder, the first century Roman historian and associate of the emperors, noted in his book Natural History an evolution in practices relating to signet rings. Customs had developed such as ornamentally wearing “proxy rings” to indicate the worth of one’s signet-image which remained safe in a special box at home:
Some people thrust several rings upon the little finger alone; while others wear but one ring upon this finger, the ring that carries the seal upon the signet ring itself, this last being carefully shut up as an object of rarity, too precious to be worn in common use, and only to be taken from the coffer as from a sanctuary. And thus is the wearing of a single ring upon the little finger, no more than an ostentatious advertisement that the owner has property of a more precious nature under seal at home.
The ceremonial attitude which typical Romans had about their family’s signet-images thus mirrored that of their empire towards the emperor’s own crest. Pliny’s language of “as from a sanctuary” shows an honoring of their family seal as sacred. This makes complete sense when the signet-image is seen as a miniature coat of arms, imbued with the power, status, and authority of the family.
Pliny’s cultic language is particularly important because it highlights the impossibility of drawing a sharp divide between the sacred and the secular in this context, and shows that the concealment of the ring in its special box (which the Greeks honored with its own name—dactyliotheca) was a form of veneration by veiling or concealment. This all makes even more sense when we recall that the signet-image was often connected to special family achievements, an ancestor, or a god—sources of the family’s honor and authority.
Once we acknowledge the ancient idea that a signet-image contains someone’s power by means of representing the basis for their family’s dominion, it naturally leads to the question of whether rings in the ancient world were seen as having qualities which we would regard as magical. Jonathan Pageau, the renowned icon carver who has done much to awaken the contemporary world to the symbolic patterns within all reality, notes several examples of magical rings from a variety of cultures.[1] It especially makes sense that a ring, in representing a spiritual being (such as a pagan god) would be connected to the power of that being (often thought of as magic).
But regardless of the kind of family crest on the ring, there is a common spiritual pattern which Pageau notes is present in all ring-wearing—the phenomenon of binding and its connection to hierarchy. Speaking of the continuity between rings in real life and their symbolism in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, Jonathan Pageau notes the following:
…the hierarchy of the (One) ring becomes a hierarchy of dark power which places the dark lord at its head. And so the rings given to the people become subject to the power of the owner of the One Ring. This binding appears in the very shape of the ring as a band or circle which marks and surrounds the wearer with its power. The notion that a ring is a form of binding to oneself is something we can still understand today, as this is the purpose of placing a wedding band around our spouse. It binds them to us just like it bound the owners of the multiple rings to Sauron who had made and given them the rings.
Pageau’s understanding of rings as binding the wearer to what is represented by the ring becomes even more obvious when we start asking questions about hypothetical (hopefully not actual!) situations in which people are wearing rings. If a young child wears a ring with a picture of a dinosaur or a kitty cat, we will naturally conclude “they really like dinos” or “they really like kitties.” But if they are still wearing that ring at age 15, we might raise an eyebrow. The devotional aspect becomes even stronger when we consider unacceptable uses of rings by adults. Just imagine the uproar if a husband wore a ring with a tiny image of an ex-girlfriend on one of his fingers and tried to convince his wife “she means nothing, I’m totally over her.” It is obvious here that the act of putting the ring on (or leaving it on) serves a commemorative function. This leads us to ask “does the wearing outwardly show commemorative devotion, or does it actually cause one to remember and feel devoted?” The answer seems to be both. And if a Christian were to wear a ring with an image of a false god or pagan symbol, nothing would be more natural than to point out to him or her that this outward act mirrors and even increases an inward confusion and divided allegiance. It would seem at face value to be a semi-idolatrous practice.
Clement Of Alexandria’s Teaching On Signet Images
With this background about the nature and function of signet-images, the teaching of Clement of Alexandria becomes particularly interesting and relevant.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Michael’s Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.