his fellow-tribune Lœlius to withdraw the accusation, and set Gabinius at liberty.21
The
wearing of a gold ring, because it was a sign of patrician and later of
free birth, had such a high value in the eyes of the Romans that some freedmen
used the subterfuge of wearing a gold ring with a dark coating, so that
it would appear to be of iron. Thus, although they neither had the
gratification nor incurred the perils of wearing a symbol confined to
the freeborn, they had the intimate personal satisfaction of knowing
that it was really on the hand.21a
From
the rather scant evidence that has come down to us, it appears that
Roman women were not subjected to as strict regulations in the wearing
of rings of precious metal as were the men. The wives of simple
plebeians who were in good circumstances seem as generally and freely
to have worn them as the wives and daughters of senators or knights, or
other patrician women. Pliny writes of the women wearing gold on every
finger.22
In
Rome, as early as the first century, at a time when the right of
wearing gold rings was, as has been shown, very strictly limited, it
occasionally happened that a famous actor was accorded this privilege
by the special favor of some influential admirer of his art. Sulla
granted this right to Roscius, and some years later, in 43 b.c., the
Roman quaestor in Spain bestowed a gold ring upon Herennius Gallus in
the ancient city of Gades, the modern Cadiz. This gave him the right to
occupy a seat in one of the first fourteen rows at the theatre, the
part reserved for the knights. This special privilege
81 Valeria Maximi, " Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX," lib. viii, cap. i.
21 a See Punii, " Naturalis Historia," lib. xxxiii, cap. xxiii.
22 "Naturalis Historia," lib. xxxiii, cap. xi.
