characteristic of Charles II of England, he did not hesitate to bestow
a choice ring from his own hand upon the notorious Jeffreys, when the
latter was leaving London on one of his circuits always marked by the
browbeating of witnesses and accused, and the imposition of capital
sentences, wherever possible. It was at a somewhat later date, in
1685, just after the accession of James II, that Jeffreys conducted
the trials of the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth’s adherents, which came
to be known as the “Bloody Assize.” This fact of the presentation was
published in the Royal Gazette, thus notably strengthening Jeffreys’
prestige. So general, however, was the reprobation of his heartless and
bloodthirsty administration of his judicial office that the ring was
called “Jeffreys’ bloodstone.”[331]
In March, 1748, as some ploughmen were tilling a field seven miles from
Mullingor, County Westmeath, Ireland, they discovered a grave, the
bottom, sides and ends of which were formed each of a single slab of
stone. Within the grave were the bones of a man of gigantic stature,
and also an urn and a valuable ring, set with twenty-five diamonds.
Bishop Pococke, treating of this ring, mentions the fact that Rosa
Failge, eldest son of Cathoir More, known as Cathoir the Great, who
reigned in 122 A.D., was called the “Hero of Rings,” but the
writer adds that the ring could scarcely have belonged to him, since
diamonds do not appear to have been known in Ireland at this early
date.[332]
A most interesting Washington relic is a pearl and gold ring made
in his lifetime and containing a lock of his hair placed beneath a
conical glass. This is encircled by a setting of blue and white enamel,
a square of red being set at each corner, and around this a circle
of thirteen pearls, the number of the original States. This ring
was given by Washington to Lieut. Robert Somers. The latter lost his
life while fighting the Algerene pirates in Tripoli, but before his
departure he confided the ring to the care of his sister, Sarah Keen.
It is now owned by Vice-Chancellor E. B. Leaming of Camden, New Jersey,
who inherited it from his paternal grandmother, an heir to Somers’
estate. Only two other rings containing Washington’s hair are known of,
one in Washington’s Headquarters at Newburgh on the Hudson, the other
in the Boston Museum.[333]
In far-away Sweden there has been preserved a historic Washington
relic. This is a ring given by the Revolutionary leader to Lafayette
before the latter’s return to France after the victorious Yorktown
campaign. The ring passed from Lafayette to his intimate friend, Baron
Erik Magnus Staël von Holstein, Swedish ambassador to France. The
latter, on a visit to his native land gave it to his brother, Major
Bogislaus Staël von Holstein, in whose family it was transmitted as an
heirloom until it reached the hands of the maternal grandfather of the
present owner, Mr. Gösta Frölen of Falun, Sweden. The ring is of gold
and is set with a miniature portrait of Washington.
It is said that two other rings were given by Washington about the
same time to two Swedish noblemen, who had served as adjutants to
Rochambeau. The presentation occurred at a banquet given in their
honor, just before their departure for their native land, at the City
Tavern in Philadelphia, November 11, 1782. In bestowing these gifts
Washington is said to have used the following words: “I am happy to be
here amongst men belonging to the race of my own early ancestors.” All
trace of these rings has been lost.
V
BETROTHAL (ENGAGEMENT) RINGS, WEDDING (NUPTIAL)
RINGS, AND LOVE TOKENS
Special wedding-rings, as we understand them, were not used at an early
period, the espousal ring being employed at the wedding ceremony also.
At a later time, a signet was set in the _anulus pronubus_, or
betrothal ring, to signify that the spouse was to have the right of
sealing up the household goods, and occasionally a small key formed
part of the ring, with a similar significance. We have a testimony to
this view in the words of the marriage ceremony: “With all my worldly
goods I thee endow.” The wives of our day are quite disposed to accept
this passage in its literal sense, although some may incline to a more
liberal interpretation of the promise to love, honor and obey their
husbands. The ring as a pledge of love is said to be first mentioned in
Roman literature by Plautus in his “Miles Gloriosus” (Act IV, sc. i,
v. 11); this passage, however, does not refer to a nuptial ring, but
rather to a love token.
Somewhat distantly related to the betrothal or wedding rings were those
given by lovers to the objects of their affection. Of such a ring the
Roman poet Ovid writes, apostrophizing it as “a ring soon destined to
encircle the finger of a beauteous girl, a ring having no worth except
the love of the giver.” It was to be a gift to the poet’s ladylove
Corinna.[334] The ring sent by a fair lady, as a token of love to a
handsome soldier, in the “Miles Gloriosus” of Plautus was also of this
class.
The custom of placing the betrothal or wedding ring upon the fourth
finger seems undoubtedly to owe its origin to the fancy that a special
nerve, or vein, ran directly from this finger to the heart. Macrobius,
in his Saturnalia,[335] alludes to the belief in the following words:
“Because of this nerve, the newly betrothed places the ring on this
finger of his spouse, as though it were a representation of the heart.”
Macrobius asserts that he derived his information from an Egyptian
priest.
It has been conjectured that this was not the real source of the
custom, but that in the church service it was usual for the Christian
priest to touch three fingers successively with the ring while saying:
“In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and then
to place it upon the last finger touched. We know that this was the
usage in the bestowal of episcopal rings, and later with wedding rings,
but the express statement cited from the pagan writer Macrobius shows
that in the earlier marriage or betrothal ceremony this custom must
have had an entirely different origin.
During the reign of George I of England it was not unusual to wear the
wedding ring on the thumb, although it had been placed on the fourth
finger at the marriage ceremony. Possibly this custom may have arisen
because exceptionally large wedding rings were favored by fashion at
that time. That wedding rings were often worn on the thumb in the
middle of the seventeenth century is proved by the lines from Samuel
Butler’s Hudibras quoted on another page.[336]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN WOMAN BY PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ
Rings on thumb and index of right hand, and on fourth and little
fingers of left hand Museo del Prado, Madrid]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE EMPRESS MARY, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES
V AND WIFE OF MAXIMILIAN II, BY JUAN PANTOJA DE LA CRUZ
Two rings on index and one on little finger of right hand; one on
index of left hand; all set with precious stones Museo del Prado,
Madrid]
Ecclesiastical rituals in France from the eleventh to the fifteenth
century prove, with but few exceptions, that the nuptial ring was to be
placed on the right hand of the bride, in most of the dioceses upon the
middle finger of this hand, but in the diocese of Liége on the fourth
finger. As Isidore of Seville, writing in the early part of the seventh
century, declares that the betrothal ring was put on the fourth finger,
and repeats the Roman fancy as to the vein intimately connecting this
particular finger with the heart,[337] it seems likely that this rule
was generally followed in the Roman Empire up to its end, and even
later in some parts of what had once been Roman provinces, while the
early French rules were derived from a Gallic usage which had never
been supplanted by the Roman one.[338] That the Gauls and Britons of
the first century wore their rings on the middle finger is already
noted by Pliny.[339]
A gold ring, a unique relic of Anglo-Saxon times in England, was found
in an ancient burial place at Harnham Hill, near Salisbury.[340] It
was on a finger bone of the left hand of a skeleton, and resembles
exactly our wedding-ring of to-day. In the same cemetery was unearthed
a twisted ring of silver, a mere band twice encircling the finger; a
section of the finger-bone remains within the ring. These relics are
believed to date from the seventh century. On or near the skeleton
with which this silver ring was found were several amber beads; the
remains were evidently those of an elderly person, although of one not
over 55 years of age, according to Professor Owen.
That part of the Order of Matrimony relating to the marriage vows and
to the wedding ring, in the Sarum Rite or Use current in England in
pre-Reformation times, runs as follows, after the bride and groom have
clasped hands:[341]
Ich N. take the N. to my wedded wyf, to haven and to holden fro this
day forward, for betre for wors, for rychere for porere, in syknesse
and in helthe, til deth us departe, and theerto y plith the my trewthe.
Then the woman:
Ich N. take the N. to my wedded hosebund, to haven and to holden fro
this day forward, for betre and for wors, for rychere and for porere,
to be boneyre and buxum ... and at borde, till dethe us departe and
thereto y plith the my trewthe.
Then let the man lay gold, silver, and a ring on a dish or book; and
let the Priest ask if the ring hath been blessed already; if it be
answered not, then let the Priest bless the ring.
Bless, O Lord, this ring (looking at it) which we hallow in Thy Holy
Name, that whosoever she be that shall wear it may be steadfast in Thy
peace and abide in Thy will, and live, increase, and grow old in Thy
love, and let the length of her days be multiplied.
[Illustration: Gold ring in which are inserted representations of
two winged figures cut in intaglio in a brown chalcedony. Antique
workmanship. See page 363
Collection of B. G. Fairchild, Esq., New York City]
[Illustration: Locket ring, opening at the bezel and on the
sides, leaving room for the introduction of hair, or tiny
portraits. When closed the ring appears to be plain and smooth]
[Illustration: Antique Syrian ring of bronze, set with a
yellowish green paste. Half of the circlet has broken away]
[Illustration: Gold ring set with octahedral diamond. Late Roman.
British Museum]
[Illustration: Twisted hoop of silver on the bone of a finger.
From an ancient sepulchre at Harnham Hill, England. Saxon, 7th
century
Archæologia, vol. xxxv, pl. opp. p. 278]
[Illustration: WEDDING RINGS FROM SYRIAN TOMBS OF CHALCEDONY,
AGATE, AND BANDED AGATE]
But if the ring shall have been already blessed, then, as soon as
the man have laid it on the book, let the Priest take the ring and
deliver it to the man; and let the man receive it in his right hand,
with the first three fingers, holding the right hand of the Bride with
his left hand, and say, after the Priest:
With this ryng ich the wedde, and with my body ich the honoure and with
al my gold ich the dowere.
And then let the bridegroom put the ring on the thumb of the Bride,
saying--
In the Name of the Father; (on the first finger) and of the Son; (on
the second finger) and of the Holy Ghost; (on the third finger). Amen.
And there let him leave it, because in that finger there is a certain
vein which reaches to the heart; and by the purity of the silver is
signified the inward affection which ought ever to be fresh between
them.
In the modern Protestant Episcopal service, the bestowal of the ring is
ordered as follows:
Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto
the Woman a Ring. And the Minister, taking the Ring, shall deliver it
unto the Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman’s left
hand. And the Man holding the Ring there, and taught by the Minister,
shall say:
With this Ring I thee wed, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
It will be noted that the ring is first given by the man to the woman,
then taken from her by the priest who returns it to the man, upon which
the latter puts it on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand.
Four fine specimens of later Byzantine work in ring-making are in
the British Museum. These are all marriage-rings of massive gold,
the designs being similar, with certain variations. The bezels
bear engraved figures of Christ alone, or of Christ and the Virgin,
bestowing a blessing upon the newly wedded pair; beneath is the Greek
word ὸμονόια (or ὸμόνυαι), signifying their spiritual union. All but
one have on the hoop in Greek characters the inscription: “My peace I
give unto you” (John, xiv, 27). On the remaining ring there is on the
hoop a decoration in niello, depicting very roughly scenes from the
Gospel. The character of the work indicates that it probably belongs
to the tenth century.[342] A massive gold ring found not long since
in Mainz, bears a Greek inscription showing that it was executed for
the nuptials of King Stephen Radislav of Servia (1228–1234) with
Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Theodore Angélus Comnenus, Duke of
Thessalonica, the region of the Saloniki of to-day. The inscription on
this early thirteenth century ring of Byzantine workmanship is nielloed
on the gold.[343]
Some interesting inscriptions appear on certain of the Greek betrothal
rings in the collection of the British Museum. A gold ring of about
the fourth century B.C. bears a Greek inscription which may
be rendered as follows: “To her who excells not only in virtue and
prudence, but also in wisdom.” In marked contrast to this rather
elaborate dedication is the inscription on another ring, which bears
the single word μὲλι “Honey.” It strikes us strangely enough to find
this particular term of endearment, so freely used by the Negroes, on
a ring from classic times. Perhaps the most beautiful of all these
inscriptions is on a late Greek ring and runs: “I rejoice in the gift
because of the affection of the giver.”[344]
The custom of bestowing a ring upon the betrothed bride has been traced
back in Rome to the second century B.C. Plain iron rings were
first used for this purpose and they were still favored even when the
wearing of gold rings had become general among certain classes of the
Roman citizens. However, in the course of the second century of our
era, and perhaps earlier, gold rings came into use in the ceremony
of betrothal. Pliny’s assertion that the bride wore an unset iron
ring has been interpreted to mean no more than that, in the case of
those entitled to wear gold rings, the bridegroom after having given
the bride a gold ring, later bestowed upon her one of iron for wear
within doors. For it appears to have been a rather general usage, in
or before Pliny’s time, to wear gold rings only when in public, and
within the house iron rings. That the nuptial ring was of gold, in the
second century at least, is plain from the statement of St. Clement
of Alexandria, who declares that this ring was not bestowed upon the
spouse as an ornament, but that she might seal up whatever was worthy
of special care in the household.[345]
Perhaps the earliest allusion in Christian literature to the betrothal
ring appears in one of Tertullian’s writings, dated from the end of
the second century A.D., wherein he says: “Among our women
the time-honored rules of their ancestors, which enjoined modesty and
sobriety, have died out. In former times women knew nothing of gold
except the single betrothal ring, which was placed on one of their
fingers by the fiancé.”[346] That this usage had endured for many years
is clearly apparent from the allusion to times long past. In a curious
passage,[347] St. Augustine, in the fourth century, writes: “No priest
shall hesitate to wed a couple who present themselves before the altar,
if the bride and bridegroom are not able, because of poverty, to give
rings to each other; for the (offering of) the earnest-money is a
matter of decorum, not of necessity.”
One of the rare marriage rings or love tokens of the early Christian
centuries, bears incised on its circular, button-shaped chaton, a male
and a female bust, the faces turned toward each other. Above is a
cross, the lower part of its upright shaft much longer than the upper
part or the arms. This ring is of Byzantine workmanship and has been
approximately dated about 440 A.D. It is a good example of the
so-called bi-cephalic rings, rings bearing two heads, and weighs 3⅝
dwt., or 87 grains.[348]
This usage was introduced among the ancient Germans by the Romans.
The significance of the betrothal ring is noted in a law of the
Visigoths, promulgated by Chindaswinthe (642–643 A.D.). There
had evidently been a disposition to treat lightly the obligations of
betrothal, for we read: “Since there are many who, forgetful of their
plighted faith, defer the fulfillment of their nuptial contracts, this
license should be suppressed.” Therefore, it was provided that when a
solemn declaration had been made before witnesses and the espousal ring
had been given and accepted as representing earnest-money, the marriage
ceremony must follow, if either of the parties should fail to agree to
a rupture of the engagement; that is, it could only be broken by mutual
consent.
A celebrated betrothal ring was that sent by Clovis I (465–511
A.D.) to Clothilda in 493. The following account is given of
the bestowal of this ring:
“Aurelian pursued his journey from these parts [of Burgundy], bearing
with him the ring of Chlodwig that he might gain the better credence
thereby. When he arrived at the city where Chrotechilda resided with
her aunt, Aurelian presented himself and said: ‘Chlodwig, King of the
Franks, hath sent me to thee; if such be the will of God, he wishes to
associate thee with himself in his majesty, as spouse. That thou mayst
be assured of this, he hath sent thee this ring.’ Accepting the ring,
she was filled with great joy, and answered: ‘Take a hundred solidi
as a reward for thy labor. Return quickly to thy lord and say to him:
‘If thou desirest to associate me with thyself in matrimony, send
envoys straightway to my paternal uncle Gundobard, and ask him for my
hand.’”[349] The money gift was a considerable one for the time, as the
solidus was worth intrinsically about $3 of our money, and six or eight
times as much in purchasing power in that age.
A most interesting ancient wedding ring, presumably of the Gallo-Roman
period, was unearthed toward 1850 in the neighborhood of Mulsanne,
dept. Sarthe, France. It is of massive gold and weighs 24 grams, 20
centigrams, or over ¾ ounce. On the bezel, which is square, are rudely
engraved two figures, that of a warrior resting on his lance and that
of a woman holding out her arms to him. On the shoulders, toward the
bezel, is a foliated ornamentation, and along the edge of the bezel are
engraved the two names “Dromacius” and “Betta,” the characters being
filled in with the black enamel called niello. This ring is believed to
date from the fifth century A.D.[350]
The religious aspect of the ring in the ritual of the Greek Church
finds an exponent in Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote
about a half-century before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks
in 1453. In his description of a typical marriage ceremony he states
that the officiating priest laid upon the altar two rings, an iron one
symbolic of masculine force, and a gold one typical of the less hardy
but purer feminine constitution. These rings he consecrated. After
bestowing his benediction upon the bride and bridegroom and offering
a prayer for them, he gave the woman the iron ring, as from the man,
and to the man the gold ring on the part of the woman, and changed
them three times, in adoration of the Holy Trinity, the perfecter and
sustainer of all things. Hereupon he joined the right hands of the
spouses, demonstrating their unity in Christ and that the man had
received the woman from the hand of the Church. The rings also
signified the agreement and sealing of the marriage contract.[351]
[Illustration: BETROTHAL OF JOSEPH AND MARY, BY JUAN RODRIGUEZ
JUAREZ (OR XUAREZ), MEXICO CITY, (1666–1734) CALLED THE “MEXICAN
CARRACCA”
In the possession of the author]
[Illustration: Right hand of the Virgin, right hand of St.
Joseph, and hands of the high-priest, showing the manner of
placing the wedding ring at Hebrew marriages as depicted in
the picture of Rodriguez Juarez [Xuarez]. The ring contains an
octahedral diamond crystal set in gold]
According to Buxtorf (De sponsal. et divort.), the Jews did not place
the betrothal ring upon the annular finger, but upon the index. As
to this there is a curious statement in the “Opus aureus contra
Judæos,”[352] by Victor de Carben, a converted Jew. He states that,
at the betrothal ceremony, care should be taken that the fiancée
extends her index finger to receive the ring, lest it should be put, by
mistake, upon the middle finger, for it was on this finger that Joseph
placed the ring when he betrothed Mary. Buxtorf adds that he has never
been able to find this statement in Jewish writings.
One of Ghirlandajo’s frescoes in the church of Santa Croce, in
Florence, depicts the betrothal of the Virgin. Here the ring is placed
by Joseph on the fourth finger of the Virgin’s right hand, and the
famous Sposalizio by Rafael in the Brera Gallery in Milan illustrates
the same usage. Possibly the ring was transferred to the left hand at
the actual marriage ceremony.
The custom of the Greek church at the present day in relation to
betrothal or wedding rings differs in some respects from that observed
in other Christian churches, for the priest places a ring on the fourth
finger of each of the contracting parties, who then proceed to exchange
them with each other.
The old custom of exchanging rings and betrothal vows obtains in the
Russian branch of the Eastern Church. For the succeeding marriage
ceremony, or “crowning,” the same rings are again used. The rubric
states that the bride’s ring should be of silver to show that she is
the less honorable vessel, while the bridegroom’s ring is of gold to
signify the superiority of the man. The brides, however, have shown a
disposition to resent this inequality, and, in modern times at least,
they are given gold rings also. The old Russian custom is for the
husband to wear his ring on his forefinger.[353]
In the Greek and Russian churches, the rings--of gold for the man, of
silver for the woman--are bestowed at the betrothal ceremony, when also
a contract between the parties is made. The later nuptial ceremony is
generally designated as “the crowning,” a crown being placed on the
heads of bride and bridegroom by the officiating priest.
The question was often raised whether the mere fact of giving or
accepting a ring constituted a definite promise of marriage. The best
authorities decided the question in the negative. In reference to
this matter Peter Müller writes: “If when a ring is given there is no
promise of marriage, the ring shall not be regarded as a betrothal
ring, but as a simple gift. Whence it may be inferred that a contract
of marriage cannot be proved by a ring alone, since mere donations,
bestowed through liberality, do not produce any obligation.”[354]
The connection between the wedding ring and the bestowal of
earnest-money is clearly indicated in the marriage service as given in
the Prayer-Book of Edward VI. Here, after the words “with this ring I
thee wed,” there is added: “This gold and silver I give thee”; and at
these words the bridegroom usually placed in the bride’s hands a purse
containing a sum of money. There can, indeed, be little doubt that the
espousal ring was rather the type of a valuable consideration offered
at the consummation of the marriage contract, than a symbol of the
bondage and subjection of the spouse as many have maintained.
That the ring was sometimes given conditionally is shown by a curious
old German formula to the following effect: “I give you this ring as a
sign of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your
father gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 reichsthalers.”[355]