Elizabeth’s time and founder of the Royal Exchange, we are shown his
wedding ring. This is a gimmal ring composed of two hoops, one bearing
the inscription “Quod Deus conjunxit” (What God hath joined together)
and the other: “Homo non separet” (Let not man put asunder).[381] The
two hoops are set with a red and a white stone, respectively.
A curious development of the gimmal-ring was the so-called
“puzzle-ring” consisting of pieces of gold wire ingeniously bent and
intertwined so that they appeared to form a single indivisible ring,
although by a certain clever twist they could easily be separated into
several independent hoops. This type was derived from the East.
On a gimmal ring belonging to the first half of the fifteenth century,
in the Londesborough Collection, is an engraved head of Lucretia;
at the back appear two hands clasped. This type seems to have been
common in Shakespeare’s time, for in Twelfth Night (Act II, sc. 5),
Malvolio exclaims, after examining the seal on a letter: “By your
leave, wax. Soft!--and the impressure her Lucrece with which she uses
to seal.”[382] The choice of this image for a betrothal ring must have
been intended either as a tribute to the lady’s chastity, or else as a
kind of amulet to protect her from attacks on her virtue.
[Illustration: Gimmal ring, open
Edward’s “History and Poetry of Finger Rings”]
[Illustration:
Silver betrothal ring; two views. On the shoulder appears the
legend: “God Help.” English, Fifteenth Century
British Museum]
[Illustration:
Gold puzzle rings. 1, three hoops, cruciform bezel: 2, with four
hoops. Two views of each, closed and open. Seventeenth Century
British Museum]
[Illustration:
Curious old posy ring. The motto is to be read: Our _hands_
and _hearts_ with one consent, Hath tied this _knot_
till _death_ prevent
British Museum]
[Illustration: Wedding rings with “posies.” English, Seventeenth
Century
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
[Illustration: Two Gimmal rings, one double, the other triple.
Betrothal or wedding rings
Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]
The talismanic quality of the turquoise is noted by Edward Fenton, in
his “Secrets of Nature” (1569), wherein he says: “The Turkeys doth
move when there is any perill prepared to him that weareth it.” In
his commentary on Shakespeare’s Othello, Steevens remarks that the
poet probably had the mystic virtues of this stone in mind when he
made Shylock mourn the loss of the turquoise his wife Leah had given
him before their marriage.[383] In the original text of this passage
the name is spelled “turkie,” and this old spelling is interesting as
showing the identity of the name given to the stone with that bestowed
upon the fowl known to us as a turkey. In this latter case the spelling
and pronunciation have been retained, while in the former we have the
modified form turquoise, both names indicating an association of
the respective objects with Turkey, as the land from whence they were
erroneously believed to come. As Shylock’s turquoise seems to have been
set in a betrothal ring, it is singular to note that at the present day
the turquoise is a favorite stone for betrothal rings in Germany.
In Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, where the diamond is so often mentioned
in connection with a ring given as a sign of faithfulness, a passage
occurs denoting that this stone was sometimes set in a betrothal ring
in Shakespeare’s time. The line runs (Act I, sc. 4):
This diamond was my mother’s: take it, heart;
But keep it till you woo another wife.
The preciousness and dazzling lustre of diamonds are also alluded to
in this play. It is worthy of note that while in all of Shakespeare’s
plays the diamond is only mentioned twenty-one times, seven of these
mentions are in his Cymbeline.
An emblematic wedding-ring with a deep, and perhaps somewhat ambiguous
significance, was bestowed upon his spouse by Bishop Cokes. Upon it was
engraved a hand, a heart, a mitre, and a death’s head, the inscription
reading:
These three I give to thee
Till the fourth set me free.[384]
A frankly humorous inscription was that placed upon the wedding-ring of
Lady Cathcard when, in 1713, she wedded her _fourth_ husband, Hugh
Maguire. This was as follows:
If I survive
I will have five
A similar poesy is said to have been used at a later date by John
Thomas, Bishop of London, on the ring which he used at his fourth
marriage:
If I survive
I’ll make them five.[385]
The Puritan reaction in England during the Commonwealth, against the
customs of the English Church, extended to the use of the wedding-ring,
and Samuel Butler in his Hudibras alludes to this tendency in the
following lines:
Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring
With which the unsanctify’ed bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb.
There is a possibility that this curious custom of wearing a wedding
ring on the thumb may have had some connection with the old fancy that
the second joint of the thumb was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, whose
supposed espousal ring is preserved in the Cathedral of Perugia. It
is true that this ought rather to apply to a betrothal ring than a
wedding ring. The following list gives the religious dedication of the
various finger-joints: In the right hand the upper joint of the thumb
was dedicated to God, the lower joint to the Virgin; the first joint
of the index to St. Barnabas, the second to St. John, the third to
St. Paul; the first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon Cleophas,
the second to St. Thaddæus, the third to St. Joseph; the first joint
of the annular to St. Zacchæus, the second to St. Stephen, the third
to St. Luke; the first joint of the little finger to St. Leatus, the
second to St. Mark, the third to St. Nicodemus. The dedication of
the left hand fingers was: First joint of thumb, to Christ, second
joint to the Virgin; first joint of the index to St. James, the second
to St. John the Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; first joint of the
middle finger to St. Simon, the second to St. Matthew, the third to St.
James the Greater; first joint of the annular to St. Jude, the second
to St. Bartholomew, the third to St. Andrew; first joint of the little
finger to St. Matthaias, the second to St. Thomas, the third to St.
Philip.[386]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF CLARA EUGENIA, DAUGHTER OF PHILIP II
OF SPAIN, BY GONZALES
Rings on thumb and index of right hand, which holds a miniature
of Philip. Elaborately jewelled dress and splendid pearl necklace
and head-ornament
Museo del Prado, Madrid]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF CATARINA MICHELA, DAUGHTER OF PHILIP
II OF SPAIN, BY COELLO SANCHEZ
Thumb ring on right hand and ring on index of same hand; both
with precious-stone settings. Similar rings on index and little
fingers of left hand
Museo del Prado, Madrid]
As in Europe a couple of centuries ago, so in the India of to-day, a
wedding ring is often worn on the thumb. This is of gold, about an
inch wide. It is only worn, however, for a short period, sometimes
only during the several days devoted to the celebration of the wedding
ceremonies; in other cases, it is worn for six months, or occasionally
even for twelve months after marriage. Eventually it is melted down,
the precious metal being then worked up into some other ornament.[387]
The great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was devotedly attached to
his wife, although the alliance can scarcely be looked upon as a love
match on the learned doctor’s side. His patient devotion to his sickly
and rather ugly wife goes to show how wide is the divergence between
theory and practice, for in his dictionary Johnson defines a ring as:
“a circular instrument placed upon the noses of hogs and the fingers
of women to restrain them and bring them into subjection.” After his
wife’s death Dr. Johnson preserved her wedding-ring in a box bearing
the following inscription:
“Eheu! Eliza Johnson, Nupta July 9^o 1736, Mortua, eheu! Mart.
17^o 1752.”
That the betrothal ring was occasionally worn on the index finger is
shown in two celebrated seventeenth century pictures, the “Betrothal
of Marie de’ Medici,” by Rubens, and the “Betrothal of St. Catherine,”
by Murillo. Sometimes, however, the little finger was chosen for this
honor and an interesting example of this custom is given by a document
in the Hohenzollern Museum in Berlin. Here is exhibited a list of the
rings worn by Queen Louisa of Prussia on the day of her death, written
down by her husband, King Friedrich Wilhelm III, and the first entry
reads: “Our betrothal ring, on the little finger of the right hand.”
The list closes with the following simple and touching words in the
King’s handwriting: “At Hohenzieritz, on the most unhappy day of my
life, July 19, 1810,” this being the day of Queen Louisa’s death.
It may be noted that at the present day, while the usual custom in
South Germany is to wear the wedding ring on the fourth finger of the
left hand, in North Germany the right hand is generally given the
preference. This applies both to men and women.
King George IV of England is said to have had two rings made, each
provided with a secret spring which, on being pressed, opened a
panel and revealed the king’s portrait and that of Mrs. Fitzherbert,
respectively. The ring containing the king’s portrait was bestowed by
him upon Mrs. Fitzherbert, whom he is said to have married in 1785,
and that with her portrait was kept by him, and, before his death,
entrusted to the Duke of Wellington, the latter promising solemnly that
he would place it upon his royal master’s breast when his remains
were in the coffin. Mrs. Fitzherbert left her ring to Miss Dawson
Damer.[388] Another ring given by George IV to Mrs. Fitzherbert was
exhibited in the Victoria Exhibition, at the New Gallery, London, and
is described as being a gimmal, the two hoops closely fitting together,
with the inscription “Geo. Adolph. Frederick” on the inside of one and
“Maria Anne” on that of the other.[389]
In former times rings used to be presented to the chief guests at a
wedding, and at the marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert, six
dozen such rings were bestowed, each one having a profile portrait of
the bride engraved upon it, with the inscription, “Victoria Regina.”
The revival of this graceful custom would serve to perpetuate among the
wedding guests the memory of the ceremony at which they had assisted.
Wedding rings figuring two clasped hands are still used by the peasants
of Normandy, and in Galway also rings bearing two hands clasping a
heart have been passed down from generation to generation, from the
mother to the eldest daughter. This illustrates the general rule that
long after a custom or a form of personal adornment has ceased to be
in favor with the higher classes it continues to be popular with the
peasantry.
The inscriptions on rings occasionally seen, which appear to be a
medley of meaningless letters, are often the makeup of two names
interlocked, such as “George” and “Sophia”:
gAeIoHrPgOeS
the one name reading to the right and the other to the left.
In some parts of Ireland the belief in the special virtue of a gold
wedding ring is so strong that when the bridegroom is too poor to
buy one he will hire it for the occasion, and it is reported that a
shopkeeper of Munster realized quite a little sum annually by renting
rings for weddings, to be brought back to him after the ceremony.
Strange to say, there is said to have been a superstitious fancy in
Yorkshire, England, that to wed with a borrowed ring would bring good
luck.[390]
A Scottish tradition in regard to a ring used at a wedding is imbued
with the gloomy superstition so characteristic of Scotland. The heir
of a noble family was about to be married to a Dutch lady of rank,
but when the wedding-day came was so apathetic, or so preoccupied,
that he forgot the hour of the ceremony, and had to be hurried from
his breakfast to the church. In his haste he had forgotten all about
the wedding-ring, and was obliged to use a ring offered to him by a
bystander when the ceremony reached the point where one had to be put
on the bride’s finger. What was her terror, however, when she saw that
it was a mourning-ring that had been placed upon her hand, one bearing
the sinister design of a skull and cross-bones. This she felt to be an
omen that death would soon overtake her, and she brooded so much over
the happening that she sank into a decline, and died before a year had
passed. The effect of the mind upon the body is so great, especially in
highly nervous organisms, that such a tragic result of a mere piece of
carelessness is far from being impossible.
In modern times betrothal rings are often of the type called “regard
rings,” where the letters of a word are indicated by the initial
letters of the stones set in the ring, as, for example:
R uby
E merald
G arnet
A methyst
R uby
D iamond
In a similar way the Christian name of either of the betrothed may be
indicated, as, for instance:
S apphire
O pal
P eridot
H yalite
I olite
A methyst
Although a diamond ring is the one most appropriate as an engagement
ring, it has long been recognized that for a wedding ring nothing
can replace the simple hoop of precious metal, which may, indeed,
be rendered a trifle less plain by some very chaste and beautiful
engraving. A reason for the preference given to the ring without
setting is offered by Fuller in his “Holy State,” where he says:
“Marriage with a diamond ring foreshadowed evil, because the
interruption of the circle augured that the reciprocal regard of the
spouse might not be perpetual.”[391]
An attempt is being made in Germany to introduce the use of
wedding-rings with moderate ornamentation and appropriate mottoes
patterned on those of former times, in place of the severely plain gold
hoop that has for a long time been decreed to be the only proper form
of wedding-ring. If the tendency to over-ornamentation is kept strictly
within bounds and if the mottoes are well chosen, there is some reason
to think that the innovation, or rather revival, may meet with some
success, as it will afford scope for individuality of taste to assert
itself, and for the expression of sentiment in a way that has not been
possible under present conditions.
A wedding ring of iron and gold artistically combined has gained some
favor of late, as symbolizing the union of strength and beauty, of
the more solid with the more brilliant qualities. The uncompromising
plainness of the plain gold ring, which represented a reaction to
primitive forms from the over-ornamentation of the Rococo period, will
probably give place to certain simple and chaste designs which can be
made to symbolize some of the thoughts and sentiments connected with
the marriage ceremony. But the unstable, oxidizing quality of the iron
will not recommend this metal for durability.
The recurrence of a great national crisis will often cause the
revival of some custom or usage of an earlier one. Thus it is that
in the present War of Nations, Germans have revived the practice of
exchanging gold rings for iron ones that was resorted to in the dark
time of Napoleonic supremacy in Germany. The total value of the metal
secured in this way is of course relatively small, though not entirely
negligible, but the spirit of devotion to the Vaterland finds both
a real and a symbolic expression in the deposition of many a valued
heirloom on the country’s altar. To avoid a rust stain on the finger
these iron rings--which usually bear the figure of the Iron Cross--are
frequently lined with a thin layer of gold. Not only rings but gold
and silver objects of all kinds and valuable jewels have been brought
in by patriotic Germans, to such an extent, indeed, that the Viennese
jewellers are urging that the metals should be immediately melted, as
in case the objects or ornaments should be put on the market, they
would compete disastrously with the jewellers’ shops. It is stated that
up to the middle of September, 1915, as many as five thousand wedding
rings were donated in the single Prussian province of Posen, and the
estimate has been made that about one million dollars will be realized
from the total offerings throughout the Germanic countries.
The ancients and the alchemists called gold the metal of the sun and
silver the metal of the moon, but within the past two centuries the
world has become familiar with platinum, a metal of equal dignity with
gold, but with the pure whiteness of the somewhat tarnishable silver.
Platinum, because of its durability and purity, may well be called
the metal of Heaven, and within the past century we have added to our
list of metals aluminum, a metal which constitutes a fair percentage
of the earth’s surface. This can be appropriately termed the metal of
the earth. These two metals, platinum and aluminum, have been used to a
great extent; platinum for the purpose of mounting jewels--the stars of
Heaven, as it were, in their heavenly setting--and aluminum, the metal
of earth, for a great variety of purposes.
Surely platinum, the metal of Heaven, is a most appropriate material
for a wedding ring, and as gold has always been termed the metal of
man, so platinum, the metal of Heaven, might be dedicated to woman, the
fairest gift of Heaven, and an alliance ring made of these two metals
would be an ideal matrimonial ring.
Many of those who were married before platinum was used for wedding
rings have recourse to an ingenious device by which a plate of platinum
is spun or turned over the entire part of the setting which is visible,
so that the gold ring will appear to be of platinum, either plain,
carved or chased. Great ingenuity is required in this mounting, because
it is in most cases impossible to permit the metal to do more than
touch the inner part of the ring. Otherwise, the size of the circlet
would be reduced. Alliance rings are sometimes made one side gold and
one side platinum.
At the present time many platinum wedding rings are made perfectly
plain, others are engraved with a laurel wreath, as a peace or
anti-divorce symbol, with oak leaves for strength, ivy for clinging
devotion, and some other symbolic devices. Many alliance rings are made
of two parts, one bearing the names of the engaged couple, the other
the date of the engagement. Narrow gold rings with diamond settings are
also used, closely resembling the type of diamond ring that has been
worn as a guard-ring for many years.
That men should be forced to wear wedding rings is a proposition
recently agitated in London. Public attention was called to this
question by newspaper reports to the effect that a young lady had
testified at a divorce suit that she had innocently encouraged the
attentions of a married man, because she had no means of knowing that
he was married. In many continental countries married men are always
expected to wear such rings, although there is of course no legal
compulsion to do so, any more than in the case of a wife. We can hardly
deny that anything serving to fix the status of both men and women in
the matter of their marital relations is eminently desirable.
[Illustration: Lady’s gold ring, with French motto: “_Mon cœur
est à vous_” (My heart is yours)
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]
[Illustration: Engagement ring with adjustable hoop; fully open;
half-open; and closed]
[Illustration: Ornamental wedding rings, and separable alliance
wedding ring of “gimmal” type closed and open]
[Illustration: WEDDING RINGS. PLAIN GOLD, PLATINUM AND CHASED]
Apropos of wedding rings, the notice of a special marriage ceremony
performed for a man and woman who were both ardent advocates of woman
suffrage, suggests that such unions might be signalized by the use
of a ring of a characteristic type. In this case the parties to the
marriage contract were careful to emphasize the fact that the union
was one between equals, each of whom made the same pledge of fidelity
and love to the other. Perhaps a ring enamelled with the suffragette
colors might be acceptable to the pioneers of the new era. As in many
old-fashioned marriages the woman was accorded a _de facto_
primacy, the man who willingly accepts the doctrine of the equality of
the sexes may be rather a gainer than a loser by his adherence to the
new faith.
In England, it is said that a movement has been initiated to abolish
the use of the wedding-ring, possibly in some sense as a war measure,
to constitute a slight check on the use of gold for ornamental
purposes. It is, however, conjectured that its real source is rather
to be sought in the general movement for the complete independence of
women, the wedding-ring being looked upon by some extremists as an
antiquated badge of slavery. It is hardly probable that such a movement
will meet with any considerable measure of success, for the idea that
the ring is a symbol of faith has become too deeply rooted in the
popular mind to warrant the rejection of the time-honored usage.
Perhaps the objection of the extreme advocates of “woman’s rights”
might be satisfied by the introduction of an interchange of rings
both at engagements and marriages. This exchange of rings is an
acknowledgment of the mutuality of the relation, and it has been
practiced, and still is practiced in many countries on the European
continent. Moreover, the introduction of this usage in England and
the United States would afford scope for a broadening of the symbolism
connected with these rings, by differentiating them in some way, so
that they might signify the special virtues each of the contracting
parties bring to their mutual relation. This differentiation would
in no wise imply any subjection, but would merely emphasize those
fundamental distinctions, without which the true progress of the world
would be checked. Real equality consists in the untrammeled development
of the characteristic excellences, not in any arbitrary reduction of
all to some preconceived standard.
Of all the marriage-medals that have been struck none can be said to
equal in beauty of design and tenderness of sentiment that designed in
1895 by the great French medallist Oscar Roty (1846–1911). The obverse
shows the bridegroom about to place the wedding-ring on the bride’s
hand, but in the very act of doing so, he is impelled to look upward,
as though calling for Heaven’s blessing upon his marriage. The girlish
bride has her head slightly bent down in token of assent. The scene is
in the open country; the figures are seated opposite to one another on
plain stone seats, and the landscape background is Rafaelesque in its
delicate beauty. Beneath, in the exergue, is the single word “Semper,”
an earnest that the solemn contract so gladly and so religiously
entered into will be kept for this world and for the great future.
The reverse shows a statue of Cupid on a fountain pedestal; alongside
rises the trunk of a sturdy oak. On the right is ample space for a
dedicatory inscription. The companion-piece, Roty’s second marriage
medal, executed ten or more years later, although a noble work, falls
something short of his first effort. Here the bridegroom, who displays
no ring, kneels before the bride with uplifted head, the French
motto reading “A Elle Toujours” (“Forever Hers”); on the reverse is
a church altar. Under this is a plaque, enclosing which are roses,
oak-leaves and acorns.
[Illustration: MARRIAGE MEDALS BY THE GREAT FRENCH MEDALLIST,
OSCAR ROTY (1846–1911)
The upper medal shows the putting on of the wedding ring]
[Illustration: BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD IN FORM OF SO-CALLED
“PUZZLE RING”
Six connecting hoops, three of them enameled, two others with
clasped hands, and the sixth with a key and a winged angel’s
head. Seventeenth Century.
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]
[Illustration: BETROTHAL RING OF GOLD
Inscribed in Old French “_Il est dit_” and “_Elle me
tien_” (literally “It is said (spoken)” and “She (or it) holds
me”). French. Fifteenth Century.
Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]
[Illustration: LOVE RING OF GOLD, ENAMELED AND SET WITH PRECIOUS
STONES