Alderson, Hut., of Durham, 365.
Antiquarian Hall, 139.
Antique bronze found in the Thames, 267.
----------------------------------, another view, 269.
Armorial bearing, 555.
Barleycorn, sir John, 116.
Bath chairman, mock funeral of, 41.
Bear garden, in Southwark, in 1574, 491.
-------------------------, in 1648, 493.
Beckenham church-yard, porch of, 765.
--------- church, font of, 771.
Beckenham Church, Kent, 765.
--------- road, bridge over, 701.
Berne, arcades in, 428.
Billy Boots, 303.
Bird-catcher, (London) in 1827, 589.
Blind Hannah, 221.
----- Willie, of Newcastle, 461.
Buckingham, duke of, house in which he died, 525.
Charke, Mrs., Colley Cibber’s daughter, 125.
Chatham-hill, Star inn on, 605.
Collecting-box, 769.
Cranbourne Chase, emigration of deer from, 29.
“Crooked Billet,” on Penge Common, 669.
Eclipse, the race-horse, 619.
Elvet bridge, Durham, 413.
Fleet river, (ancient) at Clerkenwell, 75.
Harrow church, font of, 157.
Hobby-horses for children, crier of, 686.
Holly-tree, carrying of at Brough, 27.
Howard, of Effingham, lord, autograph of, 573.
Interlaken, houses in, 428.
London cries, 509.
------ cherry-woman, 685.
Lovat, lord, 237.
March Fair, at Brough, Westmoreland, 317.
May-day, at Lynn, 541.
------- dance, 557.
Monument at Lucerne, 253.
Newsman, 61.
Newspaper, reading the, 797.
Pageant vehicle and play, 11.
Pedestrian costume, 428.
Petrarch’s Inkstand, frontispiece.
Pillar, ancient British, 349.
Poor’s-box in Cawston church, 747.
---------- in Loddon church, 749.
Seal of the lord high admiral, 573.
Servants, hiring of, at a statute fair, 203.
Shepherd’s well, Hampstead, 581.
Snuff-box, (My) 189.
Snuffers, pair of old, 637.
Soldier, (Scotch) story of, 285.
Stanmore toll-house, 171.
Stratford-upon-Avon church, 445.
Swiss costume, 428.
-------------, 429.
Tommy Bell, 651.
----- Sly, of Durham, 334.
York, duke of, 93.
“Young lambs to sell,” 395.
Water-carriers, (old) 733.
West Wickham church, 811.
Vol. II.--28.
THE
TABLE BOOK.
[Illustration: ~The Gimmal Ring.~]
This is an ancient form of the “tool of matrimony,” from one found at
Horsleydown, and exhibited in 1800 to the Society of Antiquaries. Mr.
Robert Smith, the possessor of this curious ring, transmitted with it
some remarks and descriptions of a nature very interesting to the lovers
of archæology, and the “happy estate;” and from thence is derived the
following account of this particular ring, with illustrations of the
form and use of the _gimmal_-ring generally.--
This ring is constructed, as the name imports, of twin or double hoops,
which play one within another, like the links of a chain. Each hoop has
one of its sides flat, the other convex; each is twisted once round, and
each surmounted by a hand, issuing from an embossed fancy-work wrist or
sleeve; the hand rising somewhat above the circle, and extending in the
same direction. The course of the twist, in each hoop, is made to
correspond with that of its counterpart, so that on bringing together
the flat surfaces of the hoops, the latter immediately unite in one
ring. On the lower hand, or that of which the palm is uppermost, is
represented a heart; and, as the hoops close, the hands slide into
contact, forming, with their ornamented wrists, a head to the whole. The
device thus presents a triple emblem of love, fidelity, and union. Upon
the flat side of the hoops are engraven “Usé de Vertu,” in Roman
capitals; and, on the inside of the lower wrist, the figures “990.” The
whole is of fine gold, and weighs two pennyweights four grains.
It is of foreign workmanship, probably French, and appears to be of no
great antiquity; perhaps about the reign of our queen Elizabeth: for
though the time of the introduction into Europe of the Arabic numerals
be referred by some to an æra nearly corresponding with the figures on
the ring, the better opinion seems to be, that the Arabian method of
notation was unknown to the Europeans until about the middle of the 13th
century. It is conjecture, therefore, that the figures were meant to
express, not a date, but the artist’s number; such as we see still
engraven on watches. The workmanship is not incurious; and the ring
furnishes a genuine specimen of the _gimmal_, (a term now almost
forgotten.)
Rings, it is well known, are of great antiquity; and, in the early ages
of the world, denoted authority and government. These were communicated,
symbolically, by the delivery of a ring to the person on whom they were
meant to be conferred. Thus Pharaoh, when he committed the government of
Egypt to Joseph, took the ring from his finger and gave it to Joseph, as
a _token_ of the authority with which he invested him. So also did
Ahasuerus to his favourite Haman, and to Mordecai, who succeeded him in
his dignity.
In conformity to this ancient usage, recorded in the Bible, the
Christian church afterwards adopted the ceremony of the ring in
marriage, as a symbol of the authority which the husband gave the wife
over his household, and over the “earthly goods” with which he endowed
her.
But the _gimmal_ ring is comparatively of modern date. It should seem,
that we are indebted for the design to the ingenious fancies of our
Gallic neighbours, whose skill in diversifying the symbols of the tender
passion has continued unrivalled, and in the language of whose country
the mottoes employed on almost all the amorous trifles are still to be
found. It must be allowed, that the double hoop, each apparently free
yet inseparable, both formed for uniting, and complete only in their
union, affords a not unapt representation of the married state.
Among the numerous “love-tokens” which lovers have presented to their
mistresses, in all ages, the _ring_ bears a conspicuous part; nor is any
more likely than the _gimmal_ to “steal the impression of a mistress’s
fantasy,” as none so clearly expresses its errand. In the
“Midsummer-Night’s Dream” of Shakspeare, where Egeus accuses Lysander,
before the duke, of having inveigled his daughter’s affections, or, as
the old man expresses it, “witch’d the bosom” of his child, he exclaims,
“Thou hast given her rhimes,
And interchang’d love-tokens with my child:
Thou hast, by moon-light, at her window sung,
With feigning voice, verses of feigning love;
And stol’n the impression of her fantasie,
With bracelets of thy hair, rings, gawds, conceits.”
From a simple love-token, the gimmal was at length converted into the
more serious “sponsalium annulus,” or ring of affiance. The lover
putting his finger through one of the hoops, and his mistress hers
through the other, were thus, symbolically, yoked together; a yoke which
neither could be said wholly to wear, one half being allotted to the
other. In this use of the gimmal may be seen typified, “a community of
interests, mutual forbearance, and a participation of authority.”
The French term for it is _foi_, or _alliance_; which latter word, in
the “Dictionnaire de Trévoux,” is defined, “bague ou jonc que
_l’accordé_ donne à son _accordée_, où il y a un fil _d’or_, et un fil
_d’argent_.” This definition not only shows the occasion of its use, but
supposes the two hoops to be composed, one of gold, the other of silver;
a distinction evidently meant to characterise the bridegroom and bride.
Thus Columella calls those vines which produce two different sorts of
grapes, “gemellæ vites.”
Our English glossaries afford but little information on the subject.
Minshew refers the reader from _gimmal_ to _gemow_; the former he
derives from “gemellus,” the latter from the French “jumeau:” and he
explains the _gemow ring_ to signify “_double_ or _twinnes_, because
they be rings with two or more links.” Neither of the words is in
Junius. Skinner and Ainsworth deduce _gimmal_ from the same Latin
origin, and suppose it to be used only of something consisting of
correspondent parts, or double. Dr. Johnson gives it a more extensive
signification; he explains gimmal to mean, “some little quaint devices,
or pieces of machinery,” and refers to Hanmer: but he inclines to think
the name gradually corrupted from _geometry_ or _geometrical_, because,
says he, “any thing done by _occult means_ is vulgarly said to be done
by geometry.”
The word is not in Chaucer, nor in Spenser; yet both Blount in his
“Glossography,” and Philips in his “World of Words,” have _geminals_;
which they interpret _twins_.
Shakspeare has _gimmal_ in two or three places; though none of the
commentators seem thoroughly to understand the term.
_Gimmal_ occurs in “King Henry the Fifth,” Act IV. Scene II., where the
French lords are proudly scoffing at the condition of the English army.
Grandpree says,
“The horsemen sit like fixed candlesticks,
With torch-staves in their hands; and their poor jades
Lob down their heads, dropping the hide and hips:
The gum down-roping from their pale dead eyes;
And in their pale dull mouths the _gimmal_ bit
Lies foul with chaw’d grass, still and motionless.”
We may understand the _gimmal_ bit, therefore, to mean either a double
bit, in the ordinary sense of the word (_duplex_,) or, which is more
appropriate, a bit composed of links, playing one within another,
(_gemellus_.)
In the “First Part of King Henry the Sixth,” after the French had been
beaten back with great loss, Charles and his lords are concerting
together the farther measures to be pursued, and the king says,
“Let’s leave this town, for they are hare brain’d slaves,
And hunger will enforce them to be more eager:
Of old I know them; rather with their teeth
The walls they’ll tear down, than forsake the siege.”
To which Reignier subjoins,
“I think, by some odd _gimmals_ or device,
Their arms are set, like clocks, still to strike on;
Else they could ne’er hold out so, as they do,
By my consent we’ll e’en let them alone.”
Some of the commentators have the following note upon this passage: “A
_gimmal_ is a piece of jointed work, where one piece moves within
another; whence it is taken at large for an _engine_. It is now vulgarly
called ‘gimcrack.’”
* * * * *
Mr. Archdeacon Nares instances a stage direction in “Lingua,” an old
play--“Enter Anamnestes (a page to Memory) in a grave sattin sute,
purple buskins, &c. a _gimmal_ ring with one link hanging.” He adds,
that _gimmal_ rings, though originally double, were by a further
refinement made triple, or even more complicated; yet the name remained
unchanged. Herrick, in his “Hesperides,” has the following verses.
_The Jimmal Ring, or True-love-knot._
Thou sent’st to me a true-love-knot; but I
Return’d a ring of jimmals, to imply
Thy love had one knot, mine a triple-tye.
According to Randle Holme, who, under the term “annulet,” figures the
_gimmal_ ring,[242] Morgan, in his “Sphere of Gentry,” speaks of “three
triple _gimbal_ rings borne by the name of Hawberke:” which Mr. Nares
says was “evidently because the hawberk was formed of rings linked into
each other.”
* * * * *
A further illustration of the _gimmal_ ring may be gathered from the
following passage. “It is related in _Davis’s Rites of the Cathedral of
Durham_, (8vo. 1672, p. 51,) that over our lady of Bolton’s altar there
was a marvellous, lively, and beautiful image of the picture of our
lady, called the lady of Bolton, which picture was made to open with
_gimmes_ (or linked fastenings) from the breast downward; and within the
said image was wrought and pictured the image of our Saviour
marvellously finely gilt.”[243]
I find that the brass rings within which the seaman’s compass swings,
are by the seamen called _gimbals_. This is the only instance I can
discover of the term being still used.
*
* * * * *
The _gimmal_ ring appears in common language to have been called a
_joint_-ring. There is a passage relating to it in Dryden’s “Don
Sebastian.”
“A curious artist wrought ’em,
With joynts so close as not to be perceiv’d;
Yet are they both each other’s counterpart,
(Her part had _Juan_ inscrib’d, and his had _Zayda_.
You know those names were theirs:) and, in the midst,
A heart divided in two halves was plac’d.
Now if the rivets of those rings, inclos’d,
Fit not each other, I have forg’d this lye:
But if they join, you must for ever part.”
According to other passages in this play one of these rings was worn by
Sebastian’s father: the other by Almeyda’s mother, as pledges of love.
Sebastian pulls off his, which had been put on his finger by his dying
father: Almeyda does the same with hers, which had been given her by
her mother at parting: and Alvarez unscrews both the rings, and fits one
half to the other.
* * * * *
There is a beautiful allusion to the emblematical properties of the
wedding ring in the following poem:--