BETROTHAL AND WEDDING RINGS.
It would be difficult to find a subject more interesting in all its
associations than a wedding-ring. From the most remote times it has had a
mystical signification, appealing to our most cherished feelings, hopes
and wishes. The circular form of the ring was accepted in days by-gone, as
a symbol of eternity, thus indicative of the stability of affection. We
find some of our noted divines echoing the sentiments of old enthusiasts
on the figurative virtues of a ring. Thus Dean Comber and Wheatley express
themselves: ‘The matter of which this ring is made is gold, signifying how
noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our
respect (or regards) shall never have an end; the place of it is on the
fourth finger of the left hand, where the ancients thought there was a
vein that came directly from the heart, and where it may be always in
view; and, being a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be
worn out; but the main end is to be a visible and lasting token of the
covenant which must never be forgotten.’
Jeremy Taylor, in his sermon on a ‘Wedding-ring for the Finger,’ conveys,
in quaint and forcible language, the duties and responsibilities of
married life.[55]
In an old Latin work, ascribing the invention of the ring to Tubal Cain,
we find: ‘The form of the ring being circular, that is, round, and without
end, importeth thus much, that mutual love and hearty affection should
roundly flow from one to the other, as in a circle, and that continually
and for ever.’
Herrick has versified this conceit:--
Julia, I bring
To thee this ring,
Made for thy finger fit;
To show by this
That our love is,
Or should be, like to it.
Close though it be,
The joint is free;
So, when love’s yoke is on,
It must not gall,
Nor fret at all
With hard oppression.
But it must play
Still either way,
And be, too, such a yoke
As not, too wide,
To overslide,
Or be so straight to choke.
So we who bear
This beam, must rear
Ourselves to such a height
As that the stay
Of either may
Create the burthen light.
_And as this round
Is nowhere found
To flaw, or else to sever,
So let our love
As endless prove_,
And pure as gold for ever.
The same idea is conveyed in some lines by Woodward (1730) ‘to Phoebe,
presenting her with a ring:’--
Accept, fair maid, _this earnest of my love_,
_Be this the type_, let this my passion prove;
Thus may our joy in endless circles run,
Fresh as the light, and restless as the sun;
Thus may our lives _be one perpetual round_,
Nor care nor sorrow ever shall be found.
In modern poetry we have many sweet and tender allusions to the
wedding-ring. Thus Byron writes:--
In that one act may every grace
And every blessing have their place,
And give to future hours of bliss
The charm of life derived from this:
And when e’en love no more supplies,
When weary nature sinks to rest,
May brighter, steadier light arise
And make the parting moment blest!
In a collection of poems printed in Dublin (1801) we find some touching
lines to ‘S. D., with a ring:’--
Emblem of happiness, not bought nor sold,
Accept this modest ring of virgin gold.
Love in the small but perfect circle trace,
And duty in its soft yet strict embrace.
Plain, precious, pure, as best becomes the wife;
Yet firm to bear the frequent rubs of life.
Connubial love disdains a fragile toy,
Which rust can tarnish, or a touch destroy,
Nor much admires what courts the gen’ral gaze,
The dazzling diamond’s meretricious blaze,
That hides with glare the anguish of a heart,
By nature hard, tho’ polish’d bright by art.
More to thy taste the ornament that shows
Domestic bliss, and, without glaring, glows;
Whose gentle pressure serves to keep the mind
To all correct, to one discreetly kind;
Of simple elegance th’ unconscious charm,
The only amulet to keep from harm,
To guard at once and consecrate the shrine;
Take this dear pledge--it makes and keeps thee mine.
The most painful ordeal for ‘Patient’ Grisild (in Chaucer’s ‘Clerk’s
Tale’) is the surrender of what she most valued to her imperious lord, the
Marquis, the wedding-ring with which she had espoused him. This, in her
sore affliction, she returns to him:--
Here again your clothing I restore,
And eke your wedding-ring for evermore.
The celebrated Sanscrit drama, which Kalidasa wrote upon the beautiful
Sakuntala, turns upon Dushyanta’s recognition of his wife by means of a
ring which he had given to her.
The tender and affectionate faith derived from the wedding-ring is
illustrated in the legend of Guy, Earl of Warwick. The doughty knight,
when in a moment of temptation he is about to marry the beautiful Loret,
daughter of the Emperor Ernis, is recalled to his duty at the sight of the
wedding-ring, and remembers his fair Félice, who is far distant, pining at
his absence:--
The wedding-ring was forth brought;
Guy, then, on fair Félice thought,
He had her nigh forgotten clean.
‘Alas,’ he said, ‘Félice, the sheen!’
And thought in his heart anon--
‘’Gainst thee now have I misdone!’
Guy said, ‘penance I crave,
None other maid my love shall have.’
We see also the tenderness that a wedding-ring can inspire in the instance
of Louis IX. of France, who in his youth was married to Marguerite of
Provence, the victim of a cruel jealousy on the part of Blanche of
Castile, the King’s mother. The young Prince, who loved his wife dearly,
constantly wore a ring ornamented with a garland of lilies and daisies, in
allusion to his spouse and himself. A magnificent sapphire bore the image
of a crucifix, and the inscription ‘hors cet annel pourrions nous trouver
amour.’
In the German ballad of ‘The Noble Moringer,’ translated by Sir Walter
Scott, the hero, after some years’ absence on a pilgrimage, returns
disguised as a palmer to his castle, on the eve of his wife’s nuptials
with another knight. The lady
------Bade her gallant cup-bearer a golden beaker take,
And bear it to the palmer poor to quaff it for her sake.
It was the noble Moringer, that dropp’d amid the wine
A bridal-ring of burning gold, so costly and so fine.
Now listen, gentles, to my song, it tells you but the sooth,
’Twas with that very ring of gold he pledged his bridal troth.
Then to the cup-bearer he said, ‘Do me one kindly deed,
And, should my better days return, full rich shall be thy meed.
Bear back the golden cup again to yonder bride so gay,
And crave her of her courtesy to pledge the palmer grey.’
The cup-bearer was courtly bred, nor was the boon denied,
The golden cup he took again, and bore it to the bride.
‘Lady,’ he said, ‘your reverend guest sends this and bids me pray
That, in thy noble courtesy, thou pledge the palmer grey.’
The ring hath caught the lady’s eye, she views it close and near,
Then might you hear her shriek aloud, ‘The Moringer is here!’
Then might you see her start from seat, while tears in torrents fell,
But whether ’twas for joy or woe, the ladies best can tell.
The veneration for a wedding-ring is shown in the instance of the great
lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson. He writes, under date March 28, 1753:
‘I kept this day as the anniversary of my Letty’s death, with prayers and
tears in the morning. In the evening I prayed for her conditionally, if
it was lawful.’ Her wedding-ring was preserved by him, as long as he
lived, with an affectionate care, in a little round wooden box, and in the
inside of which was a slip of paper inscribed: ‘Eheu! Eliz. Johnson, nupta
Jul. 9, 1736; mortua, eheu! Mart. 17, 1752.’
According to the ‘London Press,’ Mr. John Lomax, bookseller, of Lichfield,
who died lately at the age of eighty-nine, possessed, among many other
Johnsonian relics, this wedding-ring of Mrs. Johnson.
The poet Moore, in his ‘Diary,’ mentions the gift of his mother, of her
wedding-ring. He writes: ‘Have been preparing my dear mother for my
leaving her, now that I see her so much better. She is quite reconciled to
my going, and said this morning: “Now, my dear Tom, don’t let yourself be
again alarmed about me in this manner, nor hurried away from your house
and business.” She then said she must, before I left her this morning,
give me her wedding-ring as her last gift; and accordingly, sending for
the little trinket-box in which she kept it, she herself put the ring on
my finger.’
The value, even to death, attached to wedding-rings has been frequently
shown. In a testamentary document made at Edinburgh Castle by Mary, Queen
of Scots, before the birth of her son James, and when under the impression
that she would die in childbed, among numerous bequests, she enumerates
her rings, of which she had a large number. Among them was a diamond ring,
enamelled red, recorded by the Queen herself as that with which ‘she was
espoused.’ On the other side is written ‘For the King who gave it me.’
This is presumed to be the ring with which Darnley wedded Mary in the
privacy of Rizzio’s chamber at Stirling, for at the public solemnity of
their nuptials in the Chapel Royal of Holyrood three rings of surpassing
richness were used.
The ring with which James, Duke of York (afterwards King James the
Second), married Mary of Modena, had a small ruby set in gold. The Queen
showed it to the nuns of Chaillot, with whom she resided chiefly in the
days of her sorrowful widowhood, exile, and poverty. Although obliged to
part with most of her jewels, she would never give up this ring, which she
valued above everything. Even William of Orange, remarkable for his stern
and taciturn disposition, felt sensibly the tender feelings which a
marriage-ring can nourish after the death of a beloved object. On his
decease a ribbon was found tied to his left arm, with a gold ring appended
to it, containing some hair of the Queen. The Londesborough Collection
contained a royal ring, which is supposed to have been the same given by
the Prince of Orange to the Princess Mary. It is of gold, the strap and
buckle set with diamonds, and is enamelled black. Engraved in letters in
relief is the motto of the Order of the Garter. The following words are
engraved within: ‘I’ll win and wear thee if I can.’ ‘This posy’ (as the
late Crofton Croker observed) ‘has a double construction; whether
addressed to the princess before marriage or after is doubtful, with
reference to William’s design to contest the crown of England with her
father.’
Baron Rosen was sent a captive to Siberia, in consequence of political
tumults which occurred on the accession of the Emperor Nicholas to the
throne of Russia. On his arrival he was searched, and some family trinkets
taken from him. He was then required to give up a gold ring which he wore
on his finger. He replied: ‘It is my wedding-ring, and you can only have
it by taking the finger also.’ Fortunately the ring was spared.
However, like everything, humanly speaking, the wedding-ring has had its
vicissitudes, and, from being the emblem of all that is pure and holy in
life, has been desecrated to the vilest and most impious of usages.
Nothing can be more humiliating to good faith and rectitude than to read
the accounts of what took place not many years ago concerning the ‘Fleet
Marriages.’ In Burns’ ‘Registers’ of these mock celebrations we read sad
cases of this abominable system, which prevailed in the last century, of
clandestine marriages. A case is there mentioned of a young lady who had
been inveigled into the trap of a marrying parson (?), and, finding
herself unable to escape without money or a pledge, told her persecutors,
who wanted to force a marriage upon her, that she liked the gentleman who
desired to marry her so well that she would meet him on the next night.
She gave them a ring as a pledge, which she said was her mother’s ring,
who enjoined her that if she should marry it was to be her wedding-ring.
By this contrivance ‘she got rid of the black doctor and his tawny crew.’
Great was the disgust of the respectable portion of the community for
these disgraceful alliances. It is recorded in the ‘Daily Post’ for 1742,
of a gentleman possessed of a considerable fortune, that he bequeathed it
in the hands of trustees for his wife, with the proviso that if she
married an Irishman they were to pay her ten guineas for a ‘Fleet’
marriage, a dinner, and ring; the remainder, about eight thousand pounds,
to devolve on his nephew. On a trial for bigamy in 1731, Samuel Pickering
deposed: ‘The prisoner was married at my house in the “Fleet.” I gave her
away, and saw the ring put upon her hand, and broke the biscuit over her
head.’
On the suppression of the Fleet marriages in the middle of the last
century commenced the scandalous Gretna Green marriages--the name derived
from that of a farmstead in the vicinity of the village of Springfield, in
the parish of Graitney, Dumfriesshire. The official who performed these
irregular marriages was of different vocations--sometimes a blacksmith. In
the report of a late Court of Probate case at Westminster, an
agriculturist, Thomas Blythe, admitted that he did a small stroke of
business in the ‘joining’ line as well; and in reply to counsel’s question
‘how the marriage ceremony was performed’ he replied: ‘I first asked them
if they were single persons. They said they were. I then asked the man,
“Do you take this woman for your wife?” He said, “Yes.” I then asked the
woman, “Do you take this man for your lawful husband?” She said, “Yes.” I
then said, “Put on the ring,” and added, “the thing is done, the marriage
is complete.”’
A ring sent as a love-pledge, or token, was in frequent use in former
times. Philip de Comines relates in his ‘Memoirs’ that, a marriage between
the Princess of Burgundy and the Duke of Austria (1477) being determined
upon, a letter was written by the young lady at her father’s command
signifying her consent to the alliance, and a diamond ring of considerable
value was sent as a pledge or token of it. At the time arranged for the
ceremony the Princess was at Ghent, and, in the presence of ambassadors
sent on that occasion, she was asked whether she designed to make good her
promise. The Princess at once replied ‘that she had written the letter and
sent the ring in obedience to her father’s command, and freely owned the
contents of it.’
The engagement by a ring is also historically exemplified in late times by
the notorious intimacy of George the Fourth, when Prince Regent, with Mrs.
Fitzherbert. In order to overcome her scruples to a private marriage (the
Royal Marriage Act having been a bar), the Prince caused himself one day
to be bled, and put on an appearance of having attempted his own life, and
sent some friends to bring her to him. She was then induced to allow him
to engage her with a ring in the presence of witnesses, but she afterwards
broke the engagement, went abroad, and for a long time resisted all the
efforts made to induce her to return. It is singular that one of the chief
instruments in bringing about the union of this ill-assorted pair was the
notorious Philippe Egalité, Duke of Orleans.
In old times rings made of rushes were used for immoral purposes, not only
in England, but in France. Douce refers Shakspeare’s ‘Tib’s rush for Tom’s
forefinger’ to this custom (‘All’s Well that Ends Well,’ act ii. sc. 2).
In D’Avenant’s ‘Rivals’ we find:--
I’ll crown thee with a garland of straw, then,
And I’ll marry thee with a rush ring.
The ‘crack’d’ ring (alluded to in Beaumont and Fletcher’s ‘Captain’)
applied metaphorically to female frailty:--
Come to be married to my lady’s woman,
After she’s crack’d in the ring.
The abuse of the rush ring led to the practice being strictly prohibited
by the constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of Salisbury, in 1217; but
it had a long continuance. Quarles, in ‘Shepheard’s Oracles’ (1646),
writes:--
And while they sport and dance, the love-sick swains
Compose rush rings and myrtleberry chains.
In Greene’s ‘Menaphon’ we find:--‘’Twas a good world when such simplicitie
was used, saye the olde women of our time, when a ring of a rush would tye
as much love together as a gimmon of gold.’
The practice of the rush ring in France prevailed for a considerable
period.
Another equivocal pretence for engagement was the ring of St. Martin,[56]
so named from the extensive franchises and immunities granted to the
inhabitants of the precincts of the Collegiate Church of St.
Martin’s-le-Grand. In a rare tract, entitled ‘The Compter’s Commonwealth’
(1617), is an allusion to these rings, which shows their import: ‘This
kindnesse is but like alchimie, or _Saint Martin’s rings_, that are faire
to the eye and have a rich outside, but if a man should break them asunder
and looke into them, they are nothing but brasse and copper.’
In ‘Whimsies, or a New Cast of Character’ (1631), mention is made of St.
Martin’s rings and counterfeit bracelets as ‘commodities of infinite
consequence. They will passe for current at a May-pole, and purchase a
favour from their May-Marian.’
So also in ‘Plaine Percevall, the Peace-maker of England’: ‘I doubt
whether all be gold that glistereth, sith St. Martin’s rings be but copper
within, though they be gilt without, sayes the goldsmith.’
The materials of which wedding-rings have been made are numerous; besides
the various metals, we have an instance of a leather ring made on the spur
of the moment out of a piece of kid cut from the bride’s glove. As a
substitute for the usual ring, the church key has been put into
requisition. Horace Walpole, in a letter to Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert)
Mann, dated July 27, 1752, alludes to the use of a curtain-ring for this
purpose: ‘The event which has made most noise since my last is the
extensive wedding of the youngest of the two Gunnings,’ and he then
describes an assembly at Lord Chesterfield’s, when the Duke of Hamilton
made love to Miss Gunning, and two nights after sent for a parson to
perform the marriage ceremony. The Doctor refused to act without a licence
and a ring. ‘The Duke swore he would send for the Archbishop; at last they
were married with a ring of the bed-curtain, at half-an-hour past twelve
at night, at May Fair Chapel.’
In ‘Notes and Queries’ (2nd series, vol. x.) we find an editorial note on
this subject. A parish clerk recollected an instance of a party that came
to the church, and requested to be married with the church key. It was
what is called a ‘parish wedding,’ and the parochial authorities, though
willing to pay the church fees, because ‘they were glad to get rid of the
girl,’ had not felt disposed to furnish the wedding-ring. The clerk
stated, however, that, feeling some hesitation as to the substitution of
the church key in his _own_ church, he stepped into the great house hard
by, and there borrowed an old _curtain-ring_, with which the marriage was
solemnised.
Sir John Suckling, in his ballad on a ‘Wedding,’ has this conceit on a
ring:--
Her fingers were so small, the ring
Would not stay on which they did bring,
It was too wide a peck:
And to say truth, for out it must,
It look’d like the great collar, just
About our young colt’s neck.
Perhaps one of the smallest wedding-rings on record is that which is
mentioned in the _fiançailles_ of the Princess Mary, daughter of Henry
VIII., to the Dauphin of France, son of King Francis I. The _fiancé_ was
represented on that occasion by Admiral Bonnivet, the French Ambassador.
The dauphin was born February 28, 1518, and the event of his birth was
made a matter of State policy, for a more intimate alliance with France.
On October 5, in the same year, the bridal ceremonies took place at
Greenwich with great pomp. King Henry took his station in front of the
throne; on one side stood Marie of France, and Queen Katherine; in front
of her mother was the Princess Marie, just _two_ years old, dressed in
cloth of gold, with a cap of black velvet on her head, blazing with
jewels. On the other side stood the two legates, Wolsey and Campeggio.
After a speech by Dr. Tunstal, the Princess was taken in arms; the consent
of the King and Queen was demanded, and Wolsey approached with a
diminutive ring of gold, fitted to the young lady’s finger, in which was a
valuable diamond. Admiral Bonnivet, as proxy for the baby bridegroom,
passed it over the second joint. The bride was blessed, and mass performed
by Wolsey, the King and the whole Court attending it.
The blessing of the wedding-ring is of ancient origin. The form prescribed
for the ‘halowing’ is given in ‘The Doctrine of the Masse Booke from
Wottonberge, by Nicholas Dorcaster,’ 1554: ‘Thou Maker and Conserver of
mankinde, Gever of Spiritual Grace, and Grauntor of Eternal Salvation,
Lord, _send thy + blessing upon this ring_, that she which shall weare it
maye be armed wyth the virtue of heavenly defence, and that it may profit
her to eternal salvation, thorowe Christ,’ etc. A prayer followed this: ‘+
halow Thou, Lord, this ring which we blesse in Thy holye Name, that what
woman soever shall weare it, may stand fast in Thy peace, and continue in
Thy wyll, and live, and grow, and wax old in Thy love, and be multiplied
into the length of daies, thorow our Lord,’ etc.
Rings were formerly placed on the missal book, with money at marriages;
thus in the ‘Wardrobe Book,’ roll 18, of Edward the First, there is an
entry of ‘money given to place upon the missal book, along with the ring
with which she was married, 40_s._’
A similar entry occurs on the marriage of Margaret, fourth daughter of the
same monarch, when the King gave sixty shillings to be placed on the
missal with the spousal ring.
The ‘heathenish origin,’ as it was termed, of the wedding-ring, led during
the Commonwealth to the abolition of its use during weddings, and is thus
referred to in Butler’s ‘Hudibras:’--
Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring,
With which the unsanctified bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb[57]
(As wise as ringing of a pig,
That’s used to break up ground and dig),
The bride to nothing but her will
That nulls the after-marriage still.
This ‘heathenish’ origin may have been derived from the supposition that
the ring was regarded as a kind of phylactery, or charm, and to have been
introduced in imitation of the ring worn by bishops.
‘Though the Puritans,’ remarks Mr. Jeaffreson, in his ‘Brides and
Bridals,’ ‘prohibited and preached against the ring, to the injury of
goldsmiths, and the wrath of ring-wearing matrons, they did not succeed in
abolishing the tool, or even in putting it so much out of fashion as some
people imagined. Even Stephen Marshall, the Presbyterian minister of
Finchingfield, Essex, when his party was most prosperous, married one of
his lightly-trained daughters with the Book of Common Prayer and a ring;
and gave this for a reason, that the statute establishing the Liturgy was
not repealed, and he was loth to have his daughter turned back upon him
for want of a legal marriage.’
The Rev. George Bull, subsequently Bishop of St. David’s, also in these
Presbyterian times, who married a Miss Gregory, in defiance of tyrannical
enactments used a wedding-ring with the motto: ‘Bene parere, parêre,
parare det mihi Deus.’ (See chapter on ‘Posy, Motto, and Inscription
Rings.’)
The Puritan scruples against the wedding-ring were much criticised at the
time:--
Because the wedding-ring’s a fashion old,
And signifies, by the purity of gold,
The purity required i’ the married pair,
And by the rotundity the union fair,
Which ought to be between them endless, for
No other reason, we that use abhor.
_A Long-winded Lay-lecture_ (published 1674).
They will not hear of wedding-rings
For to be us’d in their marriage;
But say they’re superstitious things,
And do religion much disparage:
They are but vain, and things profane;
Wherefore, now, no wit bespeaks them,
So to be tyed unto the bride,
But do it as the spirit moves them.
_A Curtain-lecture_ (‘Loyal Songs,’ vol. i No. 15).
The objections of the Dissenters to the ring in marriage were answered by
Dr. Comber, (‘Office of Matrimony,’ &c., folio edition, part 4,) by Dr.
Nicholls upon the Office of Matrimony, and Wheatley in his ‘Rational
Illustration.’
In the ancient ritual of marriage the ring was placed by the husband on
the top of the thumb of the left hand, with the words, ‘In the name of the
Father;’ he then removed it to the forefinger, saying, ‘and of the Son,’
then to the middle finger, adding, ‘and of the Holy Ghost;’ finally he
left it on the fourth finger, with the closing word ‘Amen.’
The English ‘Book of Common Prayer’ orders that the ring should be placed
on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand. The spousal manuals of York
and Salisbury assign this practical reason for the selection of this
finger: ‘quia in illo digito est quædam vena procedens usque ad cor.’[58]
Other reasons than its connection with the heart are assigned by
Macrobius. The author of the ‘Vulgar Errors’ had entirely overthrown the
anatomical fiction.
On the subject of ring-fingers, a ‘Polyglot Dictionary’ by John Minshew
(1625) says: ‘Vetus versiculus singulis digitis Annulum tribuens, Miles,
Mercator, Stultus, Maritus, Amator. Pollici adscribitur Militi, seu
Doctori; Mercatorum, a pollice secundum; Stultorum, tertium; Nuptorum vel
Studiosorum, quartinum; Amatorum, ultimum.’
Amongst the Hebrews, the finger of God denoted his power, and it was the
forefingers of the gods of Greece and Italy which wore the ring, the
emblem of divine supremacy.
Why the ring is worn on the left hand is said to signify the subjection of
the wife to the husband; the right hand signifies power, independence,
authority, the left dependence or subjection.[59] Columbiere remarks:
‘Some of the ancients made the ring to denote servitude, alleging that
the bridegroom was to give it to his bride, to denote to her that she is
to be subject to him, which Pythagoras seemed to confirm when he suggested
wearing a straight ring, that is, not to submit to over-rigid servitude.’
It is very observable that none of the Hereford, York, and Salisbury
missals mention the hand, whether right or left, on which the ring is to
be put.
In the ‘British Apollo’ (vol. i. page 127, edit. MDCCXXVI.) a question is
asked: ‘Why is it that the person to be married is enjoined to put a ring
upon the fourth finger of his spouse’s left hand?’ The answer is: ‘There
is nothing more in this than that the custom was handed down to the
present age, from the practice of our ancestors, who found the left hand
more convenient for such ornaments than the right, in that ’tis ever less
employed; for the same reason they chose the fourth finger, which is not
only less used than either of the rest, but is more capable of preserving
a ring from bruises, having this one quality peculiar to itself, that it
cannot be extended but in company with some other finger, whereas the rest
may be singly stretched to their full length and straightened. Some of the
ancients’ opinions in the matter, viz. that the ring was so worn because
to that finger, and to that only, comes an artery from the heart; but, the
politer knowledge of our modern anatomists having clearly demonstrated the
absurdity of that notion, we are rather inclined the continuance of the
custom owing to the reason above mentioned.’
These explanations, given in the curious and entertaining miscellany, from
which I have quoted, are from the writings of Macrobius, to which I have
alluded. These appear to settle the contention as to the proper finger for
the wedding-ring.
‘Rings in modern times,’ remarks Madame de Barrera, ‘have been made in
some countries Love’s telegraph. If a gentleman wants a wife, he wears a
ring on the first finger of the left hand; if he be engaged, he wears it
on the second finger; if married, on the third; and on the fourth if he
never intends to be married. When a lady is not engaged she wears a hoop
or diamond on her first finger; if engaged, on her second; if married, on
the third; and on the fourth, if she intends to die a maid. As no rules
are given for widows, it is presumed that the ornamenting of the right
hand, and the little finger of the left, is exclusively their
prerogative.’
‘This English fashion is, perhaps, too open a proclamation of intentions
to suit such as do not choose to own themselves as mortgaged property.’
The Greek Church directs that the ring be put on the right hand, and such
may have been the practice in England, since Rastell, in his
counter-challenge to Bishop Jewell, notes it as a novelty of the
Reformation ‘that the man should put the wedding-ring on the fourth finger
in the left hand of the woman, and not in the right hand as hath been many
hundreds of years continued.’
With the bridal ring, formerly, were delivered the keys of the house. This
is of ancient origin, as I have noticed in mentioning the rings of the
Romans. We read in Photius that Theosebius says to his wife: ‘I formerly
gave to thee the ring of union; now of temperance to aid thee in the
seemly custody of my house.’ He advisedly speaks of that custody, for the
lady of the house in Plautus says:--
Obsignate cellas, referte annulum ad me,
Ego huc transes.
Some Roman keys attached to rings, so as to be worn on the fingers, and
which are well known to antiquaries, were recently found at Water Newton,
in digging for gravel, close to the road from Stamford to Peterborough.
These were of brass and bronze, and of the size used by the Roman ladies,
who were accustomed to carry their casket-keys in this manner.
[Illustration: Roman Key-rings.]
Mr. Waterton suggests that the key-rings found on Roman sites may have
been worn by slaves or by the confidential _servi_ who had care of the
wardrobes, cabinets, &c., of their masters.
Among the old Northmen, the keys of the store-room were occasionally
deputed to the wife on the wedding-day, and were carried at her side as a
sign of housewifely dignity.
In the Saxon formula of matrimony, the father of the bride said: ‘I give
thee my daughter to be thy honour and thy wife, to keep thy keys, and to
share with thee in thy bed and goods, in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost.’
Leybard, the famous saint of Tours, in the sixth century, being persuaded
in his youth to marry, gave his betrothed a ring, a kiss, and a pair of
shoes--the latter being a sign of his great subjection to her and to bind
his feet, the ring binding his hands.
A MS. in the Harleian library, quoted by Strutt, states that ‘by the civil
law, whatsoever is given _ex sponsalitia largitate_, betwixt them that are
promised in marriage, hath a condition (for the most part silent) that it
may be had again if marriage ensue not, but if the man should have had a
kiss for his money, he should lose one half of that which he gave. Yet
with the woman it is otherwise, for, kissing or not kissing, whatsoever
she gave, she may ask and have it again.’ However, this extends only to
gloves, _rings_, bracelets, and such like small wares.
Plain gold wedding-rings which are at present used as a visible pledge of
matrimony, seem to have descended to us in the mere course of traditionary
practice from the times of the Saxons, without any impulse from written
authority or rubric. At the marriage of Queen Mary with Philip of Spain in
1554 the wedding-ring was laid in the Bible to be hallowed. Some
discussion had previously taken place in the Council about this ring,
which the Queen decided by declaring that she would not have it adorned
with gems, ‘for she chose to be wedded with a plain hoop of gold, like
other maidens.’[60]
Plain gold rings appear to have been given away at weddings in great
numbers at this period; thus Anthony Wood writes that ‘Killey (in 1589) at
Trebona was equally profuse beyond the limits of a sober philosopher, and
did give away in gold-wire rings (twisted), at the marriage of one of his
maid-servants to the value of four thousand pounds.’
The Prince Regent, on the celebration of his unhappy marriage with
Caroline of Brunswick, presented a number of rings to the members of his
family and friends. These gifts, with other accounts, being in the list
for settlement by Parliament later, gave rise to the undignified Jeffreys
scandal.
At the marriage of Queen Victoria, rings were distributed having the royal
likeness in profile in gold; the legend being ‘Victoria Regina.’ The whole
was less than a quarter of an inch in diameter, but with the aid of a
powerful magnifying-glass the features were disclosed, beautifully
delineated. The Queen was so pleased with this microscopic work of art
that she ordered six dozen impressions to be struck and set by the court
jewellers, Rundle and Bridges, in gold rings for distribution among
distinguished personages.[61]
At the marriage of the Princess Royal of England, in 1858, to the heir of
the now German Empire, the wedding-rings used were of Silesian gold,
manufactured at Breslau. The maker of these, who has a large gold-refining
establishment in that town, had the two rings mounted on a skin of
parchment, on which was engrossed a short history of his gold-works at
Richenstein, from which we learn that in former days Silesia was a
California on a small scale, gold not only being obtained by mining, but
by washing the sands of certain rivers. In the form of a heading to an
historical document, the two gold wedding-rings were presented to the
Prince.
To give an idea of the immense number of plain gold wedding-rings required
in the present day, it is stated that no less than thirty thousand have
passed through the Birmingham Assay Office in one year.
* * * * *
As pledges of betrothal, or wedding gifts, rings are of very ancient
origin. They were worn by the Jews prior to Christian times, and
constitute, even at present, an important feature in their marriage
ceremonials. Wheatley says: ‘The reason why a ring was pitched upon for
the pledge, rather than anything else, was because anciently the ring was
a seal, by which all orders were signed, and things of value secured, and
therefore the delivery of it was a sign that the person to whom it was
given was admitted into the highest friendship and trust. For which reason
it was adopted as a ceremony in marriage to denote that the wife, in
consideration of being espoused to the man, was admitted as a sharer in
her husband’s counsels, and a joint partner in his honour and estate, and
therefore we find that not only the _ring_, but the _keys_, were, in
former times delivered to her at the marriage.’
A passage in Ruth (chap. iv. verse 7) gives some reason to suppose that
the ring was used by the Jews, as a covenant, in making agreements,
grants, &c., whence the wedding engagement by a ring may have been
derived. Leo Modena, in his ‘History of the Rites, Customs, and Manner of
Life of the Present Jews throughout the World’ (translated by Edm.
Chilmead, 8vo.; London, 1650), alluding to the Jewish manner of marrying,
states that ‘before the bride’s dowry is produced and read, the bridegroom
putteth a ring upon her finger, in the presence of two witnesses, which
commonly used to be the Rabbines, saying, withal, unto her: “Behold thou
art my espoused wife, according to the custom of Moses and of Israel.”’
Selden says that rings were first given in lieu of dowry-money,[62] and
that the wedding-ring came into general use by the Jews _after_ they saw
it was everywhere prevalent. These Jewish rings were, in past ages,
generally of large size and elaborate workmanship. Some curious examples
are mentioned in the Londesborough Collection Catalogue. One ring,
formerly belonging to the late Crofton Croker, is of German or Flemish
work of the seventeenth century. It is of brass, with three points, or
bosses, and belongs to a class of ring called Mazul-touv (pronounced
_Mussul-taub_), or, freely translated, ‘Joy be with you,’ or ‘Good luck to
you.’ In the same collection is a Jewish ‘tower’ betrothal ring, enamelled
blue, of the sixteenth century. Another betrothal ring belongs to the same
class and date, called ‘temple,’ or ‘tower,’ from the figure of the sacred
temple placed on their summit. In one of the Londesborough specimens it
takes the form of a sexagonal building with a domed roof of an Eastern
character; in another it is square, with a deeply-pitched roof, having
movable vanes at the angles, and is probably the work of some German
goldsmith. On the former of these rings the inscription is in enamelled
letters, ‘Joy be with you;’ and the same words are in more
richly-designed letters on the curve of the latter ring.
[Illustration: Hebrew Marriage Rings.]
A ring of gold, enamelled and decorated with five blue enamelled rosettes
and five filigree bosses. The roof only of the temple surmounts the ring;
it is decorated with light-green enamel, it opens on a hinge, and exhibits
beneath the letters טוב. From the Londesborough Collection.
[Illustration: Hebrew Betrothal Ring.]
A remarkably fine example of these rings is in the Braybrooke Collection.
It has five filigree bosses equidistant along the broad exterior, which is
also ornamented with filagree scroll-work, filled with blue and white
enamel; the summit of the hoop is surmounted by a pyramid-shaped tower
opening upon a hinge, but without any inscription, which is often covered
by it. In this case the word or words are engraved on the inside of the
ring, and are probably _Mazul-touv_ or _Mussul-taub_ (‘Joy be with you’).
The tower is to represent the ark of the covenant; the bosses or points
are sometimes supposed to represent the number of witnesses at the
ceremony required by law of the Jews. The points or bosses consist of
rosettes with six leaves, each of blue, and six leaves of white, enamel.
The pyramidical ark has the sides filled with blue enamel only; on the two
narrow sides there is a small perforation to represent the window, in
allusion to the dove.
A large silver-gilt Hebrew wedding-ring, in the same collection, is of a
remarkable form. The hoop is three-quarters of an inch wide, with raised
edges, and plain surface between the five elevations on its upper portion.
The centre one of these is a hexagonal tower, with pent-house roof sloping
on each side to the course of the hoop; the gables and sides of these are
pierced with fourteen holes for windows, and the roof is scored to imitate
tiles; on each side of this is a smaller bell-shaped tower, equidistant
from it, with four circular holes in them; and on each side of these last
is a still smaller tower of the same shape, and at an equal distance, but
without any windows. There is not the usual inscription on any part of
this ring.
[Illustration: Jewish.]
[Illustration: Jewish.]
The annexed illustrations, from rings in the Bailewski Collection,
represent a gold Jewish ring of the thirteenth century, and one of the
fourteenth century.
In the collection of the late Lady Fellows was a fine Jewish betrothal
ring of gold decorated with filigree and enamel. Instead of any setting,
the head is formed with a steep ridge, like the roof a house, opening on
hinges; within is a cavity, closed by a lid, and probably intended to
contain a charm or pastille. On the inner side of the hoop are engraved
two Hebrew words signifying good fortune.
In a communication from Mr. Singer (whose unique collection of
wedding-rings with inscriptions I have noticed in the chapter on ‘Posy,
Inscription, and Motto Rings’) he informs me that he has a fine Hebrew
ring of sixteenth-century work--‘a _real_ old one, as most of those now
about are forgeries. This has the Hebrew word “mussul taub” in a short
Hebrew character, meaning “We wish you good luck,” engraved on the
inside.’
According to Jewish law in modern times, it is necessary that the ring
should be of a certain value. It is therefore examined and certified by
the officiating Rabbi and the chief officers of the synagogue, when it is
received by the bridegroom. When absolute property it must not be obtained
by credit or by gift. When this is properly certified the ring is returned
to him, and he places it on the bride’s finger, calling attention to the
fact that she is by these means, consecrated to him. So completely binding
is this action that, should the marriage be no further consecrated, no
other could be contracted by either party, without a legal divorce.
The Rev. C. W. King, in ‘Antique Gems,’ remarks that huge gold rings
adorned with filigree-work and surmounted by a small temple, with Hebrew
inscriptions on the interior of the shank, puzzle the beholders as to
their use, being much too large for the finger. They were made for the
use of the synagogue, and are placed on the finger of the couple at a
certain part of the marriage rites.
Mr. Singer, in describing the Hebrew wedding-ring in his collection, adds:
‘The Hebrews married on the first finger, as to the ring. This is done
now, but even the Jews change a little, and after the ceremony the Jewish
ladies take off their ring, and place it on the third finger, the same as
we do, for now they wear the ordinary ring.’
The following illustrations represent the marriage-rings of the German
Jews, the workmanship of the sixteenth century, and very fine specimens of
art. Both are of gold; the larger one is richly ornamented in filigree
with enamels of light and dark green. It is crowned by a house; the roof,
which is covered with enamelled tiles, opens by means of a key, and the
space within serves for perfumes or some souvenir. Four small crowns of
gold are suspended from the ring.
[Illustration: Jewish Wedding-rings (from the Fould Collection).]
The other, smaller in size, is also richly decorated, but is crowned with
only the roof of a house, enamelled white and red. The enamels which
decorate the other parts of the ring are white.
The wedding-rings of the Romans were generally of iron, called
‘Pronubum,’[63] symbolical of the lasting character of the engagement, and
probably springing out of another Roman custom, the giving of a ring as
earnest, upon the conclusion of a bargain.
It was the custom to betroth before marriage, as it is at this day. They
that acted between the two parties were called ‘Proxenetæ,’ ‘Auspices,’
and ‘Pronubi,’ which last name was very much in use. When the
marriage-maker was a woman she was called ‘Pronuba’; and it was a
condition that such a one was to have had but one husband. They arranged
about the portion, and other marriage articles, which conditions were
afterwards written on tablets, and sealed with the ring called _annulus
signatorius_.
The ring was used in marriage among Christians as early as 860. Pronubal
or pledge rings passed between the contracting parties among the Romans.
When the marriage settlement had been properly sealed, rings, bearing the
names of the newly-married couple, were handed round to the guests.
There were others, also, of pure gold and a plain circle (_linea
infinita_) to symbolise conjugal fidelity, and to act as a reminder that
the love of married people should be infinite. Kirchmann asserts that in
Rome the custom was to place in the hand of the newly-made bride a ring of
pure gold, at the same moment in which a ring of iron was sent to the
house of her parents, a remembrance of modesty and domestic frugality.
In the possession of A. W. Franks, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A., is a gold
ring, remarkable for the amount of the ornamentation with which it is
covered. This fine Byzantine _bicephalic_ ring was, doubtless, used as a
signet, and was, possibly, a matrimonial or betrothal gift. It has been
suggested that the heads resemble those of the Emperor Leo I. and Verina
(A.D. 457-74), but it is doubtful whether they are imperial portraits. It
is presumed that this ring was found in Egypt, where it had been preserved
in the Demetrio Collection (‘Arch. Journal,’ vol. xxix. page 305).
[Illustration: Byzantine.]
A loadstone sometimes was set instead of a jewel, indicative of love’s
attractions.
Later, however, Tertullian and Isidore, Bishop of Seville, mention the
‘annulus nuptialis sponsalitius,’ as being of gold. Sometimes there were
inscriptions on the rings, such as ‘May you live long!’ ‘I bring you good
fortune!’ Frequently a stone was inserted upon which was engraved an
intaglio, such as a hand pulling the lobe of an ear, and the words
‘Remember me’ above it.
Among the old Northmen, the exchanging of rings between the betrothed did
not form, so far as can be ascertained from the ancient sagas and laws,
any essential part in the wedding ceremonial, neither in pagan, nor in
Christian times. Mention is, however, made of an exchange of rings, but
this was only done as a kind of memorial gift, and no importance was
attached to it. The custom of the betrothal ring was first introduced into
Norway at a much later period, in imitation of that in vogue in southern
countries.
In the ‘Sword,’ Tyrfing, in the ‘Hervarer-Saga,’ the Princess Ingburgo,
who is betrothed to Hialmar, says to the latter, as he is leaving for
battle: ‘I swear by Varra,’ presenting to him her ring in pledge, ‘that to
whomever Uller gives victory, I am the bride but of one.’
Viga Glum’s ‘Saga’ we read of the Scandinavian use of a ring. In the midst
of a wedding-party Glum calls upon Thorarin, his accuser, to hear his
oath, and, taking in his hand a silver ring which had been dipped in
sacrificial blood, he cites two witnesses to testify to his oath on the
ring. ‘In Iceland’ (remarks Mr. Wood, in his ‘Wedding-days in all
Countries’) ‘a large ring was used for the ratification of all
engagements; it was variously formed of bone, jet, stone, gold, and
silver. Sometimes it was so large as to allow the palm of the hand to be
passed through it. So in the solemnisation of a betrothing contract the
bridegroom passed four fingers and his palm through one of these rings,
and in this manner he received the hand of his bride. Sometimes these
rings for confirming mutual contracts were placed upon the altar and there
used. We may, perhaps, trace this custom in the old form of marriage in
the Orkneys, where the contracting parties join their hands through a
perforation, or ring, in a stone pillar.’
Among the Anglo-Saxons, at the betrothal of a young couple, after the
taking of hands, an exchange of presents was made. Amongst those given by
the bridegroom was a ring, which, after being blessed by the priest with a
prayer, was placed on the maiden’s right hand, and was to be worn so until
the time of marriage. On this event, if espousals had previously taken
place (for they were not necessary), the ring was removed by the
bridegroom to the bride’s left hand, and was placed on the first finger,
having been blessed by the priest with a prayer.
Betrothal rings sometimes bore the name and title of the Saviour in full;
one in the Londesborough Collection represents two hands clasped in front,
so that it was, most probably, a gift, or betrothal ring. It is of silver,
somewhat rudely fashioned. The inscription is in uncial characters, and,
shorn of its somewhat awkward abbreviation, reads: ‘Jesus Nazareneus Rex.’
Mr. H. T. Wake, of Cockermouth, gives the following account of a curious
betrothal ring in ‘Notes and Queries’ (Series v. vol. ii. p. 528): ‘In a
small shrubbery, adjoining a house at Mosser, near Cockermouth, has
recently been found a massive finger-ring, of fine gold. When discovered,
it was lying on the surface, but is supposed to have been removed, along
with some mould, from a garden at the back of the house, a short time
previously. It is plain inside, without any hall-mark, but the exterior is
polygonal in shape, having the following inscription engraved in large
capitals on thirteen facets, viz.:--
x | 10 | sv | 1 ⫶ s | ig | n | e ⫶ | de | am | is | t | e ⫶ | a
‘The posy seems to be: “Josui signe de amis te,” and to mean “Joshua’s
token of love to thee,” the A following being the initial of the young
woman to whom it was presented. I take it to be a betrothal ring of the
eleventh or twelfth century; and from the admixture of the Roman and
Gothic E in the inscription, which peculiarly appears also in the great
seal of William the Conqueror, in the word “EVNDE,” as well also from its
being in French, it is probably as old as the Norman period. I bought it
of the farmer’s wife who found it.’
A betrothal ring, in the collection of the Rev. James Beck, has two hearts
surmounted by a crown--denoting the sovereignty of love over the
heart--set with marcasites.
A silver ring of a similar import, found at Carlisle, is here represented,
and from the clasped hands, crowned, was evidently a betrothal ring.
[Illustration: Betrothal ring.]
In the Middle Ages, solemn betrothal by means of the ring often preceded
matrimony.
Henry, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, married Matilda, eldest daughter of
Henry the Second, King of England, in 1168. A picture of this event was
painted at the time, and afterwards hung up in the church of St. Blosius,
at Brunswick, which is engraved by Scheidius in his ‘Origines Guelficæ,’
Matilda is represented as holding the plight-ring, a golden hoop, adorned
in the centre with a magnificent brilliant, but she seems much at a loss
to know what to do with it.
In 1235 an embassy was sent to make a formal petition for the hand of
Isabella, second daughter of King John of England, from the Emperor
Frederick of Germany. She was presented with a plight-ring, and as the
chief of the embassy, Peter de Vineâ, placed it on her finger, he formally
declared her the empress of the whole Roman empire. Isabella, on her part,
sent a ring to the Emperor in token of her acceptance of his troth.
In the ‘Dutch Courtezan,’ an old play, a pair of lovers are introduced
plighting their troth. Beatrice says to Fréeville: ‘I give you faith, and
prethee, since, poore soule, I am so easie to believe thee, make it much
more pitty to deceive me. Weare this sleight favour in my remembrance.’
(Throweth down a ring to him.)
_Fréeville._ ‘Which when I part from,
Hope, the best of life, ever part from me!
Graceful mistresse, our nuptiall day holds.’
_Beatrice._ ‘With happy constancye a wished day.’
In the ‘Merchant of Venice’ Bassanio and Gratiano give the rings received
from Portia and Nerissa to the young doctor and his clerk, after the
discomfiture of Shylock, although Portia had said:--
This house, these servants, and this same myself,
Are yours, my lord; I give them with this ring:
Which, when you part from, lose, or give away,
Let it presage the ruin of your love,
And be my vantage to exclaim on you.
Bassanio answers:--
When this ring
Parts from this finger, then parts life from hence;
O, then be bold to say, Bassanio’s dead.
Solemn betrothal was sometimes adopted by lovers, who were about to
separate for long periods. Thus Chaucer, in ‘Troilus and Cressida,’
describes the heroine as giving her lover a ring, and receiving one from
him in return:--
Soon after this they spake of sundry things,
As fell to purpose of this aventure,
And, playing, interchangeden their rings,
Of which I cannot tellen no scripture.
[Illustration: Half of broken betrothal ring.]
Shakspeare has more than one allusion to this custom, which is absolutely
enacted in the ‘Two Gentlemen of Verona,’ when Julia gives Proteus a ring,
saying: ‘Keep you this remembrance for thy Julia’s sake,’ and he replies:
‘Why, then we’ll make exchange:--here, take you this.’ A ritual of
Bordeaux (1596) gives a form of betrothal by public ceremony, when rings
were interchanged. Kleist, in his ‘Kate of Heilbron,’ makes Frederick
say:--
To tally close,
As joints of rings dissever’d,
alluding to the custom sometimes practised by lovers, among the common
people, plighting a faith, when a ring is broken in two, one half of which
was kept by each party, that if from time to time, or at the day of
marriage, the two pieces agree with each other, proof may be thus afforded
that they have not been transferred, and consequently that both bride and
bridegroom remain still of the same mind; otherwise, the engagement is
annulled.
A ring of pure gold she from her finger took,
And just in the middle the same then she broke;
Quoth she: ‘As a token of love you this take,
And this, as a pledge, I will keep for your sake.’
(‘Exeter Garland.’)
De Laet, writing in 1647, states that he remembers when it was the custom
(and an ancient one) for the gentleman to present the lady on their
betrothal with two rings, the one set with a diamond, the other with a
ruby table-cut. This gift went by the French name ‘Mariage.’
Among the Germans at the present day the interchange of rings is practised
at the publication of the banns among the Lutherans; the minister joins
the hands of the couple, and rings are interchanged.
‘The Italians,’ observes Mr. Wood, ‘in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries used betrothing rings, which were generally made of silver,
inlaid with niello. The bezel was either oval or circular, and the
shoulders of the hoop were shaped so as to form sleeves, from each of
which issued a right hand. The hands were clasped together in the Fede.
Some of these rings were of a large size, and were worn by men. The
diamond was long esteemed by the mediæval Italians as the favourite stone
for setting in espousal rings, and it was called “pietra della
reconciliazione,” from its supposed power to maintain concord between man
and wife.’
It was also usual, at the periods mentioned, for the Italian ladies to
give their lovers rings which contained their portraits. Lovers wore these
rings on holidays, as was the practice in England, as we find in
‘England’s Helicon’ (1600):--
My songs they be of Cinthia’s prayse,
I weare her rings on holly-dayes.
When a noble Venetian married in the seventeenth century, a day was
appointed for giving the bride a ring, and the ceremony was performed in
her house, in the presence of relations and friends. The ring-giving was
followed by the usual sacrament in church.
In modern Greece, two rings, one of gold and the other of silver, are
interchanged at the betrothal, which takes place as follows:--The priest,
remaining in the sacrarium, delivers to the persons to be betrothed, and
who are standing without the sacred doors, lighted candles into the hands
of each, and then returns with them into the body of the church. Here,
after prayers have been said, two rings are brought out, of gold and
silver respectively, which had previously been placed upon the altar to be
dedicated and consecrated, and the priest gives the gold ring to the man,
and the silver ring to the woman, repeating three times this form of
words: ‘The servant of God, M., espouses the handmaid of God, N., in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, now and ever,
and to endless ages, Amen.’
After a threefold repetition of the same words to the woman, the rings are
put on the right-hand finger, and are taken off, and interchanged by the
bridegroom’s man, both in order that the woman may not take too deeply to
heart her inferiority, which the less costly material of the ring seems to
hint at, as also to confirm the mutual right and possession of property,
either present or future.
The ring ceremony in Russian marriages differs materially from that of
English usage. In the first place, there are two rings, and these are
changed three times. The man places the ring first on the woman’s finger,
then the priest changes the man’s ring, and places it on her finger, and
then again the priest and the man join and place the ring where it is to
remain for life.
Have these _three_ changes anything in connection with a peculiarity in
Russian legends of the ever-predominating number ‘three’? Thus fathers are
said usually to have three sons, the heroes and knights-errant ride
through three times nine empires; the bravest are always thirty-three
years old; they achieve their deeds only on the third attempt. Or, are the
three changes emblematic of the Trinity?
At the Russian marriages of the Imperial family the rings are exchanged by
a third person. At the wedding of the Duke of Edinburgh and the Grand
Duchess Marie Alexandrovna, daughter of the Emperor of Russia (January 23,
1874), the master of the ceremonies carried the marriage rings on plates
of gold, and placed them on the altar. The confessor of the Emperor and
Empress then received the rings from the Archipretres of the court, and,
whilst a prayer was being said, placed them upon the fingers of the bride
and bridegroom, when the Metropolitan began the office.
In Spain the gift of a ring is looked upon as a promise of marriage, and
is considered sufficient proof to enable a maiden to claim her husband.
Among the Armenians (observes Madame de Barrera) children are betrothed
from their earliest youth, sometimes when only three years old, sometimes
as soon as born. When the mothers on both sides have agreed to marry their
son and daughter, they propose the union to their husbands, who always
sanction the choice of the wives. The mother of the boy then goes to the
friends of the girl, with two old women and a priest, and presents to the
infant maiden a ring from the future bridegroom. The boy is then brought,
and the priest reads a portion of the Scripture, and blesses the parties.
The parents of the girl make the priest a present, in accordance with
their means; refreshments are partaken of by the company, and this
constitutes the ceremonies of the betrothals. Should the betrothals take
place during the infancy of the contracting parties, and even should
twenty years elapse before the boy can claim his bride, he must every
year, from the day he gives the ring, send his mistress at Easter a new
dress, &c.
The olden matrimonial Gemmel, or Gemmow, ring was a kind of double ring,
curiously made. There were links within each other, and though generally
double, they were, by a further refinement, made triple, or even more
complicated; thus Herrick writes:--
Thou sent’st to me a true love-knot, but I
Return a ring of jimmals, to imply
Thy love had one knot, mine a triple tye.
Ray, among his north-country words, explains ‘jimmers’ as ‘jointed
hinges,’ and adds, ‘in other parts called wing-hinges.’
At a meeting of the Archæological Institute, in November 1851, the Rev. W.
C. Bingham exhibited a silver gemmel-ring of singular fashion, date
fourteenth century, found in Dorsetshire, the hoop formed in two portions,
so that a moiety of the letters composing the legend, ✠ AVE MARI, appears
on each, and it only becomes legible when they are brought together side
by side. Each demi-hoop is surmounted by a projecting neck and a small
globular knob, so that the ring appears to have a bifid head. The two
portions of this ring are not intertwined, and as no adjustment now
appears by which they might be kept together in proper juxtaposition, it
is possible that in this instance it was intended that each of the
affianced parties should retain a moiety of the gemmel.
There is an allusion to the ‘joint’ ring in Dryden’s play of ‘Don
Sebastian’:--
A curious artist wrought ’em,
With joynts so close as not to be perceived;
Yet are they both each other’s counterpart.
(Her part had Juan inscribed, and his, had Zayda--
You know those names were theirs:) and in the midst
A heart divided in two halves was placed.
Now if the rivets of those rings, inclos’d,
Fit not each other, I have forged this lye,
But if they join, you must for ever part.
A ring in the Londesborough Collection illustrates this passage. It parts
into three hoops, secured on a pivot; the toothed edge of the central hoop
forming an ornamental centre to the hoop of the ring, and having two
hearts in the middle; a hand is affixed to the side of the upper and lower
hoop; the fingers slightly raised, so that when the hoops are brought
together they link in each other, and close over the hearts, securing all
firmly.
[Illustration: Jointed betrothal ring.]
The late Mr. Crofton Croker, in his privately-printed catalogue of Lady
Londesborough’s Collection, gives the following account of the use to
which the ring has been put: ‘There can be little doubt, from the
specimens that have come under observation, that it had been used as a
betrothing ring by an officer of the King’s German Legion with some Irish
lady, and that the notched ring was retained by some confidential female
friend, who was present as a witness at the betrothal ceremony--usually
one of the most solemn and private character--and at which, over the Holy
Bible, placed before the witness, both the man and the woman broke away
the upper and lower rings from the centre one, which was held by the
intermediate person. It would appear that the parties were subsequently
married, when it was usual, as a proof that their pledge had been
fulfilled, to return to the witness or witnesses to the contract the two
rings which the betrothed had respectively worn until married; and thus
the three rings, which had been separated, became reunited, as in the
present instance.’
A gemmel-ring, of which a representation is given (page 316), was dug up
in 1800, at Horselydown, Surrey, found among some Roman and English
remains and skeletons of human bodies, about nine feet below the surface.
The ring is constructed in twin or double hoops, one side being flat, the
other convex. On the lower hand is represented a heart. On the flat side
of the hoops are engraved in Roman capitals, ‘Usé de Vertu.’ This ring is
probably not later than Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
A plain gemmel wedding-ring, with an inscription inside each hoop, which
the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV., had given to Mrs. Fitzherbert,
was exhibited, with the lady’s miniature, at the Loan Collection of
precious objects at the South Kensington Museum in 1872.
[Illustration: Gemmel-ring, found at Horselydown.]
This practice of dividing the betrothal rings has its origin from ancient
times, and reminds us of the practice among the Franks of breaking the
_sou d’or_ in two pieces, in sign of a sacred engagement. Thus we read of
Childeric, King of France, when in exile, wishing to know when he might
return to his country, dividing the _sou d’or_, keeping one part, and
giving the other to a trusty friend, who tells him: ‘When I send to you
this half, and you find that it unites with the other, you will understand
that you can return.’ The propitious moment having arrived, Childeric
received the token, and, returning, was re-established in his
dominions.[64]
From other passages in ‘Don Sebastian,’ it appears that one of the two
rings was worn by Sebastian’s father, the other by Almeyda’s mother, as
pledges of love. Sebastian takes off his ring, which had been placed on
his finger by his dying father; Almeyda does the same with hers, which had
been given to her by her mother at parting, and Alvarez unscrews both the
rings and fits one half to the other.
In Sir Henry Ellis’s ‘Original Letters Illustrative of English History’
(series ii. vol. ii. page 290) we have a curious anecdote in connection
with linked rings. Lady Catherine Grey (a sister of Lady Jane Grey)
married the Earl of Hertford, much to the displeasure of Queen Elizabeth,
who sent the bridegroom to the Tower, and subjected the countess to great
hardships. They were both exposed to an ordeal of examination to prove the
validity of the marriage, and amongst other evidence Lady Catherine
exhibited a ring which she declared had been used at the marriage
ceremony.
It was of gold, and consisted of five links, on four of which were
engraved as many verses of the Earl’s composition, expressing the
assurance of his lasting faith and love, and the ring could, apparently,
have been prepared for no other purpose than that of serving as their
marriage-ring.
The judgment of the commissioners appointed to examine into the marriage
was to dissolve it, and it was so pronounced in the Bishop of London’s
palace in 1562. Lady Hertford sank under this cruel conduct of the Queen,
and on her dying bed called to her attendants to bring her the box in
which her wedding-ring was. She first took from it a ring with a pointed
diamond in it, and said to Sir Owen Hopton (at whose house, Cockfield
Hall, Suffolk, she had been staying): ‘Here, Sir Owen, deliver this unto
my lord; it is the ring that I received of him, and gave myself unto him,
and gave him my faith.’
‘What say you, madam,’ answered Sir Owen, ‘was this your wedding-ring?’
‘No, Sir Owen, this is the ring of my assurance unto my lord, and there is
my wedding-ring,’ taking another ring of gold out of the box. This
consisted of five links, having engraved in it the verses of the Earl’s
composition, which she had exhibited to the commissioners of inquiry. (See
chapter on ‘Posy, Inscription, and Motto Rings.’)
‘Deliver this,’ she said, ‘unto my lord, and pray him, as I have been a
faithful and true wife, that he would be a loving and natural father unto
my children, to whom I give the same blessing that God gave unto Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.’ (See chapter on ‘Remarkable Rings.’)
[Illustration: Ring with representation of Lucretia.]
A gemmel-ring of the fifteenth century, in the Londesborough Collection,
bears an engraved head of Lucretia, the same kind as that mentioned by
Shakspeare (‘Twelfth Night,’ act ii. sc. v.) where Malvolio, breaking open
the letter, purporting to be in the handwriting of his mistress, says:--
By your leave, wax. Soft! and the impressure her Lucrece, with which
she uses to seal.
Lucretia is seen grasping her dagger. The clasped hands, adopted on the
gemmel-rings, became a frequent emblem on the solid wedding-ring.
[Illustration: Wedding-ring of Sir Thomas Gresham.]
The betrothal or wedding ring of Sir Thomas Gresham (1544) engraved in
Burgon’s life of that eminent merchant prince, opens horizontally, thus
forming a double ring of gold, linked together in the form of a gemmel; in
one half is set a white stone, in the other a red; in the interior of each
half is a cavity, in one of which is a small figure of a child in gold,
enamelled; ‘QVOD DEVS CONIVNSIT’ is engraved on one half, and ‘HOMO NON
SEPARET’ on the other.
This interesting relic was formerly in the possession of the Thruston
family, at Weston Hall, Suffolk, and was exhibited at the Society of
Antiquaries (April 1862) by Granville Leveson Gower, Esq.
A gemmel-ring of the sixteenth century, found in the Thames, is in the
Londesborough Collection. Originally gilt, it is of silver: two hands are
clasped; on the opposite side two quatrefoils spring from a heart
engraved: ‘Help God!’ or ‘God help!’
[Illustration: Gemmel-ring.]
A remarkably fine gemmel-ring (Londesborough) is here engraved. It is set
with sapphire and amethyst, the elaborate and beautiful design enriched by
coloured enamels. The lower figure in the representation of this ring
shows it parted, displaying the inscription on the flat side of each
section, which is also enriched by engraving and _niello_.
The clasped hands (originating from the ancient Romans), adopted on the
gemmel-rings, we are told in Chambers’s ‘Book of Days,’ are still the
fashion, and in constant use in that curious local community of fishermen
inhabiting the Claddugh at Galway on the western coast. They number with
their families between five and six thousand, and are particularly
exclusive in their tastes and habits; rarely intermarrying with others
than their own people. The wedding-ring is an heirloom in the family; it
is regularly transferred from the mother to the daughter who is first
married, and so passes to her descendants. Many of these gemmel-rings,
still worn there, are very old.
[Illustration: ‘Claddugh’ ring.]
Mr. Mackenzie E. C. Walcot, F.S.A., etc., in ‘Notes and Queries,’ writes:
‘A ring of gold, about the time of the thirteenth century, was found at
Burbage, near Marlborough, and, apparently, from the clasped hands on the
lower side, a gemmel or betrothal ring, has a sapphire uncut, held by four
bent cramps, and on the circle the following letters in two lines, divided
by punctuation in the form of ×. The letters, of course, are of the
period:--
ⱯɅ NI WⱯ IⱯ
× × ×
IE AU AL HN
I have alluded to sacred inscriptions on some betrothal rings. The
following engraving refers to one in the Londesborough Collection,
described in page 306.
[Illustration: Betrothal ring with sacred inscription.]
In the Braybrooke Collection is a splendid gold gemmel ring, with
enamelled and jewelled twin or double hoops, which play one within
another, like the links of a chain. Each hoop has one of its sides convex,
the other flat, and each is set with a stone, one a fine ruby, the other
an aquamarine, or beryl, so that, upon bringing together the flat surfaces
of the hoops the latter immediately unite in one ring, and as they close,
the stones slide into contact, forming a head to the whole. The inside
flat surfaces are inscribed with the words ‘Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non
separet,’ part on one hoop, part on the other, so as to be legible when
these are opened, but entirely concealed when they are reunited in one
ring. This seems to be an exception to the general rule, with respect to
rings of the same denomination, since the hoops cannot be dissevered
according to the usual custom at betrothals. Nares, in his ‘Glossary,’
observes that the name ‘gimmal’ was preserved to rings made triple, or
even more complimentary. This splendid specimen is of Italian workmanship,
dating about the end of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth
century.
At a meeting of the Archæological Institute in March 1863 the Rev. John
Beck exhibited some curious specimens of linked or ‘puzzle-rings.’ One of
gold consists of seven slender rings linked together, which, when properly
adjusted, combine in a knot. Another, of silver, consists of four slight
rings, set with a blue stone, and ornamented with flowers of
forget-me-not. A third, also of silver, has nine rings, which, when
intertwined, unite so as to present a _fede_ as the head of the ring.
The French term for the hooped rings is _foi_, _alliance_, which last word
in the ‘Dictionnaire de Trevoux’ is defined to be a ring ‘que l’accordé
donne à son accordée, où il y a un fil d’or et un fil d’argent.’
[Illustration: Devices on Wedding-rings.]