_Julia._ “Keep this remembrance for thy Julia’s sake.”
_Proteus._ “Why then we’ll make exchange; here, take you this.”
[_Giving a ring._
_Julia._ “And seal the bargain with a holy kiss.”
This betrothing, affiancing, espousal or plighting troth between
lovers was sometimes done in church with great solemnity; and the
service on this occasion is preserved in some of the old rituals.[326]
The virgin and martyr, Agnes, in Ambrose, says: “My Lord Jesus Christ
hath espoused me with his ring.”
This interchangement of rings appears in Chaucer’s “Troilus and
Cresseide:”
“Soon after this they spake of sondry things
As fitt to purpose of this aventure,
And playing _enterchangeden of rings_
Of whom I can not tellen no scripture.
But well I wot, a broche of gold and assure
In which a rubie set was like an herte,
Creseide him gave, and stacke it on his sherte.”[327]
In Germany, a loving couple start on the principle of reciprocity
and exchange rings. This is not done at the time of the marriage
ceremony, but previously when the formal betrothment takes place,
which is generally made the occasion of a family festival. The ring
thus used is not called a wedding ring, but _Trau_ ring, which
means _ring of betrothal_. A particular ring does not form part of
the ceremony of marriage. Royalty, however, appears to go beyond
the common custom of the country, even in a marriage. At the late
marriage of the Emperor of Austria, the Prince Archbishop of Vienna,
who performed the ceremony, took rings from a golden cup and
presented them to the august couple, who, reciprocally, placed them
on each other’s finger; and, while either held the hand of the other,
they received the episcopal benediction.
In the early Christian Church a ring of troth, the _annulus
pronubus_, was given by the man to the woman as a token and proof of
her betrothment.
Pope Nicholas, A. D. 860, in the account which he gives of the
ceremonies used in the Roman Church, says: “In the espousals, the man
first presents the woman whom he betroths with the arræ or espousal
gifts; and among these, he puts a ring on her finger.”[328] This
ring, which may be traced back to the time of Tertullian, appears to
have come into the Christian Church from Roman usage; although the
Oriental ring of betrothment may have been the origin of both.
According to the ritual of the Greek Church, the priest first placed
the rings on the fingers of the parties, who afterwards exchanged
them. In the life of St. Leobard, who is said to have flourished
about the year 580, written by Gregory of Tours, he appears to have
given a ring, a kiss and a pair of shoes to his affianced. The ring
and shoes were a symbol of securing the lady’s hands and feet in
the trammels of conjugal obedience; but the ring, of itself, was
sufficient to confirm the contract.[329]
It would seem that, on the ceremony of betrothal, the ring was placed
on the third finger of the right hand; and it may be a question,
whether the beautiful picture by Raffaelle, called _Lo Sposalizio_,
should not be considered as an illustration of espousal or betrothing
and not a marriage of the Virgin. Mary and Joseph stand opposite to
each other in the centre; the high priest, between them, is bringing
their right hands towards each other; Joseph, with his right hand,
(guided by the priest,) is placing the ring on the third finger of
the right hand of the Virgin; beside Mary is a group of the virgins
of the Temple; near Joseph are the suitors, who break their barren
wands--that which Joseph holds in his hand has blossomed into a lily,
which, according to the legend, was the sign that he was the chosen
one.[330]
The same circumstance, of placing the ring on the third finger of the
right hand, is observable in Ghirlandais’s fresco of the “Espousals”
in the church of the Santa Croce at Florence.
There is certainly some confusion as to the hand on which the
marriage-ring was placed. However, in religious symbols of espousal,
the distinction of the right hand was certainly kept. In an ancient
pontifical was an order that the bridegroom should place the ring
successively on three fingers of the right hand and leave it on the
fourth finger of the left, in order to mark the difference between
the marriage-ring, the symbol of a love which is mixed with carnal
affection and the episcopal ring, the symbol of entire chastity.[331]
The espousal became the marriage-ring. The esponsais consisted in
a mutual promise of marriage, which was made by the man and woman
before the bishop or presbyter and several witnesses; after which,
the articles of agreement of marriage (called _tabulæ matrimoniales_)
which are mentioned by Augustin, were signed by both persons. After
this, the man delivered to the woman the ring and other gifts: an
action which was termed _subarrhation_. In the latter ages the
espousals have always been performed at the same time as the office
of matrimony, both in the western and eastern churches; and it has
long been customary for the ring to be delivered to the woman after
the contract has been made, which has always been in the actual
office of matrimony.[332]
According to Clemens Alexandrinus, the ring was given, not as an
ornament but as a seal to signify the woman’s duty in preserving the
goods of her husband, because the care of the house belongs to her.
This idea, by the by, is very reasonable, as we shall hereafter show,
when speaking of the ritual of the Church of England. The symbolical
import of the “wedding ring,” under the spiritual influence of
Christianity, came to comprise the general idea of wedded fidelity in
all the width and importance of its application.[333]
§ 6. The first Christians engraved upon their seals symbolical
figures, such as a dove, fish, anchor or lyre.[334] The rings used in
their fyancels represented pigeons, fish, or, more often, two hands
joined together. Clemens of Alexandria, who permitted these symbols,
condemns not only the representation of idols, but also of the
instruments of war, vases for the table and every thing repugnant to
the strictness of the Gospel.
A ring, when used by the church, signifies, to use the words of
liturgical writers, _integritatem fidei_, the perfection of fidelity
and is _fidei sacramentum_, the badge of fidelity.[335]
§ 7. The canon law is the basis of marriage throughout Europe, except
so far as it has been altered by the municipal laws of particular
States.[336] An important alteration was made in the law of marriage
in many countries by the decrees of the Council of Trent, held for
the reformation of marriage. These decrees are the standing judgments
of the Romish Church; but they were never received as authority in
Great Britain. Still the ecclesiastical law of marriage in England is
derived from the Roman pontiffs. It has been traced as far back as
605, soon after the establishment of Christianity there.[337]
Marriages in the Episcopal Church are governed by the _Rubric_. This
term signifies a title or article in certain ancient common-law books.
Rubrics also denote the rules and directions given at the beginning
and in the course of the liturgy, for the order and manner in which
the several parts of the office are to be performed.
Statutes of the English Parliament have confirmed the use of the
rubric inserted in the part of the Common Prayer Book relating to the
marriage ceremony. But prior to the British marriage acts, a case
arose where no ring was used according to the Common Prayer Book.
A then Chief Justice (_C. J._ Pemberton) was inclined to think it a
good contract, there being words of a present contract repeated after
a person in orders.[338]
The rubric directs that the man shall give unto the woman a ring,
laying the same upon the book; and the priest, taking the ring, shall
deliver it unto the man to put it on the fourth finger of the woman’s
left hand. And he says, “With this ring I thee wed, with my body I
thee worship and with all my worldly gifts I thee endow.” These words
are best explained by the rubric of the 2d of Edward VI., which ran
thus:[339] “The man shall give unto the woman a ring and other tokens
of spousage, as gold or silver, laying the same upon the book; and
the man, taught by the priest, shall say, ‘With this ring I thee wed,
this gold and silver I thee give;’” and then these words, “With all
my worldly goods I thee endow,” were delivered with a more peculiar
significancy. Here the proper distinction is made, the endowment of
all his goods means granting the custody or key and care of them. It
will be seen that the word “endow” is kept apart from the positive
gift of pieces of gold and silver. It has been said that the ancient
pledge was a piece of silver worn in the pocket; but marriage being
held sacred, it was thought more prudent to have the pledge exposed
to view by making it into a ring worn upon the hand.[340]
The Christian marriage-ring appears, in its substance, to have been
copied from the Roman nuptial ring. It was, according to Swinburn,
of iron, adorned with an adamant; the metal hard and durable,
signifying the durance and perpetuity of the contract. Howbeit, he
says, it skilleth not at this day what metal the ring be of, the form
of it being round and without end doth import that their love should
circulate and flow continually.
In the Roman ritual there is a benediction of the ring and a prayer
that she who wears it may continue in perfect love and fidelity to
her husband and in fear of God all her days.[341]
§ 8. We have remarked on the vulgar error of a vein going from
the fourth finger of the left hand to the heart. It is said by
Swinburn and others that therefore it became the wedding finger.
The priesthood kept up this idea by still keeping it as the wedding
finger; but it was got at through the use of the Trinity: for, in
the ancient ritual of English marriages, 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: “In the name of the Son;” then to the middle finger, adding:
“And of the Holy Ghost;” finally, he left it, as now, on the fourth
finger, with the closing word “Amen.”[342]
As to the supposed artery to the heart. Levinus Lemnius quaintly
says:--“A small branch of the artery and not of the nerves, as
Gellius thought, is stretched forth from the heart unto this finger,
the motion whereof you may perceive evidently in all that affects the
heart of woman, by the touch of your forefinger. I used to raise
such as are fallen in a swoon by pinching this joint and by rubbing
the ring of gold with a little saffron: for, by this, a restoring
force that is in it passeth to the heart and refresheth the fountain
of life unto which this finger is joined. Wherefore antiquity thought
fit to encompass it about with gold.”[343]
By the way, a correspondent, in a British periodical, suggests: that
a lady of his acquaintance has had the misfortune to lose the ring
finger, and the question is raised whether she can be married in the
Church of England!?[344]
In the “British Apollo” it is said that, during the time of George
the First, the wedding-ring, though placed in the ceremony of the
marriage upon the fourth finger, was worn upon the thumb.[345]
The use of the ring has become so common in England that poor people
will not believe the marriage to be good without one; and the notion
also is that it must be of gold. At Worcester (England) on one
occasion, the parties were so poor that they used a brass ring. The
bride’s friends indignantly protested that the ring ought to have
been of gold; and the acting officer was threatened with indictment
for permitting the use of such base metal.
In another case of humble marriage, the bridegroom announced that
a ring was not necessary. The woman entreated to have one. The
superintendent of the poor took part with the woman and represented
how the absence of it would expose her to insult; and he, kindly,
hesitated to proceed with the marriage until a ring was produced.
The man yielded at last and obtained one. The woman’s gratitude
brought tears into her eyes.
§ 9. In Roman Catholic marriages, with the priest in pontificals,
go two clerks in surplices. The latter carry the holy-water pot,
the sprinkler, the ritual and a little basin to put the ring in
when it is to be blessed.[346] After the pair have clasped hands
and the priest has by words joined them together, he makes the sign
of the cross upon them; sprinkles them with holy water; blesses
the wedding-ring and sprinkles it also with holy water in the form
of a cross, after which he gives it to the man, who puts it on the
wedding-finger of the woman’s left hand.
§ 10. The supposed heathen origin of our marriage-ring had well nigh
caused the abolition of it during the time of the Commonwealth in
England. The facetious author of Hudibras gives us the following
chief reasons why the Puritans wished it to be set aside:
“Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring;
With which th’ unsanctify’d bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb,
(As wise as ringing of a pig
That us’d to break up ground and dig,)
The bride to nothing but the will,
That nulls the after-marriage still.”[347]
§ 11. The author of the present essay found a difficulty in getting
a correct account of the use of the ring in Jewish marriages;[348]
although there is an exceedingly learned and interesting decision
in relation to one in the English Ecclesiastical Reports.[349] He
applied to a professional friend of the Jewish persuasion, who
obtained the following interesting particulars from one of our best
Hebrew scholars:[350] The nuptial rite among the Jews consists of
three distinct acts which together form the regular marriage ceremony.
1st. The religious act _Kidushin_, consecration, by which the husband
that is to be _mekadesh_ consecrates--that is to say, sets apart from
all other women and inhibits to all other men the woman who, by that
act, becomes his wife.
The ceremony is performed in manner following. A canopy is raised
under which the bridegroom takes his stand. The bride is brought
in and placed either at his right hand or opposite to him. The
officiating minister pronounces the initiatory nuptial benediction,
after which he receives from the bridegroom a ring that must be
of a certain value and the absolute property of the bridegroom,
purchased and paid for by him and not received as a present or bought
on credit. After due inquiry on these points, the minister returns
the ring to the bridegroom, who places it on the forefinger of the
bride’s right hand, while at the same time he says to her in Hebrew:
“Behold! thou art _mekudesheth_ consecrated unto me by means of this
ring, according to the law of Moses and of Israel.” The bride joins
in and expresses her consent to this act of consecration by holding
out her right hand and accepting the ring; which--after her husband
has pronounced the formula--constitutes her his lawful wife; so that,
even though the marriage should not be consummated, neither party
is thenceforth at liberty to contract another marriage, unless they
have previously been divorced according to law: and if the woman were
to submit to the embraces of another man, she would be guilty of
adultery.
The law which enjoins “consecration” requires that the symbol of the
act should be an object made of one of the precious metals--gold or
silver--and of a certain value. But though the law does not insist on
or even mention a ring, yet the custom of using a ring has, during
very many centuries, so generally prevailed--to the exclusion of
all other symbols--that the words “by means of this ring” have been
incorporated in the formula of consecration. In the greater part of
Europe and in America the ring is usually of gold; but in Russia,
Poland and the East the poorer classes use rings of silver.
2d. The civil act _Ketubah_, written contract: As soon as bridegroom
and bride have completed the act of consecration, the officiating
minister proceeds to read the marriage contract, a document in Hebrew
characters, signed by the bridegroom in the presence of two competent
witnesses--by which the husband engages to protect, cherish and
maintain his wife; to provide her with food, raiment, lodging and all
other necessaries; and secure to her a dowry for the payment of which
the whole of his estate--real and personal--stands pledged.
When this document has been read, the minister pronounces the closing
nuptial benediction, and a glass is broken in memory of Jerusalem
destroyed, (see Psalm cxxxvii.,) which completes the ceremony. The
psalm here referred to is that most beautiful one, beginning, “By
the rivers of Babylon,” and ending with what has immediate reference
to the destruction: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.”[351]
3d. But all the time these religious and civil acts are being
performed, the young couple have likewise before their eyes and above
their heads the emblem of the moral act _Hhupah_, cohabitation or
living together by themselves under one roof. This is the purpose
for which the canopy is raised over them; beneath which they ought,
by right, to stand quite alone--though generally the minister and
parents or nearest friends also find room under it.
These three distinct acts--religious, civil and domestic--to
constitute marriage according to the regular form _Hhupa ve
kidushin_, require ten adult male witnesses. But so binding is the
act of consecration, that if it were performed privately, without
the knowledge of parents or assistance of minister and solely in
the presence of two competent witnesses who hear the man pronounce
the formula “Behold thou art consecrated unto me,” etc., and see
the woman accept the ring, this proceeding, however irregular and
reprehensible, constitutes a marriage perfectly valid in the eyes of
the law.
Larpent, writing from France, but imbued with an ordinary English
prejudice, which is apt to ridicule unfamiliar things and lose sight
of reasons for customs, blurts out this: “I have been to the Jew’s
wedding. The ceremony consists principally of singing and drinking
and blessing in Hebrew. There must be something Jewish, however, as
usual, and that is concerning the ring, which, as soon as produced,
is shown round to all the rabbis near and some elders, etc., and to
the sponsors, to be sure it is really gold or otherwise the marriage
is void; and the true old clothesman-like way in which they all
spied at the ring was very amusing. Nearly the last ceremony is the
bridegroom’s smashing a wine-glass in a plate on the floor, with an
idea that he and his spouse are then as difficult to separate as it
would be to re-unite the glass. The gentleman showed gallantry by
exerting all his force and looking most fiercely as he broke the
glass.”[352]
The handing of the ring from the minister to some one of the persons
present has a reason broader than that which Larpent is pleased to
assign, as we consider we have shown. We confirm it by saying, that
the Jewish law requires, at the time of marriage, that a valuable
consideration should pass from the bridegroom to the bride. This
consideration is represented by the ring, which, therefore, must not
be of less value than the _minimum_ fixed by the law. And as this
value has to be ascertained and attested, which cannot be done by
less than two witnesses, the officiating minister or Rabbi, after
making the inquiries required by law, examines the ring and hands it
to the presiding officer of the synagogue, (a layman, who is supposed
to know more about the value of gold or silver than a Rabbi,) who
also examines and hands it back to the minister; and these two,
the minister and the officer of the synagogue, then witness that
the article is of that value which the law requires. We say this
advisedly; and can add as positively that the ring is never handed
round to third persons.
At a marriage to which the author was invited--a marriage between
a Jewish merchant and the amiable daughter of a learned Rabbi in
New-York--the usual course was not departed from. The father of
the bride, who officiated, received the ring from the bridegroom,
ascertained that it was the young man’s own property lawfully
acquired, examined and then delivered it to the president of the
synagogue. He, also, examined and handed the ring back to the
minister, who, finally, performed the ceremony.
§ 12. Some married women are so rigidly superstitious or firm that
they will not draw off their wedding-ring to wash or at any other
time: extending the expression “till death do us part” even to the
ring.[353]
And there is a superstition connected with the wear of the ring,
worked into this proverb:
“As your wedding-ring wears,
Your cares will wear away.”
§ 13. Gold-wire rings of three twisted wires were given away at
weddings; and Anthony Wood relates of Edward Kelly, a “famous
philosopher” in Queen Elizabeth’s days, that “Kelly, who was openly
profuse beyond the modest limits of a sober philosopher, did give
away in gold-wire rings (or rings twisted with three gold wires)
at the marriage of one of his maid servants, to the value of
£4,000.”[354]
§ 14. A gold ring has been discovered in Rome, which has the subject
of Cupid and Psyche cut into the metal.[355] We give an enlarged
illustration of it. Psyche is figured more ethereally than she
generally appears upon gems. The lower portion of this emanation
seems to partake of the delicate plumage of the butterfly; and the
whole prettily illustrates the soul. There is a strong contrast
between these figures; and we are inclined to think the designer
intended it. While Psyche is all that we have said, the other form
comes up to Colman’s theatrical Cupid:
“Fat, chubby-cheeked and stupid.”
Byron observes that the story of Cupid and Psyche is one uniform
piece of loveliness.
[Illustration: (Cupid and Psyche Ring)]
§ 15. The meeting of St. Anne and St. Joachim at the Golden Gate is
a favorite subject.[356] The Nuns of St. Anne at Rome show a rude
silver ring as the wedding-ring of Anne and Joachim.
§ 16. A wicked trick upon weak and confiding women used to be played
by forcing upon their finger a rush ring: as thereby they fancied
themselves married.[357] Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, in his
Constitutions, Anno 1217, forbids the putting of rush rings or any of
like matter on women’s fingers.
De Breveil says,[358] it was an ancient custom to use a rush ring
where the necessity for marriage was apparent.
§ 17. Rings occur in the fifteenth century, with the orpine plant
(_Telephium_) as a device. It was used because the bending of the
leaves was presumed to prognosticate whether love was true or false.
The common name for orpine plants was that of _midsummer men_. In a
tract said to be written by Hannah More, among other superstitions
of one of the heroines, “she would never go to bed on Midsummer Eve
without sticking up in her room the well-known plant called midsummer
men, as the bending of the leaves to the right or to the left would
never fail to tell her whether her lover was true or false.” The
orpine plant occurs among the love divinations on Midsummer Eve in
the Connoisseur:[359] “I likewise stuck up two midsummer men, one for
myself and one for him. Now if this had died away, we should never
have come together; but, I assure you, his blowed and turned to mine.”
§ 18. Marriage-rings, in the olden time, were not, as now,
plain in form and without words.[360] Some had a seal part for
impression.[361] A ring of this kind was ploughed up in the year 1783
on Flodden Field. It was of gold and an inscription upon it ran thus:
“Where are the constant lovers who can keep themselves from evil
speakers?” This would have been a relic for Abbotsford; but Dryburgh
Abbey has the wizard; and a stranger is in his halls.
A Roman bronze ring has been discovered of singular shape and fine
workmanship, which appears to have been intended as a token of love
or affection.[362]
[Illustration: (Token Ring of Love Two Views)]
The parts nearest the collet are flat and resemble a triangle from
which the summit has been cut. Its greatest singularity is an
intaglio ploughed out of the material itself, representing the head
of a young person. The two triangular portions which start from the
table of the ring are filled with ornaments, also engraved hollow.
Upon it is the word VIVAS or _Mayest thou live_.
[Illustration: (Ring Found at Sessa)]
§ 19. In the year 1845, an interesting ring was found at Sessa,
(the _Suessa Auruncorum_ of the ancients,) situate in the Terra
de Livaro, Kingdom of Naples. We here give the original signet.
A drawing of the same with its outer edge, which, as it will be
seen, contained the name of an after owner and the outer ring, with
its religious maxims along its edge, appears in the Archæological
Journal.[363] The stone which forms the signet is of a deep-red color
and, apparently, a species of agate. In the centre are engraved
two right hands joined together, with the following letters above
and below, C. C. P. S., I. P. D. Our cut is somewhat larger than
the original. Judging from the workmanship of the signet, it is
believed to have been executed in the period between the reigns of
Severus and Constantine or, in other words, about the middle of the
third century. The interpretation of these letters must be left to
conjecture. It would appear, however, to have been regarded as an
object of value or interest at a later period, when it was set in
gold for the person whose name appears round the stone in capital
letters, which are to be thus read:
✠ SIGILLV· THOMASII· DE· ROGERIIS· DE· SUESSA·
_Sigillum Thomasii de Rogeriis de Suessa._
On the outer side of the hoop of the ring are two other inscriptions,
also in capital letters. The first reads:
✠ XPS· VINCIT· XPS· REGNAT· XPS· IMPERA·
_Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat._
And the second:
✠ ET· VERBU: CARO: FACTU: E: ET ABITAUIT: INOB·
_Et verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis._
The workmanship of these inscriptions is exceedingly good and the
letters well formed and sharply cut. It will be remarked that in
the first legend on the hoop the letter T. in the word _Imperat_ is
omitted for want of space; and in the second, for the same reason,
not only the final _m_, as usual, is twice suppressed, but the word
_est_ is given in the abbreviated form of _e_; several letters are
joined together; the aspirate is omitted in _habitavit_; and the
letter _n_ is made to serve for the final of _in_ and the initial
of _nobis_. As to the date of this ring, it may, very probably,
be ascribed to the thirteenth century. There can be no doubt that
the owner, Thomasius de Rogeriis, must have been a member of the
Neapolitan family of Roggieri. The legend upon the ring, _Christus
vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat_, is found, also, in the
series of Anglo-Gothic gold coins from the reign of Edward III. of
England to that of Henry VI.
We have been favored with the perusal of a presentation copy of
the article (in the Archæological Journal) and from it have taken
the above explanation. This copy was sent by the possessor of the
ring, George Borrett, of Southampton, England, Esquire, to Isaac E.
Cotheal, of New-York, Esquire; and it has, interleaved, (with the
addition of a wax impression,) the following MS. note: “The Abbé
Farrari, a priest attached to the Church of Sta. Maria in Comedia,
(also called the Bocci della Venite,) submitted it to some members
of the Propaganda at Rome, 12th April, 1845, who described it as
follows: _Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, et
verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Sigillum Thomasii de
Rogeriis de Suessa_: Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands
and the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us. The seal of Thomas de
Rogeriis de Suessa.
“The veritable signet of Cicero (_i. e._) the coral in the centre of
the ring only. There were members of the Propaganda who thought it
resembled some impressions attached to documents in the Vatican of
the Roman Governor in Judea, ‘_Pontius Pilate_.’ The gold setting is
supposed to be about the eighth or ninth century by some dignitary in
triumph over the pagan philosopher or governor.”
Notwithstanding what is thus said, we are strongly under the
impression that it was a mystical ring or one worn in remembrance
of a marriage. Upon marbles and gems which illustrate the marriage
ceremony, the bride and bridegroom are represented with their
respective right hands joined. In Montfaucon[364] (and figured
also in Maffei) is a gem which has marital symbols and among
them a ring and the clasped right hands; and, in the same work,
(Montfaucon,)[365] we find a ring precisely in the form and of the
size of the Sessa ring, with right hands disposed in exactly the same
manner and also letters above and below the emblem. The words there
are:
PROTEROS
VGIAE
_Proteros_ and _Hygie_; and Montfaucon says, “Cela marque peut être
le mariage contracté entre les deux.”
Addison, in his Dialogue on Medals, says: “The two hands that join
one another are emblems of Fidelity;” and he quotes (Ovid’s Met. lib.
iv.):
“---- _Inde Fides dextræque data._”
(Thence faith and the right hand joined.) And also Seneca (Hurc. Fur.
lib. iv.):
“_Sociemus animos, pignus hoc fidei cape,_
_Continge dextram._”
(Let us unite souls, receive this pledge of faith, grasp the right
hand.)
We can hardly imagine a more perfect token of love, affection or
friendship than this of right hands clasped and the names of giver
and receiver. We commend it to loving friends and jewellers.
This joining of right hands appears upon ancient English
marriage-rings. Here is one, with its motto, _The Nazarene_:
[Illustration: (The Nazarene Ring)]
A silver wedding-ring, dug up at Somerton Castle, Lincolnshire, has a
poesy very common in former times:
“I love you, my sweet dear heart.
Go I pray you please my love.”[366]
There is a marriage gold ring of the time of Richard the Second of
England, having a French motto, translated, _Be of good heart_, and
bearing the figure of St. Catharine with her wheel, emblematical
of good fortune, and St. Margaret, to whom Catholics address their
devotions for safe delivery in childbirth.[367] The author has seen
an old American ring, in the possession of a young man, whose
grandfather presented it on his wedding day to his wife. It has a
piece of jet set in it and is cut into raised angular facets. On the
inside is engraved:
“_First love Christ, that died for thee,_
_Next to him, love none but me._”
_T. A. G._
John Dunton, a London bookseller and who is mentioned in the
_Dunciad_, describes, in his autobiography, his wedding-ring: as
having two hearts united upon it and this poesy:
“_God saw thee_
_Most fit for me._”
This would not seem to have attached to his second wife; for she left
him and wrote in one of her letters, “I and all good people think you
never married me for love, but for my money.”
Dr. John Thomas, who was Bishop of Lincoln in 1753, married four
times. The motto or poesy on the wedding-ring at his fourth marriage
was:
“If I survive,
I’ll make them five.”
This Rev. Dr. John Thomas was a man of genial humor. He used to tell
a story of his burying a body; and a woman came “and pulled me,” said
he, “by the sleeve in the middle of the service. ‘Sir, sir, I want
to speak to you.’ ‘Prythee,’ says I, ‘woman, wait till I have done.’
‘No, sir, I must speak to you immediately.’ ‘Why then, what is the
matter?’ ‘Why sir,’ says she, ‘you are burying a man who died of the
small-pox next to my poor husband, who never had it.’”
§ 20. Heroes, philosophers, poets--indeed, men of all classes leave
remembrances in the shape of rings. The will of Washington contains
this: “To my sisters-in-law Hannah Washington and Mildred Washington,
to my friends Eleanor Stuart, Hannah Washington of Fairfield and
Elizabeth Washington of Hayfield, I give each a mourning ring of the
value of one hundred dollars. These bequests are not made for the
intrinsic value of them, but as mementoes of my esteem and regard.”
Shakspeare bequeathes such tokens to several friends--among them,
to his brother players, whom he calls “my poor fellows”--“twenty
shillings eight pence apiece to buy them rings.” Pope bequeathed sums
of five pounds to friends, who were to lay them out in rings. This
great poet was no admirer of funerals that blackened all the way or
of gorgeous tombs: “As to my body, my will is that it be buried near
the monument of my dear parents at Twickenham, with the addition
after the words _filius fecit_ of these only, _et sibi_: _Qui obiit
anno 17_--, _ætatis_--: and that it be carried to the grave by six of
the poorest men of the parish, to each of whom I order a suit of gray
coarse cloth as mourning.”
The affection which Dr. Johnson bore to the memory of his wife was a
pretty point in his heavy character: “March 28, 1753. I kept this day
as the anniversary of my Letty’s death, with prayer and tears in the
morning. In the evening I prayed for her conditionally, if it were
lawful.” Her wedding-ring, when she became his wife, was, after her
death, preserved by him as long as he lived with an affectionate care
in a little round wooden box and in the inside of which he pasted a
slip of paper thus inscribed by him in fair characters:
“_Eheu!_
_Eliz. Johnson_
_Nupta Jul. 9^o, 1736,_
_Mortua, eheu!_
_Mart. 17^o, 1752._”[368]
Husbands can love, where friends may see nothing to admire: Mrs.
Johnson has been summed up as “perpetual illness and perpetual
opium.”[369]
Lord Eldon wore a mourning ring for his wife. In his will we find
this: “And I direct that I may be buried in the same tomb at Kingston
in which my most beloved wife is buried and as near to her remains as
possible; and I desire that the ring which I wear on my finger may be
put with my body into my coffin and be buried with me.”[370]
The last gift of Tom Moore’s mother to him was her wedding-ring:
“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.”[371]
The poet Gray was the possessor of trinkets; and, perhaps, we
may refer these to the “effeminacy” and “visible fastidiousness”
mentioned in Temple’s Life, (adopted by Mason.) In his will, the poet
gives an amount of stock to Richard Stonehewer, and adds: “and I
beg his acceptance of one of my diamond rings,” while to Dr. Thomas
Wharton he bequeaths £500--and, “I desire him also to accept of one
of my diamond rings.” He bequeaths his watches, _rings_, etc., to his
cousins Mary Antrobus and Dorothy Comyns, to be equally and amicably
shared between them.
§ 21. On the 1st of March, 1854, the ship _Powhattan_ sailed from
Havre for New-York, with two hundred and fifty passengers. Not far
from Barnegat Inlet she became a wreck, so complete that not a
vestige of her reached land. The passengers were seen to cling to the
bulwarks and, then, drop off by fifties; her captain, through his
trumpet, could be heard to implore attention to them; while the sea
crushed and dashed all to death on the fretted beach. The clothing
of one of the victims, who was not more than twenty years of age,
showed her to have belonged to the wealthy class of Germans. She was
beautiful even as she lay in death dabbled with sea-weed and scum.
Upon her fingers were two rings; one, plain and the other had a
heart attached to it. They were marked P. S. and B. S. 1854. This we
gather from a fleeting newspaper. While the mind sighs as it leaves
the corpse to its shallow, seaside, foreign and premature grave, a
curiosity is awakened by the rings and the attendant emblem. The date
shows them to be very late gifts. Were these tokens of affection from
brother and sister--for one heart might well do for both--and who
placed them upon that now cold hand, then glowing with an affection
that throbbed from under those rings? Or, was this young creature on
her way to her youthful husband, who had come before and built up a
home and whose betrothal was shown in the _heart_, while the plain
ring had made them one before God and the church and who was watching
for her and, in fancy, had, through day dreams and in night watching,
fancied the vessel sweep into port and the hand, that lovingly wore
his gifts, wave a recognition? It may be that father and mother
were the donors, with a blessing and a prayer and the added almost
certainty of thought that she who received with a last kiss, would
long survive parents to reverence the tokens, hallow their memory and
think of Fatherland! Oh, how much of fact, of poetry, of sadness may
crowd around a little ring!!
[Illustration: (The Pelican Mother Ring)]
§ 22. We can hardly meet with a prettier token and illustration of
affection than is to be found upon an ancient silver ring. It has
a pelican feeding three young ones from the life-current oozing
out of her breast; with the words: _Their Mother_. There is but
little doubt that this was one of three rings given by a mother to
her three children. The pelican is made an emblem of charity; and
Hackluyt, in his Voyages, speaks of the “_Pellicane_”--“which is
fain to be the lovingst bird that is, which rather than her young
should want, will spare her heart-blood.” In no form or fashion
could a mother’s love have been more beautifully and permanently
displayed--pure as the metal, perfect as the emblem. It makes us feel
that love _is_ indestructible; that it came from Heaven and returns
thither. No matter what may have been the sorrows, the cares and the
long-suffering of that mother; no matter though her heart dances
no longer to the music of her children’s voices; no matter what
were the earthly trials of those loved children; no matter though
their home-nest has been torn down or that the snow of the world
covers where the wings of the parent bird were spread; no matter
though the grave has taken all, save this illustration of a divine
emanation:--we feel that such love could not die and the throbbing
from the poet’s soul comes upon our memory:
“Oh when the mother meets on high
The babe she lost----
Hath she not then, for pains and fears,
The day of woe, the watchful night,
For all her sorrows, all her tears,
An overpayment of delight!”[372]
§ 23. This love between mother and child, from its undying purity,
is always a pleasant thing to trace and to follow. In the _Household
Words_,[373] a work in which there is more of usefulness, pleasure
and beauty than in any other modern book, a ring plays a pretty part
in a ballad of the youthful knight, Bran of Brittany. He was “wounded
sore,” and “in a dungeon tower, helpless he wept in the foeman’s
power.”
“O find a messenger true to me,
To bear me a letter across the sea.
A messenger true they brought him there,
And the young knight warned him thus with care:
Lay now that dress of thine aside,
And in beggar’s weeds thy service hide,
And take my ring, my ring of gold,
And wrap it safe in some secret fold,
But, once at my mother’s castle gate,
That ring will gain admittance straight.
And O! if she comes to ransom me,
Then high let the white flag hoisted be;
But if she comes not--ah, well-a-day!
The night-black flag at the mast display.[374]
When the messenger true to Leon came,
At supper sat the high-born dame:
With cups of gold and royal fare,
And the harpers merrily harping there.
I kneel to thee, right noble dame;
This ring will show from whom I came.
And he who gave me that same ring,
Bade me in haste this letter bring.
Oh! harpers, harpers, cease your song;
The grief at my heart is sharp and strong.
Why did they this from his mother hide?
In a dungeon lies my only pride!
O quick make ready a ship for me,
This night I’ll cross the stormy sea.”
The ballad goes on to show how young Bran, from his bed, at morn, at
noon, at vesper, asked the warder whether he saw a ship; and when,
at last, the warder says he observes one, he couples it with the
falsehood that the color of its flag is black.
“When the downcast knight that answer heard,
He asked no more, he spake no word.
He turned to the wall his face so wan,
And shook in the breath of the Mighty One!”
The mother touches the strand; hears a death-bell; asks of a
gray-haired man; speeds wildly to the tower:
“At the foot of the tower, to the gaoler grim,
She sobbed aloud and she called to him:
O! open the gates (my son! my son!)
O open the gates (my only son!)
They opened the gates; no word they said:
Before her there her son lay dead.
In her arms she took him so tenderly,
And laid her down--never more rose she!”
The ballad then describes an oak, with lofty head, whereon the birds
gather at night:
“And amidst them comes ever croaking low,
With a young dark raven, an aged crow.
Wearily onward they flap their way
With drooping wings, soaked through with spray,
As they had come from a far countrye;
As they had flown o’er a stormy sea.
And the birds they sing so sweet and clear
That the waves keep very still to hear.
They all sing out in a merry tone,
They all sing together--save two alone.
With mournful voice ever croaking low,
Sing, happy birds! says the aged crow,
Blest little birds! sing, for you may,
_You did not die from home far away_!”
How this noble ballad would have stirred the hearts of the authors of
“The Lay of the Last Minstrel” and of “Christabel”!
§ 24. Authors of fiction, from early times, have made use of rings
for their scenes. Shakspeare not unfrequently introduces them; indeed
the most interesting portion of _Cymbeline_ is worked up through the
wager of a ring as to the honor of the heroine. Imogen, in taking
leave of Posthumus, says:
“------ Look here, love;
This diamond was my mother’s; take it, heart;
But keep it till you woo another wife,
When Imogen is dead.
_Posthumus_. How! how! another?
You gentle gods, give me but this I have,
And sear up my embracements from a next
With bonds of death! Remain thou here,
(_Putting on the ring_,)
While sense can keep it on.”
And he, then, exchanges for it, “a manacle of love,” a bracelet,
placing it upon her arm, that “fairest prisoner.” Iachimo induced
Posthumus to wager this ring, which he esteemed “more than the world
enjoys”--but it is unnecessary to go further: for who has not read
Shakspeare?
§ 25. Roman iron rings, wrought with much care and having precious
stones, but minute enough for a child, have been found. One or two
of them are mentioned and illustrated in Caylus,[375] who, no doubt
rightly, considers they were intended for the finger of a domestic
deity or household god.
[Illustration: (Roman Child’s Iron Ring)]
The Romans clung to their home deities; and this is the best part
of their character. One of the most beautiful of the antique draped
figures, cut upon a signet, represents a woman contemplating a
household god,[376] “a symbol of that domestic affection which
the ancients, exalted almost blamelessly, into an object of divine
homage.”[377]
[Illustration: (Woman Contemplating Household Gods)]
It was on this particular gem that Croly wrote these charming lines:
“Domestic love! not in proud palace halls
Is often seen thy beauty to abide;
Thy dwelling is in lowly cottage walls,
That in the thickets of the woodbine hide;
With hum of bees around, and from the spring,
Shining along thro’ banks with harebells dyed;
And many a bird to warble on the wing,
When morn her saffron robe o’er heaven and earth doth fling.
O! love of loves!--to thy white hand is given
Of earthly happiness the golden key!
“Thine are the joyous hours of winter’s even,
When the babes cling around their father’s knee;
And thine the voice that, on the midnight sea,
Melts the rude mariner with thoughts of home,
Peopling the gloom with all he longs to see.
Spirit! I’ve built a shrine; and thou hast come;
And on its altar closed--for ever closed thy plume!”
Gifts of rings by lovers have always been common; but the intimate
relation between husband and wife brings toils, duties and sacrifices
which generally charm off ordinary love tokens. It is comforting,
however, when the husband can look to the past, to the present, to
the future with sentiments like those embraced in the following
beautiful lines in connection with the gift of a ring:
“TO MRS. ----, WITH A RING.
“‘Thee, Mary, with this ring I wed,’--
So, sixteen years ago, I said--
Behold another ring--for what?
To wed thee o’er again? Why not?
With that first ring I married youth,
Grace, beauty, innocence and truth,
Taste long admir’d, sense long rever’d
And all my Mary then appeared.
If she, by merit since disclosed,
Prove twice the woman I supposed:
I plead that double merit now
To justify a double vow.
Here then to-day (with faith as sure,
With ardor as intense and pure,
As when amidst the rites divine
I took thy troth and plighted mine)
To thee, sweet girl, my second ring,
A token and a pledge I bring,
With this I wed till death us part
Thy riper virtues to my heart;
Those virtues which, before untried,
The wife has added to the bride;
Those virtues, whose progressive claim,
Endearing wedlock’s very name,
My soul enjoys, my song approves,
For conscience’ sake, as well as love’s.
For why?--They show me hour by hour
Honor’s high thought, affection’s power,
Discretion’s deed, sound judgment’s sentence,
And teach me all things--but repentance.”[378]
And there is a charm and gentleness about the following lines which
Dr. Drennan addressed to his wife, with a gift of a ring:
“Emblem of happiness! not bought nor sold;
Accept this modest ring of virgin gold.
Love, in this small, but perfect, circle trace;
And duty, in its soft but strict embrace.
Plain, precious, pure, as best becomes the wife;
Yet firm to bear the frequent rubs of life.
Connubial life disdains a fragile toy,
Which rust can tarnish and a touch destroy;
Nor much admires what courts the general gaze,
The dazzling diamond’s meretricious blaze,
That hides, with glare, the anguish of a heart,
By nature hard, but polished 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 the unconscious charm;
The holy amulet to keep from harm.
To guard, at once and consecrate, the shrine--
Take this dear pledge:--it makes and keeps thee mine.
§ 26. There is an interesting story in the _Gesta Romanorum_[379]
(indeed the whole work is full of pleasing matter) entitled the
judgment of Solomon. It is often represented in that illumination
which in the ancient manuscripts of the French translation of the
Bible by Guiars des Moulins is prefixed to the Proverbs of Solomon,
although the story itself does not occur in that Bible. It appears to
have been a great favorite in the middle ages; and was often related
from the pulpit. A king, in some domestic difference with his wife,
had been told by her that one only of her three sons was a true
offspring, but which of them was so she refused to discover. This
gave him much uneasiness; and his death soon afterwards approaching,
he called his children together; and declared, in the presence of
witnesses, that he left a ring, which had very singular properties,
to him that should be found to be his lawful son. On his death a
dispute arose about the ring between the youths--and it was at length
agreed to refer its decision to the King of Jerusalem. He immediately
ordered that the dead body of the father should be taken up and tied
to a tree; that each of the sons should shoot an arrow at it and that
he who penetrated the deepest should have the ring. The eldest shot
first and the arrow went far into the body; the second shot also and
deeper than the other. The youngest son stood at a distance and wept
bitterly; but the king said to him: “Young man, take your arrow and
shoot as your brothers have done.” He answered, “Far be it from me
to commit so great a crime. I would not for the whole world disfigure
the body of my own father.” The king said: “Without doubt you are his
son, and the others are changelings: to you, therefore, I adjudge the
ring.”
* * * * *
Here the author closes his “Dactylotheca” or casket of rings.
Metaphorically speaking, he fears it has been discovered that he does
not wear a _ring of power_; and that no _talismanic ring_ is in his
possession. And it may be that some constrained position in which the
writer has kept his readers, will allow them to desire the use of
_cramp rings_ for relief. If so, he would willingly “creep to cross”
to succor them: provided the ending of this essay did not answer that
purpose.
One thing the author will hope; and it is this: that his readers
and he have fashioned the interesting token of friendship a _gimmal
ring_; and if it be so, then they will pass from this work with the
idea that they have one part of such ring, while the writer may
proudly hold to the other, until some future essay shall bring author
and friends and the twin hoops of the _gimmal_ together again. With
such a token upon his hand, he can waive a farewell.