Chapter VII: Part 7

When, in 1360, the Earl of Richmond married the Lady Blanche, daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, King Edward III gave as presents a ring with a ruby and a belt garnished with rubies, emeralds and pearls.[313] The rubies may have been considered especially appropriate, since the red rose was the emblem of the House of Lancaster. More than a century later, in the reign of Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck utilized his striking resemblance to Edward IV in support of his claim that he was one of the princes slain in the Tower, in 1483, by order of Richard III, and succeeded in persuading Edward’s sister, Margaret, and also King James IV of Scotland, of the truth of his pretensions, one of his rural agents in England was called in the conspirators’ correspondence “The Merchant of the Ruby,” a designation designed to cast off possible suspicion by representing the agent to be only a gem dealer.

There still exists in the English records a paper dated in 1445, the year of Margaret of Anjou’s marriage, and signed by King Henry VI. In this the king directs that a warrant of discharge be given to “our Trusty and Wellbeloved Squire John Merston, Tresorier of our Chambre and Keper of our juwelles,” for sundry jewels which had been confided to his care. The following item refers to the ring of Margaret of Anjou:[314]

“A Ryng of Gold, Garnished with a fayr Rubie, somtyme Yeven unto Us by our Bel Oncle the Cardinal of Englande, with the which we were Sacred in the Day of oure Coronation at Parys, delivered unto Mathew Phelip, to Breke, and thereof to make an other Ryng for the Quenes Wedding Ring.”

There is no mention here of any engraving on the stone of this ring, which had been used in 1431, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris. If the spinel in the Marlborough Collection, engraved with a head somewhat resembling that of Henry VI on his coins, really adorned this ring, the engraving may have been executed subsequent to Henry’s marriage with the unfortunate Margaret of Anjou.

Rings set with precious stones were given as prizes at the tournament held by Henry VII of England in 1494. The prize for jousting was to be a ruby ring, while the best in the tourney and the one delivering the most telling strokes was to be rewarded with a diamond ring. The Earl of Suffolk, Thomas Brandon, who later married King Henry’s daughter Margaret, after the death of her first husband Louis XII of France, was successful in gaining one of the ruby rings, bestowed upon him by the “Ladie Margaret,” his future wife, and Sir Edward A. Borough fought so stoutly in the mêlée that he was adjudged worthy of a diamond ring. An extra prize of an emerald ring was given to the Earl of Essex for his valor.[315]

In 1681 the Duke of Norfolk presented to the College of Arms in London the sword, dagger, and ring worn by James IV of Scotland (1473–1513) at the battle of Flodden Field, fought August 22, 1513, in which he met his death. This ring was set with a turquoise and had been sent to James by the queen of France, as a pledge of friendship and regard, when she solicited the good offices of the Scottish monarch with Henry VIII, who had just laid siege to Térouanne. Another account states that when the queen sent the ring to James, she charged him to break a lance for her sake. This ring is said to have been taken from the body of King James by Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, an ancestor of the donor.[316] The belief that the turquoise protected those who wore it from falls and wounds, probably determined its selection, but the result in this case was hardly calculated to increase the stone’s prestige.

On the site of this disastrous defeat of the Scotch by the English army under the Earl of Surrey, an inscribed ring was found in 1783. The inscription, in Norman French, reads: “On est mal loiauls amans qui se poet garder des maux disans” (Only a lover of scant loyalty can escape calumny). The words are disposed in groups of two, and between each pair is a boar’s head, the crest of the Campbells. This has led to the conjecture that the ring belonged to the second son of the Duke of Argyll, Archibald Campbell, who met his death in the forefront of the fight.[317]

Rings of identical form and setting on index fingers of each hand
and on little finger of left hand. These are designed to match
exactly the jewels on his collar and sleeves.

Reale Galleria d’Arte Antica. Palazzo Corsini, Rome]

Rings set with precious stones on index and fourth fingers of
left hand

Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna]

At the spoliation of the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury in 1538, among the precious objects taken away was “[a stone with] an angel of gold pointing thereunto, offered by the King of France: [which King Henry put] into a ring and wore it on his thumb.” This jewel, containing a diamond, was the most prized ornament of the shrine, and is believed to have been given by Louis VII of France on the occasion of his visit in 1179. Henry VIII must have tired of his massive thumb ring, for in the inventory of the precious stones delivered to Queen Mary, March 10, 1554, shortly after her accession, there appears the following entry: “A collar of golde set with sixteen faire diamounts, whereof the Regal of France is one, and fourteen Knotts of perles, in every Knotte four perles.”[318]

Two pretty New Year’s gifts for January first, 1571, were delivered to Lady Mary Sidney on the last day of the year 1570. One of them was a ring “set with a rose”; the other was more ambitious in design, being described as “a jewell with the storie of time” set with diamonds and rubies, certainly an appropriate gift for the day. This cost but £10 or $50, a much larger sum, however, in those bygone days than it is accounted to be to-day, for the purchasing power of money was many times greater.[319]

The earliest mention of the diamond ring given by Elizabeth to Mary Queen of Scots occurs in Camden’s account of the events of Elizabeth’s reign. After relating the events that determined Mary to seek Elizabeth’s protection, Camden continues:

She therefore sent John Beatoun to her [Elizabeth] with the diamond she had formerly received from her as a symbol of mutual good-will, signifying to her that she was about to come to England and ask for aid in case her subjects continued to make war against her.[320]

This is said to have been a gimmal-ring, two diamonds joining together to form a heart. One half was kept by Elizabeth who gave the other half to Mary. This appeal to the tender mercies of the Virgin Queen, and Mary’s hope, were in vain, for “she cutt off her head for all that” as Aubrey dryly puts it.[321]

Several epigrams on this diamond were written by the Scotch poet and publicist George Buchanan (1506–1582), the best being as follows:[322]

Quod te jampridem fruitur, videt, ac amat absens,
Haec pignus cordis gemma, et imago mei est.
Non est candidior, non est haec purior illo,
Quamvis dura magis, non magis firma.

This has been rendered:

The gem which saw thee near and loves thee still,
Is pledge and image of my heart and will.
My heart is not less white or pure than this,
And though less hard, ’tis quite as firm I wis.

Rings on the second joint of fourth finger of right hand, and on
little finger of the same hand

Museo del Prado, Madrid]

On little finger of left hand, ring set with a large, oblong,
table-cut stone

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York]

A memorial ring was sent by Mary of Scotland, just before her execution at Fotheringay Castle, February 8, 1587, to her faithful follower and kinsman, Lord John Hamilton, with an affectionate message and her last farewell. This ring, set with a sapphire, was handed down from generation to generation in the Hamilton family, and was seen, in 1857, at Hamilton Palace, by Miss Agnes Strickland. She described the sapphire as being large, of rectangular form, and cut with a number of facets, a kind of rose-cutting; the setting was of blue enamelled gold in the style favored by sixteenth century goldsmiths.[323] It might be looked upon as a noteworthy coincidence, that as a sapphire was a memorial of Mary’s death, another sapphire was the token to her son, James I, of Elizabeth’s death and his accession to the throne of England.

On the night before her execution, Mary Stuart found an opportunity to ask her apothecary, a Monsieur Gorion, whether he could safely convey a letter and two diamonds to those for whom they were intended, and whether he would promise to perform this service faithfully. He assented, saying that he could make some drug in which the objects might be safely concealed, so that he could carry them away with him. One of these diamonds was to be given to Mendoza, for a long time Spanish ambassador to the court of Elizabeth; the other, and larger one, was destined for Philip II of Spain. This was to be received as “a sign that she was dying for the truth, and was also meant to bespeak his care for her friends and servants.”[324]

Of rings which have been treated as sacred relics, none can be said to recall a more painful tragedy than one donated to the monastery-church of the Escurial. On April 15, 1587, the Spanish king Philip II had a nocturne and a requiem sung in the church in memory of the unfortunate Mary of Scotland. When the echoes of the solemn chants had died away, the king gave to the abbot a ring set with a diamond which had belonged to the unhappy victim, with the injunction that it should be placed among the sacred relics and preserved as “a symbol of the purity and the firm faith of this saintly queen.”[325] This ring, or at least the large diamond of its setting, must have been the farewell gift which we have just noted.

Although not a betrothal ring, that given by Queen Elizabeth to the Earl of Essex was most certainly a love token. When this nobleman was high in the queen’s favor she bestowed upon him a gold ring set with a sardonyx cut with her portrait; giving him, at the same time, a solemn promise that whatever charges might be brought against him she would accord him her pardon if he sent her this ring. Some years later, Essex--who in the meanwhile had lost the queen’s favor--was impeached for high treason and condemned to death. In this extremity, he endeavored to find some means of transmitting to the queen the ring she had given him. Fearing to trust his keepers with the execution of his wish, Essex found no better way than to throw the ring to a boy who was passing the prison, directing him to give it to Lady Scrope, Lady Nottingham’s sister. Unfortunately for Essex, the boy gave the ring, by mistake, to Lady Nottingham, whose husband was one of his bitterest enemies, so that the token never reached the queen, who was convinced that her former favorite was too proud and obstinate to seek her mercy. She thereupon left him to his fate. Years afterwards, when Lady Nottingham was on her death-bed, she asked for the queen and confessed that she had failed to deliver the ring sent to her by Essex. This confession aroused the queen’s wrath to such an extent that she burst forth in violent reproaches and rushed from the room exclaiming: “God may forgive you; I never shall!” The proud heart of the virgin queen was broken by this revelation, and, weighed down by remorse for the death of Essex, she expired a few weeks later.

British Museum]

British Museum]

British Museum]

Quite recently this historic Essex ring has found its way to the auction-room, and to judge from the price it brought, the purchaser must have been convinced of the truth of the legend concerning it, as its merely artistic qualities--which are in no wise remarkable--and the fact that it is incidentally a product of sixteenth century art would scarcely suffice to justify the amount paid for it. The sale took place at Christie’s in London, on May 18, 1911, and after spirited bidding the ring was adjudged for $17,060. A firm of dealers in antiquities were the nominal purchasers, but they are said to have acted for Lord Michelson of Hollingly, a baron in the lately overthrown Kingdom of Portugal, and the senior partner in the firm of Stern Bros., of London. This ring is stated to have been bequeathed by mother to daughter in a long line of Essex’s descendants, beginning with his daughter Lady Francis Devereux. Finally it came to Louisa, daughter of John, Earl of Greville, and wife of Thomas Thyme, second Viscount Weymouth and great-grandfather of the late owner.

Some authorities do not think that the story of the Essex ring has a satisfactory historical foundation.[326] It first appears in a book published about 1650 and entitled “History of the most renowned Queen Elizabeth and her great Favourite, the Earl of Essex. In Two Parts. A Romance.” In 1658 Francis Osborn repeats it in his “Traditional Memoires of Elizabeth.” It was even treated dramatically by John Banks (fl. 1696) in his play “The Unhappy Favourite.” Certain later writers claim to have learned of it through trustworthy informants, as for example, Louis Aubery, Sieur de Maurier, who published in Paris, in 1680, a history of Holland and therein states that Sir Dudley Carleton told the story to Prince Maurice of Saxony. In the English translation of this work the episode has been omitted. Still later, at the end of the seventeenth century, it is given by Lady Elizabeth Spelman on the authority, as she alleged, of Sir Robert Carey, brother of Lady Scrope. In earlier versions the ring was represented to have been sent directly by Essex to Lady Nottingham; in Lady Spelman’s recital, however, as we have already noted, Essex instructs the boy to whom he entrusts the ring to deliver it to Lady Scrope, sister of Lady Nottingham. It is suggested that this variation was made to offset the objection that Essex would never have chosen his enemy, Lady Nottingham, as an intermediary between himself and the queen. Manningham, in his “Diary,” the only contemporary who alludes to a ring in connection with Essex’s relations with Elizabeth, only states that “the queen wore till her death a ring given her by Essex.” Possibly this fact may have served as a nucleus for the romantic tale.

A portrait of Queen Elizabeth, elaborately be-pearled as usual, the work of the Flemish painter, Lucas De Heere, shows her with a ring on the little finger of her left hand. It is set with an oblong, table-cut stone. This interesting portrait, which is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, while conforming generally to the type with which we are familiar, differs in some respects therefrom. The very slender neck, the delicacy of form and face, may, of course, represent mannerisms of the artist.

The sapphire set in the ring thrown out of the window of Queen Elizabeth’s death chamber by Lady Scrope to her brother Robert Carey, as a signal that the queen was dead, so that he might be the first to bear the news to her impatient successor, James I, was exhibited in the great Loan Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Jewellery shown at the South Kensington Museum in London, in 1872. As there shown, this historic sapphire was the central ornament of a diamond star, or cinque-foil. The original ring was given to John, Earl of Orrery, by the Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter of James II, and the small brilliants surrounding it in its present setting are the same as those which were about it in the ring.[327]

By the terms of his will, dated December 18, 1630, Sir Edward Coke, of Godwick, bequeathed among other jewels two of historic significance. One of these was a ring “set with a great Turkey (turquoise), which King Henry the Eighth used to wear, and was painted with it on his forefinger.” The other jewel, also a ring, is curiously suggestive when we recall that an attempt (unsuccessful, of course) had been made to poison the unfortunate Sir Thomas Overbury with diamond dust, before poison of a more effective sort was administered to him. The ring in question is described here as set with “a Diamon cut with faucetts (facets)” and the statement is added that it had been given to Sir Edward by Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I, “for the discovery of the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury.”[328]

A gold ring, said to have been one of five such rings given by Charles I to Bishop Juxon, on the scaffold, just before the king’s execution, was shown in the Loan Collection exhibited in the South Kensington Museum, in London, in 1872. The statement is made that this ring was presented by Bishop Juxon to Sir John Halloway, and from him passed into the possession of the Dalby family. The ring bears a death’s head in white enamel on a black ground, and has the motto, “Behold the ende”; around the edge is the inscription, “Rather death then fals fayth”; at the back are the initials “M” and “L,” tied with a mourning ribbon.[329]

The “Verney Ring,” with a portrait of Charles I of England, is, if genuine, the only relic of a heroic tragedy. It is said to have been bestowed by Charles I upon Sir Edmund Verney, one of his most faithful followers in the perils of the Civil War. Sir Edmund was killed at the battle of Edgehill, in 1642, where the Cavaliers were utterly defeated, but even in death he still held the royal standard in his grasp. The ring was taken from his hand, and the body abandoned; it was never recovered. As he was helped into the world by a Cæsarean operation, it became a common saying in the neighborhood of Edgehill that Sir Edmund was neither born nor buried.[330]

With that striking indifference to moral right and wrong so characteristic of Charles II of England, he did not hesitate to bestow a choice ring from his own hand upon the notorious Jeffreys, when the latter was leaving London on one of his circuits always marked by the browbeating of witnesses and accused, and the imposition of capital sentences, wherever possible. It was at a somewhat later date, in 1685, just after the accession of James II, that Jeffreys conducted the trials of the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth’s adherents, which came to be known as the “Bloody Assize.” This fact of the presentation was published in the Royal Gazette, thus notably strengthening Jeffreys’ prestige. So general, however, was the reprobation of his heartless and bloodthirsty administration of his judicial office that the ring was called “Jeffreys’ bloodstone.”[331]

In March, 1748, as some ploughmen were tilling a field seven miles from Mullingor, County Westmeath, Ireland, they discovered a grave, the bottom, sides and ends of which were formed each of a single slab of stone. Within the grave were the bones of a man of gigantic stature, and also an urn and a valuable ring, set with twenty-five diamonds. Bishop Pococke, treating of this ring, mentions the fact that Rosa Failge, eldest son of Cathoir More, known as Cathoir the Great, who reigned in 122 A.D., was called the “Hero of Rings,” but the writer adds that the ring could scarcely have belonged to him, since diamonds do not appear to have been known in Ireland at this early date.[332]

A most interesting Washington relic is a pearl and gold ring made in his lifetime and containing a lock of his hair placed beneath a conical glass. This is encircled by a setting of blue and white enamel, a square of red being set at each corner, and around this a circle of thirteen pearls, the number of the original States. This ring was given by Washington to Lieut. Robert Somers. The latter lost his life while fighting the Algerene pirates in Tripoli, but before his departure he confided the ring to the care of his sister, Sarah Keen. It is now owned by Vice-Chancellor E. B. Leaming of Camden, New Jersey, who inherited it from his paternal grandmother, an heir to Somers’ estate. Only two other rings containing Washington’s hair are known of, one in Washington’s Headquarters at Newburgh on the Hudson, the other in the Boston Museum.[333]

In far-away Sweden there has been preserved a historic Washington relic. This is a ring given by the Revolutionary leader to Lafayette before the latter’s return to France after the victorious Yorktown campaign. The ring passed from Lafayette to his intimate friend, Baron Erik Magnus Staël von Holstein, Swedish ambassador to France. The latter, on a visit to his native land gave it to his brother, Major Bogislaus Staël von Holstein, in whose family it was transmitted as an heirloom until it reached the hands of the maternal grandfather of the present owner, Mr. Gösta Frölen of Falun, Sweden. The ring is of gold and is set with a miniature portrait of Washington.

It is said that two other rings were given by Washington about the same time to two Swedish noblemen, who had served as adjutants to Rochambeau. The presentation occurred at a banquet given in their honor, just before their departure for their native land, at the City Tavern in Philadelphia, November 11, 1782. In bestowing these gifts Washington is said to have used the following words: “I am happy to be here amongst men belonging to the race of my own early ancestors.” All trace of these rings has been lost.

V

BETROTHAL (ENGAGEMENT) RINGS, WEDDING (NUPTIAL)
RINGS, AND LOVE TOKENS

Special wedding-rings, as we understand them, were not used at an early period, the espousal ring being employed at the wedding ceremony also. At a later time, a signet was set in the _anulus pronubus_, or betrothal ring, to signify that the spouse was to have the right of sealing up the household goods, and occasionally a small key formed part of the ring, with a similar significance. We have a testimony to this view in the words of the marriage ceremony: “With all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The wives of our day are quite disposed to accept this passage in its literal sense, although some may incline to a more liberal interpretation of the promise to love, honor and obey their husbands. The ring as a pledge of love is said to be first mentioned in Roman literature by Plautus in his “Miles Gloriosus” (Act IV, sc. i, v. 11); this passage, however, does not refer to a nuptial ring, but rather to a love token.

Somewhat distantly related to the betrothal or wedding rings were those given by lovers to the objects of their affection. Of such a ring the Roman poet Ovid writes, apostrophizing it as “a ring soon destined to encircle the finger of a beauteous girl, a ring having no worth except the love of the giver.” It was to be a gift to the poet’s ladylove Corinna.[334] The ring sent by a fair lady, as a token of love to a handsome soldier, in the “Miles Gloriosus” of Plautus was also of this class.

The custom of placing the betrothal or wedding ring upon the fourth finger seems undoubtedly to owe its origin to the fancy that a special nerve, or vein, ran directly from this finger to the heart. Macrobius, in his Saturnalia,[335] alludes to the belief in the following words: “Because of this nerve, the newly betrothed places the ring on this finger of his spouse, as though it were a representation of the heart.” Macrobius asserts that he derived his information from an Egyptian priest.

It has been conjectured that this was not the real source of the custom, but that in the church service it was usual for the Christian priest to touch three fingers successively with the ring while saying: “In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and then to place it upon the last finger touched. We know that this was the usage in the bestowal of episcopal rings, and later with wedding rings, but the express statement cited from the pagan writer Macrobius shows that in the earlier marriage or betrothal ceremony this custom must have had an entirely different origin.

During the reign of George I of England it was not unusual to wear the wedding ring on the thumb, although it had been placed on the fourth finger at the marriage ceremony. Possibly this custom may have arisen because exceptionally large wedding rings were favored by fashion at that time. That wedding rings were often worn on the thumb in the middle of the seventeenth century is proved by the lines from Samuel Butler’s Hudibras quoted on another page.[336]

Rings on thumb and index of right hand, and on fourth and little
fingers of left hand Museo del Prado, Madrid]

Two rings on index and one on little finger of right hand; one on
index of left hand; all set with precious stones Museo del Prado,
Madrid]

Ecclesiastical rituals in France from the eleventh to the fifteenth century prove, with but few exceptions, that the nuptial ring was to be placed on the right hand of the bride, in most of the dioceses upon the middle finger of this hand, but in the diocese of Liége on the fourth finger. As Isidore of Seville, writing in the early part of the seventh century, declares that the betrothal ring was put on the fourth finger, and repeats the Roman fancy as to the vein intimately connecting this particular finger with the heart,[337] it seems likely that this rule was generally followed in the Roman Empire up to its end, and even later in some parts of what had once been Roman provinces, while the early French rules were derived from a Gallic usage which had never been supplanted by the Roman one.[338] That the Gauls and Britons of the first century wore their rings on the middle finger is already noted by Pliny.[339]

A gold ring, a unique relic of Anglo-Saxon times in England, was found in an ancient burial place at Harnham Hill, near Salisbury.[340] It was on a finger bone of the left hand of a skeleton, and resembles exactly our wedding-ring of to-day. In the same cemetery was unearthed a twisted ring of silver, a mere band twice encircling the finger; a section of the finger-bone remains within the ring. These relics are believed to date from the seventh century. On or near the skeleton with which this silver ring was found were several amber beads; the remains were evidently those of an elderly person, although of one not over 55 years of age, according to Professor Owen.

That part of the Order of Matrimony relating to the marriage vows and to the wedding ring, in the Sarum Rite or Use current in England in pre-Reformation times, runs as follows, after the bride and groom have clasped hands:[341]

Ich N. take the N. to my wedded wyf, to haven and to holden fro this day forward, for betre for wors, for rychere for porere, in syknesse and in helthe, til deth us departe, and theerto y plith the my trewthe.

Then the woman:

Ich N. take the N. to my wedded hosebund, to haven and to holden fro this day forward, for betre and for wors, for rychere and for porere, to be boneyre and buxum ... and at borde, till dethe us departe and thereto y plith the my trewthe.

Then let the man lay gold, silver, and a ring on a dish or book; and let the Priest ask if the ring hath been blessed already; if it be answered not, then let the Priest bless the ring.

Bless, O Lord, this ring (looking at it) which we hallow in Thy Holy Name, that whosoever she be that shall wear it may be steadfast in Thy peace and abide in Thy will, and live, increase, and grow old in Thy love, and let the length of her days be multiplied.

Collection of B. G. Fairchild, Esq., New York City]

Archæologia, vol. xxxv, pl. opp. p. 278]

But if the ring shall have been already blessed, then, as soon as the man have laid it on the book, let the Priest take the ring and deliver it to the man; and let the man receive it in his right hand, with the first three fingers, holding the right hand of the Bride with his left hand, and say, after the Priest:

With this ryng ich the wedde, and with my body ich the honoure and with al my gold ich the dowere.

And then let the bridegroom put the ring on the thumb of the Bride, saying--

In the Name of the Father; (on the first finger) and of the Son; (on the second finger) and of the Holy Ghost; (on the third finger). Amen.

And there let him leave it, because in that finger there is a certain vein which reaches to the heart; and by the purity of the silver is signified the inward affection which ought ever to be fresh between them.

In the modern Protestant Episcopal service, the bestowal of the ring is ordered as follows:

Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring. And the Minister, taking the Ring, shall deliver it unto the Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman’s left hand. And the Man holding the Ring there, and taught by the Minister, shall say:

With this Ring I thee wed, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

It will be noted that the ring is first given by the man to the woman, then taken from her by the priest who returns it to the man, upon which the latter puts it on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand.

Four fine specimens of later Byzantine work in ring-making are in the British Museum. These are all marriage-rings of massive gold, the designs being similar, with certain variations. The bezels bear engraved figures of Christ alone, or of Christ and the Virgin, bestowing a blessing upon the newly wedded pair; beneath is the Greek word ὸμονόια (or ὸμόνυαι), signifying their spiritual union. All but one have on the hoop in Greek characters the inscription: “My peace I give unto you” (John, xiv, 27). On the remaining ring there is on the hoop a decoration in niello, depicting very roughly scenes from the Gospel. The character of the work indicates that it probably belongs to the tenth century.[342] A massive gold ring found not long since in Mainz, bears a Greek inscription showing that it was executed for the nuptials of King Stephen Radislav of Servia (1228–1234) with Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Theodore Angélus Comnenus, Duke of Thessalonica, the region of the Saloniki of to-day. The inscription on this early thirteenth century ring of Byzantine workmanship is nielloed on the gold.[343]

Some interesting inscriptions appear on certain of the Greek betrothal rings in the collection of the British Museum. A gold ring of about the fourth century B.C. bears a Greek inscription which may be rendered as follows: “To her who excells not only in virtue and prudence, but also in wisdom.” In marked contrast to this rather elaborate dedication is the inscription on another ring, which bears the single word μὲλι “Honey.” It strikes us strangely enough to find this particular term of endearment, so freely used by the Negroes, on a ring from classic times. Perhaps the most beautiful of all these inscriptions is on a late Greek ring and runs: “I rejoice in the gift because of the affection of the giver.”[344]

The custom of bestowing a ring upon the betrothed bride has been traced back in Rome to the second century B.C. Plain iron rings were first used for this purpose and they were still favored even when the wearing of gold rings had become general among certain classes of the Roman citizens. However, in the course of the second century of our era, and perhaps earlier, gold rings came into use in the ceremony of betrothal. Pliny’s assertion that the bride wore an unset iron ring has been interpreted to mean no more than that, in the case of those entitled to wear gold rings, the bridegroom after having given the bride a gold ring, later bestowed upon her one of iron for wear within doors. For it appears to have been a rather general usage, in or before Pliny’s time, to wear gold rings only when in public, and within the house iron rings. That the nuptial ring was of gold, in the second century at least, is plain from the statement of St. Clement of Alexandria, who declares that this ring was not bestowed upon the spouse as an ornament, but that she might seal up whatever was worthy of special care in the household.[345]

Perhaps the earliest allusion in Christian literature to the betrothal ring appears in one of Tertullian’s writings, dated from the end of the second century A.D., wherein he says: “Among our women the time-honored rules of their ancestors, which enjoined modesty and sobriety, have died out. In former times women knew nothing of gold except the single betrothal ring, which was placed on one of their fingers by the fiancé.”[346] That this usage had endured for many years is clearly apparent from the allusion to times long past. In a curious passage,[347] St. Augustine, in the fourth century, writes: “No priest shall hesitate to wed a couple who present themselves before the altar, if the bride and bridegroom are not able, because of poverty, to give rings to each other; for the (offering of) the earnest-money is a matter of decorum, not of necessity.”

One of the rare marriage rings or love tokens of the early Christian centuries, bears incised on its circular, button-shaped chaton, a male and a female bust, the faces turned toward each other. Above is a cross, the lower part of its upright shaft much longer than the upper part or the arms. This ring is of Byzantine workmanship and has been approximately dated about 440 A.D. It is a good example of the so-called bi-cephalic rings, rings bearing two heads, and weighs 3⅝ dwt., or 87 grains.[348]

This usage was introduced among the ancient Germans by the Romans. The significance of the betrothal ring is noted in a law of the Visigoths, promulgated by Chindaswinthe (642–643 A.D.). There had evidently been a disposition to treat lightly the obligations of betrothal, for we read: “Since there are many who, forgetful of their plighted faith, defer the fulfillment of their nuptial contracts, this license should be suppressed.” Therefore, it was provided that when a solemn declaration had been made before witnesses and the espousal ring had been given and accepted as representing earnest-money, the marriage ceremony must follow, if either of the parties should fail to agree to a rupture of the engagement; that is, it could only be broken by mutual consent.

A celebrated betrothal ring was that sent by Clovis I (465–511 A.D.) to Clothilda in 493. The following account is given of the bestowal of this ring:

“Aurelian pursued his journey from these parts [of Burgundy], bearing with him the ring of Chlodwig that he might gain the better credence thereby. When he arrived at the city where Chrotechilda resided with her aunt, Aurelian presented himself and said: ‘Chlodwig, King of the Franks, hath sent me to thee; if such be the will of God, he wishes to associate thee with himself in his majesty, as spouse. That thou mayst be assured of this, he hath sent thee this ring.’ Accepting the ring, she was filled with great joy, and answered: ‘Take a hundred solidi as a reward for thy labor. Return quickly to thy lord and say to him: ‘If thou desirest to associate me with thyself in matrimony, send envoys straightway to my paternal uncle Gundobard, and ask him for my hand.’”[349] The money gift was a considerable one for the time, as the solidus was worth intrinsically about $3 of our money, and six or eight times as much in purchasing power in that age.

A most interesting ancient wedding ring, presumably of the Gallo-Roman period, was unearthed toward 1850 in the neighborhood of Mulsanne, dept. Sarthe, France. It is of massive gold and weighs 24 grams, 20 centigrams, or over ¾ ounce. On the bezel, which is square, are rudely engraved two figures, that of a warrior resting on his lance and that of a woman holding out her arms to him. On the shoulders, toward the bezel, is a foliated ornamentation, and along the edge of the bezel are engraved the two names “Dromacius” and “Betta,” the characters being filled in with the black enamel called niello. This ring is believed to date from the fifth century A.D.[350]

The religious aspect of the ring in the ritual of the Greek Church finds an exponent in Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote about a half-century before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. In his description of a typical marriage ceremony he states that the officiating priest laid upon the altar two rings, an iron one symbolic of masculine force, and a gold one typical of the less hardy but purer feminine constitution. These rings he consecrated. After bestowing his benediction upon the bride and bridegroom and offering a prayer for them, he gave the woman the iron ring, as from the man, and to the man the gold ring on the part of the woman, and changed them three times, in adoration of the Holy Trinity, the perfecter and sustainer of all things. Hereupon he joined the right hands of the spouses, demonstrating their unity in Christ and that the man had received the woman from the hand of the Church. The rings also signified the agreement and sealing of the marriage contract.[351]

In the possession of the author]

. The ring contains an
octahedral diamond crystal set in gold]

According to Buxtorf (De sponsal. et divort.), the Jews did not place the betrothal ring upon the annular finger, but upon the index. As to this there is a curious statement in the “Opus aureus contra Judæos,”[352] by Victor de Carben, a converted Jew. He states that, at the betrothal ceremony, care should be taken that the fiancée extends her index finger to receive the ring, lest it should be put, by mistake, upon the middle finger, for it was on this finger that Joseph placed the ring when he betrothed Mary. Buxtorf adds that he has never been able to find this statement in Jewish writings.

One of Ghirlandajo’s frescoes in the church of Santa Croce, in Florence, depicts the betrothal of the Virgin. Here the ring is placed by Joseph on the fourth finger of the Virgin’s right hand, and the famous Sposalizio by Rafael in the Brera Gallery in Milan illustrates the same usage. Possibly the ring was transferred to the left hand at the actual marriage ceremony.

The custom of the Greek church at the present day in relation to betrothal or wedding rings differs in some respects from that observed in other Christian churches, for the priest places a ring on the fourth finger of each of the contracting parties, who then proceed to exchange them with each other.

The old custom of exchanging rings and betrothal vows obtains in the Russian branch of the Eastern Church. For the succeeding marriage ceremony, or “crowning,” the same rings are again used. The rubric states that the bride’s ring should be of silver to show that she is the less honorable vessel, while the bridegroom’s ring is of gold to signify the superiority of the man. The brides, however, have shown a disposition to resent this inequality, and, in modern times at least, they are given gold rings also. The old Russian custom is for the husband to wear his ring on his forefinger.[353]

In the Greek and Russian churches, the rings--of gold for the man, of silver for the woman--are bestowed at the betrothal ceremony, when also a contract between the parties is made. The later nuptial ceremony is generally designated as “the crowning,” a crown being placed on the heads of bride and bridegroom by the officiating priest.

The question was often raised whether the mere fact of giving or accepting a ring constituted a definite promise of marriage. The best authorities decided the question in the negative. In reference to this matter Peter Müller writes: “If when a ring is given there is no promise of marriage, the ring shall not be regarded as a betrothal ring, but as a simple gift. Whence it may be inferred that a contract of marriage cannot be proved by a ring alone, since mere donations, bestowed through liberality, do not produce any obligation.”[354]

The connection between the wedding ring and the bestowal of earnest-money is clearly indicated in the marriage service as given in the Prayer-Book of Edward VI. Here, after the words “with this ring I thee wed,” there is added: “This gold and silver I give thee”; and at these words the bridegroom usually placed in the bride’s hands a purse containing a sum of money. There can, indeed, be little doubt that the espousal ring was rather the type of a valuable consideration offered at the consummation of the marriage contract, than a symbol of the bondage and subjection of the spouse as many have maintained.

That the ring was sometimes given conditionally is shown by a curious old German formula to the following effect: “I give you this ring as a sign of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your father gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 reichsthalers.”[355]

It is not possible to indicate with any precision at what date the betrothal ring became the wedding ring, but this change seems to have taken place in England about the time of the Reformation. This did not, however, entail the abandonment of the betrothal ring, but rather the substitution of another, and frequently less simple ring, to mark the betrothal. Of course, the change was gradual and the usage varied in different countries, since the employment of a separate marriage ring was rather a matter of custom than of ecclesiastical ordinance.

The Manx usages and customs are so strange in many cases that the ring traditions of the Isle of Man also present certain peculiarities. Thus if a man was found guilty of having done injury to a maiden, the latter was given a sword, a rope and a ring, signifying that she could either have him beheaded, or hung, or else could force him to wed her. That the last-mentioned choice was the one most frequently made is very probable, as the rehabilitation of her good name thus attained might well outweigh any satisfaction to be gained from the exercise of revenge.[356]

The use of rush-rings in England, in 1217, for mock marriages, is vouched for in the “Constitutiones”[357] of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury. It is provided that whoever places a rush-ring, or a ring of cheap or precious material, in sport and jest upon a woman’s hand, that she shall the more willingly become friendly with him, although imagining himself to be joking will be constrained to marry. Another authority declares that when the ecclesiastical court enforced matrimony as a penalty or a reparation for bad conduct, a rush ring or a ring of straw was used at the ceremony.[358]

There are several passages in English poetry of the Elizabethan age and later, referring to this use of a “rush ring.” In his “Two Noble Kinsmen,” Fletcher writes:

Rings she made
Of rushes that grew by, and to ’em spoke
The prettiest posies; Thus our true loves ty’d;
This you may loose, not me, and many a one.

In the seventeenth century Sir William Davenant (1605–1668) speaks in the following mocking strain of such a ring:

I’ll crown thee with a garland of straw then
And I’ll marry thee with a rush ring.

The ballad called the Winchester Wedding has these lines:

Pert Strephon was kind to Betty,
And blithe as a bird in the spring;
And Tommy was so to Katy,
And wedded her with a rush ring.

The “rush ring” is touched on in an old English ballad of Shakespeare’s time, in which occur the lines:[359]

Then on my finger I’ll have a ring
Not one of rush, but a golden thing;
And I shall be glad as a bird in spring,
Because I am married o’ Sunday.

A purely spiritual view of the meaning of a wedding-ring is expressed by Guillaume Durant, Bishop of Mende (died 1296). For him it was the symbol of the mutual love of the espoused, at once a pledge and a symbol of the union of their hearts. However, the more mercenary significance of the ring, as a sign of the marriage gift to be bestowed upon the bride by the bridegroom before the wedding, is quite clearly brought out in the old French Rituals, wherein its composition and meaning are defined. A simplification of the ring itself seems to have taken place from about the thirteenth century when gold rings adorned with precious stones were generally worn. The metal used at a later time varied in different dioceses. While in that of Limoges the ring was of gold, the rituals of the dioceses of Auxerre, Lyons and Paris prescribe a silver ring. In the Manual of the priests belonging to the diocese of Paris, it is strictly enjoined that there shall be no inscription or figure upon the ring, and that no precious stone shall be set therein. The officiating priest receives it from the bridegroom together with one or more pieces of money “as sign of the constituted endowment.” The Manuel de Beauvais, published in 1637, also prescribes that the nuptial ring shall be severely plain and entirely without inscription. The ritual of the Abbey of St. Victor is even more definite, for here the blessing of the ring is preceded by the reading of the endowment on account of marriage (_dotalitium propter nuptias_). Hence the “dower” was not given with the wife, but was bestowed upon her by the husband.[360] This has been erroneously looked upon by some as a survival of the primitive custom of wife-purchase; it differs, however, essentially from this in that the wife receives the endowment for her own use and as her own property. A curious superstition is condemned by the Ritual of Evreux. As the ring was handed to the bride by the bridegroom, the former would let it fall on the ground to conjure a possible evil spell.

It has been remarked by Jacob Grimm (1785–1863) the great lexicographer and student of German archæology, that in early times, among the christianized Germans, the fiancé gave the ring to the young woman, who was thenceforth bound to carry out the marriage contract. On the other hand, according to the poetical recitals of the thirteenth century, the fiancée gives a ring to her future husband, without receiving one from him. The same writer regards the usage of betrothal rings as one introduced among the Germans by Christian influence, not one that can be looked upon as properly Germanic.[361]

The contracting parties often exchanged rings at the betrothal ceremony, which in many cases was celebrated in the church with all due solemnity. Shakespeare’s “Two Gentlemen of Verona” contains an allusion to a more informal exchange of rings:

Julia: Keep this remembrance for your 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.

In our own time, in Germany, two rings, one for the bride and the other for the bridegroom, are given at the marriage ceremony, and these rings are called “Trauringe,” a name which designates the ring as an emblem of faith and trust, just as does the Italian name for the betrothal ring, _fede_, or faith.

From the almost innumerable poesies inscribed upon espousal rings we select a few of the more noteworthy. An antique Roman ring has the words: “Pignus amoris habes” (Thou hast a pledge of love);[362] another shows the simple form “Proteros Ugiæ” (Proteros to Ugia), the names being inscribed between two clasped hands.[363] A sentiment given by one who was no believer in unrequited love reads: “Love me, I will love thee.” A massive gold ring of early date, found in 1823 at Thetford, in Suffolk, gives us the following inscription in Old French: “Deus me octroye de vous servir a gree com moun couer desire” (God grant me to serve thee acceptably as my heart desires).[364] On a ring in the collection of the late Sir John Evans we have the following graceful inscription: “Je suis ici en lieu d’ami” (I am here in the place of a friend).

An elaborate wedding-ring, probably executed in Germany, in the latter half of the fifteenth century, is in the fine collection of the court jeweler Koch, of Frankfort-on-the-Main. Out of richly ornamental foliage work arise the figures of the wedded pair, evidently carefully rendered portraits. Although somewhat lacking in purely artistic harmony, this production of the ring-maker’s art is an excellent illustration of the quality of the best German goldsmith work of the time in the smaller objects.

The Figdor Collection in Vienna contains a fifteenth century betrothal ring made in France. It is of gold and bears the inscriptions: “Il est dit” (in small letters) and “ELLE ME TIENT” (in capitals), literally: “It is said (spoken)” and “She holds me.” A betrothal ring in the form of a so-called “Puzzle Ring,” has six connecting hoops. Three of these are enameled, two others bear closed hands, and the last shows a key and the head of a winged angel. This is of seventeenth century workmanship.[365]

A wedding-ring of simple Gothic design formed part of a grave treasure, the characteristic inscription: “In Mir Ist Treue” (In me is fidelity), leaving no doubt as to the use to which the ring had been put. This plain triangular band is in the Germanic Museum in Nuremberg and is assigned to the thirteenth century. Another most interesting ring from the same period was found in the territory formerly known as the Fürstenbergerhof, at the southwest end of the city of Mainz; it is now owned by the family Heerdt of that city. The clasped hands engraved on the lower part of the hoop designate this clearly as a betrothal or wedding-ring.

An English ring of the early part of the fifteenth century bears this couplet:

Most in mynd and yn myn herrt
Lothest from thee ferto deparrt.

In seventeenth century rings the religious sentiment predominates: “I have obtaind whom God ordaind”; “God unites our hearts aright”; “Knitt in one by Christ alone”; “Wee join our love in God above.” A little more human, if less devotional, are the mottoes: “United hearts death only parts”; “A faithfull wife preserveth life,” and “Love and live happily.”

There have been many types of betrothal rings from the simplest up to the most elaborate and ornate. One having a graceful symbolism was found near Wassy, dept. Haute Marne, France, in June, 1868. The hoop is of yellow gold, alloyed sufficiently to give it consistence. Instead of one chaton, it has two placed close to one another and each set with a small, cabochon-cut emerald. The choice of this stone is a good indication that we have to do here with a betrothal rather than a wedding ring, for the emerald was emblematic of hope, of unfulfilled desire and of virginity. Around the setting runs the following inscription in Old French, beginning with the sign of the cross: CE QUE DESIR HOM DONE UN BIEN. This may be rendered: “What one desires brings happiness,” the idea being perhaps that so beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas: “The soul dwells with the loved one rather than in the body it animates.”[366] While the letters of the French inscription are so much worn as to make the decipherment of two words a little uncertain, the general sense is clear enough, and constitutes a very fine motto for such a ring.[367]

The ring which had been used by Louis IX (St. Louis) at his betrothal to Marguerite de Provence, in 1231, was so greatly prized by him that on his death-bed he expressed the wish that it should be interred with his body. On its gold hoop he had caused to be engraved the lilies of France and certain military emblems.[368]

A graceful thought is expressed in the following Old French inscription on a ring found near Poitiers:

Mon cuer se est resioui aussi doit il si maist Dieux.
A mon gre ne puis mieux aueir choisi.