Chapter VIII: Part 8

“My heart is rejoiced, and so should it be, if God aid me. For I feel I could not have chosen better.”

A shorter motto, but one full of significance, appears on a ring in the museum of Poitiers; it consists merely of the two words: “Sans Partir.” This could mean either “we shall never separate,” or else that the donor would never abandon his love. Another brief motto, found on a ring in the Louvre dating from the reign of Francis I, runs “Riens sans amour,” or “Love is all in all.”[369]

Musèe de Cluny, Paris]

British Museum]

British Museum]

British Museum]

At weddings in Spain and also in some parts of France, in connection with the bestowal of a ring, the curious usage has been observed of giving thirteen pieces of money to the bride. This gift, called in French a _treizain_, has its origin, as the name indicates, in the ancient custom of giving to the purchaser of a dozen articles, an extra one, ostensibly as a testimonial of good will, but really to induce further purchases. This old usage is said to have been observed at the marriage of King Alfonso XIII of Spain in 1906.

The Hebrew betrothal rings were elaborate and somewhat clumsy productions, frequently of massive gold. The broad hoop was surmounted by the representation of a temple, sometimes with a Moorish dome, but usually with a slanting roof. This is a curiously conventionalized figuration of Solomon’s Temple, similar to that found upon certain spurious Hebrew coins. Upon the temple or else around the ring, are generally the Hebrew words FIO ERG, equivalent to “Good Fortune.”[370] Several such rings are described in the privately printed catalogue of the Londesborough Collection (London, 1853, p. 4). A more artistic specimen, also in the Londesborough Collection, bears the figures of Adam and Eve in Paradise, accompanied by representations of animals, all in high relief.[371] The specimens described belong to the sixteenth century. The learned Jesuit, Athanasius Kircher, cites a statement to the effect that the inscription _mazzel tob_, engraved upon many Hebrew betrothal rings, referred to the planet Jupiter as the “good star.”[372] This planet was, indeed, called by the Hebrews _cocab zedeq_, “star of righteousness” or “justice,” but there is little doubt that _mazzel tob_ should be rendered “good fortune” or “propitious fate.”

The earliest Jewish wedding-rings are said to have been plain golden circlets, without setting, indeed a silver substitute or even one of a cheaper metal was not forbidden. Pearls, favorite gems with the Jews, were sometimes used for settings at a later period. The purely ceremonial or symbolic significance of the Jewish wedding ring in early times is exemplified in its great size, the major part of these rings being much too large for wear. Sometimes, at the wedding feast, rings of this type were used as holders of myrtle-branches. The circlet surmounted with the temple figure was occasionally formed of two cherubim.[373]

A ring supposed to have been the wedding ring of the Roman Tribune, Cola di Rienzi (ca. 1313–1354), is of silver, with an octagonal bezel; the hoop bears the names: “Catarina” and “Nicola,” those of Rienzi and of Catarina di Raselli, his bride. The letters have been placed in sharp relief by cutting away the background and filling it up with niello. Between the names are two stars. As Rienzi chose a star as his emblem on the coins he struck during his brief rule in Rome, this device coupled with the names makes the attribution of the ring not without some good foundation.[374] This ring was bought by Mr. Waterton in Rome for a trifling sum. It had been pledged in a Monte di Pietà, and was disposed of at one of the periodical clearing sales.

In the fifteenth century the betrothal ceremony was usually performed in the presence of a notary public, not of a priest, and this continued to be the usage until after the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563. At the betrothal, by proxy, of Lucrezia Borgia with Giovanni Sforza, February 2, 1493, twin gold rings set with precious stones were given, one to be put on the fourth finger of the fiancée’s left hand, “whose vein leads to the heart” as the record specifies, while the other was to be placed on the bridegroom’s little finger.[375]

In one of the very risqué tales forming the “Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles,” the authorship of which has been attributed to King Louis XI of France (1461–1483), it is related that a lady, while bathing, lost a diamond ring; the narrator adds: “This was one her liege lord had given her on the day of her espousal, and she prized it the more highly on this account.” Although diamond rings were not common at this time, the recently invented art of facetting the diamond was rapidly bringing these stones into fashion and favor. There is, indeed, a record, or at least a family tradition, that one of the three large diamonds cut in facets by Lodowyk van Berken of Bruges, about 1476, at the order of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, was set in a ring and given by the duke to Louis XI, with whom he was then seeking to get on a friendly footing. This diamond is described as having been cut as a “triangle and a heart.” This possibly means that the triangular shape was slightly modified into a heart shape.[376]

A Scotch legend relates that a married woman by ill-chance let her wedding ring fall into the river Clyde. On her return home her husband noted its absence and, believing she had given it to a lover, became furiously jealous, used the harshest language to her and even threatened her life. In her despair the innocent wife went and cast herself at the feet of St. Kentigern, Bishop of Glasgow, supplicating him to render her faithfulness manifest. The bishop had compassion upon her, and uttered a prayer that the ring might be restored. His prayer was answered, for ere a few hours had passed a fisherman came to him bearing as a gift a large salmon he had just caught, and in the mouth of the fish was found the lost ring. The husband, convinced of his injustice, was kinder to his wife than ever before, so as to make good the wrong he had done her. To the story given in this legend are ascribed the figures of a salmon with a ring in its mouth on the coat-of-arms of the city of Glasgow, as well as on the armorial bearings of several of the bishops of that city from the time of Bishop Wishert, who lived under Edward II of England (1307–1327).[377]

Thumb-ring on left hand, one ring on index finger, and two on
fourth finger of right hand. This portrait, when shown to Henry,
pleased him so well that he agreed to the marriage, but he
expressed sore disappointment when he at last saw the new queen

Musée du Louvre, Paris]

Rings worn beneath gloves, which have slits to relieve the
pressure and to show the rings. Right hand has four rings, on
thumb, index, fourth finger, and little finger, respectively

Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna]

Among historic wedding rings especially worthy of note is that commemorating the marriage of Martin Luther to Catharina von Bora, June 13, 1525.[378] Both Luther and his wife had taken the vow of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church, and he was bitterly reproached by Roman Catholics for contracting this marriage. Replying to his accusers, he is declared to have said that he married “to please himself, to tease the Pope, and to spite the Devil.” The inscription on this ring is: “D. Martino Luthero Catharina v. Boren, 13 Jun. 1525.” This probably indicates that the ring was given to Luther by his wife in memory of the wedding. It is stated to have belonged to a family in Leipsic as late as 1817. A copy of the ring is in the writer’s possession. It was given him by Mrs. Edith True Drake, as a memento of her husband Alexander W. Drake, of whose collection it had formed part. The original ring is set with a small ruby, and bears in high relief representations of the crucifixion, and of the instruments of the Passion; the pillar, scourge, spear, etc.

A pendant to this is a ring given either to Luther or his wife, as a memento of his marriage, by some friend. This is of the type of gimmal rings, divisible but not separable. On one hoop the setting is a diamond, on the other a ruby. The bezel separates into two halves when the ring is opened, and reveals on the two hidden sides the initials C V D and M L D, for Catharina von Bora and Martin Luther, Doctor. On the inner side of the conjoined hoops is the inscription: “_Was Got zusamen fiegt sol kein mensch scheiden_” (Those whom God hath joined, shall no man put asunder), in the old German spelling.[379] The diamond is on the Luther side of the divided bezel, and signifies power, durability and fidelity; the ruby on the side marked with the wife’s initials is taken to mean exalted love. Both this ring and the one already described are believed to have been designed by the artist, Lucas Cranach, who was a friend of Luther’s and assisted at his marriage. The ring is in the Grossherzogliches Museum at Brunswick.

A very noteworthy ring, in the Waterton Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, belonged to Henry, Lord Darnley, and commemorated his marriage with Mary, Queen of Scots. On the bezel are the initials M H, entwined with a true-love knot, and within the hoop is engraved HENRI L. DARNLEY, and the date, 1565. Between the two groups of letters constituting the inscription, is figured a lion rampant on a carved shield. This ring is said to have been found in the ruins of Fotheringay Castle, where Mary Stuart was executed.[380]

A peculiar class of rings bears the name of “gimmal rings.” This designation is derived from the Latin _gemelli_, “twins,” and indicates the form of the ornament. Two rings are joined together by a pivot so that when united they constitute a single ring, although they can be easily separated. On each circlet there is a band, so disposed that when both are brought together the hands are clasped and hold the separate rings in place. Occasionally, there are three or more rings combined in the same way, the designation “gimmal ring” being used for these also. The following lines by Herrick refer to this latter type:

“Thou sent’st to me a true-love knot; but I
Return a Ring of _jimmals_ to imply
Thy love had one knot, mine a _triple_ tye.”

A specimen of this type of ring is given in the privately-printed catalogue of Lady Londesborough’s collection (London, 1853, p. 17). This is described as “a triple gimmal, the first and third circlet having each a hand, so that, when joined, the two hands are clasped together and serve to conceal two united hearts on the third ring. Of German workmanship.” It was customary to separate the conjoined rings at the betrothal ceremony and to give the upper and lower to each of the betrothed, respectively, while the middle ring was given to an intimate friend of the lady. When the marriage was solemnized, the rings were reunited and bestowed upon the bride. As a general rule all rings bearing clasped hands were termed gimmal rings, although the designation properly belonged to two or more separate rings joined together.

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]

Abbe Barraud, “Des Bagues de Toutes les Epoques,” Paris, 1864]

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]

British Museum]

Wedding ring of Martin Luther, two views. Original had a small
ruby in the centre

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]

British Museum]

The following lines from Don Sebastian, a play written by Dryden (1690), explains quite fully the character and use of a gimmal ring:

A curious artist wrought ’em
With joynts so close as not to be perceiv’d;
Yet are they both each other’s counterpart.
(Her part had Juan inscrib’d, and his had Zayda,
You know these names were theirs:) and in the midst
A heart divided in two halves was plac’d.
Now if the rivets of those Rings inclos’d
Fit not each other, I have forg’d this lye:
But if they join, you must for ever part.

In Burgon’s life of Sir Thomas Gresham, the merchant prince of Queen Elizabeth’s time and founder of the Royal Exchange, we are shown his wedding ring. This is a gimmal ring composed of two hoops, one bearing the inscription “Quod Deus conjunxit” (What God hath joined together) and the other: “Homo non separet” (Let not man put asunder).[381] The two hoops are set with a red and a white stone, respectively.

A curious development of the gimmal-ring was the so-called “puzzle-ring” consisting of pieces of gold wire ingeniously bent and intertwined so that they appeared to form a single indivisible ring, although by a certain clever twist they could easily be separated into several independent hoops. This type was derived from the East.

On a gimmal ring belonging to the first half of the fifteenth century, in the Londesborough Collection, is an engraved head of Lucretia; at the back appear two hands clasped. This type seems to have been common in Shakespeare’s time, for in Twelfth Night (Act II, sc. 5), Malvolio exclaims, after examining the seal on a letter: “By your leave, wax. Soft!--and the impressure her Lucrece with which she uses to seal.”[382] The choice of this image for a betrothal ring must have been intended either as a tribute to the lady’s chastity, or else as a kind of amulet to protect her from attacks on her virtue.

Edward’s “History and Poetry of Finger Rings”]

Silver betrothal ring; two views. On the shoulder appears the
legend: “God Help.” English, Fifteenth Century

British Museum]

Gold puzzle rings. 1, three hoops, cruciform bezel: 2, with four
hoops. Two views of each, closed and open. Seventeenth Century

British Museum]

Curious old posy ring. The motto is to be read: Our _hands_
and _hearts_ with one consent, Hath tied this _knot_
till _death_ prevent

British Museum]

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]

Fairholt’s “Rambles of an Artist”]

The talismanic quality of the turquoise is noted by Edward Fenton, in his “Secrets of Nature” (1569), wherein he says: “The Turkeys doth move when there is any perill prepared to him that weareth it.” In his commentary on Shakespeare’s Othello, Steevens remarks that the poet probably had the mystic virtues of this stone in mind when he made Shylock mourn the loss of the turquoise his wife Leah had given him before their marriage.[383] In the original text of this passage the name is spelled “turkie,” and this old spelling is interesting as showing the identity of the name given to the stone with that bestowed upon the fowl known to us as a turkey. In this latter case the spelling and pronunciation have been retained, while in the former we have the modified form turquoise, both names indicating an association of the respective objects with Turkey, as the land from whence they were erroneously believed to come. As Shylock’s turquoise seems to have been set in a betrothal ring, it is singular to note that at the present day the turquoise is a favorite stone for betrothal rings in Germany.

In Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, where the diamond is so often mentioned in connection with a ring given as a sign of faithfulness, a passage occurs denoting that this stone was sometimes set in a betrothal ring in Shakespeare’s time. The line runs (Act I, sc. 4):

This diamond was my mother’s: take it, heart;
But keep it till you woo another wife.

The preciousness and dazzling lustre of diamonds are also alluded to in this play. It is worthy of note that while in all of Shakespeare’s plays the diamond is only mentioned twenty-one times, seven of these mentions are in his Cymbeline.

An emblematic wedding-ring with a deep, and perhaps somewhat ambiguous significance, was bestowed upon his spouse by Bishop Cokes. Upon it was engraved a hand, a heart, a mitre, and a death’s head, the inscription reading:

These three I give to thee
Till the fourth set me free.[384]

A frankly humorous inscription was that placed upon the wedding-ring of Lady Cathcard when, in 1713, she wedded her _fourth_ husband, Hugh Maguire. This was as follows:

If I survive
I will have five

A similar poesy is said to have been used at a later date by John Thomas, Bishop of London, on the ring which he used at his fourth marriage:

If I survive
I’ll make them five.[385]

The Puritan reaction in England during the Commonwealth, against the customs of the English Church, extended to the use of the wedding-ring, and Samuel Butler in his Hudibras alludes to this tendency in the following lines:

Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring
With which the unsanctify’ed bridegroom
Is marry’d only to a thumb.

There is a possibility that this curious custom of wearing a wedding ring on the thumb may have had some connection with the old fancy that the second joint of the thumb was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, whose supposed espousal ring is preserved in the Cathedral of Perugia. It is true that this ought rather to apply to a betrothal ring than a wedding ring. The following list gives the religious dedication of the various finger-joints: In the right hand the upper joint of the thumb was dedicated to God, the lower joint to the Virgin; the first joint of the index to St. Barnabas, the second to St. John, the third to St. Paul; the first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon Cleophas, the second to St. Thaddæus, the third to St. Joseph; the first joint of the annular to St. Zacchæus, the second to St. Stephen, the third to St. Luke; the first joint of the little finger to St. Leatus, the second to St. Mark, the third to St. Nicodemus. The dedication of the left hand fingers was: First joint of thumb, to Christ, second joint to the Virgin; first joint of the index to St. James, the second to St. John the Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; first joint of the middle finger to St. Simon, the second to St. Matthew, the third to St. James the Greater; first joint of the annular to St. Jude, the second to St. Bartholomew, the third to St. Andrew; first joint of the little finger to St. Matthaias, the second to St. Thomas, the third to St. Philip.[386]

Rings on thumb and index of right hand, which holds a miniature
of Philip. Elaborately jewelled dress and splendid pearl necklace
and head-ornament

Museo del Prado, Madrid]

Thumb ring on right hand and ring on index of same hand; both
with precious-stone settings. Similar rings on index and little
fingers of left hand

Museo del Prado, Madrid]

As in Europe a couple of centuries ago, so in the India of to-day, a wedding ring is often worn on the thumb. This is of gold, about an inch wide. It is only worn, however, for a short period, sometimes only during the several days devoted to the celebration of the wedding ceremonies; in other cases, it is worn for six months, or occasionally even for twelve months after marriage. Eventually it is melted down, the precious metal being then worked up into some other ornament.[387]

The great lexicographer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, was devotedly attached to his wife, although the alliance can scarcely be looked upon as a love match on the learned doctor’s side. His patient devotion to his sickly and rather ugly wife goes to show how wide is the divergence between theory and practice, for in his dictionary Johnson defines a ring as: “a circular instrument placed upon the noses of hogs and the fingers of women to restrain them and bring them into subjection.” After his wife’s death Dr. Johnson preserved her wedding-ring in a box bearing the following inscription:

“Eheu! Eliza Johnson, Nupta July 9^o 1736, Mortua, eheu! Mart. 17^o 1752.”

That the betrothal ring was occasionally worn on the index finger is shown in two celebrated seventeenth century pictures, the “Betrothal of Marie de’ Medici,” by Rubens, and the “Betrothal of St. Catherine,” by Murillo. Sometimes, however, the little finger was chosen for this honor and an interesting example of this custom is given by a document in the Hohenzollern Museum in Berlin. Here is exhibited a list of the rings worn by Queen Louisa of Prussia on the day of her death, written down by her husband, King Friedrich Wilhelm III, and the first entry reads: “Our betrothal ring, on the little finger of the right hand.” The list closes with the following simple and touching words in the King’s handwriting: “At Hohenzieritz, on the most unhappy day of my life, July 19, 1810,” this being the day of Queen Louisa’s death. It may be noted that at the present day, while the usual custom in South Germany is to wear the wedding ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, in North Germany the right hand is generally given the preference. This applies both to men and women.

King George IV of England is said to have had two rings made, each provided with a secret spring which, on being pressed, opened a panel and revealed the king’s portrait and that of Mrs. Fitzherbert, respectively. The ring containing the king’s portrait was bestowed by him upon Mrs. Fitzherbert, whom he is said to have married in 1785, and that with her portrait was kept by him, and, before his death, entrusted to the Duke of Wellington, the latter promising solemnly that he would place it upon his royal master’s breast when his remains were in the coffin. Mrs. Fitzherbert left her ring to Miss Dawson Damer.[388] Another ring given by George IV to Mrs. Fitzherbert was exhibited in the Victoria Exhibition, at the New Gallery, London, and is described as being a gimmal, the two hoops closely fitting together, with the inscription “Geo. Adolph. Frederick” on the inside of one and “Maria Anne” on that of the other.[389]

In former times rings used to be presented to the chief guests at a wedding, and at the marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert, six dozen such rings were bestowed, each one having a profile portrait of the bride engraved upon it, with the inscription, “Victoria Regina.” The revival of this graceful custom would serve to perpetuate among the wedding guests the memory of the ceremony at which they had assisted.

Wedding rings figuring two clasped hands are still used by the peasants of Normandy, and in Galway also rings bearing two hands clasping a heart have been passed down from generation to generation, from the mother to the eldest daughter. This illustrates the general rule that long after a custom or a form of personal adornment has ceased to be in favor with the higher classes it continues to be popular with the peasantry.

The inscriptions on rings occasionally seen, which appear to be a medley of meaningless letters, are often the makeup of two names interlocked, such as “George” and “Sophia”:

gAeIoHrPgOeS

the one name reading to the right and the other to the left.

In some parts of Ireland the belief in the special virtue of a gold wedding ring is so strong that when the bridegroom is too poor to buy one he will hire it for the occasion, and it is reported that a shopkeeper of Munster realized quite a little sum annually by renting rings for weddings, to be brought back to him after the ceremony. Strange to say, there is said to have been a superstitious fancy in Yorkshire, England, that to wed with a borrowed ring would bring good luck.[390]

A Scottish tradition in regard to a ring used at a wedding is imbued with the gloomy superstition so characteristic of Scotland. The heir of a noble family was about to be married to a Dutch lady of rank, but when the wedding-day came was so apathetic, or so preoccupied, that he forgot the hour of the ceremony, and had to be hurried from his breakfast to the church. In his haste he had forgotten all about the wedding-ring, and was obliged to use a ring offered to him by a bystander when the ceremony reached the point where one had to be put on the bride’s finger. What was her terror, however, when she saw that it was a mourning-ring that had been placed upon her hand, one bearing the sinister design of a skull and cross-bones. This she felt to be an omen that death would soon overtake her, and she brooded so much over the happening that she sank into a decline, and died before a year had passed. The effect of the mind upon the body is so great, especially in highly nervous organisms, that such a tragic result of a mere piece of carelessness is far from being impossible.

In modern times betrothal rings are often of the type called “regard rings,” where the letters of a word are indicated by the initial letters of the stones set in the ring, as, for example:

R uby
E merald
G arnet
A methyst
R uby
D iamond

In a similar way the Christian name of either of the betrothed may be indicated, as, for instance:

S apphire
O pal
P eridot
H yalite
I olite
A methyst

Although a diamond ring is the one most appropriate as an engagement ring, it has long been recognized that for a wedding ring nothing can replace the simple hoop of precious metal, which may, indeed, be rendered a trifle less plain by some very chaste and beautiful engraving. A reason for the preference given to the ring without setting is offered by Fuller in his “Holy State,” where he says: “Marriage with a diamond ring foreshadowed evil, because the interruption of the circle augured that the reciprocal regard of the spouse might not be perpetual.”[391]

An attempt is being made in Germany to introduce the use of wedding-rings with moderate ornamentation and appropriate mottoes patterned on those of former times, in place of the severely plain gold hoop that has for a long time been decreed to be the only proper form of wedding-ring. If the tendency to over-ornamentation is kept strictly within bounds and if the mottoes are well chosen, there is some reason to think that the innovation, or rather revival, may meet with some success, as it will afford scope for individuality of taste to assert itself, and for the expression of sentiment in a way that has not been possible under present conditions.

A wedding ring of iron and gold artistically combined has gained some favor of late, as symbolizing the union of strength and beauty, of the more solid with the more brilliant qualities. The uncompromising plainness of the plain gold ring, which represented a reaction to primitive forms from the over-ornamentation of the Rococo period, will probably give place to certain simple and chaste designs which can be made to symbolize some of the thoughts and sentiments connected with the marriage ceremony. But the unstable, oxidizing quality of the iron will not recommend this metal for durability.

The recurrence of a great national crisis will often cause the revival of some custom or usage of an earlier one. Thus it is that in the present War of Nations, Germans have revived the practice of exchanging gold rings for iron ones that was resorted to in the dark time of Napoleonic supremacy in Germany. The total value of the metal secured in this way is of course relatively small, though not entirely negligible, but the spirit of devotion to the Vaterland finds both a real and a symbolic expression in the deposition of many a valued heirloom on the country’s altar. To avoid a rust stain on the finger these iron rings--which usually bear the figure of the Iron Cross--are frequently lined with a thin layer of gold. Not only rings but gold and silver objects of all kinds and valuable jewels have been brought in by patriotic Germans, to such an extent, indeed, that the Viennese jewellers are urging that the metals should be immediately melted, as in case the objects or ornaments should be put on the market, they would compete disastrously with the jewellers’ shops. It is stated that up to the middle of September, 1915, as many as five thousand wedding rings were donated in the single Prussian province of Posen, and the estimate has been made that about one million dollars will be realized from the total offerings throughout the Germanic countries.

The ancients and the alchemists called gold the metal of the sun and silver the metal of the moon, but within the past two centuries the world has become familiar with platinum, a metal of equal dignity with gold, but with the pure whiteness of the somewhat tarnishable silver.

Platinum, because of its durability and purity, may well be called the metal of Heaven, and within the past century we have added to our list of metals aluminum, a metal which constitutes a fair percentage of the earth’s surface. This can be appropriately termed the metal of the earth. These two metals, platinum and aluminum, have been used to a great extent; platinum for the purpose of mounting jewels--the stars of Heaven, as it were, in their heavenly setting--and aluminum, the metal of earth, for a great variety of purposes.

Surely platinum, the metal of Heaven, is a most appropriate material for a wedding ring, and as gold has always been termed the metal of man, so platinum, the metal of Heaven, might be dedicated to woman, the fairest gift of Heaven, and an alliance ring made of these two metals would be an ideal matrimonial ring.

Many of those who were married before platinum was used for wedding rings have recourse to an ingenious device by which a plate of platinum is spun or turned over the entire part of the setting which is visible, so that the gold ring will appear to be of platinum, either plain, carved or chased. Great ingenuity is required in this mounting, because it is in most cases impossible to permit the metal to do more than touch the inner part of the ring. Otherwise, the size of the circlet would be reduced. Alliance rings are sometimes made one side gold and one side platinum.

At the present time many platinum wedding rings are made perfectly plain, others are engraved with a laurel wreath, as a peace or anti-divorce symbol, with oak leaves for strength, ivy for clinging devotion, and some other symbolic devices. Many alliance rings are made of two parts, one bearing the names of the engaged couple, the other the date of the engagement. Narrow gold rings with diamond settings are also used, closely resembling the type of diamond ring that has been worn as a guard-ring for many years.

That men should be forced to wear wedding rings is a proposition recently agitated in London. Public attention was called to this question by newspaper reports to the effect that a young lady had testified at a divorce suit that she had innocently encouraged the attentions of a married man, because she had no means of knowing that he was married. In many continental countries married men are always expected to wear such rings, although there is of course no legal compulsion to do so, any more than in the case of a wife. We can hardly deny that anything serving to fix the status of both men and women in the matter of their marital relations is eminently desirable.

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]

Apropos of wedding rings, the notice of a special marriage ceremony performed for a man and woman who were both ardent advocates of woman suffrage, suggests that such unions might be signalized by the use of a ring of a characteristic type. In this case the parties to the marriage contract were careful to emphasize the fact that the union was one between equals, each of whom made the same pledge of fidelity and love to the other. Perhaps a ring enamelled with the suffragette colors might be acceptable to the pioneers of the new era. As in many old-fashioned marriages the woman was accorded a _de facto_ primacy, the man who willingly accepts the doctrine of the equality of the sexes may be rather a gainer than a loser by his adherence to the new faith.

In England, it is said that a movement has been initiated to abolish the use of the wedding-ring, possibly in some sense as a war measure, to constitute a slight check on the use of gold for ornamental purposes. It is, however, conjectured that its real source is rather to be sought in the general movement for the complete independence of women, the wedding-ring being looked upon by some extremists as an antiquated badge of slavery. It is hardly probable that such a movement will meet with any considerable measure of success, for the idea that the ring is a symbol of faith has become too deeply rooted in the popular mind to warrant the rejection of the time-honored usage.

Perhaps the objection of the extreme advocates of “woman’s rights” might be satisfied by the introduction of an interchange of rings both at engagements and marriages. This exchange of rings is an acknowledgment of the mutuality of the relation, and it has been practiced, and still is practiced in many countries on the European continent. Moreover, the introduction of this usage in England and the United States would afford scope for a broadening of the symbolism connected with these rings, by differentiating them in some way, so that they might signify the special virtues each of the contracting parties bring to their mutual relation. This differentiation would in no wise imply any subjection, but would merely emphasize those fundamental distinctions, without which the true progress of the world would be checked. Real equality consists in the untrammeled development of the characteristic excellences, not in any arbitrary reduction of all to some preconceived standard.

Of all the marriage-medals that have been struck none can be said to equal in beauty of design and tenderness of sentiment that designed in 1895 by the great French medallist Oscar Roty (1846–1911). The obverse shows the bridegroom about to place the wedding-ring on the bride’s hand, but in the very act of doing so, he is impelled to look upward, as though calling for Heaven’s blessing upon his marriage. The girlish bride has her head slightly bent down in token of assent. The scene is in the open country; the figures are seated opposite to one another on plain stone seats, and the landscape background is Rafaelesque in its delicate beauty. Beneath, in the exergue, is the single word “Semper,” an earnest that the solemn contract so gladly and so religiously entered into will be kept for this world and for the great future. The reverse shows a statue of Cupid on a fountain pedestal; alongside rises the trunk of a sturdy oak. On the right is ample space for a dedicatory inscription. The companion-piece, Roty’s second marriage medal, executed ten or more years later, although a noble work, falls something short of his first effort. Here the bridegroom, who displays no ring, kneels before the bride with uplifted head, the French motto reading “A Elle Toujours” (“Forever Hers”); on the reverse is a church altar. Under this is a plaque, enclosing which are roses, oak-leaves and acorns.

The upper medal shows the putting on of the wedding ring]

Six connecting hoops, three of them enameled, two others with
clasped hands, and the sixth with a key and a winged angel’s
head. Seventeenth Century.

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]

Inscribed in Old French “_Il est dit_” and “_Elle me
tien_” (literally “It is said (spoken)” and “She (or it) holds
me”). French. Fifteenth Century.

Albert Figdor Collection, Vienna]

The bezel has a lid on which is enameled a head wearing a domino
mask; it is framed by seventeen rubies. When the lid is raised
there appears beneath an oval, enameled with a heart, around
which is the motto: “_Pour vous seule_” (For you alone). The
interior of the lid is hollowed out to serve as a receptacle for
hair. On the ribbon-like hoop is the inscription: “_Sous le
masque la vérité_” (Beneath the mask is truth). About 1800.
Formerly belonged to the great Viennese tragic actress Charlotte
Wolter.]

A type of ring of occasional use, not distantly related to the wedding ring, comprises the so-called “pacifying,” or teething rings, generally made of ivory, rubber or celluloid, and large enough for one or two fingers of a child. Diagonally on the hoop is a flat, circular piece of the same material as that of which the ring is made, and which prevents it from slipping into the mouth of the child. Upon this flat piece is mounted a small bit of rubber or ivory for the child to suck or bite upon, to develop its teeth, or at least to keep it quiet.

What might be called a “Latitude and Longitude Ring,” would be an attractive memento of engagement and marriage. There would be a narrow band showing, around it, a degree of latitude marked with longitudes, and having a small star at the place where the parties became engaged, and a double star at the spot where they were married.

A few appropriate inscriptions on modern engagement rings are as follows: “Our engagement”; “My love to thine”; “To her who merits all my love”; “To my Pet”; “To my ‘Chiquita’ from Bill,” this last in Spanish. In a more serious vein we have: “Time-Eternity,” and “Perfect love casteth out fear.” Occasionally there is a note of sadness, as appears in the inscription: “Faithful, but unhappy.” A ring bearing the words “Stick to me, my darling” may show that the fiancé was a trifle distrustful of his lady love’s constancy; another who sets in his ring “Firm and True” makes us infer that he had more faith. The three words “Bessie sweet sixteen” show that early engagements sometimes occur even in our sophisticated age. On ornaments other than rings, bestowed in connection with either engagement or marriage, we read: “My heart I take not back from thee. H. B. L.” and “Thine own wish, wish I thee. A. B. T. & R. V. P.” A curious inscription runs: “A nasty cold face and metal eye,” and we have: “For my sake wear this, it is a manacle of love.” Modern wedding rings are often inscribed with pious sentiments, such, for instance, as: “All for Jesus”; “Each for the other, both for God”; “Our unity is Christ”; “Mercifully ordain that we may grow old together”; “In Christ and in Thee my comfort shall be”; “God gave thee to me”; “Through weal and through woe, to each other on earth, to God in Heaven. Always true to Bertha.” A somewhat philosophic sentiment appears in the words: “Ultimate Good, not present pleasure.” Latin inscriptions are now quite rare, but here is one: “Si Deus nobiscum, quis contra nos?” (If God be with us, who can be against us?)

In other cases the legend is more worldly: “Love for Love” and “He that taketh a wife hath a good thing.” Let us hope that this optimist was not mistaken in his confidence. Another bridegroom declares that he, at least, has a “good thing,” for he places in his ring the simple motto: “Carrie suits.” If she suits him, that is enough. Lastly, we have the most satisfactory inscription of all, since it testifies to the result of one fortunate experiment; this reads: “In token of 30 years fidelity as Wife and Mother.”

The use of a diamond ring for betrothals seems to have been general toward the end of the fifteenth century, for royal personages at least, to judge from a letter written from Ghent on July 30, 1477, by Dr. Wilhelm Moroltinger to Archduke (later Emperor) Maximilian, just before his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold. This letter runs: “At the betrothal your Grace must have a ring set with a diamond and also a gold ring. Moreover, in the morning your Grace must bestow upon the bride some costly jewels.”[392]

From time immemorial we have had wedding-rings, but it seems that in view of the great number of divorces now granted we might well introduce the custom of giving “divorce-rings,” for at no time in the history of the Christian world have there been more divorces than at the present day. This divorce-ring might be differentiated from the old-fashioned wedding-ring by substituting the inscription A B C _from_ D B F for A B C _and_ D E F.

A novel idea in divorce-rings is reported from Chicago, where a fashionable divorcée had her wedding-ring made smaller so that she could wear it on the little finger of her left hand as a divorce-ring. However, we fear that if this idea should be generally adopted, the little finger would scarcely offer room for the series of rings that some of our theatrical stars would have to wear. Perhaps in some cases this wearing of the wedding-ring, even in a modified form, after a divorce, might be intended to indicate that the old love had not wholly vanished, and that some day those who had been put asunder could be rejoined, as occasionally happens now-a-days.

At weddings in Tunis, the Arabs have the custom of placing the wedding-ring upon the first finger of the left hand, and the finger and toe-nails of the bride receive an especially rich coloring of henna on this occasion, staining them a deep red; her eyebrows also are heavily pencilled and joined across the nose so that they form a single bar over the eyes. In order to make the home-coming as auspicious as possible, a gilded pair of horns are set above the portal of the house, along with the favorite charm known as “the hand of Fatima,” believed to afford safety from the malign influence of the Evil Eye, so much dreaded in the East and in some Occidental lands also.[393]

An interesting incident in which a ring plays an important part is related in connection with the visit of Secretary, afterward President Taft, accompanied by a number of prominent Americans, to the Sulu Islands a few years ago. Mrs. Longworth, then Miss Alice Roosevelt, was one of the party, and the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II, expressed a great desire to be introduced to her. The favor was readily accorded, and on the day set for the interview the Sultan and several Sulu dattos, or chiefs, duly presented themselves. One of the dattos was a mortal enemy of the Sultan, but naturally on this occasion all personal or political feuds were forgotten for the time being. After the Sultan had been presented to Miss Roosevelt, came the turn of the rebellious datto, who approached the sprightly young American girl, greeted her, and presented to her a native pearl of great beauty, which was graciously accepted.

The chagrin of the Sultan may easily be imagined, for he had forgotten to provide himself with a suitable gift, and now his mortal enemy was basking in the sunshine of favor, while he himself, the lord paramount, was neglected. Suddenly his eye fell upon a ring set with a magnificent pearl which he wore on his left hand. He immediately took off this ring, and again approaching Miss Roosevelt, gave it to her. As the Sultan’s pearl far exceeded in beauty and value that given by the datto, the former’s dignity was cleared of all reproach and the situation was saved. A curious sequel to this incident was the circulation of a report in the press to the effect that the Sultan of Sulu had made an offer of marriage to Miss Roosevelt. This proved how closely the gift of a ring is associated with the idea of engagement or marriage.

A Pennsylvania (U. S. A.) court has been called upon to decide whether the gift of an engagement ring bestowed by a man just prior to a declaration of bankruptcy, should be looked upon as a transfer of assets to the prejudice of the creditors. The fact that in this case the fair recipient of the ring was a jeweller’s daughter might be thought to render it likely that this particular engagement ring was of substantial intrinsic value. The court reserved its decision.

A choice of pretty “posies” for rings was offered to seventeenth century readers in a London publication entitled “Love’s Garland; or Posies for Rings, Handkerchiefs and Gloves, and Such Pretty Tokens as Lovers Send Their Loves.” Unyielding constancy found expression in the couplets:

Where once I choose
I ne’er refuse.

Hearts content
Can ne’er repent.

Another verse makes a very modest claim for an expression of gratitude on the part of the recipient:

The sight of this
Deserves a kiss.

The warmth of reciprocated love is thus asserted:

In thee a flame
In me the same.

Another lover wishes to proclaim that his love will rise superior to all offenses:

No bitter smart
Can change my heart.

A more serious and trusting posy runs:

To me till death
As dear as breath.

A ring mentioned in an old English record dating from 1473, offers apparently an early example of a so-called “posy” ring. It is here termed a “hope rynge with scrytorio” (inscription); this, together with a brooch adorned with the figure of a “jyntylle woman,” was pledged with a certain Richard Walker to secure a small loan of £4 8d.[394]

A good example of a “ring posie” is given by Ben Jonson in his play “The Magnetic Lady, or Humours Reconciled,” first licensed for performance in 1632, during the reign of Charles I, and but five years before Jonson’s death. Here, when bride and groom come before the parson to be wedded, he asks the bridegroom:

Have you a wedding ring?

To which the latter replies:

Ay, and a posie:
Annulus hic nobis, quod sic uterque, dabit.

This the parson quickly renders as follows:

This ring will give you what you both desire;
I’ll make the whole house shout it, and the parish.

On other pages a number of characteristic and striking ring-inscriptions are given, but in view of the wide range of these “posies” (poesies) and mottoes, a fairly full list of them, compiled from various sources, may be of interest here.[395] The French mottoes are nearly all in Old French, and the English spellings of those of the seventeenth century are delightfully irregular.

Large rings on little finders of right and left hands; large ring
on third joint of left-hand fourth finger, and smaller one on
second joint of the same finger; plain gold ring (wedding ring?)
on fourth finger of left hand

Kaiserliche Gemälde-Galerie, Vienna]

Rings on index and little fingers of right hand

Königliche Gemälde-Galerie, Cassel]

Till death divide.

_Nemo nisi mors._
(No one but Death).

_Tout pour bein feyre._
(All to do well).

_In bone fay._
(In good faith).

_Sans mal desyr._
(Without evil wish).

_Amor vincit om._
(Love conquers all things).

Till my life’s end.

_Erunt duo in carne una._
(They shall be two in one flesh).

_Semper amemus._
(May we love forever).

In Christ and thee my comfort be.

_Honeur et joye._
(Honor and joy).

Let reason rule affection.

God continue to love us.

_Mon cur avez._
(You have my heart).

_Deux corps ung cuer._
(Two bodies and one heart).

_Amour et constance._
(Love and constancy).

God unite our hearts aright.

Knit in one by Christ alone.

God’s providence is our inheritance.

Our contract was heaven’s act.

In thee, my choice, do I rejoice.

God above increase our love.

My heart and I, until I dye.

Not two, but one, till life be gone.

When this you see, remember me.

Julia is mine own peculiar.

I cannot show the love I O.

We strangely met, and so do many,
But now as true as ever any. 1658.

As we begun, so let’s continue.

My beloved is mine, and I am hers.

True blue will never stain. 1653.

Against thou goest, I will provide another. 1658.

In loving thee, I love myself. 1658.

Let him never take a wife,
That will not love her as his life.

A heart content cannot repent.

I do not repent I gave consent.

No gift can show the love I owe.

What the heart saw the love hath chosen.

Love one little, but love one long.

Love him who gave thee this ring of gold,
’Tis he must kiss thee when thou art old.

This circle, though but small about,
The devil, jealousy, will keep out.

If I think my wife is fair,
What need other people care? 1653.

God’s appointment is my contentment.

Love, I like thee; sweet, requite me.

With heart and hand at your command.

My heart in silence speaks to thee,
Though absence barrs tongue’s liberty.

Faithful ever: deceitful never.

I like, I love as turtle dove.

As gold is pure, so love is sure.

Despise not mee: y^t joyes in thee.

If you deny, then sure I dye.

Your right is my delight.

As true, bee just.

No better smart shall change my heart.

This ring is a token I give to thee,
That thou no tokens do change for me.

My dearest Betty is good and pretty. 1658.

I did commit no act of folly,
When I married my sweet Molly. 1658.

’Tis fit no man should be alone,
Which made Tom to marry Joan. 1658.

Sue is bonny, blythe, and brown;
This ring hath made her now my own. 1658.

Like Phillis there is none:
She truly loves her Choridon. 1658.

My life is done when thou art gone. 1653.

This hath no end, my sweetest friend:
Our loves be so, no ending know.

God send her me my wife to be.

As God decreed so we agreed.

Take hand and heart, I’ll ne’er depart.

Love and dye in constancy.

A virtuous wife that serveth life.

As long as life y^r loving wife.

I will be yours while breath endures.

Love is sure where faith is pure.

A virtuous wife doth banish strife.

God did forsee we should agree.

Love me, and be happy.

None can prevent the Lord’s intent.

Virtue surpasses riches.

Let virtue rest within thy breast.

Time lesseneth not my love.

Joye without end.

Let lykinge last.

This and giver are thine for ever.

Think on mee.

Let love increase.

Thou art my star, be not irregular. 1653.[396]

Without thy love I backward move. 1613.

Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight. 1653.

This intimates true lovers’ states. 1653.

Thou wert not handsome, wise, but rich;
’Twas that which did my eyes bewitch. 1658.[397]

As we begun, so let’s continue. 1658.

What the eye saw the heart hath chosen. 1658.

More faithful than fortunate. 1658.

Constancy and heaven are round,
And in this the emblem’s found.

As God hath knit our hearts in one,
Let nothing part but death alone.

God our love continue ever,
That we in heaven may live together.

Weare me out, love shall not waste,
Love beyond lyvie still is placed.

Weare this text, and when you looke
Uppon your finger, sweare by th’ booke.

There is no other, and I am he,
That loves no other, and thou art she.

Eye doth find, heart doth choose,
Faith doth bind, death doth loose.

As God hath made my chyce in thee,
So move thy heart to comfort me.

God y^t hath kept thy heart for mee,
Grant that our love may faithful bee.

Fear ye the Lord then rest content,
So shall we live and not repent.

Divinely knit by grace are wee,
Late two, now one, ye pledge here see. 1657.

Breake not thy vow to please the eye,
But keepe thy love, so live and dye.

Love thy chast wife beyond thy life. 1601.

I love the rod and thee and God. 1646.

Pray to love; love to pray. 1649.

More weare--more wear. 1652.

Endless as this shall be our bliss. 1719.

Be truly wise lest death surprise.

Live in love and fear the Lord.

Godly love will not remove.

United hearts death only partes.

You and I will lovers die.

We joyn our love in Christ above.

God gives increase to love and peace.

God did decree our unitie.

Heart content cannot repent.

Live, love, and be happie.

Noe heart more true than mine to you.

In thee I find content of mind.

A blessing we do hope to see.

In love divine we love to joine.

Hearts united live contented.

In love and joy I will live and die.

In thy breast my heart shall rest.

The love is true that I.O.U.

My love is fixed I will not range.
I like my choice too well to change.

This is the thing I wish to win.

My promise past shall ever last.

Well projected if accepted.

God thought fit this knott to knitt.

Thy Desart hath won my heart.

True love is the bond of peace.

Let our contest be who loves best.

Thine eyes so bright are my chief delight.

Our loves be so no ending know.