The history and poetry of finger-rings

RINGS OF LOVE, AFFECTION AND FRIENDSHIP.

§ 1. One of the prettiest tokens of friendship and affection is what is termed a Gimmal or Gimmow Ring. It is of French origin. This ring is constructed, as the name imports, of twin or double hoops, which play within one another, like the links of a chain. Each hoop has one of its sides flat and the other convex; and each is twisted once round and surmounted with an emblem or motto. The course of the twist, in each hoop, is made to correspond with that of its counterpart, so that, on bringing together the flat surfaces of the hoops, these immediately unite in one ring.[305]

This form of ring is connected with the purest and highest acts of friendship; it became a simple love token; and was, at length, converted into the more serious sponsalium annulus, or ring of affiance.

The lover putting his finger through one of the hoops and his mistress hers through the other, were thus symbolically yoked together; a yoke which neither could be said wholly to wear, one half being allotted to the other; and making, as it has been quaintly said, a joint tenancy.

Dryden describes a gimmal ring in his play of Don Sebastian:[306]

Gimmal rings, though originally double, were, by a further refinement, made triple and even more complicated, yet the name remained unchanged.

Herrick, in his “Hesperides,” has the following lines:

“THE JIMMAL RING OR TRUE-LOVE KNOT.

A singular silver gimmal ring was found in Dorset, England; the legend Ave Maria is partly inscribed on each moiety and legible only when they are united.[307]

A beautiful enamelled ring of this kind which belonged to Sir Thomas Gresham, is extant.[308] It opens horizontally, thus forming two rings, which are, nevertheless, linked together and respectively inscribed on the inner side with a Scripture posy: QUOD. DEVS. CONJVNXIT (what God did join) is engraved on one half and HOMO NON SEPARAT, (let not man separate), on the other. The ring is beautifully enamelled. One of the portions is set with a diamond and the other with a ruby; and corresponding with them, in a cavity inside the ring, are or rather were within the last twenty years two minute figures or genii. The workmanship is admirable and probably Italian.

The reader who may be curious to know more about the gimmal ring, and the probable derivation of the word Gimmal, is referred to a learned and interesting article by Robert Smith, Esq., in the London Archæologia, vol. xii. p. 7.

It is possible that Shakspeare was thinking of gimmal rings, some of which had engraven on them a hand with a heart in it, when (in the Tempest) he makes Ferdinand say to Miranda “Here’s my hand” and she answers “And mine, with my heart in it.”

§ 2. Coupled with the love of youth for maiden, we have one of the most simple and perfect of old English sonnets (by Davison):[309]

“PURE AND ENDLESS.”

As far back as the fifteenth century a lover wore his ring on the last or little finger.[310]

§ 3. It is said that Pope Innocent the Third was the first who ordained the celebration of marriage in the church; before which, it was totally a civil contract; hence arose dispensations, licenses, faculties and other remnants of papal benefit.[311] Shelford[312] observes it came with the Council of Trent. The Council sat within the Bishopric of Trent, Germany, from the year 1545 to 1563.

But the ring was used in connection with marriage before Catholic times. The Greeks had it. We find from Juvenal[313] that the Romans employed the ring. There was commonly a feast on the signing of the marriage contract; and the man gave the woman a ring (annulus pronubus) by way of pledge, which she put upon her left hand, on the finger next the least: because of the suggested nerve running to the heart.[314] The ring was generally of iron, though sometimes of copper and brass, with little knobs in the form of a key, to represent that the wife had possession of the husband’s keys.[315] Roman keys attached to a ring for the finger are not uncommon.[316] The ring is at right angles to the axle and, therefore, it could only be used for a lock which required very little strength to turn it or as a latch-key. It may be a question, whether these were not rings used on marriages?

Maffei gives a gem, upon which is engraved only the two Greek words ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙ ΠΙΣΤΙΣ, in English, Faith immortal, which he considers as intended to be set in a betrothal ring—in some one of those rings which lovers gave to their beloved, with protestations of eternal constancy, as a tacit promise of matrimony. Some Roman nuptial rings had inscriptions, as Ama me; Amo te; Bonam vitam, etc. Among other rings found at Pompeii were some which are considered to have been wedding-rings.[317] One, of gold, picked up in Diomed’s house, had a device representing a man and woman joining hands. Another, was a double gold ring, in which two small green stones were set.

There is no evidence that the ring was used by the Egyptians at a marriage.[318]

On the authority of a text in Exodus, wedding-rings are attempted to be carried as far back as the Hebrews.[319] Leo of Modena, however, maintains that they did not use any nuptial ring.[320] Selden owns that they gave a ring in marriage, but that it was only in lieu of a piece of money of the same value which had before been presented. It probably was ring-money or money in the shape of a ring, (of which we have before spoken.)

§ 4. The common use of the ring in different countries, when betrothment or marriage takes place, is remarkable.

In Esthonia, a province of the Russian empire, where the girls consider marriage the one great object to be coveted, attained and prepared for from the earliest dawn of their susceptibilities, they spin and weave at their outfit, frequently for ten years before their helpmate is forthcoming: this outfit extends to a whole wardrobe full of kerchiefs, gloves, stockings, etc. When they have formed an acquaintance to their liking, the occasion having been usually of their own creating, they look forward with impatience to the moment of the proposal being made. But there is one season only, the period of the new moon, when an offer can be tendered; nor is any time so much preferred for a marriage as the period of the full moon. The plenipos in the business of an offer are generally a couple of the suitors’ friends or else his parents, who enter the maid’s homestead with mead and brandy in their hands. On their approach the gentle maiden conceals herself, warning having been given her in due form by some ancient dame; the plenipos never make a direct announcement of the purpose of their mission, but in most cases tell the girl’s parents some story about a lamb or an ewe which has got astray and they desire to bring home again. The parents immediately invite them to drink, vowing that they know nothing of the stray creature; if they decline to drink with them, it is a sign either that they have no inclination for the match or that their daughter has whispered them “her heart has no room for the youth in question.” But if all are of one mind, the parents set merrily to work on the mead and brandy and give the suitor’s envoys free license to hunt out the stray lambkin. When caught, she is also expected to taste of the cup; and from that moment the bridegroom becomes at liberty to visit his bride. He makes his appearance, therefore, a few days afterwards, bringing presents of all kinds with him, together with a ring, which he places on the maiden’s finger as his betrothed.[321]

The Copts have a custom of betrothing girls at six or seven years of age, which is done by putting a ring upon their finger; but permission is afterwards obtained for her friends to educate her until she arrives at years of discretion.[322]

In Persia, a ring is among the usual marriage presents on the part of the bridegroom.[323]

It is said that in Spain every girl who has attained the age of twelve may compel a young man to marry her, provided he has reached his fourteenth year and she can prove, for instance, that he has promised her his hand and given her to understand that he wished her to become his wife. These proofs are adduced before an ecclesiastical vicar. A present of a ring is considered sufficient proof to enable the girl to claim her husband. If the vicar pronounces the marriage ought to take place, the youth, who has been previously sent to prison, cannot be liberated until after the celebration.[324]

Dr. Clark, in his Travels in Russia, describes the marriage, at Ackmetchet, of Professor Pallas’s daughter with an Hungarian General according to the rites of the Greek Church. After ascertaining as to ties of blood between them and voluntary consent, a Bible and crucifix were placed before them and large lighted wax tapers, decorated with ribbons, put into their hands.

After certain prayers had been read and the ring put upon the bride’s finger, the floor was covered by a piece of scarlet satin and a table was placed before them with the communion vessels. The priest having tied their hands together with bands of the same colored satin and placed a chaplet of flowers upon their heads, administered the sacrament and afterwards led them, thus bound together, three times round the communion table followed by the bride’s father and the bridesmaids. During this ceremony, the choristers chanted a hymn; and after it was concluded, a scene of general kissing took place among all present, etc.

§ 5. The betrothal of a young couple was formerly attended with considerable ceremony, a portion of which was the exchange of rings. Shakspeare alludes to this in the play of “Twelfth Night:”

“Strengthened by the interchangement of your rings.”

We have a similar thing in “Two Gentlemen of Verona:”[325]

This betrothing, affiancing, espousal or plighting troth between lovers was sometimes done in church with great solemnity; and the service on this occasion is preserved in some of the old rituals.[326]

The virgin and martyr, Agnes, in Ambrose, says: “My Lord Jesus Christ hath espoused me with his ring.”

This interchangement of rings appears in Chaucer’s “Troilus and Cresseide:”

In Germany, a loving couple start on the principle of reciprocity and exchange rings. This is not done at the time of the marriage ceremony, but previously when the formal betrothment takes place, which is generally made the occasion of a family festival. The ring thus used is not called a wedding ring, but Trau ring, which means ring of betrothal. A particular ring does not form part of the ceremony of marriage. Royalty, however, appears to go beyond the common custom of the country, even in a marriage. At the late marriage of the Emperor of Austria, the Prince Archbishop of Vienna, who performed the ceremony, took rings from a golden cup and presented them to the august couple, who, reciprocally, placed them on each other’s finger; and, while either held the hand of the other, they received the episcopal benediction.

In the early Christian Church a ring of troth, the annulus pronubus, was given by the man to the woman as a token and proof of her betrothment.

Pope Nicholas, A. D. 860, in the account which he gives of the ceremonies used in the Roman Church, says: “In the espousals, the man first presents the woman whom he betroths with the arræ or espousal gifts; and among these, he puts a ring on her finger.”[328] This ring, which may be traced back to the time of Tertullian, appears to have come into the Christian Church from Roman usage; although the Oriental ring of betrothment may have been the origin of both.

According to the ritual of the Greek Church, the priest first placed the rings on the fingers of the parties, who afterwards exchanged them. In the life of St. Leobard, who is said to have flourished about the year 580, written by Gregory of Tours, he appears to have given a ring, a kiss and a pair of shoes to his affianced. The ring and shoes were a symbol of securing the lady’s hands and feet in the trammels of conjugal obedience; but the ring, of itself, was sufficient to confirm the contract.[329]

It would seem that, on the ceremony of betrothal, the ring was placed on the third finger of the right hand; and it may be a question, whether the beautiful picture by Raffaelle, called Lo Sposalizio, should not be considered as an illustration of espousal or betrothing and not a marriage of the Virgin. Mary and Joseph stand opposite to each other in the centre; the high priest, between them, is bringing their right hands towards each other; Joseph, with his right hand, (guided by the priest,) is placing the ring on the third finger of the right hand of the Virgin; beside Mary is a group of the virgins of the Temple; near Joseph are the suitors, who break their barren wands—that which Joseph holds in his hand has blossomed into a lily, which, according to the legend, was the sign that he was the chosen one.[330]

The same circumstance, of placing the ring on the third finger of the right hand, is observable in Ghirlandais’s fresco of the “Espousals” in the church of the Santa Croce at Florence.

There is certainly some confusion as to the hand on which the marriage-ring was placed. However, in religious symbols of espousal, the distinction of the right hand was certainly kept. In an ancient pontifical was an order that the bridegroom should place the ring successively on three fingers of the right hand and leave it on the fourth finger of the left, in order to mark the difference between the marriage-ring, the symbol of a love which is mixed with carnal affection and the episcopal ring, the symbol of entire chastity.[331]

The espousal became the marriage-ring. The esponsais consisted in a mutual promise of marriage, which was made by the man and woman before the bishop or presbyter and several witnesses; after which, the articles of agreement of marriage (called tabulæ matrimoniales) which are mentioned by Augustin, were signed by both persons. After this, the man delivered to the woman the ring and other gifts: an action which was termed subarrhation. In the latter ages the espousals have always been performed at the same time as the office of matrimony, both in the western and eastern churches; and it has long been customary for the ring to be delivered to the woman after the contract has been made, which has always been in the actual office of matrimony.[332]

According to Clemens Alexandrinus, the ring was given, not as an ornament but as a seal to signify the woman’s duty in preserving the goods of her husband, because the care of the house belongs to her. This idea, by the by, is very reasonable, as we shall hereafter show, when speaking of the ritual of the Church of England. The symbolical import of the “wedding ring,” under the spiritual influence of Christianity, came to comprise the general idea of wedded fidelity in all the width and importance of its application.[333]

§ 6. The first Christians engraved upon their seals symbolical figures, such as a dove, fish, anchor or lyre.[334] The rings used in their fyancels represented pigeons, fish, or, more often, two hands joined together. Clemens of Alexandria, who permitted these symbols, condemns not only the representation of idols, but also of the instruments of war, vases for the table and every thing repugnant to the strictness of the Gospel.

A ring, when used by the church, signifies, to use the words of liturgical writers, integritatem fidei, the perfection of fidelity and is fidei sacramentum, the badge of fidelity.[335]

§ 7. The canon law is the basis of marriage throughout Europe, except so far as it has been altered by the municipal laws of particular States.[336] An important alteration was made in the law of marriage in many countries by the decrees of the Council of Trent, held for the reformation of marriage. These decrees are the standing judgments of the Romish Church; but they were never received as authority in Great Britain. Still the ecclesiastical law of marriage in England is derived from the Roman pontiffs. It has been traced as far back as 605, soon after the establishment of Christianity there.[337]

Marriages in the Episcopal Church are governed by the Rubric. This term signifies a title or article in certain ancient common-law books.

Rubrics also denote the rules and directions given at the beginning and in the course of the liturgy, for the order and manner in which the several parts of the office are to be performed.

Statutes of the English Parliament have confirmed the use of the rubric inserted in the part of the Common Prayer Book relating to the marriage ceremony. But prior to the British marriage acts, a case arose where no ring was used according to the Common Prayer Book. A then Chief Justice (C. J. Pemberton) was inclined to think it a good contract, there being words of a present contract repeated after a person in orders.[338]

The rubric directs that the man shall give unto the woman a ring, laying the same upon the book; and the priest, taking the ring, shall deliver it unto the man to put it on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand. And he says, “With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship and with all my worldly gifts I thee endow.” These words are best explained by the rubric of the 2d of Edward VI., which ran thus:[339] “The man shall give unto the woman a ring and other tokens of spousage, as gold or silver, laying the same upon the book; and the man, taught by the priest, shall say, ‘With this ring I thee wed, this gold and silver I thee give;’” and then these words, “With all my worldly goods I thee endow,” were delivered with a more peculiar significancy. Here the proper distinction is made, the endowment of all his goods means granting the custody or key and care of them. It will be seen that the word “endow” is kept apart from the positive gift of pieces of gold and silver. It has been said that the ancient pledge was a piece of silver worn in the pocket; but marriage being held sacred, it was thought more prudent to have the pledge exposed to view by making it into a ring worn upon the hand.[340]

The Christian marriage-ring appears, in its substance, to have been copied from the Roman nuptial ring. It was, according to Swinburn, of iron, adorned with an adamant; the metal hard and durable, signifying the durance and perpetuity of the contract. Howbeit, he says, it skilleth not at this day what metal the ring be of, the form of it being round and without end doth import that their love should circulate and flow continually.

In the Roman ritual there is a benediction of the ring and a prayer that she who wears it may continue in perfect love and fidelity to her husband and in fear of God all her days.[341]

§ 8. We have remarked on the vulgar error of a vein going from the fourth finger of the left hand to the heart. It is said by Swinburn and others that therefore it became the wedding finger. The priesthood kept up this idea by still keeping it as the wedding finger; but it was got at through the use of the Trinity: for, in the ancient ritual of English marriages, the ring was placed by the husband on the top of the thumb of the left hand, with the words, “In the name of the Father;” he then removed it to the forefinger, saying: “In the name of the Son;” then to the middle finger, adding: “And of the Holy Ghost;” finally, he left it, as now, on the fourth finger, with the closing word “Amen.”[342]

As to the supposed artery to the heart. Levinus Lemnius quaintly says:—“A small branch of the artery and not of the nerves, as Gellius thought, is stretched forth from the heart unto this finger, the motion whereof you may perceive evidently in all that affects the heart of woman, by the touch of your forefinger. I used to raise such as are fallen in a swoon by pinching this joint and by rubbing the ring of gold with a little saffron: for, by this, a restoring force that is in it passeth to the heart and refresheth the fountain of life unto which this finger is joined. Wherefore antiquity thought fit to encompass it about with gold.”[343]

By the way, a correspondent, in a British periodical, suggests: that a lady of his acquaintance has had the misfortune to lose the ring finger, and the question is raised whether she can be married in the Church of England!?[344]

In the “British Apollo” it is said that, during the time of George the First, the wedding-ring, though placed in the ceremony of the marriage upon the fourth finger, was worn upon the thumb.[345]

The use of the ring has become so common in England that poor people will not believe the marriage to be good without one; and the notion also is that it must be of gold. At Worcester (England) on one occasion, the parties were so poor that they used a brass ring. The bride’s friends indignantly protested that the ring ought to have been of gold; and the acting officer was threatened with indictment for permitting the use of such base metal.

In another case of humble marriage, the bridegroom announced that a ring was not necessary. The woman entreated to have one. The superintendent of the poor took part with the woman and represented how the absence of it would expose her to insult; and he, kindly, hesitated to proceed with the marriage until a ring was produced. The man yielded at last and obtained one. The woman’s gratitude brought tears into her eyes.

§ 9. In Roman Catholic marriages, with the priest in pontificals, go two clerks in surplices. The latter carry the holy-water pot, the sprinkler, the ritual and a little basin to put the ring in when it is to be blessed.[346] After the pair have clasped hands and the priest has by words joined them together, he makes the sign of the cross upon them; sprinkles them with holy water; blesses the wedding-ring and sprinkles it also with holy water in the form of a cross, after which he gives it to the man, who puts it on the wedding-finger of the woman’s left hand.

§ 10. The supposed heathen origin of our marriage-ring had well nigh caused the abolition of it during the time of the Commonwealth in England. The facetious author of Hudibras gives us the following chief reasons why the Puritans wished it to be set aside:

§ 11. The author of the present essay found a difficulty in getting a correct account of the use of the ring in Jewish marriages;[348] although there is an exceedingly learned and interesting decision in relation to one in the English Ecclesiastical Reports.[349] He applied to a professional friend of the Jewish persuasion, who obtained the following interesting particulars from one of our best Hebrew scholars:[350] The nuptial rite among the Jews consists of three distinct acts which together form the regular marriage ceremony.

1st. The religious act Kidushin, consecration, by which the husband that is to be mekadesh consecrates—that is to say, sets apart from all other women and inhibits to all other men the woman who, by that act, becomes his wife.

The ceremony is performed in manner following. A canopy is raised under which the bridegroom takes his stand. The bride is brought in and placed either at his right hand or opposite to him. The officiating minister pronounces the initiatory nuptial benediction, after which he receives from the bridegroom a ring that must be of a certain value and the absolute property of the bridegroom, purchased and paid for by him and not received as a present or bought on credit. After due inquiry on these points, the minister returns the ring to the bridegroom, who places it on the forefinger of the bride’s right hand, while at the same time he says to her in Hebrew: “Behold! thou art mekudesheth consecrated unto me by means of this ring, according to the law of Moses and of Israel.” The bride joins in and expresses her consent to this act of consecration by holding out her right hand and accepting the ring; which—after her husband has pronounced the formula—constitutes her his lawful wife; so that, even though the marriage should not be consummated, neither party is thenceforth at liberty to contract another marriage, unless they have previously been divorced according to law: and if the woman were to submit to the embraces of another man, she would be guilty of adultery.

The law which enjoins “consecration” requires that the symbol of the act should be an object made of one of the precious metals—gold or silver—and of a certain value. But though the law does not insist on or even mention a ring, yet the custom of using a ring has, during very many centuries, so generally prevailed—to the exclusion of all other symbols—that the words “by means of this ring” have been incorporated in the formula of consecration. In the greater part of Europe and in America the ring is usually of gold; but in Russia, Poland and the East the poorer classes use rings of silver.

2d. The civil act Ketubah, written contract: As soon as bridegroom and bride have completed the act of consecration, the officiating minister proceeds to read the marriage contract, a document in Hebrew characters, signed by the bridegroom in the presence of two competent witnesses—by which the husband engages to protect, cherish and maintain his wife; to provide her with food, raiment, lodging and all other necessaries; and secure to her a dowry for the payment of which the whole of his estate—real and personal—stands pledged.

When this document has been read, the minister pronounces the closing nuptial benediction, and a glass is broken in memory of Jerusalem destroyed, (see Psalm cxxxvii.,) which completes the ceremony. The psalm here referred to is that most beautiful one, beginning, “By the rivers of Babylon,” and ending with what has immediate reference to the destruction: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”[351]

3d. But all the time these religious and civil acts are being performed, the young couple have likewise before their eyes and above their heads the emblem of the moral act Hhupah, cohabitation or living together by themselves under one roof. This is the purpose for which the canopy is raised over them; beneath which they ought, by right, to stand quite alone—though generally the minister and parents or nearest friends also find room under it.

These three distinct acts—religious, civil and domestic—to constitute marriage according to the regular form Hhupa ve kidushin, require ten adult male witnesses. But so binding is the act of consecration, that if it were performed privately, without the knowledge of parents or assistance of minister and solely in the presence of two competent witnesses who hear the man pronounce the formula “Behold thou art consecrated unto me,” etc., and see the woman accept the ring, this proceeding, however irregular and reprehensible, constitutes a marriage perfectly valid in the eyes of the law.

Larpent, writing from France, but imbued with an ordinary English prejudice, which is apt to ridicule unfamiliar things and lose sight of reasons for customs, blurts out this: “I have been to the Jew’s wedding. The ceremony consists principally of singing and drinking and blessing in Hebrew. There must be something Jewish, however, as usual, and that is concerning the ring, which, as soon as produced, is shown round to all the rabbis near and some elders, etc., and to the sponsors, to be sure it is really gold or otherwise the marriage is void; and the true old clothesman-like way in which they all spied at the ring was very amusing. Nearly the last ceremony is the bridegroom’s smashing a wine-glass in a plate on the floor, with an idea that he and his spouse are then as difficult to separate as it would be to re-unite the glass. The gentleman showed gallantry by exerting all his force and looking most fiercely as he broke the glass.”[352]

The handing of the ring from the minister to some one of the persons present has a reason broader than that which Larpent is pleased to assign, as we consider we have shown. We confirm it by saying, that the Jewish law requires, at the time of marriage, that a valuable consideration should pass from the bridegroom to the bride. This consideration is represented by the ring, which, therefore, must not be of less value than the minimum fixed by the law. And as this value has to be ascertained and attested, which cannot be done by less than two witnesses, the officiating minister or Rabbi, after making the inquiries required by law, examines the ring and hands it to the presiding officer of the synagogue, (a layman, who is supposed to know more about the value of gold or silver than a Rabbi,) who also examines and hands it back to the minister; and these two, the minister and the officer of the synagogue, then witness that the article is of that value which the law requires. We say this advisedly; and can add as positively that the ring is never handed round to third persons.

At a marriage to which the author was invited—a marriage between a Jewish merchant and the amiable daughter of a learned Rabbi in New-York—the usual course was not departed from. The father of the bride, who officiated, received the ring from the bridegroom, ascertained that it was the young man’s own property lawfully acquired, examined and then delivered it to the president of the synagogue. He, also, examined and handed the ring back to the minister, who, finally, performed the ceremony.

§ 12. Some married women are so rigidly superstitious or firm that they will not draw off their wedding-ring to wash or at any other time: extending the expression “till death do us part” even to the ring.[353]

And there is a superstition connected with the wear of the ring, worked into this proverb:

§ 13. Gold-wire rings of three twisted wires were given away at weddings; and Anthony Wood relates of Edward Kelly, a “famous philosopher” in Queen Elizabeth’s days, that “Kelly, who was openly profuse beyond the modest limits of a sober philosopher, did give away in gold-wire rings (or rings twisted with three gold wires) at the marriage of one of his maid servants, to the value of £4,000.”[354]

§ 14. A gold ring has been discovered in Rome, which has the subject of Cupid and Psyche cut into the metal.[355] We give an enlarged illustration of it. Psyche is figured more ethereally than she generally appears upon gems. The lower portion of this emanation seems to partake of the delicate plumage of the butterfly; and the whole prettily illustrates the soul. There is a strong contrast between these figures; and we are inclined to think the designer intended it. While Psyche is all that we have said, the other form comes up to Colman’s theatrical Cupid:

“Fat, chubby-cheeked and stupid.”

Byron observes that the story of Cupid and Psyche is one uniform piece of loveliness.

§ 15. The meeting of St. Anne and St. Joachim at the Golden Gate is a favorite subject.[356] The Nuns of St. Anne at Rome show a rude silver ring as the wedding-ring of Anne and Joachim.

§ 16. A wicked trick upon weak and confiding women used to be played by forcing upon their finger a rush ring: as thereby they fancied themselves married.[357] Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, in his Constitutions, Anno 1217, forbids the putting of rush rings or any of like matter on women’s fingers.

De Breveil says,[358] it was an ancient custom to use a rush ring where the necessity for marriage was apparent.

§ 17. Rings occur in the fifteenth century, with the orpine plant (Telephium) as a device. It was used because the bending of the leaves was presumed to prognosticate whether love was true or false. The common name for orpine plants was that of midsummer men. In a tract said to be written by Hannah More, among other superstitions of one of the heroines, “she would never go to bed on Midsummer Eve without sticking up in her room the well-known plant called midsummer men, as the bending of the leaves to the right or to the left would never fail to tell her whether her lover was true or false.” The orpine plant occurs among the love divinations on Midsummer Eve in the Connoisseur:[359] “I likewise stuck up two midsummer men, one for myself and one for him. Now if this had died away, we should never have come together; but, I assure you, his blowed and turned to mine.”

§ 18. Marriage-rings, in the olden time, were not, as now, plain in form and without words.[360] Some had a seal part for impression.[361] A ring of this kind was ploughed up in the year 1783 on Flodden Field. It was of gold and an inscription upon it ran thus: “Where are the constant lovers who can keep themselves from evil speakers?” This would have been a relic for Abbotsford; but Dryburgh Abbey has the wizard; and a stranger is in his halls.

A Roman bronze ring has been discovered of singular shape and fine workmanship, which appears to have been intended as a token of love or affection.[362]