The mystic significance of the episcopal ring as typifying the union of Christ with his Church was expressed by Innocent III (1198–1216) in these words: “The ring is a sacrament of faith, by which Christ endows his spouse the Holy Church.”[439] This can be taken as confirmatory of the theory that the episcopal rings were directly derived from the betrothal rings, and were not merely attributes of ecclesiastical rank. So closely was the Bishop bound to his see, that his abandonment of it to go to another was regarded by some as equivalent to the commission of adultery.

A fine example of a sapphire-set episcopal ring was found in 1844, during some alterations to the chapel of Notre Dame in the Cathedral of Troyes. Several stone coffins were discovered, among them that containing the remains of Hervée, Bishop of Troyes, consecrated in 1206. The body was clothed in full episcopal vestments. The ring had fallen from the hand but was found at the left side of the body. It had a diameter of 2 cm. (about ⅘ inch) and was set with a fine oblong sapphire held in place by four claws.[440] The opening of the tomb of Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) revealed the presence, on the gloved hand of the dead pope, of a splendid gold ring, set with a sapphire of quite exceptional size and beauty.[441]

In 1804, at the opening of a thirteenth-century archbishop’s sepulchre in the Cathedral of Mainz, believed to be that of Archbishop Sigfroi III, 1249, a fine pontifical ring was found; it is set with a large ruby.[442] The bezel is of disproportionate size in comparison with the dimensions of the rather slender circlet.[443] This ring is large enough to be worn over a glove in accord with liturgical requirements. It has been noted that in process of time the width and thickness of the circlet were gradually increased, at first to make it harmonize better with a large bezel; gradually, however, both bezel and hoop were made so large as to render the ring a burden to the wearer, and even difficult to keep from slipping off the finger. Indeed, it was sometimes necessary to wear a second, closer-fitting ring under it as a guard.[444]

The treasury of Canterbury Cathedral contained in 1315, according to an inventory of the “Ornamenta Ecclesiastica,” a very rich and elaborate pontifical ring. It is described as a large square ring, set with an oblong emerald, four plasmas (leek-green quartz), and four garnets. The other episcopal rings listed on this inventory were set with sapphires bordered with small gems, one of them having a “black sapphire” set à jour, and held in place by claws. While at this period great latitude was exercised regarding the particular stone to be chosen for the chief adornment of the ring, it was required that it should be one of the more precious stones.[445]

The color of the stones chosen for the adornment of episcopal rings always had a symbolical significance. The glowing red of the ruby indicated glory, the clear blue of the sapphire, chastity and happiness, the pure white of the rock-crystal, guilelessness, while the hue of the amethyst called to mind the color of the wine used in the Holy Eucharist. The emerald, as is well known, signified by its green color the virtue of hope and also the Resurrection.

The general rule, expressed or understood, that a sapphire should be set in an episcopal ring, seems to have been more commonly observed in England in the earlier centuries than it was on the Continent. Undoubtedly many of these stones were obtained at the time of the Crusades. As English examples, Mr. O. M. Dalton cites the rings of three early bishops,[446] namely, those of Flambard (1099–1128), Geoffrey Rufus (1133–40) and William de St. Barbara (1143–52), now in the Durham Chapter Library; all have sapphires. The same stone serves as setting for the ring of William of Wykeham, a massive plain gold hoop, exhibited by the Dean of Winchester at South Kensington in 1862, to which the cathedral also contributed a thirteenth-century episcopal ring set with a large sapphire cut en cabochon.[447] There is as well the ring of William Wytlesey, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1374) in the possession of Sir Arthur Evans and that of John Stanbery, Bishop of Hereford (d. 1474). The inventory of 28 Edward I lists sapphire-set rings of the archbishops of Dublin and York as well as of the bishops of Salisbury and St. Asaph. The rebel Piers Gaveston, favorite of Edward II, carried off with him, among other royal jewels, sapphire rings that had belonged to the Bishop of Bath and Wells and to the Abbot of Abingdon. In the inventory of Elizabeth’s favorite ecclesiastic, Archbishop Parker of Canterbury, is listed “a ringe with a blewe sapphire,” valued at four pounds sterling.

Old records show that even in the fourteenth century, the sapphire, although greatly favored for prelates’ rings, did not yet enjoy any exclusive preference.

For example, during the reigns of Clement V, and John XXII, in Avignon (1307–1334), the papal registers for 1317 note, in one case, “seven gold rings with various stones for new cardinals, 68 gold florins.” This, however, is followed by another entry recording “four gold rings with Oriental sapphires for the consecration of prelates, 26 gold florins,” and again “a gold ring with an Oriental sapphire for Cardinal A, 23 florins.” Three years later, in 1320, we have “seven rings for the seven new cardinals, three set with Oriental sapphires, three others with Oriental emeralds, and one with a balas-ruby, the total cost being 106 gold florins.”[448]

That the topaz at one time shared with the sapphire the honor of being especially fitted for use in ecclesiastical rings is shown by a passage in a rare fourteenth-century manuscript written in Italy. Here we are informed that the topaz was the most honorable of stones “above all other stones,” and that for this reason the great prelates wore it on their fingers.[449]

The green variety of tourmaline found in Brazil, and often called “Brazilian emerald,” was for a long time and is now used quite freely in Brazil as a setting of episcopal rings.[450] While this is a departure from the general usage of selecting a blue stone, preferably sapphire, for this purpose, it nevertheless finds a parallel in the employment of emeralds for bishops’ rings in quite ancient times, as is the case with one of the earliest of these rings, that described, or we should rather say proposed, in the letter of St. Avitus, Bishop of Vienne in France.

When a prelate has been raised to the rank of cardinal, he has to resign any ring he may have been entitled to wear previously, and awaits the bestowal of the special cardinal’s ring by the pope. It is conferred by the pope personally at the consistory wherein he assigns a title to the newly-chosen cardinal. This ring is made by a pontifical jeweller; it is of gold, with a sapphire in the bezel and, on the inside, the arms of the Sovereign Pontiff. Withal it is rather inexpensive, the average cost having been put at about $32, although each cardinal is obliged to pay into the Congregation of the Propaganda the sum of $642 (3,210 francs) as a “ring tax.” This payment, however, gives him the valuable right of bequeathing his property as he pleases by testament; otherwise everything would go to the Church.[451]

As in many portraits of cardinals and high church dignitaries they are depicted as wearing two or more rings, it has been erroneously conjectured that each ring represented a separate benefice, there being thus as many rings as benefices. The ceremonial regulations, however, clearly indicate that the wearing of many rings is simply a matter of taste, all except that on the annular finger of the right hand being purely ornamental.[452]

A ring on the fourth finger of the right hand is shown in Carlo Maratta’s portrait of Pope Clement IX (1667–1670), given to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, by Archer M. Huntington, Esq., in 1891. The ring bears no design, the setting being a large, square, beveled stone. The beard and mustache of the pontiff are of the type familiar to us in portraits of Cardinal Richelieu, who died in 1642.

A splendid example of the cardinal’s ring was recently made for Cardinal Farley. It is set with an exceptionally large and fine sapphire, of rounded oval form and an inch in length; the color is rich and deep; the stone weighs 18½ carats and is a Cinghalese sapphire. A bordering consisting of twenty-eight diamonds surrounds the central stone and serves to render more strikingly beautiful the rich blue of the sapphire, often called the “cardinal’s stone” because it is the one used for cardinal’s rings. This is noteworthy, as red is pre-eminently the cardinal’s color, as is shown in his robes, hat, etc.; hence we might rather expect that the ruddy ruby would have the preference. However, the fact that the sapphire denotes chastity and celestial purity has caused this stone to be chosen for the adornment of the rings worn by those who, from their exalted ecclesiastical rank, are more especially called upon to set a high example to the priesthood. The shank of Cardinal Farley’s ring is one of the most beautiful examples of American goldsmithing in existence. The chasing of the circlet shows on one side the ample facade and the lofty spires of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and on the other side emblems of the cardinalate. It was the gift of a priest who has known the Cardinal for many years.[453]

When the Right Rev. David H. Greer was consecrated Bishop of New York, some of his friends presented him with a very handsome amethyst signet, but unfortunately this tribute was stolen from his home by burglars, two or three years ago. When necessity arises of making an official signature he uses a steel impression stamp of the seal of the diocese. He has a facsimile impression stamp of the seal which was stolen, but he seldom or never uses this.[454]

The amethyst seal of Bishop Greer bore for its motto, “Crux Mihi Grata Quies” (The Cross is for me a grateful rest). This is the motto of Mrs. Greer’s family. On the shield is the monogram of the bishop’s initials, D. H. G.; above are two keys in saltire; on the lower part of the shield just beneath the monogram, is the coat-of-arms of New Amsterdam; as crest is an episcopal mitre. This was not, however, a seal ring.

The so-called “mitred abbots”, those who governed the larger monasteries, or whose notable services in the cause of the Church were thought to merit some special mark of honor, were sometimes given the right of wearing the episcopal ring at solemn ceremonies. We are told that at the deposition of Abbot Rainaldus, head of the great Benedictine Abbey of Monte Casino, not far from Naples, he publicly laid his staff and his ring upon the shrine containing the body of St. Benedict.[455]

The energy with which some of the leading theologians of the twelfth century protested against the use of episcopal rings by abbots, merits illustration by an extract from the writings of St. Bernard, who in a tractate addressed to Henri, Archbishop of Sens, writes:[456]

“Several have clearly enough indicated where were their thoughts when, having obtained apostolic privileges by many intrigues and by bribery, they appropriated to themselves and use, in virtue of these concessions, the mitre, the ring and the sandals, just as do the pontiffs themselves.... Oh, Monks, whither will this lead you? Have you banished all fear from your souls? Can the blush of shame no longer rise to your cheeks?”

Not only abbots, but abbesses also, are represented on their monuments as wearing rings, as for example Agnes Jordan, Abbess of the Bridgetine Convent of Syon, whose brass figure at Denham, Bucks County, England,[457] shows a ring on her finger. However, in 1572, the year of his accession to the papal throne, Gregory XIII abolished this custom; how long it had endured has not been determined.[458]

Certain other prelates of lesser rank than bishops have the right to wear rings, such as the protonotaries, for example, but as a rule they are not permitted to wear them while celebrating an ordinary mass, low or high; only when officiating pontifically may they wear pontifical rings. The ring commonly worn is much smaller than that accorded to a bishop and is set with a single stone, as is expressly ordained in the constitution Apostolicæ Sedis of Pius IX, dated in 1872.[459]

That the canons of a cathedral should generally be allowed to wear rings has been repeatedly decided adversely in the Roman Catholic Church, a recent instance being when the Bishop of Nicaragua submitted this question to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Rome, because the practice had become common in Nicaragua. In reply he was informed that this must not be tolerated, except in case of a special indulgence from the pope, and the bishop was required to suppress the abuse. The reply was dated August 20, 1870, just a month before the entry of the Italian army into Rome and the cessation of the papal rule over the city.[460]

In a letter written December, 1751, Pope Benedict XIV relates the finding of a gold ring so small that it would fit the finger of a three-months’ old babe, and bearing certain characters indicating a priestly quality of the infant. This the pope understood not as signifying that it had been made a deacon, but that its parents had consecrated it to the service of the church, so that it should later become a monk or priest.[461]

His Grace, the Most Reverend Archbishop Evdokim, the highest dignitary of the Russian Church in the United States, has stated that neither the Metropolitan, nor the Archbishops nor clergy of the Russian Church wear rings of any kind. They use seals but these are not in the form of signets. In this respect, the usage differs from that in many other churches.

The ring given to the King of England at his coronation bears a close relationship to the episcopal ring, and emphasizes the religious authority of the sovereign. This appears very clearly in the English ceremonial, where the Archbishop of Canterbury pronounces the following prayer of consecration:

The Coronation Ring of the English kings is of pure gold and is usually set with a large table ruby of a violet hue, the flat surface engraved with the figure of a St. George’s cross. About the ruby are set twenty-six diamonds. As the ring is designed to serve for successive coronations, the circlet is jointed so as to fit a larger or smaller finger. A queen consort is given at the ceremony of coronation a ring of pure gold also bearing a ruby, but unengraved; about the stone are sixteen smaller rubies, so graded as to size that the largest are placed nearest to the central stone, the size diminishing as the distance increases. The ruby has been chosen as emblematic of faithfulness. These rings are put on the fourth finger of king and queen, and the king’s ring is called by some writers “The Wedding-Ring of England,” the sovereign being regarded as espoused to the nation over whose welfare he is to watch.[463]

The coronation ring of William IV of England, although scarcely a notable example of the jeweller’s art, is striking enough in its way. In many earlier coronation rings, for which the ruby (or a spinel) was the stone traditionally favored, a St. George’s cross was engraved on the ruby, but in the case of William IV’s ring the cross is formed of five rubies, a square central stone and four oblong ones for the arms of the cross, all set over a large cabochon-cut sapphire, this affording a blue background for the red cross, similar to the blue field of the cross of St. Andrew. There is also a bordering of brilliants. This ring while effective enough in the sharp contrast of color, is lacking in harmony and taste.[464]

The insignia of the Prince of Wales include most of the emblems belonging to royal insignia, and each of them has its especial and peculiar significance. Unity is typified by the ring; the coronet is an emblem of friendship. The staff in conjunction with the ring suggests the religious side of the princely or royal office, for these emblems form an important part of the episcopal insignia. A special local association results from the fact that Welsh gold, mined by Welshmen in the Merionethshire mines, is used in the manufacture of these ornaments. A gold medal bearing the head of the Prince of Wales on the obverse, and on the reverse a representation of the Eagle Tower of Carnarvon Castle, was struck for the present holder of the title.

At the coronation ceremonies of the kings of France, the officiating ecclesiastic said to the sovereign in handing him the Coronation Ring: “Receive this ring, a symbol of holy faith and of the stability of the Kingdom, a sign of power, by which thou shalt be able to defeat all enemies with triumphant power, to destroy all heresies, to unite all subjects and to maintain them constantly bound together by the Catholic faith.” This formula dates back at least as far as 986 A.D., and was probably in use at an even earlier date.[465] The close union of Church and State is strongly emphasized, as well as the necessity for uniformity of belief, this having been a source of strength for the State when voluntarily present, but a cause of manifold and dreadful misfortunes when the religious convictions of the subjects became discordant.

When a nun is consecrated the priest places a ring on her finger, reciting the following words from the Roman pontifical:

Before the rings are bestowed they are heaped up on the altar and are collectively blessed by the officiating priest. As the formula used defines the character and quality of the ring more closely than do the simple words of presentation, it is here given as follows, this formula already appearing in the pontifical of Pierre, Bishop of Senlis, 1350:[466]

A pretty usage was observed at the reception into the order of the Augustinian nuns of Saint Thomas, at Villeneueve. On taking the vow, a ring was placed on the nun’s finger by a poor little girl, who said at the same time: “Remember, dear sister, that you have become this day the spouse of Jesus Christ and the servant of the poor.” The sister, after having respectfully accepted the gift made her by one who represented the Lord, kisses the child who has reminded her of the poor to whose service she is consecrated.[467]

According to an old recital, a miraculous ring was once found by a pious nun in the convent garden. One day when she was engaged in tending a bed of flowers, there came over her the ardent wish to receive a divine sign in the shape of a ring, testifying to the reality of her espousal with Christ. The Lord answered the fervent aspiration of his handmaiden, for suddenly there appeared before her in the flower bed an actual ring, no deception of the senses, but a material body. This story is related by Johann Nider in his Latin work, “Formicarius,” published in Strassburg in 1517, and the writer asseverates that he saw the ring, which was of a white substance resembling pure silver.[468]

A Ring of Widowhood, sealing a widow’s vow to remain faithful to the memory of her dead husband, was not rarely bestowed, three or four centuries ago, to serve as a mark of the solemn vow. A noteworthy instance is that of Katherine Rippelingham, who, in her will dated February 8, 1473, describes herself as “advowes” (“vowed”), and expresses the wish to be interred in “Baynardes Castell of London.” In a codicil she leaves to her granddaughter, Alice St. John, “her gold ring with a diamante therein wherewith she was sacrid,” or consecrated. In another will, that of William Herbert, Lord Pembroke, the wife is enjoined to remember her promise that she will take the order of widowhood, so that, as the testator continues, “ye may be the better maistres of your owen, to perform my will, and to help my children, as I love and trust you.”[469]

In view of the bad results of a second marriage when a widow falls into the hands of some designing man, to the destruction of her children’s welfare, this usage, so long discontinued, of binding herself by a solemn vow, had something to recommend it in times far past, when more stress was laid upon the sanctions and prohibitions of religion than is generally the case in our day.

At a solemn ceremony of this kind, held at the Priory of Campsey, in 1382, during the reign of Richard II, Isabella, Countess of Suffolk, took the vow in the presence of the Earl of Warwick, Lords Willoughby and Scales, and other nobles. The old Norman French form of her pledge has been preserved and may be given here for its historic interest: “Jeo Isabella, jadys la femme William de Ufford, Count de Suffolk, vowe à Dieu, en presence de tres reverentz piers en Dieu, évesques de Ely et de Norwiz, qe jeo doi estre chaste d’ors en avant ma vie durante.” (I, Isabella, formerly the wife of William de Ufford, Count of Suffolk, vow to God in presence of the very reverend fathers in God, the bishops of Ely and of Norwich, that I shall remain chaste from now on during my entire life.)[470]