In a play so interested in common law as The Merchant of Venice, it would
probably be useful to know something about the legal side of this
question, as well as the contemporary social practice. Pollock and
Maitland (Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland) go through
the Anglo-Norman customs of 'mund' (guardianship of the bride) and 'wed'
(a pledge offered in assurance of the marriage bond), discussing the
medieval afterlife of these traditions, in their _History of the English
Law Before the Time of Edward I_, 2nd edn (Cambridge: CUP, 1968), II,
364-68. They discuss the 'pledge of faith' at II, 184-203. [Sorry: I'm
stretched this week, and don't have time to go look, and be more
specific!] You might also have a look at Martin Ingram's _Church Courts,
Sex, and Marriage in England, 1570-1640, though I can't recall in what
detail he treats the evidence of rings in spousal/matrimonial contrant
litigation of the period.
For a delightful contemporary legal account, see Henry Swinburne, _A
Treatise of Spousals_ (London, 1686 -- but written sometime before 1620,
and reflecting Swinburne's practice in the church courts of York ca.
1590-1620). If I remember correctly, Swinburne notes that the exchange of
rings is legally significant as a parallel to the doctrine of
'consideration' in contracts -- anyone trying to action the promise of
performance of a contract cannot claim non-feasance unless (s)he has given
some 'consideration' in respect of which the promised action was to be
performed, even if that consideration is only symbolic.
A part of Swinburne that might be particularly helpful to you here is his
fifteenth section, 'Of contracting Spousals by Signs' (what a good title).
You'd probably be quite interested by pp. 207-12, for example
5. By what kind of words Spousals or Matrimony may be Contracted, is
elsewhere declared at full; Now then it remaineth, that we speak of such
Signs whereby Spousals or Matrimony is contracted; And forasmuch as
Subarration, that is the giving and receiving of a Ring, is a Sign of all
others, most usual in Spousals and Matrimonial Contracts, I think it
requisite to speak of it, before all other Signs; the rather because the
Writers upon this Sign have diligently described unto us, what Persons did
first devise the same, and to what end; and what was the matter, and what
the form thereof, on which Finger it ought to be worn, and what is the
Signification of each of those Circumstances, with divers other
Observations which I will briefly run over.
6. The first Inventer of the Ring (as is reported) was one Prometheus; The
Workman which made it was Tubal-Cain, of whom there is mention in the
fourth of Genesis, that he wrought cunningly in every Craft of Brass and
Iron: And Tubal-Cain by the Counsel of our first Parent Adam (as my Author
telleth me), gave it unto his Son to this end, that therewith he should
espouse a Wife, like as Abraham delivered unto his Servant Bracelets and
Ear-Rings of Gold, which he gave to Rebecca, when he chose her to be
Isaacks Wife, as we may read in the same Book of Gensis. But the first
Ring was not of Gold, but of Iron, adorned with Adamant, the Metal hard
and durable, signifying the continuance and perpetuity of the Contract;
the vertuous Adamant drawing the Iron unto it, signifying the perfect
unity and indissoluble Conjunctin of their minds, in true and faithful
love; Howbeit, it skilleth not at this day, what Metal the Ring be; The
form of the Ring being circular, that is, round, and without end,
importeth thus much, that their mutual love and hearty affection should
roundly flow from the one to the other, as in a Circle, and that
continually, and forever; The Finger on which this Ring is to be worn is
the fourth Finger of the left hand, next unto the little Finger; because
by the received Opinion of the Learned and Experienced in Ripping up, and
anatomizing Mens Bodies, there is a Vein of Blood which passeth from that
fourth Finger unto the Heart, called Vena amoris, Loves Vein. And so the
wearing of the Ring on that Finger signifieth, that the love should not be
vain or fained, but that as they did give their Hands each to other, so
likewise they should give their Hearts also, whereunto that Vein is
extended. Furthermore I do observe, that in former Ages it was not
tolerated to single or unmarried Persons to wear Rings, unless they were
Judges, Doctors, or Senators, or such like honourable Persons: So that
being destitute of such Dignity, it was a note of Vanity, Lasciviousness,
and Pride for them to presume to wear a Ring, whereby we may collect how
greatly they did honour and reverence the Sacred Estate of Wedlock in
times past, in permitting the Parties affianced to be adorned with the
honorable Ornament of the Ring: As also the Vanity, Lasciviousness, and
intollerable Pride of these our days, wherein every skipping Jack, and
every flirting Jill, must not only be ring'd (forsooth) very daintily, but
must have some special Jewel or Favour besides, as though they were
descended of some noble House or Parentage, when as all their Houses and
whole Patrimony is not worth the Ninth part of a Noble; or else, as if
they were betrothed or assured in the holy Band of Wedlock, when as
indeed, there is no manner of Contract betwixt them, unless peradventure
it be such a Contract as Judath made with Thamar, that was, that he should
lye with her, which bargain he concluded by delivering her a Ring, and
afterwards performed the same by committing Filthiness with her, and
begetting her with Child.
7. But let these things pass: Come we to the other Observations, and
consider, Whether this Subarration be a sufficient sign or proof of
Matrimony or Spousals? Wherein we are first of all to regard, Whether any
words of Matrimony or Spousals were uttered at the delivery of the Ring,
yea or no? If any words were uttered, the delivery and acceptance of a
Ring is no more but a Confirmation of such a Contract as those words do
import; that is to say, if the words did important Matrimony, the Ring
confirmeth Matrimony, and if the words did import Spousals only, the Ring
betokeneth no more but bare Spousals; and that not only when the Ring is
delivered at the same time of speaking the words, but at any time after;
and if it be doubtful, whether the words import Matrimony or Sopusals, it
is to be judged Matrimony: If also no words were uttered at or before the
delivery or acceptance of the Ring, then we are to respect whether it were
delivered in sport, or in earnest? If in jeast, it doth not betoken either
Matrimony or Spousals: If in earnest, then the manner of delivery and
acceptance thereof, is to be regarded; for if it were not delivered in
solemn manner (as if he did not put it on her fourth Finger, but gave it
her otherwise into her hands) it doth not signifie Matrimony, no more than
when a Man sendeth a Ring to a Woman by a Messenger, which is understood
to be a Gift or Token or good will, and not a sign of Matrimony or
Spousals. And albeit by the Opinion of some it may seem, that the Ring
being delivered by the Party himself into the Womans hand, without putting
the same on her Finger, Spousals are thereby presumed to be contracted
betwixt them; yet dare not I deliver this Conclusion for current, as well
because in this Case, it seemeth rather Gift or an Argument only of
friendly good will, than an earnest penny of Sopusals: As also, for that
by this means, as by a Bait, many simple Maids might easily be hooked,
e're they were advised, and so contracted before they consented; a matter
no less unreasonable than unlawful.
8. If the Ring be delivered in solemn Form, and put on the Womans fourth
Finger, by the Party himself, and she willingly, not only accept the same,
but wear it accordingly; In this Case, by the Opinion of sundry Ancient
and Reverend Writers, it is to be presumed for Matrimony; whose Opinion
the rather may seem to be received, because by the general Custom of this
Realm, and by the Form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, the Man is
to give unto the Woman a Ring, and to put it on upon her said Finger at
the time of their Marriage: For in case there were not any such Custom
proved, yet by reason of the said solemn Subarration, Matrimony is
presumed to be contracted betwixt them, (if this former Opinion be true)
much more than when as the Custom of the Country is answerable thereunto;
howbeit when there is not any such Custom, then I fear the former Opinion
is scarce sound (unless some Speech or Treatise of Matrimony had gone
before) not only because it is encountred by common Opinion, but also for
that certain of the chief of them, which did defend the former Opinion, do
afterwards upon better advisement seem to shrink from it, and cleave to
the contrary: And therefore, whereas I have alledged that the Solemnity of
the Ring is usually observed within this Realm at Marriages, forasmuch, as
that is true indeed, when as the Marriage is celebrated in the face of the
Church, according to the Book of Common Prayer, but not at the contracting
of Spousals, albeit de praesenti, for ought I can learn: Therefore the
former Opinion is not the rather to be received by that Allegation, unless
the Custom be otherwise proved, which being proved accordingly, then I
esteem it a Case free from all dangerous Contradiction, that by the Solemn
delivery and acceptance of the Ring, in form aforesaid, the Parties are
thereby presumed to have mutually consented to be Man and Wife, and so to
have contracted Matrimony, albeit they used not any words, nor had any
former Treatise sounding of Marriage. Thus much of Subarration, the first
and principal sign of Matrimony; of the other signs, namely, of
Traduction, of Cohabitation, and of Entreating each other as Man and Wife,
&c. then shall we speak more fully when we entreat by what means Matrimony
may be proved. [Swinburne died before he managed to complete this
promise.]
Not exactly the posy of a ring; but Swinburne is so neat and cautious that
I suppose everyone loves to read him over cereal in the morning.
Quick question: why 'turquoise'? And is the emphasis on 'turk' here (which
I presume is preserved in the original spelling -- 'turkies'? --, as in
the original pronunciation, with its emphasis on the first syllable)
important?
andrew
> of engagement rings. Were they given in the Renaissance? If so, was it
> usual for the man to give them to the woman? Or is thinking about the
> ring Portia gives Bassanio as something like a modern engagement ring
> simply distorting? (For that matter, since the marriage takes place
> shortly after this scene, should we see it as a marriage ring instead? )
|
