Scene 2. Page 249.
Clo. As Tib's rush for Tom's forefinger.
The covert allusion mentioned by Mr. Ritson is, in all probability, the right solution of this passage; but the practice of marrying with a rush ring may admit of some additional remarks. Sir John Hawkins had already, in a very curious and interesting note, illustrated the subject; and it must appear very extraordinary that one of the subsequent notes should question the practice of marrying with a rush ring, on the grounds that no authority had been produced in support of it. This must therefore be explained. The fact is, that the author of the doubts had never seen Sir John Hawkins's entire note, which had originally appeared in the edition of 1778, but was injudiciously suppressed in that of 1785. In the edition of 1790 there is only a brief and general statement of Sir John's opinion, and this led to the doubts expressed. In 1793 Mr. Steevens restores a note which he had already cancelled, and with all its authorities before him, permits them to be questioned; but there are many who will comprehend his motive.
The information from Du Breul (not Breval, as misprinted) Theâtre des antiquitez de Paris. 1612. 4to, is worth stating more at large. The author tells us that in the official court of the church of Saint Marinus, those who have lived unchastely are conducted to the church by two officers, in case they refuse to go of their own accord, and there married by the curate with a rush ring. They are likewise enjoined to live in peace and friendship, thereby to preserve the honour of their friends and relations, and their own souls from the danger they had incurred. This is only practised where no other method of saving the honour of the parties and their connexions can be devised. A modern French writer remarks on this ceremony; "pour faire observer, sans doute, au mari, combien etoit fragile la vertu de celle qu'il choisissait."
With respect to the constitutions of the bishop of Salisbury in 1217, which forbid the putting of rush rings on women's fingers, there seems to be an error in the reason for this prohibition as stated by Sir John Hawkins, but for which he is not perhaps responsible. He says it is insinuated by the bishop, "that there were some people weak enough to believe, that what was thus done in jest, was a real marriage." The original words, as in Spelman's councils, are these: "ne dum jocari se putat, honoribus matrimonialibus se abstringat." Now unless we read "adstringat" there is a difficulty in making sense of the passage, which seems to mean, least, whilst he thinks he is only practising a joke, he may be tying himself in the matrimonial noose. It is to be observed that this consequence was not limited to the deception of putting a rush ring only on the woman's finger, but any ring whatever, whether of vile or of precious materials.
In Greene's Menaphon is this passage: "Well, 'twas a good worlde when such simplicitie was used, sayes the old women of our time, when a ring of a rush would tie as much love together as a gimmon of golde." But rush rings were sometimes innocently used. Thus in Spenser's Shepherds calendar, eclog. xi. mention is made of "the knotted rush rings, and gilt rosemaree" of the deceased shepherdess. Again in Fletcher's Two noble kinsmen, Act iv.;
"... Rings she made
Of rushes that grew by, and to 'em spoke
The prettiest posies: thus our true love's ty'd;
This you may loose, not me; and many a one."
Tib and Tom were names for any low or vulgar persons, and they are usually mentioned together in the same manner as Jack and Gill, &c. In the morality of Like will to like quoth the devil to the collier, Nicholas Newfangle says,
"By the mas for thee he is so fit a mate
As Tom and Tib for Kit and Kate."
In the old song of The shepheard's holyday, we have,