Among the country folk in late medieval times, marriage was sometimes a quickly arranged affair, and rush rings were often used for rushed marriages. The rush ring weddings, at which a “hedge-priest” officiated, were intended neither to be legal nor to endure. Some more coarsely cynical ceremonies were actually held with the assistance of the town butcher, with the bride and groom standing on opposite sides of a side of beef, being joined together with the traditional words, “till death do us part.”
Among more playful frolics was the practice of the bachelors among the Renaissance Italians, and the Italianate Englishmen, of wearing an engagement ring on the hat or in the ear, so as to invite and incite the maidens. In England, the rings were more often confined to the hand, and a language of the fingers developed. A ring on the first (little) finger indicated that the man was seeking a wife; on the second (which we now call the third finger) that he had found her; on the third, that the knot had been tied; and on the fourth, that he had every intention of remaining a bachelor. Similarly, for the woman: first finger, not keeping company; second finger, engaged; third, married; and fourth, intending to die a maid.
It will be noted that in this system the wedding ring did not appear on what is now the usual finger. And indeed it was only gradually that what we now call the third finger of the left hand became the permanent choice for the bond of matrimony. Those who must have reasons have found three for this choice.
The first reason is physiological. It developed when various theories of the blood circulated freely, before the blood itself was known to circulate. The Romans spoke of the vena amoris, the vein of love, but the idea was earlier expressed by the Greeks, who credited it to the Egyptians. This vein of love, they declared, connected the third finger of the left hand directly with the heart, which is the seat, as everyone knows, of the tender passion.
The second reason is the product of logical elimination. The analysis was made by Macrobius, a Roman commentator of the late fourth century. The thumb, Macrobius declared, is too busy to be set apart for special dedication. Because of the shape of the hand, the forefinger and the little finger are only half protected. The middle finger (being in his time used by mothers as a practical suppository and by doctors for anal exploration) was too opprobrious. This left only what he called the pronubus, the one “for the nuptial,” which has ever since been called the ring finger. On the left hand, to indicate the woman’s subjection, it is the engagement finger.
The third explanation grows out of old church practice. The bride was blessed “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” Starting with the thumb, if the bridegroom touched one finger with each name, he would complete the trinity with the middle finger, then put the ring on the next one. That finger is the husband’s to whom the woman owes allegiance next to God.
For a long time, it should be mentioned, the wedding ring was worn on the right hand; sometimes on the little finger, as the least obtrusive; while in many eastern lands it has been worn upon the thumb.
Counting Fingers
In his Treatise of Spousals written in 1680, Henry Swinburne declared that the wedding ring “is to be worn on the fourth finger of the left hand, next unto the little finger.” Since his time there has been confusion in the counting.