If you have no such possession, doubtless you are more peacefully content than those of us that have, but you have missed the supreme and most agonizing happiness with which the race is cursed.
For long before those Pompeiian days, when Nydia would have welcomed renewed blindness in exchange for one glimpse of Glaucus, or of some token of his care, men and women have cherished the gifts of those they loved. True, not all have valued them, nor have all had the power so to do. The beautiful Valois, quivering beneath the brand of the red-hot iron because of her madness for the cold, white diamond, knew nothing of the secret bliss in possessing purely as a token of love either a diamond or a rose. Nor did Maria Louisa, leaving her Jove-like husband to his fate, and escaping to Vienna with the crown’s most costly jewels. Nor, I am afraid, did the majority of the American women competing in the attempt to eclipse royalty itself in their display of gems at the coronation of King Edward.
There have been others, too, that knew nothing of the love token—others whose ignorance of it was less deserving of censure. None was exchanged by Dante and Beatrice, even though from their first meeting, as he has told, “love lorded it over my soul!” Nor do I recall that any passed between Petrarch and Laura, even though at her death he wrote that “there is nothing more left me to live for”! But these were examples of the super-ideal love, such as is seldom known on earth, and such as, doubtless, would be unsatisfying to you or to me. We of a generation that demands, above all, the tangible in everything, whether financial or flirtatious, of the heart or of the stomach—we must have, must we not, real kisses, warm from the mouth, and actual love tokens, freely offered by or passionately pleaded from the hand of her we love?
In this we are far from original—although, as I hope to show, men, at least, are to-day more influenced by such keepsakes than ever before in the history of the world. The great majority of the human race, from peasant girls to empresses, and from shepherd lads to omnipotent tyrants, have known, to some extent, the sadness and the joy of the love token. The ballad that the lover-poet addressed to one who was “just a porcelain trifle, just a thing of puffs and patches,” but who was, just the same, his adored—the ballad love token pleased even that unemotional doll. “And you kept it and you read it, belle Marquise!” Silly or supreme, all are vulnerable.
Therefore it is with no lack of authority that you learn that the human race has known it for some centuries—this love token. It took the form of birds among the ancient Greeks, although as for this purpose the birds were sold in the Athenian public market, the token lost its chief charm—secrecy. The Romans had a better—the ring, which, as the symbol of eternity, like the Egyptian snake touching its mouth with its tail, was the ideal emblem of love, which, too, should be, even if it seldom is, eternal.
Of course there were times, ages ago, when the love token had no place. When man was universally polygamous, and when the form of marriage was by capture, it can scarcely have existed. Nor could it have known the days when the jeunesse dorée of Babylonia and Assyria assembled before the temple where twice a year all marriageable girls were brought together to be sold. Probably, also, the bride of early Britain never heard of one. As she was not permitted to refuse an offer of marriage, how could she ever have given a token of love?—at least to the man that became her husband.
But in time even the British maiden knew the love token. An ancient manuscript found in the Harleian library says that it was decreed that when lovers parted their gifts were to be returned intact or in an equivalent value, “unless the lover should have had a kiss when his gift was presented, in which case he can only claim half the value of his gift; the lady, on the contrary, kiss or no kiss, may claim her gift again!” Surely the first part of this was needless; was a love token, given in person, ever unaccompanied by a kiss? “However,” continues this ordinarily quite sensible decree, “this extends only to gloves, rings, bracelets and such like small wares.”
I protest against “wares” in such association. It sounds something too commercial for so fragile and fleeting a thing as love. And, too, it is an error to speak of a glove as though it were of less value than an automobile. In a lover’s eyes the merest trifle is the most cherished token of love. Her carte des dances, for instance—for has not that dainty program and its tiny pencil been suspended by its silken cord from her soft, white arm? Or—but certainly this is no trifle—a satin slipper, absurdly small and with adorable curves.
Above all others, however, the miniature is the typical token of love. There lives no woman whose breath comes more quickly at the sound of some man’s voice, or whose fingers tremble with happiness as they open his longed-for letters; no man whose hand, at a word lightly spoken of the one most dear to him, would instantly seek, were it still worn, the sword at his side; no one even faintly remembering the days of youth and longing and sweet unrest, whose heart does not respond to the mere mention of the miniature. The old family portraits, in their heavy frames of gilt, are very precious; even the hideous crayons must not be hidden in the garret, although we may wish they never had been drawn; and in the ancient baronial homes of England are portrait galleries of which the owners are justly proud.
But these are works treasured largely because of inherited arrogance. At best they are a part of the furnishing, at times almost a part of the very architecture. How different the miniature! Whereas the family portrait is for show, here we have that which proverbially in secret has been cherished. Quickly it has been thrust next a fair, lace-covered and fright-panting bosom; it has been the sole souvenir of a stolen happiness, an almost voice-gifted reminder of dear, dead days of the long ago; it was the pledge of his return given in the hasty or hard-fought flight of the daring youth whose image it is; or perhaps it bears the lady’s face, and has been found on the breast of a warrior slain in battle; or, dearer than holy relic, was still caressed by the poet troubadour, even though he knew his mistress long ago proved faithless. More than one queen, for reasons of state, placed at the side of a mighty king, has gazed each night in hopeless adoration at the miniature of some one far from the throne, yet who, supreme and alone, reigned in her heart.