This is an ancient form of the “tool of matrimony,” from one found at Horsleydown, and exhibited in 1800 to the Society of Antiquaries. Mr. Robert Smith, the possessor of this curious ring, transmitted with it some remarks and descriptions of a nature very interesting to the lovers of archæology, and the “happy estate;” and from thence is derived the following account of this particular ring, with illustrations of the form and use of the gimmal-ring generally.—
This ring is constructed, as the name imports, of twin or double hoops, which play one within another, like the links of a chain. Each hoop has one of its sides flat, the other convex; each is twisted once round, and each surmounted by a hand, issuing from an embossed fancy-work wrist or sleeve; the hand rising somewhat above the circle, and extending in the same direction. The course of the twist, in each hoop, is made to correspond with that of its counterpart, so that on bringing together the flat surfaces of the hoops, the latter immediately unite in one ring. On the lower hand, or that of which the palm is uppermost, is represented a heart; and, as the hoops close, the hands slide into contact, forming, with their ornamented wrists, a head to the whole. The device thus presents a triple emblem of love, fidelity, and union. Upon the flat side of the hoops are engraven “Usé de Vertu,” in Roman capitals; and, on the inside of the lower wrist, the figures “990.” The whole is of fine gold, and weighs two pennyweights four grains.
It is of foreign workmanship, probably French, and appears to be of no great antiquity; perhaps about the reign of our queen Elizabeth: for though the time of the introduction into Europe of the Arabic numerals be referred by some to an æra nearly corresponding with the figures on the ring, the better opinion seems to be, that the Arabian method of notation was unknown to the Europeans until about the middle of the 13th century. It is conjecture, therefore, that the figures were meant to express, not a date, but the artist’s number; such as we see still engraven on watches. The workmanship is not incurious; and the ring furnishes a genuine specimen of the gimmal, (a term now almost forgotten.)
Rings, it is well known, are of great antiquity; and, in the early ages of the world, denoted authority and government. These were communicated, symbolically, by the delivery of a ring to the person on whom they were meant to be conferred. Thus Pharaoh, when he committed the government of Egypt to Joseph, took the ring from his finger and gave it to Joseph, as a token of the authority with which he invested him. So also did Ahasuerus to his favourite Haman, and to Mordecai, who succeeded him in his dignity.
In conformity to this ancient usage, recorded in the Bible, the Christian church afterwards adopted the ceremony of the ring in marriage, as a symbol of the authority which the husband gave the wife over his household, and over the “earthly goods” with which he endowed her.
But the gimmal ring is comparatively of modern date. It should seem, that we are indebted for the design to the ingenious fancies of our Gallic neighbours, whose skill in diversifying the symbols of the tender passion has continued unrivalled, and in the language of whose country the mottoes employed on almost all the amorous trifles are still to be found. It must be allowed, that the double hoop, each apparently free yet inseparable, both formed for uniting, and complete only in their union, affords a not unapt representation of the married state.
Among the numerous “love-tokens” which lovers have presented to their mistresses, in all ages, the ring bears a conspicuous part; nor is any more likely than the gimmal to “steal the impression of a mistress’s fantasy,” as none so clearly expresses its errand. In the “Midsummer-Night’s Dream” of Shakspeare, where Egeus accuses Lysander, before the duke, of having inveigled his daughter’s affections, or, as the old man expresses it, “witch’d the bosom” of his child, he exclaims,
“Thou hast given her rhimes,
And interchang’d love-tokens with my child:
Thou hast, by moon-light, at her window sung,
With feigning voice, verses of feigning love;
And stol’n the impression of her fantasie,
With bracelets of thy hair, rings, gawds, conceits.”
From a simple love-token, the gimmal was at length converted into the more serious “sponsalium annulus,” or ring of affiance. The lover putting his finger through one of the hoops, and his mistress hers through the other, were thus, symbolically, yoked together; a yoke which neither could be said wholly to wear, one half being allotted to the other. In this use of the gimmal may be seen typified, “a community of interests, mutual forbearance, and a participation of authority.”
The French term for it is foi, or alliance; which latter word, in the “Dictionnaire de Trévoux,” is defined, “bague ou jonc que l’accordé donne à son accordée, où il y a un fil d’or, et un fil d’argent.” This definition not only shows the occasion of its use, but supposes the two hoops to be composed, one of gold, the other of silver; a distinction evidently meant to characterise the bridegroom and bride. Thus Columella calls those vines which produce two different sorts of grapes, “gemellæ vites.”