4.1314 Wedding Rings (3/51)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Thu, 2 May 91 23:02:40 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 1314. Thursday, 2 May 1991.
(1) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:41 PDT (10 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.1298 Wedding Rings
(2) Date: Wed, 01 May 91 14:06:20 IST (25 lines)
From: "David M. Schaps" <F21004@BARILVM>
Subject: Re: 4.1298 Wedding Rings
(3) Date: Wed, 01 May 91 12:23:02 EST (16 lines)
From: Charles Ingrao <HABSBURG@PURCCVM>
Subject: Ring Caper resolved
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:41 PDT
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.1298 Wedding Rings (5/116)
De Lacey cites rings given in 11th century in Europe. However, Beowulf
refers t o hrothgar, if I recall correctly, as a "ring-giver." And that
is earlier than 1000's, originally. Not important, since the rings are
available long before th e men of the north praised their bestowal on
the faithful soldiers of the house hold. Kessler
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Wed, 01 May 91 14:06:20 IST
From: "David M. Schaps" <F21004@BARILVM>
Subject: Re: 4.1298 Wedding Rings (5/116)
With regard to Prof. Michael Sokoloff's note on wedding rings being
mentioned among the Jews around the year 700: although he translates
the term used as "engagement" (and his Hebrew text reached me in an
incomprehensible form), I presume the term used is either "kiddushin"
or "eirusin", either of which refers to a stage of the marriage which
does not precisely correspond to "engagement": although in Talmudic
times it was an "engagement" in that the bride did not enter the
groom's household until a later ceremony ("chuppah"), it was in many
respects a "wedding": chiefly in that the women cannot contract a
valid marriage with anyone else, requires a divorce to terminate the
relationship, and relations with her after this stage are adulterous
-- quite a bit more than is meant by a Christian "engagement". I make
this point because the original question turned on a distinction
between wedding rings and engagement rings, and I doubt that the
ring Prof. Sokoloff mentions (which is still used among the Jews,
although the ceremony now takes place at the same time as the final
marriage) could have been a precedent for an _engagement_ ring.
David Schaps
Department of Classics
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Wed, 01 May 91 12:23:02 EST
From: Charles Ingrao <HABSBURG@PURCCVM>
Subject: Ring Caper resolved
I am pleased to divulge at long last the details of Maximilian's purported
gift of a ring to Mary of Burgundy. On 17 April 1477, after endless
negotiations and intrigues, Maximilian (thru an emissary) offered Mary a
diamond ring as a sign of his commitment to marry her. According to Max's
biographer, Herrmann Wiesflecker, she was swept off her feet by the gift,
announcing then and there that she was determined to wed the rogue. There
is, unfortunately, no mention of whether Max's gift constitutes the first
diamond engagement ring; my source there is considerably less authoritative.
I do, however, feel sufficiently confident to blame Maximilian for starting
this decadent ritual.
My thanx to everyone who contributed to this discusssion!