It helps also to understand the legal framework for marriage, at least under the post-Norman common law: a married woman became a feme covert, whose legal personhood extinguished and became unified with that of her husband. This is the root of the rule that married persons cannot be compelled to testify against one another - contrary testimony appeared a logical impossibility when, legally, husband and wife were one and the same. From the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on courverture:
At least with regard to the ring that’s not so true as it once was, now that most men wear wedding rings too. Traditionally though, it’s true that they didn’t, and that was a double standard. I think in the Anglo American WASP tradition men didn’t wear rings, or any other kind of jewelry except a watch; I recall reading (second hand) of a dress-for-success type book that urged men to wear no rings at all at interviews.
On the engagement ring front, there does seem to be a start of a movement away from the ‘traditional’ diamond ring, particularly with ‘older’ brides. One woman I know had an Irish claddagh (spelling??) ring with an emerald in it as an engagement ring, another person I know has a sapphire, and mine has an amethyst (with a baguette cut diamond on either side).
Some people are rejecting the 'is two months (or is it now three months) salary too much to pay for forever" promoted by deBeers and making choices that are unique suit their personalities better. (FWIW my husband, then boyfriend, was a little ‘worried’ that I kept leaning towards amethyst as it they aren’t as precious as sapphires, emeralds, and rubies and thus cost less; he was worried that people would perceive him as cheap. But when he understood that amethyst was my preference and that I didn’t care what other people thought, that’s what he purchased)
Songbird says that the tradition of diamond engagement rings started in 1477. That is simply not true. It may be a historical fact that the Archduke Maximillian of Austria gave Mary of Burgundy a diamond ring (or it may be a lie from De Beers - they seem to be the source of this story), but it did not become a tradition until the 20th century. I have found no evidence that anyone other than Maximillian has given an engagement ring with a diamond until the 20th century. The idea of a diamond engagement ring was a De Beers invention, and I don’t see how an answer to the question, “How did diamonds come to symbolize a wedding engagement?” that doesn’t include that fact could be considered complete or correct.
As I think I’ve made obvious, I’m not arguing with you on the concept that deBeers is responsible for the modern phenomenon of diamond engagement rings. I just find it a bit implausible that they plucked the notion out of thin air. Their marketing is truly stupendous but I can’t quite stretch my belief to giving them credit for fashioning the notion of engagement rings out of whole cloth. I agree that Songbird should have made mention of the influence of the cartel, but I believe that s/he is factually correct in tracing the root of the tradition to the Duke. And while I haven’t turned up any links to disprove you assertion that no one aside from Max handed a gal a diamond between 1477 and 1900, I find it a bit hard to swallow that he was entirely unique in that respect.
In any case, you have suitably answered the diamond engagement aspect of my OP, for which I thank you, but I don’t really feel like getting into a debate on an issue that you and I basically agree on.
CK - very interesting to have the Talmudic input. I hadn’t heard of nor considered myself that potential utility of wearing a wedding ring before. Did ancient Jewish tradition incorporate wedding rings for men, as well? I would assume not, given the etiology as you’ve described, but I’m curious to know.
As for the communication/property angle, it seems pretty safe to me to say that there’s a large overlap there. On one hand (heh) you’ve the message of “I’m not interested, thanks for asking,” while on the other hand (I really crack me up) you’ve the message of “I’m taken,” eg “I belong to someone else.” It seems to me that it’s very easy to see those two as flip sides of the same coin. It might not be restricted solely to signifying legal ownership any more but I think that there’s still a large amount of residual baggage in how committed relationships are viewed in modern Western culture.
-ellis
No. As a matter of fact, the Talmud makes it perfectly clear that it is the groom who must give an object of value (it need not necessarily be a ring, although a ring has been used more or less exclusively for at least the last thousand years) and not the other way around. Double-ring ceremonies are frowned upon in Orthodox Judaism. However, many Orthodox Jewish men do wear wedding rings; they are given to the groom after the ceremony.
Zev Steinhardt
Very interesting to know; especially this last bit. Thanks.
-ellis