June 18. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



601 



THE MARRIAGE RING. 

 (Vol. vii., p. 332.) 



I cannot agree with the answer given, under the 

 above reference, to the question of J. P. : " How 

 did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony, 

 originate?" The answer given is taken from 

 Wheatly's Rational Illustration, &c., and is in sub- 

 stance this : — The ring anciently was a seal, and 

 the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence ; 

 and as a ceremony in marriage, its signification is, 

 that the wife is admitted to the husband's counsels. 

 From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it, 

 I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has 

 not thrown any light upon the origin of this beau- 

 tiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be 

 necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally 

 been used for the wedding ring — a matter of no 

 slight difficulty, not to say impossibility. 



What I take to be the real meaning of the ring 

 as a part of the marriage ceremony, I will now 

 give. It has a far higher meaning in the ceremony, 

 and a more important duty to perform than merely 

 to signify the admission of the wife into the coun- 

 sels of the husband. Its office is to teach her the 

 duty she owes to her husband, rather than the 

 privilege of admission into his counsels. The ring 

 is a preacher, to teach her lessons of holy wisdom 

 referring to her state of life. 



A ring, whenever used by the church, signifies, 

 to use the words of liturgical writers, " integritatem 

 fidei," the perfection of fidelity, and is " fidei sacra- 

 mentum," the badge of fidelity. Its form, having 

 no beginning and no end, is the emblem of eternity, 

 constancy, integrity, fidelity, &c.; so that the wed- 

 ding ring symbolises the eternal or entire fidelity 

 the wife pledges to her husband, and she wears the 

 ring as the badge of this fidelity. Its office, then, is 

 to teach and perpetually remind her of the fidelity 

 she owes to her husband, and swore to him at the 

 marriage ceremony. 



The wedding ring is to the wife precisely what 

 the episcopal ring is to the bishop, and vice versa. 

 The language used during the ceremony to the one 

 is very similar to that used to the other, as the 

 object of the ceremony and use of the ring is the 

 same. A bishop's ring, as we read, signifies "in- 

 tegritatem fidei," i. e. that he should love as him- 

 self the church of God committed to him as his 

 bride. When he receives the ring at his consecra- 

 tion, the words used are, " Acci{)e annulum, Jidei 

 scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam 

 videlicet ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus illibate 

 custodias : " (Receive the ring, the badge of fidelity, 

 to the end that, adorned with inviolable fidelity, 

 you may guard without reproach the spouse of 

 God, that is. His Holy Church). 



Hence the office of the episcopal ring throws 

 light upon the office of the wedding ring ; and 

 there can be no doubt whatever that its real mean- 



ing is, in the latter as in the former case, to signify 

 the eternal fidelity and constancy that should subsist 

 between the married couple. 



That this is the correct view of the meaning of 

 the wedding ring is farther confirmed by the prayer 

 used in blessing the ring : " Benedic, l)omIne, an- 

 nulum hunc ut quae eum gestaverit, 



fidelitatem integrant suo sponso tenens, in pace et 

 voluntate tua permaneat, atque in mutua charitate 

 semper vivat." — Rittiale, ^c. Cyrep. 



CANABA, ETC. 



(Vol. vii., pp. 380. 504.) 



My former Note on the origin of this name 

 suggests a question, which, if you think it worthy 

 of a place in " N. & Q.," may interest many be- 

 sides myself, viz. At what period and by whom 

 was that part of North America called Canada ? 



To the French it appears always to have been 

 known as " La Nouvelle France." La Hontan, who 

 quitted the country 1690, I think, calls it Canada. 

 Lajitan certainly does, as well as many other old 

 authors. 



In a map of North America, date 1769, the 

 tract bordering on the St. Lawrence, lately called 

 Upper and Lower Canada, is designated " The 

 Province of Quebec;" whilst the region to the 

 northward, lying between it and Hudson's Bay, 

 has the word Canada in much larger letters, as if 

 a general name of the whole. That the name is 

 slightly altered from an Indian word is probable, 

 but not so that it was used by the Indians them- 

 selves, who, in the first place, were not in the habit 

 of imposing general names on large districts, 

 although they had significant ones for almost 

 every locality ; the former were usually deno- 

 minated the land of the Iroquois, of the Hurons, 

 &c., i. e. of the people dwelling on, and in posses- 

 sion of it. Even allowing that the Indians may 

 have had a general name for the country, it is 

 very unlikely that one so unmeaning as " Kanata" 

 would have been imposed upon it by a people 

 whose nomenclature in every other case is so full 

 of meaning. 



Moreover, although the Mic-macs of Gaspe may 

 have called themselves Canadians according to 

 Lescarbot, yet we are told by Volney, that — 



" The Canadian savages call themselves ' Metok- 

 theniakes ' (born of the sun), without allowing them- 

 selves to be persuaded of the contrary by the Black 

 Robes," &c Vol. ii. p. 438. 



The following, to the same purpose, is from the 

 Quarterly Revieio, vol. iv. p. 463. : 



" ' Tapoy,' which we understand from good authority 

 to be the generic appellation by which the North 

 American tribes distinguish themselves from the 

 whites," &c. 



