evident, it is customary to regard the simple fact as the title of the right.

The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws, to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, where fore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e. g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members.

On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community-or, more correctly, its leaders must make use of public rights, whenever

and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness and services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own.

Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general-that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.

While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e. g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e. g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc.

Summa theol., II-II, QQ. lvii sqq.; DOMINICUS SOTO; MOLINA; LESSIUS, De justitia et jure: TAPARELLI D'AZEGLIO, Saggio teoretico di diretto naturale (Palermo, 1840–3); PRUNER, Die Lehre vom Recht (Ratisbon, 1857); VERMEERSCH, Quæstiones de justilia

(2nd ed., Bruges, 1904); CROLLY, De justitia et jure (Dublin, 1870); MEYER, Die Grundsätze der Sittlichkeit u. des Rechtes (Freiburg, 1868); IDEM, Institutiones juris naturalis, I (2nd ed.), nn. 430 8qq.; FÜHRICH, Rechtssubjekt u. Kirchenrecht, I (Leipzig, 1908); CATHREIN, Recht, Naturrecht u. positiven Recht (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1909); IDEM, Moral philosophie, I (5th ed., Freiburg), 502 sqq.; THERING, Der Zweck in Recht (4th ed., Vienna); STAMMLER, Die Lehre vom richtigen Recht (Vienna, 1902); BEKKER, Grundbegriffe des Rechts (Berlin, 1910).

V. CATHREIN.

Rimbert, SAINT, Archbishop of Bremen-Hamburg, d. at Bremen 11 June, 888. It is uncertain whether he was a Fleming or a Norman. He was educated at the monastery of Turholt near Brügge in Flanders. There St. Ansgar, first Archbishop of Hamburg, became acquainted with him, and later made him his constant companion. When Ansgar died on 2 February, 865, Rimbert was chosen his successor. Pope Nicholas I sent him the pallium in December, 865. As Ansgar's missionary system was based on a connexion with the Benedictine Order, Rimbert became, shortly after his consecration, a monk at Corvey, and subsequently made missionary journeys to West Friesland, Denmark, and Sweden, but concerning these unfortunately we have no detailed information. In 884 he succeeded in putting to flight the Norman marauders on the coast of Friesland; in remembrance of this incident he was later held in special veneration in Friesland. Among his episcopal achievements the foundation of a monastery in Bücken near Bremen and his care for the poor and sick are especially emphasized. Historians are indebted to him for a biography of St. Ansgar, which is distinguished by valuable historical information and a faithful character-sketch. On the other hand, the biography of Rimbert himself, written by a monk of Corvey, is, while very edifying, poor in actual information; hence we know so little of his life.

Vita Rimberti in Mon. Germ. hist. Scriptores, II (Hanover, 1829), 764-75; DEHIO, Gesch. des Erzbistums Hamburg-Bremen, I (Berlin, 1877), 92-8; Allgem, deutsche Biogr., s. v.; Biogr. nationale de Belgique, s. v. Rembert.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER.

Rimini, COUNCIL OF.-The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term "homousios", consecrated by the Council of Nicæa, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council. Failing to convene one either at Nicea or at Nicomedia, he was persuaded by Patrophilus, Bishop of Scythopolis, and Narcissus, Bishop of Neronias, to hold two synods, one for the East at Seleucia, in Isauria, the other for the West at Rimini, a proceeding justified by diversity of language and by expense. Before the convocation of the councils, Ursacius and Valens had Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa, designated to draft a formula (the Fourth of Sirmium) to be submitted to the two synods. It declared that the Son was born of the Father before all ages (agreeing so far with the Third Formula); but it added that, when God is spoken of, the word ouola, "essence", should be avoided, not being found in Scripture and being a cause of scandal to the faithful; by this step they intended to exclude the similarity of essence.

The Council of Rimini was opened early in July,

359, with over four hundred bishops. About eighty Semi-Arians, including Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius, withdrew from the orthodox bishops, the most eminent of whom was Restitutus of Carthage; Liberius, Eusebius, Dionysius, and others were still in exile. The two parties sent separate deputations to the emperor, the orthodox asserting clearly their firm attachment to the faith of Nicæa, while the Arian minority adhered to the imperial formula. But the inexperienced representatives of the orthodox majority allowed themselves to be deceived, and not only entered into communion with the heretical delegates, but even subscribed, at Nice in Thrace, a formula to the effect merely that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures (the words "in all things" being omitted). On their return to Rimini, they were met with the unanimous protests of their colleagues. But the threats of the consul Taurus, the remonstrances of the Semi-Arians against hindering peace between East and West for a word not contained in Scripture, their privations and their homesickness -all combined to weaken the constancy of the orthodox bishops. And the last twenty were induced to subscribe when Ursacius had an addition made to the formula of Nice, declaring that the Son is not a creature like other creatures. Pope Liberius, having regained his liberty, rejected this formula, which was thereupon repudiated by many who had signed it. In view of the hasty manner of its adoption and the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it could have no authority. In any case, the council was a sudden defeat of orthodoxy, and St. Jerome could say: "The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian".

HEFELE, History of the Councils, tr.; § 82; DUCHESNE, Histoire

ancienne de l'église, II (Paris, 1910), 294 sq.; MANSI, Coll. Conc., III, 293 sq.; NEWMAN, The Arians of the Fourth Century (London and New York, reprint, 1901), 335–52; GWATKIN, Studies in Arianism (London).

U. BENIGNI.

Rimini, DIOCESE OF (ARIMINUM), suffragan of Ravenna. Rimini is situated near the coast between the rivers Marecchia (the ancient Ariminus) and Ausa (Aprusa). Coast navigation and fishing are the principal industries. The thirteenth-century cathedral (San Francesco) was originally Gothic, but was transformed by order of Sigismondo Malatesta (144655) according to the designs of Leone Baptista Alberti and never completed; the cupola is lacking, also the upper part of the façade; in the cathedral are the tombs of Sigismondo and his wife Isotta. The plastic decorations of the main nave and some of the chapels, a glorification to Sigismondo and Isotta, are by Agostino di Duccio, and breathe the pagan spirit of the Renaissance. On the southern side are the tombs of illustrious humanists, among them that of the philosopher Gemistus Pletho, whose remains were brought back by Sigismondo from his wars in the Balkans. There is a remarkable fresco of Piero della Francesca. In San Giuliano is the great picture of Paul Veronese representing the martyrdom of that saint, also pictures of Bittino da Faenza (1357) dealing with some episodes of the saint's life. Among the profane edifices are the Arch of Augustus (27 B. C.), the remains of an amphitheatre, and the five-arched bridge of Augustus over the Marecchia. The town hall has a small but valuable gallery (Perin del Vaga, Ghirlandajo, Bellini, Benedetto Coda, Tintoretto, Agostino di Duccio); the Gambalunga Library (1677) has valuable manuscripts. There is an archæological museum and a bronze statue of Paul V; the castle of Sigismondo Malatesta is now used as a prison.

Ariminum was built by the Umbri. In the sixth century B. c. it was taken by the Gauls; after their last defeat (283) it returned to the Umbri and became in 263 a Latin colony, very helpful to the Romans during t1 late Gallic wars. Rimini was reached by the

Flamminia, and here began the Via Emilia that led to Piacenza. Augustus did much for the city and Galla Placida built the church of San Stefano. When the Goths conquered Rimini in 493, Odoacer, besieged in Ravenna, had to capitulate. During the Gothic wars Rimini was taken and retaken many times. In its vicinity Narses overthrew (553) the Alamanni. Under Byzantine dominion it belonged to the Pentapolis. In 728 it was taken with many other cities by the Lombard King Liutprand but returned to the Byzantines about 735. King Pepin gave it to the Holy See, but during the wars of the popes and the Italian cities against the emperors, Rimini sided with the latter. In the thirteenth century it suffered from the discords of the Gambacari and Ansidei families. In 1295 Malatesta I da Verucchio was named "Signore" of

CATHEDRAL OF SAN FRANCESCO, RIMINI Originally XIII Century; the exterior rebuilt in Classic Style after designs of Leone Baptista Alberti, XV Century

the city, and, despite interruptions, his family held authority until 1528. Among his successors were: Malatesta II (1312-17); Pandolfo I, his brother (d. 1326), named by Louis the Bavarian imperial vicar in Romagna; Ferrantino, son of Malatesta II (1335), opposed by his cousin Ramberto and by Cardinal Bertando del Poggetto (1331), legate of John XXII; Malatesta III, Guastafamiglia (1363), lord also of Pesaro; Malatesta IV l'Ungaro (1373); Galeotto, uncle of the former (1385), lord also of Fano (from 1340), Pesaro, and Cesena (1378); his son Carlo (1429), the noblest scion of the family, laboured for the cessation of the Western Schism, and was the counsellor, protector, and ambassador of Gregory XII, and patron of scholars; Galeotto Roberto (1432), his brother Sigismondo Pandolf (1468) had the military and intellectual qualities of Carlo Mala testa but not his character. He was tyrannous and perfidious, in constant rebellion against the popes, a good soldier, poet, philosopher, and lover of the fine arts, but a monster of domestic and public vices; in 1463 he submitted to Pius II, who left him Rimini; Robert, his son (1482), under Paul II nearly lost his state and under Sixtus IV became the commanding officer of the pontifical army against Alfonso of Naples, by whom he was defeated in the battle of Campo Morto (1482); Pandolfo V, his son (1500), lost Rimini to Cesare Borgia (1500-3), after whose overthrow it fell to Venice (1503-9), but was retaken by Julius II and incorporated with the territory of the Holy See. After the death of Leo X Pandolfo returned for several months, and with his son Sigismondo held tyrannous rule. Adrian VI gave Rimini to the Duke of Urbino, the pope's vicar. In 1527 Sigismondo managed to regain the city, but the following year the Malatesta dominion passed away forever. Rimini was thenceforth a papal city, subject to the legate at Forlì. In 1845 a band of adventurers commanded by Ribbotti

entered the city and proclaimed a constitution which was soon abolished. In 1860 Rimini and the Romagna were incorporated with the Kingdom of Italy. Rimini was probably evangelized from Ravenna. Among its traditional martyrs are: St. Innocentia and companions; Sts. Juventinus, Facundinus, and companions; Sts. Theodorus and Marinus. The see was probably established before the peace of Constantine. Among the bishops were: Stennius, at Rome in 313; Cyriacus, one of his successors, sided with the Arians; under St. Gaudentius the famous Council of Rimini was held (359); he was later put to death by the Arians for having excommunicated the priest Marcianus; Stephanus attended at Constantinople (551); the election of Castor (591) caused much trouble to St. Gregory I, who had to send to Rimini a "visitor"; Agnellus (743) was governor of the city subject to the Archbishop of Ravenna; Delto acted frequently as legate for John VIII; Blessed Arduino (d. in 1009); Uberto II is mentioned with praise by St. Peter Damian; Opizo was one of the consecrators of the Antipope Clement III (Guiberto, 1075); Ranieri II degli Uberti (1143) consecrated the ancient cathedral of St. Colomba; Alberigo (1153) made peace between Rimini and Cesena; Bonaventura Trissino founded the hospital of Santo Spirito; under Benno (1230) some pious ladies founded a hospital for the lepers, and themselves cared for the afflicted. At the end of the thirteenth century the Armenians received at Rimini a church and a hospital. From 1407 Gregory XII resided at Rimini. Giovanni Rosa united the eleven hospitals of Rimini into one. Under Giulio Parisani (1549) the seminary was opened (1568). Giambattista Castelli (1569) promoted the Tridentine reforms and was nuncio at Paris. Andrea Minucci was severely tried during the French Revolution; under him the Malatesta church (San Francesco) became the cathedral. The diocese has 124 parishes, 125,400 inhabitants, 336 priests, 10 houses of religious with 56 priests, 24 houses of religious women, who care for the hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable institutions, or communal and private schools. There are also 1 school for boys and 3 for girls.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, II; NARDI, Cronotassi dei pastori della Chiesa di Rimini (Rimini, 1813): TONINI, Storia civile e sacra di Rimini (6 vols., Rimini, 1848-88); IDEM, Compendio della storia di Rimini (1896); YRIARTE, Rimini: Etudes sur les lettres et les arts à la cour des Malatesta (Paris, 1882).

U. BENIGNI.

Rimouski, DIOCESE OF (SANCTI GERMANI DE RIMOUSKI), Suffragan of Quebec, comprises the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspé (except Magdalen Islands), Rimouski and the greater part of Temiscouata, and forms the eastern extremity of the province of Quebec. At the extreme point of the Gaspé peninsula (formerly called Honguedo), Jacques Cartier landed on his first voyage of discovery (1534) and planted a cross with the royal arms of France. The Souriquois or Micmacs occupied the shores of Baie des Chaleurs, and their successive missionaries, Recollets, Capuchins, Jesuits, amongst them Father Labrosse, and Spiritians (or priests of the seminary of the Holy Ghost), including the celebrated Pierre Maillard, ministered to that region of the Rimouski diocese. The first Mass was celebrated near the city of Rimouski, at a place since called Pointe-au-Père, by the Jesuit Henri Nouvel, in 1663, on his way to the Papinachois and Montagnais of Tadoussac, on the north shore. The first settler at Rimouski was Germain Lepage (1696), whose patronymic was chosen as titular of the future parish and diocese. The seigniory had been conceded to his son René in 1688. The latest statistics give 120 churches and chapels, with 148 priests. Two wooden churches were built at Rimouski, in 1712 and 1787 respectively; the first stone church, 1824, was replaced by the present

cathedral in 1854. Before the creation of the see, Rimouski was successively visited by Bishops Hubert (1791), Denaut (1798), Plessis (1806-14-22), Panet (1810-26), Signay (1833-38-43), Turgeon (1849), and Baillargeon (1855-60-65). The see was created and its first titular nominated on 15 January, 1867, and acquired civil incorporation ipso facto the same day, according to the law of the country.

The first bishop, Jean-Pierre-François LaforceLangevin, was b. at Quebec, 22 Sept., 1821, and ordained on 12 Sept., 1844. As director of the Quebec seminary he was one of the joint founders of Laval University (1852). He successively filled the offices of pastor to the parishes of Ste Claire and Beauport, and of principal of Laval Normal School. He was consecrated 1 May, 1867, resigned 1891, and died 1892. He completed the organization of a classical college previously founded by the Abbés C. Tanguay and G. Potvin and adopted it as the seminary of the diocese. He introduced the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame (Montreal) and sanctioned the foundation (1879) of the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, a flourishing institute largely due to the zeal of VicarGeneral Langevin, his brother. Bishop Langevin established the cathedral chapter in 1878.

The second bishop, still in office, André-Albert Blais, b. at St-Vallier, P. Q., 1842, studied at the college of Ste Anne de la Pocatière, graduated in Rome Doctor of Canon Law, and taught the same branch at Laval University. He was consecrated bishop 18 May, 1890, and took possession of the see in 1891. Bishop Blais created many new parishes in the diocese, and founded a normal school under the management of the Ursulines. The clergy, exclusively French-Canadian, study classics and philosophy at the diocesan seminary, and theology principally at Laval University, in some cases at the Propaganda, Rome. (For parochial system, incorporation of religious institutions, etc., see CANADA, and QUEBEC, PROVINCE OF.) There are no cities besides Rimouski, but all the larger rural parishes have fine churches and convent-schools; the only domestic mission is that of the Micmacs at Ristigouche, under the care of the Capuchins. Besides a Priests' Aid Society, there are several benevolent and mutual aid societies for the laity. The religious orders of men are the Capuchins, Eudists, and Brothers of the Cross of Jesus; those of women are the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, of the Good Shepherd (teaching), of the Holy Rosary, of the Holy Family, and the Daughters of Jesus. Retreats for the clergy are given each year; conferences to discuss theological cases take place every three months. Nearly all the secular clergy (110 out of 137) belong to the Eucharistic League. Out of a total Catholic_population of 118,740, only 3695 are not French Canadians. The Indians number 610. The Protestant element amounts to 8798. There is no friction between these different elements and no difficult racial problem to solve, the parishes containing an English-speaking element as well as the Micmacs being instructed in their native tongues. GUAY, Chroniques de Rimouski (Quebec, 1873); Le Canada ecclésiastique (Montreal, 1911). LIONEL LINDSAY.

Rings.-I. IN GENERAL.-Although the surviving ancient rings, proved by their devices, provenance, etc., to be of Christian origin, are fairly numerous (See Fortnum in "Arch. Journ.", XXVI, 141, and XXVIII, 275), we cannot in most cases identify them with any liturgical use. Christians no doubt, just like other people, wore rings in accordance with their station in life, for rings are mentioned without reprobation in the New Testament (Luke, xv, 22, and James, ii, 2). Moreover, St. Clement of Alexandria (Ped., III, c. xi) says that a man might lawfully wear a ring on his little finger, and that it should bear some religious emblem-a dove, or a fish, or an anchor

though, on the other hand, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Apostolic Constitutions (I, iii) protest against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with rings and gems. In any case the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas (c. xxi), about the beginning of the third century, inform us of how the martyr Saturus took a ring from the finger of Pudens, a soldier who was looking on, and gave it back to him as a keepsake, covered with his own blood.

OF A FOOTSTEP, ENGRAVED WITH CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS

Knowing, as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen Dialis (i. e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth century that rings were worn by Christian bishops. But the various passages that have been appealed to, to prove BRONZE RING WITH SEAL IN THE FORM this, are either not authentic or else are inconclusive. St. Augustine indeed speaks of his sealing a letter with a ring (Ep. ccxvii, in P. L., XXXIII, 227), but on the other hand his contemporary Possidius expressly states that Augustine himself wore no ring (P. L., XXXII, 53), whence we are led to conclude that the possession of a signet does not prove the use of a ring as part of the episcopal insignia. However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface IV (A. D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St. Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as "an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of secrets" (P. L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g., that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with various formulæ for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in these terms: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby SILVER RING OF Leubatius, thou, being thyself adorned ABBOT OF SENAPARIA, GAUL with spotless faith, mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church."

LEVIA

These two ideas-namely of the seal, indicative of discretion, and of conjugal fidelity-dominate the symbolism attaching to the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find ecclesiastical decrees enacting that "a bishop deserting the Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife, goes to live with another woman (Du Saussay, "Panoplia episcopalis", 250). It was perhaps this idea of espousals which helped

CRYSTAL RINGS ENGRAVED IN INTAGLIO WITH CHRISTIAN
EMBLEMS, ROME

placing another smaller ring just above it as a keeper (see Lacy, "Exeter Pontifical", 3). As the pictures of the medieval and Renaissance periods show, it was formerly quite usual for bishops to wear other rings along with the episcopal ring; indeed the existing "Cæremoniale episcoporum" (Bk. II, viii, nn. 10-11) assumes that this is still likely to be the case. Custom prescribes that a layman or a cleric of inferior grade on being presented to a bishop should kiss his hand, that is to say his episcopal ring, but it is a popular misapprehension to suppose that any indulgence is attached to the act. Episcopal rings, both at an earlier and later period, were sometimes used as receptacles for relics. St. Hugh of Lincoln had such a ring which must have been of considerable capacity. (On investiture by ring and staff see INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF.)

Besides bishops, many other ecclesiastics are privileged to wear rings. The pope of course is the first of bishops, but he does not habitually wear the signet ring distinctive of the papacy and known as "the Ring of the Fisherman" (see below in this article), but usually a simple cameo, while his more magnificent pontifical rings are reserved for solemn ecclesiastical functions. Cardinals also wear rings independently of their grade in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ring belonging to the cardinalitial dignity is conferred by the pope himself in the consistory in which the new cardinal is named to a particular "title". It is of small value and is set with a sapphire, while it bears on the inner side of the bezel the arms of the pope conferring it. In practice the cardinal is not required to wear habitually the ring thus presented, and he commonly prefers to use one of his own. The privilege of wearing a ring has belonged to cardinal-priests since the time of Innocent III or earlier (see Sägmüller, "Thätigkeit und Stellung der Cardinäle", 163). Abbots in the earlier Middle Ages were permitted to wear rings only by special privilege. A letter of Peter of Blois in the twelfth century (P. L., CCVII, 283) shows that at that date the wearing of a ring by an abbot was apt to be looked upon as a piece of ostentation, but in the later Pontificals the blessing and delivery of a ring formed part of the ordinary ritual for the consecration of an abbot, and this is still the case at the present day. On the other hand, there is no such ceremony indicated in the blessing of an abbess, though certain abbesses have received, or assumed, the privilege of wearing a ring of office. The ring is also regularly worn by certain other minor prelates, for example prothonotaries, but the privilege cannot be said to belong to canons as such (B. de Montault,

"Le costume, etc.", I, 170) without special indult. In any case such rings cannot ordinarily be worn by these minor prelates during the celebration of Mass. The same restriction, it need hardly be said, applies to the ring which is conferred as part of the insignia of the doctorate either of theology or of canon law. The plain rings worn by certain orders of nuns and conferred upon them in the course of their solemn profession, according to the ritual provided in the Roman Pontifical, appear to find some justification in ancient tradition. St. Ambrose (P. L., XVII, 701, 735) speaks as though it were a received custom for virgins consecrated to God to wear a ring in memory of their betrothal to their heavenly Spouse. This delivery of a ring to professed nuns is also mentioned by several medieval Pontificals, from the twelfth century onwards. Wedding rings, or more strictly, rings given in the betrothal ceremony, seem to have been tolerated among Christians under the Roman Empire from a quite early period. The use of such rings was of course of older date than Christianity, and there is not much to suggest that the giving of the ring was at first incorporated in any ritual or invested with any precise religious signifiBut it is highly probable that, if the acceptance and the wearing of a betrothal ring was tolerated among Christians, such rings would have been adorned with Christian emblems. Certain extant specimens, more particularly a gold ring found near Arles, belonging apparently to the fourth or fifth century, and bearing the inscription, Tecla vivat Deo cum marito seo [suo], may almost certainly be assumed to be Christian espousal rings. In the coronation ceremony, also, it has long been the custom to deliver both to the sovereign and to the queen consort a ring previously blessed. Perhaps the earliest example of the use of such a ring is in the case of Judith, the step-mother of Alfred the Great. It is however in this instance a little difficult to determine whether the ring was bestowed upon the queen in virtue of her dignity as queen consort or of her nuptials to Ethelwulf.

cance.

Rings have also occasionally been used for other religious purposes. At an early date the small keys

which contained filings from the chains of St. Peter seem to have been welded to a band of metal and worn upon the finger as reliquaries. In more modern times rings have been constructed with ten small knobs or protuberances, and used for saying the rosary.

BABINGTON in Dict. Christ. Antiq.; LECLERCQ in Dict. d'arch. chrét., I (Paris, 1907), s. v. Anneaux; DELOCHE, Etude historique et archéologique sur les anneaux (Paris, 1900); Du SAUSSAY, Panoplia episcopalis (Paris, 1646), 175-294; DALTON, Catalogue of early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum (London, 1901); BARBIER DE MONTAULT, Le costume et les usages ecclésiastiques selon la tradition romaine (Paris, 1897-1901).

HERBERT THURSTON.

II. THE RING OF THE FISHERMAN.-The earliest mention of the Fisherman's ring worn by the popes is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew, Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed to seal their private letters with "the seal of the Fisherman", whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the