Love Me Do, Cherwell, 13 February 2004, pp. 12-13.
Forget roses; Miranda Kaufmann reveals how oranges and spoons used to be the most affectionate love tokens
“I’ve sent you these lines, which I hope you think clever,
To tell you I think I could love you forever.”
The tinsel and plastic holly got replaced by red hearts and cupids about a month ago. But beneath the crass commercialisation (have you noticed how we only complain about that when we’re single?) February 14th still provides an opportunity for even the most shy to do something sweet for their sweetheart.
When the tradition first got going, Valentines were for life, not just for February 14th. Agreeing to be someone’s Valentine was akin to getting engaged. Alternatively, the name of your Valentine was picked out of a hat and you were obliged to them for a whole year. Some believed your Valentine was simply the first unmarried person you saw on Valentine’s morning:
“Thee first I spied, and the first swain we see
In spite of Fortune shall our true love be.”
- John Gay, 18th century.
What constitutes a suitable Valentine’s gift has fluctuated through the centuries. Gloves were a traditional gift, mentioned in 1598:
“Love, to thee I send these gloves,
If you love me, Leave out the ‘g’
And make a pair of Loves.”
Garters were likewise not uncommon:
“Blush not, my fair, at what I send
‘Tis a fond present from a friend.
These garters, made of silken twine,
Were fancied by your Valentine.
The motto, dictated by Love,
Is simply THINK ON WHAT’S ABOVE”
While in 1660s, Pepys’s diary records that he dreaded the annual expense of the day, the gifts suggested in a 1797 Valentine’s writer included gloves, rolling pins, pin cushions, watches, roses and provides suitable verses to accompany each item. With an Orange:
“This golden fruit accept, my Dear,
though brighter far you do appear;
your ruby lips more sweet produce:
O, how I long to suck their juice!
Then let your mind to me incline,
As you are, this day, my Valentine."
Such verses were not always well accepted. The writer suggests the following as an answer:
“Good Sir, your present I received
And own I’m not a little grieved
To think you could such stuff produce
To tell me I’m full of juice!
Contented I advise you be
You are no Valentine for me.”
While oranges were slightly more exotic in 1797, that swain got off lightly compared to the following:
“If you would grant but my request.
I then most surely would be blest;
But if you treat me with disdain,
To hang myself I now would fain;
Then pray consent and make me thine,
To save from death your Valentine.”
Answer:
“Hang yourself for aught you're worth,
You were a scoundrel from your birth,
And if you cannot buy a rope,
Some fool will trust you one, I hope.”
Of course, these were merely suggested verses, and we have no idea if they were employed. Cards do survive that were clearly designed more to wound than to woo. One Victorian example pictures a woman wearing a dress with rather too many large buttons. The caption, cruelly concise, reads: “You think you look nice. I don’t.” Another, depicting a cruel caricature of a man, reads:
“Don’t get too proud when this you see,
For this is your portrait, drawn by me,
Correct it is, as good as any photograph
That you have taken, so do not laugh,
I send it to you and likewise decline
to have such a mug for my Valentine.
To add injury to insult, the recipients of these cruel Valentines were sometime forced to pay the postage on them, as we read in Post Office records of: “a Vulgar engraving with insulting lines underwritten, we should consider this a case for the return of the whole postage.” [February 17th, 1827].
Not always was it possible to get away with such cruelty. In France, effigies of all those who had rejected their Valentines were burnt and abused a week after the event. Ardent lovers used all sorts of gimmicks to make their cards particularly special. They employed the Language of Flowers [forget-me-not=hope and constancy; daisy=innocence; white lilies=purity, sweetness and modesty; tulip= beautiful eyes]. They copied out intricate love knots, which were inscribed with verses with no beginning and no end, reflecting eternal love:
“True love is a precious pleasure,
Rich delight unvalued treasure,
Two firme heartes in one meeting,
Grasping hand in hand ne’er fleeting,
Wreathlike like a maze entwining,
Two faire minds in one combining
Foe to faithless vowes perfidious,
True love is a knot religious
Dead the sinnes and flameing rise,
Through beauty’s soule reducing eyes,
Deafe to gold enchanting witches,
Love for vertue not for riches
Such is true loves boundless measure
True love is a precious pleasure.”
In the 1800s puzzle purses became popular: the Valentine was carefully folded, so its recipient had to re-fold it to read the messages and find the love tokens concealed therein. One Dutch Valentine, c.1790-1800, incorporated a transparency so that when held up to the light, the already depicted lover was revealed as placing his heart at the feet of his newly –apparent sweetheart. Welsh men traditionally carved love spoons, which their sweethearts wore round their necks on a ribbon.
A 19th century innovation was the flower cage or bee hive, where a thread lifted up the surface design to reveal a hidden picture. False banknotes issued by the Bank of Love, and telegrams from the Love Office Telegraphs were sent. The latter included the disclaimer in their small print: “Telegrams may be redirected from belle to belle by gentlemen with a large heart divided into small compartments, but in such cases they must be prepared to abide the consequences.”
The history of Valentines is one of ingenuity, passion, sweet consent or painful refusal. The variety of gifts that have been given over the years show that the best way to wrap up a present is with affection. I would advocate the revival of love gloves: one mitten each for your outside hand, the third an almost heart-shaped contraption that allows you to hold hands with your lover inside the glove.
“I’ve sent you these lines, which I hope you think clever,
To tell you I think I could love you forever.”
The tinsel and plastic holly got replaced by red hearts and cupids about a month ago. But beneath the crass commercialisation (have you noticed how we only complain about that when we’re single?) February 14th still provides an opportunity for even the most shy to do something sweet for their sweetheart.
When the tradition first got going, Valentines were for life, not just for February 14th. Agreeing to be someone’s Valentine was akin to getting engaged. Alternatively, the name of your Valentine was picked out of a hat and you were obliged to them for a whole year. Some believed your Valentine was simply the first unmarried person you saw on Valentine’s morning:
“Thee first I spied, and the first swain we see
In spite of Fortune shall our true love be.”
- John Gay, 18th century.
What constitutes a suitable Valentine’s gift has fluctuated through the centuries. Gloves were a traditional gift, mentioned in 1598:
“Love, to thee I send these gloves,
If you love me, Leave out the ‘g’
And make a pair of Loves.”
Garters were likewise not uncommon:
“Blush not, my fair, at what I send
‘Tis a fond present from a friend.
These garters, made of silken twine,
Were fancied by your Valentine.
The motto, dictated by Love,
Is simply THINK ON WHAT’S ABOVE”
While in 1660s, Pepys’s diary records that he dreaded the annual expense of the day, the gifts suggested in a 1797 Valentine’s writer included gloves, rolling pins, pin cushions, watches, roses and provides suitable verses to accompany each item. With an Orange:
“This golden fruit accept, my Dear,
though brighter far you do appear;
your ruby lips more sweet produce:
O, how I long to suck their juice!
Then let your mind to me incline,
As you are, this day, my Valentine."
Such verses were not always well accepted. The writer suggests the following as an answer:
“Good Sir, your present I received
And own I’m not a little grieved
To think you could such stuff produce
To tell me I’m full of juice!
Contented I advise you be
You are no Valentine for me.”
While oranges were slightly more exotic in 1797, that swain got off lightly compared to the following:
“If you would grant but my request.
I then most surely would be blest;
But if you treat me with disdain,
To hang myself I now would fain;
Then pray consent and make me thine,
To save from death your Valentine.”
Answer:
“Hang yourself for aught you're worth,
You were a scoundrel from your birth,
And if you cannot buy a rope,
Some fool will trust you one, I hope.”
Of course, these were merely suggested verses, and we have no idea if they were employed. Cards do survive that were clearly designed more to wound than to woo. One Victorian example pictures a woman wearing a dress with rather too many large buttons. The caption, cruelly concise, reads: “You think you look nice. I don’t.” Another, depicting a cruel caricature of a man, reads:
“Don’t get too proud when this you see,
For this is your portrait, drawn by me,
Correct it is, as good as any photograph
That you have taken, so do not laugh,
I send it to you and likewise decline
to have such a mug for my Valentine.
To add injury to insult, the recipients of these cruel Valentines were sometime forced to pay the postage on them, as we read in Post Office records of: “a Vulgar engraving with insulting lines underwritten, we should consider this a case for the return of the whole postage.” [February 17th, 1827].
Not always was it possible to get away with such cruelty. In France, effigies of all those who had rejected their Valentines were burnt and abused a week after the event. Ardent lovers used all sorts of gimmicks to make their cards particularly special. They employed the Language of Flowers [forget-me-not=hope and constancy; daisy=innocence; white lilies=purity, sweetness and modesty; tulip= beautiful eyes]. They copied out intricate love knots, which were inscribed with verses with no beginning and no end, reflecting eternal love:
“True love is a precious pleasure,
Rich delight unvalued treasure,
Two firme heartes in one meeting,
Grasping hand in hand ne’er fleeting,
Wreathlike like a maze entwining,
Two faire minds in one combining
Foe to faithless vowes perfidious,
True love is a knot religious
Dead the sinnes and flameing rise,
Through beauty’s soule reducing eyes,
Deafe to gold enchanting witches,
Love for vertue not for riches
Such is true loves boundless measure
True love is a precious pleasure.”
In the 1800s puzzle purses became popular: the Valentine was carefully folded, so its recipient had to re-fold it to read the messages and find the love tokens concealed therein. One Dutch Valentine, c.1790-1800, incorporated a transparency so that when held up to the light, the already depicted lover was revealed as placing his heart at the feet of his newly –apparent sweetheart. Welsh men traditionally carved love spoons, which their sweethearts wore round their necks on a ribbon.
A 19th century innovation was the flower cage or bee hive, where a thread lifted up the surface design to reveal a hidden picture. False banknotes issued by the Bank of Love, and telegrams from the Love Office Telegraphs were sent. The latter included the disclaimer in their small print: “Telegrams may be redirected from belle to belle by gentlemen with a large heart divided into small compartments, but in such cases they must be prepared to abide the consequences.”
The history of Valentines is one of ingenuity, passion, sweet consent or painful refusal. The variety of gifts that have been given over the years show that the best way to wrap up a present is with affection. I would advocate the revival of love gloves: one mitten each for your outside hand, the third an almost heart-shaped contraption that allows you to hold hands with your lover inside the glove.
