ENGLISH
HERALDRY

Early Popularity of Heraldry in England— Origin of English Heraldry; Definition; Characteristics; Developments; Early Uses; not connected with Earlier Systems— Ancient Heraldry— Past and Present Treatment of the Subject.

“What! Is it possible? not know the figures of Heraldry! Of what could your father be thinking?” —Rob Roy.

The sentiment unquestionably was his own which Sir Walter Scott made delightful Di Vernon express when, with indignant surprise, she asked Frank Osbaldistone of what his father could have been thinking, that he had been permitted to grow up without any knowledge of Heraldry. Sir Walter was right in his estimate of the high value of Heraldry as an element of education: and, in professing herself a votaress of the Herald’s “gentle science,” it was quite right in Di Vernon to suggest to other ladies that it would be well for them if Heraldry should find favour in their eyes also. The age of Rob Roy, however, was far from being 2 in harmony with heraldic associations: nor was the author of “Waverley” himself permitted to accomplish more, than to lead the way to that revival of a popular sympathy with every expression of early Art, which now forms one of the most remarkable characteristics of our own era.

In the olden time, in England, the love of Heraldry, which was prevalent amongst all classes, was based upon an intelligent appreciation of its worthiness. A part of the feudal system of the Middle Ages, and at once derived from the prevailing form of thought and feeling, and imparting to it a brilliant colouring peculiar to itself, Heraldry exercised a powerful influence upon the manners and habits of the people amongst whom it was in use. By our early ancestors, accordingly, as Mr. Montagu has so happily written, “little given to study of any kind, a knowledge of Heraldry was considered indispensable:” to them it was the “outward sign of the spirit of chivalry, the index, also, to a lengthened chronicle of doughty deeds.” And this Heraldry grew up, spontaneously and naturally, out of the circumstances and requirements of those times. It came into existence, because it was needed for practical use; it was accepted and cherished, because it did much more than fulfil its avowed purpose. At first, simply useful to distinguish particular individuals, especially in war and at the tournament, English Heraldry soon became popular; and then, with no less rapidity, it rose to high honour and dignity.

From the circumstance that it first found its special use in direct connection with military equipments, knightly exercises, and the mêlée of actual battle, mediæval Heraldry has also been entitled Armory. Men wore the ensigns of Heraldry about their persons, embroidered upon the garments that partially covered their armour,—and so they called them Coats-of-Arms: they bore these same ensigns on their shields,—and they called them Shields-of-Arms: and 3 in their Armorial Banners and Pennons they again displayed the very same insignia, floating in the wind high above their heads, from the shafts of their lances.

The Heraldry or Armory of England, an honourable and honoured member of the illustrious family of mediæval European Heraldry, may be defined as a symbolical and pictorial language, in which figures, devices, and colours are employed instead of letters. Each heraldic composition has its own definite and complete significance, conveyed through its direct connection with some particular individual, family, dignity, or office. Every such heraldic composition, also, is a true legal possession, held and maintained by an express right and title: and it is hereditary, like other real property, in accordance with certain laws and precedents of inheritance. But in this respect heraldic insignia are singular and unlike other property, inasmuch as it is a general rule that they cannot be alienated, exchanged, or transferred otherwise than by inheritance or other lawful succession. Exceptions to this rule, when they are observed occasionally to have occurred, show clearly their own exceptional character, and consequently they confirm the true authority of the rule itself. It will be understood, as a necessary quality of its hereditary nature, that the significance of an heraldic composition, while “definite and complete” in itself, admits of augmentation and expansion through its association with successive generations. Thus, the Royal Shield of Edward III. is “complete” as the heraldic symbol of that great monarch, and of the realm under his rule: and yet this same shield, equally “complete” (with one simple modification) as the heraldic symbol of each successive Sovereign till the death of Elizabeth, has its significance infinitely augmented and expanded through its hereditary association with all the Sovereigns of the Houses of Plantagenet and Tudor.

Until the concluding quarter of the twelfth century, the 4 traces of the existence of Heraldry are faint and few in number. Early in the thirteenth century the new science began to establish itself firmly amongst our ancestors of that age; and it is certain that, as soon as its character and capabilities were in any degree understood aright, it grew speedily into favour; so that in the reign of Henry III. (A.D. 1216-1272) Heraldry in England had confirmed its own claims to be regarded as a Science, by being in possession of a system, and a classification of its own.

The Crusades, those extraordinary confederacies without a parallel in the history of civilised nations, were themselves so thoroughly a matter of religious chivalry, that it was only an inevitable result of their existence that they should give a powerful impulse to the establishment and development of Heraldry in its early days.

But Heraldry, from the time of its first appearance in England, was found to be valuable for other uses besides those which so intimately connected it with both real and imitative warfare, with the fierce life-and-death conflict of the battle-field, and with the scarcely less perilous struggle for honour and renown in the lists. Very soon after the Norman Conquest, in consequence of their presence being required to give validity to every species of legal document, Seals became instruments of the greatest importance; and it was soon obvious that heraldic insignia, with a representation of the knightly shield upon which they were displayed, were exactly suited to satisfy every requirement of the seal-engraver. By such means Heraldry became interwoven as well with the peaceful concerns of everyday life, as with the display of martial splendour and the turmoil of war.

Many attempts have been made to set aside the opinion that the Heraldry of the Middle Ages in England was a fresh creation, a production of indigenous growth: and 5 great is the ingenuity that has been brought into action to carry back the Heraldry of our own country from the commencement of the thirteenth century through the previous elementary stages of its existence, in order to trace its direct lineal descent from certain decorative and symbolical devices that were in use at much earlier periods. The careful and diligent researches, however, of the most learned Heralds have at present led them almost unanimously to reject all such theories as these, as speculative and uncertain. At the same time, it is an indisputable fact that, in all ages of the world, and amongst all races of men, some form of symbolical expression has been both in use and in favour. And it is equally true that this symbolism, whatever it may have been, has generally been found in some way associated with a military life and with the act of warfare. Soldiers, and particularly those in high command, have always delighted to adorn their shields with devices that sometimes were significant of their own condition or exploits, or sometimes had reference to their country, or even to their families; and, in like manner, it has been a universal custom to display similar devices and figures in military standards of all kinds. At the time of the Conquest, as is shown in the famous Bayeux Tapestry of the Conqueror’s Consort, the shields and standards of both Normans and Anglo-Saxons were painted, and perhaps the latter were embroidered, with various figures and devices; but certainly without any heraldic significance or any personal associations being indicated by these figures and devices, which bear a general resemblance to the insignia of the Legions and Cohorts of Imperial Rome. Figures Nos. 5 and 6 give representations of the standards that are introduced into the Bayeux Tapestry. The same species of decoration, consisting chiefly of painted patterns, with discs, stars, crescents, and some other figures, continued in use in our own country until superseded by a true Heraldry; and may 6 also be assumed to have prevailed in England in much earlier times.

Nos. 5 and 6.—Lance Flags—Bayeux Tapestry.

In still more remote ages a more decided heraldic system was displayed upon signets, coins, shields, and standards. In this ancient Heraldry, if so it may be termed, occasionally the important and characteristic quality of hereditary association in certain devices is apparent. Thus, Virgil (Æneid, vii. 657) assigns to Aventinus “insigne paternum” upon his shield—his hereditary device, derived by him from his father. But these devices generally appear to have their significance in a greater or a less degree restricted, amongst the ancients, to certain particular incidents; consequently in all these examples there is nothing to show that the man who bore one device at one time, did not bear another device at another time.1 For example, Æschylus, the Greek tragedian (B.C. 600), has recorded that Capaneus, when attacking the 7 city of Thebes, bore on his shield the figure of a warrior carrying a lighted torch, with the motto, “I will fire the city!” But, on another occasion, we have reason to believe that the same Capaneus bore quite a different device, applicable to that other occasion; and this deprives these ancient devices, heraldic as they are in their general character, of that special personal association which true Heraldry requires and, indeed, implies. The beautiful painted vases, the works of Greek artists, that are discovered in such extraordinary numbers and in perfect preservation in some parts of Italy, constantly give most striking representations of the shields of ancient Greek warriors and other personages, with what appear heraldic devices displayed upon them. These shields illustrate, in a remarkable manner, both the appropriate significance of particular devices, and the usage then prevalent for a variety of devices to be borne on different occasions by the same individual. Shields upon vases in the collections in the Museum of the Louvre at Paris, and in the British Museum, where they are easy of access, contain a great variety of devices. The examples, Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, are from our own National Collections. No. 7, the shield black, the border and the pegasus red; No. 8, the shield black, and the two dolphins white; No. 9, the shield black, with a border adorned with red discs, the serpent white; No. 10, the shield black, with 8 purple border, the three human legs conjoined white. The shields, Nos. 9 and 10, are both borne by the goddess ΑΘΗΝΗ (Minerva); and the remarkable device displayed on No. 10 is also found on the coins of ancient Sicily. Other similar shields display lions, horses, dogs, wild boars, fish, birds, clusters of leaves, chariots and chariot-wheels, votive tripods, serpents, scorpions, with many others, including occasional examples of human figures. In another collection I have seen an anchor and an Amazon’s bow. A device differing from that in No. 10 only in having the conjoined limbs in armour, will be found in our own English Heraldry to be the armorial ensign of the Isle of Man.

This Heraldry of Antiquity is to be regarded as the predecessor, and not as the ancestor of the Heraldry of England. There may be much that is common to both; but, there is nothing to show the later system to have been a 9 lineal descendant from the earlier. It would seem much more likely that Heraldry, when it had been evolved, adopted ready made the emblems of an older civilisation for its own purpose, often appropriating at the same time the symbolism attaching to the emblems. The Heraldry, therefore, that has flourished, declined, and now is in the act of reviving in our own country in almost the full vigour of its best days, I shall treat as an independent science, proceeding from a single source, and from thence flowing onwards with varied fortunes, side by side with the chequered chronicles of England. In the course of its progress from the palmy days of Edward III., it has had to encounter, in a degree without precedent or parallel, that most painful and mischievous of trials—the excessive admiration of injudicious friends. Hence, Heraldry was brought into disrepute, and even into contempt, by the very persons who loved it with a genuine but a most unwise love. In process of time, no nonsense appeared too extravagant, and no fable too wild, to be engrafted upon the grave dignity of the Herald’s early science. Better times at length have succeeded. Heraldry now has friends and admirers, zealous as of old, whose zeal is guided aright by a sound judgment in alliance with a pure taste. Very much already has been accomplished to sweep away the amazing mass of absurdities and errors which had overwhelmed our English Heraldry, by such men as Nicholas, Nichols, Courthope, Seton, Planché, Walford, Montagu, and Lower: and the good work goes on and prospers, with the most cheering assurances of complete and triumphant success.

1. In his “Hand-book of Engraved Gems,” Mr. King maintains that “the devices on the signets of the ancients were both hereditary and unalterable, like our armorial bearings;” but, at the same time, he admits that the “armorial bearings,” which appear “on the shields of the Grecian heroes in the most ancient pictures extant, the Vase-paintings,” “seem to have been assumed at the caprice of the individual, like the knight’s cognisances at tournaments in the days of chivalry, and not to have been hereditary.”—“Hand-book,” page 216. Almost immediately, however, Mr. King adds, that traditions exist which represent the mythic heroes bearing “engraved on their signets the same devices that decorated their shields.” It would seem that the argument from such traditions would rather indicate the signet-devices to have been arbitrary, than the shield-devices to have been unalterable. While I readily admit the very interesting devices of antiquity to possess decided heraldic attributes, I cannot consider Mr. King to have shown that, as a general rule, they were held by the ancients themselves to have been either “unalterable” or “hereditary.” Possibly, further light may be thrown upon the hereditary quality of ancient Heraldry: but, I certainly do not expect to see any evidence adduced, which would establish a line of descent connecting the Mediæval Heraldry of England with any heraldic system of classic antiquity.

Seals: Monumental Effigies, &c.: Rolls of Arms, Official Heraldic Records, &c.— Earliest Heraldic Shields and Banners— Allusive Quality of Early Armory— Attributed Arms.

“Let us begin at the beginning.” —Pursuivant of Arms.

At the head of the earliest existing authorities in English Heraldry are Seals. To the fortunate circumstance of the legal importance attached to them we are indebted for the preservation of these equally interesting and valuable relics, in great variety and in very considerable numbers. The heraldic evidence of Seals is necessarily of the highest order. They are original works, possessing contemporaneous authority. Produced with peculiar care and approved by their first possessors, their original authenticity is confirmed by their continued use through successive generations.

Having been in use before the introduction and adoption of Heraldry in England, Seals enable us to compare the devices that preceded true Heraldry with the earliest that are truly heraldic: and thus they show that, in many instances, regular coats-of-arms were derived in their hereditary bearings from similar devices that had been adopted in the same families before the heraldic era. For example: the Seal of John Mundegumri, about A.D. 1175, bears a single fleur-de-lys, not placed upon a shield; and, accordingly, here is seen the origin of the three golden fleurs-de-lys, borne afterwards upon a blue shield by the descendants 11 of this John, the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglintoun. Again: the Seal of Walter Innes, A.D. 1431, displays the shield of arms of his house—three blue mullets (stars generally of five rays) on a field of silver, No. 11; and these mullets may be traced to the single star, that appears on the Seal of William Innes, or De Ynays, No. 12, appended to his deed of homage to Edward I., in the year 1295. I have selected these examples from the “Catalogue of Scottish Seals,” published by Mr. Laing, of Edinburgh, that I may be enabled here to refer in the highest terms of admiring commendation to that most excellent work. It is greatly to be desired that a corresponding publication should treat, with equal ability, of the Seals of England which, from the dawn of Heraldry, continue their admirable examples and illustrations throughout its career.

Monumental Effigies, Sepulchral Memorials, early Buildings, and early Stained Glass, frequently are rich in authoritative examples of “the figures of Heraldry.” In addition to the various forms and combinations of heraldic composition, these works illustrate the early style of drawing in favour with Heralds during the great eras of mediæval Art, and they have preserved to us most useful and suggestive representations of various devices in their proper heraldic aspect. In many instances the Heraldry of early Monuments and Architecture possesses a peculiar value, arising from the circumstance of the shields of arms and other insignia having been sculptured in low relief or outlined in incised lines, and consequently these devices 12 and compositions retain their original forms: and, in like manner, the original colouring of the Heraldry of Stained Glass remains safe from restoration or destruction, in consequence of the impossibility of re-painting it.

The early written Literature of English Heraldry is calculated to throw but little light upon either its true character or its history. In addition, however, to the various and numerous official documents of the Heralds’ College, several examples of one particular class of heraldic record have been preserved, the value of which cannot be too highly estimated. These are Rolls of Arms—long, narrow strips of parchment, on which are written lists of the names and titles of certain personages, with full descriptions of their armorial insignia. The circumstances under which these Rolls were prepared are obviously not identical and for the most part unknown: but, the exact accuracy of their statements has been established beyond all question by careful and repeated comparison with Seals and other Monuments, and also with Documents which give only an indirect and yet not the less conclusive corroboration to the records of the Rolls of Arms themselves. The earliest of these Rolls at present known date about A.D. 1240 to 1245; and since in these earliest Rolls a very decided technical language is uniformly adopted, and the descriptions are all given in palpable accordance with fixed rules which must then have been well understood, we infer that by the end of the first half of the thirteenth century there was in existence a system for the regulation of such matters. Heraldry was perhaps recognised as a Science, with fixed terms and rules for describing heraldic devices and figures, and established laws to direct the granting, the assuming, and the bearing of arms.

The most interesting of these early heraldic Rolls records, in a metrical form, and in Norman-French, the siege and capture of the fortress of Carlaverock, on the Scottish border, by Edward I., in the year 1300. In 13 addition to very curious descriptions of the muster of the Royal troops at Carlisle, their march northwards, and the incidents of the siege (which last have a strange resemblance to what Homer has recorded of incidents that took place during the siege of Troy), this Roll gives some graphic personal sketches of the princes, nobles, bannerets, and knights, whose banners and shields of arms are set forth in it with minute exactness. This Roll, as well as several others, has been published, with translations and very valuable notes.

In the Manuscript Collections of the British Museum also, and of other Libraries both public and private, and in the County Histories, and other works of a cognate character, there are many documents which contain various important records and illustrations of early English Heraldry.

In any references to authorities, that it may appear desirable for me to make in the course of this and the following chapters, I must be as concise as possible. A direct reference to Seals, Effigies, &c., will be necessary in each case: but, in referring to Rolls of Arms, it will be sufficient to denote the period of the authority in general terms. Accordingly, I shall refer, not to each particular Roll, but collectively to those of each of the following reigns—Henry III., Edward I., Edward II., Edward III., and Richard II.; and these references will severally be made thus,—(H. 3), (E. 1), (E. 2), (E. 3), and (R. 2).

Amongst the earliest Shields and Banners of Arms, all of them remarkable for their simplicity, many are found to be without any device whatever, their distinction consisting simply in some peculiarity in the colouring. Such examples may be considered to have been derived from pre-heraldic times, and transmitted, without any change or addition, to later periods. The renowned Banner of the Knights Templars, by them called Beauseant, No. 13, is black above and white below, which is said to have 14 denoted that, while fierce to their foes, they were gracious to their friends. An ancient Banner of the Earl of Leicester (H. 3) is white and red, the division being made by a vertical indented line; No. 14. This design, however, was not the coat of arms of the earl. The Shield of the ducal House of Brittany, closely connected with the Royal Family of England, is simply of the fur ermine; No. 15. The Shield of Waldegrave is silver and red, as in No. 16: and that of Fitz Warine (H. 3), also of silver and red, is treated as in No. 17.

Some of the earliest of the simple devices of true Heraldry were evidently adopted from the structural formation (or from a structural strengthening) of the Shields, on which they were displayed. Thus, a raised border, and bands of metal variously disposed in order to impart additional strength to a shield, with distinct colouring, would produce a series of heraldic compositions. A good example occurs in the shield of an early Effigy at Whitworth, Durham, No. 18, in which the heads of the rivets or screws employed to fix the border on the shield, appear to have been made to assume 15 the character of heraldic additions to the simple border and horizontal bands. Other primary devices of the same simple order, which in like manner may have had a structural origin, I shall consider in detail in subsequent chapters. (See particularly Chapter VI.)

The central boss, at once an appropriate ornament of an early shield, and an important addition to its defensive qualities, when extended in the form of decorative metal-work, would readily suggest a variety of heraldic figures, and amongst others several beautiful modifications of a simple cruciform device which it might be made to assume. The figure called an escarbuncle, No. 19, is simply a shield-boss developed into decorative structural metal-work. This figure appears in the Temple Church, London, upon the shield of an Effigy, which Mr. J. Gough Nichols has shown to have been incorrectly attributed to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex.

The greater number of the earliest devices that appear in English Heraldry were adopted for the express purpose of their having some allusive association, through a similarity of sound in their own names or descriptions with the names and titles or the territories of certain persons, dignities, and places. In exact accordance with the principles and aim of primitive mediæval Heraldry, and in perfect harmony with the sentiments and requirements of the age in which it grew up into a science, devices of this kind addressed themselves in very plain and expressive language to the men of their own era. In them they saw the kind of symbolical writing that they could remember, as well as understand. 16 They also evidently liked the quaint style of suggestiveness that was a characteristic of these allusive devices: and, it is more than probable that there frequently lurked in them a humorous significance, which by no means tended to detract from their popularity. Devices of this same order have never ceased to be in favour with Heralds and lovers of Heraldry. They were used in the sixteenth century at least as commonly as in the thirteenth; but, as would be expected, in the later period they often became complicated, far-fetched, and extravagant.

This allusive quality, distinguished in English Heraldry as “canting,” has commonly been misunderstood, and therefore incorrectly estimated, by modern writers, who have supposed it to be a fantastic conceit of the Heralds of a degenerate age. By writers such as these, accordingly, all “canting arms” (by French Heralds called “armes parlantes”) have been absurdly assigned to a separate class, in their estimation having an inferior heraldic grade.

The prevalence of the allusive quality in early arms may be assumed to have been even more general than is now apparent, since so many of the original echoes and allusions have become obscured or altogether lost in the lapse of time, and through the changes that have taken place since the accession of Henry III. in the French language and in our own also. The use of the Latin language, again, in the Middle Ages led, at later periods, to translations of names; French names, too, were translated in the same manner into English equivalents: and, at other times, the sound of a Latin or a French (Anglo-Norman) name was transferred to an English representative having a somewhat similar sound, without the slightest reference to the original signification. Who, for example, in the name of Montagu now recognises instinctively the original allusion to a mountain with its sharply peaked crests, and so discerns the probable allusive origin of the sharp triple points of the devices on 17 the old Montacute shield, No. 20? It is easy to see how much must have been unconsciously done, by such changes in names and their associations, to obliterate what once was clear, significant, and expressive. I must be content here to give, simply by way of explanatory illustration, a very few examples of allusive arms; and, in so doing, it may be well for me to observe that the early Heralds of our country always employed the French language as it was spoken in their own times in England as well as in France. In the time of Henry III., G. de Lucy has for his arms three lucies—fish now known as pike: Robert Quency has a quintefueil—a flower of five leaves: Thos. Corbett has two corbeaux—ravens: A. de Swyneburne has “trois testes de senglier”—three heads of the wild boar, or swine: (E. 2), Sir R. de Eschales has six escallops—shells: Sir G. de Trompintoun, of Trumpington, near Cambridge, has two trompes—trumpets: Sir J. Bordoun has three bourdons—pilgrim’s staves: Sir G. Rossel has three roses: and Sir O. Heron has the same number of herons. So also, for the Spanish provinces Castile and Leon, a castle and a lion: for Falconer, a falcon: Butler, cups: Forester, bugle-horns: Arundel, hirondelles—swallows: Wingfield, wings: Shelley, shells: Pigot, pick-axes: Leveson, leaves: and Martel, martels—hammers. The Broom-plant with its seed-pods, in Latin Planta genista, No. 21, gave its name to the Plantagenet Dynasty. I shall hereafter add several other curious examples of devices of this class, when treating of Badges, Rebuses, and Mottoes.

There is one class of early arms, which it is important 18 that students of Armory should observe with especial care, lest they be led by them into unexpected errors. These are arms that were invented after Heraldry had been established, and then were assigned to personages of historical eminence who had lived and died before the true heraldic era. In the days in which every person of prominence bore heraldic arms, and when Heraldry had attained to high renown, it was natural enough to consider that suitable armorial devices and compositions should be assigned to the men of mark in earlier ages, both to distinguish them in accordance with the usage then prevalent, and to treat their memory with becoming honour. Such arms were also in a sense necessary to their descendants for the purposes of quartering. No proof can be shown that the arms said to have been borne by William the Conqueror are not of this order—made for him, that is, and attributed to him in after times, but of which he himself had no knowledge. These arms, No. 22, differ from the true Royal Insignia of England only in there being two, instead of three, lions displayed upon the shield. The arms of Edward the Confessor, No. 2, were certainly devised long after his death, and they appear to have been suggested to the heralds of Henry III. by one of the Confessor’s coins: the shield is blue, and the cross and five birds (martlets) are gold. In like manner, the arms attributed to the earlier Saxon Sovereigns of England, No. 23, a gold cross upon 19 blue, are really not earlier than the thirteenth century. The arms, No. 2, having been assigned to St. Edward, a patron saint of mediæval England, were long regarded with peculiar reverence. I have placed them, drawn from a fine shield of the thirteenth century in Westminster Abbey, to take a part in forming a group at the head of my Preface, with the shields of the two other saintly Patrons of “old England,” St. George and St. Edmund, No. 1 and No. 3—a red cross on a silver shield, and three golden crowns upon a shield of blue.

The English Heraldry that is now in existence— First Debasement of Heraldry— Later Debasement— Revival of English Heraldry— Heraldic Art.

“Sans changer.” —Motto of Stanley.

English Heraldry, as it exists amongst us in our own times, is the very same Heraldry that flourished under the kindly influences of the greatest of the Plantagenets, though perhaps modified in some details by changed circumstances. It is not of a new, but of the old, Heraldry of England that I am setting forth the elements. Our Heraldry has had to pass from good days to bad ones: and, having gone through the worst of bad days, the circle at length has revolved, so that we are witnessing the happy change of a vigorous heraldic revival. Heraldry already enjoys a very great popularity; and, without a doubt, it will become still more popular, in the degree that it is better and more generally understood. For its complete ultimate success, the present revival of true English Heraldry must mainly depend upon the manner in which we apply the lessons that may be learned by us, no less from the warnings of the recent evil days of the science, than from the example of the brilliant ones that preceded them long ago. Nor should we deal faithfully with our revived Heraldry, were we not to form a just estimate of whatever was imperfect in the best era of its early history, in order to apply to present improvement the lessons that thus also may be learned. It must be admitted that the Heralds and Heraldic writers of the 17th century, following the footsteps of some of their immediate predecessors, led the 21 way towards the thorough debasement of their own science. Their example was not without effect upon those who followed them—men quite equal to the perpetration of whatever had not been already done to bring Heraldry into contempt. This was accomplished first, by gravely discoursing, in early heraldic language, upon the imaginary Heraldry of the patriarchal and antediluvian worthies: making a true coat of arms of Joseph’s “coat of many colours,” giving armorial ensigns to David and Gideon, to Samson and Joshua, to “that worthy gentilman Japheth,” to Jubal and Tubal-Cain, and crowning the whole by declaring that our common progenitor, Adam, bore on his own red shield Eve’s shield of silver, after the mediæval fashion that would denote his wife to have been an heiress!

Then there set in a flood of allegorical and fantastic absurdities, by which the fair domain of Heraldry was absolutely overwhelmed. Wild and strange speculations, in a truly vain philosophy, interwoven with distorted images of both the myths and the veritable records of classic antiquity, were either deduced from armorial blazonry, or set forth as the sources from whence it was developed. Fables and anecdotes, having reference to less remote eras, were produced in great variety and in copious abundance. The presence in blazon of animated beings of whatsoever kinds, whether real or fabulous, led to rambling disquisitions in the most ludicrously unnatural of imaginary Natural History. From every variety also of inanimate figure and device, the simplest no less than the more elaborate, after the same fashion some “moral” was sought to be extracted. The technical language, too, of the early Heralds, had its expressive simplicity travestied by a complicated jargon, replete with marvellous assertions, absurd doctrines, covert allusions devoid of consistent significance, quaint and yet trivial conceits, and bombastic rhapsodies. Even the nomenclature of the Tinctures was not exempt from a characteristic 22 course of “treatment,” two distinctive additional sets of titles for gold, silver, blue, red, &c., having been devised and substituted for those in general use (see Chapter V.); of these the one set was derived from the names of the Planets, and employed to emblazon the insignia of Sovereign Princes; and the other set, derived from the names of Jewels, was applied to the arms of Nobles. In the midst of all the rubbish, however, which they thus delighted to accumulate, there may generally be discovered in the works of writers of this class, here and there, references to earlier usages and illustrations of original principles which, in the extreme dearth of genuine early heraldic literature, are both interesting and of real value. Nor are these writings without their value, estimated from another point of view, as contemporaneous and unconscious commentaries upon the history of their own times. It must be added that, in more than a few instances, beneath the surface there lurks a vein of both political and personal allusion, of which the point and bearing now are altogether lost, or at the most are only open to conjecture and surmise. And, again, even in their most extravagant and frivolous lucubrations, the heraldic writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are not without touches of humour; as when Gerard Legh (A.D. 1562), discoursing of “beastes,” remarks of the “Ramme” that in “aucthoritye he is a Duke, for hee hath the leadyng of multitudes and flockes of his own kynde;” and of the ass, “I could write much of this beaste, but that it might be thought it were to mine own glorie.”

The adoption of additional quarterings for the purpose of display, and the introduction of more complicated compositions in the time of Henry VIII., were speedily followed by the substitution of pictorial representations, often of a most frivolous and inconsistent character, and many of them altogether unintelligible without written explanations, instead of the simple, dignified, and expressive 23 insignia of true Heraldry. For example, in the year 1760, a grant of arms was made to a Lincolnshire family named Tetlow, which, with thirteen other figures, includes the representation of a book duly clasped and ornamented, having on it a silver penny; while above the book rests a dove, holding in its beak a crow-quill! This was to commemorate one of the family having, with a crow-quill, actually achieved the exploit of writing the Lord’s Prayer within the compass of a silver penny. Amongst the most objectionable of the arms of this class are those which were granted to distinguished naval and military officers—arms, that certainly ought to have conferred fresh honour on illustrious names, instead of inflicting dishonour upon Heraldry itself. Battles by sea and land, landscapes and sea views and fortified cities, flags of all kinds, with medals and ribbons, all of them intermixed with devices not quite so unheraldic, abound in these extravagant compositions. The arms of Lord Nelson, and still more recently those of General Lord Gough, may be specified as flagrant examples of this degenerate pictorial Heraldry. The Duke of Wellington happily escaped a similar infliction. It would be but too easy to enumerate other equally inconsistent and unheraldic compositions: but, I must be content to refer only to the armorial shield granted to the great astronomer, Sir John Herschel, on which is displayed his forty-foot reflecting telescope, with all its apparatus! These, and all such violations of heraldic truth and consistency, though in some instances they are of very recent date, are now to be assigned to a closed chapter in the history of English Heraldry. But in considering them it must not be forgotten that this kind of grant was not confined to this country, but flourished to a still greater extent abroad.

In our present revival of English Heraldry, it is essential that we impress upon our minds a correct conception 24 of the twofold character of all Heraldry—that it is a Science, and also that it is an Art. We have to vindicate the reputation of our Heraldry, as well in the one capacity as in the other. Of very noble heraldic Art we happily possess original examples in great numbers, which have been bequeathed to us, as a precious inheritance, from “the brave days of old.” The style of Art that we see exemplified in these early authorities we may accept almost unreservedly as our own style; and we must aspire to sympathise heartily with their genuine heraldic feeling. In our representation, also, of almost all inanimate and natural objects in our own armorial compositions, as a general rule, we may trust confidently to the same good guidance. The early method of representation, indeed, must form the basis of our system of treatment; and, we may faithfully adhere to this rule, and yet occasionally we may find it to be desirable that the form and the accessories of some devices should be adapted to modern associations. In truth, it is not by merely copying the works of even the greatest of the early heraldic artists, that we are to become masters in heraldic Art. When the copies are good, copying is always valuable, as a branch of study; but, if it be our highest and only aim to reproduce the expressions of other men’s thoughts, then copying is worse than worthless. What we have to do is to express our heraldic Art in the spirit of the early Heralds, to keep it in harmony with what, in the best of the early days, they would have accepted as the highest heraldic Art, and at the same time to show that our heraldic Art in very truth is our own.

No. 24.— Prince John of Eltham, A.D. 1336.

The treatment of animate creatures in Heraldry requires a certain kind, and also a certain degree, of conventionalism. Here, as before, in the early Heralds we have excellent masters; but, here we must follow their teaching with more of reserve, and with cautious steps. We recognise the happy 25 consistency of the conventionalism which they displayed in their representation of animate creatures, without any purpose to adopt it in the same degree with them. Had the early Heralds been more familiar with the living presence of the various creatures that they summoned to enter into their service, without a doubt they would have represented them with a much closer conformity to Nature. We must apply our better knowledge, as we may feel confident the early Heralds would have applied a similar knowledge had they been able to have acquired it. Heraldic animals of every kind—lions, eagles, dolphins, and all others—must be so far subjected to a conventional treatment, that they will not exhibit a strictly natural appearance: and, on the other hand, being carefully preserved from all exaggerated conventionalisms, they must approach as near to Nature as a definite conventional rendering of natural truth will admit. The lions of the early Heralds, spirited beasts always, generally show a decided disposition to exhibit their heraldic sympathies in excess. They have in them rather too much that is heraldic conventionalism, and not quite enough that is natural lion. And, with the first symptoms of decline in heraldic Art, the treatment of lions showed signs of a tendency to carry conventionalism to the utmost extravagance. The same remarks are applicable to eagles. It must be added, however, that truly admirable examples of heraldic animals occasionally may be found as late even as the commencement of the sixteenth century, as in the chantry of Abbot Ramryge, in the Abbey Church at St. Alban’s, and in King’s College Chapel at Cambridge. It must be our care to blend together the true attributes of the living lion and eagle, and those also of other living creatures, with the traditional peculiarities of their heraldic representatives. And we must extend the corresponding application of the same principles of treatment to imaginary beings and heraldic monsters, as they occur in our Heraldry. 26 The shield, No. 24, of Prince John of Eltham, younger brother of Edward III., finely sculptured with his effigy in alabaster, in Westminster Abbey (A.D. 1336), and in perfect preservation, gives us characteristic examples of lions of the best heraldic era, their frames, attenuated as they are, being perfect types of fierce elasticity. With this shield may be grouped others, having admirably suggestive examples of heraldic lions of a somewhat later date, which are preserved upon the monuments of Edward III. and the Black Prince, severally at Westminster and Canterbury. I shall refer to these fine shields again, and to other admirable examples with them, hereafter (Chapter IX.). The conventionalism in all these examples, however felicitous the manner in which it is treated in them, is very decidedly exaggerated. These examples, and others such as these, are not the less 27 valuable to us because their teaching includes an illustration of the excesses that we must always be careful to avoid. I may here observe, that on the subject of armorial Art I leave my examples (all of them selected from the most characteristic authorities, and engraved with scrupulous fidelity) for the most part to convey their own lessons and suggestions: my own suggestion to students being that, in such living creatures as they may represent in their compositions, while they are careful to preserve heraldic consistency and to express heraldic feeling, they exhibit beauty of form coupled with freedom of action and an appropriate expression. “Freedom of action” I intend to imply more than such skilful drawing, as will impart to any particular creature the idea of free movement of frame and limb: it refers also to repeated representations of the same creature, under the same heraldic conditions of motive and attitude. And, here “freedom of action” implies those slight, yet significant, modifications of minor details which, without in the least degree affecting armorial truth, prevent even the semblance of monotonous reiteration. Thus, at Beverley, in the Percy Shrine in the Minster, upon a shield of England the three lions are all heraldically the same; but, there is nothing of sameness in them nevertheless, because in each one there is some little variety in 28 the turn of the head, or in the placing of the paws, or in the sweep of the tail. And again, in Westminster Hall, the favourite badge of Richard II., a white hart, chained, and in an attitude of rest, is repeated as many as eighty-three times; and all are equally consistent with heraldic truth and accuracy, without any one of them being an exact counterpart of any other. In Nos. 25 and 26 two examples are shown from this remarkable series of representations of this beautiful badge, each one different from the other, and yet both really the same.

The Language of Heraldry— The Nomenclature— Style and Forms of Expression— Blazon— The Shield: its Parts, Points, Divisions, Dividing Lines, Varieties of Form, and Heraldic Treatment.

“The shield hangs down on every breast.” —Lord of the Isles.

The Language of Heraldry.—The original language of English Heraldry was the Norman-French, which may also be designated Anglo-Norman, habitually spoken at the Court of England in the early heraldic era. After a while, a mixed language succeeded, compounded of English and the original Norman-French; and this mixed language still continues in use.

Nomenclature.—Like its language, the Nomenclature of English Heraldry is of a mixed character, in part technical and peculiar to itself, and in part the same that is in common use. Thus, many of the figures and devices of Heraldry have their peculiar heraldic names and titles, while still more bear their ordinary designations. Descriptive terms, whether expressed in English or in French (Anglo-Norman), are generally employed with a special heraldic intention and significance. In the earliest Roll of Arms known to be now in existence, which was compiled (as appears from internal evidence) between the years 1240 and 1245, the Nomenclature is the same that is found 30 in Rolls and other heraldic documents of a later date. This fact of the existence of a definite Nomenclature at that time, proves that before the middle of the thirteenth century the Heraldry of England was subject to a systematic course of treatment, and had become established and recognised as a distinct and independent Science.

Style and Forms of Expression.—With the Nomenclature, a settled Style and certain fixed technical Forms of Expression were introduced and accepted in the thirteenth century; and, since that period, the Style and Forms of Expression have undergone only such comparatively slight modifications as tended to render them both more complete and more consistent. As it was at the first, it still is the essence of heraldic language to be concise yet complete, expressive, and also abounding in suggestions. Not a syllable is expressed that is not absolutely necessary; not a syllable omitted, the absence of which might possibly lead to any doubt or uncertainty. In the more matured style, the repetition of any important word in the same sentence is scrupulously avoided; and, where it would be required, another form of expression is substituted in its stead. Much meaning also is left to be implied and understood, through inference, either based upon certain accepted rules and established heraldic usages for the arrangement of the words and clauses of a sentence, or derived from the natural qualities and characteristic conditions of certain figures and devices: but, nothing is ever left to be inferred when an uncertain inference might possibly be adopted, or that can be understood clearly and with certainty only by means of an explicit statement. Superfluous words and particles of all kinds are altogether omitted. Descriptive epithets follow the nouns to which they refer: as, a red cross is styled a cross gules. The general rules, by which the arrangement of the words in heraldic descriptive sentences 31 is determined, will be found in the last subdivision of this chapter. Examples of heraldic Language, Nomenclature, Style and Forms of Expression, will be given in abundance throughout the following chapters and sections of this treatise. With these examples students will do well to familiarise themselves: then, let them prepare additional examples for that “practice,” which (as Parker’s “Glossary of Heraldry” says, p. 60) “alone will make perfect,” by writing down correct descriptions of heraldic compositions from the compositions themselves; after which process they may advantageously reverse the order of their study, and make drawings of these same (or, if they prefer it, of some other) heraldic compositions from their own written descriptions of them.

When any heraldic description of a figure, device, or composition has been completed, a statement is made to signify the person, family, community, or realm whose armorial ensign it may be. This is done by simply writing the appropriate name, after the last word of the description; or, by prefixing the word “for” before the name when it is placed in the same position. Thus, a description of the three lions of England is to be followed by the word—“England”; or, by the formula—“for England.” If preferred, with equal consistency the arrangement may be reversed, and the Name, with or without the prefix “for,” may precede the description: thus—“England,” or “For England,” three lions, &c. It is to be borne in remembrance, that armorial ensigns are personal inheritances, and—with the exception of Sovereign Princes—by comparison but very rarely relate to Titles and Dignities.

Blazon, Blazoning, Blazonry.—When a knight entered the lists at a tournament, his presence was announced by sound of trumpet or horn, after which the officers of arms, the official Heralds, declared his armorial 32 insignia—they “blazoned” his Arms. This term, “to blazon,” derived from the German word “blasen,” signifying “to blow a blast on a horn” (or, as one eminent German Herald prefers, from the old German word “blaze” or “blasse,” “a mark” or “sign”), in Heraldry really denotes either to describe any armorial figure, device, or composition in correct heraldic language; or to represent such figure, device, or composition accurately in form, position, arrangement, and colouring. But, as a matter of practical usage, pictorial representation is usually allied to the word “emblazon.” The word “blazon” also, as a noun, may be employed with a general and comprehensive signification to denote “Heraldry.”

The Shield:—its Parts, Points, and Divisions.—Their Shield, which the knights of the Middle Ages derived from the military usage of antiquity, and which contributed in so important a degree to their own defensive equipment, was considered by those armour-clad warriors to be peculiarly qualified to display their heraldic blazonry. And, in later times, when armour had ceased to be worn, and when shields no longer were actually used, a Shield continued to be regarded as the most appropriate vehicle for the same display. The Shield, then, which with its armorial devices constitutes a Shield of Arms, always is considered to display its blazonry upon its face or external surface. This blazoned surface of his shield the bearer, when holding it before his person, presents (or would present, were he so to hold it) towards those who confront him. The right and the left sides of the person of the bearer of a Shield, consequently, are covered by the right and left (in heraldic language, the dexter and sinister) sides of his shield: and so, from this it follows that the dexter and sinister sides of a Shield of Arms are severally opposite to the left and the right hands of all observers. The Parts and Points of an heraldic Shield, 33 which is also entitled an “Escutcheon,” are thus distinguished:—

In blazoning the Divisions of a Shield, the term “Per,” signifying “in the direction of,” is employed sometimes alone, and sometimes (having the same signification) preceded by the word “parted” or “party.” The primary Divisions of a Shield are indicated in the following diagrams, Nos. 28-35:—

No. 28. Per Pale, or Parted per Pale, or Party per Pale.

No. 29. Per Fesse, or Parted per Fesse.

No. 30. (Nos. 28 and 29 together) Per Cross, or Quarterly (the latter is the more usual term).

No. 31. Per Bend.

No. 32. Per Bend Sinister.

No. 33. (Nos. 31 and 32 together) Per Saltire.

No. 34. Per Chevron.

No. 35. Tierced in pale (divided into three equal divisions by two vertical lines), a form seldom met with in English Heraldry. Technically this in English Heraldry is simply the representation of a pale. (See No. 87.)

To these divisions should strictly be added the further division gyronny (No. 147); but neither the term per nor parted per is ever employed in this connection. As will be seen, it is a combination of the forms shown in Nos. 30 and 33.

A Shield may be further divided and subdivided, thus:—

It may be divided into any number of Quarterings by lines drawn per pale and per fesse, cutting each other, as in No. 36, which Shield is quarterly of eight: in like manner the Quarterings of any Shield, whatever their number (which need not be an even number), are blazoned as, quarterly of twelve, &c. This, to whatever extent the dividing of the Shield may be carried, is simple Quartering. Again: a quartered Shield may have one or more of its primary quarters, or every one of them, quartered: this, which is the subdivision of a part, the quartering of quarters, is compound Quartering: for example, in No. 37, the Shield is first divided into the four primary quarters, severally marked A, B, C, D; then, so far as the quarters A, B, D are concerned, 35 the “simple quartering” is subjected to the process of “compound quartering,” and quarters A, D are quarters quarterly, and B is a quarter quarterly of six, while C remains unaffected by the secondary process. The terms “quarterly quartering” and “quarterly quartered” are used to signify such secondary quartering as is exemplified in A, B, D of No. 37. The four primary quarters (A, B, C, D of No. 37) are distinguished as Grand Quarters: consequently, the quarter B of this example is the second grand quarter, quarterly of six. This term “Grand Quarter” may be employed to distinguish any primary quarter when any quarter in the Shield is “quarterly quartered.”

Dividing and Border Lines, in addition to simple right lines and curves, assume the forms that are represented in the next diagram, No. 38:—

Two others, less frequently met with, however, are rayonné and flory-counter-flory.

The Shield: its Varieties of Form.—The front face of an heraldic Shield is generally flat; but sometimes the curved edges are made to appear as if they had been slightly rounded off. Some early Shields are represented 36 as bowed—hollowed, that is, in order to cover more closely the person of the bearer, and consequently having a convex external contour, as in No. 39. In early examples of bowed Shields the whole of the armorial blazonry is sometimes displayed on the face of that portion of the Shield which is shown. A ridge, dividing them in pale, but not necessarily in any way acting as an heraldic dividing line, appears in many Shields, and particularly in those of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The large elongated Shields that have been entitled “kite-shaped,” and which were in use in the days of Richard I. and amongst the Barons of Magna Charta, were superseded by the smaller “heater-shaped” Shield as early as the reign of Henry III.

The most beautiful forms of this Shield are represented in Nos. 40, 41, and 42: of these, No. 40 has its curves described about the sides of an inverted equilateral triangle, and then they are prolonged by vertical lines towards the chief: in Nos. 41, 42, the sides curve from the chief to the base. The forms of Shields admit of various slight modifications, to adjust them to varying conditions. Towards the close of the fourteenth century the form of the Shield is found to undergo some singular changes: and, at later periods, changes in form of this kind became generally prevalent. Nos. 43, 44, exemplify such changes as these: they also show the curved notch that was cut in the dexter chief of the Shields of the same periods, to permit the lance 37 to pass through it as the Shield hung down on the breast: a Shield so pierced is said to be à bouche. The Surface of the Shield, No. 43, which is in the Episcopal palace at Exeter, is wrought into a series of shallow hollows, which curve gracefully from the central ridge, some to the dexter, and others to the sinister.

Such a Shield as this may be consistently used in our own Heraldry: but, since now we do not associate lances laid in rest with our heraldic Shields, it appears desirable that we should not draw our Shields à bouche. In recent Heraldry the Shield has commonly been made to appear such an unsightly and un-heraldic deformity as is represented in No. 45. Instead of a true heraldic Shield also, a rounded oval with a convex surface, called a cartouche, or cartouche shield, No. 46, is occasionally used for the display of armorial blazonry; or a circle is substituted for such an oval. These cartouches probably owe their origin to the usage of placing a Garter of the Order about a Shield (prevalent in the fifteenth century), and to a subsequent period, when we find the omission of the exact outline of the actual Shield. But their frequent appearance in Ecclesiastical Heraldry suggests that perhaps they were deliberately preferred to the purely military shield. A Lozenge, No. 47, takes the place of a Shield to bear the arms of Ladies, with 38 the exception of the Sovereign; this very inconvenient substitute for the heraldic Shield was introduced early in the fourteenth century.

The Shield: its Heraldic Treatment.—When a Shield is represented as standing erect, it is not necessary to specify that fact, since such a position may be assumed for a Shield unless another be set forth in blazoning. Shields are sometimes made to appear suspended by the guige, or shield-belt (which was worn by Knights to sustain and secure their Shields to their persons); in some Seals and generally in architectural compositions, Shields-of-Arms appear suspended, erect, from their guiges; at Westminster some of the earliest Shields are thus suspended, with a very happy effect, from two points of suspension, the guige passing over sculptured heads, as in No. 48, the Arms of Provence, borne by Alianore of Provence, Queen of Henry III.—the shield is gold, and on it are blazoned four red pallets. In Seals, the suspended Shield is generally represented hanging by the sinister-chief angle, as in No. 49; and it hangs thus diagonally from below the helm. A Shield thus placed is said to be “couché.” This arrangement is also frequently adopted, when a Shield or an Achievement of arms is not placed upon a Seal; but in any case the position has no importance except as a matter of artistic treatment.

The entire surface of every Shield is termed the “Field.” 39 The same term is also applied to every plain surface. A Shield is said to be “borne” by the personage to whom it belongs: and, in its turn, the Shield “bears” whatever figures and devices may be displayed upon it; whence, all these figures and devices are entitled “Bearings” or “Armorial Bearings.” All figures and devices are also styled “Charges”; and they are said to be “charged” upon a Shield, Banner, or Surcoat, or upon one another. In blazoning, the field of the Shield is always first noticed and described: next follow the charges that rest upon the field of the Shield itself; then descriptions are given of the secondary bearings that are charged upon others of greater importance. As a general rule, of several charges which all alike rest immediately upon the field of the Shield, the most important is the first to be blazoned; so that the arrangement of blazoning is determined by the comparative dignity of the bearings, as well as by the degree in which charges are nearer to the field and further from beholders. In some cases, however, a bearing charged upon the field of a Shield and many times repeated on a small scale, is blazoned (for the sake of simplicity and clearness of expression) next to the field of the Shield itself:—thus, if a lion be charged on the field of a Shield, and a considerable number of crosses surround the lion, and, like him, are placed on the field of the Shield also—the field of the Shield is blazoned first, the crosses second, and the lion third; and, if a crescent (or other bearing) be charged upon the lion’s shoulder, it is the last in the blazon. In quartered Shields the blazoning commences afresh with each quartering. In blazoning armorial banners and horse-trappings, the latter often gorgeously enriched with heraldic blazonry, the dexter side of a flag is always next to the staff, and the head of a horse is supposed always to be looking towards the dexter.

2. This term is very seldom if ever used.

The Tinctures’ Metals— Colours— Furs— Varied Fields— Law of Tinctures— Counterchanging— Diaper— Disposition— Blazoning in Tinctures.

In English Heraldry the Tinctures comprise Two Metals, Five Colours, and Eight Furs. They are symbolised or indicated by dots and lines—a very convenient system, said to have been introduced, about the year 1630, by an Italian named Silvestre de Petrasancta. Some such symbolisation, however, may occasionally be found in anticipation of Petrasancta. The system now in use was not generally adopted till the commencement of the eighteenth century. This system is never officially employed in a matter of record, and is now being discarded by many artists. The Metals, Colours, and Furs are named, their names are abbreviated, and they are severally indicated, as follows:—

(In French Heraldry, Green is Sinople.)

Two other Colours, or tints of Colour, are sometimes heard of—Tenne, a tawny or orange colour, indicated by vertical lines crossing those of Purpure: and Murrey or Sanguine, a dark crimson red, indicated by diagonal lines from both dexter and sinister, crossing each other. These two are sometimes termed stains, but their real usage was in liveries. The Furs, Nos. 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, and 65, are of comparatively rare occurrence, and do not appear in the best ages of Heraldry. Vair and Ermine are common. A good early form of Vair is shown in No. 62: and in No. 57A, I give a fine example of the treatment of Ermine, from the monument of Edward III.

In order to avoid repeating or referring to the word “Or,” the word “Gold” is sometimes used. The Furs, Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65, are always argent and azure, unless some other metal and colour be named in the blazoning. Animated beings and all objects, that in Heraldry are represented in their natural aspect and colouring, are blazoned “proper” abbreviated ppr. Heraldic charges and compositions, when sketched in outline with pen and ink or with pencil, and with the colours written thereon, are said to be “tricked,” or “in trick.”

Varied Fields.—It is not necessary that the Field of a Shield, or of any Bearing, should be of any one uniform tincture: but varied surfaces are usually tinctured of some one metal and some one colour alternating; and the patterns or devices thus produced are generally derived (the Furs, Nos. 61-65, which are good examples of varied surfaces, being the exceptions) from the forms of the original simple charges that are distinguished as Ordinaries and Subordinaries. And these varied surfaces or fields are always flat; the whole of their devices or patterns are level, their 43 metal and colour lying in the same plane. It is evident that, in representing any examples of this class, no shading is to be introduced to denote relief.

Should the field of any charge be divided into a single row of small squares, alternately, e.g. of a metal and a colour, as No. 66, it is Componée or Compony (sometimes written gobony): if into two such rows, as in No. 67, it is Counter Compony: but, if the field of a Shield, or the surface of any charge be divided into three, or more than three, such rows, it is Chequée or Checky; thus, the Arms of the Earl de Warenne are Chequée or and az., No. 68 (H. 3 and E. 2).

No. 68.— Shield of Arms of Earl de Warrenne, Castle Acre Priory, Norfolk.

The Law of Tinctures.—Every charge is supposed to rest upon the field of a Shield, or on the surface of some charge. It is a strict rule, that a charge of a metal must rest upon a field that is of a colour or fur; or, contrariwise, that a charge of a colour must rest on a field that is of a metal or fur,—that is, that metal be not on metal, nor colour on colour. This rule is modified in the case of varied fields, upon which may be charged a bearing of either a metal or a colour: also, a partial relaxation of the rule is conceded when one bearing is charged upon another, should the conditions of any particular case require such a concession. This rule does not apply to bordures, nor very stringently to augmentations or crests, and it is not so rigidly enforced in Foreign as in British Heraldry. There are, of course, a few exceptions, but they are not numerous, the one usually instanced as an intentional violation being the silver armorial Shield of the Crusader Kings of Jerusalem, No. 69, upon which five golden crosses are charged; the motive in this remarkable exception to an established rule being said to be to cause this Shield to 44 be unlike that of any other potentate. What may be termed the accessories of a charge are not included in this law of tinctures: thus, a silver lion having a red tongue may be charged on a blue shield, and the red tongue may rest on the blue field of the Shield.

Counterchanging is dividing the field of a Shield in such a manner that it is, e.g. in part of a metal and in part of a colour, and then arranging the charges in such a manner that they shall be reciprocally of the same colour and metal: thus, the shield of John Fenwick, No. 70 (R. 2) is,—per-fesse gu. and arg., six martlets, three, two, one, counterchanged; that is, the field is red in chief and silver in base, and the birds or parts of the birds on the red field are silver, and those on the silver field are red.

Diapering.—This term denotes a system of decorating plain surfaces in various ways, which was in great favour with the early heraldic artists. In the use of Diaper, which is often desirable when artistic reasons suggest its suitability, care must be taken that the decorative designs and patterns do not in any way admit of their being mistaken for charges. This diaper may be executed in low relief, subordinated to the relief of the charges; and it is not required to yield any obedience to the law of tinctures. In the Shield, No. 68 (the original, a very noble shield, is at Castle Acre Priory, Norfolk), which is simply chequée, the Diapering may be alternately azure and or on the squares that are alternately or and azure; or the Diaper may be 45 dark blue, or sable, or argent on the azure squares, and on the golden ones whatever the artist might consider would be most effective; but the Diaper, in this and in all other examples, must always be subordinate to the area and tincture of the field. The finest known early example of heraldic Diaper in enamel, is the Shield of William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, in Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1296. Very beautiful early examples of Diapering have been preserved in relics of heraldic stained glass.

Disposition: Blazoning.—By Disposition is understood the placing and arranging of charges. A single important charge, which has not a fixed position of its own, is placed in the centre of any composition: and minor charges are arranged in their most natural and consistent order and positions, any deviation from which must be specified. A single charge, many times repeated, and small in size, whether with or without any special orderly disposition, is said to be Semée—strewn, that is, or scattered over the field, as seed is sown by the hand; or, if the charges are very small or very numerous, the term poudrée or powdered has sometimes been used. The expression—“three, two, one,” signifies that a charge is repeated six times, the Disposition 46 being three in a horizontal row towards the chief of the Shield, then two in a similar row in the centre, and one in base. In the same manner, the expressions—“four, four, one,” “four, three, two, one,” “three and one,” &c., are used as occasion may require. For other dispositions of charges other appropriate terms will present themselves to our notice, growing out of our subject as it advances.

Should a Tincture or a Number occur a second time in blazoning a single composition, it must be indicated, not by repeating the word already used, but by reference to it. Thus, if the tincture of the field should occur a second time, reference is made to it in the formula—“of the field:” or, perhaps more frequently—“of the first;” or, if the tincture that is named second in order in the blazoning be repeated, it is indicated by the expression—“of the second;” and so on. Again: should there be three fleurs de lys and also three crescents in one and the same composition, having specified the “three fleurs de lys,” the number of the crescents would be set forth in the words—“as many crescents:” providing nothing else has in the wording of the blazon intervened in such a way as to cause uncertainty by the use of the term; and so, in like manner, with any other numbers of these or of any other charges.

In descriptive Blazoning, Epithets, which follow their own Nouns, precede the Tinctures that are associated with those nouns: thus, a black rampant lion having golden claws is blazoned,—a lion rampt. sa., armed or. In written and printed blazoning, the arrangement of the words and the placing the stops are alike matters of supreme importance. The sentences are to be short. A comma is to mark the end of each complete minor clause or division of a sentence: a colon, each more important clause. A point or period is to follow every abbreviated word, to mark the fact of the abbreviation, but without affecting the additional 47 presence of a comma (as in the blazoning, “a lion rampant sa.,”) or of a colon, as the case may be; but a second period is unnecessary. It is a very common error to overload heraldic blazoning with commas which, instead of aiding to simplify the sentences, obscure the meaning and perplex the reader. It is always correct to write—“three lion’s heads,” “six pilgrim’s staves,” &c.: and always incorrect to write—“three lions’ heads,” “six pilgrims’ staves,” &c.; but it is a point printers have an apparently invincible objection to accept.

Emblazoning in Tinctures.—On this head I must be content to offer to students only a few brief practical observations. The metal Gold may be rendered with gold prepared in small saucers, or (most advantageously) in minute slabs; this preparation is applied, like a common water-colour, by moistening the gold with water; and it is desirable previously to have washed the paper, card (or vellum) with diluted white of egg. Gold leaf may also be used, but the process is tedious, and requires both skill and experience to ensure complete success. Yellow paint, again, may be used to represent the metal, the best colours being cadmium yellow, or “aureolin” (Winsor and Newton) mixed with Chinese white. For shading, carmine, or crimson lake, mixed with gum. For Silver, aluminium may be used with excellent effect; or Chinese white; or the paper may be left white: for shading, grey (blue and Indian ink mixed) and gum. The Aluminium is prepared, like the gold, in minute slabs: it may be obtained, of great excellence, from Messrs. Winsor & Newton, by whom also a very pure preparation of gold is sold; but both the gold and the aluminium slabs are sold by all good artists’ colourmen. These Metals may be diapered, as well as burnished, with an agate-burnisher.

For Azure:—French blue, freely mixed with Chinese white and a very little gum, the colour to be laid on thick: 48 shade with Prussian blue mixed with a larger proportion of gum. For Gules:—Orange vermilion either pure, or mixed with a very little cadmium yellow or Chinese white, and still less gum: (never use a brilliant but most treacherous preparation known as “pure scarlet:”) shade with carmine or crimson lake, and gum. For Vert:—emerald green, with Chinese white and a little gum: shade with dark green, made from mixing aureolin (or gamboge) with Prussian blue and gum. For Purpure:—mix carmine and French blue, with a little gum: shade with a darker tint of the same. For Sable:—Very dark grey, made by mixing a little Chinese white and gum with black: shade with black and more gum.

When the Metals are rendered by gold and aluminium, it is desirable that these tinctures should be applied, and that the diapering and burnishing of the Metals should also be completed with the burnisher, before the adjoining colours are laid on. The burnishing may be executed in two or three hours after the Metals have been applied to the paper; and the paper should be placed upon a piece of glass during the processes of burnishing and diapering.

The Ordinaries:— The Chief; Fesse; Bar; Pale; Cross, its heraldic varieties; Bend; Saltire; Chevron; and Pile.

“Marks of Hereditary Honour, given or authorised by some supreme Power.” —Science of Heraldry.

The Ordinaries.—The simple Charges of early Heraldry, which always have been held in the highest esteem and which are most familiar, are:—The Chief, the Fesse, the Bar, the Pale, the Cross, the Bend, the Saltire, the Chevron, and the Pile. They may be considered to have been derived from various means that were adopted to strengthen Shields for use in combat, the Cross always being in great favour from having a definite symbolism of its own. These Ordinaries may be formed by any of the Border Lines, No. 38. Occasionally they are borne alone; but more generally they are associated with other bearings, or they have various figures and devices charged upon themselves. In some cases, presently to be specified, more than one Ordinary may appear in a single composition. The Bar, the Pale, the Bend, and the Chevron have Diminutives. The Cross has many Varieties.

The Chief (H. 3), bounded by a horizontal line, contains the uppermost third (or, in practice, somewhat less than the third, of the field of a Shield, as in No. 71. The Shield of Le Botiler, No. 72, is—Or, a chief indented az. (H. 3). A Chief may be borne with any other Ordinary except the 50 Fesse; it may also be charged with any other figures or devices:—thus, for Sire Bernard de Brus, No. 73,—Az., a chief and a saltire or: for Sire Johan de Clintone, No. 74,—Arg., on a chief az. two fleurs de lys or: and for Sire Johan de Clintone de Madestoke, No. 75,—Arg., on a chief az. two mullets or (all E. 2). When any charge is set in the uppermost third of a Shield, or when several charges are disposed in a horizontal row across the uppermost part of a Shield, they all are said to be “in Chief.”

The Fesse (H. 3), which crosses the centre of a Shield horizontally, when charged occupies about one-third (or rather less than one-third) of the field; but when without charges, it is usually drawn somewhat narrower. The 51 Shield of Lord Clifford is,—Chequée or and az., a fesse gu., No. 76. For Robt. le Fitz-Water,—Or, a fesse between two chevrons gu.: for John de Pateshulle, No. 77,—Arg., a fesse sa., between three crescents gu. (all H.3): for William le Vavasour, No. 78,—Or, a fesse dancette sa.: for De Hemenhale, No. 79,—Or, on a fesse between two chevrons gu., three escallops arg.: and for De Dageworthe, No. 80,—Erm., a fesse gu. bezantée (all E. 2). When they are disposed in a horizontal row across the centre of a Shield, Charges are “in fesse.”

The Bar (H. 3), which may be placed horizontally in any part of the field except in fesse or at the chief of the Shield, is about one-fifth of the field (or sometimes less) in depth. A single bar very rarely occurs in blazon. Examples:—Or, two bars gu.,—for De Harecourt, No. 81: Az., two bars dancettée or,—for De Riveres: Or, two bars gu., in chief three torteaux,—for Wake, No. 82. The Diminutive of the Bar is the Barrulet, one-half of its width. When they are disposed in couples, Barrulets are Bars Gemelles, these not being so deep as the barrulet: thus, 52 No. 83,—for De Huntercumbe,—Erm., two bars gemelles gu. (H. 3).

A Fesse or Bar, when placed between two similar figures narrower than barrulets, is said to be cotised by them; or, to be “doubly cotised,” when placed between two bars gemelles: thus, for De la Mere, No. 84,—Or, a fesse doubly cotised (or, between two bars gemelles) az. (E. 2). An even number of bars alternately of a metal (or a fur) and a colour form the varied field which is to be blazoned “barry,” the number of the bars in every case to be specified—as, “barry of six,” “barry of eight,” &c. If the number of bars exceeds eight (some writers say ten), it is “barrulée” or “barruly”; and in this case it is not necessary that the number of the bars should be specified, the word barrulée being used alone, or the expression “barrulée sans nombre” to denote a considerable number, but not a fixed number of bars—the number, however, always to be even. But this is a modern refinement of blazon to which little if any attention was paid in early days. It is to be observed that while the bars, whatever their number, if they are blazoned as bars, are to be treated as if they were executed in relief upon the field of a Shield, a Shield that is barry or barrulée has its field formed by bars which are all in the same plane. Examples:—Barry of six or and gu., for Fitz Alan of Bedale, No. 85: Barry of six arg. and az., for De Grey: Barry of eight or and az.,—for De Penbrugge (all H. 3): Barrulée arg. and az., an orle of martlets gu.,—for De Valence, Earl of Pembroke, No. 86; in this 53 example ten bars are represented, but in the noble enamelled shield of the first De Valence (A.D. 1296) preserved in Westminster Abbey, the bars are twenty-eight in number. Charges, not “in fesse” or “in chief,” that are disposed horizontally across the field are “bar-wise.”

The Pale.—Like the Fesse, this Ordinary occupies rather less than a central third of the field, but it is vertical in its position instead of horizontal. No. 87, for Erskine, is—Arg., a pale sa. Its Diminutives, the Pallet and the Endorse, severally one-half and one-fourth of its width, may be placed vertically in any part of the field. A Pale between two Endorses is “endorsed” but the term cotised is also employed with this meaning. An even number of Pallets of a metal (or a fur) and a colour set alternately, form the varied field to be blazoned “paly,” the number of the Pallets (which lie all in the same plane) always to be specified: thus—Paly of six arg. and az., on a bend gu. 54 three eaglets displayed or, for Grandison, No. 88 (H. 3) Charges that are disposed one above another in a vertical row are “in pale.” This is the arrangement of the three golden lions of England.

The Cross (H. 3), formed from a combination of a Fesse with a Pale, in its simplest form is set erect in the centre of the field, and it extends to the border-lines of the Shield. If at any time it may be necessary or apparently desirable specially to set forth in the blazoning of a Shield, that a Cross charged upon it does thus extend to the border-lines, such a Cross is blazoned as a “Cross throughout.” No. 1, Arg., a Cross gu., the armorial ensign of St. George, the special Patron Saint of England, may be blazoned as “A Cross of St. George.” Of this Cross, the great symbol of the Christian Faith, Spenser says—

A Cross having a narrow border lying in the same plane with itself, is “fimbriated,” such a border being a “fimbriation”: thus, No. 89, Az., a cross gu., fimbriated arg., represents the Cross of St. George in our National “Union Jack.” A Cross having its four extremities cut off square, so that it does not extend in any direction to the border-lines of the shield, is “couped” or “humettée”. If the extremities of a Cross are cut off to points, it is “pointed,” as in No. 90. 55 If its central area is entirely removed, so that but little more than its outlines remain, it is “voided,” or (H. 3) “a false Cross” (“faux croix”): when its four limbs are equal in length, it is a “Greek Cross,” as No. 91: when the limbs are unequal, the lower limb or shaft being longer than the other three, as in No. 92, it is a “Latin Cross” or a “long cross”: but neither of these two last terms are used regarding the plain cross throughout, notwithstanding that differences in the shape of the shield may materially alter the proportion of the limbs. If a cross be formed of a shaft and two horizontal limbs only (like the letter T), as in No. 93, it is a “Tau Cross,” or “Cross Tau”: if it is pierced at the intersection of the limbs, and the entire central area be voided, it is said to be “pierced quarterly.” A Latin Cross on steps, is “on Degrees,” and it is distinguished as a “Calvary Cross.” Charges having a cruciform arrangement are “in Cross.”

The Cross:—its Heraldic Varieties. The Cross-symbol appears in English Heraldry under very many varieties and modifications of form and condition, some of them of great beauty. The following engraved representations of the various examples are so explicit, that descriptions of them are unnecessary. The Cross Quadrate, No. 94. The Cross Patriarchal, No. 95. The Cross Fourchée, No. 96. The Cross Moline, represented charged upon the Shield attributed to the Saxon Kings of England, No. 23: this 56 same shield—Az., a Cross moline or, is borne by De Molines or Molyneux, No. 97. The Cross Cercelée or Recercelée (H. 3),—Gu., a Cross recercelée erm., No. 98, for Anthony Bec, Bishop of Durham. The Cross Patonce (H. 3),—Gu., a Cross patonce arg., No. 99, from the Seal of Wm. de Vesci, A.D. 1220. The Cross Fleury, No. 100, should be compared carefully with Nos. 97 and 99, the Crosses Moline and Patonce. The Cross Fleurettée, No. 101. The Cross Pommée, No. 102. The Cross Botonée or Treflée, No. 103. The Cross Crosslet, or Crosslet crossed, No. 104. The term “Crosslet” is strictly applicable to any Cross on a very small scale: but it is usually applied to denote a Cross that is crossed as in No. 104. Small Crosses Botonée are occasionally used as these “Crosses-Crosslets,”—as at Warwick in the arms of the Beauchamps, the Earls of Warwick. Crosslets are frequently blazoned semée over the field of a Shield, in which case the special term crusilly is often used; and, in smaller numbers, they 57 also are favourite Charges. No. 105 is the Cross Clechée or Urdée.

The Cross Patée or Formée is represented in No. 106. No. 107 is the “Cross of eight Points,” or the Maltese Cross: this example is drawn from the portrait of Phillippe de Villiers de L’Isle-Adam, elected forty-third Grand Master of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, A.D. 1521; this picture is in the possession of the Earl of Clarendon, K.G. The Cross Potent, No. 108. The Cross Avellane, No. 109. The Crossed-Crosslet, and the Crosses Patée, Botonée, and Potent, are also drawn having their shaft elongated and pointed at the base: in this form they are severally blazoned as a “Crossed-Crosslet Fitchée” (or fitched), a “Cross Patée 58 Fitchée,” &c.,—a Cross, that is, “fixable” in the ground; No. 110 is an example of a Cross Botonée Fitchée. Several of these varieties of the heraldic Cross occur but rarely; and there are other somewhat fanciful varieties so little in use, as to render any description of them unnecessary. The student of mediæval monumental antiquities will not fail to observe a certain degree of resemblance between some of the Crosses of Heraldry, and those that are incised and sculptured on sepulchral slabs.

The Bend (H. 3) resembles both the Fesse and the Pale in every condition, except that it crosses the field diagonally from the dexter chief to the sinister base. No. 111, the Shield of Scrope, is—Az., a bend or. A celebrated contest for the right to bear this simple Shield took place, A.D. 1385-1390, between Sir Richard le Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, which was decided in favour of the former. No. 112, for Radclyffe, is—Arg., a bend engrailed sa. Two uncharged Bends may appear in one composition: thus, for Le Boteler—Arg., two bends az., No. 113; and for Frere—Gu., two bends or (both H. 3).